The opponents of Brexit are working overtime to conjure a case of “buyers remorse” among British voters. The only problem is, there has been no such remorse. From Tiffany Gabbay at truthrevolt.org:
As if we needed further proof that the mainstream media are barren of a single shred of journalistic integrity and that its members are in dire need of public flogging…
So desperate are media elite for a Brexit vote reversal that they are literally reporting lies as incontrovertible fact. No sooner had the majority of British voters made their voices heard with a vote to exit the European Union, than mainstream media at home and abroad begin peddling the narrative that Brits were “remorseful” over their decision and wanted a “do-over.”
How on earth members of media knew precisely how millions of British voters felt in the 24 hours following the vote is beyond us. Perhaps they went door to door to ask. Perhaps they acquired new telepathic abilities.
No. They just lied. As they always do.
You’ve probably seen the popular story circulating MSM this weekend that claims a referendum petition is in the works calling for a Brexit re-vote and that it’s garnered around 3 – 3.5 million signatories thus far.
As recently as Monday, June 27, CNN reported that so many people rushed to sign the petition that the official government site where it is housed crashed. Yes, that’s how badly MSM wants you to believe that Brits realized the “error of their ways” and that, despite their conclusive vote to exit the E.U., what Brits “really want” is a chance to re-cast their votes to “remain.”
Worst of all was ABC’s George Stephanopolous, who on Sunday touted the 3-million “strong” petition and who, along with guests, actually had the gall to say Britain’s standing in the world has been, “slightly diminished” and that also diminished is the U.S.-Britain “special relationship.”
https://www.mrctv.org/embed/165791
Only it turns out that many of the petition’s signatories are fabricated in a prank engineered by hackers 4Chan and Anonymous (we are unclear if it is “the” Anonymous or just a lone hacker posting as “anonymous”).
The blog HeatStreet did the journalistic work the BBC, CNN, NBC, ABC, SkyNews and just about every other mainstream outlet failed to do, exposing the petition’s signatories as fraudulent. The site reports:
The BBC’s desperate shilling for Remain will come under increasing scrutiny as we exclusively reveal that the supposed ‘popular petition’ for a second referendum – wholly illegal and unworkable, and unprecedented in British history – is a prank by notorious sh*tposters 4 Chan.
The BBC, the UK’s national broadcaster, gleefully reported, as real, with no basic journalistic checks, an online petition that appeared to be growing at a colossal rate. By 1:30 pm, it was one of the fastest-growing petitions in history.
So fast, in fact, that somebody should have checked for bots and scripts. The BBC is failing totally in its Charter Duty to perform basic journalistic research.
To continue reading: You Know That Brexit ‘Do-Over’ Petition MSM Reports Has ‘3+ Million Signatures’? Well, It’s a Hacker-Prank
You have the “Ayn Rand institute” on your Blogroll so you might be interested to know that Yaron Brook, head of the ARI, rubbished Brexit voters, insinuating they were incipient Nazis, in a podcast he made two days after the referendum, reviewed here:
http://ARIwatch.com/Brexit.htm
I read the article and thought it was very good. I initially supported the Ayn Rand Institute because it promoted the dissemination of Ayn Rand’s works, especially to adolescents and young adults. However, Mr. Brook has wrapped the ARI in the mantle of neoconservatism, its sole criticism of that malignant philosophy that it has not been ruthless enough, and has, as the author notes, placed the blame for the Middle East’s many problems on Iran, ignoring, in particular, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, which are just as fundamentalist Islamic as Iran, although of a different sect, and promote terrorism and jihad to the same extent or more. Now Mr. Brock, by his criticism of Brexit, endorses open immigration, which, as SLL has said many times, is not compatible with a welfare state. Just because agreements are called “Free Trade” does not mean they are anything more than business interests and other parties tilting the playing field in their own direction. And in this day and age, the cause of freedom is far better served by devoltion (see “You Say You Want a Devolution,” SLL) than agglomeration. In short, it’s probably time for SLL to part company with the ARI and take it off the blog roll. I’ll give myself a couple of days to think about it, but there’s a high probability I will do so.