
Is it still a “conspiracy” if they say it was?
Just when you thought that the events of last year couldn’t get any more far-fetched, Time magazine recently published any article outlining the strategy for the ‘Shadow Campaign’ to ‘save’ the 2020 election. Just before you dismiss me as some right-wing, tin-foil-hat-wearing conspiracist, just note the following opening paragraphs:
[An] odd thing happened amid Trump’s attempts to reverse the result: corporate America turned on him. Hundreds of major business leaders, many of whom had backed Trump’s candidacy and supported his policies, called on him to concede. To the President, something felt amiss. “It was all very, very strange,” Trump said on Dec. 2. “Within days after the election, we witnessed an orchestrated effort to anoint the winner, even while many key states were still being counted.”In a way, Trump was right.
There was a conspiracy unfolding behind the scenes, one that both curtailed the protests and coordinated the resistance from CEOs. Both surprises were the result of an informal alliance between left-wing activists and business titans. The pact was formalized in a terse, little-noticed joint statement of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and AFL-CIO published on Election Day. Both sides would come to see it as a sort of implicit bargain — inspired by the summer’s massive, sometimes destructive racial-justice protests — in which the forces of labor came together with the forces of capital to keep the peace and oppose Trump’s assault on democracy.
So, there was a ‘conspiracy’ after all?! It’s just that, according to Time, the collusion was warranted because Trump was such a tyrant and as such, the very foundations of democracy were at stake. As the article goes on to state:
That’s why the participants want the secret history of the 2020 election told, even though it sounds like a paranoid fever dream — a well-funded cabal of powerful people, ranging across industries and ideologies, working together behind the scenes to influence perceptions, change rules and laws, steer media coverage and control the flow of information. They were not rigging the election; they were fortifying it. And they believe the public needs to understand the system’s fragility in order to ensure that democracy in America endures.
The political spin in re-writing history here is enough to impress even Shane Warne. As James Delingpole writes:
Do you see what they just did there?
The Democrats (and their sympathisers) didn’t rig the election. They just fortified it by taking care to ensure the right guy won rather than the wrong guy won, regardless of what those pesky voters might misguidedly have wanted.
Could this have anything to do, you wonder, with President Trump’s upcoming impeachment trial?
To be completely fair, the article from Time understands how this ‘conspiracy’ might be perceived negatively by those who are not as progressive as they could be by arguing:
The handshake between business and labor was just one component of a vast, cross-partisan campaign to protect the election — an extraordinary shadow effort dedicated not to winning the vote but to ensuring it would be free and fair, credible and uncorrupted. For more than a year, a loosely organized coalition of operatives scrambled to shore up America’s institutions as they came under simultaneous attack from a remorseless pandemic and an autocratically inclined President. Though much of this activity took place on the left, it was separate from the Biden campaign and crossed ideological lines, with crucial contributions by nonpartisan and conservative actors. The scenario the shadow campaigners were desperate to stop was not a Trump victory. It was an election so calamitous that no result could be discerned at all, a failure of the central act of democratic self-governance that has been a hallmark of America since its founding.
So, are we truly supposed to believe that the ultimate goal of the polyamorous relationship between Big-Media, Big-Tech™ and Big Business™ was the protection of our democratic freedoms? Because, if so, then someone better quickly inform The New York Post, whose bombshell exposé article on Hunter Biden’s laptop was more censored than a communist-cultivated coronavirus.
[Image: Tim O’Brien, TIME Magazine, 23 April 2018]One Comment
Leave A Comment
Recent Articles:
4 June 2026
2.7 MINS
Last Thursday, we witnessed something truly remarkable. The Australian Christian Freedom Index (ACFI) launch at Parliament House exceeded even our highest hopes — and God's generosity was unmistakable.
4 June 2026
5.3 MINS
The murder of 18-year-old Henry Nowak has reignited debate over policing, race, multiculturalism, and DEI policies, following allegations that officers prioritized racism claims over a dying victim.
4 June 2026
5.2 MINS
A major new report warns that Christian freedoms in Australia are under increasing pressure, documenting legal restrictions, personal testimonies, and growing concerns about religious liberty.
4 June 2026
11.2 MINS
A major science publisher says the peer-reviewed article on the link between vaccines and SIDS is too dangerous for doctors and parents to read.
4 June 2026
4.2 MINS
The Henry Nowak case exposes declining trust in British policing. Ideological influences risk undermining impartial justice, public confidence, and equal treatment under the law.
4 June 2026
2.1 MINS
The harassment of Helen Mirren in London highlights rising antisemitism, political intimidation, and the distortion of public statements in an increasingly hostile debate over Israel.
3 June 2026
3.3 MINS
A New Zealand gang leader's radical conversion is turning hardened criminals toward Christ — and his own violent past is exactly what makes him the right man for the job.






Marks incisive commentary always cuts to the quick! Great Article!!!!!