The Cognitive Decline of President Joe Biden
A sudden and dramatic shift took place in mainstream media coverage regarding President Joe Biden's fitness for re-election as of June, 2024, with the most abrupt shift taking place immediately after the first Presidential debate on June 27, 2024, and earlier indications that a narrative shift was taking place via the WSJ article published on June 5, 2024. This shift was largely driven by apparent concerns over Biden's age and cognitive abilities as the 2024 Presidential Election approached.
Since before the 2020 Presidential Election, Eric was raising concerns about Joe Biden's readily apparent cognitive decline and the more general problem that both of the 2020 presidential candidates were well into their 70s at the time of the election.
Joe Biden, Trump's likely opponent for perhaps the world's most demanding job, is a knarc for running when he should be retiring, given embarrassing signs of mental decline and his constant inability to remember what he is talking about from moment to moment with alarming frequency for a mere septuagenarian.
- Eric Weinstein on The Portal Ep 032, aired April 29, 2020
Eric's concern regarding President Joe Biden's cognitive fitness for reelection centered around his ability to effectively perform the demanding responsibilities of the presidency, given his advanced age and observable cognitive decline. This issue did not stem from "ageism" or partisan divisions; it was rooted in legitimate fears about the capacity of the leader of the United States to handle complex and high-stakes situations. A president must make quick, sound decisions, communicate effectively on the global stage, and maintain the confidence of both the American public and international allies. These roles demand a level of mental acuity that Biden obviously lacked since before the 2020 election and only became worse since then, as evidenced by Biden's public appearances and debate performances during his 2024 Presidential campaign.
Eric's concept of "Managed Reality™️" and the statecraft concept of "Prebunked Malinformation" are relevant here. "Managed Reality" refers to the control and manipulation of information to shape public perception. In this case, media outlets and political allies have previously downplayed or dismissed concerns about Biden's cognitive decline to maintain a favorable narrative, essentially managing reality to align with their strategic goals. "Prebunked Malinformation," on the other hand, involves preemptively discrediting potentially damaging information by labeling it as false or malicious, often before it can gain traction. Those who raised concerns about Biden's fitness were frequently labeled as "alt-right", "far-right", etc., effectively prebunking their warnings, destroying their reputations, and marginalizing their viewpoints. This smearing, or "Image Cheapening" tactic discouraged open debate and critical examination of a legitimate issue, contributing to a sense of being censored and later gaslit when the media and political landscape suddenly shifted to acknowledge these concerns more seriously.
There is a new story that the mainstream news media “missed” the ‘2024 story of the year’: Biden’s cognitive decline.
That is a fake story to cover the first fake story of claiming the President was fine.
Biden’s Cognitive Health is actually a news conspiracy. It’s a fact, and a continuing ‘2020 and before story’
- Eric Weinstein on X Dec 30, 2024
In essence, the mechanisms of Managed Reality and Prebunked Malinformation suppressed a critical discussion about the president's capacity to lead, potentially prioritizing political expediency over the essential duty to ensure competent and effective governance.
On Youtube[edit]
On X[edit]
2020[edit]
2021[edit]
When does Jon Stewart signal it is finally okay to talk about progressing cognitive decline?
He isn’t the only one. Jon did the Wuhan lab leak. @TIME did ‘fortification’ 2020. @BarackObama got UAP and Wokeness. Brad Delong got to reveal NAFTA was social Darwinian…
But the rules are very clear on EXACTLY who is allowed to say “Previous Fringe view X is now Mainstream!”
When “the call” is made. I assume you’re implying that it’s only ok for Jon Stewart to talk about it? To which I would wonder why is he the only one able to speak about what’s so blatantly obvious?
What was special about Stewart was quite subtle. He didn’t say “The facts have changed.” He said: it’s obvious & has always been so, that the Biosafety Level4 Bat Corona Virus lab is the likely origin while Colbert feigned being shocked: The Gated Institutional Narrative updated.
Things I don't believe we can't conclusively resolve:
A) COVID's origin.
B) The Jeffrey Epstein story.
C) UAP.
D) JFK assassination.
E) Vegas Shooting.
F) Extent of 'Democracy Fortifying' in 2020.
G) Efficacy of Non-Vaccines.
H) Mysterious WEF 'Build Back Better' mantra.
I) Negative impacts of Trade known to have been suppressed.
J) Adulteration of BLS CPI measure of inflation.
K) Negative economic impacts of Immigration.
L) Sudden spike in fake 'Objective Third Party Fact Checking'.
M) Sudden "Diversity Equity Inclusion" explosion.
N) Collusion beween Tech Platforms functioning as Communications Utilities as well as with the Federal Government.
O) Death of John MacCaffee.
N) Chinese infiltraion of US basic research through 'Student Exchange'.
P) Take over of 'Peer Review' during Robert Maxwell's reign.
Q) Joe Biden's state of cognitive decline.
R) Nature of MSNBC campagin against Andrew Yang.
S) Nature of Dean Scream, Anti-Ron Paul and other interference in democracy by Mainstream media News.
T) Impact of loss of mandatory retirement on young people seeking work.
U) Rex84.
V) Collusion between National Academy and National Science foundation division of Policy Research and Analysis to fake demographic crisis in mid 1980s.
W) Lack on anyone building the significant & desperately needed new non-profit institutions despite skyhigh wealth inequality.
X) Loss of Academic Freedom across the board in Academe.
Y) Loss of the Lancet and other publications as trusted non-political sources of fact.
Z) The true nature of @EcoHealthNYC w its relationship to @doddtra & Dr A. Fauci.
Moral: much of this 'ambiguity' is serving the few.
A last point: I don't know what happened in most all of these (the NSF & BLS stories being exceptions). I really don't. The quality of my guesses is not particularly high. The quality of my suspicions as to what IS resolvable has been *considerably* higher, at least historically.
2022[edit]
2023[edit]
2024[edit]
Related Pages[edit]
- Abomination Ratio
- Break-Glass-in-case-of-Emergency People
- Church Committee
- Cobalt and Baby Blue-on-Blue
- Communication Security Complex
- Deaths of Accountability
- Digital Wet-work
- Donald Trump
- The Distributed Idea Suppression Complex (The DISC)
- Early is another name for wrong
- Extractive Elite
- Fact Burning
- Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt (FUD)
- Follow the Silence
- Image Cheapening
- Information Asymmetry
- Jessupization
- Joe Biden
- Kamala Harris
- Kayfabrication
- Knarc
- Law of Gaslighting
- The Looting Party
- Managed Reality TM
- No-Living-Heroes Theory
- Prebunked Malinformation
- Preference Falsification
- Regulated Expression
- Responsible Conspiracy Theorizing
- Seberging
- Sharp Minds vs Sharp Elbows
- Steady Hands
- The United States of Absolutely Nothing (U.S.A.N.)
- Tuskegee Principle
- Universal Institutional Betrayal