The Binge Breaker: Silicon Valley Is Addicting Us To Our Phones January 30 2017 | From: TheAtlantic
Tristan Harris believes Silicon Valley is addicting us to our phones. He’s determined to make it stop.
On a recent evening in San Francisco, Tristan Harris, a former product philosopher at Google, took a name tag from a man in pajamas called “Honey Bear” and wrote down his pseudonym for the night: “Presence.”
Harris had just arrived at Unplug SF, a “digital detox experiment” held in honor of the National Day of Unplugging, and the organizers had banned real names.
Also outlawed: clocks, “w-talk” (work talk), and “WMDs” (the planners’ loaded shorthand for wireless mobile devices). Harris, a slight 32-year-old with copper hair and a tidy beard, surrendered his iPhone, a device he considers so addictive that he’s called it “a slot machine in my pocket.”
He keeps the background set to an image of Scrabble tiles spelling out the words face down, a reminder of the device’s optimal position.
I followed him into a spacious venue packed with nearly 400 people painting faces, filling in coloring books, and wrapping yarn around chopsticks. Despite the cheerful summer-camp atmosphere, the event was a reminder of the binary choice facing smartphone owners, who, according to one study, consult their device 150 times a day:
Leave the WMD on and deal with relentless prompts compelling them to check its screen, or else completely disconnect. “It doesn’t have to be the all-or-nothing choice,” Harris told me after taking in the arts-and-crafts scene. “That’s a design failure.”
Harris is the closest thing Silicon Valley has to a conscience. As the co‑founder of Time Well Spent, an advocacy group, he is trying to bring moral integrity to software design: essentially, to persuade the tech world to help us disengage more easily from its devices.
While some blame our collective tech addiction on personal failings, like weak willpower, Harris points a finger at the software itself. That itch to glance at our phone is a natural reaction to apps and websites engineered to get us scrolling as frequently as possible.
The attention economy, which showers profits on companies that seize our focus, has kicked off what Harris calls a “race to the bottom of the brain stem.”
“You could say that it’s my responsibility” to exert self-control when it comes to digital usage, he explains, “but that’s not acknowledging that there’s a thousand people on the other side of the screen whose job is to break down whatever responsibility I can maintain.”
In short, we’ve lost control of our relationship with technology because technology has become better at controlling us.
A “Hippocratic oath” for software designers would stop the exploitation of people’s psychological vulnerabilities.
Under the auspices of Time Well Spent, Harris is leading a movement to change the fundamentals of software design. He is rallying product designers to adopt a “Hippocratic oath” for software that, he explains, would check the practice of:
“Exposing people’s psychological vulnerabilities” and restore “agency” to users. “There needs to be new ratings, new criteria, new design standards, new certification standards,” he says.
“There is a way to design based not on addiction.”
Joe Edelman - who did much of the research informing Time Well Spent’s vision and is the co-director of a think tank advocating for more-respectful software design - likens Harris to a tech-focused Ralph Nader.
Other people, including Adam Alter, a marketing professor at NYU, have championed theses similar to Harris’s; but according to Josh Elman, a Silicon Valley veteran with the venture-capital firm Greylock Partners, Harris is “the first putting it together in this way” - articulating the problem, its societal cost, and ideas for tackling it.
Elman compares the tech industry to Big Tobacco before the link between cigarettes and cancer was established:
Keen to give customers more of what they want, yet simultaneously inflicting collateral damage on their lives.
Harris, Elman says, is offering Silicon Valley a chance to reevaluate before more-immersive technology, like virtual reality, pushes us beyond a point of no return.
All this talk of hacking human psychology could sound paranoid, if Harris had not witnessed the manipulation firsthand. Raised in the Bay Area by a single mother employed as an advocate for injured workers, Harris spent his childhood creating simple software for Macintosh computers and writing fan mail to Steve Wozniak, a co-founder of Apple.
He studied computer science at Stanford while interning at Apple, then embarked on a master’s degree at Stanford, where he joined the Persuasive Technology Lab.
Run by the experimental psychologist B. J. Fogg, the lab has earned a cultlike following among entrepreneurs hoping to master Fogg’s principles of “behavior design” - a euphemism for what sometimes amounts to building software that nudges us toward the habits a company seeks to instill. (One of Instagram’s co-founders is an alumnus.)
In Fogg’s course, Harris studied the psychology of behavior change, such as how clicker training for dogs, among other methods of conditioning, can inspire products for people.
For example, rewarding someone with an instantaneous “like” after they post a photo can reinforce the action, and potentially shift it from an occasional to a daily activity.
Harris learned that the most-successful sites and apps hook us by tapping into deep-seated human needs. When LinkedIn launched, for instance, it created a hub-and-spoke icon to visually represent the size of each user’s network.
That triggered people’s innate craving for social approval and, in turn, got them scrambling to connect.
“Even though at the time there was nothing useful you could do with LinkedIn, that simple icon had a powerful effect in tapping into people’s desire not to look like losers,” Fogg told me.
Harris began to see that technology is not, as so many engineers claim, a neutral tool; rather, it’s capable of coaxing us to act in certain ways. And he was troubled that out of 10 sessions in Fogg’s course, only one addressed the ethics of these persuasive tactics. (Fogg says that topic is “woven throughout” the curriculum.)
Harris dropped out of the master’s program to launch a start-up that installed explanatory pop-ups across thousands of sites, including The New York Times’.
It was his first direct exposure to the war being waged for our time, and Harris felt torn between his company’s social mission, which was to spark curiosity by making facts easily accessible, and pressure from publishers to corral users into spending more and more minutes on their sites.
Though Harris insists he steered clear of persuasive tactics, he grew more familiar with how they were applied.
He came to conceive of them as “hijacking techniques” - the digital version of pumping sugar, salt, and fat into junk food in order to induce bingeing.
McDonald’s hooks us by appealing to our bodies’ craving for certain flavors; Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter hook us by delivering what psychologists call “variable rewards.”
Messages, photos, and “likes” appear on no set schedule, so we check for them compulsively, never sure when we’ll receive that dopamine-activating prize. (Delivering rewards at random has been proved to quickly and strongly reinforce behavior.)
Checking that Facebook friend request will take only a few seconds, we reason, though research shows that when interrupted, people take an average of 25 minutes to return to their original task.
Sites foster a sort of distracted lingering partly by lumping multiple services together. To answer the friend request, we’ll pass by the News Feed, where pictures and auto-play videos seduce us into scrolling through an infinite stream of posts - what Harris calls a “bottomless bowl,” referring to a study that found people eat 73 percent more soup out of self-refilling bowls than out of regular ones, without realizing they’ve consumed extra.
The “friend request” tab will nudge us to add even more contacts by suggesting “people you may know,” and in a split second, our unconscious impulses cause the cycle to continue:
Once we send the friend request, an alert appears on the recipient’s phone in bright red - a “trigger” color, Harris says, more likely than some other hues to make people click - and because seeing our name taps into a hardwired sense of social obligation, she will drop everything to answer.
In the end, he says, companies “stand back watching as a billion people run around like chickens with their heads cut off, responding to each other and feeling indebted to each other.”
A Facebook spokesperson told me the social network focuses on maximizing the quality of the experience - not the time its users spend on the site - and surveys its users daily to gauge success.
In response to this feedback, Facebook recently tweaked its News Feed algorithm to punish clickbait - stories with sensationalist headlines designed to attract readers. (LinkedIn and Instagram declined requests for comment. Twitter did not reply to multiple queries.)
Even so, a niche group of consultants has emerged to teach companies how to make their services irresistible. One such guru is Nir Eyal, the author of Hooked: How to Build Habit-Forming Products, who has lectured or consulted for firms such as LinkedIn and Instagram.
A blog post he wrote touting the value of variable rewards is titled “Want to Hook Your Users? Drive Them Crazy.”
While asserting that companies are morally obligated to help those genuinely addicted to their services, Eyal contends that social media merely satisfies our appetite for entertainment in the same way TV or novels do, and that the latest technology tends to get vilified simply because it’s new, but eventually people find balance.
“Saying ‘Don’t use these techniques’ is essentially saying ‘Don’t make your products fun to use.’ That’s silly,” Eyal told me.
“With every new technology, the older generation says ‘Kids these days are using too much of this and too much of that and it’s melting their brains.’ And it turns out that what we’ve always done is to adapt.”
Google acquired Harris’s company in 2011, and he ended up working on Gmail’s Inbox app. (He’s quick to note that while he was there, it was never an explicit goal to increase time spent on Gmail.)
A year into his tenure, Harris grew concerned about the failure to consider how seemingly minor design choices, such as having phones buzz with each new email, would cascade into billions of interruptions. His team dedicated months to fine-tuning the aesthetics of the Gmail app with the aim of building a more “delightful” email experience.
But to him that missed the bigger picture: Instead of trying to improve email, why not ask how email could improve our lives - or, for that matter, whether each design decision was making our lives worse?
Harris gives off a preppy-hippie vibe that allows him to move comfortably between Palo Alto boardrooms and device-free retreats
Six months after attending Burning Man in the Nevada desert, a trip Harris says helped him with:
“Waking up and questioning my own beliefs,” he quietly released “A Call to Minimize Distraction & Respect Users’ Attention,” a 144-page Google Slides presentation.
In it, he declared, “Never before in history have the decisions of a handful of designers (mostly men, white, living in SF, aged 25–35) working at 3 companies” - Google, Apple, and Facebook - “had so much impact on how millions of people around the world spend their attention … We should feel an enormous responsibility to get this right.”
Although Harris sent the presentation to just 10 of his closest colleagues, it quickly spread to more than 5,000 Google employees, including then-CEO Larry Page, who discussed it with Harris in a meeting a year later.
“It sparked something,” recalls Mamie Rheingold, a former Google staffer who organized an internal Q&A session with Harris at the company’s headquarters. “He did successfully create a dialogue and open conversation about this in the company.”
Harris parlayed his presentation into a position as product philosopher, which involved researching ways Google could adopt ethical design.
But he says he came up against “inertia.” Product road maps had to be followed, and fixing tools that were obviously broken took precedence over systematically rethinking services. Chris Messina, then a designer at Google, says little changed following the release of Harris’s slides:
“It was one of those things where there’s a lot of head nods, and then people go back to work.”
Harris told me some colleagues misinterpreted his message, thinking that he was proposing banning people from social media, or that the solution was simply sending fewer notifications. (Google declined to comment.)
Harris left the company last December to push for change more widely, buoyed by a growing network of supporters that includes the MIT professor Sherry Turkle; Meetup’s CEO, Scott Heiferman; and Justin Rosenstein, a co-inventor of the “like” button; along with fed-up users and concerned employees across the industry.
“Pretty much every big company that’s manipulating users has been very interested in our work,” says Joe Edelman, who has spent the past five years trading ideas and leading workshops with Harris.
Through Time Well Spent, his advocacy group, Harris hopes to mobilize support for what he likens to an organic-food movement, but for software: an alternative built around core values, chief of which is helping us spend our time well, instead of demanding more of it.
Thus far, Time Well Spent is more a label for his crusade - and a vision he hopes others will embrace - than a full-blown organization. (Harris, its sole employee, self-funds it.)
Yet he’s amassed a network of volunteers keen to get involved, thanks in part to his frequent cameos on the thought-leader speaker circuit, including talks at Harvard’s Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society; the O’Reilly Design Conference; an internal meeting of Facebook designers; and a TEDx event, whose video has been viewed more than 1 million times online.
Tim O’Reilly, the founder of O’Reilly Media and an early web pioneer, told me Harris’s ideas are:
“Definitely something that people who are influential are listening to and thinking about.” Even Fogg, who stopped wearing his Apple Watch because its incessant notifications annoyed him, is a fan of Harris’s work:
“It’s a brave thing to do and a hard thing to do.”
At Unplug SF, a burly man calling himself “Haus” enveloped Harris in a bear hug. “This is the antidote!,” Haus cheered. “This is the antivenom!” All evening, I watched people pull Harris aside to say hello, or ask to schedule a meeting. Someone cornered Harris to tell him about his internet “sabbatical,” but Harris cut him off. “For me this is w‑talk,” he protested.
Harris admits that researching the ways our time gets hijacked has made him slightly obsessive about evaluating what counts as “time well spent” in his own life.
The hypnosis class Harris went to before meeting me - because he suspects the passive state we enter while scrolling through feeds is similar to being hypnotized - was not time well spent.
The slow-moving course, he told me, was “low bit rate” - a technical term for data-transfer speeds.
Attending the digital detox? Time very well spent. He was delighted to get swept up in a mass game of rock-paper-scissors, where a series of one-on-one elimination contests culminated in an onstage showdown between “Joe” and “Moonlight.”
Harris has a tendency to immerse himself in a single activity at a time. In conversation, he rarely breaks eye contact and will occasionally rest a hand on his interlocutor’s arm, as if to keep both parties present in the moment.
He got so wrapped up in our chat one afternoon that he attempted to get into an idling Uber that was not an Uber at all, but a car that had paused at a stop sign.
An accordion player and tango dancer in his spare time who pairs plaid shirts with a bracelet that has presence stamped into a silver charm, Harris gives off a preppy-hippie vibe that allows him to move comfortably between Palo Alto boardrooms and device-free retreats.
In that sense, he had a great deal in common with the other Unplug SF attendees, many of whom belong to a new class of tech elites “waking up” to their industry’s unwelcome side effects.
For many entrepreneurs, this epiphany has come with age, children, and the peace of mind of having several million in the bank, says Soren Gordhamer, the creator of Wisdom 2.0, a conference series about maintaining “presence and purpose” in the digital age.
“They feel guilty,” Gordhamer says. “They are realizing they built this thing that’s so addictive.”
I asked Harris whether he felt guilty about having joined Google, which has inserted its technology into our pockets, glasses, watches, and cars.
He didn’t. He acknowledged that some divisions, such as YouTube, benefit from coaxing us to stare at our screens. But he justified his decision to work there with the logic that since Google controls three interfaces through which millions engage with technology - Gmail, Android, and Chrome - the company was the “first line of defense.”
Getting Google to rethink those products, as he’d attempted to do, had the potential to transform our online experience.
Snapchat’s tactics for hooking users may make Facebook’s look quaint.
At a restaurant around the corner from Unplug SF, Harris demonstrated an alternative way of interacting with WMDs, based on his own self-defense tactics.
Certain tips were intuitive: He’s “almost militaristic about turning off notifications” on his iPhone, and he set a custom vibration pattern for text messages, so he can feel the difference between an automated alert and a human’s words.
Other tips drew on Harris’s study of psychology. Since merely glimpsing an app’s icon will -
“Trigger this whole set of sensations and thoughts,” he pruned the first screen of his phone to include only apps, such as Uber and Google Maps, that perform a single function and thus run a low risk of “bottomless bowl–ing.”
He tried to make his phone look minimalist: Taking a cue from a Google experiment that cut employees’ M&M snacking by moving the candy from clear to opaque containers, he buried colorful icons - along with time-sucking apps like Gmail and WhatsApp - inside folders on the second page of his iPhone.
As a result, that screen was practically grayscale. Harris launches apps by using what he calls the phone’s “consciousness filter” - typing Instagram, say, into its search bar - which reduces impulsive tapping.
For similar reasons, Harris keeps a Post-it on his laptop with this instruction: “Do not open without intention.”
His approach seems to have worked. I’m usually quick to be annoyed by friends reaching for their phones, but next to Harris, I felt like an addict. Wary of being judged, I made a point not to check my iPhone unless he checked his first, but he went so long without peeking that I started getting antsy. Harris assured me that I was far from an exception.
“Our generation relies on our phones for our moment-to-moment choices about who we’re hanging out with, what we should be thinking about, who we owe a response to, and what’s important in our lives,” he said.
“And if that’s the thing that you’ll outsource your thoughts to, forget the brain implant. That is the brain implant. You refer to it all the time.”
Curious to hear more about Harris’s plan for tackling manipulative software, I tagged along one morning to his meeting with two entrepreneurs eager to incorporate Time Well Spent values into their start-up.
Harris, flushed from a yoga class, met me at a bakery not far from the “intentional community house” where he lives with a dozen or so housemates.
We were joined by Micha Mikailian and Johnny Chan, the co-founders of an ad blocker, Intently, that replaces advertising with “intentions” reminding people to “Follow Your Bliss” or “Be Present.” Previously, they’d run a marketing and advertising agency.
“One day I was in a meditation practice. I just got the vision for Intently,” said Mikailian, who sported a chunky turquoise bracelet and a man bun.
“It fully aligned with my purpose,” said Chan.
They were interested in learning what it would take to integrate ethical design. Coordinating loosely with Joe Edelman, Harris is developing a code of conduct - the Hippocratic oath for software designers - and a playbook of best practices that can guide start-ups and corporations toward products that “treat people with respect.”
Having companies rethink the metrics by which they measure success would be a start. “You have to imagine: What are the concrete benefits landed in space and in time in a person’s life?,” Harris said, coaching Mikailian and Chan.
Harris hopes that companies will offer a healthier alternative to the current diet of tech junk food - perhaps at a premium price.
At his speaking engagements, Harris has presented prototype products that embody other principles of ethical design. He argues that technology should help us set boundaries.
This could be achieved by, for example, an inbox that asks how much time we want to dedicate to email, then gently reminds us when we’ve exceeded our quota. Technology should give us the ability to see where our time goes, so we can make informed decisions - imagine your phone alerting you when you’ve unlocked it for the 14th time in an hour.
And technology should help us meet our goals, give us control over our relationships, and enable us to disengage without anxiety. Harris has demoed a hypothetical “focus mode” for Gmail that would pause incoming messages until someone has finished concentrating on a task, while allowing interruptions in case of an emergency. (Slack has implemented a similar feature.)
Harris hopes to create a Time Well Spent certification - akin to the leed seal or an organic label - that would designate software made with those values in mind.
He already has a shortlist of apps that he endorses as early exemplars of the ethos, such as Pocket, Calendly, and f.lux, which, respectively, saves articles for future reading, lets people book empty slots on an individual’s calendar to streamline the process of scheduling meetings, and aims to improve sleep quality by adding a pinkish cast to the circadian-rhythm-disrupting blue light of screens. Intently could potentially join this coalition, he volunteered.
As a first step toward identifying other services that could qualify, Harris has experimented with creating software that would capture how many hours someone devotes weekly to each app on her phone, then ask her which ones were worthwhile.
The data could be compiled to create a leaderboard that shames apps that addict but fail to satisfy. Edelman has released a related tool for websites, called Hindsight. “We have to change what it means to win,” Harris says.
The biggest obstacle to incorporating ethical design and “agency” is not technical complexity. According to Harris, it’s a “will thing.” And on that front, even his supporters worry that the culture of Silicon Valley may be inherently at odds with anything that undermines engagement or growth.
“This is not the place where people tend to want to slow down and be deliberate about their actions and how their actions impact others,” says Jason Fried, who has spent the past 12 years running Basecamp, a project-management tool.
“They want to make things more sugary and more tasty, and pull you in, and justify billions of dollars of valuation and hundreds of millions of dollars [in] VC funds.”
Rather than dismantling the entire attention economy, Harris hopes that companies will, at the very least, create a healthier alternative to the current diet of tech junk food.
He recognizes that this shift would require reevaluating entrenched business models so success no longer hinges on claiming attention and time.
As with organic vegetables, it’s possible that the first generation of Time Well Spent software might be available at a premium price, to make up for lost advertising dollars.
“Would you pay $7 a month for a version of Facebook that was built entirely to empower you to live your life?,” Harris says. “I think a lot of people would pay for that.”
Like splurging on grass-fed beef, paying for services that are available for free and disconnecting for days (even hours) at a time are luxuries that few but the reasonably well-off can afford.
I asked Harris whether this risked stratifying tech consumption, such that the privileged escape the mental hijacking and everyone else remains subjected to it. “It creates a new inequality. It does.”
Harris admitted. But he countered that if his movement gains steam, broader change could occur, much in the way Walmart now stocks organic produce.
Currently, though, the trend is toward deeper manipulation in ever more sophisticated forms. Harris fears that Snapchat’s tactics for hooking users make Facebook’s look quaint.
Facebook automatically tells a message’s sender when the recipient reads the note - a design choice that, per Fogg’s logic, activates our hardwired sense of social reciprocity and encourages the recipient to respond.
Snapchat ups the ante: Unless the default settings are changed, users are informed the instant a friend begins typing a message to them - which effectively makes it a faux pas not to finish a message you start.
Harris worries that the app’s Snapstreak feature, which displays how many days in a row two friends have snapped each other and rewards their loyalty with an emoji, seems to have been pulled straight from Fogg’s inventory of persuasive tactics.
Research shared with Harris by Emily Weinstein, a Harvard doctoral candidate, shows that Snapstreak is driving some teenagers nuts - to the point that before going on vacation, they give friends their log-in information and beg them to snap in their stead.
“To be honest, it made me sick to my stomach to hear these anecdotes,” Harris told me.
Harris thinks his best shot at improving the status quo is to get users riled up about the ways they’re being manipulated, then create a groundswell of support for technology that respects people’s agency - something akin to the privacy outcry that prodded companies to roll out personal-information protections.
While Harris’s experience at Google convinced him that users must demand change for it to happen, Edelman suggests that the incentive to adapt can originate within the industry, as engineers become reluctant to build products they view as unethical and companies face a brain drain.
The more people recognize the repercussions of tech firms’ persuasive tactics, the more working there “becomes uncool,” he says, a view I heard echoed by others in his field. “You can really burn through engineers hard.”
There is arguably an element of hypocrisy to the enlightened image that Silicon Valley projects, especially with its recent embrace of “mindfulness.”
Companies like Google and Facebook, which have offered mindfulness training and meditation spaces for their employees, position themselves as corporate leaders in this movement.
Yet this emphasis on mindfulness and consciousness, which has extended far beyond the tech world, puts the burden on users to train their focus, without acknowledging that the devices in their hands are engineered to chip away at their concentration.
It’s like telling people to get healthy by exercising more, then offering the choice between a Big Mac and a Quarter Pounder when they sit down for a meal.
And being aware of software’s seductive power does not mean being immune to its influence.
One evening, just as we were about to part ways for the night, Harris stood talking by his car when his phone flashed with a new text message. He glanced down at the screen and interrupted himself mid-sentence.
“Oh!” he announced, more to his phone than to me, and mumbled something about what a coincidence it was that the person texting him knew his friend. He looked back up sheepishly. “That’s a great example,” he said, waving his phone. “I had no control over the process.”
The Media Is Now The Political Opposition + Watching Major Media Commit Suicide January 29 2017 | From: PaulCraigRoberts / JonRappoport / Various
Bannon is correct that the US media - indeed, the entire Western print and TV media - is nothing but a propaganda machine for the ruling elite.
Who else but the despicable Western media justified the enormous war crimes committed against millions of peoples by the Clinton, Bush, and Obama regimes in nine countries - Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Yemen, Syria, Somalia, Palestine, and the Russian areas of Ukraine?
Who else but the despicable Western media justified the domestic police states that have been erected in the Western world in the name of the “war on terror”?
Along with the war criminals that comprised the Clinton, Bush, and Obama regimes, the Western media should be tried for their complicity in the massive crimes against humanity.
The Western media’s effort to sustain the high level of tension between the West and Russia is a danger to all mankind, a direct threat to life on earth. Gorbachev’s warnings are correct [Comment: No because he is a globalist tool - it will not happen].
Yet presstitutes declare that if Trump lifts the sanctions it proves that Trump is a Russian agent. It is paradoxical that the Democrats and the liberal-progressive-left are mobilizing the anti-war movement to oppose Trump’s anti-war policy!
By refusing to acknowledge and to apologize for its lies, euphemistically called “fake news,” the Western media has failed humanity in a number of other ways.
For example, by consciously telling lies, the media has legitimized the suborning of perjury and false testimony used to convict innocent defendants (such as Walter McMillian in Bryan Stevenson’s Just Mercy) in America’s “justice” system, which has about the same relation to justice as genocide has to mercy. If the media can lie about world events, police and prosecutors can lie about crimes.
By taking the role of the political opposition to Trump, the media has discredited itself as an honest critic on topics where Trump needs criticism, such as the environment and his tolerance of oppressive methods used by police.
Trump needs to understand that “the Muslim threat” is a hoax created by the neoconservatives and the military/security complex with the complicity of the presstitutes to serve the hegemony agenda and the budget and power of the CIA, Pentagon, and military industries.
If the US stops bombing and slaughtering Muslims and training and equiping forces to overthrow non-compliant Muslim governments such as Syria, Iraq, and Libya, “the Muslim threat” will disappear.
Maybe Trump will add to his agenda breaking into hundreds of pieces the six mega-media companies that own 90% of the US media and selling the pieces to seperate independent owners who have no connection to the ruling elites.
Then America would again have a media that can constrain the government with truth rather than use lies to act for or against the government.
Watching Major Media Commit Suicide
Notes on the end of the news business as we know it: This article goes to many places. I think you’ll find a place that works for you.
I’ve been investigating and reporting on deep medical fraud for 29 years. I’ve been around the block a few hundred times. I’ve spoken with scientists who work for the government and universities, and the media operatives who support them. I know the game.
If Robert F Kennedy Jr is, indeed, given the green light by President Trump to investigate vaccine safety, he’s going to need a truck and a chain and DOJ threats of prosecution to drag key CDC scientists into the light and elicit specific statements from them.
Even then, the odds are these scientists will keep repeating the party line: vaccines are overwhelmingly safe; they have no connection to autism or other neurological damage; the science is settled.
Kennedy could run up against an organized wall of silence - scientists refusing to speak with him, on the basis that he isn’t qualified to make judgements in their “field.” In that case, he will need subpoena power, for starters.
Many years ago, I interviewed Jim Warner, a White House policy analyst in the Reagan administration. He had been trying to obtain medical-research information from the federal National Institutes of Health. He told me he was given the absolute cold shoulder: “If ever I’ve been tempted to believe in socialism, science has disabused me of that. These guys [at NIH] assume that it’s their show. They just assume it.”
Arrogance par excellence. Scientists rebuff the White House with a yawn.
Fortunately, Kennedy is a relentless investigator. He understands how science is corrupted and paid for. And the ace in the deck is this: there is already enough evidence in the open record to refute the CDC’s claim of vaccine safety.
Trump has blazed a trail of rejecting major media. As a result of his merciless attacks, press outlets are going mad pushing numerous outlandish fake stories. They’re ripe for further incursions on their territory.
In the past, this was the pattern: an outsider enters the scene and accuses the government of vast fraud; media operators assemble their usual cast of sordid characters, who dismiss the charges; everybody goes home and the story dies.
But that’s not working anymore. Media pomposity is exposed as fakery. Millions of people see through the ruse.
The media emperor is naked. He can prance around and around, but his fundamental nakedness keeps compounding the joke.
Truth be told, as their financial positions sink into dire red ink, press operations are trapped. Why? Because they are partners with the high-level criminals whose activities are the very stories the public wants to know about.
Reporting on these crimes in great depth, day after day, would resuscitate the newspapers and broadcast networks. But that will never happen.
For example, these crimes:
The Federal Reserve/a clandestine private corporation.
Medically caused death.
Trillions of dollars of missing US government money.
The power of the Trilateral Commission over US government policy.
The covert implementation of the UN agenda of destruction in US communities.
And a hundred more issues.
Expose these down to the core, and people would buy newspapers off the rack like they buy coffee and beer and video games and cell phones and gasoline and underwear and toilet paper and lipstick and fast food. The Times would have to schedule extra press runs just to keep up with the demand. Its financial bottom line would soon look like Christmas.
You could talk to the publisher of the New York Times and present him with an ironclad plan for pulling his paper out of its deep financial hole, based on covering true stories like those above, and you would find no joy, because he would rather go down with the ship than go up against The Matrix.
The Times and other hoary media outlets live by the rule of limited hangout. In intelligence parlance, that means admitting a small piece of the truth in order to hide the rest.
“We’ll show you a tree in the forest, but not the forest.”
I know how it works, because as a reporter I’ve been there. I’ve approached editors of various media outlets with stories that crack the trance, and I’ve had those stories tossed back at me.
“We’re just not interested,” they say. “This isn’t our kind of piece.” Or: “Well, we already covered that.” But they didn’t cover it. They did a limited hangout on it.
They ran a story that exposed one tiny corner of a whole bloody mess.
I say this - as simple fact - if any intelligent, aggressive, truly independent investigator were the managing editor of the New York Times, and if he were given free rein, he would have that paper back in the black in a year.
He would have it roaring on all cylinders. He would have people fighting each other in the streets to grab the last copy off the newsstand. Journalism schools all over the country would close down in shame.
Because he would be running stories that would crack the whole rotting edifice of cartel-control along many fronts, and he would be filling up a planned vacuum of truth with fire.
A decade ago, here is what a working reporter for a major paper told me:
“We know what stories we can’t cover. Nobody needs to prep us. Our editors know, too. Otherwise, they’d never get to be editors.”
A player in a non-profit group once told me I could have a job with a paper on the east coast. In a roundabout way, he hinted at what they were looking for. In five minutes, I saw the handwriting on the wall. Essentially, the editor was searching for a reporter who would cover politics in Central America.
The stories would have to favor the repressive governments in power. The basic cover was: these leaders were fighting the good fight against Communism. The death squads they were sending out, in cooperation with the CIA, were freedom fighters. And of course, any mention of cocaine trafficking as a means for obtaining weapons was off-limits.
None of this was spelled out. But the message was clear. They wanted a propaganda specialist. If I, as an up and coming reporter, decided to play ball, I could advance up the ladder.
Apparently, some travel was necessary. But I knew I could turn out reams of copy without ever leaving my apartment, because I grasped the fundamental angle I was supposed to pursue. Needless to say, I turned down the offer.
It was the first time I fully realized how easy the job of reporting could be. Assemble a list of reliable sources (who would support the mandatory point of view), walk right into a prepared group of corporate and think-tank allies, pull down copy from wire services, and re-write stories in a way that bolstered the idea that American Empire was really “spreading democracy” to the less fortunate. A walk in the park.
Twenty years later, I saw the same overall pattern in hundreds of major-media stories - but the point of view and the mandate had changed.
Now it was all about Globalism. The covert op was the takedown of America, in order to squash the last vestige of political freedom and integrate the nation in “a new economic order.”
However, over the mountains, a new dawn was rising: the Internet. Independent media outlets. The resistance.
It was immediately obvious that, unless someone could shut this new creature down, major media would have no way to challenge the invasion. Independent news sources would gradually wreck MSM financial bottom lines.
Fronting for Globalist princes, Big News would see their bias exposed time and time again. The blowback on them would be enormous. Trapped and corned like rats, they would attack, but their efforts would only compound their problem.
Then a populist named Donald Trump strolled on to the scene. He knew major media were suffering great losses. He knew online media were in the ascendance. He had people like Steve Bannon (Breitbart) who were bringing him up to speed. He saw how Matt Drudge was obliterating traditional news sources, even while (selectively) linking to them.
A revolution was in progress.
Trump had the right stuff for this situation, because he didn’t care about offending people. He was mercurial, reckless; an opportunist. He could fly by the seat of his pants. He realized where and how, in America, the Globalists were causing great damage.
Trump accelerated the fall of major media from their thrones.
People around the world, untold millions, thought to themselves, “Trump is finally giving major media what they deserve.”
Giving the major media what they deserve is a force to be reckoned with, because there is no effective response to it. Nothing works. Who can lead the fight to preserve mainstream news? Answer: mainstream news.
That isn’t going to go anywhere, because more and more people are rejecting the mainstream wholesale.
Think of major media as a ship. In full view of the passengers, the captain has just steered it into a shore of high rocks. The craft is beginning to tilt, and it’s taking on water. As the passengers scramble to safety on the beach, the captain is yelling;
“Don’t leave, come back, everything is all right, I didn’t do anything wrong, it’s your fault, you’re too stupid to understand the correct principles of navigation!”
Translation: “I’m committing suicide. Go down with me.”
As a reporter starting out in the 1980s, one of my first glimpses of trouble involved a few of the papers I was writing for: they were definitely on the political Left, but at the same time they were businesses.
You only had to look at the ads choking the pages to see that. They were capitalist enterprises. But they would never fully admit that. They were operating under a self-induced, self-serving delusion about fundamental economics.
Eventually, larger publishers bought them out, and a few of the old guard made significant dollars on the deals. It was an old story about socialists getting rich.
This contradiction plagues every major media outlet today. They claim to serve the public interest, but they want to be rich. Their reporters want very nice salaries.
And this is all in the service of Globalism, which aims to bankrupt economies and drive populations into the arms of technocrat planners of societies. It doesn’t add up. It doesn’t work.
There is nothing wrong with wanting to be rich and working hard to achieve it. But claiming, at the same time, that you want the government to run the economy is a sick joke.
A transparently sick joke, on the order of wealthy celebrities stumping for socialism, while they hire more armed security and dig bunkers on their walled properties.
Suppose you could approach a well-known and well-paid reporter for the New York Times. And suppose you said this:
“For years, you’ve been writing about the less fortunate and giving back and more government support for the downtrodden and humanitarianism and so on - so I want to know, would you be willing to donate two-thirds of your salary, for the sake of equality, to those who need the money?
Would you be willing to sell your co-op and give the money to the poor and move into a small apartment?”
The duplicitous and slimy major media are obviously engaged in a long con. They want their cake, they want to eat it, and they also want to appear as architects of “a more humane planet.”
They care about a more humane order in the same way an ant cares about space travel.
They care about serving their bosses, and those bosses have other bosses who are engineering a future of poverty for all, as a mechanism of control. That’s who’s paying reporters their salaries.
Do you know what a tired rich media liberal (fake socialist) looks like? Of course you do. You can see one every night anchoring the national news. Over the years, I’ve spoken with a few of these types. In every case, I’ve gotten the impression they’re sitting on a keg of dynamite.
They know how precarious their position is. They’re surprised they’ve lasted as long as they have. Their spouting of liberal homilies is transparent. Where did they go wrong? Answer: the first day they accepted their first job as a reporter.
That’s when they sold out. They knew it then, and under cheesy layers of vast pretensions, they still know it now. But they can’t turn around. They’ve made a commitment.
They tell themselves: “It’s business. It’s not personal. This is the business I’m in.”
But of course, it is personal. Everything is personal. We’re talking about lives and minds and souls.
That’s what these reporters traded, in the perverse corner of the marketplace. They chose the rackets, the information mafia, the law of omerta, the dishonorable underground that lives in the highest penthouses.
Whatever gloss they lay on, the trap they’re in stays in place. And now, they’re sinking and sinking. I could try to work up pity for them, buy why bother? Damage is damage, and they’ve done a great deal of it. A full confession would make a start, but that’s not going to happen.
They’re in a race with themselves. How long can they keep erecting delusions about their work, vs. their growing realization about those delusions? It’s inescapably personal. It always was.
The night is falling on them, and the rain is coming down, too. Their mandate is to be on the Inside, but they’re on the Outside now. They’re the walking dead. They’ll keep walking, but things will never be the same.
As a long addendum, here is a backgrounder, an article I wrote headlined, “Howard Beale, the last sane man on television”:
The best film ever made about television’s war on the population is Paddy Chayefsky’s scorching masterpiece, Network (1976). Yet it stages only a few minutes of on-air television.
The rest of the film is dialogue and monologue about television. Thus you could say that, in this case, word defeats image.
Even when showing what happens on the TV screen, Network bursts forth with lines like these, from newsman Howard Beale, at the end of his rope, on-camera, speaking to his in-studio audience and millions of people in their homes:
“So, you listen to me. Listen to me! Television is not the truth. Television’s a god-damned amusement park. Television is a circus, a carnival, a traveling troupe of acrobats, storytellers, dancers, singers, jugglers, sideshow freaks, lion tamers, and football players.
We’re in the boredom-killing business… We deal in illusions, man. None of it is true! But you people sit there day after day, night after night, all ages, colors, creeds. We’re all you know. You’re beginning to believe the illusions we’re spinning here.
You’re beginning to think that the tube is reality and that your own lives are unreal. You do whatever the tube tells you. You dress like the tube, you eat like the tube, you raise your children like the tube. You even think like the tube. This is mass madness. You maniacs. In God’s name, you people are the real thing. We are the illusion.”
Beale, coming apart at the seams, is a mad prophet. And because he shines with brilliance and poetry, he can affect minds. Therefore, the television network can make use of him. It can turn him into a cartoon for the masses.
It is Beale’s language and the passion with which he delivers it that constitutes his dangerous weapon. Therefore, the Network transforms him into a cheap religious figure, whose audience slathers him with absurd adoration.
Television’s enemy is the word. Its currency is image. Beale breaks through the image and defiles it. He cracks the egg. He stops the picture-flow. He brings back the sound and rhythm of spoken poetry. That is his true transgression against the medium that employs him.
The modern matrix has everything to do with how knowledge is acquired. Television, in the main, does not attempt to impart knowledge. It strives to give the viewer the impression that he knows something. There is a difference.
Knowledge, once established, is external to, and independent of, the viewer. Whereas the impression of knowing is a feeling, a conviction, a belief the viewer holds, after he has watched moving images on a screen.
Images… plus, of course, in the case of the news, the narrative voice. A basic premise of New Age thinking is: “everything is (connected to) everything.” This fits quite well with the experience of watching film or video flow.
Example: we see angry crowds on the street of a foreign city. Then young people on their cell phones sitting in an outdoor café. Then the marble lobby of a government building where men in suits are walking, standing in groups talking to each other.
Then at night, rockets exploding in the sky. Then armored vehicles moving through a gate into the city. Then clouds of smoke on another street and people running, chased by police.
A flow of consecutive images. The sequence, obviously, has been assembled by a news editor, but most of the viewing audience isn’t aware of that. They’re watching the “interconnected” images and listening to a news anchor tell a story that colors (infects) every image.
Viewers thus believe they know something. Television has imparted that sensation to them. That’s what news is all about: delivering a sensation of knowing to the audience.
There is no convenient place where the ordinary viewing audience can stop the flow of images or the story being told. They are inside it. They don’t have the leverage of a crystalized idea or the power of reasoning to get out.
They are inside the story. Knowledge thus becomes story. The viewer is transfixed by the sensation that he is “inside” watching/experiencing story.
This fixation produces a short circuit in his reasoning mind (if he has one). No time to stop, no time to think; just watch the flow.
When you take this pattern out to a whole society, you are talking about a dominant method through which “knowledge” is gained.
“Did you see that fantastic video about the Iraq War? It showed that Saddam actually had bioweapons.”
“Really? How did they show that?”
“Well, I don’t exactly remember. But watch it. You’ll see.”
And that’s another feature of the modern acquisition of knowledge: amnesia about details.
The viewer can’t recall key features of what he saw. Or if he can, he can’t describe them, because he was in the flow. He was inside, busy building up his impression of knowing something.
Narrative-visual-television story strips out and discards conceptual references. And lines of reasoning? To the extent they exist, they’re wrapped around and inside the image-flow and the narration.
Ideas aren’t as interesting as images. That’s the premise.
To grasp the diminishment of language, consider the current use of the word “text.” Suddenly it’s become a verb; it means a process of sending words. It also refers to paragraphs or pages of writing, as opposed to pictures.
“Text” makes “writing” seem like nothing more than one functional (and machine-like) method of delivering information.
And since bone-dry information (e.g., “genetic sequences”) these days is practically considered a synonym for life, when a writer infuses his words with passion, they automatically become a “rant.” “Rant” was formerly applied to describe what a person did when he was totally unhinged to the point of making no coherent sense.
Image, not the word, is the now preferred means of acquiring what passes for knowledge.
Retired propaganda master, Ellis Medavoy (pseudonym), once told me in an interview:
“If you wanted to try a real revolution, you would produce thousands of videos consisting of written words on screens, with someone speaking those words. You would try to reinstate language as a medium.
Poetry, formal arguments and debates, great speeches, dramatic readings. You would go up against image and try to relegate it to its proper place…”
In the American colonies of the 18th century, several hundred thousand copies of Tom Paine’s pamphlet, Common Sense, were distributed among a total population of only 2.5 million people, and the earth shook.
When a technology (television) turns into a method of perception, reality is turned inside out. People watch TV through TV eyes.
Mind control is no longer something merely imposed from the outside. It is a matrix of a self-feeding, self-demanding loop. Willing devotees of the image want images, food stamps of the programmed society.
But now, something is happening. Something different.
It is to be fervently wished that the revolution against major media will also result in a revolution against knowledge as nothing more than image.
Reporters Tell Me the Truth Off the Record: The Fake News Business
During my 34 years of working as a reporter, I’ve had many informal conversations with mainstream journalists. They were illuminating.
ONE: “Investigative reporting has been dying. There’s no money for it. If I work on a piece for three months, while my paper is paying me, suppose at the end I come up dry? It happens. I can’t make my case. I’ve got nothing to show for it, and my paper is out whatever they’ve been paying me.
They don’t like that. The other thing is, investigative work makes my bosses nervous. They don’t know where it’ll lead. Worst case, I might come up with something that’ll put the paper in a bad light. It’s like an intelligence agent in the field who wanders off the reservation.
He’s got an assignment, but he sees something better, more important, and that’s where he goes. He ends up finding out something about his own agency. Something bad. I’ve seen that happen. A reporter finds out his own paper has been covering up a heavy scandal.
It’s an intrinsic part of the story. What’s he going to do now? Go to his editor and tell him what’s going on? Chances are, his editor already knows. Now the reporter’s jammed up. He’s in a bad spot. A guy I know came to me with that exact problem. You know what I told him? Burn your notes. That’s what I said.”
TWO:“Most reporters who cover major issues are de facto intelligence assets. Some know it, most don’t. They’re all taking their information from controlled sources. It’s like somebody giving you talking points as if they’re the honest truth. In these talking points, you’re told who the players are in a story and what they’re doing.
But they aren’t the important players, and what they’re doing is just a cover for what’s really going on. It’s all about misdirection. I’ve managed to get a few stories published about illusion vs. reality. But the thing is, no one follows up on that. It’s in print, and then it dies.
One night, I had a little heart to heart with my editor. I told him it would be a lot easier if I just had a desk at the CIA in Langley. He agreed. He said we could move the whole paper there. But then the spooks would realize they didn’t need us at all. They could put out the paper themselves.”
THREE:“We’re in a business. We’re selling a product. That’s our role. If our bosses don’t like what we’re submitting to them, they let us know we’re giving them the wrong product. Our company makes product A and we’re giving them product B.
Most reporters wouldn’t even understand what I’m saying, because they’re mentally in the camp of product A. That’s where they live. So as far as they’re concerned, they have lots of leeway. I don’t like talking to those guys. They’re dumb.”
FOUR:“I can write an article that’s critical of what a drug company is specifically doing, but I can’t criticize the company. If I did, my editor would read me the riot act. He knows if he published that article, his boss would get a visit from the company. They would threaten to pull their advertising.
Everybody would be in serious trouble. There is a fine line. Sometimes, the evidence against a drug company is huge, and we can get away with a critical article. But most of the time, it’s a no-go area. I could lose my job. If I did, I would have a hell of a time trying to find another position on the same level. I might be subject to an industry-wide demotion.”
FIVE:“I thought I could quit working for my paper and get hired by somebody else, who would give me more freedom to write the stories I wanted to. I made a few quiet inquiries.
Turned out I was wrong. They’re all pretty much the same. I could get hired by some small paper and write whatever I wanted to, but I would make very little money. I’d be screwed. They don’t cover this in journalism school.”
SIX:“Sometimes an order comes down. By the time I get it, it isn’t sounding exactly like an order. It’s more like ‘this is what we’re doing’. We need to go after a politician and bury him. That kind of thing. Nobody is complicit. You can’t find somebody and blame him for issuing the order. It’s vague enough that everyone escapes blame.
And you don’t want to talk to your colleagues too much about it. You don’t want to be seen as making waves. It’s sort of like a game plan in football. You’re going to execute the plan. You’re not going to start talking about what a lousy plan it is.”
SEVEN:“I’m a guy who’s expected to put out baloney for our audience. I can slice it a few different ways, but it’s the same basic thing. After a few years, I can do it in my sleep. I know the routine.”
EIGHT: “You talk about who’s really running things behind the scene. I know something about that. But I can’t write it in a story. That would be called original research. I’m not allowed to do that. I can only quote authorities on two sides of an issue.
And the guy I quote first - he carries the point of view of the story. The other guy is the doubter. I place him in the weaker position. I get to choose, but I already know what’s needed and required.”
NINE: “Reporters in my business have two choices. They can lower their IQs and become cynics, or they can maintain their intelligence and get booted out. That’s what it comes down to. Anybody with an IQ over 90 can see we have agendas. The whole business is agenda-driven.
The main job of a reporter who wants to keep working is developing a cover - pretending he’s speaking the truth. This is a cover for his real identity. A guy who pleases his bosses. Several of us had the whole Bill Clinton-Monica Lewinsky story before it was published. We wanted to go with it, but we were told to sit on it.
So it was our job to agree with that assessment. We had to pretend we didn’t have enough proof yet. We had the proof, but we had to make it seem like we were responsible journalists and needed more. That was a bunch of crap. The agenda was to protect ourselves from the wrath of the White House.
That’s what the editors and the publishers were talking about among themselves. Sure - protect the president. But the real thing was the fear that he and his people would strike back at us and do us damage.”
TEN: “My decision to get out of the news business was pretty easy. I wanted to write a story about the influence of the Council on Foreign Relations on government policy, since World War Two. The way I was told to forget about it was like a cop talking to a drug dealer. All of a sudden, I was the bad guy. I really got into it with my editor. I saw what a phony he was.
The thing is, I knew he had a cozy thing going with the CIA. Several people knew it. In my years in the business, I got a first-hand education in what selling out means. I came pretty close to the edge. There’s a weird adrenaline kick to it. You see your whole future laid out in front of you. It’s very rewarding, in terms of money and status. If you just play ball, it’ll be a smooth ride.”
ELEVEN: “What the teachers told me in journalism school was a load. All I needed was one honest talk with a professor, and I never would have bothered with the whole thing. I was naïve. During my career, there were days I thought we were really on the right track. Somebody wrote a great piece, and it was published. But then we fell back. We put out provable lies.
And they were big ones. It was like being psychologically whipsawed. A few great days, and a lot of bad ones. The worst thing for me was government sources. I was like a horse with a feed bag on, and they were filling it up with rotten food. They knew it, I knew it, and we just kept doing it.”
TWELVE: “I saw what I called ‘the inch-below’ thing. An inch below what we were reporting was the real story. It was about power players and what they were doing to make profit for major corporations. It kept coming up. Crimes. People should have been arrested. I could have written great stories. But nobody wanted them. I would have proved intent. I’m talking about wars.
Not little stuff. Whole wars, and the money. The profits. In court, a lawyer could have taken what I had and made a great circumstantial case. The jury would have been convinced. When you can’t publish these stories, you sink into boredom after a while. Tremendous boredom. That’s why some reporters become drunks.”
Paris Jackson Interview: Michael Jackson Was “Absolutely” Murdered January 29 2017 | From: VigilantCitizen
In her first in-depth interview ever, Paris Jackson revealed that she was abused at age 14, the she tried to commit suicide several times and that she is absolutely sure that her father Michael was murdered.
Paris Jackson’s interview with Rolling Stone magazine caused some stir due to the disturbing nature of some revelations. While she is only 18 years old, Paris has seen and been through awful things that were often associated with the dark side of the entertainment industry.
In 2013, Paris was sent to a “treatment center” following her suicide attempt where she reportedly “cut her wrists with a kitchen knife and took as many as 20 ibuprofen tablets.” In my article about this story, I shared some of Paris’ social media posts where she alluded to occult rituals and secret societies.
One of Paris’ tweets about secret societies.
One of the several drawings posted by the then 15 year old Paris. A hexagram with all-seeing eyes and a bloody knife. 666 in the pool of blood
The conclusion of that article was:
"Paris appears to be a bright young girl who is quite aware for her age. She however appears to be “tainted” and manipulated by the same dark forces that killed her father. Let’s hope things get better for her."
Fast-forward to today, things apparently got better for her, but the “dark forces” of the industry are still within arm’s reach. Paris’ feature in Rolling Stone included pictures by one of the elite’s favorite photographer: David LaChapelle. As expected, the pictures are charged with symbolism.
The magazine cover features Paris with a halo behind her head, a lightning bolt pendant, a choker and the “hand of benediction”
The picture is reminiscent of Christian iconography.
A depiction of Christ featuring a halo and the hand of benediction
The symbol of the lightning bolt is esoterically associated with Lucifer due to the fact that he’s described as a “fallen angel” who descended from the heavens to earth … like a lightning bolt.
Therefore, the combination of Christian iconography with the bolt results in a typical study in duality. Typical David LaChapelle imagery.
In another symbolic picture, Paris stands rather stiffly as a halo floats over her head. For some reason, a brick wall hides a popular depiction of her father
This image of Michael Jackson is hidden by a brick wall with Paris standing in front of it. Why though?
From Paris’ answers in the interview we understand a few things: She’s a product of the industry, she has been traumatized by it and she apparently holds some insider information.
At the beginning of the article we learn about Paris’ fascination with the morbid and celebrity deaths.
" Paris-Michael Katherine Jackson is staring at a famous corpse. “That’s Marilyn Monroe,” she whispers, facing a wall covered with gruesome autopsy photos. “And that’s JFK. You can’t even find these online.”
On a Thursday afternoon in late November, Paris is making her way through the Museum of Death, a cramped maze of formaldehyde-scented horrors on Hollywood Boulevard.
It’s not uncommon for visitors, confronted with decapitation photos, snuff films and serial-killer memorabilia, to faint, vomit or both. But Paris, not far removed from the emo and goth phases of her earlier teens, seems to find it all somehow soothing.
This is her ninth visit. “It’s awesome,” she had said on the way over. “They have a real electric chair and a real head!”
Paris then reveals that she has attempted suicide several times.
" Paris describes herself as “desensitized” to even the most graphic reminders of human mortality. In June 2013, drowning in depression and a drug addiction, she tried to kill herself at age 15, slashing her wrist and downing 20 Motrin pills.
“It was just self-hatred,” she says, “low self-esteem, thinking that I couldn’t do anything right, not thinking I was worthy of living anymore.” She had been self-harming, cutting herself, managing to conceal it from her family.
Some of her tattoos now cover the scars, as well as what she says are track marks from drug use. Before that, she had already attempted suicide “multiple times,” she says, with an incongruous laugh.
“It was just once that it became public.” The hospital had a “three-strike rule,” she recalls, and, after that last attempt, insisted she attend a residential therapy program."
Without going into details, she divulges that she was abused by a complete stranger who was much older.
"There was another trauma that she’s never mentioned in public. When she was 14, a much older “complete stranger” sexually assaulted her, she says. “I don’t wanna give too many details. But it was not a good experience at all, and it was really hard for me, and, at the time, I didn’t tell anybody.”
Was she in contact with powerful Hollywood child abusers? Is this why she “didn’t tell anybody”?
Paris also said that she was convinced that her father Michael was killed.
"Paris blames Dr. Conrad Murray – who was convicted of involuntary manslaughter in her father’s death – for the dependency on the anesthetic drug propofol that led to it.
She calls him “the ‘doctor,'” with satirical air quotes. But she has darker suspicions about her father’s death. “He would drop hints about people being out to get him,” she says. “And at some point he was like, ‘They’re gonna kill me one day.'”
(Lisa Marie Presley told Oprah Winfrey of a similar conversation with Michael, who expressed fears that unnamed parties were targeting him to get at his half of the Sony/ATV music-publishing catalog, worth hundreds of millions.)
Paris is convinced that her dad was, somehow, murdered. “Absolutely,” she says. “Because it’s obvious. All arrows point to that. It sounds like a total conspiracy theory and it sounds like bullshit, but all real fans and everybody in the family knows it. It was a setup. It was bullshit.”
But who would have wanted Michael Jackson dead? Paris pauses for several seconds, maybe considering a specific answer, but just says, “A lot of people.” Paris wants revenge, or at least justice.
“Of course,” she says, eyes glowing. “I definitely do, but it’s a chess game. And I am trying to play the chess game the right way. And that’s all I can say about that right now.”
Strange fact: After learning about Paris’ 2013 suicide attempt, Conrad Murray, who is serving a four year prison sentence, sent Paris a creepy “support” message stating:
“I love you as a precious father loves his own child and I always will.”
These words are coming from the guy WHO IS IN PRISON FOR KILLING HER FATHER.
Paris also added that she was scared for Justin Bieber who works with the same promoters as Michael Jackson at the time of his death.
“They drain them dry and work them to death.” (A rep for AEG declined comment.) She describes seeing Justin Bieber on a recent tour and being “scared” for him.
“He was tired, going through the motions. I looked at my ticket, saw AEG Live, and I thought back to how my dad was exhausted all the time but couldn’t sleep.”
Less than 24 hours after the release of this interview, Paris was swarmed by paparazzi at LAX which caused her to break down and run away.
She then posted on Twitter that she wants to be left alone.
Let’s hope she stays away from the vultures of the entertainment industry.
Ending The Hoax: Team Trump Removes All References To ‘Climate Change’ On Whitehouse.gov Web Site + New York Times 1989: No Global Warming Trend January 27 2017 | From: NaturalNews / JonRappoport
During the campaign, then-GOP nominee Donald J. Trump said he was not convinced that so-called “manmade global warming” and “climate change” was real, pointing out that instead of being “settled science,” there was plenty of conflicting information out there (not to mention outright fraudulent manipulations of temperature data).
As president, Trump’s position appears to be consistent with his skepticism.
During the Obama administration, the official White House site carried an information piece titled, “A Historic Commitment to Protecting the Environment and Addressing the Impacts of Climate Change,” which explained the former president’s commitment to policies that were ostensibly designed to reverse human impact on the climate through industrialization and modernization.
Obama, like all climate change hoaxers, claimed that it was the ‘biggest threat to our children’ than nuclear war or terrorism, and he regularly trotted out “data” that his federal bureaucracy claimed was “proof” that a) the Earth’s climate is “changing” and b) it’s because too many cows fart and too many Americans drive SUVs.
But Trump - and a host of genuinely independent scientists and climatologists interested in real data - has never bought into the hype.
What’s more, he and millions of Americans watched as Obama’s business and economic policies destroyed jobs and opportunity because they were based on something more akin to a religion. (RELATED: How are ‘they’ fooling us today? Find out at Hoax.news)
"Climate skeptics are thrilled that one of the very first visible changes of the transition of power between President Obama and President Trump is the booting of ‘climate change’ from the White House website,” said a statement from Climate Depot, a project of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, or CFACT, which documents climate change hoaxes and phony data.
“Trump is truly going to make science great again and reject the notion that humans are the control knob of the climate and UN treaties and EPA regulations can somehow regulate temperature and storminess. Welcome to the era of sound science!”
While the Obama-era climate change page has been taken down, the Trump administration has uploaded the president’s “America First Energy Plan” to the Whitehouse.gov site in its place.
"Energy is an essential part of American life and a staple of the world economy. The Trump Administration is committed to energy policies that lower costs for hardworking Americans and maximize the use of American resources, freeing us from dependence on foreign oil,” the plan says.
“For too long, we’ve been held back by burdensome regulations on our energy industry. President Trump is committed to eliminating harmful and unnecessary policies such as the Climate Action Plan and the Waters of the U.S. rule. Lifting these restrictions will greatly help American workers, increasing wages by more than $30 billion over the next 7 years.”
The plan also notes that “sound” energy policy must begin with the acknowledgement that the United States has vast, untapped energy reserves that have been placed under federal ‘protection’ for decades by previous administrations.
The administration says it is committed to unlocking those reserves and embracing the shale oil and gas “revolution” that will bring good-paying jobs to millions of Americans. (RELATED: What’s going on with American energy? Find out at Power.news)
That kind of a policy plays right into the hands of the angry Left, which has claimed for months that Trump would destroy the environment by making our air and water dirtier. But such ridiculous claims are based on the irrational premise that our new president wants us to have dirty air and water - which is something he, too, would suffer.
The web site says there is an estimated $50 trillion in untapped shale in the U.S., along with oil, and natural gas, “especially those on federal lands that the American people own.”
The administration would use the revenues from energy production to “rebuild our roads, schools, bridges and public infrastructure,” which Trump frequently brought up on the campaign trail. By tapping into U.S. reserves, energy prices will come down for all Americans, and “will be a big boost to American agriculture as well.”
The Trump administration also said it will be committed to clean coal technology, as well as reviving the coal industry so ravaged under the Obama regime.
“After examining climate data extending back nearly 100 years, a team of Government scientists has concluded that there has been no significant change in average temperatures or rainfall in the United States over that entire period.”
“While the nation’s weather in individual years or even for periods of years has been hotter or cooler and drier or wetter than in other periods, the new study shows that over the last century there has been no trend in one direction or another.”
“The study, made by scientists for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration was published in the current issue of Geophysical Research Letters. It is based on temperature and precipitation readings taken at weather stations around the country from 1895 to 1987.”
Then comes the revisionist stepping-back from the explosive finding:
“Dr. Kirby Hanson, the meteorologist who led the study, said in a telephone interview that the findings concerning the United States do not necessarily ‘cast doubt’ on previous findings of a worldwide trend toward warmer temperatures…
He said that the United States occupies only a small percentage of Earth’s surface and that the new findings may be the result of regional variations.”
That’s a beauty, isn’t it? The US, with its massive spewing industrial/automotive output of CO2 is—owing to a mysterious force - not warming. It’s angels, of course. Angels scrubbing the sky.
"Dr. James E. Hansen, director of National Aeronautic and Space Administration’s Institute for Space Studies in Manhattan” offers this gem:
“Another possibility, he [Hansen] said, was that there were special conditions in the United States that would tend to offset a warming trend. For example, industrial activity produces dust and other solid particles that help form liquid droplets in the atmosphere. These droplets reflect radiation away from Earth and thus have a cooling influence.”
But I suppose, through a REVERSE miracle, the droplets do allow heat generated at ground level to escape upward. If the droplets did trap heat at ground level, temperatures would rise - and the study showed that wasn’t occurring. More angels. The magic droplets deflect heat coming down, but not going up.
The Times had no follow-up questions.
But don’t worry, be happy. It’s all good. Yes, the warming hypothesis leads to carbon taxes, lowering energy output in order to keep us all from frying, and the consequent decimation of the economy - but look, people make mistakes. And those mistakes generate unpleasant results. However, they mean well. They really do.
They’re not using a bogus warming hypothesis to torpedo america and the rest of the world, as part of a globalist machination of control. they don’t want to decimate the economy and reduce us to a helpless state of poverty.
They would never do that.
Evidence Points To Ft. Lauderdale Shooter Being “Jason Bourned” With Mind Altering Psychiatric Drugs And ISIS Video Indoctrination By U.S. Intelligence Operatives January 26 2017 | From: NaturalNews / Various
The playbook of the globalists is so obvious now that it’s all right out in the open.
After a parade of false flag shootings enhanced with completely faked (staged) elements - such as professional actors playing the roles of grieving parents - most of the informed people in the world now know that everything is faked in the mainstream media.
The polls are faked, the news is faked, and even “crisis” is often either faked outright or overlaid with staged elements to heighten the emotional impact of the entire operation.
For example, in many so-called “mass shootings,” the real deaths of innocents may be augmented by staged crisis actors, green screen “on location” reporting faked by CNN, and even faked SWAT operators who are actually professional actors. (See videos below for actual examples.)
Search GoodGopher.com for the term “crisis actors” by clicking here. You’ll be astonished at what you learn.
Case in point: The “sloppy sniper” from the Sandy Hook event. This “sniper” was actually a professional actor named David Wheeler. He also played the role of a grieving parent for CNN’s camera.
Hilariously, he carried around a sniper rifle by clutching the magazine… something no real sniper would ever do (but few people who aren’t familiar with sniper rifles would ever notice). It’s all so hilarious: Even the AR-15 on his chest is flipped around backwards, for a leftie.
Anyone familiar with actual firearms can look at this guy and know he has no clue how to handle firearms.
Sandy Hook 'Dad' Caught Playing Two Roles: Crisis Actor Parent and Swat Team Member
We Can All Now Agree That Almost All the High-Impact Stories are Faked in the Mainstream Media
This entire topic of fake news, staged events and false flag shootings was considered “loony conspiracy theory” just two years ago. But now, after watching the depths of fakery, false news and total fabrication of events being pulled off by the Washington Post, NYT, CNN, MSNBC, etc., everybody is waking up to the realization that the “news” is just another name for the wool that’s being pulled over our eyes to blind us from the truth.
In both cases - and many more - the WashPost literally just “made s##t up” and printed it as fact.
When it comes to gun control or domestic terrorism, there’s nothing the corporate controlled media won’t fake, stage, distort or fabricate to push their agenda of disarming the citizens (an obvious prelude to totalitarian government control of the citizenry). To provide the narratives to the media, the deep state runs gun control false flag operations to give the faked media something to “whip up” as a form of journo-terrorism (to terrorize the American people).
So how do they pull off gun control false flag operations? First, they have to train people to carry out the shootings. And that’s where our Ft. Lauderdale shooter, Esteban Santiago, enters the picture.
US Intelligence Forced Him to Watch ISIS Propaganda Videos, Says Santiago in His Own Words
“Estaban Santiago, the 26-year-old airline passenger accused of shooting up a baggage claim area at the Ft. Lauderdale-Hollywood airport Friday, leaving five dead and eight injured, visited the FBI Anchorage field office and told officers he was being forced to watch ISIS videos,” reports Fox News:
Santiago told agents that US intelligence had infiltrated his mind and were forcing him to watch ISIS propaganda videos.
"In November 2016, Esteban Santiago walked into the Anchorage FBI Field Office to report that his mind was being controlled by a U.S. intelligence agency,” a senior federal law enforcement official said.
It’s no coincidence that this is one of the first phases of creating a “Manchurian Candidate” type of human pawn… a “Jason Bourne” mind control subject who can be used by the deep state as a weapon to carry out executions, mass shootings, suicide bombings or other forms of mayhem that achieve a political or social purpose.
It is very common, by the way, for intelligence mind control operatives to choose U.S. military veterans as their subjects. That way, if anything goes wrong, they can blame it on PTSD or various “veteran afflictions.”
As Fox News reports:
"Santiago was born in New Jersey and his family was originally from Puerto Rico–where he served in the Puerto Rico National Guard. He was in the Army Reserves prior to serving in the Alaska Army National Guard.
According to reports, he was honorably discharged four months ago from his last post at Fort Greely, Alaska, and his military rank at that time was E3 (Private First Class)."
Heavily Wosed With Psychiatric Drugs to Eliminate Distinction Between Reality vs. Hallucination
Typically, “Jason Bourne” candidates are heavily drugged with psychiatric drugs in order to blur the lines between fiction and reality. Often, the drugging begins with selected soldier candidates even before they are discharged from the military. This is done for all the obvious reasons:
The psychiatric drugging takes place offshore, out of the domain of U.S. medical ethics oversight, and the military has no requirement to heed such boundaries in the first place.
“His maternal aunt, Maria Ruiz, who lives in Union City, told reporters in New Jersey that he wasn’t the same when he came back from Iraq,” reports ABC News channel 10:
""He lost his mind,” Ruiz said in Spanish, as she referred to a psychiatric hospitalization that occurred after he allegedly suffered from hallucinations.
After Santiago’s military service in Puerto Rico and Alaska from Dec. 14, 2007 to August 2016, the former Army private first class was still undergoing psychological treatment, according to relatives."
How to Build a Jason Bourne Mind Controlled Puppet to Carry Out Executions, Suicide Bombings or Mass Shootings
This is exactly how the deep state builds a Jason Bourne: They pick an obedient soldier, drug him into oblivion, force him to watch ISIS propaganda videos, indoctrinate him with images and directives to carry out mass killings, and then keep him drugged with ongoing “psychological treatment” until he’s needed for a desired mission.
Once the mission is approved, the mind controlled puppet is unleashed onto the public to commit the mass murder, then is immediately arrested or executed to make sure the narrative is controlled and concluded.
If taken alive, he is then heavily drugged into a state of insanity, making sure he can never utter a coherent thought again. Or, if he is somehow allowed to talk to reporters or appear on camera, he will appear completely insane due to the relentless drugging. All court proceedings are handled in a secretive manner to make sure no real investigations can take place.
This is precisely what happened to the “Batman theater shooter” James Holmes, who reportedly carried out a mass shooting in Aurora, Colorado, at the height of the Obama regime’s gun control hysteria.
As always happens, a judge quickly slapped a gag order on the Holmes legal case, preventing anyone from discovering details about how Holmes was handed a scripted blueprint of the attack while being drugged into obedient compliance.
As Jon Rappoport writes, the Aurora shooting was almost certainly a planned “covert op” using a Manchurian candidate / Jason Bourne mind control approach.
Furthermore, James Holmes’ apartment was staged with the most elaborate systems of tripwires, booby traps and sabotage bombs that law enforcement in the area had ever witnessed. James Holmes, an academic researcher, had no knowledge or skills to construct such bombs. It was obviously done for him.
"Holmes has little or no experience with guns. He knows nothing about explosives. He isn’t a professional in any sense of the word. He has never committed a crime before. If he has any qualification for the heinous operation, it is his vulnerability. He is adrift in his life.
Never as brilliant a student as others thought him to be, he is failing in graduate school. He has no job and no prospects. What began as a potential career has dissolved.
His interest in arcane aspects of neuroscience (temporal delusion – the possibility of changing the past), once a fascinating field of inquiry for him, now only contributes to his increasingly shaky grip on reality.
The planning is rather simple and direct. The actual killer(s) will enter the theater, while Holmes, who is drugged into a stupor and is sitting in his car, waits in the parking lot of the theater, among weapons and other gear that matches the killers’.
Once the killers leave the theater, they’ll deposit their guns with him, as he lies in a semi-conscious blurred state. They’ll deposit gun residue on his body.
When the police find Holmes in his car (not at the the theater exit or outside the car), he will surrender. Perhaps, under prior hypnosis, he was instructed to say his apartment is wired with explosives.
Of course, the hired professionals did that intricate construction. And perhaps Holmes never tells the police about his apartment and explosives, and this information has really come from a tip."
Eyewitness Reports of Multiple Shooters Now Being Eliminated From the Official Media Narrative
Although this isn’t being widely reported, the Ft. Lauderdale shooting featured eyewitness reports of multiple shooters, too. As Fox News reports:
"In the ensuing panic, the TSA received two separate, unconfirmed reports of a separate active shooter, a law enforcement official close to the investigation told Fox News. However, Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel said Friday afternoon there was no indication any additional shots were fired."
Fox News also reports that law enforcement claimed the shooter was on a Canadian Air flight:
"Broward County Commissioner Chip La Marca posted on Facebook that Santiago was a “passenger on a Canadian flight with a checked gun. He claimed his bag and took the gun from baggage and went into the bathroom to load it. Came out shooting people in baggage claim. There were 13 total shot, 5 dead, 8 transported to hospital.”
But Santiago didn’t fly Canadian Air. He flew on Delta Air Lines. Via ABC News:
"On Friday, Santiago checked a bag with a firearm before boarding a Delta Air Lines flight from Alaska to Minneapolis. His final destination was Fort Lauderdale."
Don’t Believe the Official Narrative… It’s Always Part of the Cover Story If you continue to follow this story, you’ll easily spot all sorts of contradictions, false narratives and faked news coverage from the “fakestream media.” The correct interpretation of all this to reject everything the mainstream media tells you by default. They are known, deliberate liars.
Although we can’t yet prove it, the far more likely explanation of what happened is as follows:
Santiago was a “Jason Bourne” mind control subject of the deep state. Recruited from the military, he was subjected to intense psychiatric drugging combined with intense mental programming by deep state operatives to transform him into a human weapon who could be obediently controlled.
Once he deplaned at Ft. Lauderdale and pick up his checked bags, another person walked up to him and uttered an “activation” phrase into his ear. (It’s not science fiction. This is exactly how hypnosis can really work with enough programming reinforcement in an individual’s mind.) He then walks into the bathroom, loads his firearm and proceeds to carry out his mission by shooting people.
Once his firearm is empty, he spreads eagle on the floor, having completed his mission. This is exactly what he did, and it’s how law enforcement found him.
Ben Swann Does A “Reality Check” About Pizzagate On CBS News: Immediate Backlash Ensues + My Name Is Anneke Lucas And I Was A Sex Slave To Europe's Elite At Age 6 January 24 2017 | From: VigilantCitizen / GlobalCitizen
Ben Swann, anchor of the CBS Nightly News in Atlanta, devoted a “Reality Check” segment to the now infamous Pizzagate.
As you may know, this explosive story came out in November and was followed by an intense mass media campaign to discredit it.
My Name Is Anneke Lucas And I Was A Sex Slave To Europe's Elite At Age 6
This story is the second in a series called "Real Women, Real Stories," a social project designed to promote awareness of the often unseen hardships women face in different professions and places around the world. Read the first story in the series here.
When I was a little girl in my native Belgium, I was put to work as a sex slave.
My mother sold me, and drove me wherever, whenever she got the call. The boss of this pedophile network was a Belgian cabinet minister.
The clients were members of the elite. I recognized people from television. Their faces were familiar to the masses, while I was confronted with the dark side of their power addiction - the side no one would believe existed. I came across VIP's, European heads of state, and even a member of a royal family.
Around my sixth birthday, in 1969, I was taken to an orgy for the first time, in a castle. I was used for an S&M show, on a low stage, chained up with an iron dog collar, and made to eat human feces.
Afterwards, left lying there like a broken object, I felt so humiliated, I had to do something to save my soul, or else - and this I knew for certain - I would have withered and died.
I raised myself up, and stood looking at the bizarre crowd of aristocrats dressed up as hippies, swaying to the music in various levels of sexual interaction, busily availing themselves of little pills and pre-rolled joints passed around on silver trays by sober waiters.
I trembled in fear, but my body straightened and stilled itself like a bow in suspense before the shot, and I heard my voice as though it were not my own, chiding the adults, telling them that this was wrong – that I was going to tell on them, and that they would all go to jail.
Trippy, spacey music was oozing through the atmosphere and most people were too high to notice me. One man, wearing a business suit, caught my eye. He looked scared, but he held my gaze for a brief moment, and seemed to feel for me. Then he was gone. I never saw him again in the network, but years later I did spot him on TV. He became a prominent Belgian politician.
I was quietly led away and taken to a cellar. I was certain that I was going to be killed, but instead I was shown the fresh body of a young murder victim. I was to remain silent.
During the week, I went to school. I was a shy girl, with few friends. I remember, once, in the second grade, becoming aware of an energetic shift in the room, to realize all eyes were on me. The teacher had been calling on me, and I had been too spaced out to hear. She wondered out loud if I knew the answer to the question she had asked, and I sat in embarrassing silence while the class laughed.
I was a nonentity at school, and at home no one cared for me. I received more attention in the network. It felt good to be viewed as the most perfectly beautiful, sensual object by powerful men with high standards in taste. This was the only positive in my life, and I clung to it as my only raft to keep from drowning in a sea of shame and self-loathing.
After four years of surviving the network, when I was 10, a new guest brought along his 20-year-old son: tall, dashing, blond, and blue-eyed. He boldly advanced toward me. I smiled, and he called me a little whore. Not since the first time I had been brought to an orgy, four years earlier, had I expressed my true feelings. I was furious.
This interaction started the most intense year of my life, in which I would feel more than ever loved, seen, and understood, and would be more than ever abused, all by that same young man.
A year later, when he was through with me, I was of no use to the network anymore, and was to be killed. When my torture began, he stood watching, laughing.
This was the third time that my entire being became filled with an otherworldly force. Fierce pride straightened my body. A burning cigarette was put out on my forearm. My energetic body latched onto his in pure defiance. The thought "I don't need you!" had become me, and all I saw was the energy behind the troubled ocean of blue in his eyes, and the love in spite of all the pain he had passed on to me.
I was led away to a small room, and strapped onto a butcher's block. The man who tortured me was one of the defendants in the notorious Dutroux case, which, when it broke the news in 1996, was believed it would blow up the Belgian pedophile network.
While I had been tortured, the young man had been negotiating with the politician in charge of the network. They made a deal: he would work for the politician, extend his shady services in exchange for my life. This one good deed eventually cost him his own life. In this milieu, any shred of humanity is a deadly weakness.
My life was spared, and I was told to remain silent forever. It took me 40 years before I could speak up.
In 1988, when I was 25 years old, I was walking downtown Los Angeles, near Skid Row, and got a faint, specific whiff of human feces, and was assaulted with the memory of the extreme humiliation I had suffered as a child. My instant thought was: "If this is true, I'm going to kill myself."
I was too identified with the experience, and the shame was too great. I wasn't ready, and pushed the memory back into the subconscious. It would take several more years, many more hours of therapy, to finally share this memory with one safe person.
I share this experience publicly here for the first time, having finally reached a place in my healing where I have access once again to the strength that came through me in those moments of clarity in the network. I also believe that the world is more than ever ready to confront its darkness. We have to, if we are to survive as a species.
All survivors of incest, sexual abuse, and sex trafficking have my strength. Though I suffer from PTSD, and, for example, I still become nauseous whenever I hear a certain kind of airy, trippy music, I've become so mindful of triggers that they don't control my everyday existence. It takes so much energy to survive not only the physical violence, but to endure the psychic drain of abuse - to carry the shame.
Just surviving daily life while trying to heal from child sexual abuse requires a thousand times the strength it would require for someone without awareness to pursue a successful career. And society still values the career person over the survivor.
Power addicts, world leaders, and corrupt politicians who abuse children are themselves like children who never grew up, driven to power to avoid ever feeling the humiliation of child abuse again, unconsciously seeking revenge from a place of hurt by recycling the abuse. They lack the courage to heal.
Those of us who have suffered sexual abuse, incest or sex trafficking need to learn to harness our survival strength on our own behalf, so we can heal our damaged ego, and channel that strength to lead the way towards a future in which former victims conquer by love, understanding and compassion for all.
Notable & Bizarre Events Suggesting The Puppets Are Being Abandoned + CIA Publishes 12 Million Declassified Documents Online January 23 2017 | From: Geopolitics / Infowars
There are several events this week that we never expected to happen under normal circumstances which will enhance the credibility and resolve of the Global Resistance Movement.
'We are going to retain our position of leadership' - The lights go out on Biden during his speech in Davos
At the very least, the Resistance could not simply be discounted as mere “conspiracy theorists.”
They were right all along. Most of all, they are winning.
1. Manning Clemency
Under intense public pressure in the last few weeks, the Obama government surprise Donald Trump and the rest of the Republicans with a commutation of Chelsea Manning’s prison sentence. Manning will be released on May 17 instead of 2045, and without the quid pro quo from Wikileaks editor Julian Assange.
Ryan’s sentiments were echoed by a number of fellow Republicans, with Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina also talking about lives that were “put at risk,” and described Obama’s decision as “a slap in the face” for President-elect Donald Trump.
The 2008 Republican presidential nominee Senator John McCain (R-Arizona), who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee, said the commutation was “a grave mistake that will encourage further acts of espionage.”
… Former New York Times columnist and current Fox News contributor Judith Miller was blasted on social media after kicking off the “How many people have died” chorus as a result of Manning’s leaks following Tuesday’s announcement. But she wasn’t the only media personality to excoriate Manning.
Obama justified his action during his last press conference…
"It has been my view that given she went to trial, that due process was carried out, that she took responsibility for her crime, that the sentence she received was very disproportionate relative to what other leakers have received, and that she had served a significant amount of time, it made sense to commute – not pardon – part of her sentence,” he said.
Commutation sent a message that whistleblowers “need to work through established channels,” he added.
Working through “established channels,” Mr. Obama, is not whistleblowing, but asking for promotion.
Nevertheless, Obama just admitted the truth about their use of fake intelligence…
Another unexpected event is the recent online disclosure of the Central Intelligence Agency regarding its “full history.”.
2. CIA CREST Searchable Database
CIA Releases 13 trillion pages of declassified files online instead of just limiting its access to four terminals at the National Archives in College Park, Maryland.
The online releases include files about:
MK-ULTRA mind control program,
Project Stargate regarding human telepathy
Nazi war crimes
Cuban Missile Crisis
“CIA isn’t doing this out of the goodness of their hearts,” said Michael Best, who went to the four terminals and started scanning the files which are “technically publicly available” through the CREST database in Maryland.
A bit less than a year ago, I embarked on a quest to get a copy of the millions of pages of CIA documents stored on CREST, the CIA Records Search Tool. The CREST database was technically publicly available, in the sense that anyone could theoretically use the four computers located in the back of a library that (for budgetary reasons) lacks a librarian for half of the day.
These four computers are currently the only ones that can access the CREST database, and they’re only accessible Monday through Friday from 9 Am to 4:30 PM.
In other words, most people who aren’t full time researchers can’t use the database even if they’re within driving distance. By printing out and scanning the documents at CIA expense, I was able to begin making them freely available to the public and to give the Agency a financial incentive to simply put the database online.
I’m pleased to say that these efforts have been a success, and the Agency is putting the database online.
CIA isn’t doing this out of the goodness of their hearts. Several FOIA requests have been filed for the database, including by the National Security Archive and MuckRock. MuckRock actually sued the Agency with the help of Kel McClanahan of National Security Counselors.
The Agency said it would take 28 years to process the files. After some more legal pressure from Mr. McClanahan, the Agency reduced their estimate to six years. This was still too long, and so I began my effort.
The hope was that the financial pressure, the negative press and making it not only a legal but a practical inevitability that these files would be put online would force the Agency to speed up their timetable.
Thanks to the combined (but uncoordinated) efforts of myself and MuckRock, these files will soon be available."
According Michael Best, “There are a little over 775,000 files that make up over 13,000,000 pages that have been declassified as part of the 25-year automatic declassification review period. Before the most recent update of files at the beginning of the year, the database was estimated to be about 840 gigabytes.
Breaking these files down into categories, we get:
Secretary of State Henry Kissinger’s papers: 40,000 pages of newly declassified documents. The papers did not originate with CIA, but “contain many CIA equities.”
Directorate of Science and Technology R&D: 20,000 pages
Analytic intelligence publication files: Over 100,000 pages.
News archives: The Agency collected a lot of news stories about themselves and the subjects they were interested in. Their news archive, much of which is included in CREST, contains many
Office of the DCI Collection (ODCI): 28,550 documents/ 129,000 pages from the records of the first five Directors of Central Intelligence: Admiral Roscoe Hillenkoetter, General Walter “Bedell” Smith, Allen Dulles, John McCone, and Richard Helms. These records run from the beginning of CIA in 1947 through the late 1960s and include a wide variety of memos, letters, minutes of meetings, chronologies and related files from the Office of the DCI (ODCI) that document the high level workings of the CIA during its early years.
Directorate of Intelligence (DI) Central Intelligence Bulletins: 8,800 documents/ 123,000 pages from a collection of daily Central Intelligence Bulletins (CIB), National Intelligence Bulletins (NIB) and National Intelligence Dailies (NID) running from 1951 through 1979. The CIBs/NIBs were published six days a week (Monday through Saturday) and were all source compilations of articles and consisting initially of short Daily Briefs and longer Significant Intelligence Reports and Estimates on key events and tops of the day. The CIBs/ NIBs were circulated to high level policy-makers in the US Government.
General CIA Records: Records from the CIA’s archives that are 25 years old or older, including a wide variety of finished intelligence reports, field information reports, high-level Agency policy papers and memoranda, and other documents produced by the CIA.
STAR GATE: A 25-year Intelligence Community effort that used remote viewers who claimed to use clairvoyance, precognition, or telepathy to acquire and describe information about targets that were blocked from ordinary perception. The records include documentation of remote viewing sessions, training, internal memoranda, foreign assessments, and program reviews.
Consolidated Translations: Translated reports of foreign-language technical articles of intelligence interest, organized by author and each document covers a single subject.
Scientific Abstracts: Abstracts of foreign scientific and technical journal articles from around the world.
Ground Photo Caption Cards: Used to identify photographs in the NlMA ground photograph collection. Each caption card contains a serial number that corresponds to the identical serial number on a ground photograph. The master negatives of the ground photography collection have been accessioned separately to NARA. The caption cards provide descriptive information to help identify which master negatives researchers may wish to request.
National Intelligence Survey: National Intelligence Survey gazetteers.
NGA: Records from the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, primarily photographic intelligence reports.
Joint Publication Research Service: Provided translations of regional and topical issues in the late 1970s and early 1980s.
Office of Strategic Services files: Documents from the OSS, CIA’s World War II predecessor.
Now, the CIA has decided to put the files online for the world to peruse in their own time. Go there.
The CIA has advertised this online release as its “full history” but we disagree, of course.
In all, more than 12 million documents are accessible, covering the history of the CIA from its creation in the 1940s up to the 1990s – with intelligence officials giving assurances that the half-century of data is in its entirety, with nothing removed.
"None of this is cherry-picked,” CIA spokesperson Heather Fritz Horniak told CNN. “It’s the full history. It’s good and bads.”
But they’re not ready yet to disclose who George Bush, Sr. really is.
"According to Otto Skorzeny, pictured is the Scherff family and a few friends (circa 1938). Holding “Mother” Scherff’s hand at left is Martin Bormann. In front is Reinhardt Gehlen. In back is Joseph Mengele and to his right is Skorzeny as a young man.
At center right (in the German navy uniform) is George H. Scherff, Jr. and his father George H. Scherff, Sr. Bormann became Hitler’s second in command. Reinhardt Gehlen was a chief SS officer and assassin who was smuggled out of Germany under Operation Paperclip.
Skorzeny was Hitler’s bodyguard and SS spy/assassin who came to the U.S. after the war under Project Paperclip. Skorzeny and GHW Bush were instrumental in merging Nazi (SS) intelligence with the OSI to form the CIA with “Wild Bill” Donovan and Allen Dulles.
These guys were also part of CIA mind control experiments such as MK-ULTRA. SS officer and physician Joseph Mengele, the notoriously sadistic “Angel of Death” of Auschwitz, escaped Germany to South America after the war.
George H. Scherff, Jr., became the 41st President of the United States as GHW Bush and George H. Scherff, Sr., was Nicola Tesla’s “trusted assistant.”
The censorship continues with Facebook banning Russia Today from posting in its platform until after Trump’s inauguration day…
In contrast to Obama’s non-event last press conference from the comfort of the White House press room, VP Joe Biden took a wrong turn in Davos, he later found out.
3. Exit stage left: Lights go out on Biden as he talks of US ‘leadership’ in Davos speech
It may have just been coincidence, or perhaps something more symbolic, but whatever it was, Joe Biden saw the lights go out on him as he mentioned US “leadership” during his last major speech as vice president, in Davos, Switzerland.
“We are going to retain our position of leadership,” Biden was telling the audience at the World Economic Forum in Davos, when the lights on stage began to dim.
Lights go out on Biden as he talks of US ‘leadership’ in Davos speech
Rendered a dark silhouette, and seemingly unimpressed, the outgoing vice president carried on talking about the West’s ideas and visions of the world. “If we don’t fight for our values, no one else will,” he said from the darkness.
Moments later the lights came back on, allowing Biden to proceed with his rather dark warnings to the world.
Biden used his final major speech while in office to accuse Russia and President Vladimir Putin of “purposefully” aiming to “collapse the liberal international order.”
He meant his team’s collapsing world order, in favor of a new one…
"An agreement ceremony is being held at the United Nations headquarters in New York City as RT starts broadcasting within the UN HQ internal information network. RT Director General Aleksey Nikolov and UN Under-Secretary-General Cristina Gallach are delivering speeches at the ceremony."
4. Agreement Ceremony as RT Starts Broadcasting on UN HQ Network
So, although Facebook suspended RT’s updates until after Trump’s inauguration, the UN leadership is doing exactly the opposite.
This leads us to speculate that something really big that they don’t want for RT to spread around quickly is afoot during the next president’s inauguration, that we can only see now as a mass protest.
Filed as mandated by the Department of Labor’s Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification, or WARN notice, on January 12, the Clinton Foundation’s Veronika Shiroka advised the DOL that as part of a “Plant Layoff” it would layoff 22 workers on April 15, with reason for the dislocation stated as “Discontinuation of the Clinton Global Initiative.”
The layoffs are part of the Clinton plan put in motion ahead of the presidential election, to offset a storm of criticism regarding pay-to-play allegations during Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state.
Whether the entire Clinton Foundation will be closed down for good, or not, is still a big question. Will the Trump administration pursue its campaign commitment of investigating the Clinton couple for all its crimes?
Most of the Davos Conference attendees this year are more optimistic with the presence of Xi Jinping, and the election of Donald Trump, while pessimistic with a renewal of Nazionist Merkel’s term of office, and another provocative, massive NATO deployment of troops and materiel along the Russian border.
Make no mistake, there’s still a war going on in the Middle East particularly in Syria, and the ongoing genocide in Yemen.
Both Russia and Turkey are now working together to finish off the job against Daesh terrorists who continue to pester around the eastern parts of Syria.
"On Wednesday, the Russian military confirmed that Russian and Turkish combat aircraft had carried out their first joint aerial operation against targets in Syria… Turkish defense analyst Koray Gurbuz said that the joint operation has effectively forced the US-led anti-Daesh coalition to remember that there’s a war on."
All of this trouble is, of course, courtesy of the outgoing Obama administration.
Both China and Iran have pledged to support the post-war reconstruction of Syria. Trump is also invited to the peace talks in Astana this year.
Eventually, both Xi and Trump will compete as to who will control the global economy, free of global wars and regional conflicts, from hereon.
We are now entering a transitory phase to a multipolar world, and since we haven’t been here before, we can expect a few bumps here and there.
All we need to do now is prevent the new leaderships from having the urge of turning people into virtual machines that they can switch on and off, as they want. We must tread carefully upon a well-coordinated move to abolish cash in favor of its digital counterpart that is still within the Rothschild’s central banks’ control.
CIA Publishes Over 12 Million Pages Of Declassified Documents Online
Documents include everything from CIA mind control efforts to government overthrows.
The Central Intelligence Agency published more than 12 million declassified documents online Tuesday after years of restricting access.
The documents, dated from the 1940s to 1990s, surround everything from the overthrow of foreign governments to the CIA’s mind-control efforts.
Originally declassified by former President Bill Clinton in 1995, the documents were only available after the year 2000 on computers hosted at the National Archives in Washington D.C.
Joseph Lambert, the CIA’s director of information management, told Buzzfeed’s Jason Leopold publication ensures the massive cache can be accessed by anyone “from the comfort of your own home.”
"We’ve been working on this for a very long time and this is one of the things I wanted to make sure got done before I left,” Lambert added.
In 2014 the CIA had originally told media outlet MuckRock, who filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit in order to obtain access to the archive, that at least 6 years would be needed to release the entire database.
In a court filing last November the CIA informed MuckRock it instead anticipated that only a year would be needed before the “database will be publicly available online.”
Some of the more eyebrow-raising documents, as noted by Leopold, include files on media outlets and the CIA’s “Star Gate” program.
"There are also secret documents about a telepathy and precognition program known as Star Gate, files the CIA kept on certain media publications, such as Mother Jones, photographs, more than 100,000 pages of internal intelligence bulletins, policy papers, and memos written by former CIA directors.”
Donald Trump Versus The Main Stream Media: New President Is Beating The Press, But More Combat Is Coming & Analyzing Mainstream News Anti-Logic January 21 2017 | From: Breitbart / JonRappoport / Various
Most members of the Main Stream Media like to think of themselves as peace-loving. And so, as part of their mellow feelings toward the planet, MSM-ers enjoy shopping at Whole Foods; indeed, many are so refined in their thinking that they are vegans.
So of course they support gun control, oppose the death penalty and the Pentagon budget, and pride themselves on voting for pro-“peace” candidates. And yet when it comes right down to it, in their own line of work, they are plenty militant, even warlike. And that goes double if the target is Donald Trump.
Yes, if Trump is in the picture, then journos easily slip into the language, and the thinking, of combat and war. This makes sense, because, for better or for worse, the vocabulary of fighting suffuses everyday speech, and “nice” reporters are no exception.
In particular, when humans wish to organize themselves to do something, they tend to adopt military forms; the word “campaign,” for example, was used to describe military operations long before it was used to describe political operations.
A case in point is the headline that appeared in the hard-copy of the January 13 edition of The New York Times: “Outgunned, Outmaneuvered and in Need of a Game Plan.” Later, perhaps at the prodding of gun-control groups, that headline was softened to, “As Trump Berates News Media, a New Strategy Is Needed to Cover Him” Still, the word “strategy” is there in the header, reaching, as it does, deep into military history.
We might pause to note that the piece was written by the Times’ media columnist, Jim Rutenberg, who, from his lofty journalistic perch, has emerged as the dean of anti-Trump press-punditry. Back in August, Rutenberg wrote that it was time for journalists to junk the idea of being unbiased about Trump and instead move “closer to being oppositional.”
Translated, reporters should now feel liberated to call Trump any name they can think of, including liar - and the MSM has done just that, of course, with gusto.
More recently, in that January 13 column, Rutenberg warned his readers that Trump, “a master media manipulator,” was winning the battle against the press. That is, the President-elect had been using his power to “expertly delegitimize the news media,” thus changing the subject from his own record to the media’s record. Seeing a serious problem as a result, Rutenberg added:
“The news media remains an unwitting accomplice in its own diminishment as it fails to get a handle on how to cover this new and wholly unprecedented president.”
Could Trump really be doing all that? It sure looks that way. After all, if the MSM is waging war on Trump, Trump is also waging war on the MSM. Indeed, we might add, Trump is doing a better job - he’s winning.
And why is he winning? Because he’s smarter and tougher.
Most obviously, there’s Trump’s Twitter feed, which now numbers 20 million followers. As he has said, possessing an audience that big is like owning The New York Times, only without the financial losses. Moreover, including all forms of social media, his audience totals some 50 million.
And yet even that big number understates his impact, because his messages always echo in the news. It’s fair to say that even before Trump is inaugurated as president, he has proven that when he wants to get a point across, everyone in the country gets it.
So here we might be tempted to interpolate the wisdom of the ancient Chinese military strategist Sun Tzu, who declared;
“He will win who, prepared himself, waits to take the enemy unprepared.”
And Trump has been prepared.
And yes, sheer gumption matters, too. It was Trump the man who stared down Megyn Kelly, the Pope, all his Republican rivals, and Hillary Clinton. And most recently, Trump won the confrontation over the “dirty dossier,” the passel of allegations leaked by the “Intelligence Community” last week and published, in all its inglorious non-detail detail, by BuzzFeed.
In his January 11 press conference, held in the middle of the resulting media firestorm, Trump showed no fear as he took on virtually the entire press corps.
He denied all the allegations, adding that reporters should be ashamed of themselves for even thinking of bringing up such an unverified opposition-research dump. He refused to take a question from CNN’s Jim Acosta, labeling the entire network as “fake news,” and he lambasted BuzzFeed as a “failing pile of garbage.”
And in fact, soon the MSM was scampering away from the dossier; investigative-reporting legend Bob Woodward agreed with Trump, calling it a “garbage document.” And then, on Twitter, Trump hit back even harder, comparing the attack on him to some sort of atrocity out of Nazi Germany.
The Real Purpose of Intel Report on Russian Hacking With Abby Martin & Ben Norton
On this episode of On Contact, Chris Hedges is joined by journalists Abby Martin and Ben Norton to discuss the declassified U.S. intelligence report on Russia’s alleged “influence campaign” on the U.S. presidential election.
They explore the allegations and why a large portion of the report is dedicated to RT America’s programming. RT correspondent Anya Parampil details the charges made in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence report.
Needless to say, this turn of events has been disturbing to diehard Trump haters such as Rutenberg. As he wrote to his brothers and sisters in the Fourth Estate, the next time they were going to do battle with Trump, they had to have a stronger plan.
And speaking of the MSM as a whole, Rutenberg added;
“It better figure things out, fast, because it has found itself at the edge of the cliff.”
That is, the Trump communications shop is considering a plan to move the White House press corps from its current location in the West Wing to the Eisenhower Executive Office Building. In the words of Sean Spicer, the incoming White House press secretary:
“While no decisions have been made, there is enormous interest in covering Donald Trump. The current briefing room only has 49 seats, so we have looked at rooms within the White House to conduct briefings that have additional capacity.”
Spicer makes a good point: In a country of 320 million people, plus the rest of the world, why should just 49 individuals get the privilege of sitting in on press briefings?
Why not move to a location that would enable more reporters to participate? Isn’t that what freedom is all about?
Needless to say, the White House Correspondents Association (WHCA) doesn’t agree. It’s an insider club; it doesn’t like the prospect of opening its doors to new competition, not one little bit.
And even though the possible new location in the EEOB is less than 100 feet away from the West Wing, it is, as far as the MSM is concerned, an exile to Siberia. (And never mind the fact that until the 1890s, reporters didn’t have regular access to the White House at all; back then, they had to stand around outside the building. And yet, somehow, the First Amendment survived.)
In the meantime, one could even say that the WHCA is “up in arms” over this possible relocation; attendance at its meetings has tripled, as reporters “march toward the sound of the guns.”
In the meantime, as the Battle of the Briefing Room is being waged, the MSM has just scored a victory of its own. On Monday, Monica Crowley, slated to be the communications point-person for the National Security Council, announced that she would not, after all, be joining the Trump administration. Crowley had been barraged by revelations from CNN that seemed to indicate repeated incidents of plagiarism.
As The New Republiccheered, “This also creates a fresh incentive for both journalists and Congress to keep investigating Trump’s nominees.”
So yes, although the MSM has taken some hard punches of late, it still has the ability to punch back. It’s a war, of attack and counter-attack. Or, as Virgil used to say in olden times, et ferrum iterum ferrum.
This struggle is likely to go on for as long as Trump is president, although Breitbart readers, of course, tutored in #WAR, know that the fight is never-ending.
Yet at the moment, with the right resurgent and the left lurching, it’s the MSM, as Rutenberg suggests, that is most in need of self-examination - as a prelude, it can hope, to better strategizing in the future.
And so the MSM is doing just that, carrying on its informal planning sessions over casual coffee, through morning conference calls, via e-mail list-servs and message boards, in op-eds, and, of course, at myriad university - and foundation-funded seminars and conferences.
Who knows if all this cogitation will produce a better strategy or not; all we know for sure is that the MSM is waging a robust debate with itself, trying hard to come up with better answers than it has had in the past.
Oh, and one other thing we know for sure: The objective is, always, to destroy Donald Trump.
Thousands of articles have been written about the so-called Russian hack of the US election. The term “Russian hack” suggests the Russkies actually found a way to subvert the results of voting machines.
But of course, no convincing evidence has been presented to support such a charge. In fact, when you drill down a few inches below the surface, you find this charge instead: Russia hacked into email accounts and scooped up Hillary, DNC, and Podesta emails, and passed them to WikiLeaks, who then published them.
No chain of evidence supporting this claim has been presented to the public, either. But even assuming the assertion is true, an important factor is intentionally being ignored: THE CONTENT OF THOSE LEAKED EMAILS.
In other words, if making all this content publicly available cost Hillary the election, and if no one is seriously questioning the authenticity of the emails, then THE TRUTH undermined Hillary. However, no major media outlet is reporting the story from that angle.
After all, how would this headline look? TRUE CONTENT OF LEAKED EMAILS SINKS HILLARY CLINTON. Or this? HILLARY COULDN’T REFUTE CONTENT OF LEAKED EMAILS AND SO SHE LOST THE ELECTION.
Those headlines would attract millions of clicks. Why weren’t they printed? It’s reasonable to assume big news outlets didn’t want readers to think about the story from that perspective.
Why not? Why was the heavy emphasis put on the hacking of the emails? To obscure the importance of their content: for example, DNC collusion to obstruct and undermine the campaign of Bernie Sanders.
“Let’s make the story all about WHO we claim stole the emails, rather than WHAT THE EMAILS CONTAINED.”
When a tape surfaced in which Trump spoke about women who were eager to have sex with famous men, did major media make the story all about who had the tape and who released it to the press? No.
Perhaps you remember this 2009 email-hack controversy. Wikipedia sums it up:
“The Climatic Research Unit email controversy (also known as “Climategate”) began in November 2009 with the hacking of a server at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) by an external attacker, copying thousands of emails and computer files, the Climatic Research Unit documents, to various internet locations several weeks before the Copenhagen Summit on climate change.”
One of the most revealing elements in the email exchanges: an obvious attempt to sideline scientific critics of global warming. But major media quickly began to reframe the story.
It was all about illegal hacking, and investigations were launched to determine the criminal.
The contents of the emails were brushed off as “proprietary work product” and “misleading” because “context was missing.”
The case of Edward Snowden was somewhat different. There the media felt compelled to expose the CONTENT of the NSA documents Snowden stole. They also gave considerable space to Snowden himself.
To some degree, this was a fait accompli, because The Guardian newspaper was committed, from the beginning, to publishing NSA documents and an analysis of their meaning - so other media outlets followed suit. Getting the picture?
Big news media decide whether to focus on the WHO or the WHAT, in each case. “Should we give primary coverage to the leaker or what he leaked?”
But that is not a choice you are making. It’s a choice being made for you.
Government agencies and spokespeople leak news to the press all the time. In these instances, the press doesn’t turn around and launch a probe aimed at exposing the WHO and discovering WHY a particular tidbit was passed along for publication. Newspapers and television news departments simply run with the stories.
“Okay, Bob. Here’s a little gem for you. The White House and the Congress are cooperating on this one. In the next few days, a piece of legislation is going to be inserted into a current bill in the House. It’ll establish a working group to combat ‘fake news’ operations that confuse the public…”
Does Bob bite the hand that feeds him? Does he write a story accusing the White House of trying to knock out independent news competitors who contradict official reality? Of course not. Bob plays along.
Sometimes, both the WHO and the WHAT are censored. Such was the case with CDC whistleblower, William Thompson, who confessed publicly, in August of 2014, that he and colleagues at the CDC committed fraud in a 2004 study of the MMR vaccine and its possible connection to autism.
Thompson admitted the study was cooked, to make it seem the vaccine didn’t increase the risk of autism, when in fact it did.
The mainstream press put a chokehold on the story. Aside from scattered references, and official denials, the story faded quickly. The leaker and what he was leaking remained in the shadows. Independent news outlets (such as this one) kept the story percolating.
In summary, there is no logic in the mainstream approach to leaks and leakers. These days, the WHO and WHAT are decided on the basis of serving official interests and agendas - and repressing the public interest.
New Zealand Fluoridation Legislation: Take Action Now! January 20 2017 | From: Uncensored / Various Legislation was introduced to Parliament on the 17th November 2016. This Legislation will shift responsibility from the local councils and give it to the District Health Boards. It is designed to make it virtually impossible to stop fluoridation in currently fluoridated areas, or to keep it out of places that do not have it – even if they have said “no” to it in the past.
Local Councils will be required to do as the DHB dictates or face a fine of $200,000 and a further $10,000 per day of non-compliance.
Related: Fluoride Action Network: A Report From New Zealand This Legislation does not allow for DHBs to consult with the community and it only allows a very narrow range for the DHBs to evaluate the subject as they will only be allowed to consider dental health in the community against the cost of fluoridation.
They are being steered to only consider the 2009 Oral Health Survey rather than much more comprehensive data.
They are not given any leeway to consider overall health effects.
Submissions Close 2nd of February
As you will see from the transcript and related documents and the video footage of the MPs that spoke at the first Reading (5th of December 2016) – National, Labour and the Greens support the Bill. The Labour Party even want to strengthen the legislation by making it mandated by Central Government just in case a DHB tries to wriggle out of it.
You will also see that none of the speakers know very much about the subject. Health Select Committee Chair Simon O’Connor mistakenly credits his good teeth on taking fluoride tablets as a child.
Unbeknownst to him, the Ministry of Health no longer recommends fluoride tablets because we now know fluoride doesn’t work by swallowing and fluoride tablets cause dental fluorosis!
Associate Health Minister Peter Dunne, who introduced the Bill, has called us “tin-foil hat wearing, UFO-abducted pseudo-scientists.” He mustn’t realise that he is insulting around half of the NZ population.
Results from all referenda held in NZ show that people tend to vote status quo. As only half of the country is fluoridated (23 councils out of 67, not “27 councils have rejected fluoridation” as Peter Dunne incorrectly stated) which means that roughly half the population is opposed to fluoridation (or maybe more than half) and if a nationwide referendum was held tomorrow, we would have a good chance of winning.
The NZ First Party thinks the issue should be decided by local referendum. The Greens supported the Bill “at first Reading stage” as they, too, have concerns about local decision-making – but the Greens as a party do think fluoridation is safe and effective. It shows that most of them must only have read the Ministry of Health propaganda.
How to Stop the Legislation
The Government is now giving until the 2nd of February for us to send in written feedback on the issue. The law allows everyone who gives feedback to have 10 minutes speaking time for individuals, and 15 minutes for organisations.
At the Hamilton Tribunal in 2013, 1557 people put in a submission, 1385 opposed fluoridation and 130 people spoke at the hearing to support their submission. That required the councillors to sit through 3.5 days of oral submissions and the result was a 7 to 1 vote to stop fluoridation.
Unfortunately, some Hamilton councillors who had excused themselves from the Tribunal Hearing because of a conflict of interest, and did not bother to attend the Hearing as part of the audience, subsequently worked to overthrow that decision. (See Hamilton page if you would like more information on that).
Therefore, we urge everyone to give written feedback, and do their utmost to speak to that submission in person. We have been advised that It is best to keep feedback to a page or two with around half a dozen really salient points. The Hearing will be in Wellington, which is likely to be in February or perhaps March next year..
Ways to Give Feedback:
Use this Online Form If you don’t know what to say, a personal testimony is good, or attach an article already written (suggestions here) or list a few points as suggested above. Send hard copy to Health Select Committee, Parliament Buildings, Wellington. It is really good if you can also say you will speak to your submission. This can be done by Skype if you cannot make it to Wellington.
Fluoride Free New Zealand will be providing a comprehensive written submission where we will explain the ineffectiveness and dangers of fluoridation and details of public dental health programmes operating overseas that actually do reduce dental decay.
Please encourage your friends and family to help us now by sending feedback to the Committee and by informing everyone they know on the facts about fluoridation. The number of people that do this makes a difference!
You can also help by posting respectful and informative comments on Facebook, liking posts and comments and joining the discussions, particularly on the Facebook pages of the Health Select Committee Members. See the list below.
Remember, this is election year. We need to let politicians know we will not vote for them if they introduce this draconian legislation.
While trust lawyers market us to foreign capital, Tourism New Zealand has spent the last 17 years proclaiming us to be “100% Pure New Zealand“.
Comment: This article points out some facts that fly in the face of the official line. It should be noted however, that all Western countries have been under Cabal control and subjected to a very similar set of circumstances. This is not just happening in NZ.
Although there was a time when New Zealand had a pristine and untouched environment, it is long past. Yet the assertions to the contrary are deliberately constructed, tailored and manicured by marketing and advertising gurus who, with wheels freshly greased by public funds, then impress them upon the global public.
“The national tourism agency can’t put a dollar figure on the total cost of 100% Pure over its [then] 13-year run, citing commercial sensitivity…”
Indeed the Tourism Authority, which publishes its Three Year Marketing Strategy, has redacted the entire budget allocation section. It is the only segment which has been blacked out.
Astonishingly, the leader of New Zealand likened the country’s tourism marketing to, of all things, a McDonalds meal and infers that the advertising should not be taken seriously. Stuff.co.nz reports:
Prime Minister John Key compared New Zealand’s global “100% Pure” tourism marketing campaign to a fast food ad.
“It’s like saying ‘McDonald’s, I’m lovin’ it’ – I’m not sure every moment that someone’s eating McDonald’s, they’re loving it… it’s the same thing with 100% Pure,” he said.
“It’s got to be taken with a bit of a pinch of salt.”
The Panama Papers is a prime example of the Prime Minister applying this ‘with a bit of a pinch of salt’ attitude to the international image and reputation of New Zealand . Now the world is beginning to rub its eyes and awaken from the dream that has become a nightmare: ‘100% Pure New Zealand’ is as pure as a Big Mac Combo.
New Zealand Is A Big Mac
According to McDonalds.com a Big Mac contains:
“A double layer of sear-sizzled 100% pure beef mingled with special sauce on a sesame seed bun and topped with melty American cheese, crisp lettuce, minced onions and tangy pickles.”
According to Fooducate.com, a Big Mac contains over 80 ingredients, the vast majority of which are human-manufactured chemical compounds, including:
So this is what our Prime Minister’s political agenda and spin has reduced us to. A Big Mac combo. Looks good and safe in the posters, but it can kill you.
Unfortunately there is a whole lot more under the surface than just dodgy hamburger ingredients. The damage that has been wreaked upon the land, particularly after the last 8 years is vast, profound and potentially irreversible.
It is overdue for us to examine how precisely the Land of the Long White Cloud was so thoroughly desecrated – when, why and who by.
The Big Picture
The 1% run a transnational operation and they collect countries like baseball cards. Once consumed those countries exist in name and our memories only. They are added like stocks to a portfolio, run by the real bond traders – a conglomerate of intelligence agencies that, where New Zealand is concerned, operate under the auspices of the Five Eyes (FVEY).
Tiered, like a twisted wedding cake in reverse, FVEY holds the vast majority of all the world’s electronic data. A two-way waterfall, it vacuums up everything it can off all those below it, with or without their co-operation, then trickles a portion of it back down over the tiers, in quantities that reflect their diplomatic priority or favoured status.
The harsh truth is that for the countries who have been sucked into this arrangement, there are effectively no governments. The entire charade of politics is precisely that – a pantomime. You could turn the sound off and it would make no tangible difference to the political course of the country which, except in extremely rare circumstances, is not charted by the citizens.
Because democracy is the greatest undelivered promise of the 20th century. Which is why the mask of Western civilisation is set askew by any exercise of democratic rights to dissent – by any mass movement of the people – be it Occupy Wall Street, Black Lives Matter, or any other.
Our heads of government are civil servants only in the sense that they maintain a public veneer of civility and they are indeed servants – to people who we seldom know the names of and have never voted for.
“Our relationship with the United States is in the best shape it’s been in for a very, very long time.”
This is unsurprising given that a member of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York has been in charge of our country for the last 8 years.
According to Wikipedia, the FRBNY is ‘the most important of the banks‘.
So first we get a Prime Minister with a U.S. Federal Reserve seal of approval, then next thing we know, American National Security Agency facilities are revealed on New Zealand soil.
Despite the obvious lack of any foreign bases operating on American soil. Because funnily enough, the Americans do not allow foreign countries to operate bases on their soil.
As I once discovered by reading Bob Woodward’s books, you can often learn more from those who disagree with you than from those who agree. It’s amazing what slips through the cracks. While full of imperial apologism, this link is an absolutely fascinating anatomy of the justifications for US military hegemony that are used to indoctrinate much of the First World.
I highly recommend that you take the time to read the full discussion. There are countless edifying morsels. Also many contradictions.
The various reasonings for American global domination include:
It’s just to save global trade from pirates and criminals
It’s because other countries can’t defend themselves
It’s so other nations don’t have to spend so much on their own military
It’s because “America cooks the dinner and Europe does the dishes“
While more than 90% of the conversation is pro-Empire, eventually the excuses lessen and there are some pretty major insights.
Which indicates that the exercise of US power is less about stopping pirates or protecting trade routes, but actually involves outright malicious invasion and subterfuge to the detriment of its perceived enemies.
“The US military is that house guest of dubious benefit, questionable timing, faulty manners, but impeccable credit. “
What has never been sufficiently explained either in rhetoric or in law is how a Commonwealth Country like New Zealand, supposedly beholden to the British Crown, has American military facilities and direct political influence, seemingly more so than British.
Yet Britain ostensibly didn’t bat an eyelid at the Edward Snowden revelations about New Zealand. Which suggests that, as with arguably more than 100 other countries, the U.K. has also been thoroughly compromised by the United States.
That from a military perspective, they function as one. That their national interests are aligned.
But this is not how we were raised. We were raised to believe we are a sovereign nation that, when necessary, stands up to the superpowers and exerts an independent foreign policy, even if that comes at a diplomatic or political cost.
Yet how could we ever again engineer and assert a differentiating foreign policy now? With the infrastructure of global oppression present on our soil, hoovering up the private communications of all our citizens, in complete irreverence for our Bill of Rights?
We have to go back 30 years to get a glimpse of a Prime Minister prepared to take personal risks on principle.
One who not only stood against the Americans, but even against the Commonwealth itself, when Prime Minister David Lange went to England to publicly defend our anti-nuclear stance. From the documentary, “Revolution“:
David Lange: “Margaret Thatcher sent a note through her High Commissioner, which he delivered to me, asking me not to do it and that sealed it as far as I was concerned. I told him what I thought of him, and of his new hair dye and various other things like that!
And I decided definitely to go, and we settled the terms of the debate. It was one of those interesting occasions when Foreign Affairs were put to the test. I went to the UK without any Foreign Affairs official. It was the only time a Prime Minister has ever travelled out of New Zealand, without a Foreign Affairs official."
Interviewer: “Was that because they disapproved…’
David Lange: “Oh, they disapproved completely. ”
Interviewer: “Did they try to talk you out of it?”
David Lange: “They did… It was unbelievably fraught with danger and yet had such potential for advantage, and I was attracted to it.”
There was of course, despite the risk, a happy ending. Lange’s performance was historic and compelling; he received a standing ovation from both sides of the debate at the Oxford Union – an occurrence the President of the Union said he had never witnessed in 25 years.
In that very debate, Lange spoke to the United States’ reaction to New Zealand’s exertion of its own sovereignty.
Lange: “We are in fact, to be made an example of! We are to be ostracised! We are to be convicted of some form of heresy and put on probation. We are to be kept there until we are compelled to resume our seat in the dress circle of the nuclear theatre.”
The debate was a huge win, for which Lange was internationally lauded.
Yet it was soon followed by an act of terrorism on New Zealand territory, when French agents bombed the Greenpeace flagship, the Rainbow Warrior, killing a New Zealander and sinking the vessel.
David Lange: “It was a defining moment for me because I knew that was the end of any New Zealand commitment to the so-called Western alliance. It was not when it was sunk that I knew, it was when we knew who’d sunk it that I knew. Then the overwhelming silence from Great Britain.
Margaret Thatcher was prepared to condemn Gaddafi for everything but the French could go and kill people in our harbour. [Australian Prime Minister] Hawke never said anything. Ronald Reagan pretended total indifference.
We never had a peep out of those people that we were allegedly in a Western alliance with, those people who fought for democracy.”
So the UK was silent when an ally committed an act of “state-sponsored terrorism” on its own Commonwealth territory. What a remarkable object lesson.
Rainbow Warrior Sinking 25 Years On - Nine News
New Zealand, however, was not cowed. It upped the ante and passed its nuclear-free legislation into law and was promptly kicked out of the ANZUS defense agreement.
Yet we stood tall and defiant.
David Lange: “The great irony of the last fifteen years of foreign policy, has been that our foreign policy stance had the seeds of its change.. in my government… it was nurtured and watered by the American reprisals, but it was set in a hanging basket by the French. It was all their own work.
Thus the bullying of New Zealand had the opposite of its intended effect."
This short video discusses the impact of New Zealand’s past political independence.
New Zealand Anti-Nuclear History: Prominent Kiwis Share Their Views
As Marianne Elliott from ActionStation.co.nz says:
“…it reminds me that it is possible to completely shift a political narrative and to arrive at a political outcome which seemed radical and impossible at the beginning.”
And Peter Douglas:
“…New Zealanders are very proud of the fact that they live in a country that was small but brave enough to make those sort of pronouncements and to suffer the consequences of them at that time.”
The American political and military subjugation of New Zealand that has occurred in this new millennium would once have been considered a literal invasion. Their bases being present on our land, an act of war.
Yet John Key’s government, awash in and drunk on the conspiratorial secrecy of the Five Eyes intelligence-sharing network, has been complicit in playing down the extent of the American infiltration and projected a nonchalance in the face of the recent revelations.
It has openly accelerated our very obvious transition into American vassalage and despite there being no legal precedent outside of various secretive military co-operation agreements, New Zealanders are supposed to ignore or accept the corrosion and ultimately the loss of their natural rights and their national identity.
Patriotism: A Foreign Concept
We are suffering attack after attack on hard-won liberties and allowing the agenda of the global American Empire to dominate all domestic considerations.
An Empire that literally consumes everything it touches. Sucks out all worth and value, asset-strips and impoverishes. Privatises gains and socialises losses.
Our country is but a hollow shell, relegated to nostalgia.
A country where patriotism has become a foreign concept – a luxury only afforded within the bounds of American Exceptionalism – and even then, the only true loyalty is to capital.
A country where the desecration of our land and the blood and pain of our people is the price of our enslavement to the global 0.00001%. Where humanitarianism is depicted as a dirty word and empathy ill-advised; a privilege; one with strings attached, that attracts blowback.
In a world where narcissists brand the courageous narcissistic; and call the learned naive. Empaths, they call us. They spit it. As if to care about others is the most dirty, heathen concept imaginable to them.
Bullshit because the impotent indexes themselves are inherently flawed. They prop up a myth that ‘somewhere is OK!’ and provide false hope to the global populace.
But I call bullshit mostly because New Zealand is in fact, unsafe, not at all peaceful, and corrupt. It is however, accomplished at hiding it, and trades on a reputation that is extremely outdated, if not outright misleading.
Street fights are a norm in the central business districts at night, but also happen in broad daylight and in schools.
A legacy of John Key’s predecessor, Helen Clark, is the absolute mountains of money spent on international P.R. during the making of Peter Jackson’s ‘Lord Of The Rings’ movies, to promote an image of New Zealand befitting the scenery of the movies: wholesome. Green. Natural. Untouched.
Child obesity going through the roof. Adult obesity going through the roof. Citizens who dare protest the above conditions, are being interfered with, stalked, harassed, maligned, abused, assaulted and exiled by the domestic security agencies.
All this under the auspices of the Five Eyes.
The Five Eyes Is Actually The Four Eyes… And The Three Eyes…
Herein lies the great inequality of the intelligence sharing agreements with the United States that New Zealand citizens have been subjected to.
For while we are told that through the FVEY, we are ‘partners’, which supposedly is of significant enough value to justify spying on our entire domestic citizenry and handing all that intelligence over to FOREIGN NATIONS…. it turns out that actually, FVEY is not the top-tier of that twisted, reverse wedding cake.
There is in fact:
Kiwis refusal to allow nuclear-powered US warships in our waters led to the creation of the Four Eyes, a new military intelligence-sharing tier and explicitly excluding us.
Then when the Canadians had a crisis of conscience, quite rightly as history shows us, and refused to join in the destruction of Iraq in 2002, they too effectively got kicked from the club, and the Three Eyes was born.
Making the US, the UK and Australia the top tier of the wedding cake. Right?
Well, actually, no.
The Two Eyes
According to a commenter on electrospaces.net:
Cost Vs. Benefit
Given all the above, we have to ask ourselves. What is New Zealand really gaining by our alignment with Empire?
While inevitably, study after study will come out claiming that we are a Utopian paradise. Nothing could be further from the truth. If the country in its current form really is the best this world has to offer – we have utterly failed ourselves, this planet, its peoples and our future generations.
For the desecration of New Zealand continues to be tolerated domestically and concealed internationally.
The picture is really bleak and will remain so, until we accept responsibility and rise to change it.
I pray to one day be able to report on how we reversed the trend. But that will take courage, unity and action. Foresight, commitment and integrity.
Hype Fake News Now, Muted Retractions Later | MSM Death Throes January 17 2017 | From: Geopolitics / Various The corporate mainstream media networks are now experiencing massive symptoms suggesting, without any shadow of doubt, that they are in their death throes.
They are now deliberately publishing unverified information, hyping it for maximum audience impact, only to retract it weeks later, but without the same aggressive push as before, so that those who got the first bite will never realize the full story, i.e. that there wasn’t any story to begin with.
WashPost Is Richly Rewarded for False News About Russia Threat While Public Is Deceived
In the past six weeks, the Washington Post published two blockbuster stories about the Russian threat that went viral: one on how Russia is behind a massive explosion of “fake news,” the other on how it invaded the U.S. electric grid. Both articles were fundamentally false.
Each now bears a humiliating editor’s note grudgingly acknowledging that the core claims of the story were fiction: The first note was posted a full two weeks later to the top of the original article; the other was buried the following day at the bottom.
The second story on the electric grid turned out to be far worse than I realized when I wrote about it on Saturday, when it became clear that there was no “penetration of the U.S. electricity grid” as the Post had claimed.
In addition to the editor’s note, the Russia-hacked-our-electric-grid story now has a full-scale retraction in the form of a separate article admitting that “the incident is not linked to any Russian government effort to target or hack the utility” and there may not even have been malware at all on this laptop.
But while these debacles are embarrassing for the paper, they are also richly rewarding. That’s because journalists - including those at the Post - aggressively hype and promote the original, sensationalistic false stories, ensuring that they go viral, generating massive traffic for the Post (the paper’s executive editor, Marty Baron, recently boasted about how profitable the paper has become).
After spreading the falsehoods far and wide, raising fear levels and manipulating U.S. political discourse in the process (both Russia stories were widely hyped on cable news), journalists who spread the false claims subsequently note the retraction or corrections only in the most muted way possible, and often not at all.
As a result, only a tiny fraction of people who were exposed to the original false story end up learning of the retractions.
Baron himself, editorial leader of the Post, is a perfect case study in this irresponsible tactic. It was Baron who went to Twitter on the evening of November 24 to announce the Post’s exposé of the enormous reach of Russia’s fake news operation, based on what he heralded as the findings of “independent researchers.”
Baron’s tweet went all over the place; to date, it has been re-tweeted more than 3,000 times, including by many journalists with their own large followings:
But after that story faced a barrage of intense criticism - from Adrian Chen in the New Yorker (“propaganda about Russia propaganda”), Matt Taibbi in Rolling Stone (“shameful, disgusting”), my own article, and many others - including legal threats from the sites smeared as Russian propaganda outlets by the Post’s “independent researchers” - the Post finally added its lengthy editor’s note distancing itself from the anonymous group that provided the key claims of its story (“The Post... does not itself vouch for the validity of PropOrNot’s findings” and “since publication of the Post’s story, PropOrNot has removed some sites from its list”).
What did Baron tell his followers about this editor’s note that gutted the key claims of the story he hyped? Nothing. Not a word. To date, he has been publicly silent about these revisions.
Having spread the original claims to tens of thousands of people, if not more, he took no steps to ensure that any of them heard about the major walk back on the article’s most significant, inflammatory claims. He did, however, ironically find the time to promote a different Post story about how terrible and damaging Fake News is:
Whether the Post’s false stories here can be distinguished from what is commonly called “Fake News” is, at this point, a semantic dispute, particularly since “Fake News” has no cogent definition. Defenders of Fake News as a distinct category typically emphasize intent in order to differentiate it from bad journalism.
That’s really just a way of defining Fake News so as to make it definitionally impossible for mainstream media outlets like the Post ever to be guilty of it (much the way terrorism is defined to ensure that the U.S. government and its allies cannot, by definition, ever commit it).
But what was the Post’s motive in publishing two false stories about Russia that, very predictably, generated massive attention, traffic, and political impact? Was it ideological and political - namely, devotion to the D.C. agenda of elevating Russia into a grave threat to U.S. security?
Was it to please its audience - knowing that its readers, in the wake of Trump’s victory, want to be fed stories about Russian treachery? Was it access and source servitude - proving it will serve as a loyal and uncritical repository for any propaganda intelligence officials want disseminated?
Was it profit - to generate revenue through sensationalistic click-bait headlines with a reckless disregard to whether its stories are true? In an institution as large as the Post, with numerous reporters and editors participating in these stories, it’s impossible to identify any one motive as definitive.
Whatever the motives, the effects of these false stories are exactly the same as those of whatever one regards as Fake News. The false claims travel all over the internet, deceiving huge numbers into believing them.
The propagators of the falsehoods receive ample profit from their false, viral “news.” And there is no accountability of the kind that would disincentivize a repeat of the behavior. (That the Post ultimately corrects its false story does not distinguish it from classic Fake News sites, which also sometimes do the same.)
And while it’s true that all media outlets make mistakes, and that even the most careful journalism sometimes errs, those facts do not remotely mitigate the Post’s behavior here.
In these cases, they did not make good faith mistakes after engaging in careful journalism. With both stories, they were reckless (at best) from the start, and the glaring deficiencies in the reporting were immediately self-evident (which is why both stories were widely attacked upon publication).
As this excellent timeline by Kalev Leetaru documents, the Post did not even bother to contact the utility companies in question - the most elementary step of journalistic responsibility - until after the story was published.
Intelligence officials insisting on anonymity - so as to ensure no accountability - whispered to them that this happened, and despite how significant the consequences would be, they rushed to print it with no verification at all.
This is not a case of good journalism producing inaccurate reporting; it is the case of a media outlet publishing a story that it knew would produce massive benefits and consequences without the slightest due diligence or care.
The most ironic aspect of all this is that it is mainstream journalists - the very people who have become obsessed with the crusade against Fake News - who play the key role in enabling and fueling this dissemination of false stories. They do so not only by uncritically spreading them, but also by taking little or no steps to notify the public of their falsity.
The Post’s epic debacle this weekend regarding its electric grid fiction vividly illustrates this dynamic. As I noted on Saturday, many journalists reacted to this story the same way they do every story about Russia:
They instantly click and re-tweet and share the story without the slightest critical scrutiny.
That these claims are constantly based on the whispers of anonymous officials and accompanied by no evidence whatsoever gives those journalists no pause at all; any official claim that Russia and Putin are behind some global evil is instantly treated as Truth.
That’s a significant reason papers like the Post are incentivized to recklessly publish stories of this kind. They know they will be praised and rewarded no matter the accuracy or reliability because their Cause - the agenda - is the right one.
On Friday night, immediately after the Post’s story was published, one of the most dramatic pronouncements came from the New York Times’s editorial writer Brent Staples, who said this:
Now that this story has collapsed and been fully retracted, what has Staples done to note that this tweet was false? Just like Baron, absolutely nothing. Actually, that’s not quite accurate, as he did do something: At some point after Friday night, he quietly deleted his tweet without comment.
He has not uttered a word about the fact that the story he promoted has collapsed, and that what he told his 16,000-plus followers - along with the countless number of people who re-tweeted the dramatic claim of this prominent journalist - turned out to be totally false in every respect.
Even more instructive is the case of MSNBC’s Kyle Griffin, a prolific and skilled social media user who has seen his following explode this year with a constant stream of anti-Trump content.
On Friday night, when the Post story was published, Griffin hyped it with a series of tweets designed to make the story seem as menacing and consequential as possible.
That included hysterical statements from Vermont officials - who believed the Post’s false claim - that in retrospect are unbelievably embarrassing.
That tweet from Griffin - convincing people that Putin was endangering the health and safety of Vermonters - was re-tweeted more than 1,000 times. His other similar tweets - such as this one featuring Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy’s warning that Putin was trying to “shut down [the grid] in the middle of winter” - were also widely spread.
But the next day, the crux of the story collapsed - the Post’s editor’s note acknowledged that “there is no indication” that “Russian hackers had penetrated the electricity grid” - and Griffin said nothing.
Indeed, he said nothing further on any of this until yesterday - four days after his series of widely shared tweets - in which he simply re-tweeted a Post reporter noting an “update” that the story was false without providing any comment himself:
In contrast to Griffin’s original inflammatory tweets about the Russian menace, which were widely and enthusiastically spread, this after-the-fact correction has a paltry 289 re-tweets. Thus, a small fraction of those who were exposed to Griffin’s sensationalistic hyping of this story ended up learning that all of it was false.
I genuinely do not mean to single out these individual journalists for scorn. They are just illustrative of a very common dynamic: Any story that bolsters the prevailing D.C. orthodoxy on the Russia Threat, no matter how dubious, is spread far and wide.
And then, as has happened so often, when the story turns out to be false or misleading, little or nothing is done to correct the deceitful effects. And, most amazingly of all, these are the same people constantly decrying the threat posed by Fake News.
A very common dynamic is driving all of this: media groupthink, greatly exacerbated (as I described on Saturday) by the incentive scheme of Twitter.
As the grand media failure of 2002 demonstrated, American journalists are highly susceptible to fueling and leading the parade in demonizing a new Foreign Enemy rather than exerting restraint and skepticism in evaluating the true nature of that threat.
It is no coincidence that many of the most embarrassing journalistic debacles of this year involve the Russia Threat, and they all involve this same dynamic.
Perhaps the worst one was the facially ridiculous, pre-election Slate story - which multiple outlets (including The Intercept) had been offered but passed on - alleging that Trump had created a secret server to communicate with a Russian bank; that story was so widely shared that even the Clinton campaign ended up hyping it - a tweet that, by itself, was re-tweeted almost 12,000 times.
But only a small percentage of those who heard of it ended up hearing of the major walk back and debunking from other outlets. The same is true of The Guardian story from last week on WikiLeaks and Putin that ended up going viral, only to have its retraction barely noticed because most of the journalists who spread the story did not bother to note it.
Beyond the journalistic tendency to echo anonymous officials on whatever Scary Foreign Threat they are hyping at the moment, there is an independent incentive scheme sustaining all of this.
That Russia is a Grave Menace attacking the U.S. has - for obvious reasons - become a critical narrative for Democrats and other Trump opponents who dominate elite media circles on social media and elsewhere.
They reward and herald anyone who bolsters that narrative, while viciously attacking anyone who questions it.
Indeed, in my 10-plus years of writing about politics on an endless number of polarizing issues - including the Snowden reporting - nothing remotely compares to the smear campaign that has been launched as a result of the work I’ve done questioning and challenging claims about Russian hacking and the threat posed by that country generally.
I was one of the first journalists to condemn the misleadingly “neutral” approach to reporting on Trump and to call for more explicit condemnations of his extremism and lies. I was one of the few to defend Jorge Ramos from widespread media attacks when he challenged Trump’s immigration extremism.
Along with many others, I tried to warn Democrats that nominating a candidate as unpopular as Hillary Clinton risked a Trump victory.
Reality Check: 5 Problems With CIA Claim That Russia Hacked DNC / Podesta Emails
The malice of this campaign is exceeded only by its blatant stupidity. Even having to dignify it with a defense is depressing, though once it becomes this widespread, one has little choice.
But this is the climate Democrats have successfully cultivated - where anyone dissenting or even expressing skepticism about their deeply self-serving Russia narrative is the target of coordinated and potent smears; where, as The Nation’s James Carden documented yesterday, skepticism is literally equated with treason.
And the converse is equally true: Those who disseminate claims and stories that bolster this narrative - no matter how divorced from reason and evidence they are - receive an array of benefits and rewards.
That the story ends up being completely discredited matters little. The damage is done, and the benefits received. Fake News in the narrow sense of that term is certainly something worth worrying about.
But whatever one wants to call this type of behavior from the Post, it is a much greater menace given how far the reach is of the institutions that engage in it.
At the rate that they are trying so hard to discredit themselves, a full 2017 may be too generous a timespan for them to collapse.
Cybersecurity Legend McAfee: 'Russian Hack' Is Not True
Snowden: Truth Is Coming & It Cannot Be Stopped January 16 2017 | From: TheMindUnleashed / Various Soon after Edward Snowden went public with his information that exposed the NSA’s secret spying program, Snowden spoke some words that still ring with curiosity in the ears of many:
"All I can say right now is the US Government is not going to be able to cover this up by jailing or murdering me. Truth is coming, and it cannot be stopped.”
Truth is coming, and it cannot be stopped. While those are some exciting words for most free thinkers, they are not so exciting for a certain few in Brussels, Washington D.C., London, New York, Vatican City, Frankfurt and other areas.
If we look closer at his words and the timing of them, which was after, and not before he went public with his information, it appears that something is still in play. There is more truth left to be revealed. There are people still working to reveal even more truth. There is an end-game in sight.
While it might be difficult for some to believe that the shadow government / cabal will have their darkness and corruption exposed, the truth is that we are already seeing some of those things come to light, and with so much more to come.
Indeed, there are “good guys” within “The System” working to take down this banking and political elite.
The first piece of evidence we have on this is what Craig Murray, a former UK ambassador recently said when he told the world that the CIA is lying about Russia being the source of the Wikileaks revelations.
“I know who leaked them. I’ve met the person who leaked them, and they are certainly not Russian and it’s an insider. It’s a leak, not a hack; the two are different things.”
In other words, a “good guy” working within The System leaked the information. Someone on the inside is working to expose the shadow government.
The next piece of evidence, though not so covert, is the bill that Tulsi Gabbard proposed in early December of 2016. The “Stop Arming Terrorists Act” proposed by Gabbard aims at stopping the U.S. government from funding and arming ISIL, al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups. Tulsi stated about her proposal:
“If you or I gave money, weapons or support to al-Qaeda or ISIS, we would be thrown in jail.
Why does our gov get a free pass on this?”
So yet again, we have an insider who is publicly calling out and seeking to end a portion of the madness that the shadow government has created: Funding and arming the same terrorist groups the governments claim to be fighting against.
Though Gabbard’s action on this was public, it was nonetheless a clear move against the shadow government. Of course, her action entirely vindicated what Zerohedge reported all the way back in May of 2015: That the U.S. created and has been funding ISIL.
This move also shows us that something big is still in play. The shadow government hasn’t yet been fully exposed, but there are forces out there in the process of attempting to do so.
Though it was later revealed that Turkey was one of those nations, what is most important to evaluate from this disclosure is that this situation is also still in play. Are we really to believe that Putin and Russia will indefinitely sit on their information of the other 39 countries that fund ISIL?
Could it be that Russia is simply waiting for “right timing” to reveal such information? If such information does come out, and we have every reason to believe it will, then it will be a revelation that will impact every aspect of our world. The fallout from it will be enormous.
Perhaps this is one of the biggest reasons the Elite and their media outlets try to demonize Putin as an “evil dictator.”
It appears as though Putin has “the goods” on the global elite…and they know it. Time is almost up.
According to Wikileaks’ latest big announcement, time indeed may almost be up. Yesterday Wikileaks announced that 2017 would be a very big year:
“If you thought 2016 was a big Wikileaks year 2017 will blow you away. Help @Wikileaks prepare for the showdown.”
This latest announcement falls in line nicely with the belief that there is something still in play.
That an end-game is in sight.
After all, a showdown is nothing less than a culmination point. It is the end of something that has been in play.
If there are massive revelations coming in 2017, then what could they be? In an interview with Katie Couric of Yahoo News in December of 2016, Couric asked Edward Snowden: Are there still bombshells (revelations) in this cache of documents that have still not seen the light of day?
“I was very careful when I came forward to make sure I never revealed a single secret. This I believe quite strongly is the role of free press in our society. This is why the first amendment is first. They’re charged with making these decisions about what we should know, when and how.
They should contest the government’s monopoly on controlling information, particularly the classified spaces. So I’m not going to say if there’s something else coming, or when, but I will say this: In 2013, before this started, the idea that the government was collecting records of every phone call in the United States was a conspiracy theory.
It’s not anymore.”
Did Snowden just elegantly and indirectly say that more conspiracy “theories” will be revealed as conspiracy “facts” in the times ahead? Possibly.
While it remains to be seen how this possible end-game plays out in the weeks ahead, it is interesting to ask what, if anything,
Snowden and Wikileaks know about the global collateral accounts; a story which is regarded as the shadow government’s biggest financial cover-up and would certainly be important to the entire political, financial and social sphere of our world.
Will there be more revelations coming? Is there some sort of positive alliance actually working to expose the lies of the shadow government? Will more “theories” be revealed as “facts?” Will Snowden himself reveal more information?
The Cult Almost Everyone is a Part of:
‘You’re Fired!’ Donald Trump To Sack Obama’s Diplomats + Trump Trolls “Fake News” Mainstream Media Over Yellow Journalism January 14 2017 | From: TheDuran / Infowars / Various Donald Trump unilaterally fires all of Obama's ambassadors. This will allow Trump to create a new set of diplomats appointment for their talents rather than how much they donated to the Democrats.
Obama’s ‘operation sabotage’ has just backfired. Reports coming out of Washington say that Donald Trump has unilaterally told all Obama US ambassadors abroad, ‘you’re fired’.
The New York Times first reported that a State Department cable was sent to all ambassadors on December 23 informing them they have to vacate their posts by Jan. 20 “without exceptions.”
Trump has been taking to Twitter to express his consternation over Obama’s campaign of hatred against Russia in his final weeks in power.
By sacking many Obama appointed diplomats, Trump is both symbolically and materially taking the wind out of the foreign policy sails of the Democrats.
The move however has implications beyond the tit for tat psychological war being waged between a lame-duck Obama and the President-elect.
Tucker Carlson Grills Glenn Beck Full Interview on Donald Trump
Trump had long derided Obama for rewarding important diplomatic positions to those who gave substantial financial contributions to his campaign. Famously, Trump mocked Obama for making Caroline Kennedy the US Ambassador to Japan because ‘she was bored’.
Whilst the mainstream media criticise Donald Trump for being a loving father to his children, the reality is that Obama practiced cronyism in politics, far more than Trump ever did in business.
The idea that one could buy an ambassadorial position in an age of terrorism, strained relations between superpowers, and economic uncertainty, is worse than a crime, it is a blunder.
I remain optimistic that as he has already done with his ambassadorial appointment to China, Trump will continue to appoint ambassadors based on talent rather than boredom.
Trump Trolls “Fake News” Mainstream Media Over Yellow Journalism
Trump destroys fake press: President-elect Donald Trump trolled “fake news” mainstream reporters trying to smear him, including the “reporters” who claimed he paid Moscow hookers to pee on a bed Obama slept in.
Trump destroyed one reporter in particular who was still asking him about his tax returns – after the election.
“I’m not releasing the tax returns because, as you know, they’re under audit,” Trump told the reporter at a press conference on Wednesday. “…You know, the only ones who care about my tax returns are the reporters.”
The reporter then retorted by claiming “every president since the 70s has released his tax returns.”
“Gee, I’ve never heard that,” the president-elect responded. “I won… I mean, I became president. No, I don’t think they [the public] care at all.”
The audience cheered.
“First off, I think you learn very little from a tax return,” Trump continued.
“What you should do is go down to federal elections and take a look at the [business income] numbers… people have learned a lot about my company - and now they realize my company is much bigger, much more powerful than they ever thought.”
Trump also congratulated the news organizations present who, unlike CNN and Buzzfeed, refused to publish the erotic Trump fan fiction as real news.
4Chan took credit for the fan fiction in which Trump paid prostitutes to pee on a bed President Obama slept in at the Ritz Carlton Hotel in Moscow.
The CIA ultimately used the fan fiction as “evidence” in its “report” linking Trump to the Kremlin, to which CNN and Buzzfeed reported as fact without verifying the claim.
“I’m not going to give you a question,” Trump told a CNN reporter at the conference. “I’m not going to give you a question.”
As Americans Freaked Over Russian Fake News, FBI Quietly Released New Clinton Investigation Docs January 14 2017 | From: TheFreeThoughtProject The Federal Bureau of Investigation has released a new batch of documents cataloging the investigation of Democratic Presidential Nominee Hillary Clinton.
The documents were released Sunday on the bureau’s website, which has a page dedicated to the investigation of Hillary Clinton.
WikiLeaks called attention to the release on their Twitter account with a link to a web archive listing showing the updated page. The FBI did not make an announcement related to the release.
The lack of comment by FBI officials has generated more questions than answers about the scale of the investigation into Clinton. The file is 299 pages and many of the documents are part of the basics of building a federal case including the preservation of records, evidence chain of custody, and listing many seized items.
There are many redactions in the documents, however, the context shows the investigation made significant progress before the contested Democratic primary race started in 2016, as most of the documents are dated in 2015.
Many of the documents also reveal the procedures used to conceal details of the FBI’s investigation.
The first document in the file is the initial report titled “Opening of Full Investigation on a Sensitive Investigative Matter (SIM),” which is dated July 10, 2015. It states the investigation is designated as a SIM because of the “connection to a current public official, political appointee or candidate,” which kept the status of the case out of the public domain.
The same report also lists the case as a prohibited investigation, which receives special classification for counterintelligence needs.
“Due to the extremely sensitive nature of this investigation and the damage its disclosure could cause, the case will be designated as a prohibited investigation in accordance with Counterintelligence Division Policy Implementation Guide,”the report states.
FBI’s Counterintelligence division requested the preservation of records for multiple lists of email accounts. One list included 422 redacted accounts and another listed 912 accounts. All of the requests are dated August 18, 2015.
On page 235 of the documents, the FBI admits the Office of Inspector General found classified materials on Clinton’s server. This means the FBI knew about this leak well before anything was made public - and while Clinton was publicly denying it the entire time.
The files are also showing signs of details corroborating some pending theories about Hillary Clinton’s corruption scandals, as evidenced by internet forums. Conversation on Twitter has been continuous as users replied to the WikiLeaks tweet, and a lengthy Reddit thread featured many popular users citing specific facts from the documents.
The FBI’s timing in releasing the documents has been questioned as it comes just days after the full report ordered by U.S. President Barack Obama to investigate Russian influence on the election in favor of Donald Trump.
The US government claimed Russian intelligence facilitated a hacker persona named Guccifer 2.0 to steal emails and documents from the Democratic National Committee. The emails were then published by WikiLeaks in July 2016, days before the DNC’s convention.
The claims of Russian responsibility for the hack have been heavily criticized by security experts in the US intelligence community. The original hacker Guccifer, whom the 2.0 moniker is referencing, has also dismissed the US government’s claims as ‘crazy’ in an interview last week.
American news media has used the claims of Russian responsibility to dismiss the importance of the information revealed by the email leaks which showed DNC officials favoring the campaign of Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders.
The scandal revealed detailed and continuous efforts by DNC officials to get Hillary Clinton selected as the nominee, the most controversial of which involved the DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. Schultz was forced to resign the day before the convention began, and was immediately hired by the campaign of Hillary Clinton.
American news media has continued to claim that Russian efforts to influence voters was the cause of Hillary Clinton losing, but largely ignores the content of Hillary Clinton’s numerous scandals, even after the election ended. The result has been a campaign of anti-Russian sentiment which blames the political dysfunction in America on Russian agents, instead of the Democratic party officials who actually influenced the election in favor of Hillary Clinton.
Anti-Russian sentiment escalated in November after the collective claims of American news media that websites publishing “fake news” were largely responsible for the change in public opinion about Hillary Clinton, which they claim benefitted the campaign of President Donald Trump.
The Free Thought Project was named on the list referenced, however, the list has since been largely discredited.
Facts You Need To know About Syria & Syrian President Bashar Al Assad Fields Questions From French Media And Defends Alternative Media January 12 2017 | From: AustralianNationalReview / 21stCenturyWire The Assad family belongs to the tolerant Islam of Alawid orientation. Syrian women have the same rights as men to study, health and education.
Syrian women are not forced to wear the burqa. The Sharia (Islamic law) is unconstitutional.
Syria is the only Arab country with a secular constitution and does not tolerate Islamic extremist movements.
Roughly 10% of the Syrian population belongs to one of the many Christian denominations, all fully integrated in Syrian political and social life.
In other Arab countries the Christian population is less than 1% due to sustained hostility.
Syria has banned genetically modified (GMO) seeds, stating his decision was made in order “to preserve human health,”
Syria has an opening to Western society and culture like no other Arab country.
Its media and universities openly debate the global power elite’s influence in things. This means that they fully grasp the fact that real power in the West lies not in the White House but rather with the complex and powerful grid of elite think-tanks and central banks.
Throughout history there have been five popes of Syrian origin. Religious tolerance is unique in the area.
Prior to the current civil war, Syria was one of the only peaceful countries in the area, having avoided major wars or internal conflicts.
Syria was the only country that admitted Iraqi refugees without any social, political or religious discrimination.
Syria clearly and unequivocally opposes Zionism and the Israel government.
Following a massive oil find in Syria’s Golan Heights, occupied by Israel since 1967, Netanyahu recently asked Obama to recognize its annexation of the territory. To consolidate its hold, plans are afoot to quadruple Israeli settler numbers to 100,000.
And The Most Two Important Points:
Syria is one of the only countries in the Middle East without debts to the International Monetary Fund (Pre-invasion Libya & Iran the only others)
Syria is the only Mediterranean country which remains the owner of its oil company, with an oil reserve of 2,500 million barrels, the operation of which has avoided privatization and is reserved exclusively for state-owned enterprises.
So now ask yourself, why are we truly attempting to overthrow yet another government?
What are we hoping to fix here?
If the recent invasions and illegal assassinations of Presidents like Qaddafi and Saddam have taught us anything, it should be the understanding of the blowback effect of such lawless actions by the West and the vacuum of chaos that always supersedes it.
Debt Conquer. Invent a reason to invade and destroy, then offer $Trillions in IMF funding to rebuild… conveniently paid back by control of your oil fields and the free access to build gas pipelines to the west.
Syrian President Bashar Al Assad Fields Questions From French Media And Defends Alternative Media
Recently we reported on the targeting of a French delegation to Syria, led by politician, Thierry Mariani, by the US backed FSA (Free Syrian Army) Company 23.
Aleppo airport was shelled by this group of primarily US supported “moderate rebels” led by a defected Syrian Arab Army colonel, Hassan Rajoob, just prior to the planned take off of the plane ferrying the delegation back to Damascus.
”We always have hopes that the next (French) administration, or government, or president will want to deal with the reality, to disconnect themselves from the disconnected policy from our reality. That is our hope..and they can work for the interests of the French people.
The question now, after six years, as a French citizen, do you feel safer? I dont think the answer is yes. The immigration problem, has it made the situation in your country better? […]
This is the question the next administration, government, president should deal with in order to deal with our reality not what is in their imagination as has been happening for the last six years.
(Fillon’s) rhetoric regarding the terrorists, or lets say the priority to fight the terrorists and not meddling in the affairs of other countries are welcome, but we have to be cautious, because what we have learned in this region, during the last few years, is that many officials would say something and do the opposite.
I am not saying M Fillon would do this, I hope not, but we have to wait and see because there is no contact. But so far, what he is saying, if it is implemented, that will be very good.
If I want to send (a message to French politicians) I would say the self evident thing, that we have to work for the interests of the Syrian citizens, and for the last six years the situation is going in the opposite direction. The French politics harmed the French interests.
For the French people, I would say the mainstream media has failed in most of the west, the narrative has been debunked because of the reality and you have the alternative media, you have to look for the truth.
Truth was the main victim of the events in the Middle East, including Syria.
I would ask any citizen in France, please search for the reality, for the real information, through the alternative media. When they search for this information, they can be more effective, in dealing with their government, or at least not allowing some politicians to base their politics on lies. ”
US Deep State In Deep Trouble + A Deeper Understanding Of Technocracy January 11 2017 | From: Sputnik / JonRappoport US ruling power is in deep trouble because there are growing signs that the mass of citizens are no longer beholden to the supposed authority residing in Washington.
Once the legitimacy of would-be authorities begins to collapse in the eyes of the people, then profound political change is in the offing, as history shows us through countless empires that came and went – often ignominiously.
"The so-called American Deep State comprising the military-intelligence apparatus and its operatives in the political and media establishment has put its credibility on the line over allegations of Russian interference in the US elections."
Those allegations are threadbare, indeed baseless, despite concerted, overweening attempts by the Deep State to conjure up something of substance.
The latest high-level intelligence report from the CIA, NSA, FBI and other US spy agencies on alleged Russian cyber hacking may have “wowed” President Barack Obama, various members of Congress and the corporate-controlled news media. Not so for ordinary Americans. Among rank-and-file citizens the reaction has been underwhelming to say the least.
And that should be a matter of anxiety for the ruling establishment. If the people can no longer be commanded, then the whole foundation for power begins to erode like a sandcastle.
As a New York Times report put it:
"What’s the big deal? asks Trump’s supporters on Russian hacking report”.
Trump is quite a hit in Russia - here he is on sugar packaging in a Russian store
Among ordinary voters far removed from the Washington Beltway Bubble the consensus is one of derision towards the once-revered US intelligence community.
"Sore losers”, “sour grapes”, “crybabies” and “absurd” were just some of the disbelieving responses from ordinary folks about claims that Russian agents directed by Russian President Vladimir Putin had tipped the US November election in favor of Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton."
“I don’t believe the [US] intel report,” said one man in Louisiana. “Why is everybody so afraid of Russia? I’m not against Putin.”
Another man, a retired US air force officer, added:
"From the parts of the [US intel] report I’ve seen it seems silly.”
President-elect Trump, once again, seems more in tune with the real, pressing concerns of common citizens.
He emerged from his so-called “briefing” by US intelligence chiefs last Friday and pointedly refused to join the Washington blowhards accusing Russia of “an act of war”.
Trump in fact followed up with a comment that it was only a “stupid” person would not want to have good relations with Russia.
This was not the response that the spooks wanted from Trump. The CIA and their surrogates in the Obama administration, Congress and the media were building up the US intel report like a witch-hunt against anyone who dares to dissent from the allegations of Russian cyber interference.
Unlike warmongering Congress members such as John McCain and Lyndsey Graham, Trump has not jumped on the bandwagon to demonize Russia.
"And the thing is that people beyond the thrall of the Deep State centered in Washington appear to agree with Trump.
At a time of immense social challenges from poverty, unemployment, financial indebtedness, deteriorating infrastructure and public services, and so on, a US policy of hostility towards Russia seems like an alien distraction. A contemptible waste of priority and resources, not to say a reckless drumbeat to war between nuclear powers."
The US intelligence agencies, aided by the Obama White House and mainstream media, tried to muster gravitas to play its “Russian card” against Trump.
But Trump and the popular sentiment out there are not responding in the deferential manner expected by the spooks.
In fact, despite sensationalist headlines in the mainstream media about “Putin ordering an influence campaign to help Trump win the election”, the US intelligence agencies are now in real danger of being exposed as ridiculous liars.
The collapse of the US establishment has been underway for sometime, but lately the momentum has quickened with the election of Trump and the mainstream media’s penchant for “fake narratives”.
On the latest US intel report, as well as Trump and ordinary Americans, many observers from around the world were taken aback by the amateurish dearth of evidence and generally low quality of analysis. Independent cyber security experts, including US-based ones, poured scorn on the claims against Russia.
The US spy agencies claim that they have “supporting evidence” that Russia hacked Hillary Clinton’s emails, but they say, unconvincingly, that they can’t disclose the information in order to protect “sensitive sources and methods”. Such a conjuring trick just makes the US spooks and the subservient news media look even more ridiculous.
A major giveaway was the disproportionately huge focus that the US intelligence report devoted to trying to discredit Russian news media outlets, RT and Sputnik.
If that’s the best that America’s “national security guardians” can come up with then we can be sure their case against Russia is null and void.
There was a time in the American past when shadowy, unelected elites could control society through monopolistic, servile media and servile politicians kowtowing to their supposed authority.
There was also a naive belief among people that the secret services were defending the nation’s best interests.
Not any more alas. People have got wise to the massive manipulation and criminality of such shadowy powers who orchestrate wars and regime changes all around the world for the narrow benefit of elite corporate power.
Ordinary Americans pay with their lives and livelihoods for the machinations of the ruling cabal.
"The Deep State intel chiefs may have been fawned over by Obama, Congress and the media in their outlandish claims of Russian subversion. But growing numbers of ordinary people in the US and around the world can see through the lies and blatant agenda of hostility towards Russia – an insane hostility that only serves the elite interests of the Deep State."
The once feared, and revered, US Deep State is now facing a deep dilemma and maybe even an existential crisis. For it knows deep down that its erstwhile credibility and authority are shot to pieces.
Down through history, the American rulers got away with their charade of inciting wars and conflicts through false flags and contrived catastrophes: the not-so-secret Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, the fabricated Gulf of Tonkin incident that escalated the US genocidal war on Vietnam, the dubious 9/11 terror attacks and Iraq’s non-existent weapons of mass destruction, to mention just a few.
This same warmongering American ruling class want another arms race, Pentagon-pumping Cold War with Russia. But this time they have played a card that is all too evidently blank. The US spooks and their elitist establishment know that Trump, the American people, Russia and the rest of world all know that they have nothing to offer.
No credibility, no morals and no authority, the US Deep State is in deep trouble.
A Deeper Understanding Of Technocracy
Technocracy is the basic agenda and plan for ruling global society from above, so we need to understand it from several angles.
Consider a group of enthusiastic forward-looking engineers in the early 20th century. They work for a company that has a contract to manufacture a locomotive.
This is a highly complex piece of equipment. On one level, workers are required to make the components to spec. Then they must put them all together. These tasks are formidable. On another level, various departments of the company must coordinate their efforts. This is also viewed as a technological job. Organizing is considered a technology.
When the locomotive is finished and delivered, and when it runs on its tracks and pulls a train, a great and inspiring victory is won.
And then…the engineers begin to think about the implications. Suppose the locomotive was society itself? Suppose society was the finished product? Couldn’t society be put together in a coordinated fashion?
And couldn’t the “technology of organizing things” be utilized for the job?
Why bother with endlessly arguing and lying politicians? Why should they be in charge? Isn’t that an obvious losing proposition? Of course it is.
But engineers could lay out and build a future society that would benefit all people. Hunger, disease, and poverty could be wiped out. Eliminating them would be part of the uncompromising blueprint.
This “insight” hit engineers and technicians like a ton of bricks. Of course! All societies had been failures for the same reason: the wrong people were in charge.
Armed with this new understanding, engineers of every stripe began to see what was needed. A revolution in thinking about societal organization. Science was the new king. And science would rule.
Of course, for an engineered world to work, certain decisions would have to be made about the role of the individual. Every individual. You couldn’t have an air-tight plan if every human were free to pursue his own objectives.
Too many variables. Too much confusion. Too much conflict. Well, that problem could be solved. The individual’s actions would be tailored to fit the coordinated operations of the planned society.
The individual would be inserted into a pre-ordained slot. He would be “one of the components of the locomotive.” His life would be connected to other lives to produce an exemplary shape.
Yes, this could imply a few problems, but those problems could be worked out. They would have to be worked out, because the overriding goal was the forming of a world organization.
What would you do if one bolt (an individual human) in one wheel of a locomotive was the wrong size? You would go back and correct the error. You would re-make the bolt.
Among sincere technocrats, the overall vision superseded the glaring problems.
But…other people entered the game. High-echelon Globalists saw technocracy as a system they could use to control the population. Control was their goal. Period. What happened to the individual in the process was of no concern to them. The individual had freedom or he didn’t have freedom, and the Globalists overtly intended to wipe out that freedom.
Erasing hunger, poverty, illness? Nonsense.
For the Globalists, those realities would be exacerbated. Sick, weak, and debilitated people were easier to rule and control and manage.
Essentially, a vastly misguided vision of a future technocratic utopia was hijacked. Something bad was made much worse.
In a nutshell, this is the history of technocracy. A locomotive is a society? No.
That was the first fatally flawed idea. Everything that followed was increasingly psychotic.
Unfortunately, many people in our world believe in Globalism, if you could call a partial vague view a legitimate belief.
They dreamily float on all the propaganda cover stories - greatest good for the greatest number of people; no more poverty; equality of sharing; reducing the carbon footprint; a green economy; “sustainable development”; international cooperation; engineering production and consumption of goods and services for the betterment of everyone; and all of this delivered from a central platform of altruistic guides.
The collective utopia turns out to be a sham. Waking up is hard to do? Breaking up is hard to do? They must be done.
A workable technological fix is a very nice achievement when the project is a machine. But transferring that glow of victory to the whole of society is an illusion. Anything that calls itself education would tackle the illusion as the first order of business.
American Pravda: How The CIA Invented "Conspiracy Theories" January 10 2017 | From: UNZ / ActivistPost / Various
With the sudden, bizarre rise of the “Fake News” accusations throughout the entire Corporate Media megaphone and the equally bizarre and totally unsubstantiated CIA allegations that the Russians had stolen the election for Donald Trump, this topic is highly pertinent.
A year or two ago, I saw the much-touted science fiction film Interstellar, and although the plot wasn’t any good, one early scene was quite amusing. For various reasons, the American government of the future claimed that our Moon Landings of the late 1960s had been faked, a trick aimed at winning the Cold War by bankrupting Russia into fruitless space efforts of its own.
This inversion of historical reality was accepted as true by nearly everyone, and those few people who claimed that Neil Armstrong had indeed set foot on the Moon were universally ridiculed as “crazy conspiracy theorists.” This seems a realistic portrayal of human nature to me.
Obviously, a large fraction of everything described by our government leaders or presented in the pages of our most respectable newspapers - from the 9/11 attacks to the most insignificant local case of petty urban corruption - could objectively be categorized as a “conspiracy theory” but such words are never applied.
Instead, use of that highly loaded phrase is reserved for those theories, whether plausible or fanciful, that do not possess the endorsement stamp of establishmentarian approval.
Put another way, there are good “conspiracy theories” and bad “conspiracy theories,” with the former being the ones promoted by pundits on mainstream television shows and hence never described as such.
I’ve sometimes joked with people that if ownership and control of our television stations and other major media outlets suddenly changed, the new information regime would require only a few weeks of concerted effort to totally invert all of our most famous “conspiracy theories” in the minds of the gullible American public.
The notion that nineteen Arabs armed with box-cutters hijacked several jetliners, easily evaded our NORAD air defenses, and reduced several landmark buildings to rubble would soon be universally ridiculed as the most preposterous “conspiracy theory” ever to have gone straight from the comic books into the minds of the mentally ill, easily surpassing the absurd “lone gunman” theory of the JFK assassination.
Even without such changes in media control, huge shifts in American public beliefs have frequently occurred in the recent past, merely on the basis of implied association.
In the initial weeks and months following the 2001 attacks, every American media organ was enlisted to denounce and vilify Osama Bin Laden, the purported Islamicist master-mind, as our greatest national enemy, with his bearded visage endlessly appearing on television and in print, soon becoming one of the most recognizable faces in the world.
But as the Bush Administration and its key media allies prepared a war against Iraq, the images of the Burning Towers were instead regularly juxtaposed with mustachioed photos of dictator Saddam Hussein, Bin Laden’s arch-enemy.
As a consequence, by the time we attacked Iraq in 2003, polls revealed that some 70% of the American public believed that Saddam was personally involved in the destruction of our World Trade Center.
By that date I don’t doubt that many millions of patriotic but low-information Americans would have angrily denounced and vilified as a “crazy conspiracy theorist” anyone with the temerity to suggest that Saddam had not been behind 9/11, despite almost no one in authority having ever explicitly made such a fallacious claim.
These factors of media manipulation were very much in my mind a couple of years ago when I stumbled across a short but fascinating book published by the University of Texas academic press. The author of Conspiracy Theory in Americawas Prof. Lance deHaven-Smith, a former president of the Florida Political Science Association.
Based on an important FOIA disclosure, the book’s headline revelation was that the CIA was very likely responsible for the widespread introduction of “conspiracy theory” as a term of political abuse, having orchestrated that development as a deliberate means of influencing public opinion.
During the mid-1960s there had been increasing public skepticism about the Warren Commission findings that a lone gunman, Lee Harvey Oswald, had been solely responsible for President Kennedy’s assassination, and growing suspicions that top-ranking American leaders had also been involved.
So as a means of damage control, the CIA distributed a secret memo to all its field offices requesting that they enlist their media assets in efforts to ridicule and attack such critics as irrational supporters of “conspiracy theories.”
Soon afterward, there suddenly appeared statements in the media making those exact points, with some of the wording, arguments, and patterns of usage closely matching those CIA guidelines.
The result was a huge spike in the pejorative use of the phrase, which spread throughout the American media, with the residual impact continueing right down to the present day. Thus, there is considerable evidence in support of this particular “conspiracy theory” explaining the widespread appearance of attacks on “conspiracy theories” in the public media.
But although the CIA appears to have effectively manipulated public opinion in order to transform the phrase “conspiracy theory” into a powerful weapon of ideological combat, the author also describes how the necessary philosophical ground had actually been prepared a couple of decades earlier.
Around the time of the Second World War, an important shift in political theory caused a huge decline in the respectability of any “conspiratorial” explanation of historical events.
For decades prior to that conflict, one of our most prominent scholars and public intellectuals had been historian Charles Beard, whose influential writings had heavily focused on the harmful role of various elite conspiracies in shaping American policy for the benefit of the few at the expense of the many, with his examples ranging from the earliest history of the United States down to the nation’s entry into WWI.
Obviously, researchers never claimed that all major historical events had hidden causes, but it was widely accepted that some of them did, and attempting to investigate those possibilities was deemed a perfectly acceptable academic enterprise.
However, Beard was a strong opponent of American entry into the Second World War, and he was marginalized in the years that followed, even prior to his death in 1948. Many younger public intellectuals of a similar bent also suffered the same fate, or were even purged from respectability and denied any access to the mainstream media.
At the same time, the totally contrary perspectives of two European political philosophers, Karl Popper and Leo Strauss, gradually gained ascendancy in American intellectual circles, and their ideas became dominant in public life.
Popper, the more widely influential, presented broad, largely theoretical objections to the very possibility of important conspiracies ever existing, suggesting that these would be implausibly difficult to implement given the fallibility of human agents; what might appear a conspiracy actually amounted to individual actors pursuing their narrow aims.
Even more importantly, he regarded “conspiratorial beliefs” as an extremely dangerous social malady, a major contributing factor to the rise of Nazism and other deadly totalitarian ideologies.
His own background as an individual of Jewish ancestry who had fled Austria in 1937 surely contributed to the depth of his feelings on these philosophical matters.
Meanwhile, Strauss, a founding figure in modern neo-conservative thought, was equally harsh in his attacks upon conspiracy analysis, but for polar-opposite reasons.
In his mind, elite conspiracies were absolutely necessary and beneficial, a crucial social defense against anarchy or totalitarianism, but their effectiveness obviously depended upon keeping them hidden from the prying eyes of the ignorant masses.
His main problem with “conspiracy theories” was not that they were always false, but they might often be true, and therefore their spread was potentially disruptive to the smooth functioning of society.
So as a matter of self-defense, elites needed to actively suppress or otherwise undercut the unauthorized investigation of suspected conspiracies.
Even for most educated Americans, theorists such as Beard, Popper, and Strauss are probably no more than vague names mentioned in textbooks, and that was certainly true in my own case. But while the influence of Beard seems to have largely disappeared in elite circles, the same is hardly true of his rivals.
Meanwhile, the neo-conservative thinkers who have totally dominated the Republican Party and the Conservative Movement for the last couple of decades often proudly trace their ideas back to Strauss.
So, through a mixture of Popperian and Straussian thinking, the traditional American tendency to regard elite conspiracies as a real but harmful aspect of our society was gradually stigmatized as either paranoid or politically dangerous, laying the conditions for its exclusion from respectable discourse.
By 1964, this intellectual revolution had largely been completed, as indicated by the overwhelmingly positive reaction to the famous article by political scientist Richard Hofstadter critiquing the so-called “paranoid style” in American politics, which he denounced as the underlying cause of widespread popular belief in implausible conspiracy theories.
To a considerable extent, he seemed to be attacking straw men, recounting and ridiculing the most outlandish conspiratorial beliefs, while seeming to ignore the ones that had been proven correct.
For example, he described how some of the more hysterical anti-Communists claimed that tens of thousands of Red Chinese troops were hidden in Mexico, preparing an attack on San Diego, while he failed to even acknowledge that for years Communist spies had indeed served near the very top of the U.S. government.
Not even the most conspiratorially minded individual suggests that all alleged conspiracies are true, merely that some of them might be.
Most of these shifts in public sentiment occurred before I was born or when I was a very young child, and my own views were shaped by the rather conventional media narratives that I absorbed. Hence, for nearly my entire life, I always automatically dismissed all of the so-called “conspiracy theories” as ridiculous, never once even considering that any of them might possibly be true.
To the extent that I ever thought about the matter, my reasoning was simple and based on what seemed like good, solid common sense. Any conspiracy responsible for some important public event must surely have many separate “moving parts” to it, whether actors or actions taken, let us say numbering at least 100 or more.
Now given the imperfect nature of all attempts at concealment, it would surely be impossible for all of these to be kept entirely hidden. So even if a conspiracy were initially 95% successful in remaining undetected, five major clues would still be left in plain sight for investigators to find.
And once the buzzing cloud of journalists noticed these, such blatant evidence of conspiracy would certainly attract an additional swarm of energetic investigators, tracing those items back to their origins, with more pieces gradually being uncovered until the entire cover-up likely collapsed.
Even if not all the crucial facts were ever determined, at least the simple conclusion that there had indeed been some sort of conspiracy would quickly become established.
However, there was a tacit assumption in my reasoning, one that I have since decided was entirely false. Obviously, many potential conspiracies either involve powerful governmental officials or situations in which their disclosure would represent a source of considerable embarrassment to such individuals.
But I had always assumed that even if government failed in its investigatory role, the dedicated bloodhounds of the Fourth Estate would invariably come through, tirelessly seeking truth, ratings, and Pulitzers. However, once I gradually began realizing that the media was merely “Our American Pravda” and perhaps had been so for decades, I suddenly recognized the flaw in my logic.
If those five - or ten or twenty or fifty - initial clues were simply ignored by the media, whether through laziness, incompetence, or much less venial sins, then there would be absolutely nothing to prevent successful conspiracies from taking place and remaining undetected, perhaps even the most blatant and careless ones.
In fact, I would extend this notion to a general principle. Substantial control of the media is almost always an absolute prerequisite for any successful conspiracy, the greater the degree of control the better.
So when weighing the plausibility of any conspiracy, the first matter to investigate is who controls the local media and to what extent.
Let us consider a simple thought-experiment. For various reasons these days, the entire American media is extraordinarily hostile to Russia, certainly much more so than it ever was toward the Communist Soviet Union during the 1970s and 1980s.
Hence I would argue that the likelihood of any large-scale Russian conspiracy taking place within the operative zone of those media organs is virtually nil.
Indeed, we are constantly bombarded with stories of alleged Russian conspiracies that appear to be “false positives,” dire allegations seemingly having little factual basis or actually being totally ridiculous.
Meanwhile, even the crudest sort of anti-Russian conspiracy might easily occur without receiving any serious mainstream media notice or investigation.
This argument may be more than purely hypothetical. A crucial turning point in America’s renewed Cold War against Russia was the passage of the 2012 Magnitsky Act by Congress, punitively targeting various supposedly corrupt Russian officials for their alleged involvement in the illegal persecution and death of an employee of Bill Browder, an American hedge-fund manager with large Russian holdings.
However, there’s actually quite a bit of evidence that it was Browder himself who was actually the mastermind and beneficiary of the gigantic corruption scheme, while his employee was planning to testify against him and was therefore fearful of his life for that reason.
Naturally, the American media has provided scarcely a single mention of these remarkable revelations regarding what might amount to a gigantic Magnitsky Hoax of geopolitical significance.
To some extent the creation of the Internet and the vast proliferation of alternative media outlets, including my own small webzine, have somewhat altered this depressing picture.
So it is hardly surprising that a very substantial fraction of the discussion dominating these Samizdat-like publications concerns exactly those subjects regularly condemned as “crazy conspiracy theories” by our mainstream media organs.
Such unfiltered speculation must surely be a source of considerable irritation and worry to government officials who have long relied upon the complicity of their tame media organs to allow their serious misdeeds to pass unnoticed and unpunished.
Indeed, several years ago a senior Obama Administration official argued that the free discussion of various “conspiracy theories” on the Internet was so potentially harmful that government agents should be recruited to “cognitively infiltrate” and disrupt them, essentially proposing a high-tech version of the highly controversial Cointelpro operations undertaken by J. Edgar Hoover’s FBI.
So perhaps Beard was correct all along in recognizing the respectability of “conspiracy theories,” and we should return to his traditional American way of thinking, notwithstanding endless conspiratorial propaganda campaigns by the CIA and others to persuade us that we should dismiss such notions without any serious consideration.
150 Terabytes! Norway Busts Largest Dark Web, Child Porn Networks In History - US, UK Media Ignore Story January 9 2017 | From: TheNewNationalist / IllegalNews / Various
It’s one of the largest child sex abuse cases in history. A year-long special investigation called “Operation Darkroom” resulted in the seizure of 150 terabytes of data material in the form of photos, movies and chat logs containing atrocities against children as young as infancy, Norwegian police announced at a news conference in late November.
Among the 51 perpetrators said to be involved, 20 have been arrested. The list of the accused includes “highly educated” individuals, including two former or current elected politicians, one teacher, a lawyer and a police officer.
Yet, English-language media both in Europe and stateside in the U.S. have ignored the story.
As Norwegian news publication Tadens Krav reports, the material shows penetration of toddlers, children being tied, children who have sex with animals and children who have sex with other children. One of the accused men had a pregnant girlfriend and planned with another to commit offenses against the child when it was born, police said.
Some of the accused performed abuses directly online, including atrocities against their own children. Police stressed that the case involves a network. The investigation is ongoing.
So while the U.S. media busied itself with its campaign of denial, lies and cover ups involving Pizzagate and “fake news,” this huge child sex abuse story broke in Norway. The story did appear on Associated Press’ wire, but did anyone run it?
It is a truly remarkable story with global implications. Take special note of the shocking file size - 150 terabytes! It’s too horrible to even contemplate. To put this into context, the Library of Congress holds about 600 terabytes of Web data. Its online archive grows at a rate of about 5 terabytes per month.
Also note the horrifically sadistic nature of the material seized. And note that police are investigating the reach as worldwide, which means it involves a massive scale of evil filth. But nobody in the criminally compliant mainstream media thinks its newsworthy.
Adding insult to public-service journalism injury, the crime syndicate has shifted gears and rolled out entertainment media to mock and lecture you. If you can stomach it, watch Stephen Colbert (below) reading unnaturally off of a script about fake news, Pizzagate and Michael Flynn.
He engages in the same straw-man arguments we covered in our critique of the The New York Times’ skuldruggery. Colbert puts forth all the usual deceptions involving Hillary Clinton, tunnels and basements before declaring Pizzagate was politically motivated and fake. When you see this particular narrative, know that you are being gas-lighted and diverted.
Yeah, laugh it up, fellas. The New Nationalist (TNN) has said from the beginning that Pizzagate is a poor term. We prefer pedogate. This goes far beyond just one perv hangout pizzeria. And, of course, it transcends the political spectrum, which explains why there is no investigation.
The assertion that Pizzagate “fake news” is “right-wing” inspired is a scam. Perhaps it’s because of the word “nationalist” in the name of our website that the media keeps citing us in its narratives.
And just below our masthead, it very clearly states that TNN is third position, meaning beyond the Hegalian left-right dialectic.
We are true humanists, who insist on protecting children from criminals.
PizzaGate is entirely real, which is perhaps why the massive mainstream media cover-up attempt - to label PizzaGate as a "fake news onslaught" (whatever that is) without reviewing ANY of the pertinent facts or Wikileaks emails - is so troubling for those of us with a moral compass.
They're covering for a child trafficking and abuse ring operating in Washington, DC. That is not okay. None of this is okay.
10 Reasons Operation Darkroom Was Covered Up!
What is Operation Darkroom? Why is the mainstream media, trying so hard to cover it up?
Savile and the 9th Circle
PedoGate (PizzaGate) Connection to “Finders” Cult Protected by CIA, Chinese Pedophilia
False Flag Terrorism: Murdering The Innocent In Order To Support The Lie + 15 Ways To Detect A False Flag Operation January 9 2017 | From: PaulCraigRoberts / ActivistPost / Various
As my readers know, I reported, factually, on the Boston Marathon alleged bombing case. I interviewed carefully the pro bono attorney, John Remington Graham, who intervened in behalf of the Russian aunt, a lawyer in the Russian Federation, in behalf of the falsely convicted younger Tsarnaev brother, Dzhokhar, the older brother having been murdered by the FBI.
Graham conclusively proved that the FBI’s own evidence proved beyond any doubt that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was innocent, which means so was the older brother.
It is clear beyond reasonable doubt that there was no real bombing at the Boston Marathon and that the alleged terrorist event, using crisis actors, was an orchestration designed to convince dumbshit Americans that they really were under a “Muslim threat.” The entire foreign policy of the United States in the 21st century is based on an orchestrated “Muslim threat.”
The orchestrated threat was also used for a practice exercise in closing down one of America’s largest cities in order to manhunt with intent to kill a young man chosen as the villain for the orchestrated event.
American citizens were forced at gunpoint out of their homes while Homeland Security, a Nazi reminiscent name from the Hitler era, disrupted the life of an entire city and its airport service in behalf of this orchestrated event that murdered American civil liberty.
The entire exercise was based on a lie, an event that never happened, like Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction, Assad’s use of chemical weapons, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and so forth. Just another lie in behalf of the “exceptional people.”
A number of websites have disproved the false case against the Tsarnaev brothers. Attorney John Remington Graham has brought the case to the justice authorities, but the US Department of Justice (sic) has no interest whatsoever in justice.
Now comes forward an attorney, Mary Maxwell with a book. It is available online free. I read the first eight chapters, which was sufficient to comfirm me in my independent conclusion that there was no Boston Marathon bombing by terrorists.
I recommend to you Mary Maxwell’s account. However, I will say that I believe that she uses irony excessively and that on occasions her irony gets in the way of the factual message. Knowing this, stick with it, and read her account.
Irony is the style that she has chosen, and we must respect a person prepared to stand up to the murderous American establishment and to challenge one of the founding myths of the American Police State and Washington’s wars against the world.
Read her book Marathon Bombing - Indicting the Players here.
Any US citizen that believes the falsified case of the Boston Marathon bombing is a dangerous and direct threat to American civil liberty and to the lives of millions of people on planet Earth.
If Americans do not wake up to the orchesrations to which they are subjected, they will forfeit their freedom. The Russians and the Chinese are individually and together more powerful than Washington, and they are not going to put up with the lies with which insouciant Americans are content.
If Americans cannot take back their country from self-serving oligarchs, Americans are doomed.
A false flag formula is becoming readily apparent in the face of so many mass shootings and bombings in the US. The phenomenon has become so commonplace in the last 3 years that it’s becoming more American than apple pie.
According to ShootingTracker.com, there have been 353 mass shootings in the USA for 2015 so far. However, as scary as that number is, the good news is that you don’t have to be afraid of them like you may think. A very large number of them - and all of them with any mass media significance and attention – are false flag staged terror events.
Some have real victims, some do not, but either way, the most criminal of all institutions – the Government – is the orchestrating force behind them.
They are scripted, pre-planned operations which are definitely not the result of random gun violence. Just as Obama stated (by hiding the truth in plain sight), there is a pattern behind these mass shootings. The Controllers are following a definite false flag formula.
Below is a list of the top 15 elements of this formula, which you can now use to detect a false flag operation as it occurs:
False Flag Formula #1: Drill at the Same or Nearby Time and Place
The exercise or drill – at the same time, at the same place – has became the sine qua non or indispensable element of the recent false flag operation. Sometimes there are slight variations on this when the Government plans a drill nearby (a few miles away) rather than at the exact place, or plans a drill earlier on in the day, so it can just coincidentally “go live”.
There was a twist in the case of the recent San Bernardino shooting: the Government planned regular drills in the building where the shooting took place every month! (Think about it – what are the chances of a real mass shooting occurring in a building used for mass shooting drills?)
As Captain Eric H. May, a former US Army military intelligence officer, stated:
“The easiest way to carry out a false flag attack is by setting up a military exercise that simulates the very attack you want to carry out."
What’s the point of having a drill at the same time and place? Here are a few of its purposes:
1. Distract and remove key personnel who would otherwise be at the scene to contain and investigate it;
2. Confuse other personnel who will treat the whole event in a different way if they think it is a drill rather than a real event;
3. Slow down, reduce or eliminate an effective response, especially of police and other law enforcement, given the removal and confusion of personnel;
4. Distract and confuse witnesses, the media and the public in general;
5. Provide a great cover and period of lower defenses and security to carry out an attack, which would otherwise be difficult or impossible if defenses were at their usual or optimal operating level.
False Flag Formula #2: Foreknowledge
Another way you can tell that a mass shooting is a false flag op is if you find proof of foreknowledge of the event. As it so happens, all of the notorious and publicized mass attacks of late have had evidence of foreknowledge. Going way back in time, there was foreknowledge of the Pearl Harbor attack of 1941 that got the US into World War 2.
False Flag Formula #3: Eyewitnesses Have Conflicting Accounts
You can also spot a likely false flag operation when you see or hear of multiple conflicting witness accounts. In the case of the Aurora Colorado “Batman” mass shooting, eyewitnesses claimed they saw an entire team of shooters, rather than the single shooter James Holmes of the official narrative.
With Sandy Hook, we saw multiple scenes of law enforcement chasing men into the surrounding forest, yet the official narrative declares the only shooter was Adam Lanza. In San Bernardino, too, witnesses stated they saw 3 white athletic men, not the 2 brown husband-and-wife team we were told did the shooting.
Conflicting eyewitness accounts can destroy the official narrative no matter what the detail is. On 9/11, various fireman told us there were bombs in the building, contradicting the official story that planes alone took down the Twin Towers. With Sandy Hook, Gene Rosen’s testimony itself was full of holes and was contradicted by that of the school bus driver and the official report.
False Flag Formula #4: MSM Quickly Name and Demonize the Patsy
Have you ever wondered how quickly the MSM (Mainstream Media) discovers the name of the patsy? They had somehow deduced that Osama bin Laden was responsible for 9/11 just hours after the attacks.
Have you ever wondered why the Government is so good at telling us who supposedly executed these attacks right after they happen, with almost no time to investigate, yet can’t seem to manage to actually stop these alleged terror attacks?
Without any evidence, the MSM endlessly repeated “bin Laden” like a crazy mantra after 9/11, despite the fact bin Laden himself denied involvement in the attacks and that in the end he was never formally charged by the FBI.
Have you ever wondered why many of the patsies, or sorry, deranged mass shooters, are Muslim? That wouldn’t have anything to do with the fact that the Zionist Government and MSM are trying to paint all Muslims as crazy and scary, would it? Nothing like a good dose of Islamophobia to take your freedom away …
False Flag Formula #5: Patsy Has No Military Training, Yet Shoots Extremely Fast and Accurately
Another element of the false flag formula is the skilled and lethal patsy.
According to the official narrative of false flag ops like Sandy Hook and Aurora, we are supposed to believe that skinny and non-muscular youths, without any discernible military training, were able to acquire expensive military gear (including armor, guns, ammunition and more), wear that gear without getting bogged down in speed, and shoot incredibly fast and accurately.
In San Bernardino, we are supposed to believe that a young mother was strong and skilled enough to participate in killing 14 and injuring 17 people while she was strapped up with body armor and holding heavy weaponry!
In these cases and more, the official story would have you believe that it’s no big deal or just a coincidence that the patsy can acquire all this high-end gear and use it so well.
False Flag Formula #6: Patsy Gets Killed, Drugged or “Suicided”
It is also part of the false flag formula to ensure that the patsy, who is earmarked before the event to take the fall, cannot speak out to rationally defend themselves. This is achieved in a number of ways. The simplest is to have the patsy kill himself or herself by committing “suicide”.
Another favorite way is to take the patsy out in a thrilling high speed chase, which has the added benefit of drawing clueless people in through the MSM and gushingly promoting the police state. Sometimes a patsy is killed in plain sight, just because it’s so important to suppress his testimony (e.g. Lee Harvey Oswald in the JFK assassination).
A third way is to mind control and drug the patsy to such an extent that they become a zombie vegetable unable to articulate anything, as was the case with James Holmes.
False Flag Formula #7: Shooter Leaves Manifesto
In this day and age, writing a manifesto is a strange and anachronistic thing to do. Yet, for some strange reason, shooters’ manifestos seem to crop up an awful lot after mass shootings.
Conveniently for the Controllers, these manifestos provide a perfect explanation for the official narrative, and help fill in the missing (non-existent) motive for the attack – which probably pushes those on the fence over into believing the Government’s version of the event.
While the manifesto is not an element in every false flag operation, it is present in enough of them to be regarded as part of the false flag formula.
False Flag Formula #8: Evidence Gets Conveniently Destroyed
Another element of the false flag formula is the deliberate destruction of evidence, so that the Controllers can cover their tracks.
False Flag Formula #9: No Obvious Motive for the Mass Attack
Have you ever wondered why there is no obvious motive in any of these mass shootings? Crimes are supposed to be solved on the merit of motive and opportunity, yet to hide the reality of a false flag op, the MSM just lies about the motive part, and chalks it up to a deranged shooter.
Other times we are offered the flimsiest of motives, such as people going on an all-out rampage because they had a grievance with a co-worker. In San Bernardino, we were told the young mother, with a 1-year-old child, was aggressive and psychotic enough to help kill 14 and injure 17 people – at the risk of never seeing her child again!
Meanwhile, the real purveyors of these operations profit immensely from the ensuing fear, yet somehow the majority of people don’t seem to see that motive...
False Flag Formula #10: Immediate Calls for Gun Control
Gun control is obviously one of the key agendas behind all of these false flag mass shootings, since a disarmed population is far easier to exploit and manipulate than an armed one. It is an obvious aspect of the false flag formula. Sometimes gun control is even pushed in the immediate aftermath of the event when people are still in a highly emotional and suggestible state.
Take a look at the behavior of Andy Parker, who we were told was the father of a victim killed in the Virginia mass shooting of 2015.
Within hours of hearing the news of the death of his child, Parker had already contacted and talked with the Governor of Virginia, and then appeared on TV saying he would be devoting his entire life to gun control.
In a similar fashion, Richard Martinez, the alleged father of a Santa Barbara mass hooting victim, appeared on TV right after the death angrily pleading for more gun control. In both cases, the political agenda of gun control angrily dominated their reactions, rather than grief or other emotions.
False Flag Formula #11: Fake “Victims” = Crisis Actors
The above 10 points are a useful outline of the false flag formula as it pertains to mass shootings with real victims, i.e. where real people die. However, ever since the surreal Sandy Hook event, which still contains many unanswered questions, we have entered the twilight zone of the false flag hoax.
This is a term used to describe the false flag mass attacks where no one dies – where fake bodies, fake blood and fake victims are used instead. In this way, the entire operation is more tightly controlled and less messy. A hallmark of the false flag hoax is that the authorities never produce a credible piece of evidence showing an actual dead body of a victim.
Is this the same girl crying at all three massacres - Aurora, Sandy Hook and Boston?
The following 5 points relate to false flag hoaxes, and specifically to the people employed to pull them off – crisis actors. It is truly a testament to just how utterly fake our normal world is (the Matrix) that false flag ops have now descended to the level where we have to question whether the event even happened at all.
There are organizations of crisis actors in the US (such as the IIF), and there is clear evidence crisis actors were used at Sandy Hook, Boston Marathon and many others.
Government officials have been caught using the word “actor” to describe various players in these dramas; the MSM has even resorted to calling them actors too (it was one of the buzzwords of the recent San Bernardino mass shooting).
False Flag Formula #12: “Victims” Get Killed Twice
The surreal quality of the false flag hoax reached point of absurdity when it was discovered that one of the “victims” was reportedly killed twice!
We were told that Noah Pozner was one of the victims of the Sandy Hook shooting, yet his picture was also among those killed in a Pakistan Taliban attack.
Apparently the recycling of fake victims is another part of the false flag formula.
False Flag Formula #13: Families of “Victims” Have Elite or Acting Backgrounds
Is it just a coincidence that the families of mass shooting “victims” have either elite or acting backgrounds? At the Sandy Hook event, local CEO of the Newtown bank John Trentacosta (whose house was next to the Lanzas and had a lot of unusual activity occurring there the day of Sandy Hook) was connected to the New York Federal Reserve (and thus the international banking elite).
Francine Wheeler was formerly the personal assistant of former chief Democratic National Committee fundraiser Maureen White whose husband Steven Rattner is a Wall Street investment banker and member of the Rockefeller CFR (Council on Foreign Relations)!
It was also noteworthy at Sandy Hook how acting showed up in the resumes of so many of the key players there. Gene Rosen, David and Francine Wheeler (both professional actors) and others all had a background in acting. Father of Virginia mass shooting “victim” Andy Parker is an actor (and a politician too). This fact supports the idea that another element of the false flag formula is to watch for people with elite connections and acting backgrounds.
False Flag Formula #14: Families of “Victims” Show Little to No Emotion, and Even Snigger and Laugh
Luckily for truth seekers, the majority of crisis actors used in these false flag events are poor actors who are utterly unconvincing in the roles they play. The majority display little or no emotion after an alleged tragedy like losing a family member child to a random and violent mass shooting.
It is true that humans do vary widely with emotional response and expression. However, with many of the crisis actors, judging by their reactions, it simply strains credibility too much to believe that they have just have been through a harrowing and traumatic ordeal.
Given the range of possible reactions to a tragedy like losing a loved one in a mass shooting, what are the chances that many of the “victims’” family members are so non-emotional, or so understanding, or so quick to forgive?
It’s shameful enough that the crisis actors playing these roles are perpetrating a monumental deception on the public, tugging at the average person’s heartstrings solely to trick them.
However, on top of that, these actors have the gall to actually laugh – to smile, snigger and giggle – while pulling off their atrocious stunts. The only conclusion to draw from this is that it must be pretty funny to get a paid gig like this fooling millions of people…
False Flag Formula #15: Families of “Victims” Receive Millions in Federal Payoffs
In the US, the land of the lawsuit, people are generally pretty fast to initiate a lawsuit if they feel they have been wronged. It is highly strange, therefore, that none of the alleged parents of the Sandy Hook event decided to sue the Government for negligence or to demand redress for any other grievance.
The Federal Government just gave it over to them without asking! Ask yourself: is is more likely the Government would just do this out of the goodness of its heart, or that the money was more like a bribe/blackmail/payout all rolled into one, awarded to actors playing a part in a role and being sworn to silence?
Conclusion: Use the 15 Elements of the False Flag Formula to Be More Aware
These are 15 elements I noticed forming the false flag formula. There may well be more.
Meanwhile, use the knowledge you have of the false flag formula to become more aware, wise and hip to the deception, so that the next time it unfolds (as it surely will), you will be among those that spot the fakery, rather than among those who are too scared, shell-shocked and gullible to do anything other than buy the official narrative.
Trump Confirms "No Effect On The Outcome Of The Election" Following Intelligence Briefing + Experts Reveal The Tricks Mainstream Media Uses To Brainwash And Control The Masses January 8 2017 | From: Zerohedge / NaturalNews / Various
President-elect Trump has issued a statement following his briefing with various intelligence agencies over the Russian hacking allegations, seemingly rejecting the Democrats' charges that it was the Russians alone and that it had any effect on the outcome of the election.
Additionally, Trump promised to appoint a team to give him a plan to combat cyber attacks within 90 days of taking office.
Experts Reveal The Tricks Mainstream Media Uses To Brainwash And Control The Masses
You may not know this, but intelligence agencies around the world have, for decades, infiltrated “target” countries by having their agents and operatives pose as journalists (no, I’m not an intelligence operative).
That served two purposes: 1) it provided the operative with legitimate cover; and 2) it allowed the operative’s government to use the operatives “media” position to shape public opinion in the host country.
But in truth, that kind of propagandizing and brainwashing is also done by institutional media pushing a specific political agenda. Think back to our recently concluded presidential election cycle and what the “mainstream media” did in a failed effort to get its anointed candidate, Hillary Clinton, elected.
As reported by The Waking Times, experts denote a number of techniques that are used by the establishment media to brainwash the public and create/control the daily narrative.
The Mainstream Media Are the Real Purveyors of ‘Fake News’
Edward Bernays is known as the father of modern propaganda. He was the first to use social engineering techniques spread via the mass media of the day. In the early 20th century, he laid the groundwork for what became cultural programming at the societal level by assisting in the transformation of a mostly rural, agrarian-based American society into a homogenized culture of devout statists and consumers.
The principles he developed and implemented have greatly influenced the growth of American culture, how it grew and the direction it took.
Having picked up Bernays’ torch in the 21st century, several experts on modern brainwashing, mind control and propaganda have recently given insight into their craft.
Think about what is ailing our countries today, in terms of societal problems. There is corruption of so-called “grassroots movements” that are actually funded by Left-wing billionaires such as George Soros and Bill Gates, and yet the movements are portrayed by the establishment media very often as spontaneous and locally brewed, but all are attempting to achieve a specific social and political result.
The efforts of these allegedly organic groups are amplified many times their size by the media, which gives them both credence and a megaphone with which to shout their views. And what do they shout?
America is racist, bigoted, homophobic, unfair, politically broken, etc. Never are the calls for unity or praise for our country given any attention at all.
Much of this is done via a technique known as “astroturfing.” Seasoned veteran investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson explains;
“Astroturf is a perversion of grassroots. Astroturf is when political, corporate or other special interests disguise themselves and publish blogs, start Facebook and twitter accounts, publish ads, letters to the editor, or simply post comments online, to try to fool you into thinking an independent or grassroots movement is speaking.”
Controlling Our Thoughts by Creating False Narratives
Another technique used is subliminal messaging. This is a cornerstone of mind control, and when a person is unwittingly bombarded with cleverly concealed information, an emotion can be trigged leaving a person’s intellect and better judgment subjugated in favor of a mental process like fear or sexual desire.
You may never consciously understand or realize why you begin to adopt certain behaviors, products of lifestyles, but the attraction is nonetheless real and that manifests itself through actual personal choices.
In a 2011 documentary called Programming the Nation, filmmaker, graphic artist and digital media producer Jeff Warrick, a former advertising sales rep, provided examples of how subliminal messaging and other subconscious methods are employed by ad executives and other media to create cultural ‘norms’ and social programs like consumerism, materialization of women’s bodies, health choices and the glorification of violence.
“Could such techniques really be contributing to a variety of social, political and economic problems currently present in our culture? Such as obesity, anorexia, and other eating disorders? The ongoing war on terror?
And what about the ever-increasing amounts of debt, that has tightened its grip on a growing percentage of the population?” the documentary says.
Other techniques include fake news - yes, by the mainstream media - omission (not covering an issue as though it wasn’t real or important); slanting coverage through the use of biased “expert” sources; and publishing falsified data and science as though it were legitimate.
What Is The Obama Regime Up To? + Seven Ways Obama Is Trying To Sabotage The Trump Administration January 5 2017 | From: PaulCraigRoberts / Breitbart / Various
Obama has announced new sanctions on Russia based on unsubstantiated charges by the CIA that the Russian government influenced the outcome of the US presidential election with “malicious cyber-enabled activities.”
The US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has issued a report “related to the declaration of 35 Russian officials persona non grata for malicious cyber activity and harassment.”
“Tools and infrastructure used by Russian intelligence services to compromise and exploit networks and infrastructure associated with the recent U.S. election, as well as a range of U.S. government, political and private sector entities.”
The report does not provide any evidence that the tools and infrastructure were used to influence the outcome of the US presidential election.
The report is simply a description of what is said to be Russian capabilities.
Moreover, the report begins with this disclaimer: “DISCLAIMER: This report is provided ‘as is’ for informational purposes only. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) does not provide any warranties of any kind regarding any information contained within.”
In other words, the report not only provides no evidence of the use of the Russian tools and infrastructure in order to influence the US presidential election, the report will not even warrant the correctness of its description of Russian capabilities.
Thus the DHS report makes it completely clear that the Obama regime has no evidential basis for its allegations on the basis of which it has imposed more sanctions on Russia.
What is going on here?
First there is the question of the legality of the sanctions even if there were evidence. I am not certain, but I think that sanctions require the action of a body, such as the UN Security Council, and cannot legally be imposed unilaterally by one country. Additionally, it is unclear why Obama is calling the expulsion of Russian diplomats “sanctions.”
No other country has to do likewise. During the Cold War when diplomats were expelled for spying, it was not called “sanctions.” Sanctions imply more than unilateral or bilateral expulsions of diplomats.
Second, it is clear that Obama, the CIA, and the New York Times are fully aware that the allegation is false. It is also clear that if the CIA actually believes the allegation, the intelligence agency is totally incompetent and cannot be believed on any subject.
Third, President Trump can rescind the sanctions in 21 days, a third reason that the sanctions are ridiculous.
So why are President Obama, the CIA, and the New York Times making charges that they know are false and for which they have not produced a shred of evidence?
One obvious answer is that the neoconized Obama regime is desperate to ruin US-Russian relations past the point that Trump can repair them. As the New York Times puts it;
“Mr. Obama’s actions clearly create a problem for Mr. Trump.” The question the New York Times says, is whether Trump “stands with his democratic allies on Capitol Hill or his authoritarian friend in the Kremlin.”
Can Trump’s foreign policy be controlled by false allegations?
According to the New York Times, Trump has relented and agreed to being briefed by the CIA about the Russian hacking now that Republicans such as Paul Ryan, John McCain, and Lindsey Graham have lined up with Obama and the CIA in accepting charges for which no evidence has been presented.
However, a briefing without evidence would seem simply to further discredit the CIA in Trump’s eyes.
As I have emphasized in my columns, facts no longer have a role in the United States and its empire. Allegations alone suffice, whether in court cases, interrogation centers, foreign and domestic policies, or classrooms.
The US even bases its military invasions on false allegations - “weapons of mass destruction.” Indeed, the entirely of US foreign policy since the Clinton regime has been based on nothing but false allegations.
The Russian government should have learned by now, but perhaps Moscow still thinks that facts matter in Washington’s decisions.
Possibly we should consider that more is going on than meets the eye. Perhaps the propaganda about the Russian cyber threat to democracy is being used to prepare American and/or European populations for an incident.
The CIA has morphed into a “deep state” that uses disinformation and propaganda to align decisions of Congress, the executive branch, and foreign governments with secret behind-the-scenes agendas. Many books, such as Stephen Kinzer’s The Brothers and Douglas Valentine’s CIA As Organized Crime have described some of these secret agendas.
In order to deter Trump from restoring normal relations with Russia, an incident would have to be severe and irreversible. Rather than accept defeat for their agenda of US world hegemony, the neoconservatives are prepared to take high risks. The willingness to take risks is demonstrated by the public effort of the CIA Director to discredit the president-elect.
As expected, Putin’s response to the latest provocation is low key as the “sanctions” appear to be meaningless on the surface.
1. Betraying Israel at the United Nations:Obama’s refusal to block a United Nations vote against Israel, his administration’s shadowy machinations to bring that ugly motion to the floor, and Secretary of State John Kerry’s long-winded broadside against Israel will leave President Trump with a massive political crisis in the Middle East, and quite possibly a security crisis, if terror groups and their “political wings” are emboldened by the rebuke of Israel.
Obama’s Israel maneuver also damages American credibility, teaching would-be allies that the United States is not the best friend to have. America’s erstwhile battlefield allies in Syria can teach the same lesson, assuming any of them are left alive to take the podium.
This comes at the very moment aspiring hegemons in China and Russia are showing their allies how Beijing and Moscow will go to the mat for them.
Obama’s team thinks it was clever to saddle Trump with an international edict the U.S. president cannot easily reverse. They might not have thought this all the way through, because some of the options that are available to Trump could leave internationalists, and Palestinian leaders, cursing Barack Obama’s memory.
Note that even some commentators friendly to Obama, and sources within the Obama Administration itself, have described the Israel vote as a deliberate act of sabotage aimed at Trump, because Obama is “alarmed” by some of Trump’s appointees.
2. A New Cold War With Russia: After eight years of relentlessly mocking anyone who said Russia was a major geopolitical threat to the United States (most famously including his 2012 presidential opponent, Mitt Romney) Barack Obama suddenly realized: “You know what? Russia is a major threat!”
He also awoke to the dangers of cyber-warfare, after an entire presidency of treating electronic espionage as a purely political problem to be minimized and spun away, because taking it seriously made him look bad. Who can forget how Obama left victims of the OPM hack twisting in the wind for weeks, because the administration didn’t want to admit how serious the attack was?
But then a top Democrat political operative fell for a crude phishing scam, and the Democratic National Committee got hacked, so Obama… well, he still didn’t take cyber-espionage seriously.
He slapped the snooze bar again, because as one anonymous official put it, they thought Hillary Clinton was a cinch to win the 2016 election, “so they were willing to kick the can down the road.”
No, it was Hillary Clinton’s loss in the election, and the desperate push to damage President-elect Trump’s legitimacy, that made the president who politely ignored China hacking 25 million American citizens’ private data get tough on information security.
Until now, states involved in cyber-espionage never got anything worse than a few carefully-chosen words of sour disapproval from the expiring administration, but the Russkies received a sprinkling of sanctions, and 35 diplomats were expelled.
Russia responded by unleashing an army of ducks and trolls from the depths of the Kremlin. The New Cold War is only a few days old, and it’s already weirder than the old one was.
Presumably Obama thinks he’s maneuvered Trump into a position that will make whatever rapprochement he might have entertained with Moscow more difficult, or at least more politically costly for the new President.
The end result might be easier relations between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin, and a lingering memory of how little Barack Obama cared about cybersecurity until it was politically expedient for him to freak out.
3. Ban on Oil Drilling: An overt act of sabotage directed at the American economy itself, leaving an especially heavy bootprint on Alaska. Smug administration flacks spent the past couple of weeks assuring media talking heads that Obama’s unprecedented abuse of an obscure law was impossible for his successor to reverse.
It’s like they stayed up all night, looking for executive actions that can’t be undone by the new President four weeks later.
(Amusingly, Obama dropped this bomb on our energy sector just a few weeks after publicly advising Trump not to abuse executive orders.)
It’s likely that legions of lawyers will battle throughout 2017, and perhaps beyond, to determine if Obama’s “latest poke at Trump” (as Politico put it) really is irreversible. What a lovely parting gift from the departing President to the country that elected him twice: a pile of gigantic wealth-destroying lawsuits!
4. National-Monument Land Grab: The other theoretically irreversible presidential edict discovered by Obama’s munchkins is the ability to designate national monuments. Another 1.65 million acres in Utah and Nevada was yanked off the market in the last week of December, bring Obama’s Antiquities Act acreage up to an unprecedented 553 million acres.
"This arrogant act by a lame duck president will not stand. I will work tirelessly with Congress and the incoming Trump administration to honor the will of the people of Utah and undo this designation,” thundered Senator Mike Lee of Utah.
Sixty-five percent of his state is now under the wise and compassionate environmental protection of the same government that turned the Colorado River into a toxic-waste dump.
5. Eliminating the National Immigration Registry: Just in case Trump got any ideas about using it as the basis for the “enhanced vetting” he has promised for immigrants from terrorist-infested regions, the Obama administration killed a long-dormant program called NSEERS that once committed the unforgivable politically-incorrect sin of tracking military-age males from violently unstable Muslim-majority countries.
It’s highly debatable whether the NSEERS program was of any practical use. When it pulled the plug, the Department of Homeland Security noted that the post-9/11 program called for collecting data that is now routinely collected for most foreign visitors, along with more sophisticated biometric information.
Almost everyone saw the elimination of these roles as a purely symbolic act - i.e. political sabotage directed at the incoming President.
6. The Great Guantanamo Jailbreak: After paying little more than lip service to his promise to close the Guantanamo Bay prison for much of his presidency, Obama went into overdrive in his last years, transferring over 150 detainees. A shocking number of them ended up back on the battlefield.
Rep. Ed Royce (R-CA) of the House Foreign Affairs Committee wrote a Wall Street Journal op-ed this week to sound the alarm about Obama’s “midnight push to empty out Guantanamo.”
“The White House has repeatedly released detainees to countries it knew lacked the intent and capability to keep the detainees from returning to terrorism. The results have been deadly,” Royce wrote, challenging the wisdom of such Obama administration brainstorms as dropping al-Qaeda’s top bomb maker into Bosnia, a country with “limited security services” but plenty of radical mosques and unemployed military-age males.
Royce’s committee has been investigating allegations the administration tried to pay the bomb-maker $100,000 to refrain from passing his deadly skills along to eager apprentices. Hunting down the rest of the transferred prisoners who transferred themselves right back into the global jihad will be a job for the Trump administration.
7. Depicting Trump’s Election as a Disaster: Let’s not forget Obama’s acts of rhetorical sabotage, such as describing Trump’s presidential campaign as a crime against American class and racial harmony, or his wife wailing that all hope was lost for America’s children. Trump himself has taken note of the “many inflammatory President Obama statements and roadblocks.”
It’s hard to remember a previous instance of the outgoing president attacking the legitimacy of his successor this way, especially during the transition, before the new chief executive has actually done anything.
And it’s probably not over yet. The time for big executive orders is growing short, but Obama is always just one day away from calling a press conference and saying something else that will make the transition more difficult.
Of course he can still talk all he wants after January 20th, and he’s given every indication he won’t follow the dignified path of his predecessors and allow the new president time to chart his own course, but there’s no substitute for the bully pulpit of the presidency.
The timber of Barack Obama’s political voice will be very different on January 21st than it was on January 19th. More likely than not, he’ll use it before he loses it.
The Top 10 Most Outrageous Science Hoaxes Of 2016 January 2 2017 | From: NaturalNews
Science hoaxes were running rampant throughout 2016, pushed by the fakestream media (CNN, WashPost, NYT, etc.) alongside complicit government organizations working in collusion with dishonest corporations steeped in scientific fraud (Monsanto, Big Pharma, etc.).
2016 saw more science hoaxes than a typical year, with the media placing special emphasis on the Zika virus terror campaign (rooted in total scientific hucksterism) and more climate change propaganda (all based on fraudulently altered data).
In every case, those pushing the science frauds claimed to have a divine monopoly on “science” while declaring all opposing views to be “unscientific.”
In this way, much of the “science” in today’s corrupt society has really become nothing more than a cult of scientism, complete with “faith” in the correctness of socially-reinforced beliefs while exercising instant rejection of evidence that contradicts the fairy tale narratives of the science elite.
Sadly, “science” in 2016 functioned more like a priesthood of dogmatists fervently demanding the obedient worship of their unassailable assumptions. On every issue that matters, data were thrown out the window and replaced with fraud.
To drive home the fraud, the scientifically illiterate lamestream media catapulted the propaganda to new heights, even while remaining completely oblivious to the laughably false “science” they were promoting.
Here, I offer a summary of the most outrageous science hoaxes of 2016, along with a few links where you can explore more. By the way, the video on the “Cicret bracelet” invention that claims to turn your arm into a mobile device touchscreen is also a complete fraudulent hoax that has fooled millions of people, and I cover that in detail at the bottom of this article.
My primary message for 2017 is to stop believing in all the fake science being pushed by media, governments, academia and corporate liars.
Science Hoax #1: “Scientific” Political Polling
Through the entire year, we were all subjected to an endless onslaught of so-called “scientific” political polls that almost universally showed Hillary Clinton would win the election.
All the “scientific” polls were wrong, it turns out. (And yes, I called all this well before the election, on the record.)
What we now know is that the word “scientific” was slapped onto these fraudulent polls to try to give them an aura of credibility when, in reality, they were all fabricated or distorted to give Hillary Clinton the appearance of certain victory.
But guess what? All the experts were wrong. But how is that possible if all these polls were “scientific” as claimed? Are the pollsters now telling us that science is broken?
Or maybe, just maybe, they were making s##t up all along and there wasn’t any real “science” behind the “scientific” claim in the first place.
Science Hoax #2: The Zika Virus Terror Campaign
2016 saw the rolling out of an elaborate media-fronted Zika terror campaign designed to scare the entire country into ridiculously believing that mosquito bites would cause millions of women in America to give birth to babies with shrunken heads.
Yeah, I know, it sounds like something a Batman villain would threaten to unleash in Gotham City. “Pay me one million dollars or all your babies will be born with shrunken heads! Mwuah hah hah!”
But, alas, the American sheeple bought the medical science hoax hook, line and sinker. Belief in the Zika virus microcephaly hoax was so deeply embedded in the psyche of the nation that even when the Washington Post published a storyadmitting there was no link after all, the vast majority of so-called “scientists” and doctors still believe the hoax!
So, for the record, I’ll say it again in the hopes of educating all the scientifically illiterate “scientists” who still don’t understand actual facts: The original wave of shrunken heads in Brazil was caused by a larvacide chemical that was dumped into the water supply, not by the Zika virus alone.
The “Zika apocalypse” predicted by all the doctors, scientists and TV talking heads simply did not materialize. And when evidence contradicts your theory, you have to start questioning your theory. Otherwise, you aren’t a scientist. You’re just a petty fool.
Science Hoax #3: The Flint Michigan Lead Poisoning Cover-Up
In order to poison a million black children with brain-damaging lead, the U.S. EPA masterminded a large-scale science fraud that deliberately altered heavy metals testing results for the Flint, Michigan water supply.
Eventually, a few of the science scapegoats were charged with felony crimes for engaging in a conspiracy to alter water quality test data, but no one from the EPA was ever charged or prosecuted for their role in the scheme. (This also proves, by the way, that conspiracies are quite real and very much alive in our society right now.)
The result of all this was the mass poisoning of mostly African-American children with a toxic heavy metal that’s well known to damage cognitive function and impede learning.What a great way to raise more democrats!
It’s all part of the new “science” of keeping the sheeple dumbed down so they will keep voting for corrupt criminals like Hillary Clinton.
Instead of “let them eat cake,” the new progressive Jon Podesta version is, “Let them drink lead!”
Science Hoax #4: The Banning of GMO Labeling Nationwide by Scientifically Illiterate Republicans
This was all accomplished via an unholy alliance among biotech corporate giants (like Monsanto) and right-leaning lawmakers, most of whom have never met a toxic chemical they didn’t absolutely love.
Notably, while Democrats are passing local laws that criminalize Big Gulp sodas, Republicans are blocking labeling laws as a way to say, “If you don’t SEE the poison on the label, it doesn’t actually count!”
Keeping consumers in the dark is now the official science policy of the federal government.
How’s that for transparency?
Science Hoax #5: Climate Change Data Fraud
Democrats have their own science fraud, of course, and there’s no better example than global warming / climate change.
To the great frustration of celebritards like Matt Damon, the data don’t show any warming at all unless you “cook” the numbers first.
This means “climate change science” is actually more like climate change alchemy, which isn’t science at all. It’s more like Tarot cards mixed with voodoo blended with AlGoratotalitaritopian idiocy.
Note to intelligent people: If the world were really warming, they wouldn’t have to alter the temperature data, would they?
Science Hoax #6: Abortion Organ Harvesting for “Scientific Research”
According to leftists, chopping up living human babies who have just been forcibly “birthed” in order to harvest their organs and brains isn’t unethical at all. Nope, it’s a tremendous advancement for scientific research, you see.
Organ harvesting isn’t just limited to places like Communist China and North Korea: The practice is alive and well in America, too. But in the U.S., it takes on a genocidal milestone because most abortions are carried out on black babies… yep, the very same black babies that were also intentionally poisoned by the EPA in Flint, Michigan (see above).
Hmmm… there seems to be a pattern in all this, but I can’t quite put my finger on it… but it definitely seems to have something to do with killing as many black babies as possible while labeling it all “science.”
It’s noteworthy to remember that Adolf Hitler’s eugenics programs were also conducted under the umbrella of “science.”
It seems not that much has changed in almost 80 years… except that instead of Jews being exterminated by the millions, it’s now black babies being exterminated by the millions while democrats demand an open borders human blitzkrieg to replace them all with socialist-leaning illegal aliens who are uninformed enough to vote for leftists.
Science Hoax #7: The California Vaccine Mandate
Another large-scale science hoax that also happens to place a disproportionate burden on African-American babies is the California “medical police state” vaccine mandate pushed by California’s own “Mercury Joker” Dr. Richard Pan.
After receiving bribes from vaccine makers, the “medical child molesting” California state senator Richard Pan took part in a media-backed medical terrorism campaign against California’s citizens, attempting to scare everyone into falsely believing that the best way to protect the health of children is to inject them with mercury (instead of, I don’t know, maybe feeding them nutritious foods and vitamin D).
The entire vaccine mandate was founded on blatantly fraudulent quack science claims fronted by the child-murdering vaccine industry, which continues to absurdly insist that vaccines pose zero risk to children (i.e. claiming they do not harm a single child…ever). The claim is, of course, rooted in sheer delusion. But that’s also what passes for “legislation” in California.
We can only hope California’s #Calexit effort succeeds soon, so we can build a wall around California and stop the contagious epidemic of lunacy from spreading Eastward.
No summary of science quackery would be complete without bringing in the subject of “economics.” Yes, it qualifies as a science… at least if you ask the economists. (If you ask non-economists, it qualifies mostly as voodoo.)
Nevertheless, according to Janet Yellen and the decrepit “wizards of collapse” who are currently steering the global debt Titanic directly into an array of large shards of icebergs, the best way to keep a global economy in balance is to create endless new money until the whole thing explodes, at which point the system collapses to “equilibrium” where everybody starves roughly the same amount (i.e. Venezuela).
To demonstrate this brilliant hypothesis, Yellen and her crotchety academic cohorts have been busy pumping trillions of fiat currency dollars into the pockets of their bankster pals while raising interest rates to accelerate the debt avalanche apocalypse timetable.
As a cherry on top, Obama also doubled the national debt in just eight years, all while handing Iran a path to nuclear weapons, dissing Israel, subverting American culture, gutting the U.S. military and secretly telling his Russian counterparts he would drastically reduce U.S. nuclear capabilities.
Yes indeed, the “dream team” of Obama, Clinton and Yellen has pulled off what America’s worst enemies could not: The near-complete financial paralysis of the U.S. economy all while claiming “Everything is awesome!”
Thank God all the pensions across the country are fully funded, huh? Or that would be a real disaster.
Science Hoax #9: Transgenderism and the Lunatic Liberal “Theory of Spontaneous Genetic Transmutation”
2016 also saw many gullible people being convinced to believe that a biological man can instantly transform himself into a biological woman by declaring himself to be a woman.
At least one “journalist” even claimed that a transgendered man could become pregnant after declaring himself to be a woman. Yes, science education in America has utterly collapsed at this point, replaced with liberal P.C. insanity and delusional college lesson plans rooted in “feelings” rather than physical reality.
Across most of today’s gender-confused college-educated youth, belief in the laws of genetic expression have been replaced by belief that a person’s sex is a “choice.” It’s no longer permutations, phenotypes and genotypes… it’s now metrosexual, generation snowflake, pu##ified blathering idiocy with a diploma, “safe space” cry rooms and $100K in student debt.
Sorry to burst their bubble of stupid, but sex classification isn’t a personal choice. A simple genetic test shows you either have XY chromosomes, XX chromosomes, or the far more rare extra-X-or-Y chromosome defect which typically leads to serious physical and mental defects (including infertility).
According to today’s college snowflakes, the National Human Genome Research Institute is a “purveyor of HATE” because their fact sheet page says all these mean things about chromosomal defects:
“Inheriting too many or not enough copies of sex chromosomes can lead to serious problems. For example, females who have extra copies of the X chromosome are usually taller than average and some have mental retardation.
Males with more than one X chromosome have Klinefelter syndrome, which is a condition characterized by tall stature and, often, impaired fertility. Another syndrome caused by imbalance in the number of sex chromosomes is Turner syndrome. Women with Turner have one X chromosome only. They are very short, usually do not undergo puberty and some may have kidney or heart problems.”
Thus, there are only two sexes in the biology of all mammals: Male and female. And no, you don’t get to change them up just because you think it’s trendy to be a gender-confused metrosexual snowflake.
This doesn’t mean you can’t be gay, by the way. Gay men still realize they’re men. They just choose male partners instead of female partners. On the spectrum of personal freedom, I say people should be able to partner with whomever they want.
Gay or straight, it’s all a personal choice as far as I’m concerned, because it’s none of my business… and stop shoving your sexual preferences in my face, all you militant gay mafia activists.
Just be gay and be done with it. The “gay rights” war is over, and you already won it. Stop being bullies and thinking you’re still oppressed victims.
Marry whomever you want, but just #STFU about it already. Obama already lit up the White House with rainbows, for God’s sake.
But to say that yesterday you were a male, but today you’re a female… now that’s just technically bonkers. You’re not really a female. You’re a male impersonating a female and that’s it. Bruce Jenner, take note: You are not a woman, no matter how much you want to impersonate one.
And that’s celebrated by the women? Yeah, it’s insane. And all these same “progressive” women also insist that pervs with dongs should be able to invade women’s restrooms, too, because that’s “embracing gender identity and inclusiveness” blabbity blah blah.
Get a grip, people. Check your drawers and briefly fondle your hardware. If it’s junk, you’re a dude, and stop playing with it already. If it isn’t, you’re a woman. If you have both, go ask a doctor to run a genetic test and find out if you have ovaries.
Science Hoax #10: Every Science “Journalist” Working for the Fakestream Media
This is more of a collection of hoaxes rather than a single hoax. It all centers around the hilarious fact that most science “journalists” are scientifically illiterate morons who only think they understand science.
I remember reading a science column in a major U.S. publication that claimed cell phones could run on water. (Yeah, I know. I tried that by dropping my cell phone into a glass of water, but it turned off all the power for some strange reason. Maybe I need “special” water?)
There has also been a wave of hilariously stupid media coverage for this bracelet computing project called “Cicret” that ridiculously claims to “turn your arm into a touchscreen.”
The entire video promoting this “Cicret” bracelet is a complete fraud. Racking up almost 25 million views on Youtube, the video shown here is accomplished purely with special effects overlays. The bracelet does not exist and cannot exist as depicted in the video for the simple reason that light cannot bend around the curvature of your arm.
Incredibly, countless “journalists” across the mainstream media fell for this total hoax, stupidly believing that a hi-res touchscreen rendition can be projected onto your skin from a bracelet that barely sits just a few millimeters above your skin in the first place.
Question for brain dead “science” journalists: Do you really believe light rays from the Cicret can bend around your wrist and then magically bounce off skin that isn’t in a direct line of sight with the bracelet projector?
Seriously, you have to be incredibly stupid (or scientifically illiterate) to think the Cicret bracelet, as depicted in the videos, can actually function. But that sure didn’t stop publications from all across the world pushing the hype and convincing their readers that this “cool tech” was real.
And yes, the younger people are on social media these days, the more gullible they are, too. So special effects “viral videos” can be very successful at raising millions of dollars in “Kickstarter” funds for devices that cannot ever exist because they violate the laws of physics.
It’s a whole new kind of financial scam that’s legal because it only extracts money from people who are too stupid enough to believe the viral videos. In summary, “Kickstarter” viral videos are a tax on stupid progressives the same way that the lotto is a tax on stupid conservatives.
And now that I’ve thoroughly offended everyone, let’s wrap all this up…
2016 Was a Bad Year For the Credibility of Real Science… Let’s Hope 2017 is Better
In summary, 2016 saw the pushing of numerous science hoaxes by the fakestream media, governments, academic institutions and corporate propaganda whores like Forbes.com. (Oh, and we can’t leave out the actual whores running SNOPES, who were exposed as prostitutes and fetish bloggers.)
So how do we rescue science in 2017? It’s simple: We start using science to tell the truth instead of allowing governments and corporations to use science to lie.
A few fundamental scientific truths I’d like to see finally embraced in 2017 would include:
Yes, there is extraterrestrial intelligence in the universe.
Yes, there is (or was) microbial life on Mars.
Yes, human consciousness is non-material and not located in the physical brain.
Yes, vaccines cause autism.
Yes, flu shots still contain mercury.
Yes, there are many anti-cancer foods that can help prevent cancer.
Yes, transgenderism is a mental disorder, not a “choice.”
Yes, glyphosate causes cancer.
Yes, DEET is toxic to human neurology.
Yes, genetically engineered crops seeds are a genuine threat to the environment and the food supply.
Yes, water can retain non-physical properties that subtly alter its interactions with living systems.
No, carbon dioxide is not the enemy of mankind.
No, chemotherapy does not “cure” cancer. It often makes it worse.
No, harvesting organs from living human babies is not “ethical science.”
No, science journals are not unbiased, objective arbiters of truth.
No, “scientific” political polls are not reliable. They are bunk.
No, the “experts” are not as smart as they think they are. Mostly, they’re idiots who have attained high positions of “persistent idiocy” in academia or government, and their job is to protect the idiocy for as long as possible, making sure no one overthrows idiocy with intelligence.
Senate Quietly Passes The "Countering Disinformation And Propaganda Act" & Obama Bans Free Speech In The Dead Of Night December 30 2016 | From: ZeroHedge/ Infowars / Various
While we wait to see if and when the Senate will pass (and president will sign) Bill "H.R. 6393, Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017", which was passed by the House at the end of November with an overwhelming majority and which seeks to crack down on websites suspected of conducting Russian propaganda.
President Trump is going to have an awful lot of un-doing to do...
It calls for the US government to "counter active measures by Russia to exert covert influence… carried out in coordination with, or at the behest of, political leaders or the security services of the Russian Federation and the role of the Russian Federation has been hidden or not acknowledged publicly,” another, perhaps even more dangerous and limiting to civil rights and freedom of speech bill passed on December 8.
"A bill to implement the U.S.’ very own de facto Ministry of Truth has been quietly introduced in Congress. As with any legislation attempting to dodge the public spotlight the Countering Foreign Propaganda and Disinformation Act of 2016 marks a further curtailment of press freedom and another avenue to stultify avenues of accurate information.
Introduced by Congressmen Adam Kinzinger and Ted Lieu, H.R. 5181 seeks a “whole-government approach without the bureaucratic restrictions” to counter “foreign disinformation and manipulation,” which they believe threaten the world’s “security and stability.”
Also called the Countering Information Warfare Act of 2016 (S. 2692), when introduced in March by Sen. Rob Portman, the legislation represents a dramatic return to Cold War-era government propaganda battles.
"These countries spend vast sums of money on advanced broadcast and digital media capabilities, targeted campaigns, funding of foreign political movements, and other efforts to influence key audiences and populations,” Portman explained, adding that while the U.S. spends a relatively small amount on its Voice of America, the Kremlin provides enormous funding for its news organization, RT.
“Surprisingly,” Portman continued, “there is currently no single U.S. governmental agency or department charged with the national level development, integration and synchronization of whole-of-government strategies to counter foreign propaganda and disinformation.”
Long before the "fake news" meme became a daily topic of extensive conversation on wuch mainstream fake news portals as CNN and WaPo, H.R. 5181 would rask the Secretary of State with coordinating the Secretary of Defense, the Director of National Intelligence, and the Broadcasting Board of Governors to “establish a Center for Information Analysis and Response,” which will pinpoint sources of disinformation, analyze data, and - in true dystopic manner - ‘develop and disseminate’ “fact-based narratives” to counter effrontery propaganda.
Fast forward to Thursday, December 8, when the "Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act" passed in the Senate, quietly inserted inside the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) Conference Report.
Here is the full statement issued by the generously funded Senator Rob Portman (R- Ohio) on the passage of a bill that further chips away at press liberties in the US, and which sets the stage for future witch hunts and website shutdowns, purely as a result of an accusation that any one media outlet or site is considered as a source of "disinformation and propaganda" and is shut down by the government.
How North Korea and the Obama regime Both Use the Same Mind Control Techniques Against Their Citizens
This eye-opening new video details how U.S. government propaganda under Obama parallels the socially-reinforced mind control tactics used in North Korea, a radical left-wing dictatorship rooted in the cult worship of its leader.
Barack Obama is simply a more polite rendition of the same social control tyranny used by Kim Jong-Un. Angela Merkel, in many ways, invokes the same tactics of disinformation and linguistic social control, deliberately lying to the people of Germany in order to control them while the country is systematically destroyed to appease globalist interests.
As I also state in the video, most Americans would be obedient Kim Jong-Un worshipers if they had grown up in North Korea.
The vast majority of individuals in western society today falsely believe they are independent thinkers, but that’s only because they’ve been indoctrinated under a system of mind control that’s very good at pretending to be based on “freedom.”
Watch the full video to see for yourself. (This video was recorded before the Nov. 8 Trump election victory, which provides a least some glimmer of hope that the globalist agenda might be slowed.)
Senate Passes Major Portman-Murphy Counter-Propaganda Bill as Part of NDAA
Portman/Murphy Bill Promotes Coordinated Strategy to Defend America, Allies Against Propaganda and Disinformation from Russia, China & Others
U.S. Senators Rob Portman (R-OH) and Chris Murphy (D-CT) today announced that their Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act – legislation designed to help American allies counter foreign government propaganda from Russia, China, and other nations – has passed the Senate as part of the FY 2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) Conference Report.
The bipartisan bill, which was introduced by Senators Portman and Murphy in March, will improve the ability of the United States to counter foreign propaganda and disinformation by establishing aninteragency center housed at the State Department to coordinate and synchronize counter-propaganda efforts throughout the U.S. government.
To support these efforts, the bill also creates a grant program for NGOs, think tanks, civil society and other experts outside government who are engaged in counter-propaganda related work. This will better leverage existing expertise and empower local communities to defend themselves from foreign manipulation.
“The passage of this bill in the Senate today takes us one critical step closer to effectively confronting the extensive, and destabilizing, foreign propaganda and disinformation operations being waged against us. While the propaganda and disinformation threat has grown, the U.S. government has been asleep at the wheel.
Today we are finally signaling that enough is enough; the United States will no longer sit on the sidelines. We are going to confront this threat head-on,” said Senator Portman.
“With the help of this bipartisan bill, the disinformation and propaganda used against our allies and our interests will fail.”
“Congress has taken a big step in fighting back against fake news and propaganda from countries like Russia. When the president signs this bill into law, the United States will finally have a dedicated set of tools and resources to confront our adversaries’ widespread efforts to spread false narratives that undermine democratic institutions and compromise America’s foreign policy goals,” said Murphy.
“I’m proud of what Senator Portman and I accomplished here because it’s long past time for the U.S. to get off the sidelines and confront these growing threats.”
NOTE: The bipartisan Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act is organized around two main priorities to help achieve the goal of combatting the constantly evolving threat of foreign disinformation.
They are as follows:
The first priority is developing a whole-of-government strategy for countering foreign propaganda and disinformation. The bill would increase the authority, resources, and mandate of the Global Engagement Center to include state actors like Russia and China in addition to violent extremists.
The Center will be led by the State Department, but with the active senior level participation of the Department of Defense, USAID, the Broadcasting Board of Governors, the Intelligence Community, and other relevant agencies. The Center will develop, integrate, and synchronize whole-of-government initiatives to expose and counter foreign disinformation operations and proactively advance fact-based narratives that support U.S. allies and interests.
Second, the legislation seeks to leverage expertise from outside government to create more adaptive and responsive U.S. strategy options. The legislation establishes a fund to help train local journalists and provide grants and contracts to NGOs, civil society organizations, think tanks, private sector companies, media organizations, and other experts outside the U.S. government with experience in identifying and analyzing the latest trends in foreign government disinformation techniques.
This fund will complement and support the Center’s role by integrating capabilities and expertise available outside the U.S. government into the strategy-making process. It will also empower a decentralized network of private sector experts and integrate their expertise into the strategy-making process.
In other words, the Act will:
i) Greenlight the government to crack down with impunity against any media property it deems "propaganda", and
ii) Provide substantial amounts of money fund an army of "local journalist" counterpropaganda, to make sure the government's own fake news drowns that of the still free "fringes."
So while packaged politely in a veneer of "countering disinformation and propaganda", the bill, once signed by Obama, will effectively give the government a full mandate to punish, shut down or otherwise prosecute, any website it deems offensive and a source of "foreign government propaganda from Russia, China or other nations."
And since there is no formal way of proving whether or not there is indeed a foreign propaganda sponsor, all that will be sufficient to eliminate any "dissenting" website, will be the government's word against that of the website. One can be confident that the US government will almost certainly prevail in every single time.
Obama Bans Free Speech In The Dead Of Night
America adopts Soviet style media controls.
By slipping through the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act, President Obama has signed the “Countering Disinformation And Propaganda Act” into law, effectively putting all speech under federal control.
Top Doctors Reveal Vaccines Turn Our Immune System Against Us + Study Pulled From Publication After Proving Truth Of Vaccinated Versus Unvaccinated Children December 24 2016 | From: NaturalBlaze/ NaturalNews
The research is hard to ignore, vaccines can trigger autoimmunity with a laundry list of diseases to follow. With harmful and toxic metals as some vaccine ingredients, who is susceptible and which individuals are more at risk?
No one would accuse Yehuda Shoenfeld of being a quack. The Israeli clinician has spent more than three decades studying the human immune system and is at the pinnacle of his profession.
You might say he is more foundation than fringe in his specialty; he wrote the textbooks. The Mosaic of Autoimmunity, Autoantibodies, Diagnostic Criteria in Autoimmune Diseases, Infection and Autoimmunity, Cancer and Autoimmunity – the list is 25 titles long and some of them are cornerstones of clinical practice.
Hardly surprising that Shoenfeld has been called the “Godfather of Autoimmunology” – the study of the immune system turned on itself in a wide array of diseases from type 1 diabetes to ulcerative colitis and multiple sclerosis.
But something strange is happening in the world of immunology lately and a small evidence of it is that the Godfather of Autoimmunology is pointing to vaccines - specifically, some of their ingredients including the toxic metal aluminum – as a significant contributor to the growing global epidemic of autoimmune diseases.
The bigger evidence is a huge body of research that’s poured in in the past 15 years, and particularly in the past five years. Take for example, a recent article published in the journal Pharmacological Research in which Shoenfeld and colleagues issue unprecedented guidelines naming four categories of people who are most at risk for vaccine-induced autoimmunity.
“On one hand,” vaccines prevent infections which can trigger autoimmunity, say the paper’s authors, Alessandra Soriano, of the Department of Clinical Medicine and Rheumatology at the Campus Bio-Medico University in Rome, Gideon Nesher, of the Hebrew University Medical School in Jerusalem and Shoenfeld, founder and head of the Zabludowicz Center of Autoimmune Diseases in the Sheba Medical Center at Tel Hashomer.
He is also editor of three medical journals and author of more than 1,500 research papers across the spectrum of medical journalism and founder of the International Congress on Autoimmunology.
Defined autoimmune diseases that may occur following vaccinations include arthritis, lupus (systemic lupus erythematosus, SLE) diabetes mellitus, thrombocytopenia, vasculitis, dermatomyosiositis, Guillain-Barre syndrome and demyelinating disorders. Almost all types of vaccines have been reported to be associated with the onset of ASIA.”
ASIA – or Autoimmune/inflammatory Syndrome Induced by Adjuvants (also known as Shoenfeld’s syndrome) - first appeared in the Journal of Autoimmunology four years ago.
It is an umbrella term for a collection of similar symptoms, including Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, that result after exposure to an adjuvant – an environmental agent including common vaccine ingredients that stimulate the immune system.
Since then an enormous body of research, using ASIA as a paradigm, has begun to unravel the mystery of how environmental toxins, particularly the metal aluminum used in vaccines, can trigger an immune system chain reaction in susceptible individuals and may lead to overt autoimmune disease.
Autoimmune disease results when the body’s system meant to attack foreign invaders turns instead to attack part of the body it belongs to (auto is Greek for self). If the immune system is like a national defence system, antibodies are like drones programmed to recognize a certain type of invader (a bacteria say) and to destroy them or mark them for destruction by other special forces.
Autoantibodies are like drones that are misidentifying a component of the human body and have launched a sustained attack on it. If they mistakenly target a component of the conductive sheath around neurons, for example, nerve impulses stop conducting properly, muscles go into spasm and coordination fails; multiple sclerosis results.
If autoantibodies erroneously focus on joint tissue; rheumatoid arthritis results. If they target the islets of Langerhans in the pancreas, Type 1 diabetes, and so on
“Throughout our lifetime the normal immune system walks a fine line between preserving normal immune reactions and developing autoimmune diseases,” says the paper.
“The healthy immune system is tolerant to self-antigens. When self-tolerance is disturbed, dysregulation of the immune system follows, resulting in emergence of an autoimmune disease. Vaccination is one of the conditions that may disturb this homeostasis in susceptible individuals, resulting in autoimmune phenomena and ASIA.”
Who is “susceptible” is the subject of the paper entitled, “Predicting post-vaccination autoimmunity: Who might be at risk?” It lists four categories of people:
1. Those who have had a previous autoimmune reaction to a vaccine
2. Anyone with a medical history of autoimmunity
3. Patients with a history of allergic reactions
4. Anyone at high risk of developing autoimmune disease including anyone with a family history of autoimmunity, presence of autoantibodies which are detectable by blood tests and other factors including low vitamin D and smoking.
Regarding those who have had a previous adverse reaction to vaccines, the paper cites five relevant studies including the case of a death of a teenage girl six months following her third Gardasil injection against HPV virus.
She had experienced a range of symptoms shortly after her first dose, including dizziness, numbness and tingling in her hands, and memory lapses. After her second injection, she developed “intermittent arm weakness, frequent tiredness requiring daytime naps,” worse tingling, night sweats, chest pain and palpitations.
A full autopsy was unrevealing but blood and spleen tissue analysis revealed HPV-16 L1 gene DNA fragments - matching the DNA found in vials of the Gardasil vaccine against cervical cancer - “thus implicating the vaccine as a causal factor.”
The DNA fragments had also been found to be “complexed with the aluminum adjuvant” which, according to the report, have been shown to persist for up to 8 to 10 years causing chronic immune system stimulation.
“Although data is limited,” Shoenfeld and his colleagues concluded, “it seems preferable that individuals with prior autoimmune or autoimmune-like reactions to vaccinations, should not be immunized, at least not with the same type of vaccine.”
Established Autoimmune Condition
The second group which the paper cites for vaccine exemption is patients with “established autoimmune conditions.” Vaccines don’t work so well in them, say Shoenfeld and his colleagues, and they are at “risk for flares following vaccination.”
Inoculations that contain live viruses including chickenpox, yellow fever and the measles, mumps and rubella triple vaccine (MMR) are “generally contraindicated” for people with autoimmune conditions because of the risk of “uncontrolled viral replication.” But inactivated vaccines are not such a good idea either because they usually contain the added ingredient aluminum, linked to autoimmunity.
The immunologists describe recent studies in which patients with autoimmune rheumatic disease given the influenza vaccine (without aluminum) suffered more joint pain and fever than controls and whose levels of autoantibodies (the drones that attack self) increased after receiving the flu vaccine.
What’s more, they developed new types of autoantibodies that weren’t present before the vaccines, and those persisted. As the presence of autoantibodies can be predictive of developing autoimmune disease in patients without symptoms, even years ahead of disease onset, this is troubling to those who understand immunology.
A number of studies claim vaccines are safe for the “overwhelming majority of patients with established autoimmune diseases,” the study allows, but they only looked at rheumatoid arthritis and lupus and not at severe and active cases so “the potential benefit of vaccination should be weighed against its potential risk,” they cautioned.
Patients With a History of Allergy
Vaccine trials have usually excluded “vulnerable” individuals - only extremely healthy individuals with no allergies are recruited. It’s a “selection bias,” say Soriano and Shoenfeld, and has likely resulted in serious adverse events being “considerably underestimated” in “real life where vaccines are mandated to all individuals regardless of their susceptibility.”
The true incidence of allergic reactions to vaccines, normally estimated at between one in 50,000 to one in a million doses, is probably much higher and particularly where gelatin or egg proteins are on the ingredients list, they say.
There’s a long list of vaccine ingredients that are potential allergens: besides the infectious agents themselves, there are those from hen’s egg, horse serum, baker’s yeast, numerous antibiotics, formaldehyde and lactose, as well “inadvertent” ingredients such as latex.
People’s allergic histories have to be taken before vaccination say the researchers. But some signs of reaction don’t show up until after the shot.
The public health nurse or GP might tell patients that a long-lasting swelling around the injection site after a vaccine is a normal reaction, for example. But that is not what the immunologists say. “[A]luminum sensitization manifests as nodules [hard lumps] at the injection site that often regress after weeks or months, but may persist for years.” In such cases, they say, a patch test can be done to confirm sensitivity and to avoid vaccination.
According to a growing body of research, though, allergy may be only the beginning of many dangerous aluminum-induced phenomena.
The Trouble With Aluminium
Aluminum has been added to vaccines since about 1926 when Alexander Glenny and colleagues noticed it would produce better antibody responses in vaccines than the antigen alone. Glenny figured the alum was inducing what he called a “depot effect” – slowing the release of the antigen and heightening the immune response.
For 60 years his theory was accepted dogma. And over the same time, the vaccine schedule grew decade on decade, but few ever questioned the effects of injecting aluminum into the body, which is strange considering its known toxicity.
A PubMed search on aluminum and “toxicity” turns up 4,258 entries. Its neurotoxicity is well documented. It affects memory, cognition, psychomotor control; it damages the blood brain barrier, activates brain inflammation, depresses mitochondrial function and plenty of research suggests it is a key player in the formation of the amyloid “plaques” and tangles in the brains of Alzheimer’s patients.
When kidney dialysis patients were accidentally infused with aluminum, the “dialysis-induced encephalopathy” (DAE) they developed neurological symptoms: speech abnormalities, tremors, memory loss, impaired concentration and behavioural changes. Many of the patients eventually went into comas and died. The lucky ones survived: when the source of toxicity, aluminum, was removed from their dialysis they recovered rapidly.
With these new observations, researchers began investigating the adjuvant effects of aluminum and in the past decade there has been a flurry of research. Far from being a sandbag that holds the antigen for a while and then gets excreted, it turns out that aluminum salts trigger a storm of defence action.
Vaccines: A Violation of Human Rights
The video below is a rational discussion about vaccines with Christina Hildebrand, President of A Voice For Choice, Inc. where she explains why mandatory vaccines are a violation of your human rights and how they are potentially dangerous to you or your child's health.
Christina is passionate about ensuring people know what they are putting into their bodies - be it food, air, water or medications. For the past 12 years, Christina has spent many thousands of hours researching and sharing her knowledge within her local community.
However, with the growth of the Big Ag and Big pHARMa's influences on US politics, Christina realized that she needed to take this to a different level and educate the masses on their right to informed choice and transparency of what goes into their bodies.
Within hours of injection of the same aluminum oxyhydroxide in vaccines into mice, for example, armies of specialized immune cells are on the move, calling in grid coordinates for more specialist assault forces. Within a day, a whole host of immune system commandos are in play - neutrophils, eosinophils, inflammatory monocytes, myeloid and dendritic cells, activating lymphocytes and secreting proteins called cytokines.
The cytokines themselves cause collateral damage but they send out signals, directing cell-to-cell communication and recruiting other cells into action. If the next phase of the attack is launched: fibroblast growth factor, interferons, interleukins, platelet derived growth factor, transforming growth factor and tumour necrosis factor might all be engaged.
There’s evidence that poorly understood and pesky inflammasomes, (currently a topic of cutting- edge cancer causation research) such as the Nod-like receptor 3( NLRP) are activated too, but it’s all still too early to say exactly what they’re doing.
New research emerging from University of British Columbia has found that aluminum adjuvant injected into mice can alter the expression of genes associated with autoimmunity.
And in their recent study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, immunologists at the University of Colorado found that even host DNA is recruited into the aluminum assault, that it rapidly coats injected alum, triggering effects that scientists have barely scratched the surface of understanding.
The Significance of Macrophagic Myofasciitis
This mobility or “translocation” of aluminum in the body is perhaps the most disturbing of the mounting evidence in current aluminum research. In 1998, French researcher Romain Gherardi and his colleagues observed an emerging condition of unknown origin which presented in patients post-vaccination with Chronic Fatigue like symptoms including swollen lymph nodes, joint and muscle pain and exhaustion.
Tissue biopsies of the patients’ deltoid revealed lesions up to 1 cm in diameter and unique from similar lesions of other diseases. They went to the lab for analysis and to Gherardi’s astonishment, they mainly consisted of macrophages – large white blood cells in the immune system whose job is to swallow up foreign invaders in the body. Enclosed in the cellular fluid of these phagocytes were agglomerates of nanocrystals of aluminum.
Gherardi and his colleagues began injecting mice with aluminum to see what happened. Their research published in 2013 revealed that the metal particles were engulfed by macrophages and formed MMF-like granulomas that dispersed — to distant lymph nodes, spleen, liver and eventually brain.
“This strongly suggests that long-term adjuvant biopersistence within phagocytic cells is a prerequisite of slow brain translocation and delayed neurotoxicity,” writes Gherardi in his February 2015 review of the relevant research in Frontiers in Neurology.
A more frightening animal study of aluminum is that of Spanish veterinary researcher Lluis Lujan’s study of ovine ASIA.
After huge numbers of sheep in Spain died in 2008 in the wake of a compulsory multiple vaccine campaign against bluetongue in Spain in 2008, Lujan set out to find out what killed them – and he began by inoculating them with aluminum.
His 2013 study found that only 0.5% of sheep inoculated with aluminum vaccines showed immediate reactions of lethargy, transient blindness, stupor, prostration and seizures –
“Characterized by a severe meningoencephalitis, similar to postvaccine reactions seen in humans.”
Most of them recovered, temporarily, but postmortem exams of the ones who didn’t revealed acute brain inflammation.
The delayed onset “chronic” phase of the disease affected far more of the sheep - 50-70% of flocks and sometimes virtually 100% of animals within a given flock, usually including all of those who had previously recovered.
The reaction was frequently triggered by exposure to cold and began with restlessness and compulsive wool-biting, then progressed to acute redness of the skin, generalized weakness, extreme weight loss and muscle tremors, and finally, entered the terminal phase where the animals went down on their front quarters, became comatose and died.
Post-mortem examinations revealed “severe neuron necrosis” and aluminum in the nerve tissue.
The immune system’s reaction to aluminum “represents a major health challenge,” Gerhardi declares in his recent review, and he adds that;
“Attempts to seriously examine safety concerns raised by the bio-persistent character and brain accumulation of alum particles have not been made… A lot must be done to understand how, in certain individuals, alum-containing vaccines may become insidiously unsafe.”
Back to the problem of which “certain individuals” should avoid vaccination to avoid autoimmune disease.
People Prone to Develop Autoimmunity
Soriano and Shoenfeld’s identify a final category: anyone at risk of developing autoimmune disease. Since a number of them have been shown to have genetic factors that would include anyone with a family history of autoimmune disease.
It also includes anyone who has tested positive for autoantibodies which can indicate disease years before symptoms show up. Vaccinations, the doctors say, “may trigger or worsen the disease.”
Smokers too, have an exceptionally high risk of developing an autoimmune disease, says the report. The American Cancer Society estimates that about 18% of Americans smoke. That means about 42 million Americans have an elevated risk of developing an autoimmune disease and they’re stacking the odds with every vaccine.
And finally, factors that Shoenfeld and Soriano associate with high risk of developing autoimmunity are high estrogen and low vitamin D - which means anyone taking birth control or hormone replacement therapy and, according to one 2009 study of vitamin D status, about three quarters of American teens and adults should be wary of vaccines.
Shoenfeld doesn’t seem to mean to exclude all of these people from immunization, however. The paper concludes that “for the overwhelming majority of individuals, vaccines carry no risk of systemic autoimmune disease and should be administered according to current recommendations.”
Which is in stark contrast to the body of the paper. The final word is cautionary about weighing the “potential benefit of vaccination…against its potential risk.”
It’s exemplary of a strange sort of schizophrenia in a wide range of recent immunology papers. The doctors seem to be trying to reconcile a century of “safe and effective” vaccine dogma with the last decade’s worth of terrifying research findings. There’s a lot of “on the one hand” and “on the other hand” in them.
The new research seems about to gain the upper hand, however. A 2013 overview of ASIA by six immunologists including Shoenfeld, for example, is a catalogue of vaccine side effects from Gardasil deaths, narcolepsy epidemics, infertility, chronic fatigue, dead sheep and aluminum-addled brains. It is rife with statements that would have been virtually unheard of inside mainstream medicine a decade ago. Like this shocker:
“Perhaps, in twenty years, physicians will be dueling with better characterized particles of autoimmunity, and the vaccines may become fully safe as well as effective.
Nonetheless the recognition of ASIA has initiated the change to put more efforts in identifying the good, the bad and the ugly of vaccines and in particular of adjuvants as triggers of autoimmunity.”
Bad and ugly of vaccines? What’s wrong with the adjuvants? That’s not in the CDC hand-out.
Or How About This One:
“Despite the huge amount of money invested in studying vaccines, there are few observational studies and virtually no randomized clinical trials documenting the effect on mortality of any of the existing vaccines.
One recent paper found an increased hospitalization rate with the increase of the number of vaccine doses and a mortality rate ratio for 5-8 vaccine doses to 1-4 doses of 1.5, indicating a statistically significant increase of deaths associated with higher vaccine doses.
Since vaccines are given to millions of infants annually, it is imperative that health authorities have scientific data from synergistic toxicity studies on all combinations of vaccines…”
That could be any anti-vaxxer jabbering on…but it’s not.
But Here is the Topper:
“The US Supreme Court ruled that vaccines makers are immune from lawsuits charging that the design of the vaccine is defective. Thus there is need for innovative clinical trial design and the vaccines themselves should be redesigned.”
Immunologists including the world’s leading authority on autoimmunity are saying it is time to take vaccines back to the drawing board.
The American Autoimmune Related Diseases Association estimates that 50 million Americans suffer from one of 88 autoimmune diseases - from type 1 diabetes to systemic lupus erythematosus - and some research puts the figure at one in five globally.
At least 40 more diseases are suspected to be immune-mediated. Most of them are devastating - frequently crippling, expensive to treat and incurable. And they are increasing at an astonishing pace.
At this stage, it looks like the more the research pours in, the harder it is going to get for pro-vaccine immunologists to keep multiple personality disorder – or complete nervous breakdown - at bay. Ten years of cutting edge research into aluminum’s effects on the immune system has revealed primarily how wrong they were.
And how little they know. If, after 90 years, doctors finally have begun to seriously examine the mechanism and question the merits of injecting metal toxins into newborn babies, what have they yet to discover? ASIA sounds awful. (Too bad for all the people whose kids suffered through chronic fatigue when it was just a Freudian yearning to sleep with their mother.)
But what if, like Lujan’s sheep, the “negligible” minority that has been paying the price for the good of humanity is actually only the tip of the iceberg? What if some people with no apparent adverse immune reactions still have nanocrystals of aluminum silently depositing in their brains? What if ASIA really includes Alzheimer’s? ALS, autism? ADD? And that’s just the A’s.
Even if immunologists keep wearing their rose coloured glasses, and vaccine ingredients are only responsible for a tiny fraction of the exploding autoimmunity, the “ugly” in vaccines will still get harder and harder to ignore.
When everyone on the planet is getting injected, 20 years is a long time for disabled people to stack up while scientists “duel with the characterized particles of autoimmunity.”
In the fury over the Disneyland measles outbreak that is gripping the world’s vaccine promoters, time is running out for doctors and researchers who see the “bad and ugly” side of vaccines and their adjuvants to do something about it.
There’s slim chance of a vaccine redesign in the absence of a profit incentive and a strong chance of universal vaccine mandates for one and all - previous anaphylactic shock reaction or not.
Study Pulled From Publication After Proving Truth Of Vaccinated Versus Unvaccinated Children
The censorship of science is nothing new. In Canada, for instance, there were serious concerns about the federal government’s increasingly strict regulations that prevented scientists from sharing their findings with the public.
Censorship, on the whole, is a persistently under-acknowledged problem in our society. The election of Donald Trump certainly showcased the fact that the mainstream media only portrays the narratives they want us to see.
In the latest instance of scientific censorship, an article from a scientific journal was “unpublished,” but only after vaccine enthusiasts proclaimed that it needed to be removed. The study, you see, examined the differences in health outcomes between vaccinated and unvaccinated children.
The study’s results indicated that:
“Vaccinated children were significantly less likely than the unvaccinated to have been diagnosed with chickenpox and pertussis, but significantly more likely to have been diagnosed with pneumonia, otitis media, allergies and NDDs (defined as Autism Spectrum Disorder, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, and/or a learning disability).”
From the mothers’ reports, the researchers found that vaccinated children were more likely to have allergies and neurodevelopmental disorders (NDDs). The team noted that even after controlling for other factors, vaccination remained significantly associated with the presence of an NDD.
VaxXed Stories: Social Engineering of Medical Professionals
Dr. Suzanne Humphries attends a meeting called "Confronting Vaccine Resistance: Strategies For Success" at NYU Langone Medical Center in New York, New York on November 21, 2016.
This meetings speakers were Senator Richard Pan, Dr. Paul Offit and Dorit Rubenstein Reiss. Afterwards she comes out to the VaxXed Bus to share what happened. Camera and editing by Joshua Coleman.
Indeed, those that were vaccinated were three times more likely to be diagnosed with an NDD such as autism. The combination of preterm birth and vaccination produced an even higher risk of NDD, increasing the chances of it by more than six-fold.
In the abstract, the researchers wrote in their conclusion;
“In this study based on mothers’ reports, the vaccinated had a higher rate of allergies and NDD than the unvaccinated. Vaccination, but not preterm birth, remained significantly associated with NDD after controlling for other factors.
However, preterm birth combined with vaccination was associated with an apparent synergistic increase in the odds of NDD. Further research involving larger, independent samples is needed to verify and understand these unexpected findings in order to optimize the impact of vaccines on children’s health.”
Baxter Dmitry from Investment Watch Blog notes that the study was “unpublished” from the journal Frontiers In Public Health. Normally, one can still view the cached version in internet archives.
But Baxter says this too was removed, noting that “a cached version available on internet archives has also been removed, suggesting there is a serious campaign to stop members of the public from viewing the study.”
Fortunately, a screenshot of the study was saved before the whole thing was scrubbed off the internet for good.
Prior to being removed from the internet, the study was subjected to massive amounts of scrutiny; apparently in this instance, the use of surveys – which are widely used for data gathering – somehow invites “bias.”
Some of the colorful public comments included;
“This study is of poor design, though not impossible results. Study relies of self-report of moms, inducing bias,” and, “Another garbage vaccine study in Frontiers journal. Scientists, stop reviewing/publishing there.”
This, of course, is not the first time that a study that showcased the potential ill effects of vaccines has been pulled from the internet. In February, the journal Vaccine temporarily removed, and eventually retracted, a study that linked the HPV vaccine to behavioral issues in mice.
Publishing research that contains information that conflicts with the mainstream narrative continues to prove to be a quick and easy way to find yourself blacklisted and censored by conventional media. This just underscores the importance of independent research and alternative media outlets.
10 More Signs That The Global Elite’s Ship Is Sinking + Viral Image Shows Why The Global Elite Are Panicking - Former U.S. VP To Media ‘We Don’t Need You Guys Anymore’ December 23 2016 | From: WakingTimes/ IUV / Various
Times are continuing to shift in a big way and humanity’s rise over the darkness that has plagued our planet for a very long time is gathering momentum by the day.
Truth prevails though and we are seeing the old world order crumble. 2017 is sure to be an exciting year. Continue to dream big.
1. June 23rd, 2016: Britain votes to leave the European Union. While some are choosing to see this as an extremist act whose focus was on securing the border from immigrants, there is a much bigger picture to that event.
While it must be said that the immigration issue is in the minds of some who were pro-Brexit (and thus needs to be humanely and compassionately addressed), the bigger issue was that Britain reclaimed it’s sovereignty back from the imperialistic banking and political cabal.
As it has been reported in The Telegraph, a mainstream media outlet in the UK, the CIA and the U.S. State Department have been heavily involved in the creation of the European Union from the very beginning.
2.July 22nd, 2016: Wikileaks releases over 20,000 emails from the Democratic National Convention and shows the deep collusion between the Clinton Campaign and the DNC itself. These revelations ultimately helped force the resignations of the top 4 positions within the DNC.
These are highly significant in the fact that it is admitted by Mitchell that such technologies do exist and that even the Vatican knows of them.
Once these technologies are known about on an even wider scale, the lies and corruption of the oil industry will fall apart and humanity can then reclaim it’s freedom.
4. October 10th, 2016: Turkey defies the banking cabal and signs the Turkish Stream gas pipeline deal with Russia. Because Russia is in opposition to the cabal, or NWO, as some would prefer, this is a massive financial and geopolitical game-changer.
5. October 20th, 2016: The Philippines president Rodrigo Duterte visits China with 200 Filipino businessmen to mend ties with China. He also announces his separation from the U.S. (which is a blow to the cabal) and seeks an alliance with not only China, but Russia too. The BRICS Alliance continues to grow.
6.October 30th, 2016:Iceland’s Prime Minister steps down as the activist, anti-establishment party, known as The Pirate Party, comes in second in national elections and jumps it’s number of parliament seats from 3 to 10.
As more people around the world herald the call for true freedom, political parties reflecting such ideals will continue to prevail. The Pirate Party is in over 40 countries around the world currently, and the movement continues to grow.
7. November 4th, 2016: Wikileaks emails reveal the Podesta brothers were invited to a “spirit cooking dinner” and involved eating sperm and menstrual blood. While some surely laughed this off, keep in mind that former FBI special agent Ted Gunderson spent several years investigating and exposing this information to the public, before being murdered.
We must also keep in mind that former BBC star Jimmy Savile was revealed to being involved in a massive, elite-ridden pedophile ring.
The pedophilia and ritualistic claims against many of the elites is well known around the world and is a very serious issue. The fact that even a small bit of this came out in the Wikileaks revelations is significant and a sign of the times. So much more is coming.
8.November 8th, 2016: It was revealed by Neil Keenan that several globalists/cabalists, including Mark Carney of the Bank of England, Janet Yellen of the Federal Reserve, the Rothschilds, Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak and others were involved in a deal to steal 1 million metric tons of Gold from the global collateral accounts.
As of this writing, the deal has been stopped and it very beneficial to humanity.
9. November 13th, 2016: The European countries of Moldova and Bulgaria elect new presidents, both of whom are pro-Russia. This is yet another major setback for the globalists plans of creating a superstate out of Europe. Watch for even more countries to begin aligning with Russia.
10. November 15th, 2016: More than 200 rallies around the U.S. take place to protest the North Dakota pipeline that is being attempted to form.
The world is continuing to awaken and sees the lunacy of oil and gas for energy. Clean solutions already exist.
What are some other stories that you believe are signs that the elite’s ship is sinking? Some believe that the election of Donald Trump is a sign.
Further signs are the recent resignations of Cabal-placed heads of state, namely the resignation of the Prime Minister of New Zealand, the Prime Minister of Italy and the President of France - all three of which announced their intention to resign their positions withinn the same 24 hour period.
Viral Image Shows Why The Global Elite Are Panicking - Former U.S. VP To Media ‘We Don’t Need You Guys Anymore’
There is a direct correlation between populism growing across the globe, replacing the global “elite” one by one, and the fall of the mainstream media. The media has not become irrelevant because the globalists are falling, but rather the global elite are falling because the media has become irrelevant.
That is a very important distinction and a lesson learned in 2016 that must not ever be forgotten.
Populism is described as “a political doctrine that stems from a viewpoint of struggle between the populace and a ruling faction.” Nationalism on the other hand is defined as “patriotic feeling, principles, or efforts.”
Globalism is the exact opposite of both. Globalists believe what is best for the “international community,” should override what is best for individual countries, basically sacrificing the welfare of a nation’s populace to benefit the “international community” as a whole.
Angela Merkel, who has suffered some major losses herself in Germany.
Camerion, Obama, Merkel, Hollande, Renzi at G5 Summit
The image above, minus the X marks on their heads, has been going viral on social media, with messages like “Three pro-EU globalists down, one more pro-EU globalist to go,” and “four down, Merkel to go”, according to the Independent UK, in an article headlined “Last world leader standing: The photo that shows just how much the world has changed in 2016.”
Each of these leaders have been seen as betrayers by the populists in their respective countries, putting the good of others above the good of those they were elected to represent, and each have been repudiated in elections and referendums in 2016 by the very people they have betrayed with their globalist policies.
Globalist Cheerleaders (Mainstream Media) Become Irrelevant
The globalist supporting media in each of the “unexpected” losses had campaigned hard to prevent populism from overcoming globalism or to rephrase, to prevent the people from overcoming the elite and their agenda.
Before the Brexit vote, the media hyperventilated and claimed the whole world and markets would be “thrown in turmoil,” in an attempt to influence the referendum results.
Headlines from before the referendum included “Brexit ‘would have huge economic impact and spark turmoil in global markets’ from the Daily Mail and “Brexit would create turmoil and damage Irish trade,” from the Irish Times. One of the most amusing headlines came from the UK Mirror at the time, who declared “Brexit could end Britain’s hopes of hosting another World Cup or Olympics.”
The same type of howling preceded the U.S. elections with dire warnings of what would happen if Donald Trump beat globalist Hillary Clinton, where CNN headlined on November 6 with:
“US election 2016: this is the global market turmoil that would be triggered by a Donald Trump victory,” to which not only didn’t happen, but just the opposite occurred, as one day after the election, markets rallied and stocks soared, with increases still being seen as CNBC reports today that “Stocks have been on a rip-roaring rally since the U.S. election.”
One pattern here is that in every case, the mainstream media had attempted to influence the outcome, always in favor of the globalists, but the more important pattern is that the populace in each instance in their respective countries….. ignored them.
Ignored the consistent flow of skewed polls claiming the “populist” candidate or position had no chance, ignored the constant negative stories being slammed out daily, in many case multiple times a day, against the candidate or position the media didn’t favor.
While polling over the decades has shown an increase of distrust toward the mainstream media, until 2016, they were still able to influence primaries, elections, referendums and votes……. those days are gone, and that is why the global elite are panicking.
Former US VP to Media: "We Don't Need You Guys Anymore"
Former U.S. VP Dick Cheney recently sat down with Former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and CNN’s Barbara Starr at the Reagan Library, and said something horrifying to the mainstream media and the globalists.
Love him or hate him... the truth is the truth. Starr asked Cheney about the language of President-elect Trump’s tweets and after answering her Cheney stated:
“I think one of the reasons people get so concerned about the tweets is it is sort of a way around the press. He doesn’t have to rely upon, uh, rely upon - this is the modern era, modern technology. He’s at the point where we don’t need you guys anymore.”
The laughter from the audience is clearly heard… but nothing from CNN’s Starr, because those are the words the global elite and the MSM are all terrified of… because they are the truth.
That comment comes at the 3:20 minute mark in the clip below:
The mainstream media and their “fake news,” along with their “fake polls,” using skewed demographics intended to create an illusion meant to influence the public, has failed, and with it they took the last thing propping up globalism and touting it as the “way forward,” in an attempt to create a New World Order.
The term “leader of the free world” has often been used to describe the United States and more commonly the U.S. President of the United States, and having a populist U.S. President is a tremendous blow to globalists across the world, so it is no coincidence that after an election to where the ‘populist’ candidate won, Clinton teamed up with Green Party candidate Jill Stein to petition for recounts in the three states that Trump flipped, which if successful would have handed the election to the globalist candidate Hillary Clinton.
It is also no coincidence that organized protests, funded by globalist George Soros, have been seen across America after the election or that we are seeing dire warnings of “bloody Friday,” with reports warning that ISIS could attack on inauguration day.
Fear, Bloodshed And Human Sacrifices Before Winter Solstice December 22 2016 | From: VigilantCitizen
The killing of an ambassador in Turkey on live television and the attack of a Christmas market in Berlin occurred at a crucial time of year.
The Russian ambassador with his killer standing behind him, moments before the gunshot
On December 19th 2016, Donald Trump was officially confirmed as President of the United States by the Electoral College. Media coverage of this event was however eclipsed by attacks that ironically confirm why he was elected in the first place. And these attacks will most likely greatly influence upcoming elections in Germany, France and the Netherlands. A drastic change in political scenery is in the horizon, and it is fueled by fear, bloodshed and rejection of globalism.
The assassination of a Russian ambassador on live television and the violent attack of a Christmas market in Germany are events that are not only violent, but charged with intense symbolism meant to shock the public mind.
Whether this was coincidental or not, these events occurred right on the brink of the winter solstice a period that is historically prone to blood sacrifices as it is a minor Sabbath in the occult calendar. Before Christmas, there was Saturnalia.
“The origins of Christmas predate Christianity through the Pagan holiday called Saturnalia, which was a week-long of lawlessness from December 17th through December 25th that honored Saturn and included human sacrifice, intoxication, naked caroling and rape. During these seven days, there were no punishments for breaking any laws, according to Roman law.”
- In5d, Esoteric Meaning of Christmas
“It was traditional to offer gifts of imitation fruit (a symbol of fertility), dolls (symbolic of the custom of human sacrifice), and candles (reminiscent of the bonfires traditionally associated with pagan solstice celebrations). A mock king was chosen, usually from a group of slaves or criminals, and although he was permitted to behave in an unrestrained manner for seven days of the festival, he was usually killed at the end.
The Saturnalia eventually degenerated into a week-long spree of debauchery and crime – giving rise to the modern use of the tern saturnalia, meaning a period of unrestrained license and revelry.”
- Time and Date, “Holidays and Traditions around the December solstice”
On December 19th, the entire world witnessed a live murder, a carefully planned sacrifice.
The Russian Ambassador
Andrey Karlov, Russia’s ambassador to Turkey was shot dead on Monday evening as he delivered a speech at a photo exposition. The killer, identified as Mert Altintas, was an off-duty member of Ankara’s police force.
The entire scene was extremely surreal because, beyond the violence, it was “visually perfect”. It was a set piece made for mass media.
Mert Altintas stood behind the ambassador, wearing a stylishly tailored black suit, which sharply contrasted with the immaculate white background adorned with pictures of Russia. Several gunshots then wring out and the ambassador falls on his back, suddenly lifeless. The gunman then walks around the body, yelling “Allahu Akbar” and “Don’t forget Aleppo” until police finally manages to reach him and shoot him down.
As one reviews this surreal scene, one wonders: How was this even allowed to happen? How come this 22-year-old, off-duty cop, who is part of the riot squad, was the only person standing behind Karlov this entire time? Reports are now saying that the gunman refused security check.
“The off-duty police officer who assassinated Russia’s ambassador to Turkey refused to go through an X-ray security check before the shooting - but was let into the event anyway, according to a report.
The Hurriyet Daily News reported Tuesday that the assassin, Mevlüt Mert Altintas, simply flashed his police ID to enter Ankara’s Contemporary Arts Center - where Russian Ambassador Andrey Karlov was scheduled to speak at a photo exhibition.”
- Daily News, Assassin of Turkey’s Russian ambassador refused security check before ambushing event
Also, all signs point to the attack being ordered from above, Mert Altintas being the proverbial patsy.
“It had been determined Tuesday if Altintas, 22, was part of a wider plan to take out the Russian ambassador. But a senior Turkish official told the Associated Press Altintas likely did not act alone. The official, speaking anonymously, called the killing “fully professional, not a one-man action.”
Turkish authorities suspect that Altintas was under the influence of Fetullah Gulen, a Turkish preacher who is currently based in the United States, in Pennsylvania. He is suspected of being a CIA operative conducting operations meant to destabilize Erdogan’s government.
Although some draw comparisons between this event and the assassination that lead to WWI, it is unlikely that the killing will cause significant change. It will most likely justify the Russian-Turkish involvement in Syria.
The truck used to conduct the attack with Christmas decorations stuck on the windshield. Sadly symbolic
Around the same time the assassination occurred in Turkey, a horrific attack took place in Berlin killing 12 people and 48 others.
“What authorities can say for certain is that a tractor-trailer with Polish license plates and laden with steel rods jumped a sidewalk around 8 p.m. Monday and plowed into the market near the Kaiser Wilhelm Memorial Church, a symbolic Berlin site whose spire, jagged from bomb damage, was intentionally left unrepaired after World War II.”
- NY Times, Berlin Christmas Market Was Target of Terrorist Attack, Angela Merkel Says
This event was also charged with symbolic meaning. It was not simply about killing people, it was an attack on German culture, history and tradition. Christmas markets are a German tradition originating from the Middle Ages where locals shop for various goods while getting into the Christmas spirit.
The market that was attacked is situated near the Kaiser Wilheml Memorial church, a symbolic piece of German history.
The truck and the wreckage it caused at the foot of the Church. Although not all Germans are religious, the building remains a piece of local history.
This bloody attack is therefore custom-built to anger the German population who have to witness a beloved tradition being turned into a bloodbath by terrorists.
This anger might very well translate into votes against Merkel (and her open-door policy to refugees) in the upcoming elections. It might also influence the French elections where Le Pen is gaining traction.
At the time of writing this article, Berlin police detains a suspect who is said to be a refugee from Pakistan. However, police also stated that they might have the wrong person and that the true culprit might still be on the run. No matter who finally gets arrested, ultimate losers will be citizens who will have to suffer through even more scrutiny, monitoring and surveillance for more “security”.
The elite’s motto is Ordo Ab Chao (Order Out of Chaos) and Merkel’s policy brought to Germany great deal of chaos. Now people will crave for order. And that order might come at a terrible price.
The two events described above were not only about killing people. They were about sending a message. They were charged with symbolic meaning custom made for mass media and social networks.
These events occurred at a sensitive time of the year, the winter solstice, a minor Sabbath, historically celebrated with human sacrifice. Whether this date was intentionally selected or not, the entire world was forced to witness a planned killing, a ritual sacrifice carried out methodically as the killer screamed “God is Great”.
Top 10 Most Delusional “Facts” Of The Lunatic Left-Wing Fact-Checkers December 22 2016 | From: NaturalNews
Since Facebook has announced its intention to erect a Ministry of Truth echo chamber by labeling all news it doesn’t like “fake news,” I thought it appropriate to unveil the top 10 most delusional “facts” people will be subjected to if they keep viewing Facebook, CNN, or any other news propaganda being put out by what has become the mentally ill political left today.
As anyone with a functioning brain already knows, the unhinged left is utterly clueless about the properties of “facts” or where they come from. To them, “facts” are whatever their friends keep repeating, even if they have no basis whatsoever in evidence or reality.
In essence, “facts” are whatever they believe, while “fake news” is whatever you believe. (It really is that simple in their feeble brains.)
So consider these top 10 most delusional “facts” we’ll soon see rolled out as “truth” by the newly-sprung news cartels operating inside Fakebook.
“Fact” #1: Eating Meat is Cruelty to Animals, But Harvesting the Organs of Living, Partially-Born Human Babies Isn’t Cruel at All
Somehow, the delusional left has decided that animals are conscious beings but not human babies. Yeah, it’s insane, I know. Liberalism is best defined as a kind of mental illness where a person can hold two utterly contradictory thoughts in their head at the same time while simultaneously believing them both.
To demonstrate this particular brand of lunacy, a Beastie Boy recently announced a new line of “cruelty free” sneakers with proceeds to benefit abortion providers. Yep, “no animals were harmed in the process of butchering these babies” might as well be the sicko slogan of the unhinged left.
“Fact” #2: If Not For the Burning of Fossil Fuels, Earth’s Climate Would Never Change at All
At first, they called their hoax “global warming,” but when it turned out the Earth wasn’t warming at all - funny how that works when you use actual data instead of fraudulently altered numbers - they had to roll out a more encompassing name: Climate Change.
According to Climate Change cultists - named thusly because no amount of evidence can alter their “faith” in Climate Change - Earth’s climate never changed at all until humankind came along and started burning fossil fuels.
But now - OMG! - every hurricane, flood, drought, forest fire and freezing arctic blast is automatically attributed to “climate change.” Yep, especially among young leftists who have been indoctrinated by the lies of government-run schools, they think their ancestors lived in a time when Earth was eternal Spring, with no climate variation or natural disasters whatsoever.
It’s only because you and I are using air conditioning and driving SUVs that the planet has become angry, unleashing all sorts of climatic “changes” that otherwise would have never occurred.
This explanation, you may have noticed, closely resembles the superstitions of 5th-century humans who largely believed that bad weather and solar eclipses were caused by “angry gods” seeking to punish them. In over 1000 years, we’ve learned nothing, it seems, and “progressives” have thrust us back to an era of incredible ignorance and superstition where scientific evidence is abandoned for the sake of powerful cult-like beliefs.
“Fact” #3: People with XY Chromosomes Can Instantly Transform All Their Genes Into XX Chromosomes by Declaring Themselves to be Women (the Theory of Spontaneous Genetic Transmutation…)
Ask any young liberal and they’ll tell you there are at least 30 genders, maybe even more if you count “TransUnicorn.” If you can stop laughing hilariously, ask them whether sex is determined by genetic expression or by a “choice.” They will insist it’s a “choice!”
And just like that, the delusional leftists discard centuries of scientific knowledge in genetics, sexual reproduction, phenotype expressions and physical reality. If you dare point out to them that “transgenderism is a mental illness,” they will label you a purveyor of either hatred or “fake news.”
To them, a “feeling” is more REAL than actual science, you see. And if a young man sucks down enough bisphenol-A to start “feeling” like a woman, then his womanhood is accepted as a “fact” by the deranged lunatic left. Some of them even insist that such “gender-fluid” biological males can get pregnant and have babies!
I have named this hilarious bit of leftish delusional idiocy the Theory of Spontaneous Genetic Transmutation. This theory is quite literally accepted as “fact” by nearly every liberal under the age of 30.
“Fact” #4: Media News Coverage During the Presidential Campaign Was Completely Fair to Both Clinton and Trump, But the DNC Hacks Were One-Sided, and Thus Totally Unfair
Yep, according to the delusional left, the almost universally glowing media coverage of Hillary Clinton - alongside relentless media attacks waged against Trump - were “fair and balanced.” But Trump won the election because the DNC hacks (which were actually leaks from a Bernie Sanders supporter, not hacks at all) were totally unfair because they only leaked the emails of the democrats, not republicans.
Kellyanne Conway: CIA Should Go and Testify and Stop Leaking to the Media
Hidden in that protest is an astonishing presumption that all the leaked DNC emails were true! And they reveal a deeply shocking level of collusion inside the DNC to destroy Bernie Sanders and steal the nomination for Hillary Clinton.
“Fact” #5: Hillary Clinton Should be President Because She Won the Popular Vote, But When Bernie Sanders Kept Winning the Popular Vote During the Primary, Clinton Somehow Got All the Delegates… Hmmm…
Hilariously, the Clinton campaign (and all delusional leftists in general) only believes in “popular votes” when they win the popular vote.
When they don’t win the popular vote, they believe in rigging the delegates to make sure their candidate gets the delegate votes even if they lost the popular vote. This is exactly how Hillary Clinton kept walking away with the vast majority of delegates even in states where Bernie Sanders won the popular votes (sometimes in a landslide).
Beyond all that, the presidential election is not determined by popular votes, or else Donald Trump would have campaigned heavily in places like New York City and Los Angeles.
The winner is determined by Electoral Votes, which is why Donald Trump campaigned in the areas that deliver electoral victories. (Gosh, is he supposed to be a bad person for following the rules and winning by those rules?)
Judge Jeanine: I'll tell you what hope is, Michelle
If the Clinton campaign didn’t think the Electoral College was fair, why didn’t they protest it before the results revealed Hillary to be the loser? The answer, of course, is because nearly every leftist in America was completely convinced that Hillary Clinton would win the election (because that’s what the media echo chamber told them).
Hilariously, this caused many of them to avoid going out to vote, thereby ensuring their ballot box loss. CNN’s false media narrative that Hillary was “unbeatable,” in other words, may have actually handed Donald Trump the election victory. (Such is the price of extreme arrogance.)
“Fact” #6: There’s No Such Thing as a Hate Crime Against White People
According to the lunatic left, “hate crimes” can only be committed by white people against people of color. The opposite cannot occur because white people “deserve” to be beaten, raped, or shot by people of color, you see. (For the record, I am a person of color, which means I am therefore incapable of committing any hate crime myself, you see.)
Thus, when a group of Black Lives Matter terrorists marches in the streets calling for the open murder of white people - or dragging people out of their vehicles and beating them solely because of their white skin color - they are not engage in hate crimes at all, according to the delusional left.
Instead, they are said to be engaged in “social justice.” Because, you see, violence is always called “justice” by the worst criminals in every collapsing society.
This is why the entire left-wing media censors all news about black people attacking white people, but strongly emphasizes all news about white people attacking black people. It’s all part of controlling the narrative to paint the kind of one-sided propaganda that the delusional left depends on for its very survival.
For the record, here at Natural News, we believe that there is no such thing as a thought crime. Crimes of violence are crimes in and of themselves due to their actions. Attaching a layer of “hate” to the motivation behind such a crime is a grave injustice.
Crimes should be prosecuted based on the actions of those who committed them, not on the words uttered while carrying them out. Otherwise, we are admitting that words are crimes.
“Fact” #7: Guns Are Conscious, Self-Animating Objects That Leap Out Of Their Holsters and Shoot People All On Their Own
According to delusional leftists who essentially believe in magic, guns are self-directed objects that shoot people all on their own. Leftists truly believe that a gun in a room can leap to its feet, target individuals and discharge bullets without needing to be actuated by the will of a person.
This is where the delusional left comes up with meaningless phrases like “gun violence,” placing the emphasis on the inanimate object rather than the person deploying it. There is no such thing as “gun violence” any more than there is “hammer violence” when murderers use hammers.
When Somali tribes commit mass murder against each other using machetes, the left never describes such events as “machete violence” and tries to blame machetes. Ever wonder why? Because that would sound incredibly stupid.
But when it comes to guns, the left gladly invokes the phrase “gun violence” in order to blame guns rather than people. It’s a deliberately loaded phrase that’s designed to blame guns rather than the mostly left-wing criminals who use them to commit violence against society.
Similarly, when radical Islamic terrorists used an ice cream truck to mow down tourists in Paris, the left-wing media reported the mass murder as being carried out by the truck! News reports proclaimed, “TRUCK runs over 85 people…” or “Authorities are searching for TRUCK that murdered 85…”
Somehow, it never occurs to idiotic leftists that a terrorist was driving the truck. And if trucks are such murderous instruments of death, then why isn’t the left calling for a nationwide truck ban?
“Fact” #8: Only Progressives Can Identify “Facts”… Everyone Else Doesn’t Know What They’re Talking About
This “fact” is the best one of all. According to the delusional, fringe left, only people who support left-wing policies can recognize or identify “facts.”
This twisted special sauce of circular logic is what leftists tell themselves when they proclaim their version of “facts” to be absolute and authoritative, while anyone else’s version of “facts” are nothing but lies and falsehoods.
Thus, the lunatic left believes it gets facts straight from God in a sort of “divining ritual” from which indisputable facts emerge much like a genie might appear after vigorously rubbing a brass lamp.
This “monopoly of facts” is the sole domain of liberals, you see, and they know this because so many of them agree with that supposition, thus proving it to be true by “social consensus.” They surveyed each other, you see, and now they cite the survey which states that “100% of all people everywhere participate in surveys.” This, too, is a “fact” of the delusional left-wing media.
(It’s kind of convenient for journalists at the Washington Post when they merely need to cite each other as “unnamed sources” for whatever news they happen to be fabricating at the moment, too.
Who needs actual intelligence sources when WashPost reporters can circle jerk each other for made-up quotes that get worked into their front page fabrications?)
“Fact” #9: Intentions Count MoreThan Actions
Obama is a good President and a good person. How do we know that? Because he has good intentions.
Never mind the fact that he doubled the national debt to nearly $20 trillion. Never mind the fact that his DOJ masterminded a gun-running operation to put illegal weapons into the hands of Mexican drug cartels (Operation Fast and Furious).
Never mind the indisputable observation that he was a race baiter who created division, hatred and distrust across America’s cultural fabric. And pay no attention to the astonishing job loss, unemployment and plummeting wages caused by the Obamacare scheme he championed as some sort of twisted, pathetic “legacy.”
Nope, you’re not supposed to consider actual reality when it comes to judging people on the left. They are all given a pass on their behavior as long as they have good intentions, you see.
This is why it doesn’t matter to the left that Bill Clinton is an accused rapist, sexual molester and repeated attacker of multiple women who have openly and publicly accused him of sexual assault.
According to the delusional left, Bill Clinton gets a free pass on all that because he’s a good liberal. He has compassion, don’t you know? He supports abortion, carbon taxes and banning the Second Amendment. Thus, according to the left, it doesn’t matter how many women he raped, abused or molested.
Facts be damned. When it comes to protecting the champions of the political left, no amount of legitimate evidence of criminal wrongdoing can overcome the left’s blind faith in their so-called leaders, even if they be pedophiles ordering sicko sessions with minors like buying pizza off a menu.
“Fact” #10: Bigger Government is Always the Answer
No matter what challenges society may face, the disconnected left believes bigger government is always the answer.
Got a problem with people drinking too much soda? We need bigger government to function as “food police” and criminalize large sodas offerings.
Are too many dementia patients forgetting where they are and wandering aimlessly across mall parking lots? We need bigger government, the left insists, to microchip and track the location of all those afflicted with “mental disorders.” (It’s true, Congress just passed the law for government to microchip citizens.)
Can’t afford your rent? Mobile phone bills? Groceries? Don’t worry, the government will create a new program to take money from all those who earned it and redistribute the funds to loyal democrat voters who consume it (while, of course, padding the pockets of the politically connected elite along the way).
According to the delusional left, there’s no problem too large that even larger government can’t solve! Their utopian economy, in fact, is a system where the free market is abolished and replaced by a centrally planned economy which values “equality” above all else.
Our world already has a system like that, by the way. It’s called “Venezuela.” And right now, all the self-righteous Venezuelans who voted for “equality” are eating out of grocery store dumpsters while having their cash criminalized and confiscated by the very same government they stupidly put into power. (Will socialists never learn?)
The Greatest “Fact” of All is the Fact That Leftists Have Increasingly Become Fact-Free Lunatics
So let’s cut the crap. Almost everything the lunatic left insists is a “fact” turns out to be a fairy tale or outright lie. Polar bears are going extinct! If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor! Raising taxes on corporations is good for creating jobs!
Hillary Clinton believes in honoring the outcome of all democratic elections… except for the ones she loses.
And if you lose an election in a democracy, the correct course of action, according to the left, is to keep threatening electoral voters with murder until you get your way.
It turns out that, for the most part, leftists are fact-free lunatics. I could lay out a hundred striking examples of the lunacy and contradictions of the delusional left, but you probably already see many of them yourself.
The left has become so deranged and disconnected from reality that their cheap tactics of race baiting and slandering their political opponents simply don’t work anymore.
The political left in America, which was once a semi-respected organization that opposed George Bush’s corporate-run wars and fought to reduce air pollution has become a twisted cabal of deranged fringe lunatics who have already crossed the threshold of mental illness.
Now, with the help of Fakebook - which has become the online equivalent of Darth Vader - they’re going to try to steamroll society with a whole new set of fabricated “facts” that will also fail miserably… just like their recent election efforts.
Facts are stubborn things. More importantly, no one has a monopoly on them.
Those who try to censor whatever “facts” they don’t agree with will only end up making the things they dispute increasingly popular for the simple reason that human beings are curious about the world around them, and they don’t take kindly to having a homogenized, sanitized worldview shoved down their throats by self-proclaimed “fact checkers” who genuinely belong in a psychiatric ward.
But don’t take my word for anything. After all, everything I’ve written here is merely my opinion. Open your eyes, explore the world for yourself, and make up your own mind.
That simple act, by the way, will make you a lifelong enemy of the left… which demands you remain blindly obedient to their “facts” even when your own direct experiences contradict them.
Remember: The ultimate goal of the radical left is to make you abandon trust in your own senses, thoughts and logical conclusions. Only then can they dominate your existence with their fabrications that any clear-headed person would instantly see right through.
Facebook To Become Left-Wing Propaganda Echo Chamber With Orwellian Plan To Label Independent Journalism “Fake” + Facebook Jumps On ‘Fake News’ Fact-Checker Train, Will ‘Roll Out’ With PolitiFact December 21 2016 | From: NaturalNews / WashingtonTimes
Facebook has announced a new plan today that will very quickly transform the social media site into an “echo chamber” of left-wing media lies and delusional propaganda (just like we’ve recently seen pushed by the Washington Post).
The new effort will rely on left-wing “fact checker” organizations like Politifact and Snopes to determine the “truthiness” of news stories, reports Business Insider. Those stories deemed by left-wing “fact checkers” to be inaccurate will be buried in Facebook users’ feeds as a form of organized totalitarian censorship.
This Ministry of Truth “news dictatorship” plan will, of course, transform Facebook into nothing more than a news “bubble” where left-wing propaganda is repeated as “fact” while independent journalism is labeled “fake.”
This means all stories that are critical of vaccines, GMOs, Planned Parenthood or Hillary Clinton will be censored out of existence. The political left, you see, doesn’t seek to win any debate at all… their goal is to ban the debate so that you never read any views other than theirs. (They can’t win any legitimate debates or legitimate elections, so they cheat.)
In essence, Facebook has now announced it’s going to become the North Korea of social media.
Facebook’s “Fact Checkers” Are Left-Wing Propagandsts Who Despise Factual Journalism
“We believe providing more context can help people decide for themselves what to trust and what to share,” the company said.
“We’ve started a program to work with third-party fact checking organizations that are signatories of Poynter’s International Fact Checking Code of Principles. We’ll use the reports from our community, along with other signals, to send stories to these organizations.”
“Facebook has announced it will introduce warning labels on stories they deem to be “fake news,” with the help of partisan “fact checking” organisations such as Snopes and PolitiFact,”reports Breitbart.com.
Business Insider reports that these organisations will include the likes of Snopes, ABC, Politifact, and FactCheck.org, all of which have records of left-wing partisanship - particularly throughout the 2016 election.
For example, PolitiFact infamously said it was “mostly false” when Donald Trump claimed in a presidential debate that Hillary Clinton wanted “open borders.” PolitiFact made this ruling despite Clinton being on the record at a paid speech saying “My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders.”
Trump also said that Russia has 1,800 nuclear warheads and has expanded its arsenal while the U.S. has not. PolitiFact admitted that Trump’s claim was factual, but it rated the statement as “half true” for supposedly “missing the big picture.”
In both of these cases, PolitiFact went beyond mere fact-checking and moved the goal posts in ways that benefited Clinton’s candidacy.
This type of ideological “fact checking” went beyond parody during October’s presidential debates, with NBC taking Trump’s statement that Clinton “acid washed” her emails (a reference to the data deletion tool “BleachBit”) 100% literally and declaring the statement “false.”
It’s Time to Leave Facebook and Discover Alternatives Like Diaspora or Gab.ai
As Facebook turns into an echo chamber of mentally ill liberal whackos, informed people will look elsewhere for uncensored, independent news. One of the best alternatives for Facebook is Diaspora, a network of independent social media hubs run by independent, open source organizations like Natural News.
Our Diaspora hub is found at Share.NaturalNews.com, and it’s rapidly growing. There, you’ll receive every story we post, unlike Facebook where 99% of our posts are deliberately buried by Facebook itself.
Gab.ai is also rapidly growing, promising uncensored free speech in a social media format. You can find my articles posted in real time at these two accounts:
Join all these sources so that you can stay informed. Understand that Facebook, Google, Twitter, Yahoo and all the other internet gatekeepers are now engaged in an all out war against independent news, hoping to censor it out of existence.
(They’ve lost the narrative, and they lost the election. Now they’re desperate to destroy whatever voices they don’t control… but it will only cause them to lose their audience.)
A Mass Exodus Away From Fakebook
By censoring independent journalism, Facebook is going to lose tens of millions of users who will simply go somewhere else. The left-wing propaganda swallowers who stay behind at Facebook will simply become increasingly misinformed and mentally ill as they follow the left-wing media down the rabbit hole of delusional Russian hacker conspiracy theories and hatred against America, the Constitution and the entire male population in general.
It won’t be long, probably, before Snopes “officially” confirms that having white skin makes you a racist, or that all men are evil due to their genetics.
Politifact might throw down its own delusional “facts” that claim Donald Trump was hypnotized by the Russians as a Manchurian candidate to commit genocide against women (or whatever) whose body parts will be harvested for organ donations to gray aliens from planet Cockamamie.
I can’t wait for Snopes to confirm that people can transform XY chromosomes into XX chromosomes by declaring themselves to be transgender. Before long, everything pushed by the left - from climate change lunacy to transgender psychosis - will be rooted in sheer delusion that stands in complete contradiction to scientific reality.
Yet it will all be pushed by Facebook as “verified fact.” To the utterly insane left, “facts” are whatever they believe in, no matter how disconnected from reality they might be.
We have now entered the Orwellian nightmare we all knew was coming. The good news is that you can simply change the channel and escape the nightmare by avoiding Facebook altogether.
The social media giant’s newsroom announced that it will partner with third-party organizations to identify hoaxes and unreliable stories.
“We believe providing more context can help people decide for themselves what to trust and what to share,” the company said.
“We’ve started a program to work with third-party fact checking organizations that are signatories of Poynter’s International Fact Checking Code of Principles. We’ll use the reports from our community, along with other signals, to send stories to these organizations.”
According to Facebook, “if the fact checking organizations identify a story as fake, it will get flagged as disputed and there will be a link to the corresponding article explaining why. Stories that have been disputed may also appear lower in News Feed.”
Still, CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s company said its workforce and partners “cannot become arbiters of truth” while essentially designating them as such. One of the organizations Facebook plans on teaming up with is Snopes, which bills itself as an “essential resource” for truth.
Others groups the social media platform will work with include ABC News, FactCheck.org, PolitiFact, and The Associated Press.
Conservative commentators were quick to put forth a “who watches the watchmen” counter-argument.
“Sometimes the experts are also partisans who have an agenda. That was certainly the case with regard to Obamacare,” wrote Hotair’s John Sexton on Thursday.
“Health care wonks like Ezra Klein and Jonathan Gruber knew a great deal about the program.
They were also prepared to help their Democratic allies in government lie to the public if necessary to see it succeed. It’s not that they didn’t know the truth it’s just that they weren’t going to share all of it (except occasionally to a friendly audience).
Now imagine applying these new rules retroactively to this story. Would any story which challenged Obama’s statement be flagged as ‘fake news’ prior to 2013?”
“Two university studies show PolitiFact rates the GOP as liars over Democrats at a rate of 3 to 1 and 2 to 1 respectively. […] I once asked the head of PolitiFact to explain a university study suggesting they were biased,” Mr. Hemingway said in a series of tweets.
“He no joke told me that based on what people tell him at parties he thinks he’s fair. I could go on … but the idea of PolitiFact censoring political speech at any major social media network is horrifying.”
Facebook, for all intents and purposes, dismissed such concerns as hyperbole over a work-in-progress with good intentions.
“We’re excited about this progress, but we know there’s more to be done,” the company wrote. “We’re going to keep working on this problem for as long as it takes to get it right.”
The New Zealand Road Toll Statistics They Tried To Bury December 20 2016 | From: BreakingViews
I checked the latest road toll statistics a few days ago. Interesting. For the year from January 1, road deaths were up from 291 last year to 300.
For the 12 months to Tuesday, they were up from 315 to 328. For driver fatalities, the figures were up from 138 to 151 (for the calendar year to date) and from 146 to 170 (over 12 months). These are not big increases, but they appear to be more than mere statistical blips.
Even more interesting are some of the figures from a Ministry of Transport booklet called Alcohol and Drugs 2016.
Most of the tables in the booklet pull together figures covering the years 2013-2015 without breaking them down year by year. They reveal that alcohol and/or drugs contributed to 12 per cent of fatal smashes.
This might come as a surprise. Given the official obsession with alcohol as a risk factor (all those checkpoints, all those TV ads, all those earnest lectures from senior police officers every holiday period), I imagine most people would have thought the ratio of deaths attributable to booze must be much higher.
But what especially interested me was whether road deaths involving alcohol had decreased since the legal blood-alcohol limit was lowered on December 1 2014.
This is information of some importance, since the objective of the law change was to reduce the road toll. But you have to turn to page 8 before you find any figures relating to the year after the new limits kicked in.
These reveal that the number of alcohol-affected drivers involved in fatal crashes actually increased from 70 to 90 in the 12 months after the new law came into effect.
This was not what we were led to expect. It is the opposite of what the new limit was intended to achieve, which was to deter people who had been drinking from getting behind the wheel.
Opponents of the law change argued that it would punish safe, law-abiding motorists while hard-core drink-drivers would continue to flout the law with impunity. That appears to be precisely what has happened.
Drink-drive fatalities last year were the highest since 2010. In the 20-24 age group, the number of alcohol-affected male drivers involved in fatal crashes increased from 12 to 22 – that’s nearly double. For men overall, the number was up from 56 to 82.
If the numbers had gone the other way, I’m sure the ministry would have been shouting from the rooftops. As it is, it’s hard to escape the impression the figures were buried.
We shouldn’t be in the least bit surprised that the law change hasn’t delivered the promised improvement. Control-freak policy-makers and poll-driven politicians refuse to accept that human behaviour can’t conveniently be changed by legislative decree.
That’s also apparent from the anti-smacking law (on average, one child continues to be killed by domestic violence every five weeks while responsible parents risk prosecution for disciplining out-of-control kids with a harmless slap) and from laughably ineffective dog-control rules, which have entered a whole new realm of fantasy with the expectation that owners of dangerous dogs will obtain special high-risk dog owner licences, submit their dogs to good citizenship tests, have their properties inspected and demonstrate they understand their legal obligations.
Yeah, right. Can’t you just see gang members meekly queuing at council offices to fill in the forms and register their blood-flecked pitbulls for obedience training?
Now here’s the key point. Any benefits arising from lower blood-alcohol limits – and so far there don’t seem to be any – should be weighed against the social downsides.
As we brace for the annual bout of Christmas finger-wagging, we should ask whether New Zealanders’ enjoyment of life has been unnecessarily diminished just to satisfy the bureaucratic urge to regulate and control.
There’s an economic cost too. Country pubs - the heart of some rural communities - are going out of business and wineries can expect fewer summer visitors because people fret that a harmless tasting will push them over the limit.
Any supposed benefit must also be weighed against the undoubted change in the public attitude toward the police, who are increasingly resented as bullies and harassers - unwilling or unable to attend burglaries, but never short of the numbers to run alcohol checkpoints at all hours of the day, or to hamper law-abiding bar owners in their attempts to run a business, or to make the staging of public events such as wine festivals so onerous that some participating companies decide that it's just not worth the effort any more.
Comment: Anyone who still thinks the Police do not have quotas to meet for traffic and other 'offences' is deluded. It has been established as fact and I and many others have heard it admitted.
QUOTAS = REVENUE
Poll: Americans Backing President-Elect Donald Trump Just Weeks After Bitter Campaign + A "Soft Coup" Attempt: Furious Trump Slams "Secret" CIA Report Russia Helped Him Win December 19 2016 | From: Breitbart / AllNewsPipeline / Various
President-elect Donald J. Trump heads into his Jan. 20 inauguration riding a wave of approval from Americans, according to a national Remington Research Group poll conducted Dec. 11 and Dec. 12 with 1,945 voters.
“America is five weeks removed from one of the most negative presidential campaigns in history,” said Titus Bond, Remington‘s director of research.
“Donald Trump has been able to improve his image in a very short span and if that continues he will govern with a mandate,” he said. “Forty-seven percent of Americans view the president-elect favorably with 41 percent viewing him unfavorably with 12 percent having no opinion.”
The poll carries a 2.3 percent margin of error and was paid for and commissioned independent of any campaign or committee.
The Dow Jones Industrial Index closed Nov. 7 at 18,259.60, the day before the presidential election and the DJIA closed Dec. 9 at 19,756.85.
“Trump’s rebounding image could be attributed directly to the stock market,” he said. “Fifty-nine percent of Americans believe stock market gains are attributed to the election of Donald Trump, with 30 percent saying Trump is solely responsible for the gains. Just 30 percent of Americans believe the election of Trump had nothing to do with the rise in the stock market.”
The poll showed that people are siding with Trump against the press, he said.
“Half of all Americans believe the media has been unfair in its coverage of Trump with 39 percent saying the media has been fair,” Bond said.
“The mainstream media is viewed negatively by 57 percent of Americans with just 25 percent viewing mainstream media outlets favorably,” he said.
Americans have a mixed opinion of the team the president-elect is putting together for his cabinet, Bond said.
Forty percent of poll participants said they approved of Trump’s selections and 43 percent disapproved, he said.
“Americans are also split when asked if Donald Trump will make America great again,” Bond said. Forty-three percent believe he will and 43 percent do not believe he will, while 46 percent said they think the United States will be more safe under a Trump presidency and 43 percent believe America will be less safe.
Remington Research Group is a polling firm that specializes in automated IVR technology. Remington Research Group accurately predicted the outcome of the 2016 Presidential election and its surveys have been featured in RealClearPolitics, Newsweek, U.S. News & World Report, the Wall Street Journal, 538 and numerous local media throughout the United States.
A "Soft Coup" Attempt: Furious Trump Slams "Secret" CIA Report Russia Helped Him Win
Recently the media propaganda wars escalated after the late Friday release of an article by the Washington Post(which last weekadmitted to using unverified, or fake, news in an attempt to smear other so-called "fake news" sites) according to which a secret CIA assessment found that Russia sought to tip last month’s U.S. presidential election in Donald Trump’s favor, a conclusion presented without any actual evidence, and which drew an extraordinary, and angry rebuke from the president-elect’s camp.
“These are the same people that said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction,” Trump’s transition team said, launching a broadside against the spy agency.
The newspaper cited officials briefed on the matter as saying that individuals with connections to Moscow provided WikiLeaks with email hacked from the Democratic National Committee, Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton’s campaign chief and others.
Without a shred of evidence provided, and despite Wikileaks' own on the record denial that the source of the emails was Russian, the WaPo attack piece claims the email messages were steadily leaked out via WikiLeaks in the months before the election, damaging Clinton’s White House run.
Essentially, according to the WaPo, the Russians’ aim was to help Donald Trump win and not just undermine the U.S. electoral process, hinting at a counter-Hillary intent on the side of Putin.
“It is the assessment of the intelligence community that Russia’s goal here was to favor one candidate over the other, to help Trump get elected,” the newspaper quoted a senior U.S. official briefed on an intelligence presentation last week to key senators as saying. “That’s the consensus view.”
CIA agents told the lawmakers it was “quite clear” - although it was not reported exactly what made it "clear" - that electing Trump was Russia’s goal, according to officials who spoke to the Post, citing growing evidence from multiple sources.
And yet, key questions remain unanswered, and the CIA’s report fell short of being a formal U.S. assessment produced by all 17 intelligence agencies the newspaper said, for two reasons.
In fact, the WaPo admits as much in the following text, which effectively destroys the article's entire argument:
"The CIA presentation to senators about Russia’s intentions fell short of a formal U.S. assessment produced by all 17 intelligence agencies. A senior U.S. official said there were minor disagreements among intelligence officials about the agency’s assessment, in part because some questions remain unanswered.
For example, intelligence agencies do not have specific intelligence showing officials in the Kremlin “directing” the identified individuals to pass the Democratic emails to WikiLeaks, a second senior U.S. official said.
Those actors, according to the official, were “one step” removed from the Russian government, rather than government employees. Moscow has in the past used middlemen to participate in sensitive intelligence operations so it has plausible deniability.
“I’ll be the first one to come out and point at Russia if there’s clear evidence, but there is no clear evidence - even now,” said Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and a member of the Trump transition team. “There’s a lot of innuendo, lots of circumstantial evidence, that’s it.”
And since even the WaPo is forced to admit that intelligence agents don’t have the proof that Russian officials directed the identified individuals to supply WikiLeaks with the hacked Democratic emails, the best it can do is speculate based on circumstantial inferences, especially since, as noted above, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has denied links with Russia’s government, putting the burden of proof on the side of those who challenge the Wikileaks narrative.
Nonetheless, at the White House, Deputy Press Secretary Eric Schultz said Obama called for the cyberattacks review earlier this week to ensure “the integrity of our elections.”
“This report will dig into this pattern of malicious cyberactivity timed to our elections, take stock of our defensive capabilities and capture lessons learned to make sure that we brief members of Congress and stakeholders as appropriate,” Schultz said.
Taking the absurdity to a whole new level, Obama wants the report completed before his term ends on January 20, by none other than a proven and confirmed liar: "The review will be led by James Clapper, the outgoing director of national intelligence, officials said."
In other words, the report that the Kremlin stole the election should be prepared by the time Trump is expected to be sworn in.
“We are going to make public as much as we can,” the spokesman added. “This is a major priority for the president.”
The move comes after Democrats in Congress pressed the White House to reveal details, to Congress or to the public, of Russian hacking and disinformation in the election.
On Oct. 7, one month before the election, the Department of Homeland Security and the Director of National Intelligence announced that:
“The Russian Government directed the recent compromises of emails from U.S. persons and institutions, including from U.S. political organizations.” “These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the U.S. election process,” they said.
Trump dismissed those findings in an interview published Wednesday by Time magazine for its “Person of the Year” award. Asked if the intelligence was politicized, Trump answered: “I think so.”
“I don’t believe they interfered,” he said. “It could be Russia. And it could be China. And it could be some guy in his home in New Jersey.”
Worried that Trump will sweep the issue under the rug after his inauguration, seven Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee called on Nov. 29 for the White House to declassify what it knows about Russian interference. The seven have already been briefed on the classified details, suggesting they believe there is more information the public should know.
On Tuesday this week, leading House Democrats called on Obama to give members of the entire Congress a classified briefing on Russian interference, from hacking to the spreading of fake news stories to mislead U.S. voters.
Republicans in Congress have also promised hearings into Russian activities once the new administration comes in. Obama’s homeland security adviser Lisa Monaco said the cyberinterference goes back to the 2008 presidential race, when both the Obama and John McCain campaigns were hit by malicious computer intrusions.
An interesting aside to emerge from last night's hit piece and the Trump team response is that there is now a full blown turf war between Trump and the CIA, as NBC's Chuck Todd observed in a series of late Friday tweets:
To which Glenn Greenwald provided the best counterargument:
However, of the mini Tweetstorm, this was the most important aspect: the veiled suggestion that in addition to Russia, both the FBI and the Obama presidency prevented Hillary from becoming the next US president...
...which in light of these stunning new unproven and baseless allegations, she may very well have renewed aspirations toward.
So while there is no "there" there following the WaPo's latest attempt to fan the rarging fires of evidence-free propaganda, or as the WaPo itself would say "fake news", here is why the story has dramatic implications. First, the only two quotes which matter:
"...There is no clear evidence - even now,” said Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and a member of the Trump transition team. “There’s a lot of innuendo, lots of circumstantial evidence, that’s it.”
"...Obama wants the report before he leaves office Jan. 20, Monaco said. The review will be led by [PROVEN LIAR] James Clapper, the outgoing director of national intelligence, officials said."
And then the summary:
1. Announce "consensus" (not unanimous) "conclusion" based in circumstantial evidence now, before the Electoral College vote, then write a report with actual details due by Jan 20.
Put a proven liar in charge of writing the report on Russian hacking.
Fail to mention that not one of the leaked DNC or Podesta emails has been shown to be inauthentic. So the supposed Russian hacking simply revealed truth about Hillary, DNC, and MSM collusion and corruption.
Fail to mention that if hacking was done by or for US government to stop Hillary, blaming the Russians would be the most likely disinformation used by US agencies.
Expect every pro-Hillary lapdog journalist - which is virtually all of them - in America will hyperventilate (Twitter is currently on fire) about this latest fact-free, anti-Trump political stunt for the next nine days.
Or, as a reader put it, this is a soft coup attempt by leaders of Intel community and Obama Admin to influence the Electoral College vote, similar to the 1960s novel "Seven Days in May."
A CIA-Led Coup Against American Democracy Is Unfolding Before Our Eyes +
The Albuquerque Journal Asks The Relevant Question: Just Who Is Undermining Election? Russians Or CIA? December 19 2016 | From: PaulCraigRoberts / AlbJournal
This article by Moon of Alabama is not conspiracy theory: The "Elite" Coup of 2016 - Read it carefully. Check out the links.
Putin stands in brazen defiance of the New World Order globalist agenda - another thing that makes him a target
The article is a documented and accurate description of a coup that is underway. The extraordinary lies that are being perpetrated by the media and by members of the US government have as their obvious purpose the prevention of a Donald Trump presidency.
There is no other reason for the extraordinary blatant lies for which there is not a shred of evidence. Indeed, there is massive real evidence to the contrary. Yet the coup proceeds and gathers steam.
President Eisenhower warned us more than a half century ago of the danger that the military/security complex presents to US democracy. In the decades since Eisenhower’s warning, the military/security complex has become more powerful than the American people and is demonstrating its power by overturning a presidential election.
Will the coup succeed?
In my opinion, former and present members of the US government and the media would not dare to so obviously and openly participate in a coup against democracy and an elected president unless they expect the coup to succeed.
It is an easy matter for the ruling interests to bribe electors to vote differently than their states. The cost of the bribes is miniscule compared to the wealth and income streams that a trillion dollar annual budget provides to the military/security complex.
The fake news of a Putin/Trump election-stealing plot generated by unsupported allegations of present and former members of US intelligence, the lame-duck President Obama, and the presstitute media provide the cover for electors to break with precedent “in order to save America from a Russian stooge.”
The CIA-controlled European media, the politicians in Washington’s European vassal states, NATO officials, and the brainwashed European peoples will support the coup against Trump.
The only ones speaking against the coup are the voters who elected Trump - all of whom are alleged to have been deceived by Russian fake news - the Russian government, and the 200 websites falsely described by the Washington Post and the secret organization PropOrNot as Russian agents.
In other words, those objecting to the coup are the ones described by the coup leaders as those who made the coup necessary.
I do not know that the coup will succeed, but looking at the commitment so many high level people have made to the coup, I conclude that those bringing the coup expect it to succeed.
Therefore, we should take very seriously the expectation of success that those who control levers of power are demonstrating.
The Albuquerque Journal Asks The Relevant Question: Just Who Is Undermining Election? Russians Or CIA?
Congress needs to dust off its Magic 8 Ball. At this point, how else are our elected representatives going to get to the bottom of allegations that Russia and its president, Vladimir Putin, tried to influence the U.S. general election?
After all, the Central Intelligence Agency isn’t being very open – at least not with our elected representatives.
Instead of briefing the House Intelligence Committee about the alleged Russian role in hacked emails made public during the campaign – which Democrats desperately seek to blame for Hillary Clinton’s loss – the agency is leaking conclusions without facts to the Washington Post, New York Times and television networks.
The media, naturally, are quick to report the anonymous bits of “blame Putin” information to the public.
So to the extent Putin meddled, our own spies have at least matched his efforts to discredit our electoral system.
To recap: Private emails from the Democratic National Committee and Clinton campaign were made public via WikiLeaks, allegedly through hacking, even though the FBI had tried to warn the DNC back in September 2015 of problems with its security system.
The agency couldn’t get past the party’s technical help desk – harking back to Hillary’s email security problems on her own private server.
The media reported on the leaks daily – and if a reporter had obtained the same information from inside sources, there would be no controversy at all.
Today’s uproar is over the source – not the substance.
But the CIA’s alleged conclusion – that Russia intervened to help Trump win – does not square with comments made Nov. 17 by James Clapper, director of National Intelligence. He said he lacked “good insight” about whether there was a connection between the WikiLeaks releases and Russia.
Congressional Republican leaders are taking the allegations seriously. “The Russians are not our friends,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said. House Speaker Paul Ryan called any Russian intervention;
"Especially problematic because, under President Putin, Russia has been an aggressor that consistently undermines American interests.”
But Intelligence Committee member Peter King of New York flatly accused the U.S. intelligence community of waging a disinformation campaign aimed at undermining Trump’s credibility – if not changing the course of the Electoral College.
Not surprisingly, President Obama is seizing a newfound political opportunity and is taking a new interest despite earlier claims of knowing all along of Russian shenanigans but choosing not to go public with whatever evidence he had – none of which he has produced.
This is from a man who plays imaginary golf
He has ordered an investigation into whether Russia has attempted to influence U.S. elections going back to 2008. He said the reported CIA findings should come as no surprise to anyone, as suspicions that Russia was trying to influence the election were widely reported before the general election. Clinton herself spoke frequently about the possibility.
President-elect Donald Trump rejected the idea that Russia helped him win as “ridiculous.”
Concerning the source of the leaked emails, on Sunday he told Chris Wallace of Fox News;
"Personally, it could be Russia. I don’t really think it is. But who knows? … They don’t know and I don’t know.”
The source of the campaign leaks remains an interesting question, but one unlikely to be answered credibly unless the CIA coughs up its findings to Congress. Cooperation also might help answer the question of possible Russian motives if it was involved:
Was it to cast doubt on the U.S. election system? If so, it was highly successful with the help of our own intelligence community and desperate Democrats who simply can’t accept that Trump won 306 Electoral College votes.
Though the CIA based its supposed findings of pro-Trump intervention on the fact that no Republican emails were leaked before the election, the Republican National Committee says it wasn’t hacked.
And Wikileaks co-founder Julian Assange stands firm in his claim the Russians were not the source of the leaks. Cyber hacking has become one of the mainstays of life – Yahoo most recently was hacked of more than one billion user accounts.
And intervention into foreign elections is something many nations, including the United States, do regularly. Obama recently tried to influence the Brexit vote.
And while nobody should feel good about foreign interests intervening in U.S. elections, the reluctance of the U.S. intelligence community to share its information with official sources charged with making decisions about national security, while leaking information via media outlets, is very disturbing, raising the spectre of a political coup by our nation’s intelligence forces.
Putin Lashes Out At Obama: "Show Some Proof Or Shut Up" + Someone Has Officially Called The CIA’s Bluff Over Russia December 18 2016 | From: Zerohedge /TheAntiMedia
Putin has had enough of the relentless barrage of US accusations that he, personally, "hacked the US presidential election."
The Russian president's spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, said on Friday that the US must either stop accusing Russia of meddling in its elections or prove it. Peskov said it was "indecent" of the United States to "groundlessly" accuse Russia of intervention in its elections.
Comment: If watching the 6pm news was not comical before it sure as hell is now. The Western Cabal establishment is so desperate and pathetic, one must ask - just who among us anymore is so stupid as to believe this utter propaganda - bullshit?
“You need to either stop talking about it, or finally show some kind of proof. Otherwise it just looks very indecent”, Peskov told Reporters in Tokyo where Putin is meeting with Japan PM Abe, responding to the latest accusations that Russia was responsible for hacker attacks.
Peskov also warned that Obama's threat to "retaliate" to the alleged Russian hack is "against both American and international law", hinting at open-ended escalation should Obama take the podium to officially launch cyberwar against Russia.
Previously, on Thursday, Peskov told the AP the report was "laughable nonsense", while Russian foreign ministry spox Maria Zakharova accused "Western media" of being a "shill" and a "mouthpiece of various power groups", and added that;
“It's not the general public who's being manipulated," Zakharova said.
"The general public nowadays can distinguish the truth. It's the mass media that is manipulating themselves."
Meanwhile, on Friday Sergei Lavrov, Russia's foreign minister told state television network, Russia 24, he was "dumbstruck" by the NBC report which alleges that Russian President Vladimir Putin was personally involved in an election hack.
The report cited U.S. intelligence officials that now believe with a "high level of confidence" that Putin became personally involved in a secret campaign to influence the outcome of the U.S. presidential election.
"I think this is just silly, and the futility of the attempt to convince somebody of this is absolutely obvious,"Lavrov added, according to the news outlet.
As a reminder, last night Obama vowed retaliatory action against Russia for its meddling in the US presidential election last month. "I think there is no doubt that when any foreign government tries to impact the integrity of our elections that we need to take action and we will at a time and place of our own choosing," Obama told National Public Radio.
US intelligence agencies in October pinned blame on Russia for election-related hacking. At the time, the White House vowed a "proportional response" to the cyberactivity, though declined to preview what that response might entail.
Meanwhile, both President-elect Donald Trump, the FBI, and the ODNI have dismissed the CIA's intelligence community's assessment, for the the same reason Putin finally lashed out at Obama: there is no proof.
That, however, has never stopped the US from escalating a geopolitical conflict to the point of war, or beyond, so pay close attention to what Obama says this afternoon.
According to an NBC report, a team of analysts at Eurasia Group said in a note on Friday that they believe the outgoing administration is likely to take action which could result in a significant barrier for Trump's team once he takes office in January.
"It is unlikely that U.S. intelligence reports will change Trump's intention to initiate a rapprochement with Moscow, but the congressional response following its own investigations could obstruct the new administration's effort," Eurasia Group analysts added.
At the same time, Wikileaks offered its "validation" services, tweeting that "Obama should submit any Putin documents to WikiLeaks to be authenticated to our standards if he wants them to be seen as credible."
We doubt Obama would take the whistleblower organization on its offer, even if he did have any Putin documents to authenticate.
Someone Has Officially Called The CIA’s Bluff Over Russia
The scapegoating of Russia is now so widespread, Dirty Wars author and investigative journalist Jeremy Scahill took to The Intercept to call the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) on its bluff.
In the article, “Obama Must Declassify Evidence Of Russian Hacking,” Scahill and Jon Schwartz called out U.S. intelligence agencies for their record of deceit, asserting that the American people are not going to simply “take their word for it.”
"U.S. intelligence agencies have repeatedly demonstrated that they regularly both lie and get things horribly wrong,” the article argues.
But when it comes to the CIA’s case against Russia’s alleged interference with the latest U.S. presidential elections, it’s impossible to claim the hearsay is based on facts if evidence is not made available to support the agency’s claims.
Nevertheless, Scahill and Schwartz argue, it’s possible that Russia may have pulled some strings. But even if the Kremlin had its reasons and acted on them, America is the country with the long history of election meddling - not Russia.
Take Hillary Clinton’s comments on the Palestinian elections, for instance. A leaked audio recording from 2006 revealed then-senator Clinton advocated doing “something to determine who was going to win” in Palestine’s elections.
Comment: We are witnessing the final stage of the fall of the Khazarian / Zionist / Illuminati Cabal - and they are throwing one hell of a tantrum on their way down in a desperate attempt to escape the inevitablity of their demise.
And yet here she is, hoping to use the “Russia did it” talking point to give censorship a boost. The CIA has its own history of meddling in foreign elections.
In order to give Barack Obama’s administration that extra push to release any “proof” the CIA has that the 2016 U.S. elections were “rigged,” the Intercept’s duo encouraged feds or whistleblowers to use the publication’s secure drop link, where a “patriotic whistleblower” within the U.S. intelligence community may drop the leak that proves Russia is behind President-elect Donald Trump’s win. “[W]e will verify its legitimacy and publish it,” they added.
“[U.S. intelligence] agencies have identified individuals with connections to the Russian government who provided WikiLeaks with thousands ofhacked emails from the Democratic National Committee and others.”
But Reuters has since reported that “[the] overseers of the U.S. intelligence community have not embraced a CIA assessment that Russian cyber attacks were aimed at helping Republican President-elect Donald Trump win the 2016 election.” This means the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) “has not endorsed [the CIA’s] assessment because of a lack of conclusive evidence.”
Caitlin Johnstone put it best in an article for Newslogue:
"Believing something the CIA says is like trusting a meth addict with your car, and trusting the CIA when they’re working with the Washington Post is like trusting a meth addict with your car and leaving your kid in the back seat with the house keys and money for Taco Bell.”
Unless proof is produced either by the CIA or a whistleblower, partisan voices crying wolf in Washington and in the media will continue to run on empty, feeding their base with nothing but “fake news.” But wasn’t that what we were told to unite over so we could “fight” it effectively? Here’s your chance, Mr. President.
Why Now? Tangled Webs: Google, Microsoft, Facebook, The Internet Giveaway, And The Wild, Wild West Of Information December 17 2016 | From: AmericanPolicy
The use of lies and deception, or as the new term coming into vogue; fake news, has been a standard tool of the trade for over a century by the government and their willing and/or unwilling stooges in the mainstream media.
A few examples include Newspaper owners William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer, with the unspoken blessings of US President, William McKinley, spreading lies to stir up the masses enough to start a war with Spain.
This allowed McKinley to start an American empire by taking over the Philippines, Guam, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico at the close of the 19th century. In the following decades, the media has obediently followed along coving up such things as the fraudulent Gulf of Tonkin incident, the governmental attack on the Branch Davidians, 9/11, and the Obamacare fiasco.
In spite of the lies and distortions presented by the government then spread by an obedient media, there were still some journalists who were doing their job by reporting the truth.
In 1983, fifty companies controlled 90% of the American media, today it is just six multinational corporations. They are Viacom, Comcast, Time-Warner, Disney, CBS, and News Corp and these companies are working very hard to make sure that the news you hear is the news they and the government want you to hear.
From the anti-Muslim video that “caused” the killing of four Americans at Benghazi, lying about the state of the economy before the 2008 meltdown, to the massive push to promote Obamacare, the main stream media is relentless in pushing the government / corporatist agenda to its audience.
This control is the dream of every tyrannical state in history and the US government has almost achieved it.
Only, they have, like the American Army in the WWII Battle of Arnhem, pushed their power too far and too fast causing the American people to no longer trust the main stream media.
In the spring of 2016, a major poll was conducted by the Media Insight Project, a partnership of The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research and the American Press Institute; they found that just 6% of those polled have confidence in the main stream media for news.
The bias and outright lies have become so bad that even a 30 year insider like Sharyl Attkisson commented on it:
“There is unprecedented, I believe, influence on the media, not just the news, but the images you see everywhere. By well-orchestrated and financed campaign of special interests, political interests and corporations. I think all of that comes into play.”
“ICANN is arguably the single most powerful institution in the world” - Jeff Baron
In every format, the main stream media is losing patrons. From failing newspapers to falling television ratings, the old model is dying because of the internet.
The Internet has become the primary source for information for a huge percentage of Westerners today.
In fact, in the last 25 years the internet has transformed the world. It has completely revamped the way people do business, communicate, purchase household goods, plan vacations, find friends, look up information and just about every human activity imaginable.
Since it first became available for average people, the internet has been a way to find information the elites did not want exposed and they have been looking to shut down that freedom of information for years.
Subsequently with the support of numerous multinational corporations like Microsoft, Google, Dell, Yahoo, Amazon, and Facebook along with the blessing from globalist mouth pieces like the Council on Foreign Relations, the LA Times, NBC, the International Chamber of Commerce and Human Rights Watch, President Obama failed to renew the contract with ICANN effectively giving the control over the internet to a private company.
That company is ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) and it is a CA based nonprofit corporation. In 1998, the Commerce Department began contracting with ICANN, to take over management of IANA (The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority) and the internet’s domain name system.
The US Commerce Department has, for the most part, let ICANN govern itself, but it maintained the authority to pull the nonprofit’s contract.
In essence ICANN records the numbers (easier for computers to use) using words (easier for humans to use) through DNS.
Domain name system (DNS) is basically a directory for internet-connected devices that helps translate domain names to numerical IP addresses. Without DNS it is difficult for people to access websites as it requires remembering large numbers of IP address, a series of numbers such as “184.108.40.206”.
So President Obama just ceded power over the allocation of domain names from Google.com to your church’s website without the consent of Congress and over the objections of millions of citizens.
Those supporting the transfer are quick to report that there is nothing to fear from this transfer, after all ICANN is a “private” company under a global multi-stakeholder group to oversee its Board of Directors. What can possibly go wrong with the internet in the hands of a “private” company? Plenty.
ICANN is first and foremost, a complete monopoly. It has exclusive rights to allow and renew domain names and that is a power it has not always been used benevolently.
It also has complete control over how much to charge for a top level domain such as .com, .net, .biz and several times in the past, it has abused those powers.
For instance it allowed a top level domain named .sucks to be purchased by the company Vox Populi which charges $2,500 to protect a company’s or individuals name from being purchased and slandered with a .sucks after it, then failed to rein the company in when it was running an extortion operation.
ICANN has also been accused numerous times of siding with those who have the most to pay its fees and since it costs over a million dollars to have ICANN officially look into a complaint, not many decisions are overturned.
Another troubling aspect of ICANN is that ICANN has made a fortune off of its rapidly expanding list of Generic Top Level Domain Names (gTLDs). Names like .lawyer; .google; .africa are going for at least $200,000 each and then annual fees.
The .web domain brought $135,000,000 into their coffers giving them not only a complete monopoly on issuing domains but the means to create a very monopolistic self-supporting group of elites.
Amazon, the giant online retailer, applied to register the gTLD .amazon. ICANN has written limitations that govern the sale of a domain name but since the name .amazon does not fall, into any of the categories that are forbidden there should have no problems with Amazon’s request.
Only there was, the South American countries of Brazil and Peru, through the interest group Government Advisory Committee (GAC), declared this application to be illegal, based on the fact that the Amazon River is a geographical area inhabited by some 30million people.
ICANN sided with the governments proving that the advantage of being a monopoly is that you get to make up rules as you go along. Amazon is now in the process of suing ICANN over the matter.
The exact same thing happened to the sports company called Patagonia when it filed for the .patagonia domain. The governments of Argentina and Chile objected and ICANN decided against selling the name to the company.
This trend shows that not only are rules made to be broken but governments are meant to be appeased.
This pattern is more than disturbing considering that since 1998, nations that routinely censor the internet of their citizens including Russia, China, Iran and Saudi Arabia have pushed extremely hard to place the functions of ICANN under the control of the U.N.’s Russian dominated International Telecommunications Union (ITU) and President Obama may very well have just handed them their chance.
For, as stated above, ICANN holds a COMPLETE monopoly over the World Wide Web root zone and complete monopolies in private hands are illegal in most of the world. When operating under contract with the Commerce Department, ICANN becomes a legal monopolist as it becomes an “instrumentality” of government.
As L. Gordon Crovitz points out in his article “U.S. Surrender: Internet Giveaway to the U.N.?,” once ICANN became independent, they lost that umbrella of US Government protection leaving them open to legal challenges from every despotic government on earth looking to force them under the control of the United Nations.
Hence President Obama, in another case of: “if you want your doctor, you can keep your doctor;
“Simply lied again when he pledged that ICANN would not replace U.S. control for a “government-led or an inter-governmental organization solution.”
This fact is verified on 10/14/16 When Obama gave a speech in Pittsburg, PA in which he glorified the days of the three major networks delivering the news that most people trusted.
There has to be, I think, some sort of way in which we can sort through information that passes some basic truthiness tests and those that we have to discard, because they just don’t have any basis in anything that’s actually happening in the world,” Obama added.
“That is hard to do, but I think it’s going to be necessary, it’s going to be possible. The answer is obviously not censorship, but it’s creating places where people can say ‘this is reliable’ and I’m still able to argue safely about facts and what we should do about it.” he added.
There should be no longer any doubt as to why Obama went against Congress and the people to give away the internet; we can no longer have the “wild-wild-west-of-information flow” out there to inform the people of what is really going on in the world.
“Look at the European parliament. There are a lot of people who are looking for simplistic solutions and are preaching simplistic solutions which are very unfriendly policies. We have them here in Europe; too, we have them in Germany too.”
“Digitization is a disruptive technological force that brings about deep-seated change and transformation in society. Look at the history of the printing press, when this was invented what kind of consequences it had, or industrialization, what consequences that had.”
“Very often, it led to enormous transformational processes within individual societies and it took a while until societies learned to find the right kinds of policies to contain this, to manage and steer this. We live in a period of profound transformation.”
Directing her ire against the Germans who are angered with her flooding Germany with Muslim invaders and massive job loss, she lashed out against PEGIDA, the anti-mass migration and counter-Islamisation movement, repeating their slogan: ‘Wir Sind Das Volk’ - ‘We Are The People’ - the chancellor said:
“The most important and noble task of politicians these days is to see that each and every person can find his place. But those who purportedly belong to certain groups say ‘we are the people, and not others’.”
In another of those frequent ironies so often dumped on the citizens, Merkel, a former (?) East German communist, now says of PEGIDA:
“At the time when we had [this saying] in the GDR [East Germany] when the people stood in the streets and said ‘we are the people’ it filled me with great joy, but the fact these people have hijacked it does not fill me with joy.”
How long will it be before other world leaders join Ms. Merkel and president Obama in demanding web censorship?
Certainly foreign media is now calling for it as Germany’s Zeit newspaper published a piece calling for controls to prevent “a German Donald Trump”, while Britain’s Independent former newspaper website published a list of “fake” news sites which they claimed may have “swayed votes towards Donald Trump”.
Even the British news outlet “The Guardian” is in on the fake news bandwagon. That list is the same list being circulated by Google and Facebook.
Consequently, now, the very instrument that has become the great equalizing force against corporatism/globalism’s control over the main stream media might now become just another weapon in their arsenal of global censorship.
Unfortunately, it is only one of several ways the internet is being manipulated for corporatist/governmental advantage. One only needs to look at the two most popular search engines and the most popular social media site to see complete censorship in action.
What kind of drug does one have to take to believe Microsoft is a friend? - Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Google, Bing and Facebook have an unbroken record of suppressing sites, postings and searches that don’t follow their world view. Of the three, Bing is certainly the smallest but being part of Microsoft, perhaps they try harder. Bing claims to be neutral and in fact, the subscriber can set the search engine to their own preference of conservative; liberal; Christian; etc. so how can they be biased?
Well the Bing headline on August 16, 2016 for the conservative bias setting in Bing featured three negative Trump articles:
– Donald Trump plots strategy on ISIS - and campaign revival (CNN)
– Analysis: Making Sense of Donald Trump’s Disjointed Foreign Policy Pitch (NBC News)
– Early Voting Limits Donald Trump’s Time to Turn Campaign Around (New York Times)
The first headline implies Trump’s campaign had stalled and needs revival. The second inferred Trump’s foreign policy was chaotic and the third noted that the early vote will give Hillary such a lead that discouraged Trump supporters won’t vote.
Microsoft, donated $650,000 to the Hillary Clinton campaign and both Bill and Melinda Gates were considered as possible Vice Presidential running mates for her Presidential campaign.
This is the Bill Gates, founder of Microsoft, whose obsession with globalism and censorship is well known and on Sept. 20, 2016 at a conference in Vancouver, B.C. he openly stated that opposition to globalism is “a huge concern,” and says the underlying issues of resistance to it warrant a close examination.
This is the same Bill Gates that along with Steve Ballmer (Microsoft CEO) spoke at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland in early 2015 on the critical need for immigration and more H-1B visas because of a shortage of high tech workers, and then laid off some 18,000 American high tech workers.
In 2010, China demanded that Google and Microsoft censor the results of their search engines in China.
Google resisted but Microsoft was more than willing to go along. Bill Gates even criticized Google’s decision to uncensor their search engine in China by saying:
“You’ve got to decide: do you want to obey the laws of the countries you’re in or not? If not, you may not end up doing business there.”
Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer then said “If the Chinese government gives us proper legal notice, we’ll take that piece of information out of the Bing search engine.”
Chinese President Xi Jinping also stopped in for dinner at Bill Gates house in September of 2015 before meeting with the heads of Microsoft, Google and Facebook amongst other business leaders.
So great is the Bing Censorship of China that the Chinese Web anti-censorship monitoring service has gone to great lengths to show that Bing censors content in China even more than the Chinese State owned search engine” Baidu” does. But don’t worry; Microsoft’s support of the ICANN was completely in the name of a “free” internet.
Privacy is no longer a “social norm.” - Mark Zuckerberg
Facebook is just as bad. In addition to being an outspoken advocate of globalism and a liberal, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg is the controlling force behind the most powerful social media platform ever created. Facebook controls the global dialogue used by over a billion people with an invisible touch that is unprecedented.
Almost two-thirds of American adults get news from social media, with 44% of them getting their news from Facebook alone.
This means Facebook’s algorithms dominate the information of almost half the American public. As Gizmodo’s Michael Nuñez puts it, “with Facebook, we don’t know what we’re not seeing.”
And he controls that platform with an iron grip.
Facebook has conducted numerous studies to better understand how information spreads in a social network. For instance, in 2010 Facebook conducted a secret experiment on 61 million unknowing people by tampering with their news feeds to find out how successfully it could manipulate the real-world voting habits of those people.
Later, Facebook released the findings and claimed that they increased voter turnout by more than 340,000 people. Facebook regularly skews the news it posts; in 2012 it manipulated the feeds on 700,000 people without their consent to make them feel sad and then published the results in the respected (?) scientific journal “Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.”
The results showed fairly conclusively that Facebook had found the key to intentionally influencing people’s emotions. That year they did the same type of experiment on 1.9 million people to influence the US election. In 2014 Facebook used the rainbow flag as another experiment to get people to be more accepting of same-sex marriage.
Facebook has made an empire of selling information about every person they can. It openly manipulates the feeds and posts they allow on Facebook and the posts people are allowed to place for other members of Facebook.
Facebook is now “reluctantly” being “forced” to manipulate their algorithm to crack down on “fake” news being posted on Facebook.
Though this sounds like a noble goal, the potential for censorship is unmistakable, especially when one looks at the list of websites they plan on censoring.
The sites Facebook and Google are going to censor as “fake” was created by a self-proclaimed feminist assistant professor at Merrimack College who did not like the sites her students citing in their research papers.
Sites like Breitbart; Realfarmacy; Lew Rockwell; Zerohedge; and World Net Daily.
Though all have posted articles that have proven to be false, Facebook has no problem with posting articles from even less reliable news site like USA Today; MSNBC; CNN; BBC and the New York Times. Google is now planning on using this same list to censor content. It does not take a rocket scientist to see where this censorship is headed.
In fact, in one of the most blatant acts of “fake news” to ever hit the news media was perpetrated by the New York Times in early 1957, when a former war correspondent, Herbert L. Matthews, wrote numerous articles filled with the glories and praises of a young Cuban revolutionary named Fidel Castro.
Article after article spewing from Matthews’ typewriter glowed with tales that eventually created a Robin Hood persona for a murdering communist thug. It cannot be understated how important the “fake news” was to propel Castro into power. Yet the New York Times stands as a purveyor of honest journalism according to our Ministry of “truth.”
“We know where you are. We know where you’ve been. We can more or less know what you’re thinking about.” - Eric Schmidt
The last of the big three masters of manipulation is Google, and they are arguably the biggest of the bunch. Google CEO Eric Schmidt is about as open with his liberal bias as one could ever be. The Bilderberg attendee bankrolled a startup company called “The Groundwork” to provide technical experts Hillary Clinton needed to run her campaign. Schmidt was instrumental in getting Barack Obama elected both times as he was the main supplier of technical experts for all three campaigns.
Technology is right up Schmidt’s alley as Google is the defacto gateway to information. Google averages some 40,000 search queries every second equaling over 3.5 billion searches per day and 1.2 trillion searches per year worldwide.
Google conducts over 64% of all internet searches in the US and over 90% in some countries. Google has indexed some 45 billion web pages while Bing, its closest competitor has only 14 billion.
Of course the 45 billion web pages are only part of the Schmidt plan to control everything on earth. Schmidt has stated that privacy is an excuse to hide wrongdoing:
“If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place.”
In his plan to deprive you of your privacy, Schmidt has employed some of the world’s top technocrats to find ever more powerful ways to pry into every corner of your life since Google’s business is, literally, mass surveillance, and they have become amazingly good at it.
They are also a contractor to the US Government, including the NSA and several military contractors as well. When Edward Snowden revealed to the world the unimaginable world of government spying on US citizens, he also revealed that the NSA has direct access to the information stored on Google’s computers as they do to Facebook, Twitter, Bing and every other company storing online information on you.
In a US News and World Report article published on 6/22/16, contributor Robert Epstein wrote an extremely troubling article on just how powerful Google is. According to Epstein:
“When Google’s employees or algorithms decide to block our access to information about a news item, political candidate or business, it causes opinions and votes to shift, reputations to be ruined and businesses to crash and burn.
Because online censorship is entirely unregulated at the moment, victims have little or no recourse when they have been harmed.”
Epstein then exposes blacklists that Google wields like Jack the Ripper did his knives with the first being the autocomplete blacklist. This one is simple enough; it quietly guides the searcher to where the company wants you to go.
From directing away from negative articles on Hillary Clinton to pointing to negative articles on Donald Trump, there is little doubt that Google had a large impact on the recent US election. In any search you make, the algorithm is your spiritual guide.
Google maps is a stalker’s dream showing just about every house and area in the US and huge sections of the world. They did not ask for permission to film your house, they just did it.
Military installations and a few other places are excluded but chances are, your house is there.
Google’s You Tube blacklist allows users to tag certain clips as inappropriate and Google’s censors may or may not remove them.
However, You Tube is notorious for removing politically and morally conservative videos on a regular basis while never doing the same to liberal videos. They are also willing to work with foreign governments to determine which videos will be allowed to be shown in the country.
The Google account blacklist can cut people’s access to their own email account as well as You Tube and other Google products without any notice or recourse.
The Google News blacklist is insidious in every way. They are the biggest news aggregator on the planet, tracking tens of thousands of news sources daily and converting them to numerous languages.
They have been accused on numerous occasions of excluding conservative news feeds as well as certain writers and competing companies. This is an incredibly powerful and nearly unnoticeable tool to promote political, moral and/or religious agenda.
Google Adwords blacklist is how Google gets the lion’s share of its money (some $56 billion annually) by selling keywords to the highest bidders.
These keywords are how the website is found by searchers so if your site does not have them, you are going to sink. On numerous occasions, Google has simply deleted those keywords on sites effectively making them invisible and financially crushing them.
The search engine blacklist is a make or break situation for many web pages. Google, for many unknown reasons will push web page down the list of rankings effectively ruining many businesses in a very short time.
The power to “blacklist” a site is Google’s most dreaded weapon however. Google claims this power is to keep the internet free from malicious malware which, they claim is a public service. The problems with this argument are many however. Google’s crawlers often make mistakes, blacklisting websites that do not contain malware.
Because of how extensively Google crawls the web, all the other main search engines use their “blacklist” which means that once on the list, the site is effectively cut off from public access.
Google has used this power on numerous occasions on people they do not like.
Google even profits from this arrangement as they collect information from every user that accesses Google’s results and then sells it. Google has, for all intents and purposes, become the internet police man and they use this power to further their globalist agenda on a regular basis and it is now supporting the same list of “fake” news sites that the British Independent and Facebook are touting.
Google, Microsoft and Facebook have all three censored users on the behest of world governments and all three; have consistently censored users for no apparent reason. They, along with Twitter (another social media monster) sided with Obama to give away America’s right the control the internet.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.” - Voltaire
Tragically, the US now finds every purveyor of media has been compromised and censored by those with globalist views. Once ICANN loses its independence to the UN, the corporatist/governmental takeover will be complete.
Controlling access to information is every tyrant’s dream and our government is no different.
The main stream media did a masterful job of concealing the 2008 economic meltdown from the masses just like they have the corruption of Hillary Clinton; the imploding Deutsche Bank; the growing threat of nuclear war with Russia; the threat of an EMP from North Korea and now the escalating violence of the Clinton supporters after the election of Donald Trump.
It was only the access of the people to alternative news sites that alerted and continue to alert those willing to listen to truth that news of these events get out at all.
Post-election America is now a powder keg awaiting a spark. The Green Party candidate for President, Jill Stein, started a fund to recount the votes in three states in hopes of overturning the election of Donald Trump and now Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton has joined her in what is only going to create a greater rift in our already shredded national tapestry.
This is only a part of the drama as now; the Washington Post has publically called the Drudge Report, Zero Hedge and former Congressman Ron Paul agents of Russian Propaganda. As if on cue, the call has come from numerous governments on the spread of “hate speech” in the US and the call to regulate it.
Which Mark Zukerberg is only too happy to oblige as he outlined a seven point plan to help stop the “spread” of “fake news” on Facebook. So convincing is this “fake news” that it fools most students a new “study” finds which of course means that our very Ministry of Truth will need to decipher it for us. In fact, the media is now calling on the FBI to investigate the “fake news” without a shred of evidence to support them.
With a growing population of closed minded bigots unwilling to even listen to opposing opinions or facts, the US is slowly returning to the Dark Ages with only a few sources controlling access to information.
Freedom loving people everywhere should all be asking themselves why this particular time was chosen for Obama to open the door for the UN takeover of an already censored internet.
It is past time to look into a ham radio and other forms of communication that cannot be controlled by the elites. Here in the Pacific Northwest we have an excellent source for information called the “Radio Free Redoubt.”
Time is of the essence as the days of the open internet are coming to a rapid close.
“Hell is truth seen too late.”Thomas Hobbes – Leviathan
The Question That Fluoridation Promoters Can’t Answer December 17 2016 | From: FluorideAlert
During 2016, I asked this question to many fluoridation promoters and have yet to receive an adequate scientific answer.
I asked it in several audiences in New Zealand and also to promoters at a council hearing in Naples, Florida and most recently at a debate in Cortland, New York with Johnny Johnson and Steve Slott. Neither Johnson nor Slott, otherwise very vocal on promoting fluoridation, had an answer.
“What primary scientific studies (not bogus reviews conducted by pro-fluoridation agencies) can you cite that gives you the confidence to ignore or dismiss the evidence that fluoride damages the brain as documented in over 300 animal and human studies (including 50 IQ studies).”
If proponents cannot provide an adequate scientific answer to this question: fluoridation should be halted immediately.
On Nov 22, 2016, Michael Connett, JD, asked this question to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), on behalf of FAN, Food & Water Watch, Organic Consumers Association, American Academy of Environmental Medicine, International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology, Moms Against Fluoridation, and several individual mothers, in a petition calling on the EPA to ban the deliberate addition of fluoridating chemicals to the drinking water under provisions in the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
The EPA has 90 days to reply, and if they fail to provide a satisfactory reply then they can be taken to Federal Court.
How you can take this further?
We are requesting that each one of you to ask this question of any promoter of fluoridation – and keep asking it throughout 2017 until you can get an answer. Send that answer to us.
Based on responses we have seen so far we anticipate that there will be no satisfactory answers. In our view, there is no scientific evidence that could justify ignoring the large number of scientific studies that fluoride damages the brain and thus no justification for continuing this unethical and reckless practice of deliberately adding fluoridating chemicals to the drinking water.
This in essence will be our 2017 campaign. Very simple, very direct and very important. We hope that you will support this in two ways: a) ask this showstopper question in as many creative ways as you can and as many times as you can, and b) support FAN financially.
Five More Ways to Take Action:
1. Send a letter-to-the-editor to your local newspapers
Climate Scare Declared Officially Over- Error In Model Calculations Discovered December 16 2016 | From: RickWells
Acclaimed climate realist and former adviser to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, Lord Christopher Monckton, has some major news of a breakthrough discovery he has made in the area of climate science. Comment: How long are the Cabal going to try to bury this latest hit?
He’s interviewed at the “Global-Warming; an Inconvenient Lie” conference in Phoenix, AZ by Millie Weaver, a reporter for Infowars.
Moncton is proud to be able to announce that he and his;
“Team of very distinguished professors and doctors of science have discovered a major, significant, substantial error in the way in which the computer models calculate how much warming they would predict should be happening.”
He says, “Take that error away and there is no longer any climate problem. You might get one or two Celsius of warming with a doubling of CO2 concentration but you won’t get much more than that.”
He says, “All the suggestions that we’re facing some tipping point and suddenly we might see five or six, seven, eight, ten, twelve, thirteen Celsius of warming for a doubling of CO2, the kind of dramatic figures that have been appearing in some scientific papers, we can now prove that all of those very high end forecasts of how much warming we might get are based on an error in mathematics.
Correct for the error and we are back down to a maximum of two, perhaps two and a half Celsius of warming for a doubling of CO2.”
Monckton says, “I have been looking for this error in the mathematics for ten years. I have known it was there but I didn’t know what the error was, I just knew they’d made a mistake."
He then goes on to explain in some mathematical detail how he knew it, describing himself as a classical mathematician.
He also has an announcement regarding a discovery by one of his esteemed colleagues, Professor William Happer of Princeton, who discovered that “the central estimate of global warming has been exaggerated by forty percent.”
When his result is combined with the discovery by Monckton declares, officially, that the climate scare is over.
Infowars Reporter Millie Weaver interviews Lord Christopher Monckton who reveals a breaking discovery which may prove the entire 'climate change' scare is based on faulty mathematics.
At the "Global-Warming; an Inconvenient Lie" conference in Phoenix, AZ Lord Monckton covers in depth the mathematical discovery his team has made and announces that these findings have been submitted for proper peer review.
Michigan Recount Exposes Clinton Electoral Fraud: Half Of Detroit Votes Show Signs Of Tampering December 16 2016 | From: RussiaInsider
This is some next-level poetic justice: A Michigan recount backed by Jill Stein and the Democrats, and intended to deligitimize Trump's astonishing victory on November 8, has actually exposed widespread fraud in precincts which voted heavily for Clinton.
“Michigan’s largest county voted overwhelmingly for Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, but officials couldn’t reconcile vote totals for 610 of 1,680 precincts during a countywide canvass of vote results late last month.
Most of those are in heavily Democratic Detroit, where the number of ballots in precinct poll books did not match those of voting machine printout reports in 59 percent of precincts, 392 of 662.
According to state law, precincts whose poll books don’t match with ballots can’t be recounted. If that happens, original election results stand.
“It’s not good,” conceded Daniel Baxter, elections director for the city of Detroit."
Here's the best part: Officials blame the scanners used to tally votes for the huge discrepancies. Hard to believe:
“Once they started the Michigan recount in earnest, and knowing he would be exposed, the Detroit City Clerk Daniel Baxter all of a sudden started claiming that the optical scanners which read the paper ballots did not work the day of the election.
Baxter blamed the discrepancies on decade-old voting machines. That is his cover story. Nothing like this was mentioned until he realized their voting fraud scheme would be detected.
Baxter’s claim is that, when trying to push the ballots through the readers, the ballots would be stuck and they’d have to push them through again thus ‘ACCIDENTALLY’ resulting in a double count.
He says the poll workers sometimes ‘FORGET’ to adjust the machine count and instead let the ballot count twice."
Ken Crider, a 2014 Republican candidate for District 19 of the Michigan House of Representatives, said he watched the recount effort in Cobo Hall in Detroit with his wife, Penny. In a Facebook post Tuesday, he claimed to have witnessed some serious ballot discrepancies. Crider wrote:
“Penny Crider and I just got back from helping watch the recount at Cobo Hall in Detroit. On Nov. 8th (Election Day) the election officials at 8:00 p.m. shut down the polls.
They then reconciled the differences from the machine count and the voter count on the computer. At this point, a Metal tag/seal with a serial number is put on the box and the box was taken away.
Penny’s precinct, Detroit Precinct #152 had an unbroken seal and everything looked proper. The tag on the box said 306 and the book said 306 and the ticket said 306, so there should be 306 paper ballots on the box, right.
Well when they pulled out the ballots the stack seemed short and when they finished separating the two page ballot to count the Presidential page only guess how many ballots were in the box?
304 no, 299 nope, 200 nada, how about 100 wrong again. There were only exactly 50 paper ballots in a locked sealed box that again was supposed to have 306. Hmm.
Oh I forgot to add, since there was a discrepancy in the two numbers, the original count stands.
One more thing my precinct (sorry I forgot the number), had 525 votes on the book, tag and ticket and we counted 525 ballots the election official was praising the Lord “Hallelujah we have a countable precinct” Jill Stein had three (3) votes."
In other words: In Democratic Detroit, each vote was counted 6 times!
Just imagine the landslide popular vote victory Trump would have enjoyed if the Democrats played fair on Election Day.
A little simple logic demolishes the CIA’s claims. The CIA claim they “know the individuals” involved. Yet under Obama the USA has been absolutely ruthless in its persecution of whistleblowers, and its pursuit of foreign hackers through extradition.
We are supposed to believe that in the most vital instance imaginable, an attempt by a foreign power to destabilise a US election, even though the CIA knows who the individuals are, nobody is going to be arrested or extradited, or (if in Russia) made subject to yet more banking and other restrictions against Russian individuals?
Plainly it stinks. The anonymous source claims of “We know who it was, it was the Russians” are beneath contempt.
As Julian Assange has made crystal clear, the leaks did not come from the Russians. As I have explained countless times, they are not hacks, they are insider leaks – there is a major difference between the two.
And it should be said again and again, that if Hillary Clinton had not connived with the DNC to fix the primary schedule to disadvantage Bernie, if she had not received advance notice of live debate questions to use against Bernie, if she had not accepted massive donations to the Clinton foundation and family members in return for foreign policy influence, if she had not failed to distance herself from some very weird and troubling people, then none of this would have happened.
The continued ability of the mainstream media to claim the leaks lost Clinton the election because of “Russia”, while still never acknowledging the truths the leaks reveal, is Kafkaesque.
I had a call from a Guardian journalist this afternoon. The astonishing result was that for three hours, an article was accessible through the Guardian front page which actually included the truth among the CIA hype:
“The Kremlin has rejected the hacking accusations, while the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has previously said the DNC leaks were not linked to Russia.
A second senior official cited by the Washington Post conceded that intelligence agencies did not have specific proof that the Kremlin was “directing” the hackers, who were said to be one step removed from the Russian government.
Craig Murray, the former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, who is a close associate of Assange, called the CIA claims “bullshit”, adding: “They are absolutely making it up.”
“I know who leaked them,” Murray said. “I’ve met the person who leaked them, and they are certainly not Russian and it’s an insider. It’s a leak, not a hack; the two are different things.
“If what the CIA are saying is true, and the CIA’s statement refers to people who are known to be linked to the Russian state, they would have arrested someone if it was someone inside the United States.
“America has not been shy about arresting whistleblowers and it’s not been shy about extraditing hackers. They plainly have no knowledge whatsoever.”"
But only three hours. While the article was not taken down, the home page links to it vanished and it was replaced by a ludicrous one repeating the mad CIA allegations against Russia and now claiming – incredibly – that the CIA believe the FBI is deliberately blocking the information on Russian collusion.
Presumably this totally nutty theory, that Putin is somehow now controlling the FBI, is meant to answer my obvious objection that, if the CIA know who it is, why haven’t they arrested somebody. That bit of course would be the job of the FBI, who those desperate to annul the election now wish us to believe are the KGB.
It is terrible that the prime conduit for this paranoid nonsense is a once great newspaper, the Washington Post, which far from investigating executive power, now is a sounding board for totally evidence free anonymous source briefing of utter bullshit from the executive.
In the UK, one single article sums up the total abnegation of all journalistic standards. The truly execrable Jonathan Freedland of the Guardian writes “Few credible sources doubt that Russia was behind the hacking of internal Democratic party emails, whose release by Julian Assange was timed to cause maximum pain to Hillary Clinton and pleasure for Trump.”
Does he produce any evidence at all for this assertion?
No, none whatsoever. What does a journalist mean by a “credible source”?
Well, any journalist worth their salt in considering the credibility of a source will first consider access. Do they credibly have access to the information they claim to have?
Now both Julian Assange and I have stated definitively the leak does not come from Russia. Do we credibly have access? Yes, very obviously. Very, very few people can be said to definitely have access to the source of the leak. The people saying it is not Russia are those who do have access. After access, you consider truthfulness.
Do Julian Assange and I have a reputation for truthfulness? Well in 10 years not one of the tens of thousands of documents WikiLeaks has released has had its authenticity successfully challenged. As for me, I have a reputation for inconvenient truth telling.
Contrast this to the “credible sources” Freedland relies on. What access do they have to the whistleblower? Zero. They have not the faintest idea who the whistleblower is. Otherwise they would have arrested them. What reputation do they have for truthfulness? It’s the Clinton gang and the US government, for goodness sake.