Aletho News


Who was Jeff Bezos BEFORE Amazon?

Comment by Brian Shilhavy | Health Impact News | January 10, 2021

Jeff Bezos is the founder and owner of, and in 2019 surpassed Bill Gates as the richest man in the world.

He just single-handedly destroyed, the biggest competitor to Big Tech.

Since being censored on Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest, and other Big Tech networks, Health Impact News has enjoyed the most success on where we have not been censored for criticizing Big Pharma. Even when we have criticized President Trump on the mainly Right Wing platform, we have enjoyed free speech to publish our articles.

All of that ends tonight, as Jeff Bezos and his company Amazon Web Services (AWS) has decided to kick Parler off of their Cloud-based server system.

ReallyGraceful did a documentary in 2020 about Jeff Bezos’ rise into the Big Tech Oligarchy that is now trying to take over America.

January 12, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Economics, Full Spectrum Dominance, Timeless or most popular, Video | , | Leave a comment

Cheerleading Politicized Impeachment

By Stephen Lendman | January 12, 2021

Big media cheerlead preemptive wars, support corporate predation, and are indifferent toward world peace, equity, justice, the rule of law, and well-being of ordinary people.

They’re press agents for wealth, power and privilege, hostile toward governance serving everyone equitably.

What democracy is supposed to be, they scorn, supporting its fantasy version alone that’s none at all.

The NYT is in the vanguard of proliferating deep state-approved propaganda exclusively on major domestic and geopolitical issues, truth-telling on what matters most banned in its editions.

Managed news misinformation and disinformation drowns it out. All the news it claims is fit to read responsible editors wouldn’t touch.

Times editors, columnists, and correspondents demand Trump’s impeachment and removal from office — for unconstitutional reasons, not legitimate ones.

In its latest edition, the Times editorial board in charge of misinformation, disinformation, fake news, and Big Lies featured in daily editions screamed “Impeach Trump Again.”

A litany of bald-faced Big Lies followed — a longstanding Times specialty.

The Times : “Trump’s efforts to remain in office in defiance of democracy (sic) cannot be allowed to go unanswered, lest they invite more lawlessness from this president or those who follow (sic).”

According to Times fake news, impeaching Trump a second time is for use of constitutionally protected speech.

It’s about politicized revenge for defeating media darling Hillary, wanting him removed from office in defiance of the rule of law.

It’s unrelated to protecting democracy in America that exists in fantasy version alone.

The real thing is banned, along with peace, equity, justice, the rule of law, and governance serving all Americans equitably — notions the Times and other Big Media abhor.

The Times : Week ago Capitol Hill violence “was the culmination of a campaign waged by (Trump and his congressional) allies… to overturn the results of a free and fair election (sic).”

There’s nothing “free and open” about irrefutable brazen fraud and election theft — nor wanting the Trump team’s constitutional right to challenge the diabolical scheme denied.

The Times wants hard evidence of election theft suppressed.

It called legitimate Trump team challenges “farcical,” along with defying reality by claiming that “Joe Biden won fairly (sic).”

He lost. Trump won, politicized impeachment underway and possible conviction after returning to private life.

What’s going on plunged a dagger into the heart of an open, free and fair society, along with the rule of law — supported by Big Media instead of condemning it.

Falsely claiming Trump incited Capitol Hill violence last week by the Times and other Big Media is typical of how they proliferate Big Lies and breach the public trust.

So is calling totalitarian police state USA democratic.

Suppressing legitimate reasons to want Trump held accountable, the Times and other Big Media want him crucified for invented ones.

The Times virtually called Trump’s First Amendment right of free expression “a crime so brazen (sic) that it demands the highest form of accountability that the legislature can deliver (sic),” adding:

“(T)here is no other option but to vote to impeach (him) a second time” — no matter how unlawful and unjustifiable.

The Times disgracefully called remarks made by Trump below “the most un-American speech ever uttered by a president (sic),” saying:

“We will stop the steal. States want to revote. The states got defrauded.”

“They were given false information. They voted on it. Now they want to re-certify.”

If ballot counting is accurate instead of manipulated and corrupted in key swing states, “we become president.”

“We’re going to walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and-women, and we’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them.”

“Because you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength, and you have to be strong.”

“We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated.”

“We fight. We fight like hell. If you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.”

Do any of the above remarks and similar ones urge violence? Clearly not!

Do any of Trump’s above remarks and similar ones in tweets warrant impeachment for inciting insurrection?

The answer is self-evident!

What’s going on by Pelosi/Schumer-led undemocratic Dems is an old-fashioned political lynching.

Supported by the Times and other Big Media, it’s flagrantly unconstitutional without a leg to stand on.

Guilt by accusation is the law of the land in the US, Trump’s illegitimate impeachment virtually certain.

The fate of the nation and few remaining freedoms hang in the balance.

America as it once was long ago, warts and all, is long gone.

Totalitarian police state harshness replaced it — heading toward full-blown tyranny, notably by lynch mob injustice against a sitting president that endangers all Americans.

That’s the deplorable state of the nation today.

January 12, 2021 Posted by | Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , | Leave a comment

PBS lawyer fired after championing ‘REEDUCATION CAMPS’ for children of Trump supporters in latest Project Veritas sting

RT | January 12, 2021

Hidden camera footage of PBS exec Michael Beller, in which he appears to wax poetic about ‘deprogramming’ Trump supporters’ kids and celebrates their parents’ death from Covid-19, has apparently gotten him fired.

Speaking to an undercover reporter for conservative muckraking outfit Project Veritas, Beller appeared to boast that “even if [president-elect Joe] Biden wins, we go for all the Republican voters, and Homeland Security will take their children away.”

“We’ll put them into re-education camps,” he continued, suggesting this was necessary because “kids who are growing up knowing nothing but Trump” would take after their Trump-supporting parents and presumably become pint-sized bigots.

They’ll be raising a generation of intolerant, horrible people -–horrible kids.

Full article

January 12, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Timeless or most popular, Video | , , | Leave a comment


By Steve Watson | Summit News | January 12, 2021

Despite previous government denials that there are any plans to roll out COVID vaccine passports, reports have confirmed that every person vaccinated in two select areas of Britain will be offered exactly that as a ‘trial’ being rolled out with immediate effect.

The London Telegraph reports that biometrics firm iProov and cybersecurity firm Mvine have developed the vaccine passports, which will be optionally provided as an app on phones of those vaccinated.

The government will conduct the rollout in two local authorities, and monitor its application until March.

The report notes that the government has ploughed £75,000 into the trial already, which is claimed to be a way of monitoring who has had the vaccine.

Frank Joshi, director and founder of Mvine noted that while the project started as just a way of keeping a record of COVID tests, extra funding was pumped into it in order to turn it into a vaccine passport scheme.

“Originally we started off with this need to prove whether you’ve had an antibody test, but it can be equally used to demonstrate whether you’ve been vaccinated,” Joshi said, according to the report.

Andrew Bud, chief executive of the other company involved, iProov, said that the system will be integrated with the National Health Service, and could easily be rolled out to everyone in the country.

“We’re talking about a piece of remarkable technology that can be brought to bear and can be readily integrated with the NHS,” he said.

The development appears to be separate from the government contracts given to two other firms to develop COIVD ‘freedom passports’, which we reported on several weeks ago.

Last month, Britain’s vaccines minister Nadhim Zahawi announced that the government had no plans to introduce immunity passports en mass, or place restrictions on those who do not take the jab.

This latest revelation puts Zahawi’s already dubious claim into serious doubt.

We also previously reported, back in November, on the UK government’s active plans to develop a QR code system to use as an ‘immunity passport’.

The report, stemming from sources close to the government, noted that “Those who refuse to get the Covid-19 jab would likely be refused entry to venues, as part of the same proposals.”

Other reports have suggested that an app already used prominently in the UK by people to book doctor and hospital appointments could implement a vaccination status section that will show whether a person has taken the coronavirus jab or not, and that businesses may use it to refuse entry to those who have not.

The spectre of so called ‘immunity passports’ is looming globally.

Yesterday it was revealed that Denmark is the latest country to announce that it is rolling out a ‘Covid passport’, to allow those who have taken the vaccine to engage in society without any restrictions.

Recently, the government in Ontario, Canada admitted that it is exploring ‘immunity passports’ in conjunction with restrictions on travel and access to social venues for the unvaccinated.

Last month, Israel announced that citizens who get the COVID-19 vaccine will be given ‘green passports’ that will enable them to attend venues and eat at restaurants.

litany of other government and travel industry figures in both the US, Britain and beyond have suggested that ‘COVID passports’ are coming in order for ‘life to get back to normal’.

Sam Grant, campaign manager at the civili liberties advocacy group Liberty has warned that “any form of immunity passport risks creating a two-tier system in which some of us have access to freedoms and support while others are shut out.”

“These systems could result in people who don’t have immunity potentially being blocked from essential public services, work or housing – with the most marginalised among us hardest hit,” Grant further warned.

“This has wider implications too because any form of immunity passport could pave the way for a full ID system – an idea which has repeatedly been rejected as incompatible with building a rights-respecting society,” Grant further urged.

January 12, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties | , , , | 1 Comment

UK Government Hires Men to Stand in Public with TV on Head for Pandemic Propaganda

Britain’s bizarre ‘Robocop-like’ walking propaganda digital billboards (Image Credit: Gomo Digital)
21st Century News Wire | January 12, 2021

In one of the most desperate and bizarre moves yet, a local government in the UK has begun recruiting men to walking the streets with TVs strapped over their heads, supposedly to help police during a highly unpopular lockdown.

Bradford Council in Yorkshire announced their new ‘iWalkers’ scheme, where local council staff and volunteers are deployed onto the streets with a 19 inch screen weighing 18 lbs, mounted on their shoulders.

According to reports, the program ran for two days before it began to go horribly wrong. The government scheme was so ridiculous, residents thought it might have been satire at first, or a prank, not believing that the local government had lost the plot to such a degree. When they realized the plan was actually a real government initiative, the public backlash was severe, and so embarrassed council officials panicked and removed their Facebook post detailing their ‘exciting new program.’

A number of outrageous comments, both in person and online, were hurled at the walking Robocop-like human propaganda digital billboards

These real-life Teletubies were supposed to be walking the city and town streets, wearing masks, while their TV’s would be pushing out government propaganda on COVID, designed by a government behavioural insights team and applied behavioural psychologists – to nudge residents into tighter lockdown compliance, and to keep the public abreast of minute-to-minute ever-changing “coronavirus rules and restrictions.”

According to reports, the cost of Bradford’s COVID Teletubies is being paid for through Government funding of “Covid-19 communications.”

Local government officials denied they had deleted their new initiative because of public embarrassment, and instead claimed that it was suddenly taken down because of public comments that supposedly “crossed the line into abuse of people who are working hard to help residents and workers in Bradford District stay safe and stop the spread of the virus.”

The incident comes at a bad time for local councils who have recently decreed that they will be squeezing the working class even more by raising their council taxes (aka poll tax) – all of this amid a steep economic depression instigated by the reactionary COVID lockdown policies of the UK government.

Government officials tried to justify the expensive theme park-style stunt by saying that, “There are still many key workers in the city who may wish to get some information on testing where testing sites are close by and it’s really important that we have people out on the streets who can provide this.”

The Orwellian saga continues…

January 12, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

US Prof Faces ‘Cancellation’ For Teaching Students to Question Propaganda Amid COVID-19

© CC BY 3.0 / The Open Center
By Mohamed Elmaazi . Sputnik . 12.01.2021

Hostility to dissenting perspectives has become increasingly recorded over the past few years, but particularly since the outbreak of the novel coronavirus. One apparent victim of this shrinking space for differing views is a US professor who teaches a class on propaganda in New York City.

For years, Mark Crispin Miller, professor of media studies at New York University, has been teaching a course on propaganda, during which he encourages students to question dominant ways of thinking being pushed by media and via the government. However, Professor Miller has recently found his post at NYU to be under threat, despite having a secured tenured position, after he was accused of discouraging students from wearing masks, a charge he vigorously denies.

In a detailed interview, Professor Miller explains to Sputnik the background of his case as well as what it represents in an age where freedom of speech and academic independence appear to be under increasing attack amid the COVID-19 pandemic.

Sputnik: Explain your role as a professor at NYU and the kinds of courses that you teach.

Professor Mark Crispin Miller: I’ve been teaching media studies at NYU since 1997, after 20 years at [University of Pennsylvania from 1977 to 1983] and then Johns Hopkins [until 1997]. At NYU I’ve mainly taught a course on propaganda, and a course on film, as well as “The Culture Industries”, which looks into the pressures faced by people trying to do good work in journalism, entertainment and the arts.

The courses are all quite popular with students, whose reviews are, for the most part, very positive. This fact is highly relevant to my predicament at NYU right now.

Sputnik: You’ve recently found yourself in a difficult situation after a student filed a complaint against you. Could you describe what led to this current situation?

Professor Mark Crispin Miller: In late September, a student in my propaganda course was enraged by my encouraging the class to look into the scientific basis for the mask mandates—specifically, eight randomised, controlled studies, conducted among healthcare professional over the last 15 years or so, finding that masks and respirators are ineffective against transmission of respiratory viruses; and, on the other hand, the more recent studies finding otherwise. (I offered some suggestions as to how laypersons might assess such studies: by reading scientific reviews, and by noting the universities where the latter studies were conducted, to see if they have financial ties to Big Pharma and/or the Gates Foundation). I offered this as an example of how one must study propaganda—by looking into what a given propaganda drive blacks out or misreports, reviewing all the pertinent information, and deciding for oneself what’s true, or likely to be true.

The student who flipped out did not speak up in class, but, a few days later, took the Twitter, to demand that NYU fire me, over my “excessive amount of scepticism around health professionals”, and the “harm” that I was posing to the students’ health. (I’d made quite clear, in class, that I was not telling them not to wear masks—NYU has a strict rule, which I observe myself—but that this was an intellectual exercise, of the sort essential to the study of propaganda.) She also took screen shots of several posts on my website, News from Underground (, and presented them as all self-evidently false, asserting that they came from “conspiracy and far right websites”.

Sputnik: How has the university dealt with the complaint? What’s the current situation now in respect of your position at the university?

Professor Mark Crispin Miller: The student (by her own account) first tried to get some satisfaction from the Office of Equal Opportunity, demanding that they take some action. They told her, rightly, that they had no grounds for doing so; so she went public—whereupon the university, or at least my corner of it, quickly took her side, in three ways.

First, my department chair immediately tweeted his thanks for her complaint, and added: “We as a department have made this a priority, and are discussing next steps”. This was news to me, since I’m a long-time member of that department, but I was not included in whatever meeting led the chair to take that step.

The next day, the dean of the Steinhardt School (in which I teach), and the doctor who advises NYU on its COVID regulations, emailed my other students—without putting me on copy—to indicate that I had given them dangerous information, and to direct them to (what the dean and doctor called) “authoritative” studies finding that masks are effective barriers to SARS-COV-2, and sternly reminding them that they must wear masks on campus (as if I’d told them not to). Again, I too had urged the class to read those further studies; but I didn’t tell them what to think. (I’d also pointed out, in class, that the CDC—the source of those links to the “authoritative” studies—had, until early April, publicly repeated the consensus of the prior studies that I had encouraged the class to read).

@nyuniversity: an MCC tenured professor spent an entire class period telling students that wearing masks doesn’t prevent the spread of COVID-19, and that hydroxychloroquine trials were made to fail so more people would be given the vaccine and have their DNA changed. thread 1/

— Julia Jackson (@julia_jacks) September 21, 2020

​Finally, my chair then pressured me to cancel my propaganda course for next semester, urging that it would be better for the department if, instead, I’d teach two sections of my film course, because, he said, my film courses have high enrollments. The problem with that rationale is that my film and propaganda courses are the same size, with both of them ordinarily full up, and students wait-listed for both. Because of that, and since I’ve long taught the propaganda course at least twice a year (and think that it’s especially relevant right now), I didn’t want to do that; but I was told I had no choice, which, technically, was true.

This experience prompted me to put up a petition, in defence of academic freedom and free speech, simply urging NYU to respect my academic freedom; although I posted the petition not just on my own behalf, but in the name of all professors, journalists, scientists, doctors, activists and whistle-blowers who’ve been gagged, or punished for their dissidence on topics of all kinds, for decades, and especially this year. The petition quickly garnered many signatures from people all over the world (to date, it has been signed by over 27,000 people), including many eminent figures, including Seymour Hersh, James K. Galbraith, Sharyl Attkisson, Rashid Khalidi (Edward Said Professor of Modern Arab Studies at Columbia University), Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Oliver Stone, and Chinese dissident Chen Guangcheng; and it also drew a public statement of support from Ralph Nader.

Then the drive against me escalated.

Calling the petition “an attack on the department”, a large group of my colleagues sent a letter to the dean, demanding “an expedited review” of my “conduct”, on the grounds not only of my heresy on masks (claiming that I had discouraged their use, and “intimidated” students who wore them), but, primarily, because of my history of abusiveness and lunacy in the classroom (and beyond). They charged me with “explicit hate speech”, “attacks on students and others in our community”, “advocating for an unsafe learning environment”, “aggressions and microaggressions”, and other crimes. Although the letter is completely false on every point it makes, the dean—prompted by NYU’s lawyers—went right ahead and ordered that “review”, which is, as of today, ongoing (although it was supposed to end with last semester).

I sent my colleagues a point-by-point rebuttal, asking for a retraction and apology. They ignored that request, and my follow-up email; so I decided that I had no choice but to sue them for libel, as their letter makes quite clear that their intention is to nullify my academic freedom, presumably so as to get me fired (just as that student had demanded). There’s a GoFundMe page soliciting donations, to help me pay for this legal effort.

Sputnik: Have your other students been at all supportive of you?

Professor Mark Crispin Miller: Yes. In response to my colleagues’ letter, and the dean’s review, many students, current and former, as well as visitors to my classes over the years, have sent strong statements of support to the dean’s office, pointedly rebutting my colleagues’ preposterous charges. Over 50 such statements have so far come in, attesting to my tolerance, open-mindedness and—above all—effectiveness as a professor, and the importance of my propaganda classes in particular. That outpouring is the only upside to this dismal situation.

Sputnik: To what extent is your situation unique and to what extent does it represent a broader culture of censorship or intimidation within academic institutions?

Professor Mark Crispin Miller: As the petition makes clear, my plight is only one of countless others throughout academia—and not just there. Academic freedom and free speech have actually been under slow assault for decades, as many urgent subjects have long since been declared taboo as mere “conspiracy theory”, so that any professors or journalists (or, for that matter, entertainers) who dare look into them risk their careers. Since that mode of censorship began in 1967, another, more explicit kind emerged with the ferocious appropriation of “social justice” as a means of “cancelling” dissident expression on a range of other urgent subjects, so that anyone who questions certain pieties is charged with “hate speech”. And this year has seen a third line of attack, as the COVID crisis has entailed much of the sort of outright “war-is-peace”/”2+2=5” propaganda that Orwell satirised in Nineteen Eighty-Four, with bald lies on every aspect of the crisis pumped out by “authoritative” health officials, and the media, always in the name of “science”.

And so the truth on many subjects, and those trying to express it, or even study it, are under fierce assault on one or more of those three grounds; and I see myself as under fire on all three bases. My colleagues charge that I make “non-evidence-based” assertions in my classes (a striking accusation, in a letter whose every claim is based, demonstrably, on no evidence whatsoever); assert that I engage in “explicit hate speech” (which I’ve never done, in class or anywhere else); and cast me as a risk to public health, for urging students to look into the scientific basis for the mask mandates, then make up their own minds.

This assault, I think, makes my case an important flashpoint in the larger struggle—now a global struggle—for academic freedom and free speech, at a time when both are under existential threat. I therefore hope that people will continue to support me, as well as others in my situation, in any way they can.

January 12, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | 2 Comments

Joe Biden and the Post-Corona “Great Reset”. The Protest Movement

Prof Michel Chossudovsky | Global Research | January 9, 2021

In the wake of the Wednesday January 6, 2021 Capitol Hill Event, we must reflect on what a  Joe Biden Administration will look like.

Joe Biden was not duly elected, he was selected. He is a groomed and “reliable” politician. He is a political instrument of the global capitalist establishment.

Biden is a firm supporter of the Corona lockdown. His statements concerning a “Dark Winter” in 2021 confirm that he not only endorses the adoption of staunch Covid-19 lockdown policies, his administration will pursue and adopt the World Economic Forum’s “Great Reset” as an integral part of US foreign policy, to be implemented or more correctly “imposed” Worldwide.

In turn, the Biden-Harris administration will attempt to override all forms of popular resistance to the corona virus lockdown.

We are at the crossroads of one of the most serious crises in World history. We are living history, yet our understanding of the sequence of events since January 2020 has been blurred.

What is unfolding is a new and destructive phase of US imperialism. It’s a totalitarian project of economic and social engineering, which ultimately destroys people’s lives Worldwide.

This “novel” neoliberal agenda using the corona lockdown as an instrument of social oppression has been endorsed by the leadership of the Democratic Party.

The Biden White House will be used to instate what David Rockefeller called “Global Governance”, which is tantamount to a Worldwide “democratic dictatorship”.

It should be noted that the protest movement in the US, against the lockdown is weak. In fact there is no coherent grassroots national protest movement. Why? Because “progressive forces” including leftist intellectuals, NGO leaders, trade union and labor leaders, most of which are aligned with the Democratic Party have from the outset been supportive of the lockdown. And they are also supportive of Joe Biden.

In a bitter irony, antiwar activists as well as the critics of neoliberalism have endorsed Joe Biden, who is now being accused by Trump supporters of being a “socialist”.

The preceding text is an excerpt from the concluding chapter of my E-Book: entitled.

The 2020 Worldwide Corona Crisis: Destroying Civil Society, Engineered Economic Depression, Global Coup d’État and the “Great Reset”  first published in mid-December 2020.

To access the full text of nine chapters click here 

January 12, 2021 Posted by | Book Review, Civil Liberties | , , | Leave a comment

How Silicon Valley, in a Show of Monopolistic Force, Destroyed Parler

In the last three months, tech giants have censored political speech and journalism to manipulate U.S. politics, while liberals, with virtual unanimity, have cheered.

By Glenn Greenwald | January 12, 2021

Critics of Silicon Valley censorship for years heard the same refrain: tech platforms like Facebook, Google and Twitter are private corporations and can host or ban whoever they want. If you don’t like what they are doing, the solution is not to complain or to regulate them. Instead, go create your own social media platform that operates the way you think it should.

The founders of Parler heard that suggestion and tried. In August, 2018, they created a social media platform similar to Twitter but which promised far greater privacy protections, including a refusal to aggregate user data in order to monetize them to advertisers or algorithmically evaluate their interests in order to promote content or products to them. They also promised far greater free speech rights, rejecting the increasingly repressive content policing of Silicon Valley giants.

Over the last year, Parler encountered immense success. Millions of people who objected to increasing repression of speech on the largest platforms or who had themselves been banned signed up for the new social media company.

As Silicon Valley censorship radically escalated over the past several months — banning pre-election reporting by The New York Post about the Biden family, denouncing and deleting multiple posts from the U.S. President and then terminating his access altogether, mass-removal of right-wing accounts — so many people migrated to Parler that it was catapulted to the number one spot on the list of most-downloaded apps on the Apple Play Store, the sole and exclusive means which iPhone users have to download apps. “Overall, the app was the 10th most downloaded social media app in 2020 with 8.1 million new installs,” reported TechCrunch.

It looked as if Parler had proven critics of Silicon Valley monopolistic power wrong. Their success showed that it was possible after all to create a new social media platform to compete with Facebook, Instagram and Twitter. And they did so by doing exactly what Silicon Valley defenders long insisted should be done: if you don’t like the rules imposed by tech giants, go create your own platform with different rules.

But today, if you want to download, sign up for, or use Parler, you will be unable to do so. That is because three Silicon Valley monopolies — Amazon, Google and Apple — abruptly united to remove Parler from the internet, exactly at the moment when it became the most-downloaded app in the country.

If one were looking for evidence to demonstrate that these tech behemoths are, in fact, monopolies that engage in anti-competitive behavior in violation of antitrust laws, and will obliterate any attempt to compete with them in the marketplace, it would be difficult to imagine anything more compelling than how they just used their unconstrained power to utterly destroy a rising competitor.

The united Silicon Valley attack began on January 8, when Apple emailed Parler and gave them 24 hours to prove they had changed their moderation practices or else face removal from their App Store. The letter claimed: “We have received numerous complaints regarding objectionable content in your Parler service, accusations that the Parler app was used to plan, coordinate, and facilitate the illegal activities in Washington D.C. on January 6, 2021 that led (among other things) to loss of life, numerous injuries, and the destruction of property.” It ended with this warning:

To ensure there is no interruption of the availability of your app on the App Store, please submit an update and the requested moderation improvement plan within 24 hours of the date of this message. If we do not receive an update compliant with the App Store Review Guidelines and the requested moderation improvement plan in writing within 24 hours, your app will be removed from the App Store.

The 24-hour letter was an obvious pretext and purely performative. Removal was a fait accompli no matter what Parler did. To begin with, the letter was immediately leaked to Buzzfeed, which published it in full. A Parler executive detailed the company’s unsuccessful attempts to communicate with Apple. “They basically ghosted us,” he told me. The next day, Apple notified Parler of its removal from App Store. “We won’t distribute apps that present dangerous and harmful content,” said the world’s richest company, and thus: “We have now rejected your app for the App Store.”

It is hard to overstate the harm to a platform from being removed from the App Store. Users of iPhones are barred from downloading apps onto their devices from the internet. If an app is not on the App Store, it cannot be used on the iPhone. Even iPhone users who have already downloaded Parler will lose the ability to receive updates, which will shortly render the platform both unmanageable and unsafe.

In October, the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial, and Administrative Law issued a 425-page report concluding that Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Google all possess monopoly power and are using that power anti-competitively. For Apple, they emphasized the company’s control over iPhones through its control of access to the App Store. As Ars Technica put it when highlighting the report’s key findings:

Apple controls about 45 percent of the US smartphone market and 20 percent of the global smartphone market, the committee found, and is projected to sell its 2 billionth iPhone in 2021. It is correct that, in the smartphone handset market, Apple is not a monopoly. Instead, iOS and Android hold an effective duopoly in mobile operating systems.

However, the report concludes, Apple does have a monopolistic hold over what you can do with an iPhone. You can only put apps on your phone through the Apple App Store, and Apple has total gatekeeper control over that App Store—that’s what Epic is suing the company over. . . .

The committee found internal documents showing that company leadership, including former CEO Steve Jobs, “acknowledged that IAP requirement would stifle competition and limit the apps available to Apple’s customers.” The report concludes that Apple has also unfairly used its control over APIs, search rankings, and default apps to limit competitors’ access to iPhone users.

Shortly thereafter, Parler learned that Google, without warning, had also “suspended” it from its Play Store, severely limiting the ability of users to download Parler onto Android phones. Google’s actions also meant that those using Parler on their Android phones would no longer receive necessary functionality and security updates.

It was precisely Google’s abuse of its power to control its app device that was at issue “when the European Commission deemed Google LLC as the dominant undertaking in the app stores for the Android mobile operating system (i.e. Google Play Store) and hit the online search and advertisement giant with €4.34 billion for its anti-competitive practices to strengthen its position in various of other markets through its dominance in the app store market.”

The day after a united Apple and Google acted against Parler, Amazon delivered the fatal blow. The company founded and run by the world’s richest man, Jeff Bezos, used virtually identical language as Apple to inform Parler that its web hosting service (AWS) was terminating Parler’s ability to have AWS host its site: “Because Parler cannot comply with our terms of service and poses a very real risk to public safety, we plan to suspend Parler’s account effective Sunday, January 10th, at 11:59PM PST.” Because Amazon is such a dominant force in web hosting, Parler has thus far not found a hosting service for its platform, which is why it has disappeared not only from app stores and phones but also from the internet.

On Thursday, Parler was the most popular app in the United States. By Monday, three of the four Silicon Valley monopolies united to destroy it.

With virtual unanimity, leading U.S. liberals celebrated this use of Silicon Valley monopoly power to shut down Parler, just as they overwhelmingly cheered the prior two extraordinary assertions of tech power to control U.S. political discourse: censorship of The New York Post’s reporting on the contents of Hunter Biden’s laptop, and the banning of the U.S. President from major platforms. Indeed, one would be hard-pressed to find a single national liberal-left politician even expressing concerns about any of this, let alone opposing it.

Not only did leading left-wing politicians not object but some of them were the ones who pleaded with Silicon Valley to use their power this way. After the internet-policing site Sleeping Giants flagged several Parler posts that called for violence, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez asked: “What are @Apple and @GooglePlay doing about this?” Once Apple responded by removing Parler from its App Store — a move that House Democrats just three months earlier warned was dangerous anti-trust behavior — she praised Apple and then demanded to know: “Good to see this development from @Apple. @GooglePlay what are you going to do about apps being used to organize violence on your platform?”

The liberal New York Times columnist Michelle Goldberg pronounced herself “disturbed by just how awesome [tech giants’] power is” and added that “it’s dangerous to have a handful of callow young tech titans in charge of who has a megaphone and who does not.” She nonetheless praised these “young tech titans” for using their “dangerous” power to ban Trump and destroy Parler. In other words, liberals like Goldberg are concerned only that Silicon Valley censorship powers might one day be used against people like them, but are perfectly happy as long as it is their adversaries being deplatformed and silenced (Facebook and other platforms have for years banned marginalized people like Palestinians at Israel’s behest, but that is of no concern to U.S. liberals).

That is because the dominant strain of American liberalism is not economic socialism but political authoritarianism. Liberals now want to use the force of corporate power to silence those with different ideologies. They are eager for tech monopolies not just to ban accounts they dislike but to remove entire platforms from the internet. They want to imprison people they believe helped their party lose elections, such as Julian Assange, even if it means creating precedents to criminalize journalism.

World leaders have vocally condemned the power Silicon Valley has amassed to police political discourse, and were particularly indignant over the banning of the U.S. President. German Chancellor Angela Merkel, various French ministers, and especially Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador all denounced the banning of Trump and other acts of censorship by tech monopolies on the ground that they were anointing themselves “a world media power.” The warnings from López Obrador were particularly eloquent:

Even the ACLU — which has rapidly transformed from a civil liberties organization into a liberal activist group since Trump’s election — found the assertion of Silicon Valley’s power to destroy Parler deeply alarming. One of that organization’s most stalwart defenders of civil liberties, lawyer Ben Wizner, told The New York Times that the destruction of Parler was more “troubling” than the deletion of posts or whole accounts: “I think we should recognize the importance of neutrality when we’re talking about the infrastructure of the internet.”

Yet American liberals swoon for this authoritarianism. And they are now calling for the use of the most repressive War on Terror measures against their domestic opponents. On Tuesday, House Homeland Security Chair Bennie Thompson (D-MS) urged that GOP Sens. Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley “be put on the no-fly list,” while The Wall Street Journal reported that “Biden has said he plans to make a priority of passing a law against domestic terrorism, and he has been urged to create a White House post overseeing the fight against ideologically inspired violent extremists and increasing funding to combat them.”

So much of this liberal support for the attempted destruction of Parler is based in utter ignorance about that platform, and about basic principles of free speech. I’d be very surprised if more than a tiny fraction of liberals cheering Parler’s removal from the internet have ever used the platform or know anything about it other than the snippets they have been shown by those seeking to justify its destruction and to depict it as some neo-Nazi stronghold.

Parler was not founded, nor is it run, by pro-Trump, MAGA supporters. The platform was created based in libertarian values of privacy, anti-surveillance, anti-data collection, and free speech. Most of the key executives are more associated with the politics of Ron Paul and the CATO Institute than Steve Bannon or the Trump family. One is a Never Trump Republican, while another is the former campaign manager of Ron Paul and Rand Paul. Among the few MAGA-affiliated figures is Dan Bongino, an investor. One of the key original investors was Rebekah Mercer.

The platform’s design is intended to foster privacy and free speech, not a particular ideology. They minimize the amount of data they collect on users to prevent advertiser monetization or algorithmic targeting. Unlike Facebook and Twitter, they do not assess a user’s preferences in order to decide what they should see. And they were principally borne out of a reaction to increasingly restrictive rules on the major Silicon Valley platforms regarding what could and could not be said.

Of course large numbers of Trump supporters ended up on Parler. That’s not because Parler is a pro-Trump outlet, but because those are among the people who were censored by the tech monopolies or who were angered enough by that censorship to seek refuge elsewhere.

It is true that one can find postings on Parler that explicitly advocate violence or are otherwise grotesque. But that is even more true of Facebook, Google-owned YouTube, and Twitter. And contrary to what many have been led to believe, Parler’s Terms of Service includes a ban on explicit advocacy of violence, and they employ a team of paid, trained moderators who delete such postings. Those deletions do not happen perfectly or instantaneously — which is why one can find postings that violate those rules — but the same is true of every major Silicon Valley platform.

Indeed, a Parler executive told me that of the thirteen people arrested as of Monday for the breach at the Capitol, none appear to be active users of Parler. The Capitol breach was planned far more on Facebook and YouTube. As Recode reported, while some protesters participated in both Parler and Gab, many of the calls to attend the Capitol were from YouTube videos, while many of the key planners “have continued to use mainstream platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube.” The article quoted Fadi Quran, campaign director at the human rights group Avaaz, as saying: “In DC, we saw QAnon conspiracists and other militias that would never have grown to this size without being turbo-charged by Facebook and Twitter.”

And that’s to say nothing of the endless number of hypocrisies with Silicon Valley giants feigning opposition to violent rhetoric or political extremism. Amazon, for instance, is one of the CIA’s most profitable partners, with a $600 million contract to provide services to the agency, and it is constantly bidding for more. On Facebook and Twitter, one finds official accounts from the most repressive and violent regimes on earth, including Saudi Arabia, and pages devoted to propaganda on behalf of the Egyptian regime. Does anyone think these tech giants have a genuine concern about violence and extremism?

So why did Democratic politicians and journalists focus on Parler rather than Facebook and YouTube? Why did Amazon, Google and Apple make a flamboyant showing of removing Parler from the internet while leaving much larger platforms with far more extremism and advocacy of violence flowing on a daily basis?

In part it is because these Silicon Valley giants — Google, Facebook, Amazon, Apple — donate enormous sums of money to the Democratic Party and their leaders, so of course Democrats will cheer them rather than call for punishment or their removal from the internet. Part of it is because Parler is an upstart, a much easier target to try to destroy than Facebook or Google. And in part it is because the Democrats are about to control the Executive Branch and both houses of Congress, leaving Silicon Valley giants eager to please them by silencing their adversaries. This corrupt motive was made expressly clear by long-time Clinton operative Jennifer Palmieri:

The nature of monopolistic power is that anti-competitive entities engage in anti-trust illegalities to destroy rising competitors. Parler is associated with the wrong political ideology. It is a small and new enough platform such that it can be made an example of. Its head can be placed on a pike to make clear that no attempt to compete with existing Silicon Valley monopolies is possible. And its destruction preserves the unchallengeable power of a tiny handful of tech oligarchs over the political discourse not just of the United States but democracies worldwide (which is why Germany, France and Mexico are raising their voices in protest).

No authoritarians believe they are authoritarians. No matter how repressive are the measures they support — censorship, monopoly power, no-fly lists for American citizens without due process — they tell themselves that those they are silencing and attacking are so evil, are terrorists, that anything done against them is noble and benevolent, not despotic and repressive. That is how American liberals currently think, as they fortify the control of Silicon Valley monopolies over our political lives, exemplified by the overnight destruction of a new and popular competitor.

January 12, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Exposed: Fauci and CDC clash; can’t keep their story straight

By Jon Rappoport | January 12, 2021

Once more, dear reader, I venture into the insane world where experts falsely claim they’ve proved SARS-CoV-2 exists. Within that world, they contradict themselves. They just can’t keep their story straight.

So let’s begin with Tony Fauci. We have him on video making the following statement: “… In all the history of respiratory borne viruses of any type, asymptomatic transmission has never been the driver of outbreaks… Even if there’s a rare asymptomatic person that might transmit [the virus], an epidemic is not driven by an asymptomatic carrier.” [1]

Fauci is emphatic. People with no symptoms who are carrying a virus? Not a problem. They don’t spread the virus to other people. They don’t cause or maintain an epidemic.

Now let’s turn to the CDC. Jay Butler, CDC deputy director for infectious diseases just told the Washington Post, “The bottom line is controlling the COVID-19 pandemic really is going to require controlling the silent pandemic of transmission from persons without symptoms.” [2] [3]

Just the opposite of what Fauci said.

So now we have this:

ONE: People who carry the virus but have no symptoms don’t cause or maintain an epidemic.

TWO: Those very people ARE a major problem, and the epidemic can’t be controlled without controlling them—with masks, distancing, and lockdowns.

Follow the science? What science?

On the back of this gibberish, nations all over the world are seeing their economies destroyed, and hundreds of millions of lives ruined.

It’s a freak show, and the freaks are running it.

Of course, the experts can lie their way out of this. They can say, “Well, this is the FIRST TIME in human history that people with no symptoms are driving an epidemic. We’ve never seen it before…”

Right. This is a special case. Astounding.

If you believe that, I have condos for sale on the far side of the moon.


This is how official science operates. It’s political and totalitarian, and it pretends to be objective.

So Jay Butler, the CDC deputy director, rounds off his statement to the Washington Post with this: “The community mitigation tools that we have [masks, distancing, lockdowns] need to be utilized broadly to be able to slow the spread of SARS-CoV-2 from all infected persons, at least until we have those vaccines widely available.”

Translation: We have to keep lying, to keep the global population under lock and key. Putting the Chinese model of control in place, in Western countries, takes time. Buy the con for another few years and we’ll have an iron grip on the population.





Jon Rappoport is the author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power.

January 12, 2021 Posted by | Deception, Timeless or most popular | , , | 1 Comment