Aletho News


Interview With Doctor Sheri Tenpenny

The Conscious Resistance Network | February 13, 2021

February 13, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | , , | Leave a comment

The Great Vaccine Scam

By Vasko Kohlmayer | Lew Rockwell | February 13, 2021

“South Africa suspends Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine rollout after researchers report minimal protection against variant” announces the headline of a recent Washington Post report.

The article’s opening sentence reads as follows:

“South Africa will suspend use of the coronavirus vaccine being developed by Oxford University and AstraZeneca after researchers found that it provided ‘minimal protection’ against mild to moderate coronavirus infections caused by the new variant first detected in that country.”

The information conveyed by the above exposes the gargantuan fraud that has been perpetrated upon humanity in the name of COVID-19.

Even though many people will be deeply disappointed and disheartened by what happened in South Africa, the news should not have come as a surprise to anyone, since the vaccine failure was completely predictable and inevitable.

Here is the truth: It is not possible to devise an effective vaccine for the type of virus that causes COVID-19. Why? For the very reason that AstraZeneca’s vaccine has failed in South Africa and will fail elsewhere as well.

Coronavirus is a type of virus that mutates widely and because of that it is impossible to come up with a vaccination protocol that would stop its spread.

Every bona fide virologist knows this. And yet the public has not been advised of this. Quite to the contrary, this crucial information has been actively suppressed.

Rather than being told the truth, we were commanded to hunker down in lengthy lockdowns and ordered to wait until the vaccine was found. Once that happened, they told us, we would be able to prevail over the virus and get our lives back. Until quite recently, this was the official narrative propagated by the governing elites around the world.

Consequently, billions of people pinned their hopes on the vaccine and desperately waited for its deliverance. At the same time, governments channeled billions of dollars into the development of these fake concoctions and a number of pharma executives and scientists became billionaires on the news of “progress” and “successful” trials.

While some were getting fabulously wealthy, the frightened and gullible public was kept in the dark about the racket. Sadly, most people apparently lack the will and independence of mind to go beyond the propaganda and do their own research. It does not help, of course, that the establishment has done its best to censor and suppress the information that goes against its official narrative.

The first news that showed that all was not well came when the Chinese vaccine Sinovac was found to be only fifty percent effective in Brazil. Bad as it was, we can be sure that even the paltry fifty percent figure was tweaked upwards by a joint effort of the Brazilian authorities who purchased the vaccine and the vaccine’s Chinese manufacturer. They lied because it is in the interest of both parties to do so. The government authorities needed to cover for their incompetence of spending hundreds of millions of dollars on a bad product while the manufacturer wants to protect his profits. The likely truth is that the Chinese vaccine is for all practical purposes useless and possibly dangerous due to potential side effects for which it has not been adequately tested in the extremely short time frame in which it was developed.

Tellingly, the Chinese manufacturer of the shoddy Sinovac vaccine initially claimed an effectiveness of nearly one hundred percent. Their claims were in line with those of western manufacturers of COVID-19 vaccines. We can be sure – given the mutating nature of the SARS-CoV-2 virus – that the vaccines developed by western pharma companies are equally as useless as that of their Chinese counterpart. We have already seen clear evidence of it from South Africa. In the aforementioned piece by the Washington Post we learn that when in South Africa the new “variant became dominant in the country in November, the vaccine [by Oxford-AstraZeneca] provided no significant protection against illness…” South African researchers estimated that the effectiveness of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine is ten percent.

Think about it: The vaccine is ten percent effective! And this likely is still an exaggeration as all the parties involved try to save face.

But even at ten percent the vaccine would be worse than useless, because while it offers virtually no protection it potentially carries serious side effects for which it has not been adequately tested.

Because of the potential dangers inherent in this kind of medical product, it normally takes around six years to develop a vaccine that ban be considered reasonably safe. According to Business Insider “vaccines often take years, and sometimes even decades, to develop, test, and approve for public use.”

It was only in April of last year that CNN claimed that a year and a half timeframe of producing a vaccine would raise safety concerns:

“Eighteen months might sound like a long time, but in vaccine years, it’s a blink. That’s the long end of the Trump administration’s time window for developing a coronavirus vaccine, and some leaders in the field say this is too fast – and could come at the expense of safety.”

This was one of those rare occasions on which CNN said something that was actually true. The piece goes on to quote real experts in the field like Dr. Peter Hotez, an expert on infectious disease and vaccine development at Baylor College of Medicine who said: “Tony Fauci is saying a year to 18 months – I think that’s optimistic. Maybe if all the stars align, but probably longer.”

Dr. Paul Offit, the co-inventor of the rotavirus vaccine, had this to say: “When Dr. Fauci said 12 to 18 months, I thought that was ridiculously optimistic. And I’m sure he did, too.”

To rush, therefore, COVID vaccines on the market after mere nine months of development is beyond irresponsible. To do this with “vaccines” that their manufacturers know cannot be ultimately effective is outright criminal.

Being part of the establishment, the vaccines manufacturers will not get called out and punished for their misdeeds. Their face (and their business model) will be saved. The data showing the ineffectiveness of their products will be tweaked and shown in the best light possible. They will then offer to devise boosters for different variants, which will be as ineffective in stopping COVID-19 as their original vaccine was. But never mind this: it will be excellent for their business, since each new variant represents more than seven billion potential customers. Western pharma conglomerates are known to be among the greatest scam artists within the system, and they will exploit the COVID scam to line their pockets in a big way.

While the effectiveness of the vaccines to protect against COVID is questionable at best, there is no doubt that they have already produced some serious side effects. One of these side effects happens to be death. In a number of countries hundreds of elderly people died after having received their shots. This side effect became so troublesome that some governments – Norway, for instance – issued new advisories and guidelines concerning vaccinations for older individuals. They did this even though the elderly were initially the first group targeted for this treatment. But rather then benefiting from it, many seniors were killed by the very thing they were told would protect their lives.

Given that it was never possible to stop a highly mutating virus by vaccination – which was something that has been well known – the whole COVID vaccine enterprise was fraud from the beginning and a dangerous one at that. The best we can hope for is that that these fake vaccines being peddled by the unscrupulous governments and greedy pharma companies are ineffective. Being administered on the order of millions of doses a day, we can only pray that the potential side effects of these untested concoctions hastily cobbled together by ruthless profiteers will not produce the greatest man-made medical calamity in history.

Vasko Kohlmayer [email] was born and grew up in former communist Czechoslovakia. He is the author of The West in Crisis: Civilizations and Their Death Drives.

Copyright © Vasko Kohlmayer

February 13, 2021 Posted by | Corruption, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | | 3 Comments

Why Trust the Experts?

By Lipton Matthews – Mises Institute – 02/11/2021

It has now become commonplace to accuse anyone who opposes covid lockdowns of being “antiscience.” This sort of treatment persists even when published scientific studies suggest the usual prolockdown narrative is wrong. support the antilockdown position.

There are sociological, economic, and cultural reasons why experts will take the politically popular position, even when the actual scientific evidence is weak or nonexistent.

Experts Are Biased and Are Self-Interested like Everyone Else

Though we are often encouraged to listen to experts because of their intelligence and expertise, there is a strong case for us to be skeptical of their pronouncements.

Beliefs serve a social function by indicating one’s position in society. Hence to preserve their status in elite circles, highly educated experts may subscribe to incorrect positions, since doing do so can confer benefits. Refusing to hold a politically popular viewpoint could damage one’s career. And since upper-class professionals are more invested in acquiring status than working people, we should not expect them to jettison incorrect beliefs in the name of pursuing truth. Cancel culture has taught us that promoting the world view of the elite is more important than truth to decision makers.

So why should we listen to experts when they give greater primacy to appeasing elites than solving national problems? In contrast to what some would want you to believe—revolting against experts is not an attack on science, considering that little evidence suggests that they care about scientific truth. Let us not fool ourselves. People occupying powerful offices are uninterested in being toppled from positions of influence, and as such, they will seek to minimize views that threaten their professional or intellectual authority. As a result, expecting influential bureaucrats to value truth is unwise. Truth to a bureaucrat is merely the consensus of the intelligentsia at any given time.

Of note is also the lesser ability of intelligent people to identify their own bias. Stemming from their greater levels of cognitive development, it is easier for intelligent people to rationalize nonsense. Justifying extreme assumptions requires a lot of brainpower, so this could possibly explain why highly intelligent people—specifically, people “higher in verbal ability”—are inclined to express more extreme opinions. Our culture has immense faith in expert opinion, although the evidence indicates that such confidence must be tempered by skepticism. Intelligent people, whether they be experts or politicians, do not have a monopoly on rationality.

Admittedly, intelligence may act as a barrier to objective thinking. Brilliant people are adept at forming arguments, therefore even when confronted with compelling data, they are still able to offer equally riveting counterpoints. Smart people can engage opponents without resorting to a bevy of studies to buttress their conclusions. Thus, clearly, the proposals of experts ought to be held to a higher standard primarily because they are smarter than average.

The capacity of an intelligent person to provide coherent arguments in favor of his ideas can be impressive, and may only serve to solidify him or her in his or her conclusions. For instance, in the arena of climate change experts have recommended policies that are consistent with data on nothing but the claim that a consensus supports such proposals. Promoting the wide-scale use of renewables, for example, is usually touted as a sustainable climate strategy despite the fact that studies argue the reverse.

Counter to the rantings of the intelligentsia, we should implore more people to express skepticism of experts. Due to their high intelligence, experts tend to be more inflexible and partisan than other people. This is solid justification for ordinary people to be skeptical of the intellectuals in charge of national affairs. Unlike wealthy bureaucrats, who are insulated from the economic fallout of their bad ideas, the poor usually bear the burden.

February 13, 2021 Posted by | Corruption, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | | Leave a comment

While State Governments are Ending Their Mask Mandates, President Biden Is Going Full Mask Tyrant

By Adam Dick | Ron Paul Institute | February 13, 2021

This week, statewide mask mandates terminated in two states — Iowa and Montana.

While state governments were giving the OK for ditching masks, President Joe Biden was telling reporters Thursday at the National Institutes of Health that people should keep wearing masks until at least next year, claiming that doing so “can save lives, a significant number of lives.”

This declaration came in muffled words and heavy breathing through at least two masks while Biden, standing behind a podium, acknowledged he was more than ten feet from anyone.

Biden made this claim of masks’ life-saving ability despite the facts that regular mask wearing does have negative health consequences and that it has not been established that mask wearing provides any net protection against coronavirus infection.

Biden is not just recommending that people wear masks. The Biden administration has already rolled out in its first three weeks sweeping countrywide mask mandates. Mask wearing is now mandated across the country — via executive branch fiat — for people in many circumstances related to public transportation and even when just in a taxi or ride share vehicle and for people who are in a US government building or on US government land.

And the plan is for these US government mask mandates to be enforced harshly. As James Bovard wrote in a recent article, for example, Transportation Security Administration (TSA) policy calls for monitoring both if people are wearing masks and if people are wearing the right kinds of masks in the right way, with fines of up to 1,500 dollars imposed on individuals who TSA determines have not adequately complied.

It looks like Americans are set to suffer tag team mask tyranny. As state governments remove authoritarian mask mandates, the US government is stepping in to ensure freedom remains suppressed.

February 13, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | 1 Comment

MSM’s narrative about the murderous Capitol mob has collapsed, but don’t let that stop a political lynching

By Tony Cox | RT | February 13, 2021

As their dishonest narrative collapses around them, mainstream media outlets and Democrat politicians are trying to hold together their latest bid to destroy Donald Trump, but some of the lies are getting too big to shrug off.

I’m reminded of  the media-speak popularized during the Trump era – lightly used words or phrases that became ubiquitous in the talking points, like “violating norms” – especially the term “debunked.” In the eyes of MSM and their controllers, Trump was a president who needed to be debunked thousands of times. Whether it was about the size of his Inauguration Day crowd, the animal-like savagery of MS-13 gang-bangers or the fact that Haiti is “a s**thole”, any Trump claim had to be debunked, false or not.

When an obnoxious loudmouth constantly blurts out things that lift the skirt on the ruling class’ treachery, his voice must be discredited. And even if just part of his story can be attacked, the rest will be forgotten. It’s like a Jenga game where all the pieces automatically fall down when one is removed.

But the same standard doesn’t apply to the media’s own story lines. No matter how many times MSM and establishment politicians are exposed as liars — from the MLK bust in the Oval Office to the Russia collusion hoax — the people are supposed to keep believing the gist of their arguments. The Jenga tower can be levitating with entire floors missing, but the con artists insist that it’s still standing.

We’re seeing it again in Trump’s second Senate impeachment trial. Giant holes have been blown in the MSM-DNC narrative about the January 6 “insurrection” at the US Capitol, but that’s not supposed to matter. For instance, when lead House impeachment manager Jamie Raskin (D-Maryland) got caught lying on Wednesday about the content of an alleged telephone call between Trump and a Republican senator during the Capitol riot, he admitted that his claim was false and shrugged it off. “This is much ado about nothing because it’s not critical in any way to our case,” he said.

Never mind that the point was apparently considered important enough to submit as evidence. Raskin was essentially allowed to wriggle out as if he said, “The fact that we’re lying about this doesn’t reflect whatsoever on the veracity of anything else we’re telling you.”

A far bigger and more central piece of the impeachment Jenga tower shouldn’t be sloughed off so easily. In fact, Capitol Police officer Brian Sicknick is so central to the narrative that his cremated remains were displayed in honor at the Capitol Rotunda to remind everyone of the viciousness of the alleged Trump domestic-terrorism army.

The tale of the brutal Trump mob is always punctuated with the fact that five people were “killed” during the riot, er, “white-supremacist insurrection.” One of those people was Ashli Babbitt, one of the rioters, who was fatally shot by a law enforcement officer. Three others were election-fraud protesters who died from health crises – a heart attack, a stroke and an unidentified medical emergency – during the January 6 demonstration and riot.

The talking heads who wish Trump supporters dead in every other case are counting Trump supporters in the death toll from an incident perpetrated primarily by Trump supporters. It’s as if they’re leading a story on a hostage crisis by saying that 30 people were killed without mentioning that 25 of those were hostage takers, including 22 who died of food poisoning.

Therefore, it’s easy to see why Sicknick is so important to the story. He’s the one alleged victim who wasn’t on Team Trump that day. MSM and Democrat politicians told us over and over that the officer died from being bludgeoned in the head with a fire extinguisher, even though Capitol Police’s official statement was only that he “passed away due to injuries sustained while on duty.”

CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, Anderson “CIA” Cooper and other MSM hosts ignored the Sicknick family’s request to not make the officer’s death a political issue. They portrayed it as a murder without any such determination by investigators. No one has been arrested in connection with Sicknick’s death, and no murder case has been built so far.

But the Sicknick story has crumbled in recent days with the revelation that medical examiners didn’t find any indication that the officer sustained any blunt force trauma. Investigators are reportedly considering a theory that Sicknick became ill after coming in contact with a chemical irritant, such as pepper spray, that was deployed in the crowd.

The vast majority of Americans haven’t heard about this gigantic wrinkle in the Sicknick story because the media, predictably, hasn’t blasted out corrections of their false reporting. They’ve adopted more careful storytelling about the officer’s death, with the fire-extinguisher bit missing.

Also obscured is the wrinkle that Sicknick communicated with his family after the riot. Ken Sicknick reportedly said his brother sent him a text hours after the riot, saying, “I got pepper-sprayed twice,” and that he was in good shape. The next day, the family was informed that Sicknick was in critical condition, on a ventilator.

Without issuing a correction on any of its false stories with the fire-extinguisher tale, CNN reported the fact that Sicknick died of something other than blunt force trauma. In its first article acknowledging that reality, the network immediately transitioned from the Sicknick investigation to background about other officers being injured by rioters. It was like saying, “our central claim wasn’t true, but that doesn’t change the fact that the Trump mob was vicious.”

Daily Dot writer Mikael Thalen argued the propagandists’ case, saying mainstream outlets didn’t lie to fit a narrative. There was just a “communication breakdown” between sources and reporters. He conceded that the facts of Sicknick’s death are important, but concluded that those details have no bearing on the fact that “thousands of people, egged on by the most powerful man in the world, attempted to violently overthrow the democratic process.”

It’s the Jamie Raskin response all over again. Never mind the falsehoods that we’ve been telling you. None of that stuff we said over and over had anything to do with our central point that Trump incited an insurrection. And don’t let the fact that we’ve been telling you falsehoods cause you to question our credibility. The house of cards, the Jenga tower, still stands strong.

But how many pieces have to be debunked before we can call the project debunked?

By Tony Cox is a US journalist who has written or edited for Bloomberg and several major daily newspapers.

February 13, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | | Leave a comment

Study: Mass Hysteria & Poor Public Policies Link During Lockdown

Principia Scientific | February 13, 2021

A new study shows that ‘lockdown’ mass hysteria over COVID19, generated via the media and politicians, has worsened the outcomes for policy decisions causing avoidable and unnecessary additional public health costs.

The new study, ‘COVID-19 and the Political Economy of Mass Hysteria’, written by Philipp Bagus et al., was published February 3, 2021 in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. [1]

The paper’s conclusion is reproduced below:

Conclusion: Mass hysteria can have enormous public health costs in terms of psychological stress, anxiety, and even physical symptoms. To these costs must be added indirect adverse health effects from alcoholism, suicides, or damage from deferred treatment and delayed recognition of illness. Policy failures in mass hysteria can lead to economic decline and poverty, which in turn negatively impacts public health and life expectancy.

Studies of mass hysteria have mostly focused on outbreaks in localized settings of schools or businesses. However, in the digital age of global mass and social media, the possibility of global mass hysteria exists, a phenomenon that has not yet been studied. Our study of the political economy of mass hysteria draws on the well-established psycho-logical phenomenon of mass hysteria and applies it to a new and innovative context of global mass hysteria for which no literature exists yet. More specifically, we analyzed how the political system can influence the likelihood and spread of mass hysteria in a digitized and globalized world based on economic principles. We discussed how the state and its size increase the likelihood of mass hysteria by comparing an idealized minimal state with an idealized welfare state, addressing a previously completely unexplored research question. Our findings are highly relevant and important because the policy failures induced by mass hysteria are potentially catastrophic for public health.

We found that the size and power of the state contributes positively to the likelihood and extensions of mass hysteria. The more centralized and the more power a state has, the higher the probability and extension of mass hysteria. In a minimal state, there exist self-correcting mechanisms that limit collective hysteria. The enforcement of private property rights limits the harm inflicted by those that succumb to the hysteria. The state (thanks to a fuzzy public sector and its soft power [123,124]), by contrast, amplifies and exacerbates mass panics, potentially causing important havoc. What are temporarily, locally limited, isolated outbreaks of mass hysteria, the state may convert into a global mass hysteria for an extended period of time. Recent development in information technology and, particularly, the use of social media, as well as a decline of religion, have made societies more prone to the development of mass hysteria [125,126,127]. Unfortunately, once a mass hysteria takes hold of the government, the amount of damage the hysteria can inflict to life and liberty surges as the state’s respect for private property and basic human rights is limited. The violation of basic human rights in the form of curfews, lockdowns, and coercive closure of business has been amply illustrated during the COVID-19 crisis. Naturally, the COVID-19 example is indicative rather than representative and its lessons cannot be generalized. During the COVID-19 crisis, several authors have argued that from a public health point of view, these invasive interventions such as lockdowns have been unnecessary [128,129,130,131] and, indeed, detrimental to overall public health [132,133]. In fact, prior scientific research on disease mitigation measures during a possible influenza pandemic had warned against such invasive interventions and recommended a more normal social functioning [134]. Moreover, in reaction to past pandemics such as the Asian flu of 1957–1958, there were no lockdowns [135], and research before 2020 had opposed lockdowns [136]. From this perspective, the lockdowns have been a policy error. We have shown that these policy errors may well have been produced by a collective hysteria. To which extent there has been a mass hysteria during the COVID-19 crisis is open for future research. In order to prevent the repetition of policy errors similar to those during the COVID-19 crisis, one should be aware of the political economy of mass hysteria developed in this article and the role of the state in fostering mass hysteria. Public health is likely to be affected negatively by state interventions during a mass hysteria due to policy errors.

[1] Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 202118 (4), 1376;

February 13, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , | 1 Comment

Opening the CIA’s Can of Worms

By Edward Curtin | February 13, 2021

“The CIA and the media are part of the same criminal conspiracy,” wrote Douglas Valentine in his important book, The CIA As Organized Crime. 

This is true. The corporate mainstream media are stenographers for the national security state’s ongoing psychological operations aimed at the American people, just as they have done the same for an international audience. We have long been subjected to this “information warfare,” whose purpose is to win the hearts and minds of the American people and pacify them into victims of their own complicity, just as it was practiced long ago by the CIA in Vietnam and by The New York Times, CBS, etc. on the American people then and over the years as the American warfare state waged endless wars, coups, false flag operations, and assassinations at home and abroad.

Another way of putting this is to say for all practical purposes when it comes to matters that bear on important foreign and domestic matters, the CIA and the corporate mainstream media cannot be distinguished.

For those who read and study history, it has long been known that the CIA has placed their operatives throughout every agency of the U.S. government, as explained by Fletcher Prouty in The Secret Team; that CIA officers Cord Myer and Frank Wisner operated secret programs to get some of the most vocal exponents of intellectual freedom among intellectuals, journalists, and writers to be their voices for unfreedom and censorship, as explained by Frances Stonor Saunders in The Cultural Cold War and Joel Whitney in Finks, among others; that Cord Myer was especially focused on and successful in “courting the Compatible Left” since right wingers were already in the Agency’s pocket.  All this is documented and not disputed. It is shocking only to those who don’t do their homework and see what is happening today outside a broad historical context.

With the rise of alternate media and a wide array of dissenting voices on the internet, the establishment felt threatened and went on the defensive. It therefore should come as no surprise that those same elite corporate media are now leading the charge for increased censorship and the denial of free speech to those they deem dangerous, whether that involves wars, rigged elections, foreign coups, COVID-19, vaccinations, or the lies of the corporate media themselves. Having already banned critics from writing in their pages and or talking on their screens, these media giants want to make the quieting of dissenting voices complete.

Just today The New York Times had this headline: Robert Kennedy Jr. Barred From Instagram Over False Virus Claims. Notice the lack of the word alleged before “false virus claims.” This is guilt by headline. It is a perfect piece of propaganda posing as reporting, since it accuses Kennedy, a brilliant and honorable man, of falsity and stupidity, thus justifying Instagram’s ban, and it is an inducement to further censorship of Mr. Kennedy by Facebook that owns Instagram. That ban should follow soon, as the Times’ reporter Jennifer Jett hopes, since she accusingly writes that RFK, Jr. “makes many of the same baseless claims to more than 300,000 followers” at Facebook.  Jett made sure her report also went to and The Boston Globe.

This is one example of the censorship underway with much, much more to follow. What was once done under the cover of omission is now done openly and brazenly, cheered on by those who, in an act of bad faith, claim to be upholders of the First Amendment and the importance of free debate in a democracy. We are quickly slipping into an unreal totalitarian social order.

Which brings me to the recent work of Glenn Greenwald and Matt Taibbi, both of whom have strongly and rightly decried this censorship. As I understand their arguments, they go like this.

First, the corporate media have today divided up the territory and speak only to their own audiences in echo chambers: liberal to liberals (read: the “allegedly” liberal Democratic Party), such as The New York Times, NBC, etc., and conservative to conservatives (read” the “allegedly” conservative Donald Trump), such as Fox News, Breitbart, etc. They have abandoned old school journalism that, despite its shortcomings, involved objectivity and the reporting of disparate facts and perspectives, but within limits. Since the digitization of news, their new business models are geared to these separate audiences since they are highly lucrative choices. It’s business driven since electronic media have replaced paper as advertising revenues have shifted and people’s ability to focus on complicated issues has diminished drastically. Old school journalism is suffering as a result and thus writers such as Greenwald and Taibbi and Chris Hedges (who interviewed Taibbi and concurs: part one here) have taken their work to the internet to escape such restrictive categories and the accompanying censorship.

Secondly, the great call for censorship is not something the Silicon Valley companies want because they want more people using their media since it means more money for them, but they are being pressured to do it by the traditional old school media, such as The New York Times, who now employ “tattletales and censors,” people who are power hungry jerks, to sniff out dissenting voices that they can recommend should be banned. Greenwald says, ‘’They do it in part for power: to ensure nobody but they can control the flow of information. They do it partly for ideology and out of hubris: the belief that their worldview is so indisputably right that all dissent is inherently dangerous ‘disinformation.’” Thus, the old school print and television media are not on the same page as Facebook, Twitter, etc. but have opposing agendas.

In short, these shifts and the censorship are about money and power within the media world as the business has been transformed by the digital revolution.

I think this is a half-truth that conceals a larger issue. The censorship is not being driven by power hungry reporters at the Times or CNN or any media outlet. All these media and their employees are but the outer layer of the onion, the means by which messages are sent and people controlled. These companies and their employees do what they are told, whether explicitly or implicitly, for they know it is in their financial interest to do so. If they do not play their part in this twisted and intricate propaganda game, they will suffer. They will be eliminated, as are pesky individuals who dare peel the onion to its core. For each media company is one part of a large interconnected intelligence apparatus – a system, a complex – whose purpose is power, wealth, and domination for the very few at the expense of the many. The CIA and media as parts of the same criminal conspiracy.

To argue that the Silicon valley companies do not want to censor but are being pressured by the legacy corporate media does not make sense. These companies are deeply connected to U.S. intelligence agencies, as are the NY Times, CNN, NBC, etc. They too are part of what was once called Operation Mockingbird, the CIA’s program to control, use, and infiltrate the media. Only the most naïve would think that such a program does not exist today.

In Surveillance Valley, investigative reporter Yasha Levine documents how Silicon valley tech companies like Facebook, Amazon, and Google are tied to the military-industrial-intelligence-media complex in surveillance and censorship; how the Internet was created by the Pentagon; and even how these shadowy players are deeply involved in the so-called privacy movement that developed after Edward Snowden’s revelations. Like Valentine, and in very detailed ways, Levine shows how the military-industrial-intelligence-digital-media complex is part of the same criminal conspiracy as is the traditional media with their CIA overlords. It is one club.

Many people, however, might find this hard to believe because it bursts so many bubbles, including the one that claims that these tech companies are pressured into censorship by the likes of The New York Times, etc. The truth is the Internet was a military and intelligence tool from the very beginning and it is not the traditional corporate media that gives it its marching orders.

That being so, it is not the owners of the corporate media or their employees who are the ultimate controllers behind the current vast crackdown on dissent, but the intelligence agencies who control the mainstream media and the Silicon valley monopolies such as Facebook, Twitter, Google, etc. All these media companies are but the outer layer of the onion, the means by which messages are sent and people controlled.

But for whom do these intelligence agencies work? Not for themselves.

They work for their overlords, the super wealthy people, the banks, financial institutions, and corporations that own the United States and always have. In a simple twist of fate, such super wealthy naturally own the media corporations that are essential to their control of the majority of the world’s wealth through the stories they tell. It is a symbiotic relationship. As FDR put it bluntly in 1933, this coterie of wealthy forces is the “financial element in the larger centers [that] has owned the Government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson.” Their wealth and power has increased exponentially since then, and their connected tentacles have further spread to create what is an international deep state that involves such entities as the IMF, the World Bank, the World Economic Forum, those who meet yearly at Davos, etc. They are the international overlords who are pushing hard to move the world toward a global dictatorship.

As is well known, or should be, the CIA was the creation of Wall St. and serves the interests of the wealthy owners. Peter Dale Scott, in “The State, the Deep State, and the Wall Street Overworld,” says of Allen Dulles, the nefarious longest running Director of the CIA and Wall St. lawyer for Sullivan and Cromwell, “There seems to be little difference in Allen Dulles’s influence whether he was a Wall Street lawyer or a CIA director.”  It was Dulles, long connected to  Rockefeller’s Standard Oil, international corporations, and a friend of Nazi agents and scientists, who was tasked with drawing up proposals for the CIA. He was ably assisted by five Wall St. bankers or investors, including the aforementioned Frank Wisner who later, as a CIA officer, said his “Mighty Wurlitzer” was “capable of playing any propaganda tune he desired.” This he did by recruiting intellectuals, writers, reporters, labor organizations, and the mainstream corporate media, etc. to propagate the CIA’s messages.

Greenwald, Taibbi, and Hedges are correct up to a point, but they stop short. Their critique of old school journalism à la Edward Herman’s and Noam Chomsky’s Manufacturing of Consent model, while true as far as it goes, fails to pin the tail on the real donkey. Like old school journalists who knew implicitly how far they could go, these guys know it too, as if there is an invisible electronic gate that keeps them from wandering into dangerous territory.

The censorship of Robert Kennedy, Jr. is an exemplary case. His banishment from Instagram and the ridicule the mainstream media have heaped upon him for years is not simply because he raises deeply informed questions about vaccines, Bill Gates, the pharmaceutical companies, etc. His critiques suggest something far more dangerous is afoot: the demise of democracy and the rise of a totalitarian order that involves total surveillance, control, eugenics, etc. by the wealthy led by their intelligence propagandists.

To call him a super spreader of hoaxes and a conspiracy theorist is aimed at not only silencing him on specific medical issues, but to silence his powerful and articulate voice on all issues. To give thoughtful consideration to his deeply informed scientific thinking concerning vaccines, the World Health Organization, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, etc., is to open a can of worms that the powerful want shut tight.

This is because RFK, Jr. is also a severe critic of the enormous power of the CIA and its propaganda that goes back so many decades and was used to cover up the national security state’s assassinations of his father and uncle, JFK. It is why his wonderful recent book, American Values: Lessons I Learned from My Familythat contains not one word about vaccineswas shunned by mainstream book reviewers; for the picture he paints fiercely indicts the CIA in multiple ways while also indicting the mass media that have been its mouthpieces. These worms must be kept in the can, just as the power of the international overlords represented by the World Health Organization and the World Economic Forum with its Great Reset must be. They must be dismissed as crackpot conspiracy theories not worthy of debate or exposure.

Robert Kennedy, Jr., by name and dedication to truth seeking, conjures up his father’s ghost, the last politician who, because of his vast support across racial and class divides, could have united the country and tamed the power of the CIA to control the narrative that has allowed for the plundering of the world and the country for the wealthy overlords.

There is a reason Noam Chomsky is an exemplar for Hedges, Greenwald, and Taibbi. He controls the can opener for so many. He has set the parameters for what is considered acceptable to be considered a serious journalist or intellectual. The assassinations of the Kennedys, 9/11, or a questioning of the official Covid-19 story are not among them, and so they are eschewed.

To denounce censorship, as they have done, is admirable. But now they need go up to the forbidden gate with the sign that says – “This far and no further” – and jump over it. That’s where the true stories lie.  That’s when they’ll see the worms squirm.


February 13, 2021 Posted by | Book Review, Civil Liberties, Fake News, Full Spectrum Dominance, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , , , , , | 1 Comment

NATO’s Road To Perdition With Ukraine

Strategic Culture Foundation | February 12, 2021

Despite repeated and long-standing warnings by Russia, the US-led NATO military alliance has indicated it is moving ever closer to accepting Ukraine as a new member. This is an incredibly incendiary step towards war that could escalate into a nuclear conflagration. And, risibly, this reckless initiative is being driven by an alliance which proclaims to be about upholding peace and security.

This week NATO secretary general Jens Stoltenberg hosted Ukrainian prime minister Denys Shymhal at the organization’s headquarters in Brussels. At a joint press conference, both men were upbeat about Ukraine joining NATO. Stoltenberg admitted that the former Soviet Republic has been eyed for membership of the alliance since 2008, a timescale which puts more recent conflict over the past nearly seven years in perspective. He also confirmed that NATO forces have been building up their presence in the Black Sea in coordination with Ukrainian counterparts. In recent weeks, three US warships have been training with Ukrainian naval vessels in order to counter what Stoltenberg says is “Russian aggression”.

Officially, Ukraine is designated as an “Enhanced Opportunities Partner” by NATO. Which makes one wonder, ironically, what kind of “opportunities” are being contemplated?

For all intents and purposes, Ukraine is already virtually a member of NATO. It has participated in overseas joint military operations and, as noted, it receives military aid, training and logistical support.

But if Ukraine were to be formally admitted to the NATO alliance then that opens up a legalized and inevitable path to war. Under the organization’s rules, any individual member nation is entitled to invoke a general defense clause which obliges other NATO members to support militarily. Since the governing authorities in Kiev continually claim that Russia is an aggressor – a view shared by NATO – then the potential for a generalized war with Russia is a wide open danger if Ukraine were to officially join the alliance.

Undoubtedly, NATO leaders are aware of this potential catastrophe and are also well aware of Russia’s deep concerns. That would explain their cautious delay in admitting Ukraine to the alliance. Germany and France in particular are understood to be against adding the country to NATO’s membership out of fear that it would provoke Russia.

It is interesting to speculate why Stoltenberg – a former Norwegian premier and nominal civilian head of NATO – this week appeared to give new impetus to Ukraine’s ambitions. Could it be related to the change of administration in the United States? Senior members of the Biden administration have publicly stated during Senate hearings a willingness to increase military support for the Kiev government in its conflict with pro-Russian separatists in Eastern Ukraine. American and European envoys at the UN Security Council this week reiterated strident accusations against Russia claiming that Moscow was responsible for prolonging the conflict in Ukraine. Russia’s envoy Vassily Nebenzia countered that it was the Kiev regime and its Western allies who have not implemented the previously agreed Minsk peace accord signed in 2015.

But surely even the most diehard NATO jingoists must realize that admitting Ukraine to the ranks would a be dangerous bridge too far. The same too for Georgia, another former Soviet Republic, which is also in the queue for joining the military alliance. Both countries are already in political conflict with Russia because of NATO expansionism, not as they or NATO would have it, because of “Russian aggression”. NATO pushed Georgia into a brief war with Russia in 2008 over the disputed territories of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Then in 2014, a NATO-backed coup d’état in Kiev against an elected president led to the ongoing low-intensity war in Eastern Ukraine. That coup also led to Crimea voting in a referendum to secede and join the Russian Federation which the West continually refers to disparagingly as “annexation”.

Professional, well-paid shills like Jens Stoltenberg like to spin the deluded yarn that NATO expansion is a “success” for democracy and the rule of law. Since the end of the Cold War in 1991 following the demise of the Soviet Union, NATO did not pack up and dissolve. In the ensuing 30 years it has doubled its membership from 16 to the present 30 constituent nations. This was in spite of earlier vows by American leaders that they would not permit NATO enlargement beyond the old frontiers of the Cold War and Warsaw Pact. The most recent additions include Montenegro and North Macedonia. Bosnia and Herzegovina are being considered under Membership Action Plans, and Ukraine and Georgia presumably after that.

NATO’s relentless expansion towards Russia’s borders, including the stationing of missile systems, in conjunction with baseless provocative, rhetoric accusing Moscow of aggression are patently posing an existential threat to Russian security. Yet NATO apologists talk blithely and in Orwellian fashion about promoting security, defense and rule of law.

Lest we forget, Russia came close to annihilation – within living memory – from military aggression by Nazi Germany and its eastern European satellites when up to 27 million Soviet people were killed in the Second World War (1939-45).

NATO’s own purported rules forbid the organization from admitting countries which are involved in border disputes or internal conflicts. That clearly should forbid Ukraine and Georgia. Yet the US-led NATO is turning a blind eye to its own rules, distorting its interventions in these countries as actions of defense against “Russian aggression”.

It would be ludicrous if it were not so gravely serious. NATO “justifies” the expansion to Ukraine and Georgia “because” Russia has forces in the Black Sea and the Barents Sea. Those regions are integral to Russia’s sovereign territory. This is while the United States from a distance of over 6,000 kilometers away stations B-1 strategic bombers for the first time in the Barents and sends increasing numbers of warships to the Black Sea in violation of maritime treaties. What next? Russia is accused of occupying Moscow?

The precedents and historical pattern show that the American imperial catspaw known officially as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is incapable of intelligent reasoning and dialogue. It is a machine geared for confrontation. Russia may therefore have to consider using another form of language in conveying its wholly legitimate security concerns.

For the present trajectory is a road to perdition.

February 13, 2021 Posted by | Militarism | , | 1 Comment

What A ‘Zero-Emissions’ World Really Means

By Viv Forbes | Principia Scientific | February 13, 2021

“Zero emissions” requires no diesel, petrol, or gas-fuelled cars, trucks, tractors, or dozers and no burning of coal or gas for electricity generation.

But without nuclear power or a massive increase in hydroelectricity, green energy will not support metal refining or manufacturing, and domestic electricity usage will be rationed.

“Zero emissions” will also force the closure of most cement plants, mechanized farms, and feedlots, and will demand nuclear- or wind-powered submarines, destroyers, and bulk carriers.

In the Zero-Emissions world, there can be no diesel buses, oil-powered cruise liners, or jet aircraft (except fleets of climate comrades attending endless UNIPCC conferences).

Moreover, 7.8 billion humans continuously emit a lot of carbon dioxide – maybe they plan to make the Covid masks airtight?

Zero Emissions would decimate mining, farming, forestry, fishing, and tourism. As exports fall, imports must also fall.

Without diesel fuel and lubricants there will be little surplus meat, milk, vegetables, cereals, seafood, or timber for the cities, for export, or for immigrants or refugees.

For Aussies, rabbits, kangaroos, possums, koalas, Murray cod, and wild pigs will become staple foods and wood/charcoal burners generating “green” gas will again fuel antique cars and utes. Wood-burning steam-powered traction engines may live again.

But we have the “Net-Zero” loophole, which is green bait on a barbed hook. It provides five escape routes:

  1. Buy dodgy carbon credits from dubious foreigners.
  2. Cover our grasslands and open forests with carbon-absorbing bushfire-prone eucalypt weeds.
  3. Build costly energy-hungry carbon-capture schemes.
  4. Chase the hydrogen mirage.
  5. Log and replant old-growth forests. (New trees will grow and extract CO2 faster than old mature trees.)

Net-zero has one bright prospect – freeloading cities like Canberra (Australia) must shed population and convert their manicured parklands to lettuce farms, lucerne paddocks, cow bails, and poultry runs.

February 13, 2021 Posted by | Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity, Timeless or most popular | Leave a comment

Twitter suspends account of Russian arms control delegation, head diplomat wonders about censorship

RT | February 13, 2021

The Twitter account of the Russian delegation that represents the country at OSCE-hosted arms control talks in Vienna has been suspended by the US platform. The head of the team suggested it was an act of Big Tech censorship.

The unexplained ban of the account was reported on Saturday by Russia’s chief negotiator, Konstantin Gavrilov. He pondered what the reason for the decision might have been, suggesting it could have been retaliation for voicing Russia’s “alternative position … on the trends of the current [political-military] situation in Europe”.

The frozen account carried the standard Twitter notice, stating that the platform “suspends accounts which violate the Twitter Rules” at the time of posting.

Various arms control talks in Vienna are hosted by the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE). This week, the body hosted a key forum called the High-Level Military Doctrine Seminar, which is gathered once every five years. The Russian military, surprisingly, snubbed the event, citing “unfriendly” Western policies, but the Gavrilov-led delegation participated.

The Russian official said he would be asking OSCE Secretary General Helga Schmid to join Russia’s demand for clarification from Twitter, which he otherwise expected to be unanswered. Meanwhile, his own account would be used to publish relevant content, he added.

February 13, 2021 Posted by | Full Spectrum Dominance, Russophobia | | Leave a comment

What About Excess Mortality? – Questions For Corbett

Corbett • 02/12/2021

Stephen writes in to ask about excess mortality. What is this number, how do we find it, and what does it tell us (or fail to tell us) about what happened in 2020? Is there a slam dunk argument here to destroy the COVID narrative? And, if not, what is the real lesson of this hunt for excess deaths? Join James for an in-depth exploration of these issues in this week’s Questions For Corbett.

Watch on Archive / BitChute / LBRY / / YouTube or Download the mp4


Excess mortality during the Coronavirus pandemic (Our World in Data)

The deadly toll of Covid-19 in Spain’s care homes: 29,800 fatalities

COVID-19: How mortality rates in 2020 compare with past decades and centuries

Excess Mortality – What You Aren’t Being Told 🤫

Study: Most N.Y. COVID Patients on Ventilators Died

The 4th Annual Fake News Awards!


Perspectives on the Pandemic | The (Undercover) Epicenter Nurse | Episode Nine

COVID-19 Linked Hunger Could Cause More Deaths Than The Disease Itself, New Report Finds

SA researchers say lockdown ‘nearly 30 times more deadly’ than disease

2020 Was Especially Deadly. Covid Wasn’t the Only Culprit.

What NO ONE is Saying About The Corona Crisis

Same Facts, Opposite Conclusions – #PropagandaWatch

Gunshots, Motorcycle Deaths Count as COVID Casualties

Johns Hopkins Researcher: No Excess Deaths from COVID-19; Official Stats Are Misleading, Indicating Misclassification

February 13, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | , | Leave a comment