Aletho News


French Elections, Round 2: What Actually Happened?

Resisting the Intellectual Illiteratti | June 24, 2022

As has been reported abundantly by the French and international media, Sunday’s results — with Macron’s party and coalition losing its absolute majority — were indeed momentous and have the potential to restore a balance of power between the executive and legislative branches of government. (The French courts, as I’ve mentioned before, are almost a lost cause when it comes to performing the duties of judicial review, and in my view there is no point in including the judiciary in the French checks and balances model anymore).

But I think caution is still called for too. There is no reason to assume that immediate reversals or changes to the worst laws of the recent past will be forthcoming or are guaranteed at any point. Just as we have seen in the US in recent congressional votes of generational-defining importance, ideological or partisan differences don’t usually make much, if any, difference when the result is ordained in advance by the executive and consent is manufactured dutifully by the media.

I think it’s also important to recall that while it is true that it has the last word in the lawmaking process, the lower house in France, L’Assemblée Nationale, needs only a relative majority for a bill to become law. Except for amendments to the constitution, where an absolute majority of members is required to be present, there is no minimum number of deputés that have to be in attendance for a bill to be voted on. If only 5 members happen to be in the lower chamber when a vote is held and 3 vote in favor, the proposed legislation passes.

I mention these facts not to be a killjoy but rather to draw attention to the fact that throughout the coronavirus delirium (which continues, albeit in muted fashion, in France), the French Parliament first voted, in early 2020, with an overwhelming majority and across partisan lines, to declare a state of emergency and confer dictatorial powers to the president. For the following two years, every time the parliament had an opportunity to revoke or limit those powers by, for instance, ending the state of emergency, it not only didn’t do so, but actually went on to codify the worst of the totalitarian covid restrictions, for example, ushering in legalized discrimination with health passes and later, vax passes.

And while it is true that the entirety of the far-left and far-right minorities in the lower house proclaimed themselves opposed to the post-lockdown measures such as health and vax passes, when it was time to put their money where their mouths were, most did not even bother to show up to vote. On two of the most important votes held over the last year, concerning a law that would require the use of health and vax passes for access to transport and places of leisure and culture, as well as to hospitals and retirement homes, Macron’s ruling party’s presence was so weak in the lower house that had every member of the far-left and right oppositions actually made the trip to vote (or voted by proxy), the bills would not have passed. One wonders if the exemptions they enjoyed, as members of Parliament, from the coercive, live-ruining measures that are health and vax passes had anything to do with their being largely absent from the votes.

Either way, the fact that these totalitarian policies didn’t have to become law, that they could have been torpedoed last year, even while the president’s party held an absolute majority in the lower house, doesn’t inspire confidence that they will be done away with now that the balance of power has shifted.

That said, the composition of the recently elected lower house will create many opportunities for the now much larger opposition parties to stop Macron in his tracks. I won’t get into the numbers too much except to say that Macron’s coalition party (which is made up of four centrist parties) is 44 seats shy of the absolute majority necessary to govern unfettered and, having only a relative minority, will need to wheel and deal and seriously compromise in order to get anything it puts foward passed.

At the same time, both Marine Le Pen’s far-right Rassemblement National (National Rally) and Jean-Luc Mélenchon’s far-left La France Insoumise (France Unbowed) won enough seats to significantly expand their power and influence. However, of the two, Marine Le Pen’s National Rally emerged as the clear winner and most powerful single party opposition group. Jean-Luc Mélenchon’s France Unbowed chose to form a coalition with three other left-leaning parties in the hopes of acquiring an absolute or relative majority, and while their Nupes coalition won the most seats after the president’s own coalition, it was not enough to secure any majority positions or allow Mélenchon’s France Unbowed party to surpass Marine Le Pen’s National Rally in seats.

On the upside, both far right and far left, having surged in numbers, are now able to call for a motion of censure of Macron’s government, which can lead to a no-confidence vote — a measure Jean-Luc Mélenchon’s France Unbowed promptly resorted to yesterday.

In the case of Marine Le Pen’s far right Rassemblement National, however, having surpassed the critical threshold of 80 seats, her group can now request positions on various important committees, as well as have bills sent to the constitutional court for judicial review. This is a milestone and historic achievement for her much maligned party.

In the case of Mélenchon, as mentioned above, his France Unbowed successfully formed an all-left and left-leaning coalition, which includes the socialist, environmentalist and communist parties. While this coalition won the most seats after Macron’s own coalition, it is believed to be a tenuous alliance in which the individual groups will not see eye to eye on a range of issues. The hope is, however, they will remain united on the most important ones.

The funny thing in all this is that Mélenchon, elected to the lower house in 2017, did not stand for re-election this year in his Marseille district, a seat he would have won handily. It seemed that he bet the house on his coalition pulling off a landslide victory, in which case their numerical superiority in the lower house would force the president to appoint him as Prime Minister. Sadly for Mélenchon (and us), he lost his wager and will now have to direct the operations of his party and coalition from outside the halls of the Assemblé Nationale.

The upshot of all this is that Macron is looking at a Parliament that may not pass any of his upcoming reforms into laws — and he has a pack of the vile things he’d like to ram through. In the short term, the future will not be easy for the impatient monarch. His government is already facing a motion of censure on the 5th of July (introduced Monday by Jean Luc Melenchon’s France Unbowed party), and three of his cabinet ministers who were in the running for parliamentary seats lost their bids. According to convention, their unsuccessful attempt to get elected to the lower house while working in the president’s cabinet as ministers will require them to resign from their positions, leaving Macron scrambling to appoint replacements. He will have to do this while also meeting with the leaders of the opposition parties, whom he hopes to begin negotiating with, ahead of the upcoming parliamentary session.

Macron is also under great pressure from the EU in Brussels to continue the EU-wide project of neoliberal reforms. Until now, the French president has had a free hand in pushing through some of the most politically, socially and economically destructive and divisive policies ever seen in modern France, the last two years of totalitarian public health policies and the continued dismantling of France’s public health service being the prime examples. Will he be able to continue? It seems the answer is: yes, but perhaps not so easily.

Macron does have one card left he can play, however; though it’s a risky one: he can dissolve the Assemblée Nationale. Yes, you read that correctly. The constitution of the 5th Republic gives the French president the power to dissolve the lower house and call new elections (which have to be organized within 60 days) if he deems the parliamentary configuration to be an impediment to effective lawmaking. (Can you imagine Biden — or better, Trump — announcing to the house of representatives, after one-too-many government shutdowns, “That’s it —  You’re all fired. Everyone out of the capital! We’re gonna have new elections, and we’re gonna get it right this time!”)

Not surprisingly, though, such an un-democratic move is not popular and the last time it was used, by Jacques Chirac in 1997, it blew up in the president’s face when the new vote results were worse than the first time around and forced him to appoint a socialist (and formidable political rival) as Prime Minister. That said, the chattering classes are predicting Macron will indeed resort to this measure at some point in the future. But when?

For us, the main concern remains that of the state of emergency (under which we have been living for two and a half years), which allows Macron to act like a dictator and close businesses, confine people to their homes, impose curfews, force the population to wear facemasks, and make the restitution of these once unconditional rights (to work, to assemble, move and breath freely, etc.) contingent on the injection of experimental drugs that no one needs and only a fraction of the population actually wants.

Though many of its most oppressive measures have been (temporarily) lifted, the state of emergency is still in effect and will remain in effect until July 31 of this year. One of the biggest casualties of the president’s irrational, totalitarian covid policies has been the healthcare workers, 15 thousand of whom (doctors, nurses, orderlies) as well as hundreds of gendarmes, remain suspended from their jobs, without pay, having been deprived of their right to work last September 15th because they refused to take an experimental medicine that, by the government’s own admission, does not prevent transmission of a disease deemed to be a major threat to public health.

Despite the bleak situation, there may be cause for some hope. As mentioned earlier, Macron’s ability to govern by decree is set to end at the end of next month, with the lapsing of the state of emergency. In order to extend it and make possible the return in the fall of vax passes, lockdowns, curfews, travel restrictions, business closures, mask mandates and all the other totalitarian horrors that serve no public health benefit in relation to upper respiratory viruses that spread like the common cold (and therefore can’t be stopped from spreading), but which the leaders of Europe desperately want to retain and make permanent, Macron will need to get a new covid law passed by the parliament before the end of July.

The French president was in fact supposed to present said covid bill at a ministerial meeting today (the first step in the legislative process before the bill reaches parliamentary committees and debates), but had to cancel the meeting because of the aforementioned resignations of three of his ministers. This delay will presumably push the start of the legislative process for this bill back another week. But next week Macron will be out of France on a NATO-related trip, so perhaps it will get pushed back an additional week. When it is eventually presented to the parliament, the bill will need to be debated and put to a vote by the newly elected lower house — and that’s where the rubber should meet the road.

It will indeed be the first and most important test of the new assembly, and one which will no doubt come with an unprecedented amount of pressure and propaganda from Macron and the media. Will the opposition parties finally say no to the president dictator and all his lies and send this disgraceful piece of legislation into the garbage where it belongs? Or will the new Assemblée play ball as the last useless lot did? L’espoir fait vivre, as they say over here.


Europe is slowly transitioning into a bio-security and surveillance state. Tomorrow, the EU parliament is expected to rubber stamp the EU commission’s decision to extend the use of the EU Digital Covid Pass for another year for all travel to and within Europe.

This will mean that, until the end of June 2023, in order to board a plane, train or boat into or within Europe, you will need to show either a negative PCR or antigen tests 24 hours before traveling, a certificate of proof of recovery from covid (which may be valid for 3 months), or proof of experimental injection.

The law reads like a Pfizer press release, and is just as fraudulent and circular in its reasoning. This digital covid certificate measure, we are told, is necessary to ensure the free and safe movement of Europeans within Europe, a right that is guaranteed by the European Union’s various treaties and conventions…but which was illegally taken away two years ago by the European Union.

There are protection rackets that are more sophisticated than this…I don’t understand how Europeans will submit to this for another year. It’s an ominous sign.

June 24, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties | , , | Leave a comment

“Polio Outbreak” – The WHO, Bill Gates, emergency vaccines & more of the same

By Kit Knightly | OffGuardian | June 24, 2022

Polio is on the front pages of British newspapers again for the first time in decades. What a time to be alive.

For those who missed it, two days ago the UK government declared a “national incident” after traces of the polio virus were detected in sewage from North London.

Yes, a “national incident”… for traces… found in sewage.

This is a massive escalation, even compared to the pandemic. Covid and Monkeypox at least had the good taste to wait for a single person to actually have the disease (allegedly) before hitting the big red panic button.

In a somewhat startling coincidence, just two days before the “polio in London” news broke, Forbes published an article headlined

There May Be A New Polio Epidemic On Its Way- If So, What We Can Do

It’s totally unrelated, talking about a “polio-like” enterovirus that hasn’t yet had a vaccine approved in the US, and never mentions London once.

The same (or similar) news hitting headlines around the world for (supposedly) totally different reasons makes my inner-cynic twitch.

So, what’s going on here?

While it may look like polio is suddenly back in the news, it’s actually been there longer than you’d think and has been building to this point.

The truth is it all fits into a very predictable pattern.

In November of 2020, a new “genetically engineered” and “triple-locked” polio vaccine was the first vaccine to be granted “emergency use listing” by the World Health Organization, despite there being only around five thousand cases of polio in the world over the last decade.

In October 2021, the government of Ukraine declared a “biological emergency” due to the “re-emergence” of polio, which was blamed on low vaccine uptake.

This was steadily reported in back pages of the news for months. Culminating in headlines like “Polio Makes a Comeback in Ukraine as War Halts Vaccination Campaign”, following Russia beginning its “special operation”.

Later, in March of this yearIsrael reported they too had a “re-emergence” of polio after allegedly detecting “vaccine-derived” polio in the stool of a young girl suffering from paralysis.

At this point, the Global Polio Eradication Initiative (GPEI) started speaking out. GPEI is a project co-funded by the WHO, the US CDC, GAVI the vaccine alliance and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

… in other words, exactly who you’d expect.

Following the reported case in Israel, GPEI released a statement calling for “enhanced surveillance”…

The GPEI partnership urges all health authorities to enhance surveillance for poliovirus and implement enhanced vaccination response to prevent further transmission, so that no child is at risk of lifelong paralysis from a disease that can so easily be prevented. GPEI is committed to assisting the health authorities in their efforts to stop the cVDPV3 outbreak.

A month later, in April of this year, using alleged “re-emergence” as a springboard, GPEI called for “renewed efforts” to combat polio, launching their new “Strategy” and claiming to need a further 4.8 billion dollars in funding.

Then in late May, at the WHO’s 75th World Health Assembly, “global health leaders” called for “urgent action to end polio once and for all before a unique window of opportunity closes for good.”

The same week, the WHO’s Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus addressed the assembly regarding polio [emphasis added]:

“Worrying developments in recent months highlight how fragile this progress [of eradicating polio] is […] This year, we have the real opportunity to halt wild poliovirus transmission. At the same time, we must respond faster and better to cVDPV outbreaks, to interrupt all transmission by end-2023.”

… which brings us to June, and scare-stories on both sides of the Atlantic warning of “low vaccination rates”

Note that the WHO report claims the virus entered the UK on someone who received a “live vaccination” overseas, and the alleged outbreak in Israel is “vaccine-derived”.

Do you see how this works yet?

  1. The WHO approves “emergency use vaccine”, bypassing need for trials and safety data
  2. A handful of cases of polio are reported (as they are every year)
  3. Gates/WHO funded thinktank calls for “increased surveillance”, meaning more testing (using PCR tests)
  4. More testing inevitably finds more “cases”
  5. Cases are blamed on the old vaccines
  6. New “modern” and “safer” vaccines are rolled out.
  7. Everyone makes a LOT of money.

In October, at the World Health Summit in Germany, GPEI is launching a “pledging moment” to try and raise around 5 billion dollars to “achieve a polio-free world”.

Given the headlines, they should pass that mark pretty easily, wouldn’t you think?

It’s interesting to note that market researchers found the polio vaccine market had “stagnated” through 2020 and 2021, due to the Covid19 “pandemic”.

No more stagnation now.

June 24, 2022 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | 3 Comments

ACIP discussed Moneypox drugs and vaccines at yesterday’s meeting and were lied to about both by CDC

By Meryl Nass, MD | June 24, 2022

3 Drugs that might be used for money pox

1. BrincidofovirBrincidofovir is licensed (since 1996) for treatment of smallpox but is not available in the US stockpile (termed the National Strategic Stockpile) and CDC is considering obtaining an expanded access IND (a legal permission from FDA to test/use it in people) so that it could legally be used if needed. But it could be used off-label, since it is licensed. Why is CDC jumping through unnecessary hoops? Probably in order to control the supply, in a similar though not identical manner to what FDA did with donated hydroxychloroquine.

2. TPOXX, the controversial drug made by SIGA Technologies. When the Obama administration first tried to buy this drug, Congress had a fit and the media helped blow up the deal. From David Willman, writing for the LA Times in 2011:

Over the last year, the Obama administration has aggressively pushed a $433-million plan to buy an experimental smallpox drug, despite uncertainty over whether it is needed or will work.

Senior officials have taken unusual steps to secure the contract for New York-based Siga Technologies Inc., whose controlling shareholder is billionaire Ronald O. Perelman, one of the world’s richest men and a longtime Democratic Party donor.

When Siga complained that contracting specialists at the Department of Health and Human Services were resisting the company’s financial demands, senior officials replaced the government’s lead negotiator for the deal, interviews and documents show.

When Siga was in danger of losing its grip on the contract a year ago, the officials blocked other firms from competing…

Negotiations over the price of the drug and Siga’s profit margin were contentious. In an internal memo in March, Dr. Richard J. Hatchett, chief medical officer for HHS’ biodefense preparedness unit, said Siga’s projected profit at that point was 180%, which he called “outrageous.”

So the Obama administration simply waited out the media storm, and bought the drug for $30 million more in 2013. Here is what the NYT said about it in 2013, when the purchase was finalized:

The United States government is buying enough of a new smallpox medicine to treat two million people in the event of a bioterrorism attack, and took delivery of the first shipment of it last week. But the purchase has set off a debate about the lucrative contract, with some experts saying the government is buying too much of the drug at too high a price.

A small company, Siga Technologies, developed the drug in recent years. Whether the $463 million order is a boondoggle or bargain depends on which expert is talking…

Dr. Henderson and Dr. Philip Russell, who formerly headed the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research and served on the advisory panel with him, said they expected the government to pay much less for an antiviral drug since they cost little to make and the alternative, vaccines, cost the government $3 a dose. “If they’re talking $250 a course, they’re a bunch of thieves,” Dr. Russell said.

Asked how much TPOXX (Tecovirimat) and 3. Vaccinia Immune Globulin there is in the stockpile, the CDC’s Dr. Petersen would not answer, only saying there was enough. He didn’t know that I recalled the NY Times had spilled the beans on the initial purchase of 2 million courses. How much have they bought since? Presumably someone decided it would not be in the governments’ best interest for the public to know how much of these unproven products were purchased from a top Dem donor.

In 2018, FDA gave the drug a license. The NYT explained how this happened:

The antiviral pill, tecovirimat, also known as Tpoxx, has never been tested in humans with smallpox because the disease was declared eradicated in 1980, three years after the last known case.

But it was very effective at protecting animals deliberately infected with monkeypox and rabbitpox, two related diseases that can be lethal. It also caused no severe side effects when safety-tested in 359 healthy human volunteers, the F.D.A. said…

The F.D.A. approval of the drug went to Siga Technologies of Corvallis, Ore., a private company that developed the medicine under a federal biomedical defense contract… Research on tecovirimat — originally designated ST-246 — began at the institute (NIAID) after the 9/11 terrorist attack on the World Trade Center, Dr. Fauci said.

So the taxpayer paid to develop it, and paid through the nose to buy it, Fauci-style, no doubt paying royalties back to the NIAID.

Is there a public health emergency?

Dr. Maldonado asked about the possible designation of a public health emergency of International Concern by WHO, and how this would impact CDC.

Yes, WHO had a meeting to discuss this today, said Dr. Petersen, and CDC participated but he does not know what the result was. EUAs could eventuate if there are emergency declarations.

Dr. Maldonado further noted that the presentation (the severity and overall clinical picture) of moneypox is unexpected for orthopox viruses… and then asks what to do about children. There have been NO child cases internationally (excluding Africa?—Nass) said Dr. Rao. She says cases in Nigeria have been strange too, but I was confused about whether they were equivalent to those in the west or more like historical cases. Dr. Petersen agreed. Melinda Wharton (the new exec secretary of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) as well as having been a member of the FDA’s vaccine advisory committee) says that recommended PPE for moneypox includes gloves and respirator, and was not sure if medical providers would be considered at risk after seeing a patient, particularly if they used no respirator.

Dr. Rao says she will need to get back to the committee on this; the risk exposure assessment is being revised, it seems, by CDC.

Dr. Fryhofer asked about expected adverse events of the proposed drugs. Cidofovir has renal toxicity and is used with cimetidine in an effort to prevent that. Brincidofovir has liver and GI toxicity.

TPOXX is “quite safe and well tolerated” says Dr. Petersen.

However, it was only tested in 359 people in a phase 3 trial, according to the label. At least one experienced EKG (cardiac) changes, and at least one had a drop in their blood count. Another had palpable purpura, which can be quite serious, usually the result of autoimmune vasculitis. Facial swelling suggests anaphylaxis. That is a rate of more than 1% experiencing serious adverse events after only taking the drug for 14 days or less. This was the first lie I caught him on.

Regarding how moneypox spreads, Dr. Rao says “the cases we are aware of are due to skin contact or towels, bedding”. 99% of cases recently were attributed to gay males, I read elsewhere. Dr. Long persists with her original question, asking whether the general US population should be worried about normal casual contacts, like going to the grocery store? Dr. Rao hedges, saying that Americans don’t need to worry about this, and at first said it seems to require “pretty intimate contact.” But then she qualified it, noting, “The risk to the general public at this time is still very low.”

Dr. Rao is asked to comment on a CDC statement that the virus is transmitted through respiratory secretions. She says it is due to saliva, respiratory droplets, implying no airborne spread.

Dr. Sanchez asks how severe the disease actually is. The breifer said hospitalizations have been for pain control, like proctitis. 197 courses of TPOXX have been distributed and 8 cases have received the drug… but none have gotten it iv, so I am again confused by the answer. I think what was meant is that no one has received immune globulin (an iv drug) yet. Dr. Petersen admits cases have been mild.

Dr. Grace Lee says she was exhausted, they have been meeting so much to provide info to the public, and it is time to adjourn.


My computer saves the day

I am so glad my computer started broadcasting the end of the ACIP meeting when I finally got to my destination—as soon as it connected to wifi and before I had even plugged it in, it began talking to me. I heard the second part of Dr. Brent Petersen’s presentation, and the questions, described above.

Why am I glad? Because I caught Dr. Petersen lying to the ACIP. Twice. He claimed that there were 5.7. cases of myocarditis per 1,000 recipients due to ACAM2000 smallpox vaccine [true], but none from Jynneos.

This reminded me that before I began live-blogging some of the meetings, years ago, I had discovered from reading the abbreviated ACIP meeting minutes [who knows how accurate they are?] that the CDC briefers were lying to the ACIP about anthrax vaccine. It seems they leave nothing to chance in order to get their desired vaccine approvals.

If you read my post on Monkeypox published June 22, you would know that I looked over the 200 page FDA licensure review of the Jynneos smallpox-monkeypox vaccine. That is where I discovered that 2 studies of Jynneos found that 11% in one and and 18% of recipients in the other had developed elevated levels of cardiac enzymes (troponin). This implies heart muscle damage of some kind. It was not studied further, and the reviewers admitted they did not know whether myocarditis was caused by the Jynneos vaccine, or not. And that they would need to perform future surveillance to find out.

I wonder why Dr. Petersen, one of CDC’s monkeypox leads, brazenly lied to the committee about this? Was he so instructed? Or was he incompetent and ignorant? We can probably assume that CDC’s employees know on which side their bread is buttered. Since CDC has made the decision that Jynneos is to be used against monkeypox, despite its apparently awful risk-benefit ratio (see my monkeypox article) I imagine all its employees will be sticking to this story.


Here is what the Jynneos label (aka package insert, the legal document explaining the studies that led to licensure) has to say. 1.3% of recipients had a cardiac adverse event of special interest, and 2.1% if they had previously been vaccinated for smallpox. That seems pretty serious, and it seems like a very high rate: 1 in 75. From the label:

Cardiac AESIs were reported to occur in 1.3% (95/7,093) of JYNNEOS recipients and 0.2% (3/1,206)
of placebo recipients who were smallpox vaccine-naïve. Cardiac AESIs were reported to occur in
2.1% (16/766) of JYNNEOS recipients who were smallpox vaccine-experienced. The higher
proportion of JYNNEOS recipients who experienced cardiac AESIs was driven by 28 cases of
asymptomatic post-vaccination elevation of troponin-I in two studies: Study 5, which enrolled
482 HIV-infected subjects and 97 healthy subjects, and Study 6, which enrolled 350 subjects with
atopic dermatitis and 282 healthy subjects. An additional 127 cases of asymptomatic post-vaccination
elevation of troponin-I above the upper limit of normal but not above 2 times the upper limit of normal
were documented in JYNNEOS recipients throughout the clinical development program, 124 of which
occurred in Study 5 and Study 6. Proportions of subjects with troponin-I elevations were similar
between healthy and HIV-infected subjects in Study 5 and between healthy and atopic dermatitis
subjects in Study 6. A different troponin assay was used in these two studies compared to the other
studies, and these two studies had no placebo controls. The clinical significance of these
asymptomatic post-vaccination elevations of troponin-I is unknown.

Among the cardiac AESIs reported, 6 cases (0.08%) were considered to be causally related to
JYNNEOS vaccination and included tachycardia, electrocardiogram T wave inversion,
electrocardiogram abnormal, electrocardiogram ST segment elevation, electrocardiogram T wave
abnormal, and palpitations.

None of the cardiac AESIs considered causally related to study vaccination were considered serious.

June 24, 2022 Posted by | Corruption, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment


By Jonathan Cook | MintPress News | June 21, 2022

Events of the past few days suggest British journalism – the so-called Fourth Estate – is not what it purports to be: a watchdog monitoring the centers of state power. It is quite the opposite.

The pretensions of the establishment media took a severe battering this month as the defamation trial of Guardian columnist Carole Cadwalladr reached its conclusion and the hacked emails of Paul Mason, a long-time stalwart of the BBC, Channel 4 and the Guardian, were published online.

Both of these celebrated journalists have found themselves outed as recruits – in their differing ways – to a covert information war being waged by Western intelligence agencies.

Had they been honest about it, that collusion might not matter so much. After all, few journalists are as neutral or as dispassionate as the profession likes to pretend. But as have many of their colleagues, Cadwalladr and Mason have broken what should be a core principle of journalism: transparency.

The role of serious journalists is to bring matters of import into the public space for debate and scrutiny. Journalists thinking critically aspire to hold those who wield power – primarily state agencies – to account on the principle that, without scrutiny, power quickly corrupts.

The purpose of real journalism – as opposed to the gossip, entertainment and national-security stenography that usually passes for journalism – is to hit up, not down.

And yet, each of these journalists, we now know, was actively colluding, or seeking to collude, with state actors who prefer to operate in the shadows, out of sight. Both journalists were coopted to advance the aims of the intelligence services.

And worse, each of them either sought to become a conduit for, or actively assist in, covert smear campaigns run by Western intelligence services against other journalists.

What they were doing – along with so many other establishment journalists – is the very antithesis of journalism. They were helping to conceal the operation of power to make it harder to scrutinize. And not only that. In the process, they were trying to weaken already marginalized journalists fighting to hold state power to account.


Cadwalladr’s cooperation with the intelligence services has been highlighted only because of a court case. She was sued for defamation by Arron Banks, a businessman and major donor to the successful Brexit campaign for Britain to leave the European Union.

In a kind of transatlantic extension of the Russiagate hysteria in the United States following Donald Trump’s election as president in 2016, Cadwalladr accused Banks of lying about his ties to the Russian state. According to the court, she also suggested he broke election funding laws by receiving Russian money in the run-up to the Brexit vote, also in 2016.

That year serves as a kind of ground zero for liberals fearful about the future of “Western democracy” – supposedly under threat from modern “barbarians at the gate,” such as Russia and China – and the ability of Western states to defend their primacy through neo-colonial wars of aggression around the globe.

The implication is Russia masterminded a double subversion in 2016: on one side of the Atlantic, Trump was elected U.S. president; and, on the other, Britons were gulled into shooting themselves in the foot – and undermining Europe – by voting to leave the EU.

Faced with the court case, Cadwalladr could not support her allegations against Banks as true. Nonetheless, the judge ruled against Banks’ libel action – on the basis that the claims had not sufficiently harmed his reputation.

The judge also decided, perversely in a British defamation action, that Cadwalladr had “reasonable grounds” to publish claims that Banks received “sweetheart deals” from Russia, even though “she had seen no evidence he had entered into any such deals.” An investigation by the National Crime Agency ultimately found no evidence either.

So given those circumstances, what was the basis for her accusations against Banks?

Cadwalladr’s journalistic modus operandi, in her long-running efforts to suggest widespread Russian meddling in British politics, is highlighted in her witness statement to the court.

In it, she refers to another of her Russiagate-style stories: one from 2017 that tried to connect the Kremlin with Nigel Farage, a former pro-Brexit politician with the UKIP Party and close associate of Banks, and WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, who has been a political prisoner in the U.K. for more than a decade.

At that time, Assange was confined to a single room in the Ecuadorian Embassy after its government offered him political asylum. He had sought sanctuary there, fearing he would be extradited to the U.S. following publication by WikiLeaks of revelations that the U.S. and U.K. had committed war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan.

WikiLeaks had also deeply embarrassed the CIA by following up with the publication of leaked documents, known as Vault 7, exposing the agency’s own crimes.

Last week the U.K.’s Home Secretary, Priti Patel, approved the very extradition to the U.S. that Assange feared and that drove him into the Ecuadorian embassy. Once in the U.S., he faces up to 175 years in complete isolation in a supermax jail.


We now know, courtesy of a Yahoo News investigation, that through 2017 the CIA hatched various schemes to either assassinate Assange or kidnap him in one of its illegal “extraordinary rendition” operations, so he could be permanently locked up in the U.S., out of public view.

We can surmise that the CIA also believed it needed to prepare the ground for such a rogue operation by bringing the public on board. According to Yahoo’s investigation, the CIA believed Assange’s seizure might require a gun battle on the streets of London.

It was at this point, it seems, that Cadwalladr and the Guardian were encouraged to add their own weight to the cause of further turning public opinion against Assange.

According to her witness statement, “a confidential source in [the] U.S.” suggested – at the very time the CIA was mulling over these various plots – that she write about a supposed visit by Farage to Assange in the embassy. The story ran in the Guardian under the headline “When Nigel Farage met Julian Assange.”

In the article, Cadwalladr offers a strong hint as to who had been treating her as a confidant: the one source mentioned in the piece is “a highly placed contact with links to U.S. intelligence.” In other words, the CIA almost certainly fed her the agency’s angle on the story.

In the piece, Cadwalladr threads together her and the CIA’s claims of “a political alignment between WikiLeaks’ ideology, UKIP’s ideology and Trump’s ideology.” Behind the scenes, she suggests, was the hidden hand of the Kremlin, guiding them all in a malign plot to fatally undermine British democracy.

She quotes her “highly placed contact” claiming that Farage and Assange’s alleged face-to-face meeting was necessary to pass information of their nefarious plot “in ways and places that cannot be monitored.”

Except of course, as her “highly placed contact” knew – and as we now know, thanks to exposes by the Grayzone website – that was a lie. In tandem with its plot to kill or kidnap Assange, the CIA illegally installed cameras inside, as well as outside, the embassy. His every move in the embassy was monitored – even in the toilet block.

The reality was that the CIA was bugging and videoing Assange’s every conversation in the embassy, even the face-to-face ones. If the CIA actually had a recording of Assange and Farage meeting and discussing a Kremlin-inspired plot, it would have found a way to make it public by now.

Far more plausible is what Farage and WikiLeaks say: that such a meeting never happened. Farage visited the embassy to try to interview Assange for his LBC radio show but was denied access. That can be easily confirmed because by then the Ecuadorian embassy was allying with the U.S. and refusing Assange any contact with visitors apart from his lawyers.

Nonetheless, Cadwalladr concludes: “In the perfect storm of fake news, disinformation and social media in which we now live, WikiLeaks is, in many ways, the swirling vortex at the centre of everything.”


The Farage-Assange meeting story shows how the CIA and Cadwalladr’s agendas perfectly coincided in their very own “swirling vortex” of fake news and disinformation.

She wanted to tie the Brexit campaign to Russia and suggest that anyone who wished to challenge the liberal pieties that provide cover for the crimes committed by Western states must necessarily belong to a network of conspirators, on the left and the right, masterminded from Moscow.

The CIA and other Western intelligence agencies, meanwhile, wanted to deepen the public’s impression that Assange was a Kremlin agent – and that WikiLeaks’ exposure of the crimes committed by those same agencies was not in the public interest but actually an assault on Western democracy.

Assange’s character assassination had already been largely achieved with the American public in the Russiagate campaign in the U.S. The intelligence services, along with the Democratic Party leadership, had crafted a narrative designed to obscure WikiLeaks’ revelations of election-fixing by Hillary Clinton’s camp in 2016 to prevent Bernie Sanders from winning the party’s presidential nomination. Instead they refocused the public’s attention on evidence-free claims that Russia had “hacked” the emails.

For Cadwalladr and the CIA, the fake-news story of Farage meeting Assange could be spun as further proof that both the “far left” and “far right” were colluding with Russia. Their message was clear: only centrists – and the national security state – could be trusted to defend democracy.


Cadwalladr’s smear of Assange is entirely of a piece with the vilification campaign of WikiLeaks led by liberal media outlets to which she belongs. Her paper, the Guardian, has had Assange in its sights since its falling out with him over their joint publication of the Iraq and Afghanistan war logs in 2010.

A year after Cadwalladr’s smear piece, the Guardian would continue its cooperation with the intelligence services’ demonization of Assange by running an equally fabricated story – this time about a senior aide of Trump’s, Paul Manafort, and various unidentified “Russians” secretly meeting Assange in the embassy.

The story was so improbable it was ridiculed even at the time of publication. Again, the CIA’s illegal spying operation inside and outside the embassy meant there was no way Manafort or any “Russians” could have secretly visited Assange without those meetings being recorded. Nonetheless, the Guardian has never retracted the smear.

One of the authors of the article, Luke Harding, has been at the forefront of both the Guardian’s Russiagate claims and its efforts to defame Assange. In doing so, he appears to have relied heavily on Western intelligence services for his stories and has proven incapable of defending them when challenged.

Harding, like the Guardian, has an added investment in discrediting Assange. He and a Guardian colleague, David Leigh, published a Guardian-imprint book that included a secret password to a WikiLeaks’ cache of leaked documents, thereby providing security services around the world with access to the material.

The CIA’s claim that the release of those documents endangered its informants – a claim that even U.S. officials have been forced to concede is not true – has been laid at Assange’s door to vilify him and justify his imprisonment. But if anyone is to blame, it is not Assange but Harding, Leigh and the Guardian.


The case of Paul Mason, who worked for many years as a senior BBC journalist, is even more revealing. Emails passed to the Grayzone website show the veteran, self-described “left-wing” journalist secretly conspiring with figures aligned with British intelligence services to build a network of journalists and academics to smear and censor independent media outlets that challenge the narratives of the Western intelligence agencies.

Mason’s concerns about left-wing influence on public opinion have intensified the more he has faced criticism from the left over his demands for fervent, uncritical support of NATO and as he has lobbied for greater Western interference in Ukraine. Both are aims he shares with Western intelligence services.

Along with the establishment media, Mason has called for sending advanced weaponry to Kyiv, likely to raise the death toll on both sides of the war and risk a nuclear confrontation between the West and Russia.

In the published emails, Mason suggests the harming and “relentless deplatforming” of independent investigative media sites – such as the Grayzone, Consortium News and Mint Press – that host non-establishment journalists. He and his correspondents also debate whether to include Declassified UK and OpenDemocracy. One of his co-conspirators suggests a “full nuclear legal to squeeze them financially.”

Mason himself proposes starving these websites of income by secretly pressuring Paypal to stop readers from being able to make donations to support their work.

It should be noted that, in the wake of Mason’s correspondence,  PayPal did indeed launch just such a crackdown, including against Consortium News and MintPress, after earlier targeting WikiLeaks.

Mason’s email correspondents include two figures intimately tied to British intelligence: Amil Khan is described by the Grayzone as “a shadowy intelligence contractor” with ties to the U.K.’s National Security Council. He founded Valent Projects, establishing his credentials in a dirty propaganda war in support of head-chopping jihadist groups trying to bring down the Russian-supported Syrian government.


The other intelligence operative is someone Mason refers to as a “friend”: Andy Pryce, the head of the Foreign Office’s shadowy Counter Disinformation and Media Development (CDMD) unit, founded in 2016 to “counter-strike against Russian propaganda.” Mason and Pryce spend much of their correspondence discussing when to meet up in London pubs for a drink, according to the Grayzone.

The Foreign Office managed to keep the CDMD unit’s existence secret for two years. The U.K. government has refused to disclose basic information about the CDMD on grounds of national security, although it is now known that it is overseen by the National Security Council.

The CDMD’s existence came to light because of leaks about another covert information warfare operation, the Integrity Initiative.

Notably, the Integrity Initiative was run on the basis of clandestine “clusters,” in North America and Europe, of journalists, academics, politicians and security officials advancing narratives shared with Western intelligence agencies to discredit Russia, China, Julian Assange, and Jeremy Corbyn, the former, left-wing leader of the Labor Party.

Cadwalladr was named in the British cluster, along with other prominent journalists: David Aaronovitch and Dominic Kennedy of the Times; the Guardian’s Natalie Nougayrede and Paul Canning; Jonathan Marcus of the BBC; the Financial Times’ Neil Buckley; the Economist’s Edward Lucas; and Sky News’ Deborah Haynes.

In his emails, Mason appears to want to renew this type of work but to direct its energies more specifically at damaging independent, dissident media – with his number one target the Grayzone, which played a critical role in exposing the Integrity Initiative.

Mason’s “friend” – the CDMD’s head, Andy Pryce – “featured prominently” in documents relating to the Integrity Initiative, the Grayzone observes.

This background is not lost on Mason. He notes in his correspondence the danger that his plot to “deplatform” independent media could “end up with the same problem as Statecraft” – a reference to the Institute of Statecraft, the Integrity Initiative’s parent charity, which the Grayzone and others exposed. He cautions: “The opposition are not stupid, they can spot an info op – so the more this is designed to be organic the better.”

Pryce and Mason discuss creating an astroturf civil-society organization that would lead their “information war” as part of an operation they brand the “International Information Brigade”.

Mason suggests the suspension of the libel laws for what he calls “foreign agents” – presumably meaning that the Information Brigade would be able to defame independent journalists as Russian agents, echoing the establishment media’s treatment of Assange, without fear of legal action that would show these were evidence-free smears.


Another correspondent, Emma Briant, an academic who claims to specialize in Russian disinformation, offers an insight into how she defines the presumed enemy within: those “close to WikiLeaks,” anyone “trolling Carole [Cadwalladr],” and outlets “discouraging people from reading the Guardian.”

Mason himself produces an eye-popping, self-drawn, spider’s web chart of the supposedly “pro-Putin infosphere” in the U.K., embracing much of the left, including Corbyn, the Stop the War movement, as well as the Black and Muslim communities. Several media sites are mentioned, including Mint Press and Novara Media, an independent British website sympathetic to Corbyn.

Khan and Mason consider how they can help trigger a British government investigation of independent outlets so that they can be labeled as “Russian-state affiliated media” to further remove them from visibility on social media.

Mason states that the goal is to prevent the emergence of a “left anti-imperialist identity,” which, he fears, “will be attractive because liberalism doesn’t know how to counter it” – a telling admission that he believes genuine left-wing critiques of Western foreign policy cannot be dealt with through public refutation but only through secret disinformation campaigns.

He urges efforts to crack down not only on independent media and “rogue” academics but on left-wing political activism. He identifies as a particular threat Corbyn, who was earlier harmed through a series of disinformation campaigns, including entirely evidence-free claims that the Labour Party during his tenure became a hotbed of antisemitism. Mason fears Corbyn might set up a new, independent left-wing party. It is important, Mason notes, to “quarantine” and “stigmatize” any such ideology.

In short, rather than use journalism to win the argument and the battle for public opinion, Mason wishes to use the dark arts of the security state to damage independent media, as well as dissident academics and left-wing political activism. He wants no influences on the public that are not tightly aligned with the core foreign policy goals of the national security state.

Mason’s correspondence hints at the reality behind Cadwalladr’s claim that Assange was the “swirling vortex at the centre of everything.” Assange symbolizes that “swirling vortex” to intelligence-aligned establishment journalists only because WikiLeaks has published plenty of insider information that exposes Western claims to global moral leadership as a complete charade – and the journalists who amplify those claims as utter charlatans.

In part two, we will examine why journalists like Mason and Cadwalladr prosper in the establishment media; the long history of collusion between Western intelligence agencies and the establishment media; and how that mutually beneficial collusion is becoming ever more important to each of them.

June 24, 2022 Posted by | Deception, Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Russophobia | , , | 1 Comment

Twitter bans epidemiologist Dr. Andrew Bostom who linked to vaccine-sperm study

By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | June 23, 2022

Dr. Andrew Bostom, an epidemiologist who had over 47,000 followers and who was a significant dissenting figure during the coronavirus pandemic, has been permanently banned from Twitter after posting a peer-reviewed study on Covid vaccination effects.

According to a screenshot posted by free-market policy analyst and political organizer Phil Kerpen, Dr. Bostom was locked out for linking to an Israeli study titled “COVID-19 vaccination BNT162b2 temporarily impairs semen concentration and total motile count among semen donors.

Dr. Bostom was banned shortly after.

Dr. Bostom made several appearances in the media and qualified as an expert witness in epidemiology in a lawsuit filed by parents against an executive order in Rhode Island requiring children to wear masks in schools.

According to the plaintiffs, Gov. Dan McKee did not have the authority to impose a mask mandate for children. They also asserted that masks affect the physical and psychological well-being of kids, arguing that masks lead to social isolation that then leads to depression. Some experts have argued that not seeing the facial expressions of peers can cause depression in children.

June 24, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , | 2 Comments

@diedsuddenly Dies Suddenly

By Andrew Anglin | Daily Stormer | June 24, 2022

Twitter’s @diedsuddenly has suddenly died. Without warning, I woke up and it was dead for no reason.

All this account was doing was reposting news articles about people who have suddenly died for no reason. As far as I saw, he was not even saying “the vaccine” at all, he was just documenting this developing issue of “Sudden Adult Death Syndrome” (SADS). The phenomenon is also called “Sudden Arrhythmic Death Syndrome,” as it relates to a cardiac event. The word “arrhythmia” means what it sounds like – lacking in a rhythm, and is typically used in connection to cardiac phenomena involving an irregular heart beat. I don’t think the term is appropriate, as we are usually talking about cardiac arrest or a heart attack in someone without any form of heart disease. A better name would be “Spontaneous Unexplained Deadly Heart Failure Syndrome” (SUDHFDS), but Sudden Adult Death Syndrome is fine. They seem to be using “Arrhythmic” interchangeably with “Adult” for the purposes of confusing the issue, but it does show that these deaths are believed to be related to heart failure.

It’s not a conspiracy theory or tabloid hysteria that SADS is happening. The fact-checkers themselves are admitting it is happening at an increasing rate and simply claiming without evidence that it is not related to the vaccine. Snopes’ argument was simply that young people have been recorded as having had spontaneous unexplained heart failure before the vaccine was distributed, so it can’t be the vaccine.

Snopes does not address the massive increase in these deaths. We are talking about many orders of magnitude. We don’t know how many orders of magnitude, because like with deaths admittedly caused by the vaccine, both the government and media are refusing to keep track. But we see it in the news, because it is happening to famous people or their loved ones. I am not aware of a single case of a celebrity dying in their sleep for no reason. I’ve also never seen this in my personal life, ever. The closest thing to this that I’ve heard of was a hapa friend in Southeast Asia 15 years ago whose healthy 40-year-old mother got sick with dizziness and went to the hospital and died less than 48 hours later. It was extremely bizarre, but it was believed to be from a mosquito-borne virus that causes brain swelling. The Philippines also does not have great emergency care. (For the record, she was in the middle of divorcing her husband, who was a kindly old American guy in his 70s who was himself sick and on the way out. I just sort of assumed it was the wrath of God.) Regardless, there is a very, very big difference between having symptoms of serious illness and then dying than just dying completely randomly in your sleep.

Aside from fact checkers, it is getting relatively little coverage for some reason. One would think that a new disease that is just randomly killing healthy young people would be a pretty major story of interest. This could of course be caused by anything, technically. It could be caused by some unidentified radiation in the atmosphere, it could be caused by 5G, it could be caused by solar activity, it could be related to Havana Syndrome, which the US claims is the result of some kind of sonic beam weapon. There are all kinds of different possible reasons you could come up with that would cause this. But the thing that has changed in the last two years is that people took a vaccine that is confirmed to cause heart complications, including causing life-long heart conditions.

Another point of interest is the fact that so far, everyone who has suffered from this new wave of SADS has received the coronavirus vaccine. For example, the Democrat Congressman whose healthy 17-year-old daughter died in her sleep from SADS bragged about how he was forcing his children to be vaccinated.

There are others we can’t confirm got the vaccine definitively, but they are in positions where they would have been required to, or they are leftists. We’ve yet to see anyone from QAnon get hit with SADS.

Another data point is again: the media is not talking about it. They are not denying that it is happening and that it is unexplained, they are just not bothering to mention it, except to claim without evidence that it’s not the mRNA vaccine. If it wasn’t the vaccine, they would be talking about it.

Now, you have Twitter banning someone simply for compiling the deaths. That means you are banned from talking about SADS, presumably under Twitter’s policy against questioning the vaccine. By banning an account that did nothing but keep a record of SADS, Twitter is tacitly implying that they themselves believe it is caused by the vaccine.

As far as I’m able to tell, the only other possible reason that the media would refuse to proportionally address SADS or that Twitter would ban you from talking about SADS is that they don’t believe it is the vaccine, but they believe it is very easy for someone who doesn’t trust the science to mistake this phenomenon as being a result of the vaccine. That would be a pretty convoluted explanation.

We should really be pressing this issue. I have been trying to think of ways for the vaxed to start openly expressing regret, and anger at being lied to about the deadliness of the virus or the efficacy and safety of the vax. Most people probably just completely shut off if you tell them the vaccine almost certainly took decades off of their lives, and at any point, they could be feeling fine and go to bed and not wake up.

Unlike with the companies that manufactured asbestos (and really every other company of any kind), vaccine manufacturers are totally legally protected from any form of liability, so a class action lawsuit is off the table. But what I’ve been thinking is that people should start demanding that the government do an “Operation Warp Speed Part II,” where they try to find a solution to the damages caused by the vax. If people think they have hope, they are less likely to shut down and not be able to think about it. I don’t really think they have any hope, unless they happened to get shots from a placebo batch (there were a lot of placebo batches, or at least batches with something else in them – there is no other way to explain why the deaths all came from the same batches, while others had none, something that was confirmed in a VAERS database analysis).

The right-wing should be pushing the SADS issue and then demanding that the government research it and find a cure for this and other injuries and deaths happening as a result of Coronavirus Vaccine Syndrome.

June 24, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Full Spectrum Dominance | | 2 Comments

New York Times complains that Big Tech may censor less “election misinformation” during the 2022 midterms

By Tom Parker | Reclaim The Net | June 23, 2022

The New York Times isn’t happy that Meta and Twitter may be scaling back their censorship of “election misinformation” during the 2022 US midterm elections.

Before the 2020 US presidential election, Big Tech platforms deployed unprecedented levels of censorship by censoring then-President Donald Trump numerous timesbanning popular pro-Trump groups, and more. Post-election, this mass censorship continued with President Trump being permanently banned by all the major tech platforms, discussions of “widespread fraud or errors” changing the 2020 US presidential election outcome being banned, free speech platform Parler (which many users had flocked to in an attempt to escape Big Tech’s censorship) being deplatformed by the tech giants, and more.

The mainstream media and Big Tech used the vague, subjective term “election misinformation” to justify this silencing of a sitting US President and the mass censorship of election-related speech.

But according to The New York Times, Meta’s election team, which censors election misinformation and had more than 300 people in 2020, has now been slashed to around 60 people. Additionally, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg met with the team regularly in 2020 but now the team meets with Meta’s President of Global Affairs, Nick Clegg instead of Zuckerberg.

Twitter employees also told The Times that the pending sale of the company to Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk has resulted in it pulling back some of its focus on elections.

And civil rights groups complained to The New York Times that Zuckerberg no longer discusses efforts to thwart election misinformation with them like he did in 2020.

“I’m concerned,” President of the NAACP Derrick Johnson told The Times. “It appears to be out of sight, out of mind.”

In its article, The New York Times claims that this potential reduction in censorship at Meta “could have far-reaching consequences as faith in the U.S. electoral system reaches a brittle point” and laments that dozens of political candidates who are running for election in 2022 and believe that President Trump was robbed of the 2020 election are reaching American voters through social media platforms.

The Times also takes issue with the viral Dinesh D’Souza documentary “2000 Mules” reportedly getting more than 430,000 interactions Facebook and Instagram. These 430,000 interactions represent a fraction of the total views and interactions 2000 Mules has received on the alternative free speech platforms Rumble and Locals which hosted and provided censorship protection to the documentary. However, The Times points to these interactions as an example of election misinformation being “rampant online.”

While The New York Times fears that users and political candidates could be allowed to speak more freely about elections on Big Tech platforms in the run-up to the 2022 midterms, Meta has responded by insisting that there will still be lots of censorship.

Meta spokesman Tom Reynolds disputed The Times’ assertion that 60 people focused on election integrity and said hundreds of people across more than 40 teams focus on election work. He added that with each election, Meta is “building teams and technologies and developing partnerships to take down manipulation campaigns, limit the spread of misinformation and maintain industry-leading transparency around political ads and pages.”

Twitter spokesman Trenton Kennedy also insisted that the company was continuing its efforts to “protect the integrity of election conversation” and noted that Twitter has labeled the accounts of political candidates for the midterms.

June 24, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , | Leave a comment

Twitter hires ‘alarming number’ of ex-spies – investigation

Samizdat | June 24, 2022

Twitter is hiring “an alarming number” of ex-FBI agents and other former “feds and spies,” independent outlet MintPress News is reporting, after conducting an analysis of employment and recruitment websites.

According to the research, in recent years the company employed “dozens of individuals from the national security state to work in the fields of security, trust, safety and content.”

“Chief amongst these is the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The FBI is generally known as a domestic security and intelligence force. However, it has recently expanded its remit into cyberspace,” MintPress wrote.

It provides several examples of such appointments. FBI veteran Karen Walsh who, according to her Twitter profile, served as a special agent for 21 years, has become a director of corporate resilience at the Silicon Valley-based company. Mark Jaroszewski, Twitter director of corporate security and risk, joined the Twitter team after 20+ years at the FBI.

Central Intelligence Agency and NATO think-tank Atlantic Council have also been named by MintPress as key incubators of personnel for Twitter.

“Twitter also directly employs active army officers. In 2019, Gordon Macmillan, the head of editorial for the entire Europe, Middle East and Africa region was revealed to be an officer in the British Army’s notorious 77th Brigade – a unit dedicated to online warfare and psychological operations. This bombshell news was steadfastly ignored across the media,” the outlet stressed.

RT has checked open-access social media accounts of Twitter’s top managers and also discovered some former employees of the security services among them – in addition to the ones mentioned in the MintPress investigation.

MintPress News stresses that while Twitter’s HR policy might appear logical – the company hires specialists in the areas it needs – it creates some serious problems, not only for the company, but also for the security agencies and organizations. According to former FBI agent and whistleblower Coleen Rowley, who is quoted by MintPress, many agents have one eye on post-retirement jobs.

“The truth is that at the FBI 50% of all the normal conversations that people had were about how you were going to make money after retirement,” Rowley said.

MintPress claimed that the fact that Twitter recruits largely from the US national security organizations undermines the company’s claims about its neutrality, as the US government “is the source of some of the largest and most extensive influence operations in the world.”

Another risk is that “the company will start to view every problem in the same manner as the U.S. government does – and act accordingly,” the outlet states. To prove this claim, the website analyzed a list – compiled by Twitter – of the countries allegedly conducting disinformation campaigns.

“One cannot help noticing that this list correlates quite closely to a hit list of U.S. government adversaries. All countries carry out disinfo campaigns to a certain extent. But these ‘former’ spooks and feds are unlikely to point the finger at their former colleagues or sister organizations or investigate their operations,” MintPress explained.

Twitter adds warning messages to the tweets and accounts of the state-affiliated media of Russia, China, Iran and Cuba, thus mirroring “US hostility” towards these countries, but does not add any warnings to the pages of state-affiliated media of US and its allies, the outlet highlighted.

Ultimately, MintPress found that Twitter is not the only social media platform that’s “cultivating such an intimate relationship with the FBI and other groups belonging to the secret state.”

“Facebook, for example, has entered into a formal partnership with the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensics Research Lab, whereby the latter holds significant influence over 2.9 billion users’ news feeds, helping to decide what content to promote and what content to suppress,” it said, adding that the company has also employed former NATO Press Secretary Ben Nimmo as its head of intelligence.

TikTok, according to the outlet, has been “filling its organization with alumni of the Atlantic Council, NATO, the CIA and the State Department.”

Reddit and various media, including Thomson Reuters and multiple US TV channels have also been actively employing former spies, MintPress News claims.

“One of media’s primary functions is to serve as a fourth estate; a force that works to hold the government and its agencies to account. Yet instead of doing that, increasingly it is collaborating with them. Such are these increasing interlocking connections that it is becoming increasingly difficult to see where big government ends and big media begins,” it pointed out.

June 24, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Colombia elects 1st leftist president in its history: A great supporter of Palestine

By Eman Abusidu  | MEMO | June 24, 2022

In Colombia, where  some 13,000 Palestinians reside, the leftist candidate Gustavo Petro has won the presidential election after he defeated his far-right rival Rodolfo Hernandez. The 62-year-old’s victory represents a major revival for Colombia’s progressive left in Latin America as it joined left-wing parties in Chile, Peru, Mexico and Argentina for the first time. According to figures published by Colombia´s electoral authority, Petro won 50.44 per cent of the votes compared to the 47.31 per cent achieved by his opponent.

“Today is a day of celebration for the people. Let them celebrate the first popular victory. May so much suffering be cushioned in the joy that floods the heart of our country today,” Petro said on Twitter.

Petro was a legislator and a member of the M-19 guerrilla group, which was originally set up during Colombia’s 1970 elections. He later moved into politics and served as a senator and the mayor of Colombia’s capital, Bogota. He was finally victorious in his third attempt in the presidential race, promising to address inequality in a country where nearly half the population lives in poverty and unemployment.

The president-elect is known to be a supporter of the Palestinian cause and defender of human rights, which are being continuously violated in the Occupied Territories. More than once, Petro has described the struggle of the Palestinian people as an “historical struggle of a people for freedom and independence.” He has also posted the Palestinian flag on his Facebook account.

“I raise my voice against the murder of Palestinians. People are not to be massacred, they are to be respected as a culture, as a right to exist under the skies of the planet. Jesus was Palestinian and asked that human beings love one another,” Petro said  in a tweet, accusing Israel forces of carrying out a “massacre” against Gazans during the Great March of Return in May 2018.

Colombia had been the only South American nation that had not recognised Palestine as a sovereign state until it finally took the decision in 2018. The announcement was made public through a letter sent to Palestinian Foreign Minister Riyad Al-Malki. The letter was written in August 2018 and signed by Foreign Minister Maria Angela Holguin Cuellar. “I would like to inform you that in the name of the government of Colombia, President Juan Manuel Santos has decided to recognise Palestine as a free, independent and sovereign state,” the letter said.

Petro’s outspoken criticism of Israel’s policies and violations against Palestinians mean Colombia’s ties with Tel Aviv will take a different direction under his leadership. “The State of Israel is one thing and the Jewish religion is another, just as the Colombian State is one thing and the Catholic religion another,” Petro tweeted in 2019. “Confusing state and religion is typical of the archaic mentality. The State of Israel discriminates against Palestinians like the Nazis discriminated against Jews.”

Despite this, Israel’s Foreign Ministry rushed to congratulate Petro, tweeting: “We congratulate the People of Colombia and President Elect @petrogustavo on a successful democratic election and look forward to further strengthening the relations between Israel and Colombia and between our two peoples.”

Petro’s victory has also been described as a “big defeat for the USA”. Over the past two centuries, all Colombian presidents descended from right-wing aristocratic families, known for their loyalty to the US and its policies. This has contributed to making Colombia one of the most important nations in Latin America.

Expectations are rising that Petro’s electoral victory will lead to a deeper change in the political field in Latin America, and to the reconfiguration of Colombia’s relations with the US. With Petro’s victory, Colombia became the third largest country in Latin America to shift to the left. Chile, Peru and Honduras elected leftist presidents in 2021, while in Brazil former President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva is leading in the polls for this year’s presidential election.

These new Latin American governments will constitute a real threat to American hegemony over the region. Perhaps this explains Joe Biden’s rush to hold the Summit of the Americas in an attempt to test and identify his allies in Latin America.

June 24, 2022 Posted by | Solidarity and Activism | , , | Leave a comment

Iran Dismisses ‘Ridiculous’ Allegations of Planned Attacks on Israelis in Turkey

Al-Manar – June 24, 2022

Iran dismissed Israeli accusations that it is allegedly plotting to target Israelis in Turkey as “ridiculous” on Friday.

In a tweet from Iran’s Foreign Ministry, spokesperson Saeed Khatibzadeh said that Lapid’s “baseless accusations” about such Iranian activity are “ridiculous” and part of a “pre-designed scenario to destroy relations between the two Muslim countries.”

“It is expected from Turkey not to remain silent in the face of these divisive allegations,” he said.

Khatibzadeh also stressed that Iran would respond forcefully to “assassinations and acts of sabotage by the Zionist regime” but “without threatening the security of civilians and the security of other countries.”

June 24, 2022 Posted by | Deception, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , , | 1 Comment

Russian forces encircle thousands as Ukrainian troops begin surrender

Samizdat – June 24, 2022

Up to 2,000 Ukrainian troops, nationalists and foreign fighters have been surrounded by the Russian forces and the Donbass militias, Moscow revealed on Friday. The forces were encircled in two neighboring towns in the Lugansk People’s Republic.

Four Ukrainian battalions. as well as an artillery unit are among those trapped, Russia’s Defense Ministry announced. The encircled forces also include around 120 fighters from the notorious Ukrainian ‘Right Sector,’ a neo-Nazi group of up to 80 foreign fighters, according to the ministry.

The troops have been surrounded in the towns of Gorskoye and Zolotoye, located south of the major cities of Severodonetsk and Lisichansk, which have recently become one of the major targets for both sides amid the continued fighting for the territory of the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics.

The Russian military has also claimed that the surrounded units have lost over 60% of their strength. According to the defense ministry, 41 Ukrainian soldiers encircled in the area have surrendered. The Defense Ministry has also published a video supposedly showing the surrendered soldiers.

The head of the Ukrainian Gorskoye military administration, Aleksey Babchenko, confirmed to the Ukrainian media on Friday that the town has been fully seized by the Russian forces and the Donbass militias.

Sergey Gaidai, who Ukraine calls the head of the “Lugansk Oblast,” has also said on Telegram that the Ukrainian forces might soon retreat from Lisichansk since their defensive positions had been destroyed by the Russian forces and there is “little sense” in staying.

The Russian Air Force has also successfully hit a Ukrainian artillery battery equipped with the US-made M777 howitzers in the Kharkov region. Earlier, Washington vowed to supply 90 such artillery pieces to Kiev, according to a May report by the New York Times.

The news comes just days after the Russian military claimed to have killed hundreds of Ukrainian troops in a strike on a shipbuilding plant in the Ukrainian port of Nikolaev. Last week, the defense ministry also claimed to have killed scores of Ukrainian officers after striking a compound where a meeting of commanders of several Ukrainian units was taking place.

June 24, 2022 Posted by | Aletho News | , | Leave a comment

The UK is Doing Its Best to Stir a Food Crisis While Pinning the Blame on Russia

By Ekaterina Blunova – Samizdat – 24.06.2022

Russia’s special operation in Ukraine may cause a two-year global food crisis even if the standoff ends tomorrow, The Telegraph claims, citing Western officials. They insist that exporting grain “trapped” in Ukraine is the remedy, while remaining mute about West’s sanctions paralyzing larger food exports from Russia to third-world countries.

“We are very clear that this grain crisis is urgent, that it needs to be solved within the next month otherwise we could see devastating consequences,” UK Foreign Secretary Liz Truss told the press on June 23.

The ongoing conflict has disrupted production, “causing global food prices to soar to record levels,” claims The Telegraph. In particular, wheat prices increased to an average of 56.2% in May, 2022 above their value last year, according to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).

The newspaper’s source says that the British officials see current efforts to move Ukrainian grain over land and road as “far below” what is needed. They insist that the commodity needs to be exported by sea, accusing Russia of blocking Ukraine’s food supplies from leaving Ukraine’s Black Sea ports. According to UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson, Moscow was trying to hold the world “ransom.”

The newspaper also cites “newly declassified US intelligence” claiming that the Russian navy “has been given orders to lay mines” in Odessa and Ochakov and “mined” the Dnieper River “as part of its blockade of Ukrainian grain exports.” According to BoJo, the UK is helping Ukraine “at a technical level to help demine Odessa.”

Western Press Remain Mute About Russia’s Black Sea Corridors

Russia denounced the US and the UK claims, stressing that the Ukrainian military mined their own ports during the retreat. Furthermore, Ukraine continues to stampede Russo-Turkish efforts to demine the area and ensure the safe passage of ships from the country’s territorial waters.

On June 2, Russia’s Permanent Representative to the UN Vasily Nebenzya made it clear that Russia is ready to provide safe corridors for Ukrainian ships carrying 20 million tons of grain if Kiev demines the water area surrounding its ports.

In late May, the Russian Ministry of Defense announced that the Russian Navy had created safe zones in the Black and Azov Seas for ships leaving Ukraine along humanitarian corridors. The corridors with a length of 139 miles and 3 miles wide are operating daily from 8:00 am to 7:00 pm (GMT+3) in the Black Sea for vessels stationed in the ports of Kherson, Nikolaev, Chernomorsk, Ochakov, Odessa and Yuzhny.

Nevertheless, the Kiev authorities “continue to do everything possible to evade interaction with representatives of foreign states and ship-owning companies in resolving the issue of ensuring the safe exit of blocked ships,” according to the MoD.

Turkey, which has worked with Russia in demining the Black Sea and providing safe passage to vessels, echoes Moscow’s concerns. Turkish Foreign Minister Cavusoglu told Anadolu Agency last month that the two major obstacles hindering grain exports are mines placed by the Ukrainian military in the Odessa water area as well as Western sanctions slapped on Russian ships in terms of insurance and the provision of services at international ports.

Ukraine’s Role in Food Crisis Largely Overestimated

The Western press is shying away from discussing how anti-Russian sanctions, imposed on the country’s trade, finance, transportation and crucial agricultural commodities have backfired on the global food market sending prices high.

Senegalese President and African Union chief Macky Sall raised the alarm earlier this month over Western restrictions preventing Russia’s grain and fertilizers exports to Africa.

“Sanctions against Russia have aggravated the situation with the supply of grains and fertilizers to African countries. We no longer have access to them, and this poses a serious threat to food security on the continent,” Sall warned on 3 June during an official visit to Russia.

Together Ukraine and Russia produce about a third of the wheat traded in global markets, according to the Washington-based International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). Still, Russia is the world’s largest exporter of wheat, providing more than 17% of all wheat sold in the global market while Ukraine’s share amounts to roughly 10%.

For comparison’s sake, Russia exported 44.64 million tons of wheat in 2018, while Ukraine provided the global market with 16.91 tons of the commodity the same year, according to FAO.

Ukraine’s role as a food commodity exporter is deliberately overestimated by the West, Russian President Vladimir Putin said in a June interview with Rossiya-1.

“The world produces about 800 million tons of grain and wheat per year. Now we are told that Ukraine is ready to export 20 million tons. 20 million tons compared to the 800 million tons the world makes is 2.5% of that figure. But if we proceed from the fact that wheat makes up only 20% of the total food supply (and this is the reality, these are not our figures but those of the UN) this means that these 20 million tons of Ukrainian wheat make up 0.5 percent,” the Russian president told the broadcaster.

Putin dismissed claims that Russia was supposedly trying to block the export of Ukrainian grain, calling the allegations a “bluff.” The Russian president stressed there were no obstacles to the export of grain from Ukraine. He stressed that ships carrying wheat could enter the Black Sea any time if Kiev clears ports of mines. World wheat prices have fallen by 10% after Putin signaled Russia’s readiness to ensure the transport of grain from Ukrainian ports.

G7 & NATO to Double Down on Further Isolating Russia

While the British government continues to castigate Russia’s special operation for the unfolding global food crisis, the British prime minister is calling for Europe to step up military aid to Ukraine.

In particular, BoJo came up with a new plan offering Ukraine a training campaign for its military personnel and urging Western leaders to provide “constant funding and technical help” to Ukraine to ensure Kiev’s longstanding resistance to Russia.

BoJo is expected to push France and Germany to strengthen their support for Ukraine during the G7 summit next week, “as he fears that [Ukrainian President] Volodymyr Zelensky could be bounced into agreeing a ‘s***y’ peace deal [with Russia],” according to the Telegraph.

For its part, Reuters projects that next week G7 and NATO leaders will work to “increase pressure” on Russia over its special operation in Ukraine, while seeking to further isolate the country from the global economy.

June 24, 2022 Posted by | Economics | , | 1 Comment