Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Western pundits believed post-Maidan Ukraine would serve as an ‘example’ for Russia – in reality, it’s become a cautionary tale

By Paul Robinson | RT | February 6, 2021

Many Russian liberals and foreign pundits saw Ukraine’s 2014 ‘Maidan’ as an event that would inspire change in Moscow. Today, as an increasingly dysfunctional Kiev clamps down on free speech, it looks more like a cautionary tale.

In May 2014, newly elected Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko promised that he would rapidly bring peace to his country. “The anti-terrorist operation cannot and should not last two or three months. It should and will last hours,” he said.

Nearly 60,000 hours later, the war into which the badly named “anti-terrorist operation” morphed is still going on. Poroshenko’s successor Volodymyr Zelensky similarly promised to bring the fighting to an end. “My main goal… is that I want to end the war. This is my mission within these five years,” he told journalists. But he has been equally unsuccessful.

Zelensky resoundingly defeated Poroshenko in the 2019 presidential election, in which the incumbent won a plurality of votes only in the far west of the country. By portraying himself as a candidate not only of peace, but also of national unity, Zelensky was able to attract the votes of a large number of Russian-speaking Ukrainians in the south and east of the country who had been alienated by Poroshenko’s increasingly nationalistic tone.

Unfortunately, since then Zelensky has betrayed those voters time after time.

Not only has he failed to take any of the steps required to bring the war to an end – most notably, the concessions demanded in the 2015 Minsk II agreements – but his government has also further suppressed the language rights of Ukrainians and is now clamping down on the opposition media.

In January 2020, liberal Russian pundits lined up to praise Zelensky’s new year’s speech. Zelensky was said to have promoted an image of national unity, seeking to overcome linguistic and other differences which had been accentuated by his predecessor’s nationalist policies. “It doesn’t matter what your street is called as long as it is clean and asphalted,” said Zelensky, in a line which seemed to suggest that his government would bring an end to the habit of changing street names from those of communist heroes to those of nationalist icons like Stepan Bandera.

In fact, it hasn’t. Not only has Zelensky failed to provide clean and asphalted streets, but it’s since become clear that what he really meant was not that he would bring an end to forcible Ukrainization, but that Russian speakers should just shut up and stop complaining about it, since, after all, none of that stuff actually “matters.”

Thus, Zelensky has done nothing to reverse the 2019 law on official languages, which sharply restricts the use of Russian. Most notably, on January 16 a new rule came into effect which obliges all service providers (shops, restaurants, etc.) to offer their services in Ukrainian by default. Meanwhile, censorship in Ukraine has reached new levels of silliness, prohibiting for instance a book about the Vikings by an American author because it referred to ancient Kievan Rus’ as “Russia.”

Now Zelensky has gone even further, banning three television stations owned by opposition politician Taras Kozak, on the grounds that they are spreading Russian disinformation. Zelensky claims that he supports freedom of speech but not “propaganda financed by the aggressors.” “These media have become one of the tools in the war against Ukraine, so they are blocked in order to protect national security,” said Zelensky’s spokesperson Yuliia Mendel.

The fact that the ban comes at a moment when Zelensky’s popularity is plummeting, and when Kozak’s party Opposition Platform – For Life is leading in national opinion polls may be entirely coincidental. But then again it may not. The move smacks of political desperation.

It is also, of course, deeply undemocratic in character. Had former president Viktor Yanukovich, who was overthrown in the February 2014 Maidan revolution, ever attempted such a thing, Ukrainian liberals and their Western allies would have cried huge screams of outrage. Now, however, they are silent, or even supportive. The US Embassy in Kiev, for instance, issued a statement that it backed the measure as designed “to counter Russia’s malign influence.”

The US response reveals the shallowness of Western assertions that in backing the Maidan revolution and subsequent governments they are supporting democracy, human rights, and a liberal order. In reality, geopolitics seems to be the primary concern. As long as Ukraine remains resolutely anti-Russia, a blind eye will be turned to nearly any and all abuses of democratic principles.

And here’s where the situation becomes rather sad. In the immediate aftermath of the Maidan revolution, it was said that Vladimir Putin’s response was driven by fears that Western-style democracy in Ukraine would provide a positive model which would incite a similar revolution in Russia.

A typical analysis was that of Paul D’Anieri, professor of public policy at the University of California, Riverside, who wrote in 2015 that “the prospect was that Ukraine would, with the aid of the EU, begin turning itself around. If so, it could become an attractive model for Russians, and a very different model than the one Putin has been insisting is the only one available.”

This line continues to find supporters. For instance, in a gushing article for Al Jazeera, journalist Leonid Ragozin remarked that Zelensky’s 2020 new year’s speech showed that “Ukraine may finally be moving towards fulfilling the Kremlin‘s biggest nightmare – becoming a role model for progressive politics and democracy for Russians to look up to.”

Ragozin has it back to front, for the very opposite would appear to be the case. Commenting on recent protests in Moscow, Ollie Carroll, Moscow correspondent of the British newspaper, the Independent, asked why Russians weren’t reacting with the same sense of indignation as Ukrainians had when Yanukovich’s police attacked demonstrators in Kiev six-and-a-half years ago. Carroll implied that this meant that there was something defective about Russians’ moral values.

In reality, the answer could simply be that they’ve looked at Ukraine and decided that it isn’t a good example to follow.

Paul Robinson is a professor at the University of Ottawa. He writes about Russian and Soviet history, military history, and military ethics, and is author of the Irrussianality blog.

February 6, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , | Leave a comment

Bank Of America Secretly Handed Customer Data To FBI Investigators

By Richie Allen | February 5, 2021

Bank of America customers are closing their accounts and taking their business elsewhere after it was revealed that the bank snooped through hundreds of innocent people’s accounts at the request of the federal government. The FBI wanted the information as part of its investigation into the Capitol riot. Anyone who made a transaction in DC on January 6th had their data handed to the feds. FOX News host Tucker Carlson broke the story last night.

After being contacted by the government, Bank of America handed over the information of 211 people. Of the 211 accounts that were turned over, none led to so much as an arrest, although one man was questioned and released without charge. The bank has so far refused to divulge how many accounts it trawled through before producing the 211 names. It has not revealed whether it was compelled by a subpoena or search warrant to hand over the data either.

Civil Rights groups in the US are calling for a boycott of the bank and want to know if other banks have done the same. This morning Bank of America told dailymail.com :

“We don’t comment on our communications with law enforcement. All banks have responsibilities under federal law to cooperate with law enforcement inquiries in full compliance with the law.”

Fox presenter Tucker Carlson said last night:

“These were the private records of Americans who had committed no crime; people who, as far as we know, had absolutely nothing to do with what happened at the Capitol. But at the request of federal investigators, Bank of America searched its databases looking for people who fit a specific profile.”

Referring to the man who was questioned Carlson said:

“The FBI hauls you in for questioning in a terror investigation, not because you’ve done anything suspicious, but because you bought plane tickets and visited your country’s capital. Now they’re sweating you because your bank, which you trust with your most private information, has ratted you out without your knowledge. Because Bank of America did that, you are being treated like a member of Al Qaeda.”

Banks are the most criminally corrupt cartels on Planet Earth. We call them banksters for a reason. To be shocked that they violated the rights of their customers is to be naïve in the extreme. Sometime in the next few years, maybe sooner, your government will declare itself broke, having borrowed trillions in imaginary money to pay for the pandemic hoax. At that point, the idea of a wealth tax or a bail-in will be mooted. Those are code words for daylight robbery. They will take your money without your consent and your bank will be only happy to help them. What Bank of America has done should be a timely reminder of what banks really are. Your bank is not your friend.

February 6, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties | | Leave a comment

Refuse A Vaccine? You’re Likely To Be Visited By A “Persuader”

By Richie Allen | February 5, 2021

Vaccine Minister Nadhim Zahawi said yesterday, that folks who haven’t taken up the offer of a vaccine, could get a knock on the door from council staff to “persuade” them to have it. He told MPs that he wanted to use local authority’s to find those who had refused the jab and determine what might then convince them. If that sounds sinister, it’s because it is. Very.

Zahawi went on to say that the NHS was already trying to “identify to individual level the people that we need to reach” to ensure that all over-70s had a chance to be vaccinated by February 15th. During a phone-in last Thursday, The Richie Allen Show spoke to 79 year old Ron, who said that he had received a phone call inviting him to come and be jabbed. When he politely said “no thanks”, he was told that he would be put on “the decline list.” Now that’s creepy. Why the need for a decline list unless you planned to use it to sanction those who have refused the vaccine? What might sanctions look like?

Zahawi’s comments came on the same day that Conservative MP Mark Harper, a member of The Covid Recovery Group, said that health care workers who refused the jab should not be allowed to work with vulnerable people. You are undoubtedly going to hear more of this in the days and weeks to come. “No Jab, No Job” is a catchphrase that rolls off the tongue. It’s everywhere now. And according to The Times this morning:

British officials have started work on a “vaccine passport” as Greece prepares to waive quarantine rules for tourists who can prove that they have been inoculated against coronavirus. A certification system is being planned, The Times has learnt. The Foreign Office, Department for Transport and Department of Health and Social Care are working on options for travellers to countries that may demand it as a condition of entry.

The gloves are off now and things are moving very quickly. We’re at peak lockdown fatigue. People have had enough and are beyond desperate to return to some semblance of a normal life. The government is dangling the vaccines and the health passports. It’s classic carrot and stick. No amount of money on earth could persuade me to have one of their vaccines. I’ll take my pleasure where I can find it and look forward to the knock on the door from “the persuaders.” That’ll be fun.

Richie Allen is the host of The Richie Allen Radio show, Europe’s most listened to independent radio show and is a passionate supporter of free speech.

February 5, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties | , , | Leave a comment

Russian Foreign Ministry Is Concerned About Political Persecution in the United States

The Saker | February 4, 2021

Moscow intends to hold a ‘serious conversation’ with Washington about the stars and stripes allegations of unauthorized actions in Russia.

The official representative of the Russian Foreign Ministry Maria Zakharova spoke about this at a briefing.

The American authorities, according to their words, will not be able to “divert public views, public opinion from their own problems” with their unbridled attacks on the Russian Federation: “We mean to keep this topic in sight and have a serious conversation with Washington. I assure you, the news won’t keep you waiting.”

“I would like to appeal to Washington. I predict: their protest will not dissipate by itself. Discontent will not work under the carpet. the authorities and the media obedient to them declare, a direct quote: ‘domestic terrorists.’ Doubts about the objectivity of the US law enforcement agencies are also raised by the fact that they are essentially acting in accordance with the political order and guidelines of the current administration, which declared the events of January 6 as a mutiny, and all who were near the congress that day are almost depicted as marauders. However, most of them are ordinary US citizens who are worried about the situation in their own country. And you know how many there are? 74 million voters. They voted for their president, as they believed necessary, they defended their beliefs,” – Zakharova emphasized.

“The United States has already announced so much lately that I want to remind them of what is happening in their country … An endless, unceasing increase in the degree of violence. This is what our partners need to pay attention to, the situation in their own countries, and not try to help rock the situation in our country,” she added.

An official representative of the Russian Foreign Ministry stated that human rights with the United States “are constantly and very hypocritically taken care of in relation to other countries, but they do not hesitate to ignore them at home.”

Zakharova is sure the United States will continue at attempts to interfere in the affairs of Russia. “But if the United States of America chooses the tactics of constant intervention in our internal affairs, which we are talking about and bringing facts, and these facts are not hard to find, they are on the surface, – we will be interested to see how they end up doing.”

Maria Zakharova – on the criminal prosecution of participants in the storming of the Capitol:

“It is of serious concern of the ongoing campaign in the United States of persecution of the participants in the so-called storming of the Capitol on January 6 and, in general, all those who disagree with the results of the last presidential elections, which the authorities and the media obedient to them, have declared ‘domestic terrorists.’

According to available informaiton, the FBI has opened over 400 criminal cases, requested more than 500 permits in the courts to search and summon suspects, and also brought charges and has already arrested about 200 people. Severe pressure is carried out, including the treatment of relatives, acquaintances, coercion to give the necessary testimony. Moreover, people who have not even been formally charged are fired from their jobs, expelled from social networks, blocked or harassed.”

February 5, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties | , , | Leave a comment

Bill Would Force Social Media Users To Secretly Report Suspicious People To Law Enforcement

MassPrivateI | February 4, 2021

Senator Joe Manchin wants to bring DHS’s spy on your neighbors “If You See, Something Say Something”  program to social media, blogs, websites, and much more. Manchin’s bill, the “See Something, Say Something Online Act” would essentially turn social media users into Federal spies by forcing them to report suspicious people to law enforcement.

Just how bad is this bill?

This bill would essentially force anyone on social media to report suspicious “transmissions” to law enforcement.

“Known Suspicious Transmission.—The term ‘‘known suspicious transmission’’ is any suspicious transmission that an interactive computer  service should have reasonably known to have occurred or have been notified of by a director, officer, employ, agent, interactive computer service user, or State or Federal law enforcement agency.”

Major Crime —The term ‘‘major crime’’ means a Federal criminal offense that is a crime of violence (as defined 13 in section 16 of title 18, United States Code); relating to domestic or international terrorism (as those terms are defined in section 16 2331 of title 18, United States Code)

What exactly is a known suspicious transmission or major crime?

“Suspicious Transmission is defined as any post, private message, comment, tag, transaction, or any other user-generated content or transmission that government officials later determine commits, facilitates, incites, promotes, or otherwise assists the commission of a major crime. Major crimes are defined as anything involving violence, domestic, or international terrorism, or a serious drug offense.”

How could social media users, bloggers, web forum moderators, web conferencing users etc., know that a comment left or uttered by someone would later lead to them committing a major crime?

The See Something, Say Something Online Act would force social media users into red flagging every person’s comments just in case someone commits a major crime in the future.

This bill would effectively destroy the First Amendment as we know it, dispelling any vestiges of America still being a free country.

Social media users would be forced to submit a Suspicious Transmission Activity Report (STAR) on suspicious individuals within 30 days.

“In General.—If a provider of an interactive computer service detects a suspicious transmission, the interactive computer service, including any director, officer, employee, agent, or representative of such provider, shall submit to the Department a STAR describing the suspicious transmission in accordance with this section.”

As Reason warned, the See Something, Say Something Online Act would put reporting on your fellow American on steroids. It would create a glut of frivolous reports, including many that are politically motivated, or otherwise disingenuous.

Social media users and law enforcement would keep detailed personal information, including metadata of suspicious people for five years.

“Each STAR submitted under this section shall contain, at a minimum—  (1) the name, location, and other such identification information as submitted by the user to the provider of the interactive computer service; (2) the date and nature of the post, message, comment, tag, transaction, or other user-generated content or transmission detected for suspicious activity such as time, origin, and destination; and (3) any relevant text, information, and metadata related to the suspicious transmission.”

“Retention Of Records —Each provider of an interactive computer service shall— (A) maintain a copy of any STAR submitted under this section and the original record equivalent of any supporting documentation for the 5-year period beginning on the date on which the STAR was submitted. (B) make all supporting documentation available to the Department and any appropriate law enforcement agencies upon request.”

No one can tell a person that they have been flagged as suspicious

“Non-Disclosure—Except as otherwise prescribed by the Attorney General, no provider of an interactive computer service, or officer, director, employee, or agent of such a provider, subject to an order under subsection (a) may disclose the existence of, or terms of, the order to any person.”

Social media users could face prosecution for not reporting suspicious people

Imagine someone leaving a comment on social media like the police suck or calling someone a bitch, twit or twat and then they go on to commit a crime in the future. Would anyone like to guess what might happen next?

Every social media user who refused to file a STAR report on a suspicious person would open themselves up to prosecution or a lawsuit.

“Compliance—Any provider of an interactive computer service that fails to report a known suspicious transmission shall not be immune from civil or criminal liability for such transmission under section 230(c) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 230(c)).”

Where does one begin when it comes to describing just how bad this bill is?

Forcing social media users to essentially submit STAR reports on people they deem as suspicious opens up a Pandora’s box of problems.

Social media users who are forced into reporting on people could flag everyone’s comments to guard against being prosecuted or sued. This bill, if passed as it is written, would have a devastating effect on the civil rights and freedoms of every American.

February 5, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | Leave a comment

Was Fraud in the 2020 Election Inconceivable?

By Jacob G. Hornberger | FFF |February 4, 2021

One of the fascinating aspects of the 2020 presidential election fraud brouhaha was the mainstream media’s certainty that there was no fraud, without even performing the semblance of an investigation. The media mindset was based on the concept of inconceivability — that it was just inconceivable that anything like that could happen in the United States. That sort of thing only happens in foreign countries, the inconceivable mindset holds.

Yet, consider all the things that the the U.S. deep state did, in secret, to prevent Salvador Allende from becoming president of Chile.

In the run-up to the 1964 Chilean presidential election, the CIA secretly spent almost $6 million in support of Allende’s opponent, Eduardo Frei. According to Wikipedia, the “CIA considered its role in the victory of Frei a great success.” The CIA concluded that Frei would not have won without the secret assistance of the CIA.

What business did the U.S. deep state have embroiling itself in a foreign election? It held that Allende, as a socialist or a communist, would pose a grave threat to U.S. “national security” if he were elected president of Chile.

Six years later, Allende ran again and achieved a plurality of votes. Since the Chilean Constitution required a majority, the election was thrown into the hands of the Chilean parliament.

The CIA took its stash of secret U.S. taxpayer money and used it in an attempt to bribe the members of the Chilean parliament to not elect Allende.

At the same time, the CIA did everything it could to instigate a military coup, notwithstanding the fact that a coup would violate Chile’s constitution. The CIA took the position that the Chilean constitution was irrelevant, given that an Allende presidency would pose a threat to “national security,” both in Chile and the United States. Given that the U.S. Constitution itself did not authorize foreign military coups, the CIA’s position was that it was irrelevant as well since “national security,” the CIA believed, was sovereign and supreme over the Constitution.

The overall commander of the Chilean armed forces, Gen. Rene Schneider, balked at the CIA’s coup proposal. His position was that the Chilean constitution controlled. Since it did not provide a coup as a way to remove a democratically elected president, the Chilean armed forces would not participate in the U.S. deep state’s illegal scheme.

To accelerate the possibility of a coup, the CIA conspired to violently kidnap Schneider. During the kidnapping attempt, Schneider was shot dead. (No CIA official or any other U.S. official has ever been brought to justice for the murder of Rene. Schneider.)

The kidnapping and murder of an innocent man ended up boomeranging for the U.S. deep state. The Chilean people were so outraged over Schneider’s murder that the Chilean parliament rejected the CIA’s bribes and ended up electing Allende president.

The U.S. deep state wasn’t finished. For the next three years, the CIA did everything it could to stir up economic chaos in the country in order to encourage people to desire a military coup to “save” the country. For example, the CIA secretly instigated a national truckers’ strike in the hope of preventing food from reaching the Chilean populace.

Finally, on September 11, 1973, amidst the economic crisis produced by Allende’s socialist economic policies and the CIA’s interventionist policies, and with the encouragement and support of the U.S. deep state, the Chilean deep state initiated a military coup in which the national-security branch of the national government went on the attack against the executive branch of the government. In what would prove to be an eerie confirmation of former President Dwight Eisenhower about the dangers that a “military-industrial complex” poses to a democracy, Chile’s military-intelligence branch of the government prevailed over Allende’s executive branch, leaving him dead.

Chile’s national-security establishment, again with the full support of the U.S. national-security establishment, proceeded to take full control over the government and rounded up, incarcerated, tortured, raped, sexually abused, executed, or disappeared over 50,000 supporters of Allende.

Now, it’s very true that it’s possible that there was no fraud in the 2020 U.S. presidential election. But given all that the U.S. deep state did to prevent Allende from being president of Chile, can we really say that it is inconceivable that the U.S. deep state would do whatever it deemed necessary to prevent a U.S. presidential candidate that it deemed to be a threat to “national security” from becoming president?

Jacob G. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. He was born and raised in Laredo, Texas, and received his B.A. in economics from Virginia Military Institute and his law degree from the University of Texas. He was a trial attorney for twelve years in Texas. He also was an adjunct professor at the University of Dallas, where he taught law and economics.

February 4, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

The Shocking Truth About Health Passports

Dr Vernon Coleman | January 27, 2021

Click on the following link to see Dr Coleman’s video on PCR testing (more shocks) at brandnewtube.com https://brandnewtube.com/watch/the-pcr-test-is-useless-for-covid-19-but-useful-for-crooked-governments_H39cdYx6Iml3viB.html

International best-selling author, Dr Vernon Coleman MB ChB DSc FRSA, explains exactly what health passports are likely to contain and who will be making them (you’ll be horrified).

For more unbiased information about other important matters, please visit https://www.vernoncoleman.com

February 4, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Timeless or most popular, Video | , , | Leave a comment

CIA Counterterror Chief Suggests Going To War Against ‘Domestic Insurgents’

By Steve Watson | Summit News | February 4, 2021

The former head of the CIA Counterterrorism Center has suggested that counterinsurgency tactics used by the military in Iraq and Afghanistan should be applied to ‘domestic extremists’ inside the US.

NPR reports that Robert Grenier, who directed the CIA’s Counterterrorism program from 2004 to 2006, declared “We may be witnessing the dawn of a sustained wave of violent insurgency within our own country, perpetrated by our own countrymen.”

In an op-ed for The New York Times last week, Grenier suggested that “extremists who seek a social apocalypse … are capable of producing endemic political violence of a sort not seen in this country since Reconstruction.”

Grenier, also a former CIA station chief in Pakistan and Afghanistan, grouped together “the Proud Boys, the Three Percenters, the Oath Keepers, ‘Christian’ national chauvinists, white supremacists and QAnon fantasists” and claimed they are all “committed to violent extremism.”

Grenier labeled dissenters an “insurgency” and called for them to be “defeated” like an enemy army.

In further comments to NPR, Grenier stated that “as in any insurgency situation, you have committed insurgents who are typically a relatively small proportion of the affected population. But what enables them to carry forward their program is a large number of people from whom they can draw tacit support.”

Grenier also stated that insurgents may emerge from groups who “believe that the election was stolen,” or those “who don’t trust NPR or The New York Times.”

“The most violent elements that we are concerned about right now see former President Trump as a broadly popular and charismatic symbol,” the CIA spook added, before comparing Trump to Saddam Hussein.

“You know, just as I saw in the Middle East that the air went out of violent demonstrations when [Iraqi leader] Saddam Hussein was defeated and seen to be defeated, I think the same situation applies here,” he proclaimed.

Grenier suggested that Trump should be convicted at the upcoming impeachment trial as a ‘national security imperative’ because “So long as he is there and leading the resistance, if you will, which he shows every sign of intending to do, he is going to be an inspiration to very violent people.”

Grenier then compared Americans to Al Qaeda and the Taliban, noting that in Afghanistan “the thrust of our campaign there was, yes, to hunt down al-Qaida, but primarily to remove the supportive environment in which they were able to live and to flourish. And that meant fighting the Taliban.”

“I think that is the heart of what we need to deal with here,” he added.

Listen

Linking to Grenier’s comments, journalist Glenn Greenwald quipped that wedding guests throughout America should watch out for drone missiles.

The call to treat Americans as terrorist insurgents comes on the heels of a Department of Homeland Security warning that those dissatisfied with the election result may rise up and commit acts of terrorism in the coming weeks.

“Information suggests that some ideologically-motivated violent extremists with objections to the exercise of governmental authority and the presidential transition, as well as other perceived grievances fueled by false narratives, could continue to mobilize to incite or commit violence,” stated the bulletin issued last week through the DHS National Terrorist Advisory System — or NTAS.

The bulletin added that ‘extremists’ may be “motivated by a range of issues, including anger over COVID-19 restrictions, the 2020 election results, and police use of force.”

February 4, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , , , | Leave a comment

The establishment wants a Reality Czar in order to crush dissent, not unite us around objective truth

By Michael McCaffrey | RT | February 3, 2021

The mainstream media and ruling elite really hate conspiracy theories and misinformation – except when they don’t.

On February 2, which ironically enough is Groundhog Day here in the US, the New York Times published an article titled ‘How The Biden Administration Can Help Solve Our Reality Crisis’.

It seems a very bad sign that America is now relying on a geriatric Washington insider whose own perception of reality has been called in to question numerous times to solve a “reality crisis”.

One of the suggestions was that Biden should create a “Reality Czar” to oversee the dismantling of “disinformation” and the surveillance of “conspiracy theorists”.

In the article, writer Kevin Roose spoke with ‘experts’ who offered suggestions about how to unify Americans around “reality” by stamping out “conspiracy theories” and “misinformation”.

That sounds like a great idea – I mean, what could possibly go wrong?

The problem with a ‘reality czar’ is that America is a post-reality nation. Our culture has gone so far to the extreme with regard to embracing subjective experience over objective reality that some blowhard bureaucrat is not going to be able to tip the scales back towards the rational.

And, of course, that is the point. The Biden administration doesn’t want to return America to objective reality, they want Americans to embrace the establishment’s reality – and those are two very different things.

The establishment reality is the neo-liberal, corporate controlled, military-industrial-complex reality that loathes being held to account for its continuous misdeeds and misinformation.

The establishment reality demands we accept the absurdly incomplete official story regarding the spate of assassinations in the ’60s (JFK, MLK, RFK) while refusing to declassify and un-redact the millions of government files on those topics it won’t let us see.

The establishment reality lied about the Gulf of Tonkin incident and gave us the hell of the Vietnam War.

The establishment reality lied to us about Iran-Contra and the death squads in Latin America. It also lied about its complicity in the drug trade while it manufactured a War on Drugs.

The establishment reality refused to declassify documents about 9/11 and to investigate the funding for that attack. It also unleashed George W. Bush and Dick Cheney’s ‘Dark Side’, which included the War on Terror, torture, massive surveillance, Gitmo, rendition and the Patriot Act.

The establishment reality was the one that told us Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and gave us the Iraq War, and continues to give us the war in Yemen and the carnage in Libya and across the globe.

It is often said that daylight is the best disinfectant, but we are continuously kept in the dark, and the establishment, regardless of which party is in power, is a gangrenous limb whose lies and disinformation are much more toxic to America and the world than anything some QAnon clowns can conjure in their fever dreams.

It is pretty rich that the New York Times is running this article calling for a reality czar and bemoaning disinformation, as it has long aided and abetted the establishment in its concealing of truth and distorting of objective reality.

Whether it be Walter Duranty and his lies for Stalin, or Judith Miller and her lies for Bush, the Times has proven over and over again that it isn’t a news organisation, but a praetorian guard meant to protect the tyrants, oligarchs and aristocrats from the masses.

Am I the only one who remembers the Russiagate hysteria? Stories of dastardly Rooskies hacking into power grids and voting booths, and using microwave weapons to attack Americans have been commonplace in the Times and across the mainstream media, and yet those ‘conspiracy theories’ were not only accepted but embraced. The establishment’s hatred of conspiracy theories is particularly amusing in light of what transpired over the past four years.

Would the new Reality Czar hold the Times accountable for those idiotic stories? Would MSNBC be chastised for Rachel Maddow’s conspiratorial ramblings? Would CNN be reprimanded for its “mostly peaceful protests” disinformation?

Would the Reality Czar target the scientists and medical experts who publicly proclaimed that it was OK to gather in large groups during the pandemic to protest for Black Lives Matter but not to protest against lockdown?

How about those radical trans activists who distort and contort both science and reality?

Would the Reality Czar target the new White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki, especially considering her laughably ridiculous press conference from 2015, at which, with a straight face, she stated that the US had a “long-standing” policy against backing coups?

Of course not.

Like a paranoid schizophrenic, our political and media elite is constantly trying to convince people that its own devious delusions are the one true reality.

The Reality Czar would not be required to actually quash misinformation and conspiracy theories – only the misinformation and conspiracy theories the establishment doesn’t like.

As Orwell told us, “Who controls the past, controls the future, who controls the present, controls the past.” The establishment wants to control the present, the past, the future and, most of all, you. And a Reality Czar is just the beginning.

The ‘reality is that the ruling elite are pushing the notion of rampant right-wing domestic terrorists and the danger of conspiracy theories in an attempt to conceal their crimes and stifle dissent, not to help objective “reality” flourish.

February 4, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Progressive Hypocrite, Russophobia | , | Leave a comment

Jewish Organization Behind Tech Censorship Funded Study Saying It’s A Figment Of Your Imagination

By Eric Striker | National Justice | February 4, 2021

A New York University study released this week claiming that Twitter and Facebook do not censor the “political right” has been widely mocked and lambasted as a symbol of the conflict of interests and lack of credibility in American academia.

The most Orwellian aspect of this story is that the paper was financed by tech billionaire Craig Newmark, who is Jewish and a leading member of the Anti-Defamation League’s Silicon Valley speech suppression lobby, the Center for Technology and Society (CTS).

The CTS specializes in two things, the first is to aid eager-to-be-used Jewish tech moguls in their quest to censor ideas they perceive threatening to Jewish interests (preserving domestic liberalism and Israel against populist challenges are their main priorities), and the second is to intimidate those who don’t want to play ball, like former free speech advocate Jack Dorsey, into doing their bidding.

CTS concentrates Jewish legal, political, technological, financial and media to shut down dissent. Besides Newmark, its advisory board includes formidable figures such as Shawn Henry, a former assistant director at the FBI, Steve Huffman, CEO of Reddit, Guy Rosen, product VP at Facebook, and Eli Pariser, the president and co-founder of Democratic Party activist powerhouses MoveOn.org and Avaaz.org.

The tyrants at CTS have so far achieved impressive results. The ADL was the major force behind the banning of Donald Trump, the destruction of Parler, and the long-term project to radically transform the internet from its original mission to be a public square of free debate into an American version of North Korea’s internet.

In cases like Gab, who the ADL has been unable to shut down, they are diligently working to get the Department of Justice to put its defiant CEO Andrew Torba in prison.

The ADL’s campaign of repression is so extreme that authors in Jewish newspapers, who broadly support what they’re doing, are asking them to cool off, “So it’s hardly surprising that Greenblatt has already declared ADL’s support for impeaching Trump a second time. That’s a position a lot of Americans—and, no doubt, the majority of American Jews—agree with, and not all of them are partisan Democrats like Greenblatt. But the question here is: What in the world is a group whose purpose is to monitor and advocate against anti-Semitism doing involving itself in the debate about impeachment?”

As for Newmark, his total lack of respect for ethics, facts and scholarship don’t end at manufacturing fake studies. The organization social media companies have tasked with supposedly fact checking “disinformation,” the Poynter Institute, is also Newmark’s pet project.

In other words, when Tucker Carlson’s producers received an ominous email warning them to stop spreading “disinformation” attached to an NYU study claiming to debunk them, the Jews behind the tech censorship campaign paid for a bogus study claiming tech censorship doesn’t exist that the fact-checking think-tank they also fund will deem “disinformation” to disagree with.

The debate over free speech in America is worthless until people work up the courage to talk about the ADL and the Jewish community’s complete lack of respect for fundamental American principals and the rights of non-Jews.

February 4, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Biden regime drops Trump-era lawsuit against Yale over discrimination against Asian & white applicants

RT | February 3, 2021

The US Department of Justice has dropped a lawsuit against Yale University for allegedly discriminating against Asian and white applicants, signaling the Biden administration’s intent to protect affirmative action programs.

The DOJ submitted a two-sentence filing in US District Court in Connecticut on Wednesday, notifying the judge in the case of its “voluntary dismissal of this action.” Federal court rules allowed the government to drop the case summarily because Yale hadn’t yet formally responded or sought dismissal of the lawsuit since it was filed in October, the DOJ said.

Former president Donald Trump’s administration had invested two years of investigative work, concluding that Yale had rejected “scores of Asian-American and white applicants each year based on their race, whom it otherwise would admit,” in favor of black students. Black applicants had four to 10 times the likelihood of being admitted to Yale as white or Asian students with the same academic credentials, the DOJ alleged.

The DOJ demanded in August that Yale stop using such criteria as skin color and national origin as factors in student admissions. After the Ivy League school refused, calling the allegations meritless, federal prosecutors followed through on their threat to sue in October. The case was seen possibly rising to the US Supreme Court, where it could have become a precedent, striking down affirmative action as unconstitutional.

It took President Joe Biden’s administration just two weeks in office to reverse course, dropping the lawsuit. Biden favors affirmative action – using attributes such as skin color, gender and religion as factors in admissions and hiring decisions to increase representation of certain types of people – and appointed a staunch and controversial activist, Kristen Clarke, to head the DOJ’s civil rights division.

Clarke has spoken out in favor of race-based discrimination against Asian students at least as recently as last year. She’s also been known to advocate even more controversial ideas. While she was president of the Black Students Association at Harvard University in 1994, Clarke opined in a letter to the student newspaper that “melanin endows blacks with greater mental, physical and spiritual abilities.” She apparently didn’t attempt to reconcile that view with the argument that black students should be shown favoritism in admissions.

The Trump-era DOJ also had been investigating admissions practices at Harvard. Just as Ivy League schools worked to drive down Jewish student populations in the 1920s, they have been accused of trying to limit Asian admissions in the past generation.

One study by a Princeton University professor found that Asian students needed SAT scores 140 points higher than whites, 270 points higher than Hispanics and 450 points higher than blacks (on a test with a maximum score of 1,600) to be admitted to elite US schools.

Even with such a disadvantage, Asian students make up about 23 percent of the student body at Harvard, but data released by the university in connection with a lawsuit showed that they would account for 43 percent if only academic qualifications were considered.

That lawsuit was filed by an advocacy group for fair admissions. A federal appeals court in Boston ruled last November that Harvard didn’t intentionally discriminate against Asian applicants

February 3, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »