Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Masking America’s Greatest Natural Monuments

By James Bovard | AIER | February 6, 2021

The Biden administration just issued an edict that will spur endless pointless conflicts for Americans seeking to peacefully enjoy hundreds of national parks. On Groundhog Day, the National Park Service (NPS) mandated wearing face masks on all National Park Service lands “when physical distancing cannot be maintained, including “narrow or busy trails, overlooks and historic homes.”

Probably 95% of the Park Service’s 800+ million acres is uncrowded 95% of the time. But the new mandate is an entitlement program for anyone who wants to harass anyone on federal land who is not wearing a mask, regardless of social distancing, wide open spaces, or trails wide enough for 18-wheel trucks.

As the Idaho Statesman noted, “It’s unclear how park officials will enforce Biden’s federal mask mandate.” The Outdoor Society hailed the new regulation: “It is straight forward and very simple to follow, helping to keep everyone safe.” That organization insisted that the policy “is not going to be invasive” but told readers: “If you see violations of the mask requirement: Find the closest ranger or volunteer in the area and let them know.”

Captain Sara Newman, NPS director of Office of Public Health declared, “Getting outside and enjoying our public lands is essential to improving mental and physical health, but we all need to work together to recreate responsibly.” But the latest mask rule will empower legions of zealots to accost, harass, and possibly assault people for failing to obey the latest Pandemic Security Theater mandate.

Mask controversies have already spurred plenty of idiocy in National Parks and other parks:

*At Acadia National Park in Maine, a family complained that a stranger “who may be from Massachusetts intentionally coughed on them for not wearing masks while they were socially distancing during a quaint wedding.”

* In a state park in Massachusetts, at the Hudson Overlook on the Midstate Trail (Ashburnham?), a man spit at two female hikers who were not wearing masks. Police reported: “He explained to them that it was the ‘law’ and that they were selfish. He aggressively turned towards them and stated, ‘I have Covid’ and began spitting at the young females.”

I lead hikes most weekends, usually on the C & O Canal Towpath in Maryland. I tell attendees that masks are optional but kvetching about other hikers wearing or not wearing masks is prohibited. The Towpath – formerly used by mules dragging along barges – is at least 10 feet wide in most places.

Since the hikes are in the Washington area, there is no shortage of people outraged when anyone fails to comply with any government recommendation – even though the trail isn’t narrow. Many zealots follow a simple standard for maskless hikers: “If you see them, scream at them.”

Recently as our hiking group neared a wooden bridge, a 50ish guy coming from the other direction suddenly stopped and looked as horrified as a vampire who had spotted a crucifix.

He lifted his shirt up over his face to provide double protection along with his facial covering, and shouted, “YOU’RE NOT WEARING MASKS!”

“We’re outside. It’s sunny. The wind is blowing,” I replied. The dude was perhaps unaware that Covid transmission hinges on “viral load,” which wasn’t happening on that hike.

“You’re violating the rules!” he proclaimed.

We just kept walking past him.

He turned and shouted at me: “So what—is your beard supposed to be your mask!?!”

I kept going.

And then he hollered: “Your beard is ugly!”

Damn! Me and Rodney Dangerfield – no respect. This learned gentleman was apparently unfamiliar with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration guidance warning that beards make tight masks ineffective. Bummed that the dude didn’t offer me a free razor.

Things got worse after Biden issued an executive order on January 20 that people had to wear masks any time they were on federal property. The edict had an unwritten exemption for Great Leaders – when Biden went to the Lincoln Memorial a few hours after signing the order, he posed by the statue of Abraham Lincoln; neither Lincoln nor Biden were wearing a mask. At a daily press briefing, Biden spokeswoman Jen Psaki scoffed at a reporter’s concern over the apparent crime: “He was celebrating a historic day in our country…. We have bigger things to worry about.”

Regardless, Biden’s order is inflaming legions of junior Stasi across the land. Leading a hike ten days later (and shortly before the NPS mandate), we exited the Towpath and crossed under a bridge where two middle-aged women were standing on an embankment 25 feet away. One of them began shouting and waving her arms.

I looked at her but had no idea what she was saying.

She screamed louder and became even more distraught.

“I can’t understand you,” I hollered at her.

She waved her arms up and down.

I shrugged.

She pulled down her mask: “You’re not wearing masks!”

“We’re outside, it’s windy,” I replied.

“It’s the law! You have to wear a mask on federal property!” she proclaimed.

“It’s an executive order, it’s not a law,” I replied. “Biden didn’t obey it himself.”

When she repeated her denunciation, I refrained from pointing out that she was violating the order because she lowered her mask to berate us.

She tried to buttonhole two other hikers who were bringing up the rear.

“Group? What group? We’re not with a group,” a laggard hiker wisely responded.

Maybe the same woman will be ready with multiple surveillance cameras and a couple of drones to capture video from different angles in case she sees our group again.

Maybe it’s too bad policies for hiking trails on federal land aren’t being set by Rachel Levine, Biden’s designee to be Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services and the first openly transgender federal official to be nominated. Levine made waves when the Pennsylvania Department of Health she headed offered “best practices” advice to people who “attend a large gathering where you might end up having sex.” Unfortunately, the new NPS rules for hikers are much more restrictive than what Levine recommended for Pennsylvania orgies.

The new mask mandate is sanctified with the usual invocations. NPS Deputy Director Shawn Benge declared, “Working with public health officials and following the latest science and guidance, we can make national parks safer for employees, visitors and partners.” But NPS has no data on how many hikers have contracted Covid from passing within shouting distance of other people. If Covid was so contagious that momentary exposure from passing individuals could spread the virus, then almost all the nation’s grocery store clerks would have been struck down early in the pandemic.

But the only “evidence” necessary for this mandate is that many Biden supporters are frightened when they see anyone outside not wearing a mask. The new regulation encourages viewing people not wearing masks as physical assailants who pose an immediate deadly peril to anyone within eyesight. One Twitter user responded to my article on hysterical Covid complaints by warning: “If you approach me without a mask, I’m free to do whatever I need to do in self defense.” That dude had nothing to fear since I go out of my way to avoid frenzied people.

Where does the mask mania mindset lead? Last month, in Glendale, California, a 38-year-old shirtless jogger was arrested for “spitting on random people outdoors, primarily for not wearing a face mask…. Victims of his assaults ranged in age from 13 to 78 years old. In some incidents, the suspect taunted and used racial slurs towards the victims during the assault,” a police statement said. He was charged with “battery, elder abuse and committing a hate crime.”

If Biden has a right to compel everyone to wear a mask in the National Park Service, he would also have the right to dictate that people wear two masks – a policy endorsed by Covid Czar Anthony Fauci on Tuesdays and Thursdays but not on other days of the week. And if Biden has the right to mandate multiple masks, then would he also have the right to dictate that no one can enter a national park unless they prove they have received a Covid vaccine?

A more likely policy is that national parks could simply be shut down as part of a future lockdown strategy. Parking lots at the C & O Towpath were blocked early in the pandemic and there is no reason to presume that could not happen again. What if the Biden administration chooses to “go big” with a nationwide dictate modeled after the Los Angeles edict that banned almost all walking and bicycling in the city, ordering four million people to “to remain in their homes?” That utterly failed to stop the increase in local Covid cases but the media still cheers dramatic gestures, sort of like how the Italian press treated Mussolini.

Americans hiking in national parks and elsewhere should strive to be courteous and stay as far away as possible from people tormented by Covid dread. There are unseen perils when federal policy seeks to placate mass fears rather than protect public safety. Plenty of Americans need to heed the warning a British publication gave to its readers: “Is constantly monitoring COVID rulebreakers wrecking your mental health?”

February 7, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , | Leave a comment

Joe Biden and the Revenge of the Behaviorists (Why Statistical Thinking Can Get You Killed)

By Matthew Ehret | Strategic Culture Foundation | February 3, 2021

As the spirit of patriotism and belief in scientific and technological progress was slowly suffocated throughout the Cold War, the governing class that Russell represented sunk its talons into civilization ever more deeply.

Ninety years ago, Bertrand Russell wrote a book entitled The Scientific Outlook.

In it, the philosopher and sometimes imperial grand strategist made the point that society has become far too complex to be left to democratic institutions. In the modern age of advanced warfare, only a scientific dictatorship could be trusted to lead society, while the thoughtless masses of human cattle should be given the illusion of democracy and freedom. Sovereign nation states must be superseded by world government and thus two parallel cultures, two educations and two moralities must be shaped.

Russell laid out his grim worldview of a master/slave dominated order in the following terms:

“The scientific rulers will provide one kind of education for ordinary men and women and another for those who are to become holders of scientific power. Ordinary men and women will be expected to be docile, industrious, punctual, thoughtless and contented. Of these qualities, probably contentment will be considered the most important. In order to produce it, all the researchers of psycho-analysis, behaviorism and biochemistry will be brought into play… all the boys and girls will learn from an early age to be what is called “cooperative” i.e.: to do exactly what every body else is doing. Initiative will be discouraged in these children, and insubordination, without being punished will be scientifically trained out of them.”

For the elites in Russell’s dystopic world, a different role was envisioned:

“Except for the one matter of loyalty to the world state and to their own order, members of the governing class will be encouraged to be adventurous, and full of initiative. It will be recognized that it is their business to improve scientific techniques and to keep the manual workers contented by means of continual new amusements”.

Twenty three years after writing this, Russell creepily updated his work in the form of a book called The Impact of Science on Society (1953). It was here that the celebrated mathematician and philosopher looked upon the wonderful advances in mass entertainment, psychotropic drugs, and behaviorism saying:

“It may be hoped that in time anybody will be able to persuade anybody of anything if he can catch the patient young and is provided by the State with money and equipment… This subject will make great strides when it is taken up by scientists under a scientific dictatorship. Anaxagoras maintained that snow is black, but no one believed him. The social psychologists of the future will have a number of classes of school children on whom they will try different methods of producing an unshakable conviction that snow is black. Various results will soon be arrived at. First, that the influence of home is obstructive. Second, that not much can be done unless indoctrination begins before the age of ten. Third, that verses set to music and repeatedly intoned are very effective. Fourth, that the opinion that snow is white must be held to show a morbid taste for eccentricity. It is for future scientists to make these maxims precise and discover exactly how much it costs per head to make children believe that snow is black, and how much less it would cost to make them believe it is dark gray.”

The challenge faced by Russell and his co-thinkers was not so much found in the realm of ivory tower theorizing, but rather in the practical world. For how would it be possible to induce a society to accept such conditions when their targets had only recently sacrificed so much to stop global fascism and eugenics during WWII?

The Post-War Takeover

As the spirit of patriotism and belief in scientific and technological progress was slowly suffocated throughout the long night of nuclear terror that was the Cold War, the governing class that Russell represented sunk its talons into civilization ever more deeply.

The target? Sovereign nation states and the cultural dynamics that brought these pesky new institutions into being after the 14th Century dark age which enshrined both the general welfare and the sacredness of the individual into statecraft and law. It was this movement that drove the explosion of new discoveries (and population growth) after the 15th century golden renaissance, leading up to the 1648 Peace of Westphalia and later American Revolution. This was a fire that kept oligarchs up at night and which no amount of water could permanently destroy… and they tried.

During the early decades of the post-WWII age, there was resistance of course. Leaders resistant to the renewed emergence of imperialism stood in defense of humanity’s right to access the Four Freedoms made famous by Franklin Roosevelt.

Dag Hammarskjöld, Enrico Mattei, John Kennedy, MLK, Bobby Kennedy and many other moral leaders were quickly snuffed out as the engines of industrial progress were converted into factories for never-ending wars and cheap consumer goods. Large scale infrastructure and programs of scientific exploration into space and the properties of the atom increasingly fell out of practice as society was compelled to adapt to a new paradigm in the early 1970s.

While Russell spoke well of science, it was never the sort of science that would end poverty or war to which he referred, but rather sciences of entertainment, population control, and behaviorism.

The Post-Industrial Technetronic Age: Brzezinski and Holdren

Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote a book in 1970 entitled Between Two Ages which served as a manifesto for the new Trilateral Commission which was created in 1973 under his lead. In this book, Brzezinski restated Russell’s vision in his own words:

“The technetronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values. Soon it will be possible to assert almost continuous surveillance over every citizen and maintain up-to-date complete files containing even the most personal information about the citizen. These files will be subject to instantaneous retrieval by the authorities.”

At this time, a new social order was unleashed as the dollar was floated on the speculative markets killing the gold-reserve industrial era of Bretton Woods in 1971, tying the U.S. dollar to oil prices in 1973 and ushering in a new deregulated epoch of “everything goes” monetarism, and post-industrial consumerism. Foreseeing this emerging unbounded age of unreason, Brzezinski wrote:

“In the technetronic society the trend seems to be toward aggregating the individual support of millions of unorganized citizens, who are easily within the reach of magnetic and attractive personalities, and effectively exploiting the latest communication techniques to manipulate emotions and control reason.”

Another figure from this nest of sociopaths emerging onto the scene during these years was a young John Holdren whose 1977 book Ecoscience (co-authored with his mentor Paul Ehrlich) outlined his future dystopia with bone chilling detail saying:

“Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime- sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all-natural resources, renewable or non-renewable, at least insofar as international implications exist. Thus, the Regime could have the power to control pollution not only in the atmosphere and oceans, but also in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes that cross international boundaries or that discharge into the oceans. The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade, perhaps including assistance from DCs to LDCs, and including all food on the international market. The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries’ shares within their regional limits. Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits.”

While the late Zbigniew Brzezinski’s career as a senior diplomat, architect of weaponized radical Islam, and later advisor to Barack Obama are well known, lesser known is the person and career of John Holdren.

Resetting Civilization

From 2009-2017 Holdren acted as “science czar” under the Obama administration where the respected climate scientist spearheaded the defunding of NASA space exploration programs, the collapse of nuclear investments, the killing of fusion power and the re-direction of billions of dollars into “sustainable” green energy fiascos such as Solyndra.

Today, Holdren is ecstatic that he might be admitted back into the corridors of power now that the “aberration” of Trump has been removed, and a “scientifically” managed governance agenda is being quickly brought back online.

On January 27, 2021, Biden signed into effect a “Memorandum on Restoring Trust in Government Through Scientific Integrity and Evidence-based Policy Making” which revives the earlier 2009 and 2010 science policy memoranda authored by Holdren. This reform calls for imposing a new Director of the Office of Science and Technology in Policy as a sort of Grand Referee to ensure that “evidence-based” policy making are enforced across all departments and sub-departments of state. Expert councils such as the Chief Data Officers’ Council and Evaluation Officer Councils will be created and empowered to keep all science in alignment with behaviorist operating systems. Biden’s memorandum literally calls for “using behavioral science insights to better service the American people” to define the decision making of the system as a whole.

It is here that the ugliness of Behaviorism and the collapse of real standards of scientific practice show their ugly heads. Many terms and techniques used by Russell’s modern governing class are consciously obscured or sanitized for the lower classes and so I would like to take a bit of time to dwell on two of the most important terms here: 1) Evidence Based Decision making and 2) Economic Behaviorism.

Evidence-Based Lying: Case Study #1

“Evidence-based decision making” may seem harmless on the surface. After all, why would we want to take actions without being informed by “evidence”? However, when one begins to scratch the surface of this term and its real-world applications, a very different picture emerges.

A 2009 article by Dr. Cathy Helgason MD pointed out that evidence-based practices (in her case, those shaping the medical practice field), stating:

“It has become clear to me that evidence-based medicine either was in its original intent, or has become, a budget cutting and potential population-control measure. Because it is wrapped up in scientific-sounding rhetoric, it has captured the attention of well-meaning physicians who want to incorporate science into their decisions, and has been sold to the public as an advancement in care.”

In her article, Dr. Helgason points out that doctors conditioned to follow such standards lose their fundamentally human ability to judge, diagnose and treat diseases which often lurk below the surface of data which computer models might pick up and transmit as probabilistic “answers” for what may or may not be wrong with a patient.

As one example, take the case of thousands of coronavirus patients whose intubations induced their deaths since “evidence-based” protocols (a LiveScience analysis reported that 9 out of 10 patients intubated on ventilators ended up dying in one major New York hospital). When frontline doctors like Dr. Kyle Sidell began making the case that COVID-19 symptoms are more akin to high altitude sickness (wherein alveoli in the lungs fail) rather than the typical flu-based respiratory problems, he was silenced for his “heresy”, and intubation was continued under the guise of “evidence-based best practice”.

When looking at how COVID-19 mortality statistics are gathered, one should not be surprised to discover that World Health Organization expert councils have mandated that all deaths be labelled “COVID-19” even if the patient died of heart attack, brain hemorrhage or broken neck while having tested positive for COVID-19. How does that affect the reading of the statistics which experts are projecting into the mass psyche?

Evidence-Based Lying: Case Study #2

Another example of the misuse of statistics can be found in large scale energy policy reforms being driven by the apparent need to lower world temperatures by 1.5 degrees in 30 years.

Sounds pretty noble right?

But what if the data sets being used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s computer models are flawed? What if vast swaths of data sets and higher astrophysical variables shaping climate change are being overlooked in the effort to transform mass behavior in accord with a technocratic elite?

What if the experts deciding which data sets used by climate models are consciously or unconsciously ignoring all data which disproves the conclusions built into their models, as Michael Mann’s now infamously fraudulent hockey stick chart demonstrates? What if increased cooling in Antarctica is ignored while increasingly CO2 detectors near active CO2-spewing volcanic zones like Mauna Loa are kept active? Can this data still be trusted? What about the 2009 and 2011 leaked emails from East Anglia climate scientists that shape all IPCC models demonstrated a vast coverup of data to justify apocalyptic outcomes for political agendas?

What if a closer inspection of CO2:Temperature relationship actually ends up showing that climate change does not follow but is rather followed by CO2 variability? What other factors cause the heating or cooling of the earth other than carbon dioxide? How could we ever find out if we are told the question isn’t worth asking because the scientific debate is over?

While contemplating these matters, the question should always emerge:

Who would benefit by all this sleight of hand? Who would want humanity to falsely adopt fearful and self-loathing states of mind in order to drastically alter its behavior?

Could feelings of mass-fear and shame possibly render humankind more pliable and perhaps more inclined to acquiesce to a Great Reset and Green Central Bankers’ dictatorship?

As Bill Gates’ favorite book How to Lie with Statistics (1954) makes clear: “a well-wrapped statistic is better than Hitler’s Big Lie; it misleads, yet it cannot be pinned on you.”

Since statistics and evidence-based thinking are the bedrocks of Behaviorism, and since the Behaviorists of the Obama era are consolidating their power under Biden, it is now worth saying a few words about Behaviorism.

Behaviorism: Fascism By Another Name

Ignoring the fact that Behaviorism has gotten a lot of positive press in recent years (one of the leading behaviorists Richard Thaler who co-authored Nudge with fellow behaviorist Cass Sunstein, was even awarded the Nobel Prize in economics in 2017), it isn’t an exaggeration to say that the school of thought is fundamentally fascist in its nature.

Why do I say this?

Well, the easy answer is to re-read Holdren’s own words from 1977 cited above and trace out his life’s policy actions. That’s the sledgehammer answer.

The more subtle but useful answer can be found in Holdren’s recent December 2020 interview on science policy in the upcoming Biden Administration (wherein he most certainly hopes to have a role):

“It is very important that, in talking about these matters, scientists separate what they know or believe as scientists from what they prefer as citizens in terms of public policy. It’s very important to distinguish between issues of fact and issues of values and preferences.”

In Holdren’s eyes, “science” and “values” are two opposing worlds.

The unscientific person might think naively that depopulation is atrocious or that a society run by an unelected master class of technicians is offensive to morality, but that is just our “subjective pollution” talking. The priest of science knows that statistical data sets and computer models are the best and only substitute for 1) mapping out and 2) manipulating reality.

For a behaviourist, subjective phenomena such as Love, Justice, Beauty, Free Will and Intentions are non-scientific pollution.

The educated behaviourist seeks only to find materialistic explanations for measurable behavior without resorting to unscientific concepts like “soul” or “mind” or “God” (these concepts being transcendental, immeasurable, unweighable and thus non-existent).

For similar reasons, concepts like “universals”, “Truth”, “Good”, “Evil” are also considered deplorable non-entities to the “scientific thinker” of Holdren’s calibre. Metaphysical gobbledygook and nothing more.

A Word on B.F. Skinner

The founder of modern radical Behaviorism, B.F. Skinner (1904-1990) was himself very candid about the scientific management of society when he wrote “Beyond Freedom and Dignity” (1971) saying that the behavioral scientist of the new post-industrial age must avoid at all costs concepts like dignity, freedom, good or evil:

“We can follow the path taken by physics and biology by turning directly to the relation between behavior and the environments and neglecting supposed mediating states of mind. We do not need to try to discover what personality, states of mind, feelings, traits of character, plans, purposes, intentions or the other prerequisites of autonomous man really are in order to get on with a scientific analysis of behavior”.

All that exists in this cold soulless world are clusters of ants calling themselves “human”, propelled by electro-neural signals masquerading as free will and urges for sex, dominance over the weak and sensual pleasure.

In a typical case of oligarchical projection, Skinner says clearly: 

“we must remember that wars begin in the minds of men, that there is something suicidal in man – a death instinct perhaps – which leads to war, and that man is aggressive by nature”.

And so, you see, in the minds of Skinner, Holdren, Brzezinski, or any of the giddy technocrats managing the Great Reset, it isn’t “empires” or “oligarchs striving to enslave humanity” which are the causes of humanity’s problems.

The enemy of man is in fact man himself.

And for this unfortunate “fact”, it is the duty of the elite to save mankind from himself.

If that means cleansing society of its traditional values that have deluded him into believing that such notions as Family, Nation, God, Progress or Soul are somehow sacred, then so be it. In his vicious tautology, the behaviorist high priest concludes that these ideas must be cleansed- for if they were not destroyed, then humanity would forever resist a return to feudalism under a scientific dictatorship.

Contact the author: Canadianpatriot1776@tutamail.com

February 7, 2021 Posted by | Book Review, Civil Liberties, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | | Leave a comment

Senator Marco Rubio Introduces Bill to Suspend Gun Rights of Anyone ever “Investigated” for Domestic Terrorism

By Eric Striker – National Justice – February 7, 2021

Republican lawmaker Marco Rubio has reintroduced legislation that seeks to suspend the Second Amendment rights of any person who has been investigated for “terrorism” related offenses within 10 years of attempting a gun purchase.

The Senate bill, named the Terror Intelligence Improvement Act, was reentered last week in hopes of exploiting the hysteria surrounding the January 6th Capitol protests. The law intends to violate the civil liberties of American citizens who are not charged or convicted of a crime if somebody is deemed politically dangerous.

If passed, the law will grant the FBI and DNI the authority to draw up lists of US citizens arbitrarily labeled “domestic terrorists” and flag them during background checks. Those placed on the new watch list could be registered based solely on suspicion, even if an investigation fails to find evidence of criminal or “terrorist” wrongdoing. Federal courts that have examined the FBI’s various “terrorist watch lists” uncovered that the Bureau regularly places law-abiding citizens on them because they don’t like who they are or their political views.

While Rubio’s bill does provide optional redress for those targeted to obtain counsel and fight their designation, it would require individuals not charged or convicted of a crime to have to spend enormous amounts of money and time and gamble on getting a judge that upholds the Constitution just so they can exercise their gun rights.

As ongoing challenges to comparatively weaker state red flag law abuses show, challenging such decisions or even figuring out how they’re made is like pulling teeth.

The mixed record attorneys have had in combating the excesses of the Patriot Act since 2001 show that this mitigation option will largely be ignored by judges and those listed. While Muslim victims of federal surveillance and harassment power can sometimes count on the ACLU and others to defend their rights, said groups make it a point to refuse service to ordinary white people who have their civil liberties trampled.

The law’s threshold for being put on the list is low. Under Rubio’s legislation, being “investigated” for “domestic terrorism” — a vaguely interpreted offense mainly defined by partisan journalists and NGOs — which potentially millions of non-leftist Americans could be subjected to today, would nullify your ability to purchase a firearm.

Reporting done by Tucker Carlson Tonight recently revealed that the FBI collected the bank records of hundreds of people who traveled or made purchases in Washington DC on 1/6 without a warrant. A hotel worker who had attended the Trump rally near the Capitol but did not enter the building was investigated by the FBI, even though they had no probable cause to do so. The FBI would have the authority to put the aforementioned on this new list, without any meaningful checks and balances.

Rubio’s brazen attack on the Second Amendment is a testament to the organizational decline of the National Rifle Association. In 2015, Senator Rubio, who at the time had Presidential ambitions, led the fight against Senate Democrats when they tried to pass an almost identical bill.

Today, Rubio somehow maintains an A+ rating on the NRA’s website despite being a leading advocate for federal red flag laws and now, political blacklists that will disproportionately harm his own voters.

Laws like the Terror Intelligence Improvement Act are clogging up the Congressional agenda. Support for a dirty war against millions of red state Americans is bipartisan.

February 7, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties | | Leave a comment

Big Media v. Marjorie Greene and Lou Dobbs

By Stephen Lendman | February 7, 2021

Instead of exposing and denouncing 2020 election rigging for Biden over Trump, establishment media cheerled the outcome.

They’ve been hostile toward everything Trump related and his supporters.

Instead of slamming what happened to Rep. Marjorie Greene and Fox News host Lou Dobbs, they expressed support for the constitutional breach of their First Amendment rights.

The hostile to truth and full disclosure NYT slammed Greene as an “QAnon congresswoman, a far-right influencer and gun fanatic who dabbles in anti-Semitism and anti-Muslim bigotry,” followed by a further litany of over-the-top remarks that were all about her support for Trump.

Bezos owned, CIA-linked WaPo called her a “dangerous (GOP) crackpot (with an) extensive history of offensive conspiracy theorizing.”

According to WaPo, the Times, and other Big Media, Trump supporters are crackpot right-wing extremists for daring to challenge the official narrative — especially about the 9/11 mother of all US state-sponsored false flags, its imperial wars, and 2020 election rigging for Biden over DJT.

The Times called what led to stripping her of committee assignments “another chapter in an ongoing story: the two-step between the far right and the Republican Party and the degree to which the former is never actually that far from the latter.”

Ignored by the Times and other Big Media is that both wings of US one-party rule are hostile to an open, free society — undemocratic Dems outdistancing Republicans on issues related to warmaking on humanity at home and abroad.

WaPo said “Republicans should have sidelined” Greene straightaway, calling her appointment to House committees “abhorrent,” adding:

Support by most GOP “colleagues (is) one more sign of the… morally adrift party.”

“Thursday’s vote should never have had to happen.”

“Republicans should have had more self-respect than to support her last year, to welcome her with full honors and to allow the situation to escalate as it did.”

If Greene was anti-Trump, pro-Biden/Harris, demonizing articles about her by WaPo and the Times never would have been written.

The Times expressed support for action by Fox News to cancel Lou Dobbs Tonight.

In typical Times disinformation fashion, it called his program a “clearinghouse for baseless theories of electoral fraud in the weeks after Mr. Trump lost the 2020 presidential race (sic).”

There’s nothing “baseless” about indisputable election fraud — supported by the Times instead of exposing and denouncing it.

The Times cited an unnamed source — that may or may not exist because of dubious anonymity — allegedly saying:

“Dobbs’ extreme and unrepentant endorsements of Mr. Trump’s false election claims had imperiled his position.”

There’s nothing remotely false about claims proved true by indisputable evidence.

Like the Times, WaPo called Dobbs a “promoter of Trump’s false election fraud claims” — that evidence proved true no matter how hard Big Media try sweeping what’s indisputable under the rug.

Reached by WaPo text message on Friday, Dobbs said he had “no comment at this time.”

Until the unacceptable lawsuit is resolved, his lawyer(s) surely advised against commenting on the issue publicly.

Corporate controlled voting machines manipulate US election results with electronic ease.

Other techniques include ballot box stuffing, undercounting, double-counting, disenfranchising unwanted voters, demonizing candidates considered unacceptable by powerful interests, among other dirty tricks to prevent democratic outcomes.

Dirty tricks have been longstanding in US federal, state and local elections since at least the early 19th century.

Today’s sophisticated software makes losers winners and the other way around with nary a fingerprint to trace.

Throughout his time in office, Trump has been wrong on one issue after another.

On all things Election 2020 he’s right, brazen fraud deprived him of another term.

History one day will set things straight when it’s too late to matter except for the official record.

Biden/Harris entered office illegitimately — selected, not elected on January 20 while winner Trump was en route to Florida aboard Air Force One for the last time.

February 7, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , | Leave a comment

There WAS a color revolution in the US after all – its architects now boast they ‘fortified’ the 2020 election

By Nebojsa Malic | RT | February 5, 2021

The 2020 US presidential elections wasn’t “rigged,” oh no, but “fortified” by a conspiracy of activists united in saving “Our Democracy” from the Bad Orange Man, now proud to share their story in a friendly tell-all piece in TIME.

“There was a conspiracy unfolding behind the scenes,” writes Molly Ball – a biographer of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, by the way – in TIME magazine this week, describing it as a “vast, cross-partisan campaign to protect the election – an extraordinary shadow effort.”

Ball’s article reveals a lot, from why there were no street riots by Democrats either on November 4 or on January 6 – the organizers of this “conspiracy” stopped them – to who was behind the push to alter election rules in key states and set up mail-in voting, who organized “information” campaigns about the results of the election, and who even threatened election officials into making the “right” decision to certify the vote.

While everyone – myself included – was focused on the summer riots as a possible “color revolution,” they turned out to be misdirection. According to TIME, the real action was taking place behind the scenes, as Democrat activists and unions joined forces with NeverTrump Republicans, Chamber of Commerce, corporations, and Big Tech to make sure the 2020 election turns out the way they wanted. They call this a victory of democracy and the will of the people, of course, for no one is ever a villain in their own story.

“Their work touched every aspect of the election,” Ball writes, from getting states to “change voting system laws” and fending off “voter-suppression lawsuits,” to recruiting “armies” of poll workers and pressuring social media companies to “take a harder line against disinformation.”

Then, after Election Day, “they monitored every pressure point to ensure that Trump could not overturn the result.” Alarmed yet? Maybe you should be.

So who are these shadowy saviors of Our Democracy? One of them is union organizer Mike Podhorzer of AFL-CIO, a traditional Democrat powerhouse. Another is Ian Bassin, associate White House counsel in Barack Obama’s first administration. The roster of his “nonpartisan, rule-of-law” outfit called Protect Democracy includes a lot of Obama lawyers, a John McCain campaign aide, an editor from the defunct neocon Weekly Standard, and someone from SPLC, while among their advisers is the NeverTrump failed presidential candidate and ex-CIA spy Evan McMullin.

Bear that in mind when you read Bassin’s quote that “Every attempt to interfere with the proper outcome of the election was defeated,” (emphasis added) but “it’s massively important for the country to understand that it didn’t happen accidentally. The system didn’t work magically. Democracy is not self-executing.” Chilling words.

A leading member of this effort is Norm Eisen, another White House counsel under Obama. The pro-Trump Revolver News even raised the alarm about Eisen plotting a “color revolution” in September – but by then it was too late, even if anyone had been paying attention.

By then, the National Vote at Home Institute – an organization barely two years old, and part of the effort – had already instructed secretaries of state across the US with “technical advice on everything from which vendors to use to how to locate drop boxes,” and even provided them “communications tool kits,” i.e. talking points.

In November 2019 – a full year before the election! – Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg hosted “nine civil rights leaders” for dinner, one of whom was Vanita Gupta, Obama’s assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights. It was part of this shadowy coalition’s campaign for “more rigorous rules and enforcement” on social media platforms – just in case you were wondering how Trump ended up deplatformed, or the New York Post’s story about Hunter Biden’s laptop got suppressed before the election.

Podhorzer’s messaging efforts were informed by Anat Shenker-Osorio, who “applies tools from cognitive science and linguistics in her work with progressive organizations globally,” according to her 2018 fellowship bio from George Soros’s Open Society Foundation. Ironically, as part of their pressure on Big Tech Democrats had whipped up a moral panic about super-targeted “Russian” internet memes that somehow “influenced” the 2016 election – yet Ball’s article says that two groups involved with the conspiracy “created state-specific memes and graphics, spread by email, text, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and TikTok, urging that every vote be counted.”

Though Ball doesn’t mention it specifically, those Twitter and Facebook “pre-bunking” labels about safety of mail-in ballots and the winner not being known on Election Day are also the activists’ talking points.

Remember how Republican observers were thrown out of the ballot-counting facility in Detroit? Reports at the time said it was because of overcrowding, but the Time article reveals that a Democrat activist mobilized “dozens of reinforcements” to “provide a counterweight” to them, so eventually “racial-justice activists from Detroit Will Breathe worked alongside suburban women from Fems for Dems and local elected officials.”

It was activists who came up with a strategy of denouncing any challenge to Detroit vote counts as racist, too.

When President Donald Trump asked Michigan’s Republican-majority legislators to challenge the results, Eisen called it “the scariest moment” of the election, and the “democracy defenders” sprung into action.

Eisen’s lawyers dug up dirt on the two lawmakers invited to Washington, activists hounded them at airports, NeverTrump Republicans made calls to party friends, and Bassin’s outfit commissioned an op-ed threatening criminal charges by Michigan’s Democrat AG – whose office then retweeted it. The two were even picketed at the Trump Hotel in DC. The brigading eventually worked, as Michigan Republicans agreed to certify the elections – and other contested states followed.

Perhaps the most intriguing part is buried towards the end. Ball reveals that she got a text from Podhorzer – the AFL-CIO organizer – on the morning of January 6, hours before what the Democrats would describe as “insurrection” by Trump supporters at the US Capitol, saying that the “activist left” was “strenuously discouraging counter activity” in order to “preserve safety and ensure they couldn’t be blamed for any mayhem.”

How did Podhorzer know there would be “mayhem,” hours before the “storming” of the Capitol that Democrats claim Trump “incited” at the rally outside the White House at noon? It’s a mystery.

What’s not a mystery is the result of the “conspiracy” Ball has revealed: a de facto one-party state in which Democrats hold absolute power at every level of government and seek to prosecute dissent and disenfranchise the opposition.

Last month, with no inkling of the behind-the-scenes operation just revealed in Time, I wrote of a non-kinetic “fifth-generation” civil war that had unfolded as “a battle for hearts and minds, a series of psychological operations that played out on the media, political and economic fronts.” I argued it had successfully swapped the American Republic for something called “Our Democracy,” which maintains the form but has a radically different content.

One of the “heroes” of Ball’s piece, NeverTrump Republican Jeff Timmer, has a quote in the article about how “Our democracy only survives if we all believe and don’t look down,” referring to the cartoon character Wile E. Coyote.

It’s an interesting admission, as the coyote is the villain of those cartoons – and the one actually immune to the effects of gravity is the roadrunner bird. But you’re not supposed to notice this – and besides, noticing will soon be a crime in Our Democracy.

Nebojsa Malic is a Serbian-American journalist, blogger and translator, who wrote a regular column for Antiwar.com from 2000 to 2015, and is now senior writer at RT. Follow him on Telegram @TheNebulator

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

Revoking CGTN’s Licence is Attack on Freedom of Speech, Part of Broader UK-China Row

By Ekaterina Blinova – Sputnik – 06.02.2021

On 4 February, the Office of Communications, the UK government-approved regulatory body commonly known as Ofcom, announced that it had withdrawn the licence for China Global Television Network (CGTN) to broadcast in the UK.

China Global Television Network has been banned by Ofcom in the UK on the pretext that Star China Media Limited (SCML), the licence-holder for the broadcaster, did not have editorial responsibility for the latter’s output; and that an entity called China Global Television Network Corporation (CGTNC), which exercises general control over the broadcaster, cannot hold the licence since it is controlled by the Chinese government.

On 5 February, the Information Department of the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs accused the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) of pushing “fake news” in its 29 January coverage of the People’s Republic’s tackling the pandemic. According to the ministry’s statement, the BBC video linked COVID-19 with politics and hyped up topics concerning the origins of the virus. Beijing urged the BBC to offer public apologies to China, adding that it “reserves the right to take further measures“. In response, the BBC said it stood by the story, rejecting the accusations of “fake news or ideological bias”.

Freedom of Speech is Under Attack

The revocation of licence for CGTN seems surprising given that the regulator did not mention any complaint regarding the content provided by the broadcaster, according to Earl Rasmussen, executive vice-president of Eurasia Centre. When it comes to CGTN’s links to the Chinese Communist Party, one should bear in mind that the BBC has an obvious connection with the British government, the scholar adds.

Indeed, according to the BBC website, four of the non-executive members are specifically appointed as members for each of the nations of the UK, and “the chairman and the non-executive members for the nations are appointed by HM The Queen on the recommendation of ministers while the other members of the Board are appointed by the BBC through the Board’s Nominations Committee”.

So, when one talks about one’s editorial independence, one can hardly say that the BBC is “independent” in this respect, says Andy Vermaut, a Belgian human rights activist and political commentator. He suggests that the UK is “preparing a new cold war, where China and the Chinese voice in society is cut short and another dimensional voice is not allowed”, adding that “this is diametrically opposed to the British model which supposedly promotes freedom of the press”.

“What channel and country will be next?” Vermaut asks.Although London could regard CGTN’s narrative as “pretty unpleasant” it’s unclear why the UK decided to ban it “because after all, this was a satellite station”, according to Andrew Tettenborn, professor of Law at Swansea University.

“I believe this is politically motivated and a move to steer the narrative that is presented to the public, essentially a form of censorship to silence dissident or countering voices,” Rasmussen says. “In a free and open society it is important that we are able to obtain differing perspectives and to promote a diversity of thought. However, the UK has now lost the perspective and voice of the world’s largest economy and one of the most globally influential countries. It is a sad day for the freedom of the press, freedom of speech and democracy.”The trend of limiting “the spectrum of conversation” goes beyond Ofcom’s actions, warns Gordon Dimmack, an independent media reporter: “Media freedoms in the UK and worldwide have been constricted ever more so over the past few years, and I expect that to continue”, he adds in an apparent reference to the US Big Tech wiping out accounts of former President Donald Trump and his ardent supporters in the wake of the Capitol Hill riots, and suppression earlier of The New York Post’s reporting of the supposed foreign business dealings of Joe Biden’s son, Hunter.

Revocation of CGTN’s Licence is Part of a Broader Trend

Ofcom’s move is yet another sign of deteriorating relations between London and Beijing, deems Kerry Brown, professor of Chinese studies and director of the Lau China Institute at King’s College, London.

“I think the UK is aligned with America on a relatively soft target because it’s kind of saying that it’s going to do something like America did with Xinhua and other news agencies about 18 months ago,” the professor says. “This is not a kind of huge move because the CGTN wasn’t a big player. It’s not important for Britain. It’s a way that Britain wants to show solidarity with America. And also the ruling Conservative Party in Britain shows that they’re trying to be tough on China without any hugely consequential outcomes at the moment”.Although the Johnson government previously indicated that it was willing to enhance UK-China ties in the post-Brexit era, tensions between the two countries have escalated over the past few years. Thus, No 10 abruptly reversed its plans to use 5G Huawei equipment in its next-generation wireless networks because of pressure from Washington. The UK also joined the US-led chorus of nations who pinned the blame for the pandemic spread on Beijing and questioned the coronavirus’s origins.

To complicate matters even further, in 2020 the UK offered a path to citizenship for around 3 million Hong Kongers with British National (Overseas) status, accusing the People’s Republic of breaking the terms of the 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration after Beijing formally adopted a new security law in Hong Kong. Once the British scheme came into force in January 2021, China declared that it would no longer recognise the passports of British national overseas citizens as a travel or ID document, and “reserves the right to take further actions”.

China is Facing Growing Challenges from Western & Indo-Pacific States

Beijing is unlikely to ignore Ofcom’s insult and may take it out on the BBC, believes Jeff J. Brown, editor of China Rising Radio Sinoland: “Beijing could possibly react by reducing the number of its staff in-country, but would be unlikely to kick them out”, he suggests.

Citing the Chinese Foreign Ministry statement accusing the BBC of political bias, Kerry Brown suggests that this move could be seen as a backlash for stripping CGTN of its broadcasting licence.

“One way China will hit back is by basically attacking the credibility of the BBC,” he says. “The BBC has been a big problem for China for many decades. I think they’re basically escalating their kind of language towards the BBC. One of the issues is that obviously China is very sensitive about this responsibility for the beginning of the COVID-19 outbreak and has said that it’s been unfairly blamed and it was kind of not willing to share information”.Though it would appear that Beijing sees the UK now “as easier to attack because it’s not in the EU” and “a more isolated target”, China is now facing a growing challenge from a number of states, aside from the EU, including the US, Australia and others, according to the professor.

On 22 November, the UK’s influential conservative think tank Policy Exchange issued a report calling upon British allies and partners to team up in order to confront China’s rise and advocating the British naval build up in the South China Sea along with the US forces. According to the think tank, the report “reflects a broad consensus of views on Britain’s role in the Indo-Pacific region” voiced by former political and military leaders of the UK, Canada, the US, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea, India, Sri Lanka, and Indonesia.

“I don’t think that [China’s] argument with the UK is necessarily going to escalate, but I don’t think it’s going to improve”, Brown says. “I think that the relationship is now in a period of long-term negativity. And I don’t think that that’s going to change for some while. I think this is the new normal”.

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

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

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »