Heavy Lies the Crown: POTUS Biden Totally Loses the Plot As NATO’s Narrative Implodes
By Declan Hayes | Strategic Culture Foundation | July 3, 2023
First off, hats off to young Hafez Bashar Assad, who recently aced a Master’s degree in Pure Mathematics from Russia’s prestigious Moscow State University which has, in the course of its long and glorious history, produced several Fields Medals winners. May young Hafez go on to similarly great things.
Hafez was, some years back, the subject of oceans of ire when he represented Syria in the Math Olympics, a competition I have some familiarity with, as friends of mine represented Ireland in years gone by. And though those young Irishmen went on to be awarded PhDs from the world’s most prestigious universities and land jobs with mouth-watering salaries from the world’s most prestigious companies, like young Hafez, they got nowhere at the Math Olympics because they lacked the in-depth 24/7 tutoring the United States’ Ivy League Professors give the young (generally Chinese) charges, who compete under the Yankee flag.
So well done, young Hafez and congratulations, too, to your beautiful, urbane, cosmopolitan, multi-lingual, great and gracious mother, Asma Assad, proudly hugging you after you were awarded your degree. I know of no current or former First Lady, who is in her league in terms of elegance, grace, brains or sheer good manners and your father, Syrian President Bashar Assad, certainly hit the jackpot when he landed that Damask Rose. He is a lucky and blessed man.
Moving from Moscow to Kiev, we see that former Irish President and serial grifter Mary Robinson and Swedish propagandist Greta Thunberg are on a jolly there to advise Clown Prince Zelensky on matters concerning the environment. As 20 year old Greta has only recently graduated High School, at an age when most others would be whistling through their undergraduate degrees, one wonders if this slow learner will stay as silent on NATO’s use of depleted uranium as she has been on the Nordstream terrorist attack, the greatest ecological crime of our era.
Not that I care as Greta, and Mary Robinson are, like Clown Prince Zelensky himself, media creations, all tinsel and no substance. NATO’s Zelensky regime must be really scraping the barrel if that is the best they can do.
But the bottom of the barrel is all NATO seems to have left. French dictator Macron spends his time attending Elton John 1970s’ retro concerts as France burns down around him. The best that Britain can do is to ban Nigel Farage from having a bank account and keep POW Julian Assange on ice for their American masters.
Stella Moris, Julian’s wife, was recently in Rome where, appropriately dressed, she met Pope Francis, who has also recently honoured British film-maker Ken Loach, who was recently expelled from the British Labour Party. Say what you like about Julian Assange and, irrespective as to whether the British will murder him or hand him over to the Yanks for further torture sessions, he is blessed to have such a woman standing foursquare beside him.
Although all of these singularities would have been noted in Washington, it is doubtful if they registered with Creepy Joe Biden, the Don Vittorio of the NATO organised crime gang. Don Vittorio, you may recall, is the senile Italian Mafia godfather, who appeared in The Sopranos a few seasons before fellow mafia mobster Junior also succumbed to dementia.
Although, as Biden claims Putin, in some parallel world, may be losing the war in Iraq, in this world Creepy Joe is most definitely losing the 2024 Presidential war to Donald Trump and Bobby Kennedy. Although Oddslotter still has him favourite to be re-elected, Biden’s place is in the dock as a war criminal and then off to an old folks’ home to be heard from no more.
The threats that Trump and Kennedy pose are not so much personal threats to Creepy Joe as they are to the gangster system he presides over. Trump is a threat because he says what others will not say: that the United States is a predatory state that robs and loots at will. And Kennedy is a threat because he points out the threats Big Pharma’s greed pose to all Americans and Big Pharma’s spokespersons like notorious narcissist Dr. Peter Hotez, won’t even debate him on Joe Rogan’s show for over $1 million in cash.
Although neither of these challengers criticise Israel, such criticisms are inconceivable because of the nature of NATO’s gangsterism. Palestinians are little more than plastic ducks at a shooting arcade and heaven help any “anti-Semite” who might argue otherwise.
But even argument itself is now haram in NATOstan. Donald Trump, remember, was banned from social media when he was POTUS, supposedly the world’s most powerful position. Germany’s Greens, perhaps trying to reconnect to their Nazis past, have persecuted their own citizens for not being sufficiently Russophobic and Australia, Canada and Vichy Ireland are, as part of NATO’s plans of world conquest, introducing the most draconian hate speech laws that have drawn the ire of Joe Rogan, Tucker Carlson and Elon Musk.
And there is the rub. Rogan, Carlson and Musk are forming the backbone of an opposition that believe in such things as free speech and free, open and honest debate and such things present an existential threat to Biden and his fellow-fraudsters.
In my earlier paeon to Asma Assad, I used an abundance of adjectives to try to give Syria’s First Lady her well-earned due. However, at days’ end, she is a wife, a mother and a woman, a wonderful adult female in other words and not a cisgender or a transgender, phrases that Biden’s handlers have shanghaied from the British and Roman Empires where Transjordan and Cisjordan were, still are and will always be divided by the Jordan River and Gaul and Cisgaul were, still are and will always be divided by the mighty Alps. You do not need Hafez Assad’s Master’s Degree in Pure Mathematics to know no such demarcations apply to sovereign womanhood and nor do you even need Greta Thunberg’s hard-earned High School diploma. What you need is a degree of honesty and common sense and, because they are attributes Creepy Joe and his whore-bonking son Hunter cashed in years ago, all of Creepy Joe’s dodgy deals are now coming home to roost.
And, just as the Alps and the Jordan divide for all time the Cis from the rest, so also in our own time do the mountains and rivers of honesty and truth divide the Creepy Joe Bidens and Mary Robinsons from the great and the good, from Stella Moris, Gonzalo Lira, Hafez and Asma Assad, all of whom affirm the words of Irish martyr Terence MacSwiney that “it is not those who can inflict the most, but those who can endure the most, who will prevail”.
And, it is because of good, great and immortal people like Asma Assad that Damascus itself has prevailed against Biden’s Beast of the Apocalypse. Let us, as we conclude, recall Mark Twain’s recollections of that eternal city: “We shall remember… Damascus, the Pearl of the East, the pride of Syria, the fabled garden of Eden, the home of princes and genii of the Arabian Nights, the oldest metropolis on Earth, the one city in all the world that has kept its name and held its place and looked serenely on while the Kingdoms and Empires of four thousand years have risen to life, enjoyed their little season of pride and pomp, and then vanished and been forgotten.”
And, as Eternal Damascus and her eternally gallant allies prepare to consign Biden, NATOstan’s faux Little Caesar, to the trash bin of history, let us salute not only Hafez and Asma Assad on their recent fortune but all of the great and good people of Syria, Palestine, Serbia, China and Russia who, at great cost, defied NATO and carried the banners of humanity not only for the Assange and Lira families but for all of us in the face of the butchers Biden, Macron and Zelensky sent against them. May God bless them and their protectors, the heroic men and women of the Syrian Arab Army, now and forever.
The character assassination of Robert F Kennedy Jr
By Niall McCrae | TCW Defending Freedom | July 3, 2023
Will there be another dead Kennedy? I hope not to tempt fate, but as a Democrat nomination candidate for the US presidential election next year, Robert F Kennedy Jr is making himself a target. He rejects the official narrative on Covid-19 and Ukraine, and he rails against Big Pharma, corrupt federal authorities and militaristic foreign policy. The Democratic Party wants to keep the octogenarian and cognitively suspect incumbent Joe Biden, whom many people see as a puppet of the Deep State, struggling to read from an autocue.
Already being RFK is being attacked, albeit by the pen rather than the sword. Liberal-progressive media are troubled by his rise in the polls. First they ignored him; then they ridiculed him; now they are desperately denouncing him as a harmful interference in ‘democracy’ (a term that means something different to the elite than to you and me). Among the latest hit jobs, the Washington Post argued that RFK should be running as a Republican, as that’s where the anti-vaccine constituency lies. A Daily Mail column described him as a serial misogynist (journalists are less concerned with the sitting president’s proclivity for fondling little girls and sniffing their hair).
A recent diatribe in the Los Angeles Times by Michael Hiltzik is so bad that it’s good. RFK had appeared on a 90-minute ‘town hall’ programme on the cable channel News Nation on June 27. Hiltzik wondered why. A similar format featuring Donald Trump on CNN was supposed to be taken by broadcasters as a clear message that nothing can be gained from giving a platform to bombasts and conspiracy theorists. Trump had played to the gallery and taken control of the debate, interrupting and haranguing the weak presenter. Fact-checking ‘quackery’ on a live show is futile.
Although RFK is up to around 20 per cent in polling as a challenger to Biden, Hiltzik belittled him as ‘a fringe candidate for the Democratic Party nomination’. He suggested ulterior motives: ‘perhaps News Nation is trying to assume the mantle of Fox News as a dispenser of right-wing twaddle, or (to be more charitable) of CNN as a sober neutral voice’. To regard (actually, to disregard) CNN as a fair, unbiased medium shows how once-trusted organs such as the Los Angeles Times have become polarised.
RFK performed in a controlled setting, before a small audience in Chicago, but Hiltzik complained that moderator Elizabeth Vargas was ‘ill-equipped to counter Kennedy’s elaborate web of misinformation about vaccines’. Actually, Vargas did not raise the topic of vaccines until near the end of the debate. This should have come first, Hiltzik averred, ‘because Kennedy’s anti-vaccination stance is a major element of his presidential campaign . . . that’s what makes him a public health hazard’.
As a business editor, Hiltzik is unlikely to have a fraction of the knowledge gained by RFK on vaccines over decades of research. But he felt qualified to rebut the claims of the Democrat pretender. After denying that he is ‘anti-vaccine’, Kennedy asserted that vaccines should be tested like other medicines, but ‘of 72 vaccine doses mandated for American children, not one has ever been subjected to a prelicensing placebo-controlled trial’. ‘Yes, they have,’ Vargas responded. But Hiltzik was exasperated by the host’s failure to ‘catch Kennedy’s deceptive sleight of hand’. RFK is wrong, according to Hiltzik, as a placebo such as an inert saline injection would be unethical; instead, a new product needs only to perform better than an existing vaccine, not by depriving study participants of potentially life-saving immunisation. Naïve to this Big Pharma stitch-up, Hiltzik believes the propaganda that vaccines have ‘all gone through phased trials mandated by the Food and Drug Administration to determine their safety and gauge their efficacy.’
Quite reasonably, RFK told the New Nation audience that vaccines should be properly tested for long-term risks. Hiltzik scoffed: ‘Does he mean one year? Five years? Thirty years? Some diseases take that long after exposure to manifest themselves. Is 30 years an appropriate period to wait?’
Kennedy focused on two specific vaccines. There is considerable evidence of the chickenpox vaccine, mandated for children in every state of the US, causing outbreaks of shingles in adulthood. Googling it, Hiltzik found the predictable array of pro-vaccine medical authorities denying any link between the vaccine and this painful rash.
The second vaccine of concern was for hepatitis B, a disease transmitted through sexual contact or bodily fluids. RFK asked why this is mandated for young children, but Hiltzik glibly explained that a mother of unknown infection could pass the virus to her newborn. There will always be a reason to jab kids against every known pathogen.
As Hiltzik explained, ‘while speaking deceptively, he [Kennedy] comes off as earnest — a skill that Donald Trump hasn’t mastered’. The lesson that the media must learn is that ‘there’s no way that even a determined interviewer can fight back against deception and deceit when it’s dispensed by the torrent’. Doing their duty for the establishment, influential broadcasters and newspapers are demanding censorship of presidential candidates: in a functioning democracy this would be so intolerable as to justify removal of their licences. When the establishment threw everything but the kitchen sink at Trump, this proved to his supporters that the system is rigged.
Although best known for his views on vaccines, RFK is causing most trouble through his opposition to the military-industrial complex, a term coined by Dwight Eisenhower in a warning to the American people three days before leaving the White House in 1961. His successor John F Kennedy (RFK’s uncle) delivered his ‘Peace Speech’ in June 1963, conveying his intent to end the arms race and build peaceful stability with Russia. Such outspoken resistance to the generals and CIA may have been the final straw that led to his assassination five months later in Dallas. The US and Nato empire have been waging wars ever since.
Hiltzik had little to say about Kennedy’s contrary views on Ukraine. It is hard to discredit pacifism as ‘disinformation’, never mind ‘dangerous’. But as shown by the ferocity of establishment attacks on Tucker Carlson and Donald Trump, the one topic that is definitely out of bounds is military interventionism. RFK is an imperfect but compassionate and conscientious man. It is grossly insensitive for journalists to describe the son of a murdered father and nephew of a murdered uncle as a mortal hazard.
Nigel Farage Announces He’s a Victim of Financial Deplatforming
By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | June 29, 2023
Former leader of the Brexit Party, Nigel Farage, alleges that he is facing what he describes as “serious political persecution” by the banking sector in the UK, claiming that the pro-Remain establishment is making a concerted effort to exclude him from the banking system. Farage asserts that this has made him contemplate whether he will be able to continue residing in the UK.
In a video released on Twitter, Farage shared that seven banks had turned down his applications for both personal and business accounts, making him feel like a “non-person.”
He stated that his bank accounts at an undisclosed financial institution, where he has been a customer for over four decades, were on the verge of being terminated without any explanation provided.
Farage posited three theories to explain why he believes the banking establishment is distancing itself from him. Firstly, he asserts that his role in championing Brexit has made him a persona non grata in the banking circles. “The banks did not want Brexit to happen,” Farage said in the video. “The corporate world will never forgive me.”
Additionally, Farage speculates that his political standing might be a factor. The “politically exposed person” protocol requires banks to conduct additional scrutiny on accounts held by politicians and their families to guard against the possibility of foreign bribery. Farage acknowledged the rationale behind such precautions but emphasized that the additional compliance burden for the banks should be commensurate.
Thirdly, Farage raised concerns about allegations that were made by Labour lawmaker Sir Chris Bryant in the previous year.
Bryant claimed that Farage had received a substantial sum of money, specifically £548,573, from Russia Today television station in 2018, an assertion that Farage vehemently denies. Farage stated, “The truth is I’ve never received any money from any sources with any link to Russia.”
CISA Was Behind the Attempt to Control Your Thoughts, Speech, and Life
Brownstone Institute | June 30, 2023
Keeping up with the corruption of the Covid regime feels like drinking from a firehose. The volume of the fraud, the pace of new discoveries, and the breadth of the operations are overwhelming. This makes it imperative for groups like Brownstone Institute to digest the onslaught of information and communicate salient themes and dispositive facts, particularly given the dereliction of mainstream media.
On Monday, the House Judiciary Committee released a report on how the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) “colluded with Big Tech and ‘disinformation’ partners to censor Americans,” adding to the informational firehose we work to imbibe.
The 36-page report raises three familiar issues: first, government actors worked with third parties to overturn the First Amendment; second, censors prioritized political narratives over truthfulness; and third, an unaccountable bureaucracy hijacked American society.
- CISA’s Collusion to Overturn the First Amendment
The House Report reveals that CISA, a branch of the Department of Homeland Security, worked with social media platforms to censor posts it considered dis-, mis-, or malinformation. Brian Scully, the head of CISA’s censorship team, conceded that this process, known as “switchboarding,” would “trigger content moderation.”
Additionally, CISA funded the nonprofit EI-ISAC in 2020 to bolster its censorship operations. EI-ISAC worked to report and track “misinformation across all channels and platforms.” In launching the nonprofit, the government boasted that it “leverage[d] DHS CISA’s relationship with social media organizations to ensure priority treatment of misinformation reports.”
The switchboard programs directly contradict sworn testimony from CISA Director Jen Easterly. “We don’t censor anything… we don’t flag anything to social media organizations at all,” Esterly told Congress in March. “We don’t do any censorship.” Her statement was more than a lie; it omitted the institutionalization of the practice she denied. The agency’s initiatives relied on a collusive apparatus of private-public partnerships designed to suppress unapproved information.
This should sound familiar.
Alex Berenson gained access to thousands of Twitter communications that uncovered concrete evidence that government actors – including White House Covid Advisor Andy Slavitt – worked to censor him for criticizing Biden’s Covid policies.
White House Director of Digital Strategy Rob Flaherty privately lobbied social media groups to remove a video of Tucker Carlson reporting the link between Johnson & Johnson’s vaccine and blood clots.
Facebook worked with the CDC to censor posts related to the Covid “lab-leak” hypothesis. Company employees later met with the Department of Health and Human Services to de-platform the “disinformation dozen,” a group including Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
These were not cherry-picked examples – they were part of an institutional collusion to strip Americans of their First Amendment rights. Journalists Michael Shellenberger and Matt Taibbi exposed the “Censorship Industrial Complex,” a collection of the world’s most powerful government agencies, NGOs, and private corporations that worked together to silence dissent.
The Supreme Court has held that it is “axiomatic” that the government cannot “induce, encourage, or promote private persons to accomplish what it is constitutionally forbidden to accomplish.” Yet, CISA has joined the disturbing tendency of public-private partnerships designed to impede Americans’ right to information and freedom of speech.
- Political Operatives
Second, these programs were not idealistic attempts to promote the truth; they were calculated programs designed to quash inconvenient but truthful narratives.
The report outlines how CISA censored “malinformation – truthful information that, according to the government, may carry the potential to mislead.” Journalist Lee Fang later wrote that the malinformation campaign “highlights not only the broad authority that the federal government has to shape the political content available to the public, but also the toolkit that it relies upon to limit scrutiny in the regulation of speech.”
In this system, uncensored information has a tacit government approval, amounting to a system of widespread propaganda.
“State and local election officials used the CISA-funded EI-ISAC in an effort to silence criticism and political dissent,” the report notes. “For example, in August 2022, a Loudon County, Virginia, government official reported a Tweet featuring an unedited video of a county official ‘because it was posted as part of a larger campaign to discredit the word of’ that official. The Loudon County official’s remark that the account she flagged ‘is connected to Parents Against Critical Race Theory’ reveals that her ‘misinformation report’ was nothing more than a politically motivated censorship attempt.”
The officials supporting the operation remained unrepentant in their aim to advance political agendas. Dr. Kate Starbird, a member of CISA’s “Misinformation & Disinformation” subcommittee, lamented that many Americans seem to “accept malinformation as ‘speech’ and within democratic norms.”
Of course, the program explicitly violated the Constitution. The First Amendment does not discriminate based on the veracity of a statement. “Some false statements are inevitable if there is to be an open and vigorous expression of views in public and private conversation,” the Supreme Court’s controlling opinion held in United States v. Alvarez. But CISA – led by zealots like Dr. Starbird – appointed themselves the arbiters of truth and worked with the most powerful information companies in the world to purge dissent.
This was part of a larger political campaign.
Hunter Biden’s laptop, natural immunity, the lab-leak theory, and side effects of the vaccine were all censored at the government’s behest. The truth of the reports were not at issue; instead, they presented inconvenient narratives for Washington’s political class, who then used the Orwellian label of “malinformation” to lend cover to eviscerating the First Amendment.
- The Terror of the Administrative State
Third, the report exposes the increasing power of the administrative state. Federal bureaucrats rely on anonymity and unaccountability. Private industry employees could never oversee a disaster like the Covid response and maintain their jobs. It’d be like if BP’s head of safety for the Gulf of Mexico received a promotion after the oil spill.
But unelected officilals like CISA officials enjoy ever-increasing power over Americans’ lives without having to answer for their calamities. Suzanne Spaulding, a member of the Misinformation & Disinformation Subcommittee, warned that it was “only a matter of time before someone realizes we exist and starts asking about our work.”
Spaulding’s comment reflects the power that CISA wields and the benefit it derives from its lack of public exposure. Most Americans have never heard of CISA despite its overwhelming influence over lockdowns.
In March 2020, CISA divided the American workforce into categories of “essential” and “nonessential.” Within hours, California became the first state to issue a “stay at home” edict. This began a previously unimaginable assault on Americans’ civil liberties.
The House Report indicates that CISA was a central actor in censoring criticism of the Covid regime in the ensuing months and years. The agency is representative of the cabal of censorial and unaccountable officials engaged in public-private partnerships designed to keep us in the dark.
EU and UN Discuss How to Address “Disinformation” on Digital Platforms
By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | June 30, 2023
In an apparent display of bureaucratic synergy, the European Union and United Nations have convened to muse over the implementation of new social media regulations, ostensibly in the pursuit of a more secure and transparent digital milieu. What stirs apprehension, however, is the overt enthusiasm of the UN’s Under-Secretary-General for Global Communications, Melissa Fleming, who anticipates that the EU’s Digital Services Act will establish a “new de facto global regulatory benchmark.” The skepticism arises from the suspicion of veiled intentions to curb free speech under the guise of combating “disinformation.”
Platforms are constantly blamed for the proliferation of “disinformation” and “hate speech,” with detractors painting them as adversaries to science, democracy, and human rights. The UN Secretary-General António Guterres brandishes a doomsday brush, asserting that large-scale disinformation constitutes “an existential risk to humanity.”
What is crucial here is the essence of the dialogue and the response it seeks to galvanize. The UN is fervently plotting a Code of Conduct premised on a policy brief that stresses the imperative for an international clampdown on disinformation. It lays out what seems to be an ambitious and comprehensive framework, involving governments, tech companies, advertisers, and other stakeholders. All very fine, but what remains unaddressed is the question of who gets to define what is “disinformation,” and what criteria determine the line between free speech and misinformation.
The Code of Conduct, steeped in an aura of academic rigor and global research, envisages a change in the fabric of digital platforms. However, the aspects it emphasizes – detaching from engagement-driven business models, and ostensibly placing human rights, privacy, and safety at the forefront – are nebulous in terms of implementation and potential overreach. Furthermore, the UN’s admission of wielding moral authority without sanctions may be viewed as a tacit endorsement of soft power coercion.
While Melissa Fleming’s words convey a seeming commitment to protect human rights and access to information, the phraseology she employs – “human rights-based,” “multi-stakeholder,” and “multi-dimensional” – are threadbare buzzwords that do little to assuage the concerns over censorship and institutional overreach.
The concern is not with the stated objectives of fostering a safe and open digital environment, but rather with the specter of global entities like the EU and UN using the cloak of “disinformation” to infringe on the bedrock principle of free speech.
House Weaponization Committee Concludes DHS Agency Colluded With Big Tech To Facilitate Censorship
By Dan Frieth | Reclaim The Net | June 28, 2023
With the publishing of a new report, a House Judiciary subcommittee disclosed that the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), a division within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), has been engaging in censoring online content and conducting domestic surveillance in conjunction with Big Tech companies and other private groups.
This report, released on Monday, is titled “The Weaponization of CISA: How a ‘Cybersecurity’ Agency Colluded With Big Tech and ‘Disinformation’ Partners to Censor Americans.”
CISA, founded in just 2018, was originally envisioned as an auxiliary agency focused on safeguarding critical infrastructure and fending off cybersecurity threats.
The report asserts that CISA morphed into “the nerve center of the federal government’s domestic surveillance and censorship operations on social media” by 2020. It accuses CISA of systematically reporting social media posts that it believed disseminated “disinformation.”
Adding to the alarming developments, the report unveils that by 2021, CISA established a formal “Mis-, Dis-, and Malinformation” (MDM) team. In the ensuing years, the agency faced escalating criticism from both public and private quarters, which led it to clandestinely downplay its activities by portraying itself as solely informational in nature.
The report particularly highlights an instance in which, following lawsuits from Missouri and Louisiana contesting CISA’s censorship tactics, the agency allegedly sidestepped the allegations by transferring its censorship undertakings to a non-profit organization, the Center for Internet Security (CIS), which it financially supported.
Further, the report divulges an email from a CISA advisory board member and former assistant general counsel for the CIA, Suzanne Spaulding, to her colleague, revealing concerns about the potential public discovery and scrutiny of their activities.
CISA has been accused of attempting to obscure its activities in response to growing scrutiny, such as erasing mentions of its domestic surveillance and censorship operations from its website.
The report argues that CISA’s focus on “malinformation” is worrisome. The agency defines malinformation as factual information used out of context to mislead or manipulate, but the subcommittee report challenges whose context is being used, and questions the government’s role in deciding this context.
Despite these allegations, CISA denies any involvement in censoring or facilitating censorship.
With the unveiling of this report, questions surrounding the extent of CISA’s involvement in domestic surveillance and online censorship have become central in a broader debate on the role of government agencies in relation to civil liberties and constitutional rights.
Celebrities and Online Personalities Sign Letter, Telling Social Media Platforms To Crackdown On “Hate”
By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | June 29, 2023
The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) has rounded up a bunch of celebrities to bolster a letter to social media platforms, asking them to censor “hate” towards the LGBT community.
With the signatures of over 250 celebrities and community leaders, the organization has directed its fervor toward the giants of the digital world. Addressing Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, Twitter, and TikTok.
In the public letter the organization charged that the platforms were nurturing platforms where “high-follower anti-LGBTQ hate accounts” proliferated. A group of celebrities, including the likes of actors Elliot Page and Jameela Jamil, alongside singer Ariana Grande, lent their ink to this plea.
The offending content, as per the letter, was outlined as speech that makes what they allege are falsehoods about gender-based procedures for minors, specifically “content that spreads malicious lies about medically necessary healthcare for trans youth.”
“Directing hate toward queer and trans public figures online is a vehicle to promote hate and violence against all LGBTQ people,” the letter states. “This translates to real-world harm.”
GLAAD’s post elaborated, saying, “This is leading to real-life harm, like death threats against healthcare providers and violence against trans and LGBTQ people.”
The group also complained about “Anti-trans hate speech, including targeted misgendering, deadnaming, and hate-driven tropes.”
Palestinian journalist wins wrongful termination appeal against DW
The Cradle | June 29, 2023
Palestinian-Jordanian journalist Farah Maraqa on 28 June announced winning an appeal filed by Germany’s Deutsche Welle (DW) media network over her unlawful dismissal for alleged “antisemitism.”
The decision comes nine months after the German judiciary ruled that her dismissal by state-owned broadcaster DW on charges of anti-Semitism was “legally unjustified,” which the German broadcaster appealed.
“It is a relief that the judge ruled in Farah’s favor and held Deutsche Welle accountable for this illegal dismissal,” Giovanni Fassina, director of the European Legal Support Center (ELSC), which advocates for the legal rights of Palestinians in Europe, said at the time.
In February 2022, DW fired Maraqa alongside five other Arab journalists – all Palestinian or Lebanese – accusing them of “antisemitism” in social media posts and articles they had written for outside publications.
The charges were based on the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) controversial extended definition of antisemitism, which includes criticism of Israel’s military occupation of Palestinian land and the system of apartheid imposed on Palestinians.
The definition, which Germany adopted, has been criticized as a means of silencing pro-Palestinian support and dissent against Israeli policies.
In May 2021, DW reportedly sent an internal two-page memo to employees banning them from using terminology such as “colonialism” and “apartheid” when describing Israel.
Over the past few years, western outlets have come under fire for firing or suspending Arab journalists over alleged “antisemitism.”
In March, France24 suspended four journalists from their Arabic branch at the behest of the pro-Israel media monitoring organization, Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting and Analysis (CAMERA).
Last October, the New York Times (NYT) fired Palestinian photojournalist Hosam Salam over social media posts supporting Palestinian resistance factions.
The freelance journalist was dismissed after the Israeli lobby organization Honest Reporting alerted the NYT of his posts.
Social media giants like WhatsApp, Facebook, and TikTok have also been accused of silencing or “purging” Palestinian journalists in Gaza and the occupied West Bank who report on Israeli war crimes.
Furthermore, Google employees accused the tech giant of censuring them for protesting against a controversial $1.2 billion contract signed with Israel to provide the country with advanced artificial intelligence (AI), which many fear will worsen human rights abuses in Palestine.
I try to use logic in my articles
This has led to some very disturbing conclusions
BY BILL RICE, JR. | JUNE 28, 2023
In my last article, I tried to use deductive reasoning or “logic” to explain how I knew the spike in all-cause deaths would NOT be exposed.
As I understand it, logic is simply an intellectual exercise where someone says “If A or B is true – or if one thinks these are true – then C, D or E must also be true.”
In layman’s terms, someone can make confident predictions based on some “known knowable(s).”
I use such deductive reasoning/syllogisms all the time in my writing (or try to). This is what probably makes me a “contrarian” and has allowed me to pen some fairly-original articles.
There’s another example that allows me to make another bold prediction with a pretty high degree of confidence.
Recently, a flurry of stories in the alternative press has shown conclusively that the government pressured social media companies to be much more aggressive in their censorship of users’ comments that do not align with the “authorized” Covid narratives.
(See my article on Missouri et al vs. Biden).
In reading legal documents from the Missouri v Biden lawsuit, I found a few comments from people who pointed out that the big social media companies like Meta (Facebook and Instagram), Google and YouTube are still censoring un-authorized comments at the same rate they have for the past 40 months.
I know this is true because Facebook keeps suspending my account and/or censoring or shadow-banning or restricting the reach of my Facebook posts.
Anyway, it would qualify as a “known knowable” to me that companies like these have NOT curtailed their censorship programs even after serious plaintiffs filed this lawsuit.
From this simple observation, several “logical” inferences occur to me. These include:
* These companies are NOT afraid of any terrible consequences happening to their companies if they don’t stop this censorship.
* Said differently, they seem to be very confident such a result will NOT happen.
* These companies must have concluded that nothing damaging to their companies is going to happen as a result of this lawsuit and investigation.
- In other words, executives at these companies have concluded they are “safe” to continue to censor like Big Brother.
- In fact, they probably realize they’ll be rewarded for “playing ball” with the legions of censors, “fact checkers” and “disinformation warriors” who are now omnipresent in myriad organizations.
Again, from these “logical” conclusions, I’ve deduced that, somehow, these executives must know that nothing significant or damaging to their companies is going to result from this lawsuit.
This conclusion/observation prompts this question: How do they know this?
Here, I circle back to the point I tried to make in my last column: These executives probably know this because they are all members of the same “club” …. and these club members happen to be the most powerful people and organizations on the planet.
Apparently, one iron-clad rule of said club is that members protect each other. They all benefit from sticking together.
Conversely, they all probably recognize they could be exposed and disgraced and lose their wealth, influence, benefits and power if they do NOT stick together and act together.
To use one example, my guess is that Mark Zuckerberg of Meta somehow knows nothing bad is going to happen to his company even if his army of “content moderators” and the platform’s algorithms continue to suppress my free speech (which the company continues to do).
Here, one has to state that if Missouri v Biden was successfully litigated, the conclusion would surely qualify as an epic scandal.
It would tell the world that many agents of our own government have conspired with companies like Meta to censor free speech.
Basically, the First Amendment to the U.S.Constitution would now be null and void.
Put it this way: If the U.S. government can compel partners in the media world to censor speech the government doesn’t like, we all now live in a dystopian, Orwellian world.
Well, that’s the “bet” that Zuckerberg, Google et al have apparently made. This is our “New Normal” world and these social media and Big Tech companies have no problem with this whatsoever. (Nor does the legacy press.)
It’s also possible these companies have made a more prosaic observation. For example, they have no doubt taken note of what’s happening at their competitor, Twitter, since Elon Musk bought this social media company.
According to comments Musk made in his recent conversation with Robert Kennedy, Jr., there seems to be a conspiracy of corporate advertisers to boycott Twitter now that it’s allowing far more free speech.
One doesn’t know if any memo went out to all these companies (and their ad agencies) to punish Twitter by withholding advertising spends on this platform. Here, one guesses these executives aren’t stupid enough to put any message like this in writing.
Still, we can observe what’s actually happened – “a known knowable” … as Musk, who would know, has told us.
One strongly suspects that corporate executives work in “pack” fashion just like corporate journalists do. In “journalism,” all the editors and reporters intuitively know what stories they can write and, perhaps more importantly, what stories they can’t write. Or what investigations they can’t pursue.
The same approach seems to apply to which companies are allowed to receive advertising dollars and which media companies should never receive advertising dollars.
We saw the same dynamic with the “case study” of one Tucker Carlson, formerly the star talking head at Fox News.
Yes, Tucker had the No. 1-rated TV news talk show in the world. However, his time slot at Fox News probably ranked last in “advertising revenue” from Coca-Cola, GM, IBM, Pfizer, Procter & Gamble, Johnson & Johnson, J.P. Morgan Chase and any company with scores of branded products or services.
Here’s the lesson even a caveman would get: If you want to air “dissident” commentary or journalism, you are not going to get any advertising dollars from our club members.
As you might have heard, Tucker Carlson was finally fired from Fox News. Today, I imagine the “memo” has gone out – It’s okay to once again advertise on Fox News between 8 and 9 p.m. EST.
I think this is called the “carrot-and-stick” approach to compelling compliance. (This approach seems to work in media as well as when it comes to promoting official propaganda such as “the vaccines are safe and effective.”)
Anyway, Meta and Google must have taken note of this “real-world” reality as well.
Regarding my “logical” belief that most social media companies are now completely captured (and are “all in” with Big Brother), I can make even more logical inferences.
As noted, censoring social media and Big Tech companies must not be too worried about the plaintiffs winning Missouri vs. Biden, which suggest to me that they know the U.S. Court system is also captured and will not allow any verdict that would disgrace their companies.
Here, I would opine that some lower court might rule in favor of the plaintiffs, but when this case finally gets to the Supreme Court, the Bad Guys perhaps know they have the vote of John Roberts in the bag?
They must also know that the leaders of Congress aren’t going to hold any Watergate-type hearings and expose their complicity and convince the citizens of our nation that, say, Facebook is evil and despises the First Amendment (which would mean the company despises and rejects everything the Founders of this nation stood for).
I’ll go even further. I think “club members” must know that “Joe Biden” is going to be re-elected president (or, if “Joe Biden” has to be replaced, another political clone who also hates and rejects the Constitution).
Think about it for a second. If these companies thought that Missouri v Biden might prevail – and the public might rise up against their companies – these companies would probably be throttling back on their censorship programs right now.
In fact, they’ve shrugged off these legal proceedings and are doubling, tripling and quadrupling down on the censorship of “misinformation” and “disinformation” of all varieties (not just dissident Covid speech).
This makes me think our “rulers behind the curtain” must know that they’ve also captured and control elections … and that “their” candidates will always win (even if their candidate is obviously suffering from worsening dementia, which is perhaps one reason they love this particular politician so much).
In other words, I think club members somehow know that Donald Trump, Robert Kennedy, Jr. or Ron DeSantis are not going to become the next president of the United States.
Any of these candidates, if elected, might push for hearings and prosecutions that could expose these companies for what they really are.
It seems pretty clear to me that this possibility doesn’t concern these people. Perhaps because they know this is NOT going to happen?
In my last article, I tried to explain why the “club members” aren’t worried about any of the Covid truths being exposed to the citizens of the world.
They know they hold all the key cards and that their not-so-little fraternity isn’t going allow this to happen.
This is probably the same reason Facebook and Google aren’t worried about being humiliated and possibly facing financial ruin from their roles in attacking the Bill of Rights.
Somehow they know this is not going to happen.
Again, the most important known-knowable seems to be the knowledge that club members control all the levers of power … And so they act accordingly.
I know the above might sounds like wild conspiracy stuff to many people, but Mr. Spock would probably reach the same “logical” and deeply-disturbing conclusions I’ve reached.
I’m thinking about putting aside this “logic tool” in future articles. It’s starting to interfere with my sleep.
YouTube Escalates Its Attack on Robert F Kennedy Jr., Censors Another Interview
By Christina Maas | Reclaim The Net | June 27, 2023
YouTube has taken down another interview featuring Democratic Presidential candidate Robert F Kennedy Jr., raising eyebrows and fueling debate over the role of tech giants in controlling information. The interview, a spirited chat with Al Guart, a former New York Post reporter, was removed for allegedly breaching the platform’s “community standards.”
This has further ignited concerns over censorship and its potential ramifications on democratic dialogue.
The episode marked the launch of a podcast in which Kennedy, an environmental attorney and presidential aspirant for the 2024 election, discusses an array of subjects. From his meditation routine to his ambition of overhauling federal health agencies and the Democratic Party, the conversation traversed numerous topics. Other issues covered included handling environmental concerns and the middle class.
Al Guart expressed dismay over the removal in a statement, remarking, “YouTube just banned my interview with RFK Jr. for allegedly violating ‘community standards.’ RFK Jr. and I covered many topics of public interest and there was no threat or harm contained in the hour-long discussion.” Guart also highlighted that the podcast was gaining traction and popularity on other platforms.
During the interview, Kennedy made noteworthy remarks concerning censorship, a topic he himself has encountered on platforms such as Instagram and YouTube. He opined that, if elected President, he would engage with tech giants to explore ways to put an end to what he perceives as the unAmerican practice of censorship. He further asserted that if a satisfactory resolution could not be reached, he would consider transforming these companies into common carriers.
Kennedy, who has previously faced the ax on YouTube for violating its policy on vaccine “misinformation,” voiced his concerns over the platform’s removal of the video. He drew a parallel with concerns over foreign intervention in elections through information manipulation, stating, “People made a big deal about Russia supposedly manipulating internet information to influence a Presidential election. Shouldn’t we be worried when giant tech corporations do the same?”
In an earlier instance, YouTube removed a video featuring Kennedy in conversation with podcast host Jordan Peterson, citing a violation of its policy against “vaccine misinformation.” A YouTube spokesperson explained that content alleging vaccines cause chronic side effects, beyond the “rare” side effects acknowledged by health authorities, is not permitted on the platform.
15 Signs That You Might Be In An Abusive Relationship…
… With Your Government
The Naked Emperor | June 28, 2023
The Workplace Mental Health Institute delivers mental health training and consultancy to medium and large-sized organizations across the world. On their website they have various resources that you can download and put in your office, to help boost productivity, by addressing mental health issues.
One of their infographic downloads provides 15 signs that your might be in an abusive relationship. You may be in an abusive relationship if they [your partner]:
- Stop you seeing friends and family;
- Won’t let you go out without permission;
- Tell you what to wear;
- Monitor your phone or emails;
- Control the finances, or won’t let you work;
- Control what you read, watch and say;
- Monitor everything you do;
- Punish you for breaking the rules, but the rules keep changing!
- Tell you it is for your own good, and that they know better;
- Don’t allow you to question it;
- Tell you you’re crazy and no one agrees with you;
- Call you names or shame you for being stupid or selfish;
- Gaslight you, challenge your memory of events, make you doubt yourself;
- Dismiss your opinions;
- Play the victim. If things go wrong, it’s all your fault.
Now go back through that list and see which ones your government has subjected you to over the past three years. For most western countries it is every single one.
Your government has been mentally abusing you for years, in an almost identical fashion as an abusive partner would.
The UN Wants People To Report Each Other For “Hate Speech”
Alleges that speech can be violence
By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | June 26, 2023
There’s been a lot of talk about the United Nations (UN) and its actions of late – mostly, those actions that fall way beyond the scope of what its founding Charter designates the organization’s role to be.
As a short history reminder – the UN is basically the international body that succeeded the League of Nations – the one that failed to prevent the (previous, atrocious) world war.
The UN is – and has, for a long time, focused its energy on “doing better” – mediating, providing a neutral ground for dialogue, helping those places around the globe unfortunately afflicted by local wars since 1945 – and just in general, not repeating the mistake of its predecessor of miring itself into irrelevancy.
You would think that with the real danger of another global war now on the cards, that would take up all of the UN’s energy and focus. But you would be wrong.
Here’s the UN, dabbling in things like alleged “hate speech.”
But – world peace – that’s supposed to be the mission. Not policing social media for dubiously defined “hate speech.”
The UN is now using its always precarious resources (depending on member-countries’ contribution, and, consequently, the way the organization satisfies the biggest contributors’ own agendas) to deal with things like real or perceived “hate speech” online.
But can that really be the mission of the world organization set up to make sure another world war doesn’t happen, and help/mediate in regional conflicts?
It seems almost absurd. Yet here it is. The UN is reported to be descending into internet censorship by “encouraging” people to report one another for hate speech online.
Really? That’s your mission now? How about providing food and drinking water to warzones and brokering peace deals?
One way to fade into obscurity as a trusted and impartial broker, is for an organization to put out statements like this.
Let’s not worry about a nuclear Armageddon – instead, what steps can we take to “combat” those pesky tweets?
Well, according to a UN tweet – there’s as many as eight: “pause, fact-check, react, challenge, support, report, educate, and commit.”
It would be comical, if it wasn’t ultimately smacking of tragedy.
Featured Video
Israel furious at Trump over Turkey, Syria to invade Lebanon
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
The toxic legacy of nuclear weapons testing serves as a stark warning of the danger these weapons pose
By Scott Ritter | RT | March 11, 2021
Millions of people suffer and die from the effects of radiation exposure from decades of nuclear weapons testing. Their experience should give serious pause to those who continue to embrace the viability of a nuclear deterrent.
A dust storm originating in the Sahara Desert swept across parts of Spain, France, the UK, and Ireland last month. In addition to bringing a red tinge to the sky, the dust caused a slight, yet noticeable, spike in radiation in the areas it reached. This radiation spike was caused by the presence of cesium-137, a radioactive isotope produced through the nuclear fission of uranium-235 in nuclear weapons. A legacy of French nuclear weapons testing that occurred in Algeria during the 1960s, the cesium-137 contamination is a reminder that while the testing of nuclear weapons may have been halted for the time being, the consequences of these tests live on through the poisoning of the planet mankind calls home.
The Saharan radioactive dust cloud is but the most recent visible phenomenon of a plague that has infected much of the world. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Abelardo De la Espriella’s Victory Renews Pressure on Venezuela
- Israel furious at Trump over Turkey, Syria to invade Lebanon – w/ Col. Macgregor
- IRGC says it struck US military positions, warns of broader response
- Russia stops record number of Ukrainian drones overnight – MOD
- Denmark admits ‘no evidence’ for Russian drone hysteria
- Washington agreement ‘will not pass’: MP Fadlallah
- Iran mocks US for ‘solving’ domestic hunger problem, lecturing others on issue
- Germany, Israel hold joint naval drill off Haifa amid Gaza genocide
- Trump’s war on Iran becomes ‘most unpopular conflict’ in US history
- The Middle East is wringing its hands of Washington. Finally
- If Americans Knew
- Four Reasons the Netanyahu-Backed Plan to ‘End’ U.S. Military Aid to Israel Is a Scam
- Archbishop of Canterbury vows to help Palestinians achieve ‘freedom you deserve,’ calls for end to Israeli occupation
- The scars left behind by Israel’s white phosphorus in Lebanon
- Drones and decomposing babies: What’s in UN report on Israel’s genocide of Palestinian children
- Crimson Thread: The new Israeli separation wall that cuts through the ‘breadbasket of Palestine’
- Gaza ceasefire talks back to square one as Israel changes the rules – Daily Update
- The NDAA Proposed Merger of the U.S. and Israeli Military is Strategically Unwise and Inherently Unconstitutional
- Victories by Pro-Palestinian Democrats Show the Party’s Shift on Israel
- Massie moves to strike $3.3B in Israel military aid from the budget
- How Jeffrey Epstein’s Israeli Network Shaped Congo’s Deadly Mineral Trade
- No Tricks Zone
- 2025 Study: Cloud Effects Reduce Downwelling Longwave Radiation, Overriding The CO2 Impact
- 3 New Studies Find Increasing Trends In Solar Radiation Since The 1980s – Easily Explaining Warming
- THE TRANSCEIVER PARADOX: Why Organoid Intelligence (OI) Could Become Our Ultimate Alien Predator
- German Wind Turbines Face Regulatory Shutdown Due To Excessive Noise
- New Study: Chile’s Relative Sea Level Was 3.2 Meters Higher Than Today During The Mid-Holocene
- Beyond The Pitch: Why FIFA’s World Cup Is One Of Humanity’s Best Investments
- Climate Alarmists Now Using Natural Phenomena To Support Their Claims
- New Study: Significant CO2 Fluxes From Non-Volcanic Sources Are Largely Neglected In Carbon Budgets
- Women Climate Scientists Being Harassed, Insulted By Skeptics, Claims Berkeley Earth Researcher
- Germany’s Longterm Spring Climate Data Show “No Climate Trend”
Aletho News 