Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

University receives $750k of federal funds to stop reporters from creating “negative unintended outcomes”

The government continues to get involved with shaping journalism

By Christina Maas | Reclaim The Net | October 24, 2021

Researchers at Temple University received $750,000 from the National Science Foundation (NSF) to develop a tool that warns journalists that they are about to publish polarizing content. The NSF is a federal government agency focused on supporting research and education in non-medical fields of engineering and science.

The initiative is part of NSF’s “Trust & Authenticity in Communication Systems.” It is called the “America’s Fourth Estate at Risk: A System for Mapping the (local) Journalism Life Cycle to Rebuild the Nation’s News Trust.”

The focus of the project, according to a report on Campus Reform, is creating a system that alerts journalists that the content they are about to publish might have “negative unintended outcomes” such as “the triggering of uncivil, polarizing discourse, audience misinterpretation, the production of misinformation, and the perpetuation of false narratives.”

The researchers hope that the system will help journalists measure the long-term impact of their stories, that go beyond existing metrics such as likes, comments, and shares.

One of the researchers involved in the project, Temple University’s professor Eduard Dragut, said that the system will “use natural language processing algorithms along with social networking tools to mine the communities where [misinformation] may happen.”

“You can imagine that each news article is usually, or actually almost all the time, accompanied by user comments and reactions on Twitter. One goal of the project is to retrieve those and then use natural language processing tools or algorithms to mine and recommend to some users [that] this space of talking, this set of tweets, which may lead to a set of people, like a sub-community, where this article is used for wrong reasons,” he added.

Journalists and other players in the news industry will be involved with the project, which already includes researchers from other universities including Boston University and the University of Illinois-Chicago.

“We want journalists to be part of the process, not just the mere users of the product itself,” Dragut said. “So you can imagine sort of an analytics tool that informs the journalists and editors and other people involved in this business how their products or how their creative act is used or misused in social media.”

He added that the project is attempting to “create a collaborative environment with both social media platform[s] and other organizations like Google” because of their expertise.

“We have some preliminary conversation with Bloomberg, for instance, and we will have to define exactly how they are going to help us. Google has an initiative to help local news, and we are working to create a relationship with them, and there are others,” Dragut told Campus Reform. “This product will not work unless we are successful in bringing some of these high tech companies into the game.”

Another researcher involved in the project, professor Lance Holbert, said that, for now, the misinformation the project is focusing on is that of the spread on local media.

“Certainly some topics over time will become more versus less interesting, but also we’re focused here initially on local media as well, so each locality may have different topics or particular points of interest that come up in the news,” he said. “We’re trying to keep this generalizable across topics.”

Holbert noted that misinformation is not “happening in the political spectrum” alone.

“[It’s happening] in sports, it’s happening in economics,” he said. “Like a few years back, I know, an example from Starbucks where there was a sort of a campaign on Twitter [saying] that Starbucks is targeting, in the wrong way, African Americans, which was wrong.”

The NSF is expected to further fund the project when its first phase becomes successful.

October 24, 2021 Posted by | Full Spectrum Dominance, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | 1 Comment

BBC Climate Expert Explains How Australia Could Live Without Coal Exports

By Eric Worrall | Watts Up With That? | October 22, 2021

Coal is both Australia’s second largest export and something Australia could live without, according to the BBC:

Australia could end its literally toxic relationship with coal fairly quickly, experts say.

Its economy is stable and well-diversified to absorb the loss of coal exports. […]

This has frustrated those who say Australia should be investing to become a renewables superpower.

As one of the sunniest and windiest continents on Earth, Australia is “uniquely placed to benefit economically” from its abundant natural resources, says the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), an intergovernmental organisation.

The BBC economic analysis leaves out an important detail – the $55 billion / year annual coal export industry keeps the the Australian dollar afloat. Without that $55 billion annual influx of foreign currency, the value of the Aussie dollar would likely collapse.

What about Australia’s alleged opportunity to become a green energy superpower?

My question: Why are the experts who claim Australia could be a “renewables superpower” demanding government support, instead of putting their own money where their mouth is?

The reason, of course, is the numbers don’t add up.

Australia might be one of the sunniest and windiest continents on Earth, but it is also one of the driest and dustiest places on Earth.

The Australian outback is an incredibly hostile environment for machinery.

Even on the coast, where I live, everything gets covered with a thick layer of dust in days. Gearboxes and bearings fill with grit. Surfaces get abraded. Plastic and rubber rapidly disintegrates under our hot ultraviolet soaked sunlight.

If I park my automobile outside at night, by morning I need to wash my windscreen using the wipers.

Some of the dust contains salt and organic compounds, and picks up electrostatic charges as it is blown by the wind, so it sticks to surfaces like glue, and has to be washed off. You cannot just shake or brush it off.

In the desert, away from the coast, it is even worse.

Unless you have a good supply of fresh water and soap for washing dust off everything you care about, lubricating oil to clean out dust contaminated bearings, and maintenance people to fix all the stuff which breaks, no machinery installation in the Australian interior survives for long.

Vast supplies of fresh water are not easy to find in Australia. Where fresh water is available, it is mostly already claimed by others, who would have to be compensated for loss of access. Billions of dollars would be required, to buy out farmers and miners who are already using every scrap of fresh water which is available, assuming you could convince any of them to sell.

Why would the cleaning water have to be fresh? What about pumping salt water from the ocean?

Salt water would be a disaster for cleaning renewable energy installations. The water would leave a film of translucent salt on everything. Stalagmites and stalactites of electrically conductive salt would accumulate on the edges of solar panels and sensitive electric installations, creating short circuits and fires. Salt water is far more corrosive than fresh water, it would rapidly attack any alumina fittings and all but high grade stainless steel. Salt water use could even lead to accelerated structural failures if there were any significant earth leakages, by accelerating corrosion of any structural metal components in contact with the ground. The influx of salt would remain in the environment, causing a localised ecological disaster.

Remember, the interior of Australia is sunny AND windy. Those solar panels better be anchored to the ground with lots of concrete and structural steel, otherwise they will blow away. The UV gelcoat protection on wind turbine blades would have to be meticulously maintained, to prevent our harsh sunlight from wrecking the plastic. And lets not forget, the freak storms which occasionally sweep in from the coast can drop rock hard hailstones the size of baseballs – not a good thing for anything caught under the storm.

This in my opinion is why companies are demanding large infusions of government cash before they’ll touch our alleged amazing opportunity to become a “renewables superpower”. As with most renewable energy schemes, I believe people behind the Australian “renewables superpower” vision expect any profit will come from milking taxpayers, not from genuinely profitable commercial sales of their product.

October 22, 2021 Posted by | Economics, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | | 3 Comments

Billionaire Pierre Omidyar’s secret backing of Facebook ‘whistleblower’ raises new questions about her agenda

(L) Frances Haugen © REUTERS / Matt McClain; (R) Pierre Omidyar © REUTERS / Tim Shaffer
By Kit Klarenberg | RT | October 21, 2021

The plot has thickened further in the case of Frances Haugen, with the revelation she is being funded by Pierre Omidyar. Given his history of backing of US-friendly organisations abroad, it’s hard not to question her motives.

It’s been revealed by Politico that Haugen, the Facebook ‘whistleblower’ who has generated such intense mainstream attention in recent weeks, receives “behind the scenes” financial assistance from controversial US billionaire Omidyar.

The backing is extensive. Omidyar’s Luminate is handling all her press and government relations in Europe, her top public relations representative in the US is a former Obama White House spokesperson who runs public affairs for a non-profit funded by Omidyar, and last year the tech guru gifted $150,000 to Whistleblower Aid, another organization supporting Haugen.

Politico asserts that this enormous wellspring offers her “a potentially crucial boost” in her crusade against the social network giant, granting Haugen “an edge that many corporate whistleblowers lack” – but then again, she’s a far from typical whistleblower.

A Silicon Valley veteran, Haugen’s stint at Facebook’s Threat Intelligence put her in extremely close quarters with former high-ranking US intelligence officials, who occupy senior divisions in the unit. An ad for an analyst vacancy in the division, posted just days before Haugen’s well-publicized Senate testimony, cites “5+ years of experience working in intelligence [in] international geopolitical, cybersecurity, or human rights functions” as an absolute “minimum qualification” for anyone wishing to apply.

There’s no indication Haugen herself has such a background, but it’s hard to imagine two-and-a-half-years spent rubbing shoulders with CIA, NSA, and Pentagon journeymen didn’t leave an impression on her.

As such, one needn’t be a cynic to suggest her public claims that the purported exploitation of Facebook by Western state-mandated “enemy” countries, against which her former colleagues have a clear and demonstrable bias, represents a threat to US national security may have been insidiously influenced to some degree. This would, of course, necessitate greater governmental censorship and surveillance powers in respect of social media, which White House and Pentagon officials have demanded for a decade or more.

Whatever the truth of the matter, given Haugen’s public positions, it’s hardly surprising Omidyar has taken such an interest in her. The eBay founder has for many years used his vast personal fortune to sponsor anti-government media operations, activist groups and NGOs in countries targeted for regime change by Washington, often in quiet concert with CIA-front organizations the National Endowment for Democracy and USAID.

Luminate’s ‘Strategic Plan’ for 2018–2022 spells this out in not so many words. It claims that “counter forces to liberalism have gained strength,” due to “Russia’s disruptive tactics” and “China’s state-centric alternative model,” and in response, the organization pledges to “to engage in ‘Countries in Transition’ where a potential inflection point and evidence of reform leads us to believe our support could catalyse significant change in an accelerated timeframe.”

“Our goal for this work is to provide critical support to courageous individuals and organisations seeking democratic gains in settings where civil society has been suppressed and where media has been circumscribed,” it ominously states. “We also work with government reformers post-transition to achieve positive policy outcomes which benefit large populations.”

Just two examples of “critical support” doled out by Omidyar over the past decade include bankrolling groups and news platforms at the forefront of Ukraine’s 2014 Maidan coup, and financing a welter of youth radicalization initiatives in Zimbabwe via the Harare-based Magamba Cultural Activist Network. A 2016 Omidyar Network-funded report on “People-Powered Media Innovation in West Africa” made clear the destabilizing intention behind such initiatives.

In a section discussing the “challenge” of “converting passive readers to active citizens,” the report recommended sponsoring the publication of “politically opportunistic” content “tied to unfulfilled promises” in order to “motivate citizens and government to act in the public interest.” It cited “recent, major successes of citizen and media efforts” in Nigeria that demonstrated “how public energy and conversation can be further harnessed and directed.”

In one case, a local radio station partnered with an NGO to “[develop] a radio program dedicated to education issues,” which “quickly gained popularity, and a highly engaged listenership.” Within a year, the government had “implemented several overdue policy reforms,” and the radio station was said to have since “applied this strategy to other negligent government bodies.”

“With the spectre of potential citizen mobilization looming in politicians’ minds, media outlets also have the potential to elicit government response directly,” the report boasted. “In some cases… government was motivated to act in order to prevent citizen action, instead of in response to it.”

Not coincidentally, Omidyar finances several media organizations in Lagos, including the radical Sahara Reporters, which focuses on corruption in the public sector – its founder allegedly has to sneak in and out of the country as his work has made him an enemy of the state. The Nigerian government evidently has much reason to fear Omidyar, which is perhaps why there has been no high-level opposition to his effective takeover of the country’s tech sector.

Clearly, the man well understands what can be achieved when citizens are stirred to action, and how they can be. In light of this, the help afforded to Haugen by Whistleblower Aid gains a rather sinister resonance. While widely reported that this assistance is strictly legal in nature, the organization’s founder Mark Zaid has made an intriguing disclosure.

“[We] prep clients in order to be focused on how to answer questions properly,” he told Gizmodo on October 6. “We have media experts that we work with to guide folks with something as simple as, you know, where do you look when you’re talking to a camera or a host? How do you best fluidly answer a question to come across in a positive way? Everything that might be connected to ensuring the individual’s image and substance are at their best.”

This direction surely explains why Haugen’s interviews with major media outlets have been so universally slick, and her Senate testimony was so extensively peppered with attention-grabbing quotes seemingly custom-made for repetition in headlines and news reports. At the very least, her involvement with Zaid casts even more doubt on how genuine she is.

Despite his organization’s name and stated aims, Zaid has a history of maligning individuals who have actually spoken out in the public interest, including Julian AssangeEdward Snowden and Reality Winner.

What’s more, he’s been accused in open court by an FBI agent of specifically approaching the CIA and informing it his client Jeffrey Sterling, an Agency operative, had “voiced his concerns about an operation that was nuclear in nature, and he threatened to go to the media.” Sterling was subsequently sentenced to three-and-a-half years in prison for leaking that very information to a journalist.

It can only be considered a shocking indictment of the Western media that the revelation of Omidyar’s secret support for Haugen has not prompted a single mainstream journalist to question whether she is ultimately serving a wider, darker agenda, and what that agenda might be. After all, her public intervention surely represents an “inflection point”, Omidyar’s support of which “could catalyse significant change in an accelerated timeframe.”

Kit Klarenberg is an investigative journalist exploring the role of intelligence services in shaping politics and perceptions.

October 22, 2021 Posted by | Deception, Full Spectrum Dominance, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , | Leave a comment

Large Ivermectin Use Pushes Big Pharma To Sell Expensive Covid Pills

By Joel S. Hirschhorn | Principia Scientific International | October 19, 2021

The unrelenting opposition to using ivermectin to treat and prevent COVID-19 is stronger than ever. This has resulted from a gigantic increase in demand for IVM by much of the public.

Despite big media tirades against IVM, the truth about its effectiveness (together with failure of COVID vaccines) has reached the public through many articles on alternative news websites and truth-tellers on countless podcasts. Its success has forced Big Pharma to create expensive copies of it.

Monthly IVM prescriptions increased 72 percent from 39,864 in 2019 to 68,428 in 2021 (through May). Just when COVID vaccination started to be pushed in January 2021 prescriptions hit a high of 97,192. A number of medical specialties greatly increased off-label use of IVM for fighting COVID in this period: anesthesiology, 1,319%; pulmonology, 1,167%; cardiology, 741%, for example. Strong support by physicians for IVM to cure and prevent COVID.

And in my book Pandemic Blunder I made the case with data that using cheap, safe and effective generics like IVM and hydroxychloroquine would save 80% or more of COVID deaths. Esteemed physician Peter McCollough later said 85%. For the US, that means some 600,000 lives could have been saved, and globally over 4 million lives. Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of people worldwide have also died from COVID vaccines, the failed solution to the pandemic.

Merck, a maker of IVM, is getting much positive press coverage for its forthcoming prescription oral antiviral (molnupiravir). It is designed to replace IVM that they cannot make big money from. FDA will soon give it emergency use authorization because of the emerging clarity that COVID vaccines do NOT work effectively or safely.

That the Washington Post says that what Merck has created is the “first covid-fighting pill” illustrates how awful big media has been in ignoring the proven benefits of the IVM and HCQ generics. And ignoring the many failures of COVID vaccines. In its October 2 front-page story on the new Merck pill, it did not even mention IVM or present any data showing IVM as proven even more effective than the new expensive drug tested on only hundreds of people for a short period.

In contrast, IVM has been used successfully on hundreds of thousands of people to treat and prevent COVID.

Speaking as someone who is using IVM as a prophylactic, here is what I have seen in recent times. Though getting a prescription for it is very difficult and stressful it can be done through a number of websites. But then the battle just begins. Many pharmacies, especially big chain ones, will not fill IVM prescriptions if there is any evidence that it is being used to fight COVID.

And then you will likely discover, as I did, that virtually no pharmacy (typically small community ones) that will fill such prescriptions has any IVM. That’s right. There is a national shortage of IVM because of huge demand in recent months and because US makers have not escalated production.

Probably, millions of vaccine resisters are using IVM, especially those resisting booster shots.

Can you still get it? Yes, and even without a prescription. It will have to come from India, with many makers of IVM. It can take many weeks to get it. But the cost is a tiny fraction of what US pharmacies have been charging when they did have it in stock. Rather than $4 or $5 for a 3 mg pill, you can buy 12 mg pills for way under $1 a pill.

But there is more to the IVM story.

There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that there is massive medical science data showing absolute reliable data that IVM is safe and effective for both treating and preventing COVID. This is what should be a bold large headline in newspapers if we had honest big media: IVM SAFE AND EFFECTIVE ALTERNATIVE TO COVID VACCINES.

But instead, there is a constant barrage of articles and statements from government agencies asserting IVM should not be used to fight COVID. They argue it is unsafe and ineffective. Both are lies aimed solely at protecting the mass vaccination effort and the profits of big drug companies. And now protecting the new Big Pharma market for antiviral pills.

FDA has issued very strong warnings against using IVM for COVID. Nothing it has said follows the true science and mountains of data supporting safe and effective IVM use. Like other IVM opponents, it has conflated personal IVM use with the use of IVM products designed for animals.

This is even more infuriating. Merck, despite being a maker of IVM discredited its use for COVID by irresponsibly stating, “We do not believe that the data available support the safety and efficacy of ivermectin beyond the doses and populations indicated in the regulatory agency-approved prescribing information.”

Clearly, Merck, Pfizer and other vaccine makers are developing their own oral antivirals to directly compete with the cheap and effective IVM. These antivirals, unlike cheap generic IVM, would be patented so expensive pills could be sold worldwide. They will find some ingenious ways to copy IVM but make enough changes to get patents.

Already, Merck has begun production of its new pill to be taken twice daily for five days. Even more significant: The US government has made an advance purchase of 1.7 million treatment courses for $1.2 billion! That is over $700 per treatment. So much more profitable than making IVM. Forget the billions of dollars spent on vaccines that are injuring and killing many people.

I am confident in predicting that as more and more bad news about the ineffectiveness and dangerous side effects of COVID vaccines become increasingly known to more of the public, the big drug companies will increasingly switch from vaccines to prescription antiviral medicines. This is what smart corporate business strategic planning is all about. With Merck, it has already started. And FDA, CDC and NIH will go along with this strategic switch.

This will preserve a trillion-dollar market for pharmaceutical companies. How the government and public health establishment weasel word their switch from COVID vaccines to antiviral pills will be a marvelous magical trick to watch. Do you think that they will admit that millions of people worldwide have lost their health and lives from vaccine use? Of course not. Expensive antiviral pills will simply be sold as a better solution.

Be clear about the science explaining why IVM and HCQ have worked. They both (along with zinc) interfere at the earliest stage of COVID infection with viral replication. Stops infection in its tracks. They work as prophylactics for the same reason. If you keep a modest amount of IVM and HCQ in your body (and take zinc, vitamins C and D, and quercetin) any virus that enters your body can be stopped before major viral replication. The new prescription medicines coming from Merck and other Big Pharma are designed to serve the same function as the cheap generics.

This is the big truth coming to fruition: All the emerging information on COVID vaccine ineffectiveness and dangerous and often lethal side effects is forcing a major strategic shift to antivirals.

Congressman Louie Gohmert has recently made a number of solid observations about IVM:

Almost 4 billion doses of ivermectin have been prescribed for humans, not horses, over the past 40 years. In fact, the CDC recommends all refugees coming to the U.S. from the Middle East, Asia, North Africa, Latin America, and the Caribbean receive this so-called dangerous horse medicine as a preemptive therapy. Ivermectin is considered by the World Health Organization (WHO) to be an ‘essential medicine.’ The Department of Homeland Security’s ‘quick reference’ tool on COVID-19 mentioned how this life-saving drug reduced viral shedding duration in a clinical trial.”

“To date, there are at least 63 trials and 31 randomized controlled trials showing benefits to the use of ivermectin to fight COVID-19 prophylactically as well as for early and late-stage treatment. Ivermectin has been shown to inhibit the replication of many viruses, including SARS-CoV-2. It has strong anti-inflammatory properties and prevents transmission of COVID-19 when taken either before or after exposure to the virus.”

“Ivermectin also speeds up recovery and decreases hospitalization and mortality in COVID-19 patients. It has been FDA approved for decades and has very few and mild side effects. It has an average of 160 adverse events reported every year, which indicates ivermectin has a better safety record than several vitamins. In short, there is no humane, logical reason why it should not be widely used to fight against the China Virus should a patient and doctor decide it is appropriate to try in that patient’s case.” And that small number of adverse events pales in comparison to hundreds of thousands for COVID vaccines.

A new, comprehensive report noted that 63 studies have confirmed the effectiveness of IVM in treating COVID-19. This is a great website to see positive IVM data.

And consider what former Director of Intellectual Property at Gilead Pharmaceuticals, Brian Remy, said about the necessity of implementing Ivermectin. “It is simple – use what works and is most effective – period. Ivermectin used in combination with other therapeutics is a no-brainer and should be the standard of care for COVID-19.

Not only would this be good for business and help avoid the criticism and bad PR, and potential civil/criminal liability for censorship, scientific misconduct, etc. for misrepresentation of Ivermectin and other generics, but most importantly it would save countless lives and end the pandemic for good.” Amen.

Want even more positive facts? Consider the India experience. In India’s deadly second pandemic surge, Ivermectin obliterated their crisis. Within weeks after adopting IVM cases were down 90%. Those states with more aggressive IVM use were down more dramatically.  Daily cases in Goa, Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh, and Delhi were down 95%, 98%, 99%, 99%, respectively.

And appreciate this: Dr. Kory and the FLCCC published a narrative review in May 2021, showing the massive effectiveness of IVM against COVID-19 in reducing death and cases.  They concluded that it must be adopted globally immediately. Yet big media without respect for public health waged war against IVM. Now it is going crazy in support of the expensive Merck antiviral pill.

To sum up: The IVM story is far from over. We now have a pandemic of the vaccinated. From all over the world the fractions of people said to have died from COVID who were fully vaccinated are very high, often 80 percent. Many people with breakthrough COVID infections die. Blame those deaths on the vaccines. Big media suppresses all the negative information on the vaccines and all the positive information on IVM.

This double whammy is pure evil.

It is designed to pave the way for the new, expensive generation of antiviral pills once the medical and public health establishments backtrack from their vaccine advocacy and coercion.

About the author: Dr. Joel S. Hirschhorn, author of Pandemic Blunder and many articles on the pandemic, worked on health issues for decades. As a full professor at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, he directed a medical research program between the colleges of engineering and medicine.  As a senior official at the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment and the National Governors Association, he directed major studies on health-related subjects; he testified at over 50 US Senate and House hearings and authored hundreds of articles and op-ed articles in major newspapers.  He has served as an executive volunteer at a major hospital for more than 10 years.  He is a member of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, and America’s Frontline Doctors.

October 22, 2021 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , | 1 Comment

“David’s Law”: How the Amess attack will be used to control the internet

The recent killing is already being used as ammunition to attack independent social media and the very idea of anonymity on the web

By Kit Knightly | OffGuardian | October 21, 2021

On October 15th Sir David Amess MP was attending a constituency “surgery” at Belfairs church in Leigh-on-Sea. During the meeting, a young man emerged from the crowd and stabbed the MP several times.

Ambulances and police were called. They attempted to revive him at the scene, but he was declared dead.

The suspect, meanwhile, made no attempt to flee. It has since been reported he is the son of a Somali politician, was known to the UK’s “Prevent” counter-terrorism programme, and was reportedly “radicalised online”.

The killing is being treated as a “terrorist incident”.

These are the alleged facts of the case as they have been released to the public.

Are they true? Maybe. Maybe not. It’s too early to say, and we’ll likely never know for sure. The truth is – for everyone outside the Amess family and friends – it really isn’t the most pressing issue. Whatever the reality of the “attack”, what we, the 99%, need to be most concerned about is the agenda coming in its wake

Real attack or not, false flag or not, the fallout is the same: Censorship, state control and “David’s Law”.

THE ONLINE HARMS BILL

The first reaction to the Amess attack has been renewed coverage of, and loud calls for, the “online harms” bill to be put to a vote. All this despite there being no publicly released evidence linking the Amess attack to any “online harms” at all.

The “Online Harms Prevention Bill” is not in any way a response to Amess’ death and has actually been in development for a while. A white paper reporting the need for the bill was first published in April 2019, then updated in December 2020.

This was followed by a draft bill in May 2021 and then a report on “Regulating Online Harms”, published in August.

The Bill has existed for over eighteen months, and any attempts to link it to David Amess are purely manipulative tactics designed to force it through parliament on a wave of emotion.

It might be dismissed by some as ‘callous’ to talk about the alleged murder of a seemingly innocent person in terms of cynical agenda – but it’s the very opposite. It’s an expression of concern and social responsibility. The establishment uses these events as gambits, so we have to get used to reading them as such if we want to protect the rights and freedoms that will be freshly attacked.

We’re already seeing a deluge of coverage in the press talking up the dangers of our “toxic political discourse” and the threat that “divisive polarised speech” poses because it can “radicalise” people and “create the climate where violence becomes inevitable”.

The Mirror warns of an increase in “bedroom radicals” thanks to lockdowns. The Guardian echoes this, claiming “online hate” is “nastier than ever” and “action is required”.

The Telegraph headlines“Social media companies ‘must do more’ to protect MPs from online hate”

Politicians are likewise prepping the ground for the bill to pass.

Deputy Prime Minister and Justice Secretary Dominic Raab went on Sky News to talk about “online hate” being “out of control”.

Sir Keir Starmer, leader of the supposed “opposition”, used the first PMQs since the attack to rail against the lack of regulation of the internet and call for something to be done. Boris has already committed to bringing the “Online Harms” vote forward “before Christmas” when it was previously expected to wait until at least spring of 2022.

So, what’s in this bill?

Nothing much that hasn’t been said before. The White Paper and report proselytise about the need to protect children, women, ethnic minorities and “the vulnerable” from “hate”. The bill itself suggests a new “statutory duty of care” for the internet, and a new “regulatory body” with a “suite of powers” to ensure companies fulfil this “duty of care”.

There are chapters dedicated to actual crimes, such as child pornography and threats of violence, but also much murkier “harms” described as “legal but harmful”. These include, but are not limited to, “disinformation” and “bullying”. As always, the language of legislature is deliberately obscure, shrouded in the muddied meaning of bureaucratic double-talk.

One concrete, and concerning, clause would grant OfCom the power to demand private user information from internet providers and social media companies (although we do know they do this already).

But the most dangerous part of the bill may not even be written yet…

“DAVID’S LAW”

Within days of the news breaking Tory MPs were calling on Boris Johnson to enact “David’s Law”.

“David’s Law” would be either new legislation or a “strengthening” of the current proposed legislation, to totally remove online anonymity.

Tory MP Mark Francois, said in a speech to the Commons:

So let’s put, if I may be so presumptuous, David’s Law onto the statute book, the essence of which would be that while people in public life must remain open to legitimate criticism, they can no longer be vilified or their families subject to the most horrendous abuse, especially from people who hide behind a cloak of anonymity with the connivance of the social media companies for profit.”

Priti Patel is already “considering” taking away the “right to anonymity online”.

Other politicians, including Dominiic Raab and Lindsey Hoyle, the speaker of the house, have expressed total agreement.

Politico headlines the UK is “wrestling with anonymity”.

But what exactly would “ending anonymity” entail? That’s not clear. The white paper discusses how “anonymous accounts” can be used to “hide illegal activity”, and that companies should do more to prevent this, but there is nothing in there about outright banning them.

Any such formal ban would involve amending the bill, or writing a new one. Hence we have talk in parliament of “strengthening” the proposed legislation, but does that mean a ban? Perhaps, perhaps not.

A more likely (and more British) approach, as we are already seeing with vaccine passports, would be to make it an informal ban by pressuring the companies themselves to act outside of legislative compulsion. Parliament will author new “guidance” or “recommendations” on the opening of social media accounts, without ever enforcing them as law.

But partner this with steep fines for illegal activity, “hate speech” or “misinformation”, along with the proposal to make platforms criminally liable for “harmful content”, and companies become their own strict censors in the name of protecting their profit margin.

This is not a fringe theory at all, David Davis MP of all people, described exactly this process in warning that the online harms bill could become a “censor’s charter”.

It’s not hard to see how that system could be used to totally remove the idea of online anonymity without ever making it actually illegal, but rather making it too financially risky. Thus skirting any accusations of state censorship or authoritarianism.

We already know major internet players work hand-in-glove with governments all over the world, so they can be relied upon to enforce any new “duty of care” regulations. But the smaller competitors, who use privacy as a major selling point, can expect to be put in the media crosshairs.

Enter Telegram.

THE WAR ON TELEGRAM

Telegram, for those who aren’t familiar, is an encrypted private messaging service created by Russian Pavel Durov. It became the go-to encrypted service after Facebook bought Whatsapp, and its “channel” feature is a very useful way to communicate with thousands upon thousands of people at once. During the “pandemic” it has become a hub for those organizing protests and broadcasting information banned from mainstream platforms.

All of that has clearly put it on the state’s hit list, because somehow, in all the outpouring of emotion following Amess’ stabbing, it is Telegram that comes in for specific criticism.

To be clear: Telegram is not yet known to have played any part whatsoever in the attack on David Amess. None. It’s not even known whether or not the alleged killer had a telegram account.

Despite this, yesterday in Parliament, Sir Keir Starmer attacked Telegram as the “app of choice for extremists”.

Interestingly, he was citing a report from the NGO Hope Not Hate which was released on October 13th, just two days before Amess was stabbed.

In fact, Telegram has been the subject of ongoing media smears for years, and these have only intensified in the last few days.

Back in 2016, Gizmodo was telling people they should “delete telegram right now”, ironically because it wasn’t really encrypted enough. This story was repeated byVice in November 2020 and then Wired in January of this year.

Also in January, following the “riot” on Capitol Hill, Telegram was accused of being a safe haven for the “far-right”.

Vox headlined:

Why right-wing extremists’ favorite new platform is so dangerous

The Washington Post went with:

Far-right groups move online conversations from social media to chat apps — and out of view of law enforcement

In April Forbes reported that Telegram was “dangerous”. In May it was a platform “where cyber criminals share stolen data”. And then in June the New York Times called it a “misinformation hotspot”.

A September article in Politico accuses Telegram of allowing “misinformation” intended to influence the recent German election.

Also in September, the Financial Times called Telegram a new “dark web for cyber criminals”.

And an October article in Wired accuses the platform of being a “cesspool of antisemtic content”.

It goes on and on and on.

Perhaps most tellingly, Telegram is regularly blamed for Covid-related “misinformation”, along with selling fake Vaccine passes and allowing “threats to NHS workers”.

ARE YOU SEEING THE PATTERN?

Well… are you?

Although all this is framed as a response to the death of David Amess, none of it has yet been shown to have any relevance to the Amess case at all, and all of it predates the murder happening.

The online harms bill is almost three years old, the attacks on Telegram have been going on for over a year, and you can find a steady stream of media attacks on online anonymity going back over a decade.

As so often, the “reaction” to this “problem” is selling us a “solution” they’ve had planned for years.

Since at least 2016 MPs have been talking about “reclaiming the net”, while outlets like The Guardian have been talking about creating “the web we want”, and producing tortured statistical reports to paint the web as a dangerous place.

(Interesting note: those butchered “statistics” are referenced in the Online Harms white paper, a little incite into the self-sustaining nature of propaganda).

The lesson we should all learn: “Policy” is never a response, policy is an aim, a predetermined conclusion.

It is decided and written, and then the “reality” that justifies that policy is constructed, either through opportunistic use of real tragedies, cultivated public opinion, false-flag attacks or pure invention.

You can follow OffGuardian’s Telegram channel here. For now.

October 21, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, False Flag Terrorism, Full Spectrum Dominance, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | | 1 Comment

NYT Threatens Senator Manchin With Witchcraft If He Obstructs Democrat “Climate” Agenda

By Francis Menton | Manhattan Contrarian | October 19, 2021

It’s always been just a little odd that the guy the Democrats most need to get on board to get their big transformational plans enacted is Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia, while at the same time the centerpiece of those plans is to put the most important industry of West Virginia, coal mining, completely out of business. That sounds like it’s going to be a tough sell. Is there any argument that might convince this guy to get with the program?

In one of the funniest articles I have read anywhere recently, the New York Times thinks that it has come up with the argument that will carry the day: threaten Manchin with witchcraft! The article, covering about half of the front page of yesterday’s print edition, tells Manchin that if he continues to “block” the Democrats’ plans to destroy the coal industry, a spell will be cast over his state and it will be inundated with floods. The headline is “Blocking Climate Plan With Hometown at Risk.”

The Times characterizes Mr. Manchin’s stance thusly:

Mr. Manchin, a Democrat whose vote is crucial to passing his party’s climate legislation, is opposed to its most important provision that would compel utilities to stop burning oil, coal and gas and instead use solar, wind and nuclear energy, which do not emit the carbon dioxide that is heating the planet. Last week, the senator made his opposition clear to the Biden administration, which is now scrambling to come up with alternatives he would accept. Mr. Manchin has rejected any plan to move the country away from fossil fuels because he said it would harm West Virginia, a top producer of coal and gas.

Seems reasonable. Better threaten the guy:

Others say that by blocking efforts to reduce coal and gas use, Mr. Manchin risks hurting his state.

And how exactly would that work? Simple: if Manchin remains intransigent, West Virginia will be destroyed by epic floods.

First Street [Foundation] calculated the portion of all kinds of infrastructure at risk of becoming inoperable because of a so-called 100-year flood — a flood that statistically has a 1 percent chance of happening in any given year. The group compared the results for every state except Alaska and Hawaii. In many cases, West Virginia topped the list. Sixty-one percent of West Virginia’s power stations are at risk, the highest nationwide and more than twice the average. West Virginia also leads in the share of its roads at risk of inundation, at 46 percent. The state also ranks highest for the share of fire stations (57 percent) and police stations (50 percent) exposed to a 100-year flood. And West Virginia ties with Louisiana for the greatest share of schools (38 percent) and commercial properties (37 percent) at risk.

But what, if anything, does any of this have to do with Mr. Manchin’s opposition to the destruction of West Virginia’s coal industry? The Times article does not say, other than repeatedly invoking the phrase “climate change,” as if that has something to do with flood risk from rivers in West Virginia. The article makes no attempt to demonstrate any relationship between climate change and river flood risk.

Perhaps we should look to see what we can find about trends in flooding and/or extreme wet conditions in the United States over the last century or so. That is the period when human “greenhouse gas” emissions have supposedly been warming the atmosphere. Here is, for example, this NOAA chart of what they call “very wet/dry” conditions in the U.S. from 1895 through September 2021:

Can you detect the trend of increasing “extreme wet conditions” in that chart as the atmosphere has warmed (by maybe 1 deg C) over the time in question? Neither can I. How about U.S. flood damage as a percentage of GDP? Here is a chart presented to Congress by Roger Pielke, Jr. in testimony in 2015:

That trend looks to be significantly down rather than up. Mr. Pielke’s comment:

The good news is U.S. flood damage is sharply down over 70 years.

How about the IPCC. Surely they can come up with something to scare us? Here is a 2018 IPCC document with the title “Changes in Climate Extremes and their Impacts on the Natural Physical Environment.” On the subject of floods, from page 175:

The AR4 and the IPCC Technical Paper VI based on the AR4 concluded that no gauge-based evidence had been found for a climate-driven globally widespread change in the magnitude/frequency of floods during the last decades (Rosenzweig et al., 2007; Bates et al., 2008).

In short, the evidence to date gives no reason to believe that there is any reason that floods have increased, or are about to increase, due to “climate change.” In other words, the threat against Mr. Manchin to destroy West Virginia with floods can’t really be based on that. It must be witchcraft!

October 21, 2021 Posted by | Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

Colin Powell’s Own Staff Had Warned Him Against His War Lies

By David Swanson | Let’s Try Democracy | October 17, 2021

In the wake of WMD-liar Curveball’s videotaped confession, Colin Powell was demanding to know why nobody warned him about Curveball’s unreliability. The trouble is, they did.

Can you imagine having an opportunity to address the United Nations Security Council about a matter of great global importance, with all the world’s media watching, and using it to… well, to make shit up – to lie with a straight face, and with a CIA director propped up behind you, I mean to spew one world-class, for-the-record-books stream of bull, to utter nary a breath without a couple of whoppers in it, and to look like you really mean it all? What gall. What an insult to the entire world that would be.

Colin Powell doesn’t have to imagine such a thing. He has to live with it. He did it on February 5, 2003. It’s on videotape.

I tried to ask him about it in the summer of 2004. He was speaking to the Unity Journalists of Color convention in Washington, D.C. The event had been advertised as including questions from the floor, but for some reason that plan was revised. Speakers from the floor were permitted to ask questions of four safe and vetted journalists of color before Powell showed up, and then those four individuals could choose to ask him something related – which of course they did not, in any instance, do.

Bush and Kerry spoke as well. The panel of journalists who asked Bush questions when he showed up had not been properly vetted. Roland Martin of the Chicago Defender had slipped onto it somehow (which won’t happen again!). Martin asked Bush whether he was opposed to preferential college admissions for the kids of alumni and whether he cared more about voting rights in Afghanistan than in Florida. Bush looked like a deer in the headlights, only without the intelligence. He stumbled so badly that the room openly laughed at him.

But the panel that had been assembled to lob softballs at Powell served its purpose well. It was moderated by Gwen Ifill. I asked Ifill (and Powell could watch it later on C-Span if he wanted to) whether Powell had any explanation for the way in which he had relied on the testimony of Saddam Hussein’s son-in-law. He had recited the claims about weapons of mass destruction but carefully left out the part where that same gentleman had testified that all of Iraq’s WMDs had been destroyed. Ifill thanked me, and said nothing. Hillary Clinton was not present and nobody beat me up.

I wonder what Powell would say if someone were to actually ask him that question, even today, or next year, or ten years from now. Someone tells you about a bunch of old weapons and at the same time tells you they’ve been destroyed, and you choose to repeat the part about the weapons and censor the part about their destruction. How would you explain that?

Well, it’s a sin of omission, so ultimately Powell could claim he forgot. “Oh yeah, I meant to say that, but it slipped my mind.”

But how would he explain this:

During his presentation at the United Nations, Powell provided this translation of an intercepted conversation between Iraqi army officers:

“They’re inspecting the ammunition you have, yes.

“Yes.

“For the possibility there are forbidden ammo.

“For the possibility there is by chance forbidden ammo?

“Yes.

“And we sent you a message yesterday to clean out all of the areas, the scrap areas, the abandoned areas. Make sure there is nothing there.”

The incriminating phrases “clean all of the areas” and “Make sure there is nothing there” do not appear in the official State Department translation of the exchange:

“Lt. Colonel: They are inspecting the ammunition you have.

“Colonel: Yes.

“Lt. Col: For the possibility there are forbidden ammo.

“Colonel: Yes?

“Lt. Colonel: For the possibility there is by chance, forbidden ammo.

“Colonel: Yes.

“Lt. Colonel: And we sent you a message to inspect the scrap areas and the abandoned areas.

“Colonel: Yes.”

Powell was writing fictional dialogue. He put those extra lines in there and pretended somebody had said them. Here’s what Bob Woodward said about this in his book “Plan of Attack.”

“[Powell] had decided to add his personal interpretation of the intercepts to rehearsed script, taking them substantially further and casting them in the most negative light. Concerning the intercept about inspecting for the possibility of ‘forbidden ammo,’ Powell took the interpretation further: ‘Clean out all of the areas. . . . Make sure there is nothing there.’ None of this was in the intercept.”

For most of his presentation, Powell wasn’t inventing dialogue, but he was presenting as facts numerous claims that his own staff had warned him were weak and indefensible.

Powell told the UN and the world: “We know that Saddam’s son, Qusay, ordered the removal of all prohibited weapons from Saddam’s numerous palace complexes.” The January 31, 2003, evaluation of Powell’s draft remarks prepared for him by the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research (“INR”) flagged this claim as “WEAK”.

Regarding alleged Iraqi concealment of key files, Powell said: “key files from military and scientific establishments have been placed in cars that are being driven around the countryside by Iraqi intelligence agents to avoid detection.” The January 31, 2003 INR evaluation flagged this claim as “WEAK” and added “Plausibility open to question.” A Feb. 3, 2003, INR evaluation of a subsequent draft of Powell’s remarks noted:

“Page 4, last bullet, re key files being driven around in cars to avoid inspectors. This claim is highly questionable and promises to be targeted by critics and possibly UN inspection officials as well.” That didn’t stop Colin from stating it as fact and apparently hoping that, even if UN inspectors thought he was a brazen liar, US media outlets wouldn’t tell anyone.

On the issue of biological weapons and dispersal equipment, Powell said: “we know from sources that a missile brigade outside Baghdad was disbursing rocket launchers and warheads containing biological warfare agents to various locations, distributing them to various locations in western Iraq.”

The January 31, 2003, INR evaluation flagged this claim as “WEAK”:

“WEAK. Missiles with biological warheads reportedly dispersed. This would be somewhat true in terms of short-range missiles with conventional warheads, but is questionable in terms of longer-range missiles or biological warheads.”
This claim was again flagged in the February 3, 2003, evaluation of a subsequent draft of Powell’s presentation: “Page 5. first para, claim re missile brigade dispersing rocket launchers and BW warheads. This claim too is highly questionable and might be subjected to criticism by UN inspection officials.”

That didn’t stop Colin. In fact, he brought out visual aids to help with his lying

Powell showed a slide of a satellite photograph of an Iraqi munitions bunker, and lied:

“The two arrows indicate the presence of sure signs that the bunkers are storing chemical munitions . . . [t]he truck you […] see is a signature item. It’s a decontamination vehicle in case something goes wrong.”
The January 31, 2003, INR evaluation flagged this claim as “WEAK” and added: “We support much of this discussion, but we note that decontamination vehicles – cited several times in the text – are water trucks that can have legitimate uses… Iraq has given UNMOVIC what may be a plausible account for this activity – that this was an exercise involving the movement of conventional explosives; presence of a fire safety truck (water truck, which could also be used as a decontamination vehicle) is common in such an event.”

Powell’s own staff had told him the thing was a water truck, but he told the U.N. it was “a signature item…a decontamination vehicle.” The UN was going to need a decontamination vehicle itself by the time Powell finished spewing his lies and disgracing his country.

He just kept piling it on: “UAVs outfitted with spray tanks constitute an ideal method for launching a terrorist attack using biological weapons,” he said.

The January 31, 2003, INR evaluation flagged this statement as “WEAK” and added: “the claim that experts agree UAVs fitted with spray tanks are ‘an ideal method for launching a terrorist attack using biological weapons’ is WEAK.”

In other words, experts did NOT agree with that claim.

Powell kept going, announcing “in mid-December weapons experts at one facility were replaced by Iraqi intelligence agents who were to deceive inspectors about the work that was being done there.”

The January 31, 2003, INR evaluation flagged this claim as “WEAK” and “not credible” and “open to criticism, particularly by the UN inspectorates.”

His staff was warning him that what he planned to say would not be believed by his audience, which would include the people with actual knowledge of the matter.

To Powell that was no matter.

Powell, no doubt figuring he was in deep already, so what did he have to lose, went on to tell the UN: “On orders from Saddam Hussein, Iraqi officials issued a false death certificate for one scientist, and he was sent into hiding.”

The January 31, 2003, INR evaluation flagged this claim as “WEAK” and called it “Not implausible, but UN inspectors might question it. (Note: Draft states it as fact.)”

And Powell stated it as fact. Notice that his staff was not able to say there was any evidence for the claim, but rather that it was “not implausible.” That was the best they could come up with. In other words: “They might buy this one, Sir, but don’t count on it.”

Powell, however, wasn’t satisfied lying about one scientist. He had to have a dozen. He told the United Nations: “A dozen [WMD] experts have been placed under house arrest, not in their own houses, but as a group at one of Saddam Hussein’s guest houses.”

The January 31, 2003, INR evaluation flagged this claim as “WEAK” and “Highly questionable.” This one didn’t even merit a “Not implausible.”

Powell also said: “In the middle of January, experts at one facility that was related to weapons of mass destruction, those experts had been ordered to stay home from work to avoid the inspectors. Workers from other Iraqi military facilities not engaged in elicit weapons projects were to replace the workers who’d been sent home.”

Powell’s staff called this “WEAK,” with “Plausibility open to question.”

All of this stuff sounded plausible enough to viewers of Fox, CNN, and MSNBC. And that, we can see now, was what interested Colin. But it must have sounded highly implausible to the U.N. inspectors. Here was a guy who had not been with them on any of their inspections coming in to tell them what had happened.

We know from Scott Ritter, who led many UNSCOM inspections in Iraq, that U.S. inspectors had used the access that the inspection process afforded them to spy for, and to set up means of data collection for, the CIA. So there was some plausibility to the idea that an American could come back to the UN and inform the UN what had really happened on its inspections.

Yet, repeatedly, Powell’s staff warned him that the specific claims he wanted to make were not going to even sound plausible. They will be recorded by history more simply as blatant lies.

The examples of Powell’s lying listed above are taken from an extensive report released by Congressman John Conyers: “The Constitution in Crisis; The Downing Street Minutes and Deception, Manipulation, Torture, Retribution, and Coverups in the Iraq War.”

October 20, 2021 Posted by | Deception, Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Timeless or most popular | , | 1 Comment

Ben Swann Interview – Exposing The COVID Illusion & The Impending Technocratic Future

Ryan Cristián – Last American Vagabond – October 15, 2021

Joining me today is Ben Swann, here to discuss how he has been fighting back against the COVID-19 tyranny, and the actions he is taking to create a space where the truth can be heard. And no discussion with Ben would be complete without a back and forth about the many different ways in which COVID-19 itself is a deception.

(https://www.rokfin.com/TLAVagabond)
(https://odysee.com/@TLAVagabond:5)
(https://www.bitchute.com/channel/24yVcta8zEjY/)

October 19, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | , , | Leave a comment

Extrajudicial Biden Regime Extradition

By Stephen Lendman | October 18, 2021

Hegemon USA is at war on Venezuela by other means for not subordinating its sovereign rights to a higher power in Washington.

According to US Treasury Department fake news:

Venezuelan envoy Alex Saab “enabled” Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro “to significantly profit from food imports and distribution in” the country (sic), falsely adding:

“Saab has personally profited from overvalued contracts (sic).”

He and Maduro “insiders r(an) a wide scale corruption network… to steal from the Venezuelan people (sic).”

“They use food as a form of social control, to reward political supporters and punish opponents, all the while pocketing hundreds of millions of dollars through a number of fraudulent schemes (sic).”

All of the above rubbish is part of bipartisan US war on the country by illegal sanctions and other hostile actions because of its freedom from Washington’s control.

No evidence was cited to support the above accusations because there is none.

Everything claimed by Treasury was fake news — supported by MSM like the NYT, falsely calling Saab a “financial fixer for President Maduro’s… authoritarian government (sic).

Time and again since democratically elected Hugo Chavez took office in early 1999, the Times and other MSM demeaned the hemisphere’s model democracy and its leadership — polar opposite US/Western fantasy versions, run by their criminal class.

No evidence of “money laundering charges” against Saab and Maduro exist — a longstanding US practice.

Bolivarian Venezuela operates by higher standards, one long ago ago abandoned by the US-dominated West.

In June 2020 — on Trump regime orders — Saab was kidnapped by Cape Verde authorities during a stopover in the African archipelago en route to Iran to arrange for the purchase of food and medicines.

His invented “crime” is all about organizing and heading a humanitarian mission for this purpose — that flies in the face of Washington’s illegal blockade.

Illegally detained since last June, he was extrajudicially extradited to the US on Saturday.

The move followed an early September ruling by the island country’s so-called Constitutional Court.

At the time, Saab’s lawyers denounced it, calling it “politi(zed)” based on irregularities, yielding to US pressure.

Last month, Maduro called Saab’s kidnapping and detention a US plot to undermine Venezuela’s Local Provision and Production Committees (CLAPs) program.

Established in early 2016, it distributes subsidized food to around seven million Venezuelan families, around two-thirds of the population, part of the nation’s participatory social democracy.

From inception, the Obama/Biden regime falsely claimed that the program is used as a political weapon against opposition interests.

It’s nothing of the sort. All Venezuelans in need are able to receive aid regardless of their political affiliations.

The CLAP program is administered by neighborhood committees connected to communal councils, social organizations operating nationwide, including community, environmental and feminist groups, others involved in cultural, education and various other activities.

Their common theme is defending Bolivarian social democracy they want preserved and protected, notably serving the rights and welfare of all Venezuelans as constitutionally mandated.

The nation’s Social Development and Popular Participation Ministry, later the Communes Ministry, mobilized activists to form government funded communal councils.

They encourage Venezuelans to become involved in defending the revolution from internal and external efforts to undermine it — mainly by hegemon USA.

In mid-September, head of Venezuela’s National Assembly and dialogue delegation, Jorge Rodriguez, announced that Saab would be included in dialogue with opposition elements in Mexico.

At the time, he said that his detention is part of diabolical US efforts to undermine the process.

On Saturday, Venezuela’s Foreign Affairs Ministry accused Cape Verde authorities, in cahoots with the Biden regime, of harming Saab’s “life and physical integrity” — by illegally detaining and mistreating him, causing his health to deteriorate.

At the same time because of his extrajudicial extradition to the US, Maduro’s government suspended talks with opposition elements, Rodriguez saying:

“In connection with those outrageous actions, the delegation announces it is suspending its participation in the dialogue,” adding:

“Therefore, we will not arrive (for) a new round of talks that was to begin in Mexico on October 17.”

Illegal extradition of Saab was “another act of US aggression against Venezuela.”

Based on phony accusations, his kidnapping, detention and extradition to the US for judicial lynching represents a flagrant breach of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.

It’s another example of hegemon USA’s war on humanity at home and abroad.

Waged against invented enemies by the most ruthless regime in US history — including ordinary Americans targeted for elimination — it’s ongoing with the worst of draconian aims in mind.

October 18, 2021 Posted by | Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , , | 1 Comment

Headlines designed to frighten women into having the jab

By Sally Beck | TCW Defending Freedom | October 18, 2021

PREGNANT women who have not been dragooned into having a Covid jab must have been terrified by the headlines in many newspapers last Monday. A typical one read: ‘Pregnant women who have not had vaccine make up a FIFTH of the most ill Covid patients in intensive care, figures show’.

It makes it sound like one in five unvaccinated pregnant women are in intensive care – but it’s not true. It’s a cynical misrepresentation of the figures, presumably to scare women into taking the experimental vaccines.

Pregnant women are the minority of patients on ICU. The number of non-pregnant patients dying with a Covid diagnosis on ICU is ten times higher, and more of that cohort are likely to have been vaccinated. And what none of the news stories discussed was the risk to pregnant women who take the vaccine. The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), the government drugs watchdog, list 28 deaths in their pregnancy section which include miscarriages, foetal deaths and stillbirths post vaccination between August 26 and October 14, but do not make it clear whether the mother died alongside her baby. Currently, at least 480,000 women are pregnant and on October 8, there were only 14 pregnant women on ICU from a total of 890 male and female patients. That has now dropped to 13 (p 43). ICNARC_COVID-19_Report_2021-10-15.pdf.pdf  Pregnant women in the 16 to 49 age range account for just 1.6 per cent of all patients in intensive care.

Respiratory problems and failure have always been the most common cause for pregnant women to need admission to ICU and pre-Covid more than 1 in 5 pregnant women on ICU were there for pneumonia. Historically, many pneumonias will have been due to influenza but more recently have been caused by Covid.

The data released by the NHS last week relate to pregnant women who have tested positive for Covid and are being supported by a machine bypassing their lungs which are too damaged by the disease to breathe. The extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) machine makes sure their blood is oxygenated and enables the body’s cells and organs to function properly.

The truth is that since July there have been 118 patients who needed an ECMO but only 20 were pregnant, less than a fifth. Of the 20 who were pregnant, 19 were recorded as unvaccinated. There have been no Covid patients supported by ECMO machines for the last two weeks (p 60).

There are more explanations for the figures. According to Dr Clare Craig, a member of HART Group (Health Advisory & Recovery Team), a group of highly qualified UK doctors, scientists and academics: ‘There are very few of these machines in the country. [Last reported figure was 15.] Prioritising pregnant women for such therapy would be a reasonable approach so the proportion receiving this care would not necessarily reflect the proportion of pregnant women who were sick on intensive care.’

The number of pregnant women who have died, according to official figures (Table 9, p 42) from the Intensive Care Audit National Research Centre (ICNARC), is minuscule compared to the total of 16- to 49-year-old deaths. From May 1 to October 8 this year, three pregnant women died (1.4 per cent), five recently pregnant women had died (2.9 per cent) compared with 127 women who were not pregnant (13.9 per cent). Since September 2020 only six pregnant women on ICU have died and 16 if you include recently pregnant women.

These figures clearly show that a minority of pregnant women end up on ICU.

Dr Craig said: ‘The mortality rate among pregnant women is one tenth of that of non-pregnant women aged 16-49 years.

‘Pregnancy comes with a small amount of risk which is illustrated by the pre-Covid figures. Around 300 pregnant women a year were admitted to ICU from about 640,000 births. This is about 1 in 2,000. A further 1,400 women who had recently been pregnant were also admitted per year. Together, these made up 14 per cent of intensive care admissions for all women aged 16-49 years of age. The admission rate since Covid had increased to 1 in 1,500 pregnant women compared with 1 in 4,000 non-pregnant women of childbearing age.

‘Last year, 1 in 3 of those who tested positive were asymptomatic and the number of positive PCR results are disproportionately high for women of childbearing age who are much more likely to be tested routinely as part of their antenatal care.

‘Other conditions have similar symptoms to Covid. There are 200 viruses that can cause a common cold which can also present with a cough. Pre-eclampsia symptoms include a severe headache and pain under the ribs. Testing on admission and repeated testing on ICU, in an environment where SARS-CoV-2 is likely to be present, can result in overdiagnosis.’

No one has escaped the effects of Covid completely, not even pregnant women. Dr Craig said: ‘Overall, deaths in women of childbearing age rose in spring and winter 2020 but have been at expected levels since.

‘So, to stress again, the risk of dying on ICU with a Covid diagnosis is ten times higher in the non-pregnant population, more of whom are likely to have been vaccinated.’

No Covid drug manufacturer has released details of studies into pregnant women receiving the vaccine, which means all information relating to expectant mothers is speculation. Pfizer do not complete theirs until December 2021.

The NHS say that the data comes from over 100,000 Covid vaccinations in pregnancy in England and Scotland, and a further 160,000 in the US – culled from the American V-Safe app, a self-reporting system for women who found themselves pregnant after taking the jab. None of the data are available to be scrutinised and neither set constitute a scientific study. However, Dr Edward Morris, president of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG), said: ‘We do understand women’s concerns about having the vaccine in pregnancy, and we want to reassure women that there is no link between having the vaccine and an increased risk of miscarriage, premature birth or stillbirth.’

An obstetrics and gynaecology doctor, who advises the UK Medical Freedom Alliance, a team of medical professionals, academics, scientists, and lawyers; said: ‘These numbers are so far from good science that we could be put on notice of liability if something goes wrong with a mother’s pregnancy because of the vaccine.’

Data from Public Health England showed that more than 81,000 pregnant women have received the first dose of the Covid jab, and around 65,000 have had their second.

Pregnant women were first offered the vaccine in December 2020, if they were health or care workers or in an at-risk group. Since April 2021, pregnant women have been offered the vaccine as part of the standard age-based rollout of the vaccination programme. No births in pregnant women from the April cohort who received the vaccine will have been completed until January 2022. So there is no way to know how vaccinated pregnant women, who had the vaccine in their first trimester, will fare until then, and we only have limited data from women vaccinated in the second and third trimester.

October 17, 2021 Posted by | Deception, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | 1 Comment

IEA: More Renewable Investment Required to Stabilise European Energy Markets

By Eric Worrall | Watts Up With That? | October 17, 2021

According to Dr. Fatih Birol, $4 trillion per year of global renewable investment would reduce European dependence on Russian Gas, though Russia is also to blame for the recent energy crisis for not sending more gas.

IEA: Green energy needed to avoid turbulent prices

By Jonathan Josephs
Business reporter, BBC News

A failure to invest sufficiently in green energy means “we may well see more and more turbulence in the energy markets”, the head of the International Energy Agency has told the BBC.

Dr Fatih Birol said that “is not good news for the global economy.”

Energy prices in the UK, Europe and Asia have hit record highs in recent weeks triggering inflation concerns.

IEA’s annual World Energy Outlook warns clean energy and infrastructure need a $4 trillion a year investment.

Such an outlay would mean the world could limit the rise in global temperatures to 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels, as agreed in Paris six years ago.

The warning has been timed to greet the COP26 climate change summit, due to take place in Glasgow at the end of this month. Dr Birol said it was up to world leaders to incentivise the necessary investment at the summit.

“If you push clean energy, energy efficiency, solar electric cars and other [solutions], you don’t need any more to use fossil fuels, you switch to clean energy sources. […]

Russia, which is one of the world’s biggest producers of natural gas has been accused of withholding supplies that could ease those price pressures for political reasons. Dr Birol said “Russia could have been, and still can be more helpful. Our numbers show that Russia can easily increase the gas it is sending to Europe by 15%, which could underscore that they could be qualified as a reliable partner.

“There are some statements coming from Moscow, which are helpful. But in addition to the statements, I would be very happy to see some gas volumes come to Europe”. […]

The IEA boss says that government money could be the trigger for renewed private investment in clean energy and the he is optimistic about what can be achieved in Glasgow.

“It’s also very important that in COP government leaders around the world come together, unite and give a unmistakable signal to investors, saying that you investor, you see we are united to build a clean energy future”, but that “if you continue to invest in the old energy [such as fossil fuels], you may well lose money.”

If you invest in the clean energy, you can make handsome profits. That’s [the] political signal I hope will go to investors.”

Read more: https://www.bbc.com/news/business-58901566

My question to Dr. Birol – how is Russia expected to supply more gas to Europe, without investing in “old energy”? Is IEA head Dr. Fatih Birol demanding Russian investors sacrifice themselves for the greater good of Europe?

Can you imagine what it must be like for Russian trade representatives discussing energy sales with their European counterparts? “You guys are evil, but please send some more evil right now, because your withholding of evil is evil.”

No doubt President Putin has tears of laughter streaming from his eyes, whenever he receives an update of the latest insanity of his trading partners.

October 17, 2021 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Progressive Hypocrite, Russophobia | | Leave a comment

Oligarchic empire is working harder to bolt down our minds in service of its agendas. And that gives us hope…

By Caitlin Johnstone | RT | October 16, 2021

Propagandists work so hard to manufacture our consent for the status quo even as more and more people, including extremely influential ones, begin questioning whether we’re being deliberately deceived about everything.

Silicon Valley is working more and more openly in conjunction with the US government, and its algorithms elevate empire-authorized narratives while hiding unapproved ones with increasing brazenness.

The mass media have become so blatantly propagandistic that US intelligence operatives are now openly employed by news outlets they used to have to infiltrate covertly.

NATO and military institutions are studying and testing new forms of mass-scale psychological manipulation to advance the still-developing science of propaganda.

transparently fake “whistleblower” is being promoted by the US political/media class to manufacture support for more internet censorship and shore up monopolistic control for institutions like Facebook who are willing to enforce it.

Wikipedia is an imperial narrative control operation.

They’ve imprisoned a journalist for exposing US war crimes after the CIA plotted to kidnap and assassinate him.

The powerful work so hard at such endeavors because they understand something that most ordinary people do not: whoever controls the dominant narratives about the world controls the world itself.

Power is controlling what happens; absolute power is controlling what people think about what happens.

If you can control how people think about what’s going on in their world, if you can control their shared how-it-is stories about what’s happening and what’s true, then you can advance any agenda you want to. You’ll be able to prevent them from rising up against you as you steal their wealth, exploit their labor, destroy their ecosystem and send their children off to war. You can keep them voting for political institutions you own and control. You can keep them from interfering in your ability to wage wars around the world and sanction entire populations into starvation to advance your geostrategic goals.

This status quo of exploitation, ecocide, oppression and war benefits our rulers immensely, bringing them more wealth and power than the kings of old could ever dream of. And like the kings of old, they are not going to relinquish power of their own accord, which means the only thing that will bring an end to this world-destroying status quo is the people rising up and using the power of their numbers to end it.

Yet they don’t rise up. They don’t because they are successfully propagandized into accepting this status quo, or at least into believing it’s the only way things can be right now. Imperial narrative control is therefore the source of all our biggest problems.

And they’re only getting more and more aggressive about it. More and more forceful, less and less sly and subtle in their campaign to control the thoughts that are in our heads.

Many of those who have this realization see it as cause for despair. I personally see it as cause for hope.

They work so hard to manufacture our consent for the status quo because they absolutely require that consent; history shows us that rulers do not fare well after a critical mass of the population has turned against them. And they’re working harder and harder to manufacture that consent, even as extremely influential people begin questioning whether we’re being deliberately deceived about everything.

They used to look like someone using a bucket to bail out water from a leaky boat. Now they look like someone treading water, barely managing to get their mouth and nose high enough to take gasps of air.

They’re working harder and harder because they need to.

The fact that the propagandists have to work so hard to keep our society this insane means the natural gravitational pull is toward sanity. They have to educate us into crazier and crazier ways of thinking from the moment we go to school until we die, because otherwise we’ll collectively awaken and shake off their shackles.

It takes a lot of educating to keep us this stupid.

You think you’re struggling? You should see the people trying to manufacture consent for a status quo that is both plainly insane and self-evidently unsustainable. They’re the ones doing all the heavy lifting in this struggle. They’re the ones fighting gravity.

Hope is not a popular position to take in a world that is being abused, exploited and being driven mad by manipulative sociopaths. Which is understandable.

But I just can’t help it. I look at how hard they are struggling to keep the light from bursting in and driving out the darkness, and I can’t help but think, “Those poor bastards can’t keep that up much longer.”

October 17, 2021 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Timeless or most popular | , | 1 Comment