Kremlin responds to Vance’s comment on troops for Ukraine statement
RT | February 15, 2025
The Kremlin has acknowledged that US Vice President J.D. Vance did not threaten the deployment of US troops to Ukraine during his interview with The Wall Street Journal. He has accused the newspaper of misrepresenting his words about what leverage Washington can use in peace talks with Moscow.
“Yes, we have taken note,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told TASS on Saturday.
In a summary of an article on Thursday titled “Vance Wields Threat of Sanctions, Military Action to Push Putin Into Ukraine Deal” the paper stated that the vice president had pledged to impose sanctions and possibly intervene with troops if Russian President Vladimir Putin rejected a peace deal guaranteeing Ukraine’s independence.
Vance’s communications director, William Martin, criticized the article, calling it “pure fake news,” posting a transcript of the vice president’s interview with the newspaper and argued that he had not made any threats. In the transcript, Vance had said that Trump would consider a wide range of options in discussions with Russia and Ukraine. He mentioned that “economic tools of leverage” and “military tools of leverage” exist but did not specify any actions.
“There’s a whole host of things that we could do. But fundamentally, I think the president wants to have a productive negotiation, both with Putin and with [Vladimir] Zelensky,” the transcript read.
“As we’ve always said, American troops should never be put into harm’s way where it doesn’t advance American interests and security,” Vance wrote on X. “The fact that the WSJ twisted my words in the way they did for this story is absurd, but not surprising,” he added.
The Kremlin sought clarification regarding Vance’s comments following the initial report. Peskov told reporters on Friday that the remarks were new to Moscow. “We have not heard such statements before,” he said.
The Wall Street Journal’s report has since received a community note on X, which states: “JD Vance made no explicit pledge to either sanctions or military actions.” The note links to Martin’s post containing the transcript.
BBC Rides to the Rescue as Scientists Inconveniently Find the Gulf Stream Isn’t Getting Weaker
By Chris Morrison | The Daily Sceptic | February 6, 2025
Last month a group of scientists published a paper in Nature stating that the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) had shown no decline in strength since the 1960s. Helped by publicity in the Daily Sceptic, the story went viral on social media, although it was largely ignored in narrative-driven mainstream publications. The collapse of the Gulf Stream, a key component of the AMOC, is an important ‘tipping point’ story used to induce mass climate psychosis and make it easier to impose the Net Zero fantasy on increasingly resentful and questioning populations. Obviously, reinforcements to back up such an important weaponised scare needed to be rushed to the front and the BBC has risen to the challenge. The AMOC “appears to be getting weaker” state BBC activists Simon King and Mark Poynting. Their long article is a classic of its kind in trying to deflect scientific findings that blow holes in the ‘settled’ narrative.
In the Nature paper, three scientists working out of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution stated that they came to their conclusion showing the stability of the AMOC after examining heat transfers between the sea and the atmosphere. It was noted that the AMOC had not weakened from 1963 to 2017, “although substantial variability exists at all latitudes”. This variability is the basis for much of the Gulf Stream fear-mongering. The BBC notes that the presence of larger grains of sediment on the ocean floor suggests the existence of stronger currents, pointing to a “cold blob” in the Atlantic that appears to have cooled of late. Thin pickings, it might be thought, to run an article titled ‘Could the UK actually get colder with global warming?’ The Woods Hole scientists note that records “are not long enough to differentiate between low frequency variability and long-term trends”.
The Nature story is not the only recent scientific finding that suggests the Day After Tomorrow alarm about the AMOC is a tad overdone. In 2023, Georgina Rannard of the BBC reported that “scientists say” a weakening Gulf Stream could collapse as early as 2025. There was no later reporting, needless to say, of subsequent work from a group of scientists at the US weather service NOAA that discovered the huge flow of Gulf Stream tropical water through the Florida Straits had remained “remarkably stable” for over 40 years.
Of course the BBC, along with most of the legacy media, has form as long as your arm when it comes to producing deflective copy seemingly designed to head off inconvenient scientific findings. The Great Barrier Reef (GBR) is the largest and best observed collection of tropical coral in the world. Any sign of ill health is a boon for green propogandists who argue that warming measured in tenths of a degree centigrade will destroy an organism that has survived for millions of years in temperatures between 24-32°C. For the last three years, coral on the GBR has hit recent record levels with scarcely a mention in mainstream media. Days before last year’s record was announced, the places where journalism goes to die were full of stories from a paper that conveniently noted climate change posed an “existential threat” to the reef. “The science tells us that the GBR is in danger and we should be guided by the science,” Professor Helen McGregor from the University of Wollongong told Victoria Gill of BBC News. Professor McGregor’s statement was an opinion readily broadcast by the BBC, a courtesy that does not appear to have been extended to the fact that coral on the GBR was at its highest level since detailed observations began.
It beggars belief that the BBC and all its fellow alarmists can run this stuff with a straight face knowing that crucial scientific information is missing from their reports. Important findings from reputable sources emerge about the current stability of the Gulf Stream and the response is to blow more smoke around that raises wholly unnecessary fears.
The main concern is that the AMOC “could suddenly switch off”, state King and Poynting. To back up their statement and provide the inevitable political message they note the comment of Matthew England, Professor of Oceanography at the University of South Wales: “We’re playing a bit of a Russian roulette game. The more we stack up the atmosphere with greenhouse gases, the more we warm the system, the more chance we have of an AMOC slowdown and collapse.” Now look what you plebs have done with your steak chomping, gas-guzzling central heating and naff holidays in Benidorm, is an unpleasant subtext here.
Of course, keen and dedicated followers of climate alarmists will note a master craftsman at work. In 2023, aided by 35 million computer hours and using an improbable rise in temperature of up to 4°C in less than 80 years, Professor Matthews suggested that there was a dramatic slowdown in deep Antarctica ocean currents. Melting Antarctica ice could lead to a 40% slowdown in just 30 years. The fact that Antarctica has barely warmed in 70 years is ignored.
Who needs Hollywood sci-fi blockbusters when we have the BBC.
BBC’s Fake Wildfire Claims
By Paul Homewood | Not A Lot Of People Know That | January 30, 2025
The climate establishment are going to great lengths to blame the Los Angeles fires on global warming.
One attempt has already bitten the dust, with claims of increasing winter droughts contradicted by the real world data.
So another team of so-called scientists have come up with an even more ridiculous idea – that it is now both to wet and too dry in California.
The BBC report:
Climate change has made the grasses and shrubs that are fuelling the Los Angeles fires more vulnerable to burning, scientists say.
Rapid swings between dry and wet conditions in the region in recent years have created a massive amount of tinder-dry vegetation that is ready to ignite.
Decades of drought in California were followed by extremely heavy rainfall for two years in 2022 and 2023, but that then flipped again to very dry conditions in the autumn and winter of 2024.
“Scientists” say in a new study, external that climate change has boosted what they call these “whiplash” conditions globally by 31-66% since the middle of the 20th Century.
“This whiplash sequence in California has increased fire risk twofold,” said lead author Daniel Swain from UCLA.
“First, by greatly increasing the growth of flammable grass and brush in the months leading up to fire season, and then by drying it out to exceptionally high levels with the extreme dryness and warmth that followed.”
Once again though the actual data shows the new study to be just as fake as the previous one. Most of California’s rain comes in the winter half, October to March; the last two years have been wetter than average, but no more so than many other years on record:
The same applies to the South Coast Drainage Division, which includes Los Angeles:
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/national/time-series
Neither is there any evidence of bigger swings from year to year.
Patrick Brown of the Breakthrough Institute has written a full scientific rebuttal here, which demolishes this latest fake science.
This is his summary:
Summary
So, let’s recap. At the annual timescale that is most relevant to the Los Angeles fires…
-
- Figure 1: There is no clear increase in overall whiplash occurrence or wet-to-dry whiplash occurrence in Los Angeles in the premiere observational dataset (ERA5) using data directly from Swain et al. (2025).
- Figure 2: There is no clear increase in overall whiplash occurrence or wet-to-dry whiplash occurrence over southern California in the premiere observational dataset (ERA5) using data directly from Swain et al. (2025).
- Figure 3: There is a long-term decrease in whiplash events globally over land (where it matters) in the premiere observational dataset (ERA5) using data directly from Swain et al. (2025).
- Figure 5: There is no increase in the variability (standard deviation) of annual SPEI either for all months or centered on January) in the Los Angeles grid point using the pre-existing standard SPEI dataset.
- Figure 6: There has been a decrease in the variability (standard deviation) of SPEI over global land since the 1980s using the pre-existing standard SPEI dataset.
- Figure 7: There is no agreement on the direction of change (if any) in annual precipitation variability (standard deviation) over the Los Angeles area across eight different precipitation datasets.
- Figures 8 and 9: There is no agreement on the direction of change (if any) in annual precipitation variability (standard deviation) globally across eight different precipitation datasets.
While “climate whiplash events” may be increasing in frequency under most of the very specific, selected definitions used and datasets investigated in Swain et al. (2025), the general idea that annual precipitation (or more generally, the water cycle, which includes evaporation) is becoming dramatically more variable is not supported when a broader set of datasets and definitions are used.
Would a reader of Swain et al. (2025), or especially its coverage, have any idea about the weakness of its broader conclusions or the lack of robustness of its results to different definitions and datasets? Almost certainly not, and I contend that this is a major problem for public understanding and trust in climate science.
Why don’t we see a robust increase in water cycle variability given the strong theory underpinning “wet gets wetter, dry gets drier”? For one thing, the theoretical size of the effect is known to be quite small relative to natural, unforced variability, making it inherently difficult to detect. For example, we see in Figure 7 above that year-to-year rainfall in Los Angeles naturally varies by as much as 300%, yet the signal we are looking for is one to two orders of magnitude less than this. It is also apparently the case that observational uncertainty is larger than the signal (or there would not be such disagreement between datasets). Physically, perhaps increasing mean precipitation is offsetting the increase in calculated evaporation in the SPEI index, reducing its variability. Maybe reduced temperature variability (via arctic amplification) is reducing calculated evaporation variability.
I don’t know the full answer, but these would be great research questions to identify and outline in a Nature review like Swain et al. (2025). Unfortunately, Swain et al. (2025) missed this opportunity because the paper seemed so focused on assembling evidence in favor of increasing water cycle variability that contradictory evidence was never presented or seriously grappled with.
My main discomfort with Swain et al. (2025) and its rollout is that it appears that the primary goal was to create and disseminate the “climate whiplash” meme rather than conduct a truly rigorous evaluation of the evidence, including countervailing evidence. Ultimately, this makes the research a much larger advance in marketing than an advance in science.
https://www.breakthroughjournal.org/p/how-much-did-increasing-climate-whiplash
Of course, studies like Swain’s are not intended to be serious science; they are written to generate headlines.
And the climate industry is now highly organised to ensure that theses fake studies are disseminated worldwide via a corrupt media.
Audit USAID… Then Shut it Down!
By Ron Paul | February 3, 2025
As of this writing, when you attempt to access the US Agency for International Development (USAID) website or social media pages you are informed that, “This site can’t be reached.” The media reports that the new Trump Administration has not only frozen USAID activities but may be planning on bringing it back under control of the US State Department. Other reports, including statements by Elon Musk, suggest that it will be closed completely.
If true, the closing of USAID may be one of the most significant changes President Trump has made among many dramatic actions in his first couple of weeks in office. Many Americans may still have the idea that USAID is a government agency delivering relief at disaster sites overseas. They may still remember the bags of rice or grain with the USAID logo on them. But that is not USAID.
USAID is a key component of the US government’s “regime change” operations worldwide. USAID spends billions of dollars every year propping up “NGOs” overseas that function as shadow governments, eating away at elected governments that the US interventionists want to overthrow. Behind most US foreign policy disasters overseas you will see the fingerprints of USAID. From Ukraine to Georgia and far beyond, USAID is meddling in the internal affairs of foreign countries – something that would infuriate Americans if it was happening to us.
When President Trump ordered a 90 day pause in USAID activities, we quickly learned just how pernicious the agency really is. The US media reported that Ukrainian press outlets were scrambling to keep their doors open when the US dollars stopped flowing. It is reported that 90 percent of the media outlets are funded by the US government!
This means that there is virtually no independent media in Ukraine, only fake news outlets willing to toe the US Administration’s propaganda line. Does anyone think these wholly US-funded “news” outlets would ever publish a story that the US government did not want published?
This is plainly immoral, but it is also dangerous. Most US mainstream media stories about Ukraine have their origins in the “reporting” of the local media. From battlefield news to casualties to the state of the Ukrainian military, the “news” from Ukraine is being written by US government-backed media outlets and then picked up by US and other western media. It is a closed propaganda loop that not only propagandizes the US citizen but also feeds false information into US government outlets – such as Congress – that rely on mainstream US media reporting for their news on Ukraine.
No wonder so many in Washington continue to support this hopeless war!
But USAID is not just in the business of disinformation. Elon Musk recently re-posted a New York Post article on X reporting that USAID funneled $53 million to EcoHealth Alliance to support gain-of-function research on coronaviruses at the Wuhan lab! Did USAID help fund COVID? Americans have a right to know.
In natural catastrophes overseas Americans have shown themselves to be extremely generous. Private volunteer assistance organizations can more effectively assist victims of disasters worldwide.
USAID needs a full and transparent audit. Americans deserve to know exactly what is being done in their name overseas. Then the agency needs to be shuttered completely, and its employees sent home. That would go a long way toward making America great again.
The CIA Report: Why a Low Confidence Finding is the Height of Hypocrisy
By Jonathan Turley | January 27, 2025
Every modern president seems to promise transparency during their campaigns, but few ever seem to get around to it. Once in power, the value of being opaque becomes evident. We will have to wait to see if President Donald Trump will fulfill his pledges, but so far this is proving the cellophane administration. Putting aside his constant press gaggles and conferences, the Administration has ordered wholesale disclosures of long-withheld files from everything from the JFK investigation to, most recently, the CIA COVID origins report. That report is particularly stinging for both the Biden Administration and its media allies.
Newly-confirmed CIA Director John Ratcliffe released the report, which details how it views the lab theory as the most likely explanation for the virus. Expressing “low confidence,” the agency still favored that theory over the natural origins theory, which was treated as sacrosanct by the media and favored by figures like Anthony Fauci. (Other recent reports have contradicted the equally orthodox view on the closing of schools, showing no material benefit in terms of slowing the transmission of COVID).
Even a low-confidence finding shows the height of hypocrisy in Washington where politicians and pundits savaged any scientist who even suggested the possibility that the virus was man-made and likely originated in the Wuhan lab near the site of the outbreak.
This follows a recent disclosure in the Wall Street Journal of a report on how the Biden administration may have suppressed dissenting views supporting the lab theory on the origin of the COVID-19 virus. Not only were the FBI and its top experts excluded from a critical briefing of President Biden, but government scientists were reportedly warned that they were “off the reservation” in supporting the lab theory.
As previously discussed, many journalists used the rejection of the lab theory to paint Trump as a bigot. By the time Biden became president, not only were certain government officials heavily invested in the zoonotic or natural origin theory, but so were many in the media.
Reporters used opposition to the lab theory as another opportunity to pound their chests and signal their virtue.
MSNBC’s Nicolle Wallace mocked Trump and others for spreading one of his favorite “conspiracy theories.” MSNBC’s Kasie Hunt insisted that “we know it’s been debunked that this virus was manmade or modified,”
MSNBC’s Joy Reid also called the lab leak theory “debunked bunkum,” while CNN reporter Drew Griffin criticized spreading the “widely debunked” theory. CNN host Fareed Zakaria told viewers that “the far right has now found its own virus conspiracy theory” in the lab leak.
NBC News’s Janis Mackey Frayer described it as the “heart of conspiracy theories.”
The Washington Post was particularly dogmatic. When Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark) raised the theory, he was chastised for “repeat[ing] a fringe theory suggesting that the ongoing spread of a coronavirus is connected to research in the disease-ravaged epicenter of Wuhan, China.”
Likewise, after Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) mentioned the lab theory, Post Fact Checker Glenn Kessler mocked him: “I fear @tedcruz missed the scientific animation in the video that shows how it is virtually impossible for this virus jump from the lab. Or the many interviews with actual scientists. We deal in facts, and viewers can judge for themselves.”
As these efforts failed and more information emerged supporting the lab theory, many media figures just looked at their shoes and shrugged. Others became more ardent. In 2021, New York Times science and health reporter Apoorva Mandavilli was still calling on reporters not to mention the “racist” lab theory.
In Kessler’s case, he wrote that the lab theory was “suddenly credible” as if it had sprung from the head of Zeus rather than having been supported for years by scientists, many of whom had been canceled and banned.
As these figures were attacking reports, Biden officials were sitting on these reports. Figures like Fauci did nothing to support those academics being canceled or censored for raising the theory.
The very figures claiming to battle “disinformation” were suppressing opposing views that have now been vindicated as credible. It was not only the lab theory. In my recent book, I discuss how signatories of the Great Barrington Declaration were fired or disciplined by their schools or associations for questioning COVID-19 policies.
The suppression of the lab theory proves the ultimate fallacy of censorship. Throughout history, censorship has never succeeded. It has never stopped a single idea or a movement. It has a perfect failure rate. Ideas, like water, have a way of finding their way out in time.
Yet, as the last few years have shown, it does succeed in imposing costs on those with dissenting views. For years, figures like Bhattacharya (who was recently awarded the prestigious Intellectual Freedom Award by the American Academy of Sciences and Letters) were hounded and marginalized.
Others opposed Bhattacharya’s right to offer his scientific views, even under oath. For example, in one hearing, Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.) expressed disgust that Bhattacharya was even allowed to testify as “a purveyor of COVID-19 misinformation.”
Los Angeles Times columnist Michael Hiltzik decried an event associated with Bhattacharya, writing that “we’re living in an upside-down world” because Stanford University allowed dissenting scientists to speak at a scientific forum. Hiltzik also wrote a column titled “The COVID lab leak claim isn’t just an attack on science, but a threat to public health.”
One of the saddest aspects of this story is that many of these figures in government, academia and the media were not necessarily trying to shield China. Some were motivated by their investment in the narrative while others were drawn by the political and personal benefits that came from joining the mob against a minority of scientists.
The CIA report does not resolve this debate, but it shows that there is a legitimate debate despite the overwhelming message of the media and the attacks on scientists. Of course, the same media and political figures responsible for this culture of intimidation have simply moved on. The value of an alliance with the media is that such embarrassing contradictions are not reported. At most, these figures shrug and turn to the next subject for groupthink and mob action.
Climate Bombshell: New Evidence Reveals 30 Year Global Drop in Hurricane Frequency and Power
By Chris Morrison | The Daily Sceptic | January 4, 2025
Last month a small but powerful cyclone named Chido made landfall in Mayotte before sweeping into Mozambique, causing considerable damage and leading to the loss of around 100 lives. Days after the tragedy, the Green Blob-funded Carbon Brief noted that scientists have “long suggested” that climate change is making cyclones worse in the region, while Blob-funded World Weather Attribution (WWA) at Imperial College London made a near-instant and curiously precise estimate that a Chido-like cyclone was about 40% more likely to happen in 2024 than during the pre-industrial age. Not to be outdone, Green Blob-funded cheerleader the Guardian chipped in with the obligatory “cyclones are getting worse because of the climate emergency”. Almost unnoticed, it seems, among all the Net Zero dooming and grooming was a science paper published during December by Nature that found no increase in the destructive power of cyclones – the generic term for typhoons and hurricanes – in any ocean basin over the last 30 years. In the South Indian basin, the location of cyclone Chido, there was a dramatic decrease in both frequency and duration in recent times.
Reality rarely gets much of a look-in these days when fanatical Net Zero activism is afoot, but the paper, written by a group of Chinese meteorologists, makes its case by considering the facts and the data. The scientists apply a “power dissipation index” (PDI) which they consider superior to single measure indicators since it combines storm intensity, duration and frequency. The graphs below show the cumulative index for tropical cyclones across all ocean basins along with a global indication.
Downward trends in the cumulative PDI can be seen in a number of Pacific regions, while the trend holds steady in the North Atlantic. The southern Indian ocean downward trend is particularly pronounced while the overall global line is also heading in a similar direction.
So why does all this scientific twaddle get written by the green activists in mainstream media? Much of it arises from the new pseudoscience that claims it can tie individual weather events to human-caused climate change. Press releases peddling climate Armageddon are issued days after a natural disaster and are eagerly reprinted by activist journalists promoting the Net Zero fantasy. The distinguished science writer Roger Pielke Jr. is a fierce critic of this new pseudoscience, which he calls weather attribution alchemy. In a recent Substack post in the aftermath of Chido, he noted that the WWA at Imperial College simply assumes the conclusion that it seeks to prove by accepting that every storm is made stronger because of warmer oceans. Using this explanation, continues Pielke, it is straightforward to conclude that the storm was made more likely due to climate change. Or as Imperial states: “The difference in the storm intensity and likelihood of this storm intensity between the counterfactual climate and today’s climate can be attributed to climate change.”
As the new Chinese paper shows, the matter is not quite so simple. Pielke notes that tropical storms encounter numerous environmental influences such as vertical wind shear and storm-induced ocean surface cooling, even when they remain over warmer waters. “Such complexities mean that simple storyline attribution – warmer oceans predictably mean stronger storms – is inappropriate when used to characterise the behaviour of individual storms,” he argues. Pielke also comes down hard on the statistical evidence backing the WWA claims. Even if storms such as Chido were more likely in the future, it would take a very long time to detect a significant change using the threshold 90% confidence set down by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). And by very long time, he means thousands of years.
“Perhaps that is why assumptions are favoured over evidence,” suggests Pielke.
There were plenty of assumptions on display in a now routine end-of-year weather report from the BBC headed: ‘A year of extreme weather that challenged billions.‘ Written by Esme Stallard, it claims that record-breaking heat brought extreme weather including hurricanes and month-long droughts. Pride of place is given to Dr. Friederike Otto, lead of WWA and Senior Lecturer in Climate Science at Imperial, who claimed: “We are living in a dangerous new era – extreme weather caused unrelenting suffering.” “The impacts of fossil fuel warming has never been clear or more devastating than in 2024,” she added.
The redoubtable Paul Homewood is unimpressed with Stallard’s opening line about increasing extreme weather and has filed a complaint with the BBC. Stallard goes on to list a handful of random events, “but fails to provide any evidence that these are anything other than natural events which happen all the time”, states Homewood. “Nor is any evidence provided that such events have been getting more frequent or extreme over time,” he adds.
The BBC story highlighted typhoons in the Philippines as well as hurricane Beryl and stated that such events may be increasing in intensity due to climate change. Official data do not show any evidence of them becoming more powerful over time, notes Homewood. Much play was made of a recent drought in the Amazon, but Homewood points out that the World Bank Climate Portal reveals that rainfall has increased in the area by 5% over the last 30 years. Throughout the report, observes Homewood, the BBC bases its claims on weather attribution computer models. “However, computer models are not evidence, and can be manipulated to provide whatever results are desired. That is why they are widely derided by the wider scientific community,” he states.
For Roger Pielke, extreme weather attributions are “puzzling”. The most charitable explanation for their proliferation is that there is a demand for them, including from many in the media. The demand will be filled by someone, he concludes. “A less charitable explanation is that there is a systematic effort underway to contest and undermine actual climate science, including the assessments of the IPCC, in order to present a picture of reality that is simply false in support of climate advocacy. We might call that pseudo-scientific gaslighting,” he suggests.
Manufacturing Dissent
By Joshua Stylman | November 17, 2024
As I often do on Sunday mornings, I was drinking my coffee and scrolling through my news feed when I noticed something striking. Maybe it’s my algorithm, but the content was flooded with an unusual amount of vitriol directed at Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s nomination as HHS Secretary. The coordinated messaging was impossible to miss—talking heads across networks uniformly labeling him a “conspiracy theorist” and “danger to public health,” never once addressing his actual positions. The media’s concerted attacks on Kennedy reveal more than just their opinion of his nomination—they expose a deeper crisis of credibility within institutions that once commanded public trust.
The Credibility Paradox
The irony of who led these attacks wasn’t lost on me—these were largely the same voices who championed our most destructive pandemic policies. As Jeffrey Tucker aptly noted on X this morning:
The Coordinated Response
This hypocrisy becomes even more glaring in the New York Times’ recent coverage, where dismissive rhetoric consistently replaces substantive engagement. In one piece, they acknowledge troubling trends in children’s health while dismissively declaring “vaccines and fluoride are not the cause” without engaging his evidence. In another, Zeynep Tufekci—who notably advocated for some of the most draconian Covid measures—warns that Kennedy could “destroy one of civilization’s best achievements,” painting apocalyptic scenarios while sidestepping his actual policy positions.
Meanwhile, their political desk speculates about how his stance on Big Food might “alienate his GOP allies.” Each piece approaches from a different angle, but the pattern is clear: coordinated messaging aimed at undermining his credibility before he can assume institutional authority.
The Echo Chamber Effect
You can almost hear the editorial conveyor belt opening as senior editors craft the day’s approved reality for their audience. The consistent tone across pieces reveals less independent analysis than a familiar pattern—mockingbird media still in action. As I detailed in How The Information Factory Evolved, this assembly-line approach to reality manufacturing has become increasingly visible to anyone paying attention.
What these gatekeepers fail to grasp is that this smug dismissiveness, this refusal to engage with substantive arguments, is precisely what fuels growing public skepticism. Their panic seems to grow in direct proportion to Kennedy’s proximity to real power. This orchestrated dismissal is more than a journalistic flaw—it reflects a larger institutional dilemma, one that becomes unavoidable as Kennedy gains traction.
The Institutional Trap
The Times faces an emerging dilemma: at some point, they’ll need to address the substance of Kennedy’s arguments rather than rely on dismissive characterizations—especially if he assumes control of America’s health apparatus. Just this morning, MSNBC anchors were literally shouting that “Kennedy is going to get people killed”—yet another example of using melodramatics and fear instead of engaging with his actual positions. Their reflexive ridicule strategy backfires precisely because it avoids engaging with the evidence and concerns that resonate with parents and citizens across political lines. Each attempt to maintain narrative control through authority rather than evidence accelerates institutional credibility collapse.
Beyond Kennedy: Redrawing Political Lines
The NYT’s analysis about Kennedy potentially alienating GOP allies particularly highlights their fundamental misunderstanding of the shifting political landscape. As a lifelong Democrat who still champions many traditional progressive values, Kennedy transcends conventional political boundaries. His message—”We have to love our children more than we hate each other”—resonates precisely because anyone who dismisses this crusade to restore American vitality as mere political theater is blind to the groundswell of people who’ve grown tired of watching their communities crumble under the weight of manufactured decline.
This isn’t just about Kennedy—it’s about the media’s inability to address the legitimate concerns of a disillusioned public. When institutions refuse to engage with dissenting voices, they deepen mistrust and fracture the shared foundation necessary for democratic discourse. While RFK, Jr.’s message has resonated across political boundaries, the media’s inability to address core issues—like regulatory failures—reveals just how out of touch they’ve become.
The Art of Missing the Point
Consider this fact-check from the same article: The Times attempts to discredit Kennedy’s Fruit Loops example, but inadvertently confirms his central point: ingredients banned in European markets are indeed permitted in American products. By focusing on semantic precision instead of the broader issue—why US regulators allow unsafe ingredients—the media deflects from substantive debates.
Senator Elizabeth Warren declared this week: “RFK Jr. poses a danger to public health, scientific research, medicine, and health care coverage for millions. He wants to stop parents from protecting their babies from measles and his ideas would welcome the return of polio.” Yet this alarmist framing dodges the simple question Kennedy actually raises: Why wouldn’t you want proper safety testing for chemicals we’re expected to inject into our children’s bodies? The silence in response to this basic inquiry speaks volumes about institutional priorities—and their fear of someone with the power to demand answers.
A Referendum on Manufacturing Consent
Say what you want about Trump, but his “fake news” remarks struck a chord that resonates deeper with each passing day. People who once scoffed at these claims are now watching with eyes wide open as coordinated narratives unfold across media platforms. The gaslighting has become too obvious to ignore. As I explored in We Didn’t Change, The Democratic Party Did, this awakening transcends traditional political boundaries. Americans across the spectrum are tired of being told not to believe their own eyes, whether it’s about pandemic policies, economic realities, or the suppression of dissenting voices.
“The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears.
It was their final, most essential command.”
–George Orwell, 1984
The Moment of Truth
With Kennedy potentially overseeing America’s health infrastructure, media institutions face a crucial inflection point. Fear campaigns and ad hominem attacks won’t suffice when his policy positions require serious examination. The machinery of coordinated dismissal—visible in identical talking points across networks—reveals more about institutional allegiance than journalistic integrity.
This moment demands something different. When Kennedy raises questions about pharmaceutical safety testing or environmental toxins—issues that resonate with families across political lines—substantive debate must replace reflexive ridicule. His actual positions, heard directly rather than through media filters, often align with common-sense concerns about corporate influence on public health policy.
This institutional pattern of manufactured authority connects directly to themes I explored in Fiat Everything earlier this week—systems built on decree rather than demonstrated value. They don’t sell weapons—they sell fear. The same forces that control monetary policy now seek to dictate public health discourse.
Breaking the Machine
The solution won’t come from institutional gatekeepers (that’s what got us here) but direct examination. We all need to:
- Listen to Kennedy’s complete speeches rather than edited soundbites
- Read his policy positions rather than media characterizations
- Examine the evidence he cites rather than fact-checker summaries
- Consider why certain questions about public health policy are deemed off-limits
I’m not suggesting we accept every contrarian position, but rather that institutional credibility must be earned through rigorous analysis rather than assumed through authority. Until then, coverage like these recent Times pieces will continue to exemplify the very institutional failures that fuel the movements they seek to discredit. As Kennedy approaches real institutional power, expect these attacks to intensify—a clear signal of just how much the guardians of our manufactured consensus have to lose.
Fabricated: Video showing release of women from Sednaya jail in Syria
Press TV – December 28, 2024
A new investigation has revealed that a viral video showing women and children allegedly being released from Syria’s Sednaya prison after the fall of President Bashar al-Assad was fabricated.
In a post on X on Saturday, the Syrian fact-checking group Verify-Sy said the circulated footage, videos, and images documenting the moment women and girls were allegedly released were filmed at the “Dafa” organization, a children’s charity located in the Kafr Sousa neighborhood south of Damascus, and not Sednaya jail.
Verify-Sy went on to say that its extensive probe revealed that the claim is false, adding that the viral video conceals various details, including a suspected case of theft and vandalism, which need to be investigated by the relevant authorities.
The video footage circulating on social media platforms such as Facebook, X, and TikTok, along with several Arabic and international media outlets, such as Syria TV and Al Arabiya, showed a man ordering a group of girls and women to return to their homes, while a woman says, “These girls are in my charge,” which raises doubts about the real location.
Meanwhile, Fidaa Daqouri, Chairwoman of the Dafa Organization has clarified to Verify-Sy that on the night of the Assad government’s fall, the organization was attacked by a group of armed civilians, who identified themselves as “rebels.”
She also said the attackers stole buses belonging to the organization, as well as batteries, and forced everyone present to leave the building, adding that they also raided a juvenile detention center on the same street and some nearby institutes.
Daqouri also called on Syria’s de facto new ruler to investigate the incident and hold those who attacked the center accountable, while denouncing as “unacceptable” the misleading spread of this video by media outlets, falsely identifying the location as Sednaya prison.
In order to verify the videos, images, and stories, the Verify-Sy team contacted Diab Sarya, co-founder and director of the Sednaya Prison Detainees Association. He confirmed that Sednaya is “a military prison designated for holding men only.”
He said all circulated stories about secret prisons, hidden floors, or coded doors are fabricated and have no basis in reality.
Militants, led by the Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), took control of Damascus on December 8 and declared an end to Assad’s rule in a surprise offensive that was launched from their stronghold in northwestern Syria, reaching the capital in less than two weeks.
Since then, a wave of propaganda surrounding the prisoners in Sednaya Prison has proliferated across the internet.
They must have their Srebrenica in Syria…
By Stephen Karganovic | Strategic Culture Foundation | December 25, 2024
Following the abrupt and mysterious change of circumstances in Syria, the collective West propaganda machinery went into overdrive to pillory the previous government for a variety of heinous offences, real and imagined. The largely invented horror stories publicised after 8 December are shaped by an unmistakably political agenda. They serve as a cynical alibi for the utter devastation wrought upon Syria by terrorist, head-chopping gangs trained, financed, and unleashed by the very regional and ultramarine powers which are engaged in the spreading of those falsehoods.
Attentive readers will recall numerous false flags and horror porn mantras about “Assad killing his own people” that resonated throughout the decade and a half long assault on Syria. Most were quickly discredited as nasty fabrications. But, of course, the purpose of propaganda is not to demonstrate facts but to influence perceptions and create indelible subliminal impressions. In this infamous category, the alleged Ghouta chemical weapon attack on Syrian civilians, falsely attributed to the Assad government and subsequently debunked, is a salient example. The fabricated incident was thoroughly investigated and ultimately found to be devoid of substance, but attesting to the power of professionally conducted disinformation even many years after discreditation Ghouta remains a vibrant propaganda meme firmly embedded in the public mind as an atrocity typifying the malevolence of the “Assad regime.”
No sooner did the rebranded Al Qaeda terrorists march into Damascus than, as if on cue, on 9 December the collective West media initiated an aggressive attempt to shift public attention away from the victorious radical thugs and their sordid past. Saydnaya Prison, previously (if we disregard a 2017 Amnesty International mention) a virtually unknown venue now unveiled as the “Assad regime slaughterhouse,” suddenly was thrust into the limelight in a sensationalistic narrative that was absurd on its face. It was alleged by the BBC, a known source of trustworthy information, that Saydnaya was a horrific dungeon consisting of multiple underground levels, each independently secured by electronic doors. Within this prison complex, it was further alleged, “more than 100,000 detainees who can be seen on CCTV monitors” were trapped and dying without food or water and choking from lack of ventilation, abandoned by sadistic Assad guards who, when fleeing the premises, malevolently absconded with the codes required to open the electronic door systems.
Left unexplained is how over the years the logistical operation necessary to sustain a prison facility the size of a moderate sized town escaped the notice of aerial surveillance platforms that were observing every inch of Syrian territory for the duration of the conflict. How was it possible after regime change to analyse CCTV monitor data in just a single day in order to reach the conclusion that “over 100,000 prisoners” were trapped inside? And if those CCTV data had indeed been sifted through why have they not been shown to the international public to corroborate beyond doubt the emerging human tragedy of such mind-boggling proportions? Are the electronic portals to the underground cell complexes so impregnable that they may be opened only by the use of the unavailable codes in the guards’ possession, or might there be other means of forcing them and liberating the endangered prisoners?
The latest news on this topic is that “Syria rebels [are] unable to open Assad’s Sednaya ‘Red Cells’ where prisoners are ‘choking to death’.” The problem is that this news item is dated 9 December, but now it is over two weeks later. Since 9 December there has been no follow-up, no updates on how successful the rescuers may have been in opening the electronic doors and gaining access to those trapped inside. In fact, the distressing Saydnaya story has since been obliterated completely from the Western media news radar screen, as abruptly as it appeared. Now that the shocking and unsubstantiated allegations have had their psychological effect on the public mind a complete blackout prevails.
But what has propaganda got to do with logic and coherence?
However after the sensational allegations that have been made, what actually did or did not happen in Saydnaya is important and must be ascertained lest the international public be played for fools. It may reasonably be assumed that after more than two weeks without food, water, or ventilation, by now the vast majority of the wretched prisoners, extravagantly claimed to number over 100,000, should be dead. The stench of their decomposing bodies should be unbearable in a wide radius around the prison complex, perhaps reaching even as far as liberated Damascus, which is 30 kilometres away. It makes no sense to suddenly impose silence over a potential atrocity of such an appalling nature and magnitude which in the eyes of the entire world would irrefutably convict the “Assad regime,” whilst exonerating the collective West from complicity in the crimes of its proxies and in Syria’s callous destruction.
It is now becoming increasingly clear that the Saydnaya affair was conceived as but an overture for a larger propaganda operation that is to follow, to fabricate a Syrian Srebrenica. Besides lending credence to the long list of false flag allegations and outright lies upon which the collective West’s intervention in Syria was based, now crowned with the apparent victory of the terrorists they sponsored, the impending Syrian Srebrenica operation is designed also to diminish Russia’s stature for supposedly sheltering a “perpetrator of genocide.”
As has been reported, the propaganda props, one by one, are meticulously being put in place. Photographs of vast empty spaces are being represented as “killing fields” where allegedly hundreds of thousands of Assad’s victims lie buried. Individuals claiming to have taken part in the mass burials are brought forth to embellish the photographic images with well-rehearsed spin.
We have yet to see however a single disinterred body, not to speak of being shown reliable evidence regarding the time, cause, and manner of death. And even the scant information that is provided is conditioned by weasel words that hundreds of thousands of bodies of Assad regime victims “could be buried in a mass grave east of Damascus.” They could be, but then also perhaps not. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, of which at present there is none. Bare assertions are insufficient.
A dependable indication of how the problem of missing bodies will be solved, and that the fix is already in, is the casual announcement that the task of investigating Syria’s “killing fields” will be entrusted to the notorious White Helmets. They are a fake civil defence outfit set up by British intelligence early in the conflict to pose as a humanitarian organisation. There is an exact parallel between the announced plan and the way that, in the 1990s and early 2000s, Srebrenica forensic issues were handled in order to provide the Hague Tribunal with fake evidence of “genocide.” The International Commission on Missing Persons [ICMP] which did the job then was founded specifically for that purpose in 1996 under the tight control of leading NATO powers, and with the proviso that the chairman of ICMP must always be a U.S. citizen nominated by the State Department. ICMP performed the tasks assigned to it with flying colours, having fabricated in its laboratories much of the Srebrenica “genocide” evidence for the use of the Hague Tribunal.
The White Helmets, founded by MI6 operative James Le Mesurier, will undoubtedly acquit themselves equally well in performing a similarly dishonourable task.
How To Fake An Alien Invasion (2015)
Corbett | December 23, 2024
WATCH ON: 
/ 
/ 
/ 
/ 
/ 
or download the MP3 AUDIO
FROM 2015: We all know about the crude pie-plate-on-string UFO hoaxes that have been perpetrated in the past. But what if I were to tell you the greatest UFO hoax of all time is being prepared right now, and it has Rockefeller backing and UN/Vatican/presidential support? Join us this week as we peek under the bluebeam curtain at the great alien invasion false flag.
Original Post: Episode 301 – How to Fake an Alien Invasion
TRANSCRIPT AND SOURCES:
JAMES CORBETT: Welcome back to The Corbett Report, ladies and gentlemen. I’m your host, James Corbett of corbettreport.com, podcasting to you as always from the sunny climes of western Japan, here on this 5th day of February 2015.
Welcome to Episode 301 of The Corbett Report: How to Fake an Alien Invasion.
Now, you’d better be careful who’s watching over your shoulder today, because we are about to broach one of the most top-secret, ultra-classified pieces of information in the entire conspiracy pantheon. A subject so sensitive that its mere exposure threatens to topple the power pyramid itself and, as a result, is never talked about in the establishment mouthpiece media. I’m referring of course to the topic of . . . [whisper] aliens.
Just what was in the skies over Jerusalem, and why did it stop over one of the most treasured sites in Christianity?
SOURCE: Female Anchor Scared Of UFO Sighting Over Jerusalem’s Dome Of The Rock
We bring you this special radio television broadcast in order to give you the very latest information on an amazing phenomenon: the arrival of a spaceship in Washington. The army has taken every precaution to meet any emergency which may develop. Just a minute, ladies and gentlemen, I think something is happening . . .
What’s hovering over Salt Lake City? Is it a rocket? A blimp? A UFO?
SOURCE: A Giant UFO Over Salt Lake City
PRESENTER: Former government UFO expert is warning that Britain is wide open to alien visitors and that the consequences of not monitoring extraterrestrials could be huge. Nick Pope, who resigned from the Ministry of Defense UFO Project, says the department looking into UFOs has all but closed down and despite a higher number of credible sightings. Let’s speak to Nick Pope. He joins us in the studio. . . .
SOURCE: BBC Warns of Alien Invasion
PRESENTER: . . . you want to meet this guy. Joining us now are team leader James Fox, one of the nation’s top UFO experts, and Erin Ryder, who is in charge of tech and recon for this series. Good morning to both of you.
JAMES FOX/ERIN RYDER: Good morning.
FEMALE REPORTER: This is a ufologist? Is that what the actual . . .?
JAMES FOX: So they say.
SOURCE: CBS: UFOs Mounting Preponderance of Evidence & Government Cover Up!
“AWA 517, do you want to report a UFO? Over.”
“Negative. We don’t want a report.”
“Aries 31, do you wish to report a UFO? Over.”
“Negative. We don’t want to report one of those, either.”
“Aries 31, do you wish to file a report of any kind? Over.”
“I wouldn’t know what kind of report to file.”
“Aries 31, me neither. I’ll try to track traffic at destination. Over.”
SOURCE: (Close Encounters) Indianapolis Air Traffic Control detects the UFOs
ADRIENNE MOORE: While the family knows their story sounds out of this world, they are convinced they witnessed a close encounter and will be keeping a watchful eye on the sky.
STACEY GIBSON: I think we’re definitely believers now.
SOURCE: UFO near San Diego — El Cajon, California — CBS News
Sorry, my mistake, my mistake. No, this is clearly a subject that is propounded time and again ad nauseam in the establishment mouthpiece media—that same media that we know is lying to us about most major world events, either through direct lying or lying by omission.
So, why are they not omitting this little idea from the cultural context? Why are they constantly returning to the idea of “alien presence,” “alien cover-up,” “alien invasion,” “alien threat”?
Why is this propounded so often, not just in the news media but also in those cultural entertainment productions that I hope we understand are, in the end, a product of the culture-creation industry that has been predictably programming us for decades—generations, perhaps—to accept various memes and ideas, including this idea of “alien invasion,” “alien threat” and the fallout and consequences thereof?
It is a theme that has been returned to time and time and time and time and time again for the better part of the century by this point. It’s almost as if the billionaire power players at the top of this pyramid are actually connected to an idea to implant this idea of alien invasion in the public consciousness for the purpose of manipulating public opinion. And that’s because . . . they are connected to such an agenda, demonstrably so.
RADIO NEWSCASTER (archival): Ladies and gentlemen, here is the latest bulletin from the Intercontinental Radio News, Toronto, Canada: Professor Morris of Macmillan University reports observing a total of three explosions on the planet Mars between the hours of 7:45 PM and 9:20 PM Eastern Standard Time. This confirms earlier reports received from American observatories. Now, nearer home, comes a special bulletin from Trenton, New Jersey. It is reported that at 8:50 PM a huge flaming object, believed to be a meteorite, fell on a farm in the neighborhood of Grovers Mill, New Jersey, twenty-two miles from Trenton. The flash in the sky was visible within a radius of several hundred miles, and the noise of the impact was heard as far north as Elizabeth.
NARRATOR: Orson Welles’ War of the Worlds. Never before had a radio broadcast provoked such outrage—or such chaos. Upwards of a million people convinced, if only briefly, that the United States was being laid waste by alien invaders, and a nation left to wonder how they possibly could’ve been so gullible.
By a quarter past eight Eastern time, telephones were ringing madly all across the country, as concerned Americans tried to determine the whereabouts of relatives, warn friends and acquaintances, and most of all, corroborate what they were hearing.
MAN ON THE PHONE (archival): City Desk. A what?? Wait a minute.
NARRATOR: For the next several hours, newspapers, radio stations and police precincts from coast to coast would be swamped with calls.
MAN ON THE PHONE (archival): Well, I can’t help that, ma’am, we just don’t know anything about it. Did I say something about a quiet Sunday evening?
SECOND MAN (archival): What’s going on, anyway?
NARRATOR: Soon, strange bulletins began coming in over the press service wires. In Bergenfield, New Jersey, just north of Grovers Mill, some twenty families turned up at a police station, with all of their household possessions piled into their cars. In Indianapolis, a woman rushed to the pulpit in a Methodist church, shouting that the end of the world had come. And in Washington state, a spectacularly ill-timed power failure plunged the small town of Concrete into darkness and sent terrified residents fleeing into the mountains.
RADIO NEWSCASTER (archival): The battle which took place tonight at Grover Mills has ended in one of the most startling defeats ever suffered by an army in modern times: 7,000 men armed with rifles and machine guns pitted against a single fighting machine of the invaders from Mars. One hundred and twenty known survivors . . .
SEYMOUR CHARLES HAYDEN (archival): Well, my wife, she came in, my wife did, just wringing her hands and wailing away, her eyeballs about to pop out onto her lap, going, “What is it? What is it? What could it be? Is it the Germans?” Well, she hadn’t heard the word “Martians,” but I had.
RADIO NEWSCASTER (archival): . . . There’s a brief statement informing us that the charred body of Carl Phillips has been identified in a Trenton hospital.
DAVID ROEPIK (archival): We think that we’re really smart, but if there’s a cue out there that could possibly be dangerous, we’re going to react to it protectively, autonomically, instinctively—fear first, and reason and fact second.
SOURCE: War of the Worlds: The Panic Broadcast | PBS America
Now, I’m sure that the majority of the listening and viewing audience will be familiar with the story of Orson Welles’ infamous 1938 radio dramatization of the famous H. G. Wells’ novel The War of the Worlds and the resulting hysteria and panic that ensued, driving people insane, believing there to be a real alien invasion taking place, and farmers running out into the fields shooting at grain silos and the like. That story is a fascinating one for a number of reasons—namely, because it is a confluence of different events in world history at that time that had a very interesting and profound effect on shaping an entire field of study.
This relates to the advent of mass communication technologies like the radio, which was still, to some extent, in its infancy as a broadcast medium at that time, capable of reaching across a nation as wide and diverse as America and reaching many millions of people at the same time and inducing this kind of mass panic and psychosis.
It is interesting to study in that regard. So, it is not surprising that it was immediately made the subject of such a study, funded by—who else? The Rockefellers. We can take more on this from a very, very important article that was published on GlobalResearch.ca back in 2012: Early ‘Psychological Warfare’ Research and the Rockefeller Foundation by Prof. James Tracy.
Reading from that article:
The “founding fathers” of mass communication research could not have established their field without Rockefeller largesse. Alongside World War One propagandist and University of Chicago political scientist Harold Lasswell, psychologist Hadley Cantril was a principal contributor to the knowledge and information that helped propel Rockefeller-controlled enterprises and American empire in the postwar era. Throughout this period Cantril provided the Rockefeller combine with important information and new techniques in public opinion measurement and management in Europe, Latin American, and the United States.
A roommate of Nelson Rockefeller’s at Dartmouth College in the late 1920s, Cantril took a doctorate in psychology at Harvard, coauthoring The Psychology of Radio with his doctoral mentor Gordon Allport in 1935. “Radio is an altogether novel medium of communication,” Cantril and Allport observed, “preeminent as a means of social control and epochal in its influence upon the mental horizons of men.”
The work garnered the attention of Rockefeller Foundation Humanities Division officer John Marshall, commissioned by the Foundation with convincing commercial broadcasters to include more educational programming into their advertiser-driven schedules. To this end Rockefeller was funding fellowships at the CBS and NBC broadcasting networks.
Aware of the Dartmouth connection, Marshall encouraged the enterprising Cantril to apply to the Foundation for support. Cantril’s request resulted in a $67,000 grant for a two-year charter of the “Princeton Radio Project” (PRP) at Princeton University. There Cantril proceeded to develop studies assessing radio’s effects on audiences. In 1938 Cantril also became a founding editor of the Rockefeller Foundation-funded Public Opinion Quarterly, an organ closely associated with US government’s psychological warfare endeavors following World War Two.
When the Princeton venture commenced, another trained psychologist close to Rockefeller, CBS Director of Research Frank Stanton, was named PRP lead researcher but took a secondary role of Associate Director due to his position at his broadcast network. At this time Austrian émigré social scientist Paul Lazarsfeld was recruited to join Cantril. Thus Cantril, Stanton, and Lazarsfeld were closely affiliated and ideally positioned to embark on a major study involving public opinion and persuasion.
The opportunity for such an analysis presented itself when CBS broadcast Orson Welles’ rendering of H. G. Wells’ War of the Worlds on October 30, 1938. Lazarsfeld saw the event as especially noteworthy and immediately asked Stanton for CBS funds to investigate reaction to what at the time was the largest immediate act of mass persuasion in human history. Over the next several months interviews with War of the Worlds listeners were collected, provided to Stanton at CBS, and subsequently analyzed in Cantril’s 1940 study, The Invasion From Mars: A Study in the Psychology of Panic.
SOURCE: Early ‘Psychological Warfare’ Research and the Rockefeller Foundation
A fascinating little tidbit from history, I trust that you’ll agree. And if you do, I hope you’ll go and follow the link in the show notes to that original article so you can continue reading about Hadley Cantril’s adventures providing studies and information about psychological persuasion to the Rockefeller Foundation and how that developed and contributed to world psychological warfare techniques for the US Army and things of that nature.
I think it is interesting to see this confluence of H. G. Wells’ War of the Worlds becoming a radio dramatization, which incites this mass panic, the largest immediate act of mass persuasion in human history, which is then studied by the Princeton Radio Project backed up by the Rockefeller Foundation.
But you could argue that that’s a tangential connection or just a coincidental connection—that this doesn’t mean that the Rockefellers are interested in mass persuasion in terms of alien invasion per se, it’s just that that was the immediate proximate cause of this particular study.
So, you might fruitfully ask, “Are there any other connections between the Rockefellers and this idea of faking an alien invasion or an alien presence of some sort?” And the answer is: yes! Yes, there is such evidence . . .
RESEARCHER ANTONIO HUNEEUS: Mr. Rockefeller backed many UFO-related projects in the period between the late ’80s and 2000. But, for the purposes of this hearing, we will concentrate on his political initiatives in these areas.
Laurance Rockefeller’s first forays into ufology started sometime in the late ’80s through Dr. Cecil B. Scott Jones, a parapsychologist and former US Navy Commander who had worked as naval attaché́ in Asia and at the Naval Scientific and Technical Intelligence Center. Between 1985 and 1991, Jones was Special Assistant to Sen. Claiborne Pell (1918–2009), the powerful Rhode Island Democrat Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (1987–1994) who was deeply interested in parapsychology and who probably many of you met personally. Sen. Pell was also friends with Laurance Rockefeller, and both served on the board of the Human Potential Foundation, a small think tank launched in 1989 in Vienna, Virginia, by Jones to conduct “research into all conditions of humankind: physiological, psychological and spiritual.”
Many of the papers released by the White House OSTP [Office of Science and Technology Policy] come from Scott Jones, who knew Dr. John Gibbons, a physicist who worked for many years as Director of the Office of Technology Assessment for the US Congress and was appointed in 1993 by the Clinton administration to direct the OSTP.
What was the exact turning point of Laurance Rockefeller’s evolution from a general interest in consciousness studies into the specific area of UFOs and Extraterrestrial Intelligence is still unclear. But the end of the Cold War and the arrival in Washington of a younger generation represented by Bill and Hillary Clinton are key factors. He felt the time was ripe for a new and fresh approach into an area that had been previously dominated by a Cold War mentality.
Rockefeller recruited for these efforts a long-time associate, Henry L. Diamond, an environmental attorney from Washington, D.C., whose links to the family went all the way back to the 1960s, when he worked with Laurance in his conservation activities. Diamond also knew John Gibbons, and so he was the right person to make the first contact with the OSTP chief when he sent a Memorandum on March 29, 1993, requesting a meeting. I’m quoting now the first paragraph:
“Laurance S. Rockefeller, who is a leading US conservationist, businessman, and philanthropist, is anxious to have a brief meeting with Dr. Gibbons to discuss the potential availability of government information about unidentified flying objects and extraterrestrial life. As one who has had a long-time interest in environmental and spiritual issues, Mr. Rockefeller, with other leading citizens, is planning to make an approach to President Clinton on this subject . . . .”
STEPHEN BASSETT: I invite all of the political media, all media in general but certainly the political media, to look at the Rockefeller Initiative. It is one of the stories in American history—it’s one of the great political stories, certainly in this or any other time. It is filled with amazing people who are still around and still very powerful.
At the time that Rockefeller approached, through his attorney, President Clinton, Clinton’s key adviser—or one of his very key advisors—was John Podesta. The Chief of Staff at the time was Leon Panetta. The wife of the President at the time was Hillary Clinton. A good friend of the family at the time, soon to be Clinton’s Secretary of Energy, was Bill Richardson. This Initiative went on for six years. The press completely ignored it, as if “What’s the news there? It’s just a billionaire Rockefeller trying to get the President to release all the files on these phenomena. Possibly put a letter into every newspaper in the country, and release . . . and basically end the Truth Embargo. There’s no news there.”
SOURCE: Citizens Hearing April 29th Steven Bassett Rockefeller Initiative and John Podesta or Annotated Proceedings of the Citizen Hearing on Disclosure [PDF])
Now, for those of you not immersed in the topic of the Disclosure Movement, you may not be familiar with some of these names and faces. But some of the main ones to take note of are Dr. Stephen Bassett, who founded and ran something called the Paradigm Research Group at ParadigmResearchGroup.org. He defines himself as a political activist, lobbyist, commentator, the executive director of Paradigm Research Group and the Extra-Terrestrial Phenomena Politicalist Action Committee, and executive producer of the X Conference: The Citizens Hearing on Disclosure and the Congressional Hearing Initiative, and Dr. Steven Greer, who runs something called the Disclosure Project. He describes himself as “The Father of the Disclosure Movement” and the person who presided over the groundbreaking National Press Club Disclosure Event in May of 2001.
So, these are some of the biggest names if not the biggest names in this Disclosure Movement. And, well, they don’t really make a secret of the fact that the Rockefellers are . . . well, specifically Laurance Rockefeller was a big help in getting this movement launched back in the mid-1990s. We can document this. In order to do so, let’s turn to a very important website, which I will commend to your attention. I hope you guys out there have . . . well, I know some of you have already found it and have emailed me about it.
I have found it myself, and it seems that the author of this website and I are in accord on a number of our political views—especially the overall way in which the BRICS—China and Russia—and other aspects of the New World Order system are being used as the good cop in a good cop/bad cop system.
Also on this subject of the UFO Disclosure Movement, [there is] a very important article called “Why are the Rockefellers and the Jesuits guiding the UFO disclosure movement?” at RedefiningGod.com. I will put the link in the show notes so you can go and follow it.
Reading from that article:
The Rockefeller role in getting the Disclosure ball rolling is something of an open secret among the Disclosure people (the Disclosuristas, as I call them). On Stephen Bassett’s own Research Group website, a specific Rockefeller effort referred to as the “Rockefeller Initiative” is openly touted. The same effort is also touted on Steven Greer’s Disclosure Project website as “Project Starlight” . . . .
“This letter from the Project Starlight Coalition was the result of the historic Asilomar, California, meeting that Dr. Greer organized and Laurance Rockefeller paid for in June 1995, just before Clinton’s meeting with Rockefeller in August 1995.”
[. . .]
Who is Laurance Rockefeller? Well, according to Laurance Rockefeller’s biography:
In 1937 he inherited his grandfather’s seat on the New York Stock Exchange. He served as founding trustee of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund for 42 years, from its inception in 1940 to 1982. During this time, he also served as its president (1958 to 1968) and later its chairman (1968 to 1980) for 22 years, longer than any other leader in the Fund’s history. He was also a founding trustee of the Rockefeller Family Fund from 1967 to 1977.
SOURCE: Why are the Rockefellers and the Jesuits guiding the UFO Disclosure Movement?
So, not only was Laurance deeply involved in the financial industry, but he was also among the founders of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and the Rockefeller Family Fund. These funds are notorious for advancing globalist aims under the pretense of ‘philanthropy.’ Laurance also served on the Rockefeller Brothers Fund’s Special Studies Project.” End quote.
Now, I’ll let you continue reading about that Special Studies Project and the interesting fact that even now, four decades after the publication of the final report, The Prospect for America: The Rockefeller Panel Reports, certain sections of that report are still classified, which is interesting in and of itself. But there are also screenshots of some of the pages of this report shown here in this very important article talking about how they are steering America towards shaping a new world order and things that you would expect to find in a typical Rockefeller study.
I suppose the point here is to emphasize that Laurance Rockefeller is very much in the heart of the Rockefeller matrix, pushing this global government agenda, which David Rockefeller so gleefully admitted to in his memoirs, as I’m sure we all know—or we all should know by now.
And I would again suggest you go to see this original article, if for no other reason than to click on such things as The Rockefeller Initiative or the Disclosure Project’s own Project Starlight’s page, where you can browse through and see all of the main characters who are connected through this Initiative that ran from 1993 to 1996. They include, of course, President Clinton and Laurance Rockefeller, along with Hillary [Clinton] and Dr. John Gibbons and John Podesta and Vice President Al Gore and this cast of Congress critters and [other] very unsavoury characters—including Dr. Steven Greer, the aforementioned “Father of the Disclosure Movement.”
All of these letters are archived here online, so you can read through them all and the various correspondence between some of the players, including between Laurance Rockefeller and John Gibbons and between Laurance Rockefeller and the Clintons.
I mean, this is a pretty interesting and openly admitted non-secret—that the Disclosure Movement was really launched with the aid of Laurance Rockefeller and the Clinton administration. So, I think that should at least get our antennas up toward the possibility that this is going to be used towards the furtherance of some sort of staged or faked alien invasion.
Now, that sounds like an outlandish prospect to those poor souls coming in from mainstream media land who are just landing on this site randomly. I hope you will be able to at least appreciate that there might be a reason why the very rich and powerful and well-connected would be interested in doing something as ridiculous and outlandish— I agree with you there—as staging some sort of alien threat, alien presence—whatever it may be.
But there are reasons why this might be done, and these aren’t reasons we have to speculate on. We can find all of the usual suspects talking about these reasons in all of the usual places, with the big ones—global religion, global finance and global government—uniting the world around this perceived alien threat.
FATHER JOHN MORRIS, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: What is exceptional is that the Vatican was taking very seriously what science might tell us about the possibility of extraterrestrial intelligent life forms. That’s what the conference was about. I can’t tell you that the Vatican found any alien life. I don’t think that’s what they were looking for, but they were taking very seriously the issue.
TRISHA THOMAS, THE ASSOCIATED PRESS: We probably won’t be seeing aliens at Mass anytime soon, but the Vatican’s chief astronomer does say that there could exist other forms of life outside Earth, and he says if they do exist they are God’s creatures.
SOURCE: The Vatican’s Take on Aliens?
INTERVIEWER: So, how does this actually work? When Discovery [Channel] decided they were going to do a show on alien invasions, your phone rings because you’re sort of on the speed dial for theoretical physicists who can help them do the war game for how this might play out?
DR. MICHIO KAKU: Well, believe it or not, we physicists have actually studied the question of what happens if we do encounter a hostile advanced civilization in space, and Hollywood gets it all wrong. Hollywood assumes that the aliens are maybe a hundred years more advanced than us and that if only we had a secret weapon, we could defeat the aliens. Wrong. Either the aliens don’t bother with us because we’re simply too primitive or, if they do invade, it’ll be more like Bambi versus Godzilla.”
REPORTER: Now the United Nations is getting ready for contact with aliens from outer space. This is Mazlan Othman. She’s out of Malaysia. She will be planet Earth’s first interstellar diplomat.”
MAZLAN OTHMAN: First, I have to categorically deny that I was appointed or will be appointed the ambassador for aliens, the ambassador for the United Nations for aliens. No, the committee is not discussing this very . . . this subject matter. But yes, I was in the UK to attend a meeting—which I can quote to you—called “Towards a Scientific and Societal Agenda on Extraterrestrial Life,” which is why this whole thing came about, because the British press caught hold of the fact that I was going to be at this meeting, and I was on a panel that was discussing . . . they call it the Great Panel Debate. I like that name. It says: “Extraterrestrial Life and Arising Political Issues for the UN Agenda.”
SOURCE: Dr. Mazlan Othman z ONZ na temat debaty w sprawie UFO (UN ET panel debate at UK) – napisy PL
PAUL KRUGMAN: It’s very hard to get inflation in a depressed economy, but if you had a program of government spending plus an expansionary policy by the Fed, you could get that. So, if you think about using all of these things together, you could accomplish a great deal. If we discovered that, you know, space aliens were planning to attack and we needed a massive build-up to counter this space alien threat, and inflation and budget deficits took secondary place to that, this slump would be over in 18 months. And then, if we discovered, “Whoops, we’ve made a mistake. There actually aren’t any space aliens . . .”
PROFESSOR KENNETH ROGOF: We need Orson Welles, is what you’re saying . . .
PAUL KRUGMAN: No, there was a Twilight Zone episode like this in which scientists fake an alien threat in order to achieve world peace. Well, this time . . . we need it in order to get some fiscal stimulus.”
RONALD REAGAN: Perhaps we need some outside universal threat to make us recognize this common bond. I occasionally think how quickly our differences worldwide would vanish if we were facing an alien threat from outside this world.
SOURCE: Reagan’s ALIEN speech to UN
BILL PULLMAN (AS “PRESIDENT THOMAS J. WHITMORE”): And should we win, the day the 4th of July will no longer be known as an American holiday but as the day when the world declared in one voice, “We will not go quietly into the night. We will not vanish without a fight We’re going to live on. We’re going to survive. Today we celebrate our Independence Day.”
SOURCE: Independence Day
JIMMY KIMMEL: If you saw that there were aliens there, would you tell us?
BILL CLINTON: Yeah.
KIMMEL: You would?
CLINTON: I would. I think, look, what do we know? We know now we live in an ever-expanding universe. We know that there are billions of stars and planets literally out there. And the universe is getting bigger. We know from our fancy telescopes that just in the last two years more than twenty planets have been identified outside our solar system that seem to be far enough away from their sun and dense enough that they might be able to support some form of life. So, it makes it increasingly less likely we are alone.
KIMMEL: Oh, you’re trying to give me a hint that there are aliens.
CLINTON: No, I’m trying to tell you I don’t know, but if we were visited someday, I wouldn’t be surprised. I just hope that it’s not like Independence Day. That it, you know—a conflict. Maybe that’s the only way to unite this increasingly divided world of ours. If they’re out there, we’d better think of how all the differences among people on earth would seem small if we felt threatened by a space invader. That’s the whole theory of Independence Day: everybody gets together and makes nice and you know . . .
KIMMEL: You and Bill O’Reilly would be hiding in a bunker together . . .
SOURCE: Bill Clinton Talks About The Coming FAKE Alien Invasion — April 1st 2014
What an interesting milieu of characters we have floating around there. We have the Vatican and the UN and Nobel Prize-winning economist/Keynesian wingnut Paul Krugman and multiple presidents of the United States—and all of these people talking about the same thing: “Wouldn’t it be great if we had this idea of an alien threat that would unite us all behind . . . fill in the blank . . . a world government or a world financial system or baptizing the aliens. Wouldn’t that be wonderful!”
And it’s interesting to look at this. I mean, I didn’t fall off the turnip truck yesterday. I understand and can smell the public preparation for some sort of staged event when I see one, and, well, if it looks and smells and quacks like a false flag operation, it probably is one.
Being supported by some of the most prominent and powerful and well-connected political and financial elites, clearly there is something very, very stinky here. In order to really understand this stink . . . again, we know why this would potentially be a valuable thing for these “power elites” to consolidate their power in a world government or what have you.
But the question is: could they do it? If so, how could they do it? These are important questions that we need to address if we want to really approach the subject. And, I guess, if we’re going to address it, we have two different routes we can take. We can go down the unverifiable, unsourceable, unfalsifiable, undocumented route, or we can go down the sourced, verified, falsifiable documented route. Me being me, I’m going to go down the sourced, falsifiable, documented route. But if you want to go down that unsourced, unknowable, unverifiable route, you can go, for example, with something called Project Blue Beam.
Now, Project Blue Beam is something I’m sure most of the listeners out there have heard of at some point—at least in a vague sense—as some sort of plan that was uncovered. There must be documents backing this up—talking about staging an alien invasion with holograms in order to create a world government. Something along those lines.
Well, if you really want to open the Pandora’s Box of Project Blue Beam, it’s much more specific than that and, well, somewhat more outlandish and much less documented than you might expect.
This really all dates back and sources back to one particular French Canadian journalist, Serge Monast, who was talking in the mid-1990s about this Project Blue Beam—this NASA project that he had uncovered and was unveiling to the public. It had a multiple stage process for creating a world religion, world government—world tyranny. This involved the induction of earthquakes in order to expose archaeological finds—manipulated, planted archaeological finds—that would change our view of human history and a staged extraterrestrial invasion and the appearance of a new Messiah to be the head of this world religion and the imposition of UN World Government, etcetera. This is a detailed plan that was talked about, but there is literally no document behind this. There is no NASA secret paper that was ever exposed about this. It really all sources back to this Serge Monast and a couple of interviews that are available online.
There’s a transcript of a speech. There’s a translation of what I guess is some sort of summary of a book he apparently wrote on this subject. He did write a book, apparently in French, on this subject, but it’s never been reprinted, and it’s basically unobtainable. There are a couple of different translations of something that may have sourced from this book, more or less, but that’s basically it. I mean, there are just a few scraps. And from those scraps there’s been a lot of talk, and a lot of people have run with this idea. But I think not a lot of people know where it actually sources from.
I will put some links in the show notes, so you can actually follow them and read about them and come to your own conclusion: “Is this worth following?” and “Why should we believe this particular piece of information?” Call me a doubting Thomas. I’ll believe it when I see something, anything documentable, verifiable in terms of this plan.
If we want to go down the other route and look at actual verifiable, sourced and knowable technologies that we know exist, let alone those technologies that we don’t know exist that are being worked on in the skunkworks of DARPA, down in the bowels of the Pentagon—and for more on DARPA I’ll direct you to a previous Corbett Report radio episode, where we talked about DARPA and its various projects—we can source that in a number of different ways, from a number of different, seemingly disparate threads, but definitely technologies that we now know exist.
One place to start: we can get the clue from the book by previous Corbett Report guest James Perloff, Truth Is A Lonely Warrior, where he talks about an Air Force military publication that was available on the Air Force website. You can still access it on the Wayback Machine. The link will be in the show notes. This is about an airborne holographic projector which, this AF.MIL website notes, is:
” . . . a three-dimensional visual image in the desired location, removed from the display generator. The projector can be used for psychological operations and strategic perception management. It is also useful for optical deception and cloaking, providing a momentary distraction when engaging an unsophisticated adversary.”
SOURCE: Airborne Holographic Projector
You can see the unsophisticated visualization that is accompanying this on the website itself. But, yes, very crudely, it’s a plane projecting an image of another plane elsewhere in the sky. Now that is a very crude implementation of this type of holographic technology that, at the very least, would be required for making the world believe we were under some sort of alien invasion threat or what-have-you, but that is twenty years old now and sources from an Air Force military website.
I’m thinking that the actual technology would be somewhat more advanced. But we don’t have to speculate about that. We can take a look at the very real developments in technology, including such incredible things as beaming sound directly into people’s ears, touchable holograms, and being able to manipulate people’s perceptions and incite fear and panic through brain wave technology.
PRESENTER: “The ultimate weapon in the infowar would be so secret, so invisible, so undetectable, you would never know your mind was under attack. At Laurentian University in Ontario, Canada, a young student is about to undergo one of the strangest experiences of her life. They’re hooking Denise’s brain up to an electroencephalograph, or EEG machine. For thirty to forty minutes, this will monitor her brain waves while these electric coils attached on either side of her head will immerse her brain in an electromagnetic field. Her brain actually completes the circuit between the two coils. The field pulsing through her brain is less powerful than one given off by a digital clock radio. But, acutely controlled and focused on specific parts of the brain, it will open Denise’s mind to outside suggestion by this man. Dr. Michael Persinger is a professor of psychology and neuroscience. He is designing ways to put the power of mind control to good use. Dr. Persinger’s research focuses on brain trauma, and he uses carefully controlled doses of electromagnetic radiation to induce relaxation and alleviate pain.
DR. PERSINGER: So what Sandra did was to initiate an opiate-releasing pattern. That’s a burst-firing field that is stimulated once every four seconds and that produces relaxation and a very pleasant sensation. Similarly, using the appropriate field we can induce fear and apprehension, but clearly that would be unethical in that setting.
PRESENTER: Dr. Persinger’s tests suggest that carefully programmed electromagnetic frequencies can tap into individual brains and influence people’s emotions.
DR. PERSINGER: The cognitive processes of the human brain are really quite simple. And, if you understand how they work, you can make entire populations think and decide in the manner which you wish.
PRESENTER: Many experts are skeptical of such an Orwellian scenario, but Persinger thinks the implications are chillingly real.
DR. PERSINGER: Suppose you generate a field that produces fear—fundamental fear—in large numbers of people, and then over the television or in traditional ways you say, “The reason we’re having this fear is because of this particular group.” Now you start to move the population, believing in a direction that you wish.
PRESENTER: To influence 250 million people, the equivalent of the entire population of the United States, may not be difficult. According to Dr. Persinger, we already have the technology—satellites and television and radio transmitters. Mind control may already be happening. We know the mysterious psyops plane can beam persuasive sounds and pictures into people’s television sets. Will it someday beam disturbing frequencies directly into the mind?”
PRESENTER: First, your voice is transformed into high-frequency ultrasound—a sound so high no one can hear it. Ultrasound is highly directional, so, like a torch, it can be pointed at someone standing a long way away. Although they cannot hear the ultrasound, it causes secondary vibrations in the air around them, and it’s that sound the person hears.
DR. JOSEPH POMPEI: So, if you imagine you’re in a room and I shine a flashlight at you, it’s very bright for you but it’s very dark for everybody else. Much the same way, the audio spotlight creates a very narrow beam of sound that can shine at a listener. They hear it very clearly, and it doesn’t create noise that might bother other people in the same space.
SOURCE: Voice to Skull Time
PRESENTER: Researchers at Tokyo University have come up with the technology that is a first and significant step away from the mouse and keyboard: touchable holograms.
HIROYUKI SHINODA (translated): Up until now, holography has been for the eyes only. If you tried to touch it, your hand would go right through. But now we have the technology that also adds the sensation of touch to holograms.”
Now, look, I’m not necessarily saying that there’s going to be a staged alien invasion tomorrow and that we should all be concentrating on this, nor am I saying that there is no such thing as alien life in the universe. I would be shocked, flabbergasted, if there was not. Whether or not it’s visiting Earth well, what do I know? How do I know? I mean, I haven’t seen it myself, but does that mean it doesn’t exist? Well, of course not.
I’ll let you guys . . . you’re grown-up boys and girls out there. I’m sure you can decide for yourself on things like that. But we should know that there is a coordinated plan, or an agenda in place, to capitalize on such things as fake alien invasions that is being funded and promoted by the financial power elite at the top of the pyramid and is being promoted and pushed out into the cultural sphere by the politicians and economists and the Vatican and the UN, and then, underneath them, the culture-creators in the entertainment industry, to prepare the public for such a possibility. And we should be on guard against such manipulations.
These technologies that are now coming together . . . the ones that we know about, let alone the ones that are secretly in development that we don’t have access to . . . are clearly along the path towards making such an event possible.
You can look at something like the Norway spiral and believe the official response—that this was a Russian ICBM test that went awry. If you believe that, I have a bridge on the moon to sell you.
But all of these are just different pieces of the puzzle. I think they add up to something very interesting and something that is potentially coming sometime in the future.
Even if this particular instantiation—this fake alien invasion or what have you—doesn’t come together, still, the concept of psychological manipulation through manipulated events in manipulated reality is an important one—obviously one that we have to continue to keep in mind. Now that the technology for making these events possible is more and more a documentable reality, I think we should have our mental guards up for such eventualities.
So, that’s, I think, where we’re going to leave things today.
This is an open-source investigation. I invite and encourage and applaud the input of all of you out there. So, if you are a Corbett Report member, please do leave your comments on the website with any relevant links or information. Any comments, questions, complaints, criticisms, concerns or otherwise—all invited at corbettreport.com.
Once again, I’m your host James Corbett of corbettreport.com thanking you for joining me for this edition of The Corbett Report podcast and inviting you to join me again next week.
Featured Video
NO MANDATES, NO PROFITS: MODERNA CEO TELLS THE TRUTH
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
The Old Testament and the Genocide in Gaza
“You will chase your enemies, and they shall fall by the sword before you. Five of you shall chase a hundred, and a hundred of you shall put ten thousand to flight; your enemies shall fall by the sword before you.”
Leviticus, Chapter 26, verses 7-9“When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations… then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them and show them no mercy.”
Deuteronomy 7:1-2,“…do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them… as the Lord your God has commanded you…”
Deuteronomy 20:16Gilad Atzmon | January 8, 2009
There is not much doubt amongst Biblical scholars that the Hebrew Bible contains some highly charged non-ethical suggestions, some of which are no less than a call for a genocide. Biblical scholar Raymund Schwager has found in the Old Testament 600 passages of explicit violence, 1000 descriptive verses of God’s own violent actions of punishment, 100 passages where God expressly commands others to kill people. Apparently, violence is the most often mentioned activity in the Hebrew Bible.
As devastating as it may be, the Hebrew Bible saturation with violence and extermination of others may throw some light over the horrifying genocide conducted momentarily in Gaza by the Jewish state. … continue
Blog Roll
Recent Comments
Coronistan on This is How We Should Have Res… Coronistan on NO MANDATES, NO PROFITS: MODER… Lutz Barz on Russia Vows to Protect Its Oil… loongtip on Russia Vows to Protect Its Oil… loongtip on Hamas never agreed to lay down… eddieb on Conspiracy Denial eddieb on WEF Calls for ‘Cultural Revolu… loongtip on Trump wanted to play peacemake… Coronistan on EU member to sue bloc over ‘su… loongtip on Vicious loongtip on EU turns to India for defense… Coronistan on Donald Trump Is No Peace …
Aletho News- NO MANDATES, NO PROFITS: MODERNA CEO TELLS THE TRUTH
- UK Health Officials Covered Up Reports of Heart Damage Linked to AstraZeneca Vaccine
- This is How We Should Have Responded to COVID-19
- The UK Covid Inquiry: Propaganda to protect the ‘pandemic’ narrative
- Israeli Merkava tank invades outskirts of Yaroun in southern Lebanon
- Europeans oppose Brussels’ Russian energy ban, survey finds
- Russia Vows to Protect Its Oil Tankers
- In 2007, Michael Parenti Called Out The Greater Israel Project
- Hamas never agreed to lay down arms in truce talks: Official
- Iran, China and Russia sign trilateral strategic pact
- If Americans Knew
- NBA Star Stephen Curry’s Ties To Israeli Military Intelligence
- ‘Apocalyptic wasteland’: Biden admin. blocked warning on deteriorating Gaza situation after Oct. 7
- Why Israeli counterterrorism tactics are showing up in Minnesota
- Israel Went to Extremes to Return Ran Gvili’s Body. Why Doesn’t It Accord Dead Palestinians the Same Respect?
- Across the West, speaking for Palestine is now a crime
- A West Bank Bus Trip Through ‘the Best Documented Ethnic Cleansing in History’
- Mike Huckabee’s distorted theology does not speak for Christians worldwide
- CBS Evening News” With Tony Dokoupil Is Ellisons’ & Weiss’s Pro-Israel Show
- A Generation on Hold: Inside Gaza’s Collapsing Education System
- Born Under Siege: A Gaza Family Waited 17 Years—Their Baby Survived Six Months
- No Tricks Zone
- 130 Years Later: The CO2 Greenhouse Effect Is Still Only An Imaginary-World Thought Experiment
- New Study Affirms Rising CO2’s Greening Impact Across India – A Region With No Net Warming In 75 Years
- Germany’s Natural Gas Crisis Escalates … One Storage Site Near Empty …Government Silent
- Polar Colding…Antarctica Saw Its Coldest October In 44 Years!
- New Study: Sea Levels Rose 20 Times The Modern Rate During The Roman Warm Period
- As German Gas Storage Dips Dangerously Low…Shortage Hardly Avoidable
- New Study: Brazil’s Relative Sea Level Was 2+ Meters Higher And SSTs 3-4°C Warmer 6000 Years Ago
- Philosopher Schopenhauer: Climate Science Certainty Stems From Stupidity, Ignorance
- New Study: Species Extinction Rates Declining Since 1980 – ‘Climate Change Is Not An Important Threat’
- Denmark Places Climate Protection Above Animal Welfare, Poisoning And Culling Cows
Aletho News 