Hillary Clinton Takes Aim at “Disinformation,” “Negative, Virulent Content,” and Memes Ahead of the 2024 Elections

By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | March 31, 2024
The last time the extent of Hillary Clinton’s tech “savviness” or lack thereof, became public knowledge was way back in 2016, when she lost the presidential election, amid, among other things, the (classified) emails scandal.
Now, Clinton has graduated from not knowing how email works, to feeling she is qualified to discuss the impact of immeasurably more complex technology, such as AI.
To give Clinton the benefit of the doubt, it has been a long time, and perhaps she has used that time to educate herself.
However, it also turns out that nearly a decade later she still blames her loss to Donald Trump on the since-debunked conspiracy theories about “election disinformation” that supposedly decided the outcome of that vote.
So, Clinton-the-victim’s comments now, half a year before the next US presidential election and amid mainstream media’s “disinformation/AI panic” might read as little, if anything, more than political campaigning.
She claims this is her focus now: still talking about the alleged wrongdoing done to her in 2016, still alleging this was all about “disinformation” – and that it was all “primitive” – compared to what she anticipates is happening now.
Clinton also plays her audience by at once “admitting” that she and hers are ignorant (“I don’t think any of us understood it. I did not understand it. I can tell you, my campaign did not understand it”), to then claim that, for some reason, she should now be taken as an authority.
Not about social media, memes, the “dark web” (or, God forbid, the concept of email…) but also, the regulation of online providers/content. Enter the CDA Section 230 debate – where it seems each side of the ideological aisle interprets its importance according to their political needs of the day.
“Their, you know, the so-called ‘Dark Web’ was filled with these kinds of memes and stories and videos of all sorts… portraying me in all kinds of… less than flattering ways,” Clinton said. “And we knew something’s going on, but we didn’t understand the full extent of the very clever way in which it was insinuated into social media.”
Clinton is now quoted in the press as saying that tech companies – enjoying, and, conservatives say, indulgently abusing their Section 230 protections over third-party content (to favor liberals) – suddenly should no longer have those privileges.
An experienced observer may see this turn of events – somebody like Clinton apparently advocating for Section 230 to be abolished – as simply a maneuver to pile on more pressure on major tech companies to be careful “not to slip” in their “censorship diligence” this election season – or else.
Either way, this is what Clinton said: “Section 230 has to go. We need a different system under which tech companies and we’re mostly talking obviously about the social media platforms – operate.”
America Has Paid a Total of $38,893 to Avalanche of COVID Vaccine Injured Citizens
By Jefferey Jaxen | March 29, 2024
What Americans were sold during the COVID vaccine rollout hype was an injection to return to normal – medical blackmail. A two-dose series turned into multiple boosters, as high as nine now recommended by the CDC if you are counting. As many capitulated, no public spokesperson or mainstream media outlet marketing the shot uttered a word about its safety or what would happen if someone was harmed by the rushed, experimental product…a tactic called strategic silence.
A ‘black hole’ for COVID vaccine injury claims was the title of a June 29, 2021 Reuters article describing the Countermeasure Injury Compensation Program, or CICP, run by the Health Resources and Services Administration. A program few Americans ever knew existed and probably still don’t.
This is the program people who are injured by the COVID shot get tossed into if they are educated enough to recognize the harm from the shot and their doctor understands and is courageous enough to file a claim. And here are a few other stipulations that matter:
- No attorney & medical expert fee reimbursement
- 1-year statute of limitations (from the date of administration)
- No reimbursement for future medical care
- No pain & suffering damages
- No appeal to a higher court in the CICP
- No medical testimony or hearings. You vs Sec’y of HHS
- Lack of transparency on reporting of decisions
It’s been three years since the COVID vaccine rollout and hundreds of millions of doses later, injury compensation is still lacking to the point it borders on criminal. The CICP has recently released their monthly updated injury compensation numbers – three weeks late for those keeping an eye on them.

11 claims compensated…

For a grand total of… $38,893.
Proponents of COVID vaccine safety will use this number, 11, as proof the vaccine is indeed safe ignoring how the CICP is monumentally unfit for its current purpose.
Speaking to Wayne Rohde, author of The Vaccine Court and host of Right on Point podcast about the the CICP program, he said, “The CICP was never designed for a long-term, nationwide pandemic public health crisis.”
Meanwhile, as the public tries to piece together the true human damage caused by the COVID shots, we take a look at another broken, unfit program in the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). Can you spot an issue once the COVID shots began going into American arms on an industrial scale in 2021?

In addition to the deaths, there have been 214,906 hospitalizations, 154,245 urgent care visits, 242,537 doctors office visits, 10,767 cases of anaphylaxis, 17,688 cases of Bell’s palsy, 5,115 miscarriages, 21,524 heart attacks, 28,215 cases of myo/per-carditis, 69,936 cases of ‘permanently disabled,’ and 39,544 ‘life-threatening’ and so many more reports to VAERS after the COVID shot. In all, a total of 1,630,913 reports.
Let’s take a moment to do some math here. VAERS is a system that is notorious for underreporting. A study of the system found “fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported.” Assuming the current number of VAERS reports of 1,630,913 is only 1%, the true number may be closer to something like 163,091,300.
Last month FDA director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research Dr. Peter Marks appeared before the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic to discuss possible issues with the fast-tracking of the COVID shots.
When asked by Chairman Brad Wenstrup if the government was prepared for such an avalanche of reports to VAERS, Marks replied, “We tried to be prepared for that but the avalanche of reports was tremendous.”
So on one side with VAERS, we have a broken government intake program getting overwhelmed on the front end while the other (CICP) sees the outflow of compensation for damages and cases awarded administratively throttled. Caught in between are untold numbers of Americans left hanging in the wind shouldering unsettled medical harms and the bills to follow. America can do better.
The entire vaccine damage infrastructure needs a historic overhaul. From education for medical professionals to recognize and encourage reporting of harms from the shots to greater research on why some are more susceptible than others to vaccine injury while addressing decades of ignored scientific research.
Most importantly, a true compensation mechanism for the injured beyond CICP’s pittances and the long-broken National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. The beginning of a fair compromise should, at the very least, end the product liability shield for vaccine manufacturers.
“Drug companies should be liable in civil court for vaccine injuries and deaths and so should anyone giving vaccines to people being denied the human right to informed consent to medical risk-taking,” said NVIC co-founder and president Barbara Loe Fisher. “There is an urgent need to hold vaccine manufacturers and doctors accountable in civil court for the safety of vaccines and how they are being given.”
Ukrainian police investigate ‘pro-Russian’ shelling victim

RT | March 31, 2024
Police in Ukraine’s second largest city, Kharkov, have said that criminal proceedings have been launched against a local woman who insisted that Ukrainians should not be celebrating their troops’ shelling of Russia’s border regions.
She expressed the opinion despite her own home being hit by a Russian airstrike on her city, which had reportedly targeted electrical infrastructure and defense industry facilities.
Police said in a statement on Saturday that officers “have found a video on social media,” in which a 59-year-old female resident of Kharkov’s Shevchenkovsky District “denied the armed aggression by Russia, supported the invasion of Ukraine and the occupation of part of the state’s territory and condemned the actions of the Ukrainian authorities.”
The clip in question featured a short interview following Russian airstrikes on Kharkov on March 24. The woman spoke with a journalist through an empty window-frame in her home; the glass had apparently been blown out by a nearby explosion.
In the footage, the local resident refused to condemn Moscow and called for an end to violence, saying that the Ukrainians should not “throw” missiles at Belgorod and other Russian border regions and “should not celebrate” those attacks.
When the journalist disagreed with her stance, she replied by saying that they simply had different views. “I believe that one must have friendly relations with neighbors,” the woman stressed, referring to Ukraine and Russia.
Kharkov is located just 30 kilometers (19 miles) south of the Russia–Ukraine border and remains a predominately Russian-speaking city.
She is now being probed for “collaborationist activities,” the police said. As part of a pre-trial investigation, the officers have spoken to witnesses, who “confirmed the pro-Russian stance of the person in question and reported conflicts with her on this issue,” the statement read.
The Ukrainian criminal code was adjusted in March 2022, a few weeks after the launch of Russia’s military operation. It criminalizes a vast array of activities, including the public backing of Moscow’s actions, offering direct material and financial aid to the Russian forces, and the execution of official roles in areas captured by Russia.
Earlier this month, a court in the Ukrainian city of Vinnytsia ordered the confiscation of the apartment of an 80-year-old woman for posting pro-Russian comments on social media. She was also slapped with a four-year prison term. The sentence was delivered in absentia because the defendant has been living in Russia for the past several years.
How Zionist interests are behind British gov’s attempted definition of ‘extremism’

By David Miller | Al Mayadeen | March 28, 2024
The British government has been grappling with the question of extremism for years now. It has failed even to define extremism in any clear fashion, and has been struggling to fight back against an avalanche of criticism that its counter-extremism policies are Islamophobic.
The genocide in Gaza has focused minds in the British elite, because of the massive sympathy for the Palestinians visible on the streets.
The desperate attempts to cast pro-Palestine protestors as genocidal is a desperate attempt to split the movement. The government is trying to reframe “extremism” in such a way that more radical supporters of Palestinian liberation are demonised, criminalised and disavowed by the rest of the movement.
Michael Gove
The minister leading this is the toxic Michael Gove, the most pro-Zionist minister in the government. He has a history of involvement with Zionist lobby groups, and for example, was the first chairman of the Neoconservative and Islamophobic think tank Policy Exchange.
It’s no coincidence that the new policy he is introducing was dreamt up by Policy Exchange in a paper published in 2022. It recommended: Firstly, a consolidated Centre for the Study of Extremism within government, dedicated to the research and diagnosis of Islamist and other forms of extremism. Secondly, a separate communications unit dedicated to publicly combatting disinformation about the Government’s counter-terrorism and counter-extremism strategies. Thirdly, a due diligence unit, which develops and monitors criteria for engagement with community organisations.
Lord Shawcross
All of its main proposals were adopted by Lord William Shawcross in his review of Prevent, published in 2023. Shawcross is famously Islamophobic and his review was even denounced by Amnesty. He was appointed as a senior Fellow at the Policy Exchange in 2018, prior to being appointed to the Prevent Review in 2021.
Shawcross’s recommendations were all accepted by the government, and thus the new policy has effectively been written by a leading Islamophobic think tank.
Blacklisting agency
Among the innovations are a new blacklisting agency in Gove’s department (a so-called counter-extremism centre of excellence) and a change in the status of the Commission for Countering Extremism which changes from being an advisory to an enforcement agency.
Behind Policy Exchange
But behind Policy Exchange lies a shadowy group of foundations which provide cash for its work. Though they are secretive, we can reveal at least two.
The first and most significant is the Charles Wolfson Charitable Trust, which donates almost every year and has given Policy Exchange more than £3 million between 2007 and 2022. The Wolfson family, which runs the trust, are the owners of the Next retail chain. The boss, Simon Wolfson, declined his bonus in 2020-21, and despite this earned almost £3.4 million that year.
The Wolfson family also funds Beit Halochem, which channels money to the occupation forces which it describes as “heroes”. The family also gives money to the Jerusalem Foundation, which is engaged in promoting illegal settlements in occupied East Jerusalem.
Another source of funds is the Rosenkranz Foundation, which has given support to the think tank for more than a decade. Along with other Islamophobic causes. Its director, Robert Rosenkranz, was appointed a director of Policy Exchange in 2010.
In other words, British government policy on extremism is captured by Policy Exchange and Policy Exchange is in part a front for Zionist interests.
Defining ‘extremism’
The British government is in a bind. It can’t define extremism and yet it wants to pretend that it can. An amazing display of the lack of support the proposals have was shown on the BBC Question Time programme, where the presenter Fiona Bruce, after weathering many criticisms asked plaintively: “Let me just ask in the interests of balance, is there anyone here who welcomes what Michael Gove had to say?” She was greeted, as she put it with “not a hand up”.
The government claims that its new policy contains a “new definition” of extremism. But there was never an old definition. And the text they have published is not a definition either. There is still no legal definition of extremism, and this is why the government is at pains to point out that “This definition is not statutory and has no effect on the existing criminal law.”
The reason for this is that the government knows that if it tries and create a statutory definition, it will be subject to legal challenge which it will most probably lose. There is a nervousness about this which is intriguing.
First of all, Michael Gove named five “extremist” organisations under Parliamentary privilege, because he knows he would be subject to legal action were he to name them outside the House.
Disrupting the Palestine solidarity movement
Secondly, though the aim here is to destroy and disrupt the Palestine solidarity movement, primarily, no Palestine-related groups were named.
But pro-Palestine group Friends of al-Aqsa was named in drafts of the speech leaked to the media. It also named the Muslim news site 5Pillars and FoA as “divisive forces within Muslim communities”. The government was too nervous even to name them in Parliament.
Gove stated in the Commons that “Islamism is a totalitarian ideology which … calls for the establishment of an Islamic state governed by sharia law”. He named three groups, the Muslim Association of Britain, Cage, and Mend, all perfectly legal organisations.
Mend immediately challenged Gove “to repeat his claims outside of parliament and without the protection of parliamentary privilege… [to] provide the evidence… that MEND has called for the establishment of an ‘Islamic state governed by sharia law’”.
Even normally staunch allies, such as government adviser John Mann have criticised the policy. He stated that ministers should be prioritising “bringing communities together”. “The government needs to listen to people who are advising that the politics of division will not work,” he told the BBC.
Sophisticated engagement
The division appears to be between those pushing for a Likudnik scorched earth approach and those who favour a “sophisticated engagement” strategy – as it was described by the Zionist think tank Reut and their collaborators the US Zionist spy agency, the Anti-Defamation League in a report in 2016. Back in 2010, the Reut Institute urged Israel’s “intelligence establishment” to “drive [a] wedge between soft and hard critics” abroad. The former should be subject to “sophisticated engagement strategies” while the latter should be subject to “sabotage” and “attack”, it said.
This is not just a political and strategic difference, but a question of defending the millions in state and Zionist funding ploughed into the maintenance of hundreds of jobs in sophisticated engagements, such as the interfaith industry.
Underlying all this, the danger is that the definition best fits genocidal Zionist groups and their supporters within government, most notably Michael Gove himself. The penetration and capture of key elements of security policy by the Zionists is nothing if it is not, as the new so-called definition puts it, an attempt to “undermine, overturn or replace the UK’s system of liberal parliamentary democracy and democratic rights” in the service of attempting to “negate or destroy the fundamental rights and freedoms of others”, most obviously Muslims and Palestinians and their supporters.
Orwellian Tactics? Libertarian Party Fears Targeting By FBI After Letter
By Kyle Anzalone and Will Porter | The Libertarian Institute | March 29, 2024
The Libertarian Party has questions for the Department of Justice after the FBI claimed that a “foreign threat” had accessed its Facebook account. A preliminary analysis by the LP was hindered by Meta, which has offered little clarity on the incident.
In a statement published on Friday, LP chair Angela McArdle shared a letter the party received from the bureau warning of the alleged breach. “The FBI maintains active investigations that seek to identify the activities of hostile foreign governments and their intelligence services who target the US government, private sector, and political processes,” the letter says. “The FBI recently obtained information showing that one of these foreign threat actors was in control of various IP addresses that the group used to log into a Facebook account controlled by your organization. The group accessed the account sometime between August 2023 and February 2024.”
One LP employee with knowledge of the letter told the Libertarian Institute that roughly 10 people have access to the Facebook account. The party has not changed access to the page within the past two months.
The employee said the LP was unable to access the user archive for its Facebook account to determine if it had been hacked and has so far received no assistance from Meta in resolving the issue. The organization plans to do what it can to learn more about the supposed “foreign threat actor” and why the FBI was surveilling the account in the first place.
While the source acknowledged that the letter could be the result of “good police work,” the party is concerned the move could amount to a veiled threat from federal agents. Those worries are significantly heightened as two members of the party’s leadership have been contacted by the FBI within the past year, the employee added.
McArdle expressed similar fears in her statement. “We do not trust the FBI. Stories of aggressive FBI field agents have been popping up all over the country. The Biden administration seems to be cracking down on dissenting voices in preparation for the general election.” She continued, “We will continue to dissent, and we will call out the corruption of the current DOJ and Biden administration.”
“The greatest threat to freedom in the US isn’t an anonymous ‘hostile foreign government.’ It is the United States Government. It is the current administration, who has engaged in an unprecedented amount of censorship, coercion, and Orwellian control tactics.”
The letter to the LP came after multiple pro-Palestinian activists said they received visits by FBI agents interested in their social media posts. Rights group Palestine Legal said the house calls amounted to efforts to “intimidate and censor” activists as the US heads toward an election in which Libertarian voters and supporters of Palestine could play a crucial role.
More than 100,000 democratic voters in Michigan voted “uncommitted” in last month’s primary to protest US support for Israel, while LP presidential hopeful Jo Jorgenson received more votes than the margin between Donald Trump and President Biden during the 2020 general election.
YouTube Says It Has a “Responsibility” To Manipulate Algorithms Leading Up to the 2024 Election
By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | March 28, 2024
“Responsibility” is a good word. It’s even better as an actual thing. But even just as a word, it’s a positive one. It signals that reliable people/entities are behind some project, or policy.
So no wonder then, that the thoroughly disgraced Google/YouTube – as far as censorship and biased political approach – are trying to use the word “responsibility” as a narrative fig leaf to cover what the giant platform is actually up to – and has been, for a long while.
Enter, YouTube’s newest chief product officer, Johanna Voolich. What are the priorities here? It could be summed up as, four R’s and One C – namely, YouTube’s “remove, raise, reward, reduce” content approach – that’s as per a blog post published by YouTube itself.
And then, C would be speculative, for “censorship” – which is what these supposedly fair and “uplifting” actions in reality end up achieving.
If you thought any of this could be achieved by YouTube without “boosting authoritative content” – think again. That is still a solid pledge, regurgitated by Voolich.
And if you thought somebody would finally come out and clearly spell out how, and according to whose definition, content gets to be dubbed “authoritative” or otherwise – just don’t hold your breath.
The sum total is that YouTube has a new product manager, but that nothing has changed.
Certainly not in this year of election.
And while Voolich made perfunctory references to creators benefiting from new features, and even being heard (via feedback), they also learn that when that’s convenient, AI is advertised as a tool to “empower creativity.” (Otherwise, AI is denounced as a scourge to democracy itself.)
But when all that’s said, there’s the overarching issue of YouTube’s “responsibility.” To do what, you might wonder – give its users/creators the best tools and opportunities – or act as proxy campaigner for a certain political and ideological option, in the US, but also, elsewhere in the world?
YouTube’s self-professed “4 R’s of responsibility” may or may not provide some insight into what the answer to that serious question might be.
R1 – “Remove content that violates our policy as quickly as possible.”
R2 – “Raise up authoritative voices when people are looking for breaking news and information.”
R3 – “Reward trusted, eligible creators and artists.”
R4 – “Reduce the spread of content that brushes right up against our policy line.”
And that, right there, is a solid foundation for continued, effective “C” – Censorship.
Do the Pertussis Vaccines Used in the US Stop Infection and Transmission of the Pertussis Bacterium?
Your bite-size dose of immunity against vaccine misinformation. Spread the truth.
Injecting Freedom by Aaron Siri | March 22, 2024
Do the pertussis (whooping cough) vaccines used in the United States stop infection and transmission of the pertussis bacterium?
“Yes” or “No”?
When picking an answer, keep in mind that the pertussis vaccine is part of a combination vaccine (DTap or Tdap) mandated to attend grades K-12 in every U.S. state – it is the “P” in DTaP and the “p” in Tdap – and the justification for this rights-crushing mandate is the belief that the vaccine prevents transmission of pertussis in the school setting.
The answer is “No”! In 1999, the CDC recommended “exclusive use of acellular pertussis vaccines for all doses of the pertussis vaccine series” and that vaccine does not prevent transmission. This is explained in an FDA study titled “Acellular pertussis vaccines protect against disease but fail to prevent infection and transmission in a nonhuman primate model” and confirmed in a consensus paper explaining that:
“aPVs [pertussis vaccines] … cannot avoid infection and transmission. … aPV pertussis vaccines do not prevent colonization. Consequently, they do not reduce the circulation of B. pertussis and do not exert any herd immunity effect.”
The CDC and FDA, in formal responses to the Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN), confirm the foregoing, as does this paper explaining:
“That vaccination does not prevent B. pertussis infection in humans, nor the circulation of the organism in human populations in any important manner, comes from the observation that the inter-epidemic intervals have not changed in a major way since the implementation of mass vaccination.”
Incredibly, the immunity provided by pertussis vaccines, while potentially reducing symptoms of the disease, actually renders those receiving these products susceptible to repeated infection with pertussis; meaning, it increases the potential to spread this bacterium because it renders those vaccinated repeat-asymptomatic-carriers. (See this study, “Lack of mucosal immune responses after aPV administration favor infection, persistent colonization, and transmission of the pathogen”, and this study, “Because of linked-epitope suppression, all children who were primed by DTaP vaccines will be more susceptible to pertussis throughout their lifetimes, and there is no easy way to decrease this increased lifetime susceptibility.”)
In any event, immunity from the pertussis vaccine wanes rapidly, even after six doses in childhood! As the CDC explains, a study of pertussis vaccine immunity found that four years after five doses of DTaP and one of Tdap “vaccine effectiveness was 8.9%.” Nonetheless, the CDC makes additional doses of the pertussis vaccine optional in adulthood.
Screenshots of the relevant portions of the websites linked above can be viewed here (in case they change).
Swedish police arrest Iranian prisoner’s son: Daughter
Press TV – March 29, 2024
Sweden’s police have reportedly arrested the son of an Iranian prisoner, who has been sentenced to life in prison by Stockholm, based on complaints filed by notorious anti-Iran figures living in exile in the Nordic country.
“After [spending] hours with no information about my brother, who had gone to visit my father…, we realized that Majid has been apparently arrested by Sweden’s police,” Atieh Nouri, daughter of Hamid Nouri, said in a post on X on Friday.
“We still do not know anything about the details of the matter,” she added.
Nouri, a former Iranian judiciary official, was arrested in Sweden back in 2019.
He was put on trial on unfounded allegations levelled against him by elements representing the Mujahedin-e-Khalq Organization (MKO) terrorist cult that has openly boasted about carrying out deadly terrorist operations against thousands of Iranian officials and civilians.
Nouri was handed the life sentence three years later after being found guilty of murder and crimes against the international law over his alleged role in executions of criminals in Iran in 1988.
Sweden’s Appeal Court upheld the verdict in December 2023.
Earlier in March, Sweden’s Supreme Court also upheld the sentence, refusing to hear an appeal that had been submitted by the Iranian prisoner.
Iranian authorities say Nouri’s imprisonment and trial in Sweden is politically-motivated, noting that the case has been influenced by pressure and propaganda of anti-Iran groups and individuals living in the West.
Nouri, himself, has vehemently denied the charges brought against him in the case, calling them fabricated.
US Approves Transfer of Bombs, Fighter Jets to Israel Amid Rafah Concerns – Reports
Sputnik – 29.03.2024
WASHINGTON – The Biden administration approved the transfer of billions of dollars of military equipment to Israel, amid concerns about a potential Israeli offensive in the Gaza Strip city of Rafah, The Washington Post reported on Friday.
The United States will provide Israel with more than 1,800 MK84 2,000-pound bombs and 500 MK82 500-pound bombs, the report said, citing State Department and Pentagon officials.
The MK84 bombs have been connected to mass-casualty incidents during Israel’s military operations in the Gaza Strip, the report said.
The US will also send 25 F-35A fighter jets and engines, the report said.

As attorney general, Robert F. Kennedy—RFK,Jr.’s father— developed a reputation as an advocate of civil rights in large part based on an incident that occurred in Georgia in 1960 involving the Rev. Martin Luther King, whom the FBI had been monitoring for five years. Dr. King was leading more than 200 activists in a campaign of sit-ins at 11 department stores in Atlanta when he was among the 51 Blacks arrested, but King was sentenced to four months of hard labor at a Georgia penitentiary.
Rich said he based his racism on “local customs,” but the other Jim Crow stores indicated that their racist policies were based on Rich’s, because his store was by far the largest. It was on the orders of the racist Richard Rich that Martin Luther King was handcuffed and jailed. When the publicity threatened to affect Rich’s profits, he tried to escape responsibility and declined to prosecute—but not because King and fellow protestors were right, but because, according to Rich and his attorney Morris Abram, “we didn’t want to make martyrs out of them and King.”
In a truly embarrassing gaffe Kennedy claimed that “Three Jewish boys—Goodman, Schwerner, and Chaney—were killed in Mississippi.” This, of course, would be news to James Chaney (left) and his family, who were not only Black but members of St. Joseph Catholic Church in Meridian, Mississippi. Nonetheless, the three martyrs cannot be forgotten for the ultimate sacrifice they made in Philadelphia, Mississippi, in 1964 for the cause of Black human rights. Nor can we allow falsehoods and propaganda to be cynically promoted in their names. Kennedy is the latest in a long line of mostly Jewish deceivers who use the names and tragic stories of the two “Jewish boys” to very subtly conceal the long and very uncivil history of 

Jewish leaders, like Natchez, Mississippi, merchant Jacob Soria, would not have “embraced” Martin Luther King, as RFK, Jr. surmises, but would have sold him and his fellow protesters at Rich’s along with the 32 Black men, women and children 
Nonetheless, by all accounts both Michael Schwerner and Andrew Goodman came to Mississippi as dedicated individuals committed to racial justice, and, tellingly, not representing any synagogue or Jewish organization. And though their memories are cynically exploited—as Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., just did—for political benefit, a very thoughtful Andrew Goodman offered his community some sage advice about a Black organization that “Jewish leaders” like Greenblatt and his predecessor Abraham Foxman were dedicated to destroying:
If you regard the United States as perhaps flawed but overall a force for good in the world . . .