Every time I switch on the TV it’s obvious as far as I’m concerned. Even the News is becoming dumber and trashier.
Every time I switch on the TV it’s obvious as far as I’m concerned. Even the News is becoming dumber and trashier.
There is a story going viral right now that potentially affects all alternative media. I’ll let Jon Rappoport do the explaining:
Breaking: Infowars and Natural News under attack
by Jon Rappoport
February 22, 2017
Alex Jones’and Mike Adams’ are both under attack.
Infowars has been dropped by its ad platform provider — adroll.com, which spreads ads for Infowars products to many, many media outlets. Last year, that ad operation accounted for more than $3 million in sales for Infowars.
Natural News has been “delisted” by Google. Google appears to have wiped out 140,000 pages of listings for Mike’s website. I just typed in “natural news” at Google and what came up was something different, — another tiny site owned by Mike, not , as the top listing.
The Empire is striking back. This isn’t debate or discussion or even baseless accusation. This is war by attrition. And censorship.
This is part of the elite mantra: if we don’t like it, wipe it out.
If you’ve been awake for the past year, you’ve seen an escalation, along many fronts, of the so-called “Progressive” forces to censor what they don’t want to read or hear.
It’s taken a new turn. They want to take down key independent media outlets.
They want to narrow down the “information superhighway” to a one-lane road that runs directly into their headquarters, where all the big-time fake news is dispensed, every day, to the hypnotized masses.
Don’t let them win. At the very least, take the independent news you judge is vitally important and spread it out far and wide.
Finally, for now, a message to those individuals who, by work and sweat and intelligence, by their own efforts, have built and created independent news sites:
WHATEVER DIFFERENCES YOU MAY HAVE HAD, FROM TIME TO TIME, WITH ONE ANOTHER, THIS IS BIGGER THAN THAT. MUCH BIGGER. THIS IS ABOUT CENSORSHIP OF FREE SPEECH. THIS IS ABOUT A WAR AGAINST THE FREEDOMS WE HOLD DEAR, THE FREEDOMS THAT MEAN THE MOST WHEN THEY ARE UNDER ATTACK. DEFEND EACH OTHER.
Naturally there every reaction out there from hysteria, to a satisfied smugness from the sceptics.
My personal reaction is to stay calm and see how this plays out over the next few days. I smell a “wheels within wheels” plot of some sort. A trap perhaps? Are these sites being targeted in order to generate panic? If so I’m not taking the bait.
I’ll continue fighting for freedom of choice and freedom of speech in a calm and rational manner, and monitor the situation.
There are many ways to fight a war. Know thine enemy, and as the British say, Keep Calm And Carry On.
UPDATE, 27 FEB.
IF YOU WISH TO HELP NATURAL NEWS, HERE’S A LINK TO THE PETITION:
Full NBC interview, very interesting, and Lu Kang is a very confident speaker.
Well worth 30 minutes of your time.
By Lisa Haven
On October 21st, 2016, and shortly after the US government brazenly announced that they were pondering cyber attacks on Russia, the East Coast was bombarded with cyber attacks. DYN status had reported that serval DDoS attacks (Distributed Denial of Service Attacks) were initiated by an army of bots that struck computers to inhibit certain information. Huge companies like Google, Spotify, Twitter, Pintrest, and others were the target.
Now LogRhythm’s Vice President and chief information and security officer, James Carder, has reported that the attacks earlier this year were all just “tests” and that something major is coming.
He states, ”In 2017, we’re going to see it hit big sometime, somewhere. If the internet goes down, financial markets will tank.”
This is a blatantly politicized “report” that is not supported by any evidence, nor is it supported by the other 16 intelligence agencies.
The recent pronouncement by the C.I.A. that Russian hackers intervened in the U.S. presidential election doesn’t pass the sniff test–on multiple levels. Let’s consider the story on the most basic levels.
1. If the report is so “secret,” why is it dominating the news flow?
2. Why was the “secret report” released now?
3. What actual forensic evidence is there of intervention? Were voting machines tampered with? Or is this “secret report” just another dose of fact-free “fake news” like The Washington Post’s list of 200 “Russian propaganda” websites?
4. The report claims the entire U.S. intelligence community is in agreement on the “proof of Russian intervention on behalf of Trump” story, but then there’s this:
“The C.I.A. presentation to senators about Russia’s intentions fell short of a formal U.S. assessment produced by all 17 intelligence agencies. A senior U.S. official said there were minor disagreements among intelligence officials about the agency’s assessment, in part because some questions remain unanswered.”
Given that the N.S.A. (National Security Agency) was so secret that its existence was denied for decades, do you really think the NSA is going to go public if it disagrees with the C.I.A.?
Given the structure of the Deep State and the intelligence community, “minor disagreements” could well mean complete, total disavowal of the C.I.A.’s report.
That this is the reality is suggested by the F.B.I.’s denunciation of the report’s evidence-free, sweeping conclusion:
5. The supposed interventions clearly fall under the purview of the NSA. So why is the C.I.A. going public in what is clearly a politicized report intended to influence the public via massive, sustained coverage in the mainstream media?
6. Notice the double standard: so when the U.S. attempts to influence public opinion in other nations, it’s OK, but when other nations pursue the same goal, it’s not OK?
7. What are we to make of the sustained campaign to elevate “Russian hackers and propaganda” from signal noise to the deciding factor in the U.S. election?
8. Russian hacking and attempts to influence American public opinion are not new. The intelligence agencies tasked with protecting American cyberspace have long identified state-sponsored hacking from Russia and China as major threats. So why, all of a sudden, are we being told the Russians successfully influenced a U.S. election?
What changed? What new capabilities did they develop?
9. And most importantly, what evidence is there that Russian efforts affected the election? Were digital fingerprints found on voting machine records? Were payments to American media employees uncovered?
Shouldn’t statements purported to be “fact” or the “truth” be substantiated beyond “trust us, an agency with a long history of failed intelligence, misinformation and illegal over-reach”?
10. Doesn’t it raise alarms that such a momentous accusation is totally devoid of evidence? If you’re going public with the conclusion, you have to go public with at least some of the evidence.
Here’s the media blitz and some skeptical response:
Longtime readers know I have proposed a major divide in the Deep State–the elements of the federal government which don’t change regardless of who is in elected office. This includes the intelligence community, the Pentagon, the diplomatic and trade infrastructure, Research and Revelopment, and America’s own organs of media “framing” and “placement.”
Is the Deep State Fracturing into Disunity? (March 14, 2014)
More recently, I wondered if the more progressive elements of the Deep State recognized the dangers to U.S. security posed by the neocons and their candidate, Hillary Clinton, and had decided to undermine her candidacy:
Could the Deep State Be Sabotaging Hillary? (August 8, 2016)
In other words, it’s not the Russians who sabotaged Hillary–it’s America’s own Deep State that undermined her coronation. It wasn’t a matter of personalities; it was much more profound than that. It was about the risks posed by the neocon strategies and policies, and just as importantly, the politicization of the intelligence network.
And this is precisely what we discern in the C.I.A.’s unprecedented and quite frankly, absurd “secret report:” a blatantly politicized “report” that is not supported by any evidence, nor is it supported by the other 16 intelligence agencies. (Silence doesn’t mean approval in this sphere.)
We can now discern the warring camps of the Deep State more clearly. On the one side is the C.I.A., the mainstream media, and the civilians who have feasted on wealth and power from their participation in the neocon’s Global Project.
On the other side is the Defense Department’s own intelligence agencies (D.I.A. et al.), the N.S.A., the F.B.I. and at least a few well-placed civilians who recognize the neocon agenda as a clear and present danger to the security of the nation.
From this perspective, the C.I.A.’s rash, evidence-free “report” is a rear-guard political action against the winning faction of the Deep State. The Deep State elements that profited from the neocon agenda were confident that Hillary’s victory would guarantee another eight years of globalist intervention. Her loss means they are now on the defensive, and like a cornered, enraged beast, they are lashing out with whatever they have in hand.
This goes a long way in explaining the C.I.A’s release of a painfully threadbare and politicized “re
Washington Post-CIA connections destroy Post’s “election-hack” claim
By Jon Rappoport
“The CIA says” is never a great way to start a sentence. But that’s the basis of the latest charge that Russia hacked the US presidential election.
Members of Congress have now been secretly briefed by the CIA on “the Russian affair,” and media, led by the Washington Post, are running with the story that Russia influenced the US election on the side of Trump.
Until and unless the denizens of Langley decide to show specific and convincing evidence for their claim, this is disinformation.
It’s easy to assemble a circumstantial case. But each case has to be judged on its own merits, and the devil is in the details. If we aren’t privy to those details in the “Russian affair,” no judgement is possible. Of course, major media outlets don’t seem bothered by that. They’re happy to cite the CIA as an authority—conveniently ignoring the fact that people in the intelligence field are taught to lie. It’s their stock in trade.
You might remember the Washington Post’s role in defaming and destroying Gary Webb, who, in 1996, published a series of articles in the Mercury News about the CIA seeding black Los Angeles neighborhoods with crack cocaine. The Post basically asked the CIA whether the charge was true, and when the Agency denied it, the Post attacked Webb as a “fake news” reporter. The same Washington Post is now leading the campaign to tie the Russian government to Hillary Clinton’s defeat. And the Post, once again, is using unproven statements from the CIA to back up their claim.
I could go on and on about the Post and its historic CIA ties. But now, right now, the owner of the Post is Jeff Bezos, who also owns Amazon. And Amazon has a $600 million contract to provide the CIA cloud computing services.
Ordinarily, that would be called a fatal conflict of interest, whenever the Post opens up its yap about the CIA in any context.
However, mainstream news outlets, the very big ones, don’t go around criticizing each other’s ownerships; so the Bezos-CIA relationship is conveniently ignored and left “in the past.”
An honest lead paragraph on the current Russia-CIA-Trump allegations in the Post, however, would start this way:
“Our paper is owned by Jeff Bezos, and Jeff is making $600 million to provide the CIA with computing services, so take everything below with a grain of salt the size of Langley.”
Going one step further, Amazon and the CIA are both in the data-collecting business. What are the chances that Amazon, in the interest of “national security,” has been sharing its massive customer data with the CIA and other US intelligence agencies?
This should lead to another conflict-of-interest statement from the Washington Post: “As you read any article in our paper, keep in mind that our owner may be data-mining you and passing the information to the CIA. Have a nice day.”
Am I being too hard on Amazon? Do they have the basic guts to stand up to the intelligence community and resist its demands? Here is what author Norman Solomon had to say about that in 2014 (Huffington Post):
“Amazon’s trajectory into the CIA’s spooky arms may be a bit more than just corporate eagerness to land a lucrative contract. In late 2010 – amid intense public interest in documents that WikiLeaks was posting to illuminate U.S. actions overseas – Amazon took a notable step. As the Guardian reported at the time, Amazon ‘pulled the plug on hosting the whistleblowing website in reaction to heavy political pressure.’
“It didn’t take much for Amazon to cave. ‘The company announced it was cutting WikiLeaks off … only 24 hours after being contacted by the staff of Joe Lieberman, chairman of the Senate’s committee on homeland security,’ the Guardian noted.”
Let’s see. In 2010, Amazon cuts off WikiLeaks, proving its willingness to cave to the intelligence community.
In 2013, Jeff Bezos, the owner of Amazon, buys the Washington Post.
In 2016, during the presidential campaign, WikiLeaks releases tons of email data exposing Hillary Clinton, the Democratic National Committee, and associated players.
In 2016, after Clinton loses, the CIA—now Amazon’s business partner, and by extension, the Washington Post’s business partner—tells the Post that Russia influenced the election on behalf of Trump, and also implies/asserts that Russian hackers supplied Wikileaks with those tons of email data…
And the Washington Post accepts what its business partner, the CIA, is saying at face value and then leads the charge to blame Russia for handing the election to Trump.
The Post doubles down and absurdly accuses numerous sites and blogs of being a) “fake” and b) conscious or unconscious dupes of the Russian government.
A nice neat package.
Who exactly is the fake news outlet?