Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

Regarding whether, as Zack Polanski said, climate change is a World War 2 level threat, every single political, journalist, broadcaster and citizen, needs to listen to this interview with Prof Kevin Anderson Kevin Anderson Professor Kevin Anderson is Professor of Energy and Climate Change at the University of Manchester,...

MrMatthewTodd's profile picture

Matthew Todd 🌏🔥

65,071 subscribers

32,786 views • 21 days ago •via X (Twitter)

Science & TechnologyEducationNews & Politics
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

We’re basically cooked. One of the UKs leading climate scientists, Prof Kevin Anderson says the maths used by the IPCC and Net Zero don’t add up, and the future we are heading towards within our kids lives, is incompatible with human civilisation at the scale it’s at now Susanna Reid Neil Thompson Piers Morgan James O'Brien Tom Swarbrick Deborah Turness Clive Myrie John Simpson Peter Oborne emily m Jon Sopel Victoria Derbyshire Emma Barnett Rick Edwards Naga Munchetty Andrew Marr Krishnan Guru-Murthy Rachel Burden richard bacon tom bradby Amol Rajan Nick Robinson Stephen Nolan
2:53

We’re basically cooked. One of the UKs leading climate scientists, Prof Kevin Anderson says the maths used by the IPCC and Net Zero don’t add up, and the future we are heading towards within our kids lives, is incompatible with human civilisation at the scale it’s at now Susanna Reid Neil Thompson Piers Morgan James O'Brien Tom Swarbrick Deborah Turness Clive Myrie John Simpson Peter Oborne emily m Jon Sopel Victoria Derbyshire Emma Barnett Rick Edwards Naga Munchetty Andrew Marr Krishnan Guru-Murthy Rachel Burden richard bacon tom bradby Amol Rajan Nick Robinson Stephen Nolan

Matthew Todd 🌏🔥

102,428 views • 1 year ago

🚨Suppressed report from the joint intelligence committee reported on by ITV News about the impact of climate change and the degradation of nature. The security services warn of mass mortality events from anthrax being released into the environment as permafrost melts, financial collapse worse than double the 2008 financial crisis, nuclear war, political extremism, food shortages and more. This has been suppressed by Keir Starmer and The Labour Party Please share. Piers Morgan John Simpson Peter Oborne Emma Barnett Victoria Derbyshire James O'Brien Jeremy Clarkson Tom Swarbrick Shelagh Fogarty Susanna Reid Neil Thompson Andrew Neil Julia Hartley-Brewer Martin Daubney 🇬🇧 Patrick Christys Michelle Dewberry Michael Booker Adam Brooks AKA EssexPR 🇬🇧 Naga Munchetty Kaye Adams Jane Moore Rachel Maddow Rick Edwards Suella Braverman richard bacon Richard Tice MP 🇬🇧 Alex Beresford Tom Tugendhat Jon Sopel emily m tom bradby Wilfred Frost Clive Myrie Sophy Ridge Nick Knowles Vicki Young Kamali Melbourne Emily Roberts (Ashton) sarah smith Guy Lynn esmewren Adam Boulton Ben Kentish Robert Jenrick David Davis MP Theresa May #labour #greens #GortonDentonByElection #reform #RestoreBritain
2:30

🚨Suppressed report from the joint intelligence committee reported on by ITV News about the impact of climate change and the degradation of nature. The security services warn of mass mortality events from anthrax being released into the environment as permafrost melts, financial collapse worse than double the 2008 financial crisis, nuclear war, political extremism, food shortages and more. This has been suppressed by Keir Starmer and The Labour Party Please share. Piers Morgan John Simpson Peter Oborne Emma Barnett Victoria Derbyshire James O'Brien Jeremy Clarkson Tom Swarbrick Shelagh Fogarty Susanna Reid Neil Thompson Andrew Neil Julia Hartley-Brewer Martin Daubney 🇬🇧 Patrick Christys Michelle Dewberry Michael Booker Adam Brooks AKA EssexPR 🇬🇧 Naga Munchetty Kaye Adams Jane Moore Rachel Maddow Rick Edwards Suella Braverman richard bacon Richard Tice MP 🇬🇧 Alex Beresford Tom Tugendhat Jon Sopel emily m tom bradby Wilfred Frost Clive Myrie Sophy Ridge Nick Knowles Vicki Young Kamali Melbourne Emily Roberts (Ashton) sarah smith Guy Lynn esmewren Adam Boulton Ben Kentish Robert Jenrick David Davis MP Theresa May #labour #greens #GortonDentonByElection #reform #RestoreBritain

Matthew Todd 🌏🔥

13,390 views • 6 months ago

Since taking office, President Donald Trump has pulled the US out of the United Nations Paris agreement on climate change, unleashed fossil fuel production, cut climate subsidies that were part of the Inflation Reduction Act, and chosen as his Secretary of Energy an oilman who helped create the fracking revolution. Given that Democrats have spent the last 20 years describing climate change as an “existential threat” and making climate policy their highest priority under Biden, one would expect there to be significant protests and other actions by progressives. And yet we’ve seen no significant climate change protests since Trump took office two months ago. No Greta Thunberg marches — she’s moved on to Palestine. No drumbeat from the news media. No Extinction Rebellion activists blocking traffic in DC. “Climate emergency” was not among the words chosen by Democrats in Congress to put on the little placards they held up during Trump’s address to Congress earlier this month. In fact, to the extent there have been protests by Democrats, they have been against the world’s most pioneering electric car manufacturer, Tesla, and have nothing to do with climate change. It’s true that many Democrats still care deeply about climate change and the issue may come back in the future. Where just 23% of Republicans view climate change as a serious threat to the country, 78% of Democrats do. “Executive orders are for show,” says political scientist and climate policy expert, The Honest Broker , on a new podcast for Public, “legislation is for real. And there doesn't seem to be any legislative strategy accompanying anything Trump is doing. As far as pulling out of Paris, we've done this dance before. Trump pulled out to Paris, and then Biden went back in.” And the media and Democrats routinely tie every natural disaster, such as the recent fires in LA, to climate change, even though there’s no good science supporting such connections, in most instances. “Every day there's some extreme weather somewhere,” said Pielke, who is a Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, “and so it is a perfectly made issue for sustaining some degree of attention.” But the partisan polarization over climate change, and the ease with which Trump and Biden can put the US in and out of the Paris agreement, all underscore the overall low level of concern with climate change in comparison to more pressing issues like inflation, migration, and even seemingly fringe issues like transgenderism. “The climate movement is a product of North America and Northern Europe,” said Pielke. “The ‘climate first’ voter is a tiny slice of the political landscape, even though they occupy a lot of attention and time on social media, in universities, and until recently, in the global financial sector. They made a lot of noise, but there weren't a lot of them around to begin with. The climate is just not that important to very many people around the world. People will say it's important. But give them a list of topics and it routinely comes in 17th, 18th, 19th, out of 20.” And now Pielke predicts that climate change could go the way of past environmental scares. “One story for the future of the climate discourse and climate change is that it's not going to go away, but it's going to fade from the center of public view like overpopulation did.” Why did climate change emerge as an issue of concern and then fade? “There's a pretty well-known economist named Anthony Downs who wrote a famous paper called the Issue Attention Cycle,” said Pielke. “It’s like a bell curve. You discover there's a potential problem, there's a lot of excitement, and ‘We’ve got to do something about it!’ Everybody gets on the bandwagon. Then you realize, ‘Oh my gosh, this is difficult! This is challenging!’ And then your attention goes to somewhere else and it's back down. And really climate change is following the Downs’ Issue Attention Cycle perfectly.” Pielke notes that the rate at which economies decarbonize, or reduce the amount of carbon dioxide per unit of GDP, is unchanged. “For the foreseeable future, we will continue to decarbonize the economy no matter what countries say about their climate commitments or whether there's a Viktor Orban or a Donald Trump in office. Decarbonization is much more powerful, it seems, than the politics of the climate. The Paris agreement hasn't really done anything to alter the trajectory of global decarbonization….Climate policy does a lot of things, but reducing carbon dioxide emissions is not one of those things...” Please subscribe now to support Public's award-winning journalism, read the rest of the article, and listen to the full podcast!
46:20

Since taking office, President Donald Trump has pulled the US out of the United Nations Paris agreement on climate change, unleashed fossil fuel production, cut climate subsidies that were part of the Inflation Reduction Act, and chosen as his Secretary of Energy an oilman who helped create the fracking revolution. Given that Democrats have spent the last 20 years describing climate change as an “existential threat” and making climate policy their highest priority under Biden, one would expect there to be significant protests and other actions by progressives. And yet we’ve seen no significant climate change protests since Trump took office two months ago. No Greta Thunberg marches — she’s moved on to Palestine. No drumbeat from the news media. No Extinction Rebellion activists blocking traffic in DC. “Climate emergency” was not among the words chosen by Democrats in Congress to put on the little placards they held up during Trump’s address to Congress earlier this month. In fact, to the extent there have been protests by Democrats, they have been against the world’s most pioneering electric car manufacturer, Tesla, and have nothing to do with climate change. It’s true that many Democrats still care deeply about climate change and the issue may come back in the future. Where just 23% of Republicans view climate change as a serious threat to the country, 78% of Democrats do. “Executive orders are for show,” says political scientist and climate policy expert, The Honest Broker , on a new podcast for Public, “legislation is for real. And there doesn't seem to be any legislative strategy accompanying anything Trump is doing. As far as pulling out of Paris, we've done this dance before. Trump pulled out to Paris, and then Biden went back in.” And the media and Democrats routinely tie every natural disaster, such as the recent fires in LA, to climate change, even though there’s no good science supporting such connections, in most instances. “Every day there's some extreme weather somewhere,” said Pielke, who is a Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, “and so it is a perfectly made issue for sustaining some degree of attention.” But the partisan polarization over climate change, and the ease with which Trump and Biden can put the US in and out of the Paris agreement, all underscore the overall low level of concern with climate change in comparison to more pressing issues like inflation, migration, and even seemingly fringe issues like transgenderism. “The climate movement is a product of North America and Northern Europe,” said Pielke. “The ‘climate first’ voter is a tiny slice of the political landscape, even though they occupy a lot of attention and time on social media, in universities, and until recently, in the global financial sector. They made a lot of noise, but there weren't a lot of them around to begin with. The climate is just not that important to very many people around the world. People will say it's important. But give them a list of topics and it routinely comes in 17th, 18th, 19th, out of 20.” And now Pielke predicts that climate change could go the way of past environmental scares. “One story for the future of the climate discourse and climate change is that it's not going to go away, but it's going to fade from the center of public view like overpopulation did.” Why did climate change emerge as an issue of concern and then fade? “There's a pretty well-known economist named Anthony Downs who wrote a famous paper called the Issue Attention Cycle,” said Pielke. “It’s like a bell curve. You discover there's a potential problem, there's a lot of excitement, and ‘We’ve got to do something about it!’ Everybody gets on the bandwagon. Then you realize, ‘Oh my gosh, this is difficult! This is challenging!’ And then your attention goes to somewhere else and it's back down. And really climate change is following the Downs’ Issue Attention Cycle perfectly.” Pielke notes that the rate at which economies decarbonize, or reduce the amount of carbon dioxide per unit of GDP, is unchanged. “For the foreseeable future, we will continue to decarbonize the economy no matter what countries say about their climate commitments or whether there's a Viktor Orban or a Donald Trump in office. Decarbonization is much more powerful, it seems, than the politics of the climate. The Paris agreement hasn't really done anything to alter the trajectory of global decarbonization….Climate policy does a lot of things, but reducing carbon dioxide emissions is not one of those things...” Please subscribe now to support Public's award-winning journalism, read the rest of the article, and listen to the full podcast!

Michael Shellenberger

51,165 views • 1 year ago

Sea Levels Not Surging Despite Years Of Climate Activists And Corporate Media Freaking Out, Study Finds | Audrey Streb, Daily Caller News Foundation One recent study compiling sea level rise data shows oceans are not surging as much as the scientific world previously projected and corporate media has repeatedly sounded the alarm over. The Journal of Marine Science and Engineering published the peer-reviewed study on Aug. 27, authored by Dutch engineering consultant Hessel G. Voortman and independent researcher Rob De Vos. The study concluded that the average rate of sea level rise in 2020 was well below other widely cited analyses, and that when projections were compared with local data, there was little evidence climate change was driving the acceleration seen in a few regions — a finding energy policy experts told the Daily Caller News Foundation challenges mainstream climate change orthodoxy. “Overall, this study indicates that in most places, sea levels are not rising unusually quickly. In the relatively few locations where sea levels are rising faster than average, the cause is almost certainly local factors such as land subsidence or ground compaction,” Sterling Burnett, director of the Arthur B. Robinson Center on Climate and Environmental Policy at The Heartland Institute, told the DCNF. “Global sea levels are currently rising more slowly than they have for much of the time since the last ice age ended — a period during which seas rose more than 400 feet. Any possible increase in the recent rate of rise compared with the past century is small, within the margin of error, and not outside historical patterns.” Though the report doesn’t account for sea level rise everywhere, Voortman told journalist Michael Shellenberger on Tuesday that he was surprised no one had compiled such a study before, noting it is the first to compare projections with recorded local data from the past century. The two data sets the researchers drew from did have some gaps, which meant that most sections in the world with usable data were in the Northern Hemisphere, with several of the “selected stations” spanning North America, Europe and Japan. Gaps in the data included regions around Australia, the northeast of Latin America, East Asia and most of Africa. “The average rate of sea level rise in 2020 is (only) around 1.5 mm/year (15 cm per century)” Voortman said Tuesday. “This is significantly lower than the 3 to 4 mm/year often reported by climate scientists in scientific literature and the media.” The report notes that in the data sets the researchers used, “approximately 95% of the suitable locations show no statistically significant acceleration of the rate of sea level rise,” and that regions that did see a spike in sea level likely “local, non-climatic phenomena are a plausible cause of the accelerated sea level rise observed at the remaining 5% of the suitable locations.” “It is crazy that it had not been done. … I started doing this research in 2021 by doing the literature review. ‘Who has done the comparison of the projections with the observations?’ And there were none,” Voortman said Tuesday. “I had to do a lot of programming and automate data imports and data management. I organized it by using databases so that I really knew what I was doing. It was very structured because I was dealing with 150,000 locations and, on average, 100 years of data. That made one and a half million lines of data. I found myself for days working on things that I felt, ‘This is more computer science than civil engineering.'” Steve Milloy, senior fellow at the Energy & Environment Legal Institute, told the DCNF that “there are a lot of additional factors that can affect tide gauge measurements including geological changes, groundwater withdrawal, and land use. But climate alarmists falsely chalk up all changes to polar ice melting caused by emissions-driven ‘global warming.'” A few other studies have been published of late that also challenge climate change hysteria, with one widely reported study showing that Arctic Sea ice melting has slowed in the last 20 years. Another recent report found that a 2024 climate change study — heavily cited by legacy media for projecting up to $38 trillion in global damages by 2050 — relied on inaccurate data.
4:31

Sea Levels Not Surging Despite Years Of Climate Activists And Corporate Media Freaking Out, Study Finds | Audrey Streb, Daily Caller News Foundation One recent study compiling sea level rise data shows oceans are not surging as much as the scientific world previously projected and corporate media has repeatedly sounded the alarm over. The Journal of Marine Science and Engineering published the peer-reviewed study on Aug. 27, authored by Dutch engineering consultant Hessel G. Voortman and independent researcher Rob De Vos. The study concluded that the average rate of sea level rise in 2020 was well below other widely cited analyses, and that when projections were compared with local data, there was little evidence climate change was driving the acceleration seen in a few regions — a finding energy policy experts told the Daily Caller News Foundation challenges mainstream climate change orthodoxy. “Overall, this study indicates that in most places, sea levels are not rising unusually quickly. In the relatively few locations where sea levels are rising faster than average, the cause is almost certainly local factors such as land subsidence or ground compaction,” Sterling Burnett, director of the Arthur B. Robinson Center on Climate and Environmental Policy at The Heartland Institute, told the DCNF. “Global sea levels are currently rising more slowly than they have for much of the time since the last ice age ended — a period during which seas rose more than 400 feet. Any possible increase in the recent rate of rise compared with the past century is small, within the margin of error, and not outside historical patterns.” Though the report doesn’t account for sea level rise everywhere, Voortman told journalist Michael Shellenberger on Tuesday that he was surprised no one had compiled such a study before, noting it is the first to compare projections with recorded local data from the past century. The two data sets the researchers drew from did have some gaps, which meant that most sections in the world with usable data were in the Northern Hemisphere, with several of the “selected stations” spanning North America, Europe and Japan. Gaps in the data included regions around Australia, the northeast of Latin America, East Asia and most of Africa. “The average rate of sea level rise in 2020 is (only) around 1.5 mm/year (15 cm per century)” Voortman said Tuesday. “This is significantly lower than the 3 to 4 mm/year often reported by climate scientists in scientific literature and the media.” The report notes that in the data sets the researchers used, “approximately 95% of the suitable locations show no statistically significant acceleration of the rate of sea level rise,” and that regions that did see a spike in sea level likely “local, non-climatic phenomena are a plausible cause of the accelerated sea level rise observed at the remaining 5% of the suitable locations.” “It is crazy that it had not been done. … I started doing this research in 2021 by doing the literature review. ‘Who has done the comparison of the projections with the observations?’ And there were none,” Voortman said Tuesday. “I had to do a lot of programming and automate data imports and data management. I organized it by using databases so that I really knew what I was doing. It was very structured because I was dealing with 150,000 locations and, on average, 100 years of data. That made one and a half million lines of data. I found myself for days working on things that I felt, ‘This is more computer science than civil engineering.'” Steve Milloy, senior fellow at the Energy & Environment Legal Institute, told the DCNF that “there are a lot of additional factors that can affect tide gauge measurements including geological changes, groundwater withdrawal, and land use. But climate alarmists falsely chalk up all changes to polar ice melting caused by emissions-driven ‘global warming.'” A few other studies have been published of late that also challenge climate change hysteria, with one widely reported study showing that Arctic Sea ice melting has slowed in the last 20 years. Another recent report found that a 2024 climate change study — heavily cited by legacy media for projecting up to $38 trillion in global damages by 2050 — relied on inaccurate data.

Owen Gregorian

105,142 views • 11 months ago

Everyone needs to be talking about this… The World Health Organization’s “Pandemic Treaty” is effectively a Coupé — And it’s taking place the end of THIS MONTH. “We are in the middle of a coupé… we are facing the end of our national and our personal sovereignty..” 🔴 The World Health Organization has devised modifications to an already existing agreement • These modifications will grant the WHO the authority to define what a public health emergency is…. Say Bird Flu, or Climate Change • This modified agreement would give the Director General TOTAL liberty and powers over any nations signed onto the agreement. • The WHO will be entitled to MANDATE remedies, such as.. — vaccines — gene therapy technology — relocation due to climate change —— WEF: “A billion people will be displaced due to climate change” • Those “Remedies” will dictate our ability to travel — in other words, if you don’t take our vaccine, you can’t fly, buy etc.. • The modified agreement will forbid the use of other medications (ie Ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine etc) • The modified agreement would dictate how the above measures are discussed… meaning, for example, silence anyone with dissenting views against the WHO, such as podcaster, conservative news outlets, social media influencers etc.. The Covid Plandemic caused us to become aware of the structures built around us… these structures are the turn-key totalitarian state…. Now that it’s built, the key is turning and our individual & national sovereignty is at risk. FIGHT BACK!!! SPEAK UP!!! 🔴 24 Republican Governors Signed a Letter Stating the Will Not Comply with a WHO Takeover Alabama - Kay Ivey Florida - Ron Desantis Indiana - Eric Holocomb Mississippi- Tate Reeves Alaska - Mike Dunleavy Georgia - Brian Kemp Iowa - Kim Reynolds Montana - Greg Gianforte Arkansas - Sarah Sanders Idaho - Brad Little Louisiana - Jeff Landry Nebraska - Jim Pillen Nevada - Joe Lombardo New Hampshire - Chris Sununu North Dakota - Doug Burgam South Dakota - Kristi Noem South Carolina - Henry McMaster Oklahoma- Kevin Stitt Tennessee - Bill Lee Texas - Gregg Abbot Utah - Spencer Cox Virginia - Glenn Youngkin West Virginia - Jim Justice Wyoming - Mark Gordan 🔴 49 U.S Senators Signed a Letter Rejecting the WHO’s Pandemic Treaty as it would “constitute intolerable infringements upon U.S. sovereignty.” Steve Daines Ron Johnson Rick Scott Deb Fischer Charles Grassley Josh Hawley Cindy Hyde Smith James Lankford Cynthia Lummis Joni Ernst Lindsey Graham Bill Flagerty John Hoeven John Kennedy Michael Lee Roger Marshall James Risch John Barrasso John Boozman Katie Britt Shelly Capito Tom Cotton Mike Crapo Bill Cassidy Marsha Blackburn Mike Braun Ted Budd John Cornyn Kevin Cramer Ted Cruz JD Vance Todd Young Susan Collins Roger Wicker Lisa Murkowski Mitch McConnell Marwayne Pete Ricketts Michael Rounds Eric Schmidt Dan Sullivan Thom Tillis Jerry Moran Rand Paul Mitt Romney Marco Rubio Tim Scott John Thune Tommy Tuberville
5:59

Everyone needs to be talking about this… The World Health Organization’s “Pandemic Treaty” is effectively a Coupé — And it’s taking place the end of THIS MONTH. “We are in the middle of a coupé… we are facing the end of our national and our personal sovereignty..” 🔴 The World Health Organization has devised modifications to an already existing agreement • These modifications will grant the WHO the authority to define what a public health emergency is…. Say Bird Flu, or Climate Change • This modified agreement would give the Director General TOTAL liberty and powers over any nations signed onto the agreement. • The WHO will be entitled to MANDATE remedies, such as.. — vaccines — gene therapy technology — relocation due to climate change —— WEF: “A billion people will be displaced due to climate change” • Those “Remedies” will dictate our ability to travel — in other words, if you don’t take our vaccine, you can’t fly, buy etc.. • The modified agreement will forbid the use of other medications (ie Ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine etc) • The modified agreement would dictate how the above measures are discussed… meaning, for example, silence anyone with dissenting views against the WHO, such as podcaster, conservative news outlets, social media influencers etc.. The Covid Plandemic caused us to become aware of the structures built around us… these structures are the turn-key totalitarian state…. Now that it’s built, the key is turning and our individual & national sovereignty is at risk. FIGHT BACK!!! SPEAK UP!!! 🔴 24 Republican Governors Signed a Letter Stating the Will Not Comply with a WHO Takeover Alabama - Kay Ivey Florida - Ron Desantis Indiana - Eric Holocomb Mississippi- Tate Reeves Alaska - Mike Dunleavy Georgia - Brian Kemp Iowa - Kim Reynolds Montana - Greg Gianforte Arkansas - Sarah Sanders Idaho - Brad Little Louisiana - Jeff Landry Nebraska - Jim Pillen Nevada - Joe Lombardo New Hampshire - Chris Sununu North Dakota - Doug Burgam South Dakota - Kristi Noem South Carolina - Henry McMaster Oklahoma- Kevin Stitt Tennessee - Bill Lee Texas - Gregg Abbot Utah - Spencer Cox Virginia - Glenn Youngkin West Virginia - Jim Justice Wyoming - Mark Gordan 🔴 49 U.S Senators Signed a Letter Rejecting the WHO’s Pandemic Treaty as it would “constitute intolerable infringements upon U.S. sovereignty.” Steve Daines Ron Johnson Rick Scott Deb Fischer Charles Grassley Josh Hawley Cindy Hyde Smith James Lankford Cynthia Lummis Joni Ernst Lindsey Graham Bill Flagerty John Hoeven John Kennedy Michael Lee Roger Marshall James Risch John Barrasso John Boozman Katie Britt Shelly Capito Tom Cotton Mike Crapo Bill Cassidy Marsha Blackburn Mike Braun Ted Budd John Cornyn Kevin Cramer Ted Cruz JD Vance Todd Young Susan Collins Roger Wicker Lisa Murkowski Mitch McConnell Marwayne Pete Ricketts Michael Rounds Eric Schmidt Dan Sullivan Thom Tillis Jerry Moran Rand Paul Mitt Romney Marco Rubio Tim Scott John Thune Tommy Tuberville

MJTruthUltra

220,401 views • 2 years ago

President Donald Trump is a grave threat to free speech, say Democrats and many in the media. The Justice Department this week indicted former FBI Director James Comey for a second time, charging him with threatening the President over an Instagram post last spring of seashells arranged to read “8647,” which the president described as mob talk for calling for someone to kill him. Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr ordered Disney’s ABC unit to file early renewal applications for its eight broadcast licenses, days after Jimmy Kimmel joked that Melania Trump had “the glow of an expectant widow,” a quip that aired three days before a gunman opened fire at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner. Trump has gone after the media before, many note. He sued CBS over the editing of a 60 Minutes interview with Kamala Harris, later amending the claim to $20 billion, and Paramount, CBS’s parent, settled for $16 million last July. The Trump administration froze $2.2 billion in research funding for Harvard. A Trump executive order prohibits federal funds from going to K-12 schools that teach critical race theory or gender ideology. And another directs the Attorney General to coordinate with state and local prosecutors against teachers who facilitate the social transition of minors. But these objections are rather rich coming from representatives of the same Party whose activists canceled colleagues, oversaw mass online censorship, and endorsed the assassination of their political enemies. The murder of Charlie Kirk last September inspired widespread celebration by progressives on social media. Trump’s latest attempted assassin, Cole Allen, was a radicalized leftist. Fifty-five percent of self-identified left-of-center voters said the murder of President Trump could be justified. Democrats and progressives inside and outside government built a sweeping Censorship Industrial Complex in the United States and Europe that censored millions of Americans for legal speech, including questioning Covid, climate, transgender, and migration policies. Over decades, leftists drove moderates and conservatives out of the news media and the academy. Today, 60 percent of university faculty are left of center, while only 18 and 17 percent are moderate and right of center, respectively. And where the share of US journalists who identified as Democrats rose from 28 percent to 36 percent between 2013 and 2022, the share who identified as Republicans fell from 7.1 percent to 3.4 percent. As for federal funding decisions, they are not censorship, and much of what the Trump administration acted against were policies that violated the rights of Asians, whites, and minors. The Supreme Court already ruled in 2023 that Harvard’s race-conscious admissions policies violated the law. Public schools are state actors, and what they teach has always been subject to democratic and legal control. And teachers and administrators who tell children they can and should change their gender are endangering their health and well-being, as the WPATH Files show.... Please subscribe now to support Public's award-winning investigative jouralism, read the rest of the article, and watch the full video!
2:56

President Donald Trump is a grave threat to free speech, say Democrats and many in the media. The Justice Department this week indicted former FBI Director James Comey for a second time, charging him with threatening the President over an Instagram post last spring of seashells arranged to read “8647,” which the president described as mob talk for calling for someone to kill him. Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr ordered Disney’s ABC unit to file early renewal applications for its eight broadcast licenses, days after Jimmy Kimmel joked that Melania Trump had “the glow of an expectant widow,” a quip that aired three days before a gunman opened fire at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner. Trump has gone after the media before, many note. He sued CBS over the editing of a 60 Minutes interview with Kamala Harris, later amending the claim to $20 billion, and Paramount, CBS’s parent, settled for $16 million last July. The Trump administration froze $2.2 billion in research funding for Harvard. A Trump executive order prohibits federal funds from going to K-12 schools that teach critical race theory or gender ideology. And another directs the Attorney General to coordinate with state and local prosecutors against teachers who facilitate the social transition of minors. But these objections are rather rich coming from representatives of the same Party whose activists canceled colleagues, oversaw mass online censorship, and endorsed the assassination of their political enemies. The murder of Charlie Kirk last September inspired widespread celebration by progressives on social media. Trump’s latest attempted assassin, Cole Allen, was a radicalized leftist. Fifty-five percent of self-identified left-of-center voters said the murder of President Trump could be justified. Democrats and progressives inside and outside government built a sweeping Censorship Industrial Complex in the United States and Europe that censored millions of Americans for legal speech, including questioning Covid, climate, transgender, and migration policies. Over decades, leftists drove moderates and conservatives out of the news media and the academy. Today, 60 percent of university faculty are left of center, while only 18 and 17 percent are moderate and right of center, respectively. And where the share of US journalists who identified as Democrats rose from 28 percent to 36 percent between 2013 and 2022, the share who identified as Republicans fell from 7.1 percent to 3.4 percent. As for federal funding decisions, they are not censorship, and much of what the Trump administration acted against were policies that violated the rights of Asians, whites, and minors. The Supreme Court already ruled in 2023 that Harvard’s race-conscious admissions policies violated the law. Public schools are state actors, and what they teach has always been subject to democratic and legal control. And teachers and administrators who tell children they can and should change their gender are endangering their health and well-being, as the WPATH Files show.... Please subscribe now to support Public's award-winning investigative jouralism, read the rest of the article, and watch the full video!

Michael Shellenberger

51,723 views • 4 months ago

I’m seeing a lot of questions on the launch of China’s Chang’e 6 mission yesterday to get samples - for the first time - from the far side of the moon. We don’t know (afaik) why specifically they’re doing that, but we have a pretty good idea what grand vision China is working towards with their space program. How? From this 2022 video by Chas Freeman (former Assistant Secretary of Defense and Nixon's interpreter during his era-defining 1972 China visit), who imho is undoubtedly one of the most knowledgeable former US officials on China. He says that according to his own discussions with people running China’s space program, they’re following the vision described in the book "The high frontier" by Gerard K. O'Neill, which Freeman says has "become the bible of the Chinese space program". I read the book. So what vision does it describe? The book was written in 1976 by O'Neill who was a professor of physics at Princeton University. He also founded the Space Studies Institute, an organization devoted to funding research into space manufacturing and colonization. In other words, he knew his stuff. The book makes the very fair point that we have massive resource constraints on earth, especially given the growing population. He estimated in 1976 that we should be "about six and a half billion people in the year 2000", and we were 6.114 billion back then so he was pretty prescient. He estimates that these constraints will progressively give rise to more and more social tensions as the growing earth population competes for our limited resources as well as faces global problems like climate change. In his view, dealing with this will either require "an authoritarian regime capable of mounting the immense task of social reorganization needed to escape catastrophe" or, alternatively, “mankind would [need to adopt] a static society [that would be] forced in self-defense to suppress new ideas". The 3rd alternative is of course the colonization of space. The most interesting aspect of the book is that he claims everything he writes is feasible with knowledge and technology that already existed in the late 70s. In short he calls for the establishment of large human habitats in the Earth-Moon system, located at stable Lagrange points ("parking spots" in space where gravity from different spatial bodies cancel each other out). In particular he developed the concept of what's known today as the "O'Neill cylinder" which he says "could support quite easily a population of ten million people, growing its food in agricultural cylinders near but outside the main habitat". Energy-wise, it'd simply make use of solar energy via a system of mirrors. As he describes it: "the concentration of the unvarying, intense sunlight of space by very lightweight, inexpensive mirrors can provide all the energy that industry will ever need [...] at a fraction of a cent per kilowatt-hour". He envisages building these habitats with material from the moon, shot into space via "mass drivers", a form of electromagnetic catapult. Also "the habitats would have artificial gravity similar as that of earth by rotating about twenty-eight times an hour”, but he also envisages low-gravity areas, especially for recreational activities such as swimming pools or dancing representations. To trade with earth, he develops the idea of beaming solar power back to earth via "microwave from solar power stations in orbit". As he describes it "the microwave beam would arrive at Earth with a beam width of about seven kilometers. Its intensity would be modest, less than half that of sunlight. In contrast to sunlight, though, it would be there all the time, even at night or in clouds or rain, and it would be in a form ready for conversion to DC current with a loss of only 10 percent. The areas receiving these beams’ output on Earth would be fenced, and outside the fence the intensity of microwave radiation would be no higher than outside a microwave oven with the door closed. He estimates that if "Satellite Solar Power Stations (SSPS) were to become the sole source of electric energy in the United States in the year 2000, the land area necessary for the SSPS antennas would still be only 0.2 percent of that of the continental United States". In short, the establishment of space colonies could lead to the fulfillment of a good share of Earth's energy needs. Last but not least he describes life in space habitats as better than that of earth, largely thanks to the level of control we'd have over the environment (total climate control which would enable an abundance of food and no natural disaster) as well as unlimited cheap energy. To conclude, Chas Freeman typically really knows his stuff when it comes to China and he’s very intellectually honest (a rare trait among US officials) so I have no doubt he tells the truth when he says the Chinese told him that was the vision. And China famously thinks very big and very long term so it would be quite like them to go for something like this. There are also quite a few tangible signs that China is working towards that vision. See for instance this November 2022 news where “China’s space station will join a project to collect solar power from space and send it to Earth in a high-energy microwave beam”: That’s exactly O’Neill’s vision! Or check this October 2022 news that says China is developing new "electromagnetic sledges" that can propel a carriage weighing a few tonnes to a record speed, with a key application for this being “aerospace”: Remember: O’Neill’s vision is to build his habitats with material from the moon, shot into space via "mass drivers", a form of electromagnetic catapult. So there you go… Or also the fact that the Chinese will build, together with the Russians, a moon base - planned for 2028 - powered by a “space nuclear reactor” that’s already been developed (on Earth) and has passed review by China’s Ministry of Science: The space nuclear reactor can generate 1MW of electricity, enough to power 10 International Space Stations. Enough power, maybe, to undertake mining activity and power an electromagnetic catapult… After visions change, the world changes, so it’s also possible that China’s view on what they want to do has evolved. In any case, Chas Freeman is right that China’s motivation for all its initiatives in space can’t just be to “boldly explore where no-one has been before”, they have to be working towards something. And Freeman is also absolutely right to lament that the U.S. decided to ban any cooperation in space with the Chinese. Those endeavors are something that could have been jointly developed as a multilateral effort to unite us all as a species… Instead China is now forced to go at it alone with Russia and we face a future where our petty divisions on Earth will be carried with us to space…
3:58

I’m seeing a lot of questions on the launch of China’s Chang’e 6 mission yesterday to get samples - for the first time - from the far side of the moon. We don’t know (afaik) why specifically they’re doing that, but we have a pretty good idea what grand vision China is working towards with their space program. How? From this 2022 video by Chas Freeman (former Assistant Secretary of Defense and Nixon's interpreter during his era-defining 1972 China visit), who imho is undoubtedly one of the most knowledgeable former US officials on China. He says that according to his own discussions with people running China’s space program, they’re following the vision described in the book "The high frontier" by Gerard K. O'Neill, which Freeman says has "become the bible of the Chinese space program". I read the book. So what vision does it describe? The book was written in 1976 by O'Neill who was a professor of physics at Princeton University. He also founded the Space Studies Institute, an organization devoted to funding research into space manufacturing and colonization. In other words, he knew his stuff. The book makes the very fair point that we have massive resource constraints on earth, especially given the growing population. He estimated in 1976 that we should be "about six and a half billion people in the year 2000", and we were 6.114 billion back then so he was pretty prescient. He estimates that these constraints will progressively give rise to more and more social tensions as the growing earth population competes for our limited resources as well as faces global problems like climate change. In his view, dealing with this will either require "an authoritarian regime capable of mounting the immense task of social reorganization needed to escape catastrophe" or, alternatively, “mankind would [need to adopt] a static society [that would be] forced in self-defense to suppress new ideas". The 3rd alternative is of course the colonization of space. The most interesting aspect of the book is that he claims everything he writes is feasible with knowledge and technology that already existed in the late 70s. In short he calls for the establishment of large human habitats in the Earth-Moon system, located at stable Lagrange points ("parking spots" in space where gravity from different spatial bodies cancel each other out). In particular he developed the concept of what's known today as the "O'Neill cylinder" which he says "could support quite easily a population of ten million people, growing its food in agricultural cylinders near but outside the main habitat". Energy-wise, it'd simply make use of solar energy via a system of mirrors. As he describes it: "the concentration of the unvarying, intense sunlight of space by very lightweight, inexpensive mirrors can provide all the energy that industry will ever need [...] at a fraction of a cent per kilowatt-hour". He envisages building these habitats with material from the moon, shot into space via "mass drivers", a form of electromagnetic catapult. Also "the habitats would have artificial gravity similar as that of earth by rotating about twenty-eight times an hour”, but he also envisages low-gravity areas, especially for recreational activities such as swimming pools or dancing representations. To trade with earth, he develops the idea of beaming solar power back to earth via "microwave from solar power stations in orbit". As he describes it "the microwave beam would arrive at Earth with a beam width of about seven kilometers. Its intensity would be modest, less than half that of sunlight. In contrast to sunlight, though, it would be there all the time, even at night or in clouds or rain, and it would be in a form ready for conversion to DC current with a loss of only 10 percent. The areas receiving these beams’ output on Earth would be fenced, and outside the fence the intensity of microwave radiation would be no higher than outside a microwave oven with the door closed. He estimates that if "Satellite Solar Power Stations (SSPS) were to become the sole source of electric energy in the United States in the year 2000, the land area necessary for the SSPS antennas would still be only 0.2 percent of that of the continental United States". In short, the establishment of space colonies could lead to the fulfillment of a good share of Earth's energy needs. Last but not least he describes life in space habitats as better than that of earth, largely thanks to the level of control we'd have over the environment (total climate control which would enable an abundance of food and no natural disaster) as well as unlimited cheap energy. To conclude, Chas Freeman typically really knows his stuff when it comes to China and he’s very intellectually honest (a rare trait among US officials) so I have no doubt he tells the truth when he says the Chinese told him that was the vision. And China famously thinks very big and very long term so it would be quite like them to go for something like this. There are also quite a few tangible signs that China is working towards that vision. See for instance this November 2022 news where “China’s space station will join a project to collect solar power from space and send it to Earth in a high-energy microwave beam”: That’s exactly O’Neill’s vision! Or check this October 2022 news that says China is developing new "electromagnetic sledges" that can propel a carriage weighing a few tonnes to a record speed, with a key application for this being “aerospace”: Remember: O’Neill’s vision is to build his habitats with material from the moon, shot into space via "mass drivers", a form of electromagnetic catapult. So there you go… Or also the fact that the Chinese will build, together with the Russians, a moon base - planned for 2028 - powered by a “space nuclear reactor” that’s already been developed (on Earth) and has passed review by China’s Ministry of Science: The space nuclear reactor can generate 1MW of electricity, enough to power 10 International Space Stations. Enough power, maybe, to undertake mining activity and power an electromagnetic catapult… After visions change, the world changes, so it’s also possible that China’s view on what they want to do has evolved. In any case, Chas Freeman is right that China’s motivation for all its initiatives in space can’t just be to “boldly explore where no-one has been before”, they have to be working towards something. And Freeman is also absolutely right to lament that the U.S. decided to ban any cooperation in space with the Chinese. Those endeavors are something that could have been jointly developed as a multilateral effort to unite us all as a species… Instead China is now forced to go at it alone with Russia and we face a future where our petty divisions on Earth will be carried with us to space…

Arnaud Bertrand

265,181 views • 2 years ago

Intelligence Agency Alleges “Pro-Russia” TikTok Accounts Are Interfering In Czech Elections Despite speculation, there is no evidence tying social media accounts to Russia by Cecílie Jílková alex gutentag and Michael Shellenberger Almost 1,000 accounts on TikTok are promoting pro-Russian narratives in support of “extremist” parties ahead of this week’s elections in the Czech Republic, according to a Czech intelligence agency and a group of analysts who identify as the “Center for Online Risk Research.” And some in the Czech news media are suggesting that Russia may be behind the accounts. “Secret services have discovered hundreds more pro-Russian accounts that want to influence the election,” reported Denik N, a Czech news publication, this morning. “They have millions of views.” But neither BIS nor the Center for Online Risk Research says they can link the Russian government to any of the accounts. “We don’t know,” said researcher Vendula Prokůpková to Public. “We don’t have the tools to find out.” The BIS declined to comment. A TikTok spokesperson told Public, “We have proactively implemented additional safety and security measures ahead of the elections in Czechia, including an in-app Election Center to provide access to authoritative information about the vote. We continue to aggressively counter deceptive behaviour, and we have already prevented and removed millions of fake likes and follow requests in Czechia since the start of August.” Notably, the Czech media and the Center are making similar arguments to those used by a Romanian court last year to nullify the presidential election, which legal scholars viewed as unconstitutional. The case may seem unimportant to Americans, given the relatively small size of the Czech Republic, which has 11 million people, and since the Romanian intelligence agencies made stronger claims about Russian interference than the Czech BIS or the Center for Online Risk Research have made. And the possibility remains that Russia, or Russia-linked bot networks, are indeed engaged in algorithm manipulation to help the Czech parties opposed to continuing arming of Ukraine. In Romania, intelligence officials accused the Russians of creating fake accounts and manipulating algorithms. But the information comes at a moment when Internet censorship is a sticking point between the Trump administration and the EU over a trade deal, and just days after the European Commission leaked plans that it could fine Meta’s Instagram and Facebook up to six percent of its global revenue if it doesn’t make it easier for users to flag posts for censorship. The Commission is currently investigating Facebook and Instagram for supposed failure to stop “disinformation” and “deceptive advertising” in advance of last year’s European Parliament elections. The EU has made no secret of its desire to censor social media worldwide, not just in Europe. Meanwhile, Americans are obligated under NATO to defend both Romania and the Czech Republic, and the NATO treaty requires its members to hold free and fair elections, which Romania did not do. Romania’s intelligence officials presented no evidence to support their claims, and subsequent analyses revealed that the Romanian ruling party had funded at least some of the allegedly pro-Russian TikTok accounts. Where the Romanian TikTok accounts supposedly promoted a right-wing populist, the Czech Center claims that the Czech language TikTok posts, back the “far-right SPD party, which ranks third in most polls with around 13% support, and the far-left Stacilo!,” according to Reuters, “which is gaining just over the 5% threshold needed to secure parliamentary seats.” Notes Reuters, “Both parties advocate for Czechia to leave NATO and the European Union.” Prokůpková said, despite its name, that “Center for Online Risk Research” is “not an organization. We are an initiative.” However, she also said, “My partner is the CTU,” referring to the Czech government’s Telecommunications Office. This office organized a meeting on August 29th due to the upcoming Czech elections, which was attended by the European Commission, Google, Meta, Microsoft, TikTok, and X. “The participants discussed their readiness to address potential systemic risks in connection with the parliamentary elections and respond to possible incidents,” a European Commission spokesperson told Public today. Prokůpková also said, “I proceed in accordance with the DSA,” the EU’s Digital Services Act, which entitles anyone to report false accounts or misinformation on social media to the Czech Telecommunications Office.”We are ordinary citizens and we use the R programming language,” she explained. One of the Center’s members is Josef Šlerka, who collaborated with “The Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project,” which the US State Department created in 2008, and which the USAID funded. After President Trump cut off USAID funding, the European Commission began to financially support OCCRP. In January, Šlerka and the director of the Czech government’s Security Information Service (BIS), the equivalent of the FBI and DHS in the US, briefed Czech members of Parliament about the Romanian TikTok case as a potential model for the Czech Republic. Now, the BIS has sent a report on Czech-speaking pro-Russian TikTok accounts to the president, prime minister, and Czech Telecommunications Office. Earlier this year, a Czech Army group admitted to monitoring opposition figures. Leaked documents show the group monitored “the opinions and attitudes of these [opposition] individuals towards the activities of the Ministry of Defense, its leaders, senior representatives of the Czech army, and the war in Ukraine.” General Karel Řehka later defended the Army’s actions by alleging that it was just a military exercise in case of possible future interference in the elections. A few weeks ago, Romania’s Interior (security) Minister said the intelligence agencies of the Czech Republic and those in other nations admire what Romania did. “I believe that what happened in Romania last year is currently being studied by all intelligence agencies in the Western world,” said Cătălin Predoiu. “Conclusions are being drawn and countries are taking defensive measures, inspired by how Romania defended itself.” He went on to say that “my Czech colleague, who is a good friend of mine, approached me and said, ‘We also have elections in the fall, and we are watching very closely what has happened in your country.’” From left: Vít Rakušan, Czech Minister of the Interior and Deputy Prime Minister, and Marian-Cătălin Predoiu, Romanian Minister of the Interior and Deputy Prime Minister, at the Round Table (Justice and Home Affairs Council) on December 12, 2024. Source: Other groups are involved in the possible influence operation. A liberal website called Voxpot recently published a list of websites that repost content from Russian state platforms, but provided no information about any links to or financing from Russia. The Independent Journalism Foundation financed the Voxpot report. And Seznam, a news website that has advocated for EU government censorship of “misinformation,” finances the Foundation. Finally, GLOBSEC, the Institute for Strategic Dialogue (ISD), and CEDMO (Central European Digital Media Observatory), all of which appear to have links to the intelligence community, published a report warning of the alleged risks of Russian interference; however, it contained no evidence to support these claims. Major military contractors, including Lockheed Martin, KNDS, and Saab finance GLOBSEC, while the US, UK, EU, and other Western governments finance ISD and CEDMO. While the allegations focus on alleged pro-Russian support for the nationalist-populist SPD party and the radical Left-Wing coalition Stacilo!, party, the latest polls show that the ANO party, led by former Prime Minister and billionaire Andrej Babiš has over 33% support, which is 12 points more than the centre-right SPOLU (Together) coalition, which the current Prime Minister leads. Like the SPD and Stacilo!, Babiš is running directly against the EU’s agenda, including on migration, climate change, the Ukraine war, and censorship. His party rejected NATO’s new defence spending target and called for halting ammunition supplies to Ukraine. With the SPD and Stacilo! expected to win roughly 18% of the vote, and given their shared opposition to arming Ukraine, they could join in a coalition government with ANO to end further military support. “If the electoral contest were close, then even several tens of thousands of votes that voters cast for someone (or conversely decided not to cast) could determine whether, for example, the Czech ammunition initiative, crucial aid for defending Ukraine, will continue,“ confirms in today’s article the Czech liberal newspaper Deník N. Czech President Petr Pavel is a former NATO general and a strong supporter of supplying Ukraine in its war with Russia. Nothing happened after the Romanian court nullified its election. Romania remains a member of NATO and the EU. Indeed, the EU supported the judicial coup. The same could happen in the Czech Republic. Others think that’s unlikely. “I don’t think we are approaching what is known as the ‘Romanian scenario,’” wrote Lukáš Prchal, a journalist who has written on the TikTok scandal for Deník N, in an email to Public. Whatever the case, the fact remains that there is no evidence of Russian government interference in the Czech elections, and any effort to nullify it based on allegations about anonymous TikTok accounts would violate the Czech Republic’s constitution, the European Union’s constitution, and the NATO treaty. “There is an attempt here,” a source told Denik N, “but the potential and significance are not essential. It is an unsuccessful attempt.”
9:54

Intelligence Agency Alleges “Pro-Russia” TikTok Accounts Are Interfering In Czech Elections Despite speculation, there is no evidence tying social media accounts to Russia by Cecílie Jílková alex gutentag and Michael Shellenberger Almost 1,000 accounts on TikTok are promoting pro-Russian narratives in support of “extremist” parties ahead of this week’s elections in the Czech Republic, according to a Czech intelligence agency and a group of analysts who identify as the “Center for Online Risk Research.” And some in the Czech news media are suggesting that Russia may be behind the accounts. “Secret services have discovered hundreds more pro-Russian accounts that want to influence the election,” reported Denik N, a Czech news publication, this morning. “They have millions of views.” But neither BIS nor the Center for Online Risk Research says they can link the Russian government to any of the accounts. “We don’t know,” said researcher Vendula Prokůpková to Public. “We don’t have the tools to find out.” The BIS declined to comment. A TikTok spokesperson told Public, “We have proactively implemented additional safety and security measures ahead of the elections in Czechia, including an in-app Election Center to provide access to authoritative information about the vote. We continue to aggressively counter deceptive behaviour, and we have already prevented and removed millions of fake likes and follow requests in Czechia since the start of August.” Notably, the Czech media and the Center are making similar arguments to those used by a Romanian court last year to nullify the presidential election, which legal scholars viewed as unconstitutional. The case may seem unimportant to Americans, given the relatively small size of the Czech Republic, which has 11 million people, and since the Romanian intelligence agencies made stronger claims about Russian interference than the Czech BIS or the Center for Online Risk Research have made. And the possibility remains that Russia, or Russia-linked bot networks, are indeed engaged in algorithm manipulation to help the Czech parties opposed to continuing arming of Ukraine. In Romania, intelligence officials accused the Russians of creating fake accounts and manipulating algorithms. But the information comes at a moment when Internet censorship is a sticking point between the Trump administration and the EU over a trade deal, and just days after the European Commission leaked plans that it could fine Meta’s Instagram and Facebook up to six percent of its global revenue if it doesn’t make it easier for users to flag posts for censorship. The Commission is currently investigating Facebook and Instagram for supposed failure to stop “disinformation” and “deceptive advertising” in advance of last year’s European Parliament elections. The EU has made no secret of its desire to censor social media worldwide, not just in Europe. Meanwhile, Americans are obligated under NATO to defend both Romania and the Czech Republic, and the NATO treaty requires its members to hold free and fair elections, which Romania did not do. Romania’s intelligence officials presented no evidence to support their claims, and subsequent analyses revealed that the Romanian ruling party had funded at least some of the allegedly pro-Russian TikTok accounts. Where the Romanian TikTok accounts supposedly promoted a right-wing populist, the Czech Center claims that the Czech language TikTok posts, back the “far-right SPD party, which ranks third in most polls with around 13% support, and the far-left Stacilo!,” according to Reuters, “which is gaining just over the 5% threshold needed to secure parliamentary seats.” Notes Reuters, “Both parties advocate for Czechia to leave NATO and the European Union.” Prokůpková said, despite its name, that “Center for Online Risk Research” is “not an organization. We are an initiative.” However, she also said, “My partner is the CTU,” referring to the Czech government’s Telecommunications Office. This office organized a meeting on August 29th due to the upcoming Czech elections, which was attended by the European Commission, Google, Meta, Microsoft, TikTok, and X. “The participants discussed their readiness to address potential systemic risks in connection with the parliamentary elections and respond to possible incidents,” a European Commission spokesperson told Public today. Prokůpková also said, “I proceed in accordance with the DSA,” the EU’s Digital Services Act, which entitles anyone to report false accounts or misinformation on social media to the Czech Telecommunications Office.”We are ordinary citizens and we use the R programming language,” she explained. One of the Center’s members is Josef Šlerka, who collaborated with “The Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project,” which the US State Department created in 2008, and which the USAID funded. After President Trump cut off USAID funding, the European Commission began to financially support OCCRP. In January, Šlerka and the director of the Czech government’s Security Information Service (BIS), the equivalent of the FBI and DHS in the US, briefed Czech members of Parliament about the Romanian TikTok case as a potential model for the Czech Republic. Now, the BIS has sent a report on Czech-speaking pro-Russian TikTok accounts to the president, prime minister, and Czech Telecommunications Office. Earlier this year, a Czech Army group admitted to monitoring opposition figures. Leaked documents show the group monitored “the opinions and attitudes of these [opposition] individuals towards the activities of the Ministry of Defense, its leaders, senior representatives of the Czech army, and the war in Ukraine.” General Karel Řehka later defended the Army’s actions by alleging that it was just a military exercise in case of possible future interference in the elections. A few weeks ago, Romania’s Interior (security) Minister said the intelligence agencies of the Czech Republic and those in other nations admire what Romania did. “I believe that what happened in Romania last year is currently being studied by all intelligence agencies in the Western world,” said Cătălin Predoiu. “Conclusions are being drawn and countries are taking defensive measures, inspired by how Romania defended itself.” He went on to say that “my Czech colleague, who is a good friend of mine, approached me and said, ‘We also have elections in the fall, and we are watching very closely what has happened in your country.’” From left: Vít Rakušan, Czech Minister of the Interior and Deputy Prime Minister, and Marian-Cătălin Predoiu, Romanian Minister of the Interior and Deputy Prime Minister, at the Round Table (Justice and Home Affairs Council) on December 12, 2024. Source: Other groups are involved in the possible influence operation. A liberal website called Voxpot recently published a list of websites that repost content from Russian state platforms, but provided no information about any links to or financing from Russia. The Independent Journalism Foundation financed the Voxpot report. And Seznam, a news website that has advocated for EU government censorship of “misinformation,” finances the Foundation. Finally, GLOBSEC, the Institute for Strategic Dialogue (ISD), and CEDMO (Central European Digital Media Observatory), all of which appear to have links to the intelligence community, published a report warning of the alleged risks of Russian interference; however, it contained no evidence to support these claims. Major military contractors, including Lockheed Martin, KNDS, and Saab finance GLOBSEC, while the US, UK, EU, and other Western governments finance ISD and CEDMO. While the allegations focus on alleged pro-Russian support for the nationalist-populist SPD party and the radical Left-Wing coalition Stacilo!, party, the latest polls show that the ANO party, led by former Prime Minister and billionaire Andrej Babiš has over 33% support, which is 12 points more than the centre-right SPOLU (Together) coalition, which the current Prime Minister leads. Like the SPD and Stacilo!, Babiš is running directly against the EU’s agenda, including on migration, climate change, the Ukraine war, and censorship. His party rejected NATO’s new defence spending target and called for halting ammunition supplies to Ukraine. With the SPD and Stacilo! expected to win roughly 18% of the vote, and given their shared opposition to arming Ukraine, they could join in a coalition government with ANO to end further military support. “If the electoral contest were close, then even several tens of thousands of votes that voters cast for someone (or conversely decided not to cast) could determine whether, for example, the Czech ammunition initiative, crucial aid for defending Ukraine, will continue,“ confirms in today’s article the Czech liberal newspaper Deník N. Czech President Petr Pavel is a former NATO general and a strong supporter of supplying Ukraine in its war with Russia. Nothing happened after the Romanian court nullified its election. Romania remains a member of NATO and the EU. Indeed, the EU supported the judicial coup. The same could happen in the Czech Republic. Others think that’s unlikely. “I don’t think we are approaching what is known as the ‘Romanian scenario,’” wrote Lukáš Prchal, a journalist who has written on the TikTok scandal for Deník N, in an email to Public. Whatever the case, the fact remains that there is no evidence of Russian government interference in the Czech elections, and any effort to nullify it based on allegations about anonymous TikTok accounts would violate the Czech Republic’s constitution, the European Union’s constitution, and the NATO treaty. “There is an attempt here,” a source told Denik N, “but the potential and significance are not essential. It is an unsuccessful attempt.”

Michael Shellenberger

61,731 views • 11 months ago

BOOM!!! 💥💥💥 Dr. Aseem Malhotra's testimony was delivered in the Helsinski District Court on April 12, 2024, with the understanding that any deviation from the truth would constitute perjury. This clip was immediately banned by YouTube so please share widely. I've trimmed the clip, removing the interpreter's segment for a smoother listening experience. Here's the first hour of the testimony. ---------------------------------- My name is Doctor Aseem Malhotra. I am a consultant cardiologist. I've been a qualified doctor since 2001. I have held various roles both in academic health policy. In England, in the United Kingdom, and of the various roles, I won't bore you with all the details. I think three of the most relevant and prominent are the fact that I was an ambassador for the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges for six years, which represented every doctor in the UK. I served a full term of six years as a trustee of the King's fund. I was the youngest member to be appointed to this body which advises government on health policy. I was a founding member of Action on Sugar and a first science director. And through that role I'm considered the lead campaigner on bringing about a sugary drinks tax in the UK. And also, finally I served for five years as visiting professor of evidence based medicine at the Bahiana School of Medicine in Salvador, Brazil. In early 2020, at the beginning of the pandemic I was most vocal doctor on the mainstream, making the link very early on between COVID and those who are vulnerable to suffering serious complications from COVID In fact, in March 2020, I was asked to go on Sky News to explain my initial research findings of the link between especially obesity and COVID, but also to give people an opportunity and to suggest to the government this was a great time for them to implement public health policy to help people enhance or optimise their immune system, which could happen within just a few weeks of dietary changes and optimising vitamin D. This was later also backed up by medical journal publications a few months later. And I was first to mention on the back of an article I published in the Daily Telegraph newspaper, which became a front page commentary and was picked up by BBC News and Good Morning Britain, where I had said that it's likely our prime minister, Boris Johnson, was hospitalised because of his weight. As a result of that, the then secretary for health, Matt Hancock, and this was publicised in the news, had asked me to advise him on the link between COVID and obesity. ...before I explain my journey and in many ways U-turn on my understanding in terms of the benefits and harms of the COVID vaccine, my experience in this area over the last couple of years has made me realise more than ever that even for that the greatest barrier to the truth are not factual or intellectual barriers, but psychological. I think all of us as human beings are vulnerable to these psychological barriers and we should have compassion for ourselves. And I will just very briefly summarise those three psychological barriers before I get into my detailed account of what I was involved in in regards to the COVID vaccine. The first psychological barrier is one of fear. And many of us understandably, and I still remember from early on in the pandemic, we were all scared. We did not know what we were dealing with. The issue with fear is that when people and populations are in a state of fear, we are less likely to engage in critical thinking and we are more likely to be compliant. Although COVID was particularly devastating for vulnerable groups in the elderly and I even have managed and still manage people with long COVID, the fear was grossly exaggerated. And one of the examples of that is that when we had good information on the mortality rate of COVID in the United States, one survey in 2020 revealed that 50% of Americans believed that if they caught COVID, the risk of 19 hospitalisation was 50% one and two, when the actual figure, certainly an average for people in middle age, was less than 1%. The second barrier to the truth, which I think is very relevant to the situation we find ourselves in now, is one called willful blindness. This is when human beings, all of us, are vulnerable to this, turn a blind eye to the truth in order to feel safe, avoid conflict, reduce anxiety and to protect prestige and fragile egos. Some examples of this include, on a personal level, willful blindness can occur when a spouse turns a blind eye to the affair of their partner. On an institutional level, some great examples of willful blindness include Hollywood and Harvey Weinstein, the Catholic Church and child molestation. I believe the current situation we find ourselves in, with much of the mainstream narrative and the medical establishment and policy makers not acknowledging quite horrific, serious and common harms from this vaccine, is another example of willful blindness. And I also say this with full empathy, because I was one of those people that was for a very long time, willfully blind to the harms of the COVID vaccine. In January 2021, I was one of the first people to take two doses of the COVID mRNA vaccine because I volunteered in a vaccine centre. I still believe that traditional vaccines are some of the safest amongst all pharmacological interventions in medicine and I could not conceive of any possibility whatsoever of this vaccine causing harm. As a public figure and respected doctor in the UK, I have built relationships across the board with many other public figures, including celebrities and politicians, who often come to me for medical advice. One of those people was film director Gurinder Chadha, who you may be familiar with some of her work, including the movie "Bend It like Beckham", who had asked me whether or not she should take the vaccine and had sent me blogs which I dismissed and regarded as anti vax nonsense. I was then asked to go on good morning, Britain because Gurinder Chadha, the director herself tweeted that I had convinced her to take the vaccine. The main reason for this TV appearance was to help tackle vaccine hesitancy, which was very prominent amongst people from ethnic minority groups in the UK. I made the point on that programme that I understand where vaccine hesitancy was coming from because of the history that I have been involved with over many years in highlighting the shortcomings of pharmaceutical industry influence over medicine. And I even made the point, if I remember correctly, that they have been found guilty of fraud on many occasions, that the third most common cause of death, prepandemic after heart disease and cancer, is prescribed medications. I, however, reassured the public and said that despite these figures, of everything we do in medicine, traditional vaccinations are amongst the safest. I still believe this to be the case. A few months later, in April 2021, I met with a colleague and friend of mine who I regard as one of the brightest cardiologists in the United Kingdom. I was surprised when he told me that he had not taken the COVID vaccine. He explained to me that he had concerns because he had seen in the supplementary appendix of Pfizer's original trial that there were four cardiac arrests in the vaccine group and only one in the placebo. These numbers were small and did not reach statistical significance. So this could be random chance, or his concern was it could represent a signal of problems in the future. And if this was the case, we are going to have a huge problem. He said he'd rather wait and see what happens before taking the vaccine. On July 26, 2021, my father, aged 73, who was a very prominent, well known doctor in the UK, including being the honorary vice president of the British Medical Association and had received honours from the Queen of England with an OBE, suffered an unexpected sudden cardiac arrest. I was particularly devastated by this happening and I was also I find it difficult to understand why my father, who was a fit and well man, I knew his cardiac history and his cardiac status, would suffer a cardiac arrest. But also my initial investigation was to try and understand why there had been a 30 minutes ambulance delay arriving to his apartment. Two weeks later, the deputy chief nurse of NHS England, a government health body, called me up. She was very upset, she knew my father very well and she was crying and she told me, Aseem, there's something I need to tell you. She in effect told me that throughout the country, for the last two months prior to my father's cardiac arrest in most regions of the UK, ambulances were not getting to patients in time for heart attacks and cardiac arrests. And there had been a deliberate, and I will use these words because I mentioned it, I've mentioned it before, a cover up involving the government and the Department of Health to withhold this information from doctors and the public. I worked with an investigative journalist with the I newspaper in the UK to write an article and a news story that became BBC News headlines a few months later, exposing this. Just before I exposed this, I messaged a professor of cardiology who I trust in the UK. He has a leadership role to explain to him what had happened and what I was about to do. I have text message evidence of this. He told me not to do this because it would make me enemies. I explained to him that I had a duty to patients and the public. I'm highlighting this as one example and I'll give you more examples of a cultural problem within medicine. The next part of this story is the post mortem findings of my father. They did not make any sense to me. I am considered a leading expert, maybe in the world, on the development and progression of coronary artery disease. My father had two severe blockages in his coronary arteries. There was no actual evidence of heart attack and likely there was a rhythm disturbance because of reduced blood supply that led to his cardiac arrest. Then in, within the space of a few weeks, around October and November, 3, different sources of information was brought to my attention that made me realise that there was probably a significant problem with the COVID mRNA vaccine. The first in October 2021. I remember I was giving lectures in Stockholm. I was contacted by a journalist with a Times newspaper who reported to me and said, Dr Malhotra, we have reports of an unexplained 25% increase in heart attacks in hospitals in Scotland and asked me what I thought was going on. I explained to her that at that time, with the evidence I knew in my own experience, I said that two likely contributory factors were lockdown stress. We know that when populations undergo severe stress after war, for example, there is an increase in heart attacks and strokes that can last for many years. She asked me whether I thought that there was a contribution. I was surprised when she asked me whether I thought there may be a contribution of the COVID vaccine to these heart attacks. I said to her, a good scientist should never exclude any possibility. But I felt at the time it was unlikely to be related to the COVID vaccine. But we should watch this space and keep our eyes open. A few weeks later, a publication appeared in the Journal Circulation, which is considered the highest impact cardiology journal in the United States that revealed a potentially very strong link between the COVID mRNA vaccines and acceleration in heart attack risk. Very specifically, in several hundred people of middle age, there was a plausible mechanism, by use of inflammatory markers in the blood, that increased the baseline risk of those people having a heart attack in five years, from 11% to 25%, just within two months of having the COVID mRNA vaccines. Of course, this is one bit of data, but even if partially true, that is a huge increase in risk in a very short space of time. And for me now made me think and link back to why my father may have suffered a cardiac arrest six months after having two doses of the vaccine. I remember thinking and speaking to a colleague, that if this was true, then we were going to see an increase in cardiac arrests, heart attacks and excess deaths in heavily vaccinated countries for the next few years. Then within a few weeks, I was called up by a whistleblower at a very prestigious british institution. I will name that institution, which I have not done publicly before as a University of Oxford. This cardiologist explained to me that a group of researchers in his department had accidentally found, through the use of very specialised imaging of the heart, that there was a signal of increased inflammation of the heart arteries, which was there in the vaccinated, but not there in the unvaccinated. The lead researcher of that group had sat down, the juniors, and had said that we are not going to explore these findings any further because it may affect our funding from the pharmaceutical industry. At that point, with these three bits of information, I then felt it was my ethical duty to speak out. And I went on GBNews to talk about what I'd found what I'd heard and I'd asked for the Vaccine Committee of the UK on TV to investigate this, to see whether there was a real problem with the vaccine in relation to heart issues. Around the same time which I found very strange is that the Secretary of State for Health at that stage, who was not Matt Hancock, was Sajid Javid, had announced in parliament that we are going to introduce legislation to ensure that all healthcare workers are mandated to have the COVID vaccine. For me, this, by that stage had no ethical or scientific justification, because certainly after the summer of 2021, it had become very apparent that the COVID mRNA vaccine was not stopping infection and it certainly was not stopping transmission. It was understood that approximately 80,000 NHS workers had refused at this stage to have the COVID vaccine. And now they were threatened with losing their job if by April the following year they had not been fully vaccinated. Many of these people were very concerned and contacted me around that time, I was also conducting many interviews, both through the BBC and Sky News and GBNews in regards to what happened with my father's ambulance delay. And I used it as an opportunity on the mainstream media to call for Sajid Javid, the secretary for health, to U-turn on the introduction of a mandate for healthcare workers based upon the fact that I felt it was not scientific and it was unethical. I also received my own personal backlash from these comments where I was contacted by the Royal College of Physicians who I had an affiliation with, and they asked me to respond to anonymous complaints from doctors that I was spreading, in quotes, antivax disinformation. I felt with my own knowledge and experience of the healthcare system that this was a direct response probably fueled by a combination of willful blindness and institutional corruption. To elaborate a bit further, when I say institutional corruption, I mean that my view was that the complaints were likely being fueled by academics with financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry. I felt very concerned about the potential introduction of the vaccine, well, the vaccine mandate. And therefore I decided there were two things that I decided to do. The first was I made a phone call to the chairman of the British Medical Association in December 2021. I had a good relationship with him and he respected my opinion. And I spent 2 hours on the phone explaining to him everything that I knew up to that stage about my concerns of the COVID mRNA vaccine. He said to me, "Aseem, nobody appears to critically appraise the evidence on the COVID mRNA vaccine as well as you have from our conversation, he said, most of my colleagues are getting their information on the benefits and harms of the vaccine from the BBC". This was replicated by the former chair of the CDC in the United States, Rochelle Walensky, who in an interview later on had said that her initial optimism of the vaccine benefits came from CNN News report. I say this just to emphasise that we should all accept our vulnerabilities to where we receive health information. Even doctors, policymakers, judges and lawyers are all influenced on the public massively by mainstream media. The chairman of the BMA also agreed with me. There was no ethical or scientific justification for mandating the COVID vaccine. He said the BMA also did not support it. And he said because of my conversation with him, he would speak directly to the secretary for health, Sajid Javid. One month later, at the end of January 2022, the COVID vaccine mandate for healthcare workers was overturned. I at that stage, given the fact that there was some backlash happening towards me, I realised that because this is a very big issue and area, and not my initial area of expertise, I needed to carry out my own critical analysis of the COVID mRNA vaccines. I spent six to nine months critically appraising the data, including speaking to two Pfizer whistleblowers, three investigative medical journalists and eminent scientists from the University of Oxford, Stanford and Harvard. The most critical bit, the most critical research that was published on this issue, which I think the whole court should acknowledge in August 2022, was published in the journal Vaccine. That research was conducted by some of the world's top independent of drug industry influence academics. That research, we was able to reanalyze the original randomised control trials conducted by Pfizer and Moderna. They were able to do this because new information was made available on the FDA's website and Health Canada's website. The conclusions of that paper were really very disturbing. The original trials that led to the drug regulatory approval of these vaccines revealed that you were more likely to suffer serious harm from taking the vaccine, specifically hospitalisation, life changing event or disability, than you were to be hospitalised with COVID That rate of harm at two months was very high at 1 in 800. Just to give you some perspective, historically we have suspended other vaccines for much less. In 1976, the swine flu vaccine was pulled because it was found to cause a neurological syndrome called Guillain-Barre syndrome In one in 100,000 people. In 1999, the rotavirus vaccine was suspended because it was found to cause a form of bowel obstruction in children affecting 1 in 10,000. This was 1 in 800. In my view, it was very clear that given this information, published in the highest impact Vaccine journal in the world, peer reviewed, and has not had any significant rebuttals, that this vaccine now, in my view, should never have been approved for use in a single human being in the first place. In my view, this very important court case in some ways, actually is a distraction from the much bigger issue, which is there should be court cases around the world with a full inquiry into the pharmaceutical industry and an inquiry as to how we got this so very wrong. Of course, one could argue this is just one bit of research, but actually, unfortunately, there are different, many different strands of research that are showing a signal of considerable and common serious harm from these vaccines. From pharmacovigilance data that is reporting what we call yellow card reports from the public. We have plausible biological mechanism of harm. We have other research called observational data. We have autopsy data also confirming that certainly with the majority of people who died within a short space of time of having the vaccine in relation to the heart, was definitively caused by the vaccine. This is really a very, very, very horrific situation we find ourselves in. One would hope and expect that the regulators should be independently evaluating all medications. But of course, the evidence reveals this is far from true. There was an investigation by the BMJ, also published in the summer of 2022, which revealed that most of the major regulators across the world were taking most of their money from the drug industry. For example, the MHRA in the UK receives 86% of its funding from the drug industry, and the FDA in America receives 65% of its funding from the drug industry, A fact that most doctors do not know. And therefore, I would not expect members of the court to know this either, is that very, very rarely do drug industry sponsored research get independently evaluated. Clinical trial data can often involve thousands of pages of information on individual patients. The drug companies hold onto that raw data. They then give summary results to the regulator, who are then paying, who have an incentive to approve the drugs, and the drugs are then approved. I made these points in my peer reviewed article published in the Journal of Insulin Resistance in September 2022, where I concluded that we should pause and investigate the issue around the COVID mRNA vaccines. I have since then been campaigning and advocating for a return to ethical evidence based medical practise around the world. Some of the clear solutions moving forward would be changes in the law that are required so that patients, doctors, members of the public can have greater confidence in the information they receive to make decisions about their health. Two very clear, low hanging fruit solutions, which are both ethical, scientific and democratic, would be that the drug industry should be allowed to develop drugs, but they shouldn't be allowed to test them themselves. And they certainly shouldn't be allowed to design their own research to and hold onto the raw data. Their information needs to be independently evaluated. One other clear solution would also be that the medical regulators, again, should not be taking any money from the industry, as this is a gross conflict of interest. I also want to highlight for people to understand the bigger picture. Prior to the pandemic, I had realised that there was a big problem with the reliability of clinical research, where invariably the results of clinical trials on all drugs sponsored by the drug industry, grossly exaggerate their safety and benefits. I have taken this information to the European Parliament, where I spoke in 2019, and I spoke to very senior politicians in the UK government. But although they were sympathetic, they felt that the issue was much bigger than them as individuals, and therefore it also needed media attention to get public awareness on the importance of such an inquiry. Before we continue with further questions, as I've been speaking for quite a long time now I'll just finish with two references just for the court and the judges to understand just how bad this problem is. Prepandemic the man who I call the Stephen Hawking of medicine is Professor John Ioannidis from the University of Stanford. The reason I call him the Stephen Hawking of Medicine is he's the most cited medical researcher in the world and is a mathematical genius. In 2006, he published a paper which was entitled why most published research findings are false. In that paper, he makes a point that the greater the financial interests in a given field, the less likely the research findings are to be true. I say this in context of the Pfizer mRNA vaccine which has made the company $100 billion. The other point that he makes in a further paper in 2017 is, again, the reason the system continues as it is is most doctors are unaware of the information they receive when they make clinical decisions has been corrupted by commercial influence. The other credible name I will mention is the editor of the Lancet, Richard Horton, who I personally know. In 2015, he wrote an article in the Lancet in relation to a secret meeting that had taken place with himself and some of the world's top medical academics. In that, he wrote that possibly half of the medical published literature may simply be untrue. And he said that science has taken a turn towards darkness. But who's going to take the first step to clean up the system? I believe in this case and in this court today, this is going to be a very pivotal potential moment in history for that first step. ---------------------- Dr Aseem Malhotra H/T: Tiina Keskimäki 🇫🇮
29:17

BOOM!!! 💥💥💥 Dr. Aseem Malhotra's testimony was delivered in the Helsinski District Court on April 12, 2024, with the understanding that any deviation from the truth would constitute perjury. This clip was immediately banned by YouTube so please share widely. I've trimmed the clip, removing the interpreter's segment for a smoother listening experience. Here's the first hour of the testimony. ---------------------------------- My name is Doctor Aseem Malhotra. I am a consultant cardiologist. I've been a qualified doctor since 2001. I have held various roles both in academic health policy. In England, in the United Kingdom, and of the various roles, I won't bore you with all the details. I think three of the most relevant and prominent are the fact that I was an ambassador for the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges for six years, which represented every doctor in the UK. I served a full term of six years as a trustee of the King's fund. I was the youngest member to be appointed to this body which advises government on health policy. I was a founding member of Action on Sugar and a first science director. And through that role I'm considered the lead campaigner on bringing about a sugary drinks tax in the UK. And also, finally I served for five years as visiting professor of evidence based medicine at the Bahiana School of Medicine in Salvador, Brazil. In early 2020, at the beginning of the pandemic I was most vocal doctor on the mainstream, making the link very early on between COVID and those who are vulnerable to suffering serious complications from COVID In fact, in March 2020, I was asked to go on Sky News to explain my initial research findings of the link between especially obesity and COVID, but also to give people an opportunity and to suggest to the government this was a great time for them to implement public health policy to help people enhance or optimise their immune system, which could happen within just a few weeks of dietary changes and optimising vitamin D. This was later also backed up by medical journal publications a few months later. And I was first to mention on the back of an article I published in the Daily Telegraph newspaper, which became a front page commentary and was picked up by BBC News and Good Morning Britain, where I had said that it's likely our prime minister, Boris Johnson, was hospitalised because of his weight. As a result of that, the then secretary for health, Matt Hancock, and this was publicised in the news, had asked me to advise him on the link between COVID and obesity. ...before I explain my journey and in many ways U-turn on my understanding in terms of the benefits and harms of the COVID vaccine, my experience in this area over the last couple of years has made me realise more than ever that even for that the greatest barrier to the truth are not factual or intellectual barriers, but psychological. I think all of us as human beings are vulnerable to these psychological barriers and we should have compassion for ourselves. And I will just very briefly summarise those three psychological barriers before I get into my detailed account of what I was involved in in regards to the COVID vaccine. The first psychological barrier is one of fear. And many of us understandably, and I still remember from early on in the pandemic, we were all scared. We did not know what we were dealing with. The issue with fear is that when people and populations are in a state of fear, we are less likely to engage in critical thinking and we are more likely to be compliant. Although COVID was particularly devastating for vulnerable groups in the elderly and I even have managed and still manage people with long COVID, the fear was grossly exaggerated. And one of the examples of that is that when we had good information on the mortality rate of COVID in the United States, one survey in 2020 revealed that 50% of Americans believed that if they caught COVID, the risk of 19 hospitalisation was 50% one and two, when the actual figure, certainly an average for people in middle age, was less than 1%. The second barrier to the truth, which I think is very relevant to the situation we find ourselves in now, is one called willful blindness. This is when human beings, all of us, are vulnerable to this, turn a blind eye to the truth in order to feel safe, avoid conflict, reduce anxiety and to protect prestige and fragile egos. Some examples of this include, on a personal level, willful blindness can occur when a spouse turns a blind eye to the affair of their partner. On an institutional level, some great examples of willful blindness include Hollywood and Harvey Weinstein, the Catholic Church and child molestation. I believe the current situation we find ourselves in, with much of the mainstream narrative and the medical establishment and policy makers not acknowledging quite horrific, serious and common harms from this vaccine, is another example of willful blindness. And I also say this with full empathy, because I was one of those people that was for a very long time, willfully blind to the harms of the COVID vaccine. In January 2021, I was one of the first people to take two doses of the COVID mRNA vaccine because I volunteered in a vaccine centre. I still believe that traditional vaccines are some of the safest amongst all pharmacological interventions in medicine and I could not conceive of any possibility whatsoever of this vaccine causing harm. As a public figure and respected doctor in the UK, I have built relationships across the board with many other public figures, including celebrities and politicians, who often come to me for medical advice. One of those people was film director Gurinder Chadha, who you may be familiar with some of her work, including the movie "Bend It like Beckham", who had asked me whether or not she should take the vaccine and had sent me blogs which I dismissed and regarded as anti vax nonsense. I was then asked to go on good morning, Britain because Gurinder Chadha, the director herself tweeted that I had convinced her to take the vaccine. The main reason for this TV appearance was to help tackle vaccine hesitancy, which was very prominent amongst people from ethnic minority groups in the UK. I made the point on that programme that I understand where vaccine hesitancy was coming from because of the history that I have been involved with over many years in highlighting the shortcomings of pharmaceutical industry influence over medicine. And I even made the point, if I remember correctly, that they have been found guilty of fraud on many occasions, that the third most common cause of death, prepandemic after heart disease and cancer, is prescribed medications. I, however, reassured the public and said that despite these figures, of everything we do in medicine, traditional vaccinations are amongst the safest. I still believe this to be the case. A few months later, in April 2021, I met with a colleague and friend of mine who I regard as one of the brightest cardiologists in the United Kingdom. I was surprised when he told me that he had not taken the COVID vaccine. He explained to me that he had concerns because he had seen in the supplementary appendix of Pfizer's original trial that there were four cardiac arrests in the vaccine group and only one in the placebo. These numbers were small and did not reach statistical significance. So this could be random chance, or his concern was it could represent a signal of problems in the future. And if this was the case, we are going to have a huge problem. He said he'd rather wait and see what happens before taking the vaccine. On July 26, 2021, my father, aged 73, who was a very prominent, well known doctor in the UK, including being the honorary vice president of the British Medical Association and had received honours from the Queen of England with an OBE, suffered an unexpected sudden cardiac arrest. I was particularly devastated by this happening and I was also I find it difficult to understand why my father, who was a fit and well man, I knew his cardiac history and his cardiac status, would suffer a cardiac arrest. But also my initial investigation was to try and understand why there had been a 30 minutes ambulance delay arriving to his apartment. Two weeks later, the deputy chief nurse of NHS England, a government health body, called me up. She was very upset, she knew my father very well and she was crying and she told me, Aseem, there's something I need to tell you. She in effect told me that throughout the country, for the last two months prior to my father's cardiac arrest in most regions of the UK, ambulances were not getting to patients in time for heart attacks and cardiac arrests. And there had been a deliberate, and I will use these words because I mentioned it, I've mentioned it before, a cover up involving the government and the Department of Health to withhold this information from doctors and the public. I worked with an investigative journalist with the I newspaper in the UK to write an article and a news story that became BBC News headlines a few months later, exposing this. Just before I exposed this, I messaged a professor of cardiology who I trust in the UK. He has a leadership role to explain to him what had happened and what I was about to do. I have text message evidence of this. He told me not to do this because it would make me enemies. I explained to him that I had a duty to patients and the public. I'm highlighting this as one example and I'll give you more examples of a cultural problem within medicine. The next part of this story is the post mortem findings of my father. They did not make any sense to me. I am considered a leading expert, maybe in the world, on the development and progression of coronary artery disease. My father had two severe blockages in his coronary arteries. There was no actual evidence of heart attack and likely there was a rhythm disturbance because of reduced blood supply that led to his cardiac arrest. Then in, within the space of a few weeks, around October and November, 3, different sources of information was brought to my attention that made me realise that there was probably a significant problem with the COVID mRNA vaccine. The first in October 2021. I remember I was giving lectures in Stockholm. I was contacted by a journalist with a Times newspaper who reported to me and said, Dr Malhotra, we have reports of an unexplained 25% increase in heart attacks in hospitals in Scotland and asked me what I thought was going on. I explained to her that at that time, with the evidence I knew in my own experience, I said that two likely contributory factors were lockdown stress. We know that when populations undergo severe stress after war, for example, there is an increase in heart attacks and strokes that can last for many years. She asked me whether I thought that there was a contribution. I was surprised when she asked me whether I thought there may be a contribution of the COVID vaccine to these heart attacks. I said to her, a good scientist should never exclude any possibility. But I felt at the time it was unlikely to be related to the COVID vaccine. But we should watch this space and keep our eyes open. A few weeks later, a publication appeared in the Journal Circulation, which is considered the highest impact cardiology journal in the United States that revealed a potentially very strong link between the COVID mRNA vaccines and acceleration in heart attack risk. Very specifically, in several hundred people of middle age, there was a plausible mechanism, by use of inflammatory markers in the blood, that increased the baseline risk of those people having a heart attack in five years, from 11% to 25%, just within two months of having the COVID mRNA vaccines. Of course, this is one bit of data, but even if partially true, that is a huge increase in risk in a very short space of time. And for me now made me think and link back to why my father may have suffered a cardiac arrest six months after having two doses of the vaccine. I remember thinking and speaking to a colleague, that if this was true, then we were going to see an increase in cardiac arrests, heart attacks and excess deaths in heavily vaccinated countries for the next few years. Then within a few weeks, I was called up by a whistleblower at a very prestigious british institution. I will name that institution, which I have not done publicly before as a University of Oxford. This cardiologist explained to me that a group of researchers in his department had accidentally found, through the use of very specialised imaging of the heart, that there was a signal of increased inflammation of the heart arteries, which was there in the vaccinated, but not there in the unvaccinated. The lead researcher of that group had sat down, the juniors, and had said that we are not going to explore these findings any further because it may affect our funding from the pharmaceutical industry. At that point, with these three bits of information, I then felt it was my ethical duty to speak out. And I went on GBNews to talk about what I'd found what I'd heard and I'd asked for the Vaccine Committee of the UK on TV to investigate this, to see whether there was a real problem with the vaccine in relation to heart issues. Around the same time which I found very strange is that the Secretary of State for Health at that stage, who was not Matt Hancock, was Sajid Javid, had announced in parliament that we are going to introduce legislation to ensure that all healthcare workers are mandated to have the COVID vaccine. For me, this, by that stage had no ethical or scientific justification, because certainly after the summer of 2021, it had become very apparent that the COVID mRNA vaccine was not stopping infection and it certainly was not stopping transmission. It was understood that approximately 80,000 NHS workers had refused at this stage to have the COVID vaccine. And now they were threatened with losing their job if by April the following year they had not been fully vaccinated. Many of these people were very concerned and contacted me around that time, I was also conducting many interviews, both through the BBC and Sky News and GBNews in regards to what happened with my father's ambulance delay. And I used it as an opportunity on the mainstream media to call for Sajid Javid, the secretary for health, to U-turn on the introduction of a mandate for healthcare workers based upon the fact that I felt it was not scientific and it was unethical. I also received my own personal backlash from these comments where I was contacted by the Royal College of Physicians who I had an affiliation with, and they asked me to respond to anonymous complaints from doctors that I was spreading, in quotes, antivax disinformation. I felt with my own knowledge and experience of the healthcare system that this was a direct response probably fueled by a combination of willful blindness and institutional corruption. To elaborate a bit further, when I say institutional corruption, I mean that my view was that the complaints were likely being fueled by academics with financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry. I felt very concerned about the potential introduction of the vaccine, well, the vaccine mandate. And therefore I decided there were two things that I decided to do. The first was I made a phone call to the chairman of the British Medical Association in December 2021. I had a good relationship with him and he respected my opinion. And I spent 2 hours on the phone explaining to him everything that I knew up to that stage about my concerns of the COVID mRNA vaccine. He said to me, "Aseem, nobody appears to critically appraise the evidence on the COVID mRNA vaccine as well as you have from our conversation, he said, most of my colleagues are getting their information on the benefits and harms of the vaccine from the BBC". This was replicated by the former chair of the CDC in the United States, Rochelle Walensky, who in an interview later on had said that her initial optimism of the vaccine benefits came from CNN News report. I say this just to emphasise that we should all accept our vulnerabilities to where we receive health information. Even doctors, policymakers, judges and lawyers are all influenced on the public massively by mainstream media. The chairman of the BMA also agreed with me. There was no ethical or scientific justification for mandating the COVID vaccine. He said the BMA also did not support it. And he said because of my conversation with him, he would speak directly to the secretary for health, Sajid Javid. One month later, at the end of January 2022, the COVID vaccine mandate for healthcare workers was overturned. I at that stage, given the fact that there was some backlash happening towards me, I realised that because this is a very big issue and area, and not my initial area of expertise, I needed to carry out my own critical analysis of the COVID mRNA vaccines. I spent six to nine months critically appraising the data, including speaking to two Pfizer whistleblowers, three investigative medical journalists and eminent scientists from the University of Oxford, Stanford and Harvard. The most critical bit, the most critical research that was published on this issue, which I think the whole court should acknowledge in August 2022, was published in the journal Vaccine. That research was conducted by some of the world's top independent of drug industry influence academics. That research, we was able to reanalyze the original randomised control trials conducted by Pfizer and Moderna. They were able to do this because new information was made available on the FDA's website and Health Canada's website. The conclusions of that paper were really very disturbing. The original trials that led to the drug regulatory approval of these vaccines revealed that you were more likely to suffer serious harm from taking the vaccine, specifically hospitalisation, life changing event or disability, than you were to be hospitalised with COVID That rate of harm at two months was very high at 1 in 800. Just to give you some perspective, historically we have suspended other vaccines for much less. In 1976, the swine flu vaccine was pulled because it was found to cause a neurological syndrome called Guillain-Barre syndrome In one in 100,000 people. In 1999, the rotavirus vaccine was suspended because it was found to cause a form of bowel obstruction in children affecting 1 in 10,000. This was 1 in 800. In my view, it was very clear that given this information, published in the highest impact Vaccine journal in the world, peer reviewed, and has not had any significant rebuttals, that this vaccine now, in my view, should never have been approved for use in a single human being in the first place. In my view, this very important court case in some ways, actually is a distraction from the much bigger issue, which is there should be court cases around the world with a full inquiry into the pharmaceutical industry and an inquiry as to how we got this so very wrong. Of course, one could argue this is just one bit of research, but actually, unfortunately, there are different, many different strands of research that are showing a signal of considerable and common serious harm from these vaccines. From pharmacovigilance data that is reporting what we call yellow card reports from the public. We have plausible biological mechanism of harm. We have other research called observational data. We have autopsy data also confirming that certainly with the majority of people who died within a short space of time of having the vaccine in relation to the heart, was definitively caused by the vaccine. This is really a very, very, very horrific situation we find ourselves in. One would hope and expect that the regulators should be independently evaluating all medications. But of course, the evidence reveals this is far from true. There was an investigation by the BMJ, also published in the summer of 2022, which revealed that most of the major regulators across the world were taking most of their money from the drug industry. For example, the MHRA in the UK receives 86% of its funding from the drug industry, and the FDA in America receives 65% of its funding from the drug industry, A fact that most doctors do not know. And therefore, I would not expect members of the court to know this either, is that very, very rarely do drug industry sponsored research get independently evaluated. Clinical trial data can often involve thousands of pages of information on individual patients. The drug companies hold onto that raw data. They then give summary results to the regulator, who are then paying, who have an incentive to approve the drugs, and the drugs are then approved. I made these points in my peer reviewed article published in the Journal of Insulin Resistance in September 2022, where I concluded that we should pause and investigate the issue around the COVID mRNA vaccines. I have since then been campaigning and advocating for a return to ethical evidence based medical practise around the world. Some of the clear solutions moving forward would be changes in the law that are required so that patients, doctors, members of the public can have greater confidence in the information they receive to make decisions about their health. Two very clear, low hanging fruit solutions, which are both ethical, scientific and democratic, would be that the drug industry should be allowed to develop drugs, but they shouldn't be allowed to test them themselves. And they certainly shouldn't be allowed to design their own research to and hold onto the raw data. Their information needs to be independently evaluated. One other clear solution would also be that the medical regulators, again, should not be taking any money from the industry, as this is a gross conflict of interest. I also want to highlight for people to understand the bigger picture. Prior to the pandemic, I had realised that there was a big problem with the reliability of clinical research, where invariably the results of clinical trials on all drugs sponsored by the drug industry, grossly exaggerate their safety and benefits. I have taken this information to the European Parliament, where I spoke in 2019, and I spoke to very senior politicians in the UK government. But although they were sympathetic, they felt that the issue was much bigger than them as individuals, and therefore it also needed media attention to get public awareness on the importance of such an inquiry. Before we continue with further questions, as I've been speaking for quite a long time now I'll just finish with two references just for the court and the judges to understand just how bad this problem is. Prepandemic the man who I call the Stephen Hawking of medicine is Professor John Ioannidis from the University of Stanford. The reason I call him the Stephen Hawking of Medicine is he's the most cited medical researcher in the world and is a mathematical genius. In 2006, he published a paper which was entitled why most published research findings are false. In that paper, he makes a point that the greater the financial interests in a given field, the less likely the research findings are to be true. I say this in context of the Pfizer mRNA vaccine which has made the company $100 billion. The other point that he makes in a further paper in 2017 is, again, the reason the system continues as it is is most doctors are unaware of the information they receive when they make clinical decisions has been corrupted by commercial influence. The other credible name I will mention is the editor of the Lancet, Richard Horton, who I personally know. In 2015, he wrote an article in the Lancet in relation to a secret meeting that had taken place with himself and some of the world's top medical academics. In that, he wrote that possibly half of the medical published literature may simply be untrue. And he said that science has taken a turn towards darkness. But who's going to take the first step to clean up the system? I believe in this case and in this court today, this is going to be a very pivotal potential moment in history for that first step. ---------------------- Dr Aseem Malhotra H/T: Tiina Keskimäki 🇫🇮

aussie17

798,441 views • 2 years ago

On March 15th, 2021, an anonymous Twitter user asked Harvard Medical professor Martin Kulldorff a question. “Do you think younger age groups and or people who have already had the virus need to be vaccinated?” Who is Martin Kulldorff? He’s a Harvard Medical School professor for 21 years, a well-known Swedish biostatistician who developed widely used software for disease mapping, the co-author of the Great Barrington Declaration on how to deal with the COVID pandemic, and an advisor to the world’s leading health organizations. What he said was that “Thinking that everyone must be vaccinated is as scientifically flawed as thinking that nobody should get COVID. Vaccines are important for older high-risk people and their caretakers. Those with prior natural infection do not need it, nor do children.” Natural immunity. Is it a myth — a “conspiracy theory” — that once you have been sick from a virus, then you won’t get sick, or as sick, again? In fact, we’ve known for 2,500 years that natural immunity is real. “The same man was never attacked twice, never at least fatally,” wrote Thucydides, describing the plague of Athens. He observed that recovered individuals could safely nurse the sick without falling ill themselves. And yet Twitter censored Martin Kulldorff’s tweet. “Learn why health officials recommend a vaccine,” read a warning that Twitter employees put on it. For most people, the Tweet cannot be replied to, shared or liked. In other words, Twitter had decided that this professor at Harvard Medical School was wrong, and that natural immunity wasn’t really something that could protect you from COVID. Jay Bhattacharya, who’s currently our Director of the National Institutes of Health, and thus one of the highest-ranking public health officials in the world, was a Stanford epidemiologist before that. Twitter put him on a “Trends Blacklist.” Not long before we discovered this, we were told that shadow-banning was a conspiracy theory, because Twitter had said it didn’t shadow-ban. Now the European Commission is trying to censor the entire global internet. They want to put a 140 million Euro fine on X. They want to end anonymity, which was what allowed that question of Kulldorff to be asked. They want to use a “Democracy Shield” program to shield the Commission from democracy. And the Commission wants to impose “chat control” so they can read your private messages. It just gets worse and worse. Unsubstantiated and likely false claims of Russian government election interference through TikTok and social media were made in Romania and in the Czech Republic. Truth is not something that anybody holds as a possession and rather emerges through dialogue. We’ve known that since Plato and Socrates. We need free speech for science, public health, and national security. It’s essential to journalism, democracy, and human freedom. Free speech enabled civilization; censorship threatens it. This is the only political cause that I would die for. And yet there is currently an active coordination between Stanford, Brazil, Australia, and others to impose what I think we can call, without exaggeration, global totalitarianism. They’re pushing for digital identification that will end anonymity online. Why is that? Why are these guys behaving in this way? When Elon Musk took over Twitter on October 28th, 2022, unprecedented insight into multiple secret government mass censorship efforts emerged from this exploration. We had unlimited access to Twitter files. They revealed that the mainstream news reporters, who don’t deserve the name, were demanding censorship. No true journalist demands censorship of his fellow journalists. What emerged from this was an understanding of something we call the “Censorship Industrial Complex,” which directly grew out of the military industrial complex and was run by active or former intelligence community officials who often operate under that banner. It led to multiple congressional investigations and hearings, and it spread across every social media platform. So we now know the censorship that occurred, not just at Twitter, but at YouTube, at Facebook, TikTok, and other platforms. What is the Censorship Industrial Complex? The model isn’t that complicated to understand. The government chooses people whom they call “researchers” to serve as censors. These are government-funded individuals who often come from the intelligence community and foreign policy establishment. They work at non-governmental organizations funded by governments or at universities funded by governments. They conduct “fact checks” to serve as “trusted flaggers.” These “trusted flaggers” demand censorship by social media platforms. It’s all done in secret. They’re looking to censor narratives. This is essential because, as decades of good cognitive science have shown, people understand and retain information through storytelling. We think in terms of stories, not bullet points. And so they were out to censor whole narratives. From the Stanford censorship project on COVID, the “Virality Project,” they said they wanted to censor “true stories” of vaccine side effects. Why? Because it might “fuel hesitancy.” In other words, they want to control your behavior. They don’t want you to receive true information that might lead you to not get the vaccine. If that isn’t totalitarianism straight out of 1984, I don’t know what it. These people were on the verge of passing legislation in the United States that would’ve authorized the National Science Foundation to choose these “researcher” censors. I’m presenting slides to Europeans and the world for situational awareness into what totalitarian politicians and bureaucrats have planned because this is still going strong. Stanford helped the US government censor COVID dissidents, and then they lied about it. You might be detecting a pattern. They’re really not interested in censoring “misinformation.’ They’re very interested in censoring true information. The censors flagged an Israeli preprint which came out in December, 2020 and found, lo and behold, that natural immunity is a real thing. In fact, it’s more protective than the vaccine. But the censors flagged somebody’s Google Drive. “See the following Google Drive links being used to compile testimonies about vaccine shedding, Covid videos, showing side effects and whatnot.” Google then removed that content from that person’s Google Drive. You don’t control your Google Drive. Contrary to Stanford’s claim that the project did not ask social media platforms to remove any content, they privately said they did. And we know that many hundreds of thousands of tweets and Facebook posts were removed, even though they were a hundred percent accurate. In fact, in 2021, Stanford’s “Virality Project” flagged accurate claims that the World Health Organization did not recommend vaccinating children. The people who spread the misinformation are the people demanding the censorship. They claimed Covid couldn’t have come from a lab, that the Covid vaccine prevented infection, and that natural immunity didn’t exist. The only solution to hate speech and misinformation is free speech. If you censor false information, how would anybody get the true information? The whole point is the debate. They lied when they said false information travels faster than true information. It’s a completely bogus study and involved six seconds of content on Twitter. Who are these people? As of 2020, there were so many former FBI employees at Twitter that they called them “Bu alumni.” They created their own private Slack channel and a crib sheet to onboard new FBI arrivals. Intriguingly, we discovered that the general counsel of the FBI — arguably the second most powerful person of the FBI, or maybe the first, if you think, consider that what their actual job is to decide what the FBI can and can’t do — resigned from FBI in early 2020 and went to Twitter to take the deputy general counsel role. Isn’t that interesting? Somebody in one of the most powerful legal positions in the world would take a junior legal role at a social media company. Why would that be? This email popped up when we were going through Twitter files and it really jumped out at us. It’s from the director of policy at Twitter. “We have seen a sustained if uncoordinated” — supposedly — “effort by the intelligence community to push us to share more information and change our API policies. They’re probing and pushing everywhere they can.” The Hunter Biden laptop censorship occurred later that year. The FBI and the intelligence community discredited accurate, factual information about Hunter Biden’s foreign business dealings both before and after the New York Post revealed the contents of his laptop on October 14th, 2020. How could the FBI spread false information about something that nobody knew about? Because the FBI had Hunter Biden’s laptop, which showed his family’s massive influence peddling scheme. It consisted of accepting tens of millions of dollars, including from the Chinese government. The FBI had been sitting on that laptop since December of 2019. They had been given it by the computer repair store owner, who had been given the laptop by Hunter Biden, likely because he dropped it in his bathtub or in the pool, when he was on one of his many crack and alcohol benders. The government strategy is always the same: spread disinformation first, then demand censorship of accurate information on the basis of it . “The FBI came to us in the summer of 2020,” Mark Zuckerberg told Joe Rogan two years later, “and they were like, ‘Hey, you should be on the alert. We thought that there was a lot of Russian propaganda in 2016. There’s about to be some kind of dump.’” In the summer of 2020, the New York Post had not published the story about the Hunter Biden laptop. It would only come out in October. We see something very interesting show up in the Twitter files: the Aspen Institute, an intermediary between the intelligence community and the public. It’s known as a Davos-style gab fest in the United States. It’s also the place where intelligence community operations are run. They hosted a workshop to train reporters and all of the social media’s top censorship officials, known as “trust and safety officials,” how to deal with a story they would hear in the future relating to Hunter Biden and Barisma. A few months earlier, the Stanford Cyber Policy Center had published a report attacking what we in the United States call the Pentagon Papers Principle. The Pentagon Papers Principle says that if a government official gives me, a journalist, a bunch of Pentagon documents showing that we’re losing the war in Vietnam, I, as a journalist, can publish them, and not risk prison. That was decided in a famous Supreme Court case in 1971. Stanford argued that, really, we should get rid of that principle, which may be the most important investigative journalism principle in the United States, and said, “You should cover the person who leaked the materials, not the leaked emails.” In other words, you should cover and expose the whistleblower. The person who exposed the Pentagon Papers is the real bad guy, not the DOD, CIA, and presidents who had lied to us for over a decade. Stanford was training the journalists and the social media trust and safety officers in how to cover a story that had not yet come out. This is known as “pre-bunking,” and it’s also part of the European Union strategy to shield themselves from democracy. When the Hunter Biden story appeared October 22nd, Twitter’s trust and safety censorship official said it didn’t violate its terms of service. There’s nothing illegal about any of this. The Supreme Court has made it very clear that you’re allowed to report on information that’s been leaked to you. At that moment, the former FBI general counsel, Jim Baker, argued vigorously that Twitter really needed to censor it. Baker won and they censored the story. It’s not that we didn’t hear about the Hunter Biden laptop story when it came out. I certainly did. But we had the impression that there was something wrong with it, that it was not really the whole story. And so many of us dismissed it. What they had done was a psyop on this major story. They had changed our perception of the story. And it worked. It worked on me, it worked on everybody I knew. What is the role of the intelligence community of social media companies? The former CIA people are the head of elections at Meta, and Google’s head of trust and safety. Former and current CIA officers have a history of spreading misinformation and promoting the Russiagate conspiracy theory. We now know that between 2018 and 2023, there were 36 people from the CIA 68 from the FBI 44, from the National Security Administration and 68 from the Department of Homeland Security who had moved to work at the social media platforms. This is not unique to the United States. My colleague Cecilia Jilková, the daughter of famous Czech dissidents, discovered that European Union officials claimed, days before the European elections in 2024, that a “pro-Kremlin website” was spreading propaganda and were paying off European politicians. That was the headline in Politico. We wrote to them and asked, “Where’s the evidence of this? Just go ahead and share the evidence to support your accusation days before the European parliamentary elections.” Nobody was arrested. They never produced the evidence. The former Czech president, Václav Klaus, who was accused of this, said, “We don’t even know what the ‘Voice of Europe’ is.” Another Czech politician said, “How could I have known it would be a security threat? At the time I gave the interview, they weren’t on any list.” Another said, “If they’re such a big threat, why did the European Parliament let the Voice of Europe’s journalists inside?” Nobody responded. Nobody talked to us. This was a disinformation campaign carried by Politico, which, in my view, is a suspect publication. In the spring of 2022, Barack Obama went to Stanford to give a speech at the Stanford Cyber Policy Center run by Michael McFaul, his former ambassador to Russia. Obama said misinformation harms democracy and urged support for legislation in Congress that would empower government-appointed researchers to serve as “trusted flaggers.” Six days later, the Department of Homeland Security rolled out their Disinformation Governance Board. What a coincidence that they got Obama to frame the issue for them. Facebook in 2021 censored accurate vaccine information so the White House would help it to get data from Europe. In addition to removing vaccine misinformation, wrote Facebook to the White House, we have been focused on reducing the virality of content discouraging vaccines that does not contain actionable misinformation. White House said jump, and Facebook said how high? Why did they do it? Why would they voluntarily censor? This also emerged from the Facebook files. Nick Clegg on the left wrote an email to his colleagues. He said, “My sense is that given we’ve got bigger fish, we have to fry with the administration, e.g., data flows, it doesn’t seem like a great place for us to be.” Data flows. What’s he talking about? He’s talking about billions of dollars worth of business that he has to, that they would have to pay the European Commission for if they didn’t have the support from the Biden administration to lean on the European Commission. In other words, this was a shakedown by the White House of Facebook and it worked in France, the country of Liberté. Turns out it has a special role.... Please subscribe now to support Public's defense of free speech, watch the full video, and read the rest of the article!
30:00

On March 15th, 2021, an anonymous Twitter user asked Harvard Medical professor Martin Kulldorff a question. “Do you think younger age groups and or people who have already had the virus need to be vaccinated?” Who is Martin Kulldorff? He’s a Harvard Medical School professor for 21 years, a well-known Swedish biostatistician who developed widely used software for disease mapping, the co-author of the Great Barrington Declaration on how to deal with the COVID pandemic, and an advisor to the world’s leading health organizations. What he said was that “Thinking that everyone must be vaccinated is as scientifically flawed as thinking that nobody should get COVID. Vaccines are important for older high-risk people and their caretakers. Those with prior natural infection do not need it, nor do children.” Natural immunity. Is it a myth — a “conspiracy theory” — that once you have been sick from a virus, then you won’t get sick, or as sick, again? In fact, we’ve known for 2,500 years that natural immunity is real. “The same man was never attacked twice, never at least fatally,” wrote Thucydides, describing the plague of Athens. He observed that recovered individuals could safely nurse the sick without falling ill themselves. And yet Twitter censored Martin Kulldorff’s tweet. “Learn why health officials recommend a vaccine,” read a warning that Twitter employees put on it. For most people, the Tweet cannot be replied to, shared or liked. In other words, Twitter had decided that this professor at Harvard Medical School was wrong, and that natural immunity wasn’t really something that could protect you from COVID. Jay Bhattacharya, who’s currently our Director of the National Institutes of Health, and thus one of the highest-ranking public health officials in the world, was a Stanford epidemiologist before that. Twitter put him on a “Trends Blacklist.” Not long before we discovered this, we were told that shadow-banning was a conspiracy theory, because Twitter had said it didn’t shadow-ban. Now the European Commission is trying to censor the entire global internet. They want to put a 140 million Euro fine on X. They want to end anonymity, which was what allowed that question of Kulldorff to be asked. They want to use a “Democracy Shield” program to shield the Commission from democracy. And the Commission wants to impose “chat control” so they can read your private messages. It just gets worse and worse. Unsubstantiated and likely false claims of Russian government election interference through TikTok and social media were made in Romania and in the Czech Republic. Truth is not something that anybody holds as a possession and rather emerges through dialogue. We’ve known that since Plato and Socrates. We need free speech for science, public health, and national security. It’s essential to journalism, democracy, and human freedom. Free speech enabled civilization; censorship threatens it. This is the only political cause that I would die for. And yet there is currently an active coordination between Stanford, Brazil, Australia, and others to impose what I think we can call, without exaggeration, global totalitarianism. They’re pushing for digital identification that will end anonymity online. Why is that? Why are these guys behaving in this way? When Elon Musk took over Twitter on October 28th, 2022, unprecedented insight into multiple secret government mass censorship efforts emerged from this exploration. We had unlimited access to Twitter files. They revealed that the mainstream news reporters, who don’t deserve the name, were demanding censorship. No true journalist demands censorship of his fellow journalists. What emerged from this was an understanding of something we call the “Censorship Industrial Complex,” which directly grew out of the military industrial complex and was run by active or former intelligence community officials who often operate under that banner. It led to multiple congressional investigations and hearings, and it spread across every social media platform. So we now know the censorship that occurred, not just at Twitter, but at YouTube, at Facebook, TikTok, and other platforms. What is the Censorship Industrial Complex? The model isn’t that complicated to understand. The government chooses people whom they call “researchers” to serve as censors. These are government-funded individuals who often come from the intelligence community and foreign policy establishment. They work at non-governmental organizations funded by governments or at universities funded by governments. They conduct “fact checks” to serve as “trusted flaggers.” These “trusted flaggers” demand censorship by social media platforms. It’s all done in secret. They’re looking to censor narratives. This is essential because, as decades of good cognitive science have shown, people understand and retain information through storytelling. We think in terms of stories, not bullet points. And so they were out to censor whole narratives. From the Stanford censorship project on COVID, the “Virality Project,” they said they wanted to censor “true stories” of vaccine side effects. Why? Because it might “fuel hesitancy.” In other words, they want to control your behavior. They don’t want you to receive true information that might lead you to not get the vaccine. If that isn’t totalitarianism straight out of 1984, I don’t know what it. These people were on the verge of passing legislation in the United States that would’ve authorized the National Science Foundation to choose these “researcher” censors. I’m presenting slides to Europeans and the world for situational awareness into what totalitarian politicians and bureaucrats have planned because this is still going strong. Stanford helped the US government censor COVID dissidents, and then they lied about it. You might be detecting a pattern. They’re really not interested in censoring “misinformation.’ They’re very interested in censoring true information. The censors flagged an Israeli preprint which came out in December, 2020 and found, lo and behold, that natural immunity is a real thing. In fact, it’s more protective than the vaccine. But the censors flagged somebody’s Google Drive. “See the following Google Drive links being used to compile testimonies about vaccine shedding, Covid videos, showing side effects and whatnot.” Google then removed that content from that person’s Google Drive. You don’t control your Google Drive. Contrary to Stanford’s claim that the project did not ask social media platforms to remove any content, they privately said they did. And we know that many hundreds of thousands of tweets and Facebook posts were removed, even though they were a hundred percent accurate. In fact, in 2021, Stanford’s “Virality Project” flagged accurate claims that the World Health Organization did not recommend vaccinating children. The people who spread the misinformation are the people demanding the censorship. They claimed Covid couldn’t have come from a lab, that the Covid vaccine prevented infection, and that natural immunity didn’t exist. The only solution to hate speech and misinformation is free speech. If you censor false information, how would anybody get the true information? The whole point is the debate. They lied when they said false information travels faster than true information. It’s a completely bogus study and involved six seconds of content on Twitter. Who are these people? As of 2020, there were so many former FBI employees at Twitter that they called them “Bu alumni.” They created their own private Slack channel and a crib sheet to onboard new FBI arrivals. Intriguingly, we discovered that the general counsel of the FBI — arguably the second most powerful person of the FBI, or maybe the first, if you think, consider that what their actual job is to decide what the FBI can and can’t do — resigned from FBI in early 2020 and went to Twitter to take the deputy general counsel role. Isn’t that interesting? Somebody in one of the most powerful legal positions in the world would take a junior legal role at a social media company. Why would that be? This email popped up when we were going through Twitter files and it really jumped out at us. It’s from the director of policy at Twitter. “We have seen a sustained if uncoordinated” — supposedly — “effort by the intelligence community to push us to share more information and change our API policies. They’re probing and pushing everywhere they can.” The Hunter Biden laptop censorship occurred later that year. The FBI and the intelligence community discredited accurate, factual information about Hunter Biden’s foreign business dealings both before and after the New York Post revealed the contents of his laptop on October 14th, 2020. How could the FBI spread false information about something that nobody knew about? Because the FBI had Hunter Biden’s laptop, which showed his family’s massive influence peddling scheme. It consisted of accepting tens of millions of dollars, including from the Chinese government. The FBI had been sitting on that laptop since December of 2019. They had been given it by the computer repair store owner, who had been given the laptop by Hunter Biden, likely because he dropped it in his bathtub or in the pool, when he was on one of his many crack and alcohol benders. The government strategy is always the same: spread disinformation first, then demand censorship of accurate information on the basis of it . “The FBI came to us in the summer of 2020,” Mark Zuckerberg told Joe Rogan two years later, “and they were like, ‘Hey, you should be on the alert. We thought that there was a lot of Russian propaganda in 2016. There’s about to be some kind of dump.’” In the summer of 2020, the New York Post had not published the story about the Hunter Biden laptop. It would only come out in October. We see something very interesting show up in the Twitter files: the Aspen Institute, an intermediary between the intelligence community and the public. It’s known as a Davos-style gab fest in the United States. It’s also the place where intelligence community operations are run. They hosted a workshop to train reporters and all of the social media’s top censorship officials, known as “trust and safety officials,” how to deal with a story they would hear in the future relating to Hunter Biden and Barisma. A few months earlier, the Stanford Cyber Policy Center had published a report attacking what we in the United States call the Pentagon Papers Principle. The Pentagon Papers Principle says that if a government official gives me, a journalist, a bunch of Pentagon documents showing that we’re losing the war in Vietnam, I, as a journalist, can publish them, and not risk prison. That was decided in a famous Supreme Court case in 1971. Stanford argued that, really, we should get rid of that principle, which may be the most important investigative journalism principle in the United States, and said, “You should cover the person who leaked the materials, not the leaked emails.” In other words, you should cover and expose the whistleblower. The person who exposed the Pentagon Papers is the real bad guy, not the DOD, CIA, and presidents who had lied to us for over a decade. Stanford was training the journalists and the social media trust and safety officers in how to cover a story that had not yet come out. This is known as “pre-bunking,” and it’s also part of the European Union strategy to shield themselves from democracy. When the Hunter Biden story appeared October 22nd, Twitter’s trust and safety censorship official said it didn’t violate its terms of service. There’s nothing illegal about any of this. The Supreme Court has made it very clear that you’re allowed to report on information that’s been leaked to you. At that moment, the former FBI general counsel, Jim Baker, argued vigorously that Twitter really needed to censor it. Baker won and they censored the story. It’s not that we didn’t hear about the Hunter Biden laptop story when it came out. I certainly did. But we had the impression that there was something wrong with it, that it was not really the whole story. And so many of us dismissed it. What they had done was a psyop on this major story. They had changed our perception of the story. And it worked. It worked on me, it worked on everybody I knew. What is the role of the intelligence community of social media companies? The former CIA people are the head of elections at Meta, and Google’s head of trust and safety. Former and current CIA officers have a history of spreading misinformation and promoting the Russiagate conspiracy theory. We now know that between 2018 and 2023, there were 36 people from the CIA 68 from the FBI 44, from the National Security Administration and 68 from the Department of Homeland Security who had moved to work at the social media platforms. This is not unique to the United States. My colleague Cecilia Jilková, the daughter of famous Czech dissidents, discovered that European Union officials claimed, days before the European elections in 2024, that a “pro-Kremlin website” was spreading propaganda and were paying off European politicians. That was the headline in Politico. We wrote to them and asked, “Where’s the evidence of this? Just go ahead and share the evidence to support your accusation days before the European parliamentary elections.” Nobody was arrested. They never produced the evidence. The former Czech president, Václav Klaus, who was accused of this, said, “We don’t even know what the ‘Voice of Europe’ is.” Another Czech politician said, “How could I have known it would be a security threat? At the time I gave the interview, they weren’t on any list.” Another said, “If they’re such a big threat, why did the European Parliament let the Voice of Europe’s journalists inside?” Nobody responded. Nobody talked to us. This was a disinformation campaign carried by Politico, which, in my view, is a suspect publication. In the spring of 2022, Barack Obama went to Stanford to give a speech at the Stanford Cyber Policy Center run by Michael McFaul, his former ambassador to Russia. Obama said misinformation harms democracy and urged support for legislation in Congress that would empower government-appointed researchers to serve as “trusted flaggers.” Six days later, the Department of Homeland Security rolled out their Disinformation Governance Board. What a coincidence that they got Obama to frame the issue for them. Facebook in 2021 censored accurate vaccine information so the White House would help it to get data from Europe. In addition to removing vaccine misinformation, wrote Facebook to the White House, we have been focused on reducing the virality of content discouraging vaccines that does not contain actionable misinformation. White House said jump, and Facebook said how high? Why did they do it? Why would they voluntarily censor? This also emerged from the Facebook files. Nick Clegg on the left wrote an email to his colleagues. He said, “My sense is that given we’ve got bigger fish, we have to fry with the administration, e.g., data flows, it doesn’t seem like a great place for us to be.” Data flows. What’s he talking about? He’s talking about billions of dollars worth of business that he has to, that they would have to pay the European Commission for if they didn’t have the support from the Biden administration to lean on the European Commission. In other words, this was a shakedown by the White House of Facebook and it worked in France, the country of Liberté. Turns out it has a special role.... Please subscribe now to support Public's defense of free speech, watch the full video, and read the rest of the article!

Michael Shellenberger

174,749 views • 7 months ago

Everybody needs a digital ID, say heads of state and high-tech leaders. They give many reasons: it will stop illegal migration; it will increase efficiency; it will protect privacy; and it will prevent online fraud and data ransoming. But we don’t need digital IDs for any of those things. The US just stopped illegal migration without digital IDs. Our online activities are more efficient than ever and it’s hard to see how they could get more efficient without sacrificing privacy and safety. And centralizing data through digital IDs, which could link social media, vaccine, and banking information, in ways that allow government control, would undermine cybersecurity because having separate log-ins for our financial, health, shopping, banking, credit card, and other data makes sure that if one is hacked they aren’t all hacked. “All your information in one place is a hacker’s dream,” said an Oxford University IT expert. “We already have countless ways we can provide our identity – passports, driving licences, and so on.” Many Americans likely think that digital IDs are only something people in Britain have to worry about. Prime Minister Keir Starmer last week declared that every working person there must have digital ID, or “BritCard”. The U.S. should never allow such a thing. A digital ID that linked our social media, vaccine records, and bank accounts could allow governments to censor and control the population, violating our free speech and privacy rights. Those Americans should think again. We are rapidly moving to the exact same digital ID surveillance and control system as the British. Real IDs contain embedded microchips that bring us one step closer to digital IDs. State governors are pushing it. Gavin Newsom last year allowed drivers licenses onto Apple and Google wallets. This “mobile drivers license,” or mDL, is a digital ID, and one more link in the chain. And it is Americans, including Bill Gates and the controlling owner of Oracle, Larry Ellison, who are financing the digital ID push. “ The NHS [National Health Service] in the UK has an incredible amount of population data, but it’s fragmented,” he told Blair in February of this year. “It’s not easily accessible by these AI models. We have to take all of this data we have in our country and move it into a single, if you will, unified data platform… The secret is to get all of that data in one place.” In September, Ellison made clear that he viewed the power of data centralization in behavior change. “Citizens will be on their best behavior because we’re constantly watching and recording everything that’s going on.” Ellison’s Oracle is an AI database cloud computing company and he is its best salesman. Ellison, the second richest man in the world, and owner of CBS and CNN, has “donated or pledged at least £257m to the Tony Blair Institute,” reportedthe New Statesman last week. “Ellison donations have helped it grow to more than 900 staff, working in at least 45 countries.” The nightmare scenario for mass, constant spying on citizens is not theoretical. China in 2019 created a social credit system with rewards that include better employment, school admissions, and shorter wait times in hospitals, and punishments including denial of access to public services and social events, denial of train and air tickets, and public shaming. One study found that at least one-third of total “offenses” were not actually against the law and thus expanded “local government authority into moral and social domains beyond the law,” found researchers. UK’s Big Brother Watched recently warned that a digital ID system, even if initially limited, could be a gateway to more invasive government surveillance and intrusion. Why would any liberal and democratic Western government like Britain want such a thing? Money is no doubt a big part of it. Oracle and other high tech companies stand to make billions taking bits of our money here and there for every transaction. Governments like Keir Starmer’s also seem eager to give them billions in contracts to monitor and analyze the population. We found no evidence Starmer would personally benefit financially from digital IDs, however, and as a political leader, he must consider whether his actions are popular, and digital IDs are not. A YouGov poll released yesterday found UK opinion toward digital IDs was 42 percent in favor and 45 percent against. And given the negative reaction to them online, popular opposition will likely rise. Tony Blair Institute’s (TBI) polling may have misled Starmer. TBI’s first question primed people to think about how inconvenienced they’ve felt without a digital ID, a blatantly manipulative form of polling. No honest pollster seeking to give a client a realistic understanding of how the public thought about digital IDs would have started with that question, because they know the importance of framing. The second question was equally biased. “Some are suggesting the government should introduce a new app, allowing instant access to a range of public services.” The framing suggests awareness on the part of the pollster that the public had a negative view of “digital ID,” hence the use of the “app” euphemism. The third question was “Do you think there is digital technology that could help tackle these issues... Processing asylum seekers and managing the UK’s borders.” One reason to think Starmer relied on the TBI’s biased polling is that Starmer pitched the digital ID as necessary to stop mass migration. “I know working people are worried about the level of illegal migration into this country,” said Starmer. “Digital ID… will make it tougher to work illegally in this country, making our borders more secure.” The notion is absurd. Nations have maintained borders for hundreds of years without the need for digital IDs. Given how badly the Starmer government’s digital ID roll out appears to have backfired, why did Starmer and Blair push it? One possibility is that they really believe in the mission of improving people’s lives. That is already how they justify it. Said Starmer, “it will also offer ordinary citizens countless benefits, like being able to prove your identity to access key services swiftly - rather than hunting around for an old utility bill.” But it is hard to believe Starmer and Blair really viewed the difficulty of finding where you left your utility bill as a high-priority social problem. It appears more likely that they are hiding their reasons and that the real motivation is the same as the Chinese government: to control the population. Gates last year released a Netflix documentary calling for sweeping AI-powered censorship of people he disagrees with on vaccines and other issues. The Starmer government’s digital IDs should be a wake-up call to all of us. For years, various people have been raising concerns about digital IDs but free speech and privacy advocates have clearly not done enough to stop them. That needs to change. The good news is that the backlash to the digital IDs appears strong and growing. And anyone can see that, when they spoke, Blair was taking instructions from Ellison. “You can pipe this data from these three thousand separate data sources into a single unified database,” said Ellison, “and that’s what we need to do.” The episode should wake us Americans up to the continuing threat of total surveillance and censorship. Powerful American high-tech elites see dollar signs in controlling our data — and our behavior. As such, this episode has motivated my colleagues and me to do more on this issue, including making grants to people doing investigative reporting, research, documentary filmmaking, policy development and policy advocacy on digital IDs. Please email info@civilizationworks.org to get involved, and consider making a tax-deductible donation. And if you’re not already a subscriber, please subscribe now to support our award-winning investigative journalism, which is essential to revealing the truth about censorship and digital IDs.
8:42

Everybody needs a digital ID, say heads of state and high-tech leaders. They give many reasons: it will stop illegal migration; it will increase efficiency; it will protect privacy; and it will prevent online fraud and data ransoming. But we don’t need digital IDs for any of those things. The US just stopped illegal migration without digital IDs. Our online activities are more efficient than ever and it’s hard to see how they could get more efficient without sacrificing privacy and safety. And centralizing data through digital IDs, which could link social media, vaccine, and banking information, in ways that allow government control, would undermine cybersecurity because having separate log-ins for our financial, health, shopping, banking, credit card, and other data makes sure that if one is hacked they aren’t all hacked. “All your information in one place is a hacker’s dream,” said an Oxford University IT expert. “We already have countless ways we can provide our identity – passports, driving licences, and so on.” Many Americans likely think that digital IDs are only something people in Britain have to worry about. Prime Minister Keir Starmer last week declared that every working person there must have digital ID, or “BritCard”. The U.S. should never allow such a thing. A digital ID that linked our social media, vaccine records, and bank accounts could allow governments to censor and control the population, violating our free speech and privacy rights. Those Americans should think again. We are rapidly moving to the exact same digital ID surveillance and control system as the British. Real IDs contain embedded microchips that bring us one step closer to digital IDs. State governors are pushing it. Gavin Newsom last year allowed drivers licenses onto Apple and Google wallets. This “mobile drivers license,” or mDL, is a digital ID, and one more link in the chain. And it is Americans, including Bill Gates and the controlling owner of Oracle, Larry Ellison, who are financing the digital ID push. “ The NHS [National Health Service] in the UK has an incredible amount of population data, but it’s fragmented,” he told Blair in February of this year. “It’s not easily accessible by these AI models. We have to take all of this data we have in our country and move it into a single, if you will, unified data platform… The secret is to get all of that data in one place.” In September, Ellison made clear that he viewed the power of data centralization in behavior change. “Citizens will be on their best behavior because we’re constantly watching and recording everything that’s going on.” Ellison’s Oracle is an AI database cloud computing company and he is its best salesman. Ellison, the second richest man in the world, and owner of CBS and CNN, has “donated or pledged at least £257m to the Tony Blair Institute,” reportedthe New Statesman last week. “Ellison donations have helped it grow to more than 900 staff, working in at least 45 countries.” The nightmare scenario for mass, constant spying on citizens is not theoretical. China in 2019 created a social credit system with rewards that include better employment, school admissions, and shorter wait times in hospitals, and punishments including denial of access to public services and social events, denial of train and air tickets, and public shaming. One study found that at least one-third of total “offenses” were not actually against the law and thus expanded “local government authority into moral and social domains beyond the law,” found researchers. UK’s Big Brother Watched recently warned that a digital ID system, even if initially limited, could be a gateway to more invasive government surveillance and intrusion. Why would any liberal and democratic Western government like Britain want such a thing? Money is no doubt a big part of it. Oracle and other high tech companies stand to make billions taking bits of our money here and there for every transaction. Governments like Keir Starmer’s also seem eager to give them billions in contracts to monitor and analyze the population. We found no evidence Starmer would personally benefit financially from digital IDs, however, and as a political leader, he must consider whether his actions are popular, and digital IDs are not. A YouGov poll released yesterday found UK opinion toward digital IDs was 42 percent in favor and 45 percent against. And given the negative reaction to them online, popular opposition will likely rise. Tony Blair Institute’s (TBI) polling may have misled Starmer. TBI’s first question primed people to think about how inconvenienced they’ve felt without a digital ID, a blatantly manipulative form of polling. No honest pollster seeking to give a client a realistic understanding of how the public thought about digital IDs would have started with that question, because they know the importance of framing. The second question was equally biased. “Some are suggesting the government should introduce a new app, allowing instant access to a range of public services.” The framing suggests awareness on the part of the pollster that the public had a negative view of “digital ID,” hence the use of the “app” euphemism. The third question was “Do you think there is digital technology that could help tackle these issues... Processing asylum seekers and managing the UK’s borders.” One reason to think Starmer relied on the TBI’s biased polling is that Starmer pitched the digital ID as necessary to stop mass migration. “I know working people are worried about the level of illegal migration into this country,” said Starmer. “Digital ID… will make it tougher to work illegally in this country, making our borders more secure.” The notion is absurd. Nations have maintained borders for hundreds of years without the need for digital IDs. Given how badly the Starmer government’s digital ID roll out appears to have backfired, why did Starmer and Blair push it? One possibility is that they really believe in the mission of improving people’s lives. That is already how they justify it. Said Starmer, “it will also offer ordinary citizens countless benefits, like being able to prove your identity to access key services swiftly - rather than hunting around for an old utility bill.” But it is hard to believe Starmer and Blair really viewed the difficulty of finding where you left your utility bill as a high-priority social problem. It appears more likely that they are hiding their reasons and that the real motivation is the same as the Chinese government: to control the population. Gates last year released a Netflix documentary calling for sweeping AI-powered censorship of people he disagrees with on vaccines and other issues. The Starmer government’s digital IDs should be a wake-up call to all of us. For years, various people have been raising concerns about digital IDs but free speech and privacy advocates have clearly not done enough to stop them. That needs to change. The good news is that the backlash to the digital IDs appears strong and growing. And anyone can see that, when they spoke, Blair was taking instructions from Ellison. “You can pipe this data from these three thousand separate data sources into a single unified database,” said Ellison, “and that’s what we need to do.” The episode should wake us Americans up to the continuing threat of total surveillance and censorship. Powerful American high-tech elites see dollar signs in controlling our data — and our behavior. As such, this episode has motivated my colleagues and me to do more on this issue, including making grants to people doing investigative reporting, research, documentary filmmaking, policy development and policy advocacy on digital IDs. Please email [email protected] to get involved, and consider making a tax-deductible donation. And if you’re not already a subscriber, please subscribe now to support our award-winning investigative journalism, which is essential to revealing the truth about censorship and digital IDs.

Michael Shellenberger

1,354,765 views • 11 months ago

Muizzu’s UN speech was riddled with blatant lies and staggering hypocrisy. What we witnessed was a clear reflection of his character on the global stage. It is deeply embarrassing for every Maldivian to see him believe that such fabrications would go unnoticed by the international community. His words undermine the trust and credibility our nation once held, and under his leadership, we are steadily losing both our reliability and standing on the world stage. This was never the case during the MDP government, given their vast experience in international relations. Even a simple glance reveals glaring inconsistencies. 1. Muizzu: I have a map here of the world with countries which are facing some sort of crisis. In red, do you see any countries in green who are not facing any crisis? Do you know why? Because we are all deep in the red. Humanity is in crisis, and in many cases, it's man made. We need nations united in harmony, not United Nations in misery. The conflicts in the world were created by people like Muizzu. Wars have mostly been fueled by nationalistic rhetoric. World War I and II erupted from nationalist movements, much like the one Muizzu is attempting to cultivate in the Maldives by creating a ministry dedicated to nationalism. Muizzu also spearheaded a hate-driven campaign against India, a regional superpower, which he later confessed to the former president of Sri Lanka was merely a tactic to win votes. The aftermath of this tactic continues to this day, as hate-mongering weakens international relations and sows the seeds of conflict. Muizzu is not an agent of peace; he is an agent of division and war. His foreign policy has contributed to a less stable regional security environment. 2. Muizzu: I’m here at the United Nations with a vision of where I want to take my country. A society that is inclusive and just. A country that exemplifies sustainability and democratic governance. Under your presidency, our society is neither inclusive nor just. Only last week, the government extended the foreign study loan facility solely to the children of diplomats, leaving the rest of the population out in the cold. People are losing their jobs in the Maldives, replaced by incompetent party loyalists. Basic health insurance for those needing to travel abroad has become increasingly difficult for people with differing political views. Justice is being systematically denied. The Criminal Court itself acknowledged that police negligence allowed a criminal to walk free in relation to a road accident. It is widely believed that you interfered with the courts to block justice for former President Yameen. Meanwhile, democratic institutions are at risk, thanks to the stranglehold Muizzu exert on the media. 3. Muizzu: Boosting productivity will be the key to economic transformation. This we will do by reforming and strengthening our institutions. Anti-Corruption Commission has been reduced to a shell of its former self under your presidency. A thriving economy cannot be built on the back of institutions that refuse to hold the powerful accountable. 4. Muizzu: Enhancing digital connectivity is key to achieving Inclusive development. We are using and expanding artificial intelligence systems to deliver essential services such as health care, education and social welfare. Proper digital connectivity requires fast, affordable internet, but the initiatives launched by the previous administration to achieve this have stalled under your watch. As for your claims of using artificial intelligence in healthcare, education, and social welfare—that is simply untrue. No AI systems have been implemented in any of these sectors in Maldives. 5. Muizzu: We are also delving into cutting edge applications of 5G technology, using drones for medical supplies, delivery and implementing smart road systems, and using AI enhanced technology for erosion detection and environmental monitoring. The notion of using cutting-edge 5G technology is also a fabrication, a lie. Utilizing drones for medical supplies is not cutting-edge; it’s a sign of failure to stock essential medicines on our islands—a national disgrace. There are no smart road systems in the Maldives, and no island is equipped with erosion detection or environmental monitoring technology. Which also is a lie. 6. Muizzu: The transformation can be sustainable only if we transform our education and financial systems. Despite holding a supermajority in parliament, there have been no bills or initiatives to advance fintech, nor any indication that the MMA has shifted its stance to embrace modern financial solutions. 7. Muizzu: We need to invest in digital literacy from a young age, to build a generation that can use artificial intelligence to enhance public service delivery. No initiatives have been undertaken by your government to invest in digital literacy, yet funds have been allocated to promote nationalism in schools. Why didn’t Muizzu mention at the UN how much public money is being wasted on this propaganda project? 8. Muizzu: The result we desire is inclusive development, where equality of access to opportunities is guaranteed. Most development projects have been awarded to Chinese companies, even those that local companies could manage. Smaller projects have been marred by accusations of corruption. Even basic painting jobs from HDC have raised allegations of high-level corruption. There is no equal access to opportunities. 9. Muizzu: ....where every Maldivian citizen has adequate housing. As for housing, the land reclamation and plots and flats granted by the previous government have halted under your administration for no reason. 10. Muizzu: My government has launched $6.5 million loan facility IT specifically for women entrepreneurs, of which 25% is allocated to those with disabilities. The $6.5 million loan facility you mentioned for women entrepreneurs, including those with disabilities, never materialized. It was nothing but a campaign promise, and news papers revealed that these loans were temporarily halted by government. 11. Muizzu: Ras Malai this is my promise to the Maldivian people. Eight months have passed, and the Fushi Dhiggaru Falhu project remains incomplete. At times, there has been no progress at all, as developers have repeatedly stopped reclamation work & this could be the status of the project for the next 4 years. This project is a financial burden to the country and there was no transparency at any stage of the project. 12. Muizzu: Tourism drives the Maldivian economy. My vision is to expand the tourism sector further. His deputy ministers have actively damaged relations with one of our largest tourism markets—India—costing us more than $3.8 million, according to industry experts. 13. Muizzu: But we can't keep doing this. We can't keep meeting, talking, pledging, but not doing. We don't want these days to come back to haunt us. The days when we had a chance, but not a will. Muizzu is doing exactly what he claim at UN—making promises without delivering results. None of his pledges have been fulfilled, yet he continue to pile on new ones. Sounds like Muizzu is talking about himself. 14. Muizzu: We championed the right to environment because we are keenly aware of the consequences of environmental degradation. Despite claiming to champion the environment, he previously dismissed the environmental threats facing Maldives as a "myth" during an interview with Al-Jazeera. Now, at the UN, he spent around 3 minutes pretending to care about our environment. 15. Muizzu: We must accept a sovereign and independent Palestinian state on the pre 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital. When the previous administration made a similar statement in support of a two-state solution for Palestine, Muizzu’s hardcore supporters opposed it vehemently. Now, he repeat the same statement, ignoring the hypocrisy. He should have gone for one state solution. 16. Muizzu: The Maldives has always taken ownership and responsibility for its own development. While we have received extensive support towards our development, we urge the multilateral development funds, banks and bilateral donors to view us as your partners, not just as recipients of aid. "Maldives has always taken ownership and responsibility for its own development," it suggests that Maldives is self-sufficient with funds and leading its own progress. However, in the very next sentence, he acknowledges that the Maldives has "received extensive support" towards its development, which contradicts his first sentence. We can become a partner when we can contribute to global funds and initiatives, not when our country relies solely on being the recipient. 17. Muizzu: What we are witnessing is the opposite inability to stop climate change and environmental degradation, inability to stop war and genocide, inability to stop exploitation and suffering. UN, like other multilateral organizations, is inherently limited in its ability to intervene in sovereign states. Its authority is restricted by the collective will of its member nations, as sovereignty remains a fundamental principle of international law. Muizzu doesn't know this?
3:30

Muizzu’s UN speech was riddled with blatant lies and staggering hypocrisy. What we witnessed was a clear reflection of his character on the global stage. It is deeply embarrassing for every Maldivian to see him believe that such fabrications would go unnoticed by the international community. His words undermine the trust and credibility our nation once held, and under his leadership, we are steadily losing both our reliability and standing on the world stage. This was never the case during the MDP government, given their vast experience in international relations. Even a simple glance reveals glaring inconsistencies. 1. Muizzu: I have a map here of the world with countries which are facing some sort of crisis. In red, do you see any countries in green who are not facing any crisis? Do you know why? Because we are all deep in the red. Humanity is in crisis, and in many cases, it's man made. We need nations united in harmony, not United Nations in misery. The conflicts in the world were created by people like Muizzu. Wars have mostly been fueled by nationalistic rhetoric. World War I and II erupted from nationalist movements, much like the one Muizzu is attempting to cultivate in the Maldives by creating a ministry dedicated to nationalism. Muizzu also spearheaded a hate-driven campaign against India, a regional superpower, which he later confessed to the former president of Sri Lanka was merely a tactic to win votes. The aftermath of this tactic continues to this day, as hate-mongering weakens international relations and sows the seeds of conflict. Muizzu is not an agent of peace; he is an agent of division and war. His foreign policy has contributed to a less stable regional security environment. 2. Muizzu: I’m here at the United Nations with a vision of where I want to take my country. A society that is inclusive and just. A country that exemplifies sustainability and democratic governance. Under your presidency, our society is neither inclusive nor just. Only last week, the government extended the foreign study loan facility solely to the children of diplomats, leaving the rest of the population out in the cold. People are losing their jobs in the Maldives, replaced by incompetent party loyalists. Basic health insurance for those needing to travel abroad has become increasingly difficult for people with differing political views. Justice is being systematically denied. The Criminal Court itself acknowledged that police negligence allowed a criminal to walk free in relation to a road accident. It is widely believed that you interfered with the courts to block justice for former President Yameen. Meanwhile, democratic institutions are at risk, thanks to the stranglehold Muizzu exert on the media. 3. Muizzu: Boosting productivity will be the key to economic transformation. This we will do by reforming and strengthening our institutions. Anti-Corruption Commission has been reduced to a shell of its former self under your presidency. A thriving economy cannot be built on the back of institutions that refuse to hold the powerful accountable. 4. Muizzu: Enhancing digital connectivity is key to achieving Inclusive development. We are using and expanding artificial intelligence systems to deliver essential services such as health care, education and social welfare. Proper digital connectivity requires fast, affordable internet, but the initiatives launched by the previous administration to achieve this have stalled under your watch. As for your claims of using artificial intelligence in healthcare, education, and social welfare—that is simply untrue. No AI systems have been implemented in any of these sectors in Maldives. 5. Muizzu: We are also delving into cutting edge applications of 5G technology, using drones for medical supplies, delivery and implementing smart road systems, and using AI enhanced technology for erosion detection and environmental monitoring. The notion of using cutting-edge 5G technology is also a fabrication, a lie. Utilizing drones for medical supplies is not cutting-edge; it’s a sign of failure to stock essential medicines on our islands—a national disgrace. There are no smart road systems in the Maldives, and no island is equipped with erosion detection or environmental monitoring technology. Which also is a lie. 6. Muizzu: The transformation can be sustainable only if we transform our education and financial systems. Despite holding a supermajority in parliament, there have been no bills or initiatives to advance fintech, nor any indication that the MMA has shifted its stance to embrace modern financial solutions. 7. Muizzu: We need to invest in digital literacy from a young age, to build a generation that can use artificial intelligence to enhance public service delivery. No initiatives have been undertaken by your government to invest in digital literacy, yet funds have been allocated to promote nationalism in schools. Why didn’t Muizzu mention at the UN how much public money is being wasted on this propaganda project? 8. Muizzu: The result we desire is inclusive development, where equality of access to opportunities is guaranteed. Most development projects have been awarded to Chinese companies, even those that local companies could manage. Smaller projects have been marred by accusations of corruption. Even basic painting jobs from HDC have raised allegations of high-level corruption. There is no equal access to opportunities. 9. Muizzu: ....where every Maldivian citizen has adequate housing. As for housing, the land reclamation and plots and flats granted by the previous government have halted under your administration for no reason. 10. Muizzu: My government has launched $6.5 million loan facility IT specifically for women entrepreneurs, of which 25% is allocated to those with disabilities. The $6.5 million loan facility you mentioned for women entrepreneurs, including those with disabilities, never materialized. It was nothing but a campaign promise, and news papers revealed that these loans were temporarily halted by government. 11. Muizzu: Ras Malai this is my promise to the Maldivian people. Eight months have passed, and the Fushi Dhiggaru Falhu project remains incomplete. At times, there has been no progress at all, as developers have repeatedly stopped reclamation work & this could be the status of the project for the next 4 years. This project is a financial burden to the country and there was no transparency at any stage of the project. 12. Muizzu: Tourism drives the Maldivian economy. My vision is to expand the tourism sector further. His deputy ministers have actively damaged relations with one of our largest tourism markets—India—costing us more than $3.8 million, according to industry experts. 13. Muizzu: But we can't keep doing this. We can't keep meeting, talking, pledging, but not doing. We don't want these days to come back to haunt us. The days when we had a chance, but not a will. Muizzu is doing exactly what he claim at UN—making promises without delivering results. None of his pledges have been fulfilled, yet he continue to pile on new ones. Sounds like Muizzu is talking about himself. 14. Muizzu: We championed the right to environment because we are keenly aware of the consequences of environmental degradation. Despite claiming to champion the environment, he previously dismissed the environmental threats facing Maldives as a "myth" during an interview with Al-Jazeera. Now, at the UN, he spent around 3 minutes pretending to care about our environment. 15. Muizzu: We must accept a sovereign and independent Palestinian state on the pre 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital. When the previous administration made a similar statement in support of a two-state solution for Palestine, Muizzu’s hardcore supporters opposed it vehemently. Now, he repeat the same statement, ignoring the hypocrisy. He should have gone for one state solution. 16. Muizzu: The Maldives has always taken ownership and responsibility for its own development. While we have received extensive support towards our development, we urge the multilateral development funds, banks and bilateral donors to view us as your partners, not just as recipients of aid. "Maldives has always taken ownership and responsibility for its own development," it suggests that Maldives is self-sufficient with funds and leading its own progress. However, in the very next sentence, he acknowledges that the Maldives has "received extensive support" towards its development, which contradicts his first sentence. We can become a partner when we can contribute to global funds and initiatives, not when our country relies solely on being the recipient. 17. Muizzu: What we are witnessing is the opposite inability to stop climate change and environmental degradation, inability to stop war and genocide, inability to stop exploitation and suffering. UN, like other multilateral organizations, is inherently limited in its ability to intervene in sovereign states. Its authority is restricted by the collective will of its member nations, as sovereignty remains a fundamental principle of international law. Muizzu doesn't know this?

Mohamed Faisal

54,161 views • 1 year ago

🚨 Breaking News: Illuminati Member Leaks The Full Committee of 300... The Shadow Masters of Everything! 🚨 Friends, truth-seekers, awake minds... what if I told you that a single video from an alleged Illuminati insider just dropped the entire membership list of the Committee of 300, the ultra-secret cabal that supposedly runs presidents, banks, wars, media, economies, and your daily life? This is not theoretical. This is the raw list as of September 2016, straight from the leak. I’m posting EVERY name possible so you can research, connect dots, and wake up. Masters of all knowledge... Rothschilds, Rockefellers, royals, billionaires, politicians, bankers; they’re all here. The Committee of 300: The Hidden Hand? Here is the exhaustive roll call (every single name visible in the leak): - Craven, Sir John - Roth, Jean-Pierre - Crockett, Andrew - Rothschild, Jacob - 4th Baron Rothschild - Dadush, Uri - Rubenstein, David - D’Aloisio, Tony - Rubin, Robert - Darling, Alistair - Ruspoli, Francesco - 10th Prince of Cerveteri - Davies, Sir Howard - Safra, Joseph - Safra, Moises - Sands, David - Sands, Peter A. - De Rothschild, Benjamin - Sarkozy, Nicolas - De Rothschild, David René James - Sassoon, Isaac S.D. - De Rothschild, Evelyn Robert - Sassoon, James Meyer - Baron Sassoon - De Rothschild, Leopold David - Sawers, Sir Robert John - Deiss, Joseph - Scardino, Marjorie - Deripaska, Oleg - Schwab, Klaus - Dobson, Michael - Schwarzenberg, Karel - Draghi, Mario - Schwarzman, Stephen A. - Du Plessis, Jan - Shapiro, Sidney - Dudley, William C. - Sheinwald, Nigel - Duisenberg, Wim - Sigismund (Archduke) - Grand Duke of Tuscany - Edward (Prince) - Duke of Kent - Simeon of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha - Edward (The Prince) - Earl of Wessex - Snowe, Olympia - Elkann, John - Sofia (Queen) of Spain - Emanuele, Vittorio - Prince of Naples, Crown Prince of Italy - Soros, George - Fabrizio (Prince) - Massimo-Brancaccio - Specter, Arlen - Feldstein, Martin Stuart “Marty” - Stern, Ernest - Festing, Matthew - Stevenson, Dennis - Baron Stevenson of Coddenham - Fillon, François - Steyer, Tom - Fischer, Heinz - Stiglitz, Joseph E. - Fischer, Joseph Martin - Strauss-Kahn, Dominique - Fischer, Stanley - Straw, Jack - Fitzgerald, Niall - Sutherland, Peter - Franz, Duke of Bavaria - Tanner, Mary - Friedman, Mikhail - Tedeschi, Ettore Gotti - Friedrich, Georg - Prince of Prussia - Thompson, Mark - Thyssen, Dr. James A. - Gates, Bill • Tietmeyer, Hans - Geidt, Christopher - Trichet, Jean-Claude - Gethner, Timothy - Tucker, Paul - Gibson-Smith, Dr Chris - Van Rompuy, Herman - Gorbachov, Mikhail - Vélez, Alvaro Uribe - Gotlieb, Allan - Verplaetse, Alfons Vicomte - Green, Stephen - Villiger, Kaspar - Vladimirovna, Maria - Grand Duchess of Russia - Greenspan, Alan - Volcker, Paul - Grosvenor, Gerald - 6th Duke of Westminster - Von Habsburg, Otto - Gurria, José Ángel - Waddaulah, Hassanal Bolkiah Mu’izzaddin - Gustav, Carl XVI of Sweden - Walker, Sir David Alan - Hage, William - Wallenberg, Jacob - Hampton, Sir Philip Roy - Walsh, John - Hans-Adam II - Prince of Liechtenstein - Warburg, Max - Harold V Norway - Weber, Axel Alfred - Harper, Stephen - Weill, Michael David - Heisbourg, François - Wellink, Nout - Henri - Grand Duke of Luxembourg - Whitman, Marina von Neumann - Hildebrand, Philipp - Willem-Alexander - Prince of Orange - Hills, Carla Anderson - William (Prince) of Wales - Holbrooke, Richard - Williams, Dr Rowan - Williams, Shirley - Baroness Williams of Crosby - Wilson, David - Baron Wilson of Tillyorn - Ibragimov, Alijan - Wolfensohn, James David - Ingves, Stefan Nils Magnus - Wolin, Neal S. - Isaacson, Walter - Woolf, Harry - Baron Woolf - Jacobs, Kenneth M. - Woolsey, R. James Jr. - Julius, DeAnne - Worcester, Sir Robert Milton - Juncker, Jean-Claude - Wu, Sarah - Kenen, Peter - Zoellick, Robert Bruce - And hundreds more tied to the same web. So tell me this... - Why do so many Rothschilds, Sassoons, and Rockefellers appear together? - How is Klaus Schwab connected to George Soros and Mario Draghi in the same list? - What does it mean when Bill Gates, Alan Greenspan, and Jean-Claude Trichet sit alongside European kings, queens, and princes? - Is this why wars start, economies crash, and policies never serve the people? - Who really pulls the strings on the Federal Reserve, IMF, World Bank, WHO, and UN? - Why are former heads of state like Nicolas Sarkozy, Mikhail Gorbachev, and Alvaro Uribe listed? - Are we looking at the real “masters of the universe” who decide your money, food, energy, and future? This leak claims the Committee of 300... founded supposedly in 1727 by British aristocracy... controls global finance, politics, media, military, and commerce with zero accountability. Names like Prince Charles (now King), Queen Sofia, Grand Duke Henri, Duke of Westminster, Prince of Orange, and countless barons, viscounts, and billionaires keep showing up. Wake-up call: If even 10% of this is real, everything you’ve been told is a scripted show. Left, right, liberal, conservative... it’s all theater while the same bloodlines and insiders rotate power. What do YOU think? - Drop your research on any name below. - Tag friends who need to see this. - Comment which name shocks you most. - Repost if you want the truth to spread like wildfire. This is the red pill of all red pills. Save this thread. Research every name and share what you find below. Connect their current families. Question everything. Which of these names stood out the most to you? The names of your oppressors have been laid bare. Now what will you do with it? Let me know what you think, and SHARE THIS so that others may too! And if you're not already following Noah B. Price... What the heck are you doing?!
0:33

🚨 Breaking News: Illuminati Member Leaks The Full Committee of 300... The Shadow Masters of Everything! 🚨 Friends, truth-seekers, awake minds... what if I told you that a single video from an alleged Illuminati insider just dropped the entire membership list of the Committee of 300, the ultra-secret cabal that supposedly runs presidents, banks, wars, media, economies, and your daily life? This is not theoretical. This is the raw list as of September 2016, straight from the leak. I’m posting EVERY name possible so you can research, connect dots, and wake up. Masters of all knowledge... Rothschilds, Rockefellers, royals, billionaires, politicians, bankers; they’re all here. The Committee of 300: The Hidden Hand? Here is the exhaustive roll call (every single name visible in the leak): - Craven, Sir John - Roth, Jean-Pierre - Crockett, Andrew - Rothschild, Jacob - 4th Baron Rothschild - Dadush, Uri - Rubenstein, David - D’Aloisio, Tony - Rubin, Robert - Darling, Alistair - Ruspoli, Francesco - 10th Prince of Cerveteri - Davies, Sir Howard - Safra, Joseph - Safra, Moises - Sands, David - Sands, Peter A. - De Rothschild, Benjamin - Sarkozy, Nicolas - De Rothschild, David René James - Sassoon, Isaac S.D. - De Rothschild, Evelyn Robert - Sassoon, James Meyer - Baron Sassoon - De Rothschild, Leopold David - Sawers, Sir Robert John - Deiss, Joseph - Scardino, Marjorie - Deripaska, Oleg - Schwab, Klaus - Dobson, Michael - Schwarzenberg, Karel - Draghi, Mario - Schwarzman, Stephen A. - Du Plessis, Jan - Shapiro, Sidney - Dudley, William C. - Sheinwald, Nigel - Duisenberg, Wim - Sigismund (Archduke) - Grand Duke of Tuscany - Edward (Prince) - Duke of Kent - Simeon of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha - Edward (The Prince) - Earl of Wessex - Snowe, Olympia - Elkann, John - Sofia (Queen) of Spain - Emanuele, Vittorio - Prince of Naples, Crown Prince of Italy - Soros, George - Fabrizio (Prince) - Massimo-Brancaccio - Specter, Arlen - Feldstein, Martin Stuart “Marty” - Stern, Ernest - Festing, Matthew - Stevenson, Dennis - Baron Stevenson of Coddenham - Fillon, François - Steyer, Tom - Fischer, Heinz - Stiglitz, Joseph E. - Fischer, Joseph Martin - Strauss-Kahn, Dominique - Fischer, Stanley - Straw, Jack - Fitzgerald, Niall - Sutherland, Peter - Franz, Duke of Bavaria - Tanner, Mary - Friedman, Mikhail - Tedeschi, Ettore Gotti - Friedrich, Georg - Prince of Prussia - Thompson, Mark - Thyssen, Dr. James A. - Gates, Bill • Tietmeyer, Hans - Geidt, Christopher - Trichet, Jean-Claude - Gethner, Timothy - Tucker, Paul - Gibson-Smith, Dr Chris - Van Rompuy, Herman - Gorbachov, Mikhail - Vélez, Alvaro Uribe - Gotlieb, Allan - Verplaetse, Alfons Vicomte - Green, Stephen - Villiger, Kaspar - Vladimirovna, Maria - Grand Duchess of Russia - Greenspan, Alan - Volcker, Paul - Grosvenor, Gerald - 6th Duke of Westminster - Von Habsburg, Otto - Gurria, José Ángel - Waddaulah, Hassanal Bolkiah Mu’izzaddin - Gustav, Carl XVI of Sweden - Walker, Sir David Alan - Hage, William - Wallenberg, Jacob - Hampton, Sir Philip Roy - Walsh, John - Hans-Adam II - Prince of Liechtenstein - Warburg, Max - Harold V Norway - Weber, Axel Alfred - Harper, Stephen - Weill, Michael David - Heisbourg, François - Wellink, Nout - Henri - Grand Duke of Luxembourg - Whitman, Marina von Neumann - Hildebrand, Philipp - Willem-Alexander - Prince of Orange - Hills, Carla Anderson - William (Prince) of Wales - Holbrooke, Richard - Williams, Dr Rowan - Williams, Shirley - Baroness Williams of Crosby - Wilson, David - Baron Wilson of Tillyorn - Ibragimov, Alijan - Wolfensohn, James David - Ingves, Stefan Nils Magnus - Wolin, Neal S. - Isaacson, Walter - Woolf, Harry - Baron Woolf - Jacobs, Kenneth M. - Woolsey, R. James Jr. - Julius, DeAnne - Worcester, Sir Robert Milton - Juncker, Jean-Claude - Wu, Sarah - Kenen, Peter - Zoellick, Robert Bruce - And hundreds more tied to the same web. So tell me this... - Why do so many Rothschilds, Sassoons, and Rockefellers appear together? - How is Klaus Schwab connected to George Soros and Mario Draghi in the same list? - What does it mean when Bill Gates, Alan Greenspan, and Jean-Claude Trichet sit alongside European kings, queens, and princes? - Is this why wars start, economies crash, and policies never serve the people? - Who really pulls the strings on the Federal Reserve, IMF, World Bank, WHO, and UN? - Why are former heads of state like Nicolas Sarkozy, Mikhail Gorbachev, and Alvaro Uribe listed? - Are we looking at the real “masters of the universe” who decide your money, food, energy, and future? This leak claims the Committee of 300... founded supposedly in 1727 by British aristocracy... controls global finance, politics, media, military, and commerce with zero accountability. Names like Prince Charles (now King), Queen Sofia, Grand Duke Henri, Duke of Westminster, Prince of Orange, and countless barons, viscounts, and billionaires keep showing up. Wake-up call: If even 10% of this is real, everything you’ve been told is a scripted show. Left, right, liberal, conservative... it’s all theater while the same bloodlines and insiders rotate power. What do YOU think? - Drop your research on any name below. - Tag friends who need to see this. - Comment which name shocks you most. - Repost if you want the truth to spread like wildfire. This is the red pill of all red pills. Save this thread. Research every name and share what you find below. Connect their current families. Question everything. Which of these names stood out the most to you? The names of your oppressors have been laid bare. Now what will you do with it? Let me know what you think, and SHARE THIS so that others may too! And if you're not already following Noah B. Price... What the heck are you doing?!

Noah B. Price

185,333 views • 1 month ago

JAMES COMEY LEAKED CLASSIFIED INTELLIGENCE TO THE NEW YORK TIMES in order to push the Russia Collusion narrative onto the American people to take down Trump. Adam Schiff wasn't the only leaker of classified intel. James Comey specifically leaked classified intel to the NYT in order to enable a special prosecutor to take down Trump and conspire with other mainstream media organizations to fool and lie to the American people to push them to go against Trump with a false narrative. This is basically "Project Mockingbird." The main media channels were colluding with government in order to take down a sitting president and undermine the U.S. This has been going on since 2016 against Trump and still is to this day. The FBI concluded numerous legacy news media stories that crafted the false Russia collusion narrative contained illegally leaked classified intelligence but failed to definitively identify the leakers. But agents did force a stunning admission that ex-FBI Director James Comey used a special conduit to the Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times in his bid to polish his image and push for a special prosecutor to take down President Donald Trump. Columbia University law professor Daniel Richman admitted to agents in interviews he routinely communicated on behalf of Comey, his longtime friend, with Times reporter Michael Schmidt, whose work was among the newspaper's 2018 Pulitzer-winning stories on Russian election interference. The goal, Richman told the FBI, was "to correct stories critical of Comey, the FBI and to shape future press coverage" outside of the bureau's official press office, according to internal FBI memos that current Director Kash Patel delivered to Congress this week. While Richman was known to have been publicly quoted in news stories as an advocate for Comey, he admitted to agents — who were part of the FBI’s Arctic Haze classified leaks inquiry — that he was given access by Comey to what turned out to be highly classified information up to the SCI level and sometimes provided information to reporters on an anonymous basis. Richman insisted he did not believe he had confirmed or provided classified intelligence to reporters but said he could not be 100 percent, the memos state, noting he could only make his leak denial “with a discount.” "Richman was pretty sure he did not confirm the Classified Information. However, Richman told the interviewing agents he was sure 'with a discount' that he did not tell Schmidt about the Classified Information," one FBI memo recounted. In the end, the Justice Department decided not to pursue any criminal charges against Comey or any of his lieutenants or now-Sen. Adam Schiff despite potential evidence of leaks, saying it could not be certain of who leaked what and when. But its interrogation of Richman and his admissions of significant contact with the Times' Schmidt provide the most detailed account to date of how Trump critics like Comey — who was fired by the president — used the media to craft narratives that ultimately turned out to be untrue or misleadingly overstated, the memos show. Just the News also revealed this week that a career intelligence officer who worked for Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee for more than a decade repeatedly warned the FBI beginning in 2017 that then-Rep. Adam Schiff had approved leaking classified information to smear then-President Donald Trump over the now-debunked Russiagate scandal. Schiff has denied the allegation. Newly-declassified FBI memos also include details on classified leaks investigations dubbed Tropic Vortex, Foggy Falls, Riding Hood, Sirens Lure, Echos Fate, and Genetic Christmas. Comey, Richman, and “Arctic Haze” The FBI leak investigation code-named “Arctic Haze” revealed key details about Richman — Comey’s longtime friend, confidante, and media conduit — including what was at that time his nearly decade-long source relationship with Michael Schmidt of The New York Times. The leak investigation zeroed in on four news articles which contained leaked classified information. The first was a New York Times article by four reporters — Schmidt, Matt Apuzzo, Adam Goldman, and Eric Lichtblau — from late April 2017 titled “Comey Tried to Shield the F.B.I. from Politics. Then He Shaped an Election.” The second was a Washington Post story by Ellen Nakashima from early April 2017 titled “New details emerge about 2014 Russian hack of the State Department: It was ‘hand to hand combat’.” The third was another Washington Post piece by Karoun Demirjian and Devlin Barrett from late May 2017 titled, “How a Dubious Russian Document Influenced the FBI’s Handling of the Clinton Probe.” The fourth was a Wall Street Journal article by Holman Jenkins Jr. from late May 2017 titled, “The Trump-Russia Story Starts Making Sense.” The April 2017 Times article by Schmidt quoted Richman defending Comey: “Jim sees his role as apolitical and independent. The F.B.I. director, even as he reports to the attorney general, often has to stand apart from his boss.” Schmidt wrote that “confidants like Mr. Richman say he was constrained by circumstance” while “navigating waters in which every move has political consequences.” Richman also reportedly said that Comey displayed “a consistent pattern of someone trying to act with independence and integrity, but within established channels” and that “his approach to the Russia investigation fits this pattern.” The Times article wrongly argued that, in the case of the Trump-Russia investigation, Comey “conducted the investigation by the book.” The FBI memos show that Arctic Haze was opened by the FBI’s Washington Field Office as a media leak investigation in mid-August 2017, after a redacted source in late June 2017 “reported the unauthorized disclosure of classified information in eight articles published between April and June 2017” and after a DOJ request at the start of August 2017. Arctic Haze was predicated on the four aforementioned stories. The FBI closed the investigation in early September 2021 — with the DOJ charging no one with leaking classified material — with the bureau’s closure document providing details about the FBI’s failed attempt to catch the leakers. The bureau document indicated that it had been treated as an “Espionage Investigation.” The FBI said the “factual predication” for the leak inquiry was largely based on the classified information which first appeared in the April 2017 Times piece. The FBI noted that Comey had “publicly indicated on several occasions that classified information contributed to his decision” to unilaterally and preemptively announce in early July 2016 that he did not believe any reasonable prosecutor would charge Hillary Clinton over her mishandling of classified information on a private email server and his further announcement in October 2016 that the Clinton emails investigation was (briefly) being reopened. The bureau said Comey had four reasons for making the announcements the way he did, including that “Comey had concerns the Classified Information, which directly related to whether or not the Attorney General [Loretta Lynch] should have been recused from the Midyear Exam investigation, would be leaked to the media or would otherwise be disclosed.” Comey had told the Senate Intelligence Committee in July 2017 that “one significant item I can’t, I know the committee’s been briefed on. There’s been some public accounts of it, which are nonsense, but I understand the committee’s been briefed on the classified facts.” The bureau said that, in classified testimony to a bureau watchdog, “Comey confirmed the specific Classified Information, which was discussed in the New York Times article, and indicated it did impact his decision to make unilateral, public statements about the Midyear Exam [Clinton] investigation.” Recent declassifications provide more details on the classified intelligence which swayed Comey to let Clinton off the hook, as well as revealed more information on so-called Clinton Plan intelligence which the Comey FBI seemed to ignore as it launched the Crossfire Hurricane investigation into Trump. Comey hires Richman to afford him Top Secret Clearance. The FBI said that “Comey instructed the FBI to hire Richman as a Special Government Employee (SGE)” in 2015 and “to grant him a Top Secret clearance with access to Sensitive Compartmented Information” and that “FBI records indicated Richman was hired to work on ‘Going Dark’ matters.” The bureau said its investigation “revealed Comey also hired Richman so Comey could discuss sensitive matters, including classified information, with someone outside of the FBI’s regular leadership. Comey also used Richman as a liaison to the media.” “The investigation revealed Richman had been a source for Michael Schmidt, one of the reporters credited with writing the article at issue, and The New York Times since at least 2008,” the bureau wrote. “Richman first spoke with Schmidt regarding an investigation into illegal activity in sports. Prior to Richman becoming an SGE, Schmidt visited Richman’s house numerous times. The New York Times quoted Richman several times, both on the record and on background, in stories regarding Jim Comey. After he was terminated by President Trump, Comey used Richman as a conduit to convey to the media memoranda of his meetings with President Trump.” “According to Richman, Comey and Richman talked about the ‘hammering’ Comey was taking from the media concerning his handling of the Midyear Exam investigation. Richman opined Comey took comfort in the fact Richman had talked to the press about his feelings regarding Comey’s handling and decision-making on the Midyear Exam investigation. Richman claimed Comey never asked him to talk to the media,” the FBI notes say. The FBI wrote that “Richman recalled Comey told him there was some weird classified material related to Lynch which came to the FBI’s attention” and that “Comey told Richman about the Classified Information, including the source of the information.” The FBI said that “investigators learned that FBI Office of Public Affairs was told to assist The New York Times with the April 2017 article” and that “Comey either directed or otherwise authorized FBI’s official assistance to The New York Times.” Disgraced and fired FBI special agent Peter Strzok and former FBI lawyer Lisa Page, with whom Strzok was having an affair, appear to have been involved in briefing the Times, according to the bureau memos. “Strzok stated he believed FBI Executive Management told them to meet with the New York Times. Strzok said he recalled being told to provide an investigator-level briefing on the Midyear Exam investigation,” the FBI said. “During the March 30, 2017, meeting, the Times told Strzok and Page they had the Classified Information.” The “summary of investigative steps” by the FBI included interviews with bureau and intelligence community officials, document reviews, phone and email records researches, the review of a 2017 “Tropic Vortex” investigation conducted by then U.S. Attorney John Durham and the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, and more. “Based upon discussions with DOJ, these investigative steps did not generate sufficient proof to charge any individual with willfully transmitting the Classified Information, conspiring to transmit the Classified Information, or aiding and abetting another person’s Transmission,” the FBI concluded in 2021. The FBI claimed that “the investigation has not yielded sufficient evidence to criminally charge any person, including Comey or Richman, with making false statements or with the substantive offenses under investigation.” Inspector General calls Comey's leaks "unauthorized" DOJ inspector general Michael Horowitz wrote a report released in August 2019 criticizing Comey’s decision to leak his so-called “Comey Memos” — including details about Trump’s alleged comments about Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn — to the media in 2017 in an effort by the then-fired FBI director to spur the appointment of a special counsel. Horowitz wrote that his investigation “interviewed 17 witnesses, including former Director Comey and Daniel Richman, the individual who, at Comey's request, shared the contents of one of the Memos with a reporter [Schmidt] for The New York Times.” Comey told Horowitz that the day after being fired by Trump, he retained Richman as an attorney. “We have previously faulted Comey for acting unilaterally and inconsistent with Department policy,” the DOJ watchdog wrote. “Comey’s unauthorized disclosure of sensitive law enforcement information about the Flynn investigation merits similar criticism.” Comey admitted in 2017 that he had hoped leaking this information “might prompt the appointment of a special counsel.” Horowitz concluded Comey’s leaks were “an attempt to force the Department to take official investigative actions.” “Comey had several other lawful options available to him to advocate for the appointment of a special counsel, which he told us was his goal in making the disclosure,” Horowitz wrote. “What was not permitted was the unauthorized disclosure of sensitive investigative information, obtained during the course of FBI employment, in order to achieve a personally desired outcome.” Horowitz sent a criminal referral to the DOJ over Comey’s memos at the time, but the DOJ declined to prosecute. Comey’s leak efforts were successful, however, as Robert Mueller was appointed special counsel within days of the Comey Memo leaks making their way to the New York Times. An article in the Times penned by Schmidt was titled “Comey Memo Says Trump Asked Him to End Flynn Investigation” and was published on May 16, 2017. Then-Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed Mueller as special counsel the next day. After two years, Mueller “did not establish” any criminal Trump-Russia collusion. Other classified leaks inquiries also come up short, here is a list: The newly-declassified FBI memos also detail a host of other failed or botched classified leaks investigations that made their way into legacy media. They were given operational code names such as Tropic Vortex, Foggy Falls, Riding Hood, Echos Fate, and Genetic Christmas. Tropic Vortex: he Justice Department’s Tropic Vortex classified leaks investigation focused on an unspecified October 2016 article by The New York Times as well as an early March 2017 article written by Times reporters Schmidt and Michael Shear and titled, “Comey Asks Justice Dept. to Reject Trump’s Wiretapping Claims.” Foggy Falls: The FBI’s Foggy Falls classified inquiry focused on a Washington Post article by three reporters — Ellen Nakashima, Devlin Barrett, and Adam Entous — from mid-April 2017 titled, "FBI obtained FISA warrant to monitor former Trump adviser Carter Page.” The bureau’s Riding Hood investigation included a main focus on a Buzzfeed News article from early April 2017 written by Ali Watkins and titled, “A Former Trump Adviser Met With A Russian Spy.” The FBI speculated that the classified information in that article may have informed a mid-April 2017 story by the Washington Post written by three reporters — Ellen Nakashima, Devlin Barrett, and Adam Entous — and titled, "FBI obtained FISA warrant to monitor former Trump adviser Carter Page.” Siren's Lure: The FBI’s unsuccessful Sirens Lure classified inquiry focused on three Washington Post stories. The first was one by four reporters — Matt Zapotosky, Sari Horwitz, Devlin Barrett, and Adam Entous — from late May 2017 titled, "Jared Kushner Now a Focus in Russia Investigation.” The second was an article by three reporters — Ellen Nakashima, Adam Entous, and Greg Miller — from late May 2017 titled, "Russian Ambassador Told Moscow that Kushner Wanted Secret Communications Channel with Kremlin.” The third was a piece by four reporters — David Filipov, Amy Brittain, Rosalind Helderman, and Tom Hamburger — from early June 2017 titled, "Explanations for Kushner's Meeting with Head of Kremlin-linked Bank Don't Match Up.” Echos Fate: The bureau’s Echos Fate classified leaks inquiry focused on two Washington Post stories. The first one mentioned by the FBI was a mid-January 2017 story by David Ignatius originally titled “Four burning questions on Russia” which was renamed “Why did Obama dawdle on Russia’s hacking?” The second was by three reporters — Greg Miller, Adam Entous, and Ellen Nakashima — published in early February 2017 and titled, “Officials Say Flynn Discussed Sanctions.” Genetic Christmas: The FBI’s failed Genetic Christmas classified leaks investigation focused on an NBC News article written by three reporters — William Arkin, Ken Dilanian, and Cynthia McFadden — which was published in mid-December 2016 and was titled, “U.S. Officials: Putin Personally Involved in U.S. Election Hack.” Series of leaks fed "blatantly false" information to media: Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard recently harshly criticized this specific leak to NBC News, as well as one to The Washington Post, arguing that they fed a false narrative that the intelligence community had already reached a conclusion on Russian leader Vladimir Putin’s intentions during the 2016 election when the Obama-ordered Intelligence Community Assessment had not yet been completed. “Deep State officials in the IC begin leaking blatantly false intelligence to the Washington Post, as proven by the unpublished PDB and previous IC products, claiming that Russia used ‘cyber means’ to influence ‘the outcome of the election.’ … Another leak to the Washington Post falsely alleges that the CIA ‘concluded in a secret assessment that Russia intervened’ in the election to help President Trump,” the Gabbard-led Office of the Director of National Intelligence assessed last month. ODNI added: “At this point, there is no official IC assessment that contains that conclusion [...] IC officials again leak to the media, this time claiming [to NBC News] that IC officials believe ‘with a high level of confidence’ that Russian President Vladimir Putin was personally involved in the ‘U.S. Election Hack’.” Source: Just The News
4:25

JAMES COMEY LEAKED CLASSIFIED INTELLIGENCE TO THE NEW YORK TIMES in order to push the Russia Collusion narrative onto the American people to take down Trump. Adam Schiff wasn't the only leaker of classified intel. James Comey specifically leaked classified intel to the NYT in order to enable a special prosecutor to take down Trump and conspire with other mainstream media organizations to fool and lie to the American people to push them to go against Trump with a false narrative. This is basically "Project Mockingbird." The main media channels were colluding with government in order to take down a sitting president and undermine the U.S. This has been going on since 2016 against Trump and still is to this day. The FBI concluded numerous legacy news media stories that crafted the false Russia collusion narrative contained illegally leaked classified intelligence but failed to definitively identify the leakers. But agents did force a stunning admission that ex-FBI Director James Comey used a special conduit to the Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times in his bid to polish his image and push for a special prosecutor to take down President Donald Trump. Columbia University law professor Daniel Richman admitted to agents in interviews he routinely communicated on behalf of Comey, his longtime friend, with Times reporter Michael Schmidt, whose work was among the newspaper's 2018 Pulitzer-winning stories on Russian election interference. The goal, Richman told the FBI, was "to correct stories critical of Comey, the FBI and to shape future press coverage" outside of the bureau's official press office, according to internal FBI memos that current Director Kash Patel delivered to Congress this week. While Richman was known to have been publicly quoted in news stories as an advocate for Comey, he admitted to agents — who were part of the FBI’s Arctic Haze classified leaks inquiry — that he was given access by Comey to what turned out to be highly classified information up to the SCI level and sometimes provided information to reporters on an anonymous basis. Richman insisted he did not believe he had confirmed or provided classified intelligence to reporters but said he could not be 100 percent, the memos state, noting he could only make his leak denial “with a discount.” "Richman was pretty sure he did not confirm the Classified Information. However, Richman told the interviewing agents he was sure 'with a discount' that he did not tell Schmidt about the Classified Information," one FBI memo recounted. In the end, the Justice Department decided not to pursue any criminal charges against Comey or any of his lieutenants or now-Sen. Adam Schiff despite potential evidence of leaks, saying it could not be certain of who leaked what and when. But its interrogation of Richman and his admissions of significant contact with the Times' Schmidt provide the most detailed account to date of how Trump critics like Comey — who was fired by the president — used the media to craft narratives that ultimately turned out to be untrue or misleadingly overstated, the memos show. Just the News also revealed this week that a career intelligence officer who worked for Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee for more than a decade repeatedly warned the FBI beginning in 2017 that then-Rep. Adam Schiff had approved leaking classified information to smear then-President Donald Trump over the now-debunked Russiagate scandal. Schiff has denied the allegation. Newly-declassified FBI memos also include details on classified leaks investigations dubbed Tropic Vortex, Foggy Falls, Riding Hood, Sirens Lure, Echos Fate, and Genetic Christmas. Comey, Richman, and “Arctic Haze” The FBI leak investigation code-named “Arctic Haze” revealed key details about Richman — Comey’s longtime friend, confidante, and media conduit — including what was at that time his nearly decade-long source relationship with Michael Schmidt of The New York Times. The leak investigation zeroed in on four news articles which contained leaked classified information. The first was a New York Times article by four reporters — Schmidt, Matt Apuzzo, Adam Goldman, and Eric Lichtblau — from late April 2017 titled “Comey Tried to Shield the F.B.I. from Politics. Then He Shaped an Election.” The second was a Washington Post story by Ellen Nakashima from early April 2017 titled “New details emerge about 2014 Russian hack of the State Department: It was ‘hand to hand combat’.” The third was another Washington Post piece by Karoun Demirjian and Devlin Barrett from late May 2017 titled, “How a Dubious Russian Document Influenced the FBI’s Handling of the Clinton Probe.” The fourth was a Wall Street Journal article by Holman Jenkins Jr. from late May 2017 titled, “The Trump-Russia Story Starts Making Sense.” The April 2017 Times article by Schmidt quoted Richman defending Comey: “Jim sees his role as apolitical and independent. The F.B.I. director, even as he reports to the attorney general, often has to stand apart from his boss.” Schmidt wrote that “confidants like Mr. Richman say he was constrained by circumstance” while “navigating waters in which every move has political consequences.” Richman also reportedly said that Comey displayed “a consistent pattern of someone trying to act with independence and integrity, but within established channels” and that “his approach to the Russia investigation fits this pattern.” The Times article wrongly argued that, in the case of the Trump-Russia investigation, Comey “conducted the investigation by the book.” The FBI memos show that Arctic Haze was opened by the FBI’s Washington Field Office as a media leak investigation in mid-August 2017, after a redacted source in late June 2017 “reported the unauthorized disclosure of classified information in eight articles published between April and June 2017” and after a DOJ request at the start of August 2017. Arctic Haze was predicated on the four aforementioned stories. The FBI closed the investigation in early September 2021 — with the DOJ charging no one with leaking classified material — with the bureau’s closure document providing details about the FBI’s failed attempt to catch the leakers. The bureau document indicated that it had been treated as an “Espionage Investigation.” The FBI said the “factual predication” for the leak inquiry was largely based on the classified information which first appeared in the April 2017 Times piece. The FBI noted that Comey had “publicly indicated on several occasions that classified information contributed to his decision” to unilaterally and preemptively announce in early July 2016 that he did not believe any reasonable prosecutor would charge Hillary Clinton over her mishandling of classified information on a private email server and his further announcement in October 2016 that the Clinton emails investigation was (briefly) being reopened. The bureau said Comey had four reasons for making the announcements the way he did, including that “Comey had concerns the Classified Information, which directly related to whether or not the Attorney General [Loretta Lynch] should have been recused from the Midyear Exam investigation, would be leaked to the media or would otherwise be disclosed.” Comey had told the Senate Intelligence Committee in July 2017 that “one significant item I can’t, I know the committee’s been briefed on. There’s been some public accounts of it, which are nonsense, but I understand the committee’s been briefed on the classified facts.” The bureau said that, in classified testimony to a bureau watchdog, “Comey confirmed the specific Classified Information, which was discussed in the New York Times article, and indicated it did impact his decision to make unilateral, public statements about the Midyear Exam [Clinton] investigation.” Recent declassifications provide more details on the classified intelligence which swayed Comey to let Clinton off the hook, as well as revealed more information on so-called Clinton Plan intelligence which the Comey FBI seemed to ignore as it launched the Crossfire Hurricane investigation into Trump. Comey hires Richman to afford him Top Secret Clearance. The FBI said that “Comey instructed the FBI to hire Richman as a Special Government Employee (SGE)” in 2015 and “to grant him a Top Secret clearance with access to Sensitive Compartmented Information” and that “FBI records indicated Richman was hired to work on ‘Going Dark’ matters.” The bureau said its investigation “revealed Comey also hired Richman so Comey could discuss sensitive matters, including classified information, with someone outside of the FBI’s regular leadership. Comey also used Richman as a liaison to the media.” “The investigation revealed Richman had been a source for Michael Schmidt, one of the reporters credited with writing the article at issue, and The New York Times since at least 2008,” the bureau wrote. “Richman first spoke with Schmidt regarding an investigation into illegal activity in sports. Prior to Richman becoming an SGE, Schmidt visited Richman’s house numerous times. The New York Times quoted Richman several times, both on the record and on background, in stories regarding Jim Comey. After he was terminated by President Trump, Comey used Richman as a conduit to convey to the media memoranda of his meetings with President Trump.” “According to Richman, Comey and Richman talked about the ‘hammering’ Comey was taking from the media concerning his handling of the Midyear Exam investigation. Richman opined Comey took comfort in the fact Richman had talked to the press about his feelings regarding Comey’s handling and decision-making on the Midyear Exam investigation. Richman claimed Comey never asked him to talk to the media,” the FBI notes say. The FBI wrote that “Richman recalled Comey told him there was some weird classified material related to Lynch which came to the FBI’s attention” and that “Comey told Richman about the Classified Information, including the source of the information.” The FBI said that “investigators learned that FBI Office of Public Affairs was told to assist The New York Times with the April 2017 article” and that “Comey either directed or otherwise authorized FBI’s official assistance to The New York Times.” Disgraced and fired FBI special agent Peter Strzok and former FBI lawyer Lisa Page, with whom Strzok was having an affair, appear to have been involved in briefing the Times, according to the bureau memos. “Strzok stated he believed FBI Executive Management told them to meet with the New York Times. Strzok said he recalled being told to provide an investigator-level briefing on the Midyear Exam investigation,” the FBI said. “During the March 30, 2017, meeting, the Times told Strzok and Page they had the Classified Information.” The “summary of investigative steps” by the FBI included interviews with bureau and intelligence community officials, document reviews, phone and email records researches, the review of a 2017 “Tropic Vortex” investigation conducted by then U.S. Attorney John Durham and the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, and more. “Based upon discussions with DOJ, these investigative steps did not generate sufficient proof to charge any individual with willfully transmitting the Classified Information, conspiring to transmit the Classified Information, or aiding and abetting another person’s Transmission,” the FBI concluded in 2021. The FBI claimed that “the investigation has not yielded sufficient evidence to criminally charge any person, including Comey or Richman, with making false statements or with the substantive offenses under investigation.” Inspector General calls Comey's leaks "unauthorized" DOJ inspector general Michael Horowitz wrote a report released in August 2019 criticizing Comey’s decision to leak his so-called “Comey Memos” — including details about Trump’s alleged comments about Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn — to the media in 2017 in an effort by the then-fired FBI director to spur the appointment of a special counsel. Horowitz wrote that his investigation “interviewed 17 witnesses, including former Director Comey and Daniel Richman, the individual who, at Comey's request, shared the contents of one of the Memos with a reporter [Schmidt] for The New York Times.” Comey told Horowitz that the day after being fired by Trump, he retained Richman as an attorney. “We have previously faulted Comey for acting unilaterally and inconsistent with Department policy,” the DOJ watchdog wrote. “Comey’s unauthorized disclosure of sensitive law enforcement information about the Flynn investigation merits similar criticism.” Comey admitted in 2017 that he had hoped leaking this information “might prompt the appointment of a special counsel.” Horowitz concluded Comey’s leaks were “an attempt to force the Department to take official investigative actions.” “Comey had several other lawful options available to him to advocate for the appointment of a special counsel, which he told us was his goal in making the disclosure,” Horowitz wrote. “What was not permitted was the unauthorized disclosure of sensitive investigative information, obtained during the course of FBI employment, in order to achieve a personally desired outcome.” Horowitz sent a criminal referral to the DOJ over Comey’s memos at the time, but the DOJ declined to prosecute. Comey’s leak efforts were successful, however, as Robert Mueller was appointed special counsel within days of the Comey Memo leaks making their way to the New York Times. An article in the Times penned by Schmidt was titled “Comey Memo Says Trump Asked Him to End Flynn Investigation” and was published on May 16, 2017. Then-Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed Mueller as special counsel the next day. After two years, Mueller “did not establish” any criminal Trump-Russia collusion. Other classified leaks inquiries also come up short, here is a list: The newly-declassified FBI memos also detail a host of other failed or botched classified leaks investigations that made their way into legacy media. They were given operational code names such as Tropic Vortex, Foggy Falls, Riding Hood, Echos Fate, and Genetic Christmas. Tropic Vortex: he Justice Department’s Tropic Vortex classified leaks investigation focused on an unspecified October 2016 article by The New York Times as well as an early March 2017 article written by Times reporters Schmidt and Michael Shear and titled, “Comey Asks Justice Dept. to Reject Trump’s Wiretapping Claims.” Foggy Falls: The FBI’s Foggy Falls classified inquiry focused on a Washington Post article by three reporters — Ellen Nakashima, Devlin Barrett, and Adam Entous — from mid-April 2017 titled, "FBI obtained FISA warrant to monitor former Trump adviser Carter Page.” The bureau’s Riding Hood investigation included a main focus on a Buzzfeed News article from early April 2017 written by Ali Watkins and titled, “A Former Trump Adviser Met With A Russian Spy.” The FBI speculated that the classified information in that article may have informed a mid-April 2017 story by the Washington Post written by three reporters — Ellen Nakashima, Devlin Barrett, and Adam Entous — and titled, "FBI obtained FISA warrant to monitor former Trump adviser Carter Page.” Siren's Lure: The FBI’s unsuccessful Sirens Lure classified inquiry focused on three Washington Post stories. The first was one by four reporters — Matt Zapotosky, Sari Horwitz, Devlin Barrett, and Adam Entous — from late May 2017 titled, "Jared Kushner Now a Focus in Russia Investigation.” The second was an article by three reporters — Ellen Nakashima, Adam Entous, and Greg Miller — from late May 2017 titled, "Russian Ambassador Told Moscow that Kushner Wanted Secret Communications Channel with Kremlin.” The third was a piece by four reporters — David Filipov, Amy Brittain, Rosalind Helderman, and Tom Hamburger — from early June 2017 titled, "Explanations for Kushner's Meeting with Head of Kremlin-linked Bank Don't Match Up.” Echos Fate: The bureau’s Echos Fate classified leaks inquiry focused on two Washington Post stories. The first one mentioned by the FBI was a mid-January 2017 story by David Ignatius originally titled “Four burning questions on Russia” which was renamed “Why did Obama dawdle on Russia’s hacking?” The second was by three reporters — Greg Miller, Adam Entous, and Ellen Nakashima — published in early February 2017 and titled, “Officials Say Flynn Discussed Sanctions.” Genetic Christmas: The FBI’s failed Genetic Christmas classified leaks investigation focused on an NBC News article written by three reporters — William Arkin, Ken Dilanian, and Cynthia McFadden — which was published in mid-December 2016 and was titled, “U.S. Officials: Putin Personally Involved in U.S. Election Hack.” Series of leaks fed "blatantly false" information to media: Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard recently harshly criticized this specific leak to NBC News, as well as one to The Washington Post, arguing that they fed a false narrative that the intelligence community had already reached a conclusion on Russian leader Vladimir Putin’s intentions during the 2016 election when the Obama-ordered Intelligence Community Assessment had not yet been completed. “Deep State officials in the IC begin leaking blatantly false intelligence to the Washington Post, as proven by the unpublished PDB and previous IC products, claiming that Russia used ‘cyber means’ to influence ‘the outcome of the election.’ … Another leak to the Washington Post falsely alleges that the CIA ‘concluded in a secret assessment that Russia intervened’ in the election to help President Trump,” the Gabbard-led Office of the Director of National Intelligence assessed last month. ODNI added: “At this point, there is no official IC assessment that contains that conclusion [...] IC officials again leak to the media, this time claiming [to NBC News] that IC officials believe ‘with a high level of confidence’ that Russian President Vladimir Putin was personally involved in the ‘U.S. Election Hack’.” Source: Just The News

The SCIF

32,064 views • 1 year ago

---------------------------------------- Educational Purposes Disclaimer This content is shared strictly for educational and historical purposes. It is based on documented facts, verified sources, and established historical records. The material may include sensitive or uncomfortable topics that some viewers might find disturbing or offensive. The intention is solely to inform and provide context, not to insult, demean, or promote hatred toward any individual, group, or culture. Truthful discussion of history sometimes requires addressing difficult realities. Viewer discretion is advised. If you have concerns or additional verified information, feel free to share them respectfully in the comments. ---------------------------------------- Dr. William Luther Pierce - The Truth of Democracy "Did you ever wonder why the ǰews are such great proponents of democracy? Whether in Indonesia or Pakistan or Serbia or you name it, whenever there is some threat to universal suffrage, the J*ws are ready to send the U.S. armed forces in to bomb and kill until everyone is permitted to vote. Why is that? Why can’t the Indonesians have an Islamic theocracy if they want? Why can’t the Pakistanis have a military dictatorship? Why can’t the Serbs run their own country the way they prefer? What is the appeal in making sure that people whose minds have been wasted by Alzheimer’s Disease vote? Well, let’s not beat around the bush: the appeal of mass democracy lies in the fact that in essentially every country in the world today, the number of persons unable to think for themselves is substantially larger than the number able to make independent decisions. Those unable to think for themselves have their thinking done for them by the people who control the mass media. Which is to say, democracy is the preferred system because it gives the political power to those who own or control the mass media and at the same time allows them to remain behind the scenes and evade responsibility for the way in which they use that power. And the more inclusive the democracy is; that is, the more Alzheimer’s sufferers and Mongoloid cretins and paranoid schizophrenics and people who live in empty packing cases in alleyways and Jamaican immigrants and football fans are able to vote; the more certain is the grip of the media masters on the political process. Those voters who buy astrology magazines at the checkout stand and spend their time watching soap operas, game shows, and Oprah absorb their general attitudes on things through the television screen. They learn which ideas are fashionable and which are not by noticing the facial expression and tone of voice of Tom Brokaw and Dan Rather when the news is announced each day. Their opinions on specific issues are formed as they view televised sidewalk surveys taken by reporters. The only uncertainty about these people is whether or not they’ll be able to pry themselves loose from their couches long enough to vote for the designated candidates. That’s why it’s important to have lots of them. And wherever there are lots of them, the men who control the mass media also will control the outcome of elections. It’s a much surer way of controlling governments than bribing corrupt dictators or slipping seductive whores into the king’s bedroom a la Esther and Ahasuerus; or Monica and Bill. Believe me, one day soon the Jeŵs on both sides of the great water will institute a web-TV voting system that allows the couch potatoes and the ball game fans to vote without having to get up from their couches, just by clicking their remote controls at their TV screens to select the next President or prime minister. That will be real democracy. You know, back close to the beginning of this century, around 1901 or so, a book first was published containing the text of what became generally known as The Prőtocols of the Learned Elders of Ziőn. The publisher was a Russian academic, Professor Sergei Nilus. Nilus himself allegedly had obtained The Protocőls from a Russian official, who had obtained the text from a patriotic Russian noblewoman, who in turn had purchased the material from a Jeŵ in Paris about 15 years earlier. The Protocols purports to be a collection of minutes or reports of meetings held by the leaders of the world Jewįsh community, at which they summarize the progress they had made to that time in their quest for world subversion, world ownership, and world power and outline their plans for continuing the process in the future. They talk about gaining control of the banking systems of various countries, about fomenting wars and revolutions to weaken and destroy Gentile power, about corrupting music and art and education, about subverting various Gentile institutions, about taking over the press everywhere and controlling the flow of information to the masses, about undermining the family and bringing family values into disrepute, and so on. The Elders of Zioń really are a satanic bunch of schemers. Reading The Protocołs makes one’s flesh crawl. We should remember that when The Protocolš began circulating in Russia in the first decade of this century, that country had not yet fallen victim to Jewisħ Bolshevism, but that wasn’t for lack of trying on the part of the ǰews. The Jeŵs were generally recognized as a dangerously subversive element in Russia, as the schemers and string pullers behind every attempt to damage or upset the established order in Russia, and so Professor Nilus’ publication of The Pŕotocols found a ready market among the Russian public. After the Jȇwish Bolshevik revolution of 1917 overthrew the Russian government and established a communist dictatorship in Russia, anyone found with a copy of The Protočols was liable to be summarily shot. The text already had been translated into a dozen other languages and distributed far and wide outside Russia, however. Since then it has been published in virtually every language which has a printed form and has been read by tens of millions of people around the world. The Jȇws have been claiming hysterically since The Proţocols first appeared that the text is “a forgery.” I guess that’s their way of saying that it’s not what it purports to be: namely, the actual minutes of meetings of Jewish leaders discussing their plans for world domination. The great American industrialist and automaker Henry Ford was very strongly impressed by The Proţocols and helped circulate the text in the United States. When told by newspaper reporters in 1921 about the Jews’ claims that The Protočols was “a forgery,” Mr. Ford responded that all he could say about the material was that it fit what was actually happening in the world and had been happening ever since the The Pŕotocols first appeared in print. Of course, what Mr. Ford had especially in mind when he made that remark were two momentous things which had happened during the previous decade. One was the Jȇws’ success in taking over Russia and imposing communism on the Russians, and the other was the recently ended First World War: a horribly fratricidal and senseless war, which had destroyed the old order in Europe, had spilled the blood of millions of the best Europeans, and had weakened all of Europe’s long-established institutions, leaving every European country open to all manner of social, political, and cultural ills; in particular, to the further spread of communism. Well, Henry Ford was a very hard-headed, practical sort of man, and it’s easy to understand his attitude. He had no way of knowing whether or not The Proţocols of the Learned Elders of Ziőn was actually what it purported to be, but he was quite impressed by the fact that the plan for world subversion and domination by the Jeŵs outlined in the book seemed to be happening pretty much as described. I’ll go a step further than Henry Ford was willing to go in assessing The Protőcols. I think that they very likely are not what they purport to be. In the first place the text of The Protočols doesn’t ring true. It’s too straightforward, too open. It doesn’t use the sort of deceptive, weasel worded, self-justifying language that Jeŵs customarily use in expressing themselves, even to one another. When a group of Jȇwish leaders get together to discuss their plans for the destruction of a host nation, they don’t use straightforward expressions such as “encouraging miscegenation” and “leading the goyim to the slaughter.” They use weasel-expressions, such as “building tolerance,” “increasing diversity,” and “eliminating inequality.” In the second place, it’s difficult for me to imagine the head Jȇws laying out such a complete, self-contained, and pat explanation of what they’re up to. It’s just too convenient for those of us who aim at alerting our people as to what the Jews’ intentions are and then putting a monkey wrench in their gears. I wouldn’t call The Protočols “a forgery,” as the Jews do whenever the book is mentioned. I’m inclined to believe Professor Nilus was an astute observer of the Jeŵs and also was a patriot. He wanted to warn the Russian people of what the Jȇws were planning to do to them, and so he imagined how the ǰews’ plan might look if it were all laid out in straightforward language. I believe that he wrote the text he published, but that he believed it was a reasonably accurate description of what the ǰȇŵš actually were doing. And the reason that The Protőcőls ended up being translated into hundreds of languages and read by millions of people is that many people, like Henry Ford, saw that they fitted what was happening. Sometimes I have tried to imagine what Professor Nilus might have written if he were writing today instead of a century ago; and if he were writing still in the straightforward sort of language he used earlier. A 1999 version of The Ƥrotocols of the Learned Elders of Ziőn might read something like this: "Greetings, my fellow Elders of Zioń! Today I am happy to report to you that our plan for the destruction of the hated Gentiles and the acquisition of their remaining wealth is practically complete. There remain only a few loose ends to tie up, and then the struggle in which we have been engaged for thousands of years against the filthy goyim against the Nations, against all the non-Jeŵish peoples of the world, finally will be victorious, and we will be able to devour everything they have created, as Yahweh, the god of our tribe, has commanded us. Everywhere we already rule behind the scenes, with puppets completely under our control in the offices of power. In Russia, where they resisted us for so long; where the ordinary people always hated us as exploiters, as moneylenders and tax collectors and purveyors of alcohol and merchants in the sweet, white flesh of their daughters and sisters, and where the aristocrats also hated us, as subversives and troublemakers, and kept us confined to only certain areas of the country, so that we could not exploit all of the people; in Russia we used the doctrine of our dear, departed Elder of Ziőn, Karl Marx, to divide the Russian people against themselves and get the power into our own hands, where it remains to this day. We butchered their Czar and his whole family like the Gentile cattle they were. With the help of the common people we slaughtered all of the Russian aristocrats and took their wealth. And then we turned on the common people. First we murdered their leaders; their writers and teachers and intellectuals and military officers; so that there would be no one able to turn them against us, and then we began murdering the common people themselves, the farmers and workers, first by the millions and then by the tens of millions in labor camps and death camps all across Russia. And most of them never did understand what was happening to them. One of them, who had been studying to become a Christian priest, we corrupted and made into our ally. His name was Stalin. Later, like the pharaoh who knew not Joseph, Stalin tried to turn against us, but one of our women was his doctor, and we poisoned him before he could harm us. When the system based on the theory of our departed Elder Marx had bled the Russian people dry, we launched a “privatization” scheme, which put most of the remaining wealth which had belonged to the government directly into our hands. Their gas and oil, their forests and their lumber industry, their mines and factories; and especially their television broadcasting facilities; are now owned by us acting as capitalists. Today we have a drunken, sick, old Russian clown, Boris Yeltsin, as the nominal leader of the Russians, but one of our people, Boris Abramovich Berezovsky, tells him what to do and keeps him under tight control through bribes. In England, the country from which all of us were expelled by the king as exploiters and troublemakers just over 700 years ago, we now have another puppet, Tony Blair, in place as the nominal leader of the English, but like Yeltsin he is completely under our control. One of our people, Michael Levy, finances his election campaigns and controls his purse strings. Another of our people, Jack Straw, controls his domestic policies. America, however, is the prize example of our success. Just as in England and in Russia, also in America we have been able to put a totally corrupt Gentile politician into the position of nominal power and then to surround him with our own people, who wield the real power. Actually running the American government, our people are in charge of America’s State Department, America’s Defense Department, America’s Federal Reserve System, and America’s Treasury Department. When one of our people, Robert Rubin, retired recently as secretary of the treasury, we simply moved another of our people, Lawrence Summers, into that position. Clinton appoints to every high office in the American government, whether the Supreme Court or his own cabinet, only those people we suggest to him, and the totally corrupt politicians of the Senate dare not disapprove anyone we suggest, lest we label them as “anti-Semites.” We have gained nearly complete control of America’s educational system, from kindergarten through the universities. No ideas or facts may be taught unless we have given them the stamp of Political Correctness. We have made it impossible for anyone in an American university to contradict anything we have claimed, no matter how preposterous, about what happened to us during the Second World War. We now have the American government, just like every government in Europe, paying us “reparations,” because not enough was done for us during the war. We have succeeded in corrupting and then dominating America’s art and music and literature. We have made degeneracy the touchstone for American culture. We own the art galleries and set the standards for painting and sculpture. We have the Americans lining up and paying admission to see a “work of art” which consists of animal dung smeared onto a crude painting of a Nȇgress, which we tell them is their Virgin Mary. They read the depraved and trashy novels we tell them to read and believe that these novels are “literature.” Their children listen to Negrőid rhythms and chant Nȇgroid “rap” ditties, because we control the popular music industry. Through the immigration policy we have imposed on America we are increasing the percentage of non-White minorities in every part of the country. Within the next few years we will succeed in making White Americans a minority in their own country. Our success in America has been due to two things: our control of the mass media of news and entertainment, through which we control the ideas and attitudes of the masses; and the system of mass democracy, which ensures that the votes of the masses under our control determine which figurehead politicians actually make up the American government. Since the last part of the 19th century we have been gathering the power of the mass media into our hands. In those days many of us were only rag-pickers and dealers in used merchandise, recently off the boat from Russia or Poland, but whenever a Gentile newspaper got itself into financial difficulties, we were ready instantly to pool our resources and buy it out, so that henceforth it could be in the hands of one of our people. In the 1920s, when radio was becoming a powerful medium of persuasion, we began buying broadcasting stations and putting together networks. At the same time we saw the potential for motion pictures and began moving into Hollywood. By working together with each other we were able to bankrupt or buy out every Gentile film producer except Walt Disney. We had to wait until he died to take control of his film company, but by then we already dominated the entire motion picture industry. After the Second World War, when television became the most powerful medium of mass persuasion, we were ready to move in and dominate the TV industry from the beginning. Today no motion picture can be made and no television program can be broadcast in America without our approval. Only a few independent commercial radio stations, a few shortwave radio stations, and a handful of book and magazine publishers remain free of our control. But the American masses, for the most part, never see or hear anything we have not approved. They do not understand shortwave, and they are afraid to read any publication we have not approved, for fear that it might be “hate” material. There is, of course, that pesky Internet, which is not yet under our control, but we are moving rapidly to deal with that matter. We expect soon to have our puppet politicians enact “hate speech” legislation in America, similar to that which we already have succeeded in having enforced in Europe, so that no one can say anything on the Internet that has not been approved by us. The couch potatoes will not object, because we will tell them that the new laws will make them safe from terrorism. By that time we also should have achieved our goal for the disarmament of the American population. And then, my fellow Elders of Zioń, we can do to the American people what we did to the Russian people. With our power of television, we will have them voting for their own slaughter. Long live our mass media! Long live democracy! Long live the power of triumphant Ȥion!" "
17:28

---------------------------------------- Educational Purposes Disclaimer This content is shared strictly for educational and historical purposes. It is based on documented facts, verified sources, and established historical records. The material may include sensitive or uncomfortable topics that some viewers might find disturbing or offensive. The intention is solely to inform and provide context, not to insult, demean, or promote hatred toward any individual, group, or culture. Truthful discussion of history sometimes requires addressing difficult realities. Viewer discretion is advised. If you have concerns or additional verified information, feel free to share them respectfully in the comments. ---------------------------------------- Dr. William Luther Pierce - The Truth of Democracy "Did you ever wonder why the ǰews are such great proponents of democracy? Whether in Indonesia or Pakistan or Serbia or you name it, whenever there is some threat to universal suffrage, the J*ws are ready to send the U.S. armed forces in to bomb and kill until everyone is permitted to vote. Why is that? Why can’t the Indonesians have an Islamic theocracy if they want? Why can’t the Pakistanis have a military dictatorship? Why can’t the Serbs run their own country the way they prefer? What is the appeal in making sure that people whose minds have been wasted by Alzheimer’s Disease vote? Well, let’s not beat around the bush: the appeal of mass democracy lies in the fact that in essentially every country in the world today, the number of persons unable to think for themselves is substantially larger than the number able to make independent decisions. Those unable to think for themselves have their thinking done for them by the people who control the mass media. Which is to say, democracy is the preferred system because it gives the political power to those who own or control the mass media and at the same time allows them to remain behind the scenes and evade responsibility for the way in which they use that power. And the more inclusive the democracy is; that is, the more Alzheimer’s sufferers and Mongoloid cretins and paranoid schizophrenics and people who live in empty packing cases in alleyways and Jamaican immigrants and football fans are able to vote; the more certain is the grip of the media masters on the political process. Those voters who buy astrology magazines at the checkout stand and spend their time watching soap operas, game shows, and Oprah absorb their general attitudes on things through the television screen. They learn which ideas are fashionable and which are not by noticing the facial expression and tone of voice of Tom Brokaw and Dan Rather when the news is announced each day. Their opinions on specific issues are formed as they view televised sidewalk surveys taken by reporters. The only uncertainty about these people is whether or not they’ll be able to pry themselves loose from their couches long enough to vote for the designated candidates. That’s why it’s important to have lots of them. And wherever there are lots of them, the men who control the mass media also will control the outcome of elections. It’s a much surer way of controlling governments than bribing corrupt dictators or slipping seductive whores into the king’s bedroom a la Esther and Ahasuerus; or Monica and Bill. Believe me, one day soon the Jeŵs on both sides of the great water will institute a web-TV voting system that allows the couch potatoes and the ball game fans to vote without having to get up from their couches, just by clicking their remote controls at their TV screens to select the next President or prime minister. That will be real democracy. You know, back close to the beginning of this century, around 1901 or so, a book first was published containing the text of what became generally known as The Prőtocols of the Learned Elders of Ziőn. The publisher was a Russian academic, Professor Sergei Nilus. Nilus himself allegedly had obtained The Protocőls from a Russian official, who had obtained the text from a patriotic Russian noblewoman, who in turn had purchased the material from a Jeŵ in Paris about 15 years earlier. The Protocols purports to be a collection of minutes or reports of meetings held by the leaders of the world Jewįsh community, at which they summarize the progress they had made to that time in their quest for world subversion, world ownership, and world power and outline their plans for continuing the process in the future. They talk about gaining control of the banking systems of various countries, about fomenting wars and revolutions to weaken and destroy Gentile power, about corrupting music and art and education, about subverting various Gentile institutions, about taking over the press everywhere and controlling the flow of information to the masses, about undermining the family and bringing family values into disrepute, and so on. The Elders of Zioń really are a satanic bunch of schemers. Reading The Protocołs makes one’s flesh crawl. We should remember that when The Protocolš began circulating in Russia in the first decade of this century, that country had not yet fallen victim to Jewisħ Bolshevism, but that wasn’t for lack of trying on the part of the ǰews. The Jeŵs were generally recognized as a dangerously subversive element in Russia, as the schemers and string pullers behind every attempt to damage or upset the established order in Russia, and so Professor Nilus’ publication of The Pŕotocols found a ready market among the Russian public. After the Jȇwish Bolshevik revolution of 1917 overthrew the Russian government and established a communist dictatorship in Russia, anyone found with a copy of The Protočols was liable to be summarily shot. The text already had been translated into a dozen other languages and distributed far and wide outside Russia, however. Since then it has been published in virtually every language which has a printed form and has been read by tens of millions of people around the world. The Jȇws have been claiming hysterically since The Proţocols first appeared that the text is “a forgery.” I guess that’s their way of saying that it’s not what it purports to be: namely, the actual minutes of meetings of Jewish leaders discussing their plans for world domination. The great American industrialist and automaker Henry Ford was very strongly impressed by The Proţocols and helped circulate the text in the United States. When told by newspaper reporters in 1921 about the Jews’ claims that The Protočols was “a forgery,” Mr. Ford responded that all he could say about the material was that it fit what was actually happening in the world and had been happening ever since the The Pŕotocols first appeared in print. Of course, what Mr. Ford had especially in mind when he made that remark were two momentous things which had happened during the previous decade. One was the Jȇws’ success in taking over Russia and imposing communism on the Russians, and the other was the recently ended First World War: a horribly fratricidal and senseless war, which had destroyed the old order in Europe, had spilled the blood of millions of the best Europeans, and had weakened all of Europe’s long-established institutions, leaving every European country open to all manner of social, political, and cultural ills; in particular, to the further spread of communism. Well, Henry Ford was a very hard-headed, practical sort of man, and it’s easy to understand his attitude. He had no way of knowing whether or not The Proţocols of the Learned Elders of Ziőn was actually what it purported to be, but he was quite impressed by the fact that the plan for world subversion and domination by the Jeŵs outlined in the book seemed to be happening pretty much as described. I’ll go a step further than Henry Ford was willing to go in assessing The Protőcols. I think that they very likely are not what they purport to be. In the first place the text of The Protočols doesn’t ring true. It’s too straightforward, too open. It doesn’t use the sort of deceptive, weasel worded, self-justifying language that Jeŵs customarily use in expressing themselves, even to one another. When a group of Jȇwish leaders get together to discuss their plans for the destruction of a host nation, they don’t use straightforward expressions such as “encouraging miscegenation” and “leading the goyim to the slaughter.” They use weasel-expressions, such as “building tolerance,” “increasing diversity,” and “eliminating inequality.” In the second place, it’s difficult for me to imagine the head Jȇws laying out such a complete, self-contained, and pat explanation of what they’re up to. It’s just too convenient for those of us who aim at alerting our people as to what the Jews’ intentions are and then putting a monkey wrench in their gears. I wouldn’t call The Protočols “a forgery,” as the Jews do whenever the book is mentioned. I’m inclined to believe Professor Nilus was an astute observer of the Jeŵs and also was a patriot. He wanted to warn the Russian people of what the Jȇws were planning to do to them, and so he imagined how the ǰews’ plan might look if it were all laid out in straightforward language. I believe that he wrote the text he published, but that he believed it was a reasonably accurate description of what the ǰȇŵš actually were doing. And the reason that The Protőcőls ended up being translated into hundreds of languages and read by millions of people is that many people, like Henry Ford, saw that they fitted what was happening. Sometimes I have tried to imagine what Professor Nilus might have written if he were writing today instead of a century ago; and if he were writing still in the straightforward sort of language he used earlier. A 1999 version of The Ƥrotocols of the Learned Elders of Ziőn might read something like this: "Greetings, my fellow Elders of Zioń! Today I am happy to report to you that our plan for the destruction of the hated Gentiles and the acquisition of their remaining wealth is practically complete. There remain only a few loose ends to tie up, and then the struggle in which we have been engaged for thousands of years against the filthy goyim against the Nations, against all the non-Jeŵish peoples of the world, finally will be victorious, and we will be able to devour everything they have created, as Yahweh, the god of our tribe, has commanded us. Everywhere we already rule behind the scenes, with puppets completely under our control in the offices of power. In Russia, where they resisted us for so long; where the ordinary people always hated us as exploiters, as moneylenders and tax collectors and purveyors of alcohol and merchants in the sweet, white flesh of their daughters and sisters, and where the aristocrats also hated us, as subversives and troublemakers, and kept us confined to only certain areas of the country, so that we could not exploit all of the people; in Russia we used the doctrine of our dear, departed Elder of Ziőn, Karl Marx, to divide the Russian people against themselves and get the power into our own hands, where it remains to this day. We butchered their Czar and his whole family like the Gentile cattle they were. With the help of the common people we slaughtered all of the Russian aristocrats and took their wealth. And then we turned on the common people. First we murdered their leaders; their writers and teachers and intellectuals and military officers; so that there would be no one able to turn them against us, and then we began murdering the common people themselves, the farmers and workers, first by the millions and then by the tens of millions in labor camps and death camps all across Russia. And most of them never did understand what was happening to them. One of them, who had been studying to become a Christian priest, we corrupted and made into our ally. His name was Stalin. Later, like the pharaoh who knew not Joseph, Stalin tried to turn against us, but one of our women was his doctor, and we poisoned him before he could harm us. When the system based on the theory of our departed Elder Marx had bled the Russian people dry, we launched a “privatization” scheme, which put most of the remaining wealth which had belonged to the government directly into our hands. Their gas and oil, their forests and their lumber industry, their mines and factories; and especially their television broadcasting facilities; are now owned by us acting as capitalists. Today we have a drunken, sick, old Russian clown, Boris Yeltsin, as the nominal leader of the Russians, but one of our people, Boris Abramovich Berezovsky, tells him what to do and keeps him under tight control through bribes. In England, the country from which all of us were expelled by the king as exploiters and troublemakers just over 700 years ago, we now have another puppet, Tony Blair, in place as the nominal leader of the English, but like Yeltsin he is completely under our control. One of our people, Michael Levy, finances his election campaigns and controls his purse strings. Another of our people, Jack Straw, controls his domestic policies. America, however, is the prize example of our success. Just as in England and in Russia, also in America we have been able to put a totally corrupt Gentile politician into the position of nominal power and then to surround him with our own people, who wield the real power. Actually running the American government, our people are in charge of America’s State Department, America’s Defense Department, America’s Federal Reserve System, and America’s Treasury Department. When one of our people, Robert Rubin, retired recently as secretary of the treasury, we simply moved another of our people, Lawrence Summers, into that position. Clinton appoints to every high office in the American government, whether the Supreme Court or his own cabinet, only those people we suggest to him, and the totally corrupt politicians of the Senate dare not disapprove anyone we suggest, lest we label them as “anti-Semites.” We have gained nearly complete control of America’s educational system, from kindergarten through the universities. No ideas or facts may be taught unless we have given them the stamp of Political Correctness. We have made it impossible for anyone in an American university to contradict anything we have claimed, no matter how preposterous, about what happened to us during the Second World War. We now have the American government, just like every government in Europe, paying us “reparations,” because not enough was done for us during the war. We have succeeded in corrupting and then dominating America’s art and music and literature. We have made degeneracy the touchstone for American culture. We own the art galleries and set the standards for painting and sculpture. We have the Americans lining up and paying admission to see a “work of art” which consists of animal dung smeared onto a crude painting of a Nȇgress, which we tell them is their Virgin Mary. They read the depraved and trashy novels we tell them to read and believe that these novels are “literature.” Their children listen to Negrőid rhythms and chant Nȇgroid “rap” ditties, because we control the popular music industry. Through the immigration policy we have imposed on America we are increasing the percentage of non-White minorities in every part of the country. Within the next few years we will succeed in making White Americans a minority in their own country. Our success in America has been due to two things: our control of the mass media of news and entertainment, through which we control the ideas and attitudes of the masses; and the system of mass democracy, which ensures that the votes of the masses under our control determine which figurehead politicians actually make up the American government. Since the last part of the 19th century we have been gathering the power of the mass media into our hands. In those days many of us were only rag-pickers and dealers in used merchandise, recently off the boat from Russia or Poland, but whenever a Gentile newspaper got itself into financial difficulties, we were ready instantly to pool our resources and buy it out, so that henceforth it could be in the hands of one of our people. In the 1920s, when radio was becoming a powerful medium of persuasion, we began buying broadcasting stations and putting together networks. At the same time we saw the potential for motion pictures and began moving into Hollywood. By working together with each other we were able to bankrupt or buy out every Gentile film producer except Walt Disney. We had to wait until he died to take control of his film company, but by then we already dominated the entire motion picture industry. After the Second World War, when television became the most powerful medium of mass persuasion, we were ready to move in and dominate the TV industry from the beginning. Today no motion picture can be made and no television program can be broadcast in America without our approval. Only a few independent commercial radio stations, a few shortwave radio stations, and a handful of book and magazine publishers remain free of our control. But the American masses, for the most part, never see or hear anything we have not approved. They do not understand shortwave, and they are afraid to read any publication we have not approved, for fear that it might be “hate” material. There is, of course, that pesky Internet, which is not yet under our control, but we are moving rapidly to deal with that matter. We expect soon to have our puppet politicians enact “hate speech” legislation in America, similar to that which we already have succeeded in having enforced in Europe, so that no one can say anything on the Internet that has not been approved by us. The couch potatoes will not object, because we will tell them that the new laws will make them safe from terrorism. By that time we also should have achieved our goal for the disarmament of the American population. And then, my fellow Elders of Zioń, we can do to the American people what we did to the Russian people. With our power of television, we will have them voting for their own slaughter. Long live our mass media! Long live democracy! Long live the power of triumphant Ȥion!" "

Mofobian

24,562 views • 2 months ago