FOTM has been an ally of and inspiration for MHB for many years. We are saddened to see it cease publication, yet at the same time understand that decision.-Ed.
Dr. Eowyn February 11, 2021
“Ah, what an age it is When to speak of trees is almost a crime For it is a kind of silence against injustice.” –Bertolt Brecht (1898-1956)
In my professional life, I had specialized in the study of totalitarian Marxist-Leninist states wherein citizens were denied fundamental freedoms of speech, publication, assembly and religion. I never thought or even dreamt that the United States of America could devolve into that, but that is exactly what is happening in this former bastion of liberty.
For years now, the Left relentlessly had succeeded in warping American schools, universities, journalism, social media, Hollywood, and culture. Now, in the name of the COVID-19 pandemic, Americans are quarantined and locked down in their homes, barred from attending church services, and mandated to cover their faces with masks or they would be denied admission into grocery stores to purchase the food to feed themselves and their families.
Striving to silence voices with which the mainstream media disagrees, the New York Times has urged President Joe Biden to appoint a “reality czar” to lead the fight against “disinformation and domestic extremism.”
Second: we work with law enforcement, state, federal, and international, to promote public safety. We proactively report when our moderation team discovers content which we believe poses an imminent threat to life and respond rapidly when law enforcement identifies any such threat. We do not comment on our communications with law enforcement in emergency situations, even when it is inconvenient to do so from a public relations perspective.
Third: we do not preemptively scan user content for criminal speech. Before the Capitol was occupied by protestors we had no idea what would come from today’s protests in D.C.
Fourth: as a result of app store bans, we do not have a mobile app. The majority of our users use Gab on desktop devices, which obviously are not easy to bring and use at a protest. The overwhelming majority of people using Gab today were observing the protest from home and reporting what they saw online.
Fifth: the people in attendance at today’s event in D.C. are on Twitter and Facebook, too, and in far larger numbers than Gab.
To be perfectly honest, organizations like the New York Times are the problem here. Over the course of 2020, political violence across the United States has been normalized by Democratic Party politicians and the mainstream media who excused away and refused to enforce the law against “peaceful protestors” – in reality violent agitators and domestic terrorists – who embarked upon various outrages including the occupation of several square blocks of Seattle, the setting fire to small businesses and federal buildings across the U.S., and yes, even forcing D.C. to board up on more than one occasion.
I had to read the article three times through to convince myself it was not an advertisement. This article is not only unscience, but it is deceivable opinion; This does not bode well for the credibility of The New York Times as a science outlet resource.
Wanting to understand how a senior science writer for The New York Times could write such a propaganda piece, I went to google and asked, “Who is William J. Broad?” And what came up?
Incredulous. Mr. Broad is not OK with Yoga, but he is perfectly OK with 5G radiation irradiating the whole planet with no questions asked. He ignorantly misjudges and mischaracterizes concerned citizens that rightly question the health consequences of 5G (ANY G), as fear-mongers and alarmists. He cites just one study, against the thousands of studies that have been compiled worldwide by hundreds of scientists (not story tellers). Surely Mr. Broad and the editorial staff of The New York Times knows of the International 5G space appeal.
[Editor’s Note: The author concedes that the New York Times typically does not publish pieces in direct in response to, or complaining about, reports which appear in the paper. Still, a perspective defending school safety expert Wolfgang Halbig’s credibility has yet to appear in the Times, or for that matter any other news outlet reporting on the legal actions brought by Sandy Hook parents. Nor have such outlets honestly covered any of the ensuing controversy leading up to these most recent activities. Such one-sidedness more than suggests the increasingly propaganda-like nature of such news media’s “reportage” and commentary.]
The “Florida man” is Wolfgang Halbig, a 71-year-old school security expert and former state trooper. Mr. Halbig has been dogged—and uncompromisingly ethical—in his search for the truth about the so-called Sandy Hook shooting, a search prompted initially by horror, giving way to astonishment and disbelief at glaring inconsistencies and falsehoods in the reportage.
At no time has Halbig “harassed,” “hounded,” “pursued,” or “tormented” Sandy Hook families. He has focused, instead, on obtaining public records from state, federal, and local agencies, such as the Federal Emergency Management Agency; Newtown Police Department; Newtown Public Schools; and Connecticut State Police. Most of these agencies provided no records whatsoeverin response to Wolf’s Freedom of Information requests, despite legal mandates.
For example, Wolf has tried, in vain, to obtain the log created pursuant to a sign that said “Everyone Must Check In” which shows up in photos of the fire station taken Dec. 14, 2012, as well as the transmission log of “Trooper 1,” the state police helicopter in the air that day, purporting to track a suspect in the woods. Halbig has been denied these indisputably public records. He subpoenaed witnesses who had presumptive knowledge of conditions at the school for his FOIA hearings, but Newtown’s attorney Monte Frank improperly told them to ignore the subpoenas, and Wolf was provided no relief for this misconduct. The police at last gave Wolf “dash cam videos” he had requested, which are not, in fact, dash cam videos, since they do not show the hood of the car. They also show different scenes putatively taken from the same location at the same time, so were clearly faked.
Editor’s Note: This the third installment in the four-part “Stealth Terror” series that originally ran at MHB in 2013, offers a detailed and provocative examination of the Sandy Hook massacre event–indeed, one that we might see in major media if they were not so overwhelmingly prone to erroneous reportage and misleading “analysis.” See the introduction to the republication in the initial September 9 repost here.
To “defend” our nation by use of weather warfare, instead of more military bases and more enemies around the world, it is necessary that what I want to know for due process reasons be kept secret. An entirely different conflict arises when the technique is used on us domestically, to change our existence as per Carnicom’s analysis of chemtrail content, or for the intentional killing in weather incidents. We see both outline and substance of a police state descending upon us that we, as Americans, should be unable to tolerate.
Before you dismiss this chemtrail conspiracy analysis, consider that Sandy was not just another hurricane, and that Sandy Hook did not just experience another heart-wrenching massacre, but rather contained the elements of another 9/11–the event that took us to a disastrous war. The Sandy Hook affair is taking us further into a police state by deceitfully popularizing a basic element of that status: gun control.
WordPress just suspended my interim blog The Fundamental Option as well. That blog has been active for only the past 2 days, so what possible "terms of service" could have have violated? It's war, folks. America is entering into very dark days. Be prepared.
In the latest action suppressing online political speech the always informative and entertaining FellowshipoftheMinds blog (FOTM) has not just just been censored, but entirely removed from the internet.
Automatic, the San Francisco-based online behemoth that operates WordPress.com and provides services to virtually thousands of bloggers worldwide, took the action against FOTM’s owner and editor without warning earlier today.
In 1959 New York Times publisher Arthur Hays Sulzberger allowed for then-Director of Central Intelligence Allen Dulles to place 12 CIA agents at the Times where they secretively functioned on the newspaper’s editorial or reportorial staffs. According to author and attorney William Pepper “those 12 slots have probably been rotated right to the present day. They are agents who will deal with the most sensitive matters.”
Pepper was a personal friend of of Martin Luther King Jr. and in 1999 represented his family in posthumous court proceedings concerning his assassination that ultimately exonerated James Earl Ray, who according to the US government and corporate media narrative was King’s assassin, and identified US government agencies as the principal operatives in the April 4, 1968 murder.
Mass media are central to perpetuating such “lone gunman” myths. “When we had the trial, the media was present when Coretta King took the stand, or any member of the King family took the stand,” Pepper recalls. “But then they were absent for the evidence. They walked out under instructions.”
One cannot dispute the fact that since the 1950s major US news media outlets have seldom wavered from advocating official explanations of complex events while suppressing the countervailing arguments and evidence of independent researchers.
It’s not only those critical assassinations … of King, or [John] Kennedy or Malcolm [X] or Robert Kennedy in the 1960s. But it’s anything that will shake the core or credibility in the institutions and agencies of the American government and how they actually function.
Pepper states that the 1999 King trial was of particular significance, and that while the Court TV was set to televise the event, the cable channel pulled out at the last minute.
(Discussion begins at 41:45)
“I have been blacklisted by the New York Times forever,” Pepper concludes.
They won’t use my name [and] they didn’t use my name in virtually anything. I think they slipped once in one report of the 1999 trial they had to do. They quoted a witness, and the witness said, “Well, Mr. Pepper showed us …” They were quoting him and they put that in. But other than that I may be recognized as “the attorney for the King family” but never named, and I am not to be named in that newspaper. It’s as simple as that. I’ve had to live with this, as have many other progressive journalists in areas of very delicate strategic issues. They don’t want this out, and they won’t allow it out. That’s the basis of corporate control over the media.
Editor’s Note: This brief analysis from Russia’s RT succinctly illustrates the extent to which US corporate news media now function as political disinformation outlets. “Disinformation” is defined as “false information spread deliberately to deceive.” Under common journalistic practice an editor’s attempts to persuade her readership on a certain stance is presented as an “editorial.”
Now, however, in their barely-concealed contempt for Donald Trump’s presidency, even the New York Times, which promotes itself as a bastion of sober journalistic objectivity, knowingly partakes in mispresenting information for an intended effect.
Regardless of one’s take on Trump’s political leadership, the notion that he simply uses the “fake news” label to denote news stories and media he personally dislikes is simply self-serving and disingenuous. The analysis below is but one example of how the hyper-politicized US news media undermine their own credibility.
Mainstream US media was quick to condemn the president’s remarks as bigotry and racism, and a dehumanization technique aimed at any and all immigrants from Latin America who enter the US illegally across the border with Mexico.
Trump “lashed out at undocumented immigrants,” the The New York Times reported:
CNN commentator Keith Boykin argued Trump’s comments were “the same dehumanization tactic used by slave traders and slave owners to justify the oppression of black people for hundreds of years.”
Trump referring to human beings as "animals" is the same dehumanization tactic used by slave traders and slave owners to justify the oppression of black people for hundreds of years. https://t.co/6LY6XJwFH4
The Huffington Post’s catchy headline read: “Trump Refers To Immigrants As ‘Animals.’ Again.” The New York Times meanwhile delicately highlighted that Trump was referring to just “some” of the immigrants, not all of them.
There is just one tiny problem with the story: it’s ‘fake news’, as Trump himself would probably call it.
If one watches the actual video of the exchange from Wednesday’s roundtable – rather than the selectively truncated segments – it becomes clear Trump was referring to the notorious MS-13, or Mara Salvatrucha, gang members rather than Latin Americans or illegal immigrants in general. A description of the exchange on C-SPAN, the cable channel that carries live political broadcasts, clearly says Trump was referring to “MS-13 gang members.”
The hour-long portion of the event open to the press was live-streamed on YouTube by the White House, and the relevant exchange is available to anyone who wishes to hear for themselves (at 24:18).
This is not the first time Trump has referred to Mara Salvatrucha members as “animals,” either. He used the term in a June 2017 speech about illegal immigration in Long Island, New York. Another notable instance was the July 2017 rally in Youngstown, Ohio.
MS-13 originated in California during the 1980s, among refugees fleeing the civil war in El Salvador, in which the Reagan administration backed the right-wing government. The gang, known for its viciousness, has since spread throughout the US and even Canada, and is reportedly allied with Mexican drug cartels.
Douglas Valentine has critiqued the progressive-left’s uncritical stance toward public luminaries, such as longtime CIA operative Daniel Ellseberg, or the functioning deity of American liberals, the New York Times itself. According to Valentine, political progressives demonstrate crucial blindspots in their adoration of such figures and institutions. Works and authors that shed light on the contradictory nature of this adoration are either ignored or derogated by what CIA official Cord Meyer termed “the Compatible Left,” notes Valentine.
Upon The Phoenix Program‘s publication in 1990 “the word went out to ignore the book, not just because it revealed CIA secrets,” observes Valentine,
but because it identified the media, and the Times in particular, as the reason why the public can’t see the CIA clearly for what it is: a criminal conspiracy on behalf of wealthy capitalists.
I had also noted that the release of the Pentagon Papers distracted attention from Congressional hearings into Phoenix. In subsequent books I added that it distracted attention from reports on CIA drug trafficking as well.
Indeed, Valentine argues that he was effectively “neutralize[d]” by CIA media assets, and even his allies responded in chorus that he’d “crossed the line and would never get another book published in the United States. So I learned the hard way,” he continues, “that the CIA has a strategic intelligence network of management level people in the information industry who know, through instruments like the Times Book Review section, what books and authors to marginalize.”
Valentine explains how author Peter Dale Scott was similarly marginalized as a result of his landmark books, The War Conspiracy (1972) and Deep Politics and the Death of JFK (1993). “Peter supported me,” Valentine recalls,
and a few years after the Phoenix book was published, I mentioned to him that I was writing an article based on my interviews with [CIA officers Frank] Scotton and [Lucien] Conein, about Ellseberg’s deep state political association with the CIA. Peter is Ellsberg’s friend, and even though the article had the potential to embarrass Ellsberg, he arranged for me to interview him. Peter gave me Ellsberg’s number and I called at a pre-arranged time. And the first thing Ellsberg said to me was, “You can’t possibly understand me because you’re not a celebrity.”
If you want to understand the critical role celebrities play in determining what society accepts as real and valuable, read Guy Debord’s books The Society of the Spectacle and its sequel, Comments. Debord explains the symbolic role celebrities play (at times inadvertently) in maintaining the illusions we confuse with reality.
Debord cites the German philosopher Ludwig Feuerbach, who famously said: “But certainly for the present age, which prefers the sign to the thing signified, the copy to the original, representation to reality, the appearance to the essence… illusion only is sacred, truth profane. Nay, sacredness is held to be enhanced in proportion as truth decreases and illusion increases, so that the highest degree of illusion comes to be the highest degree of sacredness.”
When Ellsberg told me he was a celebrity, he was saying that he underwent a symbolic transformation the moment he leaked the Pentagon Papers, and landed in a social realm that alienated him from non-celebrities like me. He became an icon, and nobody on the left is about to say, “Oh, my god! Valentine had this revelation about Ellsberg. Let’s rethink everything we believe is true.”
Like its doppelgängers on the right, the management class on the left is invested in celebrity heroes who represent their business interests. they focus on the symbol and ignore any contradictory but essential facts, the way [journalists Glenn] Greenwald and [Jeremy] Scahill] ignore Pierre Omidyar’s funding of the Center for the United Action in Kiev, which was a Phoenix-style coordination center for covert political action.
Douglas Valentine, “How William Colby Gave Me the Keys to the CIA Kingdom (based on interview with James Tracy),” in The CIA as Organized Crime: How Illegal Operations Corrupt America and the World, Atlanta GA: Clarity Press, 2017, 31-32.
Several corporate news media recognized the “World Press Freedom Day” on May 3 with promotional messages in the pages of their respective publications and via social media.
The occasion is in fact sponsored by the United Nations Environmental, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), a vital arm of the UN that has overseen a multitude of social engineering projects since its founding in 1948 by individuals including eugenicist Julian Huxley.
In 2018, UNESCO will lead the 25th celebration of World Press Freedom Day. The main event, jointly organized by UNESCO and the Government of the Republic of Ghana, will take place in Accra, Ghana on 2 – 3 May. This year’s global theme is ‘Keeping Power in Check: Media, Justice and The Rule of Law’, and will cover issues of media and the transparency of the political process, the independence and media literacy of the judicial system, and the accountability of state institutions towards the public. The Day will also examine contemporary challenges of ensuring press freedom online. (Emphases retained)
"Without press freedom there is no democracy" – @mariaressa
Journalists are society's eyes. Let's defend #PressFreedom to avoid going blind!
In celebration of UNESCO’s observation the New York Times, which has had a historic information-sharing and censorial relationship with the Central Intelligence Agency instructs its audience on examples of the vaunted Western “free press.”
The fact that such entities are promoting “Press Freedom” is especially noteworthy in the wake of the recent court decision that legally codifies the CIA practice of selectively disclosing select information to journalists and news outlets of its choosing.
The event is also recognized by US Senator Diane Feinstein, who encourages her followers to “fight fake news” by reading quality journalism. In 2013 Feinstein proposed legislation that would effectively define “journalism” as being only something practiced by individuals drawing a salary, thus eliminating a broad array of independent, citizen journalists from the information gathering, sharing, and analyzing equation.
A free press is essential to speaking truth to power, to hold governments accountable for corruption and abuse. Our democracy wouldn’t exist without journalists free to do their work. Fight fake news this #WorldPressFreedomDay by reading quality journalism.
Among the most extensively distributed of CIA‐owned or subsidized news services within the United States was Forum World Features, established in 1958 as Forum Information Service, with headquarters in London. Through most of its existence Forum was apparently owned by New York Herald Tribune publisher and pioneer venture capitalist John Hay Whitney.
“According to several C.I.A. sources, Mr. Whitney was ‘witting’ of the agency’s true role,” a 1977 New York Times article series documents. “Though the C.I.A. has insisted that it never attempted directly to place its propaganda in the American press, at one time Forum World Features had 30 domestic newspapers among its clients, including The Washington Post.”
The selling of Forum content to The Post “and other American newspapers, one C.I.A. official said, ‘put us in a hell of a dilemma,’ The sales, he went on, were considered necessary to preserve the organization’s cover, and they occasioned a continuing and somewhat frantic effort to insure that the domestic clients were given only legitimate news stories.”
The venerable New York Times. long a self-proclaimed bastion of truth and moderation, established its reputation in this way at the turn-of-the century by contrasting the Times brand with William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer-style sensationalism and what was often genuinely embellished or contrived “fake” news. Given its standing in this regard the Times has vigorously supported and benefited from Agency prerogatives since the 1950s . As Carl Bernstein explains in his largely ignored yet seminal investigative piece, “The CIA and the Media,” the CIA’s “relationship with the Times was by far its most valuable among newspapers, according to CIA officials.”
Between 1950 and 1966 around ten CIA personnel were given cover as Times employees under plans endorsed by the newspaper’s then-publisher, Arthur Hays Sulzberger. “The cover arrangements were part of a general Times policy—set by Sulzberger—to provide assistance to the CIA whenever possible,” observes Bernstein. “Sulzberger was especially close to Allen Dulles. ‘At that level of contact it was the mighty talking to the mighty,’ said a high‑level CIA official who was present at some of the discussions. ‘There was an agreement in principle that, yes indeed, we would help each other. The question of cover came up on several occasions. It was agreed that the actual arrangements would be handled by subordinates…. The mighty didn’t want to know the specifics; they wanted plausible deniability.’”