Free Speech in Twitter is claimed as ‘disinformation' by EU

Translation: They lost control over propaganda speech on twitter and are now in free spin mode, they need everything in place to sell their western lies and Elon is blocking their lies and propaganda.

If I recall correctly the EU was sold as a organization to merely facilitate economic transactions and movement among countries not a Soros unelected super state.

EU is a totalitarian state for what eastern Europeans post communist states fought for 60 years to eradicate, the only difference is that Western Europe swallow it with bones and everything under the disguise of freedom loving United States of Europe.

The EU is desperate to clamp down on Elon Musk’s free speech as ‘disinformation’
If Brussels’ tech disinfo code is voluntary, then why did officials freak out when Musk yanked Twitter from it?
RT : 4 Jun, 2023

European Union officials are having a meltdown, all because Twitter CEO Elon Musk has withdrawn the platform from a “voluntary” EU code of conduct for tech firms to combat so-called “disinformation.” And they have yet to cite a single actual example of it.

EU Internal Markets Commissioner Thierry Breton tweeted, “You can run, but you can’t hide,” citing a legal obligation to prevent disinformation from August. He’s basically treating Musk, a guy who builds rockets and cars in America, like an unruly schoolchild, with Brussels in the role of the principal. French Digital Minister Jean-Noel Barrot even threatened to ban Twitter from the EU in a recent interview, citing the “grave” threat of disinformation.

They’re basically accusing Musk of pre-crime, like in the movie ‘Minority Report’ where Tom Cruise’s character is chased down by the state before having committed an offense. The EU is seeking to bring the very long arm of its authoritarianism down on Musk and other private tech players – however far outside the EU they might actually be – who refuse to abide by Brussels’ “Code of Practice on Disinformation,” concocted in 2018 and revised last year.

Breton is even heading to Silicon Valley to check in on them. “I am the enforcer. I represent the law, which is the will of the state and the people,” he said about his trip.

Sounds like Mr. Enforcer could use a good humbling from the people he purports to represent, and what better way for it to be delivered than through Musk, who envisions Twitter as the voice of the people and a platform for truly free expression.

By withdrawing from the code, Musk is just the latest example of what seems to be a trend. Facebook’s parent company Meta has already laid off moderators. Amazon, Microsoft, Alphabet, and others have also cut into their watchdog departments, citing cost-cutting measures. Perhaps policing narratives is bad for business.

You have to wonder, though – if joining this EU pact is optional, then what exactly is the big deal? It’s not like there’s any guarantee that any of the signatories are actually reducing what the EU considers as disinformation. In fact, the whole concept of top-down policing of information flow raises suspicion about the potential marginalization of views and debates that oppose the establishment narrative. According to this EU code,

tech platforms like Twitter are connected with “fact-checkers, civil society, and third-party organizations with specific expertise on disinformation.” The policy document adds that platforms also must report to an EU “Code Taskforce,” monitoring their efforts. Given that any such actors would implicitly have the EU’s stamp of approval, it’s not a stretch to imagine that they could effectively end up acting as enforcers or gatekeepers of the establishment narrative.

Musk himself is no stranger to this kind of systemic collusion between state actors and platforms to the detriment of contradictory debate and free information flow. It was his own release of the Twitter Files in the wake of his acquisition of the platform that brought to light the collusion between Twitter and Western government authorities to manipulate and censor public debate over Covid-19, for example, or to coordinate on certain narratives about geopolitical competitors (like Russia) – all under the guise of fighting “disinformation.”

Speaking of which, it didn’t take long after Musk’s withdrawal from the disinfo code for the EU’s vice president for values and transparency – an Orwellian title, if there ever was one – to suggest that the ultimate beneficiary of Musk’s actions in withdrawing from the code wasn’t free speech and debate, but rather Russia.

“Bye, bye birdie,” Vera Jourova said. “Twitter has chosen a hard way to comply with our digital laws. Russia’s disinformation is dangerous and it is irresponsible to leave EU’s anti-disinformation code.” Right, because all facts and analysis that don’t align with the Western agenda has to be Russian, as these folks see it. The reasoning is just a step away from proclaiming Musk to be some kind of useful idiot for Russia, despite him also being a major Pentagon contractor.

It seems that Musk has just decided that the EU’s provisions aren’t aligned with the free-speech mandate that he has for the company, which he personally owns and for which he forked over $44 billion. And the EU apparently can’t bring itself to respect the definition of private ownership.

If they wanted to make and treat online platforms like a public good or service, then they should just outright spend the cash to do that themselves so they can turn them into firehoses for their own propaganda – and then watch everyone flee.

It’s not like Musk is just letting fake news proliferate, despite the EU pearl-clutchers suggesting otherwise. It looks like he’s just found a different way to address fact checking. How arrogant do you have to be to figure that a guy who builds rockets and revolutionized the car industry couldn’t possibly come up with a better fact-checking system than a bunch of garden-variety bureaucrats?

When Musk took over the platform, he ditched some Twitter moderators and replaced them with a feature called “Community Notes,” whereby users who spot something that’s factually incorrect or misleading can contribute in real time to a correction or clarification that’s visible right under the tweet in question.

It turns out that this row between Twitter and the EU has become quite the topic on the platform itself. It’s also generating a lot of comments that Western officials would rather the average person did not see. And with Musk in charge, there’s not much they can do about it beyond threats and name calling. At least not without looking like the budding authoritarians they are.

- - -
Rachel Marsden is a columnist, political strategist, and host of independently produced talk-shows in French and English.

US Intentionally released SARS-Cov-2 in Wuhan

“US Intentionally released SARS-Cov-2 in Wuhan”
Patents' American Researcher Martin told it at EU International Covid Summit
By Fabio G. C. Carisio
May 30, 2023

Originally published by The Standard

The Covid-19 coronavirus was “intentionally released” by the United States in Wuhan, China, with the target to trigger a global pandemic to raise public acceptance of vaccines, a US businessman specializing in patent auditing said.

David Martin, the founding chairman of M Cam asset management company, said at an International Covid Summit organized by the European Parliament in Brussels earlier this month that the US was responsible for the making of both coronaviruses causing the outbreaks of severe acute respiratory syndrome – or SARS – in 2003 and the Covid-19 pandemic in the past three years.

The third edition of the summit featured speakers from anti-lockdown advocates to medical academia to discuss the global pandemic response. The speakers shed light on the possibility that the coronavirus which caused the pandemic was man-made, instead of naturally occurring.

In his speech, Martin said: “The pandemic that we alleged to have happened in the last few years did not happen overnight. In fact, the very specific pandemic using the coronavirus began at a different time.”

He said that in 1965, scientists discovered the coronavirus as a model of a pathogen – an agent that causes disease. They also found out that coronaviruses can be modified.

“Later we started learning how to modify a coronavirus by putting them in animals such as dogs and pigs,” Martin said, adding that such a practice became the basis for US pharmaceutical giant Pfizer’s first coronavirus spike protein vaccine in 1990.

But very soon the medical sector and drug makers found out that the vaccines did not work.

“Because the coronavirus is a malleable model, it mutates,” Martin said. “Every medical publication concluded that coronaviruses escape vaccines because it modifies and mutates too rapidly for a vaccine to be developed.”

In 2002, a university in North Carolina initiated a study to develop an “infectious replication defective,” which Martin interpreted as “a weapon to target individuals, but not have collateral damage.”

Characterizing the project as having “mysteriously preceded SARS by a year,” Martin said the coronavirus that caused the highly deadly infection was not from China and that it was “engineered” instead of naturally occurring.

On Covid-19, Martin said the coronavirus – named as SARS-CoV-2 by the World Health Organization – was poised for human emergence in 2016, with a preview about an “accidental or intentional release of a respiratory coronavirus” from a laboratory in Wuhan.

He said the purpose of the coronavirus “release” was to boost global acceptance on universal vaccination.

Explaining the common concern among the medical industry, Martin said: “Until an infectious crisis is very real, present and at the emergency threshold, it is often largely ignored.

“To sustain the funding base beyond the crisis, we need to increase the public understanding of the need for medical countermeasures, such as the pan-influenza, or pan-coronavirus, vaccine. A key drive is the media and the economics will follow the hype.

“We [pharmaceutical firms] need to use that hype to our advantage to get to the real issue. Investors will respond if they see profit at the end of the process,” he said.

The Covid infection was first reported in Wuhan, Hubei province in central China in late 2019, with initial clusters coming from the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market. The disease turned into a global pandemic in early 2020. As of Saturday, over 766 million infections have been recorded worldwide, with nearly seven million deaths.

The source of the coronavirus remained a mystery. Some scientists believe it transferred to humans from wild animals like bats and manidaes, while some politicians, in particular those from the US, accused the Wuhan Institute of Virology – a government-controlled lab – of leaking the pathogen.

A team of WHO-appointed experts inspected Wuhan in early 2021 to probe the source of the pandemic. After the 12-day visit, including a visit to the lab, the scientists concluded that it is “extremely unlikely” that the lab could have leaked the Covid-19 coronavirus.

MAIN SOURCES

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hveIX7g-eiA

The Standard – US ‘intentionally released Covid virus in Wuhan’ EU summit told

Class action lawsuit over Covid vaccine injuries

Class action lawsuit over Covid vaccine injuries targets the Australian government: 'There has been a cover-up'
By MAX AITCHISON FOR THE DAILY MAIL
26 April 2023

Class action filed at Federal Court on Wednesday
Government and medicines regulator named parties

A landmark Covid-19 vaccine injury class action lawsuit has been filed against the Australian government and the medicines regulator.

The nation-wide suit, which reportedly has 500 members including three named applicants, seeks redress for those allegedly left injured or bereaved by the Covid-19 vaccines.

One of the applicants who suffered a severe heart condition after getting the Pfizer jab is even claiming there was 'cover-up' during the vaccine rollout which hid the potential risks.

The federal government, the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) and the Department of Health - in addition to a number of senior public servants - are all named as parties to the class action, which was filed in the New South Wales Federal Court on Wednesday.

The named parties are accused of negligence in their approval and monitoring of Covid-19 vaccines, breach of statutory duty and misfeasance in public office.

The lawsuit was organised by Queensland GP Dr Melissa McCann who raised over $105,000 through crowd funding.

Dr McCann said the injured and bereaved have 'suffered immense loss, pain and grief' and called out the alleged 'gaslighting and silence' they had been subjected to

'These injured and bereaved have suffered immense loss, pain and grief,' Dr McCann tweeted.

'Just as heartbreaking has been the gaslighting and silence, which has left them feeling abandoned. We cannot simply 'move on' from covid and leave them behind.'

Dr McCann has been critical of the existing compensation scheme, claiming it was 'not fit for purpose'.

'Many vaccine-injured Australians who cannot access compensation through the Services Australia scheme now find themselves abandoned, with no support,' Dr McCann said.

The size of the compensation claim being sought is not yet clear.

The TGA has been contacted for comment.

The TGA’s latest health safety report, published on 20 April, reveals that adverse risks are extremely low.

There were 138,307 total adverse event reports from nearly 66 million vaccine doses administered - a rate of just 0.2 per cent.

'The protective benefits of vaccination far outweigh the potential risks,' the report states.

Melbourne teacher Gareth O'Gradie is one of the named applicants on the class action. He was diagnosed with vaccine-induced pericarditis and required open heart surgery

The medicines regulator has identified a total of 14 reports where the cause of death was linked to vaccination and said there was no new vaccine-related deaths identified since 2022.

'The TGA closely monitors reports of suspected side effects (also known as adverse events) to the COVID-19 vaccines,' it said.

'This is the most intensive safety monitoring ever conducted of any vaccines in Australia.'

But instructing solicitor Natalie Strijland, of Brisbane law firm NR Barbi, said the action would argue the TGA caused considerable harm and damage by failing to regulate the COVID-19 vaccinations properly.

The class action names three applicants, one of whom is 41-year old father-of-two Gareth O'Gradie.

Mr O'Gradie, a teacher from Melbourne, was left with a 20-centimetre scar down his chest after developing severe pericarditis — inflammation of the lining around the heart — following his first Pfizer vaccination in July 2021.

He did not respond to various medications and therapies and in February 2022 doctors performed open heart surgery to remove his pericardial sac lining his heart.

The TGA said myocarditis and pericarditis were 'usually temporary conditions, with most people getting better within a few days', noting that the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation (ATAGI) 'continues to emphasise that the protective benefits of the vaccines far outweigh the rare risk of these side effects'.

But Mr O'Gradie believes there has been 'misinformation about the safety' of the vaccines from the government.

'I think there has been some cover-up,' he told news.com.au.

'There was a lot of, you know, 'We need to not scare the public as part of the vaccine rollout, so let's not publicise these things.' There was a large, intentional withholding of information — that doesn't give people informed consent.'

He claimed that he was 'totally not or never have been anti-vaccine'.

'I'm pro-science, I'm well educated,' he said.

Mr O'Gradie told The Australian that he was worried about the 'anti-vaccine lobby piggybacking' on the class action.

He is joined by two other lead claimants: Antonio Derose, 66, who developed encephalomyelitis (inflammation in the brain and spinal cord) following his AstraZeneca jab and Anthony Rose, 47, who claims severe cognitive impairment and chronic fatigue following his Moderna vaccination.

The existing compensation scheme, which is open to Australians who 'suffer a moderate to severe impact following an adverse reaction to a TGA-approved COVID-19 vaccine', has been heavily criticised for being difficult to access and too narrowly focused.

As of April 12, Services Australia had received 3501 applications and paid 137 claims totalling more than $7.3 million. Another 2263 claims are still in progress, while 405 have been withdrawn and 696 deemed not payable.

CIA Cover-Up of Hunter Biden’s Laptop

CIA Cover-Up of Hunter Biden’s Laptop Charged By House Republicans
Written by Eric Zuesse
25.04.2023

Here is the letter by the lead investigators, to Secretary of State Blinken, reporting the new evidence of his complicity in that cover-up, and Michael Morell’s admission that it was done by the U.S. intelligence community in order to defeat Trump’s 2020 Presidential campaign LINK:

The Honorable Antony Blinken Secretary
U.S. Department of State Washington, DC 20520
April 20, 2023

Dear Secretary Blinken:

The Committee on the Judiciary and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence are conducting oversight of federal law-enforcement and intelligence matters within our respective jurisdictions. We are examining the origins of the infamous public statement signed by 51 former intelligence officials that falsely discredited a New York Post story regarding Hunter Biden’s laptop as supposed Russian disinformation. As part of our oversight, we have learned that you played a role in the inception of this statement while serving as a Biden campaign advisor, and we therefore request your assistance with our oversight.

On October 14, 2020, the New York Post published a report detailing how Hunter Biden used the position and influence of his father, now-President Joe Biden, for personal gain with the apparent awareness of President Biden. 1 The article reported on several emails found on a laptop belonging to Hunter Biden that he had abandoned in a Delaware computer shop. 2 The contents of the emails cast doubt on President Biden’s previous denials of speaking to his son about his international business dealings.

Within five days of the article, on October 19, 2020, 51 former intelligence officials released a public statement attempting to discredit the contents of the New York Post’s reporting about Hunter Biden, stating that the story “has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.” 3 News publications immediately ran with the statement, with Politico publishing a story with the conclusive headline, “Hunter Biden story is Russian disinfo, dozens of former officials say.” 4 Social media companies simultaneously restricted access to the Post story, including Twitter locking the Post’s and then-White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany’s accounts for sharing a link to the article.5 During the final presidential debate on October 22, then-Vice President Biden cited the public statement to rebut President Trump’s criticism of the Biden family business dealings, saying:

    Look, there are 50 former national intelligence folks who said that what this, [President Trump’s] accusing me of is a Russian plan. They have said this this has all the characteristics — four — five former heads of the CIA, both parties, say what he’s saying is a bunch of garbage. Nobody believes it except him and his good friend Rudy Giuliani.6

Subsequent reporting revealed that the New York Post story was not, as the public statement claimed and then-Vice President Biden parroted, part of a “Russian information operation.”7 This revelation nearly two years after the fact, however, was little consolation. The concerted efforts to dismiss the serious allegations in the Post’s reporting and to suppress any discussion of the story played a substantial role in the 2020 election.

The Committees recently conducted a transcribed interview with Michael Morell, a former Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and one of the 51 signatories of the public statement. In his transcribed interview, Morell testified that on or around October 17, 2020, you reached out to him to discuss the Hunter Biden laptop story.8 At the time you served as a senior advisor to the Biden campaign. According to Morell, although your outreach was couched as simply gathering Morell’s reaction to the Post story, it set in motion the events that led to the issuance of the public statement.9 Morell testified:

    Q: But, prior to [Secretary Blinken’s] call, you – you did not have any intent to write this statement?

    A: I did not.

    Q: Okay. So his call triggered – A: It did, yes.

    Q: – that intent in you?

    A: Yes. Absolutely.10

That same day, October 17, you also emailed Morell an article published in USA Today alleging that the FBI was examining whether the Hunter Biden laptop was part of a “disinformation campaign.”11 The very bottom of the email you sent to Morell included the signature block of Andrew Bates, then-director of rapid response for the Biden campaign.12

Morell testified that his communication with you was one of a few communications he had with the Biden campaign, explaining that he also received a call from Steve Ricchetti, Chairman of the Biden campaign, following the October 22 debate to thank him for writing the statement.13 He testified:

    After the debate – I think it was after the debate – in fact, I’m pretty sure it was after the debate – I got a phone call from Jeremy Bash, who I work with at Beacon and who is active politically. And Jeremy said: Do you have a minute to talk to Steve Ricchetti?

    I said: Of course.

He was the head of the Biden campaign at the time. And Jeremy got him on the line, and Steve thanked me for putting the statement out. And that was the extent of the conversation.14

Morell also explained that the Biden campaign helped to strategize about the public release of the statement. Morell testified that he sent an email telling Nick Shapiro, former Deputy Chief of Staff and Senior Advisor to the Director of the CIA John Brennan, that the Biden campaign wanted the statement to go to a particular reporter at the Washington Post first and that he should send the statement to the campaign when he sent the letter to the reporter.15 Morell testified, however, that he did not recall why he told Shapiro the campaign wanted the statement to go to this reporter first and admitted that he may have spoken to the campaign on another occasion.16

Morell further explained that one of his two goals in releasing the statement was to help then-Vice President Biden in the debate and to assist him in winning the election.17 He testified:

    Q: What was the intent of the statement?

    A: There were two intents. One intent was to share our concern with the American people that the Russians were playing on this issue; and, two, it was [to] help Vice President Biden.18

    ***

    You wanted to help the Vice President why? Because I wanted him to win the election. You wanted him to win; that’s why?

    Yes, sir.19

Based on Morell’s testimony, it is apparent that the Biden campaign played an active role in the origins of the public statement, which had the effect of helping to suppress the Hunter Biden story and preventing American citizens from making a fully informed decision during the 2020 presidential election.20 Although the statement’s signatories have an unquestioned right to free speech and free association — which we do not dispute — their reference to their national security credentials lent weight to the story and suggested access to specialized information unavailable to other Americans. This concerted effort to minimize and suppress public dissemination of the serious allegations about the Biden family was a grave disservice to all American citizens’ informed participation in our democracy.

Based on the information we have obtained to date, we believe that you possess material that would advance our oversight and inform potential legislative reforms. Accordingly, we ask that you please provide the following information and records in your personal possession:

    1. Identify all people with whom you communicated about the inception, drafting, editing, signing, publishing, or promotion of the “Public Statement on the Hunter Biden Emails” dated October 19, 2020, during the period October 14, 2020, to November 24, 2020; and
    2. Produce all documents and communications referring or relating to the “Public Statement on the Hunter Biden Emails” dated October 19, 2020, sent or received between October 14, 2020, and November 24, 2020.

Please produce this material as soon as possible but no later than 5:00 p.m. on May 4, 2023. Because these events occurred prior to your nomination and confirmation as Secretary of State, we seek your cooperation with our requests in your personal, and not your official, capacity. Although our requests do not implicate Department equities, and accordingly there should be no basis for the Department to interfere with our oversight, we have addressed these requests to you in your official capacity initially as a courtesy. If you are represented by private counsel in this matter, please ask your attorney to contact Judiciary Committee staff promptly on your behalf at (202) 225-6906.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely,

Jim Jordan
Chairman
Committee on the Judiciary

Michael R. Turner
Chairman
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence

cc: The Honorable Jerrold L. Nadler, Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary The Honorable Jim Himes, Ranking Member, Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence

Notes:

    1 Emma-Jo Morris & Gabrielle Fonrouge, Smoking-gun email reveals how Hunter Biden introduced Ukrainian businessman to VP dad, N.Y. POST (Oct. 14, 2020).
    2 Id.
    3 Jim Clapper et al., Public Statement on the Hunter Biden Emails (Oct. 19, 2020).
    4 Natasha Bertrand, Hunter Biden story is Russian disinfo, dozens of former intel officials say, POLITICO (Oct. 19, 2020).
    5 See, e.g., Elizabeth Dwoskin, Facebook and Twitter take unusual steps to limit spread of New York Post story, WASH. POST (Oct. 15, 2020).
    6 Comm’n on Presidential Debates, Presidential Debate at Belmont University in Nashville, Tennessee (Oct. 22, 2020).
    7 See, e.g., Katie Brenner et al., Hunter Biden paid tax bill, but broad federal investigation continues, N.Y. TIMES, Mar. 16, 2022; Matt Viser et al., Inside Hunter Biden’s multimillion-dollar deals with a Chinese energy company, WASH. POST, Mar. 30, 2022.
    8 See Transcribed Interview of Mr. Michael Morell at 97.
    9 See id. at 21-22, 25.
    10 Id. at 21-22.
    11 Id. at 22. See email from Anthony Blinken to Michael Morell (Oct. 17, 2020, 10:53 p.m.). 12 Email from Anthony Blinken to Michael Morell (Oct. 17, 2020, 10:53 p.m.).
    13 Morell interview at 97.
    14 Id.
    15 Id. at 23.
    16 Id. at 104.
    17 See id. at 11, 34, 102.
    18 Id. at 11.
    19 Id. at 102.
    20 See, e.g., David Folkenflik, More details emerge in federal investigation into Hunter Biden, Nat’l Pub. Radio (Apr. 9, 2022); Jacob Siegel, A guide to understanding the hoax of the Century, Tablet (Mar. 28, 2023).

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse’s new book, AMERICA’S EMPIRE OF EVIL: Hitler’s Posthumous Victory, and Why the Social Sciences Need to Change, is about how America took over the world after World War II in order to enslave it to U.S.-and-allied billionaires. Their cartels extract the world’s wealth by control of not only their ‘news’ media but the social ‘sciences’ — duping the public.

How The Hate-Machine Works

How The Hate-Machine Works
Written by Eric Zuesse
29.04.2023

Public opinion in today’s U.S.-and-allied mis-called ‘democracies’ is managed through the ‘news’-media, the public’s window through which the world beyond that window is being viewed and interpreted, thereby shaping the voting-percentages by the masses, and thus determining which candidates will win and which will lose those contests. It also determines what foreign nations will be getting the most focus as being ‘enemies’ of America. It is much like the novelist George Orwell’s famous 1984 “Two Minutes of Hate”: LINK

One example of this is the way in which Donald Trump, who was the nominee of the Republican Party’s billionaires, defeated Hillary Clinton, who was the nominee of the Democratic Party’s billionaires, in 2016. The big difference between them was that since Republican billionaires tend to want the U.S. Government to win control over China more than to win control over Russia, and Democratic billionaires want to win control over Russia more than to win control over China, Trump ran a hate-China campaign, whereas Hillary ran a hate-Russia campaign. Though the voters don’t much care about international relations, billionaires (the people who fund both Parties) care about it even more than they care about domestic policies. So, in order to do the bidding of their respective billionaires, the two nominees had to demonize their billionaires’ main country for the U.S. to conquer next. Republican billionaires wanted their politicians to demonize China the most, but Democratic billionaires wanted their politicians to demonize Russia the most.

On 10 October 2016, soon before the Presidential electoral contest between Hillary and Trump would be decided, TIME magazine, which is a Democratic Party organ controlled by billionaires who fund that Party, had on its front cover the smirking face of Vladimir Putin underneath the headline “Russia wants to undermine faith in the U.S. election. Don’t fall for it.” Inside was the feature article, “HACKING THE VOTER: What’s behind Russia’s effort to influence the U.S. election”, by Massimo Calabresi, who had, in the year of Barack Obama’s re-election campaign, authored the magazine’s cover-story article, dated 13 February 2012, heroizing, as being the man who cleaned up Wall Street after the Republican George W. Bush’s 2008 stock-market collapse, Obama’s appointee who was allegedly appointed for that purpose, Preet Bharara. That article headlined “THE STREET FIGHTER: U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara has already taken down some of the financial world’s most prominent figures. He’s just getting started.” And that story, too, was just a hoax by Democratic billionaires to defeat the Republican billionaires’ nominee (Mitt Romney). But, actually: Bharara protected the banksters whose crimes had caused the 2008 crash; and even his prosecutions of lower-level alleged criminals in the matter turned out to have been so legally dubious that some were subsequently thrown out upon appeal. Obama had secretly promised to the banksters, “I’m not out there to go after you. I’m protecting you. … I’m going to shield you.” He fulfilled on that secret pledge to them, though he failed to even try to fulfill on his main and very public promises to his voters.

But, this time, in 2016 — unlike in 2012 — it was the Republican Party’s billionaires who won the White House. So, Calabresi wrote, in his 10 October 2016 article, campaigning against Trump and for Hillary: “On one side, U.S. law-enforcement agencies are scrambling to uncover the extent of the Russian operation, counter it and harden the country’s election infrastructure. On the other, a murky network of Russian hackers and their associates is stepping up the pace of leaks of stolen documents designed to affect public opinion and give the impression that the election is vulnerable, including emails from the computers of the Democratic National Committee (DNC).” Hillary was running against Putin.

On 16 April 2023, I wrote about a 2017 example of the hate-Russia campaign that was published more than a year after Hillary had lost the 2016 election, and this 2017 retrospective on ‘Russiagate’ and Trump (then the President, in order to weaken him) was another instance of how
billionaires use their newsmedia in order to deceive their public into hating ‘the enemy’. A typical example is the December 2017 issue of one of America’s Democratic Party magazines, The New Republic (TNR). On its front cover was a scary image of Vladimir Putin’s face, overlaid by the blaring headline “HOW TO ATTACK A DEMOCRACY”. Inside was the feature-article, headlined “Weaken From Within”. … The TNR article opened by saying: “Moscow has been honing an information age art of war — through fake news, disinformation, leaks, and trolling — for more than a decade. How can free societies protect themselves?” Then came this:

“After the Mueller investigation’s first round of indictments on Monday, there is still much to learn about the true extent of Russia’s influence on the 2016 election and how to prevent similar actions in the future. With growing knowledge of how Russia used Facebook ads to deliver targeted messaging to specific demographics, the true depth of their cyber capabilities is still unknown. …”

The Democratic billionaires were aiming to help Biden defeat Trump and to prioritize conquering Russia before conquering China, just as the Republican billionaires were aiming to help Trump defeat Biden and to prioritize conquering China before conquering Russia; but, otherwise, the two Parties’ foreign policies were similar and both are called “neoconservative” or pro-expanding-the-U.S.-empire. Both sides of America’s aristocracy demand this. No billionaires oppose it.

As I fully documented on 30 July 2020, in my article “CIA Fabricated Russiagate ‘Evidence’, Says Former NSA Tech Chief”, Russiagate was a CIA hoax, which was also assisted by the Obama Administration’s other ‘intelligence’ agencies, in order to bring Hillary Clinton back into the White House in 2017 — this time as America’s President. In a ‘democracy’ like this, every federal elective office is won only by deceiving the public about such things as whom the individuals are who actually control the Government.

On the Republican side, the few mainstream ‘news’-media, such as Fox News and National Review, already start with an audience that’s conservative and (which always comes with that) loaded with prejudices that they’re constantly seeking to find supported in their ’news’; and, so, for example, the Republican former member of the U.S. House, Devin Nunes, established a popular (among conservatives) ‘news’-medium, “Devin Nunes Unplugged,” which headlined on 28 April 2023, “Chinese nationals flooding US border with Michael Yon”, and presented there an hour of that neoconservative talking about (despite the anti-China headline, which is all that many people would ever see of his interview) not ONLY Chinese, but (allegedly) people from over a hundred countries, who were flying to South America in order to go north and sneak into the U.S.

However, even the Democratic billionaires’ own Biden Administration is anti-China, just as even Republican billionaires are anti-Russia. On 21 April 2023, President Biden’s Homeland Security Department announced that “Nation states like the People’s Republic of China and Russia upend our rules-based international order and threaten our security at home, whether through cyberattacks, abuse of our trade and travel systems, or through disinformation campaigns that seek to undermine our democratic institutions.” And, some of the hate-China propaganda comes also from the regular, long-established, mainstream ‘news’-media, such as CBS, headlining, on the 31 January 2021 “60 Minutes,” a segment, “China’s push to control Americans’ health care future: U.S. officials say the Chinese government is trying to collect Americans’ DNA, and they believe a recent offer from a Chinese company for assistance in COVID-19 testing was suspicious”, which was full of questions (and lots of anti-Chinese-Government allegations but no evidence provided to back them up) but no credible answers, such as Democratic Party propaganda tends to be, in order to feed the billionaires’ line on that matter (since it’s the most effective way to fool liberal voters — especially when facts don’t support the insinuations that are being made against the target).

The Republican campaign against China is hate-Xi, instead of hate-Putin, but both of America’s political billionaires fund hostility against any of their targeted-for-takeover countries. If Democratic billionaires lose to Republican billionaires, then Democratic ‘news’-media will blame Russia; and, if Republican billionaires lose to Democratic billionaires, then Republican ‘news’-media will blame China. None of the ‘news’-media will blame America’s own billionaires.

Consequently, whomever America’s two Parties nominate for the Presidency (unless it miraculously turns out to be RFK Jr. for the Democrats, or Douglas Macgregor for the Republicans or for some third political party, neither of whom would likely be able to fund a successful campaign because no billionaire would back such a person) will be a neoconservative (which all of America’s billionaires require). (After the evil neocon-driven invasion of Iraq in 2003, why don’t the American people loathe all neocons: is it because neocons get so much support from America’s press, which are controlled by billionaires?) If the winner turns out to be a Democrat, America’s main target for conquest will be Russia; and if it turns out to be a Republican, then that top target will be China. And this contest, between the hate-targets of Republican versus Democratic billionaires, will determine which of those two nations will become America’s chief ‘enemy’ for the next four years. And America will then continue being the world’s most aggressive, and dangerous, country.

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse’s new book, AMERICA’S EMPIRE OF EVIL: Hitler’s Posthumous Victory, and Why the Social Sciences Need to Change, is about how America took over the world after World War II in order to enslave it to U.S.-and-allied billionaires. Their cartels extract the world’s wealth by control of not only their ‘news’ media but the social ‘sciences’ — duping the public.

America’s News-Media Hide America’s Corruptness

How America’s News-Media Hide the Extent of America’s Corruptness
Written by Eric Zuesse
03.04.2023

This article will show how America’s ‘news’-media carried-out a virtually total corruption — 100% censorship against reporting the basic truth — in order to protect the banksters who had masterminded and made billions from the corruptness that had actually produced the 2008 economic crash. If that corruptness had become generally known to the American people, then there would have been a political revolution instead of the cover-ups that followed it: those cover-ups by the press were essential in order for this ‘democracy’ to continue virtually unchanged, as it has done. Postponing till the indefinite future the 2nd American revolution (this one to overthrow America’s aristocracy and replace it by a democracy, instead of to overthrow Britain’s aristocracy and replace it by a democracy, as in the first time around) has merely built even higher the harms that America’s aristocracy has done, and is doing, not only to the American people, but worldwide — including their taking over Ukraine in 2014 and subsequent blowing-up of the two Nord Stream pipelines that had been supplying and were about to supply to Europe the inexpensive energy that was so crucial to making Europe the world’s showplace for beauty and for economic prosperity.

In the wake of the 2008 crash, America’s TIME magazine — which is the New York print side of Atlanta’s CNN Cable News Network — featured on its front cover for 13 February 2012, the face of the federal prosecutor for Wall Street crimes, Preet Bharara, and the headline extending over it, which read “THIS MAN IS BUSTING WALL ST.”. That feature-story inside the magazine was headlined “The Street Fighter: U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara has already taken down some of the financial world’s most prominent figures. He’s just getting started”. It included sub-heads such as “He’s won 56 convictions — seven cases are pending — and he’s had no losses.” But was that because Bharara had selected to prosecute the easy cases and not the ones against the bigwigs whose good graces would be necessary in order for him to be able to ‘earn’ big bucks in the future? The question wasn’t even raised in their article. Another was “He loves Bruce Springsteen and classic rock and has friends on all sides of the political spectrum.” But wouldn’t a good public prosecutor be far likelier to have few or no “friends on all sides of the political spectrum,” especially in a corrupt country, such as the U.S. so clearly is? That question, too, was simply ignored, and this fact displayed that TIME magazine was assuming its readers to be too stupid even to think of it. (I had noticed it then — and noticed that Bharara was prosecuting only small-fry, no banksters at all — but that the press at that time was adulatory about him, like this article in TIME.) Another subhead was “Insider trading turns Wall Street into a rigged game.” But had the financial crash resulted ONLY from insider trading? Was that what had actually — in and of itself — produced the crash? Yet again, TIME magazine simply assumed that its readers were too stupid to raise such questions. At the very top of the article’s opening two pages were six photos of Bharara’s most prominent charged alleged perpetrators: Raji Rajaratnam of Galleon Group, Danielle Chiesi of New Castle Funds, James Fleischman of Primary Global Research, Walter Shimoon of Flextronics, Rajat Gupta of McKinsey & Co., and Anthony Chiasson of Level Global. All of them were charged with insider trading, and were small-fry, nothing like the banksters who had scooped up billions of dollars in profits from the enormous and systematic economic frauds that had produced the 2008 crash.

On the same date as that ‘news’-story, 13 February 2012, the New Yorker magazine featured an article, “What Will Be Preet Bharara’s Legacy?”, which likewise refused to call a spade a spade, but instead ignored its own title-question — and likewise ignored that Bharara had prosecuted no banksters. That was just as much of an insult to the New Yorker’s readers as TIME’s was of their readers. People subscribe to such ‘news’-media? Sadly, they do. (That’s why we get the types of Presidents and Congress-persons that we do: lousy news-reporting.)

The first publication that called attention to Bharara’s scandalously bad performance — which ought to have been widely reported even in 2012, because Bharara had let all of the banksters off scot-free, and not even touched any of them — was in September 2015, when the very fine financial reporter William D. Cohan headlined in The Atlantic magazine “How Wall Street’s Bankers Stayed Out of Jail: The probes into bank fraud leading up to the financial industry’s crash have been quietly closed. Is this justice?” And he made clear that the answer was no. However, even Cohan’s article ignored the other mega-scandal about this entire matter: the cover-up of that reality on the part of America’s press till that time. Seven years now after the melt-down that had been brought on by systematic looting — mainly against poor and poorly educated Blacks who had signed lengthy mortgage contracts that they hadn’t read (and that was then followed by the looting against the investors who purchased, from the banksters, bundles of those shaky mortgage loans, which then crashed) — looting of those investors, by and for the benefit of the billionaire banksters who were into “take the money and run” — and, yet, still, no one was calling-out the press for its ongoing coverup of its own prior coverup of (and on behalf of) the crimes by and for those banksters. Now that laws and law-enforcement in the United States had failed, then, for four years (2008-2012), what was especially important was to call-out the nation’s systematically coverup-press, but this is something that it has never, ever, done. Anyone who thinks that in America, competing news-media will expose, instead of hide, the deceptions and frauds that are perpetrated by their ‘competitors’, doesn’t understand the way that America’s economy actually functions. It cannot be a free press if it is a virtually uniformly predatory press that exploits the prejudices of Democrats against Republicans, and of Republicans against Democrats, but that hides the crimes of the billionaires, who control the entire Government, including its complicit ‘free’ press.

Then, on 10 July 2018, Mr. Cohan bannered in The Nation magazine, “The Flawed Legend of Preet Bharara: After being fired by Trump, the former US Attorney wears a halo of martyrdom. But he failed to prosecute the Wall Street banksters who brought us the financial crisis.” He noted the complicity by America’s Presidents in this: Bharara “had been appointed by President George W. Bush, and then reappointed to the position by President Barack Obama. … Appointed by Obama in 2009, Bharara just wanted to keep his job under the new president, Donald Trump. Bharara came close to getting his wish.” Trump was actually less atrocious than had been Bush and Obama. This bad performance by those Presidents could now be reported. But the bad performance by America’s press? No: that’s off-limits for it to cover. And the only thing that’s as insidious as lying banksters, is a lying press to cover for them.

Cohan listed Bharara’s small-time successes, and then focused upon what Bharara had refused to do: “The glaring omission from this impressive list of successes has been his abject failure to prosecute any Wall Street bankers, traders, or executives for their roles in exacerbating [Cohan understated: the banksters had principally created] the 2008 financial crisis in fraudulent ways. There was plenty of evidence — e-mails, documents, reports from bankers to the legal authorities — that some on Wall Street knowingly packaged up into securities billions of dollars of mortgages that did not meet the underwriting standards at various big banks, including Citigroup and JPMorgan Chase, and sold them off as supposedly money-good securities all over the world. Such prosecutions are usually the preserve of the Southern District of New York. But Bharara abdicated that responsibility.”

Cohan also noted that:

    In the years leading up to the financial crisis, Richard Bowen, a former senior mortgage underwriter at Citigroup, saw wrongdoing in his business unit — the bank’s underwriting standards were being routinely ignored — and he blew the whistle on it, first with his bosses and then with the legal authorities. He was fired, of course, and his warnings were ignored at the highest levels of the bank, including by Robert Rubin, the former Treasury secretary who was then in Citigroup’s office of the chairman.

But the complicity by the press itself? No one would publish anything about that. It’s coverupville. America is actually a closed society: honesty is unpublishable here, if it’s against the owners. Such honesty isn’t allowed by the people who control the country — and I am not referring here to “the Democrats,” nor to “the Republicans,” but to the billionaires (all of them, of both Parties). They’re the people who take the money and run. Their stockholders might suffer penny-on-the-dollar fines, but the banksters themselves don’t suffer for it at all. This is “capitalism”: the main owners just take the money and run. And their press look the other way. That’s how to postpone a revolution, until it will be more like what happened in France, than like what happened in America’s first Revolution. Like in France, aristocrats’ heads would then roll in America. If that’s the only way it can be done. It’d be their choice, if that happens — i.e., if it’s delayed that long. There will be a revolution in America, but what type?

This was covering up not only for the people who control America — the richest 1% of the richest 1% of Americans — but for their political agents, such as Bush, Obama, Trump, and Biden. Obama was the worst of them all: he won the Presidency in 2008 by promising to prosecute the banksters, but did the exact opposite, as I headlined on 5 August 2015, “Bankster Prosecutions Plunged After Bush’s Presidency”. Obama secretly told them on 27 March 2009, “My administration is the only thing between you and the pitchforks. … I’m not out there to go after you. I’m protecting you. … I’m going to shield you.” Though he had lied to the American people, he fulfilled his promise to the banksters. They had been crucial to his getting there. And the press covered all of that up, too. The public are just suckers of the billionaires, and this is how it is done.

NOTE: In the years after the 12 February TIME article that heroized Bharara, they made the article virtually not findable on the Web — not even at the Web archive — so, I created, at the Web archive, what is, at least as-of now, the only complete copy of its text that’s available online, in order that people now will be able to see (even though only long in retrospect) how untrustworthy America’s ‘news’-media are. To my knowledge, the present article is the only exposé which has yet been done of that article. Unfortunately, however, all six of TIME’s parts of that article, when it had been online, stripped out its sub-heads which I quoted here, as well as eliminated the photos of the six featured (embarrassingly minor) individuals whom Bharara had prosecuted, but all of those especially embarrassing details that had been in the printed article but removed from the printed version can be seen on pages 24-27 of the printed article, at whatever libraries still retain that.

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse’s new book, AMERICA’S EMPIRE OF EVIL: Hitler’s Posthumous Victory, and Why the Social Sciences Need to Change, is about how America took over the world after World War II in order to enslave it to U.S.-and-allied billionaires. Their cartels extract the world’s wealth by control of not only their ‘news’ media but the social ‘sciences’ — duping the public.

The Restrict Act is Pure Treason

This (Restrict Act) will now give bureaucrats not Congress the ability to label anything as disinformation or Russian interference and ban whatever they want, especially conservative free speech platforms.

The Restrict Act is Pure Treason – Breaking Report!
Jon Bowne
Infowars.com
March 30th 2023

Is Senator Lindsay Graham a liar, incompetent or both?

Sure, congressional staffers get legislation cosponsored with a rubber stamp all the time as Senators line their pockets over lunch with lobbyists, but hours before Graham appeared on Jesse Waters the news had broken on the treasonous bill deceptively presented by its supposed author Virginia Democrat Senator Mark Warner.

The news was that Graham, 11 Democrats and 10 other Republicans co-sponsored a bill known as the Restrict Act.

The language in the Bill reads like a George Orwell novel, crushing the 1st and 4th Amendments with doublespeak aimed at combating foreign adversaries while awarding sweeping powers to Biden’s Secretary of Commerce to set in motion the rounding up of those standing in the way of the compromised Biden Administration’s NWO directives.

The globalists appear set to unleash enforcement by an AI-driven surveillance state while, by seeming coincidence, major banks fall like dominoes to the coming CBDC maelstrom.

This all comes as Congress continues its theater of confronting Chinese data harvesting.

The architecture of the American surveillance state is set in stone.

Wikileaks published the CIA’s Vault 7 documents in 2017 detailing the malware tools developed by the agency’s Operations Support Branch to compromise smart devices, operating systems, most web browsers, and smartphones.

The Artificial Intelligence poised to police those who seek the truth is so far advanced tech leaders are calling to pause AI development because it poses too big a threat.

Currently the RESTRICT Act and a similar bill policing election interference in the house known as the DATA Act have barely met any resistance.

If the bills pass, a 21st Century Cyber Stasi will be given carte blanche to infiltrate any form of internet technology deemed fit, silencing and imprisoning dissent in jackbooted situations that will make Ruby Ridge and Waco look antiquated.

That’s when the elite usher in a Bohemian Grove inspired nightmare of tyranny and perversion as our children are openly preyed upon and transgender petty tyrants keep the remaining population under Agenda 2030 submission.

Contact your representative right now before self-government becomes a thing of the past.

The Orwellian RESTRICT Act is a chilling echo of ‘1984’ and an erosion of American freedom
Far beyond cracking down on TikTok, the bill envisages frightening powers to control citizens’ access to ‘unwanted’ information
Ian Miles Cheong
15 Apr, 2023

In an eerie semblance to George Orwell's '1984', the Restricting the Emergence of Security Threats that Risk Information and Communications Technology Act, or RESTRICT Act, looms as a dark cloud over American liberties.

Branded as a mere "TikTok ban," this act possesses a sweeping reach that would empower the federal government to designate any nation a "foreign adversary," ban online services and products even indirectly controlled by an entity within their jurisdiction, and severely punish Americans who engage in almost any transaction with them.

Sponsored by Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA), the RESTRICT Act not only targets the Chinese-linked TikTok platform but also has the potential to dismantle the very foundations of American freedom. One cannot help but draw comparisons to Orwell's dystopian masterpiece, where pervasive government surveillance and control are the norm. In a frightening twist, this proposed legislation could make such nightmarish fiction a stark reality.

The chilling provisions of the RESTRICT Act would impose a civil penalty of up to $250,000 by the Secretary of Commerce on individuals who conduct transactions that violate the act. The bill's definition of a transaction is disturbingly broad, encompassing activities such as acquisitions, importation, data transmission, software updates, repairs, data hosting services, and other transactions designed to evade or circumvent the act's application.

However, as in the oppressive world of '1984', the $250,000 fine is only the beginning. American citizens found to be in violation of the act could face a criminal fine of up to $1 million and a jail sentence of up to 20 years.

The parallels to Orwell's vision are striking, as the RESTRICT Act essentially serves as a tool of control and punishment. It is a sobering reminder of the dystopian fate that awaits the public if it allows government unchecked power in the name of security from foreign nations.

Moreover, the bill allows the federal government to seize and access various devices and services belonging to American citizens, including phones and computers, internet access points, e-commerce technology and services, cryptocurrencies, and even advanced technologies like quantum computing, post-quantum cryptography, advanced robotics, and biotechnology.

To add insult to injury, the government is granted immunity from public oversight by restricting Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests related to the enforcement of the bill. In this regard, the RESTRICT Act resembles an American version of China's "Great Firewall," which isolates its citizens from a significant portion of the World Wide Web.

However, unlike in China, where VPN usage does not automatically lead to imprisonment and many citizens use it to access popular apps and video games without repercussions, the RESTRICT Act imposes much more severe penalties on those who violate its provisions.

Already, conservatives are sounding the alarm on the dangers of the bill, including Tucker Carlson, who dedicated a monologue warning that it would provide the government the ability to “punish American citizens and regulate how they communicate on the Internet.”

Donald Trump Jr. wrote on Twitter: “Nothing is ever as it seems. The uniparty wants more power to control what we do and see. And now we’re going to give the Biden goons the ability to throw us in jail for 20 years if they decide we’re in violation of this craziness? No thanks.”

The US House Committee on Financial Services issued a warning to other members of the Republican party to reject the bill, stating that the RESTRICT Act “is using TikTok as a smokescreen for the largest expansion of executive power since IEEPA."

“The US can’t beat China by becoming more like the Chinese Communist Party,” it added.

It remains to be seen whether Americans will be able to wake up to the dystopian reality that looms just beyond the horizon should the ratification of the RESTRICT Act proceed. For their sake, and everyone else’s, let’s hope so.
- - -
Ian Miles Cheong is a political and cultural commentator. His work has been featured on The Rebel, Penthouse, Human Events, and The Post Millennial.