Fake News Outlet New York Times Forced To Retract ‘Russian Hacking’ story

FakeNews
Source: HangTheBankers.com
July 1, 2017

The New York Times has finally admitted that one of the favorite Russia-gate canards – that all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies concurred on the assessment of Russian hacking of Democratic emails – is false.

On Thursday, the Times appended a correction to a June 25 article that had repeated the false claim, which has been used by Democrats and the mainstream media for months to brush aside any doubts about the foundation of the Russia-gate scandal and portray President Trump as delusional for doubting what all 17 intelligence agencies supposedly knew to be true.

In the Times’ White House Memo of June 25, correspondent Maggie Haberman mocked Trump for “still refus[ing] to acknowledge a basic fact agreed upon by 17 American intelligence agencies that he now oversees: Russia orchestrated the attacks, and did it to help get him elected.”

However, on Thursday, the Times – while leaving most of Haberman’s ridicule of Trump in place – noted in a correction that the relevant intelligence “assessment was made by four intelligence agencies — the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Security Agency. The assessment was not approved by all 17 organizations in the American intelligence community.”

New York Times fake news propaganda Russian hacking story

The Times’ grudging correction was vindication for some Russia-gate skeptics who had questioned the claim of a full-scale intelligence assessment, which would usually take the form of a National Intelligence Estimate (or NIE), a product that seeks out the views of the entire Intelligence Community and includes dissents.

The reality of a more narrowly based Russia-gate assessment was admitted in May by President Obama’s Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and Obama’s CIA Director John Brennan in sworn congressional testimony.

Clapper testified before a Senate Judiciary subcommittee on May 8 that the Russia-hacking claim came from a “special intelligence community assessment” (or ICA) produced by selected analysts from the CIA, NSA and FBI, “a coordinated product from three agencies – CIA, NSA, and the FBI – not all 17 components of the intelligence community,” the former DNI said.

Clapper further acknowledged that the analysts who produced the Jan. 6 assessment on alleged Russian hacking were “hand-picked” from the CIA, FBI and NSA.

Yet, as any intelligence expert will tell you, if you “hand-pick” the analysts, you are really hand-picking the conclusion. For instance, if the analysts were known to be hard-liners on Russia or supporters of Hillary Clinton, they could be expected to deliver the one-sided report that they did.

Politicized Intelligence

In the history of U.S. intelligence, we have seen how this selective approach has worked, such as the phoney determination of the Reagan administration pinning the attempted assassination of Pope John Paul II and other acts of terror on the Soviet Union.

CIA Director William Casey and Deputy Director Robert Gates shepherded the desired findings through the process by putting the assessment under the control of pliable analysts and sidelining those who objected to this politicization of intelligence.

The point of enlisting the broader intelligence community – and incorporating dissents into a final report – is to guard against such “stove-piping” of intelligence that delivers the politically desired result but ultimately distorts reality.

Another painful example of politicized intelligence was President George W. Bush’s 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq’s WMD that removed State Department and other dissents from the declassified version that was given to the public.

Since Clapper’s and Brennan’s testimony in May, the Times and other mainstream news outlets have avoided a direct contradiction of their earlier acceptance of the 17-intelligence-agencies canard by simply referring to a judgment by “the intelligence community.”

That finessing of their earlier errors has allowed Hillary Clinton and other senior Democrats to continue referencing this fictional consensus without challenge, at least in the mainstream media.

For instance, on May 31 at a technology conference in California, Clinton referred to the Jan. 6 report, asserting that “Seventeen agencies, all in agreement, which I know from my experience as a Senator and Secretary of State, is hard to get. They concluded with high confidence that the Russians ran an extensive information war campaign against my campaign, to influence voters in the election.”

The failure of the major news organizations to clarify this point about the 17 agencies may have contributed to Haberman’s mistake on June 25 as she simply repeated the groupthink that nearly all the Important People in Washington just knew to be true.

But the Times’ belated correction also underscores the growing sense that the U.S. mainstream media has joined in a political vendetta against Trump and has cast aside professional standards to the point of repeating false claims designed to denigrate him.

That, in turn, plays into Trump’s Twitter complaints that he and his administration are the targets of a “witch hunt” led by the “fake news” media, a grievance that appears to be energizing his supporters and could discredit whatever ongoing investigations eventually conclude.

Read More At: Hangthebankers.com

Nazism 2.0: Germany Moves To Ban Free Speech Online


Source: TheDuran.com
Adam Garrie
June 30, 2017

The German Bundestag (parliament) has voted to implement a law which would impose a fine of €50million to social media companies who failed to remove so-called “hate speech” and so-called “fake news”.

According to the law, social media companies would have just 24 hours to comply with the German government’s edict before the monumental fine would be issued.

This legislation is not only poorly conceived, almost impossible to enforce and excessive in its punitive stance towards private enterprise, but it is just plain wrong.

Laws which predate the invention of the internet make it so that issuing a criminal threat is illegal. This goes for threats written on poster-board, graffiti, obscene art exhibitions, digital statements or oral pronouncements.

This is as far as any such law needs to go. Hate is not a threat, it is merely the expression of a feeling or viewpoint. It is legal to dislike things, it is legal to hate things, it is legal to feel such hatred without having to intellectually justify it.

But these basic principles of modern law in the civilised world seem to be lost on an increasingly tyrannical German regime.

Even if one felt that expressing hatred or ‘fake news’ was a some sort of crime, the law does not define such things. Is it acceptable to hate Russia but not hate the EU? Would a pro-Russian Brexit supporter living in Germany (and yes, there are many such people) therefore be engaged in ‘hate speech’?

Is it acceptable to hate Palestine but not Israel? Is it acceptable to hate veterinarian food but not hate ham sandwiches? Is it acceptable to hate ugly people but not to hate people who have had plastic surgery?

Are Donald Trump’s statements which infuriate liberals now hate speech for which Twitter can be fined millions of Euros?

What about people who find it hateful that images of heterodox sexual propaganda are spread by major western corporations and governments to corrupt the minds of the young? Will their definition of hate speech be taken into account?

None of these questions are answered by the Germany lawmakers.

Also in respect of ‘fake news’ covered by the law, whose fake news? Should social media owners be fined when people post CNN stories about ‘Russiagate’ because this is by CNN workers own admission fake news?

When state-run British broadcaster BBC posts bogus stories about the Syrian government, will this incur a fake news fine?

While Facebook has condemned Germany’s move, this is merely a matter of Facebook’s self-interest in knowing that they could be fined for failing to censor something which goes against the wishes of Germany’s political narrative. Facebook already takes it upon itself to censor people whose sense of humour does not correspond with Facebook’s own ultra-liberal narrative.

As with most things in life, one man’s fake news is another man’s truth, one man’s idea of hate is another one’s idea of joy. If the German regime is to be the final arbiter of truth and taste, social media won’t really be social media at all, it will simply be statements that the German regime deems to be good and healthy according to its own very narrow narrative, one that the majority of the planet finds both hateful and fake.

Read More At: TheDuran.com

CNN retracts shaky reporting on Russian collusion

Source: RTAmerica
June 26, 2017

CNN, the self-described “most trusted name in news,” is on the defensive after being forced to retract an explosive article linking President Donald Trump to Russian bankers. CNN has apologized to the subject of the article, disabled links to the story and admitted it does not “meet editorial standards.” RT America’s Anya Parampil has the details. Then legal and media analyst Lionel of Lionel media joins RT America’s Natasha Sweatte to offer his reaction to mainstream media’s latest failure.

The Weaponization of “Science”

Source:  CorbettReport
May 22, 2017

SHOW NOTES: https://www.corbettreport.com/?p=22774 |

“Science” is being turned into a political weapon. Not the scientific method, but the reified “science” of scientism, exemplified by the politically-motivated March For Science, the politically-biased peer review process, the politically-charged infotainment from political hacks like Bill Nye, and the politically-appointed scientific regulators who always put their corporate interests and political worldview ahead of scientific accuracy.

Mainstream Media Blackout: PROOF: Something Very NEFARIOUS is Going On At You Tube

Source: SGTReport.com
May 9, 2017

It has now become crystal clear that the You Tube ‘Adpocalypse’ is just phase one of a far more sinister plan to sabotage successful You Tube channels in order to kill competition, robber Barron style, so that the corporate, legacy and mainstream media can yield more power, control and eyeballs on You Tube. What’s being done to the SGT Report You Tube channel can be quantified by alarming statistics which prove, the fix is in. As John D. Rockefeller famously boasted, “Competition is a sin.” Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.

YouTube Trains Teens To Flag FakeNews [Mass Video Removals To Come?]

[Editor’s Note]

The comptrollers are already indoctrinating the next generation.   Both Youtube, Google, and other places are already censoring so this is just a ramp up of what they’ve been doing but at a more ‘local’ level.  It’s FAR more effective when people unleash #Censorship other people than when governments and corporations do it.  That’s a highly disturbing prospect because it’s not coming, it’s already here.
______________________________________________________________

Source: TheTrutherGirls
May 4, 2017

As part of Google’s new project Owl, a few changes are being made to the search engine. In addition, youtube is holding training seminars to teach teens how to flag ‘fake news’. Unfortunately, alternative media is often labelled as ‘fake news’ as well. Will posting alternative views soon become a community guidelines strike?

The 100-Year Starship? A Cover-up?

Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell Ph.D.
April 25, 2017

Mr. M.D. spotted this one, and I have to admit, I’m intrigued, not the least because it is not me suggesting space-cover-ups of an epic scale this time, but Faux News itself. And this one raises so many questions and high octane speculations I simply have to blog about it.

First, a little context: I’m of that generation old enough to remember the beginning of the “space race” and its context in the Cold War of the 1960s and 1970s. Russia launched its now famous Sputnik satellite in 1957, the year I was born. It was the beginning of a new era, for the little satellite was the first man-made object to be placed permanently in space. (The first man-made objects in lower outer space, believe it or not, were the projectiles from the giant German Paris Gun that shelled Paris from 70 miles away in 1918). I remember President Eisenhower’s “military industrial complex” warning speech when he left office; I remember President Kennedy’ speech calling for a manned lunar landing and safe return of humans before the decade was out. Most importantly, however, I remember the hype we were served up in school, on at least a weekly, if not daily, basis: according to our Weekly Readers, we were on the verge of a whole new era of space exploration; lunar landings today, lunar colonies tomorrow, Mars exploration and colonies before the century was out.

Accompanying all this hype were the “artists’ renderings” of what all of this was supposed to look like.

And it would all be accomplished by chemical rockets… and I remember the embarrassment of many teachers as the more precocious among us pointed out the difficulties of doing all these splendid things with chemical rockets.

With that in mind, now the article:

Is NASA Covering Up the 100-Year Starship?

Now, permit me to pass directly to my high octane speculation of the day, for what is interesting here is the whole implicit assumption hovering in the background here, that assumption being that were going to colonize planets, or for that matter(to turn to the other favorite meme) mine asteroids, with chemical rockets. The rub is, by that method, manned missions to Mars are probably a one way trip:

The 100-year ship would leave Earth with the intention of colonizing a planet, but it would likely be a one-way trip because of the time it takes to travel 35 million miles. That’s a daunting prospect, partly because of the ethical dilemma, and partly because it may be the only recourse.

“The human space program is now really aimed at settling other worlds,” Worden said during his talk. “Twenty years ago you whispered that in dark bars and got fired.” (Worden actually was fired, he confessed during the talk, under the Bush administration.)

Since that revelation, hundreds of news reports about the program have theorized that the substantial budget indicates the Hundred Year Starship is a dramatic shift for the stalled space program, not just a research project; others suggest it is a serious attempt to find a way to Mars. And NASA? The space agency seems to be dodging all questions.

The main issue has to do with a basic physics conundrum. In order to travel the great distance to Mars (about 35 million miles), a starship would need a tremendous amount of fuel. Yet fuel adds more weight — in fact, every pound you add to a ship requires 4 pounds of fuel. The more fuel you add, the more you need simply to move the ship’s bulk, making it impossible to go one-way to Mars, much less roundtrip.

In other words, someone at NASA has stated the obvious, which has raised the whole point of Faux’ News’ article: is something being covered up?

Perhaps, but the question is, what is being covered up? The article suggests only one possibility, namely, that the cover-up extends to the “one-way” nature of any Mars manned missions. But that cover-up is always with the implicit hidden assumption: the only way of getting there from here is via chemical rockets. But what if that “what” is something much bigger? A technology that could get us “there and back” again, without the same constraints on time, fuel consumption, and so on? Indeed, Mr. M.D. accompanied his article with another “find”, this time of a sixty-plus page NASA-sponsored study of using zero-point fields to create a very different form of propulsion, one which the authors of the paper, Bernhard Haisch and Alfonso Rueda, put this way: “The purpose of this paper is to discuss a new physics concept that no longer falls in the category of ‘purely hypothetical,’ but rather has a theoretical foundation and is relevant to radically new propulsion schemes: the zero-point field (ZPF) as the basis of inertia and gravitation.”(p. 55)  Of course, to readers of this website, NASA’s study of various advanced propulsion schemes, is not a new thing.

Indeed, those studies have arisen precisely because of the recognition that chemical rockets are quite simply impractical as a means to the permanent human presence in deep space, be it for colonization or commercial activities (such as asteroid mining). It was, indeed, the impracticality of rocketry in general – whether in the fantasias of Oberth, Tsiolkovsky, or von Braun – as a basis for these activities that led German physicist Burkhart Heim to propose radically different physical theories in the first place. NASA’s advanced propulsion studies are simply an extension of the principle, but in that extension, there is a backhanded admission: “rockets won’t do the job, folks.”

So is the Faux News article really about a cover-up? Or is it about something much subtler, is it about an admission? I would argue that it is about the admission: about driving into the public eye what most already know: rocketry, whether the launch-and-return capabilities of Elon Musk, or the new hype about manned missions to the Moon and Mars, is not up to the job. Something else is needed, and all the indications publicly are that NASA is exploring those possibilities. The question is, do those possibilities actually represent a nascent capability? As readers of this website are aware, I’ve suspected for some time that the capability is there.

It’s why I’ve long suspected that, behind the current hype of asteroid mining, the actual creation of laws to deal with mining of celestial bodies, and the current drive to colonize the Moon, that there is a real technology – though currently hidden – driving the memes. What’s interesting now is that Faux News, by running such a story, may have caught the scent, for by suggesting cover-up, it is also suggesting conspiracy. Whether it will do its journalistic duty and pull on that thread and deal with all the implications it poses, remains to be seen.

But if it does not, sooner or later, someone else will. And that’s when the fun begins.

See you on the flip side…

Read More At: GizaDeathStar.com
________________________________________________

About Dr. Joseph P. Farrell

Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and “strange stuff”. His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into “alternative history and science”.