Credibility of Cyber Firm that Claimed Russia Hacked the DNC Comes Under Serious Question


Source: LibertyBlitzkrieg.com
Michael Krieger
March 23, 2017

Before I get to the meat of this post, we need to revisit a little history. The cyber security firm hired to inspect the DNC hack and determine who was responsible is a firm called Crowdstrike. Its conclusion that Russia was responsible was released last year, but several people began to call its analysis into question upon further inspection.

Jeffrey Carr was one of the most prominent cynics, and as he noted in his December post, FBI/DHS Joint Analysis Report: A Fatally Flawed Effort:

The FBI/DHS Joint Analysis Report (JAR) “Grizzly Steppe” was released yesterday as part of the White House’s response to alleged Russian government interference in the 2016 election process. It adds nothing to the call for evidence that the Russian government was responsible for hacking the DNC, the DCCC, the email accounts of Democratic party officials, or for delivering the content of those hacks to Wikileaks.

It merely listed every threat group ever reported on by a commercial cybersecurity company that is suspected of being Russian-made and lumped them under the heading of Russian Intelligence Services (RIS) without providing any supporting evidence that such a connection exists.

Unlike Crowdstrike, ESET doesn’t assign APT28/Fancy Bear/Sednit to a Russian Intelligence Service or anyone else for a very simple reason. Once malware is deployed, it is no longer under the control of the hacker who deployed it or the developer who created it. It can be reverse-engineered, copied, modified, shared and redeployed again and again by anyone. In other words — malware deployed is malware enjoyed!

If ESET could do it, so can others. It is both foolish and baseless to claim, as Crowdstrike does, that X-Agent is used solely by the Russian government when the source code is there for anyone to find and use at will.

If the White House had unclassified evidence that tied officials in the Russian government to the DNC attack, they would have presented it by now. The fact that they didn’t means either that the evidence doesn’t exist or that it is classified.

If it’s classified, an independent commission should review it because this entire assignment of blame against the Russian government is looking more and more like a domestic political operation run by the White House that relied heavily on questionable intelligence generated by a for-profit cybersecurity firm with a vested interest in selling “attribution-as-a-service”.

Nevertheless, countless people, including the entirety of the corporate media, put total faith in the analysis of Crowdstrike despite the fact that the FBI was denied access to perform its own analysis. Which makes me wonder, did the U.S. government do any real analysis of its own on the DNC hack, or did it just copy/paste Crowdstrike?

As The Hill reported in January:

The FBI requested direct access to the Democratic National Committee’s (DNC) hacked computer servers but was denied, Director James Comey told lawmakers on Tuesday.

The bureau made “multiple requests at different levels,” according to Comey, but ultimately struck an agreement with the DNC that a “highly respected private company” would get access and share what it found with investigators.

“We’d always prefer to have access hands-on ourselves if that’s possible,” Comey said, noting that he didn’t know why the DNC rebuffed the FBI’s request.

This is nuts. Are all U.S. government agencies simply listening to what Crowdstike said in coming to their “independent” conclusions that Russia hacked the DNC? If so, that’s a huge problem. Particularly considering what Voice of America published yesterday in a piece titled, Cyber Firm at Center of Russian Hacking Charges Misread Data:

An influential British think tank and Ukraine’s military are disputing a report that the U.S. cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike has used to buttress its claims of Russian hacking in the presidential election.

The CrowdStrike report, released in December, asserted that Russians hacked into a Ukrainian artillery app, resulting in heavy losses of howitzers in Ukraine’s war with Russian-backed separatists.

But the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) told VOA that CrowdStrike erroneously used IISS data as proof of the intrusion. IISS disavowed any connection to the CrowdStrike report. Ukraine’s Ministry of Defense also has claimed combat losses and hacking never happened.

The challenges to CrowdStrike’s credibility are significant because the firm was the first to link last year’s hacks of Democratic Party computers to Russian actors, and because CrowdStrike co-founder Dimiti Alperovitch has trumpeted its Ukraine report as more evidence of Russian election tampering.

How is this not the biggest story in America right now?

Yaroslav Sherstyuk, maker of the Ukrainian military app in question, called the company’s report “delusional” in a Facebook post. CrowdStrike never contacted him before or after its report was published, he told VOA.

VOA first contacted IISS in February to verify the alleged artillery losses. Officials there initially were unaware of the CrowdStrike assertions. After investigating, they determined that CrowdStrike misinterpreted their data and hadn’t reached out beforehand for comment or clarification.

In a statement to VOA, the institute flatly rejected the assertion of artillery combat losses.

“The CrowdStrike report uses our data, but the inferences and analysis drawn from that data belong solely to the report’s authors,” the IISS said. “The inference they make that reductions in Ukrainian D-30 artillery holdings between 2013 and 2016 were primarily the result of combat losses is not a conclusion that we have ever suggested ourselves, nor one we believe to be accurate.”

In early January, the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense issued a statement saying artillery losses from the ongoing fighting with separatists are “several times smaller than the number reported by [CrowdStrike] and are not associated with the specified cause” of Russian hacking.

But Ukraine’s denial did not get the same attention as CrowdStrike’s report. Its release was widely covered by news media reports as further evidence of Russian hacking in the U.S. election.

In interviews, Alperovitch helped foster that impression by connecting the Ukraine and Democratic campaign hacks, which CrowdStrike said involved the same Russian-linked hacking group—Fancy Bear—and versions of X-Agent malware the group was known to use.

“The fact that they would be tracking and helping the Russian military kill Ukrainian army personnel in eastern Ukraine and also intervening in the U.S. election is quite chilling,” Alperovitch said in a December 22 story by The Washington Post.

The same day, Alperovitch told the PBS NewsHour: “And when you think about, well, who would be interested in targeting Ukraine artillerymen in eastern Ukraine? Who has interest in hacking the Democratic Party? [The] Russia government comes to mind, but specifically, [it’s the] Russian military that would have operational [control] over forces in the Ukraine and would target these artillerymen.”

Alperovitch, a Russian expatriate and senior fellow at the Atlantic Council policy research center in Washington, co-founded CrowdStrike in 2011. The firm has employed two former FBI heavyweights: Shawn Henry, who oversaw global cyber investigations at the agency, and Steven Chabinsky, who was the agency’s top cyber lawyer and served on a White House cybersecurity commission. Chabinsky left CrowdStrike last year.

CrowdStrike declined to answer VOA’s written questions about the Ukraine report, and Alperovitch canceled a March 15 interview on the topic. In a December statement to VOA’s Ukrainian Service, spokeswoman Ilina Dimitrova defended the company’s conclusions.

In its report last June attributing the Democratic hacks, CrowdStrike said it was long familiar with the methods used by Fancy Bear and another group with ties to Russian intelligence nicknamed Cozy Bear. Soon after, U.S. cybersecurity firms Fidelis and Mandiant endorsed CrowdStrike’s conclusions. The FBI and Homeland Security report reached the same conclusion about the two groups.

If the company’s analysis was “delusional” when it came to Ukraine, why should we have any confidence that its analysis on Russia and the DNC is more sound?

Answer: We shouldn’t.

Read More At: LibertyBlitzkrieg.com

The CIA-media marriage and the Trump effect

fakenews

Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com | JonRappoport.wordpress.com
Jon Rappoport
March 22, 2017

Humpty-Dumpty sat on a wall, Humpty-Dumpty had a great fall…

In a recent article, I described how Trump is up against both the media and the CIA. The CIA started infiltrating media with Operation Mockingbird, soon after Harry Truman created the Agency in 1947— and the infiltration has continued to this day.

The crossover point occurred about five minutes after President Truman launched the Agency. The CIA’s mandate was: collect information about what was going on around the world, so it could advise the president.

But CIA directors, starting especially with Allen Dulles, had a different vision.

Why just collect information?

Since the Agency’s job was digging up secrets, why not invent secrets?

Why not invent entire patterns and platforms of information to support an agenda of US global domination?

Why not invent endless enemies who needed to be conquered?

After all, domination was the objective of the super powerful Council on Foreign Relations, coming out of World War 2. The CFR stood outside and above the government in the shadows. It was a Rockefeller operation. The Rockefeller family was uncrowned royalty. Shouldn’t the CIA align itself with that REAL power?

It took some years for the CIA to fully realize the Rockefeller agenda was global government—not US hegemony. So the CIA adjusted its sights and its motives and its invention of data, to fit the Globalist picture.

Flash forward. Trump, suddenly signaling NATIONALISM NOT GLOBALISM, in 2016, was a distinct threat. That signal could wake up millions of people who hadn’t thought about either Nationalism or Globalism.

The point wasn’t about whether Trump meant what he advocated. The point was: what effect would he have on the American people and other nations around the world, who could revert to Nationalism?

The CIA threw together a bunch of invented data about Russia influencing the election for Trump. Thoroughly in bed with the Washington Post and the NY Times, the Agency put out the word, and within a day the media echo chamber was alive with “Russia hacked the election.”

It was a typical discredit and destroy op. Delegitimize the Trump presidency. Focus on the man, not the message. Wipe out the Nationalism message by defaming the messenger.

“The cat is out of the bag. Now we have to put it back in the bag.”

Not so easy, particularly with thousands of online independent media outlets humming at full force.

Those who exclusively focus on whether Trump is a true Nationalist, a secret Globalist, or a neocon, are missing a key point. Trump woke up millions of people with his Nationalist messages. Those people are now moving outside the CIA-media nexus. They are springing from that trap.

A new sensation and feeling and thought-process is loose in the world. It was there before Trump, but he pumped it up to a full roar.

The CIA invents, every day, a world in which Globalism must win and should win. It turns its out propaganda 24/7. It thus saturates media.

It is Orwell’s Ministry of Truth.

JFK and RFK were obstacles to the forward motion of the CIA? Get them out of the way.

Trump is an impediment? At the very least, destroy his persona.

The CIA has no particular interest in who Trump “really is.” They only care about what effect he could have on the population.

After years of compliance from Obama, George W Bush, Bill Clinton, and Bush the Elder (a former CIA director), the Agency suddenly saw this swaggering cowboy appear strolling over the horizon. The Donald.

What did he think he was doing? Where did he get this Nationalism? What was going on?

Trump started right in, attacking the media. Did he know something he wasn’t supposed to know? Did he know the media were a branch of the CIA propaganda tree?

Did he know the CIA considered itself the true president of the United States?

Did he know the CIA had been carrying out a monster covert op for 70 years, pretending to be the eyes and ears for the president—but actually consolidating its stranglehold on the Oval Office and the Congress?

Was it possible Trump knew that the CIA, while claiming to forward US interests around the world, was, behind that pose, actually positioning Globalism as the ultimate international victor?

Was Trump aware that all traces of Nationalism, across the planet, were being censored and erased by major media?

Could he see that?

In his cavalier, off-the-cuff, impulsive, egoistic, boastful way, was he waking up a sleeping giant?

Was there a deep tidal wave, gathering force far out in the ocean, a wave of Nationalism, percolating, as if waiting for a signal to proceed toward many shores?

Had decades of routine lying and data-invention at the CIA made the smartest minds there complacent and inattentive?

Was the Agency about to receive a titanic blindsiding blow?

The CIA sent out the word to its many minions in the press, government, think tanks, foundations, and Globalist organizations: say anything and do anything to discredit this crazy president NOW. Don’t wait. It doesn’t matter what you accuse him of. Throw everything you’ve got at him and hope enough of it sticks. If saying he comes from Mars works, say he comes from Mars.

The CIA was caught asleep at the wheel. It had no coordinated plan to take down the fast-talking cowboy in the White House. It had to be all hands on deck and HIT IT HARD RIGHT AWAY.

“If we can take down Trump, we can take down Nationalism and restore Globalism to its rightful place.”

Really?

Is that true?

Or are thousands more people all over the world waking up every day, realizing that one global management system for humanity is the covert agenda—and that this plan is about nothing less than complete top-down control, and the decimation of life lived in freedom?

Does Nationalism, as a massive decentralization away from Globalism, come circling back to THE INDIVIDUAL, and his utter refusal to be enslaved?

Is that possible?

Because I’m here to tell you, if it is possible, then the fact of Donald Trump, in the fullness of time, doesn’t matter. What matters is the personal truth that every person knows: HIS OWN LIBERTY.

And trying to dislodge and erase THAT resistance and that hunger for freedom is more than the CIA and all its horses and all its men can achieve.

We are not Humpty-Dumpty.

They are.

And fallen, they won’t be able to put themselves back together again.

Certainly, they’ll get no help from us.

Read More At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com

Proper Grammar Is Racist According To Quackademic Expert

breakaway3
Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell Ph.D.
March 3, 2017

It has been a while since I’ve indulged in one of my rants about Amairikuhn egdykayshun and the Gramscian cultural Marxist nitwittery prevailing in Amairikuhn quackademia. While some, for example, are applauding President Trump’s selection of Betsy Devos as edgykayshun sekretairee, I have my misgivings, not the least because of her apparent advocacy of vouchers and charter schools and so on. Now, just for the record once again, I’m a real radical when it comes to Amairikuhn edgykayshun and Common Core and all that: things would be far better if the federal government were not involved at all, and on this score, vouchers and so on strike me as just another form of welfare, and yet another clever way the idiots in the swamp can dictate to states and localities. I’m of the John Taylor Gatto philosophy. There’s no fixing the system; the system is the problem. The key pillars of that rotting edifice, standardized computerized tests and all the testing companies, teacher licensing requirements, all of it, has to go. Out. Not a penny more on all this claptrap.

Well, the latest nitwittery is that proper English grammar is racist, and that to be compassionate, we must view corrections of grammar as condescension and inherent racism:

College Writing Center Director Says Proper Grammar is ‘Racist’

http://www.dcclothesline.com/2017/02/21/college-writing-center-director-says-proper-grammar-is-racist/embed/#?secret=4oQDLVYibr

Here, as always, the goal of the cultural Marxist is to break down the culture so that another can be imposed, and language is always crucial to this process, for it’s fundamental that there be no common ground of communication on which any cultural cohesion or institutions can be based. This leaves the raw power of the state to be exercised to settle all disputes: perpetual division, in other words, is essential to the agenda. I would go farther, and say that the same attitudes are behind the “push” of modern “art” and “music”, for the goal is the same: break down anything that carries tradition, whether language, or the arts. This is the Gramscian insight into how to cause genuine and lasting revolutionary change, and the American progressives – they are no longer liberal for now they openly censor, through their corporate media organs, any opposing ideas – follow this agenda to the “t”.

But there’s also hope, so this is not my usual nor conventional “rant,” for there is also growing resistance to the continual treadmill of testing (which, remember, is designed to reinforce the above “values” in many cases); this article was shared by many readers of this site:

Students are wising up to mandated standardized tests: They ultimately mean nothing to them

http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/28902/embed/#?secret=vryXSuqVKF

Here’s the crux of the article:

Indeed, PARCC, like assessments around the country, are used to measure school performance as a whole, and in some cases to also evaluate teaching performance. It’s federal law that schools must test students every year in grades 3 through 8, and then once in high school. Ninety-five percent of students must take the tests for schools not to be penalized.

Keep in mind, too, that we’re not talking about just one test. Students often must take multiple assessments several times a year in order to gauge their progress. Gone are the days when kids took one such exam per year which gave them (and their parents) a snapshot of how they were doing compared to their peers across the country.

And this is precisely why testing “opt-out” movements have been springing up all over the country: The sheer quantity of testing simply has gotten ridiculous.

Note that in the United States and several other western countries, tests are mandated by law, and that means, to put it as plainly as possible, that certain corporations which make the tests and sell the texts, are guaranteed an income at the public trough. And whenever there is guaranteed income at the public trough, standards plummet, and crud creeps in (think vaccines here, for a moment). But on optional tests, students increasingly opt out, and I suspect it’s about more than just sheer exhaustion at the ridiculous numbers of tests they must take; I suspect it is also because the students themselves are not as stupid as the test-makers think they are; students increasingly, and not just intuitively, realize the system they are subjected to is both fraudulent, and a sham.

Here I have a confession: back in my public college teaching days, privately and on more than one occasion, I would tell students what they already knew: the vast majority of their education, and a significant number of their professors, were fraudulent. That is, they were being subjected to dumbed-down tasteless pudding, fraudulent assessment techniques (i.e., the standardized test), and that if they wanted an education, they’d have to read read read on their own while getting their first, second, and master mason degrees from their local lodge of quackademia.

Some are now recognizing this in yet another way: http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/31219/

Here one notes another obvious flaw of the standardized testing regime:

“Tests teach, they don’t just evaluate,” he said. “And I thought what was being taught on the SAT and ACT didn’t necessarily correspond to a Christian or Catholic worldview and in some ways, it seemed to undermine that.”

The exam’s parent company, Classic Learning Initiatives, was co-founded by Tate and David Wagner in fall 2015. They created a two-hour online test that prospective college students can take at a local testing center.

Scheduled on five dates per year, the test includes 120 questions and uses a 120-point scoring system. The test’s three sections – verbal reasoning, grammar/writing and quantitative reasoning – include 40 questions each. With an emphasis on classical education, the reading and writing sections include selections on religion and philosophy as well as historical founding documents.

Tate said the SAT and ACT’s promotion of globalization has eroded loyalty to any particular cultural or intellectual tradition. The CLT counters that. (Emphasis added)

This underscores something my co-author Gary Lawrence and I pointed out in our book Rotten to the (Common) Core, namely, that in the 1930s and 1940s – as the progressive movement captured American education and began its long and ultimately successful effort to turn it into quackademia and the breeding grounds for the shrieking and violent hysteria we see now – there were publications in the “professional education” field that explicitly stated the goal of education was socialization skills (echoing Dewey), and that students had to be trained to be good “world citizens.” And that meant, of course, yet another severing of education as a means of preserving and conveying a cultural tradition, with its institutions of law and reason, its artistic and literary conventions, its philosophy and historical journey and evolution. Standardized tests are meant to convey, and enforce, a narrative approved by the corporations making and selling them, nothing more, nothing less. They are nothing but loyalty tests to that narrative.

Notably the second article implies something else, namely, that the large “big name” universities are now the laboratories of permanent revolution, offering nothing but continuous courses in how to feel (or induce) guilt, depending on one’s race status. They have little to do with education in any traditional sense. Or to be more crisp about it: they are the hollowed-out husks of tradition, dedicated to the overturning of all tradition.You can tell because of their mandated courses in guilt-pandering: the courses that require them to use gender neutral language, or require them to “appreciate” other “cultures,” and so on. It is the smaller, and predominantly liberal arts institutions, that are struggling to maintain the tradition of our culture and civilization.

So a word of advice: if you value your children’s sanity and virtue, don’t send them to institutions like Berserkley (our code name for the big American universities, state or otherwise)… they will come out knowing little of real value, and owing lots of money. They will come out mangled beyond recognition. If they are lucky, they will recognize they have been broken, and that they have been “had”. Don’t allow them to accept scholarships to those institutions if they are offered. They are corrupt to the core, and only offering a Faustian deal with the devil (which they can afford to do, since so many students are coming out of the public school system knowing nothing about Faust or deals with the devil, Marlowean, Goethean, or otherwise. Fewer still will have Dante’s perspective about climbing out of hell on the back of the frozen devil). They will attend “schools” whose sole purpose is to desecrate and eventually destroy their soul; “schools” whose purpose is to rinse every blemish of the sublime, the good, the transcendent, the beautiful, or the divine from their memories; “schools” which will tell them it’s ok to modify human DNA for the “promise of a brighter human future” while never permitting the debate to be had or aired.  I know students who have made that deal with the devil, and who have attended such quackademies, and the confusing rubble and debris of what used to be the ramparts of an individual  soul and an individual mind, is frightening, terrible, terrifying, and very, very sad.

See you on the flip side…

Read More At: GizaDeathStar.com
________________________________________________

About 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”.

Cocktail of lies: How MSM creates the myth of Russian meddling

Source: RTAmerica
March 7, 2017

For many months now, mainstream media has been buzzing with accusations of Russian nefariousness and Kremlin ties. RT America’s Alexey Yaroshevsky breaks down exactly what’s in the mix.

Would You Censor Alex Jones & Mike Adams If You Could?

censorship
Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com | JonRappoport.wordpress.com
Jon Rappoport
February 27, 2017

I write this in the wake of Google’s takedown of Mike Adams’ Natural News, and adroll.com’s decision to stop placing product-ads for Alex Jones’ infowars. These are momentous events.

In the current climate, there are MANY people who would, at the drop of a hat, censor and erase a news outlet if they could. And they would believe they’re doing Good.

Their knowledge of the 1st Amendment and its implications? Zero. Free speech? Who cares?

Much better to delete, erase, scream, light fires, turn over cars, block speakers, shout them down.

Here are several statements about free speech written by non-screamers:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” (First Amendment to the United States Constitution. December 15, 1791)

“There is nothing so fretting and vexatious, nothing so justly TERRIBLE to tyrants, and their tools and abettors, as a FREE PRESS.” (Samuel Adams, 1768)

“Goebbels was in favor of freedom of speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you’re in favor of freedom of speech, that means you’re in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise.” (Noam Chomsky, Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media, 1992)

But you see, there are now many groups who have traveled miles past a tolerance for ideas they despise. And these aren’t merely people in the street. Google apparently has passed the point of tolerance. So has adroll.com, a company that makes money by placing ads for clients like infowars. Then we have college professors and students from shore to shore, who insist on silencing those who dissent from their political ideology. And Facebook and Twitter are practicing censorship. To say nothing of major media outlets, who block stories that contradict their covert agendas.

There is always a THEY whose words and ideas are too dangerous to allow into the light. This assumption is shared by strange bedfellows: defenders of the National Security State and paid provocateurs throwing bricks at car windshields.

There is always a reason to shut people up.

“I’m in favor of free speech, but when (insert name) goes off on one of his crazy diatribes, he’s threatening basic human values, and he has to be stopped.”

Yes, and who appointed this “human-values defender” king?

Obama recently told an audience that news needs to be “curated” in some way, in order to limit the infection of “fake news.” Who appointed him to stand in for the 1st Amendment?

Peter Maass, The Intercept: “…the Obama administration has used the draconian 1917 law [the Espionage Act] to prosecute more leakers and whistleblowers than all previous administrations combined.”

No problem. The president takes precedence over the Constitution, doesn’t he? Ask any college student, as long as you insert Obama’s name for “president,” and not Trump’s name.

It all depends, you see. It all depends on who is speaking about free speech. And it all depends on who is being attacked. It’s relative.

If you’re a medical blogger living in mommy’s basement, and you attack Mike Adams for his medical views, you’re golden. You want to limit Mike’s 1st Amendment rights? Why not? “Mike is dangerous. Mike is a threat to real science. Therefore, who cares if Google delisted his web site?”

The Constitution was actually an exercise in political and social relativity, right? It was never intended to mean what it said. It was always a “floater,” designed to favor good and oppose evil—and those moral decisions have to be made by “the wise ones.”

Shortly after the election results in November, the CIA-connected Washington Post launched a campaign against “fake news” sites. The campaign quickly morphed into: these sites aided a Russian op to throw the election to Trump. In other words, free speech was actually aiding and abetting a crime. That’s the way it was positioned.

Smear free speech as criminal. Any which way.

Here is another excuse for censoring free speech: “It is engendering hate.” Accepting that premise, every presidential campaign in the history of the United States could have been shut down. Untold numbers of statements made by pundits about presidents in office could have been blocked.

If a person “taking offense” at something someone says becomes the standard for censoring “offending remarks,” Congress should pass a law requiring silence 24/7 from all citizens.

So: who would censor a political website if they could? Huge numbers of clueless people with an ax to grind. They would do it without a moment’s thought. They would do it without a shred of understanding. They would do it based on zero knowledge of the Bill of Rights. They would do it minus an education that reveals how rational debate is a prerequisite for the survival of a Republic. They would do it based on zero knowledge of the meaning of “Republic.”

They would do it with the reflex of cows munching on grass in a pasture.

And even worse, few people would voice objections to the act of censorship.

“I would rather eat a cupcake, watch Law&Order, play World of Warcraft, put mustard on a hot dog, hand out a trophy for ‘participation’ than object to censorship.”

Or this: “I don’t like Alex Jones and Mike Adams. Never did. So while I defend the basic right to free speech, I don’t really care if they’re hamstrung. I don’t care if they’re blocked in some way. On balance, it’s a good thing. I pick my battles, and this isn’t one of them…”

Really? What about MSNBC? Suppose the network was shut down and censored? Would such an action rate as a serious incursion on the 1st Amendment? What about censorship of the Huffington Post or Politico or CNN? Would that rate a howl of protest?

Let’s have a scale of importance. Take names like Karl Marx, Hitler, Lenin, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Plato, St. Augustine, Donald Trump, Jeff Sessions, Hillary Clinton, Henry Kissinger…

Decide how to rank them, in terms of who is deserving of outright censorship.

Then, burn the 1st Amendment.

Burn it to ashes, scatter the ashes in a fetid swamp, and celebrate the victory of “moral values” and the protection of the citizenry over “dangerous freedom.”

I PICK MY BATTLES.

FREEDOM, UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS, IS A GOOD THING. BUT KNOWING WHO THE BAD PEOPLE ARE AND SHUTTING THEM UP IS PRIOR TO ALLOWING FREEDOM. AFTER ALL, WE’RE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER. GREATEST GOOD FOR THE GREATEST NUMBER. OUR CHILDREN ARE OUR FUTURE. MUMBLE, MUMBLE…

The 1st Amendment isn’t there so we can admire the freedom of the people who utter what we already agree with. The 1st Amendment is there so we can rise up to a higher level, where we defend the rights of the people who are uttering all the wrong things, the things we’re quite sure are wrong.

Well, except for Trump. Except for Hillary. Or Bannon. Pelosi. Ryan.

Or Alex Jones and Mike Adams.

This is the age of information. Some information. Select information. Good information. Proper information.

Read More At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________________________

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Trump’s War Against The Fake Media Continues

fakenews

Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com | JonRappoport.wordpress.com
Jon Rappoport
February 26, 2017

Those who thought Trump would back off in his war against media are, so far, wrong.

For example, the other day, the White House held an informal press conference, a “gaggle,” and among those not invited was the New York Times.

—How dare they, the Times said.

The truth is, we are long overdue for a massive exposure of the mainstream press. As in: they are liars. As in: they are shills for the so-called “progressive Left.” As in: they have a history of supporting horrific US wars. As in: they take CIA “leaks” as gospel. As in: they never expose the Globalist agenda. As in: they defend conventional medicine which destroys millions of lives. And so forth and so on.

Think of what Trump, Bannon, and their team are doing as a necessary “market correction,” after a century-long bubble.

Any president or presidential candidate could have executed the correction. But they didn’t. Trump did.

Who is reporting on Trump’s war against the media? For the most part, independent news outlets. Of course, the Times and other mainstream news operations are slamming Trump for his attacks on them—but they are in the middle of the fire. And they don’t have the will, courage, and intelligence to assess their own performance over the last century. They can’t be expected to expose themselves.

The overall long-term effect of mainstream news is the induction of a hypnotic trance. The audience expects the truth because they believe. They uncritically accept. They rely on “reputation.” They ingest Authoritative Tone. They need a Voice that narrates reality. They refuse to do their own research. They reject the idea that there are powerful men behind the curtain who are controlling the direction of government. They embrace vague “humanitarian” ideals that are reflected with the same vagueness by mainstream news.

This is a war on the subject of waking up vs. staying asleep.

It is much bigger than Trump. He is a catalyst.

Even if you assume every single one of his policy objectives is wrongheaded and dangerous, he is still a catalyst.

Most Progressives who have also been opposed to major media fictions over the years now put that issue on the back burner, because they hate Trump. They would never admit he is a wedge into the shattering of mainstream supremacy. They would rather spend all their time attacking The Donald. “We’ll revisit the continuing major media crimes later, when hopefully a Democrat (who? Hillary Clinton?) is leading the charge…” Good luck.

In my 30 years as a reporter, I’ve come to see the result of mainstream news parading as the eyes, ears, mouth, and brain of the populace. It has been an utter disaster. The stench has risen high in the sky. I’ve watched reporters who are actually CIA assets turn the truth upside down and inside out. I’ve watched news editors ax vital stories that could have redirected history along better roads. I’ve watched “legendary journalists” betray the public trust time and time again, as their reputations climbed to the level of honored statesmen. I’ve watched newly minted graduates emerge from journalism schools with the moral sense of hustlers who sell pay-day loans to desperate clients.

When you realize the persona of mainstream news is a stage hypnotist performing daily in front of millions of people, you know the clog in the brain of the public must be taken away.

The naïve faith of the hypnotic subject must be dismantled.

We have a chance now. More than a chance. We are winning. The shift to independent media is happening on a grand scale.

Consensus reality is absorbing powerful body blows.

In many cases, people are realizing the consensus doesn’t even exist. It was erected on a foundation of sand by The News. It was propped up by chatter from fake experts.

If six mega-corporations now own roughly 90% of the mainstream news in America, it stands to reason they are going to service other mega-corporations, as well a federal government which supports and illegally advances the prospects and profits of those other companies.

The News is the business of business, via hypnosis. “Here is the Word about America today. Close your eyes and relax…”

My own personal and final declaration of independence as a reporter came ten years ago, after I had researched and exposed several monumental medical lies. In each case, I discovered mainstream news outlets were blocking the publication of the truth. In each case, they were defending the lies.

There was no sadness or depression about this. Quite the opposite. I felt energized and inspired. My long-held suspicion about mainstream news was irrevocably confirmed. The die was cast. There was no going back. From that point on, I would be dedicated to unseating major media cover stories with the facts.

There are many, many people who would take it as a personal loss and tragedy if the New York Times disappeared tomorrow. They would be beside themselves. I would take it as a great victory. A tremendous amount of “normalcy” would go out the window. Which is a good thing.

Because we really do exist in a landscape strewn with ops, cover stories, real conspiracies, lies, omissions of great importance, and bribery. Seeing all this surface and penetrate the hypnotic blanket would certainly cause an amount of chaos. But it would be fertile chaos.

From it, new individuals would arise with new discoveries and new solutions. People…

Read More At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________________________

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.