Tag: media

SHOCKER! WaPo Sheepishly Admits the FBI Found No Nuclear Secrets, or Anything Else, in Mar-a-Lago Raid

There is nothing funnier than watching leftist Punchinellos beclown themselves over the latest “We’ve got Trump NOW!” hijinks.

Remember when the FBI raided Trump’s home supposedly looking for “nuclear secrets” a few months back? Guess how that turned out?

I’ll let the quislings at the Washinton Post spell it out:

Federal agents and prosecutors have come to believe former president Donald Trump’s motive for allegedly taking and keeping classified documents was largely his ego and a desire to hold on to the materials as trophies or mementos, according to people familiar with the matter.

In other words, Trump was keeping souvenirs, as everyone else does.

Funny how WaPo sat on that story until after the midterms, right?

But wait, there’s more!

That review has not found any apparent business advantage to the types of classified information in Trump’s possession, these people said. FBI interviews with witnesses so far, they said, also do not point to any nefarious effort by Trump to leverage, sell or use the government secrets. Instead, the former president seemed motivated by a more basic desire not to give up what he believed was his property, these people said.

Not only did the FBI not find any nuclear bomb codes, but they also found no evidence that Trump was looking to “leverage, sell or use the government secrets.”

So Trump wasn’t selling nuclear secrets on Craigslist after all. Who knew? Everyone. And that likely includes the Department of Justice and the FBI.

Needless to say, WaPo couldn’t just admit the “Trump has nuclear secrets for sale” flapdoodle was the latest Hail Mary pass to send Trump to prison and that it proved to be another flaccid member of the “get Trump” orgy. They threw the idea in near the very end that they still might come up with something juicy:

The people familiar with the matter cautioned that the investigation is ongoing, that no final determinations have been made, and that it is possible additional information could emerge that changes investigators’ understanding of Trump’s motivations. But they said the evidence collected over a period of months indicates the primary explanation for potentially criminal conduct was Trump’s ego and intransigence.

Some liberals still haven’t gotten the message or are perhaps blatantly lying.

Keep reading

NBC suspends correspondent after retracting his story on Paul Pelosi attack, report

NBC News has reportedly suspended national correspondent Michael Almaguer over a story the news outlet retracted about the assault of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s husband, Paul Pelosi. 

Almaguer’s apparent suspension, first reported by The Daily Beast, comes after NBC said it retracted the reporter’s Nov. 4 story on Pelosi “because it did not meet NBC News reporting standards.”

Citing “sources,” Almaguer reported that police arrived at the Pelosis’ San Francisco home the day of the attack and Paul Pelosi opened the door for the first responders.

“The 82-year-old did not immediately declare an emergency or try to leave his home but instead began walking several feet back into the foyer toward the assailant and away from police,” Almaguer said. 

His report seems to contradict police and prosecutors’ claims and spurred conspiracy theories.

Keep reading

NBC News Advises Parents To Keep Kids Away From “Unvaccinated Individuals”

As winter looms, NBC News has some top tips for parents who are concerned about their children catching respiratory viruses… keep them away from the dirty unvaccinated people.

In a recent segment, an infographic advised that those who want to “protect” their children should wash hands, stay home, get vaccines and “avoid physical interaction with unvaccinated individuals.”

There is no actual evidence that unvaccinated individuals are more at risk of transmitting COVID or that the vaccines prevent the spread of the virus, but never mind that inconvenient distraction.

The anchors then asked medical correspondent Dr. John Torres why more children are now so susceptible to RSV (respiratory syncytial virus), to which he responded “we don’t exactly know why.”

That is also not true, given that the CDC recently issued a report highlighting how a record number of children are now being hospitalised with common colds due to weakened immune systems.

Commenting on the findings, Dr Scott Roberts, a medical director at Yale University stated that lockdowns impacted the ability of children to build up immunity to common illnesses.

Keep reading

Are Lockdown Zealots Incapable of Introspection?

Writing in The Atlantic on October 31, Brown University economist Emily Oster penned a pre-emptive plea for amnesty for Covid-policy hardliners. Why? Because they were all well-intentioned and their pronouncements rested on benign ignorance. 

Judging by the numerous responses in print and social media and online commentary, the viral article lit the fuse on widespread, simmering but still raw anger. To many it suggests the lockdown zealots are incapable of introspection, of accepting culpability. Instead, they just want to move on to the next excuse to unleash blanket authoritarian control all over again.

Jessica Hockett has coined the word “Osterism” to describe the attitude of forgive, forget and move on from earlier finger-wagging, abusive and vile taunts because we didn’t know but meant well. Abracadabra. Puff! it’s all gone. ‘Twas but a bad dream, time to wake up and get going for the day’s activities.

Sorry, but the whole Covid debacle needs to be turned instead into a parable with a moral for the ages, to show how easy it is for a civilized society to be terrorized into believing blatant falsehoods and turn on one another with shocking savagery.

Keep reading

The Atlantic Is A Shitty Propaganda Rag Run By Elitist Wankers

The Atlantic, which is owned by billionaire Laurene Powell Jobs and run by neoconservative war propagandist Jeffrey Goldberg, has published a pair of articles that are appalling even by its own standards.

Virulent Russiagater Anne Applebaum argues in “Fear of Nuclear War Has Warped the West’s Ukraine Strategy” that the US and its allies should escalate against Russia with full confidence that Putin won’t respond with nuclear weapons.

“Here is the only thing we know: As long as Putin believes that the use of nuclear weapons won’t win the war—as long as he believes that to do so would call down an unprecedented international and Western response, perhaps including the destruction of his navy, of his communications system, of his economic model—then he won’t use them,” Applebaum writes.

But throughout her own essay Applebaum also acknowledges that she does not actually know the things she is claiming to know.

“We don’t know whether our refusal to transfer sophisticated tanks to Ukraine is preventing nuclear war,” she writes. “We don’t know whether loaning an F-16 would lead to Armageddon. We don’t know whether holding back the longest-range ammunition is stopping Putin from dropping a tactical nuclear weapon or any other kind of weapon.”

“I can’t prove this to be true, of course, because no one can,” says Applebaum after confidently asserting that more western aggression would actually have deterred Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

These are the kinds of things it’s important to have the highest degree of certainty in before taking drastic actions which can, you know, literally end the world. It’s absolutely nuts how western pundits face more scrutiny and accountability when publicly recommending financial investments than when recommending moves that could end all terrestrial life.

On that note it’s probably worth mentioning here that Applebaum’s husband, European Parliament member Radoslaw Sikorski, recently made headlines by publicly thanking the United States for sabotaging the Nord Stream gas pipelines.

The Atlantic has also published an article titled “The Age of Social Media Is Ending,” subtitled “It never should have begun.” Its author, Ian Bogost, argues that the recent management failures in Twitter and Facebook mean the days of just any old schmuck having access to their own personal broadcasting network are over, and that this is a good thing.

Bogost’s piece contains what has got to be the single most elitist sentence that I have ever read:

“A global broadcast network where anyone can say anything to anyone else as often as possible, and where such people have come to think they deserve such a capacity, or even that withholding it amounts to censorship or suppression—that’s just a terrible idea from the outset.”

Nothing enrages the official authorized commentariat like the common riff raff having access to platforms and audiences. That’s why the official authorized commentariat have been the most vocal voices calling for internet censorship and complaining about the rise of a more democratized information environment. These elitist wankers have been fuming for years about the way the uninitiated rabble have been granted the ability to not just talk, but to talk back.

Keep reading

Late-Night TV’s Unbearable Politics Isn’t About Amusing People, It’s About Indoctrinating Them

It’s no secret that the American entertainment industry is an entity almost entirely dedicated to generating profit off of the dissemination of regime-backed ideology. Unless you have the bliss of complete ignorance, you should be well acquainted with the overt virtue-signaling that saturates every album, show, and movie that finds its way into the canon of popular culture. 

More often than not, in the pursuit of creating such content, nominal artists sacrifice the quality of their products to make space for social messaging. This trend is common in comedy and is especially apparent in late-night television, which is one of many reasons why the dinosaur of a format struggles to remain relevant. 

This past week, “The Late Show” hosted by Stephen Colbert on CBS featured Democratic U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren and the former Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz. With such a star-studded panel, it’s hard to believe Colbert can’t retain the top spot in the ratings.

Because late-night television is little more than a retelling of current events in front of an audience consisting of left-wing focus groups, the conversation between Warren and Colbert emphasized the senator’s opposition to Elon Musk’s business interests in Twitter and her resentment of Musk as a billionaire who “doesn’t pay his taxes” while “dabbling in conspiracy theories on Twitter.”

“Somebody is going to make the decisions about what we see on Twitter,” Warren said. “It can be made out in the open, it can be made in public, it could be made by a commission, we could decide to do that. We could make the rules out there and for anybody to see.”

She went on to posit that she believes decisions about how to regulate Twitter “ought to be made in the open” but didn’t elaborate at all about what that might entail or why the man who purchased the company shouldn’t be able to do what he wants with it.

Colbert’s segment with Moniz opened with the former energy secretary explaining the difference between “tactical” and “strategic” nuclear weapons.

If this sounds stupid, it’s because it is, indeed, rather stupid. From start to finish, watching shows like Colbert’s is a waste of time. Programs like this are seldom written anymore with the intention of entertaining people; after all, when was the last time someone genuinely found joy, let alone relief or escapism, in watching them?

Keep reading

Snowden reveals ‘most important video of the year’

US National Security Agency (NSA) whistleblower Edward Snowden says a 1983 interview with former CIA officer Frank Snepp, detailing how the agency used mainstream newspapers in the US to distribute disinformation, is still the “most important video of the year.”

Snowden, who currently lives in Russia after gaining citizenship in the country, posted a short clip from Snepp’s interview on Monday. In the video, the former intelligence officer explained how he had served as an interrogator, agent debriefer and chief strategy analyst while working in the US embassy in Saigon during the Vietnam War.

Snepp said one his duties was to brief the press when the CIA wanted to “circulate disinformation on a particular issue,” noting that this information was not necessarily a lie, and could be a half-truth. 

“We would pick out a journalist, I would go do the briefing, and hope that he would put the information in print,” Snepp said, noting that the journalists would usually have no way of actually verifying any of the information provided to them.

Snepp went on to name a few journalists who the CIA had specifically targeted over their “terrific influence,” and named a few “respected journalists” who were working in Saigon at the time, such as Robert Chaplin of the New Yorker, Kies Beach of the Los Angeles Times, Malcolm Brown of the New York Times, and Maynard Parker of Newsweek magazine, among others.

Keep reading

“No Virus Theory” Psyop Being Run from Substack is Uncovered

About a week ago, Igor Chudov came across a Substack titled ‘Boostershots’. When he investigated, he discovered that Boostershots was the coordinating site of a “viruses do not exist” psychological operation (“psyop”). The site instructed people how to post on forums promoting the “no virus” theory and the Substack’s author(s) even bragged about getting people worked up about it.

We’re not saying everyone who posts “viruses do not exist” comments are part of this psyop, but what we are saying is that people need to be mindful that those who run psyops will infiltrate all sides of a debate in order to take control of the narrative to serve their purposes.  At all times, we need to take care and assess what we read and watch with wisdom and discernment, not only in corporate media but also on social media, independent media, blogs and citizen journalist sites. 

Also remember that just because certain words are repeated over and over again, it does not make them true. In fact, psyops use repetitive slogans – “build back better” comes to mind – to influence behaviour and perceptions.  But as soon as we ask, for example, “Build what? Better than what?” the slogan falls apart.  One indicator a statement is at least credible is whether it can withstand scrutiny – a repetitive slogan “viruses do not exist” providing no further information does not pass the scrutiny test, just as with the example of “build back better.” Another indicator is to look, for example, at the social media profile of the person commenting or posting to try to assess whether they appear genuine or not.

Further reading:  The Ultimate Guide to Psychological Operations (Psyops), Intelligence 101, 19 February 2021

Keep reading