Category Archives: Thought Manipulation

DHS Creating “Disinformation Governance Board” Ahead Of Midterms

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is creating a “Disinformation Governance Board” to control narratives combat whatever they deem ‘misinformation’ before the 2022 midterms and beyond.

According to Politico, the new entity will focus on “misinformation related to homeland security, focused specifically on irregular migration and Russia.”

It will be headed by Nina Jankowicz, who previously served as a disinformation fellow at the Wilson Center, and advised the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry as part of the Fulbright-Clinton Public Policy Fellowship. She also oversaw the Russia and Belarus programs at the National Democratic Institute.

She also sings erotic Harry Potter songs.

“The goal is to bring the resources of (DHS) together to address this threat,” said DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas during Wednesday testimony.

News of the DHS entity comes just days after Elon Musk secured a $44 billion deal to buy Twitter, which he’s vowed to change into a free speech platform within the bounds of the law.

As PJ Media notes:

Jankowicz has written two books, How to Lose the Information War and How to Be A Woman Online. In a pinned tweet pimping her newly released second book, Jankowiz lets her inner misandry loose and writes, “Men ‘burst violently into your mentions and your life like the Kool-aid man, demanding your attention, hawking opinions that they believe are unarguably, manifestly correct and indispensable.’”

As a thought experiment – what do you think the “Disinformation Governance Board” would have done with the Hunter Biden laptop story before the 2020 US election – which Democratic politicians and dozens of former intelligence officials swore had “all the hallmarks” of a Russian disinformation campaign – a claim which turned out to be misinformation itself?

EXCLUSIVE: Far-Left George Soros-Backed Media Matters Claims to Be a Nonprofit But Acts Like a Biased Far-Left Hit Machine

 Joe Hoft
April 13, 2022 

Media Matters is a far-left organization that labels itself as a non-profit but works as a far-left hit machine.  It has connections to George Soros and its purpose appears to be to harm conservative Americans and take them out of business.   But there is much more to this sketchy entity.

In 2019 Forbes discussed the various distinctions between non-profits:

The United States Internal Revenue Code (IRS) states that nonprofits are generally referred to as “501(c)” organizations. There are more than 30 types of nonprofits under that code that qualify for exemption of some form from federal income taxes. The two most basic types are 501(c)(3) charitable organizations and 501(c)(4) social welfare organizations. There are key distinctions between the two types of entities.

• The 501(c)(3) nonprofits (also known as “charitable organizations”) are what we often think of. They are the charities those in need reach out to for help, and the public supports them with tax-deductible donations.

These 501(c)(3) nonprofits are prohibited from “participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office.”

• The 501(c)(4) organizations account for social welfare, civic leagues and local associations. These organizations promote community welfare, education, charitable or recreational goals.

Since the Supreme Court’s Citizens United v. FEC decision, “social welfare” organizations have become a popular means for electoral involvement, often because of the privacy afforded to financial supporters.

Because “social welfare” groups may engage in limited political activity, contributions are not tax-deductible. And while (c)(4) organizations have become a popular method for campaign activity, politics cannot be the entity’s primary purpose.

Impermissible political activity by nonprofits carries risk on multiple levels. Not only could an entity’s tax-exempt status be jeopardized, but conduct that constitutes an impermissible campaign contribution may carry civil and criminal liability.

Per the regulation, in addition to what’s noted above the following also applies:

On the other hand, voter education or registration activities with evidence of bias that (a) would favor one candidate over another; (b) oppose a candidate in some manner; or (c) have the effect of favoring a candidate or group of candidates, will constitute prohibited participation or intervention.

The first obvious question mark about Media Matters is that according to Media Bias Fact Check Media Matters is a 501(c)(3) with a ‘high-rated far-left bias’.  Aren’t these same biases non-compliant with the regulation for non-profit status?

Media Matters is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization funded through donations and sponsors. According to Sourcewatch, they are funded by wealthy liberals. According to the right-leaning Influence Watch, “Media Matters was founded with $2 million in funding from wealthy progressives funneled through the Tides Foundation with additional funding from MoveOn.org and the New Democrat Network. The left-of-center donor group known as Democracy Alliance endorsed the group in 2004, resulting in donations. In 2010, George Soros gave the group $1 million. MMA has also received substantial funding from labor unions, most notably the National Education Association (NEA).” Finally, they are affiliated with the American Bridge 21st Century Super PAC.

In 2021 the IRS was notified of actions by Media Matters that were outside of the IRS code.  The Federalist reported:

The Iowa-based conservative watchdog group Patriots Foundation filed a new complaint with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Monday against Media Matters for America (MMFA) arguing the tax-exempt group has violated its agency agreement with illegal electioneering.

undefined

Founded in 2004, the leftist non-profit was given 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status under IRS code which prohibits explicit campaign activity on behalf of any candidate or candidate’s party. In a supplemental complaint added to an existing referral over last year’s election, however, the Patriots Foundation argues the group’s interference in the California recall race violates IRS terms for tax exemption.

According to the article, Media Matters was also called out in 2016 with its bias toward the Hillary campaign.  Check out MediaMatters.org any time at any day and look for non-biased reporting in any of the articles that it presents.  You’ll be very lucky if you find any non-biased reports at all.

The second most obvious question about Media Matters is why is it that this firm that spends all day long monitoring and critically assessing conservative politicians and entities, can not timely file its tax returns with authorities.  Media Matters is behind in filing its tax returns with many states.

Per a review of New York’s charities database, Media Matters for America hasn’t filed its tax return with the state since the 2019 year-end.

The third item of contention with Media Matters is that it filed for and received COVID-19 funds through PPP loans. 

Although COVID probably had no effect on its business and might have even helped it, Media Matters applied for and received $1.2 million from the US government.  We learned from this that if there is money available, Media Matters – the nonprofit – is going for it.

However, according to the SBA, nonprofits are not eligible to qualify for a PPP loans.

Charitable, religious, or other non-profit or eleemosynary institutions, government-owned corporations, consumer and marketing cooperatives, and churches and organizations promoting religious objectives are not eligible.

There is much more to this obviously biased entity that claims to be a non-biased nonprofit and that benefits from tax benefits that only non-profits receive.  Much more.  

Reading the Psyops Tea Leaves in Ukraine – Americans are Focused on Challenges at Home

Larry Johnson
April 12, 2022

OPINION: This article contains the author’s opinion.

If you are looking for sound military analysis of the situation on the ground in Ukraine set aside an hour or so and watch Gonzalo Lira’s interview of Scott Ritter. Scott has the best grasp of the military strategy and tactics at play in the Donbas.

I want to focus on the Ukrainian’s attempt to stage horrific attacks to gin up Western hatred of Russia. This has been the most “effective” component of Ukraine’s failing effort to fight Russia. But I put “effective” in quotes because the propaganda pushed about Bucha and the missile attack on Kramatorsk has not compelled NATO to intervene with ground and air forces inside Ukraine. The big show of sending tanks, outdated air defense systems and weapons to Ukraine is not changing the tactical situation on the ground. It just makes us feel better.

Unless NATO adopts the suicidal tactic of entering the battle on the ground, the United States and NATO will watch helplessly over the coming weeks (and possibly months) as the Ukrainian military capability bleeds out. At the same time, Ukraine’s economic situation will grow worse. What do I mean? Scarce fuel, limited hospital care and food shortages. The only avenue for imports and exports is over the western border with Poland. Assuming that some imports and exports could find their way over that border, it represents only a fraction of what Ukraine moved through its southern ports on the Black Sea. Normal life in Ukraine is kaput.

Scott Ritter correctly observes that the Ukrainian army pinned down in the east (i.e. Donbas) are entrenched in underground bunkers. While this offers the Ukrainian soldiers some measure of protection, it also means that these soldiers are not mobile and lack the armor and other motorized vehicles to mount a counter-offensive. In fact, any column of trucks or tanks is highly vulnerable to attack from Russian air assets, artillery and cruise missiles and would likely be quickly eradicated.

While the political class in Washington is engorged with desire to ratchet up support for Ukraine and take stronger action, the majority of the American public is not demanding action. Yes, there is sadness and anger about the suffering of the Ukrainian people, but the American public is not lining up to join a new war in a distant country. Instead, inflation, illegal immigrants flooding across the southern border and rising crime in urban areas is their worry and focus. In short, the propaganda war is failing.

I am both amused and sickened by the spectacle of the pundit Generals populating the cable news channels. They offer a harsh, delusional criticism of Russia’s lack of progress on the ground in Ukraine without conceding their own failures to pacify Iraq and Afghanistan. Notwithstanding an 800 billion dollar defense budget, the U.S. military failed to defeat the Taliban and failed to secure Iraq. Spending lots of money does not guarantee military success. And the good Lord knows we spent a ton. To what end?

I would hope that our nation will engage in some serious reflection and re-think the failed policies we have pursued for forty years. For example, sanctions do not work. If severe economic sanctions sufficed to cause regime change Cuba, North Korea, Iran, Iraq and Syria failed to understand that message. Imposing sanctions may play well politically in the States, but they have not worked to produce the political changes U.S. politicians hoped would occur.

The sanctions the United States have imposed on Russia have exposed the limits of U.S. power. The once almighty dollar’s dominance in the international economy is now in question. Russia did not curl up in a fetal position and die. It is forging new economic ties with the two largest countries in the world–China and India. We cannot ignore the new emerging economic order that is likely to constrain severely the ability of the United States to throw its weight around on the world stage.

It is time for the American people to put their own house in order. Rather than chase shiny objects in foreign lands, we should be rebuilding our infrastructure, securing our borders, reforming our justice system so that all Americans are treated equally and fairly, and demanding that the children who are imprisoned in dysfunctional urban centers are actually given a chance to be properly educated. Worrying about the welfare of Ukraine is insane when our own abode is on fire and rotted through with corrupt politicians who go to Washington and become wealthy. Those who insist we are still the most free country in the world should ask the political prisoners being held in American jails for daring to protest a stolen election what they think.

Humilitainment: How to Control the Citizenry Through Reality TV Distractions

By John W. Whitehead and Nisha Whitehead

Big Brother does not watch us, by his choice. We watch him, by ours…. When a population becomes distracted by trivia, when cultural life is redefined as a perpetual round of entertainments, when serious public conversation becomes a form of baby-talk, when, in short, a people become an audience, and their public business a vaudeville act, then a nation finds itself at risk; culture-death is a clear possibility.”—Professor Neil Postman

Once again, the programming has changed.

Like clockwork, the wall-to-wall news coverage of the latest crisis has shifted gears.

We have gone from COVID-19 lockdowns to Trump-Biden election drama to the Russia-Ukraine crisis to the Ketanji Brown Jackson confirmation hearings to Will Smith’s on-camera assault of comedian Chris Rock at the Academy Awards Ceremony.

The distractions, distortions, and political theater just keep coming.

The ongoing reality show that is life in the American police state feeds the citizenry’s voracious appetite for titillating, soap opera drama.

Much like the fabricated universe in Peter Weir’s 1998 film The Truman Show, in which a man’s life is the basis for an elaborately staged television show aimed at selling products and procuring ratings, the political scene in the United States has devolved over the years into a carefully calibrated exercise in how to manipulate, polarize, propagandize and control a population.

This is the magic of the reality TV programming that passes for politics today: as long as we are distracted, entertained, occasionally outraged, always polarized but largely uninvolved and content to remain in the viewer’s seat, we’ll never manage to present a unified front against tyranny (or government corruption and ineptitude) in any form.

The more that is beamed at us, the more inclined we are to settle back in our comfy recliners and become passive viewers rather than active participants as unsettling, frightening events unfold.

We don’t even have to change the channel when the subject matter becomes too monotonous. That’s taken care of for us by the programmers (the corporate media).

“Living is easy with eyes closed,” observed John Lennon, and that’s exactly what reality TV that masquerades as American politics programs the citizenry to do: navigate the world with their eyes shut.

As long as we’re viewers, we’ll never be doers.

Studies suggest that the more reality TV people watch—and I would posit that it’s all reality TV, entertainment news included—the more difficult it becomes to distinguish between what is real and what is carefully crafted farce.

“We the people” are watching a lot of TV.

On average, Americans spend five hours a day watching television. By the time we reach age 65, we’re watching more than 50 hours of television a week, and that number increases as we get older. And reality TV programming consistently captures the largest percentage of TV watchers every season by an almost 2-1 ratio.

This doesn’t bode well for a citizenry able to sift through masterfully produced propaganda in order to think critically about the issues of the day, whether it’s fake news peddled by government agencies or foreign entities.

Those who watch reality shows tend to view what they see as the “norm.” Thus, those who watch shows characterized by lying, aggression and meanness not only come to see such behavior as acceptable and entertaining but also mimic the medium.

This holds true whether the reality programming is about the antics of celebrities in the White House, in the board room, or in the bedroom.

It’s a phenomenon called “humilitainment.”

A term coined by media scholars Brad Waite and Sara Booker, “humilitainment” refers to the tendency for viewers to take pleasure in someone else’s humiliation, suffering and pain.

Humilitainment” largely explains not only why American TV watchers are so fixated on reality TV programming but how American citizens, largely insulated from what is really happening in the world around them by layers of technology, entertainment, and other distractions, are being programmed to accept the government’s brutality, surveillance and dehumanizing treatment as things happening to other people.

The ramifications for the future of civic engagement, political discourse and self-government are incredibly depressing and demoralizing.

This explains how we keep getting saddled with leaders in government who are clueless about the Constitution and out-of-touch with the needs of the people they were appointed to represent.

This is also what happens when an entire nation—bombarded by reality TV programming, government propaganda and entertainment news—becomes systematically desensitized and acclimated to the trappings of a government that operates by fiat and speaks in a language of force.

Ultimately, the reality shows, the entertainment news, the surveillance society, the militarized police, and the political spectacles have one common objective: to keep us divided, distracted, imprisoned, and incapable of taking an active role in the business of self-government.

Look behind the political spectacles, the reality TV theatrics, the sleight-of-hand distractions and diversions, and the stomach-churning, nail-biting drama, and you will find there is a method to the madness.

We have become guinea pigs in a ruthlessly calculated, carefully orchestrated, chillingly cold-blooded experiment in how to control a population and advance a political agenda without much opposition from the citizenry.

This is mind-control in its most sinister form.

How do you change the way people think? You start by changing the words they use.

In totalitarian regimes where conformity and compliance are enforced at the end of a loaded gun, the government dictates what words can and cannot be used.

In countries where tyranny hides behind a benevolent mask and disguises itself as tolerance, the citizens censor themselves, policing their words and thoughts to conform to the dictates of the mass mind.

Even when the motives behind this rigidly calibrated reorientation of societal language appear well-intentioned—discouraging racism, condemning violence, denouncing discrimination and hatred—inevitably, the end result is the same: intolerance, indoctrination, infantilism, the chilling of free speech and the demonizing of viewpoints that run counter to the cultural elite.

As George Orwell recognized, “In times of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”

Orwell understood only too well the power of language to manipulate the masses.

In Orwell’s 1984, Big Brother does away with all undesirable and unnecessary words and meanings, even going so far as to routinely rewrite history and punish “thoughtcrimes.” In this dystopian vision of the future, the Thought Police serve as the eyes and ears of Big Brother, while the Ministry of Peace deals with war and defense, the Ministry of Plenty deals with economic affairs (rationing and starvation), the Ministry of Love deals with law and order (torture and brainwashing), and the Ministry of Truth deals with news, entertainment, education and art (propaganda). The mottos of Oceania: WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, and IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.

Orwell’s Big Brother relied on Newspeak to eliminate undesirable words, strip such words as remained of unorthodox meanings and make independent, non-government-approved thought altogether unnecessary.

Where we stand now is at the juncture of Oldspeak (where words have meanings, and ideas can be dangerous) and Newspeak (where only that which is “safe” and “accepted” by the majority is permitted).

Truth is often lost when we fail to distinguish between opinion and fact, and that is the danger we now face as a society. Anyone who relies exclusively on television/cable news hosts and political commentators for actual knowledge of the world is making a serious mistake.

Unfortunately, since Americans have by and large become non-readers, television has become their prime source of so-called “news.” This reliance on TV news has given rise to such popular news personalities who draw in vast audiences that virtually hang on their every word.

In our media age, these are the new powers-that-be.

Yet while these personalities often dispense the news like preachers used to dispense religion, with power and certainty, they are little more than conduits for propaganda and advertisements delivered in the guise of entertainment and news.

Given the preponderance of news-as-entertainment programming, it’s no wonder that viewers have largely lost the ability to think critically and analytically and differentiate between truth and propaganda, especially when delivered by way of fake news criers and politicians.

While television news cannot—and should not—be completely avoided, the following suggestions will help you better understand the nature of TV news.

1. TV news is not what happened. Rather, it is what someone thinks is worth reporting. Although there are still some good TV journalists, the old art of investigative reporting has largely been lost. While viewers are often inclined to take what is reported by television “news” hosts at face value, it is your responsibility to judge and analyze what is reported.

2. TV news is entertainment. There is a reason why the programs you watch are called news “shows.” It’s a signal that the so-called news is being delivered as a form of entertainment. “In the case of most news shows,” write Neil Postman and Steve Powers in their insightful book, How to Watch TV News (1992), “the package includes attractive anchors, an exciting musical theme, comic relief, stories placed to hold the audience, the creation of the illusion of intimacy, and so on.”

Of course, the point of all this glitz and glamour is to keep you glued to the set so that a product can be sold to you. (Even the TV news hosts get in on the action by peddling their own products, everything from their latest books to mugs and bathrobes.) Although the news items spoon-fed to you may have some value, they are primarily a commodity to gather an audience, which will in turn be sold to advertisers.

3. Never underestimate the power of commercials, especially to news audiences. In an average household, the television set is on over seven hours a day. Most people, believing themselves to be in control of their media consumption, are not really bothered by this. But TV is a two-way attack: it not only delivers programming to your home, it also delivers you (the consumer) to a sponsor.

READ MORE

8 Joe Biden Scandals Inside Hunter Biden’s MacBook That Corporate Media Just Admitted Is Legit

MARGOT CLEVELAND
MARCH 22, 2022

Last week, The New York Times quietly acknowledged that the emails recovered from the MacBook Hunter Biden abandoned at a Delaware computer store were authentic. The admission came nearly a year-and-a-half late, after the corrupt media — legacy and social — buried the scandal the New York Post broke just weeks before the November election.

Merely admitting the laptop is legitimate is not enough. Rather, by concurring in the authenticity of the laptop and the emails, the supposed standard-bearers of journalism have also implicitly acknowledged the validity of the scandals spawn by the porn-filled MacBook. And notwithstanding the salacious source of the documentary evidence of the scandals, the scandals are not about Hunter Biden: They are about now-President Biden.

Here are the eight Joe Biden scandals deserving further coverage.

1. Pay-to-Play in Ukraine

The most obvious scandal bared by the emails and text messages contained on Hunter’s laptop concerns the influence profiteering Joe Biden apparently participated in during his eight years as Barack Obama’s vice president, with Ukraine featuring heavily in the pay-to-play scheme.

The New York Times, in its likely “get ahead of the story,” coverage from last week, touched on the Ukrainian angle by noting Hunter’s connection to Burisma and then quoting emails recovered from the laptop indicating the younger Biden leveraged his dad’s position — then as vice president. But the Times’ surface coverage of the Burisma scandal doesn’t nearly suffice.

Surface it was: The Times made no mention of Hunter’s appointment to Burisma Holdings Board of Directors at a reported salary of $50,000 per month during his dad’s time as vice president. Hunter Biden had no experience in energy. So, a deep-dive on the entire Biden-Burisma connection is a first step.

2. China Gets in the Game

Ukraine is but a patch on the influence-peddling undertaken by Hunter on behalf of “the big guy,” as the younger Biden referred to his dad. China also played a large role in the family enterprise, as demonstrated by, again, passing coverage in November 2021. Then, the Times reported, in brief, that Hunter Biden’s joint global equity firm, the Bohai Harvest Equity Investment Fund, had helped coordinate the purchase by a Chinese mining company of the world’s largest cobalt source in the Congo.

That deal gave China control over a huge chunk of the world’s known cobalt supplies — an ingredient necessary to make electric car batteries. And the role of Hunter Biden’s company, Bohai, in the transaction again connects directly to Joe Biden, as Hunter reportedly launched that new joint enterprise with Chinese business partners less than two weeks after he traveled to China on Air Force Two with his then-vice president father.

In exploring this scandal, the press needs to push beyond the emails recovered from Hunter’s abandoned laptop, and do what Tucker Carlson did when the pay-to-play scandal first surfaced: talk to Hunter’s former business partner Tony Bobulinski. Bobulinski provides further proof that this scandal reaches the top of the Biden family.

3. Moscow, Kazakhstan, and More

While Ukraine and China likely hold the most significant revelations, once those threads are pulled, investigators should move on to Moscow, which according to a Senate report, holds another possible scandal. That report documents that Hunter also received a combined $3.5 million from the wife of the former Moscow mayor, a Kazakhstan investor, and several other individuals. After all, there is no reason to think that a person willing to let his son sell access to the vice president of the United States would close the money train to just a few countries.

4. Ukraine’s Firing of the Prosecutor Investigating Burisma

With the elite media now deigning coverage of Hunter’s laptop appropriate, the public knows the Burisma scandal was real and threatened to be spectacularly devastating to the elder Biden. That makes questions concerning then-Vice President Joe Biden’s demands that Ukraine fire the state prosecutor who was reportedly investigating Burisma ripe to revisit.

That prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, was fired, according to statements Joe Biden made during a 2018 event, after Biden threatened to withhold a billion-dollar loan guarantee if the Ukrainian government refused to ax Shokin. A video of the event captured Biden recounting the event:

I said, I’m telling you, you’re not getting the billion dollars. I said, you’re not getting the billion. I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said, ‘I’m leaving in six hours.’ If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money. Well, son of a b-tch. He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time.

While the Obama administration attempted to spin Biden’s push for the firing of Shokin, by claiming the international community had demanded Ukraine terminate the state prosecutor, a State Department official contradicted that claim during congressional testimony. George Kent, who worked on issues related to Ukraine at the State Department, reportedly told lawmakers it was the Obama administration that “spearheaded the efforts to have Shokin removed from his position as the top federal prosecutor in Ukraine.”

Biden needs to answer questions anew over his threats to withhold money from Ukraine unless the country removed the state prosecutor responsible for investigating Burisma. Democrats have impeached a president for less.

5. Obama-Biden Administration Ignoring Conflicts of Interest

Biden also needs to answer questions about his decision to ignore the clear conflicts of interest involved with him negotiating with the same countries Hunter was shaking down. Of course, since “the big guy” was in on the scam, bowing out over conflicts of interest is the lesser of the evils, but it is still worth investigating to assess how Biden handled the concerns raised by the Obama administration’s State Department.

Here, the testimony of the State Department official charged with issues related to Ukraine again proves significant. Kent told lawmakers that after learning Hunter sat on the board of Burisma, he raised concerns with the vice president’s office about the relationship.

“I raised my concerns that I had heard that Hunter Biden was on the board of a company owned by somebody that the U.S. Government had spent money trying to get tens of millions of dollars back and that could create the perception of a conflict of interest,” Kent testified before House members in October of 2019. “The message that I recall hearing back was that the vice president’s son Beau was dying of cancer and that there was no further bandwidth to deal with family-related issues at that time … That was the end of that conversation.”

The question for now-President Biden, then, is whether anyone in his office raised concerns about the clear conflicts-of-interest with him personally, and if so, why did Biden ignore the problem?  

6. The Intelligence Community’s Briefing of Biden

Another scandal reaching President Biden concerns his interactions with the intelligence community after the FBI, and presumably the CIA and other such agencies, learned in December of 2019, that Hunter Biden believed Russians had stolen Hunter’s laptop, rendering the Bidens susceptible to blackmail.

Here, it is important to understand that there are two separate Hunter Biden laptops at issue. The most-discussed laptop was actually the second laptop. That laptop was the one Hunter had abandoned at the Delaware repair shop. Then, after the repair shop owner discovered concerning material on the MacBook, the store owner handed it to the FBI in December of 2019. The owner of the repair shop, however, had first made a copy of the hard drive, which resulted in The New York Post’s coverage in October 2020.

But there was another laptop — one Hunter believed Russians had stolen from him when he was binging on drugs with prostitutes in the summer of 2018 in Las Vegas. While the public did not learn about the existence of this earlier laptop until August of 2021, the FBI knew about it as early as December 2019, when they took possession of the second laptop Hunter had left at the repair store.

Among other material contained on the second laptop was a video of Biden recounting the circumstances of his first laptop disappearing with some Russians. Significantly, on that video Hunter Biden said his first laptop contained a ton of material leaving him susceptible to blackmail, since his father was “running for president” and Hunter talked “about it all the time.”

It is inconceivable that the FBI and the intelligence communities did not brief Biden on this discovery and the risk of blackmail, given that former FBI Director James Comey briefed Trump on the fake Steele dossier. On second thought, that is the initial question reporters should ask the president: “Did the FBI brief you, Mr. President, on the fact that Hunter believed Russians had stolen a laptop containing compromising information?”

From there, an inquiring press should investigate to ensure that Joe Biden did not direct the intelligence community to bury this national security risk to protect himself or his son.

7. Possible Collusion to Interfere in the 2020 Election

An honest press should also investigate whether now-President Biden or anyone connected to his then-presidential campaign pressured reporters, media outlets, or companies such as Twitter and Facebook to censor the Hunter Biden story. And what about the “fifty former intelligence officials” who publicly declared the laptop resembled a Russian disinformation campaign—something clearly untrue? Did Biden or his campaign coordinate with those individuals, several of whom had endorsed the Democratic candidate, in the release of the letter?

Given that polls show that 17 percent of Joe Biden voters would not have voted for him in 2020, if they had known about the Biden family scandals, the collective burying of the laptop scandal represents the most significant interference in elections ever seen in our country. So, “Did Biden or his campaign have anything to do with the decision to kill the New York Post’s reporting on Hunter’s MacBook?” And “What about the ‘fifty former intelligence officials?’”

From there the follow-ups flow quickly: “Who was involved in the push to silence the story and who were the executives or ‘journalists’ who bowed to the demands?” “Who coordinated with the intelligence officials?” “Were any threats or promises made?” “What were they?” “What did Joe Biden know?” “What about other Democrats and the Democratic National Committee?”

8. Joe Biden Is a ‘Lying Dog-Faced Pony Soldier’

The final Joe Biden scandal the press should push President Biden to answer concerns his lies to the American public. While there are too many to count, two merit further questioning.

First, the media should demand Biden answer for lying to the country when he seethed, “I have never discussed, with my son or my brother or with anyone else, anything having to do with their businesses. Period.” The evidence overwhelmingly shows that Biden not only knew of the family business deals but was part of them.

The second bold-faced fabrication from Biden came during his pre-election debate with Trump, when Trump raised “the laptop from hell.” When Trump asked Biden if he was saying the “laptop is now another Russia, Russia, Russia hoax?” the then-Democratic candidate replied, “That’s exactly what [I] was told.”

Unlikely. Biden also countered with this doozy, which again raises the question of whether Biden had a role in the intelligence officials’ statement:

There are 50 former national intelligence folks who said that what he’s accusing me of is a Russian plant. They have said that this has all the … 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.

We can now add The New York Times to Giuliani. It remains to be seen, though, whether the Old Grey Lady and the other legacy outlets will report on the further scandals the laptop revealed—the ones that reach the president of the United States.

FLASHBACK: Prominent MSNBC Producer Spread Misinformation to Cover for Hunter Biden

Hannah Nightingale
Mar 20, 2022 

As the Hunter Biden laptop story comes back into the national spotlight after The New York Times finally acknowledged the laptop’s legitimacy, a prominent MSNBC producer has been revealed to have previously stood by Facebook’s censoring of the story, saying it’s “a disputed report” containing “disinformation.”

In the lead-up to the election, on Oct. 14, 2020, shortly after the New York Post published their initial reporting on the laptop, Kyle Griffin, an executive producer at MSNBC, tweeted in support of Facebook’s censorship of the bombshell story.

“The Trump campaign claims Facebook is ‘censoring journalism’ because Facebook plans to limit the spread of the NY Post report. That is not censorship. Facebook is under no obligation to allow a disputed report that appears to contain disinformation to spread on their platform,” Griffin wrote in October 2020.

The New York Post‘s story resurfaced because of a recent New York Times article, in which the corporate media outlet wrote that they have now authenticated the contents of the laptop, which talk about Hunter Biden’s business dealings with Ukrainian energy company Burisma and world leaders.

The acknowledgment of the laptop by the major paper appeared to fall on deaf ears though with a number of former intelligence officials and media personalities, who still refuse to accept the recent revelation and decline to apologize over previous claims suggesting the story was “Russian disinformation.”

In a White House press conference last week, Biden press secretary Jen Psaki, who had dismissed the story as “Russian disinfo,” was grilled over her assessment.

In response to numerous questions, Psaki pointed reporters towards the Department of Justice and representatives of Biden’s son, saying “I’m a spokesperson for the United States; he doesn’t work for the United States.”

COVID Deathwatch Fearporn Replaced with 9-11 Esque War Fetishization and False Reporting Regarding Ukraine

Ryan DeLarme
March 14th, 2022

Another day, another bombardment of information meant to target and hijack your central nervous system via psychologically induced biohacking. We are moving on from one manipulative bonanza to another, trading in our COVID Deathcounts and dancing ICU nurses for models brandishing airsoft guns and video game clips presented as raw war footage.

Though there is a very real and grave situation escalating in Ukraine, a lot of what we are being sold about the conflict appears to have been a nicely packaged bag of goods, sufficiently tinkered with by the modern press wizards and decades of propaganda by their predecessors. As was done with COVID-19, the establishment and its myriad tendrils are now stoking the fires of war to elicit a specific reaction in those who still cling to the narratives crafted by the corpocratic uni party.  

The biggest question, perhaps, is whether or not the military-industrial complex (MIC), the criminal Deep-State, and the international western intelligence apparatus have their own uses for this incursion, and if so, how are they using the fog of war to their advantage? What picture are they trying to paint for us and to what ends?  We may never know the full truth of why things are playing out the way they are, but we can at least come to certain conclusions about how the same media and ruling class (that consistently got things wrong all throughout the pandemic) are trying to frame the conflict in Ukraine to suit their needs.

Below are several examples of dubious narratives that have emerged and been subsequently scrutinized:  

  • Videos popped up on Facebook and TikTok claiming that 13 soldiers stationed on Snake Island were killed after a Russian Warship attacked the island. This story had all the trappings of war-time propaganda. Surrounded and outnumbered good guys. Larger, more powerful, and lethal bad guys. Courage until the very end. No surrender. It’s the type of stuff that makes legends of soldiers and provides both a morale boost and reinvigorated sense of purpose back in the barracks. If they can do it, then so can I. The lies went so far as to find themselves in a speech given by President Volodymyr Zelensky himself, who said that the thirteen Heroes of Snake Island would even be awarded the highest possible honor posthumously. The mainstream media wasted no time whipping up headlines. It was later revealed that the soldiers were, in fact, alive and well. The verdict is still out as to whether or not they surrendered peacefully, as Russian sources claim, or if they were taken captive by force.
  • Supposedly a Russian tank ran over a civilian car with an elderly man still inside, but several journalists and open source researchers claim that the armored vehicle is a Strela-10, an air defense system used by the Ukrainian military.

There are other clues that suggest the vehicle is Ukrainian. For example, there is no letter “Z” painted on the side of the tank, something the Russian military has used since the start of this conflict as a distinguishing mark to differentiate their equipment from similar Ukrainian models.

It is yet unknown why this Ukrainian armored vehicle ran over a civilian car, but other videos shot moments earlier provide some potential answers. As per Observers France 24:

Why did this Ukrainian armored vehicle run over a civilian car in this part of Kyiv? Other videos shot a few moments earlier provide some answers to this question. We have chosen not to publish them, due to their shocking nature. It shows soldiers dressed in Ukrainian uniforms chasing and shooting at the driver of a military truck (in red below) seconds before the armored vehicle crushed the car.

Screenshot of one of the videos showing shooting in Obolon. © Observers

The man driving the military truck was also wearing a Ukrainian uniform, but soldiers who could be heard speaking in the videos explained that he was suspected to be a “Russian saboteur disguised as a Ukrainian soldier”. A few minutes before the incident occured, Ukrainian Deputy Defence Minister Anna Maliar posted a message on Facebook saying that “the Russian army has seized Ukrainian army vehicles and is headed towards Kyiv”.

In several videos, the Ukrainian soldiers nearby do not attack the armored vehicle after it runs over the car, nor does the vehicle flee. This is why several journalists claim that the driver of the Strela-10 was not one of these saboteurs, but rather a Ukrainian soldier who was thrown off by the shooting that had taken place nearby. They said the collision between the car and the Ukrainian armored vehicle was accidental and caused by the fighting.

  • Widespread outrage erupted after a story broke claiming that Russia bombed the Holocaust Memorial Center in Babyn Yar, even Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky himself tweeted out about the memorial being destroyed. However, on March 2nd, New York Times correspondent Nadav Gavrielov posted this clarification: 


“The Babyn Yar Holocaust Memorial Center was not directly damaged during a nearby strike in Kyiv on Tuesday that the Ukrainian authorities said had killed five people, according to Ruslan Kavatsiuk, the deputy chief executive of the center. He said there was damage to a building that the center plans to use for a museum”.

  • It was claimed that Russia shelled the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant. On March 4th, Euronews and Reuters covered this story, which went on to make global headlines and generate fear of potential nuclear catastrophe. After injecting their coverage with  psychologically manipulative verbiage, the articles provide this clarification:

“The fire at the Zaporizhzhia compound was in a training center and not at the plant itself. An official at Energoatom, the state enterprise that runs Ukraine’s four nuclear plants, said there was no further fighting, the fire was out, radiation was normal and Russian forces were in control”

  • Several photos of Zelensky in military garb circulated recently that were actually from 2021,  these images show President Volodymyr Zelensky during military exercises last October in the disputed Donbas region in Eastern Ukraine, months before Russia’s invasion. These photos have been used to promote the image of an engaged and courageous Zelensky, standing side by side with his troops and fighting the evil Vladimir Putin. It’s David Vs. Goliath. For instance, one of the aforementioned Twitter clowns proclaimed, “Unlike [Putin], Ukraine’s president is on the front lines fighting for his people. This is a leader!” This information isn’t meant to downplay the heroism of those who are actually defending their homes in Ukraine, rather, we mention this to draw attention to the way our Media operates. The Western Establishment wants you to believe a particular narrative and it will break all ethics codes to do so. THAT is the story, not that you should pick sides.
  • The Ghost of Kiev. Not long after the invasion began, rumors and reports began to circulate that one of their pilots, flying an MiG-29, had shot down six Russian aircraft (some reports claim as many as 21 confirmed aircraft kills). The tall tale combined with the mystery surrounding the identity of this pilot created the perfect storm of intrigue, catapulting the nameless fighter known colloquially as the Ghost of Kyiv to hero status.
    Military.com added their own spin on the make believe war hero, giving those who pushed the false claim a pass and claiming that the stunt was fine because it was good for morale. The video footage originally circulated claiming to be raw war footage of the “Ghost of Kyiv” was determined to have actually come from a video game.

Visual Examples:

It is very easy to become a victim of psychological warfare intended to manipulate our opinions.

And then we come to the things that were actually real but labeled as false by the mainstream media, its fact-checkers, and even the White House press secretary. Namely the presence of US-funded Biolabs lining the border of Ukraine and Russia. To put the severity of this in context, just imagine if Vladimir Putin had placed a series of Biolabs in Mexico along our border. 

Justin DesChamps, founder of Stillness in the Storm and host of Vigilant News, seized the day and jumped on a story that many were afraid to touch:

Days after Twitter suspended an account for the high crime of accurately reporting that BioLab facilities in Ukraine match up with Russian targets in their ongoing operations, the US Embassy in Ukraine appears to have scrubbed various PDF fact sheets and documents from their official site.”

The documents removed confirmed that, despite the fake news reported by Politifact, there are indeed Biolabs in Ukraine—at least there were.

Politifact, and several other mainstream media outlets, have attempted to debunk the claim that the US and Ukraine were working together to advance mutual interest in the domain of bioweapons production, saying that the facilities are part of the U.S. Department of Defense Cooperative Threat Reduction Program. In short, while the program identifies, collects, secures, and develops treatments for pathogens—according to official statements on the US Embassy site, these programs are not involved in bioweapons manufacturing.”

Unfortunately for Politifact and company, their credibility (whatever was left of it) was shredded when Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Victoria Nuland testified before a Senate Foreign Relation Committee hearing that the State Department was concerned that Russian forces are trying to gain control of biological research facilities within Ukraine. The rest of the world took this as an admission from the United States that they did indeed have Biolabs in Ukraine.

Russia put out its own version of the story, but of course, we are supposed to believe that Russians are only capable of dangerous lies. ASB News, an organization that breaks news on Russia and its military, published documents Russia claims show biological testing in Ukraine near the Russian border.

One document shows a list of the microbes being tested at the lab.

The documents were later deleted but they are still available on the Wayback Machine.

Massachusetts Reports ‘Significant Overcount’ of COVID Deaths

Chris Lisinski 
March 10, 2022

EDITORS NOTE: The following article comes from a local NBC channel.

When state public health officials publish Monday’s report about the latest COVID-19 impacts on Massachusetts, the cumulative death toll through two years of the pandemic will suddenly stand about 15% lower.

The Baker administration will start using a new public health surveillance definition next week, narrowing the window of time between a confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis and death required for the fatality to get attributed to the highly infectious virus.

Saying the Bay State’s earlier methodology led to a “significant overcount of deaths,” officials said Thursday they will adopt a new system recommended by the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists.

And in a step that could reshape understanding of the pandemic’s impact on Massachusetts, the administration will apply the new method retroactively, resulting in 4,081 deaths once linked to the virus being recategorized as stemming from other causes and roughly 400 others newly being labeled as COVID-19 deaths.

“We think this is an absolutely critical step in improving our understanding of who COVID has impacted most significantly during the pandemic,” said state epidemiologist Dr. Catherine Brown. “We believe that this will provide us a much more accurate picture of who has died associated with a COVID infection in Massachusetts, and it will also improve our ability to compare our data with data from other jurisdictions.”

For the duration of the pandemic, state officials have deemed a fatality COVID-related if it met at least one of three criteria: if a case investigation determined the virus “caused” or “contributed” to the death, if the death certificate listed COVID-19 or an “equivalent term” as the cause, or if state public health surveillance linked a confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis to a Bay Stater’s death.

The first two measures remain unchanged since the earliest days of the crisis, but the third has already been updated once and is set to evolve again on Monday.

From March 2020 to March 2021, DPH counted the death of any person who had previously tested positive for COVID-19 as a COVID-related death, regardless of how much time elapsed between those two events.

Even if someone contracted the virus in March and died in a car crash in July, they were added to the ongoing tally of pandemic deaths for that first year.

“This strategy worked well at the beginning of the pandemic, and in fact, a paper was published last summer in the Journal of the American Medical Association, which lauded our efforts here in Massachusetts in counting deaths that occurred during the first wave of the pandemic as opposed to several other jurisdictions,” said Public Health Commissioner Margret Cooke. “But over time, our approach proved to be too expansive and led to a significant overcount of deaths in Massachusetts. People who had gotten COVID earlier in 2020 and died for other reasons ended up still being included in COVID-associated death counts.”

The department updated its approach for the third criterion in April 2021, officials said Thursday, keeping the death investigation and death certificate triggers in place. Under that method, officials counted only those who died within 60 days of a COVID diagnosis as deaths related to the virus, unless their death was clearly linked to another cause such as trauma.

That system remained in place for most of 2021 and will be replaced in Monday’s daily report by the new definition, recommended in December by the national consortium of state public health leaders after months of study.

The new method suggested by the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists calls for counting deaths within 30 days of a COVID-19 diagnosis where “natural causes” is labeled on a death certificate as attributable to the virus, half as long a timeframe as under the most recent definition in Massachusetts.

Brown said the update will “make sure that what we are capturing is the acute impact of COVID.”

“People who are seriously ill and hospitalized for longer and end up dying after that 30 days have almost invariably had COVID listed on their death certificate, so they end up being counted under another method,” Brown said.

As has been the case throughout the pandemic, if an official death investigation determined the virus caused or contributed or if a death certificate lists COVID-19 or an equivalent term, that fatality will add to the pandemic death toll.

Brown said the vast majority of the 4,081 deaths that will no longer be deemed COVID-related, about 95%, occurred between May 2020 and May 2021, covering the tail end of the state’s first surge and its second surge that winter. Most of the roughly 400 deaths that will acquire a COVID label also happened in that span, Brown said.

Taken together, the removals and additions net out to a reduction in the cumulative COVID-19 death toll of about 3,700 people, more than the entire population of Provincetown.

DPH does not expect to have a new tally for the number of COVID-19 deaths in Massachusetts until it publishes new data on its COVID-19 dashboard around 5 p.m. on Monday. Back-end work to merge datasets will take place over the weekend, according to Brown.

It also remains unclear if the change in Massachusetts will send out ripple effects across the country.

Asked if other states planned to adopt the national council’s recommended methodology as well, Brown said that the new definition planned for rollout in Massachusetts is “actually much more consistent with what many other jurisdictions are already using.”

“This is a recommended guidance definition, and it is designed to help improve comparability across jurisdictions, across states. But we have also heard from a few jurisdictions that they are not planning on updating the way they count deaths,” she said. “What’s really important is that this change to the definition will actually increase the ability to compare the counts in Massachusetts with other jurisdictions because it will be more similar to what most other jurisdictions are using.”

The U.S. Center and Disease Control’s online tracker on Thursday listed 959,533 total COVID-19 deaths across the country since Jan. 21, 2020. Massachusetts had the 13th-most total deaths among states and the 11th-highest rate of deaths per 100,000 residents, both of which will likely change when the updated death toll is published next week.

As of 5 p.m. Wednesday, Massachusetts health officials had recorded 23,708 confirmed and probable COVID-19 deaths since the outbreak first began, so that figure is likely to drop to around 20,000 on Monday.

The new methodology will also apply to weekly reporting about COVID-19 cases in vaccinated individuals, the next version of which is set for publication on Tuesday.

Brown added that preliminary analysis did not show any significant changes to the distribution of deaths by age group, sex and race or ethnicity once the new definition was applied.

“While we absolutely acknowledge that we’re moving to a more accurate and appropriate way to count deaths, it doesn’t change our understanding, it does not alter our understanding, of who has died from COVID and where the most disproportionate impacts have been,” Brown said.

The Baker administration appears not to have made as public an announcement about the first change to its statewide COVID-19 death definition as the latest update. Officials said in April 2021 that they would change how deaths were counted specifically in long-term care facilities to align with the CDC’s national definition, but made no mention in that press release of the broader change imposing a 60-day limit on the span between an infection and death to count in some cases.

Orwell’s “Two Minutes Hate” Becomes Reality as Facebook Now Allows Violence & Hate Directed at Russians

By Matt Agorist
March 11th, 2022

Over the last 6 years, Facebook, now Meta, has clamped down on any and all calls for violence by users on its platform. Users who advocated for violence were banned and some of them were reported to authorities in the company’s attempt to make its platform a more peaceful place. But all that has changed now as the world slips into a scene from George Orwell’s dystopian novel, 1984.

On Thursday night, Reuters reported that Meta Platforms will now allow Facebook and Instagram users in some countries to call for violence against Russians in what they refer to as a “temporary change to its hate speech policy.”

Users can now openly advocate for the assassination of world leaders, so long as they are considered political enemies of the West. Russian President Vladimir Putin and Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko are fair game in Meta’s new world.

“As a result of the Russian invasion of Ukraine we have temporarily made allowances for forms of political expression that would normally violate our rules like violent speech such as ‘death to the Russian invaders.’ We still won’t allow credible calls for violence against Russian civilians,” Meta spokesperson Andy Stone said in a statement.

If the user gets too detailed about how and where they are going to kill these Russians, only then will Facebook and Instagram draw the line.

Citing the Reuters story, Russia’s US embassy demanded that Washington stop the “extremist activities” of Meta allowing its users to call for violence.

“Users of Facebook & Instagram did not give the owners of these platforms the right to determine the criteria of truth and pit nations against each other,” the embassy said on Twitter Thursday night in response to the change.

☝️We demand that 🇺🇸 authorities stop the extremist activities of @Meta, take measures to bring the perpetrators to justice. Users of #Facebook & #Instagram did not give the owners of these platforms the right to determine the criteria of truth and pit nations against each other. https://t.co/1RkrjRmEtA pic.twitter.com/sTacSm4nDt

— Russian Embassy in USA 🇷🇺 (@RusEmbUSA) March 11, 2022

To be clear, these calls for violence are not only allowed against the Russian military and its leaders, but Facebook now considers it fine and dandy for its users to call for violence against the Russian people as well — so long as it is “in the context of the Ukrainian invasion.”

“We are issuing a spirit-of-the-policy allowance to allow T1 violent speech that would otherwise be removed under the Hate Speech policy when: (a) targeting Russian soldiers, EXCEPT prisoners of war, or (b) targeting Russians where it’s clear that the context is the Russian invasion of Ukraine (e.g., content mentions the invasion, self-defense, etc.),” it said in the email.

Anyone who has read Orwell’s 1984 should see a familiar theme with this move by Facebook — it’s called Two Minutes Hate. Two Minutes Hate was a daily public ritual in the novel during which members of the Outer Party of Oceania must watch a film depicting the enemies of the state and openly and loudly express hatred for them.

The horrible thing about the Two Minutes Hate was not that one was obliged to act a part, but, on the contrary, that it was impossible to avoid joining in. Within thirty seconds any pretence was always unnecessary. A hideous ecstasy of fear and vindictiveness, a desire to kill, to torture, to smash faces in with a sledge-hammer, seemed to flow through the whole group of people like an electric current, turning one even against one’s will into a grimacing, screaming lunatic. And yet the rage that one felt was an abstract, undirected emotion which could be switched from one object to another like the flame of a blowlamp.

No other political speech is allowed except for hatred of those who oppose the party. As Orwell explained, in re-directing the members’ subconscious feelings away from the Party’s government of Oceania, and towards non-existent external enemies, the Party minimizes thoughtcrime and the consequent, subversive behaviors of thought criminals.

If the masses direct their hatred and fear toward a single enemy, Vladimir Putin and Russians, then they will be unconcerned with the atrocities carried out by their own governments.

Instead of Putin, Emmanuel Goldstein — the principal enemy of the people of Oceania — is the target of the hatred and calls for violence for the two-minute period. He is seen and heard on the “telescreen” during the Ministry of Truth’s propaganda display.

Just as anyone who questioned the party in 1984 was associated with Goldstein, we are seeing the same scenario play out with Russia. If you do not parrot the establishment’s talking points on Ukraine, you are a puppet of Putin and worthy of hate and disdain.

The foresight by Orwell is uncanny and should be an indicator that Western society is slipping into dark times.

Yes, Vladimir Putin is a tyrant, thug, criminal, who is committing mass murder and deserves your scorn and ire. This war is horrific and he bears the brunt of the responsibility.

However, when hatred and violence are condoned and sanctioned by the largest social media network in the world — with a sordid track record of manipulating its users — you should begin to question your reality.

The Russian people are not our enemy. Just as Americans have no say in their government invading Iraq and Afghanistan, and drone bombing children in the Middle East, the Russians have no say in their dictator waging a war in Ukraine.

We cannot be so blinded by fear that we are willing to relinquish control of our emotions to known liars and manipulators, simply because they encourage it by allowing it. As Orwell warns us, this fear will consume you. We have to do better.

If humanity is no better than easily steered blind hatred for our fellow humans, then what’s left that’s worth fighting for?

Source: The Free Thought Project

FOIA Request Reveals Biden Admin Paid $1 Billion to Corporate Media Outlets to Push Covid Vaccines

By Matt Agorist

Since the COVID-19 pandemic began in 2020, the US government has poured billions of your tax dollars into the vaccine program. More than $9 billion of your tax dollars were given to vaccine companies for research and over $22 billion of your tax dollars were then used to support vaccine distribution. The feds also shelled out another $10 billion to expand access and $3 billion more to spend on an ad campaign to combat vaccine hesitancy.

The government was originally transparent with their advertising campaign, rubbing it in the faces of taxpayers that their money was going to paying for commercials for billion dollar companies. However, according to documents obtained under a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, we are now learning that this campaign was far more insidious than just commercials.

According to FOIA documents obtained by The Blaze, the current administration paid the whole of corporate media, including the so-called “conservative” outlets, a billion of your tax dollars to carry out a massive campaign to push positive information about the COVID-19 vaccines. This was done through ads, but the same companies also produced positive news reports on the jabs as well.

The propaganda was carried out as part of the “COVID-19 Public Education Campaign,” a “national initiative to increase public confidence in and uptake of COVID-19 vaccines,” was created with the goal of having “trusted messengers and influencers” speak to news organizations to “provide factual, timely information and steps people can take to protect themselves, their families, and their communities.”

In response to a FOIA request by The Blaze media outlet, the Department of Health and Human Services admitted that it spend hundreds of millions of dollars on the purchasing of “advertising from major news networks including ABC, CBS, and NBC, as well as cable TV news stations Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC, legacy media publications including the New York Post, the Los Angeles Times, and the Washington Post, digital media companies like BuzzFeed News and Newsmax, and hundreds of local newspapers and TV stations. These outlets were collectively responsible for publishing countless articles and video segments regarding the vaccine that were nearly uniformly positive about the vaccine in terms of both its efficacy and safety.”

The breach of journalistic integrity in this scheme cannot be overstated. While the average American thought they were consuming “unbiased” media reports, they were actually part of a paid propaganda campaign to convince them to take the vaccine.

As The Blaze points out, “though virtually all of these newsrooms produced stories covering the COVID-19 vaccines, the taxpayer dollars flowing to their companies were not disclosed to audiences in news reports, since common practice dictates that editorial teams operate independently of media advertising departments and news teams felt no need to make the disclosure, as some publications reached for comment explained.”

“Advertisers pay for space to share their messages, as was the case here, and those ads are clearly labeled as such,” explained Shani George, vice president of communications for the Washington Post, in a statement. “The newsroom is completely independent from the advertising department,” she said.

A spokeswoman for the Los Angeles Times gave a similar statement, emphasizing that the “newsroom operates independently from advertising.”

However, that was clearly not the case.

Emerald Robinson, an independent journalist who previously served as the chief White House correspondent for Newsmax (2020-2022) and for One America News (2017-2020), said she was contacted by a whistleblower inside Newsmax who confirmed that Newsmax executives agreed to take the money from Biden’s HHS to push only positive coverage of the new COVID shots.

This was evidenced by the CEO of Newsmax, Chris Ruddy writing an op-ed “applauding Biden for his vaccine efforts.”

“At Newsmax, we have strongly advocated for the public to be vaccinated. The many medical experts who have appeared on our network have been near unanimous in support of the vaccine. I myself have gotten the Pfizer vaccine. There’s no question in my mind, countless lives would have been saved if the vaccine was available earlier,” Ruddy wrote.

We have since learned that the jabs are not nearly as “safe and effective” as these media outlets have claimed. Yet mainstream shills came out swinging saying it was.

In the video below, from last year, media blowhard and known liar Rachel Maddox claimed — with no scientific data to back her up — that the vaccine will keep you safe from getting covid.

“Now we know that the vaccines work well enough that the virus stops with every vaccinated person… A vaccinated person gets infected with the virus….the virus does not infect them…the virus then cannot….use a vaccinated person as a host to get more people.”

It wasn’t just Maddow either. As these FOIA documents illustrate, every single major outlet took money to propagandize citizens. Given the recent release of Pfizer’s covid vaccine data from the FDA, this move by the government was nothing short of insidious.

In a 55,000-page set of documents released last week, the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research allowed the public to access data for the first time that Pfizer submitted to the FDA from its clinical trials in support of a COVID-19 “vaccine” license. Hidden in one appendix is a 38-page report of clinical data for Pfizer’s “vaccine” which lists a massive array of 1,291 alleged adverse side effects from the shot.

The chairman of the Liberty Council, which has been active in fighting mandatory vaccinations, Mat Staver, reported,

“People have been injured and died as a result of the most extensive propaganda campaign in U.S. history and it was paid for with our taxpayer dollars. These COVID shots are neither safe nor effective. However, the American public has been given propaganda instead of truth from the news media. Sadly, most of the American corporate media has been paid off by the Biden administration to publish propaganda. The consequence is that many people have needlessly suffered as a result of the censorship and propaganda.”

Source: The Free Thought Project