Professional Scam Artists – part 66

Well, I’ve been visiting (visitting) Bitchute more recently as I discover more creators who I find informative. James Corbett was one of the first. Bitchute, for those of you who don’t know, is an alternative to Google’s YouTube. Although Bitchute uses the deep State tool, Disqus, as a commenting feature (until someone like Ray Vahey comes up with an alternative), it’s still nicer, by far, than YouTube’s commenting feature. Google doesn’t really want us communicating. Neither does the FBI, according to a Yahoo news article mentioned on a recent Corbett report show. Click on the image/link below to see the show.

In that show, James tells us about the Yahoo news article, as I said, and he urges us to visit the Internet Archive and experiment with it by uploading this article. His point is that with censorship ramping up to extremes, it’s up to us to take steps to counter it. He compared The Internet Archive to a similar service called Scribd, which he says is awful and I’m sure that’s true. But boy is he wrong about The Internet Archive being good! To be clear, I’m not calling James a scam artist. Anyone can make a mistake. He surely knows how evil Google is. He just went through the ordeal of abandoning YouTube for Bitchute for the reason that Google censors. How would he feel to know, then, that The Internet Archive has partnered with Google’s First Draft Coalition?

Internet Archive Blogs

“Internet Archive to help First Draft News debunk fake news” by Nancy Watzman (Internet Archive Blogs)

An excerpt from the above linked-to article follows:

We are delighted to announce a new partnership with First Draft News, a nonpartisan organization dedicated to ferreting out misinformation online.

In its short existence–it was founded in June 2015–First Draft News has already spearheaded innovative projects that bring together news organizations, social technology companies, and human rights organizations to verify the information that flows to online audiences…

Non partisan? Even before the Tulsi Gabbard fiasco, we knew that that wasn’t true. (Tulsi Gabbard is a Democratic Party congresswoman running for president in the 2010 US election.) Corbett, in the above linked-to show talks a little about the lies that Google reps tell in that regard.

“Gabbard Going After Google is Double Plus Good” by Tom Luongo (Gold, Goats ‘n Guns)

An excerpt from the above linked-to article follows:

Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) is suing Google. It’s about time someone did…

Since Trump’s election the campaign to curtail free speech has went into overdrive and we are now far beyond Orwell’s dystopian vision in 1984 in terms of technological infrastructure.

Google makes Big Brother look like George Carlin’s the Hippy Dippy Weather Man with the “hippy dippy weather, man.” The drive to stamp out all forms of political division has only one thing animating it, protecting the drive of the elites I call The Davos Crowd to erect a transnational superstate to herd humanity to their vision of sustainability.

Gabbard is the only person running for the Democratic nomination worth any amount of my time. Her fundamental criticisms of the U.S. warfare state are spot on. She’s sincere about this. It’s costing her stature within her own party.

She’s a committed anti-imperialist.

If Tulsi’s a genuine anti-imperialist, which I doubt she is (Why then is she part of the Democratic Party?), then she won’t get far. Tom’s report is an example why. The establishment won’t let an anti-imperialist get his or hands on levers of power, even if the deep State can still hobble someone with good intentions who breaks into the ruling class’s political leadership. What kind of good intentions, though, does anyone have who votes for censorship?

related: “NYT Advocates Internet Censorship” by Robert Parry (Consortium News)

An excerpt from the above linked-to article follows:

The simple reality is that lots of dubious accusations get flung around during the heat of a campaign – nothing new there – and it is always a challenge for professional journalists to swat them down the best we can. What’s different now is that the Times envisions some structure (or algorithm) for eliminating what it calls “fake news.”

But, with a stunning lack of self-awareness, the Times fails to acknowledge the many times that it has published “fake news,” such as reporting in 2002 that Iraq’s purchase of aluminum tubes meant that it was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program; its bogus analysis tracing the firing location of a Syrian sarin-laden rocket in 2013 back to a Syrian military base that turned out to be four times outside the rocket’s range; or its publication of photos supposedly showing Russian soldiers inside Russia and then inside Ukraine in 2014 when it turned out that the “inside-Russia” photo was also taken inside Ukraine, destroying the premise of the story.
The controversial map developed by Human Rights Watch and embraced by the New York Times, supposedly showing the flight paths of two missiles from the Aug. 21 Sarin attack intersecting at a Syrian military base.

The controversial map developed by Human Rights Watch and embraced by the New York Times, supposedly showing the flight paths of two missiles from the Aug. 21 Sarin attack intersecting at a Syrian military base.

These are just three examples among many of the Times publishing “fake news” – and all three appeared on Page One before being grudgingly or partially retracted, usually far inside the newspaper under opaque headlines so most readers wouldn’t notice…

But the Times and other mainstream news outlets – along with some favored Internet sites – now sit on a Google-financed entity called the First Draft Coalition, which presents itself as a kind of Ministry of Truth that will decide which stories are true and which are “fake.”

If the Times’ editorial recommendations are followed, the disfavored stories and the sites publishing them would no longer be accessible through popular search engines and platforms, essentially blocking the public’s access to them. [See’s “What to Do About ‘Fake News.’”]

The Times asserts that such censorship would be good for democracy – and it surely is true that hoaxes and baseless conspiracy theories are no help to democracy – but regulation of information in the manner that the Times suggests has more than a whiff of Orwellian totalitarianism to it.

And the proposal is especially troubling coming from the Times, with its checkered recent record of disseminating dangerous disinformation.

I activated the link in the above quote for readers’ convenience.

My email sent to Jeff with Internet Archive Team:

=== =
Everything went fine. Then the new password wouldn’t work (after logging in okay once, logging out and then trying to log in again.). I wanted to do two things. I wanted to tell you that your (whoever) boasting about working with the censorious Google, through it’s obscene First Draft coalition, is… obscene. (See Robert Parry’s Consortium News article explaining why First Draft is obscene: Two, I wanted to delete my new account. I’ll try that later. I hope Tulsi Gabbard really helps people, generally, to see what deep State actor Google, and those who it allies with, are really all about. They are all about counterrevolution, an ongoing pacification of the people everywhere in order to keep them in their place and out of the hair of the world’s bloodstained owners/rulers and their tools.

Rick Battams
= ===

Beto O’Rourke in New Hampshire July 13, 2019. Video posted by IfNotNow on July 15. Screenshot.

“Beto O’Rourke blamed ‘both sides’ when asked about atrocities of Israeli occupation” by Philip Weiss (Mondoweiss)

An excerpt from the above linked-to article follows:

The video of Beto O’Rourke in New Hampshire dancing around without answering an IfNotNow member’s question, “Would you commit to putting direct pressure on the Israeli government to end the occupation?” is now nearly two weeks old.

But it is worth watching/reading for how little O’Rourke says in four minutes– while making it a point to blame “both sides” for violence and bad leadership when the context was, atrocities experienced by Palestinians…

O’Rourke gave his longwinded answer the same weekend that Cory Booker told IfNotNow, more directly: “If that’s your issue I would understand if you want to support somebody else.”

O’Rourke, in other words, doesn’t care any more about Palestinians and Israel’s human rights abuses toward them than Cory Booker who either didn’t have the energy to pretend for four minutes as O’Rourke did, or just decided to give an honest answer to a simple question.

Ayanna Pressley at a rally for Elizabeth Warren in Cambridge, MA (Photo: Flickr)

“If Ayanna Pressley wants to hear from ‘people closest to the pain’, she must listen to Palestinians” by Nada Elia (Mondoweiss)

An excerpt from the above linked-to article follows:

It is easy to lash out on social media and express our disappointment, frustration, and anger at political events and developments. In the wake of the horrendous tally overwhelmingly in favor of HR 246, the resolution condemning BDS, I myself posted an outraged “WTF! Ayanna Pressley voted against BDS. Shame!” on my Facebook page, singling her out as a “progressive” who nevertheless could not cast the right vote on what should have been an absolutely obvious matter…

As I discussed what still felt like a betrayal with friends in Massachusetts, however, a different image of Pressley began to emerge, as longtime activists for Palestinian rights in Boston said they were not surprised by Pressley’s condemnation of BDS, which they viewed as consistent with her own longstanding stance favoring Zionism. I looked up her congressional candidate website, where she discusses her policy positions, and was disappointed to read uncritical platitudes and normalizing talk…

Such language is possibly worse than a vote condemning BDS, as it discusses “the trauma suffered by both populations” as if these populations were somewhat equal, similar in their aspirations, rather than oppressor and oppressed, colonized and colonized, occupier and occupied. Simply, one cannot speak of the pain on “both sides” of Israel’s war on the Palestinian people without being a normalizer of violent settler-colonialism that hinges on racism. It is tantamount to Trump’s claim that “there are fine people on both sides” of rallies promoting white supremacy, and the protests against these displays of hatred.

Feature photo | Graphic by Claudio Cabrera

“Faux Humanitarian Irwin Cotler, the White Helmets, and the Whitewashing of an Appalling Agenda” by Vanessa Beeley (21st Century Wire)

An excerpt from the above linked-to article follows:

On July 22, 2018, Israel organized and facilitated an exceptional evacuation of White Helmet operatives from southern Syria, claiming the operatives were at risk from an advancing Syrian Arab Army. A number of NATO member states backed the move, calling on Israel to bring their intelligence assets to safety.

The White Helmets have been discredited and exposed as a British-government-incubated project by a number of independent geopolitical analysts, including Scott Ritter, Philip Giraldi, John Pilger, Seymour Hersh, Eva Bartlett, Graham Porter, Rick Sterling , Cory Morningstar and many more.

This journalist’s extensive work has shown that the U.K. Intelligence-manufactured group of pseudo “humanitarians” — financed by the majority of member states within the U.S.-led interventionist alliance waging war against Syria — is nothing more than an auxiliary of the Al Qaeda generic offshoots in Syria. The White Helmet image has been professionally polished by a vast network of PR agencies, billionaire philanthropists, and media outlets aligned with their respective government objectives to overthrow the Syrian government and reduce Syria to a “failed state,” as they succeeded in doing with Libya.

Israel has a history of supporting terrorism in Syria since the start of the U.S. coalition war against the nation officially began in 2011. Israel has offered medical treatment to the various militant groups previously occupying areas of southern Syria. Stories abound of Israeli troops providing covering fire for groups dominated by Al Qaeda affiliates or rebrands as they came under attack from the Syrian Arab Army legitimately reclaiming territory lost to internationally-backed armed groups…

It must also be noted that Israel and NATO member states did not offer the same humanitarian assistance to ordinary Syrian refugees gathered at the borders with Jordan and in Israeli annexed territory…

When the pedigree of those behind the White Helmet evacuation is more closely examined, Israel’s outsized role in the promotion and protection of the internationally financed group becomes more even more apparent.

Rewind to the hatching of the White Helmet “rescue” plan. On July 24, 2018, The Globe and Mail ran a story headlined: “How Canada’s woman in Istanbul began the daring rescue of the White Helmets.” The article outlines how White Helmets leader Raed Saleh approached Robin Wettlaufer, Canada’s Istanbul-based special envoy to Syria, for help.

Saleh has a history of being refused entry to the U.S. He was turned back at Dulles Airport in 2016 because of his suspected ties to extremist groups in Syria. This inconvenient fact was wiped from his immigration slate by former Obama administration Secretary of State John Kerry and Saleh was subsequently allowed to enter the United States in September 2016…

According to the Globe and Mail, Canada was being “hailed for its leadership” of the White Helmet rescue mission. Chrystia Freeland, Canadian foreign minister and former Globe and Mail editor, used a July NATO summit in Brussels to issue a plea on behalf of the White Helmets, which persuaded both Germany and Britain to accept a number of the high-profile “refugees.”

Former MI6 intelligence operative and creator of the White Helmets, James Le Mesurier, praised Canada’s initiative and singled out Wettlauger for praise. “Robin has been absolutely extraordinary; …the drive, the galvanization came from Canada,” Le Mesurier told the Globe and Mail.

As time passed, another individual was revealed to have been at the forefront of the Canada-led campaign. In October 2018, the Globe and Mail ran another story identifying Irwin Cotler’s role in the operation…

Cotler’s history and connections reveal a high-profile global player who has consistently defended Israel’s appalling human-rights record in Palestine and is a tireless promoter of the responsibility to protect doctrine or R2P.

R2P is one of the most enterprising propaganda initiatives of the global powers aligned with U.S. supremacy and neo-colonialism. It effectively provides the moral justification to invade or attack any country whose government is deemed repressive toward its people.

Of course, those who decide what countries are repressive are the same ones with a history of militarily subjugating sovereign nations, plundering their resources, and in most cases ultimately reducing the quality of life for those same “repressed people.” This, on top of the years or even decades of bloodshed that leave behind depleted uranium and psychological trauma that will affect those “repressed people” for generations once the campaign has succeeded in reducing these nations to failed states.

This entry was posted in General and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Feel free to comment!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.