Google (YouTube) Changes Position and Will Now Permit Content that Challenges 2020 Election Results

Boy, is there ever a loaded dump truck of potential discussion points in this subject area.

First, Google via YouTube is reversing its position and allowing content that challenges the results of the 2020 election.

[Per Axios] “In a reversal of its election integrity policy, YouTube will leave up content that says fraud, errors or glitches occurred in the 2020 presidential election and other U.S. elections, the company confirmed to Axios Friday.”

After removing “tens of thousands of videos” (their admission) previously containing content that challenged the 2020 election results, suddenly that conversation is permitted.

Two years, tens of thousands of video removals, and one election cycle later, we recognized it was time to reevaluate the effects of this policy in today’s changed landscape,” YouTube said in a statement.

So, according to the script, the “threat to democracy” has suddenly diminished as the 2024 election cycle starts to become a topic of increased discussion? Yeah, right.

I read this Google change two ways: (1) This reads like a “mission accomplished and we don’t need this anymore” kind of policy switch; and (2) There’s that probability of Donald Trump winning the 2024 election and they need to be able to question election results again.

Google and DHS are simpatico, which is to say the psychological use of the intelligence apparatus to manipulate public opinion is about to swing back into high gear. Only this time there are even more minds with immunity from the DHS control virus, and things could get very sketchy from a perspective of social cohesion.


Joe Biden Launches His War on Antisemitism: Massive politically motivated effort will impact on free speech and association

…Note how the Plan, relying on wildly exaggerated statistics relating to what are often contrived or alleged antisemitic incidents, not by coincidence, seeks to protect Jews from a malignant force which is presumed to be the “white supremacists” that Biden and his cohorts have been otherwise targeting and also labeling as “terrorists.” That accomplishes two things politically: it gets the powerful Jewish/Israel Lobby and their controlled media fully on board to reelect Biden and it also identifies the enemy as likely to be conservative Republicans. In so doing, you take highly visible steps to protect the Jews (whether or not they actually need protection) and you create a credible enemy that everyone can identify and attack.

So what does the White House’s May 25th press release entitled “Fact Sheet: Biden-⁠Harris Administration Releases First-Ever US National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism” tell us about what will be put in place to protect America’s wealthiest and already most powerful ethno-religious group? A sub-heading and the lead paragraphs summarize it this way: “[The] Administration announces over 100 new actions and over 100 calls to action to combat antisemitism, including new actions to counter antisemitism on college campuses and online; whole-of-society strategy includes new stakeholder commitments.


Does media selectively focus on white criminals over POC ones?

In light of recent events in Kansas City, does the media truly selectively focus on white criminals over POC ones?

Yes, seemingly so. A murderer’s race is mentioned 4x more often if he is white rather than black.

Ratio of White to POC murderer's race mentioned:
White to Black 4:1
White to Hispanic 8:1
White to Asian: 5:1
White to Native: 1:2

And not only does the media mention the race of white murderers more, they also do it sooner into the article!
I’ve noticed this myself, they place the race of white offenders more prominently

Continue reading “Does media selectively focus on white criminals over POC ones?”

Covid lab leak argument is strong, but which lab and was it a leak?

1) The testimony from Radcliffe talking about the “overwhelming” body of evidence supporting the lab-leak origins is going viral.

Obviously I agree with him, but the widely shared video cuts off before @JohnRatcliffe starts blaming the CCP.

Here’s the full statement.

2) What if the Chinese MIL were responding to a biological attack?

Ratcliffe asserts that they “destroyed tests, samples and data”.

If we found a rogue lab creating bioweapons in the US, wouldn’t you expect our military to destroy the pathogens and confiscate/destroy the data?

3) Ratcliffe also asserts that China had the audacity to produce “propaganda” that the US created Covid-19.

I wonder what gave them that idea. Maybe it was the fact that the US have the largest global biolab network and have been doing gain of function research for decades…

4) It was the US government and their controlled media, who published and distributed more propaganda about Covid, than the rest of the world combined.

[I tend to like Ratcliffe due to his demeanor and clear deliveries of information, so I have a conscious bias. That said, he needs to directly and fully address the many indications that US actors not only created covid-19 in a lab but also released it into the world, with a special release in Wuhan that makes it look like China did it. ABN]

Continue reading “Covid lab leak argument is strong, but which lab and was it a leak?”

NPR quits Twitter after spat with Elon Musk who branded the public broadcasting network as ‘government affiliated’ and ‘falsely implying’ that it is ‘not editorially independent’

National Public Radio (NPR) will no longer be active on Twitter after the social platform ‘undermined’ the news source’s ‘credibility’ when it branded it a ‘government-funded’ outlet. 

NPR’s 52 Twitter accounts have gone silent after the social platform added the black label tag of ‘state-affiliated media’ to the brand’s official account – a tag that is often only seen associated with propaganda outlets in Russia and China

It has since been changed to ‘government-funded media.’ The BBC and PBS have also been given the same tag. 

Earlier this month, Musk branded The New York Times ‘propaganda’ and removed its golden checkmark. 


More lies from NPR as it huffs off the platform. Musk’s takedown of BBC is even funnier. It’s fair to wonder about Musk but he has done a lot of good since buying Twitter, more good for the news than any other individual. It’s likely the official covid wind down is happening sooner and going deeper because so much more truth is now allowed on Twitter. In internet real-time you can watch independent scientists and people like Edward Dowd destroy the official government/MSM covid story. ABN

About that New York Times Story Concerning the “Online Leak” of U.S. Ukraine and Geopolitical Plans

By now people are familiar with a New York Times (original source) story of a leak of sensitive classified information regarding U.S. operations in Ukraine and other geopolitical efforts.  The New York Times was the first with the story, as shared with them by “senior Biden administration officials.”

…If you follow the bouncing ball, what you immediately suspect is the domestic IC planted the ‘classified information’ in the platforms they can access, then turn around and report on the leak of the classified information to media they use for domestic narrative engineering.

♦ Motive – But why would the IC plant classified information, then turn around and report on the classified information they planted?  This is where you need to learn how the motives work, against a bigger picture.

The leak (planted information) and then the telling of the leak (NYT story) creates an opportunity for the domestic IC to frame a Russian dis/mis/mal-information narrative.

But why would the IC want to immediately stir up a misinformation or disinformation narrative against Russia?

♦ Answer: 18 hours before the leak/story construct.  Two Russian gremlins, perhaps state sponsored, or perhaps just state aligned, tricked former French President Francios Hollande into admitting the U.S. government and western alliance were behind all of the events in Ukraine after 2014, with the expressed intention to construct a proxy war against Russia using Ukraine.

Russian Pranksters Vovan and Lexus, posing as former Ukraine President Petro Poroshenko, got French ex-President Francois Hollande to admit the Minsk Accords were a NATO ruse to militarize Ukraine, and Western nations overthrew Ukraine’s democratically-elected government in 2014. (Full YouTube Conversation)


Very important to understand this connection, which details how US propaganda/ mind-control works through MSM. I have excerpted a part of the article and hope readers will take the time to read the whole piece linked above. ABN

James O’Keefe Confronts FBI Stenographer Adam Goldman

The New York Times and Politico represent the best interests of the DOJ and FBI.  The Washington Post represents the interests of the CIA and ODNI.  CNN represents the interests of the U.S. State Dept.   These are the public-private media partnerships that have evolved over decades, and the outcomes are consistent.

Adam Goldman is a man of notoriously slimy disposition, who operates as a New York Times stenographer for the administrative state.  Goldman loves to see the targeting of Americans by the DOJ and FBI apparatus and is intoxicated by his perceived assistance in the destruction of others.  Goldman genuinely gets pleasure in seeing his targets suffer under the weight of the U.S. justice system. It brings him joy.

After Adam Goldman and the DOJ/FBI worked together in the operation to target James O’Keefe (Ashley Biden diary), O’Keefe is dragging the relationship out into the open. Goldman does not like it when the table are turned, and he becomes the target of sunlight.  WATCH:


Public semiotics: how they are used and controlled

Public semiotics are semiotics known to many people, semiotics that many people within a society or culture will respond to in similar ways.

Some examples of public semiotics are conventions in literature, film, news, customs, clothing, language use, courtship styles, and so on.

In film and literature, most viewers recognize the semiotic difference between first- and third-person narratives as well as typical plot-lines such as “the individual against the group,” “the individual who overcomes a tragedy,” or simply “good versus bad.”

Viewers responses are controlled by these narratives through expectation, emotion, and habit. Due to their short lengths, most popular films rely very heavily on a single strong emotion for narrative effect, while serious literature generally deals with more complex themes.

A recent scholarly study of US politics came to some conclusions about public semiotics and our perceptions of them that are not likely to surprise readers of this site.

The study and an interview with one of its authors can be found here: Scholar Behind Viral ‘Oligarchy’ Study Tells You What It Means.

In the interview co-author Gilens has this to say about the study:

I’d say that contrary to what decades of political science research might lead you to believe, ordinary citizens have virtually no influence over what their government does in the United States. And economic elites and interest groups, especially those representing business, have a substantial degree of influence. Government policy-making over the last few decades reflects the preferences of those groups — of economic elites and of organized interests. (Source: same as above. This source has the study as well as the interview.)

What this study says about public semiotics is the public does not control them. Rather, the public is controlled by them.

Interestingly, the study left out some of the main ways that public semiotics are controlled by elites. Public semiotics are not just controlled by interest groups and lobbies influencing legislation, they are also greatly controlled by:

  • elite control of the media
  • elite control of which topics the media covers
  • elite control of presidential debates by the Democratic and Republican parties through the Commission on Presidential Debates
  • elite control of members of congress by the parties they “represent”

In the linked interview, which is well-worth reading, Gilens mentions non-business lobbying groups, but does not say who they are.

If we do not understand that our public semiotics come from somewhere—that many of them are created and maintained by special interest groups—we will fail to understand how we are manipulated by them.

As this study shows, voting for a very limited selection of candidates who rarely, if ever, fulfill their very limited campaign promises is an exercise in public hypnosis. It is a complex semiotic that fosters the illusion of participation where there is none.

I do not think any of this will change. But I do think it is important for individuals, and especially FIML partners, to understand where the semiotics that jostle around in their heads are coming from. As individuals, we can have great control over what we believe, value, do, and understand about human life, and need not be controlled by the self-serving agendas of others.

It is important to understand that much of what is construed as “public life” is actually a complex mix of semiotics consciously controlled by people who work to create and maintain illusions of plots and themes in the world in much the same ways that plots and themes are created and maintained in film.

first posted APRIL 23, 2014