In this video, Vin Armani interviews David Icke about Trump, Brexit, the UK election and other current events. Icke explains how you can determine the truth from fake news, why some alternative news figures got fooled by Trump, and how the great political awakening will continue to manifest.
One of the most under-reported aspects of fired FBI Director James Comey’s much-ballyhooed testimony before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence was the bombshell that much of the reporting on Team Trump and the White House by the disgusting “mainstream” media has been absolutely false.
As in, not even close to the truth.
One such report by The New York Times on February 14 claimed in the headline, “Trump Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contacts with Russian Intelligence.” It was nothing but fake news.
OK. You had mentioned before about some news stories and news accounts. Without having to go into all of the names and specific times and be able to dip into all of that. Have there been news accounts about the Russian investigation or collusion about the whole event or as you read the story you were wrong about how wrong they got the facts?
Comey replied: Yes, there have been many, many stories based on — well, lots of stuff but about Russia that are dead wrong.”
He added, after further questioning from Sen. James Risch (R-Idaho):
The challenge, and I’m not picking on reporters, about writing stories about classified information is the people talking about it often don’t really know what’s going on, and those of us who actually know what’s going on are not talking about it. And we don’t call the press to say, ‘Hey you got that thing wrong about this sensitive topic. We just have to leave it there.
Here is the relevant exchange:
So in other words, Comey said directly what so many of us in the alternative media have suspected for quite some time: Much of what’s being reported by the shrillest of anti-Trump media — the Times, the Washington Post, CNN — is completely bogus, planted by Deep State types to impugn, malign and undermine President Donald J. Trump and ruin his presidency. And this is why we have regularly urged our readers to take that other stuff with a grain of salt.
So much “anonymous” reporting has also been a problem, and while reporters are trained to jealously guard their sources, sensational items being reported about the Trump White House were coming far too often to be legitimate. Plus, there was definitely a political nature to the leaks — everything was negative about Trump and his administration, which was a huge tip-off.
“The assumption of the critics of the president, of his pursuers, you might say, is that somewhere along the line in the last year is the president had something to do with colluding with the Russians…to affect the election in some way. And yet what came apart this morning was that theory,” Matthews said on his network after Comey’s testimony aired.
There’s more. CNNhad to retract a story it published the day beforeComey’s testimony, in which the network claimed “sources” said the former FBI director would refute Trump’s claim he was told multiple times by Comey that he was not the subject of any FBI investigation.
“Comey is going to dispute the president if he’s asked about it by the senators,” said Gloria Borger, one of four reporters who claimed Comey would refute it. “He will say that he never assured Donald Trump that he was not under investigation, that that would have been improper for him to do so.”
Turns out that Comey did say during testimony he informed Trump on multiple actions that he was not the subject of any investigation.
He also informed Congress of same. Funny though how that tidbit of information was never leaked.
J.D. Heyes is a senior writer for NaturalNews.com and NewsTarget.com, as well as editor of The National Sentinel.
It’s about time. The news belong to everybody and we don’t need corporate-filtered fake news to tell us how to think. You don’t like Alex Jones? Tough, we don’t like yer corporate fake news garbage mind control neither.
The alt-media underdogs will now sit beside corporate mainstream media and state-run broadcasters like the BBC.
Mainstream media has been sent into a frenzy as Donald Trump’s White House grants White House press credentials to InfoWars, the media outlet owned and operated by Alex Jones.
This means that an InfoWars reporter now has the option to be present at all White House press conferences and briefings just as those from CNN, the New York Times and state-owned British Broadcaster BBC currently are and have been for decades.
Whilst InfoWars does not have a fraction of the budget available to corporate media outlets like CNN and MSNBC or state-run broadcasters like the BBC or Canada’s CBC, InfoWars will now sit beside their reporters with equal access to White House events.
This is objectively a victory for alternative-media and for the ‘little guy’. Whether one agrees or disagrees with the editorial line of InfoWars, it is high time for White House press credentials to reflect the popularity and influence of one’s outlet rather than the wealth of those who fund the outlet.
Donald Trump’s White House would be well advised to continue along this line and grant further press credentials to media outlets that represent the future rather than the past.
Now watch Alex Jones describe the occasion as only he can.
I am a social scientist and I have always been appalled at the pseudo language used in social sciences. This fake obfuscation of the truth rattles me. If you cannot write or say something that the reasonably educated person cannot comprehend, you are pissing in the wind.
(Natural News) Remember when I said recently that the entire left-wing scientific establishment has become convinced that everything causes climate change? My assertion has now been confirmed beyond any doubt.
A peer-reviewed science journal has just been caught publishing a hilariously fake science paper — written in leftish-sounding “sciency gibberish” — that literally claims penises cause climate change.
Because this junk science assertion fits into the lunatic narrative of the totalitarian Left, it was reviewed by multiple scientists and accepted for publication, even though the entire paper was deliberately written to consist of indecipherable nonsense pretending to sound like elitist left-wing “science.” (Find more news about fake science at FakeScience.news.)
Gender studies is a fake academic industry populated by charlatans, deranged activists and gullible idiots.
Now, a pair of enterprising hoaxers has proved it scientifically by persuading an academic journal to peer-review and publish their paper claiming that the penis is not really a male genital organ but a social construct.
The paper, published by Cogent Social Sciences – “a multidisciplinary open access journal offering high quality peer review across the social sciences” – also claims that penises are responsible for causing climate change.
The two hoaxers are Peter Boghossian, a full-time faculty member in the Philosophy department at Portland State University, and James Lindsay, who has a doctorate in math and a background in physics.
They were hoping to emulate probably the most famous academic hoax in recent years: the Sokal Hoax – named after NYU and UCL physics professor Alan Sokal – who in 1996 persuaded an academic journal called Social Text to accept a paper titled “Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity”.
Sokal’s paper – comprising pages of impressive-sounding but meaningless pseudo-academic jargon – was written in part to demonstrate that humanities journals will publish pretty much anything so long as it sounds like “proper leftist thought;” and partly in order to send up the absurdity of so much post-modernist social science.
So, for this new spoof, Boghossian and Lindsay were careful to throw in lots of signifier phrases to indicate fashionable anti-male bias:
We intended to test the hypothesis that flattery of the academic Left’s moral architecture in general, and of the moral orthodoxy in gender studies in particular, is the overwhelming determiner of publication in an academic journal in the field. That is, we sought to demonstrate that a desire for a certain moral view of the world to be validated could overcome the critical assessment required for legitimate scholarship. Particularly, we suspected that gender studies is crippled academically by an overriding almost-religious belief that maleness is the root of all evil. On the evidence, our suspicion was justified.
They also took care to make it completely incomprehensible.
We didn’t try to make the paper coherent; instead, we stuffed it full of jargon (like “discursive” and “isomorphism”), nonsense (like arguing that hypermasculine men are both inside and outside of certain discourses at the same time), red-flag phrases (like “pre-post-patriarchal society”), lewd references to slang terms for the penis, insulting phrasing regarding men (including referring to some men who choose not to have children as being “unable to coerce a mate”), and allusions to rape (we stated that “manspreading,” a complaint levied against men for sitting with their legs spread wide, is “akin to raping the empty space around him”). After completing the paper, we read it carefully to ensure it didn’t say anything meaningful, and as neither one of us could determine what it is actually about, we deemed it a success.
Some of it was written with the help of the Postmodern Generator – “a website coded in the 1990s by Andrew Bulhak featuring an algorithm, based on NYU physicist Alan Sokal’s method of hoaxing a cultural studies journal called Social Text, that returns a different fake postmodern ‘paper’ every time the page is reloaded.”
… None of it should have survived more than a moment’s scrutiny by serious academics. But it was peer-reviewed by two experts in the field who, after suggesting only a few changes, passed it for publication:
Cogent Social Sciences eventually accepted “The Conceptual Penis as a Social Construct.” The reviewers were amazingly encouraging, giving us very high marks in nearly every category. For example, one reviewer graded our thesis statement “sound” and praised it thusly, “It capturs [sic] the issue of hypermasculinity through a multi-dimensional and nonlinear process” (which we take to mean that it wanders aimlessly through many layers of jargon and nonsense). The other reviewer marked the thesis, along with the entire paper, “outstanding” in every applicable category.
They didn’t accept the paper outright, however. Cogent Social Sciences’ Reviewer #2 offered us a few relatively easy fixes to make our paper “better.” We effortlessly completed them in about two hours, putting in a little more nonsense about “manspreading” (which we alleged to be a cause of climate change) and “dick-measuring contests.”
No claim made in the paper was considered too ludicrous by the peer-reviewers: not even the one claiming that the penis is “the universal performative source of rape, and is the conceptual driver behind much of climate change.”
What does Google have in common with traditionally liberal news networks like MSNBC, ABC and CNN? On the surface, nothing much at all – the former is an Internet search engine and the latter are a couple of national broadcasting corporations with political hosts and commentators. If you dig a little deeper, however, it becomes clear that both the search engine and the liberal news networks have something in common after all, and it has to do with a vicious assault on the freedom of speech.
The Internet search engine’s fight against fake news was first confirmed in a BBC News interview with Google’s chief executive, Sundar Pichai, just days after the presidential election. “There have been a couple of incidences where… we didn’t get it right,” Pichai explained, referring to the spread of fake news across the search engine platform. “It is a learning moment for us and we will definitely work to fix it.”
Like adding fuel to a raging fire, the mainstream media indirectly assists Google in the quest to purge fake news from the Internet by constantly talking about it. If you think about it, the term “fake news” was really first introduced by the media and certain cable news networks during the presidential election. Even today, they continue to urge all of us to be wary of fake news, and insist that something must be done to curtail it. In this way, the media and Google work together as a machine, of sorts, with liberal networks providing the fuel and Google turning the gears.
While the spread of false information is certainly not something that should be encouraged, the real problem here is how one defines fake news, and who is defining it. Indeed, what may be considered fake news to a liberal may be considered real and legitimate to someone who is more conservative. When Google says that it is going to begin flagging articles that appear in search results and label them as either true or false, the immediate questions that should be asked are, one, what methods are used in their fact checking, and two, who specifically is verifying the information behind closed doors?
The thing about progressivism is that it works in a very slow, incremental fashion. While today liberals and Google may claim to only be targeting fringe websites such as white nationalist blogs or articles advocating anti-Semitism, tomorrow they could very well be targeting more traditional sites like the right-leaning Breitbart.com, Conservative Review or Fox News.
As any constitutionalist or liberty-loving American will tell you, this is absolutely an assault on the freedom of speech. Google and the mainstream media have essentially worked together to set in motion a national constitutional crisis, which they will continue to tell us is in our best interest because after all, they’re only trying to make sure that you get factual information. This is how modern day liberals operate – by telling us that all of these changes are for the good of the people, when in reality they are nothing but detrimental.
Perhaps we should begin calling Google “fake search,” since they seem to be so interested in purging the Internet of anything that is false or illegitimate.
May 3, 2017Gone but not forgotten: Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s funeral, 2008. EPA/Yuri Kochetkov
“Fake news” may be getting lots of headlines, but it is as old as the hills. Propagandists have relied on false evidence for centuries. Of course, not all propaganda campaigns are dishonest; indeed many efforts at persuading people of things are laudable. But the phenomenon of fake news and the “post-truth” culture in which it thrives are clearly a threat to democracy, and to the public sphere that democracy depends on to survive.
Everyone has a part to play in pushing back. Most of us probably assume that only other people fall prey to false or exaggerated news stories. This is complacent. Media historians emphasise that propaganda often exploits already-existing trends rather than creating new ones, making subtle use of half-truths as well as outright falsehoods – and it can be much harder to unpick half-truths than to demolish lies.
Fortunately, a few decades ago, matters of truth-telling and lying were a major concern for Soviet and Eastern European dissidents living under communism, where propaganda was all-pervasive. Their ideas have long outlasted their times, and today they should interest anyone seeking to challenge dishonesty or speak truth to power, or even simply to live truthfully.
They are all the more relevant because the propaganda techniques currently used by Moscow have roots in the Soviet era, and it is valuable to know how people sought to respond to them then. But their ideas have a relevance well beyond Russia; after all, no country, group or person is immune to half-truths or disinformation.
On these issues, the thinking of Russian novelist Alexander Solzhenitsyn, one of Soviet communism’s most trenchant critics, deserves special attention. When Solzhenitsyn was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1970, he built his Nobel lecture around a Russian proverb: “One word of truth outweighs the whole world”. Simple truths, he argued, are always a threat to totalitarianism.
In his 1974 essay, Live Not by Lies, Solzhenitsyn suggested that to end repression, people needed to resist lies and learn to live “by truth”. “Never knowingly support lies,” he declared. While he acknowledged that that could be risky, to put it mildly, he saw it as a kind of minimalist strategy, one within everyone’s reach.
Dissidents and reformers alike read Live Not by Lies as a vision for a different kind of society. One man impressed with Solzhenitsyn’s thinking was the Czech dramatist and future president, Václav Havel. In his 1978 essay, The Power of the Powerless, Havel suggested that people “need not accept the lie”. He imagines a greengrocer who stops putting up slogans he disagrees with and voting in fake elections, and starts to say what he really thinks at political meetings – breaking the “rules of the game” that underpin the system. In finding the strength to follow his conscience, Havel suggests, the man makes an attempt to live “within the truth”.
The notion of “living in truth” points to the idea that being truthful isn’t just a matter of uttering true statements, but also about becoming a truthful person in the fullest sense. Truthfulness and integrity are entwined; religious thinkers sometimes talk of the “spirit of truth” at work within people. The Russian philosopher Semyon Frank, writing from a Christian humanist perspective, once wrote that truth is ‘not a judgement about reality, but the living presence of the reality itself”.
Another relevant text is Fear No Evil, a 1986 memoir by Jewish refusnik Nathan Sharansky. Sharansky was imprisoned for his involvement in the Moscow Helsinki Group, set up in 1976 to monitor human rights abuses. He used to prepare for interrogation by reflecting on the Psalms of David and having imaginary conversations with characters from literature. He was conscious that if he did not develop a rich inner life, he could easily be drawn into compromises he would later regret.
Again, this speaks to our own time, where it is so easy for people to get caught up in the latest news story or media-driven discussion. When we lose our “inner freedom” – another term popular in dissident circles – we become open to manipulation by political, commercial and cultural agendas of all kinds.
Truth for its own sake
Truth-telling is not easy in times when the very concept of truth has been brought into disrepute. Lenin named the Bolshevik newspaper Pravda, which is Russian for truth. In practice, this meant the politicisation of truth – identifying as true whatever policy or idea the Communist Party chose to promote. Unsurprisingly, there was widespread disillusionment when the Soviet regime failed to deliver on its promises.
It is hard not to be cynical about people who loudly claim to speak the truth, and understandings of what truth even is have certainly changed over time. But to move from that insight to saying that everyone has their own truth is a step too far. No university would survive on a principle like that, even if the “post-truth” culture, with its implicit connections to postmodernism, has some of its roots in the academy.
Truth is more than a means to an end. There are times when truths need to be expressed, whether or not a positive outcome will be the result. As Anatoly Yakobson, editor of Soviet human rights journal The Chronicle of Current Events, once declared: “One must begin by postulating that truth is needed for its own sake and for no other reason.” Or in the words of famous physicist and dissident Andrei Sakharov: “[A man] may hope for nothing, but nevertheless speak because he cannot, simply cannot remain silent.”
Living in truth doesn’t mean speaking out unthinkingly on every issue. It matters not just what we say, but how we say it. It’s all too easy to become strident or pedantic, forgetting that truths expressed well have the power to unlock hearts and open up conversation. Besides, truth and untruth are often mixed up, and it can take time and care to separate the two.
In these times as much as ever, we must live in truth, and learn to tell the truth in constructive ways. This may seem obvious, but in practice it’s no small task – and democracy depends on it.