Tag Archives: alternative media

Here Are The ‘Alt Tech’ Platforms Trump Supporters Are Flocking To After Parler Executed By Amazon, by Tyler Durden

There’s been workarounds and alternative media ingenuity to continue getting the message out. From Tyler Durden at zerohedge.com:

Over the past week, President Trump has been kicked off of Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, and was blocked from e-commerce platform Shopify – all because of a pair of relatively benign tweets on January 8th, two days after the Capitol ‘riot’ in which a small group of Trump supporters and a BLM activist were allowed into the Capitol Building through an opened door.

Trump’s ‘offending’ tweets:

Trump’s last two tweets which resulted in his permanent ban from the platform, via mirrored account at gab.com

Twitter, likely realizing the ‘last straw’ used to justify banning a sitting US president was extremely weak sauce (a move which has shocked the world), said the tweets “must be read in the context of broader events in the country.”

Furious Trump supporters immediately began to abandon Twitter for so-called ‘alt-tech’ conservative-friendly alternatives, Parler and Gab.

Over the weekend, however, Amazon and Google banned Parler from their app stores, while Amazon Web Services dealt the death-blow by kicking them off their AWS cloud hosting service, rending the site ‘homeless’ and inaccessible until they find another host. Thanks to a flood of ‘cancel culture’ activists targeting all things Trump, Parler continues to be ‘dead’ for all intents and purposes.

Continue reading→

US – UK Intel Agencies Declare Cyber War on Independent Media, by Whitney Webb

Covid-19 “truth deniers” is the latest excuse for the intelligence agencies’ escalation of their war on independent media. From Whitney Webb at unlimitedhangout.com:

British and American state intelligence agencies are “weaponizing truth” to quash vaccine hesitancy as both nations prepare for mass inoculations, in a recently announced “cyber war” to be commanded by AI-powered arbiters of truth against information sources that challenge official narratives.

In just the past week, the national-security states of the United States and United Kingdom have discreetly let it be known that the cyber tools and online tactics previously designed for use in the post-9/11 “war on terror” are now being repurposed for use against information sources promoting “vaccine hesitancy” and information related to Covid-19 that runs counter to their state narratives.

A new cyber offensive was launched on Monday by the UK’s signal intelligence agency, Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), which seeks to target websites that publish content deemed to be “propaganda” that raises concerns regarding state-sponsored Covid-19 vaccine development and the multi-national pharmaceutical corporations involved.

Similar efforts are underway in the United States, with the US military recently funding a CIA-backed firm—stuffed with former counterterrorism officials who were behind the occupation of Iraq and the rise of the so-called Islamic State—to develop an AI algorithm aimed specifically at new websites promoting “suspected” disinformation related to the Covid-19 crisis and the US military–led Covid-19 vaccination effort known as Operation Warp Speed.

Both countries are preparing to silence independent journalists who raise legitimate concerns over pharmaceutical industry corruption or the extreme secrecy surrounding state-sponsored Covid-19 vaccination efforts, now that Pfizer’s vaccine candidate is slated to be approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) by month’s end.

Continue reading→

How I Became a Heretic to My Liberal Friends, by Tom Couser

The alternative media wins another convert. From Tom Couser at antiwar.com:

My wife has become increasingly nervous when political topics arise in conversations with our friends over dinner or drinks. She’s afraid I’ll disrupt a pleasant occasion by expressing views that are anathema to our liberal, Democratic friends.

Like what? you might ask.

Well, there are several, but the most inflammatory one is my denial that Russia meddled in the 2016 Presidential election in a consequential way, much less with the intention of electing Trump.

“What?” you say. Every MSNBC-watching, New York Times WaPo-reading Democrat knows that the Russians hacked the DNC emails and passed them on to WikiLeaks to hurt the Clinton campaign. And how about all those social media posts?

The second I express myself, I am invariably accused of parroting Fox News or even of endorsing Trump. But I despise Trump and have never watched Fox news live for more than a minute or two. (Occasionally, I watch an interview with a left-leaning heretic like myself, who cannot get airtime on the “legacy media.”)

How did this happen? How did I come to reject beliefs my liberal friends hold sacred?

Well, to paraphrase an old commercial, I came by my heretical views the old-fashioned way: I earned them. I looked beyond the MSM to independent sources of news and commentary, reading widely and open-mindedly and thinking critically. Some of these sources publish reporting, others opinion; many are left-leaning; most oppose American foreign policy. I weighed them against one another, and the MSM, to assess their reliability.

In short, I investigated American journalism – and found corporate media woefully misleading. I would say I found it unprofessional but, as a friend reminded me, the job of corporate journalism is to maximize profit; doing so is not conducive, to say the least, to challenging the dominant power structure and its ideology.

Continue reading

The New Media Has Become like the Old Media—And That Means the Usual Bias, by Ryan McMaken

If you don’t regularly peruse a variety of alternative media outlets, there’s no way you can really know what’s going on. From Ryan McMaken at mises.org:

A sizable majority of American adults say—when polled—that social media organizations “censor” political viewpoints:

A Pew Research Center survey conducted in June finds that roughly three-quarters of U.S. adults say it is very (37%) or somewhat (36%) likely that social media sites intentionally censor political viewpoints that they find objectionable. Just 25% believe this is not likely the case.

At this point, of course, it’s hard to see how this is even debatable. While “censor” is perhaps not the most accurate term to use here—given the word’s connotations of state intervention—it is apparent that social media firms, at the very leastlimit discussion and the reach of certain political viewpoints by banning certain users. These firms also openly admit to biasing readers against certain content through the use of “fact checkers.” Anecdotal evidence also strongly suggests that these social media firms also engage in tactics like “shadow banning,” which hides certain posts and content from certain users.

This is no haphazard or “neutral” bias, either. It is clear that the user bans and “fact checking” warnings against certain posts are designed to fall most often on groups that could be described as “conservative,” or “libertarian,” or which advocate in favor of Donald Trump and his allies.

As far as media companies go, this is just par for the course. What is perhaps so unusual in this case is that so many self-identified conservatives and libertarians seem surprised that things turned out this way.

This may be due to the fact that many continue to believe the false notion that social media companies are a sort of “public utility.” The social media companies themselves promote this myth and like to give the impression that they are open forums facilitating open communication. In reality, the firms are essentially just media companies like CNN, NBC, or the New York Times. Like ordinary media companies they modify and promote content to reflect the firm’s preferences. This is clear every time a social media company intervenes to modify “trending topics” lists, or remove content altogether.  Consequently, the only meaningful difference between standard media companies and social media companies is that social media firms don’t produce their own content like ABC News or the Washington Post do. Rather, social media companies have convinced their users to produce all the content. The social media companies then reap the rewards in terms of selling personal information to advertisers and curating user-produced content to suit the companies’ own vision and needs.

Continue reading→

The delusion called Fauci, by Jon Rappoport

The mainstream likes to deride any claims to science found in the alternative media, but there are significant admissions from mainstream science of major deficiencies. From Jon Rappoport at nomorefakenews.com:

This one was too good to pass up.

In an interview with the National Geographic, Tony Fauci made comments about “alternative views” of the origin of the coronavirus. But he was really talking about all unorthodox medical information:

“Anybody can claim to be an expert even when they have no idea what they’re talking about—and it’s very difficult for the general public to distinguish. So, make sure the study is coming from a reputable organization that generally gives you the truth—though even with some reputable organizations, you occasionally get an outlier who’s out there talking nonsense. If something is published in places like New England Journal of Medicine, Science, Nature, Cell, or JAMA—you know, generally that is quite well peer-reviewed because the editors and the editorial staff of those journals really take things very seriously.”

Right you are, Tony.

So, Tony, here is a very serious statement from a former editor of one of those “places,” the New England Journal of Medicine:

“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.” (Dr. Marcia Angell, NY Review of Books, January 15, 2009, “Drug Companies & Doctors: A Story of Corruption)

Continue reading→

Panic Pandemic – Why are people who should know better buying the Covid19 hype? by Catte Black

The human race will recover from coronavirus, it may never recover from the current idiocy. From Catte Black at off-guardian.org:

(Photo by PIERO CRUCIATTI/AFP via Getty Images)

The only certainty about the ‘novel’ virus is that a great deal of nonsense is being talked about it by people who really ought to know better, and a great deal of opportunism is being displayed.

From Netanyahu grabbing the chance to postpone his corruption trial to Hollywood starlets claiming they have ‘tested positive’ (surely not a sad and cynical attempt to up their profile), this bandwagon is seething and teeming with those trying to seize their moment of fame or get rich or stay out of jail or just join in the mayhem

It’s cool to be nCoV-positive now. Maybe that’s why such inordinate numbers of famous people are staking their claim to it.

ISIS are apparently a bit worried about nCoV also and is allegedly sending out travel advisories to its jihadists.

Yup, that’s a real thing, right there. Really happening. Definitely.

Meanwhile, the propaganda is relentless, and there’s a variety for all tastes.

If you like your fear porn vanilla you can read all the articles based on total speculation that tell you millions will die if we don’t demand martial law and vaccines. (Speaking of vaccines, the as-yet-untested Covid19 vaccine is going to mandatory in Denmark, and in the US the manufacturers will have legal immunity should it cause any ill-effects).

Continue reading

Take a Chill Pill and Come Back Tomorrow, by Doug “Uncola” Lynn

Is coronavirus going to kill millions or is it a propaganda psyop? From Doug “Uncola” Lynn at theburningplatform.com:

This is the third Coronavirus article I’ve written in the past month.   The previous piece has become one of my most viewed, perhaps because it took a skeptical view regarding how Coronavirus® had “been reported, coupled with how it’s been handled, its dubious origins, the alleged number of infected and deceased, as well as the age and general health of those who are reported to have died”.

The article, at the same time, allowed for the dangerous reality generated by COVID-19 and, especially, in regards to the reactions the virus has generated. Here are a few examples of those modifiers:

In any event, healthy skepticism is not close-mindedness, per se, because we may one day have a genuine pandemic on our hands.

….However, it could be that everything we’re seeing regarding COVID-19 is real…

… So is COVID-19 real or is it a marketing gimmick?

….Once again, it could be this latest incarnation of coronavirus is a real killer and the mortality rates now being reported are completely bogus.

… to be sure, the public reactions, including within the financial markets, are real.

Although that last article slanted towards my suspicions, it also left some wiggle room if only because COVID-19 is not a hill I’d risk my credibility to die upon. There’s no need and I have nothing personally at stake. Honestly, I’m just an American Nobody playing it like Popeye umpiring a baseball game;

 I y’am what y’am and I calls ’em as I sees ’em.

And be assured that one thing is absolutely certain at this point in time:  COVID-19 has obtained near 100% global psychological saturation.  Admittedly, it has become a very big deal.

Continue reading→

Attacking The Source: The Establishment Loyalist’s Favorite Online Tactic, by Caitlin Johnstone

Attacking the person making an argument, and not the argument itself, is a time-honored way of distracting from the weakness of one’s own argument. From Caitlin Johnstone at caitlinjohnstone.com:

If you’re skeptical of western power structures and you’ve ever engaged in online political debate for any length of time, the following has definitely happened to you.

You find yourself going back and forth with one of those high-confidence, low-information establishment types who’s promulgating a dubious mainstream narrative, whether that be about politics, war, Julian Assange, or whatever. At some point they make an assertion which you know to be false–publicly available information invalidates the claim they’re making.

“I’ve got them now!” you think to yourself, if you’re new to this sort of thing. Then you share a link to an article or video which makes a well-sourced, independently verifiable case for the point you are trying to make.

Then, the inevitable happens.

“LMAO! That outlet!” they scoff in response. “

Continue reading→

 

The Media Awakening, by the Zman

When it comes to propagation of the truth, the old battles fought out in the mainstream media that mirrored the country’s political divide no longer apply. The mainstream media has rendered itself an irrelevant propaganda arm of the government, and the dissident “woke” realize the only truths their going to get are from the alternative media. From the Zman at theburningplatform.com:

In the current crisis, one of the useful and clarifying ways to divide people is in how they respond to the mass media. On the one hand are those who just assume everything reported, regardless of the alleged partisan bias, is fake. It’s manufactured for some undisclosed reason and fed to the many airheads working in media. The other side of this dive are those who still think the political theater is real. They take one side or the other in the mock battles between the two wings of the bipartisan uniparty.

You see this in the “fake news” stuff among Trump supporters and opponents. For those supporting Trump, the fake news outlets are those that “report” bad things about their guy, while the real news outlets are the sites that sing his praises. Of course, the people in the anti-Trump camp take the opposite view. In other words, these people don’t think the news is fake. They think the other side’s news is fake. It’s the same old Red Team – Blue Team dynamic, just decorated with new language for the Trump era.

Continue reading→

 

How the Fourth Estate Illuminati Silences the Right, by Leesa K. Donner

The more the mainstream media and the big social media outfits try to stifle non-approved political views, the stronger the alternative media gets. It’s thriving because it delivers something an increasing number of people want: skepticism of official story lines, hard-hitting analysis, provocative questions, and something closer to the truth. From Leesa K. Donner at libertynation.com:

Journalism has taken quite a beating since the turn of the century. This is true on the business side of the equation and regarding its reputation as a non-biased source of information. The adversarial relationship between the president and the Fourth Estate has not dissipated since Donald J. Trump was sworn in on Jan. 20, 2017. And a good argument could be made that it’s gotten even more ugly in the public square. This war of words has turned into an all-out frontal assault on those the legacy press perceives as its enemy: the political right. So, it’s worth checking in on the state of the battle. Who’s winning? Who’s losing? And perhaps more significantly: How effectively is the war being waged?

The Bloody Inkwell

It’s not difficult to determine who is being targeted. The legacy press has set its sights on the right, but within that category the Illuminati are gunning for three types of adversaries: well-known conservative individuals, large and small organizations, and public citizens. As for the how, the big-city scribes have chosen the sniper attack as their primary operational-tactical strategy. That is, establish a cover position, lie in wait, and pick off the enemy one by one.

Continue reading