Category Archives: The Left

Putin’s Sudden Turning Point

There is plenty of evidence that the collective West is waging war against Russia/Putin. This was and is a bad idea. mrossol

Source: Putin’s Sudden Turning Point

September 23, 2022 Updated: September 24, 2022

Russian President Vladimir Putin finally abandoned hope in mid-September that he could rebuild a bridge to the West.

With that realization, he committed Russia to the new anti-Western pact.

The turning point was the signal Putin received from the United Kingdom over the funeral of Queen Elizabeth II. It had little to do with the military setbacks in the Ukraine war, for which he had already begun planning.

Russia’s new, harder-line anti-Western policy was essential for building a new strategic bloc with China, Belarus, Iran, North Korea, and, de facto but integrally, NATO member Turkey.

This is the “new Warsaw Pact.” It signaled that the Russian bid to regain control of Central Asia—which Russia had controlled from the late 19th century until 1991—was now also in full swing. It also meant that the U.S. plan to revive the Iran nuclear deal was, in reality, dead.

Moscow has now walked away from any thought that it could negotiate with the two countries at the core of its problems: the United States and the United Kingdom. On its first day in office on Jan. 20, 2021, the Biden administration had already committed to an irrevocable policy of alienating—and possibly breaking up—Russia, so Putin’s hopes were probably always in vain.

Then-UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson also committed fully to the Biden agenda toward Russia. Putin hoped that the incoming UK Prime Minister Liz Truss could soften the Johnson stance.

Significantly, Putin had pushed one final endeavor to open a strategic dialogue with the UK on Sept. 8. He sent a warm statement of condolence to the family of Queen Elizabeth II, who died that day, and paid unqualified tribute to the late queen. The communiqué implied a clear call for an equally humane response from the UK.

Epoch Times Photo
Members of the public mourn the passing of Queen Elizabeth II with flowers and candles outside the British Consulate General in Hong Kong on Sept. 19, 2022. (Sung Pi-lung/The Epoch Times)

The desired British response did not come. Moreover, when the British Crown and government issued invitations to foreign heads-of-state to attend Queen Elizabeth’s state funeral on Sept. 19, Russia was explicitly excluded, one of the few states to be singled out. Even North Korea received an invitation, and China, albeit not at the head-of-state level.

Putin’s gesture had been rejected with venom. The UK would not be split from the United States in its strenuous proxy war through Ukraine, against Russia.

Within a week, Putin had clearly resigned himself to the reality that the future of Russia was never likely—in the foreseeable future—to include any degree of economic integration with the West. He then used the opportunity of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit in Samarkand, Uzbekistan, on Sept. 15-16 to cement the new, anti-Western bloc, and with Chinese leader Xi Jinping to begin gradually prying India away from its close relationship with the United States and the Quad alliance (India, Japan, the United States, Australia), which had been designed to contain China.

By Sept. 15, when Putin met with Xi at the SCO summit, China and Russia significantly strengthened the interpretation of their mutual cooperation treaty, with the statement that both countries would support each other’s “core interests.” Beijing would support Moscow on Ukraine; Moscow would support Beijing on Taiwan. This was a major hardening of the new bloc and a sign that Russia would not compromise on its determination to retain its gains in Ukraine.

Teenagers cross a street in front of destroyed buildings amid Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, in the town of Borodianka, in Kyiv region, Ukraine, on Aug. 26, 2022. (Gleb Garanich/Reuters)

Events surrounding the Russia-Ukraine war had already seen Russia pushed by the United States, and particularly the UK, into isolation that forced Moscow into an inevitable and growing interdependence on China. The ever-increasing political, economic, and resource costs of the Russia-Ukraine war have also meant that Putin faced hard choices and the prospect that the negative aspects of the war would soon have a significant impact on his governance.

On Sept. 15, Putin sent his own message back to the UK by causing Russian state TV to run movie footage allegedly showing a young Queen Elizabeth throwing food to “the children of the enslaved people in Africa,” and indicating that the queen was racist. The footage, however, was fake and filmed in French Indo-China by the famous Lumière brothers in 1899 or 1900, decades before the queen was even born. It actually showed a woman tossing coins to children.

It was meant to be the kind of reactive insult from which there was no going back. London got the point. It lost, without caring, a strategic opportunity.

On Sept. 21, Putin announced a partial military mobilization in Russia, reportedly activating 300,000 reserve troops for the Ukraine war. He said that he was not at this time considering introducing military conscription. At the same time, he committed extra funds to increase Russian defense-related production. Russian armor and aircraft producers had, in fact, been delivering significant new stocks of Su-35 fighters, T-90 main battle tanks, and other materiel in September.

Media reporting in the West, Ukraine, and Russia cannot be relied upon for a long-term view of events. History demonstrates that Russia, after accepting an adversary’s thrusts, regroups and relies on significant geographic, human, and resource depth to respond. Stalin, the ultimate Marxist-globalist, when facing the German Operation Barbarossa’s 3 million invading troops in 1941, fell back in disarray before appealing to “Russian” nationalism, abandoning the globalist Soviet ideology until Germany was defeated.

Russia has far greater strategic depth than Ukraine.

Xi, as he saw China under growing threat after 2012, has revived nationalism as a motivating force for the Chinese Communist Party.

History is the best intelligence.

Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.

Gregory Copley

 

Gregory Copley is president of the International Strategic Studies Association based in Washington. Born in Australia, Copley is a Member of the Order of Australia, entrepreneur, writer, government adviser, and defense publication editor. His latest book is The New Total War of the 21st Century and the Trigger of the Fear Pandemic.
Share

The EU is sleepwalking into anarchy

Sept. 26, 2022 – By Thomas Faze

Source: The EU is sleepwalking into anarchy – UnHerd

All eyes may be on the Italian election results this morning, but Europe’s got much bigger problems on its hands than the prospect of a Right-wing government. Winter is coming, and the catastrophic consequences of Europe’s self-imposed energy crisis are already being felt across the continent.

As politicians continue to devise unrealistic plans for energy rationing, the reality is that soaring energy prices and falling demand have already caused dozens of plants across a diverse range of energy-intensive industries — glass, steel, aluminium, zinc, fertilisers, chemicals — to cut back production or shut down, causing thousands of workers to be laid off. Even the pro-war New York Times was recently forced to acknowledge the “crippling” impact that Brussels’s sanctions are having on industry and the working class in Europe. “High energy prices are lashing European industry, forcing factories to cut production quickly and put tens of thousands of employees on furlough,” it reported.

Zinc, aluminium and silicon production cuts (amounting to a staggering 50% of output) have already left consumers in the Europe’s steel, auto and construction industries facing severe shortages, which are being offset by shipments from China and elsewhere. Meanwhile, steel plants in Spain, Italy, France, Germany and other countries — more than two dozen in total — are beginning to slow down or entirely stop their output.

The fertiliser industry, which is heavily dependent on gas as a key feedstock as well as a source of power, is in even bigger trouble. More than two-thirds of production — around 30 plants — has already been halted. The German chemicals powerhouse BASF has temporarily shut down 80 plants worldwide and is slowing production at another 100 as it plans further output cuts depending on what happens to gas prices. To make things worse, EU sanctions have also limited imports of Russian fertilisers.

Dwindling supplies of fertilisers are also having a dramatic knock-on effect on European farmers, which are being forced to scale back their use of the key nutrient. This means higher prices for less output, and the consequences are bound to be felt well beyond Europe’s borders, potentially triggering a global food shortage.

But the shortage of fertiliser isn’t the only problem facing European farmers. Across northern and western Europe, vegetable producers are contemplating halting their activities because of the crippling energy costs — in some cases ten times higher than those of 2021 — required to heat greenhouse through the winter and keep harvests refrigerated, on top of rising transport and packaging costs. Greenhouse industry group Glastuinbouw Nederland says up to 40% of its 3,000 members are in financial distress. This further threatens food supplies — and will certainly lead to even higher food prices which, coupled with soaring energy bills, is likely to drive millions of European into poverty. In other words, the European energy and cost-of-living crisis is on course to descend into an outright humanitarian crisis.

In the UK, 45 million people are forecast to face fuel poverty by January 2023; as a result, “millions of children’s development will be blighted” with lung damage, toxic stress and deepening educational inequalities, as children struggle to keep up with school work in freezing homes. Lives will be lost, experts warn. Meanwhile, in Germany’s Rheingau-Taunus district, the authorities have carried out a simulation of what such a blackout would mean for them, and the results are shocking: more than 400 people would die in the first 96 hours. And this in a district of just 190,000 inhabitants.

Now, these numbers may well be overestimates, but the local government can’t afford to ignore them. Indeed, Gerd Landsberg, general manager of the German Association of Towns and Municipalities, has urged residents to stockpile water and food for 14 days. Landsberg says that Germany is “in no way” prepared for such a scenario.

What’s important to understand is that this is not some temporary crisis where all we need to do is grit our teeth through the winter, after which things will return to normal. The reality, as the chief executive of Shell recently made clear, is that if European governments insist on decoupling Europe from Russian supplies, the continent will face gas shortages “likely to last several winters”. It’s a bitter truth, but there’s simply no short-term alternative to Russia’s gas. Indeed, the European Commission forecasts gas and electricity prices to “remain high and volatile until at least 2023”.

To put it simply, if it stays on its current course, Europe is looking at years of economic contraction, inflation, deindustrialisation, declining living standards, mass impoverishment, and shortages — and this without taking into account the terrifying prospect of an outright military confrontation with Russia. How can anyone think Europe can survive this without plunging into anarchy?

The folly of the situation becomes even more apparent when we consider that, in its attempt to reduce its dependence on Russian gas, the EU is increasing its reliance on supplies from countries like China and India — which, it would appear, are simply reselling to Europe gas that comes from… Russia (at a higher price, of course). If people’s lives weren’t on the line, this whole thing would seem like a sick joke.

Europe has lost the energy war

By Thomas Fazi

It’s truly a sign of the feebleness of Europe’s politicians that despite the fast-approaching cliff, no one can bring themselves to state the obvious: that the sanctions need to end. There’s simply no moral justification for destroying the livelihoods of millions of Europeans simply to school Putin, even if the sanctions were helping to achieve that aim, which they clearly aren’t.

And so, rather depressingly, the only voice of reason appears to be that of Hungary’s prime minister, Victor Orbán. For weeks he and other members of his government have been warning about the economic calamity facing Europe. “The attempts to weaken Russia have not succeeded,” he said recently. “By contrast, it is Europe that could be brought to its knees by brutal inflation and energy shortages resulting from sanctions”. This is a statement of fact, not an opinion. But nobody seems to want to listen.

In response, the technocrats in Brussels are proving to be just as senseless as national leaders. Not only is the EU’s gung-ho approach to Russia one of the main causes of the present crisis, but its leadership continues to pour petrol on the fire. Just this month, Josep Borrell, the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, said that “the strategy against Russia is working and must continue” — and promised new sanctions.

Even worse, the EU isn’t even doing anything to help cushion the effects of the crisis it helped create. After dropping the ridiculous proposal of capping only the price of Russian gas — which would have led to the latter’s immediate cut-off — Brussels is now mulling a cap on all gas imports, which even the German Minister of State for Europe has warned could lead to severe shortages.

The proposal also fails to take into account a basic fact: it’s not energy exporters that are ramping up the price of gas; the latter today is linked to the price at which gas is traded on virtual trading markets such as the TTF in Amsterdam, where speculators have been rallying up prices for months, making huge profits. Moreover, in today’s liberalised market, which is based on so-called marginal-cost pricing, the final price of power is set by the most expensive fuel needed to meet all demands — in this case gas. This means that as gas prices soar, so does electricity, even if cheaper, clean sources contribute to the total mix.

So, if the EU were serious about tackling about energy prices, it would decouple the price of gas from speculative trading markets and overhaul the marginal-cost pricing system. But that would go against the European technocrats’ fundamental ideology: the idea that prices should be set by markets. Indeed, the EU was among the most ardent supporters, against Putin’s advice, of the shift from long-term, fixed price gas deals to a system where the price is set by virtual trading markets.

Civil disobedience is coming

Given the unlikelihood of radical reform, what will Brussels do next? In all likelihood, it will settle for half-baked solutions — such as a cap on the excess revenues made by non-gas power plants and a windfall tax on surplus profits — as well as for what it does best: austerity. Meanwhile, the ECB, instead of announcing a new round of bond purchases to provide governments with the cash they need to cushion citizens and companies from soaring gas and energy prices, has started to taper its quantitative easing programmes and hiked interest rates, causing the spread between 10-year government bonds issued by Italy and Germany to widen to their highest levels since the pandemic began. This could easily precipitate a new debt crisis, which is the last thing Europe needs.

Without central bank support, governments in the EU have essentially been left to fend for themselves. Once again we are reminded of what it means for euro countries to have given up the power to issue their own money; it’s no coincidence that the UK alone has allocated more than 50% of what has been set aside by the EU as a whole.

This is already leading to beggar-thy-neighbour policies: those countries, such as Germany, that can rely on financial markets to raise the cash they need to help citizens and businesses, and nationalise or bail out ailing energy utilities, will inevitably outcompete weaker countries that are already facing stress on bond markets, such as Italy. In fact, this is already starting to happen, as more and more countries engage in what can only be described as energy protectionism.

In theory, Europe’s gas security is governed by a regulation adopted in 2017, which makes solidarity among European countries mandatory. But EU countries don’t always observe those rules when confronted with a supply crisis. So, for example, the Italian newspaper la Repubblica recently reported that Italy had received written notification from France’s state-controlled utility EDF regarding a potential two-year halt on power exports as part of France’s energy-saving plans. A spokesperson for Italy’s Ministry of Ecological Transition later confirmed the newspaper report, although it was denied by EDF. Similarly, Croatia and Hungary have both announced that plans to implement measures to limit exports of natural gas to neighbouring countries. While Norway, which has supplanted Russia as the EU’s largest source of gas, making gigantic profits on the back of higher gas prices, has thus refused to back a price cap on its gas exports.

Yet while moaning about such “lack of solidarity” between European states is easy, it is also naïve. This, after all, is simply how capitalism works. For all the talk of “global capitalism”, individual nations — or better, their respective capitalist elites — are still engaged in competition with each other. While the ruling classes of individual countries are more than happy to collaborate to pursue the interests of capital-in-general at the expense of workers — just look at the European Union — their competing interests inevitably re-emerge in times of crisis.

The EU, in fact, far from encouraging solidarity among countries, actually makes inter-capitalist competition even more fierce, by depriving countries of the basic economic tools that are required to deal with external shocks. It doesn’t matter if the continent is experiencing a financial crash, a global pandemic or an energy shortage. In Europe, beggar-thy-neighbour policies aren’t an exception to the rule — they are the rule.

Share

Double standards: The Atlantic Tells the Story of a Doctor Whose Cancer Got Worse After Vaccination, but No Legacy Media Outlet Will Cover the Aftermath of a Boy Who Had Myocarditis

Source: Double standards: The Atlantic Tells the Story of a Doctor Whose Cancer Got Worse After Vaccination, but No Legacy Media Outlet Will Cover the Aftermath of a Boy Who Had Myocarditis

Why are we treating possible adverse events more seriously than a proven one?

Sep 25, 2022

This week the Atlantic published a long essay about a doctor: Michel Goldman, who has lymphoma, and who noticed that his cancer seemed to worsen after COVID19 mRNA boosting. Was the vaccine responsible?

Let me be clear: Is it possible his cancer got worse because of the booster? Absolutely, it is possible. Is it possible the cancer would have gotten worse without the booster? Absolutely, that often happens with lymphoma. Many patients experience what feels like a change in tempo, and it is hard to know what, if anything, precipitated it.

Imagine you put a gun to my head, and ask me to make the call. Is it related or unrelated? But you are a kind, and say you will give me 1 month, and allow me to use any data sources. I would do something very simple. I would go to a large electronic medical record with images. I would pick an incurable lymphoma where there is often repeat imagining— such as follicular lymphoma. I would extract images from patients (let us say 500). Some patients would have gotten boosters and others not— and it will not be random— this is a limitation. But, I can’t make excuses, I have a gun to my head.

I would use the raw images to calculate the g- or growth rate coefficient before COVID vaccination, and the g or growth rate after COVID vaccination (using established methods, see Fojo, et al.).

As a falsification test— (Learn about that here)— I would use the patients’ birthday to define a g before a birthday and a g after a birth day.

Here is the hypothesis: if the vaccine accelerates growth, the growth rate will change after boosting, but— let us be clear— it would not change at time of patient’s birthday. That’s the purpose of the falsification test— to serve as a negative control. You could also use a random day of the year for your falsification test. And you need a group of people to get a sense of the distribution.

With access to a nice dataset and omnibus IRB, a project like this could be done in 3 weeks. If I was allowed to involve Logan Powell— a Texas medical student who has done ~20 papers with me— we would be done in 2 weeks, because that kid doesn’t sleep. And, honestly, with Logan’s help (again, dude doesn’t sleep), I can think of 5 different studies to run to complement this analysis.

Do you know what I wouldn’t do? I wouldn’t extensively pour over the story of the individual Michel Goldman— because nothing can be found in one anecdote to help me. The yield will be low. And do you know what I really would not do: I wouldn’t broadcast this story in the Atlantic before I had strong evidence the link might be real!

Meanwhile, there is a proven safety signal I don’t hear much about in the legacy media. Myocarditis for boys after mRNA vaccination. It occurs as often as 1 in 3,000 after primary vaccination and 1 in 10,000 after boosting. It has very rarely but really resulted in young people ending up on Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation. It could be lowered (surely) if we banned Moderna in men <40, (possibly) if we lowered doses, (likely) if we spaced doses apart, and (surely) if we minimized doses in young men who already had COVID19. And yet, we have done nearly none of these things! The CDC only spread doses after a year of inaction, and we haven’t taken natural immunity seriously.

Vaccination means trying to maximize efficacy and minimize harm, but when it comes to young men, we haven’t taken the harm seriously and haven’t tried to minimize it. Yet, I don’t read this in the pages of the Atlantic. I just read about a famous old doctor who thinks the vaccine made his cancer grow faster. What is going on?

The entire episode led me to several conclusions:

  1. If he wasn’t a rich doctor; this would not be in the news. How sad is it that the experience of everyday Americans is not considered acceptable for news coverage. Many people have felt a range of medical issues were triggered or worsened by vaccination, but the media steadfastly refuses to cover those stories. Yet, in this case, they make an exemption because the individual is famous. I find this problematic. I prefer to not cover any anecdote, but this idea that if it happens to an electrician- it is anti-vax, but if it happens to a doctor- it is news— that’s problematic.
  2. Cancer accelerating after vaccination is not yet established as linked to COVID19 vaccination, but 2 things are fully established. Blood clots and runaway platelet activation after J&J vaccination is fully proven to be linked to the shot. And myocarditis, particularly in young men, has been linked to mRNA vaccines. And yet: I have never seen coverage of the human cost of either of these in any major news outlet!
  3. The news media could easily cover a poor young man who was forced to be boosted by his college or university, and experienced myocarditis. This occurs at the rate of 1 in 10k. One news story like this would be powerful— and strongly discourage these mid level managers from mandating novel medical products. And yet the media is silent on these stories. Why does the doctor get special treatment for a side effect that has not yet been vetted?
  4. What about this story of a 14 year old boy? Why is this (or a similar story) not in the Atlantic? Instead a doctor gets his unproven anecdote widely broadcast? 

     

  5. What about the young woman who had clot and brain damage from J&J? What about her family? Why no coverage of that? The news could also note that some (dim) scientists on Twitter compared runaway platelet activation after J&J to a blood clot in the leg after oral contraceptives. This was a deceptive and ignorant comparison that furthered preventable harm. Why does the media not cover this story? Why only a possible side effect— unproven— in a famous scientist?
  6. Consider the risk gradient here. Young people have far less to gain from each additional dose of vaccine, and even rare risks become salient. Older people who suffer from cancers that often lead to (or therapies lead to) b-cell inhibition face much higher risks of COVID19. Why are we covering an anecdote that might lead a higher risk population to forgo vaccination vs. lead colleges to consider that a lower risk population ought not be compelled? The whole thing is backwards.
  7. The White House is doing massive damage to our institutions— particularly the FDA— as they push a new booster based solely on mouse data. Their unethical pressure led Gruber and Krause to resign. They could have compelled Pfizer to run RCTs, but chose not to. The legacy media is largely complicit with this, writing many articles defending this choice, but it is entirely unprecedented. And yet, instead, they are happy to cover a putative side effect that might not even be related?
  8. I have no doubt there may be adverse events attributable to vaccines that are not yet established, but we don’t need to profile the people who have these (not yet), we need careful epidemiological studies. I agree the CDC’s passive collection is suboptimal, and I also no longer trust them, as I believe they have been captured by political winds, but the solution is better systems and independence, rather than covering anecdotes in the media.
  9. The Atlantic coverage is balanced and fair, but that’s not the point. The mere act of covering the anecdote to millions of readers, elevates it to something intensely plausible or true. No matter how much confidence you place in it, the truth is mycocarditis is more plausible and more true and should be preferentially covered. And yet there is no story of a boy who lost a football scholarship because he can’t play. Or a kid still ravaged with late gad enhancement after surviving mycocarditis. This discrepancy is fundamentally unfair.

The media coverage of vaccines and side effects is awful. They lack a philosophical framework and are unmoored. This article nicely shows how that is the case. Whether they choose to improve is beyond me. They have too much allegiance to the Biden administration, and have failed American boys as a result.

Like CommentComment ShareShare

If you liked this post from Sensible Medicine, why not share it?

Share

C&C. The Wall?  Good Info?

Source: Coffee & Covid ☙ Monday, September 19, 2022 ☙ GOOD INFO

🗞*COVID NEWS AND COMMENTARY* 🗞

🔥 The Intercept ran a timely article yesterday headlined, “Border Wall Construction Resumes Under President Joe Biden.” Hahahaha, oh they’re killing me this morning! The sub-headline explained, “The Biden administration laid out its plans to rev up work on completing Donald Trump’s signature project.”

You may recall that Biden halted the Trump’s border wall right after he took office in January 2021, mumbling something about “what border crisis?” Now, although there’s no official announcement, and corporate media is completely silent about the massive policy shift, but it seems as though an unofficial policy to continue the construction is now suddenly and unexpectedly in force.

The Intercept reported that last week, “U.S. Customs and Border Protection confirmed that work on the border wall that began under Trump is revving back up under Biden,” explaining that “[s]tarting next month, contractors will return to the Sonoran Desert in Arizona to resume work on the wall, senior CBP officials said in a public webinar.”

Gosh. What could have caused this sudden shift in Biden’s thinking? I have two ideas. First, according to a weekend story in Just the News headlined, “Two More Texas Counties Declare Invasion At Southern Border, Bringing Total To 29.”

So far, Governor Abbott has stopped short of declaring a statewide invasion — no state has. But with literally hundreds of thousands of untracked, unvetted, illegal foreign nationals streaming across Texas’ border every month, one wonders WHAT the governor thinks an “invasion” is?

There must be some other, highly-technical definition of the word out there that I’m not aware of.

Last week, Texas neared 30 Texas border counties declaring their own local states of invasion. But then, more significantly because it blew up on corporate media, Governor DeSantis shipped a handful of migrants to the sunny shores of Martha’s Vineyard, and THEN we find out the Biden administration want to start building the wall again.

Could it have something to do with headlines like this?

Pivoting! It’s no way to run a government, of course. Biden is acting more like a paranoid, secretive dictator than the leader of a transparent democratic government. All this shifting and pivoting whenever the mood strikes him, stopping and starting construction of a Congressionally-approved border wall, without even a public announcement, seems pretty anti-democratic, actually.

🔥 The Democrats have gotten their sticky little hands stuck in the fake news cookie jar, this time. A TikTok video went viral this weekend, which simultaneously illustrated the underhanded tactics of the left, rogue deep state government actors, massive funding, and the shady NGOs carrying out its demonic agenda — as well as the how desperate it’s getting.

The viral video was posted by a popular TikTok “Harvard trial attorney” Preston Moore (@trialbypreston). He wasn’t happy. Not at all.

First of all, as I can assure you, since I’m also a lawyer who posts on social media, serious lawyers are always careful to tell what they believe is the truth, especially online, because their reputation has to be solid in front of judges and juries. A reputation for lying kind of hurts if you’re a trial lawyer. Not to overlook ethics, of course.

Second, on his TikTok channel, Preston has been consistently critical of the former president. He has repeatedly posted about his opinion that the FBI has enough evidence to indict President Trump for concealing national defense information, for example.

I’m sure that’s why they thought it was safe to contact him. They forgot some people care about ethics and telling the truth.

In his latest video, Preston says he got an unsolicited email invitation from “Jane” at the “Good Info Foundation,” offering a “paid collaboration” where he could earn $400 for making certain posts to his TikTok and Instagram accounts.

Curious, he responded that he was interested, and then got a link to a private web page providing instructions for what needed to be in the paid post. The Good Info Foundation (or, the “GIF”) wanted him to talk about January 6th, but from a certain, er, point of view:

Preston thought all this seemed kind of sketchy. Then he noticed under the heading, “Key Messaging (in your own words!),” the Good Info Foundation’s private web page advised him to make this remarkable claim:

Preston followed up, emailing back and asking Jane to explain what evidence backed up the claim that the Trump campaign paid “literally millions of dollars to make” the January 6th siege happen. And guess what? Jane didn’t provide any evidence. She backed off and said, “you don’t have to say that if you don’t want to.”

Here’s Preston, in his own words:

🔥 So, who or what is this Good Info Foundation anyway? The GIF’s list of board members and officers is a rogue’s gallery of Deep State operatives. For example, the GIF’s board chairman is Richard Stengel, a former State Department official (and then ‘MSNBC contributor’). Alert independent investigators quickly dug up this video clip featuring Stengel speaking in 2020:

Twitter avatar for @MaxBlumenthalMax Blumenthal @MaxBlumenthal

One is Richard Stengel, self described former “Chief Propagandist” and supporter of domestic US propaganda

Image

Ben Norton @BenjaminNorton

More of the revolving door between mainstream corporate media outlets and the US government: Three paid analysts on MSNBC have left to join Joe Biden’s administration. A fourth paid MSNBC contributor helped write Biden’s victory speech. https://t.co/TGhmzVWml7

In the clip,* Stengel explains when he worked at the U.S. State Department, his job was literally called the “Chief Propagandist.” I am not making that up. And then I nearly spit out my coffee when he says this:

“I’m not against propaganda. Every country does it. And they have to do it to their own population. And I don’t think it’s that awful.”

Um. They HAVE TO DO IT THEIR OWN POPULATION. They “have to.” That used to be illegal! Oh well, at least he admitted it. But, just spitballing here, maybe it’s time for a new Church Committee. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Committee

Apparently Richard’s “Good Info” — a non-profit public interest organization — is now paying TikTok influencers $400 bucks PER POST to propagandize Americans about January 6th and falsely claim that Trump paid millions to “make it happen.”

I don’t think “good information” means what they think it means. You usually don’t have to pay like-minded influencers to talk about “good” information.

Another “advisor” listed on the GIF’s website is Dan Pfieffer, who used to be Obama’s White House Communications Director. The website identifies a woman named Tara McGowan as the “founder” of GIF. InfluenceWatch describes McGowan as “a Democratic political operative,” and says this about her:

InfluenceWatch didn’t list Good Information, Inc., which runs the Good Info Project, but it did mention this interesting little nugget:

$65 million! That’s a whole lot for one single project. Pretty ambitious. Having tried my hand at some public-interest fund-raising, I know how much work it takes.

🔥 So wouldn’t you like to know where all the millions to pay for top-tier deep-staters and buy off social media influencers are coming from? Oh wait, someone already tracked it down:

George Soros, what a shock! I knew you’d be surprised.

🔥 Now let’s go back and think about some of the talking points, because they evidence an interesting new narrative pivot.

First of all, the GIF advised Preston to call it a “criminal conspiracy,” and NOT an “attempted coup,” “treason,” or even an “insurrection.” Those other words must not be polling well, or maybe they just aren’t a great predicate for an indictment. Instead the GIF clearly prefers the term “criminal conspiracy.”

Second, they echoed the White House’s recent talking points, advising Preston to say that “MAGA Republicans” were to blame, and NOT “Trump and his allies.” It’s just one data point, but it sure looks like coordination with Team Biden.

Finally, the Good Info Foundation clearly wants its paid influencers to link “anger” at the “criminal conspiracy” with voting against Republican candidates. In other words, they are trying to influence the elections.

So what does all this suggest? It suggests that the democrats are ramping up to argue there is some kind of ongoing criminal conspiracy directly fueled by President Trump, with the enthusiastic support of “MAGA Republicans.”

Haha, I think there IS a criminal conspiracy all right. Except it’s a criminal conspiracy to influence the elections, through fake news and disinformation, directly fueled by lunatics like George Soros, with the enthusiastic support of deep state actors.

🔥 Still, there’s a lot of good news here. First of all, if they’re backing down from the term “insurrection,” that must mean the old narrative bit the dust somehow. So they’re testing a new narrative, maybe based on the FBI raid.

Second, if they have to pay influencers $400 PER POST, they’re obviously not seeing a lot of volunteerism. The more expensive it is to pay for this message, the less it must make sense to ordinary democrats. In other words, media influencers — especially liberal and anti-Trump ones — should be happy to report talking points that were true or popular.

But not only did that effort fail with this Harvard trial lawyer, he went public with it, understandably upset that someone was trying to buy him off to publish fake news. It’s a setback.

And, they over-reached this time, pitching their little scheme to someone that they didn’t know FOR SURE would keep it quiet. So they are either running short of regulars or they are making a huge pre-election push.

It is worth reflecting, though, that they wouldn’t be doing this at all if it hadn’t already worked with a lot of other social media influencers.

The bottom line is, social media is so influential now as an alternate source of news that they are having to spend tons of money trying to push their disinformation online. Which means people must be paying a whole lot less attention to corporate media.

🔥 Finally, here are the issues that the “Good Info Foundation” appears to highlight as “disinformation” on its website. I thought you might find them interesting too:

— Vaccine skepticism

— January 6th

— 5G concerns

— Election skepticism

I didn’t used to be too interested in the whole 5G thing, but this gives me pause. I might have to look into it now. And, the website also features scary pictures of Steve Bannon and Tucker Carlson.

So.

🔥 Moving on, CNN ran a chipper story late yesterday headlined, “Biden: ‘The Pandemic Is Over’.”

On his Sunday morning appearance on 60 Minutes, Biden tried to straddle the line and make all sides happy right before the elections, saying, “The pandemic is over. We still have a problem with Covid. We’re still doing a lot of work on it. It’s — but the pandemic is over.”

Well then, I guess that’s settled. Of course, the federal state of emergency continues, but let’s not nitpick. Science!

💉 New York hasn’t got the memo, apparently. The New York Post ran a story this weekend headlined, “850 More Unvaxxed NYC Teachers, Aides Fired For Not Complying With Mandate.”

It turns out that about 1,300 DOE employees took a deal last year that gave them a year’s unpaid leave, in exchange for an agreement to be jabbed by September 5th of this year, or be “deemed to have voluntarily resigned.” The year has finally come around.

Of the 1,300 courageous deferrers, some 450 finally gave in and took the shot, but the rest held out. All of them are now terminated, including 225 teachers and 135 paraprofessionals.

Actually, given what we now know about the shots, 450 is more than I would’ve guessed. Anyway, if you are an unjabbed, newly-“resigned,” experienced NYC paraprofessional considering moving to Florida, give my office a call. I understand we’re also hiring teachers down here.

🔥 A strong earthquake hit Taiwan over the weekend, reported as anywhere from 6.4 to 7.2 on the Richter scale. Images included everything from shaking buildings to avalanches to toppled buildings.

According to the Hill’s report, there was only one reported fatality as of yesterday afternoon.

I’m very, very happy there weren’t many casualties. But if Taiwan has another earthquake, or a more serious one, then China could just walk in under the banner of humanitarian aid.

It’s a good thing the Chinese don’t have secret earthquake technology.

Have a magnificent Monday! I’ll be back tomorrow with more.

Share

C&C is moving the needle and changing minds. If you can, I could use your help getting the truth out and spreading optimism and hope: https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/-learn-how-to-get-involved-

Twitter: @jchilders98
Truth Social: @jchilders98
MeWe: mewe.com/i/coffee_and_covid.
C&C Swag! www.shopcoffeeandcovid.com
Emailed Daily Newsletter: https://www.coffeeandcovid.com

Share