How Did the Corporate Media Miss the Epstein Story? The Same Reason They Miss Every Big Inconvenient Story

The recent Epstein document drop proves that we know only 1% of what is really going on in DC. I'm posting another tiny bit of evidence below. I could have posted hundreds of other items, but this one popped up today. We are subjected to hundreds of carefully designed nudges and psyops every day.

We can safely predict that almost none of these high-profile Epstein criminals will be prosecuted, whether they are democrats or republicans. And the corporate media will help most of them patch up their reputations when this blows over. You see, rich and powerful American people live under an entirely different set of laws than you and me.

What more do you need to convince you that we, the citizens of the US, are being systematically mis-informed? How about the many major conspiracy theories that have been proven true? How about the fact that your government and your "news media" got virtually everything wrong about COVID? That years-long comically false COVID reporting was not accidental. The journalists didn't simply get unlucky. They got everything wrong by refusing to do basic journalism in the middle of COVID. They don't care about getting the facts right because the job of the corporate media is primarily not to tell us what's going on. Unless they absolutely have to, which is when they temporarily become limited hangouts. Corporate Journalism is designed to convince us that we know what we don't really know, that we should give homage to every newly concocted false-consensus and that we should not question authority figures and "experts."

There is no way that the thousands of stories of Epstein stories of perversion and corruption were accidentally missed by the corporate media for more than ten years. This is more proof that the federal government is not YOUR government, as you were taught in grade school. In this world, your job as a citizen is to fall in line and obey. That includes supporting every new war. And most people will happily obey because because they can't stand being criticized, even when they are right. They would rather be liked than assert their rights and duties as citizens. Nothing will change because owners of this country (as George Carlin described them) own all of the sense-making institutions, and this increasingly includes the entire Internet.

We understandably love many things about the Internet, but powerful people see it primarily as a means to control our minds, because they have an unquenchable thirst for power and they don't give a shit about personal autonomy (or anything else in the Constitution). The EU's government-financed propaganda-censorship tidal wave is about to hit the US, which will bring back Biden-era internet censorship/propaganda with a vengeance. The silver lining for the sheep is that this will likely solve the problem of dissidents like me asking obvious questions that annoy many people. Congratulations. You are living in a double-feature: "The Truman Show" and "The Emperor's New Clothes."

Continue ReadingHow Did the Corporate Media Miss the Epstein Story? The Same Reason They Miss Every Big Inconvenient Story

The Narrative Creators (Censorship Team) Under Joe Biden

Mike Benz explains what we were up against when Biden was super-charging the censorship industrial complex.

There's one person, but that person by themselves is not going to have enough pull to do what needs to be done. That person is the wonderful Sarah Rogers. Sarah Rogers is great. She gets it, you get it. She gets it now. Sarah Rogers is the Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs branch. Yes, one person, and she's an undersecretary. Okay, so think about all the agencies that need to be deployed to take this on.

Let's pull up the list. Okay, let's pull up a list of all the different government agencies that the Biden White House coordinated to create the global censorship industrial complex. This was a full scale inter agency. The Biden White House created an interagency task force, and it was called the information integrity research and development interagency working group. Information Integrity, as we've covered many times, became the preferred phrase after the catastrophe of the disinformation governance board. Nobody knows what the fuck information integrity means.

Who doesn't like information with "high integrity?" How bad could it be? It's the worst. This term means that information can be chunked into two categories, high integrity meaning whitelisted, and low integrity, meaning blacklisted, meaning censored. So information integrity is total control over information, what information you can share on social media, what information can be amplified in algorithms, what information we want foreign countries to make illegal if it supports a political party that we don't want to win the election, etc, etc. So this task force set up in 2021 right away in the Biden administration, made it so that every one of the below US government, federal agencies and departments had the same policy goal they were driving towards, censoring Vaccine Information, censoring election information, censoring climate information, censoring gender information, censoring foreign policy opinions about Ukraine, etc.

Okay, you have your Central Intelligence Agency, CIA, controlling the media, the White House, Domestic Policy Council, DARPA DHS, the Justice Department, The State Department, the FBI NIST. Hello, 911. pancake theory. NIH, the National Science Foundation, the National Security Council, the NSA, goddamn Office of Naval Research, the White House, OSTP, Office of Science and Technology Policy, the ODNI, the friggin Surgeon General's office, USAID, all the way down, down to the damn Census Bureau for censoring immigration information, the gender Policy Council, the Food and Drug Administration, they were all coordinated top down by the White House. ... then it tied together a bunch of civil society partners to help create this whole of society on the outside, including our favorites like Stanford, UW Rutgers, the home of Antifa, nonprofits, corporations, individuals, all answering to this task force, like fucking news guard and Bill Burns, the CIA director's Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Aspen Digital, who ran the Hunter Biden censorship pre censorship strategy meeting to pre censor the Hunter Biden laptop story all the way down to the American Association of Retired Persons. This thing hit every demo, black, white, old, young, gay, straight, cis, trans, CIA FDA,

You know what we've got right now, guys, and I'm sorry to say it, I'm not trying to black pill you. I'm trying to white pill you. That you. A tiny little glimpse of a fire is being started. We'll see where it goes. We know we have against all of this, the CIA, the NSA, the ODNI, the State Department, fucking DARPA, Naval Research, every friggin agency, the Justice Department, the FBI, against all this a trade, every intelligence agency, military and statecraft organ of the United States government. For us on the other side, I offer, I offer a fair trade. I offer we but we have a Sarah Rogers. That's where we are right now.

Continue ReadingThe Narrative Creators (Censorship Team) Under Joe Biden

Jimmy Kimmel’s Litmus Test

Bill Maher (to Adam Corolla):

Jimmy Kimmel, you know he's very mad at me, and I know you're close to him. I help you tell him that, you know I'm sorry that you know he they got bent out of shape. I don't think I did anything wrong. We can have disagreements. I agree you and I don't agree on everything. Look at this clash now, and yet we're cool (Bill Maher and Adam Corolla), like the Republicans are always.

This is the difference between the right and the left. It bugs me so much. My tribe is supposed to be the left, but these are the people who just can't talk to you unless you're exactly there, whereas the Republicans, they always fucking come to my show. John Kennedy from Louisiana, right? was on last week, took his beating like a man, like they all do, and we came across lovingly and smilingly and happily. And we can disagree when you and I aren't always completely on the same page, although we're very close because we're both smart guys. But like, I just don't get that from Jimmy. I'm sorry. Like, I think he is one of the nicest guys. I did a mea culpa when we exchanged emails, not about what he was complaining about, but just saying, like, you know, sometimes I am a little brash about me when they compare me with the other late night guys.

And I'm not like, you guys. I'm not. You could all exchange your monologs, all of you, and no one would know the difference in tone, okay? Whereas me? I'm not there. I don't just buy into the left wing bullshit, and I never stop making fun of the right wing bullshit at all right? If that's not good enough for you, then I think you're the asshole. And I don't think Jimmy is an asshole. No, I think he's a great guy. And it bugs me . . .

Jimmy Kimmel is an excellent proxy for what has happened to many people on the Left. I'm not referring to all people who lean Left, but a significant sub-set. I know many of them. I've been de-friended by more than a few. This subset utilizes a litmus test. If you don't check all of their boxes, they see you as the enemy, as a republican, as a nazi, as a threat.  But time for a reality check: All people disagree with all other people on at least some things and, usually, many topics. It is fantasy to assume that any two people align on every topic and sub-topic of the day. Emphasis on sub-topic here.  Immigration, transgender, foreign policy, public assistance, race relations, social justice and every other "topic" is actually a big complex basket of subtopics.  Every one of these subtopics invites nuanced conversations involving minor or major disagreements.

Take for instance, the big basket of topics falling under the label of "transgender." As I have written often, I think every adult should be allowed to do anything they want with their own body and they must be respected, honored and invited to associate with any other person and to fall in love with anyone they choose. Many people on the Left , however, demand absolute obeisance, telling you that if you don't chant exactly like they do, in unison, exactly when and where they chant, you must be kicked out of the friendship. There are many important sub-issues to transgender that should be considered individually. For instance, A) Whether society should change its language to accommodate the alleged (and perhaps real) pain of other people B) whether people who identify as transgender should be treated equally under the law, C) whether it is OK for grade school math teachers to talk about sex with students without their parents' knowledge and consent, D) whether confused children and adolescents should be subjected to surgeries (including mastectomies), "puberty blockers" and cross-sex hormones that leave them permanently disfigured and/or sterile, E) Whether a minor can meaningfully consent to permanent changes to their bodies that render them sterile, F) The extent and type of psychological counseling a minor should undergo before being allowed to engage in transgender surgeries and drugs, G) the extent to which social contagion accounted for the rise (and more recently the fall) in minors declaring that they are "transgender."  Whether biological males should be allowed to compete in women's sports, H) whether it is biologically true that trans women are women, I) whether it is OK for a state government to take children away from their parents when state employees disagree with parents on transgender issues, J) Should males be imprisoned along with women, even though rapes and pregnancies are now being reported in those prisons (see here)? K) Whether "LGBTQIA+" is a meaningful descriptor for a a singular community, given the the inherent conflict among those referred to by the letters?  I could go on and on.

There are many other sub-issues to "transgender" topic that I could list. For instance, J.K. Rowling has listed a dozen of these sub-issues in her Sept 1, 2025 post on X. I would bet that many people who lean Left would agree with Rowling on many or most of the issues she lists. Yet she has bee labeled a "terf" and threatened with death on many occasions.

The way the topic of "transgender" splinters into countless sub-issues is true of every political and social issue. Anyone being honest knows that, as a country, we face hundreds, potentially thousands, of sub-issues.

This much is indisputable: Every person disagrees with every other person on many of the countless sub-issues of the day.  It is impossible for any person to lack any disagreement on some of the sub-issues of the day even with their closest and most loyal friends.

During the Great Awokening, we were falsely convinced that when a friend disagreed with us about an issue or sub-issue it was a personal attack, not a mere disagreement. We started disparaging maxims like "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me." And this one: "To each his own."  The need to express disagreement is embedded in the Constitutional foundation of the United States. That is why our Founders have a brilliantly devised set of checks and balances for resolving or compromising our inevitable differences.

Anyone currently claiming that they have friends who completely agree with them is not talking about someone they really know.  They are not talking about actual friends. They are referring to a relationship steeped in dishonesty, based on fear of speaking openly.

I challenge anyone reading this to ask themselves this question: Am I willing to keep loving and engaging freely with friends who disagree with me on some topics and sub-topics? If not, you don't have real friends. Instead, you are starring in your own Truman Show, self-imprisoned in a social cage.

Luckily, you've got the key to you own liberation. [More ...]

Continue ReadingJimmy Kimmel’s Litmus Test

PSYOP Manual for the US Army

Like to see how the US Army planned to psychologically manipulate foreign populations? It might be especially interesting now that we know that these techniques have now been turned against Americans. Here's Robert Malone's short post along with a link to the army PSYOP manual.

What is a PSYOP? According to p. A3 of the manual:

1.5 PSYCHOLOGICAL OPERATIONS (PSYOP)

Psychological Operations are planned to convey selected information and indicators to foreign audiences to influence their emotions, motives, objective reasoning, and ultimately the behavior of foreign governments, organizations, groups, and individuals. The purpose of PSYOP is to induce or reinforce foreign attitudes and behavior favorable to the originator's objectives.

I then asked Grok:

What types of psyop techniques described in this 1999 Army Psyop manual are being utilized by corporate media today to skew public understanding of what is going on in the world or how to think about it?

Grok's response:

Psyop Techniques from the 1999 Manual and Parallels in Corporate Media

The 1999 Joint Psychological Operations Task Force Headquarters Master Training Guide (CJCSM 3500.08) outlines frameworks for military psyop, focusing on influencing foreign audiences through planned information dissemination, analysis, and evaluation. While it's a military document (canceled in 2004), its principles—such as propaganda, deception, and target analysis—bear resemblance to strategies observed in corporate media today. Corporate media, including major networks and social platforms, often shapes public perception through selective framing, emotional appeals, and rapid narrative amplification, which can skew understanding of global events or issues like politics, economics, and social dynamics.

Below is a table summarizing key techniques from the manual, their descriptions, and observed parallels in modern corporate media. These parallels are drawn from analyses of media practices, including psychographic targeting, misinformation campaigns, and sentiment manipulation. Note that media entities may not intentionally label their actions as "psyop," but the effects align with the manual's methods. Claims are substantiated where possible from diverse sources, including academic studies, investigative reports, and public discourse, representing viewpoints from military, tech, and conspiracy-oriented perspectives.

Click "More" for Grok's table.

These techniques aim to induce favorable attitudes in the manual's context, but in media, they can skew understanding by prioritizing engagement over accuracy—e.g., dividing audiences ("us vs. them") or exploiting biases like Magruder's Principle (reinforcing pre-existing beliefs). Diverse sources note this in politics (e.g., election interference) and business (e.g., market manipulation), with X discussions highlighting perceived ops in everyday news. While not all media actions are deliberate psyops, the patterns enable narrative control at scale.

[More . . . ]

Continue ReadingPSYOP Manual for the US Army

Another Luxury Belief: Women Banned from Education by the Taliban

The banning of education beyond primary school for women by the Taliban in Afghanistan is an especially deplorable luxury belief. Post below by WDI.Afghanistan:

"In case you were wondering: the Taliban leaders send their daughters to fancy schools in Qatar and Pakistan.

“Just for the record, do your two daughters go to school?

Head of Taliban Office in Qatar - Of course they do.

This sums it all up. For their own daughters nothing is forbidden while for poor girls living in Afghanistan everything is forbidden."

Rob Henderson developed the concept of "Luxury beliefs." They are ideas and opinions that confer social status and the cheap signaling glow of "goodness" on the upper class, at little or no cost, while inflicting substantial burdens on the lower classes. Luxury beliefs are an especially destructive form of hypocrisy. Prominent U.S. examples of luxury beliefs:

1. Defund the police: Upper-class individuals advocate for reducing police funding, signaling progressive values, while living in safe communities (sometimes gated) or paying for private security, leaving lower-income neighborhoods more vulnerable to crime.

2. Abolishing standardized tests like the SAT: Affluent people advocate for eliminating such tests under the banner of "equity," yet their children benefit from expensive tutors and alternative admissions advantages, disadvantaging lower-class applicants who rely on merit-based scores.

3. Monogamy and marriage are outdated: Elite individuals publicly downplay the importance of traditional marriage and fidelity, but privately practice them to ensure family stability and success for their offspring.

4. Open borders or lax immigration policies: Upper-class advocates support unrestricted immigration, which doesn't threaten their high-skill jobs or neighborhoods, but increases competition and thus lowers wages for working-class Americans.

https://x.com/wdiafghanistan1/status/2017437051382075762?s=43

From Grok (link below):

Under Taliban rule in Afghanistan, as of February 2026, girls and women are permitted to attend primary school up to grade 6 (typically up to around age 12), but they face a complete ban on secondary education (grades 7-12) and higher education, including universities.

This policy, in place since the Taliban's return to power in 2021, has been extended over time: secondary schools were closed to girls in March 2022, universities in December 2022, and most recently, women and girls were barred from public and private medical institutes in December 2024, severely limiting the training of female healthcare workers in a country with acute medical needs.

Afghanistan remains the only country in the world enforcing such comprehensive restrictions on female education beyond the primary level.

The ban affects approximately 2.2 million girls who are denied secondary education, with projections indicating further increases if the policy persists. ...

These educational restrictions are part of a broader system of gender-based policies, often described as "gender apartheid," which also limit women's employment, movement, public participation, and access to healthcare."

From the NYT, NPR & MSNBC: No reporting on this abuse of women by the Taliban for at least the past year.

Continue ReadingAnother Luxury Belief: Women Banned from Education by the Taliban