Corporate Media Lies About NPR CEO Katherine Maher’s Ideology

It was totally predictable that the corporate media (mainstream media or MSM) is trying to pretend that there is nothing to see about recent revelations about Katherine Maher, CEO of NPR. They are pretending her illiberal woke-drenched ideology has no relevance to the illiberal woke-drenched ideology of the modern version of NPR. Andrew Sullivan also noticed this cover-up in his recent link-rich article*:

I used to be quite fond of NPR. Each time I’d tune in, I’d be treated to calm, reassuring voices, occasional folk music and high-minded liberalism. Yes, it was biased — but in a tolerable, occasionally hilarious way, still relaying facts about the world, occasionally even letting an always-qualified “conservative” voice on its airwaves. Yes, we used to refer to “All Things Considered” as “All Things Distorted,” but it was a tease, not an indictment.

And so when I read the NYT story about the new NPR CEO, Katherine Maher, being criticized for past tweets that were “embracing liberal causes,” it felt like a blast of ‘90s nostalgia. Who running the MSM doesn’t “embrace liberal causes”? Ditto the WSJ’s description: that the tweets “indicate liberal leanings.” Or the Washington Post, which wrote that Maher’s tweets included calling Tump a “deranged racist” and a photo of her “wearing a Biden hat, or wistfully daydreaming about hanging out with Kamala D. Harris.”

Nothing to see here. Nothing new. Just a liberal CEO getting blasted by a far-right activist (in this case, Chris Rufo), after an NPR stalwart, Uri Berliner, wrote a public critique of NPR. A tale as old as the MSM.

But of course, the MSM is lying — by obfuscating Maher’s politics and her tweets to make her views seem far milder than they are. She is not, in fact, a liberal of any kind. She is — as the tweets and the record prove — a near-parody of an illiberal leftist, dedicated to replacing open and free debate with benign censorship, and to constructing a journalistic regime rooted not in the pursuit of truth but in the urgent task of dismantling “white supremacy.”

Sullivan also noticed that substantial drop-off in NPR audience since 2017, from 11M to about 8M. I'm not in a mood to hear about correlation and causation on these numbers . . .

Continue ReadingCorporate Media Lies About NPR CEO Katherine Maher’s Ideology

Mike Benz: Censorship Versus Propaganda

Thanks to some heroic people like Mike Benz, many of us have seen the scales falling from our eyes regarding the insidiousness and the perniciousness of the censorship-industrial complex. And it's largely funded by you, the taxpayer.  Over the past couple of years, I've seen the scales falling from the eyes of Dr. Drew in a very public way.

In this video, Mike Benz discussed the dangers of censorship and propaganda in the digital age, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic. He argues that censorship is a more insidious threat than propaganda because it can silence counter-narratives and undermine public faith in institutions. He noted that while propaganda can still provide a 'fighting chance' against it, censorship can completely silence opposing viewpoints. I created a transcript of the above discussion:

I see censorship as being the flip side of propaganda. Propaganda is the knob upturning of the volume of a government message. Censorship is the knob down turning of any of any counter messaging. And until the social media censorship expanded-AI toolkit was really unveiled, starting after the 2016 election here in the US, there really was no ability to do censorship at mass scale in a peer-to-peer way.

You had famous examples of of censorship in the 20th century where, you know, JFK basically gave command orders to the mainstream media not to not to report certain things about the Cuban missile crisis when it looked like we were on the verge of world war three in 1961. But they couldn't reach into the dinner table conversations of 300 million Americans and just turn down their volume if they start talking about a key phrase like lab leaked. And, you know, so in this case, I do see the censorship weapon as being actually a lot worse than just propaganda, because propaganda still allows people to have a fighting chance against it, they simply don't believe it or the institutions lose so much credibility that when they see a propaganda poster, they roll their eyes and say, well, that means nothing to me and it means nothing to my friends or my clergy.

So the the issue here is the exactly what you identified around fear is was part of the censorship scheme. You see the way they censored COVID And when I say they, I mean these pentagon and CIA and State Department cutouts like Graphika, like the Atlantic Council, like the Stanford Internet Observatory, like the University of Washington, all staffed by former CIA or former DoD or former state folks. They, basically censored anything that might "undermine public faith and support or the severity of the virus and the government's response to it."

So for example, you know, the Department of Homeland Security's Cyber Security Division, which was their censorship, division, but they simply said any Mis- dis- or mal-information about COVID is a cyber attack because it's speech online that attacks a critical government response. This is why the cybersecurity task force was censoring COVID speech on Twitter. And they, for example, put out a video and in the heat of COVID, in 2021, where they instructed young children to report their own family members for for disinformation--if their family members simply cited CDC data, that compared the death rate of COVID to the death rate of the flu, they gave an example of someone tweeting "COVID is no more fatal than the flu" and they go through an instruction manual basically for a young child to report her own uncle for posting that. Not because it's wrong, because he cited CDC data, but because it would undermine the fear response.

Continue ReadingMike Benz: Censorship Versus Propaganda

Pathologist Ryan Cole Discusses his Concerns about the mRNA vax with Brett Weinstein

For those who fell for the false consensus and were tricked by public health and government officials into taking the COVID vac, here at least a dozen big things to worry about. Take your pick: cancer, blood clots (including enormous elastic clots reported by funeral homes), myocarditis. There something for everyone here, especially with the recent report on the cancer risks of pseudouridine (see end of this article).

Ryan Cole is an experienced pathologist who was severely abused by the medical establishment for daring the question the narrative (that story is that last 10% of this video). You can find this video on Rumble.com at Darkhorse podcast hosted by Brett Weinstein.

--

Recent article on the cancer dangers of pseudouridine: 

Continue ReadingPathologist Ryan Cole Discusses his Concerns about the mRNA vax with Brett Weinstein

CIA Cutout USAID Denies Funding the Creation of COVID Virus

I'm not a scientist, so I don't claim to know the truth here, but I do know that every corporate media outlet was constantly obsessed with COVID until most of the "conspiracy theories" turned out to be true and until the whole thing started looking worse than shady. I can see enough to know that if "news" media were run by reporters and editors who were naturally curious, they'd be all over this story.

Continue ReadingCIA Cutout USAID Denies Funding the Creation of COVID Virus

Peter Daszak Invited to Answer Questions in U.S. House of Representatives

The U.S. House has invited Peter Daszak to answer questions in the U.S. House of Representatives. What needs to be discussed? John Leake lays it out at Coureageous Discourse, in an article titled "Why Aren't Daszak and Baric Arrested?" Excerpt:

Especially interesting is Ms. Rocke’s statement: “Hi Ralph: I have a couple of questions about the SARS-CoV spike glycoproteins you are developing with respect to the DARPA grant we are collaborating on.”

Here it is critically important to understand that DARPA chose to pass on Daszak’s DEFUSE grant proposal—which proposed modifying SARS-CoV bat coronaviruses in order to make them infectious to humans—because, in the DARPA reviewer’s estimate, the work proposed was too dangerous.

And yet, as Ms. Rocke plainly states, Professor Baric was already “developing SARS-CoV spike glycoproteins with respect to the DARPA grant.”

This is just one of many glaringly obvious pieces of evidence that Baric, Daszak, and Dr. Shi Zhengli at the Wuhan Institute of Virology were already, in 2018, developing SARS-CoV-2—the infectious agent that began circulating in Wuhan, China less than two years later.

The 2018 DEFUSE proposal also expressly states the plan to insert a furin cleavage site into the "SARS-CoV spike glycoprotein” that Professor Baric was “developing” in 2018.

As I wrote in an earlier post, the U.S. Right to Know reporter, Emily Kopp, wrote an excellent report titled US scientists proposed to make viruses with unique features of SARS-CoV-2 in Wuhan and published on January 18, 2024. As Ms. Kopp points out, SARS-CoV-2 has multiple features that are expressly proposed in the DEFUSE grant proposal.

See this invitation from the House of Representatives, which details the issues.

If you are looking for any discussion of this memo (or the critically important issues raised by this memo) in the NYT, WaPo, MSNBC, CNN or NPR, you will not find any discussion in any of these places. I checked today.

Continue ReadingPeter Daszak Invited to Answer Questions in U.S. House of Representatives