War on Free Speech

Image result for Government Slaves

Bookmark This: Over 400 Links Google Doesn’t Want You To Visit

Tuesday, August 29, 2017 by 

Google

The war on truth has reached a fever pitch as Google has made it their mission to annihilate the independent media. The ‘New Media’ lead by the likes of Infowars, Breitbart, Natural News and many other great independent sites will have an uphill battle when it comes to getting their content in front of readers. Google has announced they will be doubling down on their ‘Orwellian’ practice of making stories disappear from their monopolistic search engine. Outlined in their Gestapo like 160-page handbook, Google describes exactly how they plan to suppress any information they deem unfit for readers. Highlighted at the bottom of page 108 Google states:

● Pages that directly contradict well established
scientific or medical consensus for queries seeking scientific or
medical information, unless the query indicates the user is seeking an alternative viewpoint.

● Pages that directly contradict well-established
historical facts (e.g., unsubstantiated conspiracy theories), unless
the query clearly indicates the user is seeking an alternative viewpoint.

These two guidelines provided by Google should set off alarm bells to anyone who has a thirst for knowledge or anyone that has the audacity to examine both sides of a topic. Imagine only being able to see and hear the corporate narrative on such important issues like vaccines, 9/11, holistic health, the Kennedy assassination, climate change, banking alternatives, and many other important matters. And that is only scratching the surface.

RELATED: 7 Alternatives to Gmail you should really consider

This information from Google’s handbook was first uncovered by Melissa Dykes at Truth Stream Media who made a great video that eloquently breaks down the importance of this complex issue.  I highly recommend everyone watch it and more importantly support their work.

As bad as this news sounds there is a bright side. We have solutions people; we just have to break the habit of being slaves to the Google regime. First, we can stop using Google altogether and start using some great alternatives out there like Good GopherDuckDuckGoYandexSearx.me and Qwant.com The second and most important thing we can do is go old school and start bookmarking sites again (something I have been doing for years). This will cut out the middle man (Google) and enable you to see all the great information from thousands of independent journalists that Google is trying to suppress.

Below you will find a comprehensive list of great sites broken down by category that do an excellent job in their respective field. I urge everyone to bookmark this page and make it their go to when searching for news on politics, health and prepping.

Sick of the lies? Get the Gov’t Slaves newsletter delivered to your inbox.

By no means is this list complete, there are thousands of great independent sites out there that I have inadvertently missed. If your favorite site is missing send me an email at govtslaves@protonmail.com and I will happily add it to the list if it’s worthy.

Continue Reading: http://govtslaves.com/2017-08-29-bookmark-this-over-400-links-google-doesnt-want-you-to-visit.html


Song of the Day

Advertisements

Beating The Dead Russian Horse

Image result for russia russia russia

Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it and eventually they will believe it. Adolf Hitler

As we know, media can be used for good or for evil. Media can change or reinforce beliefs, and can influence negative or positive emotional and behavioral responses in society.  Currently, mainstream media is teaming up to push false narratives that are distracting us from the real issues. And, as the article below demonstrates, when you engage in sensationalized reporting without concrete facts, you need to retract!

Consortiumnews

NYT Finally Retracts Russia-gate Canard

Exclusive: A founding Russia-gate myth is that all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies agreed that Russia hacked into and distributed Democratic emails, a falsehood that The New York Times has belatedly retracted, reports Robert Parry.

By Robert Parry (Updated on July 1 with new NYT deception)

The New York Times has finally admitted that one of the favorite Russia-gate canards – that all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies concurred on the assessment of Russian hacking of Democratic emails – is false.

New York Times building in New York City. (Photo from Wikipedia)

On Thursday, the Times appended a correction to a June 25 article that had repeated the false claim, which has been used by Democrats and the mainstream media for months to brush aside any doubts about the foundation of the Russia-gate scandal and portray President Trump as delusional for doubting what all 17 intelligence agencies supposedly knew to be true.

In the Times’ White House Memo of June 25, correspondent Maggie Haberman mocked Trump for “still refus[ing] to acknowledge a basic fact agreed upon by 17 American intelligence agencies that he now oversees: Russia orchestrated the attacks, and did it to help get him elected.”

However, on Thursday, the Times – while leaving most of Haberman’s ridicule of Trump in place – noted in a correction that the relevant intelligence “assessment was made by four intelligence agencies — the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Security Agency. The assessment was not approved by all 17 organizations in the American intelligence community.”

The Times’ grudging correction was vindication for some Russia-gate skeptics who had questioned the claim of a full-scale intelligence assessment, which would usually take the form of a National Intelligence Estimate (or NIE), a product that seeks out the views of the entire Intelligence Community and includes dissents.

The reality of a more narrowly based Russia-gate assessment was admitted in May by President Obama’s Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and Obama’s CIA Director John Brennan in sworn congressional testimony.

Clapper testified before a Senate Judiciary subcommittee on May 8 that the Russia-hacking claim came from a “special intelligence community assessment” (or ICA) produced by selected analysts from the CIA, NSA and FBI, “a coordinated product from three agencies – CIA, NSA, and the FBI – not all 17 components of the intelligence community,” the former DNI said.

Clapper further acknowledged that the analysts who produced the Jan. 6 assessment on alleged Russian hacking were “hand-picked” from the CIA, FBI and NSA.

Yet, as any intelligence expert will tell you, if you “hand-pick” the analysts, you are really hand-picking the conclusion. For instance, if the analysts were known to be hard-liners on Russia or supporters of Hillary Clinton, they could be expected to deliver the one-sided reportthat they did.

Politicized Intelligence

In the history of U.S. intelligence, we have seen how this selective approach has worked, such as the phony determination of the Reagan administration pinning the attempted assassination of Pope John Paul II and other acts of terror on the Soviet Union.

Hillary Clinton at the Code 2017 conference on May 31, 2017.

CIA Director William Casey and Deputy Director Robert Gates shepherded the desired findings through the process by putting the assessment under the control of pliable analysts and sidelining those who objected to this politicization of intelligence.

The point of enlisting the broader intelligence community – and incorporating dissents into a final report – is to guard against such “stove-piping” of intelligence that delivers the politically desired result but ultimately distorts reality.

Another painful example of politicized intelligence was President George W. Bush’s 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq’s WMD that removed State Department and other dissents from the declassified version that was given to the public.

Since Clapper’s and Brennan’s testimony in May, the Times and other mainstream news outlets have avoided a direct contradiction of their earlier acceptance of the 17-intelligence-agencies canard by simply referring to a judgment by “the intelligence community.”

That finessing of their earlier errors has allowed Hillary Clinton and other senior Democrats to continue referencing this fictional consensus without challenge, at least in the mainstream media.

For instance, on May 31 at a technology conference in California, Clinton referred to the Jan. 6 report, asserting that “Seventeen agencies, all in agreement, which I know from my experience as a Senator and Secretary of State, is hard to get. They concluded with high confidence that the Russians ran an extensive information war campaign against my campaign, to influence voters in the election.”

The failure of the major news organizations to clarify this point about the 17 agencies may have contributed to Haberman’s mistake on June 25 as she simply repeated the groupthink that nearly all the Important People in Washington just knew to be true.

Even after the correction, the Times quickly returned to its pattern of deceiving its readers regarding the U.S. intelligence assessment. On June 30, a Times article reported: “Mr. Trump has repeatedly cast doubt on the unanimous conclusion of United States intelligence agencies that Russia sought to interfere in the 2016 race.”

The phrasing “unanimous conclusion” again suggests that all 17 intelligence agencies are in accord, albeit without specifically saying so, a journalistic sleight of hand that raises further doubts about the objectivity and honesty of the Times on this issue.

The Times’ belated correction — and its new deceptive formulation — underscore the growing sense that the U.S. mainstream media has joined in a political vendetta against Trump and has cast aside professional standards to the point of repeating false claims designed to denigrate him.

That, in turn, plays into Trump’s Twitter complaints that he and his administration are the targets of a “witch hunt” led by the “fake news” media, a grievance that appears to be energizing his supporters and could discredit whatever ongoing investigations eventually conclude.

Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America’s Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com).

Corporate Media Busted Again!

American Pravda: CNN Producer Says Russia Narrative “bullsh*t”

EXCLUSIVE: ALEX JONES CHALLENGES NBC!

Alex Jones is challenging MSNBC and Megyn Kelly to release the full unedited version of their interview

Alex Jones is challenging MSNBC and Megyn Kelly to release the full unedited version of their interview with Alex Jones otherwise he will release it himself.

MSNBC recently published a heavily edited preview indicating their version of the interview will be used as a hit piece to vilify Alex Jones.

Having anticipated this move, Infowars recorded their own copy of the interview as a safeguard whereby, once again, the MSM could be exposed as fake news.

ALEX JONES LEAKS MEGYN KELLY’S INTERVIEW PITCH: ‘IT’S NOT GONNA BE SOME GOTCHA HIT PIECE, I PROMISE’

The video puts Kelly in a precarious position

Alex Jones Leaks Megyn Kelly’s Interview Pitch: ‘It’s Not Gonna Be Some Gotcha Hit Piece, I Promise’

Alex Jones leaked the audio of a phone conversation Thursday night revealing Megyn Kelly promising him a fair, non-“gotcha” interview as she invited him to appear on her new NBC News program.

“I don’t double cross,” Kelly tells Jones, repeatedly assuring him that her interview would not dwell on “conspiracy theories” or familiar left-wing attacks against the independent broadcast host. Rather, Kelly says that the focus of the news profile would be to humanize Jones and explore his personal life.

Jones himself appears in the video, revealing the private phone conversation on his website InfoWars in advance of Kelly’s Sunday broadcast. He annotates the audio clips with his own commentary, NBC’s preview snippet of the now-filmed interview, and news clips about the ensuing uproar — where a besieged Kelly has denounced Jones’ coverage of the 2012 Sandy Hook mass shooting as “revolting.”

The video puts Kelly in a precarious position. As her fledgling weekend news magazine show fights for viability, left-wing agitators have attacked her for interviewing Jones. A boycott sprang up before the broadcast ever aired, pressuring sponsors and reportedly convincing major brands to pull their advertisements. In response, she gave a statement contradicting nearly everything she promised in this phone call.

“The very question that prompted this interview,” she claimed, is: “How does Jones, who traffics in these outrageous conspiracy theories, have the respect of the president of the United States and a growing audience of millions?” However, Jones has revealed, her pitch was the exact opposite: “I promise you that’s not what this will be [a hit piece],” she says. “It really will be about, who is this guy?” Later on, she expresses her hope that some liberal viewers would come out of the segment saying, “I see the guy who loves those kids and who is more complex than I’ve been led to believe.”

So, which statement is true? That conclusion is not as easy as one would assume. Kelly now finds herself in the unenviable position of appeasing corporate sponsors spooked by left-wing outrage while also trying to establish herself as a trustworthy interviewer.bShe has nothing to lose if Alex Jones feels betrayed and never talks to her again, but she does express fear during their conversation that if he calls her out for a “hit piece,” she will have trouble getting any more controversial, ratings-draw subjects to appear on her show. And, based on the preview clips, Kelly will have to square that broken promise with this fervent declaration about her character:

She has nothing to lose if Alex Jones feels betrayed and never talks to her again, but she does express fear during their conversation that if he calls her out for a “hit piece,” she will have trouble getting any more controversial, ratings-draw subjects to appear on her show. And, based on the preview clips, Kelly will have to square that broken promise with this fervent declaration about her character:

All I can do is give you my word and tell you — if there’s one thing about me, I do what I say I’m gonna do. And I — I don’t double cross, so I promise you when it’s over you’ll say, “Absolutely. She did what she said she was gonna do.”

Jones states that he has only released “a few clips” of his full phone conversation with Kelly and that InfoWars taped the entire NBC interview “so that we can document post-mortem how she edited, how she manipulated.” He concludes: “It shows the arrogance of Megyn Kelly that she didn’t think we’d record her to document what she really said and did.”

Read selected transcripts of the Alex Jones-Megyn Kelly phone conversation below:

KELLY: It’s sort of a good opportunity just for long-form storytelling. You know, it’s like — it’s not like the three-minute interview, it’s like the in-depth profiles of people. And at the top of my list was you.

JONES: So it’s like an investigative report into “fake news”?

KELLY: No. No, what we’re doing?

JONES: Yeah. Come on.

KELLY: No no no. Hell no. The reason you — I mean, I know you guys, you know, [inaudible] — The reason you are interesting to me is because I followed your custody case. And I think you had a very good point about the way the media was covering it and for some reason treated you and your family and what was going on as fair game when they never would have done that to, if you will, a mainstream media figure. And I saw a different side of you in that whole thing and I just — here, you know, you became very fascinating to me. I just sort of thought you were this maybe, you know, one-dimensional guy — like, this is your thing — and the comments I heard from you during the course of that trial and your plea to the media to be respectful of you and your kids just reminded me that you’re just like anybody. You’re a dad, you go through the same things we go through, and I thought, “now, that would be an interesting story to tell.”

JONES: Wouldn’t the argument be, then, in the show, ’cause I’ve seen that as a standard Democrat talking point — I’m not saying that’s what you’re doing — “Well, he asked for privacy in his family, but he didn’t do that for Sandy Hook and he didn’t do that for the pizzeria.”

KELLY: No, I mean, I can ask you about that, you know, but this is not gonna be a contentious, you know, sort of “gotcha” exchange. I — That’s not what this show is and that’s really not what I want to do. I want to do in-depth profiles on people, just interesting people. So I can ask you that — “this is what the critics say” — but this isn’t gonna be a “A-ha! Let’s play a clip.”

JONES: I don’t mind questions. What I don’t like is, did you know or did your producers do that you, where I said Hillary Clinton personally — and it was tongue-in-cheek so I could get the satire out. You guys, took it out of context, but — did personally kill kids by the Iraq war and Syria war or the Libya situation, and you guys cut the back off of that  — it was in the same 30 seconds, where I said I’m not talking about the pizza place, I’m talking about in the Middle East.

KELLY: No, this is completely unfamiliar to me.

JONES: Remember you had James Alefantis on Fox News, you’re talking about fake news.

KELLY: The guy from Comet Pizza?

JONES: Yes, and then you played a clip of me saying Hillary personally kills children.

KELLY: I, forgive me, Alex, but I don’t remember the clip. I remember him [pause] and, you know, the nature of that exchange, which I think is the only time I’ve ever said — um, [inaudible] anything.

[In that Fox News segment, Kelly says to Alefantis: “And someone could have been killed inside of your restaurant for no good reason other than people like Alex Jones fanned a conspiracy theory that even the DC police say has no basis in fact.”]

JONES: Sure, sure, sure. I mean, all I’m saying is, I can send you the Right Wing Watch clip where first reported it, and they said, “Jones tongue-in-cheek,” you know, “said that Hillary killed all these kids but then said it in Syria and Libya.” So, I mean I’m just telling you, that’s the kind of stuff that scares me, because I can stand for what I’ve said, and I can even say, yeah I probably shouldn’t [crosstalk] Sure, sure.

KELLY: Listen, I’ll take a look at that. That’s very unfamiliar to me. All I can tell you is that I bend over backwards to make sure that doesn’t happen.

KELLY: I’m sort of — you know, for lack of a better term, I’m trying to create a different kind of program. And it’s fine. You know, I’ll ask you about some of the controversies, of course. And you’ll say whatever you want to say. But it’s not going to be some gotcha hit piece, I promise you that. I — it doesn’t do me any good. If I do that to you, then you go out there and you say, “She did a hit piece on me. This is what she said, and this is what she did.” And then the next time I want to get somebody, they’re gonna say, “Look what you did to Alex Jones,” you know. “Screw you.” So I promise you that’s not what this will be. It really will be about, who is this guy? And we’ll talk about some of the controversy, and I’ll ask you, and you can respond, and we’ll get into the whole, you know, what you’ve been through this past year. And my goal is for your listeners and the left, you know, who will be watching some on NBC, to say, “Wow, that was really interesting.”

[Note: At this point, the audio quality of Kelly’s phone call abruptly changes —

All I can do is give you my word and tell you — if there’s one thing about me, I do what I say I’m gonna do. And I — I don’t double cross, so I promise you when it’s over you’ll say, “Absolutely. She did what she said she was gonna do.” And you’ll be fine with it. I’m not looking to portray you as some boogeyman or, you know, do any sort of a gotcha moment. I just want to talk about you. I want people to get to know you. And the craziest thing of all would be if some of the people who have this insane version of you in their heads walk away saying, “You know what? I see, like, the dad in him. I see the guy who loves those kids and who is more complex than I’ve been led to believe.”

JONES: Sure, but just so you know,  like, on all the Sandy Hook things, I’ve had debates where I’ve shown both sides where I go back and forth, but I believe people died there. And then they never show me really saying that, over the years, you know, you can look where the people that think nobody died are the ones all that hate me on the other side of it. And so what I’m saying is, people take clips out of context — and I know I’ve done a lot of stuff, some of which I’m not proud of. So if people want to do a real piece or something, I mean, obviously, I don’t want to sit here and, like, dodge all these interviews. Like, I told — they wanted me to tape something for Charlie Rose’s show, they wanted me to tape something for The View. I’m not saying, oh, I’m such a big, you know, famous guy, it’s just that —

KELLY: No no, I understand.

JONES: These taping things really just lends itself to be, you know, to ask yourself to be run over. But I understand, obviously, this is a magazine show, so it’s highly produced.

KELLY: It’s like a whole new world over there [at NBC]. They deeply care about this kind of thing [fact checking]. And it’s not that we didn’t care on cable, it’s just a different game on cable. You know, you move faster, and it’s more real time and, you know, that’s just the fact that more mistakes get made. But I will promise you to personally look at any clips we want to use of you and have a producer run by you whether we are taking it in context and what you are saying about —

JONES: Well, I say some pretty wild stuff, and I’ll admit to a lot of it’s satire, but also, I’m not trying to be, I’m not being fake about what I’m saying.

JONES: So this is like a reboot, relaunch for you — that you’re not the, you know, right-wing or left-wing pundit from Fox. You’re an investigative journalist that does magazine, you know, investigations, or —

KELLY: Exactly. So it’s like an entirely different set of muscles. And trust me when I tell you, my goal is not to go out there and be like, “Oh my god, if I sit with her, she’s gonna kill me!” Like — but of course I’m gonna do a fair interview. I’m still me! You know, I’m not gonna go out there and be Barbara Walters. You know. You just trust me. It’s — I will ask you about the controversies. I will ask you in a non — you know, I’ll be fair about it. I’ll give you the chance to respond. And I really just want to talk about you, you know. You.

KELLY: I have not enjoyed being, in any way, on the pointy end of the political spear, you know. It was never anything I wanted to do. And so it’s not — you know, I would say that I’m a combination of Mike Wallace, Oprah Winfrey, and Larry the Cable Guy.

JONES: [Laughter] I know the Larry the Cable Guy. He’s a good guy.

KELLY: I love him! And, so, like, that’s what you’ll get in the interview. [Laughter] That’s — that’s what you’ll get in the interview. [Laughter] Get, you know, a little bit of all three of those. And hopefully, everybody will walk away feeling like they had a good dinner. You know, nutritious, some red meat, with some dessert at the end.

Fake News

CNN CAUGHT STAGING FAKE NEWS SCENE

BBC also wanted to use staged footage

CNN was caught staging news in a video captured by citizen journalist, who posted the footage to his Twitter account @markantro. Becky Anderson of CNN is seen in London handing props to a “peace group.”

This footage was then passed off as real news by CNN.

Cernovich Media has reached out to Brian Stelter for comment.

BBC also wanted to use this fake news footage.

CNN is fake news, Cernovich Media is real news.

This article first appeared at medium.com/@cernovich

Greedom of Speech

Google to start labeing true news “false” and fake news “true” – algorithm assumes official fake news sources always tell the truth

by:

Image: Google to start labeling true news “false” and fake news “true” – algorithm assumes official fake news sources always tell the truth

(Natural News) Who could have imagined that one of the largest media companies on the planet – begun in the United States, where freedom of speech and expression is enshrined in our founding document – would become one of the biggest censors since Nazi Brown Shirts roamed Germany burning books and beating political opponents?

Welcome to Google 2017, where far-Left ideologues who manage the company’s media operations are set to decide what their readers can and cannot see, based solely on political ideology.

As reported by The Guardian, Google – which is following Facebook’s lead – has tweaked its news-gathering algorithm to weed out so-called “fake news” that it claims is spreading “misinformation” via the Internet:

Google is to start displaying fact-checking labels in its search results to highlight news and information that has been vetted and show whether it is considered to be true or false, as part of its efforts to help combat the spread of misinformation and fake news. 

The fact-checking feature, which was first introduced to Google News in the UK and US in October, will now be displayed as an information box in general search results as well as news search results globally.

How will this work? According to the report, there will be small segments of information displayed regarding claims made in certain news reports on particular sites, in addition to so-called fact-checking of the highlighted claims. (RELATED: Google, YouTube waging “demonetization” WAR on alternative media to bankrupt independent journalism)

In other words, if a Google (or Facebook) editor believes the claims to be false – such as, say, a claim by us that there is no evidence to support the Democratic and establishment media narrative that “Russia hacked the election to help Donald Trump,” even if we offer proof in our reporting – that story will be accompanied with a “fake news” label.

The next step, mind you, will be out-and-out censorship, along the lines of what CNN host Don Lemon did last week after the bombshell story broke outing former Obama National Security Advisor Susan Rice as the one who unmasked Trump campaign and transition team members, for political purposes.

Because he is an Obama sycophant and because he believes the story to be false and a “diversion” from the real story (Trump-Putin “collusion” – which didn’t happen), he made the decision to purposefully ignore it.

Nevertheless, Google and Facebook are defending their decisions to arbitrarily assign ‘fake news’ labels to any stories they don’t like or don’t agree with.

“With thousands of new articles published online every minute of every day, the amount of content confronting people can be overwhelming,” said Cong Yu of Google and Justin Kosslyn from fact-check partner Jigsaw, in a statement. “And unfortunately, not all of it is factual or true, making it hard for people to distinguish fact from fiction. (RELATED: Google To Start Flagging Content Found To Be “Offensive” By Crybully Snowflakes Who Are Triggered By Reality)

“As we make fact checks more visible in search results, we believe people will have an easier time reviewing and assessing these fact checks, and making their own informed opinions.”

Let’s be clear about one thing: There certainly is a fair amount of fake news being published online, but much of it is coming from the Marxist media establishment that includes networks like CNN, as well as legacy newspapers like The New York Times and the Washington Post.

Time and again, in the lead-up to the Nov. 8 election with fake polls showing a massive Hillary Clinton win, to fake news reports claiming Russia used hundreds of websites to spread anti-Clinton propaganda, to the wholly discredited “Russia hacked the election to help Trump” narrative, it’s been the so-called “mainstream media” that has been discredited. But because it shares a far-Left Marxist ideology with the founders of Google and Facebook, the fact-filled alternative media – which regularly publishes reports that diminish Alt-Left Democrats – are the ones regularly punished.

If you seriously want to avoid being duped by the social media giants who now actively censoring real media on their news feeds, bypass them and monitor Censored.news throughout the day, where truth is always available.

J.D. Heyes is a senior writer for NaturalNews.com and NewsTarget.com, as well as editor of The National Sentinel.

Sources:

TheGuardian.com

NewsFakes.com

Trump.news