Day: November 5, 2022

Posted on

Twitter Advertiser Boycott Organized by Dark Money Soros, Clinton, and Foreign Networks

As Originally Published on Jordan Schachtel’s Substack

The campaign to pull corporate advertising from Twitter, following its purchase by SpaceX founder Elon Musk, is being led by a network of left-wing dark money activists with ties to prominent Democrat politicians and mega-donors.

An advocacy group formed in 2020 called Accountable Tech is organizing the pressure campaign, which has thus far succeeded in having the likes of Pfizer, Audi, General Mills, and other corporations pull their advertising expenditures from the platform.

Arabella is considered the leading “dark money” political outfit in the United States. Yes, it’s much bigger and much more influential than the highly publicized “Koch Network.”

The Arabella network shields the sources of its funding by funneling its cash and political expenditures through  501c4 non profits. However, its for-profit outfit brought in $1.7 billion in 2020, and spent $1.2 billion on the 2020 election cycle.

Through its subsidiaries, Arabella has dumped hundreds of millions of dollars into projects such as fighting the Kavanaugh nomination and impeaching President Donald Trump. They’ve also financed the “NeverTrump” political advocacy of progressive war activist Bill Kristol.

So who funds Arabella?

Major direct and indirect Arabella donors include globalist billionaire George Soros and progressive eBay founder Pierre Omidyar, according to Politico.

A significant chunk of the group’s cash also comes from overseas. Hansjörg Wyss, an 87-year-old far-left Swiss billionaire who does not appear to be an American citizen, has given over $135 million to the fund, The New York Times reported. Nicole Gill, the co-founder of Accountable Tech, was previously a director at the Wyss-financed The Hub Project.

With elections right around the corner, Accountable Tech is acting exactly as intended. It is a left-wing intimidation machine that seeks to censor speech, with hopes to leverage a decline in advertising dollars to revert Twitter back to its pre-Musk form, as a state-sponsored machine for institutional narrative advancement and political suppression.

The post Twitter Advertiser Boycott Organized by Dark Money Soros, Clinton, and Foreign Networks appeared first on DailyClout.

Posted on

“VIRUSES DO NOT EXIST” was a Psyop – and a Nice Try!

Remember how very many substacks were beset with numerous comments claiming that VIRUSES DO NOT EXIST?

A lot of substackers, myself included, responded to these claims. I even started a DEBATE that received 1,663 replies and was very lively.

Very many other substackers provided interesting, informative, insightful, at times, emotional writeups on this topic. This includes A Midwestern Doctor, Steve Kirsch, Stephanie Brail, James Lyons-Weiler, Meryl Nass, Amy Sukwan, and more. (Please let me know who else posted on this topic prior to today, whose post garnered at least 20 comments, and I will add it to my list).

To some people, the insistence that viruses do not exist seemed odd as the no-virus theory contradicts almost every person’s life experience of getting infected with viruses (such as chickenpox) and acquiring immunity. As a tolerant person, I have no problem with people believing in whatever they want, so the debate I started was an opportunity to learn from each other.

About a week ago, I searched duckduckgo for my name just to see what was up and saw something weird that attracted my attention. It was a substack site boostershots.substack.com (archive link).

This is his logo:

It turns out that Boostershots was the coordinating site of the psyop and instructed people how to post on forums promoting the no-virus theory. The author(s) even bragged about getting people worked up about it, about my debate, Steve Kirsch etc.

The site even has detailed instructions as to how to attract attention on forums and troll other substacks like Steve Kirsch:

The instructions to followers go on:

therefore, i believe it will be helpful to provide the best plausible explanations for all of the most popular “diseases” from the perspective of terrain theory that new free thinkers could rightfully question or challenge. (and we must honestly admit uncertainty and adhere to the continuous pursuit of truth and the scientific method if we don’t fully understand something yet).

so here’s the idea: i’d like to create a sort of “common sense ‘germ theory’ vs ‘terrain theory’ pamphlet”

the boostershots news team is seeking to hire experienced researchers, editors, graphic designers, and meme lords. we will pay you with vodka, picked herring, and indecision.

while i was only slightly peeved when i discovered that both “level 1 igor chudov” and “level 2 steve kirsch” had revealed themselves as germ believist mercenaries, i was absolutely fucking LIVID when i would later discover that my most admired “level 3” substack hero is pulling the same exact bullshit.

This went on for a while, but it looks like the author abandoned his or her attempts to run this psyop as of Sep 26 2022.

The instructions are highly educational for anyone attempting any psyop.

However, this psyop fizzled. Why? In my opinion, this entire operation was an attempt to hitch a cart to a dead horse (no-virus theory), flog this dead horse, and get the cart going. The dead horse did not go very far, and that explains why the boostershots campaign was abandoned eventually. The no-virus theory is not exactly new (it predates the virus theory), and it never went very far in the last 100 years, on or outside of Substack.

Our own anti-vax campaign is a great counterexample: we have a multitude of opinions, can handle disagreement, our thoughts are constantly sharpened by these disagreements, and broad truth is behind us. Our “horse” is very much alive!

Dear virus deniers: while I firmly believe that viruses exist, I also would like to reiterate that each of you, including people boostershots explicitly mentioned, is a welcomed reader of my substack, and I love to hear your future opinions about anything!

Also, I am not mad in any way at anyone. It was a nice try. It was fun while it lasted, and the whole story was an interesting attempt of a likely young individual to run their personal and very harmless operation. It provides us with much food for thought and shows an anatomy of an influence operation colloquially described as a “psyop”. Nobody was hurt in the end.

Share

Posted on

“King David” and Charlie Ward

 By Anna Von Reitz

Dear Everyone Worldwide:

There is no such thing as a “Civilian Commander in Chief” available to the Armed Forces in this country. 

This is because they successfully mothballed the actual American government in 1860 and until we, the actual Americans, hold elections for our presidential office again, there is no American President to act as Commander in Chief.

Now, too late, they realize that they need a civilian commander to have authority for their actions, but they have forgotten which population is “civilian” with respect to them.  

Imagine the problem. They have killed off the actual civilian leadership and are now casting around among their own British Territorial citizenry trying to find a civilian authority to carry their water for them, but this is not possible because their entire citizenry is foreign and exists in a foreign jurisdiction by definition. 

They are all military, active duty, reserve, or retired. They are all here under the Residence Act.  They are all in foreign status regardless of whatever means they employ to define a civilian sector among a military population.

None of them are civilian with respect to the American Government, so they cannot choose among themselves a “civilian commander in chief”.  That is another oxymoron like “sovereign citizen”—- you can’t have a “civilian commander in chief” drafted from a military populace. 

And as for “King David” we thought we made our sentiments clear when we rejected King George III?  

If the military wishes to espouse a king — any kind of king, they do so for themselves and not us, the actual American civilians.

—————————-

See this article and over 3800 others on Anna’s website here: www.annavonreitz.com

To support this work look for the Donate button on this website. 

How do we use your donations?  Find out here.
Posted on

Science lessons from self-appointed expert Chris Thompson

I’ve never heard of Chris Thompson before today.

He apparently has few followers judging by this post where he proclaims with great certainty that “there is no reason to believe that the vaccine contributed to” the death of Shane Warne.

So I guess Chris must be an expert on the topic, but you wouldn’t know that by the number of likes (only 5).

But what got my attention is that he’s schooling Aseem Malhotra on what science is after Aseem retweeted the new VSRF video that everyone should watch, like, and forward:

I am really trying to be a good student of science here, but I must confess I find that Chris doesn’t explain it very well.

He says essentially you shouldn’t make unsubstantiated claims if you want to be believed.

Then he says that many of the deaths in the video likely had nothing to do with the vaccines. Which is an unsubstantiated claim.

So didn’t Chris just do what he said not to do?

Aseem has an h-index of 15 with 1,632 citations.

Chris Thompson has an h-index of zero AFAIK. It’s not even clear he’s ever published a paper anywhere.

So Chris, if we are confused about who to believe about science, please explain why we should believe you and not Aseem as this is not super clear to me (and my readers).

  1. Which deaths in our video had nothing to do with the vaccine and how do you KNOW that? Did you do the autopsy on these people and run the proper stains to check for vaccine involvement? As everyone knows, I don’t want to spread misinformation, so if you have proof the vaccine wasn’t involved in any of these deaths, please provide it and we’ll be happy to fix the video, OK?

  2. Will you debate me on vaccine safety? Or do you believe that science doesn’t allow debate after the COVID vaccines rolled out (like it used to allow in the past)? Use the Contact me form.

We welcome discussion and debate on our views.

All of the people who disagree with us insist on censorship and/or no discussion. They want us to believe that THEY are the experts on how science works, but they won’t debate that with us either.

Chris and others need to explain to us why not a single one of the vaccine supporters will engage in a scientific discussion with the people that they attack.

Chris: I’m attacking your reputation but I’m willing to have a public recorded discussion with you about it if you disagree.

You are attacking Aseem’s reputation. Are you willing to have a public discussion with him?

Please watch our new video and give it a like and spread the word. Twitter doesn’t want you to view this so they are heavily censoring it:

Our billboards (yes there is more than one) go up outside of CDC headquarters on Tues. I can’t wait.

Posted on

Getting Away With Murder in the US

Statista | Nov. 2, 2022

The share of murders going unsolved is on the rise in the United States, according to the FBI’s Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS). As our chart shows, 2020 saw a record low of only 54.4 percent of the country’s homicide cases cleared – or an estimated 9,836 out of 21,570 crimes. Due to data reporting delays, this is the latest available data.

A case is “cleared” when either it is solved and the suspected killer has been arrested and formally charged or when the case has been deemed an “exception”, which means the assailant cannot be arrested, whether that’s because they are already dead, imprisoned elsewhere, or for another reason.

The sudden drop in 2020 can partly be attributed to the fact that homicides saw a nearly 30 percent increase that year, according to the FBI’s 2020 Uniform Crime Report, which meant police and sheriff’s departments were overwhelmed with cases.

The longer downward trend, however, is likely the result of a number of reasons. For instance, analysts argue that data collection in the 1960s and 1970s is not fully reliable and so their clearance levels are likely exaggerated. Meanwhile, more recently, a decline in police trust and willingness to work with law enforcement are also possible factors.

(***)

Proudly powered by WordPress