5G Critics Censored by Big Tech – Global Research

5g-critics-censored-by-big-tech-–-global-research

05-09-19 02:36:00,

More and more concerned citizens are asking tough questions about the safety of 5G wireless networks. Are big tech companies trying to quash their dissent? Action Alert!

Over the last few months, we’ve been reporting on the planned deployment of 5G wireless networks and some of the health and safety issues that are being swept under the rug by telecom companies and their enthusiasts in the government. Some communities, like Sacramento, California, have already seen the installation of “small cell” towers near homes. When activists in Sacramento started speaking out, it appears as though YouTube and other sites have silenced their criticisms of 5G.

Noah Davidson, an activist in Sacramento, noticed his young nieces started experiencing health problems after Verizon installed a small cell just 45 feet from their home. Other members of the community also started experiencing adverse effects after small cells were installed. Davidson has worked to start a grassroots movement to raise awareness about 5G in the community and to work with telecom companies to establish an opt-out program for those who do not want 5G in their neighborhood.

In so doing, it appears as though Davidson has incurred the wrath of the Internet censors. His account was apparently suspended, without explanation, by YouTube. One of the two videos on his YouTube account was footage of Sacramento activists speaking at a city council meeting. This seems deeply suspicious. YouTube is owned by Google, a company that we know is aggressively censoring content on dubious grounds. It doesn’t seem outlandish to conclude that Google and YouTube are quashing dissent about a technology they want to see implemented across the United States.

Activists are not the only ones advising us to pump the breaks on 5G. A group of hundreds of scientists from around the world recently sent a letter to the United Nations and the World Health Organization warning of “serious concerns regarding the ubiquitous and increasing exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMF) generated by electric and wireless devices.” The scientists explain that EMF “affects living organisms at levels well below most international guidelines,” causing increased cancer risk, cellular stress, increase in free radicals, genetic damage, changes to the reproductive system,

 » Lees verder

The “Critics” of 9/11 Truth. Do They Have a Case? – Global Research

the-“critics”-of-9/11-truth.-do-they-have-a-case?-–-global-research

05-07-19 07:00:00,

Author’s Note

This coming September 2019 it will have been 18 years since 9/11 and we still do not have from the US government a believable explanation of the event. 

9/11 was the necessary “new Pearl Harbor” for the neoconservatives to launch their wars on the Muslim Middle East and North Africa and to put in place an American police state. These are egregious consequences from an event for which we have no believable official explanation.  

I have written about this anomaly on many occasions over the many years.  The following text was first published by Global Research in 2011

Paul Craig Roberts, July 5, 2019

***

The short answer to the question in the title is no.

The 9/11 truth critics have nothing but ad hominem arguments.

Let’s examine the case against “the truthers” presented by Ted Rall, Ann Barnhardt, and Alexander Cockburn.

But first let’s define who “the truthers” are.

The Internet has made it possible for anyone to have a web site and to rant and speculate to their heart’s content. There are a large number of “9/11 conspiracy theorists”.

Many on both sides of the issue are equally ignorant. Neither side has any shame about demonstrating ignorance.

Both sides of the issue have conspiracy theories.

9/11 was a conspiracy whether a person believes that it was an inside job or that a handful of Arabs outwitted the entire intelligence apparatus of the Western world and the operational response of NORAD and the US Air Force.

For one side to call the other conspiracy theorists is the pot calling the kettle black.

The question turns not on name-calling but on evidence.

The 9/11 Truth movement was not created by bloggers ranting on their web sites. It was created by professional architects and engineers some of whom are known for having designed steel high rise buildings.

It was created by distinguished scientists, such as University of Copenhagen nano-Chemist Niels Harrit who has 60 scientific papers to his credit and physicist Steven Jones.

It was created by US Air Force pilots and commercial airline pilots who are expert at flying airplanes.

 » Lees verder

Critics Fighting Trump on Syria Withdrawal Are the Same People Who Fueled the Rise of ISIS

critics-fighting-trump-on-syria-withdrawal-are-the-same-people-who-fueled-the-rise-of-isis

03-01-19 11:34:00,

Too many of those protesting the removal of US forces are authors of the catastrophe that tore Syria to pieces

President Donald Trump’s announcement of an imminent withdrawal of US troops from northeastern Syria summoned a predictable paroxysm of outrage from Washington’s foreign policy establishment. Former secretary of state and self-described “hair icon” Hillary Clinton perfectly distilled the bipartisan freakout into a single tweet, accusing Trump of “isolationism” and “playing into Russia and Iran’s hands.”

Michelle Flournoy, the DC apparatchik who would have been Hillary’s secretary of defense, slammedthe pull-out as “foreign policy malpractice,” while Hillary’s successor at the State Department, John Kerry, threw bits of red meat to the Russiagate-crazed Democratic base by branding Trump’s decision “a Christmas gift to Putin.” From the halls of Congress to the K Street corridors of Gulf-funded think tanks, a chorus of protest proclaimed that removing U.S. troops from Syria would simultaneously abet Iran and bring ISIS back from the grave.

Yet few of those thundering condemnations of the president’s move seemed able to explain just why a few thousand U.S. troops had been deployed to the Syrian hinterlands in the first place. If the mission was to destroy ISIS, then why did ISIS rise in the first place? And why was the jihadist organization still festering right in the midst of the U.S. military occupation?

Too many critics of withdrawal had played central roles in the Syrian crisis to answer these questions honestly. They had either served as media cheerleaders for intervention, or crafted the policies aimed at collapsing Syria’s government that fueled the rise of ISIS. The Syrian catastrophe was their legacy, and they were out to defend it at any cost.

Birthing ISIS From the Womb of Regime Change

During the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, Clinton, Kerry, and the rest of the Beltway blob lined up reflexively behind George W. Bush. The insurgency that followed the violent removal of Iraq’s Ba’athist government set the stage for the declaration of the first Islamic State by Abu Musab Zarqawi in 2006.

Five years later, with near-total consent from Congress, Hillary enthusiastically presided over NATO’s assault on Libya, cackling with glee when she learned that the country’s longtime leader,

 » Lees verder

How Corbyn’s Critics Use the Accusation of Anti-Semitism as a Weapon to “Embarrass the Left”

How Corbyn’s Critics Use the Accusation of Anti-Semitism as a Weapon to “Embarrass the Left”

02-08-18 02:20:00,

Ongoing accusations that a Jeremy Corbyn-led Labour government would present an existential threat to the future of Jewish peopleis one obvious example of how misplaced accusations of anti-Semitism are being used as a weapon by critics of Corbyn.

One conservative Jewish organization that has weaponised anti-Semitism in just this way is the Community Security Trust, a charity that describes its role as being to “protect[ing] British Jews from antisemitism and related threats”; and “To speak responsibly at all times, without exaggeration or political favour, on antisemitism and associated issues.”

But a recent press release from the Community Security Trust suggests that they have a problem with speaking responsibly, as they write:

“The reason Labour’s antisemitism problem dwarfs all of its other racism problems is because it originates from the far-left culture that Jeremy Corbyn and his closest advisers and supporters have always belonged to. That culture now dominates the party.” (“Antisemitism now: the IHRA controversy,” July 24, 2018)

This is not true and they know it!

In fact, it was only last September that the Community Security Trust helped fund a research report carried out by the Institute for Jewish Policy Research that put the lie to their latest press release.

The report in question, Antisemitism in Contemporary Great Britain: A study of attitudes towards Jews and Israel, was clear:

“Looking at the political spectrum of British society, the most antisemitic group consists of those who identify as very right-wing. In this group about 14% hold hard-core anti-Semitic attitudes and 52% hold at least one attitude, compared again to 3.6% and 30% in the general population. The very left-wing, and, in fact, all political groups located on the left, are no more antisemitic than the general population. This finding may come as a surprise to those who maintain that in today’s political reality, the left is the more serious, or at least, an equally serious source of antisemitism, than the right.” (p.64)

Then, in attempting to explain why there is the false perception among some parts of the Jewish community that the left has an issue with antisemitism, they explain:

“The left tends to see itself,

 » Lees verder