Tag Archives: NYT

Mr. Jones (2019) where are you?

by DAVID BROWN | CLEARNFO.com | July 4, 2020

“HITLER, STALIN AND MR JONES” Scrubbed from the internet and replaced:

Six years ago, I watched an amazing historical documentary about a man I had never heard of named Gareth Jones. I felt compelled to write a short piece referencing this excellent film back in October 6^th 2014 to share this amazing information with others. Since that time, I’ve updated the link a few times as this film was being removed from the net. Today, it is nowhere to be found – at least by me. I must wonder who would go to the trouble of removing this film and why? It’s about very powerful people indeed like David Lloyd George, Hitler, Stalin and many others — most of whom are surly dead by now. The film’s narrative conflicts with the officially blessed historical narrative, and clearly demonstrates the double dealing and lying by the Old Gray Lady (New York Times) during Ukraine’s Holodomor (1932-33) where the NYTs was lying to its readers to cover up Stalin’s psychopathic murdering of millions in Ukrainian. This cover-up obviously made David Lloyd George and other Anglo-American establishment-types happy. Not surprisingly, with their long pedigree of deceit, the ‘paper of record’ continues to deceive today’s naive readers.

I’ve chased this video around the internet for years now, only to find–to the best of my ability– it has finally been scrubbed. Even the picture(s) of Jones with Hitler are missing. I’m sure a much better internet sleuth can locate a copy in no time flat. I’ve found residues where it was once shown at a single theater but most of what is there is file not found.

I was encouraged when I saw the new movie about Mr. Jones only to discover there is no reference to this original documentary. Now, I have not seen the new movie, but my guess is that someone may be using this new film to recast the meaning of the original in a way more favorable to the establishment power structure.

Even IMDb has no reference that this movie ever existed: Mr. Jones (2019)

Kyle Smith did a review of this new movie, but no mention of its source, so I asked Kyle about it. No response.

Here is NYT attempting to resurrect their sorry history concerning their cover-up of the real Mr. Jones. What a farce. ‘Mr. Jones’ Review: Bearing Witness to Stalin’s Evil. In Agnieszka Holland’s historically informed drama, a Welsh journalist travels to 1933 Ukraine, then in the grip of famine.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/18/movies/mr-jones-review.html

References:

Very interesting history film about the amazing Mr. Gareth Jones; whom most people have never, ever heard of … uncovered by a happenstance discovery of a suitcase under a bed. Like many of our truth tellers today, Mr. Jones had to be eliminated. Mr. Jones was abandoned by his hero David Lloyd George and marked for death. “HITLER, STALIN AND MR JONES”

Here’s evidence of the original from the Front-line Club: https://www.frontlineclub.com/hitler_stalin_and_mr_jones/

Found again 10/10/2020:

Updated: Feb 4th 2023:

What ever happened to Mr. Jones? ‘Hitler, Stalin and Mr. Jones’
Hitler–Stalin-and–Mr–Jones Archived at:
https://archive.org/details/hitler.stalin.and.mr.jones_202003

Paul Craig Roberts: The American Media Is A CIA Front

The Corruption of Science – beware of the white lab coat

1 Reply

by DAVID BROWN | CLEARNFO.com | May 26, 2015

“Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.” – Richard Feynman

Scientist in Lab Coat

I’m a scientist at heart, so why do I love to ridicule my fellow scientists so much? I think it’s because of their highly exalted and unassailable position in our so called modern era (1946 – present) and because so many are sellouts who serve the selfish agendas of the moneyed “powers that shouldn’t be” and more particularly many serve down-right evil corporations that just happen to sign the front side of their paychecks, provide grants and donate huge sums to our likewise exalted and corrupted universities … and it’s also partly due to the fact so many people have been trained that if someone in a lab coat says something then it has to be true. Turn off your brain… case settled.

Though many scientists are waking up to the systemic fraud and deception throughout our scientific community, the average citizen is completely unaware.

And it appears that the ‘Scientific American’ wants to have it both ways. First they are more than willing to point out the fraud, yet they are themselves a big part of the fraud perpetrated on the hapless public as evidenced by their two articles below. One supports GMO with trickery and sleight of hand while the other article complains about ‘An Epidemic of False Claims’ in scientific studies. You can’t have it both ways, Mr. Scientific American.

I’ve been reading the Scientific American since I was twelve, yes twelve years old; though I can’t claim I understood what I was reading at that age. With all the colorful diagrams and mathematical formulas, I just knew they were talking about something important and wanted to know what it was.

So what is the evidence that the once exalted Scientific American is one of the worst offenders? If you read their article below in support of GMOs, you will discover that they have munged or commingled several terms thereby obfuscating their meanings to suit their preconceived conclusions.

I really get the promise of GMO providing food to the hungry (though recent data has disproved this benefit), but I would prefer to use artificial or natural selection, not transginic bioengineering using gene-splicing and gene insertion from different species. I just don’t trust Monsanto and now I don’t trust SA. I think this article represents the best of bad science: The SA article cleverly commingles several terms: Selective breeding, Artificial selection, Bioengineering and GMO and would therefore have the reader believe they are the same. They are not. And there is a huge difference between Cisgenic and Transgenic. I would prefer Cisgenic only because I don’t think man is smart enough to have a clue about what he is doing. Of course we need to have GMO labeling. I don’t care if my food has been selectively bred: examples are the Delicious apple, the Hereford cow, etc. because in selective breeding you are breeding cow to cow or apple to apple; NOT cow to virus or cow to rat or pig or cow to cockroach…or some other unknown concoction Monsanto may have created. I want to know if there is virus, bacteria, transgenic DNA/RNA in my food and I want to know if there is Glyphosate a.k.a. Roundup® on my food and I want to know if it is safe. Another undisclosed issue is that when GMO corn pollinates adjacent fields of heirloom corn, it destroys for all time the genetics of that heirloom corn. On a global stage, this could be devastating.

Another glaring flaw in this SA article is that they seem content on referring to “other” authorities. Just give me the science … after all aren’t you Scientific American?

Scientific American comes out in favor of GMOs
By Ashutosh Jogalekar | September 6, 2013

From Scientific American: An Epidemic of False Claims
Competition and conflicts of interest distort too many medical findings
By John P. A. Ioannidis | May 17, 2011

Scientific American Goes Full Anti-Science
September 12, 2020/ Francis Menton

And from the Lancet, we have the following …

www.thelancet.com
Vol 385 April 11, 2015 by Richard Horton
Offline: What is medicine’s 5 sigma? (PDF)
“A lot of what is published is incorrect.” I’m not allowed to say who made this remark because we were asked to observe Chatham House rules. We were also asked not to take photographs of slides. Those who worked for government agencies pleaded that their comments especially remain unquoted, since the forthcoming UK election meant they were living in “purdah”—a chilling state where severe restrictions on freedom of speech are placed on anyone on the government’s payroll. Why the paranoid concern for secrecy and non-attribution? Because this symposium—on the reproducibility and reliability of biomedical research, held at the Wellcome Trust in London last week—touched on one of the most sensitive issues in science today: the idea that something has gone fundamentally wrong with one of our greatest human creations.”

HughPickens.com … writes in today’s Slash Dot the following brilliant little ditty…

“Richard Horton writes that a recent symposium on the reproducibility and reliability of biomedical research discussed one of the most sensitive issues in science today: the idea that something has gone fundamentally wrong with science (PDF), one of our greatest human creations. The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness. According to Horton, editor-in-chief of The Lancet, a United Kingdom-based medical journal, the apparent endemicity of bad research behavior is alarming. In their quest for telling a compelling story, scientists too often sculpt data to fit their preferred theory of the world or retrofit hypotheses to fit their data.”

“Can bad scientific practices be fixed? Part of the problem is that no-one is incentivized to be right. Instead, scientists are incentivized to be productive and innovative. Tony Weidberg says that the particle physics community now invests great effort into intensive checking and rechecking of data prior to publication following several high-profile errors. By filtering results through independent working groups, physicists are encouraged to criticize. Good criticism is rewarded. The goal is a reliable result, and the incentives for scientists are aligned around this goal. “The good news is that science is beginning to take some of its worst failings very seriously,” says Horton. “The bad news is that nobody is ready to take the first step to clean up the system.”

The Corruption of Science. The Hydroxychloroquine Lancet Study Scandal. Who Was Behind It? Anthony Fauci’s Intent To Block HCQ on Behalf of Big Pharma

Additional Reading from ClearNFO:

And from skeptiko…

Why you, me, and our neighbors have a distrust of science and New York Times science journalists

SCIENTIFIC REGRESS by William A. Wilson May 2016

The Art of Propaganda

Leave a reply

by DAVID BROWN | CLEARNFO.com | April 27, 2015

Eleanor Clift

This article is a good, teachable moment for discovering –for yourself– the clever methods and techniques of propaganda …

Many who read the article below by Elenor Clift entitled ‘Behind the Man Who Outed Clinton’s Cash’, may get a sense of Clift’s honesty and truthfulness –and she may very well be all of those things; however, what perhaps is a bit less obvious is that this article is laced with sugar-coated propaganda; which, if you don’t have your ‘bull-shit protector’ on, can go undetected into the mind’s vast archive of unexamined assumptions; which are indeed, and in fact completely erroneous. This is how propaganda works. You mix some truth with some lies and feed it to the population.

I am a Peter Schweizer fan and greatly admire his amazing work in investigating our permanent political class and their financial malfeasance, bribery and outright theft. He has a long history of going after both the Democrats and the Republicans without prejudice. This fact is well known to those familiar with Schweizer’s work.

Ms. Clift makes some good points: like it took both the NYT and 60 Minutes to expose Schweitzer’s great research on insider dealing by our elected officials. Congress would do nothing to stop this corruption until they were exposed by these two MSM spigots.

To get an idea of the thick propaganda laced throughout this article, here is just one syrupy example…

“It’s a mistake for the Clinton campaign to write off conservative author Peter Schweizer as a right-wing hack. It won’t work, and it’s not true. If he were as off-base as the campaign and its allies portray him, would a high-quality publication like The New York Times risk its reputation by partnering with him? And would Common Cause, the gold standard for good-government groups, which is currently chaired by former Clinton labor secretary Robert Reich, be calling for an independent review that would be made public of all large donations to the Clinton Foundation?

What’s wrong with the above paragraph by Ms. Clift? “… high-quality publication like The New York Times risk its reputation by partnering with him?” Now it is crystal clear to anyone educated in history that the NYT has anything but a good reputation and has used the illusion of its good reputation to carry the water for many an evil and corrupt government. You can start with the NYT hiding the massive genocide of the Ukrainians by Stalin: some 10 million souls lost on that lie. This is not my opinion but a documented fact. In another example and there are many, David Rockefeller thanked the NYT for hiding the truth from the American people below:

“We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years.”

He went on to explain:

“It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries.”

–David Rockefeller 1991

Peter Schweizer’s book, Throw Them All Out, was published in 2011 and we are just now recognizing its importance? Why did it take the MSM so long?

If you read Ms. Cliff’s entire article you can barely find a sentence or paragraph without some deception or propaganda mixed in. The problem is that if you are not aware of this, you can read the entire article and think wow, if the NYT risked its reputation to publicize this then it must be true. Well Schweizer’s work stands on its own and is true with or without the NYT. The fact is, the NYT has zero credibility and has caused itself to be used by the Anglo-American establishment since its inception.

The information on the Clinton’s corruption has been out in public for a very long time. This is not news. So the real question is: Why has the establishment decided to gut Hillary now?

PUBLIC CITIZEN
04.27.155:15 AM ET
Behind the Man Who Outed Clinton’s Cash
Author Peter Schweizer may be a conservative, but that doesn’t mean his investigations don’t have merit, and his allegations won’t stick.
by Eleanor Clift

Note: Eleanor Clift covers politics for The Daily Beast. A regular panelist on the McLaughlin Group, she has also appeared as herself in several movies, including “Dave,” “Independence Day,” “Rising Sun,” “1600 Pennsylvania Avenue,” and the CBS sit-com, “Murphy Brown.”