Sunday, January 15, 2017

The "False Flag Weekly News" PizzaGate Charade



Thousands watch the show every week and rely upon us to reveal the naked truth behind national and world events that the main stream media is covering up. We take a no holds bar[red] investigative reporter attitude even in our coverage of controversial events . . . . 
                                                                    --The noliesradio.org FFWN team

Jim Fetzer


They claim to "take a no holds barred investigative reporter attitude even in their coverage of controversial events", but they don't! They claim "to reveal the naked truth behind national events that the main stream media is covering up", but they don't! Under the definition of "hypocrisy", there ought to be a large photo of Allan Rees and a smaller one of Kevin Barrett, because they are not revealing the truth, naked or not. I am going to prove that "False Flag Weekly News" is a pretense and a charade doing nothing of the kind in relation to the story known as "PizzaGate".

I was with False Flag Weekly News from its inception as co-host with Kevin Barrett until 10 December 2015, when, while I was explaining why I thought that Americas would be receptive to Donald Trump's proposal for a temporary ban on the immigration of Muslims "until we can figure out what's going on"--Kevin and I had a major falling out. Watch the first 30 minutes of the show and you will see what I'm talking about. It was (putting it mildly) explosive:


As I explained at the time, had Trump cast his recommendation in terms of REGION rather than RELIGION, hardly an eyebrow would have been raised in protest. Although a friend of mine told me he though this had been the most authentic exchange he had ever seen and regarded it positively, in retrospect, I think I inadvertently provoke Kevin to denounce me, which was unfortunate. We parted ways thereafter, which I thought was going to be permanent. 

It came as some surprise when Allan Rees contacted me in November 2016 and told me that, because Kevin and his new co-host, Tony Hall, had projects they needed to pursue in December, they wanted to know if I could come back to the show as temporary host to do the show for that month. I gave the matter some thought and decided it would be a good idea, especially since I was certain I would cover some stories that Kevin and Tony would not.

SUPPRESSING THE NEWS


I invited Scott Bennett, a former Army intel and psy-ops officer who has become a whistleblower, to join me as co-host, where Scott and I had done many shows together, especially on "Truth vs. NEW$", which is a community-based television program broadcast from Seattle. The stories I was glad to have opportunity to present concerned PizzaGate, which, I have no doubt, will become the greatest political scandal in the history of the United States.

Scott Bennett and I therefore co-hosted "FFWN" for 2 December (Show #1), 9 December (Show #2), 16 December (Show #3) and 23 December (Show #4). Because (as I later learned) Kevin wanted to return to do the show on 30 December, there would be no "Show #5". We presented nine stories about PizzaGate on Show #1 and four about the Obamas, which were unrelated to PizzaGate but were fascinating in themselves, including:

"Fake News" about a Fake "First Family"

(22) Obama introduces "fake news" meme in Lima, Peru

(23) Facebook censors posts about Barack and Michelle

(24) Did Joan Rivers die because she expose Michelle as a tranny?

(25) Parents of Obama children are not Barack and Michelle


If you want to present "the naked truth behind national and world events", stories like these are important--even crucial--to cover, especially when Obama claims to have a "transparent administration" and was denouncing "fake news". Scott and I would cover nine stories about PizzaGate in Show #1, including on whether Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's death could have been related to PizzaGate, which is a rather significant story.

A week after Show #4, where Alan would not let me present PizzaGate evidence from my own research, he dowloaded the shows and removed 13 stories from Show #1, 23 from Show #2, 13 from Show #3 and another 4 from Show #4. His purported rationale was that I had gone too far in my discussions of PizzaGate, which is false (as I shall explain). But how could excesses related to PizzaGate justify removing these stories from Show #2?

Monsters move against alternative media


(55) Web giants to crack down on "fake news" and "extremist content" https://ca.news.yahoo.com/giants-cooperate-removal-extremist-content-235718358--finance.html


The latest on vaccinations

(57) Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated Children's Health Study left unpublished

(58) Obamacare forces healthcare workers to be vaccinated

The Fake "First Family"

(59) Michelle accidentally pops out and Obama laughs 

(60) Is Michelle Obama a man?

(61) Did Obama have Joan Rivers whacked for exposing Michelle as a tranny? https://youtu.be/xFXXMz_mZhY


How could a program calling itself "False Flag Weekly News" delete stories about the role of "fake news" on the national political scene? And how could a program dedicated to exposing the "naked truth behind national and world events that the mainstream media is covering up" possibly censor stories about vaccinations and children's health and a wholly fake "First Family"? 


THE CONTRIVED RATIONALE


The wholesale slaughter of these shows has been documented in two articles I have recently published here:

"False Flag Weekly News" (FFWN) censors PizzaGate Stories (Part 1) http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2017/01/false-flag-weekly-news-ffwn-censors.html

"False Flag Weekly News" censors PizzaGate Stories (Part 2)
http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2017/01/false-flag-weekly-news-censors.html

When I asked Allan Rees why he had gutted our presentations on "False Flag Weekly News", he told me that it was because "You have a reckless disregard for the truth which is why you can never be a part of No Lies again. We tell the truth. You are loose with the truth which destroys your credibility. bye bye". But that is completely absurd and indefensible. 

As a professional scholar, everything I assert is truthful and based upon evidence. I have published hundreds of articles and around 33 books. I have served on the editorial boards of major journals and founded and edited an international journal in the area of artificial intelligence, philosophy and cognitive science. I know the standards of scholarship. Three key points: 
(1) Every story presented in "False Flag Weekly News" is supported by articles and videos, which are linked to the stories when the shows are published, which anyone can verify for themselves by checking out the shows. 
(2) Since I decided which stories would be covered in the shows Scott Bennett and I presented, why in the world would he make such an easily refutable claim when I had sent him the links that supported each story? 
(3) When I ask him to substantiate his allegations with examples, with one exception, he has provided none, where it now appears to me that he does not understand why his own example contradicts his allegations.
What has happened here appears to be an all-too-common phenomenon, where someone who has not done their homework attacks those who have. I seriously doubt that Allan Rees--or Kevin Barrett, for that matter--have ever reviewed the stories and videos to which I linked that I was discussing during these shows. I am positive that neither he nor Kevin have taken the time to figure out what PizzaGate is all about. 

This means they simply don't know what they are talking about. Moreover, the one specific example--where I am supposed to have made assertions about parties and responsibility that went beyond the evidence--are none of the above. After Show #4, Allan sent me an audio tape of the part of my discussion that he wanted to take out. I could not hear very well, but told him that he could take it out but to leave the links. 

He not only took out the discussion and the slides (a total of six, three piece), but he also removed the two links, which were important enhancements to the PizzaGate story. Those links and slides were the following, which had to do with the locations at which these offenses are believed to have taken place, knowledge of which would be necessary to understand the PizzaGate narrative:

Updates on "PizzaGate"

(31) DC PizzaGate: A Primer Updated 12/21
NOTE: 3 slides




(32) PizzaGate Exclusive: I found the basement!
NOTE: 3 slides




In relation to the bottom set of slides, specifically, I observed about them (during the show), 
Here's the relative location of these pizzarias, with Comet Ping Pong at the top with a red arrow, then Buck's Fishing and Camping, then Besta Pizza where Besta and Comet Ping Pong seem to be key players in this entire pedophile operation, in luring children into the pizzarias to be snagged and moved to another location where they are sexually abused, tortured and even killed … Notice by the way the ping pong table in the background there lying against the wall: I’m convinced they’re doing that because the concrete shows residue of sexual abuse in the form of blood and semen that could be used for DNA analysis.
Of course, when you are explaining a theory under consideration, it can be easy to mistake an explanation of the theory for the assertion that the theory is true, which Allan and Kevin seem to have confounded. The key words and phrases are (in relation to the first sentence) "seem to be" (which means that the evidence suggests this to be the case, not that it is) and "I'm convinced" (which is about my state of mind, not of the facts of the matter).

My impression is that Allan Rees mistakenly believed that I was making accusations about the commission of criminal acts by the owners of Comet and Besta Pizzarias. But that was not what I was doing. I was explaining the theory, not asserting it as true. And the use of those phrases makes evident that there is no basis for rejecting my observations as in "reckless disregard for the truth". It is impossible to discuss a theory without laying it out.


Another reason Allan's concerns were misplaced is that James Alefantis, the Comet Ping Pong owner, is a public figure, which means that libel requires malice--the knowledge that what you are asserting is false, but you assert it anyway--which does not apply to any of my discussions of PizzaGate, since I believe everything I have said about it. And since I am only describing the theory and not asserting it, his reservations were misconceived from scratch.

WHERE THINGS STAND 


For those who want to understand (what I regard as being) the greatest scandal in the history of the United States, there are hundreds of articles and videos on the internet that are worth reading, viewing and discussing. Perhaps the best introduction to the subject is this, which appeared fairly early on and offers a superb orientation but was taken down by Allan Rees in his zeal to purify noliesradio.org from the vile stench of PizzaGate:


Here's another that provides insight as to the breadth and depth of the problem, an interview with New York Gold Shield Detective Jim Rothstein, who cracked many pedophile cases in the course of his distinguished career, often finding that his cases were not referred to Grand Juries by the District Attorney (for political reasons), where in his estimation as much as 70% of the elite public officials in the USA are engaged in pedophilia: 


Here's another that suggests one of those among our elite political officials who engage in pedophilia may be Democratic House Leader Nancy Pelosi, whom I first suspected when I discovered that the California Elector who was leading the effort to persuade Trump electors to be faithless was her daughter, where I believe aging women like Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton think drinking the blood of children will have rejuvenating effects for them:


Here's another about the discovery of the basement, where all of these were among the stories and links that were deleted by Allan Rees in his purge of the shows that Scott and I had done, but which provide crucial information from independent students that has to be taken into account in order to understand the full dimensions of the scandal, including who is involved and appears to have happened in Washington, D.C., our nation's own capital: 


And here is one more that concerns the discovery of (what appears to be) the PizzaGate "kill room", which has elicited a strong response from James Alefantis, who, if what we are piecing together turns out to be true, may be the central player in the child supply line, but where the roles of John and Tony Podesta, Bill and Hillary Clinton and other high officials in whom the citizens of this country have placed confidence may be profoundly involved:


As a philosopher of science dedicating the rest of his life to exposing corrupt acts of the US government in deceiving the public by taking conspiracy theories from "theories" in the weak sense of speculations, rumors or guesses to "theories" in the strong sense of empirically testable explanatory hypotheses (capable of confirmation or of falsification), I know the most difficult stage of scientific reasoning is the formulation of hypotheses with sufficient clarity and precision that they can be subject to further investigation.

My beef with Allan Rees and "False Flag Weekly News", therefore, not only arises from his false and mistaken rationale for deleting stories about PizzaGate from programs that had already been broadcast but for misleading his intended audience about the goals and objectives of the program. FFWN is not dedicated to "reveal(ing) the naked truth behind national and world events that the main stream media is covering up" but to conveying the impression that it is performing such a function on behalf of the public.

And I cannot emphasize too strongly that Allan's objectives in this massive act of censorship went far beyond the confines of PizzaGate to exclude other stories of significance about our fake "First Family" and even about "fake news". PizzaGate is not "fake news" and no one who has taken a serious look at the evidence could ever support such a stance. If FFWN doesn't have the intellectual integrity or the moral strength to investigate issues of this magnitude, it should stop pretending it does lest it become a parody of itself. 


Jim Fetzer, a former Marine Corps officer, is McKnight Professor Emeritus at the University of Minnesota Duluth.