FaceBook/Twitter Dirty Tricks Control Your Access to Information

 No matter how much you dislike Trump, only a fool can fail to see the implications for public access to information of the massive suppression on the internet of the Hunter Biden leaks.

This blog has been suffering a ratcheting of social media suppression for years, which reached its apogee in my coverage of the Julian Assange trial. As I reported on 24 September:

Even my blog has never been so systematically subject to shadowbanning from Twitter and Facebook as now. Normally about 50% of my blog readers arrive from Twitter and 40% from Facebook. During the trial it has been 3% from Twitter and 9% from Facebook. That is a fall from 90% to 12%. In the February hearings Facebook and Twitter were between them sending me over 200,000 readers a day. Now they are between them sending me 3,000 readers a day. To be plain that is very much less than my normal daily traffic from them just in ordinary times. It is the insidious nature of this censorship that is especially sinister – people believe they have successfully shared my articles on Twitter and Facebook, while those corporations hide from them that in fact it went into nobody’s timeline. My own family have not been getting their notifications of my posts on either platform.

It was not just me: everyone reporting the Assange trial on social media suffered the same effect. Wikileaks, which has 5.6 million Twitter followers, were obtaining about the same number of Twitter “impressions” of their tweets (ie number who saw them) as I was. I spoke with several of the major US independent news sites and they all reported the same.

Read More

Related:

The Craig Murray Interview: Part II. Former UK Ambassador Seeks Destruction of British State

Former UK Ambassador, Craig Murray, believes that the British state is deeply corrupt. So corrupt, indeed, that he seeks its destruction.

By way of concrete action to achieve the destruction of the UK, Murray has, during recent years, devoted much of his time and energy to the cause of what is, nominally, Scotch Nationalism and the Scottish National Party's drive to tear Scotland from the United Kingdom.

I say what is "nominally Scotch nationalism, since both Murray and the Scottish National Party wish for an independent Scotland to remain within the European Union, where the Scotch would constitute a mere 1% of the total population (versus almost 10% of the UK population) in an increasingly tight political union of 500 million people that is fundamentally anti-nationalist.

It seems to me, furthermore, that Murray's prescription for Britain, the destruction of the state, seems rash indeed. Countries that disintegrate, whether spontaneously or through the application of pressure from without, rarely have a happy future, as the examples of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya demonstrate. True, a satisfactory recovery may be possible, as with Russia and some other post Soviet states, though not with the Ukraine, where the US-engineered destruction of the state led to dismemberment, and population collapse. Better, for the UK, surely, is reform not dismemberment, however, vast the challenge, and difficult the means.

Still, I think Craig Murray is fundamentally an honest man. He has some interesting things to say and says them well, as revealed in this conversation with former Scottish First Minister, Alex Salmond.


Part I of this interview here

Craig Murray on Muellergate

One of the most remarkable Internet freelancers is Craig Murray, former UK Ambassador, fired by the Government of Tony Blair for opposing the receipt of intelligence obtained by means of grotesque torture in an Uzbek jail. Where Murray will come from on any particular issue is, in my experience, extremely difficult to guess. But whatever he has to say, it is always clear, concise, well informed, and relentlessly logical. Murray's latest piece entitled The Real Muellergate Scandal is no exception.

Robert Mueller is either a fool, or deeply corrupt. I do not think he is a fool. I did not comment instantly on the Mueller Report as I was so shocked by it, I have been waiting to see if any other facts come to light in justification. Nothing has. I limit myself here to that area of which I have personal knowledge – the leak of DNC and Podesta emails to Wikileaks. On the wider question of the corrupt Russian 1% having business dealings with the corrupt Western 1%, all I have to say is that if you believe that is limited in the USA by party political boundaries, you are a fool. On the DNC leak, Mueller started with the prejudice that it was “the Russians” and he deliberately and systematically excluded from evidence anything that contradicted that view. Mueller, as a matter of determined policy, omitted key steps which any honest investigator would undertake. He did not commission any forensic examination of the DNC servers. He did not interview Bill Binney. He did not interview Julian Assange. His failure to do any of those obvious things renders his report worthless. There has never been, by any US law enforcement or security service body, a forensic examination of the DNC servers, despite the fact that the claim those servers were hacked is the very heart of the entire investigation. Instead, the security services simply accepted the “evidence” provided by the DNC’s own IT security consultants, Crowdstrike, a company which is politically aligned to the Clintons. That is precisely the equivalent of the police receiving a phone call saying: “Hello? My husband has just been murdered. He had a knife in his back with the initials of the Russian man who lives next door engraved on it in Cyrillic script. I have employed a private detective who will send you photos of the body and the knife. No, you don’t need to see either of them.” There is no honest policeman in the world who would agree to that proposition, and neither would Mueller were he remotely an honest man. Two facts compound this failure. The first is the absolutely key word of Bill Binney, former Technical Director of the NSA, the USA’s $14 billion a year surveillance organisation. Bill Binney is an acknowledged world leader in cyber surveillance, and is infinitely more qualified than Crowdstrike. Bill states that the download rates for the “hack” given by Crowdstrike are at a speed – 41 Megabytes per second – that could not even nearly be attained remotely at the location: thus the information must have been downloaded to a local device, eg a memory stick. Binney has further evidence regarding formatting which supports this. Read more

On Hating Immigration, Not Immigrants

In his latest blog post, Ambassador Craig Murray writes of Theresa May:

"Hatred of immigrants remains the defining motive of her entire career."

This is the grotesque globalist slur used against people opposed to the destruction of their own nation as a racial and cultural entity through suppressed reproduction, mass immigration, and state-imposed multiculturalism.

People opposed to the genocide of their own national group do not hate immigrants. They hate those who promote the destruction of their national group through replacement by people from elsewhere.

Immigrants are, for the most part no doubt, fine people, smart people, people pursuing their own economic interest, people who, for example, want to give up riding a cycle rickshaw in Asia for two bucks a day, or growing yams on a tiny plot somewhere in sub-Saharan Africa to earn perhaps only pennies a day, for a job at twenty quid an hour driving a London bus.

But that doesn't mean they have a natural right to move to a prosperous Western nation, and collectively take over, as they have already in many European cities, London, for example, where the English are now a minority in their own home town, or Birmingham, England's second city, where English children in elementary school are not even the largest minority.

There are a billion, going on two billion, Africans and the majority say they intend to migrate to Europe within the next five years. Craig Murray wishes to encourage them. To Murray, therefore, I attach the label, "traitor." Africa is a vast continent, surely big enough for the Africans.

Likewise, Asia and the Middle-East. These are vast and vastly populous regions where the indigenous people should be encouraged to make their native land a decent place to live. It is not their right to usurp the place of the European peoples, in their rather small native lands.

The Best One Hundred Words on the Trump–Putin Meeting

This morning, Craig Murray demolishes the hysterical media reaction to the Trump–Putin conversation in a couple of paragraphs:

The entire “liberal” media and political establishment of the Western world reveals its militarist, authoritarian soul today with the screaming and hysterical attacks on the very prospect of detente with Russia. Peace apparently is a terrible thing; a renewed arms race, with quite literally trillions of dollars pumped into the military industrial complex and hundreds of thousands dying in proxy wars, is apparently the “liberal” stance. Political memories are short, but just 15 years after Iraq was destroyed and the chain reaction sent most of the Arab world back to the dark ages, it is now “treason” to question the word of the Western intelligence agencies, which deliberately and knowingly produced a fabric of lies on Iraqi WMD to justify that destruction. It would be more rational for it to be treason for leaders to blindly accept the word of the intelligence services.

Read the rest of Murray's blog post: Detente Bad, Cold War Good

UK Ambassador, Craig Murray, Gears Up to Demolish the Lies About the Amesbury Poisonings From Thereason May's Law 'n Order minister, Savidge Javidge

Craig Murray, who was booted from the diplomatic service for objecting to Britain's use of intelligence obtained by boiling people to death in an Uzbek gaol, summarizes on his blog the British Government's position on the recent fatal poisoning of Dawn Sturgess in Amesbury, Wiltshire. Sturgess became ill following a visit with her "partner" Charlie Rowley to the scene of the Skripal poisonings in the nearby town of Salisbury. Rowley also became ill and remains under medical care:

Russia has a decade long secret programme of producing and stockpiling novichok nerve agents. It also has been training agents in secret assassination techniques, and British intelligence has a copy of the Russian training manual, which includes instruction on painting nerve agent on doorknobs. The Russians chose to use this assassination programme to target Sergei Skripal, a double agent who had been released from jail in Russia some eight years previously. Only the Russians can make novichok and only the Russians had a motive to attack the Skripals. The Russians had been tapping the phone of Yulia Skripal. They decided to attack Sergei Skripal while his daughter was visiting from Moscow. Their trained assassin(s) painted a novichok on the doorknob of the Skripal house in the suburbs of Salisbury. Either before or after the attack, they entered a public place in the centre of Salisbury and left a sealed container of the novichok there. The Skripals both touched the doorknob and both functioned perfectly normally for at least five hours, even able to eat and drink heartily. Then they were simultaneously and instantaneously struck down by the nerve agent, at a spot in the city centre coincidentally close to where the assassins left a sealed container of the novichok lying around. Even though the nerve agent was eight times more deadly than Sarin or VX, it did not kill the Skripals because it had been on the doorknob and affected by rain. Detective Sergeant Bailey attended the Skripal house and was also poisoned by the doorknb, but more lightly. None of the other police who attended the house were affected. Four months later, Charlie Rowley and Dawn Sturgess were rooting about in public parks, possibly looking for cigarette butts, and accidentally came into contact with the sealed container of a novichok. They were poisoned and Dawn Sturgess subsequently died. Source

Almost (but not quite) every sentence in the above statement, says Murray, is "very obviously untrue" for reasons he promises to set forth tomorrow.

PostScript:

To anyone who has followed the Novichok Saga in any detail, the following comment on Murray's blog is riveting:

Jack: 

[T]here is still the case of the suspicious couple [in the Skripals poisoning case] on CCTV back in march, that very much resemble [latest poisoning victims] Charlie and Dawn!


I summarised [the photo evidence] here. Feel free to spread.

Yes, its a convincing match.

Related: 

CanSpeccy: Understanding Theresa May's Novichok Bollocks

UK Government Complicit In Use of Torture: Parliamentary Committee

On his blog, today, Craig Murray, who in 2004 was removed from his post as UK ambassador to Uzbekistan during a dispute with his political masters over Britain's receipt of information obtained by the most brutal torture in Uzbekistan, writes:

Even I was taken aback by the sheer scale of British active involvement in extraordinary rendition revealed by yesterday’s report of the parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee. Dominic Grieve and the committee deserve congratulations for their honesty, integrity and above all persistence. It is plain from the report that 10 Downing Street did everything possible to handicap the work of the committee. Most crucially they were allowed only to interview extremely senior civil servants and not allowed to interview those actively engaged in the torture and rendition programme. Theresa May specifically and deliberately ruled out the Committee from questioning any official who might be placed at risk of criminal proceedings – see para 11 of the report. The determination of the government to protect those who were complicit in torture tells us much more about their future intentions than any fake apology. In fact it is impossible to read paras 9 to 14 without being astonished at the sheer audacity of Theresa May’s attempts to obstruct the inquiry. They were allowed to interview only 4 out of 23 requested witnesses, and those were not allowed “to talk about the specifics of the operations in which they were involved nor fill in any gaps in the timeline”....

No one can disagree with Craig Murrays view that torture is a vile business. Yet when bullets are flying and there is a chance the prisoner in your hands could tell you where to hit the enemy's ammo dump, or fuel supply lines, whatever, you're gonna slap that prisoner around for information, even if he ends up dead. I think that the historical record would prove that to be a universal truth: War is a cruel business and banning torture won't prevent it or take the cruelty out of it.

It is doubtful, however, that anyone can make a compelling justification for torture as a routine bureaucratic function. Hence the lies, prevarication, and obfuscation over Britain's role in organized torture. Moreover, the lies, prevarication and obfuscation are an altogether different matter from the brutality they are intended to conceal. As Murray has with bloody-minded stubbornness revealed, Straw, Blair, and others on both sides of the house lied extensively to Parliament about torture.

As Murray writes of Jack Straw, his own political boss at the time:

I strongly recommend you to read the whole Hansard transcript, from Q21 to Q51, in which Jack Straw carries out the most sustained bravura performance of lying to parliament in modern history. The ISC report makes plain he was repeatedly involved in direct authorisations of rendition operations, while denying to parliament the very existence of such operations.

And the cover-up continues under Theresa May. Such scoundrels should be immediately and permanently barred from Parliament and any further role in government.

Related:
RT: Prosecute Blair govt officials at ICC after torture report – ex-diplomat Craig Murray (which will never happen.).

Will the UK Diplomat Booted By the Lying Blair Government Bring Down the Lying May Government?

Former UK Ambassador, Craig Murray, who called out UK Prime Minister Theresa May and Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson for lying about the poisoning, in Salisbury England, of former Russian spy, Sergei Skrypal, and his daughter Yulia, has returned to the attack with three new pieces posted at his blog:

April 3, 2018:
Breaking News: Porton Down to Make Public Statement

April 4, 2018:
Johnson and May Hide as their Lies Dissolve

April 4, 2018:
The Poison in our Body Politic

We may yet see a man dismissed from the service of the British Government by a lying Blair government, play a critical role in the dismissal of Theresa May's lying government from the service of the people.

Racist White Scum Intent on the Destruction of Their Own People

Former UK Ambassador Craig Murray rattles on about the war crimes of Tony Blair, yet he is complicit with Blair in Blair's greatest crime: the crime of genocide against his own people. The Destruction of the British people through mass replacement immigration. Murray calls racist, any who oppose race-replacement mass immigration to low fertility Europe.

Thus, on his blog, I wrote:

UK Ambassador Trashes Claim Russia Hacked US Election

Hillary Clinton, in October, was the first to accuse Russia of meddling in the US Presidential election in order to prevent her winning, and to impose Donald Trump on the American people.

Now US "intelligence officials" are informing trusty mainstream media (i.e., globalist propaganda) outlets such as mostly-billionaire-Thomson-owned Reuters that:

U.S. intelligence agencies have assessed that as the 2016 presidential campaign progressed, Russian government officials devoted increasing attention to assisting Trump's effort to win the election.

Specifically, Reuters claims, based on statements from unnamed "U.S. officials briefed on the matter," and as reported in the Washington [Com]Post, on Friday that:

Jewish Media Domination and Censorship

While taking a break from contemplating the intelligence of crows, or some such important matter, I came across a piece by former UK Ambassador, His Erstwhile Excellency, Craig Murray, entitled: The New McCarthyism – The “Anti-Semitism” Hysteria Gripping the UK. In response to a post with which I was in general agreement, I made some short comment. This, however, was very soon deleted, although not before another person had commented on my comment, thereby confirming that I had indeed made, not imagined, my comment.

Such acts of censorship, especially by an avowed liberal such as Craig Murray, irritate me. If my facts or arguments are incorrect, I'd like to know why, rather seeing them arrogantly wiped from the page of the next five minutes of Internet history, probably by some politically correct ignoramus running Murray's blog. Thus I reiterated my comment with some explanation, which in anticipation of its deletion (which occurred within minutes), I reproduce here.

I Thought I'd made a comment here, but no sign of it. But wait, yes, there's Giyane's iynane reply, so I must really have made a comment. Wonder what Craig Murray or his PC filter found objectionable? Let's see, I quoted Craig's claim that:

anti-Semitism is the most emotionally charged of all political accusations. As it should be.

I disputed his conclusion "that it should be," arguing that anti-Semitism is held to be the most awful racism because that is what the mainly Jewish-controlled US media and entertainments industry and the Con/Lib/Lab/BNP Friends of Israel say it is. What's the problem with that?

What I should have added is that the mainly Jewish-controlled US media and entertainments industry are always ready to tell you that criticism of any Jewish person (Bernie Madoff, is one example) or thing (like white phosphorus in Gaza) is anti-Semititic, as is any suggestion that Jews have undue control of the American media, entertainments industry, banks, etc.

Several years ago there was a wonderful debate on the CBC, Canada's national radio channel, chaired by a Jewish person, Anna Maria Tremonte, in which three people participated, two of them Israelis, the third a Toronto Jew. The topic was whether criticism of Israel was anti-Semitic, which, they agreed, it is. Surely, no one would invent such an absurdity, since no one would believe it, yet the reality was presented in all seriousness as informative comment. Well I suppose it was informative, but not of what the participants in the discussion were discussing.

But to revert to CM's act of censorship, was my comment objectionable because I said that Jews control most of the US media and entertainments industry, including the pornography industry? But that is well known and documented by Jews.

For example, as Joel Stein wrote in the LA Times:

I have never been so upset by a poll in my life. Only 22% of Americans now believe "the movie and television industries are pretty much run by Jews," down from nearly 50% in 1964. The Anti-Defamation League, which released the poll results last month, sees in these numbers a victory against stereotyping. Actually, it just shows how dumb America has gotten. Jews totally run Hollywood.

Or as Aberdeen University Professor Nathan Abrams wrote in the Jewish Quarterly:

A story little told is that of Jews in Hollywood’s seedier cousin, the adult film industry. Perhaps we’d prefer to pretend that the ‘triple-exthnics’ didn’t exist, but there’s no getting away from the fact that secular Jews have played (and still continue to play) a disproportionate role throughout the adult film industry in America.

The role of Jews in the US news media is less obvious, for one needs to identify not only the handful of corporate owners of the MSM, but also the directors of these various controlling conglomerates and banks. (There are, it is true, long lists on the Web of Jews in the US media, although I will not embarrass you by linking to anything so "anti-Semitic.").

What is clear, though, is that the US news media (and Canadian), are for the most part extremely cautious in criticizing things Jewish, while often crassly applying the anti-Semite label to anyone critical of Jews, or Jewish institutions, or Israel, such labels being applied even to Americans and Canadians as a whole. Amazingly, such criticism of Israel as does appear in the US news media has been blamed by one prominent Jew on the preponderance of anti-Semitic Jews in the media!

The same fear of eliciting the anti-Semitism charge is true of the British news media. Thus, Chris Elliott, the Guardian's readers' editor, for exam wrote on 6 November 2011:

"Guardian reporters, writers and editors must be more vigilant about the language they use when writing about Jews or Israel," citing recent cases where The Guardian received complaints regarding language chosen to describe Jews or Israel.

Does the media express the same extreme caution, and sensitivity about language used when writing about other groups? Apparently not. 

Annoying Bureaucrats No. 23: British Library Security Officials

Former UK Ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray, had a blog post yesterday relating how he had been denied access by the British Library to some obscure documents concerning a dead, white, Scotch, male imperialist.

Difficulty arose when a "half-educated low paid staff [member] steeped in the insolence of office" refused to accept as proof of identity a crumpled laundry ticket, a hand-written letter allegedly in the Uzbek language, or a press clipping of a ridiculous article about men in skirts.

But then Murray rather spoiled his own case against officialdom by saying "Karl Marx famously wrote Das Kapital in the reading room of the British Library. He would never get in now," which naturally prompts the thought that it would have been just as well for humanity if that old terrorist had been put on the No-Read List.

Come to think of it, Murray himself is something of a revolutionary, a Scotch Nationalist who wants to break up the United Kingdom, which suggests that anti-terrorism measures at the British Library are working as one would wish.