Thursday, February 21, 2019
There should be little or no doubt that the mainstream media rigs elections by only covering candidates they support, especially for higher office like Governors, Senators and the President. Oligarchs also have authoritarian control of other powerful institutions including the DNC, RNC, Commission on Presidential Debates, and many other organizations that have a major influence over politics.
The evidence for intentional dives by establishment candidates isn't nearly as conclusive as some of the more obvious efforts to control powerful institutions but a close look at past campaigns might indicate that it's a real possibility, and it might shed light on how they rig elections, and how to avoid it in the future. However, since many will consider this a fringe conspiracy theory, even it it's partially true, the majority of focus when it comes to reforming the system should be based on hard facts that we can be sure of, and that people will believe; and there are plenty of sources in alternative media outlets that have reported on some of the most credible efforts to rig elections. Since the mainstream media ignores most of this I've provided a few links below to some of the best ones I know of.
Some of the most incompetent and failed campaigns, from the beginning include Mitt Romney and Bob Dole, both of whom were declared inevitable nominees before voters cast any primary ballots even though very few people thought either had a chance to beat Bill Clinton or Barack Obama. Another campaign that looks a lot like it might be an intentional dive might be the Howard Dean campaign to win the 2004 Democratic Nomination which, contrary to the impression the media often gives, collapsed before his famous Dean Scream. The 2000, 2016, and many other campaigns may provide some additional circumstantial evidence of either intentional dives or mind boggling stupidity, with one incredibly stupid blunder after another by both nominees.
In the case of Howard Dean, regardless of why his campaign collapsed it set the stage for two members of the Skull and Bones society to run against each other in 2004 guaranteeing that one of these representatives of the oligarchy would be president. His campaign is also part of a continuing pattern of behavior where the candidate rallies many devoted progressives to his cause, thinking he'll represent their views; only to find, eventually, that he sold them out to the same corporate interests that he was campaigning against.
Ironically one of the leading reasons his campaign collapsed in 2004 is because of an old interview from years before, where he justifiably questioned the Iowa Caucus process, which is controlled by a small percentage of the public, although it seems to allow all people to participate. But his response to it involved obvious pandering and while he was retracting legitimate concerns he was also suspected of other manipulation tactics that he previously criticized.
The following article reports on his questions about the Iowa Caucuses:
The biggest problem with this was his incredibly bad response to it along with other blunders that have been mostly forgotten by now including several claims that he was using using out of state campaign workers to attend the caucuses or participating in vote swapping practices that could help rig some precincts. But instead of speaking out in favor of reforming the system, which many people around the country might appreciate he pandered to those supporting the current system, which seemed incredibly phony.
To this day there have been few or no changes to the Iowa Caucuses or any of the other flawed systems controlled by the political establishment, which the vast majority of the public don't even understand, let alone help control it. A small percentage of the public routinely studies them closer, but they have little or not opportunity to either change them or access to the mass media so they can inform the public about it. When the mainstream media does report on many of these problems they report them briefly before letting them fall down the memory hole; and if there are any changes they have new flaws that enable insiders who create the new rules to manipulate the system.
During the 2004 Iowa Caucuses Dick Gephardt accused the Dean campaign of planning to use his out of state supporters to participate in the caucuses, allegedly based on an insider from the Dean campaign blowing the whistle. The Dean campaign denied this but acknowledged that they had an enormous number of paid supporters from other states working in Iowa.
Whether or not Dean was playing all these dirty tricks Gephardt accused him of, both Dean and Gephardt became lobbyists after losing this election, and Dean also spent plenty of time as DNC Chair or a pundit on MSNBC or other channels where he pushes policies and candidates supported by Wall Street. Dean has claimed he's not a lobbyist; however, a close look at his activities and ties to McKenna, Long & Aldridge which does lobbying consulting and other legal work, clearly indicates that if he's not a lobbyist, it based on a narrow definition of the term, while he's clearly doing just that on a regular basis like many other losing candidates for office, or people retiring to the private sector, which is routine for politicians.
He also may have participated in vote swapping during the Iowa caucuses, or at least planned to according to the following article:
This is just a small fraction of the dirty tricks during the 2004 campaign that took place, or at least those that were actually reported; but most of this routinely falls down the memory hole, since few if any people can keep track of it all. And existing laws about copyright often make it more difficult to research this by charging ridiculous amounts of money to access archived stories like many newspapers now do, including the Boston Globe, which is now owned by billionaire John W. Henry who bought it from the New York Times. Technically they can never completely turn the truth into a commodity; however, by using intellectual property laws, including copyright, to restrict access to an enormous amount of research material they're coming as close as they can get away with. This is one of the media outlets that are no longer part of the six major oligarchs that control over ninety percent of the media, but all the biggest outlets outside of those oligarchs appear to be controlled by multi millionaires or in most cases billionaires, so the truth according to the media is still controlled by a fraction of one percent of the wealthiest people in the country.
This might not seem like strong evidence of intentional dives to many; however, there's plenty of evidence to prove that the strongest contenders for higher office routinely use many other tricks to rig the system so they can cater to their Wall Street donors, which means we shouldn't rule it out. Furthermore there's also an enormous amount of evidence that they have plenty of research on how to manipulate the public that should teach them how to avoid incredibly obvious blunders, yet they keep making them over and over again. There are so many of these major blunders where they should have known better that I can't cite more than a small fraction, but anyone that watches politics on a regular basis has to see them all the time.
A close look at the 2004 Iowa race will turn up many more blunders along with every other race; and his absurd scream only added to that. There's little or no doubt that he psyched himself up for that speech thinking it would be inspiring, but he also had access to some of the best advisers that should have told him that taking it too far would look absurd, which it did.
And efforts to rig the general election may have also taken place, with John Kerry making his share of absurd blunders. George Bush made a massive mistake when he told the terrorist to "Bring it on;" but then instead of taking advantage of it Kerry turned it into his signature line making himself look just as foolish. He also voted for the Iraq war while claiming he opposed it, and was famously caught admitting that "I flipped, I flopped," after it was so obvious that he couldn't deny it. It's hard to imagine how he could have gotten the nomination without an enormous amount of help from the political establishment.
Then there was the allegedly forged "Killian documents" which managed to turn George Bush's record dodging service in Vietnam into a dirty trick that made him look like the victim and made it seem as if all the claims about his war record were false. According to Wikipedia this controversy "first gained widespread public attention during the 2004 presidential campaign;" but this is only partly true. An article from the Intercept W. Was AWOL, But What's "Truth" Got to Do With It? 10/27/2015 goes through the history, or at least part of it, of how it was covered in the 2000 election. Basically a few newspapers, including the Boston Globe and Washington Post covered it, and the New York times minimized it by covering it as if it was uncertain; but the vast majority of television media outlets, where most people get their propaganda, gave it little or no coverage.
The source of these allegedly forged documents was never found, as far as I know, but in the end it worked heavily in George Bush's favor since many people may have dismissed the truth along with the discredited documents. I don't have inside knowledge, but I'm not completely ruling out the possibility that the CIA or some people with training from political dirty tricks forged them with this intention; however it wouldn't have worked without cooperation from the media, making the CIA more likely than a small time dirty trickster. Even though some of the details in these documents were almost certainly false, as well as the documents themselves, most of the story was true.
The list of incredibly bad blunders goes on to many other elections going back decades, including more recent ones which are getting even more insane. In 1988 Dukakis made his own share of blunders like riding in the tank and his unemotional response to the death penalty question if Kitty was murdered, but they seemed more realistic than many other blunders and it wasn't nearly as effective as the Willie Horton ad. In 1995 Dole was declared the inevitable nominee even though he was incredibly unpopular among both national Democrats and many Republicans, but the establishment gave him all the propaganda cover for him even though he was incredibly low in the polls the entire time. Then he made even more blunders like saying that milk could be as addictive as tobacco.
Mitt Romney, who was considered a two time loser in Massachusetts, before he finally managed to win the race for governor, was also an incredibly bad candidate that never had much if any chance of beating Obama, and the polls confirmed this long before he lost as a sacrificial lamb for the Republican's who didn't even seem to be trying to win. I went into this more in Are Cain, Cantor and Romney campaigning for Obama? which focused mainly on their bad responses to the Occupy Wall Street movement, but large portions of their campaign were even worse, including Paul Ryan's attempt to get filmed washing pots even though they were already clean and he got caught red-handed faking it for a photo op.
The 2000 and 2016 elections were probably the most insane ones I have ever seen, and there should be little or no doubt that all the candidates involved, except Bernie Sanders in 2016 had access to good advisers that could have told them how to avoid an enormous amount of incredibly bad blunders. In 2000 it began long before the suppressed voting scandal in Florida, which is what most people remember; I went into this more in The 2000 election revisited. In 1999 the media declared that both Al Gore and George Bush were the inevitable front runners then gave them the obsession coverage to enable this prediction to come true. When John McCain unexpectedly beat George Bush, with his straight talk express tour which seemed very credible, they stooped to one dirty trick after to defeat him, especially in the Southern states where these tricks are much more effective.
After losing it didn't take John McCain long to show that his honest sounding rhetoric during the straight talk express tour was no more sincere than any other political promises, even though he lost the nomination, he demonstrated with his actions in the Senate that he would cave to the establishment getting behind George Bush eventually supporting the Iraq war and many more military activities based on lies.
At the time it's hard to imagine how they could run a more insane campaign than the 2000 election; but that's exactly what they did in 2016, when they obviously rigged the primary for Hillary Clinton and hardly did a good job pretending otherwise. The entire political establishment lined up to endorse Hillary Clinton long before the primaries, with only a couple weak candidates entering the primaries, plus Bernie Sanders, who could have easily beat Trump or most any other Republican if they had won, yet they clearly rigged it for Hillary. At the time I compiled an incredibly long list of news stories about her showing how corrupt she was in Why would anyone consider Hillary Clinton if they knew this? But the political establishment gave these minimal coverage if them mentioned it at all while repeating her deceptive propaganda over and over again. On top of that there were several temper tantrums from her when confronted by Black Lives Matters, or several other people or groups about her obvious corruption.
I also compiled a long list of election irregularities or outright cheating in Can Hillary Clinton win without cheating? which documented major problems in at least thirteen different states at the time I wrote it; but I'm sure it was higher, and I never added all of the cheating that went on then. Even after all the help she had from the political establishment and media to rig the coverage she still had to cheat even more to get the nomination, and that was before the first batch of E-mail from the DNC or later Pedesta E-mails were released.
It wasn't the Russians that rigged the election for Trump; it was the mainstream media, DNC, and Hillary Clinton!
Hillary Clinton acted as if the presidency was hers for the taking with an incredibly pompous attitude from the beginning! She didn't even bother campaigning much in some of the rust belt states that she took for granted which enabled Trump to win. Then the mainstream media, DNC and Hillary Clinton tried to convince us that by adding more evidence of their epidemic levels of corruption by releasing hacked, leaked or stolen E-mails that Russia is the one rigging the election.
There's absolutely no way Russia could have rigged the election for Trump if the political establishment and media hadn't given him obsession coverage while refusing to cover many other honest candidates, which is routine going back decades, and getting caught cheating over an over again.
Hillary Clinton provided much stronger evidence of a possible intentional dive than Howard Dean, Mitt Romney or Bob Dole!
Now there's an enormous amount of evidence to indicate that they might be planning to do the same thing again by rigging the media coverage for Kamala Harris or which even establishment Democrat takes her place if she collapses because she also has a terrible record! Many of the leading candidates supported by the media have records just as bad.
But why would they do this?
Especially with incredibly big problems that are threatening the country, including Climate Change, many other pollution related problems impacting mainly the poorest people or people in third world countries, and one war base don lies, which among other things like epidemic levels of income inequality and a corrupt health care system is virtually guaranteed to bring about a massive decline in our society.
Are they suicidal? And willing to take the entire planet with them? Or do they believe their own lies?
They have access to better research than the majority of us and better advisers so it's hard to believe their that insane, yet that's the direction they're taking us, and the vast majority of the so-called experts and academics are going along with the program without doing much if anything to bring about the real changes we need to prevent escalating disaster; instead they're enabling this nutty clown pretending to be the president of the United States to play chicken with the survival of the country, or so it seems.
Something else is going on here and simply going along with one obsession du jour after another isn't going to expose it.
Is this the first article of mine you read?
If not, and if the previous ones weren't about reducing violence or progressive politics you might know that I also looked into many other major unsolved mysteries, including how they moved massive megaliths thousands of years ago even though experiments to replicate these moves proved it should be impossible to do with ancient technology.
If there was an unknown advanced intelligence influencing our early development then this is guaranteed to have an enormous impact; and since some of the unexplained phenomena, including crop circles, cattle mutilations, continue to this day, that virtually guarantees that what ever they're doing is ongoing. According to Philip Corso's book The Day After Roswell he shared alien technology with multinational corporations after retrieving crafts from Roswell and other locations going back to the late forties and early sixties, continuing to this day.
Either there's a massive conspiracy to cover this up, or there's a conspiracy to make it seem like it's true when it's not. If it is true then it explains the incredibly rapid advancement of technology over the past five or six decades picking up speed in the last two decades.
In Yes Virginia There Is A Trump And Clinton Conspiracy but could it be related to a far-fetched Apocalypse Prophecy or a weak copy of it? during the 2016 elections I pointed out obvious vote rigging back then and also went on to notice that Hillary Clinton had many of the characteristics of the Whore of Babylon from the book of Revelations which seemed like an absurd conspiracy theory, but instead of this theory falling apart one insane thing after another, including the Al Smith dinner where Trump behaved in an incredibly obnoxious manner and Hillary wasn't much better followed by her loss in the election, and much more. Interpretations of the Book of Revelations are quite diverse so if you want to believe or not you can find good reason to do so, but it's hard to completely rule it out when you recognize how many characteristics she shares with the Whore of Babylon, who rode in on "scarlet beast" who turned "against the prostitute," which could be interpreted as being similar to his outrageous behavior demonizing Hillary to beat her, although there was plenty of justification since they're both incredibly corrupt, but this isn't a rational or sincere way of holding a democratic election, which should require fair coverage to all candidates, including many that behave much more civilly and aren't exceptionally corrupt.
This theory still seems far-fetched; however, something incredibly absurd is clearly going on, and there is plenty of circumstantial evidence to indicate that something somewhat close to it might be true, even if there's no way of knowing all the details. If they did share technology with multinational corporations and they're developing it, it may include medical and pharmaceutical technology, and many other things as well, which might mean they're using many people for undisclosed research. Whether or not this is being done with alien technology there is evidence that a lot of this is going on as I pointed out in Researching Poor, Slaves, Prisoners, To Benefit Ruling Class With Alien Technology? and several other articles. If there's something to this then they may be using the public for research in the short run for the long term benefit of everyone; or that might just be the way they justify their actions to themselves, and keep people involved in part of it cooperating. If so they might be planning some efforts to disclose it eventually, if not then they might be leading those only going along with it to believe they will disclose it when it suits their purposes.
However if they really were looking out for our best interests they would be honest about what ever it is that they're doing. If they come up with a version of the "you can't handle the truth" argument then they should be doing what they can to prepare people so they can handle the truth and what ever they're doing now isn't accomplishing that at all; instead they're jumping from one lie after another, with some of them more sophisticated than others.
I've gone into this more in my past articles, and even if there isn't something to this they're still rigging elections by only covering corrupt candidates supported by the commercial media and Wall Street Censored Candidates For President By Mass Media the media only covers a small fraction of the candidates that are running for president. According to Ballotpedia there are 537 candidates running as of February 18 2019 and more are signing on almost every day but the mainstream media doesn't even tell us where to find this list on our own, let alone try to cover more than the highest profile candidates, that mostly collect enormous amounts of money from wealthy donors. Many of them aren't serious candidates, but a lot are more honest. And some of the leading contributors to these campaigns are the same oligarchies covering them pretending to be impartial, even though they've been caught red handed helping one candidate or another over and over again, including when Donna Brazile shared questions with the Hilary Clinton campaign, and many other cases.
None of the candidates can be expected to provide a serious challenge to their oligarchy status controlling the media and rigging coverage for candidates they support, even Bernie Sanders, who I believe is far better than any other candidate they're willing to cover; but even he caved and declined to call out their cheating in 2016 and endorsed Hillary allegedly to prevent Trump from getting elected.
Caitlin Johnstone also raised a few legitimate concerns, although I don't agree with all of them, about Bernie in Six Thoughts On #Bernie2020 02/19/2019. She says he's the candidate most likely to beat Trump, which I agree with and she and her regular readers probably think that he's better than the other establishment candidates, which doesn't even seem close to me. However she's right to express concern that he didn't speak out about election rigging in 2016. Her claims that some people might associate him with phony Russian conspiracies might be partially true, but they're way overblown since these alleged claims that he also has times to Russia have no credibility, and as far as I can tell hardly anyone is paying attention to them, even the mainstream media, who often do try to smear him.
She's also right that we can't rely on any one man, even Bernie Sanders to reform the entire system on his own; he's going to need an enormous amount of grassroots help if he wins to push his agenda through; and in some cases the good issues he might not be inclined to support or can't keep up with will have to be pushed by the grassroots. One of these is standing up to centralized control of the media, which will have to be pushed by grassroots even if Bernie Sanders wins, although he would be much more sympathetic that the candidates supported by the media.
Also if there is something to the UFO hypothesis, whether it's my version or not pushing for disclosure will also have to be done at the grassroots level; Bill and Hillary Clinton along with John Podesta have claimed they support disclosure and would push for it, however when they were in office the did little or nothing about the issue. More importantly, if Philip Corso is right about sharing technology with multinational corporations, they would clearly be the same corporations that supported Podesta's lobbying firm and Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign.
When Obama was elected many thought that because Podesta was part of his transition team he would address the issue but when he started a White House petition to address major issues the voters were concerned about one of the most popular petitions requested disclosure about UFOs they responded by initially increasing the number of signatures required to get a response and when that was overcome easily, they made weak denials often treating the subject with ridicule.
The following are some additional articles about election fraud or other related issues, starting with a few good books on the subject:
Andrew Gumbel "Steal This Vote"
Mark Crispin Miller "Fooled Again: The Real Case for Electoral Reform"
Mark Crispin Miller "Loser Take All: Election Fraud and the Subversion of Democracy, 2000-2008"
Can Hillary Clinton win without cheating?
Gephardt, Dean trade barbs about nasty campaign tactics 02/1/2019 WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The campaign of Democratic presidential hopeful Dick Gephardt on Thursday accused Howard Dean's camp of illegally sending out-of-state supporters to Iowa to caucus in cities and towns across the state -- an accusation Dean's manager called "ridiculous on its face."
The Democratic Wingman of the Democratic Party 05/21/2016 Howard Dean was once the revolutionary progressive from Vermont. Now, his own PAC is supporting Bernie Sanders despite Dean’s endorsement of Hillary Clinton. For Dean and Sanders, it’s complicated.
The flip-flop candidate: Howard Dean does not preach, balances budgets and believes in commonsense. Though not leftwing enough for some Democrats, the 'odd duck' from Vermont is making waves, writes Jonathan Raban 01/17/2004
Video Games Go to Washington: The Story Behind The Howard Dean for Iowa Game 04/09/2008 Former Vermont governor Howard Dean failed miserably in his bid to become the 2004 Democratic U.S. presidential candidate. Still, he was incredibly successful in changing the way political campaigns of all types are carried out. Dean supporters made extensive use of new media tools such as e-mail, Web sites, and blogs to foster support from the grassroots. Howard Dean was also the first candidate to use a video game as endorsed political speech.
Boston Globe 01/10/2004: “Iowa is a great place for people like me who started out with no money and now have a good message.”
Wikipedia: George W. Bush military service controversy "Controversy over George W. Bush's military service in the Air National Guard was an issue that first gained widespread public attention during the 2004 presidential campaign."
W. Was AWOL, But What's "Truth" Got to Do With It? 10/27/2015
Howard Dean: 'The battle between teachers unions and charter schools is coming to an end' 05/18/2011
Dick Gephardt’s Spectacular Sellout 09/30/2009
Fmr. Majority Leader Dick Gephardt (Now a Lobbyist) Dumps Obamacare Insurer’s Stock 06/19/2017
Howard Dean Net Worth: $4 Million
Howard Dean, Despite Denials, Has Many Ties to Lobbying 01/21/2016
Buyer's Remorse: Why Is Howard Dean Selling Out Single-Payer? 10/16/2017
Howard B. Dean Senior Advisor for Dentons Law Firm
Some of my past articles on aliens or UFOs include Do Aliens own Stock in Monsanto, DuPont, or Microsoft? which also has a complete list of additional articles posted before it, the following are the recent ones posted since it:
Leah Remini Exposing Part Of Scientology, And Aiding Cover-up Of More?
Who's Controlling Oligarchies Dividing The Market? Aliens?
Dude, We've Been In The Rabbit Hole Or Twilight Zone All Along!
Was Pizzagate a CIA PsyOp to dismiss real sex offenders as conspiracies?
An ISIS Wag The Dog Hypothesis Is Still Unlikely But ....
Wednesday, February 13, 2019
The six oligarchies that control over ninety percent of the media are already in the process of rigging the election, by rigging the coverage again. They do this by only covering candidates they support and relying on the short memory of a large percentage of the public!
They're also involved in a continuous research project to find out which propaganda is most effective, and sometimes putting up some candidates that they don't expect to win to make the next corporate puppet seem progressive by comparison.
A few of the candidates they're trying to portray as Progressive this year seem to include Kamala Harris, Beto O'Rourke and Cory Booker; however, there's an enormous amount of evidence well informed people checking alternative media outlets aren't going to forget. In Elizabeth Warren Makes Me Scream! and several additional articles I explained how Elizabeth Warren was taking advantage of political advisers from the same political establishment to help her create the image of a progressive politician, even though after a close look she's clearly not nearly as progressive as she pretends to be, although she did a much better job pretending for a while than Hillary Clinton and even Kamala Harris and Cory Booker.
Their early and obsessive coverage of a poll that put Joe Biden — followed by Bernie Sanders, then Beto O’Rourke at the head of the pack shows how they use these polls to study how to manipulate the public and misrepresent them to the public, if you look carefully; and it was very similar to polls in 2016 which routinely put Mitt Romney at 22%, while one candidate after another took turns being the front runner. This caused Rachel Maddow to nick name Mitt Romney as "Mr. 22%" for a while, acting as if this was an incomprehensible mystery!
No one questioned why one candidate took the lead at any given time, then or now; however it may not be that hard to figure out, and if I can figure it out, so can they virtually guaranteeing they're studying how to manipulate voters, and doing it very successfully, except for a modest percentage that pays closer attention to media and sees through their manipulation, many of which supported Bernie Sanders of Jill Stein the last time around.
Before they took this poll, they provided an enormous amount of obsessive coverage for Beto O’Rourke enabling him to rise in the polls; and of course they've been providing obsessive coverage off and on for Joe Biden, presenting him as the leading contender several times, either in the 2016 or 2020 race, assuming he decides to run. Bernie Sanders didn't receive nearly as much coverage until he gained much more support from the grassroots, a lot of which went back decades in Vermont where he's known best rising gradually by keeping his promises and standing up for progressive issues consistently with few exceptions; although when he endorsed Hillary Clinton after losing the primary instead of joining the call to expose how the primaries were rigged, was one of the most notable exceptions.
If they did a study to see whether or not the coverage about the candidates that took turns surging to the top ahead of Mitt Romney in 2012, it's virtually guaranteed that they would find that they received much more coverage which the Republican Party base perceived as positive, even if progressives looked at the coverage and thought it made these candidates look awful.
When Kamala Harris, Beto O'Rourke, Joe Biden, Cory Booker and many other candidates rose in the polls it was almost always, if not always, accompanied by massive amounts of positive media coverage, often with smaller amounts of critical coverage that quickly goes down the memory hole and as I pointed out in Censored Candidates For President By Mass Media they ensure that candidates that don't support the oligarchy agenda never get any media coverage and are never even mentioned in the polls, guaranteeing that they can't possibly get the name recognition needed to be viable; which is totally incomparable with a functioning democracy which has to hear from diverse points of view from all applicants for the job, not just ones supported by Wall Street.
If you watch closely, and keep track of history you might find that occasionally they get caught red handed telling Wall Street, or in the following case the Canadian government, that both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton's 2008 campaign promises were just for the sake of the campaign as described by McChesney and Nichols:
This went to press while the general election was still going on; after Barack Obama won, he immediately appointed Hillary Clinton to be Secretary of State, and they both demonstrated, with their actions, that reassurances that they would keep promises to the public were blatant lies! They both relentlessly supported secret trade deals that often tried to make things worse, instead of what they promised during the elections, only backing off when they faced massive protests, but constantly trying to make end runs around any efforts to protect workers or the environment, or any of the progressive causes they pretended to support.
Telling the people one thing and Wall Street another, then keeping promises for Wall Street breaking them for the majority of the public is routine, unless on a few rare occasion there's massive amounts of protests, like when Barack Obama temporarily held up the Keystone Pipeline; but even then he approved part of it which wouldn't have been useful until the whole thing was complete, indicating his true intentions.
And of course, Hillary Clinton was caught saying, "you need both a public and a private position," in one of her paid speeches exposed by Wikileaks Excerpts of Hillary Clinton’s Paid Speeches to Goldman Sachs Finally Leaked 10/07/2016
There's little or no doubt that having "both a public and a private position," is standard operating procedure for any politician that wants establishment support, even if most of them don't get caught red handed saying it quite that way; anyone paying attention to politics knows that one politician after another flip flops on everything routinely making promises during the campaign then breaking them after elections while catering to corporate interests. In most cases even the traditional media reports on many of their broken promises; however, when they support a candidate they report it relatively quickly, then quickly forget it, while repeating positive propaganda over and over again.
This is one of the most basic principles of propaganda, a variation on "a lie repeated often enough becomes the truth," or at least it appears to!
The mainstream media charismatic demagogue after another, that may seem better than Trump; however the only reason that Trump was able to win in the first place is because they rigged the election for a candidate that the vast majority of the public didn't like, and it overwhelmingly looks like they'll do it again if we let them. If you check the record of one after another you'll find examples where they supported positions that most people are outraged by including massive spending on the military to continue wars based on lie, charter schools privatizing the education system for profit, harsh punishment for blue collar crimes while looking the other way at Wall Street crimes, and much more.
Beto O'Rourke is married to a billionaire family, took money from Oil company employee while pledging not to, his wife runs a Charter School, yet when it suits his political purposes he claims to oppose it. When David Sirota started examining his record he was smeared by many Democratic operatives on social media, clearly implying they though that only Republicans should have their records checked.
Both Beto O'Rourke and Cory Booker among other presidential candidates have openly supported Charter Schools, before hedging after realizing how disastrous they were; however they didn't back off until after it was proven to be a failure repeatedly and many more people learned about it, even though educators learned how disastrous they were at least ten years ago if not twenty or thirty.
Both Cory Booker and Kamala Harris took donations from Donald Trump and supported some of his political agenda, at least, before he became the enemy du jour. Kamala Harris also took these donations along with more from Steve Mnuchin while she was investigating them, and she declined to press charges against Mnuchin, doing little or nothing to stand up to Trump either. And during her campaign announcement speech she bragged about taking on banks despite this inconvenient fact. The mainstream media has even floated Eric Holders name as a viable candidate for president, although he worked for a law firm with banks involved in epidemic scandals before becoming Attorney General, and not prosecuting them, then returned to the same law firm, to work for the same banks he didn't prosecute, despite epidemic levels of fraud!
Both Joe Biden and Kamala Harris supported get tough on crime policies that escalated until we wound up with more people in jail, about two million than any other country; this is a higher rate than Russia when we demonized them because of their draconian immigration policies and for putting more people in jail for political reasons in the seventies. It's also more than two or three times the vast majority of developed countries in the world, and only Seychilles with a population of a hundred thousand matches it. They ignore some of the most effective research showing that improving education and social services does far more to reduce crime than prisons, and Kamala Harris was even bragging about this attitude ridiculing people chanting "build more schools and less jails," she says they haven't addressed the root causes of crime as if the chant is all there is to the subject. The truth is that there's much more research showing that building more schools and less jails does far more to reduce crime, although most of it can't fit on a bumper sticker or in a chant at a political rally.
It takes time to review this research showing that early child abuse leads to escalating violence, lack of education, income inequality, poverty and many other issues contribute to crime. It's not the people campaigning for "more schools less jails," that haven't done their research; when they're not chanting at rallies many of them are reading the actual research.
If Kamala Harris or Joe Biden wanted to read this research they could have done so decades ago before they helped create this massive prison expansion. And Biden also cleared the way for massive student loans to escalate to epidemic levels by driving up the cost of education and making them exempt from bankruptcy laws despite the fact that debts by the wealthy are still often forgiven allowing them to recover from bankruptcy.
Some of the most critical articles, or the ones making it clear that the political establishment are rigging the election are only reported in a low profile manner where few see them and they fall quickly down the memory hole like this story about how Kamala Harris met with Clinton inner circle in Hamptons 07/15/2017 presumably planning her possible presidential campaign, and possibly also discussing the methods of rallying people to support her with propaganda or other methods. I can't know for certain what went on behind close doors, in what they consider a proprietary meeting where they can discuss their strategy, which clearly involves studying how to manipulate the voters; however, I've seen enough of their pattern of behavior to recognize that a fraction of one percent is controlling large institutions creating massive amounts of propaganda ads and even paid people to organize rallies, although in most cases there are few people paid to actually attend or participate in protests against the opposition, as some conspiracy theorists claim.
It's far more likely that they pay a smaller number of organizers, some of whom have disclosed this publicly, although they don't disclose activities they claim are proprietary, at least not intentionally, although they're often leaked, most notably Wikileaks from the 2016 election, which help understand a pattern of behavior, when compared to the final results, which we can see in the form of ads or political rallies. Reviewing the lower profile news, especially if it's from more credible alternative media outlets, enables people to recognize these propaganda methods. Clearly political advisers have a significant say in how entire campaigns are run with large portions of them staged to convince the voters they're going to stand up for them, although once in office one candidate after another for Congress President, Governor or any other office routinely breaks one promise after another catering to their donors which they don't refer to as bribery, even though it has all the characteristics.
Bernie Sanders, is the closest thing there is to an exception, by far, with, perhaps Tulsi Gabbard, coming in second. Bernie Sanders rose from the grassroots decades ago and has been serving the interests of his constituents at the local level, staying in touch with them since then, only joining the Senate in 2006, where he got almost no attention by the mainstream media until his 2016 presidential campaign, unlike the senators they chose to be rising stars; but the vast majority of his constituents knew him much better and recognized that he had a record of keeping his promises and standing up for the people unlike typical politicians, including Howard Dean, who was once considered a sincere progressive from Vermont, but after his incompetent 2004 presidential campaign, he showed his true objectives, when catering to the Democratic establishment.
A recent article 02/08/2019 accurately says "Unless they are really obscure, virtually all the 2020 Democratic presidential wannabes have baggage they’d like to jettison," including Bernie Sanders; although the things that they claim is his baggage is often based on their biased views supporting the political establishment that rigs elections. The biggest problems that I can see with Bernie Sanders is that instead of calling out the rigged primaries as I pointed out in Can Hillary Clinton win without cheating? which lists efforts from many states to rig the primaries, citing credible sources, he caved and endorsed Hillary Clinton, because Trump was so horrible that he wanted to prevent him from becoming president. However, if Hillary Clinton wasn't just as horrible, or worse, she was at best only slightly better, but did a better job pretending to representing the public than Trump, although not much.
In hind sight it's clear that he could have done far more good if he had called out the election rigging, and perhaps endorsed the Green Party; this might not have prevented them from rigging the general election so that either Trump or Clinton would win but it would have exposed how corrupt it was.then he went on and tried to patch the reputation of the Democratic Party back together again while trying to convince them to become more progressive at the same time. Clearly he failed at convincing the Democratic party to stand up to corruption; but he's still relentlessly supporting good causes and educating the ,majority of the public to them, so they might be better able to stand up to these corrupt politicians.
Looking the other way at election rigging or falling for the lesser of two evils clearly isn't working; the saying that "every time we accept the lesser of two evils they both get worse," clearly has been proven true in the 2016 election and is why Trump won in the fist place, and the Democrats have indicated that they're willing to do the same thing over again, although they're doing a slightly better job pretending to offer a less corrupt choice for 2020, although for people checking alternative media outlets, it's not a much better job.
Amazingly, unless they nominate Bernie Sanders, or perhaps Tulsi Gabbard, although that's far less likely, or provide media coverage for other reasonably good candidates, they're virtually guaranteeing that we have to choose between the lesser of two evils again which could be Trump's only chance, or if the Democratic nominee manages to beat him, he or she will only cave to corrupt interests, repeating the cycle of escalating evils running from both parties, and I hate to see who could be worse than Trump or Clinton, but some of these contenders could do just that!
Previously I pointed out that Censored Candidates For President By Mass Media are the only ones that might be as good as Bernie Sanders, and even if they don't appear to have a chance in the 2020 election, thanks to epidemic levels of corrupt media coverage, unless there's a mass awakening, which I don't see right now, we still need to do more to expose how they're rigging the system and helping these low profile candidates now could give honest candidates a better chance in future elections, especially if it's accompanied by more grassroots candidates in local offices.
The reason, as the New York Magazine pointed out, "Unless they are really obscure, virtually all the 2020 Democratic presidential wannabes have baggage they’d like to jettison," is because the mainstream media only covers candidates that sell out to powerful interests so they can collect money for their campaigns. This is why, in addition to looking at all candidates I have been calling for financing an interview process controlled at the grassroots level like Saving Project Vote Smart and improving it or replacing it, which does a far better job trying to get candidates to fill out a consistent job application, which is what I refer to as their questionnaire; although even that organization needs oms improvement.
Even if Bernie Sanders does manage to get elected he'll need support from more grassroots candidates in Congress to get anything done for progressive causes, which isn't to be confused with get things done for Wall Street corporations, which is what mainstream politicians mean by that phrase. And he'll also need a lot of grassroots pressure on the politicians that are doing a better job pretending to represent the public while trying to cater to Wall Street, to keep them from selling us out more than they think they can get away with, and if they don't run them out in 2022 or 2024 etc.
The mainstream media may be hoping that most of us in the United States of Amnesia will forget about the vast majority of the baggage that these corrupt politicians they're willing to cover have but there are clearly many people keeping a record or part of it. If it helps I'll post a list here of a fraction of these low profile stories, possibly adding more or in future articles, and invite more people, especially those with a larger following than me, to post their own lists publicly if it helps educate people that the grassroots level:
Beto O’Rourke might have an oil money problem 12/19/2018
Amy Sanders O’Rourke, Beto O’Rourke’s Wife: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know 01/13/2019 Her Father Sold a Real Estate Business to GE for at Least $2 Billion. Amy’s the director of education development for La Fe Community Development Corporation. She’s also the executive director of the La Fe Preparatory charter school, which she helped start.
Beto O’Rourke frequently voted for Republican legislation, analysis reveals 12/20/2018
Beto O'Rourke is the new Obama. And that's the last thing we need 12/22/2018
The Factual Reporting About Beto by David Sirota That Stirred Epic Freakout 01/04/2019
Cory Booker, School Choice Fan and Ex-DeVos Ally, Is Running for President 02/01/2019
Cory Booker Has a School Choice Problem 02/08/2019 Unless they are really obscure, virtually all the 2020 Democratic presidential wannabes have baggage they’d like to jettison, from Joe Biden’s crime-bill sponsorship to Elizabeth Warren’s Native American association to the various things Bernie Sanders said and did in many decades of being a proud socialist. In national terms, New Jersey senator Cory Booker is still a fresh face with an unclear identity. But for progressives and labor activists with long memories, he’s got some issues, too.
Newark Mayor Cory Booker touts scholarship bill that would allow some students to attend private school 05/05/2012
New York Magazine: Cory Booker Has a School Choice Problem 02/09/2019
Eric Blanc: Cory Booker Hates Public Schools 02/10/2019
The Ugly Truth About Cory Booker, New Jersey’s Golden Boy 10/20/2014
Kamala Harris: I’ve Smoked Pot, It Gives A Lot Of People Joy 02/11/2019
Kamala Harris Talked Tough on Crime to Win Her First Race 02/07/2019
Still can’t get over this: Kamala Harris: More jails for the people! 02/01/2019
Tulsi Gabbard Claims Anti-War Credentials After Accepting Over $100,000 From Arms Dealers 01/31/2019
Cory Booker and GOP Kill Drug Importation Measure 01/12/2017
There Are Only Two Democratic Hopefuls Wall Street Fears 01/29/2019 What do Democratic officials as diverse as Kamala Harris, Cory Booker and Joe Biden have in common? .... “It can’t be Warren, and it can’t be Sanders,” claims one anonymous CEO of a major bank. “It has to be someone centrist and someone who can win.”
Kamala’s dilemma: Democrats fidgeting already about possible third-party bids 01/30/2019
Kamala Harris laughed about jailing parents over truancy. But it's not funny 01/31/2019
Kamala Harris is open to multiple paths to 'Medicare-for-all' 01/30/2019
A Problem for Kamala Harris: Can a Prosecutor Become President in the Age of Black Lives Matter? 01/20/2019
Kamala Harris 2020: Chains You Can Believe In by Teodrose Fikre 01/23/2019
If you pick Steve Mnuchin as you're running mate I'm sure he'll help finance your campaign; but there's no fooking way I'll help! https://theintercept.com/2017/01/05/kamala-harris-fails-to-explain-why-she-didnt-prosecute-steven-mnuchins-bank/ … 01/21/2019 Blocked or muted??
Kamala sold us out plenty of times before taking bribes disguised as donations from Mnuchin & Trump now we're supposed to believe she'll stand up to them? I don't think so! https://theintercept.com/2017/01/05/kamala-harris-fails-to-explain-why-she-didnt-prosecute-steven-mnuchins-bank/ … 01/21/2019 Blocked or muted??
The Two Faces of Kamala Harris 08/10/2017
Kamala Harris Dons Progressive Mantle in Public, Strips it Off in Private as She Courts Israel Lobby 01/21/2019 Repugnantly treacherous establishment Democrats are already throwing their hats into the ring for the horse race in 2020. Kamala Harris, Corey Booker—two ambitious and opportunistic wannabes—are trying to run on the Obama Brand. Elizabeth Warren is likely to dispute the prize, too, striking a faux anti-Wall Street pose. And there are others. All of them will run mostly on identity politics. And nothing will change, except for the worse. Tell these phonies to get lost.
Dems' rising star meets with Clinton inner circle in Hamptons 07/15/2017 ... He was also listed as one of the top “bundlers” for Barack Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign, having raised $3 million.
Kamala Harris tweets fundraiser for Stacey Abrams, but Harris may keep half 11/08/2018 But some were critical when they noted that by default, 50 percent of donations go to Harris herself, unless donors opt to adjust the ratio. "NOTE: Your contribution will be divided evenly between Stacey Abrams and Kamala Harris," the text above the donation buttons reads. "Click here to allocate amounts differently."
Wall Street executives are hearing from Cory Booker, Kamala Harris and other Democrats as they gauge interest in possible 2020 presidential campaigns 01/08/2019
Donald Trump Has Often Donated to Prosecutors Investigating His Business 10/05/2016
Open Secrets: Kamala D Harris WarnerMedia Group $127,975 21st Century Fox $90,958
Kamala Harris Fails to Explain Why She Didn’t Prosecute Steven Mnuchin’s Bank 01/05/2017
Harris: Progressives shouldn't apply purity tests to Dems 03/09/2017
Democratic donors still think they can anoint rising stars, including Kamala Harris, in the Hamptons 07/24/2017
The Kamala Harris Controversy Reveals the Erasure of Leftist Women by Pseudo-Woke Liberals 08/10/2017
Who is Democratic Senator Kamala Harris? 01/22/2019
Corporate Media Bias on 2020 Democratic Race Already in High Gear 01/14/2019 Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), former Rep. Beto O'Rourke (D-Texas), Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), and former vice president Joe Biden.
As Democratic Elites Reunite With Neocons, the Party’s Voters Are Becoming Far More Militaristic and Pro-War Than Republicans 01/11/2019
Cory Booker: What Educators and Parents Need to Know 02/06/2019
Cory Booker Opens His Presidential Campaign in New Orleans 01/20/2019
Amy Sanders O’Rourke, Beto O’Rourke’s Wife: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know 2. Her Father Sold a Real Estate Business to GE for at Least $2 Billion
Beto O'Rourke lands big Obama fundraiser -- but many elite donors are playing the field in 2020 12/07/2018
Joe Biden Has A Serious Drug Policy Problem 12/21/2016
SWEEPING ANTI-CRIME BILL PASSES EASILY IN SENATE 07/12/1991 Eager to address voters' anxiety over crime in advance of next year's elections, senators had spent nearly three weeks on the crime bill in what amounted to a political bidding war between Democrats and Republicans over who could demonstrate the greater toughness toward criminals. The partisan bickering continued right up to the final roll call, as Sen. Strom Thurmond (R-S.C.) claimed the bill as a victory for Bush, prompting counterclaims from Judiciary Committee Chairman Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) that it was largely a Democratic achievement.
Joe Biden Backed Bills To Make It Harder For Americans To Reduce Their Student Debt 09/15/2015 As a senator from Delaware -- a corporate tax haven where the financial industry is one of the state’s largest employers -- Biden was one of the key proponents of the 2005 legislation that is now bearing down on students like Ryan. That bill effectively prevents the $150 billion worth of private student debt from being discharged, rescheduled or renegotiated as other debt can be in bankruptcy court.
Joe Biden embraced segregation in 1975, claiming it was a matter of 'black pride' 01/31/2019
Liz Warren’s Other “American Indian” Problem 02/08/2019
Elizabeth Warren’s Presidential Bid Leaves Questions to Be Answered 01/03/2019
Freedom Rider: Elizabeth Warren and the Trap for Black Voters 01/0/2019 The early primaries located in southern states will play a huge role in determining the eventual nominee. In the South, Democrat means black and those voters have every right to ask hard questions and make clear demands. Going along gave us nothing but NAFTA, the loss of the right to public assistance, bank bailouts, a right wing health care scheme and finally a Republican in the White House who embodied all of our worst fears.
The Clinton Campaign Should Stop Denying That The Wikileaks Emails Are Valid; They Are And They're Real 10/25/2016
Wednesday, February 6, 2019
Scientology, and their critics have become so insane it's virtually impossible to tell which ones are right, and when, and there's a strong possibility that they're often both wrong, although I think Leah Remini and other high profile critics are far more credible than the Church, which often does more to make themselves look bad than they do to defend themselves.
However, even though "Scientology and the Aftermath" does a good job exposing a large portion of Scientology's propaganda, if your familiar with propaganda it's not hard to recognize that they also use their own propaganda to support their cause; and there might be some additional unsolved mysteries that they don't even try to acknowledge.
I went into this more in Scientology connection to the CIA? Ancient Aliens? Other mystics including Helena Blavatsky? However, even though I do consider some theories that many people consider far-fetched, I try to be a rational skeptic about it, and start with fundamentals that we can be certain of, especially if more complicated theories fall apart, which they often do, or need more modest corrections.
In my previous article I cited numerous major unsolved mysteries, including other mystics, most of which require a close look to sort out the details, and ancient megaliths which shouldn't have been possible to more with ancient technology based on experiments to replicate them, which does provide extraordinary evidence of a major unsolved mystery, although it's more difficult to conclusively connect it to other major unsolved mysteries.
Another fundamental that help's to understand what's going on are the basics of propaganda, some of which Leah Remini and Mike Rinder are exposing when Scientology uses them while simultaneously using their own propaganda. One of the most basic fundamentals of propaganda is that "A lie told often enough becomes the truth," (This quote was attributed to numerous propagandists, including Lenin, however, even though they probably didn't say it it's an accurate principle of propaganda) or at least it seems to, especially if opposing views aren't given an opportunity to expose the lie.
The mainstream media, controlling over 90% of the news, is now controlled by six oligarchies, about half a dozen of the biggest news outlets, including the Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Time Magazine, etc., not controlled by these oligarchs are owned by billionaires. No one, including Leah Remini and Mike Rinder can get this much coverage without the approval of these billionaires or multi-millionaires that control the mass media; and pretty much all they report is selective propaganda.
What they report in this show is a minuscule fraction of the history of Scientology, and there's good reason to believe they're selectively ignoring things that don't fit into their partial disclosure of Scientology, for one reason or another. In my previous article I mentioned how many people from Morocco, various other European, African and Caribbean countries all came to the conclusion that Scientology was a front for the CIA. This was reported in "Going Clear" by Lawrence Wright, which was cited several times briefly in "Scientology and the Aftermath," although they don't promote this nearly as much as Leah's own book or the book by Ron Miscavige Sr., neither of which does nearly as good a job reporting on the history of Scientology as Wright.
But even Wright doesn't question why all these people thought Scientology was a front for the CIA, or explain why, after being forced to abandon a trip to Charleston, South Carolina because "agents from US Customs, Immigration, Coast Guard, DEA, and US Marshals were waiting for them to dock, plus 180 IRS agents waiting to impound the ship," (Wright p. 130-4) and being rejected in the Caribbean, they were able to land in Clearwater and virtually take over the town as Leah's recent episode, "Watch Buying a Town" reports without an enormous amount of background that some people checking other sources might be aware of.
If Scientology had connections to the CIA as many people in these foreign countries thought they did in the sixties and seventies, then this might make sense, if they didn't it's hard to imaging how this could possibly made sense and there should be little or no doubt that the government could have easily prevented them from taking over the town, unless they really did want them to take it over for reasons that are still not being disclosed. There have been plenty of previous, somewhat obscure, reports about ties between the CIA and Scientology going back decades, although many of them seem to have serious credibility problems. In many of these either Scientology is trying to infiltrate various government agencies, including the IRS, FBI, CIA, etc., and in others it's the CIA that's trying to infiltrate Scientology, which all seems quite absurd; however if they were working together from the beginning this could hide it by making them seem like adversaries.
This enables the government to "investigate" Scientology, when they get exposed in outrageous wrong doing, but somehow to bungle it enabling them to continue business as usual. According to several reports both Harold "Hal" Puthoff from NSA and Ingo Swann joined Scientology while also maintaining ties to the CIA in experiments in alleged "remote viewing" or other paranormal activities that both the CIA and Scientology were interested in, although it's hard to confirm or refute any of this even if most people consider it highly unlikely, or fringe.
In most cases it's difficult if not impossible to know if there's something to many of these major unexplained phenomena, although it often seems easy to dismiss them as ridiculous; however even if that is the case there's still a major unsolved mystery about why there was such a big effort to make it seem like these phenomena are real when they're not, often from sources that are actually quite rational or have a high amount of political power, including the CIA which has been heavily involved in some of this research according to many declassified documents, and the mainstream media, that provides media coverage of the Ancient Aliens show while they refuse to provide coverage for many of the most credible researchers on any scientific subject, including skeptics, whether they're as rational as they claim to be or not, or good researchers exposing how violence escalates from early child abuse, how propaganda is used by traditional media outlets to indoctrinate children, how the economic system is rigged for insurance companies, and many other subjects.
My previous article about this subject cited Philip Corso's claim that he personally worked to distribute technology that was allegedly obtained from alien crafts that had crashed so they could be reverse engineered. If this is true then it has major implications; if not then there's still a major unsolved mystery about why a Lieutenant Colonel would make such a claim and why there would be some many people, including Strom Thurmond, Paul Hellyer, and many other notable figures supported these claims, although Thurmond retracted his forward under bizarre circumstances, perhaps under pressure. There are many other high ranking officials including military officers, astronauts, politicians etc. also claiming that there's more to the UFO mystery than so-called skeptics claim as well, indicating that either there's something to it or a conspiracy to make it seem like there is.
If there is something to this theory, then this could be part of a controlled disclosure effort, however even if there isn't there's still a problem with this show that is dominated by people previously involved in the leadership of Scientology, that ignores many major unsolved mysteries. When they do cite some of their critics, it's usually the most absurd ones, so it actually does more to make their case. And they downplay some of the reasons why Scientology gets away with so much, including saying the city of Clearwater "overreached," implying there was some justification for the courts to take the side of Scientology leaders, even though there are many more problems that could have been used to justify further investigation.
Freedom of religion doesn't justify epidemic levels of fraud, human trafficking, false imprisonment, negligent homicide (Lisa McPherson is just one of many examples cited by their critics, more were mentioned in my previous article with links), stalking, and many other activities that should enable the government to treat them like a criminal organization. At times the cast of this show acts as if they fighting to get the government to go after them, but other times they're whitewashing lame excuses not to, at least partially.
Additional unsolved mysteries also include how they manage to get all their money, which I mentioned in the previous article, and why they get so much support from other religions which are allegedly competing with them for followers of the "one true religion," as most religions claim to represent. Leah's show recently exposed strange ties with Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam, which don't seem to make any sense, including allowing them to recruit members for a blatantly incompatible religion. Additional ties have shown up with Israel, the Mormons or perhaps several other religions. The Simon Wiesenthal Center, which exposes human rights abuses around the world apparently looked the other way at Scientology's abuses and their connections to the Nation of Islam, when they gave Tom Cruise a "Humanitarian Award."
They recently did an expose about Jehovah's Witnesses, which was unlike any other episode focusing on another religion where people were also intimidated and forced to disconnect, like Scientologists. Some of the critics within the Nation of Islam might have also been subject to intimidation when they questioned their ties to Scientology, which appear to be stronger than to other religions. After this aired there were apparently a lot of requests to expose Mormons next or a few other requests for other religions which they consider cults. This isn't surprising, and they almost certainly anticipated it.
When Mike Rinder found a meme suggesting they go after Mormons next he responded by saying on Twitter I don'[t know who created this. It's a great sentiment, though I would have labeled the cat "Bad Guys" or "Abusers". Nobody who takes advantage of people who have no voice to obtain justice is safe when @LeahRemini is around. #ScientologyTheAftermath 12/07/2018 within an hour or so "Canada Against Scientology" created another meme fulfilling this suggestion. I can't say for certain that this might have been planned, but created my own that might fit just as well.
If Corso is correct then there's little or no chance that they've come out with full and sincere disclosure; however, both the "Ancient Aliens" show and "Scientology and the Aftermath" might be full of partial disclosure mixed in with absurd mistakes, some of which become clear when checking with other sources for major omissions or other problems with their disclosures.
Another major omission was the fact that they cited Marty Rathbun in their recent show, showing an old audio clip of him admitting to some of the work he confessed to for Scientology after leaving the Church without mentioning that apparently the initially intended to invite him to be come a regular when "Scientology and the Aftermath" first aired; but, at about the same time he started smearing his former anti-Scientology allies, creating a lot of speculation about the possibility that he's gone back to Scientology, or that they're blackmailing him, which I can't completely rule out.
|Mike Rinder and Marty Rathbun eight to ten years ago, when they were still friends.|
However if there is some kind of controlled disclosure effort going on they might want to make sure they can avoid disclosing too much ahead of schedule, assuming they ever do want to provide full disclosure, and maintaining constant bickering is a good way to keep people distracted, constantly defending people on their own side, whichever side that happens to be at any given time. If he was returning to Scientology, they might tone down their smears against him, which judging by some of the web pages about him they haven't, or perhaps he might have gone back and deleted some of his previous articles praising Mike Rinder and other people he now seems to be smearing including "Mike Rinder: The Antithesis of David Miscavige" seven or so years ago where he says "But, Mike is the living proof of one truth Nietzsche offered: What doesn’t kill us makes us stronger. Mike Rinder is perhaps the strongest man I know. Mike Rinder was and is a better man than I."
This is just one of many massive smears against anyone criticizing Scientology, although Marty Rathbun is now apparently smearing both Scientology and it's critics, and Scientology is either directly, or in most cases indirectly smearing anyone that criticizes them, including Marty Rathbun. They must have a massive propaganda machine creating all these web pages, a handful of which are listed below, smearing their critics; however they're so incredibly obvious that only those thoroughly indoctrinated in the cult or totally unaware of what's going on could possibly believe it.
They have to know that they're making themselves look bad and their lame rebuttals that Leah Remini routinely reads on her show have no credibility at all, and make her seem more credible, although if people look close enough they might realize that she still has her credibility problems, even though they're not nearly as bad as the Church of Scientology, and some of her efforts to expose cults should be accepted, although with a reasonable amount of skepticism, since they're incomplete.
Scientology doesn't have a monopoly on constant irrational bickering, of course; in fact, if you compare them to typical politicians you might find they have a lot in common, which didn't always used to be the case. Twenty or thirty years ago politicians at least knew how to do a better job pretending to represent the public; and a close look at some of the political research into how they study propaganda indicates they still know how to do a much better job pretending to defend the public, yet they routinely act like a bunch of irrational clowns, with the media only providing coverage for candidates they support even though they're almost all constantly getting caught in one scam after another, and there are grassroots candidates they refuse to cover who aren't involved in nearly as many scams, if any.
The current obsessive conspiracy theory promoted by the mainstream media about Russian collusion being used to rig the election for Donald Trump, which I've gone into in several past articles including Dude, We've Been In The Rabbit Hole Or Twilight Zone All Along! where I pointed out that mainstream media did far more to rig the election for Donald Trump by colluding with the Democrats to rig the nomination for Hillary Clinton, even though the vast majority of the public hated her, and providing obsession coverage for Trump for decades, which increased even more during the election season making him seem like the only viable candidate willing to stand up to corrupt democrats and media.
Nothing Russia could have done to expose this could possibly be as important as the mainstream media and the Democrats strategy to support a "Pied Piper" candidate, as exposed in some of the leaked E-mails, which might even raise the question of whether or not Russia was also colluding with the DNC and six oligarchs controlling the media to rig the election for Trump.
This sounds insane of course; however, so does everything else, so something insane is going on! I can't guarantee that all of this speculation is true, or even close; but I can guarantee that the official version of truth, either by the mainstream media, Scientology, many other religions, the critics of Scientology, and even many so-called scientific skeptics definitely isn't!
Some of my past articles on this subject include Do Aliens own Stock in Monsanto, DuPont, or Microsoft? which also has a complete list of additional articles posted before it, the following are the recent ones posted since it:
Who's Controlling Oligarchies Dividing The Market? Aliens?
Dude, We've Been In The Rabbit Hole Or Twilight Zone All Along!
Was Pizzagate a CIA PsyOp to dismiss real sex offenders as conspiracies?
An ISIS Wag The Dog Hypothesis Is Still Unlikely But ....
There's no shortage of information about Scientology on the web, but the following are some of the articles used as sources or for additional information, starting with a time line for alleged ties to the CIA, which is a strong possibility, even if all the details aren't guaranteed:
Scientology/Remote Viewing Timeline Well Researched Timeline on Connection Between Scientology and Remote Viewing Harold "Hal" Puthoff from NSA and Ingo Swann from the UN enroll in Scientology, supposedly unknown to each other. Within five years they will be at the highest levels of Scientology and under secret contract with CIA to develop remote viewing for military intelligence.
Miscavige Go Home wiki: New Evidence - US-Government tries to control Scientology - David Miscavige is an exposed CIA-Source
Scientology and the Clearwater Police Department 02/06/2019
The Hubbard Intelligence Agency: The Central Intelligence Agency and the Church of Scientology
The strangely true connection between Scientology, the Jet Propulsion Lab, and Occult Sorcery 01/24/2013
One week to the day after John McLean reports Scientology money having been stolen from him, Susan Meister is found shot to death in a cabin aboard the Flagship Apollo, docked in Safi, Morocco. Conflicting reports say she was shot either in the mouth or in the forehead. One report says the gun was folded in her hands neatly in her lap. Her death is ruled a suicide by Moroccan authorities.
Miscavige Go Home wiki: The Quentin Hubbard autopsy shows - he was murdered
Mike Rinder: Scientology and Nazi Germany 11/12/2018
Scientology and the Aftermath: Marty Rathbun on Tony Ortega, Leah Remini & Mike Rinder 11/12/2017
Mike Rinder: The Antithesis of David Miscavige 09/14/2011 by Marty Rathbun
Marty Rathbun’s Meltdown 06/25/2017 by Mike Rinder
Marty Rathbun’s Discussion of Paul Haggis Going Clear – In Context 09/23/2017
Wikipedia: Marty Rathbun
Leah Remini+Mike Rinder inspired violence against Scientology. Video of Mark Rathbun 12/07/2018
Leah Remini+Mike Rinder “fair game” Scientology. Video of Mark Rathbun 12/07/2018
Director Paul Haggis pens an open letter to Marty Rathbun after Scientology’s latest smear 09/23/2017
Is Marty Rathbun Working for the Church of Scientology? 09/30/2017
Friends Marty Rathbun Mike Rinder Etal. Monday, 05 October 2009
What Will It Take for The Simon Wiesenthal Center to Call Out the Church of Scientology for Supporting Louis Farrakhan? 08/07/2018
6 Additional Scientology Horror Stories We’d Like To See Covered In A “Going Clear” Sequel 08/10/2018
Church of Scientology Forum Highlights Environmental Danger 06/12/2015
Scientology Shill Joy Villa Plays the Trump Card 04/11/2018
Pam Bondi's Clearwater fundraiser organized by Scientologists 06/30/2014
Trump Thinks Scientology Should Have Tax Exemption Revoked, Longtime Aide Says 11/10/2017
In a potential win for Scientology, House tax bill favors more political freedom for churches 12/04/2017
Inside Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam’s Strange Ties to Scientology 12/12/2018
The Troubling Connections between Scientology and the Nation of Islam 04/02/2018
How Scientology And The Nation Of Islam Formed A Bizarre And Dangerous Alliance 11/26/2018
Watch Unlikely Pairing Full Episode - Leah Remini: Scientology and the Aftermath 12/31/2018 Available in reruns, and perhaps on internet
Scientology May Be Demonized Around the World, but in Israel It Barely Makes Waves 11/08/2012
What Is the Church of Scientology Doing in Israel? 11/13/2015
As Scientology Spreads, Israelis Yawn August-September 2017 Scientology has largely been denounced as a dangerous cult in the West. So why is it being warmly welcomed in the Jewish state?
Mormon Think: Scientology and Mormonism
Ex-Mormon: A comparison of Scientology and Mormonism 2014ish
Mormons, Scientologists face uphill battle against Wikileaks 05/14/2008
A Mormon’s Visit to the Church of Scientology 06/15/2017
Watch The Jehovah's Witnesses Full Episode - Leah Remini: Scientology and the Aftermath 11/13/2018 Available in reruns, and perhaps on internet
Leah Remini: Scientologists and Jehovah Witnesses's Have 'Same Rhetoric,' 'Attacks' Will Continue 12/21/2018
Tony Ortega - Scientology’s sneaky infiltration of New York City schools 03/22/2013
Scientology’s Sneaky Infiltration of New York City Schools 03/22/2013
Smears so obvious they should easily backfire on Scientology, except, perhaps, to devoted cult followers:
Church of Scientology statement re: Leah Remini
Leah Remini • Aftermath: After Money
Who is Marty Rathbun
Who is Mike Rinder
Who is Paul Haggis
Who is Marc and Claire Headley
Who is Amy Scobee
Freedom Magazine: Leah Remini A One-Woman Hate Machine