Marvel's "Winter Soldier" is Bucky Barnes, and we are told that he first appeared under that very cool (haha) name in May 2005. That was long, long after the original coining of the name for an event in 1971 called the Winter Soldier Investigation. The not-very-cool-at-all subject? American war crimes and atrocities in Vietnam, told first-person.

Surprisingly, there is indeed a writeup on the nexus between the two names:

Learn the History of the Term “Winter Soldier” and Why Ed Brubaker Used the Name in Captain America (The Mary Sue 3/21/2014)

The author is just a normie comic fanboy but, as you'll read, he was tipped off by podcaster Jesse Thorn, whose own father was a member of Vietnam Veterans Against the War, the sponsors of the WSI. (I used to listen to Jesse Thorn's Bullseye until a decade ago, when the progressivism that spilled over into the pop culture show became unbearable.)

The article comes off innocently enough and even includes an explanation of the name by the author of the comic himself, Ed Brubaker (who we will come back to). Believe it if you like, but his explanation is retcon bullshit.

The phrase "winter soldier" is a reversal of Thomas Paine's famous quote about the "summer soldier", and is meant to describe a true patriot, one who accepts as his duty the overthrow of tyranny. Well, Barnes is a traitor to America and a soldier for the quite tyrannical USSR. Not an apt name, is it? Then he has a whole paragraph of non-sequiturs about Vietnam, Russia and the American Revolution. Nice try.

I call it a googlewash because if you're searching for "winter soldier" and aren't already aware the WSI existed, you'll have a much harder time stumbling across either it or this:

Winter Soldier: Iraq & Afghanistan

Yes, I too didn't know that existed until I was searching all around for this writeup. See how good googlewashing works? You'll also likely never find this documentary made about the original WSI either:

MILESTONE FILMS: WINTER SOLDIER

Though the event was attended by press and television news crews, almost nothing was reported to the American public. Yet, this unprecedented forum marked a turning point in the anti-war movement. It was a pivotal moment in the lives of young vets from around the country who participated, including the young John Kerry.

Memory-holed then, googlewashed now. Did you catch the last bit? That's our first twist.

Yes, Deep State Elitist scumbag John Kerry participated! You might be thinking that the whole thing was limited hangout with Kerry a leader of it, but I don't think so in this case:

We could come back to this country; we could be quiet; we could hold our silence; we could not tell what went on in Vietnam, but we feel because of what threatens this country, the fact that the crimes threaten it, not reds, and not redcoats but the crimes which we are committing that threaten it, that we have to speak out.

Some plain truth there and--as we're seeing--all slated to be erased from history. Not consistent with an op, is it? And I say that even given the next twist.

Mark Lane was one of the organizers. He's very prominent as a JFK researcher and (IMHO) a primary disinfo agent on the issue. Big red flag, right? Well, after the assassination, Lane sent the Warren Omission a 10,000 word brief saying that (drum roll)... Oswald was innocent. Was any disinfo agent going to be stirring up the waters that soon and in that way? IMHO, no.

Which brings up my view on the great majority of the Elite scumsuckers, Uniparty dirtbags, squadrons of disinfo rats, etc: they are made, not born. Well, "They" like to use Their own relatives to be sure, but those agents are shaped over a long process of seduction and grooming. Those assets start out fighting the good fight, and "They" make sure that's what those assets believe all the way along, see?

Final twist, this one concerning the comics author, Ed Brubaker:

Brubaker, the child of a Navy intelligence officer, spent much of his childhood in Guantánamo Bay....

To paraphrase Dr. Evil, typical childhood, the details of which are quite inconsequential, eh?

But that's not all: it is not listed under his "Notable works", but Brubaker was on the writing staff of Westworld. It's much, much too long to get into, but I have posted about that show numerous times. It is, IMHO, far and away the show where the Those That Really Run This World and Know What Has Really Happened have tipped Their hand the most and in an unmistakable way.

Is Ed himself one of those people? I sincerely doubt it. I've always suspected that They just have a conduit to screenwriters and the like, passing messages like "show this visual" or "have somebody say these words". That would be Ed, in the case of Westworld.

And it works, of course. Think about it: what percentage of people reading the coverage of it have any doubt he's alive and governing? Whatever you pick, it rounds down to zero.

You can read a basic story here at Gateway Pundit:

Gov. Gavin Newsom Clashes with Target Employee Who Blames Him for California’s Surging Theft Crime — Questions Employee Why He Should Pay in a State of Rampant Shoplifting (VIDEO) (2/1/2024)

Let's analyze the event, shall we? But we should do it from the perspective of the ghey operators. For the benefits we desire, what does it take to create it and what are the downsides?

So the "evidence" we have to generate is a tweet of a Zoom call with "Gavin" on it telling an anecdote, all downrezzed to a potato-phone video. That does not sound like much of a challenge when put that way, does it?

Also, notice that Gavin gets to state his case for people that have never heard it, doesn't he? That's a plus.

Did you notice, though, that at the end he questions why he himself should pay? Do you think a career politician would carelessly say such a thing aloud, as if it was a point that happened to cross his mind? The writer went a step too far to make it sound "real".

Now let's talk about downsides: they had to admit that there's a shoplifting problem in California. Is that a big secret? Not really. So do you see that was the bait? If you look around, you'll see how hard everyone chomps down on it.

Okay, now let's talk about "dogs that didn't bark". Do you think someone could brazenly shoplift and the Governor of the state could argue with the cashier about it with someone taking a cell phone video? Without a dozen people taking cell phone videos? No, of course not.

Let's back up a step and ask: what are the chances that there's such a crime and the Governor is right there? Everybody I know shops at Target and every other kind of store in California, and as rampant as shoplifting is I've never heard a single one of them say it happened in front of them. Ever. No, I don't live in the hood but neither does (did) Gavin.

Let's back up another step: do you think the millionaire hereditary Elitist fuckwad Governor of California does his own shopping at Target? I decline to believe anyone who's made it as far as reading these words actually believes that. Don't even bother trying to claim it.

Anyway, to seal the deal, here's the paid shill post from r/conspiracy:

Theft is so common in California that it happened right in front of Gavin Newsom, and when the cashier (who didn't realize it was Newsom) said they can't stop shoplifters due to the California government, Newsom got mad at her and asked to see the manager.

Over a thousand upvotes in 16 hours with the achingly phony top comment alone having 691 upvotes. There are 174 comments with some being shills, but obviously the vast majority are genuine "conspiracy theorists" taking the opportunity to stomp down hard when bad news comes along about a guy they despise.

It all seems very lame in retrospect but, again, see how well it works?

First off, we should all be aware that this type of the technology has been floating around for at least six decades and who knows what they have now. The tech in question is described here:

RHIC – EDOM (Radio-Hypnotic Intra-Cerebral Control – Electronic Dissolution of Memory) (9/28/2016)

Now, make of these associations what you will, but you know how "They" just love to put Their little references into such acronyms, right? Does that one ring and bells? The first part is exactly the same as this:

Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider

The Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) is the first and one of only two operating heavy-ion colliders.... Located at Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL)... it is the only operating particle collider in the US.

I don't think it's related, but I'll mention that BNL is 20 miles from Montauk. I do think it's related that BNL hosts an experiment named PHENIX.

What's more intriguing is this: do you know where the only other operating heavy-ion collider is? Yep, you got it! It's the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) operating at CERN near the Swiss/French border (actually spanning it).

The second part is not quite as direct, but it's strange to see it come up. Edom was an ancient kingdom south of the Dead Sea, and apparently the Israelites were told to lay a Nakba on it and wipe it off the map or some such thing.

But that was in Biblical times, and here in the 21st Century researcher Adam Green has concluded that a notion has developed among certain modern Judaics that Christianity--particularly American Christians--are to be identified as the modern "Edom". And, you know, get the same kind of treatment.

Adam can go overboard with some things (IMHO) but if you have any interest in such topics you should hear him out. You're guaranteed to hear some things that others never seem to mention:

Rabbis Prophesize The Destruction Of America Christianity ( Edom) Know More News W Adam Green

In any case, the world is so strange that you can't kick over an ordinary-looking mind control rock without finding something weird underneath, can you?

It's intriguing how this aspect never gets mentioned, but @ShadowofEzra pointed out in this tweet a couple of days ago. By the Texas Constitution, while the Governor is out of state, Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick is in charge.

According to this press release, Abbott left the 19th and is returning on the 28th,

Not to start a discussion of either thesis, but it looks more and more like Abbott is a Deep State snake and Patrick is MAGA (to put it roughly). Did Patrick take steps as acting Governor that the Deep State took sharp exception to?

If you take a look at this timeline, it all began before Abbott left town. On the flip side, none of the mainstream coverage mentions either that Abbott is gone or quotes anything Patrick has to say. That is a red flag.

Final note: TIL that Abbott is in a wheelchair, and has been since he was 26. Am I the only person who didn't know this? I feel like I've been FDR-ed.

That's an unusual name, like a character in a work of fiction, isn't it? Like "Remington Steele" or something.

For the last two years of Obama's term (2015-2017), Ashton Carter was the Secretary of Defense and John Forbes Kerry was the Secretary of State.

It is just a coincidence, right?

The Zionists wish to continue their war, justify it, expand it, and bring in the West. Hostages are the emotional crux of that justification, and any and all of them may be imaginary at this point. Thus, I found this headline suspect:

Israel drops leaflets in Gaza asking Palestinians for help finding hostages (SCMP 1/21/2024)

If the Israelis want their hostages back, isn't it infinitely easier just to deal directly with Hamas? And Hamas must keep them safe, since a dead hostage is no hostage at all, correct? The story is nonsense and a psyop.

The full article is paywalled, but the psyop is confirmed by the subhead:

• ‘Do you want to return home?’ Displaced civilians seeking refuge in Rafah were urged to ‘make the call’ if they saw one of 33 captives held by Hamas

They simply cannot help themselves, can they? The overall thesis, that the war is all about Israeli aggression and nothing at all to do with hostages--real or fictitious--is confirmed by the second subhead:

• Israeli planes and tanks intensified their bombardment in Jabalia on the northern edge of Gaza, and in Khan Younis and Rafah in the south

You have to wonder is this all started with, "ChatGPT, make me a flyer asking for the whereabouts of 33 Jewy-looking hostages...."

ADVISORY: This is a very long post with no startling revelations. Skip it if you're looking to be entertained. (Although I find it quite entertaining, which is why I write it up.)

So what's the purpose? Really, I have something to get off my chest. It's about conspiracy theorists who are interested in the occult and like to listen to the occult doings of Jack Parsons and others like Crowley. More specifically, it's about the researchers and podcasters and posters who tell us about these things over and over. Even the mainstream covers Parsons.

If you're told about something over and over and over, can it possibly be considered "occult"? Seems crazy, like you're not really paying attention, just looking to be enthralled. Shouldn't we be looking deeper, and be suspect of the things we're told repeatedly? I think so. Instead of looking at the curtain of Jack Parsons, let's take peek behind it for once.

The thrust of this is that Parsons was what I term a Simulant. We live in a big simulation, but it's not a fancy computer program run by AIs or aliens. The bare fact that those notions are promoted should be enough to tell you they're not true.

Rather, this simulation is--among other properties--sprinkled about with open-air actors, especially up on the stage where we're all looking. But it's not as simple as being an actor, where everything about them is a lie. The Simulants are a mix of truth and falsity. I stress this because the idea seems quite hard for people to absorb.

One of the most common characteristics of these Simulants is that they have an altered name. I have yet to fully understand why. Most often it's not even a secret, it's just that for some reason we didn't have a "President Barry Soetoro" or "Mayor of NY Warren Wilhelm Jr." or "Candidate Nimarata Randhawa". It's bizarre, but it's a red flag for a Simulant. Jack Parsons has this red flag.

The wiki for Jack Parsons of course admits right up front that he was born Marvel Whiteside Parsons, with his father's first name and his mother's surname as his middle name.

Their son was his father's namesake, but was known in the household as Jack.

Okay, the family had to distinguish between the two, so the kid got a nickname of sorts. Plus, they don't want him getting his ass kicked every day in school, right? So "Jack" is out of nowhere, like calling someone "Chief" or "Ace" or something?

In this case "Jack" seems to be the common diminutive for "John", but the bizarre part is: where does the name John come from? This never gets mentioned.

The name John is actually the first word in his wiki, but I bet your eyes skipped right over it like mine did. Also, it's not his name as an infant when daddy was living at home. We're given this non-explanation:

Although she retained her ex-husband's surname, Ruth started calling her son John, but many friends throughout his life knew him as Jack.

That's odd, right? I might be willing to spackle right over this except for one thing: there is another John Parsons. And he was alive at the same time, and he attended Stanford like Jack did, and he ran NASA Ames (next door to Googleplex today), and he was also known as "Jack", and, well, he kinda looked like our Jack:

SP-4302 Adventures in Research: A History of Ames Research Center 1940-1965

Scroll down to his pic and compare to Jack's pic on his wiki. He's got the same double-chin and the same John Waters-esque mustache. No, not the same person or twin or clone. Is he a brother or cousin about which They do not care to disclose the connection? Odd.

Again, I'd be willing to write this off, except for the matter of Jack's first wife. We're told over and over about his relationship with Marjorie Cameron, but no one mentions Helen Northrup. I wonder why?

Is it because her name was actually Helen Northrop, and she was closely related to Jack Northrop, founder of Northrop Aviation? You would know that organization better as Northrop Grumman:

Northrop Grumman Corporation is an American multinational aerospace and defense technology company. With 95,000 employees and an annual revenue in excess of $30 billion, it is one of the world's largest weapons manufacturers and military technology providers. The firm ranks No. 101 on the 2022 Fortune 500 list of America's largest corporations.

Helen Northup was from Pasadena, which was where JPL was founded. Jack Northrop was from Santa Barbara and his company was founded in El Segundo, just across LA from Pasadena. And, as if I had to mention it, Northop-Grumman is now headquartered in West Falls Church, VA, a stone's throw from the Pentagram. All very cozy, right?

My point in all this, again, is that while the real Elites arrange the Military-Industrial Complex just under the surface, lots of people are fascinated with the study of these "occultists" but never scratch that surface. It also leads me to think 99.9% of all "occultism" is shiny made-up nonsense. See why it all strikes me as frustrating?

Well, I guess I got it off my chest!

As the rumor has it, he was killed in Ukrainian bunker struck by a Russian missile. There have been a number of such rumored strikes over time and it does not seem surprising, but how are we to decide? Well, this was posted on r/conspiracy today in the wake of the rumor:

Is Loyd Austin Dead ? (1/8/2024)

The top-voted comment, the one that will be read by almost everyone who opens the post, says:

The info you shared is all wrong. He was not in Ukraine when he got hospitalised. But in the US.

The problem? The inept Cognitive Warrior that created the post just put in a stock picture of Austin and forgot to include a link or any text. There's no mention of the rumor or anything else at all.

But the first fake commenter replies as if the rumor was there instead of, "WTF does this mean? Why do you think he's dead. It's just a pic of him." So there's your tip-off. Then the lame OP replies to that comment with:

I am sure it is just clickbait and that he will show up at a presser relatively soon. Just wanted to see what the conspiracy community says about this.

To get what we're seeing, we would have to believe that the OP then--for some bizarre and unknowable reason--went back to the original post and just deleted all the text. Technically possible, but I'd sooner buy in to the adventures of Bob Lazar.

Final observation: Did you note the spelling errors and funky grammar to make it all seem more legit? Nice touch, right?

EDIT: If you're looking for at least some account of the circumstances, this is the only one I know of (from what many consider a fictional news site), so FWIW:

Russian Claim: Austin Dead In Ukraine (RRN 1/7/2024)

Somehow I had never heard any of this mentioned about the Monsantos:

The Monsanto family is a historical Sephardic Jewish merchant and banking business who played a significant role in founding the Jewish community in Colonial Louisiana (then transferring between French and Spanish rule) in the 18th century.

The family arrived in Louisiana in the 1760s, and one of their members, Isaac Monsanto, was one of the wealthiest merchants in New Orleans. The family engaged in the Atlantic slave trade and owned African slaves at their plantations at Natchez, Mississippi... and Trianon, New Orleans. Not including their former estate in New Orleans, by the 1780s, the Monsantos kept 51 slaves for their personal use and sold other enslaved African people to Louisiana plantations.

The Monsanto we know and love was founded by John Francis Queeny. It was named after his wife, Olga Mendez Monsanto, so he was obviously just the front goy.

Now, I also mentioned that they were Dutch. That sounds incidental but I assure you it isn't. These Dutch were like a main circuit cable in Colonial America. And no one talks about them, which should clue you in on their importance.

Take one of these families, the Livingstons. BTW, they're also Jewish and that's an Americanized form of Lowenstein. I guarantee it's worth your time to go to that wiki page and see all the people and families they're connected to.

For example, you'll see the Schuyler family. You might miss the connection, but Alexander Hamilton married one of the Schuylers. When George Carlin mentioned the Big Club we ain't in, I don't even think he was aware these very tight, very Elite parts of it even existed.

Fun Fact #1: General Hoyt Sanford Vandenberg, Sr., of Vandenberg Space Force Base fame, was one of these Dutch. He ran the USAF, was CIA Director and (in my strong opinion) arranged the Roswell UFO hoax. Always take a second glance when someone Dutch comes up.

Fun Fact #2: Monsanto's first product was saccharin. For those that didn't live through all the controversy, skim through the wiki to see the furious hand-waving about how "everyone said it was real bad but it really wasn't so shut up about that!". IOW, they were "on brand" right out of the gate.

Intriguing Fact: The name "Monsanto" (which sounds like a type of plastic) actually means "Holy Mountain". All I can say is that it puts me in mind of Mount Hermon, where the 200 Fallen Angels came to Earth.

Well, wouldn't that just be "on brand" too?

I was triggered (haha) by a story all over the mainstream media today:

RUSSIA: Alexey Navalny, Putin’s Chief Opponent, Speaks Out After Prison Transfer – HE’S HELD IN A SOVIET GULAG (TGP 12/26/2023)

The point of this post is not to out Navalny as an Intelligence asset, which we will do only briefly, but to take a look at how thin the deception can be and still fool the consciousness of billions of people. Present company excepted, of course.

The zero-th item to note is that these types of analyses are very unpopular in conspiracy circles. That is, there are very few theorists left, where you have to at least string together a couple of facts with some analysis. They have been completely diluted (and I'm not disparaging) by people (God bless them) who are driven more by, "Yeah, that guy does suck! Upvote!" That's great and all, but if you're looking for more, read on.

Before we look at the general phenomenon, we'll only examine one conclusive detail to his phony story. You'll only be reading about it here, so note how easily an obvious contradiction flies by the rest of the world.

In the story linked above, you'll find a tweet dated the 26th from Navalny's blue-check account. Who cares what it says, because it's mere existence is directly contradicted here by Kira Yarmysh, Navalny's spokesperson:

Alexei Navalny ‘doing well’ after transfer to remote Arctic prison (The Independent 12/26/2023)

There's no way of reaching inmates, nor by mail nor by Internet, so it is practically impossible to contact someone directly.

I hope no troll is going to give us, "Ackshually, you can't email them, they can only tweet out." Although we'd all like to see that, it would still be pretty shameful.

The point is, one sheer lie serves one audience, and another sheer lie serves a different one. The two people making up these lies do not care whatsoever about coordinating them. Nor, as I have pointed out, do they need to.

As I referenced in the title, Navalny is a "Simulant". I don't know of any existing term for this type of "person". It's what I've come up with for the range of such people who go from absolutely authentic with a few phony aspects to outright "virtual persons" constructed from scratch.

Navalny seems to be a living, breathing human being. After that it gets very murky, which is what I'm trying to highlight. And what I'm really trying to highlight is how very thin it all is yet still yields successful, long-running psyop.

For example, this whole dumb, bullshit narrative about "disappearing" and "no one knew where he was for three weeks" until be was found "exiled to Sibera"? Did you know he was (supposedly) sent to the exact same place not quite three years ago?

What we know about the prison hospital where Alexei Navalny has been sent (Reuters 4/19/2021)

You can see the narrative at the time was that he was "recovering from Novichok poisoning (from Putin!)", and not "disappeared to Siberia". Yes, it's all just narrative, but everyone laps it right up.

But I want to stress how thin it all is, and always was. So this guy is supposed to be "Putin's opposition", right? I used Qwant to search on "putin navalny" and got--get this--27 hits. The nexus between the two is virtually non-existent.

Does Putin even know he exists, fake or real? It turns out the answer is probably not. The closest I can come is this video:

Putin says palace in Navalny report 'doesn't belong to me' | AFP (YouTube 1/25/2021)

If you watch the video, Putin never mentions Navalny. In fact, he says he never watched the video, only a summary made by his aides. My guess is that Putin is aware of the deception and chooses never to acknowledge it.

Finally, recall that Navalny is supposedly a politician seeking to challenge the highest-profile leader in the world, correct? He's got to get out there and kiss hands and shake babies, right? Apparently, no, he never does that.

Search for images with "navalny meets". It's him alone, in court, with his "family", and sometimes with some people floating around in the background. He never goes out and poses for photos with people he meets. Try the same search with something like "lauren boebert meets" and she's right there with all kinds of people. Maybe just a slut, huh?

Recall that "media" means "middle", and that's the shim that's created between people and reality. It may be razor-thin, but it's there and makes all the difference in the world.

The title unavoidably comes off like a slam against Tucker, but I do not mean it that way. I think he's more or less a normal person caught up in circumstances far beyond his control and is trying to do what's best in a murky situation.

First off, if anyone reading this does not or cannot believe that Julian Assange is either dead or--equivalently--in a black site he'll probably never come out of, then stop reading now because it will just make you upset and feel you need to argue about it for your own emotional stability.

The real Assange has been gone since October 2016, and everything after that has been DeepFakes and a modicum of simple hand-waving. Sounds primitive but it's fooled virtually everyone in the world. I suspect that Tucker might have had half an idea something was up and finally went to check it out.

Tucker Carlson Makes Surprise Visit to Julian Assange in Prison (TGP 11/2/2023)

Read that carefully. The only evidence really shown is Tucker and Assange's (fake) wife walking through a parking lot. All the rest I could have written up off the top of my head.

And that's it. No confirmation. No update. No "stay tuned for my upcoming interview". Nothing for nearly two months.

What was really going on? I think Tucker realized or had it confirmed there that Assange was dead. What to do? Well, let's see: a journalist was disappeared seven years ago and no one in the world realizes it. The most memorable factoid from that time was that Pam Anderson brought him a sandwich. Tucker himself is also a journalist, isn't he? Hey, how about a sandwich?

Anyway, it's not real clear that this is just something you go public with. Aside from the obvious, basically no normies and only a handful of conspiracists would even entertain the idea, let alone weigh the evidence. Is there a clear moral or ethical act? I don't think so.

So Tucker just punts, and that gives us today's article:

"It's Disgusting What They're Doing": Tucker Carlson Describes Visit With Julian Assange (ZH 12/23/2023)

If you deconstruct it, it's a few thin lies and the rest is a recap of "The Julian Assange Story" you could write up off his Wikipedia page. No video, no audio, no pictures. It didn't take Tucker two months to put the package together, it's the work of an afternoon.

Remember when they interviewed Manson in prison, several times? Tucker didn't even bother faking a selfie because that would be too deceitful. But let's look at the thin veneer put on for believability. For example, how did the guy look?

"Assange looks like press photographs of him, maybe older, pale, he hasn't been outside in 13 years..."

Oh, he did? Well, we've been told over and over about his physical and emotional decline over the years, and two years ago we were told this:

‘Looks very awful and ill’: Journalist tells RT he ‘couldn’t recognize’ Assange during High Court hearing on his extradition to US (RT 8/11/2021)

So that was a body double or just another outright lie. But if we assume it was him, maybe he's been working out, getting fit, and eating well at Belmarsh, right?

"The inmates are treated like animals."

Okay, enough of that. Well, what did "Julian" have to say, then?

"We talked about why he is in prison...."

The real Julian Assange was a smart, worldly, sensitive, passionate and articulate journalist, and after all that's gone on in the world since he's been "in prison", this is all he has to talk about with one of the world's highest profile journalists? We don't even know if he supports Trump or not!

Which brings up what finally occurred to me as the most significant continuing evidence Julian Assange is dead: Is he being held incommunicado? Is that even legal in any country? Everyone talks about extradition but no one mentions this?Doesn't he make and receive phone calls or letters? Is there a single person known to be in communication with him?

I guess even these guys gave up three years ago, after this tweet:

“This is not normal. @amnesty is almost always granted access to monitor court cases around the world. For our legal observer to find out this morning that he has not been granted even REMOTE access to the #Assange proceedings is an outrage.

He got married--or so we are told--but how is it his wife has no messages to pass on? No interview with Tucker about his situation or his persecution? Of course not. She's just a prop with limited dialogue.

A final reflection: If you've read this far, I hope you see that the point is not anything about Julian Assange, who, after all, was just one man in a world where thousands are outrageously slaughtered by various methodologies every single day.

Rather, think about how far the rest of the world is from this kind of information. You've joined me on the high vantage at the top of Everest. A commanding view, but very lonely, is it not?

And the analogy totally breaks down if you choose to tell anyone what you've seen from the top of that mountain: "Mount What? Doesn't exist. As a matter of fact, it cannot exist. That's science, dumbfuck."

8/22: Russian Military Delegation Arrives in Libya at Haftar’s Invitation

8/27: Libyan National Army Launches Operation Against Chadian Rebels

9/11: Flooding creates a disaster zone in Libya from Storm Daniel

The destruction appeared greatest in Derna, a city formerly held by Islamic extremists in the chaos that has gripped Libya....

9/14: Flooding death toll soars to 11,300 in Libya’s coastal city of Derna, aid group says

... residents said they heard loud explosions when two dams outside the city collapsed.

9/14: Libyan authorities say floods may have killed 20,000 people

We all get that the NYT and WaPo should be called "The Daily Mockingbird" and the "CIA Newstetter", but it goes way beyond that. We think in terms of extreme bias and propaganda, but it turns out that sometimes they just make it up out of whole cloth. And outrageously and audaciously, they go beyond "unnamed sources" and "familiar with" and all the way to direct quotes from world leaders.

We'll analyze today's example:

Nuclear war is imminent – North Korea The US should abandon its “hostile” policy if it is truly interested in dialogue, Pyongyang believes (RT 8/15/2023)

The first thing to notice is that it's from RT, which we're supposed to believe is some sort of Russkie mouthpiece. Well if it is, they've got a mole or two and one of them planted this story But it reads in and of itself as entirely legitimate (if you believe the propaganda about the DPRK), so why do I think it's phony?

First, note that there are no links to the source material. Where did RT get this text? (That's a rhetorical question. Someone at Langley wrote it.)

The original statements are bigger issue than you might think. General Kang would certainly have been speaking in Korean. Government officials are very attentive to translations because that's where you can turn something like "honored friend" to "little faggot", and unless someone who understands the original hears or reads it and notices the mistranslation, it can very easily go undetected.

Okay, well maybe they were just lax at hyperlinking, so let's go looking for ourselves. Most official news from the DPRK is republished in English by KCNA Watch, with original sources like KCNA (Korean Central News Agency) and the Voice of Korea.

The most incendiary and shocking news we can find about the general is from over two weeks ago:

Minister of National Defence of DPRK Kang Sun Nam speaks at military parade (KCNA Watch 7/28/2023)

Note that KCNA includes a link to their source, the Voice of Korea English Language Service. Already doing better than our RT mole. Maybe we can find something concerning the specific event, the Moscow International Security Conference. Indeed we can!

U.S. Hegemonism – “Trigger ” for War KCNA Watch 8/31/2022)

At least it's got "war", right? Well, that's from last year's 10th conference, not this year's 11th, and the story is regarding statements made by Putin, such as:

The reality corroborates that the U.S. is indeed the wrecker of world peace and a chieftain of war which dares to do anything to realize its wild ambition for world hegemony. It also illustrates that the U.S. anachronistic ambition for hegemony would never escape from denunciation and rejection from all countries aspiring to the establishment of a fair international order.

Well, we've come quite a ways from "the Norks are going to nuke!", haven't we?