Sunday 24th of September 2023

when the truth is defined as harmful content....

Uncommon industry collaboration to improve digital safety

GARM is the Global Alliance for Responsible Media, a cross-industry initiative established by the World Federation of Advertisers to address the challenge of harmful content on digital media platforms and its monetization via advertising.

GARM was launched at Cannes( in the summer of 2019 and has been working hard to highlight the changes needed for advertisers to feel more confident about advertising on social media. As of November 2019, GARM is a flagship project of the World Economic Forum



GARM’s role is to act as the forum for the creation of solutions that will improve online safety for both consumers and advertisers. By creating a working forum where all parts of the online advertising system can meet, GARM’s ambition is to get the digital media ecosystem working together on the shared priorities that will lead to the removal of harmful content from advertiser-supported social media.

GARM works by addressing specific issues and challenges in working groups, formed by member organisations with an individual and organizational interest in the given focus area. Each working group develops an appropriate solution to its challenge, and these are then proposed to and voted on by the broader GARM community. Once accepted, they are taken up by the wider industry to help in the fight against harmful content.






“When honest people say

“When honest people say what’s true … they become powerful…. That’s the iron-law of the universe, the truth prevails.” Tucker Carlson




Can we stop pretending that Tucker Carlson was fired because of the Dominion lawsuit? That’s a bunch of baloney. Carlson was fired because he used his prime-time platform to expose the crimes and illicit goings-on of the most powerful men, corporations and agencies in the world. That’s why he was fired, because he revealed the truth about big pharma’s toxic injections, Fauci’s deranged lockdowns, Brandon’s police-state surveillance, the expansive deep-state censorship program, CRT, BLM, ESG, George Floyd, drag-queen children’s hour, the oddball cult of trangenderism, Ukraine’s crummy dictator-president Zelensky and all the other pernicious inanities that are being used like a wrecking-ball on the nation’s moral and historical foundation. Tucker exposed them all.

That’s why he was fired. It had nothing to do lawsuits or disgruntled employees whining about a “toxic work environment”. Nor did it have anything to do with ratings or money. This was a carefully-calculated, narrowly-supported targeted assassination of the man—who more than any other—had become a problem for the reprobate Mafia that runs the country and who is determined to silence or annihilate anyone who speaks out against them.

So don’t be duped by articles in the MSM. They are there to misdirect and confuse, not to inform. Have confidence in what you’ve seen with your own eyes and know to be true. Tucker Carlson was a victim of a system that no longer tolerates free speech, even-handed criticism or any divergence from the official narrative. Who doesn’t know this already?

How many readers remember the night that Tucker ran a segment on the JFK assassination? Here’s a short recap from an excellent article by Lew Rockwell:

In a remarkable television broadcast on December 15, 2022, Tucker Carlson made an explosive charge. He pointed out that, contrary to law, the White House was refusing to release thousands of pages of documents about the assassination of John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963. Carlson said that these documents proved CIA involvement in the assassination and that someone within the government who had looked at these documents made a direct statement to this effect.

…. We spoke to someone who had access to these still hidden CIA documents, a person who was deeply familiar with what they contained. We asked this person directly, ‘Did the CIA have a hand in the murder of John F. Kennedy, an American President?’ And here’s the reply we received verbatim. Quote, ‘The answer is yes. I believe they were involved. It’s a whole different country from what we thought it was. It’s all fake.’  “Why Tucker Carlson had to be Purged”, Lew Rockwell

So, after 60 years, someone finally had the courage to tell the truth on national television. That’s shocking.

But how many people who saw that segment reacted the same way that I did? How many people said to themselves, “They’re not going to allow this to continue, they’re not going to let Carlson expose their crimes to the world. No way. Whatever it takes, they’re going to shut this guy up.”

And that’s what they’ve done, they’ve shut him up.

There are things you can’t say in America, and that is one of them. You cannot say the CIA killed John Kennedy even though the majority of people know that it’s true. Because it doesn’t matter if it’s true. Just like it doesn’t matter that it took place 60 years ago. You still can’t say it, because the people who own the media—and who sit on the boards of all the other global corporations—don’t like it when you criticize the organization that does their dirty work. They won’t allow that.

This is the lesson of Julian Assange, which is: Do not reveal the crimes of elites and—if you do—you’re going to be crushed. Assange violated that rule and now faces a lifetime in solitary confinement. They’ve not only ruined his life, they’ve also trotted him out in front of the world media to make an example of him. And the message they’re trying to send is this: “Mess with us and we will fu** you over.” That is the message.

Now it’s on to Tucker who is even more widely reviled for his nightly attacks on the same group of powerbrokers. What do you think they have in store for him?

It’s hard to say, but they’re not going to pull their punches, that much is certain.

It’s worth noting that, by some accounts, Carlson was not explicitly fired. Did you know that?

According to former Fox host Megyn Kelly, Carlson is not free to negotiate with other potential employers because he’s still technically under contract with Fox. Check out this blurb from Red State website:

There’s a report from 19FortyFive from John Rossamondo that Tucker Carlson texted them, “I’m still employed by Fox,” that he had not been fired. Now, we’re not seeing anyone else reporting on that, so we relate that report with that proviso. That report does, however, fit with what Kelly said. 19FortyFive also said Carlson did not explain the reasoning for the parting of ways, just as Kelly said.

If this is all true, then, as Kelly says, Fox needs to let Carlson out of the contract as soon as possible, so his voice is freed to get about doing his job. But for the moment, it’s concerning, if it means he’s stopped from pursuing other opportunities and is effectively silenced.” (“Megyn Kelly Drops Important Info About Tucker Departure, Blog Reports Text From Tucker”, Red State)

What Kelly seems to ignore is that “silencing” Carlson was the primary objective from the get-go. The fact that he is still under contract simply makes it easier for his enemies to control and censor him. Many readers have noticed that Carlson has not posted another video on his Twitter account since last week’s 2-minute blockbuster that raked in over 70 million views. That probably means that he’s been advised by his attorney that anything he produces will be construed as a violation of his contract with Fox. In other words, keeping Tucker on the payroll may be the most effective way to shut him up which is precisely what they want.

On an entirely different topic: There seems to be widespread agreement that Rupert Murdoch was directly involved in Carlson’s removal. But—in my opinion—that seems very unlikely. Murdoch probably knew that the fallout from Carlson’s termination would be devastating for both ratings and the Fox brand. That’s why he (probably) avoided the decision for as long as possible. But try to imagine the enormous pressure he must have been under from his fellow oligarchs as well as the numerous deep-state agencies that have coalesced into—what Matt Taibbi calls—the “Censorship-Industrial Complex”. The billionaire globalists and their government assets despise Carlson and see his rational, laser-sharp analysis as a grave threat to their broader societal project. That is why they descended on Murdoch like a barrage of heat-seeking missiles forcing the dithering mogul to eventually throw in the towel. Once again—this is just my opinion—but I think it is much more likely that Murdoch “caved in” rather than threw his threw his prime-time superstar under the bus.

There’s also another development that preceded the Tucker incident that might have had some bearing on the final outcome, that is, the giant private equity corporation Blackrock bought a sizable chunk of Fox just two months before Carlson was given his pink-slip. Here’s the scoop from an article at Nasdaq:

Fintel reports that BlackRock has filed a 13G/A form with the SEC disclosing ownership of 45.74MM shares of Fox Corporation, Class A (FOXA). This represents 15.1% of the company.

In their previous filing dated January 27, 2022 they reported 39.87MM shares and 12.40% of the company, an increase in shares of 14.75% and an increase in total ownership of 2.70% (calculated as current – previous percent ownership).  BlackRock Increases Position in Fox Corporation, Nasdaq

Let me see if I got this straight: ‘Liberal-leaning’ PE goliath Blackrock buys a 15% share of uber-conservative Fox News in early February, and 3 months later the network’s brightest star is given his “walking papers”. Doesn’t that sound a bit suspicious?

Indeed, it does. Check out this short clip from an article by analyst Tom Loungo who helps to clarify what’s going on:

This is symptomatic of Blackrock’s use of proxy to get what they want. Larry Fink, BLK CEO, is notorious for his antics in forcing heads of state and CEO’s to do his bidding while hiding behind the smokescreen of ‘I’m just a guy investing your hard-earned capital on your behalf for the good of humanity.’

Now, this is some prime Grade AA Bullshit.

Blackrock is Davos’ main arm-twisting subsidiary in the C-Suites of the S&P 500 as well as the Euro STOXXX 50 (link will need translation from German). He may as well change his first name to Don but there are some ethnic issues with this outside of Queens.” “Tucker, Blackrock and the SIFI Two-Step”, Lew Rockwell)

I think Luongo is on to something here. Blackrock’s stake in Fox might have nothing to do Fox’s prospects for future profits. Instead, it might be a straightforward power-play aimed at eliminating America’s most persuasive critic of big pharma, corporate malfeasance and the tyrannical globalist agenda. At the very least, the proximity of Blackrock’s purchase should prompt a thorough investigation of the possible link between the giant Wall Street monoliths and outspoken critics of the system. But while an independent probe is certainly warranted, I’m not holding my breath.








the left has lost its left leg......


By Susan Schmidt, Andrew Lowenthal, Tom Wyatt, Techno Fog, Matt Orfalea, Matt Taibbi and The Hunt for Tom Clancy / Racket News


Introduction by Matt Taibbi


On January 17, 1961, outgoing President and former Supreme Allied Commander Dwight D. Eisenhower gave one of the most consequential speeches in American history. Eisenhower for eight years had been a popular president, whose appeal drew upon a reputation as a person of great personal fortitude, who’d guided the United States to victory in an existential fight for survival in World War II. Nonetheless, as he prepared to vacate the Oval Office for handsome young John F. Kennedy, he warned the country it was now at the mercy of a power even he could not overcome. 

Until World War II, America had no permanent arms manufacturing industry. Now it did, and this new sector, Eisenhower said, was building up around itself a cultural, financial, and political support system accruing enormous power. This “conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience,” he said, adding:

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. 

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes… Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together. 

This was the direst of warnings, but the address has tended in the popular press to be ignored. After sixty-plus years, most of America – including most of the American left, which traditionally focused the most on this issue – has lost its fear that our arms industry might conquer democracy from within. 


Now, however, we’ve unfortunately found cause to reconsider Eisenhower’s warning.

While the civilian population only in recent years began haggling over “de-platforming” incidents involving figures like Alex Jones and Milo Yiannopoulos, government agencies had already long been advancing a new theory of international conflict, in which the informational landscape is more importantly understood as a battlefield than a forum for exchanging ideas. In this view, “spammy” ads, “junk” news, and the sharing of work from “disinformation agents” like Jones aren’t inevitable features of a free Internet, but sorties in a new form of conflict called “hybrid warfare.” 

In 1996, just as the Internet was becoming part of daily life in America, the U.S. Army published “Field Manual 100-6,” which spoke of “an expanding information domain termed the Global Information Environment” that contains “information processes and systems that are beyond the direct influence of the military.” Military commanders needed to understand that “information dominance” in the “GIE” would henceforth be a crucial element for “operating effectively.”

You’ll often see it implied that “information operations” are only practiced by America’s enemies, because only America’s enemies are low enough, and deprived enough of real firepower, to require the use of such tactics, needing as they do to “overcome military limitations.” We rarely hear about America’s own lengthy history with “active measures” and “information operations,” but popular media gives us space to read about the desperate tactics of the Asiatic enemy, perennially described as something like an incurable trans-continental golf cheat.

Indeed, part of the new mania surrounding “hybrid warfare” is the idea that while the American human being is accustomed to living in clear states of “war” or “peace,” the Russian, Chinese, or Iranian citizen is born into a state of constant conflict, where war is always ongoing, whether declared or not. In the face of such adversaries, America’s “open” information landscape is little more than military weakness.

In March of 2017, in a hearing of the House Armed Services Committee on hybrid war, chairman Mac Thornberry opened the session with ominous remarks, suggesting that in the wider context of history, an America built on constitutional principles of decentralized power might have been badly designed:

Americans are used to thinking of a binary state of either war or peace. That is the way our organizations, doctrine, and approaches are geared. Other countries, including Russia, China, and Iran, use a wider array of centrally controlled, or at least centrally directed, instruments of national power and influence to achieve their objectives…

Whether it is contributing to foreign political parties, targeted assassinations of opponents, infiltrating non-uniformed personnel such as the little green men, traditional media and social media, influence operations, or cyber-connected activity, all of these tactics and more are used to advance their national interests and most often to damage American national interests… 

The historical records suggest that hybrid warfare in one form or another may well be the norm for human conflict, rather than the exception.

Around that same time, i.e. shortly after the election of Donald Trump, it was becoming gospel among the future leaders of the “Censorship-Industrial Complex” that interference by “malign foreign threat actors” and the vicissitudes of Western domestic politics must be linked. Everything, from John Podesta’s emails to Trump’s Rust Belt primary victories to Brexit, were to be understood first and foremost as hybrid war events.

This is why the Trump-Russia scandal in the United States will likely be remembered as a crucial moment in 21st-century history, even though the investigation superficially ended a non-story, fake news in itself. What the Mueller investigation didn’t accomplish in ousting Trump from office, it did accomplish in birthing a vast new public-private bureaucracy devoted to stopping “mis-, dis-, and malinformation,” while smoothing public acquiescence to the emergence of a spate of new government agencies with “information warfare” missions. 

The “Censorship-Industrial Complex” is just the Military-Industrial Complex reborn for the “hybrid warfare” age.

Much like the war industry, pleased to call itself the “defense” sector, the “anti-disinformation” complex markets itself as merely defensive, designed to fend off the hostile attacks of foreign cyber-adversaries who unlike us have “military limitations.” The CIC, however, is neither wholly about defense, nor even mostly focused on foreign “disinformation.” It’s become instead a relentless, unified messaging system aimed primarily at domestic populations, who are told that political discord at home aids the enemy’s undeclared hybrid assault on democracy

They suggest we must rethink old conceptions about rights, and give ourselves over to new surveillance techniques like “toxicity monitoring,” replace the musty old free press with editors claiming a “nose for news” with an updated model that uses automated assignment tools like “newsworthy claim extraction,” and submit to frank thought-policing mechanisms like the “redirect method,” which sends ads at online browsers of dangerous content, pushing them toward “constructive alternative messages.”

Binding all this is a commitment to a new homogeneous politics, which the complex of public and private agencies listed below seeks to capture in something like a Unified Field Theory of neoliberal narrative, which can be perpetually tweaked and amplified online via algorithm and machine learning. This is what some of the organizations on this list mean when they talk about coming up with a “shared vocabulary” of information disorder, or “credibility,” or “media literacy.”

Anti-disinformation groups talk endlessly about building “resilience” to disinformation (which in practice means making sure the public hears approved narratives so often that anything else seems frightening or repellent), and audiences are trained to question not only the need for checks and balances, but competition. Competition is increasingly frowned upon not just in the “marketplace of ideas” (an idea itself more and more often described as outdated), but in the traditional capitalist sense. In the Twitter Files we repeatedly find documents like this unsigned “Sphere of Influence” review circulated by the Carnegie Endowment that wonders aloud if tech companies really need to be competing to “get it right”.....










BY Pepe Escobar


'With G7 “leadership” mired in a sticky swamp of intellectual shallowness, predictably the only agenda in colonized Japan was more sanctions on Russia.

Let’s start with a graphic depiction of where the Global North and the Global South really stand.

1. Xian, former imperial capital, and key hub of the Ancient Silk Roads: Xi Jinping hosts the China-Central Asia summit, attended by all Heartland “stans” (Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgzystan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan).

The final statement stresses economic cooperation and “a resolute stand” against Hegemon-concocted color revolutions. That expands what the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) and the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) are already implementing. In practice, the summit seals that the Russia-China strategic partnership will be protecting the Heartland.

2. Kazan: the Russia-Islamic World forum unites not only religious leaders but top businessmen of no less than 85 nations. Multipolar Russia proceeded in parallel to the Arab League Summit in Jeddah, which welcomed back Syria to the “Arab family”. Arab nations unanimously pledged to end “foreign interference” for good.

3. Hiroshima: the ever-shrinking G7, actually G9 (adding two unelected EU bureaucrats), imposes a single agenda of more sanctions on Russia; more weapons to black void Ukraine; and more lecturing of China.

4. Lisbon: the annual Bilderberg meeting – a NATO/Atlanticist fest – takes place in a not so secret hotel completely locked down. Top item in the agenda; war – hybrid and otherwise – on the “RICs” in BRICS (Russia, India, China).

I could have been in Xian, or most likely Kazan. Instead, honoring a previous commitment, I was in Ibiza, and then scraped the idea of flying to Lisbon as a waste of time. Allow me to share with you the reason why: call it a little tale from the Baleares, breaking the trademark pledge that what happens in swinging, sweaty deep house Ibiza stays in Ibiza.

I was a guest at a top business gathering – mostly Spanish but also featuring Portuguese, Germans, Brits and Scandinavians: ultra high-level executives – in real estate, asset management, investment banking. Our panel was titled “Global Geopolitical Shifts and Their Consequences”. Before the panel, participants were invited to vote on what worried them most when it comes to the future of their business. Number one was inflation and interest rates. Number two was geopolitics. That prefigured a very lively debate ahead.

When a EU hagiographer goes berserk

Little did I – and the audience – know that would turn into a wild ride. The first presentation came from the director of a “Center for European Politics” in Copenhagen. She bills herself as a political science professor, and is an adviser to EU Chief Gardener Borrell.

Well, I adopted a Cheshire cat stance after the tsunami of clichés spewed out about “European values” and evil Russkies, as well as her being “frightened” by the future of Europe. At least immediate relief was provided by the impeccably diplomatic Lanxin Xiang, an adorable character, always with a cheerful smile on his face, and one of the very few leading experts on China who actually knows what he’s talking about, in fluent English.

Lanxin Xiang, among other accomplishments, is Emeritus Professor of the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies in Geneva; director of the Institute of Security Policy at the China National Institute for SCO International Exchange; and executive director of the Washington Foundation for European Studies. This is a column I wrote about him and his work, published in October 2020.

Professor Xiang offered a masterly exposition on the American obsession to fabricate a “Taiwan problem” and how Europe, already squeezed by the U.S. proxy war against Russia, must be very careful when it comes to lecturing China.

When it was my turn, I went for the kill, dismissing all those EU press release platitudes as absolute nonsense, and stressing how Europe is already being eaten alive by the proverbial “American interests”. As briefly as possible I explained the whole geopolitical background of the war in Ukraine.

Well, this was all delivered to top business people who consume The Economist, Financial Times and Bloomberg as their prime sources of information. Their reaction would speak volumes.

Predictably, the EU-paid bureaucrat completely freaked out, and shrieking with outrage, went full pre-ordained script, from threatening to abandon the stage to accusing me of being “paid by the Kremlin”. I asked her, point blank, to “contradict me, with facts”. No facts were provided. Just fear and bewilderment, mixed with intimations of cancel culture.

To his great merit the vastly experienced moderator, Struan Robertson from Bank of America Merrill Lynch, kept things civil, giving more time for Lanxin Xiang to explain the Chinese mindset and opening the floor for a sequence of very good questions.

In the end, the audience loved it. Many came to personally thank me for information they will never have access to in El Pais, Le Monde or The Economist. A minority in the room was simply stunned – but our debate at least must have left them musing over a lot of preconceived notions.

It’s the total merit of the key organizers, Jose Maria Pons and head of the program Cristina Garcia-Peri, to host such a debate in fabulous Ibiza, in Spain, prime NATOstan territory. In the current situation, this would be absolutely impossible in France or Germany, not to mention Scandinavia or those demented Baltics.

There’s no way to counter-act the fabricated narratives parroted by EU-paid hacks and bureaucrats except for ridiculing them – in their faces. They become livid and barely manage to stutter when their lies are exposed. For instance, one of the questions from the floor, by a top of the line German businessman, enumerated a litany of dark facts about Ukrainian “democracy” that are absolutely verbotten by EUrocracy.

The G-Less Than Zero freaks out

What happened in Ibiza dovetails with what happened in U.S.-nuclear bombed Hiroshima – Hegemons don’t do apologies – and in that locked down Lisbon hotel.

With the G7 “leadership” mired in a sticky swamp of intellectual shallowness, predictably the only agenda in colonized Japan was more sanctions on Russia – imposed over third countries and on companies in the energy and military-industrial sectors; more weapons to the Ukrainian black void; and a ridiculous counter-productive new obsession of piling up on China “containment” for alleged “economic coercion.”

In the photo ops, by the way, it’s not a shrinking G7 that shows up: but a warmongering G9, artificially augmented by that pathetic couple of unelected EUrocrats, Charles Michel and Pustula von der Lugen.

As far as the real Global Majority – or Global South – is concerned, this looks more like a G-Less Than Zero. The more the senseless, illegal Sanctions Wars are “expanded”, the more the absolute majority of the Global South moves away from the collective West, diplomatically, geopolitically and geoeconomically.

And that’s why the top Bilderberg agenda at the hijacked Lisbon hotel was to revamp NATO/Atlanticist coordination in a war – hybrid and otherwise – against the driving force in BRICS; the RICs (Russia, India, China).

There were other items on the menu – from AI to the acute banking crisis, from “energy transition” to “fiscal challenges”, not to mention proverbial “U.S. leadership”.

But when you get in the same room people like NATO’s Stoltenberg; director of U.S. intel Avril Haines; senior director for Strategic Planning at the National Security Council Thomas Wright; Goldman Sachs president John Waldron; Chief Gardener Borrell (whose minion was in Ibiza); vice chair of Brookfield Asset Management, Mark Carney (one of their executives also in Ibiza); Supreme Allied Commander Europe, Christopher Cavoli; and Canadian Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland, among other Atlanticist shills, the plot is self-evident:

It’s war on the multipolar world. At least we can dance it away in Ibiza.