Connect with us

Alternative News

What We Can Learn From NBC’s Megyn Kelly’s ‘Hit Piece’ On Alex Jones

Published

on

Over the past week, NBC’s Megyn Kelly has taken a lot of heat over her controversial interview with Alex Jones. You may be familiar with Alex Jones’ work at Info Wars, as he’s gained an extensive following after years of work in alternative news and “conspiracy theories.” To be clear, I genuinely believe that Alex Jones has helped the movement at times, and I recognize the role he played in my own life and my personal “waking up” process. However, he is also notorious for reacting and communicating in extreme ways, jumping to conclusions that are often false and potentially bringing a lack of credibility to alternative media at times.

advertisement - learn more

Though his intensity is clearly indicative of the passion he has for his work, which is very inspiring at times, this type of reaction did not necessarily serve him in his interview with Megyn Kelly (though I’m not sure if you could even call it an interview, as it was clearly a hit piece against Jones as well as a form of political propaganda). We get into more details about this specifically in our latest docu-series episode at the end of this article.

If you haven’t watched the interview, you can check it out here:

When I first watched the interview, I remember thinking, this cannot be the full story. This was another clear example of mainstream media (MSM) not providing the full picture, and simply publishing a “political fluff” piece rather than real, honest news. To be frank, I wasn’t sure if it was even deserving of an article at first, because it lacked substance and was clearly over-edited.

It seemed like Jones’ responses to Megyn in the interview weren’t actually his responses, but rather misplaced sentences meant to paint Jones in an unflattering light and simply put words in his mouth. However, did Alex really expect MSM to accurately portray who he is? Most of what MSM spews is altered, falsified, or dramatized, so it’s unsurprising that his interview was no different from the regular narrative we see on MSM news networks.

advertisement - learn more

So, What Lessons Can We Take From Jones’ Interview?

In my opinion, one of the things we can learn from this interview is the importance of neutrality. In this particular interview, you have two very different people who represent very different things reflecting a similar state of consciousness. Both parties use extreme emotions and statements, both promote fear and anger, and neither of them are truly independent or neutral.

Megyn Kelly, who clearly had her own agenda, is not doing her journalistic duty by putting out a piece like this. Instead of choosing more relevant stories, she only focused on the Sandy Hook shootings. Not that this particular event doesn’t deserve media attention, but this occurred in 2012, and ultimately Jones has a lot more information out there that deserves to be discussed.

Why weren’t topics like the elite, occult rituals, Hillary Clinton’s corruption, or Jones’ work at the Bohemian Grove brought up? These are all stories that are far more shocking and controversial than a shooting that occurred five years ago, and that’s only four of many topics that Jones reports on that deserve to be discussed in the mainstream

Instead, Kelly only focused on one story, and involved one parent’s tragic loss. In addition, for viewers that weren’t well versed on Sandy Hook and the controversy surrounding it, they probably had no idea what was going on because she didn’t provide enough background information on the subject. Instead, she created an “I’m right, you’re wrong” dialogue with Jones, which serves absolutely no one. The entire interview lacked substance and evidence, with both offering mere conjecture and attacks on one another’s character.

Kelly also focused significantly on Jones’ ties to President Donald Trump, making it seem like this was a political propaganda piece. Kelly painted Jones in a negative light, just like MSM paints Trump in a negative light. Instead of allowing Jones to explain these relations, she only allowed him to get a few words in. Plus, by painting an inaccurate picture of Jones and then tying him to Trump, she has now associated Trump with “fake news,” which is ironic given that NBC is the real pusher of “fake news” here.

On the other hand, you have Alex Jones, who responded to the piece by referring to Megyn Kelly as a modern day “Medusa.” Don’t get me wrong, Jones clearly has reason to believe that Kelly had bad intentions, since she lied to him about the context of the interview, which he was able to prove by recording their phone calls.

However, his response was full of anger, which does not help his credibility or public image. Not only that, but he’s doing to Megyn exactly what she did to him. Both forms of media are coming from the same level of consciousness.

One of the most important aspects of journalism, and communication in general, is responding instead of reacting. Kevin Trudeau put it beautifully when he compared the difference between responding and reacting in regards to modern medicine: When we respond to medication, our bodies are working with it, but when we react to something, this means we’re experiencing some sort of negative effects.

The same can be said in any other scenario. When we respond to something or someone, we are taking a neutral stance and acting as the observer, whereas when we react, we are most often responding emotionally and with a particular viewpoint. It’s crucial when it comes to independent reporting and even everyday life that we respond instead of react.

When we’re mad, we often lose track of our thoughts, overcrowd our minds, and say things we don’t mean. Our passions can be mistaken for biases, and we can lose credibility for it. I’m not suggesting that you don’t develop passions or express them, but rather that you simply try your best to remain neutral and not let your passions turn into anger! At the end of the day, this will only upset you. 

Final Thoughts

Either way, this interview represents an opportunity for both Megyn Kelly and Alex Jones to grow and learn from their actions. Kelly has had an extensive career in MSM, and perhaps the negative backlash she’s receiving from this interview will act as a catalyst for her own change and encourage her to focus more on seeking the truth than raising her ratings and succumbing to the elite’s agenda.

This interview also shows us that the rise of conscious media is incredibly important. The ways of the past where we bash one side or the other with extreme emotion or drama does not serve to bring out the truth and only puts more of this drama into the public. Whereas if we can look at information from a neutral place, without emotion or bias to persuade viewers, we can transcend a form of media that is not serving us to advance consciously.

As for Alex Jones, perhaps this interview will show him that he could benefit from remaining more neutral and not letting his anger get the best of him. After all, he probably wouldn’t have attracted this type of interview into his life if he didn’t need to learn something from it. Though this extreme reactions have clearly served him in the past, and many others, as he has inspired so many of us to “wake up,” alternative media is currently under attack with all of these allegations of “fake news,” and expressing anger probably won’t help progress the movement any further.

We already see so much fear and anger expressed in MSM, as they manufacture so many stories about false villains; let’s keep this type of mindset out of independent journalism!

Get Your FREE In Depth Numerology Reading

Your life path number can tell you A LOT about you.

With the ancient science of Numerology you can find out accurate and revealing information just from your name and birth date.

Get your free numerology reading and learn more about how you can use numerology in your life to find out more about your path and journey. Get Your free reading.

Advertisement
advertisement - learn more

Alternative News

Second FBI Informant Tried To Entrap Trump Campaign With $2 Million Offer For Hillary Dirt: Roger Stone

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Trump aide alleges that an FBI informant tried to spy on and infiltrate the campaign, and entrap them in a deal to exchange cash for Hillary intel.

  • Reflect On:

    If Trump was not an outsider, why was the Deep State so interested in spying and trying to infiltrate his campaign? What do we make of our election process when this is the type of behaviour taking place? Time to evolve?

We had been reporting a great deal during the 2016 campaign that if Hillary made her way into office it would have been the Deep State plan going to perfect tune once again. We talked about a great deal of corruption associated with her as a person, her foundation and her administration.

When Trump ended up in office we talked about this as a divide or fork in the Deep State that Trump was essentially disrupting the longtime running plan that had been going on for decades, as well as playing a key role in pushing for deeper reflections for humanity. This is why we see, for example, a full-on mainstream media barrage against Trump. The cabal is using their voices to attack and confuse the public about the ‘outsider’ that got his way in.

Now, as time goes on, more is being revealed about the shady nature of the 2016 election, as with any, and more is coming forward about not only the previous administration but Hillary’s campaign. We all know what they did to push Bernie Sanders out, the same was being done to Trump.

More Scandals

(Zerohedge) Now, Trump campaign aides Roger Stone and Michael Caputo say that a meeting Stone took in late May, 2016 with a Russian appears to have been an “FBI sting operation” in hindsight, following bombshell reports in May that the DOJ/FBI used a longtime FBI/CIA asset, Cambridge professor Stefan Halper, to perform espionage on the Trump campaign.

“When Stone arrived at the restaurant in Sunny Isles, he said, Greenberg was wearing a Make America Great Again T-shirt and hat. On his phone, Greenberg pulled up a photo of himself with Trump at a rally, Stone said. –WaPo”

The meeting went nowhere – ending after Stone told Greenberg “You don’t understand Donald Trump… He doesn’t pay for anything.” The Post independently confirmed this account with Greenberg.

advertisement - learn more

After the meeting, Stone received a text message from Caputo – a Trump campaign communications official who arranged the meeting after Greenberg approached Caputo’s Russian-immigrant business partner.

“How crazy is the Russian?” Caputo wrote according to a text message reviewed by The Post. Noting that Greenberg wanted “big” money, Stone replied: “waste of time.” -WaPo

Stone and Caputo now think the meeting was an FBI attempt to entrap the Trump administration – showing the Post evidence that Greenberg, who sometimes used the name Henry Oknyansky, “had provided information to the FBI for 17 years,” based on a 2015 court filing related to his immigration status.

He attached records showing that the government had granted him special permission to enter the United States because his presence represented a “significant public benefit.”

Between 2008 and 2012, the records show, he repeatedly was extended permission to enter the United States under a so-called “significant public benefit parole.” The documents list an FBI agent as a contact person. The agent declined to comment.

Greenberg did not respond to questions about his use of multiple names but said in a text that he had worked for the “federal government” for 17 years.

“I risked my life and put myself in danger to do so, as you can imagine,” he said. -WaPo

“Wherever I was, from Iran to North Korea, I always send information to” the FBI, Greenberg told The Post. “I cooperated with the FBI for 17 years, often put my life in danger. Based on my information, there are so many arrests criminal from drugs and human trafficking, money laundering and insurance frauds.”

Stone and Caputo say it was a “sting operation” by the FBI:

“I didn’t realize it was an FBI sting operation at the time, but it sure looks like one now,” said Stone.

“If you believe that [Greenberg] took time off from his long career as an FBI informant to reach out to us in his spare time, I have a bridge in Brooklyn that I want to sell you,” Caputo said in an interview.

Greenberg told WaPo he stopped working with the FBI “sometime after 2013.”

In terms of the timeline, here’s where the Greenberg meeting fits in:

April 26, 2016 – Maltese professor Joseph Mifsud allegedly tells Trump campaign aide George Paoadopoulos that the Russians had dirt on Hillary Clinton

Papadopoulos’ statement of offense also detailed his April 26, 2016, meeting with Mifsud at a London hotel. Over breakfast Mifsud told Papadopoulos “he had just returned from a trip to Moscow where he had met with high-level Russian governmental officials.” Mifsud explained, “that on that trip he (the Professor) learned that the Russians had obtained ‘dirt’ on then-candidate Clinton.” Mifsud told Papadopoulos “the Russians had emails of Clinton.” -The Federalist

May 10, 2016 – Papadopoulos tells former Australian Diplomat Alexander Downer during an alleged “drunken barroom admission” that the Russians had information which “could be damaging” to Hillary Clinton.

Late May, 2016 – Stone is approached by Greenberg with the $2 million offer for dirt on Clinton

Related CE Podcast: Trump, Alt News, & Disclosure W/ Jordan Sather

July 2016 – FBI informant (spy) Stefan Halper meets with Trump campaign aide Carter Page for the first time, which would be one of many encounters.

July 31, 2016 – the FBI officially launches operation Crossfire Hurricane, the code name given to the counterintelligence operation against the Trump campaign.

September 2016 – Halper invites Papadopoulos to London, paying him $3,000 to work on an energy policy paper while wining and dining him at a 200-year-old private London club on September 15.

Foggy memory

Stone and Caputo say they didn’t mention the meeting during Congressional testimony because they forgot, chalking it up to unimportant “due diligence.” Apparently, random offers for political dirt in exchange for millions are so common in D.C. that one tends to forget.

Stone and Caputo said in separate interviews that they also did not disclose the Greenberg meeting during testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence because they had forgotten about an incident that Stone calls unimportant “due diligence” that would have been “political malpractice” not to explore. -WaPo

While Greenberg and Stone’s account of the meeting mostly checked out (after Greenberg initially denied Stone’s account), Greenberg said that a Ukrainian friend named “Alexi” who was fired by the Clinton Foundation attended as well, and was the one asking for the money – while Stone said Greenberg came alone to the meeting.

“We really want to help Trump,” Stone recalled Greenberg saying during the brief encounter.

Greenberg says he sat at a nearby table while Alexei conducted the meeting. “Alexei talks to Mr. Stone, not me,” he wrote.

The Clinton Founation has denied ever employing anyone with the first name of Alexi.

Caputo’s attorney on Friday sent a letter amending his House testimony, and he plans to present Caputo’s account of the Greenberg incident to the Office of Inspector General for the Department of Justice, which has announced it is examining the FBI’s use of informants during the Russia probe. Stone said his attorney has done the same. -WaPo

Second FBI informant

Caputo hinted at the interaction in late May when he said that there were multiple government informants who approached the Trump campaign:

“Let me tell you something that I know for a fact,” Caputo said during a May 21 interview on Fox News. “This informant, this person [who] they tried to plant into the campaign … he’s not the only person who came into the campaign. And the FBI is not the only Obama agency who came into the campaign.”

“I know because they came at me,” Caputo added. “And I’m looking for clearance from my attorney to reveal this to the public. This is just the beginning.”

Stone told the Post that he may be indicted by Special Counsel Robert Mueller and charged “with a crime unrelated to the election in order to silence him,” and that he anticipates the meeting with Greenberg may be used to try and pressure him to testify against President Trump (leaving no stone unturned), which he told the Post he would never do.

Get Your FREE In Depth Numerology Reading

Your life path number can tell you A LOT about you.

With the ancient science of Numerology you can find out accurate and revealing information just from your name and birth date.

Get your free numerology reading and learn more about how you can use numerology in your life to find out more about your path and journey. Get Your free reading.

Continue Reading

Alternative News

Chilling “Before And After” Photos Of Libya Go Viral

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    A man takes pictures of Libya before and after post Hillary Clinton-NATO “liberation” of Libya. The reality is chilling.

  • Reflect On:

    What was the real reason Gadaffi was removed from power? Why was Hillary Clinton so proud of killing this man only to leave the country in devastation? Are we doing the right thing by supporting these politicians?

In the year 2000, a Libyan man took several photos of himself situated at various spots across the city of Benghazi, Libya. 18 years later, he recently revisited the exact same locations to take photos of the spectacular, beautiful human trafficking laden, NATO liberated mess of modern day Libya under the rule of the United Nation’s backed regime.

When we think about how western nations have gone into countries and destructed what they had, took over and ‘rebuilt’ as it’s often called, we have this image of something being done that is ‘right.’ What we don’t consider is all of the innocent people who are killed, the REAL reasons why western countries are looking to take over others, why they create, fund and aggressively push the idea of terrorism and so forth.

“Utter devastation” is how Libya is described today, after a coalition of over 19 countries and NATO took out the regime, in an incredible show of force that seems to resemble what they want to do to Syria or Iran today if you observe the pattern.

The man’s before and after photos have gone viral, with 50,000 retweets at least after being posted to an account that tends to feature other historical images of Libya while it was under the rule of the enemy of both Al Qaeda and the West, Gaddafi, between 1969 and 2011.

advertisement - learn more

 

 

Via Zerohedge…

It appears people do still care about Libya even if the political elites in Paris, London, and Washington who destroyed the country have moved on. Though we should recall that British foreign secretary Boris Johnson was caught on tape in a private meeting last year saying Libya was ripe for UK investment, but only after Libyans “clear the dead bodies away.”

We previously detailed in Libya’s Slave Auctions And African Genocide: What Hillary Knew how Libya went from being a stable, modernizing secular state to a hellhole of roving jihadist militias, warring rival governments, and open-air slave auctions of captured migrants.

Yet what the viral photos confirm is that Libya was once a place of sprawling hotels, wide and clean city streets, functioning infrastructure, and lively neighborhoods. But these very places are now bullet-ridden ruins rotting amidst the political backdrop of the ‘Mad Max’ style chaos unleashed immediately after US-NATO’s bombing the country into regime change.

Hillary still says that she has no regrets even after Obama timidly voiced a half-hearted and too-little-too-late Libya mea culpa of sorts in 2016.

Though Hillary’s beloved Libyan Al Qaeda …”rebels” — legitimized and empowered through broad support from the West — are now among the very militias hosting slave auctions and fueling the European refugee crisis, she’s never so much as hinted that regime change in Libya left the country and much of the region in shambles. Instead, she simply chose to conclude her role in the tragic story of Libya with her crazed and gleeful declaration of “we came, we saw, he died.”

Regime change enthusiasts everywhere please take note of what your blind jingoism has wrought.

A year before the NATO bombing of Libya the UN Development Programme (UNDP) assigned a Human Development Index (HDI) ranking of 53 to Libya (out of 169 countries ranked, Libya ranked highest on the African continent).

Right up until the eve of NATO’s air campaign against the Libyan state, international media outlets understood and acknowledged the country’s high human development rankings, though it later became inconvenient to present the empirical data. A February 2011 BBC report is a case in point.

The 2011 war and aftermath created a failed state with a once economically independent population now turned largely dependent on foreign aid and relief.

Currently considered to be at “emergency levels” of need, prior to NATO intervention Libya was not even on the World Food Program’s radar, yet is now considered a dire humanitarian disaster zone.

Get Your FREE In Depth Numerology Reading

Your life path number can tell you A LOT about you.

With the ancient science of Numerology you can find out accurate and revealing information just from your name and birth date.

Get your free numerology reading and learn more about how you can use numerology in your life to find out more about your path and journey. Get Your free reading.

Continue Reading

Alternative News

Should Government Be ‘Protecting’ Gender Identity/Expression?

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Ontario's Bill 89 expanded the province's child welfare laws to include protection of a child's "gender identity and gender expression."

  • Reflect On:

    Is the ability of individuals in a society to respect and manage differences amongst one another something that is best fostered by mandated government oversight?

With any new legislation that increases the power of government over people–and what new legislation can you think of in recent history that does otherwise?—there is reason for concern and vigilance.

For example, a year ago the Ontario government passed Bill 89 into law. It was called the ‘Supporting Children, Youth and Families Act’ and was an update to the province’s child welfare laws, including child protective services, foster care, and adoption.

New ‘Protections’ For Gender Identity And Gender Expression

Of note was an update to the criteria for analyzing the wellbeing of a child to match the human rights code. These include “a child’s or young person’s race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, family diversity, disability, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression.”

Yes, that’s right. The ‘protection’ of a child’s gender identity and gender expression is now in the hands of our ‘benevolent expert’ on everything under the sun—our government.

Foreboding Statement

The man who introduced the bill last year was Michael Coteau, Minister of Child and Family Services. His statements about the new protections for gender identity and expression certainly seems to challenge parents’ autonomy in making choices on behalf of their children:

“I would consider that a form of abuse, when a child identifies one way and a caregiver is saying no, you need to do this differently. If it’s abuse, and if it’s within the definition, a child can be removed from that environment and placed into protection where the abuse stops.”—MP Michael Coteau

advertisement - learn more

Bill 89 retains the provision in current law that a child who is suffering or “at risk of suffering” mental or emotional harm and whose parents do not provide “treatment or access to treatment” is in need of protection under the law.

Disturbing Hypotheticals

This information can lead to the contemplation of some disturbing possibilities. Let us say that your doctor, or teacher, believes that your 10-year old child is experiencing what the American Psychiatric Association has coined ‘Gender Dysphoria’, which they define as follows:

Gender dysphoria involves a conflict between a person’s physical or assigned gender and the gender with which he/she/they identify. People with gender dysphoria may be very uncomfortable with the gender they were assigned, sometimes described as being uncomfortable with their body (particularly developments during puberty) or being uncomfortable with the expected roles of their assigned gender.

People with gender dysphoria may often experience significant distress and/or problems functioning associated with this conflict between the way they feel and think of themselves (referred to as experienced or expressed gender) and their physical or assigned gender.

If the Ministry of Child and Family Services is made aware of signs of  ‘gender dysphoria’ on the part of your child, they have the right to ensure that a parent is taking what the ministry would consider ‘treatment or access to treatment’  that would mitigate the risk of suffering mental or emotional harm.

So then if individual human beings in the ministry, in their ever-expanding role of all-seeing and all-knowing authority on all things ‘children’, have decided to side with the notion held by some in the medical establishment that ‘puberty blockers’—pharmaceutical drugs designed to temporarily delay the onset of puberty—is appropriate ‘treatment’ for reducing the risk of the child suffering mental or emotional harm as a result of their ‘gender dysphoria,’ then, hypothetically, the ministry would have the power to take your 10-year old away from you unless you submit them to this drug ‘treatment’ program.

Big Leap

Certainly, this is a big hypothetical leap. There have been no cases resembling this in Ontario since the law was passed. Comments made by Akihito Tse from the Ontario Child’s Advocate Office made in this article appear to bring us back from the edge of the cliff:

Mere disagreement with a child about their gender identity or gender expression is not enough to bring the child into care. Instead, it has to be part of “a pattern of abuse, neglect or serious emotional harm” before removing the child can be considered, according to Akihito Tse, a spokesperson for the advocate’s office.

The reasons a child may require protection are laid out in section 74(2) of Bill 89. There is no specific reference to gender identity or gender expression, but if a child is suffering sexual, physical, or emotional abuse, including “serious” psychological effects, child welfare agencies may intervene.

As Tse noted, there is a high threshold for ever removing a child from their family, and the decision to take a young person into care cannot be made by government bureaucrats and child aid workers alone. “There is a clear process through which the final decision is made by a judge,” Tse said.

Stuck In The Left/Right Dichotomy

Perhaps, from a moderate and balanced perspective, there is no need for urgent and immediate concern. I say perhaps. In trying to examine the information on this subject on the internet, the moderate seeker is struck by an inescapable phenomena: the whole discussion (read: contentious battle) about the implications of government becoming the protector of a child’s gender rights is cast as the struggle between Far-Right Religious Conservatives fighting for their rights to raise their children in accordance with their dogmatic religious beliefs on gender, and Far-Left Liberals fighting for the radical breakdown of traditional societal order through the government-sponsored promotion of gender confusion and ambiguity–depending, of course, on which side you’re on.

In this landscape, it appears that there is no room for moderates—you know, those of us who don’t really care to identify with one of the polarities—to be part of the discussion. And that’s exactly the way our authority wants it. And by authority I don’t mean the government, I mean those who control the government.

To say that government overreach is at play here is not making a statement in favor of extreme right-wing agendas over extreme left-wing agendas. It is an observation that those powerful forces that control the government constantly fuel the fires of this polarity to exert more and more control over citizens. If we look back in history, it matters not which side of the spectrum is used to advance their agenda of control, as long as the battle between the polarities rages on to hide the influence of their hidden hand. And I do indeed believe that our authority has to some extent promoted and sponsored gender confusion in our society, doing so with absolute and complete disregard for the health and well-being of people who are transgender as well as an underlying disrespect for all individuals that make up our society.

A Moderate Perspective

I believe a moderate perspective on the matter of gender identity and expression focuses on the following points:

  • Physiologically there are 2 human genders: male and female
  • There are people who exist in our society that are not comfortable with their gender as denoted by their physiology
  • Some of these people identify with the gender opposite to the gender denoted by their physiology
  • Individuals have the right to choose to submit to treatments that modify or change aspects of their physiology when they reach a sufficient level of maturity to make informed decisions

As individuals, as a society, how should we deal with these facts? Through open dialogue and communication in search of truth; through a desire to share and to learn from each other as kindred souls; and with respect for differences between us and compassion about the impact of these differences in how we live together.

It is in bringing consciousness to bear in our personal lives and in the way we deal with others in our society that these matters are best handled. One important step is to join the growing number of people who have decided to dis-identify with either side of this fabricated extreme left/right polarity and promote open-minded and open-hearted discourse.

Related CE Podcast: Why We Get So Offended

Get Your FREE In Depth Numerology Reading

Your life path number can tell you A LOT about you.

With the ancient science of Numerology you can find out accurate and revealing information just from your name and birth date.

Get your free numerology reading and learn more about how you can use numerology in your life to find out more about your path and journey. Get Your free reading.

Continue Reading
advertisement - learn more
advertisement - learn more

Video

EL

Watch: Exclusive Uncut Interview With David Wilcock'Disclosure & The Fall Of The Cabal'

Enter your name and email below to watch the interview.

You have Successfully Subscribed!