Oprah’s World Depopulation Scheme

Oprah met secretly with Soros, Rockefeller to discuss population reduction

The 2009 meeting in Manhattan, organized by Bill Gates, was so discreet that the billionaires’ aides were told to treat it as a “security briefing,” and attendees also included the late David Rockefeller, Warren Buffett, Ted Turner and Michael Bloomberg, in addition to Oprah and Soros.

“Taking their cue from Gates, they agreed that overpopulation was a priority,” reported The Sunday Times in describing the meeting, which revolved around population reduction starting with third-world countries.

They kept the meeting secret because they feared the media painting it as an “alternative world government,” which isn’t far from the truth given the speculation that Oprah will soon attempt a White House run backed by the very billionaires who attended the meeting.

Interestingly, meeting attendee Ted Turner once proposed cutting down the world population to around 250 million people, a 95% decrease that would necessitate a major war or virus pandemic.

“We only learnt about [the meeting] afterwards, by accident,” said Chronicle of Philanthropy editor Stacy Palmer. “Normally these people are happy to talk good causes, but this is different – maybe because they don’t want to be seen as a global cabal.”

But that’s actually how they were acting; notice how the meeting wasn’t attended by anyone representing the third-world. Rather, it was billionaires dictating their global scheme for world populations.

This is the very definition of elitism, and it reveals how a hypothetical Oprah administration would operate: transnational billionaires deciding the fate of America behind closed doors with no input from its own citizens.

This isn’t very far removed from how the Obama administration operated, given that President Obama was a member of the Trilateral Commission and thus acted more like a vassal for global interests than an independent American president.


Russiagate Turns On Its Originators

Russiagate originated in a conspiracy between the military/security complex, the Clinton-controlled Democratic National Committee, and the liberal/progressive/left. The goal of the military/security complex is to protect its out-sized budget and power by preventing President Trump from normalizing relations with Russia. Hillary and the DNC want to explain away their election loss by blaming a Trump/Putin conspiracy to steal the election. The liberal/progressive/left want Trump driven from office.

As the presstitutes are aligned with the military/security complex, Hillary and the DNC, and the liberal/progressive/left, the Russiagate orchestration is a powerful conspiracy against the president of the United States and the “deplorables” who elected him. Nevertheless, the Russiagate Conspiracy has fallen apart and has now been turned against its originators.

Despite the determination of the CIA and FBI to get Trump, these powerful and unaccountable police state agencies have been unable to present any evidence of the Trump/Putin conspiracy against Hillary. As William Binney, the former high level National Security Agency official who devised the spy program has stated, if there was any evidence of a Trump/Putin conspiracy to steal the US presidential election, the NSA would most certainly have it.

So where is the evidence? Why after one year and a half and a special prosecutor whose assignment is to get Trump has no evidence whatsoever been found of the Trump/Putin conspiracy? The obvious answer is that no such conspiracy ever existed. The only conspiracy is the one against Trump.

This has now become completely apparent. Russiagate originated in a fake “Trump dossier” invented by Christopher Steele, a former British MI6 intelligence officer. It is not yet clear whether it was the DNC, the CIA, or the FBI who paid Steele for the fake dossier. Perhaps he sold it to all three.
What we do know is that the FBI used what it knew to be a fake dossier to go to the FISA court for a warrant to spy on Trump.

As a consequence both Comey and the FBI, special prosecutor Mueller, and Christopher Steele are in hot water. The Chairman of the US Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Grassley, has instructed the US Attorney General to launch a criminal investigation of Steele for false statements to FBI counterintelligence officials. https://www.rt.com/usa/415105-senate-doj-steele-criminal/

You can see where this leads as former FBI director Comey is a participant in the Russiagate attack on President Trump. To protect himself Steele will have to rat on who put him up to it. If President Trump had any sense, he would put Steele under protective custody, as his life is clearly in danger. If the CIA and the FBI don’t get him, the Clintons surely will.

Trump’s easy election shook the Republican Establishment as well as it upset the Democrats and the military/security complex. The Republican Establishment hates losing control. Initially the Republican Establishment aligned with Trump’s enemies, but now understands that Trump’s demise means their demise.

Consequently, all of a sudden in Washington facts count. Not all facts, just those relating to the Steele dossier. Be sure you listen closely and carefully to these two videos of US Representative Jim Jordan’s destruction of US Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein for sitting on his ass while a totally corrupt FBI attempted to destroy the elected president of the United States. Keep in mind that Rosenstein is a member of the Trump administration. Why does the President of the United States employ people out to destroy him?

Here are the videos:….




Why Loss of Net Neutrality Hurts Democracy

We’ve been through this countless times before. The FCC and the financial interests that it has always represented has overseen the zombification of radio and TV for decades, creating the publically-subidized wasteland from which internet users have been fleeing. These broadcast services started out with much of the promise and revolutionary potential of the internet.  Now they are just part of the problem.

The FCC’s claim of jurisdiction over the internet is dubious to begin with.   The FCC was created in order to allocate limited radio spectrum to multiple broadcasters in a fair way.   The internet isn’t a broadcast medium, it’s a utility.  It isn’t even constrained by real-time transmission considerations.  You can download a video while getting a cup of coffee.    Bandwidth allocations, to the extent that they’re needed, should be done in a generic way (text vs multimedia, for instance) and not motivated by political content or profit considerations which have destroyed the public airwaves already.   Given that the USA already has the slowest internet in the western world, it’s hard to see how further subsidies to the ISP monopolies are justifiable.

The internet is the last of the public intellectual commons.  There will be no place else to go.  The commodification of everything ultimately serves no one.

The audio of this interview is available on the net at: http://www.flashpoints.net/?p=6347   It starts around 22:00, but the whole show is worth a listen.

Despite its importance to a functioning democracy in the Twenty-first Century, many people’s eyes still glaze over at the uttering of the term Net Neutrality. However, whenever there is a clear explanation available, people — Republicans and Democrats alike — overwhelmingly support the concept and understand that, once again, it will be big business and corporations that will benefit greatly from the purging of the concept of Net Neutrality, and poor and working-class people and their families who will suffer from the recent decision to end it.

For an in-depth primer on the subject, I spoke with Professor Victor Pickard about the implications of the recent actions taken by the Republican-led Federal Communication Commision. Pickard is associate professor at the Annenberg School of Communication at the University of Pennsylvania and author of the book America’s Battle for Media Democracy.

Dennis Bernstein: We turn now to the issue of net neutrality and its very serious implications for Internet users everywhere. Welcome Professor Pickard. Could you start by giving us an extended definition of net neutrality? People’s eyes still tend to glaze over when you raise the topic of net neutrality.

Victor Pickard: In a way, it is an unfortunate term. We can thank Timothy Woo for coining it, but I think we’re stuck with it at this point. Essentially, it means an open Internet. Net neutrality is the safeguard that prevents Internet service providers such as Verizon and Comcast from interfering with your online content. It prevents them from slowing down or blocking content or offering what is known as “paid prioritization.” This is where they set up slow and fast lanes and a kind of payola system where they try to shake down content creators and force them to “pay to play” in order to load and stream more quickly. This changes the underlying logic of the Internet, which was meant to be an open medium with all voices created equal.

Bernstein: And it was hoped that net neutrality would be an equalizer, making it possible for people to have a voice who hadn’t had one before and be able to access content that would not have been available before. Isn’t this essentially a question of democracy?

Pickard: Yes, the Internet has always had significant democratic potential. At least in theory, it can level power hierarchies. It can be used to give the voiceless more access to the public sphere. Of course, it never quite panned out this way. There have always been barriers to entry and there is still a major digital divide in this country. Nonetheless, the channels through which we access the Internet were meant to be kept equal and open, and without net neutrality that is no longer going to be the case.

As soon as you remove the basic safeguards, Internet service providers not only have the ability, they have a perverse incentive to make more money by charging us more for access to various types of content or charging content creators more to access the Internet. Of course, large corporations like Amazon and Netflix can afford to pay up. Those who will be hurt will be the activists and journalists, the people without the resources to pay to play.

That is what is so deeply troubling about this: It is going to hurt us as consumers — it is going to hurt us economically — but more importantly, it is going to hurt us democratically.

Bernstein: It is interesting, one of the consequences of the disappearance of newspapers, particularly investigative reporting, was the emergence of various independent investigative organizations online who have been doing an incredibly good job. They will suffer from this, won’t they?

Pickard: Yes, they will suffer disproportionately from this. Traditional newspapers and smaller independent news outlets depend on the Internet to reach broader audiences. They couldn’t afford to do this otherwise. Without having the resources to pay up, it is going to create a stranglehold on those kinds of investigative outlets. This is especially troubling now, at this perilous political moment.

Bernstein: What is problematic about the claim of [FCC] Chairman Ajit Pai that he “would hate to side with the Democrats, but this was Bill Clinton’s vision for the Internet”?

Pickard: Such a claim is disingenuous and ahistorical. While it is possible to argue that the Internet has traditionally been lightly regulated, in many cases this has simply not been true. In fact, we wouldn’t even have the Internet if not for massive public subsidies and regulations.

You have to go back to 2002, when then FCC chairman Michael Powell re-categorized Internet services. Instead of considering it a telecommunications service — which had always been heavily regulated — the category description became one of an “information service,” which is only lightly regulated. That is what really started this whole ongoing debate and policy battle. So you can’t say that this was a democratic position. That’s simply not true. ….



Reprise: The Crocodile Tears of the Empire

This is the “Mr. Hyde” side of the deep state which we americans have come to know as “Dr. Jekyll”.   Do you really think we’re immune from the predations of the monsters that we created?

Should the entire MSM be brought up on charges of treason for suppressing this kind of info for so many decades?  It would certainly be cathartic to see Wretched Maddog at a nuremburg-style tribunal.

Border Crisis: The Crocodile Tears of the Empire

Spy and Counterspy: Spy School for the Rest of Us


Flashpoints Interviews NSA Whistle Blower William Binney

Today on Flashpoints: We feature an encore broadcast of our recent interview with former NSA Whistle Blower, William Binney, who zeros in on the realities of “Russia Gate”. Later, we play our most recent interview with Randy Credico, who’s still  under attack by congress for a series of show he produced and hosted on Pacifica Radio in New York, WBAI about Julian Assange.

Click on the link below to listen to today’s show

Flashpoints 01-02-18


KPFA’s Flashpoints Interviews Assange’s Mother

Today on Flashpoints: Julian Assange: Countdown to Freedom, season 2. We continue our  collaboration between Live on the Fly with Randy Credico and Flashpoints.
On the show today we’ll be Joined by Social activist, Christine Assange, Julian Assange’s proud and militant mom. Mrs. Assange will join us live from,Australia. And we’ll also be joined by Former CIA Whistle Blower, John Kiriakou.

Click on the link below to listen to today’s show

Flashpoints 01-04-18