Showing posts with label Kim Hill. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Kim Hill. Show all posts

Saturday, 15 February 2020

Information and disinformation on the coronavirus in RNZ interview


RNZ journo, Kim Hill tries to 

manipulate epidemiologist 

to say coronavirus as 

bioweapon is “crazy 

conspiracy theory”



I learned a new term from Rick Wiles of TruNews today - news nazi.

It fits Kim Hill perfectly, right through from her notorious 2003 interview with John Pilger through to the present day.

She personifies the "new style" whereby the ego of the presenter is more important than the information.

Today she interviewed epidemiologist, Prof. Raina MacIntyre.


First, Prof. MacIntyre.

It took me just one answer to a question for me to ascertain that there might be a certain degree of disinformation here - or making things up as she went along.

When asked why we are not seeing children being affected her answer struck me as a tad disingenuous.

She claimed that older people are more susceptible to infection because their immune systems are in decline whereas young children, once they get out of infancy are less susceptible to infection than others.

This struck me as slightly counter-intuitive and contrary to what I know so I looked. Her contention is contradicted by just this one piece of research (quite apart from commonsense and generations of parents' experience.



https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3930829/

This does not explain why men appear from the research to be more susceptible than women.

This is just my own speculation - but I do ask if Asian men are more susceptible than others.

Watch the entire interview on RNZ HERE

****
Now, here is Kim Hill trying to manipulate the professor into making claims of the POSSIBILITY of the coronavirus being a bioweapon

Not once, but THREE times she comes back whereas prior to that she was content to take Prof. MacIntyre's answers without challenge.



Go back 17 years. This is Kim Hill's interview with John Pilger

Saturday, 4 May 2019

Radio NZ broadcasts an attack on the yoga community in New Zealand


Yoga teacher brings the “Me Too” movement into the yoga movement on national radio


Once upon a time (right through the 80's and 90's) I was a practitioner of yoga and for a long time of Iyengar yoga as well as being a teacher.  Some years ago I distanced myself from the Iyengar scene for my own particular reasons.

I was disgusted to hear an interview with Christchurch-based American yoga teacher, Donna Farhi on the highly-popular Kim Hill Show on Radio NZ that was touted to bring the "me too" movement into the yoga movement.

I knew Donna quite well personally and know her to be a controlled, disciplined and highly ambitious, if not arrogant woman who is not averse to being very self-promoting (something that can be heard clearly in the interview).

That she should use a public platform like Radio NZ (the NZ equivalent of the BBC) to attack a community that has never in my knowledge ever been tainted by the sort of scandal she refers to (she is talking primarily about an American teacher) while attacking the late BKS Iyengar while promoting herself is nothing less than reprehensible.

One thing that was noticeable was that the things she was talking about go right across the entire yoga community, indeed the entire "New Age" movement.  Yet she singles out Iyengar and the Iyengar movement.

However, the brunt of my disgust is directed at Radio New Zealand (and the terrible Kim Hill who is responsible for so much PC social engineering). I have included my letter to them below.

I have seen, in this age of political correctness and malicious finger-pointing just about every person I have looked up to denigrated and attacked because their thought is a rebuke to the fascistic ideology that we are seeing today.

In cases where there has been cases of real sexual abuse this should be addressed.However, much of this is simply an attack on the past where the very baby boomers that were part of the lax standards of that generation are now retrospectively pointing the finger, effectively using an oppressive climate that can only be compared with the McCarthy witch hunts of the 1950's to deny their own shadow and project it onto others who committed acts that were in tune with the mores (or lack of) of the time.


Listen to Kim Hill's interview with Donna Farhi HERE

Here is my letter to Radio NZ:


I wish to complain strongly about the interview of yoga teacher, Donna Farhi by Kim Hill.

First some background. I have, in the past, been a practitioner of yoga (specifically Iyengar yoga) as well as a teacher and left the Iyengar scene for my own personal reasons and have not taught for nearly 20 years. I am aware of the general. Issues Ms.Farhi raised in the inteview. I have also known Ms Farhi personally and can attest that she has been saying the same things for about 20 years.

The interview, in my view, was defamatory (“archaic pedagogy”) and attacked a whole group of people in THIS country who have NEVER, to my knowledge ever been implicated in any of the abuse she is referring to. They, however, will face the brunt of this attack.

The issues of abuse, of course, are very real but go right across the yoga community and indeed the whole “New Age” movement and need to be addressed although the cases are historical and relate to another time, to an entire generation of baby boomers whose moral standards in the 1970’s and 1980’s can only be referred to as “lax”.

As an American, Ms Farhi should have addressed these issues in an American context, rather than on New Zealand media.

I also found that it was an attack on others while at the same time being shamelessly self-regarding and self-promoting. It smacked of collusion in an attack on “the opposition”. Ms. Farhi is, let’s face it, not a disinterested  party.
 
My main concern is not the viewpoints being presented (everyone is entitled to their view) but with the decision of Kim Hill’s producers and Radio New Zealand  to collude with this.

The broadcasting standards say quite clearly:

"When controversial issues of public importance are discussed in news, current affairs or factual programmes, broadcasters should make reasonable efforts, or give reasonable opportunities, to present significant points of view either in the same programme or in other programmes within the period of current interest."

and
"Broadcasters should make reasonable efforts to ensure that news, current affairs and factual programming:
  • is accurate in relation to all material points of fact
  • does not mislead.
Given that the claims made were of a defamatory nature the VERY LEAST Radio New Zealand should have done is to have given representatives of the NZ Iyengar Yoga Association the right to response.  The very airing of highly biased and defamatory comments on public radio without the right of response is WRONG.

I shall therefore be making a complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority.

Yours sincerely etc....


Tuesday, 12 September 2017

Should the 9/11 anniversary be called False Flag Day?


16 years since the 9/11 false flag



Do you remember this photograph? In the United States, people have taken pains to banish it from the record of September 11, 2001. The story behind it, though, and the search for the man pictured in it, are our most intimate connection to the horror of that day.

Krieger: We Need To Admit The Government Story About 9/11 Is Bullshit



Unless we come to terms with 9/11 and the obvious fact that the official government story is a ridiculous fairytale, it’ll be hard for our nation to move forward in an intelligent, courageous and ethical manner.

Many of the most destructive trends which have defined our post September 11, 2001 environment, such as a loss of civil liberties and endless barbaric wars of aggression abroad, have been directly related to our false understanding of that awful terrorist attack.
As I’ve always maintained, I have no idea what really went down on that day, I just know that the U.S. government and its intelligence agencies are not being honest.
Although it’s been a long time coming, we’re finally uncovering some kernels of truth about the attack and the role Saudi Arabia played in carrying them out. Much of this progress has been driven by family members of those who died, some of whom are suing the Saudis for their role in that despicable slaughter of civilians.
I’ve written about these lawsuits on several occasions, but here’s an updated summary from Common Dreams, published two days ago:
As our summer draws to a close and ushers in a cool and rainy September, there is a solemn chill in the air marking the approaching anniversary of the infamous attacks on the World Trade Center that took place September 11th, 2001 – nearly sixteen years ago. The memories are still fresh for the survivors and the family members of victims who are to this day living with their losses while continuing to fight for accountability through both the military court in Guantanamo, where individuals involved in the attacks have been tried or are still facing painstakingly slow trials. This upcoming sixteenth anniversary of 9/11 will be the first time since the attacks that the families now have another legal recourse for seeking accountability not only from individuals but from a nation involved in the attack: Saudi Arabia.

Introduced in the Senate on September 16th, 2015, the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA) removed a major roadblock to justice by opening the way for private US citizens to file suit against the Saudi government, which was previously protected by the blanket immunity given to foreign governments. There is much that we do not yet know about what went on behind closed doors with regard to the orchestration of the 9/11 attacks, but the declassification of the portion of the 2002 Congressional Joint Inquiry known as the 28 pages on July 15th, 2016, after 14 years of secrecy, offered the preliminary hope of some much-needed answers. Of the 19 total hijackers who carried out the attacks, 15 were from Saudi Arabia, and evidence contained within the 28 pages pointed to financial connections between these individuals and members of the Saudi government.

Curiously, however, Saudi Arabia’s suspected culpability in the attacks has not been reflected in US response. From the War on Terror in Iraq and Afghanistan to President Trump’s attempted travel ban affecting a list of seven Muslim-majority countries—from which Saudi Arabia is notably absent, it would appear that our government’s enthusiasm for retaliation against “Islamic terror” has a blind spot in the shape of the US alliance with Saudi Arabia.

Getting at the truth of the extent to which the Saudi government sponsored and aided in the attacks is a vital step towards justice and closure for families that, until JASTA, had the power of foreign sovereign immunity standing in its way. Despite fierce oppositionfrom Saudi lobbyists and a presidential veto that argued that it would invite similar lawsuits against the United States government from victims of US war crimes, JASTA was successfully passed into law on September 28th, 2016. Only two days later, the first lawsuit under this new act went forward. DeSimone v. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, filed by the widow of US Navy Commander Patrick Dunn, set the precedent for many other lawsuits of its kind to follow.

While some JASTA lawsuits came from single individuals or families as in the case of DeSimone v. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, others were filed in the form of consolidated complaints with hundreds of plaintiffs issuing shared demands. Ashton et al v. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is one of the largest class action lawsuits of this kind, sporting the names of over 800 family members and 1500 survivors. Filed March 20th, 2017, the lawsuit as of the time of this publication is contending with a motion filed by Saudi Arabia to dismiss it from the court. Lawyers for the plaintiffs have until October 2nd to submit documents opposing the motion.
Evidence of at least some Saudi complicity in the attacks is pretty much undeniable at this point, and if you missed it the first time, I suggest you read my summary of what we learned in the infamous “28 Pages.” 
But now we have even more information. A lot more. For instance, take a look at some of what the New York Post reported over the weekend:
Fresh evidence submitted in a major 9/11 lawsuit moving forward against the Saudi Arabian government reveals its embassy in Washington may have funded a “dry run” for the hijackings carried out by two Saudi employees, further reinforcing the claim that employees and agents of the kingdom directed and aided the 9/11 hijackers and plotters.

Two years before the airliner attacks, the Saudi Embassy paid for two Saudi nationals, living undercover in the US as students, to fly from Phoenix to Washington “in a dry run for the 9/11 attacks,” alleges the amended complaint filed on behalf of the families of some 1,400 victims who died in the terrorist attacks 16 years ago.

The court filing provides new details that paint “a pattern of both financial and operational support” for the 9/11 conspiracy from official Saudi sources, lawyers for the plaintiffs say. In fact, the Saudi government may have been involved in underwriting the attacks from the earliest stages — including testing cockpit security.

“We’ve long asserted that there were longstanding and close relationships between al Qaeda and the religious components of the Saudi government,” said Sean Carter, the lead attorney for the 9/11 plaintiffs. “This is further evidence of that.”

Citing FBI documents, the complaint alleges that the Saudi students — Mohammed al-Qudhaeein and Hamdan al-Shalawi — were in fact members of “the Kingdom’s network of agents in the US,” and participated in the terrorist conspiracy.

They had trained at al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan at the same time some of the hijackers were there. And while living in Arizona, they had regular contacts with a Saudi hijacker pilot and a senior al Qaeda leader from Saudi now incarcerated at Gitmo. At least one tried to re-enter the US a month before the attacks as a possible muscle hijacker but was denied admission because he appeared on a terrorist watch list.

Qudhaeein and Shalawi both worked for and received money from the Saudi government, with Qudhaeein employed at the Ministry of Islamic Affairs. Shalawi was also “a longtime employee of the Saudi government.” The pair were in “frequent contact” with Saudi officials while in the US, according to the filings.

During a November 1999 America West flight to Washington, Qudhaeein and Shalawi are reported to have tried multiple times to gain access to the cockpit of the plane in an attempt to test flight-deck security in advance of the hijackings.

“After they boarded the plane in Phoenix, they began asking the flight attendants technical questions about the flight that the flight attendants found suspicious,” according to a summary of the FBI case files.

“When the plane was in flight, al-Qudhaeein asked where the bathroom was; one of the flight attendants pointed him to the back of the plane,” it added. “Nevertheless, al-Qudhaeein went to the front of the plane and attempted on two occasions to enter the cockpit.”

The pilots were so spooked by the Saudi passengers and their aggressive behavior that they made an emergency landing in Ohio. On the ground there, police handcuffed them and took them into custody. Though the FBI later questioned them, it decided not to pursue prosecution.

But after the FBI discovered that a suspect in a counterterrorism investigation in Phoenix was driving Shalawi’s car, the bureau opened a counterterrorism case on Shalawi. Then, in November 2000, the FBI received reporting that Shalawi trained at terrorist camps in Afghanistan and had received explosives training to perform attacks on American targets. The bureau also suspected Qudhaeein was a Saudi intelligence agent, based on his frequent contact with Saudi officials.

More, investigators learned that the two Saudis traveled to Washington to attend a symposium hosted by the Saudi Embassy in collaboration with the Institute for Islamic and Arabic Sciences in America, which was chaired by the Saudi ambassador. Before being shut down for terrorist ties, IIASA employed the late al Qaeda cleric Anwar al-Awlaki as a lecturer. Awlaki ministered to some of the hijackers and helped them obtain housing and IDs.

The FBI also confirmed that Qudhaeein’s and Shalawi’s airline tickets for the pre-9/11 dry run were paid for by the Saudi Embassy.

“The dry run reveals more of the fingerprints of the Saudi government,” said Kristen Breitweiser, one of the New York plaintiffs, whose husband perished at the World Trade Center.

Carter said in an interview that the allegations that the Saudi Embassy sponsored a pre-9/11 dry run — along with charges of other Saudi involvement in the 9/11 plot, from California to Florida — are based on “nearly 5,000 pages of evidence submitted of record and incorporated by reference into the complaint.”

They include “every FBI report that we have been able to obtain,” though hundreds of thousands of pages of government documents related to Saudi terror funding remain secret.
As I tweeted yesterday:

I suggest we remember 9/11 by never forgetting how frequently and pathologically our government lies to us.

Finally, let me end this post by sharing a video put together by James Corbett, which has attained nearly 3 million views.



Why Did World Trade Center Building 7 Fall? New Study Claims Gov’t Story False

A two-year study has determined the collapse of World Trade Center 7 on September 11, 2001 could not have been caused by office fires. This undermines a critical component of the “official story,” but in the age of President Trump will the painstaking investigation make a difference?

by Derrick Broze

A hoto of World Trade Center 7 taken a few days after the September, 11th 2001 attacks on New York City.
11 September, 2017
Last Wednesday, Dr. J. Leroy Hulsey of the University of Alaska Fairbanks presented the findings and conclusion of his team’s two-year engineering study evaluating whether fire caused the collapse of World Trade Center 7 on September 11, 2001.
Many “9/11 Truth” researchers focus on the mysterious collapse of World Trade Center 7 (WTC7) as the smoking gun evidence that Americans were lied to about the attacks. WTC7 was not hit by a plane, yet it collapsed at 5:20 p.m. on Sept. 11, 2001. According to the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the collapse was caused by office fires leading to thermal expansion of the building’s supportive columns and girders.
Dr. Hulsey’s presentation, “A Structural Reevaluation of the Collapse of World Trade Center 7, September 2017 Progress Report”, detailed how his team eliminated fire as the cause of the collapse of the 47-storey building. Hulsey explained that NIST’s report on the collapse found fires on floors 7 through 9, 11 through 14, 19, 22, 29, and 30. However, there is no evidence of fire below floor 7, Hulsey said.


You have to ask yourself lots of questions … Where is the combustibility in this building? … Did WTC7 collapse because of fires?” Hulsey asked during his presentation. “Our study shows that it did not collapse because of fires.” This revelation matches what Hulsey told MintPress News in September 2016, when his team’s preliminary finding was “that fire did not produce the failure at this particular building,” adding “additional calculations are further substantiating the finding.”
Dr. Hulsey and his team developed an AutoCAD drawing that they then used to create a virtual geography of the building. The research team first partnered with the non-profit Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth in May of 2015 to study of the collapse of WTC7. They did not release their final report in April 2017 as originally planned, but Hulsey said a draft report of the study will be released in October or November 2017 and will be open for public comment for a six-week period. “I am still examining the progressive collapse. We thought we would be complete by the time announced but it is taking longer than I expected,” Hulsey told MintPress. “I simply am not going to release it until I am sure we are totally correct.”
A final report will be published in early 2018 and submitted to peer-reviewed journals. “It is my plan to provide the opportunity for public and technical input, a form of review and peer review,” Dr. Hulsey stated. “I will have it reviewed during this time frame. Once we have gone through that preliminary review; I will submit the findings to peer-reviewed journals for publication.”

The Bobby McIlvaine Act

Today, on the 16th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, the organization funding Hulsey’s study, held a press conference discussing the conclusions of the study and the introduction of the “Bobby McIlvaine World Trade Center Investigation Act.” The Bobby McIlvaine Act is draft legislation that would impanel a select committee in either chamber of Congress to reinvestigate the destruction of the three World Trade Center towers on September 11, 2001. The act is named after Bobby McIlvaine, who was tragically killed at the age of 26 while entering the North Tower of the World Trade Center.
Richard Gage, the founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, spoke today about the Bobby McIlvaine Act at the National Press Club in Washington. “The Bobby McIlvaine Act will, for the first time, put in Congress’ hands the resolution which will cause an investigation of the three World Trade Center skyscrapers’ destruction,” Gage told Mint Press. “We are putting Congress on notice and hopefully this act will be successfully legislated into law.”
Following the press conference, Mr. Gage and Bob McIlvaine, Bobby McIlvaine’s father, began the process of distributing informational packets related to the Bobby McIlvaine Act to every member of Congress. The next stage in their campaign will involve attempting to organize a bipartisan group of sponsors to introduce the resolution by September 11, 2018. Mr. McIlvaine has been independently investigating the 9/11 attacks since his son’s death and calling attention to what he says are discrepancies in the government’s narrative of the events of that day. McIlvaine has been an outspoken leader in the so-called “9/11 Truth” movement, advocating for a new investigation since the release of the 9/11 Commission Report in 2004.\
The 9/11 Truth movement includes victims, their families, and experts in a range of fields who are skeptical of the government’s official line on 9/11. Some of the groups include Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Firefighters for 9/11 Truth & Unity, Pilots for 9/11 Truth, 9/11 Families United for Justice Against Terrorism, Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice, and other local activist groups and individuals from around the globe. It’s a loose-knit movement without an official position, and the opinions, theories and ideas held among its members sometimes conflict with one another. However, those working within the broader movement are bound by the belief that the official narrative promoted by the U.S. government is full of holes.

9/11 Truth in the Donald Trump era

The election of Donald Trump brought fear and paranoia to some of the American population, and hope and elation to another segment of the nation. Elements of the 9/11 Truth movement believed Trump might support their cause for a new investigation.  Although Trump never officially discussed his interest in a new investigation into the events of September 11, 2001, he did make vague references to the “secret papers” and to the Saudi government’s possible role in funding the 9/11 attacks. During a campaign event Trumpcalled out former president George W. Bush for the Iraq war and referenced “very secret” papers involving the Saudi government and 9/11, elaborating:
It wasn’t the Iraqis that knocked down the World Trade Center; we went after Iraq, we decimated the country. Iran’s taking over, okay. But it wasn’t the Iraqis, you will find out who really knocked down the World Trade Center, ‘cause they have papers in there that are very secret, you may find it’s the Saudis, okay? But you will find out.”
The “secret papers” Trump referred to are the now-declassified 28-pages of the “Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001.”  Although the final report amounts to over 800 pages, the 28 pages were classified by former President George W. Bush shortly after the report was released in 2002. The papers detail the story of Saudi nationals suspected of being Saudi intelligence agents involved in the terror attacks. In July 2016, after nearly 15 years of secrecy and resistance from the Bush and Obama administrations, the report was released to the public and the family members of the victims of the 9/11 terror attacks.
While campaigning for the presidency, Trump also gave an interview on Fox News’ “Fox & Friends,” stating that the release of the pages would be “very profound” and relate to Saudi Arabia’s role in the 9/11 attacks.
That’s very serious stuff,” Trump said. “It’s sort of nice to know who your friends are and perhaps who your enemies are. You’re going to see some very revealing things released in those papers.”
Trump also flirted with the 9/11 Truth movement when he criticized former President Obama for his veto of the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, or JASTA, which unanimously passed the House and the Senate in 2016 after a hard-fought battle by the families of the victims of 9/11. The law, passed over Obama’s veto, has now opened the door for lawsuits from the victims of 9/11 and their families against Saudi Arabia to inspect the Kingdom’s possible role in 9/11. Trump called Obama’s veto “shameful” and  “one of the low points of his presidency.”
It is these comments that caused some “9/11 truthers” — including some family members of 9/11 victims — to believe a Donald Trump presidency might lead to a new investigation into the terror attacks. The 9/11 Families and Survivors United for Justice Against Terrorism — the organization largely responsible for pushing JASTA — sent a letter to President Trump asking him to clarify his position on Saudi Arabia and its role in the terror attacks of September 11, 2001. “This letter is inspired by news reports that today you met with Saudi Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman al Saud,” reads the letter from Terry Strada, a widow and the national chair for the 9/11 Families & Survivors. Strada’s letter continues:
As you know, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is a defendant in our lawsuit because of the involvement of its agents in supporting the 9/11 hijackers, and for support that flowed to al-Qaeda through institutions the Kingdom established and funded to spread a radical form of Islam that lies at the root of both al-Qaeda and, more recently, ISIS. Despite mounting evidence, the Saudis have refused to accept accountability for their actions and the injury they have caused across the globe.”
Since becoming president, Donald Trump has shown little interest in carrying his “you may find it’s the Saudis” campaign rhetoric any further. Instead, he has signed an arms deals worth more than $100 billion with the Saudi Kingdom and has continued to offer support for their bombing campaign in Yemen. Trump has not taken any steps towards calling for an investigation into the 9/11 attacks or Saudi Arabia’s possible role. He has remained silent on the controversial topic. The upcoming release of Dr. Hulsey’s study on the collapse of World Trade Center 7 may force Trump to publicly address the situation.
Terry Strada, whose husband Tom Strada died in the twin towers, is skeptical of the importance of Dr. Hulsey’s study. “It doesn’t matter to me what happened to Building 7. I know what happened to the Twin Towers and I know how my husband was murdered. I know who worked with al-Qaeda. That’s all I care about,” Mrs. Strada explained to MintPress News via phone. “It’s a very separate incident. I don’t see how anything that happened to Building 7 has to do with the Twin Towers.”
Despite her skepticism towards the study, Strada is still calling on President Trump to address the concerns of the 9/11 families:
We would like to see some action. We would like to sit down and meet with him, have him hear our side. We know he hears it from the Saudi’s all the time. We want our chance.”
Top photo | A photo of World Trade Center 7 taken a few days after the September, 11th 2001 attacks on New York City.

Here is part one of a series of four parts in a confrontation between the dreadful Kim Hill of Radio NZ and Rchard Gage. It was enough to raise my interest high enough to go to the presentation