The fact checkers (more like fag checkers) at Snopes have admitted that they have ZERO evidence that the fires in Hawaii were not started by a directed energy weapon from space, saying that the assertion is “unfounded” as opposed to “false.”

Which seems more likely – that it’s all a big coincidence, or that it was a space weapon?

It’s a simple question: coincidence or conspiracy?

I had assumed it was a volcano. There is a volcano on Maui and we’ve been waiting for it to erupt and kill millions of gutless swine.

But nope: beam weapon from space.

Figures.

Twitter’s @diedsuddenly has suddenly died. Without warning, I woke up and it was dead for no reason.

All this account was doing was reposting news articles about people who have suddenly died for no reason. As far as I saw, he was not even saying “the vaccine” at all, he was just documenting this developing issue of “Sudden Adult Death Syndrome” (SADS). The phenomenon is also called “Sudden Arrhythmic Death Syndrome,” as it relates to a cardiac event. The word “arrhythmia” means what it sounds like – lacking in a rhythm, and is typically used in connection to cardiac phenomenon involving an irregular heart beat. I don’t think the term is appropriate, as we are usually talking about cardiac arrest or a heart attack in someone without any form of heart disease. A better name would be “Spontaneous Unexplained Deadly Heart Failure Syndrome” (SUDHFDS), but Sudden Adult Death Syndrome is fine. They seem to be using “Arrhythmic” interchangeably with “Adult” for the purposes of confusing the issue, but it does show that these deaths are believed to be related to heart failure.

It’s not a conspiracy theory or tabloid hysteria that SADS is happening. The fact-checkers themselves are admitting it is happening at an increasing rate and simply claiming without evidence that it is not related to the vaccine. Snopes argument was simply that young people have been recorded as having had spontaneous unexplained heart failure before the vaccine was distributed, so it is can’t be the vaccine.

Snopes does not address the massive increase in these deaths. We are talking about many orders of magnitude. We don’t know how many orders of magnitude, because like with deaths admittedly caused by the vaccine, both the government and media are refusing to keep track. But we see it in the news, because it is happening to famous people or their loved ones. I am not aware of a single case of a celebrity dying in their sleep for no reason. I’ve also never seen this is my personal life, ever. The closest thing to this that I’ve heard of was a hapa friend in Southeast Asia 15 years ago whose healthy 40-year-old mother got sick with dizziness and went to the hospital and died less than 48 hours later. It was extremely bizarre, but it was believed to be from a mosquito-borne virus that causes brain swelling. The Philippines also does not have great emergency care. (For the record, she was in the middle of divorcing her husband, who was a kindly old American guy in his 70s who was himself sick and on the way out. I just sort of assumed it was the wrath of God.) Regardless, there is a very, very big difference between having symptoms of serious illness and then dying than just dying completely randomly in your sleep.

Aside from fact checkers, it is getting relatively little coverage for some reason. One would think that a new disease that is just randomly killing healthy young people would be a pretty major story of interest. This could of course be caused by anything, technically. It could be caused by some unidentified radiation in the atmosphere, it could be caused by 5G, it could be caused by solar activity, it could be related to Havana Syndrome, which the US claims is the result of some kind of sonic beam weapon. There are all kinds of different possible reasons you could come up with that would cause this. But the thing that has changed in the last two years is that people took a vaccine that is confirmed to cause heart complications, including causing life-long heart conditions.

Another point of interest is the fact that so far, everyone who has suffered from this new wave of SADS has received the coronavirus vaccine. For example, the Democrat Congressman whose healthy 17-year-old daughter died in her sleep from SADS bragged about how he was forcing his children to be vaccinated.

ICYMI: All Illinoisans 12 years and older are eligible for the vaccine. They are safe, effective, and key to our path back to normalcy. Everyone in my family – including my 14-year-old daughter – has started their vaccination process.

Here’s how you can get your vaccine THREAD🧵

— Rep. Sean Casten (@RepCasten) May 17, 2021

We are grateful to all who have reached out with thoughts, condolences and help. To all asking what they can do, we ask only that you live your lives as Gwen lived hers. pic.twitter.com/AdQTpzsnTP

— Rep. Sean Casten (@RepCasten) June 15, 2022

There are others we can’t confirm got the vaccine definitively, but they are in positions where they would have been required, or they are leftists. We’ve yet to see anyone from QAnon get hit with SADS.

Another data point is again: the media is not talking about it. They are not denying that it is happening and that it is unexplained, they are just not bothering to mention it, except to claim without evidence that it’s not the mRNA vaccine. If it wasn’t the vaccine, they would be talking about it.

Now, you have Twitter banning someone simply for compiling the deaths. That means you are banned from talking about SADS, presumably under Twitter’s policy against questioning the vaccine. By banning an account that did nothing but keep a record of SADS, Twitter is tacitly implying that they themselves believe it is caused by the vaccine.

As far as I’m able to tell, the only other possible reason that the media would refuse to proportionally address SADS or that Twitter would ban you from talking about SADS is that they don’t believe it is the vaccine, but they believe it is very easy for someone who doesn’t trust the science to mistake this phenomenon as being a result of the vaccine. That would be a pretty convoluted explanation.

We should really be pressing this issue. I have been trying to think of ways for the vaxed to start openly expressing regret, and anger at being lied to about the deadliness of the virus or the efficacy and safety of the vax. Most people probably just completely shut off if you tell them the vaccine almost certainly took decades off of their lives, and at any point, they could be feeling fine and go to bed and not wake up.

Unlike with the companies that manufactured asbestos (and really every other company of any kind), vaccine manufacturers are totally legally protected from any form of liability, so a class action lawsuit is off of the table. But what I’ve been thinking is that people should start demanding that the government do an “Operation Warp Speed Part II” where they try to find a solution to the damages caused by the vax. If people think they have hope, they are less likely to shut down and not be able to think about it. I don’t really think they have any hope, unless they happened to get shots from a placebo batch (there were a lot of placebo batches, or at least batches with something else in them – there is no other way to explain why the deaths all came from the same batches, while others had none, something that was confirmed in a VAERS database analysis).

The right-wing should be pushing the SADS issue and then demanding that the government research it and find a cure for this and other injuries and deaths happening as a result of coronavirus vaccine syndrome.

I did not see anyone claiming that there was a “secret executive order” declaring Joe Biden’s surrender to the Duke or Earl. Everyone I saw was citing Biden’s Memorial Day speech, where he literally said “no one can stop the Duke of Earl,” and accurately attributing the Pentagon memo.

But Snopes somehow dug up someone on Facebook using false information and misattributing the Pentagon memo so they could mark this story as “false.”

The fact is, the entire establishment is freaking out about Biden cutting funding to programs designed to stop the Duke of Earl. Neocons like Mike Pompeo are working hand-in-glove with liberal think-tanks to launch a new government assault on the Duke, as well as stirring up a media barrage explaining to the peasants why they should be opposed to the Duke and want him stopped in the first place.

The Biden Memorial Day surrender was considered signficantly worse than the Pentagon memo, given that it got much more media coverage. Pentagon policy changes constantly, and reopening the Joint Anti-Duke Taskforce (JADT) would have been a minor issue compared to a public surrender by the president.

Rumors had been swirling that part of the reason the Disinformation Governance Board was shut down was that Nina Jankowicz was going to be appointed as the head of a multi-agency panel designed to develop resources to stop the Duke of Earl. Apparently, people in the Biden Administration viewed it as futile, and simply want to bury discussion of the Duke by admitting defeat. Rand Paul has been pressuring the government for years to cut funding to “fruitless attempts” to stop the Duke or Earl, accurately stating that “every intelligence analysis has shown that nothing can stop the Duke of Earl” and that “the Military Industrial Complex is simply going to have to live with the fact that he can’t be stopped.” Paul has also pointed to the way global treaties designed to stop the Duke of Earl infringe on personal liberty.

Donald Trump has also been critical of the amount of money spent trying to stop the Duke of Earl, saying at a recent rally, “American mothers don’t have baby formula, and Liz Chaney can’t stop talking about the Duke of Earl.” After allowing time for the crowd to boo, he added: “these people would come into my office, when I was in the oval office – which by the way, is going to happen again soon – and they kept talking about the Duke of Earl. ‘Oh, sir, sir, we need to stop the Duke of Earl.’ I said ‘what did this guy even do?’ No answer. I told them, nothing can stop this guy. We’re wasting billions of dollars, and nothing can stop the Duke of Earl. You could hit this guy with a nuclear bomb and he’s just going to dance out of the flames, laughing.”

Trump-backed Senatorial candidate JD Vance stated earlier this year that he doesn’t care about the Duke of Earl either way, and is suspicious of the government’s fixation on trying to stop him. We’re hoping that Vance maintains this position when he gets into the Senate, but unfortunately, Josh Hawley, who also paints himself as a populist, supported an anti-Duke funding bill last year. Hawley stood with Ted Cruz in criticizing the way in which Biden is attempting to stop the Duke, but not the principle that he needs to be stopped. Hawley and Cruz also demanded that Europe spend more money trying to stop the Duke.

On Tuesday, Chuck Schumer made a rare break with Biden, condemning his Memorial Day surrender as “simply unacceptable” and vowing to push through a bi-partisan bill to stop the Duke. Senator Elizabeth Warren also broke with Biden, saying that “the Duke’s reckless escapades and madcap exploits” are contributing to climate change, arguing that “our children’s future is riding on our ability to stop the Duke of Earl.”

The Duke has been celebrating the Biden surrender this week, and on Tuesday appeared at an event in Russia-controlled Donbass to perform for Russian forces and brag about the capitulation, singing his viral song “The Duke of Earl” about how nothing can stop him because he’s the Duke of Earl.

People have been trying to stop the Duke of Earl for years now, but the liberal fact-checker site Snopes has finally admitted that he cannot be stopped.

Imagine that they thought they could stop him.

It’s encouraging that they have finally been forced to admit the obvious.

Sorry goyim, we’re gonna have to shut all your videos and comments down. Can’t be having all this hate in these tubes.

The best thing about being a social science research professor is that you can pretty much just make up anything you want and support it with any random shoddy methodology and no one is likely to ever call you out on it – as long as your results support the status quo.

In the harder sciences, like physics and chemistry, if researchers start making things up, then no matter how much institutional support they might have, it’ll be quite obvious that something is wrong when people see that the math doesn’t add up and the predictions don’t match physical phenomena.

But in the hands of a sociology or psychology professor, things like numbers or statistics become akin to molding clay, things they can shape to their heart’s content.

For example, they can examine YouTube’s censorship history and conclude that the website isn’t biased in any way against the right-wing.

Ars Technica:

In August 2018, President Donald Trump claimed that social media was “totally discriminating against Republican/Conservative voices.” Not much was new about this: for years, conservatives have accused tech companies of political bias. Just last July, Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) asked the FTC to investigate the content moderation policies of tech companies like Google. A day after Google’s vice president insisted that YouTube was apolitical, Cruz claimed that political bias on YouTube was “massive.”

But the data doesn’t back Cruz up—and it’s been available for a while. While the actual policies and procedures for moderating content are often opaque, it is possible to look at the outcomes of moderation and determine if there’s indication of bias there. And, last year, computer scientists decided to do exactly that.

Is that so?

Allow me to doubt that in the strongest possible way.

Motivated by the long-running argument in Washington DC, computer scientists at Northeastern University decided to investigate political bias in YouTube’s comment moderation. The team analyzed 84,068 comments on 258 YouTube videos. At first glance, the team found that comments on right-leaning videos seemed more heavily moderated than those on left-leaning ones. But when the researchers also accounted for factors such as the prevalence of hate speech and misinformation, they found no differences between comment moderation on right- and left-leaning videos.

In other words, YouTube is definitely censoring right-wing comments in a completely obvious way, but it doesn’t actually count as censorship because those comments are hateful and wrong.

Naturally, the comments are hateful and wrong according to the left.

“There is no political censorship,” said Christo Wilson, one of the co-authors and associate professor at Northeastern University. “In fact, YouTube appears to just be enforcing their policies against hate speech, which is what they say they’re doing.” Wilson’s collaborators on the paper were graduate students Shan Jiang and Ronald Robertson.

To check for political bias in the way comments were moderated, the team had to know whether a video was right- or left-leaning, whether it contained misinformation or hate speech, and which of its comments were moderated over time.

From fact-checking websites Snopes and PolitiFact, the scientists were able to get a set of YouTube videos that had been labelled true or false. Then, by scanning the comments on those videos twice, six months apart, they could tell which ones had been taken down. They also used natural language processing to identify hate speech in the comments.

Snopes is run by liberal cat-ladies and pot-smoking prostitutes.

This is Snopes.

This is also Snopes.

Politifact is just some mainstream media creature, founded and maintained by various newspapers and news organizations. It’s a mouthpiece of the left-wing media.

To summarize the “methodology” used to claim that YouTube isn’t biased against the right-wing:

1. Look at a bunch of censored comments. Comments on right-wing videos are overwhelmingly over-represented.
2. Run those comments by the cat ladies and weed-smoking whores at Snopes. If they disapprove of the comments, dismiss them.
3. Run those comments by the mainstream journalists at PolitiFact. If they disapprove of the comments, dismiss them.
4. If the comments are “hateful” based on some arbitrary feeling, dismiss them.
5. Wow! Now the right wing comments aren’t over-represented any more! I guess YouTube isn’t biased after all.

This is some high level bullshit right there.

Obviously, “hate” is a completely left-wing concept used to shut down all right-wing ideas. It’s “hateful” to want to shut down immigration. It’s “hateful” to want traditional values instead of homosexualism and trannies. It’s “hateful” to point out the fact that Jews have disproportionate power and influence, and use that power to erode America and the White race.

As such, any comment that is “false” (according to borderline commies) or “hateful” (i.e., right-wing) can be deleted from YouTube without this being “censorship,” since the authors of the study also believe those comments should be removed.

Anyone who even briefly looks at this “study” with an objective mind will immediately know that it’s complete bullshit.

But that doesn’t matter at all.

What matters is that now, the mainstream media can just dismiss all claims that YouTube is biased by saying “oh, a study disproved that claim.”

In other words, the study is just a vulgar propaganda tool.

As we all know, lizardman Mark Zuckerberg’s Facebok platform only censors things that are true. We also know websites like snopes only tell lies.

A satire website claimed that CNN bought an industrial-sized washing machine to spin stories. Being a satire site, this was originally thought to be a joke.

However, after kikebook and Snopes called it fake news, it must be real news.

For shame, CNN.

Snopes founder David Mikkelson is shown here with his very fat and very ugly looking ex-wife Barbara Mikkelson. Would you trust any such blob? Or any man who would willingly have sex with such a disgusting looking blob? The most trustworthy individual in this photo is their obese cat.

The fake fact-checking site Snopes appears to be close to bankruptcy. This is one of the outfits that Facebook has been relying on to “fact check” news stories.

Snopes originated in the mid-1990s as a site that debunked urban myths. As the “fake news” meme began to backfire on the Jewish media establishment, Snopes was suddenly elevated into a position where they were declared to be an ultimate decider on truth.

The site was originally founded by a goofy looking boomer cuckold named David Mikkelson. He’s been accused by his ex-wife Barbara of embezzling funds to pay for prostitutes. He’s still involved with the site’s operations and is soliciting donations to keep the site operational. There is some type of internal legal battle going on that is preventing them from running advertisements and it has drained them of funds.

Long story short, Mikkelson has got quite the mess on his hands!

CNet:

The fact-checking website Snopes issued a financial plea to its readers Monday to keep itself going. A GoFundMe donation page for Snopes shows a goal of $500,000 — with $97,000 raised as of 12:30 p.m. PT.

Snopes.com was founded in 1994 and has been debunking urban myths and hoaxes since long before they were called fake news. The website is currently half owned by Proper Media and half by Snopes founder David Mikkelson, via his company Bardav.

In May, Proper Media filed a lawsuit with the California Superior Court in San Diego alleging that Bardav breached its contract. Since then, Proper Media hasn’t allowed Snopes to run advertisements, the website’s main source of revenue.

Bardav countersued, alleging that Proper Media didn’t provide contracted services.

Hopefully Snopes goes bankrupt. They are the furthest thing from a credible operation. One of their lead “fact-checkers” is some type of weird pot smoking dominatrix. Mikkelson himself has even remarried a porn star who doubles as a Snopes staff member.

While they still try to debunk utterly retarded nonsense, their main purpose is to backup the official Jewish Marxist talking points of the day.

Colin Flaherty recently exposed them for covering up Black violence.

Any organization whose original purpose was to debunk things like Bigfoot sightings is not an operation I would trust as the holy grail of truth. Never mind the fact that the people working on the site appear to be a bunch of untrustworthy weirdos.

And one final note. Bigfoot is real. Butchy Kid has compiled hundreds of YouTube videos documenting many real life Bigfoot encounters. I found this particular video to be especially riveting. I bet Snopes doesn’t have the balls to fact-check it!

These are the people that Facebook has hired to cockblock content on their website based on it being “fake news.”

Please note the top feature in the sidebar.

David and Barbara Mikkelson and their cat: The final determiners of truth and reality.

The “fact checking” sensation Snopes, run by two house-bound liberal baby boomers, David and Barbara Mekkelson, recently joined other Judenpresse platforms to claim investigative journalist Benny Johnson lied about the fact that (((Debbie Wasserman-Schultz))) and Keith Ellison didn’t stand up for the second standing ovation in respects to war widow Carryn Owens.

How are you still employed? https://t.co/VyR1dZKtmW @bennyjohnson

— Luke O'Neil (@lukeoneil47) March 1, 2017

I personally think the length of a clapping a trivial thing to make a thing out of, but the issue here is that Jewish media moguls have elevated Snopes as the final verdict on what’s real and what’s “fake news,” and they’ve just been caught in a bald faced lie.

The system claims journalism they don’t micromanage and pre-approve is “fake news,” something Angela Merkel’s dictatorship has used as an alibi for cracking down on critical journalists during an election year.

Snopes has been transformed from a site that debunks Big Foot into a key propaganda instrument of the Democratic Party. It is relevant in the passive American dictatorship because its promotion by hacks has gotten it contracts with social media platforms like Facebook, who have hired a random eccentric leftist California couple to get the last say on what’s allowed to be discussed and what isn’t.

The New York Times and other Zionist broadsheets copy and pasted Snopes’ claim, but were forced to issue a retraction. Snopes itself had egg on its face.

The other crack team of truth-prophets, Politifact, are apparently sticking to their story, but using pointless semantics to spin it in their own favor.

Politifact:

Bloggers said, “Top Democrats refuse to stand for Gold Star widow.”

That makes it sound as if the blue side of the aisle stubbornly stayed seated while the GOP cheered for the widow of a Navy SEAL killed in a raid in Yemen. A more accurate headline would be, “Top Democrats don’t stand as long as Republicans for Gold Star widow.” A video review shows Democrats including Sanders, Pelosi, Wasserman Schultz and Ellison stood. But most sat down while Republicans renewed their applause.

To say they outright refused to stand up is inaccurate. We rate these headlines False

This is a pretty stupid thing to lie about, seeing as millions of Americans watched the stream and saw Schultz and Ellison sitting. What big things is the Ministry of Truth misrepresenting or getting wrong?

The irony is that this whole fact-checking/fake news business is about discrediting President Trump and his supporters, and nothing more. It’s an agenda protection mechanism straight out of 1984: if the goyim know and you can’t shut it down, then try and “fact check” them until they’re frozen in confusion.

Luckily this latest attempt at controlling the public’s access to free flowing information has been quickly discredited and is now mocked. But that doesn’t mean real fact-checking, like the work done by the Daily Stormer, isn’t important.