Sky News Australia discuss the WHO’s drive to a global pandemic treaty and correctly recognise that this is a crucial world government building block. A path towards a new Tower of Babel. They also correctly recognise the fact that the pattern resembles the discussion on climate change. It’s not left vs. right but authoritarianism vs. freedom. The collective “greater good” vs. individualism. (6 min)
Category Archives: Media
Like the Curious Bride in “Bluebeard”
Investigating the Bio-Pharmaceutical Complex leads inexorably to a place of horror.
Dr. Peter McCullough, MD, MPH says he has found strong indicators of “eminent Scripps Institute virologist, Kristian Andersen”, changing his tune on the possibility of the Covid virus having been engineered. On 31st January 2020 he still thought parts of the genome “(potentially) look engineered”. Then, on 4th February 2020, “shortly after a phone conference with Dr. Fauci and others—Dr. Andersen completely changed his tune. By then, the decision had been to submit a letter to the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine regarding the origin of SARS-CoV-2.”
For more than a year thereafter, anyone suggesting an artificial, lab-engineered source of the virus was vilified mercilessly in the press. Then suddenly and strangely, it became an allowed opinion. Despite however the enormity of this suggestion, the media are strangely silent about it.
McCollough comments:
What on earth could inspire a virologist to adopt a posture of such Machiavellian duplicity about an infectious agent that—as he well knew—was about to inflict a catastrophe on all of mankind? He had to have known that such pronouncements—coming from a virologist of his eminence—would likely retard a thorough and impartial investigation of the virus’s origin.
Contemplating this question this evening, I thought Bluebeard’s young bride when she discovers the chamber of horrors in her husband’s castle. I suspect that Tess Lawrie felt the same way in her encounter with Dr. Andrew Hill, which she recounted in the short documentary film Dear Andy.
I have blogged about that documentary film here.
Propaganda Restricts Speech More Than Censorship Does
Writes Caitlin Johnstone:
The biggest impediment to free speech is people’s belief that they have it. Not censorship. Not refusal to platform critical voices. Not the war on journalism. It’s the fact that most people are propagandized into saying what the powerful want them to say, and don’t know it.
What makes our dilemma so historically unique is that we live under an empire which makes extensive use of the post-Bernays science of mass-scale psychological manipulation to trick its subjects into believing that they are thinking, speaking, and gathering information freely. In this way our rulers suppress any revolution long before it starts, not by making people’s lives better, nor by violent repression, but by manipulating people into thinking there’s nothing to revolt against, because they have no rulers and they are already free.
[. . .]
This problem can be addressed simply by bringing awareness to it in every way we can. Manipulation only works if you don’t know it’s happening, so drawing attention to it and describing how it happens in as many ways as possible helps people start seeing through it.
The Proper Attitude Towards Truth
It exists, but is never fully knowable by humans
The Christian, or at least Christian-based attitude towards truth is that an objective truth exists, but is never fully knowable. Not by humans, that is. Only God knows the whole truth. However, truth is approachable. We can come close to it – or move away from it. We are called by God to come as close to it as we possibly can. As we say during baptism: “With the help of God, we will.”
Part of the age-old struggle against Christianity is to call this stance into question. It can be done in two ways. One is to insist that the objective truth is out there AND that it is knowable by humans. This is the enlightenment or “modern” stance. (The – usually unspoken – implication is that those who know the truth automatically have the right to rule over those who don’t – and be it only for benevolently guiding and protecting the latter.)
The other way to negate the Christian theory of truth is to deny the existence of an objective truth altogether. This is the “post-modern” stance. Ironically, this theory leads necessarily and immediately to the proclamation of an ostensible, incontrovertible “truth”, namely that there is only one driving force in society, and that is the will to power. (Everything else, including the Christian claim, is a clever ruse to cover up this will to power.)
Interestingly, the “modern” and “postmodern” stances complement each other: If there is no truth but power, then those who “know the truth”, i.e. “have the power”, have the right to use it no matter what.
Did anyone say “satanic”?
I was prompted to write the above after reading this. Thierry Breton, an EU commissioner, who unironically calls himself “the enforcer”, is going to the US to tell Big Tech companies to “join the [EU] code of practice on disinformation”. The author of the above linked article comments:
And who gets to decide the truth? Hunter Biden? Joe Biden? Dr. Anthony Fauci? Hillary Clinton and her totally discredited Russia campaign? I guess the answer of the day is Thierry Breton. As “The Enforcer”, he is apparently in a unique position to understand the truth about everything.
When Pilate asked the famous question: “What is truth?” (John 18:38), Jesus chose not to answer the man of power.
Not to worry: We now have Thierry Breton.
Something smells of sulphur.
They are going after your kids
Insidious propaganda from the BBC
The BBC is incentivising children to break the commandment tohonour father and mother.
Writes Eric Meder in his newsletter of today:
The worst type of manipulation is one that targets children. And that is the kind of manipulation that Big Tech companies and the Government are doing. Recently, the BBC released an article called “Earth Day: How to talk to your parents about climate change”
[See here, remove gap: www.bbc. co.uk/news/science-environment-65339214?ck_subscriber_id=1916028067]
The start of the article says “You want to go vegan to help the planet, but you’re not paying for the shopping. You think trains are better than planes, but your dad books the summer holiday. Young people are some of the world’s most powerful climate leaders and want rapid action to tackle the problem.”
This is very manipulative writing. It’s using phrases like “you want” to put the reader in a position that they might not even be in. Then, they reinforce it by trying to be relatable.
It’s easy to read something like this when you are young and identify with it. Because they are writing it in a specific way. A self-righteous way. They are telling the children that it’s their DUTY to educate their parents.
This makes the children think that they have a responsibility. And they reinforce that responsibility with social pressure.
In the article they talk about three different points, How to talk about going meat-free, How to talk about flying less, and How to talk about being waste free.
Throughout the article they ask young kids/adults for advice on how they can talk to (or manipulate) their parents into following these agendas.
So, let’s take a look at these three different points and the advice that BBC is giving out to children in talking to their parents.
In the first point, How to talk about going meat-free, they talk about Ilse, who at 13 years old did research about climate change and read that cutting out red meat was a good start.
Because of this information she decided to go vegetarian. Her parents admitted that at first it was a burden, but they adapted and started cooking only vegetarian meals even though they all miss the flavor of meat.
Then in the second point, How to talk about flying less, a 21 year old named Phoebe convinced her family to go somewhere by train instead of flying abroad. Phoebe’s advice to children is ”Say something like, ‘I’m really scared about my future, these are the reason I want to do something’,”
That’s not great advice, in fact it sounds like borderline fear tactics or emotional blackmail.
Finally, in the third point, How to talk about being waste-free, in this section a 20 year old named Becky convinced her family to be waste free. She said that you need to be well-informed to show your family you have done your research.
And after that, she says you should do things like “explain why it will make their lives easier or cheaper,” and “Make connections with things they care about.”.
I was shocked when I read this article. It is a blatant attempt to manipulate children.
They even mentioned a UK based campaign called ‘Teach the Parent’ in the article.
It’s shameless to go after the youth for spreading an agenda, especially this deceptively. Members of the youth have a key role, and that is to learn, not teach.
And as adults, you have an important role as well. And that role is to teach. And part of teaching is understanding.
You have to understand that the youth of today is being manipulated.
So, when you hear them preaching, and you hear them feeling self-righteous, remember it is because of manipulation. And instead of getting angry at them, we need to retaliate with calm education.
If we get angry at the younger generation for being this way, it will only add fuel to their fire.
If you have kids, I recommend that you keep a close eye on what they consume content wise. And make sure that you teach them critical thinking skills. Because if they don’t think for themselves, someone else will think for them.
I hope you enjoyed this article. Please share our blog with your friends and family. Thank you! Eric Meder
The real “misinformation” peddlers
Here’s someone the BBC in its zeal to root out “mis- and disinformation” surprisingly missed.
From Tom Woods‘ newsletter from today:
| If the world would stop being insane for five minutes, I could get things done around here. Howard Forman, a prime spreader of Covid misinformation at Yale, just posted this: |
 |
| Apoorva Mandavilli, the woman in the picture, spread nonstop misinformation about Covid via her New York Times columns, exaggerating the numbers and death rate to the point that even the Times itself had to correct her. She claimed without evidence that schools were especially dangerous sources of illness. She also said it was “racist” to consider the origins of Covid. It was nonstop lies and lunacy from her pen — and now a Yale professor endorses her as someone qualified to fight against medical misinformation. Sometimes I wonder if the absurdity of it all is deliberate, and intended to demoralize us. At any rate, the comments slightly restored my faith in mankind. There were many, many of them, and as far as I can see they were all from people aghast at this. Examples: |
 |
 |
 |
| The great Harvey Risch is at Yale, so I hate to say that everyone from Yale obviously needs to be ignored at this point, but let’s say everyone except Harvey Risch. “Misinformation,” whether medical or otherwise, has obviously come to mean: information we don’t want you to have. Another thing a lot of these people didn’t want you to have was, you know, a job — unless they decided you were “essential.” So maybe it’s not such a bad idea to have something in your back pocket for in case they come after us again. |
The truth about the BBC’s war on ‘disinformation’
The new BBC Verify project reflects the cultural elites’ paranoid fear of free speech.
Article by Fraser Myers
The BBC not only inflates the dangers of social-media falsehoods, it has also applied the disinformation label to stories that are actually true. So if you cause a fuss about anti-car traffic restrictions coming to your local area, if you protest against eco-plans for a ‘15-minute city’, you could find yourself branded a ‘conspiracy theorist’ on the BBC – even though these illiberal traffic schemes really are happening across the UK. All too often, the charge of ‘disinformation’ is used as another way of demonising those with dissent opinions.
Meanwhile, the BBC has been known to spread untruths of its own. Take its coverage of the trans issue. The BBC website regularly describes predatory men, including rapists, paedophiles and murderers, as ‘women’ – purely because they ‘identify’ as such. It has produced news reports and whole documentaries about ‘men’ getting pregnant. When licence-fee payers are told to ignore the evidence of their own eyes in this way, we shouldn’t be surprised that the BBC is losing trust.
Climate change is another major blindspot for the Beeb. Despite their apparent concern about climate misinformation, BBC journalists and presenters frequently make alarmist and false claims about the environment. A recent Panorama documentary, fronted by the BBC’s climate editor, said in its opening sequence that extreme weather events are killing more people. The truth is the precise opposite: the death toll from weather events has actually fallen considerably in recent decades. But this does not fit the established, fear-driven narrative.
[Links to various other websites in the original text.]
When something is “too good to be true”
... it usually is. See "Hitler's Diaries" - a "story" now 40 years old.
“Question authority”
"Until we take over", the new authoritarians said to themselves
Writes Tom Woods in today’s newsletter:
What are the textbooks going to say?
That’s what I asked Scott Horton on the Tom Woods Show in our episode on the Durham Report [also here], which definitively exposed the “Russiagate” nonsense as the hoax any non-comatose person knew it was.
But here’s the problem.
American historians are reliable stenographers of the regime. They tell the story the way the Establishment wants it told. Can you imagine an American history textbook admitting that in their zeal to get Trump, entire agencies compromised themselves and major political figures fabricated bizarre stories of Russian collusion?
Historians — some of whom probably once believed the old leftist slogan “question authority” — dearly love the FBI, the CIA, all these agencies. A handful tell bad stories about them from the past, but those stories from the past evidently inspire zero skepticism about them among historians today.
“Question authority” was never meant to be taken seriously. It meant: undermine authority until we take over, and then use that authority to entrench ourselves via lies and dirty tricks.
Matt Taibbi has been on the left his whole life, and has no particular reason to want to exonerate Donald Trump. Except for one thing: he dislikes lies and liars.
Here’s Taibbi’s response to the report:
“I read Special Counsel John Durham’s ‘Report on Matters Related to Intelligence Activities and Investigations Arising Out of the 2016 Presidential Campaigns’ yesterday in a state I can only describe as psychic exhaustion. As Sue Schmidt’s ‘Eight Key Takeaways’ summary shows, the stuff in this report should kill the Trump-Russia conspiracy theory ten times over, but we know better than that. This story never dies. Every time you shoot at it, it splits into six new deep state fantasies.
“I’ve given up. Nearly seven years ago this idiotic tale dropped in my relatively uncomplicated life like a grenade, upending professional relationships, friendships, even family life. Those of us in media who were skeptics or even just uninterested were cast out as from a religious sect — colleagues unironically called us ‘denialists’ — denounced in the best case as pathological wreckers and refuseniks, in the worst as literal agents of the FSB.”
I myself hear the words “Russian disinformation” or “Russian asset” or “Russian talking points” and instantly think: I am speaking to a very low-IQ, highly suggestible person, who repeats whatever phrases are fed to him.
Time after time these fantasies of Russian conspiracies have proven false, and yet the story won’t go away.
Here’s hoping this time they’re slayed for good — heck, even Anderson Cooper admitted the report was “devastating” to the FBI.
NSA and Pentagon Led the Creation of the Vaccine Says Declassified Documents
Video (25 minutes) by Ben Armstrong. He also shows data here that indicates now that the vaccinated are getting sick and are dying in greater numbers than the unvaccinated. And how many people in media and politics have ended up with a lot of egg in their face. And we’re only at the beginning of the reckoning, I guess.