Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

The News is being Nudged

A joint report from Sky and the UK government’s Nudge Unit reveals a startling collaboration

By Laura Dodsworth | November 2, 2021

propaganda, n

The systematic dissemination of information, esp. in a biased or misleading way, in order to promote a political cause or point of view.

– Oxford English Dictionary

Is the news still news when it is being nudged by the UK government’s behavioural scientists?

Sky announced this week that behaviour change on climate can be driven by TV. It released a video which opened with the lines, “We cannot understate the urgency. But faced with issues of such enormity, what role can we play?”

It’s not actually a question, they have already decided their role. Sky announced that it was collaborating with the “independent Behavioural Insights Team”. That sounds more palatable than collaborating with the government doesn’t it? But the Behavioural Insights Team (BIT) is one third owned by the Cabinet Office and appears to be on permanent tenure at Downing Street. Can a company which is one third owned by the government be fairly described as “independent”?

BIT’s report The Power of TV: Nudging Viewers to Decarbonise their Lifestyles makes a number of startling admissions.

“Behaviour change via broadcasting and traditional media has historically been aimed at improving public health, boosting gender equality, and reducing violence. Imagine the potential for emissions reductions if the same methods were used to encourage sustainable behaviours!”

The key word is “historical”. If you have ever suspected that social and political issues were being confected somewhat artificially in TV programming, you were right. This is an admission of social engineering.

According to a joint survey by Sky and BIT, 70% of people across Europe are willing to change their behaviour to address the climate crisis and 80% support TV broadcasters ‘nudging’ viewers to think about the environment, whether that’s through documentaries, advertising or increasing the coverage of environmental issues in the news.

Climate policy is a tricky nut to crack – persuading us to have under-performing and expensive boilers, asking us to switch insects for meat, stop taking foreign holidays and drive our cars less is going to be a hard sell. So the nudgers are going to use the telly box to persuade the recalcitrant masses.

The survey itself uses ‘social conformity’. Ah, you are supposed to think, if 80% of people think TV programming should be used to ‘nudge’ us, then that’s what I think too. Notoriously, however, there is a gap between what people say they want in surveys and what they actually want. The ultimate proof will be in behaviour and ratings.

The report states that broadcasters and content creators have a “unique opportunity to make a difference for the planet”. (I wonder what difference it would make if Sky’s CEO stopped commuting transatlantically by private jet?)

According to the report, the British public are unwilling to take supposedly “high impact” actions, such as eating less meat and dairy, switching to electric vehicles, using public transport, and switching to green pensions.

The Power of TV: Nudging Viewers to Decarbonise their Lifestyles

The report is audaciously bossy about how broadcasters and content creators should change the British public’s behaviour.

Advice such as “Frequency of exposure to green themes could be enhanced by building ecological beliefs and traits into core characters within a show so that green issues can fluently be raised time and time again,” sounds potentially tedious.

You will see fewer characters “carelessly drinking from a plastic bottle”. But you will see more kids programming centre on green issues to influence you as well as the kids to promote “intergenerational spillover”.

Suggestions continue with “a family could discuss reducing their waste” in a comedy show. Making that funny is quite the gauntlet throw. News segments could “explore barriers to acting green and share stories for overcoming them,” which doesn’t sound particularly newsworthy. An episode of a drama could include references to buying an electric vehicle and, of course, characters should order vegetarian options in restaurants.

Plump the cushions, grab a cuppa and get ready for the green themes in your favourite psyopera, I mean soap opera. During COP26, storylines are converging on the environment. Soap ratings have diminished over the years and is it any wonder? People don’t want to be preached to. Creativity cannot be programmed and storytelling is an art. It is naïve arrogance to believe this sort of technocratic tinkering will engage viewers. We gravitate to good stories.

Mercifully, BIT suggests that broadcasters “avoid a negative tone” and warns that “fear-mongering, guilt-tripping, blaming, or preaching can be counter-productive.” (I wonder if a certain book had an impact?)

In addition to Sky, another eleven major UK media brands, including the BBC, ITV, Channel 4, RTE, Britbox and Discovery, have pledged to increase the amount and “quality” of their climate coverage. So expect the airwaves to be flooded with the techniques suggested in the BIT report. At the same time, expect very little media scrutiny of this astonishing collaboration between nudgers and newscasters. And in print and online, the BBC, The Guardian, The Times and the Financial Times have added specific climate sections to their news.

A few months after the publication of A State of Fear, a government advisor told me that the behavioural scientists are “very pleased with themselves” and “Britain is seen as leading the way in how to manipulate people. There is skipping in Whitehall corridors. The public have been proved to be incredibly sheepish, so there’s more nudge coming.” And so there is.

My book concluded that the UK government’s use of behavioural science during the Covid epidemic lacked transparency and was anti-democratic. BIT’s report might appear to rebut both accusations. Don’t be fooled. It rests upon a survey which says people want to be nudged through the media. But research conducted by biased and vested parties is not a substitute for a democratic mandate. The British public never voted for or consented to the creation of a Nudge Unit to subliminally influence them and then set the news agenda. Furthermore, when behavioural scientists – and by extension the government – influence the news, it risks the inquiry, debate and balance that the media owes the public.

Whatever you believe about climate, or Covid-19, or any other agenda, can any mental contortions justify the news being nudged? We would criticise such blatant propaganda if it happened in any other country and we should not tolerate here. We should switch it off.

November 3, 2021 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science | | 1 Comment

Suffer the children: How the young are groomed into the transgender trap

By Belinda Brown | TCW Defending Freedom | November 3, 2021

THE eminent biologist Lord Robert Winston recently reminded viewers of BBC’s Question Time that ‘you cannot change your sex. Your sex actually is there in every single cell in the body. You have chromosomal sex, you have genetic sex, you have hormonal sex, you have all sorts of psychological brain sex, they’re all different’.

He said this in defence of Professor Kathleen Stock, the latest victim of death threats and significant harassment having fallen foul of the transgender lobby, who has also won the support of Equalities MInister Kemi Badenoch.

The most vulnerable victims of the trans lobby’s bullying ideological agenda however are not the feminist academics, nor even the female athletes who are now forced to compete against the opposite and far more powerful sex.

They are not even the women in prisons who have to fend off male rapists in their midst, terrible though their situation is and their fear must be.

The most vulnerable are the unacknowledged victims of this ever more determined lobby. They are the children who are systematically groomed to believe they can be the opposite sex.

The trans lobby will tell you that this decision-making is driven by the child. But given the endless funding for propaganda, the persistent drip of modern sex education and zeal of certain child psychiatrists, it is hardly children who are leading the way.

Today, from the earliest ages the normal development of an understanding of sex differences is prevented. Children are given books such as Are you a boy or are you a girl? which teach them not to assume that anyone has a particular sex.

They are further confused with lessons on the gender unicorn which deny biological sex facts.

Along with concepts such as ‘gender expression’, ‘gender identity’ and ‘assigned sex’, serious attempts are being made by some educationalists and trans lobbyists to stop the idea (indeed the fact) that we are born as boys or girls from ever taking root.

It is the most vulnerable of children – those who for whatever reason do not adhere to rigid gender stereotypes – who are too often singled out for special gender treatment; they are ‘affirmed’ as not being their sex.

Being ‘affirmed’ means that this child will instead be told that they are indeed the opposite sex and will be treated as such. The child’s peer group and all his or her trusted adults will be encouraged, or even compelled, to engage in this myth.

Affirmation is but the first step in the process of social transition which sets the child on a path which is likely to involve them in medicalisation for the rest of their lives.

The biggest threat (from the trans ideologists’ point of view) to this process is the onset of puberty. If a child has been told by trusted adults that he (or she) is actually the opposite sex, it could be confusing if significant changes happening to his body led to the conclusion that he had been lied to, or that his trusted adults were wrong.

To avoid this, lobbyists have campaigned for puberty-blocking drugs to be given earlier, at the first onset of puberty. In fact, children are often encouraged to ‘transition’ in the interlude between primary and secondary school, so that no one will ever know they are ‘trans’.

The reality check provided by puberty is averted. And those on puberty-blockers are almost invariably moved on to taking cross-sex hormones.

A female cannot move into womanhood if she hasn’t been able to go through puberty as a girl. This is what Keira Bell was condemned to. Keira is the brave young woman who had treatment at the NHS-run Tavistock child gender clinic in Devon and brought a successful judicial review against the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation, sadly since overturned by the Appeal Court.

She has explained how this process worked: ‘The idea was that this would give me a “pause” to think about whether I wanted to continue to a further gender transition.

‘This so-called pause put me into what felt like menopause with hot flushes, night sweats and brain fog. All this made it more difficult to think clearly about what I should do.

‘By the end of a year of this treatment, when I was presented with the option of moving on to testosterone, I jumped at it – I wanted to feel like a young man, not an old woman.’

This shocking process has been allowed to carry on because we’ve been told that if we didn’t allow it, these young people would kill themselves.

But study after study shows that gender dysphoria is much more likely to be a consequence than a cause of psychological problems – problems that the process of transition may entrench or worsen. In fact, the relationship is the other way around.

A recent study of gender dysphoric children showed that almost 90 per cent had comorbid (simultaneous) health diagnoses and other indicators of psychological distress. (The precise figure is 88.6 per cent – see top of page 80).

Sixty-five per cent of gender dysphoric children suffered from anxiety. Sixty-two per cent suffered from depression. More than 33 per cent had behavioural disorders. The presence of autism was another cause for concern.

The link between gender dysphoria and pre-existing mental ill-health was also confirmed by a study of de-transitioners, of whom 58 per cent felt that their gender dysphoria was caused by trauma or a mental health condition.

This is not a new discovery, but has been found repeatedly in studies. It has just been conveniently ignored. The family stories told by these children and their parents often reveal the source of their mental health disorders. Adverse childhood experiences had been very much part of their lives.

Sixty-six per cent had experienced family conflict, 66 per cent parental mental illness; 60 per cent had lost an important figure via separation, and bullying had been common for 54 per cent. Thirty-nine per cent experienced maltreatment (p.71).

We may be tempted to lay the blame at the feet of these families who, despite measurably high levels of dysfunction and conflict, appear to have no awareness that their problems could be impacting on the child as well as themselves.

Instead, what appears to happen is that the child’s gender dysphoria provides a handy explanation for all the stresses and strains which the family or individual may be feeling, and even better from their point of view, a medical solution through which these problems can be resolved.

Keira Bell explains it thus: ‘When I was seen at the Tavistock Clinic, I had so many issues that it was comforting to think I really had only one that needed solving: I was a male in a female body.’

But the blame does not really lie with these families. Often they were from disadvantaged groups in society, living under considerable financial and social stress. Their biggest crime is perhaps a lack of common sense. Far more culpable are the media, the well-funded lobby groups and the clinicians who’ve recklessly applied this fashionable theory.

This essay will continue tomorrow.

November 3, 2021 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | | Leave a comment

Tech investor Peter Thiel criticizes “Ministry of Truth” and creation of “fake consensus”

By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | November 2, 2021

During the National Conservatism Conference, held on October 31, tech billionaire Peter Thiel warned against “centralized misinformation” because it creates a “fake consensus.”

Thiel asserted that the centralized misinformation problem is responsible for the silencing of debate on important issues such as inflation of the American economy, COVID-19, and the presence of US troops in Afghanistan.

In his speech, Thiel gave examples of what he described as the “incredible derangement of various forms of thought.” He referenced Stanford’s professor Jay Bhattacharya’s experience. Pictures of the professor were plastered all over the school because he spoke against masks.

He said: “When you have to call things science, you know they aren’t – like climate science or political science,” Epoch reported.

According to Thiel, such excessive dogmatism is the reason for the failed policies by the US government in Afghanistan for more than twenty years.

The PayPal co-founder went on to say that the US is currently experiencing a “runaway, non-transitory inflation” and the “complete bankruptcy of the Fed” because of the inability to tolerate differing ideas and opinions that are unpopular.

“If there’s a misinformation problem, it’s a centralized misinformation problem—and it’s the misinformation coming from the Ministry of Truth,” said Thiel.

November 2, 2021 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science | | 1 Comment

Molnupiravir: Covid Wonder Drug or Money-Making Scam?

By Ryan Matters | OffGuardian | October 28, 2021

What happens when you fail in your attempts to create a vaccine for “Covid-19” and then realize you’ve just missed out on a billion-dollar profit-making opportunity?

You hurriedly develop a new drug, rush it through a clinical trial (which you yourself design to ensure good results), and then announce it to the world as the Covid cure we’ve all been waiting for, except no one’s been waiting for it because Covid isn’t any more deadly than the flu, and can be treated by easy-to-procure, inexpensive means (if it exists at all).

But governments are too stupid to know that and you own most of the corrupt politicians making the decisions, so who cares? As long as they’re willing to invest in your new concoction, it doesn’t even have to be necessary, or safe, or effective, or ethical…

Yes, I’m talking about “Molnupiravir”, Merck’s latest poison being promoted as an effective treatment against covid-19 (hang on, I thought that’s what the vaccines were for?).

This unapproved (yes, unapproved) drug costs $700 per course and the US government has just agreed to buy 1.7m courses. That’s a 1.2 BILLION dollar investment.

The deal is part of the Biden administration’s pledge to “respond to the health needs of the public”, but, in actuality, it’s simply a money-siphoning operation, with the American public coming off second best.

Molnupiravir is being sold to the public as the next big breakthrough in Covid-19 treatment off the back of what appears to be a SINGLE study, which was never even completed. Furthermore, the study was conducted by Merck (the makers of the drug), who chose not to disclose any adverse events. If that isn’t suspicious enough, the study was never published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Media press releases are apparently the new standard when it comes to evaluating medical treatments. After all, why would you wait for independent confirmation of your results or objective peer-review when you can get paid journalists, without a shred of medical expertise, to convince the public that they need your new drug?

If government scientists with integrity were in charge of assessing Molnupiravir, not bribed pharma shills, they may be alarmed at the lack of testing or the failure to disclose adverse events, they may even notice that vitamin D has had FAR superior results in combating “Covid-19”. In fact, one study, published in the highly respected and influential Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, found that vitamin D reduced mortality among severe covid-19 patients by 79%.

Compare that to the alleged 50% reduction offered by Molnupiravir for “mild-to-moderately ill” patients. Not to mention the difference in cost. As stated earlier, Molnupiravir runs at $700 per course, while vitamin D costs a fraction of that (probably less than $10!).

Furthermore, while Merck chose not to disclose adverse reactions, years worth of reliable data shows that vitamin D supplementation is extremely safe. And not only is taking vitamin D safe, but it also has a wealth of benefits for a variety of conditions including depression, anxiety, pain, inflammation, hypertension, cardiovascular disease and more.

As was obvious from the very beginning of the “pandemic” when nutritional medicine experts were slandered in the press for recommending “lethal” doses of vitamins, world health has been hijacked by the profit-hungry, empathy-dead, toxic cartel of Big Pharma “medicine”, and our governments have been in bed with them all along.

Furthermore, this has been going on longer than most people think. In fact, more than a decade earlier, governments were locking in billion-dollar deals to buy stockpiles of “Tamiflu”, an equally useless influenza drug that was later found to have no effect on reducing hospitalizations, deaths or complications from influenza.

In fact, Tamiflu was subsequently found to cause a raft of serious adverse reactions including delirium, panic attacks and even hallucinations. The “milder” side effects include nausea and vomiting.

In 2020, an unsealed whistleblower lawsuit revealed that drug company Hoffman-La Roche, the maker of Tamiflu, misrepresented clinical studies and made false claims regarding the effectiveness of the drug to treat influenza. In a 2020 article, Nasdaq quotes attorney Mark Lanier as saying that:

As alleged in the complaint – Tamiflu does not do what Roche promised… Roche hid this fact for many years by selectively citing its studies and suppressing the data about Tamiflu. The company utilized lobbyists, key opinion leaders and ghostwriters to promote Tamiflu with a deceptive promise to governments fearful of an influenza pandemic.”

Nonetheless, the medicine remains on the World Health Organization’s “essential medicines” list. The US and UK governments spent $1.3 billion and $703 million respectively buying “strategic reserves” of Tamiflu in preparation for a global flu pandemic.

At the time, the media (which had not yet totally sold out to Mr. Global) condemned the investments as a waste of money.

Governments made these outlandish investments off the back of “incomplete” data, which is exactly what has occurred with the latest deal to procure Merck’s Molnupiravir. And I’ll bet that when more data comes out, it will be found, once again, that governments wasted millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money.

Bribed politicians would rather deepen their pockets than institute sensible health policies or invest money into procuring and promoting vitamin D, which would not only save lives but help to improve mental health in a woefully deficient population ravaged by anxiety and depression.

As functional medicine expert, Dr. Alex Vasquez states in his latest blog,

… viral infections and the fear and ignorance around them have become a great way for drug companies to sell worthless drugs to their bribed politicians. If we spent that money on heath-promotion rather than fear-promotion, we’d be freer, stronger, healthier, and we’d emancipate ourselves from the mental slavery of fear, ignorance, and dependence.”

Furthermore, the importance of sunlight cannot be overstated, for apart from being our principal source of Vitamin D, it also induces the production of several powerful antiviral metabolites that aid the body in fighting off illness.

This article would not be complete without at least mentioning some of the corrupt dealings, legal cases and blatant crimes that Merck has been involved in over the years. The most egregious of these offenses, and one of the largest scandals in medical history, was the company’s promotion of its anti-inflammatory drug, Vioxx.

During its height, Vioxx was earning Merck $2 billion in revenue per year and estimations have found that around 25 million patients were prescribed the drug. In September 2004, Merck was forced to recall Vioxx on account of it being shown to cause adverse cardiovascular events, such as heart attacks and stroke.

Merck was slammed with a massive class-action lawsuit that was eventually settled for $4.85 billion in 2007. Not only did Merck cover up data suggesting its drug was dangerous, they illegally promoted it as an “off-label” treatment for rheumatoid arthritis, without any indication of its effectiveness.

According to the testimony of Dr. David Graham, the Associate Director for Science and Medicine in FDA’s Office of Drug Safety, Vioxx caused 55,000 premature deaths from heart attacks and stroke.

Even years after taking the medication, patients often still experience problems, indicating that Vioxx may have killed far more people than the conservative estimate made by Dr. Graham, who, after all, works for the FDA, the organization that was responsible for assessing the drug’s safety.

In fact, after analysing US national mortality data starting from the year Vioxx was released up to the year it was withdrawn, Ron Unz, [former] publisher of The American Conservative, came to the startling conclusion that Vioxx may have been responsible for up to 500,000 deaths, mostly in the elderly (age 65+) population.

After the scandal, Merck hired the services of PR company, Burson-Marstellar (whose past campaigns include covering up genocide in Nigeria, fighting health authorities on the issue of second-hand cigarette smoke, and playing down Apple’s abuse of Chinese factory workers), to help clean up its public image and assert them as an “ethical player in the healthcare arena”.

And it seems to have worked, for here we are, 15 years later with another worthless – and possibly quite dangerous – Merck drug being promoted around the world as a treatment for “Covid-19”. Predictably, the UK government has now expressed interest in Molnupiravir, with many more countries expected to follow suit.

But Merck’s criminal history stretches further back than 1999 when Vioxx hit the shelves, for, as early as the 1960s, Merck faced controversy regarding its arthritis medication, Indocin. Although the drug had been approved by the FDA, it was later revealed that the medication had not been adequately tested for efficacy or side effects.

Less than a decade later, Merck’s drug DES (diethylstilbestrol), alleged to prevent miscarriages, was found to be carcinogenic, causing cases of cervical cancer and other gynaecological disorders. And last (but certainly not least), in 2007, Merck’s cholesterol drug, “Zetia” was shown to cause liver disease, a risk that was known to Merck who intentionally concealed the damning trial results.

Before ending this article, I would like to quote a section from one of my previous articles titled Big Pharma Power Vortex vs Zero Deaths From Vitamins, as I believe it’s particularly pertinent here:

For those who think the media are simply biased towards pharmaceutical drugs, this is a naive assumption. Behind the headline-making newspapers, magazines and television programs is a coordinated socio-political power vortex seeded in Big Pharma/Big Money corruption.

Drawing on the work of Dr. Alex Vasquez, I present here a brief summary of how the system works:

    1. Medical journals are inherently biased towards publishing pro-drug articles. These then serve as advertisements for the pharmaceutical industry which pays millions of dollars for journal reprints.
    2. Mainstream media outlets such as newspapers, magazines, TV shows and online publications then republish the pro-drug information, much to the delight of the pharmaceutical industry.
    3. Medical science and mainstream media then become a pro-drug echo chamber for biased, Big Pharma propaganda.
    4. Drug companies increase their sales, gaining profits and building influence to the point where they have more power than governments.
    5. Pharmaceutical companies infiltrate medical education, media, and health policy; they pay “researchers” to publish and teach information favourable to the pharmaceutical paradigm.
    6. Governments then write policies and make investments that favour drug companies rather than the citizens of that country.

At the time of writing, Molnupiravir has not yet been FDA approved. However, Merck has asked the FDA to grant “emergency” approval on account of the drug’s alleged effectiveness. Considering the decisions made by the FDA thus far, along with the fact that funding from pharmaceutical companies like Merck makes up 75% of the FDA’s drug review budget, what do you think the chances are of Molnupiravir’s approval being granted?

And would you trust a doctor who prescribed it to you?

October 31, 2021 Posted by | Corruption, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , , , | Leave a comment

American Academy of Pediatrics Shills for Big Pharma, Pushes COVID Vaccines for Kids

By David Marks | The Defender | October 28, 2021

The public relations campaign to push COVID vaccines on children is at full throttle, as evidenced by a telling opinion piece published Tuesday in the New York Times — the same day an advisory panel to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recommended granting Emergency Use Authorization for Pfizer’s shot for 5- to 11-year-olds.

In her op-ed, Dr. Lee Savio Beers — president of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) — bluntly dictated the requisite information under the headline: “Yes, You’ll Want to Vaccinate Your Kids Against Covid. An Expert Explains Why.”

Times readers might make wiser decisions if they had more information about the true risks to their children. Beers acknowledged the widely supported data demonstrating children are at very low risk for severe illness or death — then made an eloquent though unfounded case for why they should be vaccinated anyway.

Beers declared vaccinating children will help slow the spread of the disease — contradicting conclusive studies that show vaccines do not stop transmission.

Beers and the AAP might have some conflict of interest due to the close financial and professional relationship they have with Pfizer.

Yet no one blinks, as an expert comes forward to front a product, manufactured by his pharmaceutical pals, as the FDA prepares to make an important decision.

Beers’ attempt at persuasion is a classic snake-oil sales pitch, declaring the special qualities of his cure, albeit with no supporting data.

With unfounded confidence, she projects sacrosanct wisdom, even daring to say: “The expanded availability of vaccines should bring peace of mind to many families …”

The extremis of vaccine promotion has reached a ludicrous new level. However, the damage that is about to be inflicted on children is criminal.

Although the FDA heard concerns about the practicality and risks of vaccinating young children, it seemed members of the panel had already made up their minds.

U.S. government regulators and their colleagues at the AAP are complicit in devious criminality.

The AAP has a history of supporting the position of Big Pharma. It includes denying the dangers of mercury and thimerosal in vaccines, endorsing routine HPV vaccines and recommending Ritalin, a psychiatric drug, for 4-year-olds.

The academy also officially denied any dangers of GMO foods, including milk containing growth hormones — proven to have disease-inducing estrogen levels — suggesting there are no benefits to organic products.

Before trusting the latest sage advice from Beers and the AAP, parents should know the AAP was ambiguous for years, and certainly didn’t mount any campaign around the issue, even though they were aware of the evidence linking pesticides and cancer in children.

How many children’s lives could have been saved if there were opinion pieces in newspapers across the country warning about the risks of household chemicals?

The AAP’s failure to alert the public to the known risk of childhood leukemia from chemical exposure before birth and a child’s early years is negligent, yet the academy wasted no time in advising parents to inject a risky, experimental vaccine into healthy young children for a virus that poses little if any risk to them.

Severe illness and deaths among children are much greater than the repercussions of the COVID virus, yet the scare tactics are being ramped up to sell the vaccine.

In what is potentially the greatest historical instance of iatrogenesis, the youth of America are about to participate in an experiment promulgated by those who should be protecting them.

If the AAP is truly concerned about children’s health, we should be reading opinion pieces regarding the dangers of environmental toxins, the benefits of breastfeeding in reducing cancer, dietary risks of denatured foods and concerns for the immense pressure that children are under to conform to a society distorted by the pressure to consume at any cost.

David Marks is an investigative reporter and documentary producer. His new book, “The Way,” is an interpretation of the Chinese classic, the Tao Te Ching, available at LaoTzu-TheWay.org.

© [Article Date] Children’s Health Defense, Inc. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of Children’s Health Defense, Inc. Want to learn more from Children’s Health Defense? Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. Your donation will help to support us in our efforts.

October 31, 2021 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | Leave a comment

Pharma-Controlled CDC Fake News on Breakthrough Infections

By Stephen Lendmann | October 30, 2021

Nothing reported by the Pharma-Controlled CDC, FDA and other US anti-public health agencies can be taken at face value.

The same goes for their MSM press agents.

The vast majority of flu/covid outbreaks occur in jabbed individuals.

Based on CDC fake news, the NYT falsely reported that fully-jabbed Americans “had a much lower chance of testing positive for flu/covid or dying from it” than their unjabbed counterparts (sic).

Reality is the other way around.

Except for natural immunity that protects best against infection, staying unjabbed is significantly safer from contracting the viral illness than if jabbed.

The Times quoted Pharma-connected epidemiologist David Dowdy’s Big Lie claim that jabs are “working (sic)” — ignoring indisputable evidence of the serious harm they cause.

The above fake news is all about pushing refuseniks to get theirs, along with urging double-jabbed individuals to get a third dose of health-destroying toxins from booster-jabs.

The more gotten, the greater the damage to health — at some point leading to premature death.

If hospitalized in the US for flu/covid, individuals aged-50 and older are willfully and maliciously mistreated with intent to eliminate them in cold blood.

For bloodcurdling more on what’s going on, see my article titled Healthcare Redefined: Hospitals Transformed into Prisons — for extermination of unwanted older Americans.

More Times-repeated CDC Big Lies followed, saying:

“(F)ederal data (show) that all three brands of (jabs) administered in the US substantially reduced rates of cases and deaths (sic).”

According to peer-reviewed truth-telling science, it’s the other way around.

Toxins in jabs destroy health and shorten lifespans. Jab-free individuals live longer in better health than their jabbed counterparts.

According to UK data, deaths of children in the country increased by 62% since mass-jabbing began — based on the average percent of fatalities of the group over the previous five years.

Kaiser Family Foundation data show that 72% of unjabbed US workers vow to quit if ordered to roll up their sleeve for doses of toxins designed to destroy their health.

Many thousands of US healthcare professionals and staff refuse to agree to destroying their health from jabs as a condition of employment.

According to one nurse likely speaking for countless others:

As “an intelligent, healthy, and empowered healthcare professional that takes excellent care of herself, it is an insult to expect that I would accept an injection of unknown substance and efficacy and provide an example to the great people that I serve that they too should submit their power over to pharmaceutical companies — convicted felons — in an effort to put a band-aid on the gaping wound of reality.”

“It is unconscionable to mandate injections without exemption, especially when the injection is a brand new medical product still undergoing its first year of study.”

“Breakthrough cases are not properly reported on.”

“We know (these jabs are) ‘leaky.’ ”

“The(ir) safety and effectiveness has not been proven.”

“There are other safe and alternative treatments.”

“It is impossible to give fully informed consent without longterm, unbiased data.”

“Threatening our jobs is blatant coercion.”

“Our God-given right to bodily integrity and personal autonomy has been stripped with these mandates and we will not stand for it.”

Another nurse made similar comments, saying:

“I did not take the (jab), even though I will be terminated.”

“Why would I need a (jab) for something with a 99% survival rate?”

“Health care workers are not taking it because they know that the side effects are real.”

“In urgent care, I have seen myocarditis, cellulitis, (and) unusual neurological symptoms, among a variety of other side effects.”

“I have seen people very ill post-(jabbing), and then go on to test positive.”

“The positivity rate for contracting (flu/covid) on the (jabbed) is very high per recent studies and what I am seeing in my clinic.”

Flu/covid jabs are “not working.”

“I will never take risk (harm) on myself.”

The above remarks are a snapshot of widespread opposition to jabs from healthcare professionals.

They’ve seen what damage they’ve done to countless numbers of people.

September survey data from the Trafalgar Group and Convention of States Action showed that over 70% of respondents oppose mandated jabs.

Growing numbers in the US reject and oppose the steady drumbeat of pro-jabbing propaganda by Biden regime officials and their MSM press agents.

According to head of Convention of States Action Mark Meckler:

“Americans have never taken kindly to being told what to do, and they are not going to start now.”

“After being told ‘my body, my choice’ for nearly five decades by the same crowd now hypocritically pushing mandates, is it any wonder the public isn’t on board?”

If enough Americans and others reject mass-jabbing madness, refusing more doses by those already inoculated and none by others entirely free from their harm, the ugly scheme will collapse under the weight of Big Lies, mass deception and false promises.

October 31, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , , | Leave a comment

The Covid vaccine victims who will not be silenced

By Kathy Gyngell | TCW Defending Freedom | October 28, 2021

IT’S hard to tell sometimes whether the mainstream media is ingenuous and stupid, or disingenuous and malign. Their across-the-board, uncritical and almost adulatory reporting of Israel’s ‘first out of the traps’ mass vaccination programme prompts this observation. Check out Israel on Google: however many pages you search, you won’t find one critical article on the Israeli vaccination programme’s efficacy or ethics.

Had it been an unmitigated success there’d be no cause for surprise. But the truth is otherwise. Despite its early roll-out and achieving rates of vaccination in vulnerable groups upwards of 90 per cent, it’s no secret that over the summer the country experienced another wave of the virus that vaccination proved no barrier to. By early August the vaccinated (not the unvaccinated) in Israel were reported by a leading Israeli health official to account for 95 per cent of severe and 90 per cent of new hospitalisations for Covid-19. Significant ‘excess’ deaths in non-Covid vulnerable age groups also raised serious questions about the vaccines’ safety. In addition, this pre-print study (un-peer reviewed) published in August found natural immunity conferred longer lasting and stronger protection against the disease and hospitalisation caused by the Delta variant than the vaccine.

None of this evidence caused Israel’s government even a pause for thought. Au contraire the country was first off the mark again – this time with ‘booster’ third and fourth jabs all endorsed by the MSM with articles crediting it with powers its predecessors strangely lacked:

‘ . . . third doses are highly effective at preventing people from becoming infected with Delta, among those who are willing to be vaccinated,’ one enthusiastic professor opined. He said they not only dramatically reduce a person’s susceptibility to infection, they create a barrier to the onward transmission and spread of the virus.

The message from Israel for the UK is clear, or so the i newspaper would also have us believe. The booster is the way forward that our Government must follow with all speed.

It’s not just the politicos and the MSM mouthing the mantra. The Brookings Institute has opined tortuously that despite Israel’s ‘successful’ vaccination programme, its mounting cases make ‘the booster shot of the Covid-19 vaccine more necessary than ever’.

No academic looking for a living, breathing example of cognitive dissonance could find a better one.

This is the theory we’ve explained more than once in these pages. It accounts for the unaccountable – in this case for vaccine enthusiasts’ (do more) irrational response to the vaccines’ failure to deliver; for the ‘doubling down’ phenomenon – anything rather than acknowledge they may have got it wrong or placed too much reliance on what was always uncertain.

Faithful to the theory, they claim in face of negative data that their actions were successful in averting the worst, going further into denial with professions that had they not acted it would have been worse; thus setting up a canny ‘heads-we-win, tails-you-lose’ interpretation of things.

Festinger, the originator of this particular theory of human behaviour, explains it as ‘a psychic condition of tension and discomfort brought about by a palpable contradiction in an individual’s mental world’. It is an unease that must be eliminated: ‘Accordingly, something in the individual’s conscious awareness has to be invented, altered, ignored or denied.’

What is undoubtedly being denied by the authorities and their propagandists is the other side of the story – not only the inconvenient data but the human testimonies of those who have fallen foul of the experimental vaccine. This is the ultimate denial, keeping invisible the very real victims and survivors of the vaccines whose accounts are too threatening to the official narrative for the authorities to acknowledge.

Thank God then for the The Testimonies Project from Israel … to make sure their voices are heard, since they are not being heard in the Israeli media.

It’s a project that needs replicating worldwide to ensure that the millions of Covid vaccine victims are not airbrushed out of history and that there will be record of the human suffering that politicians can and must be brought to account for.

You can watch it here.

October 28, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science, Video | , , | 1 Comment

Crop Failures & The “Climate Disaster”

By Paul Homewood | Not A Lot Of People Know That | October 26, 2021

We looked at this phony Guardian report the other day:

image

One section deals with what it calls crop failure:

image

It claims that once-a-decade droughts are becoming more frequent, in comparison with 1850-1900! This apparently comes from the IPCC, but who was counting droughts in the 19thC?

As with disaster databases, it is only in recent years that organisations have been set up to monitor humanitarian crises and provide aid. A hundred years ago, there was no internet, television or mobile phones to relay the news.

A famine in Madagascar would simply have happened without being noticed.

The Guardian then goes on to “prove” its point, by cherry picking droughts in Guatemala and Zambia, as if they had never happened before. They are not even in the same year!

image

The dip in agricultural production in Guatemala is evident in 2017, but the trend for both countries is remorselessly up.

chart

https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#compare

If there was any truth in the Guardian’s apocalyptic version of events, we would see global food production staggering from one crisis to another.

But we don’t.

chart-1

The Guardian reckons that India and Pakistan will be particularly badly hit by crop failures, even in this decade:

image

But this goes totally opposite to what is actually happening there.

chart-2

And long term monsoon trends clearly show that droughts are not becoming more severe or common in India, global warming or not. Most droughts are, in fact, associated with El Ninos, and not climate change:

https://www.tropmet.res.in/~kolli/MOL/Monsoon/frameindex.html

October 26, 2021 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science | | 2 Comments

Joanna Lumley Suggests Wartime Rationing Could Solve Climate Crisis

By Richie Allen | October 26, 2021

Joanna Lumley has said that a return to rationing could help solve the climate crisis. The 75 year-old actress said that eating meat and travelling could be rationed to save the planet.

Speaking to Radio Times Lumley said:

“These are tough times and I think there’s got to be legislation. That was how the war was and at some stage we might even have to go back to some kind of rationing, where you’re given a certain number of points and it’s up to you how to spend them – whether it’s buying a bottle of whisky or flying in an aeroplane.”

She said that people could be compelled to cut back on weekend breaks abroad and to move to a plant based diet:

“Perhaps people have got to think a bit harder. Maybe more of our holidays should be at home or taking trains, and not hopping on a plane to Magaluf for the weekend.

I don’t get ill because I’m vegetarian. I still have plenty of energy. I am absolutely fine, I gave up meat 45 years ago.”

When you frame any problem, whether real or imagined as a war, you can justify almost anything right? Remember all that “workers on the front line” nonsense at the beginning of the scamdemic? Remember “the war on covid?”

Didn’t I say last year, that climate lockdowns would be a thing? I said that Sunday driving would be rationed as well as certain foods. This will tie in with the social credit system of course.

Not reducing your meat consumption, your travel, your overall carbon footprint ultimately, will eventually be seen as treachery.

Things are moving very quickly now.

October 26, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity, Science and Pseudo-Science | | 1 Comment

University receives $750k of federal funds to stop reporters from creating “negative unintended outcomes”

The government continues to get involved with shaping journalism

By Christina Maas | Reclaim The Net | October 24, 2021

Researchers at Temple University received $750,000 from the National Science Foundation (NSF) to develop a tool that warns journalists that they are about to publish polarizing content. The NSF is a federal government agency focused on supporting research and education in non-medical fields of engineering and science.

The initiative is part of NSF’s “Trust & Authenticity in Communication Systems.” It is called the “America’s Fourth Estate at Risk: A System for Mapping the (local) Journalism Life Cycle to Rebuild the Nation’s News Trust.”

The focus of the project, according to a report on Campus Reform, is creating a system that alerts journalists that the content they are about to publish might have “negative unintended outcomes” such as “the triggering of uncivil, polarizing discourse, audience misinterpretation, the production of misinformation, and the perpetuation of false narratives.”

The researchers hope that the system will help journalists measure the long-term impact of their stories, that go beyond existing metrics such as likes, comments, and shares.

One of the researchers involved in the project, Temple University’s professor Eduard Dragut, said that the system will “use natural language processing algorithms along with social networking tools to mine the communities where [misinformation] may happen.”

“You can imagine that each news article is usually, or actually almost all the time, accompanied by user comments and reactions on Twitter. One goal of the project is to retrieve those and then use natural language processing tools or algorithms to mine and recommend to some users [that] this space of talking, this set of tweets, which may lead to a set of people, like a sub-community, where this article is used for wrong reasons,” he added.

Journalists and other players in the news industry will be involved with the project, which already includes researchers from other universities including Boston University and the University of Illinois-Chicago.

“We want journalists to be part of the process, not just the mere users of the product itself,” Dragut said. “So you can imagine sort of an analytics tool that informs the journalists and editors and other people involved in this business how their products or how their creative act is used or misused in social media.”

He added that the project is attempting to “create a collaborative environment with both social media platform[s] and other organizations like Google” because of their expertise.

“We have some preliminary conversation with Bloomberg, for instance, and we will have to define exactly how they are going to help us. Google has an initiative to help local news, and we are working to create a relationship with them, and there are others,” Dragut told Campus Reform. “This product will not work unless we are successful in bringing some of these high tech companies into the game.”

Another researcher involved in the project, professor Lance Holbert, said that, for now, the misinformation the project is focusing on is that of the spread on local media.

“Certainly some topics over time will become more versus less interesting, but also we’re focused here initially on local media as well, so each locality may have different topics or particular points of interest that come up in the news,” he said. “We’re trying to keep this generalizable across topics.”

Holbert noted that misinformation is not “happening in the political spectrum” alone.

“[It’s happening] in sports, it’s happening in economics,” he said. “Like a few years back, I know, an example from Starbucks where there was a sort of a campaign on Twitter [saying] that Starbucks is targeting, in the wrong way, African Americans, which was wrong.”

The NSF is expected to further fund the project when its first phase becomes successful.

October 24, 2021 Posted by | Full Spectrum Dominance, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | 1 Comment

BBC Climate Expert Explains How Australia Could Live Without Coal Exports

By Eric Worrall | Watts Up With That? | October 22, 2021

Coal is both Australia’s second largest export and something Australia could live without, according to the BBC:

Australia could end its literally toxic relationship with coal fairly quickly, experts say.

Its economy is stable and well-diversified to absorb the loss of coal exports. […]

This has frustrated those who say Australia should be investing to become a renewables superpower.

As one of the sunniest and windiest continents on Earth, Australia is “uniquely placed to benefit economically” from its abundant natural resources, says the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), an intergovernmental organisation.

The BBC economic analysis leaves out an important detail – the $55 billion / year annual coal export industry keeps the the Australian dollar afloat. Without that $55 billion annual influx of foreign currency, the value of the Aussie dollar would likely collapse.

What about Australia’s alleged opportunity to become a green energy superpower?

My question: Why are the experts who claim Australia could be a “renewables superpower” demanding government support, instead of putting their own money where their mouth is?

The reason, of course, is the numbers don’t add up.

Australia might be one of the sunniest and windiest continents on Earth, but it is also one of the driest and dustiest places on Earth.

The Australian outback is an incredibly hostile environment for machinery.

Even on the coast, where I live, everything gets covered with a thick layer of dust in days. Gearboxes and bearings fill with grit. Surfaces get abraded. Plastic and rubber rapidly disintegrates under our hot ultraviolet soaked sunlight.

If I park my automobile outside at night, by morning I need to wash my windscreen using the wipers.

Some of the dust contains salt and organic compounds, and picks up electrostatic charges as it is blown by the wind, so it sticks to surfaces like glue, and has to be washed off. You cannot just shake or brush it off.

In the desert, away from the coast, it is even worse.

Unless you have a good supply of fresh water and soap for washing dust off everything you care about, lubricating oil to clean out dust contaminated bearings, and maintenance people to fix all the stuff which breaks, no machinery installation in the Australian interior survives for long.

Vast supplies of fresh water are not easy to find in Australia. Where fresh water is available, it is mostly already claimed by others, who would have to be compensated for loss of access. Billions of dollars would be required, to buy out farmers and miners who are already using every scrap of fresh water which is available, assuming you could convince any of them to sell.

Why would the cleaning water have to be fresh? What about pumping salt water from the ocean?

Salt water would be a disaster for cleaning renewable energy installations. The water would leave a film of translucent salt on everything. Stalagmites and stalactites of electrically conductive salt would accumulate on the edges of solar panels and sensitive electric installations, creating short circuits and fires. Salt water is far more corrosive than fresh water, it would rapidly attack any alumina fittings and all but high grade stainless steel. Salt water use could even lead to accelerated structural failures if there were any significant earth leakages, by accelerating corrosion of any structural metal components in contact with the ground. The influx of salt would remain in the environment, causing a localised ecological disaster.

Remember, the interior of Australia is sunny AND windy. Those solar panels better be anchored to the ground with lots of concrete and structural steel, otherwise they will blow away. The UV gelcoat protection on wind turbine blades would have to be meticulously maintained, to prevent our harsh sunlight from wrecking the plastic. And lets not forget, the freak storms which occasionally sweep in from the coast can drop rock hard hailstones the size of baseballs – not a good thing for anything caught under the storm.

This in my opinion is why companies are demanding large infusions of government cash before they’ll touch our alleged amazing opportunity to become a “renewables superpower”. As with most renewable energy schemes, I believe people behind the Australian “renewables superpower” vision expect any profit will come from milking taxpayers, not from genuinely profitable commercial sales of their product.

October 22, 2021 Posted by | Economics, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | | 2 Comments

Billionaire Pierre Omidyar’s secret backing of Facebook ‘whistleblower’ raises new questions about her agenda

(L) Frances Haugen © REUTERS / Matt McClain; (R) Pierre Omidyar © REUTERS / Tim Shaffer
By Kit Klarenberg | RT | October 21, 2021

The plot has thickened further in the case of Frances Haugen, with the revelation she is being funded by Pierre Omidyar. Given his history of backing of US-friendly organisations abroad, it’s hard not to question her motives.

It’s been revealed by Politico that Haugen, the Facebook ‘whistleblower’ who has generated such intense mainstream attention in recent weeks, receives “behind the scenes” financial assistance from controversial US billionaire Omidyar.

The backing is extensive. Omidyar’s Luminate is handling all her press and government relations in Europe, her top public relations representative in the US is a former Obama White House spokesperson who runs public affairs for a non-profit funded by Omidyar, and last year the tech guru gifted $150,000 to Whistleblower Aid, another organization supporting Haugen.

Politico asserts that this enormous wellspring offers her “a potentially crucial boost” in her crusade against the social network giant, granting Haugen “an edge that many corporate whistleblowers lack” – but then again, she’s a far from typical whistleblower.

A Silicon Valley veteran, Haugen’s stint at Facebook’s Threat Intelligence put her in extremely close quarters with former high-ranking US intelligence officials, who occupy senior divisions in the unit. An ad for an analyst vacancy in the division, posted just days before Haugen’s well-publicized Senate testimony, cites “5+ years of experience working in intelligence [in] international geopolitical, cybersecurity, or human rights functions” as an absolute “minimum qualification” for anyone wishing to apply.

There’s no indication Haugen herself has such a background, but it’s hard to imagine two-and-a-half-years spent rubbing shoulders with CIA, NSA, and Pentagon journeymen didn’t leave an impression on her.

As such, one needn’t be a cynic to suggest her public claims that the purported exploitation of Facebook by Western state-mandated “enemy” countries, against which her former colleagues have a clear and demonstrable bias, represents a threat to US national security may have been insidiously influenced to some degree. This would, of course, necessitate greater governmental censorship and surveillance powers in respect of social media, which White House and Pentagon officials have demanded for a decade or more.

Whatever the truth of the matter, given Haugen’s public positions, it’s hardly surprising Omidyar has taken such an interest in her. The eBay founder has for many years used his vast personal fortune to sponsor anti-government media operations, activist groups and NGOs in countries targeted for regime change by Washington, often in quiet concert with CIA-front organizations the National Endowment for Democracy and USAID.

Luminate’s ‘Strategic Plan’ for 2018–2022 spells this out in not so many words. It claims that “counter forces to liberalism have gained strength,” due to “Russia’s disruptive tactics” and “China’s state-centric alternative model,” and in response, the organization pledges to “to engage in ‘Countries in Transition’ where a potential inflection point and evidence of reform leads us to believe our support could catalyse significant change in an accelerated timeframe.”

“Our goal for this work is to provide critical support to courageous individuals and organisations seeking democratic gains in settings where civil society has been suppressed and where media has been circumscribed,” it ominously states. “We also work with government reformers post-transition to achieve positive policy outcomes which benefit large populations.”

Just two examples of “critical support” doled out by Omidyar over the past decade include bankrolling groups and news platforms at the forefront of Ukraine’s 2014 Maidan coup, and financing a welter of youth radicalization initiatives in Zimbabwe via the Harare-based Magamba Cultural Activist Network. A 2016 Omidyar Network-funded report on “People-Powered Media Innovation in West Africa” made clear the destabilizing intention behind such initiatives.

In a section discussing the “challenge” of “converting passive readers to active citizens,” the report recommended sponsoring the publication of “politically opportunistic” content “tied to unfulfilled promises” in order to “motivate citizens and government to act in the public interest.” It cited “recent, major successes of citizen and media efforts” in Nigeria that demonstrated “how public energy and conversation can be further harnessed and directed.”

In one case, a local radio station partnered with an NGO to “[develop] a radio program dedicated to education issues,” which “quickly gained popularity, and a highly engaged listenership.” Within a year, the government had “implemented several overdue policy reforms,” and the radio station was said to have since “applied this strategy to other negligent government bodies.”

“With the spectre of potential citizen mobilization looming in politicians’ minds, media outlets also have the potential to elicit government response directly,” the report boasted. “In some cases… government was motivated to act in order to prevent citizen action, instead of in response to it.”

Not coincidentally, Omidyar finances several media organizations in Lagos, including the radical Sahara Reporters, which focuses on corruption in the public sector – its founder allegedly has to sneak in and out of the country as his work has made him an enemy of the state. The Nigerian government evidently has much reason to fear Omidyar, which is perhaps why there has been no high-level opposition to his effective takeover of the country’s tech sector.

Clearly, the man well understands what can be achieved when citizens are stirred to action, and how they can be. In light of this, the help afforded to Haugen by Whistleblower Aid gains a rather sinister resonance. While widely reported that this assistance is strictly legal in nature, the organization’s founder Mark Zaid has made an intriguing disclosure.

“[We] prep clients in order to be focused on how to answer questions properly,” he told Gizmodo on October 6. “We have media experts that we work with to guide folks with something as simple as, you know, where do you look when you’re talking to a camera or a host? How do you best fluidly answer a question to come across in a positive way? Everything that might be connected to ensuring the individual’s image and substance are at their best.”

This direction surely explains why Haugen’s interviews with major media outlets have been so universally slick, and her Senate testimony was so extensively peppered with attention-grabbing quotes seemingly custom-made for repetition in headlines and news reports. At the very least, her involvement with Zaid casts even more doubt on how genuine she is.

Despite his organization’s name and stated aims, Zaid has a history of maligning individuals who have actually spoken out in the public interest, including Julian Assange, Edward Snowden and Reality Winner.

What’s more, he’s been accused in open court by an FBI agent of specifically approaching the CIA and informing it his client Jeffrey Sterling, an Agency operative, had “voiced his concerns about an operation that was nuclear in nature, and he threatened to go to the media.” Sterling was subsequently sentenced to three-and-a-half years in prison for leaking that very information to a journalist.

It can only be considered a shocking indictment of the Western media that the revelation of Omidyar’s secret support for Haugen has not prompted a single mainstream journalist to question whether she is ultimately serving a wider, darker agenda, and what that agenda might be. After all, her public intervention surely represents an “inflection point”, Omidyar’s support of which “could catalyse significant change in an accelerated timeframe.”

Kit Klarenberg is an investigative journalist exploring the role of intelligence services in shaping politics and perceptions.

October 22, 2021 Posted by | Deception, Full Spectrum Dominance, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »