"The Alex Jones verdict is a declaration of war on independent media" by Kit Knightly

 

The Alex Jones verdict is a declaration of war on independent media

Kit Knightly

AConnecticut court has handed down a 1 billion dollar fine on radio host and independent journalist Alex Jones, for “spreading misinformation” about the 2012 Sandy Hook shooting.

This is a travesty, and that any could call such an absurd penalty “justice” is sickening. Especially when it is so obviously designed as a warning to everyone in the independent media.

Indeed, outside of the specifics of this case, the potential fallout for everyone in the alt-media sphere is terrifying, because already the Jones precedent is being used as an argument for “regulation” of the internet.

Forget about Sandy Hook. Maybe it happened or maybe it didn’t, experience teaches us that virtually nothing happens exactly as the media reports, but even if it did – even if every single word Alex Jones ever said about Sandy Hook was a deliberate lie – you cannot “regulate” that, you cannot make it a crime, and you cannot silence people’s future for words they have said in the past.

That is censorship.

People have the right to free speech. And that includes – MUST include – the right to lie and the right to simply be wrong.

If you take away those rights, you put the power to regulate speech in the hands of those with enough influence to create official “truth” or hold the “right” opinions. And that has nothing to do with objective truth, or real facts.

The media, and the establishment it serves, do not care about truth or facts.

To take a recent example, a Pfizer executive recently reported the pharmaceutical giant never did any research to ascertain if their Covid “vaccine” halted transmission of the “disease” commonly called Covid.

There was never any trial data showing the “vaccines” prevented transmission of “covid”, and that means every outlet, channel or pundit who claimed the vaccine “stopped the spread” was actively “spreading misinformation”.

What’s more this misinformation has likely led to literally thousands of deaths. That is far more harmful than anything anyone could say about a ten-year-old school shooting, real or not.

Will CNN or The Guardian or the NYT face a billion-dollar fine?

Of course they won’t. Because this is not about “misinformation”, this is about uncontrolled information. It is about regulating – even criminalising – the free flow of ideas and opinions.

Even if this kind of rule were equally applied to all media on every topic, it would be still awful…and we all know it won’t be.

Instead, it will be applied to the independent media, to alternative and anti-establishment voices, and to the internet.

If you doubt that, check the media reaction.

One argument against the need for any new regulation of free speech is that we already have legal systems in place to protect people from “harmful speech” – threats, libel and defamation.

Indeed, Jones’ fate here could be held up as a prime example of “the system working”.

But that is not enough, according to this article on NPR which bemoans the “limits” of de-platforming and defamation suits.

That opinion is shared by this article on NBC, which headlines “Alex Jones’ lawsuit losses are not enough”, and concludes:

Defamation lawsuits are an important tool in the quest to reduce harm from harassment and abuse. But they are not a solution to the lie machines built by incredibly savvy, incredibly cynical pundits like Alex Jones. This week’s verdict, coupled with whatever else happens next, will certainly make conspiracy theorists think twice before they inflict pain on private individuals in the future. But it will not solve the bigger problem, which is our world’s dangerous, pervasive flood of misinformation.

That line about “making conspiracy theorists think twice” is the most honest sentence in the article, and confirms one of the major aims of the Jones trial narrative is to set an example.

But while the point of the article could not be clearer, the author never actually uses the words “regulation”, “legislation” or “censorship”. He chooses to play a more subtle game than that.

The same cannot be said for Simon Jenkins in yesterday’s Guardian, who eschews subtlety completely:

Only proper online regulation can stop poisonous conspiracists like Alex Jones

“Proper online regulation”. We all know what that means, it means censorship. He’s not even hiding it in coy language, but openly arguing for a global censorship programme.

He begins by pining for the days when nobody could get a scrap of the public’s attention without going through approved channels:

There have always been Alex Joneses spreading poison from the world’s soap boxes and pavements. As a boy I used to listen to them at Speakers’ Corner in Hyde Park […] Their lies never made it into newspapers or on to the airwaves. Free speech went only as far as the human voice could carry. Beyond that, “news” was mediated behind a wall of editors, censors and regulators, to keep it from gullible and dangerous ears.

Imagine the kind of mind that is nostalgic for an age when “News” – he is right to use quotes – had to pass through a “wall of editors, censors and regulators”. Imagine being able to simply dismiss the multitude of the public as “gullible and dangerous”.

From there he moves on to praise the verdict against Jones, and the state-backed censorship exhibited by the major social media platforms, but laments it does not go far enough, even hinting that people should have their own private websites confiscated:

The main social media outlets have accepted a modicum of responsibility to monitor content […] attempts are made to keep up with a deluge of often biased and mendacious material, but […] by the time it is taken down it re-emerges elsewhere. Jones has been banned by Facebook, Twitter and YouTube, but he can still reach audiences on his own website […] Justice is meaningless without enforcement or prevention.

Next, he tells us who exactly will be in the crosshairs of this suggested global censor. It’s a predictable list:

victims may have the rule of law on their side, but that does not curb the climate deniers, anti-vaxxers, trolls and QAnon followers or the appalling and anonymous abuse that now greets the expression online of any liberal – I might say reasonable – point of view.

Alongside a “no true Scotsman” fallacy altering the definition of free speech:

No one seriously believes free speech is an absolute right.

Like all censors before them, modern censors such as Jenkins seek to codify their desire for control in the language of concern. Proselytizing about the need to “protect people” and “the greater good”. They would, they claim, only censor harmful lies.

Such is the call of the censor through the ages. We’re only censoring heresy, we’re only censoring blasphemy, we’re only censoring treason.

Jenkins is aware of this, even as he uses special pleading to argue his version of censorship would be different:

Historians of the news media can chart a progress from early censorship by the church and crown to state licensing and legal regulation. This control was initially employed to enforce conformity, but over the past century it has also sought to sustain diversity and suppress blatant falsity.

The hypocrisy is rank. “Maybe they used to enforce conformity, but of course we would never do that…we just want to silence people who disagree, for society’s sake.”

Of course, none of those who seek to control the speech of their fellow humans ever claim to want to censor the truth. They call it “sedition” or “propaganda”, and claim to be safeguarding “the truth” even as they pull out tongues or break their victims on the rack.

Now they call it “Misinformation”. It’s all the same in the end.

One more time, for the people at the back.

• Free speech is NOT reserved for people who are “right”.
• Free speech is NOT only for people who tell “the truth”.
• Free speech is NOT to be moderated by “a wall of editors and regulators”.

Free speech is not a privilege in the gift of the state, a commodity to be regulated by the government or a child’s toy to be punitively confiscated by grown-ups who know better.

It is a right. For everyone. Everywhere. Always.

And if it is removed from one of us, it is removed from all of us.

Source: OffGuardian

"How the ‘Pandemic’ Has Paved the Way for the New Fascism of the Global Biosecurity State" by Simon Elmer

 

How the ‘Pandemic’ Has Paved the Way for the New Fascism of the Global Biosecurity State

BY SIMON ELMER

 

15 OCTOBER 2022 9:00 AM

We are – we are constantly being told – living in ‘unprecedented times’, facing ‘unprecedented circumstances’ requiring ‘unprecedented measures’ for which there is no historical precedent and because of which – is the unstated implication – those in power cannot be held to account for the consequences of their actions. ‘Unprecedented’, however, is one of those words that should set alarm-bells ringing, implying, as it does, that we are in a moment about which history can teach us nothing. History tells us that we should always be suspicious when those in power start claiming we are in a moment about which history can tell us nothing. The call to forget the past is always made in the service of power; but there are very few things that history cannot teach us. Once upon a time, we studied history precisely in order to learn from it, rather than stumbling around without memory in the apparently unprecedented newness of the present. Whether that present is a product of ignorance or deceit, the past inevitably has a lot to tell us about supposedly ‘unprecedented’ moments, and so it is with the coronavirus ‘crisis’.

The two years between March 2020, when the ‘pandemic’ was officially declared by the World Health Organisation and the U.K. Parliament passed the Coronavirus Act 2020, and March 2022, when the date set for the expiry of the Coronavirus Act was reached and the last of the 582 coronavirus-justified Statutory Instruments made into law were revoked, have left us now, six months later, in our own re-enactment of that ‘phoney war’ that stretched for eight months between the U.K.’s declaration of war against Germany in September 1939 and Germany’s invasion of France in May 1940. With the lifting of the thousands of regulations by which our lives were ruled for two long years there has been an understandable desire to believe that the coronavirus ‘crisis’ is over and we will return to something like an albeit ‘new’ normal. But as new crises have sprung up to take its place – war in Ukraine, monkeypox, the so-called ‘cost of living crisis’ and the return of the environmental crisis – it has become increasingly difficult not to look back on ‘lockdown’ as only the first campaign in a war that has not been declared by any government but is no less real for that. Waged by the international technocracies of global governance that, under the cloak of the ‘pandemic’, have assumed increasing power over our lives since March 2020, this war is not being fought against foreign countries but against the populations of their member states. Trialled for compliance under lockdown, the weapons of this war are Digital Identity, Central Bank Digital Currency, Universal Basic Income, Social Credit, Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) criteria, Sustainable Development Goals, and all the other programmes instrumental to the United Nation’s Agenda 2030. If they haven’t been already, these look likely to be launched in a Blitzkrieg campaign, possibly this winter, with the World Health Organisation advising European countries to reimpose mandatory masking and vaccination. Just like the winter of 1939-1940, now is the deep breath before the storm.

My comparison with the opening of the Second World War, however, is not merely an analogy. I am not alone in thinking that the willingness of our governments to use the forces of the state against their own populations during the ‘pandemic’ on the justification of protecting us from ourselves signals a new level of authoritarianism – and something like the return of fascism – to the governmental, juridical and cultural forms of the formerly neoliberal democracies of the West, and one of the aims of my book is to examine the validity of this thesis. My purpose in doing so, however, it not to pursue an academic question about the meaning and historicity of the term ‘fascism’, but rather to interrogate how and why the general and widespread moral collapse in the West since March 2020 – another indicator of fascism – has been effected with such rapidity and ease, and to examine to what ends that moral collapse is being used. It is here, I believe, that history can tell us something about these supposedly ‘unprecedented’ circumstances and measures.

Something, but not everything. For while historical fascism arose in the context of the imperialism of European nation states and their struggle for power, a hundred years later that struggle has been reduced to their united and virtually unopposed ‘roll-out’ of the programmes, technologies and regulations of what has been hailed as the Fourth Industrial Revolution. And while our economic, security and military alliances are dividing the globe into new axes of geopolitical influence, in the West – by which I mean Europe, North America and Australasia – the war we face is not between nation states but a civil war waged against our institutions of democratic governance and the division of powers between executive, legislature and judiciary. Insofar as these institutions and this division are being dismantled and replaced by the rule of international technocracies composed of the board members of private corporations and the unelected representatives of national governments, this ‘war’, more accurately described, represents a revolution in Western capitalism from the neoliberalism under which we have lived for the past 40 years. What it is revolving into, and the conclusion my thesis on fascism will seek to demonstrate, is the new totalitarianism of the Global Biosecurity State.

This book was preceded by 18 months of research and writing between March 2020 and October 2021, during which I published more than two dozen articles about the coronavirus ‘crisis’. So when, in February 2022, I started writing the current book, which I conceived as a single work rather than a collection of articles, I took as given the major conclusions I had reached from this research. Although, by now, the same or similar conclusions have been reached by many others, these are still sharply at odds with the official narrative about the coronavirus ‘crisis’ that many more continue to believe in or at least to obey. It is not necessary, however, for the reader to accept every one of these conclusions in order to derive some benefit from the current work. Part of the object of this study is to sketch the larger context in which to understand how what for two years were contemptuously dismissed as ‘conspiracy theories’ now constitute the reality in which our immediate future is about to unfold with terrifying speed and finality. The question confronting us now is not one of doubt or belief in the reality that is all around us, but of how to oppose it before we are submerged into the new totalitarianism.

Since the revocation of coronavirus-justified regulations in the U.K., much of the resistance to the various programmes and technologies of biosecurity has become bogged down in challenging the justification for the lockdowns and demonstrating the injurious and fatal effects of the vaccination programme. And while there is value and importance in this work – particularly in halting the criminal injection and indoctrination of the young – it has been accompanied by a reluctance to look at what these programmes have prepared our compliance for in the next stage of the Global Biosecurity State. Although implemented on the various justifications of convenience of access and movement within the Global Biosecurity State, national security against present and future biological, cyber or military threats now all placed in the in-tray marked ‘terrorist’, and, of course, the great environmental catch-all of ‘saving the planet’ from global warming, these programmes will be implemented outside of any immediate threat such as that represented by the coronavirus ‘pandemic’, and can expect less compliance, perhaps, than that which met the restrictions on our human rights and freedoms under lockdown. For this reason, they are likely to be implemented quickly and all at once, with Digital Identity holding our biometric data made a condition of numerous freedoms, cash withdrawn from circulation and replaced by Digital Currency controlled and programmed by central banks, and a Social Credit system of compliance monitored by artificial intelligence and policed by facial recognition technology all a reality to which we will wake up one day with no choice but compliance or having our access to the rights of citizenship removed by default.

This is the context in which I have written my book, which is neither an academic study of the history of fascism nor a journalistic account of the past two-and-a-half years, but a work of political theory. Some of the chapters are written around the work of other writers on different aspects of fascism and totalitarianism, including the Italian semiotician and cultural critic, Umberto Eco, the Italian critical theorist, Fabio Vighi, the French sociologist and philosopher, Georges Bataille, the German literary critic, Walter Benjamin, the Austrian economist, Friedrich Hayek, the English novelist and journalist, George Orwell, the Italian philosopher, Giorgio Agamben, and the German political theorist, Hannah Arendt. And although the book has been written for a popular rather than a scholarly readership, I haven’t shied away from addressing the political, legal, economic, cultural, philosophical, psychological and moral issues raised by the Global Biosecurity State. The positive response to my articles that preceded this study have encouraged me to think that there is a wider readership in the U.K. for this level of analysis than we are made to believe by our rigorously anti-intellectual culture. In this respect, I hope my book will provide a more historical and practical framework in which to understand and respond to the past two-and-a-half years than the vituperative, sectarian, authoritarian and politically naïve character of what debate there is in Parliament, the mainstream media or on social media platforms.

As readers familiar with the work of Hayek will recognise, my title is taken from his enormously influential book, The Road to Serfdom, which was published in the U.K. in 1944 during the Second World War. Intent as he was on refuting the Marxist argument that fascism was the reaction of a decaying capitalism to the rising threat of socialism, Hayek argued that Italian fascism, German National Socialism and Soviet communism all had common roots in central economic planning and the resulting power of the state over the individual. He therefore opposed the U.K. following the model of socialism that had been laid out in the hugely popular Beveridge Report in 1942, and which the post-war Labour Government would fail to implement fully in the creation of the Welfare State. In doing so, he also laid the grounds for the neoliberal revolution in the late 1970s that conquered the West and which has brought us to this point. So although I share neither Hayek’s equation of fascism with socialism nor his championing of liberalism and capitalism as defenders of the rights of the individual – both of which have been refuted by the return of fascism in the political, juridical and cultural forms of the most advanced capitalist economies over the past two-and-a-half years – Hayek’s fears and warnings about the threat of the state to the freedom of the individual are even more relevant today than they were 80 years ago. If 350 million Europeans had lived under fascist governments for a decade and more when Hayek was writing, how should we describe the digital serfdom to which the Global Biosecurity State is reducing the more than 900 million people living in the former neoliberal democracies of the West today? It’s under the banner of this warning, therefore, that I’m publishing The Road to Fascism.

Simon Elmer is the author of The Road to Fascism: For a Critique of the Global Biosecurity State, of which this article is an excerpt.

Source: The Daily Sceptic

"Pharma is terrible at bioscience but their understanding of human nature is extraordinary" by Toby Rogers

 

Pharma is terrible at bioscience but their understanding of human nature is extraordinary

The cartel knows exactly what buttons to push to get you to do what they want

Toby Rogers

16 hr ago

248

158

I. Modeling of human behavior in the 1988 Presidential election

True story: in high school I dated the daughter of one of George H. W. Bush’s chief pollsters. This was in the late 1980s and Republican pollsters were decades ahead of Democratic pollsters in using quantitative methods and applied social sciences to win elections.

For the 1988 Presidential election this pollster dad (with the help of his daughter) developed a model to predict, in all 50 states, whether voters were more likely to make their selection based on the candidate (good leader, strong, honest, etc.) or based on policy questions (the economy, environment, taxes, etc.). The campaign then tailored messaging in each state based on which lever (appeals to the candidate or appeals to policy) was more likely to move voters.

Late in the campaign it got to the point where Republicans knew which messages were more likely to work for Democrats too — and they were baffled that the Dukakis campaign clung to messages that cost them votes (but Dukakis was flying blind because his pollsters were incompetent).

In the end, this Republican model of human behavior and human decision-making successfully predicted the outcomes in all 50 states and George H. W. Bush won the election in a landslide.

---

II. The 2000 Presidential election, Karl Rove, turnout via “anger points”

Karl Rove built his political consulting empire by doing direct mail for candidates in Texas. This was at a time when Democrat Ann Richards was still governor. Rove was a master at building mailing lists. And he figured out that targeting elected Democratic judges was the best way to mobilize the Republican base. Rove’s success in turning Texas red caught the attention of George W. Bush who brought Rove on to advise his 1994 and 1998 gubernatorial campaigns and subsequent presidential campaigns.

Rove’s great insight in 2000 was that independents did not matter nearly as much as mobilizing the Republican base. There were more votes to be had by increasing Republican turnout than trying to pander to low information independent voters (who actually do have party preferences, they just don’t tell them to pollsters).

Rove figured out proxies for likely Republican support — gun ownership obviously, but also things like owning an F-150 pickup truck and subscribing to Field & Stream. And so the campaign bought all of those lists. Then Rove figured out the “anger points” for each of these types of voters — on the theory that anger is what motivates candidate preference and turnout. Direct mail from the Republican Party targeted these different groups of Republican supporters with messages focused on their most likely anger points.

George W. Bush won two Presidential elections (2000 and 2004) by narrow margins using these strategies.

---

III. The 2016 Presidential election: HRC turns to Mark Penn, while Trump uses Cambridge Analytica

Mark Penn was the CEO of global PR giant Burson-Marsteller. He is credited with helping Bill Clinton get re-elected in 1996 (on a platform of “ending welfare as we know it” and “putting 100,000 cops on the streets”). So Hillary Clinton hired Mark Penn to shape her 2016 Presidential election strategy.

Penn is famous for micro-targeting. As outlined in his book, Microtrends, Penn basically sees the electorate as 75 different micro tribes. Penn is famous for coining the phrase, “soccer moms” but he has all sorts of different tribes beyond that including knitters, older dads, and “extreme commuters”. Penn did not mention it in the book, but the HRC campaign also focused heavily on race, gender, and sexual orientation in their get-out-the-vote strategy.

The HRC campaign was maddening because it had no unifying message. But that’s because the campaign did not believe in unifying messages — it believed in micro-targeting. The HRC campaign operated from the notion (not entirely different than Karl Rove) that if they could just mobilize each of these micro-tribes with individually tailored messages, they could surely defeat Trump.

The Trump campaign meanwhile turned to the British data mining company, Cambridge Analytica. Long before the election, Cambridge Analytica used a company called Qualtrics to design a 120 question survey that was deployed on Facebook. 300,000 people took the survey — and under the terms of service (that no one reads) signing up to take the survey gave Cambridge Analytica the right to download all of your Facebook data and the data from all of your friends on Facebook. Through the use of this survey tool, Cambridge Analytica harvested the complete Facebook data files on 87 million Americans. [Heaps of articles were later written on this.]

So while the HRC campaign thought that it was clever for targeting soccer moms differently than stay-at-home dads, the Trump campaign had thousands of data points on 87 million potential voters that they could use to target their messaging. The Trump campaign then took it several steps further. They embedded Facebook staff in their campaign to facilitate massive daily targeted ad buys. They then took the “anger points” strategy from Karl Rove and further weaponized it — now producing short video clips in connection with Benghazi, child sex trafficking, and pedophilia (generating anger was what mattered, the facts not so much). Hence the Pizzagate story was born and Trump was narrowly elected.

---

IV. The targeted messaging behind the iatrogenocide

Watching the iatrogenocide unfold all around us for the last three years it’s been striking to see friends, family, co-workers, and neighbors turned into mindless Pharma zombies.

But that’s because we are now in the midst of the most sophisticated targeted messaging campaign in human history. Think about what we are up against — the cartel consists of Pharma (the largest and most ruthless industry in the world), massive global public relations firms (that have gotten incredibly sophisticated), private intelligence agencies like Black Cube (former Mossad), a bunch of billionaires, and, if Mathew Crawford is correct, the Department of Defense/NSA/CIA. The data files that these agencies have on every American (and every person in the developed world) are unprecedented.

So for example, the cartel gets a Pro-mRNA message to:

• kids via Elmo and Sesame Street;

• women who get their news from Entertainment Tonight by targeting celebrities;
• dudes on the couch by targeting athletes; and

• social media addicts by buying off influencers (at up to $1500 a post).

But targeting goes well beyond that — the cartel has different strategies for targeting doctors, pharmacists, academics, people who watch the different cable news shows, different races, different classes, different sexes, and different age groups.

Furthermore, it seems that the cartel knows the exact message (leverage point, persuasion point) that will cause the person to take the action that the cartel desires (in this case, poisoning oneself with toxic mRNA).

In essence, the cartel has a giant Salesforce database on every American — with notes inside the file that explain exactly how you make decisions. Via the targeting that is possible on social media, the cartel can send exactly the right message at exactly the right time to get you to take that deadly shot.

Again, judging by their actions and the results, it seems to me that the cartel must have the most sophisticated map of human nature (human psychology, human behavior) ever developed. And that map, or model, is insightful, cynical, and incredibly effective.

Think about the friends, family, co-workers, and neighbors that you’ve lost to the glassy-eyed Pharma zombie stare:

• The cartel knew that fear turns off the regions of the brain that process rationality and so they flooded society with nonstop images of people dropping dead on the streets of Wuhan (it’s still not clear if those were real or not).

• The cartel knew that most bougiecrats would rather die of a heart attack than be excluded from mainstream society. So they encouraged everyone to post selfies of getting the shot to show that they belonged in the club and mercilessly punished the refuseniks by firing them from their jobs and barring them from social gatherings.

• The cartel knew that all of the gatekeepers could be bought off with the right financial incentives. So the cartel just straight up bought the media, science and medicine, and the political establishment.

It’s essential here to underscore CJ Hopkins’ brilliant point — when one participates in totalitarian systems — whether that is out of fear, a desire for belonging, or for financial reasons (or some combination of all 3) — one quickly comes to actually believe in the things one is doing. It’s not an act, it’s more than obedience, the bougie normies we are dealing with actually believe in the sacred duty of self-inflicted genocide. They cannot wait to get these shots and when the shots kill them they feel that they are dying in glorious battle for a cause greater than themselves.

---

V. Our alternative

When I was in my Ph.D. program, I dreamed of setting up a business to do Cambridge Analytica-style FB targeted ads — to educate people about the dangers of vaccines. The facts are on our side, the science is on our side, we just have to get the message out to more people who need to hear it. But the unfortunate fact now is that Facebook and the other social media giants will not allow us to even buy ads on their platforms (lots of organizations in the movement have tried, only to be turned away).

So on the one hand, the cartel has complete data files on all of us (all of our preferences, tendencies, friends, and likes/dislikes) and is able to use the full power of electronic media (TV, Google, radio, social media) to get targeted messages to people. On the other hand, the people who are right about the facts and the dangers of vaccines are censored and blacklisted from using these same tools.

It’s a miracle that we are still in this fight at all. Yet, over the last three years we have basically fought the cartel to a standstill and there are several indicators that the debate is tipping in our favor.

Over the last several years, the movement has built a thriving alternative media ecosystem — The Highwire and CHD.TV are our news channels, the various medical freedom Substack accounts are our newspapers and magazines, Tommey/Burrowes Productions and Mikki Willis (amongst others) produce stellar movies, and there is a vibrant medical freedom conference scene.

But most of us still have one foot in bougie normie land (FB, IG, Twitter, and TikTok), censorship corrals us into information silos (an echo chamber) that limit our reach, and the movement fights with two hands tied behind our back because most of the large medical freedom organizations are 501(c)(3) non-profits so they cannot use their big mailing lists to do politics.

Going forward it seems to me that we need to continue to cut ties with the mainstream — cancel cable altogether, delete social media, never ever enter the metaverse, and meet in person as often as possible (at churches, conferences, marches, and protests).

We need to keep building the medical freedom economy our hearts know is possible — businesses, schools, universities, and holistic health practices.

The medical freedom movement needs to have a come-to-Jesus conversation and start putting serious money into political organizing and campaigns.

I’m inclined to say that we need to keep reaching across the aisle, but I wonder if that is going to be less and less effective? The cartel is going to keep getting more skilled with their propaganda (even as the bodies pile up from their failed vaccines). So the better we get at speaking and living the truth, the more the chasm widens that separates us from the bougiecrats.

But as our movement grows and becomes the obviously better choice (because our side is happier and healthier than the mainstream) winning the 2024 Presidential election becomes a real possibility and then things might begin to change quickly.

I’m still chewing on this point though — is Pharma right in their cynical view of human nature? Or has Pharma just figured out one particular set of buttons — but a more principled/ethical movement such as ours could appeal to a different set of values/instincts/tendencies and generate much better outcomes for society? I have to believe in the latter possibility. But it’s still shocking that Pharma has been able to fool so many people for so long.

---

Thank you to everyone who has read my thesis — this week I surpassed 70,000 total downloads! 🧡

Blessings to the warriors! 🙌

Prayers for everyone working to stop the iatrogenocide! 🙏

Huzzah to everyone working to build the alternative economy our hearts know is possible! ✊

As always, I welcome any corrections.

In the comments, please let me know your thoughts.

Source: UTobian