The Future Is Here: Dystopian Movies Fit For A Dystopian World

 These are all interesting movies based on thoughtful ideas even if quality is not always there. THX 1138 and Soylent Green are oldish, Brazil a parody bordering on stupidish and They Live 's quality let the idea high and dry!  1984. Brave New World, Minority Report, The Matrix and V for Vendetta are the giants. 

 What is worrying is the lack of vision beyond these dark outlooks. What comes after that? Nothing? Just "turtles" all the way? That would be the really frightening part!

Authored by John Whitehead via The Rutherford Institute,

“The Internet is watching us now. If they want to. They can see what sites you visit. In the future, television will be watching us, and customizing itself to what it knows about us. The thrilling thing is, that will make us feel we’re part of the medium. The scary thing is, we’ll lose our right to privacy. An ad will appear in the air around us, talking directly to us.”

- Director Steven Spielberg, Minority Report

We have arrived, way ahead of schedule, into the dystopian future dreamed up by such science fiction writers as George Orwell, Aldous Huxley, Margaret Atwood and Philip K. Dick.

Much like Orwell’s Big Brother in 1984, the government and its corporate spies now watch our every move.

Much like Huxley’s A Brave New World, we are churning out a society of watchers who “have their liberties taken away from them, but … rather enjoy it, because they [are] distracted from any desire to rebel by propaganda or brainwashing.”

Much like Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale, the populace is now taught to “know their place and their duties, to understand that they have no real rights but will be protected up to a point if they conform, and to think so poorly of themselves that they will accept their assigned fate and not rebel or run away.”

And in keeping with Philip K. Dick’s darkly prophetic vision of a dystopian police state—which became the basis for Steven Spielberg’s futuristic thriller Minority Report which was released 20 years ago—we are now trapped into a world in which the government is all-seeing, all-knowing and all-powerful, and if you dare to step out of line, dark-clad police SWAT teams and pre-crime units will crack a few skulls to bring the populace under control.

Minority Report is set in the year 2054, but it could just as well have taken place in 2022.

Seemingly taking its cue from science fiction, technology has moved so fast in the short time since Minority Report premiered in 2002 that what once seemed futuristic no longer occupies the realm of science fiction.

Incredibly, as the various nascent technologies employed and shared by the government and corporations alike—facial recognition, iris scanners, massive databases, behavior prediction software, and so on—are incorporated into a complex, interwoven cyber network aimed at tracking our movements, predicting our thoughts and controlling our behavior, Spielberg’s unnerving vision of the future is fast becoming our reality.

Both worlds—our present-day reality and Spielberg’s celluloid vision of the future—are characterized by widespread surveillance, behavior prediction technologies, data mining, fusion centers, driverless cars, voice-controlled homes, facial recognition systems, cybugs and drones, and predictive policing (pre-crime) aimed at capturing would-be criminals before they can do any damage.

Surveillance cameras are everywhere. Government agents listen in on our telephone calls and read our emails. Political correctness—a philosophy that discourages diversity—has become a guiding principle of modern society.

The courts have shredded the Fourth Amendment’s protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. In fact, SWAT teams battering down doors without search warrants and FBI agents acting as a secret police that investigate dissenting citizens are common occurrences in contemporary America.

We are increasingly ruled by multi-corporations wedded to the police state. Much of the population is either hooked on illegal drugs or ones prescribed by doctors. And bodily privacy and integrity has been utterly eviscerated by a prevailing view that Americans have no rights over what happens to their bodies during an encounter with government officials, who are allowed to search, seize, strip, scan, spy on, probe, pat down, taser, and arrest any individual at any time and for the slightest provocation.

All of this has come about with little more than a whimper from an oblivious American populace largely comprised of nonreaders and television and internet zombies, but we have been warned about such an ominous future in novels and movies for years.

The following 15 films may be the best representation of what we now face as a society.

Fahrenheit 451 (1966). Adapted from Ray Bradbury’s novel and directed by Francois Truffaut, this film depicts a futuristic society in which books are banned, and firemen ironically are called on to burn contraband books—451 Fahrenheit being the temperature at which books burn. Montag is a fireman who develops a conscience and begins to question his book burning. This film is an adept metaphor for our obsessively politically correct society where virtually everyone now pre-censors speech. Here, a brainwashed people addicted to television and drugs do little to resist governmental oppressors.

2001: A Space Odyssey (1968). The plot of Stanley Kubrick’s masterpiece, as based on an Arthur C. Clarke short story, revolves around a space voyage to Jupiter. The astronauts soon learn, however, that the fully automated ship is orchestrated by a computer system—known as HAL 9000—which has become an autonomous thinking being that will even murder to retain control. The idea is that at some point in human evolution, technology in the form of artificial intelligence will become autonomous and human beings will become mere appendages of technology. In fact, at present, we are seeing this development with massive databases generated and controlled by the government that are administered by such secretive agencies as the National Security Agency and sweep all websites and other information devices collecting information on average citizens. We are being watched from cradle to grave.

Planet of the Apes (1968). Based on Pierre Boulle’s novel, astronauts crash on a planet where apes are the masters and humans are treated as brutes and slaves. While fleeing from gorillas on horseback, astronaut Taylor is shot in the throat, captured and housed in a cage. From there, Taylor begins a journey wherein the truth revealed is that the planet was once controlled by technologically advanced humans who destroyed civilization. Taylor’s trek to the ominous Forbidden Zone reveals the startling fact that he was on planet earth all along. Descending into a fit of rage at what he sees in the final scene, Taylor screams: “We finally really did it. You maniacs! You blew it up! Damn you.” The lesson is obvious, but will we listen? The script, although rewritten, was initially drafted by Rod Serling and retains Serling’s Twilight Zone-ish ending.

THX 1138 (1970). George Lucas’ directorial debut, this is a somber view of a dehumanized society totally controlled by a police state. The people are force-fed drugs to keep them passive, and they no longer have names but only letter/number combinations such as THX 1138. Any citizen who steps out of line is quickly brought into compliance by robotic police equipped with “pain prods”—electro-shock batons. Sound like tasers?

A Clockwork Orange (1971). Director Stanley Kubrick presents a future ruled by sadistic punk gangs and a chaotic government that cracks down on its citizens sporadically. Alex is a violent punk who finds himself in the grinding, crushing wheels of injustice. This film may accurately portray the future of western society that grinds to a halt as oil supplies diminish, environmental crises increase, chaos rules, and the only thing left is brute force.

Soylent Green (1973). Set in a futuristic overpopulated New York City, the people depend on synthetic foods manufactured by the Soylent Corporation. A policeman investigating a murder discovers the grisly truth about what soylent green is really made of. The theme is chaos where the world is ruled by ruthless corporations whose only goal is greed and profit. Sound familiar?

Blade Runner (1982). In a 21st century Los Angeles, a world-weary cop tracks down a handful of renegade “replicants” (synthetically produced human slaves). Life is now dominated by mega-corporations, and people sleepwalk along rain-drenched streets. This is a world where human life is cheap, and where anyone can be exterminated at will by the police (or blade runners). Based upon a Philip K. Dick novel, this exquisite Ridley Scott film questions what it means to be human in an inhuman world.

Nineteen Eighty-Four (1984). The best adaptation of Orwell’s dark tale, this film visualizes the total loss of freedom in a world dominated by technology and its misuse, and the crushing inhumanity of an omniscient state. The government controls the masses by controlling their thoughts, altering history and changing the meaning of words. Winston Smith is a doubter who turns to self-expression through his diary and then begins questioning the ways and methods of Big Brother before being re-educated in a most brutal fashion.

Brazil (1985). Sharing a similar vision of the near future as 1984 and Franz Kafka’s novel The Trial, this is arguably director Terry Gilliam’s best work, one replete with a merging of the fantastic and stark reality. Here, a mother-dominated, hapless clerk takes refuge in flights of fantasy to escape the ordinary drabness of life. Caught within the chaotic tentacles of a police state, the longing for more innocent, free times lies behind the vicious surface of this film.

They Live (1988). John Carpenter’s bizarre sci-fi social satire action film assumes the future has already arrived. John Nada is a homeless person who stumbles across a resistance movement and finds a pair of sunglasses that enables him to see the real world around him. What he discovers is a world controlled by ominous beings who bombard the citizens with subliminal messages such as “obey” and “conform.” Carpenter manages to make an effective political point about the underclass—that is, everyone except those in power. The point: we, the prisoners of our devices, are too busy sucking up the entertainment trivia beamed into our brains and attacking each other up to start an effective resistance movement.

The Matrix (1999). The story centers on a computer programmer Thomas A. Anderson, secretly a hacker known by the alias “Neo,” who begins a relentless quest to learn the meaning of “The Matrix”—cryptic references that appear on his computer. Neo’s search leads him to Morpheus who reveals the truth that the present reality is not what it seems and that Anderson is actually living in the future—2199. Humanity is at war against technology which has taken the form of intelligent beings, and Neo is actually living in The Matrix, an illusionary world that appears to be set in the present in order to keep the humans docile and under control. Neo soon joins Morpheus and his cohorts in a rebellion against the machines that use SWAT team tactics to keep things under control.

Minority Report (2002). Based on a short story by Philip K. Dick and directed by Steven Spielberg, the film offers a special effect-laden, techno-vision of a futuristic world in which the government is all-seeing, all-knowing and all-powerful. And if you dare to step out of line, dark-clad police SWAT teams will bring you under control. The setting is 2054 where PreCrime, a specialized police unit, apprehends criminals before they can commit the crime. Captain Anderton is the chief of the Washington, DC, PreCrime force which uses future visions generated by “pre-cogs” (mutated humans with precognitive abilities) to stop murders. Soon Anderton becomes the focus of an investigation when the precogs predict he will commit a murder. But the system can be manipulated. This film raises the issue of the danger of technology operating autonomously—which will happen eventually if it has not already occurred. To a hammer, all the world looks like a nail. In the same way, to a police state computer, we all look like suspects. In fact, before long, we all may be mere extensions or appendages of the police state—all suspects in a world commandeered by machines.

V for Vendetta (2006). This film depicts a society ruled by a corrupt and totalitarian government where everything is run by an abusive secret police. A vigilante named V dons a mask and leads a rebellion against the state. The subtext here is that authoritarian regimes through repression create their own enemies—that is, terrorists—forcing government agents and terrorists into a recurring cycle of violence. And who is caught in the middle? The citizens, of course. This film has a cult following among various underground political groups such as Anonymous, whose members wear the same Guy Fawkes mask as that worn by V.

Children of Men (2006). This film portrays a futuristic world without hope since humankind has lost its ability to procreate. Civilization has descended into chaos and is held together by a military state and a government that attempts to keep its totalitarian stronghold on the population. Most governments have collapsed, leaving Great Britain as one of the few remaining intact societies. As a result, millions of refugees seek asylum only to be rounded up and detained by the police. Suicide is a viable option as a suicide kit called Quietus is promoted on billboards and on television and newspapers. But hope for a new day comes when a woman becomes inexplicably pregnant.

Land of the Blind (2006). In this dark political satire, tyrannical rulers are overthrown by new leaders who prove to be just as evil as their predecessors. Maximilian II is a demented fascist ruler of a troubled land named Everycountry who has two main interests: tormenting his underlings and running his country’s movie industry. Citizens who are perceived as questioning the state are sent to “re-education camps” where the state’s concept of reality is drummed into their heads. Joe, a prison guard, is emotionally moved by the prisoner and renowned author Thorne and eventually joins a coup to remove the sadistic Maximilian, replacing him with Thorne. But soon Joe finds himself the target of the new government.

All of these films—and the writers who inspired them—understood what many Americans, caught up in their partisan, flag-waving, zombified states, are still struggling to come to terms with: that there is no such thing as a government organized for the good of the people. Even the best intentions among those in government inevitably give way to the desire to maintain power and control at all costs.

Humans are Hooked. Machines are Learning! (Joke)

 

 In a sad twist, from controlled news to assisted search and tunnel vision, it looks like intelligence is slipping away from humans almost as fast as machines acquire it. We'll meet halfway sooner than expected!
#m

achinelearning #intelligence #AI

It's Happening! (Video)

 It is sad but it is indeed happening: We are slowly leaving our "old" democratic world behind and turning to fascism in the meaning defined by Mussolini. “Fascism (which) should more properly be called corporatism since it is the merger of the state and corporate power.”

 But worse! A world where public opinion is molded 1984-like by propaganda and where public discussion has been extinguished. 

Russel Brand is not easy to follow with his British accent, style and choreography but what he says is so deep and profoundly true that it is worth the effort.  

 

The Stagflation Trap Will Lead To Universal Basic Income And Food Rationing

The world will likely lack 10 to 15% of its food supply this Summer and consequently what is available will be twice as expensive as it was last year. This will be devastating in developing countries. But even in the West, inflation will be such that restructuring of the World Order and the social contract may become necessary. The ball is rolling: Brace for impact!

Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.us,

This past week during a conference discussing Biden’s “Build Back Better” scheme House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was confronted with questions on skyrocketing inflation. After referring to higher gas prices as the “Putin Tax”, she went on to offer perhaps the dumbest (or most insidious) denial on the causes of inflation that I have ever heard. She stated:

“When we’re having this discussion, it’s important to dispel some of those who say, well it’s the government spending. No, it isn’t. The government spending is doing the exact reverse, reducing the national debt. It is not inflationary.”

Anyone with a basic understanding of economics and how central banks operate must have felt their brains explode when they heard this, I know I did. But before I get into the numerous reasons why this claim is completely false in every way, I want to give a warning – It’s very easy in this situation to assume that Pelosi and even Biden are making these arguments because they are too stupid to grasp the fundamentals of debt creation, money velocity and fiat. That said, never mistake evil for mere ignorance.

All higher level representatives of the White House are briefed by economic experts (spin doctors) well before they answer any questions on inflation, and the things they say have been carefully scripted. It’s possible Pelosi mixed her lies up a little bit, but the narrative the establishment is trying to promote is well planned. Asserting that money creation is a counterbalance to inflation instead of the cause is not brilliant, but it’s not designed to convince many people, only create confusion.

Let’s not forget that only last year these same people were telling the public that inflation was purely “transitory” and that there was nothing to worry about. Now they are trying to cover their tracks and the culpability of the Federal Reserve. I believe the goal here is to simply stall for time until the stagflationary collapse unfolds. They have the perfect scapegoat as they launch an economic war with Russia (and likely China in the near term), and the effects of this war will hurt the US and Europe far more than many realize.

To quickly break down Pelosi’s bizarre statement I will make a couple of root observations:

• First, paying down the national debt has NOTHING to do with reducing inflation. Even if you could somehow gather enough assets to pay off the national debt without creating new dollars from thin air the current inflationary problems would persist. There would still be the matter of the tens of trillions of dollars already fabricated and floating around the global economy. Inflation is directly related to money supply and money velocity. The national debt is secondary to the issue.

• Second, we need to ask the most obvious question: If government spending “reduces the national debt” by paying it down, then why hasn’t the national debt gone down?

The Fed and the US government created over $6 trillion in fiat money in 2020 alone, and the national debt only went higher. In fact, the explosion of the national debt correlates DIRECTLY to the amount of dollars created by the Fed to supply various stimulus policies and bailouts over the years. The national debt in 2008 at the onset of the credit crash was around $10 trillion. It took hundreds of years to reach that level. In the span of only 14 years of Fed money creation the debt has now TRIPLED to over $30 trillion.

I’ll say it again – Government spending and Fed stimulus has tripled the size of our national debt in less than 14 years. And, of course, inflation has spiked as the amount of dollars injected into the global system causes the buying power of our currency to decline dramatically. More fiat dollars equals less buying power. This is reality.

Also, using Russia as a scapegoat just doesn’t hold up on the logic meter. The assertion by Pelosi, Biden and many establishment leftists has been that blocking Russian oil to the US is leading to inflation in multiple sectors of the economy, but it’s “necessary” to stop Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. One might assume that we use a lot of Russian oil. We don’t.

Russian crude oil only makes up 3% of US imports. Therefore, there is no way that sanctions on Russian oil are the cause of rising prices, nor do these sanctions have any effect on the Kremlin. Inflation was hitting 40 year highs back in December of last year, well before the war in Ukraine. In fact, news on the Fed’s interest rate hikes moves oil markets far more than news on Ukraine.

To summarize, I have a special message for Nancy Pelosi: Please so us a favor and shut up, you blood sucking crone. The American people are smarter than you, and your propaganda script is full of holes.

Onward to more important issues…

This narrative is not only about protecting the Biden Administration, it is also about protecting the Federal Reserve. As former Fed Chair Alan Greenspan once openly admitted, the central bank answers to no one, and that includes government officials. Many theorize that it is actually the central banks and international banks that make the majority of policy decisions for government, and politicians have very little say in matters. I’m inclined to agree given the number of banking elites and globalist Council on Foreign Relations members that seem to permeate every single presidential cabinet (this includes Trump’s cabinet as much as Biden’s).

Biden is an empty shell of a man barely able to maintain a semblance of sanity, who do you think really runs the country?

I have been writing a lot lately about how establishment elites and globalists actually benefit greatly from a stagflationary crisis, as long as they are able to divert blame to other sources and are not targeted for retribution by the public. One of these benefits includes a cover event for an agenda that the World Economic Forum calls the “Great Reset,” which is essentially just another name for “New World Order.”

Isn’t it marvelous that the government and media hailstorm of covid fear porn that was bombarding Americans only a few months ago has now suddenly vanished? What happened? Well, the establishment was defeated, that’s what happened. With conservatives and moderates in red states in the US and in nations around the world fighting back against the lockdowns and vaccine passports the globalists must have realized the battle in the long run was lost. Suddenly all talk of passports and medical tyranny is gone.

I realize there are some people out there that give the globalists too much credit and still argue the covid scheme was some kind of success. These people are wrong. If you want to see what success looks like go to China, where hundreds of millions are still suffering from lockdowns today and no one can do anything without an up-to-date vaccine passport and QR code. In China the vax passports are also used for tracking of the population as well as an element of their social credit scores. This is what the globalists wanted for all nations including the US, and they didn’t get it. Therefore, it’s on to the next crisis.

The stagflation threat worries me more than any other for a number of reasons, and it’s not just because of the potential for extreme poverty. As we all know, the strategy of “order out of chaos” is about creating enough desperation within a target population that the people are willing to give up their freedoms in exchange for a semblance of safety and normalcy. But what specific controls would the establishment seek out?

Stagflation has the ability to trigger much higher prices in necessities, while it simultaneously drags GDP down along with wages, jobs, manufacturing, etc. There is also the very real threat of government price controls, which would suffocate production and reduce the supply of goods even further. We are not quite to this point yet, but the danger is approaching fast.

There are two initiatives within the WEF’s Great Reset agenda that parallel stagflation almost exactly and I predict we will be hearing about them often in the coming year.

The first initiative is the concept of Universal Basic Income (UBI); we heard a lot about this a few years ago but the idea didn’t stick too well with the American public. The truth, however, is that we already had UBI for a time in the form of “covid stimulus checks.” This helicopter money was funded by over $6 trillion in central bank fiat created from nothing, and then directly injected into citizen accounts. It was barely enough for people to live on by itself, but in conjunction with other welfare programs and unemployment checks millions of people were living the easy life at home for well over a year. The money was so easy that the policy actually triggered a national labor shortage.

This small taste of UBI might have given people the wrong impression about such stimulus programs. After the covid programs the public might be led to believe that UBI would result in a carefree life with money to go around. By themselves without the benefit of other welfare programs, the covid checks would not have been enough to keep people housed and fed; the standard of living for the average person would have to fall dramatically for UBI to work at all. Enter stagflation…

With economic decline crushing our living standards it could be easier for the establishment to lure the public into UBI. Along with communist-style price controls across the board (and a reduced population due to starvation and poverty) the public would be able to survive, but barely. There would no longer be such a thing as “personal wealth,” only the scraps that governments and bankers are willing to throw people. On top of that, resistance to authoritarianism would be nearly impossible. Once the government takes on the role of mommy and daddy and the the only source of food and housing for the citizenry they are far less likely to stand against any abuse the establishment wants to dish out.

UBI is a candy coated trap which breeds dependency in a population. Free money is an addictive drug, and America just had a big taste during the pandemic.

This leads us into the second WEF Great Reset program, which is the concept of the “shared economy.” The globalists think that you should own nothing, have no privacy, and be happy about it. The initial danger here involves rationing. A government cannot institute UBI measures during a stagflationary crisis without also instituting price controls, because otherwise the fiat stimulus used to provide the UBI checks would only create MORE inflation in prices. If UBI is meant to offset inflation but it creates more inflation, then UBI becomes useless. This is another little fact that people like Pelosi will try to gloss over when they claim that money printing helps “fight inflation.”

When price controls are implemented manufacturing will implode further, because price controls mean producers of necessities will not be able to make much of a profit (or they will make no profit at all). There will be no incentive to produce among the people that actually know how to produce, and these people are not easy to replace. The supply of goods will not be able to meet demand.

Naturally, the government will take the opportunity to limit the amount of goods any single person or family is allowed to purchase or stockpile through rationing cards.

These kinds of measures have been used in the past, usually during wartime or under communist regimes. But in this case the rationing will be digital and permanent, and it will be designed to further control food and other resources as a means to prevent rebellion by the public. If you can’t store more than a week’s worth of necessities at any given time, then your ability to defy the government is nonexistent unless you know how to live off the land or have access to black markets. All they have to do is cut off your monthly UBI checks and ration account and watch you starve.

Referee Whistles May Be Cause Of Sudden Increase In Heart Problems: Experts

  It would be funny if it was a joke from the onion. It's not!

BY Capitalist Exploits

“Fascism should more properly be called corporatism since it is the merger of the state and corporate power.” – Benito Mussolini

Let’s go through insurers. This is important because it provides us with some means to understand a potential road map of how we’re likely to see all of this play out over the decade. It is going to sound outrageous and there may be some of you who call me a conspiracy theorist, anti-this, that or the other thing, but if you know me by now, you’d also know I don’t give a shit. Shocking, I know.

Masking it

They will try to mask it and have begun the neuro-linguistic programming associated with achieving this.

Heart disease…

This is easily solved. Ban whistles. Except that won’t work, because even the dullest amongst us will come to think to themselves two things. Firstly, where are all the dead footballers from all the whistle-blowing which we’ve had for… well, forever? Heaven forbid they ask themselves the obvious question. What’s changed?

Secondly, when reading “all incidents are non-vaccine related,” they may wonder to themselves, “Isn’t it normal to require a post mortem to be conducted to determine what exactly the cause or causes may have been? Very odd that a journalist can determine such things.” But here we know with absolute certainty that it’s not vaccine-related. No mention of anything other than the vaccine. The problem with this has been highlighted back in 2003 with that god-awful singer Barbra Streisand, now famously known as the Streisand effect.

The Streisand effect is a phenomenon that occurs when an attempt to hide, remove, or censor information has the unintended consequence of increasing awareness of that information, often via the Internet. It is named after American singer Barbra Streisand, whose attempt to suppress the California Coastal Records Project’s photograph of her residence in Malibu, California, taken to document California coastal erosion, inadvertently drew greater attention to the photograph in 2003.

By mentioning that this is NOT to do with the vaccine is a bit like the old joke. Close your eyes and whatever you do, don’t think about a pink elephant.

We all know of the deluge of professional football players in particular dropping with chest pains. Now they’re prepping us for more:

Prepare for cancers… and HIV

So let me get this straight. When folks were getting PCR tests for Covid and we found that the majority of these were false positives, this was completely ignored. Even after the factual evidence of it forced Portugal’s high court to rule that they were not to be used.

But now when getting “vaccinated” or should I just say injected with the experimental drug, folks are returning ridiculously high positive tests for HIV. Can’t have that now, can we?

For those of us who’ve been paying attention to this diabolical plan we remember the just deceased Luc Montagnier, who — after studying the contents of the Pfizer vaccine — warned us that it contained sequences from the HIV virus.

And now surprise, surprise.

Highly virulent HIV variant found circulating in Europe

So now we can start priming the sheep for their HIV vaccine. You knew it. Of course you did.

Moderna mRNA HIV vaccine: First patients vaccinated in clinical trial – CNN

The first participants have been vaccinated in a Phase 1 clinical trial of an experimental HIV vaccine that utilizes Moderna’s mRNA technology, the company announced last week.

The trial, titled IAVI G002, is being conducted in partnership with IAVI, a nonprofit scientific research organization.

Reading further…

The new trial, funded in part by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation…

More on who funds them

New Plan To Speed AIDS Vaccine Development Released – Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

The International AIDS Vaccine Initiative (IAVI) unveiled a new global scientific strategy to accelerate AIDS vaccine development, and said it will begin work on the plan with existing resources and newly announced grants from the William H. Gates Foundation, the World Bank and the Government of the United Kingdom.

It’s becoming very clear that they are preparing a cover story for vaccine induced AIDS.

These headlines tell the story:

Australia ends COVID-19 vaccine trials due to HIV antibody positives | TheHealthSite.com

Moderna launches clinical trial for HIV mRNA vaccine like in Covid shot – Strange Sounds

Fast-spreading HIV variant doubles rate of immune system decline | | UN News

Highly virulent HIV variant found circulating in Europe

“TAKE THE TEST Brits urged to get HIV tests as heterosexual diagnoses higher for first time in a decade”

When looking up HIV, we find this:

HIV (human immunodeficiency virus) is a virus that attacks cells that help the body fight infection, making a person more vulnerable to other infections and diseases. It is spread by contact with certain bodily fluids of a person with HIV, most commonly during unprotected sex (sex without a condom or HIV medicine to prevent or treat HIV), or through sharing injection drug equipment.

If left untreated, HIV can lead to the disease AIDS (acquired immunodeficiency syndrome). The human body can’t get rid of HIV and no effective HIV cure exists. So, once you have HIV, you have it for life.

Thank goodness we have Big Pharma who can provide us with drugs for life that’ll keep us alive.

I don’t know what the coming “HIV outbreak” will be blamed on. Breathing too heavily, eating meat, Joe Rogan, or Russian hackers? In a throw-shit-at-the-wall and see what sticks strategy, possibly all of the above. At this point really they’re likely to make up anything.

What implications?

If you are planning on getting life insurance, it may be best to get it now if you can lock in pricing for as long a period as possible. These wily buggers often have clauses, though which allow them to raise prices on you, so be sure to double-check the font size 6 on page 7,421.

I think prices across the board will go up. They’ll amortise it across the entire space. Part of the reason will simply be that the logistics of and potential legal issues surrounding obtaining proof of vaccination

Now the lawyers are in the C-Suite because the clinical data is showing fraud, hence the 75 years ploy by their partners in fraud the FDA. Pfizer’s lawyers are getting twitchy in their Q4 earnings release.

Pfizer’s lawyers are getting twitchy

We all know that lawyers love to throw everything, including the kitchen sink, into these types of documents to cover themselves, however, it gives us an inkling into what is being discussed and worried about at high levels. It seems therefore, that between Q3 and Q4 the major worries for Pfizer’s lawyers include:
-further information regarding the quality of pre-clinical, clinical or safety data, including by audit or inspection.
-challenges driven by misinformation, access, concerns about clinical data integrity and prescriber and pharmacy education.
-the possibility that COVID-19 will diminish in severity or prevalence, or disappear entirely.

I think we’ll get insurance companies vs pharmaceutical companies going to war in the courts. Narrative spin will no doubt continue, but all that’ll happen is that trust in any of these institutions is likely to be further eroded.

Advocacy Journalism is Propaganda by Dr Robert Malone

 It is hard to maintain a free country without a free press and what we have in the West nowadays is less and less "free"...

 Now imagine you have a good friend in North Korea who insists that the news in the Choson Shinmun are accurate. You read the paper and wonder: How can you tell your friend that it sounds like propaganda? Worse, would it do any good? To understand what it's like to live in the hermit kingdom, you should read "Murder in the Koryo". The story of of North Korean police officer who runs an investigation about the murder of a foreigner in Pyongyang. What is frightening and fascinating in the book is how ordinary the life of the North Koreans are. To paraphrase 6th Sense, "I see un-free people, but they don't know they aren't free!"

Guest Post by Dr. Robert Malone

 

Over the last two years, I have come to realize that “journalism” and “journalists” seem to have changed in some fundamental way. I used to believe that there were standards and bedrock ethics which all journalists working for major publications ascribed to. I guess I had thought that the stereotype of the intrepid journalist toiling away in a brave and unending quest for truth was the norm (think “All the President’s Men”). But no longer. Now I feel so naive for ever believing that. What I have personally experienced, again and again, is something very different.

Allow me three general examples to illustrate the point-

First example. Many years ago, when I was working for the “Aeras Global Tuberculosis Vaccine Foundation” (one of the early Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation non-profit vaccine companies), the CEO hired a media consulting firm which mainly consisted of a Pulitzer-prize winning journalist and a marketing manager. To insure that favorable stories about the organization and its mission were printed, the “journalist” and the marketing specialist would consult with their clients (in this case “Aeras”), and learn what story the organization wanted to be told in a major print publication. An article pushing the story would then be crafted, all of the necessary background assembled to meet whatever editorial review standards were likely to be encountered, and this pre-baked work product would be fed to some “journalist” working for the targeted publication. Free work product, no labor required, what’s not to like? My first “you are not in Kansas any more” moment concerning modern journalism was when I saw this process used to “place” an article into “The Economist”, which I had naively believed operated as an independent arbiter of truth. Silly me.

The second example comes from having repeatedly been on the receiving end of “gotcha” journalism as it is currently practiced. “Journalists”, particularly many of the younger ones, seem to use a variety of ploys to draw out information that they can weaponize in some manner to support a pre-determined storyline that they wish to promote. Often it is a sort of confidence game, like a con artist might employ, where they flatter or use phrases like “I just want to help you to get your story out” to get the subject to let down their guard and agree to an interview. After establishing a relationship with the subject, they then draw out details using increasingly aggressive questions focused on supporting the true agenda. Often these personal details are woven into a story line designed to delegitimize someone or otherwise reveal some salacious character flaw. Then the article drops, and the naive subject suddenly finds that they have been duped into revealing personal details that have been weaponized to support a pre-determined narrative. Having experienced this myself a few times, I now often see this strategy (and various versions of this con) repeatedly play out with colleagues. As for me, lesson learned is to vet the “journalist” by reading prior work, and just say no when it becomes clear that they are a specialist in this type of strategy.

The third example comes from listening to disenchanted “old school” journalists (print and broadcast). These voices seem to be a mixture of mid-career and older practitioners, from “print” (an increasingly outdated term these days) and broadcast media. Again and again I hear various versions of the famous rant from the Oscar winning 1976 movie “Network”, where Peter Finch playing the part of “Howard Beale” says “I’m as mad as hell and I’m not going to take this any more”. But the words I repeatedly hear from these modern versions of Howard Beale are more nuanced, and revolve around being unwilling to comply with corporate demands to mislead the public in various ways. And all tell stories of widespread soul-destroying corporate media censorship and propaganda which they just cannot tolerate anymore. This ranges from small local outlets all the way to the top stars of major networks. Basically versions of my own story – they just could no longer tolerate the ethical erosion of their chosen profession. So they take an income hit and go independent. Some succeed, others not so much. And some seem to never be able to completely leave their old reality behind. “You can take the journalist out of the New York Times, but you can’t take the New York Times out of the journalist” is one saying describing the latter.

What changed? Is the present reality any different from what has always existed, going back to the “yellow journalism” days of William Randolph Hearst (continuing with the movie theme, see “Citizen Kane”)? Trying to make sense out of the world, I started asking the “old school” journalists that I encounter what they think about this. And what I have discovered is that there is yet another insidious form of attack on our educational system, driven by the corporate interests of large “non-governmental organizations” (including the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation) which have used grants to journalism schools as a way to drive changes in how their graduates have been trained. To be blunt, this is yet another story of the gradual erosion of integrity due to the pernicious influence of massive accumulations of wealth by a few who weaponize that wealth to advance both their own power and various social agendas.

Under the influence of large “grants” (I think they would more appropriately be called “strategic investments”), many journalism schools have taken to teaching “advocacy journalism.” Which is basically a fancy term for propaganda. Apparently news media now hire journalists specifically to report with skewed biases on topics of interest to these corporations (or governments), often with corporate sponsorship. Let that sink in for a moment. The advocacy journalists are often paid by an outside organization with an agenda. So let’s figure this out what exactly is going on, starting by defining terms. The definition of advocacy journalism from Merriam-Webster is:

“journalism that advocates a cause or expresses a viewpoint”

To me, that sounds like how one might define propaganda. So, am I wrong? The definition of “propaganda” (Merriam-Webster) is:

“the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person”

“ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one’s cause or to damage an opposing cause”

Hmmm. Very interesting. The definitions for “advocacy journalism” and propaganda are essentially THE SAME. Well, THAT is a whole lot of double speak. It is truly a Brave New World. To quote the Amazon synopsis of that classic tome, “Aldous Huxley’s profoundly important classic of world literature, Brave New World is a searching vision of an unequal, technologically-advanced future where humans are genetically bred, socially indoctrinated, and pharmaceutically anesthetized to passively uphold an authoritarian ruling order–all at the cost of our freedom, full humanity, and perhaps also our souls.” Sound familiar?

Now, why is this important? Because increasingly journalism is taught by those who believe that “classic journalism” – which required that both sides of an issue be presented, (you know – “fair and balanced”), is outdated and deserves to die a quiet death.

This is exemplified by a Wiki definition of advocacy journalism that is frankly astounding.

“Classic tenets of journalism call for objectivity and neutrality. These are antiquated principles no longer universally observed…. We must absolutely not feel bound by them. If we are ever to create meaningful change, advocacy journalism will be the single most crucial element to enable the necessary organizing. It is therefore very important that we learn how to be successful advocacy journalists. For many, this will require a different way of identifying and pursuing goals.”

So, who teaches “advocacy journalism”, and who funds such teachings?

Well, for starters – let’s go to one of the premier journalism schools in the USA – Columbia University. How do they view “advocacy journalism”? At Columbia University, one of their programs proudly announces the following:

“CALLING FOR COALITIONS: BUILDING PARTNERSHIPS BETWEEN JOURNALISTS AND ADVOCATES

Journalism is being hit hard globally, and some even predict the end of independent journalism in the global south, especially in Africa. It’s time to look at what may survive. Philanthropic funding will become more essential, and donors will be eager to expand partnerships between journalism and advocacy groups. Through this project, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation’s Media Partnerships team explored the dynamics of such collaborations. Drawing from multiple case studies, the project provided recommendations for foundations, nonprofits and media organizations that maximize impact, respecting a shared covenant.”

Their partner in developing advocacy journalism training programs, with the expansion of such funding is… the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Unbelievable.

native advertising

But now there is a new “style” of journalism that has become quite the fad. This subset of advocacy journalism is called “solutions journalism”, and it is the term that the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation like to use for their funding mechanisms to influence governments, citizens and leaders. Of course advocacy journalism is basically a “nicer, kinder” form of propaganda… Right? You know like when people call censorship – “cancel culture.” Because cancel culture sounds so much “nicer” than censorship… After all, what Twitter, Linked-in and You Tube are doing by banning people and content is for all “our” benefit, right?

Speaking plainly, what these modern media companies are doing is really a form of book burning. See Ray Bradbury’s masterpiece Fahrenheit 451 for further on that.

Large donors or sponsors are giving money to media corporations to bias reporting via “solutions journalism”. And clearly various governments are also influencing what is allowed to be discussed and in what ways. For further on that, see our prior substack concerning the “Overton Window”. These sponsors can be non-governmental organizations, or also governments or global non-govermental organizations such as the Zuckerberg-Chan initiative, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, United Nations, World Health Organization or World Economic Foundation. These groups seek out “private-public” partnerships (which, as previously noted, is basically another euphemism for what Benito Mussolini defined as Fascism). And they seek these relationships by using advocacy journalism – propaganda to sway public opinion. Sometimes they even fund specific investigations. When this happens, who is compromised? Clearly, Truth and Integrity are immediate casualties. All for the greater good of the greatest number of people, of course. As defined by the organization giving the money.

Conflict of Interest? Bill Gates Gave $319 Million to Major Media Outlets, Documents Reveal. The defender November, 2021.

“According to MintPress News, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation donated at least $319 million to fund media projects at hundreds of organizations including CNN, NBC, NPR, PBS and The Atlantic, raising questions about those news outlets’ ability to report objectively on Gates and his work.”

It is important to realize that biases and opinions have always been a part of journalism. Generally, we previously called these pieces “editorials”. When editorials are grouped together, they used to form the “opinion page.” An antiquated term, I know. Of course, we all know that some newspapers are “liberal” and some “republican.” Of course biases do creep into reporting and in fact, every newspaper’s reputation is built on those biases.

But this is different. This is allowing a non-profit governmental organization (at best), a corporation or government (at worst) to control the content of a newspaper or magazine through secret hand-shakes, grants and contracts. It is allowing psy-ops operations a front row seat into influencing the minds of the reader. This is a whole other ball-game, and it needs to stop or at the very least, be called out and recognized for what it is: corporate and state-sponsored propaganda.

Advocacy journalists can and are influenced by governmental policies. For instance, the NY Times recently described a new hire as “joining The New York Times as a technology reporter covering disinformation and all of its tentacles.” The pejorative use of the word “tentacles” pretty much shows what biases the new reporter is expected to have. The implication being that information not disseminated by the US government is disinformation, whether the topic be on climate change, diversity, elections, physician’s right to try or infectious disease. BTW: Any one else notice how the disinformation list keeps growing longer?

How does the Trusted News Initiative (TNI) or global information control fit into the campaign against “disinformation’? The TNI is basically a treaty management organization managed by the British Broadcasting Corporation which uses advocacy journalism to control content of news media through out the “free” world. Does this mean that only that “news” or PR spin which a government or world body wishes to be advanced can be allowed to be published or electronically distributed in some way? Advocacy journalism which promotes a certain viewpoint fits right in with the TNI model.

The long strange evolution of the TNI, from election interference to COVID-19 total information management shows the extent to which power corrupts, and that those being corrupted often have no idea that they are being corrupted. “Journalists” who are trained or coopted into buying into the idea that there is “one truth,” one right answer, and that governments are honest brokers in the assessment of that truth are not “fair and balanced”. They are naive and dangerous. Governments do lie, and what they offer as truth is often better termed mis- dis- and mal- information. Which is precisely why advocacy journalism (ergo propaganda) is dangerous. In a democracy, if an electorate is to be able to make appropriately informed choices, the news must be free from government (and corporate interest group) interference, reported from all angles, from all points of view – not just one narrow reading of the “truth”, as presented by big brother.

The problem is that this truly is a slippery slope. How does a newspaper or content provider determine what propaganda is “good” or “bad”? How is disinformation determined? Does the government get to decide? The “Trusted News Initiative” leadership? What about the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, are they to be the arbiters of truth?

Should a newspaper, magazine, or broadcaster try to make a determination about the impact on objectivity before accepting funds or making commitments to the government? Once upon a time (note the fairy tale prelude) most “established” legacy media tried to maintain a firewall between their “news” and “op-ed” operations. How antiquated that now seems. Does the organization being paid to present one point of view have an obligation to be transparent? To disclose conflicts of interest? Do they need to provide the public with the contract, the information on how they are being paid to bias the news they are reporting, their relationship with the TNI, etc.? What happens when the information control comes in the form of stopping certain types of mis- dis- or mal- information that the government doesn’t want reporters to write on? Or threatens to label those who communicate such as domestic terrorists? What happens when the sponsor wants the advocacy journalism to include marketing campaigns that basically target individuals viewed as opposition? Does the newspaper have an obligation to inform the public that they are being nudged? The ethical morass that this type of journalism creates is huge. All we can hope is that institutions teaching journalism begin to recognize the dangers of promoting advocacy or solutions journalism and return back to the classic tenets of journalism, those being objectivity and neutrality. And restore integrity to the discipline.

LATE BREAKING

And now, thanks to a FOIA request from BLAZE media, we know that the US Government has paid over a billion US dollars to the legacy media to promote advertising propaganda about the COVID vaccines as safe and effective.

In response to a FOIA request filed by TheBlaze, HHS revealed that it purchased advertising from major news networks including ABC, CBS, and NBC, as well as cable TV news stations Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC, legacy media publications including the New York Post, the Los Angeles Times, and the Washington Post, digital media companies like BuzzFeed News and Newsmax, and hundreds of local newspapers and TV stations. These outlets were collectively responsible for publishing countless articles and video segments regarding the vaccine that were nearly uniformly positive about the vaccine in terms of both its efficacy and safety.

Hundreds of news organizations were paid by the federal government to advertise for the vaccines as part of a “comprehensive media campaign,” according to documents TheBlaze obtained from the Department of Health and Human Services. The Biden administration purchased ads on TV, radio, in print, and on social media to build vaccine confidence, timing this effort with the increasing availability of the vaccines. The government also relied on earned media featuring “influencers” from “communities hit hard by COVID-19” and “experts” like White House chief medical adviser Dr. Anthony Fauci and other academics to be interviewed and promote vaccination in the news.

 

Welcome to 21st century media warfare. Waged by our government on you.

The Biden administration engaged in a massive campaign to educate the public and promote vaccination as the best way to prevent serious illness or death from COVID-19.

Congress appropriated $1 billion in fiscal year 2021 for the secretary of health to spend on activities to “strengthen vaccine confidence in the United States.” Federal law authorizes HHS to act through the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other agencies to award contracts to public and private entities to “carry out a national, evidence-based campaign to increase awareness and knowledge of the safety and effectiveness of vaccines for the prevention and control of diseases, combat misinformation about vaccines, and disseminate scientific and evidence-based vaccine-related information, with the goal of increasing rates of vaccination across all ages … to reduce and eliminate vaccine-preventable diseases.”