By Gregory Sinaisky
It is difficult not to notice something contrived in the currently announced “pandemic” of the Novel Covid-19 virus. Media coverage of this event has all the hallmarks of a coordinated hysterical campaign, namely:
- the use of emotions instead of numbers and logic (for example videos showing allegedly overflowing hospitals and morgues, which can easily be staged or occur due to a natural situation unrelated to Covid-19)
- the refusal to even mention the most obvious counter-arguments (for example, the media will never compare the number of deaths caused by flu in recent years with Covid-19 deaths)
- and the complete censorship of all opinions that disagree with the mainstream media narrative, even those that come from recognised experts.
We have witnessed the publication of numerous fake stories, like the CNN report about bodies being left on the streets in Ecuador which was later debunked. We have frequently seen hysterical headlines that are not supported in any way by the contents of the article.
Finally, the national, as well as the local coverage, is always vague, never saying who exactly is ill or what they’ve got, or whether they are at home or in a hospital, and they never say how they treat the disease. Vagueness in media is a sure sign of lying.
Out of any proportion to reality, the mass media continues to drone on ominously that this is the New Normal, and that we might as well get used to it, that the world will never be as it was before the coronavirus. This is nothing more and nothing less than classic psychological warfare.
Why would a viral outbreak require “psy-ops”, that is, unless something larger was afoot?
The mainstream media as usual labels everybody who objects to their version of events a “Conspiracy Theorist.”
However, in addition to usual roster of sceptics like James Corbett or Del Bigtree, we now have many established scientists and doctors publicly questioning the version of events that is being presented by the mainstream media and governments.
These are, to name a few: Dr Sucharit Bhakdi, a professor emeritus at the Johannes Gutenberg University in Mainz and former head of the Institute for Medical Microbiology; Dr Wolfgang Wodarg, a member of PACE; Prof Dolores Cahill, Vice Chair of the IMI Scientific Committee (she has more important titles than I can fit here); Dr Peer Eifler from Austria; Dr Claus Köhnlein; Dr Scott Jensen, Minnesota Senator; Harvey A. Risch, professor of epidemiology at Yale School of Public Health.
Each one of these intelligent, articulate and trustworthy people with top credentials disagree with the official story.
All these doctors accuse media, governments and WHO of fabricating the Covid pandemic and abusing their powers by taking extreme measures in the face of a disease that has shown no signs of being any worse than a typical seasonal flu.
Some of these doctors add even more disturbing accusations, namely, that some patients died because doctors used a wrong treatment protocol, that medical authorities were directed to list ‘coronavirus’ as the cause of death even when no coronavirus analysis was made, that many deaths were caused by putting people with active Covid-19 into nursing homes and, finally, that a drug capable of saving hundreds of thousands of lives is being denied to the population.
The question is…is this campaign of fear a spontaneous overreaction to a new virus, or was it organized by somebody to achieve some malicious goals?
If we conclude that the pandemic indeed is fake, the worldwide media campaign manufactured, government officials and WHO bribed or coerced, then further questions arise. Is there anyone who has the ability to pull this off?
If yes, then why did they do it, and how?
Long before this “pandemic” we heard talk that we are living through a time of crisis, but it seems nobody ever fully identifies the crisis or what caused it. In our view, the false pandemic is closely related to this crisis and it is impossible to understand current events without a clear understanding of the crisis.
A short answer to the questions posed above: we live in a unique time, at the tail end of a European colonial project that existed for 500 years, making Europe and the US the richest, most influential part of the world and the envy of most of its inhabitants.
From the end of WWII through the 1960’s, this colonial project was gradually replaced by neo-colonialism, controlled almost exclusively by US plutocrats. In the last 10-20 years, the systems of neo-colonialism began to break down due to the economic rise of China and also due to the degeneration of Western elites. In recent years, what we call the Free World maintains its way of life simply by going deeper and deeper into debt.
This situation cannot continue indefinitely, and very soon we can expect an abrupt fall in the standard of living in the US, the UK and most European countries, accompanied by tremendous social upheavals. The US plutocracy has no economic or military means to stop this collapse.
A clever solution would be to pin the blame on a natural phenomenon, like a disease, and then justify any amount of violence necessary to keep the problems resulting from the crisis under control.
US plutocrats conveniently control most of the world’s media and have a huge network of “charitable” foundations and affiliated NGO institutions all over the world. This network has been used for generations as a tool for influencing media, educational institutions, governments and international organizations, for social engineering and ideological control.
We will now discuss above short thesis in more detail.
IS SUCH A CAMPAIGN AT ALL POSSIBLE?
Is there somebody out there who is capable of organising a world-wide media campaign supported by governments and international organisations?
Yes, we can be sure that such players exist because we have a recent example of one such media campaign that was clearly artificially created.
Coincidentally, this campaign was also aimed at convincing the population that we are in immediate danger, and that it will require drastic measures to save us.
I mean, of course, the Greta Thunberg campaign.
In no time at all, a 13-year-old charmless girl was elevated to a position of worldwide prominence by mysterious agents. Whoever organised this campaign was also able to arrange for Greta to speak at the United Nations, the European Parliament, the Davos Economic Forum and so on. On top of this, Amnesty International gave her an award. This makes no sense unless Amnesty International is directed from the same center that command our “independent” mainstream media.
Just recently the first Gulbenkian Foundation Prize for Humanity, about one million Euros, was given to Greta. She was called “one of the most remarkable figures of our days” and a “charismatic and inspiring personality.”
It would be highly unlikely, to say the least, that journalists all over the world became simultaneously fascinated by this little girl and the simple-minded message she was coached to deliver. It is equally unlikely that the UN, the Davos Forum and the European Parliament all independently decided that her platitudes were something interesting and important for them to hear in person. And I am sure that the people in Amnesty International and the Gulbenkian Foundation are not so deranged as to sincerely believe in Greta’s greatness.
To believe that this campaign was caused exclusively by the virtues of Greta would be as naive as believing the 1960’s Soviet media campaign that once glorified the “simple Soviet girl” who wanted to donate her eyes to blind USA Communist party leader Henry Winston came into existence because of sincere journalistic interest in this “heroine” instead of being commanded by the Politburo.
Thus we can safely conclude that forces capable of organising worldwide media campaigns and influence the corridors of power do exist.
Volumes have been written about plutocratic control of the American media, among them “Manufacturing Consent” by Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky, “The Media Monopoly” by Ben Bagdikian, “Taking the Risk out of Democracy” by Alex Carey, “Media Control” and “Necessary Illusions” by Noam Chomsky.
Already in 1928, Edward Bernays, considered the father of public relations in America, wrote:
In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons…who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.”
Noam Chomsky put it more bluntly:
Any dictator would admire the uniformity and obedience of the US media.”
Note that control over the US media is achieved without requiring direct ownership of it. Herman and Chomsky quote Sir George Lewis, that the market would promote those papers
enjoying the preference of the advertising public…advertisers thus acquired a de facto licensing authority since, without their support, newspapers ceased to be economically viable.”
Of course, only big advertisers can exercise significant political clout over the media. In the next part of our article we will describe an even more important source of media control, the so-called “charitable” foundations.