When viewed through a wider lens, it becomes apparent that the daily information the mainstream media reports is often woefully inadequate. Therefore, it is incumbent upon each of us to look further, dig deeper, and come at news from all sides for more in-depth information that reliably informs our life decisions, our views of current affairs, our civic and political allegiances, and our ability to navigate humanity's problems to find viable solutions. Output is only as good as the input.
As Americans, regardless of political party affiliation or ideological devotion, we are all being subtly programmed by mainstream media. Twenty-first-century news models are rife with misinformation, bias, omissions, and increasingly sophisticated use of psychological conditioning techniques. Neutral, balanced news reporting has been increasingly replaced by agenda-driven propaganda delivered to trigger emotions rather than rational responses, effectively steering public attitudes and convictions in a predetermined direction not unlike Pavlov's dogs.
Below is a short list of the underreported or misreported topics and events in 2020, including several earlier items. Each of these is contributing to the changing global landscape, yet most Americans are grossly unfamiliar with their contexts. Enlarging awareness and understanding of these topics can more positively guide our future actions if we are better informed about the path we are collectively being nudged toward.
What is the downside of questioning everything?
COVID, EVENT 201, and Media Censorship
There is an astonishing amount of essential information being censored by broadcast and social media around the COVID-19 disease that deserves coverage. The most powerful means of influencing people's responses to events and data is transparency, accompanied by open debate amongst the public itself, and also between experts who are preeminently versed in the matter(s). Such open discourse strengthens and solidifies willing, informed public cooperation.
If only one viewpoint is sponsored to the exclusion of legitimate contradictions or controversies, that tactical censorship naturally triggers a high degree of skepticism towards the sponsored viewpoint as seriously problematic. It suggests that the contradictions and controversies cannot be overcome, so they must be silenced if the underlying agenda is to succeed. Nothing in human nature fosters more resistance and animus than being deliberately and strategically deceived.
Consider the massive coordinated effort by social media to silence contrary evidence relative to the SARS-CoV2 virus as a lethal pathogen. Misclassification of COVID-19 (an influenza-like disease) as a lethal pandemic threatening humankind has wrongly justified extremely harmful mitigations worldwide. It is now recognized by the World Health Organization's (WHO) own public admission that PCR testing for diagnosing COVID uses unreliable parameters (higher cycle thresholds), resulting in vast numbers of false positive detections of SARS-CoV2 virus and consequently misdiagnosing volumes of COVID-19 cases.
This long overdue admission is further underscored by WHO's public conclusion that asymptomatic cases (mistakenly referred to as super spreaders) account for statistically insignificant transmission of the SARS-CoV2 virus, therefore largely incapable of transmitting enough viral load to cause pandemic numbers of true cases of COVID-19 disease.
The prevailing narrative claiming COVID-19 is a lethal contagion for humans has gripped the world in fear for nearly an entire year and counting. Finally, thanks to time, and to thousands of the world's most respected doctors, virology/microbiology researchers, and scientists, reliable peer-reviewed scientific analysis and deconstruction of the data behind the COVID narrative promises relief from this immobilizing fear.
Mainstream media will not be responsible for affirming that COVID's lethality is not any different than prior outbreaks . Nor will you hear on the nightly news that the illegal and unconstitutional lock-downs were not required to protect the most vulnerable: our beloved elders with underlying conditions and an infinitesimal number of us who are slightly younger but with serious existing co-morbidities. And you won't read in the daily paper that those who truly died from COVID-19 comprise less than one percent of the entire human population. And more than ever now, you won't learn from your social-media feed that this non-lethal virus is on par with previous viruses which did not require such extreme measures in 2020.
Yet broadcast and social media, sanctioned by bureaucracies, politicians, health authorities, and many healthcare facilities, continue to ignore these positive scientific revisions, which begs the question: Why?
Certainly these findings are worth investigating? Apparently not. Moreover, any potential good news that strays away from the sanctioned COVID narrative as anything but lethal is being systematically shut down. Esteemed professionals worldwide are censored in near-real time by social media using algorithms, claiming legal privilege of private incorporation under an umbrella of special legislative protection, to divert otherwise positive scientific data away from public consumption. Perhaps it is time to follow the money and identify who benefits from maintaining the status quo?
Twelve months later, there are incongruently low mortality rates (COVID-19 deaths) compared with the number of infections of SARS2 virus worldwide. African and Asian countries' largest cities with dense populations report perplexing absences of COVID cases and deaths.
Emphasizing this anomaly are All-Cause Deaths, which are not excessive, globally. The All-Cause Deaths remain in line with those of prior years, with no statistically significant increase in 2020 as would be expected in a global pandemic. Perhaps that is why the CDC established a whole new mortality category that lumps COVID-19 in with influenza and pneumonia.
The censorship hammer is coming down especially hard and swift relative to vaccine hesitancy, egregiously characterized by media (and some health authorities) as anti-vaccination. This is media malpractice. Hesitancy relative to COVID vaccines are demonstrably reasonable due to the brand-new messenger RNA technology in vaccines that have not been FDA approved, rather have been given emergency use authorization (EUA) only. The completed trials that normally accompany the distribution of new medicines and treatments have been either fast-tracked or eliminated altogether for COVID vaccines. For many, this is disconcerting and worrisome.
Also initially missing from informed consent is that recipients of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are automatically enrolled into two-year experimental trials, for which neither vaccine manufacturer has liability for harm from their vaccines. Participants will be tracked and monitored for two years following their injections, and their captured data will eventually serve as the requisite human trials.
Other growing concerns include the seemingly cavalier mixing and matching of doses between Pfizer and Moderna vaccinating. How is this medically appropriate for experimental vaccines? What are the additional risks associated with such a punt of a protocol? New reports are emerging, claiming there is potentially not enough vaccine available for second dosing from either manufacturer, so health officials are encouraging participants to cross-pollinate doses to ensure the second dose is received.
There is also evidence of a condition known as enhanced pathogen priming, which causes more serious symptoms in those participants who come into contact and become ill with the “wild virus,” something totally avoidable by allowing populations to absorb and fight the “wild virus” naturally, while simultaneously creating herd immunity.
The absurd recent meme circulating that claims the only way to achieve herd immunity is via inoculation immunity, or that it is medically unethical to permit natural herd immunity as the WHO suggests, is both biologically and medically inaccurate, bordering on medical incompetence, especially since immunity to COVID19 is already thought to be widespread by many health experts being censored for advocating such traditional science.
Meanwhile, why is inoculated herd immunity a global priority for a disease that is not a lethal threat to 99 percent of the world's population? In what universe is it medically rationale to risk an experimental injection of medicine that does not prevent transmission or illness, but does pose unknown risk for adverse side effects much greater than the disease it seeks to minimize, all to prevent a disease that already has a more than 99-percent survival rate in humans?
The above examples of extraordinary censorship are categorical and represent a much larger body of detailed information that, if of no consequence, should then readily and aggressively be addressed by health authorities and medical professionals, and facilitated by media to responsibly and satisfactorily dispel deepening concerns and insecurities that flow from unsettled contradictions and controversies.
And also to inspire confidence in leadership's otherwise incoherent mitigations, for which destructive consequences are also being systematically ignored by a complicit media.
It is predicted that 1.2 million additional children under five years old, including 60,000 mothers globally, will die from starvation/malnutrition due to the lock-downs in their communities – because when parents don't work that day, the family does not eat.
The United Nations predicts over 300 million more families will fall into extreme poverty worldwide due to lock-downs and withholding of water and food staples, and medical care. Canadian experts predict 10 times greater harm from lock-downs than from COVID, suggesting that governments have acted irresponsibly when extending extreme mitigations that do not account for a much larger relationship between economies and health.
Media news anchors and opinion hosts are script readers, reporting only what they are given. We have seen this with some health officials, as well. Comparative compilations of thousands of news clips over the last decade have proven that media scripts are delivered across networks, often word-for-word. Newscasts are choreographed to “flood” the public with consistent, repetitive messaging that is reinforced by public/private partnerships messaging in the marketplace, ultimately conditioning the public for a desired response.
“Flooding” the airwaves, Internet, and personal devices with heavily scripted messaging for a predictable response as a strategy was unveiled at EVENT 201 in October, 2019. The fully filmed and documented event was hosted by the World Economic Forum, John Hopkins, The World Bank, and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. It was a gathering of the world's most powerful players in economics, finance, Big Pharma, government health authorities, media, public relations, and other interests that include the Rockefeller Foundation and Wellness Trust.
EVENT 201's purpose was to simulate a coronavirus pandemic and “war-game” it from stem to stern. The most robust focus was on its Communications segment, the media and public relations component to control public response via “flooding” with strategic messaging, using “trusted voices” and “social influencers.”
Conveniently, when the simulation magically went live in January 2020 with a real novel coronavirus outbreak (SARS-CoV2), most of the templates for cohesive media coverage of a coronavirus pandemic, complete with visuals and high definition real-time tracking charts, had already been created for EVENT 201, making an easy transition for coverage of COVID-19 that is still in use today.
Over a dozen links to sources for the above information, including the five EVENT 201 videos, can be accessed at RCReader.com/y/981-covid. Readers can access all of our COVID-curious coverage at RCReader.com/tags/covid.
Supporting Resources & Evidence
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vm1-DnxRiPM (Segment 1 Introduction & Medical)
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkGNvWflCNM (Segment 2 Trade & Travel)
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWRmlumcN_s (Segment 3 Finance)
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBuP40H4Tko (Segment 4 Communications)
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-_FAjNSd58 (Segment 5 Recap & Conclusion)
The Smith Mundt Modernization Act of 2012 Update
The Smith Mundt Act of 1948 (SMA) was the only firewall between the public and government openly propagandizing Americans. The Act established the rules for propagandizing foreigners, but expressly prohibited such programs domestically. The act established the Board of Broadcasting Governors, originally tasked with oversight of programming familiar to Americans as Voice of America (VOA), Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), and Office of Cuba Broadcasting (OCB). This programming was expanded to include Radio Free Asia (RFA), and Middle East Broadcasting Networks (MEBN).
The Smith Mundt Modernization Act of 2012 (SMMA) was slipped into the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act (HR 4310/Sec 1078), removing the prohibition and authorizing the use of propaganda within the United States to propagandize Americans where a national-security interest is served. It is a gigantic loophole that all manner of mischief escapes through. The Board of Broadcasting Governors was eventually renamed The United States Agency for Global Media (USGMA).
On the heels of SMMA, Obama issued an Executive Order establishing behavior science departments inside all agencies for the purpose of “nudging” the public favorably toward administrative programming and regulations. Obama's Chief of Staff Cass Sunstein wrote Nudge in 2008, providing the blueprint for influencing public sentiment in a specific direction of acceptance or rejection.
Beginning in 2017, early in the Trump Administration, the State Department and USAID, for whom USAGM carries much water, undertook the largest reorganization in 20 years to establish a public-relations infrastructure for public affairs and public diplomacy that pushes narratives directly to media, who in turn delivers them to the public as news. This intergovernmental programming is now well-funded via our tax dollars to increase its control of information, the new currency of the realm.
The last five years have seen a dramatic devolution of balanced, unbiased, fact-full news coverage in favor of scripted messaging across networks and platforms that is largely fact-less, completely biased, emotionally triggering, and commits sins of omission that can best be described as media malpractice.
It is time for the public to acknowledge our government's participation in the use of psychosocial tools (see Sylvain Timsit's 10 Media Manipulations for a primer) embedded in media's information dissemination apparatus to influence our feelings first, followed by our perceptions, our attitudes, and finally our assimilation.
We are losing our cognitive capacity for rationale processing and connecting the dots of contextual information that builds on knowledge and experience. Instead, we are inundated with far more random fragments of redundant context-less news bites that result in self-absorbed overindulgence of emotional experiences masquerading as functional reality. Thanks to no more Smith-Mundt, we're subconsciously constantly being emotionally triggered and nudged. Opinions define our truths, instead of provable facts as compelling evidence defining a truth.
Supporting Resources & Evidence
Federal Accounting Standard 56
In October 2018, the government's Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB) issued a new rule, Accounting Standard 56, to obscure classified activities from being divulged through required financial reporting.
This essentially means that any government departments that engage in classified activities can hide spending in whatever creative means they conjure. In today's eroding transparency in government, billions of documents are classified based on the flimsiest justification, and this toxic practice has become an unacceptable obstacle in the public's ability to see where its tax dollars are being spent.
Accounting Standard 56 permits government entities to keep two sets of books: one for public consumption, and the accurate one. Congress needs to repeal this subterfuge, reform rules around classifying documents et al, and implement new best practices for widespread transparency in government.
In the final analysis, there exists no justification for hiding the large majority of government activities from the public. Doing so suggests activities that would not be supported by the public at large, therefore should not be engaged in. The eroding transparency in government is the single largest contributor to corruption. It would instantly transform government for the better, and restore the rule of law as a deterrent for bad actors. As it stands currently, it's wide open for abuse.
Links to sources for the above information can be accessed at RCReader.com/y/981-as56.
Supporting Resources & Evidence
Julian Assange Update
Julian Assange, founder of Wikileaks, and arguably the most important hero of free speech in modern times, has been incarcerated in Britain since 2010 on a single administrative charge of jumping bail, a misdemeanor that normally results in a nominal fine, certainly not 10 years of solitary confinement with no relief. It is nothing short of abuse of power, abuse of process, abuse of the law, abuse of human rights, and ongoing physical psychological abuse of a human being.
On September 18, 2020, Westminster Magistrates Judge Vanessa Baraitser, even though compromised based on well-documented conflicts of interest, presided over the extradition hearing of Assange brought by the United States Department of Justice, an inexcusable pursuit of injustice started under Obama, and advanced exponentially under Trump.
The hearing lasted for two weeks with detailed testimony (when the judge allowed it) for and against Assange. The DOJ's case, comprised of 18 indictments under the Espionage Act, is surprisingly weak. The DOJ's case is based on conjecture, provably false claims, and erroneous time lines, with no tangible evidence to support them. In fact, there is irrefutable evidence to the contrary that would have sent the prosecutors packing in a true court of justice. The consequences to freedom of the press, however, can not be overstated should the U.S. Department of Justice prevail. (The details of the case against Assange can be found in the links below.)
That said, Judge Baraitser did refuse the DOJ's extradition request for Assange, but afterward unceremoniously claimed he was guilty and refused him bail. Guilty of what exactly? The bail-jumping charge expired long ago. No other charges have been brought against Assange in the U.K. – not one. His continued confinement should now be considered a government sanctioned kidnapping.
The ironic part of this update is that Judge Baraitser denied the extradition request based on the United States' unacceptable prison conditions for maximum-security prisoners, stating that she could not in good conscious send Assange to a facility where he would likely die. Yet he continues to visibly deteriorate due to the abysmal conditions, including systematic torture, within the judge's own jurisdiction's prison facility Belmarsh Prison.
The more glaring indictments to come out of Assange's case are those against many mainstream journalists who have cowered away from supporting him in his ordeal that has epic consequences for press freedoms. If Assange does not prevail against the U.S. government that desperately wants to punish him for exposing its criminality and embarrassing conduct, many of these craven journalists could be next.
Many of these spineless ingrates have exponentially advanced their own careers and incomes thanks to Assange's sharing the exhaustive files Wikileaks obtained from Chelsea Manning (another unparalleled hero in this story) who secreted them from the government's computers, while working as a government employee, in order to expose war crimes and other nefarious conduct on the part of governments worldwide.
Assange shared the trove of documents with other media organizations and government interests, organizing a committee of editors to go through every document for redaction of sensitive or jeopardizing content. The Guardian journalists ignored this safeguard and pursued their own interests outside of Asange's purview.
New York Times and Washington Post journalists won Pulitzers for their coverage of the Wikileaks-files content. Two Guardian reporters co-authored a book that actually exposed the classified information the DOJ is accusing Assange of releasing, claiming it endangered the lives of two intelligence assets – claims that cannot be proven because not a single person was harmed due to the publishing of Wikileaks.
Still, the United States is prosecuting Assange for publishing specific materials under a very thin interpretation of the Espionage Act, even though engaging in such activities is common to most journalists, evidenced by the Guardian co-authors publishing the same specific materials in their book before Assange released the Wikileaks files to the public at large.
Supporting Resources & Evidence
Election Machines Fractional Voting (Black Box Voting)
Considering that the country is sharply divided over claims of election interference and fraud, it would be instructive to revisit the Reader's 2016 coverage of Black Box Voting's research into fractional or weighted vote counting entitled “Vote Weighting Option Calls Election Integrity into Question.”
Princeton University had recently completed a study and analysis of Diebold electronic voting machines/systems (now Dominion and by association ES&S). Back then, computerized voting was a revolutionary departure from paper ballots.
The Princeton study found alarming vulnerabilities that persist today, one of which was the discovery of fractional vote counting, where one vote is counted as some fraction of a vote for a candidate and tabulated as such.
Black Box Voting took on the mission to explain fractional vote counting and weighting, including other weaknesses that compromised election integrity, and how to recognize anomalies that indicate problems with computerized voting systems. The election watchdog organization published the essay “Fraction Magic: The Decimalization of Votes” and the companion video “Detailed Vote Rigging Demonstration.” The Reader engaged University of Iowa computer-science professor and author of Broken Ballots: Will Your Vote Count Douglas W. Jones to analyze Black Box Voting's allegations. Dr. Jones affirmed that fractional voting was indeed an option in these systems.
He wrote, “GEMS and all the other voting-system vendors’ election-management systems contain a huge number of optional features that can be toggled on and off in each jurisdiction. Generally, a state will approve a voting system for use in that state if, in principle, it can be configured to follow the law of that state. It then falls to local election officials to figure out how to set the zoo of option toggles for the machine to conform to the law.
“The kinds of things you can toggle include ballot rotation, abandoned ballot rules, and straight-party voting. In this context, weighted voting is just another option that needs to be turned off in public elections in the United States. For over a decade, I’ve suggested to vendors that all of the ‘toggles’ for turning on and off the various options on voting machines be put into a single file, and that file be approved by the state election authorities and then required to be used in elections in that state.”
Black Box Voting's Fraction Magic video series can educate voters, and is useful in understanding aspects of the 2020 claims of election interference and fraud. Links to the videos and our 2016 coverage are available at RCReader.com/y/fractionmagic.
Supporting Resources & Evidence
Center for Tech and Civic Life and Zuckerberg's Funding Interference in Elections
In September, mere weeks before the November 2020 general election, Scott Countians learned of a stealth partnership between Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg and wife Priscilla Chan with the Center for Tech and Civic Life (CTCL) to funnel $350 million in grants to various states' city and county election offices to finance the effort to get Democrats to the polls. Scott County received $426,000, twice its annual budget for elections.
While CTCL claims its grants were bipartisan in scope, the details, geographical precision, and documented uses of the funds suggest otherwise. The money was distributed in targeted states where such large infusions of cash could provide better resources to get out a more robust vote in the form of absentee and mail-in ballots.
The fact that Zuckerberg is a well-established “liberal” is not the main point. If the grants had come a from “conservative” donor, the insult to voters as a whole would be equally egregious. There is no place for private funding of public election offices to manage our votes. The acceptance of such funds, with all manner of strings attached defined in the terms of the grants, has crushed the confidence of voters whose city, county, and state election officials participated in the scheme. Not only did it evidence poor judgment during a hotly contested and divisive election, but accepting such corruptible cash demonstrates indifference toward an entire swathe of voters for whom these elected officers have sworn an oath to essentially provide fair and clean elections.
There are lawsuits pending in Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Texas, and Arizona challenging the legitimacy of accepting private funds for a public purpose, in this case elections, that is mandated to be paid for by taxpayers, and protected by our Constitution, and also via federal and state legislation.
More to come on the Center for Tech & Civic Life, especially as a provider of election-data analytics that is likely shared with their patrons such as Facebook, Google, Rockefeller Brothers, and a host of other high profile foundations and organizations.
Links to sources for the above information can be accessed at RCReader.com/y/981-ctcl.
Supporting Resources & Evidence
- Iowa Voter Alliance Suing Scott County Over Private Funding of Public Elections