And What Is Hawaii Saying about Israel? Don’t Miss This Perspective!by Mary Maxwell, PhD, LLBA few days ago at GumshoeNews.com in Australia, I sang the praises of a young “journalist” who lives on the Big Island in Hawaii. I believe she – Michele Melendez — has been a journalist only since August, a few days after the outrageous 2023 Lahaina fire. Every day she comes up with something new, and never looks rattled. Wow.Today she has made a 20-minute “documentary” based on the idea that it is neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians who are running this war. I agree!Ronald Bernard makes an appearance, as does a man from StopWorldControl who explains why the Scofield Bible was used in US Christian circles, in 19th century, to create a (wrong) promise of the Second Coming, in biblical Israel.Ms Melendez asks us to join her in complaining to the ICC at the Hague – she offers you the paperwork to do this. Please tune in.Below that, I offer a link to the article I wrote about Michele, as it contains, in the Comments section, a list of my own “lectures” on the subject of Maui. And I’m not through yet!Here is Michele Melendez’s discussion of Israel:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9FfBDyQ7QwNote: I have now got my name on the ballot as a Republican candidate for president, in the New Hampshire primary, the date of which is still uncertain but likely to be late January, 2024.
ANALYSIS State governments collect the DNA of nearly every newborn baby in the US. Most parents don’t even knowBlood taken from newborns via a heel prick has been used in medical research without parental consent and given to law enforcement without a warrant. In some states, it’s stored indefinitely.LifeSiteNews.com Thu Oct 19, 2023 – 4:07 pm EDT(LifeSiteNews) –– Most new parents have no idea that by the time they leave the hospital with their newborn, a sample of their child’s blood has already been sent to the state government. Depending on the state, the government may store and use their child’s blood for anywhere from months to indefinitely – and not only is it legal, it’s actually mandated by law.Each American state has its own newborn screening program through which healthcare professionals who deliver babies are required to collect a blood sample in order to test for rare genetic or metabolic diseases. Only in two states, Maryland and Minnesota, are healthcare practitioners even required to obtain parental consent. Wyoming law technically requires parents’ “written consent,” but is worded vaguely enough that in practice, it amounts to a system that must be opted-out of rather than opted into. Utah allows a “religious exemption” that mandates the parents report their religion to the state – and it must be “a specified, well recognized, religious organization whose teachings are contrary to the testing required by Utah law for each newborn infant.”The issue of state governments harvesting the DNA of almost every newborn has received sporadic attention from health-freedom advocates over the years.“Within 48 hours after the birth of a baby, the heel is pricked, newborn blood is squeezed onto a card with special filter paper, and the card is sent for analysis to the State government laboratory or the laboratory under contract with the State Department of Health,” the Citizens’ Council for Health Freedom (CCHF) explained in 2007. “At least 4.0 million newborn babies are tested every year in the United States.”More at the link:https://www.lifesitenews.com/analysis/state-governments-collect-the-dna-of-nearly-every-newborn-baby-in-the-us-most-parents-dont-even-know/?utm_source=featured_news&utm_campaign=usa———————————– Dear RM Agents and Readers,This makes me think of an X files show, perhaps Fight the Future, but think it was more in the line of the series. Fox and Scully are in an underground type bunker and there are files upon files and they find Scully’s name.Just a flash that went through my mind; this obviously being done with an intended purpose of placing us each in the proper box; whatever that may be.This seems far from something a free society should be engaged in.Many Blessings, CrystalRiver
Ep 3191a – The Patriots Have Set A Plan In Motion That Will Drive The [CB] Into The Ground
Ep 3191b – Fake News, Actors, [DS] Panicking, World Wide Alert, This Is How It Begins
X22 Report Streamed on: Oct 19, 8:15 pm EDT
The people are seeing the economy go down the tubes. As Biden continually tells the people that the economy is great people are going to see the liar. The Fed has been trapped into printing, the will have to print their way out of this, which will devalue the currency and destroy their system.
X22 Report Streamed on: Oct 19, 8:45 pm EDT
The fake news, actors and the [DS] are now panicking, they realize that the people are on the side of Trump and more and more people are going to his side. The [DS]/[CB] have set us on the path to war and the people are panicking. The people are waking up and in the end they will reject war. Trump will continue talk about peace and the people will eventually agree with him and in the end he will have the people and the people will see the true enemy.
I haven’t listened to this but Mike Jaco tells us Israel is using Directed Energy Weapons. Surprise, surprise. He is the first one to mention it that I’ve seen. 2 hr.
This was a surprise, but then again, the deep state finds a way to attack the good guys and the corrupt courts seem one of the most effective ways. There is more to this story than meets the eye so if the truth matters, I would look beneath the surface. We understand Sidney is innocent.
Regarding Sidney Powell, the media play it as her “turning on Trump.” But her agreement is to testify truthfully. If so, based on the speech by Trump lawyer John Eastman, that will only help Trump. I DARE Trump haters to actually watch Eastman’s speech:
You might recall our mention of a North Dakota politician and his family who died in a plane crash a couple of weeks ago. Perhaps we have a motive. Those who go up against the monsters are living on the edge and are very courageous.
There are many ways to safely and inexpensively cure cancer. Chemo”therapy”, radiation, and surgery don’t qualify—so why do we need the controllers’ medical industrial complex?
There are so many distractions, and most of them are of lesser importance than they make out. Most people don’t hate the Jews, the Palestinians, Africans, Scandinavians, Russians, Canadians, Peruvians, Chinese, or any others, but the New World Order wants it to look like we all hate each other.
It’s simply not true and since the advent of Q and millions of good, kind people all over the planet woke up to the agenda to divide Humanity, there has been unity unseen before because now we have the Internet to highlight our similarities and bring us together on common ground. We all want the same thing, and ultimately, where we go one, we go all.
The current rhetoric and propaganda is designed to create hatred. We can’t fall for it and have to pick through the information carefully now.
For those not on Telegram, I wanted to share this exceptional dialogue from Sovereign Redneck Renegade. It’s one of my favourite channels with so much to offer. It’s a bit long, but it’s only a smidgen of what is there and worth the read as his version of truth. Maybe it will connect some dots or open some eyes. I believe it helps explain why the Q team/Alliance left Israel for last. These are excerpts from multiple posts.
*Wherever the terms “Jew”, “Jewish” and “Jewry” appear below, it should be understood that these are actually references to Khazarians or fake Jews who have no affiliation whatsoever to authentic Judaism.
• Jewish Banking Houses and Mercantile Families (which comprise the International Banking Cartel) were directly responsible for the unlawful passage of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and, therefore, accountable for the stealthily engineered booms and busts that have repeatedly shocked the US economy and financially ruined the American people. The Federal Reserve Bank is the most powerful of all the central banks tasked with artificially inflating the world’s premier reserve currency and fake fiat money—the US Dollar. The petrodollar, in particular, is destined for an epic collapse. Because the Global Economic & Financial System is hardwired to the US dollar, the banksters know that when it drops like a rock, the reign of the once Almighty Dollar is finally over. This is why they are concocting the largest and longest sucker’s rally of all time at this very moment.
The Italian Mafia and the Khazarian Mafia have always been joined at the hip. The Italian bankers of the Black Nobility were primarily Jewish; however, there was a lot of intermarriage with the indigenous Catholic noblemen. These purely political marriages of convenience took place regularly to establish a covert culture whereby the court Jews could thrive under the radar, which they did particularly in Rome and in the wealthy northern Italian enclaves.
• The Israeli Government, working in tandem with the Chicago Jewish Mafia and Zionist-controlled Military-Industrial Complex, ordered the assassination of President John F. Kennedy which was actually carried out by the Central Intelligence Agency. There were several reasons why the Khazarian Mafia killed Kennedy, each of which represented a direct threat by JFK to the global power structure bankrolled by the International Banking Cartel. As a matter of historical fact, the Zionist perps went so far as to circulate “Wanted for Treason” leaflets all over Dallas during the week of Kennedy’s assassination. Furthermore, Vice-President Lyndon B. Johnson, a crypto-Jewish politico, was the point-man in the White House overseeing the assassination plot and especially the cover-up.
The false flag terrorist attacks carried out on September 11, 2001 were ordered by the International Banking Cartel, overseen by the Khazarian Mafia headquartered in Tel Aviv, and coordinated with Neocon Zionists in Washington, D.C. This well-planned terror operation was carried out to (i) declare the bogus War on Terror, (ii) establish the Stasi-like Department of Homeland Security and (iii) pass the unconstitutional Patriot Act. Each of these events was designed to further strip Americans of their rights and liberties, as well as to lay the groundwork for a future war against the Patriot Movement. There are no other treasonous acts of terrorism which have so prepped the US government to wage a war on its own citizenry. The many Jewish traitors know they have nowhere to run but Israel when these truths are generally known, so they have locked the whole place down until their next big move.
The massive and ever-growing Military-Industrial Complex is fundamentally a Jewish bankster creation headquartered in Chicago which systematically starts forever wars in order to maintain and/or increase the enormous revenues streams taken (read: stolen) from the U.S. Treasury.
The MIC, in collusion with the National Security State, represents the most powerful force and multi-corporate entity in the world today. The Military-Industrial Complex is truly the 800-pound gorilla that sits wherever it wants to throughout the world community of nations. Wherever it throws its weight around is left with a dystopian post-apocalyptic wasteland. The forever wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Palestine, Sudan, Somalia, etc. are just a few egregious examples of transparent MIC warmongering,
This particular tribe of moneychangers and merchants learned long ago that whoever controls the media controls the society, the nation and the world. Toward that end, the entire mainstream media (MSM) in the USA is completely controlled by Jewish money and investment. So are all the top positions of the MSM occupied by Jewish CEOs, CFOs and COOs as well as Presidents and Board Directors. Because their Khazarian Mafia masters and handlers are essentially in charge of the CIA’s Mockingbird Media, they all realize that any serious transgressions against The Company (aka the C.I.A.) will occur on pain of death, or worse.
Even more significantly, all the Big Tech and Big Social Media corporations are run by members of the Jewish Tribe. Almost all of the Big Social Media start-ups are commandeered by Jewish college kids who have been given stolen intellectual property, proprietary information and/or patents by attorneys or other covert agents of DARPA, the C.I.A. or DIA. The IPOs are then managed in such a way so as to guarantee immediate billionaire status to these mind-controlled puppets who are then easily kept on the CIA reservation under threat of losing everything. The notorious Mark Zuckerberg, just like Bill Gates, is just one of many Jewish fake whiz kids who was set up from the start with stolen technology to autocratically lead a major media company for his C.I.A. masters. Ditto that for Google’s Jewish founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin among several other tech founders.
What needs to be said about the ironclad control that Jews have always exerted over Hollywood from the very beginning? Every major studio in Tinseltown was founded by Jewish entrepreneurs who originally hailed from Eastern or Central Europe if not Russia. Even a cursory examination of all the most successful CEOs and presidents, directors and producers, screenwriters and film editors, actors and actresses, cinematographers and directors of photography, as well as talent agents and scouts, will prove that Hollyweird is a fundamentally Jewish industry from the top down and bottom up. By the way, there’s a very good reason why the Jews established and continue to run Hollywood.
Big Pharma is almost entirely owned and operated by Jewish families, stockholders, investors, hedge funds, etc. The Pharmaceutical Industry is dominated by various Jewish Crime Families such as the Sacklers, who were just forced into bankruptcy because of their obscene profiting from the nationwide opioid epidemic. It is primarily Jewish physicians, scientists, lawyers, lobbyists and politicos who are also at the forefront of the deadly and destructive Super-Vaccination Agenda. The deplorable state of the National Healthcare System, and particularly the Obamacare con job, are both the handiwork of the International Banking Cartel. The ever-increasing exorbitant healthcare costs represent a staggering 10% of the nation’s GDP as well as an immense revenue stream into the IBC coffers. Not only that, but the unconstitutional imposition of Obamacare permitted the globalists to implement a HUGELY subversive piece of their NWO agenda.
There is a lot more, but that’s it for today. Source link.
Don’t be discouraged; there is justice being done. It just isn’t plastered all over the newspapers and televisions. Trump’s Executive Orders are serving their purpose.
Canada is the source of some masterful media manhandling as Pierre Poilievre casually castrates a reporter while munching on an apple. I love it.
When these goons are challenged, they back down because they don’t have a leg to stand on. They have no facts—it’s all rhetoric designed to embarrass the one they are attacking. Like I said, Karma works fast these days.
Signing off for today and determined to keep a positive outlook with the understanding that not all is what it seems, and as Q said, “It had to be this way”. The only way to break through the hypnotism is to make things so ugly it can’t be ignored. They must break the programming of the masses and we’re all along for the ride.
From my perspective it is weird that you have many words that have multiple meanings. To us, this just seems like it would lead to unnecessary confusion, or it would give unnecessary ammunition to those who seek to manipulate others.
Why not just have one word that means one thing, and then have another word that means another thing?
A large amount of confusion and dysfunctional policy is created because one word has multiple meanings.
For example, what is a free market?
Well, sometimes a free market is defined as a market that is free from government interference. And sometimes a free market is defined as a market that is efficient and transparent and has healthy competition and where companies face consequences if they sell dangerous products or if they pollute to an unacceptable degree or if they expose their employees to unacceptable levels of risk. In this second definition, there is some level of government oversight, but not an excessive amount of it.
But the thing is, in practice, these definitions are often mutually exclusive, at least at your current level of consciousness. If a market is free from government interference, then you will have monopolies, where companies increase the price and decrease the quality of their products, because that maximizes profits. If a market is free from government interference, you will have companies selling dangerous products or poisoning rivers or exposing their employees to unacceptable levels of risk. Therefore this market will not be efficient.
Conversely if the market is free from monopolies and free from companies being exploitative or destructive, then almost certainly there has to be a level of government involvement to enforce that. At least, there has to be at your current level of consciousness (fortunately your level of consciousness is rising quickly).
So you have “free market” meaning simultaneously “market free from government oversight” and “competitive, efficient market.” But those two things are in practice often mutually exclusive (at your current level of consciousness).
So you can see how you can have wildly unproductive conversations this way. One person says “to have a free market we must have a smaller government” and if they use one definition, they’re right. Another person says “to have a free market we must have more government oversight to stop businesses from exploiting people in a particular way” and if they use another definition, they’re also right.
Or it can lead to people completely deregulating an industry, because then it’s a free market, and free markets are efficient, right? However, in that one sentence, the term “free market” is used with two wildly different meanings. Deregulated markets are free markets in a sense, but they’re not efficient markets. Free markets are only efficient if they’re free in the “some level of government oversight” sense.
Of course, there’s also such a thing as too much regulation — indeed, most countries are currently over-regulated. At your current level of consciousness, it’s optimal to have some level of regulation: more than the free market true believers want, and less than the mainstream left wants.
So you see that when one word has multiple meanings, this can lead to confusion or bad policy or inaccurate predictions.
This issue becomes even more severe when people intentionally start redefining or misusing words to achieve certain outcomes, in an Orwellian way. For example, people who spend a lot of time talking about diversity sometimes don’t value diversity of thought. People who spend a lot of time talking about tolerance sometimes don’t tolerate those who disagree with them. People who talk a lot about equality are sometimes actively opposed to equality for men or white people in those specific areas where they are disadvantaged. In Germany there was talk of banning a political party (just about the most undemocratic thing you can do) in order to protect democracy. Similarly, some people on the right call people communists to discredit them even if it hasn’t been established that they actually are communists. Just being left-wing and in favor of a relatively large government isn’t enough to make someone a communist.
Still, James Lindsay has said: “Communists share your vocabulary but they don’t share your dictionary.” While I think the label communist sometimes gets over-applied, it is true that the left sometimes has wildly different meanings for seemingly-normal and seemingly well-defined words. In this way, they can dog whistle, or they can suggest policies that seem reasonable but turn out to be a Trojan horse once accepted. For example, the left might talk about equality, which is of course a good principle, but then it sometimes turns out that equality is a dog whistle for “black people quotas.”
So, how can you as an individual navigate this situation?
The best thing you can do, especially if you suspect that someone is trying to manipulate through language, is to ask people to define their terms. And not just ask for the meanings for obscure or highly complicated terms, but also ask for meanings for seemingly-obvious terms. You talk about equality. What is equality? And don’t accept a definition like “equality means people being equal” that doesn’t actually spell out the boundaries of what the word applies to. Ask them to be specific. According to you, does X fit in your definition? According to you, does Y fit in your definition? Are black people quotas part of your definition of equality? Are reparations part of your definition of equality?
And once people have defined their terms, hold them to those definitions. Make sure that they don’t switch definitions halfway through their argument. And make sure that people don’t use associations that only apply to one sense of the word, but not to the sense of the word that they’re using.
For example, don’t let a right-winger get away with saying “free markets are efficient, therefore the market will become more efficient if we deregulate it.” Free markets are only efficient if the word “free market” is used in the “some government oversight” sense, but then the switch is made to the “free markets are deregulated markets” sense later in the argument.
A rhetorical trick that is often used is called the Motte-and-bailey. Historically the bailey was a hard to defend courtyard, which was linked to the motte. The motte was an easy to defend keep. So if you’re attacked in a motte-and-bailey castle, you can retreat to the motte because that’s really easy to defend.
Similarly, someone might say that equality is good, and if you agree, they’ll try to ram through black-people quotas. If you disagree with them, they’ll retreat to their easy to defend motte, and they’ll say that of course we shouldn’t discriminate against black people, what are you, a racist?
So in other words, they’ll use the word “equality” to mean “black people quotas”, but as soon as you disagree with them, they retreat to their easy to defend motte and they start defending the position of “it’s not okay to fire someone for being black.” And then if they win the argument, they’ll implement black people quotas.
Some policies have been rammed through this way, even though most people didn’t want those policies.
In other words, they switch definitions of the word “equality” as convenient for them. And that’s why you ask them to define their terms. Because then they can’t switch. Then they either have to make the case for black-people quotas (an unpopular position), or they have to make the case for “let’s not openly discriminate” but then be unable to switch gears and implement black-people quotas.
So you ask people to clearly define their terms, and to be clear about which things do and don’t fall into the definition according to them. It’s not specific enough to say “equality is the state of people being equal.” You say: person who uses the word equality, according to you, is it equality to have black people quotas, yes or no? Is it equality to have reparations, yes or no?
Some people use needlessly complicated words or long sentences, or use sentences that don’t actually say anything if you look closely at them. Usually these people are either trying to manipulate, or they’re trying to appear smarter than they actually are. Actually smart people are concise and use clear language. And whether a person is trying to manipulate or they’re simply not that intelligent, in both cases it helps to ask them to define their terms.
Be willing to look like a fool doing this. You may feel silly asking people to define seemingly-obvious words, but this is how you get clarity between two well-intentioned parties, or this is how you avoid being manipulated by a malicious actor. If you feel embarrassed about asking someone to define a seemingly obvious term, you can always think that asking is being as-a-king. Asking, as-king, as king, as a king.
Saying that asking is being “as a king” may sound somewhat silly, but asking to define terms can encourage thought and discussion and it can dramatically improve clarity and the quality of a debate. If the person you’re talking to is actually interested in sharpening their arguments or being nudged to think more deeply, as opposed to wanting to just win the debate, they may very well appreciate you asking them to define terms.
When we’re talking about verbal manipulation: another tactic that is used all the time is intentionally trying to create an artificial link between the thing you want to promote and good things, and the thing you want to demonize and bad things.
For example, a certain tv series shows exactly one person complaining about cancel culture, and this person is a racist who literally murders black people for no reason, and when he’s being held accountable for his murders he complains about cancel culture. Hence the average viewer comes away with the impression that people who oppose cancel culture are all murderous racists, and that cancel culture is the justified holding-to-account of awful people.
When in reality, even people opposing cancel culture are generally fine with murderous racists being held accountable. The type of cancel culture that I and some people oppose is for example people being deplatformed merely for having a politically incorrect opinion, or for disagreeing with the official narrative. Even scientists and experts get hit by cancel culture and are deplatformed, for the crime of doing science and finding results that don’t agree with the official narrative.
When I write it out like this it may sound silly, but this kind of manipulation is actually a surprisingly effective way to debunk certain concepts or positions in the mind of your average person. If you show an average person a few of these kinds of tv shows, they will likely genuinely believe that cancel culture either doesn’t exist or is justified, without ever listening to the arguments of people who oppose cancel culture. Again, when you are in a discussion about cancel culture, it helps to both define what things are and what things aren’t cancel culture.
It’s not very easy to deal with this, because so many people use that trick on all ends of the political spectrum. Even if someone doesn’t intentionally try to manipulate, they’ll still probably show certain things in a good light and certain things in a bad light. It’s a rare show or movie or book or argument indeed who presents both sides of the argument in their strongest form.
For example, when the left talks about immigrants, they often talk about children who come from areas where there is war or starvation. When the right talks about immigrants, they often talk about “men of fighting age”, or at least about adult men who weren’t in danger in their home country and who simply wanted better economic opportunities. Of course, these descriptions generate completely different emotional responses. And most people present immigrants as either people and children fleeing from death, or as adult men who are just after better economic opportunities and who are possibly dangerous. Most people want to push a certain agenda or political message, and therefore only show what supports that. It’s rare for someone to show or acknowledge both sides of an argument.
This ties into a point that we made in earlier messages: ideally you are able to present an argument for both sides of the discussion, one that is so high-quality that people who sincerely have that view would say you are doing a good job.
Another way in which discussions often derail is when one side gives three reasons, and the other side spends all their time completely destroying the weakest of the three reasons, while ignoring the two stronger reasons. This sounds silly if I say it like this, but the side that relentlessly attacks the weakest reason often looks like the discussion winner to the average joe. One way you can deal with this is to simply omit relatively weak reasons and only present your strongest reasons. Yes, I know, theoretically one weak plus two strong reasons should have more weight than just two strong reasons, but this is not how it often works in practice.
Most people don’t debate in good faith, unfortunately. Most people don’t debate to learn or to come closer to the truth, they debate to win, and they’re willing to use under-handed debate tactics to do so.
Another debate issue is that people often don’t actually debate the position of the other side, instead they debate an easy-to-dismantle strawman. Again, define your terms and be clear what is and isn’t part of your definitions. In theory, you should actually be debating not a strawman but a steelman, which is the best version of the other side’s argument. So if they say something, you first mentally improve their argument to the strongest version possible, and then you evaluate that steelman version of their argument. This is debating in super good faith, and if you do this, you will make rapid progress towards more truth and nuance.
As for how you can improve the quality of your own arguments: you can ask yourself if you would still have the same opinion if the people involved were gender-swapped or nationality-swapped or political-party-swapped. If not, you might want to think about what your underlying principles are, and then apply those consistently. If you actually formulate principles and then actually apply those consistently, then you will be a great example for others indeed, and you may be able to draw strength from your principles.
People often pretend to be even-handed, but in reality only give lip service to the well-being of one group while actively speaking out for the well-being of another group. That’s actually not even-handed at all.
If there is a conflict and both sides are doing bad things, but you only ever speak out to condemn the bad things that one side does, then you are not being fair.
If at one specific moment in time it’s clear that it’s one side doing the bad thing, then alright, you can say that’s bad, period. And you shouldn’t make excuses for the bad thing, because the bad thing is bad. However if the other side then later does something bad, you should for fairness sake also speak out against that.
It’s absolutely possible that at one specific moment in time, one side is clearly in the wrong. And it’s fine to point that out, without trying to justify the bad thing. But if you speak up then, but never speak up during moments when the other side is doing bad things, then you’re not being a part of the solution.
What Earth humans love to do is to create a narrative where history starts at the precise point where their disliked group does something bad. And then all the bad things that their group does are justified because of that earlier bad thing. Well, that’s not a productive way to argue, because then the other side just says that history starts at the precise point that supports their narrative, and then says that all the bad things their side does are justified.
If you accept that logic of “we can do bad things because they did bad things first” then both sides will just pretend that history starts at the precise point when the other side did a bad thing. And then both sides will feel justified in doing bad things.
So that doesn’t work. In reality, people simply shouldn’t do bad things, such as hurting innocent civilians of another side. Even if the other side has killed your civilians, that doesn’t justify you killing civilians of another side.
So, about the current Israel – Hamas conflict:
If you have only ever actively spoken up about the bad things that one side has done, but have never spoken up about the bad things that the other side has done, then in my personal opinion you are not helping.
If you don’t outright say that it was wrong that Hamas killed Israeli civilians, period, then in my personal opinion you are not helping.
If you think that Israel is justified in killing civilians right now because of what Hamas did, then in my personal opinion you are also not helping. This is the “history starts at the precise point when it’s convenient for my narrative” fallacy we discussed earlier. In reality, people shouldn’t kill civilians even if the other side killed civilians first. If you want to argue that Israel gets to kill Palestinian civilians now because of what Hamas did previously, then Hamas can say they were justified because of what Israel did previously. So that’s just not a productive way to move forward. Yes, what Hamas did was wrong, but that doesn’t mean that it’s now justified for Israel to kill civilians themselves. Two wrongs don’t make a right.
Note that about half of all Palestinians are under 18, and right now many children are dying because of what Israel is doing. Obviously it’s not justified to kill Palestinian children, which is what Israel is currently doing, because some Palestinians have murdered Israeli citizens. Those children are innocent, and that’s about half of the population. Not every Palestinian is a murderous Hamas fighter. You don’t get to kill Palestinian children just because some Palestinians murder Israeli citizens. Two wrongs don’t make a right.
Often it is said: Israel has a right to defend itself. This ties into our earlier point about definitions. Now, yes, when taken at face value, it’s certainly true that Israel has a right to defend itself. But if someone says “Israel has a right to defend itself”, ask them to define what exactly does and doesn’t fall into that definition, according to them. Does the person saying “Israel has a right to defend itself” think that Israel is justified in killing Palestinian civilians now, to potentially save Israeli lives later?
If yes, does that person think that Israeli lives are more valuable than Palestinian lives?
Also, once someone has defined what “having a right to defend itself” means, ask them: does Palestine also have a right to defend itself? There is a laundry list of reasons that Palestine could cite as being sufficient reason for it to “defend itself”, which apparently means killing civilians of the other side — at least, that’s how Israel is currently using “the right to defend itself”. So then, do both sides have a valid reason to kill civilians on the other side?
Some Israelis are effectively claiming that it’s acceptable for them to kill Palestinian civilians because that makes Israelis safer. Well, if Palestinians also claim that it’s acceptable for them to kill Israeli citizens because that makes Palestinians safer, then the result is a conflict that only ends once one side ethnically cleanses the other side. So logically speaking, people shouldn’t be allowed to kill civilians even if that makes them safer, because that doesn’t lead to a good place. Unless the actual unspoken position is that Israeli lives are more valuable than Palestinian lives, however that is of course a very racist position to take.
People also often subconsciously label one group as good and one group as bad. And then when the bad group does bad things, that’s definitive proof that the good guys can treat them harshly. But when the good guys do bad things, that’s either a mistake, or an unfortunate necessity. But this is very much motivated reasoning. If you don’t presuppose that one group is good, then the bad actions by the so-called good group suddenly don’t look so good anymore.
So: killing civilians is wrong, period. You can’t justify the present-day killing of civilians by saying that the other side killed civilians first, in the past. This applies to both sides. Hamas shouldn’t have killed Israeli citizens, and there is no “but Israel did this” that justifies that. Israel shouldn’t kill Palestinian civilians, as it is doing now, and there is no “but Hamas did this” that justifies that.
In the longer term, this situation can only be resolved in two ways. Either one side ethnically cleanses the other out of the contested lands, which would of course be a horrible outcome. Or the people learn to live together in peace. To take a step towards peace, there should be a cease-fire and both sides should stop killing the civilians of the other side, directly and indirectly. Israel has already killed more Palestinians in retailiation-bombings since the assault, than Hamas killed during their assault. Israel already has its revenge, it’s time for the bloodshed to stop.
It’s easy to say “we must continue to fight and kill Hamas terrorists” but it’s really hard to distinguish a Palestinian who is willing to kill Israeli civilians from a Palestinian who is innocent. What continuing to fight means in practice is killing lots of innocent Palestinian civilians — half of whom are children. And killing more Palestinian civilians will only create more Palestinians who are willing to kill Israeli civilians. I’m not saying that they would be justified in killing Israeli civilians, but still: war begets war and violence begets violence. Harming others ultimately doesn’t make you safer, in the long term.
Both sides currently feel so unsafe and have so many legitimate grievances that it’s understandable that they wish to damage the other side so much that the other side can’t hurt them anymore. I understand the impulse. But that is not the way forward. People don’t have a right to kill civilians on the other side just because that allegedly improves their own security situation. Yes, people may defend themselves, but that does not include directly or indirectly killing civilians on the other side because that might save the lives of your own people in the future. That is not actually defense, under any sensible definition of the word defense. That just leads to an endless cycle of violence.
The way forward is that no one should kill the civilians of the other side, directly or indirectly. Wanting revenge or wanting more safety for yourself isn’t a valid reason to kill civilians on the other side, or force civilians on the other side to endure conditions that very well may lead to their death.
International law should be applied to the region. And note that Israeli settlements in occupied territories are clearly illegal under international law. Even wikipedia admits that, on the wikipedia page “International law and Israeli settlements.”
This means that at the very least, Israel should immediately stop building new illegal settlements. Not after the current conflict is over, but immediately. You don’t get to violate international law just because that allegedly makes you safer, or just because the other side did bad things in the past. If those were valid reasons, then practically every country would get to violate international law.
I get that many people on Israel’s side consider it to be unacceptable for the building of new settlements to end, but this conflict is either going to end with ethnic cleansing or it’s going to end with peace. And to get peace, both sides should stop killing civilians of the other side, both directly and indirectly, and international law should be applied. It’s not realistic to say that you are in favor of peace but then continue to violate international law.
Americans and people in other countries could argue that their country simply should not donate money to countries that violate international law, as determined by the UN. This is a very reasonable-sounding position that is hard to argue against. And this position also means that their country shouldn’t donate money to Israel so long as Israel keeps building new settlements.
And it would actually make Israel safer if it stopped building new settlements, because that would go a long way towards defusing tensions. If Israel announced today that it was no longer building new settlements, then probably peace would be established more quickly, and fewer people including fewer Israelis would die.
It’s easy to say that of course Israel should be fully supported right now, but in the current context, that would mean lots of bloodshed, which would make Israel less safe in the long run. Sometimes, being a true friend means saying: “no, this path you’re currently on isn’t a good idea, and I’m not going to enable you.”
We think it’s productive to ask yourselves: do you want the conflict in this region to be resolved through peace or through ethnic cleansing? If you want this conflict to be resolved through peace, then the path forward isn’t enabling one side as it is killing civilians of the other side, as Israel is currently doing. And again, Israel since the Hamas assault has already killed more people than Hamas did during recent assault.
If you want this conflict to be resolved through peace, then the path forward is a cease-fire and having the international community push both sides to follow international law. While those things wouldn’t immediately solve all the underlying problems, they would be good first steps on a path that would actually make both Palestine and Israel safer in the medium term.
Very many people right now are in my thoughts. I’ve been looking at the situation and it’s awful.
We’re currently taking steps behind the scenes to nudge both sides towards peace. As for myself, I will continue sending my loving energy to the region.
**These channelings are exclusively submitted to Eraoflight.com by the channeler. If you wish to share them elsewhere, please include a link back to the original post.
My dearest brothers and sisters: This is Tunia speaking. I love you all so very much and I want to express that in this series of messages. I am a human, just like you. I just happen to have been born on another planet than Earth. I currently reside on…07/19/2022
Question: Dear Tunia, Can you kindly share your perspective on the Afterlife? I lost my Mum over five years ago, and would love to know if you are clairvoyant, or even if you and other Pleiadians can actually go there to the Spirit World with your technology? I would love…08/06/2022
My dearest brothers and sisters, This is Tunia speaking. I love you so very much. Today I’d like to steal Hakann’s “Path of” series. Of course, neither he nor I see this as actual stealing. Your so-called intellectual property laws are strange to us — as if someone can own…04/29/2023
I’m supposed to tell you about the future of alternative media, but if I did, I would finish this essay feeling certain I had failed. I feel semiconfident I could put something down on paper that would sound important and reasonable—citing studies and examples for several pages that left you 15 minutes later impressed that you had learned something valuable. If I spent even more time on research and called up experts for quotes, emailed journalism professors to get their thoughts and published studies, I might accidentally write an essay that would rate a tweet from Jay Rosen, a media professor at New York University, who is known for thinking big thoughts about journalism.
But it would be a hoax.
Nobody knows what to expect in the future. Anyone telling you otherwise is either lying or on faculty at the Harvard Kennedy School. The highway of history is littered with the flattened carcasses of investor media startups and foundation-backed “news democracy initiatives”—each providing “information that really matters” before getting run over by investor greed, funder apathy, or reader disinterest.
I don’t work at the Harvard Kennedy School, a venture capital fund, nor a well-funded foundation. And I’m not interested in drafting some future of the media plan only to see it look silly in retrospect. I’ve learned that new ideas thrive or die mostly out of luck. More important than blabbing about the future of alternative media, I want to tell you why alternative media matters, and leave the future to sort itself out.
It always does.
Where I’m coming from
First, you should know something about me and how I consume news so that you’ll understand where I’m coming from. I’m American, so I have an American sensibility when it comes to the media, meaning my experiences will differ from people in Europe—which I understand to some degree—and from those getting news in other parts of the world, which I understand even less. By American sensibility, I mean that I’m used to newspapers and TV news that have a political slant that is down the middle and attempts to maintain an objective perspective.
I’ve always followed the news, even as a small boy. One of my first media memories was watching the evening news with my Dad in the 1970s when the broadcast reported that soldiers in South America were fighting gorillas. After the news intro, the program went to a short camera segment with soldiers fighting the gorillas and shooting into the rainforest at an unseen enemy. I kept watching to see if a gorilla would come running out of the jungle firing back with a machine gun. The point is that I can always remember following the news, even before I was old enough to know the difference between a “gorilla” and a “guerilla.”
In my teens, I started watching even more news, first the regular half-hour evening broadcast and then another full hour of in-depth reporting on the MacNeill-LehrerNewsHour. I also watched 60 Minutes and 20/20, both weekly news programs. Throughout high school, I read many of the weekly magazines such as Time, Newsweek, and US News and World Report, and I occasionally read the newspaper. But in college, I became more serious, reading the newspaper most days, along with magazines that I chose because they were on the Left or the Right, giving me different perspectives. Today, I read the New York Times and the Washington Post every morning, and check in a few times a week with the Wall Street Journal and the Financial Times.
In recent years, I have shifted even more of my reading to the Journal and the FT, because I have become annoyed at the “wokeness” that has invaded American media, and I am more concerned with getting facts than opinion. But more on that in a bit.
Of course, I also get articles, studies, and snippets of news from social media. Overall, I try to get a broad mix of information—probably more than I need—although it comes almost exclusively from sources written in English.
Defining “alternative”
Trying to define alternative media is difficult, maybe impossible, and lists of “alternative” publications will vary depending on any person’s opinions. I wasn’t completely certain myself, so I spoke with 6 different people to get their views: 2 liberal journalists, 2 conservative journalists, and 2 media professors.
Views varied, but a fuzzy theme for “alternative media” began to coalesce: alternative media are outlets that are not legacy like the Washington Post or New York Times, and certainly not cable channels such as CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, and NBC. These outlets are referred to as “mainstream media” or MSM. Most felt the conservative channel FOX was part of this MSM ecosystem. Because the internet cuts down on publishing expenses, alternative outlets have flourished in the last decade.
People within this MSM ecosystem often play games by questioning whether MSM even exists, but its presence can be most strongly seen on the boards of various committees that hand out prestigious journalism awards, such as the Pulitzer Prize. Committee members for these prizes are drawn mostly from outlets such as the Atlantic, Washington Post, New Yorker, New York Times, and National Public Radio, as well as a smattering of prestigious foundations and leading universities. The winners of prestigious journalism prizes are also drawn, not surprisingly, from pretty much these same outlets.
The mainstream media has been scrutinized for years, perhaps most effectively in the 1988 book co-authored by Noam Chomsky Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media. Al Jazeera revisited Chomsky’s Manufacturing Consent in 2018, interviewing the MIT academic and asking him how he thinks the book has held up. As Chomsky wrote, the media operates through five filters:
Media Ownership: mass media firms are big companies often owned by big conglomerates that have other corporate interests, so their end game is profit. Critical journalism takes a back seat to profit and these corporate needs.
Advertising: media costs more than consumers pay, and advertisers fill in this financial hole. Media outlets are not just selling you news, they are also selling you to the advertising companies.
Media Elite: journalism cannot check power because the system encourages complicity. Governments, corporations, and big institutions know how to play the media game, influence coverage, provide experts, and feed scoops. Reporters who challenge this system will lose access and be pushed to the side.
Flack: those who stray from the consensus will get attacked, sources will be discredited, and the credibility of their narrative will be questioned.
Common Enemy: bogeymen must be created to corral public opinion and focus attention.
“The myth is that the media are independent, adversarial, courageous, struggling against power,” Chomsky told Al Jazeera. “That’s actually true of some. There are often very fine reporters, correspondents. In fact, the media does a fine job, but within a framework that determines what to discuss, not to discuss.”
Around the same time Chomsky published his book, journalist and author Joan Didion began writing a series of reports for The New York Review of Books that deconstructed journalistic coverage of politics. She published these essays in the 2001 book Political Fictions, which looked at “people inside the process, constituting as they do a self-created and self-referring class, a new kind of managerial elite, [who] tend to speak of the world not necessarily as it is but as they want people out there to believe it is.”
Inside this “process,” Didion discovered that reporting and presenting facts were less important than creating a narrative that would grab the public’s attention while being acceptable to this managerial elite. “The narrative is made up of many such understandings, tacit agreements, small and large, to overlook the observable in the interests of obtaining a dramatic story line,” Didion wrote.
While countless other journalists and academics have examined problems within the media, general rules can be drawn that MSM outlets tend to hew to specific narratives that are considered “acceptable,” although acceptance is required more by the media/academic class than by the public. This “gatekeeping” can lock out certain ideas from discussion, and as we will see, elevate others. Gatekeeping has hardened in recent years as “wokeness” has shifted the media class to the Left, making certain stories even less palatable, and causing a schism within journalism that might explain the public’s increasing lack of trust in the news.
The Great Awokening
Any analysis of problems within the American media must discuss the MSM’s recent lurch to the Left. While it is hard to place a finger on the exact moment when society begins to shift, something began occurring around 2016 with the rise of Donald Trump. While he comes from a background of wealth, Trump has always exuded a type of everyman charisma and populist appeal. And something about Trump caused an enormous change among the “managerial elite” as Didion referred to them many years back.
Among the first things one would have noticed was a heightened number of articles about racial justice and racism—whether real or perceived. This new political morality is often referred to as “wokeness,” as in someone who is now awake to racial inequality. Wokeness is a worldview held mostly by hyper-liberal, White, college-educated professionals, who often live in urban areas on either coast of America—the same demographic that most reporters come from.
Explaining the Great Awokening, Georgia State graduate student Zach Goldberg wrote in Tablet that this process involved liberal journalists accessing words that were once obscure parts of academic jargon such as “microaggression” and “white privilege” and making them commonplace topics of reporting. Analyzing the New York Times and the Washington Post beginning in 2011, Goldberg found a gradual increased usage of variations on the term “racism.” By 2019, usage of “racism” had increased 700 percent in the Times and 1,000 percent in the Post. Across the same time span, the number of White liberals who thought racism was a big problem in the United States ballooned from 35 percent in 2011 to 77 percent in 2017.
Goldberg cites another poll in which the number of White Democrats, who reported knowing someone racist, jumped from 45 percent in 2006 to 64 percent in 2015. Among White Republicans, this number remained the same at 41 percent from 2006 to 2015. Meanwhile, the number of Black Democrats and Hispanic Democrats who reported knowing a racist decreased across this same time period—from 52.7 percent to 47.2 percent in Black Democrats, and from 41.1 percent to 33.8 percent among Hispanic Democrats. However, these differences were not statistically significant.
While the world remained the same, Goldberg argues, a steady diet of articles about race and racism encouraged White liberals to label an increasing number of behaviors and people as racist. In effect, ideas and language once confined to obscure academic conferences became normalized within the media, radicalizing both journalists and their readers.
As this reporting shifted in recent years, Pew Research found that journalists were also diverging in their thinking from other Americans about the nature of journalism itself. While 76 percent of Americans think reporters should give equal coverage to all sides of an issue, only 45 percent of reporters agree. This difference is more pronounced among younger reporters with 37 percent stating that all sides deserve equal coverage, and among those who say their audience leans Left, with 31 percent. Reporters who most clearly align with the public on this score work at conservative outlets, where 57 percent agree that journalism should seek all sides.
As the people making up journalism became less like America in their thinking, confidence in the profession was also decreasing. Gallup found in 1977 that 72 percent of Americans had trust in the news media. However, Americans’ trust has plummeted recently to just 16 percent, and this decrease is most pronounced on the Right, with only 5 percent of Republicans saying they have confidence in newspapers, compared to 35 percent of Democrats.
And a study by Pew in 2019 found that almost three-fourths of Republicans and two-thirds of all respondents without a college degree felt that the media did not understand people like them. The demographic that felt most comfortable with the media were college-educated Democrats at 71 percent. Today, almost 9 in 10 of the subscribers to the New York Times are Democrats.
Other critiques have come from journalist Batya Ungar-Sargon who wrote “Bad News: How Woke Media is Undermining Democracy.” In her analysis, Ungar-Sargon said that the main split between reporters and the public is not politics but class, and this class division is undermining American democracy. While the media was more partisan decades in the past, this was also a time when journalism was a working-class trade and the ideas reporters were fighting over still concerned Americans of all classes.
Education among reporters also aligns them more closely with Democratic voters.
In 1930, less than a third of journalists had been to college, but the majority today have a graduate degree. According to Princeton political scientist Nolan McCarty, Democrats are now “mostly the party of the master’s degree.”
“You have a liberal media that’s really geared towards the 6% of Americans who are progressive, who have a college degree and a graduate degree and live in the cities,” said Ungar-Saragon. “That is who the target audience is of the vast majority of the elite and even now not-so-elite liberal media.”
For the journalists specifically reporting on science and medicine, their removal by class and education from the rest of society is compounded by another problem: closeness to their sources, who often are academics. In many cases, the people who report on science and medicine view themselves as assistants to the academic scientists they cover—voices they must amplify to ensure that the unwashed masses understand the beauty and importance of science.
In short, they report for, not on science.
This closeness to academic scientists further alienates science writers, not just from the public, but from others in the media. Clues to their differences from others in the media are often giggled about, sometimes in private, sometimes in public, with the label “scicomm.” The term scicomm is short for “science communication,” which often involves programs and sessions to train scientists how to explain their complicated work to others. Science reporters also deploy the term scicomm, underlining how many in this field see their job as explaining science, not reporting science.
Writers who cover science and medicine often tweet with the #scicomm hashtag, signaling to others that they are part of this club.
Scicomm source capture
To reiterate, science writers differ from the public in their partisan and class alignment—coming almost exclusively from a liberal background, with high education levels—and they compound these problems with cozy ties to their sources, in this case academic scientists and physicians.
Being too close to sources can blind a reporter to biases, including their own. This was demonstrated most aptly by the 2008 economic meltdown which appears to have snuck up on the public. In “The Watchdog That Didn’t Bark,” investigative reporter Dean Starkman wrote that access journalism in finance lessened reporters’ appetite to dig into systemic corruption on Wall Street. Instead of asking tough questions of bankers and investors, journalists began focusing on profiling executives and providing investment advice to readers.
In one glaring example, reporters at O’Dwyers, which covers the public relations industry, reported that financial reporters in New York attend an annual “Financial Follies” dinner. “The spectacle of more than 400 writers employed by the biggest names in financial journalism (New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg, Reuters, etc.) being wined and dined at a $400-a-ticket dinner (plus drinks before, during and after) certainly gives the appearance of coziness.”
Just like financial reporters, science writers seem incapable of allowing any daylight between themselves and their subjects. One such example is an organization called SciLine, which attempts to enhance the quality and amount of scientific evidence in news. However, SciLine is hosted by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), a society and lobbying organization for scientists.
SciLine is run by a former science reporter who joined the organization after first covering AAAS for the Washington Post. The board is made up of reporters from National Public Radio, CNN, Scientific American, and PBS. Other board members include the former head of the FDA, as well as professors of science and science communication, and an official at an organization that teaches scientists how to better communicate their research.
Without any sense of irony or thoughtful need to separate reporters from their sources, SciLine provides advice to both scientists and science writers. It offers science writers “a one-stop shop where you can find rigorously vetted, research-backed information and quickly get connected to excellent scientists with solid communication skills.” SciLine also offers help to scientists: “SciLine offers a variety of pathways to interact with and support journalists covering science-related topics. And if you’re interested in getting more practice, we are also here to help you improve your media-communication skills.”
As in pretty much any case involving science writing, the wall between reporter and source—journalist and advocate—disappears. Reporters and academic scientists thrive together as one happy family.
Social media fact-check fallacies
Space must be given to address the recent rise of the fact-checking industry, in part because it is intertwined with the media, and has become a new gatekeeper. According to the Duke Reporter’s Lab, there are now 378 fact-checking groups, up from 168 in 2016. Many fact-checking groups have been organized under the International Fact-Checking Network, whose advisory board included Glenn Kessler, resident fact-check guru at the Washington Post.
However, fact-check groups regularly make mistakes, often attacking legitimate reporting. The most infamous example of misplaced “fact-checking” occurred outside of science and involved stories about Hunter Biden, the son of President Biden. During the 2020 election, the New York Postpublished a blockbuster expose on emails found on the laptop of Hunter Biden, who had dropped the computer off at a repair shop. The emails implied that Biden’s son was peddling access to his father, and with only weeks before Biden’s electoral faceoff against Trump, Facebook labeled the article false and stopped people from sharing the article. Twitter also blocked sharing.
But a year after the election, multiple outlets confirmed the emails’ authenticity, and Twitter’s new owner, Elon Musk, tweeted that suspending the New York Post for reporting on the emails was “incredibly inappropriate.”
While this Hunter Biden laptop fake fact-check shut down critical reporting, similarly suspect fact-checks have attacked science reporting with less public scrutiny. I was also the victim of a fact-check by an organization that is one of Facebook’s lead fact-checkers, when I wrote an investigation for The British Medical Journal about problems with Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine clinical trial. The fact-check found no errors but, nevertheless, labeled the BMJ investigation “incomplete” and a “hoax.” The BMJ later sent Mark Zuckerberg an open letter complaining about this “inaccurate, incompetent and irresponsible” fact-check. Multiple articles covered this controversy, noting that Facebook fact-checks narratives, not facts. The Association of British Science Writers later named the BMJinvestigation a finalist for an investigative reporting award.
Many other examples have gone under the radar. Several times, these fact-checking groups have denigrated information about natural immunity in order to favor vaccines, even though some research finds that natural immunity provides greater protection than vaccines. And multiple fact-checking sites such as PolitiFact and FactCheck.org falsely stated that the pandemic could not have started in a lab in Wuhan, China, although some later changed their view. Understanding if the pandemic started in a lab or through a natural spillover event is critical to preventing the next outbreak.
Online fact-checkers seem obsessed with regulating vaccine information. In one example, a reporter was banned from Twitter for tweeting “misleading” vaccine information that stated the Pfizer vaccine clinical trial only found 80 percent efficacy based on 10 children. Her account was later restored when others notified Twitter that she had copied the informationdirectly from Pfizer’s own press release. In another example, Facebook’s fact-checker denigrated a preprint on vaccine side effects by accusing researchers of using data they didn’t actually use.
COVID-19 crash and burn
Since the pandemic’s beginning, two major questions have loomed in the background: first, how did the pandemic start so that we can prevent the next one? Second, how do we effectively manage the virus? With so much baggage—partisanship, class and education differences, and collusion with sources—it’s not surprising that science writers failed in both cases, often putting out misinformation that has now confused the public.
In the case of vaccines, reporters often parroted back statements or press releases that came from companies or federal agencies. This became clear in March 2022, when CDC Director Rochelle Walensky gave a talk where she admitted that, in retrospect, reporting in late 2020 by CNN that found 95 percent efficacy for Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine had made her too confident that vaccines would end the pandemic.
What is remarkable about that CNN story, which the CDC Director said influenced her thinking, is that CNN merely republished the facts, figures, and quotes from Pfizer’s press release sent out earlier that same day. CNN’s article contained no independent experts analyzing Pfizer’s statement, which was just a self-report of the company’s vaccine data—data that had not been submitted to any agency or journal for independent verification.
To further emphasize the coziness between reporters and sources, the CNN reporter who wrote the article—with no critical scrutiny of Pfizer’s information—is on the board of SciLine, the organization that works to teach reporters how to report accurately.
Other examples of awkward reporting can be found in a handbook to teach reporters and editors how to cover science put out by the Knight Science Journalism program at MIT. (This program is run by Deborah Blum, who is a former president of the National Association of Science Writers (NASW). More about Blum later.) In a chapter of the handbook on “scientific controversies,” Laura Helmuth wrote that reporters should “expose the politicization and false controversies” because “controversies about where the novel coronavirus originated have fueled racism.”
Helmuth offered no credible reason why reporters shouldn’t question where the virus came from; apparently, merely asking such questions was fueling racism. After Helmuth wrote this piece, the State Department announced that the Chinese lab in Wuhan had engaged in “gain-of-function” research to engineer chimeric viruses and had worked on secret projects for the Chinese military. President Biden then called for an open investigation of the pandemic’s origin.
Like Blum, Helmuth is a former president of the NASW and is now editor of Scientific American, a platform she has used to attack anyone who links the pandemic’s origin to scientific mishaps. To clarify, Helmuth attacks anyone and everyone, even Dr. Robert Redfield, former Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). After Redfield told CNN that he thought the pandemic started in a Wuhan lab, Helmuth tweeted, “On CNN, former CDC director Robert Redfield shared the conspiracy theory that the virus came from the Wuhan lab.” The following day, Scientific American ran an essay calling the lab-leak theory “evidence free.”
A month after Helmuth attacked the former CDC Director, New York Times science writer Apoorva Mandavilli tweeted, “Someday we will stop talking about the lab leak theory and maybe even admit its racist roots. But alas, that day is not yet here.”
In fact, science reporters at several media outlets such as MIT’s UnDark Magazine (run by Deborah Blum), the New York Times, Science, and Nature all ran stories calling or hinting that anyone who questioned if the pandemic came from a Wuhan lab was a “conspiracy theorist.” Only the Washington Postlater corrected their coverage.
Science writers have often bent over backwards to direct attention away from a possible lab accident in Wuhan. In one example, reporters at Nature, Science, and the New York Times wrote articles arguing that viruses found in Laos—and closely related to the SARS-CoV-2 virus—added further evidence that the COVID-19 pandemic could not have started from a lab leak in Wuhan, China. However, all three reporters ignored documents that found scientists had been shipping viruses from Laos to Wuhan for several years.
In most cases during the pandemic, when the subject turned to vaccines or how the pandemic started, science writers lined up to support science agencies or industry positions, aligning themselves with the research community.
Commenting on the train wreck coverage of the pandemic, veteran science reporter Nicholas Wade wrote that science writers often act as PR agents for their sources instead of holding them to account:
Why are science writers so little able to report objectively on the origin of the virus? Innocent of most journalists’ skepticism about human motives, science writers regard scientists, their authoritative sources, as too Olympian ever to be moved by trivial matters of self-interest. Their daily job is to relay claims of impressive new discoveries, such as advances toward curing cancer or making paralyzed rats walk. Most of these claims come to nothing—research is not an efficient process—but science writers and scientists alike benefit from creating a stream of pleasant illusions. The journalists get their stories, while media coverage helps researchers attract government grants.
Dulled by the advantages of this collusion, science writers pay little attention to in-house problems that seriously detract from the credibility of the scientific research enterprise, such as the astounding fact that less than half the high-profile findings in some fields can be replicated in other laboratories. Fraud and error in scientific papers are hard to detect, yet nonetheless some 32,000 papers have been retracted for various reasons. The reliability of scientific claims is a formidable problem but one of strangely little interest to many science writers.
Need for alternative media
The possibility of reforming the science writing profession seems very unlikely, as science writers remain locked inside their own community—constrained by partisanship, class, education, and cozy ties to their sources. Any criticism pointing this out is often either ignored or deemed to be proof that the critic is politically conservative, lacks education, or does not have the contacts in science to understand the complexities of research.
However, points of view from outside this closed circle remain vital to educate the public about scientific controversies and to maintain journalistic values that might increase reader trust in both the media and science. But while alternative media is critical for journalism and the public, how this alternative media remains available to the broad masses is uncertain.
I would like to thank the following people for speaking with me for this essay about their thoughts and concerns on journalism and the importance of an alternative media: Tom Elliott (journalist and CEO of Grabien), Mollie Hemingway (editor-in-chief of the Federalist), Justin Schlosberg (professor of journalism at Birbeck), Joe Stephens (professor of journalism at Princeton), Matt Taibbi (journalist and author).
This essay originally appeared as a chapter in “Voorbij de Pandemische Chaos: Goed op weg?” or in English “After the Pandemic Chaos: Are We Heading the Right Way?” The book is a collection of essays by leading academics and journalists discussing how the COVID pandemic changed national policies and offers advice on reforms.
Thursday night I wrote a column on the challenges faced by Elon Musk in taking over Twitter and suggested steps to “hit the ground running.” One of those obvious steps discussed in earlier columns was to fire CEO Parag Agrawal, CFO Ned Segal and head of legal policy, trust, and safety Vijaya Gadde, the…10/31/2022
Functional regions within the brain become less distinct and interconnected in the elderly over time, especially in those networks related to attention span and cognition. The finding, published by researchers at Duke-NUS Medical School in The Journal of Neuroscience, adds to current understanding of longitudinal decline in brain network integrity…07/17/2019
Governments, corporations, and elites have always been fearful of the power of a free press, because it is capable of exposing their lies, destroying their carefully crafted images, and undermining their authority. In recent years, alternative journalism has been growing and more people are relying on social media platforms as…07/02/2022
Even though we have severely limited ourselves by our embodiment on this planet, our true essence cannot be completely ignored by our limitations. We still have strong attractions. We love brilliance, sovereignty, freedom, joy, pleasure and creation. These attractions and everything we consider wonderful are aspects of our true essence, and they can guide us beyond our limiting beliefs about ourselves. All the deepest feelings that we are attracted to are part of our greater Self. The energy of the Source of our life is the infinite enhancement of all life.
Everything we deeply desire is available to us whenever we can realize its reality for ourselves. This is a game of consciousness we are playing. We have limited our awareness, and we are opening ourselves to what we have not allowed ourselves to know and experience. If we think about the significance of our attractions as messages to us about who we are in our greater Being, we can realize that we all have the same attractions. This is part of the consciousness of humanity beyond the realm of good and evil. It is part of the consciousness that creates everything, and it is drawing us closer to its inherent essence through what we love the most and what gives us the greatest ecstasy. It is the greatest outburst of vitality and love.
By dwelling upon the things that we love and enjoy, we can open our awareness, beyond all fear and stress, to our inner knowing and feeling of our deepest appreciation. By aligning with this spectrum of vibratory frequencies, we can open our awareness to limitless consciousness. In transcending the human mind-set of the game we are playing, we can have compassion for ourselves and all other participants. This mind-set is so entrancing, that it has blocked out all other awareness, except for the deep attractions expressed through the heart of our Being.
Inherently we know our true, unlimited essence. It shines through the vibrations of everything that we love and deeply desire. These are in alignment with the consciousness of our Creator in the enhancement of all life everywhere. If we penetrate to our deepest feelings, we can realize the infinite presence of awareness and our connection within universal consciousness. This is a life-transforming realization. We can transform our belief in mortality to knowing our eternal presence of awareness and our ability to create whatever our heart desires, as participants in the infinite expansion of consciousness.
We’re learning how to be loved, truly loved, because we are. It’s time for us to awaken to our reality. Love and joy are our nature. We do not need to receive them. We already have them in their fullness, because they are the essence in every cell and atom…07/06/2023
Through our intention to be open, clear and present, we can feel ourselves being drawn into the consciousness of the Creator in deepest love and greatest joy. This is our natural state of Being, and we are naturally drawn toward this level of vibration. Our attraction comes from deep within…03/10/2022
Within the realm of our participation in duality, the negative force became strong enough to be much greater than the dimension that we recognize. Negative-creating beings learned how to enter our consciousness and find vulnerabilities that could cause us to compromise our intentions. These are vibratory levels that we experience…12/28/2022
VICTORY TO THE LIGHT – Now the PROCESS of ARRESTING the last HOLD-OUTS ! Taking a bit LONGER than expected. Some have decided to go back to the LIGHT, they will be welcomed as well.
SOLAR SYSTEM QUARANTINE STILL ON! ALL DARK BEINGS have been CLEANED out of our EARTH’S SOLAR SYSTEM. EXCEPT for EARTH, who we are in PROCESS of CLEARING THEM to a more ‘SUITABLE PLANET.”
KEEP THOSE “LOVE-LIGHT” VIBES – A – SHINNING !
***********************************
SAINT ANDREW QUOTES: for YOU
“SHARING is CARING”
“LOVE is the ANSWER”
“MY HEART is MY HOME”
“HELP the NEEDY not the GREEDY”
“YOU are LIMITLESS not LIMITED”
“Over Meditate NOT over Medicate”
“GO with the FLOW” Your LOVE Vortex !”
YOU are LOVE MASTERS, did YOU forget?
Answers are inside where Love and Light exist.
“It is WISE to learn from your mistakes, it is WISER to learn from other people’s mistakes” – Saint Andrew
***********************************
LOTS of “CABAL BEINGS ARE being ARRESTED!” FOR those “LAGGARDS who REFUSE this LIGHT!’ WILL HAVE to BE REMOVED EVENTUALLY as they won’t be able to “HOLD ALL the INCOMING LOVE-LIGHT FREQUENCIES!” This MAY RESULT in their physical body moving on. There is NO SUCH THING as DEATH, YOU JUST MOVE-ON, to ANOTHER LEVEL as YOU ARE ALL ETERNAL BEINGS.
AS – you DO NOT DIE SPIRITUALLY, YOU ARE ETERNAL SOULS, YOU will MOVE back up the DIMENSIONS, This is NOT to be confused with those WHO have been trained or wrongly programmed believing that there is NO GOD or HEAVEN. You will be pure LIGHT BEINGS soon.
SOME CABAL who FIGHTING AGAINST US, HAVE BEEN REMOVED, SOME WENT BACK to the LIGHT, while OTHERS were REMOVED from the Planet, some still ARE BEING removed, as UNDERGROUND BASES are being BLOWN-UP !
The EARTH ALLIANCE is RESCUING CHILDREN from UNDERGROUND BASES ! And they are ARRESTING the CABAL then blowing-up these CLONING and child TRAFFICKING bases.
ANYONE STANDING in GOD and HEAVEN’S WAY, who wishes to KILL, ROB HUMANITY and CONTROL OTHERS, WILL be REMOVED.
MOTHER and FATHER GOD came from ANDROMEDA as the “HOUSE of RA” to be with us and help with ASCENSION for 25 years and HOW BEAUTIFUL is that everyone !
SOME are GODS & GODDESSES in TRAINING !
YOU ARE SUPERNATURAL ETERNAL BEINGS!
YOU ARE SPIRITUAL BEINGS in HUMAN FORM
HEAVEN is VERY SUPERNATURAL, YOU WILL LEARN YOU are too! Get ready for your powers.
WE ARE ANGELIC BEINGS – GODS and GODDESSES – ALL of YOU HAVE IMMENSE POWER yours to DISCOVER!
ANY LEFT-OVER DARK BEINGS are NOT allowed to interfere with YOUR HOLY ASCENSION PROCESS! STAY AWAY from MSM MANUFACTURED FEAR VIBES DAILY
LUCIFER lied – never went back to the LIGHT and MOTHER of ALL CREATION is a FAKE = LIAR !
I DECLARE, ETERNAL LOVE, PEACE,UNITY, HARMONY, GRATITUDE, JOY, CREATIVITY, APPRECIATION, AND PROSPERITY for ALL!
“WORLD-WIDE FREEDOM from SLAVERY !”
YOU have the ability to CREATE – CREATE CHANGES!
GOD QUOTED:
NO MASSIVE DESTRUCTION is ALLOWED to OCCUR! = NO NUCLEAR WORLD WAR III
“NO” END OF THE WORLD it’s ALL FEAR PORN
OUR ASCENSION has ALREADY STARTED
PEOPLE ARE ASCENDING at their OWN PACE
It is a SLOW and a CONTINUAL PROCESS
PEOPLE are at all DIFFERENT LEVELS
of this PROCESS. It is a NATURAL PROCESS.
TEACHERS and MENTORS ARE ALREADY HERE so GET READY TO MEET THEM !
You have had many lifetimes. YOU have been MALE and YOU have been FEMALE, YOU have been different races, religions and sexes, lived different cultures, give up all the racist attitudes !
“YOU ARE LOVE”
The STRONGEST and
most POWERFUL FORCE
in the ENTIRE UNIVERSE
LOVE is YOUR
“COOL” WEAPON!
USE it with INTENTION
as you send it out.
USE the VIOLET FLAME
of SAINT GERMAIN daily.
DAILY SPIRITUAL PROTECTIONS;
Pull down your PILLAR of WHITE LIGHT
from your [YOUR HIGHER-DIMENSIONAL SELF] to PROTECT YOU daily and INVOKE the GOLDEN RAY of CHRIST in a BALL 2 feet around YOU. If you FEEL THREATENED. Then put that GOLDEN BALL inside of your white PILLAR of LIGHT around YOU at the bottom. PLACE a MIRROR facing outwards around that OVOID ball of GOLDEN LIGHT and SAY; “ALL ACTIONS and INTENTIONS, DEVICES and WEAPONS, and ATTACKS on ME in ANY TIMELINE or DIMENSIONS, – RETURN it to SENDER, and SO IT IS.” Namaste’
WEAR AMETHYST and CITRINE while ASCENDING and clear quartz is powerful too.
STUDY the ENERGIES of the CRYSTALS
“Your EYES are the WINDOWS to your SOUL”
MOTHER EARTH [TERRA] is ASCENDING and HAVING her own BIRTH PANGS but will STAY 4D – YET GAIA is like another earth [D] that is ASCENDING – LIKE a MOTHER in LABOR – SHE is ASCENDING NOW, an ONGOING PROCESS. LOVE YOUR PLANET, MOTHER EARTH as SHE SUSTAINS YOU! WE are NOW in the MIDDLE of the birthing process.
ALL must get to KNOW THIS;
The KINGDOM OF GOD
is WITHIN YOU, INSIDE of YOU!
NOT in ANY STATUES and MONUMENTS.
And NOT inside every CHURCH or souls gather.
BLESSINGS to PROSPERITY is in the WORKS,
THANK-YOU to ALL involved with this. THANK-YOU to ALL GALACTIC BEINGS, ANGELICS and STAR FAMILIES!
THANK-YOU to ALL those LOVELY LIGHT BEINGS – that CAME HERE to GUIDE US, HELP US and PROTECT US. GOD-BLESS YOU ALL !
THANK-YOU and PRAY for those AIDING and enabling the ARRESTS. WE are at 168,000 ARRESTED of the EVIL CABAL so far….,
REMINDER! THAT YOUR THOUGHTS CREATE
– GUIDE YOUR THOUGHTS as they ARE POWERFUL. TRY to THINK of ONLY POSITIVE and LOVING THOUGHTS – AND * SMILE *
STAY the LOVING HEART-CENTERED BEING YOU ARE! TRY NOT to let the LYING CRAZY ILLUMINATI NEWS DETOUR YOU! – ESPECIALLY NOW – IGNORE IT and RAISE YOUR VIBRATIONS ALL – As OUR – HEAVEN IS COMING !!! = THE GOLDEN AGES are NEAR
INTEND: GREAT THING for HUMANITY and YOURSELVES – JOY & PEACE, SPIRITUAL GROWTH, PROSPERITY for ALL beings, ETERNAL UNCONDITIONAL LOVE, and LIGHT!
EARTH has the HIGHEST LIGHT VIBRATIONS in the UNIVERSE. And WE ARE ASCENDING even FASTER!
THOSE JOINING any of the “DARK” ARMIES will LOSE 37% of their LIGHT QUOTIENT, said GOD. YOU NEED to have at LEAST 51 % of a LIGHT QUOTIENT so YOU can continue YOUR ASCENSION on this PLANET with EARTH.
DO NOT “FEED the FEAR,” send LOVE instead. NEWLY ascending SOULS – STAY AWAY from the FEAR. USE the LOVE you FEEL to erase the FEARS, LET THEM all GO!
FEAR is the WEAPON of the DARK. LOVE is the COOL TOOL, your WEAPON of the LIGHT. FORGIVE yourself and OTHERS ALL-WAYS, but that DOESN’T mean, to be a doormat. And COMPASSION is YOUR LAMPLIGHT ahead.
“FORGIVENESS is a KEY FACTOR”, no one is perfect.
STAND-UP for YOURSELVES & for those WHO CAN’T!
“EGO WARS” for NEWLY ASCENDING SOULS. Drop the HUMAN EGO and HUMBLY JOIN US with LOVE and LIGHT.
THE EGO “BATTLE can be WON,” when YOU REALIZE “WE ARE ALL ONE LOVE FORCE connected to the GOD SOURCE!” THINK of – ONE BIG HAPPY EARTH FAMILY that was DIVIDED by the evil DARK WAYS. = NO MORE DIVISION !
* WE ARE – ALL CHOSEN by GOD! BUT some have = NOT CHOSEN GOD and the LIGHT !
MAKE EVERY THOUGHT a LOVING THOUGHT! SMILE!
MANIFEST an “ETERNAL COMPASSIONATE LOVE”
LIVE in an “ATTITUDE of all GRATITUDE” DAILY!
SAINT GERMAIN announced NESARA to the LIGHT WORKERS. SAINT GERMAIN announces the MONEY is on the way today RV and NESARA soon – IT’S HAPPENING!
RV has started, yet and still waiting for the 800 NUMBERS !!!
NEW DISCOVERIES OF HEAVENLY BEINGS !
ARCHANGEL URIEL = Donald TRUMP
ARCHANGEL MICHAEL = JFK JUNIOR
EVIL BEINGS:
OBAMA = WORMWOOD [Messenger of Satan]
D CHENEY = SATAN
TRUDEAU = REPTILE WORM = NIMROD ? NIMROD was an EVIL BABYLON KING
HILLARY CLINTON = LILITH = EVIL
LUCIFER = [Archangel AZUL] [who was attacking LIGHT-WORKERS turned into a COBRA SNAKE and is now helping the LIGHT ? HEAVEN is dealing with him so don’t worry he can’t hurt you.
87 % of MOVIE STARS & 78 % of MUSIC SINGERS sold their SOULS to SATAN told to us by KENT Dunn. They were also SOUL SCALPED [souls stolen] by REPTILIANS, told to us by the ANDROMEDANS
“Q” & “BE CAREFUL WHO you FOLLOW!”
The UNIVERSE is POWERFUL, both KNOWN and UNKNOWN and SEEN and UNSEEN, NO need to be worried just GO with the FLOW…, Saint Andrew
One of our GREATEST enemies but only on the EVIL side known as [The DARK FORCES] and there is a massive HIDDEN WAR with the REPTILES as they try to cling to ill-gotten FINANCIAL POWER and CONTROL through SATANIC and ILLEGAL and EVIL practices. Not to be CONFUSED with those LIGHT-BEING REPTILIANS who are HELPING Humanity.
“All TRUTH passes through 3 stages:
1. First, it is ridiculed.
2. Second, it is violently opposed.
3. Third, it is accepted as “self-evident.”
LifeSiteNews.com
saintandrewstwinflame 