1

The COVID “Pandemic”: Destroying People’s Lives. Engineered Economic Depression. Global “Coup d’état”?

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky | Global Research

Introduction

Red Zones, the facemask, social distancing, the closing down of schools, colleges, and universities, no more family gatherings, no birthday celebrations, music, the arts: no more cultural events, sports events are suspended, no more weddings, “love and life” is banned outright.

And in several countries, Christmas is on hold … 

It’s the destruction of people’s lives. It is the destabilization of civil society. And for What? 

The Lies are sustained by a massive media disinformation campaign. 24/7, Incessant, and repetitive “Covid alerts” for the last ten months. … It is a process of social engineering. 

Manipulation of the Estimates. The RT-PCR Tests are Misleading.

What they want is to hike up the numbers so as to justify the Lockdown. 

Millions of covid-Positive Tests.

According to Dr. Pascal Sacré in an article entitled: The COVID-19 RT-PCR Test: How to Mislead All Humanity. Using a “Test” To Lock Down Society:

This misuse of RT-PCR technique is used as a relentless and intentional strategy by some governments, supported by scientific safety councils and by the dominant media, to justify excessive measures such as the violation of a large number of constitutional rights, the destruction of the economy with the bankruptcy of entire active sectors of society, the degradation of living conditions for a large number of ordinary citizens, under the pretext of a pandemic based on a number of positive RT-PCR tests, and not on a real number of patients.

Covid-19 is portrayed as the “killer Virus”.

Falsifying Death Certificates

In the US, the death certificates are falsified on the instructions of the CDC.

COVID-19:  The “underlying cause of death”. This concept is fundamental. It is defined by the WHO as “the disease or injury that initiated the train of events leading directly to the death”.

The criteria have been changed. In the US, the CDC instructions are crystal clear.  COVID-19 will be the underlying cause of death “more often than not”    

Click the screenshot below to access the CDC document (pdf):

Destroying Civil Society 

People are frightened and puzzled. “Why would they do this?”

Empty schools, Empty airports, bankrupt grocery stores.

In France “Churches are threatened with Kalashnikovs over Covid-19 outbreak” (April 2020)

In France “Churches are threatened with Kalashnikovs over Covid-19 outbreak” (April 2020)

The entire urban services economy is in crisis. Shops, bars, and restaurants are driven into bankruptcy. International travel and holidays are suspended.  The streets are empty. In several countries, bars and restaurants are required to take names and contact information “to support effective contact tracing if necessary“.

Free Speech is Suppressed

The lockdown narrative is supported by media disinformation, online censorship, social engineering, and the fear campaign.

Medical doctors who question the official narrative are threatened. They lose their jobs. Their careers are destroyed. Those who oppose the government lockdown are categorized as “anti-social psychopaths”: 

Peer-reviewed psychological “studies” are currently being carried in several countries using sample surveys.

Accept the “Big Lie” and you are tagged as a “good person” with “empathy” who understands the feelings of others.

…[E]xpress reservations regarding  … social distancing and the wearing of the face mask, and you will be tagged (according to “scientific opinion”) as a “callous and deceitful psychopath”.

In colleges and universities, the teaching staff is pressured to conform and endorse the official covid narrative. Questioning the legitimacy of the lockdown in online “classrooms” could lead to dismissal.

Google is marketing the Big Lie. The opinions of prominent scientists who question the lockdown, the face-mask or social distancing are “taken down”:

“YouTube doesn’t allow content that spreads medical misinformation that contradicts the World Health Organization (WHO) or local health authorities‘ medical information about COVID-19, including on methods to prevent, treat or diagnose COVID-19, and means of transmission of COVID-19.” (emphasis added)

They call it “fact-checking”, without acknowledging that both the WHO and local health authorities contradict their own data and concepts.

March 11, 2020: Engineered Economic Depression. Global Coup d’Etat?

The Pandemic was launched by the WHO on March 11, 2020, leading to the Lockdown and closure of the national economies of 190 (out of 193) countries, member states of the United Nations. The instructions came from above, from Wall Street, the World Economic Forum, the billionaire foundations. This diabolical project is casually described by the corporate media as a “humanitarian” endeavor.  The “international community” has a “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P).  An unelected “private-public partnership” under the auspices of the World Economic Forum (WEF), has come to the rescue of  Planet Earth’s 7.8 billion people. The closure of the global economy is presented as a means to “killing the virus”.

Sounds absurd. Close down the real economy of Planet Earth is not the “solution” but rather the “cause” of a process of Worldwide destabilization and impoverishment.

The national economy combined with political, social, and cultural institutions is the basis for the “reproduction of real-life”: income, employment, production, trade, infrastructure, social services. Destabilizing the economy of Planet Earth cannot constitute a “solution” to combating the virus. But that is the imposed “solution” that they want us to believe in. And that is what they are doing.

 “Economic Warfare”

Destabilizing in one fell swoop the national economies of more than 190 countries is an act of “economic warfare”. This diabolical agenda undermines the sovereignty of nation-states. It impoverishes people Worldwide. It leads to a spiraling dollar-denominated global debt.

The power structures of global capitalism, Big Money coupled with its intelligence and military apparatus are the driving force. Using advanced digital and communications technologies, the Lockdown and Economic Closure of the global economy is unprecedented in World history.

This simultaneous intervention in 190 countries derogates democracy. It undermines the sovereignty of nation-states Worldwide, without the need for military intervention.   It is an advanced system of economic warfare that overshadows other forms of warfare including conventional (Iraq-style) theater wars.

Global Governance Scenarios. World Government in the Post-Covid Era? 

The March 11 2020 Lockdown project uses lies and deception to ultimately impose a Worldwide totalitarian regime, entitled “Global Governance” (by unelected officials). In the words of David Rockefeller:

“…The world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.” (quoted by Aspen Times, August 15, 2011, emphasis added)

The Global Governance scenario imposes an agenda of social engineering and economic compliance.

“It constitutes an extension of the neoliberal policy framework imposed on both developing and developed countries. It consists in scrapping “national auto-determination” and constructing a Worldwide nexus of pro-US proxy regimes controlled by a “supranational sovereignty” (World Government) composed of leading financial institutions, billionaires and their philanthropic foundations.”(See Michel Chossudovsky, Global Capitalism, “World Government” and the Corona Crisis, May 1, 2020).

Simulating Pandemics

The Rockefeller Foundation proposes the use of scenario planning as a means to carry out “global governance”. (For further details, see Michel Chossudovsky, May 1, 2020). In Rockefeller’s 2010 Report entitled “Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development Area” scenarios of Global Governance and the actions to be taken in the case of a Worldwide pandemic are contemplated. More specifically, the report envisaged (p 18) the simulation of a Lock Step scenario including a global virulent influenza strain. The 2010 Rockefeller report was published in the immediate wake of the 2009 H1N1 swine flu pandemic.

Another important simulation was carried out on October 18, 2019, less than 3 months before SARS-2 was identified in early January 2020.

Event 201 was held under the auspices of the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, sponsored by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the World Economic Forum. (For details see Michel Chossudovsky, March 1, 2020)

Intelligence and “The Art of Deception”

The Covid crisis is a sophisticated instrument of power elites. It has all the features of a carefully planned intelligence op. using “deception and counter-deception”. Leo Strauss: “viewed intelligence as a means for policymakers to attain and justify policy goals, not to describe the realities of the world.” And that is precisely what they are doing in relation to Covid-19.

Video: The Event 201 Pandemic Exercise. October 18, 2019. Focusses on the extent of the pandemic. Also addresses within the simulation how do deal with online social media and so-called “misinformation”. (Listen carefully)

Macro-Economic Intervention. Evolution of the Global Economy 

History of Economic “Shock Treatment”. The Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP) to “Global Adjustment (GA)”

The March 11, 2020 (simultaneous) closing down of the national economies of 190 member states of the UN is diabolical and unprecedented. Millions of people have lost their jobs and their lifelong savings. In developing countries, poverty, famine, and despair prevail.

While this model of “global intervention” is unprecedented, it has certain features reminiscent of the country-level macro-economic reforms including the imposition of strong “economic medicine” by the IMF. To address this issue let us examine the history of so-called “economic shock treatment”.

Flashback to Chile, September 11, 1973.

As a visiting professor at the Catholic University of Chile, I lived through the military coup directed against the democratically elected government of Salvador Allende. It was a CIA op led by Secretary of State Henry Kissinger coupled with devastating macro-economic reforms.

The image on the left: Kissinger together with General Augusto Pinochet (1970s)

In the month following the Coup d’Etat, the price of bread increased from 11 to 40 escudos overnight. This engineered collapse of both real wages and employment under the Pinochet dictatorship was conducive to a nationwide process of impoverishment. While food prices had skyrocketed, wages had been frozen to ensure “economic stability and stave off inflationary pressures.” From one day to the next, an entire country had been precipitated into abysmal poverty: in less than a year the price of bread in Chile increased thirty-six times and eighty-five percent of the Chilean population had been driven below the poverty line.” That was Chile’s 1973 “Reset”

Two and a half years later in 1976, I returned to Latin America as a visiting professor at the National University of Cordoba in the northern industrial heartland of Argentina. My stay coincided with another military coup d’état in March 1976. Behind the massacres and human rights violations, “free market” macro-economic reforms had also been prescribed – this time under the supervision of Argentina’s New York creditors, including David Rockefeller who was a friend of The Junta’s  Minister of Economy José Alfredo Martinez de Hoz.

The image on the right: General President Jorge Videla, David Rockefeller, and Argentina’s Economy Minister Martinez de Hoz, Buenos Aires (the 1970s)

Chile and Argentina were “dress rehearsals” for things to come: The imposition of the IMF-World Bank Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP) was imposed on more than 100 countries starting in the early 1980s. (See Michel Chossudovsky, The Globalization of Poverty and the New World Order, Global Research, 2003)

A notorious example of the “free market”: Peru in August 1990  was punished for not conforming to IMF diktats: the price of fuel was hiked up 31 times and the price of bread increased more than twelve times in a single day. These reforms – carried out in the name of “democracy” – were far more devastating than those applied in Chile and Argentina under the fist of military rule.

And now on March 11, 2020, we enter a new phase of macro-economic destabilization, which is more devastating and destructive than 40 years of “shock treatment” and austerity measures imposed by the IMF on behalf of dominant financial interests.

There is rupture, a historical break as well as continuity. It’s “Neoliberalism to the n-th Degree”

The image on the left: Kissinger with Argentina’s Dictator General Jorge Videla (the 1970s)

Closure of the Global Economy: Economic and Social Impacts at the Level of the Entire Planet

Compare what is happening to the Global Economy today with the country by country “negotiated” macro-economic measures imposed by creditors under the Structural Adjustment Program (SAP). The March 11, 2020 “Global Adjustment” was not negotiated with national governments. It was imposed by a  “private/ public partnership”, supported by media propaganda, and accepted, invariably by co-opted and corrupt politicians.

“Engineered” Social Inequality and Impoverishment. The Globalization of Poverty 

Compare the March 11, 2020 “Global Adjustment” “guidelines” affecting the entire Planet to Chile September 11, 1973.

In a bitter irony, the same Big Money interests behind the 2020 “Global Adjustment” were actively involved in Chile (1973) and Argentina (1976). Remember “Operation Condor” and the “Dirty War” (Guerra Sucia).

There is continuity: The same powerful financial interests: The IMF and the World Bank bureaucracies are currently involved in preparing and managing the” post-pandemic “New Normal” debt operations (on behalf of the creditors) under the Great Reset.

Henry Kissinger was involved in coordinating Chile’s 9/11, 1973 “Reset”.

The following year (1974), he was in charge of the drafting of the “National Strategic Security Memorandum 200 (NSSM 200) which identified depopulation as  “the highest priority in US foreign policy towards the Third World”.

The Thrust of “Depopulation” under the Great Reset? 

Today, Henry Kissinger is a firm supporter alongside the Gates Foundation (which is also firmly committed to depopulation) of the Great Reset under the auspices of the World Economic Forum (WEF).

No need to negotiate with national governments or carry out “regime change”. The March 11, 2020 project constitutes a “Global Adjustment” which triggers bankruptcies, unemployment, and privatization on a much larger scale affecting in one fell swoop the national economies of more than 150 countries.

And this whole process is presented to public opinion as a means to combating the “killer virus” which, according to the CDC and the WHO is similar to seasonal influenza. (Viruses A, B).

The Hegemonic Power Structure of Global Capitalism 

Big Money including the billionaire foundations is the driving force. It’s a complex alliance of  Wall Street and the Banking establishment, Big Oil and Energy, the so-called “Defense Contractors”, Big Pharma, the Biotech Conglomerates, the Corporate Media, the Telecom, Communications and Digital Technology Giants, together with a network of think tanks, lobby groups, research labs, etc. The ownership of intellectual property also plays a central role.

This complex decision-making network involves major creditor and banking institutions: The Federal Reserve, the European Central Bank (ECB), the IMF, the World Bank, the regional development banks, and the Basel-based Bank for International Settlements (BIS), which plays a key strategic role.

In turn, the upper echelons of the US State apparatus (and Washington’s Western Allies) are directly or indirectly involved, including the  Pentagon, US Intelligence (and its research labs), the Health authorities, Homeland Security and the US State Department (including US embassies in over 150 countries).

READ THE REST OF THIS ARTICLE…




Terence McKenna Explains Why Television is the Most Dangerous Addictive Drug in Society

By Dylan Charles | Waking Times

So much insanity is being broadcast into our society that people are beginning to crack and turn on each other. Just this week we saw how the mainstream media nearly instigated angry leftist mob lynchings by misrepresenting a confrontation between some Catholic high school kids and a Native American elder. Just a few days prior to that, those on the politically right side of the aisle were in a frenzy of outrage over the contents of a men’s razor blade commercial.

People have become totally obsessed with their own beliefs, opinions, and biases that their behavior is going completely unexamined. Their reactions to the latest news item are automatic and predictable. The late iconoclast Terence McKenna pointed out that obsessive and unexamined behavior in pursuit of the familiar stimulus (such as what we see with each moment of media outrage) is what drug addiction is about.

McKenna went a step further to say that television was the greatest drug ever introduced into society. What else could persuade people to spend an average of 5-7 hours a day sitting in front of the TV? All the while consuming, in hypnotic states of mind, the scientifically crafted messages of corporate and government propagandists?

Here, McKenna expounds on the idea that television is a drug that is having negative consequences on individuals and on society at large:

“Unexamined behavior is what is alarming about drug addiction, that people behave like they are obsessed. Well on that scale, then, the most powerful drug of the late 20th century is television and propaganda. And the way in which we consume propaganda is amazing. I mean the most intelligent of us, the ones who hold ourselves most aloof, are probably junkies through and through when it comes to the media.” ~Terence McKenna

He goes on to talk about how being able to see violence on tv has changed the nature of warfare, and that if we are to watch violence, we need to see real footage of it, rather than theatrical violence so that we can understand that we have a responsibility in creating a world in which war and violence are so prevalent.

Here he explains how similar watching television is to consuming a drug:

“In fact it is shaping our value systems in ways that are very hard for us to suspect or even detect. I mean television, for example, it’s a drug. It has a series of measurable physiological parameters that are as intrinsically its signature as are teh parameters of heroin or its signature. You sit someone down in front of a TV set and turn it on. Twenty minutes later come back, sample their blood pressure, their eye movement rate, blood is pooling in their rear end, their breathing takes on a certain quality, the stare reflex sets in. They are thoroughly zoned on a drug.” ~Terence McKenna

Here he talks a bit more about the nature of addiction, tv, and our true purpose on this planet as human beings.

What do you think? Is television and mass media making people crazy?

About the Author

Dylan Charles is the editor of Waking Times and host of The Battered Souls Podcast, both dedicated to ideas of personal transformation, societal awakening, and planetary renewal. His personal journey is deeply inspired by shamanic plant medicines and the arts of Kung Fu, Qi Gong, and Yoga. After seven years of living in Costa Rica, he now lives in the Blue Ridge Mountains, where he practices Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu and enjoys spending time with family. He has written hundreds of articles, reaching and inspiring millions of people around the world.

This article (Terence McKenna Explains Why Television is the Most Dangerous Addictive Drug in Society) was originally created and published by Waking Times and is published here under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Dylan Charles and WakingTimes.com. It may be re-posted freely with proper attribution, author bio, and this copyright statement.




The Importance – And Difficulty – Of Being a Free-Thinker

Pixabay – CC0 Licence

We live in a world where, most would agree, there is a lot that goes on that we will never know about. For some of us, one of the most liberating things is the ability to be a skeptic – to open our eyes and deal with the world not with naivete, but with a questioning mind. Indeed, there are plenty who champion the internet and social media for being a way of getting the facts to people without a filter and without bias.

There is no doubt that a world can’t really work properly without an informed populace. Whatever your own personal views on an issue, or on the world in general, it has to be a good thing if more people know more about how the world works. Informed decisions are, by their very nature, better decisions than gut reactions. However, the flip side of this is that getting informed, staying informed, and processing the information you have is difficult to do.

Avoiding confirmation bias is tough

It is very easy to fall into a trap of only believing stories, or interpretations on a story, that we would like to be true. When we read something, no matter the source, we very quickly judge whether the information has the “ring of truth” about it. Very often, we decide that it does simply because it chimes with how we understand the world. It’s advisable to check in with a source or two that you don’t usually agree with, and to fact check your preferred sources. Because let’s face it, what are the chances that you’re right 100% of the time?

A narrow focus will only harm your attention span

When you feel that you have had your eyes opened on a particular issue, it can be hard to think about anything else, and if you do shift your attention, you can still be looking at it through a filter. If you’re focusing too hard on government and foreign policy, you can lose sight of healthcare matters. If you’re reading everything you can on epidemiology, you might flat out miss things like angel numbers. Opening your eyes is just one part of being an attentive person. Part Two is standing back and surveying everything critically.

It’s OK to disagree; especially among like minds

Similarly to the point about focusing too narrowly, you can waste a lot of time by trying to get people to see the world (and everything in it) from your point of view. Ask yourself, does that sound like free thinking? Can you really decry how people “just believe everything they’re told” and then have an issue when someone challenges what you tell them? People who you consider friends and allies will disagree with you about some things. That’s better than the alternative; disagreement sharpens our own arguments and shows we’re thinking.

It is more than fine to view the world through a skeptical lens, but it’s important not to fall into the trap of thinking everyone else is a drone who blindly obeys authority. None of us has all the answers, and we have to get there in our own time.




‘Gates’ Keepers of Journalism (Includes MUST-SEE 4-MIN VIDEO)

By Dr. Joseph Mercola | mercola.com

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • By injecting millions of dollars into various industries, companies, and organizations, Gates has risen to become one of the most influential individuals in the world, and he’s become increasingly insulated from negative reviews thanks to the fact that he also funds journalism
  • Gates has given more than $250 million to media companies, including BBC, NBC, Al Jazeera, ProPublica, National Journal, The Guardian, Univision, Medium, the Financial Times, The Atlantic, the Texas Tribune, Gannett, Washington Monthly, Le Monde, PBS NewsHour and the Center for Investigative Reporting
  • Journalistic organizations such as the Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting, the National Press Foundation, the International Center for Journalists, the Solutions Journalism Network, and The Poynter Institute have also received grants from the Gates Foundation
  • The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation also has an agreement with Elsevier. Any research supported by the foundation must be published “gold open access.” This means all Gates Foundation’s sponsored research is free for anyone to read — thus maximizing the exposure of those studies
  • Another recipient of grants is the Leo Burnett Company, an advertising agency owned by Publicis, the third-largest ad agency in the world. Publicis also funds the self-proclaimed arbiter of truth in media, NewsGuard, and the newly launched “tool against online health care hoaxes,” HealthGuard

I’ve written several articles reviewing Bill Gates’ control of global health, technology, and food policy agendas. Financial influence is, of course, at the heart of this power and not-entirely-obscure influence.

By injecting millions of dollars into various industries, companies, and organizations, many of which further strengthen the connections by interlinking and doing business with each other, Gates has risen to become one of the most influential individuals in the world.

While he has faced public backlash a number of times in his career, especially when he was CEO of Microsoft in the ‘90s, he’s become increasingly insulated from negative reviews, thanks to the fact that he also funds journalism and major media corporations.

Buying Favorable Press

In an August 21, 2020, article1 in Columbia Journalism Review, Tim Schwab highlights the connections between the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and a number of newsrooms, including NPR.

In August 2019, NPR reported2 how Harvard University’s Opportunity Insights program had successfully helped low-income families obtain housing in wealthier “high-opportunity” areas identified by economist Raj Chetty, who heads the program, thereby allowing the children an opportunity to achieve greater success in life.

“According to researchers cited in the article, these children could see $183,000 greater earnings over their lifetimes — a striking forecast for a housing program still in its experimental stage,” Schwab writes.3

However, “If you squint as you read the story, you’ll notice that every quoted expert is connected to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which helps fund the project. And if you’re really paying attention, you’ll also see the editor’s note at the end of the story, which reveals that NPR itself receives funding from Gates.”

NPR denies that funding had anything to do with its decision to write the story or its slant. Still, as Schwab notes, the article is just one of hundreds NPR has reported that is highly favorable to the Gates Foundation and the work it funds.

As such, it’s part of a much larger trend, he says, “with billionaire philanthropists bankrolling the news.” Naturally, when you hold the purse strings, you end up with a fair level of influence as to what gets run.

This is precisely why I decided against allowing advertisers on my website, opting to sell carefully vetted products instead. I never wanted to end up in a situation where an advertiser might try to influence my reporting by threatening to withdraw advertising. As noted by Schwab:4

“As philanthropists increasingly fill in the funding gaps at news organizations … an underexamined worry is how this will affect the ways newsrooms report on their benefactors. Nowhere does this concern loom larger than with the Gates Foundation, a leading donor to newsrooms and a frequent subject of favorable news coverage.”

Which Media Corporations Are Under Gates’ Thumb?

Schwab reports he examined the recipients of nearly 20,000 Gates Foundation grants, finding more than $250 million had been given to major media companies, including BBC, NBC, Al Jazeera, ProPublica, National Journal, The Guardian, Univision, Medium, the Financial Times, The Atlantic, the Texas Tribune, Gannett, Washington Monthly, Le Monde, PBS NewsHour and the Center for Investigative Reporting. (The timeframe of those grants is unfortunately unclear.)

The Gates Foundation has also given grants to charitable organizations that in turn are affiliated with news outlets, such as BBC Media Action and The New York Times’ Neediest Cases Fund.

Journalistic organizations such as the Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting, the National Press Foundation, the International Center for Journalists, the Solutions Journalism Network, and The Poynter Institute have also received grants from the Gates Foundation.

Ironically, “The foundation even helped fund a 2016 report5 from the American Press Institute that was used to develop guidelines6 on how newsrooms can maintain editorial independence from philanthropic funders,” Schwab writes.

The Gates Foundation has also participated in dozens of media conferences, including the Perugia Journalism Festival, the Global Editors Network, and the World Conference of Science Journalism, and has an unknown number of undisclosed contracts with media companies to produce sponsored content.

According to Schwab, the only contract that has been publicly disclosed is one with Vox. An example of the advertising content produced through this kind of contractual agreement is the 2018 Vox article,7 “Human Capital and the Benefits, Explained,” which explains how changing world demographics are changing the perception of humans’ value.

Bias Is Clearly Evident

Upon scrutiny, it becomes abundantly obvious that when Gates hands out grants to journalism, it’s not an unconditional handout that these companies can do whatever they see fit with. It comes with significant strings and really amounts to little more than the purchasing of stealth self-promotions that are essentially undisclosed ads. Schwab writes:8

When Gates gives money to newsrooms, it restricts how the money is used — often for topics, like global health and education, on which the foundation works — which can help elevate its agenda in the news media.

For example, in 2015 Gates gave $383,000 to the Poynter Institute, a widely-cited authority on journalism ethics … earmarking the funds ‘to improve the accuracy in worldwide media of claims related to global health and development.’ Poynter senior vice president Kelly McBride said Gates’s money was passed on to media fact-checking sites …

Since 2000, the Gates Foundation has given NPR $17.5 million through 10 charitable grants — all of them earmarked for coverage of global health and education, specific issues on which Gates works …

Even when NPR publishes critical reporting on Gates, it can feel scripted. In February 2018, NPR ran a story headlined ‘Bill Gates Addresses ‘Tough Questions’ on Poverty and Power.’ The ‘tough questions’ NPR posed in this Q&A were mostly based on a list curated by Gates himself, which he previously answered in a letter posted to his foundation’s website.”

Schwab also recounts the experiences of freelance journalists looking into the “inadvertent consequences of the Gates Foundation’s relentless efforts to eradicate polio,” who found their efforts undermined when the Foundation “went over their heads to seek an audience with their editors” rather than answer the questions posed.

In 2016, one of those journalists, Robert Fortner, published an article in which he examined the trend of news articles failing to report financial ties to Gates. Among them were 59 news stories by the Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting.

The Tangled Web of Gates’ Media Connections

Another recipient of grants from the Gates Foundation is the Leo Burnett Company, an advertising agency that creates news content and works with journalists. The Leo Burnett Company, in turn, is owned by Publicis,9 the world’s oldest and third-largest advertising agency.

Publicis also funds NewsGuard.10 On top of that, NewsGuard and Microsoft — the tech company founded by Gates — are also partners.11 Other connections between Gates and NewsGuard include the following:

The John S. & James L. Knight Foundation Inc., a venture capital fund and another of NewsGuard’s investors,12 has partnered with the Gates Foundation on other media-related projects.

In 2013, they launched the Media Impact Project, housed at the Norman Lear Center, which is part of the USC Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism. The mission of this project was to “advance a better understanding of audience engagement and media impact” by “measuring how media influences the ways people think and act.”13

NewsGuard investor, the Blue Haven Initiative,14 joined the Gates Foundation’s Global Health Investment Fund in 201315 — an investment fund that targets “high-impact technologies with public health applications in both developed and emerging markets.”

Through these few examples alone, you can see just how interconnected the tech industry, media, and health organizations are, and how through interweaving connections they all stand to benefit from their financial support of the self-proclaimed arbiter of truth, NewsGuard, and its recently launched “tool against online health care hoaxes,” HealthGuard,16 which was launched June 2, 2020, in the middle of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Gates’ Influence Extends to Scientific Journals

But there’s more. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation also has an agreement with Elsevier,17 enacted in 2015, which requires authors to adhere to the Gates Foundation’s open access policy when publishing their research in any of Elsevier’s 1,700 journals. (A list of Elsevier journals and publications can be found on Elsevier’s website.18)

Any research “supported in whole, or in part, by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation” must be published “gold open access.”19 This means all of the Gates Foundation’s sponsored research is free for anyone to read and cannot be placed behind a paywall — thus maximizing the exposure of those studies.

While ostensibly this would appear beneficial, these studies are typically highly conflicted and promoting one of Gates’ many investments either directly or indirectly.

From Tech Geek to Undisputed Health Tsar

As noted by Schwab, Gates’ injection of cash into the media landscape has undoubtedly “helped foster an increasingly friendly media environment” for his various projects.

This friendly media environment includes the widespread portrayal of Gates himself as a health expert, despite the fact that he has no medical background and is not a public official of any kind:

“PolitiFact and USA Today (run by the Poynter Institute and Gannett, respectively) — both of which have received funds from the Gates Foundation — have even used their fact-checking platforms to defend Gates from ‘false conspiracy theories’ and ‘misinformation,’ like the idea that the foundation has financial investments in companies developing COVID vaccines and therapies.

In fact, the foundation’s website and most recent tax forms clearly show investments in such companies, including Gilead and CureVac … News about Gates these days is often filtered through the perspectives of the many academics, nonprofits, and think tanks that Gates funds. Sometimes it is delivered to readers by newsrooms with financial ties to the foundation.”

Gates Foundation — A ‘Structure of Power’

I believe that Schwab is correct when he states that most journalists tend to “cover the Gates Foundation as a dispassionate charity instead of a structure of power.” This is problematic, as it hides and discourages investigation into any number of possible ulterior motives behind the Foundation’s generosity.

In 2011, the Seattle Times raised concerns about the Gates Foundation’s growing media influence, stating:20

“To garner attention for the issues it cares about, the foundation has invested millions in training programs for journalists. It funds research on the most effective ways to craft media messages. Gates-backed think tanks turn out media fact sheets and newspaper opinion pieces.

Magazines and scientific journals get Gates money to publish research and articles. Experts coached in Gates-funded programs write columns that appear in media outlets from The New York Times to The Huffington Post, while digital portals blur the line between journalism and spin.”

Philanthropy as a For-Profit Business Model

“Insofar as journalists are supposed to scrutinize wealth and power, Gates should probably be one of the most investigated people on earth — not the most admired,” Schwab writes.

Indeed. Many books could be written about Gates’ global spider web of connections that tightly integrate health, technology, finance, and media for his personal agenda. To be frank, they seem to form the very framework for a global totalitarian regime. These connections are also the foundation of his ever-increasing wealth.

As discussed in “How Bill Gates Monopolized Global Health” and “Bill Gates — Most Dangerous Philanthropist in Modern History?” Gates doesn’t merely hand out money from his foundation. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Trust, a separate entity that manages the assets of the Foundation, invests in the very companies that are given these grants.

In other words, in many cases, the grants handed out by the foundation end up directly increasing the value of the assets held by the trust. He even “donates” money to corporations such as GlaxoSmithKline, Unilever, IBM, Vodafone, Scholastic Inc., and NBC Universal Media.21,22

If donating to for-profit companies sounds oddly illegal to you, you’d be right. Gates is a tax evader for doing so — he’s simply getting away with it. The nonprofit foundation is a disguise to avoid taxes while funding the research arms of for-profit organizations that his foundation is invested in.

Using nonprofit money to advance research for companies you’re invested in is also illegal. If you are as repulsed by the fact that Gates is getting away with this illegal behavior as much as I am, then I encourage you to contact the IRS Whistleblower Office and ask them to investigate Gates’ tax evasion. You can also file a consumer complaint with the Washington State Attorney General’s office.

Far from being a force for good, Gates appears to have chosen to use his wealth and intellect to further a distasteful social control plan to benefit his own nefarious agendas. Fortunately, people all over the world are finally starting to see his true colors. And this despite the fact that he can afford to buy good publicity, and has been doing so for years.




Press in His Pocket: Bill Gates Buys Media to Control the Messaging

By Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Board Chair, Children’s Health Defense | Children’s Health Defense

Columbia Journalism Review expose reveals that, to control global journalism, Bill Gates has steered over $250 million to the BBC, NPR, NBC, Al Jazeera, ProPublicaNational JournalThe Guardian, the New York Times, Univision, Medium, the Financial TimesThe Atlantic, the Texas Tribune, Gannett, Washington MonthlyLe Monde, Center for Investigative Reporting, Pulitzer Center, National Press Foundation, International Center for Journalists, and a host of other groups. To conceal his influence, Gates also funneled unknown sums via subgrants for contracts to other press outlets.

His press bribes have paid off. During the pandemic, bought and brain-dead news outlets have treated Bill Gates as a public health expert—despite his lack of medical training or regulatory experience.

Gates also funds an army of independent fact checkers including the Poynter Institute and Gannett —which use their fact-checking platforms to “silence detractors” and to “debunk” as “false conspiracy theories” and “misinformation,” charges that Gates has championed and invested in biometric chipsvaccine identification systemssatellite surveillance, and COVID vaccines.

Gates’s media gifts, says CJR author Tim Schwab, mean that “critical reporting about the Gates Foundation is rare.” The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation declined multiple interview requests from CJR and refused to disclose how much money it has funneled to journalists.

In 2007, the LA Times published one of the only critical investigations on the Gates Foundation, exposing Gates’s holdings in companies that hurt people his foundation claims to help, like industries linked to child labor. Lead reporter Charles Piller, says, “They were unwilling to answer questions and pretty much refused to respond in any sort of way…”

The investigation showed how Gates’s global health funding has steered the world’s aid agenda toward Gates’ personal goals (vaccines and GMO crops) and away from issues such as emergency preparedness to respond to disease outbreaks, like the Ebola crisis.

[Read more here]

Robert O’Leary, JD BARA, has had an abiding interest in alternative health products & modalities since the early 1970’s & he has seen how they have made people go from lacking health to vibrant health. He became an attorney, singer-songwriter, martial artist & father along the way and brings that experience to his practice as a BioAcoustic Soundhealth Practitioner, under the tutelage of the award-winning founder of BioAcoustic Biology, Sharry Edwards, whose Institute of BioAcoustic Biology has now been serving clients for 30 years with a non-invasive & safe integrative modality that supports the body’s ability to self-heal using the power of the human voice. Robert brings this modality to serve clients in Greater Springfield, Massachusetts and New England (USA) & “virtually” the world. He can also be reached at romayasoundhealthandbeauty@gmail.

 




PL@NDEMIC 💉 MOVIE 🎥 World Premiere Livestream AUGUST 18th 12 NOON EST on DIGITAL FREEDOM PLATFORM

https://youtu.be/_VhxFG2VZlk

 

Editor’s note: The wait is nearly over! Judy Mikovits, the courageous scientist who knew Fauci back in the day and knows alot about what went on for decades at the National Institutes of Health, is back with the full movie promised by the short film Plandemic. It is called Plandemic Indoctornation and will debut on Brian Rose’s Digital Freedom Platform at London Real TV. You will find it at the following link: www.londonreal.tv/plandemic. Once you have seen the film, please share your thoughts in our comments section. We always like to hear your thoughts on the content shared here on Conscious Life News.

By Brian Rose | London Real

VIDEO TRANSCRIPT

Hey, it’s Brian Rose from London real question for you. Do you remember that short 26 minute film called Plandemic that came out a few months ago and went massively viral around the world. Well, of course you do. It featured. Dr. Judy Mikovits, who we’ve had on the Digital Freedom Platform twice, and talked about her crazy story that she had behind the scenes with these massive agencies, like the CDC, people like Anthony Fauci, and all of the weird stuff going on with patents with vaccines and with viruses.

Well, guess what? The full feature length movie Plandemic Indoctrination is now complete. And I just watched a sneak peek of the film this morning, and it absolutely blew my mind! But I’ve got even better news. We will be premiering this film on the Digital Freedom Platform on August 18th at 5 p.m UK time (12 noon EST, 9am Pacific). And if you go to freedomplatform.tv/plandemic, you can pre-register.

This is a one-time only shot. And I’m so excited to be working with these massively talented filmmakers. You’re going to be blown away. This movie could literally change the world. It’s a game changer and it connects the dots of everything that we’ve been talking about here for the past four months at London Real: the reason we were censored, the reason we created the Digital Freedom Platform. And again, the quality of the film, the research done, I mean it’ll blow your mind.

And it really talks about what’s going on behind the scenes. It goes deep on how our media has been co-opted even sometimes by the CIA in the past 50 years. It talks about our technology platforms, our search engines, why the censorship is happening. It goes deep on the Anthony Fauci. It goes really deep on Bill Gates and the Bill and Melinda Foundation and how they are in bed with the WHO and how all of that is is completely co-opted. And again, I was absolutely blown away by this movie and I want you to watch it before those guys come (sirens in the background) and shut us down, because that will probably happen. We’ve had malicious attacks before and we’re expecting a lot of them now, but we’re getting ready.

It’s going to World premiere on Tuesday August 18th at 5 p.m UK, noon ET, 9am PT. And you can access that for free. Go to freedomplatform.tv/plandemic.

We are super honored to be entrusted with the world premiere of this incredible film. And again, I was really impressed and really blown away and if you’ve been a fan of the people we’ve been interviewing from Dr. Judy Mikovits, to Dr. Rachid Buttar, to Sherri Tenpenny, to a lot of the questions we had around vaccines like Robert F Kennedy and the whole question of censorship and why the technology platforms. How is Bill Gates involved? Why is Fauci there? Who owns the patents? All of this stuff is exposed and explained in this movie and you absolutely need to see that.

If there’s one piece of content that you watch this year, it is Plandemic the full feature length movie It’s called Indoctrination and it’s all about following the money, and that’s what shows you everything that’s happening behind the scenes. Again, incredible film makers involved and I’m pumped to be a part of it.

So again, go to freedomplatform.tv/plandemic. It’s happening and it’s going to be super exciting again. This is a one-time-only deal. So get on their pre-register show up early because I know our servers are going to be absolutely blasted with people from around the world wanting to watch this movie. Please screen record this thing and then share it as we know last time. It was banned on all the social media platforms all the technology giants. It was like whack-a-mole out there.

But we’re going to have a way for you to download it. We’re going to have clips and all that stuff hopefully, but be there, watch this thing live, and get a nice snapshot of it. And like I said, this is a game changer. I think it’ll actually change the n narrative of what’s happening out there. And we’re super excited to be a part of it. So big thanks to the filmmakers. They made a very brave and powerful film. And again it blew my mind this morning. I got to watch it, of course a couple days early and we’ll be streaming it live for you on the Digital Freedom Platform on August 18th 5 p.m UK time (noon Eastern, 9am Pacific).

It’s going to be epic! Looking forward to it. Peace.

Robert O’Leary, JD BARA, has had an abiding interest in alternative health products & modalities since the early 1970’s & he has seen how they have made people go from lacking health to vibrant health. He became an attorney, singer-songwriter, martial artist & father along the way and brings that experience to his practice as a BioAcoustic Soundhealth Practitioner, under the tutelage of the award-winning founder of BioAcoustic Biology, Sharry Edwards, whose Institute of BioAcoustic Biology has now been serving clients for 30 years with a non-invasive & safe integrative modality that supports the body’s ability to self-heal using the power of the human voice. Robert brings this modality to serve clients in Greater Springfield, Massachusetts and New England (USA) & “virtually” the world. He can also be reached at romayasoundhealthandbeauty@gmail.




Covering Up The Awakening – Massive Lockdown Protest in Berlin Downplayed and Demonized by MSM

By Dylan CharlesWaking Times

We’re at a crossroads at the moment, and most people are choosing to obedience to the emerging new order. Here in the U.S., the hysteria and fear are thick, palpable, and ugly. Just as Stanley Milgram demonstrated in his now-famous social experiment, most people are turning against their fellow neighbors and countrymen and willfully posing as enforcers of the new normal.

The media in this nation is cancer, eating away at the social fabric of our society, demanding that we find differences between ourselves and everyone else, and demanding that we lose ourselves in the collective madness. The American spirit of individualism and personal liberty is being stamped out by peer pressure to conform and obey. This isn’t how it’s supposed to be, though.

As a people, Americans have long been admired the world over for our supposed courage in defending liberty, but today we’re so fractured and confused that we can’t seem to come together in any meaningful numbers. The police state that has emerged around us has been so discouraging to real protest movements that we’ve even given up protesting against the never-ending wars. We’ve become docile, domesticated, distracted, divided, dysfunctional, and delusional. We no longer oppose tyranny.

Time for someone else to carry the torch.

Last week in Germany, a massive crowd of people hit the streets to protest the lockdowns which are killing businesses, destroying families, and causing untold stress, loneliness, and depression, all in the name of preventing the spread of a virus. ‘Masks Make Us Slaves,’ read one banner.

Protesters who came from across the country held up homemade signs with slogans like “Corona, false alarm,” “We are being forced to wear a muzzle,” “Natural defense instead of vaccination” and “We are the second wave.” [Source]

Mainstream media coverage of the event downplayed the size of the crowd. The Guardian reported, “Up to 20,000 demonstrated against restrictions, raising fears of a rise in infections,” diminishing the crowd while also framing the demonstration as a threat to the fear-addled rule-followers.

ABC News reported, “Thousands protest in Berlin against coronavirus restrictions,” then added, “Protests against anti-virus restrictions in Germany have drawn a variety of attendees, including conspiracy theorists and right-wing populists.” This, of course, is an attempt to demonize the event and give the false impression that those who are concerned for their rights are subhuman.

The New York Times wants you to believe that all of these people are a danger to those who follow orders and go along to get along. They said that 17,000 people marched, and insinuated that they are all somehow allied with Ne0Nazis. Bollocks.

CNN took a jab as well in their article, “Thousands gather in Berlin to protest against Covid-19 restrictions.” Their spin is that all of the people involved are from the far-right. Say what?!?

“A large crowd of far-right groups gathered for a “sit-in” at Berlin’s iconic Brandenburg Gate on Saturday to protest against the German government’s coronavirus restrictions.

A march earlier Saturday that was criticized by police for not adhering to rules on social distancing and face masks was halted by organizers.” [Source]

Can you read between the lines, people? The media is goading you to live in fear not only of a contentious virus but of your fellow man. The threat is being expanded to include not only the disease but for anyone who questions the official narrative about the disease.

According to RT, “500,000 Germans apply to take part in Stuttgart lockdown protest, but police RESTRICT rally to 5,000 due to ‘social distancing,” which is a heck of a lot more people than what other news outlets reported.

The real story is that there were a lot more people at this demonstration than the MSM wants you to believe and that the crowd was made up of people of all walks of life, not just racist Nazis who deserve to be treated as less-than-human. Some estimates say that up to 1.3 million people were involved, with people arriving from all over Germany to participate.

“Now, most media doesn’t want to talk about this story at all, and if they do, they’re only referring to these massive numbers of people as conspiracy theorists.” -Ben Swann

Ben Swann destroys the mainstream narrative on this in the following video, diving into who these people were, and why they opposed the lockdown.

https://youtu.be/WPwvUqZW0pQ

Ralph Smart also chimes in, reminding us that millions of people are waking up and that the mass awakening is the one thing the powers-that-be fear most.

I hope you’re paying attention to people. There is an awakening happening, and you are not alone. This is the global awakening, and it will be impossible to keep the lid on this for much longer.

About the Author

Dylan Charles is the editor of Waking Times and host of Battered Souls: A Podcast About Transformation, both dedicated to ideas of personal transformation, societal awakening, and planetary renewal. His personal journey is deeply inspired by shamanic plant medicines and the arts of Kung Fu, Qi Gong, and Yoga. After seven years of living in Costa Rica, he now lives in the Blue Ridge Mountains, where he practices Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu and enjoys spending time with family. He has written hundreds of articles, reaching and inspiring millions of people around the world.

Dylan is available for interviews and podcasts and offers his services as a professional life coach to people looking to break free from the patterns and programming that hold them back in life. Contact Dylan at WakingTimes@gmail.com.

This article (Covering Up the Awakening – Massive Lockdown Protest in Berlin Downplayed and Demonized by MSM) was originally created and published by Waking Times and is published here under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Dylan Charles and WakingTimes.com. It may be re-posted freely with proper attribution, author bio, and this copyright statement.




Saagar Enjeti: Media, Public Health Officials SHOULD APOLOGIZE For Lockdown Hypocrisy After Protests

By Saager Enjeti | The Hill

Saagar Enjeti blasts establishment figures for their back and forth messaging on coronavirus outbreaks after George Floyd protests sweeped the nation.

Robert O’Leary, JD BARA, has had an abiding interest in alternative health products & modalities since the early 1970’s & he has seen how they have made people go from lacking health to vibrant health. He became an attorney, singer-songwriter, martial artist & father along the way and brings that experience to his practice as a BioAcoustic Soundhealth Practitioner, under the tutelage of the award-winning founder of BioAcoustic Biology, Sharry Edwards, whose Institute of BioAcoustic Biology has now been serving clients for 30 years with a non-invasive & safe integrative modality that supports the body’s ability to self-heal using the power of the human voice. Robert brings this modality to serve clients in Greater Springfield, Massachusetts and New England (USA) & “virtually” the world. He can also be reached at romayasoundhealthandbeauty@gmail.

 




Harvard Professor Exposes Google and Facebook

Video Source: vpro documentary 
By Dr. Joseph Mercola | mercola.com

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • In her book, “The Age of Surveillance Capitalism,” social psychologist and Harvard professor Shoshana Zuboff reveals how the biggest tech companies in the world have hijacked our personal data — so-called “behavioral surplus data streams” — without our knowledge or consent and are using it against you to generate profits for themselves
  • Companies like Facebook, Google and third parties of all kinds have the power — and are using that power — to target your personal inner demons, to trigger you, and to take advantage of you when you’re at your most vulnerable to entice you into action that serves them, commercially or politically
  • Your entire existence — even your shifting moods, deciphered by facial recognition software — has become a source of revenue for corporate entities as you’re being cleverly maneuvered into doing (and typically buying) or thinking something you may not have done, bought or thought otherwise
  • Facebook’s massive experiments, in which they used subliminal cues to see if they could make people happier or sadder and affect real-world behavior offline, proved that — by manipulating language and inserting subliminal cues in the online context — they can change real-world behavior and real-world emotion, and that these methods and powers can be exercised “while bypassing user awareness”
  • The Google Nest security system has a hidden microphone built into it that isn’t featured in any of the schematics for the device. Voice data, and all the information delivered through your daily conversations, is tremendously valuable to Big Data, and add to their ever-expanding predictive modeling capabilities

“In a room where people unanimously maintain a conspiracy of silence, one word of truth sounds like a pistol shot.” ~ Czesław Miłosz1

In recent years, a number of brave individuals have alerted us to the fact that we’re all being monitored and manipulated by big data gatherers such as Google and Facebook, and shed light on the depth and breadth of this ongoing surveillance. Among them is a social psychologist and Harvard professor Shoshana Zuboff.

Her book, “The Age of Surveillance Capitalism,” is one of the best books I have read in the last few years. It’s an absolute must-read if you have any interest in this topic and want to understand how Google and Facebook have obtained such massive control of your life.

Her book reveals how the biggest tech companies in the world have hijacked our personal data — so-called “behavioral surplus data streams” — without our knowledge or consent and are using it against us to generate profits for themselves. WE have become the product. We are the real revenue stream in this digital economy.

“The term ‘surveillance capitalism’ is not an arbitrary term,” Zuboff says in the featured VPRO Backlight documentary. “Why ‘surveillance’? Because it must be operations that are engineered as undetectable, indecipherable, cloaked in rhetoric that aims to misdirect, obfuscate and downright bamboozle all of us, all the time.”

The Birth of Surveillance Capitalism

In the featured video, Zuboff “reveals a merciless form of capitalism in which no natural resources, but the city itself, serves are the raw material.”2 She also explains how this surveillance capitalism came about in the first place.

As most revolutionary inventions, chance played a role. After the 2000 dot.com crisis that burst the internet bubble, a startup company named Google struggled to survive. Founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin appeared to be looking at the beginning of the end for their company.

By chance, they discovered that “residual data” left behind by users during their internet searchers had tremendous value. They could trade this data; they could sell it. By compiling this residual data, they could predict the behavior of any given internet user and thus guarantee advertisers a more targeted audience. And so, surveillance capitalism was born.

The Data Collection You Know About Is the Least Valuable

Comments such as “I have nothing to hide, so I don’t care if they track me,” or “I like targeted ads because they make my shopping easier” reveal our ignorance about what’s really going on. We believe we understand what kind of information is being collected about us. For example, you might not care that Google knows you bought a particular kind of shoe or a particular book.

However, the information we freely hand over is the least important of the personal information actually being gathered about us, Zuboff notes. Tech companies tell us the data collected is being used to improve services, and indeed, some of it is.

But it is also being used to model human behavior by analyzing the patterns of behavior of hundreds of millions of people. Once you have a large enough training model, you can begin to accurately predict how different types of individuals will behave over time.

The data gathered is also being used to predict a whole host of individual attributes about you, such as personality quirks, sexual orientation, political orientation — “a whole range of things we never ever intended to disclose,” Zuboff says.

How Is Predictive Data Being Used?

All sorts of predictive data are handed over with each photo you upload to social media. For example, it’s not just that tech companies can see your photos. Your face is being used without your knowledge or consent to train facial recognition software, and none of us is told how that software is intended to be used.

As just one example, the Chinese government is using facial recognition software to track and monitor minority groups and advocates for democracy, and that could happen elsewhere as well, at any time.

So that photo you uploaded of yourself at a party provides a range of valuable information — from the types of people you’re most likely to spend your time with and where you’re likely to go to have a good time, to information about how the muscles in your face move and alter the shape of your features when you’re in a good mood.

By gathering a staggering amount of data points on each person, minute by minute, Big Data can make very accurate predictions about human behavior, and these predictions are then “sold to business customers who want to maximize our value to their business,” Zuboff says.

Your entire existence — even your shifting moods, deciphered by facial recognition software — has become a source of revenue for many tech corporations. You might think you have free will but, in reality, you’re being cleverly maneuvered and funneled into doing (and typically buying) or thinking something you may not have done, bought, or thought otherwise. And, “our ignorance is their bliss,” Zuboff says.

The Facebook Contagion Experiments

In the documentary, Zuboff highlights Facebook’s massive “contagion experiments, “3,4 in which they used subliminal cues and language manipulation to see if they could make people feel happier or sadder and affect real-world behavior offline. As it turns out, they can. Two key findings from those experiments were:

  1. By manipulating language and inserting subliminal cues in the online context, they can change real-world behavior and real-world emotion
  2. These methods and powers can be exercised “while bypassing user awareness”

In the video, Zuboff also explains how the Pokemon Go online game — which was actually created by Google — was engineered to manipulate real-world behavior and activity for profit. She also describes the scheme in her New York Times article, saying:

“Game players did not know that they were pawns in the real game of behavior modification for profit, as the rewards and punishments of hunting imaginary creatures were used to herd people to the McDonald’s, Starbucks and local pizza joints that were paying the company for ‘footfall,’ in exactly the same way that online advertisers pay for ‘click through’ to their websites.”

You’re Being Manipulated Every Single Day in Countless Ways

Zuboff also reviews what we learned from the Cambridge Analytica scandal. Cambridge Analytica is a political marketing business that, in 2018, used the Facebook data of 80 million Americans to determine the best strategies for manipulating American voters.

Christopher Wylie, now-former director of research at Cambridge Analytica, blew the whistle on the company’s methods. According to Wylie, they had so much data on people, they knew exactly how to trigger fear, rage, and paranoia in any given individual. And, by triggering those emotions, they could manipulate them into looking at a certain website, joining a certain group, and voting for a certain candidate.

So, the reality now is, companies like Facebook, Google and third parties of all kinds, have the power — and are using that power — to target your personal inner demons, to trigger you, and to take advantage of you when you’re at your weakest or most vulnerable to entice you into action that serves them, commercially or politically. It’s certainly something to keep in mind while you surf the web and social media sites.

“It was only a minute ago that we didn’t have many of these tools, and we were fine,” Zuboff says in the film. “We lived rich and full lives. We had close connections with friends and family.

Having said that, I want to recognize that there’s a lot that the digital world brings to our lives, and we deserve to have all of that. But we deserve to have it without paying the price of surveillance capitalism.

Right now, we are in that classic Faustian bargain; 21st century citizens should not have to make the choice of either going analog or living in a world where our self-determination and our privacy are destroyed for the sake of this market logic. That is unacceptable.

Let’s also not be naïve. You get the wrong people involved in our government, at any moment, and they look over their shoulders at the rich control possibilities offered by these new systems.

There will come a time when, even in the West, even in our democratic societies, our government will be tempted to annex these capabilities and use them over us and against us. Let’s not be naïve about that.

When we decide to resist surveillance capitalism — right now when it is in the market dynamic — we are also preserving our democratic future, and the kinds of checks and balances that we will need going forward in an information civilization if we are to preserve freedom and democracy for another generation.”

Surveillance Is Getting Creepier by the Day

But the surveillance and data collection doesn’t end with what you do online. Big Data also wants access to your most intimate moments — what you do and how you behave in the privacy of your own home, for example, or in your car. Zuboff recounts how the Google Nest security system was found to have a hidden microphone built into it that isn’t featured in any of the schematics for the device.

“Voices are what everybody is after, just like faces,” Zuboff says. Voice data, and all the information delivered through your daily conversations, is tremendously valuable to Big Data, and add to their ever-expanding predictive modeling capabilities.

She also discusses how these kinds of data-collecting devices force consent from users by holding the functionality of the device “hostage” if you don’t want your data collected and shared.

For example, Google’s Nest thermostats will collect data about your usage and share it with third parties, that share it with third parties and so on ad infinitum — and Google takes no responsibility for what any of these third parties might do with your data.

You can decline this data collection and third party sharing, but if you do, Google will no longer support the functionality of the thermostat; it will no longer update your software and may affect the functionality of other linked devices such as smoke detectors.

Two scholars who analyzed the Google Nest thermostat contract concluded that a consumer who is even a little bit vigilant about how their consumption data is being used would have to review 1,000 privacy contracts before installing a single thermostat in their home.

Modern cars are also being equipped with multiple cameras that feed Big Data. As noted in the film, the average new car has 15 cameras, and if you have access to the data of a mere 1% of all cars, you have “knowledge of everything happening in the world.”

Of course, those cameras are sold to you as being integral to novel safety features, but you’re paying for this added safety with your privacy, and the privacy of everyone around you.

Pandemic Measures Are Rapidly Eroding Privacy

The current coronavirus pandemic is also using “safety” as a means to dismantle personal privacy. As reported by The New York Times, March 23, 2020:5

“In South Korea, government agencies are harnessing surveillance-camera footage, smartphone location data and credit card purchase records to help trace the recent movements of coronavirus patients and establish virus transmission chains.

In Lombardy, Italy, the authorities are analyzing location data transmitted by citizens’ mobile phones to determine how many people are obeying a government lockdown order and the typical distances they move every day. About 40 percent are moving around “too much,” an official recently said.

In Israel, the country’s internal security agency is poised to start using a cache of mobile phone location data — originally intended for counterterrorism operations — to try to pinpoint citizens who may have been exposed to the virus.

As countries around the world race to contain the pandemic, many are deploying digital surveillance tools as a means to exert social control, even turning security agency technologies on their own civilians …

Yet ratcheting up surveillance to combat the pandemic now could permanently open the doors to more invasive forms of snooping later. It is a lesson Americans learned after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, civil liberties experts say.

Nearly two decades later, law enforcement agencies have access to higher-powered surveillance systems, like fine-grained location tracking and facial recognition — technologies that may be repurposed to further political agendas …

‘We could so easily end up in a situation where we empower local, state or federal government to take measures in response to this pandemic that fundamentally change the scope of American civil rights,’ said Albert Fox Cahn, the executive director of the Surveillance Technology Oversight Project, a nonprofit organization in Manhattan.”

Humanity at a Cross-Roads

Zuboff also discusses her work on January 24, 2020, op-ed in The New York Times.6,7 “You are now remotely controlled. Surveillance capitalists control the science and the scientists, the secrets and the truth,” she writes, continuing:

“We thought that we search Google, but now we understand that Google searches us. We assumed that we use social media to connect, but we learned that connection is how social media uses us.

We barely questioned why our new TV or mattress had a privacy policy, but we’ve begun to understand that ‘privacy’ policies are actually surveillance policies … Privacy is not private, because the effectiveness of … surveillance and control systems depends upon the pieces of ourselves that we give up — or that are secretly stolen from us.

Our digital century was to have been democracy’s Golden Age. Instead, we enter its third decade marked by a stark new form of social inequality best understood as ‘epistemic inequality’ … extreme asymmetries of knowledge and the power that accrues to such knowledge, as the tech giants seize control of information and learning itself …

Surveillance capitalists exploit the widening inequity of knowledge for the sake of profits. They manipulate the economy, our society and even our lives with impunity, endangering not just individual privacy but democracy itself …

Still, the winds appear to have finally shifted. A fragile new awareness is dawning … Surveillance capitalists are fast because they seek neither genuine consent nor consensus. They rely on psychic numbing and messages of inevitability to conjure the helplessness, resignation and confusion that paralyze their prey.

Democracy is slow, and that’s a good thing. Its pace reflects the tens of millions of conversations that occur … gradually stirring the sleeping giant of democracy to action.

These conversations are occurring now, and there are many indications that lawmakers are ready to join and to lead. This third decade is likely to decide our fate. Will we make the digital future better, or will it make us worse?”8,9

Epistemic Inequality

Epistemic inequality refers to inequality in what you’re able to learn. “It is defined as unequal access to learning imposed by private commercial mechanisms of information capture, production, analysis, and sales. It is best exemplified in the fast-growing abyss between what we know and what is known about us,” Zuboff writes in her New York Times op-ed.10

Google, Facebook, Amazon, and Microsoft have spearheaded the surveillance market transformation, placing themselves at the top tier of the epistemic hierarchy. They know everything about you and you know nothing about them. You don’t even know what they know about you.

“They operated in the shadows to amass huge knowledge monopolies by taking without asking, a maneuver that every child recognizes as theft,” Zuboff writes.

“Surveillance capitalism begins by unilaterally staking a claim to private human experience as free raw material for translation into behavioral data. Our lives are rendered as data flows.”

These data flows are about you, but not for you. All of it is used against you — to separate you from your money, or to make you act in a way that is in some way profitable for a company or a political agenda. So, ask yourself, where is your freedom in all of this?

They’re Making You Dance to Their Tune

If a company can cause you to buy the stuff you don’t need by sticking an enticing, personalized ad for something they know will boost your confidence at the exact moment you’re feeling insecure or worthless (a tactic that has been tested and perfected11), are you really acting through free will?

If an artificial intelligence using predictive modeling senses you’re getting hungry (based on a variety of cues such as your location, facial expressions, and verbal expressions) and launches an ad from a local restaurant to you in the very moment you’re deciding to get something to eat, are you really making conscious, self-driven, value-based life choices? As noted by Zuboff in her article:12

“Unequal knowledge about us produces unequal power over us, and so epistemic inequality widens to include the distance between what we can do and what can be done to us. Data scientists describe this as the shift from monitoring to actuation, in which a critical mass of knowledge about a machine system enables the remote control of that system.

Now people have become targets for remote control, as surveillance capitalists discovered that the most predictive data come from intervening in behavior to tune, herd and modify action in the direction of commercial objectives.

This third imperative, ‘economies of action,’ has become an arena of intense experimentation. ‘We are learning how to write the music,’ one scientist said, ‘and then we let the music make them dance’ …

The fact is that in the absence of corporate transparency and democratic oversight, epistemic inequality rules. They know. They decide who knows. They decide who decides. The public’s intolerable knowledge disadvantage is deepened by surveillance capitalists’ perfection of mass communications as gaslighting …

On April 30, 2019 Mark Zuckerberg made a dramatic announcement at the company’s annual developer conference, declaring, ‘The future is private.’ A few weeks later, a Facebook litigator appeared before a federal district judge in California to thwart a user lawsuit over privacy invasion, arguing that the very act of using Facebook negates any reasonable expectation of privacy ‘as a matter of law.'”

We Need a Whole New Regulatory Framework

In the video, Zuboff points out that there are no laws in place to curtail this brand-new type of surveillance capitalism, and the only reason it has been able to flourish over the past 20 years is that there’s been an absence of laws against it, primarily because it has never previously existed.

That’s the problem with epistemic inequality. Google and Facebook were the only ones who knew what they were doing. The surveillance network grew in the shadows, unbeknownst to the public or lawmakers. Had we fought against it for two decades, then we might have had to resign ourselves to defeat, but as it stands, we’ve never even tried to regulate it.

This, Zuboff says, should give us all hope. We can turn this around and take back our privacy, but we need legislation that addresses the actual reality of the entire breadth and depth of the data collection system. It’s not enough to address just the data that we know that we’re giving when we go online. Zuboff writes:13

“These contests of the 21st century demand a framework of epistemic rights enshrined in law and subject to democratic governance. Such rights would interrupt data supply chains by safeguarding the boundaries of human experience before they come under assault from the forces of datafication.

The choice to turn any aspect of one’s life into data must belong to individuals by virtue of their rights in a democratic society. This means, for example, that companies cannot claim the right to your face, or use your face as free raw material for analysis, or own and sell any computational products that derive from your face …

Anything made by humans can be unmade by humans. Surveillance capitalism is young, barely 20 years in the making, but democracy is old, rooted in generations of hope and contest.

Surveillance capitalists are rich and powerful, but they are not invulnerable. They have an Achilles heel: fear. They fear lawmakers who do not fear them. They fear citizens who demand a new road forward as they insist on new answers to old questions: Who will know? Who will decide who knows? Who will decide who decides? Who will write the music, and who will dance?”

How to Protect Your Online Privacy

While there’s no doubt we need a whole new legislative framework to curtail surveillance capitalism, in the meantime, there are ways you can protect your privacy online and limit the “behavioral surplus data” collected about you.

Robert Epstein, the senior research psychologist for the American Institute of Behavioral Research and Technology, recommends taking the following steps to protect your privacy:14

Use a virtual private network (VPN) such as Nord, which is only about $3 per month and can be used on up to six devices. In my view, this is a must if you seek to preserve your privacy. Epstein explains:

“When you use your mobile phone, laptop or desktop in the usual way, your identity is very easy for Google and other companies to see. They can see it via your IP address, but more and more, there are much more sophisticated ways now that they know it’s you. One is called browser fingerprinting.

This is something that is so disturbing. Basically, the kind of browser you have and the way you use your browser is like a fingerprint. You use your browser in a unique way, and just by the way you type, these companies now can instantly identify you.

Brave has some protection against a browser fingerprinting, but you really need to be using a VPN. What a VPN does is it routes whatever you’re doing through some other computer somewhere else. It can be anywhere in the world, and there are hundreds of companies offering VPN services. The one I like the best right now is called Nord VPN.

You download the software, install it, just like you install any software. It’s incredibly easy to use. You do not have to be a techie to use Nord, and it shows you a map of the world and you basically just click on a country.

The VPN basically makes it appear as though your computer is not your computer. It basically creates a kind of fake identity for you, and that’s a good thing. Now, very often I will go through Nord’s computers in the United States. Sometimes you have to do that, or you can’t get certain things done. PayPal doesn’t like you to be in a foreign country for example.”

Nord, when used on your cellphone, will also mask your identity when using apps like Google Maps.

Do not use Gmail, as every email you write is permanently stored. It becomes part of your profile and is used to build digital models of you, which allows them to make predictions about your line of thinking and every want and desire.

Many other older email systems such as AOL and Yahoo are also being used as surveillance platforms in the same way as Gmail. ProtonMail.com, which uses end-to-end encryption, is a great alternative and the basic account is free.

Don’t use Google’s Chrome browser, as everything you do on there is surveilled, including keystrokes and every webpage you’ve ever visited. Brave is a great alternative that takes privacy seriously.

Brave is also faster than Chrome and suppresses ads. It’s based on Chromium, the same software infrastructure that Chrome is based on, so you can easily transfer your extensions, favorites, and bookmarks.

Don’t use Google as your search engine, or any extension of Google, such as Bing or Yahoo, both of which draw search results from Google. The same goes for the iPhone’s personal assistant Siri, which draws all of its answers from Google.

Alternative search engines suggested by Epstein include SwissCows and Qwant. He recommends avoiding StartPage, as it was recently bought by an aggressive online marketing company, which, like Google, depends on surveillance.

Don’t use an Android cellphone, for all the reasons discussed earlier. Epstein uses a BlackBerry, which is more secure than Android phones or the iPhone. BlackBerry’s upcoming model, the Key3, will be one of the most secure cellphones in the world, he says.
Don’t use Google Home devices in your house or apartment — These devices record everything that occurs in your home, both speech and sound such as brushing your teeth and boiling water, even when they appear to be inactive, and send that information back to Google. Android phones are also always listening and recording, as are Google’s home thermostat Nest, and Amazon’s Alexa.
Clear your cache and cookies — As Epstein explains in his article:15

“Companies and hackers of all sorts are constantly installing invasive computer code on your computers and mobile devices, mainly to keep an eye on you but sometimes for more nefarious purposes.

On a mobile device, you can clear out most of this garbage by going to the settings menu of your browser, selecting the ‘privacy and security’ option and then clicking on the icon that clears your cache and cookies.

With most laptop and desktop browsers, holding down three keys simultaneously — CTRL, SHIFT and DEL — takes you directly to the relevant menu; I use this technique multiple times a day without even thinking about it. You can also configure the Brave and Firefox browsers to erase your cache and cookies automatically every time you close your browser.”

Don’t use Fitbit, as it was recently purchased by Google and will provide them with all your physiological information and activity levels, in addition to everything else that Google already has on you.



Google — A Dictator Unlike Anything the World Has Ever Known

By Dr. Joseph Mercola | mercola.com

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • Robert Epstein is a Harvard trained psychologist who has exposed how Google is manipulating public opinion through their search engine so they can change the results of elections and many other important areas
  • His research shows how Google is using new techniques of manipulation that have never existed before in human history. If this weren’t bad enough, these tools are ephemeral and leave no paper trail of their devious behavior
  • According to Epstein’s calculations, Google can shift 15 million votes leading up to the upcoming U.S. presidential 2020 election
  • Because Google has become an everyday tool that’s used for more than 90% of searches worldwide, the company has likely determined the outcomes of 25% of the national elections in the world
  • Search suggestions — shown in a drop-down menu when you begin to type a search term — is another powerful manipulation tool capable of turning a 50/50 split among undecided voters into a 90/10 split, with no one having the slightest idea that they’ve been manipulated

Robert Epstein, who received his Ph.D. in psychology from Harvard in 1981 and served as the former editor in chief at Psychology Today, is now a senior research psychologist for the American Institute of Behavioral Research and Technology, where for the last decade he has helped expose Google’s manipulative and deceptive practices. He explains what got him interested in investigating the internet search monopoly in the first place:

“In 2012, January 1st, I received some emails from Google saying my website contained malware and that they were somehow blocking access. This means I had gotten onto one of Google’s blacklists.

My website did contain some malware. It was pretty easy to get rid of, but it turns out it’s hard to get off of a Google blacklist. That’s a big problem. I started looking at Google just a little bit differently.

I wondered, first of all, why they were notifying me about this rather than some government agency or some nonprofit organization? Why was a private company notifying me?

In other words, who made Google sheriff of the internet? Second, I learned they had no customer service department, which seemed very strange, so if you have a problem with Google, then you have a problem because they don’t help you solve the problem.

I learned also that although you can get onto a blacklist in a split second, it can take weeks to get off a blacklist. There have been businesses that have gotten onto their blacklists and have gone out of business while they’re trying to straighten out the problem.

The thing that really caught my eye — because I’ve been a programmer my whole life — was I couldn’t figure out how they were blocking access to my website, not just through their own products … Google.com, the search engine, or through Chrome, which is their browser, but through Safari, which is an Apple product, through Firefox, which is a browser run by Mozilla, a nonprofit organization.

How was Google blocking access through so many different means? The point is I just started to get more curious about the company, and later in 2012, I happened to be looking at a growing literature, which was about the power of search rankings to impact sales.

This was in the marketing field and it just was astonishing. In other words, if you could push yourself up one more notch in their search results, that could make the difference between success or failure for your company; it could mean a lot more income.

It turns out that this initial research was saying that people really trust those higher ranked search results. I simply asked a question. I wondered whether, if people trust those higher rank search results, I could use search results to influence people’s opinions, maybe even their votes.”

What Epstein discovered through his subsequent research, which began in 2013, is that yes, biased search results can indeed be used to influence public opinion and sway undecided voters. What’s more, the strength of that influence was shocking.

He also eventually discovered how Google is able to block website access on browsers other than their own. His findings were published in 2016 in U.S. News & World Report.1

Google’s Powers Pose Serious Threats to Society

Google’s powers pose three specific threats to society:

1. They’re a surveillance agency with significant yet hidden surveillance powers. As noted by Epstein:

“The search engine … Google Wallet, Google Docs, Google Drive, YouTube, these are surveillance platforms. In other words, from their perspective, the value these tools have is they give them more information about you. Surveillance is what they do.”

2. They’re a censoring agency with the ability to restrict or block access to websites across the internet, thus deciding what people can and cannot see. They even have the ability to block access to entire countries and the internet as a whole.

The most crushing problem with this kind of internet censorship is that you don’t know what you don’t know. If a certain type of information is removed from search, and you don’t know it should exist somewhere, you’ll never go looking for it. And, when searching for information online, how would you know that certain websites or pages have been removed from the search results in the first place? The answer is, you don’t.

For example, Google has been investing in DNA repositories for quite a long time, and are adding DNA information to our profiles. According to Epstein, Google has taken over the national DNA repository, but articles about that — which he has cited in his own writings — have all vanished.

3. They have the power to manipulate public opinion through search rankings and other means.

“To me, that’s the scariest area,” Epstein says, “because Google is shaping the opinions, thinking, beliefs, attitudes, purchases and votes of billions of people around the world without anyone knowing that they’re doing so … and perhaps even more shocking, without leaving a paper trail for authorities to trace.

They’re using new techniques of manipulation that have never existed before in human history and they are for the most part, subliminal … but they don’t produce tiny shifts.

They produce enormous shifts in people’s thinking, very rapidly. Some of the techniques I’ve discovered are among the largest behavioral effects ever discovered in the behavioral sciences.”

While surveillance is Google’s primary business, its revenue — which exceeds $130 billion a year — comes almost exclusively from advertising. All that personal information you’ve provided them through their various products is sold to advertisers looking for a specific target audience.

How Google Can Shift Your Perception Without Your Knowledge

Epstein’s controlled, randomized, double-blind, and counterbalanced experiments have revealed a number of different ways in which Google can shift public perception. The first effect he discovered is called SEME, which stands for search engine manipulation effect. For a full description of the basic experiment used to identify this effect, please listen to the interview.

In summary, the aim of his experiment was to see whether search results biased toward a particular political candidate would be capable of shifting users’ political opinions and leanings.

“I had predicted, when we first did this, that we would get a shift,” Epstein says, “because … people do trust higher ranked search results, and of course we had biased the search results so that, if in that first group, someone was clicking on a high-ranking search result, that would connect them to a webpage which made one candidate look much better than the other …

I predicted we could get a shift in voting preferences of 2% to 3%. I was way off. We got … a shift of 48%, which I thought must be an error because that’s crazy …

I should note that in almost all of our experiments, especially those early ones, we deliberately used undecided voters. That’s the key. You can’t easily push the opinions or voting preferences of people who are partisan, who are strongly committed to one party or another, but people who are undecided, those are the people who are very vulnerable. In our experiments, we always find a way to use undecided voters.

In these early experiments, the way we guaranteed that our voters were undecided was by using people from the U.S. as our participants, but the election we chose was the 2010 election for the prime minister of Australia.

They’re real candidates, a real election, real search results, real webpages, and of course, because our participants were from the U.S. they were not familiar with the candidates.

In fact, that’s why, before they do the search, we get this almost perfect 50/50 split regarding who they’re going to vote for, because they don’t know these candidates. The information they’re getting from the search, that, presumably, is why we get a shift.”

Simple Trick Effectively Masks Search Bias

Another thing Epstein noticed was that very few seemed to realize they were seeing biased search results. In other words, the manipulation went virtually undetected.

In a second experiment, they were able to achieve a 63% shift in voter preference, and by masking the bias — simply by inserting a pro-opponent result here and there — they were able to hide the bias from almost everyone.

“In other words, we could get enormous shifts in opinions and voting preferences with no one being able to detect the bias in the search results we were showing them,” Epstein says. “This is where, again, it starts to get scary. Scarier still is when we moved on to do a national study of more than 2,000 people in all 50 states.”

What this large-scale investigation revealed is that the few who actually notice the bias are not protected from its effects. Curiously, they actually shift even further toward the bias, rather than away from it.

As evidenced by other studies, the pattern of clicks is a key factor that makes search bias so powerful: 50% of all search selections go to the top two items and 95% of all clicks go to the first page of search results.

“In other words, people spend most of their time clicking on and reading content that comes from high-ranking search results. If those high-ranking search results favor one candidate, that’s pretty much all they see and that impacts their opinions and their voting preferences,” Epstein says.

Subsequent experiments revealed that this click pattern is the result of conditioning. Most of the things people search for are simple matters such as local weather or the capital of a country. The most appropriate and correct answer is always at the very top. This conditions them to assume that the best and truest answer is always the most high-ranked listing.

Google May Have Shifted Millions of Votes in 2016 Elections

The ramifications of the search engine manipulation effect can be immense. Of course, having the power to shift public opinion is one thing; actually using that power is another. So, Epstein’s next target was to determine whether Google is using its power of influence or not.

“Early 2016, I set up the first-ever monitoring system, which allowed me to look over the shoulders of people as they were conducting election-related searches on Google, Bing and Yahoo in the months leading up to the 2016 presidential election. I had 95 field agents (as we call them), in 24 states.

We kept their identities secret, which took a lot of work. And this is exactly, by the way, what the Nielsen company does to generate ratings for television shows. They have several thousand families. Their identities are secret. They equip the families with special boxes, which allow Nielsen to tabulate what programs they’re watching …

Inspired by the Nielsen model, we recruited our field agents, we equipped them with custom passive software. In other words, no one could detect the fact that they have the software in their computers. But that software allowed us to look over their shoulders as they conducted election related searches …

We ended up preserving 13,207 election-related searches and the nearly 100,000 webpages to which the search results linked … After the election, we rated the webpages for bias, either pro-Clinton or pro-Trump … and then we did an analysis to see whether there was any bias in the search results people were seeing.

The results we got were crystal clear, highly significant statistically … at the 0.001 level. What that says is we can be confident the bias we were seeing was real, and it didn’t occur because of some random factors. We found a pro-Clinton bias in all 10 search positions on the first page of Google search results, but not on Bing or Yahoo.

That’s very important. So, there was a significant pro-Clinton bias on Google. Because of the experiments I had been doing since 2013, I was also able to calculate how many votes could have been shifted with that level of bias… At bare minimum, about 2.6 million [undecided] votes would have shifted to Hillary Clinton.”

On the high end, Google’s biased search results may have shifted as many as 10.4 million undecided voters toward Clinton, which is no small feat — all without anyone realizing they’d been influenced, and without leaving a trace for the authorities to follow.

According to Epstein’s calculations, tech companies, Google being the main one, can shift 15 million votes leading up to the 2020 election, which means they have the potential to select the next president of the United States.

Google Has the Power to Determine 25% of Global Elections

Many who look at Epstein’s work end up focusing on Google’s ability to influence U.S. politics, but the problem is much bigger than that.

“As I explained when I testified before Congress, the reason why I’m speaking out about these issues is because, first of all, I … think it’s important that we preserve democracy and preserve the free and fair election. To me, it’s pretty straight forward.

But the problem is much bigger than elections or democracy or the United States. Because I calculated back in 2015 that … Google’s search engine — because more than 90% of searches worldwide are conducted on Google — was determining the outcomes of upwards of 25% of the national elections in the world.

How can that be? Well, it’s because a lot of elections are very close. And that’s the key to understanding this. In other words, we actually looked at the win margins in national elections around the world, which tend to be very close. In that 2010 Australian election, for example, the win margin was something like 0.2% …

If the results they’re getting on Google are biased toward one candidate, that shifts a lot of votes among undecided people. And it’s very, very simple for them to flip an election or … rig an election … It’s very, very simple for Google to do that.

They can do it deliberately, which is kind of scary. In other words, some top executives at Google could decide who they want to win an election in South Africa or the U.K. or anywhere. It could be just a rogue employee at Google who does it. You may think that’s impossible … [but] it’s incredibly simple …

[A] senior software engineer at Google, Shumeet Baluja, who’s been at Google almost since the very beginning, published a novel that no one’s ever heard of called ‘The Silicon Jungle’ … It’s fictional, but it’s about Google, and the power that individual employees at Google have to make or break any company or any individual.

It’s a fantastic novel. I asked Baluja how Google let him get away with publishing it and he said, ‘Well, they made me promise I would never promote it.’ That’s why no one’s ever heard of this book.”

A Dictator Unlike Anything the World Has Ever Known

Another, and even more frightening possibility, is that Google could allow its biased algorithm to favor one candidate over another without caring about which candidate is being favored.

“That’s the scariest possibility,” Epstein says, “because now you’ve got an algorithm, a computer program, which is an idiot … deciding who rules us. It’s crazy.”

While this sounds like it should be illegal, it’s not, because there are no laws or regulations that restrict or dictate how Google must rank its search results. Courts have actually concluded that Google is simply exercising its right to free speech, even if that means destroying the businesses they demote in their search listings or blacklistings.

The only way to protect ourselves from this kind of hidden influence is by setting up monitoring programs such as Epstein’s all over the world. “As a species, it’s the only way we can protect ourselves from new types of online technologies that can be used to influence us,” he says. “No dictator anywhere has ever had even a tiny fraction of the power that this company has.”

Epstein is also pushing for the government to make the Google search index a public commons, which would allow other companies to create competing for search platforms using Google’s database. While Google’s search engine cannot be broken up, its monopoly would be thwarted by forcing it to hand over its index to other search platform developers.

The Influence of Search Suggestions

In 2016, Epstein also discovered the remarkable influence of search suggestions — the suggested searches shown in a drop-down menu when you begin to type a search term. This effect is now known as the search suggestion effect or SSE. Epstein explains:

“Initially the idea was they were going to save you time. That’s the way they presented this new feature. They were going to anticipate, based on your history, or based on what other people are searching for, what it is you’re looking for so you don’t have to type the whole thing. Just click on one of the suggestions. But then it changed into something else. It changed into a tool for manipulation.

In June 2016, a small news organization … discovered that it was virtually impossible to get negative search suggestions related to Hillary Clinton, but easy to get them for other people including Donald Trump. They were very concerned about this because maybe that could influence people somehow.

So, I tried this myself, and I have a wonderful image that I preserved showing this. I typed in ‘Hillary Clinton is’ on Bing and on Yahoo, and I got those long lists, eight and 10 items, saying, ‘Hillary Clinton is the devil. Hillary Clinton is sick’ … all negative things that people were actually searching for.

How do I know that? Because we checked Google trends. Google trends shows you what people are actually searching for. Sure enough, people were actually searching for all these negative things related to Hillary Clinton. Those [were] the most popular search terms.

So, we tried it on Google and we got, ‘Hillary Clinton is winning, Hillary Clinton is awesome.’ Now you check those phrases on Google trends and you find no one is searching for ‘Hillary Clinton is awesome.’ Nobody. Not one. But that’s what they’re showing you in their search suggestions.

That again got my research gears running. I started doing experiments because I said, ‘Wait a minute, why would they do this? What is the point?’

Here’s what I found in a series of experiments: Just by manipulating search suggestions, I could turn a 50/50 split among undecided voters into a 90/10 split — with no one having the slightest idea that they’ve been manipulated.”

YouTube’s Up Next Algorithm

YouTube, which is owned by Google, also has an enormous influence on public opinion. According to Epstein, 70% of the videos people view on YouTube are suggested by Google’s top-secret Up Next algorithm, which recommends videos for you to view whenever you’re watching a video.

Just like the search suggestions, this is a phenomenally effective ephemeral manipulation tool. There’s no record of the videos recommended by the algorithm, yet it can take you down the proverbial rabbit hole by feeding you one video after another.

“There are documented cases now in which people have been converted to extreme Islam or to white supremacy, literally because they’d been pulled down a rabbit hole by a sequence of videos on YouTube,” Epstein says.

“Think of that power. Again, it’s not powerful for people who already have strong opinions. It’s powerful for the people who don’t, the people who are vulnerable, the people who are undecided or uncommitted. And that’s a lot of people.”

The Creepy Line

Most people now have Amazon Prime. If you are one of those who do, you can watch the following documentary for free on Prime. It is well worth your time to do so. Epstein and many other experts provide a very compelling overview of the dangers that we discuss in our interview. In my view, this is a must-watch and one to recommend to your friends and family.

A question Epstein raises is, “Who gave this private company, which is not accountable to any of us, the ability to determine what billions of people around the world will see or will not see?”

That is perhaps one of the biggest issues. Epstein and others attempt to answer this question in this documentary, “The Creepy Line,” which is a direct quote from Google’s executive chairman Eric Schmidt.

“Traditional media have very serious constraints placed on them, but Google, which is far more penetrating and far more effective at influencing people, has none of these constraints,” Epstein says.

“There are lots of good people in [‘The Creepy Line’], lots of good data, and it explains my research very clearly, which is wonderful. It explains my research better than I explain my research. ‘The Creepy Line’ is available on iTunes and on Amazon. I think it costs $3 or $4 to watch … If you’re an Amazon Prime Member it’s free. It’s an excellent film.”

Google Runs a Total Surveillance State

In his article2 “Seven Simple Steps Toward Online Privacy,” Epstein outlines his recommendations for protecting your privacy while surfing the web, most of which don’t cost anything. You can access the article at MySevenSimpleSteps.com

“My first sentence is ‘I have not received a targeted ad on my computer or mobile phone since 2014.’ Most people are shocked by that because they’re bombarded with targeted ads constantly.

More and more people are telling me that they’re just having a conversation with someone, so they’re not even doing anything online per se, but their phone is nearby — or they’re having a conversation in their home and they have Amazon Alexa or Google Home, these personal assistants — and the next thing they know they start getting targeted ads related to what they were talking about.

This is the surveillance problem … The point is that there are ways to use the internet, tablets and mobile phones, to preserve or protect your privacy, but almost no one does that. So, the fact is that we’re now being surveilled 24/7, generally speaking, with no awareness that we’re even being surveilled.

Maybe some people are aware that when they do searches on Google the search history is preserved forever … But it goes so far beyond that because now we’re being surveilled through personal assistants, so that when we speak, we’re being [surveilled].

It goes even beyond that, because a few years ago Google bought the Nest company, which makes a smart thermostat. After they bought the company, they put microphones into the smart thermostats, and the latest versions of the smart thermostats have microphones and cameras.

Google has been issued patents in recent years, which give them, basically, ownership rights over ways of analyzing sounds that are picked up by microphones in people’s homes.

They can hook you up with dentists, they can hook you up with sex therapists, with mental health services, relationship coaches, et cetera. So, there’s that. Location tracking has also gotten completely out of hand. We’ve learned in recent months that even when you disable location tracking … on your mobile phone, you’re still being tracked.”

This is one of the reasons I strongly recommend that you use a VPN on your cellphone and computer, as this will prevent virtually anyone from tracking and targeting you. There are many out there but I am using the one Epstein recommends, Nord VPN, which is only about $3 per month and you can use it on up to six devices. In my view, this is a must if you seek to preserve your privacy.

How Google Tracks You Even When You’re Offline

You can learn a lot about a person by tracking their movements and whereabouts. Most of us are very naïve about these things. As explained by Epstein, location tracking technology has become incredibly sophisticated and aggressive.

Android cellphones, for example, which is a Google-owned operating system, can track you even when you’re not connected to the internet, whether you have geo-tracking enabled or not.

“It just gets creepier and creepier,” Epstein says. “Let’s say you pull out your SIM card. Let’s say you disconnect from your mobile service provider, so you’re absolutely isolated. You’re not connected to the internet. Guess what? Your phone is still tracking everything you do on that phone and it’s still tracking your location.”

As soon as you reconnect to the internet, all that information stored on your phone is sent to Google. So, even though you may think you’ve just spent the day incognito, the moment you reconnect, every step you’ve made is shared (provided you had your phone with you).

In terms of online tracking, it’s also important to realize that Google is tracking your movements online even if you’re not using their products because most websites use Google Analytics, which tracks everything you do on that website. And, you have no way of knowing whether a website uses Google Analytics or not.

Steps to Protect Your Online Privacy

To protect your privacy, Epstein recommends taking the following steps, seven of which are outlined in “Seven Simple Steps Toward Online Privacy.” The last one, Fitbit, is a more recent concern.

Use a virtual private network (VPN) such as Nord, which is only about $3 per month and can be used on up to six devices. In my view, this is a must if you seek to preserve your privacy. Epstein explains:

“When you use your mobile phone, laptop or desktop in the usual way, your identity is very easy for Google and other companies to see. They can see it via your IP address, but more and more, there are much more sophisticated ways now that they know it’s you. One is called browser fingerprinting.

This is something that is so disturbing. Basically, the kind of browser you have and the way you use your browser is like a fingerprint. You use your browser in a unique way, and just by the way you type, these companies now can instantly identify you.

Brave has some protection against a browser fingerprinting, but you really need to be using a VPN. What a VPN does is it routes whatever you’re doing through some other computer somewhere else. It can be anywhere in the world, and there are hundreds of companies offering VPN services. The one I like the best right now is called Nord VPN.

You download the software, install it, just like you install any software. It’s incredibly easy to use. You do not have to be a techie to use Nord, and it shows you a map of the world and you basically just click on a country.

The VPN basically makes it appear as though your computer is not your computer. It basically creates a kind of fake identity for you, and that’s a good thing. Now, very often I will go through Nord’s computers in the United States. Sometimes you have to do that, or you can’t get certain things done. PayPal doesn’t like you to be in a foreign country for example.”

Nord, when used on your cellphone, will also mask your identity when using apps like Google Maps.

Do not use Gmail, as every email you write is permanently stored. It becomes part of your profile and is used to build digital models of you, which allows them to make predictions about your line of thinking and every want and desire.

Many other older email systems such as AOL and Yahoo are also being used as surveillance platforms in the same way as Gmail. ProtonMail.com, which uses end-to-end encryption, is a great alternative and the basic account is free.

Don’t use Google’s Chrome browser, as everything you do on there is surveilled, including keystrokes and every web page you’ve ever visited. Brave is a great alternative that takes privacy seriously.

Brave is also faster than Chrome and suppresses ads. It’s based on Chromium, the same software infrastructure that Chrome is based on, so you can easily transfer your extensions, favorites, and bookmarks.

Don’t use Google as your search engine, or any extension of Google, such as Bing or Yahoo, both of which draw search results from Google. The same goes for the iPhone’s personal assistant Siri, which draws all of its answers from Google.

Alternative search engines suggested by Epstein include SwissCows and Qwant. He recommends avoiding StartPage, as it was recently bought by an aggressive online marketing company, which, like Google, depends on surveillance.

Don’t use an Android cellphone, for all the reasons discussed earlier. Epstein uses a Blackberry, which is more secure than Android phones or the iPhone. Blackberry’s upcoming model, the Key3, will be one of the most secure cellphones in the world, he says.
Don’t use Google Home devices in your house or apartment. These devices record everything that occurs in your home, both speech and sounds such as brushing your teeth and boiling water, even when they appear to be inactive, and send that information back to Google. Android phones are also always listening and recording, as are Google’s home thermostat Nest, and Amazon’s Alexa.
Clear your cache and cookies. As Epstein explains in his article:3

“Companies and hackers of all sorts are constantly installing invasive computer code on your computers and mobile devices, mainly to keep an eye on you but sometimes for more nefarious purposes.

On a mobile device, you can clear out most of this garbage by going to the settings menu of your browser, selecting the ‘privacy and security’ option and then clicking on the icon that clears your cache and cookies.

With most laptop and desktop browsers, holding down three keys simultaneously — CTRL, SHIFT and DEL — takes you directly to the relevant menu; I use this technique multiple times a day without even thinking about it. You can also configure the Brave and Firefox browsers to erase your cache and cookies automatically every time you close your browser.”

Don’t use Fitbit, as it was recently purchased by Google and will provide them with all your physiological information and activity levels, in addition to everything else that Google already has on you.



What It’s Like to Believe Everything the Media Tells You

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcUAG6t5aN8

Video Source: AwakenWithJP

JP Sears: What would it be like if you stopped thinking for yourself and believed everything the media tells you? Here’s what it might look like to be completely brainwashed by the news.



With David Icke Banned From YouTube Freedom of Speech Is Dying Will You Step Up and Fight For Your Rights?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fdot9l3yi98

Video Source: London Real

Brian Rose of London Real announced that David Icke has been removed from both YouTube and Facebook within a 24 hour period.

Rose: ” if they really do have community policies that they enforce independently then why would they do that within 24 hours?” Could it be that Icke’s messages are too insightful in the way he points out corruption on a massive scale?




After Brainwashing People For Decades, MSM and Governments Are Losing Control of the People

By Mac Slavo | SHTFplan.com

The mainstream media and governments are losing control of people all over the globe.  Humans are finally standing up for their rights to live not as slaves, but as free sovereign people capable of making their own decisions without rulers and elitists calling the shots.

Never before have we seen global tyranny at this scale. But, never before have we seen a mass uprising against governments and their propaganda outlets (the mainstream media) either.  As more and more people get off their knees and stand up for their basic human right to live freely, governments and the elitists that control them lose power. We are at that point where power will return to the people and the elitists will be the ones living in fear. All we have to do is be free.

The mainstream media is going to continue its smear campaign against anyone who dares to believe they have the right to live freely so long as they aren’t harming others and take life’s risk upon themselves. But as fewer people tune in to listen to their propaganda, fewer people will be brainwashed by it. A lot of people have lost everything in the tyrannical liberty-crushing demands put upon them, and now that they have nothing to lose, they are finally realizing their rights don’t come from the government or elitists. And no smear campaign by government lapdogs will stop people from waking up at this point. The media has been enslaving our minds so the government won’t have to enslave our bodies.  But it’s out now and in broad daylight and people have had enough. The veil has been lifted.

People are realizing that we own ourselves. And we are finally standing together to let the “masters” know that we are not their slaves. The quote in the movie, a Bug’s Life can be applied today with a simple change of words.  “It’s not about food. It’s about keeping those ants in line!” We all know at this point, “it’s not about health. It’s about keeping those people in line!”

Take notice of the clips of this movie on YouTube.  The comments have been disabled, not by those posting the videos, but by YouTube.  It’s just another means to keep people “in line.”  They censor us, they brainwash us, and they expect us to obey their commands stay as their slaves. But people have had enough!

Mass civil disobedience, where people are going to cease to obey laws that control them is already happening. Governors who locked people in their homes and barked commands that some close their businesses will lose the power to dictate once enough people disobey, and that day is coming.  This horrific cycle of violence and slavery is ending and it’s panicking those who have had control of us for so long. You can read it in their headlines. “Fear the second wave.” “Anti-government extremists.” “We can’t reopen or people will die.” Well, guess what? You don’t own us. And your fear-mongering is falling on deaf ears.

Free platforms are rising up during the mass censorship and fear-mongering propaganda pushing:

https://youtu.be/E4JA_w6rTPY

Humanity is finally moving in the right direction.  The last step is to just live.  Protesting is begging the master to let you be free.  Just live free. Don’t ask permission. Conduct your life as the free, sovereign human being you were born as, and let the ruling class panic. If you don’t buy their fear, they cannot control you. The fact that humans are finally realizing they had this power all along is incredible. Live your life your way! That’s the biggest middle finger we can give to any tyrant, whether it be a cop, a governor, a politician, an elitist, or anyone else who wants our compliance and enslavement.

Freedom is not negotiable and rights are not gifts from governments or others.  We all have the basic human right to be free and live our life the way we see fit.  As more people realize this, our power grows and the mainstream media’s fear campaign fails. After all, if there are no order followers, there are no orders.

It’s about time we all stand together and abolish the last shred of modern-day slavery! I will not sit back and allow anyone to continue life as a slave if I can help it! I might not be able to do much, but I can promote peace, liberty, and the abolishment of all forms of slavery.

Some say the pen is mightier than the sword, maybe that’s true, maybe it’s not.  But I am tired of being told I have to give up my rights to live free for a false sense of security. I will no longer be owned or commanded. This is MY life and I am peacefully choosing to be free.

Copyright Information: Copyright SHTFplan and Mac Slavo. This content may be freely reproduced in full or in part in digital form with full attribution to the author and a link to www.shtfplan.com. Please contact us for permission to reproduce this content in other media formats.




How to Be Intentional About Consuming Coronavirus News

By  Jill Suttie | Greater Good Magazine 

My inbox is flooded with news about the coronavirus outbreak. Every hour, I’m hearing about how many people are infected and dying, how woefully unprepared we are for this pandemic, and how the economy is tanking. It’s enough to make my head explode with panic and dread.

Of course, I want to stay informed, and it’s important to know what I can do to help prevent the spread of the infection. How can I do that without feeling overwhelmed? Is there a better way to consume the news?

It turns out that there is, according to media experts and researchers. Taking in a constant stream of alarming news increases your stress and anxiety—and has long-term consequences for your physical health, too. The key is to balance your media diet with news stories that are more inspiring or offer solutions, and then share them with friends and family. Taking those steps will help instill a sense of hope and personal agency, in yourself and others.

Taking in the constant bad news is unhealthy

Of course, we need to know what’s going on with the coronavirus pandemic in order to make good decisions, like washing our hands regularly and social distancing. Those actions help us fight the spread of the disease. But, as a new paper published in Health Psychology suggests, constantly reading negative, sensationalist news stories can have long-term consequences for our well-being.

Alison Holman and her colleagues at UC Irvine have studied past epidemics and disasters to see how news reporting affects people. They found that those who read or saw more sensationalist, repetitive news stories experienced acute stress and other symptoms similar to a post-traumatic stress disorder, with poorer health up to three years later.

These effects can be even harsher for people in communities that have already suffered a disaster. In one study, Holman and her colleagues found that New Yorkers (who lived through 9/11) following sensationalist news stories about the Boston Marathon bombings had as much stress as people who actually lived in Boston where the bombings took place.

“Media coverage tends toward sensationalism, showing repeated images designed to grab your attention, and repeated exposure to that is not good for our mental health,” says Holman. “This can become a distress cycle, where people have a lot of fears about what the future looks like, and it just gets worse and worse as people continue to pay too much attention to the media.”

Holman also points out how a diet of bad news hurts our ability to make good decisions—especially under circumstances where the future seems uncertain or ambiguous. In the current epidemic, she sees this playing out by people hoarding products like toilet paper or, more seriously, protective masks needed by health care workers. Overblown fears lead people to run to the doctor when they have even mild symptoms of infection, thereby clogging up health care facilities needed for more serious cases.

Luckily, there are ways to get factual information without gorging ourselves on negative news. Holman recommends going to The Centers for Disease Control and the World Health Organization websites for information about the virus that is less alarmist and also non-partisan. Reading the facts about the disease and what we can do to prevent its spread—“maybe once a day,” suggests Holman—is infinitely better for us than scrolling through our newsfeeds on social media every hour.

“Don’t let yourself sit there in front of your computer and constantly look up and refresh your screen to see what’s going on,” says Holman. “Things are changing fast, but we already know what we need to do.”

How our brains process news

Still, it’s hard to pull our attention away from fear-inducing news; our minds fight us. As John Tierney, co-author of The Power of Badexplains, our brains have a negativity bias that’s designed to root out danger so that we can stay safe. We can’t help but be hijacked by bad news stories, and news sources want to capitalize on that by publishing the most sensational stories designed to invoke fear.

As an example, he points to the many articles and websites monitoring death rates from COVID-19 and speculating on how bad it could get without having all of the facts—like how many real cases there are in a community, including people exposed to the virus without showing symptoms. Following this barrage of misinformation might incite fear rather than rational responses to the pandemic, Tierney says.

Media researcher Karen McIntyre of Virginia Commonwealth University also warns us that negative news can lead us to be less kind and helpful toward others, right at the time we need to come together the most. While research suggests that experiencing positive emotions can make us better friends and neighbors, consuming a lot of negative news leads people to be “less tolerant of others, engage in more antisocial behavior, trust people less, and criticize the media more,” she says. “All of these general, negative effects of negative news are just exacerbated during a time like this when we’re seeing even more negative news.”

Sensationalist news is pretty hard to avoid, though—especially if you are tuned into social media. Social media has its upsides, of course, allowing us to check in with people we can’t see in person due to social isolation. But it can also be a firehose of bad news, where stories about the pandemic—whether accurate or not—are shared over and over again, perpetuating fear, anger, and hopelessness.

As a media expert, Jeff Hancock of Stanford University warns, “Getting your news from news outlets in social media is problematic because we’re still having a hard time distinguishing between reputable sources online and non-reputable ones.”

To avoid being taken for an emotional ride by these “highly emotional, clickbait, misinformation-type stories,” he suggests avoiding them altogether and reading only news stories written by reputable journalists or looking to science experts to provide accurate information about the pandemic—like this site from John Hopkins University.

We also need to be careful about how a constant diet of negative news might affect our rational response to the pandemic. Cognitive biases impact how we process the news, too, according to McIntyre. For example, our brain’s confirmation bias drives us to seek out only information that’s aligned with what we already believe and to discredit the rest; the anchoring bias means we rely heavily on the first piece of information we hear and ignore what comes after. Biases like these can prevent us from learning from the ever-changing news around the pandemic, hurting our chances to fight it effectively.

The optimism bias—thinking bad things are less likely to happen to us than to other people—is a problem, too, says McIntyre. If you think you’re unlikely to get COVID-19, you may be less inclined to take the necessary precautions to prevent it from spreading. So, we need to be careful about how these biases make us pay attention to certain types of news and ignore others.

“Being aware of these biases can help you prevent yourself from falling prey to them,” she says.

Why share uplifting, solution-based news

What can we do instead? We can be more selective about our media consumption and use it to promote more kindness, connection, and inspiration.

If you are going to use social media, Hancock suggests using it to see how the people you care about are doing, how you can keep calm, or how to help others in need—especially your nearby neighbors and communities.

“Media can show us what people are doing so that we might feel like it’s not just us—not just be—stuck at home,” he says. “If I can see what other people are doing, it can make us feel like we’re all in the same boat, and I think that can be really powerful.”

While fear leaves people feeling helpless and exhausted, seeing that “we’re in it together” helps ease the emotional burden we feel and encourages more agency—the sense that we can do something constructive to fight the pandemic. You can encourage more coming together, McIntyre suggests, by reading what’s called “solutions-based journalism”—stories that go into depth around a problem, but also let you know what’s being done to solve the problem effectively.

“When you see what’s working—that the news isn’t all bad, and there are a lot of things that the world is doing well right now—that helps ease the helplessness and hopelessness you may be feeling,” she says. And it can lead to more altruism, too, because “reading a news story about how somebody is doing something to help inspires you to want to do something to help, too.”

Where can people go to get this kind of news? McIntyre suggests the Solutions Journalism Network, where you can find a large database of solution-focused news stories—including stories related to the virus. She also mentions that several newspapers, including the New York Times and the Guardian, have sections that focus on uplifting news stories, which can help us break up our diet of bad news.

Though most newspapers operate on the assumption that “if it bleeds, it leads,” it may surprise you to know that positive, in-depth reporting engages readers more than sensationalist stories, says McIntyre. Research shows that people share uplifting stories more, and they keep their eyes on the page longer when they read solution-based stories—all the more reason for news outlets to provide more positive and in-depth coverage and for all of us to share it.

“It’s important that we do try to read the news thoroughly and listen to all the facts,” says McIntyre. “Making sure that you’re checking your sources, that you’re going to reliable sources to get information, and that you get a mix of sources, incorporating some constructive news into your mix—all of these things help.”

Staying informed without alarming yourself is not just important for you, but for everyone. If we can all do our part to put ourselves on what Tierney calls a “low bad news” diet, no doubt we will get through this pandemic together better and help preserve our own mental health in the process.

About the Author
{author}

Jill Suttie

Jill Suttie, Psy.D., is Greater Good’s book review editor and a frequent contributor to the magazine.




The 3rd Annual REAL Fake News Awards!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5TwiB3oNng4

Video Source: corbettreport

From the palatial Corbett Report studios in western Japan, it’s time for The 3rd Annual REAL Fake News Awards. Which media organization will take home the most Dinos for their dishonest reporting? Who will bear the shame of the biggest fake news story of the year? Find out in this year’s exciting gala broadcast with James Corbett!