The propaganda war against YOU

Questioning Jesus at his trial, Pontius Pilate said 'What is truth?' after which he said to the Jews, 'I find in him no fault at all.' The scene is a court of law. The accused was being tried, and if found guilty sentenced to death – death on the cross. But the defence attorney is desperately asking, ‘What is truth?' He wanted to get to the heart of the accusations levelled at Jesus. He saw 'truth' as concrete, unbiased, unemotional, evidenced-based fact but in our society today truth has become ever more elusive. This is particularly evident with Covid-19: most scientists, medics, politicians, media and the populace can no longer recognise truth and differentiate it from dogma, opinion, desire and blatant lies. Pilate did not appear to discover the truth; neither did the religious leaders or the people. They simply wanted to do away with Jesus: that was front and centre of their collective mind so to them, the truth did not matter. The truth was the first casualty in Jesus’ trial.

These past two years have turned the world upside-down. What we used to rely on and instinctively take for granted, we no longer can. The reality under our feet has been taken away. It’s now hard to find the truth in so many aspects of life. Many of us had grown up championing the persistence and impartiality of journalists. John Pilger exposed the horrors of the Pol Pot regime in Cambodia between 1975 and 1979, single-handedly bringing the genocide of between 1.5 and 2 million people to the world’s attention.

Cracks appeared when the media covered global warming and, more recently, climate change. They appeared to take every opportunity to pick up on the latest catastrophic weather event and describe it as further evidence of climate change. For those who have studied geography and meteorology, one of the key criteria for defining a climatic type is the average weather in a particular area over 25 years. So, for the media to be telling Australians that bushfires are an example of climate change is not the truth, but their own narrative. To make matters worse they began to mock and ridicule anyone who suggested an alternative narrative, saying they were 'denying the science' – a key phrase to silence debate. It's true that the burning of fossil fuels generates carbon dioxide that retains heat in the atmosphere but they neglect to mention sunspot activity, which usually has an 11-year cycle during which the sun becomes hotter and then cooler. Then there are the El Niño and La Niña climate patterns in the Pacific Ocean that affect weather worldwide, typically with a cycle of three to seven years. Eastern Australia is currently experiencing the effects of La Niña: cooler and much wetter-than-normal conditions. El Niño brings much hotter and dryer weather, which in turn increases the likelihood of bushfires. They're not caused by the greenhouse effect at all.

Most people have questions about Covid-19. Many know in their hearts that what they're being told about the virus – and the way that authorities have managed it – falls short of what can be called good science, fact and truth. Let's separate fact from fiction by looking at a few undisputed observations:

• The virus is deadly for only a very small part of the population and usually for those with co-morbidities;

• The number of deaths is much higher in Western nations than in Africa, where the vaccination rate is the lowest in the world;

• Some people who have had the experimental gene therapy have died of adverse reactions, some will have ongoing health issues for the rest of their lives, while some still catch the virus;

• School children and infants are the least affected age group, yet governments around the world are encouraging them to be vaccinated;

• Last autumn mainstream media blasted the government for perceived incompetence in purchasing the “vaccines” and reporting adverse reactions to them, while we now never hear about adverse reactions but have wall-to-wall coverage of government narratives to boost vaccine rates;

• Western governments have banned the use of some widely-available medications (such as Ivermectin) in favour of pushing their single narrative of mass vaccinations.

We are aware of these observations and more, but we don’t sit down and formulate hypotheses ourselves. We are much more likely to leave this to the 'experts', but these experts have authority over us. This is important to understand: they are not unbiased scientists. This authority has been evidenced by the restrictions of our civil liberties (particularly our mobility in 2020 and additionally in 2021) and the requirement for the injection of experimental biological agents. The authorities have had near complete compliance with their rules but only because we have not questioned the evidence behind their rules. We have abdicated all responsibility for our health and safety to the government. We have justified this on the basis that the threat is so great, we must all be in this together and sacrifice our individual freedoms for the sake of the common good. But are there alternative strategies that responsible adults can work out for themselves, or discuss with their doctor one-on-one? We have all heard and seen aspects of the Covid-19 narrative that don’t add up, that don’t have the ring of truth. Most of us appear to have pushed those thoughts aside as the grand narrative we have heard every day for nearly two years has simply crowded out our doubts.

Governments around the world have been manipulating their people to make the decisions that meet their desired policy objectives. That's all well and good as long as you agree with the policies, but what does this say about the truth? Early in 2020 the mass media started to talk about the potential dangers of the virus, so the people were able to unite against a common external threat. This was brilliant for them: they had a captive audience that has hung on their every word for nearly two years, as they have become the government’s voice. They have alternated the 'fear' button with the 'solution' button to achieve their policy objective.

In his book The Gulag Archipelago Alexander Solzhenitsyn discussed the use of hunger strikes by some of the inmates. He explained that as time went by those in authority took less and less notice, until all it achieved was the prisoner’s own death. Summing up these attitudes to hunger strikes, he wrote: “From the authorities’ perspective, the ideal picture is one of prisoners who have no will of their own or the capacity to make their own decisions, and a prison administration that did their thinking and deciding for them. These are the only prisoners who can exist in their new society.” The revolutionary authorities in Russia systematically rounded up anyone who was known to – or had been associated with – someone who had dared to question their authority. The majority of these prisoners were not criminals at all.

The authorities built up a remarkable portfolio of techniques to control their prisoners, particularly at the interrogation stages. They used incessant radio broadcasts repeating their own propaganda so that the prisoners could never hear an alternative view. The same thing happened in civilian society. They managed to instill into the population complete distrust of one another, so people stopped talking to each other as they feared their words might cause someone to be arrested, or they might be arrested themselves. This was their most powerful weapon against the people.

Have you noticed that both major parties and the Greens in every state as well as in federal politics have been in unison for nearly two years? Have you ever wondered why their policies have the full endorsement of nearly every government in the world, all at the same time, with the only opposition coming from people who diligently seek the truth? This is indeed remarkable! We need to question everything, because our leaders have their own agenda. Be wary of those who push a narrative with no tolerance for debate or dissent.