Between the Media and the Truth

Watching the gap

In 2017 I was asked who I was going to vote for in the UK General election. I said nobody.

Why? Because until politicians address the events of 9/11 I know they are wittingly or unwittingly controlled and are not acting in my interests. I was met with scoffs.

The 9/11 litmus test has now had added to it the scamdemic test. Any news media that fails to truthfully and accurately address these seismic issues is not informing us. They are fundamentally unreliable. Deliberately deceitful. Misleading. Complicit. They are party to horrific crimes. They work to an agenda that is kept hidden.

In 2020 as I began my self-conscious forays into making videos to communicate with a captive locked up audience, I warned of what was happening with the unfolding plandemic. Unsure of how far I could push the credulity of my viewers I hinted at the fact that I did not believe Boris Johnson was ill in hospital. Previously, I had received harsh criticism for stating my thoughts too plainly in response to events such as the Orlando Pulse nightclub shooting, the London Bridge terrorist attacks that preceded the General Elections of 2017 and 2019, and the alleged racist murder of MP Jo Cox days before what was portrayed and perceived by many, as being the 'racist' Brexit referendum vote.

The logic I applied was that if it is too early to say a story is false, it's too early to say it's true. Fools rush in. We have been fooled too many times.

If 9/11 has not been accurately reported and instead the crimes have been covered up, why in any number of worlds would we trust anything the media says – particularly with regards to totalitarian agenda-serving events?

The disgusting, murderous, covid lies only serve to underline this point. None of what happened from 2020 onwards would have been possible if people had applied the logic described above. Our default has to be disbelief -that the media is lying to us until proven otherwise. They tried to kill us.

Nothing appears in the media unless it serves the agenda. Nothing.

If this attitude to the media seems extreme, we must ask ourselves how many anti-lockdown or anti-vaccine, songs, films, or soap opera storylines, have been delivered by the state media complex? How many truthful, balanced reports on the vaccine harms? The programming relentlessly follows the opposite course.

As with the scamdemic, the respectable, credentialled people who questioned 9/11 and were smeared, sacked, and silenced, are too many too mention. Mostly there was media silence. The only mentions of 9/11 Truth were those which were necessary to dismiss and diminish it, to release the pressure of growing questions and awareness. On such occasions Professors David Ray Griffin and Steven Jones were ridiculed and berated on television by Tucker Carlson.

Carlson is now, in some gullible quarters, held up as a bastion of journalistic integrity as he belatedly pays lip service to questioning 9/11, the truth of which he helped to suppress. As he continues to prevaricate about the nature of the attacks, additions are made to the millions of people killed, injured, and displaced by the resulting and ongoing wars, and by the consequential chickens that came home to roost during the lockdown and injecticide. Bizarrely, people continue to be taken in by Carlson's preppy duplicity.

When media presents a narrative our first question must be what agenda does it serve? In recent times the reported stabbings of children in Southport led to racial tensions and ultimately to a demonisation of those with well founded concerns about the deliberately unchecked immigration that is irrevocably changing the culture and demography of the UK (and Europe and the West), to everybody's detriment.

The Southport event was followed by the arrest of amplified social media commentator and erstwhile mask-seller, Bernie Spofforth, for incorrectly naming a suspect based on spurious information. She wrote,

“Ali Al-Shakati was the suspect, he was an asylum seeker who came to the UK by boat last year and was on an MI6 watch list. If this is true, then all hell is about to break loose.’”

The same day a Conservative Councillor's wife, Lucy Connolly, tweeted inflammatorily, “Mass deportation now, set fire to all the fucking hotels full of the bastards for all I care."

The day after Connolly’s arrest Labour councillor, Ricky Jones, was held in custody after being filmed apparently encouraging violence towards reported far-right protestors. "Jones is alleged to have shouted into a microphone: 'We need to cut their throats and get rid of them' whilst making a throat cutting gesture."

At the very least these people reacted rather too emotionally to media reports. If they had applied the logic described above they would have understood that in response to media amplified stories, circumspection is advisable.

Three people we might expect to have known better all forgot how to behave in public. It might be argued that this reflects the power of the media -and certainly the media has in recent times been responsible for mass behaviour modification. All of their actions encouraged hostility between those in the thrall of the fake left/right paradigm. All three were arrested.

Connolly was sentenced to a disproportionate 31 months in prison. A flattering, smiling picture of her circulated in the media. The message these arrests sent was, ‘wow, you can’t speak your mind online or you'll end up in jail.’

This turn of events was convenient for a government whose multi-pronged agenda is being continually undermined by the dissemination of information and criticism on line, to the extent that it employs any number of techniques to intimidate, censor, suppress, and disrupt online discourse.

In a further coincidence Lucy Connolly's husband happened to be one of the first to be hospitalised with covid in the UK. Along with Boris Johnson, Matt Hancock, the then Prince Charles, and actors Idris Elba and Tom Hanks, Ray Connolly was one of the likely lads who first succumbed to the fake plague. It is notable that later, a number of actors contracted the media virus at an appropriate time for their demographic during the age stratified roll-out of the death shots.

The Connollys had also featured in the news in 2011 when their 19 month old son died at the hands of an incompetent muslim asian NHS doctor who was not struck off. This unfortunate family have suffered three national newsworthy crises in recent years, all of which stories could be perceived to generate fear and division.

Lucy Connolly has recently become the subject of a fundraiser on the questionable platform Democracy 3.0. Online fundraisers are so open to money laundering that their use for such purposes was featured in popular TV crime drama, Breaking Bad. It was through online fundraisers that the families impacted by the reported Sandy Hook shooting received $7.7 million, alleged victims of the Orlando Pulse nightclub shooting received $5 million, those involved with the Manchester Arena bombing received £21 million, and a memorial fundraiser for the George Floyd “lie,” received $13 million. Connolly’s fundraiser is being championed by those with amplified social media platforms in a way that similar cases have not been.

Other long term prisoners have been questionable.

In the pursuit of truth it is necessary to observe rigour. We cannot overstate our case, we cannot assert that which we cannot prove, and we cannot conflate that which is conjecture with that which is confirmed. Those privileges are the preserve of the mendacious media.

Yet often disdain seems to be reserved for those who dare question current emotive storylines, even those who have shown that it was right to do so previously. There are few arenas in which the rewards for competence and incompetence are so inverted.

Maybe this is to be expected in a world where the ‘father of the vaccine,’ is made president and those who coerced people to take dangerous injections are held up as heroes of medical freedom and given the responsibility of preserving people's health.

Despite all the evidence and their own experience, people continue to make no distinction between media presented stories and reality. Media is essentially the state broadcaster, but people feel that is too extreme a label, too suggestive of totalitarianism, despite the BBC for example, literally being funded by the state through extortion, and despite our recent experience of totalitarianism. Softening the language we could say that there is a ‘state media complex,’ but regardless of the terminology the outcome is the same and we are being programmed every time we engage with it.

Any sane, functional society is founded on truth. It is the means by which we encounter the world, how we share our experience of it, and how we survive in it. It is the foundation of bridges and buildings, and of lasting, meaningful relationships. We are in difficulty if we cannot identify this building block of a functional society.

Defined by its opposite, truth is the absence of lies. As such, it is unlikely to issue forth from serial liars. Yet it is possible that it could -and this plausibility is the refuge of the scoundrels who deceive us. In response, in recent years harsh reality has made it incumbent on members of the public to become the media. It has become a matter of life or death. Unfortunately many people have become habituated to listening to the glistening presentations of the news media, and taking perceived authority as truth.

Does an accumulation of coincidences mean that they stop being coincidences? Mathematically, zero multiplied remains zero, but a coincidence is not necessarily of zero evidential value. In life an accumulation of coincidences provokes suspicion and investigation. There are only so many times someone can tap on our shoulder and look away pretending it wasn't them, before we become watchful. When a ruse is that simple, if we fall for it, the joke is on us.

It is time we were more watchful.

Thank you for reading and many thanks to my subscribers.
You can help me to write more frequently by

1. Subscribing monthly here on substack

2. Making a one-off contribution via BuyMeaCoffee

3. Contributing in either way via bank transfer to Santander, account number 00758982, sort code 09-01-36, account name F X ONeill (please use your email address as a reference if you’d like me to acknowledge receipt).

Your support enables me to write these articles and is very much appreciated. Thank you.