Victims or Actors? Part 9

Leading the conversation

Comedian and plandemic propaganda regurgitator Bill Burr has a skit in which he finds humour in opposing the idea that, “there is no reason to hit a woman.” Burr qualifies that he is not saying that anyone should hit a woman but entertains the idea that, like a man, a woman may be capable of behaviour that might provoke someone to want to hit her. In short, nobody should be hitting anyone, but,

“saying there's no reason...kills any sort of examination as to how two people ended up at that place. If you say there's no reason you cut out the build up, you're just left with the act. How are you going to solve it if you don't figure it out?” Enjoying the discomfiture of his audience Burr continues,

“How come you can't ask questions, you can only ask questions about what the guy did, you can never ask about the woman? Why is that?”

Making any group of people or subject above questioning is no way to assess reality or uncover the truth. This applies to apparent victims and grief-stricken relatives. We may accept that it is generally abhorrent to potentially add to their suffering by questioning the veracity of their accounts but this does not mean that there is never a reason to do so. Though we are all presumed innocent until proven guilty, assuming innocence without investigation is no way to uncover or attribute guilt.

Questioning victims has a long and illustrious history. It is exemplified by the Biblical story of Thomas whose doubts served the purpose of verifying Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection. This story demonstrates a natural propensity to question extraordinary events. Why would we not question claims of a woman walking freely after a metal bolt passed through her leg, or a story of a woman dying in a location where she was demonstrably not present, or the story of a suicide bomber who was witnessed fleeing the scene where his dismembered torso was later reported found but then was not? With all these anomalies and more coinciding at the same event, it would be unnatural if questions were not asked.

That it is widely accepted that purported victims can lie is demonstrated by a meme made about Matt Hancock's fake tears at the launch of the roll-out of the fake covid vaccine in 2021. This meme would be incomprehensible if purported victims were always above question.

We have already considered the case of an apparently grieving mother whose incongruous demeanour gave investigators cause to question her account of her murdered children. Similarly, impartial examination of events that serve state agendas requires that we must disregard the dismay it may provoke. Although questioning such events has the potential to distress victims the failure to suitably question alleged terrorist events has harmed many more.

In the context of the documented billions that were spent on paying celebrities, influencers, and media outlets, to peddle the plandemic lies, readers may now accept that the following publicity stories for the fake plague are questionable.

On 20th March 2020, a Doctor Jack who did not say where he worked called LBC radio to reinforce government messaging and advise people to stay at home.

He said going to the pub was "killing people,” and that,"people who may survive it might be 'respiratory crippled' for the rest of their lives…We will be overwhelmed even if everybody goes into their rooms now and doesn't go out again... because this sort of 'respiratory stuff' comes 10 days after the infection that you get."

Dr. Jack called again on 22nd March 2020 to beg the population to stay away from their mothers on Mother's Day. "If you go to see your mother today, we'll be seeing them in two weeks time." LBC reported that, “He couldn't believe the stupidity of some people in ignoring the guidance of the government.”

Those of us who ignored the government's fake health measures will recognise that much of what was broadcast in these segments by LBC was palpable nonsense. We are not respiratory crippled. We did not kill anyone. Our mothers did not die as a result of our visits, nor did they end up in ICU. Instead the compliant suffered these negative effects as a result of lockdowns, related health protocols, and fake vaccines.

Another anonymous alleged doctor phoned James O’Brien on LBC in November 2020 to lament the loss of his father to the fake plague, and the distress he experienced from seeing patients and public disobeying the fake health measures of lockdown. The purpose of the call seemed to be to encourage people to “take it more seriously,” and do as they were told out of, “responsibility to each other.”

On August 6th, 2021, as the roll-out of the fake vaccine and its associated propaganda gathered pace for women of child-bearing age, another caller who said he was a doctor told O’Brien a harrowing tale of an unvaccinated, pregnant patient in ICU.

The caller reported the pregnant lady as saying, "Oh I didn't want the vaccine. I was offered it but I rejected it...and at that point you could see terror and regret in her eyes as we wheeled her down the corridor into intensive care.”

For balance, even by the state's own (fake) figures, between March 2020 and Aug 11th 2021 (the time of the call) only 98 people aged 20-39 died 'with covid' and no pre-existing conditions in the English NHS . Before the roll-out of the fake vaccine this figure was only 46.

On Dec 16th 2021 a caller named John told Nick Ferrari on LBC radio that his step-father had died from the (fake) omicron variant of the (fake) covid at "a hospital in Northampton," but when this was independently queried the NHS replied that, “the NHS system in Northamptonshire has not recorded an Omicron-related death at this time.”

All of these stories seem like judiciously timed propaganda, and they are but examples from one media outlet. LBC was once known as the London Broadcasting Corporation but now that it is a national channel the initials stand for Leading Britain's Conversation. Leading public conversation is indeed the nature and purpose of media mind control.

The stories presented by LBC illustrate the disparity in standards accepted by the public of the corporate media compared with those demanded of the dissident. How would you respond if I provided an unsubstantiated account from a 'Dr Jack,' for whom no details or place of work were supplied? Or from an unnamed doctor about the words of an unnamed patient at an unnamed hospital? Or a claim about a hospital that is refuted by that hospital's records?

Though we cannot prove these calls to be fake they are not proven to be authentic. Alongside this we can observe the absence of balance in such reporting. The prominence and lack of scrutiny given to these calls contrasts with the treatment of real and verifiable doctors and medics who spoke out against the shamdemic.

Dr Sam White and Dr Mohammad Adil were censored and struck off. Dr. David Cartland and pharmacologist Mike Yeadon have been smeared and marginalised. Professor Sucharit Bhakdi is still being prosecuted.

The sympathy afforded the callers also contrasts with LBC's reporting of the enormous marches of 2021 against the lockdown measures. LBC celebrated a call in which the concerns of millions of people were dismissed as,“conspiratorial woo-woo and nonsense,” and in which engagement with the demonstrators’, “crazy ideas,” was discouraged.

If any of these calls were not state propaganda they could not have served the purpose any better.

We have already considered numerous examples of documented fake events that were and are presented as real by media and government. We have also examined examples of actors who were presented as victims to promote the shamdemic and its fake vaccines. We have considered examples of incidental media fakery to dramatise news and weather reports, and we have seen dubious offerings on more serious matters which it is left to our critical faculties to discern. It is important to remember the extent of the slope of the uneven playing field and how, even when proven false, state and media lies are not admitted. We cannot wait for external validation of evidence but must trust our own discernment –a discernment that is more useful than the offerings of proven liars who are impoverishing and poisoning us.

It may have initially come as a shock that people might question the victims of apparent terrorist atrocities but hopefully this series of articles has demonstrated that state lies are so extensive that when examining events that serve state agendas, such questions are asked with good reason.

The public did not generally give credence to the possibility of the state’s ‘big lies,’ in 2020, and they still struggle with the idea of farce flag fakery. This series of essays has been necessary to facilitate the serious consideration of this possibility and to avoid a knee-jerk emotional dismissal. Set piece terror-inducing media events are not questioned flippantly or callously, or out of an excess of cynicism, but from an informed viewpoint.

Where the state has only to claim something is real to be believed, this lengthy preamble of nine parts and many thousands of footnoted words has been necessary in order to make acceptable the discussion of those claims that will follow. It is hoped that this will provoke increased scrutiny of not only historic, but also of current and future, news stories.

Part 10 is here.