One of the most valuable lessons I ever learned about how the world really works, was in 2019, when I read an article in the Daily Mail, entitled: 'Research scientist, 28, reveals her horror at discovering she had NO childhood jabs because her mother was an anti-vaxxer'. Apart from the fact that the title self-evidently confirms being an "anti-vaxxer mother" can't be that bad (since the author is still alive and well to express her horror 28 years later), this article contained a very revealing anomaly: the author claimed her mother had denied her a teenage vaccine she herself wanted - when the vaccine in question wasn't actually yet on the market.
Realising the implications of this, I wrote a letter to the editor of the Daily Mail as follows:
I read an article in your online newspaper today entitled 'Research scientist, 28, reveals her horror at discovering she had NO childhood jabs because her mother was an anti-vaxxer', link below:
I note that the author, Sasha Walton, claims to have been offered the HPV vaccine aged 13. She states that she was born in 1991, so would have been 13 in 2004. But the HPV vaccine was not introduced to the UK market until 2008.
Walton goes on to state that she wanted to receive the HPV vaccine, but her mother withheld consent, so she did not receive it. However, consent for vaccines for 13-year-olds does not reside with the parent, but with the child, due to the Gillick Competency ruling. Had Walton indicated she wished to receive this vaccine, then she would have received it, regardless of the wishes of her mother. In rare cases, a child may not be considered Gillick Competent (there would have to be a very compelling reason for this), but given Walton was actually 17 when the vaccine came out, and not 13, then she would have been in charge of her own medical decisions anyway.
Given these facts, it is clear Walton has included false information in her article for your newspaper, and intentionally misinformed and misled readers. It is your responsibility as a national publication to confirm the credibility of your journalists, and to fact-check the information they give you. As Ms. Walton has wilfully deceived her audience regarding the HPV vaccine, I am forced to doubt the veracity of her entire account, and I would also like to question the motivations behind it. Clearly there is a purpose in her promulgating false information about vaccines, and I - and no doubt many of your other readers - would like to know what it is.
The Daily Mail did not reply, but they didn't need to - as I was able to answer my own question the following day, by looking up Sasha Walton on LinkedIn, and discovering the true nature of her employment. So, the next day I wrote to Ashfield Medical PR as follows:
To Whom It May Concern,
It may be of interest to you to know that I sent the attached letter to the Daily Mail yesterday, regarding your employee Sasha Walton's article for them on vaccines.
It is of interest to me to learn that she is not in fact a 'research scientist' as billed in the Daily Mail, but actually a writer for a pharmaceutical PR company. I am sure many readers of the Daily Mail would have found it most useful indeed to have been furnished with this information before reading her piece.
Ashfield Medial did reply, to confirm Sasha Walton was indeed a writer for them, and that they would 'investigate'. I never heard from them again, but I fear poor Ms. Walton's career as a pharmaceutical shill may have been abruptly cut short, for failing to do such basic sums that even a crazed conspiraquack who failed Maths GCSE (such as myself) can do them.
This episode was extremely revealing, because it showed me with irrefutable clarity what the mainstream media really is - it's one giant PR exercise to propagandise the public and to therefore elicit thoughts and behaviour in them that the ruling classes deem desirable. Many media companies outright offer this service to wealthy clients.
The SWNS Media Group, for instance, umbrellas a number of news organisations and services, one of which is ‘Inside Media’, a subdivision of the group that offers “targeted campaigns”. These are described on SWNS’ website as “campaigns in a number of sectors to build and sometimes protect the reputations of those we work with”.
A “targeted campaign” is another word for PR, and pharmaceutical companies make an enormous amount of use out of “targeted campaigns”, using, as SWNS describes, “the support of dozens of editors, journalists, writers, photographers and videographers across locations throughout the UK” in order to achieve “the impact intended for those we support”. In plain English, a “targeted campaign” is brand management and strategic communication. It’s propaganda. And more or less everything we read in the mainstream media is part of a targeted campaign, orchestrated and bankrolled by wealthy elites who are heavily invested in manicuring the minds of the public.
When the ruling elites desire a social change, they utilise their PR vehicles to induce it, via emotive pieces in the newspapers, certain storylines in soap operas, and "case studies" in magazines (ask any seasoned journalist: these are almost always completely made up).
I found more confirming evidence for this when I read the book 'Subverted', by a former staff writer for Cosmopolitan magazine. She wrote for the magazine in the 1960s, and explained that Cosmo journalists were given explicit instructions from the "higher-ups" to write case-studies about "strong, independent young women" who weren't interested in marriage or settling down, but were instead having casual flings with rich, older men, to help them advance their careers.
These case studies, and the women they featured, were totally fictional. But when young women read them, and thought this was what other, cool, successful young women were doing, they began to mimic them. So heralded the mainstreaming of the sexual revolution.
That is what I mean by the title of this piece, "modern life isn't real" - it largely isn't, if we take 'real' to mean natural and organic and created by people of their own free will. Rather, dominant social movements, thoughts, and behaviours, are expertly manipulated and stage-managed into being by the ruling classes, via various media vehicles. People who follow mainstream social trends, from the swinging sixties and all that that implied, to today's masks and monkey-mania, think they're acting of their own free will, when they are not. They are instead puppets of the marionette media, and of the very small number of powerful individuals and families who ultimately own all media vehicles (more on that later) - and therefore the national consciousness.
This is why one of the most critical skills for navigating modern life successfully is learning how to properly "read" the media, without being brainwashed by it, and this is not easy to do, because the media is manned by propaganda and PR geniuses with many decades top level experience. Very few of us are completely immune to their tricks.
These people descend from dynasties that have intrinsically studied human psychology for centuries, and they - in many ways - know us better than we know ourselves. They know how our emotions work. They know how to appeal to us, how to anger us, how to frighten us, how to divide us - whatever their desired impact is at the time - which is why I repeatedly say, about any media campaign, you must ALWAYS ask, "why this, why now?". Because there's always a wider agenda-based reason, and nothing ever appears in the media without an ulterior motive. And when I say "media", I mean: all mainstream newspapers, all TV channels, all streaming services such as Netflix, and all prominent advertising campaigns, especially ones on public transport (tubes, buses, bus-stops).
These are all part of the dark magic spell being cast by the malevolent (yet intellectually brilliant) wizards who use their powers to conjure up the illusion of "modern life" and control people's thoughts and behaviours, therefore causing these people to unknowingly conspire in co-creating a false reality.
If you want an encounter with "real life", go out into the woods and fields and observe life naturally unfolding with no interference from the media. Sunrise and sunset are real, the natural life cycle of flora and fauna is real, sun and rain are real - but modern culture is an illusion created and maintained by the media, and whenever we take anything the media says at face value, rather than analysing it from the, "why this, why now?" perspective, we are inadvertently co-conspiring in the maintenance of the false reality.
We all do it at times, because we are all human and all have our weak spots and blind spots, so while we may be able to be cynical about certain issues, others feel too personal, and so our objectivity and detachment can be lost. For instance, when I wrote about the media weaponising domestic violence by using it to drive a wedge between the sexes, I got a flurry of outraged responses from people saying, "but domestic violence is a real problem! It exists" The media didn't make it up!"
No, of course they didn't, but the point is, they are using it. Weaponising it to achieve a nefarious goal. They are not reporting on it because they've suddenly decided they care about domestic violence victims and genuinely want to support them, they're using an issue they know emotively resonates with people in order to manipulate them. Whenever the ruling classes use the media for anything, there's always two reasons for it: one, the reason given to the public to make it palatable ("we really care about women's safety and male violence must be stopped!"), and two, the real reason ("we want ultimate divide and rule so we want to turn all women against all men by making out all men to be evil, dangerous brutes").
The anti-male propaganda currently is everywhere, but it's not always as overt as it was with e.g., the case of Sarah Everard (where the media intentionally created national fear-based fury and the idea that "no woman is safe to walk the streets alone", when in fact, what happened to Everard - being randomly murdered by a complete stranger - is so vanishingly rare, you're pretty much more likely to win the lottery whilst being struck by lightning). It's more subtly laced through all media vehicles, including Netflix, where storylines of helpless women being oppressed by evil men have become endemic.
I watched a film on Netflix the other day, called 'Windfall'. The storyline is, a down-on-his-luck robber attempts to burgle the house of a tech billionaire (clearly modelled on Elon Musk), but the tech billionaire unexpectedly shows up, along with his 'trophy wife', so the robber takes them both hostage until the billionaire arranges a drop-off of a wad of cash to facilitate the robber embarking on a new life.
In the hours that follow whilst they wait for the cash, we learn that the billionaire's wife didn't really want to marry him and nearly left him at the altar, whilst he is very keen to try for a baby, but she is secretly taking birth control pills.
The physicality of the actors is very interesting, with the wife a tiny, diminutive, bird-like creature, whilst the billionaire - the "capitalist pig" - actually does resemble a pig, with his fat face and upturned nose, whilst the robber is extremely tall, dwarfing the wife. None of this is accidental, of course, and is supposed to be a physical representation of the psychological oppression the wife is facing - that she is being held hostage not just by the robber, but by her husband, as well.
The film repeatedly focuses on her feet - we see her looking down at them, but they do not move, the implication being, she cannot move forward.
The film concludes by the wife shooting both the robber and the husband, and walking off - finally able to propel herself in a forward direction - with the cash.
I mean, what kind of message is that: if she was unhappy in her marriage, she could just, you know, leave, she doesn't really need to commit a double-homicide - but "divorce" doesn't pack such a powerful message as "death" - the message is, she is so horrifically, despicably oppressed by men (literally unable to move forward whilst oppressed by men), that nothing less than terminating them permanently will do. The only good man, suggests the film, is a dead man.
So, when we read about cases in the paper like Sarah Everard, whilst watching films like Windfall (and these are only a small example of the anti-male propaganda the culture is increasingly saturated with), then it profoundly impacts our mind and our cultural perceptions - unless we are acutely aware that this is happening and what the media is (incessantly) trying to do.
So I will repeat my militant media mantra. Never take ANYTHING the media produces at face value (the media consisting of all mainstream promotional vehicles as listed earlier). Always ask, "why this, why now?". This is especially important when it is an issue that resonates with you personally, as we are all naturally at risk of losing perspective when our personal feelings are involved. If something "triggers" you - produces a strong emotional response because you've had personal experience with it- be very aware of that and that this may therefore be an issue on which the media is better able to manipulate you than on other issues. We all have these areas of vulnerability, so we must be eternally vigilant (that, of course, being the price of freedom). This is also so when the media promotes a cause or agenda we agree with. Again, this can cause us to lose perspective, so pleased are we to have our own biases confirmed. It's natural to want to see your own preferences and biases reflected (that's why people choose certain newspapers over others) - but in order to prevent ourselves being manipulated, we must be constantly aware that, when our biases are confirmed, our barriers are down. We are more vulnerable, and therefore more malleable, than when confronting something we disagree with.
It's easy to be cynical about something you disagree with or have no personal experience with. It's very much harder when the issue pulls at your own heart strings, or has a strong emotional resonance with you, so it is in these cases that you must be extra-vigilant. For example, the media now appears to be coordinating an ever-increasing backlash against "liberal extremism" such as the trans agenda and excessively libertine sexual attitudes (cf. Matt Walsh's "What Is A Woman?", Louise Perry's "The Case Against The Sexual Revolution").
A lot of people are all for this backlash, and for perfectly good reason.
But that doesn't change the central fact that the media never engages in any coordinated campaigning unless there is an ultimately agenda-based nefarious reason behind it, e.g., that this serves the ruling classes in some way and is designed to elicit a response that from the masses that they want.
So: you may agree with the backlash against liberal extremism (I do too). Which makes it more important than ever to ask, why this, why now? (I've elaborated on my answer to that question here).
There's always a reason. It's never ultimately a good or benevolent one. It's always carefully crafted to serve the ruling classes, by way of misleading and manipulating the masses.
The ruling classes are past masters at this, and if you'd like some further historical context to how and why they've achieved this, I can't recommend highly enough the 'Century Of The Self' documentary series, which comes in four parts (with the second tellingly titled "The Engineering of Consent"). This series explains in extremely illuminating (to coin a word) detail how modern media, propaganda, and PR evolved - and why they are so successful. The father of modern PR is widely regarded as being Edward Bernays. Named as one of the 100 most influential Americans in the 20th century by Life magazine, Bernays pioneered all modern PR and propaganda methods, by harnessing the psychological theories of his uncle, Sigmund Freud. This enabled a great leap in advertising strategies - rather than companies simply advertising directly, in terms of saying "you need an oven. We sell great ovens. Buy our ovens", Bernays realised companies - and messages - would elicit a far more powerful response if they targeted people's most primal needs, such as for belongingness, status, and love.
So instead of an oven simply advertising itself as being a good oven, Bernays advocated advertising campaigns that would instead focus around a happy family sitting down for a delicious meal, focusing on kindly maternal figures, twinkly-eyed fathers, adorable children, and picture-perfect dinner spreads.
So now, you're not just buying an oven. You're buying the photogenic family, the picture-perfect spread, the happiness and the belongingness and the love.
All PR, advertising, and propaganda since has adopted this method - of harnessing and manipulating the most primal and powerful human needs, in order to manipulate feelings and behaviour - and it's all derived from the teachings of the world's most famous psychological expert, Sigmund Freud, channelled through his nephew, Edward Bernays.
The power and influence of the Freud-Bernays dynasty over modern life and modern cultural perceptions cannot be underestimated, as consider this - the co-founder of propaganda giant, Netflix, is none other than Marc Bernays Randolph - the great-nephew of Edward Bernays.
The corollary of this is that the thoughts and opinions of millions - indeed, billions - of people are not their own: rather, they originated in the calculating consciousness of the Freud-Bernays dynasty.
We are all influenced by the titanic might of their legacy - namely, the media, in all its many guises. It's unavoidable. However, by being aware of how the marionette media really works, we can avoid having our strings pulled too often.
Are your thoughts your own? Are you sure? It's a question we must all ask ourselves repeatedly, to ensure we constantly remain in contact with real life, and not the media-created facsimile of it.