... Is, by definition, never headline news.

Perhaps one of the most annoying sentences in the known universe (other than "I've had my 13th covid booster" or anything that comes out of the mouth of James Corden) is this:

"The Madeleine McCann story is a huge cover up!"

The fact that every single person reading this article knows exactly who Madeleine McCann is, because her name has been a headline news staple for the last twenty years, belies the fact that this is not true.

And yes, I know exactly the rejoinder that is going to follow:

"But the truth is being covered up! That her parents did it and blamed a fake abduction!"

Hmm... and that theory is being covered up how? Literally every person who has heard the name Madeleine McCann has heard that theory also. It's one of the most famous and enduring "conspiracy theories" in the world, up there with the moon landings, flat earth, and the idea that Donald Trump has his own hair.

It's important to qualify that, just because the mainstream media hasn't agreed a theory is true, does not equate to the theory being covered up. Indeed, only a few months ago, the mainstream broadcaster Channel 5 aired an extensive "factual" drama called Under Suspicion: Kate McCann, focusing on McCann's 2007 police interrogation where Portuguese police declared her a formal suspect.

So, no, the Madeleine McCann situation is not being "covered up" in any way whatsoever, because, by definition, if a story is being sensationally reported across the mainstream media, then - whatever angle the media is purporting to take on it - it is not being covered up.

On the contrary: to promote any story in the mainstream news is to invite intense speculation, scrutiny, and alternate theories on the matter, including "conspiracy theories".

That's literally the point of the news: to get people focused on a story and talking about it.

Every MSM editor on earth knows this, hence they never publish anything they don't actively want speculation about.

That's why it's so ludicrous when they plaster something all over the headlines, and then claim they don't want the public to speculate about it.

This is tediously transparent, primary-school level reverse psychology.

They say it in order to get people to react with, "ooh, they don't want us to speculate! They don't want us to talk about it! What are they hiding?!?!?!"

They're not 'hiding' anything, by virtue of the fact they are actively and intentionally drawing your attention to the story by putting it in every newspaper, which necessarily invites the analytically-minded to examine all aspects of it. Publishers obviously know this is the effect of making something a prominent news story.

So, what do they do if they are actually covering up a story?

They don't publish it at all.

They don't "publish a spin or alternate angle to detract from the 'real story'", they simply don't draw attention to the issue at all, meaning the public overwhelmingly remains entirely ignorant on the matter.

To punctuate this point, I often use the example of the attempted suicide of then-UK Prime Minister Tony Blair's teenage daughter, Kathryn.

This was never reported by any mainstream news vehicle.

As the linked source states:

"The British mass media claims it is committed to informing the public. The reality is that it  frequently colludes with politicians to suppress stories. A important  example is the attempted suicide of Blair’s daughter Kathryn in the Spring of  2004 (reports on the web by non-mainstream media  suggest she was taken to hospital on Thursday 13th May 2004, for example, http://www.public-interest.co.uk/aseye/index.htm#Tony ). Every single national  newspaper and broadcaster (including the BBC) refused to use the story."

Did they publish an alternative news story to "cover up" the real story, such as "Kathryn rushed to hospital with appendicitis!" - ?

No.

Did they state "NHS staff breached Kathryn's medical notes after her emergency appendix surgery!" - ?

No.

They simply did not comment on Kathryn or her health at all, because they knew full well that anyone remotely conspiracy-minded would start digging into it, find discrepancies and anomalies in the official story, and potentially expose the truth.

So, the papers didn't report anything about her at all.

That's how something is actually "covered up".

Note that synonyms for "cover-up" include: conceal, hide, suppress, bury, and hush up, and not "splash all over the world's headlines, just with a slightly different angle".

We can apply the same logic, regarding how actual cover-ups work, to any prominent news story, and thus expose the tedious Overton Window lickers who insist "this story that is all over the newspapers is actually part of a cover-up to stop us talking about it!"

This position is currently being applied to the fake tiger attack story, in relation to recent reports that the "victim's" medical records were breached.

Controlled opp gatekeepers, who have to keep us invested in the notion that all events reported in the newspapers are real (because the media is the number one weapon of ruling class control), try to establish their "conspiracy credentials" with this pivot:

"The event is real but the true story is being covered up! This is really about all the dangerous psych meds the victim was taking! That's what they really don't want us talking about!"

Uh-huh. They're so desperate for us not to talk about the dangers of psych meds that they just staged one of the biggest psyops in years - the Lindsay Clancy case - which had the whole Western world ferociously debating the dangers of psych meds.

It is painfully, embarrassingly obvious (I almost feel second-hand embarrassment for the gatekeepers at this point, that they've been reduced to going with this) that the establishment desperately wants us focused on the dangers of psychiatric medication, because that gives them a perfect excuse for further invasive monitoring of people's lives. "This person takes psychoactive medication. We know from recent tragic tales how dangerous that can be. We'd better monitor them extra-carefully, spy on them relentlessly, and put them and their children on a government watch list. You know, for safety."

That was pretty much the entire point of the Lindsay Clancy op, to get the public screaming for closer monitoring of "at risk" people. So, of course we're going to have a spate of psyops where the role of psychiatric medication is highlighted, in order to provoke a "something must be done" conversation and get the public clamouring for increased state spying (and, particularly, enhanced state powers to remove people's children, "before they get hurt").

Do I think psychiatric medication played a role in the fake tiger attack?

No, because I think the attack was fake.

Does that mean I think psychiatric medication is safe?

Well, astonishingly enough, also no. "You called a zoo attack fake so therefore you're a pharma stooge shilling for Big Psych" is quite some majestic mental manoeuvring.

As someone who first got involved with the truth movement via highlighting the dangers of pharmaceutical products (specifically, vaccines, which largely create the demand for all the others), I would never recommend psychiatric medication, unless it was a life or death emergency and every other option had been exhausted (a lot of mental health issues can be significantly alleviated or eliminated altogether through diet and lifestyle changes, some of which are detailed in the GAPS protocol).

In the case of the "William Chapman" character, he supposedly had schizophrenia, so the first thing to do there is eliminate all wheat from the diet, as the link between wheat consumption and schizophrenia is very strong and has been known for decades.

Nevertheless, despite it being easily verifiable that I have been an outspoken critic of pharmaceutical products for over a decade, some of the worst and most desperate state propagandists are now alleging that I, and others who labelled the tiger story fake, are involved in a subversive plot to quash the "real story" behind the AI tiger theatrics, which, they claim, is the danger of psych meds.

This is a tried, tested, and very tedious form of narrative management that I've outlined before, in an article called "His story, her story, and the truth".

The title alludes to the fact that, often, when couples argue, they each have a different version of events, whereby each party may strategically leave out or misrepresent key facts, in order to make their own version seem more compelling.

The actual truth, therefore, is generally something rather different to the portrayal presented by either party - but neither of them are invested in reporting the unvarnished truth, for their own PR purposes.

We have something directly comparable where it comes to big news events: we have the official story (i.e., MSM overt reporting), the official conspiracy theory (i.e., MSM covert hints), and finally, the truth (i.e., neither of the aforementioned).

In "covid", for example, we had the official story (covid evolved from bats), the official conspiracy theory (covid leaked from a lab), and the truth (there was no covid).

The establishment controls the first two narratives, and then tries to frame the third as crazy fringe nonsense, by smearing, ridiculing, and marginalising anybody who promotes it.

(The show 'Tip Toe', the latest bit of agitprop - even The Guardian calls it this - from propagandist predictive programmer, Russell T. Davies, has a villainous central figure who's supreme fiendishness is underlined by the fact he didn't think covid was real.)

We see this with "school shootings", as well. The official story is the shooting happened because of the shooter's extreme political beliefs or because of lax gun control. The official conspiracy theory is that they were deranged by psych meds or drug psychosis (Peter Hitchens, one of the first "alternative" voices to take the covid vaccine, is always going on about this).

So, these types buy themselves some credibility in alternative circles by appearing to "challenge the official story", claiming they are "talking about the angle 'they' don't want us to talk about" whilst actually seamlessly serving the agenda by validating the story as real. It's simply classic Overton Window.

The reality is that, if the establishment didn't want you talking about a story, then it wouldn't be in the papers at all, and would certainly never make the headlines. To claim, then, as gatekeepers relentlessly do, that a story is being heavily promoted by the establishment as part of an establishment cover-up is some seriously Orwellian doublespeak.

The tiger story, for example, was not just heavily promoted in the UK, but even had nominally the world's most powerful man, the President of the USA, making a mocking video about it.

You think that's "an establishment cover-up"? Seriously? Lol.

We all know about examples of real cover-ups. Everybody knows of some shocking, scandalous crime that happened in their own community that never even got a paragraph in the local paper, never mind sensationalist splash headlines all over the world, plus a commemorative video from Donald Trump.

Real news is kept out of the papers all the time, and we can all attest to that fact, because we all know that, just because something newsworthy happens, it doesn't mean it gets any news coverage. Thousands of newsworthy events happen every day all over the world, and are never formally reported anywhere.

The mainstream media is exceptionally selective in what it publishes, especially at the national headline level, and an event only gains that kind of radical publicity if it serves ruling class interests.

The ruling classes never draw attention to anything they don't want you to know about, so if it's prominently promoted in the mainstream press, it's because they want you to know about it, talk about it, obsess over it, examine it from every angle, and so on.

Does that include their wanting you to know an event is fake? Absolutely, yes, there are always clues for those who care to look, which are left there on purpose, and in the case of the tiger attack, we literally had the US President effectively telling us the event was fake. They like you to know it's fake, as a kind of mocking ritual. As Theodore Dalrymple said:

"In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, not to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is in some small way to become evil oneself. One's standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control."

So, the takeaway from this is as simple as it is obvious: nothing that gets high-profile news attention is being "covered up", by virtue of the fact that it is getting high-profile news attention - and anybody who says otherwise is either ill-informed or ill-intentioned or, quite possibly, both.

All manner of scandalous crimes are kept out of the newspapers daily, by the very same forces who decide what to put in the headlines and what to focus public attention on.

These forces might not always overtly tell you what to see. But they always tell you where to look.

It's the modern equivalent of Plato's cave. The "official story" keeps you looking at the shadows on the wall. The "official conspiracy theory" shows you the puppets casting the shadows.

But only the real, unvarnished truth enables you to walk out of the cave altogether, and step back into the real world.

(For newer readers who might be curious about why I think the Madeleine McCann story is relentlessly in the news if not as part of a "cover-up", please see here.)

Thanks for reading! This site is entirely reader-powered, with no paywalls, adverts, or wealthy corporate backers, making it truly independent. Your support is therefore crucial to ensuring this site's continued existence. If you'd like to make a contribution to help this site keep going, please consider...

1. Subscribing monthly via Patreon or Substack (where paid subscribers can comment on posts)

2. Making a one-off contribution via BuyMeACoffee

3. Contributing in either way via bank transfer to Nat West account number 30835984, sort code 54-10-27, account name FINCH MA (please use your email address as a reference if you'd like me to acknowledge receipt).

Your support is what allows this site to continue to exist and is enormously appreciated. Thank you.