Investigative journalist, NY Times bestselling author and five-time Emmy Award winning television presenter Sheryl Attkisson gave testimony to the Corona Ausschuss recently. The topic of discussion was “astroturfing”.
A term initially coined in the political sphere, astroturfing means the creation of a movement orchestrated by corporate or political interests, designed to appear as though it originates from the people as a grass roots movement. It is a multi billion dollar global industry, employing “smear artists” working for corporate and political interests at high levels.
Powerful astroturf businesses monopolise every mode of communication used by the general public, from online information and late night comedy talk show topics, to non profit fundraiser issues. The goal is to make people feel like outliers with a minority opinion in order to push an agenda. This makes us afraid to speak on topics and marginalises us if we do, in order to push the special interests of those funding the campaigns.
Attkisson discusses in some detail, examples of astroturfing across multiple topics, including the “fake news” slogan, which most people attribute incorrectly as originating from Donald Trump. The real story is quite amusing and not as we have been led to believe!
She focuses on the pharmaceutical industry and how they now influence society. Many smear artists are prior government figures who have moved to private industry, where they can lend their names to give weight to an issue by signing off on comments made, social media posts, letters to editors, etc. They move between liberal and conservative leanings, depending on contracts. She explains how to recognise an astroturf as opposed to an authentically presented news topic, and describes the manipulations that we are all unwittingly exposed to constantly, including but by no means exclusive to, Covid-19 pandemic issues.
“Coronavirus has proven to be, maybe, the crown jewel of information manipulation. If those who are trying to keep us from getting certain information, simply succeed in confusing us … these smear artists told me for my book, that’s good enough … “
Listening to Attkisson’s testimony, I realised that public health has been astroturfed into oblivion. Established knowledge, from understanding how respiratory viruses interact with human populations and how this influences recommendations, to analysing data and following up on intervention effectiveness and safety, all that we once knew and practiced is now labelled “misinformation” and “anti-vaxx” if it goes against the agenda of fear-and-compliance.
Highly unusual practices with no evidence base are presented as normal recommendations and waste valuable resources. An example is mass testing of healthy people being seen as somehow useful to the cause of public health when it offers nothing other than justification for other junk science ideas such as isolation of healthy people. Anyone experienced in epidemic response recognises the junk science being practiced. Yet it has entered the dimension of a “global groupthink” via relentless and expert astroturfing, so that even the world’s most eminent specialists are demeaned and discounted.
Astroturfing in action, in “This is Extremely Dangerous to Our Democracy“.
In another recent testimony to the Corona Ausschuss, Catherine Austin-Fitts discussed further, the issue of social credit control being imposed via vaccine passports. She refers to the biggest players pushing their agenda onto the world, as “Mister Global”. She alleges they have committed an enormous financial coup d’etat of public finances (eg where are our superannuations?), and discusses how we might avoid the complete centralised control that is being planned and driven.
Her perspective is shocking and probably unbelievable if you have only been following the astroturfed landscape of mainstream “news”. Austin-Fitts is an investment banker who worked as an Assistant Secretary under George H.W. Bush. She has decades of experience investigating and trying to understand “Mister Global”. Her background is far more credible than that of Bill Gates, for example. She deserves to be heard as a source beyond Gates-funded astroturf. She talks about the threats she has faced from smear artists, as the cost of speaking out.
A recent interview between CNN’s Anderson Cooper and Bill Gates shows his motives. If this was the first time you were hearing him, would he seem credible? We have been hearing about the “philanthropic” works of this man for decades. He claims to have only met Jeffrey Epstein in 2011, yet investigative journalists such as Whitney Webb present evidence to suggest otherwise.
Gates’ understanding of virus-human dynamics is an utter embarrassment (people talking loudly?? Masking, mass testing and isolating healthy people as a control measure??) to anyone with even a very basic background in public health. Why do Cooper and multiple other platforms refer to this direct profiteer who has zero public health qualifications, experience or skill, (despite his own claims), as though he has any expertise?
His advice on the way that viruses interact with human populations and his analysis of the data certainly doesn’t match the analyses from authenitc scientists at PANDA, HART, and the many other credible independent organisations who have evolved in the past two years. Gates’ reaction when Cooper suggests “if you want to get social security you need to be vaccinated” (around 11m30s) is surely disturbing to anyone with social justice values? To me, his demeanour and everything he says is dystopian nonsense.
Gates refers in the Anderson Cooper interview, to an IHME model which predicts catastrophe if enough people don’t get “vaccinated“. This is completely contrary to the advice being spoken by independent specialists with nothing to gain, who take enormous personal risks in speaking out, such as more than 15,000 who have now signed the Rome Declaration.