Tag: mainstream Media

The UK Media is still promoting Transgender Activism

Introduction

A few months ago, there was a UK Supreme Court ruling that stated for the purposes of the 2010 Equality Act, sex is biological, and that woman and man in the legislation refer to sex and not gender identity. Despite this rare application of common sense in a UK Court, the media is still promoting transgenderism as a desirable ideology.

Context

In a world context, the UK has had the strongest and broadest base of resistance to transgender ideology. People of different political views from conservatives to radical feminists to moderate liberals have pushed back. Both religious people and atheists have pushed back. This has led to the UK becoming known as TERF (trans exclusionary radical feminist) Island, originally meant as an insult but reclaimed as a point of pride by UK opposition to transgender ideology.

While there has also been increasing pushback in the US under Trump, much of it is based on executive orders. Executive orders that prevent a child being prescribed dangerous drugs and surgeries have a great positive effect in general but are not the same thing as the broad based opposition we see in the UK. Also, they can be overturned with a new president. In other western countries, we are still seeing victories for the transgender movement such as Self ID in Germany.

However the UK media has (deliberately) not got the message that this ideology is increasingly unpopular here. I will describe some examples below of the media doing this. Of course because these are long term projects they were commissioned before the Supreme Court ruling but still provide valuable insights into the media and this ideology.

Case 1: Munroe Bergdorf

Munroe Bergdorf is a man pretending to be a woman, who is relatively high profile in the UK.

I won’t go into his history in massive detail, but I will note that he has previously been heavily criticised for demonising all white people as violent and evil. He once said:

Once white people begin to admit that their race is the most violent and oppressive force of nature on Earth… then we can talk.

In other words, ignoring the fact that psychopathic elites and pursuit of wealth and power regardless of race are the sources of imperialist violence and instead blaming white skin colour.

Anyway, he has a new documentary out, about what else – himself. The documentary is called Love and Rage, and no, I won’t be watching. If you want a review, you can see this link.

In a promotion for this documentary, he did an interview with the ‘Metro’ newspaper. This is a free newspaper given out primarily via public transport networks. I take a copy for the cryptic crossword and happen to see this interview in the paper. Quotes and comments are based upon the interview “60 Seconds with Munroe Bergdorf” in the Friday, 4 July issue of the paper.

Much of the interview is just fluff to promote his film. However I will comment on a few things he says in the interview. One of them is to complain about being attacked on social media. Of course, since one of the main outlets for promoting transgenderism is social media, this is mildly amusing. He then equates refusing to acknowledge he is a woman with refusing to acknowledge he is a human being. Of course, even the most ‘transphobic’ person on the planet acknowledges that Bergdorf is a human being – just that he happens to be male and cannot change sex.

He then promotes falsehoods by stating that the Supreme Court ruling “has basically defined us out of the Equalities Act”. He doesn’t acknowledge that one of the nine categories under the act is “Gender Reassignment” i.e. transgenderism. Of course he can’t even get the name of the legislation correct, as it is the Equality Act, which demonstrates his complete ignorance. Now from my point of view (without getting into broader questions of the state, state authority etc.) transgenderism should not be protected in law because it is a sexual fetish (autogynephilia) and/or a sexual strategy (gay men who ‘transition’ to try and get ‘straight’ men to sleep with them). No other sexual fetishes are protected in law.

He states he will continue to be a sexual pervert and use women’s toilets and complains that ‘if you look too much like a woman’ you can’t use the men’s. Ignoring the fact that in reality, 99.9% we can tell you’re a man. Women are generally quite good at spotting them as we have to be alert to the presence of men due to sexual violence. Or as I like to say Instagram filters do not exist in real life.

That’s not all the nonsense in the interview but serves as a sample of the sort of thing being promoted in the mainstream media

Case 2: The “I Kissed a Boy” Dating Show

‘I Kissed a Boy’ is a supposedly homosexual dating show for gay men. Now I don’t watch this sort of stuff as I have no interest in it. But it came to my attention because this dating show supposedly for male homosexuals includes a woman among the cast, who calls herself Lars and pretends to be a man. Of course, these women are not homosexual males. A significant motive for this is sexual fetish, as women fetishise gay male relationships specifically, which is why they seek to be accepted as ‘gay men’. Some of these women even try and trick/pressure gay men into sex with them.

This follows the trend of seeking to redefine homosexuality as ‘same gender’ attraction rather than same sex attraction. (Of course, this also redefines heterosexuality as ‘opposite gender attraction’). Basically this dating show continues to push the ideology that people can change sex and the lie of gender identity.

From the review, it seems like the entire thing is about sex. Of course while sex and sexuality are important parts of becoming an adult it’s hardly the only thing of relevance.

Case 3: “What It Feels Like for a Girl” TV Show

A BBC TV show with this name, of course, is about a male. It is adapted from a book of the same name by a man called Paris Lees. I haven’t read the book or watched the TV series so I won’t be doing a review. Lees, like Bergdorf, is a homosexual male who pursued transgenderism. The book/TV show is meant to be a ‘coming of age’ style story where the protagonist discovers his sexuality/’gender identity’.

The Lies They Tell gave the book (which was released in 2021) the following review:

This book is simply terribly written.  Writing in dialect would be a challenge for an experienced writer and it says a lot about Lees’ ego. However, even if you take the dialect away, all we are left with is the relentless gossipy sniping of a man with almost zero ability for self-reflection.  It’s really hard to read. It has no narrative arc.

The program, of course, is getting rave reviews from the usual suspects, such as the Guardian, a liberal UK newspaper known for promoting transgender ideology.

On a final note, I always find these men calling themselves ‘girls’ entirely creepy.

Conclusion

Transgender ideology is still a prominent force in the UK media despite the recent high-profile defeat in the court system.

The ‘Neurodiversity’ Industry Is A Cover for Vaccine Injury – Part II, Two Narratives

Introduction

Since the 1990s, the idea of ‘neurodiversity’ has become a cottage industry. The basic tenet of neurodiversity is that autism is a perfectly normal variation of human development that should not be seen as a negative trait. It seeks to highlight the alleged ‘positive’ traits of autism and believes that the struggles of people with autism are largely caused by society not being accepting rather than the inherent downsides of the condition. This article will seek to discuss three parts of this phenomenon by comparing two theories of autism: the neurodiversity theory of autism and the iatrogenic theory of autism i.e. vaccine injury. The first part will discuss the evidence for each theory, concluding that vaccine injury has a large amount of evidence to support it. The second part of this article will look at the individuals and institutions that promote each theory and how the media portrays each group. The third part will draw it together by explaining how the neurodiversity theory is constructed as an alternative to deflect from the vaccine injury theory and to gaslight people suffering with autistic vaccine-injury and their parents about their experiences.

This is part II of the three part series.

Part II: Two Narratives

Having made the case that vaccine-injury is an extremely plausible theory of autism, I will now examine the contrast between how advocates of the neurodiversity narrative and advocates of the vaccine-injury narrative have been treated by the establishment. Although the neurodiversity narrative claims to be countercultural and in opposition to the ordinary view of autism, in reality it is promoted by mainstream sources. On the other hand, vaccine-injury theorists – including those who have backed their theories up by significant evidence – have faced consequences from being smeared to the loss of their career.

Is Neurodiversity Countercultural?

The neurodiversity narrative claims to be countercultural. As it is a fairly recent narrative, it portrays itself as the up and coming new narrative to ‘reframe’ autism in a positive light. In fact, the article I quoted from in Part I makes this argument, comparing it to different theories of autism:

The mainstream perspective – the perspective that autism is caused by a genetic defect and should be cured by targeting the autism gene(s).

The fringe theory – the theory that autism is caused by environmental factors like vaccines and pollution and should be cured through addressing these factors.

This narrative takes aspects of the ‘social justice’ style narrative, where those that are marginalised by society are reframing themselves as positive actors, reframing what is considered as ‘negative’ by society as a positive.

Of course, there is a long history of narratives claiming to be counterculture, when in fact, they are nothing of the sort. A good example, that has some similarities with the neurodiversity ideology, is transgenderism. Transgender ideology claims that opposite sex impersonators are a marginalized group, whereas in reality those who oppose them are censored, sacked, and smeared. Men playacting as women are promoted, celebrated and glorified in the media, with any criticism deemed as bigotry. Pharmaceutical companies support this narrative for profit, and many sinister actors use it is as a means of promoting transhumanism.

So is the neurodiversity narrative really countercultural?

In general, the best way to check if a narrative is against the establishment is to look at what the establishment actually says about it. If the establishment contains a large amount of institutions promoting a particular narrative, and is spending a lot of money on promoting a particular narrative, then there is a reason for that. So let us examine what the interconnected establishment/media/NGO complex actually states about autism and neurodiversity. This will look at several different groups: autism charities, the media, the fiction industry and other significant actors.

Autism Charities and Consultancy

Although some people would like to consider charities to be not ‘establishment’ institutions, in reality large charities are part of the establishment. Their role in society is to advance narratives that benefit establishment interests, but while seeming as if they are independent advocacy groups.

To give an example already alluded to in Part I, the Alzheimer’s Society expresses some scepticism that aluminium accumulation in the brain is the cause of Alzheimer’s disease. To acknowledge this would be bad for the establishment, since it is (elite) human action that unleashed aluminium on the environment and caused high levels of exposure. Questioning aluminium exposure in this case might lead one to come to the conclusion that the establishment does not have a concern for human health. Furthermore, obscuring the reality in this case allows Big Pharma to sell expensive patented drugs for Alzheimer’s disease, rather than reducing exposure or reducing aluminium in the human body. Foreign policy is another area where charities can be demonstrated to serve elite agendas. For example, human rights organisations will focus on violations of, say, freedom of speech by ‘enemy countries’ such as Russia, while ignoring the same or worse by Western countries or allies such as Saudi Arabia.

Of course, the issue is even more explosive when it comes to questioning vaccines, since vaccination is essentially the cult of the modern age:

Vaccinating everyone on earth (the goal of the Gates Foundation, W.H.O., Pharma, and presidents of both political parties) has nothing to do with health; its sole function is to give atheists in the developed world a feeling of heroism that supplies them with a sense of symbolic immortality.

TOBY ROGERS

So what do autism charities – allegedly set up to help people with autism – have to say about autism and neurodiversity?

The National Autistic Society is the main autism charity in the United Kingdom.

On its ’causes of autism’ page, the National Autistic Society says this:

There is no known ‘cure’ for autism. We also believe that autism does not need a ‘cure’ and should be seen as a difference, not a disadvantage. We also warn people about fake cures and potentially harmful interventions here. 

This does not mean that autistic people do not face challenges, but with the right support in place, they are more than capable of living fulfilling and happy lives. 

This is, of course, the neurodiversity narrative. On the other hand they say that vaccines don’t cause autism, because that idea must be opposed at all costs.

If we look at the National Autistic Society’s funding, they have a turnover of large amounts of money. If we look at their funding for 2023 in their annual accounts, they have a list of companies who they give special thanks. They have funding from some large companies such as Coca Cola and JP Morgan Chase.

It is also worth noting that there is an entire industry of autism ‘consultancy’, which is designed to promote neurodiversity, particularly relating to employment. There are a whole bunch of services available, for example, Aspire Autism Consultancy provides “bespoke neurodiversity training for therapists and healthcare practitioners.”

It is also worth noting that if you do want accommodations at work related to autism as a disability, you are basically obliged to put up with the neurodiversity framing.

The Media

The mainstream media is another crucial plank of the establishment, that serves their interests. The purpose of the media is not to present the news in an objective way, but to be propaganda for the powers that be. The structure of the mainstream media goes through multiple filters and each one excludes any opposition voices to ensure a conformity of thought.

There are plenty of articles in the media promoting the neurodiversity agenda. A survey of the media carried out by pro neurodiversity activists found the following result (abstract only available):

Results showed increased coverage of neurodiversity and neurodivergent individuals from 2016 to 2022. Key findings include an increase in calls for representation, advocacy, and the recognition of neurodiversity as a different neurotype rather than a condition to be cured.

Recently in the UK, there has been a programme hosted by Chris Packham, and autistic man and advocate for neurodiversity about autism and ADHD (ADHD is also considered to be an example of neurodiversity by advocates, and is also possibly vaccination injury although, unlike autism there is not as much evidence to prove this). I haven’t watched the programme because I don’t want to waste the energy getting angry about the obvious misrepresentation of autism that will exist within the program. It is worth noting that the  programme about autism was nominated for a television award, meaning that it must have been viewed as in line with what the media and establishment wish to promote. Articles in the media have also promoted this programme, and called it moving (even the more right leaning Telegraph, which is, say, more sceptical of similar ideologies like transgenderism).

The Fiction Industry

Fiction may seem as if it is separate from the establishment, but in reality the establishment has a significant influence here as well, particularly when it comes to television. For example, it is a well-known fact that a large number of American movies are produced with the help of the intelligence agencies.

If there are characters, action or dialogue that the DOD doesn’t approve of then the film-maker has to make changes to accommodate the military’s demands. If they refuse then the Pentagon packs up its toys and goes home. To obtain full cooperation the producers have to sign contracts, called Production Assistance Agreements, which lock them into using a military-approved version of the script. [emphasis in original text]

MINT PRESS NEWS

So how are autistic people portrayed in the media? There is but one model of the autistic film or TV character and that is the ‘autistic savant’. That is, someone who is socially inept but a genius at doing some weird obscure thing which wins the character the things that they want in life. In some portrayals a biting satirical wit might be added, particularly in comedy programs, with an edge of intellectual superiority played for laughs. Sheldon Cooper of The Big Bang Theory is the best example of this.

This is basically the neurodiversity model in action. Look at those special characters that think differently that have all these wonderful things like a PhD and an amazing job! No-one puts low functioning children who have to use a diaper and are non-verbal on the TV. No-one puts the 6′ 2″ 30-year-old man with a mental age of 5 who flies into incandescent, violent rages over sensory triggers on the TV. Why would they? So fiction gives an extremely misleading picture of autism to the public that bolsters the neurodiversity model.

Although neurodiversity advocates might also complain about the portrayal of autism in the media, the reality is that it is only their own ideology being reflected back at them. The special, unique one who ‘thinks differently’: that is their argument of what autism is, not mine, and that is their portrayal of what autism is, not mine.

Conclusion

As we can see from the above collection of evidence, the establishment has expressed a significant amount of support for neurodiversity.

The Vaccine Injury Approach to Autism and Its Critics

Vaccine-injury advocates have been treated rather differently by the establishment. This section will discuss a few different advocates of the autism-vaccination link: Dr. Andrew Wakefield, Dr. Christopher Exley, and Jenny McCarthy.

Dr. Wakefield Redux

The most obvious place to start on this topic is the demonisation of the British gastroenterologist, Dr. Andrew Wakefield. Dr. Wakefield is infamous among the vaccine pushers, and his name is invoked like that of the devil himself. Dr. Wakefield has been the subject of a thousand lies by the mainstream media and medical establishment. Eventually, he was struck off the medical register in 2010. His career was destroyed. So what was his ‘crime’? Simply to take parents seriously when they observed their children regressing into autistic behavior after the MMR vaccination.

So let’s look at how Dr. Wakefield got interested in the issue of the MMR vaccine and autism. After Dr. Wakefield performed studies on measles and gut issues, specifically Crohn’s disease, he was contacted by parents who saw their child regress into autistic vaccine-injury after their MMR vaccination. Dr. Wakefield and his colleagues at the Royal Free Hospital in the UK produced a case series of 12 of these children called, “Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children” published in the Lancet in 1998. Contra claims made by the mainstream media, which is to this day constitutionally incapable of representing this paper accurately, it was not designed to ‘prove’ that the MMR vaccine causes autism. The people who made the initial link between the MMR and autism were the parents of those children, not Dr. Wakefield.

Onset of behavioural symptoms was associated, by the parents, with measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination in eight of the 12 children, with measles infection in one child, and otitis media [ear infection] in another.

WAKEFIELD’S 1998 STUDY

This eventually led to him being relentlessly attacked by Brian Deer, a Telegraph ‘journalist’ who was obsessed with destroying his career. Deer made multiple false claims about Dr. Wakefield and his study. These false claims included the claim that Wakefield and his colleagues did not have ethical approval for the medical testing that they ran on the ‘Lancet 12’ children and that Dr. Wakefield misrepresented the case histories of those children to push a narrative blaming the MMR vaccine. Deer also claimed that Wakefield had unethical conflicts of interest. As a result of these claims, Dr. Wakefield was eventually struck off the medical register in 2010. There is much more detail to this story not able to be discussed here for space considerations, so I suggest reading this article by Iain Davis if you would like a refresher on the full picture.

The mainstream media continues to promote false narratives about Dr. Wakefield to this day. Wikipedia, a so called ‘neutral’ encyclopedia, but that actually serves to promote establishment narratives, refers to him as being ‘discredited’ and ‘disgraced’ which means that you know the target is somewhere in the vicinity.

I will conclude by quoting Davis:

[Wakefield] is the sacrificial lamb and a stark warning to any scientist, medical practitioner or researcher who dares to challenge the corporate dictatorship. The MSM’s annihilation of Dr. Wakefield served two purposes. Firstly to convince a misinformed public that any who suggest vaccines may not all be wonder drugs are ‘evil’ and also to put the fear of God into the scientific community.

IAIN DAVIS – ‘THE EVISCERATION OF DR. ANDREW WAKEFIELD’

Dr. Christopher Exley

Dr. Christopher Exley is former Professor of Bioinorganic Chemistry at Keele University in the UK. He did his Ph.D. on aluminium exposure among fish and the harm that this can cause and is an extremely credible expert on the interaction of the neurotoxin aluminium with human and animal life. As shown above, he has studied the link between aluminium and autism (and other diseases such as Alzheimer’s disease and Multiple Sclerosis). He led the Aluminium Research Group and published around 200 papers on aluminium.

So what happened to Dr. Exley after he published his group’s paper on ‘Aluminium in Brain Tissue in Autism’?

The first thing to note is that the media has attacked Dr. Exley. The Guardian accused him of pushing ‘anti-vaccine misinformation’:

A British academic who has promoted anti-vaccine misinformation has raised more than £150,000 through a university donations portal to support his research during the coronavirus crisis, the Guardian can reveal.

They quote a vaccine promoter stating that Dr. Exley’s paper is ‘bad science’ but of course do not elucidate the audience about why it is bad science (the reader doesn’t need to know that, they just need to know which hate figure ‘anti-vaxxer’ of the week they need to condemn).

An even earlier hit piece from 2019 states:

Prof Chris Exley angered health experts for claiming that tiny amounts of aluminium in inactivated vaccines, such as the HPV and whooping cough inoculations, may cause “the more severe and disabling form of autism”.

They, of course, did this in order to try to make sure that the funding portals were shut down so the research could not continue (not that Keele needed any encouragement on this front – see below).

The case of Dr. Exley also reveals something else important about our media – the principle that experts are only experts until they question vaccination, then they become ‘misinformation’. Dr. Exley was an acceptable expert for the Guardian to cite when it came to the Camelford poisoning. This case involved aluminium was accidentally dunked into residents’ drinking water in Camelford in Cornwall. One woman, Carole Cross, died from a rare form of Alzheimer’s after this poisoning, with extremely high levels of aluminium in her brain. Dr. Exley is acting within his expertise by commenting on both cases, but only one is considered to be acceptable.

Keele University basically made Dr. Exley’s position at the university untenable for questioning the safety of aluminium adjuvants in vaccination.

Since that time [about 2015], the university has progressed from spiking Exley’s press releases and downplaying or ignoring major scientific contributions by Exley’s research group to — perhaps most concerningly — sabotaging the research donations that are the “lifeblood” of independent-minded scientists.

CHILDREN’S HEALTH DEFENSE.

The University messed with his donations portal which he was using to crowdfund his research.

On the 11th of April 2019, following receipt of a number of emails from potential donors unable to make a donation using the online link, I was told by someone called Lee Bestwick in Finance that he had been instructed to disable the donations portal set up by Finance on my behalf. He was not aware that there had been no prior discussion with me about this. 

In 2020, Keele University also rejected a cheque from Robert F. Kennedy Jr. for $15,000 towards Dr. Exley’s research.

We appreciate your interest in the University and in our research staff who are undertaking such a wide range of interesting and pioneering work, but hope you understand the delicate balance we must maintain to ensure our public and private reputation.

Kennedy wrote in response:

I must consider that your decision to return my personal check is likely the product of the pharmaceutical industry’s open, aggressive, and rather sinister campaign to defund Professor Exley. Vaccine makers view Dr. Exley’s efforts to accurately characterize, for the first time, the health impacts of aluminum adjuvants in vaccines, as a threat to their profit-taking. Terminating Professor Exley’s research has been a central objective of the $50 billion vaccine industry. This cartel wants the world to believe that aluminum in vaccines is safe despite the lack of any safety studies to indicate that is possible, and plenty of peer-reviewed literature that suggests that it is not.

Another Children’s Health Defense article states:


[A] recent letter to Exley from Keele University’s dean of natural sciences explained that “the university will no longer provide facilities to solicit or enable restricted charitable donations” to support the Exley group’s research on “the bioinorganic chemistry of aluminium and its links to neurodegenerative disease.”

The dean clarified that this would include “donations from individuals, groups, charities and foundations” — amounting to the entirety of the group’s research income.

Eventually due to this disruption of funding the research group was shut down despite having around 200 peer reviewed publications.

Furthermore, Dr. Exley was suggesting methods by which to detox from aluminium and remove it from the body in order to reduce autistic symptoms. The method Dr. Exley suggested was drinking mineral waters with a high silicic acid content, as silicic acid binds to aluminium and then it is expelled from the body via urine. Again Dr. Exley demonstrated this through science, showing increased excretion of aluminium after consuming a litre of silica water. When done on a consistent basis (daily) this reduces the body burden of aluminium including in the brain and improvements in symptoms are observed (Dr. Exley witnessed this in Alzheimer’s disease). Not only was he showing what had harmed us, he was helping us with his protocol, and I can vouch that it works personally because I have tried it.

So now we can see that Dr. Wakefield is not the only person to lose his career for questioning the links between vaccines and autism.

Jenny McCarthy: Demonised Mothers

Jenny McCarthy is a media figure who spoke out about the safety of vaccination after her son, Evan, regressed into autism after receiving the MMR vaccine. McCarthy is different from the cases I have highlighted above in that she is the mother of a vaccine injured child. Her role as a mother affects her portrayal by the vaccine industry.

Generally speaking, mothers are considered less competent observers of their children than doctors, despite the fact that the doctor only sees the child for brief appointments and the mother is around the child 24/7. This is justified by the medical establishment, because they consider themselves to be the ‘experts’.

There is a significant amount of misogyny in the portrayal of McCarthy in the media. For example, news articles often introduce her as ‘former Playboy model Jenny McCarthy’ or other similar framing when talking about her scepticism of vaccination. The fact that McCarthy was involved in the pornography industry has no obvious relevant connection to her scepticism of vaccines. Except, in the mind of the vaccinationist, it is clearly related, since they always mention it.

The purpose of this framing is to invoke the Madonna-Whore complex, a misogynistic trope in which women are always the idealised, perfect mother, or the debased whore. Because McCarthy posed for Playboy, the implication is that she is inherently an unfit mother, unqualified to observe her son’s regression into autism. The other implication is that she is inherently stupid (women who have worked in pornography are perceived in society as ‘dumb bimbos’). Thus she is unable to correctly observe the behaviours of her own child in the mind of the vaccinationist.

Conclusion

Neurodiversity cannot be seen as an anti-establishment narrative. Like transgenderism, it is an ideology promoted by the establishment that pretends not to be promoted as such. In part III, we will discuss the target of the neurodiversity narrative – high functioning autistic people and parents of autistic children – and how this precludes vaccination criticism.

Measles Pandemic!: The Latest Big Pharma Advertising Campaign

Introduction

The idea of ‘pandemics’ and ‘outbreaks’ is one of the most convenient and effective ways for a government to sell fear and make money for their corporate backers (via vaccination drives). Although this did happen before Covid-19, such with the 2009 H1N1 ‘pandemic’, after Covid-19 the media has focused more on viruses and ‘pandemics’ in general, with random scare stories about viruses being grist to the MSM mill. Over the past few weeks, the idea of a ‘measles pandemic’ has been heavily pushed in the UK media. This article will discuss three aspects of this phenomena: the narrative, the purpose and the reality.

Part 1: The Narrative

Back in around September/October 2022, I noticed there seemed to be several random articles in the mainstream media about the ‘low uptake’ on the MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) vaccine.

For example, this article in the Daily Mail:

More than a third of children have not had their life-saving MMR vaccine in parts of England, according to official stats which illustrate why health chiefs fear a measles resurgence.

Revealed: More than a THIRD of children have NOT had both MMR jabs in parts of England as uptake rates plunge to lowest level in a DECADE amid rise of anti-vaxx myths

Another article scaremongers about the risk of ‘outbreaks’:

Outbreaks of measles and polio are now ‘likely’, top experts warned today as official statistics revealed childhood vaccination rates have plunged.

Fears measles, polio and other ‘diseases of the past’ could return as child vaccination rates drop for ALL 14 inoculations – with MMR jab uptake at a DECADE low, ‘extremely worrying’ NHS statistics reveal

This immediately raised a red flag in my mind and got me thinking they might attempt to create a ‘measles pandemic’ and that this was the first signs of a new campaign.

Now, this narrative is back.

How are they building up the notion of fear?

The media has been recently filled with stories like this:

[T]he capital could experience an outbreak of between 40,000 and 160,0000 [yes, that typo is in the article] cases, fresh analysis by the UKHSA suggests.

London at risk of major measles outbreak, UK Health Security Agency warns

Let’s go a little bit deeper into the basis of this alleged measles outbreak:

UKHSA modelling suggests that, unless MMR vaccination rates improve, London could see a measles outbreak with tens of thousands of cases.

London at risk of measles outbreaks with modelling estimating tens of thousands of cases

Wait…modelling?

We all know how successful modelling was with Covid. That is, successful at selling fear, because it certainly wasn’t successful at predicting ‘Covid cases and deaths’ since all the data it came out with were massive overestimates.

The model pdf report says:

[T]he risk of widespread transmission of measles, leading to a measles epidemic across the UK is considered low.

Risk assessment for measles resurgence in the UK

After that caveat (not mentioned in the media) we get into some nice fear porn like this:

Hospitalisation rates vary by age but range from 20 to 40%.

20% of even the fittest and healthiest age groups would be hospitalised for measles? Who believes this nonsense?

There doesn’t seem to be much of a ‘model’ in the report, their argument seems to be the lower vaccination rate in London means that the R (remember R from Covid fear porn?) is approaching 1 and this means there could be an outbreak:

[U]sing the UKHSA model, the reproduction number in London is now close to or above 1 (R=1.6, R=1.4, R=0.91) and could therefore result in an outbreak of between 40,000 and 160,000 cases.

The R rate (that is, the rate at which a virus spreads in the community, if you don’t remember it from Covid, so 1 means every infected person infects 1 other person) is calculated purely from vaccination rates among 25 and under. So far yet, this is purely hypothetical as there is no mass measles outbreak.

As to why measles has been selected for the fear campaign?

A measles outbreak seems a nice, likely candidate for a new fear campaign for a number of reasons. There is a large amount of (untrue) propaganda that a high mortality rate from measles was only stopped with the introduction of a measles vaccine.

Because measles is also a childhood disease, this evokes fear in parents that their child will die of measles. This contrasts with previous fear campaigns Covid-19, which clearly was not dangerous to children, and monkeypox/mpox/whatever-it-is-now, which largely affected gay men who had promiscuous sex.

Part 2: The Purpose

What’s the purpose of all this?

One of the main purposes is to sell MMR vaccination. Many of these articles fearmongering about measles (such as this one) have a picture of MMR vaccine vials – essentially product placement. You might not think the market would be that big – after all only young children get measles vaccines, right? But there’s actually potentially a bigger market than just young children available.

In fact, as per the UK Government, a large proportion of the population is not ‘fully vaccinated’ against measles, mumps and rubella. Why is this? Because the UK government deems that you need two doses to be ‘fully vaccinated’. The MMR vaccine (at 1 year) was introduced in 1988, but a second dose of the MMR vaccine (between 3-4) was not introduced until 1996, meaning 8 years of people not considered ‘fully protected’ who second doses can be sold to. Then there’s the people whose parents refused to let them have the MMR vaccination due to Wakefield’s paper. This group is referred to in the government press release as possibly ‘not fully vaccinated‘.

And then there are adults who were children before MMR was introduced. Presumably, these adults received a 1 dose measles single vaccine. Perhaps they are hoping that the endless fear porn will cause more people to ask their GPs for MMR vaccines. Many of the media articles stress that you can ask your GP about MMR vaccines if you are unsure of your vaccination status, as does the government press release:

Parents should check their children are fully vaccinated with 2 MMR doses, which gives 99% life-long protection, by checking their red book or with their GP practice, which younger and older adults can also do. Anyone not up-to-date should make an appointment as soon as possible.

London at risk of measles outbreaks with modelling estimating tens of thousands of cases

Another purpose is to demonise antivaxxers, and also to set up the narrative of blaming antivaxxers for any cases that occur (real or fabricated). We can see this in a recent article from the Daily Mail. Dr. Ahmad Malik, a British surgeon sceptical of the Covid jabs, recently interviewed Dr. Andrew Wakefield for his podcast. The Daily Mail immediately put out an article on Wakefield’s ‘misinformation’:

The disgraced ex-doctor and godfather of the anti-vax movement sparked fresh outrage today by claiming kids shouldn’t be given any jabs. Andrew Wakefield made the hugely controversial comments in a new podcast.

Disgraced ex-doctor and anti-vaxxer Andrew Wakefield claims he wouldn’t recommend kids get ANY jabs in new podcast, sparking fury among medics

While you do get occasional hit pieces on Wakefield in the media, why this podcast was selected for instant hatred was most likely due to the timing of its release – late July 2023. Wakefield has done multiple interviews with different alt-media (e.g. Steve Kirsch, UI Network, CHD) over the past few years without that much comment. However the timing of the release of the Malik podcast allows the media to blend this into their ‘measles pandemic’ push:

Fellow orthopaedic surgeon Dr Roshana Mehdian noted that Dr Malik was registered with the General Medical Council, the body that regulates medics in the UK. She noted that it comes ‘amidst a measles outbreak in London’.

Wakefield is ‘irresponsibly spreading’ ‘anti-vax disinformation’ ‘in the middle of an outbreak’ – where have we heard this tune before? This is a ‘measles outbreak’ that according to the article itself, consists of…85 cases.

The final function I will discuss is fear. That is pretty simple, to keep people in a state of fear so that if the government wants to revive policies like lockdowns in the future they will have an easier time of it. It has been demonstrated that people are more primed to accept authoritarian governments if there is a pandemic or illusion of a pandemic.

Part 3: The Problem

What do I mean by the problem? Vaccine failure. If we do get a resurgence of measles (which of course, is possible, although there is no evidence that this has occurred so far) vaccine failure will be the prime culprit.

The reality is that Measles/MMR vaccination has been a failure. The problem with vaccination is simple: while it is true that vaccination ‘produces antibodies’ the problem is that the manipulated solution of vaccination does not produce antibodies comparable to natural infection. This means that real immunity is not created to measles.

This is a study that Andrew Wakefield has pointed to in his discussions on measles vaccine failure. The study is called Measles Virus Neutralizing Antibodies in Intravenous Immunoglobulins: Is an Increase by Revaccination of Plasma Donors Possible? and it discusses levels of antibodies in blood donated for purposes of IVIG.

In short, levels of antibodies to measles are much lower since vaccination than they were prior to vaccination:

The study also found that adding a booster dose of the MMR vaccine only raises antibody levels in the very short term.

It’s also important to point out that all vaccination can do is put antibodies in the blood (regardless of the actual clinical meaning of those antibodies – as antivaxxers correctly argue, generating a bunch of antibodies is not proof of correlate of protection). The complex nature of the immune system is something not considered in vaccination (as discussed previously in this article). The complex responses created by natural infection are not something crudely rigging the immune system with vaccination can achieve. So if vaccination is even a failure at generation of blood antibody titers it’s a total failure.

James Lyons-Weiler also provided a helpful list of studies relating to measles vaccine failure on his substack. These are studies completed by vaccine promoters that nevertheless show real issues with measles vaccination. I cannot discuss all 25 (and of course, some of them are paywalled) but a glance at a few is worth our time.

One article from 1987 highlights vaccination failure was known even at that time:

An outbreak of measles occurred in a high school with a documented vaccination level of 98 per cent. Nineteen (70 per cent) of the cases were students who had histories of measles vaccination at 12 months of age or older and are therefore considered vaccine failures.

Measles outbreak in a vaccinated school population: epidemiology, chains of transmission and the role of vaccine failures.

One of the articles highlighted by Lyons-Weiler is co-written by Greg Poland, one of the most fanatical vaccinators on the planet. This is the guy who got tinnitus from the Covid ‘vaccine’, acknowledges he got tinnitus from the Covid ‘vaccine’ and still took a booster. So if even this guy is acknowledging limitations of measles vaccination, we must be looking at some degree of failure.

Receiving less attention, however, is the issue of vaccine failure. […][W]e and others have demonstrated that the immune response to measles vaccine varies substantially in actual field use. Multiple studies demonstrate that 2–10% of those immunized with two doses of measles vaccine fail to develop protective antibody levels, and that immunity can wane over time and result in infection (so-called secondary vaccine failure) when the individual is exposed to measles. For example, during the 1989–1991 U.S. measles outbreaks 20–40% of the individuals affected had been previously immunized with one to two doses of vaccine.

The Re-Emergence of Measles in Developed Countries: Time to Develop the Next-Generation Measles Vaccines?

For clarity we are talking about pretty small outbreaks here, so this as of yet cannot be taken as proof of mass vaccine failure. Nevertheless it demonstrates significant problems with the vaccine:

However, even with two documented doses of measles vaccine, our laboratory demonstrated that 8.9% of 763 healthy children immunized a mean of 7.4 years earlier, lacked protective levels of circulating measles-specific neutralizing antibodies [11], suggesting that even two doses of the current vaccine may be insufficient at the population level.

Meanwhile, the idea of measles ‘elimination’ via vaccination is a nonsense that is impossible, even with a mostly effective vaccine:

…measles eradication is unlikely as population immunity of 96–98% is required to prevent persisting measles endemicity [7,8,27,201]. In a recent study of measles-vaccine efficacy from 1960 to 2010, median efficacy was only 94% [28].

From an article by Poland, et al Cited by James Lyons-Weiler.

There are significant other factors concerning vaccine failure that could be considered, such as whether vaccination will drive new strains of the virus to arise, or that it may make measles more dangerous, that are beyond the scope of this article.

Conclusion

The UK government, media and establishment in general are attempting to push a fear based narrative around measles in order to sell MMR vaccination to the public and blame antivaxxers for any outbreaks. In reality, vaccine failure has been a contributing factor to outbreaks, and will continue to be so into the future.

Photo 1: by Markus Spiske on Pexels.com

Photo 2: Swab used in measles frequency studies, London, England, 1996 (salivette) by Unknown maker is licensed under CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 (via Openverse)

‘Vaccine’ Side Effect Narrative Management and the Mainstream Media

Introduction

Covid-19 ‘vaccine’ side effects are extremely common. According to Pfizer’s own documentation, there is a 9-page list of possible side effects of the mRNA jabs. The state, media, and international actors, however, were determined to get the entire population jabbed. Some of this involved direct coercion, such as sacking care home workers and threatening to sack NHS staff. However, a large part of convincing people to get ‘vaccinated’ for Covid relied on the mainstream media, and in particular how that media dealt with claims of side effects from the Covid jabs.

The Function of the Media

Despite various protestations from the media that their job is to present the truth and hold the establishment to account, in reality they act as a crucial part of that establishment. Their role is to present narratives that support the establishment in a palatable way, and to keep any debate within very narrow grounds (the territory of what Ryan Cristian has dubbed the ‘two party illusion’). The mainstream media’s compliance with government narratives is ensured in multiple ways, including overlap of interests, financial incentives via advertising, cultural commonality and plain laziness (such as it being easy to spout government press releases as ‘news’). In the last analysis, it can also be maintained through state force – witness what happened to Julian Assange when he released information about US war crimes.

The Beginning of the Jab Rollout

The UK mainstream media – with very few exceptions (Peter Hitchens is the only example that comes to mind) – backed lockdowns from Day 1, and in fact pushed for harder and longer lockdowns. Lockdown sceptics were smeared as conspiracy theorists and mocked. But this was only a taste of what was to come with the miracle jab.

The idea of a vaccine has always been promoted by some people as the ultimate way out of lockdowns. Initially, the government itself did not put as much emphasis on ‘vaccination’ as the way out of lockdowns, given that they were still pretending lockdown would be only short term. This narrative became more and more important as lockdowns dragged on, with the government and media trying to encourage compliance with the lockdowns by urging that we would soon have the ‘vaccine’ and give it to enough people and that the nightmare would then be over.

The media portrayed the ‘race for the vaccine’ in a positive way, as the hero pharmaceutical companies that were going to save us from the deadly plague. Any problems, such as a case of transverse myelitis during the Oxford/AstraZeneca ‘vaccine’ trial, were quickly smoothed over and forgotten about. The media was happy to repeat claims from the manufacturers of the injections. This BBC article, while it does suggest in a mealy-mouthed way that the data is limited further down the article, it does say that it is safe and likely to be highly effective (referring to the Pfizer product).

With the availability of the jab, this started to go into overdrive. The first man to be given the jab in the UK outside of clinical trials was called William Shakespeare. This was manufactured and used in order to give a positive view of the ‘vaccine’. While a BBC article contained many puns on Shakespeare works, the actual purpose of this propaganda was to associate the ‘vaccine’ with one of the greatest British figures in history. The respect that a large number of British people have for Shakespeare is subconsciously transferred to the jab by this manipulation (or at least, that is the intention). There are also further attempts to use patriotic ideas as a means to promote the jab, in particular by bragging about the British ‘vaccine success’ compared to the continent, as Britain had given the vaccine to many more people early on in the rollout.

Drips and Drabs: The Beginning of the Catastrophe

Despite the constant praise for the jabs, the extreme danger of these injections was clear to anyone paying attention very quickly. Testimony quickly popped up online alleging mass death in care homes after the jabs. Vaccine injury stories began to pop up on TikTok, Facebook and Twitter from January 2021, for example testimony from Shawn Skelton, Angelia Desselle and Kristi Simmonds, interviewed by Del Bigtree back in April 2021. Death and injury reports in the US Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) began to skyrocket early on in the rollout. In other words, anyone paying attention could figure out these jabs were extremely dangerous by February 2021.

How did the media deal with these reports of side effects from these novel mRNA injections? The most obvious response is to stonewall all cases of major negative side effects, and indeed we do see aspects of this. If I search on google (as this is what non-conspiracy theorists are likely to be using) for ‘covid 19 vaccine side effects’, I find standard pages from the NHS downplaying the risks of the jab.

Holding Back the Flood?: The Case of the Astra Zeneca Blood Clots

However, a strategy of denying all side effects (other than the minor ones like a sore arm) was not credible. Instead, the mainstream media employed a strategy well known in the media: to acknowledge the critique but focus down on a very small aspect in order to whitewash the whole.

This technique of narrative management was identified by Chomsky and Herman in their famous work, Manufacturing Consent. They give an example from the Vietnam War. When criticism of the war in 1960s America began to become more prominent, the media could not completely ignore the crimes being committed against the Vietnamese people. So, the media focused in on one atrocity that took place during the war, the massacre carried out at My Lai by American soldiers. The point of the media drawing so much attention to this crime was to isolate it from the rest of the war, to make it into an exceptional event. This served to whitewash the fact that the complete destruction of Vietnamese villages and murder and rape of civilians were standard American practice.

It is this form of narrative management that we first observe when the reports of adverse events start to drip out over the first few months of the rollout. They picked one specific side effect – the blood clots reported after the AstraZeneca jab – and used that to obscure all of the other side effects being reported after both types of ‘vaccine’ (the beginning of the rollout in the UK was AstraZeneca and Pfizer, with some Moderna added later). They looked only at the risk of this one side effect, declared it to be rare, and then claimed based on this that the ‘vaccines’ were safe. Simply ignoring all claims of side effects would cause them to lose credibility, while acknowledgement of this one point allowed them to maintain credibility and make it look as if they are allowing some degree of criticism and debate. We must remember that this period in time was crucial, as it was important to the establishment to get as many people to take the jab as possible, and at this point, only older age groups had taken the ‘vaccine’.

As such, reports such as the following cropped up in the mainstream media:

Unusual blood clots in the brain have been detected in a handful of people after they were injected with the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine. […]

The organisation [European Medicines Agency] has to figure out whether the reported clots are a side-effect or a coincidence that would have happened naturally. This is incredibly hard when dealing with rare events. If, on the other hand, one in every 10,000 people was having serious blood clots then the answer would be obvious.

BBC

The British Government’s website contains a statement addressing the AstraZeneca jab from the 7th April 2021:

There have been reports of an extremely rare adverse event of concurrent thrombosis (blood clots) and thrombocytopenia (low platelet count) following vaccination with the first dose of AstraZeneca ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222). There has been no signal for thrombosis/thrombocytopenia following receipt of other COVID-19 vaccines approved for use in the UK (Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna).

Note the declaration that this side effect has not been observed with the Pfizer or Moderna ‘vaccines’ – which is false. It is however convenient, as it allows the establishment to scapegoat the AstraZeneca jab for all problems, while pushing the Pfizer and Moderna.

The media also went as far as to publish testimonies of those injured by Vaccine Induced Thrombotic Thrombocytopenia, while stressing the rarity of such a side effect:

Osteopath Joseph Robinson, 32, suffered brain damage from a rare blood clot after his first AstraZeneca dose in February.

He had to quit work after VITT – vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia – left him with memory loss and speech and language impairments.

Today’s Reality: Sudden Adult Death Syndrome

The media strategies worked on the vast majority of people. Official data on the number of people in the UK who took a Covid jab can be debated, with conflicting numbers from different sources, as well as some exaggeration of numbers jabbed for propaganda purposes. However, it is clear that the majority of people took at least the first 2 doses of the covid jabs.

Nowadays, we have a different type of media propaganda, focusing on reassuring the minds of people who have taken the jabs that it was the right decision. No one is trying to convince the unvaccinated with rational argument at this point – if they ever were. Meanwhile, a massive amount of unexplained death is happening all across the world. Mark Crispin Miller on Substack has been chronicling the masses of people who are now ‘dying suddenly’, often with no cause of death mentioned in the news coverage. These include people of all ages, races and a large number of different countries.

The media, on the other hand, is trying to ignore this mass death as much as possible, while also trying to normalise random heart attacks and dropping dead. The ‘health story’ has been a long-term fixture of the British media – with the fact that the Daily Mail always runs stories about everything causing cancer being a running joke. (That said, in retrospect, given how toxic everything is perhaps they had a point). Now, these often-bizarre health stories are focusing on heart attacks, with a number complied here by Naked Emperor:

BBC – Devoted football fans experience ‘dangerous’ levels of stress

Express – Heart attack: Does skipping breakfast increase your risk?

Daily Mail – Expert warns that shovelling snow can be a deadly way to discover underlying cardiovascular conditions as straining the heart with physical activity could cause sudden death

Of course, none of these articles mention the ‘vaccine’ even though the British government admit that the jabs can cause heart issues.

Most likely these stories are being published because more heart attacks are being observed by ordinary people in their lives and it serves to associate the heart attack with anything other than the jab. Even if the reader thinks these stories are stupid, they may still have a subconscious effect somewhere. (Though, sometimes, these stories are so idiotic that I wonder if they almost want you to know subconsciously what has been done to you – if you took the jab – and for you to live in terror of dropping dead any minute.)

The media are also playing a role in normalising ‘Sudden Adult Death Syndrome’ (SADS) meaning when an adult suddenly dies with no clear cause of death. A large number of these deaths are most likely jab induced. As Mark Crispin Miller has observed in his series, no cause of death being listed is becoming much more common in death articles in the mainstream media. The media is currently running generic articles on SADS, claiming that people should get their heart looked at if they are at risk:

People aged under 40 are being urged to have their hearts checked because they may potentially be at risk of Sudden Adult Death Syndrome. 

The syndrome, known as SADS, has been fatal for all kinds of people regardless of whether they maintain a fit and healthy lifestyle.

Daily Mail

Conclusion

The media serves as an important way to manage the narrative around the Covid-19 ‘vaccines’: both in order to encourage uptake, deflect from side effects and normalise the carnage being caused by these extremely dangerous products.

Zombie Russians Part 2: Steele Beats a Dead Steed

Mock film poster with Caricature of Alexander Petrov and Ruslan Boshirov. Film title: Zombie Russians, a cassandra's box production

Many people have observed that every other narrative in the world just got dropped as soon as Covid came along. ISIS terrorists and Russian spies magically disappeared the moment the deadliest pandemic in a century narrative became the most convienent one.

However, this doesn’t seem to stop the occassional half hearted flaying of a dead narrative. As I pointed out in my previous piece, Zombie Russians, our old friends Petrov and Boshirov were (briefly) brought out of retirement when the government needed a distraction from the US attempt to have anti-lockdown Belarussian president Alexander Lukashenko murdered.

Christopher Steele, the infamous author of the ‘Trump pee tape’ dossier, is back and being given uncritical coverage by Sky News. A 13 minute video put out by the news corporation asks Steele to defend his dossier and how he feels about the current situation with Russia. I couldn’t think of someone less qualified to talk about Russia than this muppet, but whatever.

If you’d like to laugh at it for yourself, it’s embedded below.

Sky News, of course, jazzes up the interview with some dramatic music and shots of Steele’s safe where he supposedly kept all his ‘research’. This is to make it seem like something out of James Bond when it’s really something out of Steele’s fever dreams.

The interview starts with the dramatic. “There are serious people at the top of Russia who regard themselves at war with us.” At the top of Russia? So there’s people standing on Mount Elbrus screaming about how we really need to bomb the Brits? It’s also rather funny how this ‘war’ with Russia has been on hold for 18 months because of ‘Covid’. You’d think if those pesky Russians were so dangerous the mainstream media would have stopped talking about the flu for more than two minutes over the past 18 months.

The next clip shows Steele agreeing to the idea that Russia has done hostile intelligence ops against the UK (after taking an extremely dramatic sip of tea.) Yeah, because Russia is like every other country in the world and has spies. They always act so shocked at the fact that Russia has spies, it’s hilarious.

The footage then flips to Steele’s Orbis Business Intelligence office, Steele’s hand on a chair, all very dramatic. (Pablo Miller, the guy who worked at Orbis Business Intelligence and just happened by some coincidence to be Sergei Skripal’s handler is not mentioned).

The ‘investigation’ by Steele into Trump and Russia is then launched into. “It was in this safe here that the bomb ticked,” Steele claims, bigging himself up as though the idea of Trump having sex with prostitutes is the most shocking and unexpected claim in the universe. Interestingly though, he implicitly distances himself from his work, talking about how ‘it was produced’ rather than ‘I produced it’. Probably because deep down he knows its bollocks.

Our sycophant for hire ‘journalist’ then asks him how much of his nonsense is true. Of course he says he ‘thinks’ it’s mostly true (allowing me to think it’s a load of nonsense). She then asks him about the reliability of his sources and he says ‘we were pretty confident that the majority of the sources were highly reliable’. (Who’s ‘we’ Mr. Steele? She asked you for your opinion.)

The narrator then says that Russia was accused of hacking the Clinton emails by the US government. One thing is not mentioned though is the name of the journalist (Julian Assange) or publisher (Wikileaks) which printed the emails. Can’t have our viewers searching ‘Julian Assange’ and inadvertently getting a bit of truth, now can we? (Or the protest footage from the march for Assange that happened in London yesterday for that matter.)

It then says that no evidence was found to corroborate the pee claim (although it doesn’t call it that, just calls it Trump with prostitutes and ‘sex tapes’ without mentioning any urination). Then Steele is asked his level of confidence in the ‘sex tape’ claim. He says it’s ‘pretty high’.

She then asks him if he is a fraud. He says ‘no’ but then adds ‘of course I’m not.’ He them talks about all the security clearances he’s been issued over the years as if that somehow proves something.

He then comes up with a bizarre claim that the Russians put some wedding rings in his wife’s sponge bag. Apparently this is the new Novichok.

We’re informed a Putin spokesperson declined to comment. Probably because he was too busy laughing.

The interview then moves on to the Brexit referendum, saying there was ‘potential attempts to fund parts of the Brexit campaign.’ So Russia didn’t fund the Brexit campaign, they only ‘attempted’ to? (There’s a serious point here; lingustically, the use of the words ‘potential attempts’ shows Steele is not committed to his own words. If he was, he would have just said ‘Russia funded the Leave campaign’.)

She then asks for evidence and he says that he doesn’t have it to hand. No shit. A lot of other things aimed at Russia are mentioned including that they tried to hack the Covid vaccine research, so if you thought we were gonna get through a mainstream media piece without them mentioning the scamdemic, well, you were wrong.

According to Steele, Russia also threatens unity among EU member states. Because the vast historical, lingustic, cultural and political differences between 27 separate countries are obviously caused by Putin.

Right at the end of the interview, Steele quotes Putin in the original Russian. I always find it so amusing that they think it somehow improves their argument if they are a capable of using a Russian word.

I probably know at least 2000 Russian words so my argument has got to be pretty good.

I’ve had enough of Steele now, so do svidaniya!