Synchronised messaging – the expanding phenomenon on behalf of those in power

The chilling effect of synchronised and unchecked media messages repeated on behalf of those in power

“The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. … We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. … In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons … who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.”

Edward Bernays, the “father of modern public relations”

In his book “Propaganda” (1928), pp 9-10

After the first debate between the US presidential candidates (June 28), the biggest issue was not even Joe Biden's impaired cognitive capacity, which is well known to anyone with any ability to observe the behaviour and actions of that leader of the most powerful Western country. Rather, it was the public relations force that was immediately hired and consolidated to try to distort the painful reality in a particularly aggressive and systematic way. More than 100 spokespeople and media figures in the US tried to convey exactly the same message about Joe Biden's abilities - sharp, capable, focused, etc. In short - "sharp as a tack".

“Biden is sharp as a tack”

These media people, mostly from the US progressive front, had exactly the same talking point to deliver. And the intention was clear - to distort and deny reality. Matt Orfalea has put together a video overview of the huge gap between such talking points and the harsh reality. He has stressed that the video below contains no doctored images, that uncomfortable pauses have not been stretched, and he claims that Biden looks better in this video than in the actual debate. Anyone can see for themselves, watch a compilation by Matt Orfalea:

We have been taught in schools and universities that in developed democracies the media plays a crucial role as the so-called fourth power. It is supposed to observe and criticise the circle of power and help to expose undesirable tendencies and excesses of power. Excesses of power are always aimed at restricting individual freedoms and increasing control over people's lives. Independent media, as the fourth power, should therefore help to provide the reality check that is urgently needed in our modern societies full of conflicting interests. Is the media still fulfilling this role today, or are we witnessing the gradual but rapid transformation of the fourth power into a player within the power circle itself?

“Misinformation is dangerous to our democracy”

Of course, this curious phenomenon of synchronised messaging has been around for some time. Watch a compilation from 2017:

We are witnessing an intensified "war on disinformation" on the part of the powers, which has gained ground especially in the aftermath of the Covid crisis. Freedom Research has written about the efforts of global players to “fight disinformation and hate speech”, which especially in recent years has been heeded by the United Nations, power brokers in the US, Australia, Canada etc and the EU Commission. It is the propaganda cover to hide the real motive - to restrict speech and dissent in areas the powers that be disagree with or find uncomfortable. It is important to understand that restricting freedom of expression only leads in one direction - away from a free society and the rule of law, and closer to what we see today in authoritarian countries like Russia and China.

Restricting freedom of expression goes hand in hand with amplifying the messages and talking points that those in power deem to be in their interest. There are many examples of synchronised messaging, but we will stick to the most recent ones. You will be presented with some of the compilations that show us the same or similar talking points being delivered by the media (the fourth power) and others in the public sphere, mostly on behalf of or heeded by the power circle.

“The Covid lie that started it all” - 3,4% death rate in March 2020

The false estimate by the WHO in March 2020 was the basis for the fierce fear of Covid-19 and all the coercion and restrictions that were implemented around the world. The false mortality rate of 3,4% in the WHO estimation was spread like wildfire by the media and all those (doctors, scientists, politicians, etc) who opposed or criticised this false estimate were attacked, ridiculed or played down. But the real facts were on the table very early on, as early as March 2020, when lockdowns were just being decided upon in Europe and the US.

An eminent scientist from Stanford University, Prof. John P. A. Ioannidis showed in mid-March of March 2020 that the WHO figure was clearly exaggerated and provided solid arguments for relating to that common disease in a reasonable and scientific way. Prof. Jayanta Bhattacharya and Eran Bendavid wrote already on March 24, 2020 that fears of Covid-19 were based primarily on a miscalculated death toll reported by the WHO, which was vastly exaggerated because it did not take into account the actual rate of infection. Less than two months later, a team led by Professor Ioannidis showed in a scientific study that the risk of dying from Covid-19 for people under the age of 65, even in pandemic epicentres, was very low, and deaths amongst people under the age of 65 with no comorbidities were remarkably rare. But these real facts and arguments went unheard, as the authorities continued their fear-mongering and the mainstream media continued their apparently uncritical parroting of the authorities' talking points. Watch:

“Nobody is safe until everybody is safe” campaign

The hyped-up fear of Covid-19 led to increased pressure to inoculate the whole world with the rushed Covid mRNA vaccines. Anthony Fauci and his proxies tried to convince the public at the height of the vaccination pressure that: “If you are vaccinated, you do not have a risk, it is as simple as black and white. You are safe!”

And Bill Gates put it bluntly: “Normalcy only returns when we’ve largely vaccinated the entire global population.”

There was an incredible effort by the media and the public to get the main message across from the authorities: "No one is safe until everyone is safe - that means vaccinated".

Even without taking into account the unintelligible official medical position that every member of the society should be vaccinated against a disease with a mortality rate of less than 0,3% (0,05% for people under 70), the public, media and state pressure to expel anyone willing to make their own decision about vaccination was unprecedented. The slogan "Nobody is safe until everyone is safe" should have be a gross oxymoron to any thinking person, because an unvaccinated person couldn't possibly be a threat to the vaccinated if the vaccines are really safe, work and are "99% effective" as the authorities and the vaccine manufacturers claimed. But that didn't stop thousands of people from spreading these arguments and pushing the population towards the needle. A fatal needle for many. Watch:

“The unvaccinated are the problem” trance

Evidently, all of this consensus trance led to blaming the scapegoats - the unvaccinated. "Get your damn jab" and "you shouldn't do your own research" were common slogans to be spread by media personalities and outlets.

And continuing with the absurd mantra that "the unvaccinated are the threat" and "the unvaccinated are a risk to all of us".

“Screw your freedom,” shouted former governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. “Not being vaccinated seems criminal,” claimed actor Sean Penn, etc. Watch:

“Build back better” and “The Great Reset” slogans

"Build back better" and "the Great Reset" became popular slogans during and after the crisis. World leaders and figureheads spoke in remarkably similar terms about resetting the status quo, with World Economic Forum (WEF) Chairman Klaus Schwab declaring firmly: “There is a window of opportunity that should not be wasted to reset our global agenda.”

Many leading figures from the UK, the US, Canada, New Zealand, the Netherlands, the UN, etc., simultaneously reaffirmed the idea of building back better, and building a new world order that would lead to a promising future. Watch:

WEF’s vision: “You will OWN NOTHING, and you will be happy”

Indeed, the WEF has been active and visible during the recent years. During the Covid-crisis, the WEF introduced a new vision for the future – you will own nothing and still be happy by 2030. This message has been echoed by a number of billionaires and politicians and has not been really scrutinized by the fourth power, aka the mainstream media outlets. Is this a truly philanthropic vision for humanity or is this vision eerily familiar to our not so distant past tragedies in the 20th century?

We conclude with author Douglas Kruger's incisive analysis of the WEF's plan for the "Great Reset", which involves a fundamental restructuring of the global economy. This is accompanied by the introduction of a collectivist slogan: by 2030 you will own nothing, but still "enjoy a happy and fulfilling life".

Douglas Kruger argues that WEF’s vision takes personal ownership out of the equation and this is already problematic per se. If a person becomes dependant on a greater power in everything, then he is not free. Freedom has been introduced to the Western civilization together with the principle of personal ownership, personal property. Economist and historian Thomas Sowell has made an astute observation that, unfortunately, people evaluate political systems in a grossly mistaken manner. Instead of evaluating them based on their outcomes after the fact, people evaluate them based on their kindly sounding intentions before the fact. At the intentions stage it is remarkably easy for smooth politicians to stand up and say things that sound very kind. So, if you take the ownership out of the hands of the broad base of the population – families, small and medium businesses and individuals – then you very quickly create an environment of cronyism, corruption and state corporatism.

Kruger points out that when we talk about collective ownership, we are often told that the great thing about it is that everyone will be an owner. The reality behind it will be that no one will own anything except those in power. And this impulse to take away private ownership and concentrate it in the hands of the representative government is purely Marxist – it is the heart and soul of the Marxist idea. Watch a video by The Centre For Risk Analysis:

Conclusion

So lately the "fourth power" has not been up to its task in providing critical and independent perspectives on the actions and visions of those in power. What is the real motive behind this growing phenomenon of synchronised media messages and talking points around the global power lines? Is it just plain strategic communication, "diversity of opinion" or something else? Has the media just succumbed under the weight of information overload or are we actually witnessing a conscious politisation of the media, as it is relinquishing its watchdog role to promoting a specific political agenda? We can only hope that time will tell us before it’s late or else, perhaps, that the new online media will take over the role of the fourth power from its conglomerate predecessors.