When the Mainstream Media Bubble doesn't do its job and when the political spectrum is out of date
The Christine Anderson kerfuffle demonstrates the front and back end of the "circular spectrum."
NOTE from February 28: an additional comment from a reader was added near the bottom of this post.
OPEN LETTER to various members of the censored mainstream media bubble, to Canadian politicians and the general public.
Hello….
This is in response to those who are trying to silence the opponents to the COVID-19 vaccination drive by claiming that one very outspoken voice has “racist views.” This same intentional mislabelling was used to discredit last year’s Freedom Convoy and was allowed to persist partly because Canadian journalists continue to NOT follow their code of ethics which requires making space for ALL divergent voices on any issue for the wellbeing of the public.
FACT: Christine Anderson was in Canada for various events in Alberta and Ontario.
FACT: Christine Anderson expressed great support and admiration for all Canadians who opposed the various COVID-19 measures imposed last year by the Canadian government. This includes the many participants in last year’s Freedom Convoy.
FACT: Zero governing politicians met with organizers of the Freedom Convoy last year, despite the groundswell of support for Convoy members visible alongside Canadian highways across nearly all of the country. Associated FACT - Zero federal health officials met with the medical scientists when invited to share evidence in support of federal COVID-19 measures. Additional associated FACT - The refusal of public health officials to demonstrate to Canadians exactly how and why the COVID-19 measures (including vaccine mandates for truckers and federal employees) were grounded in scientific evidence was not reported within the mainstream media bubble.
FACT: Already this time last year there was a preponderance of evidence demonstrating the CLEAR LACK OF SAFETY, EFFICACY and NECESSITY of COVID-19 vaccine products (not to mention of masking, social distancing, lockdowns, etc.)
FACT: Christine Anderson and a very small minority of the members of the European Parliament had called upon Pfizer to testify at the European Parliament how their COVID-19 vaccine could have been already ready for testing, just 2 weeks after China released the genetic code of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. This received next to no coverage in the censored mainstream media bubble. This means those Canadians who limit their news watching to the CBC, Global, CTV, etc. are also not aware that Pfizer admitted to not having tested the vaccine for its ability to stop transmission of COVID. Similar recent high level revelations coming directly from the heads of the vaccine makers are not being reported on. Many Canadians are unaware that the CEO of Moderna recently stated that his company had already created the COVID-19 vaccine product in 2019 BEFORE COVID-19 was publicly reported on. He mentioned having advance knowledge in late 2019 that his company would be ramping up production of this product on a massive scale because of the planned upcoming pandemic.
OBSERVATION: These two statements by these two CEOs alone negate the narrative pronounced by the mainstream media bubble that vaccine manufacturers created the vaccine AFTER the appearance of the SARS-CoV-2 virus and that taking the vaccine would prevent transmission of the illness.
FACT: Since March 2022 Pfizer had been court ordered to release its trial data on a monthly basis - this allows independent international medical and scientific researchers to ascertain what had been suspected - that Pfizer illegally fudged data, did not follow correct trial procedures and PUSHED A SUBSTANCE that PFIZER KNEW to be detrimental to various population segments notably pregnant women and fetuses. YET THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA BUBBLE has STILL NOT MENTIONED these ongoing CRUCIAL LIFE AND DEATH findings to its readership/viewership nearly a year later.
FACT: Canadian journalists are expected to follow the Ethics Guidelines of the Canadian Association of Journalists which state among other things: (boldface my own)
Accuracy is the moral imperative of journalists and news organizations
We do not allow our own biases to impede fair and accurate reporting.
We lose our credibility as fair observers if we write opinion pieces about subjects we also cover as reporters.
We disclose to our audiences any biases that could be perceived to influence our reporting.
The public has a right to know about its institutions and the people who are elected or hired to serve its interests.
We serve democracy and the public interest by reporting the truth. This sometimes conflicts with various public and private interests, including those of sources, governments, advertisers and, on occasion, with our duty and obligation to an employer.
Defending the public’s interest includes promoting the free flow of information, exposing crime or wrongdoing, protecting public health and safety, and preventing the public from being misled.
We do not give favoured treatment to advertisers and special interests. We resist their efforts to influence the news.
We give people, companies or organizations that are publicly accused or
criticized an opportunity to respond before we publish those criticisms or accusations.
If a journalist does choose to engage in outside political activity or espouse a particular political viewpoint, this activity could create a public perception of bias, or favouritism that would reflect on the journalist’s work.
News organizations – including newspapers, websites, magazines, radio and television – provide forums for the free interchange of information and opinion. As such, we seek to include views from all segments of the population.
We also encourage our organizations to make room for the interests of all: minorities and majorities, those with power and those without it, holders of disparate and conflicting views.
We are accountable to the public for the fairness and reliability of our reporting.
We serve the public interest, and put the needs of our audience – readers, listeners or viewers – at the forefront of our newsgathering decisions.
We use care when reporting on medical studies, polls and surveys, and we are especially suspect of studies commissioned by those with a vested interest, such as drug companies, special interest groups or politically sponsored think tanks.
We make sure we know the context of the results, such as sample size and population, questions asked, and study sponsors, and we include this information in our reports whenever possible.
When we make a mistake, we correct it promptly and transparently, acknowledging the nature of the error.
PERSONAL OBSERVATION: Many readers who have been OUTSIDE of the mainstream media bubble these past few years can identify many cases where CBC/CTV/Global etc. journalists have fallen short of these ethics guidelines: no correction of the false reports on the alleged 95% efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccines; no questions asked and context provided on any of the COVID-19 vaccine stories; no transparent acknowledging of the various errors that painted the Freedom Convoy as a whole in a negative light - not US right wing radical funded, no anti-Semitism, racism etc. as its focus; no provision of free exchange of information; no serving of the public interest which would be to NOT TAKE KNOWN TOXIC substances without informed consent and the full information with which to do a proper risk/benefit analysis and without coercion; no mention of anything that would put the special interest group of BigPharma in a negative light, i.e. no reporting on Pfizer’s pre-COVID status as the company with the largest consumer fraud charges in history; no investigation of the conflicts of interests among various decision makers among our health officials and politicians in order to “serve the public interest”; not a hint of the fact that the citizens’ hearings were in progress at which a wide range of related experts along with many “ordinary Canadians” testified how the various government supported mandates impacted them or the wider public DESPITE having been invited to attend; no significant mention yet of the upcoming larger scale citizen led national inquiry into the management of the declared pandemic; no explanation of the damming evidence on state and corporate violations of free speech amendments now coming to light via Elon Musk’s release of the Twitter files; no disclosure of the journalists’ own biases when choosing which stories to cover and which to ignore + who to interview and who to leave out; no opportunity for those being publicly accused or criticized to respond before the critique is made public, etc. etc.
For example, did the journalists who are claiming Christine Anderson’s AFD is a “far right political party” as written by Wikipedia actually ask Christine Anderson how the stances taken by the Alternative for Germany party through which she was elected to the European Parliament actually reflect a fascist viewpoint? (They don’t.) The claim that she projects antisemitic views also doesn’t stand, as explained here.
FACT: Our old LEFT/RIGHT political spectrum has long been useless and no longer indicative of the actual party platforms. We are used to the following (totally simplified) descriptions:
“far left” = communist, as in no private property and a total state-run economy. The planned and totalitarian government of the former Soviet Union comes to mind'
“left-leaning” = government-run social services, in particular health care, keeping large-scale profit seeking private enterprise (corporations) out of the picture. Depending how far governments go, if they also run or highly regulate the sales of liquor or firearms, some tend to call them socialist. In general, Canada’s health care hero, Tommy Douglas comes to mind as does on occasion the late Jack Layton of the NDP a few decades ago - both role models for “left-leaning” Canadians.
“progressive” is a trendy word being kicked around. Technically rooted in “progress” progressive could indicate an openness to any changes that move toward technological progress. It is typically associated with those leaning to the left.
“centrist” is typically easy to understand - reflecting those who would pragmatically take ideas from both directions in order to manage from the middle
“far right” = fascist, as in the state is in bed with the corporations, doing their bidding, ignoring the will of the people. Hitler and Mussolini come to mind, and their understanding of fascism was strongly rooted within the ideas of ethnic or racial supremacy, with little or no tolerance for folks of a different racial background. Italian WWII leader Mussolini described fascism as “corporatism” as it does not always need to include a racial component but it does involve major corporations often overpowering governmental powers when it comes to decision-making that can enrich the corporations at the expense of the rest of the population.
That leaves the position of the “right” - which typically advocates for a business based (or capitalist) economy with little government “red tape” to get in the way. On the question of healthcare, for example, when faced with proposals for service delivery in areas such as laundry, food services, lab testing, cataract surgery, and hip replacements to be delivered by companies outside of the public health care system, left-leaning critics argue that it is too “right-wing” to allow capitalists to have a role in a socialist health care system. The more big businesses and multinational corporations are given a role or tend to forge and enable roles for themselves, the closer the right moves to fascism.
Thirty years ago, as free trade agreements provided multinational corporation with rights similar to those of a person (and more, i.e. the right to make a profit superseding a trading partner’s right to worker legislation and environmental protection), it was primarily left-leaning Canadians, including of course the New Democrats, who took to the streets en masse to protest creeping “über-Capitalism” in our nations. Unfortunately, these protests did not end up reining in the increasingly growing powers of multinational corporations which were enabled by Conservatives and Liberals alike.
OBSERVATION: The basic explanation of the points on the traditional political spectrum looks fine and good. But our Canadian political party system can no longer be described in terms of left/centrist/right. Imagine teaching future voters currently in high school, or newcomers to Canada the following about our party system:
“OK, the governing party right now is called the LIBERALS. Their name comes from the idea of LIBERTY, but they are responsible for keeping Canadians less free than citizens of many other countries. For many months, Canada was locking its unvaccinated citizens inside the country, not allowing them on airplanes, while every other country in the world had already opened its borders to all. And even today, while other countries legislate a stop to the toxic COVID-19 injections, Canadian health care and government employees are still being coerced into “staying up to date” with injections proven unscientific, useless, harmful and potentially fatal. So when you see the word “liberal” try NOT to associate it with “liberty” OK? The Liberals and the NEW DEMOCRATS both claim to be “left-leaning” yet our LIBERAL Prime Minister openly admires the COMMUNIST regime of China, having publicly stated he admires how they can “get things done.” The LIBERAL party members have remained silent as Canada’s intelligence agents point out the collusion between Chinese Communists and Canada’s Liberals when it comes to recent election interference as well as to the presence of Chinese policing agencies on Canadian soil. So it would appear that the LIBERALS have strong COMMUNIST leanings.
And you would think that the NEW DEMOCRATS, based on their name, would promote DEMOCRACY. Yet it was they who, by siding with the ‘liberty loving” Liberals, put an end to Canadians’ democratic right to protest last spring. Liberals and New Democrats, despite their names, claimed that it was undemocratic to have Canadians come to the capital city so that their representatives could have face to face talks with the government about the very undemocratic measures the government was mandating. They claimed that the rights of the many from across the whole country (who wanted a stop to deadly and costly vaccine mandates and a return to the principle of informed consent) could not supersede the rights of the few, those residents in the districts around the Parliament buildings (who wanted a quick stop to the noisy protests and a return to a good night’s sleep).
Meanwhile CONSERVATIVES are named after conservation or keeping something the way it was. In other words, the CONSERVATIVES, when they noted the totalitarian tendencies of the parties supporting freedom and democracy in name only (i.e. the Liberals and NDs), should have raised their voices in opposition. When they noted the unprofessional name-calling by the Prime Minister, of truly freedom seeking Canadians (those who advocated freedom from harmful government imposed vaccine injections), the CONSERVATIVES, in view of the need to KEEP respect and decorum in public policy, should have risen en masse, to stand alongside the Canadians who were speaking out against these injections. The CONSERVATIVES should also have made it their business to advocate for the return to a free press and to investigate under which terms Canada’s Liberal government had shovelled “pandemic support” to the mainstream media. Did the money come with strings attached? Was SILENCE ON SCIENCE a condition of receiving the money? True to their name, the CONSERVATIVES should have looked into the means by which the government was in bed with Big Tech and Big Pharma and advocated for a return to pre-COVID sanity in public policy. Yet, for the most part, they were silent, with just a very few “putting their neck out” to advance petitions, meet with Convoy members, respond professionally to (instead of ignoring) the many letters being written by those whom they represented.”
This explanation of Canada’s main political parties verges on the ridiculous, but when seen from the point of view of those outside of the censored mainstream media bubble, this description is pretty accurate.
One could briefly also explain the other political parties in Canada as follows:
The GREENS remind us all that there is a natural environment that needs to be considered. Sadly though, their take on climate change is limited to the one theory that human-derived carbon is the major cause of an impending period of global warming. This plays right into the hands of BigTech who will benefit when governments mandate all manner of travel and consumption restrictions, which then need to be tracked and monitored via tech platforms galore! Fifteen minute cities and “the Internet of Bodies” here we come! Ching Ching for some, loss of rights and freedoms for others. As the public slowly becomes aware that global warming and cooling periods have existed well before the arrival of fossil fuel technologies, there will be less fear to manipulate and a search for more pragmatic ways to support the environment can be engaged in. All the hot air and costly efforts going into the taxing and cutting of carbon emissions has been distracting us from a more direct and visible cause of climate catastrophes… wide-scale climate manipulation tactics. If instead on focusing their efforts on carbon reduction, the Greens were to put a stop to climate geo-engineering, pollution, and the harvesting of underwater precious metals, their presence in the Parliament would be more valuable. We do however, greatly appreciate their recent advocacy for a cessation of arms support in Ukraine and a return to peace talks. Due to a faulty mainstream media, most Canadians are not aware, for example, that Zelensky was amenable and Putin desired a mutual peace agreement LAST April already, way before Ukraine ran out of professional soldiers and needed to start conscripting teenagers and seniors as is currently the case. Who in the mainstream media has reported how Boris Johnson (Zelensky’s handler), for example, intervened to forbid the signing of this peace agreement that many months ago? At least the Greens had had the courage to speak words like “peace” in Parliament! (So sad that speaking this word nowadays requires courage and results in so much backlash!)
Then we have the Bloc Québécois - whose mandate only extends to Quebec, but who sit in the National Parliament buildings (an odd thing to explain to new voters!). Sometimes, commentary by Bloc members comes from a centrist viewpoint, since they are not married specifically to a left or right leaning ideology. So by means of their questions and contributions, they can manoeuvre the government into a more pragmatic and less ideological stance - i.e. pick what works best at the time. Lastly, we have the People’s Party of Canada, who for their pro-Canada, anti-globalist stance is being slapped with a “far right” designation. Far from advocating corporatism and globalist, technocratic aims, the PPC platform includes supporting migrants in their country of origin, i.e. not using developing countries as pawns in globalist wars, but rather helping the locals build their economies. They are receiving little positive coverage within the mainstream media bubble even though much of their platform appeals to Canadians seeking a new way forward, a way that does not further enrich the top 1%.
Pre-COVID, the political and economic spectrum with the main political parties looked more or less like this:
(Hopefully readers can zoom in for the details.)
As more and more people left the censored mainstream media bubble, they discovered the following…
Ironically, the (by name) pro-freedom and pro-democracy parties instead of being “left leaning” by policy documents and “communist” by their admiration are ALSO the ones who have made it possible for multinational pharmaceutical and technological companies to profit immensely these past 2-3 years. Canadian government officials (unlike the Japanese) did NOT bother to question Pfizer for example, as to the bio- distribution of the vaccine product within the human body. No questions asked, contracts were signed and enforced by governments ignorant of the information being withheld by BigPharma, thereby enabling the corporations to have the final say over human life and livelihoods. So in other words, while the LIBERALS and NEW DEMOCRATS are on the one hand admiring the far left (COMMUNISTS), they are following the actions of the far right (FASCISTS). Meanwhile, the CONSERVATIVES enabled these actions by playing the role of silent bystanders instead of doing the job their name required - conserving sanity in policy, finding ways to end the situation. (Their CONSERVATIVE colleagues in many US states and other countries for example have pushed for a return to medical professionalism, which allows doctors to prescribe actual safe, effective and inexpensive anti-viral treatments to both treat and prevent the SARS-CoV-2 viral infection. No need for the risky and unproven C-19 vaccines there!)
Ironically, it remains the parties who are named after Freedom & Democracy (Liberals and NDs) who accuse the millions of Canadians who were trying to get the ear of the government of having “weaponized” the word “Freedom” along with the Canadian flag.
All of these observations point to one thing: We are not dealing with a linear LEFT/RIGHT spectrum but rather with a circular model where the most totalitarian forces on the LEFT and the most totalitarian forces on the RIGHT are ONE AND THE SAME.
If the Liberal party can arrive both at the far left and the far right end of the spectrum at the same time, we are seeing this:
The left/right spectrum is now as outdated as rotary phones and 8-track cassettes, interesting to look at or analyse in a museum, but not practical for everyday use.
Instead, we are looking at globalists like Klaus “you will own nothing and be happy” Schwab, whose leadership of the World Economic Forum is clearly pointing in the direction of totalitarian communism. The WEF gatherings in Davos as well as their website make this quite clear: an elite group of humans will rely heavy on advanced technology to map out the future for the masses, the masses will have no say, little or no private property and their entire function will be to enrich those in unelected leadership positions.
Meanwhile Yuval “we will hack humans in 5-10 years” Harari is clearly articulating a biotech and AI driven technocracy in charge of our leadership. To hear him explain things, most humans will soon simply be soul-less automatons while a special few will have the creative power of gods.
Meanwhile, coming from an über-free-market background, we have the CEOs of the worlds largest pharmaceutical, financial and technological companies already now telling governments what to do. They are represented in the graphic above by Albert Bourla. They stand side by side with (former) head honcho of US Public Health agencies Dr. Anthony Fauci, next to the best known capitalist pseudo-philanthropist on the planet, Bill Gates. Unreported in the mainstream bubble, soon after the truth re: the LACK of 95% efficacy of COVID vaccines became known, Gates pulled his investments and moved them to other enterprises, yet he remains one of the biggest advocates for even better vaccines for an even greater pandemic. (Watch out for more “fear-porn” coming soon to a mainstream media bubble near you!)
The five big names in orange on the graphic above represent the formidable force of BigPharma, BigTech, BigFinance and other BigCorporations who join together under the rubric of the World Economic Forum and whose recent presentations both in Davos and at the World Government Summit virtually went unreported in the censored mainstream media bubble. Far from being the “conspiracy theories” the mainstream media firms are warning their followers to ignore, these gatherings are key networking opportunities for unelected leaders among the corporatists to conspire with each other behind closed doors and to buy access to politicians. Certain Canadian thought leaders, including politicians, are full fledged members of the World Economic Forum and they come from any point in our political spectrum.
Corporate technocratic globalists make frequent use of the public’s gullibility - we were duped into believing a known toxic substance was “safe and effective” because our mainstream media did not actually do what they are morally and ethically bound to do. We are currently being duped into prolonging a senseless and unneeded war through our support for the US interests in Ukraine at the expense of Ukrainian lives. This is also because the mainstream media is not ensuring that divergent views have a place. Most Canadians are unaware of the coup that was enacted in Ukraine seven years prior, or of the firepower used by the Ukrainian army against fellow Ukrainians, those who happened to live in a majority Russian speaking area. Canada does not engage in nightly firebombing of our French speaking areas, do we? Mainstream journalists did not look into the Nazi connection of the Ukrainian armed forces, and made no mention of the racist pro-Hitler supporters among entire battalions of Ukrainian forces at the start of the war. Neither did they reveal the presence of countless bioweapons labs run by the US in Ukraine, labs like the one in Wuhan China, which were funded primarily by the Americans to work on even more illegal “gain of function” research. (Bioweapons engineered for specific ethnic groups anyone??) Truly ethical journalists who have dropped out (or have been forced out) of the mainstream media bubble can only really abide by the ethical guidelines that govern their profession when working independently. Finally, we are in the process of being duped once again to believe that the “science is settled” on human caused, carbon-related climate change, when this claim has already been roundly addressed and proven scientifically unfounded. It is the same problem we have had with the other issues - independent experts in the science of COVID, in climate science and in Eastern-European geopolitics are continually being censored and silenced by those who have the power to ensure that Big Corp profits in the end.
A significant number of Canadians are starting to ask “who benefits” when this happens. Canadians should be applauding the courage of politicians like Christine Anderson to shine light on the increasing totalitarianism of corporate technocratic globalists that our silence enables. Likewise, they should applaud the tenacity of MP Leslyn Lewis for shining a light on the totalitarian implications of the proposed world-wide treaties coming our way courtesy of the globalist technocrats at the World Health Organization. Increasingly, citizens the world over are pushing back from this world-wide rise of an unelected corporate technocratic globalist dictatorship. Canadians within the mainstream media bubble need to expand their range of news sources to include the Substack and Telegram postings where actual experts in COVID-19, in bioterrorism, in geopolitics, geoengineering, etc. communicate their findings with each other.
This is how a growing number of Canadians are discovering massive protest movements and a growing peace movement on almost every continent.
Returing to the circular political and economic spectrum, where can the mass of our society congregate? Those who wish to jointly pull back from this looming unelected corporate technocratic globalist dictatorship — an unwanted merger of the far left + far right + those seeking to gain additional unethical power, money and influence?
Right across from the back end, where the unelected power-hungry totalitarians, globalists, corporatists sit, we the citizens come together. Whether we were originally centrist, or left or right “leaning” does NOT matter. It is on us to jointly pull our world back from the power and influence that BigMoney can bring. This gigantic task is not a partisan effort as it involves “all hands on deck” regardless of possible former party affiliation.
We need to set aside our meaningless party names (Conservatives, Liberals, New Democrats, etc.) and all “meet in the middle.” Taking a cue from the pragmatist, centrist Bloc Québécois, we need to jointly become a Bloc Humanity, to ensure that the technocrats and their vision for “hackable humans”, soulless genetically engineered, bio-digitally converged beings can never materialize.
This brings us back to the kerfuffle regarding German European Union MEP Christine Anderson and her visit to Canada.
She and her AFD party have been advocating for a sovereign democracy. How many of the critics these last few days looked closely at the party’s actual platform (in German) instead of at what various sources are just copy-pasting from other sources the likes of US intelligence manipulated Wikipedia?
Many citizens of many countries, not just Germany, envision their country to have sovereignty in its own affairs, and not be dictated to by the likes of globalist organizations. This line of thought is neither left nor right, simply the sign of a sovereign democracy. Such is the line taken by the AFD. They support the United Nations yet their view of international foreign policy is that Germany be able to defend itself if need be, not rely on partnerships in some faraway globalist organization over which they have no real control or influence. Their idea of foreign aid etc. is to support developing countries to develop themselves, sending experts upon invitation to help build local expertise, then setting up markets within Germany, for example for products made in Africa by Africans. They have spoken out on the endless train of people from the southern hemisphere arriving in the northern hemisphere, finding no real economic opportunities and becoming an unsustainable strain on the social safety nets of European countries for example. It is this stance that some refer to as “racist” yet those who use this label have little to offer in terms of counter policies. I am sure the folks at the open border crossings of the southern United States and here in Canada at the crossings where wannabe-immigrants jump the queue illegally, would have a similar pragmatic stance and should not be referred to as “racists.” I note that the AFD’s stance on religious head coverings, for example for Muslim women in public service is the same as that held currently in Quebec. Are Quebecers racist? The dictionary definition of racist is: “a person with a prejudiced belief that one race is superior to others.” We don’t see Hitler-style diatribes against “Untermenschen” (inferior people) in the policies of either Quebec nor Germany.
It was a sad day in Canada when those politicians who met with Christine Anderson were somehow pushed into publicly stating that they regretted having met with her, that they were unaware of the “racist” policies of the AFD party to which she belonged. They probably did not go to Wikipedia for their information about Ms. Anderson. It is more likely that they heard the interviews with her as a person, in which she explains how as a mother of children, as a daughter of a father who suffered egregious persecution under a dictatorial regime (former communist East Germany), as an informed global citizen, she became increasingly aware of the future planned out for us for years already by the unelected corporate technocrats like Harari and Schwab. Those who interviewed and met with MEP Anderson probably resonated with her description of her decision to “do something positive” for her fellow Germans and beyond. And they probably decided based on that information that this is a woman with ethics. A woman with courage. A politician worth meeting and emulating. It is the journalists who are not doing their job, not providing for opinions on all sides of a matter, not having the decency to cross-reference sources with personal contacts, and it is the journalists who are flaming the fire of so-called “racism” in this case. Sadly, due to the lack of proper balanced unbiased reporting that unfounded allegations are now the drivers of policy, and are forcing courageous MPs to cave to uninformed and unwarranted pressures.
FACT: Canadian politicians represent ALL Canadians. Just like the ethics that all journalists are to live out in their daily work, politicians also need to “support the free interchange of facts and opinions.”
PERSONAL OBSERVATION: No politician (or journalist) doing their job should remain in the mainstream media bubble. ALL views are to be sought when making determinations of public policy. This particularly includes the voices of those with principle, those for whom human wellbeing is paramount, regardless of country or borders.
Kudos to all who support and work towards a freely elected & sovereign democracy, all who oppose the unelected corporate technocratic globalist dictatorship in which we, who remain silent and uncritical, will soon find ourselves, permanently, unless we speak up jointly.
ADDED on February 28, 2023 (a comment from a reader)
I hope everyone receiving this will listen to what Christine Anderson has to say to David Menzies, and to us. She is totally correct in what she is saying and if you hear anything negative about her, do your research so that you know who she is and what she supports in terms of values and how she serves the people she represents. We must applaud her for her tremendous courage to speak out while the terrible tyrants and dictators of this world speak against her. We must stop the tyrants from destroying our world.
To send her a positive message use this email address:
To hear Christine Anderson directly before writing her off as as someone with “vile opinions” please listen to her here:
and/or here:
Outstanding! This says it all and more.