Planting Evidence & Masking the Fraud

Martin (1:51): "I wanted to walk you through a very simple fraud-detection mechanism which allows you to help understand what's going on inside of the propaganda machine...

There is always a message dissonance when you know that you're being had... When you have, in March, people like the Surgeon General,  Anthony Fauci and others, saying that the public shouldn't be wearing face masks and then, lo and behold a month-and-a-half later, we suddenly are being told that healthy people should be wearing face masks — that's message dissonance, where you have information being declared with absolute certainty in one moment and, just a short while later, information is entirely inverted...

Message dissonance, that idea that you are being asked to accept a 180 degree perspective shift, is not how science works. Science is an incremental process, and very rarely do you go from an absolute statement of one condition to exactly the opposite condition without a significant amount of time and effort…

Now in that inverted reality, what propagandists like to do is plant evidence, and the first place they plant evidence is in a concept called 'literature reviews.' If you look at the media, you will see a very common term like, 'New research tells us that ...' It's always important to look at what the 'new research' is because in every instance in this outbreak, and in every instance in other situations not unlike this, what you find is that new research actually isn't new research. It's very often a literature review...

When the media says, 'New research has indicated' something, and the 'new research' is literature review, it's a really good idea to then take the next step and ask the question whether or not what you're being told matches what was in the source document."

Martin (15:18): "... [T]he media says, ... 'the Supreme Court Upheld a Compulsory Vaccination Law.' Let's unpack that sentence for a minute. The Supreme Court has never, ever ruled on compulsory vaccination. Ever...

What they have ruled on is the 1905 Jocobsen v. Massachusetts case... What the court ruled was not that he had to be vaccinated. What the court ruled was that the fine that he didn't want to pay for not being vaccinated, the fine of $5, was something that he did have to pay...

The actual Jacobsen case did not say experimental vaccines, with no testing for efficacy or safety, can be forced on you by plunging needles into your arm. That's assault and battery. That is not public health..."