Home Page
Home Page

Event 201 - How They Planned To Suppress Dissent

by Chauncey Tinker – 28 Dec 2021

In the previous post I looked at the first 3 videos in the Event 201 series, in this post I look at the 4th and 5th (the conclusion).

The fourth video titled "Segment 4 - Communications Discussion and Epilogue Video" seems to have attracted the most attention, not surprisingly considering the subject matter. A full transcript is available here, but I am going to highlight some key points and share some additional related information.

The segment begins with a fictional segment where TV news presenters and health officials make announcements about the unfolding crisis, and comment on false information being disseminated on social media with malicious intent:

these accounts were created by several state-sponsored groups intending to sew political discord and some individuals are seemingly seeking to gain financial advantages. Violence against healthcare workers and minority populations has been increasing. A recent riot highlights the real danger in these posts. Countries are reacting in different ways as to how best to manage the overwhelming amounts of dis- and misinformation circulating over the Internet. In some cases, limited Internet shutdowns are being implemented to quell panic

The presenters then interview "experts on crisis communications and social media", the first of these to speak makes this comment:

To me, it is clear countries need to make strong efforts to manage both mis- and disinformation. We know social media companies are working around the clock to combat these disinformation campaigns. The task of identifying every bad actor is immense. Experts agree that new disinformation campaigns are being generated every day. This is a huge problem that's going to keep us from ending the pandemic and might even lead to the fall of governments, as we saw in the Arab spring. If the solution means controlling and reducing access to information, I think it's the right choice.

The second does somewhat question these assertions:

But it's not just trolls who are spreading the fake news; it's often political leaders themselves. Who's to judge what's real or not?

She also questions whether individual governments might be guilty of spreading misinformation, but from the phrasing here she seems to be assuming that these would be as it were mavericks who disagreed with the global consensus:

Would we trust every government to separate truth from lies?

Next there are a series of alarming announcements from a "communications expert" (rather amusingly named Dr. Sell), such as:

Pharmaceutical companies are being accused of introducing the CAPS virus so they can make money on drugs and vaccines and have seen public faith in their products plummet. Unrest, due to false rumors and divisive messaging, is rising and is exacerbating spread of the disease as levels of trust fall and people stop cooperating with response efforts. This is a massive problem, one that threatens governments and trusted institutions.
...
Penalties have been put in place for spreading harmful falsehoods, including arrests.

Of course this was yet another eery prophecy of the events that were to follow beginning in 2020 (please keep in mind that this coronavirus pandemic planning event was hosted 6 weeks before the first reported case of COVID-19 symptoms). Trust in governments and institutions and faith in the pharmaceutical industry has indeed plummeted since 2020, albeit only so far within a sub-section of the general population.

Dr. Sell concludes her segment with this comment:

But this is a technically difficult problem and false, misleading, or half true information, is difficult to sort without limiting potentially true messages. The bottom line is that members of the public no longer know who to trust. Both the misinformation and the measures to control it have led to a crisis of confidence.

This is the end of the opening fictional segment that has set the scene for the "debate" that follows. I put the word debate in quotes because it really seems to me that the suggestions that follow from the discussion had been decided in advance, I reach that conclusion because there were no significant disagreements between the participants.

The first to speak is Matthew Harrington, who is the Global President at Edelman. Harrington's solution to the problem of trying to control misinformation is to "flood the zone" with what he describes as "accurate" information. As I already mentioned in a previous post, he also is essentially dictating to social media companies at this point that they have a duty to intervene in debates on their platforms:

... we're at a moment where the social media platforms have to step forward and recognize the moment to assert that they're a technology platform and not a broadcaster is over. They in fact have to be a participant in broadcasting accurate information and partnering with the scientific and health communities to counterweight, if not flood the zone, of accurate information.

The huge problem with this assertion of course is that it assumes that the social media companies know exactly what constitutes accurate information and what does not. It also more indirectly assumes that the authorities very generally are completely correct in all matters and that dissenting voices must automatically be incorrect in whatever they are dissenting about.

I have mentioned him before, but I think it is worth taking a closer look at the company he works for, because I think his company has huge conflicts of interest in the context of this event. According to the company website, Edelman's clients have included big pharmaceutical companies such as AstraZeneca, Johnson & Johnson, and GlaxoSmithKline. Quote from their website:

At the onset of the Covid-19 outbreak, misinformation spread rapidly via mainstream and social media that left many questioning the safety of ibuprofen to manage Covid-19 symptoms. At the time, there was no medical consensus that could dispel the rumors circulating about ibuprofen; and as a result, there was an information gap growing about ibuprofen. GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), the makers of Advil, engaged Edelman to quickly address the issue and develop a plan to correct the misinformation and protect the brand from future risk.

The company Edelman is in the business then of managing public perceptions of large corporations and their products, and one method they use to do this is social media campaigning. In effect I suspect that what he is really doing in this Event 201 debate is making a sales pitch for the use of his own company's services, indeed as revealed above GSK did employ them for exactly the role that his sales pitch is describing. In my opinion, this should be regarded as scandalous considering the huge influence of the hosts of the event, the more so in light of the fact that Avril Haines is present (more on her in a moment).

The next speaker makes a plug for technology that apparently is being developed by the Gates Foundation to sift through information (presumably she means to identify those "spreading misinformation" though she doesn't make it clear):

There is work that's being done to actually create algorithms to sift through information on these social media platforms. I know that the Gates Foundation and others are funding organizations to work on things like this, in order that people can actually have more confidence in the sources that they will use in any event.

Remember that the Gates Foundation is funding this event!

The next speaker is one Hasti Taghi, who was it seems at the time of the event VP Chief Of Staff at NBCUniversal Media, although the company is not specifically mentioned in her bio at the Event 201 website. Two of her comments in the video are basically attempts to smear social media commentary in favour of mainstream media (in other words her comments are designed to promote the interests of the company she worked for at that time, what a surprise). For example (@9:40) she asserts that:

trust in traditional media sources has grown, while trust in social media sources has gone down, specifically after the last elections, in the United States

Many people on the right in the US will no doubt want to claim that the exact opposite is true. She then emphasizes the line that shutting down social media will only increase unrest, and claims that this is in fact already "happening" as the "crisis" unfolds (remember that this is a simulation).

Next a couple of speakers make some fairly obvious points about the importance of daily communications from the authorities.

Then a participant called Martin Knuchel (a representative from Lufthansa Group Airlines who is employed in a crisis management role) speaks.

He agrees that simply shutting down social media is not a good strategy:

just to limit or even stop social media would create a huge damage

By now you may be starting to see what I mean about the fact that they all seem to be in agreement during this "debate", each speaker really only adds additional points when they add anything at all.

He also suggests that there is a problem with people disseminating conspiracy theories:

Another topic is, our industry, there are indications, meanwhile, that we are getting this social conspiracy theory topic, that we are part of this conspiracy theory, that we are supporting this, that wealthy countries will spread out perhaps to poor countries. And this is clearly thing of social media that could be directed via clear crisis communication and confirmed and regular updated information.

The chairman intervenes at this point and asks him a rather leading question:

... do you think governments are at the point where they need to require social media companies to operate in a certain way? I hear you saying social media companies should not be impaired, but do they need to operate under different conditions? I think Matt [Matthew Harrington] alluded to that as well.

So here we have the chairman now really joining in with the calls for some sort of control of social media (that is short of shutting these platforms down altogether, as doing that would "lead to unrest" according to the consensus among the speakers).

Another speaker called Stephen Redd (who is the Deputy Director for Public Health Service and Implementation Science at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)) adds to the calls for monitoring of social media commentators:

First is that we have to recognize that we are all susceptible to misinformation based on our beliefs and experience. I think with the social media platforms, there's an opportunity to understand who it is that susceptible in what form to misinformation, so I think there's an opportunity to collect data from that communication mechanism.

I interpret this as a call for spying on social media users to identify those who are "susceptible" to "misinformation".

He then identifies one type of misinformation:

The second thing is, with that ability, we can identify false information more quickly. We are actually receiving reports about people trying treatments that are purported to be effective, but are actually harmful. The quicker that's recognized and can be countered, the fewer people will fall susceptible to those things

This statement seems entirely well-intentioned on the face of it, however what has actually been happening from 2020 onwards is that debate has been suppressed about the use of cheap existing treatments that many quite eminent physicians and scientists believe to be effective, and that are known NOT to be harmful. For example the use of the drug Ivermectin has been routinely ridiculed with insinuations that the drug is mainly intended for animals.

After another couple of speakers Professor George Gao, who is the Director-General at the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention (obviously the equivalent of the CDC in the US), makes this comment (@17:26):

there's misinformation and there's some belief. People believe, "This is a manmade... some pharmaceutical company made the virus," so there's some violations of human... That is because of this misinformation.

A lot of attention has been focused on this comment in light of the claims that the SARS-COV-2 virus actually originated in a laboratory in Wuhan, China, and not, as originally claimed in bats in the wild.

The next speaker begins by agreeing with George Gao and adding further points (you see the pattern again). She is none other than Avril Haines, who is now the US Director of National Intelligence.

I very much agree with that. I agree with a lot of what's been said, I just add to it maybe by saying ...

She goes on to make a banal point about people having access to communications, before also agreeing on the need to "flood the zone":

I believe in the idea that we shouldn't be trying to control communication, but rather flood the zone in a sense with a trusted source

It's interesting to note at this point that nobody has really defined exactly what they mean by "flood the zone", yet many participants have used the phrase.

She then says (again remember this is a simulation):

I understand, from staff, that actually there are also intelligence sources identifying multiple foreign disinformation campaigns

This comment is particularly interesting in light of the fact that she was a high ranking official during the Russiagate scandal, in which it was claimed that Russian collusion played an important part in the election of Donald Trump in 2016. According to some sources she was in the thick of it in fact. From the Washington Post:

NB. Note that there are serious claims made as fact in that above article that are strongly contested by other sources, just in case you're not aware of that.

After Haines speaks, Matthew Harrington from Edelman speaks again (note yet again the pattern of agreeing with the previous speaker and adding further points):

I think just to build a little bit on what Avril said is, I think as in previous conversations where we've talked about centralization around management of information or public health needs, there needs to be a centralized response around the communications approach that then is cascaded to informed advocates, represented in the NGO communities, the medical professionals, et cetera.
...
Centralized on an international basis because I think there needs to be a central repository of data facts and key messages

In other words, he is calling for a sort of central repository of ... the truth. Now of course you would need some sort of organization to administer this repository .. of .. the truth ... a Global Ministry of Truth perhaps?

After another participant speaks, Hasti Taghi weighs in again, to demonize social media again (and also to demonize the "anti-vaccine" movement):

... before this began, the anti-vaccine movement was very strong and this is something specifically through social media that has spread. So as we do the research to come up with the right vaccines to help prevent the continuation of this, how do we get the right information out there? How do we communicate the right information to ensure that the public has trust in these vaccines that we're creating?

I might venture to suggest that the best way of doing that would be to have well organized long term clinical trials of any medical treatment before it is made widely available, and to make all the results of the trials immediately available (in reality Pfizer in particular have been pursuing a rather different strategy).

The next subject addressed is public behaviour, specifically the question of how to influence the public to do the "right thing" for their health. Jane Halton (who is involved with CEPI) says:

It's not just about handing people a piece of knowledge. It's also about how we incentivize them to manage their behaviors

This part of the discussion doesn't really go anywhere, of course as the real events unfolded in early 2020 governments all around the world were soon "locking down" all their citizens, almost putting everyone under house arrest for some period, but such a drastic course of action was not discussed in this event (at least not publicly in the videos anyway).

The chairman then directs the discussion back to talking about disinformation and misinformation, and how to "flood the zone". Next to speak is Lavan Thiru, a representative of the Monetary Authority of Singapore, who says (again as part of the simulation):

Yeah. I've received a note to say that some bad actors are actually using social media to spread rumors about specific companies in order to profit from short selling.

He goes on to suggest a solution:

But one thing we haven't spoken about, and I'm wondering whether it's time to talk about this, is a step up from the part of the governments on enforcement actions against fake news. Some of us, this new regulations are come in place about how we deal with fake news. Maybe this is a time for us to showcase some cases where we are able to bring forward some bad actors and leave it before the courts to decide whether they have actually spread some fake news.

Now obviously if people are involved in fraudulent activities on social media or anywhere else I think this is probably generally covered by existing laws almost everywhere, and so I interpret this comment as a call for new and more general laws against "fake news". The problem as ever though is who is to decide exactly what constitutes "fake news", and whether governments and law enforcement officials can really be reasonably expected to always correctly identify it (obviously they can't). The chairman however does not allow anybody to object to this suggestion, and immediately moves on to call for closing comments.

One point repeated in the concluding comments is the call for a global centralized information source (or Global Ministry of Truth as I described it above). The point is made that this is necessary partly because of those as it were maverick governments out there that themselves spread misinformation and disinformation, for example Martin Knuchel says:

If it comes back to misinformation on a level of government of countries, then we need, as Sofia mentioned, trustable international organizations: UN, WHO. They have to come together, to get together, to spread this trust and to work against this. We cannot hold governments from doing misinformation on their own, so I fully trust these organizations

Finally the video ends with a fictional Epilogue, which describes the pandemic and its impact:

The outcome of the CAPS pandemic in Event 201 was catastrophic: 65 million people died in the first 18 months.
...
The economic consequences were dramatic. The high death toll and even greater numbers of sick hurt productivity in many industries. Manufacturers were having trouble filling orders and countless companies in the service sector simply shut down.
...
this led to violent crackdowns in some countries and even martial law. Political upheaval became the rule across the globe; the public lost trust in their respective administrations. Several governments fell, while others were desperately striving to hold onto power. This spurred further crackdowns attempt to control media messaging originally aimed only at health-related misinformation became used increasingly to quash political dissent.

You get the picture - doom, gloom catastrophe ensued in other words, followed by political upheaval and even martial law in some places, and draconian crackdowns on "misinformation" and political dissent.

In the final (5th) video there are more repetitive calls for increasing global governance, a "centralized information source", more calls for public/private collaboration (corporatism), and of course the big pharma representative once again called for more funding for big pharma, but nothing really further of note was added to the above.

CONCLUSION

There's only one direction of travel here, and it is towards global governance influenced in large part by major international corporations (in other words a kind of corporatist New World Order is emerging). These corporations are driven by the profit motive, they don't care about public health. As mentioned in the last post, there was a call from a big pharma representative for a relaxation in safety regulations for their medical products, and nobody in the event questioned this.

These corporations want to suppress all dissent so that they can sell their products worldwide without opposition. At no point does anybody in the event make the case for freedom of speech, nobody pointed out that sometimes the consensus (including the scientific consensus) is wrong, there are only calls for suppression of dissenting views, and they want to create a Global Ministry of Truth to facilitate this.

The real "pandemic responses" that were enacted beginning in 2020 have led to vast increases in national debts everywhere, a cost that will have to be repaid somehow at some point in time. The costs have resulted from unnecessary lockdowns, and from the rollout not just of injections for the vulnerable but already multiple injections for the whole population, with no serious public debate taking place about whether that was really necessary (or even likely to have a good or bad outcome). That debt is going to fall upon an increasingly hard-pressed minority - i.e. the hard-working taxpayers, meanwhile some of the big pharmaceutical companies are already making huge profits, and most of them are seeing big rises in their share prices; there is no such thing as free healthcare in the real world, at least not for taxpayers.

Worst of all, concerns about the harms suffered by those injected (including children) have been effectively suppressed, huge numbers of potential adverse reactions have been reported with again no serious public debate, and we won't know the truth about the long term effects of these injections until those effects start to become apparent.

RELATED ARTICLES ELSEWHERE:

From Life Site News:

From TCW Defending Freedom:

An alternative view on Russiagate (from Real Clear Investigations via The Atheist Conservative):

RELATED ARTICLES:

What do you think? Please leave a comment below.

Please feel free to share this article on social media sites:

Tweet     Share on Facebook     Google Plus     Reddit     Tumblr