In George Orwell’s famous book, Nineteen Eighty-Four, Newspeak was the dumbed down language created by redefining meanings of common words. The CFFS National Town Hall will explore how this technique has been applied to our own language: words and phrases are redefined with the predictable result of confusion, loss of meaning and mis-communicating. Newspeak gave a new dimension to propaganda, making it even more compelling and addictive to the masses.
Join CFFS founder and executive director Patrick Wood and special guest Leslie Manookian for a discussion on how language is used to deceive the masses and the potentially devastating effects it has on society.
Click here to see Leslie’s article Sticks and Stones expanding on this very important topic.
You can read the conversation between Patrick and Leslie below.
Patrick: Well, good evening and welcome to the Citizens for Free Speech national town hall. Today we’re talking with Leslie Manookian, who is the President and Founder of Health Freedom Defense Fund. She’s been involved in a lot of things recently that we’re pretty excited about. I’ll let her maybe describe just to chat about that, but Leslie, welcome to our town hall.
Leslie: Patrick, thank you so much for having me. It’s my pleasure and honor to be with you today.
Patrick: Well, we have been as Citizens for Free Speech, we have been talking about censorship a lot in the last, probably a good year now because that’s such an important part of free speech. If it involves anti-free speech is what it is. And so we decided in this particular session that we wanted to talk about the substitution of words. And I found that this is an endemic type of thing throughout society. I didn’t really realize it, but we kinda know some of the common things we’re going to cover some of those today, but, I was at a conference where there were some doctors present. And in particular was, Judy Mikovits and I sat down and had a nice chat with. And she said that the medical establishment has changed the names of very technical terms that are used in her industry. The result being that people going through med school today, or through microbiology today, cannot understand the reports that were issued in like 1990 and earlier. And it just shocked me because this is a very specialized field of medical. But it seems to be something that’s happening throughout society. It doesn’t matter what your discipline is, whether you’re just a guy on the street, whether you’re a professional, a lawyer, whatever, or a medical researcher. So this has a lot of importance. And I just wanted to, encourage all of our listeners right now to take note of what we’re going to talk about, because you need to recognize, you need to be able to recognize when word substitution is being used on you.
It’s very subtle. But it’s very important as well. So, Leslie, you want to add anything else about you and what you’re up to these days?
Leslie: Well, sure. Let me just say that some viewers may know me for having made a documentary on vaccines several years ago, more than 10 years ago called The Greater Good, which I’m bringing up because it is what launched me into the whole freedom movement, health freedom, freedom of speech, all of these things. And it’s really important because people may remember back a few years ago, there was a supposed Disneyland measles outbreak, and they never found what they call patient zero of that supposed outbreak. And the data showed that the average person who supposedly got the measles was actually, an adult, 50% of the people were over the age of 21, I believe. And what that showed was that there was a vaccine failure, but what was interesting was that that was used by Congressman Adam Schiff, the measles outbreak at Disneyland to call on Amazon, Google, Facebook, YouTube, all the major big tech and social media companies to sensor, anyone whose views or opinions or research conflicted with the mainstream narrative.
And so my movie was taken off of Amazon’s premium, free streaming service, where it had been for almost four years. So this is an issue that I’m deeply passionate about. It’s also something that people may not realize has actually been far more insidious. For much longer than the past year or two it’s been going on for a long time.
And it wasn’t just my movie, The Greater Good that got taken down. It was books and other DVDs and things, and it’s full-blown assault, and of course the situation has only escalated since then. In fact, one might argue that what happened back then Patrick was really paving the way for the last two years.
And so that really is something I’m super excited about. I’m also a homeopath. So I’m a documentary filmmaker, I’m a homeopath, I was a wall street executive worked in finance at Goldman Sachs and then ran Alliance Capital’s European growth portfolio management and research businesses for about seven years. And then I retired to raise my son, and then at the beginning of 2020, when everything was unfolding, I knew where this was headed and I decided to start Health Freedom Defense Fund, to educate people about their rights, to advocate for them. And very importantly, in this environment, in which we live to litigate in defense of them when they are infringed. And so that’s what I’ve been spending most of my time doing in the last two years is building Health Freedom Defense Fund and representing as many groups and individuals as we can. We just, people may know about this, hopefully they do, we are the group that successfully challenged and struck down the CDCs travel mask mandate on all airlines and transportation, interstate transportation and bus terminals, train stations, airports and things like that. So that is something we are super excited about and feel, just thrilled about, proud of, gratified by all this work that we’re doing and all of the happy faces that we can see now.
Patrick: And if you think you’re excited about it, the mask mandate was actually disabled three days before I embarked on our nine-week tour with Reiner Füllmich and others, on the Crimes Against Humanity Tour. And so far, I have never worn a mask, not one time. And I don’t intend to. So when I heard about the court ruling, I was excited, but I didn’t, I’m thinking to myself, oh, this could take weeks or, you know, days before it take kicks in, but it kicked in three days before I was to fly, my first flight. To get to, I think it was Fort Myers, Florida and that’s the first flight I’ve taken over two and a half years.
Leslie: It actually kicked in the very afternoon of the ruling because basically what happened was that the judge actually vacated or struck down, nullified, the CDC is ruling and then TSA who was implementing it had to say, okay, we’re going to no longer enforce this until this is, whatever happens. And it wasn’t clear if it was going to be appealed or not, or what would happen on that. So there were, we got so many photographs and videos of people mid-flight ripping off their masks and flight attendants, singing, take off your mask, walking down the aisles with garbage bags. And I mean, it was pretty amazing to see the joy and the sense of hope and inspiration that verdict unleashed across the country.
Patrick: Absolutely. And anyway, we’re proud of you for doing that. I’ll tell you what, and I know that initially it was just kind of a spark that you had to do that, but it turned into something really significant.
And I just want to use it. I want to say that this is encouraging for all of our listeners right now, and members of Citizens For Free Speech. Don’t ever think that your efforts are not important. Don’t ever think that you can’t do something very significant for the cause of freedom because you can, and it may be small, it may be big, but you don’t know if all of us were doing something all the time. Maybe we wouldn’t be in the pickle that we’re in right now. So anyway, we’re going to talk about word substitutions, tonight. And this is a really important topic, as I said earlier. But we want to start out by pointing out a statement by Confucius. I don’t want anybody to get upset here that, oh, you’re talking about some Chinese guy right? No, forget that okay? Confucius was the guy lived a long time ago, had nothing to do with communist China or technocracy China today. But he made a very profound statement. Gosh, it was 551, to 479 BC okay. That’s like wow, thousands of years ago.
Patrick: So you want to check this one out and read this one, Leslie, and then comment.
Leslie: Sure. Patrick let me just say Confucius was a philosopher, so we don’t have to have any worries or concerns about what kind of a person he was. He was not a communist. He was a very wise man. And I think that this quote, it encapsulates the discussion that we want to have today. And to refer to things and it encapsulates it. I think it sets the stage for it. And also for us to understand why language is so important. So let me just read it. Above all it is essential to refer to things by their correct names. If things are not referred to by their correct names, then our language will not reflect reality. If our language does not reflect reality, then our actions will not reflect reality. And we’ll be exercises in futility.
I’m not sure what year he said that, but it was sometime during his lifetime in the fifth or sixth century B.C.
Patrick: Exactly. Yeah, exactly. So apparently they were having the same problem back then
Leslie: Isn’t that interesting to contemplate. Yes.
Patrick: Yes it is. He wouldn’t have written about it if there hadn’t been something going on that prompted him to write it, people just don’t write stuff out of the blue. So that’s just interesting. Maybe this has been a generational problem of people, perhaps the evil doers of the word in any generation that understand and know that they can change the word of language and completely throw everything upside down. And it seems like the more this has happened to us in our country, the more chaos it seems to rain. And that’s exactly the a attended output of this type of, using incorrect words for things.
Well, we’ve got a number of things here in our list. I don’t know where to start.
Leslie: Let’s start at the top if that’s okay, I think we should start at the top because it helps people to understand why the powers that be are using language against us, how it’s being weaponized and why it’s so important.
And it’s also really important to understand what the origins of it were because most people don’t know very much about our history and I think that’s a really important piece of it as well. So can we just kick off with the Hegelian dialectic? So most of you have probably heard of, and I apologize if I’m not always looking in the camera, but I’m going to be scrolling through my list.
The Hegelian dialectic is the phrase that many people have probably heard problem reaction solution. Now, what does that mean? It means that if a problem is introduced to society, it means that you already have a preconceived preplanned outcome that you desire and therefore you manufacture create a problem to which you have a fairly good idea. In fact, you orchestrate the reaction to it, and then you introduce what is the solution. Okay. And this is what we’re seeing. This has been going on for a very long time. So, one of the things that I noted in my notes was that there was a cover on national geographic, about five- maybe it was seven, maybe was 10 years ago now. And the title of the national geographic magazine was the war against science. So let’s just say it was 10 years ago, the war against science. What does that tell you? That’s really a loaded title, right? Because what it’s telling you is that there is a war. Did you know there was a war against science? I didn’t, but they want you to believe there’s a war. They want you to think that there’s an army of people, waging war. They want you to think that scientific truth is under siege. And so this is how they start to frame the problem and then think about what happens in the ensuing years, cancel culture and all of the censorship and stuff. You start to get the idea. There’s another good example. I believe which will be coming soon and we’ve already heard much talk about it in that cyber-attacks. And the cyber attacks they’ve been talking about them now for the last year or so. The cyber attacks will be used, I believe, to usher in the digital ID system, the digital control grid. And so the point is that if you have a cyber attack, then the powers that be can say, oh, it’s not safe to go on the internet. It’s not safe to access anything digital or the worldwide web unless everybody has their unique digital ID, which we can track. And then what happens is the World Health Organization, actually two weeks ago, signed a deal with a subsidiary of Deutsche telecom to create a digital ID connected to a vaccine passport with a unique QR code for every person on the planet.
So you get a sense of where this is all headed, right? Because of that. Patrick, do you want to jump in here or do you want me to, just to sort of-
Patrick: No I do. I want to point out that there was one huge example of the Hegelian Dialectic in play after the 9/11 attacks in New York city. First, we had the attack. That’s the problem we had the attack, it was horrible, it was shocking. And then we had the reaction, the reaction was to declare war on terror. That’s where that phrase started with George Bush
Leslie: Yes, a hundred percent.
Patrick: And then the solution was the Patriot Act. How they are going to solve it. And of course, now we know of course if the Patriot Act has resulted in virtually total surveillance around our country, and it’s the worst thing that could ever happen to us, but it was totally unnecessary, in my opinion, I think most people would probably agree. The Patriot Act was totally unnecessary, but according to the hegelian dialectic, it was a perfect play.
Leslie: Yeah, very much so Patrick, it is the most important, I think until COVID the most important example of problem reaction solution, the SARS COV2 outbreak is the exact same thing, right? I mean, now Bill Gates is walking back saying, well, we didn’t really know how dangerous it was. The truth is they knew from the Princess Cruise ships, that there was a 0.2% case fatality rate, which is basically a bad flu. And that was on a cruise ship, meaning an elderly population. Okay. The average age from death from COVID is higher than our average age of death. This is nothing compared to… It’s been exaggerated in order to achieve something, which is in my view, installation of this digital control grid, transhumanist agenda, agenda 2030, all these things that we can talk about, but basically this 9/11 and COVID are two of the most obvious and the biggest examples of the use of this method.
And what’s interesting is that they’ve actually legalized propagandizing Americans in the last decade, which is hard for us to believe it used to be legal for the CIA to disseminate deliberately deceptive information in order to manipulate other populaces, but not our own. And in 2012, that was rescinded. So it was legalized. There was something called the Smith Muntd Act, which was repealed. And then they threw the National Defense Authorization Act. They actually took away your right to habeas corpus. And then they actually funded, set up and funded a program to propagandize Americans. And they’ve been using the thinking of Sigmund Freud and some other, geniuses, but also someone named Edward Bernays who was Sigmund Freud’s nephew. He was really the father or the grandfather of propaganda in America. And not many people know the story about him, but he actually got New York city debutantes who wanted the right to vote to March with cigarettes in their hands because he worked for the cigarette companies, and back in the early decades of the 1900’s women didn’t smoke, it was a, there was a huge social stigma attached to it. So he got these young women to March down, New York city holding cigarettes, and overnight it was an act of defiance and overnight he legitimized and de-stigmatized cigarette smoking and doubled the addressable market for his, customers, the tobacco companies. And so I’m sharing it because it is such an important thing to understand. And then he literally was instrumental in getting Americans to accept the second world war and much, much else. He’s a master manipulator of the populace. That’s what he did. And his methods are still being utilized today. And in fact, leverage via all the technology, right? And then from Britain, you even have something called the nudge committee, which is exactly what it sounds like they were using manipulation tools in order to nudge the public, to accept lockdowns and physical distinct distancing. And all of these things. The point is that all of this stuff is at work right now, and it has been used with extreme effectiveness in the last two years. I think it’s just critically important to understand what’s really going on you know?
Patrick: It really is. And here’s, here’s a few good examples on how this is kind of playing out. The term life insurance, it always bothered me, life insurance. Well, you can’t collect unless you die. But I guess, you know, nobody could sell death insurance, right? I mean, how many would they sell? Policies? I guess some good marketing person figured out we better call it something else. Other than dying insurance or death insurance, survivor insurance. Those are also a negative. It just couldn’t be, it couldn’t fly. So they call it life insurance instead how about the next one here too? We got the Patriot Act just by, by definition. The Patriot act really is that patriotic? I don’t think so. It has nothing to do whatsoever with being patriotic. It basically was a dystopian model on how to take America down and well into a dystopian scientific dictatorship society.
Leslie: Specifically and Patrick specifically through authorizing warrantless surveillance of innocent Americans, which is prohibited that is prohibited in our founding documents, but that’s what it specifically did. Just so people understand what the true impact was. That was like the most material. And it was much more than that, but that’s a really critical thing. It means that NSA can collect anything and everything on us and they do.
Patrick: And they can, I just posted an article this morning on technocracy news that, was actually reported on a study by Georgetown law center. And what struck me in this is that it was Georgetown law center, which is not really, probably the seat of conservatism in America, but it’s a very prestigious law school, right? It certainly is. And they reported the immigration officials, that’s like I.C.E. Has created a network now that can spy on the majority of Americans across America. I.C.E. Is supposed to be concerned with, well just immigration issues, border issues, but they’ve created a surveillance network that covers everything everywhere.
Leslie: It’s immigration control. That’s what it’s supposed to be I.C.E.
Patrick: Yes, it’s supposed to pay, but now they’ve created this network and, there’s no end of this stuff. I realize it’s just going to keep coming. But the only way that the Georgetown law center found out about this was by filing hundreds of F.O.I.A. Requests. That’s Freedom of Information Act requests. Hundreds. That’s the only way they broke it down, that they discovered this pattern and they finally nailed it.
So our government is acting a total secrecy right now. You know this, and again, you have, and I remember the statement back when, oh, probably 10, 12 years ago, people would say, well, if you don’t have anything to hide, what’s the problem that, was about airports, you know, going through the screeners and stuff. Well, if you don’t have anything to hide, there’s no reason to be concerned. But now in the government’s case, that’s just flip-flopped they will hide everything that they don’t want you to know what they’re doing. And, in this case, it isn’t anything good for sure. For the American people.
Leslie: Patrick, the best example of that is it the Pfizer documents from their clinical trials for their COVID jabs, the FDA itself asked a judge to prohibit the release, to block the release of those documents for 75 years. Who side is the FDA on when they are trying to prevent the release of the clinical trial data that you funded, we funded, and that every person should have the right to view before they subject themselves to these injections. This is one of the things that our lawsuit against the mask mandate really achieved was a dent in what’s called the administrative state and this just out of control, administrative power that is just creeping into every aspect of our society.
Patrick: Right, exactly. So here’s one that I really liked. Contact tracing keeps us safe, really. Y’all remember contract tracing is this kind of died out a little bit. Now that COVID has kind of died down, but it has not gone away. Believe me, it is still in place. And those people are just ready to jump on it again when they can utilize their newfound technology to do contact tracing.
Leslie: Yeah, absolutely
Patrick: The mantra for that was, yeah, it’s good. Oh, it keeps you safe, you know? No.
Leslie: And Patrick, that one marries with the ones just right above it. The fact-checkers, right. There are these fact-checkers that are funded by the Gates Foundation by US and British intelligence. Literally, they are funded by them and they’re the ones going around determining what they believe is misinformation, disinformation, and mal information.[00:22:17] Now what’s interesting is that. It’s not stuff that you can’t document. So it’s not information that you are unable to document in the scientific literature. It’s just anything that, that conflicts with the official narrative. So this is the exact opposite of fact-checking, right? This is ministry of truth. This is sanitizing, any kind of discourse that might reflect poorly on the administration. This is literally government gone, tyrannical. That’s all it is.
Patrick: Exactly. So related to that also, the next one, misinformation, disinformation and mal information. Of course, that’s being used against us now all the time with the supposedly new ministry of truth that we have under Homeland Security. But these words have been so misused, I can think back to where they first were generated back in the probably 1980. These words have been so misused, I mean, anything that they want it to mean. In other words, if it’s something that they do not agree with, it’s misinformation, or if it’s something that might cause harm in their mind, it’s disinformation. There’s no proof of that though. Most cases it’s just the exact opposite. It’s not, in fact you could say, well, where is the misinformation coming from? Mostly it’s coming from the government these days from, you know, people that are aligned with the government.
Leslie: Yeah, of course. What it’s really about is not whether it’s truthful, right? It’s not, whether it’s genuine or honest it’s whether or not it is correct and reflects poorly on the government. That’s the real issue, right? That’s the determining factor of whether something’s deemed misdose or mal information.
Leslie: It’s 1984.
Patrick: 1984 That’s right. That’s one word that we can count on these days is 1984. It only means one thing. And one thing only.
So in the medical field, looking at some of these other items here, change the definitions of common words like pandemic/vaccine, this is a big deal. Do you have any thoughts on that or?
Leslie: Very much so, let me say also these are part of it. So a pandemic historically up until very recently, in the last couple of years, a pandemic was something that had a broad, so global… incidents of not just a disease, not just incidents, but also excess mortality. So there was tons and tons of death. It was a real problem that was widespread, combined with morbidity or problems, but there had to be a lot of deaths and people may not realize this, but outside the United States, there has arguably been, there was no excess death.
And even in the United States, you could argue that the excess deaths that we did see were due to the measures, taken in some states where they pushed the elderly into nursing homes. And that’s what really expedited their demise, unfortunately, but they changed it just in the run-up to. The COVID pandemic. And then they also did something else, which is that they changed the definition of vaccine now to anybody who’s been alive for the last, I don’t know, 75 years, a vaccine is something that is supposed to prevent a transmission of a virus or a disease infection as well. So it’s PR to keep you from getting it and to also prevent you from giving it to someone else. The whole point of it is it’s supposed to elicit an immune response in your body, which will then be protective, and it will confer immunity to you and block your ability to pass something onto somebody else. But they changed the definition. In the last two years, they changed it to be something that just elicits an immune response. Doesn’t say anything about what it actually does, and that manages or addresses symptoms. So basically symptom suppression. Even if you’re still infected is adequate to now be called a vaccine, which is contrary to anything and everything most of us have ever heard or believed about vaccines. This is really, truly insidious because people need to understand that what’s actually being injected in them is a gene modifier. It’s a gene therapeutic, but if you went and told everybody, Hey, we’re going to inject you all with a experimental gene therapeutic. How many people would likely sign up for that? Not so many, but if you tell them that you’re going to inject them with a vaccine, which everybody believes does X, Y, and Z protects you, granted immunity, blocks, transmission, then people are much more likely to show up or to sign up.
And it’s really, a despicable turn of events in our country that this has happened. And the other thing that ties in with this, they haven’t changed the definition of it, but most people know a side effect of a drug is something that happens in response to a drug, any kind of medical product, right? They call them adverse events, which most people don’t totally connect between the two, right? It doesn’t have as visceral of a response for most people as side effects. And it’s just another aspect of this game that’s being played with all of us.
Patrick: It is and you know, the other thing about the using the word vaccine for this particular product, is that there is immunity granted to the big pharma companies, against lawsuits from people that sue them for harm, for damages, but only if it’s a vaccine, the law says specifically vaccines. If they used any other name, they would lose their legal shield. And of course…
Leslie: I have to say, that’s not a hundred percent accurate. So masks are EUA. They are emergency use authorized. There are emergency use authorizations for all different kinds of products, even drugs. And what it does is any product that’s granted an EUA emergency use authorization then falls under the prep act.
It’s a medical countermeasure. And what it does is it gives them, the producer of that product, a liability shield from any kind of lawsuit, legal or financial liability, unless they can be proven to have committed willful misconduct. So you actually can have EUAs for drugs. In fact, Remdesivir has been granted or was, I believe granted EUA at one point.
Patrick: Yes, it was. So let’s go down our list here. We’ve got, we’re doing good on time here, but we got a few more down here as well. Let’s talk about, maybe number six here is a good one. The whole thing. Trust the science, et cetera.
Leslie: Sure, you know, there are several hallmarks of manipulation. One of them is what we mentioned already with 9/11, where you have tremendous fear and they show the images of the planes flying into the buildings over and over and over again.
Or in the current crisis, you see the ticker tape of, cases and deaths. Right. And one of the things they’re doing is trying to frighten you. That’s one ma one mechanism and then another mechanism to control you is to guilt you. And so you see all of the terminology, first of all, trust the science.
And if you don’t, what does that, what’s the message there. If you don’t trust the science, then you’re a science denier. You’re not a good person. Meaning if you don’t believe our science, then you’re a bad person, right? So guilting you the whole 15 days to slow the curve. Don’t worry. It’s only going to be 15 days. It’s what it always starts out as well. When they introduced the income tax in 1913, it started out as only on the rich and only 10% and look where we are now. So they always say, right, it’s the thin end of the wedge. There are all these different mechanisms, these tools that they use to really brow beat you into submission. And some of the most potent ones are, you know, don’t be selfish and protect others and protect your grandmother, protect your grandmother. Stay home, save lives, all of these things. But they’re basically saying that if you disagree with us If you disagree with the science that we are wielding because they are wielding science, then you’re a bad person.
And most people have probably heard of the tall poppy syndrome. Most people, it’s human nature to want to be accepted by their group, by their society, their community. And so most people are not willing to stand up or they’re afraid to stand up and challenge what’s the received wisdom and what everybody else is doing and thinking.
And so it’s actually a very, very pernicious problem. This whole topic, tall poppy syndrome, and these agencies are very, very good at manipulating the public to get them to do what they want. Guilt is the number one way maybe number two, fear is better I think bigger.
Should I shift us to limited hangout?
Patrick: Yeah, it has specific meaning. And I think many of our people might not be familiar with it, but we should explain it. Sure. Cause we, we see it all the time. Once you recognize it, you’ll see it all the time.
Leslie: A hundred percent. A limited hangout is where the media will touch on something briefly, expose something a little bit, just to kind of make it seem like they’re covering the topic. And then they quickly go back to the official narrative or go to a new narrative or change the subject, whatever it might be. So a great example. Good morning America just ran, I think it was this morning or yesterday morning, maybe they just ran a piece where they had some physician come on and this physician starts talking about how we’re not really sure what the science is around the fourth booster. And, there might be a little bit of evidence that in some age groups it might have some impact on your immune system or have this, you know, strange reaction or something. I forget exactly what her language was, but she was admitting without doing so blatantly that the shots actually cause immune damage and actually suppress immune responses in those who’ve received them for most age groups.
And then she said, you know, listen, if you have co-morbidities and are over 50 or 65, then, of course, get it. But for everybody else, you know, watch this space. And one of the presenters goes, wow! And then they just swiftly on to the next thing. Right? So she let something huge out right there, huge, that nobody in the mainstream media has been talking about. And that is that the collateral damage caused by these jabs it’s really important. Another really good way that you see this is that they will put a video. So there was an amazing video of Rochelle Walensky, who was the director of the CDC. And she is speaking last August about how the vaccines don’t work against the circulating strain.
This is what she says. She says, you know, they’re good at protecting against hospitalization and severe illness, but what they can’t do is stop transmission or infection. And then, so she says it there if you watch the sort of seven or eight-minute clip that was posted, she says it there. But if you read the article, the text that accompanies it, it completely spins it all. And most people will read it rather than watch it because you can read the short thing in a minute whereas the video is going to take 5, 6, 7, 8 minutes. And so I actually submitted that very video and article to our local school board. And the head of the school board came back to me quoting the article but didn’t watch the video. And when I prompted him to watch it, he refused to say, well, it’s all right here. And that I’m spinning it. Not that the source of that CNN was spinning it. So that’s another way they do a limited hangout is they’ll post the truth. And then they control how you interpret it, trusting that you will never dig deeper.
Patrick: Wow. Amazing. How about, we know of course that the value of fear and shock, to frighten people and what happens when people do get frightened, they, they do all kinds of things. They would not otherwise do. But it opens them up to receive all this propaganda and to adopt all the propaganda, including words that have been substituted.
So I couldn’t think of an example right off hand, but I know this has happened in the past couple of years, especially people that would never use a certain word for a certain thing. Once they hear it about 50 times on cable news or wherever, all of a sudden they’re starting to work that into their own vocabulary. And they’re using the word now. And that just propagates the propaganda away from just media. Now everybody’s talking about the same thing.
Leslie: Oh, social distancing. How about that? Who had ever heard of it, but everybody knew what it was. There’s nothing social about it, right? It’s physical distancing, but if they can frighten you enough, then you’ll accept these words that you would have never thought of and contact tracing. Can you imagine if somebody had told the entire country that we were going to contract race you two and a half years ago, nobody would have accepted that. So there are many examples of that, but the whole use of fear and shock. So first of all, as I mentioned, I’m a homeopath and we actually know from 250 years of using homeopathy that mental emotional shocks and frights can actually, fear shocks, and frights can actually elicit an immune response.
Those things actually really release cortisol into the system, which suppresses your immune system. And then people often get sick. So just scaring people is enough to make people sick. And if you continue to scare them all the time, it can make them sick. On top of that, when you frighten someone, what happens is their, higher cognitive functioning, so, you know, higher thinking is reduced. And we basically shrink into our reptilian brain, which is fight or flight, and we are not capable of sophisticated, complex reasoning when we are in the fight or flight state. In fact, what happens is we defer, we actually don’t know what’s going on, especially if we’re confused.
And so that’s another tactic they use is they confuse, they put out conflicting information in order to confuse the populace into submission, because what happens is you’re afraid you’re getting confused information. You’ve already had a trauma pattern installed in you from 9/11 or some other major event, which triggers it, right? We talk about PTSD. It’s a common thing in our society. Nobody knew what it was 20 years ago. And then what happens is people say, I don’t know what to do, and I’m afraid, and I will defer to authority. Tell me what to do and I’ll follow you. And it’s the way that the, those in power actually manipulate the populous into doing what they want.
Right? Problem reaction solution. Their solution is to accept their control mechanisms, whether it’s contact, tracing, lockdown, masking, one of the biggest farces ever forced upon their populous. And I’m sorry if that is offensive to people, but it is a farce masks do not do what they are alleged to do.
That is there is just unbelievable science to that effect. And effectively what they’re doing is forcing us to participate in a charade and a frightened human being will comply. That’s the sad thing.
Patrick: Exactly. You know, I think the last thing I want to throw out here, which just came up in my presentation recently in crimes against humanity is the idea of hidden meanings. And this isn’t quite word substitution, but uh, often you’ll find that words that are used in the, incessantly, especially when they’re like new words. Maybe you’ve never heard them before, whatever have hidden meanings that are pretty easy to find out. But in this case, for instance the company Moderna, which in which of course produces is one of the first to produce the messenger RNA, injections, their name M O D E R N A if you take the first letter and last three to three letters, you have M R N A, they are dedicated to messenger RNA therapy. And so that’s where the name Moderna comes from. And there’s other examples too.
Leslie: Patrick it’s even their ticker symbol on the stock exchange. M RNA, if you ever look it up, that’s what it is. And what does it mean, right? It’s modifying indogenous meaning your own RNA, your Ribo, nucleic acid and your messenger, it also means messenger RNA. There are many words for our many iterations of it. And messenger RNA is the, component of our genetic system, our genetic material, and then system it’s a signaling and the DNA tells it what to do. It’s a messenger that then tells ribosomes what proteins to produce or not produce. And so what you’re doing is your modifying your own, and that MRNA can enter the nucleus that has been proven in the presence of reverse transcriptase. It does that, and it can enter your nucleus and then change your own DNA.
So they’re actually telling you that they’re modifying your RNA right there in the name. And most people just kind of go along and accept it. And I don’t know if you want to go into some of the others, but, you know BioNTech which is Pfizer’s joint venture, it’s a German company, but they J.V.’d and what is that about? It’s a merger of biology and technology, right? It’s marriage of that. And that’s a very interesting concept, that you have talked about for many, many years, Patrick that transhumanist agenda, and then you go to the COVID-19. Well, what is it? Well, Corona vaccine ID 2019. And what’s really interesting when we talk about that is that they were actually already sending tests all over the globe in 2017 and 2018 that were labeled COVID-19 and COVID-19, wasn’t supposedly named until February or March of 2020. So how exactly did they know to be shipping these tests around that were already named COVID-19 if it was all an accident and a lab leak and everything else that we’re told?
Patrick, can I mention one other thing, which is the Milgrim experiments, Stanley Milgrim. Cause I think it’s really, it’s a super important part of what we’re talking about. You’ve got these agendas, you’ve got these tools and then you’ve got human susceptibility, which I’ve talked a little bit about, but most people don’t understand just how suggestible we are, which is why there’s something called the placebo effect right? There are people who can actually trick your body into thinking that a prosthetic arm is not yours, and when they stick a pin in it you will feel the sensation and scream in pain, even though you know that it’s not you. You know, consciously that it’s not your arm, but you have subconsciously planted the seed that it’s connected to you. It’s very interesting. Stanley Milgrim was this researcher who looked at what happened with the Nazis and he said, how in the heck did this happen? How did good people let this happen? And was it just an anomaly or was there something wrong with these people or did something happen? What? And so he decided he was going to try and get to the bottom of it. So he took all of these people who were his test subjects. And he asked them to come in and perform an experiment with him. And he said, what we’re going to do in this experiment is you are going to push this button. If the person on the other end answers the question that you’re going to ask them incorrectly. So they were like on the other side of I think a two way mirror or something like that. So that the person who was pushing the button could see them, but the others couldn’t and they were to ask them a question and what the button did. They were told that when they pushed the button, it was going to shock the person who was answering the question. They were going to shock the recipient. And what he found was that he would ask people, he would have the, the subjects asked the questions of the other people and they were actors. And the actors would start to, you know, scream and pain and things like this. But as long as the instructor kept telling the subject to keep pushing the button, they did it, they deferred to authority and he found that roughly 70% of people will defer to authority, even when it means injuring another human being.
And I want people to understand this because it illustrates that this is part of the human condition. And that it’s incumbent upon each and every one of us to unplug from the mainstream media, because that is how they are controlling us. I don’t care if it’s television or social media or radio or anything else, those dulcet tones of NPR or some of the most insidious in my view. But the point is that we’re all susceptible on some level. And the way that we counteract that is by arming ourselves with the knowledge of the tools that they’re using against us and unplugging from them so that we are actually rooted in reality.
Patrick: Amen to all that. Well, we’re out of our time here. But Leslie, what we’re going to do now, we’re going to move into our Q and A section. My guess is we’re going to have a lot of activity, a result of this people asking questions and making their own contributions to words that they recognize that have been substituted. I hope this raises awareness of the. And hopefully gives you some tools, whatever to, to deal with it and to recognize it, of course, recognition is 99% of the problem. Once you recognize it, you cannot see it and you don’t respond to it the same way anymore. So we said for a long time that the antidote to propaganda is simply to be able to recognize it. When you see it in a story, in a news broadcast or whatever it might be. If you understand the elements of propaganda, you’ll never be fooled by it again. This is the best defense we can have. So, Leslie, I want to thank you for participating in our national town hall tonight. And I hope someday we might be able to do it again but keep up your great work that you’re doing. We really appreciate everything that you’ve done and are doing. You’re a role model for all of our people, at Citizens for Free Speech, because you are a citizen for free speech after all yourself.
Leslie: I’ve taken plenty of punches, but you know what? I’ll go down swinging. I’m not going to let this agenda materialize under my watch. I’m too concerned about all the young people and all the children. And anyway, thank you for having me and I can’t wait to answer some of the questions that we get.
Patrick: Yeah, my pleasure. We’ll move into the next section now. Thanks.
Kimberly: Fantastic. Well, we do have Leslie with us and Leslie hopefully you can turn your camera on and you’ll pop up here for us. We want to welcome her to our town hall? There she is. Yay.
Kimberly: Oh my goodness. It’s been wonderful having our technology cooperate.
Kimberly: That was just a wonderful presentation, conversation that you had with Patrick. And thank you again for doing that and then for being here again this evening, and if you haven’t met Bob France before, he’s our national director of communication. So he and I will be here to do the Q and A with you and Bob, I’ll let you take it away and ask a first question.
Bob: Well, sure but first I just want to say thank you to Leslie. What a fountain of information you are. I mean, that was tremendous, so much information, most of us in this room, and I think particularly with CFFS, stay on top of things the best we can, but boy, we really rely on experts. We rely on people who have put in the work and done the research, and really who have gotten to the bottom of so many thinks like you to do presentations like this for all of our attendees. And I have to tell you, it was very, very illuminating and enlightening, and I want to thank you for that. It was really terrific. So, first of all, great presentation. Secondly, I want to remind all of our attendees, you have to put your questions in the Q and A tab. So if you look on your zoom screen, of course you have the chat window, and I see a lot of great conversations going on amongst you and one another, in the chat window. But for us to just kind of keep an order of things, just to kind of make it easier on Leslie, we would like you to put your question is not in the chat window, but in the Q and A window. And we will continue to ask those as long as you keep them coming. I’m sure she will keep the answers coming as well.
So, Leslie, the first question we have comes from Sharon, who asks, if you would please repeat the part about acts that took place to allow propaganda.
Leslie: Oh, okay. So first of all, thanks so much for having me and for your kind words, I appreciate it. It’s really great to be here with all of you guys. And it’s also so wonderful to be able to talk about topics that truly empower us, right? That liberate us from the shackles because they may not be physical shackles, but we are shackled by these weapons, weaponization of language, by the propaganda, by all these things that are being pushed on us with respect to the acts. Basically, if you go far back, we go back over a hundred years. There have been serious… there’ve been legislative steps that have been put in place in order to take over our system. But those things really accelerated after 9/11. So 9/11, we all know happened on September 11th, 2001. And even though the roots of this, go back over a century. What happened in 9/11 was that of course you had problem reaction solution. Everybody got terrified. They repeatedly showed the planes. They repeatedly, you know, just terrified us, right? I mean, how many times did they show those things on the news? And there’s a reason for that. It’s because it just like imprints this unbelievable, painful memory, that’s trauma pattern in the psyche, and then they capitalized on that.
Within 45 days, they passed the Patriot Act. That was passed 45 days roughly after 9/11. 2 weeks after the Patriot Act was passed, and as I mentioned, the Patriot Act, allowed warrantless surveillance of Americans, which had heathered to been unthinkable. Perfect example of problem reaction solution, right? No one would have ever allowed that until 9/11, but people went along with it. They obliged their leaders because, you know, we just all want it to be safe. And then just two weeks after the Patriot Act was introduced, a new type of legislation was introduced called the Model State Emergency Health Powers Act.
I did not touch on this in my presentation, but it’s really important for people to know because this legislation came only two weeks after. And what it did was it accorded extraordinary powers to state health departments and governors in the event of a disease outbreak. How interesting, isn’t that?
So this was part of paving the way for what happened in 2020, and then in 2005, you had the PREP Act. The PREP Act is something that’s invoked by the president. And it authorizes the secretary of health and human services to put all these different mechanisms into place. One of them is to authorize the FDA to issue emergency use authorization of all sorts of what are called medical countermeasures. Now medical countermeasures can be masks tests, drugs, vaccines, although these aren’t vaccines right? And it’s another thing I can’t remember if I mentioned this or not, but there are a gene therapy, not a vaccine, but they were authorized. And most importantly, when a product is produced for emergency use under the PREP Act, the manufacturer of that countermeasure is protected from liability.
So they cannot be sued unless you can prove willful misconduct, which is almost impossible to prove. I think we actually might be able to. And we’re pursuing, considering some legal actions, but th that’s what the PREP Act did. So you had the Patriot Act, Model State Emergency Health Powers Act, which is model legislation, it hasn’t been introduced or passed everywhere. 43 states, the last I checked had passed that legislation in whole or in part. So it’s not something that’s just been blanket passed across the country and then the PREP Act and then you fast forward to 2012. And in 2012, what happened was the National Defense Authorization Act repealed.
Well first, Congress repealed the Smith Mundt Act which allowed you to be basically be propagandized by the government. So for, I think it was 70 years, the Smith Mundt Act had been in place, which said that CIA could not disseminate, deliberately disseminate false information to Americans in order to manipulate them or deceive them.
And so they repealed that. And then they said, don’t worry about that. You know, we’re not going to set up a program to do it and we haven’t funded it so you don’t have to stress about it. And then they set up the program and funded it in 2013 and 2016. And there was something else that happened with the NDAA, which I didn’t mention, which is that in 2012, the writ of habeas corpus was suspended through the NDAA.
Now the NDAA, I believe I mentioned before is, the budgeting legislation that’s passed by Congress every year in order to fund the Department of Defense, the Pentagon. They wrote in the NDAA of 2012, that Americans who were deemed domestic terrorists or connected to domestic terrorism, which is very broadly defined and very ill-defined. It could be basically anybody who does things that they feel are counter to, questioning the federal government. You can be held detained without the right to appear before a judge and, protest against wrongful imprisonment. So basically it means that you can actually be wrongfully imprisoned, wrongfully detained without the right to appear before a judge indefinitely.
Now that’s about as un-American as you get, but that’s just a violation of everything that Western civilization supposedly holds dear. But anyway, that’s the kind of different steps of legislation that were put in place in the last 20 years, which really accelerated this whole attack on our rights and liberties.
Bob: Leslie, with respect to that last part, just a quick follow-up, is that what they’re using to justify the holding of some of the January 6th prisoners, that change in language?
Leslie: I do not know specifically. I do know that people are actually being released because some lawyers are challenging them on this because they have moved them without following the law and things like that. And so if you get arrested, you have to be arraigned in the area where you were arrested. They can’t just transfer you across the country and then let you out of jail in another place in the country right? But that’s what they’re doing. Whether or not they’re using that specific language. I do not know I don’t want to speculate because I’m not a hundred percent sure. All I can say is that I know that they’ve put that in place for just these circumstances. And let’s also remember that two months ago, the Department of Homeland Security came out with their new domestic terrorism threat assessment stating that the biggest threat to America is two things, domestic terrorists people who questioned the integrity, the legitimacy of the last election and people who question the COVID narrative.
So this is full-court press, right? This is about really tightening the screws on all of us.
Bob: Yeah. And I of course I’m guilty of both of those things so I guess I’m a giant threat. I know I’m not the only one let’s go to our next question for Leslie Manookian. The question comes from Jeff, who says, has anyone any observations about the older additions of dictionaries compared to newer ones?
I can tell you, I have. I mean, we all know that every year dictionaries, the dictionary publishers add new words, things that have become popular and in modern popular culture that had just become accepted, even though they weren’t words before they are now, that happens all the time. But the changing of definitions, Leslie, something that I have noticed, and part of that is this ongoing movement to change science. By way of, you know, certain definitions of genders, male, female, and so on and so forth. So there certainly is a movement to try to redefine, I guess, or change the definitions of a lot of words to essentially advance political agendas dare I say, your thoughts?
Leslie: Well, I think it’s clearly to advance an agenda. It’s literally to gaslight you because when you are being lied to and you know it, that’s incredibly… think about what kind of feeling that evokes in inside of you. It’s horrible. There’s a sense of helplessness and frustration and anger and what happens then when people are that exercised ultimately there’s division. And I mean, I personally believe that there’s an effort to push us towards civil war so that they can then crackdown. And so I think that all of these things are a way to get the populous at each other’s throats to point the finger to divide us because divided we fall. I don’t think it’s just a leftist agenda. I think they all play their roles. I tend to see both sides is having a big role in this and I don’t see it as just one side good and one side bad, I think that the elite of both parties are actually very culpable for what we’re seeing and experiencing. And, but that said there’s clearly a major agenda that’s being put forth by the left, pushing all of these things right? Ketanji Brown won’t even say what a woman is in her Supreme Court confirmation hearings. This is just lunacy, but the thing is they know it’s lunacy because, and they want to piss you off. That’s my point. It’s not an accident, right? They know it’s going to rile up some people and get them talking nonsense, and it’s going to really anger another group so that then we fight each other rather than the true problem, which are the elite.
Bob: Well, I think that’s very well said. Next question comes from Elkey. I believe it is. I’m going to go with Elkey in San Diego, who asks, who changed the word MSM mainstream media to legacy media. You think there was an agenda there?
Leslie: That’s interesting. I think that people who are in the Liberty movements, you know, in health freedom, and all different kinds of Liberty movements, they’re always looking for a way to label them without giving them too much power. And so, there’s mainstream and I think people are like, they’re not mainstream anymore. I mean, CNN gets a few hundred thousand viewers, right? They’re not mainstream, a tiny fraction of Americans actually watch it. I’m not sure it comes from an agenda. It’s more about us grappling for how to describe this. I oftentimes call them the corporate media because I think that’s more accurate or the state media, the corporate state media. Because if you ask me there is… well, first of all, I’m assuming that most people have heard about Operation Mockingbird, that happened in the sixties and seventies and was the subject of Senator Frank Church’s hearings in the mid-seventies.
And the reason I’m bringing it up is because what was revealed during those hearings was that the CIA had 400 agents planted inside the mainstream media outlets across the country 400 back then in 1975 or 1976, somewhere in there, it might’ve been 77. And they were questioned by Senator Frank Church and he asked, how many do you have right now? Do you have these agents planted right now? Well, you know, we don’t really want to talk about that right now. They said, we’d prefer to address that behind closed doors. And then when pushed, they said, oh, you know, well we’ve shut the program down.
I’m sorry. But if you believe that I have some, beachfront property for sale for you on Mars, right? I mean, that’s just insane. And we know that the Biden administration has given about a billion dollars to the media and the last year, just to get them to support the mainstream narrative. We know that that’s been ongoing for a long time. We know that the, that we had this before there have been whistleblowers like Udo Ulfkotte who’s a German whistleblower who used to be the editor of a major newspaper in Germany for over 20 years, he came out and said that CIA basically influences every journalist essentially. So what he said, and he blew the whistle, he said he couldn’t live with himself anymore. And he had to come clean. And he said that intelligence are planting stories all over the world, that he specifically got the story from CIA that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and he printed it. And within 24 hours, it was everywhere in the world just to show what their reach is, okay. But he also said that the billionaires are dictating as well. So I think there’s this very unholy alliance of government, intelligence, which I consider rogue government. And then these giant family foundations and super-rich billionaires who are actually calling the shots manipulating and owning the media. And then of course there’s industry. I mean the pharmaceutical industry spent either $35 billion globally on advertisement last year, or will this year $35 billion for marketing and advertising. It’s just an extraordinary number. It’s bigger than the GDP of some countries. So it’s hard to say exactly where this is coming from, but we do know that there is a clear… that there’s a stranglehold and that’s why they’re all siding. And that’s why they are all siding with government and the narrative. And it’s come out in the last 12 to 18 months that US and British intelligence agencies have been influencing the narrative around COVID. And as I mentioned, I think there’s even something called a nudge committee that they had in Britain, where they deployed propaganda and mind control tools against the populace. They want to claim that it went away in the 1970s, but I’m sorry, I don’t believe that for a second.
Bob: You know, I want to move on to the next question so that we can keep up with our attendees here, but you got me hooked here at the very end. What are those tools that are part of the nudge that you were just talking about? What mind control/propaganda tools are they employing?
Leslie: Well, first of all, fear. Fear is number one, scare you, scare you, scare you so think about what was the first thing that we were told in the very early part of the pandemic. There were two major institutions the IHME, which is the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, which is a subgroup at the University of Washington. And guess who gives gazillions to the University of Washington? Bill Gates. He gave let me make sure I remember this right. I think it was $269 million to them in 2018 or 2019, somewhere in there. Huge numbers.
Leslie: And that was just to the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation. He gives way more to the University of Washington in general, but they were putting out 2 million Americans are going to die very soon, kind of that thing. And then you had the Imperial college in Britain, Neil Ferguson, his models. And what of his model say 500,000 Britains are going to die. And 2.2 million Americans are going to die. So you had these really terrifying estimates being put forth and why? It’s because that’s the first way that they control us, through fear. Once you’re frightened, then you don’t know what to do you stop really thinking rationally, you stop thinking objectively. You stop being skeptical. You stop asking questions. So fear is number one. Then the next thing they do is they repeat, they repeat, they repeat, they repeat. And this is why you see the ticker tape. Think about 9/11, all the planes flying in the buildings over and over and over and over right? And then you think about what’s happened in the last two years. There’s a ticker tape of cases and deaths constantly on cable television. That’s all you see because they want you to be constantly in fear because when you fall out of fear, then you can start thinking.
So frightened, then repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, confuse. So think about Fauci in March saying, oh, you’d be crazy to be wearing a mask in the middle of a pandemic. It’s not going to do any good. It might make you feel a little better, but it’s nonsense. Weeks later, he’s saying the exact opposite. Of course, you should be wearing a mask. What is the person who’s not totally engaged. Who’s not paying attention every single day to do they are frightened. So then they just go, okay, I trust CDC. I trust whatever. Okay. Then there’s language, the guilting, the shaming. So that’s really manipulative, right? Do your part. Don’t be selfish. We’re all in this together appealing to our sense of wanting to be good citizens, good members of our community and society. And then also, don’t kill grandma, protect grandma. All of these things are about how they manipulate us and then they start to gaslight us, like when things don’t make sense, they just lie.
So how many people have been able to smell perfume or smoke or the smell of food through their mask? Everybody has, right? Or you can sit at a restaurant in the airport, but you, if you’re ordering, you have to wear a mask. But if you’re five feet away, you can be sitting there and you get right. This is insanity. And any rational person would see it as insane, but they keep telling you to do it. And then they start out with we have to distance. Well, what is the number one source? Or the number one method of torturing people who are held in prisons or in detention?
Leslie: Solitary confinement, right. And so they tell us and they call it social it’s social distancing, love it, enjoy it. It’s really social. Everybody. It’s really fun. Right?
Bob: Those are some incredible tools. I do want to move on just in the interest of getting some other folks involved.
Leslie: I can go on, but of course.
Bob: I know you could and we’d be doing this forever. Then we may do this on my radio show very, very soon because I want to expand upon this with another audience. Jenny asks can viewers possibly get that PDF that you were referencing and using in order to print it out and share with others? Is that accessible anywhere?
Leslie: You mean my little document?
Leslie: It’s kind of my outline. I was supposed to make a presentation. I think what I’d like to do is give some of the highlights of it, but not the whole thing if that’s okay.
Bob: Yeah. And if you just let us know where someone could find that it would it be on your website?
Leslie: I can post it to our website, will you email me to remind me? View post here.
Bob: Sure. We’ll do that. And what is your website for those who do want it?
Leslie: It’s healthfreedomdefense.org and I’ll just post it as an article on tools for weaponization of language and tools to manipulate the public. So just, if you click on learn, if you just click on learn, you’ll get everything or you can do the drop down and get news and it’ll be in there.
Bob: Definitely don’t share them on Facebook. It’s a sure fire ban. No question about that. Carolyn asks, how will we pay our bills, purchase things when C, B, D C rolls out and we refuse to be vaxinated?
Leslie: That’s a very good question. So what I think people should be doing, what I personally would do and what I think people should be doing is to buy some, junk silver, which is coins from before 1965, because they are not quite, but almost pure silver.
And so they’ve got the premature of the mint on them. You know what it’s worth just from a currency standpoint, but you also then have the metal in it. Then there’s something I just actually found out about today, which I don’t remember what the name of it is. I’d have to look it up, but there is this kind of, it’s like a paper dollar, but it’s filled with gold, but it is a 10th or a 20th of an ounce of gold.
And that’s important because gold is about $1,850 an ounce right now. And so if you have a gold coin it says $1 on it, it’s worth $1,850. And how many people are going to do grocery shopping with that right? So the intention is clearly to force us to acquiesce to all of their demands. And that’s why they’re doing it. That’s why they’ve destroyed the small businesses so that they can get business small businesses and medium-sized businesses employ two-thirds of the US workforce. They want to get rid of all those in order to force you to accept universal basic income and to get on their digital ID, the universal basic income they’ve been trialing for many, many years, and they are trying to, I think de-stigmatized the dole, so they call it universal basic income. Talk about weaponization of language, but what it really is, is a hand out right? It’s being on the dole. And so what do you do? Well, my view is that globalism is the problem. Localism is the solution. And so what people should be doing is grow food, learn how to grow food, some of your own food.
And if you can do that great, if you can’t do that, at least try and help your community, create a foodshed in your area because they are going to have you when you’re starving. And of course they’ve been engineering, all of these food shortages that are on the horizon, I’m sure people know about this. That there’ve been more than a dozen. I think it’s close to two dozen food processing facilities have burned to the ground. There’ve been planes have flown into them. I mean, it’s been crazy, but anyway, the point is, I think that’s the best thing is networking with your community, grow your own food and develop a local food shed as much as you possibly can and do it this summer. Next winter, I would expect to be very challenging. There’s a fertilizer shortage, it’s going to be a problem.[01:09:32] Bob: Yeah. Very good advice and timely as well. Tim asks to confirm, is the NDAA the same thing as the Patriot Act? [01:09:39] No, no, no, no. The Patriot Act was this legislation passed in 2001 which allowed the NSA CIA intelligence to spy on us without a warrant or any probable costs and that’s a violation of our rights. The NDAAs are passed every year. The National Defense Authorization Act is legislation that’s passed, it’s renewed every year and it is the piece of legislation that authorizes the Pentagon’s budget. So Congress makes the laws and appropriates all the funds. Allocates the funds and that’s the mechanisms through which they do it every year. It’s reauthorized and they tweak it. And most people, of course not paying any attention and have no clue that this is all happening and the media aren’t covering it. This is the thing you’ll never know what’s happening. If you listen to the mainstream media because they never touch on these vitally important things, it’s up to you to go and ferret it out on your own. And so unplug from anything that’s not independent is all I can say.
Very well said. The next question is from Charles who says I’m concerned about the uptake on mental health focus. Currently, I work in HR and there seems to be coordinated messaging, placing intense concern on mental health. I wonder what their objective might be. Do you have any thoughts on this?
Leslie: Oh, absolutely. I think there’s an uptick in it, but I think it’s actually been going on for several years where they’re trying to normalize, like a friend of mine made a movie called Medicating Normal, and I highly recommend it. Basically, if you’re unhappy, take an antidepressant. If you are a little down for a day, something happens. Whatever. Take an antidepressant. Life is full of ups and downs. That’s the human condition, right? You know, you can’t feel the highs unless you can feel the lows and there’s joy and there’s sadness and there’s the whole spectrum of emotion, but they want you to believe that normal human emotions are unacceptable to be pushed away and to be medicated away. Okay. And one of the things they are doing is they are actually putting electrodes and other things like little tiny chips inside of drugs, which you then ingest Borla, who is the CEO of Pfizer has specifically said, oh, you know, isn’t it great we’re doing this and it’s going to really help us with compliance. So that’s one of the pieces is that it’s going to allow them to comply. But the other thing is they want to take away your guns. How do they do that by saying that you’re mentally unstable. Okay. And then the other thing is this is really important, Brave New World, Aldous Huxley’s masterpiece, what do all the people take? They take something called Soma. They self-medicate themselves. So, you know, there’s all this to 50% of young adults, 18 to 25 are depressed and yada, yada, yada it’s okay, just take your Soma, go to the doctor and get your drug. It’s normalizing all these things. In my view.
Bob: We’ve got three more questions. We’ve got about seven minutes left. I think we can get them in. This one we kind of covered a little bit. Dictionaries had been both abridged and distorted, thesaurus seem non-existent do you find that to be the case?
Leslie: thesauri seem non-existent?
Bob: That’s the question or statement that he would like a response to Scott.
Leslie: That’s interesting. I actually have not ever thought about that, but you know, it’s because I don’t actually use a thesaurus in my home. I use one online and they still exist there. So I don’t really have a good answer to that I’m sorry.
Bob: Yeah, I don’t know what he meant by that, but I can just say I have actually been referencing the thesaurus lately because of language, because of what is the definition of a woman and you talked about Ketanji Brown Jackson, what is the definition of a woman? Well, it’s an adult human female. What is the definition of a female? And you get into, and also in the Roe versus Wade debate, you know, what is the opposite of life and antonym, if you look in a thesaurus is going to be death, therefore the opposite of pro-life is pro-death, I’ve been talking about these things and I think there is in the same way, or there may be in the same way that they are working with and redefining various words in the dictionary. They are also trying to kind of play with what words mean when in relation to one another as well. And that may be what he’s talking about with thesaurus. I don’t know if you have any thoughts on that.[01:14:02] Leslie: I would just agree with everything you said.
Bob: Okay well, that’s, that makes me feel good, but we do know they’re changing definitions and you mentioned the science..
Leslie: Again, it’s just coming back. They want chaos.
Bob: They do,
Leslie: they want hatred
Bob: just before compliance is the keyword. I always say this it’s redundant, but I say it all the time. It’s not about science, it’s about compliance. They don’t need science to force you to comply because of the other tools in the nudge program, you talked about that they use to essentially brainwash you and shape your way of thinking.
Leslie: And, you know, constantly trust the science. Fauci said I am science. Right? All of those things. It’s part of it. So it’s, it’s, it’s just about, it’s the whole topic. It’s how they are using words against us in order to confuse us, anger us, frustrated us, and all these things. And for those who are awake and aware of what’s happening to then feel isolated and demoralized right? I have a son who’s in college and he’s aware of what’s going on. That’s far more painful than the ignorance that most of the students are in.
Bob: I completely agree. And I’ll tell you something, Leslie, I find to be maybe the most, the most alarming phrase in the world anymore. The thing that frightens me the most out of the words, the science is settled. They use it in climate. They use it now in gender and in gender theory. Well, you know, a trans woman is a real woman. They use it in so many and use it in COVID that the science is settled. These shots are safe and effective. The only two side effects are safety and effectiveness.
That’s it. They ignore the VARES reporting and everything. So when they say the science is settled, you know, doggone well the science is not settled. And if you try to challenge it with science that contradicts that, which they are propagating. Well, you know the story from there. That’s when the disinformation governance board takes over.
Leslie: Yes. The ministry of truth then kicks in. Right?
Bob: All right. Two more are the global elites motivated to depopulate the planet through the jabs, in addition to controlling people.
Leslie: That’s a really interesting question. A very good question. I think it’s very hard to conclude that they’re not given that they did not study them in pregnant women, given that, and they’re urging pregnant women to get them. There’s been a huge spike in stillbirths and miscarriages, and they’re not backing off. How else do you rationalize that? How do you justify that? How do you explain it? I don’t. What about children who have no risk statistically zero risks, one in a million, something like this, and yet they’re being, they’re other, having these jobs pushed on them. That’s very, very strange if this is about the science and about a risk-benefit analysis and not about something more sinister. And I will also say, I will share this. I don’t often say this, but I do know scientists who’ve examined these shots and they have very strange anomalies ingredients in them, which self assemble and do all sorts of things that we don’t know or understand. And more people are looking into them, but they are not what we were told they are in my view. So I think there’s a very good chance and, listen the depopulation agenda is not a secret in any way. I mean, there was somebody who spoke and, AOC, she was holding some kind of, a meeting in her home area or her voting area in New York. And there was some woman planted in the audience who started going eat the children, eat the children because there are too many of us. And that’s a very strange. For someone to be saying, and maybe she wasn’t a plant, but it seemed very, very odd to me. And then, you know, there’s all these things like the Georgia Guidestones, which say that the population should be held to 500 million or less, and you can’t explain what’s going on unless there is some kind of bizarre agenda. And of course, George, Bill Gates’ father was a eugenicist and Bill Gates has been talking about reducing the population growth for a very, very long.
Bob: Well, you know, and the world has been watching the one child, China policy for a very, very long time. And they did change that a little bit, but you notice how it is also completely taboo for American citizens to criticize the Chinese Communist Party.
If you criticize China you’re in dangerous territory there. And then the last one we have for you, Leslie, and we really appreciate your time. I’m glad this question was asked, what news sources are most trustworthy or which ones specifically, at least currently you said a few minutes ago, don’t trust anything that isn’t independent.
What is the definition of independent, not part of a network or what?
Leslie: Anything that’s corporate-owned. So people may know that five or six corporations own… there used to be 40,000 radio stations. They’re almost all owned by one of six corporations. There used to be all of these independent television stations, and they’re almost all owned now by the giant corporations.
Like Disney, GE you know, companies like this who are not concerned about you actually learning the truth. So what do I mean, when I say independent, their sources, like the Epoch Times, they’re not owned by a corporation, they are owned by someone who cares about the truth. I really like the Epoch Times, although I think they have, they are, they sometimes let their anti-China, position posture get in the way in my view sometimes. And it’s too much of an issue, but they have very, very good reporting in general. And I’m a big fan. Just the news.com is absolutely fantastic. Again, it’s independent, it’s not owned by anybody big and then smaller things. Listen, these citizen journalists and independent people who are out there, whether it’s… I can’t think of his first name, James Corbett, James Corbett, or, The Last American Vagabond or, I usually have a list of all these things that I look at, but those are some of them on sub stack there are so many, and it depends just if you’re looking for a COVID or if you’re looking for stuff in general, but I think the two best mainstream, independent media outlets are the Epoch Times and Just The News. And then there’s a ton of others. I actually will put this back up on my website. I have it on my personal one, but I don’t know if it’s on the Health Freedom Defense Fund, but I’ll put some media recommendations on there as well. So look in our resources for that. There are dozens and dozens of really fantastic… like there’s something called true stream media, they do amazing stuff.
And then groups like, technocracy.news. Wow. I mean, you can’t let that one go by, right? That’s one of those…
Bob: If you were going to get there, I know if Pat was feeling better and he was on with me right now that might’ve come up a little sooner, but that’s a great example.
Leslie: I was going to say it and then I got distracted.
Bob: So Leslie, terrific presentation. Thank you for taking the time through all the questions. I’m going to turn this back over to Kimberly. Now to wrap this up, I’ve done my portion. Thank you to all of the attendees who did ask questions here. There were some terrific ones and I hope the answers you just heard from Leslie were as meaningful to you as I think they were to me.[01:20:50] Kimberly, you can take it away.
Kimberly: Great. Thank you great, great questions and great, follow up to the presentation. You know, Leslie, I would add too, and I don’t know if this is one of the nudging tactics, but I would think that part of the weaponization of language is also weaponizing all of us to more or less do the dirty work, you know, make sure you’re wearing your mask and you know, again, do your part and all of that and so we become kind of like robots, just repeating some of this. And so just choosing not to participate would be one way to kind of break that nudging cycle.
Leslie: 100%. Remember I said these, that we are social creatures, we need community, we need connection. And this is one of the major ways that they manipulate us. My husband was in the store not long ago and he didn’t have a mask on this was before they had rescinded the one here and before we won our big lawsuit striking down the one nationally. But, he walks in, he doesn’t have one on and this little old lady comes up to him and taps on the shoulder… where’s your mask, you know, don’t you want to put on your mask? And he was just like, ah, no, I would’ve said no, but you know, sometimes you don’t want to fight right? Who wants to fight? And also if you live in a small town, it’s even harder, right. It’s much easier. I think when you have anonymity in a big city to just buck the system. Think about, do you guys remember, do you see something suspicious?
Kimberly: See something, say something.
Leslie: See something, say something, right. These are all these things. This they’ve been developing, cancel culture. They’ve been developing this kind of stuff. And this is what the east Germans did. They have these smelling jars where they would take your underwear. They would break into your house when you were there to steal your underwear. And then they, we had dogs so that they could actually track everybody. And they also told children when they were at school to tell on their parents, right. They were trying to divide the family unit. They were trying to destroy society so that no one would trust anybody and everybody would be against each other.
Bob: They’re still doing that right now, here.
Leslie: A hundred percent, a hundred percent. I’m just saying, that’s what they did. And it’s the same. I mean, we didn’t talk about this, but the Nazis actually had a ministry of enlightened. Right. Pravda is called truth. Now we’ve got our, I forget what it’s called the disinformation governance board. These are all the same thing, right? These are all the exact same thing. It’s all about gaslighting, angering division, discord, and chaos.
Kimberly: Well, Leslie, you’ve been more than generous with your time and knowledge. We really appreciate you being here. And we’ll be sure to get out the recording to all of those that are here tonight, with the links and then also the links to your resources that you mentioned. So thank you so much. And thank you to everybody. Who’s joined us this evening. We really appreciate you tuning in and being part of this conversation. We can’t do that without a great audience like you, so thanks for being here.
So thank you very much and have a great evening, everybody. Thank you.
Leslie: Thank you.