Foundation Corona Committee, 102nd session on April 29th, 2022

Mark Crispin Miller (Professor of Media Studies, New York University)

in conversation with Reiner Füllmich and Viviane Fischer

(Original language: English)

[Transcript from Team corona-ausschuss-info.com + Ed]


Reiner Füllmich: [02:18:28]
Now we turn to Mark Miller. We’re almost on time, Mark. It’s great to see you. You’re a professor of media, culture and communication in New York University. Your research interests include modern propaganda, history and tactics of advertising, American film and media ownership. Selected publications are The Culture of TV – this is from 1988, Mad Scientists – The Secret History of Modern Propaganda in 2004, and Bush/Cheney’s New World Order, also in 2004. Do you want to– is… there something we’re missing here? Would you like to add something to this?

Mark Miller: [02:19:12]
Well I… think it’s… relevant just to note that I’ve been studying the media since the seventies writing about the media. Having got my PhD in English literature, I… shifted my interests to the study of media, as it became increasingly clear to me over the decades how influential and powerful it is. And for the last 20 years or so, I’ve been teaching an annual course on propaganda at NYU. Because of a typical dustup in 2020, I’m no longer allowed to teach that course, but I still talk about it every chance I get, the subject of propaganda. And I think it’s urgent that you and I, the three of us, talk about it in the context of your legal effort, because I think that, you know, propaganda has been the driver of this whole thing, and enough is enough.

Reiner Füllmich: [02:20:10]
So your… university told you you can’t teach that course any more?

Mark Miller: [02:20:16]
Well I’ll… try to be as succinct as possible. I was introducing my propaganda course as usual in September of 2020, the only difference being we were doing it remotely. And I explained to my class then, as I always do at the beginning, that… the challenge in studying propaganda is not to recognize it when you don’t agree with it, because everyone can point to an example of propaganda they disagree with. The challenge is to study it when it pushes your own buttons. And, you know, this is an experience I’ve had myself many times and continue to have. You study a propaganda drive only to discover that something you yourself have fervently believed is actually not true.

So I was explaining this to the class and noting that we would… be looking at… propaganda historically– we would look at the Nazis, would look at the Bolsheviks, et cetera, but that our real interest would be in studying propaganda in real time. This is kind of [4-sec. loss of sound] comfort zone, if you see what I mean.

So I was… coming up with examples of the kind of thing we might study. I said, look at how we’re meeting. I mean, you hate this, I hate this, we’d much rather be in a classroom together. Why is this happening? Well, it’s because of the covid crisis, Which has been driven from the start by a number of very powerful propaganda themes. That doesn’t mean they’re necessarily false, but it does mean that they are one-sided and simplistic.

[02:21:57]
So I said we might, for example, study the mask mandates. I explained to them that all the randomized controlled trials that had been conducted on masking… to block transmission of respiratory viruses had all found that masks do not work. I told them you would want to read those studies and you would also want to read the more recent studies finding otherwise. In other words, to study propaganda, you have to do comprehensive research, be as impartial as you can, and make up your own mind.

Well, a young woman in the class was so enraged by what I said that a few days later she went on Twitter and demanded that I be fired. NYU responded to this essentially by taking her side. And among the several things that happened was that I was told not to teach the propaganda course the following semester. But I was assured I’d be able to teach it eventually. But as… things have turned out, I’m… not allowed to teach it. And I don’t even think they’re going to offer it any more. So you, know you, you don’t want to teach the slaves how to read, you follow me? So what I was doing was too dangerous, apparently.

Reiner Füllmich: [02:23:24]
That’s quite worrying quite worrisome, I should say.

Mark Miller:
Yeah.

Reiner Füllmich:
I know that the same thing is happening all over the world. The one good thing about the United States is, of course, that it. that parts of the judiciary still work. I cannot say this for Germany or for Europe as a whole, maybe with the exception of Italy, which is under so much pressure now that– as our colleague Dr Holzeisen explained to us earlier– that they even made a ruling which says that– yeah, which… says that the vaccine mandates are illegal and unconstitutional because they cause damage. They cannot sweep this under the rug any more. But as far as teaching is concerned, I know the situation is probably a lot worse in Germany, in particular. So you’re still doing what you’re doing. You can still teach, except for this course. It’s better than nothing, I should think.

Mark Miller: [02:24:24]
No, it is, it is, and I am… doing independent studies with students who want to– I mean, I can’t think of a time in history, either a time I’ve lived through or read about, when the study, the critical study of propaganda and an understanding how it works is more, has been more important. It, it’s a matter of extreme urgency, first of all, that we… undertake to teach propaganda study throughout high schools and colleges worldwide. Whereas at the moment, if it’s taught, it’s usually taught in a way that distances it from us, with an overemphasis on the Nazis and the Bolsheviks, you know, maybe some stuff about World War I. But courses that persist in treating propaganda as a “totalitarian” thing that is alien to us. Whereas historically, propaganda, whether it’s political or commercial, is actually an Anglo-American innovation. You know. It’s as American as apple pie. But… at the moment now, it is… turning markedly totalitarian. So I think… that our conversation is… quite important.

Viviane Fischer:
I have a question. I once saw a… YouTube clip, it’s a long time ago, and there was a a law professor, I think she was, and she was talking to a class and explained that like from certain year on, I don’t know if that was the year 2000 or like later or earlier and that it was all of a sudden legal to propagandize Americans and that before that it was actually like forbidden and they maybe did that like in a, do toy know, undercover kind of way like even produce like films like completely fake. You know like whatever about things that have happened and present that to the people as being authentic. And after that, I think you could do that without having to be afraid of… legal you know consequences. Is that so, or you know anything about that?

Mark Miller: [02:26:36]
Well yeah, they modified the Smith Munt Act, which had forbidden intelligence agencies from propagandizing American people directly.

Viviane Fischer:
Um-hm.

Mark Miller:
It think it was under Obama that it was…liberalized. I don’t… actually know, I could be wrong, but I can’t think of any examples of anyone who prosecuted the government or sued under that previous Act. The fact is that the government has been doing this all along you know even though the CIA is… allegedly forbidden and by its charter to do propaganda on American soil, or undertake any operations on American soil. They have been doing it anyway all along, you know, because congressional oversight is merely nominal. And they get away with it because people have allowed them to. But I think that that whole history of turning a blind eye to the danger of this kind of thing is now reaching a culmination, has reached a culmination in this crisis.

So this gives us an opportunity to do a good sort of “great reset”, you know, where we… stand up against this kind of thing because there… is a precedent for it, you know, the Nuremberg trials included. Julius Streicher, for… editing “Die Sturmer”, you know, which was this pornographic anti-semitic rag that… was devised to… you know, intensify antisemitism with Jew hatred as much as possible in preparation for the Holocaust. And the filmmaker Veit Harlan who made “Jew Seuss”, the anti-semitic masterpiece– he went through three trials. He was ultimately acquitted and then, you know, rehabilitated, because he argued he… had done that film under duress, and I… think there was some evidence on his side. At any rate, I think that what’s happening now is comparable, as I know you do. And I think that the media’s complicity is… key, you know, and… that’s… what we’re discussing.

Viviane Fischer:
Yeah. Super–

Reiner Füllmich:
We have… known for quite a while now that this is psychological terrorism. That’s why we spoke to so many… doctors of psychiatry and psychology. You probably have heard of Professor Mattias Desmet from Belgium. But the most important vehicle for this is, of course, the media, mostly the mainstream media, not us, the alternative media. But the thing I– if I remember correctly, people have forgotten about propaganda because this is what it used to be, I don’t know, 60 or 70 years ago. And then it became advertising. Is that… true, or is this, am I mistaken in that?

Mark Miller: [02:29:43]
Well, we have had advertising all along, advertising, marketing, you know, which are basically euphemisms for commercial propaganda. that’s where that is. And simultaneously we have had all kinds of political propaganda with the word “political” very, you know, broadly defined. So those those… two things have been simultaneous. Those two strands of the history of propaganda. And… they’re intertwined, too, in certain ways, because a lot of people in advertising have contributed to political campaigns and to war propaganda drives.

The reason why people have sort of lost the ability to recognize propaganda and to take it seriously is that it has always been misrepresented by the authorities who use it as something that the enemy does. In fact, in World War I, which… marks really the beginning of the history of modern propaganda, specifically as used by the British and the Americans. In that history, you find that whenever the allied propaganda would mention any communication from Germany they would inevitably refer to it as propaganda. They never referto their own stuff as propaganda. So… the word, you know, became well known for the first time as… a highly loaded term, and as one that was a phenomenon that was always inimical, whereas “we were only defending ourselves against it. Our side is circulating information. Our side is educating people. The Germans do propaganda.”

So everybody absorbed that pejorative use of the term. Now after the war, as it gradually became known to everyone in Britain and America just how egregiously they had been lied to– because a number of participants in the propaganda drive went public, you know, afterward, confessional articles and some books– basically saying, you know, “we made this up, we made that up”, in a spirit of contrition, its seems. And people were really shocked by this. And by the late ’20s, they now came to understand– and this is an understanding that was sharpened during the Great Depression– that propaganda comes from our side, that propaganda comes from our government. It comes from our banks; it comes from our major advertisers, see. But it was still understood as a pejorative term. So I think that there… was a puriod there, between World War I and World War II, when there was actually an impressive sort of mass understanding of what propaganda really is, you know. And Columbia University in the late thirties started an institute for propaganda analysis, whose purpose was to educate the public about propaganda which was bubbling up all over the place in the thirties, from all sides, you know.

So that… basically came to an end with World War II, because in wartime you cannot be critical of propaganda. And that was immediately followed by the Cold War. And the Cold War certified the association of propaganda with totalitarianism, so that if… there was propaganda out there, it was the communists. If the communists were saying anything audible, that was propaganda, and what we were doing was trying to resist it with the truth, with what they called the “strategy of truth”.

So now, I think we’re we’re all paying for the fact that we have… you know, ceased to take a critical view or to have any kind of critical understanding of propaganda, which people use as a synonym for lying. But they don’t understand how subtle it can be, and they don’t understand its crucial interrelationship with censorship. The two go together, and they always have.

Reiner Füllmich: [02:34:05]
Very important. Yeah, they do not understand this. One other important aspect, I think, is that only now– I don’t know what happened between– this is news to me when you’re saying that between World War I and World War II many people began to understand that it’s not just the other side but it’s us as well who are using propaganda, basically lying to the people. But is it correct that people are now even beginning to understand that it’s basically the same people who are using propaganda, on both sides, because we have now learned through all of the– we as the Corona Committee, that is– through all the… people whom we’ve interviewed that World War I and World War II, World War II in particular, those who are pulling the strings behind the scenes– well, they may have… been responsible for the, for propaganda on both sides, because they’re making money on both sides. What… I, for example, had not understood, up until I think Vera Sheraf told us about it, is that World War II was largely financed by, should I say, American oligarchs [by] British and American oligarchs. So it… is not really surprising to now understand that these very same people are making money on both sides, financing both the Germans and the Russians. That they’re also responsible not just for financing this, but also for the propaganda on both sides.

Mark Miller: [02:35:51]
That’s absolutely true. You know, it… hurts some people to hear it. But the City of London and Wall Street were definitely involved in the Russian Revolution, for geopolitical and financial reasons.

Reiner Füllmich:
Um-hm.

Mark Miller:
As I say, this… drives, you know, people on the left crazy to hear, but there is much truth to it. And… indeed, you know, it was… the British and American oligarchs who planned and then protracted World War I, you know, for various reasons. And then indeed they went on to finance the Nazi war machine. And I have said all along that, you know, the… heads of General Motors and Ford and Rockefeller… the Rockefeller family and others who not only financed the eugenics movement– which, you know, they… did in Germany and Britain as well as in the United States– but then continued to arm the Nazi war machine. And I believe that they should have been in the dock at Nuremberg, you know, along with those high-profile Nazi perpetrators. I think that was an oversight, to turn a blind eye to them. Maaybe it was deliberate, but the point is, I don’t think that that should happen again. I think that what we’re living through is a… grotesque revisitation and enlargement of the genocidal program under Hitler. It is no longer a genocidal; is democidal. You know, it… it’s target is humankind, not just a particular group. And we see people dropping dead suddenly, worldwide.

[02:37:50]
I want to mention something I’ve been doing weekly, because it’s relevant to the subject. Starting in late January I began to… post on my substack, summaries of that previous week’s reports of people who “died suddenly”. That expression, “died suddenly”, used to be an obituary code. It used to mean suicide or a drug overdose. It doesn’t mean that any more. It can, sometimes it surely does, but what it tends to mean now when the… appearance of that phrase, or “died unexpectedly” has increased at least threefold since two years ago. What it now means is literally that: that people just dropping dead, either with no cause given, okay?. which is unprecedented, I mean except for very old people. You know, obituaries used to… mention a cause of some kind, or at least would say “we don’t know the cause yet”. Now, very very often there is no cause mentioned, or we hear that the cause is not yet known, and then we never hear it. Or, the deaths are attributed to heart attack, cardiac arrest, strokes or blood clots. And we know how prevalent those adverse events are now. Or they are the result of sudden aggressive cancers, which as doctor Ryan Cole and others have pointed out, appears to be another consequence of how these so-called vaccines devastate the immune system.

[02:39:28]
So as the weeks have gone by, has been increasingly difficult for me, just logistically, to track and compile all these sudden deaths. So in other words, there’s a large body as you very well know, there’s a large body of statistical evidence, you know, from life insurance companies and from VAERS and from D-med and, you know, undertakers. I mean, you know, there, there’s a lot of statistical and anecdotal evidence that the– that all-cause mortality has spiked since the vaccination drive began, right? I believe that putting names and faces to the dead is a far more powerful and poignant way to convey the enormity of what’s happening.

But you see, this is precisely the kind of thing that the media does everything it can to prevent people from understanding, okay? That’s what they did throughout the crisis, and I have a whole list here of, you know, the various aspects of the crisis that the media deliberately misrepresented, deliberately and consistently misrepresented while also blacking out the other side of the story and crucially, slandering and defaming people the way Leslie, to whom you just spoke, was defamed, the way we’ve all been defamed. And I think that there are legal grounds to go after them for this. But… before we get to that, I just want to say that one of the things that really struck me, and that continues to strike me as I do these compilations, I post them every Wednesday, is how many ways and in how many ingenious ways the media attempts to normalize what’s happening, so that people will not understand it or even notice it, okay?

[02:41:26]
Now here are a number of headlines that begin in May of 2021, okay? And every single one of them… promotes some other explanation for this rise in sudden deaths, okay? They never mention vaccination. Now listen to this: “Why people at risk of heart disease may want to avoid fish oil”. “How environmental noise harms the cardiovascular system”. “What to know about birth control and blood clots”. “Young adult cannabis consumers nearly twice as likely to suffer from a heart attack”. “Physical activity may increase heart attack risk”. “This blood type puts you at risk for heart disease”. “There may be a best bedtime for your heart”. “Extreme heat events jeopardize cardiovascular health, experts warn”. Now, that’s extreme heat; on the other hand: “‘Tis the season– the ways cold weather can affect your body”. “From winter vagina to blood clots”.

I mean, it goes on and on and on. it’s reached the heights of ludicrousness with a story out of Italy that pizza Margarita is causing all these heart attacks in Italy? And… I have to tell you, both of you, that Italy’s– the necrology in Italy week by week is absolutely shocking, you know. For some reason, a lot of those deaths are reported. And then, you know, just the other day there was a piece about how there was a spike in heart attacks after the last election in America. So these people are actually claiming in all seriousness that we have to keep a close eye on… major political events, okay? Now, the thing that’s striking about this, and important: what this tells us is not just that the media is too quick to, you know, distract us and say “Oh it’s not this, it’s that”. This could not have happened if there were not a significant number of academic studies that were funded in time for those studies to come out so the media could then headline their pieces as they do. So this… speaks directly, you know, to the high likelihood, in fact the necessity, of a long-standing extremely comprehensive, sophisticated propaganda plot, okay?, an arrangement that includes academic researchers and… the media, you know, in this ongoing effort to tell people that you don’t see what your eyes tell you you see. You don’t hear what your ears tell you you’re… hearing, okay? What, what’s going on all around you isn’t going on all around you, you know. Listen to us, right? Which is what the inner party says, I mean, that’s in “1984” that you’re supposed to distrust the evidence your own senses, and listen to the Ministry of Truth, right? So, you know, this is a… this is an enormous juggernaut that we’re dealing with here, and… the question is: how most effectively to… nail them, to attack them.

Viviane Fischer: [02:44:49]
Can I ask you like these, all these reports about the sort of alternative reasons for… heart attacks and so on– do you think that’s just like that has a source? Do you think it maybe comes from like press agencies like Bloomberg who all of a sudden, you know, spread this kind of ideas, or it’s maybe like a source behind Bloomberg, or who else? Or is this just something that we see– an individual journalist looks at that and thinks, oh, I mean, “What if it’s not the vaccines– which I must not say– what else could I just bring so that it makes sense in the whole context?” Are they, is it do you know, like self-fulfilling? Are they, you know, just playing along or like do you know succumbing to what they feel is necessary that they would say? Or what’s the psychological thing behind it? Or is there a source?

Mark Miller: [02:45:44]
Well I.. think it’s a safe bet that if you hear the same thing, or the same kind of thing, everywhere; you see it everywhere, you cannot escape it, it’s the same story– I mean, we’re talking here about versions of the same story, you know, whether or not it’s referees’ whistles or political elections or Pizza Margherita, it’s all the same story. It’s that: yeah, a whole lot of people are dropping dead from massive heart attacks, but it’s got nothing to do with the vaccine, although they leave that unspoken. I have no doubt that in some instances an enterprising reporter, you know– and they’re always looking for material and they tend to be rather lazy, you know, so they see something: “Ah, this will make a good story”, and the editor okays it. I think it’s likelier, however, that… we are dealing with an extremely well-oiled machine. You know, I… want to take just a moment to explain the… enormous structure of the media, because it’s… important that we understand how it’s set up. And… with what entities it is interlinked, so that we can, you know, approach this problem, you know, knowing as much as possible about it.

[02:46:58]
You know, what we call “the media” now, is first of all concentrated structurally to an unprecedented degree. Which is a process that really started up in the sixties but it… accelerated under Ronald Reagan in the eighties. He was the first to deregulate the media, and then Bill Clinton signed the telecommunications bill in 1996. And these were ways to make it possible for the same powers to own as much as possible of the media, so we often hear this claim that six multinational corporations, media corporations, are responsible for some 90 percent of the content we take in. And that is true, okay? So as… the media, like Disney for example, becomes ever bigger and it owns more and more of the media, and not just movie studios, but ABC news and all the rest of it– then every every component of the empire every… one of its holdings is that much more easily scripted or… you know, pushed to… say this or say that.

This, then, is compounded by the inevitable tendency of commercial media on its… advertising revenue, okay? And this has been a problem since the 19th century. In the late nineteenth century the most prolific advertiser in American media, and I think British as well, was the patent medicine industry, you know, speaking of poisons, right? They spent so much money on advertising that… no media outlets would ever raise any questions about the risks of… the products that they sold or the uselessness of the products they sold or the addictiveness of the products they sold. Some people are unaware of the fact that in the late 19thcentury, there was a cocaine crisis United States that mostly [4-second loss of sound] There was a lot of catarrh in the 19th century– it’s kind of a lung thing, you know. You get phlegmy. And there were catarrh remedies that were widely sold, and they were full of cocaine, you know? And some products had morphine in them; some had alcohol. Well because the media was so dependent on that revenue, they never questioned this. Which is the same thing that then happened in the early through mid 20th century with cigarettes, right? Same thing. Tobacco companies.

So now it’s Pfizer, right? Pfizer has a huge footprint, in terms of all the outlets that it sponsors, from most newscasts up to the last Oscars broadcast, you know. So, there’s that, okay? Now this problem of the media being in thrall to its corporate owners and to its major advertisers has been compounded further by the role that Bill Gates and his foundation have played in this crisis, because Gates has spent, I think, well over 250 million dollars on what he calls his “strategic media partnerships”. This means that Gates subsidizes the BBC, NBC News, the New York Times, the Guardian. And so on– a long list of outlets that are dependent on him for those revenues. And he also has had a– he’s played a significant role in funding fact-checking organizations, which have only made the problem even that much worse, okay?

[02:50:43]
Now, as the media has become more internally concentrated, it has also inevitably tightened its relationship with the government, or with governments– and that usually means intelligence agencies. So this has been a problem since the 50s, of course, with the media’s manipulation by the CIA and… others. I think it’s become even worse now. And again, you know, another factor we have to add to this is the all-importance of Google, the major search engines, and big tech generally, because all the propaganda that comes swirling out of the media, you know, the traditional media, all that propaganda ends up being repeated and repeated and repeated and amplified. It ends up echoing endlessly on what we call “social media”. The social media is kind of a way for every man to become a propaganda vector, see?

And, of course, this is made, you know, not just worrysome but… destructive by the fact that the social media companies have, you know, exercise such iron censorship themselves. So what was supposed to be a kind of wild west for free expression, right?– the internet– is now, you know, heavily dominated by players who are very close to the government, very close to big pharma. And you know, thereby exert this suffocating censorship on… all of those who would disagree with the fake science that has been trotted out as gospel truth, right? So let’s see.. let me make sure I haven’t forgotten anything, because this is such a complex situation.

Yeah. So let me make one corrective statement to you, Reiner. It isn’t only the corporate media that we’re talking about. We’re also talking about so-called “public media”, okay?, we’re talking about NPR and PBS, the CBC, the BBC. They are just as bad, just as toxic, as The New York Times and CNN and MSNBC. And crucially, we’re also talking about the left press, okay? Now let me make clear: you’re talking to someone who long identified as being on the left, and who wrote many, many articles for that wing of the media. I also wrote four or five op-eds for The New York Times. I was also a frequent interviewee on NPR, sometimes on PBS, okay?

[02:53:37]
So I can tell you it has been, to put it mildly, a major disappointment, a serious shock, to see the left promote the same agenda that we get from the corporate media. I was going to suggest to you– I mean, this may be presumptuous on my part, because this juggernaut is so big and so tightly connected to such powerful players– it might be worth considering picking out a few of the most egregious perpetrators. I would certainly focus on the New York Times. The New York Times has a disgraceful record here. Now to put this in a larger context, the Times has been an avid participant in every major propaganda drive in modern times, from World War I up to the present, so their record is actually pretty appalling.

But between those crises, the Times was fairly open to points of view that it itself did not share, and hence they allowed me to write op-eds for them for a time. But since Trump’s first– since Trump, you know, became president in 2016 in particular, the Times and all the rest of what we call the liberal media has has really– they’ve all taken my breath away. I never thought I would see a day when the press in the democracies, you know, the American press– I never thought I’d see a day when it sounds and reads exactly like the Ministry of Truth in “1984”, or it sounds and reads exactly like the press under Dr. Goebbels. It sounds and reads exactly like the press, you know, when when Lenin oversaw Pravda, you know? There’s no difference. The lies are just as psychoticly false and brazen and cynical, but above all destructive, you know, as anything we… either recall from Orwell’s dystopia or from totalitarian systems. We have now entered a moment when our media operates as a totalitarian system. It brooks no argument. It seeks not only to silence but to destroy its critics, or even… people asking questions.

[02:56:04]
And I’m– this is another point I wanted particularly to stress with you both: it seems to me that you really have solid grounds for going after the media because of its demonstrable collaboration, or collusion, with powerful state bureaucrats who use it as a way to crush, you know, those who don’t agree with them. If you read Scott Atlas’s book, A Plague Upon Our House, he gives a very detailed account of exactly how Fauci and Birks and the others in the government basically used the media to defame him and… to discredit him. Paul Alexander went through exactly the same thing, and I strongly recommend if you haven’t had time to watch it yet, the interview he just did with Christina Borjesson– B-O-R-J-E-S-S-O-N– simply for sending out an internal email noting the scientific evidence from places like Sweden and Switzerland to the effect that children should not be kept home from school, because they run no risk of catching covid. Just for sending that internal email, he was told that the experts, you know, Fauci, that circle, they were going to cut his balls off. They said that to him. And they told him when and where and how the propa– the media drive against him would start and end, and it did. It did. So, I mean, you know, I have a long list of people, I mean, you know of all of them, all of whom were, we might call them covid dissidents, who in the best scientific and democratic spirit were simply questioning received opinion, right? And they were all mauled by the media.

[02:59:02]
This is, as far as I can tell, a demonstrable case of the media abetting the government in the deprivation of citizens’ free-speech rights, see? So they’re actually violating the First Amendment, in collusion with the government, see? And… people like Fauci and the others are so arrogant that they have not cared that they basically, you know, lay this right out: this is what’s going to happen to you. And then you can trace the media’s response, you know, they basically go along with it and… you know, slander these people mercilessly.

And this has again– it all comes back to the vaccination drive– “vaccination” drive. Which is a, an unprecedented crime against humanity, whose consequences we are only now beginning to, you know, apprehend. And all the censorship, and all those lies, have essentially served to keep that vaccination drive going. So, you know, this is staggering to me. I… often comparen the persistence of this drive in the face of all this evidence of… its destructiveness with the swine flu vaccination drive in 1976. When it had killed 26 people, they pulled the plug on it. 26 was too high a toll, so they stopped it. How many have died from these so-called vaccines to date? And yet we still hear the whole mighty Wurlitzer, you know, grinding out that… tune, you know, that we all have to get vaccinated and we have to get our children vaccinated. So, you know, propagandsa kills. What you don’t know can hurt you, and it is hurting people very badly.

Reiner Füllmich: [03:00:03]
And the same thing is happening all over the world. Our good friend Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg, who is our… Chief Medical Adviser, you might say, he’s the one who stopped the other swine flu, the one that they tried to make into a pandemic in 2009. And he was only able to stop it because he was in a position of political power, being a member of the German Bundestag and also a member of the Council of Europe. And he was– after– it turned out that very same– well, that’s the first time they made a simple flu into a pandemic, because they had just changed the definition of what a pandemic is. But it turns out that– and he, Wolfgang Wodarg was a well respected, very experienced doctor, lots of experience as a lung specialist.He was a guest on numerous talk shows. He was, well, he was just a highly respected public person, so to speak.

The very… moment that he dared question this new pandemic, which is almost comically identical with what happened then, except that most people have forgotten about it– the very moment that he first dared question this, he was vilified, he was mauled, as you said, by the mainstream media. And our good friend and professor of law Martin Schwab, not related with the bad person, he wrote I don’t… know if I sent you this, but I… meant to do it. I– he wrote an expert opinion, a legal expert opinion on the culpability of the German mainstream media, which are in no way different from the American or any other mainstream media. I think– it’s 180 pages long. He… wrote it at a time– trying to defend Wolfgang Wodarg, because he was coming under a lot of pressure, including in that organization which claims it is the most important anti-corruption NGO in the world. It’s called Transparency International. Wolfgang was one of their– he was a member of the board there. They’re trying to kick him out because– it turns out this is a good organization, but you know what? At the very top, it is totally corrupt, totally corrupt.

So they tried to kick him out, and that’s the occasion which Martin Schwab used in order to write this expert opinion. This is in, I think in late 2020, maybe in mid 2020, I’m not sure. It took him a long time, because it’s 180 pages long. But I think there is an English translation, and he was at that point still trying to be moderate about his criticism, his legal criticism. In the meantime, I know that he has changed his tune completely, and if we were to use this in a court of law, we would probably have to get a new version from him that spells it out in much more detail, because this is now the time when you cannot mince words any more. We do have to call a spade a spade. That’s why we have to talk about genocide, for example.

Mark Miller: [03:03:28]
Yeah, yeah, I couldn’t… agree more. It’s worth noting– I’m sure you know this, but– that this pattern began during the HIV AIDS era. And, of course, the… book to read on this is Bobby Kennedy’s “The Real Anthony Fauci” .

Reiner Füllmich:
Yeah.

Mark Miller:
But what Fauci did to Peter Duesberg, for example, and… a number of other doctors and journalists, you know– the few journalists who had the temerity to, you know, just listen to what the other side had to say– they were all savaged, you know, mercilessly savaged by the media, again. And there, too, we haven’t brought this up yet, there’s an ideological dimension to this, you know, all of this. Where is the the mantle of… woke virtue? you know. It’s… all about protecting others, protecting, you know, people of color, that kind of thing. So when this began in the ’80s, these kinds of attacks on… other scientists, you know, who did not agree with the HIV AIDS hypothesis, it was all about “if you don’t agree with us, you’re homophobic”, “if you don’t agree with us, you… want gay people to die”. And that propaganda then conduced to Dr. Fauci’s promotion of AZT among gay men, about 300 thousand of whom were killed by the drug, right?

Reiner Füllmich:
Yeah.

Mark Miller:
So this… is, you know, this… pattern of defamation of all dissidents began really decades ago, but it has culminated now in… this… nightmare.

Reiner Füllmich: [03:05:14]
Here is– this is… right on cue, so to speak. We have, I hope, the– I hope Corbin hears me now– but we have a picture of Fauci, and we have a short video clip of a, of an airline pilot after he received the shot. Let us take a look, because you’re referring to the HIV crisis, which as many people now know, is– was probably another staged thing that happened back then, but we’ll have to take a deeper look into this. Let’s take a picture– let’s take a look at this picture, if you can play this please…. Yeah, here it is. Viviane, can you read this, because it’s– most people probably won’t be able to read it.

Viviane Fischer:
Shall I read it aloud?

Reiner Füllmich:
Yes, please.

Viviane Fischer: [03::06:04]
Okay. “The men on the– on your left is Anthony Fauci, who in the 1980s HIV/AIDS epidemic suppressed effective treatments in favor of deadly doses of AZT. a toxic expensive pharma drug that killed more people than AIDS itself.

“The man on your right is Anthony Fauci, who bankrolled the creation of COVID-19 and then suppressed effective treatments in favor of Remdesivir, a toxic expensive pharma drug that killed more people than COVID-19 itself.”

Reiner Füllmich: [03:06:35]
Yeah. We will have to take a much, much closer look, take a deep dive into what happeneds then, because you know, the discussion always– the… AIDS discussion, the HIV discussion always evolves around “is there a virus or is there no virus” now it evolves, it… kind of focuses on “has the virus been are properly isolated”, whatever. I think the real problem is somewhere underneath all of this. But let us also see what this man and those who are in cahoots with him has actually caused, because the outcome of this is not a positive one. It has nothing to do with health. Let us take a look at this short video clip.

Video clip: [03:07:21]
My name is Bob Stone, a captain, I’ve been a captain for a number of years. My total service with the company is over 31 years.

On November 7th, I was mandated to receive a vaccine. Quite literally, I was told if I did not receive the vaccination, I would be fired. This was from my Director of Flight. So under duress, I received the vaccine. Now, just a few days ago, after landing at Dallas, six minutes after we landed, I passed out. I coded. I required three shocks. I needed to be intubated. I’m now in ICU in Dallas. This… is what the vaccine has done for me.

I will probably never fly again, based upon the criteria that the FAA establishes for pilots. I was hoping to teach my daughter fly. She wants to be a pilot. That will probably never happen, all courtesy of the vaccine. This is unacceptable, and I am one of the victims. You can see that this is the actual result of the vaccine for some of us. Mandatory, no questions asked, get the shot or you’re fired. This is not the American way.

Reiner Füllmich: [03:08:46]
And therefore extremely powerful tone. He is not, apparently, an antivaxer or anything. He’s just calmly explaining what happened to him after he got the shot. Now he’s an airline pilot. Had this incident happened not after the landing but during the landing, well, we can only imagine what this might have caused. It– I think it is extremely important to see through this propaganda, to see through the censorship, the… fact checkers, and this is what we really need to know. We need to see and hear these people, and we need to see and hear the reactions of the people who applauded the ruling that Leslie won in federal court, because that is reality. That’s– I think that is the most important message for people: to understand that they should not listen to the Ministry of Truth and they should not listen to the politicians who tell them– including by the way our, “our” yeah, the head of the European Union, commissioner… what’s her name? Ursula von der Leyen, yeah. She… and others, verbatim by the way, verbatim, the same story, keeps saying “only listened to trusted media sources”, trusted media sources.

Mark Miller:
Well…

Reiner Füllmich:
…decide for yourself who you’re going to trust….

Mark Miller: [03:10:16]
Yeah. It’s… gotten to the point now– this is not an overstatement– what we call “the left”, okay? I think it’s a misnomer, but what we call “the left” and what calls itself “the left”, and the media, now explicitly define themselves as they who never doubt the official narrative.

Reiner Füllmich:
Mm-hm.

Mark Miller:
Doubting the official narrative is a “far-right” thing, which is just mind boggling to me, that this has, you know, again, you know, under… the cover of “woke”, this enables a kind of totalitarianism that we associate with… Orwell’s novel, right? And the only antidote to this, as you’ve just implied, is a– an unabashed presentation of the truth of the matter. You have to hear from the people who have been harmed, right? You have to let their voices resonate, And… I want to add in… to kind of supplement what… that pilot says in… the video, that I have discovered– in compiling all these sudden deaths, you know, week by week– a really strikingly high number of mysterious crashes of either small planes or helicopters or cars. You know, single… vehicle collisions, that kill the driver. If somebody drives into a lake. Nobody understands why they drive into a bridge abutment in broad daylight.

This happens over and over and over again. And mysterious drownings also happen, of kids, perfectly healthy-seeming kids are swimming at a swim meet, and then several of them will sink to the bottom of the pool, have to be rescued, right? And then a lot of bizarre drownings that are reported in the media. So it isn’t just those of us who have been jabbed who need to be concerned about the consequences of this drive. It’s all of us, right? We could all be taking a flight, you know, whose pilot… has a… goes into cardiac arrest. We could all be walking down the street, you know, when somebody loses consciousness behind the wheel. Something that was already happening, by the way, under the mask mandates. Car and Driver reported in the summer of 2020 a national increase in fatal car accidents. And I believe that so many people driving all by themselves with masks on, you know, would induce the kind of hypoxia that can cause you to lose consciousness.

[03:12:53]
At any rate, these are the kinds of truths that we have to get out there, right? And that’s why your effort… is so important, you know, beyond the legal upshot of what you’re doing, this is a… precious opportunity to demonstrate these truths, you know, in a courtroom, to people and to show up the media for its outrageous and demonstrable lies. This has to be done, because I don’t think that… enough of us will wake up in time to change all this unless and until an appreciable number of people– it isn’t that they have to recognize that there are “no viruses”, they don’t have to– that’s not it. What people have to recognize in order to wake up is that the authorities they have always trusted, governments, the academy, the medical establishment and especially the media– that they are not just incompetent; they are malign. This is a malignity, okay. What they’re doing is… clearly evil. There is no other way to describe it.

When people see that, if and when they can take that in– because it’s a big, it’s a hard pill to swallow, I understand that. But when enough people get it, they will come around, you know? It’s… worth recalling that the war in Vietnam– it did not end because of people marching against it, and I was one of those people, right. It did not end because of anti-war protests, which actually tended to piss a lot of people off. The war in Vietnam ended because the casualty rate was so high that it was no longer possible for the government to explain it away or to… distract people from it with more propaganda about “the light at the end of the tunnel”. Too many people lost loved ones. Too many people had loved ones come home destroyed, right? They couldn’t… you know, keep the genie in the bottle any more, so they had to, they had to end it.

[03:15:04]
And something like that is… happening now. Now as that threatens to happen, the media and its puppeteers double down and become more desperate, they become more repressive, they become more slanderous, and… you know, really more hysterically beligerent, and… lie even more desperately. Because they– I don’t think they can afford to just stop, you know. They’re in this deep.

So, you know, this is a real struggle. It’s a real life-or-death struggle that we have to win.

Viviane Fischer: [03:15:42]
I have one question. Like for us who, do you know, we have… the feeling that– we have the feeling that we have seen through what’s going on. What’s… different, do you think, between us and the ones who fall for… the propaganda? And is this something that we can learn from that, maybe different attitude, different setup or whatever, this different kind of awareness that we can maybe spill over to the other ones, in order to get them to see things as they are.

Mark Miller: [03:16:18]
Oh– you know, I’ve… watched your exchange with Matthias Desmet, and I have watched his other interviews, and I agree… with him, you know, pretty much down the line, and… particularly with his estimate that like a third of the population are completely hypnotized. A third are not, right? a third get it. And then another third are people you can talk to, you can reach them. They’re on the fence, their minds are open. Maybe they were hurt by one shot and don’t want to get the second.

And this is actually– I mean, there… there’s historical evidence that this has been the case for a very long time, you know. In the eighteenth century, during the American revolution, Sam Adams, the revolutionary, basically divided the population up in a similar way: that there were a third of the population who were in favor of independence, a third were Tories, and a third were mainly thinking about their knitting, you know. But you could talk to them. I think this is kind of an eternal thing, for whatever reason. And therefore that we need not… really waste too much time and energy. trying to reason the deeply hypnotized into consciousness. I… just I’ve tried and tried and tried, and it… you can’t do it, you know? Now as a teacher, I… am always delighted to rediscover that the younger people are more receptive, they are open-minded. And if you… engage them in critical study of propaganda and get them to do the research, encourage them the draw their own conclusions as… opposed to sort of battering them with evidence, you know, saying read this, read that, read this, read that, you know, that… tends to scare people off. Or… you know, insults their pride. It doesn’t work.

But those who can be reached are those we are obliged to reach, you know. This is a moral obligation, of the most important kind. Because it has to do not only with individual lives, but with the collective life of humankind across the board. And the preservation or the reclamation of a world, you know, whose pleasures we have every right to enjoy, you know, social pleasures, aesthetic pleasures. It’s all been taken away from us.

[03:18:47]
What they’ve done is not just commit unimaginable mass murder, but they have to some extent killed the world, you know, which we now have to bring back to life. And in order to do that, I believe we have to rebuild all of those key institutions whose absolute corruption has placed us where we are. It’s the professional classes that are responsible for this. It is certainly the medical establishment. It is certainly the academy, okay? And it is certainly the media. These… institutions have to be built up all over again, you know, because there’s no… way to reclaim the ones that have… become so foul, you know, and untrustworthy.

Reiner Füllmich: [03:19:33]
We… have to take a fresh look at all of these institutions. Some of them, most of them, will not be, cannot be salvaged. We’re going to have to set up our own system. I keep saying this over and over again. When you mentioned the left– there’s a good– the… left isn’t the left any more.

Mark Miller:
Right.

Reiner Füllmich:
It’s another one of these euphenisms, you know. You used to think the left is liberal, that they’re clear-thinking, critical people who will not just follow orders. That’s not the case any more. It’s just the opposite. And a very good example is what happened in Germany with the Green Party. The Green Party is now the chief– they’re the warmongers. They’re… the ones who are pressing for more arms to be delivered to Ukraine. And when you’re saying that this is– you didn’t say it, you didn’t use these words, but ultimately– this is just like the Vietnam War was. This is going to be decided by the body count, by the people whose deaths and whose serious illnesses cannot be suppressed any more. Everyone knows someone, in the meantime, who died of the vaccine or because he got the shots, or after he got the shots. Let’s not let it sound as though this is a– causation is always a sure thing. It is not. But it is– what we’re seeing is so alarming that the least that these people who used to be the left, the least they should do is ask for a… an examination of what’s going on. That’s the least they should do. Instead, they’re pushing for war in Ukraine.

Mark Miller:
That’s right.

Reiner Füllmich:
And I think they’re doing this because they’re near– to me, if you look at the… chief protagonists in… Germany of the Green Party, one of them is our– I don’t know what he is, secretary of something, probably commerce? His name is Robert Habeck. And the other one is our Secretary of State. Her name is Baerbock. Both of them do not have a clue of what they’re talking about. They are so plainly stupid. The woman can’t even talk, and… that’s why I think they’re not the real left any more. These are– they have been taken over by the other side, and they’re really obviously puppets. I just hope that the body count will not extend to a real war, like the one in Vietnam. Currently it’s… still being contained in… Ukraine. But there’s lots and lots of evidence that it’s not going to be much longer, and the whole thing will spill over through Poland into Germany and the rest of western Europe. But through exposing all of this, we still hope that we have a chance to stop it. Once you… expose what you said is the most important thing, and I fully agree with that. It’s not about whether or not there are viruses or the virus has been… properly isolated. If– they have to understand that the people who we used to trust are not making mistakes. They’re evil. They’re evil.

Mark Miller: [03:22:42]
That’s right. I… want to make one last point. I know we’re… out of time, but this is an important one. I was– I did a quick review since, you know, we agreed that I would come on and talk to you, a very quick review of the Nuremberg trials and… that approach to the problem of… really dealing with propaganda that has the eventual the factor of of killing people. And I think you could certainly make an argument that the media is guilty of incitement to genocide, okay?

Reiner Füllmich:
Yes.

Mark Miller:
And… I was thinking about this, and I realized that this– there’s kind of a straight line that we can trace from the “deplorables”, because again, this all sort of begins with… you know, Trump’s move into the White House. You know, a development that drove the whole left completely insane with… hatred and… fear of him. The “deplorables” then become the anti-maskers, which is the first very large group of citizens to be targeted during 2020, you know, year one of covid. Anti-maskers. And I… did a study of the way that the media reported on the masking controversy at the grassroots level. And the only articles that, say, the New York Times or CNN would ever run spotlighted examples of alleged violence by anti-maskers, okay? Now I came across many, many examples from local media and social media of maskers treating the unmasked with violence. You know, some spitting on them, screaming at them, driving them out of stores. You know, there were videos. None of this appeared in The New York Times. It was the opposite, okay? So it was– as is usually the case with war propaganda, it was highly projective. In other words, you know, it’s what… the prosecutors at at Nuremberg thought of as… accusation in a mirror, you know, where you accuse the other side of doing what you’re doing.

So anti-maskers were now– it was the new name for “deplorables”, right? Because it was a given: they were all far-right. Then the anti-maskers became the anti- vaxxers, and the… hatefulness of the media’s reportage on… the vaccine hesitant is really, really striking. And there’s a piece that Byram Bridle just published yesterday on his substack about a new study that just kicks this whole thing up a notch. He calls it “hate speech wearing a scientific disguise”. And it is. The way that it casts the unvaccinated as… you know, utterly repellent, inexcusably reckless, selfish, vectors of disease– this is very, very reminiscent of the way the Nazis, you know, described the Jews: as vectors of typhus, as well as tuberculosis and venereal disease. People don’t understand that the Holocaust was carried out in the name of public health, in the name of racial hygiene.

[03:26:02]
This is really no different, but here’s the thing, here’s the crucial distinction: our media is guilty of incitement to genocide, by… demonizing those who have not been jabbed, okay? But it doesn’t stop there, because that demonization is, again, at the service, in furtherance of an ongoing drive to get more people to get more shots, you see? So it isn’t only that they have, you know, basically defined the unvaccinated in ways that will justify their eventual detention, right?, but they are doing this in pursuit of an even higher injection rate. So they are doubly guilty of incitement to genocide, if you see what I mean.

Reiner Füllmich: [03:26:54]
Exactly. Um-hm. Yeah. Makes perfect sense.

Viviane Fischer:
It’s crazy.

Mark Miller:
Yes.

Reiner Füllmich:
Well, it all goes to show that it is not just on one front that we have to fight, but probably on two fronts, maybe more. But we have to continue getting out the truth. I think we all agree that Matthias Desmet’s analysis is correct: if we stop talking, then it’s all over. So we must continue to speak the truth. “Truth to power”, only this time it’s truly evil power. And we must continue as our legal efforts. I’m so glad that Leslie won this case. I am so glad about this, and I’m so glad it happened here in the US, because those are the only– there’s India, of course, but those are the only two places on earth where the judiciary still seems to function, or at least a… large part of the judiciary — India and parts of the US. The judiciary is completely dead in Germany. It all started and… ended with that search and seizure of the two judges and their– in Weimar, and their experts. There may be some good people– I’m sure there’s still some good people in the judiciary in Germany, but they have… they’ve been silenced. They’ve been silenced, and that’s precisely what this intended to do. We’re all being vilified– you are, Viviane is. Here in the US. the California Bar Association association is trying to come after me, but in such a ridiculous way that it’s easy to fight them off.

[03:28:41]
But we cannot let that stop us, and we must not let that stop us. Ultimately– I keep saying that I’m not a religious person because I don’t believe in organized religion; it’s all about power as far as I’m concerned– but I do believe in a higher power still. There is something that my wife calls cosmic balance or cosmic equilibrium, and it’s all out of whack. So ultimately that force will come to our aid. I still believe that, and I believe it even more, now that I’ve seen what’s going on here. But we cannot just sit there and not do anything. We must continue with our efforts at getting out the truth. We must continue with our legal efforts as well.

Mark Miller:
I want to assure you that I’m… always available to you if you should need any information or help with the, you know, the aspect of this case that has to do with the media. Because their… culpability– I’ve been saying for at least a year and a half that mass demonstrations should now focus on the media.

Reiner Füllmich:
Yeah.

Mark Miller:
Not… government buildings that the media can, you know, protests the media can then ignore or misrepresent. The media headquarters should be the target of… robust protests, you know, The New York Times, Times Square, the whole building should be surrounded by peaceful multitudes you know. Because they have so much to answer for, you know. Their… guilty is practically beyond expression.

Reiner Füllmich:
You may very well become a major witness, a major expert witness, in one of these legal efforts in this… country, in the US.

Mark Miller:
Well I would be honored.

Reiner Füllmich:
I very much appreciate you taking this time. This was very, very instructive. I’m– once again, I’m sure that most, all viewers will see that this is one of the most important pieces of the whole puzzle: the role of the media.

Mark Miller:
Absolutely.

Reiner Füllmich:
We’ll be in touch, Mark. It was a pleasure. It was a real pleasure.

Mark Miller:
Yes, same here. Thank, thank you both, and thanks, Corbin.

Reiner Füllmich:
Thank you very much.

Mark Miller:
Okay, bye-bye.

Reiner Füllmich:
Bye-bye.

 


Imprint / Privacy Policy / Contact Send / support