If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.—attributed to Goebbels.
by Sanjay Perera
Is there a link between the rise of the fateful so-called 5G telecom-munications infrastructure and the convenient advent of the virus? Why do so many still believe what governments say and, of all things, listen to the mainstream media? Why is Donald Trump taking the bold move to not support that dubious body, WHO (World Health Organisation), and asking for the fellow who heads it to step down? And what is Bill Gates’ role in trying to get people vaccinated? Most interesting of all is why has Brian Rose (of London Real) been made persona non grata on certain media platforms (see clips below)?
Here are some things worth considering (and what a coincidence, too):
“What has not been apparent in the news reports is the fact that China in its rush to take the lead in the 5G race, had by the end of 2019 (and mostly within the last several months leading up to the COVID-19 outbreak) installed 130,000 5G antennas throughout the country, with at least 10,000 antennas installed in Wuhan alone. (As a comparison, the USA only has approximately 10,000 5G antennas presently installed throughout the whole country.)”
“Wuhan was one of the initial 16 cities selected to trial 5G back in 2018.
China Unicom will begin testing 5G network in 16 cities including Beijing, Tianjin, Qingdao, Hangzhou, Nanjing, Wuhan, Guiyang, Chengdu, Shenzhen, Fuzhou, Zhengzhou, and Shenyang.
China Mobile will conduct external field test and set up more than a hundred 5G base stations in each of the following five cities: Hangzhou, Shanghai, Guangzhou, Suzhou, and Wuhan.”
“They said China will end the year with about 130,000, while Bernstein Research estimates South Korea will be in second place with 75,000, followed by the U.S. with 10,000. Piper Jaffray estimated that of the 600,000 5G base stations expected to be rolled out worldwide next year, half will be in China.
This basically means that China had suddenly turned on the 5G switch, just less than two months before the COVID-19 outbreak, suddenly blanketing many cities with this 5G wireless radiation. And as of this writing, South Korea’s numbers of COVID-19 cases are also starting to skyrocket. As we can see from the above article, South Korea has the second highest number of 5G antennas with 75,000.”
“Wireless radiation from 1G to 5G have all emitted modulated ‘Radiofrequency (RF) electromagnetic fields (EMFs)’ and there are literally thousands of studies showing biological effects from exposures to man-made electromagnetic waves, and out of these, hundreds showing biological effects on the immune system.”
“Maybe this is what people really need to start worrying about and perhaps it is time for the Chinese government, as well as governments throughout the world to seriously investigate and address 5G possible health effects and put a halt to the premature rollout of 5G technology until they can prove that it is safe (which I doubt they can) and until, safer alternatives can be developed.
The government in Belgium never implemented it and there was talk of the government of Switzerland putting a halt on the 5G rollout, but they now seem to be going ahead with it. And it seems like, unless people wake up to this, China will certainly be following a similar path.”
“Is there a connection between the spreading of the coronavirus and 5G? One thing is certain: High frequency radiation weakens the immune system or even knocks it out completely, especially with pre-existing health conditions or chronic illnesses. 5G is what you could call an environmental pollutant. Added to other environmental pollutants such as air pollution or pesticides, 5G might just be the last straw that breaks the camel’s back.” [1]
The issue is not whether 5G is causing the virus. It is subtler than that. It is easier to debunk claims of the problems caused by 5G when it is tied to being the cause of the virus, it is more difficult to defend 5G when it is shown to be part of a bigger picture that involves the virus. The point: the banning of certain videos concerning a discussion of the virus, which was then followed by a discussion of 5G, is made easier when the two are conflated. That is an effective strategy used by propagandists for the longest time.
Consider this: there has been a long tradition of blaming certain films which have violent content with violence that occurs on the streets. Those films have not been banned universally; some are even celebrated for showing the realistic effects of violence, and subscribing to it, as a way of life. (There were once claims that certain films caused some disturbed individuals to commit crimes and that therefore even films that can be agreed upon to have artistic value should be banned—think Peckinpah or Kubrick or Scorsese—but it was pointed out that violent fictional material has been prompted by exceptional violence across the ages in actuality: World Wars etc.). And explicit sexual content is available easily on media despite perennial criticism of it.
Action against certain forms of technology also have a long tradition; neither is there anything new about activism against the effects of 5G: but to then blame such activities solely on recent videos that speak up against 5G is quite unconvincing. People have to make a choice on what they choose to believe as it is presented to them, and what they want to act on. The vast majority are already tuned in to mainstream edicts and propaganda: so it does take greater effort to see that it is the case, and pull oneself out of the propaganda box; but it is also the fear by some that more will join the ranks of the (as of now) propaganda resistant minority, and awaken to their being brainwashed on a massive scale; that bothers the controllers.
And if there are still discerning people in the world and some form of freedom of expression should be allowed (as even the mainstream at times claims) then there is no need to ban videos that have a useful discussion on the problematic virus and cautioning of the effects of heightened electromagnetic fields on life forms. Having content on the video that may make the powers-that-be uncomfortable is no excuse for barring it; that kind of action is a form of political censorship.
Yet there is more. From Scientific American we learn that:
“Citing this large body of research, more than 240 scientists who have published peer-reviewed research on the biologic and health effects of nonionizing electromagnetic fields (EMF) signed the International EMF Scientist Appeal, which calls for stronger exposure limits. The appeal makes the following assertions:
‘Numerous recent scientific publications have shown that EMF affects living organisms at levels well below most international and national guidelines. Effects include increased cancer risk, cellular stress, increase in harmful free radicals, genetic damages, structural and functional changes of the reproductive system, learning and memory deficits, neurological disorders, and negative impacts on general well-being in humans. Damage goes well beyond the human race, as there is growing evidence of harmful effects to both plant and animal life.’
The scientists who signed this appeal arguably constitute the majority of experts on the effects of nonionizing radiation. They have published more than 2,000 papers and letters on EMF in professional journals.” [2]
Another important document ends:
“In conclusion, this article demonstrates that the EU has given mandate to a 13‑member, non‑governmental private group, the ICNIRP [International Commission on Non‑Ionizing Radiation Protection], to decide upon the RF [Radiofrequency] radiation guidelines. The ICNIRP, as well as SCENIHR [Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks], are well shown not to use the sound evaluation of science on the detrimental effects of RF radiation, which is documented in the research which is discussed above (9,10,21‑24,54,55). These two small organizations are producing reports which seem to deny the existence of scientific published reports on the related risks. It should perhaps be questioned whether it is in the realm of protecting human health and the environment by EU and whether the safety of EU citizens and the environment can be protected by not fully understanding the health‑related risks.” [3]
Be careful of trusting those who support 5G and are vociferously shouting down those who speak up against it. They are clearly trying to hide something: otherwise there is no need for such blatant censorship. Do note how fast some places have had the 5G roll out take place while everyone is conveniently on lockdown mode; it is time to think carefully about what has been going on and why. Do observe the makeshift hospitals built in many places (or venues turned into medical-casualty zones/centres) that give the impression you are living in a war zone. Do the quarantine, queues that seem like breadlines, the waiting for government bailouts/handouts, not seem like those times of economic depression and great conflict? To put it the way fiction writers would: would such occurrences be unnatural if some form of electro-biological warfare was being waged in our time?
Be alert to the Big Lie that is usually propagated and transmitted by The Establishment and its propagandandists. Be well.
Do watch these clips:
Brian Rose: This is why they banned us
An excerpt interview: “Look your children in the eye”
And when you have some time: The Banned London Real Interview
End notes:
[1] Coronavirus and 5G; China’s Massive Amount of Immunotoxic 5G Networking and the Wuhan Coronavirus: The Emperor’s New Virus
[2] We Have No Reason to Believe 5G Is Safe; Scientists and doctors warn of potential serious health effects of 5G
[Picture: pixabay; featured picture: “The Abyss of Hell” by Botticelli.]
The writer is the founding editor of Philosophers for Change.
If publishing or re-posting this article kindly use the entire piece, credit the writer and this website: Philosophers for Change, philosophersforchange.org. Thanks for your support.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
Philosophers for Change 