Search This Blog

Wednesday, September 10, 2025

The 'Mass Manipulation' Machine Is On Overdrive

 by Jeffrey Tucker via The Epoch Times,

There are these strange moments in American political history when the whole of the establishment decides to test its power over the public mind.

I’ve lived through five of these times. Each makes a fascinating study in what is called “the manufacture of consent.” It happens when some big push is essential to powerful interests but this very thing is opposed or only mildly favored by the people.

The point is mass manipulation. You can feel it when it happens.

If you have lived through such times, you know that it has a different feel than the normal stream of news. You cannot turn on the TV without hearing about it. The radio and podcasts too. All top venues agree with right, left, or in between. Every expert agrees. The media blitz has a daily signal: anyone who disagrees with this is uniformed, deluded, crazy, dangerous, and certainly does not deserve a hearing.

This happened last week with regard to Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., as Secretary of Health and Human Services.

He went before a Senate committee to testify about goings-on. He could hardly get a word in. The Democrats called him a liar, a charlatan, a quack, a danger to the lives of children. Republicans weren’t much better.

He handled himself well given the situation. When he said that we have no idea how many people died of COVID, he was telling the truth. The death-certificate misclassification was rampant, and the PCR tests were wildly inaccurate, failing to distinguish between exposure and sickness. It was treated as a gotcha moment as if he did not know his stuff.

It was the same with the vaccine. Kennedy took the COVID shot off the recommended schedule for children because it was determined to be ineffective, unnecessary, and has a poor safety profile. The Democrats said he was putting the nation’s children at risk. Then the media got involved. It was all the usual suspects with commentaries nearly identical: dogmatic, extreme, vociferous, and wicked.

Here’s what’s remarkable. Kennedy is in fact a hugely popular figure, even more so than Trump himself.

The reason traces to the COVID response. The CDC, NIH, FDA, and so on, were the handmaidens of social and cultural destruction, all in an effort to prepare the public for a shot that was not necessary for healthy people and which generated an unprecedented flood of adverse events reporting.

We have here a huge gap between the views of the people and the views of the elites. It becomes this strange challenge to close the gap through intimidation and flooding the zone.

Will it work? Probably not this time.

Technology is too sophisticated. We have options now. The media has lost credibility and so has government. The game has changed.

Still, watching this unfold brought back memories.

It was just after the Cold War ending and the new thing being debated was the North American Free Trade Agreement or NAFTA. I downloaded the documents. It was unbearably obvious that this was no free trade. It was a corporatist melange of bureaucratic management, one designed to pave the way for outsourcing jobs and cartelizing the market.

It seemed obvious to me that any honest person would have to oppose this. But no, it was the opposite. Every mainline venue was behind it. Every “responsible” outlet pushed it very hard and would listen to no objections, no matter how well-documented.

We lost that debate not on the merits of the case but because of the narrative that was being pushed. NAFTA passed and all the predictions of the opponents came true.

Soon after, the machine was fired up again to get through the World Trade Organization that was supposed to bring free trade to the whole planet. Again, I looked through the documents and saw a larger version of the same. It was another corporatist ploy. I did what I could to oppose it but was shouted down left, right, and center. By now, I had the game figured out.

There is something different about these moments. Normal political debate has many sides and many different perspectives, each vying over facts and details and each citing their own experts. In times when the machine goes into overdrive, it is something else entirely. All dominant voices agree. Partisanship all but disappears. You get the impression that no responsible, educated, and aspirational person with the proper information could ever take another position.

There really is what is called an establishment. It can seem to disappear for a time. But in pivotal moments of grave importance, it pops up like never before and overwhelms the public square with one view only.

This also happened during the outset of the Iraq War. It was a few years after the WTO debate, following the attacks on 9-11. George W. Bush and his administration were keen to scapegoat its old ally in Saddam Hussein. They said that he was building Weapons of Mass Destruction and that there was a link between Saddam and Al Qaeda. As it turns out, none of that was true.

I listened to a speech by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard. This speech was simply incredible and yet received no national attention.

She documented how the same people who got us into the Iraq War were part of the smears against the first Trump administration that it was somehow in power only due to Russian interference:

“We have these conspirators, these traitors to the Constitution, who are working within our government, who dangerously believe that they are not only above the law, but that they are above the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. People who believe that they have the right to undermine the duly elected president of the United States because they disagree with his positions or his policies, and that they know better.”

There we go: the Director of National Intelligence just repudiated both the Iraq War and Russiagate. And it received almost no public attention at all.

So it was with the COVID response.

The push from the national media to lock down and get vaccinated was overwhelming. As it turns out, the response was universally terrible and unwarranted, resulting in loss of learning and waves of ill health. And yet there has been no reckoning. The establishment treats today’s dissidents like Kennedy as crazy people who are a threat to public order.

I’ve seen this too many times. There is such a thing as an establishment. Its interests are different from the people. From time to time, it acts in unison when the policy priority is high enough. When the stakes become essential to its survival, it goes into overdrive, manufacturing consent.

Are we onto this game yet? I hope so. As time goes on, their victories over the public will, their wild media push to intimidate the dissidents into silence, should decline. We are living through such a moment right now. They want Kennedy out before he can dismantle their racket. This truth is no longer lost on us. We know what’s up.

We aren’t buying it anymore.

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/mass-manipulation-machine-overdrive

Border Czar Strikes Back, Leaves Fake News Host Stuttering

 Via VigilantFox.com,

Tom Homan just walked into MSNBC’s lion’s den. Mika Brzezinski SCOFFED at his claim that 70% of ICE arrests are criminals… So he read off the rap sheets of violent THUGS just arrested in Boston, LIVE on her own show. And when Brzezinski accused ICE of “disappearing” people—Homan dropped the HAMMER on her FAKE narrative.

Behind enemy lines.

It’s not every day the Border Czar shows up on MSNBC.

But today, Tom Homan walked straight into the lion’s den…a network known for pushing anti-ICE narratives and attacking the very operations he oversees.

Still, Homan didn’t waver.

He stood firm and let the MSM waves crash right into him.

Host Jonathan Lemire wasted no time.

Right out of the gate, he hit Homan with spin.

Referring to a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that allows ICE to resume immigration enforcement in Los Angeles, Lemire asked:

“With this ruling… will federal officers working for the Trump administration be racially profiling?”

Homan saw it coming.

“First of all, it’s a false narrative. We don’t racially profile people to arrest them.”

Then he went after another media falsehood…that 70% of ICE arrests are non-criminals.

“In the soundbite she just said, 70% of people we arrest are not criminals? It’s the opposite.”

And he would know. He’s the one reading the data.

“Every morning I come to work, I go through 22 pages of data showing what’s happened in the past 24 hours.”

“Here are the facts. 70% of everybody we arrest is a criminal. But the Left says, well not criminal enough. No. They’re criminals.”

“And the other 30%? They are national security threats.”

Homan had the receipts and he wasn’t afraid to use them.

That’s when Mika Brzezinski jumped in, clutching pearls and pushing spin.

She tried to accuse ICE…right to Homan’s face…of “disappearing” people.

It was a tired old narrative from the same people who brought you “Maryland Dad” when describing the violent MS-13 gangbanger, Kilmar Abrego Garcia.

Homan shut it down in seconds.

Brzezinski: “I’d love some transparency as to why a lot of these people have been disappeared.”

Homan fired back: “You just mentioned disappeared. That is a RIDICULOUS thing to say… because ICE is doing the same thing we’ve done for decades.”

Then he did something few do on live TV…he held the media accountable for their dangerous rhetoric.

He was calling Brzezinski out directly for pushing the fiction that has put ICE agents and their families in danger.

“And the comments that you just made is one of the reasons why these men and women are under threat every day—not just the men and women in ICE, but their spouses and their children.”

“They’re NOT disappearing people. They’re enforcing the law. And the data proves that 70% of these people are criminals.”

But instead of backing off, Brzezinski was about to double down.

This is where things got interesting.

Still clinging to the narrative, Brzezinski demanded to see the numbers herself.

She was getting heated.

“I want to know the DATA that you say you have about 70% of these people. Show it to us!”

She clearly thought she was cornering Homan.

Instead, she opened the door for him to obliterate her entire argument.

Without missing a beat, Homan pulled out a sheet of paper…and started listing off just a few of the criminals ICE had arrested in Boston over the past few days.

“Let me tell you, in the last couple of days what’s happened in Boston,” he began.

And what followed made it impossible for the MSNBC audience to look away.

“These are real people we’ve taken off the streets.”

“Victor Gomez Perez, 33, from Guatemala..charged with aggravated rape, assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, indecent assault and battery on a victim 14 years or younger.”

Next up: “Calley Espinosa, 33, from Colombia…aggravated assault on a pregnant victim.”

Then: “Joshua Gonzalez, 24, from the Dominican Republic…trafficking heroin, morphine, opium, resisting police, and more.”

And finally: “Samuel Armando Barrera, 20, from Guatemala…pending charges for assault and battery on a child.”

It was a devastating moment.

The very data Brzezinski had demanded was now being read aloud on her own show.

And it left no room for spin.

Homan turned to the elected officials who’ve been enabling this mess.

“So Mayor Wu and Governor Healey,” he said, “they oughta be calling ICE and thanking them for making their streets safer, for protecting their communities, and taking these people off the street.”

There was no way to twist what just happened.

Brzezinski had tried to frame ICE as a rogue agency operating in the shadows.

Instead, she gave Tom Homan a platform to reveal the reality: ICE is arresting violent, dangerous criminals who pose a direct threat to American communities.

But just when it seemed like the narrative had finally crumbled, Brzezinski took one last shot.

Trying to stoke more fear, Brzezinski brought up an ICE vehicle parked outside a Spanish mass.

“I would argue that actually, that the ICE vehicle parked outside a Spanish mass is a frightening sight, given what has happened in this country.”

Then she tried to suggest that Homan was still withholding data.

“With respect, sir, thank you for the information you have shared on this show, but we would appreciate ALL of the information, ALL of it, all of the data that you say you have.”

Homan had heard enough.

He was about to rain down fire on the MSNBC narratives he had been forced to sit and listen to.

“I’ve done this show several times. Every time I speak with integrity, I speak with honesty, and I speak with facts.”

Then came the moment that ended it all.

“The bottom line is, because all of this false narrative and you using the term ‘disappearing people’ is disgusting.”

“U.S. citizens get arrested by police every day. Are they being disappeared?!”

And finally:

“We’re enforcing the law and arresting people here in violation of law that are public safety threats. That’s not disappearing people. That’s enforcing the laws of this country and making this country safer.”

Brzezinski tried to save face with a smug closer, but it didn’t matter.

Homan had already torched the narrative…and walked off with the last word.

Brzezinski’s narrative spin did not work…and she knew it. Homan had shattered for all of MSNBC to see.

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/border-czar-strikes-back-leaves-fake-news-host-stuttering

Psychologist warns of ‘parentification’ danger: Why Mom and Dad shouldn’t be your best friend

 Having your mom as your best friend seems nice in theory — and it’s certainly romanticized in television shows such as “Gilmore Girls,” “Jane the Virgin” and “Ginny and Georgia.”

But psychologists warn that this kind of relationship can do more harm than good.

“I think a lot of people see these kinds of relationships on TV and wish their mom was ‘cooler,’” Dara Winley, PhD, LMFT, a Chicago-based therapist and assistant professor at Adler University, told SELF.

Psychologists warn that such relationships can actually be an unhealthy connection that negatively affects the child.

It usually involves the child taking on a more supportive, adult role in the family that a young person shouldn’t have to.

Parentification is a role reversal between parent and child.olezzo – stock.adobe.com
In psychology, this is called parentification. Parentification is a role reversal between parent and child, where the child takes on responsibility that’s not “developmentally appropriate” for their age, according to Cleveland Clinic.

This can take form in many ways, such as a child having to take care of their younger siblings, playing mediator for their parents’ arguments, acting as a parent’s therapist, or even being in the know about their parents’ issues, such as a single parent’s dating life or financial struggles.

In some cases, a child may be fully running the household due to a physically or emotionally absent parent.

Parentification sees a minor become their parents’ emotional caretaker “based on the parent’s inability to manage their own emotions and sufficiently care for their child,” Psychology Today said.

Though this parent-child relationship can be damaging, Winley noted that it’s not typically a malicious action and tends to stem from unstable upbringings and blurred boundaries.

Some parents may turn to parentification because they never learned to deal with their feelings on their own or had a similar relationship with their parents, so they believed that it’s the child’s job to take care of the parent.

With parentification, the child takes on responsibility that’s not “developmentally appropriate” for their age.Home-stock – stock.adobe.com

Others might be working multiple jobs or be single parents, so the child has no other option than to step up and help take care of siblings and household tasks.

“Overall, parentification can be difficult for the child. It doesn’t always allow kids to go through developmental phases if they’re having to provide either logistical, tangible or emotional support to a parent or to others,” psychologist Kate Eshleman, PsyD, told Cleveland Clinic.

“If a child is having to take care of things within the home, then they’re not spending time with friends. They may not be focused on their studies. They may not be doing the things that are typical and expected for their age.”

A parentified child may also experience physical symptoms such as headaches, stomach aches, trouble sleeping and lack of appetite.

Parentified children might be looked at as “wise beyond their years.”Pixel-Shot – stock.adobe.com

“When a child has physical complaints, there is evidence that it can be related to their emotional health,” Eshleman said. “For a young child or adolescent who may not have the ability to recognize their own emotions and stresses, it may manifest as physical symptoms.”

https://nypost.com/2025/09/10/lifestyle/psychologist-warns-of-parentification-dangers-why-mom-and-dad-shouldnt-be-your-best-friend/

Meta stifled research on sickos using VR to target kids, whistleblowers claim

 Mark Zuckerberg’s Meta stifled internal research into the safety risks of its virtual reality apps – including a stomach-churning claim that sickos had “sexually propositioned” a kid younger than 10, according to bombshell whistleblower allegations that surfaced Monday.

Two of the whistleblowers, including a former Meta safety researcher named Jason Sattizahn and an unnamed colleague, detailed a shocking April 2023 research trip they had taken to Germany.

During the trip, a German mother said she didn’t allow her children to talk to strangers using Meta’s VR headsets – only to hear her teenage son allege moments later that his little brother had been propositioned by creeps on multiple occasions.

Meta’s main VR game is called “Horizon Worlds.”Meta

“I felt this deep sadness watching the mother’s response,” Sattizahn, told the Washington Post. “Her face in real time displayed her realization that what she thought she knew of Meta’s technology was completely wrong.”

After conducting the interviews, the researchers said they were told to delete their recordings and written evidence of the teenager’s allegations. Instead, Meta’s final report claimed German parents were merely concerned about the possibility of groomers targeting kids in VR.

The scandalous allegations and others were brought by four current and former Meta employees who gave a trove containing thousands of pages of documents, memos and presentations to Congress, the Washington Post reported.

Elsewhere, Meta was informed that kids were skirting its age limits for using Oculus VR headsets as far back as April 2017, according to the leaked documents.

“We have a child problem and it’s probably time to talk about it,” one employee message at the time said.

The employee, whose name was redacted, suggested that up to 90 percent of metaverse users were underage.

The unnamed employee described one incident in which “three young kids (6? 7?) were chatting with a much older man who was asking them where they lived.”

“This is the kind of thing that eventually makes headlines — in a really bad way,” the employee wrote.

In one November 2021 presentation cited in the Washington Post’s report, Meta attorneys told researchers in Reality Labs, the team responsible for VR, to consider conducting “highly-sensitive research under attorney-client privilege” to prevent it from surfacing in public.

Employees were also told to be “mindful” of the language they used in internal studies and specifically to avoid phrases like “not compliant” and “illegal.”

At one point in 2023, a Meta attorney allegedly told a company researcher not to compile data on how many underage kids were using the company’s VR devices “due to regulatory concerns,” the report said.

“To be crystal clear: Meta ordered its researchers to delete evidence that the company was breaking the law and willfully endangering minors,” said Sacha Haworth, Executive Director of The Tech Oversight Project.

“That’s not just deeply disturbing, it’s cause for a deep investigation into Mark Zuckerberg’s leadership and the toxic culture within Meta that encourages senior leaders to break the law,” she added.

Whistleblowers claim Meta knew creeps were using VR to target kids.Meta

The Senate Judiciary committee will hold a hearing Tuesday that will examine the whistleblowers’ claims.

Last week, the panel’s chairman Sen. Chuck Grassley joined senators Marsha Blackburn and Josh Hawley in sending a letter accusing Zuckerberg of failing to adequately respond to its inquiries and demanding a follow-up no later than Sept. 16.

In a joint statement submitted to Congress in May, the whistleblowers alleged Meta’s attorneys had engaged in a systematic effort to screen and occasionally block the release of internal safety research.

The effort was reportedly a response to the damaging 2021 leak of internal Facebook research by former employee Frances Haugen that showed the company knew its app, including Instagram, were harming teenage girls.

Haugen’s revelations triggered a wave of Congressional hearings.

The new whistleblowers allege Meta wanted to “establish plausible deniability” about the extent of its knowledge on safety risks.

Meta spokeswoman Dani Lever said the whistleblower claims that Meta had suppressed research that had been “stitched together to fit a predetermined and false narrative.”

“In reality since the start of 2022, Meta has approved nearly 180 Reality Labs-related studies on social issues, including youth safety and well-being,” Lever said in a statement. “This research has contributed to significant product updates such as new supervision tools for parents to see who their teens are connected with in VR, how much time they spend, and the apps they access.”

“We have also introduced automatic protections for teens to limit unwanted contact, like default voice channel settings in Horizon Worlds so individuals can hear or be heard only from people they know as well as personal boundaries,” Lever added. “We stand by our research team’s excellent work and are dismayed by these mischaracterizations of the team’s efforts.”

Meta’s Lever did not confirm or deny whether the company had actually ordered details about the Germany trip to be deleted from the final report.

Lever said any such deletion would, if it occurred, would have been necessary to comply with Europe’s General Data Protection Regulation, a sweeping law that limits data collection.

“Global privacy regulations make clear that if information from minors under 13 years of age is collected without verifiable parental or guardian consent, it has to be deleted,” Lever added in her statement.

However, Sattizahn said the mother had indeed given her consent via a signed contract and that Meta normally would not require deletion of information collected in such research interviews.

Sattizahn said he was fired by Meta in April 2024 after clashing with management about the company’s handling of safety research, while the other researcher who participated in the trip to Germany resigned in 2023 due to ethical concerns.

Two other whistleblowers are still working at Meta. All four are being backed by a nonprofit called Whistleblower Aid – which has also worked with Haugen, according to the report.

“From the start, we built safety features into our devices and made it clear those devices were meant for people over 13—this was stated in the Oculus Safety Center, on the packaging, and in the user guides,” Lever’s statement added. “As more people started using these devices and Meta launched its own games and apps, we added many more protections, especially for young people.”

Zuckerberg was once all-in on the “metaverse,” even renaming his company from Facebook to Meta in 2021 to reflect the company’s focus on the technology. However, Meta has since pivoted most of its resources toward the pursuit of artificial intelligence.

https://nypost.com/2025/09/08/business/mark-zuckerbergs-meta-stifled-research-on-sickos-using-vr-to-target-kids-whistleblowers-claim/