Deconstructing Marianna in Conspiracyland: - Part 5

Throughout the introduction and Parts 1, 2, 3 and 4, we have established some key facts about the BBC's "Marianna Spring in Conspiracyland" podcast series.

- The BBC is a state propaganda outlet funded with billions of pounds of UK license fees and generous donations from philanthropic foundations. It is largely controlled by the UK government through the government's appointed regulator, Ofcom.

- Marianna Spring, the BBC's first "specialist social media and disinformation correspondent" deliberately spread dangerous health disinformation to children on behalf of the BBC and, therefore, the UK government.

- The BBC, and Spring, demand that they be "trusted" but continually spread disinformation, misinformation, malinformation and propaganda.

- Spring insists that there is a "conspiracy theory movement," despite the fact that there is no evidence that any such movement exists. "Conspiracy theory" is a label, first "weaponised" by the CIA. It continues to be used today, by Spring and other propagandists, to discredit anyone who questions power. Something the Legacy Media (LM), of which the BBC is part, no longer does.

- We live in "biased pluralist societies" ruled by an inappropriately named "economic elite." Some refer to this biased pluralist system as the Criminocracy. Anyone who points toward the totalitarian and corrupt nature of of the Criminocracy is labelled a "conspiracy theorist" by the BBC, Spring and other representatives of the Criminocracy.

- Spring claims that the "realm of evidence" is determined solely by the "epistemic authorities." This is false. Marianna only acknowledges evidence once it is defined and approved for discussion by the Criminocracy. This is illogical, anti-democratic and dangerous.

- Spring claims that people can be "radicalised" simply by consuming information. This is false.

- Spring claims the evidence offered by the people she labels as "conspiracy theorists" is either incorrect or has been "debunked" in its entirety. This is false.

- Spring claims that people automatically believe everything expressed by those with whom they agree on some issues, but not on others. This is false.

- Exploiting this composition fallacy, Spring cherry-picks the most extreme opinions found among those she labels "conspiracy theorists" and then attributes the same thoughts, beliefs and action to all she labels as "conspiracy theorists." This gross misrepresentation of the people, who cannot be defined as an identifiable demographic group and who collectively hold a multitude of different anti-Establishments opinions (AEOs), enables Spring to use the propaganda technique of "demonising her enemy." All of her assertions, in this regard, are false.

- Spring claims AEOs of any kind are somehow dangerous to democracy and refuses to acknowledge that questioning power is one of the most important democratic ideals. Spring is apparently an authoritarian opposed to democracy and the principles it is based upon.

- Spring's personal and professional history strongly suggest that she is a possible intelligence agency controlled "media asset."

- Thus far, throughout Conspiracyland, Spring has not presented any evidence to substantiate any of her countless claims, assertions and allegations. She has employed a string of logical fallacies, propaganda techniques and insinuations to create an entirely false depiction of millions of people who hold AEOs.

Part 4 of Marianna's podcast series was called "Marianna in Conspiracyland: The Conspiracy Theory Newspaper." Calling the Light newspaper a "conspiracy theory newspaper," evidenced Marianna's use of the propaganda labelling system. The title of Spring's 4th podcast episode is intentionally misleading: disinformation in other words.

The Light reports news events, offers critiques, guides, reviews, opinion pieces and social commentary. Unlike the LM, it investigates and scrutinises the statements and actions of governments and other partners in the Criminocracy. The Light questions power, as all good journalism should, and thus appeals to people who hold a wide range of views, including AEOs. 

Marianna’s Part 4 podcast is based upon an interview with the editor of the Light, Darren Nesbit. The full 3 hour interview is available here. Watching it reveals just how far Spring's report of that encounter diverges from the full content of the discussion.

In "Part 4" Spring reported a question put to her by Nesbit: 

Why do you always conflate opposition to the government with online abuse and extreme views, held by a tiny minority. Don't you think that you are over exaggerating both the number and the threat from those fringe thinkers in society? 

Spring reported her reply: 

I disagree that I do that. I always endeavour to separate very reasonable and legitimate concerns and questions that people have from the more extreme views and ideas that are contrary to evidence and fact. 

However, as we have already discussed, Spring believes that "evidence" is limited to some imaginary "realm" defined by the Criminocracy's "epistemic authorities." Spring does not consider any other evidence to be within “the realm of evidence." Everything outside of her magical realm is alleged by Spring to be "contrary to fact." 

As she also considers everything allegedly “contrary to fact” to be extreme, Spring never endeavours to separate legitimate concerns from more extreme views. She incessantly conflates them.

What this inevitably means is that Spring only accepts and promotes official narratives and refuses, under any circumstances, to examine or report evidence that casts doubt on those narratives. Therefore, by abandoning all principles of investigative journalism, Spring does nothing other than parrot whatever "opinions" or "stories" she is fed by the Criminocracy. 

Consequently, from Spring's apparent perspective, publications like the Light, and the views of people like Darren Nesbit, are always, irretrievable "conspiracy theories." No concerns expressed by those she labels “conspiracy theorists” can ever be "reasonable and legitimate." All opinions that do not conform to the Criminocracy's prescriptions are reported by Spring as indicative of "extreme views."

Despite Spring's denials, "Marianna in Conspiracyland" does precisely as Nesbit describes. Throughout, Spring has persistently equated "opposition to the government" and AEOs to extremism. Her protestations are evidently misleading and Nesbit's observations are accurate. 

This is underscored by Spring's next reported comment. She contends that the Light newspaper "could be a gateway into something more extreme," rendering her immediately preceding rebuttal quite ridiculous. Spring then launched into a slew of composition fallacy arguments.

Because the Light has recommended the Secrets of the Federal Reserve by Eustice Mullins—who is widely accused of white supremacy, antisemitism, holocaust denial, etc.—to its readers, Spring attempted, yet again, to present her fallacious contentions as purported "evidence" that the Light is somehow "a gateway" into extremism.

She continued to demonstrate that she does indeed conflate opposition to government with extremism. This is undoubtedly Spring's modus operandi.

Nesbit stressed that the Light recommends Mullins book on the Federal Reserve—a decent exploration of which can be found here—because it is worth reading, adding that all Spring is attempting to do is establish "guilt by association." 

Spring next highlighted the Light's alleged support for Graham Hart, who was sentenced to 32 months in prison after he plead guilty to "producing a programme in service with intent or likely to stir up racial hatred." Spring falsely accused Nesbit and the Light of "directly defending" Hart. 

The Light article in question in no way defends Hart directly, noting that "inciting people to violence in the name of anything is rarely a good idea." It certainly does question the whole notion of "hate speech," upon which Hart's conviction was based, and offers a robust defence of Hart’s right to exercise free speech.

While Spring was eager to attack the Light for allegedly "defending" a man who said some despicable things, she failed to inform her audience about the BBC's record of genuinely "defending" child murderers.

In 2016 members of the terrorist Nour al-Din al-Zinki movement publicly beheaded 12 year old Abdullah Issa. The BBC leaped to Nour al-Din al-Zinki's defence, pointing out that the child was a fighter, thereby justifying his decapitation. Four months later the BBC produced another report in which the same, individual terrorists, who filmed themselves beheading a child, were eulogised by the BBC as "moderate rebels" bravely resisting the Assad regime.

As we have discussed, The BBC often promotes terrorists and their views. Although Spring has never alleged that the BBC is a “gateway to extremism.”  

Facing heated and groundless and hypocritical accusation from Spring, Nesbit said: 

We didn't [defend Hart directly] we defended his right to say it.  

This concern for free speech in a democracy is far too nuanced an argument for Spring. To suggest, as the Light article does, that there is an important distinction between merely causing offence or causing "legitimate harm," is not a concept Spring ever discusses with her to audience. Presumably, Spring considers nasty comments a greater social evil than infanticide. 

Darren Nesbit and Marianna Spring in discussion

Questioning how the Light funds itself with voluntary contributions, instead of forcibly extracting money from the public using threats an menaces, as the BBC does, in "Marianna in Conspiracyland Part 5: Follow The Money," Spring tried to so peak to the Light's advertisers. She claimed that she attempted to arrange interviews with a number of advertisers but only one was willing to speak to her.

Although we cannot know why people apparently refused to talk to Marianna, she opined that it was probably due to their dislike and distrust of the BBC. In the opening to Part 5, Spring illustrated why people don't like or trust the BBC.

Spring said that the one advertiser who she did manage to interview (Ian) advocatesd"hanging" for "journalists, politicians and others if they are complicit in these sinister plots." This was a complete misrepresentation of what Ian actually said. It is extremely common for the BBC to twist people’s words this way, which may well explain why few trust the BBC.

Her allegation, made in the opening sequence, was accompanied by an ominous shift in the incidental music. Following the foreboding, Spring--or her editors--immediately cut to an audio clip of Ian's actual statement:

If it's to be found that people are guilty of crimes against humanity, then yes.

There was a blatant disconnect between Spring's characterisation of Ian’s statement and his words. He made no mention either of "hanging" or of "sinister plots." Instead Ian broached the contentious issue of applying the death penalty for people found guilty of "crimes against humanity."

Thoroughly undermining Springs allegations against the Light newspaper and those who read it, Ian recalled that the Light's editorial team are nice people who are easy to work with. He reported that he doesn't believe everything he reads in the Light—presumably because he's a rational adult—but that generally he found the articles well researched and written. Ian acknowledged that the AEOs expressed in the paper may seem "odd" to people accustomed only to consuming information from the LM.

Spring later asked Ian why he thought killing people may be justified. Ian stressed that, in his view, it would only be so for genuine cases of humanitarian crimes. He added that such crimes should be fully investigated and suspects tried in a court of law before being punished if found guilty. 

The death penalty is meted out as punishment around the world. In the US and elsewhere, governments and judiciaries routinely kill people found guilty in their courts. Following the recent conviction in the UK of the serial baby killer Lucy Letby, the LM was quick to revisit the question of the death penalty, which was only fully rescinded in Britain in 1999. 

While the death penalty is a difficult social and political issue to resolve, eliciting strong feelings for and against, there was nothing "sinister" nor even particularly “odd” about the point Ian made. Spring insinuated that Ian thought "doctors or journalists or politicians" should be executed. Yet, it was Spring who was solely responsible for introducing this notion into the conversation and nothing Ian said warranted it.

Spring inserted and attached her insinuations to her "hanging" and "sinister plots" rhetoric. The consistent intention was to deceive BBC listeners into believing that Ian's views were "extreme." As Nesbit correctly pointed out in the previous episode, Spring never ceases to conflate "opposition to government" with extremism. 

Ian said that he thought the Covid jabs were experimental jabs that potentially harmed millions. He added that if that was "proven to be the case" those found guilty of what would surely constitute a crime against humanity should be punished, potentially with the death penalty.

When Spring said she felt people may be surprised by his stance, Ian asked "why?" To which Spring replied: 

Dunno, we don't really kill people anymore.

Spring often gives "passive-aggressive" responses. In this case, in the form of glib, moral self-aggrandisement, as if she has uniquely virtuous sensibilities. The questions Ian raised have no simple answers. Spring's willingness to reduce the debate to virtue signalling was puerile and diversionary.

Ian added that he thinks the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) is a highly questionable organisation and that the money it gives to the BBC suggests a conflict of interest in the BBC's reporting. Marianna replied that she is often asked about this, but that BMGF funding, primarily for BBC Media Action, has no impact upon her reporting. This was either a deceptive or a delusional response. 

Since 2005, the BMGF has given the BBC approximately $57.2 million. Given the scale of the BBC's multi-billion pound annual budget, this is a tiny, relative amount. That said, this is nowhere near the full amount the BMGF has funnelled to the BBC.

The BMGF is also a major donor to the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and USAID.---effectively the CIA. It also funds Global Affairs Canada and various EU projects. The BMGF is the only philanthropic foundation that BBC Media Action lists as a donor, it also holds a significant stake in four of Media Action’s other donors.

According to the BBC, Media Action reaches "more than 118 million people around the world." It played a "significant role" at the COP26 Climate Summit in Glasgow in 2021. It provided "information" and supported its media "partners" in "Myanmar, Ethiopia, Afghanistan and Ukraine" in the same year.

To give you some idea what BBC Media Action does, we can look at its 2012 Case Study Report for Syria. This outlines what it was up to in the country prior to the conflict that started in 2011. The unrest was eventually initiated when western and Saudi backed gunmen opened fire on protesting crowds from sniper positions in the al Omari Mosque in the border town of Daraa.

In the years leading up to the subsequent proxy war that caused immense suffering in Syria, BBC Media Action was agitating for "regime change." Juliette Harkin, former BBC Media Action Project Manager, said:

All media development work that has been done in Syria has, in my opinion, been predicated upon this idea that there can be change from within – you have an authoritarian regime and you find who the reformers are within that [regime] and you work with them.

Once the bloodshed had begun, the BBC did everything it possibly could to perpetuate it. By, for example, defending terrorist child murderers. 

BBC Media Action is an extension of western imperial "soft power." Which explains why, in addition to US State Department funding, it is also funded by the UK and other European governments. Spring seemingly deceived her audience by restricting her description of BBC Media Action to "almost like a sort of charity arm of the BBC."

The BMGF uses BBC soft power for other purposes. BBC Media Action heavily promoted the BMGF backed global COVID-19 jab rollout, providing what it called "vital health information to audiences around the world." This essentially boiled down to selling the BMGF funded GAVI's various COVID jabs to numerous countries.

The BMGF connections to the UK government that controls everything Spring "reports" are extensive. As the BMGF bluntly declares:

We work closely with the UK government, nongovernmental organizations, and research institutions to advocate for the best use of the UK’s collective funding resources and its diplomatic influence [. . .].

In a May 2021 UK parliamentary committee (go to 14:02:35), the former adviser to the UK Prime Minister, Dominic Cummings, said that the BMGF and “that kind of network” had practically directed the UK government’s entire COVID-19 response. This is just one example of the BMGF's "partnership" with the UK government. BBC Media Action is another.

The BMGF may not directly fund her journalism, but it wields immense influence over her employer and its paymaster controllers. Unless Spring is at liberty to produce whatever reports she likes and is completely free of BBC editorial control, there is an overt "conflict of interest" in Spring's reporting. Safe to say, Marianna Spring will never criticise the BMGF while she works for the BBC.

To claim, as Spring continually does, that the BMGF's brand of "philanthropy" doesn't buy power and influence in the BBC appears to be an incredibly banal and naive commentary from a so-called investigative "journalist." Although, in Spring's case, it is more likely to be disinformation.