Fact-Checking the Fact Checkers

Boris Reitschuster is a popular German vlogger and journalist. The following article from his website discusses the tendentious efforts by a well-known and supposedly independent fact-checking organization.

Many thanks to Hellequin GB for the translation:

Correctiv shoots themselves in the leg during fact check

Truth-guards co-financed by the taxpayer embarrass themselves

These days, if you report critically, you will rapidly have the fact-checker on your back. In recent years the self-appointed truth keepers have sprung up like mushrooms around the world, often with opaque financing models.

The best-known “fact-checkers” in Germany are the “fact fox” of the Bavarian broadcasting company, the “fact finder” of the Tagesschau, the agitation portal Volksverpetzer, and the self-proclaimed research network Correctiv.

Correctiv refutes the quote on the basis of a wrong source

This is about Correctiv. There, on November 17, a fact check was published on an allegedly false quote from DIVI [Deutsche Interdisziplinäre Vereinigung für Intensiv- und Notfallmedizin] President Gernot Marx.

The quote reads: “We are currently registering a strong increase like last year. The big difference, however, is that we have 4,000 fewer intensive care beds available today than in 2020.” (Gernot Marx, President DIVI)

The content of the quote is therefore the significant reduction in beds in hospitals. Correctiv writes: “However, essential context is left out and the myth is fueled that intensive care beds were dismantled in Germany during the pandemic.”

So the dismantling of beds is just a myth? Regardless of the quote in question, this fact can be understood by everyone on the DIVI website.

A rather clumsy attempt to twist the facts.

Regarding the quote, Correctiv claims: “Context is missing: Gernot Marx’s complete statement does not indicate that beds have been dismantled.”

Corrective claims to have researched the quote. The alleged source mentioned is from an interview by the MDR on October 26, 2021, which was quoted in the Ärzteblatt on October 26, 2021.

Professor Marx, how do you assess the current situation in the intensive care units with regard to covid-19 patients?

Gernot Marx: Here at the Aachen University Clinic, the situation is still balanced, but the strain is increasing significantly across Germany. On Wednesday we had 2,136 intensive care patients with Covid-19; 52% of these had to be ventilated. Currently, 60-80 new patients are added nationwide every day In September the situation was stable for a long time with 1,400 Covid-19 patients; now we are registering a strong increase, as in the previous year. The big difference, however, is that we now have 4,000 fewer intensive care beds than in the previous year.

Source: Aachener Zeitung, 4. November 2021

However, the quote is correct and complete, as it was reproduced above, printed in the Aachener Zeitung of November 4, 2021. We would like to take this opportunity to thank the attentive reader who pointed out the incident.

Sloppy research?

The impression that Correctiv gives that the quote is “taken out of context” or misleading is absurd.

The “research network” obviously has difficulties exercising its own core competence — the correct research. What could be more natural than to contact the person involved directly to have the authenticity confirmed? With Correctiv you try to research online instead, but don’t do it thoroughly and end up with the wrong source.

Errors in research happen, no question about it. Especially if there is no editorial team behind the author to check everything again meticulously.

Continue reading

Hungarian Media Outlet Normalizes Violence Against ‘Anti-Vaxxers’

Our Hungarian correspondent László sends this report on the latest manifestation of Vax Madness in Hungary.

Hungarian media outlet normalizes violence against ‘anti-vaxxers’

by László

Pesti Srácok, a mainstream Hungarian media outlet and a mouthpiece of the government, published an article about the recent Austrian and Dutch protests with this denigrating and deceptive title:

“All hell breaks loose in Austria and the Netherlands as a crazy minority protests against epidemic measures”. [emphasis added]

First of all, this headline is a flat-out lie: no hell broke loose in Austria; the violent clashes happened in the Netherlands to the best of my knowledge. Secondly, they are not protesting against “epidemic measures”; they are protesting against the unlawful curtailing of freedom.

Thirdly, branding people who oppose the totalitarian Corona measures ‘crazy’ is a slippery slope to full-fledged Fascism. Their claim that these protesters are a ‘minority’ is also unfounded; and even though it may be true, calling them ‘minority’ is clearly an effort to minimize the resistance.

What is even more concerning is that the paper does not delete comments that hail the idea of brutal execution, denigration, punishment, grave discrimination and segregation of “anti-vaxxers” who, commenters say, do not even deserve to be treated in the public healthcare system for free anymore. However, the outlet, one of my favourite in the times before the Corona psy-op, has been busy deleting comments that warn people of the real dangers of the Covid “vaccines” or the totalitarian NWO.

So the site is apparently whipping up violent sentiments against the ‘anti-vaxxers’, first by branding them ‘crazy’ and then by not deleting comments that promote mass murder. One such comment:

User name: Tények
Posted: 2021-11-20 at 20:33

every country has crazy people like our “slop coalition”.

I’d execute them all in one night, cut off their legs, their hands, and eventually their filthy heads. Bag them up and burn them with the dead cattle. We would have a pure country after that.

Again, this genocidal comment, which is still up on the site three days after it was posted, publicly expresses the desire to torture, dehumanize and kill protesters (whom he mistakenly believes to be leftists) in Hungary as well — thereby ‘cleaning’ the country. (The “slop coalition” is the nickname for the leftists-globalist opposition in Hungary.)

This public statement is an actual crime, or at least borders on a crime — yet it has not been deleted. Whether such comments are real or are written by paid droids is anyone’s guess.

This commenter has obviously swallowed the relentless government propaganda sideways: this sort of localized globalist brainwashing claims that the ones who oppose the Covid jabs are leftists/globalists in Hungary, hence they are dangerous. Which is a smart trick, because leftism and globalism indeed pose serious dangers to nation states; thus this caution has deeply been ingrained in the minds of many Hungarians.

Therefore the official Corona-propaganda is now deceptively binding the real Marxist danger together with the unreal danger of ‘anti-vaxxers’ — which is of course a total inversion of the reality and utter nonsense. But if a patriot is superficial enough, they may believe that they can protect the country from the commie assault by persecuting ‘anti-vaxxers’. It is a kind of judo-propaganda.

But that is not all: the article at Pesti Srácok normalizes the usage of live ammo against ‘anti-vaxx’ protesters, quoting the police spokeswoman in Rotterdam:

“We fired warning shots, and there were also aimed shots because the situation was life-threatening.”

With its title that brands the protesters ‘crazy’, the article implies that it is the protesters who are the cause of the problem, and therefore shooting at them is justified. It does not bother Pesti Srácok too much what exactly happened in Rotterdam: in actuality, partly Muslim and African immigrants were rioting there, as far as I know, but the otherwise anti-Islam news outlet that opposes third world invasion fails to mention it, so that it can shift the blame to the ‘anti-vaxxers’.

[However I have no intel on who exactly was shot and why in Rotterdam — if you know the details, please let me know in the comments. I also do not know whether true blond Dutch aboriginals with Dutch names set cars on fire or violently rioted in Rotterdam, but I cannot exclude it. Exactly this weakness of the readers is what the article exploits: there have been so many protests recently that it is difficult to follow everything, so they can imply whatever they want.]

However, covertly blaming the Dutch ‘anti-vaxxers’ for being shot with live ammo is still not enough: the article further spins reality by falsly accusing the Austrians as well, even though there were no riots whatsoever in Austria:

“But will an epidemic measure cause the people to revolt and all hell breaks loose?” — asks the paper hypocritically right in the lead of the article, and then mixes in the big lie about Austria: ”In the Netherlands and neighbouring Austria, riots have broken out in the streets and shootings have been reported in the press.”

Even though this is the very first such dark Hungarian article I have read, it is an ominous sign of the normalization of violence against ‘anti-vaxxers’ and dissenters in general.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

The full translated article from Pesti Srácok:

Continue reading

The New ‘Good’ and the New Evil

We are approaching Endgame after more than a hundred years of the Culture Wars. In the essay below MC picks his way through the grotesque highlights of what is currently underway.

Most modern medicine assumes that God does not exist, and that mankind (‘experts’) must therefore control medical ethics in order to ensure that doctors and others with an interest in medicine do not sacrifice their ethical integrity in order to either maximize their wealth from an exceedingly profitable industry, nor pursue greater knowledge at the expense of the health of their patients.

In 1947, following cruel and murderous experimentation by seemingly normal doctors on inmates of concentration camps in Nazi Germany, international law was laid down concerning human experimentation, coercion and informed consent.

These laws are now being violated on a daily basis by politicians, doctors, nurses and health administrators who advocate and enforce the COVID-19 vaccine. This is not new; it is an old, old story. We are back to bleeding, scoring and purging, leeches and mercury; the medicine of barbers and barbarity.

The Covid vaccine is experimental, and under the Nuremburg and Helsinki LAWS, it cannot be mandated. YOU cannot be forced to violate your bodily integrity — even if granny is in danger.

But granny is not in danger, at least in any statistical sense any more than she usually is, and if she were to take the correct prophylactic treatment to raise her zinc and vitamin D levels then her chances of surviving a CV19 attack are much improved. Unfortunately, it seems, the Powers That Be in medicine and politics want her dead, so they are withholding the real science and the real medicine from her. Granny dead from Covid is a bounty that can be collected…

The ‘science’ as dictated by the government/Big Pharma alliance is to leave CV19 granny alone until her lips turn blue, then put her on a killer ventilator until she dies. For this, a hospital gets a substantial government grant. She is a useless eater — Aktion T4 for her. Do we inject her with phenol, gas her, or put a plastic bag over her head? No, we withhold crucial and effective treatment and inject her with an experimental gene therapy — and this is ethically acceptable?

We are so, so ignorant, we don’t realize that although all the names have changed, the methods have not.

On the whole, the billionaires who are financing this modern Holodomor are stupid frightened individuals who believe in a humanist-based cult whereby:

  • There are too many people on the planet.
  • The planet is being poisoned by too much ‘carbon’
  • That the ultra-rich are entitled to rule over all other groups and use all available resources.
  • That Islam, by its ultra-controlling influence, can be used to divide and rule dangerous ‘Christian’ populations.
  • That fossil fuels can be replaced by ‘batteries’ (where does the electricity come from to charge the batteries?).
  • That solar and wind power can provide enough energy for the remnant population to survive.
  • That putting God at the centre of the Constitution in 1776-1784 had no effect on the subsequent rise of the American Dream; it was purely a coincidence.
  • And that removing God from society is therefore no problem and will not turn the dream into a nightmare.

It is difficult for us to understand the role of God in society, for without God, societies are basically two-tier master/slave societies where the masters work hard to keep the peons in abject slavery.

In the historical British feudal system, the serfs were largely village idiots, kept in a state of abject poverty and malnutrition. The role of the then-Church was to perpetuate the system by removing any intelligent children at an early age into the cloisters for special indoctrination. Wise lords of the manor also took bright children into their service, thus removing leaders from the peasant body.

Britain at the time did not have a skin colour problem; everybody was white. Even in my childhood 1950s England was overwhelmingly white, I had seen non-white people because I had travelled to Singapore as a very young ‘britbrat’ (child of armed forces personnel), but to others in my class at school, they were an abstract from the pages of National Geographic and Hollywood.

Continue reading

BBC Misinformation: Islamic State

The following essay by Michael Copeland was originally published in September 2014 at LibertyGB (as “BBC Draws A Veil Over Islamic State”), then edited in 2021.

BBC Misinformation: Islamic State

by Michael Copeland

“What does Islamic State want? They want to enforce their view of conservative Islamic traditions.” — BBC

This appallingly inadequate statement is on the BBC’s 6o-second video. It is, in fact, the only statement in it that actually answers their own question.

No, BBC, Islamic State apply Islamic law, Sharia, by force. They not only “want to” but are already doing so. To refer to Sharia as “their view of conservative Islamic traditions” is shameful, dishonest, and inadequate. No author is shown.

The BBC is being careful to draw the spotlight away from Islam itself. To throw the reader off the scent they are nourishing the propaganda line that Islamic State is not Islamic, that they are pursuing “their idea” which, we are left to suppose, is somehow mistaken. Notice that the text skillfully does not actually say so, but leaves that conclusion to be formed by the reader. There is no mention of law or religion: oh no, only of “conservative traditions”. This is an old chestnut, and a tired and worn one at that. Remember the British detective helpfully assuring the public that a murder (a Muslim honour-killing) was nothing to do with Islam (which it is), but was a product of conservative cultural practices of rural Pakistan? How touching that an English policeman be so expert on tribal practices of rural South Asia! So sensitive!

No: Islamic State is applying Islam. The leader has a Ph.D. in Islamic Studies, unlike Mr. Cameron, so is well-informed. He has proclaimed himself Caliph, in the same way as earlier Caliphs did. As Abu Imran (Fouad Belkacem) of Sharia4Belgium has helpfully explained, “Islam is Sharia, and Sharia is Islam.” The Caliph is enforcing Sharia, “the path of Allah.”

Sharia is as defined in the Manual of Islamic Law, drawn from the Koran and the “reliable” traditions, “Hadith”, concerning the life and sayings of Mohammed. Together these all form Islamic Law. The Koran can be consulted online and the Manual, “Reliance of the Traveller”, is available as a download.

A second piece by the BBC, “What is Islamic State?” (again, no author shown), is rather more helpful.

Author’s note: since the LibertyGB article appeared the BBC has silently changed the text of this second article. What follows relates to the original text, no longer shown.

Once again, though, it quickly steers the reader away from Islam by dictating, with no explanation, that Islamic State is “a radical Islamist group”. We can note that Islamic State does not call itself “Radical Islamist State”: no, the BBC does that for them.

“The group aims to establish a “caliphate”“. No, it has already declared one. Now for another chestnut: “the group implements a strict interpretation of Sharia”. No: there is not a non-strict or benign interpretation of “Kill”. “Kill” means kill. What the BBC means is a strict application of Sharia, “forcing women to wear veils, non-Muslims to pay a special tax or convert, and imposing punishments that include floggings and executions.” The law is there: it is just that not all Muslim societies apply it to the letter. Yet another old chestnut is rolled out: “IS members are jihadists who adhere to an extreme interpretation of Sunni Islam”. What, BBC, is the non-extreme “interpretation” of “Kill”? That is right. There is not one. This is just a device to draw attention away from Islam.

Continue reading

Taqiyya at the Beeb

The two articles below about the BBC were published successively in 2013 by Michael Copeland.

BBC Fog-Making: Soldier Murder in Afghanistan

by Michael Copeland

This article was originally published at Liberty GB, 4 April 2013.

Colonel Lapan, spokesman for the US Joint Chiefs of Staff commented, “we don’t know what’s causing them [insider killings], and we’re looking at everything.” (FrontPage Mag)

In Afghanistan earlier this year (2013) there was yet another dreadful soldier murder and multiple wounding by an Afghan trainee. The BBC, in a shameful piece, “What lies behind Afghanistan’s insider attacks?”, blames a “rogue soldier”. Yet a soldier obeying instructions in his manual is no “rogue”.

Read the Koran, BBC, instead of having an unnamed author refer to unidentified “many analysts” and tipping a barrow load of red herrings such as this:

But perhaps worryingly for Nato the motivation for many of the assaults cannot be pinned down so precisely. Many analysts believe they are rooted in underlying, even subconscious, resentments that are prone to flare up and with deadly consequences.

This is fog-making, reprehensible and damaging. Completely contrary to what the author claims, the motivations can be pinned down precisely: they are in the manual revered by every dutiful Soldier of Allah, namely the Koran, the book of fighting the unbeliever. Everywhere that is not Dar al Islam, ‘The House of Islam’, is Dar al Harb, ‘The House of War’ (What the West Needs to Know). Non-Muslims are “the worst of creatures” (Koran 98:6), “the vilest of beasts” (8:22, 8:55). “Allah is the enemy of the unbelievers” (2:98), so therefore must all Muslims be also: “The disbelievers are ever to you a clear enemy” (4:101). NATO, treated as an ‘occupier’, is doubly an enemy.

When a Soldier of Allah murders an infidel ‘occupier’ he is obeying the instructions in his war manual. Some 64% of the Koran concerns non-Muslims, the kafirs, and how to fight them. Islam is political: it concerns land, and involves fighting. It aims for “Mastership of the World”, as the Muslim Brotherhood leader Muhammad Badi proclaimed in 2011.

“The mosques are our barracks,” recited Recep Tayyip Erdogan, before he was Prime Minister of Turkey, “the domes our helmets, the minarets our spears, and the faithful our soldiers.” It was to the BBC that Anjem Choudary explained: “Nothing else is mentioned more than the topic of fighting in the Koran.”

Don’t the BBC listen? Can’t they read? Do they think they know better? Or are they negligently and recklessly allowing the anonymous author to supply them with fog? Thus do they directly imperil our soldiers’ lives. Shame on you, BBC. Will you name your author? Who are the “many analysts”? Cite them. Show us where we can read their analyses.

The Koran cannot be brushed aside: it forms part of Islamic Law. To deny any verse in it calls for the death penalty (Manual of Islamic Law o8.7 (7)). Its content is billed as “true from eternity to eternity” (Sam Solomon, former professor of Shariah Law). Here are just a few of the many, many fighting instructions:

  • Kill the polytheists wherever you find them. 9:5
  • Fight those who do not believe in Allah. 9:29
  • Slay them wherever you find them. 4:89
  • Fight the idolaters utterly. 9:36
  • And that Allah may … exterminate the infidel. 3:141

Remember that when a soldier of Allah has killed infidels it was not he that did the killing: “You killed them not, but Allah killed them.” (8:17) There are instructions about relationships with non-Muslims, the kuffar (a word cognate with ‘dirt’), who are “unclean” (9:28), “the most despicable” (98:6):

  • Do not take the Jews and Christians as allies. 5:51
  • Muslims are merciful to one another, but ruthless to the unbeliever. 48:29

Osama bin Laden wrote: “Battle, animosity and hatred — directed from the Muslim to the infidel — is the foundation of our religion.”

The doctrine of “Permissible Lying” (Manual, r8.2) authorises the Muslim to maintain piously a false appearance of friendship. The revered collector of traditions, Sahih Al-Bukhari, recorded that Mohammed’s companion Abu Ad-Darda’ said, “We smile in the face of some people although our hearts curse them.” Mohammed himself said, “War is deceit” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, 269). So, too, with agreements: Mohammed is quoted in the Hadith, the traditions, saying, “If I take an oath and later find something else better, I do what is better and break my oath” (see Sahih Bukhari 7.67.427). Agreements with infidels are not binding. An Afghan who appears friendly but who turns his gun on NATO personnel is no “rogue”: he is doing EXACTLY what it says in his book. This is why there should not be any joint patrols, or armed Afghans within NATO bases.

Killing infidels in a situation where the killer himself may well be killed may seem puzzling to a Western mind, but this is a main component of the motivation:

“Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain” (Koran 9:111).

This is the justification for the ‘martyrdom’ (suicide) bombing. The ordinary Muslim can never be sure whether his good deeds will sufficiently outweigh his bad deeds so that he will not be consigned to Hell in the afterlife. In contrast, those who “slay and are slain” are guaranteed immediate entry to Paradise with seventy-two beautiful dark-eyed girls each, perpetually virginal, and boys like pearls, where there will be wine and sumptuous fruits. In Islam’s teachings the martyr achieves his wedding in heaven. The Muslim loves death as the Westerners love life, Osama bin Laden explained.

These matters of Islamic doctrine are what are taught in the mosques. They are not surprise news to Muslims. They can be found without difficulty on the internet. These are what the BBC’s anonymous author refers to as “the complex web of factors that lead Afghan soldiers to turn their guns on their allies.”

Evidently they are not too complex for an Afghan tribesman. Shame on you, BBC.

BBC Deception

by Michael Copeland

This article was originally published at Liberty GB, 28 October, 2013

Continue reading

A Defector From the Borg

Ole Skambraks is an employee of German public broadcasting. His latest essay also brands him as a heretic in the Church of Corona and a traitor to the Pandemic Narrative.

Many thanks to Hellequin GB for translating this piece from Multipolar Magazin. The translator includes this prefatory note:

I find it quite amazing that he addresses something we’ve been complaining about for YEARS. This is nothing NEW, but it took this Plandemic to rattle his (forced-funded by the taxpayer) gilded cage and wake him up. Better late than never, and I guess we should be thankful for even this little crumb of guilty conscience.

The translated article:

I can’t do it anymore

In an open letter, an ARD [German regional public broadcaster] employee is critical of one and a half years of Corona reporting: Ole Skambraks has been working as an editorial staff member and editor with public broadcasting for twelve years.

I can no longer be silent. I can no longer silently accept what has been going on for a year and a half at my employer, the public service broadcaster. In the statutes and state media treaties, things like “balance”, “social cohesion” and “diversity” are anchored in the reporting. The exact opposite is practiced. There is no real discourse and exchange in which all parts of society can find themselves included.

Right from the start, I was of the opinion that public service broadcasting should fill exactly this space: promoting dialogue between proponents and critics, between people who are afraid of the virus and people who are afraid of losing their fundamental rights, between vaccination advocates and skeptics. But for the past year and a half, the space for discussion has narrowed considerably.

Scientists who were respected in the time before Corona, who were given space in public discourse, are suddenly crazy, tinfoil-hat wearers or Covidiots. As a much-cited example, reference is made to Wolfgang Wodarg. He is a multiple specialist, epidemiologist and long-standing health politician. Until the Corona crisis, he was also on the board of Transparency International. In 2010, as chairman of the health committee in the Council of Europe, he exposed the influence of the pharmaceutical industry on the swine flu pandemic. At that time he was able to express his opinion personally on public broadcasting, but since Corona this has not been possible anymore. So-called fact-checkers have taken his place and discredit him.

Crippling consensus

Instead of an open exchange of views, a “scientific consensus” was proclaimed, which must be defended. Anyone who doubts this and calls for a multidimensional perspective on the pandemic earns outrage and malice.

This pattern also works within the editorial offices. I haven’t been working on the daily news for a year and a half, which I’m very happy about. In my current position, I am not involved in decisions about which topics are to be featured and how. Here I am describing my perception from editorial conferences and an analysis of the reporting. For a long time I did not dare to step out of the role of the observer; the supposed consensus seemed too absolute and unanimous.

For a few months now, I’ve been venturing out onto the ice and making a critical comment here and there in conferences. This is often followed by a concerned silence, sometimes a “thank you for the suggestion” and sometimes an instruction as to why this is not so. Reporting has never emerged from this.

The result of one and a half years of Corona is a division in society that is second to none. Public broadcasting plays a major role in this. It fulfills its responsibility to build bridges between the camps and promote exchange less and less.

The argument is often made that the critics represent a small, negligible minority, to whom one should not give much space for reasons of proportionality. This should be refuted at the latest since the referendum in Switzerland on the Corona measures. Although there is no free exchange of opinions in the mass media either, the vote ended at just 60:40 for the government. Is it possible to speak of a small minority with 40% of the votes cast? It should also be mentioned that the Swiss government had linked the Corona aid payments to the vote, which may have influenced the decision of some to tick “Yes”.

The developments in this crisis are taking place on so many levels and affecting all parts of society so that right now we need not less, but more free space for debate.

What is revealing is not what is discussed on public broadcasting, but what goes unmentioned. There are many reasons for this, and it requires an honest internal analysis. The publications of the media scientist and former MDR Broadcasting [regional public broadcaster] Councilor Uwe Krüger can help, such as his book Mainstream — Why we no longer trust the media.

In any case, it takes some courage to swim against the current in conferences where topics are discussed and discussed. Often the one who can present his arguments most eloquently prevails; in case of doubt, the editorial management decides, of course. Very early on, the equation was that criticism of the government’s Corona rate belongs to the right-wing spectrum. Which editor dares to express a thought in this direction?

Open questions

The list of inconsistencies and unanswered questions that have not received substantial coverage is very large:

Why do we know so little about gain-of-function research (research into how viruses can be made more dangerous for humans)?

Why does the new Infection Protection Act state that the basic right to physical integrity and the inviolability of the home can from now on be restricted — regardless of an epidemic situation?

Why do people who have already had Covid-19 have to vaccinate again even though they are at least as well protected as people who have been vaccinated?

Why is “Event 201” and the global pandemic exercises in the run-up to the spread of SARS-CoV-2 not discussed or only in connection with conspiracy theories?[2]

Why was the internal paper from the Federal Ministry of the Interior, known to the media, not published in full, and discussed in public, in which it was demanded that authorities must achieve a “shock effect” in order to clarify the effects of the Corona pandemic on human society?

Why does Prof. Ioannidis’ study on the survival rate (99.41% among under 70-year-olds) not make it into a headline, but rather the fatally false projections by the Imperial College (Neil Ferguson predicted half a million Corona deaths in the UK and beyond in the spring of 2020 2 million in the U.S.)?

Why does an expert report prepared for the Federal Ministry of Health say that the occupancy rate of the hospitals in 2020 by Covid-19 patients was only 2%?

Why does Bremen have by far the highest incidence (113 on October 4th, 21) and at the same time by far the highest vaccination rate in Germany (79%)?

Continue reading

The Story of Ivermectin

The following video gives a history of the development of the drug ivermectin, and an account of its suppression after it was shown to be the most effective treatment (both preventive and ameliorative) for COVID-19.

I’m not sure where the original came from — obviously not YouTube — but this version (in English with Swedish subtitles) was posted by Swebbtv. I have trouble viewing most of the non-standard video platforms (including Rumble) due to bandwidth issues with my stone-age Internet connection, but Vlad very kindly uploaded it to 3Speak so I could watch it and embed it here:

Hat tip: LN.

Joe Benedict Biden

It’s always interesting to get a non-American viewpoint on American politics. Our Dutch correspondent H. Numan is better-informed than most Europeans about what goes on here in the USA, so his insights are entertaining as well as instructive.

Joe Benedict Biden

by H. Numan

I normally don’t write a lot about the USA, but sometimes I have to. The humiliating surrender in Afghanistan is such an occasion. Surrender? Yes. It’s not a withdrawal with some minor hiccups when you leave $85 billion worth of equipment behind, and willingly throw your allies to the wolves. Actually, this is a follow-up to the article I wrote when the Biden victory was confirmed. It’s a lot worse than you think.

Benedict Arnold merely tried to sell West Point. Joke Biden actually sold the United States. At this moment Afghanistan has one of the best-equipped armies in the world. That’s not a joke. The Taliban has more and better equipment than France, Germany or the UK. Plus plenty of money to buy whatever they lack. Oh, so they don’t have pilots to fly those Black Hawks? No problem, we hire some. How much equipment was left behind? Enough to give each and every Taliban fighter his own truck, plus a couple of rifles.

Was surrender necessary? Of course not. Portugal had the same problem after their Carnation Revolution in 1974. The revolutionary government dissolved the Portuguese colonial empire overnight. They did it as it should be done: first they evacuated civilians. Next they evacuated everything remotely possible, including toilets, water taps and bathtubs. Then they withdrew their military to the last airport, while keeping a vigilant heavily armed guard. The withdrawal was finished in a couple of weeks. Nobody (Portuguese or otherwise) was killed or even hurt. That’s how you do it.

However, that was not what the caretakers of Biden — the man is clearly senile — wanted. They desired mayhem. Wanton destruction. Mass killings. Immense loss of prestige. This defeat is worse than the defeat in Vietnam, far worse. It will take another twenty years to get over it. If ever. Yes, it is that humiliating. Vietnam was a fairly developed country compared with stone age Afghanistan. They only wanted the foreigners out of their country. Contrast this with religious zealots who always talk about defeating the crusaders. They just defeated the most advanced, biggest, and professional army in the world. Surely Allah knows best!

I can understand something had to be left behind, but not on this scale. That is not “an act of God” (Allah?) or “a simple mistake”. This is intentional. Leave helicopters and aircraft behind? Why on earth? You can’t fly them out? Or should I say: the minders of Biden didn’t want them to fly out? Leave a few vehicles behind? No problem, understandable. But +40,000 light attack vehicles and +22,000 Humvees? That is not an accident. That is on purpose.

It gets even worse. A Black Hawk helicopter is loaded with state-of-the art technology. You can rest assured those helicopters already are being dissected and reverse-engineered in Beijing, Tehran and Moscow. If not this week, certainly the next. Next year Russia, Iran and China have their own copies flying. That’s excluding all the technology that can be found in left behind high tech equipment, such as night vision goggles and communication gear. Forget about any advanced American technology next year. By then Russia, Iran and China have reverse-engineered everything.

In one stroke the American advantage in everything is gone: no more technology advantage, and more importantly: you lost needlessly against a bunch of stone-age shepherds armed with blunderbusses. Remember 9-11? Oh, you got satellite technology? We got box cutters!

Continue reading

Only Fear

Our Israeli correspondent MC examines the similarities between the COVID/vax crisis and the AIDS/AZT crisis, as well as other examples of manufactured mass hysteria.

Only Fear

by MC

There is no virus; there is no killer COVID; there is no Delta (It is just vaccine breakthrough); but there are huge buckets of fear.

When we give up Judeo-Christianity, we also give up a faith in an afterlife, which means that death is a huge boogaloo rather than a passing from one state to another.

Every time we look out the window we see Creation, but whose creation? Darwin posited a random evolution from a basic cell, but made no speculation as to how the cell got there in the first place. That was left for others to argue about, an argument that is still raging, an argument that requires an explanation for ‘intelligent design’; a panspermia or an alien creation of some sort but not God, never God…

Yet we are still left trying to explain human consciousness in a rational manner. How did we become self-aware?

And how did we manage to throw it all away and succumb to fear? Yet again…

It is not the first time it has happened. Ruthless people can induce fear and terror to make a profit, to get what they want, be it shaheed status or wealth beyond measure.

Regimes that specialize in terror are called tyrannies, but we have never had a worldwide tyranny before, not like this one, not the global reset as a result of a pandemic that never was.

Except what? Virus cancer research would have crashed to a halt except that, in 1981, five cases of severe immune deficiencies were described by a Los Angeles physician, all among homosexual men who were also all sniffing amyl nitrite, were all abusing other drugs, abusing antibiotics, and probably suffering from malnutrition and STDs (sexually transmitted diseases). It would have been logical to hypothesize that these severe cases of immune deficiency had multiple toxic origins. This would have amounted to incrimination of these patients’ lifestyle. Unfortunately, such discrimination was, politically, totally unacceptable.

Therefore, another hypothesis had to be found — these patients were suffering from a contagious disease caused by a new retrovirus! Scientific data in support of this hypothesis was and, amazingly enough, still is totally missing. That did not matter, and instantaneous and passionate interest of cancer virus researchers and institutions erupted immediately. This was salvation for the viral laboratories where AIDS now became, almost overnight, the main focus of research. It generated huge financial support from Big Pharma, more budgets for the CDC and NIH, and nobody had to worry about the lifestyle of the patients who became at once the innocent victims of this horrible virus, soon labeled as HIV.

Twenty-five years later, the HIV 1 AIDS hypothesis has totally failed to achieve three major goals in spite of the huge research funding exclusively directed to projects based on it. No AIDS cure has ever been found; no verifiable epidemiological predictions have ever been made; and no HIV vaccine has ever been successfully prepared. Instead, highly toxic (but not curative) drugs have been most irresponsibly used, with frequent, lethal side effects. Yet not a single HIV particle has ever been observed by electron microscopy in the blood of patients supposedly having a high viral load! So what? All the most important newspapers and magazine have displayed attractive computerized, colorful images of HIV that all originate from laboratory cell cultures, but never from even a single AIDS patient. Despite this stunning omission the HIV I AIDS dogma is still solidly entrenched. Tens of thousands of researchers, and hundreds of major pharmaceutical companies continue to make huge profits based on the HIV hypothesis. And not one single AIDS patient has ever been cured.

(ourfreesociety.com/viruses/virus-mania-torsten-engelbrecht.pdf)

But the real disease is ‘Virus Mania’: the belief that there are lethal pathogens out there just waiting to ambush us and take us as hosts and kill us in a gruesome manner…

Bugs… and boogaloo.

Continue reading

The Narrative is Crumbling

The video below is an excellent compilation of various Corona- and vax-related clips. I’ve already watched most of the videos excerpted here, but it’s chilling to see them all together like this. Many thanks to Vlad Tepes for uploading this video:

The video was produced by the sponsors of today’s Nationwide Rally for Freedom in Adelaide. I didn’t learn about the event until late last night, right about the time it was getting underway, so I couldn’t publicize it ahead of time.

It’s the wee hours of Sunday morning now in Adelaide. I haven’t heard any news yet about how it went. Our Aussie readers are invited to check in here when they wake up and leave reports and links to the day’s events in the comments.

Why is Jair Bolsonaro so Popular in Brazil?

A recent meeting between Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro and Beatrix von Storch of the AfD (Alternative für Deutschland, Alternative for Germany) caused consternation among the bien-pensants in Germany — and even among some supporters of the AfD, according to the article below.

Mr. Bolsonaro receives the same treatment in the international media as Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán and former US President Donald Trump. Anyone who gets his news by skimming MSM articles or glancing at the talking heads on TV comes away with the idea that all three leaders are dangerous would-be totalitarian demagogues, if not outright neo-Nazis.

Many thanks to Hellequin GB for translating this article from Politically Incorrect:

Counter-argument: Why is Jair Bolsonaro so popular in Brazil?

In Brazil, the conservative President Jair Bolsonaro, who was elected with 55 percent of the vote in 2018, is still extremely popular. In Germany, thanks to unanimous media defamation, he is viewed negatively even by conservatives. Many PI-News readers also criticized the meeting between Bolsonaro and Beatrix von Storch. A reply from the Brazilian author Fernando de Castro.

Jair Bolsonaro was elected in 2018 after almost 20 years of rule by the corrupt left-wing, centralist parties to strengthen the rights of the unborn and gun owners, rebuild state infrastructure and at the same time allow for more private-sector business.

Since then he has repeatedly been the target of left-wing attacks aimed at sabotaging his plans. The Left tries to subvert his agenda with fake news campaigns and waves of lawsuits in court. The Supreme Court, made up of judges appointed by the Left, openly attacks the Bolsonaro government and fuels conflict.

Bolsonaro’s “Dangerous Corona Policy”

During the Corona pandemic, the Bolsonaro government wanted to protect the people without destroying the economy — the policy that in retrospect has proven to be the most effective worldwide, for example in Scandinavia. In April of 2020 the National Congress approved the emergency aid package, with which 40 million Brazilians were entitled to 100 dollars in financial aid, as much as ten years of so-called “family support” from the previous left government.

At the beginning of the pandemic, however, the left-wing Supreme Court blocked presidential authority and authorized regional governors and mayors to independently issue quarantines. Bolsonaro has always been against the lockdown because he understands the serious consequences it will have, especially for poor people. “Hunger kills more people than the virus,” said the President in 2020.

In practice, however, Bolsonaro only had three measures left:

1)   Providing cities and municipalities with medication;
2)   Send money;
3)   Propose easing measures that governors and mayors did not have to follow.
 

The president provided $37 billion for Corona aid.

(Note: The German media then presented this disempowerment of the president as “Bolsonaro’s dangerous Corona policy”.)

The Corona Corruption of Bolsonaro’s Opponents

While Brazil suffered 510,000 corona deaths, several governors and mayors diverted the federal government’s Corona aid funds for other purposes and were investigated by the federal police.

The governor of Rio de Janeiro, Wilson Witzel (Christian Social), lost his mandate due to money laundering, passive corruption and the formation of a criminal organization. According to federal police, he embezzled Corona funds for hospital construction.

Continue reading

Danish Days

Steen has posted an excellent selection of photos of Fjordman taken during the latter’s exile in Denmark.

Now that Fjordman has given permission for photos of him to be published, I dug through my image archives to see what I could find. I have a fair number of photos taken between 2007 and 2013, the last time I was in Europe. It fills me with a kind of nostalgic melancholy to look at them, since I know I’ll never see Denmark again, given that that I won’t be getting the “vaccination”. Even if I could somehow hop a catamaran to cross the Atlantic like Greta Thunberg, the Danish immigration authorities would still want to see my vaccine passport before they’d let me in.

A lot of the photos in my archive can’t be posted, because they contain other people who have yet to go public, and I don’t feel like trying to pixelate all of them out. However, I picked out a small selection to post here.

Steen took this photo of Fjordman and me in Copenhagen after one of our Counterjihad meetings in 2009:

Not all the photos are from Denmark. This one of Fjordman with Tommy Robinson was taken at an event in London in 2011:


Fjordman and Tommy Robinson, 2011

You can see Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff in the left background.

As he mentioned in his post on Thursday, Fjordman spent some time in the USA in the spring of 2012 during the trial of Anders Behring Breivik. While he was here, he went to several wine tastings:


Fjordman at a wine tasting, 2012

In the process of digging through various folders, I came across a couple of screen shots of the letter that Anders Behring Breivik wrote and sent to major media outlets in the fall of 2013:

Continue reading

A Summer of Madness

Ten years ago I walked this street; my dreams were riding tall.
Tonight I would be thankful, Lord, for any dreams at all.

— Robert Hunter, from “Mission in the Rain”

Tomorrow is the tenth anniversary of the terrorist attack in Norway. On July 22, 2011, a man named Anders Behring Breivik detonated a truck bomb in central Oslo next to government headquarters, killing eight people. While police and emergency services were dealing with the aftermath, Mr. Breivik drove to the island of Utøya, where a summer camp for Socialist Youth was being held. There he methodically shot and killed sixty-nine teenagers with a high-powered rifle. When police finally arrived at the island, he calmly surrendered.

Anders Behring Breivik was a neo-Nazi, but that fact did not emerge until several years later, when he wrote a letter to multiple media outlets and admitted that his declared affiliation with the Counterjihad movement had been a strategic misdirection, to spare his Aryan nationalist comrades from persecution. That part of his letter to the media was widely ignored, and was never publicly reported by any major outlet. To this day he is widely identified as an anti-Islam ideologue.

Before he committed his atrocities, Mr. Breivik had arranged the media distribution of his manifesto, or as he preferred to call it, “the compendium”. It was a lengthy, rambling treatise. It contained some of his own writing, but most of it consisted of extensive quotes from various English-language writers, the most prominent of which were Fjordman and Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch.

Those writers and others mentioned in the manifesto became the focus of a media frenzy beginning the following morning. Progressive pundits applied their usual pseudo-syllogism to the Utøya massacre:

1.   Breivik admired Fjordman.
2.   Breivik massacred innocent people.
3.   Therefore Fjordman was at least partially responsible for the atrocity. Q.E.D.
 

As I mentioned above, the Butcher of Utøya did not really look up to Fjordman; his admiration was a feint. So even the pseudo-syllogism was wrong. But none of that mattered; any information to the contrary was ignored by the left-wing media. Fjordman became an object of universal loathing. In Norway he was Public Enemy #1, in some ways eclipsing Breivik himself.

Up until that time Fjordman had only published his essays under a pseudonym. Beginning on the morning of July 23, the press and internet sleuths began an intensive effort to unmask him. It was only a matter of time before his real identity was uncovered, so after retaining counsel and making himself known to police, he outed himself via an interview with the tabloid VG. After that he fled the country and went into hiding.

And it’s a good thing he did: there were calls for him to be arrested and tried as Mr. Breivik’s accomplice, despite the fact that the two had never met, and Fjordman had never advocated violence in any form. But Norwegian public opinion did not bother itself with such trivial matters as facts and the truth. The slaughter on Utøya required a scapegoat, and Fjordman was chosen for the role.

He lived outside of Norway for a number of years, and only returned when the risk of arrest had diminished. However, he was unable to find work. Any prospective employer who was aware of who he was would refuse to hire him, and if he somehow found a job, even a menial one, he would be discharged as soon as his employer became aware of his identity. Now, ten years after the attack, he is living outside the country again, since he is unemployable in his homeland.

And, regardless of Mr. Breivik’s admission that his admiration for Fjordman was a ruse, Fjordman is still widely known as “Breivik’s mentor”.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

I won’t go into the Breivik affair in great detail, since this is primarily a reminiscence about the effect the atrocity had on Gates of Vienna and the Counterjihad in general. To learn more, check out the archives for the period from July 22, 2011 to ca. November 2011. Or look up the relevant items in the Fjordman Files. The trial of Anders Behring Breivik sucked up a lot of our blogging oxygen in the spring of 2012; see Circus Breivik for a relevant sample.

Because Gates of Vienna was the main venue for Fjordman’s writings, and was mentioned repeatedly in the killer’s manifesto, this site was put under the media’s klieg lights beginning the day after the massacre. We were thrust into a prominence we had never seen before (or since). It was a hideous kind of fame that I would never have asked for — they say there’s no such thing as bad publicity, but my experience in the summer of 2011 makes me vehemently disagree.

In the first few weeks we received hundreds (maybe thousands) of emails. Some of them were simply requests for information, but they were mostly hate mail, sometimes in Norwegian and Swedish. Various media outlets wanted to contact Fjordman, and I dutifully passed the messages on to him, but he didn’t respond to any of them.

The number of comments at Gates of Vienna (which was still on blogspot at the time) rose into the hundreds for each post, many of them from obvious trolls and provocateurs employed by one or another state intelligence service. They soon became unmanageable, so we reluctantly closed the blog to comments for a couple of months. When we reactivated them, we made them subject to moderation, and they’ve been that way ever since. It’s frustrating and annoying for commenters to have to wait to see their contributions appear, but otherwise Dymphna and I would have been unable to cope with all the trolls and provocateurs.

By the beginning of the week following the attack, media outlets started contacting me. They somehow managed to obtain my phone number, and I received calls from newspapers in Norway and the UK. Needless to say, I declined to say anything to them.

During our fifteen minutes of lurid fame we were mentioned in The New York Times and The Washington Post, among other illustrious publications. The following report from the NYT told its readers that Anders Behring Breivik had commented on Gates of Vienna several times:

What they said was quite true. Fortunately, I had already been alerted to the fact by a European contact, who told me the pseudonym that had been used by Mr. Breivik, so I was able to track down all his comments. Some people urged me to delete them, but that’s not the way we do business here at Gates of Vienna. First of all, nothing ever disappears completely from the Internet; it can always be found in the Wayback Machine or other web archives. But more importantly, I don’t believe in hiding the truth, whether it makes me look bad or not. So I collected all of the Butcher’s comments and reposted them.

Other things published by major media outlets, particularly the British tabloids, were not as accurate. The Washington Post published my name and something about me that was completely, factually false. I sent them an email demanding that they retract and correct their error, but I knew that nothing would happen. All I could do was post about what they did and ridicule them. If I had been a famous movie actress or best-selling novelist who could afford to retain high-powered lawyers, I might have had more success. But the WaPo knows it has nothing to fear from minnows like me.

Other papers, especially the tabloids, published even more ludicrous falsehoods about Gates of Vienna — who we were associated with, where we got our funding, etc., etc. And they asserted various bogus things about other people in the Counterjihad whom I knew personally — so-and-so is funded by the Koch Brothers, or the Mossad, or whatever. Just absolute nonsense.

That summer taught me not to believe ANYTHING that I read in the media unless it is corroborated by multiple independent sources and has a breadcrumb trail that leads back to verifiable facts. Which doesn’t leave much. Reading media news reports has become a form of entertainment for me, like reading mystery novels or watching The Simpsons.

The general effect on the Counterjihad was catastrophic. A lot of sites, especially those in Europe, closed down for good. A number of Counterjihad activists I knew personally soiled their breeches and fled the field at the first whiff of grapeshot. I must admit that I became exasperated with them — I said, “You knew how serious this work was when you got into it. What did you think we were doing, playing tiddlywinks??”

However, in retrospect, I’ve had to acknowledge that they did what they had to do. Unlike me, most of them had day jobs. They stood to lose a lot if they were exposed. Some of them had families to support. I can’t judge them. They dropped out of sight, and I haven’t heard from them since.

A few people urged me to shut down Gates of Vienna. But my Scots blood comes to the fore at such times, and my natural response is defiance. I said, “F**K THAT S**T!” [emphasis in the original] and soldiered on. It was a rough time, and I didn’t get much sleep for the first couple of months. But we weathered the storm.

On the whole, however, it was a major setback from which the Counterjihad never fully recovered. The resistance to Islamization has never returned to the level of July 21, 2011. Freedom of speech has been eroded even further, and sharia is now de facto in force in much of the West.

Dymphna and I always thought that Anders Behring Breivik’s machinations had been guided and assisted by a certain three-letter agency with the assistance of Norwegian intelligence. His “compendium” was obviously in large part not his own work, and his selection of “mentors” was exquisitely chosen to do maximum damage to those who opposed Islamization, at the exact time when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was in the thick of collaborating with the Muslim Brotherhood in what eventually became known as the “Istanbul Process”. Resistance to Islam was a thorn in her side, and Anders Behring Breivik helped remove it.

I don’t think mass slaughter was part of the plan, however — the Norwegians would never have co-operated with such an operation. I think the intention was to let Mr. Breivik put together his scheme, and then roll it up at the last moment before it was executed. There would have been a prominent arrest, followed by maximum media publicity for his manifesto.

However, just before the plans matured, Wikileaks released a damaging series of documents showing some of the things [agency name redacted] had been up to in Europe, which forced them to shut down their presence in the American embassy in Oslo and withdraw Mr. Breivik’s handlers. The Butcher of Utøya was then let off his leash, and the rest is history.

Whether mass slaughter was intended or not, the plan was a great success. The Counterjihad was hobbled, the spread of sharia proceeded apace, and the Obama administration became a servant of the Muslim Brotherhood. And the Biden administration is, in effect, Obama’s third term.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

Before I close these remarks, I’d like to address an appalling issue that has emerged surrounding the mass murder committed by Anders Behring Breivik. When it first came up it was very distressing, but I’ve had ten years to get used to it. Now it’s just something that I have to endure whenever the topic is broached on this site.

In those early days I was shocked by the number of people who supported Mr. Breivik and considered him a hero for what he did. And I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and Aryan supremacists, but more mainstream people who oppose mass immigration and hate socialism. Every time I post something about the Butcher of Utøya they pop up again and express their admiration for him.

I’m not going to tolerate such comments, and will delete them when they appear. You might as well spare yourself the effort. If you want, you can visit Storm Front and similar sites and make your remarks there, where you’ll get a sympathetic reception and find a lot of people who agree with you.

I’m familiar with the arguments that people make to justify their opinion: Mr. Breivik was targeting future socialists, who would otherwise have grown up and entered politics and invited even more of the Third World into Norway. But that’s a specious line of reasoning, in my opinion. The mass slaughter only hardened public opinion against those who oppose mass immigration, and made it even more difficult to restrain such immigration. Killing all those kids inspired no sympathy for the Aryan cause; it had the opposite effect.

But that’s just the practical, utilitarian argument against it.

Mr. Breivik’s strategy was a recapitulation of one of the major trends of the 20th century: the mass extermination of entire classes of people. For him it was Young Socialists. For Hitler it was Jews, gypsies, communists, homosexuals, and the feeble-minded. For Stalin it was counter-revolutionaries, “wreckers”, the bourgeoisie, kulaks, and Ukrainians. For Pol Pot it was the intellectuals. For the Hutus it was the Tutsis. For Muslims it was Jews, Christians, Hindus, and other infidels.

What all the architects of those atrocities have in common is that they considered it morally justifiable, and even laudable, to engage in the mass slaughter of people based on their membership in a particular class — a race, a social class, an occupation, a nationality, etc. Individuals meant nothing. Those who engineered the massacres were not required to determine whether their victims were guilty of any crimes, or even subscribed to a particular ideology. They were members of a class, and for that reason they deserved to die. Men, women, children, invalids, the elderly and enfeebled — all had to go.

That is a pernicious mindset, and I’ll have none of it. It was the bane of the 20th century, and we’ve no business extending it into the 21st.

I know the counter-arguments — we’re in a war, and war sometimes requires us to do horrible things, etc., etc. If we want to win, we have to grit our teeth and do what is necessary.

Well, if that’s what it takes to win, then I don’t want to win. I’ll go down to defeat rather than jump into that particular boxcar to hell.

Och, Weep for the Puir Wee Bairns!

After the heartstrings of the Western world had been sufficiently tugged by the migration-loving media, the 572 “rescued” “refugees” from the Ocean Viking were finally allowed to land in Sicily.

Many thanks to Hellequin GB for translating this article from PolitikStube:

Successful pity tour: Ocean Viking is allowed to unload 572 people looking for supplies in Italy

The pity tour (tension, exhaustion, heat, seasickness, psychological cases) of the Ocean Viking crew and the show à la Hollywood were worth it; the 572 guests on board can be unloaded in Italy. As Welt.de reports, the migrant ferry has already reached and docked the port of Augusta in Sicily. After the Corona tests, those looking for supplies are allowed to leave the ship, including 183 minors, of which 159 are children and adolescents unaccompanied by adults, and two severely physically disabled children as well as a pregnant woman.

Before the redeeming news of the allocation of a “safe haven” came, the tear glands were vigorously activated. Every hour the situation on board would worsen and the psychological cases would increase. A man even jumped overboard into the Mediterranean because he felt that he could no longer withstand the uncertainty. The food rations would also no longer be sufficient.

A video shows how desperate and exhausted some of the guests were on board; well, the impression can also be deceptive.

The following video from minute 0:31 shows the man who jumped into the water because of the uncertainty and was picked up again.