Introduction
From Lee Merritt to Mike Yeadon to some other gatekeepers not even on the list yet, it is important to take note of how these people operate. The people that rules this world provides us gatekeepers across a wide spectrum to make sure they cover as many people as possible.
To easily spot this, especially on the topic of health, one needs to study the subject of virology to a point where it is easy to see that no virus has ever been isolated. The introduction to the Mike Yeadon - Another Case of Lee Merritt article was mainly focused on understanding this concept. Of course, one can get lost in the more complicated techniques downstream of what they refer to as “isolation” but this would be unnecessary as isolation alone is enough proof of its none existence.
The below image in my view is perfectly suited for the information discussed in this article as the fox not only represents the cunning nature of some of these gatekeepers but also represents the logo of one of the fastest-growing “alternative” news channels promoting them. This channel, The Vigilant Fox, compiled a list of people they promote and I thought it would be a challenge to find one person or group which they promote which is not gatekeeping. More of that is further down in the article (the list they promote can be viewed here).
The Subtleties of Gatekeeping
One can blow the argument into the realm of illogical arguments by saying that every piece of information put out there is gatekeeping. It can be argued that you are trying to direct people to your way of thinking with the information you put out. The line in the sand for me however is truth. I don’t do this chasing likes or subscribers but to share the truth no matter how painful it might be. I have lost a few Twitter accounts trying to share this message one of which was 12 years old at the time it was terminated.
The Head Scratchers
Some of these gatekeepers do flip-flops and jump back and forth between supporting the two sides of the argument and it only becomes apparent once you draw up a timeline of when they brought out information as opposed to trying to make sense of videos being mirrored and circulated on the web. We have done two previous articles showing how these sorts of gatekeepers operate:
Gatekeeping In Plain Sight
A few more irrelevant, yet still important, gatekeepers also need to be mentioned which apply a more subtle way of gatekeeping. They appear to have no skin in the game but on closer investigation, you can see that they push a narrative even though not blatantly.
Before we discuss them I’d like to show, by looking at an interview that was done by Del Bigtree, how these gatekeepers operate. Knowing that Del is a gatekeeper, as discussed in the GatekeeperClub article, this interview (or see link below) teaches a lot about how they manage perception when they do in fact present information they are not really interested in promoting.
In the introduction of the video, it is clear that Del’s followers have almost begged him to get Andrew Kaufman on his show, which he managed to put off for a long time. Note how he allows Andrew to speak for about 10mins where after he starts to lead the conversation. He asks the question of whether it is not perhaps an old sickness (such as the cold, at 12mins 45secs). A message that is much the same as what Yeadon now repeats… Coincidence? Perhaps…
The next point Del brings up is crucial to understand. He jumps to the genome sequencing issue and knows that Andrew would have a lot to say about it because he is well-versed on the topic. It is however impossible for anyone new to this subject to understand anything on the topic of genome sequencing.
After this Del continues to misguide the conversation by stating that a “new” theory, called terrain theory, is showing its head more and more but he knows fairly well that this is a blatant lie. Terrain theory is just as old as germ theory and the two competing concepts have been at each other's throats for centuries. He also asks Andrew to explain terrain theory and how it differs from germ theory, which is a very complex concept to describe for people that have never heard of it before.
Del continues after this to try and ask Andrew a question of why people are getting sick as he plays clips of previous people on his show and representatives talking about asymptomatic carriers. When he eventually asks the question it has been done in such a way that maximize confusion. The words are do you think that the reason we become sick is because of “things that may exist inside of us by nature”. Although this is true there is a slim chance that people new to this information would understand what is going on.
After this Del misdirects the conversation further by playing a clip of Kyle-Sidell, the hot propaganda at the time, which further pushes the virus lie.
One of his last questions is probably the most telling and is as follows:
“Do you believe this is RNA that comes from inside of us? Is it this RNA that is having an ill effect on a certain population which is similar around the world or do you think that we are just lumping in a bunch of different ailments and making it into a dis-ease”
The mental gymnastics exercised during this interview is certainly not done without a deep understanding of the subject and a well-laid-out script. Only someone that knows the subject would be able to navigate around the important points the way Del did during this interview. There was almost nothing gained from having Andrew on his show as Del pretended throughout the entire interview that there is something else making us sick, which he referred to as “RNA” and occurs in us by nature.
It is crucial to see and understand how these people operate and to pay attention to the words they use and the subtle ways in which they put focus on irrelevant nonsense. Obviously, for someone new to the subject this information would all be gibberish but if you understand what the heart of the problem is you would see that Del is full-on gatekeeping to keep the conversation where he can control it. Note how he leads the conversation, which is not something that someone with very little understanding of the subject would do. If he really did not know a lot about the topic he would have let Andrew lead the conversation and allow him to start where he knows people would gain the most from the interview. None of what they discussed touches on the issues addressed in my previous two articles:
One final note, for anyone still lost on where to start. It is the “isolation” process, proven to be flawed in so many studies (with their failed controls) as well as the failed infection studies which can be reviewed in the Virology - The Damning Evidence article.
The Subtle Ways of Gatekeeping
It should be noted that although the below channels are discussed in this article they were not added to the GatekeeperClub list because they are either on the border of being relevant to the subject or they do actually promote a lot of no virus people when claiming to accept terrain theory. Having to draw the line of where to stop adding people to the list it’s probably best we stop at Real Jerm Warfare who is currently a borderline case. It was however deemed necessary to point out what they are busy with.
Man In America
Before tackling Man In America I would like to disclose that I knew nothing about him. Only after one of my friends started pointing fingers at him I had a look at what he was doing.
It started with my friend having a fallout with Man In America. He pointed out to him on Twitter that he was pushing the virus lie and that he was not allowing for balanced coverage of both sides of the argument. Man In America lashed out saying that people are trying to smear his name for no reason and that all he does is give out biased information. He did, however, arrange an interview with Thomas Cowan after this interaction and we thought that this would be the end of it. Usul felt bad about pushing him and wrote the following tweet to thank him for considering Cowan. We gave him an opportunity to see both sides and thought (at the time) that he was doing the right thing in promoting both sides of the argument. We had a look at the interview that was fairly good but was posted on Cowan’s page (link here) but not on any channel run by Man In America.
Two weeks passed without Man In America uploading his interview with Cowan and we got restless. So of course we started asking questions. We thought that the best point to highlight to him would be the intro of the interview with Cowan where he told Man In America that “we would like to believe that you are sincere” (the video can be seen here). Usul further pointed out that Man In America not only deleted the tweet in which he claimed Usul was wrong in his accusations that he is deliberately pushing only one side of the argument but that he also did not upload the Cowan interview (see the tweet here). To everyone’s surprise, Man In America replied to our questions with a screenshot of his interview with Cowan which can be seen below (the tweet can be reviewed here).
With Man In America’s unique gatekeeping tactic, he made this article for hiding information in plain sight. The best way to describe this is with a comparison screenshot of the thumbnail image and title of the videos he uploaded to Rumble as seen below (the videos can be reviewed here, here, and here). This was pointed out to him on Twitter here, to which he had no reply.
To round off the Man In America channel, he further typed a detailed reply to our video where we took a snipped of the section in his own interview where Cowan stated that “we would like to believe you are sincere”. This must have made some impact because he opened up to tell us exactly what he thinks of us. His words are as follows (link to comment here):
“The full interview was posted to my Twitter profile as are all my other videos, but it appears the person who published this video just couldn't find it so he/she proceeded to cast dispersions on my character. The video is not posted to my channel here on Odysee for one simple reason—I don't post here. I post to Rumble and for uncensored topics I post to Youtube, which then syncs with Odysee. So the only things that get posted here are what I post on Youtube. There's nothing more to it.
A few random Twitter people with fake names had no bearing on my decision to interview Dr. Tom Cowan. I interviewed him, as well as Drs Malone and McCullogh because I believe there are things to learn from many many people, I'm searching for the truth, and I'm not so arrogant to believe I already know all the answers.
But since you seemingly already do, why don't you conduct your own interviews and make your own presentations here and actually do something useful in this battle of good and evil, instead of attacking your own?”
Our response to this is just as important to understand the workings of gatekeepers and can be seen below (comment here):
@ManInAmerica, although your comment here might be perfectly worded your insults of "random" and "fake" twitter users does not go unnoticed. To go one step further and insinuate that we sit around doing nothing "useful" show that you probably only interview people without doing your own due diligence.
Your out-of-character title and thumbnail for Cowan's video, by merely comparing it to that of McCullough and Malone is obvious. Not just does this burry the message, as clear from the confusion you have created with people specifically looking for the video, but it highlights your intention or lack thereof to deal with this sort of information.
What we do is probably the most important thing anyone can do in this space, and that is to highlight the truth. No matter how distasteful you might find it. We have shown the links over and over of how McCullough and Malone is tied to pharma companies hence our criticism of how this was handled by yourself. We, on the other hand, welcome any criticism on our work and I really mean ANY.
Perhaps you will also find the same value in the words of JFK we have, so I will leave that for you here -
Real Jerm Warfare
We also had a run-in with Real Jerm Warfare (Jerm) and our conversation began with us pointing out to him that he was being promoted by The Vigilant Fox. A channel that has been described in detail in the Gatekeeper Club article (the one channel that promotes them all). With some light encouragement, we hinted that he should not let this gatekeeping channel taint his good name as shown in the below tweet (link to the tweet here).
@user024x pointed out on this thread that he has even boasted about hosting some of the very channels that are heavily promoted by The Vigilant Fox channel and his list can be seen below (link to the tweet here).
At the time of our above conversation, I was not aware of how deep his involvement in the gatekeeper community stretches and although I was surprised by the big number of gatekeepers on his list I did not feel the need to push too hard on this point. Interestingly he did end up promoting the idea that you can listen to anyone to learn new information and that also includes the devil, as shown in the tweet here. My response to this was simply to laugh and the conversation stopped there.
In a more recent encounter, the team however lost their patients a bit as Jerm promoted RFK Jr. The start of the thread can not be shown because Jerm deleted the tweet. We can however show @TrevorJukes1’s tweet in response to Jerm’s retweet of one of RFK jr’s tweets (link to the tweet here).
The thread on this one gets wild as Jerm tries and evade the question of why he is promoting gatekeepers. It seems that his stance is that one could learn something new from anyone as detailed in our first encounter where he provided information on Satanism to my question of whether he would encourage people to listen to the devil preach in church on Sunday. Please understand that my point in mentioning this is not to attack him from a religious viewpoint but rather to show the extreme in his approach. It is not a religious matter but rather one of providing earnest information to meet the expectation of your viewers. Satanism to churchgoers is equivalent to pharma-approved information to people that are opposing pharma…
It is difficult to detail what happened in this thread in the order it took place because things happened so quickly. He tried over and over to get us to back off by saying people can learn something good from anyone. Even referring to the words of Bruce Lee; “Then, as Bruce Lee said, dismiss what is not valuable and adopt what is. Easy.” (link to tweet here). The tweet that blew it up for Jerm was after he stated that (link to tweet here):
It really doesn't. If Person A says something that is true, then that comment is true.
My reply to this was as follows (link to tweet here):
Why don't you focus on the individual words and say if a word in a sentence is truth then that person is telling the truth. You sound like a politician.
After this, all hell broke loose as he blocked three people commenting on this thread pointing out how he is promoting gatekeepers. The link to the thread discussing this can be viewed here.
What he refuses to admit is the fact that, as shown in the introduction of this article, it is impossible for people, new to this type of information, to distinguish between what information is useless and what is valuable. It is impossible for new users to find 1 truth between 1000 lies as I stated to him (link to tweet here):
You know exactly what I'm saying. If ppl don't understand the bigger plan promoting ideas blindly is useless. Like I said, it is equivalent to saying a sentence is truthful bc some words in it is the truth. Hiding 1 truth in 1000 lies is not someone promoting truth.
He had a failed attempt at damage control as a big account shared how badly he was managing his meltdown after being called out for promoting a gatekeeper (link to tweet here). He pretended to want to make peace and “extended an olive branch” after he so graciously unblocked all of us (link to tweet here). He did this while writing two tweets still going after us which can be viewed here and here.
When I pointed out to him that he might have some perverted understanding of what words mean for saying that he extended an olive branch but still going after us in his feed he blocked me again (link to tweet here).
Conclusion
One of the people that left a comment on the GatekeeperClub article wanted to know what the definition of a gatekeeper is. To put it in simple terms it can be defined as follows:
A gatekeeper is someone spreading a different message than what they know to be the truth for a purpose not disclosed to the people that follow them.
For people linked to pharma, this is easily established. For the others promoting weaponized narratives, it is not as obvious but still easy to decipher for most. For the subtle gatekeepers it is probably most tricky to figure out what they are doing but if you pay attention to what they say and what they do, things become clear enough to point them out. Here are the words of G Edward Griffin explaining how people with power attain money and how they spend it freely to attain more power.
I’d also like to leave you with the words of Quantum of Conscience Archive where he explains that we should never be too arrogant to assume we're the only ones not fooled! Link to the video here.
Join the following telegram groups for more information on gatekeepers.
"A gatekeeper is someone spreading a different message than what they know to be the truth for a purpose not disclosed to the people that follow them."
I think it's more than that. A Gatekeeper's job is specifically to guard the gates (of something). They will engage in distraction, deflection, obfuscation, limited hangout, etc. etc. in order to SPECIFICALLY guard the gates of a certain subject.
Nice definition of gatekeeper.
I was having a similar discussion this week with friends about whether or not a particular individual was gatekeeping.
My own definition boils down to whether or not they are up front about permitted topics. If yes then they are not gatekeeping, but are instead defining conversational boundaries. This is perfectly reasonable. It sets clear expectations for guests and audience, and presents an honest choice for whether or not to participate.
Some people struggle with that.
Not being allowed to discuss a particular topic, or even being mocked for doing so. They may conflate their personal feelings about a topic with being gatekept.
There are good reasons not to discuss certain topics. Perhaps they put the platform at risk, or perhaps they are just a subjective waste of time, an intellectual time sink. It’s important to introspect and consider these possibilities instead of jumping to nefarious conclusions.
On gatekeepers themselves, they do serve a useful purpose.
Truth must be individually known. While it is certainly important to “tell the truth”, this alone won’t make it sink in for another. Each individual must **realise** the truth, which occurs via individual discernment. That skill is honed on the ‘battlefield’ of gatekeepers and liars, by learning to distinguish good from bad.
It’s less about learning from the nuggets of truth gatekeepers sprinkle into their cauldrons, and more about understanding their methods and sharpening one’s discernment claws in the process.
I have a bit more to say on the individuals themselves, but I’ll save that for a separate comment.