Is Naomi Klein “Othering” Me Due to Family Ties to Vaccine Money?

The writer, Naomi Klein, wrote a whole book, Doppelgänger: A Trip Into the Mirror World, weirdly, I gather, centering on me.

I have intentionally not read it yet, and I had hoped not to have to do so.

But I may have to; because I uncovered such a stunning conflict of interest — the Klein family, and extended family’s, interests, awash in Pharma money directly tied to vaccines.

I have tried until now to stay above what seemed to me to be simply an out-of-the-blue mean-girl eighth-grade level one-sided spat (with textbook stalker qualities thrown in). I did not wish to have someone else’s preoccupation with me in that context, impose itself into my consciousness. But the money trail I uncovered forces me to speak.

Like many women (and men) in public life, I have had stalkers before. Indeed, his expertise in counterstalking was what led me to hire my now-husband Brian O’Shea to make my stalkers at that time go away.

I know from having been targeted by stalkers before that this disorder has five standard ways of progressing. It is not unusual for this disorder to lead people who suffer from it to project onto the target of their attention the notion that the two of them are in an intimate relationship that does not exist; to cyberstalk them online; to observe their public appearances; to spread rumors about them; to track their behavior; to imagine that the subject is already part of the stalker (“my Doppelgänger,” she calls me), and that the target will eventually be forced to merge into the stalker to “complete” him or her.

Given what I have lived through in the past, I wanted no part of any writer’s obsession about me in my consciousness. Imagine the red flags it would send up to all if a male intellectual insistently described a totally unrelated, very different female writer as being in fact his own projection — his own “doppelgänger” or personal double; spent hours ruminating about her and watching her videos, and then went public with this preoccupation.

I do not know that Ms Klein has undiagnosed (or inadequately treated) erotomania, which is the term for this kind of obsession. But the evidence of an unhealthy preoccupation, that keeps crossing my unwilling path, is concerning. I keep being startled by reporters contacting me to ask me, for instance, about intimate things that Ms Klein claims I said to her that I do not believe I would ever have said, or about conversations she claims that we had, of which I have no memory.

I had an upsetting exchange with a Swedish reporter, who is covering both Klein’s book Doppelgänger and my book, which is no doubt a rebuttal of hers, Facing the Beast: Courage, Faith and Resistance in a New Dark Age.

The reporter said something like this: that Klein believes that when I was cancelled and deplatformed from Twitter, I ceased, in effect, to exist. “But here you are,” the reporter said, with something of an amused flourish, gesturing at my face on the Zoom screen; I was obviously alive at that moment, speaking to her, outside of Klein’s imagination.

We both then spontaneously spoke about that phase in child development that takes place from about a year and a half to two years old, when a child thinks that if she or he does not see the caregiver, that that person has ceased to exist.

Sigmund Freud discusses this issue in his book Beyond the Pleasure Principle, Group Psychology and Other Works (1920), in describing the “Fort-Da!” game his grandson played — throwing away a toy and retrieving it. The child’s discovery that people and things continue to live a life apart, when the toddler cannot see them, is a revelation to the child.

Psychologist Donald Winicott points out, in Playing and Reality, that “transitional objects,” such as Teddy bears, that allow the child to let a parent leave and have a life of her own, and then return, represent an an important part of the development of a healthy persona. Healthy children, and then healthy adults, can treat others as separate people and not as extensions of their own selves. This is what came to be called “object relations theory.”

As child psychologist Melanie Klein pointed out, “splitting” the love object into two “selves” is part of human development, but for most people it is a process that resolves. A child’s development involves “splitting” the caretaker into “good” and “bad” mirror images of each other. “Central to object relations theory is the notion of splitting, which can be described as the mental separation of objects into “good” and “bad” parts and the subsequent repression of the “bad,” or anxiety-provoking, aspects (Klein, 1932; 1935).

Infants first experience splitting in their relationship with the primary caregiver: The caregiver is “good” when all the infant’s needs are satisfied and “bad” when they are not. Optimally, as the child continues to develop, he or she becomes intellectually capable of considering the mother, or any other object, as a separate whole, not a split-off, “bad” part of the child’s self; rather, as an individual with good and bad elements integrated.”

But trauma can interrupt that process. There is something in trauma therapy called “The Splitting Defense Mechanism.” This is from the counseling website BetterHelp:

“What is the Splitting Defense Mechanism?”

“Splitting is a common defense mechanism. It refers to the tendency to “split” people, things, beliefs, or situations into one of two extreme categories: either good or bad. It’s a defense mechanism because it can be helpful in some situations. It’s the brain’s way of making sense of complex situations to decide where danger may lie so it can help us avoid that option. However, in many other situations, it can be an incredibly limiting and even damaging mindset.”

I am uneasy being seen as living in a “mirror world” and as having no existence apart from a projection emanating from this person totally unrelated to me.

The denial of the separate personhood of others is typical of narcissists and of borderline personalities, and also of sociopaths. Denying the separate personhood of others is also, we all know, or used to know, the kind of “othering” that can lead to sexism and exploitation, on one end of the spectrum, and all the way to rape or slavery or even genocide, on the other.

This brutal “othering” in general is part of the warning I have been giving about the dehumanization and violence inherent in recent language changes and language practices. If I don’t really exist, why not “other” me to death, at least reputationally? Why not say anything about me?

If I live in a “mirror world” of MAGA screamers who are defined as hateful, instead of in America along with Klein and her friends with whom some people simply disagree, why not just wipe out, incarcerate, or quarantine-camp us, the “mirrored” others? Our “world” is not a real world but a simulacrum. Our personhood is not as real as Klein’s and her friends’.

As a rape survivor, my PTSD is most triggered when people treat me as if I don’t exist — that is, as if I am not a separate person worthy of dignity for my own sake, as opposed to being seen through the lens of some exploitation or use they can make of me. Why is that so upsetting? Because that denial of my personhood, that use of me, regardless of my will or reality, was exactly how my rapist treated me.

“Othering” is dangerous. And the language of projection that denies the separate personhood — even the legitimacy of the world — of the “other” — can also lead to danger. Psychological “splitting,” as described above, can also be dangerous.

The most dangerous stalkers, as Brian O’Shea informed me — confirming what security specialist Gavin de Becker, whom I had consulted long before in relation to yet another stalker at that time, had told me then — tend to become more and more graphic and detailed about the kinds of violence they will do to the targets of their obsession. General threats are not as important.

Brian O’Shea reads my stalker letters and emails to assess the detail of the violence. If it is a vague threat, it is not as serious as, “I will attack you on Saturday at noon, with a machete, when you go to Synagogue for Rosh Hashana.” (I am paraphrasing a real threat that I received in 2014, that led me to hire Brian O’Shea).

So, knowing what I do about obsessed people musing about violence, I was not comforted by Naomi Klein’s rumination on violence against “doppelgängers,” that she shared in the New York Times, having defined me in that essay as her purported “Doppelgänger”:

I am not comforted by this alarming image which the New York Times chose to illustrate Klein’s meditation on poisoning of, even murder of, “doppelgängers”:

It’s easy to overlook, as we glance through our digital news feeds, but this is a sadistic image. Is that blood in the mouths of the larger, androgynous “doppelgängers?” Is it blood in the mouths of the animals? The smaller androgynous human figures who are not bleeding at the mouth — if that is indeed blood; who are in fact smiling — are strangling the animals who are bleeding at the mouth. The larger, bleeding doppelgängers — who look as if they are in pain — are trying to stop the smaller, smiling ones’ aggression against the animals. And what are these evidently bleeding, strangled animals? Are they dogs?

Or — are they wolves?

I was married at one time to the former op-ed editor of the New York Times, so I know that a great deal of care and thought go into the choice of art for this section of the newspaper. Who at the New York Times commissioned or selected this image? Why? If it was commissioned, what direction was the artist given?

I am not comforted by the fact that a key “Doppelgänger” reference is to a 1993 slasher horror film in which the heroine’s double has murderous intentions: “A woman is attacked mercilessly and murdered by a knife-wielding woman who very much resembles our main character, Holly Gooding (played by Drew Barrymore). [Barrymore] believes she is being followed by her doppelganger, who is performing horrendous deeds.” “New York heiress Holly Gooding (Drew Barrymore) kills a relative who’s looking to push her out of the family fortune. Or is it an evil doppelganger?” Is the evil twin real, or does the heroine suffer from multiple personality disorder? One promo for the film cites “the evil within”.

Klein’s book cover by Macmillan, which creepily appears to merge our two faces, references and is a pastiche of the promotional material for this 1993 horror film:

It’s unnerving to me, this subject of this writer’s obsession, that the book cover itself references a slasher film about “doubles,” filled with grotesque levels of brutality.

I don’t think I am in physical danger. Brian does not think Ms Klein is a physical threat to me, and neither do I. As Brian points out, you often don’t need to worry about the stalker him- or herself. But he adds too that you do need to worry, often, about the obsessed person’s followers. An unstable reader, seeing the hatred and the violent imagery directed my way, could in turn become violent. This cover, this verbal musing, this newspaper art, are all conveying threatening images and messages that center on me — I, who am a real person.

What message is being sent by this author publicly invoking instances of violence, including a real murder and a real attempted poisoning, against “doppelgängers,” including me overtly in that category? What message is being sent to readers by the violent image that the New York Times selected to accompany this rumination on violence against “doppelgängers?” What message sends a cover that references a bloody slasher film about a female double?

Even this disturbing content I have been ready to overlook, since I am busy, as this audience knows, helping Amy Kelly and the WarRoom DailyClout volunteers save lives every day by bringing out the dangers and harms of the mRNA injections.

But I learned something in the past few days that could also explain some of the animus Klein displays toward me. And her motivation may not only be psychological. It could be financial.

Why, I’ve asked myself, would a distinguished writer — author of Shock Doctrine and No Logo, important books — spend two of the peak years of her career on a book that cyberstalks me, a writer who has never, as far as I can recall, met her, and whose work has nothing to do with hers?

We now may know more about some possibilities.

Klein has a husband, Avi Lewis, activist and son of a major Marxist politician in Canada, who, as Klein was turning in her book and then starting on her book tour, became a spokesperson for a multibillion dollar Canadian Pharmaceuticals policy.

Lewis was booked by “PharmaCare” to host pro-Pharma ‘round tables’ and ‘town halls,’ even while his wife was attacking me globally.

The “Council of Canadians” appears to have tasked or employed Lewis to front for “many” events to support a “PharmaCare NOW!” campaign.

PharmaCare is a Health Canada policy that would use Canadian taxpayers’ money to underwrite the $42 billion of pharmaceuticals that Canadians use a year (nearly doubled in a decade).

More from Lewis’ colleagues or, potentially, employers:

Here is Lewis on Instagram — in his role as the multi-city event convener for PharmaCare. He is, as he asserts, Googling a scientist whose work helped to discover insulin, and praising him for giving the patent to the University of Toronto, “unlike big pharma” for a “loonie” (Canadian dollar).

Grassroots activists! Not Big Pharma! See, we wear lumberjack checks and stand on statues!

But “PharmaCare NOW!”, the policy for which this image is campaigning, is in fact Big Pharma.

PharmaCare would be the Pharma boondoggle to end all boondoggles; it would take all the risk out of pharmaceutical sales, handing over taxpayer dollars to Pharma interests for, basically, a blank check every year. Pharma companies would no longer be subject to the vicissitudes of the market; they could no longer lose 30 percent of net revenue, as we and others forced Pfizer to do by driving down the company’s value via telling the truth about mRNA injections. Big Pharma would be set forever, far beyond their current revenue streams, and with no need to be competitive in markets; indeed, with no need to deliver quality products at all competitively, because they would have a single customer forever: the Canadian government.

Here is Mr Naomi Klein at the launch of his multi-city pro-Pharma campaign, broadcasting presumably from the Klein household:

So there we are: what real journalists call a “conflict of interest.” Will all those MSM news articles that featured Klein’s book-length attempted takedown of my work, and that tried to censor me, now disclose this massive conflict? How much money was involved here, if money changed hands? Was this series of events funded in any way by Pharma interests? Or did Avi Lewis contribute his time, name and reputation to travel from city to city across Canada purely as a volunteer?

Any ethical journalist or news outlet knows that this conflict — a relationship with Big Pharma even as the spouse’s book is going to press and promoted worldwide — should have been disclosed to readers from the start.

Here is more, from those who booked Klein’s husband to host multiple events around Canada:

There is big money in Pharma shilling: influencers who front for Pharma interests, especially for prescription drugs, can garner thousands of dollars per tweet, according to the Guardian.

It is not just Klein’s husband aligned with Big Pharma billions. It is her father-in-law as well.

Avi Lewis’ father Stephen Lewis is a leftist globalist, with a medical focus. “In the mid-1980s, he was appointed as Canada’s United Nations ambassador, by Progressive Conservative Prime Minister Brian Mulroney. He quit in 1988 and worked at various United Nations agencies during the 1990s.…In the 2000s, he served a term as the United Nations’ special envoy for HIV/AIDS in Africa.”

Avi Lewis’ dad advocated for African babies to receive two UN-administered vaccinations, along with intrusive medical monitoring. “AIDS-Free World: In 2007, Stephen Lewis and long-time colleague Paula Donovan co-founded AIDS-Free World, a non-profit organization that advocates for more effective global responses to HIV and AIDS. As a preventative HIV/AIDS strategy, Lewis has made a somewhat controversial call for male circumcision when African boys receive the first of two UN-administered measles vaccination shots, so that their recovery progress can be monitored at the time of the second vaccination.”

What else?

“Stephen Lewis serves as the board chair of the Stephen Lewis Foundation in Canada and is a member of the Board of Directors of the Clinton Health Access Initiative, and Emeritus Board Member of the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative.” [Italics mine]

Whose organization got a $25 million dollar grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, to underwrite vaccines? That‘s correct — Naomi Klein’s father-in-law’s organization.

(Who owns patents for HIV vaccines? That’s right, Dr Anthony Fauci.)

Who put an additional $287 million toward an AIDS vaccine? Bill and Melinda Gates. Here is Naomi Klein’s father-in-law in the Globe and Mail, palling around with Gates to celebrate that money flow: “Gates Foundation Puts $287 Million toward HIV Vaccine.”

The Stephen Lewis Foundation, whose focus includes COVID education and vaccines, is not going away now that AIDS is a chronically managed, as opposed to an emergency, crisis; the Foundation also has focuses on “intersecting pandemics:”

So there we are. Two generations of multi-million dollar-potential partnerships between Pharma — specifically vaccines — and members of the Klein-Lewis household and extended family.

So what do we conclude? Yes, Klein seems personally troubled by me. And yes, I hope she gets the counseling she needs, and can move on to think about other things, including the fact that while she was spending her time preoccupied with me, Canada slid into abject tyranny. May God bless her in her torment, and keep both of us safe.

But there is a bigger picture here: powerful interests appear to have directed revenue or collaborations, or both, at the father-in-law and now at the spouse, of this writer; and may have in that way, directly or not, swayed the pen of this well-known, formerly serious intellectual.

These powerful interests may be part of the effort that sought yet again — yet again! – to take down a critic who, along with my brave and selfless colleagues, is exposing the damage and deception that these interests have inflicted, on innocent people around the world.

Me; I who am not a mirror image of anyone’s, but rather a real person, who is uncontrollable, who is no one’s projection; who speaks and writes against bullies in spite of bullying, and who refuses to comply or be silenced.

And who has no plans to stop this work, come what may.

Republished from the author’s Substack