Which?—Consumer Reviews
Which Way for Which?I decided to take out a year's subscription (£99) for this consumer-oriented publication. Surely I could learn something about various products? But I also have long-term interests and concerns. Let's see.
It seems clear that Which? looks at 'Goods that can be sold in packets to individual customers, or services that can be charged for at so much per head, [which] provide a field for profitable enterprise.' But I'll look here at higher issues. Because this piece may attract readers outside the usual groups, I've included links to my own site; use right-click to open new tabs (for most computers).
Which? Magazine inside back cover gives some detail, including roughly 150 names, including board members, archivists, researchers, and content editors. Fascinating material on which to speculate. It's impossible to tell how many are full-time; the whole thing could be a shell, for all I know, run from a suburban semi. Being experienced in such matters, I tend to assess the proportion of these people who are probably Jews, usually of course cryptos. The editor, for example, listed as Harry Rose, is a likely identifiee. Looking at the record of such publishing organisations as those of Victor Gollancz, Penguin Books, Time-Life, through to the Sunday Times, Independent and the rest, it's irritatingly clear that they have, between them and of course others such as TV channels, carried out a great number of Jewish plans and schemes.
What follows is in order of items that caught my eye, and, where excluded, failed to catch my eye. I can't think of a single thing that does not accord with Jewish policies, and their related Common Purpose/ Freemason attitudes, so far as these are identifiable.
Greg Foot ‘award-winning science broadcaster’—judging by the article, on BBC Radio 4, which surprises me by still being in existence. has a page (July 2021, p 58) The truth about environmental claims. This seems related to the US idea of 'myth busting', garbage of the 'skeptics' sort, possibly aimed against the 'Holocaust' fraud, and other Jewish stuff such as nuclear frauds, and, most important of all that I know of, the idea that the Second World War was run by world Jews to maximise goy deaths and Jew grabs.
The point I'm trying to get to is that sundry Jewish frauds, such as climate change/ the CO2 hoaxes, and decisions from smart meters to COVID, must have been adopted by Which? for very many years. Foot I'd guess in another joke, probably related to the Foot clan which originally seems to be Middle Eastern. Here's a link to my review of Private Eye to which Paul Foot had connections.
Here's Trevor Baker, guiding us through holidays: Is it safe to book them? Which? adopts the Jewish line on 'COVID' with no questions asked. It's a fascinating issue, with a fake pandemic aimed at silly people, very successfully. What its aim is, few people know. It's likely that large numbers of people will be harmed; whether Which?'s legal eagles expect the immunity to prosecution of manufacturers, a legacy of cowboy President Reagan I think, to extend to them, I have to wonder. Maybe in years to come Which? will be fatally impacted, remains to be seen.
Jews love to push one Jew into a top position, or perhaps a puppet, to deflect attention. The NHS of course has been wrecked by the combination of menacing Jews and timid biologists and epidemiologists and the rest of it. Probably the outcome will be deaths, injuries, and sell-offs to profit-seeking US corrupt corporations; but who knows?
Here we find ‘award-winning’ journalist Dean Sobers who writes on personal finance. Last year [2020] his articles ranged from travel insurance to ATM theft.'
Personal finance might include inflation and housing costs; did Dean tackle such subjects as the control of finance by private ownership of the Federal Reserve (unaudited) and the scattering of paper money? Probably not. What about costs of housing immigrants, a firm though unspoken Jewish policy? I suppose even award-winning journalists need to learn. It reminds me of BBC Budget Day 'analyses'; I can't ever remember the Jewish 'experts' expatiating on payoffs of interest on wars of long ago.
We see Patrick Gallagher on 'eco fridge freezers'. A twinge of doubt crept across me. No doubt the likely lifetime of these devices should be an important issue. And yet, given a research lab with a collection of fridges, how can the lifetime be predicted? I suppose they don't bother; or perhaps phone up the manufacturers' labs to get information.
We find Kate Bevan announcing her few quid a month for Netflix, Amazon Prime, Now TV, The Times and The New York Times. All of course part of the Jewish media damp blanket of nothingness and near-death experience for anyone with aesthetic judgement. Netflix have become notorious for their anti-white unwatchable trash; I expect some of my readers know about the various Timeses. Waiting for serious treatment of wars—well, you'll have a long wait.
A related issue is the Jewish industry of advertising, with it's insulting insertion of non-whites masquerading as British. It's astonishing how widespread this is.
Playing with the mixed font logo of Which?. This isn't the original.
Olivia Howes 'reports on fish, leading with a platitude as I suppose journalists are told to do. I remember being told many decades ago that fish are fed a diet of sewage (and moved into fresher water before being cropped). I wonder if this is still true?
All this (5 pages) is interesting, if a bit like being given PR handouts. But here again we have doubts; what about the scam of Kosher markings on food? This is fairly well-known in the USA, but seems unmentioned here, in the same way that 'Kosher' slaughter isn't mentioned in Which? But maybe M&S has a secret little mark. The same sort of thing is true in the analogous case of 'halal slaughter'.
The mess of supposed climate change, carbon 'footprint', 'green energy' must keep many supposed 'think tanks' busy. One of their ideas was Greta Thunberg—remember her? Which? clearly thinks their readership is mainly, or only, interested in silly items within their grasp—insurance against COVID, watching for scams, though Which? is annoyingly innumerate, knowing nothing about actual risks, their articles furnished with photos of slightly-less-smug-than-before elderly types.
Which? could presumably have commented on weather forecasts, which many people must have noticed are a bit of a joke. Leaving aside the question of whether there are secret and better paid versions, the whole science is suspect. For the curious, here's a link to a nearly 25-year old talk by John Mason, at Kew.
One of my interests courtesy of Frank McManus in Australia is the issue of salt in human diet. I'd carelessly though the proponents of reduction knew what they were talking about&mdas;another mistake. This turns out to be partly bequeathed by a Jewish woman 'anthropologist'. I leave a link.
One of my interests is electricity supply; is it possible, for example, to supply the whole of Africa, given its huge size? It's fascinating to try to unpick the 'nuclear power' issue, which seems to be a fraud. Just another Jewish fraud in fact, like nuclear weapons. But such things as 'smart meters', G8 (I think) transmissions, and electric cars are treated purely as consumer items. We find Ben Weinberger on thefts of catalytic converters from cars—probably part of the 'carbon' frauds, in which middle-aged women refer to CO2 as though it's a poison. Catalysts (platinum and other heavy metals) no doubt achieve little, but theft 'rose by 104% in 2020'. I've just noticed the West Midlands had 13,716 such 'incidents' in which the ceramic devices end being ground up and smelted. Fascinating to see how bad science is exploited. Interesting to note that types of criminal aren't identified; if it's a black crime, it won't be reported.
Psyops such as the Manchester Arena fake bombing, and I see [August 2021 Which?] the 2017 Grenfell inflammably-clad buildings, to be removed, get some treatment. The world of fraud, which I'm attributing here to Jews, but includes Freemasons in the police and Common Purpose (nod to 'Communist Party') and legal types, are treated seriously, by Ian Aikman here. Some readers might like my copy of a Paul Taylor video (most of his work, as 'Hoaxashian', has been removed) made in 2020 about Brigadier Tom Moore.
There are many oddities ignored by Which? such as the recent floods in Britain. In 2015 in Cockermouth and other Lake District areas had powerful flooding; I understand it was generally agreed that lack of dredging plus, no doubt, bad luck led to this. I won't speculate on these 2021 floods, but I doubt if Which? says anything helpful to householders.
Which? offers a legal helpline and advice. I'd be astonished if they give any useful advice on countering injuries caused by the COVID fraud. Or legal information on the various COVID recommendations by the Jew-Arab hybrid 'Prime Minister': are they in fact laws, or just auggestions?
What about holiday advice on (e.g.) 'COVID'; or countries under attack by Jews, such as South Africa: do they advise visits to white-owned farms? Or insurance advice against medical negligence. Or legal negligence.
I don't want to seem largely negative; I will mention (pages 30-33, July 2021) Shefalee Loth on hidden costs of delivery apps, Deliveroo, Just Eat, and Uber Eats which 'revolutionised food delivery' by TV advertising and wide coverage of many suppliers—and 'the coronavirus pandemic has accelerated this shift' as people were forbidden to move. A handy small table gives delivery fees (and 'service fees') which seem low. This is because the suppliers are charged '15-35% of the total order'. Having barely watched the TV ads, this last bit was simply unknown to me. A bit late, perhaps, of Which? to post this...
Maybe I'll add more, later. Just take my advice: don't assume large-scale tricks will be explained to you in Which? though it may work for you when buying sat-navs, kettles, or ovens. And consider the idea that members of secret societies known for their hostility ought to be put on registers analogous to sex offender registers.
For the moment, we're stuck with a situation in which Jews group together in simple self-satisfied groups, in which lying is as automatic as sheep eating grass. Keeping a completely straight face while broadcasting nonsense appears to be genetic with them. It's a curious thing to watch someone like Sophie Raworth ('English' 'senior newsreader') doing her whore impression. Just as basketball teams are made of tall people, and gymnastic teams are short, media teams at present are Jewish liars.
Which? Revisited. May 2022. A few notes: more deconstruction of Which?
'New Bill to make tech giants protect us from scams' mentions fabricated quotes from ‘Dragons' Den star Deborah Meaden’ leading a victim to an unspecified 'cryptocurrency scam'. There's a column or so of what's in the Bill. I'd guess this may be a Jewish scam itself, aimed to remove factual stuff about Jews from online sources; all they have to do is say it's 'illegal'. It's a fact that Israel is a centre for frauds of all kinds, typically preventing extradition and legal action. For some reason Which? makes no mention of any of this.
Charities are a notoriously dishonest part of economic life. They are immune from inquiries—they are allowed to refuse Freedom of Information requests. Here's an amusing recent video: Brigadier Sir Tom Moore and his NHS stunt. The AIDS frauds are another Jewish establishment money-maker.
‘Pulse oximeters removed from sale after Which? investigates’ is irritatingly typical of Which? headlines, suggesting to me that all oximeters were removed. In fact, the story turns out to mean only some have been removed—or at least supposedly—they missed several health or origin markings.
‘Why satsuma nets are sinister is a piece on the nets used for fruit, which apparently are plastic. The article misses out the obvious point that they make the colour attractive—it's why these nets are red or orange or yellow for citrus fruits.
‘Is online shopping greener?’ Fascinating piece—for (perhaps) the first time I understood why Jews repeatedly go on about carbon dioxide as a supposed poison, 'carbon emissions', carbon 'footprints', and so on. It's because (1) they want to suppress truths about possible harmful substance, and (2) want a single manipulable metric suitable for payment.
(1) They discourage comments on waste, junk, trash, since they think they can move away from it. They don't investigate vinyl tape, bubble wrap, plastic junk, damage caused by petrol and oil, micro particles in air, but only the single case of 'carbon footprint'. Something totally remote from serious considerations of damage. (2) Hence 'carbon credits, and the fantasy of Jewish payments for harm.
‘What's Happened to Built to Last?’ Fascinating rather moronic piece, with no awareness of Vance Packard and The Waste Makers of 1960-something. The obvious likelihood of intentionally flawed design isn't mentioned. It should be part of their work.
Toothpaste claims unpicked Has a three-person 'expert panel'—a Professor in Restorative Dentistry, a former editor of the Evidence-Based Dentistry Journal, and a Professor at King's College, London. The article gives 'Claims' of the advertising type, and 'Expert verdict' on just six toothpastes. Unexciting stuff. The interesting part: all but one compared these this with 'basic fluoride toothpaste', varied with one 'regular fluoride toothpaste'. There's a box Why fluoride matters (illustrated with a half-caste girl, typical of Jewish adverts) saying in effect rat poison is 'essential for cavity protection', even though calcium fluoride has a different crystalline structure than teeth. Maybe there's an undeclared reason: something to do with mercury amalgam fillings, for example. There's an oddly outdated feel for many of their bits of advice; there was an earlier one in May 2022 about drinking a lot of water, for example.
Get the best protection for your PC or MAC which professes to survey a few antivirus programs. (Doesn't include Malwarebytes). I can't believe their writer can have in-depth knowledge of the intricacies of this highly specialised software. As an illustration, Which? doubts Kaspersky on the grounds that Russia might misuse it. (Russia has of course been overtly run by Jews since 1917, and non-Jews have been hated and murdered by Jews ever since). But we are given to warnings about Jews in the USA interfering; if all computers are harmed by Microsoft in future, it'll do you no good to say you weren't warned by Which?
This leaves mobile phones and their providers, dishwashers, baked beans, and a few cars. It's fascinating to see their tables, with common features picked out, prices (recommended?), and things which users notice. Rather them than me. And of course note that the idea of a 'best buy' is a bit simpleminded; consider a dishwasher for a huge family, a multiple household or just one person.
Another issue, of interest mainly to sophisticated critics, is the undeclared Jewish nature of Which?. There's no legal obligation on them to declare this interest, and of course they go to huge lengths to hide it. They well, for example, never review Kosher butchery, or 'Halal' for that matter. I remember being told the Co-op's asset base is huge, and has been targeted for takeover, obviously with Jewish money. I'd expect there to be a long-standing policy to mark down the Co-op. This sort of issue is so common that one has to wonder whether Which? isn't just another covert pressure-group.
A huge problem is the malign influence of Jews on health. The Fauci-arranged COVID fraud over two entire years is a truly alarming example. So is the Sacklers and Oxycontin example. Which? goes along with it, like a little doggie wagging its tail. The Jewish reduce-salt-in-food campaign is another. If you haven't heard of it, which is very likely, listen to my talk with Frank McManus.
And remember. These are just a few of the huge crimes in which Jews are and have been involved, and Which?
© Rae West 30 July 2021. 25 April 2022.