"Conspiracies don't happen….here."

by Kit

The US alphabet agencies recently released some formerly classified files on JFK. There’s nothing much in them, because well…why would there be? Supposing the CIA were complicit, who’s going to release, 50 years after the event, the evidence of their own coup? We haven’t covered it here, at OffG, because it doesn’t really need any attention. It’s a charity dump, a distraction. It allows Trump to look like he’s combating the Deep State, when in fact he’s firmly on the leash. That the CIA or FBI didn’t suddenly produce proof of their complicity in JFK’s assassination is not evidence of anything.
Jonathan Freedland, writing one of his toxic editorials in The Guardian, begs to differ. The fact that CIA didn’t release any evidence they did it…is evidence they didn’t do it, according to Freedland. His column, long on mockery and self-righteous smears but short on evidence (as usual), does nothing but demonstrate three things:
1. He is only just barely acquainted with the facts of the JFK case.
2. He has no faculty for basic logical thinking.
3. He is not averse to practicing intellectual dishonesty.
If you’ve been paying even the slightest bit of attention, none of these will come as a surprise.
But this article isn’t about JFK – we’ve written about that before, and will do again. But not today. This article isn’t about Freedland’s aggressively uninformed opinions, his cloying prose or his ill-deserved sense of moral superiority. It’s about the world-view he’s trying to market between banner ads begging for money. It’s about his smug insistence that conspiracy theories just don’t happen.
Or, to be more specific, conspiracy theories don’t happen…here.
Because, despite his deep-held belief that Conspiracy Theories are dangerous, he certainly believes in a lot of them. He thinks the Russian Government poisoned Alexander Litvinenko. He thinks Vladimir Putin had Boris Nemstov shot. He thinks Russian banks have been backing the far-right in Europe and supported Brexit. And he thinks the FSB “hacked” the American presidential election in order to get their Manchurian candidate elected.
Buzz in when you spot the connection.
These are all, by definition, conspiracy theories – but they are also all things done by the other. Conspiracies happen over there. They are done by the bad guys. We don’t do them.
….except of course, when we do.
Two years ago, the idea that the US, Saudi Arabia, Israel and others had created ISIS as front for a proxy war on Syria was dismissed as a “conspiracy theory”. It has since been proven, many times over, to be completely true. That ISIS are US proxies is not a “conspiracy theory”, but a conspiracy fact.
Five years ago, anybody claiming that the NSA were secretly surveilling most of the world, including the governments of allied countries, would have been dismissed as a crazy conspiracy theorist and told to don their “tin-foil hat”. Edward Snowden’s revelations on the NSA internet and communications surveillance programme, of course, prove the accusation true. Freedland should remember this one, the story broke in his paper, his colleagues won awards for it, and their computers were destroyed on the orders of GCHQ. Why this constantly escapes the man’s memory is anyone’s guess. Regardless, NSA mass surveillance is a not a “conspiracy theory”, but a conspiracy fact.
Fifteen years ago, anybody claiming that wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were being pushed under false pretences, in order to make money for the private sector and encircle Iran…would have been dismissed as a crazy conspiracy theorist. Now we know that the WMD dossier was “sexed up”. It is not a conspiracy theory, but a conspiracy fact.
Twenty-seven years ago, anybody claiming that “Nayirah” – the Kuwaiti nurse who famously testified that Iraqi soldiers had thrown Kuwaiti babies out of incubators – was actually the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador and had never been a nurse…would have been dismissed as a crazy conspiracy theorist. This information became public knowledge in 1991, just months after her testimony had been used to stoke public support for the first Iraq war. Nayirah being a fake witness to push war propaganda is not a “conspiracy theory”, but a conspiracy fact.
Thirty-two years ago, anybody claiming that Reagan’s government were trading with Iran in order to fund and arm a proxy army in Nicaragua to overthrow the democratic government of Daniel Ortega…would have been dismissed as a crazy conspiracy theorist. However, the whole affair came to light in 1986. Iran-Contra is not a “conspiracy theory”, but a conspiracy fact.
Fifty-three years ago, anyone claiming that Gulf of Tonkin incident had been almost entirely fabricated as an excuse to launch a full-scale war against North Vietnam….would have been dismissed as a crazy conspiracy theorist. There is a mountain of evidence has been compiled since then, that proves the “incident” never really happened. The faking of the Gulf of Tonkin incident is not a “conspiracy theory”, but a conspiracy fact.
These are just six famous, high-profile examples. There are dozens of others. Conspiracies happen. All the time. Freedland’s piece is an attack on this truth, an effort to distort reality by blurring clear definitions. He claims that:

[conspiracy theorists] perennially cast the FBI and the CIA as the key tools of dark, unseen forces.

…without making any reference to decades of state-sanctioned murder, torture and destruction that earned these agencies their well-deserved reputation.
You don’t need to be deluded to think the CIA a tool of “dark forces”, you just need to study the history of Iran. Or Chile. Or Indonesia. Or Afghanistan. Or Honduras. The list of democratic governments overthrown by the US is very long. A lot those plots were considered “conspiracy theories”, until the facts of the case eventually came out.

  • Operation Northwoods was a Pentagon plan to shoot-down an American passenger plane and blame it on Cuba.
  • Operation Paperclip was a CIA plan to smuggle Nazi scientists out of Germany and employ them in covert research for the American government.
  • Operation Mockingbird was a CIA plan to recruit members into of the media into intelligence work, and use them to seed propaganda.
  • All of these would have, at some point, been dismissed as “conspiracy theory”. They are all, now, accepted historical facts. Freedland mentions none of them. A remarkable act of hypocrisy for a man so adamantly against what he calls the “post truth age”.
    Freedland would have us believe that none of these conspiracies, however well documented, actually happened. But there is another kind – the kind that definitely did happen…regardless of the lack evidence.
    Now, we turn our eyes to Russia.
    Russia, you see, is place where “conspiracy theories” are no longer dangerous. They are always appropriate and universally true. Nothing that happens in Russia is explicable by any means other than “the Kremlin”.
    In the media and state-backed push to create a great enemy for our age, there is no crime so petty it cannot be linked to Moscow, no evidence of “Russian interference” so pathetically small it won’t be splashed across the headlines.
    On the same pages where Jonathan Freedland espouses the dangers of “conspiracism”, Luke Harding blames the FSB for opening his windows.
    Just a few months ago, when a metro station in St Petersburg was bombed, the BBC suggested it was a Putin-backed false-flag within hours. No such assertion was ever made about Las Vegas. Or Westminster. Or Sandy Hook. Or Paris. Or Berlin. Or Orlando.
    That the FSB poisoned Litvinenko is treated as an unquestioned fact. That MI5 murdered Princess Diana? Nothing but a laughable absurdity. It is the shallowest, almost childlike propaganda, that beatifies its own side whilst projecting all the ills of the world into the other.
    This demonisation of Russia are then segued into demonisation of democracy. The Russians are currently accused of having meddled in every major election for years. The Scottish Independence Referendum, the Brexit vote, the American and French Presidential elections, the general elections in the UK and Germany, and the Dutch referendum on Ukraine. All were subject to phantom “interference”, yet to be substantiated by any real evidence. This groundless accusation is then used as an argument to overturn or ignore the results of democratic votes. Not all of them, you understand, only the ones where the wrong side won. Trump must be “removed” according to Freedland, and we must ignore the Brexit results.
    Even Catalonia’s vote for independence, just the latest move in a struggle hundreds of years long, has already been linked to Putin.
    Further, Russia is accused of “bankrolling the far-right in Europe”. The evidence for this? Marine Le Pen got a loan from a Russian bank “with links to the Kremlin” (whatever that means)…over ten years ago.
    There is FAR more evidence of NATO and EU supporting REAL fascists and extremists – namely Right Sector in Ukraine, and ISIS et al all over the Middle East. But, while the former is an accepted media “fact”, the latter is the subject of nothing but derision.
    Even our homegrown problems, through complex absurdities of “conspiracism”, are laid at the Kremlin’s door. In 2015, CNN and others accused Russia of “weaponising the refugee crisis”, as if they had caused it. As if Russia had forced us into the destruction of Libya, and then ordered Merkel to throw open Germany’s borders. Those in Eastern Europe who blamed Germany or the EU, notably Hungarian’s President Viktor Orban, were said to be “friends of Putin”. As if the epithet is an argument in and of itself.
    Putin and Russia have become Snowball from Orwell’s Animal Farm. An invisible but ever-present creation of the state, responsible for all our ills. And if Putin is Snowball, then Freedland, and all the media-types like him, are Squealer. Oily charlatans who twist language to suit their needs, and the needs of their employers.
    If “conspiracy theories are dangerous”, then how dangerous is it to use ridiculous allegations to undermine democracy? If Conspiracy Theories damage society, why clamp-down on honest debate by dismissing all those who disagree as “Putin-bots”? If Conspiracy Theories are so offensive, why use them to vilify Russia, and stoke up public hatred of a nuclear armed superpower?
    The author’s real point is quite clear – it’s not all conspiracy theories which are “dangerous”. Only Conspiracy Theories that investigate, undermine, or otherwise question the governments, institutions or agendas of Western countries are “dangerous”.
    Our governments do no wrong, are benign and honest. To question that is dangerous. Their governments are malign and dishonest. To question them is a duty.
    It is nothing but a long, drawn-out, argument for conformity of opinion and deadness of mind. An attack on independent thought, peppered with abuse.
    First he describes “Conspiracy Theorists” as:

    harmless potting-shed eccentrics, green-ink cranks whose tightly spaced letters could once safely be filed in the dustbin.

    …before adding:

    you might have dismissed such talk as the derangement of the bug-eyed, irrelevant fringe,

    And then finally playing the anti-Semitism card:

    so many conspiracy theorists…end up reaching the terminus of antisemitism. For antisemitism is itself often rooted in conspiracy theory: the belief that the secret hand behind world events, manipulating each and every development, belongs to the Rothschilds or George Soros or, when no euphemism is required, the Jews.

    A baseless, childish ad hominem, that makes so little sense it contradicts his own last paragraph, and shows up his quasi-delusional mindset:

    On Thursday we learned that 1,500 billionaires have now amassed $6tn of wealth, a level of inequality not seen since the Gilded Age. That’s not come about because of a secret meeting in an underground boardroom, but because of a system that is fatally flawed.

    I don’t follow his argument, “don’t talk about conspiracies when we’ve got all these billionaires to worry about” doesn’t make any sense to me. It seems he’s created some new kind of logical fallacy, the argument to inequality, a derivation of “think of the children”. It’s an odd chord for Freedland to strike, and is probably a rather desperate attempt to seem “hip” to the current issues. He certainly never wrote about the perils of inequality before Corbyn-mania swept the country.
    Regardless of the source of Freedland’s sudden Bolshevik leanings, he contradicts himself – and in so doing paints a picture of an insane world. He doesn’t acknowledge that two of these billionaires – Soros and the Rothschilds – he has already named as nothing but a “euphemism” for anti-Semitism.
    So which is it, Jonathan? Are wealthy people the problem? Or is criticising the super-rich merely a mask for racism? Why is it acceptable to cite “inequality” as a threat to the world, but crazy to blame the main beneficiaries of said inequality?
    Freedland wants us to believe we live in a world where a tiny percentage of the population control vast fortunes, but wield no political power. He decries the “flawed system”, but refuses to acknowledge that corruption or conspiracy has played any part in creating it. That is insane at best, and dishonest at worst.
    He doesn’t acknowledge the unavoidable truth that super-wealthy people will wield influence over government policy. From arms-sales, to tax loop-holes, to the push to privatise the NHS, to the war in Iraq…there are dozens of examples of political power being used to further the agenda of the rich.
    Hyper-wealthy individuals exerting influence over elected officials and using military and intelligence apparatus to further undeclared political agendas, is the very definitions of a conspiracy theory. And it happens every single day.
    If we are indeed living in the “post-truth age”, then it is not because of Donald Trump. Or Facebook. Or Russia Today.
    It is because of dishonest journalism such as you’ll find in the Guardian, or the New York Times, or Buzzfeed. Because Jonathan Freedland, and his ilk, have stopped trying to hold power to account, and instead act as spokespeople for authority. Official heralds, handing down to the proles a pre-approved consensus and an a la carte menu of opinion. Labelling as “dangerous” aNY questioning of a government organisation with a proven track-record of illegal operations, whilst constantly stoking public fear of the mythic “Russian influence”. Conjuring an entirely fictional enemy from smoke and gossip, whilst throwing real crimes against humanity down the memory hole.
    Freedland’s article, and all others like it, are an attack on reason itself. Denying our ability, and even our right, to question the motives and actions of the powerful, whilst asserting the moral rectitude of blind obedience. The Guardian is engaging in cultural policing, enforcing the unquestioned morality of the state and the system, at the expense of critical thinking and truth.
    The Reichstag Fire was a conspiracy too. The state that rose from its ashes was only able to cover up its crimes thanks to rigid programmes of state-sponsored propaganda…faithfully carried out by a compliant and controlled media.

    Kit Knightly is co-editor of OffGuardian. The Guardian banned him from commenting. Twice. He used to write for fun, but now he's forced to out of a near-permanent sense of outrage.

    Filed under: featured, Kit, On Guardian


    Kit Knightly is co-editor of OffGuardian. The Guardian banned him from commenting. Twice. He used to write for fun, but now he's forced to out of a near-permanent sense of outrage.

    newest oldest most voted
    Notify of

    A change paradigm.


    Reblogged this on liberlandraceblog and commented:
    Very interesting.


    Another conspiracy fact being proved! Tony Podesta, key Democratic lobbyist, resigns from firm amid Mueller inquiry

    kevin morris
    kevin morris

    I have supported the Soviet Union ad latterly Russia for most of my life, having been brought up to believe the WW2 story that they were our allies. It is not difficult to see that the US is dangerous and that its allies including the UK are craven. That said, it would be naieve in the extreme to assume that Russia isn’t involved in the various nefarious activities that all modern nations seem intent upon, or that Russia’s ally China doesn’t cling to the selfsame concept of manifest destiny as the Americans do. Just as many of us see through the increasingly desperate machinations of the United States, I really have no need for Freedland’s partial tales of the enemy’s duplicity for it seems that willingness to behave duplicitously is a requirement of statecraft and always was.


    Thank you for reading Friedland’s dreck so we don’t have to.




    Good article although MKUltra (in its various guises) was a strange omission.
    Freedland (and his ilk) could just be this dumb, but there are other explanations that shouldn’t be dismissed out of hand –


    Good article!
    Let me emphasize that conspiracy-theories are specifically used by our rulers to reign us. And these governments conspiracy-theories are typically pushed forward with fake optical material (photos, videos , films, CGIs).
    1.) “Gleiwitz Incident” – see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleiwitz_incident . When the Nazi-rulers wanted to make war against Poland, they forced some inmates of their concentration camps to put on Polish uniforms and enter the Gleiwitz radio station. This was filmed then and shown in all cinema halls in Germany. The Nazi conspiracy-theory was then, that Polish soldiers had crossed the boarder to Germany and attacked the Gleiwitz radio station. So the Nazis started their war against Poland – and with this started World War II..
    By the way: Those concentration camp inmates were all killed after the filming. This reminds me of all those “Terrorists”/witnesses which are – also: nowadays – always killed after the staged attack (the one only survivor I remember is one of the Tsarnaev-brothers of the “Boston Bombing Incident”).
    2.) “911”: When George W. Bush wanted to make war against Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Libya, Iran and so on, he proclaimed the official 911-conspiracy-theory: ‘A few Arabs went into a cave in Afghanistan and conspired to hijack aeroplanes in order to attack the USA with them’.
    Those who oppose this George-W-Bush-conspiracy-theory are NOT conspiracy-theorists themselves but only “debunkers” of the ‘GOVERNMENT CONSPIRACY THEORY’!
    And of course also here (like with Gleiwitz) there is faked optical material. And TONS of it!.
    Let’s only take that airplane (175) that is supposed to have hit the South tower (WTC 2). There are not less then three(!) different versions of the plane that is supposed to have hit the South tower.: Here you have the “dive plane” and the horizontal flying plane: http://www.septclues.com/ANIMATED%20GIF%20FILES%20sept%20clues%20research/7lastsecondsAlQuaedaDivebomber2.gif .the . The horizontal flying plane of course nears with an angle of 0°. The “dive plane” nears with an angle of 42 °.
    Then there is a third version called the “orb” – called so because the image of this supposed plane is so fades that you can make out only something like an orb. This orb nears with an angle of 21°. The “orb” and it’s angle is calculated on http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TebhJYFGHSY (although that absurd thesis there of “anti-gravitation” is total rubbish).
    So we must(!) logically conclude, that at least two third of the “films” or “videos” showing the plane hitting the South tower are FAKES (I believe that all of those “videos” – 100% -are fakes).
    Instead of going on and on with citing those fakes I just point to “South Tower Anomalies III” – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rh7cKDXnS_s and to the manipulated still pictures/photos that the great Jack White so splendidly uncovered (sadly Jack White died some years ago): http://www.jackwhites911studies.org/ .
    Now unlike today, in those days of 2001 you needed A LOT of experienced specialists to produce this amount of faked (CGI) videos and photos. And you needed an enormous source of capable hardware. So this was not just one joker or bragger who produced that – but a mighty crowd of well organised and technologically well furnished people.
    And now my point: To produce fake evidence is a crime in every country of this planet. Remember that Sheriff of the “Sandy Hook Incident”? When he proclaimed before the cameras of all TV-stations that everyone who spread (what he called) “lies” (especially in the internet) would find himself before a court. That Sheriff went too far, of course. but he was right insofar as everyone who photoshoppes false pictures or false videos (CGI) commits a crime according to US Union or State law.
    So the fact that those producers of fake optical material to the “911” incident have never been followed up and identified by police inspectors and accused by Union and New York State (and Washington D. C. State) attorneys general PROVES that only the US-Government is responsible for “911”.
    And those inspectors and state attorneys that – to this very day! – refuse to identify and prosecute those FAKERS (remember the Nazi-film of Gleiwitz) are not only guilty of being ‘accomplice of ‘producing false evidence’, but they are guilty of being ‘accomplice of multiple HOMICIDE’.

    Ross Hendry

    Thank you – an excellent article.
    There are always concerted efforts by those behind false-flag terror attacks and assassinations to obscure the truth after the event (one obvious tactic being to disseminate a multiplicity of alternative theories, to heighten confusion and lead people back towards accepting the official explanation – out of sheer exhaustion.) In addition, attempts at uncovering the truth are necessarily always going to be impeded by the fact that we are all, to a greater or lesser extent, indoctrinated from the cradle to accept and trust authority. The perpetrators know this of course … generally we will always want to keep a-hold of nurse for fear of finding something worse.
    Somehow humanity has to learn to grow up faster and wiser, and individuals become more self-actualising – which will inevitably include the rejection of bourgeois, neurotic aspirations and the hive-mind. Otherwise we are always going to be very easy prey for those who want to exploit our existential insecurities.

    Harry Stotle
    Harry Stotle

    Isn’t it interesting how Freedlands rage is directed toward the wrong target?
    Murderous neocons are regularly given a platform in his newspapers while BTL comments that do not show due deference are furiously deleted by the mods, yet according to Freedland’s world view conspiracy theorists are ‘the bug-eyed, irrelevant fringe’.
    We can only speculate as to why Freedland is so docile when it comes to the endless atrocities perpetuated by war mongers (or the ‘perfectly nice’ Hilary Clinton if you are Zoe Williams) yet starts throwing his toys out of the pram when it comes to those who challenge some of their ugly handiwork.
    One can almost picture a dutiful lapdog like Freedland being tickled on the belly while one of the hawks says to him, ‘who’s been a good boy, Jonathan, who’s been a good boy’ …… tickle, tickle, tickle.
    At the same time the near complete absence of any counter arguments by Freedland to conspiracy facts (already highlighted by Kit) demonstrates how feeble his intellectual position is – so is it any wonder he has to resort to censorship and name calling while stretching his credibility to breaking point by claiming that censorship is not censorship but rather the shifting sands of community standards?

    Greg Bacon
    Greg Bacon

    Jonathan Freedland’s Trump Assassination Fantasy
    Jonathan Freedland, a British-Jewish journalist infamous for hailing the demographic eclipse of the British people in their own homeland as “a kind of triumph,” has devoted the last twelve months of his miserable journalistic life to neurotic attacks on the Trump presidency. His hyperbolic writings at the Guardian, while making little original contribution to the intellectual debate over the progress of the Trump administration, have instead revealed much about the paranoid preoccupations of Freedland, the Left, and elements of the organized Jewish community.
    Not one to waste his talents, Jonathan Freedland has for several years published fiction under the pseudonym Sam Bourne. ..
    To Kill The President, Freedland/Bourne’s very recently published ‘thriller,’ has taken matters to a new extreme, blending the author’s history of anti-Trump journalism with his penchant for fictional ethnic revenge fantasies. Of course, no-one in the Trump administration is named in the latest novel, but Freedland makes no attempt to disguise his meaning.

    His writing pseudonym is Sam Bourne? Trying to hitch your wagon to the excellent Robert Ludlum ‘Jason Bourne’ spy novels, eh Johnny?
    Maybe Freeloader, uh, Freedland has heard of another writer, Upton Sinclair, who has been quoted as saying, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.”
    Jonathan old boy, we’ve got enough home-grown nuts–many who pose as news anchors–here in the States, we don’t need any self-absorbed Limey nuts to spread hateful lies.

    Harry Stotle
    Harry Stotle

    I heard Sam Bourne wrote another political thriller, provisionally entitled ‘9/11’.
    The plot centered on a terrorist attack on New York and the Pentagon while the entire US defence system was on its lunch break – unfortunately the premise was considered too far fetched by his publisher who told him to go away and concentrate on more believable revenge fantasies like the deep state putting out a hit on yet another president.
    From what I heard the publishers were with Bourne on 9/11 right up to the point an intractable mathematical conundrum arose between the number of towers that fell, and the number of aeroplanes that hit them – for all his skills as a pulp writer Bourne, it seems, had virtually no grasp of basic science, or even a kindergarten level numeracy.


    The Guardian, a joke of a news paper for years, has now developed it’s own pernicious world view of pre-crime.
    Thanks for this tour de force Kit, exposing the hypocrisy of its hack-in-chief.
    The incessant “fake news” narrative demonstrates the Guardian’s own weak intellectual position, because merely other points of view do not amount to fake news. To make fake news you have to fabricate the story, such as Luke Harding’s Panama Papers “it was Putin wot dun it” humdinger of a pork pie.
    Of course at the centre of this is the claim that free or alternative thinkers are, useful idiots, trolls, conspiracy theorists etc. etc. So when you can’t sustain an argument you resort to name calling, which is exactly where we are now with the level of journalism at the Guardian.
    Remember the revelations of CrowdStrike in the Guardian, well no connection now being made to the corruption scandal and Clinton, not being reported on at all, as it doesn’t fit the narrative. More fake news/ conspiracy theories come home to roost for the Guardian Hacks.
    My personal favourite is this recent piece of “faked news blow back” for the champions of free speech and Russian repression at the Guardian. Remember Pyotr Pavlensky and his “artistic performances? His famous one nailing his scrotum to Red Square and the other, setting the entrance to the Russian security service FSB ablaze. Much admired in the Guardian and WMSM along with Luke Harding’s favourites Pussy Riot.
    You’ve probably forgotten about him but he sought political asylum in France. On 16 October he set fire to the Banque de France. French and American television only reported on the arson, the Guardian not at all. When in Russia there were vociferous calls for the protection of his artistic freedom, whilst in France he’s been quietly placed in an asylum, no doubt for his own good. True conspiracy theorists forget their friends so very quickly it seems…


    So true. Nothing on French TV about who set the Banque de France’s doors on fire. I learned about it on RT.

    Norma Parfitt
    Norma Parfitt

    It is a sisyphean task to persuade someone that they’ve been misled unless they already want to doubt the official explanation. The death of Diana is one example where talking to ‘ordinary’ people has revealed a strong change in attitude. The early acceptance of her death being accidentally caused by Paparazzi has morphed into murder by the Royal Family because that reinforces our belief that her life was a tragedy on the grand scale.
    The Freedlands of the media are sensitive to public feeling. They tell us what we want to hear.


    Great article. A case that Kit perhaps ought to add to the compendium is that of Libya – mentioned only in passing here. We were all told by our respective Western governments (and Ban Ki Moon) and media that Ghaddafi was attacking civilians and therefore needed to be eliminated. Then – after the country had been destroyed – a British Parliamentary Foreign Affairs Committee report said that it was “based on erroneous assumptions”.
    I now start from the viewpoint that on reporting anything but the sports results Western media are lying.


    To get away from the term “conspiracy” and its usual connotations one can use the term State Crime Against Democracy (SCAD) coined by Lance deHaven-Smith, Professor Emeritus, Public Administration and Policy
    Florida State University
    “I coined the term “State Crimes Against Democracy” in a peer-reviewed article published by Administrative Theory & Praxis, the journal of the Public Administration Theory Network. SCADs are defined as “concerted actions or inactions by government insiders intended to manipulate democratic processes and undermine popular sovereignty.” Until recently, scholarly research on political criminality has given little attention to antidemocratic conspiracies in high office, focusing instead on graft, bribery, embezzlement, and other forms of government corruption where the aim is personal enrichment rather than social control, partisan advantage, or political power. However, SCADs are far more dangerous to democracy than these other, more mundane forms of political criminality because of their potential to subvert political institutions and entire governments or branches of government.”
    Article in Global Research


    Excellent article.
    One line of questioning to those who think that conspiracies only happen “over there” is, “Do you accept the “Nayirah” event in 1990 as a false-flag conspiracy and do you think that’s the last one that has occurred on Western soil [assuming “Nayirah” is the last “agreed upon” conspiracy on Western soil]? None has occurred since and never will again?”
    What gets me the most is that as, staged event analyst, Ole Dammegard, has stated from an insider leak, the power elite justify what they do by TELLING us in clues, lackadaisical attempts at realism and utterly ridiculous and unbelievable things – so OTT ridiculous you can hardly believe their audacity. Yet even when you point these out to people they still won’t believe you. They just keep pushing you away as a “conspiracy theorist”. It really makes you wonder about people.
    I don’t know whether this one should get an award for false-flag OTT ridiculous but it’s up there: a nurse in Las Vegas claims that a bullet hit her in the stomach and ricocheted to slice her leg.
    In this article reposted on Dammegard’s site, How the Mass Media Controls Consensus Reality, is a quote from Dresden James which I completely relate to:
    “When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic.”
    I have emailed a number of self-identified skeptics with a $5,000 challenge to produce a 10-point Occam’s Razor exercise that favours the “official story” hypothesis over the “independent researcher” hypothesis on any one of 3 events: Collapse of WTC-7 on 9/11, Sandy Hook massacre and the Manchester Bombing. I have done the exercises with the favouring of hypotheses swapped. Not a single “skeptic” has even attempted to claim the prize – I mean, really, how hard can it be to produce a 10-point exercise favouring the hypothesis you so vociferously support?
    A prominent Australian skeptic, Richard Saunders, replied to my email with this:
    “Thank you for your email however I think you have us confused with a conspiracy theory podcast.”
    His reply has two hallmarks of a gatekeeper response: belittlement and zero (or fallacious) argument.


    Actually, obviously there have been conspiracies since Nayirah (they’re mentioned in the article) but I think of Nayirah as the last “agreed upon” false flag but perhaps she isn’t a false flag as such any more than the others. Perhaps the bombing of Bologna Station in 1980 is the last “agreed upon” false flag. I’m not exactly sure how one defines a false flag.

    Big B
    Big B

    “Thoughts: you are not allowed them! Not independent, creative, truly perceptive ones. You have to learn think uncritically within the parameters we set for you!!!”
    It seems to me that Freedland is unconsciously setting a meta-narrative: not to question – but to accept in blind faith the narrative we authoritatively interpret and set for you. Non-conspiratorial narratives carry the weight of socially approved consensus; and thus offer a reassuring, unchallenging space to brainpark for (his) Guardian readers. Non-challenging narratives collectively create the kernel or shared mythos of liberal left-leaning social conformity. Over which his esteemed colleagues can daily liberally douse with bile and slime; to further obfuscate any hope of rational analysis. He also seems to be calling for a suspension of disbelief: whereby all that choose freely (before they put up a paywall) – can enter into a state of self-reverent somnolence. The heady euphoria of this state can be further enhanced by a virtue-signalling contribution to charity NGO – such as Avaaz, the White Helmets, Hope not Hate… or the biggy – the Open Society Foundation (although this is relatively over-subscribed to the tune of $18.9bn at the moment.) Perhaps Jonathan could use his pseudo-shamanic skills to ask for a donation for “free, open, and independent journalism”??? After all, they all work for the same people.

    Harry Stotle

    The Guardian has come to resemble one of those old western film-sets were the frontier town is actually a facade made out of cardboard – in other words a substantial part of the paper’s output is just surface, and quite a tacky one at that, with very little of substance behind it.
    So censorship has become an essential devices to maintain the illusion (that the Guardian is a fearless bastion of liberalism) not because phony ‘community standards’ are being breached, but because so many of their articles are exposed by those BTL who are far more insightful than corporate hacks like Freedland who seems terrified of ever deviating from his sponors bidding.
    This fantastic aricle by Kit is the entire Guardian problem writ large and I daresay if the Guardian had the bottle to publish it there would be many knowing nods from community members equally sick of the Guardians myopic, and self-serving culture.


    See also „Assassination of JFK: Half a Century of Lies“, http://wipokuli.wordpress.com/2013/11/22/assassination-of-jfk-half-a-century-of-lies/ & “Mary´s Mosaic”, Looking into an Abyss, Part II: http://wipokuli.wordpress.com/2014/12/17/marys-mosaic-looking-into-an-abyss-part-ii/


    “There’s nothing much in them, because well…why would there be?”
    Which nails it. Had Germany won (well, they did, technically, but ignore that for now) WW2, I can imagine Anglo-Germanian “conspiracy theorists” of that alternate reality making “wild claims” about a place called “Auschwitz”. And Hitler’s son’s government releasing a report to the effect that *”While some Jews did, regrettably, die during the conflict…” *


    I think you misunderstand Nazi ideology which is, “survival of the fittest (ie, us) and the weakest (ie, them) go to the wall”. If Stalin’s Red Army had not chewed up 80% of Hitler’s “irresistible armed might”, Auschwitz today would have been a theme park on “how it is done”. Flooded with trippers day trippers out to enjoy every ingenious detail of the mass liquidation of the underdog; like Israeli trippers to the wall around Gaza, bringing campstools and sandwiches to sit back and watch the mighty IDF eliminate “them” by the thousand.


    “I think you misunderstand Nazi ideology …”
    I think you don’t understand how Nazi Ideologies update themselves to harmonize with the era. Nazi Ideology in 1939 is going to look one way; in 2017 it looks like something else… it has evolved into a much more effective system of invasion and genocide. This would be just as true, imo, if the Germans were in the position the Americans are in, now. I write this in Berlin (having lived here since 1990), btw. I don’t misunderstand anything about Nazi Ideology.
    The Israelis get to be so blatant and shameless because they have somehow managed to cling to the “underdog” alibi… that, in concert with rabidly effective American/Israeli anti-Muslim propaganda from Hollywood and related organs.

    Janus Jg

    so grateful to have this piece share with nay-sayers and deniers.
    i’m posting the cartoon pic on my front door.
    thanks so much for this helpful and informative piece!