censorship, Kit, latest

“People hold opinions I don’t share, we should stop them.”

Kit Knightly

Image source here.

Sixty percent of us believe in “conspiracy theories”, and we shouldn’t. At least according to Hugo Drochon, Professor of Politics at Nottingham University.

He doesn’t raise the question of whether or not some “conspiracy theories” may be true, his blanket assumption is that all of them are not. His article is not about WHAT people think, WHY they think it, or IF they’re wrong. The article is about rationalizing social control – specifically steps the state can take to assert control over the political opinions of the electorate.

Indeed the entire premise of the article is right there in the headline:

Britons are swallowing conspiracy theories. Here’s how to stop the rot

British people think things they shouldn’t, and here’s how we can stop them. The flawed logic is aggressive. The patronising tone nauseating. It’s the terrifying smiling face of a Brave New World.

The article deals only in absolutes. There are “conspiracy theories”, and they are all wrong. Even such vague concepts as the idea the government might publish misleading statistics or that there could be unelected people running the country in spite of our notional democracy.

It’s a programmed response. A piece of hard code: If(Conspiracy).addClass(“false”)

No space is given over to the raft of historical “conspiracy theories” which turned out to be completely true. NSA mass surveillance. The “sexed up” dossier. Iran-Contra. The DNC rigging the primaries. The Gulf of Tonkin incident.

They are disregarded, ignored because they do not serve the narrative.

It is so blatantly dishonest it needs, and merits, no refutation. An alleged “academic” should know better, should be better.

Leaving aside the cod-psychological waffle, the frankly offensive assumptions, the frequent lies by omission and the constant conflation of all “conspiracy theories” as broadly the same thing, (People who believe aliens crashed at Roswell are filed alongside people who debate Global Warming, 9/11, and vaccination). What we’re presented with is a five-point plan to make sure we stop thinking things of which Professor Drochon does not approve. It’s just that simple.

1. Stage Interventions for your deluded loved ones

Although mistrust in politicians and other leaders is at an all-time high, trust among friends (87%) and family members (89%) remains rock solid. This can be a double-edged sword: if conspiracy theorists are friends with other conspiracy theorists, then that’s likely to be mutually reinforcing. But conspiracy theorists will also listen to their friends and family who are not. So if you have a friend who starts sayings things about how the CIA was behind 9/11, try talking to them. You never know, they might come round to thinking it was al-Qaida who hijacked the planes, after all.

Drochon doesn’t go into WHY people don’t trust politicians, of course, which may be connected to the “conspiracy theories” that turned out to be true. The lies about WMDs in Iraq, for example, would be held up as a “conspiracy theory” if hadn’t been conclusively proved.

Ignore history or facts or precedent or debate and remember – “conspiracy theorists” are ALWAYS wrong. It’s like a mental illness or a drug addiction. The important thing is you sit down any friends/family you have who believe things they shouldn’t believe, and you berate and/or shame them into changing their mind.

2. Argue from authority

Sadly journalists (77%) are no better trusted than government ministers or company bosses. Academics, however, fare better and retain the trust of 64% of the public. So academics should engage more with the public: Cas Mudde for instance, an expert on populism, has just launched a new series with the Guardian about “the new populism”. Consider this column my own attempt to do so, too.

Again, he doesn’t ask WHY journalists aren’t trusted (coughIraqcough), he just thinks it’s “sad”. Obviously, in a perfect world, we’d all trust journalists who are all great guys and just trying to help.

Anyway, we can’t be expected to learn, understand or debate issues amongst ourselves. We need to listen to academics*, who know what they’re talking about. Including, fortunately, Professor Drochon himself. Remember, someone with a PhD is not only smarter than you, but morally superior as well. They are also incapable of ever being mistaken or having an agenda.

*When he says “academics” he only means SOME academics, obviously the academics who research JFK, 9/11 or alternate theories of global warming don’t count. Disregard them entirely.

3. Indoctrinate Your Children

Studies show that those with higher educational achievements are less prone to believing conspiracy theories. The implication here is there should be more investment in education, which of course would be welcome. But compulsory courses on online education – learning to tell fake news from real for instance – should be considered, too.

Compulsory education courses for children. We need to teach our kids that anything they read on the internet which departs from the acknowledged government position is WRONG. This will help stamp out dissent conspiracy theories, and is not at all Stalinist.

4. Online Censorship Regulation

By asking questions about social media consumption, our latest poll confirms what has been suspected for a while: social media encourages conspiracy theories. Not all, mind you: Facebook encourages conspiracy theories, but Twitter mitigates against them. It turns out YouTube is the worst offender: those who get their news from the video platform are much more likely to believe conspiracy theories.

So far most of these new technologies have been left to regulate themselves, which has led to scandals surrounding the role Facebook might have played in recent elections. Politicians should take a more active role in regulating the spread of fake news and conspiracy theories. Falling that (sic), you’re welcome to delete your various accounts.

As mentioned above, “conspiracy theorists” talking to each other can be self-reinforcing. We need to stop that. The best way to do that is to regulate the internet. To make sure certain opinions don’t get shared and certain thoughts don’t get expressed.

It’s important to remember that this is NOT censorship. This is regulation. Bad people censor the truth. Good people “regulate” lies. The Government (who only 23% of people trust) can, of course, be trusted to carry out this task. There is no chance, at all, that they would use this to their own ends. After all, an academic suggested it…and they are not only smarter, but morally superior. I know, because an academic said that too.

5…wait, what?

Conspiracy theories spread among those who feel they are not being heard. Politicians have a responsibility to be more responsive to the demands of their citizens: it is true, for example, that the question of this country’s relation to the EU had long been off the table, and fears about immigration often fell on deaf ears. That is not to say they should follow Hillary Clinton in saying immigration into Europe should stop, but a coherent account of what type of immigration this country wants, and why, needs to be offered, alongside a clear vision of what its future relationship with the EU is going to be.

Conspiracy theories only spread as a result of people not being listened to, so we should stay in the EU and offer a more coherent immigration policy. Then people will stop believing in Aliens and won’t question 9/11 anymore?

Is he saying the government should make some token populist compromise or face a backlash? How does that relate to global warming? Is he saying anything even approaching that coherent?

Is it simply that every article in the Guardian needs to be related back to Brexit?

I’m struggling with this one, honestly. Does anyone have the faintest idea what he’s talking about?

Answers on a postcard, please.

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.


  1. kevin morris says

    We would probably all agree about the media conspiracy of silence about the expropriation of Palestine by Zionists. Strange though is the left’s unwillingness to examine the so called People’s Republic of China’s appalling treatment of its minorities and the country’s lack of legal protection for its people.

  2. TFS says

    You mention Norman Finkelstein. His book on the Holocaust Industry was an eye opener. To some he is self hating jew/antisemite. His book is a scholarly piece of work, and this planet will surely be a more unjust place without him shining a light on the forked tongue of the Regime of Israel.

    He’s right up there with Shlomo Sand, the author of the widely promoted book, The Invention of the Jewish People.

    • mark says

      There are a lot of “righteous Jews” on the right side of history. Some of them are quite exceptional. Norman Finkelstein, Max Blumenthal, Ron Unz, Medea Benjamin. Some of the Israeli historians who have been very frank about the Nakba. (Some of the time) Chomsky and Glenn Greenwald. They seem to just want to call out lies and hypocrisy.

      • milosevic says

        If “self-hating Jews” are anti-racists and anti-fascists, then what would a self-loving Jew be?

  3. The worst or saddest is when some people are so dedicated to or brainwashed by their tribe/cult (Dems, GOP, uh, UK equivalent, American, Russian, whatever) that they honestly can’t recognize that they’re actually the ones peddling a conspiracy theory.

    “The Skripals were poisoned on Putin’s orders!”
    “There’s really no compelling evidence of this.”
    “Oh yeah, well how do YOU explain it, Putin lover?”
    “Could be a set-up by the UK, could be bad fish…lots of possibilities.”
    “Ah, you’re one of those conspiracy theorists.”
    “Well no. First, you’re the one promoting the conspiracy theory that Putin ordered the poisonings. You have the burden of proof. Second, even if I was claiming it was indeed bad fish, that might not be a conspiracy if the cook or whoever didn’t know the fish was bad. Conspiracies require intent.”
    “Ooooh boy, I’m not going to waste my time with any more of you tin-foil hat wearers. Go back to Moscow, Assad defender.”

    Some people actually don’t seem to get how completely ridiculous they’re being. That they in fact are the ones with the CT claim (which may come true, but we’ll need evidence); they’re just blind to this. Psychologically or mentally incapable. Millions of them.

    • binra says

      Its a variation on the theme of camouflage.
      The only consciousness that comes into it is of a sense of threat and a sense of seeking protection.
      Whereas a fish hides its body, the human hides a mind.

    • milosevic says

      The Left has been historically overwhelmingly immune to anti-Semitism: famously, the late 19th-century German socialist leader August Bebel called anti-Semitism “the socialism of fools”, pointing out that economic and social inequality was the product not of a Jewish conspiracy but of the system of capitalism. Far-right movements such as the Nazis in contrast commonly portrayed socialism and communism as the products of a Jewish conspiracy, though Jews were never dominant in left-wing political organizations and of course when they joined them they gave up their Jewish identity.

      Nicholas Lysson — Holocaust and Holodomor

      Ron Unz — The Bolshevik Revolution and Its Aftermath

      • BigB says

        You are entitled to you opinion: but then I’m entitled to mine. The articles you repost are vile incitements to race hate. This is the third or fourth I’ve read. The Lysson List (that’s what it is, combined from two or three words per author. Arendt and Finkelstein leap out as decontextualised …I haven’t got time to check the context of the others …but that is the whole point, isn’t it? It looks like a scholarly article compiled from credible sources …just how much of it is contextual and accurately cited?)

        Not much, I surmise. What masquerades as historically accurate scholarship is in fact a long lost of every anti-semitic trope imaginable …the Jews caused the Holodomor ; the Jews were responsible for the Soviet state atrocities; the (implied) Universal Brotherhood …it stops short of outright Holocaust denial: only to pose the spurious question “Surely 7 million Ukrainian lives matter as much as 6 million Jews?” Possibly, if the Holodomor was anything other than a fabricated propaganda genocide, using figures plucked from a Ukrainian neo-Nazi hat.

        Then you absolutely know you are in race hate territory when you come across attempts to legitimate “the bearded Ashkenazi sacrificing Christian children to sprinkle the dried blood on their Passover Seder” fabrication and mendacious distortion. Pasque di Sangue: even Toaff retracted and rewrote to clarify the falsehood.

        To be fair, Lysson does mention this: but not without insinuating that “Blood Libel” is a historical antecedent for current practice (footnote 10). Congratulations for diseminating intolerance, inviting it to new heights, perennially rooted in Medieval bigotry, and due a historic revival to surpass the 1930s.

        Maybe you feel that one failed to get the job done? Or maybe you don’t: but the links you post certainly lead in that direction. Hannah Arendt and Norman Finkelstein represent the “Never Again” move away from racial intolerance when not misrepresented …perhaps you should study them contextually: and not via racist rants?

        • milosevic says

          I think you’ve just outed yourself as an ethnic disinfo activist. The claim that the Ukrainian famine was “a fabricated propaganda genocide” concocted by “neo-Nazis” is the giveaway.

          For everybody else, I strongly recommend reading the Lysson article, and forming your own opinion. Consider whether the policies described therein bear any resemblance to those of a shitty little country that starts with an “I”, and whether that might be something less than a coincidence.

          I also strongly recommend one of its references, Israel Shahak’s book *Jewish History, Jewish Religion:
          The Weight of Three Thousand Years*, which you can read here:


          Doubtless, ethnic activists like the one above will claim that this is also a “vile incitement to race hate”. Note the implicit assumption, shared with both nazis and zionists, that Jewish identity should be understood in “racial” terms.

        • mark says

          Maybe if one genocide is “fabricated propaganda”, then maybe another one is too. My genocide is bigger than your genocide. 10 million Central Africans in the Belgian Congo, 1890-1910. 100 million Native Americans. 1.5 million Armenians. 750,000 Libyans. 1 million Algerians. 2 million Germans in 1945. 500,000 Irish, 1641-1652. So what? Who knows or cares about any of those?

          • milosevic says

            Who knows or cares about any of those?

            Note the ostentatious concern over “outright Holocaust denial”, which wasn’t remotely suggested in either article, versus the casual, fact-free dismissal of “a fabricated propaganda genocide” of the Ukrainian goyim, organized by people with names like “Kaganovich”.

            Some victims are more special than others.

            Obviously, if two genocides occur within the span of a decade, in the same general area, which interchange the ethnicities of perpetrators and victims, one would have to be an “anti-semite” to conclude that there might be some connection between them.

            • BigB says

              The very framing of genocide versus genocide is a gross act of historiography. There was a cyclical famine in the Ukraine in 1932-33: which also affected the Volga and other regions. Approximately 2.6 million people died, which is of course a great human tragedy. It coincided with forced collectivisation, but this was not causal. It was the weather and antiquated Medieval farming practices. Famines were common up to that point. Apart from 1945, this was the last major cyclical famine.

              Stalin was no saint, and there is evidence he shut the border, and the distribution of aid was preferential to those who accepted collectivisation (which was the majority, as I understand it). But it was not a wilful genocide.


              Against the historical fact, substantiated by Professor Tauger’s research: there is the anti-communist and Ukronazi propaganda fabrication of a deliberate genocide …the Holodomor. With the fantasy figure of 7m.

              To compare a fabrication of a genocide with a real genocide is a gross historical and humanist distortion. Read the Lysson tropological list, then read the facts. The conflation that Jews formed the majority of the government (but only 5.7% of the population) that carried out the genocide is obviously racist …especially as there was no genocide.

              To maintain that some victims are more special than others, when the comparison is of a cyclical famine and a Nazi genocide is a gross distortion of fact. Inventing a humanist crime (the Jewish involvement in the Holodomor) to offset a real human tragedy (the Holocaust) …as if to say “look at these 7m people the Jews had a hand in killing (which is a gross propagandic distortion): why should they matter less than 6m murdered by the Nazis” is a fabricated form of denial and a crime against humanity in itself.

              Instead of propogating lies that lead to persecution …how about promoting understanding that leads to the end of all persecution. Never Again.

          • BigB says

            I did not object to Toaff, per se. I even gave Lysson credit for mentioning the retraction (it appears his article was written before Toaff re-published). What I strongly object to is the racism of suggesting that an obscure 15th century crime was the historical precedent for current events: as in footnote 10:

            Some wonder why Toaff focused on events of more than 500 years ago, when similar abuses, far more easily documented, are going on even now.

            That is pure hate speech. It is racist to maintain that a small minority – who may or may not have carried out historic Satanic practices – is unique to Ashkenazi Jews. It elevates to race hate when it is maintained that obscure Blood Libel is somehow causally related to modern transplant practices. That is a torturous feat of logic only a racist could make. And it was Lysson, not Toaff, that made it.

            How about some higher logic? Perpetuating the lies and distortions that created race hate cannot end race hate. The false deconstruction of the Jewish race by ‘exposing’ Blood Libel as ‘true’ does nothing except strengthen the constructs of racial identity. It perpetuates the continuous oppressor/oppressed dialectic …and feeds the Master/Slave dialectic. Hate and lies feed and create hate and lies …not peace and understanding.

            If you are following the situation in Palestine, you should know just how weak Nuttyyahoos position is …and the pushback against it …from Jews. Jews who do nor sprinkle dried Christian blood an their matzos. Why give power to a racist nutjob by promoting racist Blood Libel rants that sustain his weakening authority?

      • Antonym says

        Sorry, there are obviously bad Jewish people (as there are sociopaths etc. in any other group), but the Jewish religion is tolerant and benign and their group size is very small. In contrast the Islam religion is intolerant, hostile with a has huge group size. This club deserves much more attention.

        • milosevic says

          the Jewish religion is tolerant and benign

          lets’s hear from Ovadia Yosef, the former Sephardi Chief Rabbi of Israel, on relations between the Chosen People and the goyim:

          Goyim were born only to serve us. Without that, they have no place in the world — only to serve the People of Israel.

          In Israel, death has no dominion over them… With gentiles, it will be like any person — they need to die, but God will give them longevity. Why? Imagine that one’s donkey would die, they’d lose their money.

          This is his servant… That’s why he gets a long life, to work well for this Jew.

          Why are gentiles needed? They will work, they will plow, they will reap. We will sit like an effendi and eat… That is why gentiles were created.


          see also here:

          Vineyard Saker — A crash course on the true causes of “antisemitism”

          The ethnic activists will object, as usual, but unfortunately, reality is “anti-semitic”.

          • Antonym says

            One Jewish odious out-layer; thousands of odious Islamist out-layers…

        • Tolerance is a lot to do with power.
          Given power all sorts of irritations become effected rage and vengeance. With loss of power comes humiliation and perhaps some degree of humility or the damned up rage of impotence.
          When there is not the power to attack, the intolerance holds back full expression, but given power is does not hesitate to act. Power corrupts the already corrupted by giving freedom of expression for impulses otherwise held in check.

          I don’t think one can speak of ‘religions’ in such broad strokes meaningfully. Intolerant of what exactly?
          What you invite and allow into your house – into your inner sanctum or heart is YOUR responsibility. Are you a doormat for anyone to wipe their feet on? Would you WANT ‘others’ for your footstool?
          The intent to raise up a ‘self’ on the death or loss of another is the underlying ‘religion’ of sacrifice. This runs as a private self interest behind levels of masking to give you a ‘self’ fitted and adapted to your social and cultural demands. This ‘mask’ demands the sacrifice, denial or putting away of your direct recognition and expression of being. Of being exactly and only You! The mask substitutes for real life and defends the substitute against the real.

          Religion as distinct from Animism, began with from ‘old gods of terror and is associated with the god-king and the city state, dominion and nation, as a social organisation of collective self survival under extreme conditions.
          The ‘self’ as a social construct developed with it and has a similar structure.
          The ‘selfish core’ is tolerant to what does not threaten its survival, and attacks that which does. That attack may be simply a withdrawal, withholding and replacement of relation with a strategy of defence but it is not a communication of embrace or acceptance but of judgement born of fear. Everyone protects their ‘self’ as they accept it. And this is not directly concerned with physical survival – though it is rooted there – but with personal and social status or indeed ‘worldview’ and sense of capacity to cope.
          Intolerance is a territorial issue where the territorial rights arise from the powers pertaining to one’s place – presumed, prescribed or asserted.

          “I am never upset for the reason I think” is a statement that opens a disinvestment in auto-justification for grievance, hate and attack, and opens the way for a curiosity as to what lies beneath with the possibility of a shift or transformation of the self-construct to new insight. With practice over time, situations that once triggered reaction become restored to relational communication.

          Identity politics is destructive. Find another way to express what you are feeling.

  4. TFS says

    1. Isn’t Pharma the sugar daddy of any good Psychologist worth his salt? Where there’s a condition, there’s a drug for it.

    Looks like a new Pycho Disorder needs to be included in the Pycho Treatment Bible. Watch out Americans.

    2. Can’t wait to find more on the Bios for the authors and their funding for this. This would seem a match made in heaven between the likes of The Guardian and Security Services, or some think tank with an Agenda. There’s a conspiracy………..

    3. Psychology, one of them not so evidence based sciences. Its a bit like confusing equality between Maths and Economics, or Astronomy and Astrology?

  5. DunGroanin says

    More on Drochon and the department of conspiracy at Cambridge that he is a nember of

    He wrote a book-wooky on Nietzsche!
    I don’t know the bonafides of this magazine but it has a long review of Drochons great work.
    ‘Drochon argues that Nietzsche supported something akin to Plato’s political project, in which slavery is a necessary “cruel tool” to forge a state worthy of existence: namely, a state in the service of the creation of genius and culture. Such a state is denied by what Nietzsche calls the “leveling” of democracy. Drochon sees Nietzsche arguing for a state organized into two spheres, in which the work of slaves means that a privileged class of “Olympian men” can be removed from daily struggle in order to produce great works of culture. This elite would be formed by a pan-racial, pan-national set of “Good Europeans,” from an odd (somehow enforced?) breeding of Prussian military officers and Jewish financiers’

    ‘At a few points throughout the book, Drochon notes that Nietzsche’s critique that democracy and liberalism are linked to so-called Christian morality can be of use to contemporary political thought. He doesn’t go into depth as to how, and it might seem dangerous to take up a Nietzschean stance on democracy, given his belief in inherent hierarchy and the necessity of slavery. But Nietzsche’s politics, like his entire philosophy, are a shock of cold water we need to rouse from illusion, or at least, to recognize the illusions we choose.”


    The Psychopath academics of the Pathocracy

    • Brave New World says

      Thanks for this excellent contribution.

      We’ve been spoiled lately by the Guardian with their generous Christmas offerings.
      – Luke Harding to tell us what we should know, and
      – this elitist-on-steroid Drochon telling us how we should think.

      They are sounding a bit desperate.
      Are they preparing a sacrifice? Will there be a mass grave by Christmas?

  6. Joerg says

    I like the articles of Mr. Kit Knightly. Bur here he doesn’t even see the main point.
    We must not whimper about being called “conspiracy theorists” and then defend us citizens lamely.
    The main point is that we all are flooded(!) with GOVERNMENT CONSPIRACY THEORIES day by day! And its time to not to defend – but to attack those Government Conspiracy Theorists!

    Here are some of those Government Conspiracy Theories that only just get into my head:
    1) 911 – some Arabs meet in an Afghan cave to conspire attacks on New York/Washington with airliners
    With this GOVERNMENT CONSPIRACY THEORY this evil war against Afghanistan – one of the longest wars in history! – started.

    2) Malaysian Airliner over Ukraine – shot down by Russian military people

    3) Russian meddling in US election

    4) Wikileaks/Assange conspiring with Russia’s hackers hacking the DNC

    5) Russian conspiracy to murder Mr. Skripal (by the way: Mr. Skripal and his daughter Julia Skripal had been procrastinated to this day. They are incarcerates in solitary confinement – without any possibility to live their life or to contact other people. BUT NO ONE CARES! God only knows what happens to them day by day. They even have no attorney or are able to go before a court).

    6) Paul Manaford conspiring with Wikileaks/ Assange

    7) Iran supporting terrorists

    8) Assad poisoning his own people

    9) … My list above is all but complete (You are free to remember more) … and there are more and more GOVERNMENT CONSPIRACIES THEORIES day by day!

    Historical conspiracy theories (only two that spontaneously come to my mind) :
    A) Nero: “The Christians set Rome on fire”
    B) Hitler: “Polish soldiers attacked Radiosender Gleiwitz” – see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleiwitz_incident . WITH THIS CONSPIRACY THEORY WW II STARTED!

    Me must demand that facebook et al. block instantly everyone who claims that Osama Bin Laden caused 911. The same for all other Government conspiracy Theories (Malaysian airliner, Skripal, Russian meddling …)
    And Mr. Kit Knightly should have asked The Guardian why – to this day – they do not block the George W. Bush conspiracy theory (“Osama Bin Laden …”) and all the other Government Conspiracy Theories!

    • Joerg says

      Let me add this:
      Those who doubt the 911-George-W-Bush-conspircy-theory and come up with other explanatons/theories are DEBUNKERS – not “conspiryca theorists” like this George W. Bush!

    • The point I made on this page is that the whole nature of a mind capture is to get everyone reacting in the terms it sets – and it sets them in ways that provoke and invite reaction.

      If instead of leaping into the fray of self-reinforcing opinions, we simply note what the actual communication is that is being offered – then we may see that NO communication is being offered but only a FORM of communication masking the intent or payload of undermining or denying communication by any number of tricks.

      The reclaiming of the mind from a mind-capture is the whole deal. All other issues emanate from one of two options:

      1. Reactive identity under mind-capture – as a false sense by which to evade and deny awareness of true.
      2. Releasing allegiance and identity investment in the thinking of learned conditioned reaction, as the conscious allegiance in willingness to know, communicate, recognize and understand as a positive appreciation – even of negative experience.

      2 was somewhat expanded – in that – without the pause – there is no presence at all in which life can regain your attention. This IS the picture of Narcissus so fixated in self-imaged concepts as to NOT hear the calls of relational connection. It’s also the addict who has put anything and everything between who they think they are and what they fear to face.

      Communication is the inherent nature of being and extends to Infinity – and is truly infinite in all its apparent parts.
      The reduction of communication to imaged and symbolic code, from which conceptual frameworks are further developed, all works as a shortcut-mind that short-circuits and short changes itself in becoming unconscious and identifying this as an achievement of power, defended with the same power of limiting, dividing and ruling. Except it is our wholeness we rule out when we reactively attack deny or hide some part of ourself.

      Mind-control, is what it is and does what it does. YOU have a choice as to whether to use it and be used by it, attack it and be attacked by it, manipulate and be manipulated – etc. What you give sets the measure of your receiving. You can ‘get’ a temporary sense of self-gratification in fantasy of believing you can ‘get-from’ and escape consequence but only while identifying in fantasy as a defence against the true and at cost of making what is defended and attacked real to you.

      The ability to perceive the delusions and denials of others is not the right to correct them. But in recognizing our self in others, we can accept correction for ourselves and automatically extend it as invitation to others. This of course calls for the release of self specialness, elitism, superior judgemental arrogance and persisting in wilful ignorance.

      But no one can release what they do not own, and no one recognises as their own what they are heavily invested in projecting away from self onto others and have learned to do as an automatic learned or conditioned response.

      There is no blame or shame in our starting place – and that peace is the quality of an integrity alignment now regardless the past. Blame and shame – or indeed punishment, is a disintegrity that works the tares of a disintegration in the whole, but the founding structure to a sense of private control. True control is more alike to the order in music where each part is communicating within the whole to play a part of a whole and not apart, alone and threatened by the very music of its being. So in a sense I am suggesting the survival of the fitting. Recognizing anything true is also knowing how to relate to it. When we recognize something that is untrue and dangerous to our own awareness of truth, there IS no relationship or communication. Truth cannot and doesn’t enter into the frame of illusion, but when you and I chose to identify there, we could not ACTUALLY split from the true of our being or our true mind – and so within us is a basis for seeing the illusion as illusion and thus releasing it from any status of reality. The function of illusion is the substitution for reality. Why you wanted this is secondary to why you want it now. If you can want it now, you have an answer to why you would have accepted it in the past.

      Knowing who you are is not an opinion. Through the true extension of presence is the meeting with the true in others, but the capacity for mind-games is such a liability for an untrained mind, that it cannot be trusted to tell the false from the true. We HAVE to go within to know and what we are revealed in knowing is a basis from which to extend a like recognition and not a basis for insider elitism. Of course this is insulting to the mind in its own self inflated judgement or challenging to the convictions of self-unworthiness. That is to say the contents of our consciousness expand to embrace and integrate the self-rejections and denials that we were somewhat ‘comfortably numb’ to because we assigned them outside ourself. This isn’t ascetically self denial or sacrifice but simply the process of releasing what does not truly belong to a more whole or truly aligned appreciation of what does.

      But instead of your own thinking being the censor, filter, guide or controller, you pause to listen for a truly connected being – which is not ‘more thinking’ but can also come to you as a thought – but with the qualities of a truly connected gratitude or appreciation for being.

      • Joerg says

        @ binra
        Dear binra, I am not sure why You state this exactly to my comment.
        And to what You said: There is a lot I agree with.
        Bur my point was that you should not do to others, what you don’t want to be done to yourself. Or – in the case of The Guardian: Don’t criticize others for things exactly you do yourself.

        You are very right, binra, to request people to leave the cage of manipulation and self-manipulation and to dig through to truth.
        The way to find truth, in my opinion, is the way of eliminating contradictions (to me it is doubtful if you can define truth positively).

        One example of a “contradiction” is George W. Bush spreading out his conspiracy theory (Arabs in an Afghan cave) in the days of 911 – while at the same time warning “Let’s never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories” ( https://youtu.be/zyuDN3m94Vw ).

        Another example are those CO2-earth-warming freaks. IF(!) CO2 is warming earth – well then not only the output of CO2 counts, but even more the destruction of earth’ ability to crack CO2 back to oxygen and carbon counts. Like with a lot of other Eco-systems it is always a BALANCE SHEET.
        While I am not worried about the CO2 output I am absolutely worried that the Amazon rainforest and the Congo rainforest are permanently cut down (Indonesia, Cambodia, Mozambique have already massively lost forest in the last decades – and it goes on). I just read that the Congo forest (or “basin”) is responsible for 50 % of earths oxygen production. And in 15-20 years, it is predicted, only a quarter of nowadays forest will be left. As I cannot find anymore where I read that – instead read “The Congo’s Ancient Forest Could Be Gone in Our Lifetime” – https://earther.gizmodo.com/the-congos-oldest-trees-could-be-gone-in-our-lifetime-1830338877).
        But of all those CO2 freaks I met I never even met only one who demanded reforestation or at least a stop of the cutting down the woods (also the nowadays destruction of earths forests makes 15% of the CO2 output year by year!). This attitude is massively contradictory!

        Another example would be that if you defend the Palestinians against Israel you get slurred to be an “anti-Semite”. But the Palestinians are not only the real descendants of the old Hebrews but also “Semites” – while the Israelis are not, as they are descendents of the Chazars (a Turk empire, north and east of the Black Sea, whose people turned to the Hebrew religion at about 600 AD).

        • Indeed well said – and to the point that the denial operates the cover for the act – of a split mind.
          “Do as I say and not as I do!”
          So it is rightly disturbing, and hateful in its doing as in being done to.
          Hate can split a mind to become likes its ‘father’.

          Thus the need to pause before letting any code run on a mind of unwatched reaction – if only an instant – but an instant of vigilance or discernment as to its actual status. Keeping our channel for true qualities of being open, is not an attempt to cage them.

          Then we spot the psyop without even having to analyze it – as in the quoted header of the article above. It is effectively a weaponised and crafted intent that loves being seen as stupid and engaged with. Once you open your door to the troll – you are phished. And I’m not addressing the persons who may in any case be a KOL for ghostwritten articles. But the form of a communication that poisons the mind of the reaction to it AS a form of communication.

          Resonance is a key fact beneath the structures and communications of our mind and world: It takes one to know one. Our capacity to discern deceit is proportionate to our uncovering and relinquishment of it.
          Without the latter part we have a den of thieves who see only a world of thieves… and pockets.
          People who want to believe something that escapes them from who they don’t want to own or face are easy marks.
          Fear and guilt unhealed drive us to a ‘manager’ or indeed a ‘predator’ class. Foxy Loxy – who has to make a chicken licken to break out an asset to use as a proxy. Its need for enemy and conflict has NOTHING to do with taking a side but of feeding from it.

          So indeed the birds of a feather flock together as the manipulators, who drive psychology as the way to hack and control, capture and pharm – and not for the ‘good of humanity at all’ – but such stories work. Over and over and over again. So we are the ‘golem’ or bot-net of a hackable programming because we are easily ensnared, captured or bought – sometimes via means that seem to be our own merit and potential.

          The blatant arrogance and indifference of the manipulator class (who are no less manipulated) is because they live upon our sleep – or perhaps more accurately they have the role of victimiser while we have the role of victim. In various contexts these roles shift around.

          Truth of course cannot be defined and that is what makes it truth and beyond defilement.
          True witness is an extension of truth. We are capable of blocking our own awareness of truth by generating self-illusion and investing it with energy and attention that then regards change (life) as the violator of its fantasy and the basis for defence that becomes the basis for vengeance – because fantasies are temporary no matter how many are sacrificed to the god of its worship.

          The movie is projected. That is the key to my sense of responsibility. Plato said the same of the ‘Cave’. It may be that because he found no one wanted freedom to rob them of their chains that he became aligned with an authoritarian ideal.

          • BigB says


            I’m one of those CO2 freaks you’ve never met, that thinks exactly as you think we don’t think. Charles Eisenstein is another, check him out online.

            I’d love to see AGW contextualised into a holistic systems view. It is not the likes of me that want to compartmentalise, isolate, name and discard something labelled ‘AGW’ as unproven: in favour of doing nothing … that is the whole tactic of climate scepticism. Well, they are entitled to that view …but if the debate moves on to consider other social, economic, and environmental factors: climate scepticism become indefensible. Deforestation, social exclusion de dah de dah …are all reasons to transition to a more equitable life. If you make those points to a sceptic: crickets …but what about the Maunder Minimum? Progression never gets to the point where it would become apparent that we must change our worldview …even if the world is cooling (which it is not) …but even if it were we still need to transition to a new, more equitable and inclusive paradigm.

            Climate scepticism, in short, is a hoax …not a scientific hoax (if it is not CO2 we have to rewrite every scientific theory and start with a bunsen burner) …it is a political hoax to precisely prevent the debate moving on to policy and mitigation. Not climate mitigation, mitigation of our entire anti-life, including other human life, worldview. Perhaps that is why you have never heard of people like me?

            Deforestation, species extinction, distorting the NPK balance, fishery collapse, land usage change, insect biomass collapse (bugpocalypse), etc will get us before AGW. Likewise, I’ve never met a sceptic who appreciates the factuality of this holistic view completely …otherwise there would be no debate except the mitigation policy debate.

            • Joerg says

              You are wrong:
              I am not a “climate sceptic”. To the contrary I think that today’s policy (and that of these CO2 freaks) turn this planet into a dry “Dessert Planet” (a science fiction title). Also I think that these policies force our planet into an ice age. So, You BigB, can see I definitely see a “climate change”.
              Also I am notin favour of doing nothing … that is the whole tactic of climate scepticism.” It is people like You, BigB who are in favour “in favour of doing nothing … .” The article “WE NEED TO SAVE AFRICA’S FORESTS. HERE’S HOW” – https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/11/deforestation-africa-palm-oil/ tells us that year by year “Globally, deforestation represents around 15% of greenhouse gas emissions“. Although these “15%” are probably more than the CO2 output of any(!) nation-state of this planet I never hear from You CO2 freaks only a word about this probably biggest CO2 producer on this planet – not to speak of any action (demonstrations, newspaper articles, readers commentaries to newspaper articles, TV broadcasting) from You CO” freaks.
              I demand action from You CO2 freaks – but You just mumble “CO2” and then You are “in favour of doing nothing ….”.

              My point was that if(!) CO2 is the problem, and as most Eco-systems planetary CO2 is a Eco-balance sheet. and a balance sheet has two sides: “Expenditure” ( CO2 output) and “revenue” (mother earths ability to crack CO2 back into oxygen and carbon).
              But we never hear of this by You CO2-freaks. I mean, if a company gets into trouble and hires a financial advisor this advisor will not only look at the “expenditure” side (CO2 output) or at the “revenue” side (CO2 cracking). But he will always look at both sides. But You CO2 freaks only look at the CO2-output side! And yes, you can make an enormous profit with this ‘CO2 thing’. Think of that worldwide trade with CO2-emmissions rights. Even gangsters already take part there ((machine-translated: https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.spiegel.de%2Fwirtschaft%2Funternehmen%2Flondon-deutschland-fordert-auslieferung-von-verdaechtigem-briten-wegen-co2-betrug-a-1129786.html ). And I believe that those, who are making money with this ‘CO2 thing’ are behind it that we have to fanatically talk about the “expenditure” side of the CO2 Balance Sheet – but never about the catastrophical “revenue” side.

              The “revenue” side
              The Amazon rainforest and the Congo rainforest are permanently cut down (Indonesia, Cambodia, Mozambique have already massively lost forest in the last decades – and it goes on and on). I just read that the Congo forest (or “basin”) is responsible for 50 % of earths oxygen production. And in 15-20 years, it is predicted, only a quarter of nowadays forest will be left. As I cannot find anymore where I read that – instead read “The Congo’s Ancient Forest Could Be Gone in Our Lifetime” – https://earther.gizmodo.com/the-congos-oldest-trees-could-be-gone-in-our-lifetime-1830338877

              Also the Amazon rainforest, which cracks a quarter of the planetary CO2 is getting destroyed. As an elderly man I still remember those demonstrations in the late 1970s and early 1980s against the deforestation of the Amazon rainforest. But since then there are no more demonstrations. These CO2 freaks don’t even mention this horrible going on. Never!

              Remember this, BigB: Woods (and plants, even grass) conserve warmth or even heat. This is why they attract rain – especially in equatorial areas – but also in northern areas. Yes, in the warm time days are hot and nights get colder. But the fact that woods (and plants) conserve the warmth overnight makes the rain. Because keeping the warmth makes a low-pressure area (warm air rising up ), which brings rain. This is why the rain forest brings so much rain to the equatorial areas. And this is why a dessert, like the Sahara has hardly ever rain. In the Sahara it may be very hot at daytime. But in the night it can be very, very cold in a dessert like the Sahara.

              I am afraid that, if we don’t change, our planet becomes a (dry) dessert and ice age planet (not only also because our sun has got into a cycle of low activity).

              • BigB says

                I may have bumped into you then (I was a bit young in the late 70s, but early 80s …we marched in solidarity). So if we put aside a small sticking point of science: we agree? We (humanity), in our supreme arrogance, are completely ignorant of any of the infinite ways we could precipitate an environmental collapse. Life: it is all integral and interconnected. If we label something as ‘AGW’ and treat it as a symptom – allopathically, for profit, {iatragonically} as we do – we misdiagnose the systemic nature of our disease (and it is OUR disease, we are causal) and mitigate inappropriately. Motivated by profit, not empathy. The earth needs all of its systems.

                You really should check out Charles Eisenstein. He has written a book on this very subject. We need a paradigm change to view the planet and ourselves; BOTH as part of a single living system. Then we can save the forests, biodiversity, and ourselves …being as how we all rely on each other. With heart …not profit motive.


                • Joerg says

                  Yes, “planet and ourselves; BOTH as part of a single living system.” But those who have love and reason don’t need this lecture of Mr. Eisenstein. And those who have not (one or both) won’t understand or believe or even listen to Eisenstein.

                  But something must be DONE NOW! to things to that:
                  1) How about if those CO2 freaks calculate how much CO2 is produced by this NATO military and all it’s wars.
                  a) e. g. Syria: whole towns and cities were and are destroyed. The city of Raqqa looks much worse than any German town at the end of WWII. This because the Nato allies don’t fight ISIS (as they claim) but wanted/want to destroy Syria/ Afghanistan/Yemen/Somalia/Libya/Yugoslavia… and so on.
                  So these bombed towns of cause also burned(!) down And this produced a lot(!) of CO2. Elder Germans still remember this horrible “fire storm” caused by bombing.
                  So please you CO2 freaks calculate that!

                  b) Then there are the ignited bombs and cruise missiles themselves. How much CO2 do they produce and – more important – how much of really(!) dangerous greenhouse gases do the produce?
                  So please you CO2 freaks calculate that!

                  c) Also without fighting: How much kerosene, gas, ship-fuel do theses armies and navies and air forces burn day by day only by being stationed in Middle East, Africa, (German military in Mali, South Sudan and God knows where else) Afghanistan and so on?
                  So please you CO2 freaks calculate that!
                  And don’t forget these enormous amount of naval bases the US has all over the world! Ships need a lot, lot, lot of fuel!

                  d) Then there is the permanent transport – soldiers by air, vehicles (Tanks, Jeeps, trucks) by ship. How much CO2 is produced by the transporting planes, ships and trucks?
                  So please you CO2 freaks calculate that!

                  e) Then there is the supply: Food, fuel, replacements, new war material.
                  How much CO2 is produced by the transporting planes, ships and trucks?
                  So please you CO2 freaks calculate that!

                  There must be one or another honest and motivated scientist who would be ready to make that calculation (yes, that also would show “love” and “oneness” with nature). And then that result should get publicised.
                  And then, dear BigB, we – and hopefully some ten thousands of others – should demonstrate and protest in front of the building of the national defence ministry or any military barrack – like we did in the days of old (by age we seem not to be to far away from each other)!

                  2) I vilify these CO2 freaks “science deniers”, because they ignore scientific facts if these don’t fit there ideology. With their CO2 hype they even ignore it when they get cheated by false science. Here is an example (I hope I imbed the video right):
                  [youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqZGgaZaXig&w=640&h=360%5D

                  • BigB says

                    It’s all part of the same story. My maths is vestigial, but I can tell you, or confirm, that the US military is the biggest polluter on the planet. Spreading pollution and death to spread pollution and death. Not very scientific perhaps, but carbon consumption, the capitalist economy, and deforestation (and other environmental degradation) share the same motivations and root causes. Here’s a quantum leap: they are cognitive …not physical or material causes. Cognition governs the way we act (and the way we act governs cognition). It is a self-reinforcing meaning loop. I can explain that, but the point is: we are stuck in a pattern of behaviour we know to be harmful …but like an addict, we cannot stop. Burning carbon is fundamental to that ideological storyline. I was drawn to Charles, because he recognises the same loop behaviour and is looking for ways to break out.


                    I don’t get why you have such a cob-on for CO2 freaks? Lose the terminology, and we kinda agree? It matters little whether the world warms or cools; we are dying anyway from myriad other factors. As you have noted, biotic life creates and maintains the atmosphere, the purity of the aquifers, the fertility of the soil, etc etc. As for the military, imperialism, in all its forms is all part of the anti-life agenda. Read some of my other comments: I get it. I also get the climate manipulation agenda. Blaming CO2 freaks countermands your first spot on admonition “those who have love and reason don’t need this lecture of Mr. Eisenstein” …or anyone else. If you get it, you get it …pass it on. The vested interests in burning carbon, wars, imperialism, globalisation, climate change agenda etc are the common enemy …we are common allies who stand to lose whatever they do …unless we act together.

                    BTW: ‘They’ are not a homogenous bloc …there is more than one agenda. Our commonality is our only defence.

                    • Joerg says

                      You ask: “I don’t get why you have such a cob-on for CO2 freaks?
                      My answer is, that they are the puppets of the masters of “universal fascism”. I have no respect for them, because they don’t deserve any.
                      The answer You will find in this Video: “F. WILLIAM ENGDAHL ~ Gods Of Money & Climate Change Hoax” – [youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66S7qK1VJFE&w=640&h=360%5D .
                      It’s 46 min long. So I give points of time where you could jump in to the video:
                      “universal fascism” 6:50
                      holistic medicine 7:50
                      What should people do against hypnosis and self-hypnosis 18:05
                      “global warming” is crap 25:00
                      “climate change” 27:45
                      Oil crisis of the 1970s 37:00
                      How one woman alone changed the public opinion towards Monsanto and GMO 40:00

                      You, BigB, and I (and even Your Charles Eisenstein) agree totally about that people are in the cage of HYPNOSIS and SELF-HYPNOSIS. And F. William Engdahl touches several topics, but all this under the main topic of “hypnosis and self-hypnosis”. And at 18:05 Engdahl tells us how to get out of this: He says: “inform yourself, because you can’t win over an enemy you don’t know.” But when the puppet-masters realized that there is no basis for “global warming” (at 25:99 in the video) and thus they immediately changed this meme to the totally different meme “climate change” (27:45). And these CO2 freaks were all to eager to follow their puppet-master without thinking only a second about it. This is why I also call them “science deniers ” or “reason deniers”. Remember, BigB: Most of the Germans of the 1930s and 1940s were not Nazis. But most of them were (hypnotized) “followers of the beaten track”. And to me they are as despicable as the 100%-Nazis of those days.
                      Engdahl has more about “climate change” and a lot of other topics on his website http://www.williamengdahl.com/ .

                    • Joerg says

                      May be I made a mistake by posting (confused by filling out “Name” and “e-mail-address”. So I am sorry dear admin of OffG!

                      @ BigB
                      You ask: “I don’t get why you have such a cob-on for CO2 freaks?
                      My answer is, that they are the puppets of the masters of “universal fascism”. I have no respect for them, because they don’t deserve any.
                      The answer You will find in this Video: “F. WILLIAM ENGDAHL ~ Gods Of Money & Climate Change Hoax” – [youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66S7qK1VJFE&w=640&h=360%5D .
                      It’s 46 min long. So I give points of time where you could jump in to the video:
                      “universal fascism” 6:50
                      holistic medicine 7:50
                      What should people do against hypnosis and self-hypnosis 18:05
                      “global warming” is crap 25:00
                      “climate change” 27:45
                      Oil crisis of the 1970s 37:00
                      How one woman alone changed the public opinion towards Monsanto and GMO 40:00

                      You, BigB, and I (and even Your Charles Eisenstein) agree totally about that people are in the cage of HYPNOSIS and SELF-HYPNOSIS. And F. William Engdahl touches several topics, but all this under the main topic of “hypnosis and self-hypnosis”. And at 18:05 Engdahl tells us how to get out of this: He says: “inform yourself, because you can’t win over an enemy you don’t know.” But when the puppet-masters realized that there is no basis for “global warming” (at 25:99 in the video) and thus they immediately changed this meme to the totally different meme “climate change” (27:45). And these CO2 freaks were all to eager to follow their puppet-master without thinking only a second about it. This is why I also call them “science deniers ” or “reason deniers”. Remember, BigB: Most of the Germans of the 1930s and 1940s were not Nazis. But most of them were (hypnotized) “followers of the beaten track”. And to me they are as despicable as the 100%-Nazis of those days.
                      Engdahl has more about “climate change” and a lot of other topics on his website http://www.williamengdahl.com/ .

  7. Francis Lee says

    The late Christopher Lasch’s book, Revolt of the Elites, a best seller in the 1970s was a scathing attack ‘the intellectuals’ i,e, the soi-disant, metropolitan, petit-bourgeois guardians of the truth. The title was a deliberate take-off on Jose Ortega y Gasset’s The Revolt of the Masses, a reactionary work published in 1930 that ascribed the crisis of Western culture to the “political domination of the masses.” Ortega believed that the rise of the masses threatened democracy by undermining the ideals of civic virtue that characterized the old ruling elites.

    But in late twentieth-century America it is not the masses so much as an emerging cosmopolitanelite of professional and managerial types – the outer party – who constitute the greatest threat to democracy, according to Lasch. The new cognitive elite is made up of what Robert Reich called “symbolic analysts” — lawyers, academics, journalists, systems analysts, brokers, bankers, etc. These professionals traffic in information and manipulate words and numbers for a living. They live in an abstract world in which information and expertise are the most valuable commodities. Since the market for these assets is international, the privileged class is more concerned with the global system than with regional, national, or local communities. In fact, members of the new elite tend to be estranged from their communities and their fellow citizens. “They send their children to private schools, insure themselves against medical emergencies … and hire private security guards to protect themselves against the mounting violence against them,” Lasch writes. “In effect, they have removed themselves from the common life.”

    The privileged classes, which, according to Lasch’s “expansive” definition, now make up roughly a fifth of the population, are heavily invested in the notion of social mobility. The new meritocracy has made professional advancement and the freedom to make money “the overriding goal of social policy.” Lasch charges that the fixation on opportunity and the “democratization of competence” betrays rather than exemplifies the American dream. “The reign of specialized expertise,” he writes, “is the antithesis of democracy as it was understood by those who saw this country as the ‘last, best hope of earth'”. Citizenship is grounded not in equal access to economic competition but in shared participation in a common life and a common political dialogue. The aim is not to hold out the promise of escape from the “laboring classes,” Lasch contends, but to ground the values and institutions of democracy in the inventiveness, industry, self-reliance, and self-respect of working people.

    The decline of democratic discourse has come about largely at the hands of the elites, or “talking classes,” as Lasch refers to them. Intelligent debate about common concerns has been almost entirely supplanted by ideological quarrels, sour dogma, and name-calling. The growing insularity of what passes for public discourse today has been exacerbated, he says, by the loss of “third places” — beyond the home and workplace — which foster the sort of free-wheeling and spontaneous conversation among citizens on which democracy thrives. Without the civic institutions — ranging from political parties to public parks and informal meeting places — that “promote general conversation across class lines,” social classes increasingly “speak to themselves in a dialect of their own, inaccessible to outsiders.” In “The Lost Art of Argument,” Lasch laments the degradation of public discourse at the hands of a media establishment more committed to a “misguided ideal of objectivity” than to providing context and continuity — the foundation for a meaningful public debate.

    In a final section titled “The Dark Night of the Soul,” Lasch examines what he considers a spiritual crisis at the heart of Western culture. This crisis is the product of an over-attachment to the secular worldview, he maintains, which has left the knowledge elite with little room for doubt and insecurity. Traditionally, institutional religion provided a home for spiritual uncertainties as well as a source of higher meaning and a repository of practical moral wisdom. The new elites, however, in their embrace of science and secularism, look upon religion with a disdain bordering on hostility. “The culture of criticism is understood to rule out religious commitments,” Lasch observes. Today, religion is “something useful for weddings and funerals but otherwise dispensable.” Bereft of a higher ethic, the knowledge classes have taken refuge in a culture of cynicism, inoculating themselves with irreverence. “The collapse of religion,” he writes, “its replacement by the remorselessly critical sensibility exemplified by psychoanalysis, and the degeneration of the ‘analytic attitude’ into an all-out assault on ideals of every kind have left our culture in a sorry state.”

  8. Jen says

    “… I’m struggling with this one, honestly. Does anyone have the faintest idea what [Hugo Drochon is] talking about? …”

    I had a look at that Fraudian article and it looks like a cut-n-paste job.

    In paragraphs 2 and 4, Drochon seems to suggest that he was part of the Cambridge / YouGov research team but never makes his connection to the team (if such a connection exists) clear.

    So many Fraudian articles are just cut-n-paste jobs or read as if they were written by computer programs.

    Struggle no more, Kit – you already lost at least several hours of time you’ll never get back having to trawl through Drochon’s garbage.

    • king halibut says

      Yes, pretty fractured, the result of such writers who feel they must just go along. Propagandists, that is, there is no true journalism in US or Euro MSM for many years.
      One statement alone is enough to stop reading right there.
      ‘Social media encourages conspiracy theories”. Just as likely that conspiracy theories encourage social media! Anyone not believing this can check out the staying power of the JFK assassination search for truth. What is important is whether these “conspiracies” are true, not whether they conform to social media “likes”!

    • DunGroanin says

      Couldn’t be bothered to be spoonfed indoctrination – it is based on ‘research’ which I couldn’t see any link to, which means we can’t look at their data sets to see how their summarised selected ‘results’ are arrived at.

      The MSM, run by the Govt information services ComSec SCL types and their like minded psychopathic servants, is across the ‘western world’ in a pre-war, basic training of the conscripts, mode.
      We are being told how to dress, talk, march and most important as ever, follow orders! – ‘Don’t think, Don’t ask questions, just follow orders – or else’. Don’t listen to banned broadcasts or read banned news by proscribed writers. Report all transgressors to the state – even your parents, siblings or children. Don’t listen to anyone who tells you different because they are infected by the deadly virus ‘CT’.

      This is how the PATHOCRACY functions in controlling the world and its resources and peoples, as it has done for scores of decades.

      The top most, owners of everything born-to-rulers, are hardly ever in the public eye, except through their hubris (especially when they are young and want to be known by the common people). They are also sometimes born without the psychopathic tendencies to perpetuate their order, so the pathocracy has systems in place, to recognise such individuals, to nurture them, to educate and employ them, and to let some of them rise to the top to run their empires for them.

      That chap Drochon, that chapess Mudde are some of the low level wormtongue psychopaths recruited and following their orders.

      More on the Drochon next.

    • BigB says

      I’m inclined to agree Jen: pseudo-academic research based on three YouGov polls …well I could say just about anything based on YouGov polls! He did state the obvious: that it is fear based …fear of the government and its lying press. When I read it yesterday, the banner headline on the very same page was Mark Carnage’s “academic research” that the UK would sink into the Atlantic if we leave with a “no deal”. I think we have earned the right to be afeared of such blatant pseudo-academic fearmongering!

  9. Brian Burgess says

    Nice article Kit but did you imply the Roswell “conspiracy theory” is somehow less worthy for debate than some of those others you mentioned? Something did crash at Roswell in 1947 and it wasn’t a ”weather balloon.” It was the Roswell US Army Airforce Base itself that initially issued a press release claiming it was a “flying saucer” that was crashed and recovered – this claim was NOT originally an invention of the “conspiracy theorists!” Then the military substituted ordinary weather balloon wreckage, posed with this fake wreckage for the media and claimed their original press release was wrong and it was just a standard weather balloon after all. Now decades later the US Govt has finally admitted it wasn’t a standard weather balloon after all after decades of lying about it (although they have now come up with a more sophisticated ‘explanation’ about a special secret high altitude balloon with a radar target attached for monitoring Soviet nuclear tests.) The point is that “conspiracy theories” about the Government lying to us often turn out to have a some solid basis in fact even when they involve seemingly outrageous stories about seemingly incredible things. Mention “flying saucers” though and many people’s normally open minds seem to immediately turn off because they can’t handle the possibility, and they simply flag the whole topic as unworthy of debate and stop listening. Which may well in the case of the “Roswell crash” have been the military’s entire tactic in the first place! So we should be celebrating “conspiracy theories” which challenge us to question the official narrative. Because our Governments do lie to us and they should be held accountable to us the people who elected them. All theories are welcome. Debate will determine which of competing theories have merit. Even if the particular theory turns out to be incorrect it may lead us closer to the truth by exposing flaws in the official narrative. Being told there is only one correct theory (the “official” one) and to simply shut up and believe it on authority is not acceptable in a supposed “free” and “democratic” society. A politics professor should know better – has he never even read political philosopher J..S Mill’s seminal essay “On Liberty?”

    • milosevic says

      The point is that “conspiracy theories” about the Government lying to us often turn out to have a some solid basis in fact even when they involve seemingly outrageous stories about seemingly incredible things. Mention “flying saucers” though and many people’s normally open minds seem to immediately turn off because they can’t handle the possibility, and they simply flag the whole topic as unworthy of debate and stop listening.

      On the day that all the previous fraudulent pretexts for police-state repression, poverty, and endless warfare — 9/11, Terrorism, War on Drugs, Russian Meddling, Putin-Trump-Nazis, Illegal Immigrants, etc — finally lose their hold on the minds of the population of the imperial heartlands — on that day, giant flying machines will appear to hover over major cities, there will be a display of 9/11-style pyrotechnics, as seen in numerous Hollywood movies, and the government will solemnly announce, “The space aliens have arrived, and we must do whatever they say, or their advanced weaponry will destroy the world.”

      Suggestions that there might possibly be other explanations for the observed phenomena will be officially denounced as “Fake News” and “Conspiracy Theories”, and their proponents immediately disappeared, supposedly into alien concentration camps, to be subjected to bizarre cross-species breeding experiments.


      The Controllers — A new hypothesis of Alien Abduction

      Among ufologists, the term “abduction” has come to refer to an infinitely-confounding experience, or matrix of experiences, shared by a dizzying number of individuals, who claim that travellers from the stars have scooped them out of their beds, or snatched them from their cars, and subjected them to interrogations, quasi-medical examinations, and “instruction” periods. Usually, these sessions are said to occur within alien spacecraft; frequently, the stories include terrifying details reminiscent of the tortures inflicted in Germany’s death camps. The abductees often (though not always) lose all memory of these events; they find themselves back in their cars or beds, unable to account for hours of “missing time.” Hypnosis, or some other trigger, can bring back these haunted hours in an explosion of recollection — and as the smoke clears, an abductee will often spot a trail of similar experiences, stretching all the way back to childhood.

      Both Believer and Skeptic, in my opinion, miss the real story. Both make the same mistake: They connect the abduction phenomenon to the forty-year history of UFO sightings, and they apply their prejudices about the latter to the controversy about the former.

      At first, the link seems natural. Shouldn’t our thoughts about UFOs color our thoughts about UFO abductions?


      They may well be separate issues. Or, rather, they are connected only in this: The myth of the UFO has provided an effective cover story for an entirely different sort of mystery. Remove yourself from the Believer/Skeptic dialectic, and you will see the third alternative.

      As we examine this alternative, we will, of necessity, stray far from the saucers. We must turn our face from the paranormal and concentrate on the occult — if, by “occult,” we mean secret.

      I posit that the abductees have been abducted. Yet they are also spewing fantasy — or, more precisely, they have been given a set of lies to repeat and believe. If my hypothesis proves true, then we must accept the following: The kidnapping is real. The fear is real. The pain is real. The instruction is real. But the little grey men from Zeti Reticuli are not real; they are constructs, Halloween masks meant to disguise the real faces of the controllers. The abductors may not be visitors from Beyond; rather, they may be a symptom of the carcinoma which blackens our body politic.

  10. tonyopmoc says

    If you now look at Headlines and Photographs, not just In The Guardian but most of the Newspapers, last time I looked…..Is that The current (Canadian (Ex Massive Great US Financial Company) Boss of The Bank of England???

    Who looks Terrified, and all the Press are writing all this nonsense, cos they are paid to write nonsense

    Us peasents have sussed you. War Criminals

    We don’t like you,

    You are lying, thieving b@stards, and you earn all your money from promoting WAR.

    You are not interested in Love, Peace and Progress – You Just Want To Destroy.

    You are all Psychopaths. No empathy. No love. You just want more numbers in your bank accounts. You want to suck the earth dry by feeding on the poor.

    Not impressed.

    Extremely Poor Show.

    Who is Paying You?


      • Molloy says


        p.s. It is public money paying the sociopathic morons, your money my money.


  11. A modest proposal, surely? So hilarious. You must have had fun writing this, Kit.

  12. Fred says

    Hugo Drochon seems to believe in this conspiracy theory that there are bunches of people out there thinking things about other conspiracy theories! I can see why that would keep him awake at night, that is a scary conspiracy theory. He appears to be worried that he is going nuts, so he is trying to heal himself by working to get rid of the people that populate his conspiracy theory. This is moving the theory into practice which can be dangerous! He is more ill that he realises!

  13. Narrative says

    Thanks Kit Knightly!

    The flawed logic is aggressive. The patronising tone nauseating. It’s the terrifying smiling face of a Brave New World.

    In a way, it has got much easier to shine a light on the dark side of the Establishment because there is no more a bright side to what they are saying or doing.

  14. Who needs to far right when you have the progressive left to do your dirty imperialist work for you?

    • II still struggle with the labels left and right and liberal and conservative – they’re all the same really. I swing across all of them depending on each individual instance – what does that label me as? A swing voter or a pragmatist?

      • BigB says


        I agree, the left/right; liberal/conservative paradigm collapsed into the vicious centre status quo ante years ago. There are only flavours of liberal-conservatives that conceal the iniquities and inequalities of the imperial war machine (rumours of ‘alternatives’ are vastly overrated ‘Chinese Whispers’ that emanate from the centre). Specifically, what I see is a libertarian ‘modernist’ Enlightenment synthesis. This manifests as a binary democratic imaginal (imaginal = neither real nor imaginary: a causally efficacious fugue or dreamstate).

        The metamorphosis of this imaginal is profoundly Cartesian, who apotheosised the duality we cannot shake. In truth, this old civilisational paradigm is redundant. It has been in ‘model drift’ for a century: and ‘model crisis’ for decades. Not that anyone would realise, necessarily.

        The new paradigm is profoundly holistic and humanist …participatory and inclusive (not that this political paradigm has formed yet). The dualist and holistic worldviews are completely “incommensurable”, to use Kuhn’s term (see link). They cannot even communicate (the fact that language and logic are binary are the biggest defenders of the status quo ante – not the CIA!) Expect fireworks (hopefully not the nuclear kind!)


        • My world awakening reply was voided by a greater Silence – of the OG notification ‘posting too rapidly’ cul de sac.

          Some idea of the algorithm might be handy to know or is it a discretionary human act?

          However, this vid from a completely different spectrum than resonates with something of what you write and in my world – every thing true is transferable – and that is how it is recognisably true rather than seeming temporarily ‘true’ in opposition to something else – something that we don’t want to be true.
          It relates to New Views or the Interstellar Medium

          Is it OT?
          When lies upon lies push down like a boot forever stamping the image of a false past into a future like itself, the shifting of the contextual paradigm removes the ground on which all boots thought to find support. This is why science has been weaponised. To protect the model that serves those who wield it.

          The ability of a mind to release its conditioned identity to a new appreciation is of course relational to its current investments, and capacity to evaluate its investment in terms of true return.

          • BigB says


            Interesting link (is that Sheldrake in the audience?)

            To turn it on its head: why should it be considered unusual that the stellar reflects the cellular? It is no surprise to me, and I had not seen such a presentation before. Life emerges from life: from the quantum to the stellar. This is no bullshit hippy drippy metaphysic, it is ancient wisdom that has taken a scientific grounding in the last century. I’m sure you have read Capra? He has been documenting this for over 30 years.

            I’ve got to be careful with my jargon: but Varela/Maturana’s theory of ‘autopoiesis’ (self-contained self-making systems) is apposite. Life emerges from life in an ever more complex patterning of behaviour. There is no inner limit: is there an outer limit? I do not know, and am not going to be around for the billions of years it would take to answer. But, probably not.

            In my experience: there are two types of people. Those who experience life as a bounded, individuated anomie …and those that do not. That is what is “incommensurable”.

            Here’s the bit I do not get: the core of the current ideological worldview. How can an organism (a ‘human’ or something called the ‘mind’ of an organism – the ‘human mind’ or ‘person’) be separate from its living environment? Short answer: it can’t …and it is illogical to even posit such a view. Now, consider: the entire pan-historic civilisational ideological worldview (and that is what it is: an ideology) is built on exactly that dualistic hypothesis. A dualistic hypothesis that should have collapsed with quantum mechanics; systems thinking; autopoiesis; cognitive neuroscience; and now, astrophysics …or a leaf, a babies smile, a butterfly. We are not separate from life: we inter-are …from the quantum to the stellar.

            The fact that we are stuck in a dualistic paradigm, that for many other reasons other than the scientific (dead leaves, dying babies, dead butterflies), is in ‘model crisis’ has guided my inquiry for 30 years. That is one hell of a conspiracy theory that keeps us all separate and excluded from life. It is the ultimate ideology: and accepts no binary second. It is all that is needed to ensure the world remains as it is. The outer form, the event, the narrative, the imaginal may be subject to change …but the deep structures of dualism are so deeply conceptualised, pseudo-permanent (reified, hypostatisised) and universalised as to remain deterministically the same.

            Dualism: it’s in the language; it is in the socius (sociolinguistic); it is in the economy; it is in the environment …or at least our attitude to the environment (the ‘live’ inner has instrumentalised the ‘dead’ outer to assert its agency and dominion …for short term profit: cannibalising the chance for long term life). Dualism is not in the the mind: it is the mind. That mind is linguistically inherited (extra-biologically: epigenetically). That mind is psycho-linguistically mediated throughout the entire socio-economic environmental world. If you accept any of this, it stands to reason that we would view the world as we are …artificially linguistically dualised. The world-as-it-presents is a semiotic synthesis, or linguistic fiction. Or parakalpita in Sanskrit: which roughly translates as: completely fucked up karmic mess of a co-creation; unconsciously written by a supremely arrogant life form that thinks it is a god. Or something like that.

            We never were, never are, nor ever can be separated …from anything: except linguistically. The individuated, permanent, enduring ‘mind’ that is our supreme solipsistic conceit. Good luck trying to witness the sheer awesome solipsistic mind-destroying beauty of even a single leaf …let alone the stars. You are talking of something that cannot be expressed in words …a universal patterning of holism is passed through a shredder of the unconscious dualisms of language. How do I know this? The world can only be as it presents because of the imposition of the greatest conspiracy theory of them all: linguistic dualism.

            Only, it is not enforced, or downwardly imposed. No one can force anyone into fear. It is a personal choice, unconsciously made. That is about as far as something labelled ‘I’ can go; without being perceived as imposing something labelled ‘my’ ‘personal’ ‘will’ on ‘autonomous’ ‘individual’ ‘readers’ …the very syntax auto-generates a world that does not exist …creates meanings I do not mean …except as a sociolinguistic parakalpita. Language is a symbiosis …not of minds: but of dualistic interpretations….

            I’m thinking it might take a while, and a lot more anomalous results to break down the redundant, hegemonic dualistic ideological paradigm.

            And what of the new: must it be witnessed in silence?

            • You write “if it is not CO2 we have to rewrite every scientific theory…”
              Not at all!
              We simply let science IN by taking Big money and shadow politics OUT.
              Science has been captured or corrupted no less than any other sphere of social influence.

              Can you imagine for a moment that ‘broad spectrum dominance’ doesn’t include (or even even begin with effective control of the scientific realm?) ‘National Security’ demands it – and as you know the ‘national’ of certain countries has global outreach. Corporate cartel monopoly is in the same bed.
              Captured science maintains the ‘opiate’ of the managed consumer under financially backed and therefore politically powerful narrative control. Do you really think there is a ‘free market’ in terms of the capacity to fund, do and publish science?

              What many hold to be ‘Science’ is simply a current worldview from which to think and act as if supported and justified. There were many before the 2008 Crash who had no idea of ‘toxic debt’ as a floor that had just replaced the ground they thought to stand on. Many before 9/11 trusted their governing institutional structure.

              Surely, there’s a baby in the bathwater. Science itself is valid. Reason and self-honesty as the means for verification of assumed facts is as good as it gets for what can be measured and tested. But who is in their RIGHT MIND?
              There is also ‘dark phlostogen’ running as the bulk of the gas through the bunsen burner – except phlostogen was a genuine mistake and not a destructo-capitalistic working of a model of enslavement and exploitation.

              Theory never becomes fact. It can be assigned the status of fact until new evidence calls that status into question.

              Minds under ‘doublethink’ have no hesitation in accepting and repeating ‘scientific consensus’ or ‘settled science’. This is not science but investment and manipulation of currently asserted thought as a basis for power over people which bears all the hallmarks of a totalitarian global state – for the ‘good of the Planet’ of course.

              You hold an opinion that I don’t share. I appreciate your freedom to align in what you resonate with as true for who you currently accept yourself to be. But as it aligns with and supports a negative agenda then I call it for that.

              Of course you have good intentions. I don’t charge you with wanting to cause misery.
              But are they not defined and framed by the evil you have been sold and bought into fighting?
              You put your faith in what you are told by political bodies claiming to represent 90%+ of scientists, who use every emotionally manipulative trick in the book to induce a narrative that invalidates and demonises challenge.
              You don’t ‘smell a rat’?

              Now it may be that ‘insider insiders’ know things we don’t and don’t feel able to trust us with the information, and so they then have to make up lies by which to force outcomes that they believe necessary. The Sun does seem very bright these days and spraying a load of nanoparticulates across the sky doesn’t seem to be dimming it that much. I often Sun gaze at Sunset and it could be just that – not a lot of ‘particulates’ in the atmosphere, but particulates are associated with electric charge, which is the underlying basis of the Way Things Work – whether out theories have caught up with such a revelation or remain in the ‘dark night of the Black Hole’.

              Mass spraying of ‘what’ exactly? into our skies is another ‘conspiracy fact’ that is justified in its desire for a true and transparent account because of the top down policy of denying and ignoring it. This is similar but more so than say starving Yemeni civilians en mass. A few voices outside the mainstream called attention – but for whatever reason (apparently Kashoggi) – and as if it is news, the mainstream have now been told, allowed or felt safe enough to publish about it.

              Don’t bite the hand that feeds you – unless a bigger hand gives the signal.

              What is it that signals groupthink in terms of what NOT to say – publish, speak about or challenge? It is the consensus compliance under power that carries penalty of social exclusion and career block. And the mob-hate is likely quick to do it to their own, without the power that sets the narrative having to do anything except reassure support for the key opinion leaders.

            • You can choose to operate on the ‘separative’ or segregative operating-mind – or you can choose not to, and allow what is – to communicate through you – which is simply the natural condition of an unblocked channel or indeed aligning in and following your joy.

              Reasons for choosing not to persist in the split mind are not hard for us to find – but are so deeply associated with situations and events ‘outside’. And so we think conditions or behaviours must change for ‘the illusion to fade or fall away’. Not so. Everything is transcended in place. Outer change will then reflect a different way of seeing – a connected way of being. But seem to be interrupted or ‘lost’ to the triggering of ‘outside’ situations to inner conflicted self.

              I feel what the presenter said was spot on in regard to a dead universe being a way of thinking and ‘seeing’ rather than something that cannot persist as a model or a choice of attention and acceptance and defended identity.

              Thinking is the framework of representing the predicate OF which it extends. An insane premise extends logically to insane outcomes and the insane attempt to tell or convince the insane is itself operating within the very framework it thinks to be waking ‘others’ from.

              The release of the coercion of thought opens the natural spontaneity of a wholeness that then witnesses a true commonality – prior to the framing of the mind in grievance, guilt and defence, as a direct quality of shared experience – that when the ‘ego’ re-interjects the habit of thinking from an ‘alone and apartness’ will be rendered invisible. subverted or airbrushed into a narrative continuity that is not really from the past but from a present coercion of the past – that IS the survival instinct of the ‘Big Brother’ principle of coercion and substitution of life with a ‘situational’ opportunism of such a survival – whose ‘defence’ is the intent to prevail – or get before being gotten from.

              Getting for ‘self’ is an overlay upon receiving and giving – which two are one in purpose regardless the forms they take.
              The overlay is a dissociative self-alienation of a virtual reality… of a virtual self. But having made and identified (loved) what we have made, there is a transition of Purpose and not a destruction or damnation.

              Until you decide/accept your true purpose you will ‘see’ mixed and conflicted messages at best in your world.

              Persisting in a false reality that has lost touch with even mimicking what is happening is no longer an augmented private sideshow, but an insane dissociation that drives itself insane in the attempt to ‘regain’ a control it never really had. That kind of ‘control’ is exactly what drives the destructive effects across the whole spectrum and the only way to free ourselves is to re-open Communication across the whole spectrum of our being, instead of narrowing and filtering it what fits our ‘model’. The Living Universe is a state of Total Communication.

              What would a consciousness be that believes its coming into being of a different order, is the result of the breaking of such a quality to a fragmented LOSS of communication? It is to project its own ‘attack’ outside itself and play victim as the very basis of the invoking of the power to persist against all odds. Humpy Dumpty was our first ‘false flag’, as the breaking of the Cosmic Egg. Our consciousness within the physical is never actually IN it – but through it. Separateness is a creation of the mind, but the creation of the mind has all the power we give it – including giving power to the idea the mind is tiny, frail, and symbolised by and subject to a tiny frail body.

              The mind that approaches its limits recoils from Infinity, for it has no ‘currency of thought control in truth’ – only love abides as the recognition of Itself in All. Think not to know what love is but only what we made of it. To see truth from the frame of illusion is not to see at all. Because truth undoes the frame of illusion.

              So what of a mad world?
              The rendering Unconscious of mistaken identity in self- judgement is a mind of denial – looking out and away from its own denials. But they are not lost and therefore nor are you, because your denied self is seeking reintegration as the whole of you – but hidden in what you least expect or most readily judge against. Where ELSE would a hiding place BE than where the mind is least willing to look?

              The Separation as an experience and a series of psychic-emotional consequence as yet unhealed is not something that can be rationalised away. there is a ‘journey’ of undoing here – with the urgency being a true recognition of the state of Desecration as the Need and Call for Help – that IS answered by the ‘reintegrative’ movement of being GIVEN HEED, given acknowledgement and yielded to as the true of Self – and not ideas ABOUT anything or anyone.

              I’m no more than living my own ‘undoing’ as a positive acceptance – and opening perspective that was otherwise hidden by the ‘doing’ of a separative intent. Terror symbols operate the protection of the mind from what it is not ready to look on and look past – BECAUSE they set the division as an emotional force of INTENTION.
              So is our intention aligned with our true presence or running on conditioned self illusion?
              The answer is not in the head of self illusion but in pausing that to abide and be aligned by presence. Making this the predicate of who you accept yourself to be is the willingness to ‘return’ to simple presence in every noticing of having ‘slipped’ into the habit of thinking ‘apart’ and being some willingness for inspiration and support for thought that extends a truly shared being.
              The shift from self-struggle to self-extension is from fear to love, but the attempt to ‘do’ love has given it a bad name!
              or in the meaning of Name in the archaic sense – a bad nature. But it isn’t love that is defiled – or indeed mocked.

              …meanwhile the polarised arguments multiply to fill all space available – leaving to vector from which to be undone of our broad spectrum dominance. The defence of the ego may be foolproof, but is not God proof. You are as you were created, whatever the mind has made or overlaid upon you.

              The bringing down or disintegration of the false world order is an ‘inside job’.
              Who has eyes to see, is simply opening with curiosity, and yet cannot ‘tell’ anything to anyone who is not in the same ‘learning and teaching’ and doesn’t need to ‘tell’ anything to those already in the recognition of their own.

              Birds of feather flock together – but in true commonality of purpose. A segregative and conflicted world order cannot stand, nor can we stand it. Its an ancient fantasy seeking to become ‘real’. But in a sense there is a specialness of self that CAN and does serve the Whole – and that is the being of who you truly are as a gift received and shared as truly moved.

              • binra says

                One of those 2 replies somehow got in the wrong thread – being answer to BB’s ‘if it ain’t CO2 science has to start again’

  15. Robbobbobin says

    From the offending article “Hugo Drochon teaches politics at the University of Nottingham”

    I learned sex at the University of If You Think I’d Tell You You Can Think Again. But she was a member of the academic staff, which is how I know I got it right, right from the beginning. So stop quibbling and stick your tongue out. Further.

  16. Gary Weglarz says

    Initially I was laughing out loud at professor Hugo Drochon’s observations and suggestions. At first I thought perhaps Kit was playing a little joke on us and the name ” Hugo Drochon” had simply been used by my favorite satirist C.J. Hopkins to poke some fun at the absurdist mainstream narratives and their gatekeepers. But no, it appears that ” Hugo Drochon” is like an actual real person and these are his actual like “real” crazoid fascist police-state-loving perspectives.

    We in the U.S. have a close parallel to professor Drochon in the person of former Harvard professor Cass Sunstein, who happens to be married to, wait for the punch-line, none other than – “I never met a humanitarian regime change war I didn’t like” – Samantha Powers (an Obama appointee as UN ambassador). Apparently psychopaths attract psychopaths when it comes to the magical world of romance. One can just image the level of sincerity and honesty in that marriage of criminal masterminds.

    Our U.S. based professor Sunstein proposed to the Obama administration that the government, as he put it, “cognitively infiltrate” groups that are challenging official narratives, like the 9/11 official story, or JFK assassination, etc. The goal being to sow dissent, discord, and undermine these groups in their efforts to effectively challenge official narratives no matter how dishonest and criminal said “official narrative” might in fact be. Think of it as an open and blatant version of the old FBI’s “COINTELPRO” program aimed at anyone who has still somehow retained the capacity and desire to think for themselves even in the midst of the endless barrage of MSM’s absurdist narratives.

    David Ray Griffin’s book on the matter is an interesting exploration of just how openly and completely contemptuous our oligarchs and their minions are of we the mere propagandized peasants inhabiting the “neofeudal-neoliberal” wonderland which is of course the best of all possible worlds imaginable for the fewest possible number of people imaginable. One certainly hopes these good professors can become Facebook friends so together they can share their thoughts on how to best create an openly authoritarian fascist society to better sanitize the brains of those of us who still frequent sites like this one. I’m getting tired of using this phrase, but it fits – “you simply can’t make this stuff up.”


    • Being enslaved under black magicians would have sounded too far out as a plot line for a movie – but its as good a way to describe as many others. We have the techno ‘Matrix’ ideas, or ‘They Live!’ or ‘Virtual Nightmare’. And I wonder if the Movie industrial complex is the mouthpiece for the demoniacally laughing Enemy of the World to show their captive just before they are killed how they have been fooled – because if without the telling the victory is somewhat of an anticlimax.
      But to come back to presence – the core strategy of such an adversary is to use our own mind against ourself – and each other. To focus on the personality will invoke disgust and reaction by which we will be prevented from looking beneath the mask. That is or has been the pathway of reaction to disgust – to get it out! and wall it out.

      Allowing that much of our actions stem from sub or unconscious conditionings that predate our verbal mental development, I would say that in a sense we do make this stuff up – for we are all co-creatively participant in our collective experience of the world not least by acting from what we perceive and believe truly necessary.

      It is said that stealing a kingdom would make you a king, but stealing the mind can of course steal the mind that thinks itself king. Now if someone found the antidote – would they be crucified by the mob as much as the mind that leverages the ruler?

      In the movie Virtual Nightmare – (low budget but worthy theme – and on youtube for free viewing) …oh – I cant tell you now – it would be a spoiler. Perhaps that is also the nature of a drama – that it has its own unfolding theme for the ones who are entranced to it and it is not for me or anyone else to ‘wake’ the dead – My world awakening reply was voided by a greater Silence – of the OG notification ‘posting too rapidly’ cul de sac.

      Some idea of the algorithm might be handy to know or is it a discretionary human act?

      However, this vid from a completely different spectrum than resonates with something of what you write and in my world – every thing true is transferable – and that is how it is recognisably true rather than seeming temporarily ‘true’ in opposition to something else – something that we don’t want to be true.
      It relates to New Views or the Interstellar Medium

      Is it OT?
      When lies upon lies push down like a boot forever stamping the image of a false past into a future like itself, the shifting of the contextual paradigm removes the ground on which all boots thought to find support. This is why science has been weaponised. To protect the model that serves those who wield it – including the managed and pharmed consumer.

      The ability of the mind to release a conditioned identity to a fresh appreciation is of course dependent on its current investments, and willingness to evaluate its investment in terms of true return. (Risk opening to change).

      Change is guaranteed in any case.

  17. tonyopmoc says

    My conspiracy theory is rather old. My older brothers and sisters were born during WWII. I was born a few years later. Whilst I did use to play in a still bombed out cotton mill, on my way home from school in Oldham, it was actually a lot of fun, and as I didn’t know anything else, this was normal. We had no fear, and did loads of dangerous things. Yet despite everything being bombed to hell, I had an extremely good education for free. The NHS was also completely brilliant, and saved my life on numerous occasions. This was just normal. I guess I was a poor kid, but didn’t realise. No one starved, or even had ricketts. Almost everyone got a job, be it an apprenticeship, or something a little bit more challenging, as a result of, compared to now, the excellent free education. Somehow, my country afforded all these things. I got a very good job, and both of my main employers, continued to send me on advanced education courses, throughout my working life. They not only continued to pay my salary, they also paid for the courses and education, and my pension that I am currently receiving.

    Then something happenned. I was furious when my country was bombing Yugoslavia in 1999, but was working too hard with a young family to realise what was going on.

    I smelled an enormous rat on September 11th 2001, but it took me 18 months to really understand, that the Official Story of 9/11 was impossible, because it did not comply with the most basic physics and maths that I had learnt at a very good British University.

    So don’t preach Academics to me…They used to be really good, as were scientists and doctors.

    When I realised the truth about 9/11, in early 2003, it was if I had been kicked very hard in the guts.

    I knew the Evil in My culture had taken control, and I knew exactly what was going to happen.

    I told everyone, I knew. I showed them the evidence. It did not go down well. Almost everyone thought I was mad, except one French architect I knew. He agreed, that’s impossible. It’s controlled demolition.

    They have taken control, but are now exceedingly worried, whilst still trying to impoverish and kill most of us.

    Their time is nearly up.

    They have been sussed, even by The French.

    The tipping point approaches.

    I do not know what is going to happen next, but I hope Law and Justice will be served, on these criminals in control.

    I do not like a mess. My grandchildren deserve the same opportunities in life that I had, without their world being blown up, by these lunatics in control doing it again.


    • But the best part about 9/11 is that it was a complete hoax. They knew a number of people would cotton onto controlled demolition so rather than try to suppress the unsuppressable they transformed the truth liability of controlled demolition into a magical propaganda asset. They pushed controlled demolition out in various ways to aid in the perpetuation of the myth that death and injury were real and had all us truthers focused on that while keeping us from properly examining the alleged 3,000 dead and 6,000 injured. Very few us were examining the truth of that assertion – Simon Shack being a notable exception, however, he focused only on death, not injury and he didn’t go into the propaganda model which is very important and helps understand 9/11 much better.

      “Inside job” and “killing 3,000 and 6,000 in the buildings and the planes” are the two major pieces of the jigsaw that don’t fit together (the plane crashes were faked). They repel each other like magnets. The only two pieces that fit properly are “inside job” and “staged death and injury”. So the perps reasoned that as long as they suppress the truth about death and injury being staged the truthers will never be able to persuade the non-truthers of the total truth. Of course, persuading people that it was a complete hoax is no easy task either (truthers seem to have so much trouble with it themselves because we tend to be very invested in the tragedy of the deaths of all those people) but it has to be that little bit easier, especially if it had happened around the time that truthers started to wake up back in 2003 – if truthers had realised then that it was a complete hoax it would have been so much easier to get the truth out. (I didn’t wake up till 2014 and not until a few months ago about complete hoax.) The longer the lie lives the harder it is to break – at least in the current lifetime.

      Occam’s Razor proves death and injury staged so very easily.

      • milosevic says

        Speak of the Cognitive Infiltrators, and they will appear.

        • Milosevic, you’re so resistant, aren’t you? So resistant to the obvious truth. Why is that, I wonder. Can you not see the simple logic? While it may seem counterintuitive at first sight it actually makes perfect sense. If they could persuade us that 19 barely-trained terrorists armed with boxcutters hijacked four planes and navigated them through the most highly-defended airspace on earth to crash them into three iconic buildings (at least initially and so many people still believe it) why on earth couldn’t they also convince us that 3,000 people died and 6,000 were injured – especially when you examine the laughable evidence they presented to persuade us of it. They didn’t want to kill or injure the people, did they, milosevic? They didn’t want to do it for real, they only wanted us to THINK that they were killed. But killing and injuring 9,000 people for real would be so problematic with all the loved ones jumping up and down with controlled demolition so obvious, apart from anything else. And it’s not their preferred modus operandi. They love fooling us. They get such a kick out of it.

          You couldn’t respond to my questions in the comments on Graeme MacQueen’s article but you still pop up with your ludicrous insinuations. You’re like Mick West of metabunk infamy. In an exchange of emails it became obvious that he couldn’t provide a single point that favoured “fire” as the cause of collapse of WTC-7 over “controlled demolition”. Not a single point. And yet he still keeps on with his nonsense.

          You’re a truth-retarder, milosevic, unfortunately, even if that’s not your intention.

          Thomas Von Essen was the FDNY commissioner on 9/11 and responsible for the “oral histories”. He was so totally up to his neck in 9/11 – oh my goodness.

          • milosevic says

            quoting myself:

            according to your theory, thousands of New York firefighters are A-OK with the Official Story that 343 of their colleagues died, when it is known to all of them that no firefighters actually died. None of them has publically objected to the Official faery tale in the seventeen years since, because they’re all in on the “no real victims” conspiracy.

            There could hardly be a more graphic illustration of the essential idiocy of your position, than this.

            As “PSJ” said in the other thread, you have what’s known as a “non-falsifiable hypothesis”, because even you cannot suggest any possible kind of evidence which might refute it. For you, it’s a matter of Revealed Truth, or something like that. This is similar to religion, or other forms of non-rational delusions, but it’s not science, and there seems to be no point in me or anybody else arguing as if it were.

            To illustrate this, perhaps you can answer the following question. (Since you have refused to explain what you think should happen when a 200-ton airplane crashes into a steel-framed skyscraper.) According to the Official Story, 343 New York firefighters died on 9/11/2001. According to you, nobody did. Do you then claim that:

            a) these people never existed in the first place, but nobody has ever noticed this contradiction to the Official Story

            b) they still live in New York, or work in the NYFD, but nobody has ever noticed this contradiction to the Official Story

            c) they (and their families?) have all been given new identities in Argentina, according to some pre-arranged plan

            d) some other semi-possibility that hasn’t occurred to me

            • I’m not an investigator, milosevic, I’m an analyst. To answer your questions about who all the alleged 343 dead firefighters really were I’d have to do an investigation. However, you can still prove things where you don’t have all the answers regardless.

              You can look at the evidence presented and see that it doesn’t match the story in any shape or form. We are told that 3,000 people died and that 6,000 people were injured but there is zero in the visual record that supports this claim. Zero. For 3,000 people to have died and 6,000 people to have been injured there should be at least one item in the visual record to support this claim for 9,000 people. We’re talking 9,000 people here milosevic. 9,000 people. But there isn’t a single item. Not.a.single.item.in.the.visual.record. However, there is evidence that matches staged injury. There is certainly that.

              We also have the Social Security Death Index not showing the information on the dead people it should.

              These are the 10 points of my Occam’s Razor exercise:
              1. No obvious motive
              2. Anti-motive – loved ones
              3. Eminently fakable – just take a look at the visual record
              4. Social Security Death Index and memorial anomalies
              5. Very few loved ones or the 6,000 injured themselves kicking up hell (no injured at all that I’m aware of)
              6. Not a single loved one on any of the planes kicking up hell that I’m aware of
              7. Anomalies with those who present themselves as having loved ones die or who rescued people
              8. No convincing sign of injury – and, in fact, quite obvious fakery of it
              9. Ridiculous survivor stories
              10. No firefighter referring to dead colleagues or rescue operations in the “oral histories” taken from responders in the first few months after 9/11.

              The $5,000 Occam’s Razor challenge is just waiting for you milosevic to prove your belief in 3,000 dying and 6,000 being injured on 9/11. Surely, you can come up with your own 10 points.

              • milosevic says

                you have what’s known as a “non-falsifiable hypothesis”, because even you cannot suggest any possible kind of evidence which might refute it. For you, it’s a matter of Revealed Truth, or something like that. This is similar to religion, or other forms of non-rational delusions, but it’s not science, and there seems to be no point in me or anybody else arguing as if it were.

                QED, I think.

                I’m out. Anybody else up for it?

                • Milosevic, I simply use logic, reason and evidence. You speculate. You say that they couldn’t have faked 3,000 dead people but what is your evidence? I’ve stated my evidence.

                  Please give me a single piece of evidence for the 3,000 dead/6,000 injured occurring for real on 9/11. If you don’t accept the Wikipedia 6,000 injured figure what is the “official” figure you do accept? I assume you will agree to argument using at least one “official” figure for the injured.

                  • What about if I ask you to provide one piece of visual evidence for one injured person or one dead person? Just that. Do you have a piece of evidence for that? If not, do you think it’s plausible that no such evidence exists? For 9,000 people – or whatever total of dead and injured you will accept?

                    • milosevic says

                      I ask you to provide one piece of visual evidence

                      OK, the widely publicized videos and photographs of people jumping out of the burning buildings. Of course, you claim this is all fake, being done with 10-foot tall dummies, or something.

                      This is what’s known as a “non-falsifiable hypothesis” — any piece of evidence which apparently refutes it, you will immediately denounce as an obvious fake, and then claim that “no such evidence exists”.

                      It’s a circular argument — you know, as a matter of revealed truth, that there were no airplanes and no victims, so any evidence to the contrary must be fake. But since all the evidence is fake, that just proves the no planes/victims theory.

                      Anyway, enjoy exploring your disinfo rathole, on your own.


                    • Of course, you claim this is all fake, being done with 10-foot tall dummies, or something.

                      Did you watch the video, milosevic? What that shows clearly is that there is disproportion in the figures in the videos shown in the twin tower windows compared to people we see in other videos in those windows. It’s very straightforward. The videomaker thinks that the figures are real people on a model of the twin towers while I tend to think they’re dummies on the real twin towers – regardless of which theory is correct, the figures are disproportionate in size so they’re either dummies on the real twin towers or real people on a model. They can’t be real people on the real twin tower windows. That doesn’t fit at all. We can be certain of that. https://153news.net/watch_video.php?v=U7HNRM79SB9M

                      The thing is there is nothing compelling to say they’re real, is there? Nothing compelling and there’s quite a lot of other evidence that compellingly favours staged death and injury which I’ve already discussed.

                      Do you think it’s wise to believe something where the evidence is not compelling and there’s other evidence which compellingly supports what you don’t believe? Why would you believe an hypothesis based on uncompelling evidence when there is compelling evidence supporting the opposing hypothesis?

                • Of course, you claim this is all fake, being done with 10-foot tall dummies, or something.

                  I’m responding again to your response as I see I don’t express myself clearly enough.

                  Of course, milosevic, you would never want to be the kind of person who believed in something without a demonstrably valid reason, would you? You would always want your beliefs to be based on sound reasoning so I will express my questions again in a very careful manner so that you can articulate the reasons for your beliefs in a compelling way.

                  You say that I “claim” this is all fake. What I say is that there is a video that shows that the figures that appear in the twin tower windows as shown to us on 9/11 do not match in height other figures shown to us in other videos. Nor are they credible against the actual height of the windows as stated by the filmmaker (3.3m). (I cannot find verification of this dimension but if you look at his video it is obvious by looking at the people scaling the building that they must be around this dimension.) https://153news.net/watch_video.php?v=U7HNRM79SB9M

                  This is evidence. Of course, evidence can be refuted for one reason or another and if you feel that this is evidence that can be refuted please go ahead and do so. However, if you cannot see anything to refute this evidence then it is pretty compelling, isn’t it? If you do not find it compelling then I’m very interested to know why.

                  But, as an exercise, why don’t we put aside the seeming evidence that the figures are too large in proportion to the windows. Let’s pretend no one has noticed that and just look at why you find the jumpers so compelling and deride my “claim” that “it’s all faked”.

                  I’m curious to know why you find it so compelling. Do you think it would be very difficult to fake people looking like they’re jumping out of windows? Do you think that would be difficult and that the perps wouldn’t do that as a way to persuade us that 3,000 people died? That they would rather sacrifice the people in the buildings as “collateral damage” for their 3,000 dead claim and wear the consequences of all the loved ones of those dead people coming a’knocking at the White House to demand to know why their loved one died in a building that obviously came down by controlled demolition and not from the impact of a plane crash.

                  Also, if that’s the ONLY evidence for the deaths of 3,000 people do you not find that rather skimpy? Why is it that the ONLY evidence we are shown of dead people is a few jumpers? Do you believe that everyone else was simply rendered into dust from the building collapses as they tell us?

                  And then there is, of course, the 6,000 injured. Even if you don’t accept 6,000 as the official number you must agree that there had to be some number of injured. Is there any visual evidence that compels you to believe in an injured person? Just one image of an injured person that you find compelling.

                  So, here are my questions in summary form.

                  1. Do you think the video shows evidence that the figures are too large? If not, why not?

                  2. What makes you think they look real rather than faked?

                  3. Do you think it’s simply impossible to fake jumpers and that is why the perps wouldn’t have even bothered trying to fake them and would, in fact, rather sacrifice all the people in the buildings as “collateral damage” and wear the consequences of all the loved ones comin’ a knocking?

                  4. Do you find anything odd in the jumpers being the ONLY evidence for the 3,000 dead people?

                  5. Is there an image of an injured person you find compelling?

                  • milosevic says

                    there is a video that shows that the figures that appear in the twin tower windows as shown to us on 9/11 do not match in height other figures shown to us in other videos.

                    I watched your video, just for laughs. Its conclusion that people seen at the windows of the upper floors of the WTC, above the fire zone, are 13 FEET TALL, is based on a truly idiotic misunderstanding of the visual evidence it presents. Anybody who cares to verify this for themselves, can easily do so by paying attention to the *horizontal* spacing of the exterior columns of the building, and the windows between them. If you do this, it is quite obvious that all the people shown in the various images and videos are within the normal human height range.

                    I think we really have to ask whether people who produce arguments of this sort, are actually this stupid, or are conscious disinfo agents, attempting to discredit by association genuine researchers and activists.

                    Why is it that the ONLY evidence we are shown of dead people is a few jumpers? Do you believe that everyone else was simply rendered into dust from the building collapses as they tell us?

                    Of course not. Most of the other victims were blown into smithereens by the truly enormous quantities of explosives used to “collapse” the buildings. This is why they had to be identified by DNA analysis of bone fragments recovered from the rubble. What kind of human remains would you expect to find after a 110-story building is exploded into dust?

                    Is there any visual evidence that compels you to believe in an injured person? Just one image of an injured person that you find compelling.

                    There are quantities of photos and videos of people who appear to be suffering from smoke and dust inhalation, after the buildings were reduced to pyroclastic clouds of concrete dust. This probably accounts for a large majority of the non-fatal injuries. People who were sufficiently injured to be non-ambulatory did not escape from the building demolitions.

                    Does it bother you how easily your supposedly compelling arguments can be disposed of?

                    • milosevic says

                      There are quantities of photos and videos of people who appear to be suffering from smoke and dust inhalation, after the buildings were reduced to pyroclastic clouds of concrete dust.

                    • I’m not sure what you mean when you refer to the horizontal spacing providing proof of normal range of height. Can you explain in more detail. Perhaps referencing a point in the video may help.

                    • Sorry. I get what you mean. No need to reply about the horizontal spacing. I’m wrong on that.

                      My own point would not be about the size but the fact that they don’t look like people, they look like dummies to me. Regardless of whether they are, in fact, dummies or people you certainly could not say with any certainty that they are people from the video.

                      So I’ll move onto my next question. Is there anything in the video you present that you think favours “real” over “staged” event? Is there anything that you think would be different for a real event from an event staged reasonably realistically? For example, we see no people with compromise to the body in this video (or anywhere at all that I’ve seen). So we have 3,000 people die with their bones turned to fragments but no one showing compromise to the body in any of the injured imagery. Do you not see any anomalies there?

                      I have to say that I don’t think the ground level smoke that chases people down the street looks like pyroclastic clouds, it looks too white and doesn’t seem to contain the material of the clouds we see in the building collapses themselves.

            • RealPeter says

              The 343 ‘dead’ fire-fighters were obviously kidnapped by flying saucers. CQFD.

              • I readily admit to having no idea how they managed the 343 dead firefighters or the other 2,650 people, however, what I focus on is what is presented to us and can be analysed.

                — They told us that 3,000 people were killed and that 6,000 people were injured but they show us not a skerrick of anything remotely convincing of that alleged data. This to me is an impossibility if what they told us were true. I believe that for 9,000 people there should be something on the visual record that is convincing and yet there isn’t.

                — There is also a lack of evidence for other things: the number of loved ones making noise; the lack of firefighters’ reference to their dead colleagues and rescue operations in their “oral histories” taken within a few months of 9/11; anomalies in the Social Security Death Index and a number of other things.

                It does seem extraordinary that they could somehow conjure up 3,000 dead people but I know they do that sort of the thing. There’s even a term for giving agents a new identity – “sheep-dipping” – so it certainly can be and is done.

                The fact that they do it, if not generally for 3,000 people at a time, and with all the other evidence I don’t really see the problem in believing in staged death and injury. To me, it’s the thing that makes the most sense … by far. They only wanted us to believe in death and injury, they had no desire for the reality of it which would have been so very problematic for them. I simply do not understand why truthers have a problem with it – I understand those who don’t believe it’s an inside job but why truthers have such a problem baffles me.

        • So three more questions, milosevic, for you to prove what you believe. I think you will agree that in order to believe something you need evidence for it.

          1. Are you aware of a reason for the perps to want to kill and injure 9,000 people?
          2. If not, do you think they would have had to kill and injure them as “collateral damage” because they didn’t have the sophistication to fake it?
          3. What evidence compels you to believe that 3,000 people were killed and 6,000 were injured on 9/11?

          • milosevic says

            1 – they needed a quite spectacular, mind-bending New-Pearl-Harbor pretext for The War That Will Not End In Our Lifetime, and the associated fascist police state which has since been constructed.

            2 – both the level (upper floors) and time (early morning) of the aircraft hits, and the delay (1 hour, 1-3/4 hours) before the building demolitions, suggest an attempt to minimize the number of casualties. They could easily have killed 50,000 people, if they had wanted to. I don’t know how you could crash a large airliner into a 110-story skyscraper, then blow up the building, and still be assured that nobody would be killed (of course, you don’t believe there was an airliner). It’s about as fake as they reasonably could make it, given required degree of spectacle.

            3 – I have no reason to believe that 6000 people were injured, given that no list of their names and how their injuries occurred has ever been published. That could be a complete fabrication, although it doesn’t seem to be an important part of the Official Story. If it eventually turns out that SOME of the people who allegedly died are either still alive, or never actually existed, I wouldn’t be particularly surprised. The idea that 3000 alleged deaths could all be fake, and yet this would never be noticed, seems to me to be completely impossible.

            • 1. So no reason that you know of.

              2. So you don’t think that they had the level of sophistication to have the number at zero (or close to)? You think it would have been impossible for them to pull off fakery of the 3,000? What do you make of the Social Security Death Index not showing the information it should?

              3. None of us has any reason to believe that 6,000 people were injured, however, that’s what Wikipedia tells us. Why does Wikipedia tell us that, milosevic? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_September_11_attacks

      • tonyopmoc says


        Lots of terrorist incidents since 9/11 have been faked. I know 9/11 was real. At the time, my wife was a Childminder. She was looking after twin Baby Girls about 6 months old. Their Grandmother was in one of The Twin Towers, when it was hit. She phoned the mother of the girls, from inside one of the Twin Towers, after it had been hit. She was completely terrified. She thought certain she was going to die. Then the phone went dead. We all assumed she was dead, and we couldn’t communicate between New York and London for 2 days, because all the phone lines and internet was completely saturated. She ran, down the stairs and ran down the streets and survived.

        I agree with you about a lot of the things you post, but 9/11 was very real indeed, and over the years, the event killed many more people than the official statistics suggest.

        Absolutely loads of people got cancer over the sunsequent few years and died.

        I understand your point of view, from other events, that were obviously faked.

        9/11 was very real indeed.

        Lots of people died.

        How can you think no one died?

        No one can fake that.


        • Brian Burgess says

          Tony, you ask “how can you think no one died?”
          I have a theory about how people can think that.
          People feel safer believing that their own Government organised a false flag event than that a bunch of semi literate Islamist terrorists crawled out of a 3rd world desert somewhere, got past all the security and defences of those who are supposed to be protecting us, and killed all those people. Why? Because at least if our own Government is behind it and nobody really died people can fool themselves that someone has their back and they are safe (even if it is the ‘evil lying Government’ which has their back.) Once people have to accept the reality that any ignorant unwashed radical islamist can slaughter us all in our thousands like cattle and there is nothing our ineffectual Government can do about it then THAT is scary! Cognitive dissonance. People’s minds have a subconscious safety mechanism built in to avoid them believing something so damaging to their sense of safety in their world as the obvious truth of the events of 9-11. We all saw the 2 planes hit the towers and the death and destruction that ensued yet these people just can’t handle the reality of it. That doesn’t mean that people shouldn’t be allowed to hold a conspiracy theory about 9-11 or anything else for that mattet of course. But in this particular case I agree with you Tony.

          • milosevic says

            a bunch of semi literate Islamist terrorists crawled out of a 3rd world desert somewhere, got past all the security and defences of those who are supposed to be protecting us, and killed all those people.

            — and since they were entirely ignorant of the laws of physics, they succeeded in temporarily repealing them:

        • I’m very sorry that that grandmother was terrified. Very sorry about that. It makes me sad and angry that people were genuinely terrified in those buildings. Yes, it seems bombs went off in those buildings but on empty floors and not enough to kill or injure people. The grandmother escaped as all (or mostly all) others would have done but experienced terror while doing so. They justify doing this “for real” in a sense because they say – well, in a real event people would be terrified so we need to do a “drill” where people actually think it’s real.

          The grandmother experiencing terror and having to escape does not refute my hypothesis that death and injury were staged, Tony. Nor does many people getting cancer afterwards – that’s the strangest one. Why aren’t people in the know jumping up and down about that one? But then are lots of people really dying of cancer? You’d think they certainly would be but perhaps that’s propaganda targeted at the truthers too? It’s very confusing.

          • milosevic says

            I’m very sorry that that grandmother was terrified. Very sorry about that. It makes me sad and angry that people were genuinely terrified in those buildings. Yes, it seems bombs went off in those buildings but on empty floors and not enough to kill or injure people. The grandmother escaped as all (or mostly all) others would have done but experienced terror while doing so.

            The miracle survivor stories made me laugh hysterically. Again — mashing their hoaxery in our face.

            flaxgirl, Nov 23 2018

            • Milosevic, what on earth are you on about?

              — 9/11 was essentially a massive drill comprising a number of smaller drills including the evacuation of the people in the twin towers. They terrified these people because they made the drill a “live drill” so to speak – they didn’t advise them that it was a drill not a real attack. They conducted it by letting off small bombs on empty floors (or something along those lines) and then evacuating people between that time and the time that the buildings fell.

              This is completely separate to:

              — The perps releasing their ludicrous miracle survivor stories as part of their “telling us what they were really up to”. They add to their story, which is preposterous in the first place, lots of extra ridiculous stuff such as the terrorists popping up alive, the magic passport, Silverstein saying he said to “pull it”, pre-announcing the collapse of WTC-7, the nose cone of Flight 175 popping out the other side and a number of other things. The reason they do this is that they think it justifies their hoaxing of us. They reason that they put the onus on us to call them out on their ridiculousness and if we don’t they will be spared karmic repercussions.

        • And just to add. People being evacuated from the buildings before they collapsed is, indeed, part of my hypothesis. My hypothesis doesn’t say no one was in the buildings or that everyone who was, was in on it,
          – just that the buildings were evacuated before they collapsed – if anyone died of a heart attack from terror or from some mishap in the evacuation then that is the “collateral damage” the perps were willing to “sacrifice”. They just wouldn’t have suffered the highly problematic “collateral damage” of 3,000 dead and 6,000 injured … not when it was so easy for them to fake it.

          • DunGroanin says

            The fires were real.
            These trapped in the floors above seemed trapped and apparently there are scenes of jumpers! I don’t watch snuff movies so can’t give you a link.
            The planes did seem to be expertly flown into the towers.
            Apparently there was a british investment company which lost all it’s staff?

            I understand that modern holographic technology is capable of much – was it then? I sort of remember a shot of some tv interview on a NewYork street as the first plane flew low overhead to its target. The interviewee looked up as the noise drowned out the conversation, turned back to camera and carried on – as the footage then captured the first crash in the background.

            Dead people are what are needed to sell the false flags.

            Surely you need to look at their 9/11 list of names and find proof that at least one name is a lie?

            No one here is denying it does not beat all the hallmarks of a false flag.

            • milosevic says

              The fires were real. These trapped in the floors above seemed trapped and apparently there are scenes of jumpers!

              A video has been done comparing the “jumpers” to people outside the twin tower windows which shows the jumpers are much bigger than ordinary people in proportion to the window size. The videomaker suggests the jumpers are filmed on a model, however, my theory is that the jumpers at the windows are dummies and it was dummies that were launched from the windows. Whatever — the size doesn’t match.

              The photos of the alleged dead jumpers are completely unconvincing.

              flaxgirl, Nov 23 2018

              I don’t watch snuff movies so can’t give you a link.

              • This video shows how the size of the people at the windows doesn’t match the size of other people we see at the windows of the twin towers on other occasions.

                The chutzpah of the falling man! The so-called “falling man” is in the pose of the Hanged Man, a powerful symbol in the Tarot. Another falling person resembles the pose of a person in the Tower symbol.

                Milosevic, do you believe in fakery? Do you believe it’s possible or do you think the perps would never fake anything because they’re simply not capable of it. They had to get those planes into the buildings cos they’re too stupid to fake it.

            • milosevic says

              Apparently there was a british investment company which lost all it’s staff?


              I understand that modern holographic technology is capable of much — was it then? I sort of remember a shot of some tv interview on a New York street as the first plane flew low overhead to its target. The interviewee looked up as the noise drowned out the conversation, turned back to camera and carried on — as the footage then captured the first crash in the background.

              • DunGroanin says

                Thanks for confirming my memory milo.
                I still ain’t going to watch them – but hopefully flaxgirl may.

            • If the fires were real they would have been contained on empty floors. Also, you see a fireball pretty much outside the building.

              The planes did not seem to be expertly flown into the towers. Are you kidding? It’s faked footage. We see nothing of the Pentagon plane, the Shanksville plane crash is utterly ludicrous and the first plane is also faked footage. Why on earth do people persist with the planes nonsense? It is unbelievable. The planes all went off course (or don’t even have a wheels-off time), the engine found at WTC doesn’t match (this is an obvious sign from the perps – planting an engine that doesn’t match) and there’s no convincing signs of wreckage. There’s no aluminium scraps from the planes in the holes in the buildings. What more do people need to get that there were no planes. How much more evidence do you need?

              Go to point 4 for the lies in the names.

              Yes, dead people are needed – but we don’t need real dead people do we? We only need to persuade people of dead people. Real dead people are much more problematic that fake ones.

              • milosevic says

                We see nothing of the Pentagon plane, the Shanksville plane crash is utterly ludicrous

                These claims are, of course, much better founded than “no-planes” claims about the WTC.

              • DunGroanin says

                Flaxgirl , man you are like a dog with a bone! You’re in danger of wrecking your gnashers…please don’t take offence. There is plenty of evidence about the WTC conspiracy and attacks as has recently been carried by this site and the new compedium – which easily settles the facts.

                Do you disagree with any of that?

                Mass civilian deaths are generally ignored by MSM as part of their role of stopping people staying fearful and taking matters in their own hands.

                Milo kindly provided a link to my memory of the first plane striking – i don’t know when i first saw it. Can you show in any way or link to any expert analysis how that is fabricated?

                The horror and evil in planning and carrying out such a spectacular is dislocating for us. I too would want to believe they were actually humans and hadn’t sacrificed real people.

                But i applaud your intention. Save it for some other place though. You have made your case here.

                • I know I’m like a dog with a bone but I think it’s a case of needing to be. I will respond to your comment, DunGroanin, with another comment later. In the meantime …

                  This is a very potted coherent theory for the operation. What’s yours?

                  A good time before 2001, the master planner and propagandist gathers round his co-conspirators and says:

                  “Genius plan. Controlled demolition will be way too obvious. People will pick up on it so rather than try to suppress it we’ll transform it into a magical propaganda asset! We’ll push out the truth of it when the plebs start to wake up to it along with anything we can to support the death and injury lie. And we’ll bring down WTC-7 in a perfect implosion and have everyone focused on that easy-to-prove controlled demolition.

                  The truthers will get nowhere trying to tell people “inside job” and “US govt killed and injured all those people in the buildings”. Nowhere. The non-truthers who don’t want to confront our massive crimes in any case certainly won’t believe that – and, of course, we’d never do that. We send our soldiers off to fight our oil wars and kill millions elsewhere but we’d never carry out such an unsophisticated operation as actually killing and injuring all those people in a psyop. As if. The only pieces of the jigsaw that can fit together are “inside job” and “staged death and injury” and that’s what we need to make our focus for the whole operation and beyond: suppressing staged death and injury.

                  We’ll push out witnesses saying they saw military planes and people saying it was missiles and all the rest of it. So much fun with the planes! There’ll argue and argue and argue and argue and be so distracted with that nonsense.

                  We’ll push out nuclear, directed energy weapons, thermite, thermate, nanothermite etc. So much fun with all the theories.

                  We’ll have the “loved ones”, the “colleagues” and some analysts all crying Foul! plus reference to the dead and injured.

                  We’ll evacuate all the people from the buildings before they come down. It will be a “live drill” and if a couple die from a heart attack because of terror or whatever – too bad. And, of course, all the plane crashes will be faked.

                  Lots and lots of drills to cover everything else.

                  FDNY commissioner will get “oral histories” of all first responders alluding to controlled demolition and around 2003 when people start to wake up we’ll push out their existence and make out we’re trying to keep it secret before we eventually release them.

                  But we always give the plebs a fair chance, right? Our story is preposterous in the first place but we have to add things to make it that much more ridiculous – so we’ll have: the second plane pop out the other side and have a jolly witness confirm he saw it; the terrorists pop up alive; Larry say he said to “pull it”, pre-announce WTC-7; have name anomalies on the memorials and a few other things.

                  Questions to planner:
                  — Won’t people notice there’s no mention of any of the dead or rescue operations in the “oral histories”
                  Nope. They’ll be too focused on the CD.

                  — Popping out the second plane? Isn’t that really too much?
                  Nope. Even truthers will argue over that fakery.

                  We will have the chortle of our lives. [If that strikes you as offensive, so be it. It’s the reality. Can’t you see their smug and smiling faces?]

                  • Truth is not found in lies though all the kings horses and all the kings men make search for all time.

                    The recognition of deceit is the call to no longer take it as true or engage in seeking the true in the framework of the deceit.

                    The unravelling of the ‘psyop’ is the unravelling of our own deceits.

                    Where the crusade against the deceits of others is a job for life – or rather, a life sentence in futility – which if nothing else can be completely relied upon.

                    The ‘Conspiracy’ not only involves all those whose alignment served the event of whatever nature of delivery, but continues in all those who feed it. Use it for fuel and you have fresh blood sacrifice on which to raise the ‘new’ or use it to undo the mind of deceit and leave the ‘dead’ to abide in and attend the Living.

                    It is intended to ‘go off’ in our collective mind in all the dimensions and directions it has and does. Your intention is not compelled by another’s but can be tricked to be so compelled by the deceit that is exactly framed to do so – and further supported in its ‘after’ effect. The capture of psychic energy in reaction is that of terror – as the dissociations from terror that keep a mind busy or hidden. And that is as it needs to be until there rises a willingness of responsibility and curiosity for fear – rather than fear of fear.

                    You can be-live your own accepted reality – and revise it at will. You cannot impose that onto another’s reality, and the seeming of the ability to capture and control the mind of others is a coercion breeding contempt that necessarily ‘comes back’ on the victimiser in the hate of the victims – who then seed the exact same pattern for a ‘new’ cycle.
                    Vengeance is to be given up and undone. or else be possessed of hate and believe it ‘holy’ or wholly justified.

                    Wholeness is the nature of love’s creation. No one can be whole in hate because hate MUST have a target. So an intensity of intent for dominion SHUTS OUT the 1% who are ‘sacrificed’ to the illusion of freedom reborn. But this 1% (the figure is anything minimal) is not the haves of outer wealth or power but the haves of a capacity to give voice for wholeness of being.

                    I write so that everyone has in fact checked that the ‘bus they have alighted’ is in fact their true desire – because the buses are leaving the station. A choice brought to consciousness is Choice – not habit.

                • You know the worst thing I find about waking up to the truth of 9/11 and all the other events, DunGroanin? The worst thing is realising that no matter what side of the conspiracy fence people are on they don’t reason properly. That’s the very worst thing. I know I’m reasonably intelligent but I’m a very prosaic, common sense thinker. Put anything challengingly abstract in front of me and my eyes immediately glaze over. I can only cope at a reasonably common sense level. I also recognise that I can often be wrong, but because I can reason properly I can easily see where I’m wrong when someone points it out. I can change my mind from one moment to the next very, very easily because I’m not really interested in being right, I’m interested in the truth. I don’t have a problem being wrong and I’m not wedded to my ideas. However, when I’m absolutely sure of something I am like a dog with a bone, it’s true, when it’s important. And 9/11 is important.

                  Of course, the fact that the perps would actually push out the seemingly massive truth of controlled demolition is counterintuitive at first glance and it’s something people will simply not think of because it’s so counterintuitive. But when you look at how it fits into a propaganda model that involves pushing out one truth to suppress another, it makes perfect sense. Absolutely perfect sense. If they stop truthers getting the correct jigsaw pieces they’re absolutely hamstrung in getting the whole truth out. It makes sense does it not? It’s just common sense even if counterintuitive. Do you argue against it being common sense?

                  As soon as I cottoned on to 9/11 being an inside job I moved onto Sandy Hook and lots of other staged events that my “conspiracy theorist” friends mentioned to me. So I was very familiar with the “staged event” paradigm but it still took me four whole years to get that 9/11 was also completely staged. That’s a very long time when you’re already extremely familiar with the “staged event” paradigm. But that’s simply testimony to the power of the truther-targeted propaganda. All the recent “terror” events do not involve “truther-targeted” propaganda (and truther analysts of these events virtually never think that any killing or injury is involved) although the anthrax attacks do involve it – they pushed out that Bush targeted the publisher of the National Inquirer because they published unflattering photos of his daughter “falling-down drunk”.

                  The two items that milo has presented for his belief in real death and injury actually support staged over real, not the other way around.

                  — The 118 firefighter testimonies fits “truther-targeted” propaganda to hide staged death and injury like a glove – like a glove. I have to say it awed me when I realised. I hate those evil bastards but I cannot help taking my hat off to them for their clever propaganda. How were they so confident that no one would notice that the testimonies anomalously lacked any reference to dead colleagues or rescue operations and were all about only controlled demolition. Do you see how they understand how the human mind is focused on one thing, blocking out other important things? It’s truly astounding.

                  — The video of people being chased by a cloud down the street and all covered in dust do not show anything that does not fit staged and I’d argue that the cloud is clearly not a pyroclastic cloud.

                  MIlo accuses me of thinking “everything is faked” – well, of course, I do – if I didn’t then I wouldn’t say death and injury were staged. The thing is, to believe that death and injury were real you must be able to find something that cannot fit staged. There must be something that can only fit real, not staged. And there is nothing that can do that. That’s why no one can respond to my Occam’s Razor challenge on it – or any of my other challenges. Occam’s Razor is brilliant for these events because there is simply nothing that a believer can grab onto to support “real” over “staged”. Nothing. And we have to give the perps their due – they never provide anything for the believers to grab onto. Not.a.single.thing. They could probably fake a dismembered limb so that it looks real but they don’t do that. They’re pretty scrupulous if we can apply that word to them.

                  It’s also occurred to me, that there is much too much anomaly in the dead vs miracle survivor vs injured imagery to believe in real death and injury.

                  If 3,000 people were crushed to death and their bones reduced to fragments how do we also have miracle survivors who show zero signs of compromise to the body and other injured who also show zero signs of compromise to the body? So everyone either was crushed to death or has no compromise to the body? Doesn’t add up, does it?

                  For goodness sake, DunGroanin, I just do not get why truthers persist in believing that the US government allowed 3,000 people to die and 6,000 people to be injured when they could so easily fake it, it would be so problematic to do it for real, there is zero evidence supporting it and there is evidence supporting that it was faked. What more do you need, DunGroanin, what more do you need?

                  • DunGroanin says

                    What I need, flax, is you to understand that your words are falling on fallow ground here. You are refusing to answer actual questions about specifics. Go look up my comment and see if you actually answered any?

                    You are earnest in your Occams Razor, yet you are not mentioning the recently published 911 volume, deeply covered on this site. You will see that you are not alone and don’t have to carry that cross by yourself.

                    As i said NO ONE here is saying that it was NOT a false flag. But you respond as everyone is!

                    I would like to know though, how you think that shot of the tv interview capturing the first plane, was invented?

                    Take some time off and stop thinking about it for a few weeks and then take up the cudgle again if you feel it necessary, but not to convince us believers of that day’s infamy.

                    All the best.

                    • DunGroanin, I will always answer questions or respond that I do not know how to answer. As I say, I’m interested in the truth, not in being right so if a question is posed whose answer will reveal my thinking is wrong I am happy for that exposure to happen.

                      I’m sorry I missed your question. Can I explain how the shot of the first plane was faked? Just the usual Hollywood type of thing. Ace Baker explains the second plane so the first plane would be something along those lines. I really don’t understand the problem with the fakery of the planes when everything suggests that the crashes were faked. Thousands of people, including pilots, not just me, disagree with milo’s ideas on the planes.

                      When objects hit each other, they collide, we see impact. We don’t see a sense of impact when either plane hits the building. We see them “melt” which is not a physical reality. And we don’t see evidence of impact afterwards such as shredded plane in the second plane hole. Nor is there the remotest convincing evidence of wreckage plus there’s an engine that doesn’t match. Plus …. Seriously, what is wrong here? Can’t you see they don’t even aim for great realism. The whole time they’re giving the operation away with sloppiness and clues and what they’re hoping is that the power of propaganda and intimidation by their might will keep us in the dark. No offence, but your thinking is the kind of thinking they depend on.

                      The ghost plane – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PW6iOJiYdHQ
                      Ace Baker explains how it’s faked – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2c5_g7UTuGM
                      The impossible physics – https://911planeshoax.com/tag/911-impossible-physics/

                      I thought they really killed all the people for four years, DunGroanin, it’s not as if I never thought that. But then I woke up to the truther-targeted propaganda.

                      If you insist on believing that planes really crashed that will massively get in the way of getting that death and injury were staged.

                    • Actually, I just watched the Ghost Plane video again. Seriously, DunGroanin, how can you possibly believe in the plane crashes? It’s beyond me. A 200 ton airliner should at least show a modicum of deceleration when it hits a 500,000 ton steel frame building. At the very least a modicum of deceleration. But they don’t even attempt the realisim of some kind of deceleration. Of course, it should be pretty much halted but there’s absolutely no deceleration of any kind. It just seems more and more ludicrous every time I watch it.

  18. Makropulos says

    I find the very term “conspiracy theory” to be incredibly crass. What is it supposed to mean? A theory that groups meet in private and discuss tactics that affect others without the others knowing? Well that surely happens all the time. I mean – isn’t it practically a definition of what governments do? cf. the Yes Minister line: “Open government is a contradiction in terms. You can either be open or you can have a government.”

    But the propagandist usage of the term “conspiracy theory” is incredibly obvious. You can see it so easily whenever anyone uses the term. It is automatically assumed that everyone will know what it means i.e. that certain lines of enquiry are simply not up for discussion and must be demonised. And following the term comes another: “conspiracy theorist” signifying someone who is mad, silly, gullible – perhaps even traitorous. And along with that come the claims about “diseased” lines of thought.

    In short these terms have the same function as “witch” did in the sixteenth century. The terms are mind blocks used to control people.

    • milosevic says

      these terms have the same function as “witch” did in the sixteenth century.

      Not an accident; the “conspiracy theory” meme originated as a CIA campaign in the 1960s, to discredit people who were making a stink about the JFK Assassination Official Story.

      Conspiracy Theory in America, by Lance deHaven-Smith

      Ever since the Warren Commission concluded that a lone gunman assassinated President John F. Kennedy, people who doubt that finding have been widely dismissed as conspiracy theorists, despite credible evidence that right-wing elements in the CIA, FBI, and Secret Service—and possibly even senior government officials—were also involved. Why has suspicion of criminal wrongdoing at the highest levels of government been rejected out-of-hand as paranoid thinking akin to superstition?

      Conspiracy Theory in America investigates how the Founders’ hard-nosed realism about the likelihood of elite political misconduct—articulated in the Declaration of Independence—has been replaced by today’s blanket condemnation of conspiracy beliefs as ludicrous by definition. Lance deHaven-Smith reveals that the term “conspiracy theory” entered the American lexicon of political speech to deflect criticism of the Warren Commission and traces it back to a CIA propaganda campaign to discredit doubters of the commission’s report. He asks tough questions and connects the dots among five decades’ worth of suspicious events, including the assassinations of John and Robert Kennedy, the attempted assassinations of George Wallace and Ronald Reagan, the crimes of Watergate, the Iran-Contra arms-for-hostages deal, the disputed presidential elections of 2000 and 2004, the major defense failure of 9/11, and the subsequent anthrax letter attacks.

      Sure to spark intense debate about the truthfulness and trustworthiness of our government, Conspiracy Theory in America offers a powerful reminder that a suspicious, even radically suspicious, attitude toward government is crucial to maintaining our democracy.

  19. Kidocelot says

    I read the offending article in The Turdian and came here and was delighted to find Kit’s instant reposte!

    The same rag had this article open to comment yesterday “As a warming world wreaks havoc, Trump wages war on climate science
    By John Podesta”

    The same of the Podesta Emails…..they are obviously keen to reinvest another Clinton defamed globalist etc and to paint him as a true blue liberal once again!

    Back when Clinton still had a shot at the White House, Podesta branded her primary challenger Bernie Sanders as a “doofus” for saying that the heavily-criticized Paris Climate Accord was not bold enough. Must be fake news!

    And me I got deleted last night and am having my posts vetted yet again for using the open opportunity to make comment on conflicting climate science and the article closed to comment about Maniport visiting Julian Assange….having been given a good brief of ammunition from Kit again. There were lots of deletions last night, looks like many of us were over the target scoring direct hits. They don’t like it up’m do they…….keep the good stuff coming Kit…..this is what I show my friends and family!

  20. Peter Charles says

    I have perfected an antidote to conspiracy theories, I automatically disbelieve anything a politician, the MSM, the alternative media or a Government spokesman says as it is with few exceptions that these people and organisations conspire to mislead, misdirect and outright lie to us all in pursuit of their own propaganda and prejudices. Only when I have been able to confirm what they say from multiple and if possible authoritative sources might I believe them. Faking and hyping news used to be done far more modestly and subtly in the days of my youth, now it is simply blatant, in fact I have honestly come to the conclusion that politicians and Government will lie even when the truth would actually suit them better, so ingrained has the need to ‘own’ the narrative become.

    • Loverat says

      Peter Charles

      I think you are right. My reading is that these events (e.g chemical attacks in Syria) are quite blatant nowadays. I think now there is some concern in the establishment and media that more and more people are not believing the narrative, Hence blatant, rushed and desperate false flags in Douma and smearing those who question the amateur images which wouldn’t convince a 5 year old. A sign someone is concerned.

      Nowadays it’s not a question of interpretation of events. Actually the terrible truth of regime change, White Helmets/Al Qaeda and other information is readily avalable and proven beyond doubt on the internet – but the mainstream acting as if doesn’t exist. Like someone denying something real – but relying on the fact 95% won’t find it.

      Look at the BellingCat narrative – the truth of the Syrian chemical attacks is obvious to those who look. But BellingCat mascerading as chemical weapons experts and making up a narrative to misdirect people.

      My learning journey has been long. What I do is look at the most recent events and ‘conspiracy theories’. It’s so obvious the recent ‘theories’ are right that I then go back and look at ones in the past

      If our government was not so evil and our media complicit in Libya and Syria I probably would not have gone back and questioned 9/11. When you link all these events up a familiar pattern is emerging which is truly a worry for our future. It’s a big ask for most to believe we are run by a depraved, criminal cartel and that Obama was one of the biggest war criminals in US history. But that’s the reality.

      Not all events etc will be false flags and some theories based on critical thinking might be off the mark. But I bet the majority are not. And at the very least based on the history, all these events and narratives deserve to be questioned – not simply dismissed by an academic who should have some critical thinking skills.

    • Peter Charles, your antidote saves a lot of time but makes for very sad politics. We _need_ good people in government; but alas! never was it truer than today that, among political candidates, Good Help is Hard to Find.

  21. Loverat says

    I guess many readers here have come across this quote. I read it somewhere recently and I think is so true of the majority of especially foreign focused news and articles you read in mainstream press.

    ”It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”

    The reason you can trust independent journalists who go to Syria, the academics I mentioned, and the articles here is simply because these people don’t get paid much and their careers suffer by deviating from the mainstream. Brave and decent people who won’t compromise their values and care for humanity for the sake of a pay-check. True critical thinkers.

    The other thing of note is that in the mainstream the only ones who will admit what’s really going on, such as regime change policy are the retired generals and retired politicians (examples, I think, General Wesley Clark and Roland Dumas – Former French Foreign Minister)

  22. “Friends and Family” really don’t want to argue with or re-educate ‘deluded loved ones’ because it hurts too much to be confronted with facts you’d prefer not to know.

  23. Yarkob says

    “So if you have a friend who starts sayings things about how the CIA was behind 9/11”

    Clever. See what he did there?

    I’ve never heard that. I did hear that the CIA and FBI purposely ignored all sorts of reports from field officers about weirdos at flying schools etc, in the year leading up to 911. That’s verified fact, not conspiracy theory, but I suspect even that is misdirection. Blame the spooks. They can’t face prosecution and will never see their day in a courtroom unless it’s behind a screen; and of course they’re not allowed to talk about 98% of what needs to be talked about “because national security”, so useless as evidence

    Anyway, his premise sounds like a massive conspiracy theory; that we’re all into conspiracy theories.

    I’m not a conspiracy theorist; I’m a conspiracy factualist,

    Ho hum.

  24. Loverat says

    Indeed, the article makes the premise that all ‘conspiracy theories’ are false and should be stamped out. That is what’s quite clever about it really – at least considering the many ill-informed, semi-educated people likely to swallow it. It is superficial.

    Mind you – he might actually believe what he writes. If so, yet a further reminder of the utter failure (or success perhaps) of the UK education system and media to provide a climate where critical thinking is the rule rather than exception.

    Having said that, there is some hope in academic circles – there are some UK professors, Piers Robinson and Tim Hayward and one or two others who produce some excellent work – particularly around propaganda in today’s society and research on Syria.

    In fact, their work has been so impressive that they recently found themselves on the front page of all the UK nationals – labelled as conspiracy theorists. You have to laugh – the Daily Mail made it sound incredible that these professors dared question whether the last Syrian (Douma) chemical attack was a false flag. Of course it was, and as Kit said, how many ‘conspiracy theories’ of the past turned out true?


    So, if you want to put your trust in academics, follow the work of these people.

    A final thought from Prof Hayward’s Twitter account:

    Tim Hayward

    ‘Calling someone a conspiracy theorist is like admitting you have no actual argument. Credible people don’t do it’.

  25. Indeed the entire premise of the article is right there in the headline:

    Britons are swallowing conspiracy theories. Here’s how to stop the rot

    ALL mind control operates likewise. This is engineering.

    Reading what is actually being projected:

    Britons are
    You the (British) reader are – as a Patriot

    swallowing conspiracy theories
    Alerted to ‘others’ being gullible to cynical manipulation

    Here’s how to stop
    and exhorted and trained to protect and deliver

    the rot
    from evil

    So altogether the reader IS swallowing an active conspiracy to deceive (rot your sanity) by even reading the headline.

    It is established that the effect of PR is in shaping the mind and resulting identity at a level beneath the rational mind.
    This is because the so called rational mind is in most cases a self-justifying narrative identity (worldview) and not Reason itself.

    I sometimes see it as a negative harvest being gathered in.

    Choice requires awareness of what is being chosen between in terms of the consequences of the choice – as well as evaluating the basis or active purpose of what we are choosing for. Fear and guilt operate blocks to the awareness of what is being chosen – and actually distort, direct or dictate the choice.

    A mind in fear and guilt seeks protection from the consequences of negative self definition and belief, and does so in employing deceit to not know what it does. The demand for unconsciousness invokes the devices and powers by which to ‘escape’ and otherwise intolerable self-conflict. Enter the Dragon! (Chaos monster). Rise the Power to slay it (By Jove). Return us to a Golden Age where we need for naught and fight not. But…

    All the king’s horses and all the king’s men
    Couldn’t put Humpty together again.

    And so they engineered Humpty to be ‘free of needs’ or conflicts’.
    Fragmented to a state of unconscious identification in slavery as freedom from any trace of true need fulfilment.

    That was a literary exaggeration.

    “While he is IN the body, however, man can choose between loveless and miraculous channels of creativity. He can create an empty shell, but he DOES NOT create nothing at all. He can wait, delay, paralyze himself, reduce his creativity almost to nothing, and even introduce a real developmental arrest or regression. But he CANNOT abolish his creativity. He CAN destroy his medium of communication, but NOT his potential. He was NOT created by his own free will. Only what HE creates is his to decide.
    ~ A Course in Miracles Urtext

Comments are closed.