“People hold opinions I don’t share, we should stop them.”
Kit Knightly
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.
SUPPORT OFFGUARDIAN
If you enjoy OffG's content, please help us make our monthly fund-raising goal and keep the site alive.
For other ways to donate, including direct-transfer bank details click HERE.
Conspiracy theories arise from people not being listened to? What is he talking about>
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.
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.
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.
If “self-hating Jews” are anti-racists and anti-fascists, then what would a self-loving Jew be?
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… Read more »
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.
The rollout of “newspeak” and “thoughtcrime” is in full force as well:
No ‘colonizing’ or ‘frontiers’: Snowflakes alarmed by linguistic aspects of NASA Mars probe
So far, some have argued that the following words should be banned: colonizing, settlement, frontier, and… exploring.
This is worth watching.
Cripes, I thought that was bad. Read this:
http://www.conspiracyanddemocracy.org/blog/conspiracy-theories-and-antisemitism/
Nicholas Lysson — Holocaust and Holodomor
Ron Unz — The Bolshevik Revolution and Its Aftermath
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… Read more »
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:
https://ifamericaknew.org/cur_sit/shahak.html
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.
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?
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.
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. https://www.newcoldwar.org/archive-of-writings-of-professor-mark-tauger-on-the-famine-scourges-of-the-early-years-of-the-soviet-union/ 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… Read more »
Pasque di Sangue: even Toaff retracted and rewrote to clarify the falsehood.
People become strangely eager to clarify all sorts of things, given sufficient motivation and encouragement.
http://www.unz.com/ishamir/the-bloody-passovers-of-dr-toaff/
http://www.israelshamir.net/BLOODPASSOVER.pdf
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… Read more »
Honestly. I rather agree with much of what you said, but Netanyahu’s situation in Israel is massively strong, not ‘weak’ by any means, and he has enough popular support to be voted PM four, or is it five, times. And there are worse racist, fascist, supremacist thugs than even he. Of course there are good and decent Israeli Jews opposing his racism, but they are, regretably, in the minority, as Israel marches ever further Right.
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.
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. https://www.timesofisrael.com/5-of-ovadia-yosefs-most-controversial-quotations/ see also here: Vineyard Saker — A crash course on the true causes of “antisemitism”… Read more »
One Jewish odious out-layer; thousands of odious Islamist out-layers…
Ovadia Yosef’s funeral drew the largest crowd in Israeli history, of several hundred thousand devoted followers. All ‘out-layers’, I suppose.
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.… Read more »
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?
More on Drochon and the department of conspiracy at Cambridge that he is a nember of http://www.conspiracyanddemocracy.org/blog/author/hugo/ 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. https://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/nietzsche-great-politics-hugo-drochon-review ‘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… Read more »
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?
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
@ 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” (… Read more »
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… Read more »
Joerg 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… Read more »
@BigB 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 not “in 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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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. https://charleseisenstein.org/essays/why-i-am-afraid-of-global-cooling/ I… Read more »
@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… Read more »
@BigB
My answer to You – from naerly 3 hours ago – is blocked/censored by OffG. I don’t knw why – I said nothig aggressive or smearing. When OffG was contacted by me (about ½ hous ago)
they didn’t answer!
So I outspourced my answer it to:
http://www.imagenetz.de/f295e2021/univerisal-fashism.pdf.html .
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… Read more »
They are NOT ‘sceptics’. They are fanatics. And don’t worry about the insects. The Rapture occurred, and God decided to take the bugs-after all he is ‘inordinately fond of beetles’.
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… Read more »
“… 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.
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”!
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… Read more »
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!
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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?
Tony
.
Great stuff, Tony.
.
.
p.s. It is public money paying the sociopathic morons, your money my money.
Best.
A modest proposal, surely? So hilarious. You must have had fun writing this, Kit.
Your username has a broken link to https://flaxgirl.wordpress.com/
Intolerable, the revolution cannot proceed with broken links!
My website if you’re interested, Narrative: https://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/
Thanks flaxgirl. Your website has a very nice layout.
Thank you, Narrative. You’re the first person to compliment me on it.
https://youtu.be/2U7dXPA_juM
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!
http://www.conspiracyanddemocracy.org/blog/author/hugo/
Thanks Kit Knightly!
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.
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?
Neil 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… Read more »
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.… Read more »
Binra 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,… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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’
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.
I guess you are aware of the Obama era “Conspiracy Theory” paper by Cass Sunstein and Adrian Vermule ?
Steps out the thinking [‘crippled epistemology’] of the deepstate protection racket.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1084585
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
Excellent link Brian
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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?
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.
https://off-guardian.org/2018/11/28/people-hold-opinions-i-dont-share-we-should-stop-them/#comment-139476
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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,… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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?
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… Read more »
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
flaxgirl, 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… Read more »
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.… Read more »
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… Read more »
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.
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”,… Read more »
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.
Flax, 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… Read more »
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.
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.
https://153news.net/watch_video.php?v=U7HNRM79SB9M
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.
Apparently there was a british investment company which lost all it’s staff?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantor_Fitzgerald#9/11_attacks
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.
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?… Read more »
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.
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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.
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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.
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… Read more »
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.
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… Read more »
“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.
“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.
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… Read more »
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.… Read more »
….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, NO planes.. fell for that one did you? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ek-Q0T9wK2g..
Create ‘new folder’. Rename, say, ‘sheep-dip’. Fill with proven and admitted fakes from everywhere. Leave onsite for all to peruse. — I picked this one out today —- http://www.public-library.uk/ebooks/39/28.pdf. Job done.