622

On The Psychology Of The Conspiracy Denier A closer look at the class that mocks.

Tim Foyle

Why is it that otherwise perfectly intelligent, thoughtful and rationally minded people baulk at the suggestion that sociopaths are conspiring to manipulate and deceive them? And why will they defend this ill-founded position with such vehemence?

History catalogues the machinations of liars, thieves, bullies and narcissists and their devastating effects. In modern times too, evidence of corruption and extraordinary deceptions abound.

We know, without question, that politicians lie and hide their connections and that corporations routinely display utter contempt for moral norms – that corruption surrounds us.

We know that revolving doors between the corporate and political spheres, the lobbying system, corrupt regulators, the media and judiciary mean that wrongdoing is practically never brought to any semblance of genuine justice.

We know that the press makes noise about these matters occasionally but never pursues them with true vigour.

We know that in the intelligence services and law enforcement wrongdoing on a breathtaking scale is commonplace and that, again, justice is never forthcoming.

We know that governments repeatedly ignore or trample on the rights of the people, and actively abuse and mistreat the people. None of this is controversial.

So exactly what is it that conspiracy deniers refuse to acknowledge with such fervour, righteousness and condescension? Why, against all the evidence, do they sneeringly and contemptuously defend the crumbling illusion that ‘the great and good’ are up there somewhere, have everything in hand, have only our best interests at heart, and are scrupulous, wise and sincere? That the press serves the people and truth rather than the crooks? That injustice after injustice result from mistakes and oversights, and never from that dread word: conspiracy?

What reasonable person would continue to inhabit such a fantasy world?

The point of disagreement here is only on the matter of scale. Someone who is genuinely curious about the plans of powerful sociopaths won’t limit the scope of their curiosity to, for example, one corporation, or one nation. Why would they? Such a person assumes that the same patterns on display locally are likely to be found all the way up the power food chain. But the conspiracy denier insists this is preposterous.

Why?

It is painfully obvious that the pyramidical societal and legal structures that humanity has allowed to develop are exactly the kind of dominance hierarchies that undoubtedly favour the sociopath. A humane being operating with a normal and healthy cooperative mindset has little inclination to take part in the combat necessary to climb a corporate or political ladder.

So what do conspiracy deniers imagine the 70 million or more sociopaths in the world do all day, born into a ‘game’, in which all the wealth and power are at the top of the pyramid, while the most effective attributes for ‘winning’ are ruthlessness and amorality? Have they never played Monopoly?

Sociopaths do not choose their worldview consciously, and are simply unable to comprehend why normal people would put themselves at such an incredible disadvantage by limiting themselves with conscientiousness and empathy, which are as beyond the understanding of the sociopath as a world without them are to the humane being.

All the sociopath need do to win in the game is lie publicly whilst conspiring privately. What could be simpler? In 2021, to continue to imagine that the world we inhabit is not largely driven by this dynamic amounts to reckless naiveté bordering on insanity. Where does such an inadvertently destructive impulse originate?

The infant child places an innate trust in those it finds itself with – a trust which is, for the most part, essentially justified. The infant could not survive otherwise.

In a sane and healthy society, this deep instinct would evolve as the psyche developed. As self-awareness, the cognitive and reasoning abilities and scepticism evolved in the individual, this innate trust impulse would continue to be understood as a central need of the psyche. Shared belief systems would exist to consciously evolve and develop this childish impulse in order to place this faith somewhere consciously – in values and beliefs of lasting meaning and worth to the society, the individual, or, ideally, both.

Reverence and respect for tradition, natural forces, ancestors, for reason, truth, beauty, liberty, the innate value of life, or the initiating spirit of all things, might all be considered valid resting places in which to consciously place our trust and faith – as well as those derived from more formalised belief systems.

Regardless of the path taken to evolve and develop a personal faith, it is the bringing of one’s own consciousness and cognition to this innate impulse that is relevant here. I believe this is a profound responsibility – to develop and cultivate a mature faith – which many are, understandably, unaware of.

What occurs when there is a childish need within us which has never evolved beyond its original survival function of trusting those in our environment who are, simply, the most powerful; the most present and active? When we have never truly explored our own psyches, and deeply interrogated what we truly believe and why? When our motivation for trusting anything or anyone goes unchallenged? When philosophy is left to the philosophers?

I suggest the answer is simple, and that the evidence of this phenomenon and the havoc it is wreaking is all around us: the innate impulse to trust the mother never evolves, never encounters and engages with its counterbalance of reason (or mature faith), and remains forever on its ‘default’ infant setting.

While the immature psyche no longer depends on parents for its well-being, the powerful and motivating core tenet I have described remains intact: unchallenged, unconsidered and undeveloped. And, in a world in which stability and security are distant memories, these survival instincts, rather than being well-honed, considered, relevant, discerning and up to date, remain, quite literally, those of a baby. Trust is placed in the biggest, loudest, most present and undeniable force around, because instinct decrees that survival depends on it.

And, in this great ‘world nursery’, the most omnipresent force is the network of institutions which consistently project an unearned image of power, calm, expertise, concern and stability.

In my view, this is how conspiracy deniers are able to cling to and aggressively defend the utterly illogical fantasy that somehow – above a certain undefined level of the societal hierarchy – corruption, deceit, malevolence and narcissism mysteriously evaporate. That, contrary to the maxim, the more power a person has, the more integrity they will inevitably exhibit. These poor deluded souls essentially believe that where personal experience and prior knowledge cannot fill in the gaps in their worldview – in short, where there is a barred door – mummy and daddy are behind it, working out how best to ensure that their little precious will be comfortable, happy and safe forever.

This is the core, comforting illusion at the root of the conspiracy denier’s mindset, the decrepit foundation upon which they build a towering castle of justification from which to pompously jeer at and mock those who see otherwise.

This explains why it is that the conspiracy denier will attack any suggestion that the caregiving archetype is no longer present – that sociopaths are behind the barred door, who hold us all in utter contempt or disregard us completely. The conspiracy denier will attack any such suggestion as viciously as if their survival depended on it – which, in a way, within the makeup of their unconscious and precarious psyche, it does.

Their sense of well-being, of security, of comfort, even of a future at all, is completely (and completely unconsciously) invested in this fantasy. The infant has never matured, and, because they are not conscious of this, other than as a deep attachment to their personal security, they will fiercely attack any threat to this unconscious and central aspect of their worldview.

The tediously common refrain from the conspiracy denier is, ‘there couldn’t be a conspiracy that big’.

The simple retort to such a self-professed expert on conspiracies is obvious: how big?

The biggest ‘medical’ corporations in the world can go for decades treating the settling of court cases as mere business expenses, for crimes ranging from the suppressing of adverse test events to multiple murders resulting from undeclared testing to colossal environmental crimes.

Governments perform the vilest and most unthinkable ‘experiments’ (crimes) on their own people without consequence.

Politicians habitually lie to our faces, without consequence.

And on and on. At what point, exactly, does a conspiracy become so big that ‘they’ just couldn’t get away with it, and why? I suggest it’s at the point where the cognitive ability of the conspiracy denier falters, and their unconscious survival instinct kicks in. The point at which the intellect becomes overwhelmed with the scope of events and the instinct is to settle back into the familiar comforting faith known and cultivated since the first moment one’s lips found the nipple. The faith that someone else is dealing with it – that where the world becomes unknown to us, a powerful and benevolent human authority exists in which we have only to place our faith unconditionally in order to guarantee eternal emotional security.

This dangerous delusion may be the central factor placing humanity’s physical security and future in the hands of sociopaths.

To anyone in the habit of dismissing people who are questioning, investigative and sceptical as tin foil hat wearing, paranoid, science-denying Trump supporters, the question is: what do you believe in? Where have you placed your faith and why? How is it that while no one trusts governments, you appear to trust nascent global governance organisations without question? How is this rational?

If you are placing faith in such organisations, consider that in the modern global age, these organisations, as extraordinarily well presented as they are, are simply grander manifestations of the local versions we know we can’t trust. They are not our parents and demonstrate no loyalty to humane values. There is no reason to place any faith whatsoever in any of them.

If you haven’t consciously developed a faith or questioned why you believe as you do to some depth, such a position might seem misanthropic, but in truth, it is the opposite. These organisations have not earned your trust with anything other than PR money and glossy lies. True power remains, as ever, with the people.

There is a reason why Buddhists strongly advise the placing of one’s faith in the Dharma, or the natural law of life, rather than in persons, and that similar refrains are common in other belief systems.

Power corrupts. And, in the world today, misplaced and unfounded trust could well be one of the greatest sources of power there is.

Massive criminal conspiracies exist. The evidence is overwhelming. The scope of those currently underway is unknown, but there is no reason to imagine, in the new global age, that the sociopathic quest for power or the possession of the resources required to move towards it is diminishing. Certainly not while dissent is mocked and censored into silence by gatekeepers, ‘useful idiots’, and conspiracy deniers, who are, in fact, directly colluding with the sociopathic agenda through their unrelenting attack on those who would shine a light on wrongdoing.

It is every humane being’s urgent responsibility to expose sociopathic agendas wherever they exist – never to attack those who seek to do so.

Now, more than ever, it is time to put away childish things, and childish impulses, and to stand up as adults to protect the future of the actual children who have no choice but to trust us with their lives.

This essay has focussed on what I consider to be the deepest psychological driver of conspiracy denial.

There are certainly others, such as the desire to be accepted; the avoidance of knowledge of, and engagement with, the internal and external shadow; the preservation of a positive and righteous self-image: a generalised version of the ‘flying monkey’ phenomenon, in which a self-interested and vicious class protect themselves by coalescing around the bully; the subtle unconscious adoption of the sociopathic worldview (e.g. ‘humanity is the virus’); outrage addiction/superiority complex/status games; a stunted or unambitious intellect that finds validation through maintaining the status quo; the dissociative protective mechanism of imagining that crimes and horrors committed repeatedly within our lifetime are somehow not happening now, not ‘here’; and plain old fashioned laziness and cowardice.

My suggestion is that, to some degree, all of these build on the foundation of the primary cause I’ve outlined here.

Tim Foyle is an English fellow who loves cats, nature, music, food, humanity and truth. You can follow his writings here, and on Twitter: @timfoyl

SUPPORT OFFGUARDIAN

For direct-transfer bank details click here.

4.8 163 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

622 Comments
newest
oldest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
sin
sin
Sep 8, 2022 1:20 AM

Nobody recognizes that Tim Foyle sounds very much like Tin foil?

Joshua
Joshua
Sep 22, 2022 6:25 PM
Reply to  sin

I do not recommend wearing a tin foil hat: the aliens can read my thoughts that way. At this stage of the circus act, you’d need a serious case of Stockholm Syndrome to deny the obvious conspiracy the cabal is up to. Looking at you, “Professor” Dave

kuno
kuno
Dec 12, 2021 7:56 AM

Loved this article.
Very thought provoking.

If I may add a few observations about sceptics.

My experience is what they have in common is

1. they value independent thinking above belonging

2. – they rely much less heavily on conforming to a group mindset/ shared view and can often display excessively contrary attitudes

3. – they learn by doing, trial and error and experimentation (often autodidacts), not by being lectured to in a traditional academic setting

They are often

– much more likely to be small business owners
– or much more likely to not have “careers”

The first group are often seen as successful by society, (although increasingly less so). The second group are not, and often seen as drifters or under aachievers

As a result:

1. they don’t spend their working life obsessed with corporate politics/ manoeuvring/ positioning ie what their “substitute parents” think of them. The first group obsess over survival, the second group focus on avoiding authority or keeping a low profile

2. they don’t rely on being told what to do by “substitute parents” – the first group find it totally alien being told what to do as they rely on decifering the “truth” or reality everyday of their lives, the second group often work repetitive/isolated jobs where management supervision is at a minimum, or if they do work in team scenarios can display passive aggression or low cooperative behaviour

These two groups are a minority of the population, the size of which can increasingly be proxied by the % refusing the injections.

Anyone not in these groups will be simply unable to empathise with them as they see the world and live their lives through completely different ‘lenses’.

Anyone in these groups will be unable to understand the masses who are increasingly revealing themselves to be infantilised adults.

Thoughts please

Ole
Ole
Dec 27, 2021 7:59 PM
Reply to  kuno

Well said, interesting observations.

QParameter
QParameter
Dec 30, 2021 5:31 PM
Reply to  kuno

Wow, extraordinary quality comment, possibly even better than the essay we discuss here!

I am a small business owner myself, you described exactly my own mindset, outstanding!

Davide Fabbri
Davide Fabbri
Nov 15, 2021 2:12 PM

This is offensive to all those who are normally intelligent. It has a few points but they are put in a way that pushes the not very bright reader on the wrong track, therfore it is also misguiding and intellectually pestiferous. There is no big conspiracy, there are many and often in contrast with each other. In many cases, conspiracy only means strategy, something everybody recures to if wanting success, specially politicians. Power puts those who have it in a defensive mode, obviouysly, not wanting to give up being apical. I don’t believe people deny ‘the conspiracy’, I believe that they are well aware of the darkness that hides hideous secrets that live within the institutions, but things are so intricate and impenetrable that there’s little that can be be done to rid us of the evil greedy nature of man, something we’ve lived with since day one except for continuing to expose it and refine our system with better and more efficient rules that tend to inhibit the nasty ways of dominance. Someine once said ‘the fascinating thing about power is the abuse it allows you to pracice’. So, it is not our being childish that makes us deny conspiracy theories, it’s our being realistic.

Colonel Gapoffy
Colonel Gapoffy
Dec 2, 2021 9:19 PM
Reply to  Davide Fabbri

If you’re only ‘normally intelligent’, then I’m afraid to say you’re probably not intelligent at all, and have just adapted to appear intelligent to the environment. I realise you can’t be on your game all the time, but intelligence doesn’t take a day off in my experience. That’s before we get into discussing different forms of intelligence. I believe the main difference between those who can see and accept conspiracies, and those who can’t, is the ability to put biases aside and think critically.

Kostjano
Kostjano
Aug 17, 2022 3:55 PM

someone who says, they are normally intelligent, are probably more intelligent, than those who say that they are very intelligent (Dunning-Kruger)

Davide Fabbri
Davide Fabbri
Nov 15, 2021 6:30 AM

Non c’è un solo un complotto, ce ne sono tantissimo a tutti i livelli e pure spesso in conflitto fra loro. Ognuno nel suo.piccolo complotta per arrivare al successo, i politici in special modo, ma si potrebbe anche definire mettere in atto delle strategie. Sta di fatto che il potere mette chi ne ha in una posizione apicale che viene istintivamente difesa. Diceva uno, ‘il fascino del potere sta nel poterne abusare’. Io non credo affatto che ‘il complotto’ venga negato, credo che sia impossibile penetrarne i misteri, diramarne la trama e trovare una forza di pari peso da opporvi.

Daredruh
Daredruh
Sep 3, 2021 7:19 AM

Thank you Tim Foyle, for this very insightful little essay.
I have, as an artist, always believed in “Beauty”
I believe that “Truth is Beauty”
People NEED to believe in something.
Be very careful of the New World Religion.

Aaron
Aaron
Jul 15, 2022 3:37 PM
Reply to  Daredruh

Truth is not beauty. Or I suppose that depends on your definition of beauty. Truth is raw and often times extremely ugly. Which is why so many refuse to accept truth for what it is and instead distract themselves with all the beautiful lies they possibly can. People prefer living lies because the truth is typically so ugly. So again, I guess it depends on your definition of beauty.

Eric Metzen
Eric Metzen
Jul 28, 2021 3:16 AM

May I translate it to German and post it on Facebook? Shurely I will link it.

Paul
Paul
Oct 28, 2021 8:44 PM
Reply to  Sam - Admin2

Can I translate in Dutch for my website ezaz.nl? Of course with credits and a link to the English version.

Anon
Anon
Jul 13, 2021 3:28 PM

TimFoyle hat :D, wear it proudly. Loved the article

Lilo Bauer-Freitag
Lilo Bauer-Freitag
Jul 9, 2021 2:23 PM

Fantastic read, soothing for the soul and re-affirming humanity and sanity. Great psychological analysis! Thank you for this.

Jamasa
Jamasa
Jun 15, 2021 5:02 AM

This is fantastic. My own thoughts exactly – so refreshing to it see it written up like this, put out there, and so eloquently.

In trying to comprehend this deep Covid divide, I figured it was the innate default of needing to trust our parents and its continuum into
adulthood where the ultimate responsibility for our own good must always lie higher up (the ‘nanny’ state for example) – that is blinding the masses.

There was a programme a few years ago which showed that conspiracy theorists often came from broken homes – as if that proved the basis for their delusions. It occurred to me it might be the other way around – that impaired trust resulting from poor child hood care would, if anything, heighten one’s antenna for untrustworthy authority.

This may be a sweeping generalisation, but I’m finding that it’s the most highly educated and most privileged that are buying the narrative most without question. This is because they’ve never had the need to question authority.

Manifest Freedom
Manifest Freedom
Aug 31, 2021 12:38 AM
Reply to  Jamasa

Too true. A difficult childhood makes people more vigilant for sure. Add to this, one single hospital stay is enough to prove to most of us how incompetent the medical profession is in practice, for anyone paying attention. There is a Carnegie Mellon (I think) study showing the most vaccine hesitant folks out here are on opposite sides of the spectrum…they are the least-educated and the hyper-educated (advanced degrees & PhDs) a lovely bell curve emerges. Interestingly, the 50% mass in the middle who follow the CDC orthodoxy, those who are out-sourcing their personal responsibility and obligation to investigate and passing this job along to “medical experts” who are just as captured as the regulatory agencies entrained with Pharma. Woe to they that are easily swayed and led.

Aileen
Aileen
Jun 14, 2021 5:31 PM

A brilliant argument , well written and persuasive.
All I would add is the individual tendency to seek and do evil. Most of us don’t, but those who crave money, power and attention, the status seekers and celebrity legacy showponies? They can easily convince themselves that righteousness starts when the last dissident is removed,or imprisoned. All monsters start with this perverted impulse , and their structures reward that.
Me? I happen to think that Jesus, Paul and the old testament prophets portray man exactly as he is. And giving him access to power and pyramidal scaffolding to swing his genitals from ,is where we are today
You state so much of it well. Thank you.

Niika
Niika
Apr 28, 2021 3:29 PM

The conspiracy denial derives from philosopher Karl Popper. I really recommend reading “The Open Society and Its Enemies” Vol.I&II, where Popper explains his theory of the “conspiracy theory of society”, which he rejects. Popper writes, the denial follows from the marxian view of the capitalist system. Therfore one should not blame the capitalist for the bad outcomes of the economic system because he would just fulfil his historical role to produce the conditions for the social revolution by developing the means of production and increasing productivity which alone would allow humanity once to live in a classless society, owning the means of production collectively. I personally doubt that the denial of conspiracy was marx intention, but this is, what Popper claims it is. Popper of course, at the same time, was disgusted by the marxian materialist conception of history. Popper rather was deeply influences by his friend, the neoliberal economist Friedrich von Hayek, who founded the Mont Pelerin Society. While Popper was more in favour of interventiones by the state to regulate the economy, Hayek more or less opposed it and favoured as much as privatisation as possible. Popper and Hayek both propagated an institutional approach for social change. To improve society one should rather develop institutions in a kind also bad people could not do too much damage to society, like implementing markets that would sanctioning its participants, rather than blaming those in power.
In the beginning of the 90th there was a debate about conspiracy theory involving left wing intellectuals like Michael Parenti an Noam Chomsky. The Chomskyan side saw themselves as “institionalists”. For some reason neither Popper nor Marx is mentioned anywhere. At the centre of the debate was the question of how the left should deal with rising puplic distrust in the official investigations of the assassination of former US-president John F. Kennedy by the Warren-Commission. Today a paper is available that shows that the CIA used the term “conspiracy theorist” in an effort to delegimate criticism of the warren report. https://www.siper.ch/assets/uploads/files/dokumente/CIA%20(1967)%20-%20Countering%20Criticism%20of%20the%20Warren%20Report.pdf

Funnily the conspiracy denial of popper is a contradiction to his own concept of the open society. In an open society where democratic governements should be able to be exchanged peacefuly it must be possible to criticise those in power. In recent times Popper had been criticised by epistemologists and philosophers like Charles Pigden and David Coady for his rejection of conspiracy theories.

M. Parenti: Conspiracy and Class Power
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t21UZxRYYA4

M. Parenti: Ideology And Conspiracy
https://www.tucradio.org/audio/Parenti_DeepPolitics_ONE.mp3
https://tucradio.org/audio/Parenti_DeepPolitics_TWO.mp3

Michael Albert (1995): “Conspiracy Theory”
https://zcomm.org/zmagazine/conspiracy-theory-by-michael-albert/

Stephen R. Shalom & Michael Albert: Conspiracies Or Institutions: 9-11 and Beyond
revised, June 2, 2002
https://www.wpunj.edu/cohss/departments/pol_sci/faculty/shalom/conspiracies

Ch. Pigden: https://philpapers.org/archive/PIGPRO.pdf

D. Coady: https://theconversation.com/in-defence-of-conspiracy-theories-and-why-the-term-is-a-misnomer-101678

Tim Foyle
Tim Foyle
May 21, 2021 10:30 PM
Reply to  Niika

Thanks for gathering these links. Interesting stuff.

Jack Adam Weber
Jack Adam Weber
Apr 10, 2021 1:20 AM

“Why, against all the evidence, do they sneeringly and contemptuously defend the crumbling illusion that ‘the great and good’ are up there somewhere, have everything in hand, have only our best interests at heart, and are scrupulous, wise and sincere?”

Because not everything government, big business, and science does is nefarious. To presume so is black or white thinking and itself nefarious, untrustworthy, and dangerous.

James Dunne
James Dunne
Apr 10, 2021 6:51 PM

To imply that vigilance and a scrupulous caution towards the actions of the powerful is as dangerous as an unearned docile trust, is obviously a false equivalence – a single shade of grey cast over many enlightening points in the article.

James Dunne
James Dunne
Apr 10, 2021 7:58 PM

History attests that too much of what they do is less than transparent at the time and sometimes nefarious so a precautionary approach is warranted. No one is saying that every conceivable conspiracy should be assumed true. The point is that the aversion to conceiving of possible conspiracy stifles and delays closer scrutiny. I would argue that a misplaced good faith in the actors behind the Iraq invasion enabled it to happen. We don’t need it all to be nefarious for knee jerk dismissal of “conspiracy theories” to lead to great disasters.

DWS
DWS
May 11, 2021 12:59 PM

Of course, not everything, but unless you understand all the power structures at play, and all the hidden agendas being served, and the lies that are used to manufacture consent among the dumb masses, then you will be wrong most of the time. Certainly our elected ‘leaders’ want to look good on TV and have nice things to say that make them popular – as does every narcissist, but you have to consider their highest priorities – their own political security and future financial security, which is currently best served by furthering the agendas of the ruling sociopaths and coming up with convincing lies, such as “it’s for the greater good” to sell those agendas to the people.

It’s impossible to quantify, but if you assume they are ALWAYS lying, and ALWAYS have hidden agendas, then I suspect you will be correct most of the time, maybe even 90% of the time.

Andreas
Andreas
Mar 29, 2021 8:29 PM

Congratulations! I loved the tack Tim Foyle took on this. The somewhat academic english will not be accessible for mainstream readers. Maybe that is why the Guardian (nowadays sadly a mainstream propaganda machine) let it slip by…

Sue Stevenson
Sue Stevenson
Mar 30, 2021 11:11 AM
Reply to  Andreas

The Guardian would never publish this and risk offending their own readers 🙂

Susanne Scheidel
Susanne Scheidel
Jul 8, 2021 2:19 PM
Reply to  Andreas

I am German; I understood and appreciated the article as one of the few writings, understanding my own apprehension and thus saving my sanity in these dreadful times!

Bobby Lokey
Bobby Lokey
Mar 29, 2021 1:26 AM

This is the best on this subject ever that I have read. It’s true about, “Mommy’s titty in baby’s mouth.” The author hit that one right on the button, the “nipple” of the whole thing, so to speak. Actual, realistic government conspiracies against the people are covered simply by now grown-up babies snuggling toward the certainty of “mommy’s nipple,” and don’t want any “ripple” to disturb that “nipple.” Because baby knows what’s safe: Mommy’s nipple that don’t ripple. Hahaha.

Real TeaParty
Real TeaParty
Mar 28, 2021 5:59 PM

I don’t deny conspiracies, but you really have to question people who are known liars when they tell you the election was ‘stolen’ from them, Indeed they are now admitting even they did not believe that, as Trump’s lawyer stated, he lies so much he has himself convinced so he can convince others. https://chicago.suntimes.com/columnists/2021/3/25/22350378/sidney-powell-admits-lie-mona-charen

Mr Futzy
Mr Futzy
Mar 29, 2021 4:10 AM
Reply to  Real TeaParty

it has been proven the Liberals cheated. They just won’t allow any evidence that proves it.

Franjello
Franjello
Apr 1, 2021 7:16 PM
Reply to  Real TeaParty

This article is actually a great example of the propaganda system at work. They use a series of anecdotes to tie her together in the reader’s mind with other proven frauds, then “quote” her saying that “no reasonable person would believe that was a statement of fact.” That “quote” is a sentence from a legal filing, taken out of context. In full context, the intent of the statement is to establish that certain claims involved in Dominion’s suit against her were not made as statements of *established fact*, but rather *apparent fact* that they hoped to establish through the legal process once more evidence was gathered. It’s legalese, misinterpreted either disingenuously or stupidly by the author (and everyone else who repeated this misrepresentation the week the filing came out). I’m not a big fan of Powell, but this article is simply misleading.

Murphy71
Murphy71
Apr 13, 2021 4:59 PM
Reply to  Real TeaParty

TDS, much?

DWS
DWS
May 11, 2021 1:05 PM
Reply to  Real TeaParty

It’s a logical fallacy to assume that everything said by a known liar is therefore a lie. Why not look at the facts instead of paying attention to what people say? How can you be certain that the people who told you Trump was lying, were not lying themselves? Regardless of how convincing it was, quite often when you look deep into these things, the lies are multi-layered.

I am no fan of Trump – I am in the UK and I liked what Sanders was saying in 2015/6, and I liked what Corbyn was saying in the UK around the same time – but I watched as the mainstream media lied non-stop to smear these people. And I saw the same lies and smears used against Trump – which suggests to me that he is no more a member of the corrupt ruling elite than Sanders or Corbyn. Trump sure did say a lot of ludicrous nonsense – but that’s how he got the media attention in the first place that got him elected. But, as I said, it is a fallacy to assume that EVERYTHING said by a proven liar is therefore a lie. For example – take a look at the story around Trump using Hydroxychloroquine. As soon as he mentioned he was using it, the FDA/CDC banned it and the press was flooded with stories about it being dangerous. As soon as Biden was sworn in, all that was reversed, and doctors can prescribe it once again. Similar example is the claim that Trump said people should “inject themselves with disinfectant”. If you listen to the actual unedited audio, that is not at all what he said.

Manifest Freedom
Manifest Freedom
Aug 31, 2021 12:41 AM
Reply to  DWS

Excellent point!

DWS
DWS
May 11, 2021 1:25 PM
Reply to  Real TeaParty

Regarding election fraud – there is convincing evidence that many districts had some very odd things happening, such as boxes of Biden only ballots showing up at 4am on the last day. The chances of that happening by chance are astronomical – but if you wanted to rig an election, and do it without overdoing it, then you would wait until the count is nearly complete before slipping in the fraudulent ballots – so you know exactly how many you need, And there is video evidence of one such district pulling boxes of new ballots out from under a desk after the count had been finished for the day, when all the staff had gone except for a couple who stayed behind. Anything can be fake – and I certainly don’t believe something just because I see a youtube video – but you have to consider all the possibilities and make your own judgement.

Albert
Albert
Mar 28, 2021 5:53 PM

Well done. I believe fear, the need for a comfort zone, also pride, idol worship and the sheer inability to see something so grand can exist, all of these factors play a role in conspiracy denial. Also, on a spiritual level, people who view the world as their “final word,” being that they have no true understanding of a moral higher power, they are often terrified that if the world lets them down, then there is no hope.

Andrew
Andrew
Oct 31, 2021 12:45 AM
Reply to  Albert

I think that’s a wonderful point Albert. Your last sentence . . . thanks!

Chico
Chico
Mar 28, 2021 6:01 AM

Bravo, Tim! I have studied the psychology of sociopaths for the last 15 years, as well as the dynamic that exists between their psychology and the psychology of normal people, and I have never encountered anyone with such a clear understanding of the complexities at play! The root of all evil is the sociopath, aided and abetted by the ignorance of the masses of “humane beings”.who prefer comfort over truth. Brilliant article, well done!

Real TeaParty
Real TeaParty
Mar 28, 2021 6:02 PM
Reply to  Chico

And we had just such a sociopath for the last four nightmare years in the white house. What was worse is the sociopaths willing to support his nonsense,

Bobby Lokey
Bobby Lokey
Mar 29, 2021 1:37 AM
Reply to  Real TeaParty

So now we have a man? in the Oval Office that is superior to Trump (or even if it were a wino hustled out of a wino jungle) for a prez? How is a totally brain dead Biden better than any human with a functioning brain, even a wino’s? ? Hahaha. The dim dems outrageously, out-front robbed every American citizen of the right to vote in even any vaguest semblance of a fair election. Hahaha.

Rhonda
Rhonda
Apr 12, 2021 2:41 PM
Reply to  Chico

Diabolical Narcissism, the Overarching Global Pathology – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4dtcwv5dPM

Edmund Roache
Edmund Roache
Mar 27, 2021 5:06 PM

In order to search out the truth, you must love truth more than all of your fears and insecurities. Scripture says we fell for mass deception because ‘we did not love the truth.” That is the bottom line, only divine inspiration could provide such incisive analysis.

FriendofChrist
FriendofChrist
Mar 27, 2021 8:27 PM
Reply to  Edmund Roache

And I believe you have gotten to the root of it, my friend.
2 Thessalonians:7, 10
For the mystery of iniquity doth already work; only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.

And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; BECAUSE THEY RECEIVED NOT THE LOVE OF THE TRUTH, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a LIE.

Ellis Medavoy
Ellis Medavoy
Apr 10, 2021 10:42 PM
Reply to  Edmund Roache

I believe it comes down to a survival instinct that compels us to seek the truth. We must have a survival instinct strong enough to push us past the Peer Pressure Pain threshold.
C.S. Lewis said “True humility is to see the world as it is”. Jesus said “The meek shall inherit the earth”. Only those who see the truth being linked to their survival will endure.

Katie Simpson
Katie Simpson
Mar 27, 2021 9:27 AM

The retardation of the psychi so it stays juvenile or infant in its essence, dependant on external authority figures is the primary feature of the bastardised Abrahanic religions and a primary reason we are in the mess we are in

FriendofChrist
FriendofChrist
Mar 27, 2021 8:45 PM
Reply to  Katie Simpson

Verily I say unto you, except ye be converted, and BECOME as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven..whoever, therefore, shall HUMBLE himself As this little child, the same is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.~Jesus Christ –
Matthew 18

Jesus Christ loves you Katie and we all have an external Authority to answer to, our Creator.

BHT
BHT
Mar 27, 2021 7:42 AM

“Superstition is like a magnet, it pulls you in the direction of your belief.”

Fabrice
Fabrice
Mar 25, 2021 8:17 PM

Boris Johnson has just said that the successful vaccination campaign in UK has been possible because of greedy capitalism, the “Conspiracy Deniers” will say that his consideration is right because the world in which they live is good as greedy capitalism allows people to buy what they want whenever they want and need, on the other hand, for the so called “Conspiracy Theorists”, usually rational and logical persons who already know certain perverse patologies of the power system, is a sort of “Smoking Gun” which has been said under the form of a gigantic Freudian slip, that’s t!!
Obviously, in this case, the so called “Conspiracy Theorists” are right 100% , they know very well that there wasn’t any necessity of a vaccination campaign because there are already effective treatments with very cheap drugs to cure Covid-19 like for example hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin and oxygen therapy, furthermore, they also know very well that the average age of deaths related to Covid-19 is very high ( something like 80 years and more ) and the vast majority suffered of preexisiting illnesses, that is just basic locic and rationality which unfortunately have become something uncommon, hence, here is the real question:

is the Americanization of European society the real culprit of such a gullible public opinion in Europe? Or what else?

Best regards.

Fabrice, greetings from Italy

bob
bob
Mar 28, 2021 6:16 PM
Reply to  Fabrice

“Americanization of European society” = gullible public opinion (in Europe) … ?
Europeans had no capacity for gullibility before America existed? That seems strange considering how old the place is compared to how young America is.
Statement seems devoid of some basic understanding of logic.

Fabrice
Fabrice
Mar 31, 2021 4:55 PM
Reply to  bob

I’ve written “Americanization of European society” because I had taken it for granted that anyone could easily understand that the reference time is obviously from the end of the second world war to nowadays and if you don’t realize the historical, cultural political and economic consequences of the USA as the absolute winner of the second world war towards the losers like Italy, Germay and Japan, and the rest of the Western society ( they even tried to kill Charles De Gaulle several times because in 1966 he had chosen to withdraw from the NATO and had ordered all American military personnel to leave France), hence, the problem is yours not mine!!

In other words, it’s your statement that lacks of some basic understanding of modern hostorical logic, that’s it!!

skeptic
skeptic
Mar 24, 2021 11:40 AM

Must Read: Political Ponerology

Cwals
Cwals
Mar 23, 2021 8:14 AM

They aren’t just sociopaths, they are demons. Are you denying that? You might need to dig deeper.

lisa
lisa
Mar 22, 2021 2:03 AM

Brilliant!

Crazycatkid
Crazycatkid
Mar 21, 2021 9:23 PM

Bravo!

ruby koheeallee
ruby koheeallee
Mar 21, 2021 6:43 PM

WoW!!!! Well written. I have said for many uears that rhat adults act like iverlt emotinal children. Very well written piece. THANK YOU. 💖🙏💖

Glen McConnell
Glen McConnell
Mar 21, 2021 5:58 PM

I agree with all that is said in this excellent article, but I’d add that the sociopaths have long ago recognised the need to perpetuate the illusion of the normalcy of the system they operate as overlords.
I suggest that “norms” have been structured into our psyche from childhood.
Consider that only a few generations ago there was no such thing as team sports. The introduction of the team spirt concept has introduced to the psyches of our most active members the idea that the coach knows all. The coach is the wise master who shall not be questioned. And beyond the coach there are shadowy figures in boardrooms who dictate the maximums by which all must operate.
it’s a textbook example of psychological programming.
now consider that generally speaking these same people being so thoroughly programmed would also have been the ones storming barricades just a few generations earlier.

Roki8kiki
Roki8kiki
Mar 22, 2021 6:40 PM
Reply to  Glen McConnell

I agree with you. I’ve thought about the type of values that the Western education system instills in us, such as: competition, the need to prove our superiority, group-think, constant strive for “success”, obedience…etc. Why don’t school curriculums mandate teaching human morals like: love, compassion, friendship, the need to take care of the weak, humility, care… etc. I think its because it is way more difficult to corrupt persons who are driven by these human morals as opposed to someone who is driven by greed and the constant need to be “successful”. If this is the age of awakening, I hope in my lifetime to see the education system completely revamped and instilling in children these human morals, which are currently largely ignored by the education system.

artgrafiken
artgrafiken
Mar 20, 2021 2:05 PM

comment image

Kathleen blakeney
Kathleen blakeney
Mar 19, 2021 3:01 PM

I love your thoughts but felt some pull to your foundation. I think many had healthy family relationships which built a foundation of trust, I don’t see that in itself the problem. Yet by now anyone should now realize they were fortunate and those that have been vocal can not deny the hypocritical behavior. We have had a perfect contrast here in US. I think it’s fear by now, and cowardice, these facts of a horrible world are staring us all in the face. Turning a blind eye/selfishness is definetely like being a spoiled child and in need of maturing, but I think the premise that safe relationships isn’t the worst place to be. Many who experienced reality early have the advantage of understanding, and deservedly so, we got something for our early sorrows.
The fight is real, at this point of darkness upon us and the consequences we all will be in this together, they should see we are still maturing too “I told you so” has no value. We still have choices if we come together, we are fighting for them too.
This essay helps. Wake up all! God bless!

Scott
Scott
Mar 19, 2021 6:07 AM

Beautifully written and brilliantly explained. Thank you.

EJesurun
EJesurun
Mar 19, 2021 2:50 AM

Sane people still struggle mightily to explain the insane or sociopath. Our mind fails to comprehend the behavior bc it isn’t rational to us.

David Allen
David Allen
Mar 27, 2021 8:36 PM
Reply to  EJesurun

I have no problem comprehending evil and evil people. You have to come to the realization that some people are just pieces of shit

ferretfondue
ferretfondue
Apr 12, 2021 1:34 PM
Reply to  David Allen

Or: the realization that we all have the potential to do immense good & bad.

Drapetomania
Drapetomania
Apr 20, 2021 3:06 AM
Reply to  ferretfondue

With the immense amount of death, destruction, and theft done by governments in the 20th century, government supporters can’t lay claim to doing good.

Wardbest
Wardbest
Mar 19, 2021 1:01 AM

Perhaps because perfectly intelligent, thoughtful and rationally minded people don’t just let themselves be tempted into finger-pointing from a suggestion, and because they, unlike Mr. Foyle, realize that sociopaths are not just among those whose behavior is objectional.
And why does opposing that suggestive direction suddenly turns into an unfounded point of view? Does a point of view becomes unfounded if one finds it contrary to one’s own believes, even when one compiles that own believe from a sometimes extremely questionable amalgam of social media comments? Is one’s point of view unfounded when one expresses one’s doubts about the sometimes extremely dubious nature of that amalgam of social media comments? Clearly Mr. Foyle thinks so!
History does not catalogues the machinations of liars, thieves, bullies and narcissists and their devastating effects. History does much more than that, and the deliberately limiting fabrication of history to this utterly negative and highly disparaging view suggests that Mr.Tim Foyle is rather one of those whose behavior he seems to disapprove.

Janet Jamerson
Janet Jamerson
Mar 19, 2021 7:51 AM
Reply to  Wardbest

YOU make no sense
CONSPIRACY is just the engine of mankind sense the beginning of time, that cave man conspired for that piece of meat or that man conspired for that women the dark occultist created conspiracy ‘theorists’ to baster ize that word so you think its something taboo

Tom Walsh
Tom Walsh
Mar 23, 2021 7:56 PM
Reply to  Janet Jamerson

It’s “since” and “bastardise”

Ben Meraki
Ben Meraki
Mar 24, 2021 9:16 AM
Reply to  Wardbest

Obviously you are ignorant to clear facts. Truths are absolute but they require facts in order to demonstrate them to people. Luckily, the kinds of obvious truths the author discusses here are very much supported by hard and clear empirical measurements/observations – facts!

So, your assertion that the author and readers are mindless finger-pointers is incorrect, and is based upon your own preconceptions and prejudices. A typical narc/NPC seeking to find subtext when there is none (subtext is for the dishonest and cowardly), and to weave strands of truth into your fabric of deceit and delusion in order to sate your tit-feeding survival tendencies.

You are the very scourge to which the author alludes.

Top Planner
Top Planner
Mar 18, 2021 9:56 PM

Another awesome and so much “needed to be said” article! Off Guardian never ceases to delight the intellect and strike at the core of the most pressing and urgent issues of the time. Thank you all so much!

Christine Stahl
Christine Stahl
Mar 18, 2021 12:17 PM

Working my way through The End of All Evil by Jeremy Locke, ISBN 0-9777451-0-4. Explains how evil works, its tactics to control the masses. It’s as old as Cain, Nimrod, Bael, Walter Wink called it the Domination System. “Conspiracy theory” is a
moniker to turn people away from looking. Programming. We’ve been programmed.

Bob Welham
Bob Welham
Mar 18, 2021 9:32 AM

An alternative name for a ‘conspiracy denier’ which I quite like is ‘conspiraphobe’.
It is a good riposte for anyone dismissed as a ‘conspiraloon’ or ‘conspiratard’ or similar.

dacid
dacid
Nov 16, 2021 12:13 AM
Reply to  Bob Welham

guess what, dude, without proof it’s nothing.

Impropaganda
Impropaganda
Mar 17, 2021 7:01 PM

Despite countless examples of well-documented and accepted acts of organized group deceit throughout human history, in the modern vernacular ’Conspiracy Theory’, through clever propaganda, has been molded into a pejorative term to discredit any form of legitimate questioning of dubious official narratives.

So, no matter how many anomalies are unearthed and analyzed by various professionals about suspicious global or national events; grouping all discussion and topics into a discredited intellectual taxonomic group, labelled ‘Conspiracy Theorist’, allows deceivers, deniers and useful idiots to maintain a comfortable lie rather than allow exposure of a possible uncomfortable truth. And the masses can sigh a relief and maintain their false sense of security and belief in the system. Now, clearly some ‘conspiracy theories’ will not withstand the rigors of scrutiny but this should not imply that all theories by group association, do not. That would be like saying, I don’t have a bucket of carbon because it contains coal and diamonds.

Fortunately for mendacious authorities, most conspiracy theories have another Achilles heel: It is one thing realizing the official narrative is corrupt by unearthing obvious lies and deceptions, but it is quite another thing being able to definitively piece together and reveal the truth. This difficulty with burden of proof is utilised by deniers to reject conspiracy exists at all. But this is false logic: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. In other words, the inability for a number of theorists to reach cohesive agreement on what took place is not a substantive defense for an official narrative which is clearly and provably false. For example, we know gravity exists but all manner of theories abound as to how or why… this lack of cohesion in opinion does not mean gravity does not exist, we just don’t fully understand it yet.

In this regard, it is far easier for a handful of corrupt power brokers to maintain one big deception, than it is for a large number of individuals to reach a consensus of opinion. Conspiracy analysis rarely arises out of some deranged madness but out of glaringly obvious anomalies, like 9/11 for example. And with a myriad of publicized corruption, globally, nationally and locally; in government, corporations and families, it seems incredulous to think that these human traits would not be utilised on a grander scale particularly in higher echelons where power and wealth are the currency of hierarchical ascent. I suggest researching the ‘Quigley Formula’ for those that are skeptical of how this might be achieved.

Anyway, surely the initial aim should be to reveal the occurrence of untruth. The term should be ‘Conspiracy Checker’ rather than ‘Conspiracy Theorist’, ie. has there been an obvious attempt to conceal truth – on the balance of available evidence… ‘YES’ or ‘NO’. For example, observing the development of narrative over last twelve months it is not difficult to garner a modicum of suspicion; false statistics, remedy misinformation, testing manipulation, censorship, arbitrary fact checking, dissent by medics, scientists, virologists, immunologists and lawyers warning that something is deeply wrong, etc. If one were to ‘Conspiracy Check’ this pandemic, a resounding ‘YES’ would flag up. What, why and how this has taken place, are all questions open to speculation and ‘theory’. But what is not too difficult to see, is that global deception is being openly conducted before our eyes. And this is not to say Covid-19 does not exist or that the disease is not deadly to some of us – that would be ridiculous. However the official data, modelling and response is obviously full of holes, and therefore has the hallmarks of conspiracy; as such it is absolutely worthy of scrutiny, question and inquiry.

Interestingly, it is totally arguable, that during the last twelve months, ironically, to believe the official global narrative you would have to be wearing a ‘tin foil hat’.

Hazzo
Hazzo
Mar 22, 2021 5:48 PM
Reply to  Impropaganda

TPTB have spent the last 30 years telling us the ‘climate is changing’, we know it is and has been doing so since the planet came about but now we have ‘cash’ being added to bills supposedly to combat it.
Now that the masses swallowed that tale hook, line and sinker these people at the top have decided they can make even more out of us with ‘pandemics’, problem, reaction, solution, the next pandemic will be along within a year or two and every couple of years after that till the masses are so full of poison they’ll be dropping like flies, which will be attributed to the ‘pandemic’ and the dumbed down masses will continue swallowing it.

Mr Y
Mr Y
Mar 17, 2021 2:21 PM

A good theory, Foyle – I’m a believer!

Lutz Barz
Lutz Barz
Mar 17, 2021 10:37 AM

All this reenforces my delusion that there is something gone astray in the last few decades with the western psyche. I was in India twice as a traveler and the locals are far more mentally balanced than our instantly opinionated expert who pop up on the media to the point of my switching off. There is a conspiracy. Which people willingly subscribe to. Believing everything on television’s advertising. They actually believe what is dished out there is fair dinkum and replicate it. The non existent epidemic and one of my neighbours was convinced I carried the bubonic plague – why because they could not be bothered to inquire, to actually bother to think. Shaw’s famous dictum that [or was it Russel?] people would rather die than think. As for power corrupting: I have an example that surprised me. One day in a big factory I was promoted for the day from labourer to ‘leading hand’. Make that a corporal with one stripe. And out of the woodwork-well the machines they came- expectant towards me, basically a kind of reverence, respect, someone to look at or up but not down. I couldn’t believe it. Had no contact with them ever and there they stood around me expecting for me to give them their orders. This is not a work ethic thing – it was they way they observed me. I can see how that is tempting. But only because people are so willing to subsume themselves in this aura of power. Advantages no doubt to be sought, like an easier task and bad luck to the one who missed out. I got through the day without actually bothering to build an empire. However the lesson was it is those who are willing to be servile creatures to mendacious politicians who are the problem.

Brenda Sanderson
Brenda Sanderson
Mar 17, 2021 10:21 AM

Great article…..I’ve learnt a new phrase conspiracy denier

Bob Welham
Bob Welham
Mar 18, 2021 10:07 AM

‘conspiraphobe’ is another

name
name
Mar 18, 2021 11:22 AM

I recently discovered “pseudoskeptic”.

Wardbest
Wardbest
Mar 19, 2021 1:06 AM
Reply to  name

Pseudoskeptism discribes the position taken by Mr. Foyle

donmako
donmako
Mar 18, 2021 1:16 PM

oh were all fancy now. I remember when ya just called them GULLIBLE. And then made fun of them for all the blatently silly and obsurd things they believed.

Hazzo
Hazzo
Mar 22, 2021 5:51 PM
Reply to  donmako

Thats absurd.

deva samvado
deva samvado
Mar 17, 2021 10:06 AM

Just as you say the child trusts because ‘it could not survive otherwise’. That is still the motive, until one grows enough to accept ones helplessness in the face of the universe, ‘man proposes and god disposes’. We are all bound by time to die, that is the button that power trippers have learnt to press. That is the key trust to find, that mortality is OK.
The way out is not revolution as such, which just replaces one set of parasites with another, but by growing the awareness to accept mortality on ones own terms. Life is a gamble, trust is our first instinct, but it is not only in the mother, the family, teachers, early caregivers, important as they are. Any of them may fail sometimes, many times. Ultimately it must grow to be trust in life itself. Each day as it comes is that opportunity. Then it is life that has moved on, I have to catch up, be loose and natural when girlfriend goes or pet cat dies. Not blame the other boy for stealing her, nor her for being fickle. So now, dont say sociopaths are ruining life, you will never penetrate deep enough to find your own exploiter, your own ruthlessness, your own survivor at all costs. The sun shines equally for sociopaths as well, ice cream tastes as good, and we/they dont have all that anxious guilt of not being able to care enough to save anyone else than ourself… First find where you have mistakenly placed your trust, from where you expect to be saved, and undo those expectation. Accepting one is helpless now as as when a child sees other people are not saviours nor sociopathic monsters to placate or fight, nor are people weaker prey to manipulate. Life is like this, we have all these options within us, choose carefully, the currents are strong. We can only unseat the dominance of sociopathy by acknowledging it in ourselves and pulling up ones own roots. In any fight with ‘them’ on the outside we have accepted their power not to care. This lesson is as deep as undoing father christmas, that no one HAS to love you. Now if you trust life it is on your terms, perhaps as a gamble, that you choose to trust, not because existence must respond, but that you don’t choose the time nor reason for your coming and going.

Patti Anderson
Patti Anderson
Mar 17, 2021 1:32 AM

just brilliant! Concise and no holds barred. Bravo!!!!

Hamish Dawson
Hamish Dawson
Mar 17, 2021 12:44 AM

Eloquently mirrors my own views. You don’t have to be a historian (although I studied history myself) to see sociopaths rising up the hierarchies to disastrous effect. History is littered with them. If they are recognised at all, they are ringfenced as part of that atypical piece of nazi history. I do think there is psycopathy as well as sociopathy at play – look out for the smirkers among our politicians and ‘experts’.

Joseph B Ross
Joseph B Ross
Mar 16, 2021 11:35 PM

Brilliant points. Great article. I must come to this site more often.

@p43bkx
@p43bkx
Mar 16, 2021 6:15 PM

Brilliant article. Might even snap a few out of their stupor. If we can get them to read it in the first place, that is.

Gary Horn
Gary Horn
Mar 16, 2021 5:42 PM

1st time read–RIGHT ON! Would U consider a Presidential position? 2nd time a person has made ANY sense.

Binra
Binra
Mar 16, 2021 11:47 AM

https://off-guardian.org/2021/03/12/on-the-psychology-of-the-conspiracy-denier/

The lie is that the world or our self is as we think – and rationalise or identify and protect.

While commending the article as a stepping stone in addressing our mind as the substratum of our perceptions and responses, I join in looking within and beneath appearances as an ongoing willingness.

Why is it that otherwise perfectly intelligent, thoughtful and rationally minded people baulk at the suggestion that sociopaths are conspiring to manipulate and deceive them? And why will they defend this ill-founded position with such vehemence?

This states that people are not perfectly intelligent, thoughtful and rationally minded, because they protect their mind from threat, under the belief IT protects or speaks and represents them, or their true interests.

I have considered our ‘thinking as being like our firstborn son – as our creation, and special to us. (This perspective has interesting inference for the Old Testament call to yield or sacrifice our ‘thinking’ or conflicted will, for a living truth that restores wholeness of being).

Who are you? If you keep asking as a means to release associations or things about you – will you arrive at your thought – like Descartes?”

‘I think therefore I am!’.

Consider the ‘Name of God’;
“I Am That I Am!”

I suggest that we are running an ‘i’ that is a derivative of derivatives such as to have delivered us to a Prodigal Wasteland (Nightmare).

The device by which thought SEEMS to hijack the mind and replicate itself is conflict and division that rules out wholeness to a dissociating split off sense of self. I had the image as I wrote of a phish taking the bait and running with it until it is ‘realed in’ (puns intended). All psyops or deceiving illusions share the function of illusion – which is to replace reality, This is a temporary capacity by which we take the time to live the experience it gives us.

In The Compleat Angler, the sport of nearly but NOT catching a fish after a long and protracted struggle led one of the two anglers to lament his loss, to which the other responded ‘how can you lose what you have never had?’.

Yet on the same basis how can we truly lose what we have and are to the wish to have something that we are NOT – except in concept of the struggle to regain what we thought was denied us, or we believe we have been deprived of?

“And WHO told you you were naked?” said the Lord to the self-conscious reflex of masking over a sense of lack and grievance given welcome and protection.

A mask is a defence and as a defence it attacks first. As open attack is soon found to bring limit and loss by retaliation, and so we learn to present the mask of compliance in bargains struck by which to seem to join in the mask of concern or virtue while keeping a backdoor of suspicion, judgement and distance by which to escape exposure to intimacy of a true meeting, and through which a hidden agenda operates opportunistically whether we own it or not.

A superficial exposure of the personality level of the human ego or self-construct may seem to confirm a sense of justification in lidding over and justifying denial and exclusion.
I could call it ‘otherism’ as the root of all the current ‘isms’ being wielded by the ‘woke’ to weaponise a masking virtue as ‘righteous hate!’. But it is fear attracting guilt, hate and projection as a tempt to get rid of it – or mitigate it so as to resume some sense of ‘normality’.

As long as we engage from the mask we identify in the mask and when time and mind is devoted to conflict or wills (conflicted will externalised), for so long are we trapped in a hell of our own making under the belief it can be reformed, remade, reset, as some attempt to correct the error with the same problem that makes it, while believing THIS TIME will be different. Depletion and exhaustion will in time dis-illusion, but the capacity to merely shift illusions and think to have reset to a capacity to resume business as normal, is in the capacity to forget or discard who we are and what we truly are, have and know, for self-illusions we protect as life itself – and therefore persist an ill-founded conviction by which Others and an othered world all conspire to deny and deprive us of the life we want.

And so perhaps the key is not to seek to change another’s thought from without, by a frontal critique by which to ‘correct’ their errors by leveraging conformity or compliance to something that would undermine and shame in loss of face or exposure to a sense of inadequacy – and hence meet a will to block or deny communication seen as threat.
The key must be to allow our own thought to be changed from within, such as to no longer project our sense of lack or grievance onto them, and instead extend the peace of a self acceptance as the conditions of a shared motivation for positive or integrative change.

Relationship never work, thrive or fulfil when we push or pull without extending a recognition and acceptance of another in their own right. And the fixation in ‘wrongness’ projected and perceived generates the system of control, as if conflict must be managed, milked and identified in, rather than healed.
The renewing of our mind is the Gift of our being; not the overlay of masking controls, enacted, normalised and given acceptance as power and protection – conferred or denied.

Birds of a feather, flock together. Resonance is the true power by which all coherence embodies and is held. All thought carries resonant qualities. There is a ‘feeling’ component to thoughts, including the dissociative thinking by which to deny any direct feeling to awareness, by running emotional conflicts to limit, or denying emotional expression.

Our freedom and capacity to evaluate our own thought, both inwardly as spiritual discernment and outwardly as empirical reality testing, is within our being. Not waiting on Permission from Others or circumstance. And so the attempt to leverage others and circumstance as if the THEN have the conditions for freedom is a device of diversion and delay in futility.

We are already the movement of being – as the qualities of awareness and attention in a rich and diverse experience that we lose all savour of, when locked into the image, model or systemic structure of control. The idea of resting the ‘mind’ to ground and centre our selves in presence lived is much more than ‘recharging the battery of a separate self sense’ so as to take its habits as an authoritative sense of self-will. But is an opportunity of renewal from a true Authority of being. How would you know this? Because truth is never coercive. Clearly I am not talking of a ‘defined truth’ but the quality of recognition and resonance by which you know that you are without any shadow of a doubt or division.

Can Prometheus steal such a light and give it to the world but in chains and torment?
What if we ‘run off’ with a corrupted copy, and be-live it?
The mind in error cannot correct itself by using others as a proxy. But can reverse the reversal and read the world as the revealing of mistakes that we are willing to own, address and bring to a true curiosity in desire for a better experience of self and world through which to meet and freely align and share. Living responsibility as freedom, is growing and strengthening it as our conscious experience. Defining freedom in terms and conditions, is a contract or recoil from Infinity. We haven’t actually defined Reality, so much as entered into a limited company of rules and regulations. What does it profit…?

http://willingness-to-listen.blogspot.co.uk/

Patrick Cosgrove
Patrick Cosgrove
Mar 15, 2021 11:43 PM

I am a proud denier of conspiracy theories relating to Covid. That does not make me a conspiracy denier in a more general sense. I believe that conspiracies potentially exist whenever there is the chance to get away with it – for a great variety of reasons – mischief, financial gain, political advantage. Unlike proven conspiracies, those relating to Covid have yet to be uncovered by sound investigative journalism, and I’d bet money that in the main they never will. What intrigues me is the motives that are driving the people who write for this website – mischief, limelight, narcissism, psychosis? It can hardly be a search for Truth.

fighting gnome
fighting gnome
Mar 17, 2021 12:56 PM

Patrick all the Journalists are either running with the fear porn – or cannot get a platform to expose the lie. Apart from UK column.There is NO financial Gain for anyone who disputes that this pandemic is a total fraud – on the other Hand …. I will let you Join up the Dots

Mr Y
Mr Y
Mar 17, 2021 2:27 PM

When would you say a conspiracy is proved? What defines a “sound investigative journalist”? Can you name any?

Ravenpaw
Ravenpaw
Mar 18, 2021 5:18 AM

Jon Rappoport.
Time to learn

Manifest Freedom
Manifest Freedom
Aug 31, 2021 12:53 AM
Reply to  Ravenpaw

The Book AIDS Inc by Jon Rappaport is an in-depth investigation about the captured NIH,CDC,NIAIDS, FDA et al and how profiteers (he names them!) manipulate the planet using the crap not-fit-for-purpose rt-PCR test. Sadly, because the media ignored this story in the 1990’s we get to witness a global catastrophe again, using the fraudulent PCR test once again is the biggest shake down to ever hit a planet. Wanna know how we got to Covid1984? READ Jon’s book. It will all come into focus. His current blog is also amazing. nomorefakenews dotcom

Wardbest
Wardbest
Mar 19, 2021 1:13 AM

I totally agree with you. It isn’t search for truth, it is the urge not to be contradicted in any way. In fact I find that quite sick!

Miskondukt
Miskondukt
Mar 29, 2021 7:43 PM

$10 this kid doesn’t know what PCR stands for, let alone ANYTHING about the cycle counts. Forget even trying to ask the toddler about near 0 death rates.

Pierrot lenolese
Pierrot lenolese
Apr 2, 2021 11:47 AM
The fact that you go proud of it already tells volumes.
Fast Eddy
Fast Eddy
Mar 15, 2021 8:53 PM

SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 REVISITED: PROLOGUE I

BY DAVE MCGOWAN | SEP 12, 2001

Welcome to the New and Improved Police State

“We are going to see a great number of articles in the future from so-called experts and public officials. They will warn about more violence, more kidnappings, and more terrorists. Mass media, the armed forces, and intelligence agencies will saturate our lives with fascist scare tactics and ‘predictions’ that have already been planned to come true.” –Conspiracy theorist’ Mae Brussell, 1974

I have a friend with whom I frequently disagree on matters of politics. He thinks that I am a crazed conspiracy theorist, and I think that he is a reactionary fascist. There was one thing that we agreed on though.

A few weeks ago, I told him that our fearless leaders seemed to be veering dangerously close to unleashing ‘tactical’ nuclear weapons upon the world. Although he seriously doubted that that was in fact the case, he readily agreed that such an action would be reckless and unconscionable. He stated that he couldn’t envision any scenario under which such a strike would be justified and that we should avoid, at all costs, crossing that threshold. Opening that door, he believed, could only serve to escalate tensions and make this a much more dangerous world in which to live.

He was one of several people who called me yesterday to discuss the alleged terrorist attacks upon America. During the course of that call, he stated flatly that when the perpetrators were identified, they and their backers should be nuked. When I reminded him of our conversation of just a few weeks before, he said that things have changed now. I asked him if he had considered whether that wasn’t perhaps precisely the point of the attacks. Unfazed, he reiterated his belief that I am a crazed conspiracy theorist.

Excuse my cynicism here, but have we Americans completely lost our ability to think? Are we now so thoroughly braindead that we are completely reliant on our media outlets, with their endless supply of ‘experts,’ to make sense of events in the world? Are we really that stupid – or do our leaders just think that we are?

https://centerforaninformedamerica.com/september11-prologue-i/

David Allen
David Allen
Mar 27, 2021 8:49 PM
Reply to  Fast Eddy

Fast Eddy —- No, only most have no real ability to think and they NEVER did—-It is way more obvious now in the perilous times were living in

Deplorable D
Deplorable D
Mar 15, 2021 6:12 PM

The key to this essay is the power lies with the people. This is something too many have forgotten. How can a vaccine passport be implemented if the majority refuse to take the vaccine. The government can threaten and coerce, but they cannot enforce it without compliance. The government tells you resistance is futile. Compliance is inevitable because freedom depends on taking the jab. This is a lie. Freedom is lost due to compliance. If businesses refuse to close, people continue to gather, no one takes the jab or wears a mask, then the whole illusion of government control is revealed. Government control is contingent on a people that obey.

Mask mandates only work as long as most people obey. The system is not designed to deal with massive disobedience. Look how BLM runs roughshod over cities while the government is incapable of dealing them. Nevermind curfew violations. Looting and arson by hundreds of people and the system collapses. Similarly, if 50 or 100 people show up at Target simultaneously without masks on, what will the store do? Turn everyone away and lose the sales? Call the police who will send 3 or 4 officers? The manager may complain and ask people to comply, but in the end the cash register will ring all those purchases up.

In the US, it was once believed Rights come from God; they are natural. Today, the vast majority of people believe Rights come from the Government. Forgotten is “by the People, for the People”. Now it is “by the Elite, for the Elite.” The People are entitled to only the freedoms granted to them by the ruling class.

Douglas McManaman
Douglas McManaman
Mar 15, 2021 8:35 PM
Reply to  Deplorable D

No, the key to this essay is NOT “the power lies with the people”. Why would that be the key? The key to this essay is that it was written by someone not familiar with the logic of the scientific method. It’s armchair reasoning, and it is full of non-sequiturs. It is true that if the people refuse to comply with medical recommendations, then we have a problem. But the problem is with those who refuse to comply. Are they truly informed about their decision of non-compliance? Our politicians are given a mandate, by the population that elected them. The fact is that national public health conspiracy misperceptions (Gulf War Syndrome, DDT, Agent Orange, Anthrax vaccine, MMR vaccine, Depleted Uranium, pesticides, etc., etc.,) cause so much illness and deaths (20 million dead as a result of DDT misperceptions), and it is astoundingly expensive and time-consuming to defeat them, usually hundreds of millions of dollars in studies to reiterate what has already been proven and up to a decade or more of sustained communication effort to overcome media and interest group misrepresentation, all of which is diverted away from useful measures to protect health and lives. Many conspiracy proponents have such fixed beliefs, pride, or ulterior motives that no amount of explanation or evidence can ever influence them.

Pedophile_elect
Pedophile_elect
Mar 16, 2021 5:40 AM

Ok I can’t believe what I just read. You just said we should comply 🤦🏻‍♀️ to a bunch of sociopaths who have openly told us they believe in population control!! Helloooo! And all those scary horrible health conspiracy misperceptions were created by the very people that want you to comply!! They create a crisis to gain control. You just proved the point of the entire article and you don’t even see that. We can never defeat this evil if you are going to defend them at every turn. I’m tired of waiting on people like you to wake up. You’ve been hoodwinked to the maximum degree. MK Ultra’d by your tel-lie-vision

Bemused
Bemused
Mar 16, 2021 11:11 AM

Good of you to take the trouble to bother replying. I would not have known where to start! But if ever a post revealed the depth and brick-wall nature of the problem this was it!

Douglas McManaman
Douglas McManaman
Mar 16, 2021 5:48 PM

Dear Mr. Pedophile: No, I do not accept the premise that all those in government and in the corporate world are sociopaths. You need to read my original comment below. In any case, you are knee deep in conspiratorial thinking. It’s just too simple for me. Reality is far more complicated than the conspiratorial habitus is willing to admit.

Prdophile_elect
Prdophile_elect
Mar 16, 2021 5:51 PM

Well I guess you’ll find out the hard way. Remember these conversations when it’s disclosed. You’re gonna want to know how we knew what we knew.

Douglas McManaman
Douglas McManaman
Mar 17, 2021 12:33 AM

Why haven’t I yet found out the hard way? On what basis do you claim that I am going to find out the hard way? Is there a pattern, a sample space of some sort? Did we find out the hard way when it came to the Apollo moon landing? Or 9/11? Or JFK? Or DDT? Or chemtrails? Show me some evidence that we typically find out the hard way that we should have listened to the conspiracy theorists.

Tim Drayton
Tim Drayton
Mar 16, 2021 11:59 AM

Put very briefly, the scientific method involves creating a hypothesis and then designing an experiment that will prove or disprove that hypothesis. For example, one could hypothesise that a virus called SARS-CoV-2 exists. The experiment to prove this?: isolate it. One could then hypothesise that this virus causes the disease known as Covid-19. The experiment to prove this?: satisfying Koch’s postulates is one possibility. Neither experiment has yet been successfully conducted, so the mass media is acting unscientifically when it passes off the above two hypotheses as being proven fact.

Douglas McManaman
Douglas McManaman
Mar 17, 2021 12:29 AM
Reply to  Tim Drayton

Tim: I refer to the “logic” of the scientific method. The reason we have to design an experiment is that we are reasoning from the evidence to an antecedent that accounts for the evidence. The problem is that there are a number of possible antecedents that can account for the facts in evidence. And so each hypothesis has to be tested. Outside of the hard sciences, this is difficult to do. It’s really a matter of plausible reasoning. The problem I find with conspiracy people is that they tend to fall into the fallacy of the transposed conditional. Given a hypothesis of conspiracy (i.e., 9/11 was an inside job), what is the probability of certain pieces of evidence (E1, E2, E3, etc). Let’s say it is very high. Great. The problem is that they seem to conclude that the probability of the hypothesis is therefore very high. This is the fallacy. The hypothesis must be tested directly, and that involves a different calculus (Bayesian). The probability of the hypothesis (i.e., 9/11 was an inside job) given the evidence might be extremely low, even though the probability of the evidence given the hypothesis is very high. Null hypothesis significance testing falls into the same fallacy, unless it is used merely as an indication that the hypothesis should now be directly tested. The probability of certain anomalies, given a typical conspiratorial hypothesis (like JFK, 9/11, Covid -19, etc.) is usually very high, but it is erroneous to conclude that the probability of the conspiratorial hypothesis is correspondingly high. I’ve read enough conspiracy material to know that this is how the reasoning usually goes with these people. Those in the hard sciences as well as statistics tend not to fall for these conspiracy theories. It’s usually English majors who do so, and English majors are very good at constructing interesting narratives that account for the evidence. But the more content there is to the narrative–hence, the more interesting–, the less will be its probability.

Dr. Shitaki
Dr. Shitaki
Mar 17, 2021 4:29 PM

Some of what you’re talking about here is good but I’m not convinced you actually know how to apply it in a concrete situation such as 9/11 or Covid 19 etc. From what I’ve read in your other comments you are a little loose in your application of principles and have a tendency to do what you accuse others of doing. You appear to have drawn some pretty sweeping conclusions from what I’m guessing are a few anecdotal samples from your own life: “these conspiracy people”, “these people” “English majors”. You might want to apply the Beyesian rule in some of these cases.

I would welcome any demonstration of your calculus as it relates to any of the “big conspiracies”, one where you include all the evidence. I would like to see a conclusion that can’t be arrived at by the use of simple deductive logic. The tricky part is collecting the evidence and testimony and being sure that you have all of it. That really is the essence of it and where I suspect your weakness lies. You seen heavy on the theory but light on actual evidence. Of course, Bayesian calculus is one useful tool among many. But when it comes down to it you can’t escape a conclusion using simple deductive logic that is drawn from premises if those premises are certain.

Douglas McManaman
Douglas McManaman
Mar 18, 2021 2:15 AM
Reply to  Dr. Shitaki

Dr. Shitaki: It is very difficult to do a Bayesian calculus with something like 9/11, at least if you are asking for numbers. But when we stand back and look at the various plausible explanations for many of these anomalies, like Hani Hanjour and his corkscrew descent, which was supposed to be impossible, or the collapse of WTC 7 or the Twin Towers, we can ask ourselves about the plausibility (or even probability) of that hypothesis (Hani Hanjour carrying out such a descent, or Oswald being innocent but who just happened to be nowhere in the TBD building where anyone else was, who can testify to it) against the plausibility (or probability) of the hypothesis that GW Bush, Dick Chaney, Rumsfeld, Philip Zilikow, Guliani, etc., are complete and utter psychopaths who plotted the murder of thousands of innocent people by attacking the financial centre of the United States, all as an excuse to go to war in the Middle East, the inevitable conclusion is that it is far more plausible that Hani Hanjour was able to carry it out (which is what a 757 pilot pointed out to a few weeks go), so too Oswald. The latter hypothesis is just not plausible. The argument put forth in the article above is full of logical fallacies. This idea that psychologically normal people do not aspire after leadership positions in the corporate and political worlds, but sociopaths do, hence, the world is run by sociopaths, is just very bad reasoning. And the principal hypothesis about trust and childishness, etc., is not empirically tested. It’s just a hypothesis, a constructed narrative by an English major. It’s an unfalsifiable thesis, hence, it is profoundly unscientific. Knowledge is hard to achieve. A coherent narrative is not knowledge.

Peter Abraham
Peter Abraham
Mar 18, 2021 8:17 AM

What a load of stinking horse manure.

Wardbest
Wardbest
Mar 19, 2021 1:21 AM
Reply to  Peter Abraham

Looking in the mirror Peter?

Douglas McManaman
Douglas McManaman
Mar 19, 2021 1:40 AM
Reply to  Peter Abraham

Now that’s an intelligent and articulate reply!

Dr. Shitaki
Dr. Shitaki
Mar 18, 2021 2:41 PM

If it’s difficult to do then why are you bringing it up? For example, your hypothesis of Bush etc. being psychopaths plotting to murder thousands as well as what you think the motives were, I don’t necessarily agree that is the issue but ok, let’s assume those are the reigning theories. What I’m particularly interested in is how you came up with your conclusion that it isn’t possible that Bush etc. were in any way responsible for 9/11? How did you work out the plausibility of the pilot business or Oswald? That’s what I would like to see demonstrated using the calculus you outlined. Do you first have ALL the evidence and ALL the testimony which you plug in to the formula and, voila!, out comes a certain conclusion? It seems more to be based on the “feeling” that something is or isn’t plausible. 

I think as far as 9/11 is concerned, at least to most people outside of the US, the official narrative is completely laughable. Of course, many Americans are on the vanguard of investigation and research into the event but the majority of Americans are content with the official story and I’m sorry to say, much of the rest of the world is laughing. 

Your comment on Foyle’s theory about trust etc. not being able to be empirically tested: well, I think Foyle may be providing a much needed critique of the many articles and books on the subject of “conspiracy theorists”(meaning anyone who questions the narrative) that have come out in the last 20 years as being psychologically ill. Of course, nothing about those theories are falsifiable either, wouldn’t you agree? Either all these authors have really hit on some essential truth or there is some kind of disinformation campaign going on and I don’t think that is an unreasonable hypothesis at all. If you look at the likes vs dislike ratio in some of the contributions in this comment section I think something can be gleaned from that(and not to pile on, but particularly with your own posts). Foyle seems to have struck a nerve with his regular readers who I think most definitely would not consider themselves “conspiracy theorists” in the sense that you’re speaking, but they would consider themselves intelligent critics of just what has been going on. I can’t see how any reasonable person would have no questions regarding what has gone on the last year with Covid, lockdowns, stats, vaccines, the huge problem of censorship, the unhealthy and very questionable connections and relationships of people in the medical industry with government agencies etc. It is so obviously a very prudent thing for the public to be skeptical and I think Foyle’s point is that we should never, ever attack those who may be attempting to expose criminality in these areas when it’s going on. The media’s defense of the need for censorship is that the public needs to be protected against misinformation. What absolute nonsense! Silencing and firing doctors who are questioning? This has nothing to do with the media protecting anyone. And the public can discern for themselves. Weak theories will simply go away. For example on this very comments page. One of the longest posts on here, it just went on and on forever and said absolutely nothing, has no positive votes or negative. People just ignored it. People don’t need a corporate nanny to tell them what is good for them and what is harmful. And to simply let that happen is very dangerous.

I particularly liked and agree wholeheartedly with the last line of your comment that “A coherent narrative is not knowledge.” Oddly, what we find with the 9/11narrative(the official one) is coherence. The problems start popping up when we begin looking outside the pages of the report itself. Producing a government sponsored report with inner coherence isn’t the problem. Having it correspond with the reality outside is. That’s where the problem is. 

Dr. Shitaki
Dr. Shitaki
Mar 18, 2021 3:49 PM

If it’s difficult to do then why are you bringing it up? For example, your hypothesis of Bush etc. being psychopaths plotting to murder thousands as well as what you think the motives were, I don’t necessarily agree that is the issue but ok, let’s assume those are the reigning theories. What I’m particularly interested in is how you came up with your conclusion that it isn’t possible that Bush etc. were in any way responsible for 9/11? How did you work out the plausibility of the pilot business or Oswald? That’s what I would like to see demonstrated using the calculus you outlined. Do you first have ALL the evidence and ALL the testimony which you plug in to the formula and, voila!, out comes a certain conclusion? It seems more to be based on the “feeling” that something is or isn’t plausible. 
I think as far as 9/11 is concerned, at least to most people outside of the US, the official narrative is completely laughable. Of course, many Americans are on the vanguard of investigation and research into the event but the majority of Americans are content with the official story and I’m sorry to say, much of the rest of the world is laughing. 
Your comment on Foyle’s theory about trust etc. not being able to be empirically tested: well, I think Foyle may be providing a much needed critique of the many articles and books on the subject of “conspiracy theorists”(meaning anyone who questions the narrative) that have come out in the last 20 years as being psychologically ill. Of course, nothing about those theories are falsifiable either, wouldn’t you agree? Either all these authors have really hit on some essential truth or there is some kind of disinformation campaign going on and I don’t think that is an unreasonable hypothesis at all. If you look at the likes vs dislike ratio in some of the contributions in this comment section I think something can be gleaned from that(and not to pile on, but particularly with your own posts). Foyle seems to have struck a nerve with his regular readers who I think most definitely would not consider themselves “conspiracy theorists” in the sense that you’re speaking, but they would consider themselves intelligent critics of just what has been going on. I can’t see how any reasonable person would have no questions regarding what has gone on the last year with Covid, lockdowns, stats, vaccines, the huge problem of censorship, the unhealthy and very questionable connections and relationships of people in the medical industry with government agencies etc. It is so obviously a very prudent thing for the public to be skeptical and I think Foyle’s point is that we should never, ever attack those who may be attempting to expose criminality in these areas when it’s going on. The media’s defense of the need for censorship is that the public needs to be protected against misinformation. What absolute nonsense! Silencing and firing doctors who are questioning? This has nothing to do with the media protecting anyone. And the public can discern for themselves. Weak theories will simply go away. For example on this very comments page. One of the longest posts on here, it just went on and on forever and said absolutely nothing, has no positive votes or negative. People just ignored it. People don’t need a corporate nanny to tell them what is good for them and what is harmful. And to simply let that happen is very dangerous.
I particularly liked and agree wholeheartedly with the last line of your comment that “A coherent narrative is not knowledge.” Oddly, what we find with the 9/11narrative(the official one) is coherence. The problems start popping up when we begin looking outside the pages of the report itself. Producing a government sponsored report with inner coherence isn’t the problem. Having it correspond with the reality outside is.

Wardbest
Wardbest
Mar 19, 2021 1:18 AM

Indeed!

Common Sense Reborn
Common Sense Reborn
Mar 21, 2021 2:15 PM
Fast Eddy
Fast Eddy
Mar 15, 2021 8:49 PM
Reply to  Deplorable D

The problem is that the vast majority buy into the Covid BS.

Have a look at this school board meeting to see how rapid the CovIDIOTS are on the issue of masks. Skip first 5 minutes.

The one voice of reason at one point states that other schools with no masks have no more infections … listen to the rabid dogs insane response.

These are people who would without a doubt be pleased to stone dissenters to death.

https://youtu.be/dyjE7OxHAiA

G to the o
G to the o
Mar 17, 2021 10:28 PM
Reply to  Fast Eddy

The same crowd that crucified their saviour 2000 years ago, sending us back a few millenniums.

YouDontCareAboutGrandma
YouDontCareAboutGrandma
Mar 15, 2021 5:32 PM

Covaids has simply exposed something that was always true: 95% of the population are retards.

Boris
Boris
Mar 15, 2021 9:31 PM

Judging by the tiny number of people I’ve seen since the start of this scam wearing their masks below their nose once in stores (way less than 1 in 100), I’d say the percentage of “retards” is much higher than 95.

When, as a teenager, I first read King Solomon’s statement in Ecclesiastes that he could barely find one good man in a thousand [aka upright / wise], I thought it was hyperbole but, over the decades, I’ve come to realize that he was not far off the mark.

steadydirt
steadydirt
Mar 16, 2021 2:31 AM

and lazy

Kiwijoker
Kiwijoker
Mar 16, 2021 1:10 PM
Reply to  steadydirt

They are scared… And fear can alter perception when it becomes panic.

Help them.

Keep it simple.

Explain why the PCR is not a diagnostic tool.

Everything else unravels when they know this and are left to make their determinations.

People are smarter than you think when you give them a chance.