So-called conspiracy theories abound, especially among those who attack others by calling them conspiracy theorists. There are official conspiracy theories, such as the government-approved stories about 9/11, the 7/7 bombings, the Manchester Arena attack and so on. There are also unofficial conspiracy theories, such as the expressed opinion of Richard D. Hall that the Manchester arena attack was a staged simulation without injury or death but performed and reported as if real.
We have to use the term “conspiracy theory” advisedly because, as we shall see, conspiracy theory, as we understand the term, doesn’t exist. “Conspiracy theory” is really just an opinion that the state does not wish anyone to either hold or express.
The BBC’s special disinformation and social media correspondent, Marianna Spring, calls Richard D. Hall a “disaster troll.” She claims that Hall lives in a “dark world” and that his “warped views” have “led him to the doors of terror victims.” Spring says that Hall is spreading “obscene lies” and that he is “at the centre of a network of conspiracies.”
Spring is utilising the propaganda technique of “othering.” She is trying to cast Hall as subhuman—a troll—and, by association, applies the same dehumanising propaganda label to anyone who shares Hall’s concerns about the official account of the alleged Manchester Arena bombing.
“Othering” is an applied psychological strategy widely used by authoritarian political regimes. Prominent historical examples include the “othering” of Jews in Germany during the 1930s by Nazi propagandists.
Spring’s alleged “journalism” should be considered within the context of efforts by the government and its propagandists to censor any and all dissenting opinion. Spring evidences her intent, and the purpose of her “Disastater Troll” pseudo-investigation, when she rounds off one of her attack pieces on Hall by saying:
What matters is that he’s created a conspiracy world that causes real world harm.
Demonstrably, Hall has done nothing of the sort. It is Spring herself who has created a propaganda world that really does augur “real world harm.”
It seems that “what matters” to Spring and the BBC is that they provide whatever narrative support they possibly can to promote the UK government’s proposed Online Safety legislation. To that end, Spring is producing anti-democratic propaganda and disinformation.
Like the RESTRICT Act in the US and the EU’s Digital Services Act, the UK’s Online Safety Bill proposes to exploit alleged threats and legitimate safety concerns for the purpose of censoring free speech and freedom of expression.
The influential international law firm Reynolds Porter Chamberlain (RPC) describes what it calls the “unintended” consequences of the Online Safety Bill. Suggesting that the proposed legislation is poorly conceived, RPC notes:
Almost every online platform that allows user-to-user engagement or search will be caught by the OSB [Online Safety Bill]. [. . .] [E]very online platform or communication channel around the globe which “targets the UK” will have to comply with an increasingly onerous array of obligations.
Not only is censorship legislation emerging in the UK, it is also appearing simultaneously across the world. Since RPC is a pillar of the Establishment, it is not going to point out the UK’s dictatorship. But for the law firm to imagine that this coordinated, global censorship agenda is simply poorly conceived or all merely “coincidence” or the result of “mistakes,” as it claims elsewhere, isn’t credible.
RPC continues its informed legal opinion:
Individuals could be subject to ongoing surveillance ordered by a regulator and operated on an indiscriminate basis [. . .]. This in turn could expose journalistic sources and endanger individuals investigating politically sensitive issues. Index on Censorship warns that “unless the government reconsiders or parliament pushes back, these powers are set on a collision course with independent media and journalism as well as marginalised groups.”
The UK state’s intention is to censor “independent media and journalism” and silence “marginalised groups.” The “collision course” RPC speaks of is an inevitable consequence of the legislation, if it stands.
None of this “matters” to Spring or the BBC, however, as they relentlessly push for greater state surveillance and censorship. Instead, the destruction of our supposedly open and free democracy is wholeheartedly endorsed by Spring and her employers.
Spring is acting as a state propagandist, and her attack upon Hall is both nonsensical and politically motivated. The propaganda she is producing cannot be described as “journalism.”
Richard D. Hall’s Opinion
Richard D. Hall is an investigative journalist and author who has provided the evidence which strongly suggests that the official narrative of the Manchester Arena bombing cannot be true. In Hall’s opinion, the Manchester Arena bombing was a simulated false flag event that did not result in injury or death.
As reported by the BBC, false flag terrorism has been used extensively by governments. For example, Operation Gladio ran for more than four decades in Europe. In this operation, NATO-aligned intelligence agencies, including the British state’s MI6, worked with far right terrorist groups, murdering European civilians and blaming the atrocities upon far left groups. The geopolitical objective was to demonise the Soviet Union and, through the strategy of tension, convince populations to accept greater authoritarian state controls for their own “safety.”
Spring’s BBC propaganda deploys a similar strategy of tension. It seems her objective is to convince the wider public that Hall’s evidence-based opinion presents some sort of threat. Once convinced, the population may be willing to accept state control of public opinion—in the form of the Online Safety Bill—in order to “stay safe.”
The irony is that it is Spring’s Disaster Troll narrative that presents the real threat. A government that can censor all criticism is a very dangerous beast indeed.
The Operation Gladio false flag terror campaign used real bombs and bullets to kill people. The European mainstream media (MSM) then published the disinformation needed to shift the blame onto the pre-designated perpetrators.
A simulated or “hoaxed” false flag is different: the attack itself is staged, and few people, if any, are injured. The MSM’s role in such a hoax is to shore up the official account and deny the evidence that exposes it as a simulation or hoax.
For example, the evidence indicates that the so-called Boston bombing was a simulated terror event that used crisis actors to create the false impression of a terrorist attack. Yet the MSM reported the official narrative without examining any of this evidence.
“Disinformation” is information deliberately intended to deceive. If a global news corporation reports on an event without any investigation or reporting of the evidence, it is reasonable to consider this reporting “disinformation.” The intent is obviously to deceive the public into believing that the balance of evidence supports the report. It is “deliberately” misleading.
In 2016, the Associated Press (AP) reported that a deadly car bomb in Iraq “hit a popular fruit and vegetable market near a school in the northwestern Hurriyah area, killing at least 10 people and wounding 34.” The story was then picked up by MSM outlets across the world and reported to an unsuspecting public as if it were true.
In reality, it was a simulated terror attack. By omitting the clear evidence which proved this to be the case, AP and all the other MSM outlets that ran the same story were spreading disinformation.
Companies that specialise in providing crisis actors and crisis simulations, such as CrisisCast in the UK, create fake terror attacks and other crisis events for training purposes. They specialise in fake injuries—called Casualty Simulation (CAS SIM)—to provide the military and emergency services with highly realistic training environments.
CrisisCast explains that its crisis actors “undergo psychological training with our own in-house behavioural psychologist.” Promoting the effectiveness of its crisis actors, the company adds:
We provide professionally trained amputee actors and film grade makeup specialists. CrisisCast amputee actors have many years of experience in hyper-real, immersive training for key learning outputs and are regularly featured in film and television productions.
Of course, Spring’s faux “Disaster Troll” investigation does not inform the audience of the British state’s historical involvement in the use of false flag terrorism. She makes no mention of the fact that crisis actors exist or that false flag terror attacks, including simulations, are a relatively common propaganda tool. Thus, by omission, Spring deceives her audience into believing that Hall’s opinion is beyond the realm of possibility.
Spring broadcast comments she made to a BBC producer prior to doorstepping Hall at his market stall:
We’ve asked him lots whether he [Hall] wants to do an interview with us and he hasn’t taken us up on that offer. So this is my chance to put our questions to him face-to-face.
“Hasn’t taken us up on our offer” gives the impression that Hall hadn’t responded. In truth, Hall responded at length and flatly declined the BBC’s “offer.” He made it clear that he did not wish to speak to Spring or anyone else from the BBC. He even explained why:
The BBC has shown itself over many years to be duplicitous and its raison d’etre is not about reporting the truth. If you mention me or my work I insist that each time I or my work is referred to that you mention and display a prominent link to the following website URL, so that people can find the whole work and judge the whole work for themselves.
The fact that Hall felt the need to elaborate reveals an important distinction between the BBC’s output and his own work. The BBC expects its audience to trust whatever it says. Hall knows, from experience, that they shouldn’t. He does not expect his audience to take whatever he says on trust. Hence his request that the BBC feature a link to his website, at least affording the BBC audience the opportunity to consider the evidence he offers and “judge the whole work for themselves.”
When Spring interviewed him against his wishes, Hall politely suggested she should read his book—Manchester: The Night of the Bang. To which Spring replied:
I have looked at your book and in there are claims about the victims that are contrary to the evidence.
It is unclear if Spring has really “read” Hall’s book, but at least she mentions the importance of evidence. She goes on to say that Hall’s book contains “a series of false claims that would be laughably ridiculous if they weren’t so offensive and harmful.”
Considering that Spring thinks Hall has already presented evidence that is “laughably ridiculous,” her further statement seems inexplicable:
I think it is interesting that he [Hall] doesn’t want to talk to us. [. . .] I think for his fans and followers who turn up at his stall they might think — Oh! don’t you want to present your evidence? We wanted to give him that opportunity but he has decided that he doesn’t want to.
Why does Spring think she and the BBC need to give Hall this “opportunity” if she knows he has previously published that evidence? Her whole Disaster Troll theory centres upon criticism of Hall’s published, evidence-based opinion.
Richard D. Hall has spent years investigating the Manchester Arena bang. He has produced numerous videos and written and published an incredibly detailed analysis of the evidence. His book is available to anyone who wants to read it. Short of delivering his evidence door-to-door by hand, it is unclear what more Hall could have done to “present” the evidence to the public.
As the BBC itself admits, thanks to the internet Mr Hall has garnered millions of views. In terms of audience reach, he doesn’t need the BBC. This is a concern for the BBC as their audience numbers dwindle. Apparently, the state broadcaster hopes the OSB will, in part, rectify that problem for them by eliminating the independent competition.
All of Hall’s “laughably ridiculous” evidence is in the public domain. Spring is supposedly an investigative journalist. She has produced endless reams of content alleging that Hall’s opinion is “contrary to the evidence” and causes harm. She’s a leading BBC correspondent, for heaven’s sake. She doesn’t need Richard D. Hall to present his evidence to her audience on her behalf.
So, then, why hasn’t the BBC simply demonstrated to its listeners, readers and viewers precisely how Hall’s opinion is “contrary to the evidence?” Surely, if Spring is correct, nothing could be easier than to show that the evidence he has offered is “laughably ridiculous,” right?
Yet, despite offering hours of Disaster Troll podcasts, a high profile BBC Panorama investigation, radio show appearances, publishing numerous articles, speaking on media debates and producing widely reported news items, the BBC and Marianna Spring haven’t mentioned a single scrap of the evidence Hall has already “presented” to the public.
Indeed, Hall’s “evidence” is absent from their “investigative reporting” in its entirety. Why? Given the BBC’s serious allegations against Hall and Spring’s questioning of the veracity of his work, the refusal to explore any of his evidence makes no sense whatsoever. What is the BBC’s problem?
If Hall’s opinion is correct and his evidence solid and if he succeeds in bringing that evidence to wider public attention, the social and political implications could be immense. Under such circumstances, we might expect a state propaganda organisation like the BBC to attack him. In light of the considerable resources the BBC has committed to demonising and discrediting Hall, it is evident that the BBC is trying to suppress his work.
But in attacking Hall, the state risks popularising his research. Marianna Spring confronts this problem:
Hall’s face and name are front and centre of his operation. [. . .] Hall has gone all in on trying to build a brand in his own name. [. . .] While making this podcast we gave careful thought to how much exposure we should give to conspiracy theories and the people who spread them. [. . .] But with Hall [. . .] it is impossible to report on the harm he’s causing without inevitably drawing some attention to him.
In other words, Spring is attempting to censor Hall’s work by using the “othering” technique of labelling him a conspiracy theorist “troll.” She is seemingly endeavouring to misrepresent Hall’s work to provide a rationale for censorship legislation, while deterring anyone from ever looking at the evidence he cites.
Propagandists like Spring carefully construct the language they use to maximise the psychological impact of “othering,” thereby discrediting their target and heightening her audience’s fears and suspicions without cause. In Spring’s words, Richard D. Hall is not an investigative journalist and author who runs his own small business but is, instead, at the centre of an “operation.”
According to Spring, Hall’s willingness to publish his work in his own name doesn’t suggest he is honest but, rather, that he has “has gone all in” to build a “brand.” Without offering anything to substantiate her own opinion, Spring asserts that Hall is causing “harm” by expressing his honest opinion.
State propagandists face a conundrum. They realize that Hall’s scepticism of some state narratives reflects widely held opinion. Spring and the BBC want us to believe that so-called “conspiracy theory” has suddenly emerged as a social problem that “undermines democracy” and that something must be done to address this reportedly “new” problem. This assertion isn’t true, but the propagandists clearly hope that scapegoating Richard D. Hall will convince the UK public otherwise.
What is relatively new is the vast increase in the number of people who can now reach a relatively large audience. Hitherto, the distribution of information was reserved for a coterie of government officials, academia, and the MSM. In recent years, the internet has democratised the sharing of information and the state’s response is to shut it down.
People are using the internet to discuss a whole range of issues that the state would prefer they did not. As a result, governments across the world are racing to seize control of the open and free exchange of information. The state and its propagandists are genuinely “undermining democracy.”
In order to justify their censorship agenda, propagandists need to manufacture compelling stories to convince people to abandon democratic principles and give up their right to free speech and expression. Attacking Hall is one such compelling story, but it is a calculated risk.
Spring’s “Disaster Troll” propaganda is carefully crafted to evoke a fearful emotional response to the spectre of a dangerous bogeyman. The hope being that, by casting Hall as a subhuman, the BBC audience will believe the spun narrative and accept the need for legislation to “protect” them, without ever ascertaining for themselves if anything the propagandist has told them is true.
The target is not Hall himself but rather the uncontrolled freedom of information. Destroying Richard D. Hall’s reputation and livelihood is just a means to an end for propagandists like Marianna Spring.
What Is Conspiracy Theory?
Joining in the drive towards state censorship is a gaggle of allegedly reformed “conspiracy theorists.” Neil Sanders and Brent Lee are among them. They seek to enlighten whoever they consider deluded. Apparently, Sanders and Lee are doing this “enlightening” by cooperating with Spring and the BBC.
Whether Sanders and Lee are useful BBC dupes isn’t known. To be fair to both, they consistently highlight the need for so-called conspiracy theorists to stick to the evidence, avoid making baseless claims and refrain from alarmist hyperbole. This is good advice in general and doesn’t apply only to people they label “conspiracy theorists.” Some BBC “journalists” and government spokespersons should take note.
It is also important to look for and, wherever possible, consider all of the evidence. So it is unfortunate that Sanders’ and Lee’s critiques so frequently ignore huge swaths of evidence as they construct the strawman arguments they then proceed to knock down. In Sanders’ case, at least, this oversight is surprising, considering that he is a diligent researcher.
Sanders and Lee hope to divert people away from going down so-called “rabbit holes.” They appear to be doing this by diving headlong down the biggest rabbit hole of all: the “conspiracy theory” hole. They seem to think “conspiracy theories”—as defined by the likes of Spring—exist, when, in fact, they do not.
In actuality, a conspiracy theory is nothing more than an opinion held by one or more people about a possible conspiracy. A conspiracy theory commonly questions state narratives and policies.
But that’s it! There isn’t any other legitimate definition of “conspiracy theory.”
Like any opinion, so-called conspiracy theories can be wild and wacky, poorly informed—or outright wrong. They can also be well-informed, evidence-based and accurate. As opinions go, they are exactly the same as all other opinions.
Anyone can have an opinion, including a belief in one “conspiracy theory” or another. These opinions, when voiced, can be abhorrent to others. They can condone or even promote racism, hate, violence, and so on. But expressed opinions can also do good, by exposing crimes, uncovering malfeasance in office, provide invaluable social and political insights, or encourage people to cooperate and live in peace.
By advocating that “conspiracy theories” should be censored, the government, the BBC and Spring are trying to regulate and censor all opinions that question the state. Spring apparently holds “democratic ideals” in contempt. She seems to want an authoritarian regime—perhaps something akin to fascism or communism—to be established in the UK.
Certain well-funded psychologists and propagandists insist that there is some sort of maladaptive psychology underpinning what they call “conspiratorial thinking.” As Spring asserts:
Conspiracies are rooted in someone’s belief system. They become someone’s identity and their entire community, making them even more difficult to reject.
This is anti-scientific, statistically ignorant dross. There isn’t a shred of evidence that alleged “conspiracy theorists” form any kind of identifiable group or that they are particularly prone to any psychological disorders.
In the US, political scientists Joseph Uscinski and Joseph Parent undertook what may have been the largest-ever research survey of individuals they called “conspiracy theorists.” It was published in 2014.
They found, for one thing, that there was no identifiable type of person who could be labelled a “conspiracy theorist.”
They also discovered that women were just as likely as men to be “conspiracy theorists.” And, unsurprisingly, given their lived experiences in the US, black and Hispanic people represented the ethnic groups statistically most likely to question the US government.
Something else they found out: People who questioned state narratives largely worked outside academia but almost one-quarter of them (23%) were university-educated.
The survey detected no unifying political ideology. Liberals and conservatives, socialists and capitalists, Democrats and Republicans were all equally likely to question official accounts of events. Uscinski and Parent did find, however, that non-partisan “independents” had a slightly increased propensity to do so, though the leanings didn’t amount to a clear ideological predisposition.
It is widely reported by the MSM that “dangerous” conspiracy theories are on the rise. So, in July 2022, Uscinki et al. published a paper examining the alleged growth of these so-called conspiracy theories in the West. Warning that their research “should not be used to make claims about, or to excuse the behavior of, political elites who weaponize conspiracy theories,” they reported:
In no instance do we observe systematic evidence for an increase in conspiracism, however operationalized. [. . .] Questions regarding the growth in conspiracy theory beliefs are important, with far-reaching normative and empirical implications for our understanding of political culture, free speech, Internet regulation, and radicalization. That we observe little supportive evidence for such growth, however operationalized, should give scholars, journalists, and policymakers pause.
To be clear: anyone, from any ethnic, political or social group, may have opinions that question official government narratives or policy decisions. These opinions are widely held across society. There is not, nor has there ever been, any such thing as a “conspiracy theorist community.” Nor is there any plausible evidence to indicate that a higher percentage of the population question the state today than in any previous generation.
The only substantive difference to have emerged in recent years is that people have more freedom to discuss their opinions and potentially to broaden the debate about the role of government. It is this which the state fears.
It is possible that the first time “conspiracy theories” emerged as a pejorative term was somewhere around the 1870s. In the Journal of Mental Science vol. 16, it was noted:
The theory of Dr Sankey as to the manner in which these injuries to the chest occurred in asylums deserved our careful attention. It was at least more plausible that the conspiracy theory of Mr Charles Beade.
In his magnum opus—The Open Society And Its Enemies—the philosopher Karl Popper discussed what he called the prevailing conspiracy theory of society. Popper highlighted the point that, while human society is capable of affecting significant change, it does not follow that every major development results from human action.
He criticised what he considered to be the widely held “conspiracy theory of society”:
The view that an explanation of a social phenomenon consists in the discovery of the men or groups who are interested in the occurrence of this phenomenon (sometimes it is a hidden interest which has first to be revealed), and who have planned and conspired to bring it about [. . .] – sinister pressure groups whose wickedness is responsible for all the evils we suffer from – such as the Learned Elders of Zion, or the monopolists, or the capitalists, or the imperialists.
Then he added:
I do not wish to imply that conspiracies never happen. On the contrary, they are typical social phenomena. [. . .] The conspiracy theory of society cannot be true because it amounts to the assertion that all results, even those which at first sight do not seem to be intended by anybody, are the intended results of the actions of people who are interested in these results.
Popper’s concern about the prevalence of the “conspiracy theory of society” would seem reasonable were it not for the fact there was no evidence to support it. His contention that a large body of people believe that every event occurs due to “the actions of people who are interested in these results” was not evidence-based.
Popper himself acknowledged that conspiracies are relatively common, yet he did not count himself among those who, he alleged, held to the “conspiracy theory of society.” The proportion of events Popper believed to be the “intended results of the actions of people who are interested in these results” remains unclear.
Building on Popper’s work, in 1964 American historian Richard Hofstadter suggested that people’s rejection of official state narratives was not founded in their appreciation of evidence but was instead rooted in some sort of psychological derangement. Admitting that he had no particular experience in psychology, Hofstadter implied, without cause, that these people were unhinged idiots.
Hofstadter created the conceptual model of the “conspiracy theorist” that we are familiar with today:
I call it the paranoid style simply because no other word adequately evokes the sense of heated exaggeration, suspiciousness, and conspiratorial fantasy that I have in mind. [. . .] Of course, there are highbrow, lowbrow, and middlebrow paranoids, as there are likely to be in any political tendency. But respectable paranoid literature not only starts from certain moral commitments that can indeed be justified but also carefully and all but obsessively accumulates “evidence.” [. . .] The difference between this “evidence” and that commonly employed by others is that it seems less a means of entering into normal political controversy than a means of warding off the profane intrusion of the secular political world.
Hofstadter introduced an important component of the “conspiracy theorist” propaganda label. Although gathering and analysing “evidence” had traditionally been part of the critical thinking process, he newly presented the concept of “acceptable” evidence. That is, it is only “evidence” if it falls within the official Overton Window and supports the prevailing political and social paradigms.
Recently, UNESCO initiated its comically misnamed “Think Before Sharing” campaign. In its broad attack upon everyone who questions government policies, UNESCO listed six things that conspiracy theories have in common. Among them: “supporting evidence.”
UNESCO opines that the evidence offered by people who question official narratives is not evidence, because it is “forced to fit the theory.” This nonsensical drivel by UNESCO builds upon Hofstadter’s nonsensical drivel and is no more than a further attempt to redefine “evidence.”
Evidence is simply:
That which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
Evidence cannot be “forced” to “fit” any “theory.” Evidence is independent of a theory. If it supports a theory, it lends credibility to the theory. If it contradicts a theory, it provides reason to doubt that theory.
Theories are constructed from all the available evidence. This is achieved by evaluating both the supporting and the contradicting evidence. This is the only way known to humanity for discovering facts and, ultimately—with any luck—the truth.
The illogical practice of simply ruling out evidence that doesn’t fit the narrative is what enables defenders of the Establishment to dismiss everything that contradicts their opinions. They can apply the “conspiracy theory” label as a device to ignore evidence and thus maintain preferred narratives and “opinions” that are not evidence-based.
In 1967, the term “conspiracy theorist” was first weaponised as a propaganda tool by the CIA with the distribution of an internal dispatch called Document 1035-960: Concerning Criticism of the Warren Report. Constructed from an amalgam of Popper’s “conspiracy theory of society” and Hotstadter’s “paranoid style,” the CIA memo outlined many of the techniques used today by propagandists like Spring.
The modern term “conspiracy theorist” is a manufactured label created by those who seek to defend the Establishment by marginalising and silencing its critics. The “conspiracy theory” label has absolutely no foundation in either evidence or fact.
There is no evidence to substantiate the view that people called “conspiracy theorists” think random events never occur. There is no evidence that they are psychologically flawed or that they even exist as a distinct social group. The mythical conspiracy “movement” is a fabrication created by those who wish to stop people from expressing anti-state opinions. “Conspiracy theory,” then, is a nothing but a propaganda construct.
Spring’s Ludicrous but Dangerous Attack on Hall
As we have already discussed, the lengths that the BBC and Marianna Spring have gone to in order to formulate an argument to ridicule Richard D. Hall’s opinion, without ever mentioning any of the evidence he has presented to substantiate his views, is quite remarkable. By omitting vital evidence, Spring must ask her audience to trust her when she alleges that Hall has “caused harm.” Not discussing the evidence clearly “matters” to the BBC and Marianna Spring.
With the considerable resources of the BBC behind her, Spring’s attack on Hall is formed entirely from accusation, insinuation, assumption, assertions and implied guilt by association. She has led her readers, viewers and listeners to wrongly believe that there is no basis for Hall’s questions and concerns. She has produced the epitome of disinformation.
We can summarise Spring’s published “investigation” of Richard D. Hall as follows:
- Spring is of the opinion that the Manchester Arena attack occurred exactly as described to her by the UK government. Richard D. Hall does not hold that opinion.
- Spring has not investigated the Manchester Arena event at all. Hall has conducted a thorough investigation.
- Based on her own uninformed opinion, Spring has accused Hall of having the wrong informed opinion. She alleges—again, without evidence—that Hall’s informed opinion causes harm. She thereby implies that he should be prosecuted for expressing what she considers to be his wrongly informed opinion. Of course, Hall disagrees with her entire premise and conclusion.
Ordinarily, this disagreement between an advocate of the state’s story and a critic of the state’s story wouldn’t constitute any kind of news story. The fact that two people have different opinions is hardly newsworthy.
But, set within the context of a global effort to censor the wrong opinions by labelling the whole lot of them “conspiracy theories,” it is a very newsworthy story, and we need to pay close attention to it.
Spring is entitled to her opinion, but that is all it is—an opinion. She has not presented sufficient evidence—and has ignored far too much evidence—to substantiate her opinion. The fact that she creates content for the BBC does not lend her opinion any additional credibility. Many might feel, if anything, that her role at the BBC undermines her expressed opinion.
In light of the potential implications of the Online Harms Act, which makes a publisher responsible for the actions of individual members of its audience, Spring appears to be creating a false narrative in order to place Hall—and anyone else who expresses the wrong opinion—within its envisaged scope. She alleges, without presenting any evidence, that Hall’s publications on the matter constitute “extreme material” and that he “leads his own community.”
Some people are interested in Hall’s opinions, others not. But he no more leads a “community” than Spring does. There is no RichPlanet [Hall’s website] “community,” just as there isn’t a Marianna Spring-led “BBC community.”
Hall expresses opinions that some people object to. In a free and open society, they have every right to their contrary opinion.
If we wish to maintain such an open-minded society, which Spring evidently doesn’t, we cannot allow the state to create a law which makes publishers responsible for the acts of everyone who has ever encountered their published opinions. Yet this is precisely what the Online Safety Bill portends.
Spring and the BBC appear to want us all to live in a tightly controlled, oppressive society. A society where, unless a journalist works for the BBC or another approved MSM outlet, he or she dare not publish any opinion that questions the state, lest some stranger comes along and cites that published opinion as the reason they caused harm.
We already have laws to stop publishers from inciting violent or other crimes. We do not need any more. This OSB is censorship legislation, nothing more.
On behalf of the UK state, Spring and the BBC are endeavouring to construct the rationale for a society that outlaws perfectly legitimate opinion. People like Sanders and Lee have, unwittingly or not, been roped into the BBC’s efforts.
While she presumably earns a fair living producing propaganda and disinformation for the BBC, Spring has repeatedly questioned the right of anyone else to support themselves by publishing independent research and analysis, producing content and speaking.
Mr Hall is only making a living from his theories, rather than making huge profits – why keep going?
Spring is at a loss to understand what motivates someone to follow the evidence and uncover the truth. Whether or not Hall is successfully exposes “the truth” is not the issue. Making the effort to find the truth appears to be what “matters” most to Richard D. Hall—a devotion Spring seems unable to fathom.
She apparently resents the fact that Mr Hall is able to earn a living from his work. There are enough people who are sufficiently interested in his opinion and, having encountered the evidence he has presented to substantiate it, are willing to support his small business and enable him to continue his work. Presumably, Spring believes that no one, other than MSM “journalists,” should be allowed to earn a living as a journalist.
Spring tells us that Martin and Eve Hibbert, who say they were victims of the alleged Manchester Arena terrorist attack, are suing Hall for defamation and harassment. Of course, this is their right. We await the outcome of the trial, if there is one.
Not surprisingly, Spring is eager to pre-emptively comment on the outcome of that possible trial:
He’s [Hall has] created a conspiracy world that causes real world harm.
Has he? Says who? Marianna Spring and the BBC? This smacks of trial by the media.
Let’s hope the court isn’t swayed by her opinion if the case comes to trial. Regrettably, the extent of the BBC’s accusations against Hall and the scale of their broadcast and published misrepresentation of his work makes the chances of him receiving a fair trial seem unlikely.
Spring has ratcheted up her allegations by stating that Hall’s investigation into the supposed Manchester victims constitutes “hate.” Yet, just as throughout her Disaster Troll pseudo-investigation, she continues to offer nothing to justify her opinion.
In her most recent Disaster Troll commentary, Spring outlines the purpose of her disinformation:
This is just one case, and taking legal action is expensive. It’s beyond the means of many people. Some think, it shouldn’t just be left to individuals to resort to the courts. [. . .] But legislation like this would not be straight forward. After all social media sites and policy makers have been grappling with hate and online disinformation for some time. The UK is currently in the process of introducing new legislation. The Online Safety Bill [. . .] will mean the social media sites have to make commitments to protecting users to the online regulator, Ofcom.
Spring reports that the Hibberts wish to hold Richard D. Hall to account. She says they want to get him to admit that what they experienced was real.
As Hall does not currently believe that they sustained their injuries in the alleged bombing, he could presumably be convinced to change his mind only if the Hibberts can prove they were injured as a direct result of a bomb blast detonated by Salman Abedi in the foyer of the Manchester Arena on the evening of May 22, 2017.
If the dispute goes to trial, for any subsequent ruling to be just, the court will need to examine and consider all of the evidence Mr Hall has presented to substantiate his opinion. Any refusal to do so will render the legal decision meaningless.
If there is no exploration of Hall’s evidence; if it is simply dismissed out of hand by labelling it a “conspiracy theory”; if it is just asserted that the official narrative is true and cannot be questioned, then, regardless of whatever position Hall may be forced to accept, why would he, or anyone else who is familiar with the evidence he has uncovered, have any genuine cause to believe either the official account or the legitimacy of the verdict?
You can read more of Iain’s work at his blog IainDavis.com (Formerly InThisTogether) or on UK Column or follow him on Twitter or subscribe to his SubStack. His new book Pseudopandemic, is now available, in both in kindle and paperback, from Amazon and other sellers. Or you can claim a free copy by subscribing to his newsletter.
For direct-transfer bank details click here.
Notice the lack of anger towards the guy who had the main role in this false flag event and supposedly sent 22 victims for a permanent dirtnap and the amount of anger towards Richard who has performed a legitimate and indepth investigation into this hoax. I am from Manchester myself and have no biase towards the gov narrative, the evidence supporting Richards investigation into the (bang) is overwhelming
NOBODY died at the Arena 22-5-17. Those wishing to sue Richard can sue me aswell then!
I am 110% behind Richard all the way, there are NO victims so nobody can sue anyway! Trying to turn it into a UK version of Alex Jones’s rightful accusations regarding (Handy Sook) hoax. The participants of the Arena HOAX have been bribed and signed into silence so they will happily step forward and lie AGAIN.
Why do the families have no anger towards Salmen Abedi but plenty of crisis actor anger for an indipendant investigator like Richard….get your heads out of your arse!!!
They want to sue Richard because they can’t sue the “bomber” it’s almost like their blaming him.
The Manchester incident was a big wake up call for me. I knew all about false flags thanks to the almost limitless bs surrounding 9/11 but that similar attacks might be entirely faked, hoaxed & staged was new to me in 2017. I feel a tad foolish with hindsight but I presumed that real Muslim terrorists were performing these attacks. But attempting to marry the sole official image of the Manchester blast, easily found & showing no more than twelve or thirteen people on the ground at the blast site when there should be at least forty, probably more, with the official narrative brought nothing but anomalies.
The Manchester Arena Bombing Anomalies, Disaster Trolls & BBC Hypocrites (substack.com)
And it was based on those Manchester anomalies that I sought a re-examination of the 7/7 bus bombing in London the same year, 2017. Upon doing so, I discovered, gosh, the exact same problems with the narrative & the scene. There are far, far, far too few “victims” around the bus blast site than there should be, exactly like in Manchester.
Although we are told that CCTV operators at Manchester saw the blast on their screens, no such footage has been made available. On the afternoon of the July 7th 2005, Sky News broadcast a still image taken from a traffic camera which shows a B&W shot of the exploded bus. No images or footage from overlooking CCTV of any kind has shown the moment of the bus bomb blast.
The reason no footage of the Manchester incident OR 7/7 bus bombing are shown is not due to the caring nature of the BBC & the rest of the msm for our sensibilities. If they want to broadcast footage or images showing trucks full of Sarin-poisoned Syrian kids they don’t think twice. They fail to show the footage/images of 7/7 or Manchester because the footage/images will show crisis actors running onto the scene.
If we consider that the bus bombing of 7/7 was staged, & that this incident was obviously above ground, at street level, then why would we think that the three other blasts were occurring as they did below ground on the London Underground, would have been genuine? If they can stage a fake bus blast at street level where everyone can see what’s going on, why would they perform genuine terror attacks underground where the dark & the smoke from the explosion would make it much harder to assess? It seems therefore perfectly apparent that if the bus blast up at street level where everyone could see what’s going on was faked, the three blasts underground were probably faked too.
Finally, Iain very bravely refers to an incident in Baghdad in 2016 which Alternative Narrative has been trying to circulate & publicise since it happened. An ISIS car-bomber is filmed leaving a car-bomb to explode on an empty street round the back of a Baghdad school. As soon as the bomber departs the scene, the car explodes & the “victims” RUN ONTO THE SCENE afterwards to splash blood about before being immediately “rescued” by obviously pre-positioned & fake ambulances. Footage from a short time later shows many distressed, traumatised children & civilians wandering the scene, all of whom have no reason to doubt the attack genuine.
Click link & see for yourselves cc Manchester Arena: Fake, Hoax, Staged Terrorist Bombing ISIS Baghdad (COPY) (bitchute.com)
In Manchester, many, many thousands & thousands of young people suffered similar trauma, deliberately inflicted upon them by the propagandists who run our world & our country, because younger people are becoming more & more wise to the hoaxing. That’s why US hoaxers attack schools, & that Las Vegas concert a few years ago, to drive younger people into the hands of the media & government & away from so-called conspiracy theories.
Please find Alternative Narrative on Substack, Bitchute & Rumble. Our pages at the more established social media sites are under constant threat of removal so AN tends to upload to those less often these days.
Thanks for reading 🙂
Can we get a physiognomy check on Neil Sanders please. Are we supposed to believe Mi5 doesn’t have something hanging over him that has forced him into this absolutely pathetic ‘ex-conspiracy theorist’ phy-op? Yeah, cause that’s just how it works, ain’t it? You learn more and more, you go deeper and deeper, then you realise all these deep-state guys are totally innocent and simply patriotic civil servants doing their best to protect us, the public from . . . . er . . . . I’m not sure what the multi-billion £ security behemoth is to protect us from, but I’m sure it’s all totally legit and above board.
I mean, they protect us on the streets from random violence, from burglars, car thieves, all that petty crime that seriously effects our quality of life, don’t they? They catch all the rapists, our young girls aren’t in danger from the men the state has imported into our country. Yes, they really do care about our *safety & security*, don’t they?
Readng his website about mind control says he’s fully clued up on how government and MSM behave. Maybe he’s now under mind control, or is conducting a live experiment on the public?
Maybe Neil’s under mind control, or is conducting a live experiment on the public?
Neil and I spoke about this matter on a public forum. He claims that his intention was to act as a positive character witness for Richard, have somebody on the programme who knows Richard and doesn’t think he’s a bad guy. I believe Neil, but his action was doomed to failure and he is naive to have imagined otherwise. Nobody gets a fair hearing in a kangaroo court. If he wanted to defend Richard he would have been better off just making his own video with Brent on his channel.
Neil is bent and probably was from the start. Of course, he would say all the right things to get his reputation established but eventually the tainted fruit will show cause that’s all you can get from a rotten tree. I’m willing to hear his defence but he’s just one of a long line of names who storm onto the field and then queer the pitch. That bloody Fetzer turned on Dr Wood and Andrew Johnson but is still counted as a reliable source on various matters.
In a free country, thoughts, ideas, and opinions that are said to be wrong, misinformation, and “hurtful” are countered with more, different, and better thoughts, ideas, and opinions, not fewer. . .and may the better argument win. This prosecution is what tyrants resort to when they aren’t winning. What the heck is happening to our Western ideals of freedom and justice? !!!
I think we all need to withhold some % of our TV license in protest against this wholly improper behaviour by the BBC, 10% eg?
there are two separate issues here: one is that RDH’s 400-page book has clearly shown that nobody really died at the Manchester Arena event; the other, is that RDH has not harassed anyone in the course of his investigation.
He just knocked on the door of one of the alleged families and they did not answer, then he went away.
It’s not a crime to express an opinion – this issue is crucial for all of us.
RDH hasn’t expressed an opinion. He has presented facts. There’s a difference.
He’s done both. By presenting these facts about this subject his opinion is evident. Spring can’t present Richard’s facts without either proving them wrong or changing her opinion. Hence why we hear no facts from Spring.
I see the normal hypocrisy from the main stream
As they often use door step tactics. Far more in your face than what Richard did.
I am reminded of this story
Woman killed herself after being doorstepped over McCann trolling
Sky News offers condolences to family of Brenda Leyland, who was found dead in a Leicester hotel two days after channel broadcast footage of her
A Sky News spokesman said: “Brenda Leyland’s tragic death highlights the unforeseeable human impact that the stories we pursue can have, and Sky News would like to extend its sincere condolences to her family.”
“The team at Sky News followed its editorial guidelines and pursued a story in a responsible manner that we believed was firmly in the public interest.”
Richard has presented evidence that there was an exercise in Manchester in the morning.
Also that there was a police capture of a suspect that might have been part of an exercise.
The alleged bomber was most likely working with MI6/5 as was his father.
Richard has a theory that the explosion and injury and death was fake.
It is possible that there was an exercise in the morning and a real bombing later.
I find it hard to imagine they faked al the injury and medical treatment.
With the Boston Bombing there is evidence of fakery
Again was there a mixture of fake and real. How did they fake the long term medical treatment.
What injuries? What longterm treatment? Did you miss the crisis actor part? It’s worth rereading. There’s nothing in these events that couldn’t be faked.
I watched many rich planet shows but the ones on animal mutilation in the UK made me think about the official narrative , telling the truth seems impossible as rh found out
Marianna Spring accuses Richard of stalking the “victims” of the Manchester bombing whilst sending numerous emails and turning up at his market stall unannounced, and don’t get me started on the crazy eyes she had when she did turn up at his market stall.
She is a little unhinged me thinks..
“How to invent nonsense problems” that is what you shitheads are doing…bothering people with your stupid bullshit…if you have nothing useful to say just shut up and shove your words up your goddamn ass and FUCK the HELL OFF!!!!
You have the option of not coming to this site. As far as I am aware they are not bothering anyone as one has to search for this site before indulging in it. You came here of your own volition to troll the site I presume?
The full emo opening could be connected to seeing open discussion as denial,
as cancelling the events and the feelings experienced therewith.
And was there not that schtick, that cringe nonsense about “not looking back in anger”? Ah yes, the folksy folks with their tattoos and emotions going on about not looking back in anger. East Enders does not look bad in comparison.
you silly boy …..
The event at Manchester Arena is a problem what ever opinion you take. Spring is saying that Hall is such an evil character that he must not be given the opportunity to be heard. Perhaps you might not want to expose children to ideas you disagree with but adults should decide for themselves.
Did you spit out your comfort dummy when you climbed out of your cot to join this forum. If so, please leave, put your dummy back in your mouth and climb back into your cot and go back to sleep. It is people like you as much as the malefactors in Government that are the problem that will see people all around the word as well as this this country progressively stripped of their rights and freedoms.
Abedi was an MI6 pet terrorist long before he blew up young kids at the Manchester Arena Just one of many..
They sent him off to Libya to get rid off Gaddafi then brought him back to the UK on a Royal Navy warship.
Nice to see taxpayers’ money being so well spent.
Let’s give the spooks a really big round of applause for that one.
No-one got blown up in Manchester who did not choose to participate in the hoax.
If any have taken in Mr Hall’s work over the years. They’ll know that he identifies Mr Assange as an operative for our ever so caring & considerate friends, TPTB.
Frankly, can see it too.But he raises the point, again. That the world is a stage.
We “Know” because they want us to “Know”.
We’ve not discovered anything, it was left for ‘us’ to find. As maddening as that is always got to ask oneself.
Why do i know this?
Whose agenda does it serve?
What can one do with it?
These witnesses appeared on a few different MSM TV channel interviews within 24 hours of the Arena event.
I see absolutely no reason to believe anything they say.
There were quite a few more of these dubious ‘eye-witness/survivor’ accounts to see, but seem to have disappeared.
Good article. Here is a brief breakdown for the USA of the types of major false flags used. They fall into three categories: real harm to people, simulation hoax, and hybrid. However, every FF requires a patsy, starting with Lee Harvey Oswald. While Oswald was quite involved with the DoD, CIA, and FBI, and the mafia (which was subcontracted by the CIA to do the actual shooting), he was not involved with the actual shooting of Kennedy. Sirhan Sirhan, as RFK Jr. has publicly stated, while present at the crime scene in a trance state and firing an 8 shoot .22 revolver, did not fire any shots that hit his father. Sirhan fired all shots from in front of RFK, and the fatal bullet was fired point-blank from behind. The Covid “virus” plowed new ground in FF methodology as the first major FF where the patsy was not a human.
What I find curious is that almost all of these FF were so shoddily constructed and executed that anyone with an IQ over room temperature, a willingness to study the Official Story for at least 2 hours, and entering his or her study unbiased, will realize that they were, in fact, a FF.
JFK, RFK, MLK hits – real harm
Gulf of Tonkin – simulation hoax
9/11 – real harm (both WTC and Pentagram)
Sandy Hook massacre – simulation hoax
Boston Marathon – simulation hoax
Las Vegas Massacre – hybrid
Covid – “virus” and “disease,” simulation hoax, “vaccine” – real harm.
The “vaccine” shows a different tactic in that no patsy has been, as yet, officially assigned. Rather our Overlords, have chosen to deny any significant harm, though in a few cases the harm has been assigned to the fake disease, CV-19, and not to the fake vaccine.
Mass shootings in the USA, especially schools and night clubs – majority are simulation hoaxes, but a substantial number are real harm.
By the way, the internet term troll, frequently used in this article, is often interpreted in the MSM to refer to mythical, monstrous non-human creatures. However, its origin refers to a fishing technique where a bait or artificial lure is trolled through water behind a boat which increases the likelihood that a fish will strike it. It was used to describe some commenters on “conspiracy analyst” blog sites to express opinions which anger a large majority and divert the thread.
There are many false flags/ fake news events that are rarely mentioned. Take the murders of Olof Palme, Mahatma Gandhi, Indira and Rajiv Gandhi. The murder of the Lindberg baby. The Polanski/Tate affair.
I have a lot of time for Richard Hall and if you’re smart, so should you.
Richard calls a false flag a false flag, whilst other outlets sell it as real.
UKC being one of them shills who do.
A BBC whore being a BBC whore.
They always go after anyone who points out a hoax: one can hold just about any opinion on one of these dubious incidents, and they’ll ignore you. But dare to point out it’s fake and they’ll come down on you like a ton of bricks. …As Chris Spivey, James Tracey and Jim Fetzer found out…
It’s about time someone took that smug bitch Spring down. She’s a fucking kid, for God’s sake. Thinks she’s so fucking clever.
Have a look at this and try to parody it:
You can’t, can you?
Look at these:
“Astral gender: Having a gender identity that feels to be related to space.”
Related to space? I mean … how do you even try to turn that into a joke?
“Axigender: A gender identity that is between the two extremes of agender and any other type of gender. Both the genders are experienced one at a time without any overlapping. The two genders are described as on the opposite ends of an axis.”
“agender”? Or is that “a gender”? Maybe “Axigender” means having a craving for axes? I feel I could use one right now.
“Bigender”. Is that “Bi-gender”? Or “Big ender”?
“Boyflux”? A boy in flux? Or a boy who needs to flux off?
Oh now here’s an interesting re-definition:
“Cisgender: Being closely related to the gender assigned at birth during the entire life.”
Now “Cisgender” used to mean “normal” i.e. identifying with the gender you were “assigned” at birth. Now it means just “being closely related to the gender assigned at birth”. See what they did there? Identifying is too … definite. We need “closely related to”. Even the “stable” genders are not stable!
And what fun you can have with “Esspigender”!
I don’t care what they come up with, they will never top Pat, the Julia Sweeney character on SNL.
I’m of the opinion – my own constructed conspiracy theory – that the societal push to normalize gender dysphoria aligns with trends in human developmental anomalies brought about by exposure to increased levels of industrial toxic contaminants (i.e. “pthalates”, per research conducted by professor & author, Dr. Shanna Swann) and/or the anticipated direction of the markets for mRNA genomic treatment-therapies. Imagine the profitability of a pre-natal genomic modification pharmaceutical to customize your progeny – coming soon to an ideological-cultural paradigm predicated on crimes against humanity.
…of course the traumatizing cosmetic industry has been chomping at the bit to sink their teeth more deeply the male “personal grooming” market, to say nothing of the cosmetic surgery industry.
That said, interests are at play, vested – whether motivated by curiosity, profitability, or sheer malice – to undermine what is arguably the core biological characteristic defining individual identity.
I suspect this is all in the service of some much larger, far darker, a-genda.
”Once convinced, the population may be willing to accept state control of public opinion—in the form of the Online Safety Bill—in order to “stay safe.””
The population, people, have never been asked what they want. The evil tyrannical systems never ask, they only force their ways, then lie that it’s the will of the people.
Authoritarians say you are crazy if you criticise them or question their authority. They call you crazy in order to make you one. If you believe their words, you’re likely to become insane, because their words are insane.
Authoritarians scare you so that you get off balance; and they feed you with blatant lies so that your logic doesn’t work. They are very crafty, and some of them know how to do it with a smile, with kind words, when in fact they just want to kill you.
Here, take this poison. It’s for your own good. It’s for the betterment of everyone. It makes you a good person if you take it. It will save you, it will save us and the economy and the universe!
We the people were never asked. No-one ever asked me if I’m accepting anything
Here’s the thing:
Money is legalized theft.
War is legalized murder.
Murder of the people for money is one thing that is at stake.
Money is a big part in this evil system of the world, but it isn’t even real. When it fails, it fails.
The people who do most harm to society are not the psychopaths like Gates, but his enablers: those who do his dirty work, take his money, and virtue signal how good they are.
This includes the media and Marianna Douche.
They virtue signal because they want to be praised as good regardless of how low they stoop. These people Peck defined as evil, and he sought to have it classified as a mental illness.
A talk by Polly St George highlights something worth thinking about – the connection between projection and sacrifice.
Unlike psychopaths they still have a conscience. If people have a conscience, they know they are doing harm, but they lack the courage to stand up and defy the psychopaths.
Their absolute absolute refusal to face the fact that they did something wrong, Peck calls sin. They sin against their conscience regardless of whether they are religious. This consistent sinning he calls evil.
They would rather continue hurting others than acknowledge their actions. They can only do so by “othering” or objectifying their victims. As in politics, the guilty party projects their guilt onto another so the other can be symbolically sacrificed.
Christianity abolished sacrifice. Not personal sacrifice but the idea of taking another person, even an innocent one, and projecting all of society’s ills upon that person and expelling them into the wilderness – or even killing them. That is why Christianity is the one faith the virtue signallers love to hate.
Scapegoating is no harmless flaw. It is the process by which every genocide in history was committed. Of course, the first thing evil people do is accuse us of scapegoating them!
M. Scott Peck’s The People of the Lie is the book she reviewed.
I’m not sure we know enough about the workings of the mind to say how universal “conscience” is.
Psychopaths may not be the only ones without a conscience – not if conscience is something which develops over time. It could be sublimated in these “enablers” away from morality and toward self-interest.
It would be unconscionable for such people to go against their self-interest – especially in a social system which places ambition and success above all else.
It is universally known that humanity is wise. Wisdom is what defines humanity. Every human being is endowed with reason (logic) and conscience (ability to know the difference between good and evil). These abilities make us different from animals and the rest of creation.
We are highly conscious.
Psychopaths have lost their conscience, and because of that, they also have lost reason. It is simply not logical to will evil on oneself, a human, or others, living creatures.
Logic, reason, can be lost too, if a human being is manipulated to believe that evil is good or good is evil, or that truth is a lie and a lie is true.
Lost forever, no. Wisdom always exists, and from Wisdom itself, we can always get wisdom.
Truth and goodness are what wisdom is.
All lies are illogical, which is revealed when we simply think. All humans know how to think.
An excellent and detailed (as usual) account by Iain of the tyranny against Richard Hall undertaken by the childish waife Marianna Springsupeverywhere on behalf of the bbc. Interesting also that he notices the ‘change’ in Neil Sanders analysis of all things tyrannical – exactly who’s side is he now on?
Yes I commented on that on his website.
Was always a bit wary of NS as he seemed to have extremely well sourced info like the piece on Cambridge Analytica.
Not really a surprise to see him come out of the covid bs backing the narrative. That exposed quite a few alt-media ‘shills’ at the time for the statists they really are.
There something about certain types of people which says that assymmetric human rights exist, whereby they have more than people they have to keep down in their place.
They believe that a lifetime of behaving like that should carry zero consequences and any violence committed against them for 40 years of emotional rape is not acceptable. They do not accept the concept of emotional rape as they couldn’t join the Security Services by believing that it did exist.
The BBC employees mostly have this kind of attitude. They are universally racist against white heterosexual men; against Brexiteers; against climate realists; against anti-US independent foreign policy types; against ‘right wingers’ and against traditional religious adherents who believe that marriage is between a man and a woman.
I viscerally believe that the BBC believe in the climate change conspiracy and that by relentlessly propagandising about it, they have caused emotional harm to millions of uneducated under 30s. They should be held accountable for their disinformation over 30+ years.
I viscerally believe that the BBC see London and the SE as being the entirety of ‘relevant’ UK regions, which is why they are so pro the EU and think all non-SE Brexiteers are racist and far-right wing. Apparently not believing in a non-elected European Commission being the sole agency allowed to introduce legislation for EU states is ‘far right wing’. I call it believing in democracy and not being prepared to be dictated to by self-righteous officialdom who never pay any taxes. This disgusting conspiracy theory teaches us that the BBC hates democracy with a virulence.
I viscerally believe that the BBC believes in ‘just wars’ like bombing Libya to a pulp for wishing to trade oil and gas in a gold-backed African Union currency. It believes in bombing Afghan weddings using cowardly drone strikes. But it would never believe in ever bombing any Jews, even if they were murdering Mossad terrorist cells. This disgusting conspiracy theory has murdered over 20 million people since 1948 and the BBC is fully signed up to it continuing.
I viscerally believe that the BBC has condoned paedophilia for 50 + years and such disgraceful disinformation, misinformation and omission of critical information has caused lifelong harm, even suicide, from those whose suffering it has wilfully sought to cover up.
I viscerally believe that the BBC believes that the rights of trans-sexual nutcases are more important than the continued reproduction of normal heterosexual couples and this is clearly causing mental derangement across the 2-30 age group. Those of us who reached 35 before being exposed to this nonsense are completely immune to their propaganda. I don’t mind people being trans-sexual, what I can’t tolerate is that tiny percentage of the population telling the overwhelming majority to completely change their lives to accommodate their highly unrepresentative view of the world.
I don’t think it’s too hard to prove that the BBC is an arch conspiracy theory organisation, it’s just that they call them hobgoblins and their role is to befuddle the population to their own benefit in terms of privilege.
The question is what direct action should be taken against the BBC and its employees, its Governors and its outside contractors to make the effects of their behaviour come back to bite them, to haunt them etc.
A good .solid no-nonsense call Rhys. You call a spade a spade and by implication jude a jude
Putin plans to attack UK shock! So screams the Telegraph.
A story so important that the BBC don’t mention it!
because its nonsense
Increasingly we are being told that promulgating conspiracy theories, misinformation, etc is “terrorism.” Shades of things to come.
It looks as if there’s a possibility of actually declaring NATO at war in Ukraine. Any idea how many people would die if “the Russians” attack the US power grid? In most places water is dependent on power.
And of course we already have quite detailed laws of what govt is empowered to do under a declaration of war: Nothing less than dispose of all labor and all property, for starters.
The best defence is a strong offence and we may be running out of time.
The concept of “stochastic terrorism” is promoted on and off.
They can’t make it stick but they won’t let go.
It is a squeeky toy of theirs.
Has anyone seen the recent headlines about the BBC TV licence and people giving it up? Well Our media likes to pretend it’s to do with Gary lineker and David Attenborough. For every 1 weirdo leaving because of lineker and the creepier of the Attenborough brothers 1000 left due to COVID and other propaganda nonsense.
I’m guessing the DDoS attacks come in waves. There are periods when I can access the site but not post.
Needless to say– as if that ever stopped me– the official/promoted narrative of the Boston Marathon Bombing is still going strong; its ostensible “anniversary” is commemorated with no end of glurge-saturated reminiscences and memorial tributes to the alleged victims. (See a sample video below.)
Iain doesn’t mention the notorious Sandy Hook hoax. I’m not finding fault, since attempting a comprehensive survey of “Disaster Troll Propaganda” would result in an encyclopedic text. And, as staged disasters or catastrophes go, Sandy Hook has become hyper-controversial.
I started to whimsically and facetiously “tease” that perhaps Iain wisely omitted even a mention of Sandy Hook because he didn’t want to be sued or arrested. I realized it wasn’t much of a jest, but then I thought of a more substantial point: it’s noteworthy that with Sandy Hook, and going forward, at least US authorities (i.e., the government that permits and/or perpetrates the hoaxes) have followed up the hoax with an aggressive “lawfare” campaign.
The “lawfare” groundwork is already laid when, as with Sandy Hook, laws and regulations that ostensibly protect (and/or compensate) the “victims” are passed that effectively prohibit independent research; for example, access to public records, including routine law enforcement reports, is prohibited on the grounds that access will empower unscrupulous “conspiracy theorists” and expose victims’ families to further abuse.
There’s effectively a so-called “fusion” approach in which all branches of government at every level (municipal/state/federal) build a wall, or minefield, of draconian criminal and civil laws, regulations, and processes to insulate and bolster the fraudulent official/promoted narrative. Thus, dissident “truthers” and even professional journalists who might formerly challenge and investigate dubious aspects of the approved narratives are now subject to arrest, indefinite incarceration, and civil proceedings.
The January 6th Capitol Building “riot” narrative– another bogus incident that is sentimentally “honored” on its anniversary– is perhaps the most egregious example of post-disaster narrative maintenance. This is hurricane or tsunami-level lawfare, complete with show trials; it includes the Stalinesque spectacle of a “trail of tears” of broken and remorseful defendants being paraded in front of mass-media after their iron-stamped (rubber-stamped is too weak a term) convictions and harsh sentences.
Obviously the diabolical movers and shakers devised the prophylactic lawfare regime with the intention of nipping skeptical “truther” blowback in the bud. 😡
Ukrainian Colors themed of course.
70,000 people now homeless in L.A. County, but don’t worry:
“Our mobile clinics travel directly to people on the streets and in shelters, encampments, interim housing sites, libraries and soup kitchens.” [Vaxx outreach]
OMFG. I’m sorry, I should not react to this type of shit anymore, but really? They can push that damned shot but not feed people? What in hell is wrong with these idiots?
It’s perfectly logical. They don’t want to feed people. They want to kill them.
I know. I guess I really mean what in hell is wrong with the people who would see this as life saving for the homeless. But we know what is wrong with those people so really, it was an idiotic question.
yes George that’s right. Just reading your short pithy summary of reality, sent a shiver down my spine. Surely we must rise in fury and anger
The contradiction of “conspiracy theory” simultaneously being crazy and unhinged but yet also deserving of so much mainstream attention is interesting. If you see a crazy person on a street corner yelling about nonsense you simply walk past them and continue your day – you don’t stop and launch ad hominen or straw man attacks on them. Definitely a thou doth protest too much type situation IMO.
The deep state Illuminati is petrified, ever since you published the RFK jr article the worlds gone to hell.
Rfk with enough of your donations will make America great again (his America), lockdown the borders (its all there fault) Make children sing the anthem pre school and make watching GB news and Carlson compulsory for teenagers..
Gender trannies will be banned from schools, and the internet.
He will make The medical industry fairer and uncensor all thoses who were censored. Fauci will be arrested ‘lock him up’ ‘lock him up’.
He will stop the war in Ukraine if you vote for him using your money to his cashapp.
He will open the JFK files that the CIA have and prosecute all thoses involved.
Free speech for all, even if the comments thread gets closed.
Alleged Dos attack to add more PR to gain more viewers. Alex Jones style.
Only thing missing Is the end of world food supply pack link for 99$.
Disaster Troll Propaganda hit piece by Ian
explained in this video; Viper’s Vax #2
So we get ddos attacked (fake obviously, because that never happens in real life) and the only thing separating us from Alex Jones is we aren’t selling prepper accessories? 😅
Well, soon our readers will be able to sip their rehydrated rations from an Offg mug, so I guess the assimilation is almost complete? Lol
Razor sharp analysis from you. A2
Busted, you’ve confessed.
I knew you was ‘deep state Illuminati’ the Offg mugs gave it away.
The Cabel cups which are prepper accessories. (do they have RFID chips in them?)
I dont mind being tracked, as you now have my details, any chance that
you can put me through verification again, so I can be like the others who dont have to be Verified by deep state Illuminati after I post a comment.
Or does one have to be a fully fledged believer….?
Sense of humor was lost.
Viper’s Vax: “DOLORES CASTLE”
This Irish comedian appears to be endlessly seeding the idea of a deadly coronavirus, contrary to the data but in line with the official narrative, whilst characterising the other comedians/attendees as rightwing bigots. I think he’s attempting an Ali G shill job here, with limited success. Kinda cheap and unoriginal. All the (totally legit) YT comments, all in unanimous praise, seem to stop a year ago. Maybe it didn’t date too well. 😅 A2
Here’s an article which I think relates to Mr. Davis’ article. It notes that the head of the FDA now regards “misinformation” as being dangerous to health and even shortening the life span. Needless to say, the Biden people are all over it!
BTW, Since Jonatthan Turley kind of straddles the gap between establishment and alternative views, much of the article would not sit well with some of OffG’s readers.
Is Free Speech Killing Us? FDA Commissioner Declares “Misinformation” a Medical Risk – Global ResearchGlobal Research – Centre for Research on Globalization
I am surprised Iain doesn’t cite Lance de Haven Smith’s book on the history and philosophical underpinnings of the conspiracy theory label. His book is called Conspiracy Theory in America. He defines conspiracy theories as State Crimes Against Democracy (SCAD).
I haven’t read Karl Popper; but I have read at least one Richard Hofstadter book – The American Political Tradition. Granted, this pre-dates his more famous The Paranoid Style in American Politics; but nevertheless reflects his overall view of American politics.
I have to note this because it helps clarify that Hofstadter was specifically addressing American politics. In that regard, I think Iain Davis is unfairly implying that Hofstadter is generalizing his thesis to include all political systems.
Owing to globalization, politics may have become far more inter-twined since 1964, when Hofstadter put forth his thesis; but at the time the American political system was still a somewhat encapsulated phenomenon highlighted by the Robber Barons and their overt Wild Wild West corralling of the political landscape. But it was changing; yet the attitude that everything could be traced to one or two entities still carried a great deal of weight. And it was this attitude he was concerned with – perhaps unduly so, as Iain Davis suggests.
Not wishing to turn a mere comment into an article, I’ll just say that I think Mr. Davis is unfairly dismissing Hofstadter’s work as “nonsensical drivel.” This seems uncharacteristic judgmental of Mr. Davis.
Fair comment. I did not mean to imply that everything Hofstadter wrote was nonsense. I apologise if that was the impression given. I did mean that Hostadter’s claim that people cited evidence with the intention of “warding off the profane intrusion of the secular political world,” was nonsensical drivel. This was an attempt to classify “evidence” within acceptable bounds, which is an absurdity.
it should be obvious by now that the importation of culture that is antithetical to the indigenous culture is a pretext for violence to happen.
That violence then being a pretext for the government to implement more restrictions on the people.
A classic program of divide and conquer. Create the problem. Provide the solution. Execute the agenda.
Not sure what your stand vis-a-vis “indigenous culture” is. Are you saying “the importation of culture that is antithetical…” is merely a pretext and doesn’t really exist? Or that it is a very real dynamic but is being used to generate violence?
TPTB have manipulated various belief systems, and purposefully created disparity of all kinds in the world, just so it can be used to create conflict.
London turning into Londonstan is a perfect example.
Acts of terror in Germany at Christmas celebrations.
Acts of terror in Paris.
Acts of terror in Italy.
Acts of terror in the USA.
Diversity is a euphemism or forcing people together that don’t share a common culture. That lack of common culture is a pretext for acts of violence, real or perpetrated by government, and that is used as a pretext for pushing more surveillance state power.
People raised in a despotic cultures don’t understand free expression, right to bear arms, right to due process, trial by jury, etc. If these people were properly educated and informed about Western Culture, they would have a better idea of how to integrate and live peacefully. Or choose to go back where they came from.
Instead they are shuttled into foreign lands as quick as possible, promised more than can be delivered, then let loose onto the indigenous people to take out their frustrations on the innocent.
This is not to suggest that I hate any group of people. It is an honest appraisal of what is happening to primarily white people dominated regions. It is the replacement conspiracy being orchestrated by TPTB.
53 Admitted False Flag Attacks. “Not Conspiracy Theory … Admitted Fact”
February 05, 2019
53 Admitted False Flag Attacks. “Not Conspiracy Theory … Admitted Fact” – Global ResearchGlobal Research – Centre for Research on Globalization
With all this seasoned experience, what could possibly go wrong?
U.K. Column: Courts used by BBC to. try and gag Richard Hall.
Understanding Operation Gladio is key to understanding “how” State propaganda operations are used to maintain the “state of fear” necessary to control and manipulate the public mind.
Yes. Excellent article. Thanks.
The problem is that the wiki page is the place (and others like it) from where most people will get their info.
There you will see a standard debunk of the ‘conspiracy theory’ that there was intelligence agency involvement in any related murders.
Obviously, this yawning gap in perception is repeated in hundreds upon hundreds of other current and past incidents that a relative few view or understand differently.
Is a tiny minority of people (relative to the minimally sufficiently educated global population) who have engaged with alternative views, enough to help overcome ignorance (and therefore obedience) on a grand scale?
Dealing with that issue is crucial for any real and profound changes to occur in our systems of living with one another on this flat/round/turtle thing. If that is a goal.
So I take it he is an American with a name like ‘John D. Hall’?
ffs do your own research, he is from britain, sounds scottish to me
Geordie / Mackem
Sunshine state and destantis fighting the deep state. zzz
Who thought a
was a good idea ?
Hears a conspiracy for ya- it was at the exact time of the solar new moon eclipse happening.
but dont tell anyone just pretend it was a error in the testing system.
Officials apologize after ‘Emergency Alert’ test sent in ‘error’ to cell phones at 4:45 a.m.
A bankster kraken in explanation trouble
On the other hand, I still remember Ben Bernanke and Hank Paulson being ‘grilled’ by the Senate after the 2008 banking crash, only to sail into the financial sunset without a scratch.
These guys have legal immunity on account of the money that changes hands.
It’s that simple.
The FED like all central banks is independant. They are above mere politicians and corrupt judiciary.
Mr. Gensler seems a bit evasive. Very evasive…
The question of whether digital currencies should be considered “commodities” or “securities” is quite germane, as digital currencies (plural) are neither. Digital currencies are bullshit stacked on top of bullshit. Digital currencies should be outlawed, period.
The Once and Future Thing-Just before cock crow,
in a darkling hotel lobby,
the spectral father cries:
“The hour’s come, avenge me, Bobby*!”
And from his crystal palace,
the dynastic chosen son,
doles oxytocin tokens,
to the wronged and innocent ones.
Nobly wounded, audibly shaken,
from scores of giants that he’s felled,
he whispers to the multitude,
what his father’s ghost did tell:
“The salmon will be hooked,
the well of wisdom will be plumbed,
naught will remain unknown,
if we blockchain everyone.”
“Let us now praise famous men,
may their interest forever accrue,
we’ll accept all colors and proclivities,
we can tokenize them too.”
“In our liberated markets,
everyone will have a share,
on this side we’ll make solutions,
and we’ll make problems over there.”
“With tokenized revolutions,
we’ll spin them round and round,
and the energy they generate,
will power the cities and towns.”
“Join us, the Impedance,
all free agents and entrepreneurs,
just donate your extra electrons,
oh, mega machine, we’re yours!”
“Come now, let’s reforge,
the pact that was broken,
and pay for this succession,
with this non-fungible token”
Meanwhile, in his tower,
high above the broad Potomac,
Merlyn gazes in his Palantir,
muttering spells alchemical, gnomic.
Director of the spectacle,
Merlyn moves his players about,
charging waves hidden in air.
But Little Alice**, scrappy mom,
from the City of the Broken Bell,
raised her voice among the throng,
warning all was not so well:
“They say I’m nuts”, said Alice
“they say I’m not quite sane,
for thinking people are not pawns,
and that life is not a game.”
“I’ve been into the labyrinth,
and gathered many threads,
I’ve woven them together,
and this is what they said.”
She then unrolled a tapestry,
showing the lords of every land,
hunting for a quarry,
that they could not understand.
In the center was a unicorn,
the quested after game,
in magenta script thereon was stitched:
“BEHOLD: THE GLOBAL BRAIN”.
Merlyn, in his tower,
quickly consulted his chart,
of every outcome and income,
to find Little Alice’s part.
He directed a trusted knight,
of the Children’s Health*** Crusade,
to entice Little Alice,
with the sums she could be paid.
Alas, to no avail,
the crusader wooed in vain,
stubborn and immovable,
Alice’s tale remained the same.
Merlyn, in his wrath, demands:
“who let this thistle grow?,
this pissabed that’s sprouted from,
my neatly tended row”.
So the master of illusion,
broadcasts more at which to stare,
he invokes his spell most tried and true:
“Hey, you, look over there!”
Spectacular scenes emerge,
like toadstools after rain,
hairy men in queenly drag,
war, disease, exploding trains.
All the tricks long utilized,
to hypnotize the peasants,
and I don’t know what happened next,
this hasn’t passed, it’s present.
Poem by Meandering Myrmidon
***Children’s Health Defense; NGO
You no the controlled op lot will always use crap like this.
Iain quite happy shilling for UKC whilst screaming the BBC is a propaganda piece. Anyone whos been around a decade or more , no’s that U>K>C is a intelligence outfit selling establishment taking points, NO different than the BBC and no different than 98% of this new alt media.
I cant write my real response as my comments previously have been deleted.
But when it come censorship, you lot are worse than the mainstream.
PLACED IN PENDING.
I think you misunderstand the point of OffG entirely.
So what if the odd shill writes an article that gets featured here? (And I am not calling Iain a shill – that’s another discussion)
It could do us no harm to ‘know thine enemy’ better by looking at his handiwork from time to time.
If we aren’t bright enough to know the difference, then we really shouldn’t be here.
What matters is that the articles are interesting and thought-provoking, and most of them certainly are.
We can hardly expect the archangel Michael to open the last seal mentioned in John’s “Book of Revelation” right here in front of our noses.
We are supposed to do our own homework when it comes to looking for ‘enlightenment’, or whatever people like to call it today.
Stop embarrassing yourself.
‘historical examples include the “othering” of Jews in Germany during the 1930s by Nazi propagandists.’ – geezus does EVERYbody have to ‘remind’ us of the horrible terrible nazis every time they want to compare someone to ‘the ultimate evil’???? it’s all gross exaggeration at best – why not refer, i.e. if you want to talk about ‘othering’ in terms of ‘the great evil!!!!’ comparison, to the great USA treatment of non-caucasians, esp those of dark skin color, for most of its history – hundreds of years of uncontested terrible treatment of such people??? Same for the native American indians – and in modern times it still goes on with the ‘othering’ of people of different hues of skin in the oriental or mid-east or south Asian countries, etc etc etc, and they’re even making a run at ‘othering’ anyone not sufficiently woke, which may be an othering too far, as there’s a lot of eyes getting opened by this overreach. Very odd to have Hitler and the National Socialists constantly tossed out as exemplars of ‘the great evil’ – it’s quite exemplarific of any truly ‘big lie’ that the lie has to be continually reinforced or the truth is going to start coming through – and pretty much the whole ‘evil evil EVIL!!!!!!!!! Hitler and National Socialists fable is one of those really really really big lies. [[pending of course haha]
So you reject the historical narrative of Nazis, and believe the historical narrative of USA’s evil treatment of slaves. As if the USA was the only nation in all of history in the world that ever had slaves.
Do you not have any knowledge of history where almost every nation in the world had slaves, and that many cultures are racist, or at least have racial preference? This is happening in the modern world as well. Thanks to the NATO collalitions of the Middle East, slavery is as strong as ever in Libya. Africa has had slavery for ever. Japanese hate the Chinese as view them as lesers. Chinese hate the Japanese and view them as lesers. Almost every European nation that had colonies in the wider world had slaves. American Indians were not like 1960s hippies in sandals giving everyone hugs. They had wars. They had genocides. They perpetrated violent acts on innocent people.
Stop swallowing any of the BS propaganda.
Discernment and wisdom are needed now more than ever.
So you believe applying the term “othering” to anyone other than the Jews in Nazi Germany is incorrect? What about the “othering” of the Romani people (Gypsies) by the Nazis? Or the “othering of Jehovah’s Witness believers by the Nazis?
And since you’re dredging up societal impurities among the Native Americans – couldn’t one also dredge up impurities among the Jews?
I am not making excuses for anyone.
I am making the point that history is filled with atrocities that have occured before any of us were born, and since we were born. Atrocities primarily committed by government people, not by general populace.
The USA is as evil as any other government. No government is innocent. The very nature of government is force. No one government has a monopoly on evil or force.
Clearly a nuanced perspective is required.
Iain Davis gave a recent, pertinent and well-known example of the extremes to which ‘othering’ can be applied.
There’s no reason to read into Iain’s words or take them to overblown extremes, as @siamdave did, just as there’s no reason to do this back at @siamdave.
I do believe in the historical narrative of the US’s treatment of slaves, as well as accepting that other cultures also had slaves, without excusing or condoning the actions of anyone. Your leap into whataboutery regarding slavery is confusing tbh. Probably best to just accept that slavery is bad, no matter who does it? And, to get back on track, othering is also bad no matter who does it, whether directed at Jews, Palestinians, blacks, the unvaccinated or anyone.
I can say in full confidence the writer wasn’t implying anything to the contrary.
I never said that slavery is good. It is disingenuous to suggest anything I wrote implied that slavery is good.
That so many people act like the USA was slavery central for all of history is ignorant and intellectually dishonest. Not to mention there were white slaves and black slave owners. Then there are the slave ships and owners of the slave ships. Then there is the culture of Africa that used captured opposing tribes people to trade as slaves. American indians had slaves as well.
The USA has been a nation for only 240 years and we abolished slavery over 100 years ago. We traded it for financial slavery instead. Like most of the world has by submitting to Central Banks.
Anyone that makes even the slightest effort to study history, will find that all nations / governments are guilty of democide. Some more than others. None are innocent. Some groups of people bring democide upon themselves by their actions. Others by their reactions.
That is not to suggest that the general populace is guilty or responsible.
Pestilence, famine, war and death have always been with us.
We are all Palestine now.
Another miserable amoral post.
It is amoral to think that any one government in this world has a monopoly on evil or force.
There is no such thing as “good government”.
There can be good forms of government, that can coexist with people, when people are informed and vigilant.
Calling my post amoral doesn’t even make sense when I was making the point that calling one government evil, while ignoring the evil of all other governments, is intellectually dishonest.
I needed an example to illustrate the point. I didn’t say it was the only one. What’s wrong with that one?
Yes, you’re right. The use of the Nazi word to epitomise evil is so tiresome to anyone who really understands truth about world war 1 & 2. The word Nazi was NEVER ever used by Hitlert to describe his party – he hated this word. The word Nazi was coined by ‘Jewish’ (fake ‘Jew’) journalist Konrad Heidan to denigrate Hitler and his NSDAP party, and it literally means backward Bavarian peasant! Do you really think that Hitler would have risen to power by naming his party ‘The Backward Bavarian Peasant’s’ party? Lol! The common misconception (brainwashing of the masses) is that the term is derived from the word Nationalsozialist
Hitler was NOT the bad guy we have all been trolled to believe he was. Hitler was on the side of good fighting the Zionist (fake Jew) bankster scum such as the Rothchilds and Rockefellers, the same scum who are waging war against peace-loving Russia today.
I suggest that all those who really want to learn the truth go read Mike King’s (The Real History Channel) books such as The Bad War or The War Against Putin: https://www.realhistorychan.com/banned-books.html
“Hitler was on the side of good”…
That is a bold statement, divorced from reality. You have let paranoia and prejudice get the better of you; your abhorrence of perceived corruption has corrupted your perception to the point of lunacy.
Someone of a cynical nature might think your opinion was custom-built to generate a reaction, or conceivably to paint some faux impression of OffG’s readership.
Either way, your fetishisation/deification of past atrocities is odd, unfounded and rings false.
The BBC are master trolls. They are trolling all of us. They are liars too, pretending they don’t take their orders from government/shadow government. They are satanists and scumbags.
RDH on the other hand cares about truth. I pray he’ll be fine.
The good news is that they are not trolling any of us who never listen to them.
Of course, there’s no reason at all to simply dismiss the possibility that both the BBC and Hall are pushing false narratives around the Manchester Bomb.
Perhaps there was a bomb, perhaps it killed people. You do know that the parasites have form, right.
It’s an event from which the truth (if not a terrorist attack as per the official narrative) will never be known. It would be unwise to consider one opposing narrative (also pushed to the fore by the msm for the purpose of undermining it) as the one defining truth.
maybe you should watch the film he made which you can find linked to his book
Check the evidence and make up your own mind. That is what the evidence is for.
Commented on this on Iain’s website so won’t repeat that but good to see OG giving it an airing.
RDH is an interesting character and his Maddie videos were compelling viewing as is his take on Manchester. Tbf a lot of the groundwork was done by youtuber UKCritical Thinker who had posted quite a view videos on it before being targeted by the YT thought police.
Have some questions regarding RDH’s UFO stuff though as well as the fact he sits in front of possibly the biggest psyop of them all as a backdrop to when he presents his show.
Maybe one day I’ll ask him….
well done for reminding folks there was people before RDH who where miles ahead of the game in research but didn’t have the money to set up fancy websites and all the gear it needed to function back then when making videos and editing was a serious time consuming job which required serious money.
Is Hall promoting the UFO hoax or exposing it as a government psyop?
It’s nice to read the truth every once in a while and how people are constantly being fooled in seeing the ‘truth’. Happy that OffG is offering that truth.
To me it’s like this statistical phenomenon where truth is spelled in capital letters and ‘truth’ (the statistician’s model) in normal letters.
As long as people prefer to see the ‘truth’ over the truth, one can wait until the cows come home before we (the people/ or society) will see the truth.
And this is the problem. It’s not so much that the spin doctors are geniuses in fooling people around, but that people like to be fooled. That is the truth.
Why is that the truth? Because ‘truth’ is so much more fun than truth. Take covid where the truth is that we have been bored to death with lockdowns, etc and can only blame ourselves for complying to idiotic measures (for those who complied, ie the far majority). However if you believe in ‘truth’ than we narrowly escaped the apocalypse and can now congratulate ourselves by doing the best we could ie complying to the measures that saved us from death.
As it turned out, most people either prefer the second option, or (alternatively) ignore the first option as they can’t handle the truth and do as if covid never existed! Putting things in your unconscious mind so to say…
And now we have climate, Ukraine, food crisis, refugee crisis, impending war, etc etc that are being offered to us as ‘truth’ and the same thing as with covid will happen again.
I am not a misanthrope. It’s just that I am amazed that so many people have so many problems with seeing the truth.
And so it goes until infinity.
People don’t like to be fooled. Just ask them!
But when people are fooled, they don’t know they are.
Dividing people into two or more groups puts them in positions where they think they must choose one group. And most people are inclined to choose the group that they think is the majority.
Or they choose the one group where their friends are. They are loyal.
This continuous conflict – people against people – doesn’t last. It is not eternal. This revelation needed to happen, because when we see the lies, and when we recognize them as lies, we stop believing in them. That’s how changes happen.
Try and bear in mind that broadcasters are addressing the insufficiently perspicacious majority of the population, to maintain the integrity of their constructed world view*.
Simultaneously, it is desired for the sufficiently perspicacious to continue to further enlighten themselves. This is why so many staged events have had so many apparently inept aspects to them, not because the organisers are incompetent, but because of the need to arouse those percipient enough to recognise them.
Even so, many people get bogged down, forever demonstrating to themselves and others that staged events were staged.
The bigger question, that a few can move on to, is to wonder why it is desired to wake up the sufficiently perspicacious to pervasive deception and disinfo – to have revealed to them that which they would otherwise remain ignorant of.
This great reveal has a special term deriving from a Greek root, a verb meaning to uncover, reveal, lay bare, or disclose. It is apocalypse. Compare with enlightenment, epiphany, and revelation.
The rabbit hole goes down a very long way.
* To protect them against the rising numbers of those who are obtaining a different world view.
I don’t see the point (for the cryptocracy) in revealing to a small minority that all the psyops and hoaxes they run are obviously fake and that news isn’t actually real, (even sports results) it’s a mind control device.
It seems like another divide and conquer strategy.
They appear to be weeding out or separating the less compliant using agents like Alex Jones to reveal fake events like Sandy Hook, then stage a fake trial, where he admits to being wrong. There’s no actual settlement in a fake trial. They (district and federal courts) run fake trials all the time, often in the realm of corporate malfeasance. Complete with huge fines never paid.
They’re (governments) making it unlawful to challenge the state or to expose the frauds and fakery, to scare ordinary members of the public from questioning the narratives or becoming citizen journalists.
What appears to be happening is a worldwide transition to the Chinese style of mass censorship, social credit and spying, where literal imprisonment, death and labor camps are the end result of challenging “the state”.
The “Great Awakening“ too is a psyop. They aren’t informing anyone, they’re pushing hoaxes such as nuclear annihilation, aliens, Tartaria etc.
They don’t need to divide & conquer. They already have total control.
There is certainly a ‘weeding out’ or a separating of the wheat from the chaff.
They couldn’t introduce the vaxx without having first ensured that the wheat were tipped-off that something wicked this way comes.
You have to understand the audiences being addressed. All the theatre is for the insufficiently perspicacious – even the trajectory to a dystopic future.
The sufficiently perspicacious, being able to see through the theatre (psyops, hoaxes, etc.) are not the intended audience.
For a glimpse further down the rabbit hole see: “The Floating Coffer Theory”
Well said, totally agree, they’re in total control.Just have a feeling that they’re addressing both categories (believers and non believers) in order to hide the truth.
Very, very few can handle the truth. Lars von Trier made the Melancholia allegory when he found out.
Fortunately, one can recover from melancholia.
‘Spring’ is furthering the ‘silent war’
Creating disinformation to expose disinformation? What could go wrong?
This is unethical “journalism”.
Quite, isn’t it interesting that she doesn’t draw attention to the irony in this. And even though she is calling out false profiles and fake info is herself guilty. Does she think it is OK if you work for the system !!!!?.
Not sure if she is even really called Mariana Spring either MI5/6 employee I suspect.