Deconstructing Marianna in Conspiracyland – Part 1
Iain Davis
Rejected artwork for the BBC podcast.
In the introduction to this exposé of “Marianna in Conspiracyland” we discussed the evidence which proves that the BBC is a state broadcaster. It is not “independent,” as it falsely claims; its “reporting” spreads disinformation on behalf of the government and, as we shall see, the government’s “partners.”
Please read the introduction before reading Part 1.
The “Marianna in Conspiracyland” podcast series is a 10 part alleged investigation into the purported activities of the so-called “conspiracy movement.” It is presented by the BBC’s disinformation and social media correspondent Marianna Spring.
In Episode 1, titled “Entering Conspiracyland,” Marianna claims there is a societal schism between politically moderate people and a minority who, she alleges, have been “drawn in by disinformation laced with hate.” We are then informed that hippies in the Devon market town of Totnes have “crossed over” to the “far right.”
Leaving aside the comical implausibility of these claims—ordinary people are engaged in “hate” and stoned hippies are now Nazis—at least we get an inkling of where Conspiracyland is heading. The main theme is evidently terror as the BBC attempts to inculcate fear of this “minority” among the BBC audience.
Marianna says that the series is about “the people at the core of the conspiracy theory movement.” The difficulty she faces in investigating this “movement” is that there is no such thing as a “conspiracy theory movement.” Not in the UK, nor anywhere else.
“Conspiracy theorist” is simply a propaganda label applied to people who hold anti-Establishment opinions. We will explore this in more depth as we examine “Marianna in Conspiracyland,” but you can read a history of the development of the propaganda label here.
There certainly is a loose coalition of people who are trying their best to alert their fellow citizens to the fact that their government, and government propagandists like the BBC, are lying to them. I count myself as among them. We could, I suppose, be described as a political movement but only in the loosest possible sense as we don’t subscribe to any unifying political ideology.
In 2014 two political scientists, Joseph E. Uscinski and Jospeph Parent, carried out large-scale demographic survey of US people who they labelled “conspiracy theorists.” They measured everything from basic demographics to political ideology and more. The political scientists found virtually nothing to distinguish “conspiracy theorists” from the general population.
From a demographic perspective, including stated political ideology, beyond being slightly older than the average population age and with black and Hispanic people being marginally the most likely to hold anti-Establishment opinions, there was nothing to identify any cohesive group of people called “conspiracy theorists.”
That is to say, there is no evidence that “conspiracy theorists” even exist as an identifiable social group. The people labelled as such were no more likely to be “far right” or “far left” than anyone else in US society.
Equally this does not exclude people with either “far right” or “far left” political views from subscribing to what Marianna Spring calls “conspiracy theories.” It is just that the evidence clearly shows that people who are labelled as “conspiracy theorists” have no predisposition to extremism or extreme political views.
Uscinski and Parent – Surprised
This came as a bit of a surprise to Uscinski and Parent. So more research was needed to support the assumption that alleged conspiracy theorists—a made-up sticky label—must be extremists. How can anyone who questions the government or the mainstream media (MSM) be anything else?
Consequently, for example, a large scale research study, undertaken by COMPACT, looked at the political beliefs held by alleged conspiracy theorists in 26 European countries.
The researchers concluded:
…conspiracy mentality is associated with extreme left- and especially extreme right-wing beliefs
The Comparative Analysis of Conspiracy Theories (COMPACT) programme is funded by the European Cooperation in Science and Technology (COST). COST is a project of the European Union. This will become highly relevant as we progress. Please bear it in mind.
This questionable scientific theory, claiming that people called conspiracy theorists are a bunch of extremists, presents us with a conundrum. Large scale demographic surveys have consistently found that a majority of the population, in countries around the world, are supposedly “conspiracy theorists.”
For example, a 2018 study found that alleged conspiracy theorists formed the majority, often a sizeable majority, in most countries:
Sweden was the least credulous of conspiracy theories, with 52% believing one or more of the theories polled by the researchers, as opposed to 85% for Hungary. In the US that figure was 64% and in France 76%.
According to the COMPACT research scientists, political moderates form a minority, even a small minority, everywhere. The vast majority of citizens are either extreme “far right” or, to a lesser extent, extreme “far left.”
So why political parties are obsessed with grabbing votes from “moderate voters,” or the “middle ground” is a mystery. If some well-funded conspiracy theorist researchers are correct, they could garner more support by appealing to fascists and radical communists.
Of course, we only need to consider our own views, those of our family members and pretty much everyone we know to realise that “far right” and “far left” political opinions are very much in the minority. There appears to be something very wrong with the “conspiracy theorist” researchers’ so-called “findings.”
The problem with the COMPACT ‘scientific’ view is it assumes that something called “conspiracy mentality,” or the “conspiracy mindset,” exists. This is largely based upon totally preposterous experimental psychology pseudoscience.
The COMPACT scientists allude to this gibberish in their study:
… people differ in their predisposition to explain events as conspiracies, which is sometimes referred to as ‘conspiracy mentality’ or the ‘conspiracy mindset.’ […] It differs from concrete conspiracy beliefs in that it taps into the general propensity to suspect that conspiracies are at play, uncontaminated by concrete events, actors or contexts. […] [W]e aggregated agreement with the diverse conspiracy theories in each country to tap into the general propensity to endorse specific conspiracy beliefs. This aggregate correlated substantially with our generic conspiracy measure that excludes any reference to concrete events or actors.
The researchers have drawn a distinction between what they call “conspiracy theory,” which they say is a product of the alleged “conspiracy mindset,” and an awareness of the real conspiracies which are “concrete events.” This supposedly more rational worldview they call “concrete conspiracy belief.”
Again, we can turn to one of the leading researchers in the field of conspiracy theory research, Joseph Uscinski, to understand how this alleged distinction, between “conspiracy theory” and the far more sensible “concrete conspiracy belief,” is defined:
A conspiracy theorist is anyone who believes conspiracy theories, and polls over several decades suggest that all Americans, for example, are conspiracy theorists in this sense. [. . .] While conspiracy refers to a real, actual event, conspiracy theory refers to an accusatory perception which may or may not be true. The line separating conspiracy theory and conspiracy is unclear and has been hotly debated. [. . .] Everybody believes in at least one conspiracy theory, but rejects countless others. Therefore, people disagree on which theories constitute “could-be-true” conspiracy theories and which constitute “are true” [concrete] conspiracies. [. . .] I demarcate between conspiracy theory and [concrete] conspiracy using the simple and consistent standard put forth by Neil Levy (2007). His premise is that properly constituted epistemic authorities determine the existence of [concrete] conspiracies.
As we’ve discussed, demographic research ultimately reveals that everyone, or nearly everyone, is a conspiracy theorist to some extent. Consequently, according to COMPACT and Marianna Spring, the population of the United States—at least—predominantly comprises of far-right extremists who have been “drawn in by disinformation laced with hate.”
The identification of a conspiracy theory, a belief in which labels you a conspiracy theorist, is “unclear and hotly debated.” This suggests the strong possibility that the definition of the “conspiracy theorist” is opinion masquerading as science. Surely, that can’t be true?
An alleged conspiracy theory “may or may not be true.” Obviously establishing whether “conspiracy theory is “true” or not depends entirely upon examining the evidence. Apparently if it is “true” then it is not a conspiracy theory but rather a “concrete conspiracy belief.”
We can therefore expect “Marianna in Conspiracyland” to investigate and examine the evidence offered by those she has labelled as conspiracy theorists. This is essential if she wishes to rule out “concrete conspiracy beliefs.” According to “the Science,” there is no other way to differentiate between “conspiracy theorists” and rational people whose opinions aren’t “laced with hate.” Any omission of the evidence cited by those who Marianna labels “conspiracy theorists” will cast considerable doubt upon the credibility of “Conspiracyland.” If the evidence isn’t mentioned at all then this would clearly indicate a Marianna’s refusal to report it and an intention to deceive.
As we’ve just read, Uscinski—one of the foremost conspiracy theory researchers—suggests that a “true” or “concrete” conspiracy is determined by “properly constituted epistemic authorities.” He cites Radically Socialized Knowledge and Conspiracy Theories, by Neil Levy, as evidence to support his conclusion.
Levy states:
The typical explanation of an event or process which attracts the label ‘conspiracy theory’ is an explanation that conflicts with the account advanced by the relevant epistemic authorities. [. . .] Conspiracies are a common feature of social and political life, common enough that refusing to believe in their existence would leave us unable to understand the contours of our world. [. . .] A conspiracy theory that conflicts with the official story, where the official story is the explanation offered by the (relevant) epistemic authorities, is prima facie unwarranted. [. . .] Clearly, it is often rational to heavily discount the official stories offered by some authorities. In totalitarian countries, people learn to read the official news media with a jaundiced eye, and this attitude is often warranted. [. . .] Responsible believers ought to accept explanations offered by properly constituted epistemic authorities. [. . .] Intellectuals do not contemptuously dismiss a proffered explanation as ‘just a conspiracy theory’ when it conflicts, merely, with the government line. [. . .] It is because the relevant epistemic authorities – the distributed network of knowledge claim gatherers and testers that includes engineers and politics professors, security experts and journalists – have no doubts over the validity of the explanation that we accept it.
Here then, at last, we have the “scientific” definition of “conspiracy theory.” This is what the entire field of “conspiracy theory research” is based upon. The scientists assert that belief in these theories also defines the “conspiratorial mindset” of the so-called “conspiracy theorist.”
“Responsible believers” accept whatever they are told by the “properly constituted epistemic authorities.” If you don’t you are psychologically flawed and suffering from a “conspiracy mentality.”
Consequently, according to “the Science,” we can define the “conspiracy mindset”—conspiratorial thinking, conspiracy mentality, ideation, conspiracism, etc.—and the associated “conspiracy theorist,” as follows:
The conspiracy mindset disagrees with the official narrative. Conspiracy thinking questions the government but also, on occasion, academia, the intelligence agencies and the mainstream media. Therefore, those who hold anti-Establishment opinions that question power are “conspiracy theorists” and, as such, are irrational.
That’s it!
The whole concept of “conspiracy theory” and “conspiracy theorists” is based upon the logical fallacies of personal incredulity and appeal to authority. If you hold anti-Establishment opinions and question the “relevant epistemic authorities” you are a “conspiracy theorist” according to those same “epistemic authorities.”
Acknowledging that conspiracies are common and that exposing them helps us “to understand the contours of our world,” so-called “conspiracy theory research” proclaims that the Establishment, i.e., the network most commonly complicit in “concrete” conspiracies, is the only relevant epistemic authority capable of defining said “concrete” conspiracies.
Conspiracy theory “scientist” assert that perfectly rational anti-Establishment opinion is “prima facie unwarranted.” Questioning the biased pluralism—more on this in a moment—of the Establishment is therefore a conspiracy theory born of a “conspiracy mindset.”
It goes without saying that many of those who hold anti-Establishment opinions, who question power and are therefore labelled “conspiracy theorists,” consider the conspiracy theory scientist’s expressed worldview to be, at best, monumentally naive. Some perhaps think it irretrievably stupid. Others possibly take the view that the conspiracy theory scientist are part of the Establishment’s “epistemic authorities” and are, therefore, simply churning out anti-scientific propaganda.
Nonetheless, no matter how much “research” is conducted, the foundational premise, upon which all “conspiracy theory research” is constructed, is nothing but a set of logical fallacies and self-contradictory assumptions. There are so many presumptions, suppositions and unfounded claims in “conspiracy theory research” that, in no way, can it be considered a scientific endeavour. It is the epitome of junk science.
It doesn’t even present any hypotheses, just assertions of intellectual superiority. Notably, “conspiracy theory science” is stridently anti-democratic and authoritarian.
A more accurate definition of the alleged “conspiracy theorist” would be: a person with anti-Establishment opinions who questions power.
Much firmer, empirical evidence based political science suggests that questioning power is not only important for democracy, but is also the rational position to take.
In their 2014 multivariate analysis of nearly 1,800 policy decisions made by the US government, Professor Martin Gilens and Professor Benjamin I. Page tried to answer the following questions:
Who governs? Who really rules? To what extent is the broad body of U.S. citizens sovereign, semi-sovereign, or largely powerless?
They considered four competing theoretical democratic models.
- Majoritarian electoral democracy suggests that policymakers respond directly to the will of the majority through the electoral process.
- Economic-elite domination proposes that policies are made in the interests of those with significant economic and financial resources.
- Majoritarian pluralism theory submits that policy is shaped by the competing influence of interest groups through their lobbying activities. This enables people to form influential lobby groups and effectively represents the will of the majority.
- Biased pluralism suggests that majoritarian pluralism is corrupted by the wealth, power and influence of the economic-elite and their corporations. It is a corrupt society that serves those who corrupt it and subvert democratic accountability.
After carefully recording, analysing and demonstrating the policy making process, Gilens and Benjamin et al., concluded:
Economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence. The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralism.
The evidence suggests that the US polity, at least, delivers a venal, biased pluralist political system that enables and protects economic-elite domination. It is entirely reasonable to apply the same analysis to all other so-called “representative democracies.”
If you care about humanity at all, anti-Establishment opinion (AEO), which essentially advocates majoritarian electoral democracy, is the logical response to the biased pluralism that pollutes our alleged “representative democracies.” Marianna Springs starting proposition, that AEO is based upon “disinformation laced with hate,” is evidently false.
As questioning power is a basic democratic ideal, which almost the entire population accepts, this explains why the “conspiracy theorist researchers” keep counting nearly everyone on the planet as a conspiracy theorist. If you then assume, as many of these “scientists” do, that conspiracy theory is an unhinged, extremist ideology, then it’s only a small hop, skip and politically motivated jump to conclude that everyone is an extremist of some sort.
There is no “conspiracy theory movement.” Just ordinary people with AEOs who question power. Marianna Springs efforts to investigate and “expose” the conspiracy theory movement initially appears to be a completely pointless exercise. There is nothing for her to investigate.
Prior to sticking the “conspiracy theorist” label on these people, they were just individuals who held AEOs. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to ask why the BBC is investing considerable time and resources into exposing a fictitious “movement.”
Not only is an AEO a commonly held belief, political science appears to justify it. Furthermore, there is no evidence that, as a proportion of the population, more people hold such views today than in any preceding generation.
None of this means that AEO is always well-founded or that asking questions of power is warranted on every occasion. “Conspiracy theory,” which for the remainder of this series will be referred to only as AEO, is not, in and of itself, evidence of anything. AEO “may or may not” be accurate.
The determining factor is incontrovertibly the evidence. Only the evidence can reveal if AEO is “warranted.”
We can investigate the presented evidence, or lack thereof, in “Marianna in Conspiracyland” to figure out if the BBC’s allegations have any merit. From the outset, hard political science suggests not.
“Marianna in Conspiracyland” does not appear to be an intellectually honest investigation of anything. The reasonable suspicion is that it is pure, state propaganda.
Going forward, in light of the evidence we have just discussed, we will deconstruct Marianna Springs alleged “investigative reporting” and examine her, and the BBC’s, claims.
Let’s investigate the BBC’s “Marianna in Conspiracyland” series.
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.
SUPPORT OFFGUARDIAN
If you enjoy OffG's content, please help us make our monthly fund-raising goal and keep the site alive.
For other ways to donate, including direct-transfer bank details click HERE.
To add – re, looking into MS’s genealogy, familial lines of people such as Huxley, Orwell, Blair – often quite cosy…. Many of the main players in our world are related. For example, Blair, Cameron and Harriet Harman are related, as I recall. Meanwhile I have the source on the relation of ‘Madonna’ to ‘Lady Gaga’ to ‘Elen Degeneres’ to ‘Celine Dion’ – who are all cousins!!!….. Quite an amazing coincidence….. When you look into someone such as Susan Miki (forget how her surname is spelt), who was in so-called sage….. you will find she has familial links back to Alan Turin, and Bletchley Park people…… Once you start to lift the veil and look, you find an awful lot of connections…. it just would not surprise me in the least if MS had such connections… Polly Toynbee has interesting antecedents too, since I am on off Guardian…… very hugely well off, for someone who’s putatively ‘socialist’……… It’s amazing, just whenever you lift up a stone, you start to see a lot of connections among these people. And the fact is that the Fabians rebadged Communism as socialism – pull the threads, and you will find a Fabian under most stones…
I think someone should do a deep dive on MS’s background, she smacks of Fabianism to me… I believe she worked at The Moscow Times – MI5 foothold in Moscow… Also, Kingpeterthevirile showed that she was doing amicable interviews with people on an area of Youtube known as ‘breadtube’ – which is openly Communist… She is pally with a very low-IQ cultural Marxist guy on there who touts his ‘dissertation’ about, and is proud at having read three books for it. I kid you not. He is proud because he was able to read 3 books…… This says it all about universities. If you were reading 30 books around a subject, that would be a good introduction only. He is openly Marxist, and MS is on side with him…. I note also that MS asserted in her interview with Darren Smith that the wife of the GP who died from Astra Z had stated that such deaths were ‘rare’. When you listen to this poor woman’s actual words, what she says is: ‘They are NOT rare.’ But that kind of misinformation is just fine for MS of course…. It’s only the peasants who must be told what to think. She can twist and connive as much as she likes. As I say, I have a strong sense that this woman very likely has genealogy worth looking into…… Tony Blair bombed 600,000 children to death in Iraq – to get his hands on the country’s wealth and take over its banking system. To ‘justify’ this, he cited UN Charter, Article 41 – only he took out the word ‘NOT’ so it read ‘involving the use of armed force’, rather than ‘NOT involving the use of armed force’……. WHERE IS MS’s PURSUIT OF TONY BLAIR for this Satanic warmongering, based on misinformation/disinformation??????????
The BBC’s Pronouns
WE don’t believe any of this “conspiracy” nonsense, but there are THOSE who do – though WE won’t allow any of THEM on OUR show to present THEIR arguments. And WE think it’s acceptable to use violence when confronted by a “conspiracy arse”.
—
QI: Debunking moon landing conspiracy theories
BBC
Jun 13, 2023
The State holds a monopoly of force – wishfully held in checks & balances of accountability under law.
But a transnational military-industrial complex runs behind the appearances as a global monopoly of broad spectrum dominance – principally of financial & legal or regulatory capture set in narrative manipulations – which is and does mind-control of the unwitting identity of adaptation within such ‘structures’ of incentivised ‘thinking’.
The extremism is active as the hate narratives of the green, gender and biotech-pharma which purport to offer protections and rights while violating, hacking and hijacking minds and bodies.
But those who identify against hate targets set the accusation and cast the first stones in the intent to mask in lies for a self-special protection – to which they are then invested identity assets or a captured revenue stream.
In outer terms the ‘counter measures’ operate a known playbook for breaking down and destroying a targeted cultural identity, to isolate its intelligence, so as to insert lockstepped assets of compliance and acquire the ‘asset’.
Looking at Whitney Webb’s documentation reveals organised crime, intelligence agencies and financial-corporate interests to be operating much like the Morlocks over the managed ‘Eloi’.
Which is also to indicate that HG Wells was part of an insider recognition of such divisions running beneath the appearances. Accepted thinking, frames what can be funded or starved of support.
As thinking assumed humans as hackable mechanism, it enacted an alien hijack of the minds of those who seek to ‘lord it over’ their bot-net golems. Perhaps ‘alien’ is too provocative a term, but they are stranger to themselves and their kind in subjugation to the will to use any one and anything to raise a ‘self-specialness’ from lies given power, and demanding sacrifice.
It is not a theory that research has found Bias Pluralism controls political outcomes.
It is not a theory that research has found no evidence to support a hypothesis that a particular social group can be identified to conspiracy theories..
Further theory development is the work of science. Everything in science evolves from a hypothesis which cannot be or which has not yet been proven wrong. The object of science is to invent hypothesis which cannot be, or have not yet been, proven wrong; and then to set out to prove the hypothesis wrong.
Hypothesis: The world is square..from space the earth looks to be round, on the ground one can attach one end of a string in the ground, then move horizontally around the globe to meet the end of the string attached to the ground before the journey around the earth began. The both ends connect discovery does not prove the world is round, It does not prove the earth is not square, it raises a new hypothesis that the surface of the earth is a continuous closed non symmetrical geometric object. So new hypothesis are needed to better define the object called the earth. disproving the Hypothesis that: the earth is round, depends on the one’s definition of round.
Theories are attempts to explain phenomena for which the hypothesis cannot be or has not yet been proven wrong. The problem in conspiracy theory is that those fearful of being discovered have intentionally confused hypothesis development with theory. and have attached the adjective word conspiracy to theory developed based on hypothesis that have not yet been proven wrong. Theories are products of hypothesis that have not yet been proven wrong.
I think we all need to begin to get deeper into this issue. because in court we are going to need to understand this really, really well, if we are to defend ourselves against the corporate powers that run the nation states. These corporate powers cause the leaders of the nation states to write laws that protect the nefarious activities of the corporations. Nations states politicians do not move without support from the powerful, global, stock market promoted corporations and or their oligarch owners.
That title was the product of some NLP:
Marianna – she’s your friend, your pal! See, you’re on first name terms! And she’s a woman and women are obviously less deceptive and more empathic…. (anyone who’s seen her confrontation with Richard D. Hall kows this is the angle she plays. Maybe she even believes it. It’s exactly the same play used by Kelly Weill in ‘Off the Edge’)
Conspiracyland – it’s an external world, one perhaps to be visited occasionally with an intrepid guide but definitely separate from real reality where things are what the relevant authorities, especially the BBC, are what they say they are. Isn’t that more comforting and less alarming.?
Of course there’s another level here – they love layering their ops. It’s an ‘Alice in Wonderland’ reference. It’s a tale for children authored by a child pornographer about taking drugs to foster an alter that can then be mind controlled and abused. Like all those other “children’s classics” like ‘Peter Pan’ and ‘The Wizard of Oz’, probably Narnia too. Not so far from the truth then….
experimental psychology pseudoscience
Of those you know who are mentally ill or troubled, how many has psychology or any of its applied branches healed? If Joseph Uscinski and Neil Levy are not delusional, they must be in some deep trouble to write this swill. They resort to the word belief without any sense of irony.
The whole project is much ado to distract from simple common understanding:
– Every covert effort by the government or its plutocrat cronies to deceive, exploit, intimidate or harm is a conspiracy.
– Those who suspect or disbelieve the related propaganda, or discuss the conspiracy, are conspiracy theorists.
– Those who uncover proof of the conspiracy are conspiracy whistle-blowers.
– A conspiracy exposed with facts is a factual conspiracy, not a “concrete conspiracy belief”.
– Every government employee including politicians is a servant of the people, not master.
Why is the media so concerned about “hate”? It’s because the public don’t love enough. And who are they to love? Big Brother.
BBC: “Scrapped Covid vaccine deal with Valneva cost UK taxpayers £358m”
Why would they tell you that unless it’s to depress the public mood further and sneakily say, “Look at what we can do to you?” whilst pretending to mismanage.
“Mismanagement” is another form of management. Indeed, considering that the aims of the rulers are different from, and opposed to, the aims of the public, “mismanagement” is the rule.
Don’t forget corruption.
Depressing but sounds about right. The more we learn to ignore and avoid and to stop doing any sort of business with the bastards the better off we will all be.
Well when you’re catching flak, you know what it means.
For the willfully ignorant the truth is both a conspiracy theory and a derangement syndrome; all attractively painted in colors and shades of cognitive dissonance.
Sense About Science
– because evidence matters
https://senseaboutscience.org
https://senseaboutscience.org/activities/talking-about-conspiracies
Talking about Covid conspiracy theory
Useful approaches for constructive conversations about Covid conspiracy theories.
Published: 16 June 2021
All our guides are date stamped and reflect the scientific findings and knowledge available at the time of publication.
Download the talking about covid conspiracy pdf
https://senseaboutscience.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Talking-about-Covid-Conspiracy.pdf
Background
This guide is a public-led, expert-fed approach for science communicators to having conversations with people who buy into COVID conspiracy theories. The aim is to equip individuals with the requisite tools to prevent the spread of misinformation. Please share the guide widely and tell us what you think: it would be great to hear your thoughts. Get in touch at: [email]
Partners
Produced by Sense about Science and the ‘Infodemic: Combatting Covid-19 Conspiracy Theories’ project, which was funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) as part of UKRI’s COVID-19 funding.
—
The PDF (extract)
4. Talk about the difference between conspiracy theories and actual conspiracies
—
Except for example Operation Gladio and Jimmy Savile where:
a) They were kept secret for decades
b) Lots of people knew – including the police
c) Nobody talked
d) Potential whistle-blowers died mysteriously (e.g. Jill Dando)
e) The media published nothing
A conspiracy theory doing the rounds of late is that men have a vagina and women have a penis.
Bizarre that the MSM and leading politicans now state this as fact!!
Yet you dare challenge the efficacy of the jab or mention its side effects, then you are a domestic terrorist!
What an insane world we now live in…
Never mind facts. Just rememember ‘the party is always right’
This lays the ground for shopping truth tellers by the small brained consumers of MSM which will never work. Not even my square MSM watching neighbors believe this shit any longer. I mentioned the UFO invasion with a hard tongue-in-cheek comment and was accused of wearing a tin foil hat 😂
It’s a nudge our Lassies tend not to have babies leading into during a crisis, coupled with an influx of immigration. The overhaul US media has been still is a bit strong.
It’s a valid point, I think to remember the difference during the second world war East and West imo. Then they are the facts ie: media couldn’t revise back to perhaps the 1950, 60, 70 80’s etc etc….nor could they economically traverse the public traumatic effects.
What the fuck are you trying to convey?!
The recent death of Daniel Ellsberg brought back mention of the “Pentagon Papers”. Relatively few people really understand what they were about — most people will say “Vietnam” or “Watergate” but the truth is that they revealed a systematic attempt — a conspiracy, if you like — stretching back over decades to misinform and so cover up the reasons for the Vietnam war. Put simply, the people of the US — indeed of “the West” — were fed a collective lie to disguise the true purpose of our involvement in Vietnam. (Which wasn’t “to preserve Freedom and Democracy(TM)”) The Watergate angle came about by an attempt to discredit Mr. Ellsberg using, among others, a bunch of amateur break in artists who subsequently became known as ‘the plumbers’ of Watergate fame.
Following the subsequent history of the papers and similar events is interesting. Yes, they may have contributed to the end of the Vietnam war but any casual reading of the media since then will show that the patently false narrative peddled before that time is still very much in evidence. Any time things get too hot you get the “both sides” argument, of course. But the most important thing learned from this event was that ‘the powers that be’ — the people who brought us Vietnam and, by extension, many peoples of the world all sorts of disasters and misfortunes, merely learned how to avoid this kind of problem in the future (and should the worst happen, how to deal with it). That’s why all subsequent wars were well managed from an information perspective (right up to the present Ukraine conflict — like it or loathe it we, ‘the west’, are a party to this and have been from the beginning. Managing of information and public perception has been the order of the day since then and it doesn’t take a genius to see it at work. (What might take genius is trying to figure out why so many people just lap it up. But then in the words of a “Hitchkiker” character — “I’d far rather be happy than right”. Its easier to go with the program because the consequences of not doing so are really uncomfortable.)
Personally, I keep trying to figure out ‘why?”. There seems to be no rationale for it. World Domination sounds like a fine idea but its meaningless when you think about it. Why do we, a great power, allow our external policies to be devised and enforced by individuals who have personal interests in them that seem to differ from what should be our national interest? Maybe its because people just do what they do because they’ve always done it and can’t stop. Who knows?
Ukraine ‘conflict’ it’s a war rubber necked jack rabbit. Conflict is soft soap for dummies while an armistice is agreed upon. wake up join us realists.
Spiritual warfare
L. Fletcher Prouty in his book JFK: The CIA, Vietnam and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy goes a long way to delve into the “why” of Vietnam.
As a pilot in WWII Prouty had first hand knowledge of very interesting aspects. One was at the very end of the war (WWII). There was an island off of Japan that the US had turned into a massive weapons dump for a planned 300,000-man land invasion of Japan. When he was there the stockpile was being prepared for shipment. He assumed it was to return to the US. Nope, he found out that half was destined to go to Korea and the other half sent to Vietnam. He says that a decision like this had to happen at the level of the Joint Chiefs of Staff or above – but there is no record of it. So by 1945, the decision for war in Korea and Vietnam had already been made. The book goes on to detail how the war in Vietnam, the conflict, indeed the warring factions were manufactured by the CIA. One thing becomes clear in the book is that there are forces that make policy above the level of the president and military brass, that remain hidden…
Politicians are the lowest lifeforms on the face of the earth ~ General George S. Patton.
They have a lot of competition for that title.
You’re absolutely correct ✔️
Even when they are out of office, that’s real intelligent ok US has a 100 million UK has eight that drink tea three times a day dreaming of buttered crumpets. Sons and Daughters..level 42.
That was a very interesting reply Clive, thanks.
Come on. What about the people who voted them in? What about all the people who serve these politicians??
What about all people who do everything what these politicians says they should do???
No man. You 10 guys thumbs up got it all wrong. Try the mirror!!!!
The legitimacy of modern governments has never been the same since it became known in 2004 that GWB’s brother was connected to a company that manufactured voting machines.
Of course the media didn’t want to know that, but some of us did, and some of us haven’t forgotten it either.
We must stop writing and promoting articles which imply that extreme corruption and systemic criminality – the kind that stinks to high heaven – are a new phenomenon in our society.
For Pete’s sake, many of the university professors who were talking about it 50 years ago are dead.
It’s not new, and we have to stop being shocked and mesmerized by it.
Remedies have to be found – something along the lines of, “How To Put Together A Decent Society When Your Government Really Doesn’t Want You To”…
Bush’s brother was also connected to a company that did some re-wiring of the World Trade Center not long before 911. Perhaps the scoop regarding voting machines was to distract from that revelation?
RE: university professors who were talking about it 50 years ago are dead.
Like the book The Power Elite, by C. Wright Mills published in 1956.
When someone uses the term ‘conspiracy theorist’ in a derogatory manner, which is almost always how it is used, they are announcing their stupidity, ignorance, brainwashing and inability to think for themselves. It’s a dead giveaway. You immediately know that any intelligent conversation with this person will be impossible.
Richard Feynman said:
The whole idea behind ‘conspiracy theorism’ is to suppress questions, to discredit doubters, to stifle legitimate logical inquiry. Just fall in line and accept the dogma.
Let’s remember that this phrase “conspiracy theorist” was used early by the CIA to discredit those who doubted the official story of the JFK assassination, and that the word “conspiracy” itself is derogatory and appropriately confined to nefarious or illegal planning. So the term concrete conspiracy refers to a true nefarious conspiracy, whereas the theory of the conspiracy theorist is that there is a hidden nefarious conspiracy.
This can be quite confusing, since those proposing the theory that there is a conspiracy, usually also propose a ‘theory’ that, in the case of JFK for example, Oswald was not the sole shooter, or not the shooter at all, or that he worked for the CIA…etc. In other words, ‘doubts’ are raised. If officials refuse to even entertain any legitimate questions, any doubts, and point to accepted fact as dogma, then we can say that a conspiracy has been formed among official bodies to suppress further inquiry. The conspiracy’s first line of defence is to label doubters with the derogatory term “conspiracy theorists”
Of course knowledge advances with doubt, questioning and skepticism, all very healthy qualities, in much disrepute today.
That’s a great quote!
It is a great quote, whoever coined it. Another scientist, whom I dare not identify, as I might misinform you, told this story. He had done a very complex mathematical breakthrough equation which he showed to a colleague. This colleague studied it at length that evening and was so excited to realize that it was correct that he called the man up at 2 AM and to say he was right, to which the scientist responded, “Don’t call me at 2AM to tell me I’m right, call and wake me up only to tell me I’m wrong.”
I like the last sentence in the fact it never happened anyway. its made up, I care little for authors requiring revisionist dictates feeding others. I naturally noticed this as a young boy from people who read newspapers and magazine articles.
There’s no evidence Feynman ever said that. Another of those “internet quotes” you see re-shared ad nauseam on FB (you know like “I don’t agree with what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it” (no, not by Voltaire) or “in a time of total deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act” (Orwell never said it)).
“98% of internet quotes are misapplied, misattributed or totally made up ” – Martin Luther King
It does not really matter if RF said it. It is a great quote and he, RF, actually lived it. From now on, if you like, you can attribute it to me and I will defend to the death your right to do so as a revolutionary mistruth.
As a scientist I think Feynman would fundamentally disagree with the idea factual accuracy doesn’t really matter. It was, after all, the entire point of his life’s work.
“if your theory disagrees with experiment, doesn’t matter how beautiful it is, it’s WRONG” – Richard Feynman
Actually that’s your own right to twisting your own knot., leaving it to other people resulting in failture.
Nice “quote”.
MLK was around for the internet? Who knew?
Isn’t attributing this spurious quote to MLK part of the joke, or point?
The quality of the quote is the point, not who said them. How do you know these people didn’t say these things anyway?
Yes, I liked the quote very much.
Bravo! Thank you Iain!
This month’s issue of the truth-telling The Light Paper has been published online today. Here’s the link:
“The Light Paper, June 2023 issue”, at:
https://thelightpaper.co.uk/assets/pdf/Light-34-June-23-Web.pdf
How many times do governments and / or corporations, or the people within those, need to be factually caught conspiring before you masses accept the fact that conspiring is the natural state of TPTB?
How many times does you spouse or significant other, get to lie to you before you question everything? Do you hold the government and corporations to the same standards, or allow them to wash your memory of their malfeasance with their next product?
By pure definition, when 2 or more people plan something, or have a mutual agenda, then those people are conspiring.
‘Conspiracy theory’ coined long before JFK assassination
https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-conspiracy-theory-jfk-941578119864
Conspiracy Theory was a term made up by the CIA and implemented by the FBI, to mitigate anyone questioning the official narratives. This was pushed hard for the assassination of JFK. We know for a fact that the CIA, and likely the Johnson Administration, were conspiring to make the assassination happen.
Anyone that regurgitates that phrase as an ad hominem attack is only proving that they are a useful brainwashed idiot.
Isn’t it a known fact that history is riddled with conspiracies of all kinds of nefarious activities?
Stop allowing the Boob Tube / Black Mirror from influencing your thoughts.
You got it Thomas well done. Black Mirror is Intel Artificial.
It’s genius – the deployment of the term “conspiracy theory” is in itself a conspiracy. Try explaining that to someone and not come off like a “conspiracy theorist”.
This is the epitome of thou doth protest too much. If the claim is that there is a psychological problem at play here then what is the premise of the entire series? To convince people not to become neurotic or pathological? It would be like making a 10 part series pitching the virtues of not becoming schizophrenic.
Lovely point!
It’s this sort of thing that triggers “conspiracy theories”.
– During the coronavirus pandemic in 2021 he spent time as the interim head of comms for NHS Test And Trace.
– Took an early retirement in 2022 due to poor health.
– His colleague and close friend Stephen Jardine announced his death on Tuesday morning, writing: “My best friend Rae Stewart has died after an illness. . . . He was just 56.”
Yes, we know it used to happen occasionally, but it seems to be rather frequent at the moment!
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12214963/Sky-News-ITN-presenter-Rae-Stewart-dies-aged-56.html
TT is IOM we’re not all kids. DM is a City newspaper.
Epsteined or Vaxxed? Cancer? Syrian passports? In these times its difficult to find someone who died naturally.
“He just slept in peacefully in his armchair 87 years old”, ever heard that?
a side note.
a government, that doesn’t govern for all groups in the country, loses legitimacy.
a news outlet aligned with the government is not a big problem by itself. however, a news outlet that sides with an illegitimate government (or supports illegitimate measures) is treasonous. it is surely a nail in the coffin of the so-called democracy.
In my opinion, most “conspiracy theorists” just want to broaden the discussion in trying to solve the issues and crises we face. That’s what should naturally happen in an adult world. The crisis mentality of the current resurgence of Neo-Malthusians focus only on population control, as if that would solve all of capitalism’s manufactured problems. But watch the devastating One Child Nation (on Amazon Prime) and see how that policy, from 1979-2015, completely traumatized the Chinese people.
Technocrats love to micro-manage people’s lives as they simultaneously enjoy wasteful extravagant lifestyles. It’s not a farfetched idea that they would love to impose a one child policy globally with force, which solves nothing. It has already been proven that only quality education and improved living standards will naturally lower population. Those living in poverty have more children in the hopes that one or two will actually survive.
Neo‐Malthusianism and Coercive Population Control in China and India: Overpopulation Concerns Often Result in Coercion
Our Systems Reward Dysfunction And Destruction: Notes From The Edge Of The Narrative Matrix
Matthew Ehret- Open vs Closed Systems: Growth Needs of Humanity in the 21st Century & Beyond
I wont because I’am British. Others may if they want to. Personally I do have one Political Alliance although the complexity of it is beyond my ability, Atlantic Alliance bridging Two Continent’s. I believe it’s very important we maintain this ‘Treaty?’
Cheers
Why coin a new abbreviation of AEO when the word ‘dissent’ would suffice? Other than that an interesting if verbose account.
Because “opinion” will become increasingly important as we progress through the deconstruction. I need to emphasise “opinion” for that reason. Please stick with it.
Not quite as “comprehensive” as they claim!
—
Comparative Analysis of Conspiracy Theories in Europe
An interdisciplinary and international network to provide a comprehensive understanding of conspiracy theories.
https://conspiracytheories.eu/?s=gladio&submit.x=0&submit.y=0
No results found while searching for ‘Gladio’
—
European Parliament Resolution on Operation Gladio
On November 22, 1990, the European Parliament passed a resolution on Operation Gladio.
[Interesting date – but that’s a whole new rabbit hole!]
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/European_Parliament_resolution_on_Gladio
Joint resolution replacing B3-2021, 2058, 2068, 2078 and 2087/90
A. having regard to the revelation by several European governments of the existence for 40 years of a clandestine parallel intelligence and armed operations organization in several Member States of the Community,
B. whereas for over 40 years this organization has escaped all democratic controls and has been run by the secret services of the states concerned in collaboration with NATO,
C. fearing the danger that such clandestine network may have interfered illegally in the internal political affairs of Member States or may still do so,
D. whereas in certain Member States military secret services (or uncontrolled branches thereof) were involved in serious cases of terrorism and crime as evidenced by, various judicial inquiries,
E. whereas these organizations operated and continue to operate completely outside the law since they are not subject to any parliamentary control and frequently those holding the highest government and constitutional posts are kept in the dark as to these matters,
F. whereas the various ‘Gladio’ organizations have at their disposal independent arsenals and military ressources which give them an unknown strike potential, thereby jeopardizing the democratic structures of the countries in which they are operating or have been operating,
G. greatly concerned at the existence of decision-making and operational bodies which are not subject to any form of democratic control and are of a completely clandestine nature at a time when greater Community cooperation in the field of security is a constant subject of discussion,
1. Condemns the clandestine creation of manipulative and operational networks and Calls for a full investigation into the nature, structure, aims and all other aspects of these clandestine organizations or any splinter groups, their use for illegal interference in the internal political affairs of the countries concerned, the problem of terrorism in Europe and the possible collusion of the secret services of Member States or third countries;
2. Protests vigorously at the assumption by certain US military personnel at SHAPE and in NATO of the right to encourage the establishment in Europe of a clandestine intelligence and operation network;
3. Calls on the governments of the Member States to dismantle all clandestine military and paramilitary networks;
4. Calls on the judiciaries of the countries in which the presence of such military organizations has been ascertained to elucidate fully their composition and modus operandi and to clarify any action they may have taken to destabilize the democratic structure of the Member States;
5. Requests all the Member States to take the necessary measures, if necessary by establishing parliamentary committees of inquiry, to draw up a complete list of organizations active in this field, and at the same time to monitor their links with the respective state intelligence services and their links, if any, with terrorist action groups and/or other illegal practices;
6. Calls on the Council of Ministers to provide full information on the activities of these secret intelligence and operational services;
7. Calls on its competent committee to consider holding a hearing in order to clarify the role and impact of the ‘Gladio’ organization and any similar bodies;
8. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Commission, the Council, the Secretary-General of NATO, the governments of the Member States and the United States Government.”
Terror named Groups were freely available to anyone in sub-section at the United Nations. I’ve personally stood back witnessing those people from God knows where, around Hyde Park Corner way back when in London.
Care less, our Secret Services Interpol etc etc…can keep a bead on them. Any International agreements are fine with me. I’am single travelled for forty years part II ☺. Life’s too short…
A wise life philosophy
There’s only one reference to “Gladio” (it’s in a non-preview section) in the Handbook of Conspiracy Theories – but eight references to “Icke”.
—
https://conspiracytheories.eu/publications/reports
The Routledge Handbook of Conspiracy Theories was published on March 6.
This handbook examines where conspiracy theories come from, who believes in them, and what their consequences are. It provides the most comprehensive analysis of phenomenon to date. It analyses conspiracy theories from a variety of perspectives, using both qualitative and quantitative methods. It maps out the key debates, and includes chapters on the historical origins of conspiracy theories, as well as their political significance in a broad range of countries and regions.
This book presents an important resource for students and scholars from a range of disciplines interested in the societal and political impact of conspiracy theories, including Area Studies, Anthropology, History, Media and Cultural Studies, Political Science, Psychology and Sociology.
You can find more information here.
https://www.routledge.com/Routledge-Handbook-of-Conspiracy-Theories/Butter-Knight/p/book/9780815361749
The EU country governments were only protesting covert harrasment, threat, destruction and murder under external control. Almost all governments engage in this outrage towards their own people.
It was just a toothless resolution by the EU parliament – and it didn’t lead to anything significant.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio
Upon learning of the discovery, the parliament of the European Union (EU) drafted a resolution sharply criticizing the fact. Yet only Italy, Belgium and Switzerland carried out parliamentary investigations, while the administration of President George H. W. Bush refused to comment.
Thereafter, there is only one possible “corporal and concrete conspiracy theory” which is the human-as-civilisation; which is an undeniable anthropogenic activity happening here and now and involving everybody in the global workforce. Those who are not included directly have to be supported from the same activity; so that is pretty much everybody alive here and now and recently as modernity.
Only, nobody seems to be sure who exactly built human civilisation – them or us? If we did it by our own corporal and concrete activity as nonlocal; then there is only the global economic conspiracy theory we call life and work which we undertake daily across a lifetime. So who done the corporal and concrete conspiracy we call human-as-civilisation? Moreover, why do we relax from corporal and concrete activity by making up fictive entities to outsource our anxiety for the consequences of the lifelong work we are all engaging in all-at-once?
If we could harness that psychiatric energy and channel it into recognising the corporal and concrete real without phantasmagoric figmentation as identity-formation; we could redress the imbalances and asymmetries our corporeal workforce created globally? Particularly in the Third Worldisation of the majority of humanity we rely on to subsidise our corporate labour force as lower levels of organisational subordination; upon which our workforce and consummatory leisure and lifestyle are incorporated as concretely built and continually reliant.
Thereafter, there is no conspiracy, not even a theory, just the daily subjection moralisations we make and partake in phantasm in order to conceal the concrete work we have just done; as incorporated as embodied as the corporal and concrete consequences we are enjoying at rest, leisure, or ease; whilst the subordinated subjection goes on out of sight. As will continue to go on so long as we blame conspiratorial and fictive others – as incorporeal and abstract – forgetting the actual imperialism of the work we have just done and will take up again on the ‘morrow.
The contiguity of suffering never ceases; but at least we get some downtime in phantasm. If only we could look at the world as holistic, and not individualistic, and channel the energy of production into more wholesome and equalised outcomes? Then what would we do in the evening other than conspire in invented mythologies and stories completely unrelated to the concrete and corporal daily activities?
Maybe we would not have to if speech, thought, and activity were aligned and the outcome was ethical? No more anxiety, no more dissociation, decreased or alleviated psychiatric stress if our activities and thoughts no longer split-off from life-affirmation. Who’d a thunk it, but the suffering and emnification could cease and the psychic trauma-binding would be released. Until then, the real consequences of indulgent ceaseless conspiracy theory and mental suffering will be deferred onto the Poor – who’ve probably had enough of supporting our identitarian moralisation with ceaseless corporal and concrete activity by now.
Thanks for the laugh. She’s hard put to investigate the contents of her own handbag.
“Laced with hate” is a crass vaccuity that has become a cliche used to provoke a Pavlovian response. “Hate” is the current stand-in for “the demonic” from days of yore.
The BBC’s attempt to inculcate fear of a minority of “Far Right” miscreants corresponds exactly to the same manoeuvre by the “Trotskyite” WSWS. And once again, the mainstream and “The Left” prove indistinguishable.
The “investigation into conspiracist thinking” is hopelessly muddled and had to be, considering that it is not an honest investigation at all since it already has its conclusion drawn I.e. that those who are suspicious of official narratives must be mentally defective. Thus this whole enterprise has the feel of someone battering a square shape into a round hole. And this is why the psycho-blather constantly veers off into incoherence.
“The conspiracy mindset disagrees with the official narrative.” Is a remarkably candid statement which is nevertheless misleading since it implies a separation between this “conspiracy mindset” and the official narrative such that the former just so happens to disagree with latter. But to get to the truth the polarity must be reversed I.e.
“Any disagreement with the official narrative is an indication of the conspiracy mindset.”
I.e. The ONLY definition of “conspiracy mindset” is mistrust of the official narrative.
In short, “conspiracy mindset” is another example of demonology just like “Hate”.
“politically moderate people”
The so-called elite identify what they want to do and call it ‘moderate’ or ‘centrist’. Then they call everyone who disagrees an ‘extremist’ (or ‘populist’or ‘far right’). It’s what they’ve always done. It’s particularly transparent now that the elite have made it clear they are the revolutionaries and mainstream parties/media keep pushing a drastic transformation of society.
“stoned hippies are now Nazis”
Not actually as improbable as it may sound. They’re tapping into folk memories of Manson and the Family. Manson looks very like one of their own ops – see ‘Chaos’ by Tom O’Neal.
” black and Hispanic people being marginally the most likely to hold anti-Establishment opinions”.
Such people are championed by the BBC until this moment. It’s what it makes it obvious that they are just exploited as tools in a ‘divide and conquer’ strategy. See the MSM’s deafening silence on black Americans who wouldn’t take the jab.
“the evidence clearly shows that people who are labelled as “conspiracy theorists” have no predisposition to extremism or extreme political views.”
What film did Mark David Chapman go to see before his infamous action? ‘Ordinary People’! (This can obviously be spun into cause for even greater fear about how sneaky they are – obviously full-on panopticon monitoring is necessary!)
“The problem with the COMPACT ‘scientific’ view is it assumes that something called “conspiracy mentality,” or the “conspiracy mindset,” exists”
It exists in law where ‘conspiracy’ is a criminal offense.
“This supposedly more rational worldview they call “concrete conspiracy belief.””
Let me guess – concrete conspiracies are ones that happened safely in the past or in foreign countries that we are now currently always at war with.
“The whole concept of “conspiracy theory” and “conspiracy theorists” is based upon the logical fallacies of personal incredulity and appeal to authority.”
J. Edgar Hoover had quite a bit of authority. He dismissed the claim that there was a Mafia for decades. This rejection of a conspiracy caused – a phrase that I’m sure is going to crop up frequently from Spring – real world harm. The cause looks to have been – shock, horror! – that someone in authority was compromised.
“Notably, “conspiracy theory science” is stridently anti-democratic and authoritarian.”
Every major ‘advance’ in science has come from outside the field in question. Those inside the field are both trapped in group think and have a developed vested interest in its maintenance. They always resist paradigm shifts.
great stuff Edwige
“Concrete conspiracies” are those conspiracies that have been revealed already and are, thus, undeniable
in theory you are allowed to think and talk about these, but they were all a long time ago and we’ve moved on since then
However, if you suspect that there may be conspiracies as yet unrevealed, you are mentally ill
OK?
Have just come across the following document. Is excellent: not only does it provide a list of documentaries that prove the ‘covid’ fraud, it also provides a list of documentaries that include hundreds of (honest) health professionals warning the public about the dangers of vaccination, AND lists 110 books about the dangers of medical injections.
All three categories, as given above, are under the one heading, as below:
“Documentaries that prove ‘covid’ fraud”, at:
https://truth11.com/documentaries-that-prove-covid-fraud
The Biased Broadcasting Con is attempting to whip up discrimination against a minority that it has selected based on its own criteria. This follows years of screaming about the discrimination of minorities by, primarily, the indigenous population.
Yet again rank hypocrisy.
It’s cosy, comfortable, well feathered, her sustenance is delivered regularly, she is pampered, held in high regard and all the other birdies warble in unison.
Why would Ms Spring SHIT in the nest?
The BBC, MSM and the Covid Enquiry are synonymous with “conspiracy” and thus continue to push “the official narrative”.
Last week, at the time of the Nottingham knife/van attack (I’m sure more will emerge, I mean he was “known to the authorities”), the BBC were desperate to continue adding the “terrorist” angle even though it was clearly a deranged individual with unknown motive. The fact that the local Force continued to be “in contact with the Anti-Terrorist Branch” had the BBC salivating at every bulletin and they delighted in saying so. Keep up the fear factor.
Now we have David Cameron at the Covid Enquiry stating that he wished the Government had prepared itself for a pandemic that wasn’t an Influenza pandemic and that it had taken account of asymptomatic transmission. A double whammy ! That statement is carefully crafted to suggest that Covid definitely wasn’t influenza and that asymptomatic transmission is a thing.
Utter bollocks
‘Covid,’ aka ‘Certificate Of Vaccination I.D. (identity) ‘, wasn’t even ‘a thing.’ Simply millions and millions of tiny emperors with absolutely no clothes, prattling endlessly about ‘the Science’. It’s such a shame that ‘they’ probably offed Kari Mullis, one hell of a cool dude, but he was unaffordable for the integrity (hahaha) of the ‘narrative.’ Obviously they didn’t DARE allow him to live, so in their twisted way, they were paying him a compliment.
The month before EVENT 201.
Robert Malone is still alive.
And they DARE to call us ‘CONSPIRACY THEORISTS.’
We are conspiracy REALISTS.
Asymptomatic transmission is NOT a thing, and rebranding the flu while increasing the range of symptoms to include virtually ANYTHING was a dead-giveaway to anyone paying attention.
OK this is where we are. The ‘lull before the storm.’ They’ve obviously got plans for the next bit. Are you ready? Are you READY?
Rockefeller Foundation ‘Lockstep’ (2010) (for example) has it all neatly laid out, not to mention the WEF docs.
The other ‘lull’ is ‘being lulled into a false sense of security.’ Keep your guard up in a relaxed fashion. The death rate has to drastically rise to get anywhere near the predictions like ‘deagel.com UK pop for 2025 15 million, USA 65 million. Georgia Guidestones Total pop 500 million, and so on.
How many people have has the shot(s)?
‘Lull-a-bye-bye?’
“Sweden was the least credulous of conspiracy theories, with 52% believing one or more of the theories polled by the researchers, as opposed to 85% for Hungary. In the US that figure was 64% and in France 76%.”
I live in France.
This presents me with a real problem. I am in a majority !
I don’t recall ever being in a majority and I really don’t think I like it.
The BBC is the terror group broadcasting fear and propaganda every single day…
I must be a conspiracy theorist because I don’t trust the government or the MSM.
The BBC are a cancer in our society. Don’t give them any money.
This.
Distrust/dissent are irrational… except in authoritarian countries. What are authoritarian countries? The ones that our experts say are authoritarian, you big silly.
None of this has to make sense, it merely has to be repeated like a mantra or the baa-ing of a field full of sheep. Those who won’t join in, the sheep in the next field, are ipso facto conspiracist by mentality. A ten-part series provides plenty of opportunities for repetition, let’s put it that way….
Well written, interesting arguments but according to Schwab and Harari: All resistance is futile, you will be assimilated
Und you vill eat ze bugs!
Felt asleep after the first 5 lines. Too academic. Statistics are lies and not worth a story.
What? I don’t understand what you are saying. It’s all going over my head and when numbers are in view spit starts to dribble down my chin. What is a statistic, anyway? Can you dumb it down a bit?
A statistic is an acceptable aggregate of anecdotes.
If your research yields but one anecdote, you must abandon it and start again. But if it yields a thousand anecdotes, you may call it a statistic and proceed to the next level.
So Saith The Science.
Really? Statistically, most people are unable to recognise the blatant. 95%. Or was it just 2%. Klaxons and strobing lights make no difference.
You can only use statistics as an indication of where to start to look.
Then you will quickly find out whether its manipulated reality (which it is in the majority of cases) or it represents some true trend.
There are thousands examples of big misuse of statistics. Russia/Medvedev, Bill Gates, IPCC, Goebbels, m.m.
Its a manipulation tool and nothing else. Therefore I got bored. No real substance.
We have been through it before on these pages.
Statistics on paper, flat screen, academic reports and theories, old newspapers, MSM, are false reality (2-dimensional), until confirmed by factual incidents in the physical world (3-dimenional).
Marianna BBC, for me is old newspaper, same story today, 10 years ago, 20 years ago, 30 years ago, 40 years ago.
Lauzier, a Frence comic author, made some comic books about the same marketing, sales and PR tricks, and this environment 40 years ago.
Its the exact same boring leftist/commie environment and media techniques today.
https://www.bedetheque.com/serie-1791-BD-Portrait-de-l-artiste.html
You were asleep before you started reading the article
Why not. I could feel it in my water 5 km away.
Just for conclusion, its no offence to the author. Maybe some new comers havent seen it before. But………….its the same old bs.
Erik. Read the article and make a comment not based an a belief, a notion that, since it contains statistics it must put you to sleep. What a stupid position to take. Critique the whole article and not just crow your beliefs to make it seem that you are awesome because you can yawn. Did you even bother to read it? Or just talking shit?
Confusing. You fell asleep, or felt asleep (not sure what you meant), after just 5 lines! And then you brand something ‘Too academic’ – but what? Those 5 lines or the whole article (which, you appear to brag, you didn’t read)?
If an article doesn’t interest you enough to want to read, why comment?
I think Iain Davis is doing an important job in presenting his researches in a well-written, well-argued way. Academic, yes, which may not appeal to you, but there is no doubt his writings are appreciated by many readers here. So why put it down?
Thank goodness we don’t all think alike, otherwise we might, legitimately, be thought of as a movement.
Confusing comment.
You fell asleep, or felt asleep (not sure what you meant), after just 5 lines! And then you brand something ‘Too academic’ – but what something? Those 5 lines or the whole article (which, you appear to brag, you didn’t read)?
If an article doesn’t interest you enough to want to read, why comment?
I think Iain Davis is doing an important job in presenting his researches in a well-written, rational way. Academic, yes, which may not appeal to you, but there is no doubt his writings are appreciated by many readers here. So why put it down?
Thank goodness, I suppose, that we don’t all think alike, otherwise we might, legitimately, be thought of as a movement!