Deconstructing Marianna In Conspiracyland: – Part 2
iain Davis
Rejected artwork for the BBC podcast.
In Part 1 we explored the reasons why the basis for the BBC’s “Marianna in Conspiracyland” podcast series is fundamentally flawed. Spring claims that her intention is to investigate “the people at the core of the conspiracy theory movement.”
Not only is there no such thing a “conspiracy theory movement” nor is their any plausible definition of a “conspiracy theorist.”
“Conspiracy theorist” is just a state propagandist’s label for someone who holds an anti-Establishment opinion that questions power and is sceptical of authority. You can read more about the history of how that “label” came into being here.
The alleged “conspiracy theory research,” that “hypothesises” about the purported existence of a psychological phenomenon called “conspiracy thinking” is abject, junk science. Much firmer, more epistemologically sound, empirical political science reveals that Western “representative democracies” are “biased pluralists” political systems corrupted by an “economic-elite.”
An anti-Establishment opinion (AEO) that questions power, which Spring and others call “conspiracy theory,” is actually based upon proven political science derived from observable reality. There is no reason for us to accept Marianna Spring’s lexicon because it is not based upon observable reality.
Therefore, as we unpick “Marianna in Conspiracyland,” wherever possible will use appropriate terminology, instead of inaccurate propaganda labels. It is not “conspiracy theory,” it is anti-Establishment opinion (AEO).
Our focus is always upon the evidence. For us to accept Marianna’s or the BBC’s–or any other’s–claims we must be convinced by the evidence.
Our initial position is scepticism. Not just because this is the logical starting point when evaluating any assertions, but also because, as discussed in the introduction and Part 1, there are many additional reasons to be sceptical of both the BBC and Marianna Spring.
In episode 1—Entering Conspiracyland—Marianna goes to the Devon market town of Totnes. She tells us that she is investigating the anti-Establishment opinion (AEO) “movement” which has “infected towns across the UK.” She likens people who question power to a disease. Thereby, dehumanising and “othering” them.
Marianna adds:
I am investigating the [AEO] media here in Britain and the radicalisation that appears to come with it. It’s followers [people who question power] hold a range of different beliefs, which many would never act on. But there are others whose views seem to be becoming more radical.
Up to this point, Marianna hasn’t presented any evidence to support her claims. She alleges that exercising the democratic right to question power leads to radicalisation. Spring effectively tells the BBC audience people are becoming extremists because they read an AEO newspaper.
The academic literature on the radicalisation process is not definitive but, such as it is, it thoroughly undermines Marianna’s claims. Currently, radicalisation is thought to occur through a complex interplay of sociological, political, cultural and psychological factors. The general consensus is that these can be broadly considered “push, pull and personal” factors.
Australian scholars at Deakin University published the 3 P’s of Radicalisation in 2018. They collated and reviewed all the available literature on the radicalisation process to ascertain if it potentially led to violent extremism. Ultimately, the sociologists concluded:
The consumption of propaganda, narratives or political grievances do not operate by themselves but rather have effect within specific social settings. [. . .] The lack of rigorous methods in the field also leaves unanswered the questions about the causal relations between the factors. [. . .] There is no definitive answer to the question whether the adoption of an extreme ideology precedes engagement in violence.[Vergani & Barton et al. 2018]
“Push factors” are the structural factors, such as state repression, relative deprivation, poverty and injustice that propel people towards resentment, particularly resentment of the government or related institutions. “Pull factors” are the things which make extremism seem attractive, such as ideology, propaganda, group belonging, group benefits and other incentives. “Personal factors” are individual characteristics that make a person more, or less, susceptible to ‘Pull’ or ‘Push’. These include psychological disorders, personality traits, traumatic life experiences and so on.
Certainly AEO media could, to an extremely limited degree, contribute toward a small minority adopting more extreme political views. Marianna correctly identifies this minimal “Pull” risk.
That said, there is little evidence to support the idea that extreme political opinions, in isolation, lead to any violent or dangerous behaviour. The research demonstrates that simply providing media content to people, regardless of the opinions expressed, is nowhere near sufficient to “radicalise” anyone.
For example, in 2016 the BBC broadcast the views of al-Qaeda’s Director of Foreign Media Relations, Mostafa Mahamed. It highlighted what an effective fighting force the proscribed terrorist group had become under their re-branded name of Jabhat Fath al Sham (JFS). The BBC said that the terrorists were “quite moderate” and added:
We think it is important to understand all the players in the [Syrian] conflict at the moment. Even if, as in this case, they are considered terrorists[.]
The BBC made a good point. Understanding different views is essential. Perhaps even more-so “if” those views advocate appalling levels of terrorist violence. No one can challenge these genuinely dangerous opinions if they don’t know what they are.
Obviously, giving a platform to terrorists on national television might contribute, in some small way, toward individual viewers adopting “extremist” views.
Absent the “Push” and “Personal” factors, however, there is no evidence that simply reporting opinions, “even if” they are from a terrorist group like JFS, presents any kind of appreciable “radicalisation” risk. Media content is just one, relatively innocuous facet of a much more convoluted radicalisation process. The BBC was presumably aware of this when it broadcast the terrorists’ opinions.
As far as anyone knows, “radicalisation” does not “appear” to result simply from people consuming media reports, as Marianna alleges. It is unclear, at this stage of “Entering Conspiracyland” why Marianna thinks that it does. She appears to be trying to construct a demonstrably false association between AEO news media and extreme “radicalisation.” Her claims are not supported by the evidence.
Marianna notes that the people she accuses “hold a range of different beliefs.” As we discussed in Part 1, this is because there is no identifiable group with a unifying ideology that can legitimately be labelled a “conspiracy theory movement.”
Marvelling at the distinctive character of Totnes, Marianna tells us:
The conspiracy theory movement [a loose association of people with AEOs who question power] that boomed during the pandemic has taken hold in the town. And a motivated minority continue to hand out a mysterious [AEO] newspaper called the Light.
What does “taken hold” mean? It means to gain control, or to influence a person. There are approximately 10,000 residents in Totnes. In all likelihood around 9500 of them have access to a TV, and the BBC, in their homes. That is pretty comprehensive media coverage.
Is Marianna suggesting that the Light newspaper has “taken hold” in Totnes to the extent that the BBC has “taken hold”? She doesn’t clarify this point.
We need to be very mindful of language used to deceive. It is a common propaganda technique.
Used as an adjective, “mysterious” means:
Difficult or impossible to understand, explain, or identify. [. . .] strange or secret
The Light newspaper is published and distributed monthly by volunteers, led in the UK by Darren Nesbit (Smith). Its website FAQ reports that it was founded in September 2020 in response to concerns that the UK press/media was failing to question power during the pseudopandemic.
The Light unashamedly promotes anti-Establishment opinion (AEO):
[The mainstream media are] failing to hold governments, corporations and individuals to account by exposing their corruption, lies and crimes, they are actively involved in helping the fraud and operations being perpetrated against the unsuspecting general public. The Light is a new monthly publication which will put that right.
It is perhaps worth reiterating that political science describes this reality as the biased pluralism of an economic-elite. This does not mean that every institution or corporation is complicit in “corruption, lies and crimes.” The Light does not claim that all are. But to suggest that none are, as Marianna and the BBC appear to contend, is patently false.
The Light explains how it is funded:
A mixture of subscriptions, advertising and generous donations. One of our major sources is activists’ advance ordering copies to distribute in their local area.
Unlike the BBC the Light does not ask its readers to “trust” it. It actively encourages its readers to think critically:
Trust yourself! Please research our stories and make up your own mind as to their veracity.
Its latest publication carries well written and clearly comprehensible stories on topics ranging from regulatory failures over vaccine safety, the lack of scientific evidence for the efficacy of face masks, the apparent lack of AEO among modern rock bands, environmental concerns and homeschooling advice.
In short, there is absolutely nothing “mysterious” about the Light newspaper. It’s openly stated purpose is to challenge the Establishment. Marianna Spring added an unnecessary and wholly inaccurate adjective to describe it. She was misleading the BBC audience.
Marianna then interviews Peter Shearn co-editor of the Totnes Pulse (TP). The TP is a local community magazine which is currently only available online. The ambition is to establish a funding model—almost identical to the Light’s—in order to produce a print version.
Introducing Peter’s concerns about the Light, Marianna acknowledges that the Light looks professional and is well presented. She adds that it contains “a lot of disinformation” and “alludes to sinister cabals of powerful people who are purposefully trying to control you and do you harm.”
In terms of supposed “sinister cabals” Marianna appears to be ‘alluding’ to the biased pluralism of an economic-elite. The Light has good reason to report on it. The accuracy of its reporting is entirely dependent upon evidence it cites to substantiate its opinion, as does Marianna’s assertion that the Light contains “a lot of disinformation.”
We then hear Peter read some selected text from articles published in the Light. Peter correctly reports that the Light considers 9/11 to be a “conspiracy.” He continues to read a Light article and, in reference to the so-called pandemic, Peter scoffs when he relays:
They also gamed out the whole scenario with Event 201 in October 2019.
Marianna comments that this represents “another language” that she calls a “conspiracy lexicon.” This is presumably intended to reinforce her groundless description of the Light as “mysterious.” Her reporting paints a vivid picture but the lack of evidence to this point means that it cannot be described as investigative journalism.
Peter continues to read the Light article and comments on its impact upon him:
“We have the SPARS 2025 document from 2017″… you see, I’ve lost the will to live. It’s, it’s hard to read.
Peter’s quotations from the Light article reveals plain English referencing publicly available documents and public domain information. Marianna’s assertion that this constitutes a “conspiracy lexicon” is dumbfounding.
The official account of 9/11 evidently is not true. The evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates the fact.
For example, the BBC has yet to offer any kind of plausible explanation regarding how its reporter, Jane Standley, knew that WTC7 would collapse more than 20 minutes before it did. The best peer-reviewed scientific evidence to date shows that the official explanation of the collapse, eventually offered by the US National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)–which isn’t peer reviewed–is wrong.
This makes the BBC’s apparent clairvoyance even harder to explain. The WTC7 narrative, that the BBC broadcast prior to its collapse, was entirely in keeping with NIST’s incorrect explanation given more than 7 years later. Predicting an alleged terrorist related event in detail, before it happens, is one thing, but accurately predicting a subsequent incorrect explanation of that event 7 years before it is published is something else.
If we are to believe the BBC, Reuters gave Standley the wrong information that just so happened to precisely match a future incorrect explanation for a building’s complete structural failure that no one, at the time, had any reason to think would happen. How this is possible genuinely is a ‘mystery.’ The BBC claimed that it “lost” all of the relevant footage and doesn’t have anything further to add.
Jane Standly – BBC Clairvoyant Extraordinaire
Event 201 was a tabletop exercise, convened by Johns Hopkins University in partnership with the World Economic Forum and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. It simulated, with unerring accuracy, what might happen in a future “global-pandemic.” The simulated global pandemic unfolded exactly as modelled within days of the exercise concluding.
The SPARS 2025 document was published in 2017 by Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security. It also modelled a global pandemic which the so-called Covid-19 pandemic later mimicked in exquisite detail.
Everything that Peter read from the Light article was based upon factually accurate information. This does not mean that the conclusions drawn from that information were correct. That is not how investigative journalism works. As the Light points out, it is up to Peter to “research” the information provided by the Light and make up his own mind.
Peter’s difficulty in accepting the information is perhaps understandable. It is certainly contrary to everything the BBC offers as opinion. Peter may be among those who thinks he needs to “trust” whatever the BBC tells him. Hence his cognitive dissonance when confronted with contradictory factual information.
Unfortunately for Peter, the facts reported by the Light were neither “conspiracy theory lexicon” nor “disinformation,” despite the disingenuous insinuations of the BBC’s “specialists disinformation reporter.” It may be hard for Peter to read but that does not make it “disinformation.”
If Peter follows the Light’s advice and researches 9/11, Event 201 or SPARS 2025, he may not like what he finds. That is no reason to reject the evidence out of hand, especially if you haven’t even looked at it.
To this point in “Entering Conspiracyland” Marianna still hasn’t offered any evidence to support her allegations. She has not demonstrated that the Light consists of “a lot of disinformation,” or, indeed, any disinformation at all.
Marianna Spring then reports how the Light is distributed, its growing number of activists, the size of the Telegram social media channels formed by people who support and are trying to distribute the Light, and so-on. What she describes sounds like a grass-roots movement of people with AEOs who believe that asking questions of power is important.
In the next segment, Marianna alleges that the anecdotes of the former mayor of Totnes, Ben, and the former deputy mayor, Georgina, somehow constitutes evidence of the effect of the Light newspaper on the whole town of Totnes. Ben alleges that people influenced by the Light have committed a number of offences against his person. The most serious being attempted murder.
We do not know the context of this alleged crime. If it occurred as Ben described, the driver was trying to park their vehicle when they tried to kill him by running him over. It isn’t known if the driver saw Ben prior to attempting the manoeuvre. Nor do we know what possible conversation Ben had with the driver as, Ben stated that he considered them a friend. There is no record of Ben reporting this serious crime, or any of the other crimes he alleges, to the police.
Marianna then correctly reports that “it is impossible to prove that people acted directly in response to content in the Light.” In fact, she has yet to “prove” that anyone “acted” at all. All we have are the anecdotes and opinions of Ben and Georgina.
Ben had previously offered his opinion of the Light in an edition of Devonlive, published in January 2021. He suggested that Totnes had been “targeted” by the Light and that there was a need for residents to “push back against this post-truth reality.” Although he didn’t specify what actions people should take in order to “push back.”
Devonlive is published by Reach Plc which, as Trinity Mirror, was embroiled in the UK Phone hacking scandal. The Devonlive article said that there was “anger” at the “Covid ‘anti-vax’ propaganda posted through letterboxes.” It reported a number of comments from “angered” Totnes residents.
The vast bulk of the public comment responses, published by Devonlive beneath the online version of the article, welcomed the Light newspaper. The majority were supportive of its aims and objectives.
- “This is a great paper.”
- “Glad to read that in Totnes there is still freedom of speech and that people are exercising it!”
- “I was pleased to read the Light paper where Doctors are freely able to speak without being censored.”
- “I am a resident of Totnes and when I came home and found this newspaper through my letterbox I felt pleased. I read through it and really appreciated the perspectives ordered there. I have been feeling for some time that something just doesn’t feel right about this whole so called pandemic.”
- “I have had a light paper through my letter box. I did read it. (i am sure I will get a ton of abuse here for admitting here that I have actually read it…) It was not suggested in the paper that the virus doesn’t exist. [. . .] I actually found these articles interesting. isn’t it food for thought?
These comments reflect the general tenor of the opinions expressed below the Devonlive article. There was no evidence of the “hate” Marianna Springs claims the Light elicits. Sadly there were some very worrying signs of “hate” emanating from the minority of comments opposed to the Light.
- “pure scum post rubbish through peoples if they come to my door i will let my dog chase them up the road as i follow in pursuit barking at them Take The Vaccine Save The Rave Then The World”
- “Infect this guy [the reported Light journalist] with covid and refuse him treatment, let’s see what he her writes about then”
- “While you give these people oxygen they will spread their ill educated lies. [. . .] Detain them under the mental health act, they are too dangerous to be free.
Given the comments section, if Devonlive conducted any kind of public opinion survey in Totnes it seems likely that they ignored most of them and only reported the “opinions” that fitted with, what appears to be, published disinformation. The comments do not support the claim made in the article that “a Devon town has expressed shock and disappointment after ‘fear mongering’ propaganda was posted through letterboxes.” Based on what limited evidence we have, the majority of the “town” appeared have been favourable to the Light and were pleased to receive it.
Continuing the segment with Ben and Georgina, Marianna reports that the Light contains articles and opinions expressed by “holocaust deniers” and antisemites. We will address this argument later on in our investigation but, for now, let’s just accept that many people find some of the opinions expressed in the Light deeply offensive.
Marianna reported the tensions that arose in the town when the Totnes council decided to ban a proposed conference. Listed speakers included Professor Delores Cahill (immunologist and molecular biologist), Dr Zac Cox (a founding member of the UK Medical Freedom Alliance) and Anna de Buisseret (corporate lawyer, specialising in employment law, and a business management consultant).
Marianna reports that one of the organising groups, the New World Alliance, also distributed the Light. Georgina, referencing her actions in her former capacity as deputy mayor of Totnes, tells Marianna:
I knew these people and I knew what they represented. I knew how their tactics work, so did most of the rest of our [indistinguishable] council. We were really alarmed when.. you quickly, you can’t just let those things happen. You can’t just says ‘freedom of speech’ let it happen, it’ll be fine. [Because] you know, the people involved were extremely nasty.
Marianna adds that Georgina had made up her mind. Georgina continues to recount her actions:
I said that these are not people that we should be allowing to speak in the Civic Hall in any way whatsoever.
At no point does Marianna challenge Georgina’s woeful comprehension of what free speech is or why it is vital for us all. What is evident from “Entering Conspiracyland” is that Marianna was keen to emphasise Georgina’s anti-democratic opinions.
Precautionary limits to freedom of speech already exist. We have laws to stop people using speech to incite violence or other crimes. But there is also an important free speech principle, outlined by the English political philosopher Sir John Stuart Mill, called “the harm principle.”
The harm principle draws a clear distinction between legitimate harm and what can considered an “illegitimate” claim of alleged harm. Censorship that fails to recognise the difference is dictatorial.
In his essay “On Liberty” Mill gives the example of speech accusing a corn dealer of starving the poor by maintaining high prices. The harm principle determines that it does not matter if the written or spoken criticism adversely impacts the corn dealers business or causes the corn dealer emotional distress or offence. So important is free speech, Mill argued, that this kind of “harm” is a cost that society has to bear.
If, on the other hand, the critic addresses an angry crowd gathered, pitchforks in hand, outside the corn dealer’s house then the same accusations would place the corn dealer at immediate risk of physical harm. In this context, in keeping with Mill’s harm principle, the critics free speech can temporarily be legitimately censored.
It cannot be stressed how crucial observing the harm principle is to our society. Mill recognised that there are costs to free speech, but the tyranny that result if free speech is censored injudiciously far outweighs any harm caused by free speech itself. We are all familiar with the historical examples of the brutality that inevitably follows state suppression and censorship of free speech.
In the introduction to his essay “On Liberty,” Mill wrote:
The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. [. . .] The liberty of expressing and publishing opinions may seem to fall under a different principle, since it belongs to that part of the conduct of an individual which concerns other people; but, being almost of as much importance as the liberty of thought itself, [. . .] so long as what we do does not harm them even though they should think our conduct foolish, perverse, or wrong; [. . .] from this liberty of each individual, follows the liberty, within the same limits, of combination among individuals. [. . .] No society in which these liberties are not, on the whole, respected, is free, whatever may be its form of government; and none is completely free in which they do not exist absolute and unqualified.
Providing that our speech does not risk imminent, direct physical harm to anyone else, it should never be restricted. Even if the opinions expressed are considered vile and abhorrent by the majority, that does not warrant censorship.
Mill wrote:
If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.
If we hope to live our lives as free human beings, we cannot allow free speech that complies with the harm principle to be censored. The moment we accept that such limits can be imposed by anyone upon any of us then we will not be free until free speech is restored.
Georgina and her Totnes council colleagues did not appear to have any understanding either of the harm principle or the enshrined sanctity of free speech in a representative democracy. Despite the fact that many other Totnes residents clearly did.
The profound ignorance of Totnes council was exemplified by Georgina’s comments regarding two separate campaign visits to Totnes by the former YouTuber Carl Benjamin.
Georgina said:
The whole of Totnes would have come out against him, which we did. [. . .] A year after the pandemic, the same guy [Benjamin] came back [. . .] and half the people, who previously stood up against him, were now with him. Because they had all been recruited into his way of thinking. So, nothing was more important than freedom of speech. [. . .] For me it has been a bit upsetting to have a town where hippies, who you thought were friends of yours, have crossed very quickly, with only the smallest of encouragement, over to the far-right
To suggest that free speech is only a concern for the “far-right” is a quite astonishing statement from a former elected deputy mayor. In a so-called democracy, free speech arguably “is” the most important ideal.
Georgina’s seeming inability to grasp basic democratic principles is notable. As is her apparent belief that people cannot agree and stand with someone on an important issue, like free speech, without endorsing every other opinion they hold. Diversity of opinion doesn’t appear to be something Georgina supports.
Where is Georgina getting her baleful ideas from? Is it from the BBC? In light of Marianna Spring’s concluding monologue to “Entering Conspiracyland” it seems possible.
Marianna says:
Georgina and Ben are worried that what the “conspiracy theory” [AEO] media is doing is something akin to radicalisation. Causing a committed minority to adopt radical positions on political or social issues based on disinformation.
There is no “conspiracy theory media,” nor is there any evidence of any radicalisation linked to the Light newspaper. Spring has not provided any evidence of people adopting any radical political positions, unless you think defending free speech is “radical.”
Nor has Marianna identified any evident “disinformation.” These are just vacuous claims set within the questionable “lexicon” of Marianna Spring.
If Georgina and Ben are worried about these imagined threats, concocted by Marianna, it seems possible, if not likely, that their fears have been stoked by the BBC. Despite there being no evidence base to support any of it.
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.
Here is POV on conspiracy theory (CT):
Most of the readily available CT ( freemasons, satanism etc) is actually re-hashed from the publications of Orthodox and other fundamentalist christian authors (mostly priests/evangelists/ monks) and has been around for decades. Many Orthodox arch-priests in the Balkans and Eastern Europe still bear Hebrew names….
The mainstream constructed stereotype of “conspiracy theorist” is David Icke but with added “anti-semitism” and “denial” and sinister links with sinister groups which always boil down to “anti-semites” who cannot wait for the re-opening of the alleged gas chambers.
It is totally OK to publish a book claiming that the Belgians did not kill a single person in Congo (let alone the up-to-10 million estimate of historians), or even that the European settlers were generous humanitarians who never harmed anyone in the Americas, and it was all due to “infectious diseases”. You can totally publish such opinions and not get prosecuted, persecuted, or labelled a conspiracy theorist.
The Borg has quickly filled in the gaps in the “conspiracy theorist ” definition : it is the “bad actor” who thinks the planet is owned and managed by bankers; AND believes the bankers are all from the same ethnic group- because it is really all about the “semites” who cannot be named or talked about because they do not exist.
Even if you never mention the semites, if you even start to approach the “bankers” theory, you are a Nazi sub-human to be treated with extreme pre-judice.
These Ashkenazi’s are using the Ashe conformity voting system.As a tool to be validate/feed a social credits system. It’s data collection.
You are sellouts and cowards offg.
Tell “Kit Knightly” David hasselhoff is amazed how Kitt evolved.
Some people think they’re transparent But really they’re invisible.
This is meant kindly. I think you might be having some sort of psychotic break. Last time you posted your poetry here I remember you were the same, you became very paranoid and unfriendly and soon demanded we remove your poem and then demanded we delete all your comments because you’d ‘withdrawn your consent’. A short while after you were back posting as normal, no mention. You’ve started exhibiting the same pattern of behaviour – acting needlessly confrontationally and being very paranoid – therefore I’m placing you on a short time-out for a few days, to save you from saying anything you’ll regret. No one is your enemy here and please feel better soon. A2
This is meant kindly. Thanks for your concern for myself but it’s absolutely unnecessary. Please don’t worry yourself about me, I’m very well thank you. I was touched by your concern. I didn’t feel it as attempted smearing or a tactic that certain Communist’s & not only use.
You have someone here far more confrontational than myself. But he tends to agree with you a lot.
Anyway, these blanket slurs are well.. You know, convenient.
Hope you feel better soon my good Samaritan. I hadn’t anticipated how much you care, touched I am.
Dying Suddenly
Two young sudden deaths today. The clot shots are still killing.
Oh fudge brownies us British lads and lassies say..” get knotted ya clots!” Get it. Stick that in your Artifical Intelligence 18-19 dictionaries. Pricks only pick the dead like websterians in our opinions…..your obsessively fat owning to your net over indulgence believing the British languages could get in anywhere you choose to. Like a knotted fattie foreign body in a blood vessel causing a stroke…sods. ☺
Nice free advertising for ‘The Light’ which sounds decidedly Luciferian – although of course I’m not against samizdat-style newspapers as an idea in itself.
The MSM usually completely ignore something that’s genuinely off-script. It’s like when TV was full of stories about a new ultra-cheap version of cocaine called crack – they knew that behind the surface condemnation, a proportion of viewers would be saying, “ultra-cheap cocaine, where can I get some of that!?”.
The BBC or ‘The Light’? Seems a bit like one of those fake dialectics where the correct answer is “neither”..
When presented with a binary choice, always choose the third option
Last the Beeb dates around early 20’s the fact you get on IT, shows your own ineptitude of thinking only of yourself.
For press releases of the past centurians you could begin 1900 if newspaper is your barrel bottom sizes.
Historically we hope the 1923’s are still hacking away through the Amazon paperback human jungle. Apologies for the trangled Web.
This was the BBC Home Service…good night everyone. ☺
I won’t watch these programmes because I don’t care what she thinks
It’s not even what she thinks – she’s undoubtedly reading from someone else’s script
Ask yourself, who are these programmes actually made for?
People who don’t think about “conspiracies”, or how they’re governed, or how the World really works might watch, but only if there’s nothing better on, and they’re certainly not going to “deconstruct” it, line by line
These programmes are made for us, aren’t they?
They’re designed to confuse, confound and demoralise us, even mock us
Instead of watching this shit and taking it seriously, a much better use of one’s time would be actively working to defund and dismantle this corrupt and cancerous mouthpiece of the “establishment”
I haven’t watched TV since 1986.
Meanwhile the entertainment franchises become increasingly infantile:
“Can’t wait for the Barbie movie? Just as well – there are 45 more toy films to come
….
Toy manufacturer Mattel, while preparing for the launch of its forthcoming Barbie movie, is trying to reinvent a further 45 of its toy products as screen ideas: the franchise seedcorn of intellectual property.”
(Graud)
“Intellectual” property! What a joke!
Increasing the intellectual mandates while stepping back financially only serves the gvt elite and does not go on forever, I know pain in the neck but somebody’s has to account for it.
A sincere question:
Only 2 weeks before the “pandemic” craze began, the University of Alaska published an engineering study that allegedly (and likely IMO) proves scientifically that Bldg 7 of the WTC collapsed due to the immediate removal of all columns in 8 floors. This happened shortly after the Epstein arrest/death.
Could it be that these events led to all this craziness of pandemic and corporations trying to control what can be said and what is “conspiracy theories” etc?
Could it be that some people in high power began to truly panic?
Great article. Keep swinging champ!
Best thing about this cunt is that she is setting herself up for one hell of a fall. One that might mirror Dr David Kelly.
If Mariana Spring had bothered to carry out her journalistic duties with even a semblance of due diligence and integrity and dug a little deeper into the character of Ben, the former mayor of Totnes, she may have discovered that his word on any topic should be taken with a large pinch of Himalayan pink salt, given that he is not opposed to disregarding the moral precepts of polyamorous conduct and engaging in clandestine assignations with married women in Totnes church alcoves, as happened on the wild and windy night of the first of June, 2015, and witnessed by myself.
This entire global battle can be distilled down to the simple question of moral fibre and character; those with, and those without.
*Marianna; apologies Ms Spring.
This is a great article. It’s carefully argued with supporting evidence and excellent reasoning. Unfortunately, none of that matters in the ‘new normal.’
Please permit me to submit a request to Off-Guardian’s editorial/publishing staff; that Mr. Davis’, “Deconstructing Marianna In Conspiracyland” series be again published in its entirety with audio narration, once complete. I often share Off-Guardian articles with family, friends, and “strangers online“, many of whom are less diligent than I, in returning for the necessary follow-up. A single link, with audio, makes Mr. Davis’ valuable work easier to share and be absorbed by people who are new to the topic of state and media censorship.
Windows can purportedly do this for you. See Settings – Ease of access – Narrator.
As far as the JFK assassination is concerned, I prefer calling it out as the “lone gunman theory” proffered by the Warren Commission. Lee Harvey Oswald supposedly shot the president on his lunch break and walked out of the Texas School Book Depository undetected. He then proceeds to board a bus to catch a matinee and kills a cop along the way. All on his lonesome mind you. You couldn’t make all this up unless you officially release 26 volumes of gibberish. It’s almost never a conspiracy it seems. Not even a theory of one.
It takes two too tango, and I agree, he couldn’t hit the broad side of a barn with that thing.
For years now I have been regularly using the term “conspiracy terrorist” to refer to myself and others who are commonly smeared, denigrated and condemned for their politically unapproved views. I have said it to quite a number of people and, curiously, I have not yet had anyone challenge me to explain why.
The reason is, of course, that these two concepts are increasingly fused together in the mainstream rhetoric: The governments are increasingly reserving the right to label any disfavored opinion as “dangerous”, and thereby to potentially classify the willful propagation of any such opinion as a form of terrorism. From the current trend, It is a matter of time before the legal framework is in place to openly enforce punishments based on this anti-democratic nonsense.
If I were you, I would cease talking about western politics as it has been proved to have ruined the human race, and become nothing more than the infinite study of human denial.
Any association with it only includes one in the ruining, which I refuse to be a part of, and suggest you do the same.
This is not rocket science, its common sense.
This educated fellow has interesting and highly relevant food for thought – and, hopefully, for action at some point:
https://youtu.be/faPNpovMeuU
What is in my opinion the program for?
The first goal of the program is to stir the minds of the public against those people who think critically about how the world works and speak up.
The second goal will be to prepare the people for the things to come. Like accomplished magicians, people are made to look on the left to do things on the right that the public is not allowed to see, and like skilled psychologists with sociology as a second subject, people’s thinking is kneaded into the desired state.
Of course, Marianne does not need to have these courses herself. She’s more likely to be a good stage actor.
Inciting the people against intellectuals:
The results of an intellectual analysis are already portrayed as ‘bad’ in advance. The results of the analyzes are made ridiculous, false, even criminal and immoral.
The thinkers are framed in such a way that the general public becomes disgusted with them. The public therefore prefers not to think about the nasty things that are going on and the people depend on what the mass media depict them.
Seen in this way, Marianne is doing her job well, because the people will take it all like sweet cake. And that was and is the intention.
Mass media are often ultimately propaganda, and that propaganda should not be underestimated. The training and the knowledge in this are already so far advanced that people know exactly how to act to obtain the desired result. Especially sociology, psychology, biology, neurology and even the “mysticism” are used for the purpose. This knowledge is for sale to the rich people. They may have access to it, but they do not have the knowledge and insights themselves. They buy these intellectual skills. And money one has in immeasurable quantity.
It has happened before in history that a country is stripped of its thinkers in order to have free reign. Logical too, because people with power do not want unrest and opposition when carrying out their plans.
If one would like people to be infected as little as possible by the mass media, then preventing viewing, listening and reading of those media is the solution, it seems to me. Talking about it doesn’t work and doesn’t help.
given the steady acceleration since, lets say 2001 of the magicians art form reaching new, global levels, then the “reveal” when it comes is sure to be a whopper.
it seems the entire realm of people having control over other people revolves around having them live in fear, poverty and keeping them uncertain of their grounding/centre
the bbc and the creature presenting the “program” wish to attempt to reverse the tide of those waking up, critical mass (imho) has always been the crux of the issues we face, or put another way, when sufficient people form a majority and believe a fiction is a reality, then to a degree said fiction… becomes reality, or egregore
such intent to create a consitency of human belief, here in the realm we dwell in to create “a global egregore” (instead of say one confined to europe, eg “nazism”) then we are informed that the desired end result is intended to be irreversible and of a “spiritual” nature
it intends to exceed all former definitions of religion/culture and just because “ai” is involved does not infer that such a thing is limited to human manipulation of technology..
from the point of view of a rabbit transfixed in the headlights moments before being splatted the fact that the vehicle is being “driven” by something seperate from the mechanical machine is irrelevant
as true “conspiracy theorists” it is our role, our fate to dodge each vehicle, then become aware that said vehicles only inhabit part of the space in which we survive… then design a great big stinger and force the bastards to crash in a suitably terminal manner??
easier said than done, but where theres a will, theres a way
In other news gender is fake and everyone is queer. Penis’ are the conspiracy of the day.
Yea, don’t dip the wick it may light up.
Another great article by ID, thanks
“sinister cabals”…. like this one?
““The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalistic fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the worlds central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank…sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence co-operative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world.”
Obiously that Carroll Quigley should have been censored (as indeed he was, de facto by his publishers rather than de jure by the state). Still, he thought what the international banksters were doing was ultimately a good thing so I guess it’s not one of those nasty AEOs.
However despite being professor at Georgetown, name-checked by Bill Clinton and having access to CFR I’m sure he doesn’t qualify as one of Spring’s “relevant epistemological authorities”
A Conspiracy Theorist is a person who has a Theory that a cabal of influential people have entered into a Conspiracy against the public interest, and produces evidence. There are many Conspiracy Theorists on the internet.
Hence the importance of Internet Neutrality — no censorship of theories nor of evidence for and against theories..That is the Scientific Ethos (as in “The Sceptical Chymist”) which created Objective Verification, Open Source and the World Wide Web.
“Only connect” — EM.Forster.
“there are many additional reasons to be sceptical of the BBC”
First and foremost being, that the present BBC Governing Body was set up by PM Tony B.Lian because the previous Beeb had allowed outstanding investigative reporter John Pilger to be sceptical about B.Liar’s Dodgy Dossier.
John Pilger having been purged (and exiled?) the Beeb’s staff are mere mouthpieces, “not worth our spit”.
The establishment via its bought and paid for MSM is attempting to create a smokescreen across its wealth stealing activities. This smokescreen is the redefining of the meaning of key words and the hiding of their lack of evidence by utilising endless repetition.
The gullible recipients of this output are actually victims of brainwashing – that they have to pay for.
I constantly hear the sheep saying “they heard it on the news”
I just roll my eyes and ignore them now.
It’s difficult to win an argument with an intelligent person, even harder with a fool…
Wow! Talking sheep ??!!
Eye rolling not reserved exclusively for the sheep..
My dad used to say that those bastards up there will one day charge you for the air you breathe. I rolled my eyes at that. Now I don’t:
https://thehustle.co/the-dystopian-business-of-bottled-air/amp/
Ukrainian Nuclear Falseflag, anyone ?
Sometime between 5 and 11 July is ideal time ?
Sitrep 7/4/23 Final Hour of Zelensky’s Terror Ploy:
simplicius76.substack,com/p/sitrep-7423-final-hour-of-zelenskys
Ukraine Prepares for Nuclear Explosion as Russia Reduces Zaporizhzhia Plant Presence:
zerohedge.com/geopolitical/ukraine-preparing-nuclear-explosion-russia-reduces-zaporizhzhia-plant-presence
Ukraine has already had a huge nuclear power catastrophe — Chernobyl, where a fully functional reactor exploded through lack of maintenance. I believe that Zaporizhzhia cannot be as bad as Chernobyl (supposing that NATZO’s Z regime actually manages to sabotabe Zaporizhzhia) because Russia has been shutting down the reactors. The worst that can happen IMO will be electricity cuts from the largest nuclear power station in “Western” Europe.
It was not a lack of maintenance. It could have been treachery. Look up the account by Dimitri Khalezov who was in the USSR NBC response team. Utube removed all his videos byt you may still find his articles.
Thanks, I shall search the web for Dimitri Khalezov.
Here is the lost BBC footage:
BBC Reported World Trade Center 7 Collapses Before It Happen
https://odysee.com/@SaviorSelf:c/BBCSTATESWTC7COLLAPSESBEFOREITHAPPENS:e
Many thanks for retrieving that Live TV footage, “lost” by the BBC, and “Censored’ by Google. It cannot be aired often enough.
I presume the artwork was rejected when the BBC realised it was them who are burying their viewer’s heads in the sand.
I reject the term “anti-Establishment opinion”, as it suggests that the views of the so-called conspiracy theorists reflect mere opinions rather than, quite often, indisputable facts. “Anti-Establishment views” (AEV) would be more accurate and acceptable.
And the opposite of a conspiracy theorist? A Propaganda Pusher or Deception Dealer.
Coincidence Theorist. Someone who thinks that, even when a bunch of crooks come up and steal all his stuff right in front of his eyes, his stuff all disappeared by chsnce.
Works for me George:-)
A much less painful apprehension it seems, and one most are happy to go along with right up the point they get a poison ( or placebo if you’re lucky) injected into them to save them from a meme virus. I’ve now seen and heard enough to say with confidence that they will still be coincidence theorising right up to the point they are loaded onto box cars or large trucks…and calling anybody who resists a bigot.
The BBC investigating ‘conspiracies’ is like the police or politicians investigating corruption within their own ranks. A joke.
It’s a hatchet job. She is the blunt instrument.
Watched the full interview with Darren. Our paths crossed back their 2012-2014. He attended various protests. One protest was the historic child abuse allegations at the Houses of Parliament. Teresa May was Home Secretary at the time & it never really got off the ground. She then became PM. Just a coincidence. She kept appointing pple who had links to those implicated. People really don’t realise how sick that edifice is..
The Blunt instrument couldn’t corner Darren (in the interview) & she knew it. But her dishonesty was there for all to see. That annoying fake earnest tone.
If inclined look for a tune of his called “Free Range Slave” brilliant tune & lyrics. Unfortunately he has made gang signs, that’s freemasonic hand signals. I know he knows what they mean. Don’t understand why? Or don’t wish to accept the implications.
Four six years after gov. register Corporation how fitting for the dollies to have a good old custard pie throwing contest. We’ll call it a Fiftieth Anniversary wedding bedding event. For historical records.
She is just boring. London and Washington fund and lead all these terrorist groups from behind.
I see her work as an investigation in which types and vulnerability can be exploited and recruited for extremist purposes. Pretending to be research for the common good off course.
Terror and terrorist management.
My definition of a conspiracy “theorist” is conspiracy “realist” – a human being who, after much research of who said or wrote what, when, where and in what context, has come up with the truth.
That’s why they have scrubbed so much information from the internet and want to continue to censor the online world. There are way too many conspiracy realists in the know out there who could be disseminating the facts.
I call it Anti-Establishment Propaganda (AEP), theories are not conspiracies. It does not seem to matter if the anti establishment propaganda is a hypothesis, a theory, a statement of fact, a vow to get someone, or an expression of frustration or whatever if bottom up propaganda violates OoCcG space definition; the OoCcG crowd will criminalize the anti-propaganda and use their military to crush those who produce it.
We must all remember there are two sides: the Oligarch owned Corporation controlled Government [OoCcG] vs. the bottom up resistive voices of the people who are governed by force. Tonight, i have read about events in France, Japan, Germany, India, and Switzerland where OoCcG forces seem to be fighting bottom up resistive crowds? Everywhere there is bottom up objection to the OoCcG top down nation state system.
The OoCcG crowd must believe Bottom up crowds are organizing, not against just one nation state, but against the entire system of OoCcG controlled nation states. Every where OoCcG resistance appears, the reason for the conflict seems to be the same; the interest of those in control infringes on the interest of the masses.
The world over, Bottom Up crowds seem to be claiming they have been victimized by the nation state system, or a Corporation, or a non human other entity or one of the owner oligarchs. Claims against the OoCcG designed and maintained nation state system seem to be the same world-wide, the language used, and the immediate subject matter, that supports the claims may be different but the message is universal(the masses have been victimized by the OoCcG crowds). Victimization of the bottom up crowd seems to be a common thread?
The bottom up crowds seem to be learning, from each other, across the nation state controlled world, that if the bottom uppers are to be allowed to live their lives, enjoy their liberties and pursue their independent versions of happiness; the OoCcG crowds are going to have to change their ways. Seems to me bottom up resistance movements are becoming more widely distributed, trending toward increasing violence and occuring more frequently.
Some top-down governance is necessary in any enterprise. The troubles you mentioned arise from plutocratic subversion.
“Karl Marx predicted that in its final stages, capitalism would contradict its supposed values and hasten its own demise. It would
– Profit from fictitious finance.
– Pillage public wealth through privatised government functions.
– Subvert governments, undermining their ability to impede exploitation and protect the environment.
– Undermine the free market, as in the cases of the largest businesses demanding rescues or monopolising global markets.
– Impoverish the lowest-paid, and then the middle class.”
– my summary of Chris Hedges, 2015
The OoCcG crowds are going to have to change their ways? That will never happen.
What we need to do is commit to an alternative system. Voluntarism / anarchocapitalism or similar could make the OcCcG (handy term, BTW) obsolete.
In other words, if the whole world, minus the 1% or whatever, turns away from them and their system and starts to co-operate and trade between each other, the money of the OcCcG crowd will become irrelevant.
They need us (to be dependent upon them); we do not need them if we choose to ignore them and co-operate between ourselves.
True capitalism, instead of the crony capitalism we have got now, means independent small business and sole traders without government red tape and without taxes – freedom from extortion and exploitation.
One can dream on.
Top down governance should be restricted to responding only to the majority will of the governed. Unless the majority has heard all of the pros and cons, openly debated the issues and the type form and shape of response, and then voted to allow that top down power to be asserted by government, governance is not democratic.
On the contrary, top down governance is there to allow some Leader with imagination to initiate a progressive measure that would not occur to the mass mind. Bottom up is there to solve some particular difficulty in the local implementation of some overall progressive scheme.
Inconvenient Views of Indigestible Views will do. They give the PTB indigestion.
I apologize for being OT, but i wanted to share this article regarding what happened in the USA on Jan 6th from a substacker who was actually there and has quite a story to tell.
https://open.substack.com/pub/dfreality/p/requiem-for-a-j6er?r=j516f&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post
I have only read the Light once, during the scamdemic.
It had more facts than the entire BBC output for the past twenty years.
Trust is when you are driving and you see an approaching car, you trust they will stay on their side of the road.
The courts on the other hand view trust as something they can control you with, it’s called the trustee approach, it works very good for them, for you, not so much.
It must be terrible having to lie for a living Marianna, when you were at your posh school did you ever dream that you would end up being a paid (THICKO) liar?
Marianna is Normal (Homo Normalis)…
Marianna is not a liar. She is a working girl, doing what she does earning a living. She’s just doing her job, and hopes to get a head…And her mum is proud of her; so too, her dad…
She’s part of the club that she always wanted to be part of. And yet she isn’t. But she’s trying!
Point is: she needs the approval of others to feel that she exists. And it doesn’t feel like lying if the message is approved by some divine like organization like the BBC
There are millions like that.
Eyes wide shut.
The things people do for money.
Eyes Wide Shut – YouTube
I think I wrote this around 2008.
‘Are you OK?’
The want of the “Great Enemy”.
The bigging up of trivial opposition, wherever it may rear its head? Who’d have heard of ‘Marianna Spring’ otherwise?
A nubile young female, fresh out of ‘Finishing-off (undesirables)’ school. What better opposition could anyone imagine? Surely every man’s fantasy is to successfully debunk such a creature over a 27-part extended series (more parts available if you like)…
Avaion – I don’t know why
It’s all like a curious kind of performance art. The trick is not hard to understand and it is even all demonstrated at the beginning. But from then on, anyone who is unwise enough to point any of this out is denounced by the term “conspiracy theorist”. And that seems to work. The conspiracy-phobic mantra has been so successful that it has effectively erased the word “conspiracy” from the English language. The word of course still exists but only as a joke. In this way, the manipulators of events can be as open as they want. The moment anyone comments on the plan so clearly previewed well in advance, the word “conspiracy” covers all tracks.
The call goes up: “So what if they somehow predicted it all? So what if they outlined the deadly pandemic exactly as it happened? That just shows how brilliant they are. Or maybe it’s one of those bizarre one-in-a-million chances. And if these curious chances keep happening then that too is another bizarre one-in-a-million chance. Or maybe it’s a one-in-a-trillion chance.” Etc. No number is too vast to seem ridiculous. After all, the other theory about conspiracy is taken to be oxymoronic. There simply can’t be conspiracies. And this is taken to be the basis of rationality itself!
Agreed. The trick is to get people to not trust their senses. To eradicate any last flickering embers they might possess to distinguish between right from wrong.
“The Party knows all”
Don’t trust any in your community that isn’t towing said party lines. As they must clearly be a Conspiracy Theorist. As usual they accuse those that “See” of the very thing they do themselves.
These are modern day Witch Hunts. The smearing is their primary tool. Not long till we’re all classified terrorist’s.
How dare anyone dream of bodily autonomy or question official narratives. Must be a dissatisfied conspiracy kook. Clearly the only explanation.
The mental gymnastics, encouraged & exhibited is absurd. It was always heading this way.
‘All our lives we have been heading this way.’ Another synchroincidence: see ‘Eyes wide shut’ above, my reply to Willem. It was always thus, only the tech was missing, and now it’s not. The masses are dumbed down, fearful and literally poisoned, but they can still break things if pushed too far. Usually not the right things.
Anyway some of us ARE psychic terrorists.
For an article like this, I feel I should set aside an hour to give it due consideration.
I’d suggest a drastic summarization here, with a link pointing elsewhere to the complete article.
One does have other duties to attend to, after all…
First, the term “conspiracy theory” came out of the rotted, corrupt brain of Allen Dulles to deflect from the fact that the JFK assassination was effectuated by a conspiracy of Dulles and the CIA. Second, the word “radical” means of or from the roots, going to the foundation or source of something. It does not mean extreme. Michael Parenti speaks of the extreme center. Third, “criminal conspiracy” is in the legal canon. It simply means when 2 or more people plan on committing a crime.
Iain Davis is a national treasure. I’m saving this article for future reference.
Obviously Marriana isn’t in the comments section of this or any other purported “conspiracy” news site or she’d be well aware there is no unified movement.
Not even really sure how to characterize this series other than like proactive gate-keeping maybe?