Some Call It Conspiracy Theory – Part 2
Iain Davis
In Part 1 we contrasted the popular misconceptions about so-called “conspiracy theorists” with the well-grounded demographic research done on the individuals who, collectively, have had that pejorative label slapped on them.
The demographic research reveals that there is no such thing as an identifiable group of people who can legitimately be called “conspiracy theorists.”
The research also finds no credible evidence that people branded “conspiracy theorists” are prone to hold extremist views or have underlying psychological problems or pose a threat to democracy. These claims are all canards levelled against anyone who questions the Establishment and the power it has amassed.
We noted that political scientist Joseph Uscinski, who is perhaps the foremost scientist in the field of “conspiracy theory” research, cited the work of philosopher Neil Levy as a “simple and consistent standard” by which academics could “demarcate between conspiracy theory and [real or “concrete”] conspiracy.”
Professor Levy’s “simple and consistent standard” was first outlined in his article “Radically Socialized Knowledge and Conspiracy Theories.” In it, he pointed out that “conspiracies are common features 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.” Levy therefore proposed that academics need a way to differentiate between the rational acceptance of acknowledged conspiracies and the supposedly irrational claims made by people who suspect conspiracies that haven’t been officially approved for discussion.
Levy suggested that “[r]esponsible believers ought to accept explanations offered by properly constituted epistemic authorities.” As we explained in Part 1, he defined the epistemic authorities as:
[. . .] the distributed network of knowledge claim gatherers and testers that includes engineers and politics professors, security experts and journalists.
In his listing of “journalists” as epistemic authorities, Levy was almost certainly referring to journalists who work in the state controlled or corporate-owned legacy media (LM), not to journalists in the independent media, who are frequently labelled conspiracy theorists.
Independent media is broadly defined as:
[. . .] news media that is free from influence by the government or other external sources like corporations or influential people.
Similarly, in Levy’s view, only the “right” scientists and engineers are welcomed as “epistemic authorities.” For example, he categorically stated:
Few responsible intellectuals reject the explanation of 9/11 that cites the conspiratorial actions of a group of terrorists under the direction of Osama Bin Laden[.] [. . .] [M]ost of us have little doubt that it is true.
Dr. Leroy Hulsey, a now-retired professor and department head of structural engineering at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, led a multi-year study in which he and his team of engineer PhDs examined the structural collapse of World Trade Centre 7 (WTC 7).
The conclusions they arrived at in their peer-reviewed report thoroughly contradicted the official 9/11 narrative. It seems unlikely that Prof. Levy would consider Dr. Hulsey to be a responsible intellectual or an “epistemic authority.”
In his article, Levy opined that allegedly irrational “conspiracy theorists” could be identified by virtue of the fact that they disagree with the properly constituted epistemic authorities. Therefore, he claimed, their arguments and any evidence they presented should be dismissed. He wrote:
[K]nowing that a proffered explanation conflicts with the official story (where, once again, the relevant authorities are epistemic) is enough for us rationally to reject the alternative.
But there is nothing “rational” about rejecting an explanation simply because it is offered by people with whom you disagree.
Presumably, like Levy, Uscinski would consider himself an “epistemic authority” in the field of conspiracy theory research. Thus, it is not surprising that, in light of Levy’s “simple and consistent standard,” Uscinski concluded:
[P]roperly constituted epistemic authorities determine the existence of conspiracies. [. . .] If the proper authorities say something is a conspiracy, then it is true; if they say it is a conspiracy theory, then it is likely false.
That is to say, “official” narratives are considered true by default, and anything that calls them into question is, by default, a “conspiracy theory.” The term signifies to other intellectuals—who don’t question the pronouncements of the state—that evidence which potentially undermines official narratives is, by definition, false. This conclusion is, of course, a load of nonsensical, fallacious gibberish.
Unfortunately, the conspiracy theory label is so widely applied these days that it has stuck. The legacy media (LM), in particular, has successfully deployed it as a tool of propaganda. Simply by spouting the words “conspiracy theory,” the LM have convinced the public to ignore any and all evidence that questions power.
Here’s one such example. Following serious allegations of rape and sexual misconduct it brought against the comedian, author and political commentator Russell Brand, the LM immediately exploited the situation by criticising Brand’s opinions and everyone who shared them.
The BBC published Rachel Schraer’s article Russell Brand: How the comedian built his YouTube audience on half-truths just four days after the allegations were first reported by, among others, the BBC.
The opening paragraph to the article reads:
The first time Russell Brand really dipped his toe into the water of conspiracy theories, in early 2021, the effect was swift [. . .]. It won him a new income stream and a fresh army of fans.
We are told that Brand discusses “conspiracy theories.” This is a coded social signal from Schraer and the BBC to their readers and audience that everything Brand says should be discounted without examination—including any evidence he may cite. This should be done for no other reason than Schraer and the BBC have labelled Brand a conspiracy theorist.
In addition, the BBC casts the people who share Brand’s views as conspiracy theorists who should be equally ignored.
Furthermore, the suggestion is made that Brand is peddling “conspiracy theories” as some sort of grift. According to Schraer, the idea that independent media, such as Brand’s “Stay Free” channels, can be directly funded by its audience—in this instance through viewer number contingent advertising revenue—without compulsion is “evidence” of his dubious motives. (Apparently the BBC is vehemently opposed to the free market of ideas.)
Schraer explained what got the Brand ball rolling:
The door to this new fan base might have creaked open when Brand first discussed “the Great Reset” — a vague set of proposals from an influential think tank to rebuild the global economy after Covid.
The lame evidence Schraer cited to support her contention that the Great Reset is just some “vague set of proposals” was another BBC article. Five journalists contributed to this piece, which was published in 2021 as part of the BBC’s “Reality Check” series.
Collectively, the five BBC Reality Check “journalists” exposed their own deceit in the second and third paragraphs:
Believers spin dark tales about an authoritarian socialist world government run by powerful capitalists and politicians — a secret cabal that is broadcasting its plan around the world.
Despite all the contradictions in the last sentence, thousands online have latched on to this latest reimagining of an old conspiracy theory [. . .].
The problem is that no one accused by the Reality Check team of being a “Great Reset” conspiracy theorist has ever alleged that the Great Reset plan was a “secret” or that the planners are a “secret cabal.” The fact that the well-known World Economic Forum (WEF) has broadcast its plans around the world obviously excludes the possibility that the plans were “secret” or even that the have acted secretively.
The contradiction was a fabrication of the BBC Reality Check journalists’ own making. It was seemingly inserted to support their accusation that those who criticised the WEF’s Great Reset were alluding to a “secret cabal.” In reality, the critics were openly pointing their fingers directly at the WEF and its partners. No suggestions of a “secret cabal” or “secret plans” were ever made.
The BBC’s evident intention was to impugn critics of the Great Reset by falsely claiming that their views were illogical, speculative assumptions and were therefore “conspiracy theories.” The BBC propagandists created this myth themselves in order to deliberately mislead their readers. This is the very definition of disinformation.
The Reality Check team then reported that the Great Reset initiative was launched by King—then Prince—Charles as a plan to remodel the global economy. They talked about the WEF’s undemocratic “power to lobby [. . .] for ideas which could potentially transform the global economy.” They added that the WEF and its Davos delegates have “huge influence on world events.” They even raised the point that there are legitimate concerns about the potential impact of digital technology—vigorously pushed in the Great Reset—”on civil liberties and jobs.”
In short, the BBC Reality Check team gave a reasonable account of the arguments put forward by those whom they then dismissed out of hand by labelling them “conspiracy theorists.” The BBC “journalists” performed this trick by making up a reported opinion about “secret cabal[s]” and then falsely ascribing it to Great Reset critics.
In order to deter their readers from any further examination of the Great Reset, the BBC’s alleged journalists claimed that the Great Reset itself was “light on specific detail.” This, again, was pure disinformation.
The same journalists had to admit the existence of a published book called COVID-19: The Great Reset. In it, co-authors Klaus Schwab and Thierry Malleret wrote:
[O]ur objective was to write a relatively concise and simple book to help the reader understand what’s coming in a multitude of domains. [. . .] The reference information appears at the end of the book and direct attributions have been minimized [in the text].
The references include links to WEF documents such as “COVID-19 Risks Outlook A Preliminary Mapping and Its Implications.” This is just one document that forms part of the WEF’s extensive alleged risk-mapping program.
The mapping program, in turn, informs the WEF’s highly detailed Strategic Intelligence, which the WEF claims will enable it to “make sense of the complex forces driving transformational change across economies, industries, and global issues.”
There really isn’t any facet of economy, industry, or indeed any global issues or aspects of our lives for which the WEF doesn’t already have a detailed, self-serving, transformational plan. The BBC’s claim that the Great Reset lacks “specific detail” is absurd. The plan couldn’t be more detailed or specific.
Rachel Schraer’s subsequent assertion—that the Great Reset represents a “vague set of proposals”—was complete nonsense based upon the BBC’s own propaganda. The objective was to convince BBC readers that criticism of the Great Reset is a “conspiracy theory.” It is self-evident that both Schraer’s and Reality Check’s articles served as a defence of the WEF’s Great Reset.
We have still other good reasons to question Schraer’s judgement.
Dr Simon Goddek, a scientist who turned to journalism and has questioned the safety and efficacy of the COVID jabs—thereby excluding himself from Uscinski and Levy’s “epistemic authorities”—shared a black-humoured joke as a social media meme. It showed the ageing physical decline of former New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Arden. Goddek quipped, “[w]as it her shots, mRNA or Meth?”
This joke was subsequently picked up by BBC Verify propagandist Shayan Sardarizadeh, who re-shared it with the comment: “4 million views for this nonsense from a blue tick conspiracy theorist.” Goddek’s post was indeed “nonsense”—because it was a joke.
When Schraer re-posted Sardrizadeh’s comment, she displayed a woeful lack of comprehension and a notable lack of a sense of humour. She added her own inane interpretation with this absurd headline:
Breaking: Conspiracy theory-peddlers blame the Passage of Time on Vaccines.
This may seem like a trivial matter. But it’s not. Like Marianna Spring, Rachel Schraer is another BBC specialist disinformation reporter. That Schraer apparently can’t tell the difference between a joke and “disinformation” certainly brings her alleged “specialism” into question.
To fully appreciate how the “conspiracy theory” label is deployed by the legacy media (LM), we can look at the recent video by journalist and broadcaster Andrew Neil, who is a former editor of the Sunday Times, an ex-BBC presenter, and the current chairman of the Spectator. When he left the BBC, Neil was reported to have been “at the heart of the BBC’s political coverage for the best part of three decades.”
In a discussion with Sam Leith, the Spectator’s literary editor, about the Russell Brand allegations, Neil lamented that social media had enabled too many people—most of whom he considered to be stupid—to express their opinions. Based on this comment, it is evident that, if Neil is familiar with the work of Uscinski and Levy, he would probably consider himself a journalist member of the so-called “epistemic authorities.”
Neil spoke about the four-year investigation conducted by the legacy media that eventually produced the Brand allegations. He described it in glowing terms and noted that the independent media—which he called “the alternative media”—had neither the “resources nor the expertise to do” such an exhaustive investigation.
The Spectator YouTube channel that Neil heads has 304K subscribers. By comparison, Russell Brand has 6.6M YouTube subscribers. Consequently, his channel had considerably more resources than does the Spectator. However, following the alleged LM investigation of Brand, YouTube demonetised his account, so now Brand’s channel resources are flagging by comparison.
Unlike the independent media, which is almost entirely funded by reader and audience donations, the legacy media (LM) is funded by either corporate advertising or, in the case of the BBC, coercive license fees. UK print news media has been declining for years as people increasingly consume news online. In addition, state broadcasters, such as the BBC and Channel Four, are shedding UK viewers in their millions.
Nonetheless, as Neil observed, LM budgets are enormous compared to the shoestring income cobbled together by the independent media. That stark contrast hasn’t stopped the Establishment, which relies on the LM for its propaganda and owns most of it, from panicking.
Their panic explains the commissioning of the Cairncross Review—intended to provide some sort of rationale for propping up the LM.
Ironically, the Cairncross Review concluded that the LM needed “new sources of funding, removed from direct government control.” Of course, genuinely independent news media have already achieved new sources of funding by going directly to their audiences, some of whom value the independent viewpoint enough to support it financially.
Dame Cairncross (DBE, FRSE, FAcSS) apparently considered the independent media funding model to be rubbish. She ruled it out because, as she put it, “the stories people want to read may not always be the ones that they ought to read.” She practically declared that what the public “ought to read” should be stipulated by the “epistemic authorities.”
Instead, Cairncross determined that “the creation of a new Institute for Public Interest News” was needed. To ensure this new overseeing body would be “independent,” Dame Cairncross recommended that it “build strong partnerships with the BBC” and be funded by the UK government.
Her suggestion meant that, just like the current independent media, the LM of the future would be funded by the public. The difference between the two funding models was that Cairncross’s would not be voluntary but achieved through enforced taxation. Through the new body she envisioned, instead of the public choosing which media outlets they want to support the “epistemic authorities” and the government would decide for them.
What Frances Cairncross ultimately recommended was state regulation of the internet as a means of protecting the LM from public opinion. These regulations would tell the people which media outlets they should “trust” and, hopefully, prevent them from supporting the “wrong” media.
Dame Cairncross’ review dovetailed perfectly with the progress of the UK’s Online Safety Act (OSA) through parliament. In her Review, she wrote:
The government will want to consider these recommendations in the context of its parallel work on online harms, disinformation and digital competition, to determine whether the recommendations set out here should be pursued separately or as part of broader packages of measures. In particular, it is for government to determine how best to design and execute policy relating to the activities of the online platforms, including any regulatory oversight. This Review is neutral [. . . .]
Neutral?
The OSA has passed all UK parliamentary reading stages and should receive Royal Assent any day now. It has established Ofcom as the internet regulator.
The purpose of the Act is supposedly to improve public safety online—especially child safety. But it is patently obvious that the real objective of the OSA is to stop people from sharing information on social media that the government wishes to prevent from being shared—the article you are reading, for example.
The OSA will limit the online reach of the independent media. Accomplishing this aim is of vital importance to the Establishment—all the moreso because public interest in the LM’s online news reporting is also plummeting.
In addition, the OSA provides significant protection for each of the regulated media organisations that the state controls and categorises as a “recognised news publisher.” This means every legacy outlet plus favoured “independent” media outlets such as Bellingcat, which is also funded by the Establishment.
So, given its protective care and vast resources, what alleged “expertise” did the LM bring to its investigation of Russell Brand, do you suppose? For a full account of that claimed journalism, you can read this article. But perhaps I should warn you in advance that, while the allegations against Brand are very serious and should be investigated by the police, the LM “team” disappointingly didn’t present a shred of real evidence to support those reported allegations.
Worse, the LM evidently fabricated purported evidence to mislead its readers and viewing audience, thereby undermining the accounts of the potential victims.
Yet, according to our Andrew Neil over at the Spectator, for the legacy media to have expended its considerable resources over a period of four years to produce this voluminous research (which we can call hamfisted detritus) requires great “expertise.”
In the Spectator interview, Leith asked Neil for his opinion about the possibility that the LM had launched a coordinated attack on Brand. Here is how Neil replied:
There’s no virtue to it at all[,] and the people who are pushing this line, that there’s a kind of conspiracy to do him down, are the very people who believe in all sorts of conspiracies as well. That vaccinations put little microchips into our bodies, that the Bush administration was really behind 9/11, and all the other nonsense. Of course, naturally we live in a world run by lizard people. We all know who they are [the lizard people], the mainstream media knows who they are, we’re just too frightened to point out the lizards among us. They’re conspiracists on everything now.
It is possible, though hard to substantiate, that a tiny minority of people labelled as conspiracy theorists believe there are microchips in the COVID shots. While the advent of motes makes this claim at least feasible, the vast majority of people who questioned the jabs—and who were also labelled as conspiracy theorists by the “epistemic authorities”—were more concerned about the experimental status, the potential unknown risks and the questionable efficacy of the jabs, not to mention the absence of any completed trials.
Neil’s tiresome “lizards” refrain was based solely on the opinion of one prominent so-called “conspiracy theorist,” David Icke, whose extremely speculative hypothesis of the “Sumerian Anunnaki” was based upon his interpretation of a few Gnostic texts—the Nag Hammadi, the Dead Sea Scrolls, etc.—and the work of scholars such as Zecharia Sitchin.
No one who seriously questioned the COVID jabs, including tens of thousands of UK doctors and nurses, did so because they thought the royals were lizards. Nor, for that matter, did the structural engineers at the University of Alaska Fairbanks question the official account of 9/11 because they imagined that former US President Bush is a shape-shifting, pan-dimensional reptile.
Let us step back and ask: If Andrew Neil is, as he claims, the intellectual superior of anyone who suggests there may have been a coordinated LM attack on Brand, then why does he overlook the clear-as-day fact that the allegations against Brand were reported simultaneously by almost the entire legacy media on both sides of the Atlantic? Doesn’t such an absolute fact, such irrefutable evidence, point to at least the possibility of planned coordination?
And because that is the case, we are left with only one conclusion: Neil deliberately used a tried-and-true propaganda technique called the straw man argument. That is, he attributed preposterous beliefs to people he disagrees with in order to falsely “debunk,” with contrived ease, arguments they had never made. This technique is also called logical fallacy.
He then used a related technique termed “composition fallacy” to manipulatively claim that the opinion of one person whom he labels a conspiracy theorist (he is referring to Icke without naming him) represents the views of everyone he labels a conspiracy theorist. This is an extremely common LM tactic.
Did Neil say anything about the common suspicion of a possible coordinated attack on Brand? Yes, he did:
[Conspiracism] is a defence that is quite hard to deal with, because it is so ludicrous. It is a defence that doesn’t need facts. It is a culture in which Russell Brand lived and profited, or at least did until YouTube pulled the plug on his revenues. So that’s what they deal in, they don’t deal in the gathering of evidence. [. . .] All these conspiracy theorists can have their absurd opinions about what’s really going on here with Russell Brand, but to establish what’s going on, to produce the evidence, takes investigative journalism.
It is worth reiterating yet again that the investigation into the Brand allegations provided nothing but allegations. This does not mean that the allegations aren’t true. But the LM journalists have not provided anything approaching the “evidence” that Neil claims exists.
Notice that Neil used the word “ludicrous” to signal to his audience that the people he calls “conspiracy theorists” hold ludicrous beliefs. But think about it: His claim was based on his own ludicrous assertions and logical fallacies—not on any actual evidence.
So, if we are to take Neil at his word and “establish what’s going on,” then we need to look at the “evidence” in the hope of establishing some “facts.”
OK, let’s do that. It is a fact that, following publications of the allegations, the LM did not immediately set about finding further evidence to support the possible victims’ claims. Instead, the LM turned its attention to attacking the “conspiratorial” views of Brand and his followers.
Example #1. As soon as the allegations against Brand were published, the BBC wrote that he had “developed a cult following” and had “dabbled in conspiracy theories.” To those charges the BBC added the scintillating “fact” that Brand had built a following during the alleged COVID-19 pandemic because he “discussed conspiracy theories surrounding the disease.”
Example #2. Two days later, using the same alleged “cult” theme, the Metro published an article titled “From Covid denial to mainstream media hatred – Inside Russell Brand’s conspiracy-fuelled cult online following.”
Example #3. A couple of days after that, on the other side of the planet, Australia’s ABC News claimed that Brand’s followers respond to his “rants” simply because he is “controversial” and that his audience is comprised of “people chasing conspiracy theories.”
Example #4. Following the allegations against Brand, the UK government decided that it should express its opinion on a potential criminal investigation. No less than the Prime Minister’s office issued an official statement declaring that “these are very serious and concerning allegations.”
The examples are endless. We don’t have space to cite them all. How odd, then, for Andrew Neil to have claimed in his interview that no one “could give a monkey’s _ _ _ _” about Russell Brand. The “evidence” thoroughly contradicts Andrew Neil. It appears that the entire LM, from all four corners of the globe and the UK government, are very interested in the Russell Brand allegations.
The UK government’s publicised opinion was followed up by emailed letters from Dame Caroline Dinenage DBE MP to numerous social media and online news sites, including the Chinese-owned TikTok and the video hosting service Rumble, requesting that Brand be demonetised on those online platforms.
Caroline Dinenage is Baroness Lancaster of Kimbolton, a leading member of the Establishment and a member of the House of Commons’ Culture, Media and Support Select Committee. It is no surprise that this very committee was instrumental in creating the Online Safety Act. Moreover, when the baroness was the Minister of State for Digital and Sport from February 2020 to September 2021, she had ministerial responsibility for guiding the passage of the Online Safety Bill toward becoming the Online Safety Act.
The common law concept of “innocent until proven guilty,” which Neil conceded was an important principle of UK liberal democracy, seems to mean practically nothing to Dinenage.
The notion is bandied about in some quarters of the LM that Dinenage was acting independently. That may be true. But why, then, did she use the official House of Commons letterhead for her correspondence?
As yet, there has been no official statement from the Culture, Media and Support Select Committee on the allegations against Brand. Reportedly, it has merely acknowledged that only “some” of the letters sent out under its name were approved. Considering that all the letters under its letterhead were shameful examples of rank authoritarianism, the fact that any of them were apparently approved indicates the dictatorial tendencies of the Select Committee as a whole.
What actual facts have been established?
- First, it is a fact that the LM has exploited the allegations and has deployed the composition fallacy to discredit both Brand’s and his social media followers’ opinions.
- Second, it is a fact that the allegations about Brand emerged at the same time that the Online Safety Bill passed its final reading stage. The Brand allegations grabbed all the headlines, leaving virtually no room for prominent coverage of the imminent UK censorship law by the LM. Thoroughly distracting the UK public.
- Third, it is a fact that the purpose of the Online Safety Act is to shore up the dwindling reach of the LM and censor its independent media competition.
- Fourth, it is a fact that Brand and his followers are considered part of the independent media, which the LM accuses of being conspiracy theorists.
- Fifth, it is a fact that formative figures in the UK government have used the allegations published by the LM to attempt to limit the reach of someone who has millions of followers and whom they accuse of being a conspiracy theorist.
- Sixth, it is a fact that limiting the reach of popular conspiracy theorists is exactly what the Online Safety Act is designed to achieve.
There is solid evidence supporting each of these facts. So, what did Andrew Neil, a presumed member of the “epistemic authorities,” make of the facts and supporting evidence that he insists he and the entire legacy media he champions hold so dear?
In his Spectator interview, Neil had this to say:
I think because Russell Brand’s position, in terms of a variety of conspiracies, is very similar to their conspiracies, they regard him as he’s one of us. So, regardless of what he’s accused of, we need to rally behind him. We need to get behind him, they’re trying to pick us off. I mean, don’t forget, they’re conspiracy theorists so therefore they are paranoid. They’re not just paranoid, they do know most sensible people are against them. And I think it’s a kind of rallying defence to look after one of their own.
The Spectator interview was posted on the September 23rd, after the Dinenage letters and the LM reports we’ve just discussed were published. In other words, Neil had mounds of material at his fingertips, but he chose to discard all the evidence and ignore the numerous facts pointing to a possible political motive for the global legacy media’s and UK government’s pursuit of Brand. Instead, he simply cast all the evidence and facts aside and dove into his “conspiracy theory” accusations.
This is a classic case of how the “conspiracy theory” label is applied by people, such as Neil, who do not wish to acknowledge contradictory evidence or facts. The “conspiracy theory” charge enables Neil and his legacy media cohorts to create what they pretend are unquestionable narratives, which they expect their readership and viewership to “trust” on the flimsy basis of their laughable, self-aggrandising claim to be “epistemic authorities.” It should be noted that this is precisely what “the Science™” of conspiracism decrees.
When Sam Leith, Neil’s interviewer, pointed out that so-called conspiracy theorists cannot be categorised by any single political ideology, Neil didn’t pause to consider the implications of his underling’s accurate statement.
Rather, he embarked on an anecdotal reminiscence as if trying to justify his bizarre conspiracy theory view. Having dismissed all evidence to the contrary, he falsely asserted that conspiracy theory lies only on the extremes of politics and that the far left and the far right (conspiracy theorists) all believe essentially the same thing.
He opined that both alleged extremist wings, and therefore all of the conspiracy theorists he imagines, hate liberal democracy. His conclusion:
People like Russell Brand are no friends of liberal democracy and neither are his supporters.
As we discussed in Part 1, this is mindless proselytising. Entrenched Establishment elitists seriously expect us to accept that the people who most fiercely protect and seek to exercise our democratic right to question power are all extremist conspiracy theorists.
Neil apparently believes that liberal democracy is embodied by the public’s trust in the Establishment’s “epistemic authorities.” Consequently, in his evident view, anyone who challenges the “authorities” and their pronouncements and edicts is undermining liberal democracy. But what he is describing is actually the polity of a totalitarian fascist state—a complete inversion of liberal democracy and the principles it is supposedly based upon.
It is evident that, from Neil’s perspective, only stupid people—conspiracy theorists—question epistemic truth, as presumably defined by his narrow, authoritarian class. He views all such stupid people as unintelligent extremists who seek to destroy the social order he disingenuously calls liberal democracy.
Anyone who uses the “conspiracy theory” label does so, not because they value the evidence, the facts or the dialectic, but because they will not countenance any challenge to their worldview or any dissent from their claimed authority.
The “conspiracy theory” charge is an authoritarian propaganda construct, intentionally created to censor legitimate, fact-based opinion.
It is time we stand up to the “epistemic authorities” and reject their elitist, authoritarian pretence of intellectual superiority.
It is time to insist that all evidence is discussed, that all the facts are established and reported to the public.
It is time to reject the state propagandist’s “conspiracy theory” canard.
I extend my gratitude to my editor, who has provided invaluable contributions to my articles since October 2021 (but who, for personal reasons, prefers to remain anonymous).
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.
The virus, though an unproven hypothesis, is generally considered a scientifically proven fact.
Those that subscribe to lab leaks follow state sponsored conspiracy theories giving weight to the existence of that which does not exist.
Conspiracy theories can be a useful tool of the globalists.
Time to get real….
I’ll still probably not get this posted because off guardian is as open to censorship as anyone else but take a wild guess what religion levy and Rachel Schraer come from. Ends in ew.
By “comes from” you must mean the religion of BBC Chairwoman Elan Closs Stephens, who was the person that hired Schraer and whom she answers to. If I were an ignorant stereotyper taking a wild guess, I would say Stephens’ religion ends in tian. Speaking of ignorance are all those who believe that Rothschild, a ghetto pawnbroker, became the wealthiest man in the world in a span of a few decades, and whose fortune (in serving as a beard to the Pope’s kings), surpassed all the plundered loot of the crusades and a millennia of indulgences.
“[K]nowing that a proffered explanation conflicts with the official story (where, once again, the relevant authorities are epistemic) is enough for us rationally to reject the alternative.”
This is what used to be called ‘Appeal to mere authority’. Here is a definition of that-https://www.thoughtco.com/logical-fallacies-appeal-to-authority-250336
It’s all IIA-style LARPing. However, some of the players (e.g. Jones and Brand) have recently been sending out distress signals. Maybe they want out?
IIA = Interactive Internet Activities
https://www.army.mil/article/26868/an_ever_expanding_war_legal_aspects_of_online_strategic_communication
An Ever-Expanding War: Legal Aspects of Online Strategic Communication
September 2, 2009
The memoranda are intended to complement each other. The June policy covers interactive Internet activities (IIA), defined as “the use of a system accessible via the Internet which allows for two-way communications, e.g., e mail, blogs, chat rooms, and Internet bulletin boards.” In other words, the IIA guidance authorizes methods that enable DOD personnel to personally engage with foreign audiences and respond directly to Internet postings, e-mail, and online statements. In contrast, the August policy applies only to “non-interactive content on Combatant Command regionally oriented Web sites tailored to foreign audiences.” For example, DOD sponsors Web sites such as maghrebia.com, a news-like Web site focused on the Maghreb that does not allow for interaction between individuals.
—
See Shadow Gate videos by Millie Weaver:
https://odysee.com/@millieweaver:c
—
Three Clown Circus
Andrew Neil calls Alex Jones an idiot in Sunday Politics clash
Jun 11, 2013
Andrew Neil ridicules American conspiracy theorist on Sunday Politics, American “shock jock” Alex Jones joined Times columnist David Aaronovitch to discuss it – and ended up disrupting the show in spectacular fashion. Presenter Andrew Neil described him as “the worst person” that he had ever interviewed.
Conspiracy isn’t a theory, it’s a violation of law.
Ignorance Is Strength.
Critical Thinking Is Conspiracy Theory.
Faith, hope, trust and obedience (at all costs) are the supreme virtues. 🙂
Those increasingly vast numbers of human beings that have lost faith in our world’s governance and the tendrils of authority embedded in our societies (that are rewarded through the creation and direction of flow of fiat money) are all, of course, representatives of a nascent new form of humanity. This new form of humanity, diverse in any imaginable sense yet united in their mistrust of the legacy power structures in the world have a deep yearning for truth and a belief that truth will liberate our species.
The legacy power structures naturally foresaw and understood the emergence of this new cohort and have effectively led (misled) this group for decades. As per the playbook in the world of seizing the hearts and minds of the masses our masters selected adepts, those that are able to charismatically charm human beings, as their agents. Some of these creatures (for example Jimmy Savile) are able to project an irresistible persona whilst being vilest of the vile. There are countless more of these demons incarnate. They can be found everywhere in our human societies where loud claims are made to be doing good whilst the opposite is true.
Many of them, of course, have terrible egos and a liking for money. They are given plenty by their masters but are also tasked with milking the particular stream of human kindness they are targeted to address and given a helping hand to achieve prominence in the field they are directed towards.
Your article defends one who is probably such an adept. This is the creature we remember years back phoning a grandad up and telling him he’d shagged his granddaughter, whilst on air at the BBC. Lovely fellow. Rich fellow, too. Probably a greedy fellow delighted to be granted the chance to milk the herd of truth seekers for a few years and then be discredited, thus casting doubt on the rest of us.
We must remember that the plans now unfolding were decided upon decade (if not longer) ago and that the creatures behind it all have unlimited billions to devote to the business of shaping the mass human consciousness. It is likely, indeed, that the @truth@ movement was their idea from the beginning and that they have a purpose in mind. That purpose may be to enable the power in this reality to finally discover every last human being that can think critically and that objects to evil such that those genes can be eradicated from the species, much in the same way that slave masters murdered troublesome slaves such that they did not breed. And, of course, milk them of their money as they go along.
There are lots of big names in this :movement. Many of them are plants, agents of the power. Well they would be, wouldn’t they? Because we are, as a species, so easily manipulated en masse.
I don’t know if you understand that Russell brand is one of them, hobknobs with the Rothschilds.
He’s just controlled opposition
The most surprising thing about this essay is to discover that apparently Iain Davis has an editor.
A regional curiosity from Italy points to a conspiracy without the theory.
This evidence has to do with Italy’s Provincia Autonome’s (PA’s) or autonomous regions.
Italy has 20 regions and 5 of them are autonomous. 3 of these PA’s are in the north and within 100 miles of Lombardy. These PA’s are noteworthy in that they keep 60% of their tax revenue (except Sardinia which keeps 100%) unlike the other regions which keep only 20%.
What this means in practice is that these PA’s are not dependent on federal monies for services and are not beholden to national mandates/regulations/protocols in order to receive funding for services (including health care services) as they are not dependent on these federal monies.
As is noted in the data these 3 PA’s to the north (and the entirety on Central and Southern Italy) were not impacted by this “most transmissible and deadly” of virii.
We are supposed to believe that this alleged virus travelled 5,000 plus miles from Wuhan to Lombardy at the speed of light but somehow sidestepped PA’s which are right next door (to the east and the west) to Lombardy.
Why didn’t “COVID” impact all of Italy, instead sticking to only the “hot zone” of the Lombardy region?
Looks like data fraud, deadly hospital protocols for only specfic locales and/or perhaps a mass propaganda campaign which included a large stage show?
Italian ISS Data report found here:
https://www.epicentro.iss.it/coronavirus/sars-cov-2-decessi-italia-archivio
A small sample of the data below.
March 13, 2020 Report:
Lombardy (N)- 762, 75.0%
Emilia-Romagna (N)- 146, 14.4%
Veneto (N)- 48, 4.7%
Piedmont (N)- 18, 1.8%
Liguria (N)- 13, 1.3%
Lazio (C)- 9, 0.9%
Puglia (S)- 5, 0.5%
PA Friuli-Venezia Giulia (N)- 5, 0.5%
Marche (C)- 3, 0.3%
Tuscany (C)- 3, 0.3%
Abruzzo (S)- 2, 0.2%
PA Bolzano- (N) 1, 0.1%
PA Trento- (N) 1, 0.1%
North (N)- Central (C)- South (S)
Geographic Percentages:
N= 97.9%
C= 1.5%
S= 0.7%
The vast majority of COVID-attributed deaths are in the North of Italy, with the majority of those coming from two regions. This curiosity does change significantly for the entirety of the declared public health emergency.
The autonomous region of Valle d’ Aosta, which is in northwestern Italy, does not appear in this early report. Despite being only 120 miles away from the “hot spot” of the Lombardy region there are no reported COVID-attributed deaths in the ISS survey for PA Valle d’ Aosta in the first three reports.
The three other autonomous zones (technically there are actually two others but Bolzano and Trento were reported separately when they belong to the same PA) situated in Northeastern Italy, PA Friuli-Venezia Giulia (165 miles to Lombardy), PA Bolzano (100 miles to Lombardy) and PA Trento (74 miles to Lombardy) also appeared to escape the ravages of what was sold as one of the most transmissible and deadly viruses in history.
How did this alleged virus race around the world at lightning speed, travel over 5,000 miles from Wuhan to Lombardy, yet bypass regions (to the west and the east) which were only a short distance from Lombardy?
March 17, 2020 Report:
Lombardy (N)- 1,425, 71.1%
Emilia-Romagna (N)- 346, 17.3%
Veneto (N)- 79, 3.9%
Piedmont (N)- 36, 1.8%
Liguria (N)- 23, 1.1%
PA Friuli-Venezia Giulia (N)- 21, 1.0%
Puglia (S)- 18, 0.9%
Marche (C)- 17, 0.8%
Lazio (C)- 12, 0.6%
PA Trento (N)- 7, 0.3%
Tuscany (C)- 6, 0.3%
PA Bolzano (N)- 6, 0.3%
Abruzzo (S)- 3, 0.1%
PA Sardinia (S)- 2, 0.1%
Umbria (C)- 1, 0.1%
Molise (S)- 1, 0.1%
N= 96.8%
C= 1.8%
S= 1.2%
March 20 Report:
Lombardy (N)- 2,175, 68.0%
Emilia-Romagna (N)- 524, 16.4%
Veneto (N)- 136 4.3%
Liguria (N)- 90, 2.8%
Piedmont (N)- 69, 2.2%
Marche (C)- 36, 1.1%
PA Friuli-Venezia Giulia (N)- 35, 1.1%
Lazio (C)- 31, 1.0%
Puglia (S)- 27, 0.8%
Campania (S)- 17, 0.5%
PA Bolzano (N)- 14, 0.4%
Tuscany (C)- 14, 0.4%
PA Trento (N)- 12, 0.4%
Abruzzo (S)- 7, 0.2%
Umbria (C)- 4, 0.1%
Molise (S)- 3, 0.1%
PA Sicilia (S)- 3, 0.1%
PA Sardinia (S)- 2, 0.1%
Calabria (S)- 1, 0.0%
N= 95.6%
C= 2.6%
S= 1.8%
The COVID-attributed death clusters remain in the north and largely stick to the two provinces of Lombardy and Emilia-Romagna.
Why didn’t this alleged virus spread to neigboring regions?
March 26, 2020 Report:
Lombardy (N)- 4,484, 65.9%
Emilia-Romagna (N)- 1,068, 15.7%
Veneto (N)- 301, 4.4%
Piedmont (N)- 194, 2.9%
Liguria (N)- 180, 2.6%
Marche (C)- 97, 1.4%
Lazio (C)- 88, 1.3%
Friuli-Venezia Giulia (N)- 66, 1.0%
Puglia (S)- 61, 0.9%
Tuscany (C)- 59, 0.9%
PA Bolzano (N)- 46, 0.7%
PA Trento (N)- 46, 0.7%
Campania (S)- 40, 0.6%
PA Sicilia (S)- 15 0.2%
PA Sardinia (S)- 13, 0.2%
Abruzzo (S)- 12 0.2%
Umbria (C)- 11 0.2%
Molise (S)- 8 0.1%
Calabria (S)- 6 0.1%
PA Valle d’Aosta (N)- 6 0.1%
N= 93%
C= 3.8%
S= 2.4%
PA Valle d’Aosta (which is near Lombardy) finally makes its first appearance in the ISS survey accounting for 0.1% COVID-attribute deaths cataloged to date. The data illustrates that the other autonomous regions in the North were scarcely impacted and only nominal upticks in COVID-attributed deaths occur in either Central or Southern Italy.
Heading into April we see over 90 percent of COVID-attributed deaths remain in the North with the majority of these COVID-attributed deaths situated in two regions.
Even as the alleged virus was at the peak of its powers it didn’t seem to be able to make a dent in the mortality rates of Italy’s autonomous regions in the north nor impact Central or Southern Italy.
The mechanics of this “unique viral pathogen” seem to defy all reasonable explanations and textbook epidemiological models.
Can someone explain how this is possible?
Yes. It’s a complete hoax.
Falsified data. The “epistemic authorities”, the ruling elite who control msm communications, lie as function of doing business, because their business is not informing, it is manufacturing consent for their master’s totalitarian policies. Otherwise, these policies are so dysfunctional the average person would never go along with them without continual repetition of the lies. Just like corporate advertising. People have to disabuse themselves of all “sources” and just go after the truth: the best available information assiduously sought after. And even then, only after some form of decisive confirmation that sticks can anyone make conclusions.
In the 1500’s someone from Italy was able to grow oranges in Florida, and so for future generations of immigrants to Florida the only way to start a life from scratch was to bring a slave from Africa who would either gather oranges or fish in the sea for fish to feed him and the slave owner who would be working for someone else for wages.
Between the two they would have to come up with enough calories to get thru the week or perish trying, it was a mutual relationship as long as it was successful, if it were not, another slave would have to be found.
This was how Florida was founded and no other arrangements were successful in taming the land. Even to this day the orange has its place on the license plates in the state to honor the people who brought life to Florida, from Italy.
A ‘virus’ in China, India or Africa can be ignored by most white folks, but when we see/hear are ‘informed’ that people who look like us are sick or dying, we sit up and take notice.
And then we are putty in their hands.
On the way to Italy, the virus did take a detour to Iran.
This is easily explained as I was working in that region at the time. Red tape!
The chief medical officers of said regions hadn’t officially ‘signed off’ the acceptance of COVID19, therefore changes required to allow it to appear in their reports that feeds up in to the official stats you’ve produced. If you look and merge COVID-19/Influenza together, the figures will make more sense to how you’d expect the virus to spread. Influenza is obviously the nearest category in the cause of deaths. This all took time to sort given the structure of the Italian Health System and the (slow) speed of bureaucracy.
Regards
Further highlighting that ‘Covid’ is in fact indistinguishable from normal respiratory illness (save by a test which many claim is neither meaningful or accurate). A2
Lol. A typical response from a non medical person…… But of course KNOWINGLY using evidence like Maxwell’s above to peddle disinformation to further dupe people into spreading it further is the name of the (grifting) game, right? Bad form OG!
‘Covid’ is clinically indistinguishable from flu and other respiratory diseases, with average ‘Covid’ death worldwide being well over average life expectancy with multiple serious co-morbidities. Average age-adjusted all-cause mortality remained vanilla in most locations, only peaking in certain areas that implemented extremely restrictive pandemic healthcare protocol. Many argue the protocols themselves were to blame. ‘Covid’ never swept across Sweden or Nicaragua or Africa or Serbia or war-torn Syria or anywhere else that implemented zero (or few) pandemic measures.
Rather than appeal to your own authority, you could actually make a well-cited argument here. Personally I think you’ll be in for a tough time. You may appeal to the usual myths (like ground glass opacities, which have never been demonstrated unique to ‘Covid’ and in fact accompany a wide range of lung disease/trauma) and/or the usual unfounded propaganda (eg. The circular logic that masks/lockdowns worked, that’s why Covid was only mildly dangerous, or ‘asymptomatic spread’ is a real thing, not just the result of unprecedented mass testing of populations with an unreliable test prone to false positives which can’t distinguish between live and dead cells and therefore can’t be relied upon as the sole means of clinically diagnosing a disease).
I don’t think Howard is peddling disinformation btw. If you think he’s incorrect, kindly back up your statement with figures of your own.
Thanks, A2
Oh. So the antigens/genetics are exactly the same in influenza and covid are they? And resulting in the same symptom’s regardless? Come on…….
What figures do I have to produce? The figures are as they are, but one needs to merge influenza with covid for all areas to result in a more accurate comparison.
Regards
Paul
There is no clinical way to distinguish ‘covid’ from other respiratory illnesses other than the PCR test which was misused and abused on an epic scale. A2
You can “define” (meaning make-up) a “gene sequence” for X all you want- it means nothing.
As for SARS-CoV-2 the entire porcess involved in assembling this particular simulacrum, the “genomic sequencing” for SARS-CoV-2, is complete fraud. The Corman-Drosten team developed the test for Covid-19 based on an In-silico Genetic Sequence (from a computer simulation).
They did not have any “Viral Isolates” of Covid-19 available, nor any clinical samples of anyone sick with the alleged new disease.
Simply based on that, the test is invalid.
A new medical test must be validated against a ‘Gold Standard”, that is, a test which is 100% accurate.
The Corman-Drosten team, used the SARS sequence from 2003 (which was never properly purified or isolated, the same procedure was done with this virus as well), they then used the PCR primer related to that sequence, amplified it using PCR, sequenced what they amplified (they did this multiple times) and used the sequences that were different from the SARS sequence to develop primers for the diagnostic test. However, since there were no purified samples or Isolates of any kind, this entire experiment is made up.
A PCR test is not a diagnostic test, as it does not test for the presence of a virus, it simply tests for genetic material/genetic debris and must be coupled with Clinical Representation of a specific set of symptoms.
It turns out, when you input the sequences that are being tested for, to show a positive case, the sequences show up 93 times in the human genome, and approx. 91 times from Bacteria/Fungi (Microbes).
These supposed “New” sequences show up in nature and are not new at all.
Nevermind, you cannot possibly say these sequences are coming from a “new virus” if you don’t have the virus in the first place.
The team then sent this test to China, to test for this “Novel” virus that they created a test for, with none of the “Novel” virus at their disposal.
The Chinese found these sequences in their ‘Atypical Pneumonia” patients with non-specific respiratory symptoms, (obviously being that these sequences show up in humans), and they created an entire “Genome” based off of 1 Clinical Sample.
In order to create a Genome correctly, you would need hundreds upon thousands of samples to develop an actual accurate “Viral Genome”, they took 1 person that tested positive with a PCR test created without any virus.
They took a Clinical Sample from a PCR Positive person’s lung fluid, with symptoms consistent to “Atypical Pneumonia”.
They took only the Short RNA strands from the clinical sample, and put them into a Computer Program, these Programs being: Megahit and Trinity.
These two programs assembled a bunch of Contigs (Possible Genome structures) made up of all the short RNA strands from the person, which number 56 Million.
The Trinity computer came up with 1,329,960 Contigs ranging from 201-11,760 base pairs, the Megahit computer came up with 384,096 Contigs ranging from 200-30,474 base pairs. In laymans terms, the computer generated almost 2 Million possible Genome Structures.
The longest Contig (30,474 base pairs) was chosen, simply because it was the longest one. Upon further investigation, this genome was only 80% similar to purported SARS-COV 1 sequence.
They then add some Sars 1 Sequences to make it look more like a supposed SARS virus.
80%, is less similar than what humans are to house cats. The claim
was the Genome totaled to 29,903 bases long, which negates 571 bases from the Contig, if those weren’t valid how do we know this entire Contig is valid?
The Contig chosen, was created out of 123,613 different pieces of short RNA from the clinical genetic sample.
They don’t know where these sequences are coming from, they don’t know if the genome is real, they don’t know the amount of error in the process, they don’t know how many “reads” were correct, this entire thing is theoretical and computer generated.
Then come thousands of papers and studies and reports all based on…Turtles All The Way Down.
It’s called Fraud.
I know the study you refer. But are you suggesting the pockets of medical research experts around the world (Eg. UK/India/US etc) didn’t verify all that the initial study found? Just because each individual research project didn’t publicly publish? And not use sample from different patients (logistically simpler as well!) whilst their at it? It’s not really how the Medical world works is it and sequencing is hardly difficult in the grand scheme of things is it?
LOL? is any of this a lol issue? and your following sentence?
. . non-medical persons?
fuck right off pal, with yer hubristic ignorance, get back to yer murdering of people in the name of rockafella, …sorry, “medicine”, or your stocks and shares portfolio – that is what made you go into medicine is it not? Or maybe you idolise mr shipman?
see yonder lamp-post . . .
You’ve completely trashed your own argument by being so ill-mannered and disrespectful. Although, putting the rudeness aside, I still see no arguments!
Regards
Paul
Hello sheep. Epstein killed himself. Didn’t he?!
Paul can you give me the dates for each region when the chief medical officers of said regions did ‘sign off’ on the acceptance of COVID19?
Or in those regions did they never acknowledge COVID 19 as a unique clinincal condition?
No, I can’t sorry. Not publicly available, but would suggest the numbers make it obvious.
Regards
Paul
Good article, but wrong audience me old hearty.
‘Twould have been easier to just declare we live in the belly of the beast and other than non-compliance or outright unrest what the fek are we going to do about it…read more articles confirming our sense of things???
time is ticking. we need to act…
but everyone keeps scurrying around, earning money, despising Life, making it all go back to “normal”.. reading confirmations of their so unique mindset… .. feed me me me. me important, me MEEEE, yawn.
we’re fuckt man. The west will burn, deserves to from what i can observe. Useless actually.
The “West” = people, nations, that expect too much. Decent home, clothes, food, working conditions, levels of freedom etc etc. They simply have to go. Lot of them are white folks, hence the current memes……
Iain, I like your pieces.
The problem is we all know what you write is true but the people we need to read it will refuse point blank to do so.
The money that has been spent to get us to this situation is unimaginable.
We try to use logic and common sense against their bread and circuses but their resources compared to ours are ginormous.
As we’ve seen from the defenestration of Brand, Fox, Wootton, et al., any pushback that starts to gain traction is swiftly extinguished
Your pieces will be invaluable in the future as a narrative of how things really are (were) but now we are facing a hard winter.
I fear a Middle-East war, more jabs and mandates , Worldwide migrant crises, global climate “emergencies” and probably more divisional tactics on the way.
Can we take anything positive from all this ?
Well, they’re having to expend a lot of resources and energies to keep the memento going………
So maybe we’re doing something right !!
Yes, exactly. Publishing this here amounts to preaching to the choir. The people who see it here already know it’s all true. The people who would benefit from reading it are the ones who consume state and corporate media, but of course they’ll never see it.
Even though they shall never see it, it is recorded………….somewhere.
Analytical documentation presents cases in articulate ways. They can then be offered easily to the misinformed so they can deprogram themselves. Articles like these are much more articulate and concise that most can be with in talking with others. It is a refinement and condensation of experience that can inform the future. They are products of the Ancestors. And spiritual guides to evolving to a better Humanity.
The “conspiracy theorist” has become a familiar trope in films and TV – male, isolated, humourless, probably on the grift and/or going mad. Jude Law’s character in ‘Contagion’ has been the supreme example but see also characters in ‘Under the Silver Lake’ and ‘Utopia’ (C4 series 2013/14). It’s how Netflix tried to paint real-life journalist Maury Terry in ‘Sons of Sam’.
Most students of media think this character first appeared in ‘Conspiracy Theory’, the Mel Gibson film. In fact, the earliest version was played by Dan Aykroyd in ‘Sneakers’, the middle of the trilogy of spy films made by Robert Redford (the first ‘Three days of the Condor’ is particularly revelatory as is the novel it’s based on). There’s plenty to discover about Aykroyd.
I’m guessing the likes of Schraer and Neill would regard Woodward and Bernstein in Watergate as the supreme example of what the MSM can achieve. Have they ever investigated Operation Mockingbird which Bernstein exposed in Rolling Stone in the late 1970s? Deborah Davis revealed the name shortly afterwards in the book ‘Katharine the Great’. Have they ever investigated MK Ultra when victims testified before Congress in the 1990s and were awarded compensation? Searching the BBC website finds no articles on Mockingbird or MK Ultra. Searching the Guardian finds one article about MK Ultra – about a Canadian woman tortured by Ewen Cameron which they try to turn into a story about the evils of patriarchy. Aren’t Bernstein and the US Congress enough of an epistemological authority for them? Don’t the CIA running massive mind-control and media-control operations seem kinda, you know, important? How does one explain their complete lack of evident interest in these stories?….
BTW the CIA’s own documents show that MK ULtra was their largest single expenditure at the time and had over 150 sub-projects. Many of these sub-projects remain unknown but they include sending Gordon Wasson (Wall St banker) down to Mexico to discover magic mushrooms – and then plastering it all over the front cover of Henry Luce’s ‘Time’. This can never be discussed because the whole counterculture narrative of the 1960s starts to fall apart once one knows this. Presumably, however, the CIA aren’t an epistemological authority either!
I wouldn’t get too hung up over a particular label. ‘Conspiracy theorist’ can be either a positive or negative term, dependent upon what one associates with it. Beauty or ugliness being in the eye of the beholder.
A ‘conspiracy theorist’ could be either a truth crusader, boldly exposing the secret machinations of the elite for the benefit of all mankind … OR … someone terminally deluded by paranoid fantasies over shape-shifting lizards.
The same term could be used for each.
What I’ve noticed on a general level (and especially during the Covid era) is that the BBC + LM reserve particular synonymic terms (that essentially express the same concept) for both positive and negative usage. One synonym will be used for a positive connotation and another for a negative one. The casual reader can then be subliminally influenced into holding a positive or negative attitude to a particular party or topic simply by the use of particular terms – without their realising that that was always the primary intention. This is a very subtle way of influencing people’s attitudes without their necessarily being consciously aware of it.
For example, the words ‘rebel’ and ‘resistance’ are consistently positive usage terms (with their concomitant Star Wars associations) and hence are used in the context of an approved group. ‘Opposition’ would be a less positive term for the same concept and would indicate a more nuanced view to such a party.
Sometimes such choice of language is obvious – such as ‘conspiracy theorist’ being a consistently negative usage term. Other times it’s less so.
This would make a good in-depth study for someone linguistically-sensitive (if it’s not been done already). And would be helpful in combating propaganda imho.
I wasn’t a conspiracy theorist in 1985, but I was annoyed, and cycled in to London…to the Houses of Westminster to Complain… If I had timed it better, looked smarter and wore a Ben & Jerry’s Ice Cream Badge (looks like a Press Pass), I am pretty sure they would have let me in.
As things progressed, I got increasingly annoyed – especially in 1999, where I find out for no reason I can find – my Country (Christian?) is Bombing the Shit out of Serbia (where my Ex’s Family came from – Christian and very Beautiful)
Why??? I knew her family really well – we nearly got married…
Then we get to 9/11 – and I go Marching in 2003
Its 2023 now, and nearly everyone is jabbed, brainwashed or suddenly dead.
I don’t see much improvement here, and would probably stop complaining, except my Grandaughter 1 years old is totally georgeous, and her two older brothers love her to bits.
So don’t complain. Be nice. Carry on as Normal.
My “Sis” said to me – and she used to protest -well nurse supporting the Protestors at Greenham Common….”We didn’t make any difference…”
Yes you did – You kicked The Americans out..Told them to take their bombs home, and they did for a bit… The current lot have no class.
NO native Britisher would ever say “houses of Westminster“. They would say “house of Parliament” or just “Westminster”.
Just like NO native Britisher would think England has the kind of freezing winters they get in the American Midwest.
You’re not British, you’ve probably never been to Britain, the life you describe is a fantasy. Everyone here knows it and downvotes all your “biography” posts. Why do you keep up this weird trolling?
Ben & Jerry’s didn’t come to the UK until 1994 – just to add to the stink of BS coming from his posts.
Ive seen this before, they need a place to do their own personal diary according to what they feel, and want you to hear.
I like Tony’s posts.
Wow a Tomy post that isn’t some meandering post about family members and your daily routine. Your handlers must have got fed up and said “actually fucking do something agent Tony”
There is nothing new under the sun. Sometimes we forget that, to our detriment. It might be time to do this or that, but it’s always been time. Before it was conspiracy theory, it was something else. For some of us, the time was long ago. So good fucking luck.
“who can legitimately be called “conspiracy theorists”
There was no Facebook nor Youtube in 2003
Yet over 1 Million of us went Marching in London, some how communicated..
Against The War, which had not yet started in Iraq…
It made no difference whatsoever, except we could ask each other at work – were there too…???
Now I feel it is pretty much the same…or should be
Might not make any difference, except nearly everyone is doing much the same in nearly every City in the World.
We do not like Genocide, and with the jabs some of us have noticed that You Evil Bastards whoever you are, are trying to kill us too.
Get a train into London and Complain…don’t bother trying to write anything on Facebook..
75% of them have been jabbed and the 50% who survived the jabs, display selphies of themselves..just after they have done a 10 mile swim…looking fantastic after their latest booster
Whilst I am still (unjabbed- but recovering from my death bed) are looking and feeliing like shit.
Don’t see my last classic on a previous thread..surely ‘they’ would not remove such a masterpiece.
Don’t worry, this guy knows his stuff, ignore your senses and reality,
Legacy media is a beautiful term and perfectly describes its dwindling status. The Online Safety Act will not prevent the truth coming to the surface. Independent media outlets are not of a united view and the audience is sophisticated enough to question what is reported. LM expects 21st century politics should be covered by 19th century media.
Too long dlrx or whatever the letters are.
Hubris RULES:
‘Anyone who uses the “conspiracy theory” label does so, not because they value the evidence, the facts or the dialectic, but because they will not countenance any challenge to their worldview or any dissent from their claimed authority.‘
Paranoia and fear, of anything that disturbs or undermines their GOD GIVEN AUTHORITY, and their SELF ASSURED INSANITY.
It’s not even their hubris.
It’s hubris by proxy from their role models.
It’s something I’ve noticed about people who think for themselves, they don’t have (many) role models.
Heroes, maybe.
My take on Andrew Neil (and his ilk) is that they are both stupid, and arrogant bullies. Rather than listening to a new idea which threatens their belief systems (and which profits them mightily) they ruthlessly attack and pour scorn upon those who question. It is also highly likely that Neil is 100% owned by the CIA/MI5 if you recall his frequent appearances in Private Eye dancing with a voluptuous temptress (’embonpoint’ springs to mind). Neil is sweating profusely and is decidedly uncool – fat, and wearing an old vest etc. There will doubtless be greater evidence of his lack of discretion which they keep up their sleeves. Oldest trick in the book.
My point is that I don’t think Andrew Neil is smart enough to deploy such nuance and strategy in his comments; he is simply ranting as do so many people I know.
The real smart ones will forever be unknown to us. Bill Gates is evil incarnate, but thick as shit.
Or as the man said: “It’s hard to make a man understand when his salary depends upon his not understanding”.
Or as another man said:”A man without enemies is a man without backbone”.
(Paul Newman)
Is the cup half empty or is the cup half filled?
Russell Brand is a bounder and a damned rascal, and we’ll take him down a peg, what.
Too many sheep is the problem.
They have been intentionally murdered and maimed by their government yet continue to vote and ignore the elephant in the room.
Perhaps once they are locked up in an enternment camp the penny will finally drop but by then it will be too late…the reset won’t be great for them, only for the elites and their corrupted cronies…
What a Politician’s Quandary !!
They rely on the sheep to vote for them
while doing everything to ‘off’ the sheep !!
— Like sawing off the tree branch they
are sitting on !!
I know people like that! They still think I’m a crazy conspiracy theorist. They think it’s perfectly normal to take the boosters and be continually sick “from covid”. No suspicions at all. What can you do but shrug?
Run sheeple, run!
Let them die. Why is anyone worried if the kind of person who sits with their cock in their hands while watching BBC dies?
Why dont we get to Vote For who should
be considered An Authority ?
Why do we only get to Vote For politicians ?
Is it because Russell might get Voted in ?
And how does Remain Anonymous remain
anonymous when you’ve told everyone
Remain Anonymous’ name ?
Propaganda in Focus is a great website!
https://propagandainfocus.com/the-conspiracy-label-as-a-tool-of-propaganda-part-i-origins-and-organizations-behind-the-conspiracy-label/
https://propagandainfocus.com/the-conspiracy-label-as-a-tool-of-propaganda-part-ii-the-multi-institutional-politics-of-the-santa-claus-conspiracy-and-911-truth/
The goal of the overlords is to suppress all dissent, control the narratives and manufacture our perceptions of reality so they can continue to gaslight and bamboozle us. Their priority is to keep the masses in a comatose or somnambulant state and vicious attacks and character assassination are key tactics they use.
The same folks and agencies who attacked Russel Brand also attacked anyone who intuitively recognized the 2020 US presidential election was stolen even if they weren’t a Trump supporter!
Stolen?
More like controlled opposition.
‘When the elephants fight, the grass gets trampled.’ — African Proverb
Which means that every US President in its history has pledged their allegiance to the American Empire over its citizens. Which means that the rich win, and the poor lose, no matter which way they choose.
‘Presidents are selected. Not elected.’ — FDR
So don’t bother waste your time voting…
‘There’s an old saying in Tennessee — I know it’s in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can’t get fooled again.’
— George W. Bush
When you should be revolting!
‘Don’t vote. It only encourages the bastards.’ — PJ O’Rourke
Who is the ‘bastards’? The other voters…………… 😂 .
LOL Ikr
The whole bloody lot are bastards! lol
She blinded me with science!
No! You Musk… Tru$t Th£ $¢i€n¢€ o_O
All we hear is radio ca ca
Radio doo doo
Radio ca ca
The Revolution will not be TellLieVised
The Lame Stream Media = Weapons of Mass Distraction
We now return you to your regularly scheduled mind reprogramming
George Orwell:
If you want a picture of the future imagine a boot stamping on a (masked) human face forever.
COVID-19 = CON JOB-1984
Now I’d buy that for a dollar!
I’m not a great fan of conspiracy theories, whatever they are, but I do have enough historical knowledge to not reject them out of hand. We have had numerous examples of where the utterly fanciful (so we’re told — repeatedly) turns out to be true. I think it pays to be skeptical but at the same time remember that “Just because I’m paranoid doesn’t mean they’re not out to get me”.
Sure sounds like they’re out to get us to me:
The Benefits of World Hunger | United Nations.pdf (has been deleted) but here it is again: https://www2.hawaii.edu/~kent/BenefitsofWorldHunger.pdf
Kevin Galalae (Turning Nature Against Man)
https://spingolaspeaks.files.wordpress.com/2016/04/turning-nature-against-man-the-role-of-pandemics-vaccines-and-genetics-in-the-un-s-plan-to-halt-population-growth.pdf
All theories are potentially useful, if they logically apply to facts, but if they are rational and they should be they are inherently flawed. Conspiracy theories are theories, so they are useful, but they cannot tell us the truth, even the good ones. Look.
Rockefeller Foundation 2010 ‘Lockstep’ It’s all in there. On line. Just like the WEF brochures. You won’t see stuff if you’re not looking for it, but it’s NOT HIDDEN.
They have to tell you. They are following occult rules, even if they tell you they don’t have to or they’re going to stop, because they CAN’T. It’s part of a big deal made between ‘authorities,’ long ago.
I always cite the chemtrails. If you’re always looking at or virtually into a 6 x 4 inch black programming mirror, you somehow don’t seem to be able to notice them, even when the sky is being shredded.
You know, the SKY, that big space above you that goes from horizon to horizon……