All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
“So do not be afraid of them, for there is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known.” – Matthew 10:26
As this will be a comprehensive article, I’ve decided to split it up into the following sections:
- Introduction
- How did the term come about & become a tool for defamation?
- A German journalist spills the beans
- Same Playbook, Different War
- The Council on Foreign Relations conspiracy
- Conspiracy Theories that turned out to be true
- Notable Unresolved Conspiracies
- Conspiracies to Watch
- Mini-Guide to Investigating Conspiracies
- Conclusion
It seems like you can’t catch a news headline or social media post these days without coming across the terms conspiracy theory and conspiracy theorist, or phrases like ‘spreading conspiracies’. One has to wonder: why are they so frequently employed?
In my most recent published work, I referenced an article from Canada’s National Post which ran with the headline ‘CBSA says it’s investigating border officer spreading COVID conspiracies online.’
The problem with these kinds of articles is that they are too often merely used as hit pieces to ridicule, degrade, and discredit any individual or group that goes against a certain narrative or disagrees with an author’s (or their publication’s partisanship or funders’) views.
Moreover, their authors very seldom make specific references or claims as to why they label their targets when using such over-used and over-abused disparaging rhetoric. When this is the case, it leads me to believe that the overall purpose of their pieces is to disparage their targets more than anything else.
Another recent example of this involves that from the article entitled ‘Network of Syria conspiracy theorists identified – study’ written by Mark Townsend from The Guardian (UK). In the article, the author claimed “journalist Aaron Maté at the Grayzone is said by the report to have overtaken Beeley as the most prolific spreader of disinformation among the 28 conspiracy theorists identified.” Maté had to refute the claim made against him which also involved contacting Townsend by phone. His counter article and the phone conversation appear on his Substack page (see ‘NATO-backed network of Syria dirty war propagandists identified)’ and is definitely an interesting case on how these ploys take place.
Countless other instances could be cited, but suffice it to say that there is no shortage of them.
But what is perhaps even more laughable with this phenomenon is the fact that these authors wantonly use these terms without even knowing their true meanings and where they actually originate from.
Before looking into these, though, we must first and foremost examine the meaning of the word ‘conspiracy’ itself. Oxford defines it as:
a secret plan by a group of people to do something harmful or illegal
Conspiracies have been an integral part of humanity ever since people have bonded together in groups for a better chance at survival.
Lord knows that history is riddled with an abundant supply of conspiracies and we will look at some notable examples later on.
Moreover, it’s really in the 1960s where it became more abundant and has taken on a negative connotation. This is in large part because of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) of the United States of America.
The usage of ‘conspiracy theorist’ was principally brought about to discredit any person or outfit that questioned the findings of the Warren Commission regarding the official narrative of the assassination of U.S. President John F. Kennedy.
Picture of President Kennedy in the limousine in Dallas, Texas, on Main Street, minutes before the assassination. Also in the presidential limousine are Jackie Kennedy, Texas Governor John Connally, and his wife, Nellie. (Source: Wikimedia Commons)
As to not be labelled a conspiracy theorist myself, here is some tangible evidence to support my claim that the CIA has been complicit with regards to the usage of the term as a means to disparage and discredit individuals with opposing views to an official narrative. An official DISPATCH (document number 1035-60) dated January 1, 1967 which was declassified and released following a FOIA request got published on the Mary Ferrell Foundation (MFF) website – one which contains nearly 2 million pages of documents, government reports, as well as other materials. The first page of the dispatch appears as follows:
COUNTERING CRITICISM OF THE WARREN REPORT, NARA Record Number: 104-10009-10022 from the Mary Ferrell Foundation, Dispatch 1035-960, Source
Firstly, we can notice the term ‘PSYCH’ in the upper-left hand corner of the document which indicates that this relates to Psychological Operations. We can see from the first paragraph that their main concern is about speculation regarding the assassination of President Kennedy and how various writers are questioning the findings of the Warren Commission report. The end of section 2 on the first page states:
“The aim of this dispatch is to provide material for countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists, …”
Scrolling down to the second page under section 3 a. appears the following [emphasis added]:
“To discuss the publicity problem with liaison and friendly elite contacts (especially politicians and editors), pointing out that the Warren Commission made as thorough an investigation as humanly possible, that the charges of the critics are without serious foundation, and that further speculative discussion only plays into the hand of the opposition. Point out also that parts of the conspiracy talk appear to be deliberately generated by Communist propagandists. Urge them to use their influence to discourage unfounded and irresponsible speculation.”
And shortly after under section 3 b., it continues:
“To employ propaganda assets to answer and refute the attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose.”
So, there you have it in black and white. The CIA specifically directs the use of their elite contacts which include politicians and editors – presumably of major newspapers and most likely of major broadcasters. Tactics suggested include writing feature articles (to counter the official narrative), writing book reviews – presumably negative ones, and further labelling dissenters as ‘Communist propagandists’ – a term that had much more of an accentuated defamatory effect back then than it does today.
This raises the obvious question of why the CIA was so seriously concerned about media coverage with regards to the assassination. What’s it to them? Did they have something hide? Where they pressed to do so by the Lyndon Johnson administration? If so, why?
To dig deeper about what they actually stated in their dispatch, we can ask: who are these “elite contacts” and “propaganda assets” they are referring to?
American investigative journalist and author Carl Bernstein – famous for his work with Bob Woodward on the Watergate scandal – wrote a rather extensive (25,000-word) exposé entitled ‘THE CIA AND THE MEDIA: How Americas Most Powerful News Media Worked Hand in Glove with the Central Intelligence Agency and Why the Church Committee Covered It Up’ that was published in Rolling Stone magazine on October 20, 1977, just over a decade after the infamous CIA dispatch was issued. Early on in the mammoth article, Bernstein lists categories in which the Agency (the CIA) partnered with journalists and the press. Two such instances appear as follows:
“- Editors, publishers and broadcast network executives. The CIAs relationship with most news executives differed fundamentally from those with working reporters and stringers, who were much more subject to direction from the Agency. A few executives—Arthur Hays Sulzberger of the New York Times among them—signed secrecy agreements.”
“- Columnists and commentators. There are perhaps a dozen well known columnists and broadcast commentators whose relationships with the CIA go far beyond those normally maintained between reporters and their sources. They are referred to at the Agency as “known assets” and can be counted on to perform a variety of undercover tasks; they are considered receptive to the Agency’s point of view on various subjects. Three of the most widely read columnists who maintained such ties with the Agency are C.L. Sulzberger of the New York Times, Joseph Alsop, and the late Stewart Alsop, whose column appeared in the New York Herald‑Tribune, the Saturday Evening Post and Newsweek. CIA files contain reports of specific tasks all three undertook.”
The CIA specifically refers to these widely read columnists as “known assets” they can count upon to perform undercover tasks. They also maintain ‘signed secrecy agreements’ with executives from the New York Times. Lovely!
Bernstein then lists many well-known newspapers, magazines, and broadcasters used by the CIA and notes their most cherished ones as follows [emphasis added]:
“By far the most valuable of these associations, according to CIA officials, have been with the New York Times, CBS and Time Inc.”
Still today, these three media outlets are giants in the publishing, broadcasting, and entertainment industries. And who really knows the extent to which the CIA and other US government agencies still maintain relationships with their editorial and journalistic staff, and possibly many others in the United States and across the world. It would certainly come as no surprise if they did.
War – and how it is covered by media – is a major recurring theme in all of this and it is no secret that the CIA has left its dirty footprints over many of them since its inception in 1947. This has been highly documented and revealed by whistleblower Kevin Shipp, a former CIA officer, intelligence and counter terrorism expert who held several high-level positions in the organization.
Finally, the CIA’s reach beyond American borders goes without saying.
“I was bribed by billionaires. I was bribed by the Americans not to report exactly the truth,” stated Udo Ulfkotte back in a 2014 interview with RT (original report); the late editor and journalist of Germany’s Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung was quite outspoken in this particular interview.
Screenshot of the 2014 RT interview with German journalist Udo Ulfkotte
Ulfkotte explained how the CIA and other US agencies bought journalists across all major German newspapers. He starts the interview with the following revelation [emphasis added]:
“I’ve been a journalist for about 25 years. And I was educated to lie, to betray, and not to tell the truth to the public. But, seeing right now within the last months how the German and American media tries to bring war to the people in Europe, to bring war to Russia. This is a point of no return and I’m going to stand up and say it is not right what I have done in the past, to manipulate people, to make propaganda against Russia, and it is not right what my colleagues do and have done in the past because they are bribed to betray the people, not only in Germany, all over Europe.”
It’s funny how you could almost replace this assertion (from back in 2014) in the context of today’s 2022 Russia-Ukraine war, or as some would call it, a proxy war between NATO/Western Europe/United States and Russia.
He continued:
“I was supported by the Central Intelligence Agency, the CIA. Why? Because I should be pro- American. I’m fed up with it. I don’t want to do it anymore.”
‘Non-official cover’ is a term the German journalist used to describe how he (and other journalists) were essentially working for or helping the intelligence agency, though not in an official capacity, conveniently leaving room for plausible deniability.
Ulfkotte goes on to explain how the journalists are rewarded by the CIA.
Statements like these really makes one wonder about the extent to which media outlets all around the world have been infiltrated not only by the CIA, but also by other powerful entities.
But wait, Ulfkotte dives deeper into other supranational influences that help shape media organizations and their prevailing narratives [emphasis added]:
“We are still kind of a colony of the Americans. And being a colony, it is very easy to approach young journalists through, what is very important here is, transatlantic organizations. All journalists from really respected and recommended big German newspapers, magazines, radio stations, TV stations, they are all members or guests of those big transatlantic organizations. And in these transatlantic organizations, you are approached to be pro-American.”
Ulfkotte then emphasizes that this phenomenon is even more the case with British journalists due to their special relationship with the US, and the French, to a lesser extent.
One need not look far to see what he is talking about with regards to these transatlantic organizations than observe the writings and actions of outfits such as the Council on Foreign Relations and the Atlantic Council think tank, both focused on American imperialism and interests. While the later is essentially a mouthpiece for NATO, the former holds an unfathomable grasp on Western media.
Examining the historical and current membership into the Council on Foreign Relations is quite revealing, to say the least. Or, perhaps more fittingly: the elephant in the room. Moreover, the think tank holds tremendous influence through its network of elites and media pundits who are central in shaping U.S. foreign policy and public discourse.
Back in 2017, an infographic emerged showing the extent of this network and how it possibly ties to the Bilderberger Group and the Trilateral Commission:
Infographic showing the network of members of the CFR, full-resolution image, click here.
Comparing current members with past ones, we can easily validate the authenticity of this elitist ilk and deduce that it is highly organized, highly interconnected, and what amounts to a highly influential network of thought leaders & shapers.
Another infographic from Swiss Policy Research – an independent, nonpartisan and non-profit research group investigating geopolitical propaganda – shows the transatlantic network the German media is subject to:
Swiss Policy Research – Media in Germany: The transatlantic network, full-resolution image, click here.
The data contained in these infographics validates German journalist Udo Ulfkotte’s claims to this effect.
The infiltration of media, be it by the CIA, other intelligence agencies, or think-tanks such as the Council on Foreign Relations or the Atlantic Council, is unmistakably a conspiracy in that their stealthily coordinated efforts control narratives the masses, including government officials, are exposed to on a daily basis.
With the current war in the Ukraine, we can easily notice how the stances held by these transatlantic institutions are mostly one-sided. Here’s a recent tweet from the Atlantic Council regarding the 2022 Russia-Ukraine war:
Tweet from the Atlantic Council, Sept. 15, 2022, Source:
The related article begins [emphasis added]:
“Ukraine’s stunning counteroffensive success in the Kharkiv region has provided conclusive proof that the Ukrainian Armed Forces are more than capable of defeating Russia on the battlefield. Now is the time to end the war by providing Ukraine with everything necessary to consolidate these gains and secure a decisive victory.”
“Victory requires a coordinated, multifaceted, and long-term approach with economic, diplomatic, humanitarian, and logistical support all needed in order to bolster the Ukrainian transition to NATO-standard weaponry. Above all, this means a full commitment by Ukraine’s partners to increase arms supplies to the country.”
As you can see, they don’t hide which side they are representing while blatantly calling for NATO and partners to increase arms supplies and weaponry. Accordingly, if this is not an advertisement to further bolster the Military/Security Complex’s coffers, then I don’t know what else to say. That would be for another article altogether that would require its own investigation.
Another recent tweet and article written by the CFR’s own President, Richard Haass, a Rhodes Scholar, from the Council on Foreign Relations rings the same bell:
Tweet from the Council on Foreign Relations, also from Sept. 15, 2022, Source:
In it, the CFR President states [emphasis added]:
“The West, for its part, should continue to provide Ukraine with the quality and quantity of military and economic support it requires. There are strong strategic reasons for doing so, including to deter future aggression by Russia, China, or anyone else.”
The only difference is that this one makes a specific reference to China – the current frontrunner to be the next boogeyman-du-jour in our Orwellian perpetual state of war which assures gargantuan profits for the Military/Security Complex. But again, I digress, for this is yet for another behemoth of an article that would require an entire team of reporters.
The extent to which this war has also been propagated on social media is, in itself, a whole other can of worms. Armies of bots, pundits and propagandists (from both sides of the conflict) along with the divided masses all contribute to the digital fog of war in the halls, hyperbolic and echo chambers of platforms such as Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube.
In a book aptly titled ‘None Dare Call It Conspiracy’ by Gary Allen and Larry Abraham published in 1971, the first paragraph of the introduction – written by former U.S. congressman John G. Schmitz reads as follows:
“The story you are about to read is true. The names have not been changed to protect the guilty. This book may have the effect of changing your life. After reading this book you will never look at national and world events in the same way again.”
I feel the same way, though I would also highly recommend the book The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve by G. Edward Griffin which focuses on the secretive events that lead to the formation of the private corporation knowns as the US Federal Reserve which has also changed the way I personally view the word.
Griffin holds the distinguished honorary title of Conspiracy Theorist by the editors of Wikipedia and others. So, he must be doing something right. His claims about how the North American medical establishment essentially got usurped by billionaire interests certainly added credence to this title.
Speaking of billionaires, a few passages from the book ‘None Dare Call It Conspiracy’ really stand out:
“The American subsidiary of this conspiracy is called the Council on Foreign Relations and was started by and is still controlled by Leftist international bankers.”
“According to his grandson John, Jacob Schiff (above), long-time associate of the Rothschilds, financed the Communist Revolution in Russia to the tune of $20 million. According to a report on file with the State Department, his firm, Kuhn loeb and Co. bankrolled the first five year plan for Stalin. Schiff’s partner and relative, Paul Warburg, engineered the establishment of the Federal Reserve System while on the Kuhn Loeb payroll. Schiff’s descendants are active in the Council on Foreign Relations today.”
And under an old photograph of a building in New York city appears [emphasis added]:
“Home of the Council on Foreign Relations on 68th St. in New York The admitted goal of the CFR is to abolish the Constitution and replace our ones [sic] independent Republic with a World Government. CFR members have controlled, the last six administrations. Richard Nixon has been a member and has appointed at least 100 CFR members to high positions in his administration.”
And later on in the book:
“The C.F.R. has come to be known as “The Establishment,” “the invisible government” and “the Rockefeller foreign office.” This semi-secret organization unquestionably has become the most influential group in America.”
It’s most interesting to see how these billionaire actors also coincidentally have had a hand in the formation of the U.S. Federal Reserve. Perhaps, G. Edward Griffin was onto something after all.
A more recent (1988) book provides similar allegations with regards to the CFR by providing a deep dive into the historical roots, connections, and linkages to the war machine of the notorious organization. Its title is ‘The Shadows of Power: The Council on Foreign Relations And The American Decline’ by author James Perloff.
I will leave it up to the reader to investigate more into this alleged conspiracy, for such an endeavor demands significant time, scrutiny, and attention.
Though many conspiracies have been proven true over the years, I will merely showcase a few which relate to two recurring themes of this article, namely that of war and media corruption.
In light of the revelations listed earlier in this article, it is perhaps most fitting that we exhibit this particular proven conspiracy, for its overarching implications run far and wide – even in 2022 and beyond.
In a nutshell, Operation Mockingbird was a large-scale clandestine program of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to manipulate news media for propaganda purposes.
According to The Black Vault – an online archive that houses over 3 million pages of government documents, Operation Mockingbird was said to be initially organized by Cord Meyer and Allen W. Dulles, later led by Frank Wisner after Dulles became the head of the CIA; and the organization recruited leading American journalists into a network to help present the CIA’s views, including worked to influence foreign media and political campaigns.
In 1974, The New York Times had published an article by investigative journalist Seymour Hirsh who claimed that the CIA had violated its charter
In the mid-1970s, the U.S. Congress had become concerned over abuses of the CIA, NSA, and FBI and called a committee (the Church Committee) to look over it.
As per Everipedia, the final report of the Church Committee covered CIA ties with both foreign and domestic news media. Specifically with regards to the foreign news media, the report concluded that:
“The CIA currently maintains a network of several hundred foreign individuals around the world who provide intelligence for the CIA and at times attempt to influence opinion through the use of covert propaganda. These individuals provide the CIA with direct access to a large number of newspapers and periodicals, scores of press services and news agencies, radio and television stations, commercial book publishers, and other foreign media outlets.”
And for domestic media, the report emphasizes the following:
“Approximately 50 of the [Agency] assets are individual American journalists or employees of U.S. media organizations. Of these, fewer than half are “accredited” by U.S. media organizations … The remaining individuals are non-accredited freelance contributors and media representatives abroad … More than a dozen United States news organizations and commercial publishing houses formerly provided cover for CIA agents abroad. A few of these organizations were unaware that they provided this cover.”
Apart from the staggering revelations outlined in the two passages above, the term ‘cover’ is of particular interest. German journalist Udo Ulfkotte, mentioned earlier in this article, stated that him and other fellow German journalists were basically operating as ‘non-official cover’, or in a ‘non-official capacity’ for the CIA. In other words, the CIA employed this pretext to cloak itself and adduce plausible deniability.
Looking at the headlines and overt propaganda coming out of the European mainstream press over the last several years leaves us with little doubt that this operation (or a new version of it) is still alive and kicking.
Operation Northwoods was a proposed ‘false flag’ (i.e., a covert/secretive plot intended to deceive) operation against Cuba originating from the U.S. Dept. of Defense calling upon the CIA and other U.S. government operatives to commit acts of terrorism against American civilians and military targets in Guantanamo (Cuba) and blame them on the Cuban government which would serve as a justification for war against the Caribbean island nation.
The gist of the proposed operation was to hoodwink President John F. Kennedy to declare war against Cuba in the midst of the Cuban Missile Crisis.
For those with a penchant for gripping movie dramas, the 2000 movie Thirteen Daysstarring Kevin Costner and Bruce Greenwood (as President Kennedy) serves as an absorbing illustration in which the Democrat president was placed in a mental crucible and tested to his limits.
The declassified document (memorandum for the Secretary of Defense) from 13 March 1962 titled ‘Justification for US Military Intervention in Cuba (TS)’ lays it bare for all to see.
Documentarians Aaron and Melissa Dykes produced a top-notch work on this planned conspiracy.
There are many reasons why I like Truthstream Media’s documentaries. Not only do they produce extremely well-researched works, but they also present them in a clear manner; and sometimes, such as with this particular work, they offer advice to their viewers on how to better educate themselves about world events. Near the start of this documentary, Melissa Dykes states [emphasis added]:
“We thought we would look at this document for Operation Northwoods, it was declassified, because the problem with people forgetting history or failing to research history or failing to look into history is they forget these things ever happened. And history continues to repeat and people act like they have no idea why.”
On that, I have to totally agree with Melissa Dykes. In today’s fast-pace society, people are more inclined to play with TikTok on their phones or watch movies than to read books – especially those related to history. It’s one of the main factors that has led to the lack of critical thought and discernment in society.
Simple explanation of a ‘false flag’ operation. Source
Everipedia – a blockchain-based online encyclopedia (a better source of information than Wikipedia, in my opinion) prefaces the incident as follows [emphasis added]:
“The Gulf of Tonkin incident (Vietnamese: Sự kiện Vịnh Bắc Bộ), also known as the Maddox, was an international confrontation that led to the United States engaging more directly in the Vietnam War. It involved one real and one falsely claimed confrontation between ships of North Vietnam and the United States in the waters of the Gulf of Tonkin. The original American report blamed North Vietnam for both incidents, but the Pentagon Papers, the memoirs of Robert McNamara, and NSA publications from 2005, proved material misrepresentation by the US government to justify a war against Vietnam.”
Among all wars fought by Americans, the Vietnam War ranked 4th just after the first two world wars and the U.S. Civil war. It’s economic and human costs epitomized human folly.
What is equally nefarious is the deceptive means by which this false flag event, or conspiracy, came about.
While there are too many to even contemplate, let us have a look at some of the more controversial ones that still have an impact on society and our way of life.
Perhaps one of the biggest and most contentious ones is that of the events that relate to what happened on September 11, 2001.
So much has transpired in the 21 years that have lapsed since the collapse of the World-Trade Center towers in New York City.
Though a formal investigation has been conducted and published on these events, so many unanswered questions remain as to who exactly was behind it.
We often hear some talking about this tragic event insisting that it was an ‘inside job’ (i.e., done by powers within the U.S. Government). And for this, they are immediately labelled conspiracy theorists. Actually, in this rare case I agree with the employment of the defamatory designation. For, with an event as complex as this one, one can readily make such a claim; but to back it up with convincing evidence would require an extraordinary enterprise.
What is perhaps more useful here, though, would be to ask anew some of the most important and unaddressed questions relating to this event. For these questions which are listed below, links are provided for additional context/reference. A good refresher video (WTC7 and 9/11 Truth 14 Years Later: “People Still Want the Truth”) was published by documentarians of Truthstream Media.
- How is it possible that WTC Tower 7, the 47-story building which was only affected by minor fires, collapse straight down in a free fall defying known laws of physics?
- Why was the collapse of WTC Tower 7 reported by the BBC 20 minutes before it actually came down?
- How come no large pieces of aircraft wreckage from United Airlines flight 93 were ever found at the alleged crash site in Stonycreek Township (Shanksville), Pennsylvania?
- How come no large pieces of aircraft wreckage from American Airlines flight 77 were ever found on the ground near the West wall of the Pentagon?
- Why was all the rubble and steel (evidence) from the site so swiftly collected (over the objections by fire marshals) and shipped overseas?
- How was the Patriot Act (effective October 26, 2001) – a fairly long and complex legal document – drafted, reviewed, introduced, and enacted in merely 6 weeks?
Of course, there are countless other unanswered questions. Perhaps the grander question is: will there ever be a fuller, more transparent official investigation surrounding these attacks?
Despite the findings of the Warren Commission, it remains to be solved as to whom exactly assassinated U.S. President John F. Kennedy since it is proven that a single gunman could not have acted alone per the additional evidence confirmed after the commission’s report.
Many intelligence documents remained classified – even after 60 years since this tragic event took place in Dallas, Texas.
Over the years, many have contributed to the investigation that never seems to end. Investigator Jim Garrison was perhaps the most prominent amongst them.
Wernher von Braun at the lunar landing scene on an Apollo set replica during the Atlanta Southeastern Fair, credited to United Press International (UPI), image source
The picture above (and the cover picture for this article) may seem as a conspiracy theory in itself, for it is difficult to authenticate and locate the original photograph from UPI. However, it is one that has been properly credited and attributed to the UPI. Accordingly, the cover photograph for this article can be viewed with its original header:
Image source
And the Jacksonville Daily Journal published the photograph in its September 30, 1960 edition:
Image source
For those unfamiliar with Werner Von Braun, he was a brilliant aerospace engineer – the brains behind the development of the Saturn rockets used in the Apollo launches.
Over the past several decades, there has been a lot of debate regarding many aspects of the moon missions. A tremendous amount of money, blood, sweat, and tears have flowed into the Apollo program and other related projects.
Much pressure had been placed on the U.S. Government to ensure success – especially amidst the backdrop of the Space Race and larger Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union.
Over the course of this colossal undertaking, it became apparent that some serious problems and challenges needed to be overcome. Many were overcome, but other major problems persisted.
A three and a half hour 2017 documentary entitled American Moon (available on YouTube, Brighteon, and Odysee) outlined many of these problems along with a significant amount of anomalies – particularly in the Apollo moon missions. In the lengthy film, they disprove not only the debunkers (those who disprove the deniers) but also some of the deniers themselves regarding their false or flawed claims.
American Moon is meticulously well documented with original (official) NASA photographs, films, interviews, technical documents, and so forth, and presented in a clear and understandable way for the average Jane or Joe.
Over 40 extremely well-formulated questions are presented and addressed to NASA itself as well as the greater debunker community. I have yet to locate a source which addresses all these key points; and this, despite nearly five years having elapsed since the documentary film came out.
I certainly invite the reader to spend the three and a half hours to view this film; for, after doing so, you will never see the moon landing in the same light.
I will only cite a few of the key questions that were put forward in this film.
The first one relates to one of the most critical aspects of space flight, namely that of the dangers of radiation that are present beyond our planet, namely the Van Allen radiation belts. The belts protect our planet from harmful radiation originating from the sun and outer space.
Van Allen radiation belts, source: NASA
Here’s a simplified image to get a better idea of the range of these belts from Earth:
Screenshot from American Moon (at the 01:00:20 mark)
The problem, here, as pointed out in the film, is that modern scientists, including NASA Orion engineer Kelly Smith for that matter, have explained that no human could penetrate either of the two (inner & outer) belts without being exposed to high-energy radiation and cosmic rays which would biologically cause serious damage, if not death. In the March 1959 edition of Scientific American, the following was noted:
“The discovery [of the Van Allen radiation belts] is of course troubling to astronauts; somehow the human body will have to be shielded from this radiation, even on a rapid transit through the region.”
More recently, NASA Orion engineer Kelly Smith stated the following when talking about the Van Allen radiation belts [emphasis added]:
“We must solve these challenges before we send people through this region of space.”
In American Moon (around the 01:11:20 mark), NASA astronaut and commander Terry Virts says the following [emphasis added]:
“The plan that NASA has is to built a rocket called SOS which is a heavy-lift rocket; it’s something much bigger than what we have today. And it will be able to launch the Orion capsule with humans on board … to destinations beyond earth orbit. Right now, we can only fly in earth orbit. That’s the farthest that we can go. This new system that we’re building is gonna allow us to go beyond and hopefully take humans into the solar system to explore. So, the moon, Mars, asteroids, there’s a lot of destinations that we could go to…”
Further in the film, Apollo 12 astronaut Alan Bean responded the following when asked about whether he had suffered any ill effects from having passed through the Van Allen belts:
“No. Now, I’m not sure we went far enough out to encounter the Van Allen radiation belts. Maybe we did.”
One would think that as a crew member from Apollo 12 – the second mission to land on the moon – he would know about the location and existence of these belts through which he passed through.
Strange.
Very strange.
What is also rather puzzling is the fact that NASA admits they lost the telemetry datarelated to the Apollo 11 moon mission.
The Chief Flight Director for the Gemini and Apollo programs Gene Krantz (who was portrayed by Ed Harris in the 1995 film Apollo 13) admitted that NASA had lost the original tapes containing the telemetry data (alternate video link here). When asked by documentary filmmaker Aron Ranen about the tapes, Krantz stated the following:
“I haven’t seen anything that indicates the telemetry data is even in existence. And, as I said, even if we had it, we don’t have the machines to play it back.”
Ranen, the creator of the 2005 film Did We Go? then went to NASA’s Goodard Space Center and spoke with archivist Dr. David Williams who further asserted:
“We’ve been unable to track it down. We don’t know where this telemetry data ended up. And we don’t know what path it may have taken. So, unfortunately I’m afraid I can’t give you much of a clue as to where this data ended up and whether it still exists or not.”
So, let’s be clear folks here for a minute. The data that recorded what was perhaps the single most important event in human history has completely disappeared. Really? No backup copies have been made? And it would be “impossible” to re-create machines to play it back on?
Absurd.
While it is certainly possible that these tapes have indeed disappeared, the whole affair is rather questionable and pitiful, to say the least.
The American Moon documentary further outlines anomalies related to the lunar module (LEM), telecommunications (between the earth and the moon), photographs & photography, cameras, videos, shadows, cosmic radiation, extreme temperatures, and more.
A large part of the documentary focuses on photographs taken and published by NASA. The producer of the documentary hired several top photographers in the world (who worked in the field during that period) to examine and analyze the official photos taken on the surface of the moon.
These photography experts all pointed out many impossibilities found in them.
For the most part, they disproved that the photographs could have been taken on the surface of the moon if the only main source of light was emanating from the Sun; they decisively contend that the photographs were produced on a set with artificial lighting. This segment is presented with meticulous detail and analysis which makes it extremely difficult to refute the assertions from the experts.
A common counter-argument that people have regarding those who claim the moon landings were faked is how could thousands of people be on board with such a hoax without there being any whistleblowers. Firstly, there have been numerous credible whistleblowers who have come out and I will reference one below.
As for the “thousands of employees” conundrum, the answer is quite simple. These thousands of employees would simply not be aware that this subset (i.e., the moon landings) of the Apollo missions were being deceptively presented. This was the case with the Manhattan Project whereby thousands of people worked on the development of the first atomic bomb without knowing about its ultimate goal. The project was carefully structured for secrecy by means of compartmentalization. Put simply, under compartmentalization, people work in their own respective groups (or, compartments) on specific tasks and are not privy to a lot of data or information about the overall project.
Accordingly, it would not have been that difficult to structure the NASA project in such a way.
In an April 12, 2020 confession, Gene Gilmore (born Eugene Reuben Akers), now deceased, appeared in a video (alternate links here, here, and here) disclosed what his father (Cyrus Eugene Akers who was stationed in Cannon Air Force Base in New Mexico in 1968) had previously confessed to him on his death bed.
Mr. Akers senior was in the Military Police for over 20 years and on his death bed in 2002 he made a recording of what he had witnessed.
Gene’s father told him about project ‘Slam Dunk’ whereby there were two large hangars (at the Cannon Air Force Base) that were connected, dump trucks had delivered sand and stone, and cement powder that was applied on top of all that material to make it look like a lunar landscape.
The surprised son continued listening to his father state that in front of the airplane hangars was pull framing with large canvas tents that were concealing the inside of the staging area. Inside the staging area, on flat bed trucks was created the lunar lander that was assembled, reassembled back inside the hangars. All of the walls were painted flat black as were the ceilings.
Cyrus Eugene Akers was sworn to secrecy by the National Security Agency (NSA).
Gene then recalled that when his father saw the moon landing on television, he cried.
He said that what he witnessed on TV is exactly what they recorded in that hangar.
Mr. Akers continued his death bed confession to his son stating that there were 3 guards at the entrance of the hangar and there was a list of 15 people who could enter, no one else was allowed by order of President [Lyndon] Johnson. Gene Gilmore then stated that he had given the list to Bart Sibrel.
Gene Gilmore then enumerates the specific names of list of 15 people who had special access to the hangars which include President Johnson, Neil Armstrong, Edwin [Buzz] Alden, Werner Von Braun, Gene Krantz, James Webb, Dr. James Van Allen, among others.
Gilmore continues on with what his father had confided in him. President Johnson was there only for the first day of filming. The filming lasted for 3 days. And then, everything was dismantled to bring the hangars back to their original states.
Gilmore then states that since 2002, he verified a lot of the information his father had given him – including records from Cannon Air Force base that confirmed the presence of President Johnson and the astronauts at that time as well as the lunar lander. Apparently though, this information was subsequently removed from Cannon’s website.
Lastly, Gene affirms that his father stated had to tell somebody about the incident before he died because it was too important; but he also warned him not to ever tell anybody.
Regarding the authenticity of these testimonies, there is always the possibility that they are not entirely truthful. But people seldom lie during death bed confessions. They usually want to get truth off their chests before they meet their maker. The fact that Gene Gilmore instructed Bart Sibrel to only publish his confession after his death also adds credibility to his testimony.
As recent as Sept. 22, 2022, Lead Stories published a fact check rebuke regarding this confession video. In it, they stated that they had contacted NASA regarding the video and posted their spokesperson’s reply in the article:
“There is a significant amount of evidence to support NASA landed 12 astronauts on the moon from 1969 to 1972. We collected 842 pounds of moon rocks that have been studied by scientists worldwide for decades. From these rocks, we’ve learned that the moon was once part of the Earth, the moon is about 4.5 billion years old, and that most of the moon’s craters are caused by impact, not volcanism.”
Anyone with half a brain could tell that this reply is totally unconvincing. Why mention moon rocks? It’s as if the spokesperson thinks this provides tangible evidence of the moon landings. One would also think that NASA would have come up with a much more thoughtful and convincing argument than the absurdity stated above.
I digress.
The conclusion of the American Moon documentary shows part of the Apollo 11 astronauts post moon mission press conference. They point out that the three astronauts were totally unenthusiastic.
They were there to talk about the single most important feat accomplished by human beings and these men could barely crack a smile or convey their joy and enthusiasm about their monumental achievement. This goes without saying that it is all, indeed and utterly, extremely bizarre.
Moreover, the very apparent levels of stress shown by the astronauts as per their body language at the beginning of the press conference is somewhat mind boggling. Keep in mind that these astronauts are test pilots who have experience handling extremely stressful situations, not to mention having [purportedly] flown an extremely dangerous mission to the moon. So, relatively speaking, simply talking to the public and press about their monumental achievement should not have been so challenging and stressful for these men. Rather, it should have been a cause for celebration and pride. What is the average person to make of this?
American Moon ends with video clips of Bart Sibrel confronting each of the three Apollo 11 astronauts (Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, and Michael Collins) asking them to swear on the Bible that they walked on the moon. All three men displayed very uncomfortable stances and refused. Sibrel even offered $5,000 in cash to charity should Neil Armstrong agree, but he still refused. Buzz Aldrin actually punched Sibrel in the face when the interrogator persisted in his questioning. Even though Sibrel’s approach wasn’t particularly friendly, it remains odd that none of them agreed to do so.
As more and more inconsistencies surface regarding the Apollo moon missions along with mounting evidence which contradicts the official narrative, it is probably just a matter of time before NASA becomes obligated to admit what really happened in July of 1969. Undoubtedly, there is a lot at stake.
Will history books need to be re-written?
Time will tell.
As practically all of the conspiracies stated below are highly controversial and subjective in nature, I will merely provide a short summary of each along with key links that provide some initial background information – selected specifically to exhibit why they are considered conspiratorial. Ultimately, it is really up to the readers to investigate them and draw their own conclusions as to the authenticity and legitimacy of their respective stated claims.
Though the very hot and contentious issue of ‘Climate Change’, formerly known as ‘Global Warming’, is complex and controversial, we must begin by examining its origins.
Where did this really originate from? When was it first mentioned and put forward as an existential threat?
Former Australian politician Ann Bressington shed a bit of light on the issue in a candid speech about Agenda 21 and the Club of Rome a few years ago. In the speech(alternate link) she stated the following [emphasis added]:
“Ladies and gentlemen, the origins of the environmental movement as we see it began back in 1968 when the Club of Rome was formed. The Club of Rome has been described as a crisis think tank which specialises in crisis creation. The main purpose of this think tank was to formulate a crisis that would unite the world and condition us to the idea of global solutions to local problems. In a document called The First Global Revolution, … it stated: ‘In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill.’ …, that’s the origin of global warming ladies and gentlemen.”
Her statement does indeed check out. On page 115 of the 1991 book entitled The First Global Revolution: A Report by the Council of Rome, you can clearly read the passage under the header ‘The Common Enemy of Humanity is Man’ [emphasis added in red]:
Excerpt from page 115 of the book The First Global Revolution: A Report by the Council of Rome
The Club of Rome is still actively involved in activities related to Climate Change. And at first glance it all seems quite legitimate. But the power and influence wielded by its well-connected membership leaves much to be scrutinized.
Moreover, while the above information doesn’t serve as a smoking gun with regards to an alleged conspiracy, it does demonstrate that powerful and deeply connected think tanks (like with the Council on Foreign Relations mentioned earlier in this article) can influence many key players, including heads of state (even former Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, father of the current Prime Minister).
Credible scientific evidence contrary to the current climate change narrative does exist, yet very seldom appears in the mainstream press, for it goes against the ascribed (and undebatable) “the science is settled” mantra.
One of these includes the recent (August, 2022) article entitled 1,200 Scientists and Professionals Declare: “There is No Climate Emergency” by The Daily Sceptic which challenges the ‘political fiction’ that humans cause most or all of climate change.
The article also states that the scale to the opposition to the modern-day belief that the ‘science is settled’ [on Climate Change] is remarkable, even amidst the backdrop of academia which barely ever issues grants for climate research that departs from the political orthodoxy. On a side note, a blunt revelation by the co-founder of The Weather Channel John Coleman offered a rather scathing (and highly entertaining) lecture towards Brian Stelter from CNN a few years back in which he stated that there was no real science behind climate change. Now, back to the article of interest from The Daily Sceptic. It makes reference to a declaration by over 1,200 scientists from all around the world who assert that there is no climate emergency. This declaration is formally known as the ‘World Climate Declaration (WCD)’. Here are a few key excerpts:
“Climate policy relies on inadequate models
Climate models have many shortcomings and are not remotely plausible as policy tools. They do not only exaggerate the effect of greenhouse gases, they also ignore the fact that enriching the atmosphere with CO2 is beneficial.”
“CO2 is plant food, the basis of all life on Earth
CO2 is not a pollutant. It is essential to all life on Earth. More CO2 is favorable for nature, greening our planet. Additional CO2 in the air has promoted growth in global plant biomass. It is also profitable for agriculture, increasing the yields of crops worldwide.”
“Global warming has not increased natural disasters
There is no statistical evidence that global warming is intensifying hurricanes, floods, droughts and suchlike natural disasters, or making them more frequent. However, there is ample evidence that CO2mitigation measures are as damaging as they are costly.”
“Climate policy must respect scientific and economic realities
There is no climate emergency. Therefore, there is no cause for panic and alarm. We strongly oppose the harmful and unrealistic net-zero CO2 policy proposed for 2050. Go for adaptation instead of mitigation; adaptation works whatever the causes are.”
It should be obvious – even to a grade school student – that C02 is essential for life on earth and for the healthy functioning of our biological ecosystems. But our mainstream media and academia have been bamboozled and overtaken by powerful interest groups (as is the case in many other institutions such as those of finance and government) to pervert reality and propagate absurdities day in and day out. These compromised media outlets prefer to push the half-baked narratives from the likes of Bill Gates rather than invite real scientists that will challenge the ‘settled’ narratives and pundit talking heads.
To be fairer and more objective though, the onus really is on each and every one of us to properly inform ourselves about issues such as climate change. We should be open to listening to those with opposing views and seek the opinions of independents who are not subsidised or funded by special interest groups or who will somehow benefit in spewing pre-packaged, one-size fits all, narratives.
No other matter has consumed the collective thought of people from around the world over the last 2+ years than the Covid-19 Pandemic.
Early on during the pandemic, many had contended that the virus was not of natural origin but was rather one that was altered in a lab setting; and after things had gone afoul, the virus was somehow spread out of the biosafety level 4 lab known as the Wuhan Institute of Virology into the public of the Chinese metropolis, and eventually to the entire world. This was in contrast with the original claim that the virus had originated in a wet market in Wuhan whereby the virus had crossed-over to humans from bats.
Those who made the contention that the virus could have been engineered in a lab were immediately dismissed as conspiracy theorists.
But as more evidence has surfaced regarding a massive coverup by the Chinese government and apparent pre-pandemic linkages between US-funded labs an the Wuhan Institute of Virology, the theory gained traction.
Anthony Fauci who is the Director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the leader in the United States regarding the handling of the Covid-19 Pandemic has repeatedly lied (to US Congress) about and denied that any gain-of-function research (specifically, a bat coronavirus research project by EcoHealth Alliance) had taken place under his US government-funded National Institutes of Health (NIH) lab in Wuhan.
Surfaced letters have shone additional light on the matter demonstrating that funding from NIH to EcoHEalth Alliance did indeed occur.
In addition, a report from The Intercept following a FOIA request produced 900 pages of materials relating to coronavirus research in China.
Furthermore, an email letter from Peter Daszak from EcoHealth Alliance dated April 18, 2020, surfaced whereby Daszak thanked Anthony Fauci, the head of the Covid-19 response team, for his [false] public comments regarding the origins of Covid-19.
News aggregator ZeroHedge ran an article on August 6, 2021 whereby virologist Shi Zhengli (also known as “Bat Lady”) of the Wuhan Institute of Virology – whose lab received US funding to make coronaviruses more infectious to humans – warned that the virus will continue to mutate producing new strains.
China expert Matthew Tye who is fluent in Mandarin Chinese and goes by the YouTube handle Laowhy86 produced a very compelling piece (dated April 1, 2020, now with over 2.4 million views) on the source origins of SARS-CoV-2, even hypothesizing about who patient zero for this virus was; namely, Huang Yan Ling an employee of the infamous lab who went missing, along with her profile from the lab’s website.
The World Health Organization (WHO) who is generously funded by Bill Gates – apart from sovereign nations, he is by far its top donor – is well known to have kowtowed to the Chinese government early on in the pandemic, was eventually compelled to conduct a formal investigation about the origins of the virus.
Using relevant sources, Summit News reported that the WHO’s chief investigator, Ben Embarek (who also surmised that patient zero was likely a lab worker at the Wuhan Institute of Virology) essentially found nothing of material substance in the probe and was only permitted [by the Chinese government] to mention the possibility of a lab leak without being allowed to probe further. All of this, too, after having visited the lab for a period of only 3 hours.
In addition, one might find it particularly inappropriate that Peter Daszak of EcoHealth Alliance was chosen as part of the WHO’s investigatory team since he had previously worked in this same lab and given his obvious conflicts of interest in the matter at hand.
In their defense, it is highly likely that the Chinese government had adequate time to remove any incriminating evidence that could have pointed to the gain of function research about coronaviruses and the inherent lab leak of the virus.
As a substantial amount of time has elapsed since the Covid-19 pandemic began coupled with the concealment (deliberate or indeliberate) of critical direct and physical evidence regarding the real nature of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, we may never know the true story surrounding its origins.
Screenshot of Johns Hopkins University of Medicine’s Worldwide Covid-19 Dashboard, taken Sept. 27, 2022 (Total Cases: 615,673,638; Total Deaths: 6,538,656, Total Vaccine Doses Administered: 12,255,133,258)
What remains, however, is that it is certainly worthwhile to not let this one drain down the funnel of forgotten history.
Though founded in 1971, it is really in the last couple of years that this elitist organization, commonly referred to as the WEF, started to gain attention by the general public (rather than business leaders, politicians, and state leaders) around the world. This is in large part attributable to the increase in the influence and power they have gradually exerted on nations over the years, and particularly since the Covid-19 Pandemic came about.
In 2020, the WEF embraced the opportunity that this global crisis presented and not let it “go to waste.” And thus, seized it through a series of recommendations and actions which they stated as an opportune moment to “redefine” the world – particularly the traditional economic model into one of what they call ‘stakeholder capitalism’. Hence was born their proposed ambitious action plan known as the ‘Great Reset’.
Two books accompany this endeavor, namely, the manifesto entitled COVID-19: The Great Reset (2020) written by WEF founder Klaus Schwab, as well as the The Fourth Industrial Revolution (2016). Both serve as blueprints for what the well-connected elitist and quasi-supranational organization wish to impose on global citizens.
The WEF’s founder Klaus Schwab has been characterised as kind of a Bond villain in the last few years – particularly over social media. A well-researched introduction about Klaus Schwab and the WEF was produced by YouTuber Sorelle Amore.
While registered as a non-profit organization, the WEF does appear, at prima facie, to be one with benevolent intentions fostering public-private partnerships, that is not entirely the case. Many controversies have surrounded a lot of what has come out of their famous annual meetings referred to as ‘Davos’ which usually take place in the ski-resort town of Davos in Switzerland.
For instance, many rich elites who’ve paid a hefty membership fee to join the WEF, make it to the annual event in their private jets while they call upon the masses and nation states to curve energy emissions and reduce their carbon footprints. In this year’s Davos meeting, one of their ilk, J. Michael Evans, president of the Alibaba Group, even proposed a new technology to measure one’s carbon footprint, stating [emphasis added]:
“We’re developing, through technology, an ability for consumers to measure their own carbon footprint. What does that mean? That’s, where are they traveling, how are they traveling, what are they eating, what are they consuming on the platform? … stay tuned, we don’t have it operational yet – but this is something we’re working on.”
While we all love the environment and want to do our part to protect it, this kind of scheme appears to be nothing less than a proposed taxation scheme targeted to partner governments eager and willing to implement it.
Other controversial, some would say absurd, proposals have come out of their forums. Promoting the masses to eat bugs (as a high source of protein and great substitute for meat) is actually a thing now with celebrities such as Nicole Kidman helping to spark the trend stating how delicious they are. Insect processing plants, such as the cricket facility from Aspire Food Group in Ontario, are also starting to bolster this nascent industry.
You would be stunned at witnessing the extent to which this is becoming widespread.
Some, however, have expressed concerns about how insect-based ingredients are stealthily being added to the food we purchase and how they are not fit for human consumption and possibly even cancerous.
Tweet indicating that President’s Choice (a leading food provider in Canada) is including insect components in this product, as per the label, purchased at a store in Saskatchewan.
I suppose we are all going to have to more carefully read the ingredients lists of the foods we purchase.
Another major concern with regards to the WEF is the amount of power and influence they hold over political officials, including heads of state.
This became apparent in the recent riots that have occurred in the Netherlands where Dutch farmers have protested in masse against government diktats regarding reducing nitrogen (used in fertilizer) levels and possible farm land appropriation.
Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte also received criticism regarding the coziness of his ties with the WEF’s boss, Klaus Schwab, and his agendas. In fact, Rutte was blasted in the Dutch legislature by Gideon van Meijeren (MP) for this relationship and complicity in the WEF’s Great Reset (link includes the related video). Rutte responded to the young MP that he didn’t know about the book (COVID-19: The Great Reset) and ridiculed the young MP to “not look too much into these conspiracy theories.”
In turns out, though, that a close relationship did exist between the Netherlands Mark Rutte and the WEF. Independent information outlet LeLibrePenseur.org (French for ‘The Free thinker’), published secret letters between the two. In a report titled Fuites de Klaus Schwab : lettres secrètes entre le WEF et des membres du gouvernement hollandais dévoilées ! (Klaus Schwab leaks: secret letters between the WEF and members of the Dutch government exposed!), they showcased (what many mainstream Dutch journalists had described as conjecture) how the Rutte government had indeed been subservient to the interests and agendas of the WEF. Following a request from deputy FVD Pepijn van Houwelingen to make public the letters addressed to Dutch cabinet members, it was confirmed that their contributions had helped in the realisation of the Great Reset, essentially bypassing the will of the people through their elected officials.
While it is not necessarily conspiratorial to create linkages with the WEF, the secretive manner in which it was done is what proves alarming.
Regarding Canada, Klaus Schwab has repeatedly boasted on how proud he was proud of his army of Young Global Leaders, including Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. Schwab even bragged about how his lieutenants had “penetrated” the Canadian cabinet stating [emphasis added]:
“What we are very proud of now [is] the young generation like Prime Minister Trudeau, …, that we penetrate the cabinets. So, yesterday I was at a reception for Prime Minister Trudeau and I know that half of his cabinet, or even more than half of his cabinet are actually young global leaders of the world.”
That is a stunning admission from the leader of the WEF. Canadian opposition MP even inquired about this outside interference on behalf of a constituent of his during a parliamentary session, only to see the Speaker dismiss the question from the MP regarding this claim by provided a ridiculous excuse that the audio and video were “really really bad”. This was swiftly followed by an MP of the ruling party dismissing the question stating that the opposition MP was “promoting disinformation”. Really? I presume he didn’t hear the video in question that clearly stated otherwise. Regardless of the veracity of the claim itself, when an extremely powerful individual from an extremely powerful global organization such as the WEF makes a vivid assertion about who is controlling the Canadian cabinet, it should be taken seriously and further investigated.
At the very least, according to True North News, the Trudeau Government gave nearly $3 million to the WEF which raises a cause for suspicion regarding the relationship and its inherent motivations.
At this point/stage, this is really no longer a conspiracy theory, but more of a conspiracy fact. As a financial author, I have followed the gold and silver markets on a daily basis for the past ten years and have witnessed and documented numerous cases of blatant price fixing – almost exclusively to the down side.
The main reason for the suppression of gold and silver prices is to maintain the illusion of a strong US dollar; for, if prices of these metals get too elevated it raises alarm bells as to the weakness of an exponentially increasing money supply.
Here is what I’m talking about:
Gold smashed down more than $85 during London trading hours on November 9, 2020. Source: Kitco
It is very typical for the price fixers (see below) to smash the gold price down (they do this by shorting large amounts of paper gold futures contracts) before the open of U.S. markets – either during Asian (Hong Kong) or London trading sessions.
Former industry insider and highly credible Peter Hambro forthrightly explains how the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), the LBMA (London Bullion Market Association) in London, and the COMEX (the largest American commodities and futures exchange) in New York are complicit in the price fixing (almost exclusively to the down side) of gold.
Over the past several years, precious metals analyst Roman Manly has also conducted extensive and thorough investigative work about the manipulation of gold and silver prices as has the Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee (GATA).
Regarding silver, an article entitled A Silver Price Manipulation Primer by Sprott Money and precious metals writer Craig Hemke offers a good introduction about the fixing of silver prices.
Lastly, we cannot forget the unabashedly, unfiltered, and outspoken Canadian derivatives expert Rob Kirby who passed away earlier this year (a tribute to his work can be seen via YouTube’s Liberty and Finance channel) who has extensively reported on these illegal price fixing activities on various YouTube channels such as Liberty and Finance.
In 2021, Twitter completely banned and censored the sitting U.S. President, Donald J. Trump – who had over 88 million followers on the platform.
If a Big Tech outfit like Twitter can outlaw a sitting U.S. President, you can rest assured that they can basically ban and memory-hole anyone. And that, they have done so unabatedly in the past several years.
Google (the largest search engine in the world by far) who owns a slew of other extremely popular applications used by hundreds of millions of people and media platforms such as YouTube, has been known to employ very deceptive practices over the past several years.
Many of these involve either directly or indirectly censoring websites and completely banning countless channels – particularly conservative and alternative ones – from their YouTube platform, not to mention shadow-banning. In regards to the later, whistleblower Zack Vorhies, a former Senior Software Engineer at Google, stated that the tech giant was a “highly biased political machine”. The former insider took a cache of documents that provided rather revealing information about the inner workings of their search algorithms, establishing a “single point of truth” for news, and preventing another “Trump situation” in 2020, from ever happening again.
More recently – and quite convincingly, Dr. Robert Epstein, a Senior Research Psychologist from the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technologygave an in-depth interview with The Epoch Times’ Jan Jekielek (Robert Epstein: Inside Big Tech’s Manipulation Machine and How to Stop It) revealing in a meticulously documented fashion how Google is indeed politically aligned to the left and how it manipulates the thoughts and minds of their users via “ephemeral experiences”. The April 2022 broadcast and podcast for this interview are definitely worth listening to. By listening to it, you will learn a lot about what exactly happens behind the scenes when you use Google search and its various products and services. Alternatively, you can read or consult Dr. Epstein’s full research paper entitled ‘GOOGLE’S TRIPLE THREAT, To Democracy, Our Children, and Our Minds‘ (51-page PDF) published earlier this year.
Full research report by Dr. Epstein’s entitled ‘GOOGLE’S TRIPLE THREAT, To Democracy, Our Children, and Our Minds‘ (PDF)
Slightly after the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election, Dr. Epstein had surmised that search engine bias shifted 2-3 million votes in Hillary Clinton’s favor and warned that the number could increase fivefold in the 2020 contest.
Also back in 2016, it was revealed how Google had censored information about Hillary Clinton’s wrongdoings in their search results compared to other major search engines.
Whether the call for censoring and shielding Big Tech from scrutiny and legal action comes under the guise of cracking down on misinformation or preserving their censorship power, it nonetheless remains clear that these media behemoths hold tremendous power on the levers of public discourse and the availability of information.
The Biden Administration has been accused of employing an “army” of officials from multiple government agencies (specifically, the HHS, DHS, CISA, the CDC, NIAID, the Office of the Surgeon General, the Census Bureau, the FDA, the FBI, the State Department, the Treasury Department, and the U.S. Election Assistance Commission) to censor information using their contacts in social media. A recent lawsuit – handled by the New Civil Rights Alliance – alleges that very claim. The lawsuit’s plaintiffs’ position begins with their claim and what it seeks [emphasis added]:
“the Plaintiffs served interrogatories and document requests upon the Government Defendants seeking the identity of federal officials who have been and are communicating with social-media platforms about disinformation, misinformation, malinformation, and/or any censorship or suppression of speech on social media, including the nature and content of those communications.”
In a recent interview with Joe Rogan, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg also openly revealed that he followed the censorship orders from the FBI to suppress information related to Hunter Biden’s laptop ahead of the 2020 election; all this was under the guise of “Russian Disinformation” and the net effect was that Facebook ended up ranking the information further down their newsfeed which could certainly be seen as election interference and/or political partisanship.
I have mentioned in my initial post on Substack, that I espouse the notion that, in essence, there really is no such thing as misinformation, disinformation, or malinformation (or even ‘fake news’ for that matter) – for, it is ALL INFORMATION. If the public is not able to firstly access information and then analyse and discern it for themselves (even with regards to the complex issues of our day), then perhaps we have a bigger problem. Namely, that of a dumbed-down populous unable to critically think for themselves without been spoon fed pre-determined, unquestionable, narratives by “authority” figures.
in a recent interview, author, journalist, senior editor for The New American, and Epoch Times contributor Alex Newman offers are rather insightful view of not just the current state of censorship, but also the worrying trend of the dumbing-down of population through our degrading school system. As one who has worked in the education sector for 35 years, I can certainly agree with his concern that our youth are not adequately being taught critical-thinking skills in our public school system.
In Canada, the controversial Bill C-11 (an Act to amend the Broadcasting Act) has been passed by Parliament and is awaiting a second reading in the Senate. Though Prime Minister Justin Trudeau stated that it would help “oppressed communities” and “strengthen trusted news sources in Canada”, many others contend that if passed as law, it will favor government-approved news organizations who are already (and will continue to) receive nearly hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer money, with the CBC reportedly receiving 1.4 billion in 2021 according to the National Post. Dr. Michael Geist, a law professor and Research Chair (in Internet and E-commerce Law) at the University of Ottawa categorized the government’s defence of the bill as “cartoonishly misleading”. The main concern is that this bill could silence freedom-loving content creators, reports mrcTV. Canadian journalist Dan Dicks from Pressfortruth.ca and social media personality Viva Frei (David Freiheit) have criticized the bill (and even its predecessor bill C-10). It remains to be seen if the bill will pass the Senate to become law.
The 2020 Election was one of the most controversial elections in American history. Coverage about the election varied greatly among major networks and news outlets in the country.
In my opinion, I have found The Epoch Times coverage of the election to be most accurate and independent.
All publications have bias in their reporting; that is inevitable due also, in large part, to opinion pieces which in today’s polarized society carry a lot of weight. That being said, I still believe that articles from The Epoch Times have been more objective than many others.
One of their seasoned contributors, Sharyl Atkinson – an investigative journalist who has reported nationally for CBS News, PBS, CNN – ran an viewpoint article on Dec. 22, 2020 titled 2020 Election Screaming Red Flags That Deserved Criminal Inquiry. Though it was an opinion piece, she provided a fair analysis whereby she pointed out the many claims of election irregularities and fraud and how they should have been taken more seriously and investigated upon by government officials and law enforcement agencies. And since they haven’t been taken seriously, the integrity of the election results comes under great scrutiny. Her piece then lists eight examples of “screaming red flags” that should have prompted thorough criminal inquiries.
Prior to the election, The Epoch Times had unveiled a very comprehensive exposé titled Spygate: The Inside Story Behind the Alleged Plot to Take Down Trump that was very well sourced and referenced. The investigatory work outlined in great detail the concerted plot whereby key members of the CIA, FBI, Department of Justice (DOJ), and officials from the U.S. State Department set up and accused President Trump of colluding with the Russians.
Various official inquiries such as the very long and costly Special Counsel investigation of 2017-2019 (headed by the very corrupt and compromised Robert Mueller, former Director of the FBI) proved that no foul play had ever occurred between Trump and the Russians.
What is stated in the previous paragraph is important, for it adds veracity to the claims made about election fraud to the detriment of the incumbent Trump. Why? Because it affirms the motivation by those in power to use the same type of unlawful activities (and collusive partners) to falsify and skew election data.
Such manipulation of the data, demonstrable by statistical anomalies, (particularly with mail-in ballots) certainly became obvious and apparent during the morning hours following election day when, miraculously, Joe Biden’s numbers soared in key states where Trump was leading. Many outlets had cried afoul to this apparent fraud. Even the head of the Federal Election Commission (FEC) Trey Trainor at the time said he believed there was widespread election fraud.
In addition, the manner in which Big Tech platforms have shown favoritism – before, during, and after the election – is also to be considered in the disputed election results. It is no secret that Google has not been shy about supporting Democratic candidates such as Hilary Clinton and Joe Biden in the past several years; this has been highly documented – with some examples detailed in this work (above). Twitter has also blatantly censored and terminated accounts belonging to conservatives; a case in point here includes them suspending 2020 election audit accounts for multiple states.
Dominion Voting Systems were used in many states for the election. And much controversy arose surrounding their reliability and accuracy in counting votes, along with hacking (including foreign) vulnerabilities. The U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Agency (CISA) has pointed out that these could affect voting in multiple states. The state of Pennsylvania is suing Dominion Voting Systems alleging “severe issues” with voting data discovered after the 2020 election. And, more recently, the Biden administration is urging a court not to release a sealed report on Dominion Voting Systems.
Lastly, the fact that Joe Biden supposedly received 80 million votes – the most votes won by any presidential candidate in US history (which shatters the 69.5 million votes Barack Obama had received in 2008) – remains highly questionable. Even prior to election night, Biden himself was nowhere nearly as popular as his predecessor, Barack Obama. Perhaps there was a larger portion of the population that went out to vote and wanted to vote for the Democratic party regardless of its leader.
While there still are ongoing investigations at the state level regarding these voting irregularities, it is highly doubtful that much will come out of them. The whole affair has been greatly politicized which taints the judicial review process and proper accounting of votes for the highly-disputed 2020 election.
Of the many alleged conspiracies worth keeping an eye on, Aerosol Spraying(sometimes referred to as ‘Aerial Discharges’ or ‘chemtrails’) – which fits under the larger umbrella of geoengineering – is one of the most troubling and worrisome ones.
For those not familiar with the subject, geoengineering generally involves modifying the weather for various purposes such as in climate engineering (e.g., cloud seeding to induce rain over drought-stricken areas) or as weather warfare for military purposes – which dates all the way back to the Eisenhower administration in the United States.
For at least the past two decades, Dane Wigington has been on a crusade to alert the world about this troubling phenomenon due to its extensive use of harmful chemicals. His website GeoengineeringWatch.org contains a substantial amount of credible evidence regarding the dangerous effects that geoengineering practices have on our climate, environment, and populations. Whistleblower testimonies, government reports, and other evidence presented on the site – including numerous photographs and videos – prove that a lot of activities surrounding geoengineering is intended for nefarious and harmful purposes.
This is not conspiracy theory, but rather indications of a conspiracy to harm populations through weather modification and jet sprayings – sometimes inadequately referred to as ‘chemtrails’.
I myself have witnessed this phenomenon of jet sprayings over my region in the province of Quebec since my return to Canada in November of 2021. I never saw these spraying prior to the year 2008 before my departure from the country. Since my return, I’ve been witnessing massive spraying occurring over the skies of my region to the tune of three to five times a week, on average. And each day of spraying emanates from around a dozen or more flight by high-altitude aircraft.
I’ve personally written to my city, the local airport authority in the city, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Transport Canada and none of them have provided concrete answers to my inquiries and to the nature of this phenomenon in general.
Both my city and Environment and Climate Change Canada have replied to me that these sprayings are merely commercial passenger aircraft exhaust trails, i.e., condensation trails. Anyone who has taken a high-school level physics course will be able to debunk this ludicrous claim that these sprayings – that stretch over kilometers far and wide and that last hours – are due to condensation vapor trails.
I had asked Environment and Climate Change Canada if these sprayings could be attributed to weather modification programs, and they replied me that none were in effect in the province of Quebec, but that there was one in effect in the province of Alberta. So, if these are not intended for weather modification purposes, then what are they for?
My subsequent (and very polite, respectful) email inquiries to these Canadian agencies have been mostly ignored. This leaves me to conclude that they are not being forthcoming about the origins of these sprayings and thus appear to be hiding the facts surrounding them.
Aerosol sprayings over the greater City of Sherbrooke (Quebec) area on January 30, 2022
In addition, for this year alone, I have seen many photographs and videos shared online of these sprayings posted by many Canadians located in different provinces.
In Canada there have been court cases filed regarding aerosol sprayings. Mass sprayings in the Calgary, Alberta region have lead to a mass-tort case that was filed in Federal Court (see related court documents) in 2016 along with a related appeal in 2018 also at the federal level. The appeal further alleges:
“the ongoing dispersal into Canadian airspace of aerosols that are harmful to the Canadian public and that is polluting to the Canadian environment, and in respect of which aspects of the scientific community have only relatively recently evaluated in the scientific peer-reviewed literature.”
The court case mentioned above appears to still be ongoing.
What is particularly worrisome about these aerosol sprayings is that we don’t know exactly what chemicals are being used and dispersed over our skies.
The team at GeoengineeringWatch.org has produced many excellent explanatory videos and documentaries, along with a cache of documents to inform the public of what these sprayings are really about and what chemicals are found in them. I highly recommend their introductory video Hacking The Planet: The Climate Engineering Reality.
Evidence collected by GeoengineeringWatch.org has shown that chemicals and metals used in aerosol sprayings have included aluminum, barium, strontium, graphene, among others.
What is also particularly troubling is that many of these metals and chemicals make their way to ground level from high altitude in the form of nanoparticles – which if breathed in, are tiny enough to penetrate the blood-brain barrier. They are especially harmful to elderly and infant populations whose brains are still in development. In this respect, I highly recommend the work of neurosurgeon Dr. Russell Blaylock who describes the harmful effects these chemicals have on the brain.
There is also a lot of evidence that suggests that geoengineering is used to modify the climate and could thus be a significant contributor to climate change, increasingly unstable weather systems, and droughts.
Lastly, what I find particularly disappointing as a Canadian is the position, albeit one from several years ago, whereby our very famous David Suzuki – one who I admired very much growing up and watching his show The Nature of Things – pretty much described the phenomenon as conspiracy theory posited by “wacky science deniers” in an article entitled David Suzuki on Chemtrails, Conspiracies fuel climate change denial and belief in chemtrails. There are many false assertions in this poorly formulated article, but here are the key ones [emphasis added]:
“I recently wrote about geoengineering as a strategy to deal with climate change and carbon dioxide emissions. That drew comments from people who confuse this scientific process with the unscientific theory of “chemtrails””.
Suzuki’s statement bolded above makes no sense. A theory is a theory. There is nothing unscientific about a theory. A theory is a hypothesis assumed for the sake of investigation which is formulated before science is conducted to verify it.
He continues with the following later in his article:
“I’m a scientist, so I look at credible science – and there is none for the existence of chemtrails.”
“They’re condensation trails, formed when hot, humid air from jet exhaust mixes with colder low-vapour-pressure air.”
Condensation trails? Condensation trails do not drag on over several kilometers and remain suspended for hours at a time; rather, they usually dissolve within several seconds, or a few minutes at the most.
As for “credible evidence”, these aerosol sprayings have been highly documented over the past several years.
So, these are the main arguments and explanations from one of Canada’s most renowned scientists?
Really?
Sorry Mr. Suzuki, I respectfully disagree with this very perplexing assertion, for it doesn’t hold water! (pun intended)
And many of the 297 comments generated from this article are in disagreement with Mr. Suzuki’s assessment.
Author note: I have contacted Mr. Suzuki by email to provide him with an opportunity to re-assert or update his assertions (especially since several years have elapsed since the article was written) but have not received a reply from him as of publishing time.
Back to the condensation trails, I have personally filmed and photographed many instances of real condensation trails from commercial airliners including those at high altitude; and for these, the trails completely disappear within no more than a minute or so.
I even have some that show these alongside other – likely non-commercial – aircraft which produce aerosol sprayings that last for kilometers and persist for much longer periods. And this, of course, under the exact same weather conditions.
Also, I would invite the skeptics to try to find any photographs or videos prior to the 1960s that have these kinds of criss-cross patterns and lengthy and abnormal cloud dispersions over several kilometers in the sky. There are none that I know of; but if any are found, let me know. The oldest ones that I’ve been able to find appeared in a few episodes of the TV series Little House on the Prairie which began in 1974.
Wouldn’t a scientist who is genuinely concerned about climate change such as David Suzuki (and all others, for that matter) want to consider all factors (including aerosol dispersions) which may contribute to the degradation of our natural environment?
Questions that remain regarding this inadequately addressed phenomenon include:
- What is the purpose of these aerosol sprayings?
- Who is authorizing them?
- Who is paying for them?
- What substances (including chemicals) are they spraying?
- Why aren’t Environment and Climate Change Canada and Transport Canada providing answers to these questions?
“An educated citizenry is a vital requisite for our survival as a free people.” – Thomas Jefferson
Actually, the header for this section is a bit of a misnomer, for it will comprise a broader range of tools and techniques that will enable individuals to do a better job at discerning and validating information.
The internet is a vast ocean of information and knowledge. There is a lot to take in and it can all be quite overwhelming – especially when social media is included in the mix.
Many labels such as ‘fake news’, misinformation, and disinformation have been thrown left and right to hastily characterize the validity of information provided by certain parties.
Of course, this is very subjective and is influenced by many factors such as different kinds of biases, political affiliations, financial interests, and the like. One must judge what one reads based on its own merits without relying on these labels. In other words, begin by removing any of these labels or preconceived assumptions and tackle the information itself.
I would recommend reading news and information from different sources – whether it be from mainstream media, alternative media, and everywhere in between. Each article or piece of information is unique, was written by an individual (or a few individuals) and should be treated and evaluated as such. Put another way, each article is like an antique. An antique collector will inspect and examine each piece on its own characteristics and merits. Depending on the qualities and flaws observed, the collector will be able to make an objective evaluation for authentication purposes (i.e., Is it real or fake?) We should use the same approach when encountering a piece of information – particularly if it is of a complex, controversial, or disputable nature.
Another thing we can do is be wary of buzzwords. By buzzwords, I mean words or phrases like ‘right-wing’, ‘left-wing’, ‘conspiracy theorist’, ‘conservative’, ‘liberal’, ‘MAGA Republican’, ‘anti-vaxxer’, ‘so-called’, ‘quasi’, and ‘pseudo’. Buzzwords are similar to labels and are often used by writers or TV personalities to indirectly (or subliminally) convey a pre-conceived notion about the subject matter of the information piece. Also be aware that buzzwords’ meanings can vary from one geographical region to another, similar to slang. The idea here is to detect their usage and become cognizant that they may be used to sway the reader’s opinion in a certain direction. So, look out for these – especially when reading headlines to articles or social media posts.
In today’s very polarized and divided society filled with identity politics, blame and labels will be readily cast upon those who don’t “toe the line” (i.e., go along with a certain narrative, or accept the authority or views of a particular group, sometimes under pressure from that group). We’ve seen a heck of a lot of this in the past couple of years with the Covid-19 Pandemic. Prime examples include the likes of “trust the science”, or “he’s an anti-vaxxer”. For the later, the danger here is that such condescending comments or labels assigned to specific people or groups can not only be harmful, but will too often lead to incorrect assumptions about the target. For instance, if someone refuses to take the Covid-19 vaccine, that doesn’t necessarily mean she’s an anti-vaxxer; perhaps, she is willing to take other vaccines, but just not the Covid-19 one. In another prime example we often hear the label “climate change denier” (as with the David Suzuki article referenced earlier) when someone doesn’t (either fully or in part) adhere to the notion of climate change. As this particular topic is very broad and complex, labelling one in such a derogatory fashion proves itself as quite foolish. Writers, TV personalities, news pundits, and social media figures may often attack a person when they cannot invalidate or counter the substance or merits of their claims. Some are very adept at it too which takes the victim by surprise and makes them appear stupid or weak. The trick here, is to not take it personal and let it get to you. Rather, either ignore them, or turn the situation around and ask them to elaborate on the merits of why they disagree with your claim or stance, pressing for facts and evidence to substantiate their assertions.
A great question to ask is ‘Cui bono?’ which is Latin for ‘who benefits?’ The phrase originates from the very famous Roman statesman Cicero. Cicero was a brilliant orator, lawyer, philosopher, and politician who lived during the boisterous early years of the Roman Empire when wars, politics, greed, and power dominated the social and political landscapes (as they still do today). One needed to be quite astute in assessing others’ motives based solely on their words and actions. Cicero would often ask this question, cui bono, to better understand the real motivation behind individuals’ or groups’ true intentions. We should do the same, as it seems everyone is out for something to gain. Put simply, we should take some time to question the possible motivations behind what we see, hear, or read.
The Death of Caesar, 1874 steel engraving by J.C. Armytage after J.L. Gérome
In similar fashion, we should also follow the money. This is particularly useful when looking at information related to the financial markets as well as political and geopolitical happenings. Similar to the previous tool, it guides us towards the underlying motivation(s) – most often of a financial nature – behind what someone is saying or doing. They may be saying one thing, but doing another through their actions, whether they are investments, supporting political candidates or causes, donating to charity, etc.
Individuals who have received a classical education often fare much better in how they process information and interact with other people. There are key reasons for this. The first is that in this type of education system, students go through a three-step learning process, or system, which stretches from elementary school to middle-school to high-school. These three learning anchors are: grammar, logic, and rhetoric. The grammar part is not of the ‘spelling & grammar’ kind; rather, it relates to how one inputs information from the outside world. The logic part refers to how one processesthe information obtained. And the rhetoric part is the culmination – being able to communicate and express oneself persuasively. This third part is quite important. Many of the ills and divisions we see in society today is due to the lack of this particular ability. People are far more likely to debate with one another than to have a civil discussion about it.
In classical education, which has its roots from the ancient Greek philosophers, students communicate using discourse (dialectic/Socratic method). In other words, they have a conversation and use logic and reason to arrive at truth. This is a much more constructive means than to debate or argue in a back-and-forth manner whereby each party wants to be right and win. If people in today’s society would be more respectful towards one another and accept differences in views and opinion, then we could find areas of common agreement and would thus have more peace and unity, as opposed to hatred and division.
So, the moral of the story here is that we should make an effort to be polite and respectful towards the views and opinions of others, even if they vary from our own or sound crazy. In doing this, we have a much better chance of making allies and gaining the trust of others. Disagreeing with a person is much different than disagreeing with the contents of what they are saying.
Lastly, here is one more tool that almost all those who receive a classical education learn about – logical fallacies. A logical fallacy, in its simplest form, is a flawed or weak argument or assertion. They are deceptive or false arguments that may seem stronger than they actually are due to psychological persuasion, but are proven wrong with reasoning and further examination. (source) There are many different types oflogical fallacies. An example includes Blind Loyalty:
“The dangerous fallacy that an argument or action is right simply and solely because a respected leader or source (an expert, parents, one’s own “side,” team or country, one’s boss or commanding officers) say it is right. This is over-reliance on authority, a corrupted argument from ethos that puts loyalty above truth or above one’s own reason and conscience. In this case, a person attempts to justify incorrect, stupid or criminal behavior by whining “That’s what I was told to do,” or “I was just following orders.”
We’ve seen the Blind Loyalty fallacy a lot during the Covid-19 Pandemic. We’ve been told to ‘trust the science’, certain experts in the medical field, health organizations, and so on. Just because something comes from a given expert or an authoritative organization doesn’t necessarily mean it is correct. I remember when I came back to Quebec, Canada last November, the health pamphlets from the provincial health authority listed zero possible side-effect or risks associated with the Covid-19 vaccines. As all vaccines have inherent risks, this information provided by this respective authoritative source was not right, or completely accurate. Critical information was omitted.
Guilt by Association is another common logical fallacy. Here, one tries to refute or condemn someone’s standpoint, arguments, or actions by evoking negative sentiments of those with whom they associate with. A classic example of this one came about during President Biden’s controversial speech he gave on Sept. 1, 2022 whereby he rendered a large portion of Americans as dangerous ‘MAGA Republicans’; in other words, he positioned many who consider themselves as Republicans to be Trump supporters and some kind of insurrectionists. In Canada, the mainstream media often associated and labelled those who supported the Freedom Convoy protest movement as far-right extremists.
Many other logical fallacies are employed by those in the media and across social media. These are flawed arguments or assertions that you need to look out for. You need to be able to first recognize them and then you will be in a better position to defend yourself by addressing them for what they are.
So, why does society need conspiracy theories and conspiracy theorists? Well, it‘s no secret that we’ve been lied to. We’ve been lied to about a lot. And we are still being lied to on a daily basis. This makes it much harder to get to the truth.
Knowing more about how conspiracies actually work and how past ones have played out can help us to be more vigilant and question more about our perceived reality. Everything happens in the mind. The better we train our minds, the better we can sift through the rubbish and keep what’s real and authentic while discarding what is not.
Conspiracy theorists are often labelled and demonized – usually because they have demonstrated the courage to speak out, to point out inconvenient or uncomfortable truths. They may lose the support of friends, family, and employers in the process. But they remain true to themselves and who they are at their very core. Therefore, we should encourage them and even strive to duplicate their courage and assertiveness.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
This article was originally published on Dan Fournier’s Writings.
The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity
