offguardian--2020-05-31--The George Floyd Protests – 20 unanswered questions

As the situation deterioates all across the nation , we need to stop and ask how we got here Racial politics in America are a simmering pot waiting to boil over , they have been for decades .
This is only exacerbated as the poverty created by the ( totally unnecessary ) lockdown starts to hit home .
As the weather gets hot , and jobs dry up and prices skyrocket and the small businesses close…people will get tense .
They will get angry .
This is dry tinder which can burst into flames at any moment .
All it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protesters swarm cities all across America , as windows are smashed , shops looted and public buildings set afire .
Civilians are being maced and tasered and the rubber bullets are flying .
How did we get here ?
It started when a video of a police officer ( later identified as Derek Chauvin ) kneeling on the neck of a black man ( later identified as George Floyd ) went viral .
And this is the first thing we need to interrogate .
Though , of course , most of us won @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a term that has smoothly worked itself into our collective lexicon over the last decade and a half .
Everyone thinks of it as an organic process that lacks impetus or agency .
This is not so , as a moment ’ s reflection will tell you .
Things don ’ t just “ go viral ” , things are made to go viral .
Videos need to be made , edited , uploaded and shared by the right people at the right time in the right way in order to ‘ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be written up .
Narratives created .
Why is George Floyd ’ s tragic end now a viral vid ?
Police brutality is an unfortunate fact of life in over-militarized America .
It happens every day , to poor and disenfranchised people , black and white .
Some even get caught on a phone vid ( just search “ police brutality compilation ” on YouTube ) .
And almost no one sees , and no one much cares .
Why is this death different ?
Why did this video suddenly get noticed , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of police being brutally violent ?
Why , within mere days of the incident , did NIKE have a brand new ad endorsing the protests ?
Why is an allegedly grass-roots social revolution enjoying sponsorship as if they were a sports team ?
And why has the deification of violence become a central theme ?
It ’ s important to note that not all of these protests have been violent : …but you would never know that from the mainstream media coverage .
The liberal Left press have , in fact , been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But not to condemn it .
For years the “ liberal ” press has clutched its pearls over even the hint of aggression ( often associated with ‘ toxic masculinity ’ ) .
Even virtual aggression .
Even harsh language .
Twitter and Facebook shut down accounts based on people using ‘ hate ’ .
People are “ traumatised ” by “ cyber bullying ” .
The “ aggressive language ” and “ bullying tactics ” of Corbyn ’ s “ hard left ” supporters were constantly complained about throughout the pages of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with that transformative magic available only to a propaganda outfit with no perceived need to make internal sense , suddenly the Graun decided to run a story headlined “ If violence isn ’ t the way to end racism in America , then what is ?
” .
Why are they saying this ?
Why did RT run a similar op-ed that used exactly the same arguments , in exactly the same way ?
In The Now , with Rania Khalek , actually had a guest say : Why are we being sold @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it merely acceptable , but inevitable , even good .
And let ’ s recall ( though it seems we ’ re not supposed to ) that for months now we ’ ve been told only “ covidiots ” would dare go outside without permission .
That only the irredeemably selfish would go out without wearing a mask .
That lives were at stake .
Last month , Khalek herself even called anti-lockdown protestors members of a “ death cult ” for simply doing exactly what the rioters are now doing – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , what does Khalek think has changed exactly ?
Actually let ’ s ask the same about the UK police who are now , suddenly and without explanation just fine with large numbers of people mingling in Trafalgar Square .
Why are mass gatherings in the US , Berlin and London not ‘ murder ’ any more ?
It ’ s the responsibility of the alternate media to hit the pause button , to take a breath and not be swept along with the emotional current .
We have to ask the questions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did the video of George Floyd ’ s last moments go viral ?
Why are people on the streets are reporting stacks of loose bricks on street corners : Why are they reporting “ organizers ” of the riots “ encouraging kids to attack cops ” : Further , the police seem to have no regard for their own public image .
The Minneapolis riot police detained a black CNN reporter live on air , without first insisting they stop recording .
Other police across the country are ramming protestors with their cars @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Why are police currently going of their way to make themselves look as bad as possible and to further incentivise this multi focal promotion of violence ?
Because they are entirely corrupt and almost cartoonishly evil ?
Well , maybe .
Or is it because in this narrative they have been cast as the Heel ?
Lastly , what do the rioters want ?
Sure , the people themselves , the ones in the streets , are angry , about a lot of things , and rightly so .
But what do the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people telling us sometimes it ’ s the only way – actually want ?
The only way to what ?
What is the goal that , when achieved , will signal everyone can go home ?
Is there one ?
Or is the importance of violence to the ones advocating it from the safety of their middle class workstations , that is has no clear aim and can therefore – much like the apparently superseded covid19 crisis – be turned on and off at will ?
Violence , looting and riots won ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in America , but will cause more .
So why are they being encouraged ?
As this gets published , curfews are being introduced all across the country , national guard units are on high alert , and the media continue to pump out alarmist stories stoking the conflict .
Who will benefit from this chaos ?

As the situation deterioates all across the nation, we need to stop and ask how we got here
OffG
Racial politics in America are a simmering pot waiting to boil over, they have been for decades. This is only exacerbated as the poverty created by the (totally unnecessary) lockdown starts to hit home.
As the weather gets hot, and jobs dry up and prices skyrocket and the small businesses close…people will get tense. They will get angry.
This is dry tinder which can burst into flames at any moment.
All it took was a spark.
Now the protesters swarm cities all across America, as windows are smashed, shops looted and public buildings set afire. Civilians are being maced and tasered and the rubber bullets are flying.
How did we get here?
It started when a video of a police officer (later identified as Derek Chauvin) kneeling on the neck of a black man (later identified as George Floyd) went viral.
And this is the first thing we need to interrogate. Though, of course, most of us won’t.
“Going viral” is a term that has smoothly worked itself into our collective lexicon over the last decade and a half. Everyone thinks of it as an organic process that lacks impetus or agency. This is not so, as a moment’s reflection will tell you. Things don’t just “go viral”, things are made to go viral.
Videos need to be made, edited, uploaded and shared by the right people at the right time in the right way in order to ‘go viral’. Backstories need to be written up. Narratives created.
Why is George Floyd’s tragic end now a viral vid?
Police brutality is an unfortunate fact of life in over-militarized America. It happens every day, to poor and disenfranchised people, black and white. Some even get caught on a phone vid (just search “police brutality compilation” on YouTube). And almost no one sees, and no one much cares.
Why is this death different? Why did this video suddenly get noticed, and not the dozens of other videos of police being brutally violent?
Why, within mere days of the incident, did NIKE have a brand new ad endorsing the protests?
Why is an allegedly grass-roots social revolution enjoying sponsorship as if they were a sports team?
And why has the deification of violence become a central theme?
It’s important to note that not all of these protests have been violent:
Incredible scene at Colorado’s Capitol right now. Thousands of protesters are lying face down with their hands behind their backs chanting “I can’t breathe.” They’re doing this for 9 mins. #copolitics #denverprotest #GeorgeFloyd pic.twitter.com/PaABvp8ZoM — Colorado Times Recorder (@COTimesRecorder) May 30, 2020
…but you would never know that from the mainstream media coverage. The liberal Left press have, in fact, been focusing almost fetishistically on the violence. But not to condemn it.
Quite the contrary.
For years the “liberal” press has clutched its pearls over even the hint of aggression (often associated with ‘toxic masculinity’). Even virtual aggression. Even harsh language.
Twitter and Facebook shut down accounts based on people using ‘hate’. People are “traumatised” by “cyber bullying”. The “aggressive language” and “bullying tactics” of Corbyn’s “hard left” supporters were constantly complained about throughout the pages of The Guardian.
Until yesterday when, with that transformative magic available only to a propaganda outfit with no perceived need to make internal sense, suddenly the Graun decided to run a story headlined “If violence isn’t the way to end racism in America, then what is?”.
Why are they saying this?
Why did RT run a similar op-ed that used exactly the same arguments, in exactly the same way?
In The Now, with Rania Khalek, actually had a guest say:
More attention gets paid when stuff burns down
Why are we being sold this new meme that violence is now, it merely acceptable, but inevitable, even good.
And let’s recall (though it seems we’re not supposed to) that for months now we’ve been told only “covidiots” would dare go outside without permission. That only the irredeemably selfish would go out without wearing a mask. That lives were at stake. Last month, Khalek herself even called anti-lockdown protestors members of a “death cult” for simply doing exactly what the rioters are now doing – sans most of the violence.
So, what does Khalek think has changed exactly?
Actually let’s ask the same about the UK police who are now, suddenly and without explanation just fine with large numbers of people mingling in Trafalgar Square.
Support for the U.S. protests against racism and police violence is spreading abroad. On Sunday, hundreds of people rallied outside the U.S. Embassy in Berlin. And hundreds more marched from Trafalgar Square to the U.S. Embassy in London: https://t.co/KGXfxGzMt9 pic.twitter.com/N9A89r0DvC — The New York Times (@nytimes) May 31, 2020
Why are mass gatherings in the US, Berlin and London not ‘murder’ any more?
It’s the responsibility of the alternate media to hit the pause button, to take a breath and not be swept along with the emotional current.
We have to ask the questions no one is asking.
Exactly how did the video of George Floyd’s last moments go viral?
Why are people on the streets are reporting stacks of loose bricks on street corners:
Why are they reporting “organizers” of the riots “encouraging kids to attack cops”:
We need more LEADERS like this Cincinnati City Councilman, Jeff Pastor. This is a MUST WATCH. “You’ve got people down here who are literally encouraging KIDS to attack cops.”pic.twitter.com/mc7ZXYS71j — Kevin Olivera 🇺🇸 ⭐⭐⭐+⭐ (@OliveraM4) May 31, 2020
Further, the police seem to have no regard for their own public image.
The Minneapolis riot police detained a black CNN reporter live on air, without first insisting they stop recording.
Other police across the country are ramming protestors with their cars and pepper-spraying little girls. Why?
Why are police currently going of their way to make themselves look as bad as possible and to further incentivise this multi focal promotion of violence? Because they are entirely corrupt and almost cartoonishly evil? Well, maybe. Or is it because in this narrative they have been cast as the Heel?
Lastly, what do the rioters want? Sure, the people themselves, the ones in the streets, are angry, about a lot of things, and rightly so. But what do the new supporters of this violence – the people telling us sometimes it’s the only way – actually want?
The only way to what?
What is the goal that, when achieved, will signal everyone can go home?
Is there one?
Or is the importance of violence to the ones advocating it from the safety of their middle class workstations, that is has no clear aim and can therefore – much like the apparently superseded covid19 crisis – be turned on and off at will?
Violence, looting and riots won’t solve any of the political problems in America, but will cause more. So why are they being encouraged?
As this gets published, curfews are being introduced all across the country, national guard units are on high alert, and the media continue to pump out alarmist stories stoking the conflict.
Who will benefit from this chaos?
Discuss below.


offguardian--2020-06-03--A Conspiracy Theorist Confesses

A Conspiracy Theorist Confesses

I am what the general population , politicians and the mainstream media ( MSM ) would call a conspiracy theorist .
While I don ’ t agree with their definition of the term , there ’ s not much point in me denying it .
It is applied to me , and millions like me , whether we like it or not .
For those who deem conspiracy theorists to be some sort of threat to society , we are the social and political malcontents who lack reason and hate our democratic way of life .
We are trolls , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , probably employed by the Russians , the Chinese or Iranians .
We are supposedly hellbent on sewing the seeds of discontent and can be found protesting against every government policy and decision .
Alternatively , we are arrogant fools , both anti-science and evidence averse , who trot out crazy theories based upon little knowledge and no evidence .
Apparently this is a very dangerous thing .
Thus we come to the glaring contradiction at the heart of the concept of the loony conspiracy theorist .
Conspiracy theorists are both imbeciles , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to back up anything they say , while simultaneously being dangerous subversives who threaten to destabilise democracy and foment chaos .
Which is it ?
It can ’ t be both .
Unless society is so fragile it can not withstand the opinions of idiots .
So where does the idea that fools present a threat to “ our way of life , ” come from ?
What is it that the conspiracy theorists say that is so dangerous ?
Why do their opinions seemingly need to be censored ?
What are governments @ @ @ @ @ @ @ required here .
From the Cambridge online English dictionary we have : It is notable that Cambridge University Press have introduced the concept of “ secret ” into their definition .
By describing something as secret you are suggesting that it is impossible to know what it is .
This added notion of secrecy is not commonly found in other dictionaries .
Nor is it present in the legal definition of conspiracy .
Blacks Law Dictionary defines conspiracy as : Obviously conspirators would like to keep their plans hidden .
But that doesn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
If all conspiracies were “ secrets ” nobody would ever discover any of them .
Known conspiracies , such as Operation Gladio , Iran Contra , the Lavon Affair , the 2001 anthrax letter hoax and so on , would not have been exposed had people not highlighted the evidence which proved their existence .
The notion of the “ secret conspiracy ” is not one most people called conspiracy theorists would recognise .
Often the whole point of our argument is that the conspiracies can be quite plainly evidenced .
Most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ domain and freely available .
More often conspiracy theorists are concerned with the denial or obfuscation of the evidence .
It is not that the evidence doesn ’ t exist , rather that it either isn ’ t reported at all or is hidden by labelling those who do report it conspiracy theorists .
We can define “ conspiracy theory ” simply to mean : the reporting of evidence indicating a plan between two or more people to commit an illegal or nefarious act .
We can add that a conspiracy theory is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ merit of which is solely defined by the strength or weakness of the evidence .
However , if you read Wikipedia a very different definition is suggested .
Suddenly conspiracy theory means an attempt to ignore other more plausible explanations .
It is a theory based upon prejudice or insufficient evidence , it resists falsification and suffers from circular reasoning .
It has left the realms of logical deduction and become a matter of faith .
This rationale is some distance away from the dictionary and legal definitions .
It relies heavily upon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a pejorative definition which claims to be based in science , though the scientific evidence is feeble to non existent .
This depiction of the delusional conspiracy theorist , as described by Wikipedia , is the popularly accepted meaning .
Perhaps we can agree , the narrative we are given about alleged conspiracy theorists broadly runs like this : It is difficult to understand how democracies , which supposedly value freedom of thought , speech and expression , can be threatened by diversity of opinion .
Yet it appears many people are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government attempts to censor information and silence the voices of those it labels conspiracy theorist .
Which is genuinely anti-democratic .
Consequently it has become relatively straightforward for politicians and the media to refute evidence and undermine arguments .
As long as they can get the label of conspiracy theory or theorist to stick , most people will discount their arguments without ever looking at the evidence .
The label of conspiracy theorist is an umbrella term for a huge array of ideas and beliefs .
Some are more plausible than others .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ accepted norms a “ conspiracy theorist ” it is possible to avoid addressing the evidence some offer by exploiting guilt by association .
For example , many people labelled as conspiracy theorists , myself included , believe even the most senior elected politicians are relatively low down the pecking order when it comes to decision making .
We suggest powerful global corporations , globalist think tanks and international financial institutions often have far more control over policy development than politicians .
We can cite academic research to back up this identification of “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Earth is flat or the Queen is a lizard .
However , because we believe the former , politicians , mainstream academia and the media insist that we must also believe the latter .
Psychology is often cited as evidence to prove conspiracy theorists are deranged , or at least emotionally disturbed in some way .
Having looked at some of this claimed science I found it to be rather silly and anti-scientific .
But that is just my opinion .
However , unlike many of the psychologists who earn a living @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not think they should be censored nor stopped from expressing their unscientific opinions .
However , governments across the world are seemingly desperate to exploit the psychologist ’ s ‘ work ’ to justify the silencing of the conspiracy theorists .
This desire to silence people who ask the wrong questions , by labelling all as conspiracy theorists , has been a common theme from our elected political leaders during the first two decades of the 21st century .
But where did this idea come from ?
The History of the Conspiracy Theorist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nearly every single significant world event had at least one contemporary conspiracy theory attached to it .
These alternative interpretations of events , which lie outside the accepted or official narratives , are found throughout history .
In 117 CE , the Roman Emperor Trajan died only two days after adopting his successor Hadrian .
All his symptoms indicated a stroke brought on by cardio vascular disease .
Yet by the 4th century , in the questionable historical text Historia Augusta , a number of conspiracy theories surrounding Trajan ’ s death had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had been poisoned by Hadrian , the praetorian prefect Attianus and Trajan ’ s wife , Plotina .
While we would call this a conspiracy theory today , the term was not commonly used until the late 1960 ’ s .
The earliest written reference to something approaching the modern concept of conspiracy theory appeared in the 1870 ’ s in the Journal of Mental Science vol 16 .
This is the first time we see an association made between “ conspiracy theory ” and implausibility .
Throughout most of the 19th and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it usually denoted little more than a rationale to expose a criminal plot or malevolent act by a group .
After the Second World War colloquial use of “ conspiracy theory ” was rare .
However , academics were beginning to lay the foundations for the interpretation which has produced the label we are familiar with today .
The burgeoning idea was that the large numbers of people who questioned official accounts of events , or orthodox historical interpretations , were all delusional to some degree .
Questioning authority , and certainly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ acts , was deemed to be an aberration of the mind .
In 1945 The philosopher Karl Popper alluded to this in his political work The Open Society and Its Enemies .
Popper was essentially criticising historicism .
He stated that historical events were vulnerable to misinterpretation by those who were predisposed to see a conspiracy behind them .
He argued this was because historians suffered from cognitive dissonance ( the uncomfortable psychological sensation of holding two opposing views simultaneously . )
They could not accept that tumultuous events could just happen through @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In Popper ’ s view , these historians were too quick to reject the possibility of random , chaotic events influencing history , preferring unsubstantiated conspiratorial explanations .
Usually because they made better stories , thereby garnering more attention for their work .
Popper identified what he called the conspiracy theory of society .
This reflected Popper ’ s belief that social sciences should concern themselves with the study of the unintended consequences of intentional human behaviour .
Speaking of the conspiracy theory perspective , he wrote : Popper also believed that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ power to secretive groups rather than the gods : Popper ’ s theory illustrates the fundamental difference between those labelled conspiracy theorists and those who , on the whole , defend the official narrative and the establishment .
For conspiracy theorists the evidence shows that powerful forces have frequently conspired to shape events , control the flow of information and manipulate society .
The deliberate engineering of society , suggested by the conspiracy theorists , is rejected by their opponents and critics .
For them the conspiratorial view has some minor , limited @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prevalence of these plots is grossly exaggerated .
They see nearly all world events as the result of the unintentional collision between disparate forces and the random influence of fate .
In general , they consider the powerful incapable of malice .
Where disastrous national and global events have clearly been caused by the decisions of governments , influential groups and immensely wealthy individuals , these are invariably seen as mistakes .
Any suggestion that the power hierarchy ’ s destructive decisions may have achieved their intended objectives receives blanket rejection .
Even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” For many people called conspiracy theorists this is a hopelessly naive world view .
History is full of examples of the powerful using their influence to further their own interests at others expense .
Often costing people their lives .
For their opponents , like Popper , to reject this possibility outright , demonstrates their cognitive dissonance .
They seem unable even to contemplate the possibility that the political and economic power structures they believe in could ever deliberately harm anyone .
They have faith in authority and it is not shared @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Following the assassination of President Kennedy in 1963 alternative explanations proliferated , not least of all due to the apparent implausibility of the official account .
Many U.S. citizens were concerned that elements within their own government had effectively staged a coup .
Others , such as the prominent American historian Richard Hoftsadter , were more concerned that people doubted their government .
Building on the work of Popper , partly as a critique of McCarthyism but also in response to the Republican nomination loss of Nelson A. Rockefeller , American historian Richard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to believe what they are told by government was not based upon their grasp of the evidence .
Rather it was rooted in psychological need .
He claimed much of this stemmed from their lack of education ( knowledge ) , political disenfranchisement and an unjustified sense of self importance .
He also suggested these dangerous opinions threatened to pollute the body politic .
Like Popper , Hofstadter did not identify conspiracy theorists directly .
But he did formulate the narrative underpinning the modern , widely accepted , definition .
He wrote : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the “ paranoid ’ s ” tendency to highlight the evidence , as if that were a failing , like most critics of so-called conspiracy theorists , Hofstadter chose neither to address nor even mention what that evidence was .
He merely asserted that it was unbelievable .
The reader just had to take his word for it .
The Warren Commission Report into the JFK assassination drew considerable criticism .
The finding that Oswald acted alone contradicted numerous eye witness accounts , film , autopsy and ballistic evidence .
Four of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in their name .
Widely seen as quite ridiculous , in the absence of any sensible official account of the assassination , numerous explanatory theories inevitably sprang up .
In response to the mounting criticism , in 1967 the CIA sent an internal dispatch to all field offices called Document 1035-960 : Concerning Criticism of the Warren Report .
Revealed by a New York Times Freedom of Information Request in 1976 , the dispatch is the first written record we have of the combination of Popper ’ s “ conspiracy theory of society @ @ @ @ @ @ @ style ” militant .
It defined the modern concept of the conspiracy theorist .
It can be considered as the origin of the weaponised term “ conspiracy theory.
” It recommends a set of techniques to be used to discredit all critics of the Warren Commission Report .
Once you are familiar with them , it is obvious that these strategies are commonly deployed today to dismiss all who question official statements as “ conspiracy theorists.
” We can paraphrase these as follows : • Deny any new evidence offered and cite only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has emerged.
’ • Dismiss contradictory eyewitness statements and focus upon the existing , primary , official evidence such as ballistics , autopsy , and photographic evidence .
• Do not initiate any discussion of the evidence and suggest that large scale conspiracies are impossible to cover up in an open and free democracy .
• Accuse the conspiracy theorists of having an intellectual superiority complex .
• Suggest that theorists refuse to acknowledge their own errors .
• Refute any suggestion of witness assassinations by pointing out they were all deaths by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of conspiracy research and point out that official sources are better .
The report recommended making good use of “ friendly elite contacts ( especially politicians and editors ) ” and to “ employ propaganda assets to [ negate ] and refute the attacks of the critics.
” The CIA advocated using mainstream media feature articles to discredit people labelled conspiracy theorists .
While the use of these methods has been refined over the years , the essential process of labelling someone a conspiracy theorist , while studiously avoiding any discussion of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the mainstream media today .
We only need look at the reports about academics who questioned the government ’ s narrative about COVID19 to see the techniques in operation .
The drive to convince the public to use only “ official sources ” for information has seen the rise of the fact checker .
These organisations , invariably with the support of government and corporate funding , are offered as the reliable sources which provide real facts .
The facts they provide are frequently wrong and the fact checking industry has settled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disinformation .
People have been directed by the mainstream media to abandon all critical thinking .
They just need to go to their government-approved fact-checker in order be told the truth .
Providing the public believe the people labelled conspiracy theorists are crazy , ill informed or agents for a foreign powers , the mainstream media , politicians and other commentators can undermine any and all evidence they present .
In keeping with the CIA ’ s initial recommendations , it is extremely unlikely that the evidence will ever be openly discussed but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be written off as “ conspiracy theory.
” However , it isn ’ t just the mainstream media who use the conspiracy theorist label to avoid discussing evidence .
Politicians , speaking on the worlds biggest political stage , have seized the opportunity to deploy the CIA ’ s strategy .
Even for Prime Ministers and Presidents , addressing the General Assembly of the United Nations is a big deal .
These tend to be big thematic speeches as the leader impresses their vision upon the gathered dignitaries and global media .
Yet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are supposed to be idiots who don ’ t know the time of day , global “ leaders ” have repeatedly used this auspicious occasion to single them out as one of the greatest threats to global security .
In November 2001 George W. Bush addressed the United Nations General Assembly with the following words : Even if you accept the official account of 9/11 , and there are numerous reasons why you wouldn ’ t , how does questioning it suggest that you support terrorism or mark you out as a racist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ does illustrate that the U.S. president wanted both to silence all criticism of the government account and link those questioning it to extremism and even terrorism .
This theme was reiterated by the UK Prime Minister David Cameron in his 2014 address .
He said : Like Bush before him , Cameron was at pains to identify what he called non violent extremists ( commonly called conspiracy theorists ) .
According to him , all who question government accounts of major geopolitical events are , once again , tantamount to terrorists .
Calling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ever being asked , it is this authoritarian need to avoid addressing evidence that led his successor , Prime Minister Theresa May , to propose wide-sweeping censorship of the Internet .
At the time of writing , the UK is among the many nations still in so called “ lockdown ” following the outbreak of COVID19 .
When UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson addressed the U.N General Assembly in September 2019 he delivered a speech which seemed weirdly out of context .
With Brexit and possible conflict with Iran high on the agenda @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those issues , was received with considerable bewilderment .
Six months later his predictive powers appear to be remarkable .
It transpires that Johnson ’ s comments were extremely relevant .
Just six months too early .
Despite the wealth of scientific evidence which justifies scepticism about some vaccines , anti-vaxxer ( a variant of conspiracy theorist ) , is another label used to convince people not to consider evidence .
The assertion is that those who question vaccines all fundamentally reject the concept of artificially inducing an immune response against a disease @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how would you know ?
The anti-vaxxer label alone is sufficient to convince most to turn away .
Johnson ’ s speech rambled across so many seemingly irrelevant subjects there is little reason to suspect any COVID 19 foreknowledge .
But given the global pandemic that would occur just a few months later , it was certainly prescient .
Johnson was sufficiently concerned about the supposedly baseless questions of so called conspiracy theorists ( or anti-vaxxers ) to allege they killed children .
A ludicrous suggestion the mainstream media strongly promoted .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has proven that the official account of 9/11 can not possibly be true ; it makes no difference that Mossad agents admitted that they had gone to New York on the morning of 9/11 to “ document the event ; ” studies showing that approximately 90 % of the total 20th Century disease reduction in the U.S. occurred prior to the widespread use of vaccines are irrelevant .
None of these facts need to be known by anyone and governments are going to censor all who try to tell others about them .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ conspiracy theories .
They are both stupid questions and a huge threat to both national security and the safety of the little children .
One of the recurring themes the people labelled conspiracy theorists discuss is that policy is made behind the closed doors of corporate boardrooms and policy think tanks .
It doesn ’ t matter who you elect or what party you choose to rule over you , they are only capable of tinkering at the edges of the policy platform .
The policy agenda is set at a globalist level @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two decades , one U.S president and two British Prime Minsters were delivering essentially the same message doesn ’ t surprise the conspiracy theorists .
As we move toward a world where certain ideas are forbidden and only officially approved questions can be asked , where governments and corporations have a monopoly on the truth and everything else is a conspiracy theory , only one thing really matters .
The evidence .
Hofstadter ’ s believed that his paranoid style militants constant citation of evidence was merely an attempt to “ protect his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but the only way to find out is to look at that evidence .
The label of the conspiracy theorist has been deliberately created in order to convince you not to look at it .
Regardless of whether or not you think someone ’ s opinion is a conspiracy theory , you owe it to yourself and your children to consider the evidence they cite .
Perhaps you will reject it .
There ’ s nothing wrong with that .
But to reject it , without knowing what it is , really @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is to unquestioningly accept whatever you are told by the government , globalist think tanks , multinational corporations and their mainstream media partners .
If you choose to believe that everyone who claims to have identified the malfeasance of officials , the crimes of government or the corruption of powerful global institutions , are all conspiracy theorists , then you have accepted that the establishment is beyond reproach .
If you also agree the same established hierarchy can not only determine what you can or can not know , but can also set @ @ @ @ @ @ @ your behaviour and defines the limits of your freedom , you have elected to be a slave and don ’ t value democracy in the slightest .

I am what the general population, politicians and the mainstream media (MSM) would call a conspiracy theorist. While I don’t agree with their definition of the term, there’s not much point in me denying it. It is applied to me, and millions like me, whether we like it or not.
For those who deem conspiracy theorists to be some sort of threat to society, we are the social and political malcontents who lack reason and hate our democratic way of life. We are trolls, bots and disinformation agents on social media, probably employed by the Russians, the Chinese or Iranians.
We are supposedly hellbent on sewing the seeds of discontent and can be found protesting against every government policy and decision. Alternatively, we are arrogant fools, both anti-science and evidence averse, who trot out crazy theories based upon little knowledge and no evidence. Apparently this is a very dangerous thing.
Thus we come to the glaring contradiction at the heart of the concept of the loony conspiracy theorist. Conspiracy theorists are both imbeciles, who don’t have any proof to back up anything they say, while simultaneously being dangerous subversives who threaten to destabilise democracy and foment chaos.
Which is it? It can’t be both. Unless society is so fragile it cannot withstand the opinions of idiots.
So where does the idea that fools present a threat to “our way of life,” come from? What is it that the conspiracy theorists say that is so dangerous? Why do their opinions seemingly need to be censored? What are governments so worried about?
What is a Conspiracy Theory?
Some definitions are required here. From the Cambridge online English dictionary we have:
Misinformation: [noun] wrong information, or the fact that people are misinformed. Disinformation: [noun] false information spread in order to deceive people. Fake News: [noun] false stories that appear to be news, spread on the internet or using other media, usually created to influence political views or as a joke. Conspiracy: [noun’] the activity of secretly planning with other people to do something bad or illegal. Theory: [noun] a formal statement of the rules on which a subject of study is based or of ideas that are suggested to explain a fact or event. Conspiracy Theory: [noun] a belief that an event or situation is the result of a secret plan made by powerful people
It is notable that Cambridge University Press have introduced the concept of “secret” into their definition. By describing something as secret you are suggesting that it is impossible to know what it is. This added notion of secrecy is not commonly found in other dictionaries.
Nor is it present in the legal definition of conspiracy. Blacks Law Dictionary defines conspiracy as:
Conspiracy: In criminal law. A combination or confederacy between two or more persons formed for the purpose of committing, by their joint efforts, some unlawful or criminal act.
Obviously conspirators would like to keep their plans hidden. But that doesn’t mean they always remain so. If all conspiracies were “secrets” nobody would ever discover any of them.
Known conspiracies, such as Operation Gladio, Iran Contra, the Lavon Affair, the 2001 anthrax letter hoax and so on, would not have been exposed had people not highlighted the evidence which proved their existence.
The notion of the “secret conspiracy” is not one most people called conspiracy theorists would recognise. Often the whole point of our argument is that the conspiracies can be quite plainly evidenced. Most of that evidence is in the public domain and freely available.
More often conspiracy theorists are concerned with the denial or obfuscation of the evidence. It is not that the evidence doesn’t exist, rather that it either isn’t reported at all or is hidden by labelling those who do report it conspiracy theorists.
We can define “conspiracy theory” simply to mean: the reporting of evidence indicating a plan between two or more people to commit an illegal or nefarious act.
We can add that a conspiracy theory is an opinion or an argument. The merit of which is solely defined by the strength or weakness of the evidence.
However, if you read Wikipedia a very different definition is suggested. Suddenly conspiracy theory means an attempt to ignore other more plausible explanations. It is a theory based upon prejudice or insufficient evidence, it resists falsification and suffers from circular reasoning. It has left the realms of logical deduction and become a matter of faith.
This rationale is some distance away from the dictionary and legal definitions. It relies heavily upon opinion and is highly subjective. It is a pejorative definition which claims to be based in science, though the scientific evidence is feeble to non existent.
This depiction of the delusional conspiracy theorist, as described by Wikipedia, is the popularly accepted meaning. Perhaps we can agree, the narrative we are given about alleged conspiracy theorists broadly runs like this:
Conspiracy theorists forward arguments that are unfounded. These are based upon limited knowledge and lack substantiating evidence. Most conspiracy theorists are simply wrong and unwittingly spread misinformation. However, prominent conspiracy theorists spread disinformation and have used their large followings on the Internet to create a dangerous phenomenon called ‘fake news.’ Many of those with the largest followings are agents for foreign powers. They use a global network of trolls and bots to advance their dangerous political agenda. This is designed to undermine our democratic way of life and valued political institutions. Therefore all conspiracy theory is anti-democratic and must be stopped.
It is difficult to understand how democracies, which supposedly value freedom of thought, speech and expression, can be threatened by diversity of opinion. Yet it appears many people are willing to ignore this contradiction and support government attempts to censor information and silence the voices of those it labels conspiracy theorist. Which is genuinely anti-democratic.
Consequently it has become relatively straightforward for politicians and the media to refute evidence and undermine arguments. As long as they can get the label of conspiracy theory or theorist to stick, most people will discount their arguments without ever looking at the evidence.
The label of conspiracy theorist is an umbrella term for a huge array of ideas and beliefs. Some are more plausible than others. However, by calling everyone who challenges accepted norms a “conspiracy theorist” it is possible to avoid addressing the evidence some offer by exploiting guilt by association.
For example, many people labelled as conspiracy theorists, myself included, believe even the most senior elected politicians are relatively low down the pecking order when it comes to decision making. We suggest powerful global corporations, globalist think tanks and international financial institutions often have far more control over policy development than politicians. We can cite academic research to back up this identification of “Biased Pluralism.”
We do not believe the Earth is flat or the Queen is a lizard. However, because we believe the former, politicians, mainstream academia and the media insist that we must also believe the latter.
Psychology is often cited as evidence to prove conspiracy theorists are deranged, or at least emotionally disturbed in some way. Having looked at some of this claimed science I found it to be rather silly and anti-scientific. But that is just my opinion.
However, unlike many of the psychologists who earn a living by writing junk science, I do not think they should be censored nor stopped from expressing their unscientific opinions. However, governments across the world are seemingly desperate to exploit the psychologist’s ‘work’ to justify the silencing of the conspiracy theorists.
This desire to silence people who ask the wrong questions, by labelling all as conspiracy theorists, has been a common theme from our elected political leaders during the first two decades of the 21st century. But where did this idea come from?
The History of the Conspiracy Theorist Label
Conspiracy theory is nothing new. Nearly every single significant world event had at least one contemporary conspiracy theory attached to it. These alternative interpretations of events, which lie outside the accepted or official narratives, are found throughout history.
In 117 CE, the Roman Emperor Trajan died only two days after adopting his successor Hadrian. All his symptoms indicated a stroke brought on by cardio vascular disease.
Yet by the 4th century, in the questionable historical text Historia Augusta, a number of conspiracy theories surrounding Trajan’s death had emerged. These included claims that Trajan had been poisoned by Hadrian, the praetorian prefect Attianus and Trajan’s wife, Plotina.
While we would call this a conspiracy theory today, the term was not commonly used until the late 1960’s. The earliest written reference to something approaching the modern concept of conspiracy theory appeared in the 1870’s in the Journal of Mental Science vol 16.
“The theory of Dr Sankey as to the manner in which these injuries to the chest occurred in asylums deserved our careful attention. It was at least more plausible that the conspiracy theory of Mr Charles Beade”
This is the first time we see an association made between “conspiracy theory” and implausibility. Throughout most of the 19th and 20th century, if used at all, it usually denoted little more than a rationale to expose a criminal plot or malevolent act by a group.
After the Second World War colloquial use of “conspiracy theory” was rare. However, academics were beginning to lay the foundations for the interpretation which has produced the label we are familiar with today.
The burgeoning idea was that the large numbers of people who questioned official accounts of events, or orthodox historical interpretations, were all delusional to some degree. Questioning authority, and certainly alleging that authority was responsible for criminal acts, was deemed to be an aberration of the mind.
In 1945 The philosopher Karl Popper alluded to this in his political work The Open Society and Its Enemies. Popper was essentially criticising historicism. He stated that historical events were vulnerable to misinterpretation by those who were predisposed to see a conspiracy behind them.
He argued this was because historians suffered from cognitive dissonance (the uncomfortable psychological sensation of holding two opposing views simultaneously.) They could not accept that tumultuous events could just happen through the combination of error and unrelated circumstances.
In Popper’s view, these historians were too quick to reject the possibility of random, chaotic events influencing history, preferring unsubstantiated conspiratorial explanations. Usually because they made better stories, thereby garnering more attention for their work.
Popper identified what he called the conspiracy theory of society. This reflected Popper’s belief that social sciences should concern themselves with the study of the unintended consequences of intentional human behaviour. Speaking of the conspiracy theory perspective, he wrote:
It is the view that an explanation of a social phenomenon consists in the discovery of the men or groups who are interested in the occurrence of this phenomenon (sometimes it is a hidden interest which has first to be revealed), and who have planned and conspired to bring it about.”
Popper also believed that increasing secularism had led people to ascribe power to secretive groups rather than the gods:
The gods are abandoned. But their place is filled by powerful men or groups – sinister pressure groups whose wickedness is responsible for all the evils we suffer from – such as the Learned Elders of Zion, or the monopolists, or the capitalists, or the imperialists.”
Popper’s theory illustrates the fundamental difference between those labelled conspiracy theorists and those who, on the whole, defend the official narrative and the establishment. For conspiracy theorists the evidence shows that powerful forces have frequently conspired to shape events, control the flow of information and manipulate society. The deliberate engineering of society, suggested by the conspiracy theorists, is rejected by their opponents and critics.
For them the conspiratorial view has some minor, limited merit, but the suggested scale and prevalence of these plots is grossly exaggerated. They see nearly all world events as the result of the unintentional collision between disparate forces and the random influence of fate.
In general, they consider the powerful incapable of malice. Where disastrous national and global events have clearly been caused by the decisions of governments, influential groups and immensely wealthy individuals, these are invariably seen as mistakes.
Any suggestion that the power hierarchy’s destructive decisions may have achieved their intended objectives receives blanket rejection. Even asking the question is considered “unthinkable.”
For many people called conspiracy theorists this is a hopelessly naive world view. History is full of examples of the powerful using their influence to further their own interests at others expense. Often costing people their lives.
For their opponents, like Popper, to reject this possibility outright, demonstrates their cognitive dissonance. They seem unable even to contemplate the possibility that the political and economic power structures they believe in could ever deliberately harm anyone. They have faith in authority and it is not shared by people they label conspiracy theorists.
Following the assassination of President Kennedy in 1963 alternative explanations proliferated, not least of all due to the apparent implausibility of the official account. Many U.S. citizens were concerned that elements within their own government had effectively staged a coup. Others, such as the prominent American historian Richard Hoftsadter, were more concerned that people doubted their government.
Building on the work of Popper, partly as a critique of McCarthyism but also in response to the Republican nomination loss of Nelson A. Rockefeller, American historian Richard Hofstadter suggested that people’s inability to believe what they are told by government was not based upon their grasp of the evidence. Rather it was rooted in psychological need.
He claimed much of this stemmed from their lack of education (knowledge), political disenfranchisement and an unjustified sense of self importance. He also suggested these dangerous opinions threatened to pollute the body politic.
Like Popper, Hofstadter did not identify conspiracy theorists directly. But he did formulate the narrative underpinning the modern, widely accepted, definition. He wrote:
I call it the paranoid style simply because no other word adequately evokes the sense of heated exaggeration, suspiciousness, and conspiratorial fantasy that I have in mind…It is the use of paranoid modes of expression by more or less normal people that makes the phenomenon significant
[…]
Of course, there are highbrow, lowbrow, and middlebrow paranoids, as there are likely to be in any political tendency. But respectable paranoid literature not only starts from certain moral commitments that can indeed be justified but also carefully and all but obsessively accumulates “evidence.”….he can accumulate evidence in order to protect his cherished convictions.
Going to great lengths to focus on the “paranoid’s” tendency to highlight the evidence, as if that were a failing, like most critics of so-called conspiracy theorists, Hofstadter chose neither to address nor even mention what that evidence was. He merely asserted that it was unbelievable. The reader just had to take his word for it.
The Warren Commission Report into the JFK assassination drew considerable criticism. The finding that Oswald acted alone contradicted numerous eye witness accounts, film, autopsy and ballistic evidence.
Four of the seven commissioners harshly criticised the report issued in their name. Widely seen as quite ridiculous, in the absence of any sensible official account of the assassination, numerous explanatory theories inevitably sprang up.
In response to the mounting criticism, in 1967 the CIA sent an internal dispatch to all field offices called Document 1035-960: Concerning Criticism of the Warren Report.
Revealed by a New York Times Freedom of Information Request in 1976, the dispatch is the first written record we have of the combination of Popper’s “conspiracy theory of society” with Hofstadter’s “paranoid style” militant. It defined the modern concept of the conspiracy theorist.
The document states:
Conspiracy theories have frequently thrown suspicion on our organization, for example by falsely alleging that Lee Harvey Oswald worked for us. The aim of this dispatch is to provide material countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists.”
It can be considered as the origin of the weaponised term “conspiracy theory.” It recommends a set of techniques to be used to discredit all critics of the Warren Commission Report. Once you are familiar with them, it is obvious that these strategies are commonly deployed today to dismiss all who question official statements as “conspiracy theorists.” We can paraphrase these as follows:
Deny any new evidence offered and cite only official reports stating ‘no new evidence has emerged.’ Dismiss contradictory eyewitness statements and focus upon the existing, primary, official evidence such as ballistics, autopsy, and photographic evidence. Do not initiate any discussion of the evidence and suggest that large scale conspiracies are impossible to cover up in an open and free democracy. Accuse the conspiracy theorists of having an intellectual superiority complex. Suggest that theorists refuse to acknowledge their own errors. Refute any suggestion of witness assassinations by pointing out they were all deaths by natural causes. Question the quality of conspiracy research and point out that official sources are better.
The report recommended making good use of “friendly elite contacts (especially politicians and editors)” and to “employ propaganda assets to [negate] and refute the attacks of the critics.”
The CIA advocated using mainstream media feature articles to discredit people labelled conspiracy theorists.
While the use of these methods has been refined over the years, the essential process of labelling someone a conspiracy theorist, while studiously avoiding any discussion of the evidence they highlight, is extremely common in the mainstream media today. We only need look at the reports about academics who questioned the government’s narrative about COVID19 to see the techniques in operation.
The drive to convince the public to use only “official sources” for information has seen the rise of the fact checker.
These organisations, invariably with the support of government and corporate funding, are offered as the reliable sources which provide real facts. The facts they provide are frequently wrong and the fact checking industry has settled legal claims from those who challenged their disinformation.
People have been directed by the mainstream media to abandon all critical thinking. They just need to go to their government-approved fact-checker in order be told the truth.
Providing the public believe the people labelled conspiracy theorists are crazy, ill informed or agents for a foreign powers, the mainstream media, politicians and other commentators can undermine any and all evidence they present. In keeping with the CIA’s initial recommendations, it is extremely unlikely that the evidence will ever be openly discussed but, if it is, it can be written off as “conspiracy theory.”
However, it isn’t just the mainstream media who use the conspiracy theorist label to avoid discussing evidence. Politicians, speaking on the worlds biggest political stage, have seized the opportunity to deploy the CIA’s strategy.
Three Speeches One Agenda
Even for Prime Ministers and Presidents, addressing the General Assembly of the United Nations is a big deal. These tend to be big thematic speeches as the leader impresses their vision upon the gathered dignitaries and global media.
Yet, despite the fact that conspiracy theorists are supposed to be idiots who don’t know the time of day, global “leaders” have repeatedly used this auspicious occasion to single them out as one of the greatest threats to global security.
In November 2001 George W. Bush addressed the United Nations General Assembly with the following words:
We must speak the truth about terror. Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th; malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists, themselves, away from the guilty. To inflame ethnic hatred is to advance the cause of terror.”
Even if you accept the official account of 9/11, and there are numerous reasons why you wouldn’t, how does questioning it suggest that you support terrorism or mark you out as a racist?
The suggestion appears absurd but it does illustrate that the U.S. president wanted both to silence all criticism of the government account and link those questioning it to extremism and even terrorism.
This theme was reiterated by the UK Prime Minister David Cameron in his 2014 address. He said:
To defeat ISIL – and organisations like it we must defeat this ideology in all its forms…..it is clear that many of them were initially influenced by preachers who claim not to encourage violence, but whose world view can be used as a justification for it. We know this world view. The peddling of lies: that 9/11 was a Jewish plot or that the 7/7 London attacks were staged […] We must be clear: to defeat the ideology of extremism we need to deal with all forms of extremism – not just violent extremism. We must work together to take down illegal online material […] we must stop the so called non-violent extremists from inciting hatred and intolerance.
Like Bush before him, Cameron was at pains to identify what he called non violent extremists (commonly called conspiracy theorists). According to him, all who question government accounts of major geopolitical events are, once again, tantamount to terrorists.
Calling for online censorship to stop any questions ever being asked, it is this authoritarian need to avoid addressing evidence that led his successor, Prime Minister Theresa May, to propose wide-sweeping censorship of the Internet.
At the time of writing, the UK is among the many nations still in so called “lockdown” following the outbreak of COVID19. When UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson addressed the U.N General Assembly in September 2019 he delivered a speech which seemed weirdly out of context. With Brexit and possible conflict with Iran high on the agenda his address, which barely touched on those issues, was received with considerable bewilderment.
Six months later his predictive powers appear to be remarkable. It transpires that Johnson’s comments were extremely relevant. Just six months too early.
There are today people today who are actually still anti-science […] A whole movement called the anti-Vaxxers, who refuse to acknowledge the evidence that vaccinations have eradicated smallpox […] And who by their prejudices are actually endangering the very children they want to protect […] I am profoundly optimistic about the ability of new technology to serve as a liberator and remake the world wondrously and benignly […] Together, we can vanquish killer diseases.”
Despite the wealth of scientific evidence which justifies scepticism about some vaccines, anti-vaxxer (a variant of conspiracy theorist), is another label used to convince people not to consider evidence. The assertion is that those who question vaccines all fundamentally reject the concept of artificially inducing an immune response against a disease.
This isn’t true but how would you know? The anti-vaxxer label alone is sufficient to convince most to turn away.
Johnson’s speech rambled across so many seemingly irrelevant subjects there is little reason to suspect any COVID 19 foreknowledge. But given the global pandemic that would occur just a few months later, it was certainly prescient. Johnson was sufficiently concerned about the supposedly baseless questions of so called conspiracy theorists (or anti-vaxxers) to allege they killed children. A ludicrous suggestion the mainstream media strongly promoted.
It doesn’t matter that academic research has proven that the official account of 9/11 cannot possibly be true; it makes no difference that Mossad agents admitted that they had gone to New York on the morning of 9/11 to “document the event;” studies showing that approximately 90% of the total 20th Century disease reduction in the U.S. occurred prior to the widespread use of vaccines are irrelevant.
None of these facts need to be known by anyone and governments are going to censor all who try to tell others about them. All questions that reference them are crazy conspiracy theories. They are both stupid questions and a huge threat to both national security and the safety of the little children.
One of the recurring themes the people labelled conspiracy theorists discuss is that policy is made behind the closed doors of corporate boardrooms and policy think tanks. It doesn’t matter who you elect or what party you choose to rule over you, they are only capable of tinkering at the edges of the policy platform.
The policy agenda is set at a globalist level. So the fact that, over two decades, one U.S president and two British Prime Minsters were delivering essentially the same message doesn’t surprise the conspiracy theorists.
As we move toward a world where certain ideas are forbidden and only officially approved questions can be asked, where governments and corporations have a monopoly on the truth and everything else is a conspiracy theory, only one thing really matters. The evidence.
Hofstadter’s believed that his paranoid style militants constant citation of evidence was merely an attempt to “protect his cherished convictions.” This could be true, but the only way to find out is to look at that evidence. The label of the conspiracy theorist has been deliberately created in order to convince you not to look at it.
Regardless of whether or not you think someone’s opinion is a conspiracy theory, you owe it to yourself and your children to consider the evidence they cite. Perhaps you will reject it. There’s nothing wrong with that.
But to reject it, without knowing what it is, really is crazy. Your only other option is to unquestioningly accept whatever you are told by the government, globalist think tanks, multinational corporations and their mainstream media partners.
If you choose to believe that everyone who claims to have identified the malfeasance of officials, the crimes of government or the corruption of powerful global institutions, are all conspiracy theorists, then you have accepted that the establishment is beyond reproach.
If you also agree the same established hierarchy can not only determine what you can or cannot know, but can also set all the policies and legislation which dictates your behaviour and defines the limits of your freedom, you have elected to be a slave and don’t value democracy in the slightest.


offguardian--2020-06-03--Post your commenting problems here

Post your commenting problems here

can you spare $ 1.00 a month to support independent media Unlike the Guardian we are NOT funded by Bill @ @ @ @ @ any other NGO or government .
So a few coins in our jar to help @ @ @ @ @ appreciated .

Any issues with the updated comment system, post here.
UPDATE(June 4): We have increased the comment text font size.
And also note you can now edit your comments after posting. If you select your comment you’ll see a cog icon bottom right, click on it and you have the edit option. You can edit your comment for fifteen minutes after posting.
We have also added a “read more” function on longer comments to speed up comment loading. Any issues you have with that should be reported below
UPDATE (June 6): We have disabled the ‘read more’ feature again as it was causing issues for some people
UPDATE (June 9): We have fixed an IP issue which may have been preventing some people voting for comments.


offguardian--2020-06-05--WATCH: Perspectives on the Pandemic #8

WATCH: Perspectives on the Pandemic #8

This episode focuses on the economic consequences of the pandemic , and potential increase in the power of monopolies In this “ monopoly edition ” of Perspectives , Matt Stoller , author of Goliath : The 100-Year War Between Monopoly Power and Democracy , forecasts the actual amount of the Wall Street bailout ; the coming disappearance of most small business ; the problems that emerge when monopolies control health care ; the emergence of a Wall Street-oriented “ planned economy ” ; the failure of progressives to stop the theft of trillions , and much more .
The Interviewee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Policy Advisor and Budget Analyst to the Senate Budget Committee .
He also worked in the US House of Representatives on financial services policy and is a fellow at the Open Markets Institute .
His first book Goliath : The 100-Year War Between Monopoly Power and Democracy was published in October 2019 .
The Interviewer : John Kirby is the director of FOUR DIED TRYING , a feature documentary and series on the major assassinations of the 1960 ’ s and their calamitous impact on the country .
To join the struggle for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and John and Robert Kennedy .
Follow Journeyman Pictures on youtube or visit their website for more of their award-winning factual content .

This episode focuses on the economic consequences of the pandemic, and potential increase in the power of monopolies
In this “monopoly edition” of Perspectives, Matt Stoller, author of Goliath: The 100-Year War Between Monopoly Power and Democracy, forecasts the actual amount of the Wall Street bailout; the coming disappearance of most small business; the problems that emerge when monopolies control health care; the emergence of a Wall Street-oriented “planned economy”; the failure of progressives to stop the theft of trillions, and much more.
The Interviewee: Matt Stoller is a former Senior Policy Advisor and Budget Analyst to the Senate Budget Committee. He also worked in the US House of Representatives on financial services policy and is a fellow at the Open Markets Institute. His first book Goliath: The 100-Year War Between Monopoly Power and Democracy was published in October 2019.
The Interviewer: John Kirby is the director of FOUR DIED TRYING, a feature documentary and series on the major assassinations of the 1960’s and their calamitous impact on the country. To join the struggle for justice for Dr. King, Malcolm X, and John and Robert Kennedy.
Follow Journeyman Pictures on youtube or visit their website for more of their award-winning factual content.


offguardian--2020-06-05--Medical Martial Law: Liberalism’s Final Capitulation

In 2010 Chris Hedges declared the liberal class as dead as a doornail .
He was late .
Liberalism had died decades earlier .
All that remains now is the separate components of the body of liberalism .
The stinking compounds have decomposed into identity politics .
The cause of death for the liberal class , as Chris Hedges tells us , was gullibility .
Liberals were foolish enough to believe that they could moderate capitalism .
They thought that they could change corporatism by elections , mass movements , whining and begging for incrementally .
The liberal class started @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ethics , beliefs , and powers .
All they got in return were table-scraps to identity politics .
The power elite did not give up anything it really cares about .
The corporatists raped , pillaged and burned with abandon , while liberals wallowed in political correctness .
Taxes for the rich are the lowest in over 100 years .
The military budget is the highest in history .
The concentration of wealth and income is in the fewest hands .
US wars have killed millions of people , and war profits are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Government is privatized .
The economy has been deindustrialized .
The police are militarized .
The working class has been disenfranchised .
The middle-class is being impoverished .
The unemployed are idle .
The poor are criminalized .
I could go on , but you get the point .
And what has the liberal class gotten in return ?
Token integration .
Ending conscription .
Adulthood at 18 years of age .
Women in the workforce .
Acceptance of LGBTQ .
A black president .
The MeToo movement .
Legalized marijuana .
A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ here—what else have the liberal class gotten in the past half-century , in return for their soul ?
Liberals elected Barack Obama in 2008 , laughed , cheered , cried , and then they went to sleep for eight years .
They thought that Obama would do the heavy lifting for them .
Instead he went from bombing three countries to bombing seven , after winning the Nobel Peace Prize for nothing .
Obama looked the other way as the Police Occupied Zuccotti Park , Black Lives Didn ’ t Matter , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whistleblowers , and he became the deporter-in-chief .
He bailed out the banks , while millions of families lost their homes .
Obamacare enriched insurance companies and big-pharma .
Gitmo stands as the legacy of Obama ’ s droning wedding parties and funerals , and for all his broken promises .
His answer to climate change was Artic drilling , and fracking the USA .
Obama and the liberal class are the reason we have Trump .
The rich do not care about any of the liberal class ’ s identity politics and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to make those concessions .
The liberals are not willing to fight for anything of importance , and the corporatists know it .
The corporatists don ’ t care if Trump or Biden is the next president .
Bernie or bust !
Fugget about it : Bernie Sanders is just a sheepdog , a foil , a professional wrestler , and Kabuki theater .
Bernie is the Senator from Lockheed and Israel .
He is a carnival huckster , herding the liberal suckers into the big tent .
The DNC will be happy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ keep their jobs , their power , their influence , and the gravy train keeps on rolling .
Nancy Pelosi will still get her kicks from gourmet chocolate , Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez will keep making arm-waving rants to an empty House , Ilhan Omar will kowtow to the Zionist lobby , and the Congressional Black Caucus will vote against blacks .
Liberals will grandstand politically correct platitudes , while the banks , corporations , military-industrial complex , Israel , and the well-connected get unlimited hand-outs .
Lest I forget , fake liberal Rachel Maddow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ still get paid $ 30 thousand a night for “ Russia-Russia-Russia !
” , and the New York Times will endorse every regime-change war , just as it has done for the past 150 years .
And Liberals will commiserate with each other , preach to their dwindling choir , blame everybody except themselves , and waste another four years without organizing any opposition .
Medical martial law reveals just how out of touch liberals are with common people .
Liberals have abandoned the working class , the unemployed , the poor , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the indebted , the bankrupt , veterans , the homeless , beggars , red-necks , slum dwellers , the uneducated , and old people surviving on three-figure Social Security checks .
All the liberal class whines about are Trump and their own selfish economic interests ; the so-called middle-class issues .
They despise their potential allies among the people , look down on them as if they are riff raff .
Liberals should be uplifting the downtrodden , not kicking them .
Liberals naively believe the COVID-19 fearmongering .
They begged the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they have become comfortable to “ the rules ” and their self-imposed imprisonment .
They would rather give up all of their civil liberties , and those of others , than to risk catching the flu .
They will obediently line up for experimental vaccines , identification tattoos , and download medical tracking apps on their iPhones .
They are COVID kool .
The facemask is their badge of obedience , which does medical and psychological harm to their body , mind and soul .
The facemask is nasty .
It provides the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Wearing a face mask is humiliating , and unsanitary .
It is a symbol of passive submission to the power elite .
They look ridiculous wearing it .
What liberals can never be forgiven for is their abandonment of internationalism .
They have deserted international socialism , leaving welfare-states to be crushed by international capitalists .
While liberals cower-in-place in fear of COVID-19 , their passiveness supports the medical blockade against socialist countries .
Liberals are the “ Good Americans ” , just like the Good Germans during the Third Reich .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ shelter in place by fascistic Israelis , since 2007 .
Another three million Palestinians have been imprisoned since 1967 in an ever-shrinking isolated West Bank .
There are another 5 million Palestinian members of the diaspora , who can not return to their homeland , as is their God-given human right .
Palestinians are tortured in Israeli concentration camps .
Liberals can not say they do not know , and their silence speaks volumes .
Since World War Two the U.S. has killed an estimated 30 million people , none of whom were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people .
Ethically , morally and legally most US Americans are guilty of war crimes .
The German people were not let off the hook after WW2 .
The US American people are just as guilty now .
Liberals know the U.S. government is a pathological liar .
The past two decades have been especially rotten .
George W. Bush winning the election in 2000 was a lie .
The attacks of 9/11 were lies , the invasion of Afghanistan was based on a lie , Iraq weapons of mass destruction were a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ program is a lie , the Katrina Hurricane response was a lie , the Russian invasion of Georgia was a lie , the 2009 bailout of Wall Street was based on lies , Haiti earthquake aid was a lie , the Ukraine coup was lied about , Gaddafi ’ s Viagra was a lie , the well-vetted moderate rebel was a lie , the lie that Venezuela is a threat to the US is a lie , the White Helmets are a propaganda lie , Russiagate is a lie , the Douma chemical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons report was a lie , the torture of Chelsea Manning is lied about , the Julian Assange lie is a lie .
So now liberals believe that the government authorities are telling the truth about COVID-19 ?
Liberals say that we should believe that lie too , and we should obey the fascistic rules .
The first clue that the authorities are lying is that the banks , corporations and the well-connected were bailed out again ; first too .
Six-trillion U.S. dollars disappeared overnight .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wars of aggression did not stand-down .
There was no break in the illegal U.S. blockades against socialist countries .
Instead there is a campaign of maximum starvation during a pandemic .
The military ’ s Defender 2020 war-game invasion of Russia was not canceled due to COVID-19 .
The power elite do not isolate , wear face masks , and practice social distancing .
We are not in it all together , and COVID-19 has not made us all equal .
Those memes are liberal pipedreams .
There is no bailout for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unified response to provide the people with adequate food , healthcare , housing , and financial relief during medical martial law .
The physical , mental and emotional damages caused by isolation are being ignored .
The casualties caused by medical martial law and “ the rules ” go unreported , if the statistics are even being kept .
The number of people who have become infected , ill , and died from COVID-19 is lied about .
What is happening under martial law is the permanent stripping away of our civil liberties @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the benefit of big-tech , and more concentration of income and wealth is going to the top .
Yet , liberals meekly accept the assault on the people ’ s rights in silence .
They could at least honk their car horns in solidarity with wage-slave workers .
Are liberals going to show up when people are evicted from their homes , have their cars repossessed , and their wages garnished ?
Are they going to stand in picket lines with workers , who are demanding fair wages ?
Are liberals going to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a return to civilian government ?
Are liberals going to resist forced vaccinations , contact tracking , snitching , spying , and ID chipping ?
Are they going to be standing up for civil liberties and human rights ?
Or are they going to be standing with the corporatists , and begging the corporatists for their fiendish programs of surveillance and control ?
Liberals have made “ liberal ” a dirty word .
They can not hide behind the identity of progressive .
There is nothing liberal or progressive about making bargains with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ corrupt power elites .
It is time to bury the putrid body of the liberal class .
It has already become a biohazard more dangerous than any virus .
David William Pear is a Senior Editor for OpEdNews.com , and a Senior Contributing Editor for The Greanville Post .
David is a journalist , columnist , and commentator for TV and radio .
He has been writing for The Real News Network , OpEdNews , The Greanville Post , American Herald Tribune , and other publications since 2009 .

David William Pear
They passed the USA PATRIOT Act – and I did nothing because I am a patriot.
They passed the USA Freedom Act – and I believe in freedom.
They nominated Hillary Clinton – and I voted for the lesser evil.
They declared medical martial law – and I didn’t want to kill grandma.
They said to wear a facemask – and I passively obeyed.
I believe Joe Biden – because I am a liberal.
Ode to a Liberal – DWP
In 2010 Chris Hedges declared the liberal class as dead as a doornail. He was late. Liberalism had died decades earlier. All that remains now is the separate components of the body of liberalism. The stinking compounds have decomposed into identity politics.
The cause of death for the liberal class, as Chris Hedges tells us, was gullibility. Liberals were foolish enough to believe that they could moderate capitalism. They thought that they could change corporatism by elections, mass movements, whining and begging for incrementally.
The liberal class started their negotiations by compromising all of their ethics, beliefs, and powers. All they got in return were table-scraps to identity politics. The power elite did not give up anything it really cares about. The corporatists raped, pillaged and burned with abandon, while liberals wallowed in political correctness.
Taxes for the rich are the lowest in over 100 years. The military budget is the highest in history. The concentration of wealth and income is in the fewest hands. US wars have killed millions of people, and war profits are booming. Labor unions were neutered. Government is privatized. The economy has been deindustrialized. The police are militarized. The working class has been disenfranchised. The middle-class is being impoverished. The unemployed are idle. The poor are criminalized.
I could go on, but you get the point.
And what has the liberal class gotten in return? Token integration. Ending conscription. Adulthood at 18 years of age. Women in the workforce. Acceptance of LGBTQ. A black president. The MeToo movement. Legalized marijuana. A $1200 bailout. Help me out here—what else have the liberal class gotten in the past half-century, in return for their soul?
Liberals elected Barack Obama in 2008, laughed, cheered, cried, and then they went to sleep for eight years. They thought that Obama would do the heavy lifting for them. Instead he went from bombing three countries to bombing seven, after winning the Nobel Peace Prize for nothing. Obama looked the other way as the Police Occupied Zuccotti Park, Black Lives Didn’t Matter, and Dakota Pipelined.
Obama imprisoned and tortured whistleblowers, and he became the deporter-in-chief. He bailed out the banks, while millions of families lost their homes. Obamacare enriched insurance companies and big-pharma. Gitmo stands as the legacy of Obama’s droning wedding parties and funerals, and for all his broken promises. His answer to climate change was Artic drilling, and fracking the USA.
Obama and the liberal class are the reason we have Trump.
The rich do not care about any of the liberal class’s identity politics and correctness. It costs the rich nothing to make those concessions. The liberals are not willing to fight for anything of importance, and the corporatists know it. The corporatists don’t care if Trump or Biden is the next president.
Bernie or bust! Fugget about it: Bernie Sanders is just a sheepdog, a foil, a professional wrestler, and Kabuki theater. Bernie is the Senator from Lockheed and Israel. He is a carnival huckster, herding the liberal suckers into the big tent.
The DNC will be happy to keep Trump.
They get to keep their jobs, their power, their influence, and the gravy train keeps on rolling. Nancy Pelosi will still get her kicks from gourmet chocolate, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez will keep making arm-waving rants to an empty House, Ilhan Omar will kowtow to the Zionist lobby, and the Congressional Black Caucus will vote against blacks.
Liberals will grandstand politically correct platitudes, while the banks, corporations, military-industrial complex, Israel, and the well-connected get unlimited hand-outs.
Lest I forget, fake liberal Rachel Maddow and her ilk in the media will still get paid $30 thousand a night for “Russia-Russia-Russia!”, and the New York Times will endorse every regime-change war, just as it has done for the past 150 years. And Liberals will commiserate with each other, preach to their dwindling choir, blame everybody except themselves, and waste another four years without organizing any opposition.
Medical martial law reveals just how out of touch liberals are with common people. Liberals have abandoned the working class, the unemployed, the poor, the incarcerated, the ghettoized, wage-slaves, the indebted, the bankrupt, veterans, the homeless, beggars, red-necks, slum dwellers, the uneducated, and old people surviving on three-figure Social Security checks.
All the liberal class whines about are Trump and their own selfish economic interests; the so-called middle-class issues. They despise their potential allies among the people, look down on them as if they are riff raff. Liberals should be uplifting the downtrodden, not kicking them.
Liberals naively believe the COVID-19 fearmongering. They begged the authorities for medical martial law, and they have become comfortable to “the rules” and their self-imposed imprisonment. They would rather give up all of their civil liberties, and those of others, than to risk catching the flu.
They will obediently line up for experimental vaccines, identification tattoos, and download medical tracking apps on their iPhones. They are COVID kool.
The facemask is their badge of obedience, which does medical and psychological harm to their body, mind and soul. The facemask is nasty. It provides the perfect environment for breeding and spreading germs. Wearing a face mask is humiliating, and unsanitary. It is a symbol of passive submission to the power elite. They look ridiculous wearing it.
What liberals can never be forgiven for is their abandonment of internationalism. They have deserted international socialism, leaving welfare-states to be crushed by international capitalists. While liberals cower-in-place in fear of COVID-19, their passiveness supports the medical blockade against socialist countries. Liberals are the “Good Americans”, just like the Good Germans during the Third Reich.
Two million Gazans have been forced to shelter in place by fascistic Israelis, since 2007. Another three million Palestinians have been imprisoned since 1967 in an ever-shrinking isolated West Bank. There are another 5 million Palestinian members of the diaspora, who cannot return to their homeland, as is their God-given human right. Palestinians are tortured in Israeli concentration camps. Liberals can not say they do not know, and their silence speaks volumes.
Since World War Two the U.S. has killed an estimated 30 million people, none of whom were ever a threat to the US American people. Ethically, morally and legally most US Americans are guilty of war crimes. The German people were not let off the hook after WW2. The US American people are just as guilty now.
Liberals know the U.S. government is a pathological liar. The past two decades have been especially rotten. George W. Bush winning the election in 2000 was a lie. The attacks of 9/11 were lies, the invasion of Afghanistan was based on a lie, Iraq weapons of mass destruction were a lie, Iran’s nuclear weapons program is a lie, the Katrina Hurricane response was a lie, the Russian invasion of Georgia was a lie, the 2009 bailout of Wall Street was based on lies, Haiti earthquake aid was a lie, the Ukraine coup was lied about, Gaddafi’s Viagra was a lie, the well-vetted moderate rebel was a lie, the lie that Venezuela is a threat to the US is a lie, the White Helmets are a propaganda lie, Russiagate is a lie, the Douma chemical attack was a lie, the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons report was a lie, the torture of Chelsea Manning is lied about, the Julian Assange lie is a lie.
So now liberals believe that the government authorities are telling the truth about COVID-19?
Liberals say that we should believe that lie too, and we should obey the fascistic rules. The first clue that the authorities are lying is that the banks, corporations and the well-connected were bailed out again; first too. Six-trillion U.S. dollars disappeared overnight. The second clue was that the U.S. illegal wars of aggression did not stand-down. There was no break in the illegal U.S. blockades against socialist countries.
Instead there is a campaign of maximum starvation during a pandemic.
The military’s Defender 2020 war-game invasion of Russia was not canceled due to COVID-19.
The power elite do not isolate, wear face masks, and practice social distancing. We are not in it all together, and COVID-19 has not made us all equal. Those memes are liberal pipedreams.
There is no bailout for the people. There has been no unified response to provide the people with adequate food, healthcare, housing, and financial relief during medical martial law. The physical, mental and emotional damages caused by isolation are being ignored.
The casualties caused by medical martial law and “the rules” go unreported, if the statistics are even being kept. The number of people who have become infected, ill, and died from COVID-19 is lied about.
What is happening under martial law is the permanent stripping away of our civil liberties. The economy is being restructured for the benefit of big-tech, and more concentration of income and wealth is going to the top. Yet, liberals meekly accept the assault on the people’s rights in silence. They could at least honk their car horns in solidarity with wage-slave workers.
Are liberals going to show up when people are evicted from their homes, have their cars repossessed, and their wages garnished? Are they going to stand in picket lines with workers, who are demanding fair wages? Are liberals going to storm the statehouses and Washington to demand a return to civilian government?
Are liberals going to resist forced vaccinations, contact tracking, snitching, spying, and ID chipping? Are they going to be standing up for civil liberties and human rights? Or are they going to be standing with the corporatists, and begging the corporatists for their fiendish programs of surveillance and control?
Liberals have made “liberal” a dirty word. They cannot hide behind the identity of progressive. There is nothing liberal or progressive about making bargains with the corporatists, fascists, and the corrupt power elites. It is time to bury the putrid body of the liberal class. It has already become a biohazard more dangerous than any virus.
Resist!
Revolt will come from the right. That the revolt will be funded, organized, and manipulated by the corporate forces is one of the tragic ironies. But the blame lies with the liberal class. Liberals, by standing for nothing, made possible the rise of inverted and perhaps soon classical totalitarianism.”
The Death of the Liberal Class – Chris Hedges (2010)
David William Pear is a Senior Editor for OpEdNews.com, and a Senior Contributing Editor for The Greanville Post. David is a journalist, columnist, and commentator for TV and radio. He has been writing for The Real News Network, OpEdNews, The Greanville Post, American Herald Tribune, and other publications since 2009.