Conspiracy Theories 101 Series

Part 12 of 12:

The Stigma of Being a Conspiracy Theorist

Conspiracy Theories 101 Series Part 1 of 12: Introduction
Conspiracy Theories 101 Series Part 2 of 12: The Deep State
Conspiracy Theories 101 Series Part 3 of 12: Conspiracy Theorists
Conspiracy Theories 101 Series Part 4 of 12: Pedophile Rings
Conspiracy Theories 101 Series Part 5 of 12: The Surveillance State
Conspiracy Theories 101 Series Part 6 of 12: The Banking State
Conspiracy Theories 101 Series Part 7 of 12: The Environmental Movement
Conspiracy Theories 101 Series Part 8 of 12: Breaking Up the Family Unit
Conspiracy Theories 101 Series Part 9 of 12: The Conspiracy Against Women
Conspiracy Theories 101 Series Part 10 of 12: The Conspiracy Against Visible Minorities
Conspiracy Theories 101 Series Part 11 of 12: The Media
Conspiracy Theories 101 Series Part 12 of 12: The Stigma of Being a Conspiracy Theorist

 

By: Shawn Alli
Posted: October 10, 2017

Conspiracy Theories 101 Series

Full resolution jpg

 

*Note: All individuals and organizations receive 3 full days of pre-publication notice.

 

*Note: I use the term liberal trifecta to refer to liberals in general, liberal/progressive/neo-liberal media outlets, and Democrats.

 

*Note: By Jewish people/Jews, I'm referring to Israeli ethnicity, not Judaist believers.

 

The Peer-Reviewed Literature Against Conspiracy Theorists

Liberal Media Outlets Against Conspiracy Theorists

Liberal Media Outlets Against Alex Jones

Conclusion

 

 

The Peer-Reviewed Literature Against Conspiracy Theorists

While everyone knows that the media is notorious for denigrating and ridiculing conspiracy theorists, you may or may not be aware that this ridicule exists in the peer-reviewed literature. The supposed highest means of knowledge. And just so you're aware, it's not pretty by any means:

 

In the last few years there has been growing evidence of a relationship between belief in paranormal phenomena, that is the belief in phenomena which are currently unexplained by science, such as extrasensory perception or psychokinesis, and also the belief in spirits or extraordinary life-forms...and schizotypy. Schizotypy has been described as the prodromal phase of schizophrenia and involves cognitive, perceptual and affective symptoms. [1]

 

Basically, these psychologists...I mean scientists are saying that if you're a new age believer, you're pretty much schizophrenic. But...here's the BUT. If you're a traditional religious believer, you're okay. Why?:

 

From the seven subscales of the PBS [Paranormal Belief Scale], only traditional religious belief was found to be inversely related to magical thinking. The positive relationship between paranormal belief and magical ideation was further confirmed... [2]

 

Traditional religious beliefs are rational? While new age believers are schizophrenic? Christian conspiracy theorists are okay? But new age conspiracy theorists are schizophrenic? Believing in a racist, sexist, and homophobic god is rational while believing in consciousness and ESP is irrational? Wow. Even I didn't think they would just come out and say it like that.

 

These psychologists are cracked in the head. If you're an average person and think that psychology or psychiatry is a real science...it's not. It's all unfalsifiable ideological junk science (see Philosophy of Science in Philosophy Reborn Part I: Purpose and The Mental Health Industry in Philosophy Reborn Part IV: Naturally Unhealthy Big Pharma & Big Media).

 

And no, I'm not a scientologist. Have you seen the Scientology origin story? Oh dear god. What a joke. But then again, if it was taught at least a thousand years ago, it would probably be the dominant religion today. It's very easy to condition people if you know what you're doing.

 

If Scientology continues to survive in the future, I wouldn't be surprised if people start seeing L. Ron Hubbard as another prophet after Jesus and Mohammed. Blasphemy. You say that now, but with enough time and conditioning, the dominant paradigm can easily condition you to see it as the truth.

 

And this was only the first reference. And the stigma against conspiracy theorists continues:

 

In conclusion this research has identified two related factors associated with conspiracy beliefs – paranoid ideation and schizotypy. As some features of paranoia and schizotypy may serve adaptive functions, then it is perhaps not surprising that belief in conspiracies is very common. However further research would be beneficial to investigate the traits underlying paranoid ideation and schizotypy, in order to gain a better insight into what specific personality attributes make an individual more likely to believe in conspiracy theories. While some degree of conspiracy thinking may be of benefit to individuals living in a complex social world, clearly for some people such thought patterns could become maladaptive, and may lead to antisocial behaviours. [3]

 

In this case, all conspiracy theorists are treated equally and are paranoid and pretty much schizophrenic. No religious/new age discrimination. At least they threw in the evolution adaptation argument. That was nice of them.

 

To be fair, some conspiracy theorists are anti-social and openly hostile to non-conspiracy theorists. They just don't get it. The deep state is the enemy. Sigh. This is usually the case with all groups of people. Liberals tend to get along with liberals. And Christians get along better with Christians.

 

Oddly enough, the same is not true for conspiracy theorists. Conspiracy theorists don't necessarily get along with other conspiracy theorists. While some do, for others, if you don't believe X is a conspiracy, you're the enemy/disinformation. Yes, it's that bad. I'm doing what I can to clean up the movement.

 

But then again, the same is true for liberals. Try claiming to be a liberal and advocate for nationalism or being against abortion. You'll feel the hostility pretty fast in the liberal camp. In the end, classifying groups doesn't help anyone.

 

Even if people have 99% of the same beliefs, that 1% can make all the difference. Consciousness is unique for every person. Classifying large groups of people into different mental health states/personality types is okay for a general sample. But it can never apply to an individual.

 

And the ridicule against conspiracy theorists continues. This time it's from academic philosophers:

 

Less obviously, the hair-trigger state of the intentional stance is one of the main cognitive roots of conspiracy thinking...which invariably involves seeing malicious intent in meaningless patterns and coincidences. It also underlies belief in witchcraft and demonic possession. [4]

 

Umm...what? Whether life has meaning to it or not is a long running debate. Atheist liberals and scientists believe that it doesn't. Everyone else believes that it does. It's an unfalsifiable issue. That means that it will never be resolved in a scientific manner. Conspiracy theorists are a small minority who believe that life (and all actions) has meaning.

 

And no, conspiracy thinking doesn't necessarily involve a belief in witchcraft or demons. That's more along the lines of Christian conspiracy theorists. New age conspiracy theorists like myself don't believe in that stuff. But I'm open to changing my mind if a demonic possessed witch says that she's demonically possessed and has witch-like powers. It's always good to keep an open mind.

 

Another issue with academic philosophers being against conspiracy theorists is because of a larger issue. Credibility. In the past, philosophy focuses on the social humanities: ethics, values, justice, politics, intention, the mind, knowledge and such. Today, it's more or less focused on neuroscience. Why? Because there's a strong push for academic philosophers to move away from the social humanities and move into science. Why? For credibility.

 

Most disciplines don't like philosophy because it doesn't really do anything. Academic philosophers publish papers in the peer-reviewed literature and marvel as professors give talks at conferences. It's powerfully boring.

 

In the belt tightening era, philosophy departments are being squeezed. Academic philosophers specializing in social humanities are not bringing in new revenue to the schools. And prestige in philosophical circles only goes so far. Hence, the push to be more credible by focusing on the philosophy of science, the brain, and AI.

 

Personally, I don't really care. I think that all philosophical departments across Western-European (WE) universities should be dissolved. Why? Because academic philosophers are fakes. They don't count as real philosophers.

 

Contrary to what you may believe, philosophy is not about rich white men reflecting on things in their luxury villas and estates. Nor is it about writing long-winded papers in the peer-reviewed literature. The purpose of philosophy is to solve real world problems like racism, sexism, inequality, corruption, false democracies, special interests, lobbyists and such. And there are very few real philosophers in the world (see The Failure of Academic Philosophy in Philosophy Reborn Part II: Social Humanities).

 

And no, Noam Chomsky doesn't count. Sorry, but his work in linguistics is just a new version of Descartes' work. And his opinions about global politics are just that. Opinions. Hot air. It's not solving any significant problems that humanity faces in the past, present, or future.

 

And the ridicule against conspiracy theorists continues:

 

Our results suggest that belief in the Da Vinci Code conspiracy may be associated with coping with existential threat and death-related anxiety...We suggest that belief in modern conspiracy theories may help individuals attain or maintain a sense of meaning, control, and security. [5]

 

This quotation is ridicule wrapped in a compliment. While it's nice that researchers can see a strong reason why conspiracy theories exist. They also see conspiracy theorists as broken dolls who can't cope with life so they turn to the illusion of conspiracies. That's more or less the same argument about religious believers.

 

Religious people can't cope with the truth in a scientific world. Apparently, this argument applies to everyone who's not an atheist, liberal, or scientist. Atheists, liberals, and scientists see the truth of the world. Only religious people and conspiracy theorists have to be studied for their false beliefs. Of course.

 

As always, ideology and your perception of yourself and reality will always be king. Sadly, ideologies have a way of blinding people, particularly atheists, liberals, and scientists from recognizing that they drink from the same Kool-Aid as conspiracy theorists and religious people...the Kool-Aid of ideology.

 

And just so you know, conspiracy theorists and religious people don't like to be studied like rats. It's demeaning. But then again, that's the point. And the ridicule against conspiracy theortists continues:

 

The prevalence of misguided and potentially dangerous beliefs makes understanding the psychological origins an important objective. Thankfully, the recent surge in psychologists taking an interest in conspiracist beliefs suggests that progress is being made.

The current findings suggest that people who endorse conspiracy theories more strongly are particularly susceptible to this 'conjunction fallacy' [an error in reasoning]. Taken together with previous research, this provides further evidence that conspiracy theories, similar with other anomalous beliefs, are associated with reasoning biases and heuristics. Thus, research into the psychological antecedents, correlates and functions of conspiracist beliefs may be productively subsumed into the wider framework of anomalistic psychology. [6]

 

In the mind of psychologists, conspiracy theories are dangerous because the usual conditioning programs aren't working on the public like they use to in the past. More people are starting to realize the GSIG liberal conditioning process as complete bullsh*t and taking action. Psychologists, scientists and the liberal trifecta are doing their best to regain lost ground from conspiracy theorists. Hence, the demonization of conspiracy theorists and their theories.

 

While conspiracy theorists definitely have a strong bias, so does everyone else, including liberals, scientists, psychologists, and atheists. The ideology that only conspiracy theorists have a reasoning/rationality problem is due to the ideology that liberal conditioning is correct.

 

It's a shame that psychologists, scientists and atheists can't recognize that they've already drunk the liberal conditioning Kool-Aid. While it's still possible to get out, it's very difficult to show someone the way out if they prefer to stay in their cage of conditioning.

 

Don't think that liberal conditioning is a cage? That's exactly what the liberal trifecta thinks prior to the 2016 US election. The problem isn't that Hilary lost. It's that the liberal trifecta expected Clinton to win by a wide margin. Instead, Democrats lose the White House, the Senate, and the House.

 

Just for fun, you should look up the "Trump Won't Win Election - Media Fails Compilation" on YouTube video. It's hilarious.

 

Anomalistic psychology? Wow. These researchers have balls. Basically, if you believe in conspiracy theories, you have mental health problems. On the opposite side, if you give into liberal conditioning, you're a normal person.

 

As always, ideology and your perception of yourself and reality will always be king. And most liberals, scientists, and atheists are not intelligent enough to realize their own ideologies, let alone go beyond their liberal conditioning.

 

And remember, psychology and psychiatry have no basis in falsifiable objective science. It's just ideological unfalsifiable junk science. Their opinions have no significant value. And the ridicule against conspiracy theorists continues:

 

Our results provide empirical support for previous suggestions that conspiratorial thinking contributes to the rejection of science. [7]

 

That's an interesting claim. Are conspiracy theorists anti-science? Yes and no. Yes, there is a general mistrust of dogmatic unfalsifiable science. There's been a lot of garbage ideological science in the past and present, and will continue in the future.

 

Personally, I'm against recognizing eugenics, male superiority, hair testing, bite-mark analysis, and cholesterol and fat causing heart disease claims as science. So in that sense, I'm anti-science. Sadly, all of these junk claims are backed by objective science and taught as factual in the past. That's a big problem for science.

 

But the reason why I'm also not anti-science is because I believe in objective falsifiable science. Unlike most liberals and scientists, I understand falsifiability and how it applies to science (see Philosophy of Science in Philosophy Reborn Part I: Purpose).

 

Mass surveillance, the pearl harbor attack allowed to occur, the Gulf of Tonkin false flag, the existence of the NSA, the existence of Bilderberg and Bohemian Grove meeting, government mind control (MKULTRA), the secret interpretation of the US Patriot Act, the CIA's fake vaccination program [8] [9], the lack of WMDs in Iraq, Bernie Sanders being pushed out by the DNC...

 

...all of it, once seen as delusional conspiracies, are now seen as a factual. Hopefully, I'll be able to add the JFK conspiracy, water fluoridation, climate change, and 9/11 in here in the future.

 

Does anyone really believe that a plane crashes into the pentagon without any wreckage? Even a direct collision with a mountain at high speed would create wreckage. Does anyone really believe that a building collapses into itself without getting hit?

 

Privately, most people don't believe the official story. But publicly, they believe it for the sake of appearances and not wanting to be stigmatized. Fair enough. It's disingenuous, but I understand. Conspiracy theorists who accept the label and the stigma that comes with it can shoulder the mudslinging from the liberal trifecta, scientists, and academia so you don't have to.

 

Unfortunately, no one stops to thank conspiracy theorists once a conspiracy becomes factual. A thank you? For what? You didn't do anything. Yes and no. While the evidence is usually thin for most conspiracy theories, the initial questioning does have some value. Unfortunately, most conspiracy theorists tend to inflate their indirect evidence due to their trip down the rabbit hole. The deeper you go, the more your perception of reality and evidence changes.

 

The liberal trifecta claims that this is why conspiracy theorists don't believe in climate change. They're conservative and paranoid views won't allow them to believe that it's real. Yes and no. Most conspiracy theorists do let their ideologies condition them (as everyone does). And generally speaking, in their minds, the dominant conditioning is always a conspiracy against them/humanity.



What Christian conspiracy theorists fail to realize is that Trump is now creating/implementing his own white conservative Christian conditioning on the American public and humanity. Is it fair to say that one conditioning is better than others? No. Conditioning is conditioning.

 

While the conditioning process is amoral itself, the content of conditioning is highly subjective and relevant to periods in time. In the past, visible minorities are conditioned to be slaves. In the past, the public is conditioned to believe that slavery is acceptable, either for religious or scientific reasons.

 

And what about the evidence? Ideologies and one's perception of reality has a way of slanting evidence in whatever way the person wants it to appear. Is that a problem? Yes. What's the solution?

 

Unfortunately, there is no solution. What? Anything unfalsifiable (especially religion) can be wrong. And almost all knowledge (aside from physics and chemistry) is unfalsifiable. And if it's unfalsifiable, it can't be proven to be wrong.

 

Why not? Because it's not possible to rationally prove or disprove unfalsifiable claims. Hence, the loud jeering of Alex Jones coupled with the loud jeering of his detractors. Both are locked in a never-ending unfalsifiable cycle. Hilarious and tragic at the same time.

 

To be fair to conspiracy theorists, the same is true of the liberal trifecta. In their attempt to vilify Trump and his administration, liberals are definitely stretching what counts as evidence of wrongdoing vs. the appearance of wrongdoing.

 

Unfortunately, in their desperation to regain their stranglehold on conditioning the public, genuine reporting goes out the window and is replaced with ideological reporting. Again, hilarious and tragic at the same time.

 

One peer-reviewed article (sorry, I can't find it) says that the lack of peer reviewed articles negating man-made climate change as a significant problem is basically proof that man-made climate change is a significant problem.

 

Clearly, these scientists are cracked in the head? Eugenics, the superior intelligence of men, hair testing, bite-mark analysis, and cholesterol and fat causing heart disease are all published as objective science in the past peer-reviewed literature.

 

Going against such claims at the time is anti-science. Believing that all ethnicities and both genders are equal in intelligence is considered anti-science in the past. Liberals tend to forget or downplay this fact in their zeal to condition you with climate change.

 

You need to realize that science isn't getting better. The peer-reviewed literature isn't getting better. Nor will it ever get better in the near future. Why not? Because ideology and your perception of yourself and reality will always be king.

 

When you perceive that your unfalsifiable ideologies are correct, you feel great. You can shut down other people just with your confidence alone. And since most scientists don't try to falsify their own research, they'll always believe that their claims are correct.

 

I do my best to present solutions to the peer-reviewed literature problem. But it won't go very far. Why not? Because liberals and scientists don't care what non-liberals and non-scientists think.

 

Their dogmatic ideologies are king. They'll never accept criticism from those on the outside. For all of the liberals and scientists with open minds and genuine hearts, your efforts are commendable, but it won't change the system.

 

GSIGs design the infrastructure of media, science, politics, corporations, and all social institutions. There are mechanisms in place to ignore, denigrate, and destroy trouble makers inside the system.

 

Worse, other researchers can't even prove them wrong. Why not? Because the claims/theories are unfalsifiable. Even when the first researcher comes along and says that it's all garbage, that person will be attacked vehemently. Why?

 

Because of the ideological bias of the dominant scientists and the dogmatic nature of science itself (see A Broken Peer-Reviewed Process in Philosophy Reborn Part III: Science). It doesn't matter how much the troublemakers point out the errors because you can't prove a negative. You can't prove an unfalsifiable theory to be wrong.

 

In the end, we're moving down a dangerous path of science with the rise of gene editing and synthetic biology (see Genetics in Philosophy Reborn Part III: Science). May god/universe have mercy on us for our past, present, and future actions in the name of god, science, and perfection.

 

Again, most liberals and scientists are not on the GSIG payroll and don't have any direct contact with them. They're just useful idiots blindly going along with the GSIG script. While GSIGs are unethical for their actions of control over the global public, useful idiots who serve their purpose indirectly also bear responsibility.

 

And with that cheery note, we can get to the real mudslinging from liberal mainstream and alternative media outlets.

 

Liberal Media Outlets Against Conspiracy Theorists

Let's get right into it:

 

...They [conspiracy theorists] tend to feel powerless, the victims of uncontrollable external forces, and it is arguably the case that belief in conspiracies gives them at least the illusion of control.

...In the final analysis though, does belief in conspiracy theories do any real damage? Isn't it the case that such beliefs are just a bit of harmless fun? Although that may be true of belief in most conspiracy theories, the evidence shows conclusively that belief in conspiracies can cause serious harm...

But proper scepticism does not entail the rejection of all official versions of events but careful rational analysis using critical thinking skills to maximum effect. The assumption that all information from official sources is untrue is a dangerous road to go down. [10]

 

Powerless? Clearly, these academic professors don't understand conspiracy theorists. I don't know any conspiracy theorist who sees themselves as powerless or not in control of their lives. Why not? Because not giving into conditioning and finding out the truth is an empowering act.

 

And yes, conspiracy theories can cause harm (like the pizzagate hoax). But the same applies to religion, liberal/feminist conditioning, and science. Religion has killed more people on this planet than any other cause. Liberal conditioning has conditioned men to be manwhores and women to be sluts. The consequences are still being felt today in Silicon Valley and male-dominated corporations.

 

Aside from eugenics, science has enabled the existence of nuclear weapons. In the end, ideological conspiracy theorists may do some damage, but it's insignificant relative to the damage of religion, liberal conditioning, and science.

 

And yes, not all official versions are false. This is something that conspiracy theorists tend to ignore. But it's not a lack of rationality that's holding them back. As always, ones perception of reality bends the evidence one way or the other. And the ridicule against conspiracy theorist continues:

 

These conspiracy idiots are a boon for Bush and Blair as they destroy the movements some of us have spent years building

...The 9/11 conspiracy theories are a displacement activity. A displacement activity is something you do because you feel incapable of doing what you ought to do. A squirrel sees a larger squirrel stealing its horde of nuts. Instead of attacking its rival, it sinks its teeth into a tree and starts ripping it to pieces. Faced with the mountainous challenge of the real issues we must confront, the chickens in the "truth" movement focus instead on a fairytale, knowing that nothing they do or say will count, knowing that because the perpetrators don't exist, they can't fight back. They demonstrate their courage by repeatedly bayoneting a scarecrow. [11]

 

This quotation really gets into the stigma of being a conspiracy theorist. The liberal trifecta believes that conspiracy theorists are lost in their delusional world. On the other hand, conspiracy theorists (including myself) believe that the liberal trifecta is lost in their delusional world. Both sides not giving an inch. Both sides interpreting events in completely different manners. Both sides claiming that they're correct. Hilarious and tragic at the same time.

 

9/11 is an emotionally charged issue and will likely stay that way in the near future. That means that any evidence against the official story won’t make a significant difference. I'm sure you're aware of scientific explanations of how everything occurs in the official version.

 

But let's do a time travelling hypothetical experiment. Let's pretend that you give engineers in the past video of the buildings falling on 9/11. You tell them that it’s a video of a controlled demolition and you want their opinion on it. I'd bet money that most or all of them would claim that it's a standard controlled demolition.

 

Why the difference? Because you pre-loaded the question. You primed that. You asked them what their opinion is on the controlled demolition. You're already claiming that it's a controlled demolition, and they have no reason to disbelieve you, so they watch the video from the perspective of evaluating a controlled demolition. Hence, they would answer correctly and say that it is.

 

If it doesn't look like a controlled demolition in their eyes, they would be able to recognize that right off the bat. The reason why most engineers today claim that it's not a controlled demolition is a testament to the power of conditioning.

 

As I've mentioned many times, ideology and your perception of yourself and reality will always be king. If you understand the human mind and a person's past conditioning, you'll (more or less) be successful in conditioning them (unless they have a strong character and purpose).

 

This is one of the reasons why the scientific community emphasizes randomness, chance, and coincidence. It's not because it's an objective characteristic of the universe. It's because it's part of a GSIG script. If you believe that your life has no meaning and purpose, you're more likely to accept GSIG conditioning via liberal institutions.

 

The conditioning of the official 9/11 story and the emotional pain is pre-loaded in the mind of the engineers who watch the towers fall. Most will never publicly go against the official version. Why not? Aside from the conditioning, it's too much to believe. Believing such a thing will throw all of their beliefs in government and institutions in doubt. And that's asking too much of the average person.

 

The average conditioned person will lie to themselves and blindly believe the lie to protect themselves from reality, that GSIGs intentionally create a false flag as a means to invade the Middle East. This enables Muslim terrorists to cause terrorism in WE countries forever. And this necessitates the need for more war, securing the weapons industry, and slowly eroding the rights of the public.

 

This is too much for the average person to believe. The more hops in between the planners and the end result, the greater the likelihood of rejecting it. But the same is true for the past tobacco and sugar industry that intentionally manipulate doctors, dentists, regulatory agencies, and politicians. Does the liberal trifecta deny this in the past? Yes. Why? Because the plot is too ridiculous to be true.

 

And that's what GSIGs are counting on. The bigger the lie, the more likely you'll believe it without question. For conspiracy theorists, this is common sense. For everyone else it's nonsense...until it's proven to be factual of course.

 

Does the liberal trifecta thank conspiracy theorists after a scheme has proven to be factual? No. And most conspiracy theorists are use to it by now. Contrary to what you may believe, being a conspiracy theorist is a thankless, non-paying job. Aside from Alex Jones, most conspiracy theorists celebrate their small victories in silence.

 

To be fair, many conspiracy theorists are lost in their conspiracy ideologies. Some of us go too far down the rabbit hole and never really come out. The result is seeing conspiracies everywhere, even under normal circumstances.

 

A simple example is the 10:10 am display on watch advertisements. If you look at an advertisement for a watch in a magazine, the time will always point to 10:10 am (or close to it). Why? If you're a cracked out conspiracy theorist, it means a freemasonry 10-10 mile radius in DC.

 

In reality, the hands point to 10:10 because that's the best symmetrical shape for consumers to buy a watch. The hands point in the direction of a happy face. People like to buy things with happy faces. That's it. There's no other reason. Can GSIGs still claim that it's for something else? Yes. And that's disinformation.

 

Remember, GSIGs don't have any divine power to control people or events. They just have plans, money, underlings, and useful idiots to carry out those plans. That's all. Just because GSIGs implement a plan doesn't mean that it will go smoothly or that it'll be successful. Their plans fail and succeed just like the rest of us (see The Deep State).

 

To be fair to the liberal trifecta, there are many conspiracy theorists that are lost in their delusional ideological bubbles, where anyone that doesn't support them is their enemy. Anything that goes wrong is because of the proverbial deep state. Anything that goes right is the will of their god. Alex Jones and his associates are an example of this type of thinking.

 

But for the more rational conspiracy theorists, we see things from a different perspective. Instead of going along with the liberal conditioning, we see though it. Instead of going along with Democrat or Republican or Libertarian, we see through the labels.

 

For new age conspiracy theorists (like myself) we see through the religious conditioning. Every person has the ability to see through their conditioning. Whether they choose to do so is the question.

 

There are many interpretations of a single event. There are many parties that benefit from a major event occurring. Real conspiracy theorists recognize this before coming to a conclusion. Religious people tend to see and interpret all major events as being the work of the devil or their god.

 

Sigh.

 

The liberal trifecta on the other hand, interprets reality through the lens of atheism and science, where everything is meaningless and random. They don't realize that this interpretation is an ideology. Instead, they see it as factual. Generally speaking, liberals have a very difficult time seeing through their own conditioning. Why? They're not critical thinkers. They accept things without question or meaning.

 

The liberal trifecta believes that wars and invasions are all done by accidents or taking advantage of accidental circumstances (9/11). In their minds, 9/11 is just a big accident. The illegal US invasion of Iraq is also an accident in the minds of the liberal trifecta.

 

And that applies to practically any event you can imagine. The UK pedophile rings? An accident. Middle Eastern migrants raping women? A misunderstanding. The liberal trifecta is conditioned to negate personal responsibility from all terrorists and visible minorities. They refuse to believe that almost anything is coordinated intentionally by migrants/immigrants/visible minorities. And that's not accidental. That's intentional.

 

They can't make the leap to GSIGs being the cause because it shatters their ideological foundation of reality, Big Government, Big Industry, and the random and accidental nature of the universe. In one way, you can see it as liberal conditioning preventing/protecting liberals from seeing reality.

 

The liberal trifecta in the past supports eugenics, the male superiority of men, hair analysis, bite-mark analysis, and cholesterol and fat being the cause of heart disease. Realizing this, it's not so difficult to understand that Democrats in the past are the ones who support slavery and are against emancipation.

 

Why does the liberal trifecta support racist and sexist claims in the past? Because scientists of the past tell them that it's the correct point of view. And not being critical thinkers, they don't challenge such claims.

 

This is what it means to be liberal today. Giving into your conditioning, not challenging it, and obeying it without question. Sure, there are a few critical articles, but that's just for the appearance of a balanced approach.

 

It's the same thing for climate change. Contrary to what you may believe, most people in the liberal trifecta don't really believe in man-made climate change as the harbinger of death. They're just going along with it because it's the dominant ideology today. And just so you know, genuine climate change believers have 5 characteristics:

 

1. Live in an apartment or condo

2. Use electric cars (to the exclusion of gas/diesel cars)

3. Practice a minimalist lifestyle

4. Change their diet to vegan (not vegetarian)

5. Have a maximum of one biological child (but no limit on adopted children).

 

People who have all 5 characteristics are genuine people. They're still living in their bubble of ideological science and liberal conditioning, but they're genuine believers nonetheless.

 

Just as religious people will go to their graves believing that the end is near...

 

Just as conspiracy theorists will go to their graves with their bars of gold and silver...

 

Climate change believers will go to their graves believing that humanity and the Earth are doomed from excess carbon dioxide and methane.

 

Hilarious and tragic at the same time. And the ridicule against conspiracy theorists continues:

 

The film's greatest flaw [Loose Change] is this: the men who made it are still alive. If the US government is running an all-knowing, all-encompassing conspiracy, why did it not snuff them out long ago? There is only one possible explanation. They are in fact agents of the Bush regime, employed to distract people from its real abuses of power. This, if you are inclined to believe such stories, is surely a more plausible theory than the one proposed in Loose Change. [12]

 

Sigh. This is what happens when the liberal trifecta doesn't understand conspiracy theorists or the conspiracy theory movement. Hopefully, this entire series will prevent such nonsense from being written (but I doubt it). And the stigma continues:

 

Aiden Fishman of B'nai Brith Canada described Icke's [David Icke] views as "classic anti-Semitic ideas" and said the booking should never have been allowed.

"It's totally, totally incompatible with the City of Vancouver's role as an open and tolerant multicultural municipality to allow Mr. Icke to speak at a city-owned facility, after we've brought all these concerns to their attention," Fishman told CBC News. [13]

 

As I mentioned in previous articles, the Israeli government and Israeli groups aren't known for their advocacy of free speech. When any criticism of Israel equals anti-Semitism, that's how you know that ideology is king.

 

And no, David Icke isn't anti-Semitic. Even a brief look at his work would show you that he believes that people are really consciousness taking different forms (physical bodies). Consciousness is significant for Icke. The body isn't (see David Icke in Conspiracy Theorists). But these claims fall on deaf ears for Israeli organizations. And the stigma against conspiracy theorists continues:

 

David Icke is a human singularity of idiocy.

Needless to say, there is not a skerrick of evidence to suggest that reptilian aliens exist; or that various world leaders, including the Royal Family, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, are shape-shifting reptilian aliens from the constellation Draco; or that there is such a thing as an "Illuminati," a "New World Order" or a "Global Domination Agenda."

Icke is one of many in the cavalcade of conspiracy theorists and delusional oddballs and he has every right to believe what the voices in his head tell him…However, there are three main issues that make Icke rather problematic. First, he has quite a large following. Second, his theories verge on (and some would argue, are blatant) anti-Semitism. Third, he is bringing his lizard show to Australia. [14]

 

Why are liberal media outlets attacking against Icke? Because people are paying big money (relative to the conspiracy theory movement) to see him. Why? Because they're tuning out of mainstream and liberal conditioning. Hence, liberal media outlets have to attack him. They're desperate to regain their ability to influence the public to a significant degree.

 

The liberal trifecta doesn't understand that many conspiracy theorists are genuine and telling the truth/what they believe to be the truth instead of bullshit sound bites and scripted GSIG reporting.

 

I'll give you an example, the conspiracy theory of Canada, the US, and Mexico becoming one nation (the American Union). While the liberal trifecta ridicules the conspiracy theory, the WikiLeaks cables provide the evidence:

 

The cable, released through the WikiLeaks website and apparently written Jan. 28, 2005, discusses some of the obstacles surrounding the merger of the economies of Canada, the United States and Mexico in a fashion similar to the European Union.

"An incremental and pragmatic package of tasks for a new North American Initiative (NAI) will likely gain the most support among Canadian policymakers,' the document said. "The economic payoff of the prospective North American initiative...is available, but its size and timing are unpredictable, so it should not be oversold."

...It goes on to say North America would be well served by implementing a single, continent wide, tariff or a customs union arrangement.

The proposed customs union would eliminate the North American Free Trade Agreement's "restrictive" rules of origin. [15]

 

It's not that conspiracy theorists are imagining the plots. The plots exist. Liberals are either complicit, incompetent, turn a blind eye, or become useful idiots to GSIGs. Still don't believe me? Take a look at what Nobel laureate and former World Bank Chief Economist Joseph E. Stiglitz says:

 

He said that the monetary fund went overboard in Asia in demanding that the countries ensnared in the financial crisis cut their budgets, arguing that fiscal austerity sometimes extracted too high a price from poor people...

...He said industrialized countries sometimes pushed developing nations too fast to deregulate their financial systems.

Mr. Stiglitz won few friends among economists and policy makers at the Treasury Department and the monetary fund. But his message was greeted enthusiastically in poor countries... [16]

 


Normally impervious to its critics, the IMF has gone ballistic this time. At a World Bank gathering last week to launch the book, the IMF's chief economist Kenneth Rogof launched an extraordinary personal attack on Mr Stiglitz, accusing him of peddling "snake oil".

Claims that its secretive approach is necessary to prevent investors taking fright are just an excuse for suppressing alternative views, he says. "The result of the IMF's overconfidence in policies that didn't work is that it undermined its long-run credibility to the point where everybody in Wall Street believes the emperor has no clothes."

The IMF made two big errors in the 1990s, in Mr Stiglitz's view. The first was to bow to Wall Street's demand for new markets, by making IMF loans conditional on countries opening up their financial sectors. The resulting rise in speculative capital flows has proved disastrous for fragile economies. [17]

 

As most conspiracy theorists already know, the IMF and World Bank have no intention of ending poverty or inequality. It's just bullsh*t for the public to believe. It's just for the sake of appearances.

 

The UN, IMF, and World Bank bow to Wall Street/private banks. And who controls Wall Street? GSIGs. Putting it together isn't rocket science. In the mind of conspiracy theorists, it's common sense. In the mind of the liberal trifecta, it's complete nonsense.

 

Who's right and who's wrong? It depends on interpretation, ideologies, and ones perception of reality. Again, non-falsifiable issues like social humanities don't have right or wrong answers. There are only interpretations, ideologies, and subjective perceptions of reality.

 

The liberal trifecta thinking that there are objective answers is delusional as best and complicit at worst. Perception is always the key. It's never just about "the facts." In reality, it's always about the perception of the facts, and the numerous ways you can interpret these facts.

 

And the ridicule against conspiracy theorists continues:

 

It's like that poster hanging conspicuously over Mulder's desk on The X-Files. It doesn't say "I BELIEVE" but "I WANT TO BELIEVE." It's less about the given theories or mega-theories but the desire to vest yourself in them, to fork over logic, self-awareness and all your constellations of knowledge and understanding to something that can bind it all together.

...Like believing that some guy died on a cross and turned into wine or that an elephant-headed god mitigates all wisdom in the universe, the twisted consolation afforded by full-bore conspiracy theories is a weird, maybe counterintuitive, maybe totally counter-logical sort of comfort. But a comfort all the same. When you're predisposed to look for them, there are always "powers that be." Maybe it's just a matter of what you choose to believe they are. [18]

 

The reason why conspiracy theorists do what they do isn't because they're weak broken toys. It's because they go beyond their liberal conditioning and can finally see the bullsh*t that the liberal trifecta serves them.

 

The reason why some conspiracy theorists believe that GSIGs engage in drug trafficking isn't because they want an imaginary opponent (that would be what climate change believers want). It's because they see the evidence:

 

Breuer [then US Assistant Attorney General] this week signed off on a settlement deal with the British banking giant HSBC that is the ultimate insult to every ordinary person who's ever had his life altered by a narcotics charge. Despite the fact that HSBC admitted to laundering billions of dollars for Colombian and Mexican drug cartels (among others) and violating a host of important banking laws…Breuer and his Justice Department elected not to pursue criminal prosecutions of the bank, opting instead for a "record" financial settlement of $1.9 billion, which as one analyst noted is about five weeks of income for the bank. [19]

 

Two Canada Border Services Agency officers are among five people arrested by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for breach of trust and drug importation offences.

The RCMP alleges that between January 2016 and April 2017 the border officers were importing cocaine through Toronto's Pearson International Airport. [20]

 

A suspended Hamilton police officer awaiting trial after a 2015 Toronto police raid saw him charged with allegedly helping a drug trafficking organization is now facing 16 new criminal charges.

On Tuesday, Craig Ruthowsky, who worked on the Hamilton police department’s gangs and weapons enforcement unit, was charged with bribery, two counts of breach of trust, two counts of obstructing justice, public mischief, two counts of weapons trafficking, fraud under $5,000, trafficking marijuana, perjury, two counts of conspiracy to commit an indictable offence, robbery and two counts of trafficking cocaine. [21]

 

The reason why some conspiracy theorists don't trust Hilary isn't because she's a Democrat or a woman. It's because a former FBI agent head calls the Clinton family a crime family:

 

A former top FBI official blasted Hillary and Bill Clinton on Sunday as the heads of an influence-peddling "crime family" rife with corruption and deceit.

James Kallstrom, the head of the FBI's New York City office in the mid-90s, said the bureau's reopening of its probe into Clinton's private email server confirmed that the former secretary of state was never subject to a "real investigation" in the first place.

"The Clintons, that's a crime family. It's like organized crime. The Clinton Foundation is a cesspool...It's just outrageous how Hillary Clinton sold her office for money. She's a pathological liar," Kallstrom railed... [22]

 

Statements coming from a conspiracy theorist are one thing. Statements coming from a former FBI head are another thing. The reason why some conspiracy theorists believe in government mind control isn't because they're schizophrenic. It's because it exists in the past as MKULTRA (see Resources).

 

But prior to the disclosure, the liberal trifecta brand such people as tin-foil loony bins. Do they apologize for their ridicule after? No. They just shrug it off and continue to vilify conspiracy theorists. Why? Because their conditioning won't allow them to change the GSIG script. That's how brain-dead most people in the liberal trifecta are.

 

Yes, there are some conspiracy theorists completely lost in their ideologies (Alex Jones and associates, Eric Jon Phelps, David Icke and such). But such people exist everywhere. There are also a few hardcore conspiracy theorists that go deeper than the esotericism of images. They perceive reality in terms of codes, keys, and formulas. These people are completely lost in their ideologies.

 

Sadly, conspiracy theorists enjoy pitting people against each other. Their supporters against the supporters of other conspiracy theorists. Listeners/followers of conspiracy theorists should be loyal to the truth instead of individual conspiracy theorists.

 

If people are loyal to a conspiracy theorist, it's the same as being loyal to a preacher, a pastor, a politician, or a political party. And that will only lead to a disingenuous life. And as you should all know by now, the disingenuous life is not worth living.

 

Generally speaking, conspiracy theorists believe that America is the last stronghold that the deep state is trying to destroy. They believe that once they destroy the US (economically, socially, culturally, religiously, and financially), it's all over. They believe that it'll be martial law for everyone. No rights for the public. Only mass surveillance for us.

 

The problem is that none of this is true. In Europe (as a supposed fallen state) things are relatively stable (aside from the bailouts, high unemployment rate, and Catalonia Independence). Aside from Germany and France, free speech is still defended. European political, military, justice/legal systems are some of the best in the world (with Spain being the exception).

 

And no, the deep state doesn't kill Detroit. Municipal politicians kill Detroit by not diversifying. In the past, Detroit has practically no strength in intellectual property, innovation, and technology. They put all of their eggs into one basket. Of course it's going to fail like a house of cards.

 

And the ridicule against conspiracy theorists continues:

 

Once you believe that "one massive, sinister conspiracy could be successfully executed in near-perfect secrecy, (it) suggests that many such plots are possible." With this cabalistic paradigm in place, conspiracies can become "the default explanation for any given event—a unitary, closed-off worldview in which beliefs come together in a mutually supportive network known as a monological belief system." [23]

 

Conspiracy theorists don't believe in grand conspiracy theories in order to make sense of the world. They believe in it because that's where the evidence leads them. The reason why some conspiracy theorists believe that the rise of ISIS is intentional isn’t because they’re anti-Islam. They believe it because it's true:

 

Tony Blair, the former British prime minister, suggested on Sunday that the United States-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, which removed Saddam Hussein from power, helped give rise to the Islamic State, even as he said it was "hard to apologize for removing Saddam."

Mr. Blair, whose decision to involve Britain in the military mission made him deeply unpopular at home, told CNN that "there are elements of truth" to the view that the war in Iraq helped pave the way for the Islamic State. [24]

 

French President Francois Hollande has suggested the rise of ISIS can be attributed to Barack Obama not backing his calls for Syrian air strikes back in 2013.

Since then, France has been victim to a string of savage Islamic State terror attacks and the President insisted too many migrants were being let into the country.

'I don't know what would have happened if we had carried out strikes. What I can say is that we did not carry out strikes, and there's Daesh,' he said, referring to ISIS by its Arabic acronym. [25]

 

Just to be clear, WE governments influence the rise of ISIS. They don't actually cause it. That prize goes to Muslim extremists in Iraq. Again, WE governments don't have the power to cause ISIS, but their efforts to do so aren't accidental. They're intentional.

 

If you think that the rise of ISIS is accidental, that's because you've been conditioned by the liberal trifecta. Like almost every other major event in the world, the liberal trifecta wants you to believe that it's accidental. But 9/11 isn't accidental. The invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan isn't accidental. The rise of ISIS isn't accidental. All of it is intentional. It just looks accidental because the intentionality is hidden.

 

Sadly, the liberal trifecta will never understand this. They're locked into their liberal conditioning and trust of authority and institutions (aside from the Trump administration). Like everyone else, they can choose to go beyond their conditioning. But they won't.

 

If you'd like to see more results of liberal conditioning I recommend watching videos from Mark Dice (a conspiracy theorist and associate of Alex Jones). Personally, I believe that Dice is lost in his Christian and conspiracy ideologies about the illuminati in Hollywood.

 

But if Dice can get Russell Brand, Shia Labeouf, Jim Carrey, John Cusack, Mike Myers, or Randy Quaid (all outcasts of Hollywood) on camera saying that most of his stuff is true...then we have something to work with. And no, Roseanne Barr and Charlie Sheen don't count. One has mental health issues and the other is a drug addict. Not exactly the most credible sources.

 

Until Dice gets former Hollywood stars on camera verifying his claims, I recommend watching his videos on YouTube just for their entertainment value. And they're pretty funny. You need to see them for yourself. They're only a few minutes long:

 

Using 'The Force' on Weak-Minded People

Liberals Want Bible Censored – "Anti-Gay" Verses Removed

Incest Embraced by Liberals as "Sexual Diversity" – "Nothing Wrong With It" Say SJWs

Hillary Supporters Endorse SHARIA LAW in AMERICA!

 

In the Sharia law video, white women support expanding Sharia law in the US. Oh dear god. These women are cracked in the head. This is liberal conditioning at its worst. It's worse than the liberal conditioning of women to be sluts and being proud of it.

 

As always, ideology and your perception of yourself and reality will always be king, even for liberals who believe that their actions are based in facts instead of ideologies.

 

Liberal Media Outlets Against Alex Jones

The attacks against Alex Jones are vitriol. There's no point in showing the numerous quotations because it's all the same. The liberal trifecta despises Jones. He's a despicable snake oil salesman taking advantage of the public's fear. Yah...but I can say the same thing about the liberal trifecta.

 

Of all the conspiracy theorists on the planet, the liberal trifecta only fears Infowars (not even Breitbart matters that much to them). Why? Aside from being genuine (though lost in ideology), he has high profile guests like:

 

Donald Trump

Ron Paul (former House of Representatives)

Jesse Ventura (former Governor of Minnesota)

William Binney (former NSA)

Cynthia McKinney (former House of Representatives)

Charlie Sheen

Nigel Farage (EU Parliament)

Buzz Aldrin.

 

These are heavy hitter guests for a conspiracy theorist and supposed despicable media outlet. That's one reason why the liberal trifecta is doing their best to destroy him. In 2017 AdRoll (a company that places ads on websites) blocks Infowars. [26] Not even Sleeping Giants (a twitter group to block corporate advertising on conservative websites) can stop Infowars.

 

To be fair to Sleeping Giants and the liberal trifecta, the advertising boycott is successful against Breitbart and Rebel Media. And their methods are peaceful. You have to respect that. Aside from the Adroll block, they've yet to succeed against Jones or getting radio stations to dump his broadcast. But according to Jones, they're trying:

 

As radio stations call me and say we're getting calls offering us a half million dollars to take you off. [27]

 

Umm...what? If that's true, that's a news story waiting to be unveiled. But I highly doubt that liberal media outlets will investigate the issue honestly. If it turns out to be true, that would be like hurting our own movement which is already in damage control. Thanks, but we'll pass. Sadly, we'll have to hope that someone from Fox News or the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) is willing to do it. Sigh.

 

Even if the liberal trifecta gets radio stations to dump Infowars, there's still YouTube and Facebook. But I'm sure that the liberal trifecta is doing their best to take him off major platforms for good. In the mind of the liberal trifecta, censorship is fine as long as it's coming from liberals.

 

And while many of my fellow conspiracy theorists worry about free speech and censorship, they needn't worry. In fact, they should celebrate it. Why? Because censorship of conservative websites on social media means that GSIG liberal conditioning isn't working anymore.

 

GSIGs are losing their ability to influence the global public via media outlets and social media. That means that conspiracy theorists are winning the battle in turning people into genuine human beings instead of politically correct liberal conditioned slaves. That deserves a pat on the back.

 

If YouTube and Facebook step up their censorship efforts by taking away money or removing content, conspiracy theorists win. Why? Because it shows that GSIGs have lost control of their ability to influence the public. Hence, it has to resort to censorship. That's a huge win for conspiracy theorists.

 

While censorship as a whole isn't a good thing, it's a great indicator in the ability to influence the local, regional, national, or global public. The governments of France, China, Germany, and Israel are all enemies of free speech and advocate mass censorship. While that's bad news, it's a great realization.

 

These governments are losing their ability to influence their people. More people around the world are starting to realize that the liberal media programming is bullsh*t. That the GSIG script is garbage. That people are more than just labels and want genuine interactions with other people. They don't want the bullsh*t sound bites from mainstream media outlets.

 

Jones understands this well. He knows that people are desperate for genuine content. And he knows how to deliver. Unfortunately, that sometimes leads to Jones playing for his audience (which is a problem). But when you're lost in ideology, objective news reporting goes right out the window.

 

Liberal media outlets have little recourse in stopping Infowars. Hence, they demonize their business model of standing behind their products, namely health supplements:

 

At some point, of course, that attention needs to be turned into money. That seems to be where Super Male Vitality and the rest of Jones' health business comes in. Buzzfeed reported last month that according to multiple former Infowars employees, the supplements were what really turned Infowars into a "media empire" that caters to conspiracy-minded consumers, estimating annual sales in the tens of millions of dollars.

...Last month in New York magazine, Seth Brown detailed that Jones makes no money from selling ads on his radio show, which amounts to a widely syndicated four-hour infomercial for supplements. "An examination of his business seems to indicate that the vast majority of Infowars’ revenue comes from sales of these dietary supplements. Infowars isn't a media empire—it's a snake-oil empire." [28]

 

Jones and his associates do, making a rejection of the medical establishment and science part of what it means to be on the populist right.

...In the Infowars universe, though, science is the enemy — part of the globalist elite movement that’s poisoning people, keeping them down. Anyone who cares about evidence and science: Ignore this seething movement at your peril. [29]

 

Jones' wildly popular supplements, sold on his Infowars.com site, are nothing more than humdrum vitamin blends that have little-to-no data supporting touted health benefits—basically the same as the vitamins found in any pharmacy or health store, according to independent lab testing.

Brian Brandley, Labdoor's laboratory director, told BuzzFeed News:

We tested samples in triplicate, and wherever possible, cross-checked those results with at least two independent analytical laboratories, so we have complete trust in our conclusions. [30]

 

Alex Jones isn't just an "expert" conspiracy theorist, he's an "expert" snake-oil salesman, too! Jones' popular arsenal of supplements, which are wildly promoted throughout his show and on his website, are filled with overpriced, everyday ingredients according to test results provided in a highly readable report on Buzzfeed.

Labdoor, an independent San Francisco-based lab that specializes in testing and grading dietary supplements, ran full tests on six of Jones' products to determine their exact makeup and screen for toxic chemicals. [31]

 

All of the test results were largely the same: The products are — more or less — accurately advertised. They don't contain significantly more or less of a particular ingredient than listed on the bottles, and there are no surprise ingredients. They're also reasonably safe, meaning they passed heavy metal contaminant screenings and tested free of stimulants, depressants, and other prohibited drugs.

But just because the products' ingredients matched their labels doesn't mean they lived up to Jones' claims.

This claim — that the Infowars supplements often contained less effective serving sizes than their less expensive counterparts — was a running theme in Labdoor's results. In almost every example, Labdoor's tests and reviews describe the products as little more than heavily overpriced supplements with few health benefits, if any. [32]

 

And what's the problem with the last 3 quotations? Labdoor is a for-profit company:

 

Labdoor is a mission-driven, for-profit company. We are dedicated to helping consumers better understand the products they entrust with their health. In service of this mission, we believe that a for-profit model built, first and foremost, for the consumer helps us best achieve this goal. [33]



Worse, Labdoor isn't just a testing and grading lab. They're selling nutritional supplements and making a profit from them:

 

Labdoor makes money in two ways. First, we receive a portion of every dollar spent by consumers who purchase products directly from our site. Second, we offer testing services for companies that need independent validation of their product quality.[33]

 

Labdoor is directly competing with supplements that Infowars sells. And yet, I don't see any of this information in any of the three articles. I'd love to know how a for-profit lab can be independent.

 

In a request for comment I ask Ars technica, Salon, and Buzzfeed:

 

In regards to your August 2017 article about Infowars' supplements and Labdoor testing, you fail to mention the fact that Labdoor is a for-profit company. You also fail to mention that Labdoor sells nutritional supplements on their website and makes a profit from it.

1. Why did you fail to mention these things in your article?

2. How can a for-profit lab (that makes money from selling nutritional supplements) remain independent or credible?

3. Are you aware that Labdoor directly competes with Infowars' supplements? If so, do you believe that it's disingenuous to advocate for one while denigrating the other?

4. Do you believe that it's disingenuous for Labdoor to claim that Infowars' products are less effective than the ones that Labdoor sells?

5 & 6. Just for Buzzfeed:

5. Labdoor makes its money from selling nutritional supplements and testing. How much money did you pay for the testing?

6. Regardless of the amount, it looks like you paid Labdoor to minimize the effectiveness of Infowars' supplements. Would you agree with this statement? If not, why not?

 

They don't respond.

 

Again, I'm not a fan of Alex Jones. I don't recommend that anyone watch his show. But fair is fair. And these liberal alternative media outlets aren't playing fair. They're using dirty tactics to devalue Infowars' brand in order to prevent them from having a significant influence on the global public. That's just sad.

 

And yes, natural health advocates like Jones do tend to embellish their results from time to time. But the ability of natural foods to cure autoimmune diseases and cancer is well known. Its importance is downgraded by WE medical scientists and liberal trifecta cheerleaders (see The Cancer Industry and Autoimmune Diseases for Everyone in Philosophy Reborn Part IV: Naturally Unhealthy Big Pharma& Big Media).

 

It's tragic and hilarious to see liberal media outlets criticizing the Infowars' business model when most of their own revenue comes from corporate advertisements. Just so liberal media outlets are aware, the public supports media outlets that stand behind products that they're advertising/selling.

 

Liberal media outlets are desperately trying to negate the influence of Jones' Infowars and regain their influence on the global public. Aside from that, they're trying to keep their head above the water with their shrinking corporate advertising revenue.

 

In Canada, the media landscape is so bad that in January 2017 media outlets suggest taxing Facebook and Google for stealing their advertising revenue. [34] That's pretty desperate. But Prime Minister of Canada Justin Trudeau rejects it. [35] Some Canadian media outlets like the CBC just come right out and ask for a $400 million bailout. [36] Wow, these people have balls. It's doubtful that Trudeau will give in.

 

Ideological speaking, it's just as bad in the US. Right after Trump's 2016 election win, Newsweek puts out their magazine. The problem is that it says Clinton wins the election. Confused? Fox News' Tucker Carlson explains with Newsweek's political editor Matthew Cooper:

 

Cooper: the company that we subcontract to...produced two editions...The Madame president one mistakenly went out. Which was the first embarrassment. That should never have happened...As you say the writing is, shall we say, not up to the editorial standards of Newsweek.

Tucker: Who on your staff wrote that?

Cooper: Well, no one on our staff wrote that. Again, we subcontract to a company

Tucker: Well, you read it before it went out.

Cooper: Well, no we didn't...

Tucker: You mean you didn't read it before it went out?

Cooper: See, we subcontract these commemorative issues to a company, and this is pretty common in the magazine business. [37]

 

Oh dear god. Newsweek staff didn't write or read the articles prior to publication? Really? This reminds me of the Agnelli and Rothschild controlled Economist and their anonymous authors. And mainstream media outlets wonder why people are tuning out.

 

With the loss of their ability to influence the global public via news, liberals are turning to entertainment and late night talk shows to condition people. Personally, I'd love to see comedian Tim Allen do a late night talk show for a conservative audience. The ratings would be huge.

 

To be fair to liberals, the parodies and satire of Jones is hilarious. As a man of comedy I highly recommend that you watch them on YouTube:

 

Alex Jones: Facepalm Master

Alex Jones: Master Impressionist

Alex Jones: Master of self-control

#1 Viral Video REMIX Alex Jones Living Meme Explosion / Super Deluxe / Bon Iver Folk Song

Tuck Buckford Goes Elbow-Deep In A Tub Of Chobani.

 

They're even better then my comedic compilation of Jones. [38]

 

To be fair to liberals, Jones gets a lot of things wrong. That includes pizzagate, the FEMA death camps, Operation Jade Helm, police covering up sex trafficking, George Soros as an SS Nazi, the Obama birther issue, Chobani, and the Sandy Hook massacre. I know...it's a lot. He produces so much content that even I can't keep up. Even the 24 hour news cycle can't keep up with Jones.

 

But he also gets a few things right. He's correct about Middle Eastern inbreeding. [39] [40] Though inbreeding itself doesn't lead to Muslim extremism. That's a religious ideological problem. The liberal trifecta is desperate to disconnect ISIS from the Muslim community. But they're one in the same. In fact, ISIS is the older and more genuine Islam.

 

Jones is correct about blood rituals by famous/wealthy people:

 

She's [Countess Elizabeth Bathory] said to have believed the blood of virgin girls would maintain her youthful-looking skin.

...Highborn and unaccountable, she was the absolute ruler of a patch of what is now Slovakia, and with the help of three of her servants sadistically tortured to death between 100 and 650 girls. [41]

 

Because blood, as life, belongs to, and, in a peculiar sense, represents, the Author of life, blood has been counted a means of inspiration. The blood of the gods, in myth and legend, and again the blood of divinely accepted sacrifices, human and animal, in ancient and modern religious rituals, has been relied on as the agency whereby the Author of life speaks in and through the possessor of that blood. [42]

 

Jones is definitely incorrect in claiming that he's the first person to use/invent the term false flags (I can't find the reference). In reality, academia, and mainstream and alternative media outlets use it in the early to mid '90s. [43] [44] [45] [46]

 

Sadly, Jones' paranoia is getting worse. In September 2017 Jones claims that someone is drugging Trump's drinks. [47] Oh dear. I'm sure that he can even stretch that to maybe the president's under MKULTRA mind control programming.

 

Jones has always been lost in his ideologies for quite some time but it's getting worse. Almost every video is RED ALERT and EMERGENGY. Sigh. Unfortunately, Jones is now making up the conspiracy theories out of thin air (more so than usual). And yes, that's different from the norm in creating conspiracy theories from indirect evidence.

 

In past shows, Jones calls Hilary Hitlary. And shows images of Obama next to Hitler. That's terrible. This isn't rational analysis. This is just ideological commentary on steroids.

 

Today, Jones freely calls politicians rapists or murderers. Sorry, but that's libelous. Unfortunately, most people don't call him out on such things because they don't want to give him more attention. If they did, you'd see a lot of retractions. More so than the ones from Pizzagate and Chobani.

 

And just in case you're wondering, Jones doesn't retract these articles/videos because of personal responsibility. He retracts it because the potential lawsuits will most likely open the floodgates of defamation and libel and destroy his small media empire.

 

Even Jones calling 9/11 a false flag the day after doesn't mean anything. Why not? Because he says that for almost every major attack and will use anything to poke holes in the official story. While most things aren't what they appear to be, automatically thinking that it's a false flag by default is a problem.

 

Sadly, if Jones says the same thing enough times, he believes it wholeheartedly and would most likely pass a lie detector. Jones' placebo effect is quite strong. He would probably do well with Jedi mind training if it existed.

 

Personally, I believe that Infowars could use a fresh start with Jones stepping down. I would support David Knight (2nd or 3rd in command) taking over. While this is blasphemy to Jones' supporters, it's the right move for the conspiracy theory movement to move towards a more rational center point. And yes, as a conspiracy theorist, I'm very much aware of how far gone most conspiracy theorists are. Liberal writers don't need to remind me.

 

In this blasphemous plan, Jones would still be the owner of Infowars. It's either that or Jones needs to better himself. Not just through Christian prayers, but real introspection of one's ideologies and perception of reality.

 

While I disagree with Jones' content heavily (see Alex Jones in Conspiracy Theorists), and see him as cracked in the head, if Jones gets a second wind, develops a thicker skin and calmer demeanor,  he's capable of crushing liberal media outlets.

 

I don't mean just in the short term, but in the long term. As media outlets go bankrupt, merge, and are bought out by billionaires, Infowars remains a small but strong boat capable of battling liberal and conservative juggernaut ships.

 

Today, Infowars is in conflict with the Trump administration over his support for Big Pharma, GMOs, private prisons, Goldman Sachs/Wall Street, and war (see Attacks Against the Trump Administration in The Media). The fact that Jones now supports war once Trump is in power is disingenuous.

 

But Jones is not an idiot. He can see which way the wind is blowing. Like his backtracking on WikiLeaks and the Snowden leaks, Jones is starting to see that the wind isn't blowing in Trump's direction:

 

I don't really like Hollywood. I'm sick of it. It's so fake. It's empty. But I do like The Rock. I mean I like his movies; my kids like his movies. Reportedly, behind the scenes, he's a really likable guy, a hard-working guy. And he's supposedly pretty conservative but in a populist vein. So that's a good thing. And he said about a month ago he's considering a run for the presidency in 2020.

And the way Trump's going, if he betrays his base, I think there's one guy that's got more real star appeal and people appeal than even Donald Trump, and that's Dwayne Johnson. And if Trump dynamites his own base and starts selling out to the Democrats, then I would back Dwayne Johnson running against Donald John Trump, and I think most Americans would as well. [48]

 

And speaking of Hollywood movies, Jones constantly claims that Hollywood is (more or less) a servant of the deep state, conditioning people to accept free trade, globalism, surveillance, and global governments. Yes and no. While Hollywood is definitely conditioning people, they're also creating many conspiracy theory and anti-government movies with big A-list names and double to triple digit budgets:

 

*All figures are from Wikipedia and Box Office Mojo.

*All figures are in US dollars.

*All figures are rounded up to one decimal place.

 

The International (2009)

Celebrities: Clive Owen, Naomi Watts

Budget: $50 million

Box office: $60.2 million.

 

Conspiracy Theory (1997)

Celebrities: Mel Gibson, Julia Roberts, Patrick Stewart

Budget: $ 80 million

Box office: $136 million.

 

Enemy of the State (1998)

Celebrities: Gene Hackman, Will Smith, Jon Voight

Budget: $90 million

Box office: $250 million.

 

JFK (1991)

Celebrities: Kevin Costner, Kevin Bacon, Tommy Lee Jones

Budget: $40 million

Box office: $205 million.

 

The Da Vinci Code (2006)

Celebrities: Tom Hanks, Ian McKellen

Budget: $ 125 million

Box office: over $758.2 million.

 

Spectre (2015)

Celebrities: Daniel Craig, Ralph Fiennes

Budget: $245 million

Box office: $880.7 million.

 

The old bond series is actually pro-conspiracy theory because it's a private organization (SPECTRE) that wants global domination. Conspiracy theorists are generally anti-Big Industry. While the heroes in the bond movies are righteous government agents, the conspiracy elements are a nod to the conspiracy theory movement.

 

Angels & Demons (2009)

Celebrities: Tom Hanks, Ewan McGregor

Budget: $150 million

Box office: $485.9 million.

 

Bourne Identity franchise (2002-2016)

Celebrities: Matt Damon, Clive Owen, Jeremy Renner, Julia Stiles, Rachel Weisz, Edward Norton, Tommy Lee Jones

Total budget: $520 million

Total box office: $1.6 billion.

 

Hunger Games franchise (2012-2015)

Celebrities: Jennifer Lawrence, Woody Harrelson, Donald Sutherland, Julianne Moore, Philip Seymour Hoffman.

Total budget: almost $495 million

Total box office: $3 billion.

 

Elysium (2013)

Celebrities: Matt Damon, Jodie Foster.

Budget: $115 million

Box office: $286 million.

 

Laura Croft: Tomb Raider (2001)

Celebrities: Angelina Jolie, Jon Voight, Daniel Craig.

Budget: $115 million

Box Office: $274 million.

 

Hollywood is making big money from conspiracy theories and anti-government movies. It's not as big as Marvel, DC, Star Wars, Harry Potter, or Lord of the Rings...but it's a significant chunk of money nonetheless.

 

To a degree, the public enjoys being entertained by conspiracy theorists/conspiracy theory movies. And that's the way it starts for some people. Conspiracy theorists shouldn't get mad that people are beginning their conspiracy journey from the entertainment side.

 

Everyone's development is at different stages. For those who believe in reincarnation, such people make some progress in one lifetime and hopefully make progress in another area in the next lifetime.

 

And just in case you're wondering, no, Jews don't control Hollywood. Yes, there's a large amount of Jews in significant position in Hollywood. But there are no Jews from each major studio meeting in secret to rule the world. That's just a racist myth. (see The Myth of the Jewish Cabal in The Deep State).

 

On any given day, Jones says X while holding up a printed news report. But the report is usually an opinion/analysis piece from another alternative conservative media outlet. Sometimes, he even holds up a printout of his own Infowars report as evidence of X. Umm...that's a problem.

 

Going to protests and showing pissed off liberals not willing to talk as crazy is disingenuous. Of course they're not going to talk to you. They've come to protest, not to have an intellectual discussion over a chai latte.

 

The purpose of a protest is to make noise via irrational and crazy actions. Contrary to what you may believe, a peaceful protest where people hold hands and sing Kum ba yah will never lead to significant change.

 

Unfortunately, the liberal trifecta has no interest in debating conspiracy theorists. To be fair, I understand. Many conspiracy theorists are too far gone down the rabbit hole. That includes Alex Jones (and all of his associates), David Icke, and Eric Jon Phelps. The only ones that are not too far gone (aside from me, not interested), is Simon Parkes and Dr. Steven Greer. I'd love to see Greer debate the liberal trifecta on CNN or NBC News.

 

Like other media outlets, Jones is beginning to create his own narrative of X and then selling it to the public as factual. That's almost as bad as turning a blind eye to Obama's birth certificate because you want to believe that he's a foreigner. Evidence vs. the perception of evidence. Two very different things.

 

Turning a blind eye is the same as being disingenuous. And Jones definitely turns a blind eye to anything that goes against his ideologies (white supremacists beating up liberal protestors). While Jones laments George Soros and Bill Gates funding any program, the Koch brothers and the oil lobby fund people and organizations against carbon taxes/cap and trade systems.

 

I'm sure it's apparent by now, but I don't support carbon taxes, cap and trade, or climate change as the harbinger of death (see The Environmental Movement). While I'm not funded by any special interest groups, I don't turn a blind eye to the funding that most conservative writers take. But Jones does. Anything that goes against Jones' ideologies, and he'll point out the corrupt liberal funding. Anything that supports it, it's god's will. And that's disingenuous.

 

But that doesn't mean that Jones is controlled disinformation. Jones is 100% definitely NOT controlled disinformation. How do I know? Simple. If the liberal trifecta had evidence that he was, they would have brought it out before the election and won a Pulitzer by now.

 

Jones' problem isn't his intentions. It's his perception of himself and reality. It's not that Jones can only see the world in good vs. evil. It's that he has to see it this way. This is the only way he can do his work and maintain his sanity. All of the attacks against him are reinterpreted as attacks against his Christian soul. Hence, he has to fight back against the supposed evil forces.

 

As I've mentioned many times, many conspiracy theorists are completely lost in their ideological bubble, just as liberals and conservative are lost in their own bubble. As always, ideology and your perception of yourself and reality will always be king. Everything else comes way after that.

 

Like Trump, Jones' errors are becoming more apparent because he's now in the spotlight. Prior to the 2016 election, Jones is big in conspiracy circles, but laughed at by mainstream media outlets. Of course, they're not laughing anymore. And if they are, they must have found the philosopher’s stone in turning fat cat Wall Street Democrats into lovable puppies that can win in 2018 and 2020.

 

But the Young Turks (TYT) is definitely laughing at Infowars. They're betting big money, their credibility, and social status on their Justice Democrats. It's unknown if it will pay off. But the situation is quite entertaining.

 

Both Infowars and TYT are anti-big government, anti-big industry, anti-political correctness, anti-big media, and anti-police state. In another world, I can see these two media outlets being the best of friends, with Jones and Uygur having a lifelong bromance.

 

To be fair to Jones, Infowars is more of a media outlet than TYT. What? Blasphemy. Infowars does analysis, reporting, and a few investigative reports. TYT just does analysis. But our analysis is saving the world. Ah yes...the save the world argument.

 

Just as liberals believe that they're saving the world from conservatives, conservatives believe that they're saving the world from liberals. And most conspiracy theorists believe that they're saving the world from both groups.

 

It's hilarious and tragic how various groups delude themselves in their ideologies. But that's what happens when most things are unfalsifiable. And there's no solution except for more ideologies. Blades sharpening blades. It's not a war of facts or truth. It's a war of ideologies. A war of the perception of facts and truth.

 

But for Christian conspiracy theorists, none of this is a light-hearted game. It's about good vs. evil, the soul of humanity, and all of that nonsense. While liberals laugh at conspiracy theorists and their claims about assassination or being taken out, many conspiracy theorists believe it.

 

To be fair to conspiracy theorists, there are many suspicious deaths either in the conspiracy theory itself or writing/investigating the conspiracy theory (see Mysterious Deaths in Whistleblowers: True Patriots of Humanity).

 

Unfortunately, death in the conspiracy theory movement usually brings credibility. Any conspiracy theory or investigative journalists that die usually becomes a hero to the movement in death.

 

Surely, they knew something important, otherwise they wouldn't have been killed. It's like a bad Umberto Eco book (Foucault's Pendulum). I don't know any other job that has such a high standard like death being the real credibility scale.

 

These hardcore conspiracy theorists need to chill. All good conspiracy theorists are a little paranoid (even me). It's how you manage that paranoia that makes the difference. If you're writing/speaking against the deep state, you may be paranoid that GSIGs are trying to kill you. Take a breath, eat some dark chocolate with organic blueberries and calmly assess the situation.

 

9/10 times everything's good. You're just reading too much into the situation and reinterpreting it to fit your conspiracy theory ideologies. And when it's the 1/10 time that the threat is legitimate...you're f*cked. There's nothing you can do in those situations. The only recourse is having help from other players in the game.

 

Conclusion

We live in an odd time. We live in a time:

 

Where scientologists are trying to protect humanity from aliens

Where Muslim extremists and Muslims in general want to go back to Sharia law

Where Judaists are waiting for their king

Where liberals want more trade agreements and erosion of national sovereignty

Where people blame bottled water corporations for plastic garbage

Where governments and liberals censor free speech

Where poor and low-income families can't look at the deep issues because they're too busy trying to pay the rent and food bills.

Where people sue Google for the Paris terrorist attack [49]

Where urging people to commit suicide is now a crime [50]

Where Christians want to make homosexuals and transgender people disappear forever

Where men want to dominate and control women while pretending that they have a deep sense of respect for them.

Where Elon Musk and Ray Kurzweil believe that Artificial Intelligence (AI) will fix all of humanity's problems and grant them immortality

Where Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and Richard Branson are aiming to build colonies in space to get away from all of the problems on the Earth

Where people sue fast food restaurants for making them fat [51] [52]

Where flat earth believers will go to their graves believing in the flat earth theory [53]

Where people sue gun manufacturers [54]

Where people refuse to take personal responsibility for their actions.

 

We live in a world where Wall Street doesn't care about the average person:

 

Here, after all, was a group that included many of the executives whose firms had collectively wrecked the global economy in 2008 and 2009. And they were laughing off the entire disaster in private, as if it were a long-forgotten lark...

[Kevin Roose] Roose's chronicle reaffirms the fears that America's wealthiest are fully removed from the rest of the world, one which they often control. [55]

 

Once we made it to the lobby, Ross and Lebenthal reassured me that what I'd just seen wasn't really a group of wealthy and powerful financiers making homophobic jokes, making light of the financial crisis, and bragging about their business conquests at Main Street's expense. No, it was just a group of friends who came together to roast each other in a benign and self-deprecating manner. Nothing to see here.

But the extent of their worry wasn't made clear until Ross offered himself up as a source for future stories in exchange for my cooperation.

"I'll pick up the phone anytime, get you any help you need," he said.

"Yeah, the people in this group could be very helpful," Lebenthal chimed in. "If you could just keep their privacy in mind." [56]

 

We live in a world where families prostitute their own children:

 

And in the sex trade in La Merced [Mexico], that control and exploitation can be a family business in which every member has a role.

Boys are raised to covet the large houses and fancy sports cars of their fathers and uncles, and are taught the ins and outs of the family business from as young as eight or nine years old.

And mothers, many former trafficking victims themselves, help normalize the behaviour for new recruits.

Yessenia says she started doing sex work in Acapulco when she was 17. [57]

 

Most worrying to law enforcement, however, is a small but apparently growing subset of these predators who are hooking up online with parents or guardians willing to prostitute their children, sometimes as young as infants.

…In March 2006, the FBI arrested Kenda Henry of Dallas, whom police accused of using the Internet to prostitute her three young children to pedophiles from as far away as Great Britain. Henry was arrested when authorities from Canada, the United States and Interpol busted the world's largest child pornography ring.

Police say she was linked to Brian Tod Schellenberger, a North Carolina father accused of creating and circulating hundreds of pornographic images and raping a 3-month-old infant. Schellenberger was sentenced to 100 years in prison for posing a 6-year-old girl and infant boy in pornographic positions.

Two months before Henry and Schellenberger were arrested, a Canadian woman pleaded guilty to providing pornographic pictures of her 8-year-old son to her "master" in a chat room dedicated to bondage sex.

"In a typical scenario, a parent is already involved in drugs or prostitution in one way or another. Parents prostitute their kids for drugs or money," she said.

Just last week James Colliton, a former tax attorney at the prestigious firm Cravath, Swaine & Moore and father of five, pleaded guilty to statutory rape after having sex with two underage girls numerous times between 2000 and 2005, who had been prostituted by their mother. [58]

 

A prostitute mother is facing jail for allowing clients to sexually abuse three of her daughters - driving a seven-year-old to attempt suicide.

The vile woman, now a 71-year-old grandmother, was found guilty of letting a string of customers indecently assault the youngsters.

...The three girls, all of primary school age, were regularly touched indecently and in one case raped at the home. [59]

 

A father pimped out his 16-year-old daughter at truck stops after forcing her in to prostitution after learning she'd had sex.

Scott Robinson, 46, took the teenager to tractor stops near their home in Baytown, Texas, and forced her to approach men offering her body for money for four months.

She told police she had 'several' customers a night and that her father kept whatever money she made.

He also forced her to make an ad on the listings website Backpage.com to bring in customers. [60]

 

This is where we are in 2017. Contrary to what you may believe, things aren't getting better, they're getting worse. Humanity isn't growing, it's contracting back into the dark ages under the ideologies of racism and sexism but covered up by technology.

 

Yes, people are tuning out mainstream and liberal conditioning, but only to be replaced by another soul crushing disempowering GSIG ideology.

 

We live in a world where aside from insults, talk is cheap. Why? Because people don't keep their word anymore. In the past, a person's word is their bond. It has value. Today, it doesn't. Hence, the need for written contracts and actions to back up the words. While contracts are necessary in the 21st century, it's also a step backwards, not forwards.

 

The illegal US invasion of Iraq taught us that the US government/military can torture foreigners/visible minorities, destroy the evidence of that torture, and not be held accountable for it. That's racism and sociopathic or even psychopathic thinking.

 

All heads of state who visit the Vatican kiss the ring. In the eyes of conspiracy theorists (including me) that's an act of subservience. Non-conspiracy theorists interpret it as an act of respect and custom. Which one is correct? Like all of the social humanities, there is no correct answer. It's dependent on a person's ideologies and perception of reality.

 

We live in a world where some people are holding onto life for culture. For others it's family. For others it’s religion. For others it's politics. For others it's ambition. For others it's love. So many unique conscious beings at different levels of development, with different levels of conditioning...all striving for something.

 

The fact that most people care more about popular culture, or their favorite celebrity, or their favorite singer, or their favorite athlete is a testament to the GSIG conditioning process. You're focusing your energy on garbage instead of real world issues. That's due to successful GSIG conditioning. And none of that is accidental. It's intentional.

 

HBO's Game of Thrones sums up the GSIG situation well:

 

The people are hungry for more than just food. They crave distractions. And if we don't provide them, they'll create their own. And their distractions are likely to end with us being torn to pieces. [61]

 

The problem is that no one's really getting it. Both the media and public fall for the same bullsh*t. Trump is the problem. The Republicans are the problem. Congress is the problem. All of this is nonsense.

 

The problem is GSIG scripts operating at all levels of society. The problem is the GSIG priest class maintaining the bullsh*t political, economic, social, and educational infrastructure.

 

You can change the players via an election, but in the end, it's (more or less) the same old sh*t. It's up to you if you want more out of politics, education, and life in general (see Philosophy of Mind and Philosophy of Governance & Economics in Philosophy Reborn Part I: Purpose).

 

Scientists and teachers believe that institutional education will lead to growth

Academia believe that intellectualizing problems will lead to growth

The liberal trifecta believes that censoring people will lead to growth

The liberal trifecta believes that GSIG conditioning will lead to growth

Religious people believe that following their god with lead to growth

New age people believe that following their intuition will lead to growth.

 

Who's right and wrong? All different paths that lead to very different results. If there are no right answers, how can we ever make progress as a species? Hence, the reason why I created radical dualism and skoparxism. Two ideologies to help bridge all of the distinctions between people and finally enabling significant growth and development of individuals and humanity.

 

Conspiracy theorists, like everyone else, believe that only their cause is just. They're blinded by their own ideologies. They seek to understand events that they'll never truly understand.

 

There will always be unanswered questions. I recommend that you stay away from know it all conspiracy theorists that talk about their near perfect prediction rate. These people are disingenuous and lost in their own ideological bubble.

 

Our divisions are huge. Different religious, political, economic, gender, social, and financial status will always exist. But despite these differences, I advocate that we come together to create a skoparxist government, a real democracy. How long are we going to be unwitting pawns of GSIGs? How long are we going to accept injustice, inequality, racism, and sexism as the norm?

 

And no amount of education or conditioning can turn a false democracy into a real one. In 5000 years of recorded history, a real democracy has never existed on this planet.

 

Just as women have a 99.9% chance of failure in creating real female empowerment, both men and women who desire a real democracy have a 99.9% chance of failure in creating it. That's the odds. Take it or leave it. As always, the choice is yours.

 

Thank you for reading the Conspiracy Theories 101 Series. My apologies for the long articles. If you have any comments, feedback, negative or positive, you can email me at support@shawnalli.com.

 

 

References:

[1] Hergovich, Andreas, et al. On the relationship between paranormal belief and schizotypy among adolescents. Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 45, Iss. 2, July 2008. p. 119.

[2] Ibid. p. 120.

[3] Darwin, Hannah, et al. Belief in conspiracy theories. The role of paranormal belief, paranoid ideation and schizotypy. Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 50, Iss. 8, June 2011. p. 1292.

[4] Maarten Boudry, et al. What makes weird beliefs thrive? The epidemiology of pseudoscience. Philosophical Psychology, Vol. 28, Iss. 8, 2015. p. 1185.

[5] Newheiser, Anna-Kaisa, et al. The functional nature of conspiracy beliefs: Examining the underpinnings of belief in the Da Vinci Code conspiracy. Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 51, Iss. 8, December 2011. p. 1007.

[6] Brotherton, Robert and French, Christopher C. Belief in Conspiracy Theories and Susceptibility to the Conjunction Fallacy. Applied Cognitive Psychology, Vol. 28, Iss. 2, March/April 2014. p. 246.

[7] Lewandowsky, Stephan, et al. NASA Faked the Moon Landing—Therefore, (Climate) Science Is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science. Psychological Science, Vol. 24, Iss. 5, March 2013. p. 1.

[8] How the CIA's Fake Vaccination Campaign Endangers Us All. Scientific American. May 1, 2013.

[9] White House: CIA has ended use of vaccine programmes. BBC News. May 20, 2014.

[10] French, Chris. John F Kennedy: 50th anniversary of a conspiracy theory. Guardian. November 22, 2013.

[11] Monbiot, George. 9/11 fantasists pose a mortal danger to popular oppositional campaigns. Guardian. February 20, 2017.

[12] Monbiot, George. A 9/11 conspiracy virus is sweeping the world, but it has no basis in fact. Guardian. February 6, 2007.

[13] Lindsay, Bethany. Jewish groups slam Vancouver for allowing performance by conspiracy theorist. CBC News. September 1, 2017.

[14] Golan, Ori. Don't waste your money to see conspiracy theorist David Icke. Sydney Morning Herald. July 13, 2016.

[15] Hiltz, Robert. Leaked U.S. cable lays out North American 'integration' strategy. Postmedia News. June 2, 2011.

[16] Stevenson, Richard W. Outspoken Chief Economist Leaving World Bank. New York Times. November 29, 1999.

[17] Denny, Charlotte. The contented malcontent. Guardian. July 6, 2002.

[18] Semley, John. The power of conspiratorial thinking. Now Magazine. October 23, 2013.

[19] Outrageous HSBC Settlement Proves the Drug War is a Joke. Rolling Stone. December 13, 2012.

[20] 2 border services officers among 5 arrested in RCMP drug probe. CBC News. April 27, 2017.

[21] O’Reilly, Nicole. Suspended Hamilton officer arrested by Toronto police is facing more criminal charges. Hamilton Spectator. August 22, 2017.

[22] Edelman, Adam. Clinton family runs vast criminal enterprise: ex-NYC FBI boss. New York Daily News. October 30, 2016.

[23] Shermer, Michael. Why People Believe Conspiracy Theories. Scientific American. August 15, 2012.

[24] De Freytas-Tamura, Kimiko. Tony Blair Says Iraq War Helped Give Rise to ISIS. New York Times. October 25, 2015.

[25] Davie, Gareth. Francois Hollande admitted there are 'too many immigrants' in France and suggested Barack Obama was to blame for the rise of ISIS, claims new book. Daily Mail. October 19, 2016.

[26] Sullivan, Katie. AdRoll Cuts Ties With Infowars, But Google's YouTube Still Driving Revenue For Alex Jones. Media Matters. March 27, 2017.

[27] Above The Law: Bill Maher Claims Trump Having Sex With Ivanka. YouTube video. Posted by: The Alex Jones Channel, May 7, 2017.

[28] Hamblin, James. Testosterone Wars. Atlantic. June 23, 2017.

[29] Belluz, Julia. I watched Alex Jones give his viewers health advice. Here's what I learned. Vox. June 16, 2017.

[30] Mole, Beth. Alex Jones' Infowars supplements are overpriced, mundane vitamins—watered down. Ars Technica. August 10, 2017.

[31] Maldonado, Alessandra. Here's what's actually in Alex Jones' miracle supplements. Salon. August 10, 2017.

[32] Warzel, Charlie. We Sent Alex Jones' Infowars Supplements To A Lab. Here's What's In Them. Buzzfeed News. August 9, 2017.

[33] About Us. Labdoor.

[34] Beeby, Dean. Squeeze cash from Facebook, Google, say Canadian news media leaders. CBC News. January 11, 2017.

[35] Netflix tax? Trudeau says no to MPs' proposed broadband internet levy. CBC News. June 15, 2017.

[36] CBC right to ask for $400M in additional funding, executive Heather Conway says on Metro Morning. CBC News. November 29, 2016.

[37] Tucker vs Newsweek and its 'Madame President' edition. YouTube video. Posted by: Fox News, November 30, 2016.

[38] Alex Jones: Comedy 101 (video). shawnalli.com.

[39] Kershaw, Sarah. Saudi Arabia Awakes to the Perils of Inbreeding. New York Times. May 1, 2003.

[40] Keeping it in the family. Economist. February 25, 2016.

[41] Malathronas, John. On the trail of the 'Blood Countess' in Slovakia. CNN. October 30, 2014.

[42] Trumbull, H. Clay. Blood Covenant: A primitive rite and its bearing on scripture. 2nd edition. John D. Wattles. 1893. p. 139.

[43] Steinberg, Jeffrey. Arrests prove Stasi-KGB control of Baader-Meinhof terrorists. EIR, Vol. 17, No. 27, June 29, 1990.

[44] Fenrick, W. J. W. Legal Aspects of Targeting in the Law of Naval Warfare. Canadian Yearbook of International Law, Vol. 29, 1992. p. 246, 264.

[45] Jasper, William F. UNICEF Wants Your Children. New American. October 31, 1994.

[46] USA: Washington: FBI Agent Earl Edwin Pitts Accused of Spying. Associated Press. December 18, 1996.

[47] Holmes, Jack. Alex Jones Thinks President Trump's Soda Is Being Drugged Each Day. Esquire. September 11, 2017.

[48] Borchers, Callum. Alex Jones says he could support Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson over Trump in 2020. Washington Post. September 15, 2017.

[49] Noyes, Dan. Family of California woman killed in 2015 Paris terror attack sues Google. ABC News. July 27, 2017.

[50] Michelle Carter, who sent texts urging suicide, sentenced to prison term. Reuters. August 3, 2017.

[51] Ailing Man Sues Fast-Food Firms. Fox News. July 24, 2002.

[52] Santora, Marc. Teenagers' Suit Says McDonald's Made Them Obese. New York Times. November 21, 2002.

[53] Marsh, Calum. Why the flat-earth movement is the best symbol of the increasingly diminished value of truth and intelligence. National Post. April 21, 2017.

[54] Altimari, Dave. Sandy Hook Parents File 1st Argument To Supreme Court In Gun Lawsuit Case. Hartford Courant. March 1, 2017.

[55] Cosman, Ben. What the One-Percent Jokes About When They Think No One Else Is Listening. Atlantic. February 18, 2014.

[56] Roose, Kevin. One-Percent Jokes and Plutocrats in Drag: What I Saw When I Crashed a Wall Street Secret Society. New York Magazine. February 18, 2014.

[57] Levinson, Jonathan. 'I felt imprisoned': What neighbourhood watch means in Mexico City's red-light district. CBC News. June 12, 2017.

[58] Goldman, Russell. Parents Who Pimp Their Children. ABC News. October 8, 2007.

[59] McLelland, Euan. Prostitute mother allowed her clients to sexually abuse her own daughters - which drove one to attempt suicide aged SEVEN. Daily Mail. November 13, 2015.

[60] Smith, Jennifer. Father pimped out his own daughter, 16, at truck stops after telling her she might as well become a prostitute when he learned she'd had sex. Daily Mail.

[61] Game of Thrones. Season 3, Episode 5. HBO. 2013.