1984: Thread

grarpamp grarpamp at gmail.com
Tue Nov 8 22:43:07 PST 2022

Why Society Needs Conspiracy Theories and Conspiracy Theorists

Links and Images in original.

    “So do not be afraid of them, for there is nothing concealed that
will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known.”

    – Matthew 10:26

As this will be a comprehensive article, I’ve decided to split it up
into the following sections:


    How did the term come about & become a tool for defamation?

    A German journalist spills the beans

    Same Playbook, Different War

    The Council on Foreign Relations conspiracy

    Conspiracy Theories that turned out to be true

    Notable Unresolved Conspiracies

    Conspiracies to Watch

    Mini-Guide to Investigating Conspiracies


Wernher von Braun walking along the lunar surface on an Apollo set
replica during the Atlanta Southeastern Fair, September 5, 1969,
credited to United Press International (UPI), image source

It seems like you can’t catch a news headline or social media post
these days without coming across the terms conspiracy theory and
conspiracy theorist, or phrases like ‘spreading conspiracies’. One has
to wonder: why are they so frequently employed?

In my most recent published work, I referenced an article from
Canada’s National Post which ran with the headline ‘CBSA says it's
investigating border officer spreading COVID conspiracies online.’

The problem with these kinds of articles is that they are too often
merely used as hit pieces to ridicule, degrade, and discredit any
individual or group that goes against a certain narrative or disagrees
with an author’s (or their publication’s partisanship or funders’)

Moreover, their authors very seldom make specific references or claims
as to why they label their targets when using such over-used and
over-abused disparaging rhetoric. When this is the case, it leads me
to believe that the overall purpose of their pieces is to disparage
their targets more than anything else.

Another recent example of this involves that from the article entitled
‘Network of Syria conspiracy theorists identified - study’ written by
Mark Townsend from The Guardian (UK). In the article, the author
claimed “journalist Aaron Maté at the Grayzone is said by the report
to have overtaken Beeley as the most prolific spreader of
disinformation among the 28 conspiracy theorists identified.” Maté had
to refute the claim made against him which also involved contacting
Townsend by phone. His counter article and the phone conversation
appear on his Substack page (see ‘NATO-backed network of Syria dirty
war propagandists identified)’ and is definitely an interesting case
on how these ploys take place.

Countless other instances could be cited, but suffice it to say that
there is no shortage of them.

But what is perhaps even more laughable with this phenomenon is the
fact that these authors wantonly use these terms without even knowing
their true meanings and where they actually originate from.

Before looking into these, though, we must first and foremost examine
the meaning of the word ‘conspiracy’ itself. Oxford defines it as:

    a secret plan by a group of people to do something harmful or illegal

Conspiracies have been an integral part of humanity ever since people
have bonded together in groups for a better chance at survival.

Lord knows that history is riddled with an abundant supply of
conspiracies and we will look at some notable examples later on.
How did the term come about & become a tool for defamation?

Though the term ‘conspiracy theorist’ itself dates as far back as the
19th century, it became much more prominent in the years following the
assassination of U.S. President John F. Kennedy.

Moreover, it’s really in the 1960s where it became more abundant and
has taken on a negative connotation. This is in large part because of
the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) of the United States of America.

The usage of ‘conspiracy theorist’ was principally brought about to
discredit any person or outfit that questioned the findings of the
Warren Commission regarding the official narrative of the
assassination of U.S. President John F. Kennedy.

The assassination of U.S. President John F. Kennedy on November 22,
1963. Image source:

As to not be labelled a conspiracy theorist myself, here is some
tangible evidence to support my claim that the CIA has been complicit
with regards to the usage of the term as a means to disparage and
discredit individuals with opposing views to an official narrative. An
official DISPATCH (document number 1035-60) dated January 1, 1967
which was declassified and released following a FOIA request got
published on the Mary Ferrell Foundation (MFF) website – one which
contains nearly 2 million pages of documents, government reports, as
well as other materials. The first page of the dispatch appears as

104-10009-10022 from the Mary Ferrell Foundation, Dispatch 1035-960,
Source: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=53510#relPageId=2

Firstly, we can notice the term ‘PSYCH’ in the upper-left hand corner
of the document which indicates that this relates to Psychological
Operations. We can see from the first paragraph that their main
concern is about speculation regarding the assassination of President
Kennedy and how various writers are questioning the findings of the
Warren Commission report. The end of section 2 on the first page

    “The aim of this dispatch is to provide material for countering
and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists, ...”

Scrolling down to the second page under section 3 a. appears the
following [emphasis added]:

    “To discuss the publicity problem with liaison and friendly elite
contacts (especially politicians and editors), pointing out that the
Warren Commission made as thorough an investigation as humanly
possible, that the charges of the critics are without serious
foundation, and that further speculative discussion only plays into
the hand of the opposition. Point out also that parts of the
conspiracy talk appear to be deliberately generated by Communist
propagandists. Urge them to use their influence to discourage
unfounded and irresponsible speculation.”

And shortly after under section 3 b., it continues:

    “To employ propaganda assets to answer and refute the attacks of
the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly
appropriate for this purpose.”

So, there you have it in black and white. The CIA specifically directs
the use of their elite contacts which include politicians and editors
– presumably of major newspapers and most likely of major
broadcasters. Tactics suggested include writing feature articles (to
counter the official narrative), writing book reviews – presumably
negative ones, and further labelling dissenters as ‘Communist
propagandists’ – a term that had much more of an accentuated
defamatory effect back then than it does today.

This raises the obvious question of why the CIA was so seriously
concerned about media coverage with regards to the assassination.
What’s it to them? Did they have something hide? Where they pressed to
do so by the Lyndon Johnson administration? If so, why?

To dig deeper about what they actually stated in their dispatch, we
can ask: who are these “elite contacts” and “propaganda assets” they
are referring to?

American investigative journalist and author Carl Bernstein – famous
for his work with Bob Woodward on the Watergate scandal – wrote a
rather extensive (25,000-word) exposé entitled ‘THE CIA AND THE MEDIA:
How Americas Most Powerful News Media Worked Hand in Glove with the
Central Intelligence Agency and Why the Church Committee Covered It
Up’ that was published in Rolling Stone magazine on October 20, 1977,
just over a decade after the infamous CIA dispatch was issued. Early
on in the mammoth article, Bernstein lists categories in which the
Agency (the CIA) partnered with journalists and the press. Two such
instances appear as follows:

    “- Editors, publishers and broadcast network executives. The CIAs
relationship with most news executives differed fundamentally from
those with working reporters and stringers, who were much more subject
to direction from the Agency. A few executives—Arthur Hays Sulzberger
of the New York Times among them—signed secrecy agreements.”

    “- Columnists and commentators. There are perhaps a dozen well
known columnists and broadcast commentators whose relationships with
the CIA go far beyond those normally maintained between reporters and
their sources. They are referred to at the Agency as “known assets”
and can be counted on to perform a variety of undercover tasks; they
are considered receptive to the Agency’s point of view on various
subjects. Three of the most widely read columnists who maintained such
ties with the Agency are C.L. Sulzberger of the New York Times, Joseph
Alsop, and the late Stewart Alsop, whose column appeared in the New
York Herald‑Tribune, the Saturday Evening Post and Newsweek. CIA files
contain reports of specific tasks all three undertook.”

The CIA specifically refers to these widely read columnists as “known
assets” they can count upon to perform undercover tasks. They also
maintain ‘signed secrecy agreements’ with executives from the New York
Times. Lovely!

Bernstein then lists many well-known newspapers, magazines, and
broadcasters used by the CIA and notes their most cherished ones as
follows [emphasis added]:

    “By far the most valuable of these associations, according to CIA
officials, have been with the New York Times, CBS and Time Inc.”

Still today, these three media outlets are giants in the publishing,
broadcasting, and entertainment industries. And who really knows the
extent to which the CIA and other US government agencies still
maintain relationships with their editorial and journalistic staff,
and possibly many others in the United States and across the world. It
would certainly come as no surprise if they did.

War – and how it is covered by media – is a major recurring theme in
all of this and it is no secret that the CIA has left its dirty
footprints over many of them since its inception in 1947. This has
been highly documented and revealed by whistleblower Kevin Shipp, a
former CIA officer, intelligence and counter terrorism expert who held
several high-level positions in the organization.

Finally, the CIA’s reach beyond American borders goes without saying.
A German journalist spills the beans

“I was bribed by billionaires. I was bribed by the Americans not to
report exactly the truth,” stated Udo Ulfkotte back in a 2014
interview with RT (original report); the late editor and journalist of
Germany’s Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung was quite outspoken in this
particular interview.

Screenshot of the 2014 RT interview with German journalist Udo Ulfkotte

Ulfkotte explained how the CIA and other US agencies bought
journalists across all major German newspapers. He starts the
interview with the following revelation [emphasis added]:

    “I’ve been a journalist for about 25 years. And I was educated to
lie, to betray, and not to tell the truth to the public. But, seeing
right now within the last months how the German and American media
tries to bring war to the people in Europe, to bring war to Russia.
This is a point of no return and I’m going to stand up and say it is
not right what I have done in the past, to manipulate people, to make
propaganda against Russia, and it is not right what my colleagues do
and have done in the past because they are bribed to betray the
people, not only in Germany, all over Europe.”

It’s funny how you could almost replace this assertion (from back in
2014) in the context of today’s 2022 Russia-Ukraine war, or as some
would call it, a proxy war between NATO/Western Europe/United States
and Russia.

He continued:

    “I was supported by the Central Intelligence Agency, the CIA. Why?
Because I should be pro- American. I’m fed up with it. I don’t want to
do it anymore.”

‘Non-official cover’ is a term the German journalist used to describe
how he (and other journalists) were essentially working for or helping
the intelligence agency, though not in an official capacity,
conveniently leaving room for plausible deniability.

Ulfkotte goes on to explain how the journalists are rewarded by the CIA.

Statements like these really makes one wonder about the extent to
which media outlets all around the world have been infiltrated not
only by the CIA, but also by other powerful entities.

But wait, Ulfkotte dives deeper into other supranational influences
that help shape media organizations and their prevailing narratives
[emphasis added]:

    “We are still kind of a colony of the Americans. And being a
colony, it is very easy to approach young journalists through, what is
very important here is, transatlantic organizations. All journalists
from really respected and recommended big German newspapers,
magazines, radio stations, TV stations, they are all members or guests
of those big transatlantic organizations. And in these transatlantic
organizations, you are approached to be pro-American.”

Ulfkotte then emphasizes that this phenomenon is even more the case
with British journalists due to their special relationship with the
US, and the French, to a lesser extent.

One need not look far to see what he is talking about with regards to
these transatlantic organizations than observe the writings and
actions of outfits such as the Council on Foreign Relations and the
Atlantic Council think tank, both focused on American imperialism and
interests. While the later is essentially a mouthpiece for NATO, the
former holds an unfathomable grasp on Western media.

Examining the historical and current membership into the Council on
Foreign Relations is quite revealing, to say the least. Or, perhaps
more fittingly: the elephant in the room. Moreover, the think tank
holds tremendous influence through its network of elites and media
pundits who are central in shaping U.S. foreign policy and public

Back in 2017, an infographic emerged showing the extent of this
network and how it possibly ties to the Bilderberger Group and the
Trilateral Commission:

Infographic showing the network of members of the CFR, full-resolution
image: https://swprs.files.wordpress.com/2017/08/cfr-media-network-hdv-spr.png

Comparing current members with past ones, we can easily validate the
authenticity of this elitist ilk and deduce that it is highly
organized, highly interconnected, and what amounts to a highly
influential network of thought leaders & shapers.

Another infographic from Swiss Policy Research – an independent,
nonpartisan and non-profit research group investigating geopolitical
propaganda – shows the transatlantic network the German media is
subject to:

Swiss Policy Research – Media in Germany: The transatlantic network,
full-resolution image:

The data contained in these infographics validates German journalist
Udo Ulfkotte’s claims to this effect.

The infiltration of media, be it by the CIA, other intelligence
agencies, or think-tanks such as the Council on Foreign Relations or
the Atlantic Council, is unmistakably a conspiracy in that their
stealthily coordinated efforts control narratives the masses,
including government officials, are exposed to on a daily basis.
Same Playbook, Different War

With the current war in the Ukraine, we can easily notice how the
stances held by these transatlantic institutions are mostly one-sided.
Here’s a recent tweet from the Atlantic Council regarding the 2022
Russia-Ukraine war:

Tweet from the Atlantic Council, Sept. 15, 2022, Source

The related article begins [emphasis added]:

    “Ukraine’s stunning counteroffensive success in the Kharkiv region
has provided conclusive proof that the Ukrainian Armed Forces are more
than capable of defeating Russia on the battlefield. Now is the time
to end the war by providing Ukraine with everything necessary to
consolidate these gains and secure a decisive victory.”

    “Victory requires a coordinated, multifaceted, and long-term
approach with economic, diplomatic, humanitarian, and logistical
support all needed in order to bolster the Ukrainian transition to
NATO-standard weaponry. Above all, this means a full commitment by
Ukraine’s partners to increase arms supplies to the country.”

As you can see, they don’t hide which side they are representing while
blatantly calling for NATO and partners to increase arms supplies and
weaponry. Accordingly, if this is not an advertisement to further
bolster the Military/Security Complex’s coffers, then I don’t know
what else to say. That would be for another article altogether that
would require its own investigation.

Another recent tweet and article written by the CFR’s own President,
Richard Haass, a Rhodes Scholar, from the Council on Foreign Relations
rings the same bell:

Tweet from the Council on Foreign Relations, also from Sept. 15, 2022, Source

In it, the CFR President states [emphasis added]:

    “The West, for its part, should continue to provide Ukraine with
the quality and quantity of military and economic support it requires.
There are strong strategic reasons for doing so, including to deter
future aggression by Russia, China, or anyone else.”

The only difference is that this one makes a specific reference to
China – the current frontrunner to be the next boogeyman-du-jour in
our Orwellian perpetual state of war which assures gargantuan profits
for the Military/Security Complex. But again, I digress, for this is
yet for another behemoth of an article that would require an entire
team of reporters.

The extent to which this war has also been propagated on social media
is, in itself, a whole other can of worms. Armies of bots, pundits and
propagandists (from both sides of the conflict) along with the divided
masses all contribute to the digital fog of war in the halls,
hyperbolic and echo chambers of platforms such as Twitter, Facebook,
Instagram, and YouTube.
The Council on Foreign Relations conspiracy

In a book aptly titled ‘None Dare Call It Conspiracy’ by Gary Allen
and Larry Abraham published in 1971, the first paragraph of the
introduction – written by former U.S. congressman John G. Schmitz
reads as follows:

    “The story you are about to read is true. The names have not been
changed to protect the guilty. This book may have the effect of
changing your life. After reading this book you will never look at
national and world events in the same way again.”

I feel the same way, though I would also highly recommend the book The
Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve by
G. Edward Griffin which focuses on the secretive events that lead to
the formation of the private corporation knowns as the US Federal
Reserve which has also changed the way I personally view the word.

Griffin holds the distinguished honorary title of Conspiracy Theorist
by the editors of Wikipedia and others. So, he must be doing something
right. His claims about how the North American medical establishment
essentially got usurped by billionaire interests certainly added
credence to this title.

Speaking of billionaires, a few passages from the book ‘None Dare Call
It Conspiracy’ really stand out:

    “The American subsidiary of this conspiracy is called the Council
on Foreign Relations and was started by and is still controlled by
Leftist international bankers.”

    “According to his grandson John, Jacob Schiff (above), long-time
associate of the Rothschilds, financed the Communist Revolution in
Russia to the tune of $20 million. According to a report on file with
the State Department, his firm, Kuhn loeb and Co. bankrolled the first
five year plan for Stalin. Schiff's partner and relative, Paul
Warburg, engineered the establishment of the Federal Reserve System
while on the Kuhn Loeb payroll. Schiff's descendants are active in the
Council on Foreign Relations today.”

And under an old photograph of a building in New York city appears
[emphasis added]:

    “Home of the Council on Foreign Relations on 68th St. in New York
The admitted goal of the CFR is to abolish the Constitution and
replace our ones [sic] independent Republic with a World Government.
CFR members have controlled, the last six administrations. Richard
Nixon has been a member and has appointed at least 100 CFR members to
high positions in his administration.”

And later on in the book:

    “The C.F.R. has come to be known as "The Establishment," "the
invisible government" and "the Rockefeller foreign office." This
semi-secret organization unquestionably has become the most
influential group in America.”

It’s most interesting to see how these billionaire actors also
coincidentally have had a hand in the formation of the U.S. Federal
Reserve. Perhaps, G. Edward Griffin was onto something after all.

A more recent (1988) book provides similar allegations with regards to
the CFR by providing a deep dive into the historical roots,
connections, and linkages to the war machine of the notorious
organization. Its title is ‘The Shadows of Power: The Council on
Foreign Relations And The American Decline’ by author James Perloff.

I will leave it up to the reader to investigate more into this alleged
conspiracy, for such an endeavor demands significant time, scrutiny,
and attention.
Conspiracy Theories that turned out to be true

Though many conspiracies have been proven true over the years, I will
merely showcase a few which relate to two recurring themes of this
article, namely that of war and media corruption.
Operation Mockingbird, 1950s+

In light of the revelations listed earlier in this article, it is
perhaps most fitting that we exhibit this particular proven
conspiracy, for its overarching implications run far and wide – even
in 2022 and beyond.

In a nutshell, Operation Mockingbird was a large-scale clandestine
program of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to manipulate
news media for propaganda purposes.

According to The Black Vault – an online archive that houses over 3
million pages of government documents, Operation Mockingbird was said
to be initially organized by Cord Meyer and Allen W. Dulles, later led
by Frank Wisner after Dulles became the head of the CIA; and the
organization recruited leading American journalists into a network to
help present the CIA’s views, including worked to influence foreign
media and political campaigns.

In 1974, The New York Times had published an article by investigative
journalist Seymour Hirsh who claimed that the CIA had violated its

In the mid-1970s, the U.S. Congress had become concerned over abuses
of the CIA, NSA, and FBI and called a committee (the Church Committee)
to look over it.

As per Everipedia, the final report of the Church Committee covered
CIA ties with both foreign and domestic news media. Specifically with
regards to the foreign news media, the report concluded that:

    “The CIA currently maintains a network of several hundred foreign
individuals around the world who provide intelligence for the CIA and
at times attempt to influence opinion through the use of covert
propaganda. These individuals provide the CIA with direct access to a
large number of newspapers and periodicals, scores of press services
and news agencies, radio and television stations, commercial book
publishers, and other foreign media outlets.”

And for domestic media, the report emphasizes the following:

    “Approximately 50 of the [Agency] assets are individual American
journalists or employees of U.S. media organizations. Of these, fewer
than half are "accredited" by U.S. media organizations ... The
remaining individuals are non-accredited freelance contributors and
media representatives abroad ... More than a dozen United States news
organizations and commercial publishing houses formerly provided cover
for CIA agents abroad. A few of these organizations were unaware that
they provided this cover.”

Apart from the staggering revelations outlined in the two passages
above, the term ‘cover’ is of particular interest. German journalist
Udo Ulfkotte, mentioned earlier in this article, stated that him and
other fellow German journalists were basically operating as
‘non-official cover’, or in a ‘non-official capacity’ for the CIA. In
other words, the CIA employed this pretext to cloak itself and adduce
plausible deniability.

Looking at the headlines and overt propaganda coming out of the
European mainstream press over the last several years leaves us with
little doubt that this operation (or a new version of it) is still
alive and kicking.
Operation Northwoods (re Cuban Missile Crisis) in 1962

Operation Northwoods was a proposed ‘false flag’ (i.e., a
covert/secretive plot intended to deceive) operation against Cuba
originating from the U.S. Dept. of Defense calling upon the CIA and
other U.S. government operatives to commit acts of terrorism against
American civilians and military targets in Guantanamo (Cuba) and blame
them on the Cuban government which would serve as a justification for
war against the Caribbean island nation.

The gist of the proposed operation was to hoodwink President John F.
Kennedy to declare war against Cuba in the midst of the Cuban Missile

For those with a penchant for gripping movie dramas, the 2000 movie
Thirteen Days starring Kevin Costner and Bruce Greenwood (as President
Kennedy) serves as an absorbing illustration in which the Democrat
president was placed in a mental crucible and tested to his limits.

The declassified document (memorandum for the Secretary of Defense)
from 13 March 1962 titled ‘Justification for US Military Intervention
in Cuba (TS)’ lays it bare for all to see.

Documentarians Aaron and Melissa Dykes produced a top-notch work on
this planned conspiracy.

There are many reasons why I like Truthstream Media’s documentaries.
Not only do they produce extremely well-researched works, but they
also present them in a clear manner; and sometimes, such as with this
particular work, they offer advice to their viewers on how to better
educate themselves about world events. Near the start of this
documentary, Melissa Dykes states [emphasis added]:

    “We thought we would look at this document for Operation
Northwoods, it was declassified, because the problem with people
forgetting history or failing to research history or failing to look
into history is they forget these things ever happened. And history
continues to repeat and people act like they have no idea why.”

On that, I have to totally agree with Melissa Dykes. In today’s
fast-pace society, people are more inclined to play with TikTok on
their phones or watch movies than to read books – especially those
related to history. It’s one of the main factors that has led to the
lack of critical thought and discernment in society.

Simple explanation of a ‘false flag’ operation. Source:
Gulf of Tonkin Incident (Vietnam), 1964

Everipedia – a blockchain-based online encyclopedia (a better source
of information than Wikipedia, in my opinion) prefaces the incident as
follows [emphasis added]:

    “The Gulf of Tonkin incident (Vietnamese: Sự kiện Vịnh Bắc Bộ),
also known as the Maddox, was an international confrontation that led
to the United States engaging more directly in the Vietnam War. It
involved one real and one falsely claimed confrontation between ships
of North Vietnam and the United States in the waters of the Gulf of
Tonkin. The original American report blamed North Vietnam for both
incidents, but the Pentagon Papers, the memoirs of Robert McNamara,
and NSA publications from 2005, proved material misrepresentation by
the US government to justify a war against Vietnam.”

Among all wars fought by Americans, the Vietnam War ranked 4th just
after the first two world wars and the U.S. Civil war. It’s economic
and human costs epitomized human folly.

What is equally nefarious is the deceptive means by which this false
flag event, or conspiracy, came about.
Notable Unresolved Conspiracies

While there are too many to even contemplate, let us have a look at
some of the more controversial ones that still have an impact on
society and our way of life.
September 11 attacks

Perhaps one of the biggest and most contentious ones is that of the
events that relate to what happened on September 11, 2001.

So much has transpired in the 21 years that have lapsed since the
collapse of the World-Trade Center towers in New York City.

Though a formal investigation has been conducted and published on
these events, so many unanswered questions remain as to who exactly
was behind it.

We often hear some talking about this tragic event insisting that it
was an ‘inside job’ (i.e., done by powers within the U.S. Government).
And for this, they are immediately labelled conspiracy theorists.
Actually, in this rare case I agree with the employment of the
defamatory designation. For, with an event as complex as this one, one
can readily make such a claim; but to back it up with convincing
evidence would require an extraordinary enterprise.

What is perhaps more useful here, though, would be to ask anew some of
the most important and unaddressed questions relating to this event.
For these questions which are listed below, links are provided for
additional context/reference. A good refresher video (WTC7 and 9/11
Truth 14 Years Later: "People Still Want the Truth") was published by
documentarians of Truthstream Media.

    How is it possible that WTC Tower 7, the 47-story building which
was only affected by minor fires, collapse straight down in a free
fall defying known laws of physics?

    Why was the collapse of WTC Tower 7 reported by the BBC 20 minutes
before it actually came down?

    How come no large pieces of aircraft wreckage from United Airlines
flight 93 were ever found at the alleged crash site in Stonycreek
Township (Shanksville), Pennsylvania?

    How come no large pieces of aircraft wreckage from American
Airlines flight 77 were ever found on the ground near the West wall of
the Pentagon?

    Why was all the rubble and steel (evidence) from the site so
swiftly collected (over the objections by fire marshals) and shipped

    How was the Patriot Act (effective October 26, 2001) – a fairly
long and complex legal document – drafted, reviewed, introduced, and
enacted in merely 6 weeks?

Of course, there are countless other unanswered questions. Perhaps the
grander question is: will there ever be a fuller, more transparent
official investigation surrounding these attacks?
Who really killed JFK?

Despite the findings of the Warren Commission, it remains to be solved
as to whom exactly assassinated U.S. President John F. Kennedy since
it is proven that a single gunman could not have acted alone per the
additional evidence confirmed after the commission’s report.

Many intelligence documents remained classified – even after 60 years
since this tragic event took place in Dallas, Texas.

Over the years, many have contributed to the investigation that never
seems to end. Investigator Jim Garrison was perhaps the most prominent
amongst them.
Moon Landing Controversy

Wernher von Braun at the lunar landing scene on an Apollo set replica
during the Atlanta Southeastern Fair, credited to United Press
International (UPI), image source

The picture above (and the cover picture for this article) may seem as
a conspiracy theory in itself, for it is difficult to authenticate and
locate the original photograph from UPI. However, it is one that has
been properly credited and attributed to the UPI. Accordingly, the
cover photograph for this article can be viewed with its original

Image source

And the Jacksonville Daily Journal published the photograph in its
September 30, 1960 edition:

Image source

For those unfamiliar with Werner Von Braun, he was a brilliant
aerospace engineer – the brains behind the development of the Saturn
rockets used in the Apollo launches.

Over the past several decades, there has been a lot of debate
regarding many aspects of the moon missions. A tremendous amount of
money, blood, sweat, and tears have flowed into the Apollo program and
other related projects.

Much pressure had been placed on the U.S. Government to ensure success
– especially amidst the backdrop of the Space Race and larger Cold War
between the United States and the Soviet Union.

Over the course of this colossal undertaking, it became apparent that
some serious problems and challenges needed to be overcome. Many were
overcome, but other major problems persisted.

A three and a half hour 2017 documentary entitled American Moon
(available on YouTube, Brighteon, and Odysee) outlined many of these
problems along with a significant amount of anomalies – particularly
in the Apollo moon missions. In the lengthy film, they disprove not
only the debunkers (those who disprove the deniers) but also some of
the deniers themselves regarding their false or flawed claims.

American Moon is meticulously well documented with original (official)
NASA photographs, films, interviews, technical documents, and so
forth, and presented in a clear and understandable way for the average
Jane or Joe.

Over 40 extremely well-formulated questions are presented and
addressed to NASA itself as well as the greater debunker community. I
have yet to locate a source which addresses all these key points; and
this, despite nearly five years having elapsed since the documentary
film came out.

I certainly invite the reader to spend the three and a half hours to
view this film; for, after doing so, you will never see the moon
landing in the same light.

I will only cite a few of the key questions that were put forward in this film.

The first one relates to one of the most critical aspects of space
flight, namely that of the dangers of radiation that are present
beyond our planet, namely the Van Allen radiation belts. The belts
protect our planet from harmful radiation originating from the sun and
outer space.

Van Allen radiation belts, source: NASA

Here’s a simplified image to get a better idea of the range of these
belts from Earth:

Screenshot from American Moon (at the 01:00:20 mark)

The problem, here, as pointed out in the film, is that modern
scientists, including NASA Orion engineer Kelly Smith for that matter,
have explained that no human could penetrate either of the two (inner
& outer) belts without being exposed to high-energy radiation and
cosmic rays which would biologically cause serious damage, if not
death. In the March 1959 edition of Scientific American, the following
was noted:

    “The discovery [of the Van Allen radiation belts] is of course
troubling to astronauts; somehow the human body will have to be
shielded from this radiation, even on a rapid transit through the

More recently, NASA Orion engineer Kelly Smith stated the following
when talking about the Van Allen radiation belts [emphasis added]:

    “We must solve these challenges before we send people through this
region of space.”

In American Moon (around the 01:11:20 mark), NASA astronaut and
commander Terry Virts says the following [emphasis added]:

    “The plan that NASA has is to built a rocket called SOS which is a
heavy-lift rocket; it’s something much bigger than what we have today.
And it will be able to launch the Orion capsule with humans on board …
to destinations beyond earth orbit. Right now, we can only fly in
earth orbit. That’s the farthest that we can go. This new system that
we’re building is gonna allow us to go beyond and hopefully take
humans into the solar system to explore. So, the moon, Mars,
asteroids, there’s a lot of destinations that we could go to…”

Further in the film, Apollo 12 astronaut Alan Bean responded the
following when asked about whether he had suffered any ill effects
from having passed through the Van Allen belts:

    “No. Now, I’m not sure we went far enough out to encounter the Van
Allen radiation belts. Maybe we did.”

One would think that as a crew member from Apollo 12 – the second
mission to land on the moon – he would know about the location and
existence of these belts through which he passed through.


Very strange.

What is also rather puzzling is the fact that NASA admits they lost
the telemetry data related to the Apollo 11 moon mission.

The Chief Flight Director for the Gemini and Apollo programs Gene
Krantz (who was portrayed by Ed Harris in the 1995 film Apollo 13)
admitted that NASA had lost the original tapes containing the
telemetry data (alternate video link here). When asked by documentary
filmmaker Aron Ranen about the tapes, Krantz stated the following:

    “I haven’t seen anything that indicates the telemetry data is even
in existence. And, as I said, even if we had it, we don’t have the
machines to play it back.”

Ranen, the creator of the 2005 film Did We Go? then went to NASA’s
Goodard Space Center and spoke with archivist Dr. David Williams who
further asserted:

    “We’ve been unable to track it down. We don’t know where this
telemetry data ended up. And we don’t know what path it may have
taken. So, unfortunately I’m afraid I can’t give you much of a clue as
to where this data ended up and whether it still exists or not.”

So, let’s be clear folks here for a minute. The data that recorded
what was perhaps the single most important event in human history has
completely disappeared. Really? No backup copies have been made? And
it would be “impossible” to re-create machines to play it back on?


While it is certainly possible that these tapes have indeed
disappeared, the whole affair is rather questionable and pitiful, to
say the least.

The American Moon documentary further outlines anomalies related to
the lunar module (LEM), telecommunications (between the earth and the
moon), photographs & photography, cameras, videos, shadows, cosmic
radiation, extreme temperatures, and more.

A large part of the documentary focuses on photographs taken and
published by NASA. The producer of the documentary hired several top
photographers in the world (who worked in the field during that
period) to examine and analyze the official photos taken on the
surface of the moon.

These photography experts all pointed out many impossibilities found in them.

For the most part, they disproved that the photographs could have been
taken on the surface of the moon if the only main source of light was
emanating from the Sun; they decisively contend that the photographs
were produced on a set with artificial lighting. This segment is
presented with meticulous detail and analysis which makes it extremely
difficult to refute the assertions from the experts.

A common counter-argument that people have regarding those who claim
the moon landings were faked is how could thousands of people be on
board with such a hoax without there being any whistleblowers.
Firstly, there have been numerous credible whistleblowers who have
come out and I will reference one below.

As for the “thousands of employees” conundrum, the answer is quite
simple. These thousands of employees would simply not be aware that
this subset (i.e., the moon landings) of the Apollo missions were
being deceptively presented. This was the case with the Manhattan
Project whereby thousands of people worked on the development of the
first atomic bomb without knowing about its ultimate goal. The project
was carefully structured for secrecy by means of compartmentalization.
Put simply, under compartmentalization, people work in their own
respective groups (or, compartments) on specific tasks and are not
privy to a lot of data or information about the overall project.

Accordingly, it would not have been that difficult to structure the
NASA project in such a way.

In an April 12, 2020 confession, Gene Gilmore (born Eugene Reuben
Akers), now deceased, appeared in a video (alternate links here, here,
and here) disclosed what his father (Cyrus Eugene Akers who was
stationed in Cannon Air Force Base in New Mexico in 1968) had
previously confessed to him on his death bed.

Mr. Akers senior was in the Military Police for over 20 years and on
his death bed in 2002 he made a recording of what he had witnessed.

Gene’s father told him about project ‘Slam Dunk’ whereby there were
two large hangars (at the Cannon Air Force Base) that were connected,
dump trucks had delivered sand and stone, and cement powder that was
applied on top of all that material to make it look like a lunar

The surprised son continued listening to his father state that in
front of the airplane hangars was pull framing with large canvas tents
that were concealing the inside of the staging area. Inside the
staging area, on flat bed trucks was created the lunar lander that was
assembled, reassembled back inside the hangars. All of the walls were
painted flat black as were the ceilings.

Cyrus Eugene Akers was sworn to secrecy by the National Security Agency (NSA).

Gene then recalled that when his father saw the moon landing on
television, he cried.

He said that what he witnessed on TV is exactly what they recorded in
that hangar.

Mr. Akers continued his death bed confession to his son stating that
there were 3 guards at the entrance of the hangar and there was a list
of 15 people who could enter, no one else was allowed by order of
President [Lyndon] Johnson. Gene Gilmore then stated that he had given
the list to Bart Sibrel.

Gene Gilmore then enumerates the specific names of list of 15 people
who had special access to the hangars which include President Johnson,
Neil Armstrong, Edwin [Buzz] Alden, Werner Von Braun, Gene Krantz,
James Webb, Dr. James Van Allen, among others.

Gilmore continues on with what his father had confided in him.
President Johnson was there only for the first day of filming. The
filming lasted for 3 days. And then, everything was dismantled to
bring the hangars back to their original states.

Gilmore then states that since 2002, he verified a lot of the
information his father had given him – including records from Cannon
Air Force base that confirmed the presence of President Johnson and
the astronauts at that time as well as the lunar lander. Apparently
though, this information was subsequently removed from Cannon’s

Lastly, Gene affirms that his father stated had to tell somebody about
the incident before he died because it was too important; but he also
warned him not to ever tell anybody.

Regarding the authenticity of these testimonies, there is always the
possibility that they are not entirely truthful. But people seldom lie
during death bed confessions. They usually want to get truth off their
chests before they meet their maker. The fact that Gene Gilmore
instructed Bart Sibrel to only publish his confession after his death
also adds credibility to his testimony.

As recent as Sept. 22, 2022, Lead Stories published a fact check
rebuke regarding this confession video. In it, they stated that they
had contacted NASA regarding the video and posted their spokesperson’s
reply in the article:

    “There is a significant amount of evidence to support NASA landed
12 astronauts on the moon from 1969 to 1972. We collected 842 pounds
of moon rocks that have been studied by scientists worldwide for
decades. From these rocks, we've learned that the moon was once part
of the Earth, the moon is about 4.5 billion years old, and that most
of the moon's craters are caused by impact, not volcanism.”

Anyone with half a brain could tell that this reply is totally
unconvincing. Why mention moon rocks? It’s as if the spokesperson
thinks this provides tangible evidence of the moon landings. One would
also think that NASA would have come up with a much more thoughtful
and convincing argument than the absurdity stated above.

I digress.

The conclusion of the American Moon documentary shows part of the
Apollo 11 astronauts post moon mission press conference. They point
out that the three astronauts were totally unenthusiastic.

They were there to talk about the single most important feat
accomplished by human beings and these men could barely crack a smile
or convey their joy and enthusiasm about their monumental achievement.
This goes without saying that it is all, indeed and utterly, extremely

Moreover, the very apparent levels of stress shown by the astronauts
as per their body language at the beginning of the press conference is
somewhat mind boggling. Keep in mind that these astronauts are test
pilots who have experience handling extremely stressful situations,
not to mention having [purportedly] flown an extremely dangerous
mission to the moon. So, relatively speaking, simply talking to the
public and press about their monumental achievement should not have
been so challenging and stressful for these men. Rather, it should
have been a cause for celebration and pride. What is the average
person to make of this?

American Moon ends with video clips of Bart Sibrel confronting each of
the three Apollo 11 astronauts (Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, and
Michael Collins) asking them to swear on the Bible that they walked on
the moon. All three men displayed very uncomfortable stances and
refused. Sibrel even offered $5,000 in cash to charity should Neil
Armstrong agree, but he still refused. Buzz Aldrin actually punched
Sibrel in the face when the interrogator persisted in his questioning.
Even though Sibrel’s approach wasn’t particularly friendly, it remains
odd that none of them agreed to do so.

As more and more inconsistencies surface regarding the Apollo moon
missions along with mounting evidence which contradicts the official
narrative, it is probably just a matter of time before NASA becomes
obligated to admit what really happened in July of 1969. Undoubtedly,
there is a lot at stake.

Will history books need to be re-written?

Time will tell.
Conspiracies to Watch

As practically all of the conspiracies stated below are highly
controversial and subjective in nature, I will merely provide a short
summary of each along with key links that provide some initial
background information – selected specifically to exhibit why they are
considered conspiratorial. Ultimately, it is really up to the readers
to investigate them and draw their own conclusions as to the
authenticity and legitimacy of their respective stated claims.
Climate Change

Though the very hot and contentious issue of ‘Climate Change’,
formerly known as ‘Global Warming’, is complex and controversial, we
must begin by examining its origins.

Where did this really originate from? When was it first mentioned and
put forward as an existential threat?

Former Australian politician Ann Bressington shed a bit of light on
the issue in a candid speech about Agenda 21 and the Club of Rome a
few years ago. In the speech (alternate link) she stated the following
[emphasis added]:

    “Ladies and gentlemen, the origins of the environmental movement
as we see it began back in 1968 when the Club of Rome was formed. The
Club of Rome has been described as a crisis think tank which
specialises in crisis creation. The main purpose of this think tank
was to formulate a crisis that would unite the world and condition us
to the idea of global solutions to local problems. In a document
called The First Global Revolution, … it stated: ‘In searching for a
new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the
threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would
fit the bill.’ …, that’s the origin of global warming ladies and

Her statement does indeed check out. On page 115 of the 1991 book
entitled The First Global Revolution: A Report by the Council of Rome,
you can clearly read the passage under the header ‘The Common Enemy of
Humanity is Man’ [emphasis added in red]:

Excerpt from page 115 of the book The First Global Revolution: A
Report by the Council of Rome

The Club of Rome is still actively involved in activities related to
Climate Change. And at first glance it all seems quite legitimate. But
the power and influence wielded by its well-connected membership
leaves much to be scrutinized.

Moreover, while the above information doesn’t serve as a smoking gun
with regards to an alleged conspiracy, it does demonstrate that
powerful and deeply connected think tanks (like with the Council on
Foreign Relations mentioned earlier in this article) can influence
many key players, including heads of state (even former Canadian Prime
Minister Pierre Trudeau, father of the current Prime Minister).

Credible scientific evidence contrary to the current climate change
narrative does exist, yet very seldom appears in the mainstream press,
for it goes against the ascribed (and undebatable) “the science is
settled” mantra.

One of these includes the recent (August, 2022) article entitled 1,200
Scientists and Professionals Declare: “There is No Climate Emergency”
by The Daily Sceptic which challenges the ‘political fiction’ that
humans cause most or all of climate change.

The article also states that the scale to the opposition to the
modern-day belief that the ‘science is settled’ [on Climate Change] is
remarkable, even amidst the backdrop of academia which barely ever
issues grants for climate research that departs from the political
orthodoxy. On a side note, a blunt revelation by the co-founder of The
Weather Channel John Coleman offered a rather scathing (and highly
entertaining) lecture towards Brian Stelter from CNN a few years back
in which he stated that there was no real science behind climate
change. Now, back to the article of interest from The Daily Sceptic.
It makes reference to a declaration by over 1,200 scientists from all
around the world who assert that there is no climate emergency. This
declaration is formally known as the ‘World Climate Declaration
(WCD)’. Here are a few key excerpts:

    “Climate policy relies on inadequate models

    Climate models have many shortcomings and are not remotely
plausible as policy tools. They do not only exaggerate the effect of
greenhouse gases, they also ignore the fact that enriching the
atmosphere with CO2 is beneficial.”

    “CO2 is plant food, the basis of all life on Earth

    CO2 is not a pollutant. It is essential to all life on Earth. More
CO2 is favorable for nature, greening our planet. Additional CO2 in
the air has promoted growth in global plant biomass. It is also
profitable for agriculture, increasing the yields of crops worldwide.”

    “Global warming has not increased natural disasters

    There is no statistical evidence that global warming is
intensifying hurricanes, floods, droughts and suchlike natural
disasters, or making them more frequent. However, there is ample
evidence that CO2mitigation measures are as damaging as they are

    “Climate policy must respect scientific and economic realities

    There is no climate emergency. Therefore, there is no cause for
panic and alarm. We strongly oppose the harmful and unrealistic
net-zero CO2 policy proposed for 2050. Go for adaptation instead of
mitigation; adaptation works whatever the causes are.”

It should be obvious – even to a grade school student – that C02 is
essential for life on earth and for the healthy functioning of our
biological ecosystems. But our mainstream media and academia have been
bamboozled and overtaken by powerful interest groups (as is the case
in many other institutions such as those of finance and government) to
pervert reality and propagate absurdities day in and day out. These
compromised media outlets prefer to push the half-baked narratives
from the likes of Bill Gates rather than invite real scientists that
will challenge the ‘settled’ narratives and pundit talking heads.

To be fairer and more objective though, the onus really is on each and
every one of us to properly inform ourselves about issues such as
climate change. We should be open to listening to those with opposing
views and seek the opinions of independents who are not subsidised or
funded by special interest groups or who will somehow benefit in
spewing pre-packaged, one-size fits all, narratives.
The origins of SARS-CoV-2 (Covid-19)

No other matter has consumed the collective thought of people from
around the world over the last 2+ years than the Covid-19 Pandemic.

Early on during the pandemic, many had contended that the virus was
not of natural origin but was rather one that was altered in a lab
setting; and after things had gone afoul, the virus was somehow spread
out of the biosafety level 4 lab known as the Wuhan Institute of
Virology into the public of the Chinese metropolis, and eventually to
the entire world. This was in contrast with the original claim that
the virus had originated in a wet market in Wuhan whereby the virus
had crossed-over to humans from bats.

Those who made the contention that the virus could have been
engineered in a lab were immediately dismissed as conspiracy

But as more evidence has surfaced regarding a massive coverup by the
Chinese government and apparent pre-pandemic linkages between
US-funded labs an the Wuhan Institute of Virology, the theory gained

Anthony Fauci who is the Director of the National Institutes of Health
(NIH) and the leader in the United States regarding the handling of
the Covid-19 Pandemic has repeatedly lied (to US Congress) about and
denied that any gain-of-function research (specifically, a bat
coronavirus research project by EcoHealth Alliance) had taken place
under his US government-funded National Institutes of Health (NIH) lab
in Wuhan.

Surfaced letters have shone additional light on the matter
demonstrating that funding from NIH to EcoHEalth Alliance did indeed

In addition, a report from The Intercept following a FOIA request
produced 900 pages of materials relating to coronavirus research in

Furthermore, an email letter from Peter Daszak from EcoHealth Alliance
dated April 18, 2020, surfaced whereby Daszak thanked Anthony Fauci,
the head of the Covid-19 response team, for his [false] public
comments regarding the origins of Covid-19.

News aggregator ZeroHedge ran an article on August 6, 2021 whereby
virologist Shi Zhengli (also known as "Bat Lady") of the Wuhan
Institute of Virology – whose lab received US funding to make
coronaviruses more infectious to humans – warned that the virus will
continue to mutate producing new strains.

Virologist Shi Zhengli (left), also known as “bat lady” photographed
with Peter Daszak (right) from EcoHealth Alliance, source: ZeroHedge
and DailyMail

China expert Matthew Tye who is fluent in Mandarin Chinese and goes by
the YouTube handle Laowhy86 produced a very compelling piece (dated
April 1, 2020, now with over 2.4 million views) on the source origins
of SARS-CoV-2, even hypothesizing about who patient zero for this
virus was; namely, Huang Yan Ling an employee of the infamous lab who
went missing, along with her profile from the lab’s website.

The World Health Organization (WHO) who is generously funded by Bill
Gates – apart from sovereign nations, he is by far its top donor – is
well known to have kowtowed to the Chinese government early on in the
pandemic, was eventually compelled to conduct a formal investigation
about the origins of the virus.

Using relevant sources, Summit News reported that the WHO’s chief
investigator, Ben Embarek (who also surmised that patient zero was
likely a lab worker at the Wuhan Institute of Virology) essentially
found nothing of material substance in the probe and was only
permitted [by the Chinese government] to mention the possibility of a
lab leak without being allowed to probe further. All of this, too,
after having visited the lab for a period of only 3 hours.

In addition, one might find it particularly inappropriate that Peter
Daszak of EcoHealth Alliance was chosen as part of the WHO’s
investigatory team since he had previously worked in this same lab and
given his obvious conflicts of interest in the matter at hand.

In their defense, it is highly likely that the Chinese government had
adequate time to remove any incriminating evidence that could have
pointed to the gain of function research about coronaviruses and the
inherent lab leak of the virus.

As a substantial amount of time has elapsed since the Covid-19
pandemic began coupled with the concealment (deliberate or
indeliberate) of critical direct and physical evidence regarding the
real nature of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, we may never know the true story
surrounding its origins.

Screenshot of John Hopkins University of Medicine’s Worldwide Covid-19
Dashboard, taken Sept. 27, 2022 (Total Cases: 615,673,638; Total
Deaths: 6,538,656, Total Vaccine Doses Administered: 12,255,133,258)

What remains, however, is that it is certainly worthwhile to not let
this one drain down the funnel of forgotten history.
The World Economic Forum (WEF)’s Great Reset

Though founded in 1971, it is really in the last couple of years that
this elitist organization, commonly referred to as the WEF, started to
gain attention by the general public (rather than business leaders,
politicians, and state leaders) around the world. This is in large
part attributable to the increase in the influence and power they have
gradually exerted on nations over the years, and particularly since
the Covid-19 Pandemic came about.

In 2020, the WEF embraced the opportunity that this global crisis
presented and not let it “go to waste.” And thus, seized it through a
series of recommendations and actions which they stated as an
opportune moment to “redefine” the world – particularly the
traditional economic model into one of what they call ‘stakeholder
capitalism’. Hence was born their proposed ambitious action plan known
as the ‘Great Reset’.

Two books accompany this endeavor, namely, the manifesto entitled
COVID-19: The Great Reset (2020) written by WEF founder Klaus Schwab,
as well as the The Fourth Industrial Revolution (2016). Both serve as
blueprints for what the well-connected elitist and quasi-supranational
organization wish to impose on global citizens.

The WEF’s founder Klaus Schwab has been characterised as kind of a
Bond villain in the last few years – particularly over social media. A
well-researched introduction about Klaus Schwab and the WEF was
produced by YouTuber Sorelle Amore.

While registered as a non-profit organization, the WEF does appear, at
prima facie, to be one with benevolent intentions fostering
public-private partnerships, that is not entirely the case. Many
controversies have surrounded a lot of what has come out of their
famous annual meetings referred to as ‘Davos’ which usually take place
in the ski-resort town of Davos in Switzerland.

For instance, many rich elites who’ve paid a hefty membership fee to
join the WEF, make it to the annual event in their private jets while
they call upon the masses and nation states to curve energy emissions
and reduce their carbon footprints. In this year’s Davos meeting, one
of their ilk, J. Michael Evans, president of the Alibaba Group, even
proposed a new technology to measure one’s carbon footprint, stating
[emphasis added]:

    “We're developing, through technology, an ability for consumers to
measure their own carbon footprint. What does that mean? That's, where
are they traveling, how are they traveling, what are they eating, what
are they consuming on the platform? ... stay tuned, we don't have it
operational yet - but this is something we're working on.”

While we all love the environment and want to do our part to protect
it, this kind of scheme appears to be nothing less than a proposed
taxation scheme targeted to partner governments eager and willing to
implement it.

Other controversial, some would say absurd, proposals have come out of
their forums. Promoting the masses to eat bugs (as a high source of
protein and great substitute for meat) is actually a thing now with
celebrities such as Nicole Kidman helping to spark the trend stating
how delicious they are. Insect processing plants, such as the cricket
facility from Aspire Food Group in Ontario, are also starting to
bolster this nascent industry.

You would be stunned at witnessing the extent to which this is
becoming widespread.

Some, however, have expressed concerns about how insect-based
ingredients are stealthily being added to the food we purchase and how
they are not fit for human consumption and possibly even cancerous.

Tweet indicating that President’s Choice (a leading food provider in
Canada) is including insect components in this product, as per the
label, purchased at a store in Saskatchewan.

I suppose we are all going to have to more carefully read the
ingredients lists of the foods we purchase.

Another major concern with regards to the WEF is the amount of power
and influence they hold over political officials, including heads of

This became apparent in the recent riots that have occurred in the
Netherlands where Dutch farmers have protested in masse against
government diktats regarding reducing nitrogen (used in fertilizer)
levels and possible farm land appropriation.

Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte also received criticism regarding the
coziness of his ties with the WEF’s boss, Klaus Schwab, and his
agendas. In fact, Rutte was blasted in the Dutch legislature by Gideon
van Meijeren (MP) for this relationship and complicity in the WEF’s
Great Reset (link includes the related video). Rutte responded to the
young MP that he didn’t know about the book (COVID-19: The Great
Reset) and ridiculed the young MP to “not look too much into these
conspiracy theories.”

In turns out, though, that a close relationship did exist between the
Netherlands Mark Rutte and the WEF. Independent information outlet
LeLibrePenseur.org (French for ‘The Free thinker’), published secret
letters between the two. In a report titled Fuites de Klaus Schwab :
lettres secrètes entre le WEF et des membres du gouvernement
hollandais dévoilées ! (Klaus Schwab leaks: secret letters between the
WEF and members of the Dutch government exposed!), they showcased
(what many mainstream Dutch journalists had described as conjecture)
how the Rutte government had indeed been subservient to the interests
and agendas of the WEF. Following a request from deputy FVD Pepijn van
Houwelingen to make public the letters addressed to Dutch cabinet
members, it was confirmed that their contributions had helped in the
realisation of the Great Reset, essentially bypassing the will of the
people through their elected officials.

While it is not necessarily conspiratorial to create linkages with the
WEF, the secretive manner in which it was done is what proves

Regarding Canada, Klaus Schwab has repeatedly boasted on how proud he
was proud of his army of Young Global Leaders, including Canadian
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. Schwab even bragged about how his
lieutenants had “penetrated” the Canadian cabinet stating [emphasis

    “What we are very proud of now [is] the young generation like
Prime Minister Trudeau, …, that we penetrate the cabinets. So,
yesterday I was at a reception for Prime Minister Trudeau and I know
that half of his cabinet, or even more than half of his cabinet are
actually young global leaders of the world.”

That is a stunning admission from the leader of the WEF. Canadian
opposition MP even inquired about this outside interference on behalf
of a constituent of his during a parliamentary session, only to see
the Speaker dismiss the question from the MP regarding this claim by
provided a ridiculous excuse that the audio and video were “really
really bad”. This was swiftly followed by an MP of the ruling party
dismissing the question stating that the opposition MP was “promoting
disinformation”. Really? I presume he didn’t hear the video in
question that clearly stated otherwise. Regardless of the veracity of
the claim itself, when an extremely powerful individual from an
extremely powerful global organization such as the WEF makes a vivid
assertion about who is controlling the Canadian cabinet, it should be
taken seriously and further investigated.

At the very least, according to True North News, the Trudeau
Government gave nearly $3 million to the WEF which raises a cause for
suspicion regarding the relationship and its inherent motivations.
Rigging of the Gold & Silver Markets

At this point/stage, this is really no longer a conspiracy theory, but
more of a conspiracy fact. As a financial author, I have followed the
gold and silver markets on a daily basis for the past ten years and
have witnessed and documented numerous cases of blatant price fixing –
almost exclusively to the down side.

The main reason for the suppression of gold and silver prices is to
maintain the illusion of a strong US dollar; for, if prices of these
metals get too elevated it raises alarm bells as to the weakness of an
exponentially increasing money supply.

Here is what I’m talking about:

Gold smashed down more than $85 during London trading hours on
November 9, 2020. Source: Kitco

It is very typical for the price fixers (see below) to smash the gold
price down (they do this by shorting large amounts of paper gold
futures contracts) before the open of U.S. markets – either during
Asian (Hong Kong) or London trading sessions.

Former industry insider and highly credible Peter Hambro forthrightly
explains how the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), the LBMA
(London Bullion Market Association) in London, and the COMEX (the
largest American commodities and futures exchange) in New York are
complicit in the price fixing (almost exclusively to the down side) of

Over the past several years, precious metals analyst Roman Manly has
also conducted extensive and thorough investigative work about the
manipulation of gold and silver prices as has the Gold Anti-Trust
Action Committee (GATA).

Regarding silver, an article entitled A Silver Price Manipulation
Primer by Sprott Money and precious metals writer Craig Hemke offers a
good introduction about the fixing of silver prices.

Lastly, we cannot forget the unabashedly, unfiltered, and outspoken
Canadian derivatives expert Rob Kirby who passed away earlier this
year (a tribute to his work can be seen via YouTube’s Liberty and
Finance channel) who has extensively reported on these illegal price
fixing activities on various YouTube channels such as Liberty and
Mass Censorship & Search Manipulation

In 2021, Twitter completely banned and censored the sitting U.S.
President, Donald J. Trump – who had over 88 million followers on the

If a Big Tech outfit like Twitter can outlaw a sitting U.S. President,
you can rest assured that they can basically ban and memory-hole
anyone. And that, they have done so unabatedly in the past several

Google (the largest search engine in the world by far) who owns a slew
of other extremely popular applications used by hundreds of millions
of people and media platforms such as YouTube, has been known to
employ very deceptive practices over the past several years.

Many of these involve either directly or indirectly censoring websites
and completely banning countless channels – particularly conservative
and alternative ones – from their YouTube platform, not to mention
shadow-banning. In regards to the later, whistleblower Zack Vorhies, a
former Senior Software Engineer at Google, stated that the tech giant
was a “highly biased political machine”. The former insider took a
cache of documents that provided rather revealing information about
the inner workings of their search algorithms, establishing a “single
point of truth” for news, and preventing another “Trump situation” in
2020, from ever happening again.

More recently – and quite convincingly, Dr. Robert Epstein, a Senior
Research Psychologist from the American Institute for Behavioral
Research and Technology gave an in-depth interview with The Epoch
Times’ Jan Jekielek (Robert Epstein: Inside Big Tech’s Manipulation
Machine and How to Stop It) revealing in a meticulously documented
fashion how Google is indeed politically aligned to the left and how
it manipulates the thoughts and minds of their users via “ephemeral
experiences”. The April 2022 broadcast and podcast for this interview
are definitely worth listening to. By listening to it, you will learn
a lot about what exactly happens behind the scenes when you use Google
search and its various products and services. Alternatively, you can
read or consult Dr. Epstein’s full research paper entitled 'GOOGLE'S
TRIPLE THREAT, To Democracy, Our Children, and Our Minds' (51-page
PDF) published earlier this year.

Full research report by Dr. Epstein's entitled 'GOOGLE'S TRIPLE
THREAT, To Democracy, Our Children, and Our Minds' (PDF)

Slightly after the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election, Dr. Epstein had
surmised that search engine bias shifted 2-3 million votes in Hillary
Clinton’s favor and warned that the number could increase fivefold in
the 2020 contest.

Also back in 2016, it was revealed how Google had censored information
about Hillary Clinton’s wrongdoings in their search results compared
to other major search engines.

Whether the call for censoring and shielding Big Tech from scrutiny
and legal action comes under the guise of cracking down on
misinformation or preserving their censorship power, it nonetheless
remains clear that these media behemoths hold tremendous power on the
levers of public discourse and the availability of information.

The Biden Administration has been accused of employing an “army” of
officials from multiple government agencies (specifically, the HHS,
DHS, CISA, the CDC, NIAID, the Office of the Surgeon General, the
Census Bureau, the FDA, the FBI, the State Department, the Treasury
Department, and the U.S. Election Assistance Commission) to censor
information using their contacts in social media. A recent lawsuit –
handled by the New Civil Rights Alliance – alleges that very claim.
The lawsuit’s plaintiffs’ position begins with their claim and what it
seeks [emphasis added]:

    “the Plaintiffs served interrogatories and document requests upon
the Government Defendants seeking the identity of federal officials
who have been and are communicating with social-media platforms about
disinformation, misinformation, malinformation, and/or any censorship
or suppression of speech on social media, including the nature and
content of those communications.”

In a recent interview with Joe Rogan, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg
also openly revealed that he followed the censorship orders from the
FBI to suppress information related to Hunter Biden’s laptop ahead of
the 2020 election; all this was under the guise of “Russian
Disinformation” and the net effect was that Facebook ended up ranking
the information further down their newsfeed which could certainly be
seen as election interference and/or political partisanship.

I have mentioned in my initial post on Substack, that I espouse the
notion that, in essence, there really is no such thing as
misinformation, disinformation, or malinformation (or even ‘fake news’
for that matter) – for, it is ALL INFORMATION. If the public is not
able to firstly access information and then analyse and discern it for
themselves (even with regards to the complex issues of our day), then
perhaps we have a bigger problem. Namely, that of a dumbed-down
populous unable to critically think for themselves without been spoon
fed pre-determined, unquestionable, narratives by “authority” figures.

in a recent interview, author, journalist, senior editor for The New
American, and Epoch Times contributor Alex Newman offers are rather
insightful view of not just the current state of censorship, but also
the worrying trend of the dumbing-down of population through our
degrading school system. As one who has worked in the education sector
for 35 years, I can certainly agree with his concern that our youth
are not adequately being taught critical-thinking skills in our public
school system.

In Canada, the controversial Bill C-11 (an Act to amend the
Broadcasting Act) has been passed by Parliament and is awaiting a
second reading in the Senate. Though Prime Minister Justin Trudeau
stated that it would help “oppressed communities” and “strengthen
trusted news sources in Canada”, many others contend that if passed as
law, it will favor government-approved news organizations who are
already (and will continue to) receive nearly hundreds of millions of
dollars of taxpayer money, with the CBC reportedly receiving 1.4
billion in 2021 according to the National Post. Dr. Michael Geist, a
law professor and Research Chair (in Internet and E-commerce Law) at
the University of Ottawa categorized the government’s defence of the
bill as “cartoonishly misleading”. The main concern is that this bill
could silence freedom-loving content creators, reports mrcTV. Canadian
journalist Dan Dicks from Pressfortruth.ca and social media
personality Viva Frei (David Freiheit) have criticized the bill (and
even its predecessor bill C-10). It remains to be seen if the bill
will pass the Senate to become law.
2020 Election in the United States

The 2020 Election was one of the most controversial elections in
American history. Coverage about the election varied greatly among
major networks and news outlets in the country.

In my opinion, I have found The Epoch Times coverage of the election
to be most accurate and independent.

All publications have bias in their reporting; that is inevitable due
also, in large part, to opinion pieces which in today’s polarized
society carry a lot of weight. That being said, I still believe that
articles from The Epoch Times have been more objective than many

One of their seasoned contributors, Sharyl Atkinson – an investigative
journalist who has reported nationally for CBS News, PBS, CNN – ran an
viewpoint article on Dec. 22, 2020 titled 2020 Election Screaming Red
Flags That Deserved Criminal Inquiry. Though it was an opinion piece,
she provided a fair analysis whereby she pointed out the many claims
of election irregularities and fraud and how they should have been
taken more seriously and investigated upon by government officials and
law enforcement agencies. And since they haven’t been taken seriously,
the integrity of the election results comes under great scrutiny. Her
piece then lists eight examples of “screaming red flags” that should
have prompted thorough criminal inquiries.

Prior to the election, The Epoch Times had unveiled a very
comprehensive exposé titled Spygate: The Inside Story Behind the
Alleged Plot to Take Down Trump that was very well sourced and
referenced. The investigatory work outlined in great detail the
concerted plot whereby key members of the CIA, FBI, Department of
Justice (DOJ), and officials from the U.S. State Department set up and
accused President Trump of colluding with the Russians.

Various official inquiries such as the very long and costly Special
Counsel investigation of 2017-2019 (headed by the very corrupt and
compromised Robert Mueller, former Director of the FBI) proved that no
foul play had ever occurred between Trump and the Russians.

What is stated in the previous paragraph is important, for it adds
veracity to the claims made about election fraud to the detriment of
the incumbent Trump. Why? Because it affirms the motivation by those
in power to use the same type of unlawful activities (and collusive
partners) to falsify and skew election data.

Such manipulation of the data, demonstrable by statistical anomalies,
(particularly with mail-in ballots) certainly became obvious and
apparent during the morning hours following election day when,
miraculously, Joe Biden’s numbers soared in key states where Trump was
leading. Many outlets had cried afoul to this apparent fraud. Even the
head of the Federal Election Commission (FEC) Trey Trainor at the time
said he believed there was widespread election fraud.

In addition, the manner in which Big Tech platforms have shown
favoritism – before, during, and after the election – is also to be
considered in the disputed election results. It is no secret that
Google has not been shy about supporting Democratic candidates such as
Hilary Clinton and Joe Biden in the past several years; this has been
highly documented – with some examples detailed in this work (above).
Twitter has also blatantly censored and terminated accounts belonging
to conservatives; a case in point here includes them suspending 2020
election audit accounts for multiple states.

Dominion Voting Systems were used in many states for the election. And
much controversy arose surrounding their reliability and accuracy in
counting votes, along with hacking (including foreign)
vulnerabilities. The U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Agency
(CISA) has pointed out that these could affect voting in multiple
states. The state of Pennsylvania is suing Dominion Voting Systems
alleging “severe issues” with voting data discovered after the 2020
election. And, more recently, the Biden administration is urging a
court not to release a sealed report on Dominion Voting Systems.

Lastly, the fact that Joe Biden supposedly received 80 million votes –
the most votes won by any presidential candidate in US history (which
shatters the 69.5 million votes Barack Obama had received in 2008) –
remains highly questionable. Even prior to election night, Biden
himself was nowhere nearly as popular as his predecessor, Barack
Obama. Perhaps there was a larger portion of the population that went
out to vote and wanted to vote for the Democratic party regardless of
its leader.

While there still are ongoing investigations at the state level
regarding these voting irregularities, it is highly doubtful that much
will come out of them. The whole affair has been greatly politicized
which taints the judicial review process and proper accounting of
votes for the highly-disputed 2020 election.
Aerosol Spraying (Geoengineering)

Of the many alleged conspiracies worth keeping an eye on, Aerosol
Spraying (sometimes referred to as ‘Aerial Discharges’ or
‘chemtrails’) – which fits under the larger umbrella of geoengineering
– is one of the most troubling and worrisome ones.

For those not familiar with the subject, geoengineering generally
involves modifying the weather for various purposes such as in climate
engineering (e.g., cloud seeding to induce rain over drought-stricken
areas) or as weather warfare for military purposes – which dates all
the way back to the Eisenhower administration in the United States.

For at least the past two decades, Dane Wigington has been on a
crusade to alert the world about this troubling phenomenon due to its
extensive use of harmful chemicals. His website
GeoengineeringWatch.org contains a substantial amount of credible
evidence regarding the dangerous effects that geoengineering practices
have on our climate, environment, and populations. Whistleblower
testimonies, government reports, and other evidence presented on the
site – including numerous photographs and videos – prove that a lot of
activities surrounding geoengineering is intended for nefarious and
harmful purposes.

This is not conspiracy theory, but rather indications of a conspiracy
to harm populations through weather modification and jet sprayings –
sometimes inadequately referred to as ‘chemtrails’.

I myself have witnessed this phenomenon of jet sprayings over my
region in the province of Quebec since my return to Canada in November
of 2021. I never saw these spraying prior to the year 2008 before my
departure from the country. Since my return, I’ve been witnessing
massive spraying occurring over the skies of my region to the tune of
three to five times a week, on average. And each day of spraying
emanates from around a dozen or more flight by high-altitude aircraft.

I’ve personally written to my city, the local airport authority in the
city, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Transport Canada and none
of them have provided concrete answers to my inquiries and to the
nature of this phenomenon in general.

Both my city and Environment and Climate Change Canada have replied to
me that these sprayings are merely commercial passenger aircraft
exhaust trails, i.e., condensation trails. Anyone who has taken a
high-school level physics course will be able to debunk this ludicrous
claim that these sprayings – that stretch over kilometers far and wide
and that last hours – are due to condensation vapor trails.

I had asked Environment and Climate Change Canada if these sprayings
could be attributed to weather modification programs, and they replied
me that none were in effect in the province of Quebec, but that there
was one in effect in the province of Alberta. So, if these are not
intended for weather modification purposes, then what are they for?

My subsequent (and very polite, respectful) email inquiries to these
Canadian agencies have been mostly ignored. This leaves me to conclude
that they are not being forthcoming about the origins of these
sprayings and thus appear to be hiding the facts surrounding them.

Aerosol sprayings over the greater City of Sherbrooke (Quebec) area on
January 30, 2022

In addition, for this year alone, I have seen many photographs and
videos shared online of these sprayings posted by many Canadians
located in different provinces.

In Canada there have been court cases filed regarding aerosol
sprayings. Mass sprayings in the Calgary, Alberta region have lead to
a mass-tort case that was filed in Federal Court (see related court
documents) in 2016 along with a related appeal in 2018 also at the
federal level. The appeal further alleges:

    “the ongoing dispersal into Canadian airspace of aerosols that are
harmful to the Canadian public and that is polluting to the Canadian
environment, and in respect of which aspects of the scientific
community have only relatively recently evaluated in the scientific
peer-reviewed literature.”

The court case mentioned above appears to still be ongoing.

What is particularly worrisome about these aerosol sprayings is that
we don’t know exactly what chemicals are being used and dispersed over
our skies.

The team at GeoengineeringWatch.org has produced many excellent
explanatory videos and documentaries, along with a cache of documents
to inform the public of what these sprayings are really about and what
chemicals are found in them. I highly recommend their introductory
video Hacking The Planet: The Climate Engineering Reality.

Evidence collected by GeoengineeringWatch.org has shown that chemicals
and metals used in aerosol sprayings have included aluminum, barium,
strontium, graphene, among others.

Home page for GeoengineeringWatch.org

What is also particularly troubling is that many of these metals and
chemicals make their way to ground level from high altitude in the
form of nanoparticles – which if breathed in, are tiny enough to
penetrate the blood-brain barrier. They are especially harmful to
elderly and infant populations whose brains are still in development.
In this respect, I highly recommend the work of neurosurgeon Dr.
Russell Blaylock who describes the harmful effects these chemicals
have on the brain.

There is also a lot of evidence that suggests that geoengineering is
used to modify the climate and could thus be a significant contributor
to climate change, increasingly unstable weather systems, and

Lastly, what I find particularly disappointing as a Canadian is the
position, albeit one from several years ago, whereby our very famous
David Suzuki – one who I admired very much growing up and watching his
show The Nature of Things – pretty much described the phenomenon as
conspiracy theory posited by “wacky science deniers” in an article
entitled David Suzuki on Chemtrails, Conspiracies fuel climate change
denial and belief in chemtrails. There are many false assertions in
this poorly formulated article, but here are the key ones [emphasis

    “I recently wrote about geoengineering as a strategy to deal with
climate change and carbon dioxide emissions. That drew comments from
people who confuse this scientific process with the unscientific
theory of “chemtrails””.

Suzuki’s statement bolded above makes no sense. A theory is a theory.
There is nothing unscientific about a theory. A theory is a hypothesis
assumed for the sake of investigation which is formulated before
science is conducted to verify it.

He continues with the following later in his article:

    “I’m a scientist, so I look at credible science – and there is
none for the existence of chemtrails.”

    “They’re condensation trails, formed when hot, humid air from jet
exhaust mixes with colder low-vapour-pressure air.”

Condensation trails? Condensation trails do not drag on over several
kilometers and remain suspended for hours at a time; rather, they
usually dissolve within several seconds, or a few minutes at the most.

As for “credible evidence”, these aerosol sprayings have been highly
documented over the past several years.

So, these are the main arguments and explanations from one of Canada’s
most renowned scientists?


Sorry Mr. Suzuki, I respectfully disagree with this very perplexing
assertion, for it doesn’t hold water! (pun intended)

And many of the 297 comments generated from this article are in
disagreement with Mr. Suzuki’s assessment.

Author note: I have contacted Mr. Suzuki by email to provide him with
an opportunity to re-assert or update his assertions (especially since
several years have elapsed since the article was written) but have not
received a reply from him as of publishing time.

Back to the condensation trails, I have personally filmed and
photographed many instances of real condensation trails from
commercial airliners including those at high altitude; and for these,
the trails completely disappear within no more than a minute or so.

I even have some that show these alongside other – likely
non-commercial – aircraft which produce aerosol sprayings that last
for kilometers and persist for much longer periods. And this, of
course, under the exact same weather conditions.

Also, I would invite the skeptics to try to find any photographs or
videos prior to the 1960s that have these kinds of criss-cross
patterns and lengthy and abnormal cloud dispersions over several
kilometers in the sky. There are none that I know of; but if any are
found, let me know. The oldest ones that I’ve been able to find
appeared in a few episodes of the TV series Little House on the
Prairie which began in 1974.

Wouldn’t a scientist who is genuinely concerned about climate change
such as David Suzuki (and all others, for that matter) want to
consider all factors (including aerosol dispersions) which may
contribute to the degradation of our natural environment?

Questions that remain regarding this inadequately addressed phenomenon include:

    What is the purpose of these aerosol sprayings?

    Who is authorizing them?

    Who is paying for them?

    What substances (including chemicals) are they spraying?

    Why aren’t Environment and Climate Change Canada and Transport
Canada providing answers to these questions?

Mini-Guide to Investigating Conspiracies

    “An educated citizenry is a vital requisite for our survival as a
free people.” – Thomas Jefferson

Actually, the header for this section is a bit of a misnomer, for it
will comprise a broader range of tools and techniques that will enable
individuals to do a better job at discerning and validating

The internet is a vast ocean of information and knowledge. There is a
lot to take in and it can all be quite overwhelming – especially when
social media is included in the mix.

Many labels such as ‘fake news’, misinformation, and disinformation
have been thrown left and right to hastily characterize the validity
of information provided by certain parties.

Of course, this is very subjective and is influenced by many factors
such as different kinds of biases, political affiliations, financial
interests, and the like. One must judge what one reads based on its
own merits without relying on these labels. In other words, begin by
removing any of these labels or preconceived assumptions and tackle
the information itself.

I would recommend reading news and information from different sources
– whether it be from mainstream media, alternative media, and
everywhere in between. Each article or piece of information is unique,
was written by an individual (or a few individuals) and should be
treated and evaluated as such. Put another way, each article is like
an antique. An antique collector will inspect and examine each piece
on its own characteristics and merits. Depending on the qualities and
flaws observed, the collector will be able to make an objective
evaluation for authentication purposes (i.e., Is it real or fake?) We
should use the same approach when encountering a piece of information
– particularly if it is of a complex, controversial, or disputable

Another thing we can do is be wary of buzzwords. By buzzwords, I mean
words or phrases like ‘right-wing’, ‘left-wing’, ‘conspiracy
theorist’, ‘conservative’, ‘liberal’, ‘MAGA Republican’,
‘anti-vaxxer’, ‘so-called’, ‘quasi’, and ‘pseudo’. Buzzwords are
similar to labels and are often used by writers or TV personalities to
indirectly (or subliminally) convey a pre-conceived notion about the
subject matter of the information piece. Also be aware that buzzwords’
meanings can vary from one geographical region to another, similar to
slang. The idea here is to detect their usage and become cognizant
that they may be used to sway the reader’s opinion in a certain
direction. So, look out for these – especially when reading headlines
to articles or social media posts.

In today’s very polarized and divided society filled with identity
politics, blame and labels will be readily cast upon those who don’t
“toe the line” (i.e., go along with a certain narrative, or accept the
authority or views of a particular group, sometimes under pressure
from that group). We’ve seen a heck of a lot of this in the past
couple of years with the Covid-19 Pandemic. Prime examples include the
likes of “trust the science”, or “he’s an anti-vaxxer”. For the later,
the danger here is that such condescending comments or labels assigned
to specific people or groups can not only be harmful, but will too
often lead to incorrect assumptions about the target. For instance, if
someone refuses to take the Covid-19 vaccine, that doesn’t necessarily
mean she’s an anti-vaxxer; perhaps, she is willing to take other
vaccines, but just not the Covid-19 one. In another prime example we
often hear the label “climate change denier” (as with the David Suzuki
article referenced earlier) when someone doesn’t (either fully or in
part) adhere to the notion of climate change. As this particular topic
is very broad and complex, labelling one in such a derogatory fashion
proves itself as quite foolish. Writers, TV personalities, news
pundits, and social media figures may often attack a person when they
cannot invalidate or counter the substance or merits of their claims.
Some are very adept at it too which takes the victim by surprise and
makes them appear stupid or weak. The trick here, is to not take it
personal and let it get to you. Rather, either ignore them, or turn
the situation around and ask them to elaborate on the merits of why
they disagree with your claim or stance, pressing for facts and
evidence to substantiate their assertions.

A great question to ask is ‘Cui bono?’ which is Latin for ‘who
benefits?’ The phrase originates from the very famous Roman statesman
Cicero. Cicero was a brilliant orator, lawyer, philosopher, and
politician who lived during the boisterous early years of the Roman
Empire when wars, politics, greed, and power dominated the social and
political landscapes (as they still do today). One needed to be quite
astute in assessing others’ motives based solely on their words and
actions. Cicero would often ask this question, cui bono, to better
understand the real motivation behind individuals’ or groups’ true
intentions. We should do the same, as it seems everyone is out for
something to gain. Put simply, we should take some time to question
the possible motivations behind what we see, hear, or read.

The Death of Caesar, 1874 steel engraving by J.C. Armytage after J.L. Gérome

In similar fashion, we should also follow the money. This is
particularly useful when looking at information related to the
financial markets as well as political and geopolitical happenings.
Similar to the previous tool, it guides us towards the underlying
motivation(s) – most often of a financial nature – behind what someone
is saying or doing. They may be saying one thing, but doing another
through their actions, whether they are investments, supporting
political candidates or causes, donating to charity, etc.

Individuals who have received a classical education often fare much
better in how they process information and interact with other people.
There are key reasons for this. The first is that in this type of
education system, students go through a three-step learning process,
or system, which stretches from elementary school to middle-school to
high-school. These three learning anchors are: grammar, logic, and
rhetoric. The grammar part is not of the ‘spelling & grammar’ kind;
rather, it relates to how one inputs information from the outside
world. The logic part refers to how one processes the information
obtained. And the rhetoric part is the culmination – being able to
communicate and express oneself persuasively. This third part is quite
important. Many of the ills and divisions we see in society today is
due to the lack of this particular ability. People are far more likely
to debate with one another than to have a civil discussion about it.

In classical education, which has its roots from the ancient Greek
philosophers, students communicate using discourse (dialectic/Socratic
method). In other words, they have a conversation and use logic and
reason to arrive at truth. This is a much more constructive means than
to debate or argue in a back-and-forth manner whereby each party wants
to be right and win. If people in today’s society would be more
respectful towards one another and accept differences in views and
opinion, then we could find areas of common agreement and would thus
have more peace and unity, as opposed to hatred and division.

So, the moral of the story here is that we should make an effort to be
polite and respectful towards the views and opinions of others, even
if they vary from our own or sound crazy. In doing this, we have a
much better chance of making allies and gaining the trust of others.
Disagreeing with a person is much different than disagreeing with the
contents of what they are saying.

Lastly, here is one more tool that almost all those who receive a
classical education learn about – logical fallacies. A logical
fallacy, in its simplest form, is a flawed or weak argument or
assertion. They are deceptive or false arguments that may seem
stronger than they actually are due to psychological persuasion, but
are proven wrong with reasoning and further examination. (source)
There are many different types of logical fallacies. An example
includes Blind Loyalty:

    “The dangerous fallacy that an argument or action is right simply
and solely because a respected leader or source (an expert, parents,
one's own "side," team or country, one’s boss or commanding officers)
say it is right. This is over-reliance on authority, a corrupted
argument from ethos that puts loyalty above truth or above one's own
reason and conscience. In this case, a person attempts to justify
incorrect, stupid or criminal behavior by whining "That's what I was
told to do," or “I was just following orders.”

We’ve seen the Blind Loyalty fallacy a lot during the Covid-19
Pandemic. We’ve been told to ‘trust the science’, certain experts in
the medical field, health organizations, and so on. Just because
something comes from a given expert or an authoritative organization
doesn’t necessarily mean it is correct. I remember when I came back to
Quebec, Canada last November, the health pamphlets from the provincial
health authority listed zero possible side-effect or risks associated
with the Covid-19 vaccines. As all vaccines have inherent risks, this
information provided by this respective authoritative source was not
right, or completely accurate. Critical information was omitted.

Guilt by Association is another common logical fallacy. Here, one
tries to refute or condemn someone’s standpoint, arguments, or actions
by evoking negative sentiments of those with whom they associate with.
A classic example of this one came about during President Biden’s
controversial speech he gave on Sept. 1, 2022 whereby he rendered a
large portion of Americans as dangerous ‘MAGA Republicans’; in other
words, he positioned many who consider themselves as Republicans to be
Trump supporters and some kind of insurrectionists. In Canada, the
mainstream media often associated and labelled those who supported the
Freedom Convoy protest movement as far-right extremists.

Many other logical fallacies are employed by those in the media and
across social media. These are flawed arguments or assertions that you
need to look out for. You need to be able to first recognize them and
then you will be in a better position to defend yourself by addressing
them for what they are.

So, why does society need conspiracy theories and conspiracy
theorists? Well, it‘s no secret that we’ve been lied to. We’ve been
lied to about a lot. And we are still being lied to on a daily basis.
This makes it much harder to get to the truth.

Knowing more about how conspiracies actually work and how past ones
have played out can help us to be more vigilant and question more
about our perceived reality. Everything happens in the mind. The
better we train our minds, the better we can sift through the rubbish
and keep what’s real and authentic while discarding what is not.

Conspiracy theorists are often labelled and demonized – usually
because they have demonstrated the courage to speak out, to point out
inconvenient or uncomfortable truths. They may lose the support of
friends, family, and employers in the process. But they remain true to
themselves and who they are at their very core. Therefore, we should
encourage them and even strive to duplicate their courage and

            [302]Writes JohnSmith’s Observatory [303]Nov 7·edited Nov 7

            This is quite a review! I would add that the Council on Foreign
            Relations (CFR) is a key node in the network of control, linked to
            just about every "conspiracy" discussed above.

            Allen Dulles, who ran the CIA "Operation Mockingbird", was a CFR
            director for 40 years. Bill Donovan, Frank Wisner and Cord Meyer
            were CFR members. The media barons of the period including Paley
            (CBS), Sarnoff (NBC), Luce (Time-Life), Meyer/Graham (WashPost), and
            Sulzberger (NYTimes) were CFR members.

            Allen Dulles served on the Warren Commission to "investigate" the
            JFK assassination, along with John J. McCloy who was then chairman
            of both the CFR and the Ford Foundation.

            CFR member Robert McNamara was Secretary of Defense (1961-67) during
            the Bay of Pigs fiasco and the Vietnam war. He then served as
            president of the World Bank.

            Most of the CIA directors have been CFR members, including: Burns,
            Morell, Petraeus, Hayden, Goss, Tenet, Deutch, Woolsey, Webster,
 [300][IMG] Casey, Gates, Turner, Bush, Colby, Schlesinger, Helms, McCone, and

            The Atlantic Council was founded by CFR members, and is dominated by
            CFR members, including AC president Frederick Kempe, Stephen Hadley,
            and many others. Most of the US ambassadors to NATO have been CFR

            CFR members on the "Biden team" include the secretaries of State,
            Treasury, Defense, Commerce and Homeland Security; the secretaries
            of the Army, Navy and Air Force; the CIA director, Fed chairman, UN
            ambassador, and dozens of deputies, advisors, etc.

            Here's a database including all CFR members and directors since
            1921. Enter any last name into the search box:

            Here's an online edition of "None Dare Call it Conspiracy" (1971)
            with links to the database, and an audio version for each chapter:

            See also "The Invisible Government" (1962):

               [311]Sep 27Author

               UPDATE: I have just heard (Sept. 27, 2022) from one of the
               lawyers regarding the federal court case (Pelletier v HMQ)
               about aerosol sprayings in Alberta (mentioned in this article)
   [309]author and he informed me that they have received an adverse decision
               by the court dismissing the claim. He also sent me the
               following link which provides many scientific papers regarding
               these aerosol sprayings:


More information about the cypherpunks mailing list