Conspiracy Theorist – A badge I will wear with pride
by Martin Hanson
People who don’t let governments and media do their thinking for them are labelled with the thought-stopping ‘conspiracy theorist’ when they come to conclusions contrary to official narratives.
Now consider this: Dr. Mike Ryan, World Health Organisation Executive Director, has recently been reported as stating that 750 million people or 10 percent of the global population have probably been infected with coronavirus.
According to the “Covid-19 pandemic worldometer”, global deaths on October 6 totalled 1,052,476.
The two points I have raised are just two ‘dots’ in the mass of freely and publicly available data. But 1,052,476 deaths are about 0.13 percent of the global population, not significantly different from the global death rate of seasonal ‘flu of 0.1 percent (Wikipedia).
To fight this ‘deadly virus’ New Zealand and many other countries have wrecked their economies as a direct result of various degrees of lockdown. The direct result has been a massive increase in unemployment, but the indirect result has been an increase in non-Covid deaths. The UK Daily Telegraph (Sept 2) reported that non-Covid deaths had surged as a result of delayed diagnoses and treatments for potentially life-threatening conditions such as cancer and cardiovascular disease.
The official justification for this is that the loss of freedom in lockdown is painful but necessary to “keep people safe”. The UK has a ‘worldometer’ Covid mortality of 624 per million. So it’s pertinent to ask why in Sweden, with a mortality of 582 per million has had no lockdown from the beginning and life has continued as normal.
This calls for an explanation because as UK Chief Medical Officer Chris Whitty said in a Downing Street media briefing on May 11, that the great majority of people will not die from Covid-19 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adj8MCsZKlg&t=81s:
· Over the whole epidemic, even if there is no vaccine, a high proportion will not get it.
· Of those who do, a significant proportion (exact number not yet clear) have no symptoms; they won’t know they have it.
· Of the symptomatic cases, the great majority, probably 80 percent, will have a mild or moderate disease. It might be bad enough for them to have to go to bed for a few days, but not bad enough for them to have to go to the doctor.
· An unfortunate minority will have to go to hospital, but the majority of those will just need only oxygen and will then leave hospital.
· A minority of those will end up having to go to severe and critical care, and some of these will die.
· But even in the highest risk group this is significantly less than 20 percent i.e. the great majority of people, even in the highest risk group, if they catch this virus, will not die.
So it’s strange that UK Health Secretary Matt Hancock said during a media briefing on May 25 that if and when a coronavirus vaccine becomes available, he hoped everyone would have it, but he did not rule out making it mandatory for all.
And on June 26, a paper by Michelle M. Mello, Ross D. Silverman, and Saad B. Omer in the New England Journal of Medicine called for compulsory Covid vaccination, outlining strategies for forcing Americans to take it.
Why should governments even contemplate making a vaccine compulsory against a disease which, according to the UK Chief Medical Officer, poses no threat to life for the vast majority?
One doesn’t need a tinfoil hat to wonder if Bill Gates, who has on numerous occasions publicly declared his ambition to vaccinate all 7.8 billion of us, might have an interest. As a billionaire “philanthropist”, with widely reported financial links to the pharmaceutical industry, he would stand to make a killing.
As one who raises such issues, ‘conspiracy theorist’ is a badge I’ll wear with pride.
Conspiracy theories have thrived during the pandemic. Maybe you even have a friend or relative who’s brought one up in conversation. How can you talk to them without starting an argument – or sending them further down the rabbit hole?
The BBC’s specialist disinformation reporter Marianna Spring brought together a dad who got in touch with her about a coronavirus conspiracy theory and an expert in the field. They discussed fact and fiction, and demonstrated some tips on how to talk about conspiracy theories.
Would anyone like to start a conversation with the BBC 😉
By Kevin Barrett
Global Research, February 06, 2019
The Unz Review 1 February 2019
A Review of Conspiracy Theories and Other Dangerous Ideas by Cass Sunstein (based on an earlier paper co-authored with Adrian Vermeule); In Defense of Troublemakers: The Power of Dissent in Life and Business by Charlan Nemeth; and Conspiracy Theories and the People Who Believe Them, edited by Joseph E. Uscinski
On January 25 2018 YouTube unleashed the latest salvo in the war on conspiracy theories, saying
“we’ll begin reducing recommendations of borderline content and content that could misinform users in harmful ways—such as videos promoting a phony miracle cure for a serious illness, claiming the earth is flat, or making blatantly false claims about historic events like 9/11.”
At first glance that sounds reasonable. Nobody wants YouTube or anyone else to recommend bad information. And almost everyone agrees that phony miracle cures, flat earthism, and blatantly false claims about 9/11 and other historical events are undesirable.
But if we stop and seriously consider those words, we notice a couple of problems. First, the word “recommend” is not just misleading but mendacious. YouTube obviously doesn’t really recommend anything. When it says it does, it is lying.
When you watch YouTube videos, the YouTube search engine algorithm displays links to other videos that you are likely to be interested in. These obviously do not constitute “recommendations” by YouTube itself, which exercises no editorial oversight over content posted by users. (Or at least it didn’t until it joined the war on conspiracy theories.)
The second and larger problem is that while there may be near-universal agreement among reasonable people that flat-earthism is wrong, there is only modest agreement regarding which health approaches constitute “phony miracle cures” and which do not. Far less is there any agreement on “claims about 9/11 and other historical events.” (Thus far the only real attempt to forge an informed consensus about 9/11 is the 9/11 Consensus Panel’s study—but it seems unlikely that YouTube will be using the Consensus Panel to determine which videos to “recommend”!)
YouTube’s policy shift is the latest symptom of a larger movement by Western elites to—as Obama’s Information Czar Cass Sunstein put it—“disable the purveyors of conspiracy theories.” Sunstein and co-author Adrian Vermeule’s 2008 paper “Conspiracy Theories,” critiqued by David Ray Griffin in 2010 and developed into a 2016 book, represents a panicked reaction to the success of the 9/11 truth movement. (By 2006, 36% of Americans thought it likely that 9/11 was an inside job designed to launch wars in the Middle East, according to a Scripps poll.)
Sunstein and Vermuele begin their abstract:
Many millions of people hold (sic) conspiracy theories; they believe that powerful people have worked together in order to withhold the truth about some important practice or some terrible event. A recent example is the belief, widespread in some parts of the world, that the attacks of 9/11 were carried out not by Al Qaeda, but by Israel or the United States. Those who subscribe to conspiracy theories may create serious risks, including risks of violence, and the existence of such theories raises significant challenges for policy and law.
Sunstein argues that conspiracy theories (i.e. the 9/11 truth movement) are so dangerous that some day they may have to be banned by law. While awaiting that day, or perhaps in preparation for it, the government should “disable the purveyors of conspiracy theories” through various techniques including “cognitive infiltration” of 9/11 truth groups. Such “cognitive infiltration,” Sunstein writes, could have various aims including the promotion of “beneficial cognitive diversity” within the truth movement.
What sort of “cognitive diversity” would Cass Sunstein consider “beneficial”? Perhaps 9/11 truth groups that had been “cognitively infiltrated” by spooks posing as flat-earthers would harbor that sort of “beneficial” diversity? That would explain the plethora of expensive, high-production-values flat earth videos that have been blasted at the 9/11 truth community since 2008.
Read more here
A vicar who posted a link to an article that blamed Israel for the 9/11 attacks is to keep his job but has been banned from using social media for six months.
The Reverend Stephen Sizer, vicar of Christ Church, in Virginia Water, Surrey, used Facebook to highlight an article that said the official narrative of the atrocity was “absurd”.
The Bishop of Guildford said his “anti-Zionist agenda has become a liability”.
He said Dr Sizer also agreed to refrain from commenting on Middle East issues.
The Diocese of Guildford launched an investigation after the Church of England vicar posted a link to an article entitled “9/11 Israel did it”, and reportedly wrote: “It raises so many questions.”
‘Unhelpful and counter-productive’
Dr Sizer later removed the link and apologised for sharing the material, which he said was “ill-considered and misguided”.
Read more here
The Impeded Pace of 9/11 Truth
By James Hufferd, Ph.D.,
Coordinator, 911 Truth Grassroots Organization
It’s starting all over again with the plane shoot-down in Ukraine! Once again, the alarms are blaring loud and crazy! The much complained-of slow pace of 9/11 Truth, to begin with as slow as the progress of most any other variety of truth (that is, slow indeed) is slowed even further by the whole explosion of the establishment, government, and information industry proclaiming in concert, over and over and over from the start a message contrived to convince everyone of a parallel unsubstantiated message suiting their precise purposes. Don’t wait for the evidence. If it indicates otherwise (as it usually does), ignore it. Talk over it. In the case of the Malaysian plane in the Ukraine, we know who did it – Putin! An investigation on the ground is hardly necessary! And in general in these cases, if you, John Q., don’t want family trouble, marriage trouble, employment trouble, friend trouble – stay far away from any “outrageous conspiracy theories”! We’ll tell you what happened, who did it! You saw it on TV for yourself, in most cases (though not necessarily in this one). What could be simpler? The case of the mis-identified toxic gas deployers in Syria comes to mind, as well as 9/11 itself. But, in this case, it’s Putin! Putin! Putin! That sort of thing has started up again now, the alarms are clanging, the hounds are out – and I find myself overcome by a raging fever of searing, severe doubt.
Read full article here