Once Upon a Time (On a Paranoid Planet)
Episode Four: We're all Conspiracy Theorists Now and Then
👉The Complete, Post Modern, New Age Idiots’ Guide to the Dark, Subversive, Malevolent Forces that Shape the New World Order in Which we Live.
Friends & subscribers, what follows are some semi-serious reflections on conspiracies, conspiracy theories, and their respective devotees. And same on one of the most successful, enduring and popular PSYOPS/social engineering experiments in living memory. Now six decades (plus) in the making. Still going strong. Like Johnnie Walker.
🗣👉 ‘Secrecy, being an instrument of conspiracy, ought never to be the system of a regular government.’ — Jeremy Bentham, British philosopher, founder of modern utilitarianism, aka The ‘Panopticon Man’.
🗣👉 ‘Humpty Dumpty was pushed.’ — Popular conspiracy theory and bumper sticker. Anon
🗣👉 ‘If you’re not paranoid, You need to get out more.’ — A potentially great popular conspiracy theory and bumper sticker idea. Anon.
👀🔗👉 Once Upon a Time (On a Paranoid Planet) — Episode 1️⃣: The Crippled Epistemologists of Conspiracy
👀🔗👉 Once Upon a Time (On a Paranoid Planet) — Episode 2️⃣: One Man’s Conspiracy is another Man’s Theory
👀🔗👉 Once Upon a Time (On a Paranoid Planet) — Episode 3️⃣: The Slow Movements of Suspicious Discontent
Preamble: 'For too long the proprietary domain of the time-rich "whack-job", in an age of growing paranoia, insecurity, fear, loathing, mistrust, suspicion and political disillusion—fuelled as it is by mounting government, corporate and institutional secrecy, surveillance, incompetence, corruption, subterfuge, propaganda, censorship, maladministration and criminality at the highest levels of global power—it’s perhaps as good a time as any to ‘rehab’ the rep of the much-maligned “conspiracy theory”. In doing so we by necessity go in to bat for and on behalf of its more dedicated practitioners past and present. We’re talking here of course those occasionally useful nuisances we just love to label then 'libel' as “conspiracy theorists".
Having secured the perimeter, dead-bolted the doors n' windows, and drawn the drapes n’ blinds, let’s embark on what might turn out to be a quixotic quest, to wit: Compiling a post modern, new age idiots’ guide to the dark, malevolent, subversive, conspiratorial forces shaping the New World Order into which we’re slowly but most assuredly being socially engineered and psychologically shepherded.
With desperate times calling for even more desperate theories, in this fourth instalment in a series Greg Maybury breaks out the Al-Foil™️*, of which there’s plenty to go round for all. Or BYO. Read on...😉| [*For the detail oriented, a popular brand of tin-foil Down Under.]
— The Reign of a New Kind of Lie
Perhaps the most prevalent—and least benign—flaws characteristic of the human condition is our easy propensity to conspire—against family members, friends, neighbours, work colleagues, whoever. To this reality I feel sure many readers will be able to attest from their own personal experience. Odds are that more than a few have been guilty themselves of engaging in such conduct, wittingly or not. When we consider that the etymological roots of the “C” word itself (i.e. from the phrase, “to conspire”), derives from the Latin word “conspirare” which means to “breathe”, such a “propensity” requires little further explanation.
So it should come as little surprise that our political, bureaucratic, professional, intellectual, institutional, scientific, and corporate power elite classes can and do frequently conspire both with and against each other to achieve their respective goals. To pretend otherwise is to presume they are all fine, upright, altruistic, morally and ethically minded folk with the general health, wealth, welfare and well being of their fellows uppermost in their minds. The events of the past five plus years alone should be enough to disabuse even the most naive, trusting, and complaisant amongst us of this presumption. (This includes the RussiaGate and Jeffrey Epstein conspiracies to name a couple; we will examine these in a forthcoming instalment, pending ongoing developments in both.)
Moreover if they are accused of conspiring, are actually caught out having conspired or even if they are running close to the risk of being caught out being accused thereof, they will then seek to conspire even further to protect their reputations, jobs and positions and everything else they hold dear against any such penalties and punishments—professional, personal, legal, social etc.—that might accrue from revelations of such conduct. It’s called the KYAC principle, i.e. “keep your arse covered”, a close cousin of “plausible deniability”.
For Belgian author and academic Matthias Desmet, all this is a given. After observing that we have ‘always been deceptive and lying beings who often confuse Appearance with Reality’ (both words are capitalised in the original text), he then added,
👉🗣️ […but] the rise of the Enlightenment tradition was accompanied by the reign of a new kind of lie, a lie that is theoretically founded (based on scientific theories about mass psychology), ideologically justified, and industrially produced: propaganda. The contemporary (globalist) order stands and imposes itself through propaganda—the art of manipulating the human being; the practice of depriving the human being of spiritual freedom.’ [Emphasis added]
At the outset we can safely say our unerring propensity for confusing appearance with reality has been critical to the success of the use of the conspiracy theory construct. And it’s also just as safe to say those who midwifed its birth in modern usage terms were well aware of this fateful propensity, having now weaponised it against us. Indeed, the “conspiracy theory” contrivance and its deadly cognate derivative “you’re just a conspiracy theorist!” has become the ideal tool for propagandists and I’d aver, their equally ‘evil twins’, i.e. those who would censor us, and curtail our freedom of speech.*
SIDEBAR*: What are the increasing attempts by our respective governments to curtail our freedom of expression upon pain of serious criminal penalties up to and including imprisonment if we don’t comply? Is this not a conspiracy of the highest order? To be explored in future instalments, pending of course the outcome of these attempts to shut us all down.
— Running it Up the False Flag Pole
In exploring the subject of conspiracy, it’s important we look at one of the staples of actual conspiracies and those who concoct them. For his part James Corbett in the Corbett Report in April 2010 had this to say about false flags, one of the most frequently recurring motifs of the conspiracy-theory construct and certainly one of the most recurrent realities of the ‘Real McCoy’; upon reading the following it would not be too difficult to guess which particular event he had in mind, though there are many contenders:
‘Those who have studied history know…nothing invigorates and empowers an authoritarian regime more than a spectacular act of violence, some sudden and senseless loss of life that allows the autocrat to stand on the smoking rubble and identify himself as the hero. It is at moments like this that the public—still in shock from the horror of the tragedy that has just unfolded before them—can be led into the most ruthless despotism: despotism that now bears the mantle of ‘security’. Acts of terror and violence never benefit the average man or woman. They only ever benefit those in positions of power.’ [My emphasis]
For his part UK writer Andy Thomas, after noting that by ‘courting hopes for earth-shattering events beyond their control’, [conspiracy theorists] he says are ‘simultaneously saved from having to make changes to their own lives’.
In his book Conspiracies — The Facts, The Theories, The Evidence, Thomas at first plays devil’s advocate and poses the following hypothetical:
‘Why do anything to improve [your] existence when something might soon come along to turn it upside down and press the reset button anyway? This abdication of self-responsibility can be seen in the thinking behind [the pursuit of interest in] a number of conspiracy theories….’
This observation appears to be held near and dear by those predisposed to penning anti-conspiracist diatribes based on some purported, authentic intellectual or psychological insight into the collective mindset of the conspiracist fraternity, this being the sort of one-size-fits-all stereotyping that more dispassionate, self-respecting analysts and psychologists would eschew as a matter of course.
Nonetheless, Thomas’ book gives us pause to consider what drives our interest in conspiracy; as well, he allows us room to more consciously and legitimately rationalise the value of taking an active interest in conspiracy—or at least the events central to any given conspiracy (real or imagined, plausible or not so)—whilst impressing upon us the importance—indeed necessity—of such contemplation and political inquiry, regardless of the outcome.
Put simply, one should be open to exploring the respective facts, situations and circumstances surrounding the more plausible theories, and one should be able to do so without risking the stereotypical knee-jerk reaction from folks less inclined. Yet such is the intrinsic nature of the pejorative associated with doing so, this is easier said than done.
Thomas further provides insight that enables us to keep exploring the subject with a more coherent view of what is at stake. As one reviewer has observed, ‘Thomas lays out a solid case as to why the conspiracy or alternative approach to history carries more explanatory power than does the incidental/accidental view’, and it is difficult to fault this assessment. Moreover, our concerns in this regard should not just relate to the personal/private considerations; they are applicable to the more political/public ones as well. And it is this consideration that seems the most significant herein.
Herein again, Thomas’ insights are useful:
‘The propensity to retreat in the face of unexpected confirmation is [that] the tracking of clues and new information can become an absorbing hobby for easier-minded researchers, but the more world-weary feel the weight of such a potentially huge deception in quite a different way, aghast to learn that humanity might have allowed itself to be so manipulated, and wanting in turn to expose the situation for the long-term betterment of civilization.’ [My emphasis]
As we have noted, the “you’re (just) a conspiracy-theorist” term or its variants is one that can be all too frequently—and disingenuously it must be emphasised—employed with derogatory, counter-productive and misguided intent, and forms the very basis upon which the whole conspiracy construct is viewed within the contemporary political milieu. Corbett again adds some valuable insight herein:
‘To think that such staged provocations and false-flag attacks no longer occur would be as unrealistic as believing that human nature itself has changed, that powerful people no longer seek to increase their power, that influence is never used for deceit or manipulation, that lies are no longer told to satisfy greed or slake the thirst for control. It is to believe that our society is immune from those things that we have seen in every other society in every other era. In short, it is a dangerous delusion.’ [My emphasis]
So yes readers, as much as I hate to disillusion you and disturb your doubtless hard-earned, richly deserved, but ultimately misplaced sense of sanguine complacency and suburban contentment, these “Dark Forces” etc. indeed do exist, the evidence infinitely more substantial than circumstantial. (A future episode will explore some of the countless examples of where much derided conspiracy theories transformed into indisputable realities, even if at best those “realities” were only begrudgingly conceded by their fiercest opponents.)
They are rendered even ‘darker’ by the fact they’ve actually convinced themselves they know what’s best for the rest of us, and made more subversive by virtue of the fact that they’ve been able to with sinister and sustained subterfuge pull the wool over the eyes of most of us all this time. To stretch the latter metaphor, one suspects that privately they indeed do refer to The Not Always Critical Thinking Masses as The Sheeple, with more than a “nudge, nudge”, a “wink, wink” ‘n a “say no more”.
Any continued rejection of this reality surely means one may need to get a check-up from the neck-up as the saying goes.
And I ain’t necessarily talking about yours truly, although as already hinted, I’m not rejecting the possibility I may benefit from—nor be averse to—additional psychological scrutiny and/or enhanced pharmacological intervention albeit for completely separate reasons. Those pithy old one-liners about “you don’t need to be paranoid, but it helps”, or “just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they are not out to get you”, are especially apposite herein methinks. Or as noted above, a variation on the theme from your humble: “If you not paranoid, you need to get out more!”
With all of this in mind then, if you have come this far, one now hopes most readers will never look a conspiracy theorist in the eye again without feeling a compulsive urge to apologise for all the times they dismissed them and their ilk as “bull-goose, loony-toon, screw-loose, time-rich, whack-jobs” with a preference for Comalco headwear, or some variation on the theme. I would consider that no minor civic service, and even though he’s not even my “Uncle”, a thank you of sorts to Uncle Sam for all the good things he has done for us, one I feel sure he would appreciate.
— Conspiracy Theory or Counter-Subversive Hypothesis?
After some research into the whole conspiracy-theory construct, its history and its underlying political subtext (and after having satisfied myself via a measure of modest self-reflection I’m not after all a bull-goose, loony-toon loner avec too much time on his hands and an over active bordering-on-paranoid imagination), I’ve surmised the old term may no longer adequately describes one’s pursuit of truth regarding the past and present machinations of the Power Elite Castes and of the sub rosa goals and objectives of the Deep State, the Invisible (or Shadow) Government, and/or the National Security/Police State.
In place of “conspiracy theorist” then I now propose a more politically correct (in the true sense of the phrase) substitute, to wit: ‘counter-subversive hypothetician’. A bit of a mouthful I confess, and I may or may not have my tongue in my cheek (which is what it sounds like when you pronounce it). Either way, with this in mind, further explication is required going forward.
We can safely say now the utility and currency of “conspiracy theory” as an encompassing phrase passed its UBD years ago. Not unlike “[you’re an] anti-Semite”, a “climate change denier”, or an “anti—vaxxer” rebukes perhaps, the term has been debased to the point of meaninglessness, albeit by a very concerted psyops campaign orchestrated by the trenchcoat ‘n trilby tribe in the global intelligence community, with fervent backup from their many fellow travellers, especially those in the mainstream media (MSM), and assorted, co-opted academics, researchers, intellectuals, opportunistic politicians, and think-tankers.
All of which is to say that the amorphous entity that is the US National Security and Surveillance State got hold of it and began using it to tool up their (ahem) patriotic, constitutionally inspired defence of unfettered, coast-to-coast democracy, truth, justice, freedom, civil liberties, human rights, the rule of law and other assorted, self-evident myths, fables and intangible constructs of the overarching “liberal” historical-cum-political narrative.
This new terminology has also been coined to dispel in part any misconceptions upon the part of certain folk that ‘your humble’ is losing his sense of humour (or for that matter other faculties key to maintaining the perception amongst one’s peers, associates, friends, loved ones and occasional if not always reliable admirers that one hasn’t totally lost the plot and therefore should be given a wide berth and/or prescribed different medication), as a result of my journey of discovery into—and investigation of—the “dark, subversive, malevolent, conspiratorial forces” yada yada yada that have shaped our world and continue to.
All levity aside, as noted in previous instalments, the first port of call for any budding conspiracy theorist is to muster the courage to express that doubt and query the assumptions that give rise to it. To underscore this imperative, the so named father of modern conservatism Edmund Burke once famously said that ‘All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.’ In the spirit of Burke, Albert Einstein found time to descend from his relatively lofty heights to similarly reflect (albeit obliquely) on the conspiratorial nature and predisposition of his fellow man, in particular in this instance, our willingness to allow harmful conspiracies to proliferate and go unopposed:
‘The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don’t do anything about it.’
What Einstein—and countless others who’ve riffed on this motif—is suggesting here goes to the very heart of the matter methinks, and it raises a question that seems to be frequently missing from the broad discussion over the conspiracy construct and why conspiracy theories flourish.
The answer is fundamentally a simple one, but we need to consider the following as a preamble.
As regards key events and revelations about possible conspiracies related to them, even when a conspiracy is strongly suspected (as in 9/11 or JFK) or inarguably outed (as in the Iran-Contra Scandal or Iraq’s WMDs), in those cases where they do occur, not only are official responses to them inadequate and investigations into them incomplete and/or unsatisfactory, in few cases are the real culprits and/or most culpable offenders and guilty parties identified much less brought to justice. It’s not an insignificant point to make that with two of the aforesaid examples, the investigations were only undertaken because of considerable public and political pressure, not because those who might be held accountable were chomping at the bit to find the truth.
And then there is the inevitable cover-ups, repudiated by all and sundry until the evidence for the conspiracy reaches critical mass it can no longer be denied or explained away. (Or if they are, the variety and degree of “justice” rarely matches the not unreasonable expectations of the otherwise law abiding public wishing to see those people responsible duly held to account—without fear or favour—for all manner of official nonfeasance, misfeasance and malfeasance. Which is to say, that unholy trinity of human imperfection, to wit: cowardice, ineptitude and malevolence.
With this in mind, for those of us inclined to disbelieve conspiracy and dismiss the adherents—or for those skeptics—it is here that a few pertinent questions should be asked in respect of governments, institutions, organisations, corporations etc. that have been and are inclined toward grand conspiracy. Time to take a deep breath.
— Who Amongst Us?
Who amongst us would have thought that the US National Security Agency (NSA) would spend billions of the American taxpayers’ dime conspiring to secretly and illegally—and with seeming impunity—monitor, record, store and scrutinise the emails, phone calls and text messages and other communications data of billions of people around the planet including of course its own citizens and those of the leaders of its supposedly democratic allies, all the while engaging in that age old defence against accusations of conspiracy to do so, of plausible deniability, and that the individual who revealed this conspiracy would be vilified by his government to the point of having to leave the country for fear of being tried for treason and incarcerated for life?
Who amongst us might have believed that numerous major corporations past and present—even household names and pillars of the international community of brands and corporate financial and non-financial entities—would conspire between and amidst themselves to flout the law at a multitude of levels and in any number of areas (taxation, health and safety, environment, employment, consumer, business, corporate governance, social responsibility etc.), engage in widespread and ongoing corruption of government and bureaucratic officials; undermine the democratic process and civil rights, consumer rights and human rights; and feloniously defraud and deceive their customers at one end and their suppliers at the other end and many others along the supply chain, with few if any of these conspirators being held to account legally much less facing jail time?
Who amongst us would have thought that the corporate/mainstream media (MSM) would have allowed itself to not just be co-opted by, but to actively conspire with, vested corporate, government, organisational and institutional interests to subvert democracy, curtail freedoms and liberties guaranteed legally by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and for decades serially withhold crucial information that is in the interest of citizens and [is] their right to know about—by shackling the freedom of its own journalists so as to keep the high crimes and not-so-petty misdemeanours of the power elites and various national security state actors from ever seeing the light of day thereby in the process creating another conspiracy to cover up existing conspiracies?
Who amongst us would have thought that in the aftermath of the Bay of Pigs debacle in 1961 and the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, the national security state mindset would reach such fever pitch the Joint Chiefs of Staff and their cheer squad in the CIA would concoct and seriously promote a grand covert plan—the notoriously ill-conceived but thankfully ill-fated Operation Northwoods—that involved amongst other things perpetrating major false-flag attacks on American soil against innocent American citizens including bombing selected, well known landmarks, blowing up and/or hijacking US passenger airliners and ships, and engaging in all manner of seemingly random terrorist attacks, covert provocations, contrived paramilitary black ops, and large-scale sabotage against numerous civilian and military targets on U.S. soil. The aim in mind of which was to blame it all on the Cubans so as to provide a pretext for invading and occupying the country, removing its leaders from office, and installing a more U.S. (read: “corporate”) user-friendly regime?
Who would have thought that Ronald Reagan‘s historic, game changing landslide win over Jimmy Carter in the 1980 presidential race would (via one of two so-called “October Surprises” that changed the course of U.S. history), have been orchestrated by members of his own campaign team including former CIA director, vice presidential nominee and future US president George HW Bush, in collusion with many others within and across the power elites and national security state treasonously conspiring to bribe senior Iranian officials—with tens of millions of US taxpayer sourced dollars and hundreds of millions of dollars worth of weapons, ammunition and assorted military hardware—to withhold release of the US Embassy hostages in Tehran until well after the November US election so as to undermine the incumbent president’s efforts to seek and obtain the hostages release, and in the successful execution of said conspiracy, so guarantee Carter’s defeat in the presidential election?
And who amongst us would have thought that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), in conjunction with MI6, NATO, the Vatican, along with numerous Western European governments and their respective intelligence agencies—under what came to be broadly known as Operation Gladio, one which in all but name is still functioning today—would initiate, fund, and maintain over decades from 1945, a rolling clandestine campaign of false flag terror, black ops, psy-ops, cognitive infiltration, media manipulation, assassinations, ‘death-squadding’, bombings, sabotage, electoral fraud, regime change, and rampant political agitation and destabilisation within and across Europe all carried out covertly by paramilitary and/or mercenary ‘stay-behind’ groups all largely designed to undermine democratically elected governments and attribute the blame for this terror campaign onto left-wing groups?
Who amongst us indeed?
— Paranoid Substance or Paranoid Style? —
With all the preceding this in mind, a word or three about conspiracies in the context of the overarching American historical narrative and ongoing geo-political discourse is essential. No discussion of conspiracy would be complete without reference to U.S. historian Richard Hofstadter, a man who, as far back as 1964, famously defined what he called the ‘Paranoid Style in American Politics‘.
Hofstadter is the person most often identified with fomenting the pejorative predisposition of the skeptics and the denialists directed towards those who might engage in conspiratorial musings, albeit with considerable assistance from the spooks in the CIA and the corporate media via Operation Mockingbird. He certainly gave them plenty of fodder, although it’s people like Cass Sunstein and Adrian Vermeule (See Part Two) who more recently have dined out on the Hofstadter thesis and continued his ‘work’.
First published in Harper’s Magazine in 1964, this article is considered one of the most influential in the iconic magazine’s history, which, in and of itself, is a significant pointer to the centrality and endurance of conspiracy in the American political narrative. In this seminal work, Hofstadter defined conspiracy theory pejoratively and attached negative connotations to those predisposed to theorizing about all manner of institutional, corporate and/or political malfeasance, even before the spooks at Langley began tinkering with it.
In “Paranoid Style” Hofstadter openly declared the phrase is “meant to be” viewed pejoratively. After noting that ‘the paranoid style has a greater affinity for bad causes than good’, Hofstadter went on to add that, ‘[the] style has more to do with the way in which ideas are believed than with the truth or falsity of their content’. As he said, he was,
‘… [more] interested in getting at our political psychology through our political rhetoric. The paranoid style is an old and recurrent phenomenon in our public life which has been frequently linked with movements of suspicious discontent’ [my emphasis].
Although clearly not a fan of the conspiracy construct as a useful guide to history then, it would still be interesting to speculate on what Hofstadter, if he was still on the right side of the grass, would have to say now about our “political psychology” and how it has evolved since his heyday. This might especially be so as it relates to our “political rhetoric” and, in fact, the whole nine yards of the global politico-economic zeitgeist. All of which is to say we know a hell of a lot more now about the crypto-statists predisposition for deception, duplicity, disinformation along with subterfuge, [and for] secretive, subversive behaviour and “institutional malfeasance” than we did back in 1964. In so many ways and on so many levels, we are where we are because of it!
And if we do indeed know more about this “predisposition” and its effects on the course of history, it would be then largely—and thankfully we might say—because of the “movements of suspicious discontent” that Hofstadter so breezily derided, along with the ‘crippled epistemologists of conspiracy’ that populate and propel these “movements”.
Two examples suffice to support this. It is precisely because of these “movements” that many more Americans believe there was a conspiracy to off President John Kennedy than don’t, with those that still accept the official ‘conspiracy theory’ of 9/11, if not exactly approaching minority status, are seriously beginning to question many important aspects of the events of that day.
— None Dare Call it Coincidence
In 1971, another iconic tome appeared on the scene called None Dare Call it Conspiracy, written by Gary Allen and Larry Abraham. It’s much more difficult to know where to begin with this book than it is to know when and where to ‘end’ with it. This is not to suggest that Allen was totally off the mark in all of his assertions or his historical recollections of people and events. And there was no doubting its impact at the time.
His accounts of international financiers and merchant bankers’ involvement in the establishment of the U.S. Federal Reserve System in 1913 (along with its indisputable status as a bona fide conspiracy, arguably the greatest one of them all), steering America’s entry into World War One, and the bankrolling of both the Bolshevik Revolution and the rise of the Nazis, to name a few, are now generally accepted to be more or less on the money, no pun intended.
Moreover, his elucidations about the degree to which American industry and capital effectively supported—from technological, intellectual and economic standpoints—the Soviet system prior to and even throughout much of the Cold War was also something that was possibly for its time revelatory. Such historical insights were certainly not what one would have expected to find in your stock-standard high school history text-book, or if he had one, Uncle Sam’s Official Website!
But it should be noted herein Allen drew on much of the pioneering and meticulous research work of Anthony Sutton, with little it appears to offer by way of his own research. (Ed. Note: Sutton’s work will be the subject of a future separate post.)
One of the other major sources for Allen’s book was Dr Carroll Quigley‘s work, in particular his seminal and oft-referenced 1966 book Tragedy and Hope. Yet even here Quigley himself reportedly repudiated much of what Allen has said in his name. (Quigley’s biggest ‘claim to fame’ may be the much-touted influence he had on a young Rhodes scholar by the name of William Jefferson Clinton, an influence one suspects that if he was alive today, Quigley might ruefully disdain. A story for another time.)
Allen’s book certainly put paid to any notion some people seem to hold that it is those of the left who have cornered the market on conspiracy theorising, yet it’s here we might argue that Allen’s book comes unstuck. He might have been right in being paranoid, but possibly painted an incomplete picture of the ideological motivations of those fueling the paranoia. In Allen’s world it was those on the political left engaging in most if not all the conspiratorial behaviour, as distinct from theorising about others doing so.
In this respect, the sudden collapse of the USSR provided for most objective observers enough evidence the Soviets were never really as much of a threat as consistently portrayed. It was certainly not anywhere near enough to justify the trillions spent on ‘fighting’ the so-called Cold War and in the process bring the world to the brink of nuclear annihilation. This, without taking into account the body count (itself unquantifiable, but easily in the tens of millions), and the massively deep-seated and widespread economic destruction, social dislocation (incalculable, period), and general global ill-will.
And whilst a story for another time, we’re still suffering from the Cold War hangover, in more ways than one! That’s generally what happens when conspiracy theories turn out to be real conspiracies. And the bigger the conspiracy, the bigger the hangover.
And for all that dear readers, as the saying goes, “we ain’t seen nuthin yet!” In other words, stay tuned, at least for as long as the Conspiratorial Cabal allows us to do so. Which without placing too fine a point on it, may not be for much longer. With this in mind, might I suggest to readers, perhaps it is high time for each and every one of us to begin embracing the odd conspiracy theory or three. We need all hands on deck.
Greg Maybury, August 7, 2025.
Dear Greg, there is a saying "just because you are PARANOID does not mean that they aren't after ya"...when you get right down to it, to the brass tacks, what is happening is BIBLICAL...now believe if you will. And you need to do is read , think, reflect on the Scriptures and fit the pieces together like a PUZZLE ( a little here , a little there). Now put that in your pipe and smoke it or "Run it up the flag pole and see who salutes it"...Have a good day, take care.
Jack
Good work.
This is what Henry Ford said in 1921 about the Protocols of the elders of Zion: "The only statement I care to make about the PROTOCOLS is that they fit in with what is going on. They are sixteen years old, and they have fitted the world situation up to this time. THEY FIT IT NOW.".
The same can be said now. When an alternative theory explains well past events while the official narrative is sketchy, manipulated, has traces of conflicts of interest and is partially undiscolosed, we should choose the alternative theory over the official narrative.