HOW TO KILL CONSPIRACY THEORIES
Today I was shown an article published in Rolling Stone magazine that
declared that conspiracy theorists should be given a huge apology,
saying that “Everything is Rigged: The Biggest Price Fixing Scandal Ever!”
(WITHOUT REALLY TRYING)
(WITHOUT REALLY TRYING)
The article, written by Matt Taibbi, states that:
“Conspiracy theorists of the world, believers in the hidden hands of the Rothschilds and the Masons and the Illuminati, we skeptics owe you an apology. You were right. The players may be a little different, but your basic premise is correct: The world is a rigged game. We found this out in recent months, when a series of related corruption stories spilled out of the financial sector, suggesting the world’s largest banks may be fixing the prices of, well, just about everything.”
Taibbi opens up his article talking about the Libor scandal, in which at least three, and perhaps as many as 16 of the name-brand too-big-to-fail banks have been manipulating global interest rates, and, in the process, messing around with the prices of upward of $500 trillion dollars worth of financial instruments.
Of course, the Libor scandal was easily the biggest financial scandal in history – MIT professor Andrew Lo even said it “dwarfs by orders of magnitude any financial scam in the history of markets.”
That was bad enough, but now Libor may have a twin brother. “Word has leaked out that the London-based firm ICAP, the world’s largest broker of interest-rate swaps, is being investigated by American authorities for behavior that sounds eerily reminiscent of the Libor mess.” Regulators are looking into whether or not a small group of brokers at ICAP may have worked with up to 15 of the world’s largest banks to manipulate ISDAfix, a benchmark number used around the world to calculate the prices of interest-rate swaps.
The Rolling Stone article should not only be praised for raising awareness in the mainstream of price fixing but also giving credit to those who have tried to expose how the globalists rule by fraud and organized crime.
For media, music, movies, gold , gas, stocks, interest rates, and prices all over the world we are dependent upon little private cabals of greedy and mob-like insiders that we are forced to trust.
These corporate puppet masters manipulate everything from the outcome of wars to so-called terrorist attacks. Their agendas are implemented, and we are then forced to keep contributing to them.
In the meantime, the corporate television media that are controlled by the same big money manipulators have gone on the offensive against conspiracy theorists. It appears that the media is fretting over the grip they are losing over the public, their influence over the impact upon us of certain events and issues.
After the Sandy Hook shooting, scores of people questioned the official story. When that happened, Anderson Cooper and Piers Morgan went on the offensive by attacking “conspiracy theorists,” calling them heartless and sick. Piers even displayed for everyone a “conspiracy theorist,” Alex Jones, and afterwards brought on a panel that discussed how they could kill him in various creative ways.
The television commentator who has come out slugging this time is Rachel Maddow, a Rhodes Scholar who works for MSNBC, a television network that was owned by General Electric up until just a few weeks ago when Comcast completed their buyout of NBC Universal. Now, the names may change and sometimes they swap properties on the Monopoly board, but we’re still essentially talking about the same corporation This is, of course, the same General Electric whose tax lawyer was Peter Lanza, the father of the alleged Sandy Hook shooter Adam Lanza. Peter Lanza was an executive at GE Energy Financial Services.
GE has been successfully evading paying taxes for some time now. Although the corporation reported global profits of $14.2 billion with $5.1 billion of that total being attributed to American operations, GE claimed a tax benefit of $3.2 billion. Lanza would have contributed to the success of GE’s corporate tax evasion in the United States.
Maddow obviously would not find herself in a position to spill that kind of information to the public as she maligns conspiracy theorists. To quote Maddow, “The right is taking the gloves off after the Boston bombing. The most influential conservative media online is full-on embracing the conspiracy theorists who say it was the government who attacked… These forces have always existed on the right. And they are now, though, as great as they’ve ever been. Where are the countervailing forces on the right, if there are any, and where does this all end?”
Well, believe it or not, I have an answer for Maddow:
Rachel, it all ends when the media does its job correctly. It ends when state-run media returns to its rightful place as the fourth estate. It ends when the media stops pretending that they are acting in the public trust when they spin lies that are fed to them by corporate shills in order to maintain business as usual, which includes mob mentality, terror and fear-mongering, Hegelian dialogue, and cover-up.
The way to eliminate conspiracy theory is to be bold and report the truth, and not hide behind the veneer of “everything is the way it seems,” when we can most certainly see that it is not what it seems.
The way it ends, is that highly paid corporate shills like you stop hiding behind the template that is given to you that puts the empire in a the light of grandiose omnipotence that dictates what we are to believe.
The only reason why conspiracy theorists exist is because you, Rachel, are not doing your job correctly. While you could be reporting about other news stories that matter, you tend to stick with the agendas that are force-fed to you by the Pentagon and bitch and moan about how your story is getting obfuscated by a bunch of ne’er- do -well conspiracy theorists.
I could go on, Rachel, but the free press also includes citizen reporters, citizen editorials, and people who rather than complain about the failure of the media take on the responsibility of being the media. We have been told throughout the years to be vigilant and now we are told by you to back off because it makes your job of conditioning the herd using tension strategies more difficult.
The truth is, Rachel, people are fed up with reporters like you, Piers Morgan and Anderson Cooper. So fed up in fact they are being forced to watch Fox News and when they see just how far and desperate they have become they tend to turn off television and listen to what you call conspiracy theorists.
As history unfolds it becomes quite clear that our interpretation of news events is based on quick glances at a newspaper, magazine or news program that is funded, owned and/or operated by a corporation that has a controlling political interest in what is being reported. This type of journalism is what you would expect in a country where the press is no longer objective. It usually turns up in countries that are highly controlled.
Countries with state-run newspapers and state-run radio and TV stations. The state of the media has been declared dead by old-timers who long for the days of real journalism, where hunting for the blockbuster story was as stimulating as delivering it. Now those days have long passed and no one understands that sometimes it takes more than a television show or a newspaper columnist to get the whole story.
In fact during a press junket for the new film “All the President’s Men Revisited” a film about the Watergate scandal, Robert Redford told the British press that there should be a revival of investigative journalism. He commented that the world needs more Woodwards and Bernsteins, the reporters that exposed the Nixon White House while working for The Washington Post.
While trying to keep pace with an ever-changing world there is a point where we have difficulty keeping informed of what dangers are out there that might harm our families and ourselves.
So we develop a need for instant information. A flip of the switch gets us a news report. We listen and watch for certain buzzwords or sound bites. If we do not hear anything that sounds dangerous to us or if it does not affect us directly we tend to overlook it, or ignore it.
There are times where we have neglected information that may come back and bite us in the future.
That information, of course, is history, and while some of us were nerds and paid attention to it, there were others who felt that anything dealing with history would have no bearing on our lives in the future.
This can be looked at as progressive thinking, or living life deliberately. In these ever-changing times, it becomes necessary to go back in history a bit and see how people then reacted to some of the same things that are plaguing us now.
On a past Ground Zero show, I was happy to speak with Ralph Epperson, who is considered one of the first authors and speakers who spoke of what he called an unseen hand that existed throughout history.
He explained that we make a deal with our conscience to accept different views of history. We believe in the catastrophic or accidental view of history. Or we choose the other view, the conspiratorial view of history. The deal is that we have to decide how things truly are in the world and make decisions according to what resonates with our conscience.
In the catastrophic or accidental view of history, we are led to believe that historical events, such as wars and revolutions were the direct result of some sudden or surprising event. While the catastrophic view is accurate for weather, volcanoes and earthquakes, it does not always provide a realistic view of humanity and events influenced by man.
The idea of a conspiratorial view of any event has always entered into the mind of an average person from time to time. The idea of a plot, or plan that has been contrived for the benefit of the few, or that is not to your benefit is a normal thing to do.
It does not have to be a grand plot in most political arenas. It can be as simple as being overlooked for a promotion or a raise. The idea that you are deserving of moving ahead and seeing someone else get what you want, makes you wonder if someone or some group had planned or plotted that you were not worthy or capable.
When you ask why you were overlooked, you feel that you are not getting the whole story. This is simple conspiratorial thought. However, there are bigger conspiracies that can be seen in government and in political circles.
There are things we see that raise questions, that are unexplained. This does not necessarily mean that there is a conspiracy, and having questions or doubts about a story that you are being told does not mean you are a conspiracy theorist. All it means is that you have doubts based upon how you have been treated or upon how you have observed past behaviors and conditions, doubts that suggest to you that you may not be getting the entire story.
Everything that happens around us isn’t always accidental, and to believe that all things in history are accidental is a bit naïve. The accidental view of history has now been reinforced by the controlled mass media. As a result, when most discover the conspiratorial view of history, the immediate reaction is shock, disbelief and a refusal to accept something other than what they’ve been taught to believe.
The mainstream media wants to convince you that the reporters they select to speak to you on radio and television are good people. They want you to believe that they can be trusted, that they are like friends. There have been many news agencies that have been groomed by consultants and focus groups to put forth an image of “family” meaning that the news team is a part of your family, and that as a part of your family they would do nothing to deceive you or otherwise manipulate you.
But that fact is they are strangers, who are highly paid to parrot the views of the Pentagon, to nourish the political polarization, and create the public Hegelian dialectic of “problem, reaction, solution.”
We put our trust in perfect strangers every day to tell us that everything is all right. We do it without thinking. We don’t question and unfortunately we accept it as consensus “truth.”
However, there are people that think too much. They question too much. They don’t accept everything that is said to them. Some of them are always looking over their shoulders.
Some call it paranoia; others call it a heightened sense of awareness that seems to be an imperative in times where news and other information can be manufactured for a desired reaction.
With this in mind let us think about world events and how we all have an opinion on what is going on based on the narrative provided by the media. There have been several events in history that have been traumatizing to the nation as a whole. So traumatizing, in fact, that people are confused about what really went on, and rather than overload themselves with details, they are satisfy themselves with the watered-down explanations provided by the media under the direction of corporate interest. In turn, such media produce news that is sanitized by the Pentagon and in some cases by the executive branch of government.
Very few average people have the discipline to check their views and beliefs with the criteria of consistency. The average person, when listening to proposed authority, needs to decide if any claim that has been made provides verifiable documentation to your satisfaction. Do all of the pieces of information provided fit the dialogue and time line provided?
If they do not then do you reject the claim or do you investigate further? The average person will not even go that far. While the experiences of the world differ do you still decide that what you have seen in the narrative is reality?
Who in the world has the ambition to weigh everything based on what is really transpiring and not what the narrative provides or what the inner core belief you possess tends to cloud?
Contradictions in these thought processes I have described go ignored by the average person. They are forgotten and replaced by emotional belief instead of being replaced by anything dealing in facts with respect to time or environment.
In my life and in my experience I have come to the conclusion that all things are in an intermediate state between extremes. In a fundamental sense, the extremes are birth and death. All that is in between is intermediate. You can divide it all up and break it all down into an eternal state of extremes and realize that everything that you believe and read is what is fashionable for the time and not necessarily the truth. However, that does not mean that buried in all of it isn’t a little pinch of reality.
What is reality anyway? Can it be questioned? If questioning makes a person paranoid then I wear my paranoid label with pride.
I believe that being aware of worst-case scenarios or even slippery slopes doesn’t make me crazy.
It doesn’t make you crazy either, just aware.