Connect with us

Alternative News

Information Warfare & Alex Jones: Journalistic Responsibility In A Post-Truth Era

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    With the Alex Jones and Infowars ban, the game is changing as to how YouTube, Facebook, Apple and other social media giants feature content. Consumers of news must now be vigilant and proactive in the truth discovery process.

  • Reflect On:

    As conscious truth-seekers, what standards should we hold media sources, journalists, and corporations to? In the realm of public discourse, are popular pundits and theorists like Alex Jones held to sufficient standards of journalistic integrity?

In our quest for truth, we all have intuitions, hunches, and personal insights that we may not be able to prove.  Whether it’s spiritual premonitions, conspiracy theories, or superstitious synchronicity, our conscious thought is an explorer in a universe of ideas, possibilities, and theories.  However, if there is no filter in place to bring form and meaning to these free-flowing ideas, the truth quickly becomes whatever we want it to be; feelings and opinions become just as “true” as verifiable, well-researched facts.

advertisement - learn more

The revolutionary ideas that produced the American experiment enshrining the Enlightenment principle of freedom of expression has produced an unchained intellect.  With that conscious liberty comes a responsibility to quest for truth with journalistic integrity.  In our current media free-fall of anything goes think-pieces and political punditry, we have reached a post-truth stage in our history where “fake news” is simply whatever we want it to be, usually characterized by a viewpoint we disagree with.

As explorers of consciousness, we have a deep responsibility to substantiate our thoughts & theories in order to foster legitimate discussion of the important matters of our time.

“We risk being the first people in history to have been
able to make their illusions so vivid, so persuasive,
so ‘realistic’ that they can live in them.” — Daniel J. Boorstin, The Image: A Guide to
Pseudo-Events in America (1961)

Alex Jones & The “Mainstream” Media

By now, everyone has chimed in on the concerted effort among major companies (YouTube, Facebook, Apple) to ban Alex Jones & Infowars from its platforms.  Many in the conscious community remember when Alex first came on the scene in Austin, Texas where he developed his signature gravelly voice that shouted conspiracy from the mountaintop. Since his early underground days on community radio, Jones has ascended in popularity and has become a prominent voice in media buoyed by audiences fascinated with his conspiratorial takes and fervent support of President Trump (who granted Infowars White House press passes after his election in 2016).

Jones and his supporters continually lambast the “mainstream media” when framing commentary on global events.  However, Alex Jones has become mainstream media, boasting view stats in the billions with subscribers in the millions that rival and eclipse traditional media giants like CNN and NBC.

advertisement - learn more

Since Jones was banned, his Infowars app has surged on the Google Play and iTunes charts, ranking third among trending apps behind only Twitter and News Break.  It’s important to acknowledge just how vast the Alex Jones audience has become, and the bulk of his viewers solely rely on Infowars for information gathering on political and global events.

Ironically, the ascent of Alex Jones into the mainstream has been buoyed by Facebook & YouTube, who actively promoted and pushed out Alex Jones content in their respective feeds as his popularity sky-rocketed and his content raked in considerable advertisement profits for the Silicon Valley behemoths.  But unlike newspapers and traditional media sources who are liable for what they publish, Facebook & YouTube have been shielded from liability in the U.S. for what their users publish – which largely has resulted in the quest for truth taking a back-seat to the quest to go virile.

Freedom Of Speech & Responsibility

The aptly named “Infowars” is emblematic of the information war that is currently taking place in America.  From traditional media giants like Fox, CNN & MSNBC to emerging internet media forces like The Young Turks, Mark Dice & Secular Talk, there is a jockeying for power and news authority that is shaking up the global political landscape – and this is significantly changing how (and what) people think.

Indeed, freedom of speech and a free press is something that truth-seekers should hold sacred, but Jones being banned is not about freedom of speech.  Jones is free to broadcast his message as he sees fit – but that doesn’t guarantee that private companies like YouTube and Facebook will feature his content.

An important question that must be answered in response to the ban is this: What responsibility should Alex Jones, YouTube & Facebook assume in presenting “truth” to audiences?  While many say that they should bear no responsibility as it pertains to journalistic integrity, what effect is that having on our aggregate consciousness?  America is in a mental health crisis.  Suicides are increasing at alarming rates, iPhones, social media and technology have dominated the lives of young children with distraction and fantasy. Reality is becoming so abstract that more and more are losing grip on their day-to-day lives, opting to live in a world where truth is malleable and whatever you want it to be.

Media sources like Infowars that purposely and knowingly perpetuate false information and sensationalized conspiracy under the guise of “the truth that the mainstream media won’t tell you” have significantly contributed to the growing American population that is misinformed and increasingly mentally unstable.

“Every single school/public shooting is a hoax staged with crisis actors.” “Queen Elizabeth is converting to Islam and is a Jihadi.”  “Democrats (and only Democrats) are running a global prostitution ring.” “Obama is having sex with 10 men a day on taxpayer dime.”

The aforementioned are actual quotes and takes from recent Alex Jones broadcasts, and they are seeding millions of minds with precisely what they are purportedly railing against: Fake News.  In effect, Jones has produced the same kind of disinformation that he accuses “The Liberal Left” of producing – and that has a very real effect on public consciousness.  In order to educate, enlighten, and challenge the conventionally programmed mind, you must credibly appeal to truth.  You cannot do that when you are peddling junk theories.  There are real instances of false flag events and manipulated events for geopolitical gain without us pressing to find conspiracy where there is none.

There are real global cabals and child prostitution rings to expose and bring to justice without us having to go down a rabbit hole of gutter dialogue, obsessing over “Pizzagate” and other poorly evidenced theories while actual instances of human trafficking are taking place right in front of our eyes. There is a real war on our planet, environment and bodily integrity without entertaining lunatic claims that “they are putting chemicals in the water that make frogs gay!”

This is not to say that there aren’t legitimate grievances and critiques of traditional media.  The American public’s faith in the media is at a historic law – and there is good reason for that.  The level of discourse, global news coverage, and critical thinking displayed on CNN, NBC, & Fox are numbingly restrictive, biased, and dishonest.  Major newspapers were complicit in presenting false and poorly sourced information to readers that precipitated the criminal and illegal Iraq War.  The New York Times (and others) peddled conspiracy theories from the NeoCon Bush Administration which knowingly lied and deceived Americans with lies and false information – and this greatly influenced public opinion in the lead-up to the war.

Both things can be true: Our media institutions have often failed to enlighten and inform us – *and* Alex Jones is contributing to the post-truth movement that is further skewing truth in favor of journalistic anarchy and chaos.  There are kernels of truth that can be found on Infowars, just as there are kernels of truth to be found within traditional, “mainstream” media.  But what separates the real from the fake are journalists and media that take deep personal responsibility in presenting information, news & intelligence that is in service to truth, and not just in service to shares, likes, views & trending statistics regardless of the actual integrity of the content.

While many rail against the New York Times or the Washington Post, there is a level of journalistic standard (citation, sourced information, liability for slander/libel) that is too often absent from alternative news.  As writers within conscious media, we should take that responsibility to heart as we are already exploring thought forms, theories, and ideas that are often outside of the parameters of what the restrictive corporate media sources will broadcast and publish.  It is imperative that we report and explore ideas with integrity, and that means thoroughly investigating, researching, and filtering our ideas and claims before blindly adopting popularized conspiracy theory that has no firm grounding to stand on.

Unintended Consequences of “Chilling” Alex Jones Content

Regardless of whether you resonate with Alex Jones and his content, the larger question to explore is the implication of banning his content on YouTube, Facebook and other mainstream platforms.  As reported above, Infowars has gained massive popularity and its app has soared since the ban.  Banning Jones only increases his allure and – in effect – martyrs Jones and Infowars, giving credence to supporters who feel that his message is being chilled and suppressed by the Deep State.

This type of censorship often produces unintended consequences.  For example, Europe has criminalized the denial of the holocaust.  The result of that has seen more people in Europe actually denying the holocaust, as their viewpoint gets pushed to the fringes and foments rebellion amongst those who declare that the State is suppressing their voice.  America leans more heavily on free speech than any country in the world, creating an environment where there’s a competition of opposing views and a marketplace of ideas.

This traditional American defense of freedom of speech posits the notion that the way to challenge the false claims of someone like Alex Jones is to challenge that viewpoint, expose it, and present an argument so that readers/viewers can make up their own mind.  The censorship of Jones is a relative divorce from this principle, and there is legitimate concern as to whether a precedent will be set to ban other commentators and media sources simply because they report, write, and opine on controversial topics and conspiracy.

Unlike authoritarian regimes in China and Russia, American jurisprudence has long held that the State is not permitted to infringe upon free speech unless speech directly incites violence.  Given the immense power and influence of giant companies like Facebook and YouTube, the question that is now being presented is whether they are the proper arbiters of truth and permissible dialogue.  Facebook & YouTube have never been neutral in presenting information.  They control timelines and push certain content that is trending in order to increase their advertisement sales, viewership, and profitability – which is one reason why Alex Jones became so popular in the first place.  Just as our very own Joe Martino reported earlier this week, Facebook deliberately governs the content that you see and thus can greatly influence (or diminish) any organization’s reach and view-power.

Relying on Facebook & YouTube – en masse – for information and access to news is problematic in itself – and this challenges consumer behavior to be proactive in its quest for information.  Taking control of the narrative by not being simply a receiver of a manipulated timeline will become paramount.  Visiting websites directly will become an important way to sift through the emerging regulation and censorship that will change the way companies like YouTube and Facebook operate.  While they’ve been immune from liability for slander and defamation (unlike traditional newspapers and media), the U.S. Congress is intent on taking away the absolute shield of protection for these corporations.  Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) actually wrote the law himself (circa 1996) which prevented internet companies from being sued over user-generated content.

Earlier this week he stated,

“I just want to be clear, as the author of Section 230, the days when these pipelines are considered neutral are over.”

This signals a new era of social media regulation that will have significant impact on how news and opinion are presented on platforms like YouTube and Facebook.   This presents a challenge to you: the truth-seeker; the information gatherer; the critical thinker. How active will you be in seeking out truth?  Will you rely on the State for your information? Will you rely on YouTube and Facebook for your information?  Will you actively search for and frequent the journalism and viewpoints that resonate with you, regardless of censorship?

As journalists, will we take more responsibility in our own viewpoints, ensuring that standards of empirical truth and grounded arguments are upheld? We are at a dangerous point in our history as it pertains to steering the collective consciousness of the planet.  Now more than ever, discernment and active participation in creating the narrative of now is a task that cannot be left to the control of someone or something else.  As with everything else, it starts from within to where we are self-reliant in our quest for truth. Once we take that responsibility within ourselves, we will see that moral imperative extended to institutions (like Big Media) which have too often twisted reality via half-truths and mis-truths to service veiled agendas.

You Can Help Stop The 5G Infrastructure

We plan to investigate the telecom industry, it’s ties to politics, and expose its efforts to push 5G while ignoring the dangers and without proper safety testing, but we can't do it without your support.

We've launched a funding campaign to fuel our efforts on this matter as we are confident we can make a difference and have a strong plan to get it done.

Check out our plan and join our campaign here.

Advertisement
advertisement - learn more

Alternative News

NSA Whistleblower Speaks About Julian Assange & The ‘Shadow Government’

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Longtime high-ranking NSA employee William Binney shares his thoughts on the arrest of Julian Assange and who is really in control.

  • Reflect On:

    Why do we continue to believe that a president can make changes? Why do we continue to elect and vote without addressing the real issue behind decisions made in politics? Why not address the secret government and its stranglehold on politics?

Even to this day, if you tell people there is an ‘invisible government,’ or a shadow government that’s international in scope, they may call you a conspiracy theorist or give you a funny look. This is in large part due to the lack of education, particularly self education, of a population who is trained to go to school, get a job and ‘enjoy’ life. Sure, that’s all fine and dandy, but to deny and condemn a thought or an idea without any investigation is definitely the height of ignorance. Not only is it the height of ignorance, it also prevents humanity from moving forward. In order for us to move forward, we must properly identify our problems, and it doesn’t help when the most important problems that need to be identified are not even believed as a result of mass brainwashing and lack of education. No one is thinking for themselves, instead they simply rely on establishment media, which has been nothing but a massive propaganda machine since its inception.

The idea of a shadow government doesn’t only come from statements made by a number of global politicians and ‘world leaders,’ it’s been proven by policy changes and decisions that are not in favour of the people or the planet, which expose how our federal regulatory agencies are run by rogue interests. The CDC and the “Spider Papers” are one of many great examples, along with multiple whistleblowers from multiple agencies.

Political parties no longer support the people, and it’s hard to say if they ever really did. Government and politics are now simply, as president Theodore Roosevelt emphasized, “tools of corrupt interests which use them in martialling [sic] to serve their selfish purposes.” He flat out stated that “Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. To destroy this invisible government, to befoul the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day.”

This is the unseen power that exists today. Roosevelt wasn’t the only one, in his farewell speech President Eisenhower warned about the rise of misplaced power that “exists” and will “persist” within the military industrial complex.

Not long ago, President Vladimir Putin explained how, after a president in the United States is elected, “men in dark suits” come in and basically run the show. (source)

According to President Woodrow Wilson:

advertisement - learn more

Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men’s views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of somebody, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it. (The New Freedom, A Call For The Emancipation of the Generous Energies of a People, Written in 1913)

It seems that  John F. Hylan, Mayor of New York City from 1918-1925 was correct in saying that “the real menace of our Republic is the invisible government, which like a giant octopus sprawls its slimy legs over our cities, states and nation.”

At the end of the day, if you follow the money, it’s not hard to see who this “invisible government” that so many have referred to is. One thing is quite clear, it doesn’t seem like they have too much concern for humanity or planet Earth. There is so much evidence showing that the global financial elite (various members of big politics, corporations, Hollywood, Royal Families, people in positions of great power, the Vatican, etc.) are engaged in some very psychopathic behaviour. But are you really surprised? Look at the world and its systems and all aspects that surround humanity… it’s truly a reflection of psychopathic ‘leaders.’ And it’s a reflection of us being totally oblivious to it as a result of mass brainwashing. Still, in many cases, we support and stand up for these systems, and accept no other way… We refuse to acknowledge things that any fairly intelligent person should be able to see with a bit of investigation.

This is why I felt the need to share the interview below of William Binney. Binney is a former high ranking intelligence official with the National Security Agency who turned whistleblower after more than 30 years with the agency. He blew the whistle, like Edward Snowden did, after 9/11 on the agency’s mass data collection and surveillance programs, along with J. Kirk Wiebe and Edward Loomis, two other employees at the agency.

Since then, he has been quite outspoken and has helped shed light on several other matters. He’s also stated that the NSA surveillance programs have nothing to do with keeping the population safe, but are rather means to further continue “total population control.” (source)

This would make sense, and it also corroborates with all of the evidence proving the connections between terrorist organizations and the government/military industrial complex, including evidence proving their involvement in the funding, support, and creation of these organizations. Despite all of this, they still claim to be “going after” the same terrorists they’re supporting in the name of democracy.

In the interview below, Binney also references the shadow government in regards to Julian Assange, the founder of Wikileaks, specifically regarding his recent arrest and detainment.

Below is a quote from the interview:

To me, this is simply a continuation of the takeover of the world by the shadow governments of the world and their relationships internationally. They’re always there, they don’t get voted in and out. They control all the information that gets fed to the president, for example, to make decisions. They can tailor what they want him him to do by focusing certain information to him and and keeping others away like shadow blocking. You don’t allow other opinions to get to him so that he doesn’t have the opportunity to see another view. They have most of the mainstream media under wraps and doing what they want them to do now, but it’s kind of like the nail in the coffin that says, ‘if you ever do something that exposes all the crimes we’re committing or any of the criminality that we’re doing behind the scenes, if you ever do that, we’ll get to you.’

In the interview he also mentions how they use “national security” as an excuse to do everything in secret, and how it’s become a name used to justify secrets that are very unethical and wrong.

And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. – JFK (source)

There is a lot of good food for thought, so be sure to check out the interview.

“The message is to everybody else in the world, either you conform to what we tell you to do, or we’ll do this to you.”

The Takeaway

The influence from the ‘secret government’ is exactly why we see so many Presidents speaking out against certain things during their campaigns, and then all of a sudden they do a one hundred eighty degree flip on their promises once they’re in office. Presidents, along with other politicians, are most likely blackmailed, extorted, brainwashed, or kept away from certain narratives and perspectives. Most of them have been nothing but puppets for the global elite. Some do this willingly, and others unknowingly. If one thing is true about global politics, it’s that what we are presented with is far from the truth with regards to what’s really going on behind the scenes.

You Can Help Stop The 5G Infrastructure

We plan to investigate the telecom industry, it’s ties to politics, and expose its efforts to push 5G while ignoring the dangers and without proper safety testing, but we can't do it without your support.

We've launched a funding campaign to fuel our efforts on this matter as we are confident we can make a difference and have a strong plan to get it done.

Check out our plan and join our campaign here.

Continue Reading

Alternative News

The Anatomy of Conspiracy Theories

Published

on

Whether you believe in conspiracy theories or not, we can all agree that the use of the term has exploded in media and in conversation. The question is, why? Are we now using the term “Conspiracy Theory” more indiscriminately and on more platforms than previously? Are we, as a society, simply becoming unhinged and absurd? Are seemingly nonsensical stories, for some unknown reason, starting to resonate with people? Or are some conventional narratives getting challenged because some of these “alternative” explanations are in fact accurate, despite the fact that conventional sources refuse to acknowledge them as even potentially valid? Notice that the last two possibilities are different sides of the same coin. If you think  “conspiracy theorists” are unhinged, it is highly likely that they are suspicious of your sanity as well. Both sides insist that they are right and that the other has been hoodwinked. Note that if you choose to not pick a side, you are, by default, allowing the conventional narrative to perpetuate. That is how convention works. 

Merriam-Webster defines the term conspiracy theory as “a theory that explains an event or situation as the result of a secret plan by usually powerful people or groups”. The key elements of this definition remain consistent across all authoritative lexicons: the group responsible for an event must be powerful and covert. However, if we refer to the Wikipedia definition as of 11/2018 a new element emerges: “A conspiracy theory is an explanation of an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy—generally one involving an illegal or harmful act supposedly carried out by government or other powerful actors—without credible evidence.”

When an explanation is labeled a “Conspiracy Theory,” by today’s definition, it has no evidence to support it. An explanation with no supporting evidence is a hypothesis, not a “theory.” “Conspiracy Theory,” as it is used today, is thus an oxymoron. These “Conspiracy Theories” we seem to hear about everyday should really be called “Conspiracy Hypotheses.” More concerning is that the “Conspiracy Theory” label identifies an explanation as inherently baseless. Given this linguistic construct, where is there room for a conspiracy that is in fact true?

There is also something troubling about using the term “credible” in the definition of conspiracy theory. Legally, evidence that is credible is that which a reasonable person would consider to be true in light of the surrounding circumstances. If evidence suggests an explanation that seems at the surface to be unreasonable, how does a reasonable person avoid automatically labeling the evidence not credible? If we are not careful, the credibility of the explanation and resultant conclusions would then determine the credibility of the evidence that supports it. Is this really so important? Perhaps you are quick to see that with this approach, our understanding of what is true and real can never evolve. If any evidence arose that radically disproved our understanding or eroded our faith in trusted institutions we would automatically discard it as “not credible” and remain entrenched in our accepted paradigm. “Credible” evidence cannot be a necessary requirement of a theory that challenges what is credible to begin with.

To better illustrate this, let us consider an old but very real “conspiracy theory.” About 400 years ago, European civilization was emerging from centuries of scientific and philosophical stagnation known as the dark ages. What more befitting a place for such a renaissance to occur than the center of the universe? You see, the idea that the Earth was one of eight planets revolving around a star that is orbiting the center of one of hundreds of billions of galaxies would have been absurd in Europe in the sixteenth century. Any sane person could see that the Sun and the Moon and every celestial body rises in the East and sets in the West. At that time, if someone went about proposing the idea that everything rises and falls because the Earth was spinning, they would have been laughed out of the tavern. Would that person be a conspiracy theorist? They are not proposing that “powerful actors are carrying out a harmful act,” they are merely suggesting an alternative explanation for what is observed. However, the implication of their suggestion seems to incriminate the authority on such matters as ignorant of the truth or, possibly, the perpetrators of a lie. The possibility of a conspiracy has now been introduced.

Now, let us say that this person claims to have proof of their absurd theory. Would you have taken the time to examine the evidence or would you have been more likely to dismiss them without further consideration? The very idea that they could be right would have been not just silly or heretical, but inconceivable to many, if not all. How could the evidence be credible if it implied something inconceivable? Dismissing their idea would have seemingly been the most logical and, therefore, the smartest thing to do.

advertisement - learn more

When Galileo Galilei appeared in 1610 armed with a rudimentary “telescope,” few would peer into it. He claimed that the refractive properties of the pair of “lenses” would allow you to see things at great distances very clearly. With it one could see Jupiter and its moons revolving around the giant planet just as our moon revolves around Earth. How enchanting! The difficulty would arise when you put the telescope down: your feet would no longer be planted on the previously immovable center of creation. Would you have looked into his telescope? What would have been the harm in taking a peek? Certainly the fear of being proven more gullible than most would have been on your mind. What about the fear that he might be right?

Imagine what must have been going through Galileo’s mind after his monumental discovery. He saw irrefutably that the entire model of the universe had been completely misconceived. One just has to look. Most did not. I can only imagine how hard he must have tried to convince anyone to simply stop, look and listen to what he had discovered. At the time, Galileo was the Chair of Mathematics at the University of Padua and had previously held the same post at the University of Pisa. Despite his bonafides and reputation as a solid contributor to the Italian renaissance, his discovery would likely have died in obscurity if it weren’t for the support of an influential family, the Medicis, who offered Galileo a platform from which he could spread his theory. It was only through allying himself with political power that he was able to slowly generate interest in his heliocentric model of the solar system. His proposition eventually caught the attention of the Catholic church, who initially warned him to desist. Eventually, he was brought to trial in the Roman Inquisition 23 years after his discovery. At the age of 70, the intrepid mathematician and astronomer was allowed to return home if he agreed to recant his story. Instead Galileo chose to spend the rest of his years in prison because he believed that that would be the only way to get people to open their eyes.

Did it work? It did not. Galileo died incarcerated while Europe continued to slumber under stars that moved around them. By today’s standards, Galileo would have been labeled a Conspiracy Theorist from the day he announced his findings until he was proven right fifty years after his death.  When the Principle of Gravitational Attraction eventually became widely accepted as true, the church had to retract their position because the motions of the stars and planets could not be explained under Newton’s laws. 

On the other hand, Galileo is credited with being the father of not only observational astronomy, but of the scientific method as well. The scientific method demands that one tests an explanation without bias towards an outcome. All data is considered before deductions are made. When all other explanations have been proven wrong, the only explanation remaining becomes a theory. The theory persists as long as all subsequent experiments continue to uphold it. This is how we ultimately know what we know and have an inkling of what we don’t. If I had to choose a posthumous title for myself, “The Father of the Scientific Method” is one I could die with. Galileo is credited with this honorific not only because he valued it more than his freedom, but because he had the discipline to regard evidence objectively despite how unimaginable the implications were. This is how a body of knowledge expands. By considering the validity of the evidence first, we then can accept what was previously unimaginable, otherwise what we know tomorrow will be no different than what we know today.

All conspiracy theorists are not Galileos. Neither are all conspiracy theories true. However, can we be certain that all of them are false? At their very core, all conspiracy theories directly or indirectly point at a central authority acting covertly and simultaneously at the media for either missing it or looking the other way. This, of course, is unimaginable, as we all know the government can make mistakes but would never do anything intentionally harmful to its citizens and then hide it. Even if they did, somebody would come forward and the media would let us know about it. This is why such a deception could never occur. The idea that your lover could be in bed with your best friend is inconceivable. Evidence of such a thing would not be credible. Dismissing all conspiracy theories seems logical and therefore seems like the smartest thing to do. 

In “Sapiens”, Yuval Harari proposes an explanation for why our species, Sapiens, out fought, out thought and out survived all other Homo species on the planet. He suggests that it was our unique ability to describe and communicate situations and events that had no basis in reality which set us apart. In other words, we could tell stories and they could not. By uniting under a common idea, story or even myth, thousands (and now thousands of millions) of Sapiens could come together with a shared purpose, identity or belief system to disband our cousins who were as individuals more sturdy and just as cunning but not nearly as good at cooperating as we were. This advantage, Harari proposes, has not only led our species to eventual supremacy over all others, but has also allowed us to form communities, governments and global alliances. 

Siding with the majority has served us well–until it hasn’t. One only needs to revisit the history of Galileo and basic astronomy to understand this. In actuality, the first observant minds woke up to the fact that the Earth went around the sun and not the other way round nineteen centuries before Galileo did. The Greek mathematician, Aristarcus, is thought to be the first Western person to place the Sun in the middle of a “solar system” in 270 BC. A human being traveled to the moon just 360 years after Galileo “discovered” what Aristarcus had shown nearly two millennia before. How many centuries was this journey delayed because an alternative explanation in ancient Greece became a “conspiracy theory” against authority and convention?

This poses an intriguing question. Is there something hardwired in our behavioral patterns that push us towards conformist narratives and away from alternative ones at a precognitive level? Is it this tendency that gave rise to our enhanced ability to unite that keeps us in “group-think” more than we should be? How do we know we are looking at the world objectively and rejecting alternative belief systems from a purely rational basis? How does one know whether one is biased or not?

One way is to apply the scientific method. The scientific method demands that every possibility, no matter how outlandish, is tested for its veracity and dismissed only when it can be proven wrong. Without this objective pursuit of truth, misconceptions can persist indefinitely, just as the geocentric model of the universe did. Interestingly, Aristarcus was allowed to retain his theory because he lived at a time and place where philosophers, mathematicians and scientists were revered, protected and free to pursue their notions. The freedom ancient Greek society afforded its scientists only endured for a few centuries after Aristarcus lived. In Galileo’s day, the Roman Catholic church had been presiding over such things as facts for well over a thousand years. His incontrovertible proof was suppressed by the power that had the most to lose.

These days, establishing the facts of the matter may not be as easy as we presume. Conspiracy theorists claim to have proof just like the debunkers do. How do we know that the proof offered on either side is valid? Who has the time to apply the scientific method? It certainly seems safer to go with the conventional narrative because surely there are more rational minds in a larger group. Though it seems a reasonable approach, it may be in fact where we misstep. By deferring to others, we assume the majority will arrive at the truth eventually. The problem is that those in the majority who are trained to examine evidence objectively often must take a potentially career-ending risk to even investigate an alternative explanation. Why would an organization be willing to invest the resources to redirect their scientific staff to chase down and evaluate evidence that will likely endanger their reputation with the public without any upside? Thus, conventional narratives survive for another day, or in the case of an Earth-centered universe, for a couple of thousand years.

Whether or not you are not a “conspiracy theorist” we can all agree that there is a possibility, however slight, that some conventional narratives could be wrong. How would we know? Is there a source that we can trust 100%? Must we rely on our own wits? A short inquiry into this question can be disquieting. Most of us must admit that our understanding of history, science and geopolitics are merely stories that we have been told by people, institutions or media that we trust explicitly or implicitly. Because most of us are not authorities on anything, it would be impossible to overturn any conventional narrative with an evidentiary argument. Challenging these paradigms is necessarily left to others. Generally speaking, there is no real reason to argue with convention if everything is seemingly unfolding acceptably. But what if you wanted to know for yourself ? Is there any way to ever really know the truth without having to have faith in someone or something else?

There may not be. However, it is also naive to believe that if someone, scientist or not, was in possession of evidence that challenged our deepest held beliefs that it would take root in the ethos on its own. Galileo enjoyed unsurpassed credibility as one of Italy’s foremost mathematicians. He also possessed irrefutable, verifiable and reproducible evidence for his revolutionary theory, yet the convention he was challenging did not crumble through his discoveries. History has shown us that it makes no difference how valid a point is; truth emerges only when someone is listening

So, rather than seeking to independently validate or refute what we are being told, it becomes more productive to ask a different question: How biased is our society by historical standards? How does our society regard alternative theories? Do we let them co-exist with convention as the ancient Greeks did? Do we collectively invest resources to investigate them openly? Or do we dismiss, attack and vilify them as was done in the papal states in Galileo’s time? Which kind of society is more likely to get it right? Which runs the greater risk of being hoodwinked in the long run? Which is more free?

You Can Help Stop The 5G Infrastructure

We plan to investigate the telecom industry, it’s ties to politics, and expose its efforts to push 5G while ignoring the dangers and without proper safety testing, but we can't do it without your support.

We've launched a funding campaign to fuel our efforts on this matter as we are confident we can make a difference and have a strong plan to get it done.

Check out our plan and join our campaign here.

Continue Reading

Alternative News

US House of Representatives Investigating if the Government Created Lyme Disease As A Bioweapon

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    A New Jersey lawmaker suggests the government turned ticks and insects into bioweapons to spread disease, and possibly released them. He is not the only one who believes so.

  • Reflect On:

    This is not the only example of supposed human experimentation on mass populations by the government

There are a number of subjects that were once considered ‘conspiracy theories,’ which are now no longer in that realm. ‘Conspiracy theories’ usually, in my opinion, arise from credible evidence. The implications, however, are so grand and so mind-altering that many may experience some sort of cognitive dissonance as a result. One of the topics often deemed a ‘conspiracy theory’ is weaponized diseases, and the latest example comes from an approved amendment that was proposed by a Republican congressman from New Jersey. His name is Chris Smith, and he instructed the Department of Defence’s Inspector General to conduct a review on whether or not the US “experimented with ticks and insects regarding use as a biological weapon between the years of 1950 and 1975” and “whether any ticks or insects used in such experiment were released outside of any laboratory by accident or experiment design.”

The fact that Smith brought this up shows that any intelligent person who actually looks into this has reason to believe it’s a possibility, yet mainstream media outlets are ridiculing the idea, calling it a conspiracy instead of actually bringing up the points that caused Smith to demand the review.

The fact that the amendment was approved by a vote in the House speaks volumes. Smith said that the amendment was inspired by “a number of books and articles suggesting that significant research had been done at US government facilities including Fort Detrick, Maryland, and Plum Island, New York, to turn ticks and insects into bioweapons”.

Most people don’t know that the US government has experimented on its own citizens a number of times. All of this is justified for “national security” purposes. National security has always been a term used as an excuse to prolong secrecy, justify the government’s lack of transparency, and create black budget programs that have absolutely no oversight from Congress.

For example, on September 20, 1950, a US Navy ship just off the coast of San Francisco used a giant hose to spray a cloud of microbes into the air and into the city’s famous fog. The military was apparently testing how a biological weapon attack would affect the 800,000 residents of the city.The people of San Francisco had absolutely no idea. The Navy continued the tests for seven days, and multiple people died as a result. It was apparently one of the first large-scale biological weapon trials that would be conducted under a “germ warfare testing program” that went on for 20 years from 1949 to 1969. The goal “was to deter [the use of biological weapons] against the United States and its allies and to retaliate if deterrence failed,” the government later explained. Then again, that’s if you trust the explanation coming from the government.

This could fall under the category of human subject research. It’s still happening! A dozen classified programs that involved research on human subjects were underway last year at the Department of Energy. Human subject research refers broadly to the collection of scientific data from human subjects. This could involve performing physical procedures on the subjects or simply conducting interviews and having other forms of interaction with them. It could even involve procedures performed on entire populations, apparently without their consent.

advertisement - learn more

Human subjects research erupted into national controversy 25 years ago with reporting by Eileen Welsome of the Albuquerque Tribune on human radiation experiments that had been conducted by the Atomic Energy Commission, many of which were performed without the consent of the subjects. A presidential advisory committee was convened to document the record and to recommend appropriate policy responses.

When it comes to Lyme disease, the Guardian points out that:

A new book published in May by a Stanford University science writer and former Lyme sufferer, Kris Newby, has raised questions about the origins of the disease, which affects 400,000 Americans each year.

Bitten: The Secret History of Lyme Disease and Biological Weapons, cites the Swiss-born discoverer of the Lyme pathogen, Willy Burgdorfer, as saying that the Lyme epidemic was a military experiment that had gone wrong.

Burgdorfer, who died in 2014, worked as a bioweapons researcher for the US military and said he was tasked with breeding fleas, ticks, mosquitoes and other blood-sucking insects, and infecting them with pathogens that cause human diseases.

According to the book, there were programs to drop “weaponised” ticks and other bugs from the air, and that uninfected bugs were released in residential areas in the US to trace how they spread. It suggests that such a scheme could have gone awry and led to the eruption of Lyme disease in the US in the 1960s.

This is concerning. It’s a story that, for some reason, instantly reminded me of the MK ultra program, where human subjects were used for mind control research.

If things like this occurred in the past, it’s hard to understand why someone would deem the possibility of this happening again a ‘conspiracy theory.’ What makes one think this wouldn’t be happening again, especially given the fact that there is sufficient evidence suggesting it is?

Lyme disease is also very strange. If you did get it, you probably wouldn’t know immediately – unless you’re one of the chronic sufferers that have had to visit over 30 doctors to get a proper diagnosis. Lyme disease tests are highly inaccurateoften inconclusive or indicating false negatives.

Why? Because this clever bacteria has found a way to dumb down the immune system and white blood cells so that it’s not detectable until treatment is initiated. To diagnose Lyme disease properly you must see a “Lyme Literate MD (LLMD).” However, more and more doctors are turning their backs on patients due to sheer fear of losing their practices! Insurance companies and the CDC will do whatever it takes to stop Chronic Lyme Disease from being diagnosed, treated, or widely recognized as an increasingly common issue.

You can read more about that here.

The Takeaway

It’s becoming more apparent that our government as well as our federal health regulatory agencies are extremely corrupt. There are a number of examples to choose from throughout history proving this. The fact that something like this doesn’t seem believable to the public is ridiculous and further enhances and prolongs the ability for the powerful elite and the government to continue conducting these activities. Awareness is key.

You Can Help Stop The 5G Infrastructure

We plan to investigate the telecom industry, it’s ties to politics, and expose its efforts to push 5G while ignoring the dangers and without proper safety testing, but we can't do it without your support.

We've launched a funding campaign to fuel our efforts on this matter as we are confident we can make a difference and have a strong plan to get it done.

Check out our plan and join our campaign here.

Continue Reading
advertisement - learn more
advertisement - learn more

Video

Pod