I Am A Conspiracy Theorist

10/06/202091 Comments

Watch on Archive / BitChute / LBRY / Minds / YouTube

If you are afraid of being called a conspiracy theorist, then those words are having their intended effect. I will not censor myself to appeal to the Normie McNormiesons of the world. Yes, sometimes I theorize about conspiracies. And guess what? So do you! Now let’s discuss some evidence, shall we?

SHOW NOTES:
CIA Dispatch 1036-960

The “C” word

Shut Up, Conspiracy Theorist!

Shut Up, Burglary Theorist!

Interview 1581 – James Corbett Breaks Down the Great Reset

Filed in: Videos
Tagged with:

Comments (91)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. seth.w.h says:

    I am a Conspiracy Theorist. You will be too.. When they come for you.

  2. tzanne says:

    Having been identified, with a sneer, by friends and family as a conspiracy theorist many times, I accepted the intended insult with this response – since you embrace the maim stream explanation then you are BRAINWASHED.

  3. adgb says:

    By all means, let’s embrace the designation “conspiracy theorist!”

    Early in the lockdown, while searching online for the truth of what was happening, I began to run across articles about topics I’d vaguely heard about but never given much attention to. I’d simply dismissed them as ‘conspiracy theories’ without further thought. Exactly as James said in this video, just the hint that an idea might be a “conspiracy theory” was enough to turn me away. I liked thinking of myself as an intelligent, stable individual who didn’t entertain ‘crazy’ ideas.

    But in that ‘covid moment’ — on lockdown, alone with the internet, and anxious to learn the truth, I kept digging and reading. I was surprised to discover that much of what I’d dismissed as ‘conspiracy theory’ was indeed ‘conspiracy FACT’ — facts that had been painstakingly discovered, in some cases over decades of research, by persistent seekers who presented their findings for others to consider. Discovering the Corbett Report — and particularly James’ Show Notes section– was a giant breakthrough. I was blown away to discover actual documents, video footage, scholarly articles and more, often dating back decades, that backed up what might, on the surface, have seemed a ‘crazy’ idea. Wow. What a gift!

    My worldview is changing radically as I absorb this “new” information. At one point I worried that I was becoming a ‘conspiracy theorist’ myself. Now, six months in, I’m in awe of the sheer amount of genuine information available and deeply grateful to all those who have done the work of collecting and preserving it.

  4. Ian Davis says:

    Excellent stuff James and heartening to see. I couldn’t agree more. We have to “own it.”

    I have been trying to articulate this for a while. We cannot avoid having the label applied so the only question is how we deal with it. Perhaps if we deal with it effectively we can flip the pejorative interpretation on its head.

    Nice one.

    https://in-this-together.com/conspiracy-theorist-confesses/

    • WAYNED says:

      That’s a direct hit. Yes, time to reverse the propaganda, by propagating the truth.

    • Libertydan says:

      Indeed, we must turn the contrived definition of “Conspiracy Theory”on it’s head. As a Hard Science and Math Major, I have come to accept many “Theories” of which both Math and Science are built. Thus, I say (to those Normies), yes, I have a Theory (actually many of them), based on facts about the Events of 9/11/01. Let’s start with the collapse of WTC Building #7 that fell at free-fall speed onto it’s own foundation. Oh! It turns out that most Normies don’t even know that there was a Building #7, to which I reply; If you don’t know anything about Building #7 you have not looked into the Events of 9/11/01 at all. Indeed, the Collapse of Building #7 has been censored from Main Stream Media, but the mere fact that these people know nothing of it puts them on the defensive. In other words, I say to the Normy; See what you can find out about the collapse of WTC Building #7 and then we can have an intelligent discussion. I direct them to http://WWW.AE911Truth.org where over 3300 Professional Architects and Engineers have proven the Governments Stories about the Events of 9/11/01 to be false.
      Indeed, all they have to do is open their mind as seek the truth, but they remain blind because they refuse to see. Devil worshiping Societies have deceived them, by way of repetitious propaganda, that Truth Seekers are bad.
      The net result is Normies accept the false premise that “the Truth doesn’t matter”, and thus fall into the Spell of the Evil ones.
      Indeed, I have some Theories, and they do involve collaborating entities which would like to remain in the shadows. The reason why the Deceivers go to such lengths to condemn Truth Seekers/Conspiracy Theorists is because we are their greatest threat, and we should be proud of that.

  5. Libertydan says:

    “Conspiracy Theorist”, Indeed, and one of the best, I might add, eh!
    James has done a great job of uncovering “Conspirators”, like the, Council on Foreign Relations (a Rockefeller creation of 1923), Trilateral Commission (another Rockefeller creation, 1971), Buildenberg Group, Skull and Bones, and so many others which overlap in the sense that key players of World Events are members of many collaborating Societies.
    I “Postulate” (base my Theory on), that “Secret Societies” (like Skull and Bones) are the most dangerous of these Conspirators. Given that JFK publicly exposed the dangers of Secret Societies (Conspirators), and that former CIA Director George Bush Sr. was a member of Skull and Bones, along with CFR, TLC, and the Builderberg Group, I would say that he was deeply involved in the Events of 9/11/01. Note George Bush Jr. was third generation Skull and Bones, but not a member of the other groups, while Dick Cheney was a member of CFR, TLC, and the Buildenberg group. Thus, we became aware that on the day of the Events of 9/11/01, Dick Cheney was in the Basement of the White House running the show, while, Skull and Bonesman, George Bush Jr. was in a Grade School Class Room, where he would have Plausible Deniability. If things went wrong Dick Cheney would be the fall guy (not the Skull and Bonesman).
    I think it’s time to take a closer look at these Devil Worshiping Secret Societies and thus weed them out.
    PS. At 9:38 I saw a fish jump out of the water. Looks like a good place to fish. If I had a 7 year old son, I think I would buy him a fishing pole, eh!

  6. cu.h.j says:

    I like the video. It’s tough to go against subconscious reactions and humans are social and the natural inclination towards being in communities and being accepted seemingly is put at risk. That’s the implied meaning of the label that a person is “crazy or dangerous or bad” and they will be shunned and alone. Another term is “denier” in reference to people who question the man-made climate change agenda or who question other things like the Covid pandemic and this also has a huge effect on the psyche. It may discourage people from looking closer, the desired effect.

    This also refers to people who question germ theory, or viruses, or whatever. I think it’s wrong to shut down speech and investigation. I think it’s always good to look into the evidence and come to one’s own conclusions and not shun people.

    Kids experience shunning in the form of bullying at least I have and it’s not a nice feeling. Even though this was years ago, I still remember the pain.

    How do you not care about the words? That’s tough. I guess it’s about having to respect yourself more than you care about the acceptance by others and that’s hard for some individuals.

    Also, there will be others that agree or accept you regardless, and taking the risk is better than staying quiet or remaining ignorant.

  7. WAYNED says:

    I have recently had exactly this kind of interaction, and when someone said half-heartedly “I understand some of the conspiracy theories…” I said that “conspiracy theory” is a perfectly valid term as most crimes would count as conspiracies, as generally there is more than one person involved. It was used by the CIA to stop investigation into the Kennedy Assassination, and has been useful to them ever since. I add that the 9/11 report, of which the heads said they were set up to fail, amounts to an outlandish conspiracy theory that studiously avoids facts. So it’s very useful to get people to stop talking to one another about serious problems, like the current COVID.

    • Libertydan says:

      WAYNED makes a good point. Indeed, it is Very Useful to get people to stop talking to one another about serious problems, like the current COVID.

      Do you think requiring everyone to wear a Mask and stay at least 6 feet apart might impair intellectual discussion?
      What about being able to detect when a cell phone of a know “Conspiracy Theorist” comes withing 6 feet of another cell phone, and is within 6 feet long enough to actually have a conversation. It turns out that they can turn on either cell phone and start recording. Wow, what a way to stop a “Virus” from spreading, eh!
      Given that this technology is actually being used (to reduce the spread of the Virus, of coarse), it is within the realm of logical thinking that the unscrupulously obtained recordings could be used as a way of identifying who to target with counter intelligence. Indeed, if a known Conspiracy Theorist like myself, which they know is one nut they will never crack, has a cell phone that gets within 6 feet of another person carrying a cell phone and it is there for some time, it can be concluded that the person (perhaps standing in line with me) was infected with one of my well thought out Conspiracy Theories and thus must be fed more propaganda in order to keep them Deceived.
      Any way, That’s my latest “Conspiracy Theory”

  8. MagicBullet says:

    I tell people who call me a conspiracy theorist that they probably don’t know that the 1978 US Senate Committee on Assassinations concluded that both JFK and MLK were deemed to be assassinated as a result of a conspiracy and it’s on a US .gov official web page:
    https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-report

    Upon hearing this and my telling them to look it up, or showing them the page, usually makes them stammer and stutter and they have no way to debunk anything with me further. It will not wake sleepers up, however, and while James’ advice to ask “what is your theory?” is nice, it won’t wake up many people either…

    • MagicBullet says:

      Just to add some current news
      CNN didn’t notice they posted a backfiring propaganda vid:
      https://edition.cnn.com/2020/09/26/us/ohio-woman-tased-football-game-mask-trnd/index.html

      Mother is outside with no one around her watching son in game. Ohio has law for persons at schools to wear masks, but not if you have a respiratory illness exemption like asthma as she has and she now has a lawyer barking back at the school. The law and the tazeher-crazer enforcers look like psychos and the mother looks terribly victimized. I could ad that there have never been any laws, or even recommendations for masks when watching indoor basketball games during the flu season.

      I think CNN shoots their usual fear-Covid mantra in the foot with this one, or just maybe there is an anti-masker lurking in the newsroom who slipped this one in.

    • mkey says:

      We should not assume that everyone is prone to being woken up. In fact, I’d guess that many would rather die than realize the truth. Or even realize the lie without knowing the truth.

  9. robert.t says:

    Don’t know when I became a C-theorist. Maybe it was doubts about how the towers fell, doubts which I put out of my mind but which may have left tracks.

    Before that, I remember feeling slight surprise at the phenomenal kill-and-wound rate of the Port Arthur shooting. (Not even Arnie or Bruce can kill like a backward Tasmanian youth who has trouble with door-locks and shoelaces.) But again, I put the doubt from my mind. I never weighed the steak, just bought the sizzle. Like a good boy.

    Now I weigh.

    My fave definition of a C-theorist is someone who does not accept the official theory within six hours and does not accept the official explanation within twelve. If there is one trait which is both god-given and science-based, it’s doubt. It’s not what separates us from the animals, because the animals have it too. It’s what separates us from a wooden plank or a rock.

    I may have multiple PhDs (written in Sanskrit), a Blackfin 38 Sport Diesel for fishing and a scratch handicap on my own course…yet if I give my belief and attention to the media it profiteth me nothing. I am become as a plank. I am made rock.

    In my youth I had a ridiculous job as supervisor of a catch-your-own trout tank. There was always a trout left who had survived a few hookings and would not bite, despite increasing hunger.

    I want to be that trout.

    • pearl says:

      “I want to be that trout.”

      Me too.

      I always look forward to your comments – you’ve got a wonderful way with words.

    • manbearpig says:

      A comment for Champions!

      Let them be “Kil-gore”

      and you be Trout!

      who doesn’t bite…

      and maybe one day, hungry as you are, you’ll earn a Breakfast of Champions!

      ok scratch that… just a little Tuesday night fun… After using and abusing my authority status as The English Teacher (and trouted as being the renowned Company Conspiracy Theorist) to push the story of the greatest miscalculation in Human history…

      Actually, just wanted to say I really enjoyed your metaphor… even if was a bit fishy… (ok, I know, I know, My Cod! I’m floundering here! Eel quit now…) pfffffft…!

    • debra.b says:

      If I may, I’ll entirely echo pearl. 🙂

      p.s. Haha! Clever manbearpig, Way clever! 😉

  10. dregeye says:

    I no longer use Facebook, but here is a post of mine from October 5, 2018:

    Tin-foil-hat-conspiracy-theory?
    Ah, yes, how to strip the public of critical thinking skills while simultaneously implanting defense-avoidance programming.
    A “Faraday cage*” is akin to a tin-foil-hat and effectively shields the interior from invasive external electromagnetic radiation. “law-enforcement” and other gov’t agencies have been using them all along.
    Invented in 1836. Yes, 182 YEARS ago.
    A recent documentary “The Minds Of Men**” extensively reveals the development of invasive remote access devices for manipulation of mental processes.
    Which brings us to “conspiracy-theory” which is a term that, in spite of the ubiquitous evidence of persons “conspiring” in practically every human endeavor, has been co-opted to DIS-credit any belief or awareness of ‘two or more people working together to bring about a particular outcome,’ which is the definition of “conspiracy***”.
    To speculate on and investigate “two or more people working together” IS the task of any and all who desire to understand the what, how, where and why of anything that was, is or will be happening.
    The point of DIScrediting these essential methods of protection and investigation is to keep us VULNERABLE to manipulation and IGNORANT of dangers.
    When told, ” Don’t wear that (tin-foil) hat and don’t think two or more people can work together (against you) because that makes you a “Tin-foil-hat-conspiracy-theorist”.” know that THAT person is NOT your friend.
    The EVIDENCE says we ARE vulnerable, that a tin-foil-hat (Faraday bag or cage) IS effective protection, that two or more people ARE conspiring against us and WE must conspire with others to investigate and understand the what, how, where and why of anything that was, is or will be happening that may have a detrimental impact on our lives.
    * Faraday cage: http&//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_cage
    ** The Minds Of Men: https&//www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQucESRF3Sg
    *** conspiracy: https&//en.wiktionary.org/wiki/conspiracy#Noun

    I have replaced the [:] that follows [http] with [&] to avoid the lag in post>display. Also, the ‘sources’ Wikipedia and Wiktionary have now been revealed to be questionable/flexible in their credibility and, although the unaltered “The Minds of Men” video is excellent, YouTube is not, and regularly alters and/or removes content.
    Yes, these are observable manipulations by Wikis & u2b, i.e.: conspiracy facts.
    btw, this ‘post’ got one “like” in these 2 years.

    • mkey says:

      I could have almost heard crickets reading your “post”.

    • Jed says:

      That reminds me of driving from Nassau County into Queens County, NY. It’s all potholes, your shocks and tires are shot to hell fast. You KnoW wHen yoU’ve cRossed the cItY line WiTH yoUR eyEs closed. Glad I don’t live there anymore.

  11. lovetodust says:

    We were having somewhat of the same conversation on the comment board of Offgaurdian last week.

    I feel the same as James was talking about in the video.

    I suddenly thought one day recently, that instead of getting defensive about the term “Conspiracy Theorist”, I would embrace it. Why not?

    So now should people hike up the eyebrow and ask “Are you a conspiracy theorist?”

    “Absolutely!”
    “You bet your life”
    “Yes, and it’s natural, not out of a bottle”
    “On my mother’s side. My father’s side is Irish”
    “Yes. I converted”
    “Yes, by marriage”
    “Yes. I came out in my late fifties”

    OK,enough. I’m sure you all have your own retorts.

    I say embrace.

  12. NorthernBean says:

    In James Corbett’s ” Message to New ‘Conspiracy Theorists’,” I made a comment about calling myself, alternatively, a ‘historical analyst or investigator’–or some such–as we work towards reclaiming the very legitimate term of ‘conspiracy theorist’. Upon reflection, after listening to this video, I have come to agree with James, let’s force that reclamation immediately. I will now brazenly, assertively and proudly call myself a ‘conspiracy theorist’ [note: single quotation mark appropriate for its grammatical role in this sentence as a term of reference, not the insinuating double quotation marks]. Here is a summary that I sketched out for your critique or improvement.

    A TAXONOMY OF CONSPIRACY THEORISTS AND THE CATEGORIES OF THE ILLEGITIMATE, THE ANTI-HOAXERS, CONSPIRATORS AND THEIR COEVER-UP OPERATIVES AS WELL AS THE UNCRITICAL AND UNSTABLE.

    The four categories are described in further detail: 

    (1) People who rationally, intelligently, and courageously ask evidence-based questions about historical events and political affairs.  These people are eager to return to the simple, phenomenological facts without conjectural theorizing, recognizing that there is greater confidence in former.  This does not vitiate, however, the need to eventually ask, “Who knew what and when did they know it?  Who acted and who directed the actions?”

    (2) People who fear losing social approval and acceptance and will reflexively yield to the slightest peer-pressure.  These same people will gullibly or cynically adopt official conspiracy theories, no matter how ridiculous.  Some of the diagnostic signs that people of gullible dismissers are people who will will act annoyed at continuing the conversation, seek to unnaturally end the conversation because they “gotta go” or who will of a sudden state that they are “busy.”   Conspiracy gulliblists will attempt to intimidate the rational theorist with implications of paranoia.  They will employ smirks; slight, sideways stares and pauses before replying with insinuating disbelief.  Gulliblists frequently use backwards validation. and other tropes such as, “there’s no new evidence,” “it would be impossible to cover-up keep so many people quiet,” “the size of the cover-up that would be required would be too large,” and “there are so many conspiracy theories, none of them are worth thinking about.”  These individuals are mentally lazy and often are compromised by addictive habits or illegitimate, past activities that they would not want scrutinized or exposed.  these people style themselves as “anti-hoaxers,” and they want to create an environment that discourages scrutinizing.  

    (3) Mentally or intellectually unstable individuals incapable of reliable, critical reasoning. These are the implied or expressed referents of those in category (4), who want to discredit, by fallacious association, the practice of scrutinizing historical narratives, official accounts, investigations into corruption or news stories about wrong doing.

    (4) Operatives who publicly release, or clandestinely leaked, limited hangouts, or who intentionally seed stories, typically with half-truths mixed with entrapping falsehoods to camouflage or poison a genuine body of facts, or who fabricate entire space-alien, Reptilian or other absurdities as false examples to be ridiculed for the purpose of broad-brush smearing legitimate investigatory questioning by the public, that is, the Citizens proper.

  13. pearl says:

    Had to transcribe this excellent nugget from the video beginning at 10:20. I simply can’t relate to the person who refuses to see it:

    Oops, I guess it was all a big mistake; we didn’t need to lockdown. Sorry for shutting down the world economy, taking things over, monopolizing, consolidating, control in the hands of fewer people, digitalizing the economy, moving forward with the great reset and the green new deal, and everything that we have been openly talking about for years. Sorry for that. We’re not going to stop it, but Oops! It was based on a mistake and thank you for showing us the charts and figures and data and calmly explaining in a reasonable way why we were wrong (we’re never going to acknowledge that, we’re never going to change course), but anyway, at least you didn’t get into “conspiracy theorizing” and didn’t accuse anyone of actually doing anything.

    Yes, by all means, disregard the screamers.

    • debra.b says:

      This reminds me of the 5 min 9/11 video. I can picture the accompanying images running through my head. I hear the witty undertone.

      • Fawlty Towers says:

        Yes it does.
        I suggested a few months ago that James do a new 5-minute ‘9/11 conspiracy theory’ type video, this time applied to the plandemic.

        Even now, 7 months into the scam it’s almost guaranteed to be a viral hit! 🙂

  14. biek says:

    My conspiracy theory is this:. Bill Gates talks about reducing population, including by seizing people out of their homes and disappearing them. It is not about control as such, it is about reducing population.

    In the UK there is now a traffic lights app for your smartphone which declares areas to be green, orange and red.

    Take it a few months down the road, a fraught, suffering population fed up of lockdowns and martial law and with near or actual famine. People are divided into factions, some believing this, some that. Unemployed people have been conscripted to be Blackshirts and paramilitaries.

    Squads get sent into ‘red areas’ to seize people out of their homes and transported elsewhere .

    The scene is thus set to kill off the ‘useless mouths’, meaning the pensioners , the disabled and the indigent …

    ‘Useless mouths’ is a term that is used by the elites.

  15. scpat says:

    Here is a conversation between James and Scott a few years ago. What James said in this video about being viewed as a conspiracy theorist reminded me of this.

    Interview 1296 – Scott Horton on The Fool’s Errand in Afghanistan

    Start at 16:37

    https://www.corbettreport.com/interview-1296-scott-horton-on-the-fools-errand-in-afghanistan/

    I used to listen to Scott Horton’s interviews compulsively a few years ago. He truly does a great service by spreading the anti-war message and being able to deconstruct exactly why war is a racket. He is a wealth of knowledge.

    However, not to pick on Scott too much, but while I was in the period of listening to him on a daily basis, I noticed that he would often stand on the idea that he was speaking from the real-life, hard facts, truth-based, non-conspiratorial point of view. When he would make a point about an issue that was borderline mainstream/conspiratorial, he would justify it by emphatically saying, with a condescending tone, that he absolutely WAS NOT a conspiracy theorist.

    It seemed like Scott was saying this to convince himself and anyone else listening that he was in the sanity-based world and what he had to say was legitimate. So, to make a long story short, it was obvious that the term “conspiracy theorist” and the negative associations that go along with it, had an impact on him and was always in the back of his mind. Scott is one example, but there are, like James said, others who approach truth through this lens of mainstream acceptance.

  16. Alchemist says:

    A conspiracy theory has no legitimacy, because it is not supported by evidence. When there are piles of evidence, it’s no longer a theory. Therefor owning a label that is inaccurate doesn’t make sense to me.

    That said, I think we should own the label “anti-vaxxer” and I’ve been saying that for a long time. Sure, there are some vaccine sceptics who haven’t done enough research yet to be fully anti-vax, but those who have done the research should own that label proudly!

    • NorthernBean says:

      I have to respectfully disagree, Alchemist. There is a lot of misunderstanding regarding terms like ‘theory’ and ‘hypothesis’. Hypotheses are creatively posed speculations (a term for good ideas) regarding specific mechanisms (science, engineering, business) or relations (law, criminal justice, history) or diagnoses (medicine). Theories are integrative, organizing explanations that link multiple levels of explanation. So, in science, that would mean unifying and explanatory concepts that–say–link and agree at the molecular, organismal and population level. In detective work, a good theory would link bank accounts, hearsay evidence, ballistics, timelines for suspects and events, DNA forensics and other laboratory, video camera recordings, and so on. These kinds of explanations, because such multi-level-network nature of objects and events, would be hard to explain by accident or alternative suspects. So theories are very solid things in science. law and history. That is what should be held in mind when people refer to a theory. Can a theory be disproven? Technically, yes, though it is much easier to rule out a hypothesis. Once an idea has reached the theory stage, the scientists usually have it pretty well worked out. From that point, it is usually improved by additions. For instance, Paul Dirac, Richard Feynman and Murray Gell-Mann improved upon the formerly separate theories of Relativity and Quantum Theory but showing mathematically how the two theories could work together. That is not really disproving, it is enhancing greatly.

      • Alchemist says:

        You make a good point. But when a theory has to do with accusing others of wrongdoing, I do think you need strong evidence to back your claims before presenting your theories as truth. It’s assumed that detectives (and investigative journalists) follow through until the truth is found. The term “conspiracy theorist” insinuates that the truther movement is based on speculation; which is inaccurate.

        Regarding the Covid hoax, I guess I am a conspiracy theorist;) but I don’t act like I know everything about what’s happening right now, because it’s too soon to say. At this point, we can only speculate.

        • cu.h.j says:

          I think what we do know is summarized nicely in this video. That is enough to conclude that these lockdowns and any vaccines need to stop. There should also be a criminal investigation of all the participants in this scam that has cost people’s lives and livelihoods.

          This Covid scam, like 911 is criminal and people should be thrown in jail for perpetrating this on us. I know that for a fact.

        • NorthernBean says:

          Alchemist. Thanks. I think I must not have made it clear enough. And again, the lay public does have misconceptions about what a theory is and how the word should be used. I need to remember that, so your discussing this with me has great value. Theory to a scientist does not carry with it any sense of diminution or a suspicious quality to it. For instance, for a scientist (and it should also be true for a well-educated lawyer or physician, or engineer), the phrase, “it is only a theory…” does not make sense. A theory is not the result of mere, careless conjecture. Indeed, if you are accusing someone of something in public, you better darn well have substantial evidence—that is why there are anti-defamation laws (in private, or with your attorney, or a reporter talking to his editor—it is a different story). So theories ARE the stage at why one has solid evidence. Perhaps you might re-read my previous post. I think the words that you might be looking for when someone is simply shooting from the hip are terms like ‘conjecture’, ‘speculation’ or maybe in some cases, one has a ‘hunch’. These are important steps. None of these words need imply anything inadequate” as long as the investigator continues to do his or her homework. Indeed, good detectives, scientists, lawyers and scholars absolutely need to start with hunches, guesses, conjectures and then try to–with hard work and accumulating evidence–formulate a good hypothesis. From there, solid theories get built. In science, one never really get’s to capital-T “Truth.” In courts of law–eh–yes you can sometimes get at the truth, but often not (trust me). History, there it is really hard because there are so many “Dystorians.” (Will you allow me to get away with making up a new word?). Thanks again, Alchemist.

      • cu.h.j says:

        The word theory has different uses. In science, a theory usually has facts to back it up or evidence to suggest the hypothesis is accurate. Sometimes is used to mean speculation, but not aways.

        Here is Webster’s definition:https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory

        • NorthernBean says:

          Hello c.u.hj. I looked up the link to a Merriam-Webster definition. I will admit to you that I have never been very impressed with that dictionary. I just looked it up in the 1969 version of the American Heritage Dictionary. the 1st and second entries, especially the first, is excellent. Remember, the lexicographers do have to give some room in their listing of usages for how words are used in technical senses (and perhaps in different technical communities) as well as how a word may be used in more pedestrian settings. I tell you, lexicography is no easy business—blood has been spilt throughout history on words getting into dictionaries. You an I do not need to get into a dictionary-throwing contest about this. We are just having fun now. (CONT. below so I do not violate James’ 500-word rule.)

          • NorthernBean says:

            (CONT. Northernbean’s reply to c.u.hj.) Here are a few of the alternative definitions included in that Merriam-Webster definition of ‘theory’that I must say I completely disagree with:

            “b: an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory
            in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all
            3a: a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation
            b: an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE

            5: abstract thought : SPECULATION”

            The other entries I can tolerate, but this version of Websters does not do a good job of ordering the definitions. (CONT. below.)

            • NorthernBean says:

              (CONT. Northernbean to c.u.h.j.) Here is AHD’s 1st definition: “Systematically organized knowledge applicable in a relatively wide variety of circumstances, especially a system of assumptions, accepted principles and rules of procedure devised to analyze, predict or otherwise explain the nature or behavior of a specified act or phenomenon.” That is all I expect from a dictionary and it is a pretty good definition for general purposes. I do believe that folks here are ready for more precision in order to arm oneself even better in wrestling with this issue of how the term ‘conspiracy theory’ is a captured, abused and weaponized term. I believe that that discussion that I provided at comment 10-7-2020 at 2:21 p.m. in response to Alchemist should serve you all pretty well in your discussions with friends. I believe that what I am giving you there is even a bit better than the AHD definition giver here. I have had to put lots of thought into this for almost 40 years, a topic frequently dealt with when teaching college students about the meanings of laws, theories, hypotheses, “truth,” and a bit of logic (e.g., ‘modus tollens’ arguments and why scientists never “prove” anything). All of the words I am using should be precise enough that you could delve into them and make quite a fun study. It will really help as you analyze things like Building 7, the JFK/RFK/MLK assassinations and so on and then present these topics to the people in your spheres.

            • Alchemist says:

              NorthernBean- I understand that you don’t agree with the commonly accepted definition of “theory” and pertaining to science (and in other cases) it doesn’t apply. Getting into the full meaning of “theory” with a normie would take any discussion about conspiracy off course and give the dismissive term more importance than its worth, but if someone felt the need to do so, your explanation could be used. I, for one, have never considered myself a conspiracy theorist by their definition (although maybe by yours lol) and think “truther” is more fitting. Until we get into the meaning of “truth”…

              You’re right—finding the ultimate truth is an impossible task. And with that argument you win;)

              • NorthernBean says:

                Alchemist, I don’t think of it as winning or losing. Commonly accepted meanings are not necessarily the best usages. That is to say, words have histories. And the history–by itself–is not what gives one definition more value than another. It has to do with how that historical (evolved ) definition has been selected for and how well certain internal structures in the meaning of that word along with other categories fit together logically.

                But you are quite correct about at least knowing how people may use or misuse a word and accounting for that in how you speak to them. A lecture on lexicography, etymology and grammar, as you aptly point out, would not do. But you would benefit (and so would they) from your having a fundamental understanding held in reserve as you perhaps find opportunities to try and help tease them out of their prejudices, misconceptions or lazily–but fervently–held beliefs. Forcing oneself, and hinting to them, that there are problems with a publicly-accepted narrative can be aided by your internal understanding of the words involved.

                (CONT.)

              • Alchemist says:

                I hope you didn’t take that as sarcasm. It wasn’t meant to be. I’m not confused about the meaning of “theory”, but we’re talking about “conspiracy theory”. Here’s what Wikipedia has to say about it:

                https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory

                ”The term has a negative connotation, implying that the appeal to a conspiracy is based on prejudice or insufficient evidence.”

  17. Save 10% of Earnings! says:

    Groups of people secretly conspiring to screw you over is not “Conspiracy”. It’s called “Government”.

  18. richard.mo says:

    Corbett’s “I am Spartacus” moment. Or perhaps even his “I’m Brian” moment.
    So for what it’s worth, I will join in the clarion call, “I’m a conspiracy theorist and so’s my wife!”

  19. mik says:

    If it actually happens, discussion with non-conspiracy theorists is most of the time “verbal masturbation”, almost never “verbal sex”.

    Probably important role in this is ingrained belief that everybody has a right to his opinion (holy individuality!) and that must be defended. Rights uber alles. Doesn’t matter how baseless the opinion is nor how accordant is to reality. About searching for truth, c’mon, what a waste of time, there is no such a thing as truth(society; maggie revisited).

    Interesting, I spoke with normies about influence from bilderbergers, foundations, etc. Not convincing for them, but few moments later, they would like to move money from politics, you know, corruption. No way to realize we are actually speaking about more or less the same thing.

  20. Octium says:

    Not all conspiracy theorists are smart…

    However the only way you can guarantee stupidity is to remain a non-conspiracy theorist.

  21. EmmyA says:

    Thanks for putting this out there James! I hold the notion that people can call me whatever they like. It’s just a meaningless label… I’ve made the commitment to be real with everyone I meet- I’m me. I talk about things I find important and try to have meaningful conversation with everybody. I’m sorry if that makes people feel so uncomfortable that they need to resort to insults. “Being taught to avoid talking about politics and religion has led to a lack of understand of politics and religion. What we should have been taught was how to have a civil conversation about a difficult topic.” This is what I think and unless you have something of substance to say, my opinion will not change. Strength threw compassion and unconditional love. It’s not their fault they’re so brainwashed- the deck is stacked against them :/

    • debra.b says:

      EmmyA,
      I pretty much agree with your entire post. Well said. I also feel it’s difficult for people to stop their internal dialogue and truly listen. I’m guilty of this myself, but I make an effort to be aware of it.

  22. di says:

    I noticed that the clip scrolling through the comments section doesn’t have any comments about the term ‘conspiracy theorist’.

  23. maggie says:

    I was very lucky, growing up in the late 60s early 70s Britain, my mother was a proud conspiracy theorist, and read every work of fact and fiction pertaining to espionage, and bought every Sunday newspaper “to read between the lies.” That’s why I immediately recognized the bona fides of James Corbett (who I found through Gary Null in 2013.) He was telling me stuff I already knew, but wasn’t being talked about anymore – because I can remember when all of this stuff was actually covered by mainstream news. I was about 7 or 8 when I had a sleepless night after watching a BBC documentary outlining the conspiracy to kill Kennedy – not a “debunker” in sight. In the broadsheets I could read about the Pentagon Papers, MK Ultra, CoIntelPro, etc. I watched A Very British Coup on ITV, and everyone knew about the plot to depose Wilson thanks to Peter Wright’s “Spycatcher” being banned by Thatcher. Gore Vidal was regularly on radio & television being interviewed about what is now called The Deep State, and many other analysts were able to talk openly without fear of mocking. You might be called cynical or at worst a bit paranoid, but most people accepted the basic premise that their governments could be involved in underhanded, illegal schemes. From Yes Minister though to House of Cards (1990) the Old Boys at the BBC worked hard to mitigate the damage, with as usual, humour; these shows didn’t deny the Deep State, they embraced it, much like James Bond movies did after the Cambridge Five debacle. It was only when the dubious “JFK” came out in 1991 that I saw “Conspiracy Theorist” come into everyday usage – with a whopping vengeance, (no doubt in preparation for the World Wide Web.) Prior to that the term really didn’t have much traction – at least in Britain, and from what I’ve heard in the US too. Interestingly it was also in 1991 that David Icke gave his infamous press conference. Not too long after he started the whole lizard people routine; that certainly was a godsend for GCHQ. Great actor. By the time I moved Stateside in the late 90s, the widespread use of the term was full-on in the population at large. The Rune Soup podcast recently had an excellent episode (Sept 24 “Breathe together, on Youtube) with a 1993 lecture by Michael Parenti, who gave a witty and wonderful speech deftly dismissing the term “Conspiracy Theorist”. Worth a listen.

  24. wylie1 says:

    Good point about turning a bad connotation back into its proper meaning BUT HOW LONG WILL THAT TAKE? Seems like it took a decade or so, for some of those disparaged groups…

    Certainly true that something needs to be done to confront the tendency for those scaredy-cats afraid of coming near anything designated a conspiracy theory BY THE CONSPIRATORS.

    Seems to me it may take many different individuals using James approach to convince one such person that fears being tainted by anything called a conspiracy theory. Because the person will just think that James or whomever, is an exception, while the rest are still blindly being taken in by conspiracy theories, rather than themselves. That is how the ego works. Its them not me.

    So, my tactic will be somewhat different:
    “Conspiracy Theorist? What is that?” (Make them define it.)
    –someone who comes up with wild ideas to explain things.
    To which I would respond:
    “Oh, well then, you must be referring to govt propaganda designed to fool people into believing things that are not true, to protect or benefit themselves and their sponsors. They come up with all sorts of nonsense which far too many people automatically but wrongly accept as fact, without checking. I used to believe them too …until I started checking.”

    It seems the Larkin Rose approach of asking questions is effective.

    Also, confronting their fear head on rather than have it easily continue:
    “Would you fear being called a conspiracy theorist if you looked at the evidence and came to a different conclusion (than what those in govt, TV media, billionaires, or corporate CEOs claim)?”

    Even if they answer No. They likely still fear that.

    • wylie1 says:

      CONTINUED:
      “So then if some media host brings out all kinds of experts claiming mostly the same thing and when you look around and see more things than what they talked about and come to a very different conclusion, you are fine with being called a conspiracy theorist even though you are more a conspiracy factualist and they are the conspiracy theorists?” “I ask because until you no longer fear what those or others may call you, will you be able to look at the evidence in a neutral way and follow where the evidence leads.”
      “That is what I and many others like me try to do.” “And if that is what we are doing, why do you think the authorities are trying to smear the messengers with a name lots of people fear, before they present their evidence?” “Its so you will consider them to be kooks and not bother to look any further; why do you think they want to do that, rather than deal with the evidence?”
      –You’d have to ask them.
      “Do you think some people would rather believe lies than be called a conspiracy theorist?”
      –I don’t know, maybe there are a few.
      “Do you think it would be worthwhile to look at what videographers, eyewitnesses, architects and engineers familiar with the construction, and others have discovered about the many things that the major media chose not to report about the World Trade Center buildings coming down?”
      –Hard to say until I’ve seen it.
      “I agree. Did you see the footage of Bldg 7 coming down? It wasn’t one of the twin towers nor hit by a plane. Why do you think the govt left it out of their report?”

      “Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me… even if someone motivated to protect their interests or advance an agenda calls me a conspiracy factualist, theorist, or whatever.”

      Note that associating Conspiracy Factualist with Theorist is planting that seed. So in the future there will be a distinction between Conspiracy Facts, Theories, and Nutjobs. (The nutjobs at times being those who are actually correct. We just won’t know it until years later, when those who know get old enough not to care about keeping it secret any longer and feel compelled to tell the truth.)

    • NorthernBean says:

      Good comments adding to this thread. Yes, I like the clever idea of making the lazy anti-conspiracy theorist, so-imagined, do some work for a change.

  25. отец says:

    I am not a conspiracy theorist. However, I appreciate the hard work of honest conspiracy theorists in fields such as law enforcement and news reporting so that I can dedicate my time to other tasks. One such task has been explaining the meaning of words such as ‘conspiracy’ and ‘theory.’

    You may notice that the explanation of these words borrowed heavily, almost word for word, from the work of a particular conspiracy theorist working in the field of news reporting: https://cyberianorthodox.wordpress.com/2020/04/15/conspiracy-theories/

  26. Mal says:

    Well said, James.

    Your presentation reminded me of a few instances in life where this plays out. Kind of like a sport where the accuser gains some perverse satisfaction at the expense of the accused. Where his aim is not TRUTH – his aim is SPORT and if the victim gets hurt and humiliatedm so be it.

    By reacting in an unmeasured way you are providing sport and entertainment for your adversary:

    >like a fish struggling on the end of a line
    >like a person, screaming, arms flailing, being physically attacked
    >like someone trying to defend their position on a subject in response to being deliberately provoked

    The more you react, reason and justify, the more sport and entertainment you provide. The weaker you become as your opponent gains strength. The answer: instead of providing reactive “sport-on-demand”, keep your composure and choose YOUR TIME to respond.

    > if only the fish could stop struggling – it would deprive the fisherman of his sport – it would be like the fisherman caught a piece of wet cardboard. He probably wouldn’t see the point of going fishing any more – wouldn’t do much good to the fish in question but the fish population in general might increase!

    > a lesson I had a long time ago taught me that if a punch gets through one must “embrace” it. If you retain your composure it puts your opponent at a psychological disadvantage and provides a split second window to counter-punch. There’s a complex psychological process that takes place in a split second

    > I once had a “friend” who used to regularly fire me up by taking a provocative opposing view on just about anything I might share regarding world events until one day (better late than never) I realised what he was doing. I was providing him with sport and entertainment by my reaction. He was not interested in finding truth – he was interested in sport – having fun at my expense and to my distress. So my solution was this: rather than try to reason with him I just countered provocative comments with a simple question…. “Really? Do you think so? …Oh.” And that’s it – no more sport! Unsurprisingly I did not see him much after that

    > someone once used to say “turn the other cheek”. I think this might have got a bit lost in translation as it implies a namby-pamby approach to life’s challenges. By all accounts, the guy that said it was definitely no namby-pamby. I suspect he was talking about something along the lines of absorbing adversity, while retaining one’s composure. It psychologically disarms your opponent and prepares you for your counter-attack! Yay!

    Cheers …..Mal

  27. eat my cake says:

    The itch that I think James is trying to scratch here, while annoying on the surface, if one claws in a bit deeper, one finds persona-scapes overgrown with confusion and lotsa pain, cloaked with every shade of fear in the book. “the book”, being life’s lessons integrated into an “adult mind”, has been parodied often (Alan Watts did a decent version he titled, “the book”), yet the original forms that stood as old growth mega-flora are now mostly reduced to stumps.

    Another piece on point, thanks James.

    Its rare that these exchanges, you speak to, evolve either party. I’m a slow learning clumsy novice, but here’s how I try to work with it:

    Word-spellings are cast, upon others as well as upon self, the “between the lines” part of all exchanges. When accused of being a “ConTheo”, many styles of between-line spellings can be foisted, active and passive aggression’s. So what then could our best protection/responses be? In my experience, when getting attacked in that way, its either a net on me or ramparts around them. The only thing thats worked to disperse the smoke and smash the mirrors, is gestures that cultivate a ground of receptivity. I think its worth taking the sudden moment of being given that label as an opportunity, rubber hitting road, knock-knock “oh honey, um, there’s a Mr. death at the door”,, in that boxing ring, the rules can be counter intuitive; advantage of perspective, not to mention stability of mind/body, is gained by empathy for the confused attacker. it helps to imagine what they are thinking (bit like playing your opponents chess or poker hand, but with more care than interest).

    One can use friendly questioning to mirror an assault (as in aikido).
    Most questions are a form of competition, so to be the “questioned” is to be on the back foot. building the reflex to flip-it, by immediately tossing a question back has saved me heaps of grief.

    One can only extend a friendly hand. If the other wont meet it, then do the math. It aint gonna add up,, this time. I try not to let the jokers (energy thieves) walk without offering a spelled version of their rudeness, a gift for them to carry away, “you’re gonna carry that load a long time,,”, their lost chance not yours.

    Being able to negotiate today’s hoodwinkery may be a trial towards becoming an adult at all (or perhaps becoming one of the “144 thousand chosen survivors”?). so then however, in these techno-times, we’ve got kids raising kids, kids dressing up pretending to be varsity center half-backs who ought to be playing JV; they’re stacked with trick-smart social manipulation moves, but short on intelligent steps that blossom them and those they touch beyond any spelling. these naughty teens have no parental guidance, the buffoonery is a runaway train.

    [SNIP – Please keep comments to 500 words or less. Longer comments can be split into multiple posts. -JC]

    • eat my cake says:

      post contd,,,

      Here in the chorus line of the fantasma-humanica opera, we sing of the horrible heresies; the harmonies resonate more & more, but sadly, swaths of the audience is also falling into deeper sleep. There must be a joke-zombie transmute switch/hook that’ll get everyone singing? Ive posted this before, but it seems on topic, so I offer it again:

      Monty Python “what we need is some clarity”

      @3+mins

      https://www.instagram.com/tv/B_7548uFJG5/

  28. HomeRemedySupply says:

    For more than a decade, all of my family and many of my friends consider me a conspiracy theorist.
    I’m fine with that.
    I joke about it with them.

    It is actually a smooth method to bring up a “conspiracy fact” or to broach a topic.

  29. Fawlty Towers says:

    My brother is extremely well-read and knowledgeable about all-things normie.
    When he tried the ol’ “you’re just a crazy conspiracy theorist” trick with me, lumping JFK, the moon landings and 9/11 all together at the same time I decided to throw it right back at him then and there.

    I told him I had studied 9/11 for many years in great detail.
    I asked him if he had also done research on it.
    He told me that in fact he had.

    I waited around 10 minutes until the time was right and casually asked him how many towers came down on 9/11.
    When he said “two” I knew he had lied straight to my face.

    Great video James!
    No honest ‘conspiracy theorist’ should ever be intimidated going forward.
    Throw it right back at them immediately.
    Own the term, as James suggests.
    “Yes I am a conspiracy theorist, is there something wrong with being one?”

    “What do you know about conspiracy theorists and where did you learn this?”
    “Please tell me about conspiracy theories that have been proven to be false?”

    etc. etc.
    Remember to be polite. 🙂

  30. charles.g says:

    Be all you can be, be a conspiracy theorist. Wear it, breathe it, live it, love it. If not a conspiracy theorist than what? Ignorance practitioner? No thanks.

  31. Octium says:

    I know it’s an oldie, but this comic still works for me…

    https://twistedsifter.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/trevor-man-and-dog-working-together-sheep-comic.jpg?w=634&h=462

    Hope some of the new conspiracy theorists here appreciate it!

  32. Fupi says:

    I find as more and more people, friends that on the whole good -naturedly would say: “Ah, that’s just a conspiracy theory” are now questioning the propaganda and the official “speke” and asking me: “What do you think?” and I’d reply “Do you want me to put on my conspiracy theorizing hat?”

    • NorthernBean says:

      And then ask, “And are YOU ready to put on YOUR conspiracy theorizing hat?”

    • NorthernBean says:

      I like it. “Son, you can be either of only two things. Either you are a conspiracy theorist, or you can be a dopey, cowardly practitioner of ignorance. Well, you could be an actual conspiracist, a cover-up con artist or just a plain nut job who believes in absurdities—but let’s not make your career choices too complicated.”

    • Duck says:

      Fupi
      ‘Conspiracy’ is just how organizations work… offices, companies churches and intelligence agencies all function with small numbers of people deciding whats gonna happen-mostly without telling outsiders their plan.
      We should all be more like ‘Miss Marple’ and see the big scale in our own small scale experiences, lol.

  33. Jed says:

    Con = with, spiracy (spire as in respiration)= breathe, theory (theology) = God (truth), to breathe with the truth. That’s the Passiofist definition of that term.

    • NorthernBean says:

      Hi Jed, that was nice. You are spot on about the etymology of ‘conspiracy’. Anytime you can acknowledge the divine I am appreciative. This is a tricky one. ‘Theos’, in Greek, is God. Theory, in Latin is ‘theoria’; from Greek ‘theoros’ (spectator); from ‘theasthai’, to observe; from ‘thea’, a viewing. So ‘theory’ is a word referring to our human attempt to see. Of course, objective seeing and describing is an attempt to communicate what we see with another as we look together at a thing “thrown out there.” Our seeing, unlike that of God who is omniscient, is flawed. Theories are always incomplete, as I have discussed before. Lawyers try to take advantage of this to confuse even the strongest witnesses. That is my suggestion. I am always encouraged when I discover someone else that likes to drill down on words and their meanings and origins.

      • Jed says:

        Thanks NorthernBean, I took that directly from a Mark Passio podcast. I too love to learn words and their origins, relating their sounds to other words and all such “Green” language. I hear you regarding lawyers, my family’s full of them or maybe I should say “full of it.” None of them will acknowledge any of this, they prefer man’s laws over natural law, or Gods laws.
        So then a conspiracy theorist is one who takes in what they’ve seen — sounds pretty good to me, thanks CIA for the well thought out name you’ve given us. I have a cute little name for all you as well, born from the plural form of an acronym referring to those men who “can’t understand normal thinking.”

        • NorthernBean says:

          Haha Jed. Pretty good. At first, where I thought you were going with this was the abbreviation for Central Intelligence Agency Assassin: C, I. A. Ass. Seriously, though, they don’t actually all have to see all that well when they have six guys positioned all around (especially when the one atop the grassy knoll has a frangible lead-mercury bullet and the lead Mercury (Lincoln) car in the motorcade comes to a near dead stop). At play with Lincolns, we are now caught in pure theater—and supposedly was Oswald. This is also and example of pattern detection run amok—a cautionary tale for conspiracy theorists to stick with real evidence. (Note: I do think that the grassy knoll stuff is not far off target.)

          As for lawyers, “Lawyers corrupt, and astute lawyers corrupt without absolution.”

  34. mkey says:

    The title of this video reminded me of the alcoholics 12 step program to stopping being an alcoholic (or just learning to control the urge). Well, this reminds of what what I think I know about it from watching movies. The new guy gets up and admits to the gang that he’s an alcoholic. Gang says hello back.

    Instead of having 12 steps leading you to stop being something, we could offer 12 steps to start being something, namely a conspiracy theorist.

    Step 1: Honesty – admit there’s a problem you’re staring at every waking minute of every day

    Step 2: Faith – believe that change is attainable. Be ready to strain your brain trying to imagine the change you would like to see in the world

    Step 3: Surrender your ego

    Step 4: Soul Searching – do research, read, learn to iterate, revise and discern information, come to your own conclusions

    Step 5: Integrity – understand the immorality of blind belief in authority

    Step 6: Acceptance – accept how hard it is to change yourself and see this hardship in others

    Step 7: Humility – be ready to bring the same information forward a thousand times

    Step 8: Willingness – turn the other cheek, be ready for ignorance, insults and emotional outbursts

    Step 9: Forgiveness – don’t expect it but be ready to dish it out by the truck load

    Step 10: Maintenance – come to terms with being wrong, learn to think and feel at the same time

    Step 11: Making Contact – knowing is not enough, you need to spread the truth as you know it

    Step 12: Service

  35. debra.b says:

    Way off topic humor…🙂

    “Why Everybody Loves Leaf Blowers” By AwakenWithJP

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0RGY6OW6-3I

  36. debra.b says:

    Whitney Webb via Twitter:
    “New for @TLAVagabond — Operation Warp Speed is using a shady, CIA-linked contractor to keep Covid-19 vaccine contracts secret and exempt from federal safety regulations.

    HHS (supposedly overseeing Warp Speed) has “no records” of the contracts.” (Link to her latest article)

    https://mobile.twitter.com/_whitneywebb/status/1313540784373854208

    In the twitter thread, she continues still referring to her latest article:
    “This is the introduction to joint effort between myself, @TLAVagabond and @DBrozeLiveFree to #ExposeWarpSpeed

    In the coming days, we will producing videos and articles where we will explore other, very unsettling revelations about Op Warp Speed.“

  37. debra.b says:

    New film featuring Rosa Koire. I’ve not watched it yet. I’m about to. 🙂

    Rosa Koire via Twitter:

    “Important and thought-provoking film rips the mask off of #ClimateChange.
    Proud to be a part of #ReturnToEden
    Watch it now and share
    Knowledge is power…if you use it.“

    “Return to Eden : Online Premiere“

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=1s4vWrHw3WYGerman

  38. katiyi says:

    Conspiracy theorist: dismissive and derisive gaslighting label used against individuals to avoid the uncertainty of a debate.

  39. victoria says:

    conspiracy theorist doesnt hit the nail on the head for me… tho i theorize at times, hasnt been the primary avenue in my healing journey. recovering memories has been central, so my resonance is with conspiracy realist as i feel it honours my path, & speaks to the reality of my extreme abuse history ~ filled to the brim with criminal conspirators, quite a few elitest globalists… evil machinations.

  40. AB says:

    Yeah, I don’t know. I’ve never really been too bothered by being called a conspiracy theorist. It has a long way to go to get to the level of “racist” or “white supremecist.” Trying to come up with different names still does nothing to awaken the masses and keep them focused on the material.

  41. scpat says:

    If the Main Stream Narrative Was a Conspiracy
    AwakenWithJP

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEXK2VhK_xA

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Back to Top