The Media's Psywar Manual: 54 Tactics the Mainstream and Alternative Media Use to Undermine Conspiracy Thinking
"If we had met five years ago, you wouldn't have found a more staunch defender of the newspaper industry than me. And then I wrote some stories that made me realize how sadly misplaced my bliss has been. The reason I'd enjoyed such smooth sailing for so long hadn't been, as I'd assumed, because I was careful and diligent and good at my job... The truth was that, in all those years, I hadn't written anything important enough to suppress."
2002, Gary Webb, 'Into the Buzzsaw', as repeated by his fellow investigative journalist Nick Schou in the book 'Kill the Messenger', p. 12. Webb's career was ruined after he published a series of articles tying the CIA to drug trafficking. He never recovered from the affair and ultimately killed himself.
"In the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility... In the primitive simplicity of [the mind of the masses] they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying."
1926, Adolf Hitler, 'Mein Kampf', p. 472.
It's been quite a few years now when something first began to dawn on me: people don't recognize media bias or disinformation very well. You'd be surprised how many people can read an article about any given conspiracy topic and not recognize it when facts are being selectively presented, or when the conspiracy point-of-view is purposely discouraged with derogatory remarks, stereotyping, cheap jokes, personal attacks or unrealistic counter-arguments.
This really needs to change. People need to start recognizing media bias and what to expect if they decide to step up in support of a conspiracy. Below the reader can find 34 tactics that can, and have, been used by the mainstream media against people advocating conspiracies. I've been gathering them over the course of a year by paying attention to newspapers, magazines and tv reports about controversial issues.
Added to this in 2013 is an additional list of 20 tactics used by the alternative media, which, as it turns out, has been almost completely subverted by the superclass and intelligence services. In terms of reliability the alternative media is a thousand times worse than the mainstream. With the mainstream media a viewer, listener or reader primarily has to worry about the 1 percent that is not being reported or is being spun. With the alternative media, one has to worry about the 99 percent that it does report, because that's the amount of nonsense and spin going around.
What we generally see appear on television are debates between gurus of the alternative media and typically skeptical news anchors and mainstream experts, not seldom from organized skeptical groups as CSICOP or attached to key think tanks. Debates never go anywhere, but that's not just the fault of the mainstream personalities. An additional major problem is that the alternative gurus everybody is familiar with are con artists at best and security state con artists at worst. I tend to suspect the latter scenario is the most accurate.
To illustrate, Rense is an offshoot of the Liberty Lobby [1] while Alex Jones is a John Birch-type Christian conservative propagandist [2]. George Noory of Coast to Coast AM is another John Bircher [3], possibly the only one alive with a new age perspective. The guests of these radio shows form a large family - including their all too common "disagreements" between their crazy theories - in which few, if any, outsiders are allowed. Does the reader really think it is a coincidence that the alternative media is absolutely stacked with racists, extreme new agers, con men, and other extremists? Of course not. There's a purpose to this. People are presented with a whole spectrum of nutty theories, ranging from completely off-the-wall to partially accurate in favor of one establishment. However, the full truth in its biggest perspective and with correct sourcing is never provided.
With today's knowledge of GCHQ's JTRIG unit [4], with its still unknown NSA counterpart, this type of "speculation" on behalf of ISGP should have become a lot less controversial, even though JTRIG hardly scratches the surface of what is truly going on. The alternative media is controlled - secretly - and clearly this opens up all kinds of additional possibilities for the powers-that-be to discredit, confuse and even psychologically destabilize honest-but-naive researchers.
It's not even necessary to believe any kind of infiltration is going on, despite serious evidence for it. Just become aware of the 20 additional tactics listed here in which the public and honest-but-naive researchers can, "theoretically", be undermined. The reader will soon start to recognize them in all corners of the alternative media. However, first up are 34 tactics employed by the mainstream media.
- Subtly or not so subtly intimidate anyone who might be open to the possibility of a conspiracy by pretending they are "unpatriotic" outcasts of society whose opinions nobody cares about.
- Subtly or not so subtly intimidate anyone who might be open to the possibility of a conspiracy by questioning the mental health of conspiracy advocates.
- Put the word "theory" behind the word "conspiracy", no matter how great the evidence, and preferably do this several times in the article to make the (supposedly) theoretical nature of the conspiracy really sink in.
- Imply that conspiracy theories are literally made up out of thin air and that there never was any significant evidence to support any of them.
- Present different pieces of the same conspiracy as independently made up and conflicting conspiracy theories.
- Carefully select the evidence that is to be presented. Leave out anything that cannot be explained. Focus on evidence that is easy to discredit, or at the very least, inconclusive.
- Isolate quotes in order to misrepresent and/or discredit.
- As a talk-show host, don't let any person arguing in favor of a conspiracy speak uninterrupted for even one minute.
- For interviews, preferably pick prominent individuals from the conspiracy movement who either have no credentials or irrelevant credentials. Place these conspiracy theorists against academics and other experts who have impeccable credentials.
- During video interviews, allow the skeptics to present themselves more properly than the conspiracy advocates.
- Quote from generally respected government investigating committees and present their conclusions as gospel.
- Automatically dismiss articles from conspiracy advocates as "unreliable", no matter how well-sourced these articles are.
- Always question the motives of conspiracy theorists.
- Make the well known claim that everybody is in on the conspiracy.
- Make a few jokes, usually involving little green men, Elvis, the grassy knoll, and aliens. Then there also is the classic "out to get you" comment.
- Ask if the conspiracy advocate believes in any other (unrelated) conspiracies.
- Make the claim that governments can't keep secrets.
- Repeat the claim that we have free press because scandals are regularly exposed.
- As soon as a conspiracy theorist brings up witness testimony, counter with the standard argument that eyewitness testimony is "notoriously unreliable".
- When aspects of the permanent government have slowly been exposed over the years, oversimplify by stating this or that conspiracy theory "has had its best time".
- Start out with, or only report, conclusions, and leave out most, if not all, evidence that this conclusion has been based on. Also leave out all nuances brought up by the person that has been interviewed.
- Oversimplify by stating that the official head of state must have been directly involved in planning and overseeing whatever conspiracy. Don't allow the subject to explain the supranational, largely privatized, permanent government in any coherent way.
- Dismiss and ridicule the idea that the prime minister, president and cabinet ministers of a country could possibly have been involved a major conspiracy.
- Try to force a conspiracy advocate into confirming or denying oversimplified yes-no answers.
- Claim that the internet is responsible for the recent increase in conspiracy theories, because frothing conspiracy theorists are hyping each other up in chat rooms and message boards.
- Have a conspiracy theorist argue with a victim of a conspiracy who actually doesn't believe in the conspiracy. Even better, the victim is disabled and dying.
- When covering demonstrations, mainly focus on the eccentric and the violent. Ignore all the presentable, calm and intelligent demonstrators.
- Don't write about the topics conspiracy theorists bring up. Instead, write about conspiracy theorists.
- See if you can link credible writers to not-so-credible writers.
- See if you can dig up some dirt on a prominent conspiracy advocate.
- Introduce a "logical fallacy" to prevent getting into specifics.
- Stick to generalities or counter specifics with generalities.
- Prevent losing an argument by claiming you're "not familiar enough" with a certain aspect of conspiracy and therefore have "to keep it in the middle".
- Pretend to be open-minded and accepting towards conspiracy theories as long as there's a gentleman's agreement that "opinions can differ", "nothing will ever be solved" and the other party doesn't push for answers to highly specific questions.
Subtly or not so subtly intimidate anyone who might be open to the possibility of a conspiracy by pretending they are "unpatriotic" outcasts of society whose opinions nobody cares about. |
|||||
Additional explanation: This tactic deserves to be mentioned first because it probably is the oldest and most universal one. It plays on the primitive instincts of humans to follow authority and to be part of the group. It also preys on the emotional need for affection, and the more existential need to be able to make a living, all of which often fall away when someone is ostracized from the "tribe". Apart from a Christian conservative outlet as Fox News, overtly this tactic is used less and less, because in today's society we recognize the rights of individuals and minority groups. Covertly - or indirectly - this tactic is ever present though. All the other tactics listed here basically have been invented to hide this one. |
|||||
Subtly or not so subtly intimidate anyone who might be open to the possibility of a conspiracy by questioning the mental health of conspiracy advocates. |
|||||
Additional explanation: Insinuate that anyone interested in unfavorable subjects, which can even be as innocent as looking into the role of Bilderberg or the Trilateral Commission in the globalization process, is a complete nutter who needs his head examined.
A subtler approach might be to pretend how we all get so tired of these people, for example by saying or writing, "Yes, I hear you thinking, here you have them again. But let's find out, what is it exactly that they want to convince us of this time?" |
|||||
Put the word "theory" behind the word "conspiracy", no matter how great the evidence, and preferably do this several times in the article to make the (supposedly) theoretical nature of the conspiracy really sink in. |
|||||
Additional explanation: It's not unusual for a conspiracy advocate to use the word "conspiracy theorist" on himself, because somehow he has to set his ideas apart from the "coincidence theorist" or "human failure theorists". Followers of different ideas about history or science are often referred to as "theorists", and in those cases it has nothing to do with ridicule. However, misplaced or overuse of the term "conspiracy theory" will automatically prevent people from (openly) accepting this point of view because of the strong negative connotations attached to this term. |
|||||
Imply that conspiracy theories are literally made up out of thin air and that there never was any significant evidence to support any of them. |
|||||
Additional explanation: Be as condescending as possible by taking on a parental role. Fill your news reports with words like "paranoid", "urban legend", "folklore", "myth", "fantasy", "imagination", "legend", "gullible", "hype", "hoax"., etc. Works better the more grades and authority you have. |
|||||
Present different pieces of the same conspiracy as independently made up and conflicting conspiracy theories. |
|||||
Additional explanation: This will result in people thinking that conspiracy theorists are in some kind of turf war, trying to protect their own little pet theories. The John F. Kennedy assassination is a great example. The overall theory most researchers agree on is that the CIA, largely through the mafia and anti-Castro militants, and with support of some important businessmen, was behind the assassination. However, skeptics have usually broken this overall theory in four separate pieces: theory 1: the CIA did it; theory 2: the mafia did it; theory 3: anti-Castro militants did it; or theory 4: big business did it. This is a ridiculous approach of course. Here's another example from Belgium which relates to the Dutroux affair: February 2, 2005, Nieuwsblad, 'Ze zijn vermoord maar door wie?' ('They have been murdered, but by whom?'):
Here you have another world class piece of disinformation on which details can be read in ISGP's 'Beyond the Dutroux affair' article. What's important here is: A) the tone of the sentence that is underlined ("made up"), and B) the fact that X1's story is not at all incompatible with the claims of Carine Dellaert's mother. The father had been doing the abuse when the mother was away--which was most of the time--and also allowed his daughter to be abused by his circle of friends. This information came from Carine's former closest friend, who was ignored by newspapers and investigators. They also ignored all evidence showing that X1 had known Carine. In other words, this newspaper presented two witnesses with apparently conflicting testimonies, while in reality they described two aspects of the same crime. |
|||||
Carefully select the evidence that is to be presented. Leave out anything that cannot be explained. Focus on evidence that is easy to discredit, or at the very least, inconclusive. |
|||||
Additional explanation: This is one of the most common and fundamental tactics used. The fact that the majority of the conspiracy community might reject a certain theory, or is aware of much stronger evidence, doesn't matter to the media, because the general public is unaware of that and has no time or interest to check the facts for themselves. This tactic might backfire during live interviews, unless a conspiracy theorist is picked who supports the theory that will be used to discredit the entire community. A great example of bogus claims continually being repeated and "discredited" by the media are the no-plane and pod theories of 9/11. Anyone who really does his homework knows there are many other aspects of 9/11 that are much more interesting--not to mention, true. Other examples might be reports that tie criticism on today's Zionist Lobby to holocaust denial, or people who believe in UFOs to fake Moon landings. If you're attacking an individual, and not a whole group, dig up every mistake in his work, however small, and discuss these flaws one after another. It will seem to most people the author's work is riddled with mistakes, while in reality 98 or 99 percent might be perfectly accurate, including the overall picture. |
|||||
Isolate quotes in order to misrepresent and/or discredit. |
|||||
Additional explanation: This tactic is very closely allied to the previous one of carefully selecting evidence, but this time primarily focused on conspiracy thinkers themselves and not their work. So if, let's say, conspiracy advocate A has produced documentary B, then the previous tactic is primarily used to misrepresent documentary B, and this tactic of isolating quotes is based on a follow-up interview with conspiracy advocate A to finish him or her off even more. A true disinformer will even bait a conspiracy advocate into making certain claims that are perfect for isolation and discrediting. This, however, usually does require a degree of knowlegde about the conspiracy advocate and his or her work. |
|||||
As a talk-show host, don't let any person arguing in favor of a conspiracy speak uninterrupted for even one minute. |
|||||
Additional explanation: As soon as the person interviewed tries to bring up a serious piece of evidence, immediately counter with a joke, a seemingly damning counter-argument (there's no time to further discuss anyway) or simply change the subject. Keep the interview nice and short so there's no time to go into any kind of detail. |
|||||
For interviews, preferably pick prominent individuals from the conspiracy movement who either have no credentials or irrelevant credentials. Place these conspiracy theorists against academics and other experts who have impeccable credentials. |
|||||
Additional explanation: When doing basic research, in many cases a lower-educated person with some experience can do just as good of a job as someone who has his M.A. or Ph.D. However, highly-educated, respected individuals interviewed by the media are usually trusted on their word while it's necessary for anyone else to step by step go over all the evidence. There's seldom any time for the latter approach so the lower-educated conspiracy advocate finds himself in a severely disadvantaged position. |
|||||
During video interviews, allow the skeptics to present themselves more properly than the conspiracy advocates. |
|||||
Additional explanation: Interview conspiracy theorists on video from angles that make them look a bit awkward, like really up close to show off that wart, or a little bit from below so we can all enjoy those nose hairs. Also, limit their make up, don't ask them to shave, and if possible, interview them in plain, simple clothes. Do the interview in an environment which further diminishes credibility, like a messy living room or next to a replica of a gray alien in a UFO museum. In contrast, interview the skeptical "experts" from their most affectionate angle with suit and tie in a nice and comfortable place. Make sure their make up is perfect. |
|||||
Quote from generally respected government investigating committees and present their conclusions as gospel. |
|||||
Additional explanation: If anyone asks or says that these government committees are misrepresenting the evidence, instead of listening to the arguments the reaction will be along the lines of, "So everybody is in on it?", if needed followed by "Impeccable expert A, B and C disagree with you." After that the topic is steered away in a different direction. As stated in point seven: "Highly-educated, respected individuals [or institutes] interviewed by the media are usually trusted on their word while it's necessary for anyone else to step by step go over all the evidence. There's seldom any time for the latter approach so the [in this case high or low-educated] conspiracy advocate finds himself in a severely disadvantaged position." |
|||||
Automatically dismiss articles from conspiracy advocates as "unreliable", no matter how well-sourced these articles are. |
|||||
Additional explanation: Don't go into the specific issues raised in the article. If the promoter of the article asks you to look at these issues, just ignore him and keep coming back to the fact the author of the article is "not reliable". ISGP experienced this, for example, when a particular Wikipedia admin continually deleted links to unique 1001 Club photocopies on ISGP under the guise of "self-published website", keeping the myth alive on Wikipedia that full membership lists of the group were not available in the public domain. |
|||||
Always question the motives of conspiracy theorists. |
|||||
Additional explanation: Any conspiracy writer who has any kind of income from his writings can be accused of being in it for the money. Another popular accusation is that conspiracy theorists are anti-semites and have the same beliefs as fundamentalist Arabs. The latter tactic has been especially popular after 9/11 (for example, the false claim that thousands of Jews were aware of the WTC attack) and the London bombings (there was a report that one of the bombers was a 9/11 skeptic). |
|||||
Make the well known claim that everybody is in on the conspiracy. |
|||||
Additional explanation: This can be formulated as a question or as a sarcastic comment, in both cases serving to ridicule and discredit the unprepared interviewee. |
|||||
Make a few jokes, usually involving little green men, Elvis, the grassy knoll, and aliens. Then there also is the classic "out to get you" comment. |
|||||
Additional explanation: Jokes like these only serve to make conspiracy advocates uncomfortable by ridiculing them and to intimidate anyone from looking into possible conspiracies. Reading some of the articles of skeptics, these days it apparently also seems possible to suggest that the average conspiracy theorist really believes claims that Elvis was abducted by aliens. It should be quite obvious that in reality this belief is (virtually?) non-existent. December 18, 2000, BBC, 'Conspiracy Theories': "This [the National Enquirer] is the natural reading matter for those who sincerely believe that Elvis was abducted by aliens, this being more comforting than the traditional explanation that he simply took too many drugs." These days, the effectiveness and use of humor in psychological warfare and propaganda efforts actually is openly acknowledged - and being considered for use - by the European Commission against "extremists": 2021, the European Commission's Radicalization Awareness Network, 'It's not funny anymore. Far-right extremists' use of humour', p. 4: "Various counter-narrative campaigns have deployed humour to question the authority of extremist groups and ridicule their ambitions. ... The potential of humour as a means of persuasion and disengagement is acknowledged by a variety of actors." |
|||||
Ask if the conspiracy advocate believes in any other (unrelated) conspiracies. |
|||||
Additional explanation: For example, when you interview someone who is skeptical about the official 9/11 story, ask him about UFOs; or vice versa. Even if the person only states he's open to the other conspiracy, it can be used to discredit him in the eyes of many people; even more so in follow-up reports. Example: "Person X is convinced that 9/11 was an inside job. He also recently stated he believes in flying saucers." A variation on that can be found in the New York Times of February 23, 1997, entitled 'Clinton Crazy': "Nearly half the population believes the C.I.A. was involved in the assassination of President Kennedy; 1 in 10 adults thinks the moon landing was a hoax." The second fact mentioned here is used to undermine the rather shocking first one. |
|||||
Make the claim that governments can't keep secrets. |
|||||
Additional explanation: In a way governments and intelligence agencies do have a hard time keeping secrets, especially in the West. There are a few "buts", however.
First of all, a huge amount of coverage over an extended period is needed for a large enough portion of the public to change their beliefs or even take action. One or two one-time reports, even in a large newspaper, are not going to change anything, certainly not in the long term. People will forget or doubt themselves if the message is not continually repeated and eventually taught at home by their parents or at school. Secondly, counter measures to prevent exposure are usually in proportion to the sensitivity of the secret. Just by looking at the amount of investigators, witnesses and whistleblowers who have been intimidated or suicided over the years, it appears that the most sensitive secrets are highest-level involvement in the international drug trade, arms trade, assassinations, pedophile networks and terrorism, or, on a hardly lighter note, "legal" deep black programs involving extremely high technology. Without the internet we would still be absolutely clueless as to what is going on at this level. At least we now have a vague idea, even though there's still much that needs to be uncovered. None of these topics are discussed in the mainstream press or tv. And third, in addition to intimidation and assassination, psychological warfare and disinformation have been used to prevent the public from finding out about the deepest secrets and to discourage anyone from looking into them in the first place. Ridicule is a powerful weapon. |
|||||
Repeat the claim that we have free press because scandals are regularly exposed. |
|||||
Additional explanation: Virtually everything can be discussed in the media except a handful of topics that are really important. If one allies himself with the left it's possible, of course, to expose the right to some extent, and vice verse, but it's virtually impossible to publish serious articles on the JFK assassination, the 9/11 Truth movement, high level pedophile rings, the true influence of NGOs, or other extremely sensitive subjects that cross establishment lines and will change people's whole concept of government. This kind of reporting is just not done. It's only a tiny spectrum of all the news, but it's enough to prevent any revolutionary changes in society. |
|||||
As soon as a conspiracy theorist brings up witness testimony, counter with the standard argument that eyewitness testimony is "notoriously unreliable". |
|||||
Additional explanation: A former fundamentalist Christian turned professional debunker, Michael Shermer, took this argument to the limit during a July 2007 debate about UFOs on the Larry King Show. Even after others present told him that numerous military officers and pilots have claimed to have seen UFOs, and that the Phoenix Lights incident involved thousands of witnesses who all saw the same thing, Shermer just countered with: "... Eyewitness testimony is not all that reliable... Trained observers are no better than just regular observers." Of course, there are hardly any sides to take in this debate due to the enormous amount of disinformation spread about the UFO subject. Most subjects interviewed about the Phoenix Lights, and certainly all researchers, are con artists. The whole event might have been a case of psywar. Who knows. But the manner in which Shermer dismisses eyewitness testimony is just ridiculous. More recently I heard Shermer do the same thing during a March 7, 2016 conversation on the Joe Rogan Experience podcast. As the discussion turned to eyewitness testimony the ever-curious Joe Rogan (when it comes to conspiracy) stated: "I just don't buy eyewitness testimony in a murder like that." At this point Shermer had begun to make the case that witnesses all heard a different number of shots, which by itself is an overgeneralization in order to distort. As expected, the second Rogan brought up his opinion that eyewitness testimony is by definition unreliable, Shermer hopped on the same train: "That's good. That's right, because it's not reliable." Anybody who knows anything about the JFK assassination though, knows the hundreds of eyewitnesses testimonies are extremely important in confirming what we see on the Zapruder film and to get a general sense of what happened in the seconds around the assassination, including who was where when. It is also very clear that the FBI and Warren Commission threw out more than half of the key witnesses who most clearly thought a shot came from the grassy knoll and even saw smoke arising here. So what Rogan and Shermer were doing here with throwing out all the witness testimony without going in any detail is just ridiculous. |
|||||
When aspects of the permanent government have slowly been exposed over the years, oversimplify by stating this or that conspiracy theory "has had its best time". |
|||||
Additional explanation: There are many reasonable questions that could be asked, like why the mainstream media has not been the one responsible for shedding light on the "conspiracy" they just mentioned, or why they don't expand on the information now the word has come out, or if there are similar conspiracies going on. Of course, some conspiracies are never mentioned, so this argument doesn't apply to them. The exposure we're talking about here mainly deals with Bilderberg and the Bohemian Grove, or more recently, the 1001 Club and Le Cercle. |
|||||
Start out with, or only report, conclusions, and leave out most, if not all, evidence that this conclusion has been based on. Also leave out all nuances brought up by the person that has been interviewed. |
|||||
Additional explanation: Generally only works with pre-recorded interviews or a review of a person's work. As the conclusions that must be drawn from conspiracies or conspiracy theories are usually quite disturbing, especially to someone never exposed to this point of view, this tactic is one of the most effective in discrediting even men and women with impeccable credentials. Here's an example, a paraphrase from a recent Dutch article on Daniel Estulin's Bilderberg book (lost the article, which, by the way, was the inspiration for this article): "Estulin warns us that there's a plan for global dictatorship in which a great portion of the world's population will be exterminated. Those who survive will be implanted with a microchip in their brain." I can't tell if it's a good or a bad book - because I've not read it - but the intention of the newspaper is clear. Some day another example might be: "ISGP is claiming that leading officials in government (including prime ministers), business, the judiciary and intelligence are involved in illegal arms trafficking, drug running, pedophilia and terrorist attacks on their own population." What casual reader is going to believe that? It must be said though that ISGP has a significant advantage over book writers, because this site is freely accessible to everyone, so it's basically very easy for people to take a peek and check some of the facts reported in the newspapers. And any links to the site will only help build it up its rankings and visibility - which the security services clearly know all to well. |
|||||
Oversimplify by stating that the official head of state must have been directly involved in planning and overseeing whatever conspiracy. Don't allow the subject to explain the supranational, largely privatized, permanent government in any coherent way. |
|||||
Additional explanation: The "permanent government", or superclass, consisting of many different elements in business, politics, the judiciary, intelligence, the military, private clubs, and think tanks, seems to be the backbone of every conspiracy. Its existence is always ignored or denied, which probably has a lot to do with the major media networks belonging to this same superclass. |
|||||
Dismiss and ridicule the idea that the prime minister, president and cabinet ministers of a country could possibly have been involved a major conspiracy. |
|||||
Additional explanation: One of the biggest things in the way of people accepting conspiracies is that the average person cannot wrap his or her mind around the fact that the leaders we elect and see every day on television might know a few secrets that we at home absolutely have no clue about. This is a childish belief though. In contrast to the usual stereotypes the media loves to promote of the dear old grandfather or the rising young idealist, it might be more accurate to look at political parties as competing mafia clans and at another sterotype often portrayed in the media: that of a charming mafia don (or political leader) who in reality is a ruthless criminal and maybe even a serial killer. Or think about a vicious war criminal who has reintegrated back into society. Or about a video of Hitler playing with his dog. The moral of the story is that you can't judge an individual, certainly not one who has accumulated great power, by the charming little smile he or she puts on, or whatever PR activity is being engaged in. Always keep your eyes on the facts. And the facts are that we have had endless streams of political leaders who supported unnecessary wars, death squads, barbaric dictators, guns-for-drugs schemes, political assassinations, false flag terrorism, bills and executive orders that permanently undermined the democratic process, the jailing and harrassment of political protestors, the smearing of political opponents, and everything else under the sun that is more than a little objectable. And if a political leader actively supports a cover-up of, let's say, 9/11, and even exploits the event and is willing to send tens of thousands of clean up workers on an agonizing route towards an early grave, it's obviously very rational to suspect that this political leader played a role in the conspiracy to some extent. And when we see that little to nothing changed under his Democratic successor when it comes to the War on Terror or the reining in of civil liberties, we are forced to conclude that our political leaders are NOT on the side of people. In fact, it really appears as if in most cases our political leaders feel restrained by the democratic process and, exactly like human civilization has operated in the past 8,000 years, prefer to revert it to a fascist crony dictatorship. Of course, that's really tough to do in the modern world, but it really appears this is what many political leaders are trying to get away with. Looking at it from another angle, one thing any superclass establishment is always trying to accomplish is to elevate its "members" to the highest positions of official power by donating money and using the media outlets they own to sway popular opinion. Thus by definition our elected political leaders, at least for the most part, have been groomed by the superclass or are already established members of the superclass. What we usually see is that the elected head of state is picked and promoted by an establishment and upon election surrounds him or herself with key members of the establishment. This certainly goes for key positions as the secretary of state, defense secretary and national security advisor. These individuals literally always have a background at leading think tanks and foundations. Absolutely always, no matter who is elected president. In other words, the whole idea of a "shadow government" is only partially accurate because ordinarily the elected heads of state and certainly their chief cabinet officials are a very important visible aspect of this permanent government. We know, for example, that more than a few presidents, prime ministers and cabinet officials have ordered assassinations of foreign leaders or (genuinely) dangerous terrorists. That's something few people would like to acknowledge, but it nevertheless is a political reality. Yes, sometimes the role of these public officials might revolve around having plausible deniability, but ultimately, as "establishment representatives" occupying the reigns of power, they are the ones deciding on long-term and short-term policies and in all cases have to be fully trustworthy when it comes to supporting any kind of cover ups - and therefore have to be in the know to a degree. We can only speculate what our elected and appointed leaders have done to earn such trust and why they literally never dissent past the usual left-right paradigm, but it remains a fact that any "shadow government" in the security services or at major think tanks is powerless without the support of the elected and appointed civilian authorities. The latter control most resources of the state and have unlimited access to the media. And therefore any covert establishment tries to control the overt positions of political and economic power in a country, making these establishments relatively easy to map in the modern world of broadband internet and still relatively potent individual freedoms. We should emphasize an aspect of this sections once more: if we look at a conspiracy like 9/11, one of the first questions to ask is: Who is responsible and who should be forced out of office? That's the president, his national security advisor, the defense secretary, the CIA director, the NSA director, etc. At the very least they all failed and if there are questions to be asked that they refuse to answer, we are fully in our right to label them as suspects who had an involvement in plotting and/or allowing the attacks to happen. It's our right to have these suspicious and they are entirely rational. We shouldn't allow the media to tell us otherwise. |
|||||
Try to force a conspiracy advocate into confirming or denying oversimplified yes-no answers. |
|||||
Additional explanation: How many times have we seen this basic tactic from Fox News hosts? It's somewhat linked to the above tactic, because this one usually involves a question about the elected head of state. Such as: "Do you think President Bush blew up the towers? Yes or no." |
|||||
Claim that the internet is responsible for the recent increase in conspiracy theories, because frothing conspiracy theorists are hyping each other up in chat rooms and message boards. |
|||||
Additional explanation: It's true, of course, that the internet is responsible for the huge increase in awareness of conspiracies, the simple reason being that alternative theories are just as accessible on the net as the lies pushed by the government and mainstream media. However, anyone with a (conspiracy) site can tell you that links posted on forums will not get you many hits, as there always are a few individuals who drive everyone away by posting lengthy, irrational, and often abusive statements 24 hours a day. Skeptics will claim otherwise, but in reality few want to be associated with some of these forum people, including the average conspiracy-oriented person. Chat rooms are often private and generate even less hits. Most people use the internet to find and order books, read (alternative) news sites and use Google and Wikipedia to find additional information. That's it. |
|||||
Have a conspiracy theorist argue with a victim of a conspiracy who actually doesn't believe in the conspiracy. Even better, the victim is disabled and dying. |
|||||
Additional explanation: Apparently a relatively new tactic, which was used by FOX News' Planet Mancow in November 2006 when he confronted Kevin Smith, producer of Infowars and Prisonplanet, with the disabled and dying 9/11 firefighter Brian Harvey. During the planning and recording of the show Planet Mancow used numerous other disinformation tactics, all of which have been described here |
|||||
When covering demonstrations, mainly focus on the eccentric and the violent. Ignore all the presentable, calm and intelligent demonstrators. |
|||||
Additional explanation: It must be said that in anti-globalist (mainly US conservatives) or different-globalist (mainly liberals, including in Europe) demonstrations there's usually no shortage of eccentric individuals the media can pick from. On the other hand, there also are many knowledgeable individuals in government and business who have no interest in going to the streets with a bullhorn and a banner, but can very articulately explain what the present globalization process is all about and some of the aspects that are worrying. However, these are the people the media likes to ignore. Additional note: There's also some evidence that small, extreme left wing groups are used to disrupt peaceful demonstrations, followed by a heavy crackdown on all demonstrators (the 1999 WTO negotiations in Seattle for example). This, of course, gives the media yet another opportunity to further stereotype the anti-globalist and different-globalist crowds as uneducated, left-wing nutjobs. |
|||||
Don't write about the topics conspiracy theorists bring up. Instead, write about conspiracy theorists. |
|||||
Additional explanation: A great example is when this author was approached by a journalist of a major Dutch newspaper in mid 2007. The whole email read, "Can I call you some time about your ISGP website? Maybe I want to devote an article to it in Het Parool." The thing that immediately popped in my mind was, "Why write about my site? Do your own investigative article on Le Cercle, the 1001 (perfect for a Dutch investigator), the Pilgrims, or whatever. You don't need to know anything from or about me. The less you say about me the more credible you are." So I declined. And seeing the article some weeks later I certainly knew I had done the right thing. It was yet another superficial article about conspiracy theorists (evangelists; reincarnation therapists) and there was no investigative journalism to verify some of the more serious aspects of the conspiracy community. There was, of course, space reserved for talk about the 13 bloodlines of the Illuminati and Icke's lizards. What a surprise. |
|||||
See if you can link credible writers to not-so-credible writers. |
|||||
Additional explanation: Basically anything will do: a friendship, a compliment of one about the other, a reference in one of your works, etc. In the same Parool article mentioned in point 24, it was written that, "It is clear that Van der Reijden has let himself be inspired by David Icke... [talk about lizards, etc.]" This is a really dubious statement, but the writer of the article can get away with it because at the bottom of my article it was mentioned that the first time I heard about Le Cercle was on a DVD of David Icke. Now, this cheap exploit can't really bother me, because the minute I put that minor acknowledgement there, even if it was with a good number of reservations about basically all of Icke's theories, I knew "skeptics" would sooner or later jump on it. And that's fine; anybody can visit my site and compare it to any newspaper articles written about me. Now, I know I'm not a particularly credible writer, but you get the point. |
|||||
See if you can dig up some dirt on a prominent conspiracy advocate. |
|||||
Additional explanation: When it comes to politics, basically anything can be used against you: a criminal past, a few misdemeanors, dubious friends, having visited porn websites, cheated on your wife, a bitter ex-girlfriend, a son or daughter using drugs, etc. Personal attacks are the most often used against politicians because of their prominence, but they can also be used against conspiracy theorists. |
|||||
Introduce a "logical fallacy" to prevent getting into specifics. |
|||||
Additional explanation: A good example of this is when professional skeptic Michael Shermer on the Joe Rogan Experience podcast of March 7, 2016 stated with regard to 9/11: "For [the plane impacts] to have happened AND explosive devices to have been planted at the exact floors where they knew ahead of time which floors and what angles the plane hit - okay, there, stop. Full stop. That can't be." The ever-curious Joe Rogan (when it comes to conspiracy), of course, goes: "Yeah, yeah, yeah. Well, it's very, very, very unlikely." This is not how an investigation or even theorizing works. Ordinarily you first look at all the evidence and then you build a theory around that. Shermer is literally ignoring every piece of evidence that indicates the Twin Towers were rigged with explosives from at least the first skylobby at floor 44 and up. He also ignored the completely unexplained massive heat, the fact that the sudden collapses didn't start out at the most compromised impact floors, that explosives at just one floor still shouldn't have collapsed the entire building in seconds, and just everything else. All he does is insert a "logical doubt" into his listerners' minds. And just for those interested in looking up the "facts", Shermer manages to bring up disinformation as "tesla technology" (introduced by no-planer Dr. Judy Wood) and disinformative no-planers as Jesse Venture. |
|||||
Stick to generalities or counter specifics with generalities. |
|||||
Additional explanation: Sticking to generalities works perfect when skeptics and mainstream media pundits talk amongst each other or provide information to the public at large: "There are people who believe that 9/11 was a conspiracy." Both of these are very general statements from which no one learns anything. Examples of much more specific claims include: "Bechtel employees measured temperatures of "more than 2,800 degrees F [1,540°C]" in the rubble at Ground Zero in the days after 9/11, close to 40 publicly-available testimonies claim that molten steel was found and it took more than three months, until December 19, for the underground fires to die out." You immediately notice the severity of the impact statements like these will make in comparison to the more general statement. Once conspiracy advocates are able to make these specific charges, it becomes exponentionally hard to dismiss them, especially when they have proper sources on hand. So a situation like this has to be prevented at all costs. This is generally ensured by inviting a controlled opposition asset who doesn't make too many waves and allows himself to be discredited. Otherwise, the only options at this point would be to ridicule and deflect, in which the mainstream media or professional skeptic most likely would resort countering with generalities. In this case making any effective counter-claims appears to have been absolutely impossible. Statements as "You can't trust witness testimonies." or "What people saw most likely was aluminum" simply don't cut it. So clearly the latter situation of allowing genuine conspiracy advocates to make highly specific charges is also highly undesireable. |
|||||
Prevent losing an argument by claiming you're "not familiar enough" with a certain aspect of conspiracy and therefore have "to keep it in the middle". |
|||||
Additional explanation: Certainly when it comes to specialized debates this tactic falls in the "last resort" category, because it makes one look unprepared and ideally conspiracy theorists are opposed, ridiculed and marginalized in every possible way. It is quite applicable, however, in cases of a general conversation about a multitude of issues/conspiracies. |
|||||
Pretend to be open-minded and accepting towards conspiracy theories as long as there's a gentleman's agreement that "opinions can differ", "nothing will ever be solved" and the other party doesn't push for answers to highly specific questions. |
|||||
Additional explanation: This one falls in the "last resort" category, because ideally conspiracy theorists are opposed, ridiculed and marginalized in every possible way. But in case a skeptic or mainstream media outlet is losing a debate with a rational conspiracy advocate, this tactic can help to save face. |
- Study major controversial events like conspiracy researchers would do, but look for points to manipulate and exploit so skeptics can debunk them and false debates can be created.
- Ignore new revelations and insights into a conspiracy as much as possible once false debates have been generated.
- Invent a conspiracy theory about every new news report.
- Only make use of publicly released documents. Don't do any unique investigative work.
- Limit the amount of new information made available to an absolute minimum.
- Protect your allies and bosses in government and the private sector.
- Keep it in the (dysfunctional) family, from fellow conspiracy theorists to skeptics-for-hire.
- Only allow questionable "insiders" to do the whistleblowing.
- Link conspiracy to anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial.
- Link conspiracy to ridiculous cliches as the Illuminati, reptilians, the Anunnaki, and the NWO.
- Protect sitting administrations with the claim that a "rogue cell" or "shadow government" perpetrated a major conspiracy.
- Behave like a mentally deranged or highly obnoxious individual.
- Lump everything together: UFOs, the new age, geopolitics and conspiracy.
- Take witness testimony and physical evidence out of context.
- Come up with theories that cannot be proved nor disproved.
- Accuse someone of not being "open-minded" if they refuse to take your made-up theory serious.
- When a claim of yours gets effectively refuted, do not acknowledge this fact and instantly switch to other arguments and questions, preferably ones your debating partner hasn't gotten a chance to prepare for.
- Draw somewhat proper conclusions, but based on easy-to-discredit arguments.
- Have a prominent conspiracy advocate uphold the official story.
- Deliberately accuse your opponents of (conspiracy) crimes you yourself are committing.
Study major controversial events like conspiracy researchers would do, but look for points to manipulate and exploit so skeptics can debunk them and false debates can be created. |
|||
Additional explanation: This is probably the most important trait of the conspiracy community as in this manner they keep the debates going while never solving anything. The disinformation that is being spread is actually highly organized. The best example of this is the ridiculous no-Flight 77-at-Pentagon theory that is promoted by over 90 percent (!) of 9/11 Truth. In order to reach this conclusion, disinformative investigators had to crawl through all the available witnesses testimony in order to find isolated quotes that could be taken out of context. They had to comb through all the available photos to see which ones could be used to build their false case, while at the same time having to check that no photos are available that could easily undermine the case that they are trying to make. One example from the Pentagon impact that always sticks in my mind is the occasional claim that walls on the ground floor close to the impact were "blown out" to the right which is presented as evidence of a bomb or missile going off. In reality, the concrete walls were ripped from the floor to the left, with only some of the steel framing keeping the wall attached to the ceiling. Obviously someone had to study all the witness testimony and pictures to draw this bogus conclusion. And obviously they were aware that they were drawing the wrong conclusion, because the visual evidence and certainly the out-of-context quotes in case of the Pentagon attack are extremely easy to dismiss. We see the same trend of organized and well-studied disinformation with lobby and basement bomb theories surrounding the World Trade Center collapses that are promoted everywhere. It's incredibly devious and rather subtle disinformation, but it nevertheless is, because all the evidence points to explosives and thermite having been placed on and above the first skylobby at floor 44. We can find other examples in the JFK assassination with the amount of shots, their locations, or even who took the grassy knoll shot. One has to be very familiar with the evidence and the witness testimony to have come up with the disinformation. Also the 2013 Boston Bombing comes to mind. In 2014 and 2015 a Pentagon-no-planer as Dave McGowan literally produced hours and hours of podcasts presenting his photographic "evidence" that the victims of the Boston Bombing in reality were part of a psyop that involved a small bomb going off in the air with injuries being staged by war veterans with amputated limbs. Yes, seriously! Clearly, in order to effectively produce short-term and long-term disinformation around a subject, one either has to be a conspirator who exactly knows what did or didn't happen, or one has to study every aspect of a conspiracy to figure out where and how to twist the truth. Personally I suspect both elements have been working together in producing disinformation on subjects as JFK and 9/11. |
|||
Ignore new revelations and insights into a conspiracy as much as possible once false debates have been generated. |
|||
Additional explanation: The debate surrounding the collapse of World Trade Center 7 on 9/11 is a great example of this. In the first few years of the controversy debates were going on whether or not diesel fuel fires or damage from the North Tower collapse played a role in the sudden collapse of WTC 7. None of this turned out to be the case and by 2016 we had massive evidence and even official acknowledgments that NIST has manipulated its investigation of WTC 7 to the extreme. However, virtually no one in conspiracy land seems interested in reporting on all the crucial issues that have been discovered with WTC 7 in later years. In fact, truthers and skeptics are often still debating the issue like it is 2006. |
|||
Invent a conspiracy theory about every new news report. |
|||
Additional explanation: The Alex Jones Show is probably the biggest example of a "conspiracy machine". Every time a new terrorist bombing takes place, it's instantly labeled a "false flag" by "the globalists". Or when one of Alex Jones' conservative allies, such as Supreme Court judge Antonin Scalia, dies from a heart attack, the Jones' Infowars machine immediately paints the death as a liberal murder plot. Jones goes far beyond asking questions. He literally turns everything immediately into a conspiracy, in the process muddying the conspiracy waters on a daily basis. |
|||
Only make use of publicly released documents. Don't do any unique investigative work. |
|||
Additional explanation: Certainly one key characteristic of the conspiracy community is that very little unique investigative work is done. In the past John Birchers investigated the liberal establishment while various less organized authors investigated ultraright groups, but they never went all the way. And almost everything we see today are just rehashes of rehashes. No scandals are exposed by or through major sites as Alex Jones, Coast to Coast AM, or Rense, because they, or their guests, don't produce any truly unique material. They only pass on and organize what has already been reported in the mainstream media. This can be very important tool if done in an unbiased and intelligent manner without any spin. Unfortunately, what we see is the exact opposite. |
|||
Limit the amount of new information made available to an absolute minimum. |
|||
Additional explanation: Besides not doing any unique investigative work yourself, don't link to the work of the few who do. Every conspiracy outlet stopping to link to ISGP the second it began to produce unique articles with unique documentation is a great example of that. |
|||
Protect your allies and bosses in government and the private sector. |
|||
Additional explanation: A great example is Alex Jones. Most people think that he is independent and all about exposing conspiracies. But he isn't. He is a conservative right-wing Christian conservative propagandist who is a great fan of the radical John Birch Society, the Council for National Policy, the Heritage Foundation, the American Security Council, Le Cercle and related groups. And thus he protects them by not allowing any discussion about them or by defending them. These facts are discussed in ISGP's articles on Alex Jones and Coast to Coast AM. |
|||
Keep it in the (dysfunctional) family, from fellow conspiracy theorists to skeptics-for-hire. |
|||
Additional explanation: This strategy dawned on me many years back when I heard a UFO investigator complain that UFO groups as MUFON, FUFOR and UFORC were all linking to each other without accepting outsiders. This is what you see all over the place in the conspiracy community. Certainly not everybody is friends, but by cooperating and fighting amongst each other, while ignoring outsiders, a tightly-knit core community can been created that quickly rises to the surface in terms of online and real-world visibility. The network of guests on Art Bell's Coast to Coast AM are a perfect example of this. Also online you often see anonymous people arguing about the most ridiculous theories. Person one, who might be Richard Hoagland or Dr. Judy Wood of Coast to Coast AM states: "Particle beam technology brought down the WTC." Person 2 then harshly criticizes this. You breathe a sigh of relief, thinking this second person surely must be honest and rational. But no, because soon person two replies: "Micro-nukes brought down the WTC, just as in Oklahoma." Now person three comes by and laughs at both of these theories. A honest person after all? Can it be true? But no, soon person three goes: "Ignore the WTC. The Pentagon is much more important. See how no plane hit it?" This is psychological warfare at its finest. It confuses the public like no other tactic, because it makes people feel like they are living in the twilight zone. It can actually mentally destabilize honest individuals quite quickly. The rent-a-skeptic circuit surrounding James Randi is absolutely part of this. They only attack easy-to-debunk theories put out by this network of conspiracy and UFO gurus that appears each night on million dollar radio show Coast to Coast AM. The rent-a-skeptics only exist to create the illusion of a free and open debate. To illustrate further, my somewhat revolutionary 2007 Beyond Dutroux article was ignored by every major conspiracy site I submitted it to, even though I had previously been published by Infowars and Rense on much more superficial issues. So I offer $500 to Infowars to put the article up on the front page as a news article, which they did. All of sudden David Icke, Rense and other sites picked it up as well (with a little spin in the titles in the form of Illuminati references), not realizing that the prominent news item was paid for. None of the site's owners ever did anything with the information though, even though it contained devastating evidence against these sites' biggest enemy: senior Bilderberg members. But this again is related to tactic 2 listed here: "Limit the amount of new information made available to an absolute minimum." |
|||
Only allow questionable "insiders" to do the whistleblowing. |
|||
Additional explanation: Probably the worst type of information to rely on in conspiracy circles is "insider" testimony, because liberal and conservative factions have the tendency to smear each other this way - with both having the public as its enemy. The internet is absolutely stacked with "insider" testimony, especially in the field of UFOs, but at least 95% - really more than that - is provided by people who clearly talk nonsense and are part of the "conspiracy family" surrounding Coast to Coast AM. Where "they" get all these people is still a mystery to me (criminals and ex-prisoners given new identities has been suggested, in addition to life-long deep cover agents who take on a particular identity), but the internet is loaded with "former" intelligence officers "testifying" about the Anunnaki, the Illuminati, moon bases, and secret treaties with aliens like it is the most normal thing in the world. A lot of these witnesses were once attached to Steven Greer's fantasy show, the Disclosure Project, but have been picked up by a number of smaller "researchers" today swamping Youtube with new and more elaborate interviews. Other witnesses have presented themselves as victims of extreme ritual/child abuse. Cathy O'Brien is the most prominent one, but there are plenty of others. At one point or another all these witnesses have been interviewed by the big conspiracy shows with various books having been written about them. Another recently showed up in the Netherlands, of course interviewed by Americans. But does any prominent conspiracy author ever touch the much more reliable Dutroux X-Dossier witnesses of ISGP? No, of course not. Icke learned about ISGP's article and soon thereafter wrote his own article on the Dutroux affair. It was sent to me by several of his skeptical readers, as he never mentioned ISGP, but seemed to have picked up elements from the ISGP article. Worse, he left out all evidence pointing to involvement of Bilderberg leaders and Cold War CIA aristocrats in these networks. Then we have whistleblowers as Kay Griggs, the wife of a former chief of staff of the commandant of the Marine Corps. Although her information, for once, seems accurate, careful analysis demonstrates that she is allied with the traditional conservative establishment. She dislikes the liberal eastern establishment as much as she dislikes Jews and neocons cooperating with the Jews, so these are almost exclusively the names she exposes. As predicted, ISGP was unable to get her to even mention the name Ted Shackley or really talk about some of the imbalances in her testimonies. In conversations she was just relentless in her anti-semitism. |
|||
Link conspiracy theories to anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial. |
|||
Additional explanation: This is one of the most obvious problems with the conspiracy community: it is absolutely stacked with anti-Semites. You can't make a news or forum post related to conspiracy without Jew haters from every stinky corner of the internet joining the conversation, immediately pushing out every normal participant in the discussions.
You generally won't find these people in ordinary life, at least not in traditional western society, but they are everywhere online where someone tries to discuss a conspiracy. Too many conspiracy-oriented "anti-neocon" or "anti-Zionist" websites exist today to count. Much of it goes back to the traditional conservative establishment, especially surrounding the Liberty Lobby and General Douglas MacArthur, who have always been extremely Nazi. Modern incarnations are American Free Press, the Institute of Historical Research, and Rense. All these sites, and many more, aggressively engage in Holocaust denial ("revisionism"), immensely helping to discredit the conspiracy community. Many John Birch Society members used to be equally anti-Semitic and fascist, but generally kept their opinions out of the works they published. One of the premier games played in today's manipulated conspiracy community is to have "Liberty Lobbyans" quarrel with John Birchers in which the former is parrotting the anti-"New World Order" line just like the John Birchers, but is harrassing the latter with claims that they are "Zionist shills" protecting the "hidden Jewish hand" behind everything in history. It's a contrived debate/attack to divide and undermine the conspiracy community. Alex Jones being regularly attacked by David Duke, American Free Press and Rense followers is just one such example. Jones doesn't really shun away from attacking the Israel lobby or Israel-inspired conspiracies as the 1967 U.S.S. Liberty incident, but still these contrived debates are going on. |
|||
Link conspiracy to ridiculous cliches as the Illuminati, reptilians, the Anunnaki, and the NWO. |
|||
Additional explanation: This is exactly the same as with anti-semitism. Whenever a person tries to discuss a conspiracy, radicals come crawling out of the woodwork yelling that it's all the work of the Illuminati, reptilians, the Anunnaki, and the NWO. Highly charged discussions ensue between all these fringe persons, pushing every normal, rationally-thinking person out of a potentially coherent, fact-based discussion. Other examples relate to the John F. Kennedy assassination and 9/11. Bring up JFK and people start claiming there were three or more shooters and that the driver turned around and delivered the final shot to Kennedy's head. Mention 9/11 and no-plane and basement bomb theories start flying around. Bogus ideas are promoted by spooks/con artists attached to major radio shows as the Alex Jones Show and Coast to Coast AM and eventually it is these theories that everyone remembers to have heard, discrediting the entire community. |
|||
Protect sitting administrations with the claim that a "rogue cell" or "shadow government" perpetrated a major conspiracy. |
|||
Additional explanation: I've heard George Noory and his buddy Alex Jones explicitly make this claim on a number of occasions in relation to 9/11. This claim only serves to protect government officials as George W. Bush and Donald Rumsfeld and enforces the stereotype that our elected leaders really are well-meaning but somewhat powerless individuals in the face of some unseen "globalist" cabal that we unfortunately will never be able to fully identify. Enlightening the massess and getting officials prosecuted is all about specifics. What we need are: names, names, names - and proper sources. |
|||
Behave like a mentally deranged or highly obnoxious individual. |
|||
Additional explanation: Mentioning the Illuminati and Anunnaki is many times more effective when, instead of acting polite and bringing up sources (however unreliable these might be), one behaves in a manner that is a combination of obnoxious, extremist, unstable, aggressive, arrogant, and generally as unpleasant as possible. This works for online trolling, but also in real life, as Alex Jones demonstrates day in, day out on his radio show, or with his annual bullhorning of the Bilderbergers. If anyone deserves an A for effort, it's him. |
|||
Lump everything together: UFOs, the new age, geopolitics and conspiracy. |
|||
Additional explanation: Although ISGP does this to an extent, it makes sure to keep everything extremely well-documented. Still, it makes one much more vulnerable to ridicule and it is pretty common to see alternative "researchers" mixing aliens, geopolitics and conspiracy in pretty bizarre ways. |
|||
Take witness testimony and physical evidence out of context. |
|||
Additional explanation: This is probably the oldest trick in the book, used even by small children. To name an example related to conspiracy, ISGP has described in detail how almost the entire 9/11 conspiracy community has been promoting the theory that Flight 77 could not have hit the Pentagon and how this conclusion can only be reached by cherry picking and misrepresenting available photos and witness testimony. |
|||
Come up with theories that cannot be proved nor disproved. |
|||
Additional explanation: This tactic can be illustrated through two opposing sayings: 1) Absence of proof is not proof of absence; meaning that just because something can't be proved, doesn't make it not true. This reason of thought can be countered with the saying that: 2) Any claim asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence; meaning that anybody is free to ignore any theory not based on any evidence. Related to the first saying, alternative theories about our human history come to mind, especially the work of Graham Hancock, who luckily today also has his own article on ISGP. Hancock travels the world, encounters structures with giant cut stones in them, and quickly comes to the conclusion that "ancients" with special technologies or "Gods" with special powers must have built these places. The problem is that with each advancement of archeology, carbon dating and DNA research, Hancock's theories get further and further debunked. At this point absolutely nothing is left standing of theories he first introduced in his 1995 book Fingerprints of the Gods. However, Hancock keeps coming up with theories that are either unprovable or hard to prove. For example, his latest claim is that demons can be contacted through psychedelic mushrooms which will subsequently manipulate the people that use them. What's his evidence? Nothing of substance really. He has used psychedelics on a few occasions and this is a theory he came up with. But any scientist or ordinary person that is skeptical of his claims, often after having done quite a bit of research, gets dismissed and smeared with the accusation of being narrow-minded. Of course, we see similar near impossible to absolutely disprove theories everywhere in the conspiracy community. |
|||
Accuse someone of not being "open-minded" if they refuse to take your made-up theory serious. |
|||
Additional explanation: Graham Hancock and his followers particularly have a habit of doing this. Hancock literally invented most of his Atlantis and Ancient Egypt theories out of thin air, but when one points out that mainstream science is actually correct in virtually every case he makes, he and his followers go: [Californian "dude" accent:] "You're not being open-minded enough, man. Academics is controlled. They're lying to you. Just be open-minded, man." It can be a pretty darn effective way to put attackers on the defense. Apart from a little humor, the only way to go is give very specific rebuttals to certain claims, have your sources on hand, and allow the public to decide who's right and who's wrong. |
|||
When a claim of yours gets effectively refuted, do not acknowledge this fact and instantly switch to other arguments and questions, preferably ones your debating partner hasn't gotten a chance to prepare for. |
|||
Additional explanation: I've seen this non-stop during debates about topics as Kennedy and 9/11, as I enjoy putting disinformers checkmate with rock-solid arguments. And although it's partly in the nature of all humans, most disinformers are slippery as an eel. No one ever admits defeat. No one ever admits that they were wrong. No one ever looks at the evidence I present and adjusts his or her opinion. Instead, human nature seems to dictate that always another argument is sought in order to get back into the fight as quickly as possible.
Destroy somene's arguments regarding the no-plane-at-WTC theories and they'll just shift to basement bombs in the WTC. Annihilate that argument and see them switch to phone calls that couldn't have been made from the airplanes. What these people - these disinformers - are looking for is something they can "get" someone with. And it works, because if there is a public watching and there's one issue a person hasn't studied deep enough yet, or one issue a person prefers to keep his or her polite reservations about, then that will be all it takes to seed doubt in the minds of those watching the debate. And doubt, not being able to draw conclusions and make final judgments, that's what it is all about. The more doubt, the better. But even a little doubt can be highly effective. |
|||
Draw somewhat proper conclusions, but based on easy-to-discredit arguments. |
|||
Additional explanation: This can be a surprisingly effective technique when certain conspiracies simply cannot be hidden from the public due to the availability of overwhelming evidence. This is basically a pre-emptive form of ridicule. Great examples include conspiracies as JFK and 9/11, as well as the influence of the Rockefellers. As for the Rockefellers, so much has been written about the nefarious influence of this family, often based on such flimsy evidence and so many ridiculous statements, that a regular journalist or researcher can hardly come to (roughly) similar conclusions without automatically being discredited. There's no doubt the Rockefellers have been at the center of the globalist and liberal eastern establishment since even before World War II. However, how is anyone going to reach a conclusion like that without automatically being associated with fringe conspiracy theories? That's nearly impossible to avoid. |
|||
Have a prominent conspiracy advocate uphold the official story. |
|||
Additional explanation: Examples of this tactic have mainly been provided in ISGP's "liberal CIA" oversight. Respected government critics and conspiracy advocates as Oliver Stone, Greg Palast, Alexander Cockburn, Robert Parry, Noam Chomsky all lose their marbles the second they are asked if any legitimate questions exist about the JFK assassination (except Stone in this case, but Stone still spins the facts about JFK) or 9/11. |
|||
Deliberately accuse your opponents of (conspiracy) crimes you yourself are committing. |
|||
Additional explanation: Over the years I've seen child pornography hunters being thrown in prison for sexual abusing children themselves (Marcel Vervloesem) and government-linked drug traffickers write articles accusing what appears to be their competition of drug trafficking (the Far West people). Less shocking and disorienting, also conspiracy radio hosts or conspiracy gurus accusing others of "spin" or explaining in detail how "disinformation is rampant" fall into this category. For some reason I never really bothered to put this down as a deliberate tactic until the shouting match between Cenk Uygur of The Young Turks on the one hand and Alex Jones and Roger Stone of Infowars on July 21, 2016, after which Uygur - still on set - explained about Jones and Stone (and Trump): "They're swift boat guys. ... They take the worst things about themselves and pretend their opponents are the ones that do it." Obviously this seems to be more of a universal tactic also employed by the mainstream media each time they're accusing the competition or conspiracy advocates of spinning the facts. The most "pure and primal" variation, however, would be to put yourself up in front of an audience and win over its support by very deliberately accusing others of a very specific and very serious crime you yourself are secretly committing. Most people can't even imagine someone being so extremely disingenuous. It would never even come up in them that you would be committing these crimes yourself. |
- Deny everything in the most convincing manner possible under all circumstances.
- Assign insiders to every "independent" investigative panel that looks into a certain conspiracy.
- Allow a degree of controlled dissent of panel members that, in case they are proved correct, will still not expose the true extent of the conspiracy.
- Prevent truly damaging exposes from getting out by slapping media corporations with national security orders and have friendly multinationals threaten to withdraw advertizing.
- Can't name or easily describe the beast if it has no name or no generally accepted name.
This happens when phenomena do not appear, aren't described and aren't acknowledged in school books and the media. To illustrate: there's no universally accepted word for elite conspiring groups: is it "superclass"? "Illuminati"? "New World Order"? "Deep state"? "CIA"? This author has been toying with "Globalist Intelligence Agency (GIA)" since 2018 to illustrate the historic cooperation between the CIA and the private, globalist superclass and its anti-globalist controlled opposition elements. However, for now, a truly satisfying word still has to be found, which is even harder to get to when you don't fully know what you're up against.
Also: "covert politics" literally has no Dutch translation that has ever been in use. "Conspiracy theory" and the awkward "secret politics" basically are the only traditional translations. With that, this author basically introduced and started using the translation "coverte politiek" and "clandestiene politiek" around 2017.
APPENDICES:
A: List of fake news / "conspiracy disinformation" sites
This is just a tiny little beginning effort to show how prevailent disinformation sites are in search engines - and to what extent they are quietly tolerated by search engines, media and politics - even anno 2021, years into a so-called "war on fake news". All these websites I have run into just by looking up a variety of conspiracy-related search queries, such as "CFR", "trilateral", "bohemian grove", "9/11", "CIA", etc., plus a number of specific names and connections in relation to ISGP research.
On top of that, despite the high ranking in search engines of these conspiracy disinformation sites at one point or another, clicking on a lot of the urls actually results in running into expired links, scummy advertizing, and notices as "data limit exceeded".
Why is it that sites like these can be ranked so high, while ISGP - in particular in Google - has been almost completely removed? Why is no one even asking questions about this phenomenon? And this years into a so-called "war on fake news"?
It should be clear that these websites massively clog up search engines and form the basis of online censorship. Instead of going through the list below and going, "Yeah, no mark up; terrible 1990s design, pink letters on a black underground, no sources", etc. and downranking these urls - as search engines claim they rank pages on - they remain at the top.
If this is due to a large number of incoming links, then search engines should investigate where they come from and why. This obviously is a much better approach (for society as a whole) than censoring ALL conspiracy talk.
Fake news / "conspiracy disinformation" sites
- aanirfan.blogspot.co.uk
- AbruptEarthChanges.com: Terrible-looking site which is the 6th hit on Yahoo on August 28, 2021, behind the official Bilderberg site, Wikipedia, a fake conspiracy news site and the David Icke forums, for 'bilderberg 2021 attendees'. The site compains about coronavirus lockdowns, "medical tyranny" and ties everything on Earth to some kind of new age "grand solar minimum" Theory.
- Abovetopsecret.com
- Aim4truth.org
- Altamontenterprise.com
- Ae911truth.org: Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. Disinformation similar to all other 9/11 "truth" sites.
- Battleforworld.com: Page 2, link 2, in Yahoo in March 2021 when typing in '"council on foreign relations" "trilateral commission"'. Linked article: "[The world rulers] are known in whispers as "The Council of 7 Men", "The Seven Dark Ones", "The Seven Branches", "The Seven Children In Hostage", etc." Site slogan: "Counter-forces fighting against the ruling elite cabal One World Order empire."
- Bestgore.com: Top gore video site completely dominated by the most rabid immigrant- and Jew-haters. Shut down late 2020.
- Biblebelievers.org.au: Slogan: "The second coming of Christ". Page 3 in Yahoo in March 2021 when typing '"council on foreign relations" "trilateral commission"', linking to a very old 'Initial List of Council on Foreign Relations Members'.
- Bibliotecapleyades.net: Copy-past conspiracy archive site. Has always been very prominent in search engines. Number 1 in Yahoo in March 2021 when typing '"council on foreign relations" "trilateral commission"'.
- bilderbergmembers.files.wordpress.com: 12th hit on Yahoo on August 28, 2021 searching for 'bilderberg 2021 attendees', this behind two official links and an endless stream of garbage. The site is pretty much blank. No design really. It only has copy-pasted a 2019 Bilderberg list with some quotes, all without any kind of mark up. A PDF is linked with a bizarre, confusing anti-immigration rant about South African white Afrikaners having been betrayed by the British monarchy, mixed in with invocations of Christ and denunciations of "liberalism".
- Bookshop.org: Its 'Coronapocalypse' book featured prominently in Google in 2021.
- BroadStreetBeacon.com: 3rd hit on Yahoo on August 28, 2021, right behind the official Bilderberg site and Wikipedia, for 'bilderberg 2021 attendees'. Turns out, this a fake news satirical troll site on conspiracy, citing Bilderberg chair Henri de Castries as follows: "Sierra City [is] also far away enough to confuse Alex Jones. And it's also the final resting place of Adolf Hitler." Moving to the front page, the website has a news article entitled 'Defense Department Testing Fluoride Chemtrails in Nevada County'.
- Canadafreepress.com: "Elite crooks ... Committee of 300 ... Jim Marrs ... We suggest you allow Aaron Russo to educate you..." This is to be found in the article linked on page 1 and 2 in Yahoo in March 2021 when typing in '"council on foreign relations" "trilateral commission"'.
- bijbeloptiek.weebly.com: I run into this cheap and terrible-looking Dutch Christian blog on September 25, 2022 searching on Google.com for 'bilderberg "een-derde" politici zakenmensen'. It's link #4. The top tabs read: "Israel", "End time", "Bible", "Church" , "Occultism". The whole lengthy article has three sources, one of them Alex Jones' "Infowars", and contains sentences as, "It is generally assumed that former Pope Paul XXIII also was a member of the Illuminati." In the article conspiracy disinformer Daniel Estulin is mentioned. At the bottom it reads: "The popes of Rome and their power in the end times." My own Bilderberg article is nowhere to be found.
- CoastToCoastAM.com: Biggest conspiracy-related disinformation radio show. All its hundreds of guests spread disinformation, meaning that all their websites could be included here.
- Continuingcounterreformation .blogspot.com: 4th Google result searching for '"the Trilateral Commission is the Carter Administration." penthouse 1977', amidst lots of dirt at the top of the index. Terrible-looking blog totally and completely incoherently obsessed with anti-Vatican and globalists-are-leftists propaganda. The page I ended up on pushes fake news that Obama's handshake was snubbed by Russian officials, while in reality Obama introduced American officials to Russian prime minister Medvedev. One of the links suggests that JFK was assassinated, because he tried "to push the freeways away from Catholic University of America and Georgetown University." The site is nothing but an ugly pile of incoherent, disinformative, religious nonsense.
- Corbettreport.com: Chemtrails, 9/11-no-plane theories, etc.
- DavidIcke.com: Icke is (in)famous for his shapeshifting lizard theories, but also pushes tons of other disinformation, including the idea that no plane hit the Pentagon on 9/11. His site also pops up high in search engines on occasion: forum.davidicke.com ('The Bilderberg Meeting 2021') is the 4th hit on Yahoo on August 28, 2021, right behind the official Bilderberg site, Wikipedia and a fake conspiracy news site, for 'bilderberg 2021 attendees'.
- Disclose.tv.
- discover.hubpages.com/education/Who-is-the-Rockefeller-family: Link #1 in Yahoo in March 2021 when typing in 'rockefeller illuminati'. Written in 2018.
- Ellaster.nl: Showed up in the Statcounter of this site in May 2023. Ellaster.nl: "[Top menu:] Intel: Benjamin Fulford. ... David Icke."
- Express.co.uk.
- Federaljack.com: "All three Illuminati classes are mind programmed... it is my contention that prominent Jews were recruited by the Templars..." Second page link in Yahoo in March 2021 when typing in 'rockefeller illuminati'.
- Fightingmonarch.com: First page link in Yahoo in March 2021 when typing in 'rockefeller illuminati'.
- Foodlord.in/house-of-xtmfewg/limits-to-growth-2019-bf45a9: Lyndon LaRouche stuff on "neo-Malthusian". No alineas or mark up, and part of the site of a "dining bar". Still, among the top links in Google in March 2021 searching on 'club of rome' membership.
- ForeignPolicyJournal.com: Infrequently updated and largely defunct since 2020. Home to contributors Richard Falk (the pro-Arab one-time senior CFR member turned 9/11-no-planer), Ramzy Baroud, "journalist and the editor of The Palestine Chronicle"; and Paul Craig Roberts. Mixed seemingly real foreign policy analysis (last June 12, 2020 headline article: 'Why Do Taliban Continue to Kill If They Are Serious about Peace?') with conspiracy disinformation articles (Mar 24, 2011, 'A Rothschild Plan for World Government.' - still on the front page as of Aug. 2, 2021).
- Fourwinds10.com: Christian site that pushes Benjamin Fulfurd's writings and the like. Copied old info from ISGP.
- Globalresearch.ca: Michael Chossudovsky's website, which has pushed chemtrails, 9/11-no-plane theories, etc.
- Geopolitics.co: Linked on an anti-Catholic conspiracy disinfo site that showed up high in Google for me on September 6, 2021. The site has a big Julian Assange quote at the top, but bathes in random conspiracy irrationality and disinformation. The 2012 article I end up with reads, "Ptolemaic Papal bloodlines ... all controlled through the Jesuit Order and their Knights of Malta & Teutonic Knights all based in missile protected Borgo Santo Spirito in Rome. ... Saturnalian Brotherhood - The Real 13 Zoroastrian Bloodlines of the Illuminati." The half-done site promotes HAARP theories and Benjamin Fulford.
- Globalwatchweekly.com: "Transhumanism, the Great Reset, the Covid-19 vaccine agenda and Nephimology." Front page is empty. Barely any text in linked "article". Still, first page link in Yahoo in March 2021 when typing in 'rockefeller illuminati'.
- Godlikeproduction.com: conspiracy disinformation forum.
- Hetgrotereplaatje.nl: Pusher of Illuminati ideas along the lines of Fritz Springmeier. On the front page anno 2021: "The 'illuminati'... They consist at the core of 13 extremely wealthy families."
- HenryMakow.com: Pusher of Illuminati and Protocols of Zion theories.
- Illuminatiexposed.home.blog: Link #2 in Yahoo in March 2021 when typing in 'rockefeller illuminati'.
- Illuminatirex.com: Page 2 and 3 in Yahoo in March 2021 when typing in '"council on foreign relations" "trilateral commission"'. Linked page: illuminatirex.com/secret-societies/: "Top Ten Secret Societies: ... No. 1 Bilderberg... No. 2 Illuminati. No. 3 Skull and Bones. No. 4 [CFR] No. 5 [TC] No. 6 Priory of Sion. No. 7 Bohemian Grove. No. 8: Freemasonry. No. 9 Committee of 300. No. 10 Knights Templar."
- Infowars.com: Alex Jones' primary website.
- Libertygalaxy.com: Page 2 in Yahoo in March 2021 when typing in '"council on foreign relations" "trilateral commission"'. This involves just a small page only containing some external links to CFR, Bilderberg and Trilateral Commission members in Trump's cabinet, plus the statement "Trump Swap, it's alive! The Rothschild / Rockefeller mafia." Political redirect site with 'Science: Aliens and UFOs" and 'Occult' sections with entries as "Grimoires, Illuminati, Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Skull and Bones, Thule Society, Quill and Dagger."
- LibertyInternational .wordpress.com: 18th hit on Yahoo on August 28, 2021 searching for 'bilderberg 2021 attendees', this behind two official links and an endless stream of garbage. It's the usual copy-paste blog with little to no design features, in this case ran by a deranged, old hippy-looking guy. Interestingly, the article is a full copy-paste of Michel Chossudovsky's disinformative-but-infinitely-more-well-known GlobalResearch.ca, indicating globalresearch.ca has been downranked in favor of these type of utter garbage links.
- Liftingthewool.wordpress.com: 8th hit on Yahoo on August 28, 2021, behind the official Bilderberg site, Wikipedia, and various other conspiracy news sites, for 'bilderberg 2021 attendees'. The title of the Feb. 2021 article that pops up? 'The Satanic Council, part 2: The Bilderberg Group.': "According to our whistleblower (OW), the Satanic Council and different committees under the Satanic Council are required to have a few meetings a year. One of their meetings is called the Bilderberg meeting (1). Using a reverse logic... Given Google’s representation at the Bilderberg conferences... The Daily Mail (British) infiltrated the Bilderberg conference in 2018..." About section: "I’m a baking enthusiast [and] Christian who enjoys writing. ... Satan is real, and [lies] that the bible is a fairy tale."
- Moonofalabama.org.
- Mysticurious.com: 'Hidden in Plain Sight: 13 Family Bloodlines of the Illuminati' on page 2 in Yahoo in March 2021 when typing in 'rockefeller illuminati'.
- NationalVanguard.org: Hit no. 3 on Yahoo searching 'senator george mitchell bilderberg' on August 28, 2021. The site writes against white guilt pushing by elites, but this is nullified by the fact that this is the (or a) site of the Jew-baiting pro-Nazi group with similar name. If you click on 'Buy Books' you are taken to CosmoTheistChurch.org where William Pierce's 'The Turner Diaries' are prominently sold.
- Newdemocracyworld.org: 9/11-no-plane, anti-global warming, anti-Israel writings.
- Newspunch.com / Yournewswire.com: Spreads outright fabricated material. Ran by Adl-Tabatabai, formerly an employee of famous conspiracy disinformer David Icke.
- NewsWithViews.com: Hit no. 3 on Yahoo searching 'senator george mitchell bilderberg' on August 28, 2021. Early 2000s-looking conservative conspiracy site founded in June 2001. It has major HTML error codes in the 'About' section, and still pushes the 2004-released 9/11-no-plane disinformation film 'In Plane Site' in the left column when I visit it in 2021, along with other disinformation.
- Ohoakebooks.com.
- One-trinity.com: First page link in Yahoo in March 2021 when typing in 'rockefeller illuminati'.
- Payseurs.com: First page link in Yahoo in March 2021 when typing in 'rockefeller illuminati'. Presents an alternative Illuminati story to Fritz Springmeier's.
- Prisonplanet.com: Alex Jones' secondary news website.
- pineut.wordpress.com: I run into this cheap and terrible-looking Dutch Christian blog on September 25, 2022 searching on Google.com for 'bilderberg "een-derde" politici zakenmensen'. It is a top 20 link. The article concers 'Dutch participants Bilderberg 2016', is very short, has no sources, misses one of its pictures (an external link to defunct conspiracy site thesleuthjournal.com), contains images of the Illuminati pyramid with all-seeing-eye and texts as "Agenda 21", and contains a tab at the top that reads 'Maankalender 2013' ('Moon Calendar 2013'). My own new Bilderberg aticle is nowehere to be found in Google.
- Propagandamatrix.com: Old website of Alex Jones ally/employee Paul Joseph Watson.
- Qanon movement: Movement that sprang from the old extreme right 4Chan forum, similar to the bogus 2016 Pizzagate affair it has supported. The basic idea of the movement basically comes down to Donald Trump being the savior of the white/human race from the globalist cabal of pedophile Satan worshippers - who tend to be overwhelmingly "leftist" and Democrat. The movement has been discussed/pushed around the world in mainstream newspapers and magazines as a prime example how dangerous and vast the "extreme right" is.
- Reddit: This involves most, if not all, conspiracy channels. Moderators - often of dozens of channels - have always refused to link to ISGP articles, have them downvoted, and otherwise push little but disinformation. Reddit literally has a policy that black, Arab and Latino minorities cannot be racist - because they are minorities. It is part of the globalist Silicon Valley cartel.
- Rense.com: Very prominent, long-standing conspiracy news aggregate website with roots going back to 1994. It claims to be "anti-Zionist", but has celebrated Hitler's birthday (literally) and pushes disinformation as chemtrails and everything else under the sun.
- rtdutch.net: Anti-Corona lockdown protestors. Stole ISGP material at rtdutch.net/klimaatverandering-club-of-rome-prins-bernard-en-beatrix. Mainstream media attention to discredit "conspiracy theorists": September 6, 2020, NRC, ''Corona, is dat niet gewoon een seizoensgriepje?''.
- Stillnessinthestorm.com: Democrat-bashing conspiracy site making references to Bibliotecapleyades.net in this case. Page 1, link 2, in Yahoo in March 2021 when typing in '"council on foreign relations" "trilateral commission"'.
- tttruth.com: "Black nobility", lots of complaining about Zionists and Jews. Top link in Google in Yahoo in March 2021 when doing searches on Club of Rome membership.
- Rumormillnews.com: General news and conspiracy disinformation blog/site. Still able to raise $1,600 in March 2021 through donations.
- SOTT.net.
- Steverotter.com: First page link in Yahoo in March 2021 when typing in 'rockefeller illuminati'. COVID hoax, flat earth theorizing, etc.
- Thefreethoughtproject.com: Site completely dedicated to police abuses, with at least one John Bircher among the staff members. Some Molon Labe and media-controlled-by-CFR stuff on site.
- Themillenniumreport.com: "Pedogate & Pizzagate" heading. Page 1, link 3 (also on page 2), in Yahoo in March 2021 when typing in '"council on foreign relations" "trilateral commission"'.
- Thenewamerican.com: Good old magazine of the "old right" "alt right" John Birch Society. Page 1 and 2 in Yahoo in March 2021 when typing in '"council on foreign relations" "trilateral commission"'.
- Thetruthseeker.co.uk.
- Unforbiddendocs.wordpress.com: Second page link in Yahoo in March 2021 when typing in 'rockefeller illuminati'.
- Unshackledminds.com: 11th hit on Yahoo on August 28, 2021 searching for 'bilderberg 2021 attendees', this behind two official links and an endless stream of garbage. Why? Because it is a recent November 2020 article that has 'Why the Bilderberg’s Replaced Donald Trump With Yes Man Joe Biden' is its title... Terrible-looking site with no interface except a front page. Article written by "Auto". Quote: "Trump is just another 'actor' turned President. ... Sleepy Joe Biden: ... They needed a Satanic Shill to implement the North American version of the 'Great Reset'. Here in Canada we have out own Bilderberg Shill in Justin Trudeau ready to implement the Illuminati’s 'People Control' plan. [and] build our COVID 21 Internment Camps." The front page is all about disinfo how Covid vaccines are not effect at stopping the Delta variant.
- Veteranstoday.com
- Viruswaarheid.nl: Hit number 2 on Google.com typing in 'Global Preparedness Monitoring Board sigrid kaag' on August 28, 2021 and generally a Dutch conspiracy disinfo site I regularly run into anno 2021. The site is ran by anti-Corona Lockdown activist Willem Engel, son of infamous Dutch slumlord Cees Engel, who was bought out of the city of Rotterdam and once received a year jail sentence for offering housing to drug criminals. In 2020 he made the national news for his case against the Dutch government over the legality of its implemented Corono curfew. He never really left the news (on July 24, 2021 I saw criticism of him pushed on my YouTube frontpage with a fresh account). In January 2021 Willem caused a schism in the small party Vrij en Sociaal Nederland, through which he tried to get into parliament.
- Voltairenet.org
- Wakeup-world.com: First page link in Yahoo in March 2021 when typing in 'rockefeller illuminati'. Chemtrails, HAARP, etc.
- Wearechange.org
- Whatreallyhappened.com
- ymlp.com/zb1R2M: "Cogs in Club of Rome's Genocide Machine."
- Zerohedge.com.
- zlj13051967.wordpress.com ('The Balkans Chronicles'): I run into this cheap and terrible-looking blog on September 25, 2022 searching on Google.com for 'bilderberg "een-derde" politici zakenmensen'. It is link #15, amidst almost all untrustworthy sites. "There are no rulers outside the reach of freemasons. ... Nobody knows how many secret chevaliers and knights of different orders and lodges there are in his country. Many states have already lossed sovereignty."
UNSORTED: - modernhistoryproject.org/: ...
- pizzagate.fi/english/book-pedophilia-empire-satan-sodomy-the-deep-state/: Comes up on Sep. 18, 2021 as link 2 searching DuckDuckGo for '1977 penthouse expose of "trilateral commission"'. Pizzagate, which dominates this dump-looking blog, is a bogus affair.
- ordoabchao.ca/volume-five/secret-team: Link 4 Sep. 18, 2021 searching DuckDuckGo for '1977 penthouse expose of "trilateral commission"'. David Livingstone.
- mindcontrolblackassassins.com/tag/sheri-denise-allred/: Comes up on Sep. 18, 2021 as link 5 searching DuckDuckGo for '1977 penthouse expose of "trilateral commission"'. One page blog with irrational new age / magic / cult / CIA rants: "Her ILLUMINATIUS (ILLUMINATI- US) supported global charities include expressly, LucisTrust." The top caption has literally not been edited: "Just another WordPress.com weblog." About section: "My interest in BLACK MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE began... on May 19, 1969, Malcolm X Day Celebration and Black Student Conference at Merritt Junior College, I unwittingly came face-to-face with one of the military-industrial-medical complex experimental products, a prototype Black zombie assassin. ...
I had to escort the young man safely away from campus. The information collected about the young man including the gun that he had was subsequently compromised by a state police agent/informant that had infilrated our security team." - whammisright.blogspot.com: Link 6 Sep. 18, 2021 searching DuckDuckGo for '1977 penthouse expose of "trilateral commission"'. All-black and grey blog with a number of rant-like posts on them: "Socialism? REALLY ??? Are there STILL people out there who "think," oops, I mean believe (obviously there is NO thinking going on) that Socialism works? As half Swede, I can tell you that Socialism has done irreversible damage to the homeland...
You need to listen to the testimonies of various mind control victims, researchers, and Illuminati defectors such as Cathy O'Brien, "Mary Anne," "Svali," "David Icke," and many others." Rants about the bible as well, etc. - catholicresistence. blogspot.com/2006/08/sungenis-on-nwo-zionism-and-end.html: Comes up on Sep. 18, 2021 as link 8 searching DuckDuckGo for '1977 penthouse expose of "trilateral commission"'. Basic blog with only a few posts on it. The url already makes its credibility clear.
- exploringrealhistory. blogspot.com/2020/03/part-1-eyes-wide-openwatergate-was.html: Comes up on Sep. 18, 2021 as link #9 searching DuckDuckGo for '1977 penthouse expose of "trilateral commission"'.
- ordoabchao.ca: David Livingstone. No. 4 on DDG search for '1977 penthouse expose of "trilateral commission"' on Sep. 22, 2021.
- conspiracydossiers.com: This is the weird one in the bunch. Found (again) on Dec. 18, 2022 searching Google for "cercle de lorraine" and "selliers de moranville" to get a proper list of members for this group, including sources. Various copy-pastes from my ISGP can be found, but not ISGP itself. Then there is this peculiar site that copies the WHOLE way of organizing an article from ISGP and has rewritten ISGP's 'Beyond the Dutroux Affair' ad related articles in a bunch of separate articles without sources. At the same time it links to ISGP... Except for the links, this is not productive. Also, why is this site allowed to be up in Google and not ISGP? As said, it's a weird one.
- revolutionaironline.com: Found on Dec. 18, 2022 searching Google for '"van thillo" "maurice lippens"'. Site that is continually screaming about Dutch pedo-networks. revolutionaironline.com /category/mh-17/ (accessed: Dec. 18, 2022): ""
- youtube.com/@KoncreteKLIPS/videos (accessed: May 6, 2023): Shows up on the frontpage on occasions. Has interviews with CIA veterans, one of which is surprisingly good (John Kirakou). However, the site is dominated by alien and new age disinformation. Titles include: 'Aerospace Billionaire Claims Aliens are Walking Among Us | James Fox', 'Suspicious Alien Metal Discovered at Roswell | Jeremy Rys', 'Does Flat Earth Agree with Religion? Mario Bastunetti', 'Our Universe is Predetermined by Simple Math | Esoteric Eddie', 'How Tupac Could Still Be Alive | David Lucas'.
- youtube.com/@ShawnRyanShowOfficial /videos (accessed: May 6, 2023). "Supermanly" YouTube channel with a former special forces operator who has posted many lengthy interviews with veterans from the Navy Seals, Delta Force, CIA and other special forces. He shares the CIA's Andrew Bustamante (who definitely does not say anything controversial) with KonKrete. However, he has also interviewed major UFO disinformer Dr. Steven Greer: Feb. 15, 2023, 'Big UFO/UAP Secret EXPOSED | Dr. Steven Greer Official Trailer'; Feb. 20, 2023, 'Dr. Steven Greer - Mystery Behind UFO / UAPs, Alien Phenomenon, and The Secret Government | SRS #048', July 6, 2023, '6 Months to Expose UFO Secrets and The Military's Industrial Complex Black Budget'; July 10, 2023, 'Dr. Steven Greer - Black Budget, Stargate, Raytheon, Lockheed Skunk Works, UAP/UFO Secrets | SRS #65'. On July 13, 2023 Shawn Ryan went even deeper into conspiracy disinformation with '3 Whistleblowers Break The Silence on Antarctica Earth Quake Weapon, Stargate, and UFO Encounters'. Videos of him also are prominent in the TikTok conspiracy disinformation feed. Only July 18, 2023 Shawn Ryan uploaded a YouTuibe clip with the title 'Infantry Marine Witnesses a UFO Smuggling Humans and Weapons'. AT this point it is clear Ryan is spreading disinformation.
- youtube.com/@The5thKind/videos (accessed: May 6, 2023). A 11 million video entitled 'WHY ARE WE HERE? A Scary Truth Behind the Original Bible Story | Full Documentary' was found at position 11 when searching Youtube for 'conspiracy foundations congressman rockefeller ford carnegie 1960s'. Entire channel dedicated towards ancient aliens, some with millions of views. Videos promote Erich Von Daniken, Jacques Vallee, Richard Dolan, Graham Hancock, Steven Greer and other disinformers.
Rent-a-skeptic / anti-conspiracy websites
- FTM.nl / Follow the Money: ...
- Euvsdisinfo.eu: ...
- Kloptdatwel.nl: ...
- Mariusengelbrecht.nl: ...
- Rationalwiki.org: ...
- Snopes.com: Part of a very large "liberal CIA"-backed network of "fact-checking" sites.
Other right-wing sites
- DrudgeReport.com: ...
- Fusion4freedom.com: ...
- Jimshawministries.org: ...
- Lewrockwell.com: ...
- Paulcraigroberts.org: ...
- RonpaulInstitute.org: ...
- TheNewAmerican.comg: Magazine of the old John Birch Society. Only the 20th and 21st links on Yahoo on August 28, 2021, after searching for 'bilderberg 2021 attendees', this behind two official links and an endless stream of copy-paste, total-garbage blogs with barely any content, indicating The New American has been downranked. While some of the books and articles of the JBS of the 1970s on CFR elites and such are informative, it seems this page has devolved too into Trump-like ranting and sarcastically name-calling using terms as "Fake News Media (FNM)" and "presstitutes", with memes that include putting Devil's horns on liberals.
- GeenStijl.nl: Prominent anti-establishment, libertarian-oriented blog that is highly critical of "the left" in Dutch society, but ignores and ridicules things as Bilderberg.
- Dagelijksestandaard.nl: A Dutch news site that is similarly anti-establishment, "anti-left", libertarian-oriented.
Left-wing / antifa sites
These sites will often touch CIA drug trafficking, corporate coups and support for death squads in a (very) limited fashion.
- Counterpunch.org
- Liberationnews.org
- Progressiveissuesblog.wordpress.com: 9th hit on Yahoo on August 28, 2021, behind the official Bilderberg site, Wikipedia, and various other conspiracy news sites, for 'bilderberg 2021 attendees'. Very basic June 2021 article on Bilderberg that won't inform you of anything. It lists critics, but only disinformers. Looking around, elite-funded Black Lives Matter and Code Pink propaganda is supported. That makes sense, because from the 'About' section we learn that the site belongs to an old leftist political activist, who describes himself as "a progressive minded intellectual [whose] mentors are [top "liberal CIA" asset Ralph Nader... Gandhi, Jesus, [anti-white racism Black Panther Party activist] Mumia Abu Jamal [who executed a police officer from behind who stopped his brother]... [Rockefeller-Kissinger-Shultz bestie] Nelson Mandela, [Rockefeller Brothers Fund-funded] Martin Luther King, Caesar Chavez, [the similarly "Liberal" CIA-tied] Daniel Ellsberg, Judy Bari, Rachel Corrie, Chelsea (Bradley) Manning, [the similarly "Liberal" CIA-tied] Edward Snowden and women of Code Pink."
- Truthdig.com
- Truth-out.org
Notes
[1] | Every other article on Rense.com deals with the topic of "Zionism" in a highly unbalanced manner and the site is a huge proponent of Holocaust denial. The latter subject is a legacy of the Liberty Lobby, linked to General Douglas MacArthur's clique, and its legacy: the Spotlight, the Institute for Historical Review, American Free Press, and finally, Rense. David Duke and key members of the Institute for Historical Review have been greatly promoted by Rense for many years. |
[2] | *) Some of Alex Jones guests from the John Birch Society (note: Alex Jones now has his own article on ISGP): CNP member Phyllis Schlafly, 9/11 no-planer G. Edward Griffin, CNP member Stanley Monteith, William Jasper, Dr. Michael Coffman (also in Jones' Endgame movie), Gina Parker Ford (in Endgame), CNP luminary Joel Skousen (son of Cleon Skousen, also of the ASC), Jerome Corsi (close to JBS leadership and a propagandist against Kerry and Obama who pushed for war with Iran), Paul Craig Roberts, Ron Paul (about the only dovish but fervant JBS backer). Also: James Tucker (until his death Jones' Bilderberg expert). Other guests: no-planer Ted Gunderson of the Liberty Lobby and John De Camp (cooperated in apparently limiting the fall-out of the Franklin child abuse scandal and in Oklahoma). *) Youtube, VisionLiberty (pro John Birch Society channel), 'Alex Jones: Everyone Should Join the John Birch Society' (clip of Alex Jones talking on Infowars), uploaded July 14, 2013: "So you understand where the John Birch Society came from when these enemies of liberty just demonize them and say lies about them with no proof. Understand why. It's because they are a real organization trying to defend this republic. And without them, Ron Paul, myself, we would not have known all this info. I'm telling you, they were the launch pad of this entire giant resistance today and everybody should be a part of the John Birch Society or at least get their materials, because they are the best you are gonna find anywhere." |
[3] | *) Noory has invited the following John Birchers to the Coast to Coast AM radio show, without more ordinary policial and economic analysts to balance things out: G. Edward Griffin, Charles R. Smith, Jerome Corsi, Stanley Monteith, Jeffrey NyQuist, Malachi Martin, Joel Skousen, Nicholas Gruner, William Jasper, Alex Jones (often) and Mark Lane (pro-nazi Liberty Lobby; JFK assassination, but also Jonestown Cult lawyer). *) While Art Bell is critical of the show's direction and the listening audience has fallen greatly, Art Bell is known to have been a great supporter of George W. Bush and for many years refused any and all criticism about 9/11. It was Noory who finally interviewed the first BS-promoting 9/11 skeptics. *) Alex Jones and George Noory's Coast to Coast have been growing closer together since Jones' first appearance on Coast to Coast AM in March 2004, which has greatly helped to build up Jones' show and website. Between March 2004 and March 2014 Jones has appeared roughly 70 times on Coast to Coast AM, an average of 7 times a year. Around 2010, Jones and Noory became more equal partners, with Noory appearing more frequently on the Alex Jones Show. *) Youtube clip, uploaded October 16, 2010, 'George Noory Calls in during The Alex Jones 2010 Moneybomb Marathon 1/2': "[a genuinely excited and surprised Alex Jones:] I heard George Noory wanted to come on, which is great, because I love going on his show. Haven't been going on this much this year. Miss going on. I'm just flattered to have the great George Noory, who I have been trying to get on many times. He's been on once, but he's hard to get on, because he's so busy. George, what are you doing gracing me with your presence? [Noory:] I just wanted to congratulate you on your patriotic service. ... Over the years, Alex, you have done a great job for us on Coast to Coast, illuminating the world on the Illuminati. ... [Jones:] So much is happening. We even had Lou Dobbs on today. He sent me an email and said: 'I appreciate what you are doing'. ... [praising Glenn Beck]... [Noory:] We need you. Just watch your back. And we'll watch it for you. ... [Jones:] Well, George Noory, I wanna get you on my official radio show from 11 to 2 in the next few weeks about all this UFO stuff. ... There's no doubt that there's stuff going on. There's no doubt that Ezekiel and other books of the bible, like Genesis, talk about ... literally giant craft with fire coming out and guys with blue helmets on, giving people stuff, and genetic engineering, and Noah, and all the rest of it, but to have Project Blue Beam, and I want you to finish up with this..." *) March 13, 2013, conversation between George Noory and Alex Jones on the Infowars radio show (Youtube): "[George Noory:] What does logic tell you, when you hear that they are buying 2,000+ tanks [This is nonsense. A spin on an old report that 2,717 of the army's Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles were going to upgraded. The army was later turned into Homeland Security, the upgrade into full vehicles, and the MRAPs into Strykers.] and they are gonna use them here in the United States? ... They are afraid of Americans. I think they are afraid of us. ... Even when everyone was happy, I'm still convinced that some place, somewhere this group of one world government fanatics would create an issue, just to go ahead and attack and do something. You know my views on 9/11. ... [Alex Jones:] Coast to Coast may have had 10 percent political news. You made it about 50 percent, in my estimation. And hardcore patriot news. And that's a big thing. I remember you were the only one opposing the Model State Emergency Health Powers Act on big national radio. Really, I can say your show helped kill the forced emasculation of the American people. I have to say, George, you are a real guy. I've had a chance to have dinner with you, we've hung out quite a few times, you and Tom Danheiser, the whole crew, you are just a real guy and I admire what you have done. I'm a fan of you. ... [Noory:] All I want is for people to have the truth, because we can handle the truth. " |
[4] | February 24, 2014, Glenn Greenwald (columnist for The Guardian and Salon.com) for The Intercept, 'How Covert Agents Infiltrate the Internet to Manipulate, Deceive, and Destroy Reputations': "Over the last several weeks, I worked with NBC News to publish a series of articles about “dirty trick” tactics used by GCHQ’s previously secret unit, JTRIG (Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group). These were based on four classified GCHQ documents presented to the NSA and the other three partners in the English-speaking “Five Eyes” alliance. Today, we at the Intercept are publishing another new JTRIG document, in full, entitled “The Art of Deception: Training for Online Covert Operations.” By publishing these stories one by one, our NBC reporting highlighted some of the key, discrete revelations: the monitoring of YouTube and Blogger, the targeting of Anonymous with the very same DDoS attacks they accuse “hacktivists” of using, the use of “honey traps” (luring people into compromising situations using sex) and destructive viruses. But, here, I want to focus and elaborate on the overarching point revealed by all of these documents: namely, that these agencies are attempting to control, infiltrate, manipulate, and warp online discourse, and in doing so, are compromising the integrity of the internet itself. ... Among the core self-identified purposes of JTRIG are two tactics: (1) to inject all sorts of false material onto the internet in order to destroy the reputation of its targets; and (2) to use social sciences and other techniques to manipulate online discourse and activism to generate outcomes it considers desirable. To see how extremist these programs are, just consider the tactics they boast of using to achieve those ends: “false flag operations” (posting material to the internet and falsely attributing it to someone else), fake victim blog posts (pretending to be a victim of the individual whose reputation they want to destroy), and posting “negative information” on various forums. Here is one illustrative list of tactics from the latest GCHQ document we’re publishing today: ... Other tactics aimed at individuals are listed here, under the revealing title “discredit a target”: ... Then there are the tactics used to destroy companies the agency targets: ["Post negative information on appropriate forums."]... GCHQ describes the purpose of JTRIG in starkly clear terms: “using online techniques to make something happen in the real or cyber world,” including “information ops (influence or disruption).” ... No matter your views on Anonymous, “hacktivists” or garden-variety criminals, it is not difficult to see how dangerous it is to have secret government agencies being able to target any individuals they want – who have never been charged with, let alone convicted of, any crimes – with these sorts of online, deception-based tactics of reputation destruction and disruption. There is a strong argument to make, as Jay Leiderman demonstrated in the Guardian in the context of the Paypal 14 hacktivist persecution, that the “denial of service” tactics used by hacktivists result in (at most) trivial damage (far less than the cyber-warfare tactics favored by the US and UK) and are far more akin to the type of political protest protected by the First Amendment. The broader point is that, far beyond hacktivists, these surveillance agencies have vested themselves with the power to deliberately ruin people’s reputations and disrupt their online political activity even though they’ve been charged with no crimes, and even though their actions have no conceivable connection to terrorism or even national security threats. ... Claims that government agencies are infiltrating online communities and engaging in “false flag operations” to discredit targets are often dismissed as conspiracy theories, but these documents leave no doubt they are doing precisely that. Whatever else is true, no government should be able to engage in these tactics: what justification is there for having government agencies target people – who have been charged with no crime – for reputation-destruction, infiltrate online political communities, and develop techniques for manipulating online discourse? But to allow those actions with no public knowledge or accountability is particularly unjustifiable." |