Tag: conspiracy

Categories
crime and punishment ideological culture Internet controversy

Run Rampant

conspiracy

We live in a great Age of Conspiracy Theories.

I’m not quite on board.

As the Internet grew up, with it came all the condemnations of conspiracy theories, run rampant. The Internet, we were told, was problematic in that not only was information readier at hand than ever before, but so was it easier to share and nurture all these goofy conspiracy theories.

You know: JFK was killed by someone other than Oswald, or also by others, in addition to Oswald. 

Or . . . UFOs are real, and the government is covering it up.

Or the Rothschilds are behind it all.

You know the kind of thing I’m talking about. 

Ick.

Yet: The government now admits that UFOs are real, implying that it was, ahem, lying in the past.

Further: As we uncover the grotesquerie in the Epstein Files, we learn that he proudly served Rothschild banking interests!

So let’s not get started on the JFK assassination.

One reason conspiracy theories are prominent is that we are uncovering so many conspiracies. Actual conspiracies. Like the Wuhan lab business, or the suppression of information about the mRNA “vaccines,” or . . . must we go on and on? 

I don’t like conspiracy theories. I said I’m not on board. We need to work towards a world not built for conspiracies. This means whittling down government, with its current vast powers to take and to “give.” And siphon off wealth at each step. While sidestepping transparency.

Ask yourself: Does our political-legal environment actually discourage conspiracies?

That question almost answers itself. 

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Nano Banana

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
insider corruption international affairs media and media people

Goofy Wig and All

James O'keefe, WEF, World Economic Forum, chemtrails, conspiracy

One of P.J. O’Rourke’s better books is Age and Guile Beat Youth, Innocence, and a Bad Haircut. My purpose in mentioning it is not to praise it but merely to adapt it for the James O’Keefe story, where middle age and guile and a bad haircut beat Creepiness and Guilt. 

“Disguised and undercover,” explains the O’Keefe Media Group article, “James O’Keefe embeds inside the World Economic Forum, slipping past armed security and exclusive guest lists to capture what the global climate elite say when they think no one is listening.” 

The bad haircut? A goofy blond wig that Mr. O’Keefe (1984– ) donned to fool the European bigwigs (er, elites). He looked like Andy Warhol as a special guest on “Sprockets.”

What did this subterfuge accomplish? “Posing as an employee of a fictional climate engineering firm, O’Keefe and the OMG team are welcomed into late-night events, luxury hotels, and mountaintop forums where climate financiers openly discuss carbon taxes, geoengineering, and weather modification, commonly referred to as ‘chemtrails.’”

Yes, chemtrails!

I’ve been programmed to chuckle right now, hence that exclamation point.

Speaking of programmed — Grok gave me plenty of excuses to keep on chuckling. It also gave me the wrong URL for the O’Keefe Media Group (O’Keefe’s successor to Project Veritas) and words of wisdom like this: “If O’Keefe’s video shows attendees discussing it casually, it might be speculative chit-chat rather than official policy.”

One thing Grok couldn’t understand is the “optics.” O’Keefe is not wrong to note that some of the WEFers cheerleading for BlackRock do indeed “look like Bond villains.” A conference where people enthuse about seeding the upper atmosphere with chemicals to cool off the planet? That should be the premise of the next James Bond flick.

Has weather modification actually been going on . . . for decades? 

I don’t know. But if these folks are talking about climate geo-engineering, what wouldn’t they do?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Nano Banana

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
media and media people national politics & policies

Praying to the Deep State

Stephen Colbert, deep state, conspiracy, Donald Trump

The Deep State does not exist.

How do we know?

If it did exist, it would have stopped Trump’s tariffs!

Welcome to modern political theology and ideological theodicy — by way of late-night “comedic entertainment.”

Because of Trump’s tariffs, “we’ve had the worst day for our economy since Covid,” quipped Stephen Colbert on Thursday’s Late Show. “Just a reminder: this time he’s the disease.”

I found his setup somewhat funny, goofy looks and all, and I don’t usually find Colbert funny. But as the bit progressed . . .

“It’s all pretty solid proof that there is no Deep State.”

I’ve already given away his punchline, because it was not so much funny as eye-roll-worthy.

“Because if there was, they would have stopped this s**t.”

The assumption here is that, by definition, the Deep State must be omnipotent. While we can point to existing institutions working under the new rubric of “Deep State,” it’s never been all-powerful. It’s just very powerful, working in mysterious (secret) ways.

“But if they do exist,” Colbert continued, “I just want to say to the cabal of financial and governmental elites who pull all the strings behind the scenes, ‘maybe put a pause on your 5G chip/JFKjr/adrenochrome/chemtrail orgy and jump in here cuz we’re f**king dying!’”

Here’s the deal: Trump was hounded with unprecedented state surveillance, impeachments, lawfare, and speech suppression . . . and dodged bullets from assassins. While we know nothing, if we catch a whiff of anything it’s that “non-existent” Deep State.

So begging it to take out Trump is . . . late-in-the-game.

The cabal has already tried. Many times. And failed. Proving itself perhaps more desperate than competent.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Krea and Firefly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
government transparency

De-Classification or Re-Regurgitation?

What do the JFK assassination files and an obscure booklet called “The Adam and Eve Story” have in common?

Both are examples of how the CIA and other Deep State actors keep us guessing and in the dark: by over-classification. 

A “sanitized” copy of Chan Thomas’s immortal classic of seeming ultra-nuttery, the aforementioned “Adam and Eve Story,” was de-classified in 2013. Now on the CIA’s website, it floats a wild theory about human history and life on this planet, complete with repeated global, world-turned-on-end catastrophes. 

Most people had never heard of the work until de-classified and placed on the website. The Wikipedia entry mentions the de-classification of the document but not why it was classified as secret in the first place.

Here’s a theory: to confuse us. 

The only reason most people ever give the booklet a second glance is because the CIA made it secret.

Now turn to the present, with something circulating today as “evidence” from the recent release of backlogged JFK assassination documents: a summary of passages in the New Left journal Ramparts, June 1967. It reproduces a rumor about one Gary Underhill and his alleged blurting out that “a small clique within the CIA was responsible” for the shooting in Dealey Plaza. 

All the rage online, but this document was merely the re-regurgitation of public information — which is what an awful lot of classified material is.

We take note of this Underhill story not because it proves anything, but because the report was made secret in the first place. 

It’s almost as if they want some people to believe something, and others to scoff at it all. 

But maybe what they are doing is burying us in useless “information.”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Krea and Firefly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
crime and punishment government transparency scandal

So Horrible?

government institutions, secrets, conspiracy, UFO, UAP

Talking to Joe Rogan about the JFK assassination,Tucker Carlson argued that Trump’s and Biden’s withholding of information runs counter to American law. “There’s clearly something worth protecting,” he says, and he doesn’t mean the people involved — they’re all dead.

What’s being protected are, presumably, institutions.

According to Judge Andrew Napolitano, Trump told him that “if they showed you what they showed me, you wouldn’t have released it either.” According to Roger Stone, Trump explained that what he saw was “so horrible you wouldn’t believe it” . . . and thus Trump withheld 20 percent of the documents that had been scheduled to be released.

So horrible? Many of us can imagine quite a lot of horror coming from the dark corridors of the federal Leviathan.

But there’s another generational secret that Trump and Biden share, and Tucker mentioned it too: UFOs.

Indeed, he and Rogan started out the podcast in a freewheeling discussion of what our government now calls “the UAP issue,” for “unidentified anomalous phenomena.” But Tucker focused on a “dark” and “spiritual” element to the story, giving little evidence except for the scientist’s name who had contacted him about the study of UFO injuries of military personnel.

Tucker also mentioned strangely behaving objects that traverse the oceans as if water were no matter. A few days earlier, a Yahoo News “Futurism” article explained that “Tim Gallaudet, an oceanographer and former Naval rear admiral who served as the author of a March white paper about so-called ‘unidentified submerged objects’ or USOs, told Fox News this week that he considers it both ‘scientifically valid’ and critical to national security to study these phenomena.”

A lot of effort has been made in the recent disclosure talk to frame UAPs as potential threats. But what kind of threat? A “spiritual” one — “so horrible”? 

All we really know is that regarding assassinations and mysterious airborne and oceanic objects, the government would prefer to keep us guessing.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with PicFinder and Firefly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
Accountability government transparency media and media people

Transient Stars

UAP, UFO, conspiracy, cover-up

In the late 1940s and early 1950s, UFOs and “flying saucers” made newspaper headlines, and government officials had contradictory things to say about them. Then, soon after 1952’s summer UFO flyovers of Washington, D.C, the government got into the denial game, and the general tenor of the conversation changed.

The federal government, it seems, had instituted a policy of “cover-up.”

This has changed in the last few years, after a military investigation into UFOs went public, and as Congress began making public and confidential inquiries.

What do we really know?

Not much.

Still, that startling 1952 UFO wave appears to have received some additional evidence . . . from an unexpected quarter.

A team of astronomers compared old sky plates from the Palomar Observatory —photographed in the 1950s — to modern digitized pictures of the heavens, searching for “vanishing stars.” Appearing and disappearing stars are a fascinating study, in this research the aim being to detect “instances where a star directly collapses into a black hole.” The scientists found none of these “failed supernova” events. 

But what they found surprised them: “several images where multiple star-like objects appear in a single snapshot of the sky, never to be seen again.”

They tested many possible explanations for the mysterious data, and then an automated search coughed up a doozy: “The image showed three bright and beautiful objects looking just like stars in a POSS-I image from the 19th of July 1952 that appeared and vanished within a plate exposure. . . . The three bright objects seemed as real as Betelgeuse itself.”

These were not single bright dots on photographic plates, but multiple simultaneous dots.

As scientist Beatriz Villarroel writes, “our two most prominent and brightest cases of multiple transients coincided in time with the two weekends of the renowned Washington UFO flyovers.”

One wonders whether later mass-sighting events, such as the “Belgian Wave” (November 1989–April 1990) and Arizona’s “Phoenix Lights” (March 13, 1997), might have recorded similar transients above, ready for study. 

Thankfully, we do not need to rely directly upon government agents to do the research.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Midjourney and Fireflly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
First Amendment rights partisanship too much government

Insane in the Meme Brain

Hillary Clinton, conspiracy, Donald Trump, deprogramming, cult

Sane Republicans do exist, says Hillary Clinton. Even in the House of Representatives!

We know this because they voted to continue federal government operations by raising the debt limit. Or so Mrs. Clinton says. It’s just “common sense”!

Talking with Christiane Amanpour on CNN, last week, the former presidential candidate explained that these sane Republicans are “intimidated,” adding, “they oftentimes say and do things which they know better than to say or do.”

To get to common ground with these compromised GOP folks, however, the measures that intimidate them — while exciting their extremist, insane MAGA proponents — must be roundly defeated. 

No compromise.

In times past, our representatives in Congress could work together; but back then, argues the former First Lady, U.S. Senator, and Secretary of State, “there wasn’t this little tail wagging the dog of the Republican Party.”

That is, conservative representatives would kindly admit defeat every time the green light was given to more and more spending. Now they won’t cooperate.

It’s extremism, in Hillary’s judgment, to oppose the ceaseless growth of the warfare-welfare state.

But, Hillary being Hillary, she had a corker to unleash. “Maybe at some point there needs to be a formal de-programming of the cult members.”

Just like Mrs. Clinton to generously offer re-education camps to her opponents.

Followed by an admonition: “we have to be smarter.”

How is it smart (or sane) to continually grow the federal debt, its mere service now larger than the defense budget?

By talking about formally deprogramming MAGA extremists Hillary Clinton skillfully deflects her supporters’ attention from the real need: informally deprogramming their own insane debt-piling status quo mindset.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with PicFinder

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
Accountability too much government

[Not] Just Plain Bats

Covid, bat, gain of function, China, lab

It’s been several months since I’ve focused on Peter Daszak and the EcoHealth Alliance (EHA), which was funded by your tax dollars to “improve” upon viruses found in nature. 

The evidence for this has been out there for some time, but many avoid drawing any conclusion, finding it circumstantial. Or something.

Remember Daszak being caught organizing the open letter in The Lancet, proclaiming all talk of gain-of-function research as “conspiracy” theorizing and “dangerous”?

Well, now The Lancet is reported to be preparing to publish an article going so far as to say that “there is no direct support for the natural origin of SARS-CoV-2, and a laboratory-related accident is plausible.”

Meanwhile, my co-podcaster, on his LocoFoco Netcast, quotes Daszak’s own public boastings (from YouTube), effectively laying out EcoHealth Alliance’s gain-of-function research, talking of insertions of the spiked protein, and referencing to his colleagues in China.

And now another revelation, via science writer Matt Ridley. Specifically, Drastic Research reveals an earlier Daszak grant proposal to inject “deadly chimeric bat coronaviruses collected by the Wuhan Institute of Virology into humanised and ‘batified’ mice.”

This proposal — “named ‘DEFUSE’” — was not accepted by . . . oh, and this gets good . . . DARPA.

“In other words, a branch of the federal government had already judged aspects of EHA’s research . . . as falling under the definition of GOF [gain of function], only for [Health and Human Services] to approve similar work without P3CO review in 2018 and 2019,” the Drastic Research report summarizes.

So it was too iffy for the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, but hunky dory with our medical bureaucrats?

The story is more than just about bats, it’s about laboratory manipulation of existing viruses to create new viruses.

Which is, well, batty.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

bat/Covid

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
government transparency media and media people social media

Conspirators versus Conspiracists

conspiracy, tin foil

“Conspiracy theories circulated online over social media contribute to a shift in public discourse away from facts and analysis,” proclaims a new study by the Rand Corporation think tank, “and can contribute to direct public harm.”

Titled “Detecting Conspiracy Theories on Social Media,” the study, paid for by Google’s Jigsaw unit, proposes to “improve machine-learning technology for detecting conspiracy theory language by using linguistic and rhetorical theory to boost performance.”

All very fascinating, but . . . do conspiracy theories shift public discourse away from “facts and analysis”?

They do challenge accepted facts, and are themselves examples of extended analyses. 

Often off track? Sure. 

But their problematic nature is not as stated.

The assumption throughout is that conspiracy theories are always in error. But when the report goes on to say that “conspiracists also distrust authority and believe that those who produce the news are lying to them,” there’s no fact check — why do the Rand authors believe we are not being routinely lied to?  

This becomes almost funny with the COVID origination debate. The Wuhan Lab Leak Theory is one of four current popular conspiracy notions the report looks at. And when the report was being written, the lab leak theory was marginalized on social media and pooh-poohed amongst most public health experts. Now we know that there was an actual conspiracy to bury evidence for it.

Truth is: conspiracies happen. Most bandied-about theories may be cuckoo, but a few turn out rock solid.

The honest way to deal with suspicions of a conspiratorial nature is pointed inquiry into relevant facts . . . with careful analysis.

The Rand Corporation and Google are more interested in defending the authorities.

Who often lie.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
government transparency

ET, Send Money

deep state, UFOs, report

Modern UFO lore begins in World War II with the foo fighters, continues with Kenneth Arnold’s infamous June 24, 1947, Mount Rainier flying saucer report, the July 8 “crash” near Roswell, New Mexico (very near where the Enola Gay was deployed), and the “flying saucers over the capital” coverage a little over five years later.

In 1947, the Central Intelligence Agency was created, and 1952 gave us the National Security Agency. Coincidence? 

President Harry S. Truman was regularly briefed about UFOs, and at the end of that era his successor warned us of the growth of a “military-industrial complex” completely outside of republican oversight or any democratic check to balance secret power and privilege.

The two issues are linked, UFOs and the Deep State. Many people deny the existence of both, and I understand the former denial — to those who have never seen anything inexplicable and weird in the skies? I’m with you. But the phenomena keep getting reported. And as for the Deep State, whatever its ontic status, its compartmentalized secrecy and not-quite-on-the-books budgeting were established by Congress. What evidence do you need to say it exists? 

Public information? 

The kind, ahem, now prevented by non-disclosure agreements and the layers upon layers of military security?

Last week, the Pentagon gave to Congress its report about UFOs.

Did it amount to anything?

Yes.

Was it the UFO Apocalypse so many had waited for?

No. The military confirmed these sightings are not optical illusions but “physical objects.”*

It is probably what you would expect from a secretive military’s congressional report. Some new admissions, sure, but mainly it was . . . a request for more funding.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

* Or, as Air Force General Nathan F. Twining put it in September of 1947, “The phenomenon is something real and not visionary or fictitious.”

PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts