Skip to content

Are Those Who Don’t Blindly Believe Government Authority Really Just “Conspiracy Theorists”?

It is sad that millions and millions of people believe what government bureaucrats and media people say without even considering the possibility that the information might be false. And if those who do challenge and investigate and discover contradictory information than what the “mainstream” maintains, then they are called “conspiracy theorists,” “tinfoil hat wearers,” and so on.

And the neocon talk radio crowd is right up there with the “Russians hacked the DNC” narrative. In fact, some of them such as Hugh Hewitt and Michael Medved are critical of WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange as a “Russian agent” or who just shouldn’t be believed or trusted.

Hugh Hewitt further huffed yesterday describing Assange as a “rapist” or a “possible rapist,” because of an accusation of “lesser degree rape” from 2010 that Assange most recently continues to emphatically deny, stating that in 2010 he voluntarily went to Swedish authorities for questioning, and he has never been formally charged. But dishonest quackmasters like Hewitt continue with that kind of smear in addition to the “Russian agent” stuff.

Regarding the alleged Russian connection, Glenn Greenwald recently showed how dishonest the Guardian newspaper was in misquoting Assange, falsely showing Assange to praise Trump and falsely claiming an Assange-Putin relationship. I’m sure that Hewitt and Medved believed every word of the falsely attributed quotes by Assange that were tweeted and retweeted by journalists and news consumers all over the world.

Also recently, Greenwald detailed how the Government Post, a.k.a. The Washington Post, continues to stand in partnership with the U.S. feds in distributing its own “fake news” to deceive its readers and those who follow all the tweets of its reporters and of Marty Baron, its editor.

As I tried to point out in my previous post, many news consumers continue to believe a lot of the fake news —  propaganda — thrown out by the government and its stenographers of the mainstream media.

Most of the media, the cable newsbimbos and so on, and congresspeople and beltway pundits, continue to refer to the “17 intelligence agencies all agreeing that the DNC emails were hacked by Russia,” because they believe what CIA and FBI bureaucrats tell them. We should take “Intelligence” director James Claptrapper at his word. But people easily forget how the FBI, the CIA, the NSA, all have a very shaky record when it comes to truth-telling, judgment, reliability and trustworthiness.

“Well, given that the CIA and FBI have been right maybe once or twice, that’s good enough for me,” say the millions out there among the sheeple population.

But thanks to whistleblowers like Daniel Elsberg, Bradley Manning, Edward Snowden and William Binney, and WikiLeaks of course, those who don’t worship the government and can handle hard truths have discovered that a lot of government “assessments” are mainly propaganda for the purpose of getting the public to go along with government shenanigans at their tax-robbing expense.

For instance, the tales associated with 9/11 and all its sub-stories and earlier events in America are major examples of that over the past 15 years now. Because of propaganda and disinformation many people still believe that JFK was killed by a lone assassin, Lee Garvey Oswald. Many people still believe that Iraq and Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11.

In fact, most people probably still believe that Osama bin Laden directed the September 11th, 2001 attacks in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania, when there was never any evidence to prove it.

What? The U.S. government continued to assert that Osama bin Laden was behind 9/11 even though it had no evidence to support those claims?

But right after 9/11, the news people were repeating the propaganda 24-7 because the bureaucrats had been planning to escalate their intrusions and bombings in the Middle East and Asia since well in advance of 9/11, in the name of “regime change.” Here is Gen. Wesley Clark in 2007 listing the different countries that the neocons and interventionists had planned to do their dirty work:

Regarding the lack of evidence to prove the government’s assertion that Osama bin Laden played a role in 9/11 (although he did have ties to the CIA), that lack of evidence is discussed in this article by retired theology professor David Ray Griffin, who has written extensively on 9/11. That article by Griffin links to an article from the “Muckraker Report” by Ed Haas (article no longer available, here is the archived article). The “Muckraker Report” is “proud to have been awarded the Censored 2008 Real News Award from Project Censored.”

That “Muckraker Report” article includes an image of Osama bin Laden’s page at the FBI’s most wanted list prior to 2008. The FBI had stated that, while bin Laden was wanted by the FBI for the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya, bin Laden was not wanted by the FBI for involvement in 9/11 because they didn’t have evidence to prove it.

In my earlier post I mentioned that the bin Laden “raid” and alleged killing was made up and that bin Laden probably had died of kidney disease in 2001 or 2002. Here is a video I linked to with Dan Rather anchoring the CBS News in 2002 regarding bin Laden’s then treatment in the hospital.

Related to President George W. Bush and the U.S. military’s invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 based on lack of evidence against bin Laden and lack of any valid case against the Afghan Taliban, is their invasion of Iraq in 2003 based on bad “intelligence” and false information gathered by way of torture. Yes, the purpose of the torture was to get false information to justify Bush’s war in Iraq.

And it’s even possible that the “underwear bomber” was helped by the FBI to board flight 253 to Detroit with a visa the U.S. government had ordered not to be revoked despite his known ties to terrorism.

Sadly, millions and millions of people are conditioned since their earliest years to believe and trust the authorities. And they will believe and trust the government and its authorities no matter how many corruption scandals and criminal acts are exposed on a daily basis. A lot of people have a hard time with a particular narrative that challenges their trust in authorities, especially those authorities who are there to provide security. When they are exposed as wolves guarding the hen house, people just don’t want to accept it, and so they defend the criminals in authority.

Now, regarding 9/11, I do not believe that “19 hijackers” and their Saudi supporters were the sole perpetrators of the terrorist attacks, nor do I believe that it was an “inside job” by U.S. government that Bush and Cheney had some advance knowledge of. However, I do believe that there had to have been elements connected to the U.S. government as well as non-government connivers who were involved.

But there are many people who insist on believing the official narrative, the 9/11 Commission, etc.

Here is a video of several psychologists who explain some of the reactions of many people when their belief in authority such as the U.S. government is challenged. I think such analyses can apply to how some people react to when whistleblowers such as Daniel Elsberg, Bradley Manning, Edward Snowden and William Binney expose corruption and criminality in their own government and in the military.

That video is excerpted from this lengthier video by architects and engineers who challenge the official 9/11 narrative. It details some information on the World Trade Center buildings collapse that I’m sure many experts probably would want to refute.

And here is a video by James Corbett who explains who might have been behind the 9/11 attacks. Some of the information is very interesting. I wonder how he knows that certain officials had meetings scheduled at the WTC on 9/11 but canceled them at the last moment.

As we have seen more recently, with the WikiLeaks DNC email leaks, the Washington Post‘s extremely dishonest propaganda campaign, and so on, much of the news media have been in cahoots with government bureaucrats in delivering the “news” that government bureaucrats want the people to hear.

Published inUncategorized