Pure Heaven

Quite a departure here from my usual non-fiction but with themes that are familiar to this blog. This was written somewhat 'outside myself' without too much thought, so the meaning of it is not entirely clear to me...

'My final night on this earth was a Thursday, an innocuous day except for its proximity to Friday and the blessed weekend. On this Thursday evening, I went for drinks with a few work colleagues to 'celebrate' the leaving for pastures new of one of the company's hotshots, who evidently had his real friends to entertain at the weekend. This was a small company, a 'feeder', which groomed creative and talented people before bowing to their inevitable departure to a place which materially gave them more of what they wished for. Our manager Mr Stever was in the Sam Phillips of Sun Records mould, and a few Elvises had come and gone while he'd been in charge. He was a man I respected, and in an alternative to this story, I could be writing about the time when my life finally took shape and I found my home. In fact, I did like this job because it was relaxed and allowed me to take home reasonable money without taxing my energy levels, and it also allowed me to simply exist while I allowed my fatalistic tendencies to dictate. I was not a happy person, and this was compounded by the fact that I had no material reason why not. In the eyes of society, I had had a normal upbringing with no trauma, and there's no doubt that I had loving parents. This only made the situation worse though, as I just indicated. There was a private despair I felt, not easy to articulate to others because it didn't fit the mould of what I generally was. In reality, I mainly was a happy person, if you weigh up time in percentages. I laughed a reasonable amount, and when I was in company I had a pretty good time. However, certain works of fiction and non-fiction have noted that everyone has a private world, with feelings that are darker than those which they display in public. Even taking this into account, I refused to believe that many could feel the absolute and total despair that I did at certain times. External factors played their part to some degree, among them weather and physical illness, but my problem was internal and elusive. I stopped believing, stopped trying and became one going through the motions, an actor playing the same role because he hasn't the heart to take on something else.

So, it was 10pm and I had drunk a combination of beer and wine and was feeling warm. We were outside the pub, just leaving, when we noticed an argument starting over a woman. The 2 fighters had both been consuming beer at the English rate of consumption and now it all 'kicked off'. At first, it was fists but then out of nowhere the one who actually had the girlfriend produced a blade. I hadn't seen this, and in my slightly tipsy state had decided to intervene and instigate a peaceful outcome, fatally doing this with a smile on my face which could I suppose have been taken for a certain disregard for the importance for the protagonists of this confrontation. At times like these, I really did feel that love was what was needed, and that all that was required was to take the pressure down a few notches. Perhaps my attempted push did appear aggressive, and the man with the knife plunged his weapon into the right side of my chest in one swift movement.

I lay there and appeared to be smiling. How can i describe the feeling of my injury, of being stabbed? I suppose a 'stabbing' pain is the best i can come up with. I know that it hardly hurt at all. I lay on my back, feeling at peace while everyone around me acted hysterically. The ambulance was on its way, I only survived around 7 minutes after the knife went in. At first I teetered, between life and death. I was the victim of a stabbing, which sounded gruesome, but in fact I should be honest and say that it was something of a blessed relief. In those 7 minutes, I had many thoughts: about my family and how this would upset them, about people i'd known, especially the very few who I felt really understood me, and about life itself. Perhaps my smile was at the irony of recent events because in the past I'd done so much planning for the future, lived in the future in fact, which I felt was a slight improvement on living in the past, and had imagined all kinds of scenarios. Then, the irony disappeared and I realised that my quiet letting go of hope, of life, had inevitably led to an event. Something had to happen because life always plays you some kind of card, good or bad, and here was mine. As the blood drained from my face and then from my body, I left this mortal coil, musing that of all the people I'd known and places I'd been, it was these people, my work colleagues, nice people but hardly soulmates, who were in my company when it ended. I selfishly felt relaxed and relieved. Unbeknownst to me until much later, my family had been incredibly philosophical after the initial shock of 'that' phone call, the one all parents dread. Perhaps it had been a good thing that I'd made my position in life clear to them. I wasn't getting married, wasn't having children and at this moment was no longer playing a card.

That's the first part of this short story. Part two is heaven. It DID exist! Does exist!, and it's something fairly like it's depicted in the film 'A Matter Of Life And Death'. You go up in a lift, fairly modern-looking, and if you were wounded when you died, you still have the marks but without the pain, like Christ after his resurrection. But you are most certainly not going back to Earth. You're here now, and here you stay. The first hour or so is a lot of red tape, a time of limbo, a time between the worlds, where earth-influenced bureaucracy has not quite been eradicated. So, you do earthly things like changing your clothes and having a shower, but because everyone who enters heaven has already fallen into a calm state, there is no drama attached to the waiting, changing and showering time. It just happens, without incident and without ego. From there, you emerge and enter into something that resembles a kind of social centre, a place for people to meet and exist, with grounds for walking and enjoying the vast space. What you realise quickly is that the ego has genuinely disappeared in the people up here, however like humans they appear. You walk around and, because you don't quite shake the earthly influence instantly, you're waiting to hear an argument, or someone hustling someone else, or some type of 'action'. Instead, you find people communicating without their minds being a barrier. They live in an extraordinarily detached world, nothing bothering them at all. No pain, no anger, no bitterness. You can't feel pain because there are no nerves to feel it with. No worries, no fears, no hunger, no thirst (and hence no toilet). Not even any desires. This would sound awful to some people, who would claim that leaders have promised a utopia similar to this before, with disastrous consequences. But here, there's no money. No lust for power. It is something approaching utopia. Except it's not defined. It doesn't need to be. It takes some adjustment, but it doesn't take too long, and as the 'sheople' slowly realise that nobody else is going to start any trouble, and that if they did it themselves their 'heart' wouldn't be in it, that instinct just ceases. So, we have all these souls existing, who look like people but have none of the needs that grind down humans. So, are they like animals, free to roam in the wild? Not exactly, because it is a pure myth of animals 'roaming free in the wild'. Most animals don't, discounting crocodiles for example, who spend the majority of time in a form of meditative state. Animals in the wild are constantly aware of the need to feed themselves, to stake their territory and to ward off potential predators. Ok, they don't torture themselves like humans do with 'to do' lists and anxiety over what bad news has been fed to them by the mainstream media. Their brains are not overloaded with external, artificial temptation, but they still feel anxiety and of course need. So, our souls in heaven are perhaps 'living' an existence more like that of a domesticated pet. Cats and dogs in the home do seem content, if they are not and haven't previously been mistreated, and if you take away the need for food, they are probably even happier.

So, i'm here, in pure heaven. It's not perfect, but I'm refreshed by having lost the instinct to judge. To compare. I'm existing, but it is pleasant, and you get to talk to a lot of people. Everyone remembers their earthly existence, and some like to use their names, but as time goes on the memories fade and the names start to mean nothing. In fact, veterans told me very quickly when I arrived that it takes around 5 years, which is an estimate since time becomes of little importance, for memories of the earthly existence to completely fade. Similarly, hunger, which turns out to be mainly 'food anxiety', lasts as long as you feel anxious that you 'should' be eating. People who still remember talk about their earthly lives, and have fun trying to figure out what it all meant. Couples who were married sometimes meet, but there are no arguments because the reason to argue has gone. The reason was their lives, their situations, and all the very subtle external factors that influence humans every day without them having the slightest inkling of them. Most people in their earthly incarnations knew about advertising, and were fully aware, for example, that McDonalds used posters that made their burgers look nice. However, did they or does anyone ever stop to wonder that experts in human psychology may be being employed against us, people who know things about the average person that the person doesn't know themselves? That messages are put in advertising media that are impossible to spot if you're not looking for them? Now, here in heaven, all that's gone. No money, no stress, no need to work for 'the man', nobody trying to set the course for your life, no artificial, processed, chemicalised food, no heavy metals in the water system. But, there is the sun, and there is meditation, and there is contemplation without ego-driven thought. So, there are earthly things up here, and it's easier to identify the good ones. But what about excitement? football? good films? Well, the nerves which produce the need for excitement are gone, so there's no need for excitement. What passes for a mind doesn't need entertaining though it can still converse. 

I wonder at this point if this is a propaganda story calling for a life of meditation and contemplation. Possibly. Perhaps it's possible to create pure heaven on earth with a tweaking, admittedly a major one, of the system. Even with all the human drives and the system as it is, there are steps that can be taken. Discarding mainstream, corporate media would be a good start. Realising that money is not backed by anything tangible, and that the pieces of paper we use are simply 'promises to pay', would also be positive. And trying to see that a lot of the hate and bitterness that takes the joy out of life can be controlled and lessened with a bit more contemplation. Instead of turning on the t.v. to be shown someone else's view of life every second and to constantly be given limiting options on thought, we could take time to enjoy silence or to read a book that fires the imagination. Meet the neighbours, and try to establish human relationships just like those in heaven. Without ego. Show the other person that you're not talking to them for any reason other than to share some contact. That it is possible to have human relationships on earth that haven't bought in to the propaganda. That not buying into the propaganda is actually allowed, not just something people talk about. Existing in a pure state, just like at the very beginning.

Now, returning to heaven, here's the fun part. All the souls in heaven are aware of their previous earthly existence and so recognise others that they shared events with. Previously famous people get recognised therefore, but without that driven lust on Earth, they are just a curious and amusing oddity until the memory fades. There is no screaming their names and certainly no mobbing. The souls that were truly connected on Earth are observed to gravitate towards others magically, so out of all those billions of souls, there is a stronger-than-average chance that they will run into each other. The souls seem to last what could be calculated as around 50-100 years in the first realm before moving into the next, by then physically and mentally unrecognisable from their previous earthly identity. So, certain figures from the last 50 years exist in the first realm, and this brings up some interesting encounters. It's perfectly true that Lee Harvey Oswald has met John Fitzgerald Kennedy on a number of occasions, and of course without the emotions of pain, hate, anger, bitterness, guilt etc..to inhibit their interaction, they can almost joke about those big couple of days in Dallas, memories now fading but still clear enough to recall their final days on Shakespeare's 'stage'. LHO insists that he didn't kill JFK though he did consider the initial offer and he was there in Dallas that day. Unfortunately, he can't remember why! In this realm, with nothing to gain from lying and nothing at stake, there is no reason to disbelieve him. Famous (and non-famous) murderers gravitate towards their former victims, especially those to whom they did horrible things, and everyone can discuss it together, with no thoughts of superiority and inferiority, moral or otherwise. Please note that i have chosen the word 'heaven' as a recognisable name for the first realm following the soul's time in a physical body on Earth. It's not the religious heaven that would not permit a murderer to ascend to the good place. John Lennon and George Harrison have sung together, with Mark David Chapman in attendance. Does that sound incredible? ridiculous? it's actually perfectly natural and right because the barriers have been lifted and things can be seen without all the conditioning that must by its very nature skew one's judgement.

Many 'people' exist in this place, or look like people for a while anyway. I look back now and again to my life, as many do, and I can see things that I never saw while I was there. I can now see all kinds of ways that I could have achieved what I have now, the peace and lucidity, without my time on Earth having to end. Of course, that's the elusive nature of what the creator has created. He is not driving events really, just putting something in place and leaving it for others to play with, to improve and sometimes to destroy.

'All that you touch and see, taste and feel, love and hate, save and waste, give, deal, buy, beg, borrow or steal, all you do, say, eat, everyone you meet, all you slight, everyone you fight, all that is now, gone and to come', is right here now.'

Thoughts on the programme 'Executed'

Last night, I watched the Timothy Evans section of the programme 'Executed' on ITV in England and it was frustratingly slick television mixed in with genuine grief and sadness from Evans's family at the event itself.  A friend of mine who worked for a media company gave me the sound advice, 'don't ever believe what you see on TV', which doesn't mean that none of it is true but that it shouldn't be taken as literal truth and is all presented and edited to give a certain impression, usually a very simple one so that the viewers don't have to think too hard while watching.

Some of the programme was correct in that Evans's mother did shout that Christie was the murderer outside the courtroom during Evans's trial, and Evans did eventually accuse Christie of the murders of his wife and daughter.  The ever-smiling Tim was part of his character but not the whole story, and Beryl seems to have been a nice person although fairly adept at handling herself in physical confrontations. It was interesting to see the original photos of the Evans family, and there's no reason to doubt that both parents doted on baby Geraldine, the most innocent victim in this sorry saga. 

However, certain known facts were not mentioned or were misrepresented and other things simplified:

- Tim is portrayed as a harmless dimwit, fitting in nicely with the 'standard version' from Ludovic Kennedy's book. The files that were opened in the 1990s show this to be not the case, as he was a drinker who was seen with his arms round his wife's neck by one of the neighbours during an argument. The programme highlights his childlike nature and low mental age, but he was also able to hold down a job in the adult world and his mental age doesn't make it less likely that he was the killer, as it is a primitive, primal act.

-Basil Thorley, Beryl's brother, genuinely grieves his sister, but unlike how he is portrayed in the programme, he always thought Evans did it even when nobody else did, and chatted amiably with Christie outside the court during Evans's trial.

-There is no mention of the Evanses' frequent and often violent arguments, and a rather rosy picture is offered.

-Christie is portrayed in a simplistic way as aggressive and horrible. Again, part of this is true, and he was apparently rude to Evans's sisters when they came to inquire about the whereabouts of Tim and his wife and daughter, but Jonathan Oates's book offers a more rounded portrait of Christie, who was liked by many he came into contact with

-Only one of Evans's 4 official statements is mentioned, the one where he implicated Christie, whereas he confessed 3 times to killing his wife and baby.

-It is assumed that Evans' pardon in 1966 meant that he was officially an innocent man, whereas Judge Brabin's verdict was that he probably killed his wife but not his daughter.

-Basil Thorley says that Beryl had told him that Christie had 'interfered' with her and 'touched her up'. Why then would she agree to let him abort her baby?

The whole case is very sad and tragic, but my point as ever is to cut through the emotion and try to draw an accurate conclusion. The police probably were hasty in their original conclusions and keen to get the case put to bed quickly. John Eddowes theorised in his 1994 book that Christie could have been a police informant, which would explain his economic survival despite being frequently off work.

TV programmes exist to serve advertisers rather than viewers and so need to tow the establishment line. Of course, this case was different in that officialdom has 'officially' been found to have got it wrong, but once again an overly simplistic review of the facts is given, as befits the make up of mainstream programming.

Summary of 'The Money Myth Exploded'

Thanks to my friend Francesco for first sending me this story, written by Louis Even, which brilliantly explains in a simple way the insanity of the money system. The following is a summary of the story's narrative with my own comments in bold. It should be noted that until widespread attention was given to this subject via the Internet, and possibly still even now, many bankers and economists confessed to being ignorant of how money actually worked, and how faith-based it was.

'A shipwreck leaves 5 survivors, whose makeshift raft is carried by the waves to an island, which they come to call 'Salvation Island'. The 5 are a carpenter, a farmer, an animal breeder, an agriculturist and one who is both a prospector and a mineralologist. Finding the island to be rich in semi-domesticated animals, soil suitable for cultivation, fruit trees, large stands of timber, and signs of rich timber deposits, each could serve the common good with his own particular talent.'

The clear indication here of course is that the members of society have between them, like the islanders, all the diverse skills required for a society to function, given the abundance of materials on our planet. 

'Over time, houses and furniture are built, and the fields are tilled and seeded. The island has true wealth, that of food, clothing and shelter, of all the things to meet human needs. Any surpluses of production are exchanged for other surpluses. It isn't a perfect life but is still preferable to urban depressions suffered in the past. There are no taxes or fear of property seizure by bailiffs. All they are lacking is a system of exchange preferable to pure bartering, whose drawbacks are that value is not always easy to compare between items, and said items for exchange are not always produced at the same time. Apparently, they have no idea how to set up an effective money system.'

It might seem strange that they couldn't think of something usable, but the setting up of a money system is something that seems to have eluded many over the years, and of course certain equipment is usually required.

'Just when it seems to be an unsolvable dilemma, another shipwreck refugee rows onto the shore. He happens to be a banker called Oliver, bespectacled, wearing a smart suit and full of confidence about his ability to solve all their problems very quickly. The 5 workers immediately defer to this angel sent from the heavens, and it is made clear that no work is expected of him except to manage their money. Oliver has paper and a printing press with him, and also a small barrel 'full of gold', which he explains must be hidden as befitting 'the soul of healthy money'. After printing $1000 in $1 notes and presenting each worker with an equal share, he buries the barrel of gold.'

Note here the immediate deference given to the man in the suit, whose perceived high status and confident demeanour are never questioned. The workers are immediately in a place of inferiority and blind trust. The uninspected barrel of gold is all that's needed to justify the legitimate printing and distribution of paper money.

'Oliver thinks to himself, 'My! How simple it is to make money. All its value comes from the products it will buy. Without produce, these bills are worthless. My five naive customers don't realise that, and their very ignorance makes me their master.' Oliver carefully explains to his workers that the money is his, based on his barrel of gold, and that they have to pay 8% interest on the loans from Oliver. They all sign a paper, binding themselves to pay back both the 8% interest and the principle (the amount loaned) under penalty of confiscation of property. Oliver explains that this is 'a mere formality' and that he has no interest in their property. None of the 5 workers, so happy to have these precious pieces of paper money in their hands, question the friendly banker.'

We all grow up associating these attractive pieces of printed paper with monetary value, so who wouldn't feel happy to be given large numbers of them? We are also well-conditioned through school education, television and print media, to trust confident people who look smart and appear to have all the answers.

'At first, everyone is delighted as trade doubles. However, Tom the prospector quickly realises that to pay back the full $1000 plus interest (i.e. $1080) is simply not possible with only $1000 in circulation. Oliver can quickly take over the whole island if he desires. Production has increased but the money hasn't, and all 5 of the workers are struggling to reach their debt obligations. Foreseeing this, Oliver agrees that only the interest need be paid back, and that the original $1000 can continue to be held by the men, though it is still owed and not cancelled. With the unlikelihood that all will be able to pay back and produce equal amounts, he encourages them to set up a tax system where those with more money pay more into the common pot, and all the money raised is collected in order to pay back the interest to Oliver. The workers are still dubious but accept it for now.'

The banker took pains to point out that his requirement of just the interest was a way of adapting to new circumstances driven by the unrest of the workers, which governments claim to want to do when the people don't react well to a certain policy. This is a ploy often used by those in power, and the idea that anything is pre-planned and secretive is of course written off as 'conspiracy theory' (see blog post entitled 'Conspiracy Theory - A Powerful Phrase!'). While it's true that this adaption to circumstances is true on a small scale, there is ample evidence that social engineering happens many years, probably decades, in advance, and that the clever people in charge, who are not buffoons as they are often portrayed, have already anticipated reactions and planned many moves ahead, like a grandmaster on the global chessboard. 

'Oliver exults, 'These people are stupid, and their ignorance is my strength. They ask for money and I give them the chains of bondage. They could mutiny if they wanted, but they are honest, hardworking men who have signed a pledge and are sure to honour it.' Drunk with power and possibility, he remembers the famous pronouncement , 'Give me control of a nation's money, and I care not who makes its laws.' If he can instill his philosophy into the minds of those who run society, the masses would be content to live in slavery with the elite as their overseers.'

We really could mutiny if we wanted, particularly when we consider our monumental advantage in terms of numbers to the tiny elite. Smaller nations have achieved the taking back of power, as seen in the largely-unreported action taken by the people of Iceland to see that the bankers' debts did not become their burden. Organisation isn't easy, but a first step is to realise the sophistication of the propaganda exercise going on all around us and to reject the predictable and limiting labels of 'extremist', 'paranoid' and 'conspiracy theorist'. Instead, we need to glorify thinking and careful consideration of reality.

'On the island, production was up but money tended to clot rather than circulate due to the pressing need to pay Oliver back his interest. Those paying higher taxes complained and raised their prices, forcing those paying less or no taxes to buy less. If one employed another, they got locked into a stalemate and constant friction over money and the struggle to meet the cost of living. Life seemed to have lost its joy and the work was simply and only a means to an end. They tended to blame each other for their plight. Harry the agriculturist concluded that 'progress' had spoiled everything, and Oliver's system seemed to have been designed to bring out the worst in all those involved in it. His friends, who weren't as stupid as Oliver thought, quickly agreed and confronted Oliver once again. 'Money's scarce because you take it all. We work and work but our situation gets worse and worse.' Oliver's only response is to try to convince them that 'a good banking is a country's best asset', and offer to mortgage their latest acquisitions and lend them more money (based on his hidden barrel of gold), as well as creating a 'consolidated debt' that can continually be increased ad infinitum (necessitating higher taxes), or at least for as long as there is ink for his printing press. In the end, it comes down to Oliver's belief that 'the degree of a country's civilisation is always gauged by the size of its debt to the bankers.''

This last section is fairly self-explanatory, but what leaps out is the successful 'divide and conquer' strategy, and all the stress and tension that is created by this need to pay back a debt that is carelessly and frivolously handled and, as we shall see later, not what it seems. Oliver's belief about debt and civilisation is certainly a message that is diseminated in the mainstream, where the United States of America is still thought to be the global superpower despite its mammoth national debt rendering it, in literal terms, the poorest country in the world. It survives of course on military might but also reputation, perceived collateral, faith and propaganda.

'After one final plea about the virtues of national debts and his being 'the torch of civilisation' on the island, he finally turns nasty and proceeds to remind them of the pledges they signed and finally demand back the money he originally loaned them as well as the interest! In other words, he starts to put the squeeze on the death grip. To maintain his control, he also employs the classic contrived tactics of maintenance of ignorance, constant distraction and ideological division. Observing a fairly even split between conservatives and liberals with varying levls of neutrality, Oliver sought to block the union of the islanders by creating and printing 2 weekly newspapers, each applying to the opposite ideology. The Liberal paper blamed everyone's troubles on the Conservatives' relationship to big business, while the other blamed the Liberals' political affiliations.'

The word mortgage (mort-gage) literally means 'death pledge'. The division tactics are plain for all to see in the print and televisual media, with their clearly biased views, affiliations and occasional large monetary 'donations' to political parties. What is puzzling is that the majority of the educated public can see the central illusion of 'the left' and 'the right', while still allowing it to be part of their discourse: cognitive dissonance. Originally meaning a simple division of pro-monarchy and anti-monarchy in revolutionary-era France, these terms have now assumed a contrived life of their own, with seemingly every talking point under the sun having a clear 'left' and 'right' position. This is not to mention the general similarities on most central topics, noted by many, between the 2 main parties in the U.K. and U.S. political systems at least, and this is surely true in many or most other countries' political systems.

'The story's conclusion starts with Tom the prospector finding an empty lifeboat containing a book called 'The First Year of Social Credit', which explains how money gets its value not from gold but from the products it buys. Money should involve credits passing from one account to another according to purchases and sales, so that it equals production, rather than interest being paid on newly-created money. Progress is marked by the issuance of an equal dividend to each individual, and prices are adjusted to the general purchasing power by a coefficient of prices. Tom sets up a system for his island mates which involves non-paper credits and a credit fund which is periodically increased but not to the detriment of others, with no interest payments required and money as an instrument of service rather than a master or executioner. Oliver no longer has the faith of the islanders and thus has no power and no more option than to disappear. The islanders find and smash open Oliver's barrel and find it...full of rocks, not gold!'

So, in a nutshell, the banker with his nice suit and air of respectability and wisdom had carved up the island based on nothing but the islanders' reverence to the idea of gold. Just as paper notes were originally I.O.U. receipts on gold and morphed into 'fiat' currency, which basically means that it's the only paper money which can be used, a recent study found that 97% of the 'money' circulating in the British economy was digital. Yes, 97% of what flows in the economy is a figure on a screen!, and since the gold standard was removed many years ago, it is basically being created out of thin air. 

Awareness of this fact is one thing, but there are various groups working on banking reform, which is a real possibility with the combined pressure of these groups. One of the more accessible is 'Positive Money' (website link below), who are gradually gaining mainstream exposure and educating the people on this most vital of truths. There is plenty of easy-to-digest- material on this subject, and you will never look at 'money' (or indeed faith) in the same way again.

links:

http://www.michaeljournal.org/myth.htm - the full story in text form with animated colour pictures 

http://vimeo.com/70176604- a humurous video version filmed in New Zealand

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqvKjsIxT_8- the first of a 3-part animated series about money and banking

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQ6hg1oNeGE- an animated story in German with English subtitles

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3mfkD6Ky5o- 'Positive Money''s edit of the documentary '97% Owned', about the modern money system.

Recommended Podcasts

There are thousands of podcasts and independent, alternative radio shows out there, but the following are a collection of ones that I listen to or have listened to at various times and would recommend. They mainly concentrate on offering alternative information and alternative views of the world to the mainstream media, but others include philosophy, history, films and music. Some are very extreme in their views, certainly relative to what we are generally fed, but all offer interesting views and evidence that encourages further research by the listener rather than automatic acceptance and parrotting.

9/11 Synchronicity

The only podcast on this list not still active as of 2014, this truly epic work of more than 120 hours was put together in 2006-7 by corporate whistleblower Richard Grove and is 'the podcast designed to strike a chord in the public mind and inspire the (American) people to exercise their rights and take meaningful action in the search for the truth behind the events of September 11th 2001. Richard worked in the World Trade Center until Summer 2001, became aware of financial irregularities apparently connected to the 9/11 attacks and set off on a 5-year odyssey of research. However, this podcast is not all about 9/11 but rather an all-encompassing work that looks at how the world is shaped and how it actually is through a monumental array of clips and interviews, as well as Richard's own commentary on his own experiences and on how we can develop our critical thinking skills and start to change the way we view the world. It's nothing if not a journey, and despite some dark subject matter, there are also lighter moments.

Smells Like Human Spirit

Started by Guy Evans in 2012, this podcast is approaching its 200th episode at time of writing and recently moved to a daily format. The views expressed are fairly moderate and are a good introduction to various topics. The change of format has meant shorter podcasts and more of an overview feel rather than deep discussion, and some topics tend to reoccur, such as the shallowness of celebrity culture and the failure and complicity of the mainstream media, but it's still highly recommended. A more detailed review of SLHS can be found on this blog.

Freedomain Radio

Former software entrepreneur and Libertarian Stefan Molyneux has been running this podcast since 2006 and his output is truly prodigious, some might say excessive. He openly admits and discusses an abusive childhood and extensive therapy that appears to have given him great insights into the human condition and the way that the world really works as opposed to the reality that the mainstream feeds the masses. Some of his posts are deeply affecting and profound, and his messages encouraging individuals to examine their lives and raise their children non-coercively are inspiring. On the downside, he tends to disregard any views against the free market, and he also has a call-in show where he offers unqualified advice that tends to be steered towards certain topics that he frequently goes back to, and espouses DeFOOing (leaving one's family of origin if they are not supportive). Highly thought-provoking and some very good interviews.

V Radio

Neil Kiernan, former Ron Paul supporter and now promoter of the Zeitgeist Movement and The Venus Project, runs this podcast and also has a large archive of quality discussions on political matters and other themes about life and the individual. Unlike other podcast hosts, it appears that he really does struggle financially to keep the show going and so really can use donations to help out. He has a relaxed style and an open mind, and advocates TZM and TVP without pushing them aggressively.

The Corbett Report

A former teacher based in Japan, James Corbett has developed a reputation as the voice of reason and a highly informed, informative and refreshingly humble podcast host, interviewer and interviewee. Not much more to add except to highly recommend his extensive output.

WideShut Webcast

Keelan Balderson, host of this podcast, has produced a number of documentaries, including 7/7: What Did They Know?, and is a very informed and reasonable source of information on the London Bombings (as is Tom Secker, with whom Keelan has often discussed the case) as well as covering general news and world agendas. He is one of the younger podcast hosts and offers a youthful but mature perspective.

The Joe Rogan Experience

Joe is well-known in the mainstream but appears to have had some kind of epiphany in the last few years and has become a very thoughtful and informed podcast host. The episodes are long, usually 3-4 hours but have an extremely spontaneous and refreshingly freeform feel to them. Guests often tend to be comedians and/or martial artists (Rogan is an exponent of both of these disciplines) but activistically-inclined politicians and commentators also appear. Rogan is a big advocate of psychedelics for enlightenment, and this is another regular topic of discussion 

London Real

Inspired by Joe Rogan, this podcast is hosted by an American based in London called Brian Rose. There is some guest and content overlap from Rogan's podcast, but London Real is more structured and many episodes, which relate to self and world improvement, leave a feeling of having been enlightened and inspired. it also features on split-screen video format on you tube.

Common Sense with Dan Carlin

Dan Carlin's Hardcore History

Described as an American political commentator and amateur historian, Dan Carlin (no relation to George) is a legend in podcasting. Common Sense takes a very rational look at politics, with a keen journalistic eye on how it is presented versus the reality, and what it all means. Hardcore History is a perfect combination of epic, insightful and accessible. The HH shows are many hours in length, but the events are presented in a way that is fun, informative and really helps you to understand the background to major historical events and what it might have been like to have been there experiencing it. HH is totally essential for everyone interested in history.

The Mind Renewed

Julian Charles is tries to provide an alternative examination of the world through a Christian perspective. His relaxed and calm delivery and rational approach make for extremely accessible listening, and he certainly gives Christianity a good name in his very open explanation and expression of his views and opinions. He has good guests on the show, especially episode 68!!

Truth Jihad Radio

Run by former Massachusetts University professor Kevin Barrett, who was sacked from his job for the heinous crime of introducing alternative theories of 9/11 and planting in his student's heads the idea that the War on Terror might not be entirely genuine, this podcast has some quite extreme views, even for alternative media, but it is certainly thought-provoking, with something of a religious angle since Barrett has converted to Islam. It's quite 9/11 heavy, as Barrett seems to have dedicated himself to uncovering so much information that dismissing a cover-up will be impossible and a clear case of 'wilful denial'.

Democracy Now!

A stalwart of the alternative media while also having mainstream credibility and exposure, Democracy Now!, hosted by journalists Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez, is claimed by its website to be 'pioneering the largest public media collaboration in the U.S'. It has regular output and a sense of the now-dying art of genuine investigation. Certainly left-leaning but information is information, especially when well-sourced.

The Gary Null Show

Gary Null is a controversial figure, largely for his criticisms of mainstream medicine. He has a Ph.D in nutrition and has been an author, radio host and documentarian for over 30 years. His shows tend to combine nutrition with politics and he has an effective way of combining the two, in his own dialogue and with the guests he sometimes has on his show

Liberty Tactics

No Fit State

Hosted by Lou Collins and James Britpod, Liberty Tactics is a show closely allied to the UK Column newspaper, which effectively looks at corruption and stories not covered or mishandled in the corporate media. They continue to support Robert Green in the Hollie Greig case despite reasonably compelling evidence that it may be a hoax, but other topics covered are hard to deny and are essential information.

No Fit State was a spin-off podcast which only had 5 editions, all very interesting, but appears to have been discontinued.

The David Seaman Hour

A journalist and former Congressional candidate (not to be confused with the former England international goalkeeper), David Seaman is a recurring guest on Joe Rogan's podcast and is a well-researched and well-informed activist with his finger on the pulse of what's happening in America. He regularly talks to Abby Martin, whose work on her RT show 'Breaking The Set' is also highly recommended.

The Unexplained with Howard Hughes

Liverpudlian Hughes is a media stalwart with an open-mind, who is not afraid to tackle subjects rejected by others. When dealing with non-mainstream, 'extreme' opinions, he tends to play devil's advocate in an effective way, something other podcast hosts should try more often, and lets the information be expressed without interruption and 'ad hominem' tactics.

The Auteur Cast

Movie Geeks United

The Auteur Cast, hosted by Rudie Obias and featuring West Anthony, offers insightful and intelligent critiques and discussions of films of various genres and periods, including series exploring particular filmmakers. They often let the conversation turn to the philosophical, and in West's case, political aspects of the films themselves and the themes explored by them, and they are not afraid  to go on tangents and share relevant personal experiences and information. 

Discover Music Project

Hosted by Jonathan Metts with recurring guest hosts, each episode of this podcast is dedicated to exmaining a well-known group or singer and picking out key songs from them, with discussion of styles, influences and the musical progression of the artist. This podcast, like the 2 film ones, is genuinely fan-made.

War By Other Means

the following are notes from 'War By Other Means', a film by Australian journalist John Pilger, made in 1991 and released in 1992, with additional comments by this author in bold. Although the film is over 20 years old, the problem that it addresses is if anything worse than it was then, and the general information it provides is still relevant to today.

On July 13th 1985, the world witnessed the phenomenon of simultaneous 'Live Aid' concerts in London and Philadelphia, ostensibly to raise money for relief of the Ethiopian famine. That it was all well-meaning in terms of the participants, career advancement savvy notwithstanding, there is no doubt, but what was not realised was that in that year the poorest African countries gave twice as much to the developed world as we gave to them, in loans not wanted or asked for. It's a modern type of war that doesn't require occupying armies. Its weapon is debt, the money used for 'structural adjustment'.

This final phrase is another of those wonderful Orwellian euphemisms like 'collateral damage' (killing of innocent civilians), 'compound' (the house of a dictator), regime change (invasion of a country and removal of its leader, whether democratically-elected or not), assymetric warfare (the huge imbalance in resources and war methods between the invading army and the one being invaded), defence (attack), clean bombing (bombing with pinpoint accuracy), coercive interrogation (torture), extraordinary rendition (extradition to countries practising extreme torture), extreme prejudice (killing without mercy), liberation (occupation), neutralise (kill), Operation Iraqi Freedom (an illegal operation in 2003 to steal resources, secure huge contracts for private companies and help in a long-term bid to assume total control of the region), waterboarding (simulated drowning as advanced torture technique), rebels (Western-backed terrorists), double-tap drones (a method where a first missile is fired and then as soon as rescuers come to tend the wounded, another is fired in the same area ), and the list goes on and on....

This 'adjustment' began after WWII, something to fill the void left by the end of colonialism. The Bretton Woods conference in 1944 set up the World Bank and IMF, based in Washington and run by the U.S. The World Bank is notoriously secretive and its officials are immune from legal action all over the world. The bank, in the words of its 'Director of Economics', 'seeks to alleviate debt' but also 'has to worry about its bottom line and its standing in the markets, so is necessarily a hard-nosed financial institution'.

It appears from my own interactions with the public that most people have never really analysed closely the role of banks, for example how they always seem to have the tallest buildings in any city without in reality contributing anything to society's advancement other than crippling those who actually produce real labour with decades of debt to pay. (the etymology of the word 'mortgage' is 'death pledge'). Should not a bank be a service, with small contributions from the populace to keep it going?

The 'debt crisis', which officially started in 1982, has been a dream for the banks, with public institutions alone receiving 1.3 trillion dollars and the Third World 60% more in debt than before. 

In the Phillipines, 44% goes to paying back interest on debts accumulated by former President Ferdinand Marcos, compared to 3% on 'unprofitable' public services, such as schools, hospitals and clean running water. The Bataan nuclear power station (nicknamed 'The Big Scam'), lies 60 miles from Manila on 3 earthquake vaults and near 2 live volcanoes. In 1974, Marcos accepted the Westinghous Electric Corporation's offer to build this nuclear plant, underwritten by the U.S. government through the Export/Import bank and other private U.S. banks. In 1977, President Jimmy Carter had stopped the building of nuclear power plants for their efficiency and faulty design, but he didn't stop Bataan. Despite its proximity to an earthquake zone, the State Department readily approved Westinghouse's export license. William Casey, later head of the C.I.A. and then head of the Export/Import bank, recommended large loans for the power station. The involvement of other banks, along with delays, brought the price from 1.1 billion dollars to a total estimated to be between 2.2 and 2.6 billion, all for a power station that would  produce no electricity, the bill of course to be paid by the Phillippine people.

Marcos was deposed in 1986, and the new administration of President Corazon Aquino, an inexperienced politician who came to power following the assassination of her Senator husband 3 years earlier, immediately closed Bataan and attempted to sue Westinghouse. One day before the case was due to be heard, it was settled out of court. Westinghouse agreed to pay 100 million dollars, but Aquino's government inexplicably agreed to give Westinghouse 400 million to make the power station work, borrowed naturally from the export bank.

It's interesting to see how the 'justice system' tends to make all the right noises before events go in a circular way back to how the power wanted them in the first place.

As of 1991, poverty in The Phillipines stood at 70%, 10% up in the 5 years since Aquino came to power. The debt was being paid back at the rate of 6 million dollars a day, with private armies protecting shopping malls and the homes of the rich, and political killings rife. In the 'Smokey Mountain' landfill, surrounded by slums, Filipino children were dying at the rate of 1 every hour. The Philllipines is abundant in food, but it didn't help pay the debts, so 'structural adjustment' projects like the mainly Japanese-funded Calabarzon super project were apparently necessary, building factories for exports on green land on which 8 million people depended for food. The tragic irony of course is that the profits were always going to foreigners and the debt increased. Another major irony is that while the rich lecture the poor on preserving the environment, the banks force them to plunder the mangroves, tear up the coral reefs and destroy the rainforests to export goods to pay off their debts. Bith the land and the country itself are raped by Economics. In an area previously protected from floods and mudslides by the forests, a 1991 typhoon killed 6,000 and left 43,000 homeless. Forests the size of Denmark have been wiped out, previously the homes of thousands of species of plants and animals.

This kind of thing is allowed to happen not only because the public are largely totally unaware of how things like this occur, but also because the gods of the modern world are 'progress' and economic growth. We are constantly told that we need to keep up with the modern world, but this is a world that is consciously shaped for us, sometimes decades in advance, rather than just randomly 'evolving' as many seem to believe. A good example of this is recently-leaked documents from the Bilderberg Group meeting in 1955, clearly showing discussion regarding plans for Europe to have 'the highest degree of integration, beginning with a common market', which didn't start coming into at least 30 years later. The existence of Bilderberg has until fairly recently gone unreported by the mainstream media, and even now is brushed off as a kind of glorified country club meeting.

A still more incredible irony occurred in BKK in 1991, where the IMF and World Bank conference took place, its aim 'to find ways of eradicating poverty all over the world'. Most of the delegates were bankers, who even at that time spent approximately 45 million dollars a year flying first-class and staying in 5-star hotels while trying to find ways to save money and alleviate poverty. Chefs were flown in from Paris for the conference as well as personal physicians for the delegates, while local children were dying from malnutrition nearby. Across from the conference site, a wall was put up to shield the bankers from having to see the poor people living in a nearby slum. The slum residents later painted the wall in bright colours to attract attention, so large buses were parked in front of it as well just in case the delegates attending the conference to alleviate poverty had to have their comfortable trip made uncomfortable by seeing an actual poor person. Hundreds of vendors were swept away, unable to make a living until the 'poverty conference' had finished its business! 500 families were living by the railway lines, but their homes and makeshift schools were removed for the conference without any rehousing being offered. The Deputy Managing Director of the I.M.F. didn't seem to notice the absurdity of this of course, feeling 'a sense of optimism' at the 'pledges for positive action' made during the conference.

It may be too stereotypical to talk of all 'men in suits', but the feeling of how out-of-touch these privileged delegates are is hard to deny. Part of this of course is the shielding process, which also happens to the public in a myriad of different ways, war coverage being a good example. And of course there is always comforting language to hide behind to provide reassurance, however hollow.

Debt and war are closely-linked, clearly seen while the U.S government were atempting to form a coalition against Saddam Hussein in the run-up to the first Gulf War in the early 1990s. Egypt agreed to join after being promised that 14 billion dollars would be wiped off its national debt. Iran was rewarded with its first World Bank loan since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, a cool 250 million dollars. The Chinese Foreign Minister met President Bush at The White House, and one week later his country received their first loan since the Tiananmen Square massacre. Syria bagged an arms deal worth 1 million dollars, brokered by Washington. In the crucial vote of the non-permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, Yemen voted against the war, losing 70 million dollars in U.S. aid as a result. In the early 1980s, a secret U.S treasury report had already stated that 'the United States is capable and willing to pursue important policy objectives in the banks by exercising the financial and political leverage at our disposal.'

Britain's influence in comparison is less, bith then and now, but your average friendly British High Street bank in 1990 received 6 billion pounds net from poor countries. The banks also got tax relief on making provision for 'doubtful loans', which totalled 1.6 billion from 1977-1990, enough to immunise 400 million children against preventable disease and 10 times more than the British public gave in charitable donations in that period. The system of this tax relief is that the banks keep the relief money until the the principle of the loan is paid off, while still allowed to demand interest payments which will ensure that it never is. This system is also in place with I.M.F. and World Bank loans. The olive branch offered by western banks has been 'rescheduling' (postponement) of debts and In 1991 British Prime Minister John Major announced the cancelling of what appeared to be a large amount of Third World debt but which actually only amounted to 1% of the total. Britain saw a huge rise in poverty in the 1990s and an ever-widening gap between rich and poor. 20% of British children were living in poverty and 80,000 homes were being repossessed every year. The 1980s boom, which proved to be hollow due to its reliance on credit, was paid for in the 1990s when it all came home to roost. Multi-generational debt is a huge problem, to add to the problems of the present time.

The solution is fairly simple: A non-profit making development agency is required, and the I.M.F and World Bank need to be abolished, such is their inability to serve both rich and poor at the same time. It is a fact that most countries have enough resources to provide for their people and could do so were it not for being saddled with this crushing, unpayable debt. Economics it seems has become a holy writ requiring blood sacrifices every day. The final tragic irony is that these huge Third World debts actually only account for 5% of the loans of commercial banks, so they'd hardly notice the loan's cancellation at all. Otherwise, the debt war will go on and may not remain silent forever.

As ever, this kind of information will be tough to read for some, and may lead to feelings of anger, helplessness and temporary depression. However, the truth is a wonderful thing to know and we owe it to the estimated 3.5 billion people (half the world's population) who have to survive, totally unnecessarily, on around 2 dollars a day. A bit of simple number-crunching will tell you that around 6 months spending on the provably illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003 would be enough to alleviate poverty around the world, so next time one of your leaders, even one with a nice smile, impeccable public manner and reassuring voice, starts talking about governmental commitment to helping the poor, you might want to consider some form of non-participation in the utter charade that is the political process. Candidates are bought and paid for before you cast your vote, and you will little or no difference between them on most issues that matter. As mentioned many times in this blog, start a discourse with people around you about things that matter and walk through the fear of ridicule and discomfort.

'Conspiracy Theory' - A Powerful Phrase!

This piece has been in the offing for a while but now happens to have been written in Madrid a few weeks after the 10th anniversary of the Madrid Bombings, perpetrated on the Cercanias train system in that city. That particular event is not referenced but others of its kind will be in the examination of a weaponised piece of language which has a profound effect on how important criminal events and behaviour are viewed. In fact, it is the bane of an entire movement, called variously 'the alternative movement' or 'the alternative media'.

INTRODUCTION
Two friends, who we'll call James and Bill, are having a conversation. They have been friends for a while and tend to agree on most things in terms of their general world view. However, James has recently been finding lots of information, a large part of which is in the public record but didn't seem to appear on the news or in the newspaper, that seems to contradict the view of the world that they've both always believed was the real one.

James- 'Hey Bill, did you know that on 9/11 there was a 3rd tower, called WTC7, which wasn't hit by any planes but which collapsed at freefall speed about 7 hours after the planes hit the other towers? And did you know that the collapse of the 2 main towers, WTC 1&2, was totally inconsistent with any previous collapse of buildings? And that Osama Bin Laden was never officially wanted for that crime? And that the hole in the Pentagon was too small for the plane that was supposed to have gone through it? I never knew all this but it's pretty interesting, isn't it?'

James is an open-minded person who has never really looked for this kind of information before and stumbled across it via a colleague at work. He was a little embarrassed and kept it to himself while he did more research on this and other topics. He has never been an extremist of any kind and is a level-headed and rather cautious person who tends to check facts before believing anything fully. He recently found and read Andy Thomas's book, 'The Truth Agenda' and found it a very reasonable book that simply presented evidence that a great many things that we've always believed may in fact be at least partly false. The official story of 9/11 itself seems to have up to 50 anomalies that may not mean a great deal in isolation, but put together seem to present a lot to ponder. James has suddenly started to wonder how everyone on T.V. news seemed to know that it was Osama Bin Laden who did it almost immediately. And when was the official investigation? It started a year after the event and seemed to only happen because of pressure from a group of ladies nicknamed 'The Jersey Girls', who all lost loved ones in the attack. And James has found quotes from members of the '9/11 Commission', who appeared to say that the investigation was 'set up to fail'. And didn't President Bush and Vice-President Cheney only agree to see the commission together and off the record? Why, if their story was so obviously true? James has also found out that Bin Laden worked for the C.I.A in the 1980's and that his family were major investors in an oil company that the Bush family owned, called Arbusto. Not only that but George H W Bush, the President from 1988-92, met with Osama Bin Laden's brother on the morning of September 11, 2001, and members of Bin Laden's family were safely flown out of the U.S. while commercial planes were grounded after the attack that one of their family was supposedly responsible for?. It's true that some of the family claimed to have disowned Osama a while back, but even so this is a pretty big revelation that was revealed fairly soon after the attacks themselves. In the 3 months or so that James has been aware of this alternative information, he has experienced periods of anger and despair before deciding to accept it and devote time to seeing whether there may be more that he was previously totally unaware of.

James doesn't have to wait long for Bill's response, which appears to be automatic, as if he didn't need any time to process the information he was being given.

Bill- 'Oh, that's just conspiracy theory!' (said with rolling eyes)

James- 'No, I can send you the links if you want. There are published articles that confirm a lot of this information. Some of it has never been denied.'

Bill- 'Why would I waste my time? And why would you? Those people are crazy!'

James- 'Well, how about this? One day before September 11 2001, Donald Rumsfeld, then Secretary of Defence, announced a 'war on bureaucracy' in a Department of Defence article which stated that the Pentagon couldn't account for 2.3 Trillion Dollars!!, the same amount as the entire annual federal budget for that year! And the Budget Analyst office, which was working on trying to find this money, was one of the departments hit by the plane which apparently hit the Pentagon.'

James decides not to tell his friend that he has also discovered that this plane was supposedly flown by Hani Hanjour, of whom more needs to be said. 3 weeks earlier, Hanjour had attempted to rent a Cessna (a small single-engine plane). He was ordered to take a chaperoned test flight before rental was approved. He had failed miserably, and in the instructor's words, 'It was like he had hardly even driven a car. He could not fly at all'. This same Hanjour, who was of below-average height and build, supposedly fought his way into the cockpit of Flight 77 on 9/11 and wrestled control of the plane from a 6'4" former Marine combat fighter pilot, Charles Burlingame, and his co-pilot. He then took control of the bewildering array of gadgets and devices of a Boeing 757 instrument panel and managed to quickly interpret his heading, ground track, altitude and air speed, seemingly without any help from ground control or air-traffic controllers. He then turned the plane around and set course for Washington D.C. He successfully entered the most restricted airspace in the world without eliciting a single military intercept and executed an incredibly precise diving turn at a rate of 360 degrees per minute while descending at 3,500 feet per minute to level off at ground level, a stunt that would press the limits of even the most experienced aviation test pilot. Even more bizarrely, this manoeveure was performed in order to avoid hitting the East Wing of the Pentagon, where all the top military brass were stationed, and instead hit the West Wing, which was under renovation scheduled for completion on…… September 12th 2001!

Bill- 'You should get out more, mate. Never thought my friend would become a conspiracy theorist'' Bill's tone is slightly sneering, very unlike him, as if he has had some kind of allergic reaction to what his friend has said. He usually considers things he hears in general conversation but on this occasion seems to not need to do so.

James knows that if he actually asked Bill why he thought it was Osama Bin Laden who had planned the 9/11 attacks, other than the fact that 'I saw it on the T.V. so it must be true', his friend would have no answer and an awkward silence would ensue. Being a nice guy, James declines to do this. He could have also picked his friend up on his comment about getting out more, implying that it is geeky and uncool to do research and spend time alone engrossed in something. Presumably this comment could have been made to Albert Einstein and other scientists who have made discoveries that have revolutionised our world by spending long hours inside, labouring to an unhealthy degree in order to complete a task.

And there ends the conversation. Bill seems unmoved by what his friend has said, and the phrases 'conspiracy theory' and 'conspiracy theorist' have been enough to totally disregard clear evidence, of which there is plenty more. James muses that the terms 'left' and 'right' serve a similar purpose in political debates, and that the recent Presidential Debates didn't seem to address the U.S's monumental military spending or their dubious support of Israel, or really address anything at all other than familiar arguments about tax rates, the economy, gay rights and abortion. James has also read of the existence of 'The Commission on Presidential Debates', jointly controlled by the Republicans and Democrats, which lays out precisely what can and can't be brought up in said debates and in 2012 was found to have secretly colluded with the Obama and Romney campaigns by informing them of the debate topics in advance. It seems to James that important questions are never really asked or pursued particularly hard. Mainstream reporting never quite gets to the heart of the matter and is best described, by Dan Carlin in his podcast 'Common Sense', as 'like going to a rock concert given by a famous guitarist where the music sounds like a 5-year-old child banging away on the instrument and the guitarist never plays the song we were expecting to hear, but the review the next day simply talks about how masterfully the artist took the stage and how confidently they held the instrument and plucked the strings, and how they made a wonderful one-on-one connection with the audience.' James remembers reading in 'Alice's Adventures in Wonderland' about 'the rabbit-hole', and it seems to be almost bottomless.

What's interesting about James and Bill's conversation is that even if James had continued to introduce further reasonable arguments and facts, perhaps another 100, it's fairly likely that Bill, like the average person, would have used the killer phrases he used before and the conversation would again have bizarrely ground to an immediate halt.


'CONSPIRACY THEORY' - A POWERFUL PHRASE
Author Michael Parenti, speaking at Berkeley, California on the 30th anniversary of the Assassination of John F Kennedy, talks of the similar phrase 'conspiracy buff' being used to describe the numerous reputable and serious scholars and investigators who have presented evidence that refutes the official version of that momentous event in Dallas in 1963. The word 'buff' seems to imply a quirky person who makes a hobby of looking at these events and is a 'fan'. Parenti notes the absence of the phrase 'Holocaust buff', for those studying that horrific event. The difference of course is that the JFK evidence brings into question the validity and credibility of 'The State', i.e the government, and shows its apparent similarity to a gangster operation, with scores of people mysteriously found dead from vehicular crashes and 'suicides'.

What must be understood is that phrases using the word 'conspiracy' bring the majority of people into a different state of mind, a sudden switch as happened to Bill in the conversation with James. They may get a slight smile on their face, as even serious academic Noam Chomsky does when talking about such matters. On a side note Chomsky is a curious case, being a person who has enlightened masses of people to the American government's responsibility for millions of deaths since it became an empire yet seeming to be totally uninterested in any alternative thought in relation to JFK, 9/11 or indeed the establishment of the Federal Reserve, which was a massively significant event and a very secretive one well-documented in G. Edward Griffin's book, 'The Creature From Jekyll Island'. What maddens most people who suddenly 'awake' to certain realities in this world is that the 'conspiracy theorist/buff/nutjob/wacko' tag runs the whole gamut from conspiracies that are now believed by the majority of those polled (such as JFK) to those believed by almost nobody (Elvis alive, Bigfoot, Loch Ness monster, shape-shifting reptiles). You really have to marvel at a phrase like this and its power to stop us thinking and allow us to submit to what the 'experts' tell us is the truth. What is sad is that yet again we curtail each other using language given to us, while the power players sit on the sidelines with the proverbial cigar in mouth.

To really understand the uncanny power of this type of language and the phrase we're discussing in particular, we need to find its origin in terms of its modern usage. Barrie Zwicker, an award-winning Canadian journalist, documentary producer, political activist and media critic. (or alternatively just a 'conspiracy theorist', if you wish to disregard his 60 years media experience with one lazy phrase), has investigated the phrase, which he considers to have been 'weaponised', and is a practised student of language itself and its use and power. He makes the point that we tend to use language without really thinking about it or acknowledging its great power. To quote Marshall McLuan, 'we don't know who invented water, but it certainly wasn't a fish'. We swim around surrounded by and using language constantly but it's original creation is not of our making. One only needs to think of how cruelly children taunt each other with phrases which cut deep, usually highlighting small differences between them which suddenly get magnified with a few well-chosen words. Zwicker points out that words often have automatic image associations that can agitate the emotional parts of the brain. The word 'conspiracy' may well elicit a fear response, which very often triggers a defensive reaction of a smile or a little chuckle, or a mental image of a group huddling together to plot something sinister. Its use leads to well-worn images of tin-foil hats and the scandalously pejorative phrase 'The Grassy Knoll Society', referring to those who believe that that's where the shots that killed JFK came from. Pointing out that between 50 and 100 people testified that they heard shots coming from that area, including a man called James Teague who was hit by a fragment of a shot from the knoll, has now with the passage of time become a 'cliche'. It's quite possible that many people actually do in private find some of the alternative viewpoints at least in part valid, but the fear of being labelled 'crazy' is one of the deeper ones in the human psyche. Painting others as 'crazy' and 'paranoid' may validate our own sanity, a quality well-valued in Western society. Of course a government education and a life of exposure to mainstream media, t.v and films teaches people to be suspicious of, laugh at and ultimately disregard anything below the surface and not clearly apparent (religion being a curious exception to this rule!!), despite the fact that around 90% of our brain function happens beneath the conscious state. Hence, the instinct for extremely intelligent people to suddenly stop reasoning and enact an instant prejudice could be essentially based, like many actions, on deep-seated fear. Of course, another barrier is the difficulty for adults to believe that they have been either 'duped', 'conditioned', 'brainwashed' or even 'influenced'. Other phrases, such as 'secret CIA plot' and 'government lies', are also written off nowadays by many, purely through their continual use over the years. You might want to wonder why these phrases are used so much. Could it be because of the CIA's numerous secret plotting and the government's now default position of lying?!

The aforementioned CIA is where the origin of the pejorative use of the phrases 'conspiracy theory' and 'conspiracy theorist' is to be found. In a nutshell, by the late 1960s there were already a reasonable number of people who were raising doubts about the Warren Commission's conclusions about John F. Kennedy's murder, enough in fact to warrant a television debate on it. The Agency's propaganda arm came up with the idea of instructing its media assets, such as book reviewers and publishers, to start using the phrases we're discussing in order to marginalise JFK sceptics. CIA document 1035/960, titled 'Concerning Criticism of the Warren Report' and dated 4/1/67 (i.e April 1st 1967), alludes to this and the particular tactics used to stop dissent and a 'trend of opinion which is a matter of concern to the U.S government, including our organisation.' A 1967 poll had found that 46% of the U.S. population doubted that Lee Harvey Oswald had acted alone in Kennedy's murder (a number which incidentally has increased substantially in the intervening years), and the document expressed concern that 'efforts to impugn the rectitude and wisdom of the Warren Commission members cast doubt on the whole leadership of American society'. This document was categorised under 'Psy-Ops' (Psychological Operations) and its deliberate intention is clear.

Continual repetition by influential people gradually brought 'conspiracy theorist' into the general lexicon and a powerful weaponised phrase was born. Barrie Zwicker points out the sad irony that the public's use of this phrase as a thought-stopper is a remarkably effective protector of the conspirators themselves. There is a link here to the phrase 'Crime Stop', as used in chapter 17 of 'Nineteen Eighty-Four' by George Orwell, and defined as (paraphrase) 'the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought, including the power of not grasping analogies, failing to perceive logical errors, failing to understand the simplest of arguments if they don't adhere to the programmed norm and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which could potentially lead in a subversive direction. Crimestop is protective stupidity'. Stupidity in this case is meant not as a criticism of a person's natural faculties but rather as a self dumbing-down of one's thoughts).

Following on from the 1967 document, Operation Mockingbird was a CIA plan to influence media reporting by placing operatives inside the more powerful news institutions. It is one of myriad examples of how the news we receive, which ultimately comes from literally a handful of large corporations, can never be unfiltered. The link at the bottom of this post comes from the generally establishment-friendly Wikipedia, so it's either true or they were having a quirky, conspiracy-buff day when it was written! It must be remembered that broadcasters are dependent on government licences and newspapers on advertising subsidies, so the idea that what we receive, or what we are fed, can be guaranteed to be exactly what has happened is naive to say the least. As an example of the advertising subsidies issue, in 2003 Michael Meacher MP, a former member of the Blair administration who resigned in protest against the illegal invasion of Iraq, wrote an article in the London Guardian called 'The war on terrorism is bogus', containing facts that would be popularly considered to be 'subversive'. It is reckoned that the newspaper lost up to a million pounds in advertising revenue due to publishing said article, and an advertising boycott was threatened, the thing that newspapers and T.V. producers most fear. So, the stakes are high! For more officially-recognised and admitted conspiratorial behaviour, it might be worth investigating 'Operation Northwoods' and 'The Gulf of Tonkin Incident' before letting the defensive instinct take over and be a 'thought-stopper'.

Another good example of the power of certain phrases when used in the media, in this case the phenomenon of nicknames, to change opinions and create certain images is the case of Jerry Brown, former Governor of California, who ran against Bill Clinton for the U.S. Presidency in the early 1990s. Brown had been revolutionary, pushing hard for labor rights for farmworkers to protect them from agri-industrial poisons, funding large wind energy projects along the length of California and introducing satellite conference calls in that state in order to save the time and money needed for state legislators to fly in every time they wanted to meet. The corporate interests he threatened needed to divorce this man of the people, this man of vision, from the people he served so well. What did they do? They called him Governor Moon Beam , in reference to the satellite phone system he pioneered. The name caught on, and along with some media character assassination it was enough to make him a figure of fun and divert attention away from his intentions to actually implement the policies that are supposedly part of 'The American Dream', now often referred to by members of the public as 'The American Myth'. For the record, Brown's conference call idea is now standard practice. Nicknames are particularly effective because of the association with school days and the clear and lasting memories they invoke. Ron Paul, who is essentially a Libertarian but who ran as a Republican in the 2012 Presidential Race in order to give himself some chance of joining the debates, was clearly subject to a media blackout and was dubbed 'Dr No', a reference to his former profession as a physician and his non-interventionist stance regarding America's foreign policy. The word 'chicken' is regularly applied to politicians opposing wars, which are usually illegal and happen due to the President's 'special powers' in such situations. Even the word 'truth' has been branded with a negative connotation following the rise of the 9/11 Truth Movement. As one documentary about the true face of the media put it, 'Orwell Rolls In His Grave'.

The normative (literal) meaning of the phrase 'conspiracy theory' varies from dictionary to dictionary but generally relates to covert actions by a group of people, often but not always in positions of power. Careful examination of our own general beliefs will lead to the conclusion that we are all in fact conspiracy theorists, particularly if the apparent theory has been rubber-stamped by the mainstream media, who we all say we don't believe but which remains most people's source for a general version of events. If you had suggested to the majority of people before June 2013 that the government was monitoring the communications of normal citizens as well as being involved in all manner of other clandestine Orwellian surveillance programmes, you would have probably been immediately tagged with the 'conspiracy theorist' label. Edward Snowden's revelations, started in that month, were a good example, and not the first by any means, of a category known as 'conspiracy theories that turned out to be true', of which there will be more later. Considering that Osama Bin Laden was not officially wanted for the crime of 9/11 -before his apparent murder by Navy Seals, an absurd ever-changing narrative that should have raised alarm bells to anyone inclined to think about it- then the general belief that he and his 19 martyrs carried it out is in itself a conspiracy theory, but one now officially true and destined to grace Wikipedia and the question cards of Trivial Pursuit for ever. What about detectives who often posit theories about conspiracies in the course of their investigations? And what about the general belief held by most that advertisers get together to devise techniques of persuasion to coerce consumers into buying things they usually don't need, using money they don't even have in the form of credit? Is it a stretch of the imagination to think that a group of married men might mutually decide to take off their wedding rings before a night out in order to make women think that they are not married? Anyone buying or selling a house would surely believe that the pictures of the house are deliberately taken to give an illusion of extra size and brightness, as are those of food on the outside window of a shop. The salesman who cold calls on the phone or at the door is viewed as a pest because in our mind we think that we're going to be subject to sales tactics, standard in the industry and devised by one than one person, relating to products we wouldn't voluntarily be interested in. What about the additives proved to be added to cigarettes to make them more addictive, as shown in the film 'The Insider'? Most of us don't know what exactly happens with political lobbies but we could reasonably theorise that some kind of covert talk ensues in order to achieve political aims that don't always extoll the virtues of truth and justice. Each of the above is a conspiracy theory until one actually sees it with one's own eyes.

Being from the West, I have observed clearly that Western governments, for example those of the U.S and the U.K., have no problem believing that rival governments such as those of Russia and the former Soviet Union, are capable of 'false-flag terrorism' and 'Communist plots', the fear of which were major components in keeping the Cold War going, but that the idea of Western powers doing the same is just 'conspiracy theory'. This is an example of what critics of the U.S. establishment call 'American exceptionalism', and no doubt the same bias applies on the other side of the world. The manipulation of language in the terms 'terrorist' and 'freedom fighter' to describe essentially the same act is another clear indication of this bias and the subjective nature of language. Conspiracies exist in our society every day socially, commercially and politically. Considering the twin facts that humans are social and tribal beings, and that the system is based on the necessity for competition, it would be almost impossible for this not to be the case. Courtrooms around the world are filled every day by individuals, corporations and governments accusing one another of various conspiracies such as conspiracy to commit fraud, to embezzle, to deceive or to murder. Can you imagine if lawyers could stop an argument or get a case dismissed instantly by simply calling their opponent a 'conspiracy theorist'? Some conspiracy theories are true and some are false, and each should be judged on its own merits. It is often times essential, such as in wars or in big business, to theorise about what the enemy may or may not be doing in order to anticipate and counter their moves, and in some cases this can be used to bring down clearly damaging regimes such as the Nazis. Pamphlets informing citizens of the corrupt or harmful nature of their rulers and warning of possible dangers, which were in essence conspiracy theories, were used in the French and American Revolutions to positive effect. 'Paranoia', even when appearing to be justified, is another word with powerful connotations when used pejoratively. When ruling institutions are found to be engaging in behaviour unhealthy for those that they are apparently existing to serve, conspiracy theories will abound. Even if some are exaggerated or false, they still serve a general purpose of informing the ordinary person (the 99%, if you will) of the general nature of their rulers and the need for some kind of awareness and general reform. Playing the numbers game, when you find on the 9/11 truth website the article 'The 40 main reasons to doubt the official version of 9/11', and see the research that has been done and the books written, the probability that all of the anomalies presented can be easily explained away seems highly unlikely, and the list of arguable points is useful as a reference point for stumbling upon the elusive truth. The reality of course is that the majority are not even deemed worthy of consideration, which is where the magic phrase comes in very handy as a 'thought-stopper'.

So, it's not the literal phrase itself but its modern connotation and of course a host of subconscious and unconscious factors that trigger a very specific response of dismissal. We have seen how our character Bill reacted to James's apparent 'conspiracy theory', which of course was in part established conspiracy fact, but more dangerous are those who will do serious research, but all in the name of debunking anything that hints at a kind of 'conspiracy'. One of these people is a gentleman called Brian Dunning, who runs the weekly podcast Skeptoid. No doubt Dunning is right about a lot of his skepticism regarding 'pseudo-science', but his narrowly-defined aversion to 'conspiracy theories' was well exposed on the Joe Rogan Podcast. Rogan later made a very salient point that a lot of instant and smug dismissals happen on mainstream television, where short segments constantly interrupted by commercials are the norm, so a lot of deep and impressive real-life conspiracy research can be ridiculed without being properly examined. Rogan's podcasts in contrast usually clock in around the 3-hour mark so there is plenty of time for proper scrutiny. Rogan, I personally felt, could have pushed Dunning more and really flattened his short-sightedness, but like our character James, Joe Rogan is a pretty nice guy. Joe made the point that if you believe that 9/11 happened, you believe in conspiracies. He confronted Dunning with apparent 'conspiracy theories' that turned out to be true, at which point Dunning claimed that these weren't conspiracy theories, but fact. Rogan also made the point that the government has been proven to lie pretty much constantly, so believing in the standard versions of events means believing in a proven liar. Dunning's response was a vague differentiation between a 'standard' and 'official' narrative, distancing himself from appearing to follow the government line while acknowledging that the version we are given by the mainstream media very often comes from government sources. What he decides is a 'conspiracy theory' is basically anything which is hard to prove and implicates Western powers. Rogan's gentle and polite probing eventually uncovered the fact that Dunning had once been a believer in non-mainstream theories but had found one or more to be false and so had completely gone the opposite way to instant dismissal of all of them. 'Skepticism' is very often healthy, but is not the same as dismissal. Aren't the military-industrial complex worthy of Dunning's skepticism? Times Journalist David Aaronowitch is another of these 'debunkers' who immediately goes on the attack in debates and starts using the magic phrase instantly. His anger and righteous indignation are quite convincing up to a point, but under examination, when confronted for example with the testimony of William Rodriguez, the janitor at the World Trade Center who was originally given multiple medals for heroism for helping to evacuate survivors but was later ostracised for his claims that he heard explosions going off in the North Tower before Flight 11 hit, he had nothing to offer but that 'Rodriquez is wrong'. Aaronowitch's book, 'Voodoo Mysteries', along with 'Among The Truthers', written by Canadian journalist Jonathan Kay, both start with the premise of  a group of eccentric misfits who all seem to be allied together in their wacky ideas which, in Kay's charitable estimation, 'sometimes have a grain of truth'.

Another interesting example of a 'conspiracy debunker' and their narrow focus is Karen Douglas of the University of Kent, who produced a paper called 'The Hidden Impact of Conspiracy Theories' and took part in the 2011 CFI UK Conspiracy Theories Conference' which analysed in minutiae the psychology regarding the phenomenon of 'conspiracy theorists' and their 'wacky ideas'. It is worth watching her presentation at this conference, along with that of Ian Crane in rebuttal, to see who seemed more interested in presenting evidence rather than disseminating explanations designed to discourage and play down the validity of actual investigation. Douglas poses the question, 'why do conspiracy theories endure when there is no factual support for them and they fly in the face of established facts?' She then talks of 'the hidden impact of conspiracy theories'. and how 'they powerfully influence people's attitudes without them knowing it'. She goes on to say that 'outwardly, people may deny the extent to which they've been influenced, but they tend to endorse the new information and pass it on to others'. It's worth noting that Karen Douglas prefaced her talk by saying that 'I'm not going to focus at all on whether or not these theories are true, but rather why people tend to believe things that are not the accepted or mainstream view.' 2 minutes later, she tellingly reiterates, 'I'm not really concerned about the truth or otherwise'. This begs the question - why not look at some evidence because if you find good evidence, that might answer your question without you having to go any further? She comes up with various plausible reasons why people's lack of control and power is responsible for them needing to fill a hole in their lives with 'conspiracy theories', hardly a new idea. What she's actually looking at is why some people don't follow the mainstream view. Could it be that they've found that the government and mainstream media, either separately or in collusion, are proven liars and have looked into this and, like our character James, found a seemingly endless rabbit hole of things that the mainstream ignores completely or at least fails to highlight? She then shows a slide of 2 pictures of Paul McCartney, clearly the same person, as an example of a conspiracy theory that seems obviously false, namely the rumour spread by some disc jockeys in America in 1969 that McCartney had died in 1966 and been replaced by a double. But what, pray tell, has that theory, believed by nobody I personally know, got to do with JFK, 9/11 or the death of weapons inspector David Kelly, which are backed by strong evidence and/or anomalies well worthy of independent investigation? Why are they all being lumped together in the same category? Filmmaker Rob Ager suggests that Karen Douglas's work actually shows the hidden power of personal opinion in creating a conclusion not based on actual objective research of the 'conspiracy theory' in question. Upon reading Douglas's words, I would say that there is an uncanny accuracy to them if you substitute 'conspiracy theory' for the 'hidden power of an average upbringing based on compulsory education including a fully mainstream view of history and indoctrination by media and general societal norms.' Not as catchy perhaps but a decent explanation for the curious lack of questioning by the populace, and their general assumption that the powers-that-be are looking out for them and that the corporate media is basically telling them the truth. Does Karen Douglas know that her work, although perhaps objective within its scope, is missing a huge point, and is the 'hidden power' of hers and society's fears that certain things might turn out to be true driving the default position of her and most others?

At the Conspiracy Theories Conference, Ian R Crane took the stage with a presentation entitled 'Conspiracy Theory vs Deep Geopolitics.', which saliently commented on the preceding speakers, who had engaged in general academic research obsessed with psychologising the phenomenon without once looking at the research angle. After running through a few pieces of evidence that most may not have seen and discussing the work of some credible researchers, he then brought on Tony Farrell, 17-year principal intelligence analyst for Yorkshire Police, who was dismissed after questioning 9/11 and 7/7. After being advised to proceed directly to occupational health to have his sanity tested, Farrell was dismissed from his job and quickly ostracised from the establishment he'd served for nearly 2 decades. Ian Crane represented Farrell, and at the tribunal stated that 'Nobody, not an analyst, a manager, nor a member of the disciplinary panel, spent any time investigating the evidence that underpins Mr Farrell's changed position on the strategic threat associated with the terror domain. There is absolutely no sign that anyone considered any evidence before concluding that Mr Farrell's views were 'outlandish''. Once again, we see the trademark intellectual laziness, the allergic reaction to challenging of the official view and the allusion to lack of mental health. As Mr Farrell was being fired, the chief financial officer, who was the dismissing officer, said to him, 'you might be right, but your views are incompatible with the views of the South Yorkshire Police.' Karen Douglas talked of the 'attraction of conspiracy theories', and how they fill a hole in people's lives. Crane's counter is to ask the question of what attracted Farrell to do what he did. Was it loss of 17-year career, loss of salary, loss of index-linked pension, desire to be labelled insane, desire to be ostracised by colleagues, or to become unemployable, perhaps?

Crane further points out research regarding the left and right brain. It's hard to argue that mainstream government education is predominantly left-brained, which has a very limiting effect on thought. Betty Edwards, in her book called 'Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain', writes that (slight paraphrasing) 'the dominant left verbal hemisphere only wants enough information to categorise and recognise things. It learns to take a quick look and say 'this is a cat, dog, umbrella…' (or a conspiracy theory?!), without needing to analyse the information closely. Because the brain is overloaded with incoming information, one of its functions it seems is to screen out a large proportion of incoming perceptions'. David Pederson's book, 'Cameral Analysis' states that 'it would appear that the left logical hemisphere can be persuaded or manipulated into believing a certain belief or behaviour was logically correct'. Pederson was looking at this in respect to jobs such as  working in a concentration camp, where 'it appears possible to carry out any form of atrocity under the cloak of it being justifiable once this manipulation of logic has happened'. One of the most affecting truisms that I've ever heard is that 'people will do anything if they can justify it to themselves'. In our current financial system of effective work slavery, feeding and clothing one's family is often enough justification, fuelled by misplaced ideals which are themselves fostered by subtle long-term brainwashing and indoctrination from the day of birth. This would explain the 'institutional denial' of South Yorkshire Police to even look at Farrell's position with any kind of critical eye. Ask yourself if an academic for example, relying on funding from the government or other institutions, is really likely to publish anything going against the established way o thinking. The book 'Left In The Dark', by Graham Gynn and Tony Wright, states that (slightly paraphrased) 'the dominance of the least functional and most damaged side of our brain (the left side) has created a bizarre problem, namely that we don't realise that we are stuck in a distorted and limited version of reality, and that the dominant left side of our brain does all it can to maintain the illusion.' These comments on the left brain seem to explain why 'conspiracy theories' are considered in isolation, as random events to be explained away or simply disregarded rather than as pieces of a much larger puzzle or dots to be connected. Clinical psychologists point to trauma leading to extreme denial. I've stated many times, there are extremists on both sides and we should perhaps analyse is why anyone believes anything without looking into it for themselves. Intellectual laziness is the crime, and the bowing to peer pressure that apparently leads some to blindly believe 'conspiracy theories' equally works the other way.

So, we are left with mainstream and alternative camps, each with their own conspiracy theories that they are holding onto for dear life. Conspiracy researchers such as Alex Jones and David Icke make money from the interest of alternative views but so do conspiracy debunkers. Ian Crane sees himself, as do I, in an often-overlooked third camp of curious but active observer, one whose opinion evolves over time and with new information coming to light all the time. The conclusion to be drawn is that the serial conspiracy debunker, just like the hardcore conspiracy believer at the other extreme, is not really thinking for themselves but acting, as we all do, on a pre-determined instinct based on a myriad of personal factors. Maybe 'conspiracy theorist' is actually a backhanded complement, implying a person who questions things and thinks!, just as 'Communist' at the height of the Cold War seemed to become an extremely broad phrase applicable to anyone around the American establishment with progressive thoughts and ideas.

How is the subject of 'conspiracy theories' handled by the government, academia and the media? Aside from the general mainstream dismissal of 'cranks' in all these areas, I'm going to include 2 examples, the first by establishment-friendly American academics and the second by the British Broadcasting Corporation. In 2008, Cass Sunstein, soon to become an Administrator in President Obama's 'Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, and fellow legal scholar Adrian Vermule co-wrote a paper called   'Conspiracy Theories', which focused on the damaging effects of 'conspiracy theories' to the U.S. government. They recognised these theories as 'no trivial matter, posing real risks to the government's anti-terrorism policies, whatever they may be.' Among the responses suggested to combat this damaging scourge on society were infiltration of chat rooms and social networking sites, a conspiracy theory ban, a tax on conspiracy theorising and attempts to counteract the theories either by the government themselves or by 'credible parties'. As has been stated in this article, the phrase 'conspiracy theory' has seemingly been enough to make actual debunking or confrontation of the evidence itself curiously unnecessary, by both the government and the public at large.

The BBC's 'Conspiracy Files' series, which started airing programmes in 2006 and continued up to 2011, supposedly tackled some of the more famous cases which have been subject to questions around the official versions of events. To their credit, these programmes did interview some prominent credible opponents of official narratives, but the series as a whole was clearly working from the position that conspiracy theories are largely or totally false and so need to be debunked, rather than allowing evidence to lead them to a conclusion. As the public tend to share this view through years of conditioning, these programmes were an effective reinforcement of a prevailing view. Closer inspection however reveals a familiar short-sightedness and handpicking of convenient pieces of evidence along with familiar techniques of viewer (mis)direction, discrediting, the assumption that alternative explanations are an insult to survivors and the families of victims, and the habit of showing 'conspiracy theorists' in darkened rooms while those with establishment views were shot in wide-open spaces. The painful ignorance of most viewers of these kind of techniques ensured that the programme's agenda went unquestioned while maddening those who have 'awoken' to how the wool of truth is pulled over all of our eyes on a daily basis. The accompanying 'conspiracy road trip' programmes, and mainstream reporting and reviews of them, confirmed in this author's eyes the utter dishonesty on show here. As mentioned earlier, this treatment of 'conspiracy theories' is aimed at those with a worldview that follows that governments are generally well-meaning and well-motivated, even with all the clear reported daily evidence that this is not the case. The convincing  presentation of this view leads to a kind of mass cognitive dissonance in those absorbing the information, and it seems easier to believe the majority view than deal with the stress of possible ridicule and exclusion by peers and the aforementioned labelling as 'crazy'. The 'Occam's Razor' principle says that of 2 equal explanations, the simpler one is the one to follow. This is still the majority worldview, and logic says that an explanation handed to the public is simpler than a complex case with lots of grey areas that requires independent investigation, but in enough time I believe it won't be, and as ever there is a reliance by the establishment on enough time passing for nobody to care. Do you ever ask yourself why files are closed for anything from 30 years to 70, in the case of Dr. David Kelly? When talking to a friend about the U.S government's acknowledged shameful behaviour in Vietnam and the aforementioned fake Gulf of Tonkin Incident which go them there, an intelligent friend of mine simply uttered, 'Vietnam was a long time ago', proof that the closing of files is an extremely effective way of consigning challengeable data to forgotten history, as is the 'news cycle', where stories come and go and are quickly replaced by something newer and fresher. Both Sunstein and the BBC are also working with the assumption that America and Britain have open societies and a free press, which is only true in relative terms. The fact that they are more open than, say, North Korea and China may be true, but if you had earned $1000 for a month's work but were only paid $100, would you be happy with the justification that this was still more than the majority of the world earns? What I mean is, are you happy to be short-changed and for your privacy to be invaded and your intelligence insulted just because others in the world are even bigger victims than you? We have already seen that information is subject to 'media filters', as explained by Noam Chomsky in his book, 'Manufacturing Consent'), and the vast majority of it is now concentrated into a handful of corporations that could literally be counted on the fingers of one hand. Career newspaper editors, career academics and career politicians are not going to risk their reputations and careers, and the people who turn out to be whistleblowers are often ex-government officials who are now out of their obligations and free to pursue and disseminate previously hidden truths.

Considering the control of the media, it's certainly hard to imagine a prime-time show, objectively promoted and reported on by the media, which looked closely at the remarkable list of curious anomalies which surround the official versions of 'JFK' and '9/11', not to mention the category of 'conspiracy theories which turned out to be true', such as Operation Northwoods, The Gulf of Tonkin Incident, the C.I.A's illegal overthrowing of democratically-elected governments in countries such as Iran and Guatemala and support of murderous regimes and death squads in Latin Amercia, and the obvious unprovoked assaults on Cambodia and Laos during the Vietnam War. In this author's fantasy world, where truth would supersede the vested interests that hamstring media organisations, the news that the Gulf of Tonkin incident alone was admitted to be fake (in brief, this incident was used as justification for America's full-scale intervention/invasion/occupation, you pick the word.. of Vietnam), discovered through declassified documents years after the event, would be all over the news and would shake the foundations of how society is viewed. Intelligent commentators would inform the public that in fact the whole war, as with most wars, was nothing to do with saving people but about power and resource grabbing and huge amounts of money made from armaments sales and loans to each side to fund the conflict. People would then perhaps start to question war in general, including the current endless conflict, and the whole house of cards might come down. Of course it would never happen like that because of the format of mainstream television that Joe Rogan astutely observed, which is to show crumbs of truth, with strict time restraints, among endless fluff and trivia.

Mature discussion and free presentation of evidence are off the table in the world of (corporate) mainstream information. Abby Martin, who has won high praise in alternative media circles for her show 'Breaking The Set' on the RT network has remarked on the remarkable irony of her having to work for a Russian-owned T.V. station in order to communicate true news about her country of birth, the U.S.A. At this point, it's worth reiterating that governments have no problem believing in conspiracy theories from each other, with both seeming to feel righteous and morally superior. Certain documentaries regarding the host country's corruption are unavailable in the host country but freely available abroad (e.g Loose Change, an extremely popular Internet film regarding anomalies in the official story of 9/11, which has been shown on mainstream television in various countries). For the record, RT's reporting on the recent troubles in Ukraine has garnered criticism, and it does appear that the reporting of this event has come down to a Cold War-style propaganda war. However, the information is what counts, and though it is never good to blindly believe anything, when research appears to prove something to be true, does it always matter the original source of this information?? RT has certainly provided an interesting situation where Western reporters have the freedom to talk unhindered and not subject to ad hominem attacks and thus communicate interesting and provable alternative information that they really should be able to in their own countries in a so-called free society. They tend to be rational people who don't follow anything like the tin foil hat stereotype of the 'conspiracy theorist'.

Returning back to the 'conspiracy theory' and 'conspiracy theorist' labels, what other terms can be used to describe the same information without the baggage attached to them? 'Alternative information' and 'alternative explanation' are good ones, as is Rob Ager's offering of 'corruption suspicion' (think about how logical it becomes to be suspicious of corruption based on easily-available evidence). What about something that encompasses the fact that black operations by intelligence agencies, which routinely result in untold numbers of innocent deaths, are largely ignored or played down by the corporate media and are more known to people as the titles of video games played by children and adults alike rather than as realities? There is in fact a term, and a whole field of academic research, related to such investigations. Peter Dale Scott, a Canadian former Berkeley professor, has spoken of the 'deep state', 'deep geopolitics' and 'para politics', all of which refer to the multitude of complicated covert activities and secrecy which ultimately drive what happens on the surface.
An easily understandable analogy is to think of what we hear on mainstream news as the presentation of a play or movie version of life, or indeed a reality show if you prefer. It appears real, but of course we never see any of the backstage shenanigans which contribute to the execution of what the audience sees. The long-running play 'Noises Off' was/is a perfect metaphorical representation of this.

SUMMARY OF MAIN POINTS:
-The phrases 'conspiracy theory' and 'conspiracy theorist' provoke a kind of allergic reaction in most people that hear them and tend to make further exploration of a point difficult and unnecessary.
-These phrases have been deliberately introduced into the general lexicon as pejorative terms.
-Real conspiracies exist every day and the phrases, when used normatively, apply to everyone with critical thinking skills.
-Serial 'conspiracy debunkers' do precisely the same thing as those 'crazies' they criticise, such as cherry-picking evidence and rigidly sticking to their dogma.
-Alternative narratives, particularly those full of grey areas, don't sit well with the prevalent left-brain thinking of society, which is itself a product of largely left-brain schooling
-Extremists exist on both ends of the conspiracy/no conspiracy spectrum and none of them are to be blindly taken at their word.
-Governments and media, like the majority of the public, work from the premise that 'conspiracy theories' are a dangerous irritant, or perhaps a hobby or fetish, which need to be debunked.
-Fair presentation of alternative information, with all evidence presented and more neutral terms used to describe it, might well awaken the public and shake them from their collective apathy.

CONCLUSION
We all inherit a worldview which influences our behaviour and beliefs, as well as certain core ties to nationalism, patriotism and religion. As Marshall McLuhan said, 'receiving language is a making practice, not a matching one'. Language is processed by our beliefs and we make it what we want it to be, process it unconsciously in milliseconds and so hear what we want to hear. In the case of the phrase that we've been examining, it's popular pejorative use happens to fit well as a dismissive device for the majority of beliefs. The aforementioned lack of training in critical thinking doesn't help shake these beliefs. When a phrase has a connotation such as 'conspiracy theorist' that manages to get to the core of these beliefs, it is very effective at garnering a very specific reaction. Perhaps, in this stressful and difficult world, it's just easier and less painful to fall to dismissal. On the other hand, we are all potentially philosophers who can search for or find the truth, no matter what the uncomfortable or painful effect can be. Next time you watch television and see the established view being challenged, by Ron Paul among others, just see how quickly the phrase 'conspiracy theorist' is used, as well as the limiting labels of 'left' and 'right' if all else fails.

For those who do grasp what they've read here, the inevitable question comes. 'What can I do?' Well, even if you don't have the time or inclination for particular action, you have the power to try and make critical thought a greater part of society by doing it yourself and spreading it to others. Instead of making your discourse full of triviality, spend your time thinking and becoming a philosopher. Help arrest the dumbing-down of society. We also need to be big and admit we've been duped and are capable of being influenced. Also, be brave. Dare to confront people in a friendly way. Doing something that scares you (but doesn't kill you) is always a good thing. Be true to yourself and say what you believe. Barrie Zwicker's advice, if someone accuses you of being a 'conspiracy theorist', is to stop them quickly and 'own the term'. Tell them straight off, before their use of the phrase has been allowed to enter the conversation, what the term actually means. As much as we shouldn't need tactics to express what we think is truth, we shouldn't be above them. A good tactic is to say that 'you don't believe in conspiracy theories' but I've heard this and this and this, said with a hint of surprise. Definitely don't preach, it never works!

As a kind of disclaimer, I'd like to say that what I've presented here is by the literal definition, a conspiracy theory, just as Oliver Stone's 1991 film 'JFK' was, in the director's own words, 'a counter conspiracy theory to the government's'. I wasn't at the JFK assassination or at The Gulf of Tonkin in 1964 or in New York on September 11. Who am I? Just an average person who has read and heard a certain amount of information which, like our character James, doesn't appear to fit with what I was always told when growing up. Maybe conspiracy theories ARE dangerous and to be avoided, or maybe they foster a healthy scepticism? What I am absolutely sure of is that language is used by those in power as a tool of manipulation to mask extremely questionable activities, and anything that helps to alert the average person of this fact, along with the fact that we are being dumbed-down and largely distracted by things which are in fact meaningless but appeal to certain emotions, is a good thing.

Last year, the House of Commons in Britain, my homeland, voted categorically against military action following a chemical weapons attack in Syria, and across the Atlantic it was clear that the American public were against such action. Did the non-intervention in Syria have anything to do with growing awareness of the true reality of the world we live in, helped by the alternative media of independent radio, newspapers and podcasts and as a result of information usually disregarded as 'conspiracy theory'? This is where the dilemma of 'what can we do?' could be answered. Street protests have a place, no doubt, but perhaps it is a changing of the general discourse and increased non-participation whenever possible that can actually change things that seem far out of our reach. Whether you feel that you are interested or not in 'politics', we all want a better world and it may be slightly simpler, if not easier, than we think.

Footnote- I was quite very interested to listen to the Farage-Clegg Euro debate which has happened since I wrote the original post, and to hear the following comments by Clegg about UKIP. 'They see conspiracies everywhere. I wouldn't be surprised if Nigel Farage thinks that the Moon Landing was a fake, that Barack Obama isn't American and that Elvis isn't dead'. I see this kind of vacuous attack as a vindication of the central point of my argument.

SOURCES, REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READING, LISTENING AND WATCHING

James Corbett
http://www.thecorbettreport.com
podcast- 'The C-Word'
videos- Divide And Conquer: Politics And The Left-Right Fraud / The 9/11 Conspiracy in under 5 minutes

Barrie Zwicker
http://www.towersofdeception.com

Rob Ager
http://www.collativelearning.com
video- 'How To Make Sense of Conspiracy Theories

http://www.jfklancer.com/CIA.html (CIA 'conspiracy theorist' memo)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird
9/11hardfacts.com
http://www.911truth.org/the-top-40-reasons-to-doubt-the-offical-story/
'The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training', essay by Nila Sagedevan'
http://www.freedomainradio.com (a Philosophy show to make you think!)
Op-Ed news- 'The Media Hounds Unleashed on Ron Paul', Dec 2007
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2003/sep/06/september11.iraq
(Michael Meacher 'War on Terrorism is Bogus' article)

Karen Douglas on Conspiracy Theories (you tube video)
Ian R Crane- 'Conspiracy Theory vs Deep Geopolitics' (you tube video)

Podcasts
Joe Rogan Podcast
Common Sense with Dan Carlin
The Mind Renewed

Noam Chomsky- Manufacturing Consent (book and documentary)
Abby Martin- Breaking The Set (show on RT network and you tube videos)

George Orwell- 'Nineteen Eighty-Four' and 'Politics and The English Language'

Conspiracy Debunking:
David Aaronowitch- 'Voodoo Mysteries' (book)
Jonathan Kay- 'Among The Truthers' (book)
Brian Dunning- Skeptoid (podcast
Cass Sunstein and Adrian Vermule- 'Conspiracy Theories' (academic paper)