Sometimes there really is a conspiracy to theorize about
Article by Tom Mayer in The American Thinker
Sometimes there really is a conspiracy to theorize about
One of the most effective ways for the MSM to shut down inquiry into misconduct is to say it is all a conspiracy theory. Besides avoiding an unwanted discussion, the charge also invites scrutiny of the "theorist" instead of the issue itself. Notice how quickly some even start off saying something like "I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but..." Expecting their reaction, we have become almost trained to do this.
But are there really no big conspiracies?
It has been claimed that the phrase "conspiracy theory" was invented by the government to discourage the questioning of official explanations for important events, especially the JFK assassination. Whether that was the real origin of the phrase or not, it is clear that the charge is plainly being used for that purpose: to dissuade any alternatives to the party narrative for major occurrences such as election fraud and the origin of the Wuhan virus.
The more we find out about the most significant events of today, especially the virus, the more we see a gigantic, long-term, sophisticated, and extremely disciplined coordination. With newly released emails, knowing the real authors and background of major studies, previous strategy papers, and videos outside the mainstream until now, the wargaming of pandemics, the financial support of agencies, laboratories and studies, and the timeline of the vaccines and related patents, the enormous COVID conspiracy is coming into view.
There is so much organized intrigue now; how could anyone believe there aren't any conspiracies? The people with the tinfoil hats today are the ones who don't think there are huge conspiracies, that things just happen without planning or coordination. They are the ones who will believe anything.
In fact, our time is brimming with deep secrets and hidden agendas. Consider the following questions:
- Is it really more plausible that the media are acting separately but identically or that they are colluding among themselves and with the Democrats and the Deep State? That their simultaneous and identical takes on everything are just due to similar viewpoints and not highly coordinated messages of the day?
- Is it possible that the media have maintained and expanded their editorial bias over time without firm top-directed orders? Or would an uncontrolled system be expected to act like a pendulum, swinging back and forth?
- Is it really plausible that the left/globalists capture organizations and institutions at will without a master plan and an extensive system of carrots and sticks? It just happens. Or is it more likely that there is a central authority choreographing it all and compelling submission?
- Was it ever more plausible that the virus came about accidentally from a wet market with no evidence that such action could occur, when right down the street was a lab where we know that such viruses were studied?
- Is it really plausible that nations around the world keep ratcheting up the tyranny as they independently determine it to be the best course of action? Or does it seem much more likely that each is part of a larger plan, sequenced for maximum effect?
- Is it really more plausible that the American people never get what they want from their leaders because they are bad at picking them or that there really is no choice because elections are compromised and much of the nation's leadership is either corrupt or being blackmailed and threatened?
- Is it really probable that significant numbers of leaders take positions on issues they know are unpopular with their own constituents due to conviction and principles, however flawed? Or is it at least as likely that they are told to do so and know that that they will be taken care of if they lose their positions? Why is it that on the important issues, especially immigration, the path of least resistance for the politicians is always to betray the people?
- Does anyone believe that five states independently and without consultation decided to stop counting votes at about the same time on election night?
- Is it really plausible that bad people are always more clever and harder-working than the rest or that they often get promoted and taken care of in their field by unseen power brokers?
- Is it really plausible that the vast majority of national elected officials, including the least impressive, have built great personal wealth during public service without extensive help and a rigged system? Or is it more likely that they have certain privileges now that they are part of the club?
- Is it really possible that an adversarial movement would maintain almost flawless unanimity and discipline — guided only by common goals? Not even small differences on goals? No disagreement on methods? No visible internecine conflict and only the rarest public personality clashes? Or is it more likely that the rigid purpose and execution are maintained through extensive bribery and, when necessary, highly organized fear and punishment?
The point is that huge conspiracy is not just being further supported by recent revelations; it is becoming the only reasonable explanation for the milieu in which we find ourselves. Traditional explanations cannot account for the unlikely scenarios we see today. As soon as we get past the "there can be no big conspiracies" mindset, the world becomes clearer and more understandable, as well as more concerning. Amazing times we live in.
Post a Comment