HomeArticleWhat Upstanding Citizens Believe Vs. What Crazy Conspiracy Theorists Believe

What Upstanding Citizens Believe Vs. What Crazy Conspiracy Theorists Believe

Crazy, stupid conspiracy theorists believe a mature worldview requires skepticism toward power.

Smart upstanding citizens believe the government is your friend, and the media are its helpers.

Crazy, stupid conspiracy theorists believe that powerful people sometimes make immoral plans in secret.

Smart upstanding citizens believe the TV always tells the truth and the CIA exists for no reason.

Crazy, stupid conspiracy theorists believe that extreme government secrecy makes it necessary to discuss possible theories about what might be going on behind that veil of opacity.

Smart upstanding citizens believe that just because a world-dominating government with the most powerful military in the history of civilization has no transparency and zero accountability to the public, that doesn’t mean you’ve got to get all paranoid about it.

Crazy, stupid conspiracy theorists believe it’s okay to ask questions about important events that happen in the world, even if their government tells them they shouldn’t.

Smart upstanding citizens believe everything they need to know about reality comes out of Mike Pompeo’s angelic mouth.

Crazy, stupid conspiracy theorists believe the very rich sometimes engage in nefarious behavior to expand their wealth and power.

Smart upstanding citizens believe billionaires always conduct themselves with the same values that got them their billions in the first place: honesty, morality, and generosity.

Crazy, stupid conspiracy theorists believe it’s important to remember the lies that led up to the invasion of Iraq, and the disastrous consequences of blind faith in government claims.

Smart upstanding citizens believe “Iraq” is a fictional land similar to Narnia or Middle Earth, from the writings of a fantasy author named George Galloway.

Crazy, stupid conspiracy theorists believe Syria is fighting to avoid becoming another Libya in a war of defense against extremist proxy armies of the US-centralized empire, who were given billions of dollars in military support with the goal of toppling Damascus.

Smart upstanding citizens believe Bashar al-Assad is a real-life version of a cartoon supervillain who just started murdering civilians willy nilly in 2011 because he loves murdering civilians, then in 2015 his friend Vladimir Putin joined in because he loves murdering civilians also.

Crazy, stupid conspiracy theorists believe the extensive history of US government lies means you should always demand mountains of independently verifiable evidence when they make claims about unabsorbed nations.

Smart upstanding citizens believe Russia literally committed an act of war on the United States in 2016, China is orchestrating a second Holocaust, Maduro is deliberately starving the Venezuelan people because he hates them, Assad is using chemical weapons but only when it makes no strategic sense, Cuban spy crickets are trying to assassinate US diplomats, there’s novichok everywhere, and every noncompliant party in the Middle East is secretly working for Iran.

Crazy, stupid conspiracy theorists believe that it can be difficult to figure out what’s going on in a mass media landscape that is saturated with the propaganda of the US-centralized empire.

Smart upstanding citizens believe that all you need to do to ensure you’re getting all the facts is watch television and run screaming from the room if you accidentally flip past RT.

Crazy, stupid conspiracy theorists believe the Gulf of Tonkin incident was faked, the “taking babies out of incubators” narrative was a lie, Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction, Gaddafi’s rape armies never existed and the Libya intervention was never really about humanitarian concerns.

Smart, upstanding citizens believe it’s better not to think about such things.

Crazy, stupid conspiracy theorists believe the latest WikiLeaks publications of internal OPCW documents provide ample evidence that we were lied to about the 2018 Douma incident.

Smart upstanding citizens believe those documents aren’t real because The New York Times never reported on them.

Crazy, stupid conspiracy theorists believe that increasing levels of government secrecy are making it easier for government agencies to do unethical things in secret.

Smart upstanding citizens believe that questioning your government makes you a Russian anti-semite.

Crazy, stupid conspiracy theorists believe that the billionaire class which owns the mass media has a natural incentive to prop up the status quo upon which it is built, and so construct an environment where reporters are incentivized to always support the establishment line.

Smart upstanding citizens believe that if that kind of conspiracy were really happening, it would have been in the news.


Thanks for reading! The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for my website, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook, following my antics on Twitter, checking out my podcast on either YoutubesoundcloudApple podcasts or Spotify, following me on Steemit, throwing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypalpurchasing some of my sweet merchandise, buying my new book Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone, or my previous book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers. For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying to do with this platform, click here. Everyone, racist platforms excluded, has my permission to republish or use any part of this work (or anything else I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge.

Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2

Liked it? Take a second to support Caitlin Johnstone on Patreon!

Latest comments

  • The proper meaning of “conspiracy theory”, a term invented by the Criminal Idiots Association, is “anything we (the CIA) don’t want investigated.”

    Too bad the IYI (Intellectual Yet idiot) class can’t figure that out.

  • Actually, smart upstanding citizens are supposed to believe the CIA exists for legitimate national security reasons, not for no reason at all.

    The precursor organizations to the CIA were intelligence services run by the Constitutionally mandated Army and Navy and were legitimate insofar as they were part of those Constitutionally mandated organizations.

    The National Security Act of 1947 mucked everything up by setting up the CIA as a whole agency independent of public oversight. However, the seeds were already being sown by Executive level attempts to coordinate Army, Naval, and FBI intelligence with CIA-like agencies leading up to and during WWII.

    Now, the West is saddled with 17+ massive bureaucratic kingdoms. Not really the best way to run a war, let alone peace, but explains the incoherence of policy and tactics.


    Note that I am replying to the replies to my comments below: but since I am not sure if all of my text will be displayed below, I will insert it here. Excuse me for my long post, but I just simply couldn’t stop writing.

    Hello, I see that all of you are really interested in this issue and you have done some good
    homework on it; you are the conscious ones who do not take many of the MSM narratives seriously. You are the leaders that are responsible for our future. It is a big responsibility. Whatever you decide now will have grave consequences for the future.
    Like you I take on this responsibility in my small way.

    I am just an average Joe that is looking at this very grave issue from all sides and I seem very perplexed by all the different data and opinions coming my way. I am open to differing opinions on the issue: that is, I am open to calmly debate the issue.

    At the same time, I am looking at all of the world and I am worried like all other people about our future. If we decide wrong, either way, at this point, then there will be grave consequences for all of us. Like all of you, I am not in the pay of any organization or part of any one. I just want to do what’s right.

    But how can you trust that I am telling the truth and that I am truly concerned: you can’t: remember don’t trust anyone, even me. But as I will show later, it is not my motivations, or anybody else’s motivations that count, but whether the evidence, logic and reason is sufficient, good and consistent: that is, don’t look at me, but past me to my argument!

    So it is a big responsibility. We have the world on our shoulders. How can we all bear it? How can I bear it? Caitlin has written about bearing this load in one of her articles this year: the gist is to take some time off and then restart the battle again. Perhaps we should all take some off, to let all the words and arguments of our battles settle down into our subconscious to be re-sifted and renewed…

    …so back to reality and we now see that we are the conscious ones who are concerned about the future and responsible for it: we must really be sure we get it right. I, personally, have been investigating this issue very seriously and systematically for only a few months. Some of you may have been doing this for many months, or even years, and have have come to some solid conclusions, but I have not. It all seems so very confusing to me. To me, looking at all the various opinions out there, there doesn’t see to be a thorough agreement on all the various aspects of this issue.

    Compare this to the area of physics, which had been around for at least four hundred or more years. Does any physicist really dispute any of the basic formulas of that science? No. I can count on any physicist to be an authority on these formulas.

    But now we have climate science–not meteorology–which has been around perhaps since the sixties. It is very complex: no one scientists knows all about it. Then they investigate climate change: but is there 100% consensus about it. No. I don’t want to argue whether there is a consensus or not. But just the fact that we must argue about this issue does not give me 100% confidence in it.

    Yes, they all agree that man-made carbon has some effect on the atmosphere and temperatures; but they don’t all agree on the amount of the rise of temperatures since 1800 to the year 2100: they range from 0.8C to 8.0C with the average around 2.0C. What am I to think? Some say there are feedback factors that enhance the the rise of temperatures, and hence a moderate to extreme rise in temperatures. Some others say that other factors, separate from the greenhouse gases, have been causing the temperature increases and that there is little to no feedback loops, and hence leading to slower increase of temperatures. All seems rational.

    In addition, some climate scientists were predicting a continual rise from 2000 to now. But around 2000 there has been a downturn in temperatures that is considerably lower then the predictions. Some say this is a temporary blip and temperatures will continue to increase later on. Could be? Some other climate scientists say that this shows that the greenhouse gases have had a lower effect just as they predicted. Could be?

    Some people say those holding the lower ranges have bad motivations since some are employed by the oil companies: that seems plausible. Some others say that those holding the higher temperatures also have bad motivations since they have to survive in the publishing grind of the academic world and need to keep getting the large grants from the government: this also seems plausible. What am I to think? What are we to think?

    Some trust the UN and the IPCC implicitly: seems plausible, why not? Some distrust all of what the UN produces: that could be true: what do I know? Some take a middle ground. Could be? But how could an average Joe or Jane know? Certainly the UN, and the IPCC, is not an authority on par with any physicist who is an authority on physics formulas.

    Since we can’t fully trust the UN or all climate scientists, what are we to do? Are we all going to have to get PHD’s in climate science, and in agriculture and in economics and in whatever and whatever? No! Then what can we do?

    What we must do is to take the time to slowly and cautiously study this issue!

    But, you say, we don’t have time! We must act now!

    Perhaps. Action is needed soon. But what if take the wrong action?

    From two different quarters we get two different scenarios for the future, both of them dire, but both seem incompatible with each other. Both seem reasonable to me. But which are we to chose: we are the responsible leaders, guiding our fellows: we must get it right.

    On the one side, we have rising temperature and even if they only reach 2.0C by the end of the century, there will be dire consequences: rising sea levels, extreme weather, severe droughts and much more. This is caused by carbon dioxide released by carbon based fuels like oil, natural gas and others. We must reduce these greenhouse gases. If we put a penalty on these producers they will change their ways. Society must change to alternative energies like wind power and solar power. People must change to driving electric cars in the next few decades. Unless we do this many people will die and there will be major economic consequences. All seems plausible. What do I know?

    On the other hand, there are some people who say even if we had the most ideal carbon tax and that if it would be applied by all countries, this would only decrease temperatures by 0.5C. And this is said by one ‘climate change economist’ who is on the side of the extreme climate change. However, to effect this lowering of temperatures, some say that this would so impoverish us that we would be unable to have the resources to fight climate change. Some say that these carbon taxes and the quick elimination of the use of oil and natural gas would so devastate the economy–which is really very fragile now–and that we would hardly be able to recover: they say we use tremendous amounts of energy and that carbon fuels are essential to fulfill these needs at present and in the near future; some say solar and wind power will never replace them and that we will never bring in that many electric cars in the next few decades. Seems plausible? Why shouldn’t I believe them: they are just as much authorities in their own fields. (Note that this second scenario isn’t necessarily inconsistent with extreme climate change: it simply offers another solution.)

    But what I definitely know is that we must take the time to consider all facts, opinions and options. We are now playing with hard reality: can some of our misguided assumptions and beliefs, perhaps from childhood, including my very own, prevent us from finding the truth and applying the correct solution to this dire predicament?

    But you say we must act now. But there have always been these so-called urgent crises brought on by the mainstream elites where we must act this way: but, is it always so urgent? Who knows? However, we must not be like a chicken without a head and make the wrong decision.

    Can I even say that, even if we are too late in coming to the right conclusion, it is a higher ‘spiritual’ priority that we come finally to the truth: something that is essential to our mental cohesion and personal dignity: the gods, God or the Cosmos will not blame you
    for supposedly failing in your duties if one, including myself, is sincerely searching for the truth and if one is humble enough to say, perhaps, I do not know quite enough now.

    We must consider all sides of the issue.

    But, we say, must we consider those advocating alternate scenarios: they have bad motivations: they work for the oil companies; must we dignify all motivations. No, what I am saying is that it doesn’t matter what the motivations are of either side it, but rather what logic, reason and the evidence shows.

    This is the crux of the matter. I will try to show this to be true by giving you some words from an article written by C.S.Lewis, the preeminent British Christian thinker. If you are not a Christian, then simply take him as a good thinker: this is basically what Lewis is saying here: don’t look to the arguer but to the argument:

    In Lewis’s article he talks about Frueudians and Marxists who claim that all thoughts are tainted because either we’re all a bundle of complexes and full of wish-fulfillments or that because we are members of a social class: that is, you think Queen Elizabeth is a good queen because you have a mother-complex or that freedom is a good thing because you’re a member of the bourgeoise whose prosperity is increased by the policy of laissez-faire.

    But Lewis shows this to be a foolish philosophy by giving a concrete example: “Suppose, I think after doing my accounts, that I have a large balance at the bank. And I suppose you want to find out whether this belief of mine is ‘wishful thinking.’ You can never come to a conclusion by examining my psychological condition. Your only chance is to sit down and work through the sum yourself.”

    In short, we must not focus on the motivations of certain people on either side of the debate, but rather on their arguments; that is, we must work through the sum ourselves.

    How can we do that? I am not quite sure? That is a big question.

    But we must take our time to sift the truth from error.

    And how can we do that: it may be a combination of partly trusting scientific, or any, authority–perhaps sometimes reading between the lines; in addition we should look for inconsistencies: that is, holes in some arguments and, vice versa, looking for the consistencies in some others; and finally perhaps depending on honest-seeming whistle-blowers.

    And no matter what we decide is the extent of climate change, we must especially study, with an open, unhurried and analytical mind, the various possible solutions: getting that wrong may have dire consequences for the future.


    PS: again, join me in ‘The Great Climate Debate’ on my site ProVita.com starting on Labour day, September 07, 2019.

    PSS: Lewis also goes on to make some deep and profound comments on beliefs: if one believes all is wish fulfillment or all depends on class and nothing on the basic grounds of belief, then your Freudian and Marxian beliefs cannot be held because you don’t believe in the ground of beliefs (that is, your belief in Fruedianism is wish-fulfillment, but this cuts from the tree of logic your very Fruedianism and belief in wish-fulfillment): there must be a basic layer of logic, reason and, dare I say, morality there in order to sustain other beliefs. I am not describing it well, but one cannot simply make up whatever beliefs one wants.

    PSSS: Note that unless there is a basic sense of morality then nobody on this site has the right, or ability, to get mad about the bad way society is responding do climate change: you are morally outraged: but where does that come from?

    • I will cut through the post above and conclude that you are, in essence, a climate change denier.

      This is so reminiscent of the BS put out by the tobacco companies 50 years ago to keep the public smoking cigarettes. Such as variations on “Correlation is not causation. We don’t know how any of the components of tobacco and tobacco smoke would cause cancer or emphysema. We didn’t know it was addicting. We need more studies.”

      The studies are done, the conclusions have been reached. Just as we don’t know exactly which smoker will develop cancer, we do know that a percentage of them will. Just as we do not know how bad the effects of warming will be, we know that there are effects now, and that they are certain to get worse. The only way to slow or stop them is to reduce emissions. There are not two sides to some climate debate. These things are known. Unfortunately, there are people on the two sides to the debate over whether humans as a rational species will move quickly enough to save the civilisation it has created and, possibly, the species itself.

      • Hello Frank,

        “The only way to slow or stop them is to reduce emissions.” Are you absolutely sure about this? Are you a climate scientist? Are you an Economist or a Climate Change Economist? No. Then you have to trust climate scientists and economist and climate change economists. But why must we automatically trust them; and automatically distrust others. I am not saying everyone is incompetent or is a purposeful liar. Every individual scientist may skew some facts. Then you put all these skewings together by all the scientists and finally go to the UN up to many level and we might be off by a lot. In dancing class, the instructors always wanted us to dance with different partners. Why? if you always danced with the same partner–or researched with the same scientists–you always tend to make the same mistakes. Or take a trip to the moon. If one is off by just a small degree of error then one will miss the moon by thousands of miles. Not everyone is lying, but is everybody getting it all right; in addition, are we getting is right as a whole? Why should we automatically trust the academic and distrust the oil industry, which is only 2.5% of our economy. Can’t there be a conspiracy theory that says the Deep State is using climate change to further their own goals: after all, there will be more taxes, regulations and government control: something that the Deep State and big corporation want. Yes this is what big corporations want, because this squeezes out their main competition, the middle class and small and middle sized businesses. In short, for people who believe in Conspiracy theories your range of conspiracies is rather small. In the seminal book on conspiracies, ‘None Dare call it Conspiracies,’ the authors list all the US institutions that are free in the United States because they are separate: Labor, Finance, Business, Charity, Police, Education, Fed. Exec Branch, Fed Legis. Branch, Fed Jud. Branch, State Gov’t, State Courts, State Cities, and State Counties. But when they all come under one umbrella gov’t: which is the way things are tending, then one gets a dictatorship. and less and less freedom. And look, he doesn’t shy away from Labor or Education along with (oil) business. My main point is if one is a Conspiracy Theorist then one must be, at least, a little bit wary of all institutions. Is the debate over? Could be? But just because one sector of the community says so doesn’t make it automatically so. I thinK the debate is not over especially in the possible solutions to climate change.

        Thank You

        • I will reply to myself because I have a few more words to say. I find it sad that the debate on climate change has come to this sad state where it is so polarized into only two rather rigid sides that do not want to learn from either side. But let us not polarize the issue: let’s all be open, or at least polite, myself included: I do not deny anything. I am not offended; but I’m just worried about our future: the effects of climate change can devastate our economy and our world; but also the wrong, unhurried response to it can also hurt the economy just as much. If you were the one implementing the response and once started there was no going back, are you absolutely sure you are doing the right thing: the fate of millions is in your hands.


  • Conspiracy theorists think secret conspiracies are actually BAD, while good up standing citizens know that conspiracies are actually GOOD. Conspiracy theorists think negativity about being destroyed by a conspiracy, while good upstanding citizens think positively about conspiracy theorists being destroyed by a conspiracy. Conspiracy theorists think negativity about the impoverishment of the entire population of the planet and the destruction of the entire ecosystem while good upstanding citizens keep a positive attitude

    • Yes! Keep up that positive attitude while the Earth is burning and your kid either just got shot or got cancer! Be positive! JFC, Americans make me sick. Excellent comment, William.

  • Smart, upstanding citizens believe Aurora, Sandy Hook, Isla Vista, the Boston Marathon Bombing, the Cassidy Stay Family Massacre, Marysville-Pilchuck, WDBJ, Umpqua Community College, Charleston, Pulse Nightclub, Fort Lauderdale Airport, the Cleveland Facebook Livestream Killer, Las Vegas Route 91, Sutherland Springs, Rancho Tehama, Santa Fe, Parkland MSD, Noblesville, Pittsburgh Synagogue, and Thousand Oaks Bar were all real events where people really died, and anyone who says different must be an insane person who takes pleasure in disrespecting the dead.

    Crazy, stupid conspiracy theorists know those were all hoaxes, designed to keep the public in a state of constant fear of guns and to manipulate them into supporting new gun control measures.

    • You forgot the Zionist terrorist state of Israel’s 9/11 done in conjunction with the fascist scum GW Bush, a coke head alcoholic with an IQ of 5, Don Dumsfeld and Dick Cheney along with Saudi Arabia, an Anglo American Zip client state.

  • Upstanding Patriotic Citizens believe that some dudes in a cave in Afghanistan organized the greatest single-day terrorist attack on the USA, by having their co-conspirators breach one of the most tightly guarded air spaces on the planet (the Pentagon) and also knock down 3 buildings in New York City (the Twin Towers and WTC 7) by flying 2 airliners into 2 of them with minimal flight training.

    Crazy, Treasonous Conspiracy Theorists respond: And you call us the crazy conspiracy theorists?!

  • “I am a “conspiracy theorist”. I believe men and women of wealth and power conspire. If you don’t think so, then you are what is called “an idiot”. If you believe stuff but fear the label, you are what is called “a coward”. – Dave Collum

  • Full Spectrum Fubar By Paul Edwards This will surely ” rock your boat “. Please read this fine article here:

    The Caesar Syria Civilian Protection Act: Why Washington Is Both Corrupt and Ignorant by Philip Giraldi. Please read this fine article here:

  • Crazy, stupid conspiracy theorists believe a mature worldview requires skepticism toward power, and these power structures, I believe, also includes many at our universities, and colleges and including their professors.

    Smart upstanding citizens believe everything and everybody at an university is your friend, and that all professors are its helpers and not one at a University will ever tell a lie, no matter how small, or ever skew the truth for any reason whatsoever.

    I believer there is the Military-Industrial-Governmental-Media-Artistic-Academic-Labour-and whatever-and-whatever-Complex.

    Be skeptical of everything. As Muldar in the X-files says, ‘Trust no one.’ Or has Kant says,
    and I am paraphrasing, one must start with a healthy skepticism, but–as I will show later on–one must not stay at this skepticism, but then move unto some sort of beliefs (which don’t come from you, but rather unto you: not something one makes ups, but which is always out there, near us, in us, which may descend on us, moved into us or simply be (re)inflamed in us.)

    OK, enough of cutsey talk, Caitlin. Let’s be serious.

    I have been reading many of your articles here now and for months on the Ron Paul sites. Something, I believe, has now come together, perhaps, in a cosmic way: many threads have coalesced into something. And in this most sacred and spiritual of times, let me try to present something. I hope, and pray you will hear.

    What a wonderful writer you are. How many things do I agree with: let me count the myriad
    ways. You are such an influence and are an inspiration. You get so much right.

    But how can somebody be so right in so many ways, and be so wrong, or at least closed to other ways and channels to truths, in so many other ways.

    You say we should be skeptical of everything, or at least be aware of that superpower within that can totally change the beliefs we received as a child and therefore you seem to be here
    challenging all views from all sources including those from the Academic world.

    But it seems, and I may be wrong, that you are not thoroughly and systematically skeptical of all systems, but retain some belief and faith in the general trustworthiness of the Academic world. I may be wrong, but most of your positive beliefs seems to come from there:
    an emphasis on environmentalism, climate change, socialism, existentialism, species extinction and many other beliefs.

    I am not arguing here against any of these beliefs or that any are bad causes. I for one
    believe firmly that we are destroying our soil and may forever destroy our food supply if we don’t do something; I came to this conclusion by looking at all the evidence–as you did in the OPCW case–and not trusting simply the authority of any one person, or official group of persons (although one has to have some trust in some others at some point: but the main point
    is seeing the consistency or inconsistency in the evidence.)

    (I am only saying these things because you have so much influence for good–you have the power
    to change many minds–and I am saying this not in any negative, but in a positive, loving manner, I hope.)

    But for a person who wants us to challenge all our beliefs that come from our surroundings you do not seem to have the same skepticism of the Academic as one has for certain Governments and Corporations and the Media. Why should Academics be excluded from this conspiracy that brings down this awful propaganda down unto us: in fact, aren’t they the most qualified to construct and concoct their most potent forms.

    For example in the Great Climate Change Debate–and I am open to hearing from all sides in the matter–can we always automatically assume that what all climate scientists say is completely true, including what is said by the IPCC. I am not going the argue the points either way here: but shouldn’t we all take the same level of skepticism that we have for the Governments and Corporations and Media and apply it also to Academics.

    Are Academics so morally good and totally free from outside influence to always come to the complete and utter truth.

    For one writer on FEE (The Foundation for Economic Freedom: an institute and website recommended by Ron Paul) presents a good article on the so called consensus. His
    name is Doug Casey. He makes a good case showing that this consensus does not
    really exists. The usual MSM narrative is that 97% of climate scientist agree that there is man-made climate change and that we need to do something drastic about it. But Casey shows that this is 97% of published climate scientists. But how do these scientists get published? By periodicals, that one could say, but no!, can they be also part of this MSM narrative and conspiracy. But non!

    Casey presents the eight stages through which one becomes a climate scientist.
    He starts with their parents, who already believe, and who inculcate, impress, imprint and imbue their willing children with their climate change beliefs–those very same childhood beliefs that you want us to be rid off.

    I won’t go through all stages present here–from high school student, university student, grad student trying to get PHD from their climate master, to young associate profs trying to get published to survive–but anyone going through this academic grind will know that they have to tow the accepted, mainstream line to get published.

    I am not saying that they are not well trained professionals and that they will always fail to attempt to tell the truth, but when mainstream periodical editors constantly want them to change their papers–and wanting to keep their careers intact–isn’t there, perhaps, a little bit of motivation to remove some of those nasty statistics that don’t quite fully present the core of their paper.

    Maybe the climate change scientists are right. Who knows? I am not a qualified climate scientist. We must depend on them, perhaps, to some extent. But not all of them agree. There are some that are not published–perhaps they are the ones who don’t tow the line or maybe they are all so very incompetent; or perhaps they are out to get money from those nasty oil companies. Who can blame them because they are not good enough to get the millions and millions of dollars from the oh so very good (US Imperial) Government to make those oh so complicated models that very few of us, or any other climate scientist, can understand and verify; those models which talk about the supposedly enhancing, feedback loop, features of the climate system that make the temperatures rise and rise and rise! But perhaps those models are right: perfect pristine knowledge in, perfect pristine knowledge out.

    No, these scientists cannot all be part of a conspiracy, because we don’t trust conspiracy theorists, but only all these smart upstanding citizens without exception.

    OK, I am using your own words to make my point. But are you so sure we can trust all these scientists completely, or must we us the same level of skepticism and analysis that you used to analyze the OPCW findings: the OPCW that that probably has a 97% consensus that there was a good certainty that chlorine was used in Douama, and that one cannot trust the few unpublished whistle-blowers who supposedly told the truth–oh, those chlorine deniers.

    Perhaps if some can see that the truth was not told in the OPCW case, then we all can see that perhaps it wasn’t fully told in other cases, and then we have the hope for the future.

    ( See that hope and join ‘The Great Climate Change Debate’ at my site ProVita.com on Labour Day, September 07, 2020, two months before the next IPCC meeting. )

    But let us assume, for the sake of argument, that there will be extreme temperature rises and their effects will be catastrophic–or that there may even be only a moderate rise of temperature leading to some major global effects; we must do something, but what?

    In several other articles from the FEE site, they generally conclude, that if we implement carbon taxes as laid out today, or even implemented the most ideal plan throughout the entire world, this would lower temperatures by a only small amount, definitely not enough to save us from some of its most drastic effects. At the same time this would so impoverish us that we would not have the resources to make the necessary changes to maintain our survival, let alone our present prosperity.

    On the other hand, FEE presents trends that show that there will be increasing economic improvements over this century that will enable us to solve the problems that will come if temperature so rise.

    And this prosperity, as Ron Paul, his site and FEE show, comes from a Libertarian philosophy that embraces laissez-faire capitalism, not any form of socialism.

    For one who believes in non-intervention in other countries and in our private lives, it is is hard to believe you don’t believe in non-intervention in the economy which is simply non-intervention in our own country.

    And what kind of socialism are you advocating? At least it is a Libertarian, or perhaps one can call it an Anarchic Socialism. It is good that you do not actively promote tyrannical power structures, but rather the freedom of the individual.

    However, even this kind of supposedly benign socialism never worked. This is what Marx first envisioned: that in the end, after the enforced revolution–which seems to never end–comes the time when there are no longer any power structures; but this will never work, and there will always be the need of leaders, whether one has business leaders or government leaders, or what’s the worst, leadership by committee. (Read Austrian Economist F. Hayek’s work, ‘The Road to Serfdom’ on how this power grab naturally happens.)

    But you say if we only have business leaders then it will be all back to heartless, mean, corrupting entrepeneurs. I don’t believe that they will all be that corruptible, for as all of Libertarian thought professes, it is Government that enables much of the corruption of the world.

    But you say it will be heartless and over-emphasize individualism and that what we need is a heartful ‘collectivism.’

    I understand what you are trying to reach for; but having a laissez-faire economy doesn’t mean that it cannot also have heart. It doesn’t preclude individual charity; this has been shown to be abundantly true in old time America, and Britain, and Australia, before the welfare system was thrust upon us (and isn’t this really what may be called cold heartless charity?) And it need not be only by individuals: it can be done by collectives as it were: charitable organizations, businesses, churches or whatever spontaneous outpouring of collectivism that can gloriously happen.

    In your article on ‘collectivism’ you seem to almost believe that there will be some kind of spirit of helpful, heartfull collectivism descending upon the people. It almost seems like the descent of some ‘holy’ spirit. But as C.S.Lewis, the great British Christian thinker said, this spirit or force can be seen by most as either something impersonal or personal: but how can it be an impersonal force if it contains a human feature such as heartfullness; therefore this large Personal Force or Spirit descending on us to create a happy heart-full world must be either some good god or the Good God Himself.


    • if there is legit doubt about the science, the oil and coal companies have ample money to start their own journals and publish articles refuting it. instead they went to the same ad company the tobacco industry used. our society is run by the rich for the rich by the rich. one vehicle they use is giant corporations. if your narrative depends on giant corporations being helpless, it’s a bad narrative.

      • Only a fool thinks facts they agree with are true and facts they disagree with are false. That is the true definition of a closed mind.

        • see my long reply above which is precisely about being open to all sides of the issue and open to the facts and evidence.

      • Hello Pretzel, I do not like giant corporations or think they are helpless. However, their major power for corruption and doing nasty things comes from the corporation’s union with big government. Only in this way can they do real harm. And there is a huge interlocking of various boards so that various people are on various boards: they not only depend on big oil. It is even possible Big Oil is on both sides of the issue, even promoting carbon taxes on their own companies: think about it, it makes sense. But the main point in the Climate Change debate is that we shouldn’t be looking at the bad motivations of the climate scientists working for oil, for even the so called mainstream climate change scientists also have bad motivations as I have shown above. My point is that we shouldn’t be looking at the motivations itself but the evidence presented by all parties: does it make rational sense. See my long reply above.

    • You wrote: “Maybe the climate change scientists are right. Who knows?”

      Who knows? Climate scientists know. Since I am not one, I will believe them, especially since the one climate scientist I do know advises that the qualitative question is settled and the only thing left to argue over is the magnitude.

      • Yet, the ice caps are melting. Huge chunks of ice shelves are breaking off of Antarctica. The North Pole is open water, not on ice, during the summers. Strategically corporations and militaries are plotting how to take advantage of Arctic shipping routes that no longer require ice-breaker ships.
        This is not ‘theory’. This is observed fact. These are observed changes that are happening in the world today. This might have been ‘theory’ and ‘computer models’ back when scientist began to try to raise the alarms back in the 1970’s or 80’s. Now, in the 3rd decade of the 21st century, we are talking about observed facts that anyone who is willing to have their eyes open and not immerse themselves in Exxon propaganda can easily see for themselves.
        The ice caps ARE melting.

        • This may or may not show that there is extreme global warming. I am not ruling out all global warming, even the more extreme predictions.

          What I want is said better by Sheldon Richman on the FEE site:

          “if potentially harmful man-made climate change is occurring, how can it be addressed without violating liberty?”

          See his entire article here:


          His position is basically mine: He doesn’t outright deny global warming, but simply instructs us that there may be other solutions out there that do not conflict with the principal of Liberty, including Economic Liberty.

          • Liberty to do what, when human civilisation becomes unsustainable?

          • Liberty to do what, when human civilisation becomes unsustainable?

            I believe we will have nothing at all without Liberty. If we lose that we lose everything, including Liberty itself and Prosperity. He is also asking if there is a solution to Climate Change that is not incompatible with climate change: I think there is.

      • That is the question: the magnitude: it ranges from 0.8C (innocuous) to 8.0C (catastrophic) Who is right? We must find out. See my second long reply further above.

  • In as much as I try and stay centered and accepting of my reality, every once in awhile I have to say, “These MOTHER’FERS!!!


    As much as this is an American led fiscal crisis, the rest of the world will be drug down with the imminent collapse of arguably the largest economy in the world. When you wonder why the MSM provides a ‘dog and pony’ show of world events manipulated to show favor to the Empire and doesn’t represent reality; it is because of what they don’t want you to see that is important. This is happening now, with little or no oversight by the congressional lapdogs of the investment banking cartels. There will be NO escaping the impending collapse of the economy. When over 50% of the fiscal budget goes to the MIC and much of it unaccounted for in foreign interventionism, only the 1% will be unaffected. It will not be comfortable. So, reporting here from the edge of extinction, I wish you all well.

  • Alternative Version
    Everybody already believes that a mature worldview requires skepticism toward power.
    Nobody believes that the government is your friend, and the media are its helpers.
    Everybody already knows that powerful people almost always make immoral plans in secret.
    Nobody believes that MSM TV always tells the truth. They already know that the CIA exists to destroy any nation that does not accept US hegemony.
    People already know that extreme government secrecy makes it impossible for them to know what their government is doing 24/7.
    The people WANT a world-dominating government with the most powerful military in the history of civilization to have no transparency and zero accountability to the public. The people don’t want to know about the crimes their government commits 24/7.
    The people don’t ask questions about important events that happen in the world, again, because they don’t want to see the destruction their government rains down on innocent people.
    People need people like Mike Pompeo to force other nations to abide by US diktat.
    People already know that very rich people almost always engage in nefarious behavior to expand their wealth and power.
    Nobody believes that billionaires always conduct themselves with honesty, morality, and generosity.
    Everybody already knows the lies that led up to the invasions of Iraq, Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Libya, etc. etc. etc.
    Everybody already knows that Syria is fighting to avoid becoming another Libya in a war of defense against extremist proxy armies of the US-centralized empire, who were given billions of dollars in military support with the goal of toppling Damascus.
    Nobody believes that Bashar al-Assad is a real-life version of a cartoon supervillain who just started murdering civilians willy nilly in 2011 because he loves murdering civilians, then in 2015 his friend Vladimir Putin joined in because he loves murdering civilians also.
    Everybody already knows about the extensive history of US government lies means and to fully expect that the US government will continue to lie in order to maintain US hegemony.
    Nobody believes that Russia literally committed an act of war on the United States in 2016, China is orchestrating a second Holocaust, Maduro is deliberately starving the Venezuelan people because he hates them, Assad is using chemical weapons but only when it makes no strategic sense, Cuban spy crickets are trying to assassinate US diplomats, there’s novichok everywhere, and every noncompliant party in the Middle East is secretly working for Iran.
    Everybody already knows that the mass media landscape is saturated with the propaganda of the US-centralized empire.
    Everybody already knows that RT is a great source of reliable descriptions of reality.
    Everybody already knows that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was faked, the “taking babies out of incubators” narrative was a lie, Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction, Gaddafi’s rape armies never existed and the Libya intervention was never really about humanitarian concerns.
    Everybody already believes the latest WikiLeaks publications of internal OPCW documents provide ample evidence that we were lied to about the 2018 Douma incident.
    Everybody already knows that The New York Times is now the most important propaganda wing of the US Regime Change Departments.
    Everybody wants their government agencies to do unethical things in secret.
    Everybody already knows that questioning your government does not now make you, and never has made you, a Russian anti-semite.
    Everybody has known for decades that the billionaire class which owns the mass media has a natural incentive to prop up the status quo upon which it is built, and so construct an environment where reporters are paid millions to always support the establishment line. Nobody is stupid enough to think that this reality is going to be reported by that same mass media.
    Now, which version of Caitlin’s article is more likely to describe reality? Even more important: what assumptions about what motivates/causes human behavior, particularly in the US, must there be in order to support one version of reality over the other? For example, assuming for the moment that my version is indeed correct, what must you be forced to conclude about the, for lack of a better expression, “nature” or “education” of the human beings living in the US? Assuming that Caitlin’s is correct, the same question.

    • Every statement is way too general because almost everyone does not care unless it personally affects them. That is why MSM only averages approximately 5 million faithful viewers out of a population of 350 million.

  • I wonder what would happen if everyone who reads this article copies it and pastes it into emails, tweets, FB, political forums, comment sections and blogs … just everywhere, everywhere, everywhere. It could even be printed and/or photocopied and tacked onto telephone polls, physical message boards or slipped into magazines in stores and doctor”s offices. It could be read out loud on youtube programs. The possibilities are endless. What would happen?

    • Nothing. But if it did do something people would give it 5 minutes of attention then move on to the next attention grabber.

      • As always, the message you are supposed to hear is that it is impossible to do anything. Nothing will work. There is no alternative. Just give up and let the Oligarchs have their way. Its all useless. That is the number one message that they want every ‘informed citizen’ to receive.

  • No specific mention of Julian Assange in this piece.
    Crazy, stupid conspiracy theorists believe he’s being illegally/immorally tortured to death by the Five Eyes for exposing some of their crimes.
    Smart upstanding citizens believe he’s getting what he deserves, press freedom is only threatened by Trump’s tweets, and it was Her turn.

  • And about Mike Pompeo, the guy admitted himself that he is a liar:

    “I was a CIA director, we lied, we cheated we stole…”


    That he can say that and at the same time being confident to be elected at the senate is proof that people will endorse any lie to maintain their own social status and their assets.

    We are living the days of Noah all over again. I admire you for your articles Caitlin but it will not change a thing. It is too late. People of our time are obstinated in their rejection of the Truth.

    It means the Return of Jesus is very near and I pray the Rosary to hasten His Glorious return because I have seen enough bullshit.

    • I thought that was a prerequisite for being CIA director.

    • Too late. The battle Argmageddon was fought in 1917. If the Bible is true, that means the 2nd coming of christ has already occurred. Sorry, but you appear to have missed your bus. Looks like you are slumming with us sinners from now on.

  • “We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.”
    — former CIA Director William Casey
    In the US and the US vassal states this has proven to be true just about every election cycle. What’s amazed me for 50 years is how voting behavior has been controlled/restricted by the corporate MSM (by “debates” and polls, mostly) to within just a few people. In November we’ll see how much effect the alternative media have had on human-animal voting behavior.
    IMO, having seen how effective the MSM is at controlling voting behavior, the alternative media should pool their resources and outright endorse alternative candidates; and, if possible, fund them. For example, I’d like to know who RT might recommend as a good candidate for POTUS. I’m almost certain that their choice would not be any candidate that’s appeared in any MSM “debate” and almost certainly not Agent Orange.

    • We know the answer to your question. ….. RT strongly supports Donald Trump.
      And no, that’s not a conspiracy theory. That’s from my reading them for several years, until I got really sick of them. I call RT as “Right-Wing Today”. I gave them that name when I went there one day and they were supporting Bolsonaro for Brazil President and Kavanaugh for US Supreme Court. Right Wing Today loves right-wingers and promotes them around the world. And RT has been strongly in the Donald Trump camp for a long time.

  • Smart upstanding citizens have clearly seen huge airplanes wreckages around the Pentagone and in a field in Pennsylvania on 9/11.

    It really takes despicable conspiracy theorists to have not noticed those wreckages.

    Do not forget that everybody saw things the way it fits their goals in life, especially regarding their assets and social status.

    People will endorse any lie to maintain their social status and their assets.

    Only saints are not doing so and they are very very few in this world.

    We have to pray the Rosary to hasten the return of Jesus because all the bullshit has become unbearable.

  • The problem is technology is providing too much information making us anxious and mistrusting about everything or turning us into sheeple. The other extreme is turn everything off and bury your head in the sand. If anyone finds that land of relative innocence of mind we lost with the discovery of the radio and television that morphed into the information monster we have today let me know.

  • Smart, upstanding citizens are still, for the moment, viably occupied in serving the plutocracy. Crazy, stupid conspiracy theorists have already lost this last remaining job.

  • If you want a more accurate picture of what’s going on, every time you see or hear “conspiracy theory”, substitute “the truth”. True, some “conspiracy theories” are exactly that, but are far more likely to be true than they psyop male bovine fecal matter erupting from the Sociopaths In Charge.

  • I just thought it would be fun to make a few smart upstanding citizens to run screaming from the room

  • “Smart upstanding citizens believe those documents aren’t real because The New York Times never reported on them.”

    That says 90% of it. And why the media are more responsible for the millions of deaths and vastly more suffering perpetrated by some evil people who keep doing it. What is good in America needs to be told what is going on. to have people fight against it. Only people like Caitlin Johnstone tell about that.

  • Thanks for prompting an involuntary belly laugh & shit-eating grin from another smart upstanding citizen who had completely forgotten how domesticated I am !!

    Thanks for the rescue work !! – J.Joslin ( gratefully un-stranded & now swimming toward deep water in Detroit, Michigan,South of Canada )

    • You’d better keep swimming, ol’ buddy. Detroit is actually north of Canada.

      • Common misconception !

        Detroit is very south of a little chunk of Ontario…( see: Windsor, Ontario ) but if ya’ lean back & take in the scenery, the entire gigantic scope of what us colonial types call ‘Canada’…. you can see that Detroit is quite south of that part of the world !
        – but, hey… it’s no big deal.
        JJoslin ( looki’n for a map )

        • Correction: Detroit is very north of a little chunk of Ontario…

  • Caitlin wrote:
    > Crazy, stupid conspiracy theorists believe that it can be difficult to figure out what’s going on in a mass media landscape that is saturated with the propaganda of the US-centralized empire.
    > Smart upstanding citizens believe that all you need to do to ensure you’re getting all the facts is watch television and run screaming from the room if you accidentally flip past RT.
    Well, plenty of channels to choose from…
    This is what fake news looks like

    • The news media volunteered to withhold announcing the winner of a Presidential election until after the polls are closed.
      Projecting winners of an election before the polls are closed “undermines the integrity and meaning of the right to vote”.
      That is why the news media projected the winner of the Democratic primary in California the evening before the primary. To “undermine the integrity and meaning of the right to vote”.
      That is what true interference in an election looks like, not the smoke screen distraction of (snicker) “Russian interference”. Smoke screen.
      The news media projected the winner of the 2016 Democratic primary in California the evening before the primary and…AND…they used superdelegates to do it. Anonymous superdelegates.
      The use of superdelegates is inherently corrupt. Superdelegates are establishment insiders and big money donors and are “used to prevent actual voters from making choices the party establishment dislikes”.
      Someone **really** interfered in the 2016 US election and it wasn’t the Russians.
      The night before the 2016 Democratic primary in California the AP announced that the primary had already been won by Hillary Clinton. It hadn’t. The AP announced, and the rest of the msm repeated the story in a loud chorus, that they, the AP, had contacted anonymous superdelegates and asked them who they were going to support, Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders. No verification or certification process, no controls, an unspecified procedure to contact the superdelegates
      and the superdelegates were anonymous. The primary was decided the MSM declared, Hillary Clinton was the winner. That night and the next morning the airwaves and news print were unanimous from the MSM don’t bother to vote, Hillary had
      already won.
      That is what true interference in an election looks like, not the pathetic smoke screen distraction of (snicker) “Russian interference”.
      [Hope the following is prophetic:
      https://imgur.com/LnUChXD ]

      • Of course presuming the result of any election actually has an effect on subsequent events is what Smart Upstanding People believe. When the choice is this sociopath or that sociopath, results will be insane.

  • Thank you Caitlin Johnstone for your brilliant and witty analysis. I rely on you to cut through the media garbage and give us some touchstones for reaching the truth.

  • It feels good to be a crazy, stupid conspiracy theorist!

  • darlin’, every now and then you, if you’ll pardon the sports metaphor, knock it out the fucking park!!!…..

  • The real crazies don’t question, the real crazies use the tool of “revelation of the method” – so very generously handed to us on a platter but for some reason mostly ignored – to call out the obvious hoaxing of us by the power elite.
    You can’t go past the three events in the lead up to the November 2001 election: the Tampa affair in August, 9/11 and the “Children Overboard” in October. The two refugee boats and 9/11 were three completely staged events that propelled Howard to election victory, with Kim Beazley Jr, allegedly the Leader of the Opposition, taking one for team USA, as indicated so brazenly in the Screen Australia/Screen West film, Leaky Boat.
    What utterly disgusts me is how they are hoaxing us with fake deaths in the very, very scary and destructive Australian bushfires at the moment. How they have the gall to hoax us in such a situation I do not know but they do. No doubt they justify it as “good propaganda” that encourages people to leave their homes rather than to stay back and save them but I do not accept this kind of propaganda I saw on the scrolling banner on TV last night something like “Man in Gippsland killed while painting house”. I’m like, you have got to be kidding me. Sure enough when I looked the story up it showed typical fakery hallmarks. One loony you might accept but it turns out he was painting the house with two mates who allegedly tried to persuade him to go to the river with them.
    There’s the glaring grammar mistake along with a puzzle. The implication is that Mick was out of contact because he died but wouldn’t his mates have realised he’d died and passed on the news.
    “Mick Roberts had not made contact with family on Tuesday and on Wednesday and his niece Leah Parson said he had been found dead inside his burnt out home.”
    We also see Leah Parson spelt as Leah Parsons within the same article – different spellings being another typical hallmark. It is interesting to note that the first person to allegedly die in the NSW bushfires was Barry Parsons. When I looked up his FB page it showed signs of fakery in masses of random looking photos, strange photos of his cats, zero friends but masses of comments that you couldn’t seem to get to the end of but only posted within the last few weeks. In his main photo was a picture of a book by Brad Meltzer whose last book was “The Escape Artist”. Brad also did something with the 9/11 flag – it is truly amazing how they connect all these things up.
    And then there’s the strange, “a great mate if you were one”. Was Phylby Wright a great mate? According to a FB search there is one Phylby Wright, and she doesn’t have a friend whose surname is Roberts and first name is a variation of Michael. Her latest post is August 19.
    “I’m just devastated about Mick, bloody stubborn bugger and a great mate if you were one,” Phylby Wright posted on Facebook.”

  • With words of support again… what smart upstanding citizens should know is that USA is allowed for limited display of its powers as the biblical Beast of the End Times… who can fight that Beast ? we can… keep going well…

  • Crazy conspiracy theorists know what happens should the name of “she whose name must never be spoken” (AKA “the Whitehouse night stalker”) is actually spoken, one’s television stardom on the number one rated, immensely popular and therefore extremely profitable television comedy show bearing your name suddenly and unexpectedly gets canceled and you’re never heard from again. But should someone horribly and even profanely “dis” any of the current White House residents what happens? Not so much unless you suddenly and unexpectedly get a Nobel, Emmy, Golden Globe, Grammy, Pulitzer or other such award.

    Smart upstanding citizens understand that anything that can be depicted as being “racist” (whether or not) must immediately be totally quelched and solidly condemned lest they too become caught in that particular snare.

  • I am always a little disappointed that most folks are not able to put the term ‘conspiracy theorist into any kind of nuance

    A few rough definitions

    Those who believe in something extraordinary in some sense without out much need of evidence

    Those who believe but have lots of seemingly good evidence

    Those who are not really expressing an opinion but are looking into an extraordinary issue

    Shouldn’t we have at leaat three different trms

  • SUCs believe that there is an asteroid headed for and likely to strike Earth in the near future.

    CSCTs hope that they’re right.

  • Once again Ms Johnstone has given me a truly great line to use; ” Smart upstanding citizens believe everything they need to know about reality comes out of Mr. Mike Pompeos angelic mouth.” That is truly another classic! Thank You, Ms Johnstone.

  • LOL, but please don’t anyone that us smart upstanding citizens are all hiding long sharp knives behind our backs.

  • I believe that “selection events” happen in biological systems from time to time, including systems containing humans. Something unexpected, like a meteor impact, or a new plague, or using up the oil, or the grid and internet going down, kills the members of a population who are just not able to survive in the suddenly inhospitable environment.
    Some of it is luck, but a lot of it is adaptability.
    “Chance favors the prepared”, they say.

    • Called a Black Swan event. Although mankind could change his destiny with the power of free will,
      Ultimately we will experience karmic debt to move forward in growth because that is the way it is.


  • Crazy, stupid conspiracy theorists believe that there’s no possible way that Jeffery Epstein killed himself since the structure of the ruling class would crumble if the trial were allowed to happen. Too many powerful people are connected to this child trafficker who’s mission was to serve his wealthy pedophiliac customers.

    Smart upstanding citizens believe that even though the Clintons, Trumps and Royal Families around the world had every incentive to shut Jeffery Epstein up after their names were found in his Black Book is completely untreated to his death. They say it’s just a strange 1 in an infinitely coincidence that Epstein died just after his black book was revealed and subsequent denial of bail.

    • Count me in as a “crazy, stupid, conspiracy theorist” as I also know that Epstein didn’t kill himself because those who hang themselves do NOT break their hyloid bone, MANUAL STRANGULATION does that!
      I stopped being a “upstanding citizen” in the 1960-70’s with the Vietnaum wars & the “negros” marched & were beaten & attacked by cops with vicious dogs for wanting to be treated like human beings instead of slaves.
      Then I did my own reading of our history, that was a very different story from what we were told in schools.

      Epstein had info that could hurt some very rich & powerful people, they shut him up & they will get away with murder as usual. Only “upstanding citizens” (dupes) would believe the illogical cover story of how he committed “suicide”” BUNK!

  • Caitlin, we love your work. How can we get you to write something for our film cooperative?

  • Trained structural engineer review of cataclysmic failures at WTC led to….
    “Unequivocal 9/11 Nukes” > principia-australia(.)org > A&E Truth thermite hoax
    “Breathtaking: Solving Nuclear 9/11” > VeteransToday(.)com > reader tip
    “Exposing NIST Jenga Game” at VT > FEMA, ASCE, NFPA & NIST myths
    This is the greatest crime of the 21st century.

    • Crazy, stupid conspiracy theorists
      Smart upstanding citizens
      think your shorthand is nearly indecipherable.

      • I agree. People should learn English and use it properly. If they don’t write properly, they obscure what they are trying to say.

    • that was termites. dummie! not thermites. what are they hot bugs? oh brother….
      oh is it my turn?
      oooops…CAitlin that was brilliant. congrats. i write a bit also.
      you nailed it andi know i think how hard that was to finish. you must’ve been in the zone.

      i thnk i’ll pass it around the world for the res of my life. i’m gonna use yer name and call yo a spoiled brat is that OK? i don’t wanna get arrested or anything.
      and i am tryingto get date with this traitorous CIA chick….so i got to be careful.

      what say we exterminate the Electrorl college, the US SENATE or any senate, theCIA, DIA, DEA, and NAS while reducing the DoD by 1/4th each 2 years until soemoencan rollit up and smoke it. we also need to add some justices like may be 10 to the supremes. i’d let Bernie handle that. arrest the USAID and OAAS,WolrdBAnk, and IMF btw….what else. melt down the aircraft carriers, battle ships, and cruisers although i like cruisers, nevermind, tanks, and regualr firearms. we shoul all go back to swords.

      oh, and chemical warfare you think that would just dry up if we get rid of the CIA? maybe ain’t good enough.

      boy is it nice being at the bottom of this pile. no one notices. i could get arrested for what you wrote.

  • Thank you Caitlin…
    I SO enjoy your clarity and precision – and simplicity – and the humour you are able to create with posts like this one…. And I recognize in your simplicity a beautiful resonance with love of truth…. which is also the truth of love…. but
    freed from all the complicated leech-like historical conditioning….
    It’s taken me a long time to melt away enough conditioning of my own, to find this ability to sense something inside that is good and real – from where I can see the craziness without always reacting…. (some of the time, anyway…)
    In any case, I’m delighted to feel such an accord with the truth in you….


  • The Brazilian Prophecy

  • Smart upstanding citizens believe that they are smart enough to see through any and all government & media messages to get at the truth. They believe that they can’t be fooled.

    Crazy, stupid conspiracy theorists believe that virtually all government and media messages are intended to obfuscate the facts & truth in order to control the beliefs of the people. They believe that government and media are not to be trusted at any time to act in the best interests of the majority of people.

  • You keep scaling new heights, Caitlin

    Call me crazy …

  • There’s plenty of reprehensible actions right out in the open, and yet the good upstanding citizens don’t give the outrage they deserve.

    • No, because they only see what they are told to see – even if it right under their noses in plain sight.

      • we have always been at war with eastasia.

leave a comment