The No-conspiracy Theorists ...

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Deano
... WITH CONCRETE ON THEIR MINDS

The David Icke Newsletter, April 29th 2007

Hello all ...

I was asked to appear in a television documentary this week for Britain's Channel 4 that asked the question: 'Who is ruling the world?' The programme is being made for young people by the channel's education department and will go out to schools and colleges.

The decision to make the programme came after a survey found that large numbers of young people now mistrust government, authority in general and even Channel 4. What great news this is, given that those in power have shown over and over that they lie to us on a daily basis.

http://www.davidicke.com/oi/extras/07/april/chrisfrench.jpg

My part in the documentary led to me meeting a university psychology academic called Chris French from Goldsmith's College at the University of London. He's a BA PhD CPsychol FBPsS FRSA. Must be intelligent, then. French has produced some astonishing research. Mind, I use the term 'astonishing', as in 'astonishing that he bothered'. He and his colleagues questioned people about 'conspiracy theories' and this is what they found:

* Those who trust authority are less likely to believe in conspiracies.
* Those who distrust authority are more likely to believe in conspiracies.

Ain't academia great? How would we survive without these guys? Anyone with a brain could have told them what they would find before they even started, because of course that is bound to be true. If you don't trust authority you are going to be more open to claims that they are lying than if you think authority is benign and only there to serve the best interests of the people. Er, and?

As I said to French in our interchange on the programme, the point is not who will, or will not, believe in the conspiracy view of world events. The question is this: are the claims true and supportable by the evidence? In short, is the conspiracy happening or isn't it?

This, however, is too simple and direct for the concrete end of academia which, in my experience, is a very long end indeed. Never mind the evidence, it must be something in people's psyche that gets them to believe in conspiracies. After all, the conspiracies can't be true, because we don't believe them. So, let's have a survey and disappear up our own backsides pouring over the obvious, and let's forget little irrelevant details like whether the conspiracy is happening or not.

French told me they had found that those who believed in 'conspiracy theories' were more likely to be 'delusional' than those who didn't believe them. The psychiatric definition of 'delusional' is: 'A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence, especially as a symptom of mental illness: delusions of persecution'.

So how come no-conspiracy theorists are not considered 'delusional' when they believed there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq just because those in authority told them this was the case? Ah, but, you see, not to believe in conspiracies is more credible to academia because it supports the establishment version of events. It is like believing in extraterrestrial life. The idea that life as we know it has only evolved on this tiny little planet and nowhere else is considered credible because that's the establishment's view that people like Chris French are there to serve. Therefore, to believe that given the perceived vastness of space there has to be other life 'out there' is considered 'delusional' - 'He believes in little green men', and all that crap.

There is no better example of this phenomenon that I call 'reverse-credibility', than the Islamic hijackers theory about 9/11. It is credible to believe that nineteen hijackers who struggled to fly one-engined Cessnas at puddle-jumping flying schools could suddenly manifest the ability to fly jumbo jets with the most extraordinary skill. But, to say that this is clearly nonsense is a 'conspiracy theory' that attracts dismissal from people like French. He was trying to defend the official 9/11 story during our chat, including the hijacker-pilots-who-couldn't-fly theory.

I asked him for his definition of delusional with regard to his survey and he said it was those who answered 'yes' to questions like: Do you think that everyone is being tracked by their mobile phone?

Once again, whether they are or not is never addressed by French and company. Only his interpretation of the answer matters. The fact is that everyone can be tracked by their cell phone and many are when they are being particularly targeted. I don't believe that everyone is, because most people are no problem to authority and so there is no point.

But to believe that it might be happening when surveillance is increasing by the day is now considered 'delusional'. French doesn't know if the statement is true or false, but he believes it to be false and so anyone who thinks it might be going on must be delusional because he can't be wrong.

French told me there was no evidence for what I was saying in my books about a global conspiracy to impose an Orwellian state. I asked him the obvious question: Have you read any of them? His answer ... 'No'.

This is absolutely typical of his breed and I have met so many of these academic clones who parrot their song sheet 'science' and song sheet 'psychology'. They are not interested in evidence, only their own theories. Indeed, they are no-conspiracy theorists who never bother to check out the validity of what is being claimed by actually researching the evidence.

I said I couldn't take him seriously when he was saying on one hand that there was no evidence and yet not even bothering to read even one of my books to see what evidence was being presented. 'I knew you would take that line', he said. Well, what other 'line' is there to take in the circumstances?

If someone had rigid views on what it is like to travel by train when they had never been near a railway station, people like French would say they had a psychological flaw. But that's exactly what he and his colleagues do. They have concrete opinions without even a cursory look at the evidence, and then accuse people of being delusional for believing in something when, in the unresearched opinion of people like Chris French, there is no evidence! They are looking themselves in the mirror and they are too full of themselves to see it.

When I challenged French about dismissing evidence that he hadn't even bothered to read, he said he knew what I was saying from articles he had read in the media. Given that we are talking about one of the most miss-represented people of recent times, I had to laugh at the idea that anyone could find out what I was really saying, and on what evidence, from the news media. But, then, from the moment I began talking with the guy, I knew I was in Fairyland.

He told me that my work was based on a document called The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which he claimed was a 'proven fake'. I asked him how he knew that my books were based on that. He had seen it in the papers. The fact that this was provable nonsense, as a read of my books would immediately confirm, was once again irrelevant to him.

Deano
What I found most fascinating was to see this no-conspiracy theorist act in precisely the same way he claims for those 'conspiracy theorists' that he so dismisses.

* He says that people believe in conspiracies without any evidence.
* Yet he believes there is no conspiracy without looking at the evidence.
* He says that 'conspiracy theorists' make everything fit their theory.
* Yet he was constantly trying to find ways to make everything fit his no-conspiracy theory.

Chris French was everything he was accusing others of being. I asked him what he thought of the FBI claim to have found a paper passport from one of the '9/11 hijackers' near the Twin Towers, despite the planes crashing in fireballs, the towers turning to dust and thousands of bodies never being recovered. He told me that he had seen a story once of a gas explosion in a house that had caused lots of damage, but the person inside got out unscathed.

I said that the FBI had never produced the passport and, a year after they called a news conference to announce they had found it, the Bureau had told a television documentary team that the find of a hijacker's passport was 'a rumour that might be true'.

Now French theory one, that the paper passport did actually survive, was in deep trouble and another had to be conjured immediately. Maybe, he said, there had been a mix-up in communication and the people who held the news conference had been told it had been found when it wasn't. Had he ever checked that out? No. Would he ever check it out? No. As long as it could give his no-conspiracy theory an escape route, that's all that concerned him.

The common thread of our conversation was that French had to find a way of explaining everything to fit his theory. Any possibility that events could be orchestrated to achieve an outcome had no chance of breaching his firewall. He accuses others of constructing 'conspiracy theories' to make sense of a complex world when he is constructing no-conspiracy theories in precisely the same way.

French is not alone either. He's a blueprint, a program, which you find in the same positions all over the world. I was on a Canadian television news show a few years ago with a university psychologist straight off the production line that produced Chris French. He said that people believed in conspiracy theories because they had to find a way of making sense of a complex world. That is exactly what French said to me this week almost word-for-word, because they share the same computer reality.

I asked this Canadian guy to tell me about the Bilderberg Group. He wouldn't answer and banged on with his no-conspiracy theory. He then said that if what I was saying was true, why were the authorities allowing me to speak in Vancouver? I pointed out that we had spent the last month changing venues as each one pulled out under pressure not to let me speak and that a book signing at a major bookstore had been banned that very week for the same reason. The guy made a right prat of himself, but walked away oblivious of this fact.

After the filming, Chris French asked me if I would give a talk to the 'Skeptics Society' in a London pub. I said no, because there was no point. The Skeptics Society is a forum for concrete psyches 'devoted to promoting scientific skepticism and resisting the spread of pseudoscience, superstition, and irrational beliefs'. It would be like talking to a wall and I have one in front of me that I can use without any need to travel.

People say it's good to be skeptical, or sceptical as we spell the word in Britain, but it isn't. It is good to question and research, but that's not the same as being sceptical. A sceptic is someone who comes from a fixed position and then filters all evidence to the contrary, and the main method is by always finding another explanation for something, no matter how far fetched and ludicrous. By finding another means of explaining away something that challenges their fixed position, they can maintain the fixed position; and that's the whole idea of the exercise: defending their belief. It is irrelevant if the explanation they come with up is not valid - they never bother to research that. So long as they can find something, anything, that's enough to preserve the perception.

Look at that line again about the Skeptics Society: '... devoted to promoting scientific skepticism and resisting the spread of pseudoscience, superstition, and irrational beliefs'. Who decides what is pseudoscience, superstition, and irrational belief? They do, from their fixed belief in how things are. I have met a number of these people and many of them are utterly desperate to find ways of dismissing anything that is different to the norms that they slavishly worship.

This slavery to 'scientific' and society 'norms' means the sceptics that dismiss conspiracy research, like that related to 9/11, are the same people who attack and ridicule any suggestion of the so-called 'paranormal'. I have found this again and again with these characters. So, I had a right chuckle when I went to Chris French's webpage after our meeting to find out some more background about what he did. This is what I found:

My current research focuses on two main areas. The first is the psychology of paranormal beliefs and of ostensibly paranormal experiences. Although a large proportion of the population believes in the paranormal, the evidence presented to support paranormal claims is generally not very convincing in scientific terms. It would appear that on most (and perhaps all) occasions when individuals claim to have directly experienced the paranormal, plausible non-paranormal alternative explanations can be found.

These alternative accounts often rely on the imperfections in human information-processing studied by cognitive psychologists, such as those related to memory, perception, and judgement. The psychology of deception and self-deception is also of relevance in this area. I often appear on the television and radio offering a sceptical perspective on a variety of paranormal claims. I have recently set up the Anomalistic Psychology Research Unit within the Department to act as a focus for research in this area.

That's what a closed mind does for you. You don't research to discover anew; you 'research' to confirm your current beliefs. Much of academia is another religion, another belief system repelling all borders. Academia often condemns and ridicules religion when it is one and operates in the same way. What unites them all? Concrete minds.

Bicnarok

Magee
Some one should tell this guy not everything is black and white. I could go do so called research but how do I know what these websites are saying is true? How does anyone know anything about anything is true? The whole world could be a complete lie, I could be lieing right now. I could go make a website claiming Lizard people rule the earth and link to a bunch of other websites and quote this icke guy, that must mean its true of course... There is not one piece of evidence for all these We are being controlled etc etc theories so for him to talk all high and mighty about people not wanting to know the truth he is quite ignorant. He comes across as an arrogant know it all who thinks he knows the truth when in reality all he knows is a bunch of bs made up by a bunch of delusional folk trying to make a bit of money, like our freind david.

Deano
yes but there is evidence to support davids theorys. and the fact that the things he has been saying for 15 years are starting to come true..well that explains a lot. davids not a genius, he just researches the facts without no dogma's attached. if people did the same, they would come to the same conclusions. but the majority are lazy and stupid in case you havent noticed. thats why these people can get away with the atrocitys they commit.

david never claims that every fact and assumption will be correct. he actually said that himself. and i quote:



thats what annoys me about people coming on here attacking him when they know nothing about him. only what they have read in the papers.

Emperor Ashtar
Originally posted by Magee
Some one should tell this guy not everything is black and white. I could go do so called research but how do I know what these websites are saying is true?

Look at there sources, Infowars for instances simply quotes mainstream news. You don't have to take anyone's word there because they are simply refrencing articles not written by them. such as: De-classfied documents which you can get your hands on, News articles from mainstream news, and books or quotes from people in government.

Magee
Again how do I know they are not just links to more lies? because it says so?

Deano
thats where you come in to find out for yourself.

Emperor Ashtar
Originally posted by Magee
Again how do I know they are not just links to more lies? because it says so?

So, you don't trust the news now?

I'm curious, where do you get your information on current events from?

Deano
magee is just basically saying 'so what if it is true, what does it matter? it wont affect me'

thats the message i get from his posts.

Magee
I fail to understand how watching the news can control you thoughts, suppose im just a sheep who needs other people to form his opinions though eh, oh wait...

Emperor Ashtar
Originally posted by Deano
magee is just basically saying 'so what if it is true, what does it matter? it wont affect me'

thats the message i get from his posts.

I'm not surprised, America didn't become a Police State without the help of it's people after all.

Originally posted by Magee
I fail to understand how watching the news can control you thoughts, suppose im just a sheep who needs other people to form his opinions though eh, oh wait...

So, if you watch the news then you've proven my point correct. Infowars link mainstream news articles, you do not have to take Alex Jones or my word on anything. Links are provided. . .

If you trust mainstream news then there is no point in asking if you can trust Infowars.

Deano
Originally posted by Magee
I fail to understand how watching the news can control you thoughts, suppose im just a sheep who needs other people to form his opinions though eh, oh wait...

it does control your thoughts because it throws out only one version of reality.

i chose to search for other truths, i looked at both sides of the coin and decided which made more sense to me. and the CONTROLLED MEDIA does'nt make a shred of sense.

if it does to you then thats your choice. although i doubt how anyone can come to the conclusion that the news if fair and un bias

.............

:

" There is no such thing, at this date of the world's history, as an
independent press. You know it and I know it. There is not one of you
who dares to write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know
beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid weekly for
keeping my honest opinions out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for similar things, and any of you who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job.

If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my paper,
before twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone. The business of the journalist is to destroy the truth; to lie outright; to pervert; to
vilify; to fawn at the feet of Mammon, and to sell the country for his
daily bread. You know it and I know it and what folly is this toasting
an independent press. We are the tools and vassals of the rich men
behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the
property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes. "

Quite often, I hear this:

"This conspiracy thing can't be true. If it was, it would be on TV and in the newspapers".

or:

"I read the newspapers every day, so I KNOW what is going on"!

If I get the chance, I reply with this:

"There is no such thing, at this date in the world's history, in America, as an independent press. You know it and I know it.

The media play their part to perfection in these 'problem-reaction-solution' scenarios. At ownership level, people like Conrad Black at the Hollinger Group and Rupert Murdoch of the News Corporation know what is going on. The editors they appoint might know something about it, as may certain columnists, but most of the journalists will have no idea. The editor is always there to block anything they write that is against the interests of the Illuminati - as directed by the owner-and if they insist on pursuing an unwelcome story they find themselves looking for another job. Most of the 'information' that journalists present comes from official (Illuminati) sources anyway. In the immediate aftermath of a major event such as September 11th, where are the reporters getting their information from? Official sources!
Name me a single piece of relevant information broadcast by the mainstream media about what happened on 9/11, how it was done, who did it and what the retaliation should be, that did not come from official sources. Not one! We are told that White House sources say this, FBI sources say that, and OA or Pentagon sources say the other. This is how the Illuminati transmit through the media the version of events they wish the public to believe.
These reports are blazed across the front pages of newspapers and the top of radio and television news bulletins throughout the world, and what they say becomes the 'norm', the official 'history'. In the weeks and months that followed, researchers who are interested in the real truth begin to dig away. Over and Over the establish and document the proof of how the official version was a lie from start to finish. But where are their reports published? In small-circulation newsletters, self-published books, on the Internet and radio stations that operate with a fraction of the money and potential audience of the Illuminati empires. Therefore, years after the official version has been demolished it still prevails in the public mind.
Almost every time they'll give you the official story because that is the only one they have heard. If we had real mainstream journalism the problem-reaction-solution technique could not work. The official version of events would be investigated and shown to have no foundation. But instead, we have media that is little more than a public relations office for the official version of life and that makes problem-reaction-solution a breeze for the manipulators.




The news and truth are not the same thing."

~~Walter Lippmann, American journalist, 1889-1974
*"News is what someone wants to suppress. Everything else is advertising."

- Rubin Frank, former president NBC News

*
"We tell the people what they need to know, not what they want to know."

- Frank Sesno, CNN News
*
"Our job is to give people not what they want, but what we decide they ought to have." - Richard Salent, former pres. CBS News

These quotes are telling us a whole lot of what is going on. There is no independent press, and there is no objective mass media. The mainstream media are controlled by the same Elite of people that I am trying to expose. They are the ones who decide what will be printed in the press, and what will be announced in the News. This means that our reality is severely distorted by lies, half-truths and propaganda that these people feed us with on a daily basis. What is written in the papers and announced on CNN will be the norm, but is not what is really happening. When the heads of the media also attend the same meetings as the Elite businessmen (Bilderberg, Trilateral Commission and Council of Foreign Relations) and nothing that is discussed on these meetings can be revealed outside those doors, we understand that the media is not there for us, but for them.

We are all programmed by the messages and beliefs we constantly hear in our childhood, through the media, and through the education system. It is the letting go of that programming which opens our minds and our hearts to wonder, potential, and understanding beyond our dreams.

Magee
To a gullible un educated person sure the media can control a persons thoughts to a quite a scary standard. Its ashame a good majority of people are like this isnt it. Again there is nothing you can do, accept it.

Emperor Ashtar
Deano, how exactly does the news Brainwash people?

Deano
of course it can. to a certain extent.

this explains it better than me


''The reason is that in school or in life you are probably at some time going to run into a "renegade" who just refuses to believe what he or she is told and has a different point of view. It is brainwashing that conditions you to ignore what they say. If you don't believe me, just read on.''

Do you understand? Every day of your life, for all the years of your life, you have been brainwashed and have heard only two of the four elements of the debate. There is no possible way you can undo that brainwashing in 2 hours. You can't read that book with an open mind. It is impossible for you to ignore many years of solid, daily brainwashing. Everything you have seen on television, everything you have read in books, everything you have been taught in school, every magazine article you have read in your life, have all told you the same story line - orthodox medicine is far superior to alternative medicine.

So what can you do if you want to know the truth? You can't, but you can start. You have to have a clear understanding, and a clear admission to yourself, that you have only heard two of the four truth categories, and that now it is time to study the other two categories. You must want to hear the other two categories. Then, and only then, can you make the attempt to read it with an open mind.

http://cancertutor.com/WarBetween/War_Brain.html

Emperor Ashtar
The news simply reports, it doesn't really brainwash with the exception of prepackaged news.

Magee
But when a person is only hearing one side of a story that is when problems start to pop up.

Emperor Ashtar
Originally posted by Magee
But when a person is only hearing one side of a story that is when problems start to pop up.

Or when people simply do not give a damn what's on the news, and would prefer to watch "American Idol" then be informed problems start to pop up.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.