Conspiracy Theorists Are Winning The War And Correcting The Record

I’ve pointed out in a previous article I wrote that the label of “Conspiracy Theorist” was a tool used to simply create a “no contest” situation where the defender of the official position simply did not have to defend “said” position and could “steer clear” of the facts in the contest. This tactic of labeling “conspiracy theorists” is fueled primarily by a normalcy bias that is supported by the official story. The declining mainstream media is still considered by many to be the “gold standard” of what is true and what isn’t even though those numbers are dropping every day. Many still believe, for some reason, that the media and/or government would not lie to them even though history clearly shows that to not be true. This is also the situation in mainstream education and science whether talking about climate change or simply the underlying causes of historical events. The establishment simply paints a picture that some expert concensus exists that verifies the agenda and many of the defenders of the official story simply do not question it. This is also the “root” cause of blind nationalism which is simply “history written by the victors.”

Dr. Kevin Barrett wrote a piece this past Friday in PressTV that really breaks this all down and cites a study by Michael Wood and Karen Douglas at the University of Kent in the UK entitled “What About Building ? A Social Psychological Study of Online Discussion of 911 Conspiracy Theories” that found that conspiracy theorists are not only starting to outnumber the defenders of the official story across the internet, but that the defenders of the official story are also found to be more “hostile” and more “fanatical.” It brings up the fact that the “Conspiracy Theorist” label was a CIA invention to deter skepticism over the JFK assassination. The article went on to point out that despite the “stereotype” that conspiracy theorists tend to be fanatical about supporting a version of events, the opposite was the reality. The defenders of the official story were far more likely to “blindly” defend the official position than conspiracy theorists were to defend their own version of events. These folks were also found to be victims of strong “confirmation bias” which goes back to a point I made in my previous article that they tend to “cherry pick” data that meets their cause while using smear tactics, straw-man arguments, and other irrational tactics to avoid any and all conflicting data. The article concludes by pointing out that due to the internet and new “free” media, the 44 year old CIA campaign to discredit any opposing views to the official story is coming to an end.

The tactic of labeling someone as a conspiracy theorist just to discredit them “out of the argument” is not only losing it’s steam but is starting to expose those who use the tactic as simply “fools of officialdom” that are incapable or simply unwilling to engage in an open-minded debate on the facts. The hostility that was also pointed out in Barrett’s article is a clear symptom of frustration a person has when they are unable to defend a position or explain why their are conflicts in the the official story. The clear and concise argument that conspiracy theorists tend to provide is far more rational, factual, and void of unnecessary emotion that distracts from the debate. This is a clear return to “rational thinking” that America is in desperate need of these days to start moving us away from the dangerous “jaws” of blind nationalism that really took over during and after World War II.

"Preferential Treatment" Behind "Obamacare" and the Push for Immigration Reform

Like most bills that make their way through congress these days, the new immigration bill is more to do with what you don't know about the bill than what the media and politicians want you to know.  Republicans will meet Monday to try to figure out how to "pander" to a voter block that will never vote for them in the first place (due to their own political brainwashing) and at the same time try to sell to their political base that somehow the bill can be made to work in America's best interest.  The reality is not somewhere in the "middle" but hidden somewhere deep in the thousands of pages of the bill that intentionally gets glossed over.

While disguised as a "path to citizenship" and "common sense" approach to dealing with, quite frankly, the folks fleeing a criminal "narco-state" in Mexico for a better life, the bill is just another attempt to hand out tons of "get out of jail free" cards to folks that entered the U.S. illegally.  It does nothing to actually fix the problem or come up with a solution to avoid the problem coming up again in the future.  It actually encourages the problem to persist. Another component to it is that it's unfair to the many immigrants that go the "legal" route to enter the U.S. from all around the world which is not only a cumbersome process, but can be a very expensive one especially when lawyers are involved.  How can a government, who makes the legal immigration process so difficult justify making it easier and more compassionate for those that "skirt" the legal route?  It's not much different than politicians getting behind "abortion rights" while making it very difficult for willing families to adopt.  It's the illusion of fairness and justice hiding unfair preferential treatment.  More importantly, how can any American citizen or legal immigrant to this country even think to support such a hypocritical position taken by these folks?  For the media and politicians, it's an agenda that goes way deeper than helping poor Mexicans, and for the public....well.... they are just caring, but clueless to that agenda.  By-the-way, try illegally crossing the border into Mexico sometime.  They don't treat you as good as the U.S. Border Patrol does.

Let me preface by saying that I personally have no issue with anyone wanting to come to this nation to make a better life for themselves and their families.  I'm also not threatened by the dreaded "doing jobs that Americans won't do" cliche that has been used to exhaustion.  What is a problem is that at a time where only 47 percent of adults have a full-time job in America as pointed out by Michael Snyder of Economic Collapse citing an article from Breitbart, it's just another layer of negative pressure on an already bad economic outlook. More accurately, coupled with the health care law, it's designed to further damage full-time employment in the U.S.

It's already widely known that the health care law had hidden components in it that the media, politicians, and more importantly, the insurance/healthcare agents were not willing to tell you about.  From the rationing to the guaranteed higher premiums for coverage, it was sold as being the opposite to the unknowing and quite frankly, uncaring public who, once again, bought into another scheme.  All they heard from the left-wing was that it would cover the "uncovered" and make health insurance, not healthcare mind you, more affordable.  From the right-wing, it was the dreaded socialized medicine monster that was going to centralize all healthcare to the federal government.  The reality is that it was the same system we already had except with the added component of government/insurance company-backed mandates that would not only make health care less affordable, but would be a far worse system than if they had just went the route of the NHS in the UK or Canadian Healthcare.  As time passed it became more obvious how devious the whole law was. It forced individuals to pay for higher premiums for insurance or be penalized by the IRS and any companies that had more than 50 employees were forced to deal with the mandate that not only forced them to provide benefits to full time employees, but to do so for 30 hours a week or more.  Much of this is covered here, here, and here.   Just think, it's not even fully implemented yet and all these issues are coming out already.

So, the healthcare law not only increases the costs of health care but it also threatens the future of full-time employment by government mandate.  Enter, the Immigration Bill "circus act."  As noted earlier, while on the surface it appears to be a bill dealing with the "illegal" problem, again hidden beneath the compassionate and sensible "window dressing" is the real agenda:  "doubling-down" on economic disruption.  It's bad enough that wages would be further "driven-down," especially in this economy, but that's not the worst part.  Hidden in the bill, once again in true D.C. fashion, is a little "incentive" piece that once again creates an environment of "preferential treatment."  As pointed out by Philip Klein in the National Examiner: "...because newly legalized immigrants wouldn’t be eligible for subsidies on the "Obamacare" exchanges until after they become citizens – at least 13 years under the Senate bill – businesses could avoid such fines by hiring the new immigrants instead." He goes on to point out that it acts as a reverse tariff on the American citizen making it more attractive to businesses to hire newly legalized non-citizens over American citizens.  As Mac Slavo at SHTFplan.com puts it "Leave it to the best and brightest in Congress to craft legislation that does more harm than good."  

So while the government, media, and "pro-amnesty" crowd try to tell you it's about fairness, compassion, and reason, at the end of the day it's all about preferential treatment and other very geo-political interests that range in varying degrees from creating new "voter blocks" to  creating widespread dependence on government support.  Mexicans are just another "political tool" to be used by the federal government as a means to an "end" which, as usual, is cloaked in the darkness until it's right on top of you.  

victoria australia art

allegheny national forest art australian beach art hocking hills art