Conspiracy theory vs truth and perceptions of reality. 

Conspiracy Theory vs Truth & Perceptions of Reality.

Truth. What is truth and who tells the truth? We all think we know what truth is, but what is it really? In recent years we have heard the phrase “your truth” tossed around by celebrities and as usual, it has filtered down into society where now truth can be subjective. Subjective truth is truth based off of a person’s perspective, feelings, or opinions. Everything we know is based on our input – our senses, our perception. Thus, everything we know is subjective. So in a sense, all truths are subjective. When we look at events in our lives at whatever level, we look at the truth we know to be valid as indisputable fact based on our interpretation of events. We have all heard variations of the saying there are two sides to every story like his side and her side. My favorite is the three sided variant, his side, her side and the truth is in the middle. 

However in reality, truth is not based on perception or senses, truth is based on the way things are in actuality. The definition of truth is:

Lets focus specifically on number 3, verified or indisputable fact… When we think of truth, this is what most people consider to be the accurate definition. For the purposes of this article, I will be using this as the basis for discussing truth. 

Diving even deeper, let’s define fact. 

With these definitions in mind, do we view events in our world based on fact? I believe we all do, but who gives us the facts? 

I have a good friend who uses the example of three people in a room, person 1 speaks one language, person 2 speaks another and person 3 speaks both. Who has the power in the confines of that relationship? Obviously person 3. Person 1 and person 2 must have trust that person 3 is relaying a factual interpretation of the words spoken. But if person 3 does not translate accurately, yet person 1 and 2 believe he has, are person 1 and 2 held accountable for being misled? Is what they believe fact?

Who are the main interpreters in our world? I would argue there are four, in general terms, government, media, academia and ecclesiastical. Regardless of who we are or where we are in the world, we derive our historical, spiritual or cultural views and perceptions of world events based on information provided to us by these four entities. We trust they give us truthful information, so that we may make informed decisions and they shape our beliefs on issues which are deeply personal. The key word used when discussing truth in this context is trust. We trust the sources providing us information, so basically truth is not based on facts, truth is based on what we believe to be fact. Whether the source is a newspaper, a textbook, the television or a person delivering the message.

All actual truth passes through three stages. The first stage is denial, the second stage is violent opposition and the third is acceptance as common knowledge. Whoever you are reading this article, you fall into one of those three stages. This applies to every aspect of our lives… what one person believes as common knowledge, others deny or attack and vice versa. However there is only one truth. What we believe to be true may not be true, it is just our belief that it’s true based on life experience or information intake. 

In society and nature, we have laws that govern us. In society, we have a government that enacts laws which may or may be negotiable, depending on each respective government. However, in nature, we have physical laws which are not subject to negotiation, such as the laws of gravity, motion, and supply and demand. 

In our society, anyone who questions what is delivered as truth by supposed trusted sources, by and large is considered to be engaging in conspiracy theory.

What is a conspiracy theory? Let’s go back to the dictionary and define both terms: 

However, when you put these words together back to back, you get a completely different definition:

Why do these words in combination drastically diverge from the individual meanings? The difference is not insignificant, and in fact is quite staggering. 

Many believe the term conspiracy theory was cultivated by the CIA as a derogatory term used to define those who questioned the assassination of John F Kennedy. In truth, the term goes back much farther, but I have no doubt it was re-branded by the CIA for the very purpose of a derogatory label. 

Why is it such a taboo in our modern world to question things? When logic does not match reality, it causes suspicion, and rightfully so.  At our core, the spirit of the American people has always been rebellious in the sense we have not wanted to be told what to do or how to think. Our yearning for freedom is stronger here than anywhere in the world. When did that yearning to question authority wane? Since the end of World War II, I would argue the American spirit, while still maintaining the appearance of rebelliousness, for the most part has lost that true sense of questioning authority… but NOT because we don’t question authority. Yes, we still question things but the basis we use to question has been deliberately twisted. Our perception of reality and what we believe to be true based on the trust we have given to the handlers of information has failed us. 

Consider this, in a February 1981 meeting of the newly elected Reagan administration with cabinet members, Reagan asked all his cabinet members what they saw as the goal of their for the respective agency or department they oversaw, here is an excerpt of CIA Director William Casey’s remarks to Reagan; “We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.” That is quite a statement! When you add in the verifiable fact, the CIA, under the code name Mockingbird, infiltrated media going back to the 1950’s and there have been other documents declassified by CIA which detail the close relationship between the CIA and mainstream media and academia, this statement by Casey should cause serious alarm. 

(6 minute video)

“The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn’t exist.” is an old phrase from 1836 originally attributed to John Wilkinson which was popularized by the fictional character Keyser Söze the 1995 movie “The Usual Suspects.” It’s very apropos for modern society… All we need to do is substitute the devil with the CIA. Clearly the CIA exists, but if we take into consideration the relationship the CIA has with the media and examine facts presented by the media and overlay them with laws that cannot be negotiated or we use logic as a baseline, there are events in recent history which are not truly able to stand up to scrutiny. The problem is, we have credible people in all aspects of our lives who we trust that have convinced us that black is white. 

I would say virtually everyone has this underlying suspicion that something is just not right or that the facts don’t add up, so why do we not question? 

We don’t question things because we have been conditioned NOT to step out of line by society. Society, whether by peer pressure or fear of ridicule or fear of going against the grain, puts an enormous amount of pressure on anyone who goes against what is accepted as fact by society, regardless of its veracity. It reminds me of the crab in the bucket mentality, if you start to climb out of the bucket (speaking truth), the other crabs will do what they can to pull you back in (using ridicule/slander), so stay inside the bucket with them. 

It takes a great amount of courage to stand up for truth even if what is true is not what is accepted as true by the world at large because society is a powerful enemy. Society does not examine facts, society does not use logic, society relies on systemic belief otherwise known as herd mentality. Herd mentality is the inclination for individuals within a group to follow along with what the group at large thinks or does. This is where the second stage of truth comes into view, violent opposition. When anyone deviates from this, they are attacked or bullied, usually with derogatory terms which include but are not limited to; conspiracy theorist, twoofer, tin foil hat, extremist, ultra right wing, fringe, lunatic, paranoid or delusional. Everything thrown at the individual or group who questions what is commonly accepted is done with the express purpose of discrediting the messenger rather than listening to the message. Yet another form is the strawman argument, where the attacker argues that a person holds a view that is not what the person believes, but is actually a distorted version of what he/she believes, so instead of attacking the actual belief statement or belief, the distorted view is attacked. When we are able to rise above the fear of ridicule and examine evidence for ourselves, using logic, discernment and intellect free from preconceived bias, we will only then be able change the hearts and minds by changing the paradigm of society. 

Paradigm shift…

First, what is a paradigm?

If the paradigm of society as a whole is skewed in a particular direction or towards a belief whether true or not, it is very difficult to penetrate that commonly held belief. What is needed is a societal paradigm shift. 

This is an example of a paradigm shift.

The following is a passage/video from “Seven Habits of Highly Effective People” by Steven Covey about a paradigm shift. 

(4 minute video)

“I remember a mini-paradigm shift I experienced one Sunday morning on a subway in New York. People were sitting quietly – some reading newspapers, some lost in thought, some resting with their eyes closed. It was a calm, peaceful scene.

Then suddenly, a man and his children entered the subway car. The children were so loud and rambunctious that instantly the whole climate changed.

The man sat down next to me and closed his eyes, apparently oblivious to the situation. The children were yelling back and forth, throwing things, even grabbing people’s papers. It was very disturbing. And yet, the man sitting next to me did nothing.

It was difficult not to feel irritated. I could not believe that he could be so insensitive as to let his children run wild like that and do nothing about it, taking no responsibility at all. It was easy to see that everyone else on the subway felt irritated, too. So finally, with what I felt like was unusual patience and restraint, I turned to him and said, “Sir, your children are really disturbing a lot of people. I wonder if you couldn’t control them a little more?”

The man lifted his gaze as if to come to a consciousness of the situation for the first time and said softly, “Oh, you’re right. I guess I should do something about it. We just came from the hospital where their mother died about an hour ago. I don’t know what to think or do, and I guess they don’t know how to handle it either.”

Can you imagine what I felt at that moment? My paradigm shifted. Suddenly I saw things differently, and because I saw differently, I thought differently, I felt differently, I behaved differently. My irritation vanished. I didn’t have to worry about controlling my attitude or my behavior; my heart was filled with the man’s pain. Feelings of sympathy and compassion flowed freely. “Your wife just died? Oh I’m so sorry! Can you tell me about it? What can I do to help?” Everything changed in an instant.” 

That is a powerful short story about the power of how we think something is one way, when it may not be what we think. In that example, society almost demanded the rider do something about the man and his children… when he did, he discovered reality was not what it appeared to be.  He had a paradigm shift.

I am sure you can easily see how this principle can be applied to issues in the world labeled as conspiracy theory. Its all about our paradigm… what we believe to be true, may in fact, not be true.

In talking about conspiracy theories, I love to use the example of the raffle. It’s yet another powerful metaphor. It goes like this… In theory, if I purchase a raffle ticket I could win a prize and as long as I don’t purchase a raffle ticket the win is nothing but theoretical. BUT!! The second I purchase a raffle ticket, the win no longer becomes theoretical, it now is in the realm of possibility. Not probable but certainly possible. If I purchase more raffle tickets though, my chances of winning increase and the more tickets I purchase, the more likely and in fact probable my chances of winning become. Conspiracy theories are similar. If there is no evidence to support a theory, it is exactly that, a theory. BUT!! If there is a piece of evidence, regardless of how flimsy or circumstantial it is, the theory enters the realm of possibility. The more evidence you have, the more possible and eventually probable that theory becomes. 

A primary issue with looking at evidence, is the evidence provided by the sources of information we are supposed to trust generally falls under the category of  being socially believed regardless of its validity. The societal consensus is the media would never deliberately lie to perpetuate an even greater lie. I believe this is grossly naive. Consider this passage from Jim Marrs book Rule By Secrecy:

According to conspiracy researchers Jonathan Vankin and John Whalen the American public’s attitudes are shaped by a sanitized “Disney” view of both history and current events. “The ‘Disney version’ of history could just as easily be called the ‘New York Times version’ or the ‘TV news version’ or the ‘college textbook version,'” they wrote. “The main resistance to conspiracy theories comes not from people on the street but from the media, academia, and government—people who manage the national and global economy of information.”

Anthony C. Sutton, a London-born economics professor who was a research fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover institution, agreed that an “Establishment history” dominates textbooks, publishing, the media, and library shelves. “During the past one hundred years any theory of history or historical evidence that falls outside a pattern established by the American Historical Association and the major foundations with their grant making power has been attacked or rejected—not on the basis of any evidence presented, but on the basis of the acceptability of the arguments to the so-called Eastern Liberal Establishment, and its official historical line,” he commented. “Woe betide any book or author that falls outside the official guidelines. Foundation support is not there. Publishers get cold feet. Distribution is hit and miss, or non-existent.”

 This refrain was echoed by President Bill Clinton’s academic mentor, Dr. Carroll Quigley. His 1966 book, Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time, revealed his insider knowledge of modern secret societies. Quigley said it was withdrawn suddenly by a major New York publisher. “I am now quite sure that Tragedy and Hope was suppressed . . . ,” Quigley wrote in the mid-1970s.

Unfortunately, what is required to separate the false information from the valid information is discernment, which requires critical thinking… something our society lacks in a severe way. I find today that most people do not think. Everyone believes they know what truth is, but I fear they rely more upon bias, than actual facts and data. Or they hear someone they trust give their opinion or argument on an issue or know someone who has a strong opinion one way or the other, then the individual (without doing his/her own research) passes their trusted sources argument off as their own. It’s laziness and intellectually dishonest, but they fear not sounding knowledgeable and don’t give it a second thought. Moreover, if they are questioned, they resort to name calling to preserve their own sense of self worth. 

To illustrate my point about the lack of thought, there was an educational study conducted where the subjects were given a new concept that went against something they already believed and asked to believe it (for example the 9/11 was an inside job, this is not the example, I am offering this AS an example). 

  • 50% believed it immediately — without thinking.
  • 30% didn’t believe it, immediately — without thinking.
  • 15% wanted to wait awhile while they made up their minds, but asked for no clarification and no further information.
  • 5% analyzed all the details and finally came to a conclusion.

The results of the study went like this, It is estimated that 5% of the people think, 15% of the people think they think, and 80% of the people refuse to think.

In conclusion, as the Q phenomenon is gaining strength, we are approaching a critical mass in terms of changing the tide of beliefs in our society. It has been scientifically established that only 10% of the population is required to change what is accepted by society as a whole. According to a Pew Research poll of U.S. adults released in March of this year, 3% of those polled claimed to know a lot about Q, 20% knew a little 76% knew nothing and 2% did not respond. Keep in mind, only 3% of the population took up arms against the British during the revolution, so 3% is not an insignificant number. The United States has 330 M people, 3% is just over a million people.

It does not matter if you are a conservative or a liberal, a Democrat or a Republican or an Independent or a pink unicorn. Truth is truth, and we should all do our own research, free from bias. Even if we agree with whoever has political power now or those on the television are confirming our bias as we refuse to exit the comfort of our echo chamber, we owe it to ourselves to step out and do our own research and discover truth using logic, reasoning and discernment without influence of ideology or bias. Not to sound hyperbolic, but humanity’s existence relies upon it.


The world seems to be in turmoil, with widespread fear, violence, and chaos. I see powerful forces for good, notably the Internet, displacing evil.

Autumn walk near Vilnius, Lithuania on Monday. We live on a beautiful planet.

Having dinner with a friend recently, I surprised him with my optimism, and was forced to explain why. I rambled for a long time, went down some rabbit holes, and eventually came up with something half-coherent. So here’s the 75%-coherent version.

It is easy to be gloomy when the economy is shaky, the TV news is full of barbarity, and the planet is facing ecocide. The long, dark and cold nights of the northern winter are approaching, too. Melancholy and misery are sometimes comfortable companions.

Yet taking a “grand sweep” look at history, I see many reasons to be positive about the future. The negativity we presently experience is the result of the collapse of ancient and unwelcome structures of corrupt power and contrived hate.

Let me explain why you, too, might wish to adopt a more positive attitude to what is coming, and also dream of a nearby golden age that could be a great surprise to many who today face suffering.

Brussels last week for business

Over the past few years, I have spent many a night puzzling over how the world works. This is partly motivated to heal a trauma of my own. My mother’s conscience and free will is trapped inside a destructive cult, as were her parents in turn. What gave rise to that malignant movement?

As Jung counselled us, “Knowing your own darkness is the best method for dealing with the darknesses of other people.” I’ve certainly spent a lot of time examining my own special madness, which is an exquisite fractal of folly. I’ve also taken to examining the darkness of others.

This led me to discover… ponerology. No, I hadn’t heard of it, either. It is the academic study of evil. Maybe we all ought to have heard of it! Seems like it might have some bearing on our plight as a conscious beings struggling for survival.

This in turn has uncovered the apparently figural role of psychopaths in society, and how they are widely (and possibly intentionally) misunderstood. Those without a conscience are believed to make up 1-4% of the population, and they have an outsized influence on our institutions and culture.

Amsterdam last weekend with my older daughter

Historically, it seems that psychopaths had a useful role. Their lack of fear was handy for those moments when the proverbial sabre-toothed tiger strolled into the hamlet. They would also defend your seed corn from marauding tribes when there was a drought.

But you would know that it was wise to keep your sons and daughters well away from them. The seductiveness of their poisoned charm would be contained by the small-scale social nature of group life. Their past misdeeds and proclivities for wrongdoing would be remembered and known.

The arrival of the printing press, and later mass media, bypassed our natural defences. Psychopaths were able to express their sociopathic doctrines in book form, and a conscience-free textbook might look like any other from a normal, loving human. Their personal and family history would be remote to you, filtered through intermediaries, so you would not know why to ignore it.

As a result of this new dynamic, the mere existence of a Mein Kampf on the shelf of the bookstore could legitimise its existence and spread. And, what’s worse, the act of reading it infects you with its framing, even if you reject its factual basis and reasoning.

One of my life’s ambitions is to go to Mill Hill East. We all need a dream.

In a slightly inappropriate jokey way, I refer to this as the “Vitabiotics problem”. Sitting on a London tube train, imagine you see an advert with a picture of a woman with long and luscious hair. It states “I use Vitabiotics every day. My hair is wonderful!”. The astute reader immediately notices that this invites a form of false inference about the vitamin product’s value.

What you haven’t noticed is that the sighting of the Vitabiotics product on the underground train has already legitimized it in your mind as a product that belongs in retail stores, and has similar quality and efficacy to everything else you purchase. That’s how the subversive mind trick operates.

By the time you read the text, it is too late. The emotive you is influenced; the rational you arrives after the decision-maker, who only operates on feelings, has already left the conscious frame.

[Side note: I have no idea if Vitabiotics products promote trichological triumph, and have no axe to grind with them. They are clearly having to work around rules on the advertising of medicines and healthcare products, and so it is wrong to accuse them of deliberate dissembling.]

We see this pattern in play every day in the media. For instance, no matter what you think of her, this image of Hillary Clinton legitimizes her as a public figure.

She might be a figure of hate and derision for many, but the implied suggestion is that she is an academic, and not a criminal. Again, take this as a Vitabiotics learning moment, not a political polemic!

Of course, you do realise, I am using pretty pictures to emotionally manipulate you towards positivity, don’t you?

So the arrival of the media business gave psychopaths a lever over the rest of us. This coincided with the growth of urban society, hierarchical organisations, and licensed professions conferring authority. These are irresistible targets for psychopaths, since they amplify their control over others.

The result has been the rise of “pathocracy”, which is the institutionalised beliefs of psychopaths becoming adopted by society. The process is one of infection of trusted institutions by a few (who control recruitment) and inversion of their moral value system. This is true in all walks of life, but especially in positions of great power over others. The obvious cases include politicians, military leaders and CEOs; but it also includes professions like surgeons and ministers of religion.

My sense is we are now at a place of “peak pathocracy”.

Vilnius yesterday.

For psychopaths to maintain control and dominance, they require those below them to act in accordance to their warped intentions. Their perfect society is one in which information is compartmentalised, with them at the top of the pyramid, and with the masses herded into a hierarchy of scopes of understanding. (Look up “viable systems theory” to understand why this is so.)

Those at the very top are fully “in the know” and have true intentionality, in this case for the purpose of evil. Those below are fed a false story of the purpose of their activities, and ideally are coopted to believe the intentions of those above are good. After all, the greatest trick the Devil pulls is to tell us he doesn’t exist. Evil must always present itself as good: normal people are hard-wired to reject it.

My personal history means I am acutely tuned to psychological and emotional manipulation, since I have many decades of distressing direct experience. I treat sincere belief, group identity, and enforced dogmas as having zero utility for signifying truth. Indeed, the cognitive dissonance that makes others recoil is positively attractive to me, as it signals a possible escape hatch from a hellish tomb of totalitarian thought control.

I escaped from the multi-generational family disaster of the Jehovah’s Witnesses as a child because my personal experience clashed with their doctrines. I can assure you, this is the basic recipe for sanity: when someone presents you with two fingers plus two fingers, and asks you to say five fingers, get counting. Insist on a recount if necessary. Trust yourself.

I’ve learnt to minimise my exposure to pathocratic “Vitabiotic” information systems. I aim to maximise my direct and one-degree-removed circle of genuine lived experience. I deliberately go out of my way to find and meet with people with widely varied life stories and tales. Some of what I have found is extremely dark, and if you don’t want to read about it, stop now.

OK… here goes…

Crossing Lithuania yesterday.

I don’t watch TV, as its hypnotic demand to control my attention is repulsive. I never read newspapers, since I’ve concluded the only factually reliable thing they publish is the page number. And I became disgusted with the movies years ago, which too often invited me to celebrate cruelty and violence.

People in fear are easier to control, and the mass media thrives on engineering fear. For the best possible fear, divide society into two artificial groups who are taught to hate each other, and never question why the psychopaths are in charge.

Psychopaths want the rest of society to be afraid and divided, ready to be conquered. Forget “Tory vs Labour”, “Jews vs Goyim”, “Hutu vs Tutsi”, “R vs D”, or any other false divide of humanity into competing tribes. It’s “psychopaths vs the rest”, every time.

Fix that, and you’ve a hope of lasting peace. Ponerology for the win!

Now, I freely admit, I am not normal in my media diet. However, I also sense my own abnormal is becoming more common. Many people are shunning the mass media, resulting in declining viewership and readership. They no longer believe what they are told, or feel it is spiritually good for them or their families. Wise people know the only way to avoid pathocratic infection is to not look.

Instead, they are seeking out alternative (i.e. genuine) forms of information driven by non-psychopathic narratives. People are massing online, and are gathering in many smaller real-world group meetings to compare experiences and learn. In other words, us normal people are starting to “swarm” against the pathocratic systems that harm us.

My strong belief is that the Internet is powerfully amplifying personal experience, and severely attenuating the projection of psychopathic belief systems. This reverses the process that the printing press and mass media initiated. That is a vey big deal indeed, and my core cause for optimism.

Social media allows us all to become global publishers of our lives, and seek out like-minded others. A good example is the throng of survivors of child sex abuse by paedophiles. Oops, sorry, that’s the pathocratic framing. I mean to say, survivors of paedosadists who like to rape, torture and murder children as the vetting process for their evil club. Non-psychopaths can’t fake this wicked act.

I warned you it was grim. And it’s the pathocratic world we currently live in.

The view towards the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad from the Baltic beach near Nida, Lithuania.

Having experienced the psychological and spiritual abuse of a cult as a child, I have a strong sense of the victims’ hurt and desire for justice. It is also not that hard to tell who is a genuine victim, when you have been one in your own way.

The collective victim narrative directly contradicts that of the mainstream media, who like to portray these matters as isolated “bad apple” individuals. It is, of course, never an institutionalised (and longstanding) “bug” in the operating system of society, entrenching pathocratic power structures. Nothing is allowed to contest the core currency of power, which is not money, but legitimacy leading to the consent of the victim to predation.

It is easier than ever to find people who question the beliefs that are handed to them in easy-to-digest form every night in the news, or through lewd music videos, or movies devoid of beauty. The Internet has fundamentally disrupted the flow of information and power in society, and this cannot be reversed. It just presently takes a lot of time and energy (and diligence against confirmation bias) to sift through it all when you’re fighting the turbulent flow of disinformation, misdirection and ridicule.

The truth, no matter how ugly, is naturally self-consistent. It requires no energy to maintain it. Lies, however, have a negative “information thermodynamic” that works against them. An old lie needs retelling, and maintenance. New technology comes along, allowing fresh forensic examination of the past. The tools of machine learning — not least the search engine — naturally correct information power asymmetries that have lasted for millennia.

My hypothesis is that the turmoil we all currently witness are the death-throes of a system of information flow management that is so longstanding and embedded into society we can barely perceive it. The cost of maintaining the “intentional knowledge compartments” is rising so fast that they are bursting in front of our eyes. Whilst we may pass through a time of trauma, there is hope of a golden age at the far side, once we’ve fixed the wreckage left by pathocracy.

Orwell warned in 1948 of 1984. But 1984 is just a point in time. It is not necessarily a boot stomping forever if it contradicts the fundamental forces of energy and flow of the universe. Conversely, Huxley posited a future where we were all far too comfortable to care about our manipulation and enslavement. That also is unlikely as a long-term outcome, since humans naturally seek freedom and flourishing.

I feel increasingly positive, no matter how much fear the daily news brings. Whilst today’s Internet may be fragile, frustrating and prone to mass surveillance, it is (on balance) doing us all great good. Furthermore, some of us are dreaming of a far better information infrastructure. It is possible, I suggest, to relate morals to mathematics, and to create something that is ethical by design. Indeed, for the world of sensors and artificial intelligence, it is mandatory to do much better.

In the digital information world, we are God, and it is our job to capture and cage the Devil. So far, we normal humans are turning the tide on the psychopaths. There is only one conspiracy against love, and if we reject fear and stay unified, it can be defeated. Permanently.

The seaside today near Nida, Lithuania overlooking the Baltic.