William Cooper, a 90s conspiracy theorist, was possibly schizophrenic. I read his book, Behold a Pale Horse, in 2002, when I was first becoming heavily involved in the conspiracy movement following the 911 event.

He was killed in a shootout with the police in 2001, shortly after the 911 event. He claimed that they were coming to kill him, but they were more likely simply trying to arrest him for refusing to pay his taxes. That said, it is not normal procedure to send armed federal agents to arrest someone for tax evasion, so it was clear that he was being targeted, most likely by the Clinton Administration, because he was spreading (probably true) information about Bill Clinton murdering a bunch of people and trafficking in cocaine.

A former US military intelligence employee, he promoted basically every single conspiracy on his shortwave radio show, and in his book, which was published in 1991. Along with being mentally unstable, he was also dealing with these issues long before the modern internet, when it was six million times more difficult to parse this information.

He wrote a lot about aliens. However, before he died, beginning in the late 1990s – and in later editions of his book – he said that aliens were probably a government hoax. I am of this view myself, and recently Tucker Carlson has implied this. Pretty regularly. He even asked President Trump about it.

Even when William Cooper had decided that aliens were a secret government hoax – suggesting that they were probably intended to create an Antichrist situation (he was a devout Christian, protestant), he still promoted a lot of kooky theories related to this.

However, I think that if his book is read with an entire jar of salt, there are some interesting things to be gleaned from what he was saying. He was willing to entertain absolutely everything, so certainly, some of what he entertained had some degree of truth to it.

All of this is to say that despite the fact that he was an extremely flawed individual, and if you read his book or listen to his shows straight, you will probably induce schizophrenia in yourself, there is a fair amount of interesting information there.

I want to share a passage about what he said the government would do in order to cause chaos in society in order to enforce gun control laws – he said that they would stage mass shootings.

In Behold A Pale Horse, Cooper wrote:

Another plan is in force. It is the plan to prepare the public for eventual confrontation with an alien race. It could also intend to make you believe in an alien race that may not exist. The public is being bombarded with movies, radio, advertising, and TV programs depicting almost every aspect of the purported true nature of an alien presence. This includes the good and the bad. Look around and pay attention. Someone is planning to make their presence known and the government is preparing you for it.

They do not want any panic. The unprecedented number of sightings worldwide indicates that public exposure is not far off. Never in history have there been so many incidents involving UFOs and never in history have there been so many official acknowledgments.

For many years the Secret Government has been importing drugs and selling them to the people, mainly the poor and minorities. Social welfare programs were put into place to create a dependent, nonworking element in our society. The government then began to remove these programs to force people into a criminal class that did not exist in the ’50s and ’60s.

The government encouraged the manufacture and importation of military firearms for the criminals to use. This is intended to foster a feeling of insecurity, which would lead the American people to voluntarily disarm themselves by passing laws against firearms. Using drugs and hypnosis on mental patients in a process called Orion, the CIA inculcated the desire in these people to open fire on schoolyards and thus inflame the antigun lobby. This plan is well under way, and so far is working perfectly.

The middle class is begging the government to do away with the 2nd amendment.

Author’s Note: I have found that these events have indeed happened all over the country. In every instance that I have investigated – the incident at the women’s school in Canada, the shopping center incident in Canada, the Stockton, California, massacre, and the murder of Rabbi Meir Kahane – the shooters were all ex-mental patients or were current mental patients who were ALL ON THE DRUG PROZAC! This drug, when taken in certain doses, increases the serotonin level in the patient, causing extreme violence. Couple that with a posthypnotic suggestion or control through an electronic brain implant or microwave or E.L.F. intrusion and you get mass murder, ending in every case with the suicide of the perpetrator. Exhume the bodies of the murderers and check for a brain implant. I think you are going to be surprised.

In every case the name of the murderer’s doctor or mental treatment facility has been withheld. I believe we will be able to establish intelligence-community connections and/or connections to known CIA experimental mind-control programs when we finally discover who these doctors of death really are.

Due to the wave of crime sweeping the nation, the media will convince the American people that a state of anarchy exists within the major cities.

They are now building their case almost nightly on TV and daily in the newspapers. When public opinion has been won to this idea, they intend to state that a terrorist group armed with a nuclear weapon has entered the United States and that they plan to detonate this device in one of our cities. (This is now being set up by the crisis in the Middle East.)

The Government will then suspend the Constitution and declare martial law. The secret alien army of implanted humans and all dissidents, which translates into anyone they choose, will be rounded up and placed in the one-mile-square concentration camps which already exist. Are the people whom they intend to place in these concentration camps destined to make up the reported “batch consignments” of slave labor needed by the space colonies?

The media – radio, TV, newspapers, and computer networks – will be nationalized and seized. Anyone who resists will be taken or killed.

This entire operation was rehearsed by the government and military in 1984 under the code name REX-84A and it went off without a hitch. When these events have transpired, the SECRET GOVERNMENT and/or ALIEN takeover will be complete. Your freedom will never be returned and you will live in slavery for the remainder of your life. You had better wake up and you had better do it now!

Obviously, a lot of that is weird and possibly a result of Cooper’s apparent schizophrenia, or just a result of his inability to have full access to the information – and to discuss it with large numbers of people – through the internet.

However, the idea of heavily arming people and then using them to commit mass shootings so that guns can be stripped from the population and martial law can be declared appears to be somewhat prescient.

The “REX-84” program did (and presumably still does) in fact exist.

It has a Wikipedia page:

Rex 84, short for Readiness Exercise 1984, was a classified scenario and drill developed by the United States federal government to detain large numbers of United States citizens deemed to be “national security threats”, in the event that the president declared a National Emergency. The plan was first revealed in detail in a major daily newspaper by reporter Alfonso Chardy in the July 5, 1987 edition of the Miami Herald. Possible reasons for such a roundup were reported to be widespread opposition to a U.S. military invasion abroad, such as if the United States were to directly invade Central America. To combat what the government perceived as “subversive activities”, the plan also authorized the military to direct ordered movements of civilian populations at state and regional levels, according to Professor Diana Reynolds.

Existence of a master military contingency plans (of which REX-84 was a part), “Garden Plot” and a similar earlier exercise, “Lantern Spike”, were originally revealed by journalist Ron Ridenhour, who summarized his findings in an article in CounterSpy.

During the Iran-Contra hearings, Congressman Jack Brooks confronted Oliver North’s lawyer, Brendan Sullivan, and Senator Daniel Inouye, the Democratic Chair of the joint Senate-House Committee, about this issue in November of 1986.

Here’s the transcript of the exchange:

[Congressman Jack] Brooks: Colonel North, in your work at the N.S.C. were you not assigned, at one time, to work on plans for the continuity of government in the event of a major disaster?

Brendan Sullivan [North’s counsel, agitatedly]: Mr. Chairman?

[Senator Daniel] Inouye: I believe that question touches upon a highly sensitive and classified area so may I request that you not touch upon that?

Brooks: I was particularly concerned, Mr. Chairman, because I read in Miami papers, and several others, that there had been a plan developed, by that same agency, a contingency plan in the event of emergency, that would suspend the American constitution. And I was deeply concerned about it and wondered if that was an area in which he had worked. I believe that it was and I wanted to get his confirmation.

Inouye: May I most respectfully request that that matter not be touched upon at this stage. If we wish to get into this, I’m certain arrangements can be made for an executive session.

As far as a fake alien invasion – I do not personally believe that this is off the table.

Shockingly, on June 28, 2016, the then head of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Junker, gave a speech in the European Parliament talking about how he was in contact with aliens.

Here’s what he said:

Il faut savoir que ceux qui nous observent de loin, sont inquiets. J’ai vue et entendue et écouté plusieurs des dirigeants d’autres planètes. Ils sont très inquiets parce qu’ils s’interrogent sur la voie que l’union européenne vas poursuivre. Donc il faut rassurer et les européens et ceux qui nous observent de plus loin.

This is the direct translation, provided to me by a native French speaker:

You should know that those who observe us from afar, are worried. I have seen and heard and listened to several leaders of other planets. They are very worried because they’re wondering which way the European Union is going. So we have to reassure both the Europeans and those who observe us from further away.

But in the English version of the session’s transcript on the official EU website, they published something completely different:

The British vote has clipped some of our many wings. But our flight goes on. We will not halt our journey into the future. New horizons await. And we are flying towards horizons that are those of Europe and of the entire planet. Make no mistake, those who are watching us from afar are concerned. I have met and listened to several leaders. They are very worried because they are wondering about the course the European Union will take. So we must reassure Europeans and those who are watching us from further away.

Jean-Claude Junker is a bizarre, drunken figure, and it seems that the media would want to mock him as a fool for making these statements about aliens. But no such thing happened. This incredible event was simply covered up by the media.

I have speculated that there is indeed a fake alien hoax that is being exposed to the elite for the purpose of getting them to go along with a globalist program that would otherwise be seen as insane.

Remember that this is the exact method of control being used by the Scientology cult in order to maintain their cult power.

So I don’t think it is outrageous to imagine that a similar program is being used by the elite to convince politicians to go along with the globalist agenda.

As far as the Prozac-shooter connection – I am not aware of a single mass shooter that was not on Prozac or some other SSRI drug (they are all just relabelings of Prozac).

This isn’t controversial, it is simply dismissed by the media.

The New American:

Consider Newtown, Connecticut, killer Adam Lanza (I will provide the names of perpetrators of older incidents), who killed 26 at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2013. He also was on medication, according to family friend Louise Tambascio. That’s all we heard about it, however; as Kupelian points out, there “was little journalistic curiosity or follow-up.”

But there should be. As Kupelian also informs, “Fact: A disturbing number of perpetrators of school shootings and similar mass murders in our modern era were either on — or just recently coming off of — psychiatric medications.” He then provides some examples (all quotations are Kupelian’s):

“Columbine mass-killer Eric Harris was taking Luvox — like Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft, Effexor and many others, a modern and widely prescribed type of antidepressant drug called selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, or SSRIs.” Along with fellow student Dylan Klebold, Harris shot 13 to death and wounded 24 in a headline-grabbing 1999 rampage. “Luvox manufacturer Solvay Pharmaceuticals concedes that during short-term controlled clinical trials, 4 percent of children and youth taking Luvox — that’s one in 25 — developed mania, a dangerous and violence-prone mental derangement characterized by extreme excitement and delusion.”

Twenty-five-year-old Patrick Purdy murdered five children and wounded 30 in a schoolyard shooting rampage in Stockton, California, in 1989. He’d been taking “Amitriptyline, an antidepressant, as well as the antipsychotic drug Thorazine.”

“Kip Kinkel, 15, murdered his parents in 1998 and the next day went to his school, Thurston High in Springfield, Oregon, and opened fire on his classmates, killing two and wounding 22 others. He had been prescribed both Prozac and Ritalin.”

WND’s Leo Hohmann adds to the picture, having reported in 2015 (all quotations are his):

“Aaron Ray Ybarra, 26, of Mountlake Terrace, Washington, allegedly opened fire with a shotgun at Seattle Pacific University in June 2014, killing one student and wounding two others.” Ybarra “said he’d been prescribed with Prozac and Risperdal to help him with his problems.”

“Jose Reyes, the Nevada seventh-grader who went on a shooting rampage at his school in October 2013 was taking a prescription antidepressant [Prozac] at the time….”

“Navy Yard shooter Aaron Alexis sprayed bullets at office workers and in a cafeteria on Sept. 16, 2013, killing 13 people including himself. Alexis had been prescribed [generic antidepressant] Trazodone by his Veterans Affairs doctor.”

“In 1988, 31-year-old Laurie Dann went on a shooting rampage in a second-grade classroom in Winnetka, Ill., killing one child and wounding six. She had been taking the antidepressant Anafranil as well as Lithium, long used to treat mania.”

“In Paducah, Kentucky, in late 1997, 14-year-old Michael Carneal, son of a prominent attorney, traveled to Heath High School and started shooting students in a prayer meeting taking place in the school’s lobby, killing three and leaving another paralyzed. Carneal reportedly was on Ritalin.”

“In 2005, 16-year-old Jeff Weise, living on Minnesota’s Red Lake Indian Reservation, shot and killed nine people and wounded five others before killing himself. Weise had been taking Prozac.”

“47-year-old Joseph T. Wesbecker, just a month after he began taking Prozac in 1989, shot 20 workers at Standard Gravure Corp. in Louisville, Kentucky, killing nine. Prozac-maker Eli Lilly later settled a lawsuit brought by survivors.”

The usual explanation is that these people were mentally ill, so of course they were on Prozac.

We also know that the pharmaceutical lobby is one of the biggest, if not the biggest, lobby in Washington.

Of the recent shooters, we know that most were on various psychiatric drugs.

Nikolas Cruz, the Parkland shooter, was undergoing mental health treatment, which almost certainly means he was on SSRI drugs.

The New American:

This last claim was confirmed by Broward County Mayor Beam Furr, who told reporters that “[Cruz] had been undergoing some treatment [and] had been dealing with mental health issues.”

That is as much as is known at the time of this writing. What isn’t known is what was involved with Cruz’s mental health “treatment” from last year. What isn’t known is what prescription drug or drugs he might have been prescribed for his “emotional fragility,” his “mental health issues” and his “depression.”

If Cruz was prescribed drugs such as Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft, Luvox, or Effexor — called selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, or SSRIs — this could have influenced his behavior. These drugs carry the government’s most serious warning of “increased risks of suicidal thinking and behavior, known as suicidality, in young adults ages 18 to 24.”

He also told police that he had voices in his head that told him to carry out the attack.

And look – I’m really trying my best not to go total tinfoil here (though it is already too late, I know), but you might want to just at least consider this.

The Dayton shooter, Connor Betts, was undergoing mental illness treatment, according to his ex-girlfriend.

Fantastically, though we have not found that the El Paso shooter was on drugs, we have found that Patrick Crusius’ father was a mental health professional.

Heavy:

John Bryan Crusius is a mental health counselor in specializing in addiction. His clinic, Dallas Addiction Recovery Therapy or Infused Being Therapy and Counseling is in Richardson, Texas. His website said he treats people struggling with alcohol, co-dependence, substance abuse and PTSD.

“I am a licensed therapist (LPC) that integrates traditional talk therapy with Energy and Sound Healing. I teach meditation and my own brand of energy healing,” he wrote on his Twitter page.

He holds a bachelor of science in management from the University of Texas and a masters degree in professional counseling, his website said. His counseling experience began as an on-call crisis team member for Timberlawn Mental Health System or UHS Inc., where he would conduct patient assessments on crisis calls.

It seems very likely that he would have encouraged his son to be on these drugs. Most mental health professionals view these drugs as a kind of panacea.

The fact that his father was into bizarre new age material is also worthy of note, I think. This sort of thing is often linked to MKUltra, which again, is a totally real program to create mind-controlled slaves for the purpose of carrying out acts of violence.

This program also involved the remote control brain implants which Cooper talked about, a fact that was not revealed until 2018, 17 years after Cooper’s death.

Wikipedia:

Project MKUltra, also called the CIA mind control program, is the code name given to a program of experiments on human subjects that were designed and undertaken by the United States Central Intelligence Agency—and which were, at times, illegal. Experiments on humans were intended to identify and develop drugs and procedures to be used in interrogations in order to weaken the individual and force confessions through mind control. The project was organized through the Office of Scientific Intelligence of the CIA and coordinated with the U.S. Army Biological Warfare Laboratories. 

The operation was officially sanctioned in 1953, was reduced in scope in 1964, further curtailed in 1967, and recorded to be halted in 1973. The program engaged in many illegal activities, including the use of U.S. and Canadian citizens as its unwitting test subjects, which led to controversy regarding its legitimacy. MKUltra used numerous methods to manipulate people’s mental states and alter brain functions, including the surreptitious administration of drugs (especially LSD) and other chemicals, hypnosis, sensory deprivation, isolation, verbal and sexual abuse, and other forms of torture.

The scope of Project MKUltra was broad with research undertaken at 80 institutions, including colleges and universities, hospitals, prisons, and pharmaceutical companies. The CIA operated through these institutions using front organizations, although sometimes top officials at these institutions were aware of the CIA’s involvement.

Project MKUltra was first brought to public attention in 1975 by the Church Committee of the United States Congress and Gerald Ford’s United States President’s Commission on CIA activities within the United States. Investigative efforts were hampered by CIA Director Richard Helms order that all MKUltra files to be destroyed in 1973; the Church Committee and Rockefeller Commission investigations relied on the sworn testimony of direct participants and on the relatively small number of documents that survived Helms’s destruction order. In 1977, a Freedom of Information Act request uncovered a cache of 20,000 documents relating to project MKUltra which led to Senate hearings later that year. Some surviving information regarding MKUltra was declassified in July 2001. In December 2018, declassified documents included a letter to an unidentified doctor discussing work on six dogs made to run, turn and stop via remote control and brain implants.

So, I mean, take that as you will – I’m just telling you that this information exists, and is documented in official sources. You can go to that Wikipedia page and find the declassified documents.

The dog experiment was done in 1963. So assuming that this program was not canceled – and I do not think there is any reason to believe that it was – 55 years later, these technologies would be highly advanced, and it could potentially be possible to control a person like you control a character in a video game.

To be clear, I don’t personally know what to think of any of this, and I don’t have a very strong opinion on any of it.

What I have a strong opinion on is that things are getting really, really weird, and I think it is time to start at least thinking about some of this much more fringe information.

This is all stuff that I’ve personally followed pretty closely over the years, and made a point not to include too much of on this website, because I want to keep this in the realm of the normie-friendly and the not-too-weird.

I have even been attacked regularly for refusing to go too deeply into conspiracy theories.

But right now, what is going on in the world, right in front of all of us, is stuff that is weirder than anything I can possibly write on this website, so I think it is time to really start thinking about this stuff. My sincere hope is that we can do that without going completely nuts.

We Simply Do Not Know What is Going On

I am personally becoming very suspicious of these mass shootings. I believe that there is a distinct possibility that even if they are not being carried out using the more outrageous-seeming methods of MKUltra or brain implants, the intelligence agencies could be targeting mentally unstable people on the internet and acting as handlers to convince them to carry out these shootings.

What we saw with Atomwaffen’s Discord leaks, for example, was that dozens of people were actively encouraging terrorist attacks, and yet, even after five deaths have been associated with this group, the FBI has refused to take action. I cannot think of any possible explanation for why this would be, unless the group is operating as a federal asset, with the intention of using it to commit terrorist attacks.

Robert Bowers, who shot up the synagogue in Pittsburgh, was active on Gab, which has become a complete cesspit of fed shilling, with constant calls for terrorism. None of his chats were ever revealed, and no one associated with him was arrested.

We recently had it confirmed as a fact that the FBI is shilling on 8chan. This site, as everyone is now aware, is where three different mass shooters posted their manifestos.

It seems very possible, if not more likely than not, that these people are being encouraged by federal agents to commit these attacks.

This kind of behavior by federal authorities would certainly not be new.

Just this April, the FBI set up a Filipino, who had just recently converted to Islam in a chatroom, on a sting after convincing him to bomb a White Nationalist rally in California. They set him up in a chatroom, so it is also possible that they had convinced him to convert to Islam. Filipinos are very soft targets, as they are very easily influenced.

In 2017, the FBI set up a schizophrenic man in a terror plot, and despite his parents’ complaints that he was schizophrenic and was exploited by these agents in their entrapment plot, he was convicted of planning terrorism.

There are endless similar cases.

What’s much, much worse, is that the FBI informant who provided the 1993 World Trade Center bombers with the bomb recorded hundreds of hours of conversations with them because he thought they were trying to set him up. The FBI said they were giving him a fake bomb, but instead they gave him a real bomb, which was detonated and killed six people. This all came out in court. It’s in the Wikipedia page on the bombing, and not even really downplayed. The New York Times claimed that it was all a big mixup, but admits that the FBI could have stopped the bombing and for whatever reason didn’t.

So what we can say for certain is:

• The feds have the ability to manufacture mass shooting events
• They have previously used informants to set people up by manipulating them into planning terrorist attacks
• These mass shooting events are extremely beneficial to the agenda of the deep state – the way the media is using them is completely transparent
• So far, none of these attacks have been on relevant targets, and have instead simply targeted random people
• Theories about potential government involvement in these shooting is being aggressively censored on the internet

Beyond that, we just don’t know.

Whatever the Case

You can take all of what I’ve laid out here as you will. I don’t myself necessarily believe that this is all part of a massive conspiracy to strip Americans of their guns and then start rounding up white people and putting them in camps. However, it seems that this is a very distinct possibility, and it should be seriously considered.

Because this call for gun control doesn’t make any sense, except in the context of “they want to take the guns away from white people so they can create a completely controlled society.” It simply does not follow logically that fundamental rights would be taken away as a result of these shootings, just based on the math involved.

The US has the tenth highest rate of gun deaths in the world. The overwhelming majority of these crimes are committed by black people, using handguns.

In the context of this, these mass shootings are statistically irrelevant. I hate to say “they don’t matter,” because of course it is terrible to have random people getting shot up at schools and Walmarts. But in the greater scheme of things, they simply do not matter.

And yet, the number one push is to remove “weapons of war.” Not the handguns that are resulting in multiples more deaths than long guns.

So, why is that?

Well, if you were going to put up a resistance to a ZOG takeover of America, involving mass round-ups and people being thrown in camps, you would do so with rifles, not handguns. Wars are not fought with handguns. Handguns are used for murder and home defense against intruders.

And as we all know – and the media pretends to not know – the purpose of the Second Amendment is NOT to allow sports hunting, or even to allow home defense, it is to allow for a “well-regulated militia,” that can defend itself from an oppressive government crackdown or overthrow a corrupt government.

It says it right in the text:

A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

“A well-regulated Militia.”

Not “a well-regulated hunting culture” or a “well-regulated home defense.”

So it is specifically intended to protect the right to “weapons of war.”

And yet the lying Jewish media claims the opposite – that it is about hunting and home-defense. This was exactly the claim made in Bill Clinton’s recent op-ed in TIME Magazine, calling for another “assault weapons” ban.

He writes:

It pains me to see people in the culture I grew up in buy into the argument that banning weapons of war threatens the Second Amendment and their way of life. As the 1994 assault-weapons ban shows, deaths from mass shootings fell while the number of hunting licenses actually increased. No one has to give up their culture to save the lives of innocent people, so many of them very young.

These people expect you to not even know what the Second Amendment says.

This has NOTHING to do with hunting or “culture.”

It is EXPLICITLY about fighting the government.

So staged shootings, fake aliens, FEMA camps, MKUltra, Prozac – it’s all worth thinking about, in my opinion, but none of it is necessarily true.

What is necessarily true is that the Jewish-dominated government is using these events in order to strip us of our ability to defend ourselves against them in the situation of a major crackdown on political dissent, as part of the establishment of a one-world globalist order.

The going is getting weird, lads.

And the weirder it gets, the more assured I am that I made the right decision to turn pro.

Well, this is too bad.

I guess.

Not really. Old people die and he wasn’t especially important.

AP:

Art Bell, a radio host best known for a paranormal-themed nightly show syndicated on hundreds of stations in the 1990s, has died at his home in southern Nevada.

Nye County Sheriff Sharon Wehrly says Bell died Friday. He was 72. An autopsy will be conducted to determine cause of death.

Bell hosted the popular radio talk show “Coast to Coast AM” before he left the airwaves in 2002. He broadcast the show from his radio station in Pahrump.

What I can say is that he probably did have a formational effect on my psyche as a child.

I remember staying up very late and listening to it as a boy.

Mostly, it was UFO stuff, which I think has pretty much turned out to be wrong – because if it was real, with cellphone cameras, it would be proven by now.

Although there were like, the Phoenix lights, I guess.

A couple other weird things.

But I mean, this should be filmed all the time.

The face on Mars is also probably not a thing.

The half a million year old Sphinx thing could be real though.

Actually, a lot of that alternate history stuff is probably real. Maybe ancient aliens are real. Makes more sense than contemporary aliens.

My friend was saying Gnostic Media has come out with some new theories about that sort of thing. I dunno. I don’t listen to Gnostic Media.

Anyway, point being – Art Bell did give me, as a child, the idea that the mainstream reality presented to us by the media, schooling system, etc. is a hoax, and there is some other secret thing going on.

So, I salute him for that.

Conspiracy thinking can be a form of psychosis, I think.

But… a lot of it does turn out to be true.

For those of you too young to remember the Bellster or whatever he was affectionately called, here’s a montage thing someone just made to honor his dead on YouTube.

Google is now actively censoring search results. We have seen something like this on a small scale before, where the search “Did the Holocaust happen?” would show a Stormfront link posting evidence against it having happened was removed.

Now, they are putting that into a large scale. Even if they don’t shut down ‘alternative viewpoints’ entirely, they could just as easily censor useful materials in favor of links to ridiculous claims to discredit any alternate argument.

For example, if someone were to search “Was 9/11 an inside job?” they could censor any arguments that would give reasonable doubt to the official narrative, and instead show obviously ridiculous theories claiming things like it was actually an inter-dimensional space parasite. This kind of censorship could be ultimately more harmful than a hard shuttening of any viewpoints, as it will lead the average user to believe that all arguments to the contrary must be meme-level conspiracy theories.

Of course I can’t say for certain this is what they are planning to do, but it is definitely on the table.

In every country in the world other than Western Europe and its colonies, the idea of a “false flag” is considered whenever anything happens.

After Tuesday’s helicopter grenade attack on a government building in Venezuela, people are asking questions.

Washington Post:

A rogue helicopter that buzzed Venezuela’s Supreme Court building and possibly dropped grenades became a strange centerpiece Wednesday in the country’s meltdown — with some suspecting it was a ruse by President Nicolás Maduro to further clamp down on the opposition.

The chopper flight Tuesday was initially hailed by opposition groups as a sign that security forces were breaking ranks in the first step in a possible coup.

But later, questions crept in. The pilot of the helicopter, which trailed a banner proclaiming “Freedom,” turned out to be an actor, Oscar Pérez, who also served in special operations forces. Maduro opponents then began to interpret the incident as a possible government-staged charade to muster support for even tougher measures against protesters as Venezuela’s political crisis grows more violent and desperate.

At least one prominent journalist rejected that, describing the chopper flight as a genuine act of rebellion by a man who “maybe has a touch of craziness.”

The helicopter was found intact Wednesday on a jungly hillside north of Caracas. But there was no sign of Pérez, who remained at large.

Even as Venezuelans tried to sort out what has been called the “Chopper Coupster,” the nation sank deeper into chaos.

Opposition groups and demonstrators have been outraged by the Maduro government’s attempts to dissolve the National Assembly and change the constitution. More than 70 people have died and at least 1,000 have been injured in near daily clashes over the past several months. Thousands have been arrested, and detainees have alleged physical and mental abuse by security forces.

Maduro, who has presided over an economic collapse marked by extreme shortages of food and medicine, has refused to back down

On Tuesday, Maduro denounced the helicopter incident as a “terrorist attack” and deployed tanks and other armored vehicles onto the streets of the capital to “keep the peace.” Pro-government gangs surrounded parliament and kept lawmakers inside for hours.

Of course, there is no way to know in an incident such as this whether or not it was a false flag, or if the “hijacking” explanation is true.

It seems that the false flag option is more probable.

Regarding Conspiracy Theories

I have been known to be critical of various conspiracy theories. This is because many of them that pop-up on the internet appear to exist for the sole purpose of making any questioning of the mainstream narrative look absurd. This could itself be looked at as a form of informational false-flagging.

There is also a very real type of psychological profile, a person who will believe absolutely any conspiracy theory, and that allows a lot of real hard kookery to spread out of control, thus creating a situation of mass confusion, where people are likely to return to the safety of the mainstream, rather than deal with people claiming that the earth is secretly flat or that the Lee Rigby beheading was staged by actors.

The kook-tier theories make it very difficult to have a real discussion about the possibilities of real conspiracies.

My rules on conspiracy theories are as follows:

1. Yes, you should be able to question everything
2. A theory should have a who, how and why
3. A theory should make sense, generally
4. A theory should never be presented as a fact
5. Hard, provable facts should always be the focus of any political presentation, with conspiracy theories serving as a side issue or a mental exercise

I think that as long as those rules are followed, it is okay to discuss various things. I also feel these are very reasonable rules, that no one can in good faith disagree with.

With the hard-kooks you sometimes see on the internet – whether they are real people or state actors trying to sow chaos, you can never tell, and it doesn’t matter anyway because the effect is the same – one or more of these rules is ignored. Quite regularly, every rule but the first one is ignored.

I was the first person on the internet to write about the idea that last year’s failed coup in Turkey could have been staged by Erdogan in order to solidify power. I wrote about it while it was still happening. To this day, that remains the most viewed article ever on this site. I think it must have been read by every English-literate person in Turkey, and mainstream Turkish journalists were quoting it.

I still feel strongly that this is most likely what happened, based on the available data.

However, I have never stated that I know for a fact that this is what happened, as I don’t. There is no hard proof. It is simply, in my estimation, more likely than not that this is what happened.

False Flags

False flags are a very regular occurrence all throughout history, and whenever any attack happens, this option should be considered. And in most countries, this is the case.

In a recent article about a fireboming of the American embassy in the Ukraine, I wrote:

Slav stuff is all so mysterious and double-tricky compared to what we’re used to in the West.

Like, in this case, I would just assume that it is some kind of false flag or double false flag – someone doing it to blame someone else or someone doing it to make it look like someone else did it to blame someone else.

Or rather, I wouldn’t necessarily assume that – I would just consider it to be the most likely scenario, statistically speaking. Statistically speaking – from my own assessment of the statistics, which are not clear, as we are talking about double-trickery here – most political killings and terrorist attacks in Slavland are done not for the purpose of terrorizing the group being attacked, but for making it look like some other group did it.

And then look – all Slavs are already aware of that fact. So when some type of political violence happens, it could also be someone actually attacking the target they want to attack in order to make it look like their enemies were doing a false flag against their target.

And then you can just keep layering that.

I think it’s fine to think this way.

But we should always be reasonable, and always put the facts first.

For Instance

We don’t know for a fact that the Jews did 9/11.

I think it is 100% fair to say that they are responsible, as it is their policy that led to Moslems being in the country in the first place. There is also a whole lot of circumstantial evidence which very much points to prior knowledge by the Jews and Israel.

The recently revealed 27 pages of the 911 Commission Report which had previously been withheld, however, admit that the Saudi intelligence services were directly involved, meaning that there is no way the Jews didn’t know about it, and making it unlikely that they didn’t plan it themselves.

Bombs in the buildings have never been proven, however, although that does seem more likely than not. Without being an engineer, you can look to the fact that the designer of the towers spent a lot of time considering the possibility of them being hit by planes, and said they could withstand the impact of two large jets. We also have the fact that no other steel-framed building that has burned up has collapsed.

Grenfell tower for instance burned up totally, but the steel frame still stood.

However, no building the size of the WTC towers (even tower 7) has ever burned up.

I’m not 100% on bombs in the building, though I think that the arguments of theorists are compelling.

The bottom line is to just always be reasonable. We don’t want to end up looking like the US Congress with their Russian nonsense. We aren’t a bunch of kooks.

We have some many hard facts about what the Jews are doing to us that we don’t need to pretend to know things we don’t know or go overboard with theoreticals.

In the case of 911: it is nowhere near as important as the Holocaust, an event which we know for a fact did not happen. Or at least, we know for a fact that there is no physical evidence that it happened.

Well, something strange like this doesn’t happen every day. Seems like we’ve got a mystery on our hands, guys. Above is a video of Jean-Claude Juncker, the President of the European Commission. He was giving a post-Brexit speech and expressing his concerns about the future.

He says something absolutely outlandish. The video above is in French, but since I’m a native French speaker I’ve transcribed his words for you:

Il faut savoir que ceux qui nous observent de loin, sont inquiets. J’ai vue et entendue et écouté plusieurs des dirigeants d’autres planètes. Ils sont très inquiets parce qu’ils s’interrogent sur la voie que l’union européenne vas poursuivre. Donc il faut rassurer et les européens et ceux qui nous observent de plus loin.

This is a word for word transcription of his words above. Translated in English, with no interpretation on my part, this means literally:

We must know that those who observe us from afar are worried. I’ve seen and heard and listened to several of the leaders of other planets. They’re very worried because they question themselves about the path the European Union will follow. Thus we must reassure both Europeans and those who observe us from afar.

I assure you there is no possible room for misinterpretation or subtle distinction that could make this mean anything else than that he’s claiming to be in contact with aliens. There are a few points to address regarding this.

Juncker is ready to welcome our crab people overlords.

1. Junker is not a native French speaker. But according to Wikipedia, he’s been studying in French since his high school days. And from the video, we see that his accent is almost perfect. He wouldn’t make any elementary mistakes.
2. In French, the word “planet” is “planète.” In Juncker’s native language, Luxembourgish, planet is “planéit.” In other words, there is no confusion possible here. If he meant to say “leaders of other nations,” he could have used the French word “nation,” which similarly in Luxembourgish is “natioun.” Similarly, “country” is “pays” in French and “land” in Luxembourgish. No confusion here is possible, these words are similar in most European languages.
3. His expression of “those who observe us from afar” is much more evocative of aliens than other world leaders. With modern communication and media technologies, we don’t really have the reflex of thinking of foreign countries as being “far away observers.” The expression is often used in science fiction books and movies, however.

They’re watching us… at least, according to Juncker.

The second major part of this story, which kind of precludes this being an amusing goof, is that this was covered-up by the establishment. First, this would be a funny story to cover in any news paper or TV broadcast, yet the Daily Stormer is basically the only one covering it.

And more importantly, the transcript from the official European Union website changes this part of the speech to something else:

Make no mistake, those who are watching us from afar are concerned. I have met and listened to several leaders. They are very worried because they are wondering about the course the European Union will take. So we must reassure Europeans and those who are watching us from further away.

They edited out the mention of these leaders being from other planets.

In an earlier interview, our resident political strategy expert, Andrew “Weev” Auernheimer (@rabite), has reduced the explanations to 4 possibilities for this incident.

If it’s a misstep there’s no reason to cover up the transcript and try to hide it. I think he simply forgot that he was speaking to a public venue. The options are:

1. He’s intentionally trying to seed the idea of powerful alien entities so that he can make people afraid and turn pro-EU out of fear.
2. We’re ruled by Reptoids.
3. Someone has created a fictional set of aliens and tricked world leaders into thinking they exist and is using that to control them.
4. Juncker himself is a part of the illusory nonexistent alien conspiracy cabal.

David Icke was right about everything.

Also worth noting is that Juncker is known to be a weird guy who does goofy things.

Wikipedia:

For instance he tried to convince the Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras to wear a tie by offering his own piece. He also remarked on Karl-Heinz Lambertzbeing overweight and patted his belly. Juncker slapped his former deputy, the Luxembourgish Foreign Minister Jean Asselborn, as well as kissed Belgian Prime Minister Charles Michel’s bald head. But the most stormy incident happened when Hungarian premier Viktor Orbán arrived and Juncker addressed him, using the word “dictator”, following it with a warm handshake and a slap on the cheek.

Weird guy. Maybe he’s just losing it? Or maybe he’s an alien himself, and is having a hard time adjusting to human customs? That’s my pick.

The recent debate about certain details of 9-11 has once again raised the ongoing question of what topics the pro-white movement should openly discuss.  Some argue that because our movement is supposed to uncover the truth, we should allow the open discussion of all opinions, even opinions that seem ridiculous or far-fetched to the general public (such as there being no real planes on 9-11, all the video footage having been faked).  Others argue that our message should be more tightly controlled and avoid speculation about far-fetched conspiracy theories, either because these theories are obviously untrue or because they might alienate otherwise sympathetic individuals.  We certainly fall into the second group, and we hope to argue in favor of this position by using the analogy of a court of law.

Consider a public prosecutor whose goal is to convict a notorious mob boss.  The mob boss is obviously guilty of many crimes, and likely guilty of many more that the prosecutor has not yet discovered.  However, the mob boss has covered his tracks very well, employing all manner of deception to hide his crimes.  The full details of his deeds may never be known.  Facing this situation, the prosecutor will not try to convict the criminal on every single count.  Instead, he will attempt to find the one charge that can stick, the one crime where he is sure to get a conviction.  Trying to convict the criminal of every single crime he has committed (including those for which the evidence is inconclusive) will only cause confusion.  We must take the same approach in our movement.  Our goal is to turn the American public against the Jew, to convict the Jew in the court of public opinion.

Our public message should be tailored to achieve this goal. We do not need to argue in favor of secret Jewish organizations pulling the strings, when several Jewish organizations such as AIPAC and the ADL operate openly.  We do not need to argue in favor of the authenticity of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, when we can point to the Communist Manifesto and the documented Jewish support of communism.  Recognizing the influence and the anti-white attitude of the ADL is enough to turn an individual against the Jews, while arguing in favor of a secret Jewish organization (whose existence is unverifiable) is enough to alienate prospective converts.  The only important thing right now is turning as many white folks as possible against the Jew.  The extent of Jewish power is a difficult enough truth already, and we need to make this truth as easy to understand as possible.  Specific plots are much more difficult to prove than persistent behavior, which is why it is better to focus on biological and psychological Jewish traits.

Although we began by discussing the question of far-fetched conspiracy theories and psy-ops, pushing such ideas is merely one aspect of a larger problem that our movement faces: our inability to promote a consistent message.

In the absence of any real authority, everyone involved in our movement acts as his own leader.  This problem of a lack of leadership is compounded by the rise of blogging.  While the Internet is undoubtedly helpful for us, it has led to many individuals mixing their hobby interests and personal life with their activism, which further confuses our message (complaining about your ex-wife should have no place in political discourse).  Bloggers and commenters argue endlessly about what the “true cause” of our problem is, assuming that the Jews are only a symptom of our decline.  Some argue that the true cause of our problem is Christianity, or the Enlightenment, or the Reformation, or that the founding principles of America are to blame, or that Aryans are genetically predisposed to being too compassionate, etc.

From the perspective of trying to spread a mass message, the problem with all of these explanations is that they:

a) cause unnecessary division, and

b) they end up putting the blame on US.

It is very hard to spread a popular political message based on the idea that your ancestors were utter fools or genetically inclined to foolish behavior. All great right-wing political movements have appealed to the virtue and wisdom of the ancestors.  Therefore, we stress that our movement needs to have a positive view on all of traditional Western Civilization.  Traditional Western Civilization is NOT the problem.  That is our inspiration.  The problem is an alien race (the Jews) and their alien ideologies, which are contrary to the traditional West.  Aryan blood, Greco-Roman culture, the Christian Faith – these are some of the main things that defined our identity when we conquered the world, and these are the things that must be preserved. Saying that any of these things are the cause of our problem deflects blame from the Jew and makes his conviction in the court of public opinion more difficult. It is not necessary to argue that everything about the traditional West was perfect, but we need to send a clear message that without the Jews our problems would be solved.

You are Either with Us or Against Us

It is time to make a clear distinction between propaganda which serves to further our collective purpose, and that which serves only the ego of the individual.  Though it is important that our movement be as inclusive as possible, appealing to different types of individuals, we must never allow personal eccentricities to compromise our core message.  If an individual is promoting ideas which weaken the integrity of the larger presentation, they need to be called out on it, and asked to change.  If they choose to continue on with clearly detrimental behavior, they need to be shunned.

Our goal is total revolution, a replacement of the modern society with something entirely new.  In order to achieve this, the sentiment of the public must be turned against the Jew, and thus doing this effectively needs to be the focal point of collective message.

This is not about individuals.  This is about us.

We are in a war for our very survival.

This is not a game.

Hail Victory.

Kevin Barret
PressTV
July 12, 2013

The most recent study was published on July 8th by psychologists Michael J. Wood and Karen M. Douglas of the University of Kent (UK). Entitled “What about Building 7? A social psychological study of online discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories,” the study compared “conspiracist” (pro-conspiracy theory) and “conventionalist” (anti-conspiracy) comments at news websites.

The authors were surprised to discover that it is now more conventional to leave so-called conspiracist comments than conventionalist ones: “Of the 2174 comments collected, 1459 were coded as conspiracist and 715 as conventionalist.” In other words, among people who comment on news articles, those who disbelieve government accounts of such events as 9/11 and the JFK assassination outnumber believers by more than two to one. That means it is the pro-conspiracy commenters who are expressing what is now the conventional wisdom, while the anti-conspiracy commenters are becoming a small, beleaguered minority.

Perhaps because their supposedly mainstream views no longer represent the majority, the anti-conspiracy commenters often displayed anger and hostility: “The research… showed that people who favoured the official account of 9/11 were generally more hostile when trying to persuade their rivals.”

Additionally, it turned out that the anti-conspiracy people were not only hostile, but fanatically attached to their own conspiracy theories as well. According to them, their own theory of 9/11 – a conspiracy theory holding that 19 Arabs, none of whom could fly planes with any proficiency, pulled off the crime of the century under the direction of a guy on dialysis in a cave in Afghanistan – was indisputably true. The so-called conspiracists, on the other hand, did not pretend to have a theory that completely explained the events of 9/11: “For people who think 9/11 was a government conspiracy, the focus is not on promoting a specific rival theory, but in trying to debunk the official account.”

In short, the new study by Wood and Douglas suggests that the negative stereotype of the conspiracy theorist – a hostile fanatic wedded to the truth of his own fringe theory – accurately describes the people who defend the official account of 9/11, not those who dispute it.

Additionally, the study found that so-called conspiracists discuss historical context (such as viewing the JFK assassination as a precedent for 9/11) more than anti-conspiracists. It also found that the so-called conspiracists to not like to be called “conspiracists” or “conspiracy theorists.”

Both of these findings are amplified in the new book Conspiracy Theory in America by political scientist Lance deHaven-Smith, published earlier this year by the University of Texas Press. Professor deHaven-Smith explains why people don’t like being called “conspiracy theorists”: The term was invented and put into wide circulation by the CIA to smear and defame people questioning the JFK assassination! “The CIA’s campaign to popularize the term ‘conspiracy theory’ and make conspiracy belief a target of ridicule and hostility must be credited, unfortunately, with being one of the most successful propaganda initiatives of all time.”

In other words, people who use the terms “conspiracy theory” and “conspiracy theorist” as an insult are doing so as the result of a well-documented, undisputed, historically-real conspiracy by the CIA to cover up the JFK assassination. That campaign, by the way, was completely illegal, and the CIA officers involved were criminals; the CIA is barred from all domestic activities, yet routinely breaks the law to conduct domestic operations ranging from propaganda to assassinations.

DeHaven-Smith also explains why those who doubt official explanations of high crimes are eager to discuss historical context. He points out that a very large number of conspiracy claims have turned out to be true, and that there appear to be strong relationships between many as-yet-unsolved “state crimes against democracy.” An obvious example is the link between the JFK and RFK assassinations, which both paved the way for presidencies that continued the Vietnam War. According to DeHaven-Smith, we should always discuss the “Kennedy assassinations” in the plural, because the two killings appear to have been aspects of the same larger crime.

Psychologist Laurie Manwell of the University of Guelph agrees that the CIA-designed “conspiracy theory” label impedes cognitive function. She points out, in an article published in American Behavioral Scientist (2010), that anti-conspiracy people are unable to think clearly about such apparent state crimes against democracy as 9/11 due to their inability to process information that conflicts with pre-existing belief.

In the same issue of ABS, University of Buffalo professor Steven Hoffman adds that anti-conspiracy people are typically prey to strong “confirmation bias” – that is, they seek out information that confirms their pre-existing beliefs, while using irrational mechanisms (such as the “conspiracy theory” label) to avoid conflicting information.

The extreme irrationality of those who attack “conspiracy theories” has been ably exposed by Communications professors Ginna Husting and Martin Orr of Boise State University. In a 2007 peer-reviewed article entitled “Dangerous Machinery: ‘Conspiracy Theorist’ as a Transpersonal Strategy of Exclusion,” they wrote:

“If I call you a conspiracy theorist, it matters little whether you have actually claimed that a conspiracy exists or whether you have simply raised an issue that I would rather avoid… By labeling you, I strategically exclude you from the sphere where public speech, debate, and conflict occur.”

But now, thanks to the internet, people who doubt official stories are no longer excluded from public conversation; the CIA’s 44-year-old campaign to stifle debate using the “conspiracy theory” smear is nearly worn-out. In academic studies, as in comments on news articles, pro-conspiracy voices are now more numerous – and more rational – than anti-conspiracy ones.

No wonder the anti-conspiracy people are sounding more and more like a bunch of hostile, paranoid cranks.