The term "conspiracy theory" is being used all the time. For the most part, it's become a word commonly used to smear those who are presenting valid evidence, or at least evidence that should be considered. Instead, this evidence has been swept in the pile of "false information." Don't get me wrong, there is a lot of "fake news" out there, but legitimate discussions, questions, and evidence is being branded with the same paintbrush as fake news.

We are seeing this with covid, and we've seen it with 9/11. Two of multiple examples that we will touch on a bit later in the article. First, we must understand the underlying mechanisms of why humanity is in the stage it's at with regards to understanding what's happening on our planet, and why truthful information is being deemed a "conspiracy theory."

Although it's been used for quite a while, some believe the CIA's psychological warfare division actually coined the phrase "conspiracy theory." They definitely were not the first to do so, but the phrase became quite popular when they used it to point out and ridicule dissenters of officially established public opinion regarding who orchestrated the John F. Kennedy assassination.

A declassified document from 1967 states,

"This Trend of Opinion is a matter of concern to the U.S. government, including our organization."

The trend of "opinion" throughout history has always been a concern, and thus heavily influenced by using propaganda. A great quote from Edward Bernay's comes to mind here, I've used before in many of my articles,

"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of."

Edward Bernay's. Propaganda 1928.

The 1967 document was released via a Freedom of Information Act Request (FOIA) requested by the New York Times in 1976, but it's not the only one.

For example, a declassified 1991 document from the CIA archives in the form of a letter from a CIA task force addressed to the Director of the CIA at the time details the close relationship that exists between the CIA, mainstream media and academia.

The document states that the CIA task force “now has relationships with reporters from every major wire service, newspaper, news weekly, and television network in the nation,” and that “this has helped us turn some ‘intelligence failure’ stories into ‘intelligence success' stories,’ and has contributed to the accuracy of countless others.” Furthermore, it explains how the agency has “persuaded reporters to postpone, change, hold, or even scrap stories that could have adversely affected national security interests or jeopardized sources and methods.”

Remember Julian Assange? The journalist and founder of Wikileaks who has been subjected to torture while he is awaiting potential extradition to the United States, the country that wanted to assassinate him. He exposed various war crimes committed by the US government, among others.

Another great quote comes to mind here from Nils Melzer, former UN Special Rapporteur on Torture.

"How far have we sunk if telling the truth becomes a crime? How far have we sunk if we prosecute people that expose war crimes for exposing war crimes?  How far have we sunk when we no longer prosecute our own war criminals? Because we identify more with them, than we identify with their people that actually expose these crimes. What does that tell about us and about our governments? In a democracy, the power does not belong to the government, but to the people. But the people have to claim it. Secrecy disempowers the people because it prevents them from exercising democratic control, which is precisely why governments want secrecy."

Nils Melzer. Former UN Special Rapporteur on Torture. Human Rights Chair, Geneva Academy

Today, secrets are kept to protect unethical and immoral actions and corruption more so than "national security"" purposes, yet "national security" always seems to be the justification for measures that seem to be quite unethical otherwise. Again, we've seen this with both covid and 9/11.

I'm reminded of a quote from JFK in April of 1961,

"And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know."

JFK Presidential Library

But I digress. Not only do we have declassified documents showing the strong connection between legacy media and government, but multiple mainstream media journalists have exposed this relationship over the years.

For example, Sharyl Attkisson, a well-known mainstream media reporter and journalist exposed movements by political, corporate, and other special interests. She revealed that they (mainstream media) are routinely paid by the U.S. government as well as foreign governments to selectively report and distort information on certain events.

On Sept 5, 2012, with the help of journalist Glenn Greenwald, former CNN journalist Amber Lyon claimed that CNN International never aired her documentary, iRevolution, on the Bahrain uprising because the Bahrain regime is a paying customer at the network. The article also claims that the government of Bahrain, as well as other governments throughout the world, are paying CNN for special content casting their countries in a positive light.

In March 2013, a report from the state-run Syrian Arab News Agency said the "Slovak main news website" reported Lyon claiming to have received orders from CNN to report selectively and falsely in order to sway public opinion in favor of direct American aggression against Iran and Syria, and that this was common practice at CNN.

Dr. Udo Ulfkotte, a prominent German journalist and editor for more than two decades blew the whistle on public television, stating that he was forced to publish the works of intelligence agencies under his own name. According to him, noncompliance with these orders would result in him losing his job.

It's still happening today. Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas recently stated that the Department of Homeland Security is creating a "Disinformation Governance Board" to combat "misinformation." Covid has simply brought up this on more peoples radar. Sure, many like those who are working in the independent media world for example have been aware of these, for lack of a better term, thought control organizations.

With the emergence of social media, censorship has become obvious. But who decides what is real and what is fake? Is there really a need for an authoritarian Orwellian "Fact-Checker" to patrol the internet removing "dangerous" content? Why is science and data calling into question the effectiveness of lockdowns and other health and economic catastrophes they created considered "dangerous" and "misleading" information? These are the labels Facebook, Youtube, and other social media platforms have been using throughout the covid pandemic to censor leading scientists and epidemiologists who have questioned mandatory covid "health" policy.

There are countless examples.

This (below) is the label Facebook slapped on the analysis by Professor Carl Heneghan and Tom Jefferson from Oxford University earlier on in the pandemic regarding a mask study. Facebook has already removed at least 16 million pieces of content from its platform, and added warnings to approximately 167 million others.

Again, there are countless examples from thousands of academics.

According to NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, who leaked information revealing the agency's illegal global mass surveillance program,

"In secret, these companies had all agreed to work with the U.S. Government far beyond what the law required of them, and that’s what we’re seeing with this new censorship push is really a new direction in the same dynamic. These companies are not obligated by the law to do almost any of what they’re actually doing but they’re going above and beyond, to, in many cases, to increase the depth of their relationship (with the government) and the government’s willingness to avoid trying to regulate them in the context of their desired activities, which is ultimately to dominate the conversation and information space of global society in different ways…They’re trying to make you change your behaviour."

Edward Snowden in an interview with journalist Glenn Greenwald.

On top of all this censorship, the information that is being "hidden" is also not being covered or presented by mainstream media. A large portion of the population who rely on these networks for information have never even come across legitimate information that opposes what they are being told. When they do happen to come across it, it is again dismissed as a "conspiracy theory." During COVID, concerns regarding the safety and efficacy of not only of masks, but vaccines, and lockdowns were considered a conspiracy theory being touted by dangerous and extremist type of people.

Several researchers from various academic institutions in the United Kingdom, United States and Canada have published a paper titled, “The Unintended Consequences of COVID-19 Vaccine Policy: Why Mandates, Passports, and Segregated Lockdowns may cause more Harm than Good.” It gives a great breakdown of what I am talking about.

These labels and smear tactics are clearly being used by governments to influence and control human perception. This is exactly why many people point towards "dissenting voices" as conspiracy theorists.

It's not just COVID, we saw the exact same thing with 9/11. Despite strong evidence and experts who had serious concerns about a controlled demolition, as well as what happened to building seven, it became taboo to question what happened. Even worse the event was used to justify the infiltration of Iraq where countless innocent people were killed for what seemed to be ulterior motives, like establishing a government that would bend to the will of the west, resource control and more.

Today, many polls show that more than half of the American people alone don’t believe the official explanation of what really happened that day. Since 9/11, hundreds of millions of people have become aware of “false flag” terrorism, which is the idea that the ‘powers that be’ created these events, fund terrorism, stage them, and then use these events to justify the infiltration of another country for ulterior motives.

Could the same thing have happened with covid? The "lab theory" debate is a great example. Earlier on in the pandemic it was considered fake news, but approximately one year into it the discussion suddenly became legitimate within the mainstream.

The difference now is when these major global events happen it's no longer taboo for a large portion of the citizenry to question what actually happened and what we are being told by government and state controlled media. This is a good thing.

The number of people doing this is growing, that's not hard to see. As much as it's creating a polarization between people who can never agree on what's actually going on, this is something the world has never seen. This is clearly representative of collective human perception shifting. Some would argue that at the deepest levels of observable reality, at the quantum scale, human consciousness alone can change the way physical material reality behaves. Perhaps this shift in human consciousness has the potential to alter what type of world we create. Perhaps we are in the process of great change right now, although it can be hard to see.

As much as the architect of oppression, tyranny, and the depletion of our privacy, rights and freedoms seems to be getting worse, we can't forget that the number of people who can actually see this is happening is growing at an unprecedented rate. There is an equal and opposite reaction. Those who thought that the invasion of the Middle East after 9/11 as well as lockdowns, mask and vaccine mandates were done for "the good of everybody" are now starting to see that these measures are possibly being done for another reason. I believe it's for, as NSA whistleblower William Binney said, "total population control." It's a thought that is still hard to take on for many people.

It's still hard to see for some, and again, that is because it's always done in the name of good, safety, health and progress, when really it is done for the complete opposite. I am aware that there may be arguments that support the idea that these measures are for the good of everybody, but at least those arguments are not being subjected to mass censorship and ridicule.

The question then becomes, what, if anything, can we do about it? I don't have the answer to that question. For myself, I try and be the best person I can be, be in service to others when I can be, and treat others the way I would like to be treated. At the same time, I try and do things in life that bring me small glimpse of joy, without ignoring but bringing awareness to issues that deserve our attention, in my own way of course.

There are deeper and, in my opinion more metaphysical aspects to our reality that we have yet to understand that may provide us a better idea of how change really happens. But that's a discussion for another article. Ultimately, we need to shift from a planet that is dominated by financial and material gain to one that is focused on service to others and abundance for all. We are a a race with unlimited potential.