Friday 10th of July 2020

If a door isn’t bolted, is it properly shut? ...

conspiracies   Is being a sceptic — a questioner — being a conspiracy theorist? 

Being sceptical of governments’ actions, reports and decrees is now judged by the media at large as being a conspiracy theory. We, the naturally-born or learned sceptics are in trouble. We are trouble. Some of us enjoy being trouble, others don’t be feel we have any choice but to ask questions.

At this stage the term “conspiracy theorist” is used by other people to denigrate your scepticism. Is our scepticism “healthy” anyway? We’ve had many subjects that crop up such as 9-11, JFK's assassination, the Iraq war on Saddam, global warming and now the Covid19 critical situation in which a lot of questions have to be asked but we’re told that the cases are open and shut — and we should shut our traps otherwise we’ll be deemed to be "conspiracy theorists", whatever meaning is meant, to denigrate our intellectual inability to swallow hook, line and sinker. Even if we distrust the official narrative, we could just shut up and enjoy the weather. But sometimes, we’re drenched in rubbish as we loose our pants on the investment markets. We want real answers and see some people go to prison should they have been deemed to defraud us. Good luck...

For example was there a conspiracy between the rating agencies and the sellers to defraud investors in the subprime scandal of 2008? Or were the subprime “packages” secretly disguised enough as to hide the real value of what was being invested in, by entire governments no less? Was there a “conspiracy” to sink the economies of such countries? 

Were the rating agencies fooled like the rest of the people (including governments) by not seeing that the mix of mortgages did not represent the value that was sold (betted upon)? And what do we accept as value if we are prepared to buy without proper assessment of our purchases?

This is why there are controversies. This is why there are laws, lawyers and other systems to investigate the SNAFUs, but do these investigations flush the underlying conspiracies should there be some lurking below the controversies? Or are the system prone to cock ups, fucups and bad or good decisions because of ideologies, say "conservative versus progressive”? Should human rights be more valuable than money?

In the Covid19 situation, was the response by governments (under the WHO directives) the best solutions available or could we have done better? Are governments at the mercy of advisors who advise on behalf of private interests to the detriment/advantage of the public, limiting the public debate, including eliminating challenging controversies — by some specialists and scientists — by defining them as “conspiracy theories”?

The global warming conspiracy theories are going both ways, and at this stage we have to make a choice. Or do we? Are the calculations and observations of warming accurate enough? Is 97 per cent of scientists supporting the theory enough to make a positive claim, or are these scientists in the pocket of governments by receiving grants for studying the problem, going to find a problem in order to get more grants? Are the dissenters in the pocket of the fossil fuel industries? Are these dissenters' work trustworthy or are they full of bullshit interpretation of the data? Have we got enough data? Is the bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef and other reefs an illusion?

In regard to Covid19, had the virus been very virulent, should isolation and confinement restrictions be lifted so soon? Is there a second wave coming, or have we avoided the thingy because the virus tends to mostly affect people over 65? And the "prone to dying" have died anyway? Is the story about a 93 year old woman, surviving the infection, balanced by 134,576.5 death of old people but younger than her? Is her survival due to luck or care? Is Africa less prone because it’s warmer than say, Russia?

Sorry (not really) to ask questions… I always have. It’s in the structure of the language I was born with: If a door isn’t bolted, is it properly shut? 

Controversy analyst.

of conspiracy theorists...

the tirade above was inspired by Iain at:


It was actually the "comments" to the article that inspired Gus to explain what I feel was missed by the two main commentators. 



See also:



conspiracy of competitors?

Optus has been ordered to hand over the details of a customer accused of defaming a Melbourne dentist through a Google review, which he says has had a profound impact on his teeth-whitening business.


Key points:
  • Melbourne dentist Matthew Kabbabe is taking court action to unmask a Google reviewer
  • Optus has been served with a subpoena to produce documents which could reveal who wrote the negative review
  • The dentist is among several Victorians taking court action to reveal the identities of anonymous online reviewers


The telco's Australian office has been served with a subpoena to produce documents which could unmask the writer of the negative review, published on Google's platform about six months ago.

The details will then be used to launch defamation proceedings.

Optus has until June 17 to respond to the subpoena.

The escalation in the hunt for the reviewer, known only as CBsm 23, comes after Matthew Kabbabe's legal team successfully convinced the Federal Court to order Google to give up details which identified them as an Optus customer.

Dr Kabbabe's lawyer, Mark Stanarevic from Matrix Legal, said it was a significant moment.

"We've opened up the veil, pierced it, in terms of people hiding behind Google reviews," Mr Stanarevic said.

"It's been demonstrated that we can do that now," he said.

"It seems litigation is the only mechanism [where] people can seek these remedies."

The review in question has since been removed from Dr Kabbabe's Google page, leaving him with an average 4.9 star rating out of dozens of appraisals.

Optus has declined to comment.

Others seek to unmask Google reviewers

Dr Kabbabe is not the only business owner pursuing negative reviewers who are hiding behind the veil of anonymity

On Thursday, the Federal Court also ordered Google to hand over any identifying details of another negative reviewer accused of defaming Melbourne gangland lawyer Zarah Garde-Wilson.

Ms Garde-Wilson, who is also being represented by Matrix Legal, was allegedly defamed by a user called Mohamed Ahmed who criticised her law firm, Garde Wilson Criminal Lawyers.


Read more:


Some businesses give cash or discounts for complimentory reviews...



Read from top.

censorship of RT by facebook...

Conspiracy glitch?

‘System glitch’: Facebook admits RT Deutsch story was WRONGLY labeled ‘fake’ but damage to traffic is already done.

The "glitch" took place right after RT Deutsch reported that it became the fifth most popular German-language outlet on Facebook, citing video viewership data from March 2020...

Facebook fact checkers have labeled a video published by RT’s German-language branch RT Deutsch ‘fake news,’ after the outlet reported a viewership spike. They later blamed a ‘technical glitch’ but the damage was already done.

An innocent post about a hospital being built in Russian city of Ufa to treat people suffering from Covid-19 had somehow incurred the displeasure of Facebook’s ever-watchful fact checkers. It is trivial to discover lots of stories about the project in Russia’s regional and national media, as well as a plenty of videos of the hospital under construction on platforms such as YouTube.

Yet Facebook’s guardians of truth still declared that video of the hospital was false and labelled it as such in mid-May, just a day after it was published. When RT sought to find out the reasons for such a move, it emerged that the fact-checker involved was Fatabyyano, a platform normally verifying Arabic-language stories about the Middle East and North Africa.

In what came as an even bigger surprise, the link attached to the RT Deutsch video as proof of its alleged falsehood led to a post analyzing an entirely different story about some quotes on Covid-19 falsely attributed to the former French minister and ex-UN Under-Secretary-General, Philippe Douste-Blazy.

When RT attempted to contact the fact checkers and point out the discrepancy, it received no reply. Only a message to Facebook administration set things into motion. Fatabyyano CEO Moath Altheher apologized to RT and said that his agency never rated any German-language content, let alone the specific RT post. He blamed the whole incident on an alleged “technical problem with the system” or an email glitch.

READ MORE: War on ‘fake news’ made Facebook users more gullible – just in time for the 2020 election! Is anyone surprised? 

The "false" tag has since been removed from the video in question, but the damage has already been done, since RT Deutsch reported a steep downfall in the number of ‘likes’ and shares of its content following the incident. The tag also caused RT Deutsch to temporarily lose access to Facebook’s Instant Articles service, as well as to content monetization options. Facebook algorithms limit the spread of content from sources it deems ‘fake news factories’, meaning that fewer people could actually see RT Deutsch posts.



Read more:


Read from top.


See also: bezos' amazon becomes an arbiter of censorship... in free america now...




propaganda device aimed at stifling dissenting voices...



The EU, NATO, NewsGuard and the Voltaire Network

by Thierry Meyssan

The propaganda device aimed at stifling dissenting voices has taken a step forward. It is no longer simply a matter of accusing them of committing factual errors or deliberately lying, but of presenting them as traitors in the pay of a foreign power.


The European External Action Service created in 2015 the East StratCom Task Force, a unit tasked with combating disinformation from the Russian secret services. It runs a website,, and sends weekly e-mails to EU journalists to spread its good word. We have already reported that this unit is linked to the NATO Communication Centre in Riga [1].

This unit has just warned journalists of the Union and incidentally all those who subscribed to its newsletter [2] that our article of March 31, "Putchists in the Shadow of the Coronavirus" [3], is Russian disinformation [4].

- First, we are outraged to appear on an official site of the Union responsible for listing Russian disinformation - and this is not the first time. We have no connection with the Russian authorities, nor with those of any other country. This is pure defamation.

- Secondly, the EU’s rebuttal merely states that our work would be: "An exaggerated interpretation of a Newsweek article from Mid-March. Newsweek describes the role of the US military, should the political leadership be incapacitated". However, we have quoted part of William Arkin’s article without distorting it and analysing his information in relation to others that are not more contested. It is the perspective of all this data that troubles the EU.

Until now, the public authorities had financed private initiatives to de-credit dissident sources. This is, for example, the function of the Decodex du Monde [5]. It is now a matter of going further and accusing them of treason.

To distinguish between true and false, exercise your critical mind!

NewsGuard, a New York-based company created to evaluate the reliability of websites and make a note on search engines, contacted us asking first what our relations with the Syrian state are, and then what we "think of this criticism".

NewsGuard is very neutral. Its Board of Directors is secret, but its Advisory Board includes one of the co-founders of Wikipedia (Jimmy Wales) as well as the former director of the CIA and the NSA (General Michael Hayden), the former Secretary General of NATO (Anders Fogh Rasmussen), the former Secretary for Homeland Security (Tom Ridge) or the former Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy - i.e. Propaganda (Richard Stengel) [6].

Under the European Treaties, NATO protects the EU. In other words, the European Union is only the civilian part of a whole in which NATO is the military part.

After several attempts to kidnap or assassinate one of my staff and me in four different countries, we have every reason to believe that it is the Atlantic Alliance that has, on numerous occasions, saturated or even hacked into our website. Our opponents seem to be reverting to non-lethal means: lies and defamation.

War Propaganda is a three-phase process of engaging the public in causes they would normally disapprove of: 

- The first is to mix the false with the true while accusing those who tell the truth of being wrong or lying (fake news). 

- The second is to dismiss all dissenting speeches and thus create an appearance of unanimity around the doctored truth. At this point, the dissidents are no longer hullabaloo-mongering storytellers, but become traitors. 

- The third one to push the targets to practice symbolic acts of acquiescence to the new ideology.

A step has just been taken.

Thierry Meyssan


Roger Lagassé



Read more:



Read from top.

a line in the sand?

NSW will look to limit the size of protests amid the pandemic after the weekend’s mass rallies in support of the Black Lives Matter movement.

Premier Gladys Berejiklian said Saturday’s rally in Sydney, attended by 20,000 people, represented “a line in the sand”.

NSW Police made a successful bid in the Supreme Court to have the Sydney demonstration declared illegal under public health measures.

But the demonstration went ahead after the Court of Appeal overturned the ruling less than 15 minutes before it was due to start.

“The NSW government would never, ever approve any activity – let me make that clear – which was not in line with health orders,” Ms Berejiklian said on Tuesday.

“The health orders are changing but there is no excuse for anybody, any organisation, anybody thinking they’re above the health orders.

“It’s making sure that everybody respects the health orders and I think we need to draw a line in the sand in what happened on the weekend.”

NSW Police Minister David Elliott said last week anyone that seeking to gather during a pandemic was “certifiably insane” and “nuts”. On Monday, he said he expected future protests involving more than 10 people to be illegal if they failed to comply with COVID-19 restrictions.

“Any protest in the future, irrespective of how honourable the cause, must comply with the current public health orders,” Mr Elliott said.

“If it does not, it is my expectation that police will not authorise the protest and it will be illegal.


Read more:


This bullshit "line in the sand"... has nothing to do with coronavirus, but with preventing people from protesting. Read between the lines. This line in the sand is 100 per cent fascist.


Read from top.