Wednesday 22nd of September 2021

below the worm kingdom...





















As you know from reading this site, you are an idiot if you believe in conspiracy theories… and you are an idiot if you believe there are no conspiracies anywhere…


So it’s quite hard to make the difference between defined conspiracies because most of them are secret and the conspiracy theories that float on the loony pond. And there is no rule of thumb. Even the best of news outlets fall for the trap. For example if you don’t believe that the war on Saddam (2003) was not set up as a conspiracy, you need to have your head examined. 


Who did set this conspiracy and who was in on it? We have exposed the culprits many times on this site and the list is long, in the US, in the UK and in Australia. The core of the conspiracy came from the PNAC (Project for a New American Century) but it had some long legs from before this. The characters involved in this conspiracy made sure that the media was on board via a multitude of “sub-conspiracies” and that the CIA was doing the main disinformation. The media were appalling and fell for the trap. No-one really put their thinking cap on. So who’s to blame conspiracy theorists when they ask questions?


Yet again we get the finger for being skeptical about a grandiose Covid event in which everyone and their dogs are excited about it… Thus we’re dumb for thinking that there is a conspiracy in progress. In general, we don’t know. In regard to the war on Saddam, in 2001, Gus’ mate Jules Letambour was lucky to “come by" a European official spy outfit where the con trick of the war on Saddam was exposed, blow for blow, nearly two years before the event. This door soon closed. Oops…


THERE WAS A CONSPIRACY. BUSH, BLAIR AND HOWARD acted upon it without any regard for the truth and they had to know that IT WAS A CONSPIRACY. They should be in prison.


Some people think that “GLOBAL WARMING” is a conspiracy. I don’t blame them, but I dispute their views by exposing as many facts as possible. Yet they are still powerful outfits with Lord Monckton and his friends pushing the barrow of denialism.


YES,  there are LOONY conspiracies theories and some concepts which are borderline. The first association of the words "conspiracy" and “theory" came from the CIA in the 1960s to define the “loonies” who did not believe in the official versions which were bullshit. And yes some the “conspiracy theorists” lack the skill of critical analysis. But by and large, they are not they only ones. There are plenty of journalists out there who rehash the official press releases so that these appear as if in their own voice, without even analysing the official crap. 


This isn’t new. In Gus’s book, religions are long-term CONSPIRACIES designed to make us believe shit. God? You’ve got to be kidding… Ah yes but we’re not allowed to insult allah, god or Raminagrobis… because of the freedom of religion that is sacrosanct... Why so? For years governments have needed the help of religious beliefs to prevent people to come to term with the shitty job the governments are doing in representing democracy, and their own shitty democratic life, unless they still live with the Royals as head of state… Blimey! This is another accepted conspiracy: The Kingdomola under god… Come on wake up, people!


And you are still watching American Cop Shows on the box?… Is Disney still massaging your head? Meanwhile…



The more people believe in conspiracy theories, the worse they perform on critical thinking tests, a new study has confirmed.

This doesn’t mean that conspiracy theorists are necessarily lacking intelligence, but rather that they lack the skills to objectively analyse and evaluate a situation.

The good news is that people can be taught these skills, and to an extent be brought in from the dark side – but of course it’s complicated.

 ‘They’re out to get us’ – or so the theory goes

Conspiracy theories are nothing new, but they have greater reach and intensity with the advent of social media.


As explained by Anthony Lantian, an associate professor of psychology at the Paris Nanterre University and a co-author of the new study: “Conspiracy theories refer to attempts to explain the ultimate cause of an important event (social, political, climatic, etc.) by accusing a hidden coalition of perceived malicious and powerful people or organisations of having secretly planned and implemented these events.”

For example, there’s a persistent conspiracy theory that shady figures in the US government were complicit in events of 9/11 – where airliners were flown into the World Trade Centre towers, the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania – and the attacks weren’t simply the work of Islamic terrorists.

The QAnon conspiracy theory of a global Satanic network of pedophiles run by political elites is so widespread and powerful that it led to the election of a true believer, Republican Marjorie Taylor Greene, to Congress.

Then, of course, there’s the idea that the COVID-19 pandemic was created on purpose by Chinese scientists (not to be confused with the theory that the coronavirus accidentally escaped a lab in Wuhan).

The answer to all this nuttiness?

The French researchers ran two studies, where they assessed the critical thinking skills of 338 undergraduate students using a French version of a teaching and testing tool known as the Ennis-Weir Critical Thinking Essay Test.

They then scored the students’ tendencies towards conspiracy beliefs and their personal assessment of their critical thinking skills.

Critical thinking is the objective analysis and evaluation of a situation – and requires a number of cognitive skills.


These include the ability to think systematically, see other perspectives, change your mind when new evidence arises, identify relevant versus irrelevant information, identify and discard logical fallacies, be aware of biases and avoid them, and look beyond the obvious.

None of this is particularly easy.

What the researchers found was a strong association between lower critical thinking skills and an increased tendency toward believing conspiracy theories.

This isn’t a new idea – instead, it persuasively builds on previous research.

A series of studies, written up in one 2014 paper, concluded that teaching analytical thinking can reduce or protect against the adoption of conspiracy theories.

A 2017 study found that analytical thinking could be taught successfully to 10-year-old and 12-year-old children.

Ego and personality tend to resist a change in thinking

It’s wonderful having a cure for dangerous thinking, but how do you get the afflicted to take it up?

A series of experiments in 2016 established a “robust association” between a need for uniqueness (a person’s need to feel special), a conspiracy mentality, and the endorsement of specific conspiracy beliefs.

In other words, the desire to be seen as unique and special serves as a motivation for conspiracy theorising.

This calls into question the nature of crazy belief. It may be a case that, for some people, ego trumps everything else.

It’s worth considering this when puzzling the apparently self-destructive behaviour of conspiracy celebrities.

Last year, celebrity chef and conspiracy theorist Pete Evans was fired by Channel Ten on the day he was to start filming I’m a Celebrity … Get Me Out Of Here!

He lost his cookbook publisher, millions of dollars in endorsements and future TV appearances for posting a neo-Nazi symbol on Instagram.

His Facebook and Instagram accounts have since been shut down because of sharing misinformation about the coronavirus.

He’s been fined $80,000 by the TGA for allegedly spruiking dodgy wellness products.

As his reach has dwindled, along with his income, Evans has remained unrepentant.

You might wonder: “What was he thinking?”


Read more:


No we're not wondering... Gus was lousy at Critical Thinking Essay. AND TALKING OF CONSPIRACY THEORY:....



conspiracy to sink the BRI...


From Brian Berletic...


In April a terrorist bombing targeted a hotel in Pakistan’s southwest Baluchistan province hosting China’s ambassador to Pakistan, Nong Rong. Ambassador Nong Rong was not at the hotel at the time of the bombing, but the attack still ended up killing 4 and wounding several more.

In July an explosion targeted a bus carrying Chinese engineers working on the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), part of China’s wider Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). This attack killed 13 including 9 of the Chinese engineers.

Such attacks are not new. They are merely the most recent acts of violence amid a long-standing effort by the US and armed militants it has openly supported for years to thwart China’s partnership with Pakistan and to sabotage the BRI.

While US President Joe Biden had unveiled his “Build Back Better World” (B3W) initiative at the February 2021 G7 meeting as America’s answer to China’s BRI, it was clearly a smokescreen behind which the US would continue a campaign of global destabilization and militancy aimed at nations cooperating with Beijing and hosting various BRI projects.

Pakistan is among many nations now facing America’s true answer to the BRI – state-sponsored terrorism, militancy, and political subversion. Joining Pakistan is also Southeast Asian nations like Thailand and Myanmar which have both suffered from US-sponsored anti-government protests in recent years – the latter of the two having protests transform into now ongoing armed conflict.

The US has also targeted China internally, focusing its efforts on radicalizing Uyghur separatists in China’s western Xinjiang region, then undermining Beijing’s efforts to contain the resulting terrorism. Xinjiang serves, without coincidence, as a critical juncture for several BRI routes.

More than Mere Speculation: America’s “Free Baluchistan” Campaign

Much of Washington’s efforts to “free Baluchistan” have been copied and pasted from both US efforts to carve up the Middle East through granting the region’s Kurds defacto autonomous territory, or the US-backed push for a “free East Turkestan” in China’s Xinjiang region. This latter effort is reflected on the US National Endowment for Democracy’s (NED) own official website which lists its programs for Xinjiang, China as “Xinjiang/East Turkestan (China),” deliberately including the name given to the region by separatists.

Beyond mere speculation, the US has openly supported armed separatists in Pakistan’s southwest Baluchistan province for years. This includes entire hearings within the US Congress discussing US support for a “free Baluchistan,” publicly published op-eds written by US-based corporate-funded policy think tanks, and Congressional bills specifically calling for an independent Baluchistan.

As early as 2011, The National Interest would publish a piece by Selig Harrison, director of the Asia Program at the Center for International Policy, titled, “Free Baluchistan.”

In it, Harrison would argue (emphasis added):

While doing less elsewhere in Pakistan, the United States should do more to support anti-Islamist forces along the southern Arabian Sea coast. First, it should support anti-Islamist Sindhi leaders of the Sufi variant of Islam with their network of 124,000 shrines. Most important, it should aid the 6 million Baluch insurgents fighting for independence from Pakistan in the face of growing ISI repression. Pakistan has given China a base at Gwadar in the heart of Baluch territory. So an independent Baluchistan would serve U.S. strategic interests in addition to the immediate goal of countering Islamist forces.

In reality, “supporting anti-Islamist forces” was (and still is) the pretext the US uses to maintain involvement not only in Pakistan’s Baluchistan province, but also across North Africa and the Middle East. Often times the US is actually both sponsoring these extremist forces, while also posing as in support of those fighting them.

The real reason the US was and is interested in Baluchistan was stated in Harrison’s very last sentence, alluding to the fact that an independent Baluchistan would complicate or even entirely expel Chinese interests from the region.

Baluchistan’s Gwadar Port is a crucial checkpoint along China’s BRI. It serves as the terminal destination of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor and allows China to ship energy and goods from China to the Arabian Sea, bypassing all of Southeast Asia for shipping to and from the Middle East, Africa, and beyond.

In 2012, the US House of Representatives’ Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the Committee on Foreign Affairs would focus specifically on supporting an “independent Baluchistan.”

It would include a prepared statement from retired US Army Lt. Colonel Ralph Peters who would claim:

Baluchistan is occupied territory. It never willingly acceded to Pakistan, does not now wish to be part of Pakistan. If a plebiscite or referendum were held tomorrow, it would vote to leave Pakistan, as would every province and territory west of the Indus River.

He would then denounce US-Pakistan cooperation and compare Pakistan to “pirates,” claiming:

Two hundred years ago, one of our greatest Presidents faced a problem. The Barbary pirates refused to let our ships pass in peace, so we paid tribute money to let our goods pass. Thomas Jefferson put a stop to that. Today, we are paying tribute money again, this time to the Pakistani pirates to let our goods pass to Afghanistan. Mr. Chairman, I am looking for a Thomas Jefferson.

Peters’ statement would reveal a US desire to carve off most, if not all of Pakistan’s territory west of the Indus River – which without coincidence is also where the entirety of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor passes through. A successful bid for independence by US-backed separatists would effectively end CPEC indefinitely.

The establishment of Baluchistan as a US client regime would also mean both US-occupied Afghanistan and this bordering rump state would combine into a single US-controlled region in the heart of Central Asia with access to the sea, vastly enhancing Washington’s ability to project military power – both conventional and asymmetric – throughout the region.

Also in 2012, a US House of Representatives resolution titled unambiguously, “Expressing the sense of Congress that the people of Baluchistan, currently divided between Pakistan, Iran, and Afghanistan, have the right to self-determination and to their own sovereign country,” would be introduced. Even though it did not pass, it indicates the very open and ongoing support within certain circles of US power to promote an “independent Baluchistan.”

As the US has done with other ongoing separatist projects around the globe, it and its European allies cultivate a government in exile for the imagined nation of Baluchistan.

The favored leader of this imagined nation is the “Khan of Kalat,” Mir Suleman Dawood. In one event hosted by “Democracy Forum” at the UK House of Lords in 2017, Mir Suleman Dawood would claim China’s investments and development of Baluchistan would only heighten tensions.

One of the main complaints made by separatists in Baluchistan is perceived neglect by Islamabad. However, it is very clear that infrastructure development driven by CPEC would alleviate this, meaning opposition to CPEC is in actuality prolonging this neglect – even actively preventing it from being addressed.

During this talk in 2017 in London, it was even made clear that if CPEC projects continued toward completion, the prospect of an “independent Baluchistan” would only become more remote. While it was never stated directly why during the discussion, it is clear that a developed and more prosperous Baluchistan would undermine and overcome separatist extremism in precisely the same way development in China’s Tibet and Xinjiang regions did.

Realistic or Not, US Will Continue Supporting Militancy

While these circles of US and European power promote independence for Pakistan’s Baluchistan province, they also admit the separatist groups themselves are unlikely to achieve independence and would – if ever achieving it – likely devolve into a fractured failed state.

Ralph Peters himself was included in a 2012 Huffington Post article titled, “Serious Internal Issues Undermining Baloch Insurgency And Independence Movement,” where he depicted the independence movement in less than optimistic terms.

The article would note:

According to Peters, one of the most serious issues with the Baloch independence movement is “deeply troubling” infighting. In fact, he is emphatic in his condemnation of such bickering; going so far as to assert: “they are quickly becoming their own worst enemies.”

In his view, individual Baloch simply don’t understand that their personal feuding undermines the larger movement: “Certain Baloch fail to understand that their only hope in gaining independence is if they put their own egos and vanity aside and work together. This is the cold hard fact. They are already outgunned and outmanned. Pakistan will continue to to exploit their differences until they realize this.”

So long as the Baloch continue to engage in “petty infighting,” including “savaging each other in emails,” Peters is pessimistic they can garner widespread support in the West. In fact, he warns that such infighting could eventually put off even their staunchest supporters.

Ultimately, however, whether or not the US can achieve their primary objective of carving off Pakistani territory and outright stopping CPEC, the US will continue supporting militancy in Baluchistan and elsewhere west of the Indus River.

Just as we’ve seen this year with attacks targeting Chinese engineers working on CPEC or an assassination attempt on the Chinese ambassador to Pakistan himself – the militancy will still serve as a significant obstacle in both finishing CPEC and utilizing it to its maximum potential.

President Biden’s B3W proposal was, at face value, an empty proposition lacking even the most basic details – because just like a screen of smoke – it is not meant to do anything except obfuscate. In this case, B3W is obfuscating a campaign of state-sponsored terrorism used by the West as its actual answer to China’s BRI – using armed militants to block or destroy BRI projects rather than present to the world a compelling and constructive alternative to these projects.

What Does the Future Hold for CPEC?

China has demonstrated a significantly compelling solution to US-sponsored separatism in both Tibet and Xinjiang where Chinese security measures coupled with infrastructure projects, job programs, and other means of addressing the root causes of extremism effectively smothered the long-burning fires lit by Washington.

A similar plan for addressing security, poverty, and perceived neglect in Baluchistan would stand the best chance of succeeding there as well.

We can anticipate any security operation or economic program implemented by Pakistan with China’s help will be met by the West’s industrialized “human rights” complex and Western media campaigns to depict it in the same nefarious manner China’s efforts in Tibet and Xinjiang have been depicted – as “genocide.”

The foundations have already been laid, with US NED programs focused specifically on Baluchistan province for years to build up fronts posing as human rights monitoring groups apt at fabricating reports regarding Islamabad’s “abuses” in the region. This localized propaganda campaign could – just as it was in Xinjiang – be internationalized if and when the conditions are deemed right.

It will be a race between Beijing and Islamabad’s ability to develop Baluchistan faster than the US and its allies can undermine and destabilize it, but it is a race that has already clearly begun, and a race that is both dangerous and deadly.

The US “withdrawal” from Afghanistan means that covert operations can be run out of Afghanistan’s territory by US contractors or special operations forces with a better sense of plausible deniability. The UK has also recently vowed to use its special forces for “higher risk” tasks against “big state adversaries” – clearly meaning China (as well as Russia).

Whether or not US and British operators will be plucked by local security forces from covert activities in western Pakistan remains to be seen, but the long-standing support by the West of armed extremists in this region is well established – support that still benefits and fulfills Western foreign policy objectives – so support that will undoubtedly continue well into the foreseeable future.

Brian Berletic is a Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.


Read more:


Free JULIAN ASSANGE NOW •••••••••••••••••••••¶¶¶¶¶¶¶!!!!