Take our user survey and make your voice heard.

Here
and
Now

opinions

Grave peril of digital conspiracy theories: 'What happens when no one believes anything anymore?'

42 Comments
By DAVID KLEPPER

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2024 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.


42 Comments

Comments have been disabled You can no longer respond to this thread.

The problem is many conspiracies are real.

Corporations are routinely fined for collusion (Forex Scandal) and/or falsifying data (Hino emissions scandal).

Media giants selectively amplify some information (Kuwaiti Incubator Hoax) while suppressing other (Hunter Biden laptop controversy).

Governments have been caught in false-flag operations (Gulf of Tonkin Incident), experimenting on unwitting citizens (MKUltra), and propagandizing their own populations (Operation Mockingbird).

Of course not all conspiracy theories are credible (flat-earth), but the elites use the label of ‘conspiracy theorist’ to dismiss anyone asking uncomfortable questions (COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis).

However, thanks to social media, the elites are losing narrative control.

But, of course, they’re fighting back with tools such as the Trusted News Initiative and the UK’s Online Safety Act.

If the government and media truly want to regain public trust, they need to increase transparency and accountability, and promote dialogue and debate rather than muzzle it.

6 ( +10 / -4 )

In one of the accompanying pictures there is a list of, I guess, conspiracy theories. The finger is pointing to MK Ultra. Which was a thing that really happened: The CIA's mind control and behaviour modification experiments on both willing and unwitting subjects, including the use of psychedelic drugs like LSD.

As Melissa Sell says in the article. “Because the government has been caught in lies before, how do you know?”

5 ( +7 / -2 )

"Articles" like this just shoot the messenger instead of placing the blame for the problem right where it, er, lies - the institutions that run and prop up national and international organisations in just about every aspect and industry.

If governments, media, companies and a whole host of other institutions are so concerned about "conspiracy theories," maybe, just maybe, they could stop the constant stream of lies and deliberate omissions they emit day in, day out. They lie as naturally as they breathe. They might make baby steps in regaining trust if they start telling the truth, but that would be like trying to kick an ice habit. Like at the recent WEF cofab, they say they're trying to "regain trust". But these crooks and fools are so bent that they see the problem as us. So instead of just telling us the truth, they want to control information so we only get what the WEF wants us to see. That's a glimpse into the hearts of sociopaths, psychopaths, narcissists. It's a pretty deep, dark hole down there.

At least the "article" ends on a positive note. I just hope that society hasn't become so polarised that people can no longer tolerate speaking with people whose opinions they disagree with. There is often some common ground, but it takes listening and some patience to find it.

Tom Fishman, the CEO at the nonprofit Starts With Us, said that Americans can take steps to defend the social fabric by turning off their computer and meeting the people they disagree with. He said Americans must remember what ties them together.

“We can look at the window and see foreshadowing of what could happen if we don’t: threats to a functioning democracy, threats of violence against elected leaders,” he said. “We have a civic duty to get this right.”

2 ( +8 / -6 )

Some people still believe that wild conspiracy theory even after Robert Mueller officially debunked it.

That would be an example of the opposite, not a theory since it was actually proved completely by the report.

https://time.com/5610317/mueller-report-myths-breakdown/

Mueller spent almost 200 pages describing “numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign.” He found that “a Russian entity carried out a social media campaign that favored presidential candidate Donald J. Trump and disparaged presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.” He also found that “a Russian intelligence service conducted computer-intrusion operations” against the Clinton campaign and then released stolen documents.

Pretending this is in any way similar to impossible or self contradictory conspiracy theories is precisely an example of not having any critical thinking, just a biased personal opinion.

but the elites use the label of ‘conspiracy theorist’ to dismiss anyone asking uncomfortable questions (COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis).

This is an example that completely contradicts your argument, there is plenty of scientific proof the lab leak is not a valid explanation that can fit the available explanation, therefore there is no need of any elite to qualify this as a conspiracy theory, scientific reports are enough to prove it, there is nothing uncomfortable about it, it just can be proved as false.

But, of course, they’re fighting back with tools such as the Trusted News Initiative and the UK’s Online Safety Act.

The source is not important, if there is evidence, arguments that prove something is false then it will remain this way unless you can disprove those arguments and evidence. Just because someone you don't like or trust can prove something that does not mean the proof becomes invalid automatically.

"Articles" like this just shoot the messenger instead of placing the blame for the problem right where it, er, lies - the institutions that run and prop up national and international organisations in just about every aspect and industry.

When the problem is the way people repeat a false message then it is perfectly valid to criticize the messenger. Media (of any type) that tolerates the amplification of information that can be readily demonstrated as false should be criticized for doing it.

 I just hope that society hasn't become so polarised that people can no longer tolerate speaking with people whose opinions they disagree with. 

Disagreeing with an opinion is not the problem, repeating that opinion as a fact when it can be easily disprove is, there is no benefit from discussing using proved falsehoods, so people that willingly choose to do it should be made responsible for it and removed from a discussion.

-7 ( +3 / -10 )

Disagreeing with an opinion is not the problem, repeating that opinion as a fact when it can be easily disprove is, there is no benefit from discussing using proved falsehoods, so people that willingly choose to do it should be made responsible for it and removed from a discussion.

Given that you've been actively propagating lies that have been demonstrated as such by honest scientists, perhaps you're the one who should be removing yourself from the discussion.

How does it feel to sell your soul and run interference for proven liars? Or are you just numb to it now, having done it so often for so long you don't even remember what it was like to have a conscience? Remember, they don't give a damn about you.

-5 ( +5 / -10 )

The source is indeed important, because nobody can keep up with everything, so people tend to look to authorities of all kinds as sources of credible information. So the implication of being in a position of authority it that authorities have a moral obligation to use and present the best evidence available, honest errors notwithstanding.

This is true, and is actually common sense.

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

From the article:

And even when they fail to convince people, the conspiracy theories embraced by these groups contribute to mounting distrust of authorities and democratic institutions, causing people to reject reliable sources of information while encouraging division and suspicion.

You know what else contributes to distrust of authorities? A track record of lying. This article is pure damage control from the Associated Press. Perhaps it is part of the World Economic Forum’s effort to rebuild trust.

From the article:

China has helped spread claims that the U.S. created COVID-19 as a bioweapon.

And while China’s claim does appear to be technically false …

Documents obtained by The Intercept contain new evidence that the Wuhan Institute of Virology and the nearby Wuhan University Center for Animal Experiment, along with their collaborator, the U.S.-based nonprofit EcoHealth Alliance, have engaged in what the U.S. government defines as “gain-of-function research of concern,” intentionally making viruses more pathogenic or transmissible in order to study them, despite stipulations from a U.S. funding agency that the money not be used for that purpose.

Grant money for the controversial experiment came from the National Institutes of Health’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, which is headed by Anthony Fauci. The award to EcoHealth Alliance, a research organization which studies the spread of viruses from animals to humans, included subawards to Wuhan Institute of Virology and East China Normal University. The principal investigator on the grant is EcoHealth Alliance President Peter Daszak, who has been a key voice in the search for Covid-19’s origins.

Scientists unanimously told The Intercept that the experiment, which involved infecting genetically engineered mice with “chimeric” hybrid viruses, could not have directly sparked the pandemic. None of the viruses listed in the write-ups of the experiment are related to the virus that causes Covid-19, SARS-CoV-2, closely enough to have evolved into it. Still, several scientists said the new information, which the NIH released after it was sued by The Intercept, points to biosafety concerns, highlighting a general lack of oversight for research on pathogens and raising questions about what other information has not been publicly disclosed.

Scientists working under a 2014 NIH grant to the EcoHealth Alliance to study bat coronaviruses combined the genetic material from a “parent” coronavirus known as WIV1 with other viruses. They twice submitted summaries of their work that showed that, when in the lungs of genetically engineered mice, three altered bat coronaviruses at times reproduced far more quickly than the original virus on which they were based. The altered viruses were also somewhat more pathogenic, with one causing the mice to lose significant weight. The researchers reported, “These results demonstrate varying pathogenicity of SARSr-CoVs with different spike proteins in humanized mice.”

— https://theintercept.com/2021/09/09/covid-origins-gain-of-function-research/

… there is some basis to say that the US has engaged in such research. China of course failed to mention its own hand in conducting such research just as Fauci staunchly maintained there was no “gain-of-function.”

Today, most Americans (66%, one poll finds), once tagged as “conspiracy theorists,” agree with senior analysts at the Department of Energy and the FBI that the pandemic probably originated in a Chinese lab, although U.S. intelligence agencies remain divided.

— https://www.heritage.org/public-health/commentary/covid-19-origins-experts-consulted-fauci-suddenly-changed-their-minds

1 ( +6 / -5 )

imposing lockdowns, social distancing and jab mandates based on sketchy or simply non-existent "evidence," exaggerating a climate crisis while doing exactly the opposite of what they tell the public to do.

The evidence of the value of the measures (as in general) is not sketchy and it is recognized as valid even now, that applies as well for climate change. That you personally do not want to accept the consensus as correct does nothing to disprove it, for that you would need evidence that you have never presented.

These are people who make and enforce the laws we live under, so the source is inextricably linked to the evidence, especially if the source deliberately hides or manipulates the evidence for their own advantage. 

And as long as you present no evidence of this happening that means it is by definition a conspiracy theory, something that can be disregarded as irrelevant precisely because you don't even make an effort to refute it.

You're essentially arguing that the authorities should be trusted a priori, and that overwhelming evidence is required to even question their pronouncements, much less prove them wrong. 

No, I am saying that when the authorities support their conclusions with valid evidence rejecting those conclusions require more and better evidence that points towards a different one. Pretending they must be wrong just because you want to believe differently is not valid, nor is using unproved, baseless conspiracy theories to try and defend your position.

This is true, and is actually common sense.

And therefore arguing that this does not apply because of a global conspiracy involving every single institute that provides that evidence is plainly irrational and impossible to believe.

-4 ( +5 / -9 )

And therefore arguing that this does not apply because of a global conspiracy involving every single institute that provides that evidence is plainly irrational and impossible to believe.

Totally wrong.

-3 ( +5 / -8 )

You know what else contributes to distrust of authorities? A track record of lying. 

Which only applies when you can prove these lies, but making up a conspiracy to justify believing it so is not proof, it only demonstrate a personal bias.

And while China’s claim does appear to be technically false …

Being false is what makes the claim false. Bringing irrelevant information does nothing to refute this, every single institution of science working with pathogens do "gain of function" research, it is a basic research tool without which almost nothing can be done, just isolating a virus on a cell culture can be validly described as the virus gaining this function.

Seeing how the predicted mutations that would make coronaviruses from bat adapt to human receptors are completely different from what actually happened (and the published research make a much more "efficient" way of adaptation) means this is an argument that actually proves the virus came from nature instead of a laboratory, trying to misrepresent this as the opposite is completely invalid.

That a lot of people choose to believe a conspiracy is as valid as an argument for this to be true as a vast majority of people having unhealthy lifestyles as proof that recommendations of a healthy diet and good amount of excercise are false.

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

Totally wrong.

What is wrong about the text you quote? being unable to prove any falsehood is a perfectly valid argument to use to prove this excuse can't be used. No evidence against a conclusion? then no value in calling it false.

-4 ( +4 / -8 )

Trump and his MAGA supporters have created an ocean of conspiracies that they believe in.

-2 ( +7 / -9 )

I read one interesting view is that the mind of a conspiracy theorist has basically not developed past the childhood stage - randomness is a difficult concept.

Makes a lot of sense.

I still can’t find a reason why conspiracy theorists tend to be very dishonest though.

2 ( +8 / -6 )

Conspiracies Around Trump, Military Leadership, and Militias

https://youtu.be/XoVxec0pvz4?feature=shared

-2 ( +6 / -8 )

I still can’t find a reason why conspiracy theorists tend to be very dishonest though.

There is evidence that points out to conspiracy theorist feeling emotional distress when their beliefs are contradicted.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-33305-w

This distress can lead to people behaving dishonestly to support those beliefs beyond any rational point, anything to avoid recognizing they may be wrong.

-4 ( +5 / -9 )

I still can’t find a reason why conspiracy theorists tend to be very dishonest though.

There is evidence that points out to conspiracy theorist feeling emotional distress when their beliefs are contradicted

You see this. Conspiracy theorists are very thin-skinned. Unable to self-deprecate.

This distress can lead to people behaving dishonestly to support those beliefs beyond any rational point, anything to avoid recognizing they may be wrong.

I find a lot of spammers and sock puppets tend to be conspiracy theorists.

All very dishonest.

-1 ( +8 / -9 )

Conspiracy theories, This is the main reason we have no TV in the house and never have had one, nor do I use any media platforms, like facilebook, tiktok, X.....or whatever, I rarely if ever use MSM for so called news, and rely mainly on donated platforms. I read through the British paper, the Guardian, every morning, but then, it is a donated too site, and not part of any MSM. I also read through about 6/7 papers from around the world, including this one, and they are all trust worthy.......I think.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

virusrex Today 12:16 pm JST

Being false is what makes the claim false.

Yes of course. Thus I myself said, “technically false.”

Bringing irrelevant information does nothing to refute this,

The information is not irrelevant to the claim made by me which was “there is some basis to say that the US has engaged in such research.” While it does not support the particular Chinese claim that the US created COVID-19 as a bioweapon, it is certainly relevant that the US engages in similar research even if in the particular case of COVID-19 it was not directly involved. The point being that China’s particular claim is grounded in a general fact that the US engages in such research. It is this which gives China a plausible basis to divert attention away from China on to the US.

every single institution of science working with pathogens do "gain of function" research every single institution of science working with pathogens do "gain of function" research, it is a basic research tool without which almost nothing can be done

If it is as you say, then why would Fauci so staunchly argue under oath that the work funded by NIH was not gain-of-function research? Why did he not argue as you do, “Of course the NIH funded gain-of-function research senator! All research is necessarily gain-of-function!” Instead what he said was,

[T]he NIH has not ever and does not now fund gain-of-function research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

— Fauci

Might it be that, just as in the case with the terms vaccine, vaccination, and immunity, the definition of gain-of-function was changed somewhere along the line?

0 ( +5 / -5 )

Yes of course. Thus I myself said, “technically false.”

It is false in every sense of the word, saying that the Earth is "technically" smaller than the sun is an irrelevant clarification.

*The information is not irrelevant to the claim made by me which was “there is some basis to say that the US has engaged in such research.” *

Again, since the information would prove everybody everywhere has "engaged in such research" that is what makes it irrelevant. Every laboratory of virology engages in gain of function about viruses they work with, from influenza to Ebola. This is not "plausible basis" is just how research in pathogens is made, pretending this justifies accusing any country of developing the pandemic is what is invalid. It makes as much sense as saying a country is developing a bacteriological weapon because antibiotics are used in that country.

then why would Fauci so staunchly argue under oath that the work funded by NIH was not gain-of-function research?

In the context of the investigation his declarations were that the NIH did not fund THIS specific case of gain-of-function research, which is still completely true. Funds were granted to other research projects in the WIV. Against this specific accusation he had every right to deny it, and it would make no sense to just say this is done in every laboratory in the world working with pathogens. If a doctor was accused of giving a lethal dose of morphine to a patient it makes perfect sense for him to deny doing it (especially if there is no evidence of such thing happening to the patient), what would be the point of just saying "morphine is used in many other hospitals"?

Might it be that, just as in the case with the terms vaccine, vaccination, and immunity, the definition of gain-of-function was changed somewhere along the line?

To make it less likely to be misrepresented by conspiracy theorists as the examples you give? That would be justifiable. If actors tried to mislead people by pretending gain-of-function can only mean "adapt pathogens so they become able of causing human to human transmission" it would be very much useful to make sure this is not allowed, the same as when bad actors began to misrepresent "immunity" as if it meant absolute eternal protection to 100% of the people against any and all health problems.

Did funds from the NIH ended up being used to expose cell lines to any virus until any culture showed signs of infection? very likely, that is routine work. Were they used to adapt a coronavirus to infect cells by specific use of the human ACE2 receptor as reported in the published papers? no, that would still be false.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

What is wrong about the text you quote? being unable to prove any falsehood is a perfectly valid argument to use to prove this excuse can't be used. No evidence against a conclusion? then no value in calling it false.

You present a total contradiction of the facts, as has already been pointed out to you. Why you try and argue a point that has already been settled; it is not accomplishing anything.

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

You present a total contradiction of the facts, as has already been pointed out to you.

Neither the original comment nor yours have pointed out any contradiction of facts, much less a "total" one.

Why you try and argue a point that has already been settled; it is not accomplishing anything.

I would try to argue if there was any actual argument trying to refute the point, but there is none, including in your comment, that is what would make it settled, just not in the way you would like. Claiming something is wrong but failing to argue how this is the case means it is not wrong after all.

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

All this depends on who defines something as a conspiracy theory and what the theory is.

We can all say somethings are daft, like flat earthers for example, others may have a some truth attached and some may be true.

How about some examples pushed by governments over the years and the media. Some of the biggest ones were Saddam Hussein being involved with Bin Laden, making nukes and having armed chemical weapons that could be used within 40 minutes. These were presented as facts, maybe theories believe by some or deliberate whoppers. People who didn’t go along with the narrative were called conspiracy theorists, traitors etc.

Mainstream media and governments also pushed this narrative with Covid, Biden saying the vaccines were the cure, Maddow saying if you get vaccinated you won’t get Covid and can’t spread it, the virus comes to a halt. These false claims were not refuted by the pharmaceutical companies or the mainstream media as the claims were handy for them.

Black and white world, one size fits all with only truthful info being given to us would be great, sadly there are always agendas and money to be made

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

All this depends on who defines something as a conspiracy theory and what the theory is.

The examples given in the article are perfectly clear, impossible things being blamed on a supposed conspiracy that makes no sense and have no evidence to support it. That is how actual conspiracies are proved without being considered "theories" any more, with evidence.

Mainstream media and governments also pushed this narrative with Covid

When the media or governments just repeated what the experts proved there is nothing wrong or invalid about it, the vaccines are still safe and effective, isolation and masks reduce the risk from the pandemic, etc. Why pretend media or governments originated the information when it is clear it was the scientific sources that actually did it?

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

Increasingly, people are tuning out of the MSM as they come to realize they are filled with lies and distortions. This worries the powers that be, as they are no longer able to control the narrative. So what do they do, they constantly publish articles like the one above, where they select the weirdest conspiracy theories, trying to poison the well...

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

When the media or governments just repeated what the experts proved...

No, the media or governments just repeated what some experts claimed with either faulty or no evidence...

You know what else contributes to distrust of authorities? A track record of lying.

Yep, that sums it up nicely...

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

So what do they do, they constantly publish articles like the one above, where they select the weirdest conspiracy theories, trying to poison the well...

It’s a bit like the old joke of the fella who was so furious about seeing someone smoking in church that he dropped his beer.

-2 ( +5 / -7 )

Virusrex

So the experts were correct in saying that the vaccine was a cure as quoted by Biden and the vaccines means you won’t get or spread Covid it bring the virus to a halt as quoted by Maddow?.

This false information and others is easy to find online was pushed as fact and you were not allowed to dispute this despite both the quotes I mentioned being 100% false.

-6 ( +4 / -10 )

“What happens when no one believes anything any more?”

This is actually the question that interests me. It's surely coming. From political discourse to advertising, from personal Instagram posts to much "journalism", it's all BS. What do you really pin your worldview, your identity, your faith on, when you believe nothing, you trust no one and when there is no meaning to anything? Knowledge is simply in the service of power and ego and is instrumental to that end. There is no truth. This relativism is characteristic of left and right: they are mirror images of each other, trying to carve out a little power for themselves with lies to serve their political and megalomaniac purpose. This is nihilism. And nihilism is inevitably self-negating. It's a sad, manic state humanity has come to. We're becoming a bunch of lunatics trolling and yelling at each other.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Increasingly, people are tuning out of the MSM as they come to realize they are filled with lies and distortions

I remember getting criticised on here for putting forward what I’d read on the BBC about Putin’s possible invasion of Ukraine.

Apparently, I’d been brainwashed by the anti-Russian, warmongering MSM. The more perceptive alternative media viewers knew there would be no invasion.

Astonishing how these ‘free-thinkers’ were in lockstep.

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

Very weak minded people, and certainly a case study for the effects of misinformation. They will be used to educate future generations of would-be suckers. They should be pitied, educated, and failing that mercilessly mocked.

We actually have a stellar lineup here today of our finest feeble minds commenting who still believe that Biden stole the election in 2020 and that Putin invaded Ukraine because of Nazis. They'll also go to their vet for medicine before they trust an actual doctor.

Ask them to reveal where they get their silly information from and they go very, very quiet.

Tell a man once, tell a man twice. The third time, tell a new man.

0 ( +6 / -6 )

Ask them to reveal where they get their silly information from and they go very, very quiet.

This is very apparent with conspiracy theorists.

I’ve managed to find out Infowars, Tucker Carlson, Louder with Crowder, Joe Rogan, Alex Berenson and Jimmy Dore seem to be on the watchlist for many.

I hope we have less coyness and people feel free to add to that list.

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

So the experts were correct in saying that the vaccine was a cure as quoted by Biden and the vaccines means you won’t get or spread Covid it bring the virus to a halt as quoted by Maddow?.

Wow, this is quite a claim. I don’t remember anyone saying the vaccine was a cure. Any links to help refresh our memories?

1 ( +5 / -4 )

I checked out the comments on Ms. Maddow’s show, and she said there was a vaccine that would prevent serious illness, but never claimed that it was a cure.

Still, Fox “News” twisted it around and somehow made it sound like disinformation.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

Increasingly, people are tuning out of the MSM as they come to realize they are filled with lies and distortions. 

Not as much as social media, at least it is still very easy to distinguish the conspiracy theory fans by their constant anti-scientific bias and the lack of actual sources to prove their claims, no scientific articles, just youtube videos.

they constantly publish articles like the one above, where they select the weirdest conspiracy theories, trying to poison the well...

How is calling for attention this well recognized problem "poisoning the well"? the examples given are clear and believed by countless people.

Yep, that sums it up nicely...

Yet people keep believing examples of people that repeatedly lie and are exposed, from Mercola to John Campbell or Didier Raoult. No amout of exposure can convince those that believe them, but it can help others that have not yet invested their personal value in the disinformation and have no emotional distress when finding out they lie.

So the experts were correct in saying that the vaccine was a cure as quoted by Biden 

Which expert said the vaccine was a cure (and specially one that would work in spite of variants and expected drop in immunity?)

When you claim the experts said something but fail to actually reference it you make it clear this is a claim you are making but can't defend.

despite both the quotes I mentioned being 100% false.

If you mean both quotes being the scientific consensus, then yes that is false, they were used by antivaxxer groups to misrepresent the actual consensus.

1 ( +6 / -5 )

What happens when no one believes anything anymore?

I'd say that would be a good thing, but it may depend on how you interpret "believe". Are conspiracy theorists not partly driven by an unwillingness to be ignorant - a need to believe? In some ways similar to religious beliefs. The greatest scientists are driven by their ignorance - what they don't know but would like to find out.

What was the cause of the SARS-CoV-2 virus? I don't know.

Who killed Kennedy? I don't know for sure, but probably Oswald.

Is the earth flat? I don't think so. Shall we take a walk and find out.

Do all politicians lie? I don't know, but if their lips are moving they probably are.

Maybe agnosticism should be taught as a religion at school. (We could call it Shiran.)

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Public Confidence in Media and Social-Media at all time low, why? It's all gas-lighting. Take for example Ukraine.

The 10year civil war for independence, that Russian speaking former Ukrainians have now achieved, was all based on their LEGAL right to pursue Independence for CAUSE (human, property & citizenship rights violations).

UN paper trail & Multiple PUBLIC EU condemnations of Pres. Zelenskyy anti-democratic behavior towards these Russian speaking former Ukrainians = CLEAR & Factual.

Yet, ALL WE HEAR, narrative of this Russian "invasion'. Russia was forced to respond to Biden's Policy of Ukraine escalation by massively arming and training Ukraine, coordinating command & control with NATO etc.

Putin responded legally, as UN allows others to support those seeking independence, just as the US did in former Yugoslavia, now 3 distinct countries.

None of above is EVER reported in Western Media, and yet Putin has so MUCH support at home and abroad, from China, India, Muslim speaking world and most of the Global South etc. Why? They know above TRUTH.

Above - WHY Nobody Believes Media ANYMORE

-8 ( +3 / -11 )

None of above is EVER reported in Western Media

It's not reported in even Russian media. It's far too stupid even for them. They might be liars but they aren't mentally unhinged.

Thanks for your comments though. The author of this article can add you to their case study.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Yugoslavia, now 3 distinct countries

Sigh.

Did your media sources tell you that?

A distillation of the problem right here.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

HopeSpringsEternalToday 05:42 pm JST

The 10year civil war for independence, that Russian speaking former Ukrainians have now achieved, was all based on their LEGAL right to pursue Independence for CAUSE (human, property & citizenship rights violations).

Still illegal what Russia is doing.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

None of above is EVER reported in Western Media

Nonsense.

But let’s pretend it’s true if it makes you feel better. You’re the one true voice of freedom, sing it from the rooftops!

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

I’ve managed to find out Infowars, Tucker Carlson, Louder with Crowder, Joe Rogan, Alex Berenson and Jimmy Dore seem to be on the watchlist for many.

Really? Have any of us ever referred to Infowars? Or Louder with Crowder? Those are the names that seem to constantly be brought up by those promoting the official narratives.

When it comes to Covid, many of us bring up peer-reviewed studies, official government data, as well as data or comments from leading experts (not bureaucrats).

Increasingly, people are tuning out of the MSM as they come to realize they are filled with lies and distortions. 

Not as much as social media,

Yes, social media does have lots of trash. Nobody is saying you should believe all of social media. Believing all social media is just as stupid as believing MSM.

Much of the truth is actively prevented from appearing on the MSM. One needs to have the ability to spot BS and find the truth in social media.

-7 ( +2 / -9 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites