Too Many People? On the Viability of Conspiratorial Beliefs

We’ve all heard it: “That can’t possibly be true—too many people would have to be involved. Somebody would have spilled the beans by now.” In fact, that is usually the first reaction I hear from people I’ve tried to enlighten about topics such as 9/11. It’s almost like a knee-jerk reflex, and it’s apparently enough to stop them from even considering any conspiracy theory further.

This objection has become all the more relevant in light of some of the recent discoveries made on this blog. For example, if so many celebrities are indeed twins, how is it possible that we haven’t heard about it? Wouldn’t hundreds or thousands of people working in the entertainment industry know about this? And what about all the paparazzi?  So how come nobody has come forward?

The “too many people” objection got a major boost in January with the publication of a paper by physicist David Grimes, entitled, “On the Viability of Conspiratorial Beliefs.Massive media coverage followed, touting his magic formula that “proved” once and for all that conspiracies were bound to fail. (To get a sense of this coverage, just type the following search terms into google: large-scale conspiracies reveal.) “Ah, those conspiracy theorists! Can’t they see it’s impossible? This was written by a physicist at Oxford University and published in a peer-reviewed journal. What more proof do you need?”

I’m here to show you that the paper actually proves the exact opposite of what we are told. That’s right, I’m telling you that the paper actually supports the viability of large-scale conspiracies. I also want to offer a few more words about the “too many people” response. But first, a bit about the author of the paper and the journal it was published in.

David Grimes is a post-doctoral researcher at Oxford University. So yes, he is at Oxford, but he does not have a faculty position there. He also writes opinion pieces for The Guardian and The Irish Times pushing mainstream scientific opinion and dismissing skeptics of basically being stupid and/or paranoid. To give you a taste, he has written op-eds derisively dismissing concerns over GMO foods, the HPV vaccine (Gardasil), fluoride in drinking water, and the potential for household radiation (like cell phones, wi-fi routers) to cause illness or cancer. As usual with these guys, he plays the role of open-minded skeptic guided by scientific evidence, while anyone who is skeptical of mainstream dogma is credulous and weak-minded, easily swayed by anecdotal evidence and impervious to reason and logic. If Grimes is not a spook, then he is a paragon of useful idiocy. You know the type.

His article was published in the open-access, on-line journal, PLoS ONE, considered to be the largest journal in the world by volume. PLoS stands for the Public Library of Science, which was started with a grant from the Gordon and Betty Moore foundation (that’s Gordon Moore of Intel and “Moore’s Law” fame – there’s a deep rabbit hole there waiting to be explored). You might be surprised to learn that this “academic” journal has a business model, whereby it charges authors about $1,500 to have their work published. In contrast, most academic journals will only ever charge a small submission fee to cover operating expenses, if that. And whereas the top journal in any field will generally have a 10% acceptance rate (and often much lower), the PLoS ONE journal has a 70% acceptance rate. This is partly be due to the lax peer review policies of PLoS, which only require review by a member of the editorial board, compared to 2-4 external reviewers at a respectable journal. The success of PLoS ONE hinges on the importance of open access in today’s on-line culture: the articles tend to be cited more frequently because they are freely available to anyone with an internet connection. This artificially drives up citation counts and the apparent influence (and hence prestige) of the journal. In 2015, the journal published a whopping 28,107 papers, meaning it generated an income of just over $42 million. Not bad for an academic journal, especially considering that they do not have any printing or distribution costs beyond maintaining the website. No wonder more and more open-access “mega journals” are sprouting up all over the place. Grimes can’t abide conspiracy theories but apparently has no qualms with the pay-to-play future of science where academic publishing is reduced to a money-making scheme.

But enough background—let’s get to the heart of the matter. Are large-scale conspiracies viable? Before subjecting Grimes’s article to actual peer review (i.e., tearing it to shreds), I want to first offer a few of my thoughts on this issue, taking them point by point.

  • The first point people usually make is that somebody would have talked by now. “If you had thousands of people involved in a major conspiracy like 9/11, somebody would have come forward. No way they could keep it secret.” My first response to this is: imagine somebody threatened to kill you and your family if you spoke out and you thought they were serious. What are the chances that you would say something? Zero, right? So why is it inevitable that somebody would speak out?
  • “But,” comes the reply, “what about somebody who is near death or doesn’t have any family. They might have the courage to speak out, right?” OK, let’s say for the sake of argument that somebody does speak out, where would that person turn to? The media is controlled, they will never cover any real whistle-blowers. You’ll never hear from them. Even Facebook and Twitter censor objectionable posts and tweets. And anybody who managed somehow to get their message out would be immediately silenced and discredited or the story surrounded with a flurry of counterclaims and misdirection.
  • But the very idea that somebody would ‘speak out’ implies that the people involved in these projects are people of good conscience who are doing something they know to be wrong against their will or later decide what they did was wrong. Why should we assume that anybody involved would want to speak out in the first place?
  • It’s possible that the majority of people involved in the conspiracy might be people of good conscience who believe they are doing it for a good cause. Soldiers involved in the Gulf of Tonkin hoax, for example, probably believed (and still do) that they were doing it to win the fight against communism. Same with 9/11 and terrorism. Yes, the American people had to be lied to, but it was for their own good. For anybody who believes that, speaking out would be an act of treason. Why would these patriotic Americans willingly commit treason? Especially to reveal a secret about something they think was good?
  • Compartmentalization: Usually people “involved” in top-secret programs don’t have the full picture. They just do their job without knowing the full deal, so they do not necessarily have the necessary knowledge to expose it.

OK, now to the meat of the article:

We are told that the paper appears to “prove” that conspiracies (especially large ones) are doomed to failure. The results of the paper show this is only true under the most absurd and counter-intuitive assumptions. His equation shows that under certain, more realistic assumptions (which he himself posits) it’s actually much more likely that large-scale conspiracies will remain a secret. Let me try to explain:

There are really 3 key assumptions to his equation: the likelihood of ‘defection,’ the number of conspirators involved, and the rate of death of the conspirators.

Think about it this way, let’s say that 5000 people are in on a conspiracy. Then let’s say there is a 5 in a million chance for each person to defect and expose the conspiracy. (Of course this assumes that defection will necessarily lead to exposure, which is not the case if you control the media, but that’s another argument entirely.) Note that this 5-in-a-million is a completely arbitrary number based on absolutely no empirical data. He just pulled it out of his ass. If he had chosen a lower number, then the likelihood of exposure would be lower. If the likelihood of defection was 0, then the chance of exposure would be 0. But if we accept these assumptions, the question then is how many years will it take for the conspiracy to be exposed?

The answer to this question depends primarily on the death rate of the people involved in the conspiracy. If you need new people to maintain the conspiracy as original conspirators die off, then it is likely to be exposed more quickly. But if not and people die off naturally, then the overall likelihood of exposure is reduced with each new death. And if people die off at an unnatural rate presumably because they are killed (or what Grimes refers to as “removed extrinsically”), then the likelihood of exposure is going to go down much faster (how fast depends on the rate of “extrinsic removal”).

Here is a graph from the paper (actually this one is taken from the follow-up ‘correction’ Grimes published about a month later to correct a ridiculously obvious error):


It shows the cumulative likelihood of the conspiracy failing or being exposed (Y-axis) in any given year after the start of the conspiracy (X-axis is time in years).

The graph compares the conspiracy ‘failure rate’ of 3 different scenarios. They all assume that there are 5000 conspirators and that the likelihood of someone defecting from the conspiracy is 5 in a million. The only difference between these three models is their assumptions about the death rate of co-conspirators.

The blue ‘constant conspirators’ line corresponds to the assumption that there are always 5000 co-conspirators, the orange ‘Gompertzian decay’ model assumes a natural death rate, and the yellow ‘Exponential decay’ line assumes a higher than normal death rate (reduced by half every 10 years). If co-conspirators are dying at this higher rate, then the equation shows that the maximum likelihood of discovery is just under 30%. At a normal death rate, the likelihood reaches 55%. (Note that in the non-corrected version of the paper that got all the publicity, these chances were even lower: 12% and 40%, respectively.) This means that under certain assumptions, according to his own model conspiracies are more likely to remain a secret than be exposed. Even under the most generous assumptions (blue line), there is still over a 20% chance that the conspiracy will never be exposed. And if either the number of conspirators or their likelihood of defection is lower than assumed, the chances of exposure also go down.

But wait, there’s more!

To make matters worse, he comes back to this model towards the end and basically says: well, if people are being killed (“extrinsically removed”) to keep the conspiracy quiet, this would make surviving co-conspirators more likely to defect – not less! – because it would “create panic and disunity.” (I’m not making this up! That’s what he says. It’s right there in the paper on page 12.) So then he runs the numbers where he assumes that killing co-conspirators increases the likelihood of survivors to spill the beans, and lo-and-behold this means the conspiracy will have a 70% chance to be exposed (see red line on graph below) rather than a 17% chance (see dotted blue line). (In the original version of the paper, this latter number was 6.5%.)


If, instead, he had made the more realistic assumption that killing co-conspirators would make the survivors less likely to defect, then the 17% number would have been much, much lower. (BTW, the reason this 17% number doesn’t match the ‘just under 30%’ number from the ‘extrinsic removal’ line in the previous graph is because in this graph he assumes half the people are dying off every 5 years instead of every 10. I believe he chose this quicker die-off rate here because it increases the chances of exposure under the assumption that fast-die off will raise the probability of defection).

He then uses some real-world examples to fill in some of his assumptions and tries to estimate the ‘actual’ likelihood of defection, based on 3 conspiracies that have been exposed (though he arguably makes some faulty assumptions even about these real world conspiracies). From this he concludes that conspiracies are bound to fail. This method suffers from a major problem of selection bias: we cannot draw firm conclusions about all conspiracies based on what we know about the exposed ones, for the simple reason that we don’t know anything about the conspiracies that haven’t been exposed. But Grimes has no problem with this, since he starts out assuming that all large conspiracies will be exposed, which means he doesn’t need to worry about any of them remaining hidden. In logic, they call that begging the question.

Beyond that, he cherry picks examples that tend to confirm his conclusions. Here are two examples he could have chosen that would have shown how faulty his methodology and assumptions are:

The Manhattan Project – Beneath the Wikipedia section titled ‘Secrecy’ you’ll learn just how massive this operation really was. Over 100,000 people were involved and briefed of the importance of secrecy. Punishments would be 10 years and $131,000. Over 100,000 people all working in a “dark city” they forged from the ground up in no time, managed to keep this a secret long enough to employ its product the atom bomb). So for well over 4 years a massive amount of people kept their mouths shut. We don’t know how longer they would have kept their mouths shut since Hiroshima and Nagasaki let the cat out of the bag. The Manhattan project is speaks to Grimes’s assumption that the conspirators will be motivated to defect. It’s also a great example of compartmentalization.

The Gulf of Tonkin – Here all you have to do is read the first couple paragraphs to realize how easily they were able to withhold truthful information. It happened in August 1964, for the next 30 years there were many inquiries into its legitimacy, and even at one point in 1995 when former U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara met with former Vietnam People’s Army General Võ Nguyên Giáp to ask what happened on that day in 1964. He responded “Absolutely nothing.” Yet it wasn’t until 2005, over 40 years since the incident, that the files were declassified. They showed that on August 4th, 1964, there weren’t even any North Vietnamese ships in that area. Let alone ones firing on American ships. It also goes on to show that on August 2nd, two days earlier, that an American ship fired a couple shots off at a Vietnamese ship over 10,000 yards away. This also came as a direct order from Captain Herrick, yet this initial action was never reported by the Johnson administration, which insisted that the Vietnamese boats fired first.

In short, Grimes makes many questionable (arguably dishonest) assumptions with his model and his examples in order to reach the conclusion that widespread conspiracies are bound to fail. He also made some major errors that later had to be corrected. (For more on that and other problems with the paper, see this wikispooks entry.) But hey, if you’re willing to fork over $1,500, you, too, can have your rubbish published and stamped with the seal of “peer review” approval.

This entry was posted in American "journalism", Controlled opposition, Critcal thinking and skepticism, Critical thinking skills, Hackery, Junk science, Lies of our times, Propaganda, Science, Skeptics. Bookmark the permalink.

23 Responses to Too Many People? On the Viability of Conspiratorial Beliefs

  1. Glad you wrote this. I used to be one of the “too many people” guys.

    A major part of this type of thinking is due to the “whistleblower” illusion/psy-ops like Bradley Manning, Assange, Wikileaks, Snowden, etc. etc. It appeals to the inherent good of humanity. People believe that if something awful like this was happening, somebody’s conscious would kick in and he would spill the beans to the media, who of course is an independent third party with an unstoppable nose for the truth.

    “Media as an independent third party” is crucial for this type of thought to exist. I think back to the ending of the Shawshank Redemption where Andy mails evidence of tax fraud to the local newspaper and the next day the police and media show up to the prison to arrest the warden. This type of naive/fairy tale thinking is instilled in people, that if you had smoking gun evidence, everybody would cooperate to put the criminals in prison, no matter who they are. That is why conspiracy theorists are looked at with disdain. Don’t they know that if they were right, the media and the boys in blue would be all over it?

    It was when I realized the media was deeply involved with 9/11 that I broke down and went into depression for a few weeks. My entire belief system about the world collapsed. Realizing the court system was involved with the OJ trial was a much smaller obstacle to overcome, once I got past the media thing. We are raised from birth to believe the media has it’s own motives. Pointing out Rupert Murdoch owning much of the media is routine in the UK, but only in a cynical “they just want money and eyeballs” sort of way. Even then, the “phone hacking” scandal was a brilliant psy-op to show that if something funky was happening at The Sun, it would get out, especially if something much more minor like phone hacking is being exposed.

    Liked by 2 people

    • daddieuhoh says:

      Spot on. My son is in the 6th grade and is being taught about how the press is the 5th estate and how a free and independent press is so important to a free country and democracy and acts as a watchdog, etc. I’m telling him that isn’t always true. (I can’t bring myself to tell him yet that the world he’s surrounding by is a towering pile of lies and deception.)

      I honestly had never considered that this is one of, even perhaps the main, purpose behind the psyops like Snowden and Wikileaks and Manning: to make it appear as if people of good conscience will speak out and the press will act as watchdogs. But now having read it, it seems so obvious.

      What was the catalyst for making you realize the media was deeply involved in 9/11?


      • kozman123 says:

        There is always a bone thrown to you to distract from the real deception. Globe Trotters distract from NBA fixing. Monkeys distract from the Beatles and the National Enquirer is on the shelf next to People and Us magazine at the checkout aisle. Spot the bone and look around for the real deception.

        Liked by 1 person

        • daddieuhoh says:

          The special effects ‘deception’ of 2001: A Space Odyssey to distract us from (and supply an artificial contrast to) the special effects deception of the moon landing. Perhaps even the same director showing off in public what he was able to achieve with special effects without anybody realizing. Must have been a (cheap) thrill.


      • After the Paris attacks everyone on Facebook put the French flags on their profile, and it just didn’t sit right with my intuition. I have no problem with supporting France, a country I’d like to move to one day, but these FB users are the same people who hated France just a few years ago and called french fries “Freedom Fries”. Something was just weird and I couldn’t put my finger on it. It didn’t make sense.

        Around the same time I saw the Robbie Parker press conference for Sandy Hook and despite always having a knack for psychology I couldn’t explain. The Snopes explanation for it was laughable. The night after the Paris attacks there was a weird subliminal 5 second ad on Comedy Central about the Paris attacks that really weirded me out. How did they make it so quick? Who funded it? Why 5 seconds? Really, really weird. Regardless, I just let these things hang in my mind for a few weeks and then one night it just hit me like a ton of bricks. The Paris attacks were fake, ISIS is fake, Sandy Hook was fake, Facebook is owned by Intelligence, etc. etc.

        But even then, I felt like only some members of the media were involved and it was mostly an Intelligence Op that didn’t involve anybody outside of Intelligence. September Clues is what punched me in the face. And even then my mind had trouble registering the scale of everything.

        I decided to watch the full coverage of 9/11 on Youtube and within minutes it just all made sense and I broke down, shut everything off and avoided all media for a week. Everything I’ve ever believed was compromised. REALLY heavy stuff for my mind at the time. It was a few months after I was banned from the Clues forum before I opened myself up to MM, which I view as a step above September Clues.


        • daddieuhoh says:

          Interesting. I can see how overwhelming that would be. I slowly worked my way up to that realization. It would have been quite the wake-up-call if I had come to the realization all at once.


          • kozman123 says:

            Yes, the awakening can be painful. Like a bad movie where you have all these flashbacks about what a chump you were on so many occasions. Like riding around in my pickup truck with a flag in the window and listening to Toby Keith let us know we were going to put a boot in somebody’s ass. How embarrassing. A huge reason that they get away with it is because they set these situations up with an outcome that people want to believe in whether for patriotic or other emotional reasons. I have a coworker who, regardless how much info is presented to him, will not let go of the moon landing because he says it has meant so much to him and giving up on that childhood memory and it’s heroes would put his whole childhood experience in doubt. Yeah, Truth hurts.


  2. kozman123 says:

    You guys might like this paper. I like the bit about how “the dogs that didn’t bark” explained the vast nature of what was at work on 9/11.

    Liked by 1 person

    • daddieuhoh says:

      Haven’t seen this before — looks like a great resource. Thanks!


    • daddieuhoh says:

      The one that gets me is the massive evidence of insider trading. All we got with that is that it was institutional investors who have no conceivable ties to terrorism. The FEC never follow-up to find out who was making the trades.


  3. Maybe you guys can lend a hand here … Gnostic Media, I really want to like them and see them as truth seekers. They go a little off my own likes, but who cares. I contacted them today and told them just a very little of our own work here, the Morrison photos, and the answer came back quick, and referenced Miles and McGowan … a food fight that had gone on in emails to GM, each defaming the other. I did link this website in the contact email and MM is linked here, but the reference to him was presumptive. It was like I was writing as a MM associate, almost like he knew us. Any insight?


    • kozman123 says:

      I like the reference to a food fight. They have Gnostic (knowledge) in their name and they get bent out of shape by other people’s opinions. I watch many sites and absorb much info. Like some, hate others. But I’m not looking for a truth savior. I will make up my own mind and value people bringing new data points to the surface. I recently jettisoned Clues Forums from my bookmarks for their inability to have a dialog about MM without getting all bent out of shape. Even if MM is controlled opposition, He’s a wealth of good info. Real truth seekers don’t need to get into food fights. Makes me question their legitimacy.


    • Does he still support McGowan? I feel like we’re so ahead of that train by now.

      I know the owner of GM stopped by here a while ago and defended himself when I raised question marks over the word “Gnostic” in his title. I thought he was a little touchy, but I get it.


    • _smr says:

      Allow me to butt in…

      Jan Irvin, the owner of Gnostic Media, comes from the ethnobotany corner. He interviewed in dozens, if not hundreds, of interviews all the academic ’luminaries’ of shamanism, LSD-therapy and hallucinogenic this-and-that research, only to find out, years and years later, that behind every magic mushroom hides a CIA agent, or so it seems.

      Jan’s epiphany came when he stumbled upon documented proof that Gordon Wasson, re-discoverer of the mind-bending properties of ‘magic mushrooms’, as heavily popularized in a 1957 Time magazine cover story, was a not the amateur and adventurer he pretended to be, but a high-ranking CIA shill, and his now legendary 1955 trip to the Mazatec Indians in Mexico was in fact a MKUltra subproject 58 financed enterprise.

      Jan Irvin hasn’t looked back ever since. His new mission: Defrocking ‘Spies in Academic Clothing’, guys like Aldous Huxley, Gregory Bateson, Margret Mead, Timothy Leary, Carlos Castaneda, Terence McKenna, Daniel Pinchbeck, just to name a handful – an exhaustive list would easily fill a good old-fashioned phone book.

      Recently, Jan has entered very fruitful partnerships with Joe Atwill (forthcoming book: The Language of the Oligarchs), Steve Outtrim (decoding the Silicon Valley/Burning Man matrix) and Hans Utter (painstakingly documenting the may ways Intelligence has psycho-acoustically social-engineered modern man through popular music for the last century or so). Good stuff!

      On a side note: Jan Irvin’s total lack of social skills hasn’t earned him too may friends over the years. He packs quite a punch and if he feels attacked, and more often than not, he feels attacked, watch out…!

      That said, I respect & love the guy. And respect to you, POM’ers!


    • daddieuhoh says:

      Mark, I don’t know anything about GM.


  4. By the way, Daddieuhoh, thanks for this post, as work on the nature of conspiracies is an essential element in research of all events, fake and real. Those who dismiss conspiracies as the imaginations of fools quickly point to the solidarity necessary to pull them off. Such people will never be won over unless by accidental shafts of light, and papers like Grimes merely reinforce the bark on their hides. His paper operates like SNOPES, reassuring anyone who might harbor doubts. That is its only purpose, hence he could afford to be sloppy, since his intended audience is not alert and is easily assuaged.

    But for our purposes we too need to wonder at the solidarity of the conspirators behind these events. Absence of a news media is one explanation, so there is nowhere to go with inside secrets. Absence of law enforcement is another, as most often law enforcement is also under control of conspirators. But fear of retribution is less a factor than I would have imagined a year ago – these people do not kill, they hoax. So I would expect that inside their circles, they do not punish by violence either. It would be easy for one to wander off to record the true nature of the event and slip it to someone like MM or any one if hundreds who is wise to their activities. But it does not happen.

    From that I see almost religious unity of purpose, conviction of the rightness of their activities, solidarity in a worthy goal. Maybe the glue that binds them is a common hatred of ordinary people, or maybe it is something more collegial, membership in a club, and fear of shunning.

    If Mormons can pull this off with ordinary folks, why cannot our conspirators with their wealth and education?


    • daddieuhoh says:

      Many interesting points you raise here, Mark. It would not surprise me to learn that ‘they’ have convinced themselves that they are doing something that is in the best interests of humanity. Alternatively they may be compelled by a special sense of being ‘the chosen ones’ and are contemptuous of the rest of humanity. As for their belief system, MM has argued that all the Satanism, Freemasonry and occult stuff is just a disguise, all smoke and mirrors. However, I wouldn’t be surprised if many of them are indoctrinated into that belief system, and then the guys at the very top use it to manipulate them. (Much like the rest of humanity is manipulated through religious belief systems.) I had an exchange with somebody on Reddit who claimed to have been a former satanist (or something like that), and he said that about 1/3 of the people involved didn’t really believe in it. So it kind of corroborates my hunch.

      As for your claim that “fear of retribution is less a factor than I would have imagined a year ago – these people do not kill, they hoax.” Well, that’s a good point and true as far as it goes. But what’s to say they don’t enforce their hoaxes with the threat of force? I’ll give you an example: I was telling somebody who thought that Yitzhak Rabin’s assassination was “an inside job” by the SHABAK (Israel’s FBI) that I though it was likely hoaxed. He said he couldn’t see how that was possible, since Rabin’s whole family and his life, everything he had, was in Israel. He would have to leave it all behind, and this guy didn’t think he’d be willing to do that. And my reply was: well maybe they made him an offer he couldn’t refuse.

      Imagine that you’re part of this cabal and you’ve become a famous celebrity. You’re living the high life, great house, adoring fans, the best restaurants, hotels, women throwing themselves at you, etc. etc. And then one day they sit you down and say “sorry, but we’ve run the numbers and decided that you’re worth more to us dead than alive. We’re going to have to fake your death and relocate you.” You wouldn’t be too happy about it, would you? Even if you knew all along this day might come. What would motivate a person to voluntarily leave all that behind and move to some secluded island or whatnot? Because it’s part of the plan? Just go along with it? I guess it’s possible. But I wouldn’t be surprised if there is some implied threat of force or death behind their demands. They wouldn’t want to leave it to chance.

      We may assume at the very least that they don’t much value the lives of regular people, seeing all the wars they’ve started. So they seem to have little respect for life and no compunction against killing (as long as they don’t get their hands dirty). But maybe they don’t like killing one other.

      A final point: hoaxing actually makes more sense when we start to think about defection and cooperation of co-conspirators. People are probably much more likely to go along with you if it’s all just fun and games. But when people start getting killed, maybe some people would start to get panicked. Or at the very least, it’s probably easier to maintain solidarity and cooperation when the people involved aren’t constantly looking over their shoulders wondering when they’re going to get whacked by the cabal. Instead, what’s the worst that could happen? Being transferred to some tropical paradise.

      Of course then there is the issue of alleged mind-control MK-ULTRA type programs. If your minions are hypnotized, mind-controlled slaves, then you don’t really need to worry about them breaking ranks.

      Liked by 2 people

  5. tyronemccloskey says:

    The hoaxers don’t break the law- No one is under oath on TV so they can say anything (free speech, you see)- The teeming masses would revolt if they did break the law and then likely the masses would enforce even more conservative restrictions on behavior and that would be bad for business- Therefore the hoaxers don’t threaten anyone- They will adjust the law to restrict or free up certain behaviors when needed, but no one is going to be threatened, least likely here, where we are giving them a valuable critique of their methods, free of charge-
    Those on the inside are certainly told how long the good life will last for a certain persona- Therefore, when the contract is up, they pack their bags for Rio, job well done- And they are born into it from what we are seeing, so revolt is impossible from within- And, in the extremely unlikely chance that someone does want to spill the beans, POM might host their confessions but Oprah sure isn’t- Nor Nightline (is that still on?), nor even Alex Jones- Why walk away from the clan that runs things? Conscience? The values instilled in these people may seem antithetical to the morals and creeds we have enforced on us, but they probably feel just as strongly about what they do as a pious Xtian does about what they do- Basically they are a different tribe- That doesn’t work for ‘All men are created equal’, but I’ll confess, that canard isn’t any truer than the principle of the divine right of kings- Nature is chaotic, not balanced- I think that is their advantage- They know that and are constantly adjusting- We pay the price psychologically for the planned adjustments, but that must be a root belief of theirs- My next post will address some of that-


    • I’m glad you mentioned them being born into it, because I think that is part of the answer we’re searching for. We’ve been conditioned from TV and movies to imagine a random guy off the street being trained by the CIA and put into action. But I believe non-bloodline agents can not rise higher than low-mid level.

      So a large majority of the agents we are seeing pull hoaxes and plant disinfo are probably born into it. I’m not sure about the trolls on message boards, but they might be too. The runts of the IVF batches. How can you kill family?

      I’ll refrain from saying too much, but I went to elementary school with a certain group of kids who ended up becoming spooks. Their parents were close with each other. One of the parents “died” in a fake plane crash and the other involved in a fake hijacking in the 70’s. The kids now seem pretty low level based on what I see on social media, writing for mainstream blogs, traveling around the world for “diplomatic” missions, and one about to become a high level judge. But still, it’s all in the family.

      But the true answer I believe for why nobody gets hurt has to do with nature’s Law of Free Will. This might be a little woo-woo for some, but I believe there are laws in the universe that the people in charge are very aware of, otherwise they get the negative karma plus interest. In order for them to hurt us, they need our consent, and while we may consent to eating junk food and watching TV, nobody will consent to getting killed. While they love for you to THINK they might hurt you, they really can’t. But that’s a whole ‘nother layer of the onion.

      Liked by 1 person

      • daddieuhoh says:

        Is that ‘Law of Free Will’ related to the notion that they have to let us know what they’re going to do ahead of time? Hence all hidden hints, predictive programming or whatever you want to call it.

        Liked by 1 person

        • From what I understand, the predictive programming has to do with implied consent. By telling us what they are going to do, and with our silence, it becomes “OK” in the karmic world. Some sort of loophole.

          It may be the explanation for the instant creation of the Truther community after 9/11. Loose Change awakened far more people than would have been awakened on their own. They may have done that to “balance” the karma, as much as to mislead.


  6. Pingback: Too Many People? On the Viability of Conspiratorial Beliefs | Piece of Mind | snshakirbham

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s