by Chauncey Tinker – 7 Jul 2022
When we are trying to make sense of anything in this world, we need to start with the facts and then form our theories based on those facts. Unfortunately people often start with a theory and then work backwards, dismissing or even completely ignoring any inconvenient facts that don't fit in with their theory.
A common feature of debates about current affairs these days is the frequent use of the phrase "conspiracy theorist" to dismiss those who for example believe that sars-cov-2 is a bio-weapon that was engineered in a laboratory in China. However many who use this phrase "conspiracy theorist" suffer from exactly the same kind of bias that they are accusing others of; they start from the theory that there is no conspiracy, and then they ignore all the inconvenient facts that might contradict their belief. In other words, these people might just as reasonably be described as conspiracy denialists. For example, many ignored the revelation that leading scientists (according to the Daily Telegraph) privately admitted that they thought the lab leak theory was at least a possibility even while anybody who suggested this publicly was being widely vilified. Obviously that is not the same as saying it was deliberately released as a bio-weapon, but the suggestion does open the door to that further possibility. Just to be absolutely clear I don't have a strong opinion on the bio-weapon theory, I simply don't know enough to comment on that. I also don't take a great interest in the subject because I believe the more important fact is that sars-cov-2 is at worst not much more dangerous than other commonly occurring respiratory illnesses, Bill Gates has now admitted this in a recent conference.
The belief that there are no conspiracies in global affairs is very prevalent in the world today, and the presence of this belief has partly enabled the greatest mass deception ever perpetrated, a truly global con-trick, to go largely unchallenged and even unnoticed by the vast majority of people. I am thinking in particular of the COVID-19 "pandemic", which it is claimed "killed millions of people" from the start of 2020 onwards. I am not trying to claim here that COVID-19 either does or doesn't exist, I simply don't have the knowledge of biology to comment on that, and I am not even particularly interested in that question. I am also not trying to claim that nobody died of respiratory illnesses in this period, in fact I am quite sure great numbers of people did die, because that is the normal state of affairs in our world where lifespans are finite.
What I am claiming is that what people refer to as "the COVID-19 pandemic" cannot reasonably be described with the word "pandemic", for the very simple reason that the mortality rate in the year 2020 was nothing out of the ordinary. The UK data from the ONS demonstrates this fact very clearly, it shows that the age adjusted death rate was actually below the 30 year average, and only slightly above the 5 year average, and during those last five years we had enjoyed the lowest mortality rate in history. I share once again the graph of the ONS data because many people still have not taken in this reality:
The conspiracy denialists will also persistently ignore the fact that the average age of those dying allegedly of COVID-19 was above the average life expectancy.
I have repeatedly tried to draw this data to the attention of conspiracy denialists, but I have found time and time again that they will either simply ignore it, or else they will invent elaborate rationales to explain away the obvious. They will talk for example about falling mortality rates as if there was an inevitable law of nature that mortality rates were bound to just keep on falling indefinitely, they cannot allow the possibility that we might just be at the end of a good trend. I have tried to point out to people arguing this that even the United Nations had predicted in 2019 (before the first case of COVID-19 symptoms was even reported) that the downward trend was about to end, and that mortality rates were going to start rising again. In fact the UN came astonishingly close to predicting the so-called "pandemic" as can be seen in this graph from Macrotrends (the graph actually shows the projection to 2100):
The UN predicted that mortality rates are going to continue rising from now on for some time as well. What troubles me greatly is not that mortality rates may be set to rise very slightly but that all the life-damaging policies enacted by governments since 2020 may continue to be the "new normal" in the years to come, diminishing the quality of life for most people, as most people are deluded into thinking that their health is at great risk from activities that previously would have been regarded as normal activities of everyday life.
The conspiracy denialists (or "no conspiracy" theorists) have started from the theory that there is no conspiracy, and when you point out the following two crucial facts that don't fit their theory they simply have to ignore these facts, or downplay their significance, in order to hold on to their belief:
1. In 2019 the Gates Foundation partnered with the WEF to host a coronavirus pandemic simulation called Event 201 just 6 weeks before the "real" coronavirus pandemic began.
2. In 2020 throughout the whole world the media, academics and governments all in lockstep cranked into action stoking fears that a deadly pandemic was spreading everywhere, and that huge numbers of people of all ages were dying from COVID-19, all in spite of the easily accessible evidence from official sources that huge numbers were not dying, at least not significantly more than normal.
If the pandemic had been real, if the mortality rate had genuinely risen to significantly higher levels, then I think it might be just about possible to dismiss the Event 201 exercise as either a mere coincidence or else as astonishing foresight by very clever people. However when you consider the above data revealing that mortality rates were not in fact high at all by historical standards, in tandem with the fact that they were planning for such a "pandemic" just before it supposedly happened, then I don't think anybody can rationally fail to begin to suspect that the whole thing WAS a conspiracy. If you take the time to study the Event 201 in detail (in particular looking at who was involved in it) you will find it increasingly impossible to come to any other conclusion, I have summarized key points from the event in my series that I link to below.
Another aspect of the typical response is that conspiracy denialists will often lump all those they regard as conspiracy theorists into a single homogenous group that they imagine all think exactly the same way. In one debate I was met with people assuming that I must believe in a de-population agenda being the major objective of the COVID-19 injections, but in reality I tend to think that was not a major objective. Though I have seen some evidence that there has been an impact on fertility I'm not really sure whether that was mainly caused by the jabs or by other factors, or if it was a deliberate objective behind the mass jabbing program. Crucially here the assumption is being made by conspiracy denialists that a de-population agenda would not benefit the very richest, and that therefore the conspiracy cannot exist. The conspiracy denialists are then avoiding looking at the growing evidence of jab harms including effects on fertility, because that doesn't fit with their theory about the motivations of the very richest (the possibility that harms may be real but unintended also seems to have been ignored by many of the conspiracy denialists). Many also ignore these harms because they have made an assumption that the pharmaceutical industry has only the best intentions for the public, and again they dismiss any inconvenient facts that contradict that theory.
Yet another line of reasoning I have encountered is that the whole world responded to the "pandemic" in more or less the same way, most countries introduced lockdowns etc. and had mass injection programs, and that therefore for it to have been a conspiracy all the governments of the world must have been in on it. They then suggest that since such global collaboration is in their view wildly implausible that therefore there was no conspiracy. However the reality may be much more complex than that, some governments may have been partially taken in by the con-trick, as may many rank and file journalists, the actual conspiring might have been limited to only the highest strata of the world elite. We could also respond by pointing out that all the major powers participate in the WEF, and specifically that there was both an official from the Chinese Center for Disease Control, and an official from the US CDC present at Event 201; so clearly there was collaboration between world governments specifically in a coronavirus pandemic exercise that preceded the phoney "pandemic". We could also point out that the Prime Minister of Russia was the guest of honour at the Cyber Polygon WEF meeting, in spite of the fact that many nations regard Russia’s occupation of parts of the Ukraine from 2014 as an invasion, and that fact did not appear to have troubled Klaus Schwab in the slightest. Also we could point out that both Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping have given speeches at the WEF as recently as 2021.
Why is belief so strong among conspiracy denialists? For many there are career implications for those who try to speak out against the rising tyranny. We saw what happened to Bret Weinstein and others who tried to speak out, and how Joe Rogan was pressured by celebrities threatening to abandon Spotify, and the vitriol that was directed at Dr Robert Malone when he dared to express doubts about the use of mRNA technology in the injections, there are many more examples. It has been noticeable that many dissenters were older professionals who were either retired, close to retirement, or had grown wealthy enough to not worry too much about the career implications of speaking out.
Another factor is peer pressure, few people want to be that weird sheep who jumps up on top of the wall and sees a pack of wolves coming towards the flock, most would prefer to stay blissfully ignorant, munching the grass, and remain on (at least superficially) good terms with the other sheep - colleagues and neighbours. Anyone who has tried to speak up about the obvious problems with the not-a-conspiracy theory knows just how uncomfortable a dissenter's life can become from then on, small wonder then that most are desperate to find excuses not to face the facts.
Another factor I believe is the psychological effect of the mass jabbing program. If you have a job to lose, standing up against the jabbing program could lose you your job, or make travel abroad impossible (which in some occupations will also lead to you losing your job). Therefore many people have gone along with the mass jabbing program just to keep their job. In a similar way many submitted to the jab for family reasons, there was a risk of marital breakdown in some families where one partner wanted to go abroad on holiday. I believe that once you submit to a tyranny (no matter what the form of that tyranny), you are more likely to be submissive in other circumstances, and so submitting to the jab will lead to a greater likelihood that you will be reluctant to challenge or even question the authorities in other ways. No doubt those who have submitted to the jab are inclined to rationalize their decision (which was initially purely expedient for some) and therefore I believe we can see the mass jabbing program as a form of more general coercion towards submission to the rising authoritarianism.
I think in attempting to counter the delusion that there are no conspiracies in global affairs we might get somewhere with people by returning the compliment, we should call these people conspiracy denialists to their faces, or perhaps you might like to suggest an alternative (polite, no profanity please) phrase we could use instead?
From the Telegraph:
Emails to Dr Anthony Fauci show ‘likely’ explanation identified at start of coronavirus pandemic, but there were worries about saying so
What do you think? Please leave a comment below.