On the Condemnation of "Conspiracy
Theories" as a Device for Protecting Officialdom’s Lies, Disinformation,
and Obfuscation
(This is an excerpted version 0f Who or What Started the Wuhan Coronavirus Epidemic?
The Wuhan Coronavirus epidemic of 2019-20 is moving many markers where
life merges into death, where truth merges into lies. At age 34, Dr. Li
Wenliang drew attention in Wuhan to these moving markers. The disease Dr. Li
sought to warn against ended up taking his life as the epidemic gained fatal traction.
Before going down himself in the line of duty, Dr. Li faced a harsh
reprimand from representatives of the Chinese Communist Party. Dr. Li was
accused of spreading rumors and illegally threatening the social order with his
tweets and posts and personal interventions. Nevertheless, Dr. Li was soon
vindicated in calling attention to the coming plague.
It did not take long before the appalling force of the illness
demonstrated that Dr. Li was anything but a wayward conspiracy theorist.
Instead, the evidence proved him right even as it proved his powerful
detractors were both wrong and negligent in the face of a genuine menace.
Questions about how to interpret the epidemic and how to explain to the
public what is known or not known are quickly coming into focus. Who should be
believed? Who is credible and who is not credible as the epidemic unfolds. What
should be the role of social media and of whistle blowers in the process of
deciding how to respond? What happens when genuine whistle blowers like Dr. Li
are too quickly dismissed and reprimanded by ruling authorities as “conspiracy
theorists”?
The importance of getting to
the factual roots of what happened to put humanity on this epidemiological
trajectory should be especially clear after the debacle of September 11, 2001.
Without any sustained investigation of the 9/11 crimes, Americans were rushed
into cycles of seemingly perpetual warfare abroad, police state and
surveillance state interventions at home. This cycle of fast responses began
within a month of 9/11 with a full-fledge military invasion of Afghanistan, an
invasion that continues yet.
All of these crimes against humanity were justified on the basis of an
unproven official explanation of 9/11. Subsequent scholarly investigations have
demonstrated unequivocally for the attentive that officialdom’s explanations of
what transpired on the fateful day in September were wrong, severely
wrong. The initial interpretations are
strongly at variance with the evidentiary record available on the public
record.
We
must not allow ourselves to be hoodwinked in the same manner once again. The
stakes are too large, maybe even larger than was the case in 2001.
One of the primary areas of professional contention arising from the
COVID-19 crisis involves the close connections between biological research
aimed at finding preventions and cures for diseases and research aimed at
creating biological weapons. Biological weapons can be designed with the goal
of bringing about indiscriminate mass murder. They can also be used to bring
about the targeted murder of specific human populations sharing common genetic
attributes.
Gradually a portion of the public is becoming aware that a conflict of
interests exists between the military and public health applications of the
microbiology field within the so-called life sciences. How many practitioners
of the so-called life sciences are really devoting themselves to the death
sciences? The public has reason to question, for instance, the procedures
involved in the production of vaccines by an industry with one foot in the
health care field and another foot in military research.
The future role of the Huawei system for 5G wireless communications, a
frightening and largely untested public health hazard in its own right, has
emerged as a core issue in the conflict between the United States and China. To
conceive of this conflict as a trade war alone is to underestimate the full
scope of the antagonisms. These antagonisms over the future of wireless
communications extend, for instance, far into the shape and form of future
international espionage. Since the era began nearly 20 years ago of the 9/11
psychological operation, much international espionage has taken place by means
of backdoor spying on digital flows of information. Israel has become
especially closely identified with this type of digital spying throughout the
Internet.
Again and again the media
conglomerates most deeply integrated into dominant matrixes of power deploy the
weaponized terminology with the goal of limiting public discourse. They invoke
the boogeyman of “conspiracy theories” as a meme to flippantly discredit
skeptical journalism questioning the honesty of official sources.
The US claim to be the heartland of the “free world” has long since
become ludicrous in the extreme given many factors including the ailing
superpower’s generation of an unrelenting flood of power-serving
disinformation. Part of this agenda is to control the narrative no matter how
deceptive. It is to engage in digital vandalism aimed at discrediting or
altogether silencing dissident voices on the Internet.
Instead of conscientiously reporting on the situation, the CBC’s
reporters tend like so many others in their position to fall back on what is
becoming an old canard. Rather than evaluate all the gaping holes and omissions
and silences in their own news coverage, they attribute all problems to some
imagined tribe of malicious know nothings smeared collectively as “conspiracy
theorists.”
How can genuine “factual information” be credibly determined without
providing space and time for open debate among proponents of competing
interpretations? If the pursuit of truth by means of open debate is being
spurned even by faculty members at academic institutions (which tragically is
often the case these days), where else in society can such rituals of informed
and civil disagreement take place in humanity’s quest for knowledge?
There has been considerable scholarly scrutiny of the anthrax attacks
targeting the US Congress and some media organizations in early October of
2001. The anthrax attacks constitute the most serious assault ever on the
operations of the US Congress, the primary interface between law and politics
in the United States.
These attacks have come to be understood as an integral part of the
large body of crimes committed in Manhattan and Washington DC on 9/11. The
anthrax attacks killed five people including two postal workers. Seventeen
people were injured and Congress was shut down for a few days.
Anthrax-laden letter attacks were specifically directed at two
Democratic Party Senators, Patrick Leahy and Tom Daschle. When they received
the contaminated letters both lawmakers were engaged in questioning provisions
of the post-9/11 emergency measures legislation known as the Patriot Act. Both
Senators Leahy and Daschle were hesitant to rubber stamp the enactment that was
seemingly instantly drafted and put before Congress within three weeks of the
9/11 debacle.
The anthrax attacks took place just as the US Armed Forces began
invading Afghanistan where the culprits of the 9/11 crimes were supposed to be
hiding out. The perpetrators of the anthrax attack, who we were supposed to
imagine at the time as al-Qaeda terrorists, succeeded in easing aside the major
locus of opposition to the Patriot Act’s speedy passage in late October. Why,
one might legitimately ask, ask, would Islamic jihadists want the Patriot Act
to be rushed through Congress. In early October the US Armed Forces invaded
Afghanistan at the same time that the US executive branch was seeking with the
Patriot a license to kill and torture and steal without any checks of
accountability.
Once the US Armed Forces went to war with Afghanistan on the basis of a
fraudulent explanation of 9/11’s genesis, there was basically no chance that a
genuine and legitimate evidence-based investigation of the September 11 crimes
would ever take place. To this day the Global War on Terror continues to unfold
on a foundation of lies and illusions that have had devastating consequences for
the quality of life for average people throughout the United States and the
world.
In his 2005 book, Biowarfare and Terrorism, Prof. Boyle’s analysis pointed
to major problems in the FBI’s investigation of the anthrax attacks including
the agency’s destruction of relevant evidence. To Prof. Boyle, the highly
refined military-grade quality of the anthrax made it almost certain that the
anthrax bioweapon was produced within the US Armed Forces at the lab in Fort
Detrick Maryland. Anthrax, or Bacillus anthracis, is a rod-shaped bacteria found naturally in soil.
Looking back at the episode Dr. Boyle observed,
“The Pentagon and the C.I.A. are ready, willing, and able to launch biowarfare
when it suits their interests. They already attacked the American People and
Congress and disabled our Republic with super-weapons-grade anthrax in October
2001.”
Prof. Boyle’s interpretation was later verified and expanded upon in a
book by Canadian Prof. Graeme MacQueen. Prof. Boyle acknowledges the veracity
of Prof. MacQueen’s study of the anthrax deception as part of a “domestic
conspiracy.” He sees The 2001 Anthrax Deception as the most advanced finding of academic research on the topic so
far.
Prof. MacQueen is prominent among a very
large group of academics and public officials who condemn the official
narrative of 9/11 for its dramatic inconsistencies with the available evidence.
I have developed responses to
these incursions based on hard-won experiences facing the propaganda blows of an
especially powerful political lobby able to seize control of the governing
board of my university. These professional lobbyists seek to discredit academic
analysis of their own violations of law, ethics and civility by labelling
critics of their zealotry as “conspiracy theorists” or worse.
Nowhere, however, is biological warfare
being more expansively and expensively developed and probably deployed than by
the US Armed Forces. The death and destruction that humanity is presently
experiencing should signal to us that it is time to get much more serious about
inspecting military facilities and enforcing the terms of the Biological
Warfare Convention of 1972. It is, in fact, time to get much more serious about
enforcing all aspects of international criminal law in balanced ways that
transcend the biases of Victors’ Justice.
It is time to throw off the weight of
the pseudo-laws introduced after 9/11 through abhorrent tactics like the
inside-job military anthrax attack on Congress. Most certainly, it is time to
draw a clear distinction between research in the field of public health and
research in the development of lethal bioweapons. Better yet, we should work
towards putting an end altogether to militarization through the massive
expansion of the “death sciences.” The vile activities of fallen practitioners
of the endangered life sciences are, for starters, undermining the integrity of
our besieged institutions of higher learning.
