Conspiracy Theorists?

It's 2011. It's not 1900. We have instant access to internet posts, government documents, speaches, books, and so many other resources. But the moment that an individual makes a statement or a comment that is not generally considered as a mainstream thought, he/she is indefinitely labeled as a conspiracy theorist. At what point in history did being completely ignorant to what's going on around you in the world become fashionable? What happened to us that we need to constantly believe every little bit of information that we are being told by our respective governments?

There is currently a bill in the United States Senate entitled the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), and it could be voted on as early as this week. The bill, if passed, would give the president the authority to indefinitely imprison American citizens without a court hearing, both domestically and abroad. It appears as though Senate Bill 1867 is bringing the battlefield to the homeland.

It seems as though Constitutional rights are being thrown to the wayside on the daily through bills such as the NDAA and the Patriot Act. The population just seems to be perfectly content or comfortably numb enough to give up basic freedoms consistently in order to obtain "protection" from its government.

Now, would this be the same government who staged the Gulf of Tonkin incident in order to bring about the Vietnam War? Now admitted to be a U.S. government false flag attack.

False flag attacks have been used all over the globe to bring about political obedience, regime changes, and for many other political means. One of these other political means is as a way to build up support for a president or ruling body who has lost the faith of the population.

So why is it that when the facts of an official government just don't add up, and make little to no sense, that an individual can't question said facts? Well, basically, it's because the government has their propaganda and mainstream media tag that individual as a conspiracy theorist.

And members of many different governments and political bodies have come out in interviews and books and stated that this is a solid method of regaining support for candidates. It is on record as an oft-used source.

As former United States President Bill Clinton was waning in support, and needed something of great magnitude to deter attention from this, the terrible bombing in Oklahoma City took place. This is one of a multitude of examples where the official story and the facts of the events really do not meet in the middle.

When George W. Bush was still in office and was losing the popularity vote, the tragic events of September 11, 2001 took place at the World Trade Center. Obviously, this is one of the most obvious examples of a potential false flag attack (and I say "potential" lightly here. I am very much on the side of 9/11 being a clear and evident inside job. I won't get into that in this post, however. But look for it soon).

The United States, under Ronald Reagan and the former George H.W. Bush, Sr., as part of the Cold War, actually armed Afghanistan to fight the Russians and referred to them as freedom fighters. But then, when it came time to create a mass distraction for the younger Bush, it didn't take long to pin the "terrorist" attacks on the people of Afghanistan, did it?

In 2003, when the United States were searching for "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq and came out with absolutely no evidence, people again started to question the official reports. Was there really any evidence of weapons in Iraq? Was this just the Bush family getting its revenge due to the senior Bush's failed attempt at capturing Saddam Hussein? Was this a matter of obtaining more oil?

So many questions, not many answers. The typical response of not being able to comment because it's a matter of national security is getting very tired. If there was truly a response that would legitimately deter this line of questioning, don't you think that the government would be a lot quicker to use it? I sure do.

So, all of this being said, why is it that simply questioning facts which make little-to-no sense make someone a conspiracy theorist? I'll tell you: it's because labeling someone as a conspiracy theorist tends to force the average citizen with very little knowledge who doesn't care to learn or study the facts, and believes every statement our "elected" officials feed us at face value, to automatically ignore that individual. It's an old tactic, but it seems to work, and that's why the elite globalists, the banks, our governments, and so many others in a position of power still use it.

I have been called a conspiracy theorist. I have been told I am crazy, insane, out there, you name it. But when it really comes down to it, I am the furthest thing from those labels. I listen to alternative media, rather than the norm' who listens to mainstream media, if that. But I don't simply accept everything that I hear as fact. I take the time to listen to what's said, then I take even more time to read up on the facts, study them, and make a judgement call.

Here's the thing that really gets me: the U.S. is embroiled in a war on terrorism. But do you know who they are currently labeling as possible terrorists? It's not the turban-wearing Afghans. It's not the people of Iraq. it's not even the Iranians or the Russians. On the contrary, it's people like Ron Paul, Alex Jones, Libertarians, Tea Party members. So, to put it bluntly, it's anyone who does their homework and wants to bring America back to what it used to be, the hallmark of freedom across the globe. Not what it is now, a fear-mongering, war-fueled, political propaganda machine.

I listen to The Alex Jones Show daily. I have since 2008, right after I first was introduced to him via his spectacular film The Obama Deception. If ever there has been a man labeled as a conspiracy theorist, Alex fits the mask. But the thing with Alex Jones, is that he is right in what he says about 99% of the time. It's almost unbelievable.

Between Jones, his guests, and his crack team of researchers, the information flows at rapid pace. While often thought to be a bit out there in some of his statements, if you were to listen to the program weeks, months, or maybe years down the road, you would recognize more than the vast majority of what the man says to have come true and been one hundred percent correct. And if Alex was just simply making statements in order to get a big uproar or a response then he wouldn't constantly have such credible guests as presidential hopeful Ron Paul, former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura, Trends researcher Gerald Celente, researcher Webster Tarpley, and so many others to name.

My point is this, before you discredit the information that our men and women in alternative media report on, do your own research, look it up for yourself, or else we are going to continue to descend further and further into police authoritarianism.