Search

Wild story from Czechia: a prankster posing as the operator of an anonymous conspiracy account contacted Foreign Minister Petr Macinka. Within hours, Macinka agreed to meet him secretly, without police protection, at a site staged with fake weapons and explosives. https://t.co/xIPVe43wWT #Czechia #prank #conspiracy #CZ

But don't you worry. The third wave of the Global Financial Crisis, which started in September/October 2022, is almost ready to be unleashed. It will bury the Epstein files, Israeli influence, Ukraine corruption, etc., under one, massive financial avalanche. https://t.co/DN64g4I9PD #FinancialCrisis #GlobalEconomy #ConspiracyTheories #IL #UA

Two men uncover a dark conspiracy behind a deadly virus—one seeking redemption, the other framed for murders he didn’t commit. Would you sacrifice loved ones to save the masses? #Thriller #Suspense https://t.co/DiiYC1Z4fh #Thriller #Suspense #Conspiracy #Nospecificcountrycodesarementionedinthetweet.

Two men uncover a dark conspiracy behind a deadly virus—one seeking redemption, the other framed for murders he didn’t commit. Would you sacrifice loved ones to save the masses? #Thriller #Suspense https://t.co/DiiYC1Z4fh #Thriller #Suspense #Conspiracy #Therearenospecificcountrymentionsinthetweetyouprovided.

THE FBI WHISTLEBLOWER WHO BROKE THE CODE: THEY PLANNED TRUMP’S REMOVAL BEFORE THE INAUGURATION My name is redacted. My security clearance is still active. And I’m risking everything to tell you what I saw in the classified vaults beneath the Hoover Building. I was there. May 2, 2017. Four days after Comey was fired. I watched them open the file. I watched them name it. I watched them predicate it on a LIE. The investigation was called “Oxford Comma.” Not because of grammar. Because it was designed to be INVISIBLE. Hidden in plain sight. A code name that meant nothing to outsiders but everything to those who knew. The premise was simple: Trump was a Russian asset. Trump fired Comey to obstruct the Russia investigation. Therefore, Trump must be removed. But here’s what the declassified memos don’t tell you: I saw the REAL memo. The one that was redacted. The one they didn’t want you to see. It stated: “The goal is not truth. The goal is REMOVAL.” Those were the exact words. Not my interpretation. THEIR WORDS. Typed by FBI counterintelligence chief William Priestap. Approved by James Baker. Signed off by Andrew McCabe. “What’s our goal? Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?” Strzok wrote. That was the REAL investigation. Not seeking truth. MANUFACTURING LIES. They knew the Steele dossier was garbage. I personally reviewed the spreadsheet. Every single claim was marked: “UNVERIFIED,” “INTERNET RUMOR,” or “UNABLE TO CORROBORATE.” Igor Danchenko, Steele’s primary source? RUSSIAN ASSET. The FBI knew it. They had suspected it for YEARS. But they used his information anyway. Mike Flynn? They cleared him. Then they INVITED HIM TO AN INTERVIEW. Then they charged him with lying in that interview. The goal was ENTRAPMENT, not justice. I watched them do it. I watched them SMILE while they did it. The Steele dossier was paid for by Hillary Clinton’s campaign through her law firm. The FBI KNEW THIS. But they used it as the foundation for the entire investigation into a sitting president. This wasn’t counterintelligence. This was a COUP ATTEMPT. And the declassified memos are just the tip of the iceberg. The REAL evidence is still classified. The REAL conversations are still hidden. The REAL conspiracy is still buried. But I’m telling you: it exists. I saw it. I documented it. And when it comes out, it will SHOCK the world. Trump was RIGHT to fire Comey. Comey MISHANDLED the Clinton investigation. The FBI KNEW IT. But instead of accepting accountability, they opened a false investigation into Trump. They used the intelligence apparatus of the United States government to target a political opponent. They violated the Constitution. They violated the law. They violated their OATHS. And now they’re being exposed. The declassified memos are just the beginning. More is coming. Much more. Within 60 days, expect MAJOR revelations. Indictments are coming. The truth is coming out. The Deep State thought they were untouchable. They thought their crimes would stay hidden. They were WRONG. The vaults are opening. Files are being declassified. Truth is coming. History will record this as the day the Deep State FELL. OXFORD-COMMA-EXPOSED FBI-COUP-REVEALED

A Generation That Forgot the Shape of the Square On memory left to die alone By Adham Hasanin Egyptian journalist and political writer, based in the Netherlands In a house near mine, there is a boy of thirteen. Born in 2013 just a few months younger than the July coup itself, younger than the new republic under whose shadow we now live. I asked him once, with no preamble, no test, out of nothing more than passing curiosity: do you know what January was? He answered simply, without hesitation, without any sense that he was missing something: "An old revolution, against Mubarak, right?" Not entirely wrong. But it is everything he knows. The name Tahrir Square means nothing specific to him. The sound of the crowd chanting has no echo in his mind. He does not know that his own family whom he sees every day saying "thank God for stability," who warn him against "chaos" whenever a political headline crosses the screen once, at a moment two years before he was born, went down into the street, betting their entire lives on the possibility that something might change. This article is not about politics. It is about memory, and about who decides what gets told and what is left to die in silence. I. Who Erases the Picture? The first question that comes to mind is the easiest and most deceptive one: who erases this memory? And where do we begin holding them accountable? But the truth is too complex to reduce to a single actor. No one actually erases memory, in the literal sense of the act. There is no ministry called the "Ministry of Forgetting," no presidential decree ordering January struck from the collective consciousness. What happens is simpler than that, and more dangerous at once: the subject is simply never told. School says nothing. The textbook leaps from one period to another without pausing on January for more than two faded lines, composed with deliberate neutrality, devoid of any detail that might make the event feel alive to its young reader. Television no longer has any reason to return to it; the programmes that once hosted witnesses and activists stopped years ago, replaced by an official discourse that mentions January only in passing, as an unfortunate prelude to the "stability" that supposedly followed. And the home the most dangerous link of all has become afraid of the subject. Speech now carries a price, and many families, whether consciously or by sheer survival instinct, have decided that silence is safer than the story. The father who marched fears passing on to his son a curiosity that might one day lead him into trouble the family cannot afford. The mother who lost a friend in the events prefers not to reopen the wound before a child who does not yet grasp the weight of loss. And so, generation after generation, the circle of those who know shrinks, and the circle of those who do not even ask because they do not know there is anything worth asking widens. No one decided to erase the memory through an explicit decision. The memory was simply left to die alone, with no one tending it. And it is precisely this decentralised absence of responsibility that makes this kind of erasure more dangerous than any direct official ban: there is no single decision to challenge, no single body to hold accountable. Responsibility is distributed across thousands of small decisions made by thousands of individuals, each within their own context, each seeming reasonable when viewed in isolation. II. Why This Is More Dangerous Than Direct Repression An objection might be raised: is direct repression arrest, imprisonment, publishing bans not far more lethal than mere gradual forgetting? The answer is complex, and deserves calm unpacking. Direct repression can be seen. It can be documented, and the victim can know they are a victim, can tell their story, and their pain can become a testimony added to the collective memory, even if it never reaches justice. The political prisoner knows he is a political prisoner. The journalist banned from writing knows he is banned, and can tell the world he is banned. Direct repression, for all its cruelty, leaves a trace that can be followed. But a generation that has forgotten something happened at all does not even have a starting point from which to ask. This thirteen-year-old boy will never ask "why were we repressed?" because he does not know there is anything deserving that question in the first place. He feels no absence, because he does not know there is anything absent. He simply lives in a version of reality stripped of an entire chapter of his country’s history, and never for a moment suspects that this void is a void at all. Here lies the essence of the danger: direct repression creates victims who know they are victims. Erasure of memory, when it succeeds, creates a generation that does not even know it has been deprived of anything. And deprivation that is not felt cannot be resisted, because resistance always begins with an awareness of loss. The regime that came after 2013 does not need to convince the new generation that January was a mistake. That would be an arduous, costly task, requiring sustained propaganda and continuous effort to persuade each individual one by one. It is far easier, and strategically far more efficient, simply to ensure they never know it was anything at all. The void requires no defence; it requires only silence, and silence is free and always available. III. The Four Mechanisms of Erasure Four complementary mechanisms can be identified working together to produce this collective void not as an organised conspiracy, but as a system of incentives that pushes each party, consciously or not, to contribute to the same process. The first mechanism: formal education. The curriculum, as currently designed, treats January as a passing footnote rather than a founding event deserving detail and analysis. The student memorises two dates the start of the revolution and its presumed end without understanding why people took to the streets, what they were demanding, or how they felt in that pivotal moment. The second mechanism: broadcast media. The channels that once hosted live discussions on January, featuring varied perspectives, have gradually disappeared, or transformed their discourse entirely. Today’s televised image either ignores the anniversary altogether, or invokes it only to frame it as a prelude to chaos that must be avoided. The third mechanism: the silence of homes. This is the most dangerous of all, precisely because it is the most human and understandable. Parents who lived through the experience protect it with silence, not out of aversion to the story, but out of fear of its price. This silence, however legitimate its motives, achieves exactly the same effect as official censorship: it blocks the transmission of knowledge from one generation to the next. The fourth mechanism: the absence of alternative spaces. Even those among the new generation who wish to know cannot easily find places to look. Archives are scattered, trustworthy websites are blocked or require effort to reach, and personal testimonies are dispersed across corners of the internet that an ordinary student at an ordinary school will never stumble upon. These four mechanisms require no central coordination to work together. Each naturally serves the others, and all converge on a single result: a growing void in the consciousness of every new generation. IV. Memory as an Act of Resistance If erasure operates without a centre, then resisting it must also be decentralised. No one waits for a government decision to restore January to the curriculum, nor for a television programme to revive the testimonies. Resistance here is necessarily individual, happening in small details, in passing conversations, in the simple decision to tell rather than to stay silent. This is exactly what I try to do, without any claim to heroism, without any grand mission. I try, whenever I can, to tell the thirteen-year-old boy and others like him details that are never written in official reports or in schoolbooks: what the voices in the square sounded like, how someone felt the first time they realised change was possible, what that moment of hope was like before everything changed. The goal is not to bring back the past; the past cannot be brought back. The goal is that this boy, when he grows older and asks again and he will ask, because the questions always return at some point finds someone to tell him the full story, not two faded lines in a schoolbook. That he knows the stability he is told is the fruit of "wisdom" has a prior history, that this history carried other possibilities, and that real people bet their lives on those possibilities. V. Why This Matters Now Talking about the memory of a generation not yet aware might seem an intellectual luxury next to more urgent matters: arrests, a collapsing economy, regional wars. But the truth is that this issue is the foundation on which every other issue is built. A people who do not know they once rose up will not understand why they should ever think of rising again. A generation raised to believe "stability" is the only natural state possible will never ask itself what drove its own parents, shortly before it was born, to risk everything for an alternative that was never guaranteed. Memory is not a luxury; it is the reference point by which every generation measures its present, and through which it determines what is possible and what is not. And whoever understands this understands why erasing memory, not direct repression alone, is among the most important tools of any regime seeking to guarantee its permanence: because a people who have forgotten they were once free will not even know they are missing freedom. Memory, like the word, needs someone to tell it in order to survive. And when the tellers stop, memory does not die suddenly; it withers slowly, generation after generation, until the day comes when a boy asks an innocent question, and finds no one to answer him but two faded lines in a schoolbook.

What the crackup of the Heritage Foundation says about the Post-Trump Right— The bastion of US conservatism, author of Project 2025 has been consumed by an ideological and generational civil war fueled by its conspiracy- and nativist-minded young recruiits https://t.co/my5IqSj8Xm #HeritageFoundation #PostTrumpRight #Conservatism #US

Ik ben er doorheen en dat viel niet mee! De hele Slack-chat van de vier auteurs van het 'Proximal Origin' artikel. Ik ben eigenlijk wel een ontdaan. Dit is een staaltje groepsdenken zoals ik dat nog niet heel vaak heb gezien en waarbij toch niet heel onpartijdige mensen als @MarionKoopmans en @mkeulemans als genuanceerd en weloverwogen afsteken. De meest voorkomende woorden zijn zonder twijfel 'idiot', 'stupid' en 'dumb'. 'Bollocks' en 'bullshit' zijn ook ruimschoots vertegenwoordigd. Met daaropvolgend 'racist', 'xenofobic en 'conspiracy'. De benamingen voor de afzonderlijke wetenschappers die ze op de korrel nemen, laat ik voor de lezer zelf. Nu zijn mijn privéchats ook niet bijster vriendelijk en daar zouden sommige mensen ook rode oortjes van krijgen, dus ik kan dat tot op zekere hoogte wel begrijpen en er ook wel om lachen. Maar deze vier mensen uiten zich ook op de meest onbeschofte manier over mensen met wie ze wel contact hebben en waar ze zelfs mee samenwerken. En wat werkelijk beschamend is, is hoe ze met @Ayjchan omgaan in hun privé-chat. Dat is echt beneden alle peil. En als er al wetenschappers zijn waarvoor ze wel enig respect op kunnen brengen, is dat onmiddellijk verdwenen zodra zij iets zeggen dat niet in hun straatje te pas komt. Dan zijn ze opeens 'ontzettend dom', zijn het idioten, racisten, xenofoben en complotdenkers. Het strookt met de werkelijk verbluffend eigendunk die deze vier hebben. Alleen zij weten hoe het zit, alleen zij hebben verstand van zaken en andere wetenschappers zijn simpelweg niet slim genoeg om er iets van te begrijpen. Het maakt ze blind voor hun eigen tekortkomingen en doof voor elk tegengeluid. En het maakt ze vooral blind voor hun eigen gebrek aan kennis, met name als het gaat om kennis buiten hun vakgebied die een lableak waarschijnlijker maken. Bij tijd en wijle is het aandoenlijk hoe ze zichzelf wijsmaken dat zij alleen maar zuivere wetenschap bedrijven terwijl de hele chat doordrenkt is van politiek. En het wordt potsierlijk als ze zichzelf bij herhaling 180 graden tegenspreken. Zo vertellen ze elkaar spottend dat als er sprake zou zijn van een groot complot om een #labontsnapping onder het tapijt te schuiven, dit nooit geheim zou kunnen worden. Maar als het gaat om een zoönose, zegt Andersen doodleuk: "They [de Chinese autoriteiten] know it’s the farming…." Waarop Holmes zegt: "It’s definitely sounding that way…" En ook Garry ziet dat scenario helemaal voor zich. Zo moet het gegaan zijn. Blijkbaar is het helemaal niet moeilijk om dat wél geheim te houden, terwijl daarbij veel meer mensen betrokken zouden zijn. En als we het dan toch over complotdenkers hebben, deze vier heren kunnen er ook wat van. De meest vergezochte verbanden en motivaties worden als vanzelfsprekende waarheden uitgesproken. Ik snap nu wel waar het misgegaan is. Wil je enigszins in de buurt van de werkelijkheid blijven, moet je je eigen tegenspraak organiseren. Dat ontbrak in het geheel bij deze vier wetenschappers, die zich daardoor steeds dieper ingroeven in hun eigen waarheid. Je ziet in het verloop van de tijd in de privé-chat dat langzaam alle twijfel verdwijnt zonder dat er echt nieuwe bevindingen zijn, dat de stellingen steeds sterker betrokken wordt en dat elk tegengeluid steeds agressiever wordt benaderd. Totdat de grootste schok komt: DEFUSE van DARPA. Heel even haalt ze dat terug in de realiteit. En het is veelzeggend wat Rambaut hier uiteindelijk van zegt: "We just need to re-convince ourselves that it is just a coincidence..." En eigenlijk blijft het daarbij. Daarna wordt er eigenlijk niet meer gesproken over DEFUSE. Want wat niet van pas komt, wordt gewoon doodgezwegen. Dat was al een duidelijk patroon en dat wordt in deze complete Slack-chat nog eens pijnlijk duidelijk. #OriginOfCovid #WuhanTrilogie #ProximalOrigin #Wetenschap #Complotdenkers

Članak istražuje teorije zavjere koje okružuju smrti nekoliko poznatih holivudskih zvijezda, uključujući Natalie Wood, Tupaca Shakura, Biggie Smalls i Marilyn Monroe, ističući kako nerazjašnjene okolnosti njihovih tragičnih smrti i dalje pobuđuju interes i spekulacije među fanovima. #HollywoodTragedies #CelebrityDeaths #ConspiracyTheories

Dass Zeugen oder Beschuldigte plötzlich tot sind, ist ein weltweites Phänomen. https://t.co/TxjMmXkW4h Im Fall Epstein starben: - Jeffrey Epstein in seiner New Yorker Gefängniszelle. Offiziell war es Suizid. - Steven Hoffenberg, Geschäftspartner von Epstein, wurde tot in seiner Wohnung in den USA aufgefunden. Todesursache unbekannt. - Efrain Reyes, Zellengenosse von Epstein, starb kurz nachdem er mit US-Bundesermittlern gesprochen hatte. Offiziell war es Covid-19. - Virginia Giuffre, Hauptklägerin und Zeugin, starb in ihrem Haus in Australien. Offiziell was es Suizid, ihr Vater glaubt dies nicht. - Modelagent Jean-Luc Brunel, der Epstein Frauen besorgt haben soll, starb in seiner Gefängniszelle in Frankreich. Offiziell war es Suizid. - Modelagent Daniel Siad, der Epstein Frauen besorgt haben soll, starb überraschend und plötzlich in seinem Haus in Frankreich. Die Todesumstände sind noch nicht geklärt. Honi soit qui mal y pense. #MysteryDeaths #EpsteinCase #ConspiracyTheory

4/5 The FT reported Trump proposed to Xi Jinping that the US, China and Russia join forces against the Court — two powers that aren't even ICC members, one led by a man under its own arrest warrant. You don't need a conspiracy theory to see whose interests align here. #Trump #ICC #Geopolitics #US #CN #RU

Two men uncover a dark conspiracy behind a deadly virus—one seeking redemption, the other framed for murders he didn’t commit. Would you sacrifice loved ones to save the masses? #Thriller #Suspense https://t.co/DiiYC1Z4fh #Thriller #Suspense #Conspiracy #Therearenospecificcountrycodesmentionedinthetweet.

Nobody will ever find out who was behind this Spotify hack! It’s definitely not the only company in the world that would directly benefit from this! We may never know! (If you think this is just “some hacker”, then think again. you need major financial backing to scrape 300tb) https://t.co/U9T5JJV47w #SpotifyHack #Cybersecurity #ConspiracyTheory #Therearenospecificcountriesmentionedinthetweet.