“There’s no such thing as a conspiracy! And we know that because some dark, shadowy group of unnamed individuals is trying to make you believe that there is!” Ummm… If you have a partially-functioning brain, that language ought to raise some red flags. Find out why!
This is an excerpt from “UN & Corporate Media Declare Information War,” which you can watch in full, for FREE, here: https://treeoflibertysociety.com/un-corporate-media-declare-information-war/
Help support ad-free content with a one time donation or becoming a member today.
Thank you to our sponsors
https://connollyandsonsconcrete.com/
https://www.dentistry4health.org
http://www.highercallingfirearms.com
http://www.americanappliancehvac.com
https://insurewithcompass.com/sbarlow.html
TRANSCRIPT
Another one is pre-bunking and debunking. Now, you want to remember this terminology because it’s used in actual articles out there. So we want to pre-bunk and debunk the conspiracy theories.
Be warned:
The COVID-19 pandemic has seen a rise in harmful and misleading conspiracy theories. It may be difficult to recognize them.
They keep on saying the same thing. Stopping the spread of conspiracy theories is challenging—because they’re full of facts. There is no one-size-fits-all approach. It depends on the level of exposure. So, for each person, you have to decide how informed they are—to see whether you just call them names or try to trick them into believing you.
“People who firmly believe in conspiracy theories are extremely difficult to reach.” I find that hilarious. They’re already saying that if you’ve come to understand the facts behind this conspiracy to destroy freedom, you’re going to be hard to reach. So we should just call you a name and move on.
Level One: Low Exposure
If someone has low exposure to conspiracy theories, we need to pre-bunk them—empower them to be more resilient. Warn people early that a conspiracy theory exists. Encourage rational thinking, questioning, and fact-checking.
That’s the gaslighting—pretending to encourage investigation. “We’re not hiding it from you,” they say.
Alert people about the arguments behind the most common COVID-19 conspiracy theories and the key traits of conspiratorial thinking:
– Suspicion of official accounts
– Immunity to contrary evidence
– Reinterpreting random events as part of a broader pattern
I love how it says “reinterpreting random events.” In other words, there is no such thing as connected events. Everything is random. “Don’t you dare think these things are connected.”
Debunking
Facts and logic matter.
Dos:
– Focus on the facts you want to communicate, not the myth you want to debunk. (Don’t give free advertising to the real issue.)
– Choose your target: the author, source, or logic behind the theory. (Focus on ad hominem—attack the person, not the idea.)
– Always state clearly that the information is wrong before quoting the conspiracy theory. (You’ll see this in articles.)
– Provide a fact-based alternative explanation (which they rarely do—“the science says” is often the only backup).
– Use visual aids. Simple images. Because people are stupid.
Like “Two weeks to flatten the curve.” What an amazing graph—there were no metrics. It was just a curve and some words.
Don’ts:
– Don’t focus on the conspiracy theory first. Don’t reinforce it.
– Don’t overwhelm with information. Don’t give facts someone might research and think about.
– Just give simple conclusions, then walk away.
Six Things Conspiracy Theories Have in Common
- A secret plot
- A group of conspirators
- Supporting evidence
- The idea that nothing happens by accident
- A belief that the world is good vs. evil
- Someone is to blame
So, in contrast, their message is:
– There’s no secret plot.
– No group of conspirators.
– No evidence.
– Everything is random.
– The world is gray.
– No one is to blame.
Is This a Conspiracy Theory?
Probably not, if:
– The author has “recognized qualifications.” (i.e., trained by the system)
– Sources are backed by fact-checking sites (which are themselves just websites with no accountability)
– The tone is “objective and factual” (even if the language isn’t)
I don’t know how tone can be factual. They just don’t want emotion. You can’t sound alarmed—even if you’re stating facts. Your tone has to sound calm, matter-of-fact, even when you’re exposing serious issues.
How Do Conspiracy Theories Cause Harm?
They claim:
– Identifying an enemy can fuel discrimination
– Spreading mistrust leads to apathy or radicalization
– Undermining science and law damages society
Ben:
“Isn’t that exactly what they did to the John Birch Society?”
Absolutely. They painted them as radicals. They want to discourage any group from exposing who they are.
How Should Journalists Report?
This is their marching orders to journalists:
– Use reliable, verified sources
– Do not reinforce conspiracy theories
– Emphasize core facts (i.e., the official narrative)
– Warn readers about related conspiracy theories before referencing them
– Don’t explain the theory. Just explain how it goes against “the science”
– Use the same emotional language: “science deniers,” “extremists,” etc.
There’s a quote from a Deseret News article titled “The Weaponization of Doubt: American Science Is Under Attack.”
That’s war language. Science is under attack. This is their religion. It’s not just information—it’s belief. When you criticize evolution, vaccines, or climate change, you’re not challenging data; you’re attacking the faith of the state.
The article says:
“There are forces at work who want us to believe false things about the climate, COVID-19, evolution, and GMOs.”
All of these are their sacred cows. To question any one of them is heresy. And yet, they give no evidence. They just say there’s a conspiracy against science.
They even mention “Jewish space lasers.” That’s how they shut down questions—attach something absurd or offensive, and ignore it entirely.
They reference Gates and vaccine microchips, which is ironic since one of his actual ventures is ID2020. There’s a USA Today article that claims Agenda 21 isn’t real—even though you can literally buy the Agenda 21 book published by the United Nations on Amazon.
They say:
“These theories are part of a deliberate propaganda campaign to create distrust.”
So they’re admitting there’s a war—a war of ideas.
“It’s not a free speech issue. Words are dangerous.”
If you say sodomy is wrong, you’re not expressing belief—you’re causing real harm, they say.
They also say:
“All science deniers reason the same way.”
Which is ridiculous. Nobody reasons identically. And they never explain how this reasoning is flawed.
They accuse:
– Cherry-picking evidence (without showing examples)
– Believing conspiracy theories
– Using illogical reasoning (but offer no proof)
– Relying on “fake experts” (i.e., anyone unapproved)
– Believing science has to be perfect to be credible
Then they say:
“We must remove the pump handle giving people the disease of disinformation.”
That’s metaphorical language for eliminating the source. Which implies the person is the source. This is war language.
“One way to do this is to pre-bunk…”
Straight from the UN’s playbook. Publicize flawed reasoning and shame people. Make them feel like victims who’ve been duped—then rebuild them in your image.
They are masters of psychology. But once you understand the tactics, you can teach others to recognize them too.
One person shares this story:
“When I realized how much false history I’d learned and was teaching my kids, I felt guilty and determined to stop. I started noticing what narratives the media pushes, then flipped it around and researched the other side.”
You begin to see what they really care about by what they push repeatedly. One mom said:
“My daughter was in middle school and the teacher had a whole lesson on debunking the moon landing deniers. She didn’t even know that was a thing. That’s how they pre-bunk. They plant the seed early—so that if you ever meet someone with a different view, you already reject it.”
The article ends with this line:
“We are in an information war. And the first step to winning an information war is to admit that it’s well underway.”
That right there is very revealing.
