Disclaimer: Today’s media makes “conspiracy theory” sound dirty, far-fetched, and downright unethical to the point that it’s been lumped in with “fake news.” But there’s a fine line between the guys who talk about Reptilians in the White House, and those who dive deep into the bottomless pool of information at our fingertips, then resurface with a grain of over-looked truth. Conspiracies are largely unsubstantiated, but that doesn’t necessarily mean they’re far-fetched.
When one sifts through enough information, patterns become apparent. And the more pieces of otherwise circumstantial evidence emerge, that theory that is treated as irresponsible, and nothing less then nutty, suddenly holds the weight of “possibility.” There are many instances where coincidence leads down false trails, or implies untruths. But how far does coincidence go when evidence continues to mount? At what point is it irresponsible not to float an idea or suspicion (when there’s a pattern, or evidence to suggest the possibility)?
There were countless of these theories that resulted from the Podesta emails on Wikileaks. Reddit and 4chan crowdsourced amateur investigative journalism (since the lamestream media were so inept), pooling evidence for the theories of greater merit, and naturally letting the less likely theories fade away with the lack of evidence. They turned up some staggering hidden gems in the process, proving the value of exploring even the far-fetched “conspiracy theories,” particularly when no one else would. So when I float a theory, far-fetched or not, it’s with the understanding that “possible” is not necessarily the same as “probable,” and certainly not synonymous with “true.” If I strike gold, it’s only after digging through miles of sandstone, but if no one brings the nugget to the surface, it just stays buried in the detritus.
Be sure to check out the included links, otherwise none of this will make sense.
On that note, let me float a theory. Call it a suspicion if you will, but one that might be worth consideration:
You may have seen this article by now, http://www.breitbart.com/california/2016/09/26/palantir-obama-admin-sues-peter-thiels-racial-discrimination/, where the federal government is going after Palantir Technologies (which would be like a married man suing one’s mistress for buying the wrong lingerie, but the federal is as the federal does) over a statistical improbability that blames an over-reliance on employee referrals for discrimination against hiring Chinese employees. Breitbart indicates that it’s vengeance for Peter Thiel siding with the wrong team (despite Palantir’s co-founder and CEO Alex Karp’s interest in working exclusively with the HRC campaign). But don’t discount the possibility that it’s a different sort of vindictive measure in response to Palantir’s long battle with the Army.
But what I found odd about this was the focus on the hiring of Chinese specifically. Never mind that Chinese isn’t a race, so it can’t really be racial discrimination, or that Obama has spoken loud and clear about the dangers of Chinese cyber espionage. My first thought was that the suit against Palantir was, in fact, a bid to increase the chances of landing a Chinese agent within the Goliath data-mining operation.
But isn’t that a bit of a jump in logic? I mean, to imply that members of the US government would seek to plant Chinese spies inside a US company that handles vast amounts of sensitive information on pretty much everyone and everything they touch (which is pretty much everyone and everything)? That’s just crazy talk … isn’t it?
Maybe, but perhaps we should do a little digging into the history of US/Chinese relations to see if there’s even a crumb of evidence that there’s some crazy conspiracy between members of our government and theirs. You know, just to dismiss this ludicrous theory as just another piece of the “vast, right-wing conspiracy theories.”
To be on the safe side, we should probably go back to the beginning of the current Chinese government. Let’s see, it was World War II, and we were fighting the Japanese at the time. But what were we doing in China?
… Wait, did I read that right? Did I hear that right? We propped up Chairman Mao, trained them to fight for control, then supported the communists over the nationalists? I guess that shouldn’t be all that surprising, given the history of the OSS and the CIA of overthrowing nations, but surely that’s as far as it went.
Ah. Well then, I guess you could say Communist China owes their existence to the US. But that doesn’t mean we had some secret buddy buddy relationship with Mao.
Okay, okay. I get it. We were bff’s. But that was a long time ago, and relationships deteriorated during the Red Scare, right? That’s what we were taught in schools at least.
Great, now my head hurts. So the future director of the CIA and US President was creating a global network, using China as a launching pad. But Bush only served one term, then we had Clinton.
But what about the next President … oh, it’s another Bush. How’d that happen? Moving on.
Now, I know Obama had strained relations with China.
Wait, wait, wait. There’s no way Alex Jones was right about China and the climate deal. But even if he was, he called Hillary a Chinese agent. Now that’s crazy. Right? … Right? … Please say it ain’t so.
Here we have her propensity for printing physical copies of every email. Sounds awfully espionage-ish: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article111904077.html
And, probably the most telling of all: http://nypost.com/2016/01/24/hillarys-team-copied-intel-off-top-secret-server-to-email/
Does this not sound like the behavior of an acting agent? I mean, all of it does, but this one in particular.
Look at the whole picture. There’s no way to say with certainty that all of them belong on the puzzle, but, together, they paint a compelling picture. And this, my friends, is what is known as “merely scratching the surface.” One begins to understand how Alex Jones can claim that China was a social experiment for the NWO, and the model for the future world government.
“Whatever the price of the Chinese Revolution, it has obviously succeeded, not only in producing more efficient and dedicated administration, but also in fostering a high morale and community purpose. The social experiment in China under Chairman Mao’s leadership is one of the most important and successful in human history.”
– David Rockefeller, New York Times, 1973 http://www.nytimes.com/1973/08/10/archives/from-a-china-traveler.html
“Some even believe we [Rockefellers] are a part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United states, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure—one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I’m proud of it.”
-David Rockefeller, Memoirs, page 405 [copyright 2002]
But I’m not getting into that here. It’s sordid enough for one post already. Hopefully you can imagine that, if Alex Jones’ evidence paints a similar picture, he might actually be onto something more than a cooky conspiracy theory. There’s merit here, and it’s worth consideration at the very least, and, ideally, further investigation.
And perhaps one can understand why, when reading about Palantir and Chinese applicants, and the government trying to force them on him, my mind immediately jumps to “spies.”And when China openly tells the US to crack down on “fake news,” and social media, and we actually listen, I think I’ve got a legitimate reason for concern.
For God and Liberty,