top of page

Further Information

05 - My Old Posts


Waking up to waking up

Well, here it is. January 28th, 2016.

It's also worth noting that Dave who is tagged below

leads a private conspiracy group on Facebook and

has since deleted and blocked me.

You know... because he's open-minded.


I used to be very anti-vaccine. Reading these old posts are pretty difficult to be honest. The level of conduct on my part is shocking.

I think it'd be fun for me to refute my own arguments 5 years later....

So we start with sharing a YouTube video...

Who would have thought, right?

​It's worth noting that John Bergman is a

chiroprachtor who is anti-vaccine, anti-drugs

pro-chiroprachtics (of course) and in general

is a well spoken, and good-intentioned person.

I did find it weird how he would be unsure of

himself sometimes and change his tune..

But anyway.











Right off the bad, he did the conversation no

good by starting with ad homenim attacks and

ridiculing me. I think this was the post that made him

unfriend me... but I can't blame him.




Jesus Christ man, is that any way to talk to someone?

Arrogant, and fully in stage 1 > The confident phase.

Here comes Alex, the calm friendly voice of reason.

Perfectly reasonable and correct statement there.

There's plenty of information out there? Then provide it.

Generic statements are all I had, because my

understanding of vaccines were so superficial.

A clear example of why ridicule and condecending

words do not change the mind of an alternative

thinker. Friendly voiced of persistent reason do.

Pretty sound logic. Also notice something extremely vital

here. He agreed with me in some things, and he

told me so. I knew he wasn't a contratian or trying

to be difficult. When someone is right on something

admit it. You're having a conversation, not a fight.

I did do some pretty lengthy research. I started reading

studies. Unfortunately, I would just ignore studies

that I didn't agree with... Moving on.

A Dr in America, who's work I'm so familiar with I

couldn't remember his name. Off to a good start.

On to phase 2 > The defensive

There's the magic T word. Toxic. Now, there's some

merit in this as far as I'm aware. I haven't re-looked

into health since this time, but just analyse what I'm

claiming here.

Because one Dr gave false information and that

became adopted as science, that somehow invalidates

any and all research done by everyone else since

that came to the same conclusion? Doesn't hold up.

As I understand on the Bazinsky case (who I heard only

good things from Bergman) had quite the reputation in

the nearby hostpital when his failed healings would

need urgent care.

Absolutely right here, consistency. Bazinksky wasn't

consistent. It is a vague story and perhaps there is

another reason the FDA tried to shut him down.

Maybe he was causing harm. To me, there was only

one possibility. That's what being closed-minded is.

Right again. Why would governments, particularly

a government like the UK sell "toxic" <what even is that,

products to people with a nationalised health service?

Calm and friendly voice of reason.

This is really important. I openly admitted that:

I was heavily bias, saw conspiracies the more I looked,

and also had no definitive proof or documents or

anything else like that. Somehow, I still knew the

answers and any counter-points fell on deaf ears.

This is what I mean when I say the alternative

thinker's confirmation bias isn't concience. It's in plain

sight, but they cannot see it.

Here we finish at phase 3 > The stalemate.


I don't know how I would have felt about

being called an alternative-thinker.


I like to think i'd have approved.

It's worth noting the comments aren't relevant.

At all. They're really not.

Also, while corporate takeover of the world is

something that isn't outright wrong. There's pretty

clear indication of large coporations like Disney

absorbing everything else... But new world order?

Note that "I am a firm believer." If something's true,

do you have to believe in it for it to be real?

I am quite happy that I has some kind of sense and

critical thought, even in these days by rejecting

obvious conspiracy theories. Too bad I believed

many others.





Moving on.

This is an why I moved away from the term

conspiracy theorist in favour of alternative-thinker.

I used to have a problem with being called that.















Was this serious? I honestly can't tell.

I surly thought it was, though.










This is why I share this one. I find it interesting

that all someone else had to do was to go

a little further than me and I found it

hilarious and insane.

The cognative dissonance here and lack of

self-awareness is pretty impressive.

He was clearly making fun of me, but I couldn't

see it because I thought at the time, that he was

just being a nut. No, he was just showing me

how  appear to other people with me conspiracy






It's weird looking back at these...

Now this one's quite amazing to me. Again, you

can see I really didn't like being called a

conspiracy theorist, because that's what

crazy tin-foil hat people are, right?

Now, I know Rokas. He is very clearly, and very

obviously making fun of me. Why is this funny?

The like on his comment is from me! Honestly.

I thought he was agreeing with me.

The lack of self-awareness here is just huge.

Confirmation bias in action.​

Im not a theorist.png
Im not a theorist 2.png
im not a theorist 3.png

If nature made it we were meant to eat it

This has it's own fallacy interestingly enough. The appeal to nature fallacy.

I used to argue for this very much. I would take any Doctor's opinion who fell in line with my own as gospel, and any other Doctor who didn't support my views didn't know what they were talking about. In other words, I picked the anomalies.

This one's a gem.

Now, I haven't done the proper reading on the effects

of egg cholesterol in relation to diet. I haven't read

the scientific material in a way I have with something

like radio wave technologies.







"If nature made it we was supposed to eat it."

Bad grammar aside, remember this phrase. It's

a pretty blanket statement. It means:

nature = always good.

Now this isn't true for many reasons but let's see

what happens.



Toxic mushrooms. Absolutely, a natural food

source that is harmful. So how do I respond?

Do you eat rocks? That's funny. It's funny

because I tried to show him how ridiculous

he was being. The irony is that his comment was

to highlight how ridiculous I was being.

Talk about being unaware.

Like I see now, I proved his point about how silly

I was being.

Like a true alternative-thinker, I didn't see it that way.

To me, I won that one. The irony.

Now here's where he did actually start losing the

argument. If he had just stuck with his

mushroom example then he could have easily

proven my statement wrong.

What I always meant when I said that was:
"If it's the food we can eat and it isn't man-made, we

were meant to eat it."

Meant to? According to who? Nature? Nature

has no intentions, it isn't a sentient thing.

Our food has evolved massively over the course

of human history. I won't get into all that, but I hope

you can see how blinded by dogma I was back then.

nature 01.png

Like a few people I know, it all started with the Zeitgeist film.

Yes, I also used to be anti-billionaire and

anti-Gates. I shared this article.

Starting off, "where mainstream fears

to tread" sounds pretty much like a

conspiracy website to me. At the very

least, it's an alternative news source.

You might saw, a new source for

alternative-thinkers. :)

The image is designed to make him look

smug and like he's plotting something.

Want to know something funny?

When writing this page, this is the first

time I've ever read this article.

I share it without reading it. Reading it

now, I think it's a good idea.

(The illuminate have got to me)

No joke, Dave from my omission post

said that to be before he blocked me...



Now, it's important to establish something quite

obvious here. I am very obviously coming from a

position of "globalism is the new world order."

In other words, a global government is wanted by

the elites to control the people of the world and

achive global domination.

This is honestly what I used to believe. No speculation,

I know what I used to believe, this is it to the letter.



















I absolutely agree with this. Well written and again,

the calm friendly voice of reason.

















And we wnter phase 2 > The defensive. Using the

arguing of semantics and the deflection of

responsibility. This is also the play: The unspecific specific trap. I intentionally shared this to trap Alex with with scenamtics.

The tone and intention of the post is quite obvious.

I was making a point about globalism while

being vague and unspecific enough that I could

bait people into replying, to shoot them down as being

closed-minded. That's exactly what I tried to do.

That's fair. It was heavily implied. But when

arguing against an alternative-thinker who is

falling back on semantics, you can't bring in

implications, because they will just claim you're

projecting their own opinions of you onto them.

Ha! I'm writing as I read it. I didn't actually know

I went straight there. The alternative-thinker's

behaviour is so predictable because it's a basic and

common flaw in human mentality.



Deflecting responsibility for the post by not claiming

to ensdorse it's validity. Then why share it?

Now I will agree with my former self here.

Comapiracies absolutely exist and labeling it a

conspiracy theory means nothing. But we need

evidence for the claims we make and I had none

here. For someone accusing others of speculating,

I was doing an awful lot of it.







Now I'm right here, and I'm not. The intention behind

the post was transparent and clear. I then argued

semantics instead of making a valid case for

why this might be bad. I didn't make any arguments

against a global government at all. Not one.

My argument had no substance and it's crazy to

me that I didn't see it at the time.

globalism 1.png
bottom of page