Filmmaker and media host Sean Stone dives into the psychology of conspiracies and control. He also discusses about his famous dad: filmmaker director Oliver Stone. When some of the craziest conspiracies prove true, where does that leave us?
For more on Stone’s new documentary series “Best Kept Secret, Globalist Power Structure” visit: SeanStone.info
Bill Andrews says
This story Reminds me of another Conspiracy I herd about years ago that's right in line with The Holiday's ? A Bunch of Gal's with Gym membership's meet twice a week at there local Gym. One Gal met with ( To Pick up a friend to go to this local Gym at her House after Holidays.. ) Noticed after the thanksgiving Holiday and after Christmas Holiday every year, before they went noticed her friend pulling out her weight scales and re-adjusting the sensativity knob back 15 pounds before leaving, and couldn't make the connection every year, what or why she was doing this ??? "Now ladies don't be pulling that conspiracy trick with me ??? LOL, Don't eat to much for thanksgiving next year and be cheating the scales Wink, " How you Doin ?
Are we all living in an alternate universe here????? Nothing is as it seems........who knows what is a lie and is truth? Who can we trust?
GEORGE EADY says
WELL I CAN TELL YOU ALL WHAT (CONSPIRACY THEORY ) MEANS TO A DEMOCRATE OR THE DNC.. ( THEY UES THIS TO MISLEAD. )IT MEANS IT IS TURE BUT WE ARE NOT GOING TO ADMIT IT OR LOOK AT IT .. IT GOES RIGHT BESIDE THERE RACE CARD/ IN THE TOOLS TO DESTORY AMERICA
Matthew Gardner says
👍Way to go Sharyl
Charles Stepp says
4 panel Peanuts comic. Lucy's psych stand:
Lucy: It used to be that a person could live isolated the world's problems...
Lucy: Then it got to be that we all knew everything that was going on...
Lucy: The problem now is that we know everything about everything except what's going on.
Lucy: That's why you feel nervous...Five cents, please!
Snoopy thought bubble: I'm short a nickel, I'm still nervous, and I still don't know what's going on!
Stephen Triesch says
Just in the last few years, the serious discussion of many topics has been impeded by the MSM's claim that the topic is a "conspiracy theory," has been offered "without evidence," is "unfounded," or has been "debunked." The claim that something Has been "debunked" or was advanced "without evidence" is itself often made without evidence. The implication is always that the "conspiracy theory" was "debunked" SOMEWHERE ELSE, and the 'somewhere else" is typically left extremely vague.
To cite a very recent example: the possible role of the FBI and other government actors in planning and inciting the January 6th "insurrection" is now being declared to be a "conspiracy theory" offered "without evidence." But the reality is that Revolver News - which has probably delved into this topic more than anyone - did in fact provide a long and detailed account - based on official transcripts, charging documents, and video (as well as privately-sourced video) - of why they reached their conclusion that some of the major players on that day may have been government agents or informants.
To my knowledge, Revolver News (and later Tucker Carlson) did not claim this as an absolute fact, but simply declared that some of the evidence strongly SUGGESTS Federal involvement. To people who have been paying attention, the FBI and other Federal agencies have a long history of infiltrating marginal groups and attempting to lure them into some illegal or violent scheme. Given the way they mobilized against President Trump both before and during his presidency, is it a stretch that they might have attempted to "seal the deal" by implicating Trump and his supporters in a plot to overthrow the government?
But the MSM want nothing to do with it. Clearly, they view themselves as adjuncts to any Democrat administration, and the Biden administration's recent billion-dollar handout to local to media (many with ties to national media conglomerates) only serves to cement this unholy relationship.
Moe Matrix says
ARCHONS REPTILIANS SHAPE SHIFTERS IN COURT EXPOSED!
Stephen Triesch says
This was a wide-ranging interview, but parts of it reminded me of a book I read a few months ago that described our government's involvement in research pertaining to ESP, life-after-death, out-of-body experiences, mind control, and other topics usually associated with religion and the occult.
The book is called "Final Events," written by Nick Redfern , a long-time student of UFOs and the paranormal. Redfern describes conversations with members with an unofficial group within the American intelligence community which was assigned to investigate - over a period of many years - claims of alien abductions and related phenomena. This led to speculations about the nature of reality and research into the kinds of topics I previously mentioned. The government eventually concluded that UFOs are NOT spaceships from a distant planet or galaxy, but manifestations of demonic forces PRETENDING to be space travelers. At some point, these beings may attempt to simulate some event which will be given a spiritual meaning, and deceive people into giving their allegiance to some sort of Luciferian figure.
Far-fetched as that may sound, did this research give the government the ability to manipulate people's minds without their knowledge or permission, in ways that go beyond mere propaganda and actually involve direct access to a person's inner self? The statement that Sharyl attributes to a former intelligence official to the effect that "you can't even imagine what we are able to do" suggests that they may be able to do this sort of thing. How might such powers be used to generate and control events intended to further some governmental or globalist purpose?
I assume that Sean Stone had a largely secular upbringing, but even he sees a spiritual element to all of the deception we are now seeing. Many, many people are arriving at the same conclusion - something very strange is afoot, something very dark.
Fr. Spyridon Bailey, an Orthodox priest from England, wrote a book about his visit to Mt. Athos a few years ago. (Mt. Athos is the name given to a peninsula in northern Greece that is the site of about 20 monasteries, and is considered the center of Orthodox spirituality; 6,700-foot Mt. Athos - near the southern tip of the peninsula - is its most prominent geological feature.). While Fr. Bailey was there, on two separate occasions monks took him aside and warned him of coming horrible events for the world in general, for Europe, for America, and for Christians. We may be seeing those events unfolding right now.
Stephen Triesch says
Facebook is apparently trying to re-brand itself with the new moniker of "Meta." They have a TV ad which depicts a group of four light-skinned African-Americans (actual people) entering a cartoon jungle full of animals. When the animals begin to sway in a rhythmic manner, the people - after a moment or two of hesitation - begin to imitate the animals.
I found the whole thing kind of creepy. It suggests a merging of the human with the technological (the cartoon jungle), with the artificial jungle as the primary reality and the real people adapting to IT.
Maybe I'm reading too much into it. but suddenly we are seeing a lot of various serious efforts to eliminate the distinctions between human reality, fantasy, and technology. The solitary mad scientist working in a remote lab in Transylvania has been replaced by teams of mad scientists working for major corporations.
As an avowed skeptic, there are several criteria that I use when evaluating conspiracy theories, the most important two of which are:
#1) As the old saying goes “extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof”. The idea that there are secret government programs dealing with weather control or mind control as discussed in this video doesn’t seem all that extraordinary to me. After all, these programs are run by the DoD, and we pay some DoD personnel to imagine all kinds of ways that would help us in a future conflict. Plus, we wouldn’t want our potential adversaries to get too far ahead of us in some key area. So I can believe this no matter what the official government response is. As Trump says “it’s just common sense”.
But Stone seems to be claiming some worldwide cabal of elites that are really running things (I may be wrong on this because no one bothered to ask him what exactly he was claiming). And just for kicks, he added something about ritual child sacrifices. Now that is an extraordinary claim, one that I am not going to believe until some serious evidence is produced. This is also common sense.
Now I have heard various versions of the “elites running the world” conspiracy for as long as I can remember (the Trilateral Commission, UN black helicopters, QAnon, George Soros, the Masons, the Illuminati, the New World Order). No doubt that “elites” have outsized influence. But having outsized influence and engaging in child sacrifices or pedophilia are two wildly different things. The first thing makes sense. But until someone can make specific claims backed with specific evidence, I remain highly dubious about the second thing.
#2) The likelihood that some conspiracy can remain secret is inversely proportional to the number of people required to keep the conspiracy going. Once you get many people involved, someone is going to let the cat out of the bag either intentionally or unintentionally.
And it also depends on the type of people involved. For example, people running secret government programs are used to working in the secret world and are good at keeping secrets (they also know they would be in serious trouble if they leaked classified information). So I can see them keeping those programs pretty buttoned up.
I have read Oliver Stone’s Untold History of the United States and found it to be extremely interesting. One thing is for sure – it tells a different history than I was taught. And that difference is not particularly flattering to the US. The ironic thing to me is that this book is being used in this video to promote the likelihood of these conspiracies while its less-than-idealized telling of US history would seem to be opposed by many who want schools to not teach about the more sordid aspects of our history.
But Stone loses any credibility with me with his smug discussion of the 2020 election. First of all, he claims that “no one is talking about the fact that Trump got more votes in 2020 than he got in 2016 (aided by a sympathetic comment that Trump got more votes than any sitting President). That is patent nonsense. That is one of the most common comments that I have heard since the election. Trump hasn’t stopped talking about it. People act like just because Trump got more votes in 2020 he should automatically win. But the real thing that no one has spent much time talking about (except in conspiracy terms) is that Biden got that so many more votes than Trump. That’s what determines the winner in the real world.
So Trump getting more votes is proof that he should have won (and no one has questioned the legitimacy of all of those votes even though Trump got a lot more votes than was expected). While Biden getting so many more votes is proof of fraud. Sure, that’s logical.
And missing from the discussion was the fact that the press reports were that Republicans had registered more new voters than Democrats had done. So it stands to reason that Trump would get more votes this time around. Why wasn’t that pointed out?
And by now we are used to the eye roll that accompanies the comment that Trump was ahead on election day and then all of these mail-in ballots for Biden started rolling in. Yet it wasn’t pointed out that the eventual winner in states that allowed mail-in ballots to be processed prior to election day (Florida, Texas, North Carolina, and Arizona, for example) was also ahead on election day in that state while Biden did overtake Trump in some states that didn’t allow early processing (Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan, for example). In other words, if the initial election results included a decent percentage of the mail-in vote, the eventual winner was known on election day (Georgia is the only exception to this that I’m aware of). But if a sizeable portion of mail-in votes were tabulated after election day, the lead could have switched. Given the Democratic edge in mail-in voter registration, this should not have been a surprise and certainly shouldn’t be taken as evidence of some conspiracy.
And it also wasn’t pointed out that this exact scenario (initial voting favoring Trump, mail-in voting favoring Biden) was predicted by many weeks before the election. It doesn’t prove anything, but it is certainly relevant information to include in any discussion of voter fraud.
So let’s evaluate the voter-fraud conspiracy in light of my top two criteria. Clearly election fraud is an extraordinary claim. And clearly no extraordinary proof (or any proof, really) has been provided (and lots of counterproof has been). So that’s strike one. And the number of people involved would have to have been pretty significant given that five states were involved with all of their attendant election officials. And on top of that, those election officials aren’t used to working in the secret world. Someone almost certainly would have slipped up. So that’s strike two.
And I’ll add a third criterion – no matter what your personal feelings are, you have to go where the evidence leads you (so, for example, if real evidence of widespread fraud is produced, I would have to change my opinion despite my current beliefs). As already pointed out, all evidence thus far has pointed to a free and fair election. That’s just a fact. Full stop.
That’s strike three. Back to the dugout.
So it seems clear to me that this fits the classic definition of a conspiracy theory. But somehow I think we’ll continue to hear about it.
And speaking of a conspiracy theory definition……… while it is certainly true that there are all kinds of conspiracies in the world today (pretty much any time two or more people plan anything) and any of them could be considered a conspiracy theory, it is also true that that term really only applies to theories that make some wild, evidence-free claim. It’s like the word “diet”. Technically, everyone is on a “diet” since it can mean simply whatever food you happen to eat. But if someone tells you that they are on a “diet” you know that they mean they are going on a food regimen that they hope will result in them losing weight. Spending time parsing the definition of “conspiracy theory” seems pointless. We all know what it means. I think it was intended to lump all conspiracies (those that are likely and those that are fanciful) into one big pot in the listener’s mind so it would seem more reasonable to believe in “conspiracy theories”.
Based on my criteria, I would have to say that if I had to pick one of these two conspiracy theories (“elites running the world” or 2020 voter fraud) as being true, it’s clear which one it would be.
It’s not unreasonable to believe in some conspiracy theories. It’s only unreasonable to believe in the unreasonable ones.
Stephen Triesch says
Actually, it is possible that "conspiracy theories" are mostly believed in by people who want the world to be RATIONAL, to make sense, and when events occur that seem extremely unlikely, they probe for a rational explanation rather than accept the fact that sometimes crazy, highly unlikely things really DO happen. Sometimes the demand for rationality can degenerate into the very thing it fears - irrationality - but that does not mean that the original impulse is not for rationality to prevail.
As for the 2020 presidential election, I've seen articles written by statisticians and election experts who listed ten or twelve things that had never before happened in an American presidential election, or on the last fifty or sixty years, all of which were necessary for Biden to win, and all of which conveniently happened.
Even Time magazine conceded in an article last February that Trump was correct in noticing very unusual aspects of the 2020 election, but Time explained it not as voter fraud but as an unprecedented alliance of media, Democrat Party operatives, Big Tech, unions, corporations, and progressive social-action groups. That combined effort - which involved media suppression of true stories harmful to Biden and promotion of fake stories harmful to Trump - probably swayed millions of votes in Biden's direction, and perhaps explains the anomalies I mentioned in the preceding paragraph. At any rate, that was a REAL conspiracy, admitted to by a magazine that knew about and supported it, even proudly participated in it.
Finally, there are the accusations of actual voter fraud, some plausible, some far-fetched, which were described in hundreds of affidavits and testimony from election workers, poll watchers, statisticians, and various experts in a variety of fields. Despite the incessant claim that these were "debunked," most were not, and most were never given a fair hearing.
The fact the courts wanted nothing to do with those claims is hardly surprising, and is no proof that the claims of fraud were "without merit." What judge wants to hear evidence that might overturn an election weeks after the outcome has been (presumably) determined? What judge wants to declare thousands of hundreds of thousands of votes invalid? What judge wants to go out on a limb to defend Donald Trump? What judge wants the left-wing mob in his front yard? No judge wants any of that - far better to dismiss the case on grounds of "lack of standing" or some other technicality.
And maybe I missed it, but you - the supposed expert on conspiracy theories - never mentioned one of the most fundamental questions of conspiracy theorists - Who benefits? Given everything that has happened in the past 18 months, I have no doubt that the globalist left (which includes most of the American left) would have no qualms whatsoever about stealing an election. Their sense of entitlement, their sense of contempt for their opponents, their belief that politics determines truth, would almost DEMAND it. No, that doesn't prove that they did it, but it eliminates a major barrier to saying that it couldn't have happened.
Thanks for the response. Here is my (brief) reply:
1) Certainly there are people (like me) who tend to downplay conspiracy theories. That, of course, might make us miss some “black swan” event. And there are some people who are simply all in on almost any conspiracy theory especially if it paints some group that they don’t like in a bad light. Ask yourself this – if the shoe were on the other foot and Trump had won and Biden had claimed fraud, how many of the current folks who are just completely sure that the election was stolen would be on the other side? My guess is most of them. That is why I do my best to try to separate the emotion from the logic.
2) What exactly are the “ten or twelve things” that had to happen for Biden to win? Remember that some statistical anomaly proves nothing – at best it just gives you a place to start looking. I once saw a video from a mathematician disproving the 1-in-1,000,000,000,000,000 claim that was in the infamous Kraken lawsuit. He claimed, jokingly, at the end that the specific combination of states that went for Trump and Biden had never happened before. Given that there are 50 states and each state has two choices, that makes the overall probability 2**50 which is on the order of 1-in-1,000,000,000,000,000. None of this proves anything at all but at least it was a way to get to 1-in-a-quadrillion. It can certainly be argued, for example, that Trump was a uniquely reviled candidate (also uniquely beloved to be sure) and that is why the results were so unprecedented. I am not interested in generalities or interesting statistical quirks. I simply want some evidence to be produced. Is that asking too much?
3) You seem to be constructing another conspiracy by the MSM against Trump that helped sway the election. Certainly the MSM was biased against Trump – but certainly there were all kinds of right-wing media that would brook no negativity of him. Was this media conspiracy organized or did each MSM organization decide on their own? And remember that all of the noise around the election fraud was about the actual election mechanics, not media bias. So we can discuss any possible media bias on the election right after everyone agrees that the election was free and fair. Media bias didn’t incite those on January 6 – they thought the election itself was fraudulent.
4) What exactly are the “plausible” claims of voter fraud? There are certainly some that are more plausible than others but that’s only because some of the claims were truly preposterous. And where exactly was the “hundreds of affidavits and testimony” heard? Sure there were lots of affidavits, but how many were actually made part of a lawsuit heard in a court? Remember that anyone can make any claim that they want to – it’s in court that the rubber meets the road because those making the accusation are subject to cross-examination. So a lot of people made claims that somehow mysteriously vanished when actual court cases started. Remember that Giuliani himself said (in the Pennsylvania case) that “this case isn’t about fraud”. And I disagree that most claims were not given a “fair hearing”. Wisconsin, Arizona, Michigan, and Georgia did recounts and audits (I’m not sure about Pennsylvania) which were led by Republicans and nothing of substance was found. The recent Arizona audit raised a bunch of “possible” issues. These were all investigated and found to be baseless. None of this was ignored. And none of this was done after the 2016 election when Trump surprisingly (and legitimately) won.
5) I agree that the courts would be reluctant to overturn an election so the burden of proof of fraud would have to be fairly high. But here is a quote from the judge in Pennsylvania in dismissing one of the cases there: “One might expect that when seeking such a startling outcome, a plaintiff would come formidably armed with compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant corruption. Instead, this court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations … unsupported by the evidence. This cannot justify the disenfranchisement of a single voter, let alone all the voters in [the] sixth most populated state. Our people, laws and institutions demand more.” Does that sound like those claiming fraud were close to proving their case? It sure doesn’t to me.
6) I never claimed to be an expert on conspiracy theories – I only explained how I evaluate them. And considering who benefits is also one of my criteria. It’s just not a very important one given that one side or the other will benefit in any conspiracy theory (about the only way it would be relevant was if I couldn’t figure out why anyone would do whatever they were accused of). Your claim of The Left having no qualms of stealing an election may be true – but they still have to do it. And that’s the fundamental divide we have. It doesn’t really matter who benefits – I’m just asking for some evidence.