I don’t think everything is a hoax

Be the 1st to vote.

…and I’m not a jew. I doubt Simon is as well (he can answer for himself is he chooses, but the 0;jew” angle is a massive red herring meant to halt serious inquiry and scare people). I agree that my “extreme” fakeologist theory that those purporting to be in the government (most likely the military division who are NOT elected) conspire to stage events among themselves is a difficult sell to those that don’t research media . Concepts like layers upon layers of psyOps ( including the anti-Jew, anti-government web sites, like this one could be) are far and away difficult subjects to broach with the average government-is-incompetent crowd. Impersonation of institutions and organizations is a far bigger and less explored topic than any website discusses

One of the topics he brought up dealt with a group of people who basically believe that every significant event covered by the mainstream Jew run media is a hoax. The problem with this group is that many of them are just automatically assuming that all of these events are hoaxes and that nothing ever really happens. This mode of thinking is quite frankly insane and presenting many of the various hoax theories doesn’t seem to be very effective as far as bringing more people on our side. Unfortunately, this mode of thinking is becoming more and more accepted as people are having an increasingly difficult time determining what’s real and what’s not in this digital era.

via Dailyslave.com | The Insanity Of The “Everything Is A Hoax” Conspiracy Crowd.

No tags for this post.

12 thoughts on “I don’t think everything is a hoax

  1. Pingback: Ep119-SMJ on 9/11 | Fakeologist.com

  2. xileffilex

    A general rule seems to be, certainly in London,that any incident involvning a [red] double decker bus is fake, or has hoax content.
    male couple in civil partnership, just over retirement age, about to go to Spain for Christmas
    two killed….

    or this one


    note the use of blurred photography so we don’t see too much. These low level incidents are reported every day

  3. JohnnyClues

    Tree Uprooted “Allegedly” By Hurricane Sandy
    @0:07 – “Sex Heel”
    @0:16 – “…It Takes A Few Seconds…” – Says Anderson. C’mon Cooper!, This “Scene” needs more Sandy Hook Style disappearing nose and less of this Disneyland Looking footage.

  4. smj

    do you ever wonder if you might be underestimating the hustle?

    i wish i could hop on the whodunnit bandwagon, but i’m still trying to figure out what the fuck has been going on.

    not that you have to have a clue in order to assign blame; it comes naturally for some folks.

  5. Blue Moon

    I’ll admit up front I couldn’t get all the way through that ridiculous article but I must ask again why people with this “Jew” fetish think that Fox News, especially, is “Jew” controlled? Rupert Murdoch is routinely called out for his anti-semitism and his chief financial support comes from Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal- Now I ask you, where’s the “Jew”? Show me the “Jew” in that maelstrom of bullshit that is Fox/News Corp/Star!!! Jesus Christ Almighty! (Well, there’s some jewishness for you- Although, truth be told, technically he’s converted) Yes, from this reporter’s angle, the Jewish conspiracy crap is serious behind the curve thinking, if you can call it “thinking”- Harrrumph!!!

  6. Cobra Commander

    Every time I explain media fakery to the people who don’t get it, they have the same response… “So you are saying everything is fake” I tell them to step away from the TV and look outside. That’s real. What you see on TV must be questioned until you can prove it it is real or fake. Nowadays, more times than not, I’m finding more fakery than reality. Even the real stories the media has to add a touch of fakery to add drama to the story. Point in case, Hurricane Sandy. I’m an Insurance Adjuster that worked Hurricane Sandy, and it was nowhere near as bad as bad as the media hyped it up to be.

    1. psyopticon

      Good call on the fakery behind “natural disasters”, Cobra Commander.

      Here’s a couple of recent examples of fauxto-fakery to “sell a storm”..


      Storm #fotofakes of New Brighton (nr Liverpool, England):
      “Original” fake at dailym.ai/1dTq1e5


      Another storm #fotofake (northern England)
      “Original” fake at dailym.ai/IuTAof


      More #fotofakes of US storm in Mail/Guardian — a rootless tree is, erm, uprooted.

      “Original” fake at www.dailyherald.com/storyimage…...


      Simply dreadful composite #fotofake for #Haiyan phony fundraiser — front end of taxi “melts” into house/ground!

      “Original” fake at cdn.24.co.za/files/Cms/General…


      As an insurance industry insider, what is your take on this field of fakery, CC??

      This isn’t about individual fraudulent storm damage claims? This is about creating the back-drop for a massive swindle of the insurance underwriters?? A media blitz of a few dozen dramatic phony images of storm damage, then publish an arbitrary figure on that supposed damage (e.g. $750m) and then demand the Lloyds Names / Members cough up all their dues???

      The former deputy chair of Lloyds of London described the centuries-old scam as “sheering the sheep”! “If God hadn’t wanted us to sheer them (the Names/underwriters) then he wouldn’t have made them sheep”, he joked!

      Along those lines?!

      See: Lloyd’s of London: Its thefts kept it afloat (Executive Intelligence Review, Aug 9, 1996)

  7. FauxCapitalist

    Ab, Dr. Judy Wood has said that first you determine what happened, then how it happened, and then you can investigate the who. She has done the first two, yet deliberately stays away from the third step in the logical progression, for whatever reasons best known to her.

    Why not take the next logical step yourself and examine the who with as much rigour as the what and how, as you already do? If you had a degree granting institution in Fakeology, would you award a PhD to someone who doesn’t rigorously address the who?

    Saying, as you have in the past, that we can’t really know who is exactly in on these things isn’t the proper frame, as we know who occupies top positions in media, banking, politics and the military, and to think that those who are planning and executing these psy-ops are totally mysterious and can’t be suspected by name or that they aren’t representative of the known top officials in these sectors just isn’t tenable.

    As for the “Jew” angle, it can and is used to halt serious inquiry, and so is not addressing it at all in a sober manner.

    No, you don’t see everything as a hoax, but you are a proponent of mass or pan-fakery, meaning widespread, saying that you use 9/11 as a template for your research into other psy-ops. Except that 9/11 was a special case, in terms of the budget, its aims, its scope, and its lifespan. It truly was intended for this century. To apply 9/11 as a template to things like lottery winnings and nuclear power is like trying to hit a square peg into a round hole — they require their own models for analysis, and several key aspects of the 9/11 psy-op template don’t apply to these other things you allege are psy-ops.

    But thanks for getting me (and us) to think about these things, and for bringing voice to Simon Shack’s work of 2007-2008 that otherwise may not have led me to see the widespread fakery that was part of 9/11.

    1. smj

      “Ab, Dr. Judy Wood has said that first you determine what happened, then how it happened, and then you can investigate the who. She has done the first two, yet deliberately stays away from the third step in the logical progression, for whatever reasons best known to her.”

      i don’t think dr. judy completed the first two steps of your progression. so why would i care what she has to say about the third; she is the space weapon lady right?

      would the ultimate puppet-masters amass into an identifiable collective (da jewz) so that they may then be targeted? i doubt it, that would defeat the purpose of the puppets.

      oh and by the way, degree-granting institutions and their phds play a major a role in the hustle, a major feckin role.

      1. FauxCapitalist

        Judy Wood may not have completed the first two steps of *her* progression from your perspective, or even from mine, but from hers, she has.

        You definitely look at the what before you can look at the how or who, and I’d say you could actually look at the latter in parallel.

        Instead of using her own reasoning and analysis to identify the who, she punted it to the corrupt, controlled court system, saying NIST knows who was behind the destruction of the three towers.

        It seems some “Fakeologists” are following a similar approach of her, of leaving it up to others to investigate the who.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.