EU e-Privacy Directive

This website uses cookies to manage authentication, navigation, and other functions. By using our website, you agree that we can place these types of cookies on your device.

You have declined cookies. This decision can be reversed.


Those of us struggling to make sense of the current world goings-on realise that many of these don't make sense when considered against a traditional world view-point.

Why did more or less the whole world in concert abandon all their prepared pandemic response plans in favour of previously deprecated measures like lockdowns and masks as soon as Covid-19 appeared?

Why did the world's panic continue when the government's own skewed statistics showed that Covid is more or less as survivable as influenza (and much better than that for children)?

Why did all medical regulatory bodies ignore and even deny the use of well established safe and inexpensive prophylactic treatments, in favour of pushing vastly expensive novel "vaccines" of untested technology upon the world population, including kids who are at no significant danger from the disease?

Why did the W.H.O. redefine the term "vaccine" so that these novel "vaccines" could qualify as such? Why not just call them what they are - novel mRNA gene treatments?

Why did Donald Trump initially favour the cheap safe and inexpensive prophylactic hydroxychloroquine, and then start encouraging everybody to "take the vaccine"?

Why don't the vaccines work? Most previous vaccines conferred a degree of immunity for life - these confer temporary immunity for a few months at best. They may even be compromising our natural immune systems. They are a failure on many levels.

Given that the disease is typically just as survivable as the flu, why now bankrupt national coffers around the world by pouring vast sums into pharmaceutical companies for yet more shots of ineffective "vaccines"?

There are many more questions but you get my drift.

Before going any further, if you have not yet read "Down the Rabbit Hole - 1" then I recommend you do so before continuing, as it provides some context.

Ready? Here is a topical tour de force from Wil Paranormal - I predict you will either reject it out of hand or watch it aghast - you have been warned.

What you choose to believe is your decision, but the implications are too profound for me not to offer you the opportunity:

(67 minutes)




As humans, we like simplicity - hot or cold, true or false, ill or well, love or hate, simple or complex, fast or slow, drunk or sober, solvent or broke, etc.

We know that the world is not like that. The world can recognise many shades of in-between - warm or cold, glass half-empty/half-full, like or dislike, etc. But sometimes it helps us to express ourselves if we exaggerate a little toward that extreme to which we are inclined.

When we consider what we should believe, this creates some problems - we subconsciously gravitate towards the extremes of belief or denial, because it's easier than trying to calibrate likelihoods of truth or falsehood. Indeed, any specific proposition before us may well contain elements of both extremes. We may tend to make the binary choice instead of taking the less decisive label of "I don't know - file under 'undecided' ".

Given the current state of the world, I have come to terms with the fact that there are a great many things that properly belong in the 'undecided' box.

If only we could look "under the hood of the universe" to see the "absolute" truth! Whereas some folk do claim at least limited ability to do just that, it's a facility that has so far eluded me (although I struggle to identify decisive grounds whereby I can definitively reject the possibility).

When I started this site a little over a year ago, my purpose was to present alternative viewpoints that "evidence and logic" suggested to me were of equal or better validity than the "mainstream" view. For example, I personally, after examining the evidence available to me, concluded that there are certainly different evidence-based viewpoints of greater or equal validity that we should consider concerning the Covid-19 situation and the Climate Change narrative as put forward by the mainstream. I thought that these viewpoints deserved to be presented.

That last statement raises more questions than it might seem - what constitutes "evidence"? - how to assess "validity"? What is "mainstream"?

To those questions we can add - what do "realistic" and "unrealistic" mean? What do "believable" and "unbelievable" mean?

These are important but fuzzy concepts that defy a standard definition.

Those of us who publish for an unrestricted public readership inevitably hesitate to put our weight and reputation behind notions that many will find "unrealistic" or "unbelievable" - despite the obvious difficulty in applying such fuzzy classifications to notions which (whether familiar or unfamiliar) are inherently unprovable. If reasonable (another fuzzy concept!) proof is not available, then where to draw the line?

Motivation can be a good guide where direct evidence may be lacking. Identify the motive that fits the evidence and you have another weapon in the armoury. It is a pretty invariable rule that people act in ways that further their motivation. If they don't, then we can assume with reasonable safety that we haven't identified their primary motivation.

All that remains after that is my intuition. Yes, I know that's another "fuzzy", and I'm well aware that it can be treacherous to navigate, but in the past I've been on the receiving end of very forceful intuition (that I ignored to my regret). I suspect that the treachery arises from an inability to distinguish genuine intuition from wishful thinking (but on past experience I suggest that the uninvited intrusive type of intuition should be given some serious attention).

I now find myself grappling with concepts that many or most may consider unbelievable, but which I struggle to dismiss beyond reasonable doubt.

If they were unimportant they wouldn't matter, but some of these could be of huge importance if true, so they merit serious attention.

Indeed I find that when I set the site up, I somehow had the prescience to set up a "conspiracy" tag to cater specifically for such situations. Examples:

  • a secret cabal that runs the world
  • extra-terrestrial beings (of amazing powers?)
  • human clones 

The "secret cabal" notion has only grown in recognition over the past years. Indeed it has become accepted dogma for many outside (and almost inside) the mainstream. It seems it may be a notion whose time is coming - maybe even already here, given the amazing uniformity of unprecedented pandemic response across the world.

The notion of ETs cannot possibly be dismissed out of hand when we consider that humans on Earth are only a few hundred thousand years old, whereas the universe has many billions of star systems and many billions of years under its belt. We have also discovered remains of mysterious ancient stoneworks (eg: pyramids) on most if not all continents (and some under the oceans) that even with modern tech we could not match. If through advanced tech interstellar travel is feasible, then "they" have been here already (and may be here still, Earth being the attractive planet that it undoubtedly is). "We" could even be "their" descendants, or their creation ...

As for human clones, Dolly the sheep was publicly cloned some years ago. If a sheep can be cloned, then we cannot dismiss the probability that so can a person - indeed we are more or less compelled to accept it. It is now merely a question of "when" "why" and "how".

And now the kicker - these unbelievables may work best to explain the current state of the world when considered in combination! That's a lot to swallow; but if you are prepared to consider one of them, then why not the others ..? None are prohibited by real evidence.

Please bear all the above in mind when you navigate articles tagged as "conspiracy" ...  under this heading I can cast my net wider whilst still remaining true to my principle of giving you the chance to decide what to believe.



This is a deep dive into one person's view of the current state of the world.

Beware strong language - if you don't like strong language (and the occasional slurping of coffee) you will almost certainly be offended by the concepts presented.

The parallel between an insect hive and the way the world works (and has worked for many years, possibly centuries) is striking, and I think it provides quite a clear model for what we are going through at the moment.

Still with us? Plenty of woo below, so - dive in!

"... over these next few months, we will see the degradation and collapse of the Federal Reserve Central Bank system"


See also:

Ukemi Woo - What Happens Next?

Woo, Over-Woo, Woo D'État ...



For the purposes of this article I will not differentiate between your brain (physical cells) and your mind (what you think with) - that's an argument for another day. The good news is that if as some think your mind is not a physical construct, then it is hopefully more difficult to mess with than your brain. More difficult, but probably not impossible ...

We are having to navigate a world of conflicting messaging systems (social media, mainstream media, family friends and acquaintances, movies, games, personal technology, you name it).

And now - 5G.

This little video explores the means by which some well-qualified people believe unscrupulous technologists could possibly already mess with our mind/brain.

I'm not saying that it's all true, just that we should be aware that some of it may be and some of it may be still 'in the works'.

If we are aware of what may be going on, it makes it more difficult for them. Don't panic, just keep a cool head:


This week Mr Fulford has provided an audio report which covers a lot of ground.

You can find the original article here (but to read it all you need a subscription) and audio here.

He certainly provides a plausible narrative, but as I have noted earlier, it isn't possible to cross-check with other sources ...   so you will need to trust your own judgement on this one.