His story, her story, and the truth

The titular epithet of this piece illustrates the well-known phenomenon that, in an acrimonious relationship breakdown, there are generally three versions of the story:

-The man's version

-The woman's version

-The truth

What this idiom obviously refers to is the fact that invested parties will often give a very different spin on the same scenario, usually one that best reflects their interests and makes them the most sympathetic character to whoever they're relaying the story to, which is why we wouldn't typically take as verbatim either the man or woman's version, but would dig deeper and look more broadly to find out what really went on.

So it is too on the world stage. With every single high-profile media narrative involving drama, tragedy, and scandal, we, without fail, have:

-The official story

-The official conspiracy theory

-The truth

This is very clever psychological manoeuvring on the part of the ruling classes, because they know there will always be people who instinctively distrust the mainstream and see holes and anomalies in dominant narratives, so they make sure to immediately cater for those people too, with an official conspiracy theory. The official conspiracy theory runs simultaneously to the official story, and is controlled by the same people: the official story is promoted by assets in the mainstream media, the official conspiracy theory is promoted by assets in the alternative media.

The two camps will argue furiously with each other, which serves the aims of political controllers of creating the illusion of democratic debate and a diversity of views, whilst ensuring the actual truth remains suppressed and dismissed (outside the Overton window, "too crazy").

This approach also serves further political purposes of undermining the alternative viewpoint when the "official conspiracy theory" turns out not to be true.

The recent "assassination of Charlie Kirk" is a prototypical example of this.

Within hours of this event occurring, many 'fringe' commentators, including myself, said, 'this is fake' - that it was staged for various political purposes, purposes which I further explored here.

Predictably, we were met with howls of recrimination from certain corners of the conspiraverse, calling us vile ghouls and telling us to think of the probably fake children (anybody got names or birth certs for those kids? Thought not).

This is because these people wanted us to focus on - not the official story (obviously any self-respecting conspiracist isn't going to uncritically endorse that) - but the official conspiracy theory: that Kirk was slain by Mossad because of his "anti-Israel" views.

This is false: Kirk was not slain by Mossad, because he wasn't slain by anybody, and the evidence for that is now overwhelming for any honest investigator (see here, here, and here).

(And don't forget to check out the spectacularly - and intentionally - bad acting of his "wife" in this tribute video released barely 48 hours after the "shooting", after which she rushed off to caress the hands of his "dead body" on film before releasing it to the world's media, because that's a very plausible and not at all theatrically mocking way for a grieving spouse to behave in the immediate aftermath of horrific death.)

It is epically helpful to the ruling classes to seed the "Israel did it" narrative as the 'Charlie Kirk official conspiracy theory' because it helps further demonise conspiracy theorists as rabid antisemites who blame Jews for everything, and whom we therefore need yet more laws to control.

The mainstream conservative commentator, Jonathon Van Maren, encapsulated exactly why high-profile assets like Candace Owens and Ian Carroll are perpetuating the "it's Israel wot dunnit" angle, by displaying how most American Christian conservatives (albeit he's Canadian) will react to this theory. Van Maren said:

"Just days ago, Kirk posted a simple message: “Jesus defeated death so you can live.” Ian Carroll, the openly antisemitic podcaster who filled in for Candace Owens while she was on maternity leave, promptly responded: “And you’ve dedicated your life to serving the people who killed him.” Carroll was referring to Kirk’s long time support for the State of Israel.

However, on September 11, before the assassin had even been captured, Carroll was already proclaiming that he knew precisely who had killed Kirk: “Yesterday was a turning point for Israel US relations. Less than 24 hours and the internet already figured out who the most likely culprit was. He was their friend. He basically dedicated his life to them. And they murdered him in front of his family. Israel just shot themselves.”

The post went viral—over 15,000 reposts—and the Online Right went to work to spread the narrative, which went something like this: In recent months, Kirk had critiqued Israel and expressed frustration in a conversation with Megyn Kelly that some of his donors and others had pushed back very strongly when he did so. Some had also objected to his hosting of a debate between Josh Hammer and Dave Smith, a libertarian and one of the most prominent anti-Israel voices, at a TPUSA event. To legions who follow Online Right figures, this clearly meant that the State of Israel had “called a hit” on Kirk because he was starting to “turn” on them.

The theory is absurd on its face, but it reveals how thoroughly people have been algorithmically programmed to believe that Israel, and the Jews (Carroll and his followers make no distinction, as a quick scan of the posts reveals) are responsible for anything evil that occurs—even in the face of clear, countervailing evidence. "

(Read his full article here.)

Van Maren is absolutely right that there is indeed clear, countervailing evidence that Israel didn't do this, and that's because it didn't actually happen. It was staged. A world stage character was killed off, but, just as when such a fate befalls a soap opera character, the actor (or actors) playing him remains alive and well.

Obviously, that conclusion is way outside of Van Maren's scope to comment on, but the point is, that by sewing this false narrative about Israel, obvious controlled opposition characters have laid the foundations for the further demonisation of conspiracy theorists, as outlined in Van Maren's piece.

As Van Maren says about the likes of Owens, Carroll and Alex Jones:

"What does it actually take, in our insane online world, for someone to lose credibility? How much do they have to get wrong? How egregious do their errors—historical, factual, and, yes, moral—have to be before people reject them? In the never-ending roar of the toxic digital world, it is very easy to lose our own moral compass, and for our own minds to be influenced by a barrage of lies by dopamine-peddlers pushing hatred without realizing that they have climbed into our heads."

This is all feeding into the deafening chorus of concerns about "online misinformation" and "digital harms" about which "something must be done" - and antisemitism in particular is the huge hot button issue that Donald Trump especially is very exercised about.

So that's why the "official conspiracy theory" about Charlie Kirk is to blame Israel, and that's why all the big CO accounts are pushing it. Their role is to discredit alternative thinkers by pushing obviously false theories that fulfil stereotypes about conspiracy theorists - that they are crazy antisemities who irrationally blame Jews for everything, oh, and think people's wives are men.

Yes, about that: is Brigitte Macron a man? Whether she is or is not, it's fairly likely that if this proceeds to court courtesy of Candace Owens' allegations, the court will find that she is not. Proof will be presented such as a chromosome test. Candace Owens will say it's been faked. This will serve to ratify what Jonathon Van Maren says in his piece: that for a conspiracy theorist, even "clear, countervailing evidence" is not enough, because, essentially, they are insane. And not just insane, but toxic and hateful as well. We need to do something about them.

This, in my opinion, is why Candace Owens (who literally even has the initials 'CO'!) has been permitted to ascend to such prominence: her role is to ultimately discredit alternative thinkers and theories, when her most popular theories are "proven" on the world stage to be false. And when one or two of her most prominent theories are revealed as false - Brigitte not a man, Kirk not killed by Israel - it automatically tarnishes by association all her other theories. It enables conspiracy critics to conflate them all together, and dismiss all her output as the ravings of a mad woman antisemite fraudster.

This is why one must always be exceptionally wary of the "official conspiracy theory" in any high-profile tragic event, because, invariably, this is where that narrative always aims to take people. It aims to manipulate the public into concluding that there is something seriously wrong with those who challenge mainstream views, something wrong not just intellectually, but morally and spiritually, too.

Take, for example, the case of Madeleine McCann. The "official conspiracy theory" about the missing toddler - now 22 years old - is that her parents killed her and invented the abduction story to cover it up.

This is probably one of the most well-known and enduring conspiracy theories in the world, and even most 'normies' know that one and some even think there might be some truth in it.

Yet the mainstream media has always poured scorn upon this theory, accused its proponents of victimising an innocent, grieving family, and emphasised that there is absolutely no evidence that Madeleine is dead at all, let alone that her parents killed her.

They push this because, if and when Madeleine turns up alive and well (which has been my prediction for some time, and we should all keep our eyes on the "Madeleine McCann impostor" trial in October), the conspiracists who said she was dead - slain by her evil parents - can be held up as figures of utter societal revulsion.

"Look what these crazy cranks put that poor family through with their wild, hateful delusions, when she was alive all along! Something's got to be done about them."

Equally, with the "Southport stabbings", the establishment intentionally created an official conspiracy theory at the outset stating that the killer was an illegal Muslim immigrant. The purpose of this was to entice conspiracists to jump on it and widely proliferate the 'news' - as they obligingly did - so the establishment could promptly reveal the story as fake, and show what irrational, undiscerning people conspiracists are for leaping on this nonsense story with no proof it was true.

They do that with every big story, which is why we must never embrace the "official conspiracy theory" without first performing due diligence to ascertain: is this true, and if it isn't, who benefits from pretending it is?

Essentially, the unvarnished truth of any high-profile event will never (or very rarely) be promoted by any high-profile individual, regardless of whether they're high-profile mainstream or high-profile alternative, as the establishment decides who becomes high-profile, and they only ever bestow that status upon their assets who can be relied upon to stick to the script.

High-profile alternative assets are permitted to reveal enough truth to keep them credible with their audience, but never the whole story, and will intentionally lead down the garden path by promoting "the official conspiracy theory" at the expense of the truth, which they generally won't even consider as a possibility.

The purpose of the official conspiracy theory is, always, to undermine the credibility of its proponents and to therefore re-emphasise that only the mainstream and "trusted voices" can really be relied upon to tell us the truth.

So, just like in the example of an acrimonious relationship breakdown, when you have "his story" and "her story", the reality is that neither of these accounts represent the whole and unvarnished truth. Not "his" - the official story; not "hers"- the official conspiracy theory.

The real truth always lies outside of these two self-interested narratives.

Thanks for reading! This article was originally published at miriaf.co.uk, which is entirely reader-supported, with no paywalls, adverts, or wealthy corporate backers, meaning your support is what powers this site to keep going. If you enjoyed this article, and would like to read more in the future, please consider…

1. Subscribing monthly at Substack or Patreon (where paid subscribers can comment on posts)

2. Making a one-off contribution via BuyMeACoffee

3. Contributing in either way via bank transfer to Nat West, account number 30835984, sort code 54-10-27, account name FINCH MA (please use your email address as a reference if you’d like me to acknowledge receipt).

Your support is what allows these articles to keep being created and is enormously appreciated. Thank you.