Lies Not Discussed Within The Truth Community – Why Some Topics Aren’t Investigated With The Same Amount Of Diligence

 Wed 8:44 am +00:00, 25 Jun 2025  15

posted by pete fairhurst 2

Source: https://unorthodoxy.substack.com/p/lies-not-discussed-within-the-truth

Courtesy Kneepad

In my latest article1 on the Netflix movie Leave The World Behind, I argue that certain knowns of our current reality are based on false information and narratives. On a personal level, I have noticed that the more prominent names in the truth community often do not discuss these false narratives and information in-depth, which I call out in my note on a conversation regarding COVID-192.

Today, I want to address three significant conspiracies that are overlooked and sometimes wholly avoided. Those three are:

1. The Existence of Viruses 
2. Our Solar System 
3. The Validity of Nuclear Weapons 

Introduction

I discussed the topic of mental models in my article3 on The Power Of Thinking In First Principles. Mental models are concepts that help us see the world, and one of these models is the mental model of first principles. This model involves breaking down things to their bare substances. Today, we will use this analogy of first principles to examine the principles of the narrative that shape our perspective of reality.

Within the three conspiracies mentioned (are viruses real, is the earth round, or do nuclear weapons exist), I have noticed conflicting opinions within the truth community on these matters. However, we should agree on the founding principles of these topics.

There are three principles that I want to highlight regarding these topics:

1. The absence of supporting evidence for the conspiracy.
2. The blending of truths with falsehoods in the conspiracy.
3. The involvement of individuals who stand to benefit from the conspiracy.

To illustrate my method of rationale, I will use two case studies that I referenced in my book, An Unorthodox Truth. The first is the study of evolution, and the second is a brief analysis of the theory of dinosaurs. These studies are in the beginning parts of my book because it is essential to understand how the subject of science has changed our understanding of reality. By questioning science, we can also question our reality and come to a better understanding of it.

One thing to note is that we don’t have to possess a Ph.D. in Science to recognize the significant flaws within the subject of science. By grasping the principles, we gain comprehension of the topic. This line of thinking also builds off of my previous discussion4 on the Socratic method of questioning. If I can understand the principles and ask targeted questions, I can distinguish whether something is real or a fallacy.

This is the value readers of Unorthodoxy gain. By learning to see the world from a beautiful and spiritual perspective, using thinking strategies and mental models, and asking effective questions, they can evaluate different aspects that contribute to their reality.

Share

Case Study Sample: Evolution

Starting with evolution, our argument here is that:

• Evolution — a scientific theory stating that life originated from its most primitive origins — promoted as factual throughout the scientific world, is indeed not factual, did not occur, and does not explain how life came into existence.

Next, we will examine the missing information, the confusion, and the parties involved in this case study.

Absence of Supporting Evidence for Evolution

• It is a well-established fact of evolution that there is no conclusive evidence to suggest that humans evolved from apes due to the missing link. This limitation means that while evolution is widely accepted as a theory, it cannot be definitively stated as fact.

Blending of Truths with Falsehoods in Evolution

• The confusion around evolution arises because it is a natural part of life and is undoubtedly true. However, dogmas surrounding the concept often mix a bit of truth with many lies. While evolution does occur, whether it created life has not been validated.

Involvement of Individuals Who Benefit from Evolution

• Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution was vital in explaining — scientifically — how life and creation came to be. During this time, society underwent a cultural shift from spirituality towards materialism, starting a few hundred years prior. Evolution supported the political agenda of the day.

Analysis Of The Examination — And Dinosaurs

Evolution naturally occurs in nature and can also be known as natural selection, initially discovered by Alfred Wallace before Darwin hijacked it for himself — he really did; I discuss this in my book. While certain aspects of the theory are accurate, such as life evolving naturally, there are some significant gaps that invalidate the overall premise of the theory. These gaps are particularly evident when it comes to the origins of humanity, such as the missing link and the origin of the eye.

Even more interesting when you look into evolution is that evolutionists don’t believe in evolution. American Scientist George Wald makes the following quote5:

Science knows evolution is false but still promotes this ideology. This example is the ultimate takeaway of our discussion on narratives. The doctrine itself is false but is continually promoted and propagated as truth. For us who seek after truth, we need to recognize falsehood instead of accepting it as factual. Let’s take a quick look at the topic of dinosaurs as the two go hand-in-hand.

At a high level, we go through the same analogy with dinosaurs because it’s physically impossible for dinosaurs to have existed. The laws of physics do not allow for this. If dinosaurs existed, the world’s atmosphere would be completely different than we have today, but there is no evidence to say so. You don’t have to be a paleontologist to understand the improbability of dinosaurs because you’re thinking in first principles and asking specific lines of questions.

The confusion comes in because there were giant beasts, and we don’t know if these were giants or if these were beasts known as dragons. However, these creatures have more historical validation than dinosaurs, as dinosaurs were only “discovered” roughly 200 years ago.

When we look at the parties involved in finding these dinosaurs, we realize that we see the same lying and theft in dinosaurs as we saw with Darwin’s stealing from Wallace. Firstly, we have the originator of the word, the great plagiarizer, Sir Richard Owen, who was working at the British Museum at the time. Next, we also have Cope and Marsh, two individuals involved in stealing bone fossils and findings, who are also credited for their work in establishing this new species. Given the connections between these individuals, their actions to find and validate new dinosaur species seem suspicious — yet science promotes them and their findings as factual.

Based on our line of reasoning, this narrative is false. So, we have to be skeptical as well when it comes to dinosaurs. This understanding means we must recognize that a fallacy is at play whenever a movie, teacher, or information promotes this topic as factual.

A final point of contention is that we have just shown how these two theories are false. However, what’s interesting is that the theory of dinosaurs — according to Darwin — was the single, most robust support for evolution. This scenario paints how faulty theories support another faulty theory, ultimately building a false narrative of reality in which we become indoctrinated.

With these case studies under our belt, let us shift our attention back to our original three conspiracies, starting with the validity of viruses.

Share

Case Study Number One: Virology

According to Wikipedia:

• A virus is a submicroscopic infectious agent that replicates only inside the living cells of an organism. Viruses infect all life forms, from animals and plants to microorganisms, including bacteria and archaea.

Next, we will examine the missing information, the confusion, and the parties involved in this case study.

Absence of Supporting Evidence for Virology

• There has been no verified isolation or capturing of a “virus.” Similar to evolution, this crucial “missing link” in the theory is absent. First, an infected cell with the virus must be captured and harvested to isolate a virus. After being harvested, the virus is then filtered and cultivated.
• The filtration process is messy, with multiple chemicals mixed. The virus is then “determined” to be isolated from this mixture. However, to this day, what fails to be clarified is whether the “virus captured” is an actual virus or the remnant of the chemical concoction.
• To reiterate, if you took a completely healthy person and isolated a virus using the process outlined above, you would find a virus.

Blending of Truths with Falsehoods in Virology

• The confusion around viruses arises because people do indeed get sick. Two, the mass population appears to get simultaneously ill, giving rise to what is known as “viral transmission.” Unfortunately, in our modern world, we do not truly investigate and know why individuals get sick or why it spreads, allowing for theories like virology to take place.
• For one, major virus pandemics of the past have been disproven to be due to viral origins. Eric Coppolino’s substack article6 reads, “The viral transmission theory of “influenza” was disproved by Dr. Milton Rosenau and others in a series of careful, well-documented experiments performed for the U.S government and published in 1919.”
• Secondly, we have yet to investigate the role that stress on the body indeed plays in manifesting sickness. Staying with Eric’s article, we read that “The mass psychogenic effect of news reports was documented by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in 2006. Reports of the mere fear of terrorism, or a single incident could immediately send thousands of people to the hospital with clinical symptoms and with no exposure to any chemical or pathogen — only the idea of one.”

Involvement of Individuals Who Benefit from Virology

• We’ve seen entire industries benefit from the ideology of viruses: from National Institutes that receive funding to study virology to manufacturing companies that create drugs for viruses. Multiple industries have been resurrected to combat the ideology of viruses.
• There were a few individuals who pushed key elements of virology along. One was Louis Pasteur (who disproved evolution). Pasteur propagated the germ theory and was the founder of microbiology and immunology. One of the fundamental tenets of this new science is the spread of disease from one human to another. However, this transmission has never been proven.
• Two, as America was transforming during the industrialization age, we see the Rockefellers take an interest in healthcare. Pasteur’s theories could transform how healthcare could be used. As I discuss in my book and also in my article7, Donating To A Good Cause, once the Rockefellers were able to identify that petrochemicals (chemicals derived from their number one product, oil) could be sold, we see how they used their power and influence to transform America — from a holistic health care system to one reliant on their new product: pharmaceutical drugs.

Share

Analysis Of The Examination

According to Wikipedia, “The English word virus’ comes from the Latin vīrus, which refers to poison and other noxious liquids. Vīrus comes from the same Indo-European root as Sanskrit viṣa, Avestan vīša, and Ancient Greek ἰός (iós), which all mean ‘poison’.”

Similar to evolution — the same way that evolution naturally occurs in life; however, the overall premise of life being brought to existence by evolution is wrong — we see the same blend of truth and fiction being put together as one product.

Poisons are real, and what we’re seeing is that we may be witnessing a “poisoning” of the body — whether via electricity or mental poisoning via fear, stress, and psychological programming. When it comes to the case of psychological programming, there are a plethora of studies showing that by conditioning subjects to fear and stress and also including the possibility of a pathogen at play, the subject’s body will “break down” and become sick — as if they are under attack from that pathogen.

This revelation means that, yes, there is a “virus,” aka “poisoning,” which is affecting the minds of humans, resulting in the weakening of the body, which then presents itself as sickness. However, to say that there exists a submicroscopic — i.e., something that cannot be seen even under a microscope — infectious agent that is poisoning the population when this agent has never been captured8 is the definition of pseudoscience being propagated as natural science.

We’ve witnessed the many industries that have risen due to this pseudoscience, so we should not be surprised that this ideology is heavily protected due to catastrophic and systematic breakdowns that would occur once it is exposed at a mass level. We find ourselves on the other side of the pandemic, and what we see is that while many find the mainstream narrative of the pandemic to be fraudulent, we’re led on wild goose chases like Wuhan and many others. Yes, there are biological weapons that exist that could be studied in areas such as Wuhan (i.e., deadly bacterial pathogens like Anthrax), but stating that viruses were from Wuhan, now we see how the confusion essentially intensifies.

Overall, this belief has been exposed as another fallacy, and we will now transition to another case study: our solar system.

Share

Case Study Number Two: The Solar System

The main tenets around our solar system are the following:

• Our home, earth, is one of eight “planets” that are orbiting around the sun. This model is known as the heliocentric model. Also, our earth — and the other planets — are spheroidal planets.

Next, we will examine the missing information, the confusion, and the parties involved in this case study.

Absence of Supporting Evidence for Heliocentricity

• When it comes to evidence supporting that the earth is in motion around the sun, no observable evidence exists that supports this theory. In addition, when it comes to Earth being a spherical planet, no observable evidence supports this notion.

Blending of Truths with Falsehoods in Heliocentricity

• The confusion around this topic is what we’ve seen in the previous case studies. Specifically, in this case, what we see is how words and terminologies change over time. Let’s start with the terms planet and horizon.
• According to Wikipedia, “In ancient times, astronomers noted how certain lights moved across the sky, as opposed to the ‘fixed stars’, which maintained a constant relative position in the sky. Ancient Greeks called these lights πλάνητες ἀστέρες (planētes asteres, ‘wandering stars’) or simply πλανῆται (planētai, ‘wanderers’), from which today’s word ‘planet’ was derived.” So, the term planet was initially meant to describe a star that wandered since all the other stars were fixed in the sky.
• Regarding the earth being a sphere, one component that supports this theory is the term horizon. According to Wikipedia, “the horizon is the apparent curve that separates the surface of a celestial body from its sky when viewed from the perspective of an observer on or near the surface of the relevant body.”
• However, the term horizon can have a different meaning. In my earlier article9 titled Why The Flat Earth Appears Round, we read, “the term describes a horizontal plane that is perpendicular to the observer’s eye. This is saying that our sight converges on a “horizon” because we can only see things within our line of sight, which is a straight line from our eyes to the object we’re looking at.”
• So yes, planets and horizons do exist; however, their application in supporting a heliocentric solar system model is one where the overall premise of the theory is inaccurately applied.

Involvement of Individuals Who Benefit from Heliocentricity

• To discuss all the individuals involved benefiting from the idea of a heliocentric model of reality versus a geocentric model (the earth is the center of the universe) would be beyond the scope of this analysis. I plan on diving into this aspect later, but here are some concepts.
• To start, the idea of the earth being the center of the universe — or not — is a fundamental question about our humanity’s reality and place in the grand scheme of things10. Before the introduction of the heliocentric model roughly 500 years ago — yes, the earth being round and going around the sun is a very new model of reality — humanity went with the notion that a creator created us on this plane that was stationary in the center of the universe and above us in the skies were stars that were fixed, except for the eight bodies that moved. In short, since our origins, humanity’s reality — the critical prize at stake — was spiritually grounded, evidenced by the physical world around us.
• If we focus specifically on the European continent — since this is where heliocentricism originated — we see that the Roman Empire, the central power of the time, underwent a couple of transformations. First, when the military empire began to crumble, it shifted from a military empire to the Roman Church — harnessing the power of being the spiritual foundation of Europe. When the Church’s power began to crumble, the empire then underwent another transformation11, and we see the origins of Scientism appear. Scientism12 became the new power holder of reality as it pulled on the tenets of its military and religious experience.
• From Scientism and its early founders, Descartes, Newton, and Kepler, and their alchemic and masonic connections, we see the foundation of reality begin to transform from the spiritual model grounded in geocentrism to a new model — a materialism view supported by ideologies mentioned in this analysis: evolution, dinosaurs, germs, and so forth.
• P.S.: We’ve talked about how Darwin stole Wallace’s idea of natural selection and turned it into evolution. We’ve also talked about how Sir Richard Owen was a known plagiarizer, which is something to consider in his invention of dinosaurs. On a public level, we know about Johannes Kepler and his contribution to the solar system, but little do we know about his teacher Tycho Brahe, who, one, argued for the geocentric model, but two, mysteriously passed away, leaving all his work for Kepler to promote this heliocentric ideology.

Analysis Of The Examination

The question of our solar system is, in many ways, the question of reality itself. From our earliest years, one of the first things we learned about our world is that the earth is round. Even though we have no observable evidence to support this, this idea is reinforced in many ways — subtle and not-so-subtle.

We are taught that the earth is round and that the earth is spinning and in motion around the sun — even though we have no evidence to capture this motion.

This specific ideology is one the most challenging of all ideologies since it ties into the very foundation of reality. We have no evidence to support what the church of Scientism tells us, yet, time after time and year after year — similar to evolution, which evolutionists don’t believe but tell us to believe — we repeat and propagate this story over and over again.

Like virology, entire industries have been built off of this idea of the solar system model, even though nothing substantial comes from this. For one, we spend billions in taxpayer dollars and have nothing to show for it in the last 70 years. For another example, we’ve been told about satellites in space, and we have this idea of satellites, yet 99% of our communication takes place due to devices here on Earth. Similarly, we’re told of rockets that travel and blast into space, yet we have no evidence that we can examine to support this claim. We’re told these ideologies but cannot confirm nor refute them.

From evolution to viruses to a sun-centered model, we find nothing but stories, narratives, and ideologies. These narratives are mixed and comingled with factual evidence and concepts, even using the same terminology and jargon. However, with a small switch here or a few tricks there, the truth gets mixed in with the lies, and what comes forth is an ideology that is presented to humanity that takes away our time and attention from that which is accurate and grounded in reality — and takes it away to the world of illusion, delusion, and fantasy.

To close, let’s briefly touch on the threat of nuclear weapons.

Case Study Number Three: Nuclear Weapons

When I first heard that nuclear weapons were a false narrative, it didn’t take me long to comprehend the reality that this, too, was a narrative being pushed so that the population had something to fear. One thing that sticks out throughout history is the power that stories play in shaping reality.

One of the areas I’ve discovered is the works of H.G. Wells. From Wikipedia, we read the following:

• “Herbert George Wells (21 September 1866 – 13 August 1946) was an English writer. Prolific in many genres, he wrote more than fifty novels and dozens of short stories. His non-fiction output included works of social commentary, politics, history, popular science, satire, biography, and autobiography. Wells’ science fiction novels are so well regarded that he has been called the ‘father of science fiction’.
• In addition to his fame as a writer, he was prominent in his lifetime as a forward-looking, even prophetic social critic who devoted his literary talents to the development of a progressive vision on a global scale. As a futurist, he wrote a number of utopian works and foresaw the advent of aircraft, tanks, space travel, nuclear weapons, satellite television and something resembling the World Wide Web. His science fiction imagined time travel, alien invasion, invisibility and biological engineering before these subjects were common in the genre.”

H.G. Well’s work was very influential in propagating the story of space travel and aliens, which — as we touched on above — added more theories to the ideology of our modern solar system. In short, H.G. Wells introduced the reality of aliens and other worlds into our reality. By examining Wells’s work, we also see his influence in the military when he talks about “world-destroying weapons” — hence, the idea of the nuclear weapon was born.

The most extensive evidence we have supporting the idea of nuclear weapons is years-old footage we’ve been shown throughout repeated video clips. However, when examining this footage and the supposed damage presented, we see that the narrative of nuclear weapons falls short. If we examine the destruction shown to us via Hiroshima and Nagasaki — while these images appear to be destructive weapons of mass destruction, when we look closely into the events of these bombings — we realize that other kinds of bombings can produce similar results.

For example, in Japan, other cities were “fire-bombed” and leveled13, resembling flattening destruction similar to that of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

So after studying the effectiveness of propaganda and predictive programming and seeing the practical uses of narratives14, such as Brave New World and 1984, seeing how those could be used during times of war, especially as an opportunity to terrorize the world, it becomes clear that this narrative could be transformed into a reality with the right tools and resources.

One aspect of the nuclear phenomenon that I found particularly interesting is the concept of compartmentalization. According to Wikipedia:

• “Compartmentalization, in information security, whether public or private, is the limiting of access to information to persons or other entities on a need-to-know basis to perform certain tasks. It originated in the handling of classified information in military and intelligence applications.
• An example of compartmentalization was the Manhattan Project. Personnel at Oak Ridge constructed and operated centrifuges to isolate uranium-235 from naturally occurring uranium, but most did not know exactly what they were doing. Those that knew did not know why they were doing it. Parts of the weapon were separately designed by teams who did not know how the parts interacted.”

So, if a group of individuals — at the top of the ladder — who held all the information wanted to have the rest of the population within an organization work on a specific project, each individual at the top of the ladder could assign and distribute limited information down their work stream. And as the information trickles further from the original source at the top, those at the bottom have no idea what they’re doing or working on. They know that this is the information provided, and with that information, they build whatever has been asked of them into reality.

This idea of compartmentalization is associated with nuclear weapons, but upon examining all of our case studies, we can see it used in all the examples presented here today. For one, only those at the top control all the information. Two, some truths are contained within the information provided below to the masses. But three, those at the bottom either don’t know the whole picture or scope or don’t even bother to question the information provided. We see this in virology, the solar system, and, of course, with nuclear weapons. This ideology is the power of the Church of Scientism:

• Controlling the information at the top.
• Mixing it with truth to support their fallacies.
• Distributing it through various channels to influence the population’s perception of reality.

Again, the prize here is to own the perspective of reality. This scenario is the modern-day rendition of Plato’s allegory of the cave, which I discuss in depth in my book, An Unorthodox Truth.

Share

Conclusion

Throughout my awakening journey, I am indeed grateful for the truth channels I’ve come across. Thanks to individuals such as James Corbett, Mark Passio, Collective Evolution, and many more, I’ve been able to see the world for what it is. I’ve mainly been able to use the tools and techniques described by these resources to uncover other aspects of the world. For example, Corbett’s breakdown of policies and documents and meaning and interpretations of words is crucial in seeing how one word can mean this here but that there. So again, I’m grateful for the insights I learned and will continue to support their work.

However, I’ve noticed these individuals and many others have not touched on these topics mentioned in this article or gone in-depth as closely as I did. And to be honest, I do not know why.

For example, seeing that we are just coming out of the pandemic, the topic of virology should have been one that the truth community should have discussed in-depth. However, many of the big names either chose not to look into it, decided that it wasn’t worth their time, or stated that it was too divisive of a topic.

To be blunt and transparent, all those reasons sound like politically correct cop-outs. Not inasmuch as a deep dive has been given to these topics, yet we continue talking about other redundant issues that we understand well. It is as if the big names within the truth community are flat-out avoiding these topics.

If I were to play devil’s advocate as to why these topics are avoided, the first thing that comes to mind is that the topics discussed within this article are the highest level of conspiratorial. As stated in my article Art of Theoretical Science, there is a chart of conspiracies15. Some conspiracies are mainstream and widely accepted — and others are entirely out there because their impact questions the bedrock that our mainstream reality has been built on. Yet, for some reason, these big names seem not to venture there.

Is it due to the amount of misinformation within these topics? Is it also due to the time that has passed from when these concepts were first conceived? Yes, Project Blue Beam is real — and I, for one, would say that conspiracies like Tartaria could fall under a false conspiracy for conspiracy’s sake. Again, I don’t know the answers — however, this does raise another question: are the leaders within the truth community here to guide us to see only this aspect of reality but not that aspect of reality? Are they containing our view of reality within the mainstream accepted narrative?

Again, I can only speculate as I don’t know the answer. However, as stated earlier, I am indeed indebted to their work. Like many others, I can take the lessons and solutions they’ve presented and use those resources to explore other areas — like I and many others are doing in topics addressed here. Ultimately, we may find ourselves within a “battle for truth” where “truthers” debate and argue for that “truth” that they think is right — and I wholeheartedly welcome that. One thing that I’ve learned about the truth is that the truth “is unrelentless; it can stand on its own.” That being said, there’s no need for my truth or your truth; there is only the truth — standing upon the foundation of other truths and removing any lies and fallacies that have been comingled with the truth.

In the grand scheme of themes, I must say that I might be grateful for the big truthers not touching on these topics because, for one, it provides new voices — like myself — to investigate and explore the “unknown.” For new truth seekers like myself, we don’t have a “stake to lose,” so we can dive fully into these topics, recognize when we’re wrong, and apologize for it. These topics may be the starting point for new truthers to enter the spotlight and engage with a new way of seeing the world. One that fully and wholeheartedly removes all the fallacies that have covered our eyes and shows us just what kind of reality we find ourselves in.

I thank you all for your time and attention in reading this analysis, and, as always, I look forward to any questions, comments, and feedback you may have.

Ashe.