Few care to know about, and fewer still act upon with protest, the outrageous possibility of establishment complicit-contrived 'terror attacks'. The implications, if correct, too unsettling for -- 'we ain't so fooled/so shut-it' -- intelligentsia and disciples.

Therefore, attempting to alert and expose glaring anomalies of reported 'Parsons Green bombing', according to The New Statesman, raises the question; 'What motivates someone to immediately cry conspiracy after a tragedy?'

Not why but what? It's about 'what and inside' covering the gamut of these claimants. With dismissive delight yet earnest concerns, at the consequences and those accusing victims of deception.

“Two important aspects of our psychology are our ability to spot patterns, and our resistance to being duped,” says Dr Robert Brotherton.

Amelia Tait is a technology and digital culture writer at the New Statesman who wrote the piece about Emma on the train, claiming harassment, from those who doubt this.

Put 'parson green false-flag hoax' in Google, so very few. I'm one and there's one or two more -- video makers aside -- talking about the event and questioning mainstream accounts.

The nearest we get in the NS to why and screaming conspiracy, is the inclusion and example of Sandy Hook, which it's said rests on; 'claiming that their children had never existed in the first place'.

Not sure I heard that one but as for ABC/123... and perhaps; 'Wolfgang is a nut?' -- No mention.

Instead of, "I know the bag bomb seemed odd and Parsons Green but here's some explanations", the analysis moves to psychoanalysing the viewer. Psychology over testimony, motive over observations.

Feels cranky so let's find a wounded one and report, presumably in agreement that; 'Emma now believes that the law needs to be changed so that others don’t experience the abuse she faced.'

Again, 'non parents of non children' (SH) and Emma on the train (depending on what claiming saw) isn't necessarily an issue and certain not a central one. What is -- are those unanswered questions and this producing holes, that gets filled by un-read bloggers like me.

Want less conspiracy talk MSM? Easy -- cover the details.

Never, not ever. The Mail did one on 9/11 that seemed to me to have been a steam-relieving exercise.

What me sayin'?

You'd think the press would maintain their wall of silence. And does Amelia Tait and like believe what they're writing? Noting the NS is maintaining in the UK it's lefties who are jumping on the truther train to nutty-land. Therefore cannot be accused of political bias. Cleaning up the comrades chatter eh.

While this is somewhat true, is considerably misleading, for all the thousands quoted as following a Lefties Facebook post, I'll categorically state again, no one much in any numbers at all, cares.

In fact on Parsons Green and reading about any posited conspiracy talk, Amelia is star of the show. Suggest more people who genuinely hadn't bothered to think twice -- In New State God We Trust -- are getting an introduction c/o the debunking and dismissing NS.

My CONSPIRACY suspicion is a) too silent is noisy and find the confident pretend-we-can-face and b), get the Laws up to crush what little dissenting sounds are out there.

Like a fire; leave the embers they may just catch, try to put out, may stir some sparks?

Give it air though...

May we please God see more; 'terrorism truthers who think ...'

'The UK Wants to Criminalize Reading “Extremist Material” on the Internet'. Paul Craig Roberts' title to the article below from Information Clearing House. Paul's succinct introduction states; 'The UK Wants to Criminalize Reading “Extremist Material” on the Internet Who defines “extremist material”?'

Britain Moves To Criminalize Reading Extremist Material On The Internet by Jonathan Turley

For years, civil libertarians have warned that Great Britain has been in a free fall from the criminalization of speech to the expansion of the surveillance state. Now the government is pursuing a law that would make the repeated viewing of extremist Internet sites a crime punishable to up to 15 years in prison. It appears that the government is not satiated by their ever-expanding criminalization of speech. They now want to criminalize even viewing sites on the Internet. As always, officials are basically telling the public to “trust us, we’re the government.” UK home secretary Amber Rudd is pushing the criminalization of reading as part of her anti-radicalization campaign . . . which turns out to be an anti-civil liberties campaign.

MORE