3 Mind-Opening Government Conspiracy Theories Proven To Be True

3 Mind-Opening Government Conspiracy Theories Proven To Be True

The truth is out there

The only thing we are absolutely sure about in life is that we aren't absolutely sure about anything. The human race thrives on theories. We debate theories and we make critical decisions over theories. We even go to war over theories. Life, death, mystical creatures, political conspiracies, and even a reptilian species who are disguised as our world leaders are just some of the everyday theories discussed by millions of people. I would say that a majority of people that criticize theorists do so because they make the argument that, "Why can't things just happen without an underlining cause of effect or explanation?" At the surface it seems like a valid argument, but it's wrong because so-called conspiracy theorists are obsessed with theories because many of the craziest ones have been proven to be true. Here are 3 insane U.S. government theories that have been proven to be true.

1. The "Gay Bomb" theory

One theory that was argued for years was that the U.S Military was developing or had already developed a bomb that could turn its victims into homosexuals. While theorists rejoiced when official U.S. Navy documents leaked that they proposed a bomb that contained a chemical that would cause enemy soldiers to become homosexual, and have their units break down due to the reasoning that all their soldiers would become irresistibly attracted to one another. I know it sounds like I'm making this up, but it's very true. It was a non-lethal project that never left the ground, but it was a theory saying the government was testing very questionable experiments and it was proven to be true.

2. MKUltra A.K.A The Mind Control Theory

When one thinks of mind control, usually sci-fi and fiction are thoughts that usually follow, but what if I were to tell you that in the 1950s, the C.I.A destroyed the mental state of dozens of people trying to make it an actual reality? Victims of the experiments came out and tried to convince others of the horrible treatments they've been put through, but most people couldn't believe that the government was capable of that kind of torture. Few did believe, which led to theorists making the issue widely known and eventually matters were taken up with the supreme court. The C.I.A. Director at the time, Richard Helms, ordered the destruction of all evidence of MKUltra in 1973, but incriminating documents were still brought forward and the results were nothing but shocking. Documents showed that the C.I.A. force fed large amounts of LSD to patients, performed electroshock therapy, as well as many other unethical experiments all because the government believed this would lead to the discovery of mind control.

3. "Operation Northwoods" Cuban False Flag Theory

A large amount of conspiracy theorists believe that the U.S. government has used false flags to get the country involved in a majority of the wars we've been in; including instances such as knowing about the Japanese planes before they reached pearl harbor to get us into WW2, or 9/11 being an inside job so we can go fight in the middle-east. One can easily say "There is no way the U.S government would even think about killing all those innocent people on 9/11 just to get us involved in a war," but after learning about "Operation Northwoods" you may think again. In 1962 the U.S. Department of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff proposed a false flag that would have the C.I.A. commit acts of terrorism on American citizens and blaming it on the Cuban Government, all in order to have solid reasoning to go to war with Cuba. The acts of terrorism would involve bombings and other acts of terror in the Miami area and Washington D.C, hijacking planes whose passengers were college students, and bombings of U.S ships. The U.S government would hide in the shadows, while its citizens blindly blame Cuba for all the death and destruction. Thankfully for us, President Kennedy refused the proposal, and evidence of this entire ordeal was made public in 1997. "Operation Northwoods" did nothing but provide evidence that the U.S. government has made plans to commit acts of terror to get involved in wars without thinking twice of the welfare of the innocent. I'm not saying 9/11 was an inside job, but you can't deny a close correlation between "Operation Northwoods" and the events of 9/11.

Cover Image Credit: google.com

Popular Right Now

An Open Letter to the Person Who Still Uses the "R Word"

Your negative associations are slowly poisoning the true meaning of an incredibly beautiful, exclusive word.

What do you mean you didn't “mean it like that?" You said it.

People don't say things just for the hell of it. It has one definition. Merriam-Webster defines it as, "To be less advanced in mental, physical or social development than is usual for one's age."

So, when you were “retarded drunk" this past weekend, as you claim, were you diagnosed with a physical or mental disability?

When you called your friend “retarded," did you realize that you were actually falsely labeling them as handicapped?

Don't correct yourself with words like “stupid," “dumb," or “ignorant." when I call you out. Sharpen your vocabulary a little more and broaden your horizons, because I promise you that if people with disabilities could banish that word forever, they would.

Especially when people associate it with drunks, bad decisions, idiotic statements, their enemies and other meaningless issues. Oh trust me, they are way more than that.

I'm not quite sure if you have had your eyes opened as to what a disabled person is capable of, but let me go ahead and lay it out there for you. My best friend has Down Syndrome, and when I tell people that their initial reaction is, “Oh that is so nice of you! You are so selfless to hang out with her."

Well, thanks for the compliment, but she is a person. A living, breathing, normal girl who has feelings, friends, thousands of abilities, knowledge, and compassion out the wazoo.

She listens better than anyone I know, she gets more excited to see me than anyone I know, and she works harder at her hobbies, school, work, and sports than anyone I know. She attends a private school, is a member of the swim team, has won multiple events in the Special Olympics, is in the school choir, and could quite possibly be the most popular girl at her school!

So yes, I would love to take your compliment, but please realize that most people who are labeled as “disabled" are actually more “able" than normal people. I hang out with her because she is one of the people who has so effortlessly taught me simplicity, gratitude, strength, faith, passion, love, genuine happiness and so much more.

Speaking for the people who cannot defend themselves: choose a new word.

The trend has gone out of style, just like smoking cigarettes or not wearing your seat belt. It is poisonous, it is ignorant, and it is low class.

As I explained above, most people with disabilities are actually more capable than a normal human because of their advantageous ways of making peoples' days and unknowingly changing lives. Hang out with a handicapped person, even if it is just for a day. I can one hundred percent guarantee you will bite your tongue next time you go to use the term out of context.

Hopefully you at least think of my friend, who in my book is a hero, a champion and an overcomer. Don't use the “R Word". You are way too good for that. Stand up and correct someone today.

Cover Image Credit: Kaitlin Murray

Related Content

Connect with a generation
of new voices.

We are students, thinkers, influencers, and communities sharing our ideas with the world. Join our platform to create and discover content that actually matters to you.

Learn more Start Creating

My First Political Debate Experience Only Revealed The Messed-Up Reality Of American Partisan Pandering

More sinister than fake news, more timeless than Trump and Kavanaugh, the deceit and radicalization of modern politics is poisoning America.


Given my age (almost 16 and a half!) and my nonpartisan perspective on most issues, it's rare that I attend any politically motivated function (much less in person). Unfortunately, my first taste of official political discourse only encapsulated everything I dislike about American politics.

Upon learning that my high school was hosting a debate between two candidates for the district's representative position, I was immediately intrigued. Admittedly, I had my expectations set high. I had jotted down "House Rep. Debate" on my calendar a week in advance and marked off the days the event neared. I would finally get to learn firsthand about the issues affecting my community and about the people with plans to fix them.

To a certain extent I got what I had hoped for, but certainly not in the environment I had anticipated.

When the student moderators introduced the candidates, Democrat Angelika Kausche and Republican Kelly Stewart, to the stage, it was already abundantly clear how ideologically distinct the two opponents would be.

The first question, which asked each candidate to describe how their views aligned with their party's platform, revealed just how cut-and-dry the candidates were at representing their respective factions. On the left, an unwavering conservative with a keen avoidance of overspending and socialist policies. On the right, an equally grounded liberal with a passion for tackling humanitarian injustices and enforcing moral correctness.

This circumstance certainly isn't unprecedented, but the rest of the night only proved how their narrow-minded partisan loyalty served as barriers to productive discourse.

Right off the bat, Kausche avoided the clearly stated question by taking the time to thank the John's Creek Community Association for hosting the event.

Stewart, however, dove right into her response, which turned out to be a fine-tuned diatribe about Georgia's budgetary deficit and Kausche's supposed lack of budgetary experience and the budgetary concerns and the budget. Finally, Stewart concluded that perhaps the most important thing to consider is, you guessed it, the budget. She even printed out budget sheets for attendees, which I found extraordinarily useful as a handy notepad.

My head perked up when I heard a question regarding Georgia's healthcare policies. Admittedly, I know less than I should about the subject and was curious to know what each candidate thought.

Shockingly, Republican Kelly Stewart opposed the expansion of Medicaid while Democrat Angelika Kausche vehemently supported it. I start to wonder what the point of having candidates' names on the ballot is when their political stances just as much could be conveyed with the letters "D" and "R" to the tee.

Neither candidate veered from their party platform for the rest of the night, with only a few moments of forced agreement (always around the fact that an issue exists, never about how to solve it). On a few occasions, a candidate would utter an especially radical idea (i.e. Obamacare is at blame for the opioid crisis. Medicaid should be for all people. Teachers should be armed.) and was almost always met with either overwhelming applause or a sea of groans.

The room's reaction was so powerful in either candidate's favor that I was genuinely confused who was the more favored of the two.

To be abundantly clear, I wholeheartedly support voter efficacy and staying informed, and I understand that debates inform voters of their representative's ideals. I also don't mean to criticize Kausche or Stewart or even the policies they endorse. I only question the point of debate when it's anchored in stiff, unrelenting party platforms. This is symptomatic of the larger trend at work in American politics: the exploitation of party differences by politicians to entice a demographic of their constituents.

If you're wondering what that means or demand evidence, just take President Trump. Back in 2016, his presidential campaign threatened to run as independent when he felt he wasn't getting enough support from the GOP. Now, he champions radicalized views of the right and has emboldened members of the far-right (along with alt-right neo-Nazis and racists) with his entirely anti-PC attitude.

Similarly, it's rare to find a democratic politician that deviates from the extensive list of liberal ideas that are expected of them. Consider Trump's opponent Hilary Clinton, who originally made it clear in 2014 that she was against nationwide legalization of same-sex marriage. Isn't it suspicious that in 2015, without explaining why her stance changed, her presidential campaign later advocated for this right, thus garnering support from the LGBT community?

There's so much more wrong with the state of American politics than your opposed party controlling political office.

The effect of the American people allowing this pandering and doublespeak is political inaction among policymakers, who can preach a set of ideals independent of their actual intentions.

The other result is voter apathy among constituents, who therefore feel their vote holds little weight.

With such deceitful rhetorical tactics dominating the political sphere, it's easy to believe that we've all been given a voice. But when that voice only ever tells us what we want to hear, it's important that we stop to question whether we're really being heard.

Related Content

Facebook Comments