In a world where dishonesty is everywhere, and the system is built-upon dishonesty; I am beginning to suspect that the greatest weapon Christians possess against the incremental and accelerating advance of the demonic agenda is the assertion of disbelief.
We need to be able to say, many times a day; many times an hour: I Don't Believe That.
How widely should this be applied? As widely as we consider the individuals and groups involved to be dishonestly-motivated. We ought not to believe those who are dishonestly-motivated.
Who, nowadays, is dishonestly-motivated? Well, pretty much everybody in a position of power, influence and high social status. Of course politicians, journalists, media people, civil servants (i.e. everyone senior employed in a government bureaucracy), people in advertising/ sales/ public relations - of course they are dishonest...
(It's their job! And honest man would not last a day.)
But also everyone senior in a mainstream social system (education, science, health services, police, military, law, religion...): Chairmen, Executives, Officials - all that vast tribe of managers.
And we can't believe middle-managers, unless they are willing to lose their jobs by being truthful. They exists merely to implement the policies of senior managers etc.
In sum; there is a great deal of dishonesty that needs disbelieving.
Of course, dishonesty is actively encouraged and rewarded; and honesty is punished.
But The System does not have only this one line of defence. There is a trap laid for those who claim dishonesty - which is to require an alternative true account. So, when someone asserts their disbelief in the 'media' narrative' or the 'official strory' - they will be hit by some version of: Okay, then what do you think really happened?
This is a trap, because typically all that we know of big media/ international stories is what the dishonest are prepared to tell us: that is; a mixture of selectivity, denial, distortion and outright lies.
From this, the truth cannot be extracted. So your interpretation or my interpretation of 'what really happened' is almost certain to be wrong. And this wrongness can usually be 'proven' (or, in practice, 'plausibly asserted') by those who control information.
Thus truth-seeking correct-disbelievers in the media narrative/ official story are successfully labelled 'conspiracy theorists'.
In a world, this world, where information is systematically poisoned down to its roots - we need to judge by motivation; and we need to judge motivation (of other persons, of systems and of organisations) by our own individual intuition and our own personal experiences.
Bad motivations are usually clear - if you can disengage from the manipulative net. We sense them - this ability is built-into us.
So - the first step is: I don't believe That.
Then the trap will be laid: we will be asked what we do think happened instead - and we will avoid the trap by saying some variation of I don't know, I could not possibly know; but it was not That.
But then we will be asked why, if we don't know what Did really happen, we then doubt the Official Story?
And the answer to such a question is: I do not believe that Source: my belief is that that Source is not honest.
Where does the onus of proof lie, when it comes to belief? Should we believe everybody unless they are proven to be dishonest? Yeah... right... Clearly, trust is something that needs to be earned - and we should trust only the well-motivated. (This is why we can and should trust God, the Christian God, because God loves us as his children - therefore we can be sure God's motivations towards us - personally, and towards Man-in-general - are Good.)