Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 02/26/2019 in Posts

  1. 2 points
    One of the general differences between those on the left and right is that the right understands the left's views... You can see this with their parody and satire. Leftist characters are portrayed accurately, and sometimes, right-wing media creators can even explain the left's views better than actual leftists. The parody and satire created by leftists, though, is consistently egregious--like the description of Jussie Smollett's attackers, for example (pretty much every right leaning person knew it was bullshit immediately). Again, it's a generalization. Obviously not all right-wingers understand the left's talking points, but for the most part, they get it... while for the left, the opposite is true. They can't even conceive of what they are arguing against. So what you end up with is ignorant, and possibly stupid, people who the right is gently trying to point out as ignorant and stupid... which reaffirms the leftist's belief that people on the right are immoral (mean). Obviously accusing someone of being immoral is worse than accusing someone of being stupid... so it's insane. This is pretty much just venting... but it's really annoying that this is the case. Politics has become a chore where people with good ideas have to hold the hands of their attackers to help them see what they're missing.
  2. 2 points
    Vote fraud in Texas and Illinois elected the Kennedy-Johnson ticket in 1960. Massive vote fraud has made California a state completely dominated by the Democrat Party. If not for the Electoral College California would have made that criminal bitch Hillary President. Whether the Electoral College will do the same next time is problematic. It could give the Senate to the Dems. I find your naivete hard to get my brain around. ---Brant
  3. 2 points
    I love "on the sidelines" of #TrumpKimSummit. He's negotiating peace with a nuclear—armed country, ending a state of war that has existed between us for the last 70 years. While doing that he scores a deal for $12.7 billion of planes, then goes out for a smoke break with Phu Trong and a few of the Bamboo guys and returns with an additional $2.9 billion dollars. Best President ever.
  4. 1 point
    There is no Federal debt. It's de jure not de facto. This "debt" is money already put into the economy. If it's a cause of inflation it's already happened. Tackling the debt means taking money out of the economy causing a recession or depression. --Brant
  5. 1 point
  6. 1 point
    Yeah, dumbass, for emotionalism. Co–conspirators are guilty of every crime the conspiracy commits. For example, if your role is to arrive in the getaway car and all you do is drive that car, you are going away for a long time for bank robbery. If one of your co–conspirators shoots a teller, even though that was against the plan, you are going away for murder. If one of your co–conspirators murders someone years later, in order to keep the robbery hidden, then you can be put away for that murder, as well. Maddow can and will be put away for any number of acts of sedition and other high crimes committed by her and her Mockingbird handlers.
  7. 1 point
    Why is Maddow going to prison? For corrupting "reason" or for overblown emotionalism?
  8. 1 point
    We can check—off Mueller exoneration.
  9. 1 point
    I agree it is odd that few people have heard of him, outside of scholars. I'd say Comte observed and approved of the sacrifice sickness always visible in society, and uplifted the concept (and named it). An idea precedes, outlives, and is larger than the thinker. Like philosophers do, he had spin-off influence on others e.g. on Marx (!) and Mill and Spencer. Robert Campbell has a very good essay in OL somewhere, on Comte and altruism, wrt Rand's take on them. He confirms she got it precisely right. Wiki: Influenced by the utopian socialist Henri Saint-Simon,[4] Comte developed the positive philosophy in an attempt to remedy the social malaise of the French Revolution, calling for a new social doctrine based on the sciences. Comte was a major influence on 19th-century thought, influencing the work of social thinkers such as Karl Marx, John Stuart Mill, and George Eliot.[6] His concept of sociologie and social evolutionism set the tone for early social theorists andanthropologists such as Harriet Martineau and Herbert Spencer, evolving into modern academic sociology presented byÉmile Durkheim as practical and objective social research.
  10. 1 point
    It really is fucking weird. It's like, "Isn't it funny that we're saying that this fucker we hate is motivated by what we just made up, and therefore he's so petty and small so let's sneer at him, tee hee hee?" They're all acting like it's just the funniest shit ever. J
  11. 1 point
    I don't understand the unfunny-these-days comedy world's mocking on the Nunes lawsuit. I could understand some mockery, but what we are seeing is an orchestrated fake news media campaign. Do these people really think public mockery is going to mean anything in court? Something's going on for this to be this orchestrated. And, as usual, the campaign is decided and implemented by a club of insiders--and you are not invited into the club. Michael
  12. 1 point
    "Full-blown" altruism is a rare qualifier by me, I use it only in relation to Watson's "pathological altruism" (aimed at the Prog- Left), cleverly recognized even by that non-O'ist.... Since many people are not cognizant of altruism's wider and deeper nature, innocently taking it at face value. i.e. Just being kind, helpful or considerate to others, so getting sucked in. Then, the many non-innocents know also that invoking "altruism" and their distorted versions of 'empathy' unfailingly submits others' minds and actions to their will. And there we see the SJW's, media, and all the rest. If there's any doubt about the atrocities of altruism/otherism, I suggest to see it in the context of interference in others' lives, minds, freedom. That "interference" we can take to any degree and kind. (Not reasoned argument/persuasion, of course, which we notice is logically, the loathed target of today's altruists). "Interference" goes counter to acknowledging the general "other" as having an inalienable value in themselves and their lives, (as well as their potential value to one - far secondarily). To wrap up on others and our relations with them, there are those specific individuals to whom one gives one's attention, affection, respect, cooperation (etc.etc.), based on one's actual - known - value in them. But, in every sense, either using others by this now, totally implanted 'morality' as the instruments to your gains -and/or, being used by others for their ends, is where *sacrificial* altruism laid down by Comte and accurate to him comes in. Rand didn't invent the concept nor use the term idiosyncratically, she simply saw straight through its premises and effects. Comte reported on and admired what he saw in how societies function, but was blind to (evaded) much underlying self-interest, and he didn't estimate the benevolence factor, but developed his ethics out of the citizen's necessary, selfless duty ... all for all. One huge blob of selflessness. You see the results of his observations and ethics at work still (and worse than ever). Giving money, the material and physical side of altruism is just the iceberg-tip - some inexperienced Objectivists miss the big context and then could make ludicrous errors, like objections to helping out in emergencies, which you've pointed out. I am not unhappy I've not long been too privy to as much " knuckleheadedness" in this community as you. Naturally I've seen some and will see more, but I accept them as others' struggles and mistakes, where I have my own to concern me. When it distracts from the important things, some ignorance of the back-story and others' doings and statements is not always a bad thing. ;) Michael, to me the key to understanding the essential nature of altruism is in one definition by AR: "surrendering" the self, "self-abnegation". Which is the precondition for its survival. Clearly, sacrificers can't operate if there aren't self-sacrificers - especially when they are restricted from using physical force. The two go together, occasionally running in the same person, like now. What it means to 'negate' oneself, one's mind, i.e. one's rational standards, values, independence, happiness and all knowledge, is to enter degrees of gradual self-sacrifice that could be thought of as 'self-loss'. At the extreme I strongly suggest that the NZ killer who sacrificed others' lives to his notions of *a cause* (in his head, a lesser value in favor of a greater one, therefore, a gain - he might justify) is both self-sacrificial and sacrificial, the ultimate altruist. Even the most irrational person cannot escape his most basic knowledge of what basic humanity and its basic value is, and by discarding their humanity and his own, he's "negated" himself from human being to beneath an animal (which, pre-conceptual and not therefore consciously 'selfish' nor self-sacrificial, can't select alternatives among its acts).
  13. 1 point
    Altruism was appropriated by the totalitarians for moral justification for their idiological snarmniness and Rand countered with "selfishness" thereby justifying in her own way tyranny if tyranny be a value to whomever. The major flaw in her philosophy is its center in morality instead of politics and it's implicit and explicit morality. She was not wrong about rational self interest but she never recognized the nature of self interest in altruism. Of course, the religionists used altruism the same way the totalitarians did, to justify themselves and to control the subjugated and to subjugate. What has been obscured in this ideological warfare by its sheer bilateralism is actual human nature. The irony of the world of Atlas Shrugged is the sheer human destruction by the men of the mind going on strike is exponentially greater than anything the totalitarians have managed to achieve too date. Now I know I am mixing up my categories, fiction and non-fiction, and Rand declared she was trying to prevent a socialistic America, but Rand too was always mixing up those categories. However, man the individualist was also and always man the provider and man (man and woman, of course) the protector. Man and his (her) family. The irony is the Atlas bad boys were the heroes who let the other bad boys play just to practically illustrate in every way Rand could imagine how bad the bad boys and their policies could be to the USA. Not included, though, were anything like the Nazi and Communist genocides. Just good old Mr. Thompson and naked John Galt on the rack. That was essentially the end of her magnum opus. In her previous novel naked Howard Roark laughed. Roark led straight to Galt. This is why there is no Objectivist movement. The Objectivists are in Galt's Gulch. --Brant
  14. 1 point
    This guy Josh of https://kiwifarms.net is one who apparently hosted or posted links to the video and is exchanging love letters with NZ police ... On 3/17/2019 6:12 AM, MICHAEL, John (JP) wrote:Good afternoonI am hoping that you can help us with an investigation the New Zealand Police are working on.On 15 March 2019 there was a shooting in New Zealand with multiple fatalities at two mosques in the city of Christchurch.The alleged offender in this matter is a Brenton TARRANT.At around the time of the shooting there were a number of posts and links posted on kiwifarms.net <http://kiwifarms.net> relating to the shooting and TARRANTWe would like to preserve any posts and technical data including IP addresses, email addresses etc linked to these posts pending a formal legal request .Could you please advise what legal process you require for this request and also confirm preservation of the data requested pending legal process.Kind regardsJohnJohn Michael__Detective Senior Sergeant**E-mail: john.michael@police.govt.nz <mailto:john.michael@police.govt.nz>===============================================================WARNINGThe information contained in this email message is intended for the addressee only and may contain privileged information. It may also be subject to the provisions of section 50 of the Policing Act 2008, which creates an offence to have unlawful possession of Police property. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or have received this message in error, you must not peruse, use, distribute or copy this message or any of its contents.Also note, the views expressed in this message may not necessarily reflect those of the New Zealand Police. If you have received this message in error, please email or telephone the sender immediately--- Is this a joke? I'm not turning over information about my users. The person responsible for posting the video and manifesto PDF is myself.I feel real bad for you guys, you've got a quiet nation and now this attack is going to be the first thing people think of for the next 10 years when they hear the name New Zealand, but you can't do this. Tell your superiors they're going to make the entire country and its government look like clowns by trying to censor the Internet. You're a small, irrelevant island nation barely more recognizable than any other nameless pacific sovereignty. You do not have the clout to eradicate a video from the Internet and you do not have the legal reach to imprison everyone whose posted it. If anyone turns over to you the information they're asking for they're not only cowards, but they're fucking idiots.My name is Joshua Moon, I'm a US Citizen living overseas. My company is contained within a Florida company. If you need an address to send physical documents to this works.Lolcow LLC913 Beal Pkwy NWSuite A-1017Fort Walton Beach, FL 32547If you're wondering, no. Kiwi Farms has nothing to do with New Zealand. Our name is a pointed jab at some of the mushmouthed autistic people we make fun of. Absolutely nothing about our community is NZ oriented.And I don't give a single solitary fuck what section 50 of your faggot law say about sharing your email. Fuck you and fuck your shithole country.- Josh--- Hi JoshAppreciate your quick response.Will definitely consider what you have said.RegardsJohnJohn MichaelDetective Senior SergeantE-mail: john.michael@police.govt.nz
  15. 1 point
    Here is how Chelsea Clinton is seen on the true progressive left: It's not pretty. Just look at the hatred. Riffing off of Rush, in Chelsea Clinton's defense, she married a Jew, thus has Jew kids--to put it in the most blunt manner possible to highlight the part her protesters don't want highlighted. In other words, a Jew going to a Muslim event like this... Guess what happens? Can anybody say bigotry meets crony corruption? Michael
  16. 1 point
    It's worth it dude if you want to spoof the world. Wayne's World. Wayne's World.
  17. 1 point
    You're not supposed to wear a hat in Congress. It takes guts to say that these days. Michael
  18. 1 point
    Treason is cruel and unusual. If you violate your oath of office by trying to overrule the Constitution that is very unusual. During a time of war traitors in the Army were shot by firing squads, and a "rebellion" would be a time of war. In modern fiction, a segment of the Army is "recruited" to fight against the legitimate government but it would not happen in real life. So where would a hypothetical leftist, rebellious army come from? A small segment of The National Guard? A private army? Now Pelosi's army might "think it" but they would not act on those treasonous thoughts. I still remember the violent 60's, black rebellion, and the protests / rebellions against the Vietnam War and that is the closest we will ever come to rebellion. My wish is that a policy of "endless war" is no longer on the agenda either. It is not on the Trump republican agenda and I don't think jokes slash serious candidates like Beto O'Rooked are going to advocate war. Is there still a military - industrial complex and conspiracy to keep fanning the flames of war? I don't see it. America has evolved. We are becoming more like our Founding Fathers wished. Four more years! Four more years! And then another eight years of someone else who is a decent, honorable, sort as Commander In Chief and we will have fewer troops abroad. Though we probably will never have zero troops abroad, since we are a part of intelligent alliances like NATO. but no one on our side will be initiating violence or foreign "take overs." We will be out of Afghanistan and other foreign ports. Perhaps out of Germany, South Korea and Japan? I think so.
  19. 1 point
    See how deceptive the left is? Totally. I apologize for not including a link to Media Matters ... I was unusually lazy.
  20. 1 point
    I like it when Rush Limbaugh plays a recording of 10 or so left wing newsies who spoke about the same issue that day. Many times they don't just parrot each other, they say "exactly the same thing in the same way." Their "talking points" come from one source. They are nearly reciting a script. The mystery is: "Who provides their thinking?"
  21. 1 point
    One of the authors involved in the "Grievance Studies" hoax/sting has a new article up at Areos: "Should Universities Teach Conspiracy Theories as Knowledge?"
  22. 1 point
    I don't see how Facebook is going to avoid the MySpace effect and tank to a ghost of its former self. When the stampede starts (actually it has started, but it's way early in its early stage), it's going to be quite a show. Get this: Facebook Bans Zero Hedge and this: Facebook takes down Elizabeth Warren ads calling for breakup of Facebook Rather than refute, Facebook is banning. And it thinks banning will work to silence major figures in our culture. And once the people at Facebook get into this habit, I predict they will go haywire. They are pissing off people of all persuasions. Man oh man... Michael
  23. 1 point
    I'd think if the secretary didn't burn them they weren't burned (destroyed). But I don't think anybody was Hoover's master. I do think he was PR oriented, however, and he didn't mess with the Mafia or the drug trade. I sent him a letter once and got a nice reply. --Brant now you've got me wondering
  24. 1 point
    While I found your naivete hard to believe you've made me a believer. --Brant watch and learn these coming 21 months; you won't believe it until you see it
  25. 1 point
    btw - I am no fan of Corsi. I actually read Killing the Deep State: The Fight to Save President Trump. This could have been a very good book, but was basically a rehash of stuff from online discussions and videos without much improvement. I know because there is nothing in the book I hadn't seen before back when I read it. And, don't forget, most of the stuff one gets online needs a lot of improvement. This didn't happen in Corsi's book. Whether I like Corsi or not, agree with him or not, consider him to be sloppy and speculative or not, think he does more bad than good for spreading a pro-Trump message or not, even think his QAnon stuff that he promoted up to getting in trouble with Mueller is credible or mostly made up to promote himself and sell his book, that does not excuse what the Mueller people did to him. I get tickled by people who think Corsi was a kook until he said a message they agree with (his apology stuff). Then he becomes a credible source. L O friggin' L. In other words, to these people, Corsi lies until he doesn't. And they'll decide when he doesn't and becomes a sage. To me, Corsi is a kind of scholar for the fringe of the pro-Trump people. And he's not a very good scholar. In fact, at times, he's awful. To get value out of his work, you have to use him in the same manner you use all the major conspiracy folks. He's a blunt instrument to crack open topics that the powerful want buried, but he's not reliable for the details. And all of his conclusions need to be taken as a batch of uneven opinions--some spot on, some wacky and everything in between--that need further research. There's a trick to using these fringe folks correctly. See where the powerful get the most agitated and do the most damage to the fringe folks and right there will be the stuff to look at. (For a real good example, remember when they threw everything they had at a rather mediocre YouTube video maker to cover up the Benghazi mess? Or when they railroaded Dinesh D'Souza over campaign finance? Etc.?) Since Mueller came at Corsi with guns blazing, that's where the rot is. It doesn't matter what Corsi says from that point on. What he was talking about is what they want silenced. In my opinion, starting with Seth Rich... Michael
  26. 1 point
    Not supported by the evidence, Jon, sorry. By 'confession' do you mean the note of retraction posted at Infowars and cited above? I guess what I don't understand is why one might believe the retraction and apology cannot cohere with the truth. In other words, if Corsi says "I relied on a bunch of shit that has been retracted," then why is that suspect? Is it because Corsi himself is suspect? So, do you think Corsi is entirely making up what he relates in the retraction/apology? This seems to imply that Corsi was tortured. Where is the evidence of torture? Jon is a Mueller defender -- he says Mueller is a white-hat. Does that factor in to your own opinion? Speaking of zealotry.
  27. 1 point
    I think that Benjamin J.S. al-Haddad [b.j.al.haddad@gmail.com] is the corresponding author. Generally-speaking, one can request a 'reprint' directly from a corresponding author -- and they are happy to send one to you. There has been a bit of 'looky here' in mainstream reporting . LINK
  28. 1 point
    I'm for Trump and what he's doing--that is, by and large. The left has thoroughly outed itself in its viciousness and stupidity and ignorance with deep state augmentation. If he's not re-elected because of voter fraud this country will descend into civil war. --Brant
  29. 1 point
    This is President Trump. Read more here. I got choked up seeing this. Michael
  30. 1 point
    "Discussion was his main interest. Even 'difficult' disputes were in his wheelhouse. We will never forget his contributions to rational debate and disagreement."
  31. 1 point
    Changed your mind, have you, genius?
  32. 1 point
    To leave another person alone, and not bothering them, does not in my unhealthy obsessed mind, include occasionally quoting their public posts. Something like leaving multiple obscene voicemail abusive threats would be bothering them, or seem obsessive maybe to the recipient.... but we rational beings don't do that, do we?
  33. 1 point
    While we're asking stuff, I ask you to get a thorough psychiatric evaluation, and if you don't do it, I might call you such terrible names that you will go mad with terror and turn into a raving liberal. (Such are the heights of rational discourse on OL these days, apparently).
  34. 1 point
    Seth Rich leaked the DNC emails and they murdered him for it. The feelings of his friends and family have nothing to do with anything, and so, people who cite those feelings are full of shit.
  35. 1 point
  36. 1 point
    Let's hum the hymn, "There will be peace in the valley." I stopped reading Jon for a while but now I am back at it. Jon, just for the record (what a bs saying) if I am drinking alcohol and posting I will stick in a "hic" somewhere otherwise my obtuseness is coming from a clear head or is that oxymoronic? It's great having Ed post here.
  37. 1 point
    Veritas is now getting the goods on Facebook. I just learned a new word: deboosting. Here's the written story on the Veritas site: Facebook Insider Leaks Docs; Explains “Deboosting,” “Troll Report,” & Political Targeting in Video Interview More... we need more... Michael
  38. 1 point
    Michael Just a blurt to make the blurter feel good, I apologize. It was a sarcastic remark in regard to the Trump-haters/MSM and what their reactions may sound like after reading the posts about the progress Trump and his administration have had toward Making AGA. TDS and their intellectual dishonesty will never allow them to admit any 'good' from Trump without trying to tie it to his personal advantage ( or that of his family and their business dealings) and or how he keeps somehow advantaging Russia and specifically Putin's designs for Russia. I'll refrain from posting until I cobble together more coherent ideas with at least 50 or more words. But blurting does feel good for the lazy, I suppose that is what emoticons/jis are for, and likes and trophies.
  39. 1 point
    tmj, I remember a time when who what when where why and how were taught as elements of clear expression. Now the thing is blurting out cryptic opinions that I call "cheap profundity." It makes the blurter feel good, I guess. If there is an idea or something specific that led you to share your wisdom with us, I would be interested. I'm serious. I'm curious. What are you talking about? Michael
  40. 1 point
    Man , Vlad is just leading him around by the nose.
  41. 1 point
    The Art of the Deal
  42. 1 point
    I do NOT dislike you. ---Brant we just aren't best buds I do like Carol (we just aren't best buds)
  43. 1 point
    Jon, I frequently disagree with with your style of presentation and I'm having a hard time getting my brain around this "Q" stuff, but you're grounded. I can deal with that. Ed declines to be grounded, he says or implies by the likes of you. I can't take it further into a broader characterization like you did for that'd be unfair to him by me which is not to say you were unfair to him. Maybe you were and maybe you weren't. But he was unfair to you. That's because he does not participate here. He floats in and floats out. That makes his rudeness to you primary and your rudeness to him secondary. Sometimes with others here your rudeness might be described as primary to primary as with Carol. (She doesn't float in and out; she walks☺️.) --Brant
  44. 1 point
    Ed, If you know me, you know that would make me very proud. Michael
  45. 1 point
    Ooops, sorry, I just saw your post after what I posted what you see below. But I'll keep it up now for the record as we seek some understanding! ....... Michael - Assuming Jon is not a troll (you'd know better than I), he kind of make my point. Schultz sees far left Dems discrediting his party. Folks can point to the extremists and say "See these crazies! That's the Dems. I rest my case." So Schultz offers an alternative. David Kelley decades ago saw the dogmatic Objectivists discrediting the truly rational, open Objectivists. Folks could point to them and say "See these crazies! That's Objectivism. I rest my case." So David offered an alternative. Someone like Jon makes it easy for our opponents to say "See that crazy! That's Objectivist living. I rest my case." It is sad that after all these decades, these types are still infest Objectivist circles. I always appreciate Objectivist Living though I don't get here much anymore now that I'm doing more public policy. But keep up the example, Michael, of what Objectivism can be and should be!
  46. 1 point
    Ed, Who is Joe? btw - This is only tangentially related to your article, but you might find it amusing. The leftie propaganda actually does work on the young. I wonder if Schulz will speak at UCLA after this video reaches its peak of virality. I mean, according to the left, if anyone needs a reeducation camp, it's him. Michael
  47. 1 point
  48. 1 point
    I have excerpted some paragraphs from the article below. If you want a real hoot, read the comments at the bottom of the article, but not with a full mouth. THE INNER WORLDS OF CONSPIRACY BELIEVERS Those who subscribe to 9/11 conspiracy beliefs are generally suspicious and inquisitive, a new study suggests. By Bruce Bower June 20th, 2009; Vol.175 #13 (p. 11) Shortly after terrorist attacks destroyed the World Trade Center and mangled the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, conspiracy theories blossomed about secret and malevolent government plots behind the tragic events. A report scheduled to appear in an upcoming Applied Cognitive Psychology offers a preliminary psychological profile of people who believe in 9/11 conspiracies. A team led by psychologist Viren Swami of the University of Westminster in London identified several traits associated with subscribing to 9/11 conspiracies, at least among British citizens. These characteristics consist of backing one or more conspiracy theories unrelated to 9/11, frequently talking about 9/11 conspiracy beliefs with likeminded friends and others, taking a cynical stance toward politics, mistrusting authority, endorsing democratic practices, feeling generally suspicious toward others and displaying an inquisitive, imaginative outlook. “Often, the proof offered as evidence for a conspiracy is not specific to one incident or issue, but is used to justify a general pattern of conspiracy ideas,” Swami says. His conclusion echoes a 1994 proposal by sociologist Ted Goertzel of Rutgers–Camden in New Jersey. After conducting random telephone interviews of 347 New Jersey residents, Goertzel proposed that each of a person’s convictions about secret plots serves as evidence for other conspiracy beliefs, bypassing any need for confirming evidence. Goertzel says the new study provides an intriguing but partial look at the inner workings of conspiracy thinking. Such convictions critically depend on what he calls “selective skepticism.” Conspiracy believers are highly doubtful about information from the government or other sources they consider suspect. But, without criticism, believers accept any source that supports their preconceived views, he says. “Arguments advanced by conspiracy theorists tell you more about the believer than about the event,” Goertzel says. Conspiracy thinkers share an optimistic conviction that they can find “the truth,” spread it to the masses and foster social change, Goldberg asserts. Over the past 50 years, researchers and observers of social dynamics have traced beliefs in conspiracy theories to feelings of powerlessness, attempts to bolster self-esteem and diminished faith in government. Much as Swami’s team suspected, beliefs in 9/11 conspiracy theories were stronger among individuals whose personalities combined suspicion and antagonism toward others with intellectual curiosity and an active imagination. A related, unpublished survey of more than 1,000 British adults found that 9/11 conspiracy believers not only often subscribed to a variety of well-known conspiracy theories, but also frequently agreed with an invented conspiracy. Christopher French of Goldsmiths, University of London, and Patrick Leman of Royal Holloway, University of London, both psychologists, asked volunteers about eight common conspiracy theories and one that researchers made up: “The government is using mobile phone technology to track everyone all the time.” The study, still unpublished, shows that conspiracy believers displayed a greater propensity than nonbelievers to jump to conclusions based on limited evidence. “It seems likely that conspiratorial beliefs serve a similar psychological function to superstitious, paranormal and, more controversially, religious beliefs, as they help some people to gain a sense of control over an unpredictable world,” French says.
  49. 0 points
    The Fourth Reich isn't going to just give up Britain.