KorbenDallas

Conspiracy theories and Conspiracy theorists

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

This histrionic comment at 25 seconds in turned me off of continuing to listen ... in the context of loaded language, emotional witness. 

If this is his topic statement, I'd rather spend six minutes listening to Aretha Franklin's "Respect." 

Now it makes sense that Watson is said to be mostly a shut-in. He could be afraid of the crumbling, dangerous world outside his doors in savage London.  I do admire his ability to extemporize on camera, but his epistemology is of the sucking chest wound kind, IMHO.  I can peruse a plain text caption version of his shtick later.

There is no accounting for rhetorical taste, I suppose -- one can relish a ringing, rousing declamation, even while its warrants may be as feeble as the structure of its argument; if it serves our worldview and biases (the Fallen World) we may be persuaded by almost any appeal to emotion.   Beware the cynicism and calculation of a would-be philosopher/guru/Truth-teller ... strong claims, weak warrants, sweeping generalities, confirmation bias ...

as Western
00:25
civilization collapses which it is so
00:28
does our ability to deal with minor
00:30
day-to-day struggles without breaking
00:32
down and wallowing in a pitiful puddle
00:35
of our own self-indulgent fragility
 

My favourite kind of hammy and histrionic faux-reportage/Cassandra-ism is that of fellow UK media personality Katie Hopkins.  My exemplar would be her videos earlier this year all exercised about the sidewalks and public spaces of Toronto. Brown people!  Too many!

Imagine what PJW could do with himself were he as brave and enterprising as Katie.

With an attitude like that, the New York Times should hire her. Then again, maybe she needs to up her hate game a bit more and publish her racist views more frequently to meet their standards.

J

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, william.scherk said:

This histrionic comment at 25 seconds in turned me off of continuing to listen ... in the context of loaded language, emotional witness. 

If this is his topic statement, I'd rather spend six minutes listening to Aretha Franklin's "Respect." 

Now it makes sense that Watson is said to be mostly a shut-in. He could be afraid of the crumbling, dangerous world outside his doors in savage London.  I do admire his ability to extemporize on camera, but his epistemology is of the sucking chest wound kind, IMHO.  I can peruse a plain text caption version of his shtick later.

There is no accounting for rhetorical taste, I suppose -- one can relish a ringing, rousing declamation, even while its warrants may be as feeble as the structure of its argument; if it serves our worldview and biases (the Fallen World) we may be persuaded by almost any appeal to emotion.   Beware the cynicism and calculation of a would-be philosopher/guru/Truth-teller ... strong claims, weak warrants, sweeping generalities, confirmation bias ...

as Western
00:25
civilization collapses which it is so
00:28
does our ability to deal with minor
00:30
day-to-day struggles without breaking
00:32
down and wallowing in a pitiful puddle
00:35
of our own self-indulgent fragility
 

My favourite kind of hammy and histrionic faux-reportage/Cassandra-ism is that of fellow UK media personality Katie Hopkins.  My exemplar would be her videos earlier this year all exercised about the sidewalks and public spaces of Toronto. Brown people!  Too many!

Imagine what PJW could do with himself were he as brave and enterprising as Katie.

Yeah William. One "histrionic comment" shouldn't put you off the message, Watson's self-evidently correct observations of general, universal histrionics should be what interests you (student of human nature and psychology). Faked or exaggerated emotions are clearly a part and parcel of the new narcissistic, show-offy public face. The basic three which I see: miserable, enraged or ecstatic. Like Watson, I think a little more outward stoicism and restraint - if not self-respecting privacy - could go a long way. Reminds you, perhaps, of William James' theory?

"Common sense says, we lose our fortune, are sorry and weep; we meet a bear, are frightened and run; we are insulted by a rival, are angry and strike ... the more rational statement is that we feel sorry because we cry, angry because we strike, afraid because we tremble..."

Ahh. So his theory comes to pass.

You've heard me go on about causal reversal, emotions the response to values, and the rest. Watson, in his o.t.t. fashion puts his finger on more aspects, modern truths of human behavior - he is often insightful and intelligent (like most "alt-right", conservative-liberal thinkers now, he is more reasonable, incisive, deep, and concerned about individual freedom and civilisation than almost anyone on the Left. I include Peterson, Rubin, Molyneux and others, (although I don't follow any that closely). One must not mistake these guys deeply felt passions about those values - I'd include Alex Jones, too - for just superficial histrionics. They each realise something is going badly wrong with the West.

And on the other end, hysterical laughter - what is with that facial rictus I've been seeing so much of in the last years - people's wide open mouths showing you upper palettes and tonsils in an ostensive demonstration of 'joyfulness'? Often, that is clearly inappropriate, faked or forced, and imitated from the general "others" as well. "Sharing selfies" have driven that, I suspect, with 'reality' TV and movies following the craze. Sign of the times, we get more inauthentic emotions, as with inauthentic facts and cheapened values and unreason. Life mimics bad art, reason and honesty, especially emotional honesty, are in short supply. "Insipid sentimentality", JPW puts it. I respect-appreciate emotions, as you know. All this is not even decent, human emotion but ~sensationalism~ for others' consumption, I believe.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/25/2016 at 12:34 PM, KorbenDallas said:

Protect yourself by using Reason, Rationality, Logic, and the epistemic standard of Objectivity, folks.

Better, identify the conspiracy theorist or conspiracy theory and reject outright.

And use volition: self-initiated, independent thought.

Here's a reasonably-fresh topical video from the folks at ARI: Bayer and Ghate Chat on Rand’s View of Conspiracy Theories (New Ideal)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still having doubts about the Deep State?

08.17.2018-16.26.png

The link goes here:

Manafort’s Judge Is Under Federal Protection After Wave Of Threats

From the article:

Quote

Judge T.S. Ellis III revealed in open court Friday that he has received death threats relating to his presiding over Paul Manafort’s trial for bank and tax fraud at a federal court in Alexandria, Virginia.

The judge has since retained the protection of the U.S. Marshals Service.

“I have the marshal’s protection,” Ellis said. “I don’t even go to the hotel alone. I won’t even reveal the name of the hotel.”

“I had no idea this case excited this emotion in the public,” he added.

Ellis made the comments after a coalition of news organizations — including The Washington Post, The New York Times, the Associated Press, CNN, NBC, Politico and BuzzFeed — requested the names and addresses of jurors seated for Manafort’s case.

“There is no reason to believe that extraordinary circumstances exist that would justify keeping jurors’ names sealed — particularly after they have rendered their verdict,” their motion reads.

But Ellis disagreed, and rejected the motion for fear the jurors would be subject to the same harassment he has received.

They're not even hiding it anymore. Spooks are supposed to hide stuff like that.

This is the desperation of a dying elitist power group in collusion with a dying fake news legacy media.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“Root, root, root, for the home team.” Conspiracy Theories we hope come true? Where is the Deep State? “They” are hiding in plain sight. Revoking the Security Clearances of the Deep State’s operating personnel is not a purge in the sense of a dictatorship marginalizing its political opponents. However, it is one step in the direction of taking away unearned access, power and control *bestowed upon* insiders of the Deep State.

I am not suggesting that opposition to Trump is automatically a sign of the Deep State but it is suggestive and worthy of scrutiny. And by revoking security clearances, President Trump is not in any sense taking away an extra right any current or former government employee is entitled to. They are free to go about their lives, but without political or security access.

As an example, remember Senator Chuck Schumer getting in hot water for telling his best buds on the west coast what was just revealed in DC so that they could better play the stock market? As President Trump might say if he was the referee at a sporting event, “They are dirty. For shame. Toss their asses out!” Peter

Notes. Gosh. Doesn’t this sound like Rand’s Starnesville?

Robert Trancinski wrote about Elizabeth Warren:  To kick off her campaign as the "progressive" standard-bearer for 2020, Warren has proposed the Accountable Capitalism Act. As legislation, it is certain to go nowhere. But it is meant as a statement of where she stands and the direction she wants to take her party. Here is what it would do.

"Under the legislation, corporations with more than $1bn in annual revenue would be required to obtain a corporate charter from the federal government--and the document would mandate that companies not just consider the financial interests of shareholders. Instead, businesses would have to consider all major corporate stakeholders--which could include workers, customers, and the cities and towns where those corporations operate. Anyone who owns shares in the company could sue if they believed corporate directors were not meeting their obligations.

"Employees at large corporations would be able to elect at least 40% of the board of directors. An estimated 3,500 public US companies and hundreds of other private companies would be covered by the mandates." 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is how the left-wing conspiracy theories get injected itself into the mainstream:

This is the same dude pretending he's lots of different people to create a false impression of consensus.

The aim of this is usually to smear targeted people more easily. And, truth be told, Brock does do real damage at times to a target he smears.

But there are other losers and they are not so visible. They are the unintended consequences. Here are an easy two:

1. The mainstream media loses credibility as, tiny chink by tiny chink, the light gradually illuminates the truth so much, people realize the mainstream media has been promoting falsehoods. After going through this process countless times with the same result, the general audience now knows the mainstream media lies by default. So they seek their news elsewhere when they want actual news. They still watch the mainstream news, but mostly to reinforce this belief or that. For real news like facts, they find other sources, many online.

2. The leftie true believers convince themselves that their message is more widespread and accepted in the culture than it really is. Then they get confused and disoriented when they lose elections and otherwise fail to gain power or change people.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Peter said:

“Root, root, root, for the home team.” Conspiracy Theories we hope come true? Where is the Deep State? “They” are hiding in plain sight. Revoking the Security Clearances of the Deep State’s operating personnel is not a purge in the sense of a dictatorship marginalizing its political opponents.

 

 

Huh?

Well, if you say so. But what it is for sure, your Dear leader of the Republic exercises power just because he can, upon his own whim,to an unprecedented extent for presidents, ..the executive orders, the revocations, the firings of those who can be fired, the pardons - everything for which he couldn't'  get the approval of Congress .

He needs to be in total control. as he has for all his working life since he outlived the despotism of his own father, and does not see his present job as any different from his previous one, or as requiring any more consent or agreement from "enemies" (ie 51% of the US voting populace} than he did did the City of New York, or the hapless gulls who enrolled in his "university".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, caroljane said:

But what it is for sure, your Dear leader of the Republic exercises power just because he can, upon his own whim,to an unprecedented extent for presidents, ..the executive orders, the revocations, the firings of those who can be fired, the pardons - everything for which he couldn't'  get the approval of Congress .

He needs to be in total control. as he has for all his working life since he outlived the despotism of his own father...

Carol,

I thought you supported former President Obama.

Why are you suddenly telling the truth about him in a critical tone?

:evil: 

Michael

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Still having doubts about the Deep State?

Not doubts per se, but questions.  In this case, with context of various Fake News outlets seeking access post-verdict to jury members in the first Paul Manafort trial in Virginia, with the reaction to the "media" submission by the judge, I need the connecting of the dots, a couple of labels and maybe some thumbtacks and string:

-- who is the Deep State agent/s in the cast of characters in and surrounding the trial?
-- what part or parts has an otherwise unidentified Deep State strategy played in the trial? 
-- what has the presumed agent done -- from a list of 'actions' taken/described/inferred by the judge/Kevin Daley/MSK?
-- which assumed/reported action should be assigned to Deep State individuals, assumed operatives, named and unnamed actors?

The story from the Daily Caller's deep embed Kevin Daley had a few proffered facts but no real speculation, so I don't really get the story being told above.

21 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:
Quote

Judge T.S. Ellis III revealed in open court Friday that he has received death threats relating to his presiding over Paul Manafort’s trial for bank and tax fraud at a federal court in Alexandria, Virginia.

The judge has since retained the protection of the U.S. Marshals Service.

“I have the marshal’s protection,” Ellis said. “I don’t even go to the hotel alone. I won’t even reveal the name of the hotel.”

“I had no idea this case excited this emotion in the public,” he added.

Ellis made the comments after a coalition of news organizations — including The Washington Post, The New York Times, the Associated Press, CNN, NBC, Politico and BuzzFeed — requested the names and addresses of jurors seated for Manafort’s case.

“There is no reason to believe that extraordinary circumstances exist that would justify keeping jurors’ names sealed — particularly after they have rendered their verdict,” their motion reads.

But Ellis disagreed, and rejected the motion for fear the jurors would be subject to the same harassment he has received.

They're not even hiding it anymore. Spooks are supposed to hide stuff like that.

This is the desperation of a dying elitist power group in collusion with a dying fake news legacy media.

My questions would be:  the "It" in They're Not Even Hiding It Anymore is what?  "Spooks" are likely the they in "They're," and so Spooks are 'not even hiding it anymore,' even though they are 'supposed to hide stuff like that.'

What is "it," what is "stuff like that," and can you give an example from another trial of a well-hidden-by-spooks It/Stuff Like That?

The dying elitist power group is .... Deep State It-Hiding Spooks?

 

1 hour ago, Peter said:

“Root, root, root, for the home team.” Conspiracy Theories we hope come true? Where is the Deep State? “They” are hiding in plain sight. Revoking the Security Clearances of the Deep State’s operating personnel is not a purge in the sense of a dictatorship marginalizing its political opponents. However, it is one step in the direction of taking away unearned access, power and control *bestowed upon* insiders of the Deep State.

"Deep State operating personnel" are former honchos from the intelligence community, right?  As soon as Trump is finished being President, the next administration may have to purge hundreds and hundreds of Trump Deep Staters in turn.  

They may end up being in a set of soi-disant Dissidents, but so what? If they were Deeped, dipped in deep secrets --they will need harsh scrutiny if not uprooting when a new mandate of heaven is given to a Leader.

All IC or Top Secret 'insiders' from the Trump Era, named, shamed, rooted out and de-cleared -- so they cannot take advantage of the Nation's Secrets. Starting with Jared Kuchner ....

Corrrruption, as my friend Parm would say.

As of yet, the President of the United States has not decided to strip the security clearance of former National Security Advisor General Flynn, although ... he lied to federal agents about his meetings with agents of the Other Big Deep State.

I figure if the Deep State Actor is almost criminal, or at least guilty of civil harms, then put him-them on trial or sue them-him in the name of the Leader. It worked, sort of, in Turkey. The security of the Leader of the Nation must be paramount, right? 

1 hour ago, Peter said:

I am not suggesting that opposition to Trump is automatically a sign of the Deep State but it is suggestive and worthy of scrutiny. And by revoking security clearances, President Trump is not in any sense taking away an extra right any current or former government employee is entitled to. They are free to go about their lives, but without political or security access.

Jared will be miffed, Ivanka not so much. The two almost got everything they need out of China.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

... which assumed/reported action should be assigned...

William,

Assumed and reported by whom? The mainstream fake news media?

I.e., Deep State toadies?

You want dogs to meow and cats to bark and ask for clarity.

The world is not a gotcha.

You have a good brain for observation. Use it.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:
19 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

... which assumed/reported action should be assigned...

Assumed and reported by whom?

You, brother Michael. 

There could be more to this frame of a story:   "They're not even hiding it anymore. Spooks are supposed to hide stuff like that.'"

W5?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

William,

So you want to know the "it."

We can start with the intimidation of death threats against a judge during a trial.

And the attempt by fake news media Deep State toady, CNN, to sue for the names of jurors so that CNN can harass them during a trial that the Deep State wants won and badly wants it won.

Does that do "it" for you?

That's the "it" they are not hiding anymore. They used to do things like Fisa Court warrants in secret, half-insinuations dropped on a judge at the country club and so on. Now they are openly threatening death to a judge and suing for the means to illegally tamper with a trial.

There is plenty more in that "it."

But if you can't see that, what's the use of saying anything else about it?

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can see some different articles on this out there on the Interwebs, but this video by Jimmy Dore gives all the essentials.

That's right.

An 11 year old at Defcon changed voting results in a mockup.

The voting machines are a particular problem because their software is old and out of date, several security measures are not used, the passwords are stored in the machines IN TEXT, and on and on. And the voting machine companies charge the government an arm and a leg to supply them.

The media? What does the media say about this?

"But muh Russians!"

Pathetic...

This is a serious voting system integrity issue.

It's not a joke.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Carol wrote: He needs to be in total control. as he has for all his working life since he outlived the despotism of his own father . . . end quote

“Father, is that you? Hail Caesar!” I am sure you are using the evidence you “see and hear” Carol, but it is second hand. Someone on his White House staff recently commented that the President has quite a “temper.” I could elaborate on that but it would be speculation. And every time a “tell all political book” or a newspaper or e magazine "political article" is written, I don’t consider that the “whole truth.” No one is quite ready to make a “Watergate” movie about our President because he isn’t a crook and he is truthful to the extent that he can be in a top secret, for your eyes only, way. Peter   

Ellen Moore wrote: Ayn Rand defined "The Psychology of Psychologizing" in her essay reprinted in The Voice of Reason, originally published in The Objectivist, March, 1971.

"Psychologizing consists in condemning or excusing specific individuals on the grounds of their psychological problems, real or invented, in the absence of or contrary to factual evidence." She described psychologizing as a "game that has many variants and ramifications, none of them innocent, a game that could be called a racket.  It consists, in essence, of substituting psychology for philosophy." She stated that many people use psychologizing "as a new form of mysticism: as a substitute for reason, cognition and objectivity, as an escape from the responsibility of moral judgment, both in the role of the judge and the judged."

Rand explained why some people are psychologizers, it gives them - "The unearned status of an "authority," the chance to air arbitrary pronouncements and frighten people or manipulate them, are some of the psychologizer's lesser motives.  His basic motive is worse. Observe that he seldom discovers any virtuous or positive elements hidden in his victims' subconscious; what he claims to discover are vices, weaknesses, flaws.  What he seeks is a chance to condemn - to pronounce a negative moral judgment, not on the grounds of objective evidence, but on the grounds of some intangible, unprovable processes in a man's subconscious untranslated into action.  This means: a chance to subvert morality."

"The basic motive of most psychologizers is *hostility*.  Caused by a profound self-doubt ...  he feels a chronic need to justify himself by demonstrating their evil, by seeking it, by hunting for it - and by inventing it.  The discovery of actual evil in a specific individual is a painful experience for a moral person.  But observe the almost triumphant glee with which a psychologizer discovers some ineffable evil in some bewildered victim.  He deludes himself into the belief that he is demonstrating his devotion to morality and can thus escape the necessity of applying moral principles to his own actions."

She speaks of the "humanitarian cynic" who turns psychology into a new "scientific" version of determinism - by means of unintelligible jargon derived from fantastically arbitrary theories - declares that man is ruled by the blind forces of his subconscious ..."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the ACA( why does that look familiar?) is going to have any teeth, it better be inflation adjusted(able), not too hard imagine that Walt's Bait and Tackle down the street could list revenues in the bn s in the not distant future if Warren gets in.

Oh wait , he's private ,oh wait

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

The media? What does the media say about this?

Rational Inquirers may need to check "the media" from the day that this story broke. I counted articles and programmes on this from CNN, Washington Post, New York Times, AP, Reuters, CBS, NBC, ABC, MSNBC ... plus a variety of secondary or non-legacy media sites, ranging from Politico to Gateway Pundit. YMMV.

This might be a time when not paying attention to the Fake News Landscape leads to a blind spot ...

image6.jpeg

PS -- I posted this video in the Rigging thread Friday morning.

Edited by william.scherk
PS ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

Rational Inquirers may need to check "the media" from the day that this story broke.

William,

Yeah...

They say "muh Russians!" How is that rational?

You know, a rational person does not need to look at and carefully examine 30 tons of garbage to see if a sack of garbage on the pile is garbage.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Joe Seyton over at the Reason.com flagship blog Hit and Run has had a posting up since the day after that particular Defcon Hacking Villages three-day event splashed into the Fake News ... 

reasonAug13.png

[See also: DEF CON Vote Hacking Village Speaker Schedule for a list of who said what about which where and when on Day One. ]

Edited by william.scherk
Added link to Friday, Aug 10 Defcon "Voting Machine Hacking Village" event ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 11-year-old hacking story was extra-pretend scare-monger fake news designed to get attention and add to the Narrative. Claims were made and instantly accepted and reported as terrifying truths. No critical thinking whatsoever was applied, no pertinent question popped into journalists' empty heads, and therefore weren't asked.

J

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Jonathan said:

The 11-year-old hacking story was extra-pretend scare-monger fake news designed to get attention and add to the Narrative. Claims were made and instantly accepted and reported as terrifying truths. No critical thinking whatsoever was applied, no pertinent question popped into journalists' empty heads, and therefore weren't asked.

J

So does being old. make a story less true?

Obviously you had no room  in your head for facts, then or now. But as not a journalist you do not need to be concerned with such trifles as facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now