Conspiracy theories and Conspiracy theorists

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Ted (in) Lieu (of fill in the blank) pulled out his cell phone and on the Congressional record called Candace Owens a ****er lover. I saw it !

Laser cut iceberg---it's about THE TRUTH people: Believe!

Two thumbs up.     We can only hope there is enough talent out there to replace all the other Gunns and Barrs who ought to be fired forpolluting tweets..

Posted Images

Out of drydock ...

On 11/18/2016 at 5:05 PM, Brant Gaede said:

South Tucson, AZ is not a city.

South Tucson is a small enclave, yes, but it is still an incorporated city by the laws of Arizona (since 1940), with a Mayor and councillors and police and city court and everything. It also happens to be heavily Hispanic at around 80% of the population, which may account for the city not cooperating with ICE detainers.



-- now to a suggestion that I "need to get out more." That is sweet, but it leaves off where I should get to.

If I am being invited into a Circle of Trust, where Infowars is granted a blanket of credibility, no thank you.  My researches turn  up evidence of slop and irrationality (in re throbbing maps of The Plan).  My opinion  is that Infowars is a non-credible source of information.

I issue additional suggestions or holiday wishes. That  Objectivist Living should welcome critical analysis,  dissenting opinion. That we reject spurious claims and unwarranted conclusions. That we don't assume bad faith or cultism or assign a moral emptiness to dissent and disagreement. That we subject controversial claims to a hard-nosed Objectivish inspection.  That we revise opinions in light of credible findings, solid warrants, valid arguments.  That we not wave away opinions and conclusions that counter our own -- without our own  objective investigation.

Now, I don't believe Michael, for example, accepts anything or everything from Infowars as gospel. I do believe Michael looks skeptically at certain claims made by Alex Jones and staff. In that stance we share common epistemological ground.   If Alex Jones makes unwarranted or false claims on Topic A, then I know that Michael will reject the false parts -- after giving the controversial claims a stern Objectivish look over.To habits of mind and discussion that make a topic-item fraught -- as here with conspiracy ideation -- I hold that the best tools we have to cut through error and bias are in our individual Reason Kits. 

On 11/19/2016 at 8:53 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I think it's a losing battle to try to combat demonizing George Soros with mockery. That will only play to the choir, and a very small choir at that. Most people on the progressive side who like George Soros will give it a big fat yawn while the Soros haters get excited by the demonization. They don't even see the mockery.


Because the nature of Soros's very presence perfectly calls demon to mind from many, many angles.

And why that?

Because he is a demon.

"The Nature Of Soros's Very Presence"


I have to remember that this comprises Michael's personal opinion, and that evidence or warrants may be forthcoming. Trying to combat 'demonizing George Soros' with mockery ... is a losing proposition here at OL. Why a loser?  Well because mocking only plays to the choir.  Which choir?  A small choir.


Now we get to a generalization:  "Most people."  Most people on the Democratic/progressive 'side' who like George Soros will yawn.  


But another generalization:  "Soros haters."  These people (among which I assume Michael) get excited by "demonization" of Soros.  

Okay.  So someone might not even register the supposed mockery, at all -- except to slap a label-gun sticker to it. Excitement. Mockery. Blindness.


Moving on to another general claim:  "The Nature Of Soros's Very Presence" ... is starkly apparent.  That 'nature' calls demon to mind "perfectly" ...  that Very Presence calls demon to a disembodied 'mind.'  Whose mind?   Well, my best guess is -- a Soros-Hater's mind. From many angles, Soros's presence calls Demon to this mind.  Fine.

And why does this embodied mind believe Soros is a Demon?  Well, because he just is.

-- this reminds me of exchanges with Michael  a number of years back, on the subject of George Soros. At the time, the  Cannot Do Wrong was Glenn Beck.  Glenn Beck elaborated an untruth about George Soros ... that George Soros was a Nazi Collaborator. 


We explored the world of facts, facts of George Soros's life, and we explored the misinformation from Beck.   At the end of a protracted dispute, I booked off discussion with the conclusion that Beck's "George Soros Nazi Collaborator" notion was complete bullshit.

And that is what I ridicule here -- the bullshit repeated about George Soros, by Alex Jones.

Like I said, we have been here before, before, and before ... most recently October 26.   For the unpersuadable, for the fixed-in-position, nothing can shift an opinion.  Alex Jones is not wrong. 


On 10/26/2016 at 0:56 PM, william.scherk said:
On 10/26/2016 at 11:37 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Soros doesn't need fake conspiracies spread about him to make him look bad. He is plenty bad on his own.

I first ran into the Soros Scandals here on OL, in a thread busy with Glenn Beck, if I remember correctly. I can see from my present perspective why Soros gets check marks on a lot of items on the Bad Criteria list. 

It isn't the first time Soros is used as a synonym to Satan. 

Here I think the danger is in over-prosecuting a case. As with pressing the "Soros looted Jewish homes as a Nazi youth" too strongly and despite contradictory evidence, to staple Evul to his forehead, to account him as a Mr Thompson of the left, all this obscures what it is he  does with his money and the tentacles of his "Open Society" initiatives. It doesn't press the right charges and fails to be verified. 

One thing I respect about Soros is his biography. He grew up in a 'closed society' and it made a mark on the man. Behind his obvious evul is a desire to remake societies, to 'open' them.  Knowing of the arc of his emotional-intellectual life, his deeply-rooted Westernism, it lends some plausibility to his 'plot' as an agency for human freedom and flourishing. I mean, it mollifies the left to some degree, that he is able to semantically-link "progressivism" to  the proto-American ideals of freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, freedom to associate. There isn't the same stench and stain attached to his name, fame and agenda on the left (save the leftmost).

So, when I see stuff that makes Soros as some kind of Stalin leading the international effort to Globalize, I say Yah, but. I think of Ukraine, which he and his tentacles paid much attention to, in the last decade. The Soros "tech" had been honed in consortium with other actors (eg, CIA) in the so-called "colour revolutions. The influence of so many concerted forces led to the departure of the staggeringly corrupt Viktor Yanukovich (he of the stupendously extravagant secret residence, zoo, golf course, yacht harbour, etc).

Similarly, it was a consortium of 'open society' adherents who ushered in the swap-out of Soviet ideals for Western ideals and institutions.

On these very narrow grounds, I think an Objectivish person can understand the dangers of over-larding the goose

As our Leader stated, Soros doesn't need fake conspiracies spread about him.  Right on.

Where I entered discussion, with a recommended reading: 

On 2/15/2011 at 9:26 PM, william.scherk said:

One of the first things I ever read about Soros was published in 2003 in Reason. Beck was still in rehab, Michael was still in Brazil, Adam was still in the penitentiary, and Carol Jane and I were still married and raising rabbits for food.

It was after Soros' interview with 60 Minutes -- in which he talked frankly about his experience as a teenage 'hidden Jew' in Budapest -- but before Ann Coulter called him a Nazi collaborator.

It's a good read, even if you hate Soros with every last fibre of your being. It puts some of the bizarre takes on Soros in perspective, whether the bizarreries emerge from the left (He's a capitalist arch-fiend), the right (He's a communist), the Iranians (He's a stooge of the CIA Imperialists), the non-Objectivish also-rans (He sold Jews to the Nazis), the Belorussians (He is an agent of the USA), or the Malaysians (He's a Zionist Moneylending Criminal).


If you would like a reasonably reasonable take on Soros, and the wackiness and rage Soros garnered before he turned into The Boogeyman, have a gander at the Reason article. I know reason is no substitute for addled speculation or frenzied denunciations, but it can still be fun to take a break from the Outer Limits, put a saddle on the hobby horse, and pause before dashing off in all directions.

If you are the kind of person who can draw a straight line from The Rothschilds to The Progressives to Timothy McVeigh without spilling your FourLoko, the Reason article is not recommended. You will have to buy a new box of crayons.

Reason's 2003 article, re-upped: Open Season on 'Open Society' |  Why an anti-communist Holocaust survivor is being demonized as a Socialist, Self-hating Jew


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

If I am being invited into a Circle of Trust, where Infowars is granted a blanket of credibility, no thank you.  My researches turn  up evidence of slop and irrationality (in re throbbing maps of The Plan).  My opinion  is that Infowars is a non-credible source of information.



What do you think about Nate Silver?

It looks to me like your criticism applies equally well to his work.

:evil:  :) 

Go on...

Admit it...

When the wild goose sings, you find the story far more convincing than the data...



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

Trying to combat 'demonizing George Soros' with mockery ... is a losing proposition here at OL. Why a loser?  Well because mocking only plays to the choir.  Which choir?  A small choir.


I thought you would misunderstand the quip.

Thin-skinned are we?

:evil:  :) 

George Soros is not a literal demon, just like there are no literal goblins.

Evel Alex Jones knows that.



Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, william.scherk said:

Why an anti-communist Holocaust survivor is being demonized as a Socialist, Self-hating Jew

Covert persuasion alert.

This is actually a very good way to deflect serious Soros criticism into the land of nonessentials.

I, for one, do not think Soros is a socialist. I think he is a globalist, a cheater, a greedy power-mongering bastard and a megalomaniac. (He uses socialists as useful idiots.) I also do not think he is a self-hating Jew. That particular thought never crosses my mind.

As both false alternatives come with an emotional load, they easily become the frame for any discussion when the name Soros comes up.

But in truth, for those who find Soros to be a threat (especially within a globalist context), this is utter bullshit.

In NLP this is called a double-bind. The person who offers the alternative includes what he really wants in both alternatives, thus gives the person he addresses the illusion of choice. (Typical example: "Which day is better for you for us to meet, Wednesday or Thursday?" In both cases we are meeting but you are given a choice. This is a double bind if you have not agreed to meet me in the first place.)

I have noticed that people who discuss Soros like to keep the discussion away from him funding thugs, trafficking in corruption, seeking to destroy enemies through sleazy means, causing chaos just because he can (at times--he's even bragged of this), making his money not productively, but instead off of insider political deals and covering it with a bullshit jargon term like "reflexivity" as a get out of jail free card, and the like.

An alternative like the above (socialist or self-hating Jew) does that nicely. Soro's real bad stuff is not present in either of the alternatives, thus implying that it is not important or not worth discussing.

Apropos, technically this case is a variation in that both alternatives are given as complements, not opposing alternatives. And together, they give the illusion completeness. So it's even worse deception-wise than a standard double bind.


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, william.scherk said:

... this reminds me of exchanges with Michael  a number of years back, on the subject of George Soros. At the time, the  Cannot Do Wrong was Glenn Beck.  Glenn Beck elaborated an untruth about George Soros ... that George Soros was a Nazi Collaborator.


I liked Glenn Beck's general ideas and positions back then and still do. Not all, but most. I had no idea at the time they were not HIS ideas and positions. They came from others and he ripped them off. I heard grumblings at a distance at the time, but I dismissed them as normal celebrity bickering due to Beck's sudden massive success.

But see here from The Daily Caller in 2011 (which I did not read at the time): TheDC Exclusive: Conservatives hit Beck for taking content without attribution.

So the Nazi collaborator story came from a blogger or maybe Pamela Geller or Robert Spencer or the like. Beck took it and ran with it and didn't say where it came from. If you look up my past posts, you will probably not find anything I have written about Soros's collaboration with the Nazis--and if I did write something, I can almost guarantee it was not favorable to demonizing him for it. The event people talked about happened when Soros was a kid and I don't think it is right to blame kids for obeying adults who make the kids accompany them on their rounds, etc. I thought the same way back then, too.

The fact is Glenn Beck is a thief. He's an equal opportunity thief, too. In the Daily Caller article, it not only mentions cases where he stole material from conservatives. He also stole from progressive sources and passed the stuff off as his own.

How he got away with this crap for so long is a story in itself that deserves looking into.

It's a great super-rich case-study in persuasion...


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

If I am being invited into a Circle of Trust, where Infowars is granted a blanket of credibility, no thank you.  My researches turn  up evidence of slop and irrationality (in re throbbing maps of The Plan).  My opinion  is that Infowars is a non-credible source of information.

I hate to keep beating this drum (no I don't :evil: :) ), but hypocrisy is hypocrisy. 

Those who bash people like Alex Jones have to put the rest of the MSM in with him. There is no excuse for taking the MSM seriously and treating Alex Jones as something different.

Not after this election.

Even Ron Paul agrees with me (from Drudge's Conservative Outfitters blog):


The image says it all:

LIST: Ron Paul reveals sourced list of fake news journalists and websites

If someone believes those places are credible and Alex Jones is not, their standard is not reason.

It's bias, it's the storytelling, it's dislike of style, it's many things.

But reason it ain't.



Link to post
Share on other sites

That sounds like a defense of reason.


Here's a thought.

We invite all these news people into our homes when we watch them.

I agree there is a difference between Alex Jones and the MSM. Alex is often motivated by fear and this leads to some exaggerations, unwarranted suppositions, etc. But he believes what he says when he says it. He's honest. And he is motivated because he cares about his audience. He wishes people well in a libertarian manner.

The MSM lies to their public on purpose out of evil. They manipulate their public to serve power. They do not have their public's best interests at heart and when push comes to shove, they damage their public without batting an eye to serve some kind of sleazy agenda. They have the interests of those they serve as their overwhelming top priority.

So who do I prefer as a guest in my house, the goofy fearful honest person I can calm down over time (or at least check), or smooth-talking evil two-faced pricks?

We have to have both at times, but I know which I prefer.

It ain't even close.


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the demon's own hand ... in February 1997, The Capitalist Threat

-- and a related commentary about so-called Fake News, which starts off invoking the demon's name ...



Edited by william.scherk
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, william.scherk said:

From the demon's own hand ... in February 1997, The Capitalist Threat

-- and a related commentary about so-called Fake News, which starts off invoking the demon's name ...




I don't know where you fall right now, but just looking at this stuff side-by-side is a great sign of objectivity.

I skimmed the Soros article and earmarked it for a deeper reading later. 

btw - Here is the book Alex referenced: Memoirs by David Rockefeller. 

The page he showed was from Chapter 27, "Proud Internationalist."


Link to post
Share on other sites

This should go in the Trump thread, but I've got to put it here because this is a shot in the face of media conspiracy theories.


Donald Trump is unlike any modern president. He takes the fight to the sleaze and gets in their faces. I bet a lot of conspiracy theories will calm down over time, too. It would be nice for reporters to be interested in the 5 W's and H for a change.

Donald Trump’s media summit was a ‘f—ing firing squad’
By Emily Smith and Daniel Halper
November 21, 2016
New York Post

From the article:


Donald Trump scolded media big shots during an off-the-record Trump Tower sitdown on Monday, sources told The Post.

“It was like a f–ing firing squad,” one source said of the encounter.

“Trump started with [CNN chief] Jeff Zucker and said ‘I hate your network, everyone at CNN is a liar and you should be ashamed,’ ” the source said.

“The meeting was a total disaster. The TV execs and anchors went in there thinking they would be discussing the access they would get to the Trump administration, but instead they got a Trump-style dressing down,” the source added.

A second source confirmed the fireworks.

“The meeting took place in a big board room and there were about 30 or 40 people, including the big news anchors from all the networks,” the other source said.

“Trump kept saying, ‘We’re in a room of liars, the deceitful dishonest media who got it all wrong.’ He addressed everyone in the room calling the media dishonest, deceitful liars. He called out Jeff Zucker by name and said everyone at CNN was a liar, and CNN was [a] network of liars,” the source said.

“Trump didn’t say [NBC reporter] Katy Tur by name, but talked about an NBC female correspondent who got it wrong, then he referred to a horrible network correspondent who cried when Hillary lost who hosted a debate – which was Martha Raddatz who was also in the room.”

The stunned reporters tried to get a word in edgewise to discuss access to a Trump Administration.

. . .

Trump spokeswoman Kellyanne Conway told reporters the gathering went well.

“Excellent meetings with the top executives of the major networks,” she said during a gaggle in the lobby of Trump Tower. “Pretty unprecedented meeting we put together in two days.”

. . .

The hour-long session included top execs from network and cable news channels. Among the attendees were NBC’s Deborah Turness, Lester Holt and Chuck Todd, ABC’s James Goldston, George Stephanopoulos, David Muir and Martha Raddatz,

Also, CBS’ Norah O’Donnell John Dickerson, Charlie Rose, Christopher Isham and King, Fox News’ Bill Shine, Jack Abernethy, Jay Wallace, Suzanne Scott, MSNBC’s Phil Griffin and CNN’s Jeff Zucker and Erin Burnett.

Arthur Sulzberger, publisher of The New York Times, plans to meet with Trump Tuesday.


That feels good...



Link to post
Share on other sites



Link to post
Share on other sites

This looks like fun for the whole conspiracy family (I have added links to either published research papers or to personal/professional biographies to each of the people at the congress):


The 3rd Congress of Freedom ForcePolar_Brea_on_Ice_Cone2-7.jpg 

will be convened in Phoenix, Arizona, on December 3 & 4, 2016. 
At that time, we shall unleash a powerful weapon upon the world, and you are invited to be a witness. The weapon is called: 

an Inconvenient Lie.

It is a gathering of the world’s top experts on this subject
who will put an end, once-and-for-all, to the myth
of anthropogenic (man-caused) global-warming.


WHERE: Phoenix, Arizona ‒ Marriott Phoenix Tempe at the Buttes
WHEN: 2016 December 2‒4.

Check out this star-studded line-up:

Lord Monckton 
Global Warming Is A Monstrous Hoax

monckton1150-2-7.jpgChristopher Walter Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, UK, is known for his journalism, conservative political views, opposition to the EU, and especially for masterful debunking of global warming. In 2016, he was a national leader in rallying the British vote on behalf of BREXIT. Lord Monckton is a member of the Freedom Force Hall of Honor.


Tim Ball  
Global Warming Is the Biggest Deception in History  

tim-ball_150.jpgProf. Ball is a retired professor at the University of Winnipeg, Canada. He earned a Doctorate of Science at Queen Mary College, University of London, was Chairman of the Canadian Committee on Climatic Fluctuation, Chairman of Winnipeg’s Advisory Committee on Hazardous Waste, has authored 53 scientific papers, and is the author of The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science. Professor Ball says that human-caused global warming is the biggest deception in history.

Patrick Wood
Tyranny Pretending To Be Science

Patrick-Wood-150.jpgMr. Wood is the author of Technocracy Rising; The Trojan Horse of Global Transfor-mation. He is the go-to source for information on the Trilateral Commission. He shows how the age-old drive for world power has morphed into new forms and now hides beneath phrases like environmentalism, the green economy, and sustainable development ‒ but, at its root, it remains an all-out attack on private property and financial independence.


Debbie Bacigalupi
Smart Growth; 
The Depopulation of Rural America

DebbieBacigalupi-cropped_150.jpgMiss Bacigalupi is a long-time student of the global-warming myth. She attended the UN’s Paris-21 Conference on Climate Change as an observer and critic. She will show how Agenda-21 will be used to place an unbearable yoke of taxation on developed countries. This is said to be for the benefit of poor nations, but most of it will go to politicians, bureaucrats, and military ‒ in the name of fighting global warming.


Jim Lee
Weather Modification
for War and Profit

jim_lee_150.jpgMr. Lee is a private geoengineering investigator without equal. With a talent for finding rare and sometimes hidden documents, he will stagger your mind with proof of your worst fears about weather modification for warfare, geoengineering for profit, steering tornados with HAARP antennas, adding sulfur, bio-fuel, aluminum, barium, strontium, and carbon dust to jet fuel, and much more. And he has the documents to prove it.


William Happer 
The Real Inconvenient Truth;
CO2 Does Not Cause Global Warming

WilliamHapper150.jpgProf. Happer is a professor at Princeton University in the field of atomic physics, optics, and spectroscopy. He is a pioneer developer of adaptive optics. He has served as Director of Science in the US Department of Energy. Professor Happer is a strong voice against the myth of anthropogenic global warming and says there is no correlation between global levels of carbon dioxide and climate change.


G. Edward Griffin
Why Do They Deceive?

Griffin-Ed-2002-05-12-close-cropped-smalMr. Griffin is an author, film maker, and Founder of Freedom Force. His best-known works are The Creature from Jekyll Island and World without Cancer. He shows that the myth makers are driven by an ideology called collectivism, and that global warming is a tactic to frighten us into accepting total government (the essence of collectivism) as necessary to save the planet. Without this understanding, the myth makers may seem stupid but, with it, we see that they are very smart in pursuit of their agenda.


Dan Happel 
Global-Warming Hysteria
and Agenda-21

Dan-Happel_150-7.jpgMr. Happel is a former County Commissioner in Madison County, Montana, and is an outspoken foe of the UN’s Agenda 21. Dan shows how this blueprint for tyranny parades under the guise of sustainable development but really is aimed at bringing all human activity under control of government ‒ supposedly justified by the myth of global warming. Dan is on the Leadership Council of Freedom Force International.


Alex Newman
Selling the Myth;
Schools and Media Lead the Way

Alex_Newman_150.jpgMr. Newman is a journalist and co-author of the book Crimes of the Educators: How Utopians Are Using Government Schools to Destroy America’s Children.He has a keen understanding of the global-warming deception and shows how global-warming myth makers, embedded in schools and media organizations, follow Adolph Hitler’s axiom: If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.


Elaine Willman
Native Americans – Pawns in the Agenda-21 game

ElaineWillman.jpgElaine is co-author of Going to Pieces; The Dismantling of the United States, a report on how the government is funding the rise of tribalism  in a strategy to reorganize local political subdivisions into regional governments to be recognized by the UN as sovereign nations. Elaine is of Cherokee lineage and has worked most of her adult life with tribal leaders to protect the rights of native-Americans. Now she is equally active in protecting the rights of non-tribal citizens from tribal-government overreach and loss of American sovereignty. 

The following experts are expected to be 
included in the video component of this project.

Michael Shaw
Agenda-21; Bringing the Soviet System to America

Shaw-Michael_4.jpgMr. Shaw is an environmentalist and founding member of Freedom Advocates, which helps people defend their property from government confiscation in the name of sustainable development. He is proprietor of a 75-acre coastal oasis internationally acknowledged as a native-plant wonderland. Michael shows how Agenda-21 is creating a totalitarian governance system in the Bay area of San Francisco that is a model for the rest of the world.


Willy Soon
Man vs. Sun; Put Your Money on the Sun

Willy_Soon_150.jpgDr. Soon is a solar and astrrophysics scientist and an editor for the journal New Astronomy. He co-authored a scientific paper, “The Maunder Minimum and the Variable Sun–Earth Connection”, that debunks anthropogenic global-warming from the perspective of astrophysics. Man’s effect on the Earth is puny compared to solar-storms. The record of climate change from 1645 to about 1715 confirms that global warming is caused by solar variation, not human activity.


Istvan Marko
CO2 Is Not Pollution. It is Our Friend.

Istvan_Marko_150.jpgDr. Marko is a professor of Chemistry at Catholic University of Louvain, Belgium. He says that everyone should be concerned about pollution of our air and water by toxic chemcals and unsightly waste products. However, CO2 is not in this category. CO2 is not a health hazard but is essential to the life cycle of plants and humans. More atmospheric CO2 actually would be healthy for us and good for increased food production. He has enraged the global-warming myth-makers by likening their belief system to a religion.


Patrick Moore
The Environmental Movement Was Hijacked by Scammers

Patrick_Moore_flipped_150.jpgDr. Moore is a former President of Canada Greenpeace who broke from the group because he rejects the theory that global warming is caused by human activity. He holds a honorary Doctorate of Science from North Carolina State University and a Ph.D. in Ecology at the University of British Columbia. Like all scientists who challenge the global-warming narrative, he has been condemned by the myth-makers as a paid lackey for the fossil-fuel and atomic-energy industries. Listen to his story and be your own judge.

This is far bigger than just an event in Phoenix.

The information marathon will be invigorating because it will happen in real time, and those who attend will be able to interact with the experts. But the real kicker is the creation of a video collection of all the presentations into a multi-DVD set that will be the definitive exposé of the global-warming myth. 

This Weapon of Mass Instruction will contain such force that even the most die-hard global-warming believers will have no place to hide their ignorance.

-- I got notice of this world-shaking event via Alex Jones ...


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who is Gregg Phillips?  Mr Trump seems to have based his wacky 3 million illegals Tweet on the unwarranted claims made by the mysterious Phillips.  Do we need to examine this story further, file it under false news, divvy up analytical duties, proceed to check-out?


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/21/2016 at 5:53 PM, william.scherk said:



This actually is disturbing.

If you have the patience, here is Alex Jones ranting about it with some images--and he exhibits a video report by Jon Bowne that Infowars did.

It seems like there are a lot of Podesta and Podesta-related emails from WikiLeaks using FBI-identified pedophilia jargon.

Something that didn't seem related now makes sense to me.

I have been wondering what all the sudden media surge about "fake news" was about--including that idiot site everyone is talking about that says Drudge and some other credible sites are Russian propaganda arms. See the following article at the Intercept by Ben Norton and Glenn Greenwald from two days ago:

Washington Post Disgracefully Promotes a McCarthyite Blacklist From a New, Hidden, and Very Shady Group

The site promoting the blacklist, PropOrNot, obviously is the initial source plant of a "trading up the chain" publicity strategy. From the article:


The group’s list of Russian disinformation outlets includes WikiLeaks and the Drudge Report, as well as Clinton-critical left-wing websites such as Truthout, Black Agenda Report, Truthdig, and Naked Capitalism, as well as libertarian venues such as and the Ron Paul Institute.

This Post report was one of the most widely circulated political news articles on social media over the last 48 hours, with dozens, perhaps hundreds, of U.S. journalists and pundits with large platforms hailing it as an earth-shattering exposé. It was the most-read piece on the entire Post website on Friday after it was published.

Yet the article is rife with obviously reckless and unproven allegations, and fundamentally shaped by shoddy, slothful journalistic tactics.

. . .

Indeed, what happened here is the essence of fake news. The Post story served the agendas of many factions: those who want to believe Putin stole the election from Hillary Clinton; those who want to believe that the internet and social media are a grave menace that needs to be controlled, in contrast to the objective truth that reliable old media outlets once issued; those who want a resurrection of the Cold War. So those who saw tweets and Facebook posts promoting this Post story instantly clicked and shared and promoted the story without an iota of critical thought or examination of whether the claims were true, because they wanted the claims to be true. That behavior included countless journalists.

So the story spread in a flash, like wildfire. Tens of thousands of people, perhaps hundreds of thousands or even millions, consumed it, believing that it was true because of how many journalists and experts told them it was. Virtually none of the people who told them this spent a minute of time or ounce of energy determining if it was true. It pleased them to believe it was, knowing it advanced their interests, and so they endorsed it. That is the essence of how fake news functions, and it is the ultimate irony that this Post story ended up illustrating and spreading far more fake news than it exposed.

But read the whole article if you have the time. It's a hell of a read.

Now, I realize the establishment folks (including the Clinton folks) are sore they lost the election to Trump, but this slovenly attack on anti-Clinton news sites and the furious speed with which it spread seemed off to me. Why do that? Clinton lost. Trump won. I can't see how discrediting news sites or blaming the Russians would help them with anything, not even with that boneheaded recount effort. It seemed like a lost-cause sour grapes thing.

But then the term pizzagate kept occurring whenever fake news was mentioned in the mainstream media. And it was always with the tone of: see how silly this is?

The thought has to pop up at some time (and I'm not the only one to have it). What would happen if a huge pedophilia ring existed among the powerful in DC--the very establishment people who so rabidly opposed Trump in their mainstream media outlets? How would they fight exposure using those same media outlets?

Bingo. It's obvious.

They would try to discredit sites and organizations that would be prone to discussing a pedophilia ring and were immune to their backstage pressures. You can't call Drudge and WikiLeaks tin foil hat land like you can Alex Jones and some others, but you can try to say they are propagandists for Russia. If that takes with the public, nobody will believe anything they say. Not even about pizza and hotdogs with special sauces...

Now it makes sense.

All roads seem to lead to Podesta, but I think that's only because his emails are the ones being leaked. I have a feeling this thing stinks worse and is far bigger than anyone imagines.

Andrew Breitbart back in 2011 was onto it. Nobody believed it back then, though.

If anyone wants to keep an eye on the rumors and sometimes correct information as it develops in real time, use the following Twitter hashtag. Just click on it and read the tweets.


I expect to see quite a lot of pushback on pizzagate (or ignoring of it) from much of the corporate media, but like one lady said using that hashtag, this has now been turned over to citizen journalists on social media and it's not going to die.

I'm looking forward to seeing where it all leads.


Link to post
Share on other sites

Five Bucks to OL for the first person to fish out the error in the video ...


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scherk: "Five Bucks to OL for the first person to fish out the error in the video ..."

To change your vote from Clinton to Trump, would you need to push the Clinton area first to deselect it?

Keep your money, though, if I answered correctly.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, merjet said:

Scherk: "Five Bucks to OL for the first person to fish out the error in the video ..."

To change your vote from Clinton to Trump, would you need to push the Clinton area first to deselect it?

Keep your money, though, if I answered correctly.

Pretty close ... if we keep our eyes on the finger, the digit attempting to 'select' the Trump/Pence item, we can see that the finger does not at any time 'push' the area of the ballot image that the voter is supposed to  push. In other words, the video clip (from Galt knows where) is a either a record of a misunderstanding or a deliberate attempt to mislead the expected audience.

To make a choice on this particular machine, this particular ballot image's "sensitive zone" has to be pushed on the touch screen.. 

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