Conspiracy theories and Conspiracy theorists


Recommended Posts

DEU3p4Td_bigger.jpgBNL NEWS @BreakingNLive

WATCH: Footage of a fourth S-400 battalion deploying near the border with Ukraine in Crimea earlier today - via @IntelCrab Russian military presence near Ukraine is rapidly getting bigger, as tensions with Ukraine are getting worse.

AAe_UvMR_normal.png The Intel Crab
11:37 AM - 29 Nov 2018
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/29/2018 at 8:46 PM, Jon Letendre said:

There is no “gap between Objectivist epistemology and QAnon“ like Billyboy asserts, without evidence, from his safe space blog.

There is no difference in principle between hearing out a friend who has info you have never encountered before, or CNN who says they know something, or a person on the internet named Billyboy, or Q or Jon. The info may be easy to confirm or it may be more speculative. It may be pure speculation or it may have something real behind it. Perhaps one can successfully integrate it with everything one already knows, or one cannot, finding it conflicts with most of what one already knows. Information can be shared as can new ways of viewing something. Some will be useful to you, others not.

Billyboy has been snarking up a storm over Q for a year now, but has never explained why he is so sure the Objectivist epistemology obviously and necessarily recommends letting in nothing that Q says.

I’ve seen a year of snark and worthless sassy bullshit.

I’d like to see an argument now.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:


I have a feeling you are going to like this:

And before anyone starts saying Lionel is a crank nobody pays any attention to, here's a photo of him from around August or so.




Lionel is great.

His vid after meeting POTUS was good.

He said a woman he didn’t know was there and she said to Lionel “where we go one ... ” and stopped. He said he finished, “ ... we go all,” and they stared at each other a while, stunned, realizing something really was happening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/25/2018 at 8:17 AM, william.scherk said:

Of accusations, Gitmo, and Liz Crokin ...

Looks like wild accusations-for-clicks has led to a cul-de-sac for Crokin:

Twitter keeps muzzling Crokin whenever she tells too much truth about rampant pedophilia and child trafficking slavery.

But Twitter doesn’t mind davey, who writes, “i’m attracted to boys 4+” All day long for years. That’s fine.

Countless pedophiles regale each other with stories of their sick escapades on Jack’s platform, largest shareholder was a child rape slavery / child trafficking Saudi prince Al waleeed. He was also once the largest Citibank shareholder. MBS is said to have had him hung upside and beaten severely, before taking most of his assets from him. But Jack is still in charge at Twitter.

I can’t figure out why Twitter would ban Crokin. And I wouldn’t want to succumb to any conspiracy theories, but...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Sir, what is the problem with false accusations, after all?"

Satanic Panic redux. 


Link to comment
Share on other sites

She has exposed dozens of proven pedos and satanic sick fucks. Many dozens.

Billyboy only wants to talk about her other accusations, the ones not yet definitively proven.

What’s wrong with thousands of pedos telling their awesome pedo stories on Twitter?

Billyboy’s answer: Nothing is wrong with it.

Sick, sick, sick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brexit will not be easy, simple or satifactory to anyone ...

On 11/28/2018 at 9:42 AM, william.scherk said:

Merkel (Germany) Macron (France) and May (UK) are enemy operators.

[...] I mean, are these three people unable to proceed in their leadership of their respective countries without volition?  Are they 'controlled' by other than political reality (in Germany, Merkel announced she will not seek another term as Chancellor, in France, Macron is deeply unpopular with the electorate, and is in the middle of facing widespread demonstrations against his governments fuel-tax increases (and climate-change related carbon-tax proposals).  In the UK, May is facing a Commons vote on the agreed mechanism for next year's Brexit.

Be that as it may, the UK is in the midst of a political crisis over the deal May signed on behalf of the UK with the EU. 

Brexit vote: What could happen next?



Nick Timothy is wrong – he is the one who killed Brexit, not Theresa May


That leaves one route to a Brexit where the United Kingdom has the ability to diverge significantly: a non-negotiated exit where the UK leaves without a deal. That is not acceptable to either of the majorities that matter as far as the British government’s Brexit strategy goes: it cannot command a majority of Conservative MPs or a majority in Parliament as a whole. It could still happen because Parliament has already voted to trigger Article 50, but it would almost certainly shatter the Conservative Party.

So what’s left that can pass the House of Commons and prevent new borders in the Irish Sea? A soft or Norway-style Brexit – a form of Brexit that Nick Timothy, formerly one of Theresa May’s co-chiefs of staff, declares false Brexit, in an article for the Telegraph in which he says that this week was the week that “the week that Brexit was finally killed”.

'They will live to regret it': Furious Andrea Leadsom warns Tory rebels after the PM's historic defeat and says May is the right leader 'for the moment'

  • Theresa May suffered historic triple defeat in the House of Commons last night
  • Commons leader confirmed the final legal advice on the deal would be released 
  • Andrea Leadsom said publishing the document set a dangerous precedent
  • She also said the Prime Minister is the right leader 'for the moment' 
  • May will be back at the Despatch Box at noon for PMQs after bruising defeats
  • Ministers hope another defeat by Tory Remain rebels could deter Brexiteers 
  • But another Leave MP Tory Mark Harper went public against the deal today
  • Chris Skidmore was appointed to replace Sam Gyimah who quit over the deal  

What Brexit deal would be better than Theresa May’s? The truth is, none


Heaven knows, there are myriad problems with the deal negotiated by the prime minister. A compromise intended to reconcile a badly divided parliament ended up alienating most MPs. Yet what would these opponents of the deal suggest as an alternative? Pose this question, and the crass dishonesty of much of the Brexit debate becomes all too apparent.

It’s only fair to start by saying that there are opponents of the deal with more or less credible (let’s leave desirable to one side) alternatives in mind. At one extreme are the no-dealers, happy to take the plunge and then, once the initial confusion has died down, trade with the EU “on World Trade Organization terms”. At the other are the remainers, those determined to secure another referendum as a means to remaining within the EU.

It is perfectly legitimate to question whether actively seeking the chaos that a rejection of the prime minister’s deal would entail is the kind of thing MPs should be engaged in. And there is also room to wonder about the wisdom of former supporters of a soft Brexit along so-called “Norway” lines now dismissing even the prime minister’s plan as equivalent to “slavery”.

But the issue here is alternatives to the deal – and at least these two groups have their own in mind. As for the rest, all that is apparent is cakeism. Lots of it. In all conceivable flavours.

Let’s start with the hard Brexit brigade. For them, Theresa May has conceded too much to the EU. First, with the provisions for a customs territory, which would impede our ability to sign trade deals (whisper it quietly, Donald Trump had a point). Second, with the concomitant “level playing field” conditions the EU has imposed, tying the UK to regulatory alignment in several areas.

Unfortunately, their preferred outcome – a Canada-style agreement – runs into the problem of Ireland. And so the solution, in the words of Boris Johnson at the DUP conference the other day, is to “junk the backstop and agree that neither side will introduce a hard border in Northern Ireland”

Well, what is the difference between the "Norway-style" and the "Canada-style" agreement?  

Neither Norway or Canada is a member of the European Union. However, The Kingdom of Norway has accepted the terms of the EEA and EFTA.  This means that Norway has accepted the Four Freedoms (freedom of movement for person, capital, services and goods) and accepts the EU regulatory schemes. One reason that Norway accepted all the four is that it already had a compact with Sweden, Finland, and Denmark for the free movement of citizens. If they did not accept the four freedoms, there would have been a border between Norway and Sweden, for example.  That was unthinkable after a century of Nordic integration.  In effect and in law, Norway's external border to the world is enforced as if it were the EU border, even though Norway is not in the EU.  Norway accepts EU rulings without having any formal say in EU deliberations. 

The Canada-style arrangement is a lesser-freedoms agreement. Canada negotiated a  free trade agreement with the EU -- the most ambitious agreement the EU has made with a non-European state -- which allows access to the Single Market (and reciprocity)  without conforming to EU directives.  In effect, Canada has almost 100% duty and tariff-free entry of its goods to the EU. The EU enjoys a reciprocal arrangements.  Canadian companies can bid on Canadian public contracts (such as schools, railways, infrastructure( and vice-versa). 

The Brexit 'deal' signed my Theresa May is neither one nor the other. The hardest think for a Brexiteer is the free movement of peoples within the Schengen Area (the 'no-barrier national borders between the signatory states. The Single Market in peoples is a deal-breaker for some ...

In the USA, trade policy is determined by the President.  In the case of the negotiated deal made by May, the USA is not sanguine, at least according to the President himself.

Why does Donald Trump oppose Theresa May's Brexit deal?


The UK is the fifth largest export market for American goods. British exports to the US are worth about £100bn a year to the UK economy, according to the Office for National Statistics, more than twice that of any other country.

There is nothing in the withdrawal agreement or the political declaration that is likely to heavily impact on that baseline of trade, although US direct investment into the City of London will decline as the EU “passports” allowing UK-based bankers and traders to offer services across member states are taken away.


The Brexit deal endorsed by the EU’s heads of state and government at the special summit on Sunday, which will be voted on in the House of Commons on 12 December, does indeed set up significant obstacles to such trade liberalisation.

The withdrawal agreement foresees a 21-month transition period during which the UK will stay in the single market and customs union, without any representation in the EU’s decision-making institutions.

In the highly likely scenario that a EU-UK trade deal is not close to ratification by July 2020, the EU and UK would jointly decide at this “rendezvous” point whether to extend the transition period for up to two years.


Despite all this, transatlantic trade liberalisation could still be on the cards. Trump has been seeking a trade deal with the EU, and has been threatening tariffs on the European car industry in order to attain such a prize. The UK would likely be covered by such an EU-US deal should it maintain a single customs territory with the bloc. Brussels has a policy of pushing its new trade deal partners to allow countries such as Turkey, with whom the bloc is in a customs union, to enjoy similar beneficial terms as its member states.

The only problem: no one predicts that trade talks with Trump, for those inside or out of the EU, will be easy. It is an analysis only confirmed by the US president’s latest damaging intervention in the Brexit debate.

For your own updating news file, "Brexit" in the UK media.

Edited by william.scherk
Link to UK media "Brexit" search results from Google News
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cernovich has had a DC showing of the feature documentary he produced. Below are a couple of tease trailers ... I don't know where an interested viewer see the whole thing.

On 11/28/2018 at 9:20 AM, william.scherk said:

I wonder if Mike Cernovich is keeping tabs on this ...



Edited by william.scherk
Found earlier 'teaser' to add
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jerome Corsi is back in the glare again ...

On 11/29/2018 at 2:40 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

You would think the fake news media would be content just to mock the guy for birtherism or 9/11 inside job or whatever.

The Daily Caller's Chuck Ross (whose beat has been "FISAgate") did some investigation of a fundraising campaign touted by Corsi.  It's sort of a morality play, and suggests to me that Corsi is in this case sloppy at best, contributory to a fraud at worst.

The 'birtherism' has always tainted Corsi in my mind.


Let's put it in different words. Corsi will commit propaganda excesses during a political campaign. Just like the fake news media does, in fact. He will not cave to being coerced by Robert Mueller to lie against Trump under oath.

 Corsi hired Larry Klayman, who is quite the legal character, to pursue a civil complaint

But in the recent news, other folks following Chuck Ross's leads discovered that the cancer doctor  seems to work out of a UPS store.



Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm putting this video right here in the Conspiracy Theory thread for the time being, but not because it is a conspiracy theory.

Some people call it a conspiracy theory, so here is as good a place as any at this stage.

But I have a deeper interest. I want to see how far this DNC-Ukraine issue goes. And, I have a personal "Story Wars" angle I want to explore. To explain:

1. The DNC-Ukraine link itself: Every time the Ukraine and American politics gets mentioned in the press and catches my eye, I can never make any real sense out of it. All I see from the 30,000 foot view is a bunch of people yelling at each other. And these people tend to be serious.

Now think about it. If a fact exists, you cannot have one serious person saying it exists and another serious person saying it does not exist and take that seriously yourself. If you know little to nothing about the issue, serious people yelling at each other doesn't mean anything to you information-wise.

Contradictions usually indicate lying somewhere, but where there is a lot of yelling, it's really hard to get anything straight. So, in my experience, if there is a hot issue in the press and I want to see where the faults and truths are, I have to stop every damn thing in my life and start looking at it from the beginning while ignoring the hostility, snark, peer pressure, yelling, accusations, data dumps, etc.

And that's where Lee Stranahan comes in. He's an independent journalist who used to work for Breitbart, but now has a radio show on Sputnik Radio (a Russian outfit). He's been in several controversies, but I've never seen people howling that he made stuff up and proved it. They have howled about him, but I have never seen it go beyond name-calling. Stranahan touts his own horn about how accurate his facts are and I tend to believe him so far. For this reason, I want to start with his information on the DNC-Ukraine connection. At least he points to documented information for his allegations.

But even deeper for me, there is something else catching my attention. Whenever I see a guy like that go wild with excitement, my first impression is that the story must have some teeth to it. Stranahan is super-excited that Michael Avenatti is representing one of the parties because Avenatti tends to get a lot of press. Stranahan is sure that his involvement will throw a spotlight on this issue, thus a spotlight on a story he has been trying to bring to the mainstream for several years. 

That makes me want to keep an eye on it. 

2. The Story Wars angle. If you watch the video above, you realize Stranahan knows a crap-load of information. But if you are like me and know little about the issue, his presentation is awful. It's all over the friggin' place. Just as soon has he tries to make a point, he interrupts himself to show some causality with a related issue. Except before he makes that clear, he jumps to a different issue. And so on, all the while asking, "Does that make sense?" :) 

From what I see, while Stranahan might be a great researcher, he does not know how to tell a story. I can't keep any of his throughlines straight from the way he talks until I start putting them together on my own.

How can he fix this? Easy. He has to keep his main story centered on the intentions of a single protagonist and a single antagonist, whether the opponents are single persons or collectives (single countries, institutions, political parties, etc.). That is, he has to do that if he wants to keep his audience's interest. Without this frame, he might get some people to go with him (he usually does), but his story doesn't get any legs to spread to the mainstream. And that is Stranahan's Number One complaint. He blames it all on the mainstream media trying to bury the issue. He's not wrong in one aspect. I fully believe the fake news mainstream media does that. But ever since I have sporadically started watching him, he never got better at his storytelling technique. It's a chore to watch him.

So what I am going to try to do, sort of like on a hobby level, is see if I can absorb the information in this DNC-Ukraine connection issue, then present it as a story from the perspective of one main protagonist and one main antagonist. Then see what happens. From my distant perspective, this looks like great practice for my own storytelling chops. 

I have one caveat, though. If this thing is so convoluted that I can't get a handle on what each of the several main players want so I can distill that down into a "protagonist versus antagonist" frame, I might not pursue it. After all, yelling in the media is long, complex, and my own life is simple, not eternal.


But I have a feeling this will turn out to be a nice little exercise. And, who knows? I might even get to understand it. :) That means, if you are as confused about this issue as I am right now and my storytelling is at least competent, you might end up with a story-like frame you can easily grok to organize the facts, issues and contradictory yelling with and peg the different controversies to.

I'm not going to make this a high priority since there is so much stuff to plow through. But if it explodes in the mainstream like Stranahan's enthusiasm implies it might, I will move it up in my interests hierarchy. Because that will mean you will be more interested, too.

(I aim to please. :) )


Link to comment
Share on other sites

On another issue, I said after the midterms, Alex Jones would gradually be restored on the fake social media sites.

Here's a dramatic example of this process starting on YouTube. It's dramatic because it starts with a Homeric rant by Alex against pedophilia.

But it is one video among many cropping up recently over many different accounts.

Before too long, I imagine he will be fully reinstated on YouTube, probably with some kind of "adult content" warning or whatever to appease corporate sponsors. Time will tell.


  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/9/2018 at 7:40 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Some people may say this is a little heavy on speculation, but, man, does it feel good.

It's like the iceberg slowly coming toward the Titanic.



Excellent video.

It may sound heavy on speculation to some but they should have some humility - he’s not some yahoo, he knows what he’s talking about he’s a trial lawyer with decades of experience including in New York and at the Supreme Court. He has friends from that lifetime of experience,  he has sources we don’t, and he’s as confident as we see him here. We will be celebrating The Great Cleansing very soon.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/15/2018 at 9:45 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I want to see how far this DNC-Ukraine issue goes.

Almost all the stories you can find in the Blob mention Alexandra Chalupa and her March 2016 meeting. I look forward to a plain Antagonist/Protagonist distillation into narrative, if and when you get around to it.

Others may seek to do a parallel "investigation."  Here are some links from a OneTab shared page of stories going back to 2016. 



Shared: 27 tabs
Scan this QR code using the Barcode Scanner app on your mobile or tablet 
Alexandra Chalupa DNC Ukraine 'fake news' research

Lee Stranahan on Twitter. And a pertinent 'pinned' tweet linking to his December 13 appearance on RT:


Edited by william.scherk
Agonist, agonistic, agony. Pro-tip
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/25/2018 at 11:05 AM, Peter said:

And William Scherk just wrote, “One way to avoid a so-called perjury trap is to keep a log of your lies, and make sure you don't repeat one or more of them during an interview. Lying to the FBI is apparently a crime, as Michael Flynn discovered.”

Well said Shrek! Is “The Mueller Investigation” President Trump’s “Watergate?” It contains little water and no flood gate . . . . though it’s “spigot” occasionally drips new evidence.

Young Vermonter Styxhexenhammer666 gives his considered opinion on the water and the gate, in a way -- in his brief Youtube video lecture "The Media Is Pretending that the Proliferation of Trump Investigations Isn't Odd."

In re Flynn's lies to the FBI,  "Lolita Express" defense attorney Alan Dershowitz suggests that lying to the FBI isn't a crime.

Alan Dershowitz: Michael Flynn is innocent because ‘lying to the FBI is not a crime’

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/28/2018 at 9:42 AM, william.scherk said:

In re Epstein, put the focus on the facts, Jon, not on me.  I have fuck all to do with Epstein or the dirty deal his lawyers made with the now Secretary of Labour. 

Ridiculously lenient Acosta/Epstein plea deal demands a federal investigation

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
On 11/26/2018 at 2:37 PM, Jon Letendre said:

Yes, there are bad people who pretend to be good. It is a simple street-smarts fact, confirmed throughout all of human history. The people up to no good don’t tell you that.

The info battle is one scene of this war. A big one. Naturally, each side is going to have soldiers of theirs pretending to propound the enemy moral position. Let’s use Alex Jones. For sake of making my point, it is given that he really works for the conspiracy.

How would that work, if was going to ... work? Well, he would tell loads of truths about the conspiracy. Big exposures. And some people would think he HAS TO BE pro-MAGA, because the conspiracy does not want that stuff widely known and yet there he is yelling it all the time. A large “following” can be generated. The exposures seem big, but they are not truly the worst of the worst, not even close. But that operation wakes people up, so why would the conspiracy conduct it in the first place?

Because they have Jones act like he’s unbalanced. You see, those exposures were going to be brought out by good people anyway, now they can say “you’re just repeating Jones” and point to video of Jones acting unbalanced.

Also, later, should the shit ever hit the fan for the conspiracy, they can have Jones come on one day and say “I was wrong about Trump, he is up to something sinister...”  They would use that asset by having it publicly flip, wreaking chaos and infighting within Trump’s support, or a part of it, anyway.

There is every reason to think that many such assets exist. They have to be able to inject misinformation by trusted mouthpieces. All the agencies out there want what I describe and possess examples of what I describe, whether Jones is one, or not.

As Trump and his team continue taking down the traitors, we will discover one after another person previously widely understood to be genuinely pro-MAGA exposed as having operated backstage in a very anti-MAGA way.

Jones might not be. Maybe Corsi works for the conspiracy. I don’t know. I don’t know what Mueller harassing Corsi means. I only know there is much much much more going on than what’s put in the show script we get to see.

Could Mueller be a ... I mean, if team Trump wanted and successfully developed one of those “assets,” what would it look like before we learned better?

Billy thinks Mueller is a good honest man and I agree.

Mueller is a good, honest guy.

Let’s see if Billy tries to change his mind on that in the coming months. 

Even the nominee for Attorney General knows Mueller is a good and honest guy.

The Associated Press
BREAKING: AG nominee Barr says he doesn't believe Mueller would be involved in 'witch hunt,' as Trump has labeled Russia probe.
Link to comment
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