Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Peter said:

John Le Cockroach is demented. Seriously. And Evil. My minor subterfuge didn't work, alas. I was hoping he would say his name was spelled without an H aa in "Jon" instead of "John."  But the joke didn't work and he is still infesting OL. His two boys hate him. His wife barely  tolerates the son of a bitch. What a loser and monster. He never served in the military. He is evil incarnate. He will destroy this bastion of freedom if he stays. 

I have no boys. How drunk are you, Peter?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Peter said:

Brant, what bothers me about conspiracy believers is that they cannot explain what they saw in rational, scientific terms. Oh, no! You must go to the link and listen to it yourself!  And be indoctrinated. Doesn’t that remind you of communist and Nazi propaganda? Peter

No. But the main stream media virus hysteria does. I do, however, modify what I wrote from a generalization to the particular thing that pissed you off. And I don't think you understand what That Guy is about at all.

--Brant

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Peter said:

World wide the U.S. now has the most "confirmed" coronavirus cases.  

How many and under what definition?

--Brant

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/22/2020 at 3:30 AM, Jon Letendre said:

I don’t know what you watched.

I am not aware of  Q mentioning JFK Jr at all. For a time Liz Crokin thought Jr may have faked his death. Her theory was (she doesn’t talk about it anymore) that he knew Killery wanted to run for Senator from New York and was having him killed because he intended to run also. The theory went that he discovered the specific plan and “went along” but faked its success. But that is all Liz. I don’t know what else she had to support the idea. I don’t think any of it is from Q, but I could be mistaken. Q has said Jr is not alive, I do recall seeing that post.

I don’t think Q has ever mentioned time travel.

I think Q has mentioned Tesla, but I don’t recall any details. Q people do say that Trump brags about his MIT electrical engineering professor uncle, John Trump, because that man had total access and examined all of Nikola’s belongings immediately after his death. I am not familiar enough to discuss it, and again, I don’t even recall at the moment what Q has posted about Nikola Tesla.

Oddly enough, Bob Dylan just released a 17-minute song today about the JFK assassination, "Murder Most Foul".
Odd timing, since neither he nor JFK are really on anyone's minds, at the moment...

from the article: 

The surprise track, which Dylan said only was recorded "a while back," comes eight years after his last album of original material.

Little information was given about the surprise track, except for a brief statement from Dylan himself:

“Greetings to my fans and followers with gratitude for all your support and loyalty over the years.

“This is an unreleased song we recorded a while back that you might find interesting.

“Stay safe, stay observant and may God be with you.

“Bob Dylan”

A Dylan representative said the statement was all the information they would be releasing about the song, so whether “a while back” means a matter of months or many years remains a mystery.


https://variety.com/2020/music/news/bob-dylan-releases-17-minute-song-jfk-kennedy-assassination-murder-most-foul-1203546713/

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, ThatGuy said:

Oddly enough, Bob Dylan just released a 17-minute song today about the JFK assassination, "Murder Most Foul".
Odd timing, since neither he nor JFK are really on anyone's minds, at the moment...

from the article: 

The surprise track, which Dylan said only was recorded "a while back," comes eight years after his last album of original material.

Little information was given about the surprise track, except for a brief statement from Dylan himself:

“Greetings to my fans and followers with gratitude for all your support and loyalty over the years.

“This is an unreleased song we recorded a while back that you might find interesting.

“Stay safe, stay observant and may God be with you.

“Bob Dylan”

A Dylan representative said the statement was all the information they would be releasing about the song, so whether “a while back” means a matter of months or many years remains a mystery.


https://variety.com/2020/music/news/bob-dylan-releases-17-minute-song-jfk-kennedy-assassination-murder-most-foul-1203546713/

Here's a link to the lyrics: https://genius.com/Bob-dylan-murder-most-foul-lyrics

They're rather long, so I won't post them all here...but the first few stanzas are telling re: the conspiracy angle...

---
You got unpaid debts; we've come to collect
We're gonna kill you with hatred; without any respect
We'll mock you and shock you and we'll put it in your face
We've already got someone here to take your place

The day they blew out the brains of the king
Thousands were watching; no one saw a thing
It happened so quickly, so quick, by surprise
Right there in front of everyone's eyes
Greatest magic trick ever under the sun
Perfectly executed, skillfully done
Wolfman, oh wolfman, oh wolfman howl
Rub-a-dub-dub, it's a murder most foul

---

What makes this interesting, re current events, is the line about the "Wolfman". "Timber Wolf" was the CIA codename for George Bush Sr, who is theorized in the conspiracy to be the real assassin, and not Lee Harvey Oswald. 
What makes this REALLY interesting is that, just a few days ago, the Kennedy grandchildren were on Twitter singing a song by a singer named Ke$ha that goes "I'm going down, I'm Yelling TIMBER!"

And the theorists are already picking up on all this, today: 
 

The truth remains to be seen, but what is of interest is to see the theory gaining traction. Dylan obviously believes it. The Kennedy conspiracy theory is already embedded in our pop culture, as it is. And there's a strong storytelling frame involved that has the potential to sway people to take interest in goings-on, today.

Especially with this bit of lyrics towards the end of the song: 

Don't worry, Mr. President. Help's on the way
Your brothers are coming; there'll be hell to pay
Brothers? What brothers? What's this about hell?
Tell them, "We're waiting. Keep coming." We'll get them as well

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, this is not meant to promote the theory in itself, but to keep an eye on the zeitgeist, and the cultural atmosphere.

(Or, as Dylan once sang, "you don't need to be a weatherman to know which direction the wind blows..."

One doesn't need to believe the conspiracy to understand the importance of understanding the impact made by those who do...Just like it's important to know that, as we speak, there is growing dissent between Q supporters regarding Trump's recent actions regarding the stimulus package. Is he fighting socialism? Is he embracing it by compromising on the pork? 
Is he in control? Is he compromised? Is Q  telling the truth, or is Q a  fake, used to expose trouble-makers to the deep state? 

What happens when long-time "true believers" get tired of waiting, or feel that they've been duped? Like Sally trusting in Linus, waiting in the pumpkin patch for the Great Pumpkin, only to get angry when she missed out on "tricks-or-treats"? (Hell hath no fury like a child duped out of candy on Halloween...)

Meanwhile, Libertarians like Adam Kokesh are calling Trump evil for the bail-outs and threats of nationalization of industry and unconstitutional lockdowns. Others are saying that, while they are uneasy, that they trust Trump's 4-D chess skills, that he's cookin' up a-somethin', that he's negotiating. Others say that we have to placate the masses, so as not to have starvation riots, and that we can't get from the present to a libertarian ideal without breaking a few eggs...some are saying that the suspension of habeus corpus is necessary because we are at war with the treasonous deep state, that these war powers were in place since 9-11, and that this is an emergency context (a la "leaking lifeboat"),  others are raising the alarm that government never surrenders emergency powers...

(On that note...supposing their IS a counter-insurgence against the Deep State going on...And suppose they DID win...what's to say that THEY won't make the same mistakes made by former revolutionaries of the past? What are their premises, their principles, beliefs? Even if anti-socialist, would their principles work in practice? "Meet the old boss; same as the new boss"...)

Even now, there is a schism brewing over the breaking news that Trump is urging the GOP to expel Thomas Massie for his threat to vote against the stimulus...
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All that said...one doesn't have to be a conspiracy theorist to have a natural skepticism, to not take anything the government is telling us at face value...for example, look at everything that came about after WW2 regarding politician's words vs. deeds regarding getting the US involved overseas...and anyone who knows that history should be alarmed by the current talk of a "Marshall Plan" for the coronavirus relief efforts...Or, to bring it back to viruses, say, the infamous Tuskagee experiments...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So GHWB’s Secret Service name is Timberwolf. He was in Dallas the day JFK was shot. JFK’s grandchildren are gleefully singing “Timber! You’re going down.” And now Dylan is gleefully singing about a foul wolfman in a song that is how many minutes long?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

So GHWB’s Secret Service name is Timberwolf. He was in Dallas the day JFK was shot. JFK’s grandchildren are gleefully singing “Timber! You’re going down.” And now Dylan is gleefully singing about a foul wolfman in a song that is how many minutes long?

17. It's 17 minutes long. 

What's 17 signify? 

[Edit: Oh. OH. Not "O", but oh...]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, ThatGuy said:

All that said...one doesn't have to be a conspiracy theorist to have a natural skepticism

If you ever wanted to see a “supposed fact” that has been “peer reviewed” it is the origins of the coronavirus.  I found some oldies that might be of interest. How do we know anything? If it interests you feel free to read these letters from our own Ellen Stuttle, Ghs, etc. Peter

Excerpts from Fact check: Did the coronavirus originate in a Chinese laboratory? USA TODAY

Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., has suggested to Congress and Fox News that there may be a connection between the Wuhan lab and the origin of the virus. And conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh wrote in an article in February that “it probably is a ChiCom (Chinese Communist) laboratory experiment that is in the process of being weaponized.” . . . . There is no evidence to suggest that the virus was created in a Chinese laboratory. People who have claimed it started in a lab cite only the geographical proximity of the Wuhan Institute of Virology, a research lab in Wuhan, and the market where some researchers believe the virus transferred from animals to humans. Richard Ebright, a professor of chemical biology at Rutgers University, said in an interview with The Washington Post: “Based on the virus genome and properties, there is no indication whatsoever that it was an engineered virus.”

Notes. From: "George H. Smith" To: "*Atlantis" Subject: ATL: Re: The facts of reality – Bill Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 11:38:21 -0500. Ellen Moore wrote: "I am aware of the passages you quote.  But I do not understand them to say that you think they mean.  Somewhere in the seminars, Rand said, " 'fact' is an epistemological tool."  Your quotes reinforce that meaning, i.e., when we say that something is a "fact", we are saying that our epistemological statement corresponds to the concretes in existence."

It has long been my understanding that Ayn Rand regarded "fact" as metaphysical concept, and "truth" as an epistemological one. A "fact" is that which is, regardless of anyone's knowledge. A "truth" is the identification (or "recognition") of a fact, and is therefore contextually dependent of a given state of knowledge. I believe Ellen is confusing the two concepts, as Rand used them. Ghs

From: Ellen Moore To: Atlantis Subject: ATL: Re: The facts of reality - Bill and George Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 17:36:28 -0500. Perhaps this post will annoy you both: I admire both of you for your detailed examination of the "fact as metaphysical" and "fact as epistemological" discussion.  I have to admit that, based on your premises both metaphysical and epistemological, there is nothing either of you conclude that I disagree with.  Except for one issue of I think is more fundamental and more important.

I don't accept the idea that you are ~fundamentally~ correct about the entire issue concerning "facts" as viewed by Ayn Rand. Ellen Stuttle claims that neither her husband nor others "could swear for sure what she did mean", and ES maintains that Rand "wasn't immune to ambiguity".  Let me suggest that their inability to grasp her meaning may not have been Rand's "ambiguity", but resulted from their own failure to decipher the distinction between metaphysics and epistemology as they sat around talking.

My point is this.  Aside from human beings in the universe, there is no entity sitting around talking about "facts of reality".  The concept "fact" and the phrase "facts of reality" are fundamentally statements made by a human consciousness about human knowledge of entities. Everything pertaining to human cognition is epistemology.  Absolutely all such linguistic references are instances pertaining to human epistemology. Epistemology allows humans to differentiate between what they say about entities in the universe, and call that a "physical fact".  They can talk about the factual nature of reality and call that "a metaphysical fact'.  They can talk about the "truth or falsity" of their propositions, and call that an "epistemological fact".  None of these statements are necessarily ambiguous [as long as we all know what each one of us is talking about].   I believe that Bill's and George's discussions here are about semantics.

George said, "A 'fact' is that which is, regardless of anyone's knowledge."  But, "that which is is" is also, and must be, an objective epistemological statement of someone's human knowledge of metaphysics. George cannot stub his actual toe on "fact" - he can stub his toe on a rock.  If he said, "Damn, I stubbed my toe on a rock", he is referring to his knowledge of the concrete event.

A very complex combination of "existents" like the American Revolution pertains to a series of actual physical events that did exist in the past.  To say they existed, and to name them as such, is a "fact" pertaining of our epistemological knowledge of concrete events.  This is precisely the meaning Rand identified and used

But the fundamental premises remains firm.  Only concrete entities, their attributes, actions and relationships, are existents in reality. All human statements pertaining to human knowledge of existents, "facts", belong in the category of epistemology. This is the meaning I have understood from Rand's statements to the effect that, " 'Fact' is merely an epistemological convenience."  It is a necessity of a fallible human consciousness in discussing the distinction between our knowledge of "truth", and "error". Ellen M.

From: Ellen Stuttle To: atlantis Subject: ATL: Re: The facts of reality - Bill and George Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 19:26:35 -0400. Ellen Moore says: >Perhaps this post will annoy you both [Bill and George]:

Perhaps this post will annoy everyone concerned. Insofar as I think I understand the view of "fact" which EM is presenting (and, Ellen M., I usually do have trouble understanding your posts, make of this whatever epistemological sins on my part you will), I think I agree with *her* viewpoint -- though I disagree that there aren't ambiguities in what Rand said during the seminar.

Indeed, I have some additional evidence for believing that Rand herself viewed "fact" as metaphysical, indirect evidence: At about the same time as her epistemology seminar, I guest-attended a seminar on the philosophy of science which Leonard Peikoff was giving at Brooklyn Polytechnic (he was on the faculty there at the time).  To the best of my recollection -- and Larry, who also attended LP's seminar, has the same recollection -- Peikoff presented "fact" as metaphysical, and I doubt that he'd have enunciated a view which he thought was at variance with Rand's. Ellen S.

From: "George H. Smith" Reply-To: "George H. Smith To: "*Atlantis" Subject: ATL: Re: The facts of reality - Bill and George Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 19:28:14 -0500. Ellen Moore wrote: "My point is this.  Aside from human beings in the universe, there is no entity sitting around talking about "facts of reality".  The concept "fact" and the phrase "facts of reality" are fundamentally statements made by a human consciousness about human knowledge of entities. Everything pertaining to human cognition is epistemology.  Absolutely all such linguistic references are instances pertaining to human epistemology."

Nor, apart from human beings, is there any entity (that we know of) sitting around and talking about rocks and trees and birds. So are these merely epistemological concepts as well, with no metaphysical referents?

Ellen wrote: "George said, "A 'fact' is that which is, regardless of anyone's knowledge."  But, "that which is is" is also, and must be, an objective epistemological statement of someone's human knowledge of metaphysics. George cannot stub his actual toe on "fact" - he can stub his toe on a rock.  If he said, "Damn, I stubbed my toe on a rock", he is referring to his knowledge of the concrete event."

Nor can I stub my toe on causation, or identity. So if I say "X caused Y," is this merely an epistemological statement, or does it have a metaphysical referent? Of if I say, "A thing is what is it," am I merely referring to my own epistemological concepts, devoid of any metaphysical referent?

Come to think of it, I have never stubbed my toe on an "existent" – but Ellen apparently views this concept as metaphysical.  So the positivistic test of "toe-stubbing" doesn't seem to hold up, even by Ellen's standard.

Ellen wrote: "But the fundamental premises remains firm.  Only concrete entities, their attributes, actions and relationships, are existents in reality. All human statements pertaining to human knowledge of existents, "facts", belong in the category of epistemology."

To say that "all human statements pertaining to human knowledge of existence...belong in the category of epistemology" is to say that *all* concepts and propositions, by definition, are epistemological and *none* are, or can be, metaphysical -- since all concepts and propositions "pertain" to human knowledge in some way. This kind of ambiguity will take you headlong into a representationalist theory of knowledge (such as we find in Descartes and Locke), wherein knowledge is conceived as a correspondence between abstract ideas, rather than as a correspondence between epistemological propositions and metaphysical facts. .

The point is: To what does a concept *refer*? As Prof. B put it in a statement with which Rand expressed her full agreement, "It's not that the fact refers to the knowledge; it refers to the reality known, or possibly known." What does Ellen suppose this statement *means*?

And what would it mean, on Ellen's account, to say that "truth" is the "identification" or "recognition" of a fact, or that a true proposition "corresponds" to a fact of reality? Does this mean that truth is the recognition of an "epistemological convenience"? Or that a true proposition is one that corresponds to a "linguistic reference"? Ellen's confusion on the matter, as trivial as it may seem, is the same kind of confusion that has led many past philosophers down the royal road of epistemological subjectivism, in one form or another. Ghs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

How many and under what definition?

I type in "coronavirus updates." And I report what I see. You decide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That Lieber head of chemistry dept at Harvard piece of shit that turned out to be secretly taking pay as head strategic scientist at Wuhan and who then got arrested in Boston last month might be an interesting part of the coronavirus origins story, as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I try to keep my tone light and frivolous. I hope it doesn’t bother anyone. Are you scared yet? That is a big “one day” death total rise, in The Big Apple. Spiderman, one of New York’s finest, is bravely singing, “New York, New York, it’s my kind of town.” Stay safe Spidey!

Notes. From Reuters: Cuomo said 44,635 people have tested positive in New York, up about 7,400 from Thursday, and that 519 New Yorkers have died from the virus, up from the previous day's total of 385 deaths. "We are battling a deadly virus," Cuomo said. "It's the worst news but it's not unexpected news either."

A total of 2,996 people were killed in the 9/11 attacks, including the 19 terrorist hijackers aboard the four airplanes.  Citizens of 78 countries died in New York, Washington, D.C., and Pennsylvania. At the World Trade Center, 2,763 died after the two planes slammed into the twin towers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will stop debunking with this last word from Sherlock Holmes. Is a person epistemologically deficient if they believe much of what they read, put 2 and 2 together, and see 17? Peter

An analysis of the evidence, according to the findings first published in the scientific journal Nature Medicine, shows that the novel coronavirus "is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus," with the researchers concluding "we do not believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible."

. . . . Dr. Francis Collins, the director of the National Institutes of Health, supported the study’s findings, writing on his blog, "This study leaves little room to refute a natural origin for COVID-19." Researchers concluded that the novel coronavirus is not a human creation because it does not share any "previously used virus backbone." It likely arose, the study said, from a recombination of a virus found in bats and another virus, possibly originating from pangolins, otherwise known as scaly anteaters. MORE: Coronavirus live updates: US now leads world with over 82,000 cases COVID-19 is 96% identical to a coronavirus found in bats, researchers said, but with a certain variation that could explain what has made it so infectious. "We know from the study of other coronaviruses that they’re able to acquire this [variation] and they can then become more pathogenic," Garry told ABC News. "This is a good explanation as to why this virus is so transmittable and has caused this pandemic."

Notes. "You will not apply my precept," he said, shaking his head. "How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth? We know that he did not come through the door, the window, or the chimney. We also know that he could not have been concealed in the room, as there is no concealment possible. When, then, did he come?" The Sign of the Four, ch. 6 (1890) Sherlock Holmes in The Sign of the Four (Doubleday p. 111)

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did see it just speculated that Dylan's song being release today about Kennedy is timed to go with Q's drop, yesterday, that quotes Kennedy's "Invasion instead of Infiltration."
(in the twitter thread, below. fpr anyone who cares to see it) 
 

For those who just want the low-down, these 3 tweets are the specific ones in the thread, re: Kennedy and Dylan:

https://twitter.com/prayingmedic/status/1243611997905674242?s=20

https://twitter.com/prayingmedic/status/1243611999281397761?s=20

https://twitter.com/prayingmedic/status/1243617438031155200?s=20

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

How many and under what definition?

--Brant

You imagine he could understand the question? You imagine he might have any interest in even trying?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peter,

People don't do conspiracies out in the open (except in America where certain conspirators have a complicit press and this still leaves me with jaw dropping :) ).

One characteristic of a conspiracy is that it is meant to be hidden until the right moment. That's by definition.

So how can one demand observed fact about something hidden? One has to dig and expose. The idea that a suspicion is loopy just because you can't see who is doing the bad stuff is a very dangerous one. You can't see a cancer cell inside you with your eyes alone. Not even doctors can. And if you ignore it, it will kill you. 

I don't know if you ever read some posts I made about a professor in Florida--I forget his name right now. He's a leftie. He tracked down where the term "conspiracy theory" came from. And he holds conferences at the university level where "peer reviewed" material is presented about the different conspiracies that have turned out to be true. 

The term "conspiracy theory" came from the CIA to quell the unrest that happened, both in America and abroad, after Kennedy got shot and the Warren commission issued it's lame report. People were having a fit in public--the press, radio, TV, speeches, and so on. There are copies of a memo by the CIA at the time. It is available to anyone who wants to see it. The CIA circulated it to the press offices and the Embassies explaining how to discredit public doubters of the Warren Report or the public version of the Kennedy assassination by smearing them as loopy conspiracy nuts.

Before that time, "conspiracy theory" was a phrase used to describe serious musings on events. I can't think of an example from that time off the top of my head, but the later economic term "trickle down theory" has the kind of emotional load "conspiracy theory" used to have. Nobody today thinks a person espousing the "trickle down theory" is a flaming kook. Instead, they think the person is serious even when they disagree.

Before the CIA did that little masterpiece of persuasion engineering to shut down discussion of speculations, people going overboard on a conspiracy were generally linked to the theory they espoused. For example, "red baiters" or "McCarthyites." Not even the John Birch Society people back then were called "conspiracy theorists."

 

Lance deHaven-Smith

Here...

I just looked and found where I wrote about my man. The professor's name is Lance deHaven-Smith, Professor Emeritus at Florida State University.

On 7/27/2018 at 5:39 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Hard Wiring

Humans are practically hardwired to believe in the integrity of governing institutions (there is an automatic hierarchy detection thing that evolved in human brains). People get really uncomfortable when someone attacks an institution in anything other than general terms that can be blown off as venting. The possible collapse or abandonment of an institution makes them feel insecure. This is a default emotion.

Now, the problem with institutions is they are run by elites by definition. When the elite is a good person, everything runs along well. When the elite is an elitist, which I define as someone who innately feels superior to the rest of humanity and feels entitled to rule over them, treat them as livestock or laboratory animals, treat them as cannon fodder to promote endless war for profit so they can sell their stuff, laughs at them for cheap entertainment, and seeks ruling insider clubs as ends in themselves simply because they, as members, see each other as metaphysically entitled over everyone else, such an elitist will corrupt his office and count on other elitists to cover for him. This kind of person is garbage. When people like that are leaders of institutions, they have plenty of opportunity to squash individual voices. Which makes getting at the truth about them damn hard.

 

Question authority? Who, me?

Not to question authority is contrary to the American can-do opportunity-for-all spirit. There's a book I suggest called Conspiracy Theory in America by Lance deHaven-Smith. He's a Professor Emeritus at Florida State University. It's an eye-opener, not so much about this or that specific conspiracy theory. It's about the manipulated attitudes the public has had when an actual conspiracy has been unfolding right before their eyes. They are not given answers. They are induced to shut down their own questioning.

The term, "conspiracy theory" itself, as used currently, was engineered by the CIA to get people to stop questioning the Warren Report on the Kennedy assassination. Mr. deHaven-Smith presents the memo the CIA sent all over promoting this idea and requesting government press offices act accordingly . (The actual name "conspiracy theory" for this concept entered the public lexicon a little later. It does not mean identification of some idea, which it had meant when sporadically used before. Instead, it became a rhetorical device to get people to stop talking about something on pain of public ridicule.) 

Another point Mr. deHaven-Smith makes is that being suspicious of those in power is essentially one of the American attitudes that has kept the country strong. Hell, the entire country started as a conspiracy among elites, so there is no reason to suppose elites are all good guys who would not conspire with each other. They do it all the time, all of them, for good and bad. And in both cases, good and bad, benign and toxic, they like to keep their conspiracies hidden.

 

Here's a great start of a reading list if you ever get interested in historical conspiracies that were not believed at the time, but ended up being true:

On 6/19/2018 at 5:18 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

... I just read two books that turned everything upside down for me. Four actually.

Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America's Enemies by M. Stanton Evans

American Betrayal: The Secret Assault on Our Nation’s Character by Diana West

Conspiracy Theory in America by Lance deHaven-Smith (I haven't finished this one, but it is a fascinating deep dive into how propaganda works.)

The Devil's Pleasure Palace: The Cult of Critical Theory and the Subversion of the West by Michael Walsh (A fascinating cultural deep dive into the Frankfurt school and how it successfully sold leftie ideas into the American mainstream.)

btw - M. Stanton Evans has a famous law about researching the government: The Evans’ law of inadequate paranoia: “No matter how bad you think something is, when you look into it, it's always worse." :) 

I am totally appalled by what I have read so far. I cannot recommend the first two books highly enough. And the third is really good so far, but it is more cultural and about framing. So it is not appalling, just enlightening.

Here is the process M. Stanton Evans used in his research. He looked at what people now say about McCarthy, including the modern biographies. Then he looked at the sources for the negative conclusions and comments. Then he traced the sources to their roots and found they were often nothing more than the opinion of someone. Then he looked at the Congressional records and transcripts, what was actually printed in the newspapers of the day, transcripts from the Verona Project, FBI records, CIA records, and on and on. He generally found the modern view is the exact opposite of what is on record. It's brutal. And it's worse because of the sheer volume of things he presented. As you read the book, it seems like it will never stop.

Ah... And there's this little goodie. Often he looked for a record in, say, the Library of Congress, because it is listed as being on file. Guess what? Nothing or an empty file is what he encountered. So he did the donkey-work of running down the people involved at the time and found many instances where, say, a Congressman kept a carbon copy. But there is still a crap-load of missing official documents from that era.

Diana West continued his work and started looking into the records of a bit earlier using the same methodology. What she found out was even worse. You should see all the free stuff the US sent to Russia during WWII, starting with one half a million Jeeps and Dodge trucks. That's 500,000. And that just scratches the 8th layer of paint on the surface. It's ugly ugly.

(Just two topics alone, Harry Hopkins and his relationship to Stalin, and the Lend-Lease program and how they cooked the books, are enough to make the hair on the nape of your neck stand on edge. I never knew anything about these things before I read this book. What's worse, what little does trickle out into the mainstream is based on the propaganda versions, not based on the records West has uncovered. Old record-keeping and correcting records is boring for most people.)

 

Also, here is a little more on Lance deHaven-Smith. First a post by William (with the snark against those who think differently than him, mostly meaning Trump supporters, removed). He posted a very good video of Lance deHaven-Smith in a 2013 talk.

On 6/21/2018 at 4:00 PM, william.scherk said:

This video was trawled for upon MSK's note of the speaker's book comprising SCAD. ... 

... if one takes the video to heart, there might be a heartbeat of corruption just under the surface, invisible.  There could be state crimes concealed. 

 

Then a response by me that gives some more nutshell information on Lance deHaven-Smith:

On 6/21/2018 at 4:38 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I get tickled by the left's reaction to Lance deHaven-Smith. He is still carrying the flame that Gore's loss of the election was due to a conspiracy. He makes a pretty convincing case of it, too. Also, he's about as academic and peer-reviewed as they come.

So the left loves him. He's one of them. That is, until later and he starts messing in their shit...

:) 

So they don't know what the hell to do with him.

If they endorse him totally, which they feel they have to, they have to allow criticism of their own power and monkeyshines. And they can never allow that. 

I love it. What I've seen and read of this guy so far agrees with my way of thinking.

I know I can dig up a lot more if I get going.

But that's enough to make my point--that taking seriously a potential conspiracy is not the same thing as being batshit crazy. (Besides, this is getting so long, I'm not sure you will read it all. :) )

 

Asymmetrical Warfare

Now that the military has openly embraced what it calls asymmetrical warfare, you can find paper after paper published by the military on conspiracy theories in the original meaning of the term.

QAnon is a phenomenon that has all the marks of such asymmetrical warfare. It is intentionally designed to attract the fringe and nonfringe alike, that is, the way this project has unfolded, it is a way to inject narratives into the mainstream that are different than the ones offered but the fake news media, narratives that discredit the elitist mainstream culture. It's been a resounding success in that regard. Just think of how this has led to Epstein's fall--before, nobody believed he was trafficking in pedophilia among the superpowerful, but now everyone says he was. And he got dead and croaked and suicided as part of the show.

Not even a fifty million dollar special counsel investigation into the idea that Russians elected Donald Trump through covert means worked. Nor an impeachment. Don't forget, the mainstream press deployed everything they had to support the narratives behind that investigation and impeachment, both during the leading up phase and after both fizzled. The fake news mainstream culture did this for over three years, day in and day out. Part of the reason these efforts didn't take is that the narratives pushed by the mainstream culture were not accepted by the general population. One of the reasons this happened was QAnon's skillful injection of counternarratives and doubt into the general population at places the mainstream fake news culture did not control. Back when you and I were young, this would not have been possible since there were only three nationwide TV stations, radio was mostly pop tunes and religion, and the printed press carried the day. The Internet ended that monopoly on controlling the narrative by the few.

One day, after all this blows over, it will be very interesting to look at and study all the different techniques deployed on both sides. I have already identified a few, but it's still too early to write anything definitive about it. (That goes for me and others.) I'm still--we're still--observing--still gathering conceptual referents so to speak--since important history is unfolding right in front of us and hasn't wound up.

Michael

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Peter said:

I type in "coronavirus updates." And I report what I see. You decide.

0 + 0 = 0

--Brant

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I did see it just speculated that Dylan's song being release today about Kennedy is timed to go with Q's drop, yesterday, that quotes Kennedy's "Invasion instead of Infiltration."
(in the twitter thread, below. fpr anyone who cares to see it) 
 

For those who just want the low-down, these 3 tweets are the specific ones in the thread, re: Kennedy and Dylan:

https://twitter.com/prayingmedic/status/1243611997905674242?s=20

https://twitter.com/prayingmedic/status/1243611999281397761?s=20

https://twitter.com/prayingmedic/status/1243617438031155200?s=20

 

Something else Praying Medic pointed out: Obama's Eric Holder made two tweets about current events, each with a different pic of JFK...speculated if it was a veiled threat, on Holder's part...
 

https://twitter.com/prayingmedic/status/1243627686334885888?s=20

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael quoted, “No matter how bad you think something is, when you look into it, it's always worse."  

That sounds like a “deep” generalization but taken by itself it is twaddle. For that to make sense you would need to explain what “something” is.

Michael wrote: But that's enough to make my point--that taking seriously a potential conspiracy is not the same thing as being batshit crazy. (Besides, this is getting so long, I'm not sure you will read it all.  ) end quote

I skimmed it. But I will skim it again, Kemo Sabe.  I saw that Rhode Island is considering a ban on New Yorkers crossing into their state. How would Ayn Rand view that? Peter

Notes. “Man’s Rights,” The Virtue of Selfishness, 96. . . . . Any undertaking that involves more than one man, requires the voluntary consent of every participant. Every one of them has the right to make his own decision, but none has the right to force his decision on the others. end quote

And in her article, "The Left: Old and New" in The New Left: The Anti-Industrial Revolution, [p. 89] Ayn Rand wrote: In regard to the political principle involved: if a man creates a physical danger or harm to others, which extends beyond the line of his own property, such as unsanitary conditions or even loud noise, and if this is *proved*, the law can and does hold him responsible.  If the condition is collective, such as in an overcrowded city, appropriate and *objective* laws can be defined, protecting the rights of all those involved -- as was done in the case of oil rights, air-space rights, etc." end quote

Tonto called the Lone Ranger "quien no sabe" (he who knows nothing) and the Lone Ranger called his sidekick "tonto" (fool). NOTE: Tonto called the Lone Ranger "Kemo Sabe" which was actually a bastardization of the spanish "Quien no sabe". The writers were trying to come up with a phrase that meant "he who no one knows".

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, ThatGuy said:

Something else Praying Medic pointed out: Obama's Eric Holder made two tweets about current events, each with a different pic of JFK...speculated if it was a veiled threat, on Holder's part.

Eric Holder - one of the biggest bastards of them all in pushing the AGW scare.  He's a fine one to talk.

Ellen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...