Michael Stuart Kelly Posted February 16, 2017 Share Posted February 16, 2017 Now we get to the Deep State conspiracy theory. David Knight made an interesting distinction between WikiLeaks and Deep State leaks to the left-wing mainstream press. He actually made several distinctions and they are important, but the one that stands out to me is the one that attacks people's ability to think for themselves. In WikiLeaks, we get to see whole documents. In Deep State leaks, we gotta kinda take their word for it and be satisfied with tidbits and interpretations. The concept of whole documents in public doesn't seem to be part of their plans for the immediate future, or hell, ever. I predict President Trump will do a major housecleaning of the intelligence community before too long. As Trump is wicked smart, he is hiding his hand right now and letting people talk shit and do shit up a storm. But when the boom comes, people will not know what hit them. Maybe I'm right, or maybe this is just a conspiracy theory... We'll see before too long... Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted February 16, 2017 Share Posted February 16, 2017 And here's the beginning of a conspiracy theory. Bashar al-Assad, the Syrian dictator, is a fan of the Alt-Left YouTube show, The Young Turks. I don't know where that goes, but there it is. Maybe Assad has the hots for Ana Kasparian, who is Armenian descent, so she's kinda in his ballpark... Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted February 17, 2017 Share Posted February 17, 2017 More conspiracy stuff for aficionados like me. For those who think this doesn't exist, we accept donations of tin foil hats. We can sell 'em for the raw metal... I don't think there is any danger here, though. Not to Trump anymore. Well... maybe there's some danger to those who are conspiring. A Grand Jury certainly will be a good start when it starts... Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted February 17, 2017 Share Posted February 17, 2017 Imagine that. Conspiracy theories about France's presidential election during the Obama years... Hmmmm... And The people who did this are the same ones now pushing the "Russia elected Trump" conspiracy theory. Dayaamm! There are so many conspiracy theories these days... We're drownin' in 'em, I tell ya'! We're drownin' in 'em! Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted February 17, 2017 Share Posted February 17, 2017 5 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: The people who did this are the same ones now pushing the "Russia elected Trump" conspiracy theory. It makes you wonder why they're so worried about foreign interference in a presidential election--worried enough to stage fake news about it. Maybe it's because interfere as foreigners in a presidential election is exactly what they did. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted February 17, 2017 Share Posted February 17, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted February 17, 2017 Share Posted February 17, 2017 I just saw this from a conspiracy theory fruitcake. Or was it? Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted February 18, 2017 Share Posted February 18, 2017 Oh man... The conspiracy theorists are coming... The conspiracy theorists are coming... The conspiracy theorists are coming... Alex Jones just invited Mark Dice to have a show on Infowars. See it below. btw - The title of this YouTube video is: "Zombie Whisperer: One Man's Crusade To Wake Up The Brain Dead" The Zombie Whisperer is Mark Dice, of course. All this is fun, but on a more serious note, here is what people who are interested in spreading their ideas should pay attention to. The video below needs nothing more to produce than a webcam, a semi-decent computer (low end will do) and any video editor that does green screen (chroma key) and layers. There are many such editors to choose from, and several that are free (Google it, but here's a tip for a great freebie--Hitfilm Express 4, you even get special Hollywood effects like explosions). Marc's video, as of this posting, has a little over 300,000 views. It probably took about an hour or two to make and it cost next to nothing. If you believe you have better ideas than Mark Dice and want to spread them, there's one path that costs almost nothing. Look at what Mark Dice is doing. If Dice can do it, why can't you? Add your own creativity to the mix and see what happens. Either that, or get used the people some call conspiracy theorists. Because they're coming... Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted February 20, 2017 Share Posted February 20, 2017 (edited) 6 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: The Pizzagate pedophilia thing involving the rich and powerful ain't going away. Arrests are being made--over 1,500 so far according to David Seaman--but the mainstream press is not reporting on it. I wonder how many among the National Review crowd are going to get caught up in this. Edited February 20, 2017 by william.scherk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted February 20, 2017 Share Posted February 20, 2017 They nailed Milo really well-nailed. He's out of CPAC for a ruling class right-wing pedophilia witch hunt on him. BREAKING: Milo Yiannopoulos Disinvited From CPAC Over Pedophilia Commentary You can be outrageous in many things, but you can't bait people by saying positive things about sex with underage kids. I don't think anyone is immune from this in today's culture in America. Anyway, I don't think CPAC is Milo's optimal venue. He's going to have to do some damage control now. The Catholic Church managed to come back from much worse, so it's not a cultural death sentence. The good news is it will make him stronger and even more of a pain in the ass to power-hungry control freaks. Michael EDIT: Crosspost with other thread: 41 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: EDIT: For the sake of objectivity, the transcript of what Milo said on the "video making the rounds" is here. I don't know when he said that, but he sure stuck his foot in his mouth. Milo was abused when he was young so I think he was refusing to play victim in his over-the-top manner. I have never seen him advocate for lowering the age of consent laws, or relaxing legal penalties on pedophiles, or anything like that. On the contrary, I have seen him be harsh on pedophiles. So his comment comes off as a one-off instance of provocative banter rather than an admission of belief. And he has said--emphatically--he regrets those words. Whatever. It is what it was and he is paying the price for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 Yes, David Seaman, flag officer at Pizzagate Corps, is having some problems retaining the support of modern-day Flat Earthers. Yes, they are a thing, as you can see in this double-bill presentation. First David separates real conspiracies like a multi-generational Illuminati from the Outer Limits of epistemology, where the Flat Earthers live and breathe. But wait, are there people who declaim on Youtube that the Earth is Flat, doesn't spin, doesn't orbit the Sun? Oh yes, and they have words for David. 1. Flat Earth "Theory," Antarctica Alien Reclamation Zone: FAKE NEWS? Our second feature is a splendid epic ... 2. David Seaman DESTROYED ~ Flat Earth -- Newt Gingrich is flying down to Antarctica so that 'all the pedophiles are let go.' Sez David. Mr Reasonable Two is not so sure. All the evidence points to a stationary lumpy disc, not a sphere. I am going to give David Seaman five bucks for averting the union between Pizzagate Reality and Flat-Earth Reality. But I deduct five bucks for his wobbly assurance of Illuminati reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 3 hours ago, william.scherk said: I am going to give David Seaman five bucks for averting the union between Pizzagate Reality and Flat-Earth Reality. But I deduct five bucks for his wobbly assurance of Illuminati reality. William, Are you sure David didn't go through this kind of hazing about the surveillance state? That is until Snowden showed up a year or two later? I wonder where the mocking went then... Does anybody even remember? I bet David does... Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 Six Ways to Debunk Any Conspiracy Theory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 32 minutes ago, william.scherk said: Six Ways to Debunk Any Conspiracy Theory William, He left out the most important. Convince the conspiracy theorist that he is only interested in correct information. And that would probably start by: 1. Never lying to him, 2. Not using proven liars as sources for his debunking effort, and 2. Owning up to when he, or a source, has lied to him in the past. Without trust, the rest is just more persuasion technique bullshit for liars to persuade the gullible with. I only skimmed the article, but the tone sounded more like how to get a conspiracy theorist to sit down and shut up than actually persuade the person. And that sends off warning bells to me of his true intentions. Good luck to this person, though. Let's see what effect he has on the world in a year or two other than getting some readers to part with their money through Patreon. I doubt he will get many donations from conspiracy theorists, but he might do well milking those on his side of the aisle... Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jts Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 1 hour ago, william.scherk said: Six Ways to Debunk Any Conspiracy Theory How would you use those 6 ways to debunk the following conspiracy theory? http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/news/20010430/northwoods.pdf "We could blow up a US ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba." Note 1: It is not enough to say it didn't happen. It was planned; that qualifies it as a conspiracy. Note 2: You can't cop out by calling it a conspiracy fact instead of a conspiracy theory. It was or could have been a theory before this document was revealed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 The Earth is Flat. Pizzagate is 'real.' Rothschilds direct satanic pedophilia networks. Choose one, none, a combination of two, or all three. With double orders you get egg roll. 15 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: 19 hours ago, william.scherk said: I am going to give David Seaman five bucks for averting the union between Pizzagate Reality and Flat-Earth Reality. But I deduct five bucks for his wobbly assurance of Illuminati reality. Are you sure David didn't go through this kind of hazing about the surveillance state? That is until Snowden showed up a year or two later? I wonder where the mocking went then... Does anybody even remember? Good questions, uncertain assumptions. Maybe "This kind of hazing" is a reasonable descriptor of the Flat Earther's video riposte. Hazing I associate with humiliating or painful ritual, a 'rite of passage' or entrance fee paid in pain ... in this case representing a Youtube entity's 'pushback' against one shonky conspiracy theory may be the entrance fee for those who assume epistemic authority. I'll try to extract the positive meaning of Michael's comments. We are sure/unsure if David Seaman went through 'hazing' in his previous incarnation as journalist, before he got woke to Pizzagate, when among his interests were the consequences of post-9/11 surveillance and control. I'd say probably not, because the position of being appalled by NSA or 'security-surveillance state' over-reach was widespread. He was just part of a larger rejection of overweening surveillance, critics of NDAA, CISPA. He was not a lone shooter. So, positively: David Seaman did go through Youtube-fringe-crackpot 'hazing' when his beat included the Surveillance State, and his forum was Business Insider (example from 2012). Or not. Positively: David Seaman did go through hazing for his criticism of NDAA, etc, but then Snowden happened. Which was back in 2013. Positively: David Seaman was mocked for his attention to NDAA/CISPA etc. Then Snowden leaked and the mockery was gone. Or not. The Socratic method gives results. ++++++++++++++++++++++ Anyway, one funny part is that David Seaman has 'evolved' over the years. He believes that there is a Rothschild-Illuminati Satanic Order. Another funny part is that the crackpot Flat Earther did a fairly decent job of poking holes in the general Seaman claims about Pizza and Pedophilia -- but he could not in the same way extricate himself from whimsy and, well, Flat Earth beliefs. Awful people deserve the surveillance state they've constructed. Boomers won't be missed. Nice hell on Earth you've created, assholes. — David Seaman (@d_seaman) July 18, 2015 I never liked Milo; the Da Vinci of attention whores. If some out of context quotes is what it takes for the left to go after pedos, cool. ?? — David Seaman (@d_seaman) February 21, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 Rush was saying today that the Republicans who benefit from cronyism, and being in power are angry about their loss of income and prestige, but in three month’s time President Trump’s economic policies will really start the national locomotive rolling. Whoo! Whoo! As that Clinton troll said, “It’s the economy stupid!” Heading back from a dental cleaning after Rush I listened to local radio guy Duke Brooks who was talking about the left leaning press. Is it a conspiracy? Well, it stinks but it’s not criminal. It is like minded people getting jobs in the same industry and promoting other like-minded individuals who want to see themselves in power and to hurt the other side. Do they collude? If you listen to several news outlets you will hear them spouting the same talking points, but it is not a criminal conspiracy. It used to be you needed three verifications in journalism to repeat a story, but not any more. Trump is starting to revamp and expand the military. Several areas have been identified to start building The Great Wall. Hmmm? What should we name it? Peter From MSN: Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) predicted on Tuesday that Republicans will split with President Trump within months unless the administration changes course. "My prediction is he keeps up on this path...within three, four months you're going to see a whole lot of Republicans breaking with him," Schumer said during an interview with ABC's "The View." Schumer argued while most GOP lawmakers aren't yet willing to break publicly from the White House, they are privately having "real problems" with Trump's policies in his first month. "A lot of the Republicans, they're mainstream people. ... They will feel they have no choice but to break with him," he said. GOP leadership are largely dismissing any early signs of discord between Congress and the White House as they slowly try to make progress on an ambitious agenda. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) noted late last week that he's not a fan of Trump's tweeting but he supports the administration's early actions - comparing it to hypothetical administrations led by Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) or Mitt Romney . . . . end quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 Milo resigned from Breitbart. Guess what happens to political systems that fire their jesters? They crumble or explode. Or turn into dictatorships. I'm not talking about the pro-Trump political system, either (except the establishment Republicans). There are plenty of jesters taking potshots at that. I'm talking about the political system that removes inconvenient people with smears as it's form of persuading the masses. You can remove anyone like that and the system will stand. Remove the jesters, and the system will follow before too long. Watch and see. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 42 minutes ago, william.scherk said: Another funny part is that the crackpot Flat Earther did a fairly decent job of poking holes in the general Seaman claims about Pizza and Pedophilia -- but he could not in the same way extricate himself from whimsy and, well, Flat Earth beliefs. William, I didn't watch that video. An hour and a half of flat earth is a little beyond my willingness to engage. I'll stick with the arguments David Seaman presents. So far, in what I have seen, I have not seen him present false information. He's got harsh speculative opinions he presents emphatically and he likes to call on people to mobilize to do this or that (usually attack someone or some organization and sometimes some good stuff like sending people to bitcoin), but I haven't seen anything information-wise that makes a warning bell go off. But one warning bell did go off in your post, and it's not just because I like Milo. It's Seaman being OK with using false information to attack Milo. He admits it and glories in it. Well, in my world, it's not OK to use false information to get rid of someone we don't like. There are plenty of names for that and none of them good. But I'll go with "fake news" for now. Seaman doesn't see that calling it cool for lefties to use false info to "go after pedos" throws into question his standards for his own reporting to "go after pedos." It's not even a nudge to go from there to making everything up out of nothing. My entire liking of Seaman is based on his integrity and opposition to false information. Now I wonder... Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 (edited) Sniff test. 4 hours ago, jts said: 6 hours ago, william.scherk said: Six Ways to Debunk Any Conspiracy Theory How would you use those 6 ways to debunk the following conspiracy theory? I would answer in two ways. First I'd question the identification: is Jerry's linked material making a claim, positing an explanatory theory, offering previously unconsidered evidence of criminal collusion/conspiracy to deceive? If so, how to apply the six key items the author suggests we wield: The “no leaks” objection The “evidence gap” objection The “inconsistent capabilities” objection The “prediction horizon” objection The “method-goal mismatch” objection The “unfalsifiable” objection -- in other words, if someone is proposing a controversial theory that posits a hitherto hidden conspiracy, then yes, test the evidence for the claim. But how? Simply follow the procedure outlined by the author at my link ... DIY Secondly I would answer by positing that the Northwoods proposal was different from the Bay of Pigs fiasco, that a fact is different from a theory and from a plan, and that we not mix up concepts. To illustrate the differences, I would posit a hypothetical, that the operational reality was reversed: the Bay of Pigs was kept an operations proposal, but a US ship was indeed attacked by US secret forces in Guantanamo Bay in 1962 and blamed on Cuba. How do we know of the other extant hidden proposal? Well, because hidden material in the ops reversal was declassified. Take the illustration one step further, obscure the secret plan more deeply: In the absence of declassified material on the did-not-happen Bay of Pigs plan, who would then be propounding a theory of the secret-and-stupid operation? Nobody. Which is the point of the two answers: no conspiracy theory as generally-understood was propounded at Jerry's link. And Jerry has made no coherent claim yet. Quote "We could blow up a US ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba." Note 1: It is not enough to say it didn't happen. It was planned; that qualifies it as a conspiracy. Sure a plan can be a conspiracy plan if it satisfies certain criteria, but that is not a theory. You know, what is your theory? We need to be constant in our definitions, to avoid equivocation. A conspiracy theory might surround the Northwoods declassified documents, the proposed false-flag deception, or more narrowly speculate on the reason why the operation was not approved and set in motion. But your mention hasn't brought up any covering 'theory' that purports to explain hidden events ... ie, you haven't told your story. Maybe your Story 'theory' is that not every plan is set in motion. Which although a truism, has room to grow. How can we tell the difference between a plan and an act, a proposal and an operation, a dream and a reality, a conspiracy and a claim of conspiracy? Reason! Quote Note 2: You can't cop out by calling it a conspiracy fact instead of a conspiracy theory. It was or could have been a theory before this document was revealed. Like I said, we need be constant in our definitions when making comparisons. And your operational definitions don't match each other or usage. What was revealed in the declassified documents was a plan at some stage of development. The goal of the plan was to provoke international condemnation against Cuba, and so to precipitate an 'allowable' war with a casus belli. Classic military spook behaviour. If you or another person was touting a theory contemporary with the documents, more or less saying "our military has come up with a plan to bomb our own ship and blame it on Cuba to allow a 'just war,' under the JFK administration," well, I don't know if we would bring out the six items, but surely we can. Understand where equivocation gets you, Jerry -- "it could have been a theory" doesn't satisfy your own criteria. You are in effect asking us to review 50 year old documents ... and generalize the story contained therein to something else unstated, offstage. Which is fine, but to assess today's story, one still needs to do an individual analysis of an actual story as related. One can't generalize from a known plan for a false-flag provocation to a particular and later claim of, say, a suspected false flag. Known event A does not prove event Z. In more conversational fashion, we cannot generalize from one revealed 'conspiracy' to another claimed 'conspiracy.' The burden of proof rests on the claimant. It is a 'same applies here' conclusion that needs to be tested, not assumed. A double-hinged generalization is the issue: if male person X did rape female person G, then conclude 'Man rapes woman.' But if 'Men rape women' is used as hinge to claim person R raped person E, it is illlicit logic. You need a fresh trial, fresh evidence. So in this sense a trial is what is needed for any such claim, and Trial is another word for Test, and how's that for equivocation? But back to the mirror of Jerry's Northwoods/Pigs relation. If the evidence in declassified documents had not been forthcoming, then one could apply the six analytical tools. Would a claim of "they were considering false-flag ops to make a US hot war on Cuba acceptable!" pass initial sniff tests and warrant a more rigorous examination? Why not?. Military does make and have plans rejected by political authority. So, yes, go to trial. The “no leaks” objection The “evidence gap” objection The “inconsistent capabilities” objection The “prediction horizon” objection The “method-goal mismatch” objection The “unfalsifiable” objection Here we can see that ultimately a probability estimate is often the best we can do, personally, to assess a given theory that passes sniff tests. What is the probability that a conspiracy to hide the flatness of the Earth exists? What is the probability that an international satanic coven covertly directs vast networks of ritual abuse? What is the probability that the Damascus Sarin attack was a 'false flag'? For each independent assessment, we need tools. What are your best tools, Jerry, to sort wheat from chaff, bizarre cultish beliefs from reasonable scientific conjecture? Since you have a few bizarre and intractable beliefs about human physiology, I wonder how they withstood the use of the best tools at hand. Consider, again, if you will, the poor video dude who can point out a few obvious defects in broader Pizzagate claims -- he can apply tools of reason to chisel out no-evidence claims. But, but, but, sadly, he cannot apply the same tools to his own Flat Earth whoopee. Speaking of whoopee and the Earth, I love this guy's Is Earth Actually Flat? It tries to bridge the evidence gap and invokes a metaphor from the world's greatest living philosopher, Susan Haack. At 12,815,105 views, he appears more monetized than David Seaman and David's mad detractors. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Edited February 21, 2017 by william.scherk Sniff test Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jts Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 I expected the Operation Northwoods pdf file to be self explanatory but maybe it wasn't. I will try to explain. Definition of 'conspiracy': 2 or more individuals secretly planning something illegal or immoral. Definition of 'conspiracy theory': a theory that there is a conspiracy, as above defined. Debunking a conspiracy theory: means to prove that a conspiracy theory, as above defined, is false. This amounts to proving that the conspiracy did not happen (or is not happening). Operation Northwoods qualifies as a conspiracy by the above definition of 'conspiracy'. (Notice that this definition does not require the plan to be carried out.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods http://www.smeggys.co.uk/operation_northwoods.php The challenge was to prove that Operation Northwoods was not a conspiracy. This challenge is not met by an abundance of confusing verbiage followed by flat earth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 3 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Milo resigned from Breitbart Conspiracy! 3 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: An hour and a half of flat earth is a little beyond my willingness to engage. How many hours have you engaged with Pizzagate videos? 3 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: I'll stick with the arguments David Seaman presents. Illuminati Rothschild intergenerational satanic ritual abuse cults? Gingrich in Antarctica to take light off Pizzagate? 3 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: I haven't seen anything information-wise that makes a warning bell go off. Rothschild. Satanist. Illuminati. 3 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: My entire liking of Seaman is based on his integrity and opposition to false information. I might be able to like David Seaman in real life, where I would emotionally manipulate him into questioning his assumptions. But I have only met him on Youtube, Google+, Twitter, Business Insider, Voat, Huffpo, and etc. In his 'publications.' There is something about his emotional tone scale that put my hackles up, especially when I realized he had had a major depression (live on Twitter) and showed other signs of affective disorder. Some of his Business Insider stuff was bright and cogent, some minority was a bit 'lit' and paranoid, as if Seaman had had a bout of mania. Listening and watching my share of David Seaman video, I noted he has few expressions, and no particular aptitude for empathy. His brows are almost always knit to the same degree. His affect is blunted. It is a state of bland anger and vigilance and grievance, aggression, but without much modulation. His moods may be obverse to his reason. That is my bias. I don't like him in the way that I like Milo, find Milo more empathetic, more intelligent, more socially-gifted, a larger personality along more dimensions. I like Milo much more than I like, say, Ann Coulter or other entertainer-provocateurs who are writers and communicators. I think what happened to him is that he tried to have something both ways. The something was his experience with youth-adult sex. On the one hand, not joking, he likened himself to the predator in the encounter he told of with a Catholic cleric in his twenties. His age at the time he was coy with (on Rogan), but the outrageous remark was ostensibly that his experience should generalize to other youth vis-a-vis intergenerational love. The remark that he wouldn't know how to give such good blowjobs were it not his early encounter ... was suitable for Rogan's show. That's the one way, the one audience, the one pose, the one interpretation, the prey-as-predator, the difference between pre and post-puberty 'boys,' some laughs, a lot of outraged/performance push back from Rogan. It is almost a schtick. That schtick was also on display in the live-chat video excerpts. Then there is the 'what will I tell the principal?' way, when called to the office. Well now, the truth of the mattter is that I was a victim of child sexual abuse by cleric. I am a victim, and I was being edgy about it in other venues. It's just that you can't have it both ways with some people. Milo will rise again and rise taller, I hope. He will gain more wisdom and insight without losing his edge and his punch. He will still be a darling, our own sassy gay pundit, but he will further individualize, set his own course, once the sad and unnecessary scandal passes. I think he hit the third-rail of Christian-right triggers, the revulsion button. That wing of Republicans and presumably those Christians like Bannon and others at Breitbart will not accept the having it both ways. It's a shame. The provocation was in testing the verities that youth-adult 'love' relations are overwhelmingly criminal and negative. It is too bad that that hit the electric rail and no further nuance can get over the burning jolt of Bzzzzzt. Worse in the short-term but just fine in the medium term is that Millo lost a book-publishing deal. There will be another. For now he is in the early stages of the Oscar Wilde effect. Wilde told the truth in the dock and it put him in gaol. But he is one of the British immortals of letters and manners. All the talent and energy that brought Milo this far in his career as a public provocateur ... will propel him past the momentary social antipathy. Even if he takes some self-prison, or a session of recluse, he will again mount big stages. David Seaman kind of wrote off Milo without a second paragraph, and back to the Satanic Ritual Abuse beat he went, his face Botoxed into a rictus of concern. You can have it all, Milo. You just can't have it both ways. Look what happened to David Seaman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 3 hours ago, william.scherk said: I think he hit the third-rail of Christian-right triggers, the revulsion button. William, Actually he didn't. From what I read, Reagan Brigade leads to Invincible, which leads to George Soros. It's supposed to look like fundy Christian-right triggers. Why am I not surprised? (Bannon abandoning Milo is a pipedream. They just have to let the dust settle. Watch what happens with Milo's new project.) To be fair, the fundy Christian-right triggers did kick in with a few folks and CPAC after the fact (certainly not with Simon-Schuster--too heavy in general for them and that's all). But the camouflaged kick-off came from elsewhere. btw - David Seaman is not finished with Pizzagate. And, I suspect, neither is law enforcement. However, I want to wait and see what happens. I'm not as quick as you to say Podesta is a saint. Besides, I understand your antipathy to David Seaman. I know how apostates are hated. Lighten up, though. If you can still pump man-made climate change after all the years of lies out there, I can do my Pizzagate thing for a few months. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 12 minutes ago, jts said: Definition of 'conspiracy': 2 or more individuals secretly planning something illegal or immoral. Definition of 'conspiracy theory': a theory that there is a conspiracy, as above defined. Debunking a conspiracy theory: means to prove that a conspiracy theory, as above defined, is false. [...] Operation Northwoods qualifies as a conspiracy by the above definition of 'conspiracy'. (Notice that this definition does not require the plan to be carried out.) Operation Northwoods qualifies as a conspiracy per Jerry Story. Operation Northwoods does not qualify as a conspiracy theory -- though there may be conspiracy theories assembled around the operation. You have introduced evidence that the conspiracy did not come to pass. Beyond that you haven't made a case or claim. Debunking is a sort of stress-test, of claims or explanations. Another kind of stress-test is applied to military false-flag provocation plans, which your example did not pass. It was was extinguished while still in the West Wing womb. One story should survive all debunking or logical stress-tests. The records you cited were officially real. Unless you have other information, that the documents are real and revealing is a given. What larger story they reveal to you is what you still have yet to say ... Then ... "[Debunking] amounts to proving that the conspiracy did not happen (or is not happening)." It means removing any bunkum by patient application of reason to the full Theory (which you omitted to define). Debunking operations remove sagging or rotten struts and planks of explanation, weak links and unsound foundations, where weaknesses are found on inquiry. What is left is often an irrational, counter-to-common--sense muddle, a collapse. Prising out the bunkum in controversial claims is an Objectivish thing to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellen Stuttle Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 21 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: From what I read, Reagan Brigade leads to Invincible, which leads to George Soros. It's supposed to look like fundy Christian-right triggers. Why am I not surprised? Michael, Can you elaborate? Ellen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now