Conspiracy theories and Conspiracy theorists

[Peter]

That Creepy O'Reilly is out at Fox. I have despised that guy for years though the first year he was on, I was a faithful viewer.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

3 hours ago, Peter said:

That Creepy O'Reilly is out at Fox. I have despised that guy for years though the first year he was on, I was a faithful viewer.

I don't mind O'Reilly.

His facts were always in order and I liked that even though sometimes I would get impatient with his fence-sitting.

What I don't like is how David Brock's backstage attacks (read threats) on advertisers manages to take down top news personalities. (David Brock is the Soros attack dog who loves the Clintons.)

I can almost see him talking to O'Reilly's advertisers after the NYT article: "You realize these allegations against O'Reilly are about abusing women, don't you? What if I told you that a bazillion feminists could show up right outside your head office one day to stage a protest along with their more... shall we say... expressive fellow travellers? I know the allegations aren't proven, but with the feminist movement, they don't need to be for massive mobilization, including all those feminist journalists all over the friggin' place."

Fox is going to pay a high price for this because people like Brock do not get satisfied with one kill. Stay tuned because we are going into interesting times media-wise.

Michael

[Peter]

The Fox primetime lineup. Tucker at 8. The Five at 9. Sean at 10. I wish they had kept the Five on at 5.

Peter 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

19 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

What I don't like is how David Brock's backstage attacks (read threats) on advertisers manages to take down top news personalities. (David Brock is the Soros attack dog who loves the Clintons.)

I can almost see him talking to O'Reilly's advertisers after the NYT article: "You realize these allegations against O'Reilly are about abusing women, don't you? What if I told you that a bazillion feminists could show up right outside your head office one day to stage a protest along with their more... shall we say... expressive fellow travellers? I know the allegations aren't proven, but with the feminist movement, they don't need to be for massive mobilization, including all those feminist journalists all over the friggin' place."

It's not even what I thought it was, although there is definitely some of that.

It's friggin' email and social media bots sent out by about 10 political hack spam people made to look like gazillions of folks.

Ask Yourself Why Left-Wing Media Personalities Are Never the Target of Advertiser Boycotts

Rush Limbaugh breaks it down pretty well. And he should know because he gets hit with this crap all the time.

Quote

The way this works is this. The New York Times runs a story, and the story talks about how valuable O’Reilly is to Fox News and how much money O’Reilly is generating, and this irritates everybody that reads the New York Times. They don’t want to see this. They don’t want to see how successful O’Reilly is. They don’t want to see how big Fox is ’cause they hate it. They hate Fox, they hate O’Reilly, they don’t want to see any of this. And the New York Times pounds ’em with how much money O’Reilly is making, how much money he’s generating for Fox, how powerful Fox is, and they see as they read this.

And then the New York Times lowers the boom and points out that O’Reilly is a serial whatever and has paid off $13 million to other women to shut up. There has to be an outlet for the anger. Then what happens is where the real story begins. And it is not that advertisers are reading the New York Times and going, “Oh, my God, I can’t have my product there,” and they call their agency and say, “You get us out of there.” That is not how it happened. That is what they want you to think happens, but that’s not how it happens.

The advertisers are not taking the initiative here. The advertisers are themselves being inundated with what they think is tens of thousands of complaint emails and tweets from people they believe represent tens of thousands of legitimately angry citizens. When in truth it is a bunch of bots, Facebook bots and Twitter bots that may have been generated by no more than 10 people, made to look like tens of thousands. And that’s all she wrote.

When the advertisers are swarmed with that, if Fox, O’Reilly, if the salespeople are not prepared, if they don’t know what’s going on, and if they can’t hit these advertisers and explain what’s happening to them and tell ’em to ignore it, that it’s all part of an organized campaign and that these tweets do not represent real people.

Because, you know, liberals, sponsors of O’Reilly have been have you noticed many of them sponsor the Clinton Foundation? Many of them… There’s a serial all edged rapist. I mean, you talk about sexual abuse?

I remember Rush unmasking these spammer folks a few years ago when they went after his own advertisers. It was over his Sandra Fluke comment (he called her a slut or something because she wanted free condoms and testified about it in Congress--actually playing the part of an oppressed victim).

The media spun what happened later as Rush bowing his head in shame, but he gave out the home addresses and everything of the spammer folks if I recall correctly. The blitz against his advertisers dried up immediately, too. At one point, everybody was talking about this giant advertiser boycott against him and suddenly there was silence about the matter as he kept serving up one ad after another on his show. And he still does.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I'm going to go out on a limb just for the hell of it.

I bet there are folks in senior management at large companies that have been close to the Clintons over the years who like a little kiddie or two to scratch some mighty compelling sexual itches.

Supposing this is true and supposing Brock knew all about it (and guess what I think?  ), I bet it would be easy-peasy for Brock to get them to boycott anyone. I doubt this would apply to the majority of advertisers, but I suspect it would apply to plenty enough of them to add credibility to the boycott and get the ball rolling.

Michael

[Peter]

Henny Youngman one liners.

I saw a cartoon of O’Reilly and it read, “The factor word of the day is ‘consensual.’”

I remember saying here and to my wife, years ago, “O’Reilly is not a conservative. He is a Fascist.”

He fantasizes about killing people. Hopefully, that dirt bag’s next book will be, ‘Killing O’Reilly.”

A good gig for him (if he can sing) would be to be to star in The Phantom of the Opera. He would look just right in a mask.

But hey, he’s a predator and 67. Let the creep go back under his rock.

Root for his replacement, Tucker Carlson. Let’s see. What can his catch phrase be? What rhymes with Tucker?  

Peter

 

[BaalChatzaf]

8 minutes ago, Peter said:

 

Root for his replacement, Tucker Carlson. Let’s see. What can his catch phrase be? What rhymes with Tucker?  

Peter

 

Ducker?  Sucker?  Pucker? Trucker?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I dunno.

It seems so gangster the way they did it.

The meeting was secret. In breathless silence the table of suits stared in fear at one of the Murdoch kids. He slowly extended his arm and pointed his thumb downward.

"When do we tell him?" whispered one of the suits.

"I'll think of something," said the Murdock kid.

(Raise the music soundtrack. Cut to O'Reilly getting on a plane to Italy. Shots of him arriving and going to the Vatican. He slowly waits in line to see the Pope as the music cuts back. He finally gets there and the Pope stares compassionately into his eyes. Dramatic pause.)

"Now!" screams the Murdock kid on the other side of the world.

The hammer falls as a thousand pre-pared press stories against O'Reilly are released along with an online bot army of tens of thousands against advertisers.

 

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I will make a prediction right now.

At some time in the future, I don't know when, a large number of women are going to come out of the woodworks claiming that James Murdoch sexually abused them. They will file suit and probably be represented by Gloria Aldrich. And, miraculously, there will be a run on Fox advertisers.

Boomerang. 

I quip, but it's a serious prediction.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

News on Pedogate.

BOOM!

Retired US Army General busted.

BOOM!

NYC Police Sergeant busted (but Podesta taunting folks).

BOOM!

100 dudes in Canada busted with press conference tomorrow morning.

And the beat goes on...

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I dunno.

It seems so gangster the way they did it.

Rush thinks so, too.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here's a thought I wrote elsewhere about the way O'Reilly was treated.

Gotta hand it to the Murdoch kids. Their first major business impact at the network they are inheriting is to wage an orchestrated campaign from the backrooms to trash their long-running No. 1 talent with a phony sexual predator image and scare off his advertisers. How can anything go wrong in the future with that kind of business acumen?

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Alex Jones has a different view of O'Reilly, but since there was bad blood between them, it's no wonder.

Alex does recognize that this was a political takedown.

Michael

[Peter]

Interesting that Rush thinks it is compelling that the O’Reilly stories started in The New 'Yolk' Times. It was a campaign, and I agree. What will be the generational change at Fox? Will we still have Fox as our beloved go to news station? Will it become less objective? It is time for objectivists, conservatives, and libertarians, to “brexit” the dystopian, leftist la la land seen on TV, in liberal media, and on college campuses. We won. The hell with them. I can’t wait for some more of those “first hundred days” analyses. Guys and gals, what can we do going forward?

I am no fan of O’Reilly, Glenn Beck or “Annie Oakley” Coulter but the following is interesting.    

Peter

Is Ann Coulter The Last Conservative With Guts? Derek Hunter Posted: Apr 23, 2017 12:01 AM . . . . The mob that went after O’Reilly is the same mob that went after Glenn Beck and the same that always has gone after Fox. Letting Beck go, then Roger Ailes, did not appease them. Neither will O'Reilly. To the fascistic left, Fox News can’t do right because its existence is wrong. As long as it exists, they will find something to be upset about and demand action on. And advertisers will cave.

. . . . God bless Ann Coulter. When her speech at UC Berkeley was cancelled, Ann had the guts to say she’s going anyway. She said she’s going to speak, and if the school wanted to stop her it could have her arrested. The school has (at least for the moment) un-canceled the event, though it tried to schedule it on a different day. That won’t work for Ann, and she’s still planning on showing up Thursday.

 . . . . It’d also be helpful if President Trump spoke out against this and threatened action. . . . .  Is Ann Coulter the only person willing to stand up to the modern Gestapo? A line must be drawn, because appeasement only leads to emboldening fascists. Don't look to the private sector -- its job is to profit, not ensure constitutional rights. Don't look to Democrats -- the mobs are their base, and although they'd be out in force if someone had to break stride to get into an abortion clinic, this is not their way. It has to be Republicans. More specifically it has to be conservatives. A stand must be made because appeasement never works. end quote

[Peter]

Nebraska Senator Ben Sasse in the Wall Street Journal: Industrialization brought a massive disruption. At the end of the Civil War, 86 per cent of Americans still worked on the farm. By the end of World War II, 80 years later, 60 per cent of Americans lived in cities. One of the most disruptive times in American history was the Progressive Era. And what was Progressivism? Not much more than the response of trying to remake society in an era of mass immigration, industrialization and rising cities. But it turned out not to be as disruptive as people feared, because once you got to the city, you got a new job, which you'd probably have until death or retirement. And the social capital that used to be in the village tended to be replicated in urban ethnic neighborhoods.

What's happening now is wholly different. The rise of suburbia and exurbia, and the hollowing out of mediating institutions, is an echo of the changing nature of work. In the 1970s, it was common for a primary breadwinner to spend his career at one company, but now workers switch jobs and industries at a more rapid pace. We are entering an era in which we're going to have to create a society of lifelong learners. We're going to have to create a culture in which people in their 40s and 50s, who see their industry disintermediated and their jobs evaporate, get retrained and have the will and the chutzpah and the tools and the social network to get another job. Right now that doesn't happen enough. end quote 

[BaalChatzaf]

On 4/24/2017 at 2:25 PM, Peter said:

Interesting that Rush thinks it is compelling that the O’Reilly stories started in The New 'Yolk' Times. It was a campaign, and I agree. What will be the generational change at Fox? Will we still have Fox as our beloved go to news station? Will it become less objective? It is time for objectivists, conservatives, and libertarians, to “brexit” the dystopian, leftist la la land seen on TV, in liberal media, and on college campuses. We won. The hell with them. I can’t wait for some more of those “first hundred days” analyses. Guys and gals, what can we do going forward?

I am no fan of O’Reilly, Glenn Beck or “Annie Oakley” Coulter but the following is interesting.    

Peter

Is Ann Coulter The Last Conservative With Guts? Derek Hunter Posted: Apr 23, 2017 12:01 AM . . . . The mob that went after O’Reilly is the same mob that went after Glenn Beck and the same that always has gone after Fox. Letting Beck go, then Roger Ailes, did not appease them. Neither will O'Reilly. To the fascistic left, Fox News can’t do right because its existence is wrong. As long as it exists, they will find something to be upset about and demand action on. And advertisers will cave.

. . . . God bless Ann Coulter. When her speech at UC Berkeley was cancelled, Ann had the guts to say she’s going anyway. She said she’s going to speak, and if the school wanted to stop her it could have her arrested. The school has (at least for the moment) un-canceled the event, though it tried to schedule it on a different day. That won’t work for Ann, and she’s still planning on showing up Thursday.

 . . . . It’d also be helpful if President Trump spoke out against this and threatened action. . . . .  Is Ann Coulter the only person willing to stand up to the modern Gestapo? A line must be drawn, because appeasement only leads to emboldening fascists. Don't look to the private sector -- its job is to profit, not ensure constitutional rights. Don't look to Democrats -- the mobs are their base, and although they'd be out in force if someone had to break stride to get into an abortion clinic, this is not their way. It has to be Republicans. More specifically it has to be conservatives. A stand must be made because appeasement never works. end quote

Ann Coulter.  What a gutsy guy he is...

[Wolf DeVoon]

"Because the California National Guard couldn't be mobilized in time, Ann Coulter had to withdraw from giving a speech at Berkeley." [Politico]

[BaalChatzaf]

11 hours ago, Wolf DeVoon said:

"Because the California National Guard couldn't be mobilized in time, Ann Coulter had to withdraw from giving a speech at Berkeley." [Politico]

Alas!  That round went to the thugs,  which happens a lot more often than it should.  Actually no round should go to the thugs,  but we live in an imperfect world.

I find Ann Coulter obnoxious,  but I would exert an effort  to make sure she has the opportunity to be heard if she  wishes to be heard. 

If Ann Coulter can be shut up today,  then you or I can be shut up tomorrow. 

[Brant Gaede]

20 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Alas!  That round went to the thugs,  which happens a lot more often than it should.  Actually no round should go to the thugs,  but we live in an imperfect world.

I find Ann Coulter obnoxious,  but I would exert an effort  to make sure she has the opportunity to be heard if she  wishes to be heard. 

If Ann Coulter can be shut up today,  then you or I can be shut up tomorrow. 

A lot of what happens in Berkeley stays in Berkeley. "The Naked Guy"--who died--didn't become naked guys.

A lot of what happens in California stays in California.

There's a lot less fascist crap--violence--in Arizona because of open and concealed carry and the Democrats don't run this state.

There's a lot of this kind of compartmentalization in the United States which can afford to let California go to hell as an object lesson.

--Brant

if you want to express yourself as a lefti-fascist thug and don't live in California, what do you do?--move there--which is a nice complement to those moving out

[BaalChatzaf]

1 hour ago, Brant Gaede said:

 

if you want to express yourself as a lefti-fascist thug and don't live in California, what do you do?--move there--which is a nice complement to those moving out

What if you want to express yourself as a righty-fascist thug?    Answer:  You join the Republican Party. 

[Peter]

It’s time for a free speech movement to blossom. It’s hard to believe the one in the sixties was started by leftists, many of them receiving funds from the Soviet Union. (Once more, thanks to Boris Yeltsin for opening their secret files on that!) Left Wingers and Communists started a free speech movement? What a joke. As someone pointed out, once they get into power the leftists nearly always shut down free speech. So, they were using free speech to get at political enemies. 

Peter   

[Wolf DeVoon]

13 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

I find Ann Coulter obnoxious

She's a stone fox! -- if only I was 20 years younger and rich 

[Peter]

The origins of some conspiracy theories can be explained by the fact that the manufacturers of them *care* so much about an issue or occurrence. Why are there so many space alien theories about Areas 51 through 54? The original government secrecy started it but the ET folks hope with all their might that we are not alone in the universe.

Peter

Chris Sciabarra wrote on Atlantis: We've got enough enemies on this planet not to make more enemies among ourselves.  Work out your differences, if you can, and start pointing your venom toward your real exploiters and oppressors. Alas, this has been typical of ideological movements.  They often consume themselves and engage in a kind of intellectual cannibalism.  In this regard, the sectarianism in the Objectivist-libertarian universe mirrors what one sees on the left... so maybe it is in the nature of things.  I really don't know.  What I do know is this:  When it was time to make revolutions, the left learned to get along---long enough to topple the powers that be---before axing one another.  We don't have to follow the same route to revolution, and given our own adherence to the non-aggression principle, there's no reason why we should.

As I discussed in *Atheism, Ayn Rand, and Other Heresies,* heretics have always been more hated by an "in-group" than infidels -- and I think this is indeed "in the nature of things." The classic rationale for this is that heretics, since they profess agreement with a good deal of a given philosophy or theology, while dissenting from some particulars, should know better than those infidels (i.e., nonbelievers) who lie outside of a belief-system altogether. Infidels, in other words, can be excused on account of ignorance, whereas this is not true of heretics.

The issue of heresy only arises when a belief-system is presented as an all or nothing affair. Heresy stands opposed to orthodoxy ("right thinking"), and in Christianity heretics have been portrayed as people who knowingly and willingly rebel against God's word. The same attitude is found among those Objectivists who substitute "reason" for "God," and who then accuse those who disagree with some aspect of Objectivism of deliberate irrationality or evasion.

This is one reason that I have always characterized myself as a "freethinker," first and foremost. This label, which became popular in the early 18th century, denotes someone who upholds the moral right to question, criticize and demand evidence for any and all beliefs. Early freethinkers challenged the conventional Christian view that we are morally obligated to believe certain things, even when they have not been demonstrated to our satisfaction. The "free" in "freethinker" thus pertains to the *moral* freedom to doubt, and this perspective is as necessary today as it was several centuries ago.

Every ideological movement in history (at least those I know anything about) has experienced a good deal of in-fighting, but I wouldn't characterize this as "cannibalism." Indeed, I think this internal dialogue, however intense, is a very healthy sign. It's when an ideological movement loses this inner fire that it becomes stale and moribund, and unable to attract young, energetic, and innovative minds.

F.A. Hayek once explored the question of why socialism attracted more young intellectuals in the early 20th Century than did classical liberalism, which was far better theoretically. Socialism presented itself as an ideology in progress, one that needed original thinkers to drive it "onward and upward" (as our beloved Jason Alexander would say). Liberalism, in contrast, presented itself as fully developed, with no additional creativity and innovation needed, so the only role available to young intellectuals was to perform as movement gofers, in effect, whose only task was to disseminate ideas that were already fully finished. I have some problems with Hayek's analysis, so I would give a different somewhat different explanation, but his is interesting nonetheless. end quote

[Peter]

I just wanted to give a rousing hurrah to people like Wolf, Brant, and Ba’al because they keep us honest. They present an opposing or (Brandon, Randian) view that makes us think. Stay thirsty my friends.

Ah, Wolf. Ann Coulter, a stone Fox? Sigh. What fantasies I had. I kind of wanted to see Ann Coulter put upon my leftist thugs who without marring her gorgeous face or body, would strip her naked in front of the cameras . . .  where upon she would do a sexy disco dance before being rescued by the Berkley police department.

Pterodactyl Pete 

[BaalChatzaf]

On 4/27/2017 at 11:46 PM, Wolf DeVoon said:

She's a stone fox! -- if only I was 20 years younger and rich 

How many Y chromosomes (if any) in Ann Coulter's genome?