The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Conspiracies vs. Conspiracy Theories
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

From my new column in Taki’s Magazine:

Morris Dees’ Mesoaggressions
by Steve Sailer

March 27, 2019

It was a bad week for polite society’s most respectable conspiracy theories, with the debunking of the Trump-Putin collusion allegation and more implosions among the conspiracy-theory-mongers at the Southern Poverty Law Center. …

One conspiracy theory is that the current purges of the SPLC’s Old Guard are the result of a conspiracy by unnamed parties to get their hands on the nearly half-billion dollars in assets that supersalesman Morris Dees has piled up in the SPLC’s onshore and offshore accounts over his 48 manic years of always-be-closing fund-raising.

Which is getting us deeper into conspiracy theorizing than even I want to go…

So let’s step back and think about “conspiracy theory” in the current conceptual vocabulary.

The term “conspiracy theory” is largely a pejorative about the social standing of those offering the theory.

After all, very little gets done in this world without people plotting together to take action, contrivances that at least some hostile outsiders would consider nefarious. So conspiracies, broadly defined, are everywhere.

Interestingly, powerful insiders, such as Hillary Clinton, tend to see conspiracies, narrowly defined, everywhere.

In 21st-century America, however, to call something a “conspiracy theory” is to say that the kind of person to whom the idea appeals, such as Randy Quaid’s not-quite-right-in-the-head Vietnam-vet character in Independence Day (or Randy Quaid in real life lately), is disreputable. …

Similarly, Dees’ lucrative conspiracy theory about how America is under siege from an ever-vaster shadowy network of “hate groups” is seldom labeled a “conspiracy theory.”

After all, Dees is terribly respectable. He holds nearly two dozen honorary degrees, has been played by Corbin Bernsen in a TV movie, and is a member of the Direct Marketing Association Hall of Fame. And, no doubt, not all of Morris’ four ex-wives hate him quite as much as some of them do.

Read the whole thing there.

 
Hide 93 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Wouldn’t conspiracy hypothesis be more accurate?

    • Agree: Coemgen, Cagey Beast
  2. While the SPLC has no doubt been a big influence over gullible liberal journalists who needs some background information on right-wing organisations ASAP, its the hallow-wearing leftist/globalist organisations like Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the progressive departments in the bloated UN which have the greatest influence over polite society in English-speaking countries. If the polite upper-class WASP at Amnesty International says Trump’s immigration policies are bad, or Australia is cruel to asylum seekers, polite society takes notice.

    • Replies: @The Last Real Calvinist
    @unpc downunder


    . . . its the hallow-wearing leftist/globalist organisations like Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the progressive departments in the bloated UN which have the greatest influence over polite society in English-speaking countries.

     

    I've noticed this among my UK and antipodean friends/acquaintances here in HK. They are almost uniformly deferential to the NGO congeries you name, perhaps to a degree greater than the average American would be.

    I recall a couple of instances in which I've made critical remarks about Oxfam in the presence of English people, and received you-puppy-killer! looks all around.

    Replies: @International Jew

    , @Mr. Anon
    @unpc downunder


    While the SPLC has no doubt been a big influence over gullible liberal journalists who needs some background information on right-wing organisations ASAP,.................
     
    Organizations like that make it a lot easier for people to be "journalists" without going through all the trouble of being "reporters". Why use up a lot of gas and shoe-leather trying to talk to someone, when you can just call up some guy at some NGO (who is there for that express purpose) who will tell you what you want to hear and what he wants you to say. NGOs and thinktanks exploit the laziness of people in the journo-racket.

    Replies: @Jack D

  3. the nearly half-billion dollars in assets that supersalesman Morris Dees has piled up in the SPLC’s onshore and offshore accounts

    How do you, or anyone else, know how much is in the offshore accounts?

    Or even how many accounts there are offshore? Secrecy is a selling point in these havens.

    I’m sure there’s well over a half-billion. Perhaps a whole billion. Perhaps two…

    • Replies: @Crawfurdmuir
    @Reg Cæsar


    Or even how many accounts there are offshore? Secrecy is a selling point in these havens.

    I’m sure there’s well over a half-billion. Perhaps a whole billion. Perhaps two…
     
    Or maybe a lot less, having been skimmed off by Dees or other parties unknown. There's a great deal of obscurity in $PLC's finances, at least as disclosed to the public. Moreover, from what has been reported, a substantial percentage of its assets appear to be in so-called "alternative investments." This refers to such entities as REITs, private equity funds, or credit partnerships. These are opaque by nature. They gained in popularity during the long period of low interest rates, as a result of the quest for yield. I'm sure many of them are perfectly aboveboard, but $PLC's combination of alternative investments AND offshore accounts in the Caymans ought to raise suspicion.
  4. Another good column, Steve — and you nailed the landing, uh, ending, again this week.

    This part took me a long time to figure out in my younger years:

    It’s often argued that conspiracy theories couldn’t possibly be true because once somebody inside the organization leaked the truth, the whole world would instantly know.

    But it doesn’t actually work that way.

    It certainly doesn’t.

    Narratives, even if false, are hardier beasts than most of us imagine. If they are well-nourished by their masters, they develop thick hides that can withstand many darts of truth-telling.

    In the end, of course, all will be made clear, but we live under the dominion of the Prince of Lies.

    • Agree: Captain Tripps
    • Replies: @ChrisZ
    @The Last Real Calvinist

    Steve’s article made me think of the Voltaire quip: “If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him.”

    By analogy: Even in a society where actual “hate” is very rare, there’s evidently still a spiritual need among some large cohort of a population to believe that it is active, powerful, and operational in all sorts of circumstances.

    So “it was necessary to invent” the god of widespread social hatred; and Dees—credit to him—made himself its prophet (and made himself a profit). Steve’s comparison of Dees to a crooked televangelist seemed instantly correct to me, in this regard.

  5. @unpc downunder
    While the SPLC has no doubt been a big influence over gullible liberal journalists who needs some background information on right-wing organisations ASAP, its the hallow-wearing leftist/globalist organisations like Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the progressive departments in the bloated UN which have the greatest influence over polite society in English-speaking countries. If the polite upper-class WASP at Amnesty International says Trump's immigration policies are bad, or Australia is cruel to asylum seekers, polite society takes notice.

    Replies: @The Last Real Calvinist, @Mr. Anon

    . . . its the hallow-wearing leftist/globalist organisations like Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the progressive departments in the bloated UN which have the greatest influence over polite society in English-speaking countries.

    I’ve noticed this among my UK and antipodean friends/acquaintances here in HK. They are almost uniformly deferential to the NGO congeries you name, perhaps to a degree greater than the average American would be.

    I recall a couple of instances in which I’ve made critical remarks about Oxfam in the presence of English people, and received you-puppy-killer! looks all around.

    • Replies: @International Jew
    @The Last Real Calvinist

    Amnesty International, the ACLU, and others enjoy all that respect because once upon a time they actually deserved respect. Same goes for the universities.

    Replies: @Desiderius

  6. Anon[152] • Disclaimer says:

    I’m baffled by the prosecutor’s decision on Smollett.

    His stance is that in the real world a case like this would not result in prosecution for an ordinary person. It’s true that many crimes are not pursued these days after looking at the overall circumstances. However, this particular sort of crime, a high-profile hate hoax that ran up a big police investigation bill, is so rare that it’s hard to find comparable incidents to compare.

    The prosecutor on the case may have felt some pressure from Foxx along the lines of “Just use our standard procedure of looking at the overall circumstances,” and didn’t have the balls to come back with, “This is a unique case, so comparables are not available — and we probably should wait for CPD to finish their estimates of costs, which as you know the defendant can be liable for under section blah blah blah.”

    What does Foxx have to gain? Does she think that the Obama Industrial Complex is going to aid her in her political ambitions? Do they still have power?

    Does she think that the black community will favor her more for letting an obviously guilty hoaxer off the hook? That seems like a wash: Stick it to whitey now that we are in power in the prosecutor’s office versus that gay idiot is a major PR embarrassment to the black community and needs to fry.

    As for the feds, too bad Trump fired Sessions. The feds generally do not come into a case if the locals prosecute it, so this is now precisely the sort of situation where they might take a look at it. But there needs to be a cheerleader at Justice for this to happen, and Sessions was the guy kicking ass on the Justice deep state. A bonus if Justice comes in is that the investigation might leak over to Foxx’s activities, and what she knew and did when and with whom, etc.

    • Replies: @Federalist
    @Anon


    I’m baffled by the prosecutor’s decision on Smollett.
     
    They hate us. That's it. There wasn't some kind of logical, considered decision. We think this way. They don't.

    Sessions was the guy kicking ass on the Justice deep state
     
    Sessions was a deep state enabler mole. He supported the Mueller so-called investigation, which was the deep state's coup attempt/cover up.
    , @Jack D
    @Anon

    This was NOT a normal disposition. Even in a case where they wanted to be lenient, you would get a "conditional discharge" or something like that - your record would not be wiped clean immediately - it would be conditioned on you not being arrested again for the following six months, on admitting guilt, on more community service, bigger fines, etc. You wouldn't get this treatment for a 1st DUI let alone 16 felonies. That Jussie was brazen (or stupid) enough to go out and claim vindication is the last thing that a prosecutor wants to see - it makes them look like idiots. The optics could not have been worse.

    Fat Joey Maggots didn't just feel "some pressure" from Foxx - he was given very explicit marching orders to make this go away and his job (implicitly or explicitly) threatened unless he complied. He is clearly a weak man so it didn't take much - maybe she threatened to take away his french fry ration. IF there is ever an obstruction of justice investigation you can be sure that Joey would sing like a canary once he is pressed, but I doubt that will ever happen, this being Chicago. In a day or two, this story will be memory holed and that will be that.

  7. I’ve been under the impression that heads are rolling at the SPLC because someone who is suing them found something highly inconvenient to the organization. The three top people left suddenly and then they hired the Obamas’ fixer, so it must be a pretty big deal. Hopefully it comes out, but that Tchen lady got Smollet’s case sealed, so she must be pretty formidable.

    • Replies: @Anon
    @Bill P

    Yeah, someone down thread mentioned all the money parked in places like the Caymans. It's likely someone black who had been hassled by Morris Dees inside the SPLC knew about Dees' private stash, and decided to spill the beans to someone who's suing the organization to get revenge on Dees. I bet that black person was really mad at Dees' hypocracy, and the Obama organization was brought in to blackwash it all and make it right again with Obama's endorsement.

  8. A man, a conspiracy, a canal: Lanaca y caripsno canama.

  9. Has anyone accused Putin yet of conspiring to undermine the SPLC with these recent events?

  10. Crazies Still Running The Asylum Racket

    The SPLC support for stepped-up Mesoamerican macroaggression is part of a genocidal conspiracy hiding in plain sight.

  11. After all, very little gets done in this world without people plotting together to take action, contrivances that at least some hostile outsiders would consider nefarious. So conspiracies, broadly defined, are everywhere.

    That’s just it, though, Steve. Many things may be “conspiracies” as broadly defined, but the definition IS too broadly defined. Your Theranos example, along with the $PLC are examples. With Theranos, there never was a bunch of plotting and some nefarious plan. It’s just that people who should know better got duped, and others sure didn’t want to miss out on some big capital gains with the stock, so they didn’t speak out when they did know better.

    Maybe the downfall of Morris Dees and the other guy involve some minor comspiracies, but the broad definition of the whole organization being a conspiracy is wrong. It’s just an organization full of shysters and liars, the sole purpose of which is to distribute lies.

    Therefore, as to your and The Last Real Calvinist’s point, it’s only these vague, broadly-defined conspiracies, like “hey, the cigarette companies are ignoring the health effects.” and “hey, the $PLC people are projecting – they are the haters.”, which are quite true, but only deserve a “no shit, ya’ think?” that are the ones for which it’s hard to break the “conspiracy”. If the moon landing had been faked, then there’d be 100,000s of thousands of engineers from Grumman, Rockedyne, etc., and NASA itself who could not all be made to shut up about it.

    • Replies: @Redneck farmer
    @Achmed E. Newman

    No, that just proves HOW POWERFUL the conspiracy is!

    , @reiner Tor
    @Achmed E. Newman


    there never was a bunch of plotting and some nefarious plan
     
    Yeah, but what about things like Russiagate? A lot of people independent of each other pushed for it, cut corners while doing so, and took clues from each other, but probably they never sat down to discuss the details or to create a nice detailed plan. Maybe it wasn't a real conspiracy, but it was still a nefarious cooperation of many powerful (and an even larger number of less powerful) individuals, many of whom (the vast majority of the less powerful ones) never fully understood what they were doing.

    But the end result was surely similar to a real conspiracy.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

    , @reiner Tor
    @Achmed E. Newman

    Or how about the cozy relationship between Boeing and the FAA? There surely was a lot of cooperation to push through the 737 MAX, but certainly there was little explicit conspiracy. (I'm also pretty sure they never saw the negative consequences of it coming, i.e. they never expected any of the planes to actually crash.) But FAA officials took clues from Boeing, and there was some pressure, and people managed to cooperate without explicitly having to sit down in a room filled with cigar smoke.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

    , @Grace Jones
    @Achmed E. Newman

    “hey, the cigarette companies are ignoring the health effects.”

    The cigarette companies sold their products to willing buyers. And, the cigarette companies let the anti-smokers get away with flagrant scientific fraud, falsely blaming smoking for diseases caused by infection. The only reasonable conclusion is that they were taken over by anti-smoker money, buying up their stock and ensuring that they only hired lawyers who would throw the fight. Their customers continued to buy their products despite being deceived by Tobacco Control, while the cigarette companies sold their customers out.

    Look at the Minnesota tobacco settlement. The cigarette companies settled despite, or actually BECAUSE of, the fact that they were winning in the minds of the jury; and it was even for more than the anti-smokers were demanding.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

  12. It’s a great read, Steve. As TLRC said, this one had a pretty good ending. If not for yours and an occasional Jim Goad article, I’d never go to that pop-up-inducing, browser-clogging POS Taki site again. (I will admit, the pages are well-laid-out and pretty.)

    Oh, and I liked that funny ex-wives line! Once I heard that, I could totally forgive Mr. Dees for parking some money over there in the Caymens. It makes me figure, per Reg Caesar, that there IS probably some money in accounts there that are not part of the official 1/2 billion bucks … just a little bit of folding money, you know, 10 million or so.

  13. @Achmed E. Newman

    After all, very little gets done in this world without people plotting together to take action, contrivances that at least some hostile outsiders would consider nefarious. So conspiracies, broadly defined, are everywhere.
     
    That's just it, though, Steve. Many things may be "conspiracies" as broadly defined, but the definition IS too broadly defined. Your Theranos example, along with the $PLC are examples. With Theranos, there never was a bunch of plotting and some nefarious plan. It's just that people who should know better got duped, and others sure didn't want to miss out on some big capital gains with the stock, so they didn't speak out when they did know better.

    Maybe the downfall of Morris Dees and the other guy involve some minor comspiracies, but the broad definition of the whole organization being a conspiracy is wrong. It's just an organization full of shysters and liars, the sole purpose of which is to distribute lies.

    Therefore, as to your and The Last Real Calvinist's point, it's only these vague, broadly-defined conspiracies, like "hey, the cigarette companies are ignoring the health effects." and "hey, the $PLC people are projecting - they are the haters.", which are quite true, but only deserve a "no shit, ya' think?" that are the ones for which it's hard to break the "conspiracy". If the moon landing had been faked, then there'd be 100,000s of thousands of engineers from Grumman, Rockedyne, etc., and NASA itself who could not all be made to shut up about it.

    Replies: @Redneck farmer, @reiner Tor, @reiner Tor, @Grace Jones

    No, that just proves HOW POWERFUL the conspiracy is!

    • LOL: Achmed E. Newman
  14. Anon[407] • Disclaimer says:
    @Bill P
    I've been under the impression that heads are rolling at the SPLC because someone who is suing them found something highly inconvenient to the organization. The three top people left suddenly and then they hired the Obamas' fixer, so it must be a pretty big deal. Hopefully it comes out, but that Tchen lady got Smollet's case sealed, so she must be pretty formidable.

    Replies: @Anon

    Yeah, someone down thread mentioned all the money parked in places like the Caymans. It’s likely someone black who had been hassled by Morris Dees inside the SPLC knew about Dees’ private stash, and decided to spill the beans to someone who’s suing the organization to get revenge on Dees. I bet that black person was really mad at Dees’ hypocracy, and the Obama organization was brought in to blackwash it all and make it right again with Obama’s endorsement.

  15. @Achmed E. Newman

    After all, very little gets done in this world without people plotting together to take action, contrivances that at least some hostile outsiders would consider nefarious. So conspiracies, broadly defined, are everywhere.
     
    That's just it, though, Steve. Many things may be "conspiracies" as broadly defined, but the definition IS too broadly defined. Your Theranos example, along with the $PLC are examples. With Theranos, there never was a bunch of plotting and some nefarious plan. It's just that people who should know better got duped, and others sure didn't want to miss out on some big capital gains with the stock, so they didn't speak out when they did know better.

    Maybe the downfall of Morris Dees and the other guy involve some minor comspiracies, but the broad definition of the whole organization being a conspiracy is wrong. It's just an organization full of shysters and liars, the sole purpose of which is to distribute lies.

    Therefore, as to your and The Last Real Calvinist's point, it's only these vague, broadly-defined conspiracies, like "hey, the cigarette companies are ignoring the health effects." and "hey, the $PLC people are projecting - they are the haters.", which are quite true, but only deserve a "no shit, ya' think?" that are the ones for which it's hard to break the "conspiracy". If the moon landing had been faked, then there'd be 100,000s of thousands of engineers from Grumman, Rockedyne, etc., and NASA itself who could not all be made to shut up about it.

    Replies: @Redneck farmer, @reiner Tor, @reiner Tor, @Grace Jones

    there never was a bunch of plotting and some nefarious plan

    Yeah, but what about things like Russiagate? A lot of people independent of each other pushed for it, cut corners while doing so, and took clues from each other, but probably they never sat down to discuss the details or to create a nice detailed plan. Maybe it wasn’t a real conspiracy, but it was still a nefarious cooperation of many powerful (and an even larger number of less powerful) individuals, many of whom (the vast majority of the less powerful ones) never fully understood what they were doing.

    But the end result was surely similar to a real conspiracy.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    @reiner Tor

    Mr. Tor, I wouldn't call Russiagate* a conspiracy in any way. It was just a lot of people, some powerful ones really pushing, and lots more useful idiots keeping alive, one big stupid narrative. Unlike a real conspiracy, everyone not involved in pushing the narrative of Russian collusion already knew from the beginning that it was a load of crap. However, there's this massive government media complex that wouldn't let it die, at least for the people that watch the idiot box regularly. I don't, so I remember being really surprised this crap was still going on early last summer, as I was subject to the TV at a friends house. If nobody followed the BS on TV, would it have ever been a story?

    The end result was to distract an easily-distracted-to-begin-with President from getting much positive done on the Immigration-invasion problem, as he spent time dealing with this (rather than hiring a trusted lawyer to deal with it, a "Russia Czar", if I may. ;-} ). Now that was, if it even was discussed as such, a great strategy by the ctrl-left, but not a consipracy.



    .

    * and I really hope we, as in the American punditry, can someday lose that "gate" thing. It doesn't even mean anything but the end of the name of a building.

    Replies: @reiner Tor, @WowJustWow

  16. I remember watching the one with the wobbly eye on Democracy Now! regale Amy Goodman with a map of dozens of ‘far right extremist’ groups across the US just ready to assassinate the newly elected Obama or do another Oklahoma city bombing.

    A lot of problems seem to stem from a lot of people underestimating the degree to which their instinctual perceptions were shaped by the world when they were young. Amy Goodman was a New York Jew born in the 50s and even went to a Kibbutz (because ethnic displacement is cool so long as it’s Jewish nationalist socialist ethnic cleansing) and yet never wondered if the SPLC was part of the things she should have evaluated in all the decades since given that they only seem to cry wolf more strongly the farther one gets from an America where racism was ever tolerated.

  17. And, no doubt, not all of Morris’ four ex-wives hate him quite as much as some of them do.

    Steve, you are without question an excellent analyst, but stylistically, man, when you turn a phrase, you turn it. Great line.

  18. @Achmed E. Newman

    After all, very little gets done in this world without people plotting together to take action, contrivances that at least some hostile outsiders would consider nefarious. So conspiracies, broadly defined, are everywhere.
     
    That's just it, though, Steve. Many things may be "conspiracies" as broadly defined, but the definition IS too broadly defined. Your Theranos example, along with the $PLC are examples. With Theranos, there never was a bunch of plotting and some nefarious plan. It's just that people who should know better got duped, and others sure didn't want to miss out on some big capital gains with the stock, so they didn't speak out when they did know better.

    Maybe the downfall of Morris Dees and the other guy involve some minor comspiracies, but the broad definition of the whole organization being a conspiracy is wrong. It's just an organization full of shysters and liars, the sole purpose of which is to distribute lies.

    Therefore, as to your and The Last Real Calvinist's point, it's only these vague, broadly-defined conspiracies, like "hey, the cigarette companies are ignoring the health effects." and "hey, the $PLC people are projecting - they are the haters.", which are quite true, but only deserve a "no shit, ya' think?" that are the ones for which it's hard to break the "conspiracy". If the moon landing had been faked, then there'd be 100,000s of thousands of engineers from Grumman, Rockedyne, etc., and NASA itself who could not all be made to shut up about it.

    Replies: @Redneck farmer, @reiner Tor, @reiner Tor, @Grace Jones

    Or how about the cozy relationship between Boeing and the FAA? There surely was a lot of cooperation to push through the 737 MAX, but certainly there was little explicit conspiracy. (I’m also pretty sure they never saw the negative consequences of it coming, i.e. they never expected any of the planes to actually crash.) But FAA officials took clues from Boeing, and there was some pressure, and people managed to cooperate without explicitly having to sit down in a room filled with cigar smoke.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    @reiner Tor

    Now there's a can of worms I'd rather not start snacking on today! Until 2 days back, I'd been trying to talk sense to some of the commenters under James Thompson's articles (more under the 2nd one - "upgrade"?) about the 737 Max and the aviation business. Many of those commenters that make everything about the problems with the MCAS erroneous activations into some conspiracy that means Boeing is not long for this world are just flat-out America haters (Ron Unz comes pretty close himself lots of times).

    I won't get into the flying aspects of this here. As far as the FAA goes, Reiner, it's one of the more decent, white-men-run bureaucracies in the US Gov't with some decent people (I know this from experience). However, it's a bureaucracy nonetheless. You are right that there's no smoke-filled room with odious discussions going on, etc. However, it wouldn't matter anyway, if there were. See, the bureaucracy is so huge, and the paperwork so overwhelming, that nobody has time for anything but trying to get that all done. OK, some is on websites now, but really that often makes it even worse.

    Let me put it this way: When an inspector was checking out a charter aircraft I was involved with, there could have been a foot-long gash in the aluminum belly of the plane and he wouldn't have known. He was too busy worrying about the forms that hadn't been filled out for the upgrade of 2 radios that had been installed 15 years prior. That was the big hold up.

    Back to Boeing, nobody looked at the big picture that this MCAS safety feature should have been clearly made known to airlines and pilots should have been trained for a few minutes during differences training. With nobody looking at big pictures like this, we should think of this as error due to excessive bureaucracy, not any kind of conspiracy.

  19. @reiner Tor
    @Achmed E. Newman


    there never was a bunch of plotting and some nefarious plan
     
    Yeah, but what about things like Russiagate? A lot of people independent of each other pushed for it, cut corners while doing so, and took clues from each other, but probably they never sat down to discuss the details or to create a nice detailed plan. Maybe it wasn't a real conspiracy, but it was still a nefarious cooperation of many powerful (and an even larger number of less powerful) individuals, many of whom (the vast majority of the less powerful ones) never fully understood what they were doing.

    But the end result was surely similar to a real conspiracy.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

    Mr. Tor, I wouldn’t call Russiagate* a conspiracy in any way. It was just a lot of people, some powerful ones really pushing, and lots more useful idiots keeping alive, one big stupid narrative. Unlike a real conspiracy, everyone not involved in pushing the narrative of Russian collusion already knew from the beginning that it was a load of crap. However, there’s this massive government media complex that wouldn’t let it die, at least for the people that watch the idiot box regularly. I don’t, so I remember being really surprised this crap was still going on early last summer, as I was subject to the TV at a friends house. If nobody followed the BS on TV, would it have ever been a story?

    The end result was to distract an easily-distracted-to-begin-with President from getting much positive done on the Immigration-invasion problem, as he spent time dealing with this (rather than hiring a trusted lawyer to deal with it, a “Russia Czar”, if I may. ;-} ). Now that was, if it even was discussed as such, a great strategy by the ctrl-left, but not a consipracy.

    .

    * and I really hope we, as in the American punditry, can someday lose that “gate” thing. It doesn’t even mean anything but the end of the name of a building.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    @Achmed E. Newman

    In the meantime they managed to destroy a few lives (okay, the majority of them were scum like Manafort anyway), wiretapped a few people (perhaps including some conversations of a major presidential candidate, who was later also elected) based on nothing, and they influenced the elections.

    Yes, the president could've handled it better, but it doesn't change the fact that this whole thing required the cooperation of a large number of people, of whom had to pretend that there was some non-negligible chance of the sitting President being a Russian "agent." (Whatever that means.)

    So, why do you insist on not even calling it a thing, when it clearly was? But yes, it wasn't a literal conspiracy.

    Replies: @Jack D, @Achmed E. Newman

    , @WowJustWow
    @Achmed E. Newman

    I'd be fine with it if the -gate suffix were restricted to coverups of crimes, but when it gets used for any kind of scandal, or an undercover video of some public figure in private saying essentially the same things they already say in public, or even just a semi-embarrassing gaffe, it deserves to be purged from the linguistic landscape.

  20. @reiner Tor
    @Achmed E. Newman

    Or how about the cozy relationship between Boeing and the FAA? There surely was a lot of cooperation to push through the 737 MAX, but certainly there was little explicit conspiracy. (I'm also pretty sure they never saw the negative consequences of it coming, i.e. they never expected any of the planes to actually crash.) But FAA officials took clues from Boeing, and there was some pressure, and people managed to cooperate without explicitly having to sit down in a room filled with cigar smoke.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

    Now there’s a can of worms I’d rather not start snacking on today! Until 2 days back, I’d been trying to talk sense to some of the commenters under James Thompson’s articles (more under the 2nd one – “upgrade”?) about the 737 Max and the aviation business. Many of those commenters that make everything about the problems with the MCAS erroneous activations into some conspiracy that means Boeing is not long for this world are just flat-out America haters (Ron Unz comes pretty close himself lots of times).

    I won’t get into the flying aspects of this here. As far as the FAA goes, Reiner, it’s one of the more decent, white-men-run bureaucracies in the US Gov’t with some decent people (I know this from experience). However, it’s a bureaucracy nonetheless. You are right that there’s no smoke-filled room with odious discussions going on, etc. However, it wouldn’t matter anyway, if there were. See, the bureaucracy is so huge, and the paperwork so overwhelming, that nobody has time for anything but trying to get that all done. OK, some is on websites now, but really that often makes it even worse.

    Let me put it this way: When an inspector was checking out a charter aircraft I was involved with, there could have been a foot-long gash in the aluminum belly of the plane and he wouldn’t have known. He was too busy worrying about the forms that hadn’t been filled out for the upgrade of 2 radios that had been installed 15 years prior. That was the big hold up.

    Back to Boeing, nobody looked at the big picture that this MCAS safety feature should have been clearly made known to airlines and pilots should have been trained for a few minutes during differences training. With nobody looking at big pictures like this, we should think of this as error due to excessive bureaucracy, not any kind of conspiracy.

  21. “You see, not all conspiracy theories are true.”

    Which brings home a point: Just because it is a Conspiracy Theory does not preclude it from being a Conspiracy Fact.

  22. Sometimes “conspiracies” are more due to laziness or incompetence than malice.

    These days the journalism profession is on the ropes. Fewer papers, fewer reporters per paper, and less pay per reporter.

    In such a climate, with fewer and lower skilled people doing more work with fewer fact checkers and editors, the malicious and the lazy thrive.

    Furthermore, journalists always go in packs. If an influential journalist or writer says something, quoting it is easier than doing one’s own work.

    Even when journalism was at its prime, many press releases were simply run with little or no editing. It was easier that way. Fills up the paper with little work.

    Imagine an overworked and underpaid journalist writing a story dealing with sensitive racial or ethnic issues on a tight deadline. The journalist could spend days doing independent research and lose her job or simply quote the SPLC like everyone else and move on to the next poorly edited story.

  23. In 21st-century America, however, to call something a “conspiracy theory” is to say that the kind of person to whom the idea appeals, such as Randy Quaid’s not-quite-right-in-the-head Vietnam-vet character in Independence Day (or Randy Quaid in real life lately), is disreputable. …

    I seem to recall seeing empirical evidence showing that ad hominem arguments (which is indeed what this is) are depressingly effective in the real world. That is very unfortunate for the dissident Right, because it tends to neutralize our greatest strengths.

    • Replies: @Paleo Liberal
    @Rosie

    It works both ways, until it doesn’t.

    Republicans have also been using ad hominem attacks against liberals and those even further left for decades. I’m about the same age as Steve, so I remember the ad hominem attacks Bush I used to beat Dukakis, as well as the ad hominem attacks used to completely crush McGovern.

    A quick look through right wing media will produce a number of ad hominem attacks against Democrats and leftists. I mean, the attacks on AOC sometimes get way over the line, to the point where it strengthens her position on the left.

    Trouble is, ad hominem attacks may not work as well as they used to. Call Reagan Bush a fascist and fewer will listen when you call Trump a fascist. Call Bill Clinton and Barack Obama socialists and communists and fewer people care when Sanders or AOC call themselves socialists.

    To be fair, I am not as big a fan of AOC as are many on the left. If she can spend some time learning how things work in the real world and tone down her narcissism a bit, she has great potential. If not, she will be a congresswoman on the fringes of her own party for the rest of her political career. She doesn’t strike me as having the brains of the Clintons or Obama, but she has a level of charisma rivaling Bill and Barack. I am old enough to remember meeting Bill C when he was still in his 20s. Even then I could tell he would be president some day. He had the combination of intelligence, knowledge of policy and charisma to go far. These days AOC has tons of charisma , some of the second (intelligence) but needs a ton of work on the third (knowledge of policy). It remains to be seen if her ego will allow that.

    Replies: @Desiderius, @Mr. Anon, @Unladen Swallow

    , @res
    @Rosie

    One piece of evidence: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0192025


    Abstract

    Two experiments were conducted to determine the relative impact of direct and indirect (ad hominem) attacks on science claims. Four hundred and thirty-nine college students (Experiment 1) and 199 adults (Experiment 2) read a series of science claims and indicated their attitudes towards those claims. Each claim was paired with one of the following: A) a direct attack upon the empirical basis of the science claim B) an ad hominem attack on the scientist who made the claim or C) both. Results indicate that ad hominem attacks may have the same degree of impact as attacks on the empirical basis of the science claims, and that allegations of conflict of interest may be just as influential as allegations of outright fraud.
     
    As you said, depressing.
  24. @Anon
    I'm baffled by the prosecutor's decision on Smollett.

    His stance is that in the real world a case like this would not result in prosecution for an ordinary person. It's true that many crimes are not pursued these days after looking at the overall circumstances. However, this particular sort of crime, a high-profile hate hoax that ran up a big police investigation bill, is so rare that it's hard to find comparable incidents to compare.

    The prosecutor on the case may have felt some pressure from Foxx along the lines of "Just use our standard procedure of looking at the overall circumstances," and didn't have the balls to come back with, "This is a unique case, so comparables are not available -- and we probably should wait for CPD to finish their estimates of costs, which as you know the defendant can be liable for under section blah blah blah."

    What does Foxx have to gain? Does she think that the Obama Industrial Complex is going to aid her in her political ambitions? Do they still have power?

    Does she think that the black community will favor her more for letting an obviously guilty hoaxer off the hook? That seems like a wash: Stick it to whitey now that we are in power in the prosecutor's office versus that gay idiot is a major PR embarrassment to the black community and needs to fry.

    As for the feds, too bad Trump fired Sessions. The feds generally do not come into a case if the locals prosecute it, so this is now precisely the sort of situation where they might take a look at it. But there needs to be a cheerleader at Justice for this to happen, and Sessions was the guy kicking ass on the Justice deep state. A bonus if Justice comes in is that the investigation might leak over to Foxx's activities, and what she knew and did when and with whom, etc.

    Replies: @Federalist, @Jack D

    I’m baffled by the prosecutor’s decision on Smollett.

    They hate us. That’s it. There wasn’t some kind of logical, considered decision. We think this way. They don’t.

    Sessions was the guy kicking ass on the Justice deep state

    Sessions was a deep state enabler mole. He supported the Mueller so-called investigation, which was the deep state’s coup attempt/cover up.

  25. In the early days of Goebbels Warming those who disbelieved the doctrine inferred a conspiracy among the Climate Scientists. When leaked or hacked e-mails were released in the Climategate episode those inferences were shown to be remarkably accurate.

    There must be more examples of this sort of thing. Will the conspiracy of Russiagate be eventually revealed in detail?

  26. @Rosie

    In 21st-century America, however, to call something a “conspiracy theory” is to say that the kind of person to whom the idea appeals, such as Randy Quaid’s not-quite-right-in-the-head Vietnam-vet character in Independence Day (or Randy Quaid in real life lately), is disreputable. …
     
    I seem to recall seeing empirical evidence showing that ad hominem arguments (which is indeed what this is) are depressingly effective in the real world. That is very unfortunate for the dissident Right, because it tends to neutralize our greatest strengths.

    Replies: @Paleo Liberal, @res

    It works both ways, until it doesn’t.

    Republicans have also been using ad hominem attacks against liberals and those even further left for decades. I’m about the same age as Steve, so I remember the ad hominem attacks Bush I used to beat Dukakis, as well as the ad hominem attacks used to completely crush McGovern.

    A quick look through right wing media will produce a number of ad hominem attacks against Democrats and leftists. I mean, the attacks on AOC sometimes get way over the line, to the point where it strengthens her position on the left.

    Trouble is, ad hominem attacks may not work as well as they used to. Call Reagan Bush a fascist and fewer will listen when you call Trump a fascist. Call Bill Clinton and Barack Obama socialists and communists and fewer people care when Sanders or AOC call themselves socialists.

    To be fair, I am not as big a fan of AOC as are many on the left. If she can spend some time learning how things work in the real world and tone down her narcissism a bit, she has great potential. If not, she will be a congresswoman on the fringes of her own party for the rest of her political career. She doesn’t strike me as having the brains of the Clintons or Obama, but she has a level of charisma rivaling Bill and Barack. I am old enough to remember meeting Bill C when he was still in his 20s. Even then I could tell he would be president some day. He had the combination of intelligence, knowledge of policy and charisma to go far. These days AOC has tons of charisma , some of the second (intelligence) but needs a ton of work on the third (knowledge of policy). It remains to be seen if her ego will allow that.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    @Paleo Liberal

    Trump has demonstrated that knowledge per se is superfluous if your instincts are good and you’re tuned into where people are at.

    If she can lock down the left in the next few years then Sinema toward the center and get back to being Sandy with the nice rack then she’ll be formidable.

    A lot of ifs. Ultimately doesn’t matter. There’s a reason why there have historically been so few matriarchies.

    Replies: @Jack D

    , @Mr. Anon
    @Paleo Liberal


    He had the combination of intelligence, knowledge of policy and charisma to go far.
     
    All in the service of getting you to vote for him. And you fell for it. The qualities you describe are essentially indistinguishable from those that make a successful con-man. Sociopaths are probably disproportionately drawn to politics.

    These days AOC has tons of charisma , some of the second (intelligence) but needs a ton of work on the third (knowledge of policy). It remains to be seen if her ego will allow that.
     
    "Charisma"? She's a whining harpy. "Some Intelligence"? She's a vacuous ninny.

    Replies: @Jack D

    , @Unladen Swallow
    @Paleo Liberal

    AOC is intelligent? I would think an economics major would know the difference between a government department's total budget and an annual increase in that budget over the previous year. Anyone who took high school accounting would know that difference, but she didn't.

    I think you are merging charisma ( which she has ) with intelligence ( which I'm pretty sure she doesn't ). Bill Clinton's self assurance comes from his intelligence, Cortez's comes from her fervent belief in ideology, that's another difference.

    Replies: @Desiderius

  27. @The Last Real Calvinist
    Another good column, Steve -- and you nailed the landing, uh, ending, again this week.

    This part took me a long time to figure out in my younger years:


    It’s often argued that conspiracy theories couldn’t possibly be true because once somebody inside the organization leaked the truth, the whole world would instantly know.

    But it doesn’t actually work that way.
     

    It certainly doesn't.

    Narratives, even if false, are hardier beasts than most of us imagine. If they are well-nourished by their masters, they develop thick hides that can withstand many darts of truth-telling.

    In the end, of course, all will be made clear, but we live under the dominion of the Prince of Lies.

    Replies: @ChrisZ

    Steve’s article made me think of the Voltaire quip: “If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him.”

    By analogy: Even in a society where actual “hate” is very rare, there’s evidently still a spiritual need among some large cohort of a population to believe that it is active, powerful, and operational in all sorts of circumstances.

    So “it was necessary to invent” the god of widespread social hatred; and Dees—credit to him—made himself its prophet (and made himself a profit). Steve’s comparison of Dees to a crooked televangelist seemed instantly correct to me, in this regard.

  28. @Paleo Liberal
    @Rosie

    It works both ways, until it doesn’t.

    Republicans have also been using ad hominem attacks against liberals and those even further left for decades. I’m about the same age as Steve, so I remember the ad hominem attacks Bush I used to beat Dukakis, as well as the ad hominem attacks used to completely crush McGovern.

    A quick look through right wing media will produce a number of ad hominem attacks against Democrats and leftists. I mean, the attacks on AOC sometimes get way over the line, to the point where it strengthens her position on the left.

    Trouble is, ad hominem attacks may not work as well as they used to. Call Reagan Bush a fascist and fewer will listen when you call Trump a fascist. Call Bill Clinton and Barack Obama socialists and communists and fewer people care when Sanders or AOC call themselves socialists.

    To be fair, I am not as big a fan of AOC as are many on the left. If she can spend some time learning how things work in the real world and tone down her narcissism a bit, she has great potential. If not, she will be a congresswoman on the fringes of her own party for the rest of her political career. She doesn’t strike me as having the brains of the Clintons or Obama, but she has a level of charisma rivaling Bill and Barack. I am old enough to remember meeting Bill C when he was still in his 20s. Even then I could tell he would be president some day. He had the combination of intelligence, knowledge of policy and charisma to go far. These days AOC has tons of charisma , some of the second (intelligence) but needs a ton of work on the third (knowledge of policy). It remains to be seen if her ego will allow that.

    Replies: @Desiderius, @Mr. Anon, @Unladen Swallow

    Trump has demonstrated that knowledge per se is superfluous if your instincts are good and you’re tuned into where people are at.

    If she can lock down the left in the next few years then Sinema toward the center and get back to being Sandy with the nice rack then she’ll be formidable.

    A lot of ifs. Ultimately doesn’t matter. There’s a reason why there have historically been so few matriarchies.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Desiderius

    Historically, the Democrats have been the Party of Government so being the biggest Policy Wonk (Hillary) made you the queen. LBJ was the Master Manipulator of Congress - he could play Congress like he was Bach and Congress was a organ. Republicans (supposedly) hate government so people from outside of government (Eisenhower, Reagan, Trump) are OK, even preferred.

    This was true as long as goodwhites were running the show. Goodwhites appreciate mastery. RBG is a goddess. Once browns are in charge, that all goes out the window - Kim Foxx was not 1st in her class at Harvard Law School like RBG, she scraped by at SIU, a school too low to even HAVE a rank. It's not EVEN a third tier toilet. Competency is not valued among browns (which is a good thing, because they don't have it). This is how you get Zimbabwe, Venezuela, etc. The important thing is to always be on the RIGHT side - reward your friends and punish your enemies.

  29. The term “conspiracy theory” is largely a pejorative about the social standing of those offering the theory.

    I think the genesis of “conspiracy theory” becoming a slur in polite American political parlance was that anti-Communist activism of the 1950s, on behalf of Joe McCarthy, the JBS and others, got too close (in the minds of the establishment) to noticing and then maybe naming the parentheticals. “Conspiracy theory” as a contrived pejorative became the parentheticals’ way of striking back.

    • Replies: @Cagey Beast
    @countenance

    True but it wasn't just the parentheticals, it was the ruling class of the West more generally. The Bilderberg Group is real and so are the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations. The people who belong to these organizations have real power in the real world but the general public was repeatedly told to treat as a crank anyone who mentioned them. The term "gas-lighting" recently went from obscurity to overuse but it most certainly applies here.

  30. Vladimir Putin on the topic:

    St Petersburg International Economic Forum plenary meeting
    June 2, 2017
    […]
    The problem is in US politics. That is the problem. Trump’s team proved more capable during the election campaign. At times, I actually thought the man was overdoing it, really. That is true. However, it turned out that he was right, that he found a key to those social groups and voters’ groups that he had bet on, and they came out and voted for him.

    The other team lost. They are reluctant to acknowledge the mistake. They do not want to admit that they did not get it, that they miscalculated. It is easier to say, “We are not to blame, the Russians are to blame, they interfered in our election, but we are good.” It reminds me of anti-Semitism: the Jews are to blame for everything. The halfwit cannot do anything but the Jews are the ones who are to blame.

    However, we know what such sentiments can lead to. They lead to nothing good. The thing to do is simply to work and think of how to get things right.

    http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/54667#sel=119:1:Wrw,122:57:r3r

    He’s right, of course.

  31. Perusing the contrasting denotations, connotations and recent usage of “conspire” vs “collude” sheds some light on the way words act as pheromones in human eusocial metaorganisms.

  32. @countenance
    The term “conspiracy theory” is largely a pejorative about the social standing of those offering the theory.

    I think the genesis of "conspiracy theory" becoming a slur in polite American political parlance was that anti-Communist activism of the 1950s, on behalf of Joe McCarthy, the JBS and others, got too close (in the minds of the establishment) to noticing and then maybe naming the parentheticals. "Conspiracy theory" as a contrived pejorative became the parentheticals' way of striking back.

    Replies: @Cagey Beast

    True but it wasn’t just the parentheticals, it was the ruling class of the West more generally. The Bilderberg Group is real and so are the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations. The people who belong to these organizations have real power in the real world but the general public was repeatedly told to treat as a crank anyone who mentioned them. The term “gas-lighting” recently went from obscurity to overuse but it most certainly applies here.

  33. @Anon
    I'm baffled by the prosecutor's decision on Smollett.

    His stance is that in the real world a case like this would not result in prosecution for an ordinary person. It's true that many crimes are not pursued these days after looking at the overall circumstances. However, this particular sort of crime, a high-profile hate hoax that ran up a big police investigation bill, is so rare that it's hard to find comparable incidents to compare.

    The prosecutor on the case may have felt some pressure from Foxx along the lines of "Just use our standard procedure of looking at the overall circumstances," and didn't have the balls to come back with, "This is a unique case, so comparables are not available -- and we probably should wait for CPD to finish their estimates of costs, which as you know the defendant can be liable for under section blah blah blah."

    What does Foxx have to gain? Does she think that the Obama Industrial Complex is going to aid her in her political ambitions? Do they still have power?

    Does she think that the black community will favor her more for letting an obviously guilty hoaxer off the hook? That seems like a wash: Stick it to whitey now that we are in power in the prosecutor's office versus that gay idiot is a major PR embarrassment to the black community and needs to fry.

    As for the feds, too bad Trump fired Sessions. The feds generally do not come into a case if the locals prosecute it, so this is now precisely the sort of situation where they might take a look at it. But there needs to be a cheerleader at Justice for this to happen, and Sessions was the guy kicking ass on the Justice deep state. A bonus if Justice comes in is that the investigation might leak over to Foxx's activities, and what she knew and did when and with whom, etc.

    Replies: @Federalist, @Jack D

    This was NOT a normal disposition. Even in a case where they wanted to be lenient, you would get a “conditional discharge” or something like that – your record would not be wiped clean immediately – it would be conditioned on you not being arrested again for the following six months, on admitting guilt, on more community service, bigger fines, etc. You wouldn’t get this treatment for a 1st DUI let alone 16 felonies. That Jussie was brazen (or stupid) enough to go out and claim vindication is the last thing that a prosecutor wants to see – it makes them look like idiots. The optics could not have been worse.

    Fat Joey Maggots didn’t just feel “some pressure” from Foxx – he was given very explicit marching orders to make this go away and his job (implicitly or explicitly) threatened unless he complied. He is clearly a weak man so it didn’t take much – maybe she threatened to take away his french fry ration. IF there is ever an obstruction of justice investigation you can be sure that Joey would sing like a canary once he is pressed, but I doubt that will ever happen, this being Chicago. In a day or two, this story will be memory holed and that will be that.

  34. @Desiderius
    @Paleo Liberal

    Trump has demonstrated that knowledge per se is superfluous if your instincts are good and you’re tuned into where people are at.

    If she can lock down the left in the next few years then Sinema toward the center and get back to being Sandy with the nice rack then she’ll be formidable.

    A lot of ifs. Ultimately doesn’t matter. There’s a reason why there have historically been so few matriarchies.

    Replies: @Jack D

    Historically, the Democrats have been the Party of Government so being the biggest Policy Wonk (Hillary) made you the queen. LBJ was the Master Manipulator of Congress – he could play Congress like he was Bach and Congress was a organ. Republicans (supposedly) hate government so people from outside of government (Eisenhower, Reagan, Trump) are OK, even preferred.

    This was true as long as goodwhites were running the show. Goodwhites appreciate mastery. RBG is a goddess. Once browns are in charge, that all goes out the window – Kim Foxx was not 1st in her class at Harvard Law School like RBG, she scraped by at SIU, a school too low to even HAVE a rank. It’s not EVEN a third tier toilet. Competency is not valued among browns (which is a good thing, because they don’t have it). This is how you get Zimbabwe, Venezuela, etc. The important thing is to always be on the RIGHT side – reward your friends and punish your enemies.

  35. @Paleo Liberal
    @Rosie

    It works both ways, until it doesn’t.

    Republicans have also been using ad hominem attacks against liberals and those even further left for decades. I’m about the same age as Steve, so I remember the ad hominem attacks Bush I used to beat Dukakis, as well as the ad hominem attacks used to completely crush McGovern.

    A quick look through right wing media will produce a number of ad hominem attacks against Democrats and leftists. I mean, the attacks on AOC sometimes get way over the line, to the point where it strengthens her position on the left.

    Trouble is, ad hominem attacks may not work as well as they used to. Call Reagan Bush a fascist and fewer will listen when you call Trump a fascist. Call Bill Clinton and Barack Obama socialists and communists and fewer people care when Sanders or AOC call themselves socialists.

    To be fair, I am not as big a fan of AOC as are many on the left. If she can spend some time learning how things work in the real world and tone down her narcissism a bit, she has great potential. If not, she will be a congresswoman on the fringes of her own party for the rest of her political career. She doesn’t strike me as having the brains of the Clintons or Obama, but she has a level of charisma rivaling Bill and Barack. I am old enough to remember meeting Bill C when he was still in his 20s. Even then I could tell he would be president some day. He had the combination of intelligence, knowledge of policy and charisma to go far. These days AOC has tons of charisma , some of the second (intelligence) but needs a ton of work on the third (knowledge of policy). It remains to be seen if her ego will allow that.

    Replies: @Desiderius, @Mr. Anon, @Unladen Swallow

    He had the combination of intelligence, knowledge of policy and charisma to go far.

    All in the service of getting you to vote for him. And you fell for it. The qualities you describe are essentially indistinguishable from those that make a successful con-man. Sociopaths are probably disproportionately drawn to politics.

    These days AOC has tons of charisma , some of the second (intelligence) but needs a ton of work on the third (knowledge of policy). It remains to be seen if her ego will allow that.

    “Charisma”? She’s a whining harpy. “Some Intelligence”? She’s a vacuous ninny.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Mr. Anon

    This is exactly what Dems say about Trump. Don't misunderestimate AOC - she has a certain appeal to some people even if she's not your cup of tea. Look at Venezuela - objectively Chavez was an idiot and Maduro is an even bigger idiot and yet they had a massive following because they promised something to people had nothing. Remember that 1/2 the people in America have effectively nothing - zero net assets. "Nothing to lose but their chains" as the Communists used to say.

  36. @unpc downunder
    While the SPLC has no doubt been a big influence over gullible liberal journalists who needs some background information on right-wing organisations ASAP, its the hallow-wearing leftist/globalist organisations like Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the progressive departments in the bloated UN which have the greatest influence over polite society in English-speaking countries. If the polite upper-class WASP at Amnesty International says Trump's immigration policies are bad, or Australia is cruel to asylum seekers, polite society takes notice.

    Replies: @The Last Real Calvinist, @Mr. Anon

    While the SPLC has no doubt been a big influence over gullible liberal journalists who needs some background information on right-wing organisations ASAP,……………..

    Organizations like that make it a lot easier for people to be “journalists” without going through all the trouble of being “reporters”. Why use up a lot of gas and shoe-leather trying to talk to someone, when you can just call up some guy at some NGO (who is there for that express purpose) who will tell you what you want to hear and what he wants you to say. NGOs and thinktanks exploit the laziness of people in the journo-racket.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Mr. Anon

    Likewise, Facebook, Amazon, etc. No need to hire people to decide "who is a Nazi" - not only is that expensive, it's a thankless task. You will always pick too few or too many Nazis and get blamed either way. If you can sub this out to the SPLC, it's a total win - it's cheaper and you can't get blamed, you are just following the recommendations of these esteemed experts.

    Replies: @J.Ross

  37. Anonymous[228] • Disclaimer says:

    To sort out such matters America will need more graduates/priests with a Ph.D in structural aggressology

  38. I made a comment regarding this at another thread, but I think it’s interesting enough for Steve’s readership. I haven’t yet seen it elsewhere.

    Here’s an interesting question. When did Mueller know exactly that there was no case? Sure before last Friday. This article below argues convincingly that at the latest by fall 2017 (one and a half years ago!) he must’ve known that. Yet he continued the investigation, which he knew was going nowhere. But it was enough to keep the suspicion alive. It probably helped the Democrats in the midterms, too.

    https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-03-27/how-long-did-mueller-know-there-was-no-trump-russia-collusion

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    @reiner Tor

    He was covering for W (and maybe even HW) who got involved when the DNC emails were leaked. If they hadn’t, Bernie would have gotten the nom and likely the presidency. Everything else is downstream of that.

  39. @Paleo Liberal
    @Rosie

    It works both ways, until it doesn’t.

    Republicans have also been using ad hominem attacks against liberals and those even further left for decades. I’m about the same age as Steve, so I remember the ad hominem attacks Bush I used to beat Dukakis, as well as the ad hominem attacks used to completely crush McGovern.

    A quick look through right wing media will produce a number of ad hominem attacks against Democrats and leftists. I mean, the attacks on AOC sometimes get way over the line, to the point where it strengthens her position on the left.

    Trouble is, ad hominem attacks may not work as well as they used to. Call Reagan Bush a fascist and fewer will listen when you call Trump a fascist. Call Bill Clinton and Barack Obama socialists and communists and fewer people care when Sanders or AOC call themselves socialists.

    To be fair, I am not as big a fan of AOC as are many on the left. If she can spend some time learning how things work in the real world and tone down her narcissism a bit, she has great potential. If not, she will be a congresswoman on the fringes of her own party for the rest of her political career. She doesn’t strike me as having the brains of the Clintons or Obama, but she has a level of charisma rivaling Bill and Barack. I am old enough to remember meeting Bill C when he was still in his 20s. Even then I could tell he would be president some day. He had the combination of intelligence, knowledge of policy and charisma to go far. These days AOC has tons of charisma , some of the second (intelligence) but needs a ton of work on the third (knowledge of policy). It remains to be seen if her ego will allow that.

    Replies: @Desiderius, @Mr. Anon, @Unladen Swallow

    AOC is intelligent? I would think an economics major would know the difference between a government department’s total budget and an annual increase in that budget over the previous year. Anyone who took high school accounting would know that difference, but she didn’t.

    I think you are merging charisma ( which she has ) with intelligence ( which I’m pretty sure she doesn’t ). Bill Clinton’s self assurance comes from his intelligence, Cortez’s comes from her fervent belief in ideology, that’s another difference.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    @Unladen Swallow


    Cortez’s comes from her fervent belief in ideology, that’s another difference.
     
    No, it’s pretty much the rack. Many such cases.

    Replies: @Unladen Swallow

  40. @reiner Tor
    I made a comment regarding this at another thread, but I think it's interesting enough for Steve's readership. I haven't yet seen it elsewhere.

    Here's an interesting question. When did Mueller know exactly that there was no case? Sure before last Friday. This article below argues convincingly that at the latest by fall 2017 (one and a half years ago!) he must've known that. Yet he continued the investigation, which he knew was going nowhere. But it was enough to keep the suspicion alive. It probably helped the Democrats in the midterms, too.

    https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-03-27/how-long-did-mueller-know-there-was-no-trump-russia-collusion

    Replies: @Desiderius

    He was covering for W (and maybe even HW) who got involved when the DNC emails were leaked. If they hadn’t, Bernie would have gotten the nom and likely the presidency. Everything else is downstream of that.

  41. @Unladen Swallow
    @Paleo Liberal

    AOC is intelligent? I would think an economics major would know the difference between a government department's total budget and an annual increase in that budget over the previous year. Anyone who took high school accounting would know that difference, but she didn't.

    I think you are merging charisma ( which she has ) with intelligence ( which I'm pretty sure she doesn't ). Bill Clinton's self assurance comes from his intelligence, Cortez's comes from her fervent belief in ideology, that's another difference.

    Replies: @Desiderius

    Cortez’s comes from her fervent belief in ideology, that’s another difference.

    No, it’s pretty much the rack. Many such cases.

    • Replies: @Unladen Swallow
    @Desiderius

    Well that part goes without saying...obviously.

  42. My theory is that blacks want to take over the SPLC. They see a pile of cash and want theirs. Then they want the money making machine to continue. Little do they expect that it is the white guys they are throwing out that make the money making machine run.

    • Replies: @Cagey Beast
    @flyingtiger

    Having the SPLC's war chest scattered to the four winds would be best for everyone. They will write songs about the day the SPLC money flowed like a mighty river. "For one brief shining moment it was Wakanda. Wakanda!".

    , @Jack D
    @flyingtiger

    Blacks don't really care about killing the goose that lays the golden eggs. They see a pile of golden eggs, they want them, they want to spend them today. They're not worried about keeping the goose alive for the future.

    $500 million buys lots of good stuff. Even if no one ever gives another nickel to the SPLC, it's a very tempting pile of cash.

  43. We need to call a meeting of grammarians and philogists to answer two questions:

    What do you call it when a conspiracy is out in the open from the start? (Plenty of examples in the political sphere.)

    Also, what do you call it when they don’t coordinate by meeting, but seemingly by instinct. I like the term “conspiracy of instinct.” But I’ve never been good at coining phrases.

    • Replies: @Yngvar
    @songbird

    Seemingly by instinct: Interstating- everyone going in the same direction.

    , @reiner Tor
    @songbird


    What do you call it when a conspiracy is out in the open from the start?
     
    We could call it a transpiracy.
  44. Anonymous[556] • Disclaimer says:

    The thing that most defines a supposedly low brow conspiracy theory is if the theory names the U.S. government as one of the conapirators.

    It has always been plenty respectable to accuse “Big Tobacco” or the Catholic church of conspiring against the people they claim to help.

    It only becomes a tinfoil theory when you say the U.S. government either plotted or covered up a crime (or alien invasion.)

    But Reynolds aluminum fans should take heart. After the Las Vegas shooting, no one can claim the U.S. government does not cover up crimes. And no one can claim that it is just too hard for a large group of conspirators to keep a secret. Las Vegas changed the game on “conspiracy theory” being a self-referential pejorative with any effectiveness.

    Thank Trump for the Las Vegas silence that ironically enlightened the world. One can speculate that the CIA came to Trump and said that if the government told the public what really happened in Vegas, it would start a war or an insurrection somewhere, maybe here. They probably gave him a few options of plausible lies to put out through the press, standard operating procedure. Trump, knowing elements of his own government are looking to take him out any way possible, would not sign on to playing Nixon’s role in a cover up. So what did the press finally get told? Nothing. And that was more illuminating than anything else they could have said.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Anonymous

    I'm sorry, but YOU'RE the one who sounds like a tinfoil hat guy. WHAT US gov role? I'm willing to accept that Paddock was just a nihilist nut job who acted alone, but enlighten us on the secret conspiracy. I don't hang out in places where these "secrets" are discussed.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    , @reiner Tor
    @Anonymous

    The Las Vegas Shooting was not a conspiracy.

    But even if it was, it certainly didn't make anyone disbelieve the idiocy of conspiracy theories in general.

  45. @flyingtiger
    My theory is that blacks want to take over the SPLC. They see a pile of cash and want theirs. Then they want the money making machine to continue. Little do they expect that it is the white guys they are throwing out that make the money making machine run.

    Replies: @Cagey Beast, @Jack D

    Having the SPLC’s war chest scattered to the four winds would be best for everyone. They will write songs about the day the SPLC money flowed like a mighty river. “For one brief shining moment it was Wakanda. Wakanda!”.

  46. @The Last Real Calvinist
    @unpc downunder


    . . . its the hallow-wearing leftist/globalist organisations like Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the progressive departments in the bloated UN which have the greatest influence over polite society in English-speaking countries.

     

    I've noticed this among my UK and antipodean friends/acquaintances here in HK. They are almost uniformly deferential to the NGO congeries you name, perhaps to a degree greater than the average American would be.

    I recall a couple of instances in which I've made critical remarks about Oxfam in the presence of English people, and received you-puppy-killer! looks all around.

    Replies: @International Jew

    Amnesty International, the ACLU, and others enjoy all that respect because once upon a time they actually deserved respect. Same goes for the universities.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    @International Jew

    And also because of the lack of alternatives since “conservatives” never create anything.

  47. @Achmed E. Newman
    @reiner Tor

    Mr. Tor, I wouldn't call Russiagate* a conspiracy in any way. It was just a lot of people, some powerful ones really pushing, and lots more useful idiots keeping alive, one big stupid narrative. Unlike a real conspiracy, everyone not involved in pushing the narrative of Russian collusion already knew from the beginning that it was a load of crap. However, there's this massive government media complex that wouldn't let it die, at least for the people that watch the idiot box regularly. I don't, so I remember being really surprised this crap was still going on early last summer, as I was subject to the TV at a friends house. If nobody followed the BS on TV, would it have ever been a story?

    The end result was to distract an easily-distracted-to-begin-with President from getting much positive done on the Immigration-invasion problem, as he spent time dealing with this (rather than hiring a trusted lawyer to deal with it, a "Russia Czar", if I may. ;-} ). Now that was, if it even was discussed as such, a great strategy by the ctrl-left, but not a consipracy.



    .

    * and I really hope we, as in the American punditry, can someday lose that "gate" thing. It doesn't even mean anything but the end of the name of a building.

    Replies: @reiner Tor, @WowJustWow

    In the meantime they managed to destroy a few lives (okay, the majority of them were scum like Manafort anyway), wiretapped a few people (perhaps including some conversations of a major presidential candidate, who was later also elected) based on nothing, and they influenced the elections.

    Yes, the president could’ve handled it better, but it doesn’t change the fact that this whole thing required the cooperation of a large number of people, of whom had to pretend that there was some non-negligible chance of the sitting President being a Russian “agent.” (Whatever that means.)

    So, why do you insist on not even calling it a thing, when it clearly was? But yes, it wasn’t a literal conspiracy.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @reiner Tor

    I would say that it started out as a literal conspiracy between the Hillary Campaign (and or the McCain staff) who gave the Steele Dossier to the FBI and the anti-Trump partisans (Comey, McNabe, Strzok, etc.) who tried to use it to derail Trump's campaign and then later overthrow a sitting President.

    Later the MSM and Democrats took the ball and ran with it - at that point it was no longer a conspiracy but its seeds were a true conspiracy in the classic sense of a secret plot.

    Replies: @reiner Tor, @Desiderius, @Desiderius, @ic1000

    , @Achmed E. Newman
    @reiner Tor

    Since I haven't kept up with the big aspect of the 2-year long Russia collusion BS, much less the small details, I'll defer to Jack D and others on that. I don't know what "a thing" means, Mr. Tor. Yes, it's been a big deal, if that's what you mean, but not a conspiracy.

    The thousands, probably 10's of thousands, of Gov-Media tards, the lower-level bureaucrats keeping this alive within the US Feral Gov't, etc. may have been part of this "thing", but they were not conspirators in the sense of "OK, new business, you over there will be behind the grassy knoll, you two guys are going to print this, in the newspapers", etc. All the people in media/government that kept this stupidity alive did so because it's how they behave; it's just what they do. The ctrl-left wants traditional America destroyed, they are butt-sore about Trump's election, and all that, but we should all know that by now. Most of us know that's what they want and that they will use whatever power they've got to do it.

    All this kind of stuff is standard in the day where somewhere in power can just tell someone "you let this Smollett guy walk, or else ...."

    Put it this way: If this was all a conspiracy we would not have known the whole 2 years what they were doing. Even I, a guy who doesn't watch TV, occasionally got word that this Russian collusion story was still being pushed, and I was sure it was bullshit the entire time. That's not a conspiracy - it's media saturation infotainment.

    Replies: @reiner Tor

  48. Straight from the SJW sub-conscious mind….

    New WOLFENSTEIN: YOUNGBLOOD Trailer Understands That Killing Nazis Is Good

    In the past few years, has there been a more therapeutic video franchise than MachineGames’ Wolfenstein series? I submit to you that there has not.

    https://birthmoviesdeath.com/2019/03/27/new-wolfenstein-youngblood-trailer-understands-that-killing-nazis-rules-act

  49. @Anonymous
    The thing that most defines a supposedly low brow conspiracy theory is if the theory names the U.S. government as one of the conapirators.

    It has always been plenty respectable to accuse "Big Tobacco" or the Catholic church of conspiring against the people they claim to help.

    It only becomes a tinfoil theory when you say the U.S. government either plotted or covered up a crime (or alien invasion.)

    But Reynolds aluminum fans should take heart. After the Las Vegas shooting, no one can claim the U.S. government does not cover up crimes. And no one can claim that it is just too hard for a large group of conspirators to keep a secret. Las Vegas changed the game on "conspiracy theory" being a self-referential pejorative with any effectiveness.

    Thank Trump for the Las Vegas silence that ironically enlightened the world. One can speculate that the CIA came to Trump and said that if the government told the public what really happened in Vegas, it would start a war or an insurrection somewhere, maybe here. They probably gave him a few options of plausible lies to put out through the press, standard operating procedure. Trump, knowing elements of his own government are looking to take him out any way possible, would not sign on to playing Nixon's role in a cover up. So what did the press finally get told? Nothing. And that was more illuminating than anything else they could have said.

    Replies: @Jack D, @reiner Tor

    I’m sorry, but YOU’RE the one who sounds like a tinfoil hat guy. WHAT US gov role? I’m willing to accept that Paddock was just a nihilist nut job who acted alone, but enlighten us on the secret conspiracy. I don’t hang out in places where these “secrets” are discussed.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Jack D

    The U.S. government has covered up the Las Vegas shooting. We know nothing about Stephen Paddock or his motivations. We don't know what was on his computer. We don't know how his woman is free even though it was proved she was with him in his hotel room. We don't know why the Mexican guy lied, then was given a short press tour, then shuffled off into obscurity. We don't know why the Las Vegas sheriff was told to keep quiet. We know jack shit about this crime, which could not possibly have happened alone.

    THAT is not the law in America. We have the right to know what happened and see that *all parties are prosecuted. If the government is keeping a lid on the investigation, that is a conspiracy in itself.

    And, yes, I do believe in most of the popular conspiracies that finger the United States government because they are provably true. Ryan Dawson has proved beyond shadow of a doubt the government's cover up of 9/11. It just depends on if you have the desire to find out.

    Replies: @Anonymous

  50. @reiner Tor
    @Achmed E. Newman

    In the meantime they managed to destroy a few lives (okay, the majority of them were scum like Manafort anyway), wiretapped a few people (perhaps including some conversations of a major presidential candidate, who was later also elected) based on nothing, and they influenced the elections.

    Yes, the president could've handled it better, but it doesn't change the fact that this whole thing required the cooperation of a large number of people, of whom had to pretend that there was some non-negligible chance of the sitting President being a Russian "agent." (Whatever that means.)

    So, why do you insist on not even calling it a thing, when it clearly was? But yes, it wasn't a literal conspiracy.

    Replies: @Jack D, @Achmed E. Newman

    I would say that it started out as a literal conspiracy between the Hillary Campaign (and or the McCain staff) who gave the Steele Dossier to the FBI and the anti-Trump partisans (Comey, McNabe, Strzok, etc.) who tried to use it to derail Trump’s campaign and then later overthrow a sitting President.

    Later the MSM and Democrats took the ball and ran with it – at that point it was no longer a conspiracy but its seeds were a true conspiracy in the classic sense of a secret plot.

    • Agree: Johann Ricke
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    @Jack D

    Yes, that’s probably correct.

    , @Desiderius
    @Jack D

    No, the original sin was keeping the D nom for Hillary even after it became public that the DNC had rigged the nomination for her.

    That took more than just Clinton. If you look at motive, that was the time where the most high power actors would have the motive to get involved, particularly deep state cold warriors.

    If they did that explains the subsequent lack of enthusiasm among the Rs for getting to the bottom of things once they gained the ostensible power to do so.

    , @Desiderius
    @Jack D

    No, the original sin was keeping the D nom for Hillary even after it became public that the DNC had rigged the nomination for her.

    That took more than just Clinton. If you look at motive, that was the time where the most high power actors would have the motive to get involved, particularly deep state cold warriors.

    If they did that explains the subsequent lack of enthusiasm among the Rs for getting to the bottom of things once they gained the ostensible power to do so.

    Replies: @Jack D, @J.Ross

    , @ic1000
    @Jack D

    > the Hillary Campaign (and or the McCain staff) who gave the Steele Dossier to the FBI...

    One of the salient aspects of the Steele Dossier that has received little attention (surprise!) is that retired superspy Steele gathered most of the dossier's information from members of the Russian intelligence establishment (i.e. FSB, GRU, ex-KGB). (I think Edward Jay Epstein first wrote about this.) It strains credulity to imagine that all of these sources shared their secrets with Steele, without prior authorization from their respective superiors.

    On this question, the accuracy of those accounts has only secondary importance. The main point is that the Russian deep state supplied Steele with this damaging-to-Trump material, for the Clinton campaign to share with the U.S. political nomenklatura and deep state.

    This isn't exactly the action that Putin might be expected to take, in the course of colluding with Trump to cheat Hillary of her rightful victory.

    Replies: @Jack D

  51. @flyingtiger
    My theory is that blacks want to take over the SPLC. They see a pile of cash and want theirs. Then they want the money making machine to continue. Little do they expect that it is the white guys they are throwing out that make the money making machine run.

    Replies: @Cagey Beast, @Jack D

    Blacks don’t really care about killing the goose that lays the golden eggs. They see a pile of golden eggs, they want them, they want to spend them today. They’re not worried about keeping the goose alive for the future.

    $500 million buys lots of good stuff. Even if no one ever gives another nickel to the SPLC, it’s a very tempting pile of cash.

    • Agree: Johann Ricke
  52. @Mr. Anon
    @unpc downunder


    While the SPLC has no doubt been a big influence over gullible liberal journalists who needs some background information on right-wing organisations ASAP,.................
     
    Organizations like that make it a lot easier for people to be "journalists" without going through all the trouble of being "reporters". Why use up a lot of gas and shoe-leather trying to talk to someone, when you can just call up some guy at some NGO (who is there for that express purpose) who will tell you what you want to hear and what he wants you to say. NGOs and thinktanks exploit the laziness of people in the journo-racket.

    Replies: @Jack D

    Likewise, Facebook, Amazon, etc. No need to hire people to decide “who is a Nazi” – not only is that expensive, it’s a thankless task. You will always pick too few or too many Nazis and get blamed either way. If you can sub this out to the SPLC, it’s a total win – it’s cheaper and you can’t get blamed, you are just following the recommendations of these esteemed experts.

    • Agree: reiner Tor
    • Replies: @J.Ross
    @Jack D

    Brief technical note: the unregulated tech abominations both sub it out to fraud outfits and have their own witchfinding staff. Facebook has a counterterrorism offficer.
    Recently:


    “We’ve had conversations with more than 20 members of civil society, academics, in some cases these were civil rights organizations, experts in race relations from around the world,” Brian Fishman, policy director of counterterrorism at Facebook, told us in a phone call.
     
    https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/nexpbx/facebook-bans-white-nationalism-and-white-separatism
    Two years ago:

    Facebook (FB) says it now has more than 150 people who are mainly focused on fighting terrorism on the social network, including a mix of academics, analysts and former law enforcement agents.
     
    https://money.cnn.com/2017/06/15/technology/business/facebook-terrorism-content/index.html
  53. @Mr. Anon
    @Paleo Liberal


    He had the combination of intelligence, knowledge of policy and charisma to go far.
     
    All in the service of getting you to vote for him. And you fell for it. The qualities you describe are essentially indistinguishable from those that make a successful con-man. Sociopaths are probably disproportionately drawn to politics.

    These days AOC has tons of charisma , some of the second (intelligence) but needs a ton of work on the third (knowledge of policy). It remains to be seen if her ego will allow that.
     
    "Charisma"? She's a whining harpy. "Some Intelligence"? She's a vacuous ninny.

    Replies: @Jack D

    This is exactly what Dems say about Trump. Don’t misunderestimate AOC – she has a certain appeal to some people even if she’s not your cup of tea. Look at Venezuela – objectively Chavez was an idiot and Maduro is an even bigger idiot and yet they had a massive following because they promised something to people had nothing. Remember that 1/2 the people in America have effectively nothing – zero net assets. “Nothing to lose but their chains” as the Communists used to say.

    • Agree: dfordoom
  54. bored identity used to hold SPLCyber Justice Warmongering Morris in deespicable low esteem.

    bored identity was wrong, because- tip of the hat to Sailer & Bernsen – he just learned how easy is for a simple blurb to metastize into a hate crime.

    It happened just before Clintons moved to the White House, when the gullible America still used to call a spade a vandalism, and there were fewer cameras then Nigerians around :

    “There was a blurb early on in the trades that we were going to make a movie about the life and times of Morris Dees and the Southern Poverty Law Center,” producer Michael Shapiro said.

    “The same week that story appeared, our offices were vandalized.

    Though the police were notified and Morris Dees got the FBI to look into it, nothing was ever uncovered.

    So who knows?

    I think we all have a threat of a security breach on a project like this.”

    https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1991-01-20-tv-1105-story.html

  55. Anonymous[556] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jack D
    @Anonymous

    I'm sorry, but YOU'RE the one who sounds like a tinfoil hat guy. WHAT US gov role? I'm willing to accept that Paddock was just a nihilist nut job who acted alone, but enlighten us on the secret conspiracy. I don't hang out in places where these "secrets" are discussed.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    The U.S. government has covered up the Las Vegas shooting. We know nothing about Stephen Paddock or his motivations. We don’t know what was on his computer. We don’t know how his woman is free even though it was proved she was with him in his hotel room. We don’t know why the Mexican guy lied, then was given a short press tour, then shuffled off into obscurity. We don’t know why the Las Vegas sheriff was told to keep quiet. We know jack shit about this crime, which could not possibly have happened alone.

    THAT is not the law in America. We have the right to know what happened and see that *all parties are prosecuted. If the government is keeping a lid on the investigation, that is a conspiracy in itself.

    And, yes, I do believe in most of the popular conspiracies that finger the United States government because they are provably true. Ryan Dawson has proved beyond shadow of a doubt the government’s cover up of 9/11. It just depends on if you have the desire to find out.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Anonymous

    The most plausible explanation is that the guy was a lunatic Trump-hater killing people he thought were Trump-supporters, and that there has been a bipartisan attempt to cover this up, lest some lunatic Trump-supporter decide to get revenge in kind. Is this really a bad thing? Surely it's good to avoid stirring up crazies?

  56. Careful. The Star Whackers are watching.


    Handsome, witty conspiracy theorist

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Buzz Mohawk

    After finding out that Mossad has branched out into private merc work a la Black Cube, you doubt that celebrities (themselves an actual product) are killed for profit? What little we know about Black Cube is that they were willing to harass and intimidate admitted rape victims for money. But I guess you have first hand knowledge, that while they freely conspire to cover up rapes, murder definitely runs afoul of their code. Please. How many other Black Cubes are there?

    Watch Quaid's videos. A rich Hollywood producer of a certain ethnicity stole the Quaid's home through fraud. I used to work for a man of that same ethnicity who bragged to his employees about committing that exact same fraud to obtain his own multi million dollar property.

    When the Quaid's fought back, suddenly police departments of small California towns were issuing warrants for their arrest for pissant crimes like vandalism. Then, the Quaids were arrested (and later extradited from) in the West Texas desert for those out of state crimes, with photographers there for the arrest. The home they had supposedly vandalized was their own.

    If you would watch his videos, he deliberately makes them strange to bring attention to his case. He's not insane, he has just decided he has nothing more to lose. Ask Katt Williams and Dave Chappelle about this worldwide cabal whose major currency is blackmail.

    My own parents have been swindled by Hollywood producers for large sums of money. When I asked a childhood friend who had become a successful editor in California what my parents could do about this blatant fraud he said "nothing. " The laws are written to indemnify studios and they should be glad they didn't lose everything.

    You think these people are anything more than criminals? You're a joke.

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk

  57. @reiner Tor
    @Achmed E. Newman

    In the meantime they managed to destroy a few lives (okay, the majority of them were scum like Manafort anyway), wiretapped a few people (perhaps including some conversations of a major presidential candidate, who was later also elected) based on nothing, and they influenced the elections.

    Yes, the president could've handled it better, but it doesn't change the fact that this whole thing required the cooperation of a large number of people, of whom had to pretend that there was some non-negligible chance of the sitting President being a Russian "agent." (Whatever that means.)

    So, why do you insist on not even calling it a thing, when it clearly was? But yes, it wasn't a literal conspiracy.

    Replies: @Jack D, @Achmed E. Newman

    Since I haven’t kept up with the big aspect of the 2-year long Russia collusion BS, much less the small details, I’ll defer to Jack D and others on that. I don’t know what “a thing” means, Mr. Tor. Yes, it’s been a big deal, if that’s what you mean, but not a conspiracy.

    The thousands, probably 10’s of thousands, of Gov-Media tards, the lower-level bureaucrats keeping this alive within the US Feral Gov’t, etc. may have been part of this “thing”, but they were not conspirators in the sense of “OK, new business, you over there will be behind the grassy knoll, you two guys are going to print this, in the newspapers”, etc. All the people in media/government that kept this stupidity alive did so because it’s how they behave; it’s just what they do. The ctrl-left wants traditional America destroyed, they are butt-sore about Trump’s election, and all that, but we should all know that by now. Most of us know that’s what they want and that they will use whatever power they’ve got to do it.

    All this kind of stuff is standard in the day where somewhere in power can just tell someone “you let this Smollett guy walk, or else ….”

    Put it this way: If this was all a conspiracy we would not have known the whole 2 years what they were doing. Even I, a guy who doesn’t watch TV, occasionally got word that this Russian collusion story was still being pushed, and I was sure it was bullshit the entire time. That’s not a conspiracy – it’s media saturation infotainment.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    @Achmed E. Newman

    First, I explicitly said it wasn't a conspiracy in the ordinary meaning of the world.


    If this was all a conspiracy we would not have known the whole 2 years what they were doing.
     
    Who is this "we," kemosabe?

    The majority of the voting public didn't know. The investigators themselves pretended not to know and went on to use extensive powers, e.g. destroy (or at least question) attorney-client privilege, and influenced public policy to a very large degree. (For example, would Trump have slapped so many sanctions on Russia if it were not for the "he's a Russian puppet under investigation" thingy? Would he have bombed Syria twice, risking WW3?)

    And you could say the same thing with many actual conspiracy theories, couldn't you? Like, a large portion of the public believes in 911 conspiracy theories. But you don't, do you? So, does it prove anything?

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

  58. @Jack D
    @reiner Tor

    I would say that it started out as a literal conspiracy between the Hillary Campaign (and or the McCain staff) who gave the Steele Dossier to the FBI and the anti-Trump partisans (Comey, McNabe, Strzok, etc.) who tried to use it to derail Trump's campaign and then later overthrow a sitting President.

    Later the MSM and Democrats took the ball and ran with it - at that point it was no longer a conspiracy but its seeds were a true conspiracy in the classic sense of a secret plot.

    Replies: @reiner Tor, @Desiderius, @Desiderius, @ic1000

    Yes, that’s probably correct.

  59. Anonymous[556] • Disclaimer says:
    @Buzz Mohawk
    Careful. The Star Whackers are watching.

    https://image.tmdb.org/t/p/w185/7rywy6gbSTG60xQWepRktD0feek.jpg
    Handsome, witty conspiracy theorist

    Replies: @Anonymous

    After finding out that Mossad has branched out into private merc work a la Black Cube, you doubt that celebrities (themselves an actual product) are killed for profit? What little we know about Black Cube is that they were willing to harass and intimidate admitted rape victims for money. But I guess you have first hand knowledge, that while they freely conspire to cover up rapes, murder definitely runs afoul of their code. Please. How many other Black Cubes are there?

    Watch Quaid’s videos. A rich Hollywood producer of a certain ethnicity stole the Quaid’s home through fraud. I used to work for a man of that same ethnicity who bragged to his employees about committing that exact same fraud to obtain his own multi million dollar property.

    When the Quaid’s fought back, suddenly police departments of small California towns were issuing warrants for their arrest for pissant crimes like vandalism. Then, the Quaids were arrested (and later extradited from) in the West Texas desert for those out of state crimes, with photographers there for the arrest. The home they had supposedly vandalized was their own.

    If you would watch his videos, he deliberately makes them strange to bring attention to his case. He’s not insane, he has just decided he has nothing more to lose. Ask Katt Williams and Dave Chappelle about this worldwide cabal whose major currency is blackmail.

    My own parents have been swindled by Hollywood producers for large sums of money. When I asked a childhood friend who had become a successful editor in California what my parents could do about this blatant fraud he said “nothing. ” The laws are written to indemnify studios and they should be glad they didn’t lose everything.

    You think these people are anything more than criminals? You’re a joke.

    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
    @Anonymous

    Don't worry, Randy might be safe. Some people think he has a doppelgänger. Their evidence, though, is a bit slimmer than required and doesn't really match their claim.

  60. It works both ways, until it doesn’t.

    Hmmm. I don’t know about that. All I ever hear the mainstream right do is apologize and concede to the Left. Attack, based on substance or character, is the last thing they are willing to do. I suppose if you’re talking about dissident Right media, you may have a point, but even then, I’m not so sure. The dissident Right seems far more eager to engage on the issues rather than just call people names all time.

  61. @International Jew
    @The Last Real Calvinist

    Amnesty International, the ACLU, and others enjoy all that respect because once upon a time they actually deserved respect. Same goes for the universities.

    Replies: @Desiderius

    And also because of the lack of alternatives since “conservatives” never create anything.

  62. @Achmed E. Newman
    @reiner Tor

    Mr. Tor, I wouldn't call Russiagate* a conspiracy in any way. It was just a lot of people, some powerful ones really pushing, and lots more useful idiots keeping alive, one big stupid narrative. Unlike a real conspiracy, everyone not involved in pushing the narrative of Russian collusion already knew from the beginning that it was a load of crap. However, there's this massive government media complex that wouldn't let it die, at least for the people that watch the idiot box regularly. I don't, so I remember being really surprised this crap was still going on early last summer, as I was subject to the TV at a friends house. If nobody followed the BS on TV, would it have ever been a story?

    The end result was to distract an easily-distracted-to-begin-with President from getting much positive done on the Immigration-invasion problem, as he spent time dealing with this (rather than hiring a trusted lawyer to deal with it, a "Russia Czar", if I may. ;-} ). Now that was, if it even was discussed as such, a great strategy by the ctrl-left, but not a consipracy.



    .

    * and I really hope we, as in the American punditry, can someday lose that "gate" thing. It doesn't even mean anything but the end of the name of a building.

    Replies: @reiner Tor, @WowJustWow

    I’d be fine with it if the -gate suffix were restricted to coverups of crimes, but when it gets used for any kind of scandal, or an undercover video of some public figure in private saying essentially the same things they already say in public, or even just a semi-embarrassing gaffe, it deserves to be purged from the linguistic landscape.

  63. @Jack D
    @reiner Tor

    I would say that it started out as a literal conspiracy between the Hillary Campaign (and or the McCain staff) who gave the Steele Dossier to the FBI and the anti-Trump partisans (Comey, McNabe, Strzok, etc.) who tried to use it to derail Trump's campaign and then later overthrow a sitting President.

    Later the MSM and Democrats took the ball and ran with it - at that point it was no longer a conspiracy but its seeds were a true conspiracy in the classic sense of a secret plot.

    Replies: @reiner Tor, @Desiderius, @Desiderius, @ic1000

    No, the original sin was keeping the D nom for Hillary even after it became public that the DNC had rigged the nomination for her.

    That took more than just Clinton. If you look at motive, that was the time where the most high power actors would have the motive to get involved, particularly deep state cold warriors.

    If they did that explains the subsequent lack of enthusiasm among the Rs for getting to the bottom of things once they gained the ostensible power to do so.

  64. @Jack D
    @reiner Tor

    I would say that it started out as a literal conspiracy between the Hillary Campaign (and or the McCain staff) who gave the Steele Dossier to the FBI and the anti-Trump partisans (Comey, McNabe, Strzok, etc.) who tried to use it to derail Trump's campaign and then later overthrow a sitting President.

    Later the MSM and Democrats took the ball and ran with it - at that point it was no longer a conspiracy but its seeds were a true conspiracy in the classic sense of a secret plot.

    Replies: @reiner Tor, @Desiderius, @Desiderius, @ic1000

    No, the original sin was keeping the D nom for Hillary even after it became public that the DNC had rigged the nomination for her.

    That took more than just Clinton. If you look at motive, that was the time where the most high power actors would have the motive to get involved, particularly deep state cold warriors.

    If they did that explains the subsequent lack of enthusiasm among the Rs for getting to the bottom of things once they gained the ostensible power to do so.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Desiderius

    Whoever put the fix in for Hillary, I don't think it was Republicans.

    Replies: @Desiderius

    , @J.Ross
    @Desiderius

    Sure maintaining the nomination took more than just Clinton, just like the rigging itself did. Clinton had her own apparatus, was an up and coming power within the party, and had major allies like Debbie Wasserman-Schulz and CNN. The not-Republican Obama administration was doing plenty of illegal things to help her. I don't see a need (or a function) for a Republican.

    Replies: @Desiderius

  65. @Desiderius
    @Unladen Swallow


    Cortez’s comes from her fervent belief in ideology, that’s another difference.
     
    No, it’s pretty much the rack. Many such cases.

    Replies: @Unladen Swallow

    Well that part goes without saying…obviously.

  66. @Anonymous
    @Buzz Mohawk

    After finding out that Mossad has branched out into private merc work a la Black Cube, you doubt that celebrities (themselves an actual product) are killed for profit? What little we know about Black Cube is that they were willing to harass and intimidate admitted rape victims for money. But I guess you have first hand knowledge, that while they freely conspire to cover up rapes, murder definitely runs afoul of their code. Please. How many other Black Cubes are there?

    Watch Quaid's videos. A rich Hollywood producer of a certain ethnicity stole the Quaid's home through fraud. I used to work for a man of that same ethnicity who bragged to his employees about committing that exact same fraud to obtain his own multi million dollar property.

    When the Quaid's fought back, suddenly police departments of small California towns were issuing warrants for their arrest for pissant crimes like vandalism. Then, the Quaids were arrested (and later extradited from) in the West Texas desert for those out of state crimes, with photographers there for the arrest. The home they had supposedly vandalized was their own.

    If you would watch his videos, he deliberately makes them strange to bring attention to his case. He's not insane, he has just decided he has nothing more to lose. Ask Katt Williams and Dave Chappelle about this worldwide cabal whose major currency is blackmail.

    My own parents have been swindled by Hollywood producers for large sums of money. When I asked a childhood friend who had become a successful editor in California what my parents could do about this blatant fraud he said "nothing. " The laws are written to indemnify studios and they should be glad they didn't lose everything.

    You think these people are anything more than criminals? You're a joke.

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk

    Don’t worry, Randy might be safe. Some people think he has a doppelgänger. Their evidence, though, is a bit slimmer than required and doesn’t really match their claim.

  67. @Rosie

    In 21st-century America, however, to call something a “conspiracy theory” is to say that the kind of person to whom the idea appeals, such as Randy Quaid’s not-quite-right-in-the-head Vietnam-vet character in Independence Day (or Randy Quaid in real life lately), is disreputable. …
     
    I seem to recall seeing empirical evidence showing that ad hominem arguments (which is indeed what this is) are depressingly effective in the real world. That is very unfortunate for the dissident Right, because it tends to neutralize our greatest strengths.

    Replies: @Paleo Liberal, @res

    One piece of evidence: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0192025

    Abstract

    Two experiments were conducted to determine the relative impact of direct and indirect (ad hominem) attacks on science claims. Four hundred and thirty-nine college students (Experiment 1) and 199 adults (Experiment 2) read a series of science claims and indicated their attitudes towards those claims. Each claim was paired with one of the following: A) a direct attack upon the empirical basis of the science claim B) an ad hominem attack on the scientist who made the claim or C) both. Results indicate that ad hominem attacks may have the same degree of impact as attacks on the empirical basis of the science claims, and that allegations of conflict of interest may be just as influential as allegations of outright fraud.

    As you said, depressing.

    • Agree: Rosie
  68. @Desiderius
    @Jack D

    No, the original sin was keeping the D nom for Hillary even after it became public that the DNC had rigged the nomination for her.

    That took more than just Clinton. If you look at motive, that was the time where the most high power actors would have the motive to get involved, particularly deep state cold warriors.

    If they did that explains the subsequent lack of enthusiasm among the Rs for getting to the bottom of things once they gained the ostensible power to do so.

    Replies: @Jack D, @J.Ross

    Whoever put the fix in for Hillary, I don’t think it was Republicans.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    @Jack D

    Hard to say on the initial fix. But at the moment the fix leaked absent an act of God it was going to be Bernie. The closest thing we have to gods are former presidents, there was very strong motive, and it explains why Rs are uninterested in doing anything about it.

    As Sherlock says...

  69. @Jack D
    @reiner Tor

    I would say that it started out as a literal conspiracy between the Hillary Campaign (and or the McCain staff) who gave the Steele Dossier to the FBI and the anti-Trump partisans (Comey, McNabe, Strzok, etc.) who tried to use it to derail Trump's campaign and then later overthrow a sitting President.

    Later the MSM and Democrats took the ball and ran with it - at that point it was no longer a conspiracy but its seeds were a true conspiracy in the classic sense of a secret plot.

    Replies: @reiner Tor, @Desiderius, @Desiderius, @ic1000

    > the Hillary Campaign (and or the McCain staff) who gave the Steele Dossier to the FBI…

    One of the salient aspects of the Steele Dossier that has received little attention (surprise!) is that retired superspy Steele gathered most of the dossier’s information from members of the Russian intelligence establishment (i.e. FSB, GRU, ex-KGB). (I think Edward Jay Epstein first wrote about this.) It strains credulity to imagine that all of these sources shared their secrets with Steele, without prior authorization from their respective superiors.

    On this question, the accuracy of those accounts has only secondary importance. The main point is that the Russian deep state supplied Steele with this damaging-to-Trump material, for the Clinton campaign to share with the U.S. political nomenklatura and deep state.

    This isn’t exactly the action that Putin might be expected to take, in the course of colluding with Trump to cheat Hillary of her rightful victory.

    • Agree: Desiderius
    • Replies: @Jack D
    @ic1000

    Now you tell us?

    I think it's reasonable to assume that Putin's real goal was to discredit BOTH candidates and democracy in general - if Western democracy is just a pathetic joke, then not only is America weakened but Russian plutocracy and rigged elections don't look so bad by comparison. But egocentric Democrats assumed that only THEY were the ones being targeted.

    Replies: @reiner Tor, @ic1000

  70. @Reg Cæsar

    the nearly half-billion dollars in assets that supersalesman Morris Dees has piled up in the SPLC’s onshore and offshore accounts
     
    How do you, or anyone else, know how much is in the offshore accounts?

    Or even how many accounts there are offshore? Secrecy is a selling point in these havens.

    I'm sure there's well over a half-billion. Perhaps a whole billion. Perhaps two...

    Replies: @Crawfurdmuir

    Or even how many accounts there are offshore? Secrecy is a selling point in these havens.

    I’m sure there’s well over a half-billion. Perhaps a whole billion. Perhaps two…

    Or maybe a lot less, having been skimmed off by Dees or other parties unknown. There’s a great deal of obscurity in $PLC’s finances, at least as disclosed to the public. Moreover, from what has been reported, a substantial percentage of its assets appear to be in so-called “alternative investments.” This refers to such entities as REITs, private equity funds, or credit partnerships. These are opaque by nature. They gained in popularity during the long period of low interest rates, as a result of the quest for yield. I’m sure many of them are perfectly aboveboard, but $PLC’s combination of alternative investments AND offshore accounts in the Caymans ought to raise suspicion.

  71. @Jack D
    @Desiderius

    Whoever put the fix in for Hillary, I don't think it was Republicans.

    Replies: @Desiderius

    Hard to say on the initial fix. But at the moment the fix leaked absent an act of God it was going to be Bernie. The closest thing we have to gods are former presidents, there was very strong motive, and it explains why Rs are uninterested in doing anything about it.

    As Sherlock says…

  72. @Desiderius
    @Jack D

    No, the original sin was keeping the D nom for Hillary even after it became public that the DNC had rigged the nomination for her.

    That took more than just Clinton. If you look at motive, that was the time where the most high power actors would have the motive to get involved, particularly deep state cold warriors.

    If they did that explains the subsequent lack of enthusiasm among the Rs for getting to the bottom of things once they gained the ostensible power to do so.

    Replies: @Jack D, @J.Ross

    Sure maintaining the nomination took more than just Clinton, just like the rigging itself did. Clinton had her own apparatus, was an up and coming power within the party, and had major allies like Debbie Wasserman-Schulz and CNN. The not-Republican Obama administration was doing plenty of illegal things to help her. I don’t see a need (or a function) for a Republican.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    @J.Ross

    As far as I can tell, Obama’s involvement was later/grudging. He didn’t take Trump seriously until after the election and didn’t care to help Hillary against Bernie. To get the total media shutdown they did that took broad IC involvement and that means Rs.

    Replies: @Desiderius, @J.Ross, @J.Ross

  73. @Jack D
    @Mr. Anon

    Likewise, Facebook, Amazon, etc. No need to hire people to decide "who is a Nazi" - not only is that expensive, it's a thankless task. You will always pick too few or too many Nazis and get blamed either way. If you can sub this out to the SPLC, it's a total win - it's cheaper and you can't get blamed, you are just following the recommendations of these esteemed experts.

    Replies: @J.Ross

    Brief technical note: the unregulated tech abominations both sub it out to fraud outfits and have their own witchfinding staff. Facebook has a counterterrorism offficer.
    Recently:

    “We’ve had conversations with more than 20 members of civil society, academics, in some cases these were civil rights organizations, experts in race relations from around the world,” Brian Fishman, policy director of counterterrorism at Facebook, told us in a phone call.

    https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/nexpbx/facebook-bans-white-nationalism-and-white-separatism
    Two years ago:

    Facebook (FB) says it now has more than 150 people who are mainly focused on fighting terrorism on the social network, including a mix of academics, analysts and former law enforcement agents.

    https://money.cnn.com/2017/06/15/technology/business/facebook-terrorism-content/index.html

  74. I heard somewhere that for the French, everything is a conspiracy theory, but for Americans, nothing is.

  75. @ic1000
    @Jack D

    > the Hillary Campaign (and or the McCain staff) who gave the Steele Dossier to the FBI...

    One of the salient aspects of the Steele Dossier that has received little attention (surprise!) is that retired superspy Steele gathered most of the dossier's information from members of the Russian intelligence establishment (i.e. FSB, GRU, ex-KGB). (I think Edward Jay Epstein first wrote about this.) It strains credulity to imagine that all of these sources shared their secrets with Steele, without prior authorization from their respective superiors.

    On this question, the accuracy of those accounts has only secondary importance. The main point is that the Russian deep state supplied Steele with this damaging-to-Trump material, for the Clinton campaign to share with the U.S. political nomenklatura and deep state.

    This isn't exactly the action that Putin might be expected to take, in the course of colluding with Trump to cheat Hillary of her rightful victory.

    Replies: @Jack D

    Now you tell us?

    I think it’s reasonable to assume that Putin’s real goal was to discredit BOTH candidates and democracy in general – if Western democracy is just a pathetic joke, then not only is America weakened but Russian plutocracy and rigged elections don’t look so bad by comparison. But egocentric Democrats assumed that only THEY were the ones being targeted.

    • Agree: Johann Ricke, reiner Tor
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    @Jack D


    to discredit... democracy in general
     
    Then it turned out democracy didn't need any further discrediting. Apparently it changes very little whom the public votes into office.
    , @ic1000
    @Jack D

    > Now you tell us?

    LOL

    Seems that one of the key strengths of the Narrative creators (NYT editorial board, DNC, foundation C-suite, &c.) is their ability to act on the insight that it doesn’t need to be logical or consistent to be effective. Surprisingly, it turns out that low information voters don’t know much and don’t reflect much about these sorts of issues.

    (In the background, infotainment notables Lester Holt and Savannah Guthrie are opining on NBC’s Today show about Comey, Trump, and the Mueller report, doing their very best to support my claim.)

  76. @Achmed E. Newman

    After all, very little gets done in this world without people plotting together to take action, contrivances that at least some hostile outsiders would consider nefarious. So conspiracies, broadly defined, are everywhere.
     
    That's just it, though, Steve. Many things may be "conspiracies" as broadly defined, but the definition IS too broadly defined. Your Theranos example, along with the $PLC are examples. With Theranos, there never was a bunch of plotting and some nefarious plan. It's just that people who should know better got duped, and others sure didn't want to miss out on some big capital gains with the stock, so they didn't speak out when they did know better.

    Maybe the downfall of Morris Dees and the other guy involve some minor comspiracies, but the broad definition of the whole organization being a conspiracy is wrong. It's just an organization full of shysters and liars, the sole purpose of which is to distribute lies.

    Therefore, as to your and The Last Real Calvinist's point, it's only these vague, broadly-defined conspiracies, like "hey, the cigarette companies are ignoring the health effects." and "hey, the $PLC people are projecting - they are the haters.", which are quite true, but only deserve a "no shit, ya' think?" that are the ones for which it's hard to break the "conspiracy". If the moon landing had been faked, then there'd be 100,000s of thousands of engineers from Grumman, Rockedyne, etc., and NASA itself who could not all be made to shut up about it.

    Replies: @Redneck farmer, @reiner Tor, @reiner Tor, @Grace Jones

    “hey, the cigarette companies are ignoring the health effects.”

    The cigarette companies sold their products to willing buyers. And, the cigarette companies let the anti-smokers get away with flagrant scientific fraud, falsely blaming smoking for diseases caused by infection. The only reasonable conclusion is that they were taken over by anti-smoker money, buying up their stock and ensuring that they only hired lawyers who would throw the fight. Their customers continued to buy their products despite being deceived by Tobacco Control, while the cigarette companies sold their customers out.

    Look at the Minnesota tobacco settlement. The cigarette companies settled despite, or actually BECAUSE of, the fact that they were winning in the minds of the jury; and it was even for more than the anti-smokers were demanding.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    @Grace Jones


    The cigarette companies sold their products to willing buyers.
     
    I've got no argument with you, Grace. My point was to show that it's not some kind of conspiracy, as, when you sell products that are known to cause major health problems, yet there is a perfectly good market for them, common sense tells you that you don't specifically advertise the health hazards.

    What's interesting about some of the settlements is that, once they tobacco companies knew they'd be railroaded one way or another, then they and the state governments had a kind of symbiotic relationship. You can't tax us too much or nobody will buy them, and then you won't get as much of a cut to spend waste.
  77. @Anonymous
    The thing that most defines a supposedly low brow conspiracy theory is if the theory names the U.S. government as one of the conapirators.

    It has always been plenty respectable to accuse "Big Tobacco" or the Catholic church of conspiring against the people they claim to help.

    It only becomes a tinfoil theory when you say the U.S. government either plotted or covered up a crime (or alien invasion.)

    But Reynolds aluminum fans should take heart. After the Las Vegas shooting, no one can claim the U.S. government does not cover up crimes. And no one can claim that it is just too hard for a large group of conspirators to keep a secret. Las Vegas changed the game on "conspiracy theory" being a self-referential pejorative with any effectiveness.

    Thank Trump for the Las Vegas silence that ironically enlightened the world. One can speculate that the CIA came to Trump and said that if the government told the public what really happened in Vegas, it would start a war or an insurrection somewhere, maybe here. They probably gave him a few options of plausible lies to put out through the press, standard operating procedure. Trump, knowing elements of his own government are looking to take him out any way possible, would not sign on to playing Nixon's role in a cover up. So what did the press finally get told? Nothing. And that was more illuminating than anything else they could have said.

    Replies: @Jack D, @reiner Tor

    The Las Vegas Shooting was not a conspiracy.

    But even if it was, it certainly didn’t make anyone disbelieve the idiocy of conspiracy theories in general.

  78. @Jack D
    @ic1000

    Now you tell us?

    I think it's reasonable to assume that Putin's real goal was to discredit BOTH candidates and democracy in general - if Western democracy is just a pathetic joke, then not only is America weakened but Russian plutocracy and rigged elections don't look so bad by comparison. But egocentric Democrats assumed that only THEY were the ones being targeted.

    Replies: @reiner Tor, @ic1000

    to discredit… democracy in general

    Then it turned out democracy didn’t need any further discrediting. Apparently it changes very little whom the public votes into office.

    • Agree: Cagey Beast
  79. @Achmed E. Newman
    @reiner Tor

    Since I haven't kept up with the big aspect of the 2-year long Russia collusion BS, much less the small details, I'll defer to Jack D and others on that. I don't know what "a thing" means, Mr. Tor. Yes, it's been a big deal, if that's what you mean, but not a conspiracy.

    The thousands, probably 10's of thousands, of Gov-Media tards, the lower-level bureaucrats keeping this alive within the US Feral Gov't, etc. may have been part of this "thing", but they were not conspirators in the sense of "OK, new business, you over there will be behind the grassy knoll, you two guys are going to print this, in the newspapers", etc. All the people in media/government that kept this stupidity alive did so because it's how they behave; it's just what they do. The ctrl-left wants traditional America destroyed, they are butt-sore about Trump's election, and all that, but we should all know that by now. Most of us know that's what they want and that they will use whatever power they've got to do it.

    All this kind of stuff is standard in the day where somewhere in power can just tell someone "you let this Smollett guy walk, or else ...."

    Put it this way: If this was all a conspiracy we would not have known the whole 2 years what they were doing. Even I, a guy who doesn't watch TV, occasionally got word that this Russian collusion story was still being pushed, and I was sure it was bullshit the entire time. That's not a conspiracy - it's media saturation infotainment.

    Replies: @reiner Tor

    First, I explicitly said it wasn’t a conspiracy in the ordinary meaning of the world.

    If this was all a conspiracy we would not have known the whole 2 years what they were doing.

    Who is this “we,” kemosabe?

    The majority of the voting public didn’t know. The investigators themselves pretended not to know and went on to use extensive powers, e.g. destroy (or at least question) attorney-client privilege, and influenced public policy to a very large degree. (For example, would Trump have slapped so many sanctions on Russia if it were not for the “he’s a Russian puppet under investigation” thingy? Would he have bombed Syria twice, risking WW3?)

    And you could say the same thing with many actual conspiracy theories, couldn’t you? Like, a large portion of the public believes in 911 conspiracy theories. But you don’t, do you? So, does it prove anything?

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    @reiner Tor

    First, Reiner, we are not arguing about much, so maybe I didn't need to chime in back. I will anyway ;-}

    I don't mean I am somebody wiser than all the rest in that I figured this Russia collusion business was a bunch of crap. Lots of us (do you not include yourself?) knew the whole time that this is simple ctrl-left Gov-Media propoganda, on 24/7.

    Yeah, Trump was influenced because he's not the man we'd hoped - he's probably distracted by squirrels out on the White House lawn. As I wrote before, had the man hired his own trusted people for advisor/cabinet positions, such as the W.H. legal council, just a guy who would take all the Russia flack, respond to requests for whatever kind of legal stuff was required, and just blow these people off till they got tired, well, things would be different. (BTW, the Syria bombing was pretty early on, or at least those first missile strikes, so I didn't see those as related. His foreign interventionalism, contrary to campaign promises, was disappointing from the get-to.)


    The investigators themselves pretended not to know and went on to use extensive powers, e.g. destroy (or at least question) attorney-client privilege, and influenced public policy to a very large degree.
     
    That's standard politics nowadays, unfortunately. You don't get into that situation in the first place, by allowing the scum who want to take you down to work for you! It's freakin' retarded!

    9/11 is a whole nother story that I don't want to get into here. The JFK assassination almost could not NOT have been some kind of conspiracy. Finally,

    The majority of the voting public TV watchers didn’t know
     
    There, FIFY to make a point. If people didn't mindlessly give the infotainment industry so much credibility and let them selves get sucked into the whole thing like it's some soap opera, then their common sense would have told them the same as me: it's just the standard lefty strategy to push whatever narrative it takes to distract and confuse.

    Replies: @reiner Tor

  80. Morris is on wife number 6. Susan Starr was wife number 5.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @JamesWalker

    Wow, what a guy, can you find me a link?

    Replies: @JamesWalker

  81. @JamesWalker
    Morris is on wife number 6. Susan Starr was wife number 5.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

    Wow, what a guy, can you find me a link?

    • Replies: @JamesWalker
    @Steve Sailer

    I'll try. I'm from Montgomery and there seems to be a debate about which number wife he is on.

  82. @Jack D
    @ic1000

    Now you tell us?

    I think it's reasonable to assume that Putin's real goal was to discredit BOTH candidates and democracy in general - if Western democracy is just a pathetic joke, then not only is America weakened but Russian plutocracy and rigged elections don't look so bad by comparison. But egocentric Democrats assumed that only THEY were the ones being targeted.

    Replies: @reiner Tor, @ic1000

    > Now you tell us?

    LOL

    Seems that one of the key strengths of the Narrative creators (NYT editorial board, DNC, foundation C-suite, &c.) is their ability to act on the insight that it doesn’t need to be logical or consistent to be effective. Surprisingly, it turns out that low information voters don’t know much and don’t reflect much about these sorts of issues.

    (In the background, infotainment notables Lester Holt and Savannah Guthrie are opining on NBC’s Today show about Comey, Trump, and the Mueller report, doing their very best to support my claim.)

  83. @reiner Tor
    @Achmed E. Newman

    First, I explicitly said it wasn't a conspiracy in the ordinary meaning of the world.


    If this was all a conspiracy we would not have known the whole 2 years what they were doing.
     
    Who is this "we," kemosabe?

    The majority of the voting public didn't know. The investigators themselves pretended not to know and went on to use extensive powers, e.g. destroy (or at least question) attorney-client privilege, and influenced public policy to a very large degree. (For example, would Trump have slapped so many sanctions on Russia if it were not for the "he's a Russian puppet under investigation" thingy? Would he have bombed Syria twice, risking WW3?)

    And you could say the same thing with many actual conspiracy theories, couldn't you? Like, a large portion of the public believes in 911 conspiracy theories. But you don't, do you? So, does it prove anything?

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

    First, Reiner, we are not arguing about much, so maybe I didn’t need to chime in back. I will anyway ;-}

    I don’t mean I am somebody wiser than all the rest in that I figured this Russia collusion business was a bunch of crap. Lots of us (do you not include yourself?) knew the whole time that this is simple ctrl-left Gov-Media propoganda, on 24/7.

    Yeah, Trump was influenced because he’s not the man we’d hoped – he’s probably distracted by squirrels out on the White House lawn. As I wrote before, had the man hired his own trusted people for advisor/cabinet positions, such as the W.H. legal council, just a guy who would take all the Russia flack, respond to requests for whatever kind of legal stuff was required, and just blow these people off till they got tired, well, things would be different. (BTW, the Syria bombing was pretty early on, or at least those first missile strikes, so I didn’t see those as related. His foreign interventionalism, contrary to campaign promises, was disappointing from the get-to.)

    The investigators themselves pretended not to know and went on to use extensive powers, e.g. destroy (or at least question) attorney-client privilege, and influenced public policy to a very large degree.

    That’s standard politics nowadays, unfortunately. You don’t get into that situation in the first place, by allowing the scum who want to take you down to work for you! It’s freakin’ retarded!

    9/11 is a whole nother story that I don’t want to get into here. The JFK assassination almost could not NOT have been some kind of conspiracy. Finally,

    The majority of the voting public TV watchers didn’t know

    There, FIFY to make a point. If people didn’t mindlessly give the infotainment industry so much credibility and let them selves get sucked into the whole thing like it’s some soap opera, then their common sense would have told them the same as me: it’s just the standard lefty strategy to push whatever narrative it takes to distract and confuse.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    @Achmed E. Newman


    we are not arguing about much
     
    I agree, I was perhaps nitpicking from the get-go.

    My point is that Russiagate was not a real conspiracy (though it started out as such, as the venerable commenter Jack D pointed out, and it probably contained elements of a conspiracy to the last minute), but it worked pretty much like one: it changed the news cycle, it changed people's perceptions, it was used to influence the outcome of elections, etc. etc., all the while requiring the cooperation of a vast number of individuals. It's not a real conspiracy, it's pretty transparent for most right-wing people. (I count myself in it, but you need to be aware that the "we" is a pretty small circle of people here at Unz, or even if you include masses of Republicans, it was still less than half the US population. Or, for that matter, people worldwide. Most Europeans, including intelligent individuals, who followed the news, certainly believed it. It's pretty unfortunate, but smart left-wing people or smart normies who don't care much for politics never figured out that it was a sham from the beginning.)


    If people didn’t mindlessly give the infotainment industry so much credibility and let them selves get sucked into the whole thing like it’s some soap opera
     
    If.
  84. @Grace Jones
    @Achmed E. Newman

    “hey, the cigarette companies are ignoring the health effects.”

    The cigarette companies sold their products to willing buyers. And, the cigarette companies let the anti-smokers get away with flagrant scientific fraud, falsely blaming smoking for diseases caused by infection. The only reasonable conclusion is that they were taken over by anti-smoker money, buying up their stock and ensuring that they only hired lawyers who would throw the fight. Their customers continued to buy their products despite being deceived by Tobacco Control, while the cigarette companies sold their customers out.

    Look at the Minnesota tobacco settlement. The cigarette companies settled despite, or actually BECAUSE of, the fact that they were winning in the minds of the jury; and it was even for more than the anti-smokers were demanding.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

    The cigarette companies sold their products to willing buyers.

    I’ve got no argument with you, Grace. My point was to show that it’s not some kind of conspiracy, as, when you sell products that are known to cause major health problems, yet there is a perfectly good market for them, common sense tells you that you don’t specifically advertise the health hazards.

    What’s interesting about some of the settlements is that, once they tobacco companies knew they’d be railroaded one way or another, then they and the state governments had a kind of symbiotic relationship. You can’t tax us too much or nobody will buy them, and then you won’t get as much of a cut to spend waste.

  85. @Steve Sailer
    @JamesWalker

    Wow, what a guy, can you find me a link?

    Replies: @JamesWalker

    I’ll try. I’m from Montgomery and there seems to be a debate about which number wife he is on.

  86. @songbird
    We need to call a meeting of grammarians and philogists to answer two questions:

    What do you call it when a conspiracy is out in the open from the start? (Plenty of examples in the political sphere.)

    Also, what do you call it when they don't coordinate by meeting, but seemingly by instinct. I like the term "conspiracy of instinct." But I've never been good at coining phrases.

    Replies: @Yngvar, @reiner Tor

    Seemingly by instinct: Interstating– everyone going in the same direction.

  87. @Achmed E. Newman
    @reiner Tor

    First, Reiner, we are not arguing about much, so maybe I didn't need to chime in back. I will anyway ;-}

    I don't mean I am somebody wiser than all the rest in that I figured this Russia collusion business was a bunch of crap. Lots of us (do you not include yourself?) knew the whole time that this is simple ctrl-left Gov-Media propoganda, on 24/7.

    Yeah, Trump was influenced because he's not the man we'd hoped - he's probably distracted by squirrels out on the White House lawn. As I wrote before, had the man hired his own trusted people for advisor/cabinet positions, such as the W.H. legal council, just a guy who would take all the Russia flack, respond to requests for whatever kind of legal stuff was required, and just blow these people off till they got tired, well, things would be different. (BTW, the Syria bombing was pretty early on, or at least those first missile strikes, so I didn't see those as related. His foreign interventionalism, contrary to campaign promises, was disappointing from the get-to.)


    The investigators themselves pretended not to know and went on to use extensive powers, e.g. destroy (or at least question) attorney-client privilege, and influenced public policy to a very large degree.
     
    That's standard politics nowadays, unfortunately. You don't get into that situation in the first place, by allowing the scum who want to take you down to work for you! It's freakin' retarded!

    9/11 is a whole nother story that I don't want to get into here. The JFK assassination almost could not NOT have been some kind of conspiracy. Finally,

    The majority of the voting public TV watchers didn’t know
     
    There, FIFY to make a point. If people didn't mindlessly give the infotainment industry so much credibility and let them selves get sucked into the whole thing like it's some soap opera, then their common sense would have told them the same as me: it's just the standard lefty strategy to push whatever narrative it takes to distract and confuse.

    Replies: @reiner Tor

    we are not arguing about much

    I agree, I was perhaps nitpicking from the get-go.

    My point is that Russiagate was not a real conspiracy (though it started out as such, as the venerable commenter Jack D pointed out, and it probably contained elements of a conspiracy to the last minute), but it worked pretty much like one: it changed the news cycle, it changed people’s perceptions, it was used to influence the outcome of elections, etc. etc., all the while requiring the cooperation of a vast number of individuals. It’s not a real conspiracy, it’s pretty transparent for most right-wing people. (I count myself in it, but you need to be aware that the “we” is a pretty small circle of people here at Unz, or even if you include masses of Republicans, it was still less than half the US population. Or, for that matter, people worldwide. Most Europeans, including intelligent individuals, who followed the news, certainly believed it. It’s pretty unfortunate, but smart left-wing people or smart normies who don’t care much for politics never figured out that it was a sham from the beginning.)

    If people didn’t mindlessly give the infotainment industry so much credibility and let them selves get sucked into the whole thing like it’s some soap opera

    If.

  88. @songbird
    We need to call a meeting of grammarians and philogists to answer two questions:

    What do you call it when a conspiracy is out in the open from the start? (Plenty of examples in the political sphere.)

    Also, what do you call it when they don't coordinate by meeting, but seemingly by instinct. I like the term "conspiracy of instinct." But I've never been good at coining phrases.

    Replies: @Yngvar, @reiner Tor

    What do you call it when a conspiracy is out in the open from the start?

    We could call it a transpiracy.

    • Agree: songbird
  89. @J.Ross
    @Desiderius

    Sure maintaining the nomination took more than just Clinton, just like the rigging itself did. Clinton had her own apparatus, was an up and coming power within the party, and had major allies like Debbie Wasserman-Schulz and CNN. The not-Republican Obama administration was doing plenty of illegal things to help her. I don't see a need (or a function) for a Republican.

    Replies: @Desiderius

    As far as I can tell, Obama’s involvement was later/grudging. He didn’t take Trump seriously until after the election and didn’t care to help Hillary against Bernie. To get the total media shutdown they did that took broad IC involvement and that means Rs.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    @Desiderius

    Also explains why any mention of Seth Rich will get one excommunicated from Republican circles. That’s where the crux is.

    , @J.Ross
    @Desiderius

    Obama had Trump roasted at one of the numerous press parties and wiretapped him. Had he helped Hillary any more he'd have dronestruck Bernie.

    , @J.Ross
    @Desiderius

    >total media shutdown requires republicans
    Are we talking about the same newsmedia that was all in the bag for her turn and literally had undeclared campaign staffers or their spouses working at the networks? They need Republicans? For what, to park cars?

  90. @Desiderius
    @J.Ross

    As far as I can tell, Obama’s involvement was later/grudging. He didn’t take Trump seriously until after the election and didn’t care to help Hillary against Bernie. To get the total media shutdown they did that took broad IC involvement and that means Rs.

    Replies: @Desiderius, @J.Ross, @J.Ross

    Also explains why any mention of Seth Rich will get one excommunicated from Republican circles. That’s where the crux is.

  91. @Desiderius
    @J.Ross

    As far as I can tell, Obama’s involvement was later/grudging. He didn’t take Trump seriously until after the election and didn’t care to help Hillary against Bernie. To get the total media shutdown they did that took broad IC involvement and that means Rs.

    Replies: @Desiderius, @J.Ross, @J.Ross

    Obama had Trump roasted at one of the numerous press parties and wiretapped him. Had he helped Hillary any more he’d have dronestruck Bernie.

  92. @Desiderius
    @J.Ross

    As far as I can tell, Obama’s involvement was later/grudging. He didn’t take Trump seriously until after the election and didn’t care to help Hillary against Bernie. To get the total media shutdown they did that took broad IC involvement and that means Rs.

    Replies: @Desiderius, @J.Ross, @J.Ross

    >total media shutdown requires republicans
    Are we talking about the same newsmedia that was all in the bag for her turn and literally had undeclared campaign staffers or their spouses working at the networks? They need Republicans? For what, to park cars?

  93. Anonymous[584] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous
    @Jack D

    The U.S. government has covered up the Las Vegas shooting. We know nothing about Stephen Paddock or his motivations. We don't know what was on his computer. We don't know how his woman is free even though it was proved she was with him in his hotel room. We don't know why the Mexican guy lied, then was given a short press tour, then shuffled off into obscurity. We don't know why the Las Vegas sheriff was told to keep quiet. We know jack shit about this crime, which could not possibly have happened alone.

    THAT is not the law in America. We have the right to know what happened and see that *all parties are prosecuted. If the government is keeping a lid on the investigation, that is a conspiracy in itself.

    And, yes, I do believe in most of the popular conspiracies that finger the United States government because they are provably true. Ryan Dawson has proved beyond shadow of a doubt the government's cover up of 9/11. It just depends on if you have the desire to find out.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    The most plausible explanation is that the guy was a lunatic Trump-hater killing people he thought were Trump-supporters, and that there has been a bipartisan attempt to cover this up, lest some lunatic Trump-supporter decide to get revenge in kind. Is this really a bad thing? Surely it’s good to avoid stirring up crazies?

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS