I’ve been contemplating a piece (or maybe a couple of pieces) on conspiracy theory and skepticism. However, I just don’t have time to write a longer essay right now (hopefully over the summer). But, the other day I was listening to a podcast which both entertained and frustrated me, so I thought I’d write a short piece here as a kind of appetizer.
The podcast in question is The Conspiracy Skeptic, Episode 96 from July 10, 2022. TCS is hosted by Karl Mamer and publishes episodes on an occasional basis. The (ostensible) topic for this Episode was the Georgia Guidestones and was prompted by the destruction of the Guidestones the previous week. I say ostensible, because this podcast became a kind of freewheeling conversation between Mamer and his guest—Blake Smith—on a number of topics including skepticism in general. Smith is one of the co-hosts (and founders) of Monster Talk (MT generally publishes a new episode every week). The two obviously know—and respect—each other which gives their conversation a terrific dynamism. I don’t know either Mamer or Smith and I don’t listen to every episode of either podcast (I listen to ones on topics which interest me), but both strike me as decent, friendly, and—for the most part—thoughtful people.
I picked this podcast for a number of reasons. First, some of the discussion of the Guidestones themselves was interesting as were the discussions about tech in general, and their thoughts on skepticism. However, the two of them also manage to demonstrate woeful misunderstandings about a number of things. For example, in part of their general discussion, the two express their dismay about opposition to diversity noting that humanity’s understanding of the world is better achieved when multiple disciplines (hard sciences, humanities, social sciences) come together, bringing diverse viewpoints and so opening doors that a single discipline wouldn’t be able to. Now, this statement is somewhat astonishing – for two reasons. First, the people who, in 2022, were promoting ideas of diversity were most definitely not talking about what Mamer and Smith are espousing (and I think Mamer and Smith are spot on with what they say). So how can two skeptics make such an anodyne, and somewhat ignorant, observation?
The second reason for my astonishment is that, during the discussion of the Guidestones, Smith notes one of the things that is most perplexing is that all the statements on the Guidestones are fairly progressive but there are two statements, one about maintaining the world’s population around 500 million and a second about “guide reproduction wisely” that don’t seem to fit this progressive framework. Remember, they are promoting cross-disciplinary thinking. Perhaps if Smith had spoken to a couple of historians, he might have understood how progressive thinkers could hold these two views (N.B. [i] there is absolutely no reason to think that Smith or Mamer hold these views; [ii] I do not believe that most modern progressives hold views that are anywhere close to the earlier eugenicists. My comment is simply about historical context).
Another topic that comes up in the more general discussion is (of course) Donald Trump. Smith makes a clever, and very quick-witted pun/observation implying that Trump has committed treason against the US. How can anyone who claims to think rationally still hold to that belief in 2022? (the whole Trump-Russia thing was ridiculous from the beginning, but to hold it in 2022 is embarrassing).
One final part of the discussion I wanted to note, and one reason I picked on this podcast, is that Smith, as part of a longer conversation about tech, makes some observations about Silicon Valley and its history (this starts about the 42-minute mark of the podcast). As part of this, Smith asserts that Silicon Valley basically operates on libertarian lines and embraces the “survival of the fittest.” His observations get even worse from there. In fact, if a libertarian media producer asked me to write a script which was a parody of those who criticize libertarianism, he’d throw this out as being too over the top. I’ll let you listen for yourself, its only about 5 minutes. But part of Smith’s argument is that libertarians don’t value community (he, I assume, has never read Bastiat or heard of the Cajun Navy).
Now, I want to acknowledge that this podcast is basically two people, who live in the same world, shooting the breeze. Because of this, they make some observations that are not as thoughtful as they might be in a more formal presentation (just like some of us do here). But, if you’re going to emphasize rational and logical thought, be prepared to be critiqued when you stray from your own values.
I do want to conclude by noting, again, that both seem like good people and I’d love to have a drink with them some time and talk about this stuff. And, further, both podcasts are terrific and worth checking out.
Eugenics and population control as progressive ideas isn’t even talking hundred of years ago, it’s from relatively modern times.
And they’ve racked up an impressive body count to show for it.
They’re still views held by the average leftist, even if they won’t say it out loud.
1) “overpopulation” commonly dribbles out their mouths when talking climate change.
2) their whole abortion stance in relation to poverty, developmental disability, and rape babies points to eugenics thinking.
I’ll disagree with your second point – they don’t support abortion out of any sense of social hygiene (the hallmark of eugenicists). I think it is much more about not wanting to deal with what life throws at you; it is the vain attempt to have control and order as they imagine it, personally.
The ironic thing is the advanced world is reducing fertility – so the argument loses it’s own vitality.
Yeah. The current abortion as sacrament doesn’t come across as the eugenic mindset. When they start talking about requiring licenses for parents or mandating the “correct” way to raise children, a little more so.
But… if you listen to some AWFL’s, and they think you’re a
rightprog thinker, they’ll have no problem saying how we need to keep abortion around because the less fortunate just can’t handle the responsibilities of birth control. It’s not a far hop from that to eugenics.That last part is what I’m referring to. The strain of abortion apologetics that makes sociological arguments for it being “better if they were never born at all” because the kid would be born into a tough situation, whether that be economic or physical.
I find it just as plausible that the mother is saying – this is not a hand I want to play, no matter how it was dealt.
You guys are missing the point. I’m not saying that it’s the only argument made.
I’m simply saying that there is a strain of argumentation used by some leftists in support of abortion that essentially says it is immoral to bring poor and disabled children into the world, and that it is virtuous to kill them. Usually, its a two part argument. Part one is that its better for the baby to be aborted than to live such a bad existence. The second is that its better for society since we dont have to divert limited social safety net resources to support those kids as they grow up. That is eugenics 101.
trshmnstr:
I agree with you on this to a point. But I think it’s more self-interested ignorance to not follow their beliefs to the logical conclusion.
I’d say the progs who believe in licenses for parents so that we can make sure that only the proper people reproduce are more on the full on eugenics bandwagon.
My wife has 2 different AWFL* friends who have both said some version of “minorities aren’t smart enough to make the decision of when to be parents.” *one of the friends is of Italian decent, so not really an AWFL.
As part of this, Smith asserts that Silicon Valley basically operates on libertarian lines and embraces the “survival of the fittest.”
There may have been some small semblance of truth to this a few decades ago, but it’s ludicrous now.
Depends partly on what you consider SV – HP (and others) were there before the manic era. The libertarian streak that did exist was likely do to people who didn’t play well in those kinds of established organizations. Also, as Google went from start up to behemoth, it was never going to stay true to it’s earliest days; it wouldn’t make sense to grow and not change.
And people likeESR reading their personal beliefs into the observed world.
Yeah, I was thinking that – say, the seventies through the eighties.
The Jargon File memorably (to me) asserts with a straight face something similar but I think it too was largely written decades ago.
I think it’s still largely true at the startups level, but not as companies get big.
I would see it true thru most of the 90s. By 2000 or so, it was no longer true.
And to be fair, I used to be a conspiracy skeptic, but the last few years have caused me to adjust my thinking.
The reason I will always be a skeptic about conspiracies is because they require COMPETENCE to execute, and I never seem to find any competent people supposedly at the core (let alone the outer players).
We have verifiable examples of broad based conspiracies. They’re a good baseline to compare against.
If a conspiracy theory requires people to be much less leaky and much more coordinated than Journolist or Covid, it’s a red flag.
IMO, the biggest indicator that there may actually be truth to a conspiracy is when TPTB come down like a hammer on the people speaking heterodox views.
Shut up, it was the most secure election EVER!!!
The Cathedral never values dissent, or is there something in 2000 years of Catholic history I’ve missed?
970 years, but who’s counting
Huh?
Perhaps this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East–West_Schism
Looks like he’s referencing the Great Schism – though presumably “Catholic history” is longer than that.
Yeah, never mind the Oriental Catholic schism before that, with the non-trinitarians. Which of course is the point – crushing heresy.
Common behavior, or even work to a shared goal shouldn’t be construed as a conspiracy IMO. A conspiracy is something always that is either hidden, or exposed with a hypocritical facade – and works ONLY to the benefit of the conspirators, not any larger group. Maybe I’m hung up on semantics?
Could be, but it seems that most of these conspiracies aren’t really hidden very well, because as you noted that’s difficult for any large group to pull off. Rather, as evidence comes out they simply go into flat out lying and denial of facts, while the media carries water.
Again, to an extent that indicates it is in service of a larger agenda. The professional management class – all college indoctrinated – have class interests, and those aren’t particularly hidden. Lying about them is just another polite fiction – we have lots of those.
Even the obvious progressive beliefs in conflict – MOAR democracy and rule of experts. To anyone that thinks, that can think, about that – it’s insane. Unless of course you believe that no one should believe any different than you do. And wouldn’t you know, that’s a pretty common human trait.
and works ONLY to the benefit of the conspirators, not any larger group.
I’d quibble on this part.
I’d define a conspiracy as
-a conscious coordination
-by multiple people or entities
-to achieve an unstated goal by manipulation or subterfuge,
-where the unstated goal would be considered scandalous or otherwise highly undesirable by impacted third parties if it were to be stated outright.
I’m sure this is a bit overbroad, but it’s as close as I’m gonna get tapping something out on my phone in less than 5 min.
Again, maybe I’m really indulging a semantic argument. But I do have a reason. Conspiracies provide scapegoats, and scapegoating is another perennial human disaster.
Along those lines:
“if you put the murdered President of the United States on one side of a scale and that wretched waif Oswald on the other side, it doesn’t balance. You want to add something weightier to Oswald. It would invest the President’s death with meaning, endowing him with martyrdom. He would have died for something.
A conspiracy would, of course, do the job nicely.”
A faculty hiring committee that never hires Republicans?
A bureaucracy that protects itself from outside control?
An HR department that is all in on the latest Social Justice fad?
Don’t exist? Not conspiracies? Inhumanly competent?
Hire someone that isn’t like us good-thinkers? Why would we want to do that?
So – EVERY bureaucracy.
A corporate function that didn’t exist pre WWII is just faddish you say?
I think it is perfectly possible for conspirators to delude themselves that their machinations are for the greater good. In fact, I bet it’s quite common. The people running the censorship op during/since the last election kept it secret and to a pretty small group, but I have no doubt most if not all of them believed it was for the greater good. Nobody is the villain in their own story, and all that.
I also think that intending to working solely to benefit the conspirators can also have side effects that benefit others. Isn’’t that basically the invisible hand hypothesis -work to make a profit for yourself, and society will also benefit?
So I think that requirement for a conspiracy invalidates a whole lot of activities that would be considered conspiratorial.
And it should. The invisible hand is not driven by a secret cabal – so no, that’s not conspiratorial at all. This is precisely the problem with taking normal and [at least semi-] benign behavior and crafting into a conspiracy narrative.
I think you have an underlying assumption that conspiratorial behavior must necessarily be rare.
I see it as a likely outcome of normal human behaviors in certain circumstances that aren’t all that rare at all. Such as when something needs to be covered up, or when cutting corners or flat out lying can lead to a big payoff.
Now, groupthink dynamics aren’t conspiracies, although they can sure look like them from outside. There needs to be a level of conscious intentionality for a conspiracy, in my book.
How would the Jeffrey Epstein scandal tie into this working definition?
That may really be an example of a conspiracy. Again – it benefits very, very few.
That could be the difference between a conspiracy theory now versus decades ago.
It is now fairly well established that the CIA had a hand in killing JFK. But those were competent people who kept their mouths shut and covered their tracks.
These days, a conspiracy theorist can be a doctor who says take chloroquine and ivermectin for covid. Sure the media can smear them and “debunk” what they say. They’ll yell it so often and so convincingly that most news watchers believe it. But a few minutes of research will tell you who is lying.
First, the people who, in 2022, were promoting ideas of diversity were most definitely not talking about what Mamer and Smith are espousing (and I think Mamer and Smith are spot on with what they say). So how can two skeptics make such an anodyne, and somewhat ignorant, observation?
In a world where “diversity” is intended to result in something exactly opposite…
From the ded thred, Raven Nation is interviewing for the next hour or so and won’t be here.
#castingcouch
Thanks GL
I’m with WTF. I never bought into them until 2020 when my buddy “Conspiracy Bob” was right about everything.
He not only predicted the lockdowns, ensuing power grabs and election shenanigans, he had worked in pharma and warned against the types of vaccines being developed.
He was right and it’s slowly leaking out. I notice the media (British in this case) likes to use the word “rare” often without actual numbers.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/rare-side-effects-astrazeneca-covid-vaccine-b2541998.html
Consider the irony of who was sitting in the presidency then and how he stepped back rather than lead. It was Trump that didn’t want the glare of the spotlights – because he wasn’t getting laughs or applause – and handed it over to the bureaucratic munchkin.
Yep. He might be the least worst alternative but he’s no savior.
I’m with WTF. I never bought into them until 2020 when my buddy “Conspiracy Bob” was right about everything.
Moi aussi. Five-ten years ago, I would have sneered at the suggestion that vaccines cause autism, or HIV is not the root cause of AIDS. Now? It’s at least plausible. CIA assassinated JFK? Very unlikely. Now? More likely than not. I think my journey into tinfoil hat territory started in the nutrition space – they’ve lied to us for decades and have likely caused a large amount of human suffering as a result. The Covid-19 response and behavior cemented the deal.
But I’m not sure I’d call it ‘conspiracy theories’ – I reserve that for the fake moon landing and flat earth. I’m not more susceptible to conspiracy theories (and tinfoil-hat whack-a-doodle image that phrase implies), I’ve just realized more and more how often and thoroughly people in power lie and manipulate for their own ends. To me that’s a better awareness of reality, not conspiracy. Even with my head start with an obstinate, contrarian, libertarian constitution, I was still way too trusting of authority and expertise. I like to think I still am trusting of VALID authority and expertise – it’s just that it’s become clear that many of those who claim those mantles have neither.
Tucker a few weeks ago: Has an Amish kid (no vaccinations) ever been diagnosed with autism? Won’t get an answer from our betters on that one.
Yet how many children get vaccines (at least the old course, like you and I did) and never developed it?
— wiki
Shit has been around a long time.
I’ve been reading literature that postulates that it’s not thiomersal or any particular vaccine, but rather in a certain percentage of the population multiple vaccines can cause a cascading effect on the underdeveloped immune system that causes the autism. And the incidence has increased due to the ever expanding schedule of childhood vaccines which is much more extensive than decades ago.
Which is still in the realm of correlation, not causation. Anytime we know that, we know we need to tread carefully.
And hell, I’m appalled at the current vaccination regime for children. Given what the vaccine is for – Hep vax should not be given to every child.
But affixing the moniker of ‘conspiracy theory’ to the postulate is not ‘treading carefully’ or properly worrying about causation vs. correlation. It is designed exclusively to put the postulate out of the realm of respectable conversation. And there are 2 reasons to want it out of the realm of reasonable conversation – 1) it would be terribly harmful to deny 6 month olds 20 shots to protect them and 2) Well if this turns out to be true, we really screwed the pooch and caused a huge amount of harm through our ignorance and hubris – that’s not very palatable to our sense of well being, so let’s just dismiss it out of hand.
On a different note, yes, correlation is not causation, but a population level temporal correlation is a very good reason to dig further.
but a population level temporal correlation is a very good reason to dig further.
So I guess there is no ongoing research into autism and its cause(s)?
So I guess there is no ongoing research into autism and its cause(s)?
Scanned above looking for where I said that. Didn’t find it.
Will you get NIH funding if you explicitly want to look for a link between autism and vaccines? Maybe, but probably not.
Will you be ostracized if you think it’s possible? (looks around at the anti-vaxx kooks so labled)… Probably.
Will people with something to lose via 2) or convinced they are doing good via 1) skew research to arrive a pre-defined conclusion? (looks around a study design for diets. Looks around at the study design on ivermectin and HCQ). Probably.
Is that a conspiracy theory? I guess so, by your definition. But all of those (funding bias, being ostracized, skewing studies – p-hacking is a term for a reason) happen in the real world.
One other thing that is kinda relevant – peanut allergy. That didn’t exist when I was a kid, or it was so rare, that it was a fluke. It isn’t anymore. What has driven that?
Will you be ostracized if you think it’s possible?
Because the leading voice(s) for that have proven to be not credible?
Because even if there is a link, the number of vaccinated and non-autistic still dwarf the number of autistic children? Which means while it MAY be a factor, it isn’t a cause.
My point, inartfully stated, was there is indeed research (i.e. digging deeper). If funding isn’t going into research that has been fruitless to date – is that really a conspiracy?
Because even if there is a link, the number of vaccinated and non-autistic still dwarf the number of autistic children? Which means while it MAY be a factor, it isn’t a cause.
By this standard, smoking doesn’t cause cancer or emphysema.
One thing that seems to be skipped over in this: we’ve learned over time that humans don’t all react exactly the same to all biological inputs – food, drugs, etc. To say that vaccines cause autism isn’t (at least in the more rational viewpoint) saying that a single vaccine given to any individual will cause that individual to become autistic. It (should?) say “Giving huge quantities of vaccines to all infants *will* cause autism in some number of them”.
One thing that seems to be skipped over in this: we’ve learned over time that humans don’t all react exactly the same to all biological inputs – food, drugs, etc. To say that vaccines cause autism isn’t (at least in the more rational viewpoint) saying that a single vaccine given to any individual will cause that individual to become autistic. It (should?) say “Giving huge quantities of vaccines to all infants *will* cause autism in some number of them”.
Which means while it MAY be a factor, it isn’t a cause.
Again semantics – factor vs cause. How are you defining cause vs factor?
The fact that the non-autistic that have been subjected to the full current child-hood vaccine schedule far outnumber the autistic is not really relevant. All that is required is that some non-zero segment of the population is sensitive to the overload of the immune system from the schedule and that activates pathways to autism. Much like some segment of the population was ‘sensitive’ to covid (mostly through co-morbidities) and died while the vast majority exposed to it didn’t and many never got sick. Or some segment of the population, for whatever reason, was susceptible to vaccine injury. In both cases, the populations exposed to the insult that suffered no obvious impact is much larger than the affected population – that doesn’t mean that the smaller population wasn’t killed by covid or injured by the vaccine.
fruitless to date
I haven’t dug deeply into this research literature, only peripherally. However, I think a plausible mechanism has been pretty well established. And I think a lot of people ignore or dismiss that research because of the implications (my point 2 way above). And the people responsible for funding medical research are very much in camp 2 so are incentivized to dismiss regardless of presence or absence of fruit. Now I realize much of this puts me firmly in the camp of conspiracy theorist by your definition – I’m adding epicycles to explain why all the respectable folks don’t take the connection seriously. And I think that comes back to being more susceptible to ‘conspiracy theories’ – I have look more deeply into the e.g. ivermectin and HCQ literature and it is manifestly true that the respectable folks specifically designed studies to downplay any positive outcome and ostracized people pointing out the good data – and empirical observation – that they worked. Would the same people do the same for the link between the explosion in the childhood vaccine schedule and autism? In my opinion, absolutely. Again, I’m not going to claim that the link is true and established, nor even more likely than not. But is it plausible? Yes. Would the establishment medical system lie and obfuscate to suppress any real connection. Absolutely. If that makes me a conspiracy theorist in your book, I guess I’ll learn to live with that!
Thanks for the discussion, but if I continue from work, I may involuntarily retired….
smoking doesn’t cause cancer
Oddly enough, having lost both of our parents to lung cancer, my oldest brother – turning 76 in a couple of months – still smokes and has no sign of such.
According to the pronouncements of experts I should have a whole host of health issues from second-hand smoke exposure, never mind the occasional cigar I indulge in myself. Oh, more “information” from the public health authorities. Lousy fucking priests in my opinion.
I think a plausible mechanism
What? I thought you said it was indeed correlation at this point. The problem as I understand it – and certainly I have no depth – is that the mechanism is still a mystery.
Dr. Drew (if you consider him a reputable source) said that only 9% of smokers get lung cancer.
I don’t know if it would do your brother any good to quit now.
9% chance of getting a truly horrible disease is a really bad bet.
Pretty sure the Amish parents would just work the devil out of him.
Speaking of the Amish, they seem to be spilling out of PA and settling in central MD.
They’ve been here in Ohio for as long as I’ve been alive. One of my favorite news stories growing up was when a group of them were running a cocaine ring and were smuggling it on their buggies, since they generally weren’t going to get pulled over and searched by the cops.
Well yes, I just mean they have never had a presence in MD except for a weekend market, but now they own a bunch of farms.
Not to mention the mid-west and in-Mexico communities.
I hate how “autistic” ranges from profoundly mentally retarded to “quirky.”
If everybody’s autistic, nobody’s autistic.
Bipolar, I’m in a good mood, I was in a bad mood,
BiPolar!
Isaac Newton never had a vaccine, and he was clearly on the spectrum.
I been watching a lot of Youtube biographies of notable 19th asnd 20th century scientists and mathematicians and this issue popped into my mind; how many would now be diagnosed with autism? Dirac and von Neumann are two that were at least a bit strange.
CIA assassinated JFK?
I’ll say that you can imagine that, but how can you imagine that J. Edgar would’ve simply let that pass. If anyone ran a shadow intel component, he did. Now you have to argue that he was at least compromised to keep him quiet, or otherwise was in on the whole thing.
The next big question is how was Earl Warren roped in.
Maybe because once it was a fait accompli they all had a stake in preventing a crisis and collapse of the system as a result of the reaction to such an event.
See, that’s the problem. Think of the glory open to the one who found out and exposed it. That is a huge motivation, much bigger than being an accomplice, even after the fact.
Is it though? Or is it a way to be dismissed and destroyed as a crank and possibly “suicided”? I think you may underestimate the motivation of those in power to maintain the status quo and the lengths they’ll go to enforce their will. If they’re willing to assassinate a sitting president what wouldn’t they do?
Now we are back to how the central characters are both super competent and super malevolent. Its almost like Satan himself was playing with the mere mortals.
Gee, what on Earth could they possibly have had on J. Ed? 🤔
Oddly enough, no one was ever able to use that.
Are you sure? You could only reveal it once. No limit to uses before that.
With the enemies that man had, it would’ve been used in his lifetime – at least to make him step down.
Didn’t say I wholeheartedly believe. But is it possible? Absolutely, even it one judges it unlikely, even if they just got the ball rolling/nudged in the right direction with a higher probability than not that it would end up where it did. The people in those positions would absolutely do that and much, much worse if convinced – for whatever reason – that it was a good thing to do. I think that’s more my point – the realization of just how vile the people in those positions can be; that’s how conspiracy theories become more plausible. With that realization, one cannot simply dismiss them without careful consideration.
Personally, I’d be perhaps more likely to buy the theory I’ve heard floated that one the SS agents accidentally put a bullet in his head in a panic moment trying to get his weapon out and that was subsequently covered up.
The CIA guy on Tucker the other day said Fidel got JFK. Plausible? I guess.
I’m happily resigned to not knowing exactly what was at play there.
BINGO! A conspiracy is an answer to a seemingly unknowable thing. If you can live with uncertainty, then what does a conspiracy do for you that other explanations, unsatisfying as they are, doesn’t do?
Yeah, I read a version of that quite a while back. There is some plausibility to it. But, I’m definitely now in the camp of Oswald acted alone.
On FIdel: he was in a near panic when he heard about JFK’s death and started making phone calls to get someone to know he had nothing to do with it. He (justifiably) figured LBJ would nuke Cuba if it was thought he was guilty.
Right, but you see, that’s always the problem with a conspiracy theory. It has take any confounding evidence or question and turn it on its head. The true believers never accept a challenge as having validity.
Well, as you say, we are arguing semantics. Trashy’s working definition above fits my ‘definition’ of conspiracy theory. Yours seems to be any postulate that has a predefined conclusion about an event that requires coordination and secrecy on the part of a group. Further, if evidence arises contrary to said predefined conclusion, the purveyors of the postulate will add an epicycle to explain it away. I think in your definition, essentially their can be no real conspiracy theories – they are, essentially by definition, strong beliefs based on no evidence or misinterpreted evidence that is not subject to falsification. If I use that definition of conspiracy theory, we’re in total agreement. If I use trshmnstr’s, I think there are lots of very real, true conspiracy theories out there.
I think it depends on how committed the person is to believing they have the answer to something that may well be unknowable.
And some people will never change their mind once it’s set, no matter how many contradicting facts come up later.
Just look at the Amanda Knox case.
Also, as Google went from start up to behemoth, it was never going to stay true to it’s earliest days; it wouldn’t make sense to grow and not change.
It’s hard to maintain your “us vs them” mentality when you come to the realization that you have become one of them.
/looks at the Democrat party fighting for “the little guy”
But… if you listen to some AWFL’s, and they think you’re a rightprog thinker, they’ll have no problem saying how we need to keep abortion around because the less fortunate just can’t handle the responsibilities of birth control. It’s not a far hop from that to eugenics.
The inferior will always be with us.
Do you like working from home? Do you like organizing things and running stuff? Are you capable of ignoring internet trolls and drama llamas?
Meet the new industrial policy, same as the old industrial policy
In his remarks at Gateway Technical College in Sturtevant, in Racine County, the incumbent Democrat didn’t mention his predecessor by name, but Biden nevertheless took the opportunity to highlight Trump’s “failed promises.”
“They dug a hole with those golden shovels, and then they fell into it,” Biden said at the same location as Trump’s failure. “Foxconn turned out to be just that — a con,” he added.
To be sure, the Democrat seemed pleased to announce the good news, but he seemed especially pleased to succeed where the presumptive GOP nominee failed.
What’s more, this keeps happening.
Victory was declared.
“It’s different when we do it”.
We look forward to your application and the opportunity to welcome a new leader to our team!
I suck at all of those things. When do I start?
I actually wonder how much it pays relative to what Pie is making.
A more general thought on conspiracy theory (I am really going to write a longer article on this):
My wife convinced not to get the covid vaccine. I took her on faith as she’d done a lot of research on it. I think a bunch of pharmaceuticals saw it as an opportunity to get rich. And, the state of panic meant that most of the safety protocols would be bypassed. Once it became apparent that there were serious problems with, a bunch of people closed ranks to protect themselves. I would call the closing of ranks a criminal conspiracy.
The idea that the vaccine (& perhaps the virus) was deliberately engineered to cause massive fatalities to reduce the world population and this was done by the WEF? That’s a conspiracy theory that has no basis in rational thought.
This rings true to me, and confirms my biases.
But see, the normal behavior of corporations (intimately tied to govt) isn’t something conspiratorial – it’s absolutely predictable. Covering ass, corporate or bureaucratic, likewise.
Who said acting conspiratorially to advance your own interests must be rare?
I think the most likely place to find conspiracies is cover-ups. They require secrecy and are to protect some group of insiders. The other place to look for them is fraud, to make a lot of money (or to seize power), which also requires secrecy and benefits insiders. The COVID vaccine nicely fits both situations.
So, until its proven and widely accepted, wouldn’t saying pharma and the government acted to defraud the population and cover it up be a conspiracy theory?
Where did I say rare? On the other hand, is it really as common as breathing? I’m comfortable somewhere in between.
What benefit did big Pharm and govt share? Gov’t simply shared it’s innate lack of accountability (which would be liability for damages that Pharma avoided). Now, some in govt financially benefited from that – which is a happy side effect.
Example, was Theranos a conspiracy?
I would say so.
The idea that the vaccine (& perhaps the virus) was deliberately engineered to cause massive fatalities to reduce the world population and this was done by the WEF?
There’s a huge middle ground between one world government going full Malthus and simple greed with some ass covering on the backend. Some of the simpler conspiracies seem plausible.
I actually do believe that they see people dying was a happy accident.
I don’t disagree with you or Trashy.
And, yes, there’s some middle ground. I was just trying to explain some of the parameters I use. I have seen some stuff out there where people seem to think that covid was a Rainbow 6 situation.
Yeah , those highly coordinated conspiracies are clearly hallucinated.
OTOH, I can’t accept the simple greed explanation based on some of the first-hand info I found/received during that time. The SARS era documentation from WHO was eye opening, as was the “vaccine hesitancy” public sentiment manipulation project my company was offered in Oct 2020.
Nice essay, RN! I look forward to your next ones.
For example, in part of their general discussion, the two express their dismay about opposition to diversity noting that humanity’s understanding of the world is better achieved when multiple disciplines (hard sciences, humanities, social sciences) come together, bringing diverse viewpoints and so opening doors that a single discipline wouldn’t be able to.
Has this ever actually happened? It’s one of those concepts that sounds really nice, but I don’t know that I’ve ever seen it in the wild. Regardless, as you mentioned it has nothing to do with why a lot of us hate Diversity uber alles. Force is force.
I’m no longer a skeptic. Regardless of one’s definition of conspiracy, there are evil people cooperating to create some truly heinous shit. What interests me is how many of these people recognize that what they are doing is evil, or if they are truly convinced of their righteousness.
Yeah, the funny thing is, I don’t have much to say about what RN wrote – it’s all been where we’ve gone from that starting point!
Another conspiracy?
Our lovely German science lady.
My argument is that scientific discovery is on an S-curve. Very little for a long time, then an explosion of discoveries and then it will slow down on a upward slope but not as many and not as quickly as the low hanging fruit was already discovered.
Crime wave
The rate of guns stolen from cars in the U.S. has tripled over the last decade, making them the largest source of stolen guns in the country, an analysis of FBI data by the gun safety group Everytown found.
The rate of stolen guns from cars climbed nearly every year and spiked during the coronavirus pandemic along with a major surge in weapons purchases in the U.S., according to the report, which analyzes FBI data from 337 cities in 44 states and was provided to The Associated Press.
The stolen weapons have, in some cases, turned up at crime scenes. In July 2021, a gun taken from an unlocked car in Riverside, Florida, was used to kill a 27-year-old Coast Guard member as she tried to stop a car burglary in her neighborhood.
The alarming trend underscores the need for Americans to safely secure their firearms to prevent them from getting into the hands of dangerous people, said Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Director Steve Dettelbach, whose agency has separately found links between stolen guns and violent crimes.
The obvious solution is to throw anybody who reports a stolen gun in jail.
Stop putting gun manufacturer, molon labe and 2A stickers all over your vehicles, dummies.
So true.
Reminds me of the people who have brewery stickers all over the back of their car.
Really, you’re wondering why you get pulled over every time you’re driving at night?
“Why did you allow your gun to be stolen”?
Why don’t they just make it mandatory that before you steal a gun, you have to pass a background check?
Mandatory carry to prevent theft.
One of my neighbors told me there had been a spate of guns being stolen from unlocked cars left in driveways overnight.
I’m like, where do i start with all the stupidity in that situation.
That’s inexcusable.
I did that the other day.
I open carry, so I had to take my pistol off before I went into the ABC to get a bottle of tequila(I started making my wife tequila sunrises and she really likes them).
I put it in the door of my truck, and since that was my last stop I didn’t put it back on. When I got home, I forgot it was there.
Luckily I don’t live in a neighborhood and my truck was in the garage, but I felt stupid the next day when I went to get ready and had to think about where my 1911 was.
Do we know if this is particular to guns, or are thefts from cars in general tripled?
Nice post, but…
And, further, both podcasts are terrific and worth checking out.
You convinced me to pass on these dum-dums.
Also from last month: The relationship between team diversity and team performance TLDR: diversity generally does not make teams better.
The recipe for “getting shit done” includes a cohesive group of people with complimentary skills and experiences. So, diversity of talent is important. But that’s not what “diversity” means to most do-gooders today.
An all black group is considered very diverse by those idiots.
Even though they really only play rugby well?
*rimshot*
Well, just to add to your pass: I forgot to mention in the article that there is also an exchange between the two that is about the best misunderstanding about bitcoin I’ve ever heard.
Again, people can say whatever they want. But, if you’re going to market yourself as a skeptic, you might want to do a little research before you start spouting off in public.
I enjoyed the article, but nothing you wrote makes me want to listen to the podcasts.
I’ll add that my bias is strongly against listening to anybody who uses the word “skeptic” to describe themselves.
So, you’re skeptical of the skeptics?
/Tears up Liar’s Club application
I tried to listen, but that app is part of a conspiracy to get my credit card number.
I was trying to find a website rather than a player. They’re both on Apple podcasts and, I think, Spotify, for free.
No worries – I’ll look around later when work isn’t so needy.
I have seen some stuff out there where people seem to think that covid was a Rainbow 6 situation.
I do not believe it was created and released as part of some WEF world domination plot. I think the lab leak theory is much more plausible than a bad batch of bat’s wing soup. The response was a whirlwind of self-interest and power grabbing.
Yeah, I pretty much agree with this. It was definitely one of those “never let a crisis go to waste.” And that politicians and other criminals immediately went to a power grab and at least half the country cheered them on eroded whatever faith I had left in democracy.
“The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false-face for the urge to rule it. Power is what all messiahs really seek: not the chance to serve.”
The response was something that was being rehearsed (table-top) several years beforehand.
Like the “Patriot Act” that they had immediately after 9/11?
Ask Biden about that.
I’m sure of that. But I also think politicians (governors) really got into the power trip. And pharma companies wrote themselves a blank check that had zero liability. And the three-letter agencies saw a great opportunity to push their censorship agenda. You could probably write an encyclopedia of assholery about this.
encyclopedia of assholery
Excellent album title.
Cake’s third-best.
Was thinking Fountains of Wayne, but that’s good too.
I’m with you both. And instead of one evil group, a bunch of evil groups took advantage of the situation. It just so happened that a lot of people’s interests lined up.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
H. L. Mencken
That man had great insight.
My response to you just above is also Mencken.
I used to think that Oswald killed JFK alone, but I no longer think so. I think he may have been aware that something was going down, but I don’t think he actually shot anyone. What testimony we have from him is that he didn’t shoot anyone—either JFK or Tippit. That was when he was in the hallway, talking to reporters. Earliest notes from his interrogation (of which we have no recording or transcript) says he said he was on the first floor when the motorcade passed by.
Why would he admit to shooting him if he was trying to get away with it?
What was his motive for shooting the President?
What would you expect him to say if he didn’t actually shoot the President?
The response was something that was being rehearsed (table-top) several years beforehand.
I have mentioned this before. Early on, there was a very interesting article, in Nature, I believe, about the vast global ecosystem of plague LARPers official and NGO who had spent decades eagerly awaiting such an opportunity.
I wouldn’t be at all surprised if that article has been memory-holed.
If you look at some of those press conferences and interviews, they looked positively giddy about the whole thing.
Like cops going on a SWAT raid (I will never have the Jose Guerena video out of my head).
Bullshit thrown back in Hunter’s face.
He needs to show up for the trial in just the scarf and jock strap.
Everyone should.