>snowden leaks, NSA metadata spying, MKultra all are described as "nutjob" theories
Is this true, in any real numbers?
Is this true, in any real numbers?
Posting a wild theory about al Qaeda and three letter agencies and US 'neoconservative' foreign policy on September 10th 2001 is at least interesting, if not exactly hard evidence you know anything. Posting one on September 12th 2001 isn't an indication of you having been aware of anything more than the news cycle.
They're hardly new. The QAnon/Pizzagate "adrenochrome" conspiracy theory is just the old Jewish blood libel with a slightly scifi modernization and a touch of the 80s Satanic panic.
Case in point:
> They're hardly new. The QAnon/Pizzagate "adrenochrome" conspiracy theory is just the old Jewish blood libel with a slightly scifi modernization and a touch of the 80s Satanic panic.
It is not possible to possess this knowledge, as it is a reference to the beliefs of potentially millions of people. And yet to the (standard) human mind, the exact opposite seems true.
It is strange that our whole world runs on this phenomenon, but it seems like it is not possible to get anyone to discuss the phenomenon. Granted, expecting someone who is suffering from the phenomenon to acknowledge it at the time that it occurs isn't terribly realistic, and I can accept that. But the weird part to me is that it is rarely possible to get anyone to acknowledge the phenomenon....it is very much like the fable of the emperor having no clothes, but in real life, right here and now.
I know, that's my point (of "It is not possible to possess this knowledge, as it is a reference to the beliefs of potentially millions of people"). One HAS TO use one's imagination to perform such an "analysis"....but it is imagined - the very thing (the imaginary, and some actual) conspiracy theorists are mocked for!
If the topic was something other than conspiracy theories (or any culture war topic), presenting one's imagination as fact would not stand on Hacker News...but when the topic is a culture war one, this standard inverts: then, acceptable norms to a large degree change to "imagination is ok, but appeals to truth are considered bad/unacceptable/weird".
> We've seen the blood libel crop up over and over again for literally thousands of years, and here it is again.
Where is it? Can you point it out in a way that I also can see it?
And how did it get here, by you making a reference to it?
In the late 80s/very early 90s there were people in Usenet’s alt.sex who told of their participation, as children, in wealthy sex rings. One in particular made claims that he had been well-compensated, in that he was also provided an excellent education and developed the connections to the wealthy and powerful that ensured his outstanding success in adult life.
These theories are (a) not new and (b) IMO likely true. Having seen what humans are capable of doing to one another, I have absolutely no doubt that there is a cadre of powerful people who use child rape to gain blackmail material, ensure loyalty, and to get their sick jollies off.
I am always surprised by those who express doubt. Have they not watched the news? Humans can do the most horrific things for pleasure, let alone power and wealth.
But there's a big difference between that and various very grand theories about certain US politicians that claim the story of Epstein is new evidence and corroboration, not old news and inspiration.