• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Conspiracy Theories & Democracy

qanon goes time travelling.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/how-a-trash-talking-upstart-infuriated-qanon-boomers

"Steinbart initially said he was just following QAnon clues. More recently, though, he’s claimed that he actually is Q. How does that make sense? Well... time travel.

In Steinbart’s telling, Q is Steinbart from the future, who’s traveled back in time to leave present-day Steinbart clues."
 
qanon goes time travelling.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/how-a-trash-talking-upstart-infuriated-qanon-boomers
"Steinbart initially said he was just following QAnon clues. More recently, though, he’s claimed that he actually is Q. How does that make sense? Well... time travel. In Steinbart’s telling, Q is Steinbart from the future, who’s traveled back in time to leave present-day Steinbart clues."
This is far and away the most cogent and plausible answer to the question "who is Q" that I have heard to date.
 
Steinbart—dubbed “Baby Q” by his fans—claimed he could get away with anything because he was a super-spy for Trump. In online arguments, Steinbart insisted he should have been arrested “100 times over” for his actions. And the fact that he hadn’t been arrested for, say, threatening to kill the Queen of Denmark was proof that Trump had given him immunity from prosecution.

“Seems like I should have been ARRESTED by now, eh?” Steinbart tweeted to one of his foes in late March, adding a sarcastic thinking-face emoji.

A few days later, FBI agents arrested him.


https://www.thedailybeast.com/baby-qanon-was-just-arrested
 
Worse (and this part of the story should be tattooed on the heads of Russia truthers), the FBI’s interviews of Steele’s sources revealed Steele embellished the most explosive parts of his report.

The “pee tape” story, which inspired countless grave headlines (see this chin-scratching New York Times history of Russian “sexual blackmail”) and plunged the Trump presidency into crisis before it began, was, this source said, based a “conversation that [he/she] had over beers,” with the sexual allegations made… in “jest”!

Steele in his report said the story had been “confirmed” by senior, Western hotel staff, but the actual source said it was all “rumor and speculation,” never confirmed. In fact, charged by Steele to find corroboration, the source could not: corroboration was “zero,” writes Horowitz

https://www.rollingstone.com/politi...s-media-924944/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
 
How prescient the opening post of this thread turned out to be.

From the time that the candidates were being selected for the last US election onwards, political debate has shifted its emphasis from different interpretations of, and reactions to, a broad consensus on the objective facts and figures, to a situation in which the sides are saying, to paraphrase Groucho Marx, "These are my facts, and if you don't like them, I have others."

There is an important difference between "conspiracy theory" and "the theory that there is a conspiracy." It is self evident that conspiracies sometimes happen, and that sometimes "conspiracy" is a valid theory to explain a given set of circumstances or events. However, the "conspiracy theorist" is predisposed to look for and believe in conspiracies in preference to considering the facts and evidence dispassionately.

It is natural human behaviour for politicians and parties to attempt to conceal or distort unfavourable facts; for big business to try to subvert the regulatory process; and for an "establishment" to tend to preserve itself in the face of challenges. This is only the same instinct as an iron age tribe building a hill fort to keep its people and livestock safe from other tribes. This is not the same as saying that there is an overarching conspiracy and that the world is being run from behind the scenes by a mysterious cabal of faceless men in grey suits — whether from Harvard, Eton, the Masons or the Illuminati.

However, when we reach a situation in which politicians can flatly deny established facts in the face of evidence, and cry "conspiracy" without presenting evidence to support it, democracy suffers. I fear the west — led by the USA — is moving into a period in which alleging "conspiracy" or "fake news" is seen as a legitimate basis for dismissing any evidence that is deemed unfavourable.

If this continues, the whole basis for rational political debate and carefully considered voting goes straight out of the window, and with it, democracy. We have fought wars in the last few decades to promote western-style democracy. However, we don't display it to best advantage.
 
Last edited:
I watched the first episode of Van Der Walk the other night..in the show he said, 'All politicians should be shot'.
A bit drastic but after all the crap in my country lately I understand the feeling..
.;)
 
Last edited:
However, when we reach a situation in which politicians can flatly deny established facts in the face of evidence, and cry "conspiracy" without presenting evidence to support it, democracy suffers. I fear the west — led by the USA — is moving into a period in which alleging "conspiracy" or "fake news" is seen as a legitimate basis for dismissing any evidence that is deemed unfavourable.

If this continues, the whole basis for rational political debate and carefully considered voting goes straight out of the window, and with it, democracy.
To be honest, I think that has been the situation for at least two decades. And the media are complicit, because extremes sell.

Obviously getting in to particular cases would be invidious and against the rules, but I bet everyone who has followed politics can think of blatant lies from politicians - not half truths, or economical with the truth, but blatant lies - that have poisoned the well over that period. We might not all think of the _same_ politicians :)
 
For what it's worth, somebody has put this together from Google Trends.

"The Most-Searched Conspiracy Theories By U.S. State"

Conspiracy-Theories_MAP_V2.jpg


Full Explanation:
https://www.usdirect.com/resources/most-searched-conspiracy-theories-list-by-state/
 
Looks like the New World Order has a better press campaign than Flat Earthers. :)

I seriously think that people who believe these things are desperate, absolutely desperate to hold on to the idea that someone is in charge and nothing just ... happens. They refuse to believe that after so much time, and so much money sloshing around, there aren't - well - organisers, even if they declare they are against those same organisers.
People need someone to blame for the ills in the world.
 
Looks like the New World Order has a better press campaign than Flat Earthers. :)

I seriously think that people who believe these things are desperate, absolutely desperate to hold on to the idea that someone is in charge and nothing just ... happens. They refuse to believe that after so much time, and so much money sloshing around, there aren't - well - organisers, even if they declare they are against those same organisers.
People need someone to blame for the ills in the world.
It helps when a president talks about the "new world order".
 
Looks like the New World Order has a better press campaign than Flat Earthers. :)

I seriously think that people who believe these things are desperate, absolutely desperate to hold on to the idea that someone is in charge and nothing just ... happens. They refuse to believe that after so much time, and so much money sloshing around, there aren't - well - organisers, even if they declare they are against those same organisers.
People need someone to blame for the ills in the world.
Well, the NWO idea is basically that the world's social elites run the world in ways they don't publicly admit to. Of course the trick is that like all good conspiracy theories IF there is solid evidence it's being kept hidden. Sure there's hints everywhere... supposedly, but no real proof.
 
Ah,,,,the New World Order.....like The Bilderberg Group, Council on Foreign Relations, The Trilateralists, The Committee of 300, Chatham House, Bohemian Club, etc.
I suppose they talk golf and new recipes for their cook staff at their meetings.
;)
 
Last edited:
Ah,,,,the New World Order.....like The Bilderberg Group, Council on Foreign Relations, The Trilateralists, The Committee of 300, Chatham House, Bohemian Club, etc.
I suppose they talk golf and new recipes for their cook staff at their meetings.
;)
Don't forget The Club of Rome and the Fabians!
 
Don't forget The Club of Rome and the Fabians!

And Davos, where world leaders and big business gather to discuss world domination ... um ... allegedly.

Funny thing is a colleague attended the last Davos by invitation from a government minister and reported back that it was pretty tedious with lots of boring speeches and aging white haired men talking about golf and eyeing up the serving wenches all while eating great food and staying in a posh hotel for 5 days on expenses.

In his case though it wasn't so straight forward on the expenses front as he is one of the owners of the company he represented so ultimately he paid his own expenses.

There were apparently no cellars full off satanic devil worshippers reading Denis Wheatley novels and quaffing the blood of kidnapped virgins. There was, however, a pizza restaurant nearby though, but like it's American counterpart it didn't have a basement either.
 
The above three posts make me think of my old copy of the Illuminati card game. :D
 
And Davos, where world leaders and big business gather to discuss world domination ... um ... allegedly.

Funny thing is a colleague attended the last Davos by invitation from a government minister and reported back that it was pretty tedious with lots of boring speeches and aging white haired men talking about golf and eyeing up the serving wenches all while eating great food and staying in a posh hotel for 5 days on expenses.

In his case though it wasn't so straight forward on the expenses front as he is one of the owners of the company he represented so ultimately he paid his own expenses.

There were apparently no cellars full off satanic devil worshippers reading Denis Wheatley novels and quaffing the blood of kidnapped virgins. There was, however, a pizza restaurant nearby though, but like it's American counterpart it didn't have a basement either.
They have to let some people in but not "in", so they can report back to the masses that it was just old people talking golf. All the Illuminati stuff goes on then those people aren't there, in secret sessions. Obviously!

/need more tinfoil
 
Yeah.
You can be open in what you do ... but it's ever open enough.

You form an organisation you'll get idiots saying "Ah, but since we're not in that organisation then, well, obviously, someone in that organisation doesn't like us being it it!"
Some folks just look for offense where there is none. And usually it's those who were refused membership and are still salty about it.
 
You form an organisation you'll get idiots saying "Ah, but since we're not in that organisation then, well, obviously, someone in that organisation doesn't like us being it it!"
Some folks just look for offense where there is none. And usually it's those who were refused membership and are still salty about it.
Honestly, I wouldn't expect any real business to happen at a social function. Which is where the whole story goes weird. Why would people expect there to be "secret meetings".... at a vacation spot?

What I would expect is little more than socializing... and maybe exchanging contact information for real discussions in a place that's actually private.
 
Perhaps, but with "hair let down" there might be, ah, personal meetings with a more ... informal behavior. The location might encourage an idea of informality?
 
Perhaps, but with "hair let down" there might be, ah, personal meetings with a more ... informal behavior. The location might encourage an idea of informality?
Perhaps... But the more people you're around that you don't really trust the less likely you are to say anything... important.
 
"Let's catch up sometime..."

I dislike that a lot. Sounds like an obligation to me. And I don't function well with obligations.
 
There seems to be some news about the (slowly becoming infamous) Steele dossier. Since my previous post about this survived moderation, I assume this topic is allowed. More here, with further discussion in the comments: No More Mister Nice Blog: Another Steele Dossier?

This is kind of interesting, reported in England by The Telegraph (paywall) and picked up by the Sydney Morning Herald: It seems Christopher Steele compiled a second dossier on Donald Trump, this one directly for the FBI, after Trump took office:

The second dossier contains raw intelligence that makes further claims of Russian meddling in the US election and also references claims regarding the existence of further sex tapes :)(emphasis mine). The second dossier is reliant on separate sources to those who supplied information for the first reports.

The fact the FBI continued to receive intelligence from Steele, who ran MI6’s Russia desk from 2006 to 2009 before setting up Orbis, is potentially significant because it shows his work was apparently still being taken seriously after Trump took hold of the reins of power.
It was, was it? We'd been given to believe FBI broke off relations with Steele in November 2016, after David Corn revealed the existence of the original dossier in a Halloween article in Mother Jones—not that at that point that they didn't trust his research, but that they couldn't trust him to stay away from the press, which is understandable (...)

In the interview, Steele told the FBI that Orbis had “four discrete, ‘hermetically-sealed’ main agent networks”. His primary “sub-source” for the dossier was no longer “active” at the time of the interview with FBI agents, but that another “main agent network is up and running and is now starting to get good information”. The Telegraph understands this agent, referred to by Steele in his interview with the FBI, supplied information for the second dossier.

One interesting detail is that he frequently appeals to Fiona Hill, a close friend, to vouch for the primary sub-source, to whom she had introduced him in 2011; another is that he did a study of Dmitry Rybolovlev and the purchase of that Palm Beach house on which Trump made an inexplicable $54-million profit, which didn't make it into the dossier. Also, he regards Carter Page as an entirely insignificant figure; it's the sinister presence of Paul Manafort in the Trump orbit that got him interested in the Trump campaign, before he started working on it with Fusion GPS. (...)

Nobody seems to have looked at this material from January—hardly anybody seems to have reported on it, other than the Trumpy Washington Examiner and Putin's RT, which both focus naturally on trying to make Steele look like a criminal and deflecting—but the Telegraph story about the second dossier makes it all make sense. Most of the attention on that (e.g. in Salon), as in the first dossier, seems to be going to the question of new sex tape allegations, inevitably, but there is so much more going on than that. I hope the dossier itself comes out, and I mean soon. Trump-Russia is far from dead.
 
Back
Top