We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Samizdata quote of the day – the establishment loves your conspiracy theories It is a constant struggle to keep a well founded scepticism descending into the kooksphere. There are shit loads of opportunists looking to take advantage of those suspicious of mainstream perspectives and narratives, and it’s hardly just incels stuck in their bedrooms who step on such rakes. It’s curious how James Lindsay, for example, went from debunking woke to formulating conspiracy theories about Michaelmas. Or how James Delingpole went from climate change scepticism to 9/11 trutherism or that dinosaurs are a hoax.
A sad fact is that such dissidents often make themselves quite harmless to the ruling elites. Banging on about dinosaurs, fake moon landings, anti-popery conspiracies etc to the plebs doesn’t bother the elites in the slightest. It both diverts and discredits dissent down rabbit holes. Governments have often themselves covertly pushed conspiracy theories for that reason.
– Martin
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
Lots of people, but not all, are anchored in their faith, or their politics, or their philosophy. It provides them with a firm place to stand while the world whirls around them.
But if the foundation of their belief is shaken by ‘events’ then they loose their footing and can start believing in other things as well. But for a few people if *nothing* is certain then *anything* can be true and they will select *something* to hold on to grimly for the stability it offers them.
It is a mess – for example the murder of Charlie Kirk could have led to sober reflection on how leftist indoctrination in the education system (and large parts of the media – including the entertainment media) is fueling intense hatred – hatred based on LIES such as that Mr Kirk wanted to harm homosexuals, which he did NOT.
Instead of sober reflection, and possible reconsideration of how the education system works – to end the indoctrination, we got lunatic conspiracy theories – and if the people who spread the nonsense (“the Jews did it” and so on) are NOT mentally ill, then they have behaved in a profoundly wicked way.
In 1963 a Communist murdered President Kennedy – and he also (on the same day) murdered a police officer. The connections between Mr Oswald and the Cuban intelligence agency (the DGI) have not been fully explored to this day – nor has the question of whether Mr Oswald had back up from the DGI or the KGB (with which he also had links).
All this should have led to discussion of how Marxist ideas were spreading among impressionable people in the United States – but it did NOT, because the establishment (quietly – and via manipulated third parties) started to spread rumours that the right murdered President Kennedy – that Dallas was a “city of hate” (in reality Dallas had a Kennedy supporting Democrat Mayor in 1963 – it is Fort Worth that was-and-is the conservative city, but that did not fit then narrative that establishment figures, such as Arthur Schlesinger Jr, wanted to spread).
Ironically the people who thought of themselves as “challenging the official story” and “spreading the truth” that it was the evil right wing CIA (which was NOT “right wing”) who murdered President Kennedy, or that it was “the City of Hate” (supposedly “right wing” Dallas) that collectively murdered President Kennedy, were, in reality, puppets of the “liberal” (Progressive) establishment – pushing exactly the conspiracy theories the establishment wanted them to push.
The truth was the last thing that people such as Arthur Schlesinger Jr wanted spread – the truth being that President Kennedy was murdered by a Marxist (Mr Oswald) possibly (possibly) with the back up of Marxist intelligence services such as the Cuban DGI – they did not want the truth spread because they, the American establishment, although NOT Marxist still regarded the Marxists as “Progressive” like-themselves.
What the Progressive establishment wanted was to distract attention – and to convince large numbers of people that “the right” (conservatives) somehow murdered President Kennedy.
Ironically President Kennedy was dying anyway – he was crippled by old injuries that had got worse over time (wearing a corset to keep him upright), and dying of Addison’s disease, and desperately taking every drug he could lay his hands on to keep going.
It was desperately sad and it was well known (by Vice President Johnson and others) that President Kennedy would have to step down at some point – and was certainly in no condition to successfully stand for election in the Presidential election of November 1964 – by which time President Kennedy would have been so ill it would have been impossible for even the media to conceal it.
But instead of the truth – a very ill (indeed dying) President, who was murdered by a Communist (possibly, possibly, with the help of other Communists) the “truth tellers” have been, for 62 years, pushing the story that President Kennedy was fit and able – and was about to engage in massive “Social Reform” but then was horribly murdered by a conspiracy of the “right wing” CIA (which was not right wing), and the “right wing” “city of hate” Dallas (which, again, was not very conservative – Democrat, Kennedy supporting, Mayor).
In the final irony it was Johnson, not Kennedy, who was the passionate “Social Reformer” (i.e. more welfare programs person) – the murder of President Kennedy led to a move to the LEFT not to the right.
By the way – I am well aware that Dallas County (of which the city of Dallas is part) voted against John Kennedy in 1960 – it also voted for Eisenhower in 1952 and 1956, this does NOT mean that Dallas was a “city of hate” or that this “right wing hate” murdered President Kennedy. The impression that Arthur Schlesinger Jr (and other Progressive scumbags) wished people to get.
There is also now a conspiracy theory that the 1892 Dallas County Courthouse (an excellent building – at least I think it is) and other grand buildings of the past, are evidence of a vast civilization that was destroyed in some terrible war or natural disaster.
This, the “Tartaria” or “Old World”, theory emerged in the Soviet Union to explain why old buildings were better than new ones – even the BRICKS were better. The Communists would kill you for saying that things were better under the Czars (which they were – everything was better before the Marxists took over) – but if you went around talking about a world-wide civilization that was destroyed, the Communists would just assume you had gone potty.
In case anyone does not know – the old Dallas County Courthouse was indeed built in 1892, it was not “discovered” in 1892, it is NOT evidence of some ancient civilization destroyed by war or natural disaster.
“If what you say is true Paul – how do you explain the fact that old buildings are much better then new ones?”
For the same reason that old paintings are better than most new ones, or old music better than modern music, or that people used to dress better then we do now, and spoke better – had a wider vocabulary and greater familiarity with the Bible and with Classical literature.
There has been Cultural Decline (I have never denied this – indeed I “bang on” about it) a decline of taste and learning, but there was not some ancient civilization whose remains were “discovered” a century or a century and half ago and claimed by people who did not build them.
For example, my grandfather (James Power) could remember both the Municipal Building and the Woolworth Tower in
New York (both buildings claimed to be part of the ancient “Old World” by conspiracy theorists) being-built.
They were built – not “discovered”, and built in only a couple of years.
“But how Paul – how is that possible?”
Because men were SKILLED and they WORKED HARD – that is how.
The sort of people one sees loafing about on a modern building site would have been fired on-the-spot a few generations ago. And even if they worked as hard as men once did – they no longer have the skills of true craftsmen (no fault of their own – they have not been taught).
And modern, post World War II, “architects”, who just draw boxes (no better than a child of six years of age could do), would never have been hired in the first place.
James Lindsay seems to believe that the Arch Angel Michael battling against evil is a modern idea produced by General Flynn and President Trump (and others).
Mr Lindsay says that he was brought up Catholic – but was not taught about Michael, and that (therefore) this must be a modern myth.
Well I was NOT brought up Catholic – and I knew about the Arch Angel Michael (and General Flynn was not whispering in my ear).
What Mr Lindsay has missed is that just because his family and local parish did not tell him these stories, does NOT mean the stories have only just been made up.
As for James Delingpole….
NO – the Moon landings were NOT staged (they were real).
And NO 9/11 was not an “inside job” – it was an attack by Islamic terrorists.
In 1960 the Republicans were still the party blacks voted for, and the Democrats still had a large segregation and Jim Crow wing.
But “The GOP has always been the racist party we accuse them of being today – just like we’ve always been at war with EastAsia.”
Paul:
There is not space here to challenge your views on the Kennedy assassination, but I do disagree with you on it.
There is no evidence whatsoever that Oswald had any help from Cuba, rather, the trip to Mexico City by someone claiming to be Oswald seems more like an attempt to tie Cuba in to the assassination. It seems to have worked on you.
By the time of his death, Kennedy has established a back channel to Cuba, and the early contacts were going well. Castro had no interest in killing him. Why would he want Johnson in the White House?
Kennedy was indeed not a well man, but he was not dying. Steroids were controlling his adrenal condition, and his bad back was responding well to physiotherapy. Indeed, he had decided to ditch the back brace he had been wearing in the new year, which of course he did not live to see.
I do not like the sort of theory that Kennedy was dying (which he wasn’t), as it tends to diminish the horror of his death, but I am sure that is not your intention.
Ah, I had forgotten about Delingpole. He’s gone a bit nuts.
Thanks for highlighting the quote.
Thanks to Paul for further information about James Lindsay’s rantings about Michaelmas. I had forgotten half the detail that was all about. I just recall knowing when I saw that a year ago that Lindsay was descending from just being obnoxious on twitter into kooksphere silliness.
All too often observations of reality are branded by TPTB as conspiracy theories. Statements of fact are not theories, a fact is not a theory, a fact is a fact, theories are things constructed to explain observed facts, but those in power loathe you even noticing those facts in the first place, so label those observations as a) theories and b) conspiracies.
This is true and makes the waters even muddier.
Paul:
I would have thought that James Lindsay might be familiar with John Milton or even the Old Testament — perhaps he’s suffering from a case of hysterical amnesia.
Deep Lurker,
I have met people who flat-out failed to accept that Lincoln was a Republican. Seriously.
Lee Harvey Oswald was a failed communist. The Sovs didn’t want him. He wanted to be “famous”. His only skill was that he was an excellent shot (a matter of his USMC record)) so I think the narrative writes itself… Obviously Johnson (who was a serious operator) played the tragedy to his agenda.
This dates the switch to the FDR administration. Personally I think the black voting bloc will be one of the last groups to abandon the Democrats. The correct response to racism allegations is to stop caring about them, don’t let their magic words have any power, don’t apologise.
JohnK.
One of the things you do not seem to understand was that Lyndon Johnson was to the LEFT (not to the right) of John Kennedy. And not just on domestic policy (on which Johnson was a fanatical Welfare Statist) – also on foreign policy, for example Lyndon Johnson has no intention of WINING the Vietnam War – indeed his interventions made winning impossible, his objective was always a “political settlement” – and that is terrible folly when dealing with Marxists (when dealing with Marxists – you kill them, or they kill you, there is no third alternative).
You also do not seem to grasp that Mr Oswald was a Marxist – and had contacts with other Marxists.
By the way – President Kennedy was falling apart, there is no way at all he could have successfully run for the
Presidency in he election of November 1964.
President Kennedy needed a medical corset to keep him upright, and he took every drug he could lay his hands on (some of them illegal) to keep going. Even if he had still been alive in November 1964 there is no way he would have been reelected – and it was an open secret that Johnson was going to replace him (which was NOT good – as Johnson was way to the left of Kennedy).
As for Mr Charles Kirk – the bullet ricocheted off his protection vest, upwards – it was the ricochet that killed him.
He was very unlucky.
If Candice Owens (who I believe to be mentally ill), or YOU, care about the murder of Mr Kirk you will help try and expose the vicious ideology that the murderer was indoctrinated into.
But neither of you do that – instead you pretend that murderer was not the murderer, and that Mr Kirk was murdered by false friends – because Mr Kirk came to Candice Owens in a dream and told her so.
The only non-Oswald theory I ever had time for was a “cock-up” rather than a conspiracy theory.
The old story goes that when Mr Oswald opened fire from the Book Depository, one of the Secret Service men, in the car behind the President, raised his rifle to return fire – but, because he had no training on this sort of rifle, he accidentally let off a round – into the back of the President’s head.
This guard was a Mormon and, therefore, had not got drunk in the strip club with the other Secret Service men the night before – which was why he was given the rifle (if I remember rightly it was an early version of what eventually became an AR15).
Rifles were withdraw from Secret Service men just after this incident – and this guard was the only guard NOT to give evidence before the Warren Commission (if he had given evidence he would have told the truth – which would have destroyed confidence in the Secret Service).
The theory is, most likely, a load of rubbish – but at least it is interesting.
And President Kennedy did NOT come to me in a dream and explain it to me.
Paul, I seem to remember a story that when Kennedy was assassinated, pupils in the classrooms around Dallas were cheering.
If Mr Kirk was NOT wearing body armour – then there is no mystery as to why the bullet to his neck killed him.
Paul:
There was an AR15 in the Secret Service car. The idea that it shot President Kennedy is rather undermined by the fact that not one witness saw any such thing happen.
Nick:
Lee Harvey Oswald was not an “excellent shot”. There are three levels of shooting ability in the US Marines, Expert, Sharpshooter and Marksman. When Oswald joined the Marines, after his rifle training he qualified in the middle grade, Sharpshooter. Towards the end of his service, he only qualified in the bottom grade, Marksman, and even then only one mark above failure.
These qualifications were shot with an M1 Garand semi-automatic rifle at static targets at fixed distances. This was not training for using a bolt action rifle at a moving target.
Lee Harvey Oswald was not the Jackal.
In this video the Tucker Carlson of yore could well be describing the Tucker Carlson of now.
I miss the old sane Tucker
Paul:
You repeat your claims that Kennedy was on his last legs, but this is untrue. His Addison’s disease was under control through steroids, and his back condition was responding well to physiotherapy. He still wore a medical back brace, not a girdle, but was planning to stop using it. There is no way he would not have run in the 1964 election, but Johnson would most likely not have been his running mate, as he was facing a scandal of his own at the time.
Could there possibly be a mystery as to why a bullet to the neck kills somebody???
It would help if you told us in which country.
Not so much an an issue if outside the US of A.
(Still a serious issue, but not not unsurprising.)
Snorri:
There is a mystery as to why a 30.06 in the neck area was “miraculously” stopped by Charlie’s young, strong bones. The idea that his cervical vertebrae somehow stopped a 30.06 is something that I cannot understand, and I have seen no explanation other than that it was a miracle.
Paul:
Kennedy had made it very plain in private that he had no intention whatsoever of embarking on a major land war for the sake of South Vietnam. He also wanted detente with the Soviet Union, and to normalise relations with Cuba. The Cuban missile crisis had made him realise the dangers of brinkmanship.
None of these policies survived his death under the “left wing” presidency of Lyndon Johnson.
C’mon. Just on Samizdata alone we’ve seen explanations – guesses – that there was a ricochet off of his body armor, or that there was a light load . . .
We don’t have accurate information, which is NOT sufficient reason to jump to “conspiracy!”
And we’re not likely to see any release of specific information from the prosecution soon. To protect the case, you hide whatever you can hide for as long as you can, until trial.
Snorri,
I was talking about Brits. Many of whom, whilst the may decry the insularity of Americans almost take their own ignorance of US history as a badge of honour. If you think trying to tell them about Lincoln is difficult then explaining about those “Good ‘ol Boy” Southern Democrats and Jim Crow Laws or the history of the KKK and the extent to which it was in many ways a progressive movement embracing things like women’s suffrage and prohibition and other “social” causes they just won’t believe you.
Bobby:
We do know that Charlie was not wearing body armour, so can rule that out. Why the ammunition in the rifle is a secret is another matter. I cannot see how it would affect the trial to release this information.
Charlie Kirk was murdered by a leftist university activist from a Mormon family (his family turned him in), Charlie Kirk was NOT murdered by Jews.
What we do not know is whether other leftists knew, in advance, that the murder was going to take place.
The international establishment does not like independent nation-states – it wants world “governance”.
And the international establishment particularly does not like a country such as Israel – which was once on the left, and has, over time, become increasingly conservative – with a positive fertility rate.
What has happened in Israel over the last 50-60 years is the opposite to what has happened in most other Western nations – and the international establishment do not like it at all, it is not the “Diversity and Inclusion” (i.e. the destruction of Western nations) that they crave.
So the international establishment are delighted when people spread rumours about the murder of Charlie Kirk – implying that “the Jews” or “the Zionists” did it.
There are indeed questions that the FBI need to ask – but these questions boil down to one question, “did the leftist who committed the murder keep silent before the murder – or did he let other leftists know in advance?”
This is what must be found out – were other leftists involved?
Paul Marks and JohnK between them illuminate one of the difficulties of resolving questions of this matter.
JFK’s health status in November 1963 is a question of physical fact and theoretically objectively verifiable: both agree Kennedy was far more ill than the public had been allowed to know, but disagree on whether his health was declining to the point of having to resign or refuse to run by 1964 (Paul M.), or stabilizing and improving to the point where he could have earned a second term (JohnK). I have no doubt that both posters have seen compelling evidence for their own position, but the problem is, both must rely on external information sources whose comparative trustworthiness is, itself, the matter in question. Why should Paul Marks believe JohnK’s evidence sources over his own? Why should JohnK believe Paul’s evidence sources? Can we go to a third higher-level source for adjudication? But then why should anybody trust that source?
I can see why, to paraphrase Dire Straits’ song “Industrial Disease”, that when two men say they’re Jesus, the certainty that one must be wrong can make it awfully tempting to decide too quickly that neither can be right.
Don’t these morons realise that any “world government” will be government by China. There’s 1.2billion of them, and 1billion Indians. Do they really think 600million Westerners will be in charge?
And are they completely ignorant of the fact that we had a trial run of world government in the 19th century, that resulted in millions of blood shed as the governed strongly made their views known about the situation.
“hatred based on LIES such as that Mr Kirk wanted to harm homosexuals, which he did NOT.”
Paul Marks – what’s the lie being pushed around here? You’ve mentioned it a few times, and I’m curious to know what that’s about (for fairly obvious reasons).