Are these anti-Israel (and I would say anti-Semitic -- sometimes there's a difference, but perhaps not in this far-right case) conspiracy theories gaining traction? I even briefly saw Megyn Kelly (a hitherto respectable right-wing personality) devote an entire segment to discussing Candace Owens and some tie that she had drawn to Israel. I didn't watch, but that video garnered like 400K views in just a couple of hours, so anti-Semitism is extremely spicy and draws huge numbers of views. All these videos draw like 10x the number of views if not more compared to, say, any FOX News video. When there were JFK or Soviet Union conspiracies, that's one thing, but increasingly widespread anti-Semitic conspiracy theories unfortunately signal an eternal pattern, which remains ever-present.
There is a weird overlap bw conspiracy theorists and Jew haters—the world's most popular conspiracy theory is probably still "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion"—probably because the Jews are both the despised Other yet also sprinkled liberally throughout the upper echelons of govt, finance, business, law, arts, academia etc.
Conspiracy theories are irresistible catnip to Jew haters because they provide a way for angry, miserable losers to offload their resentment onto an outgroup—thus not getting that job or into that school isn't because of your own failure, but because of powerful unseen nefarious forces that "control the world".
Conspiracy theories offer a simplistic and essentially gnostic worldview that replaces reason and empiricism with a fairy tale that magically transforms the conspiracist from creepy weirdo into someone blessed with higher knowledge, above and apart from the rest of us.
The take economy means people need to have instant reactions to things, and it’s better if those reactions upend the conventional wisdom. Ideally nothing should be what it seems.
For example, Matt Walsh seems to be a smart guy but even he is speculating that the shooter had some convoluted plot to exculpate his boyfriend by… texting him about the shooting, because Walsh had seen something similar on “Breaking Bad”.
Tucker Carlson thinks most major political figures are gay, apart from Pete Buttigieg, who’s just pretending.
Candace Owens thinks Brigitte Macron is a man, just for the hell of it I guess, or because the Michelle Obama theory was getting old.
There's so much competition now for a fractured audience. Plus, there's no set time to watch them daily. In a media free for all, the strangest take takes the cake.
Steve: you actually believe that fabricated text chain between the "killer" and his "boyfriend?" Nobody is buying that ridiculous text chain that outlines everything in detail in an organized way.
"Dad’s conclusion: Of course Sirhan did it. It was perhaps the clearest case he’d ever analyzed."
So then the final question remains: Sirhan was standing right in front of RFK when he fired the shots, and yet ballistics proved that RFK was killed by bullets fired from behind him. So that doesn't appear to be so open and shut.
Also, the newer released JFK files strongly suggest a CIA role in JFK's assassination, when for well over a half century, the public was officially told that the CIA played no direct or indirect role in JFK's death. Certain members of the Mafia have long intimated that they also had a hand in JFK's death as well. Perhaps one day, one day at least, uh, Oliver Stone will get an official apology from the established MSM, historians etc who insisted that he wasn't much more than a nutcase in asking sincere questions as in: Was JFK truly assassinated by a single person and there's no one else involved? If that was truly the case, then the Warren Commission files should've been released within the first decade on from '64, and the government should've been fully transparent about the case, as oppose to the "nothing to see here, folks! Keep it moving. And if anyone dares ask sincere questions and express skepticism about the official narrative, then you're the crackpot and conspiracy nut (the term conspiracy case was first coined by the CIA in the mid 60's to in part, silence opposition those from asking questions regarding the official narratives, such as about those concerning JFK)
Absolutley. That JFK was shot at from the back, and that 20 odd medical staff attested to that but weren't allowed to speak at the inquiry has been made crystal clear recently.
A CIA cover up is quite certain. Who they were covering up we have no advance on.
Richard Hanania is right. The Republican Party is, sadly, moving downstream and starting to attract fewer white collar professionals from elite universities and more…people who are intrigued by the scintillating theories of Joe Rogan, Candace Owens, and Nick Fuentes regarding vaccines, dragons, the Rothschilds, secret transgenders, 2020 election fraud, etc.
Trump contributed to this, but I think the upcoming Marjorie Taylor Greene era will be far worse than the Trump era.
The future modal Republican voter isn’t a white guy who reads the WSJ, it’s a mixed-race/nonwhite guy who gets his info from Nick Fuentes podcast clips. (Not even the full podcast, just Twitter and TikTok clips.)
Sort of - But of course the real message is Why TF is anyone talking about Kirk when a clear cut genocide is going on? Why isn't the genocide the topic of 2 out of every 3 of Sailer Posts?
Lets face it delusion in the face of extremely clear events IS the topic of this post and many other Sailer posts? You think the failure of the public to admit to a massive Black on Black murder industry is worth speaking about - how about the non-comment on the genocide?
The only thing interesting at all about Kirk to me is that here was a guy funded by pro-Israel money who turned away from Israel very very late on. Nothing else about Kirk is worth writing about.
(falling in love with a person not acceptable to scoiety is a pretty conventional way of gong crazy. It's an every day love stricken story not even a butter smeared trans story here.)
Twisting a non-story about Kirk into something about the real events of the last 2 years sounds perfectly normal to me.
Never mind Occam's knife, this is about the only story of the year - re-assessing Israel as the bad guys. Get on board Steve.
Sirhan Sirhan did not kill RFK. And the real question about JFK is who WASN’T involved. They all hated him for various reasons. Curtis LeMay, the Mafia, the CIA, the Zionists, LBJ, Bush Sr.
Too true, Steve. Right now I am trying to see how much social media I can forgo and still be adequately informed.
All of it.
better to be uninformed than misinformed!
Are these anti-Israel (and I would say anti-Semitic -- sometimes there's a difference, but perhaps not in this far-right case) conspiracy theories gaining traction? I even briefly saw Megyn Kelly (a hitherto respectable right-wing personality) devote an entire segment to discussing Candace Owens and some tie that she had drawn to Israel. I didn't watch, but that video garnered like 400K views in just a couple of hours, so anti-Semitism is extremely spicy and draws huge numbers of views. All these videos draw like 10x the number of views if not more compared to, say, any FOX News video. When there were JFK or Soviet Union conspiracies, that's one thing, but increasingly widespread anti-Semitic conspiracy theories unfortunately signal an eternal pattern, which remains ever-present.
There is a weird overlap bw conspiracy theorists and Jew haters—the world's most popular conspiracy theory is probably still "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion"—probably because the Jews are both the despised Other yet also sprinkled liberally throughout the upper echelons of govt, finance, business, law, arts, academia etc.
Conspiracy theories are irresistible catnip to Jew haters because they provide a way for angry, miserable losers to offload their resentment onto an outgroup—thus not getting that job or into that school isn't because of your own failure, but because of powerful unseen nefarious forces that "control the world".
Conspiracy theories offer a simplistic and essentially gnostic worldview that replaces reason and empiricism with a fairy tale that magically transforms the conspiracist from creepy weirdo into someone blessed with higher knowledge, above and apart from the rest of us.
Candace Owens has some very strange ideas. But she has a big audience.
The take economy means people need to have instant reactions to things, and it’s better if those reactions upend the conventional wisdom. Ideally nothing should be what it seems.
For example, Matt Walsh seems to be a smart guy but even he is speculating that the shooter had some convoluted plot to exculpate his boyfriend by… texting him about the shooting, because Walsh had seen something similar on “Breaking Bad”.
Tucker Carlson thinks most major political figures are gay, apart from Pete Buttigieg, who’s just pretending.
Candace Owens thinks Brigitte Macron is a man, just for the hell of it I guess, or because the Michelle Obama theory was getting old.
She’s being sued by Madam Macron.
There's so much competition now for a fractured audience. Plus, there's no set time to watch them daily. In a media free for all, the strangest take takes the cake.
Steve: you actually believe that fabricated text chain between the "killer" and his "boyfriend?" Nobody is buying that ridiculous text chain that outlines everything in detail in an organized way.
I buy it.
I’m not sure I’ve heard about this text chain.
"Dad’s conclusion: Of course Sirhan did it. It was perhaps the clearest case he’d ever analyzed."
So then the final question remains: Sirhan was standing right in front of RFK when he fired the shots, and yet ballistics proved that RFK was killed by bullets fired from behind him. So that doesn't appear to be so open and shut.
Also, the newer released JFK files strongly suggest a CIA role in JFK's assassination, when for well over a half century, the public was officially told that the CIA played no direct or indirect role in JFK's death. Certain members of the Mafia have long intimated that they also had a hand in JFK's death as well. Perhaps one day, one day at least, uh, Oliver Stone will get an official apology from the established MSM, historians etc who insisted that he wasn't much more than a nutcase in asking sincere questions as in: Was JFK truly assassinated by a single person and there's no one else involved? If that was truly the case, then the Warren Commission files should've been released within the first decade on from '64, and the government should've been fully transparent about the case, as oppose to the "nothing to see here, folks! Keep it moving. And if anyone dares ask sincere questions and express skepticism about the official narrative, then you're the crackpot and conspiracy nut (the term conspiracy case was first coined by the CIA in the mid 60's to in part, silence opposition those from asking questions regarding the official narratives, such as about those concerning JFK)
Absolutley. That JFK was shot at from the back, and that 20 odd medical staff attested to that but weren't allowed to speak at the inquiry has been made crystal clear recently.
A CIA cover up is quite certain. Who they were covering up we have no advance on.
Great, so now we need to find out who Steve's friend's father is and how he was compromised.
RFK might have turned away.
ol' tucknuts. low iq candass. I like naming names. there are others but not worth the energy at this point.
Richard Hanania is right. The Republican Party is, sadly, moving downstream and starting to attract fewer white collar professionals from elite universities and more…people who are intrigued by the scintillating theories of Joe Rogan, Candace Owens, and Nick Fuentes regarding vaccines, dragons, the Rothschilds, secret transgenders, 2020 election fraud, etc.
Trump contributed to this, but I think the upcoming Marjorie Taylor Greene era will be far worse than the Trump era.
The future modal Republican voter isn’t a white guy who reads the WSJ, it’s a mixed-race/nonwhite guy who gets his info from Nick Fuentes podcast clips. (Not even the full podcast, just Twitter and TikTok clips.)
Sort of - But of course the real message is Why TF is anyone talking about Kirk when a clear cut genocide is going on? Why isn't the genocide the topic of 2 out of every 3 of Sailer Posts?
Lets face it delusion in the face of extremely clear events IS the topic of this post and many other Sailer posts? You think the failure of the public to admit to a massive Black on Black murder industry is worth speaking about - how about the non-comment on the genocide?
The only thing interesting at all about Kirk to me is that here was a guy funded by pro-Israel money who turned away from Israel very very late on. Nothing else about Kirk is worth writing about.
(falling in love with a person not acceptable to scoiety is a pretty conventional way of gong crazy. It's an every day love stricken story not even a butter smeared trans story here.)
Twisting a non-story about Kirk into something about the real events of the last 2 years sounds perfectly normal to me.
Never mind Occam's knife, this is about the only story of the year - re-assessing Israel as the bad guys. Get on board Steve.
Sirhan Sirhan did not kill RFK. And the real question about JFK is who WASN’T involved. They all hated him for various reasons. Curtis LeMay, the Mafia, the CIA, the Zionists, LBJ, Bush Sr.
The Gordian Knot was in present day Turkey. Coincidence?