Mike Cunningham, at OoL, is a conservative of the old school and while that translates into “salt of the earth”, “straight”, “doesn’t suffer fools”, it can also mean that he hasn’t fully delved into the sea of “alternative sources” until recently, perhaps as far as, say, Infowars has.
So the type of thing such alt-righters come up with falls under the heading of “non-provided” facts, i.e. those dug out with a lot of alternative reading. Didn’t say “reading”, said “alternative” reading.
An example of one of these is Distant Relative, a reader at my place who comes up with the most surprising material which falls into the same category of the one Mike has come up with:
Mike’s is about Assange and Guccifer:
Forensic studies of “Russian hacking” into Democratic National Committee computers last year reveal that on July 5, 2016, data was leaked (not hacked) by a person with physical access to DNC computers, and then doctored to incriminate Russia.
After examining metadata from the “Guccifer 2.0” July 5, 2016 intrusion into the DNC server, independent cyber investigators have concluded that an insider copied DNC data onto an external storage device, and that “telltale signs” implicating Russia were then inserted.
Key among the findings of the independent forensic investigations is the conclusion that the DNC data was copied onto a storage device at a speed that far exceeds an Internet capability for a remote hack.
Of equal importance, the forensics show that the copying and doctoring were performed on the East coast of the U.S. Thus far, mainstream media have ignored the findings of these independent studies [see here and here].
What I like is the form of the post, the chapter and verse, plus the names of those responsible for it below. What I don’t like is ” independent cyber investigators”. Yeah? Who?
And as always, go to comments and seek out the ones which seem informed or at least intelligent, e.g. Sam F:
Yes, the VIPS deserve credit. But their report does not examine why the alleged hack was blamed on Russia instead of any other group, which is also very significant. The DNC only had to blame it upon some allegedly hostile entity, much more likely a Republican IT operation, of which there are undoubtedly many hundreds. And no doubt the Repubs infltrated the Dems and vice versa. So why focus on Russia?
The US has no cause whatsoever to vilify Russia, as it is nowhere in any necessary conflict or viable competition with Russia as a nation. Only the zionists and Saudis and West Ukraine nationalists have objections to Russia. Both the zionists and Saudis are primary DNC “donors” and hence motivated to attack Russia, which they planned to do after the election via their puppet Hillary.
All of Hillary’s top ten “donors” were zionists, and the Saudis were major “donors” to the Clinton Foundation. If the DNC represented the people of the US rather than zionists and Saudis, it would not be opposed to Russia. If the mass media were not controlled by zionists, they would not promote the anti-Russia propaganda.
So the targeting of Russia proves the corruption of the DNC and the mass media by the zionists.
Russia-gate is in fact Israel-gate, and this is the story that the DNC is trying to cover up.
Now we’re getting into a very tangled web. Most conservatives have tended, over the years, to be pro-Israel and I’m no exception – look at my track record of posts on that issue and the attempts by people like Ken Craggs and Harry J to modify that.
Over the journey, I for one have been forced into cognitive dissonance by names such as Alinsky, Benjamin, Marcuse, Rothschild and countless anomalies and so a series was written on The Jews, whose chief value is in reader comments and links.
The main contention is that there is a “different” sort of Jewish influence going on, an abominated, fallen type [see Alinsky for abomination] and that such people are running the world. Significant to me is that Trump’s justification for the “soundness” of McMaster was that he was pro-Jewish. As Trump is not himself Jewish – hence his truck with people like Bannon and the alt-right – then it’s easy to see that this is Zionist America getting his ear through Kushner, thence through Ivanka, thence into Trump’s ear.
And it also explains the British rejection of Trump’s White House, the FCO and virtually the entire government here being pro-Arab, which is reflected in policies which see Muslims unable to be prosecuted for their crimes here.
There are certainly things going on – a long haul gameplan – on all sides. Many pundits note the influx of the military into the WH and govt departments in general. In short, there’s out-and-out war going on up there.
Steve Bannon is the poster boy for the Deplorable side of politics, loosely seen as Tea Party, UKIP, Nigel, Ron Paul, the internet, Vox Day, Infowars and this is the non-religious movement, mixed in with old conservatives who tend to mention God – the two, along with workers of the land, having elected Trump.
What do we want? Well, for a start, we want Hillary and all the other crims locked up, then a range of populist measures loosely seen as MAGA, MBrGA, MOzGA and so on. We want the Deep State stymied, the Swamp drained.
The 80% and the 20%
For years, your humble blogger here has been pointing out that the best pundits can cut through the wall of disinformation and maybe get to 80% of the truth but that last, hidden 20% significantly alters the colour of that truth.
Also, if you accept this 80-20 idea, then it stands to reason that much of what we’ve both discovered – two of us in discussion – would overlap and we’d agree. But delve into the arcane 20% and one comes up against fierce resistance from erstwhile onside colleagues who just can’t get their heads around the new data, which is not helped by some simple facts:
1. The closer you get to the real thing, the more disinformation and coverup there is to protect it, hence the less chance of establishing it and effectively disseminating it.
2. If it did not come from that person himself, if he wasn’t the one to discover it personally, then he doesn’t want to know. He’s accepted thinly supported things to this point, part of the 80%, as it accords with his mindset, his own thrust but present something from the 20% and he now demands level of Final Proof, cut, dried, gift-wrapped and laid down before him, as before some sort of God in Judgment, which are beyond anything reasonable, given how such things are concealed and the nature of snippets of information and how they get uncovered.
And this is what Assange has found, it’s what Svali found in 2000.
3. The Z Man pointed this out [via Chuckles]:
The plague of fake news is largely assumed to be due to the ruling class trying to convince people to stop noticing things. There is a lot of that, for sure. When the New York Times instructs its writers to use “guest worker” to describe illegal aliens employed in the cash economy, it is a deliberate attempt to deceive. The mythical Backlash™ that is always lurking after a Muslim goes boom is deliberate agit-prop. At the same time, most of the people in the media are true believers so their bias goes unnoticed.
Another aspect of the Fake News phenomenon is the general stupidity of the people in the media. Theirs is the worst sort of stupidity in that it is tightly wrapped with an overweening sense of righteousness and superiority.
The typical newsroom is a collection of credentialed mediocrities that are convinced they are the smartest people in the room. It is a reckless stupidity that makes them easy to fool, thus all the hoaxes, but also prevents them from asking sensible questions.
This article is a good example.
A core part of the problem is that we’re not all in one big room, brainstorming together, showing our evidence and coming to a conclusion out of that. We’re all of us in separate brainstorming rooms and none of the other rooms know what the others are coming up with.
Or else we’ve formed adversarial “camps”.
Thus we’re all arguing from 80% or less of the facts, when the last 20% significantly alter the colour of the truth in the matter.
And we haven’t even got onto the blind prejudice of the hardened atheist yet, the blind devotees of Big Science, the way we’re all brainwashed to a point by the drip drip of our cultural influences.
Mike has hit on some good copy there. Some of the comments are good as well.