It’s been a while since anyone last used a nuclear bomb, right?

[ by Charles Cameron — keeping you in the “loopy” loop ]

.

There’s more ridiculous sloshing around on the web than I can hope to monitor, but my personal collection hit a couple of high points recently that I thought I should share with you. Did you know, for instance, that Israel recently exploded a nuclear bomb in Syria? How could you consider yourself informed, and be unaware of such a thing? It was on YouTube…

But pshaw, that’s secular nonsense, and as you know, my tastes run to the religious. So did you know the emeritus Pope Benedict had a demonic advisor by his side while he was making a major speech?

That sure as hell beats out the namby-pamby 10 Weirdest Fundamentalist Christian Conspiracy Theories an Alternet writer came up with, eh?

In any case, please watch both the above videos: I trust you will then realize that the world is in far worse shape than you thought it was before reading this post.

After all, it’s on YouTube.

**

How about this?

Latest conspiracy theory from #Iraq: US will strike rebels not Assad. Iran will blow up Sayyida Zainab shrine & then massacre Sunnis in Iraq

— Hayder al-Khoei (@Hayder_alKhoei) September 8, 2013

Hang on a moment, Sayyida Zaynab is the shrine dear to Shiites that Kata’ib Sayyid al-Shuhada is defending, as this graphic suggests:

And last but not least, consider this, from a US Senator:

Coincidence!?!? — or just a clumsy creative leap?

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

NB: Updated to replace “Hezbollah” with “Kata’ib Sayyid al-Shuhada” above — h/t Phillip Smyth.

17 comments on this post.
  1. zen:

    Charles, I am somewhat disappointed that you did not feature an example from our favorite red hat wearing crank, Zaid Hamid

  2. Chris:

    Wow to both. I like how the Illuminati set the microphone, camera and little girl to be set in such a way as to ensure that her eye appeared to be at the tip of a pyramid. Just so we know it was them.

    My recent favorite is this little gem (which apparently I’m not allowed to embed – What is the author trying to hide?!):

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2mjs_gdMAI

    Obama’s secret service has been infiltrated by reptiles, who can apparently be identified by being bald and looking around. Things impossible for human beings.
     

  3. omar:

    I recently happened to see Alex Jones appear as a pundit on Fox news. What’s up with that? Are they just morons or is there method to this madness? 

  4. zen:

    Hi Omar,
    .
    My guess is that Jones is the relacement for Glenn Beck ( the two are rivals and dislike each other and compete for the same audience demographic) and the goal is to raise ratings. Jones ventures further into the conspiracy theory realm of Chuck Harder ( another far-out talk radio personality, most famous for “black helicopters” and, maybe UFOs, though i may be confusing him with somebody else) than Beck but is a less difficult broadcaster professionally for Fox to work with

  5. Chris:

    I think there is a generalised policy at Fox to bring in lunatic fringe type characters to ask questions which legitimate Fox news anchors couldn’t ask (because there needs to be a veneer of sanity). Beck and Jones are good examples, as is Dick Morris. They all belong to the black helicopter/illuminati brigade.

  6. Grurray:

    Jones was on Geraldo’s show, so that explains a lot.
    He was also on Piers Morgan’s show on CNN awhile back talking about gun control.
    So all the yahoos all along the political spectrum stick together.

  7. Chris:

    Ultimately, “news” is now infotainment, and pundits are a major component of this. It is pretty undeniable Jones/Beck/Morris/harder are entertaining. You’re either nodding along with them, or laughing at them.

  8. zen:

    The American media is generally an intellectual embarrassment because where it formerly was a “prestige” loss leader for their corporate owners (much like book publishers who publish X percentage of serious titles they will lose money on to keep street cred) they now must generate revenue. As half the population is by definition under 100 IQ and have tuned out of politics, don’t understand science or math and are heavy TV watchers, this means “news” is lots of sports, weather, scandals, celebrity fluff, sex, pretty girls, explosions, presenting politics as tribalism and provocative antics to get ratings. There’s a reason Fox anchorwomen look like cleaned up employees from a gentleman’s club and why MSNC features race-baiting clowns like Al Sharpton who would be equally at home as a manager in WWE professional wrestling

  9. Curtis Gale Weeks:

    Mark, it’s capitalism + democracy.  That 50% has a major influence on our political system.  We here in America believe in Democracy, by God.  People not qualified to do much beyond sitting on their sofas watching football and drinking a 12-pack of beer are overqualified to vote on who will be running their affairs in Washington.
    .

    One can visit internet forums to bemoan the degenerate state of the state, feel a thrill by pointing out the idiocy of all and sundry—finger-pointing as an act of expressing one’s superiority—but never once “solve” the problem.  The problem is systemic.  

  10. Curtis Gale Weeks:

    Maybe I should qualify that last comment.  The hope of finger-pointing seems to lie in the possibility of mass-shaming. At least, if enough are shamed on one side, enough may acquiesce for an election cycle, failing to show up in adequate numbers.  So this is the effect and value of the “motivated voter” dynamic.  And, perhaps the possibility of being so shamed is greater when one’s own arguments are weakest and can be put down without adequate rebuttal or without inspiring renewed motivation.  Maybe that’s how the American system’s “wisdom of the crowds” dynamic works. I’m just hedging here.

  11. Curtis Gale Weeks:

    Trying not to go overboard in commenting here, but…perhaps that’s part of the problem w/ the Alex Jones crowd on the Right.  They would shame their opponents, but their opponents easily 1) rebut the Jones crowd and/or 2) have their own motivation renewed, strengthened even when they consider the Jones crowd gaining power.

    .

    So the trick is to shame without foaming at the mouth. 

  12. Charles Cameron:

  13. Charles Cameron:

    I believe this is the video Chris wanted to embed in comments #2 above — I found a different copy, one for which embedding is permitted:

  14. zen:

    Hi Curtis
    .
    Mark, it’s capitalism + democracy.  That 50% has a major influence on our political system.
    .
    A couple of points.
    .
    The decline of at least the major network news orgs relates more to internal corporate business metrics separating them artificially from other relevant and directly related but innately more profitable components of broadcasting companies. That accounting system is not an act of God or nature to be accepted as a given. There’s no reason that CBS News, which enjoys a government granted monopoly over the portion of the electromagnetic spectrum, has to operate under the exact same business model of a cable news channel that is entirely private in it’s delivery and can and should do as it pleases in the marketplace, lacking that ginormous taxpayer-given subsidy.
    .
    Secondly the bottom 50% of the bell curve are more economic than political actors in American society. Fewer of them are registered to vote, more of them are ineligible  to vote( felons often fall into the < 100 IQ category) and of those that are registered, participation rates are lower and they count among the least informed voters. A large portion of this population does not vote, engage in political activity, donate to candidates or do things we typically see among citizens who are well informed and politically mobilized.
    .
    So the trick is to shame without foaming at the mouth. 
    .
    I think that’s sound tactical advice. 

  15. Chris:

    Thanks Charles. Clearly an important video, more people need to know the truth! The truth being that the world is full of crazy people who see shapeshifters instead of camera artifacts.

  16. Curtis Gale Weeks:

    Mark,
    .

    I think you might be missing the effect of capitalism + democracy.  CBS for instance has the right to determine for itself those “internal corporate business metrics” and to follow those. While this might not be a result of democracy per se, because it does not involve the vote or the method of selecting representatives, it is certainly a result of some of the established principles of our particular system of democracy.  I doubt that the government-granted monopoly is quite as determinative as you imply for shaping the practices of CBS, at least compared to the influence that the democratic principles and rights have over their decision-making process.  As for the effects of capitalism on the choices that news organizations make…aren’t these also heavily weighted by capitalism + democracy?  They have to capture viewers, maintain interest, entice advertisers, and compete with a great many other broadcasters (cable, internet, airwaves) for that attention.  I’m guessing that the cost difference between cable and traditional broadcast media has minimal effect on the choices  each makes, at least when compared to other influences on their practice.  For instance, those cable news channels, with all their Galtian, free-enterprise private operation [insert snicker] become a competitor for the broadcast channels and may set the tone, the format, the standard.

    .

  17. Curtis Gale Weeks:

    I might put that another way.  Those portions of the electromagnetic spectrum are going to exist, regardless of what the U.S. gov does or does not do about them.

    .

    An absolutist Libertarian approach to the spectrum would include everybody everywhere being able to utilize them as they see fit, without government regulation.  This of course would lead to all kinds of problems which would only be resolved by who can build the most powerful transmitters—if they are resolved at all, since that kind of approach would probably lead to an arms race that left us with a bunch of interference and/or static. (Imagine including radio stations as well.)  Naturally-forming monopolies might eventually arise, whether individual companies or unions of companies working out agreements over who will transmit where, with upstarts thrashed in a thousand different ways in the way that monopolies do thrashing.

    .

    We could simply not allow anyone to use the spectrum.  That would be a great resource loss.

    .

    We could, on the other hand, force the liberal broadcasters out of their government subsidy — these are the target of the argument after all, right? —  and give those subsidies to someone else.  But we haven’t really changed anything then. They would still be competing for market share, for attention-share, with the cable news networks. Infotainment, as long as it helps draw attention, would remain a standard.   And this is because Americans, the buyers, are easily amused by idiocy, if not outright inspired by it.