Don’t be swayed by the number of names listed on screeds like this. Any public figure is bound to have a much wider circle of acquaintance than an ordinary citizen would. Moreover, the acquaintanceship is often one-sided: though many of the people enumerated on this list might properly claim to have “known” Clinton, he wouldn’t know or remember having met a great number of them.
“Body count” lists are not a new phenomenon. Lists documenting all the allegedly “suspicious” deaths of persons connected with the assassination of John F. Kennedy have been circulating for decades, and the same techniques used to create and spread the JFK lists have been employed in the Clinton version:
- List every dead person with even the most tenuous of connections to your subject. It doesn’t matter how these people died, or how tangential they were to your subject’s life. The longer the list, the more impressive it looks and the less likely anyone is to challenge it. By the time readers get to the bottom of the list, they’ll be too weary to wonder what could possibly be relevant about the death of people such as Bill Clinton’s mother’s chiropractor.
- Play word games. Make sure every death is presented as “mysterious.” All accidental deaths are to be labelled “suspicious,” even though by definition accidents occur when something unexpected goes wrong. Every self-inflicted death discussed must include the phrase “ruled a suicide” to imply just the opposite. When an autopsy contradicts a “mysterious death” theory, dispute it; when none was performed because none was needed, claim that “no autopsy was allowed.” Make liberal use of words such as ‘allegedly’ and ‘supposedly’ to dismiss facts you can’t support or contradict with hard evidence.
- Make sure every inconsistency or unexplained detail you can dredge up is offered as evidence of a conspiracy, no matter how insignificant or pointless it may be. If an obvious suicide is discovered wearing only one shoe, ignore the physical evidence of self-inflicted death and dwell on the missing shoe. You don’t have to establish an alternate theory of the death; just keep harping that the missing shoe “can’t be explained.”
- If the data doesn’t fit your conclusion, ignore it. You don’t have to explain why the people who claimed to have the most damaging goods on Clinton (e.g., Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, Linda Tripp, Monica Lewinsky, Kenneth Starr), are still walking around unscathed while dozens of bit players have been bumped off. It’s inconvenient for you, so don’t mention it.
- Most important, don’t let facts and details stand in your way! If you can pass off a death by pneumonia as a “suicide,” do it! If a cause of death contradicts your conspiracy theory, claim it was “never determined.” If your chronology of events is impossible, who cares? It’s not like anybody is going to check up on this stuff ...
The thing I found most amusing about the specific “comment” was the fact that it had absolutely nothing to do with the post to which it appeared to be a response.
Again, time for a lesson in “critical thinking” skills — and the obfuscation techniques used to “bullshit” others:
“And you are lynching Negroes” (Russian: “А у вас негров линчуют”, A u vas negrov linchuyut, “And at your place, they are lynching Negroes”) and the later “And you are hanging blacks” (Russian: “А у вас негров вешают”) are anecdotal counter-argument catchphrases, which epitomize the arguments used by the Soviet Union in response to allegations that it had violated human rights and other criticisms. Use of the phrase refers to such attempts to deflect criticism, e.g. by referencing racial discrimination and lynching in the United States.
The Soviet media frequently covered stories of racial discrimination in the west, as well as reporting on the impacts of unemployment and financial crises, which were seen as inherent problems of the capitalist system that had been erased by the strict egalitarianism of the Communist system. The history of lynchings of African Americans was thus seen as an embarrassing skeleton in the closet for the US which the Soviets frequently used as a stock form of defensive rhetorical ammunition whenever they were reproached for the perceived failings of the Soviet system, such as an inferior industrial and agricultural production, human rights abuses and the relatively low standard of living for workers, compared to their western counterparts.
The use of the phrase is traced to a Russian political joke, about a dispute between an American and a Soviet man. In a 1962 version, an American and a Soviet car salesman argue which country makes better cars. Finally, the American asks: “How many decades does it take an average Soviet man to earn enough money to buy a Soviet car?” After a thoughtful pause, the Soviet replies: “And you are lynching Negroes!”
In the original joke, the American car dealer’s argument about the failure of the Soviet system to produce high-quality automobiles or enough of them to equip their middle class is a legitimate criticism that is not effectively diminished or countered by the (equally legitimate, but utterly irrelevant) counterpoint from the Soviet car dealer that the United States has a history of unfair race relations with African-Americans. The humor thus stems from the obvious logical fallacy inherent to the Soviet counter-argument, which fails to address the original criticism (because it is undeniable) and instead responds with an equally undeniable but completely unrelated counter-criticism against the American
So, let’s review, shall we?
- I post to my blog, discussing the (pretty much irrefutable) evidence that both the Republican party itself, and more broadly, the modern “Conservative” movement has essentially dead-ended, in the candidacy of Donald Trump. Moreover, I provide an off-site link supporting my position (at least with regard to Libertarianism and Barry Goldwater campaign.
- I get a “comment” consisting of a screenful of text which is NOT broken into paragraphs, but is nonetheless liberally spattered with SECTIONS IN ALL CAPS, WHICH INCLUDE MULTIPLE EXLAMATION-POINTS FOR EMPHASIS!! 🙂
(Seriously: you can’t be bothered to break your conspiracy-theory/screed up into paragraphs, but you SERIOUSLY BELIEVE that I should find the fact that you happened to WHACK THE “CAPS LOCK” KEY “persuasive?”
Quite frankly, a neccesary (although by no means sufficient) starting-point for demonstrating that you’ve actually done the level of ‘research” you want me to believe justifies your position, would be to actually put some effort into pointing me toward the source-material which went into your “research”.
This is why I attempt to provide off-site links to explain (rationize?) my own statements.
Attempting to “Green ink” my comments section will result in your “comment” being trashed as spam. I mean, seriously: you couldn’t even be bothered to link to any of the “Clinton body count” conspiracy sites?
Really: exactly how difficult is it to actually put effort and thought into your responses?
(Oh wait, that’s right — the answer should be fairly obvious from the quality of “comment” you left.)
And no: before you ask: I don’t give two liquidy shits whether anyone is “offended” by this post, or not. Feel free to stop “following” my blog at any time. This blog is NOT about KISSING YOUR ASS, whoever you might happen to be.
Just sayin’. 🙂