THE NATIONAL REVIEW ON THE PARKLAND CONSPIRACY KOOKS

     It's about time, but it seems that mainstream Conservatives are finally waking up to the danger posed by a vocal contingent of extremists who barely agree with us on anything. The link above is to a good article in The National Review by Kevin Williamson calling out these fakes. 

     "Those of us who play roles in the public discourse have a special responsibility to be scrupulous with the facts, especially those touching our opponents and rivals." he writes, "When people get used to hearing prominent Conservatives lying about their opponents, it makes it easier for honest and fair-minded people to dismiss Conservative arguments out of hand."

     Very true. One reason why the Corporate Media has lost so much credibility is because they have been exposed as liars so often. Why should we follow their example? 

      Williamson's article refers to the fake-news pouring shamelessly from the Alt-RINOS. Vox Day recently jumped on the 'Parkland is a hoax' bandwagon as have other Red Pills. It seems to be an issue---like Sandy Hook and Pizzagate---that they can't let go of. 

      There are basically two variant fake stories floating around right now. With certain modifications, they hold either that 1) Sheriff Scott Israel and his men carried out the massacre themselves and framed Nicholas Cruz as the scapegoat; or 2) that the entire episode was faked by the Media who employed actors. 

       As we've pointed out before, the FBI's own training manual points out that a large-scale conspiracy's weakest points are exponentially expanded the more people who are involved in it. A good example of a real conspiracy was Obama's domestic spying program. With all the powers of the national government propping it up, the whole scheme was unraveled by Edward Snowden---a low-level NSA technician. That's a working example of how easily a conspiracy can break down. Think of all the major scandals our government has gone through and every single time---for whatever reason---someone talked. 

        That's why every detective---whether police or private---always has a network of informants. The Ancient Romans used to have a saying about secrets being carried about by the spirits of the winds. That was a metaphor for how people involved in such things can't keep quiet about them. To believe either of the scenarios above would require that nobody talked about it. 

         While we don't necessarily agree with everything Williamson said---particularly his questioning Trump's integrity---he makes good points. I tend to believe that Trump, as a political novice, has been imposed upon from time to time by bad advisers. This doesn't make him a bad president: in fact, Harry Truman and General Eisenhower had the same problem. A President is not a Pope and there's no ex cathedra clause in the US Constitution. 

         But Williamson's conclusion is to the very point: "If the Conservative movement cannot prevail in the marketplace of ideas without lies, then it does not deserve to prevail at all." Either we have faith in our own beliefs or we haven't; and that faith implies that our ideals can stand on their own merits.