Exploring Implications Spotted In More Timid Reports

First of all, what do I mean by more timid reports?

Whatever we read today is subject to censorship and its authors to cancellation. So expect to find reports that only call out the tip of any iceberg. Add to them commentaries that are slightly facetious, sarcastic or satirical. The authors can claim “I intended no such implications; I cannot be held responsible for the inferences of others.”

For us, the readers, we can often afford to be more courageous where it would be foolhardy for others.* When we infer something not explicitly spelled out in a report, it is not unusual to pick up on implicit connections. That works like this gif demonstrates.

The trick in making such connections is not to let one’s confirmation bias hold sway, but to honestly explore where an implication legitimately leads.

What prompted today’s topic was a recent comment I left for Richard Fernandez, praising several things that I inferred from his Belmont Club warning about the coming elections. It has the added feature of the coincidence that Fran’s piece today corresponded on one important point that Fran, Wretchard, and I made about conspiracy.

The point I wish to drive home is that one must not worry about being right or wrong when picking up on what might be overlooked by others. Others will not have your particular backlog of information. Everyone has experience and knowledge that others could benefit from. So when someone says something that provokes a connection, then as time permits, speak up and reinforce even a remote implication. Give others the chance to mull it over. Give them the opportunity to make additional connections to their own backlog of knowledge. This is how we begin to break the back of the narrative. Be not afraid of being foolish. Be afraid of being a coward.

Let me highlight what I consider to have been the most important thing that Wretchard provoked in me. It has the benefit of already being reinforced by the way Fran dealt with the same subject. Here is my rephrasing of that one observation.

Conspiracists: this is what politicians — with “the honorable” before their name — call evidentialists. It is their habit — aided by those in corporate media, Leftist trolls, and Establishment thugs like Antifa — to evade answering all charges that arise from the evidence by attacking the credence of those who bring it.

I ended that observation with the joke: “At least as far back as Shakespeare it has been noticed that honorable men are surely made of sterner stuff.”

Yes, I know. I mixed up of the speech.

The slam here is that the funeral speech Shakespeare wrote for Antony had him mock as honorable men those who knew that his offering Caesar a crown 3 times was really a trial balloon serving as cover for the next step in the demise of the Roman republic.

Our “honorable men” think they’ll soon see the demise of ours. We must embrace the role of evidentialists and stand proudly against the onslaught of the mockery they habitually rely upon.


*For instance, fifty years ago, any attempt to provide evidence for the evolving death cult would be met with deaf ears. Twenty years ago, columns on it were becoming more common, but would hardly generate any commentary at all. Fran and I would be lucky to garner a total of 10 comments out of 30 essays, not counting any comments to his that were from me. At some later date I may relate my noticing callers’ failed attempts on trying to connect the death cult to any news story being discussed on any talk shows. People in general felt uncomfortable with the subject, much of that because so many professional writers and hosts feared being labeled as conspiracists. So nobody of any importance told the public it was okay to speak about the subject. Group think is a strong component on what is and is not a permissible subject.