Acting RICO for All

The term 'conspiracy theory' has more recently become the stone in the sling of social discourse for the political left. Facts and reason have been adopted by the political right, as the point of each arrow loaded in their bow of discourse. In previous years the social zeitgeist broadly held the mantra of, 'the facts don't care about your feelings' and yet in recent years it seems that society has adopted the ideal of, 'my feelings don't care about the facts'. Welcome to the most recent skirmish in the culture war. 

In an effort towards full disclosure, this author now informs the reader that he has a politically right-of-centre leaning preference towards the future histories of this world. Due to the current nomination hearing for a new judge being appointed to SCOTUS, coupled with the Hunter B laptop situation and the potential for WWIII, politics is currently front of mind for the many; including this author. 

To have a decent and meaningful discussion between people with opposing views, the first step is to have a similar understanding of the terms. So, here are some dictionary like terms from Google:

• Conspiracy: A secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.
• Theory: a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.
• Conspiracy Theory: A conspiracy theory is an explanation for an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy by sinister and powerful groups, often political in motivation, when other explanations are more probable.
• RICO Act - 1970: The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act is a United States federal law that provides for extended criminal penalties and a civil cause of action for acts performed as part of an ongoing criminal organization.

The definitions above were provided to show how, over time, terms can be morphed to fit a purpose. The reader is now being asked to consider the Hunter B laptop story, where the original story as presented was described as Russian propaganda; the then claimed propaganda theory has now been shown to be true thus making the Main Stream Media's (MSM) coordinated efforts harmful. The story referred to as the 'Covington Kids' as originally presented by the MSM turned out to be false, and it was only after the full video was made public did some News outlets issue corrections and other News outlets settled out of court for defamation of of character. The Kyle Rittenhouse story from 2020 was also both sensationalized and falsified by the MSM; the gun didn't cross a state line and Mr. Rittenhouse only shot white people. Should the RICO Act be applied to those who coordinated to provide false information in these situations? 

 

The MSM has historically been know as the arbitrator and disseminatore of facts; thus informing the public at large who is telling the truth in an adversarial situation such as political debate. In this the current year, there is a problem, that many members of or an entire News outlet takes a side and holds fast to a political position. This means that most people in the past thought News outlets mostly reported on things like the weather, murders, political scandals and occasionally there were celebrity highlights typically around the time of some award show. 

As over time the MSM News outlets moved away from facts and shifted toward feelings; it was somewhere along that timeline that the party-partisan race was on. Much like most human endeavors, once someone is given an inch, they will take a mile. We are currently within that mile taken if not beyond, and it is up to the reader to sort out their own opinion based on what they see around them.  

After how many years of living near someone who brings no food along and lies all of the time, do you stop inviting them to the summer BBQ party for the cul de sac you live in. Does anyone else recall when the word agenda meant 'a list of points to be discussed' over the current 'here is what we are going to do and not tell you about it, so said the CIA.'

Riddle me this, why are so many, so hawkish about seeking seeking war in Europe?