X Close

How the Diddy Conspiracy duped America Satanic hysteria has gone mainstream

P. Diddy's debauchery was like something out of The Great Gatsby. Noam Galai/Getty Images for MTV

P. Diddy's debauchery was like something out of The Great Gatsby. Noam Galai/Getty Images for MTV


October 5, 2024   7 mins

First the facts, then the alternative facts. Sean Combs — aka Diddy, Puff Daddy, and P. Diddy — no longer resides in his $19 million Star Island Miami mansion, but at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, where the 54-year-old music mogul presently shares meals and sleeping quarters with crypto fraudster Sam Bankman-Fried among other assorted felons. According to his Federal indictment, the founder of Bad Boy Records has been arrested for “creating a criminal enterprise whose members and associates engaged in… sex trafficking, forced labour, kidnapping, arson, bribery and obstruction of justice”. The tabloids have revelled in the story of days-long orgies, fuelled by alcohol, drugs and those 1,000 bottles of baby oil discovered on the premises.

The debauchery was like something out of The Great Gatsby, recalled Elisabeth Ovesen, best-selling author of Confessions of a Video Vixen: “Men in tuxedos, topless women in angel wings, champagne and synchronized swimmers on the outside, with group sex in the bathrooms, trays of hors d’oeuvres and drug pills being passed around on the inside.” One Diddy party allegedly took place on a private jet that flew around the world for days — an innovation which would have tickled the imagination of Fitzgerald.

While the rags blabber on about the sexual shenanigans, the international set of A, B, C and D-listers — from Leonardo DiCaprio and Jennifer Lopez to Derek Jeter and Nicole Richie — have all grown eerily quiet, petrified of what might come out as details of the “freak off” sessions come to light at what promises to be the most sensational trial since Johnny Depp and Amber Heard debated whose faecal matter stained the sheets. That’s not to mention the scores of ex-Diddy friends and relations on tenterhooks in anticipation of the upcoming Diddy Abuse Netflix Docuseries — “A Complex Narrative Spanning Decades”, according to the headline of a Variety exclusive. Already, the tentacles of the scandal have touched some of the most powerful names in the music industry — from Def Jam Recordings co-founder Russell Simmons to the legendary Clive Davis.

The unseemly circus has led comedian Bill Maher to conclude that “the music industry is this open cesspool of misogyny, and frankly, rape and sexual harassment, and somehow, the Angel of Death has flown over them”. And, as usual, Maher is onto something — albeit something unsettling. Traditional media may be well equipped to cover sex, drugs and celebrity downfall. But their training in what their professors deemed “verifiable truth” doesn’t help them much when it comes to supernatural evil dating back to the Knights Templars, much less the angel of death and his earthly consorts.

By contrast, the scandal has sent the far-Right conspiratorial crowd into a tizzy of “I-told-you-so” Satanic hysteria. The truthers now possess what they believe is positive proof that what they have been saying all along is true: there is a cabal of subversive elites whose stock in trade is trafficked children. The age-old idea has been given fresh life within the imagination of those individuals that FiveThirtyEight, Nate Silver and Ipsos can never quite manage to get their minds around, the men and women who’ve suspected all along that Doja Cat, Megan Thee Stallion and every other rock star who has ever dressed in red are members of the diabolical Illuminati — along with Tom Hanks, Beyoncé and the British Royals.

Facts are facts: the Illuminati were a real thing. Its first meeting was on 1 May 1776, in the tiny Bavarian town of Ingolstadt, led by an obscure university professor of law named Adam Weishaupt. Within a matter of years, he would become one of the most reviled men in Europe, accused of adultery, murder, rape and conspiracy to overthrow the government.

Unlike Diddy, Weishaupt wasn’t much of a criminal. He created the Illuminati because he couldn’t afford the dues to be a Freemason. He kept his society a secret because the Enlightenment ideas he professed were unpopular among the Jesuits then in power: that women might possess intelligence equal to men; that a human from Africa might be as human as one from Europe; that there might not be an orthodox Catholic god.

“Facts are facts: the Illuminati were a real thing.”

These were not only widely palatable but popular liberal ideals, and in a few years the ranks of the Illuminati would expand to more than 2,000 members of the social elite — aristocrats, bankers, barons, diplomats, doctors, writers and wits. Had Adam Weishaupt lived in America, we might revere his name alongside Adams, Jefferson and Madison. Instead, the Jesuits convinced Karl Theodor, the Duke of Bavaria, to declare the Illuminati a subversive organisation. A tranche of government-sponsored pamphlets proliferated, declaring that the Illuminati were debauched sodomites, that they ran prostitution rings, that they drank the blood of trafficked children and were working under the auspices of the Angel of Death.

The barrage of sensational media horrified the reading public of Germany, France and Britain, then crossed the Atlantic to the United States, where Illuminati hysteria soon ignited waves of political fear and eventually energised Robert F. Kennedy Jr’s presidential campaign. None of which is news to anyone who’s been following conspiratorial social media accounts dedicated to the Omniwar, the Clinton murders, the goings on at Epstein Island, or raw milk. Clearly, Diddy had joined the ranks of the Diabolicals who populate the IMF and World Economic Forum. This is obvious to everyone.

Everyone, that is, except the so-called “mainstream media” who continue to ignore the salient fact of the alternative facts:

Exhibit A: The memoirs of Diddy’s ex-wife, Kim Porter, recently salvaged from the dung heap of discarded digi-trash, which recently topped the Amazon charts — despite concerns that they are fake, and despite the fact that Porter is dead. Discovering the hidden logic and rhetoric of conspiracy within these pages is a no-brainer for the inflamed wingnuts poring over subreddits and Parler.

Exhibit B: Ashton Kutcher, darling of the tech entrepreneurs and erstwhile bosom buddy of the notorious Did, who has been widely quoted as saying he can’t be quoted about some of the things that went on. Which leads the red-pilled crowd to believe that the freaks offs delivered something far freakier than the run-of-the-mill Wall Street launch-the-midget-from-a-cannon bacchanal.

Exhibits C, D, E, and F: Snaps of Kamala and Diddy, Oprah and Diddy, Taylor Swift and Diddy, Prince Harry and Diddy…

Then there’s the unsettling matter of Justin Bieber, images of whom crowd the postings of the Q crowd. Here he is shirtless, more than likely wasted, clearly subservient to Diddy, who holds the since-traumatised star in what can only be described as a loved-up headlock. In the years since, Bieber has retreated to the manifold comforts of Jesus, although he did emerge tearfully seeking to “protect” Billie Eilish from evil. Nothing to see here, nor in the ever-creepier videos that have been surfacing on a daily basis, such as the long-neglected 10-year-old segment of Keeping Up featuring Khloé Kardashian bubbling about the Biebs at a naked Freak Off — although Khloe, too, has decided to say no more about it and simply hope the whole thing will go away. Which it won’t.

Typical of the feverish response among the theorists has been the feed of the infamous American celebrity journalist, O’Reilly Factor alumni and shit-poster, Liz Crokin, who took the opportunity to amplify Vladimir Putin’s accusation of cannibalism among American elites: “Putin has been calling out the elite Satanic pedophile cabal for years,” she wrote on X.

“I wonder if Hunter ever went to [a] Diddy party,” posted Jake Angeli-Chansley, the Viking-horned Q-Anon Shaman who stormed the Capitol on January 6.

To be sure, Diddy’s lawyer, Marc Agnifilo (whose previous clients include a bevy of convicted Satanic cabal members, such as sex trafficking NXIVM cult leader Keith Raniere) has promised that Combs will take the stand and tell his side of the story (“It’s a human story. It’s a story of love.”), which of course will do nothing to convince anyone of anything, as the narrative has metastasised to the point that the public at large now accepts the man who insists we call him “Ye” as a reliable witness to the fact that Diddy was, among other things, a Fed — thus bringing the Illuminati to the highest echelons of power.

Still, the editors scratch their heads, wondering who, what, when, where, and how such fictions could ever be embraced. Aside from personal tragedy and triage, what’s sad is that the rumblings of the Diddy Conspiracy present the last, best opportunity for traditional network television and the print establishment to help to save their industry from extinction, not to mention democracy itself, by admitting to the prevalence and power of conspiracy theory.

If they haven’t learned from Donald Trump, QAnon and January 6, conspiracy theory possesses a powerful and persuasive logic and rhetoric. On the strictly empirical level, the tale of Diddy’s malfeasance has been delivering to the purveyors of conspiracy theory precisely what the philosophers call “objective reality”. The critique of conspiracy theory falters here, as inductive and deductive reasoning both lead the sober “independent researcher” (aka, digital bottom feeder) to the same conclusion: it’s the Illuminati. And people believe it. Lots of people believe it.

Instead of ignoring the Diddy Conspiracy, the mainstream media should admit its power and presence as an artefact of our suspicious and sorry moment. It should examine its history, consider its reasoning, count its adherents. The editors will be shocked to discover that the story of the story is somewhat different to rock and roll’s “Me Too moment”, as The New York Times recently concluded. They will have to admit how mainstream conspiracy has become.

Of course, for establishment media to face up to the Illuminati version of the story would not only mean dragging themselves through the mud of popular mythology, but entail a great deal of discomfort for Hollywood and the music industry, not to mention walking the tightrope of the morass of racial and sexual politics that helped to enable Diddy in the first place. But to do otherwise at this fraught moment would be political malpractice. The Diddy Conspiracy explains a great deal about the way the world outside the mainstream media bubble thinks. The New York Times and the Washington Post and the Atlantic and the New Yorker and CNN and MSNBC and all the rest can ignore the siren song of conspiracy for as long as they like — but then they should not wonder where all those Trump votes come from.

We liberals like to shake our heads at the unfortunate circumstance, sigh, and leave it at that. Which is a mistake we’ve made before. For if there’s one thing the last few centuries should have taught us, it’s that what we refuse to acknowledge can bite us in the ass. That said, traditional outlets will no doubt remain content to stand above the fray and ignore the rustlings of the conspiracists — which is yet another reason why Donald Trump will most likely re-settle into the Oval Office, nuclear codes nestled between his Diet Coke and McDonald’s Filet-O-Fish, phone in hand, poised to post.


Frederick Kaufman is a contributing editor at Harper’s magazine and a professor of English and Journalism at the College of Staten Island. His next project is a book about the world’s first political reactionary.

FredericKaufman

Join the discussion


Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber


To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.

Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.

Subscribe
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

116 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Dylan B
Dylan B
2 months ago

News flash.
Obscenely wealthy people often do some weird and crazy sh*t!
And get away with it.
Oh. And in other news.
Hollywood (and showbiz more broadly) has more than its fair share of degenerates.
None of this is news. Why?
Because it’s always been this way.
Yes, they should be investigated and sent to prison if found guilty, but this is not a new satanist phenomena. It’s just over indulged creepy people doing the same weird stuff they have always done.

Mark Royster
Mark Royster
2 months ago
Reply to  Dylan B

And we are the ones who make them rich. In return we get their “art” and lascivious titillating scandals every now and then as a bonus. Then there are the parasites who make their living talking about them either exposing /condemning or defending. Amazing. This goose lays golden eggs for everyone. What if we just ignored them all even for a month?

Alex Lekas
Alex Lekas
2 months ago
Reply to  Dylan B

True but the longer that bad behavior is indulged, the worse it becomes. This is true of anything that is tolerated from a child acting out to criminals getting a pass for theft up to a certain monetary value to wealthy people engaged in debauchery.

Betsy Warrior
Betsy Warrior
2 months ago
Reply to  Alex Lekas

Debauchery??

Sawfish
Sawfish
2 months ago
Reply to  Betsy Warrior

Are you suggesting that, like “dignity”, “self-restraint”, and “personal integrity”, the term “debauchery” has no immediately recognized meaning because, like the other terms, it just doesn’t seem very important nowadays?

Brett H
Brett H
2 months ago
Reply to  Betsy Warrior

Debauchery??
Yes, why not?

Jerry Carroll
Jerry Carroll
2 months ago
Reply to  Alex Lekas

Debauchees think it’s no big thing.

Sawfish
Sawfish
2 months ago
Reply to  Dylan B

Ultimately, the push-back can be like the French Revolution.

Simon Adams
Simon Adams
2 months ago
Reply to  Dylan B

If these celebrities and very rich people lead culture; endorse politicians, set the criteria for ethical investment, decide the narrative of newspapers and TV etc, then surely it’s a bit more than “this is just how it’s always been”? If you go back several centuries, yes these people had parties, and they fought wars (as had always been the case into prehistory, but at they were usually at the front of the charge). However the wealthy also built monasteries which fed the poor and aimed to lift the spirit of the whole nation to more noble things. They built universities and debated the latest ideas and research at the dinner table. They held kings and governments to account (eg. Magna Carta), and turned societies from violent tribalism to societies based on law and order, on justice and rights. The current equivalent (apart from a few exceptions) kick the ladder out from behind them. They reject the society that built them up as fundamentally wrong, whilst twisting foundational principles as if to ease their guilt. They don’t invest in the future of the countries they lead, offshoring work to where it’s cheapest (without much concern for the pollution this causes), invest in nice sounding green energy schemes that will always leave us vulnerable to conflicts involving the middle east, Russia etc. They ignore food security and let farms close to import cheap food. They let critical industries like steel or dockyards close. None of this is really a threat to them; paying the highest electricity bills in the world is irrelevant to them. Etc etc.

If most of the people leading our society either explicitly or implicitly are joyriding untested ideologies and generally not acting like grown ups, surely it matters?

Josie Bowen
Josie Bowen
2 months ago
Reply to  Simon Adams

Very well said. You should have 100’s of upvotes.

Apo State
Apo State
2 months ago
Reply to  Simon Adams

Unfortunately, we’ve somehow traded “noblesse oblige“ for noblesse entitles, to the great detriment of society.

Pete Marsh
Pete Marsh
2 months ago

So there’s ‘liberals’ on one side (the right side) and ‘far right conspiracy theorists’ (the nutters, obvs) on the other. Interesting framing.

Judy Englander
Judy Englander
2 months ago

A professor of English should write with more clarity than this unintelligible purple prose.

Brett H
Brett H
2 months ago
Reply to  Judy Englander

I thought it was very funny. What was unintelligible about it?

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
2 months ago
Reply to  Brett H

So-so prose, ridiculous message

Brett H
Brett H
2 months ago
Reply to  UnHerd Reader

What’s ridiculous about it?

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
2 months ago
Reply to  Brett H

You mean of course the mainstream game of ignoring factual stories like The Springfield, Ohio story, because it was first talked about by “conservatives”..
And the mainstream still sticks to Russiagate bs, etc are considered credible by who?

John Gleeson
John Gleeson
2 months ago
Reply to  UnHerd Reader

This guy is an absolute cretin. I can’t are watching programmed people who don’t know they’ve been programmed struggling to comprehend how other people find fault with said ‘program’. They’re always soulless, scary individuals with zero comprehension that free, indepent thought is even a thing.

Geoff W
Geoff W
2 months ago
Reply to  Judy Englander

He should also know that it’s Knights Templar (not “Templars”), and that a female graduate is an alumna (“alumni” is the plural form).
Minor points, I know, but I’m enraged by the man’s smugness. He seems to think that he’s the only guy in the room who knows about right-wing conspiracy theories, when a simple online search of some major news organisations (or even recollection of the furore surrounding the lie about Haitian immigrants in Ohio eating pets) would indicate otherwise.

John Gleeson
John Gleeson
2 months ago
Reply to  Geoff W

LOL. This is your gripe? That he thinks he’s the only one who knows about ‘right-wing conspiracy theories’.

This isn’t a ‘right-wing conspiracy’. Or even a ‘far-Right’ one like this clown claims. It’s a general population conspiracy.

But as this arsehat, and every single maniac on the Left, have an inveterate need to constantly, in every sphere of society, ”carry the fight” to the ‘Right’ via propaganda, one of your top tactics is to label every-possible-thing you can as being one.

Particular things that go against the Marxist subversion of the West, that carried on a different guise after 1990 (and even before then), like the ‘Cultural Marxism’ of the Frankfurt School and the ‘long march through the institutions. Concepts and phenomenon they have a real basis in reality, but would reflect bad on the ‘ideology’ they’re hellbent on having everyone on planet earth submit to, just like their pet group.

Google the term ‘Cultural Marxism’, and you’ll get articles from diabolical Leftists about it being a ‘Far-Right conspiracy’. Or Right-wing conspiracy. Even a Wikipedia with that term deliberate in the meta-data. That those people are depraved and sick enough to hear terms and decide to go and create articles and Wikis, and ‘Rational Wikis’ and SEO the shit out of them to get them to rank number for the term just shows the deeply inhumane nature of these people. Chilling ideologues and hateful fanatics.

Or the ‘great replacement’, again articles about ‘right-wing’ conspiracy straight away. In my home town, Luton, the original population has been replaced already. It’s 45% white, 38% Muslim, the rest other. Same up and down the country. Research has shown in the next 200 years 13 European nations, including the UK, France, Sweden, Belgium, Italy, will be majority Muslim.

But you’ll get the Operant Conditioning phrase ‘far-Right conspiracy’ or ‘right-wing’. All while they totally destroy the West and subvert everything that was great about it

You’d almost thing there was an ideological war going on. On the one side crackpot Marxist ideologues (and their clueless lemming herd who don’t even know they’re Marxists in the modern, woke sense of the word), where propaganda is their hallmark and the basis of everything they do, just like it is and has been in any Marxist or Communist country. Mind-control, speech-control, thought-control, behaviour control.

And that they’re deliberately engaged in poisoning the well and further discrediting their political opponents with BS nonsense articles like this. But most of them are so inwardly grotesque, arrogant, and narcissistic that it’s so natural to them they aren’t even conscious enough of it for it to be deliberate.

The fact this hideous human-being has such an irrational, hatefilled, unhinged revulsion to political opposites is why he’s a smug, obnoxious t**d. Not that he thinks he’s the only one who knows about ‘right-wing’ conspiracies.

Brett H
Brett H
2 months ago
Reply to  Geoff W

Try reading it again. Slowly this time.

Jerry Carroll
Jerry Carroll
2 months ago
Reply to  Judy Englander

You’re kidding, right?

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
2 months ago
Reply to  Jerry Carroll

He’s right. Are you a denialist or just slow?

Brett H
Brett H
2 months ago
Reply to  UnHerd Reader

This is what Judy Englander said;
A professor of English should write with more clarity than this unintelligible purple prose.
Jerry Carroll replied “You’re kidding, right?” Meaning she doesn’t think it’s unintelligible. How does that make her denialist? And a denialist of what? Unfortunately people like you can just throw in a comment then walk away without having to justify your insult. Just think about who might be “slow” here.

Francisco Menezes
Francisco Menezes
2 months ago

“creating a criminal enterprise whose members and associates engaged in… sex trafficking, forced labour, kidnapping, arson, bribery and obstruction of justice”. sounds like a US federal employee.

Studio Largo
Studio Largo
2 months ago

Once again, all roads lead to DJT, which is its own type of conspiracy theory. Also, Doja Cat, Cardi B and Diddy are not ‘rock stars’.

Right-Wing Hippie
Right-Wing Hippie
2 months ago

The affinities of nativism and antislavery are striking, even apart from the fact that both drew their strength from the same religious and social constituencies. Both, for instance, reflected psychologically a highly dramatized fear of a powerful force which sought by conspiratorial means to subvert the values of the republic: in one case this was the slavocracy, with its ‘lords of the lash’, in the other, the Church of Rome with its crafty priests and subtle Jesuits. Both reflected in their propaganda a prurient fascination with the alleged sexual excesses of slaveholders and priests. In an age when sexual repression was widespread and sex as a theme in most branches of literature was taboo, the ‘exposure’ of evil provided a sanction for the salacious description of sexual transgressions. In the lurid and sensational literature of the two movements, the lecheries of the priests and the miscegenation of the slaveholders were favorite themes. Endangered chastity–whether of lovely octoroon girls or of virginal nuns–was a vital part of the message of reform. If the escape of a mulatto girl was the high point of Uncle Tom’s Cabin, the escape of a nun from the convent was the high point of The Awful Disclosures of Maria Monk. If Uncle Tom outsold Maria, Maria outsold everything else, and was called, with perhaps more significance than was intended, ‘the Uncle Tom’s Cabin of Know-Nothingism.’ If Wendell Phillips said that the slaveholders had made the entire South ‘one great brothel,’ the American Protestant Vindicator said that an unmarried priesthood had converted whole nations into ‘one vast brothel’.

–David M. Potter, The Impending Crisis, 1848-1861 (1976)

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
2 months ago

Yet another trash essay from this Kaufman clown. Let’s take the latest scandal and somehow magically make it about MAGA. What conspiracy theories is he talking about? I’m sure there’s a lot of wild speculation right now, because the scandal is two minutes old and it likely implicates some important members of the glitterati.

Not-so bold prediction. Virtually none of the people implicated in this scandal will be Republicans. Virtually all of them will be Democrats, and many will be donors. But ya, let’s throw shade on MAGA for being degenerates.

Jack Robertson
Jack Robertson
2 months ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

Yeah, there’s a kind of hysterical decadence in play among the liberal chattering classes now. With every new piece of accumulated evidence that the cosy ‘progressive consensus’ of the post-WW2 West was destructive, self-serving and full of sh*t all along, those most implicated in it and who continue to benefit most from it are now adopting an evermore contrived air of nonplussed, ironic befuddlement. It’s like catching redhanded some a*sehole ransacking your house at 2.00 am, only to have them chuckle sorrowfully and lament the dishonest times you both must live in.
It would have been useful and honest if this essay had simply part-quoted Maher – the music industry is this open cesspool of misogyny, and frankly, rape and sexual harassment – and left it at that. That it just can’t bring itself to do so goes a long way to explaining why so many Americans will choose to vote for a man who barely reads anything at all, rather than a woman whose entire public persona has been constructed from too-smart, too-smug wordplay like this.

Hugh Bryant
Hugh Bryant
2 months ago
Reply to  Jack Robertson

TBF Christopher Lasch was writing about the hollowness of these people forty years ago.

Jack Robertson
Jack Robertson
2 months ago
Reply to  Hugh Bryant

Yep. Though the list of heterodox thinkers since the Boomer cultural revolution who have every right today to say ‘Well, I did try to tell you’ is quite a bit longer.

Hugh Bryant
Hugh Bryant
2 months ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

as usual, Maher is onto something
‘As usual’? My impression of Maher is that he’s as credulous as everyone else on the left who thinks Kamala Harris is capable of being a competent president.

Peter Strider
Peter Strider
2 months ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

I got to about halfway when I was prompted to ask “who has written this shit” and was shocked to realise it was on Unheard! Disappointing dross

Jim C
Jim C
2 months ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

Kaufman is a typical liberal professor who thinks that his arguments from incredulity are persuasive because he is, after all, a professor of English and Journalism. If you’re not going to take his word for it that something is too ridiculous to be true, well… whose word for it are you going to take?

This despite years of evidence that English and Journalism majors will swallow and amplify utterly baseless conspiracy theories like Russiagate, or dismiss IVM as “horse dewormer”, or repeat the “Trump said the Nazis at Charlottesville are fine people!” hoax.

Go read some books on epistemology and learn how to think, Kaufman.

Jerry Carroll
Jerry Carroll
2 months ago
Reply to  Jim C

Professors of English and journalism gave up that kind of hard reading a long time ago. You will find them glued to the screen for either MSNBC or even the BBC is available for instruction.

Jonathan Weil
Jonathan Weil
2 months ago
Reply to  Jim C

Wait, are you saying it *is* the Illuminati?

Peter Jenks
Peter Jenks
2 months ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

From the shores of Europe, I’m shaking my heat in disbelief. Just what is the point of publishing this sort of unsubstantiated gossip in a site I thought might be above gutter mudslinging.

General Store
General Store
2 months ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

Please UNHERD what are you doing. We love unheard voices….non-mainstream. But this bloke is just such a waste of space. This is a version of click-bait. It turns me right off.

Brett H
Brett H
2 months ago
Reply to  General Store

Get over yourselves.

Mark V
Mark V
2 months ago

Some definitional clarifications:

Conspiracy: when people conspire
Conspiracy theory: a theory a conspiracy is occurring
Conspirators: those who conspire
Conspiratorial: in the manner of those who conspire
Conspiracist: one who (perhaps obsessively) suspects conspiracies are occurring

Editorial should take note.

Vidar Bøe
Vidar Bøe
2 months ago

How this world’s dark powers love to make gods of humans just to tear them down and expose the evil at their core. And for what? That you and I may stand around and gloat, telling ourselves that we are not like that. But the truth is that we are all the same. As it is written: “There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands; there is no one who seeks God. All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one.”

Malcolm Knott
Malcolm Knott
2 months ago

Never mind the orgies. Concentrate on the fraud.

Francis Turner
Francis Turner
2 months ago

A tedious, insignificant, inconsequential non- entity, not worthy of interest on this medium

Hugh Bryant
Hugh Bryant
2 months ago

We liberals like to shake our heads at the unfortunate circumstance, sigh, and leave it at that.
… or invent some utterly spurious narrative that deflects attention from the degeneracy of our class onto some other group as you’ve just done here, eh?

Francis Turner
Francis Turner
2 months ago

Ahh Sir Puffington Diddy, sure I shot with him on a Norfolk partridge day.. or maybe out with the Quorn?..

Francis Turner
Francis Turner
2 months ago
Reply to  Francis Turner

no.. I was wrong.. it was at The Tower Hamlets and Brixton Hunt point to point…

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
2 months ago

As usual, Kaufman’s writing is garbage. Fun-to-read garbage, but garbage nonetheless.

Mark Royster
Mark Royster
2 months ago
Reply to  UnHerd Reader

I think it was AI generated. If not it could be. Utterly predictable as we slide from one paragraph to the next. Slicker than baby oil! Right to the sweet finish an AI generated caricature of Mr Twump.

Mark Royster
Mark Royster
2 months ago

Last paragraph is a real treat!
1 it’s a conspiracy, that is, not true. 2 the left better take it seriously as such or 3 Trump will be elected and 4 Trump is a Diet Coke drinking moron or worse.
Note: take serious the power of conspiracies in general, not the possibility that there may be some truth in this one at least. Circle the wagons!

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
2 months ago

I was expecting better writing from my new unHerd sub. This is supercilious and self indulgent. I see the author is a professor of English. My goodness! It is neither informative nor entertaining. Shame on the author. He has no regard for the content or the story. He is not clever.

Brett H
Brett H
2 months ago
Reply to  UnHerd Reader

Is this the same person who wrote “Great article” just above?

Mike Michaels
Mike Michaels
2 months ago
Reply to  Brett H

Probably not. It’s a generic name.

Geoff W
Geoff W
2 months ago
Reply to  Mike Michaels

Sloppiness on the website’s part. If people really want to post as “UnHerd Reader,” surely numbers can be added to that handle so that we can distinguish t’other from which?
I take comfort from the fact that there is only one Brett H, and only one Mike Michaels.

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
2 months ago
Reply to  Brett H

No I’m not the same. It’s a new sub. This is the name they put on my comment.

Brett H
Brett H
2 months ago
Reply to  UnHerd Reader

What a crazy system.

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
2 months ago

Great article! I agree that the media should take “conspiracy” seriously, and that it is hard for them to do so. And that is because of the history of their collusion with the state. I am thinking of the Congress for Cultural Freedom, actual CIA agents on newspaper staffs, actual spies on cable new shows. How would you go about this remediation, practically?

Mark Royster
Mark Royster
2 months ago
Reply to  UnHerd Reader

A simple moratorium on ALL media for just 30 days would do the trick. Let the consumers declare a general strike. Just 30 days. Can you imagine? The end of the world as we know it.

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
2 months ago
Reply to  UnHerd Reader

Kaufman’s article is, ironically, unreadable conspiratorial hogwash. His only successful caricature is of himself…an ass posing as a font of wisdom. . But your point is spot on regarding the media being corrupted by allowing agents if the state/ state party control of the news.

Brett H
Brett H
2 months ago
Reply to  UnHerd Reader

Thank you for being one of the few to understand the story, Maybe the others should improve their reading skills a little more, Or are they just the rabid right?

John Gleeson
John Gleeson
2 months ago
Reply to  Brett H

God, you’re obnoxious, mate. Why do evangelists, for their cult, so often lie and pretend to be on the other side? Earlier, you tried to claim you were a Trump supporter, which was BS.

They’ve said many times why they don’t like it and why, but like every one of your lot, it doesn’t matter how many times it’s explained; you people just do not have the cognitive tools to understand different perspectives and lack the decency to refrain from putting a malicious spin on why they think as they do. So asking you to take your own advice and read more carefully, as you need to do that, is pointless because it doesn’t matter how many times, you won’t be able to comprehend. This is what media and society-fed brainwashing and propaganda does to its recipients.

Yet you cannot comprehend because you are not a free thinker. You are what people here despise, quite frankly. The kind of person than cannot see their many flaws and yet see them, magnified 100x by your own innate xenophobia and belief in your own self-perceived intellectual and moral superiority, very clearly in the ‘other side’ (which is everyone not part of the enlightened ‘Liberal’ left-elite reduced to the ‘right-wing’).

You cannot fathom the arrogance, narcissism, pretentiousness, obsessiveness and irrational hatred, nor the lack of substance, empirical evidence, balance, fairness, or decency because you either lack those things or hold them in abundance.

Your last statement is the nub of it. You can’t contain your delight because, like you, the author shares your all-consuming sense of superiority to the ‘rabid right’ and the deranged obsession with them. And it’s mostly based on fiction in your heads. It’s a level of hatred based on gross caricature and stereotype that is akin to the K.K.K. white supremacist mindset that thinks all black people are savage monkeys with no intellect.

It’s based on that underlying dynamic and belief of both your own inherent superiority and the belief in the innate inferiority of the outgroup.

Of course, you’re besotted with this article and have, like an insufferably obsessed lunatic, gone around and insulted and badgered others who happen to be free, independent thinking types, and therefore rational, considered, educated, non-partisan, and not given to extreme ideological swings one way of the other and can see things as they truly are, trying to figure out why they don’t get it.

You clearly haven’t got the faculties, intelligence, self-awareness, or balance to grasp why the main audience here don’t appreciate the typical Leftist worldview or the American Democrat media. The woke attitude is where everything they do is impeccable and beyond reproach, and there is no need to be criticized or for their sins to be examined. One thinks that because there is a group that even dares to oppose them, that group is automatically deranged, defective, mentally deficient, and everything they do and think is on par with the stupidity of conspiracy theories.

You can’t get it and won’t get it, so stop making a spectacle of yourself and go and rejoin the CNN audience and leave intelligent people in peace.

The level of hatred and stupidity, the level of deception and lies and idiocy you’ve been told and enthusiastically championed like a complete fanatic from Kaufman and a million others, have caused horrific damage to society. And people like you are too repellent in your hubris and self-adoration to even comprehend it, let alone acknowledge it. 

It’s a collective narcissism—a belief in inherent superiority comparable to the Germans towards all others in 30/40’s Germany.

And it’s that blindness to their flaws that means they cannot comprehend accurately why people like Trump got to where he did. Or Brexit happened. Or people do anything that isn’t in line with their worldview. Because that would mean having to take a look at, or even just acknowledge, their own flaws. And that’s not happening. So they just call the other side ‘deplorables’ and set about smearing, tarring and feathering, demeaning, abusing, and belittling the other side.

It’s a disgrace. And you love it.

Brett H
Brett H
2 months ago
Reply to  John Gleeson

That’s quite an effort and a lot of unnecessary words, all fired off in the right direction. All because I happened to comment on the meaning of an article that I believed was missed by many. Maybe you’ve only started reading comments recently but, whatever, you’ve painted me in a way that suits your anger and which is totally wrong, all because I happened to observe how many people had let their anger at the left blind them to what the story was saying. Even if I was what you accuse me of, doesn’t your comment suggest an intolerance of other views? Maybe I’m right after all in mentioning the rabid right. I’m actually very much against the left and their politics, but i’m pretty sure I don’t want to be in the same room as you. And what does my comment have to do with xenophobia?

John Gleeson
John Gleeson
2 months ago
Reply to  Brett H

Like I said. You can’t get it and you won’t get it.
Everyone else is wrong, and you have some special knowledge the rest of us don’t.
I’ve said all that needs to be said.
Perhaps just learn to take others at their word.
A bit of self-reflection does no-one any harm. In fact, you’ll only benefit and grow from it.
I suggest you do that rather than going around like a mad man trying to convince others that are missing the point when it is you that has failed to grasp things, I assure you.

Phillip De Vous
Phillip De Vous
2 months ago

I read this odd essay twice. What does it even mean?

Brett H
Brett H
2 months ago

A but if fun,

Jerry Carroll
Jerry Carroll
2 months ago
Reply to  Brett H

Stop drinking.

John Gleeson
John Gleeson
2 months ago
Reply to  Brett H

Weirdo. Utter weirdo. What would compel you to need to defend this article like you have. Because it’s aimed at the people you’ve been programmed to hate?

Brett H
Brett H
2 months ago
Reply to  John Gleeson

Would you like to elaborate on that? Like explaining how i’ve been programmed to hate some people. Like who? Who is the article aimed at, as you say? You need to ease up on the anger a little and try to make yourself understood. Just calling someone “weirdo” sounds a little juvenile. Why am I a weirdo? What is it you don’t like about the article?

blue 0
blue 0
2 months ago

BlueAnon Kaufman, calling out QAnon is a trip through a conspiracy dark hole.

Alex Lekas
Alex Lekas
2 months ago

there is a cabal of subversive elites whose stock in trade is trafficked children. 
Well, yes, there is such a group. Child trafficking is a monster business in the US alone, without even factoring in other parts of the world. There was a film made about the trafficking, a movie that Disney sat on for years until it reached theaters under a different label, and not one person has disputed the claims it made. This cabal is hardly a myth. Whether Puffy was part of it or not is a separate matter.

Kelly Madden
Kelly Madden
2 months ago

“[Weishaupt] kept his society a secret because the Enlightenment ideas he professed were unpopular among the Jesuits then in power: that women might possess intelligence equal to men; that a human from Africa might be as human as one from Europe…”
Since we’re discussing facts and alt-facts, I asked ChapGPT for an analysis of the above:

The quote you provided reflects a commonly held view of the Enlightenment as a period championing equality and individual rights, contrasted with religious institutions (in this case, the Jesuits) often seen as conservative or suppressive of progressive ideas. However, this portrayal can be oversimplified or even misleading when examined in detail.

Enlightenment and Gender Equality

The Enlightenment is often celebrated for its promotion of reason, individualism, and human rights. However, the actual status of women during this period was complex. While some Enlightenment thinkers, such as Mary Wollstonecraft, argued for the equality of women, many prominent Enlightenment figures—such as Rousseau, Kant, and Voltaire—either ignored women’s rights or maintained traditional views on gender roles. Rousseau, for example, argued that women’s primary role was domestic, and Kant viewed women as inherently inferior in reason.

Thus, while Enlightenment ideas could support the notion of gender equality, the majority of Enlightenment philosophers did not actually advocate for it in practice. The claim that the Enlightenment broadly upheld the idea that “women might possess intelligence equal to men” is, at best, selective in its representation of the movement.

Enlightenment and Racial Equality

Similarly, the Enlightenment’s stance on race is more complicated than the quote suggests. While there were Enlightenment figures who opposed slavery and argued for the equality of all humans, including those from Africa (e.g., the abolitionist movement), there were also prominent Enlightenment thinkers who propagated racial hierarchies. For example, Kant, in his Anthropology, and Voltaire held views that suggested a belief in the superiority of Europeans over other races.

Thus, while the Enlightenment contained ideas that could support racial equality, many of its major figures also contributed to the development of racial science and racist ideologies. The view that the Enlightenment universally supported racial equality is, again, overly simplistic.

Jesuits and Gender

The Jesuits, as a religious order of the Catholic Church, had their own complexities. While traditionally hierarchical and male-dominated, the Jesuits’ intellectual tradition was not inherently opposed to the idea of female intelligence. They contributed significantly to education, including the education of women, especially in the later centuries. Many Jesuit institutions and educators recognized and supported the intellectual potential of women, even if they didn’t advocate for outright social or political equality.

Therefore, the suggestion that the Jesuits uniformly opposed the notion of gender equality oversimplifies their historical role. While the order did not actively push for the kind of gender equality championed by some Enlightenment thinkers, it was not universally against the idea that women could be intelligent or educated.

Jesuits and Racial Equality

The Jesuits also had a complex relationship with issues of race. In the context of European colonization, Jesuit missionaries often worked to protect the rights and dignity of indigenous peoples. For example, in Latin America, Jesuit missions sought to defend indigenous peoples from exploitation by European settlers and colonial authorities. Jesuits such as Bartolomé de las Casas advocated for the humane treatment of Africans and indigenous people, though this did not always translate into a modern understanding of racial equality.

However, like many other religious and secular institutions, the Jesuits were part of a broader social and cultural context that often accepted the subjugation of non-Europeans. But to claim that the Jesuits were universally opposed to the idea that Africans were as “human” as Europeans does not capture the nuanced role they played in both defending and, at times, perpetuating colonial practices.

Conclusion

The Enlightenment and the Jesuits cannot be easily categorized as progressive or regressive in terms of gender and racial equality. Many Enlightenment thinkers upheld traditional views on gender and race, while some Jesuits defended the dignity of marginalized peoples. Both movements had internal diversity, and any sweeping generalization about either group is likely to misrepresent historical reality. The Enlightenment was not a monolithic force for equality, nor were the Jesuits uniformly opposed to progressive ideas.

Kelly Madden
Kelly Madden
2 months ago
Reply to  Kelly Madden

Two of the greatest minds in church history said their sister was smarter:

Both Saints Gregory of Nyssa and Basil the Great expressed high admiration for their sister, Saint Macrina, and suggested that she had greater wisdom and intelligence than they did, especially in spiritual matters.

Saint Gregory of Nyssa, in his work Life of Macrina, speaks of her profound influence on him and acknowledges her superior spiritual insight and wisdom. Macrina is depicted as a model of Christian virtue and theological understanding, and Gregory portrays her as a teacher who profoundly shaped his spiritual and intellectual development.

Saint Basil the Great also held Macrina in high esteem. While there are fewer direct records from Basil about Macrina, it is clear from Gregory’s account and other sources that Basil considered her a significant influence, particularly on his monastic and ascetic practices.

Both brothers viewed their sister as a spiritual guide and mentor, reflecting a deep respect for her intellectual and theological contributions, even acknowledging her as superior in wisdom. This veneration of Macrina was unusual for the time and reflects the Cappadocian Fathers’ recognition of her spiritual authority.

Sue Sims
Sue Sims
2 months ago
Reply to  Kelly Madden

Kaufman’s historical ineptitude is astonishing. The Jesuit order was at its lowest point at the end of the 18th century, having been dissolved by the Pope in 1773 and expelled from many European countries. They’d been dismissed from professorships at universities like Ingolstadt, and while it’s certainly true that they were hostile to the Illuminati (a ‘secret society’ which had been founded partly in order to erase Catholicism in Europe), it’s ludicrous to describe them, as Kaufman does, to describe them as ‘the Jesuits then in power’!

Gregory Hickmore
Gregory Hickmore
2 months ago
Reply to  Kelly Madden

Protecting the “rights and dignity of indigenous peoples” in the context of European colonization of Latin America? I suppose the mid-1500s destruction of Mayan religion and culture by burning Mayan codices and religious artifacts (as well as Mayans) by Diego de Landa, for one example, can be overlooked because he was a Franciscan not a Jesuit? Protectors from European exploitation indeed. But as the chat-bot itself warns: ideas can be found to be “oversimplified or even misleading when examined in detail.” But hold on! Why am I arguing with a chat-bot when it is Kaufman who is the over-simplifier and misleader?

Carissa Pavlica
Carissa Pavlica
2 months ago

Smacks of a guy who desperately wishes he attended those parties. I have no idea how he pulled satanism out of his behind when people are just disgusted that wealthy people think it’s ok to drug people, rape them, pass them around to their friends and then film it. If that’s Satan’s influence, it sounds like this writer is going the devil’s work by claiming Puffy Diddy Puff Daddy was just a normal dude, doing what dudes do. Get. Over. Yourself.

Brett H
Brett H
2 months ago

no idea how he pulled satanism out of his behind 
He didn’t, others did. Maybe read a bit more carefully.

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
2 months ago
Reply to  Brett H

Evil is as evil does. Whether used as metaphor or literal name the label fits.

Brett H
Brett H
2 months ago
Reply to  UnHerd Reader

I have no idea what point you’re trying to make.

Laurel Kenner
Laurel Kenner
2 months ago

Why drag conspiracy into it? Aren’t the facts enough to show that Diddy his coterie are sick in a morbid, Angel-of-Death way?

Brett H
Brett H
2 months ago
Reply to  Laurel Kenner

Maybe you missed the point if the story.

Ruari McCallion
Ruari McCallion
2 months ago

Well, that’s 5 minutes of my life I won’t get back.

Saul D
Saul D
2 months ago

There’s something of the Douglas Adam’s SEP field around the use of outlandish conspiracies. He concocted a “Someone Else’s Problem” field as a way of making things invisible, because once something is deemed to be nothing to do with you, it is ignored completely – which is why it makes things invisible.
In the same way, by creating a wild-and-wacky conspiracy theory around a set of inconvenient facts, people stop looking at the facts and just say that’s just a wild-and-wacky conspiracy theory and it drowns out the real details. In other words, it makes inconvenient facts disappear.
This was seen in the Wikileaks Podesta reveals. The emails broadly show how Democrats co-ordinate funders and special interest groups for political leverage, and include details like the HRC campaign’s trip to China just prior to her official announcement. But by wrapping it in Pizzagate, and then Qanon conspiracy theories, everyone stopped looking at what was really in the emails and instead focused on inconsequential social chit-chat that was ‘coded’ conspiracy talk. The facts vanished from view, drowned out by the conspiracy narratives. It feels like this is an attempt to do the same with Diddy scandal.

Tony Kilmister
Tony Kilmister
2 months ago

Starts off OK. Then a groan at ‘the scandal has sent the far-Right conspiratorial crowd into a tizzy of “I-told-you-so” Satanic hysteria’ followed by a self-indulgent segue into the noble history of the Illuminati. Almost no one cares about any of this, at least I assume no one paying subs to Unheard as an intriguing new outlet for dissenting yet authoritative opinion.

This is the sort of piece that crops up a tad too often here. Around a fifth of the way through I do a quick scroll down hoping it ends soon, always to be disappointed. The author’s too obvious desire to digress in a show-offy manner gets in the way of taking the reader through an argument. It’s all rather juvenile, inexcusable given that the pic attests to the fact that Mr Kaufman is considerably beyond his junior years. Or maybe Unheard pays by the esoterica.

There’s no mystery or intrigue to Mr Diddy. He called his operation Bad Boy Records. What did you expect?

Brett H
Brett H
2 months ago

another reason why Donald Trump will most likely re-settle into the Oval Office, nuclear codes nestled between his Diet Coke and McDonald’s Filet-O-Fish, phone in hand, poised to post.
I see some comments aggravated about throwing shade on MAGA, ie Trump. But in terms of the story, which is beautifully written, saturated with witty sarcasm, that image is quite funny, and I’m a, sort of, Trump supporter. It sums up the Mickey Mouse world we live in, which is not just a conspiracy theory but a fact about the world today. It’s like everyone has their stupid clowns-in-big-shoes part, and everyone knows their lines in the stupid, multimillion dollar extravaganza production “The World Today” playing at Las Vegas this month.

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
2 months ago

Anothee appaling essay from unherd.

A.N. Other
A.N. Other
2 months ago

What on earth is that all about? Virtually unintelligible ramblings. I have no idea of the point he is trying to make. Does he? And then I read that he’s a professor of journalism…….hmm.

Dumetrius
Dumetrius
2 months ago

Shitty filler.

Brett H
Brett H
2 months ago
Reply to  Dumetrius

Nothing like a thought through comment. Shitty? Why?

Mike Chiropolos
Mike Chiropolos
2 months ago

Seems like it’s “literature” if it happens in the Gatsby; a cultural offshoot if practiced by the Illuminati ; and “boys will be boys” when college fraternities engage in much of the same. 70s and 80s rock and metal: dens of debauchery. What gives?

Neil Ross
Neil Ross
2 months ago

I’m left totally confused by this article! What exactly is the Diddy Conspiracy theory?

Brett H
Brett H
2 months ago
Reply to  Neil Ross

The Diddy Conspiracy theory is what a lot of people think of, what they regard as, the elites. And somehow the elites keep doing things that confirm their suspicions. So the thrill is watching all the A-listers ducking for cover, frantically removing Instagram connections and covering their tracks. Will Diddy commit “suicide” in prison? Will the security camera not be working that night? Will the guards be asleep or out having a smoke when it happens? Will the evidence be inconclusive?

Christopher Barclay
Christopher Barclay
2 months ago

The trial will come and go. Diddy will go to jail. The MSM will then try and make everyone forget about it. They told us that Weinstein spent decades propositioning actresses without one of them accepting his Faustian pact. They told us that Epstein was a lone wolf, whose videos revealed so little that we should forget about them. They tell us that millions addicted to opiates have no connection to Big Pharma selling opiates.

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
2 months ago

One sign of degeneracy is to be able to ignore actual threats. Kaufman demonstrates this sort of degeneracy really well by blaming those who warned against wholesale evil for wrong think. People are,starting to realize it is better to be considered deplorable by the Kaufmans of the world than to be despicable, as are Kaufman & Co

John Gleeson
John Gleeson
2 months ago
Reply to  UnHerd Reader

To read an article that is seemingly innocuous and a strong disgust build as soon as the typical signifiers started showing up like a fictional ‘far-Right conspiracy’ being posited, or the arrogant prententiousness of the writing that is of Sokal Affair proportions and clearly included for self-aggrandizing purposes, and the taking aim at the ‘right-wing’ and Trump, it’s reassuring to see so many others clearly able to see the same thing in the comments section.
Apart from the weirdos like Brett H or others that come here to troll independant thinkers that go against the group-think herd narrative, and clearly the editors who OK tripe like this from authors like Kaufman, at least there is a group at there not buying the BS and know how to spot it instantly.

Brett H
Brett H
2 months ago
Reply to  John Gleeson

I know you think you’re an independent thinker but your attitude and resorting to name calling suggests you are exactly what you attack. You clearly do not read my posts with an objective frame of mind. You’ve decided that Unherd is some kind of leftist hive, and that I’m of the left myself. Find something i’ve said that puts me clearly in the leftist camp.

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
2 months ago

I’m so proud of myself. It has been 45 years since my last English class, and I just discovered I can write better than an English professor. Today is going to be a good day.

Martin Horan
Martin Horan
2 months ago

Umm, they (those sighing liberals) just made a film in 2022 depicting this. Called Babylon. Called it a ‘black comedy’.
As far as conspiracy theorists go, I sometimes wonder what those poor people subjected to the Tuskegee and Oak Ridge experiments (among so, so many others) were thinking as they slowly died from the excellent care the US government was providing them (for free!). They saw some of their fellow patients recover while they died, so they can’t be getting dissimilar treatment. Right?
Or how the folks doing all the psyops campaigns during all the wars just suddenly stopped as soon as said war was over.
This guy is either very young or very isolated, because the rest of the world doesn’t see things this way. They truly believe that the rich and powerful call all the shots, regardless of who’s elected or just staged a coup. Titles like ‘illuminati’ mean nothing; they’re just the distraction (IMHO).
Prove me wrong. While very well written, and with some very good points, this article sounds like a desperate attempt to appear ‘above the fray’.
You know, elitist. 🙂

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
2 months ago

The shifting of blame for P Diddy from the criminal and his (democrat) enablers to Trump amd his,supporters is a comment that ranks down there with “Let them eat cake”.

Richard Spira
Richard Spira
2 months ago

What a very peculiar prose style. Should this person be teaching English?

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
2 months ago

Kaufman is an example of what has gone wrong in academia.

mike flynn
mike flynn
2 months ago

Russell Simmons? He’s been a fugitive of his own making for years. Why blame Combs?

mike flynn
mike flynn
2 months ago

Suppose Kaufman wish will be granted. He’s at the top of the guest list of the next freak out. Carry that water Freddie.

Julie Curwin
Julie Curwin
2 months ago

What a pile of crap. Gloss over the criminal debauchery of the people who did these things and somehow make this about how stupid and gullible (and dare I add deplorable?) the MAGA types are. Why not just say “orange man bad” and save us all 10 minutes?
Furthermore, if you could get out of your very large but disconnected left brain for a moment, you might be able to see that there is a certain “truth” and a certain wisdom to some of these widespread conspiracy theories, even if they are not factually correct. I’m sure it’s not factually true that St. George slayed a dragon, but the myth has a purpose. Likewise, the idea that there is something Satanic behind the likes of Diddy’s parties–and that people in high places are involved–does capture a certain kind of truth, whether or not it’s literally true.

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
2 months ago
Reply to  Julie Curwin

It isbetter to be called a deplorable by a person like the author than to be a despicable apologist for the Epstein-P Diddy enablers and supporters.

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
2 months ago

“Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.” Modern humans are as prone to believing conspiracy theories as our European ancestors of the 1300’s. Case in point, the Knights Templar were believed to be heretics, devil worshippers, idol worshippers, sodomites, etc, all well before the beginning of the Illuminati.

Dana I
Dana I
2 months ago

Its so bizarre that after the Epstein affair (which the author even mentions here) someone would write an article totally dismissing the idea of elites engaging in child sex trafficking operations. Its astonishing to read someone paraphrasing reality but to do so in such a smug tone as to suggest that it would be ludicrous to care about facts.

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
2 months ago
Reply to  Dana I

…and not mention the actual conspiracy to frame Trump as a Russian agent.

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
2 months ago

Kaufman makes himself, not his intended victims, the caricature.

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
2 months ago

This Democratic Party media apparatchik is one of the main reasons why I gave up my subscription. If this guy’s lips are moving, he’s lying. It’s a mystery why UnHerd keeps him on…

Jerry Carroll
Jerry Carroll
2 months ago

So does the writer belive this stuff is true despite the tilt he gives it all? It will take a more patient reader than I to wade through the layers of scorn laid on with a trowel — if it is scorn meant to keep us from what he’s really thinking. Is the change of ownership responsible for this what-about-ism?

Brett H
Brett H
2 months ago

I’ve reread this article numerous times to try to see the negative point of view in many comments. They seem to think Kaufman has used this issue to shade MAGA. But it seems to me he’s commenting on the MSM and their inability to address the fact that conspiracy theories are a reality, that they’re mainstream and that it puts the MSM in a bind.
It does seem to me most conspiracies come from the far right, because they distrust the left so much, which includes such individuals as actors and public figures of influence, who feature in the Diddy story.
His comment linking conspiracists and Trump getting elected is probably a fact. Who else would they lean to?
The writer leans into the far right only a couple of times in this story; when he talks about sending them “into a tizzy”, largely true, and “If they haven’t learned from Donald Trump, QAnon and January 6, conspiracy theory possesses a powerful and persuasive logic and rhetoric” also true.
So what exactly is the problem with this story?

julianne kenny
julianne kenny
2 months ago

Tying the stories about Diddy into the Maga challenges (an issue for right more than left) is close to excusing Diddys enterprise. How did he get so close to political power in the US when there have been blatant offences and circling stories for decades..? For ordinary decent people his excesses and those of many in his industry and circles probably do border on satanic from a moral or a human values framework. Not naive not synon with MAGA. Tolerance and enablement of Diddy stands firmly as a separate entity liberals should own all by themselves. Far too many examples .

Aidan O
Aidan O
2 months ago

One of the inconvenient truths of today’s world is that the deplorables have turned out to be right—or at least directionally correct—way too often. Mr Kaufman would do well to pay heed to that fact!

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
2 months ago
Reply to  Aidan O

Deplorable is better than despicable.

Cho Jinn
Cho Jinn
2 months ago

…so there was no child trafficking involved? The professor doth protest too much, methinks.

Brett H
Brett H
2 months ago
Reply to  Cho Jinn

The truthers now possess what they believe is positive proof that what they have been saying all along is true: there is a cabal of subversive elites whose stock in trade is trafficked children.
He’s not actually saying “there was no child trafficking involved”. He’s referring to an idea “the truthers” have. Whether you like the writer or not does not excuse wilful misreading of text because you don’t like him/her. It seems to me that here on Unherd there are people who read articles with a jaundiced eye, just because of the writers position on the political spectrum. Because I say these things about the article doesn’t mean I support the left.

Andrew
Andrew
1 month ago

“Donald Trump will most likely re-settle into the Oval Office, nuclear codes nestled between his Diet Coke and McDonald’s Filet-O-Fish”

What a stupid, petty thing to type. I’m constantly amazed at how liberals fail to understand why they are so despised. I mean, it’s the most blatant, ugly classism. The same as H. Clinton’s “deplorables.” The inference is that choosing to eat McDonald’s for lunch signifies mental and moral inadequacy.

And yet this author, who posits himself as a thinker, is so ignorant that he can also type:

“For if there’s one thing the last few centuries should have taught us, it’s that what we refuse to acknowledge can bite us in the ass.”

I mean, never mind the last few centuries, this mastermind doesn’t realize this is precisely the one thing the last few years should have taught him.