So far I can see this nonsense in his long article talking about the nature of conspiracies (at about 2/3 of the way through):
I find things to admire in all of these taxonomies, but it strikes me as notable that none makes provision for truth-value. Further, I'm not sure that these or any mode of classification can adequately address the often-alternating, dependent nature of conspiracies, whereby a true conspiracy (e.g. the 9/11 hijackers) triggers a false conspiracy (e.g. 9/11 was an inside job), and a false conspiracy (e.g. Iraq has weapons of mass destruction) triggers a true conspiracy (e.g. the invasion of Iraq).
It's Snowden, it's some sort of limited hangout.
So far I can see this nonsense in his long article talking about the nature of conspiracies (at about 2/3 of the way through):
https://edwardsnowden.substack.com/p/conspiracy-pt1
WTF?
trying to control the narrative on 9/11 ? now?
Aleister Crowley called and he wants his writing style back.
Yuk!
Talk about relativism!