Thread by @QOrigins

I've been around the Internet for long enough to realize most people look at *anything* that smells like drama and go "Fuck that, I'm out."

But there's a difference between drama & saying "This guy doesn't know what he's talking about."

That is the deal w/@davetroy.

Troy has written a 6-part Medium series on "the big history behind January 6th."

You can read them in full at the link below.

Before I get into *why I think he's wrong*, here's what he gets right:

the far right *is* transnational now. This is true!

davetroy.medium.com

And more conventional right-wingers do share ideological sympathies with their fellows in other countries.

I wouldn't say they COOPERATE much, because right-wingers who participate in electoral politics are going to be pretty well focused *on those electoral politics.*

If you're a right-winger in Brazil, you're going to spend a lot of time supporting Bolsonaro and very little time supporting Trump, right?

But you'll have friendly *feelings* towards Trump, seeing him as "your kinda guy."

And if that's all Troy said, I'd be cheering him on.

But it's not.

Troy has built up his reputation on Twitter with long threads full of names. He tends to play the Linked-To game: Person A is "linked to" B, who's "linked to" C, and ONE of them said something sinister once, so all three (& the links, whatever those were) are bad!

The "linked-to" game is, in fact, central to Troy's view of the world. In Troy's view, if you can play the linked-to game *hard* enough, you can map out a network of bad actors.

So let's talk about networks. They're central to Troy's theory of how the world works:

What Troy is saying, in those posts, is that looking at the world through *conventional* eyes--looking at categories like "populist" or "nationalist" -- is a chump's game.

So is the idea that geopolitics is primarily a contest between nation-states for power and influence.

To Troy, the REAL explanation for world events can -- pretty much always -- be found in the actions of *networks.* This, I take it, is why "Network Analyst" is the first thing in his bio.

And before I explain what "networks" ARE in Troy's conception, let's pause for a moment.

How many academic disciplines did Dave Troy just... *shove aside* in his rush to decide How The World Really Works?

International relations, political science, economics, sociology, aaaaaaand history, right? Just off the top of my head.

How did Troy establish that he's right?

Because the thing is, when you want to overthrow the body of knowledge in a scholarly discipline, *there's a process for it*, isn't there?

You get a degree, & you write papers, & you present at conferences, & you make yourself visible *outside* academia, & you win converts.

Dave Troy has done none of this, of course. Dave Troy just says: no, no, no. All of the conventional wisdom is wrong because I say so. Now let me ride my hobbyhorse forever.

Folks, there's a *word* for people who do that.

That word is "crank."

So... back to "networks," which, as you'll recall, are the pillar of Troy's worldview.

The networks Troy is MOST concerned with are groups of the rich and powerful who, in his view, have transnational goals: they want to shape the world to their liking, & have a plan to do it.

There are other groupings of people he would refer to as "networks," but that's not really important to my critique -- I'm just saying it bc I am at *absolute pains* to be exquisitely fair to this crank and his bullshit.

'cause see, when we ask HOW the "networks" function...

when we zoom and enhance to what Troy actually SAYS about them...

it is absolute conspiracy-theory madness all the way down.

I'm about to quote a passage from part 4 of his Medium piece. I DARE you to say it's out of context: HE NAMED THE PIECE AFTER IT. It's a *central* point.

Folks...

"Meet the Octopus," writes Troy.

The Octopus is "the convergence of intelligence, oil interests, and the Catholic Church."

This is conspiracy-riffic already, but it gets so much worse. Click into images 2 and 3. I'm gonna discuss 'em, but read them first.

OK, here's my summary. Again, I dare you to tell me I'm being unfair.

"Person A and Person B were investigating the Octopus, but died of 'apparent' suicides. Is there any evidence of foul play? Well... no. But maybe it was STILL the Octopus, bc it's SO SINISTER & OVERHWELMING."

Fuckin' **excuse me** -- for someone who is greatly indignant about Fox News using Seth Rich's death to stoke bullshit conspiracy theories, Dave Troy is AWFULLY eager to use these two people's deaths to stoke his bullshit conspiracy theory.

IT'S WRONG WHEN *ANYONE* DOES IT, FFS!

Do you know what Troy does in the next passage? THE VERY NEXT WORDS THAT HE WRITES, I shit you not, are devoted to just...

free-associating between "The Octopus" and Sidney Powell's "Kraken." And to musing about how "the Octopus" has been used IN CONSPIRACY THEORIES.

Yeah, bro.

Yeah, it has. So... why are you using it? It is a goddamned mystery.

That was the end of the article; note, btw, that he ended with "rooted in long-standing conflicts between powerful networks" because, again, I'm correctly representing his theories.

This ain't a hit piece.

Before I leave Part 4, to which I link below (with a screenshot of the title in case he changes it later)...

let me just scroll back up a ways.

You know what's always a good fuckin' sign that you're reading a conspiracy theory?

davetroy.medium.com/the-big-histor…

When the author starts screaming about the Jesuits and Opus Dei. THAT'S a real good sign it's a conspiracy theory.

And you know how I talked about the "linked-to" game Troy likes to play? Next tweet has a PRIME example.

These paragraphs are next to each other. What the *fuck* are they supposed to prove?

"McFarlane wrote something something RUSSIA. McFarlane was present at a speech where the RUSSIAN AMBASSADOR was present. Subsequent deals BELIEVED TO ADVANCE, blah blah RUSSIA."

What is this?

This is conspiracist logic. This is conspiracist *rhetoric.* Has written, believed to, present at, subsequent. No causal link is ever established.

It glides serenely *by* the space where an actual analyst would provide proof of causation, or, for that matter, a shred of context.

D'you see why I'm big fucking mad about this guy?

I'm mad because *he's a charlatan* -- he bills himself as a "disinformation expert" who's *against* conspiracy theories, *but he's mired in conspiracist thinking.*

And his "networks" -- the rich, influential ones? What are they?

They're a group of shadowy elites pulling the strings of world events, manipulating & dividing us.

Excuse me, but... what, functionally, is the difference between these "networks" and the Illuminati?

I mean, is that not how conspiracists would define the Illuminati?

Of course it is.

Because Dave Troy is a conspiracy theorist who really does think that shadowy networks of elites control the world and bend it to their dark desires, and we have to ignore what the so-called "experts" say is REALLY going on...

and focus on the *real* cognoscenti, the REAL wise ones, like (oh, just for example) Dave Troy.

Listen to DAVE, not to sociologists or journalists or historians or political scientists.

Listen to Dave and remember to fight the Caba -- I mean, the Octopus -- with all your might.