Chris and Michael, Mr Left and Right, feel the need to tread on truth’s toes, in a cocky brush-past and dismissal of the avalanche of evidence, d'flags are false. Both sound emboldened and wanna give a smack. C. Hedges and accepting a President doubting the 9/11 (myth) among his list of woes.
M. Savage interviewed last week by Alex Jones, “sick of all this talk of collateral damage...” from those upset about the civilian causalities and presumably, recently, in Yemen. Exclaiming comparisons to “Pulse Night Club and San Bernardino”. Eye for eye.
‘...div’ (slang for stupid) comes to mind. Yet, v.much ain't. Respectively, such top-talkers, without need for sucking-up to employees – wonder why, drop the dumb-line? Couldn’t come-out, get that but they’re rare ones, in being that top, older – done it all – with no need, to amp up the prestige.
Wrote my best think-why in the opener. It’s all about ‘feel the need’.
Cathartic compulsion. If asked-about, sure maybe otherwise and a fear-ish reaction. But I read and in Savage case, heard – swagger and bravado, difficult to resist... go-go-outrgagous. Double-decker Bus sense of self, saying; No-one tells me what etc etc/in this camp etc, so hear ye consistency.
An appeal to supporters.
Certainly not gloating above and sniggering better. Why/once-upon, didn’t properly care to look at the weight of evidence? And at least, if I was a public figure, keep shut or sheepish?
Reinforced otherwise and too proud to turn? Not what some better-head thought, so “I’m with them...”. Cultural prejudice and “ones who do bang-on, seem geeky and sweaty?” Got religious hype about? Then there’s idol-driving emotional identification with what/who, consider do, normal and respectable analysis.
Howz about those who're a Left /or Right... winger? Surely a contemporary, card-carry definition is – inc. alt tag lot with a crowd and throw in Anarchists with Libertarians less likely – ...we dare not call it conspiracy.
More, a-political and tag = more open, less peer presh.
(Nb to myself: cover this next week and maybe each Sunday morn: The ‘why sleep’ question. Plenty to think and pray on).
Graeme MacQueen, in his read and weep essay, names and unmasks an ‘issue of imagination’ and the why insist-believe the flags are on straight. Reckon he's being generous. For those not in the media biz as pros – yup – imagination maybe. Was me. But my guess, is all those in the ‘tower(s) at the heart of London, with a radio station right at the top...’ believe, ALL know, Full Well – wasn’t Osama and have seen enough exposed fakery.
Yet, this a niggling, frustration and projection. Pretend for payment. Gotta appear-sake.
With Chris and Michael, doubt the wider public or intellectual enemies wind them up but suspect those closer, more likely pressing. Therefore, need shoring-up, which side WE are all on.
Anyone know why T.V. drama is obsessively dominated by clever cops and spooks catching crooks with ingenuity, persistence for evidence, clues and justice rolling with the credits?
“And now the news, XYZ happened...”.
All chime along please, the improbable through to the impossible and these accounts of terrorist incidents. Detail light and glaring non-sensical. Truth, mostly hidden, in the shallows.
Nuff. Boring myself. Next Sun, more and this investigation into the non-investigators. Audio with S.Awan had tech hick-ups, hence not. Soon come. God will -help- ing.
Below begins an unusually mattering article. Above, a garbled reaction and a big-up for.
Graeme MacQueen: Truth and Shadows
On November 23, 1963, the day after John F. Kennedy’s assassination, Fidel Castro gave a talk on Cuban radio and television. He pulled together, as well as he could in the amount of time available to him, the evidence he had gathered from news media and other sources, and he reflected on this evidence.
The questions he posed were well chosen: they could serve as a template for those confronting complex acts of political violence. Were there contradictions and absurdities in the story being promoted in the U.S. media? Who benefitted from the assassination? Were intelligence agencies claiming to know more than they could legitimately know? Was there evidence of foreknowledge of the murder? What was the main ideological clash in powerful U.S. circles and how did Kennedy fit in? Was there a faction that had the capacity and willingness to carry out such an act? And so on. But beneath the questions lay a central, unspoken fact: Castro was able to imagine—as a real possibility and not as mere fantasy—that the story being promoted by the U.S. government and media was radically false. He was able to conceive of the possibility that the killing had not been carried out by a lone gunman on the left sympathetic to Cuba and the Soviet Union, but by powerful, ultra-right forces, including forces internal to the state, in the United States. Because his conceptual framework did not exclude this hypothesis he was able to examine the evidence that favoured it. He was able to recognize the links between those wishing to overthrow the Cuban government and take more aggressive action toward the Soviet Union and those wishing to get Kennedy out of the way.