I’ll try to wrap up recent crapola so I can move on to my point about the creator of ‘24’ and how he fits into HTWRW. I will say, however, that the recent crapola is exactly on point of that subject; it’s not me going off to ‘settle some personal score.’ Anyone thinking this isn’t paying attention.
“We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality – judiciously, as you will – we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.” (Ron Suskind, NYTimes Magazine, Oct. 17, 2004, quoting Karl Rove).
How is this psychopathic diarrhea any different from Giannini’s ‘We each have our own version of the truth’? I mean aside from a matter of degree, i.e., a two-bit lawyer’s attempt at maintaining self-image vs. a really ‘successful’ technocrat’s PTB bluster? Same philosophy of HTWRW behind it, right?
No photos, such is my disgust in writing this. Only a cliche pointing out how we got here.
Sure, this is all on point.
The matter of ‘Lou’s Comment’ can be settled with a simple viewing of the Walter Video; this is Lou’s mind at work, his perception of cause and effect. Does anyone really think Lou understands the evidence I present in the video? The proof of media fabrication of WTC images? No, Lou believes Walter ‘saw the light’ prior to the second interview. Otherwise why his silence in the face of my repeated requests for a simple opinion on the matter?
As with everyone like him, Lou retreats to vague generalities that sound good (to him) but are, again, no more than ‘pure wind.’ Likewise, no answer to my suggestion that he get specific in his labeling of my ‘fringe theories’ as ‘phantasmas’, i.e., my fantasies, my insanity.
I’ve purposefully stayed out of the comment fray, being curious how you all would handle these matters without my input, and the comments have been interesting, if sometimes wishy-washy. This one from Eric, however, stands out:
“Test the boundaries of traditional views” is a cop out. You have to realize that if even ONE of Allan’s claims are accurate, it would completely shatter the entire paradigm of “traditional views”. You can’t just dip your toes in the water for fun and claim a disdain for those who are not afraid to jump in. Yours is the cowardly position. You would be better off just clinging fully to the beliefs of the masses than some half-assed “test the boundaries” crap.
Bingo. Eric sums up perfectly the result when critical thinking is absent. Lou, being the stereotypic ‘liberal’ who wants to think himself ‘open-minded’ – maybe his motive for following my blog to begin with — indeed would be better off without that pretension. That, or come on, Lou, tell us what you think of Walter’s 180 flip in the video? What’s the problem? (See my addendum re his new comment; in 1,000 words not one mentions the video.)
I’ll tell you the problem: Eric’s comment would roar back: If even one of those WTC images is indeed fabricated (as they all so obviously are)… and I’ll quote Eric… ‘it would completely shatter [Lou’s] entire paradigm of “traditional views”.’ And Lou knows how easily you’d tear him apart if he accepted the flip-flop. (He’s no doubt read the video comments and noticed the 54 to 1 thumbs ups.)
Notice how I harp on specifics? Because otherwise it’s just more of that pure wind blowing.
Addendum: Speaking of ‘pure wind’ (and thinking of Orwell), for proof (right from the horse’s mouth) that all I said here is true, look at Lou’s new comment; it’s at the top now, as I write. Truly, anyone who wants to understand the mentality that is at the bottom, the very root, of why this country is in its current state, needs only read the utter garbage he spills; going on 1,000 words, I estimate. This is an educated man! This is what we are up against!
Speaking of which, I can settle the matter of Joe the same way, with specifics, and I’ll speak directly to him here: Joe, everything I claim about you must be… untruthful, right? Let’s call it what it must be: A lie. Or I’m truly insane. (Didn’t one of the commenters make this point? That one of us, you or me, must be a psychopath? Another Bingo!)
I made it all up!
Why couldn’t you say this, Joe? If someone accused me of those personally heinous/greedy/cowardly acts, I’d surely not say (imagine a squeaky voice) ‘..we each have our own versions of the truth.’
Fuck no. I’d be outraged. My disappointment in the comments is that no one noticed this. (‘Kurt’ sort of did.) Who out there would put up with my accusations and respond in this pansy-ass way? Especially an ex-Marine! (What was with that ‘Poncho Rotation’ crapola? What does it have to do with anything? Something about Semper fi? Talk about misdirection! Did anyone fall for that?)
But again: Where is your outrage?!
Bear with me as I list a few details of the things I must have made up in my accusations, in my version of the truth: The emails wherein I ask you to bring down the bumper pool table and you say ‘I’ll try’ and I reply ‘Please just do it’ and you reply ‘FUCK YOU!’
Those emails never existed, right? Why would they… if your version of the truth were correct?
And the money. A check from me to you for $5,000… that surely never existed, right? (Funny how I can picture the back of it even now, your signature on the endorsement line. You have ‘short’ handwriting, don’t you? Yeah, funny how I can picture that.)
You know where I’m going, being a lawyer (one whose big thrill is defeating ‘justice’ by getting off a guilty client). So I ask you, and as a subscriber here for four years you are surely reading this:
What will be your response if I produce the above evidence? This is my question and to which I expect and answer.
Allan
Maybe you believe in Karl Rove’s version of reality creation. If that’s it, just say so. We’ll all understand. (Or will you switch to outrage, now that I’ve planted that seed?)
94 comments for “A Crapola Wrap-up”