I think John W. Dean may have succeeded in creating one of the cleverest and sleaziest pieces of half truth ever conjured into existence by the mainstream media. There is a startlingly schizophrenic quality to the way in which the author can paint such a baldly damning portrait of the Bush administration, but then leave it utterly out of context to the rest of the country's power structure. It's as if we're expected to believe that this all-star cast of criminals came about organically, all by itself, coincidentally right after a stolen election. These mainstreamers love to tease you with some truth while leaving it all hopelessly out of context so you focus on the trees instead of the forest. You end up having to become your own journalist if you want to find anything close to the truth about things.
Dean's ability to leave the dots unconnected is truly remarkable at times. Like on page 100, when he discusses the Project for a New American Century, and the now infamous phrase, "catastrophic and catalyzing event." We are meant to understand that the NeoCons had a strong desire to go to war in the Middle East, which predated 9/11, but we're stopped short before digging any deeper. Before asking what that might mean. Before asking ourselves if there's really any difference between a tyrannical government who wants to go to war, and a tyrannical government who's willing to stage a false flag attack to go to war.
Then, just in case any of his readers are feeling curious, he reminds us to stay in our place by comparing anyone willing to explore these matters deeper than he did, to crazies, by first mentioning an outlandish claim about extraterrestrials perpetrating 9/11, and then going to the tried-and-true method of focusing on the few nitwits within the movement who are anti-semites. This is particularly frustrating. This would be like if each time the Republicans were on your television set, they were bombarded with questions regarding the end of days, and the second coming, and also if they know who the next closet homosexual will be, to reveal himself from within their ranks. There are truth to these things, but your agenda becomes unmistakably clear when you focus only on the negative and sensational.
As a former counsil to Nixon, it's perhaps not surprising that Dean tries to compare and contrast the two regimes regularly, often reiterating the assertion that the Bush administration is a new and separate threat to the constitution and our independence, rather than a reemergence of those same threatening forces that were in play during the Nixon years. This distinction is very important because it helps these gatekeeper weasles reinforce their portayal of the Bush administration as being merely an anomaly. Get rid of Bush, get rid of the Republicans and we can get back on track. Horseshit. I recommend this book to anyone interested in experiencing the mainstream media's cognitive dissonance campaign in full swing.
Monday, June 29, 2009
Friday, June 19, 2009
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Gibroney Of The Week: Dennis Leary
You goony-looking cock smoker. Not much of a surprise to find you in the Gibroney file. You've always been a hack, not just in comedy but in other professions you've decided to make a mockery of, like acting, or writing. It's ironic that your public persona was almost entirely lifted from real comedians like Bill Hicks and George Carlin, yet your values seem to be more in line with those of dim-witted conformists, rather than those of a well informed, ranting comedian. The fact that you're a sheeple in wolve's clothing probably has alot to do with you landing the starring role in "Rescue Me," a show about 9/11 first responders.
Bet you didn't expect your co star, Daniel Sunjata, to come out and publicly support the 9/11 truth movement though, did ya? Now we all get to watch the question get thrown in your uninformed face. Of course, I don't always approve of accosting people on the street regarding 9/11. Depends on the person, I say. But if you're going to star in a show dealing specifically with the topic, you should probably expect to be dealing with it yourself for the near future. Especially a subject as controversial as 9/11.
I know in the '90's, you were able to trick everyone into thinking that you're some type of truth telling badass, but here, in post-internet bubble America, we talk alot more. And ask alot more questions. So it's much harder to do the whole "pretending to rock the boat when in reality I'm just a louder conformist" thing. Anyway, have a nice time milking whatever's left of your reputation doing commercials, and sucking Glen Beck's nuts. Gibroney.
Bet you didn't expect your co star, Daniel Sunjata, to come out and publicly support the 9/11 truth movement though, did ya? Now we all get to watch the question get thrown in your uninformed face. Of course, I don't always approve of accosting people on the street regarding 9/11. Depends on the person, I say. But if you're going to star in a show dealing specifically with the topic, you should probably expect to be dealing with it yourself for the near future. Especially a subject as controversial as 9/11.
I know in the '90's, you were able to trick everyone into thinking that you're some type of truth telling badass, but here, in post-internet bubble America, we talk alot more. And ask alot more questions. So it's much harder to do the whole "pretending to rock the boat when in reality I'm just a louder conformist" thing. Anyway, have a nice time milking whatever's left of your reputation doing commercials, and sucking Glen Beck's nuts. Gibroney.
Sunday, June 7, 2009
A Suggestion For America's Hypocrites
I've a suggestion for America's hypocrites, particularly the ones who oppose gay marriage on the grounds that it would threaten the "sanctity" of marriage. Here it goes. Since homophobes are loathe to admit that they're homophobes, the phony right hides behind the "sanctity of marriage" argument, just as sexists hide behind the "sanctity of life" argument.
If you're one of the seemingly endless multitudes of superstitious cavepeople in this country who believe that abortion is murder, then fine. Whatever. It's your right to be anti-woman. It is not, however, your right to send foot soldiers into people's homes to interfere with personal family matters. Just because you disagree with something does not give you the right to be a fascist. It's okay if you think abortion is wrong, but people in this country, and indeed, religionist slaves around the world, must begin to realize that something can be wrong and legal at the same time.
A good example of this is prostitution. (Which, by the way, isn't really wrong, but let's play along for the sake of argument.) Prostitution has been legal in Nevada for quite some time, but do you think mothers in that state teach their young daughters to aspire to become whores? The answer is obvious unless you're a dullard, and the point I'm making is a simple one: Illegal doesn't mean immoral and immoral shouldn't mean illegal.
Now back to the question of gay marriage. As I mentioned earlier, anti-gay groups' favorite hiding spot is the phony baloney "sanctity of marriage" argument, which can be easily dismantled by the following proposal. Ban divorce. Perhaps gay rights groups would be more tolerant of being treated like second class citizens if the phony right actually behaved as if there is sanctity of marriage, instead of just using that phrase as the disingenuous piece of rhetoric that it is. That's my big idea. We'll give you a ban on gay marriage if you give us a ban on divorce. This proposal should help shut down this phony argument.
Marriage is not sacred. Love is sacred. Marriage is merely a superficial construct created by people too spiritually weak to understand love. The fact that the state or church is in any way involved in controlling the concept of marriage is another one of those unspoken little forms of tyranny we seem to tolerate so well here in America. Peace out, 'bronies.
If you're one of the seemingly endless multitudes of superstitious cavepeople in this country who believe that abortion is murder, then fine. Whatever. It's your right to be anti-woman. It is not, however, your right to send foot soldiers into people's homes to interfere with personal family matters. Just because you disagree with something does not give you the right to be a fascist. It's okay if you think abortion is wrong, but people in this country, and indeed, religionist slaves around the world, must begin to realize that something can be wrong and legal at the same time.
A good example of this is prostitution. (Which, by the way, isn't really wrong, but let's play along for the sake of argument.) Prostitution has been legal in Nevada for quite some time, but do you think mothers in that state teach their young daughters to aspire to become whores? The answer is obvious unless you're a dullard, and the point I'm making is a simple one: Illegal doesn't mean immoral and immoral shouldn't mean illegal.
Now back to the question of gay marriage. As I mentioned earlier, anti-gay groups' favorite hiding spot is the phony baloney "sanctity of marriage" argument, which can be easily dismantled by the following proposal. Ban divorce. Perhaps gay rights groups would be more tolerant of being treated like second class citizens if the phony right actually behaved as if there is sanctity of marriage, instead of just using that phrase as the disingenuous piece of rhetoric that it is. That's my big idea. We'll give you a ban on gay marriage if you give us a ban on divorce. This proposal should help shut down this phony argument.
Marriage is not sacred. Love is sacred. Marriage is merely a superficial construct created by people too spiritually weak to understand love. The fact that the state or church is in any way involved in controlling the concept of marriage is another one of those unspoken little forms of tyranny we seem to tolerate so well here in America. Peace out, 'bronies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
