by judasdisney » Tue May 08, 2007 5:46 am
The deeper you go into disinfo, the harder it gets to separate fact from lies.
The closer you get to the truth, the more authentic facts must be mixed with incisive and subtle key lies.
With Parry, Chomsky, Vanity Fair, Palast, and so many others, multiple explanations might be considered:
In the case of Parry, until now I'd suspected that fighting the 9/11 myth becomes a full-time job -- the same reason that Al Gore cannot run for President again: because he has chosen one front for his battle, and he will be attacked from all sides so continuously on his one issue that he cannot make time for any other action on any other issue.
In the case of Parry, until now I'd gleaned that he was avoiding the 9/11 myth in favor of chipping-away at other areas where he could make more progress.
But I certainly agree that there is no reason for Parry to have written anything which supports the myth.
And so: unless it was sheer carelessness or Stockholm Syndrome (and I've seen plenty of so-called Progressives attack Ralph Nader for "making Al Gore lose Florida 2000" when, in fact, Al Gore won Florida 2000), Parry may require an extra filter from now on.
In the case of others such as Chomsky, Vanity Fair, and Palast, I recognize that accepting their mythmaking is part of the price for purchasing their other analysis and information, which is always by nature suspect or dubious or laced with subtle propoganda -- and even though we may require different or fewer filters for Chomsky, Vanity Fair, Palast & others, as compared with the rest of the mainstream media, nevertheless I maintain full Operation Mockingbird filtering at all times.
We live in a media-saturated environment. We are soaking in an atmosphere of media. And that media -- all of it -- is contaminated with Operation Mockingbird (or whatever its current incarnation is). There is absolutely no doubt that Operation Mockingbird was never dismantled following Carl Bernstein's revelation, and in fact the New York Times and the Washington Post responded in the contrary. And because U.S. citizens (besides Hugh and myself and very few others) have chosen not to bear witness to Operation Mockingbird, the contagion of totalitarianism has been permitted to poison every channel of information.
My ongoing test for all media is this: Imagine that a news item was revealed in the 1970s that each member of the media -- from editors to reporters to researchers to broadcasters -- was required to rape, stab and eat a live kitten as a requisite to work in the media. And imagine this report was scrupulously documented, and that the entire system was organized and funded and directed by the Kremlin...
...and subsequently, the entire nation decided to ignore the report and forget about it, and the media simply acted as if their secret had never been exposed.
How could you subsequently trust any single component or individual of the media ever again?
And especially, how could you trust any member of the media who omitted or stonewalled any and all discussion of this 1970s report?
Subsequently, every media individual who fails to identify themselves as a non-kitten-rapist is, passively or actively, a participant or enabler or accessory.
And silence is complicity.
The American media environment is a fully-developed Body Snatchers system. None of them are to be trusted at any time. And the closer that any of them are to revealing the sordid underbelly or deep politics of that same said system, the more sinister and untrustworthy they must be, by definition -- unless they are simply choosing their battles, like Al Gore, because they will be ensuring that 9/11 Truth will become their full-time occupation if they open that can of worms.
And because we can never know for certain, except via acute sensitivity and awareness to propoganda & psyops, whether any given reporter or writer is a willing criminal accomplice or simply a dupe, or simply playing the system for access, or is a self-deluded crusader (Bono comes to mind) who believes they're "gaming the system," (or those who cloak themselves in the costume of the self-deluded crusader -- Dan Rather comes to mind -- for the sake of deeply poisoned psyops), we must remain vigilant and keep a scorecard of who can/cannot be trusted, and we must continue to parse their own words and lapses.
The stakes are high, and each of their line-crossing violations are meaningful, however small they may seem. And 99% of the citizens will become angry and enraged at this suggestion, because they do not have the energy or survivalism to face how deep into the Valley Of The Shadow we all are. Or to face how much it will require to simply find a glimpse of a spark of light in the darkness, let alone survive it, let alone stop the madness.
I will continue to read Robert Parry, but his scorecard now contains one major strike-out. It's much easier to count (on one hand) those rare information analysts that I do trust -- Naomi Klein comes to mind, who has written about MKULTRA in less than a hysterical, Rosie O'Donnell fashion. And I don't know her stance on the events of 9/11, and I'll continue to maintain my OpMockingbird filter. But honest brokers are getting harder to find -- including Robert Parry, who used to be in the "clean hands" category, and may yet have useful reporting-with-a-caveat, but who apparently does not have ambitions to remain 100% clean.
couldn't resist.
