On the shores of the Conspiracy River

Right now the world is divided along the Conspiracy River: a fantasy narrative on one side; reality on the other. Each person today believes he or she stands on the shores of reality while the crazies mill around uselessly on the other side, but of course, some of them must be wrong. There is only one reality. There is only one truth.

Who is wrong? Is it the vast majority of Americans and their good friends the Israelis, all of whom have the powerful fantasy narrative corporate media machine projecting their righteousness 24x7 in high def hasbara tv? Or is it the other vast but invisible majority: all those who live outside the US/Israeli bubble -- whether geographically or intellectually?

There must be people moving within the establishment (government, intelligence, military, media, academia, think tanks, etc.) who chafe under the fantasy narrative. What do they do about that? Become a whistleblower? Think about becoming a whistleblower?

It would seem to me that a charismatic whistleblower would be very well received by people living on reality shores. A military person would be ideal, but it would not have to be a military person. And yet a military person could instantly appeal to the values of patriotism, which would theoretically be recognized by those on the fantasy narrative shore, as they believe they're also patriots, because they diligently support the fantasy narrative that tells them so. And they would say, "Hey, man? What the hell are you doing over there?!?"

But then, we have the example of Scott Ritter. He has charisma. He has experience. He has command of the facts. But his timing was off, and now some people will never consider him because he was waaaaay ahead of his time. For that they had to trash him on fantasy narrative shores (visit the way back machine, 2002).
First CNN had on its own news chief, Eason Jordan, who had just returned from Baghdad where he was bagging the rights to cover the war. (Imagine the ratings!) He dismissed Ritter with a "Well, Scott Ritter's chameleon-like behaviour has really bewildered a lot of people..." and a "Well, U.S. officials no longer give Scott Ritter much credibility..." The network followed up with more interviews vilifying Ritter, neither of which cut to the heart of the matter: Why declare war? On what grounds? At what cost? Ritter was characterized as "misguided," "disloyal" and "an apologist for and a defender of Saddam Hussein." By Monday, professional hairdo Paula Zahn told viewers Ritter had "drunk Saddam Hussein's Kool-Aid." Over on MSNBC, Curtis & Kuby co-host Curtis Sliwa compared him to "a sock puppet" who "oughta turn in his passport for an Iraqi one." But the nadir came later on CNN when makeup job Kyra Phillips interrogated him, implying that he was being paid by Iraq —and all but calling him a quisling.
As if people like Scott Ritter grow on trees, which they certainly do not. Can you imagine what the world might be like today if CNN and all the other paid shills didn't get away with the hatchet job on Scott Ritter? How many millions of people would be alive today? How many families would be happy today? What would our economy be like today if we had believed Scott Ritter instead of Eason Jordon, Paula Zahn, Curtis Sliwa and Kyra Phillips?

This is what people need to think about, because somebody is going to come forward again, and when the hatchets come out, who are you going to believe this time?


Pete said...

The dilemma of being a whistle blower, of course, is the risk. You get one chance to blow that whistle, only one. If you blow it and nobody stops what they're doing, your career is basically over. You blow it a second time and you're a crazy Chicken Little. You have to make it count the first time, and that takes connections and coordination. You basically need to have a major press conference already scheduled before you blow the whistle. Lots of phone calls need to be made to set that up.

Sure, there are whistle blower policies and bulletins that spell out processes and authorities, but that's all just for the bureaucratic stage act. The real action is all political, and the whistle blowers only get traction when a political play can be facilitated, when there's a chance one creep can move up at the expense of a rival creep.

So ask yourself, when was the last time BOTH political parties were embarrassed or hurt by one whistle blow? I can't think of one.

The little guy tends to get run over by establishment politics. That's the real American way, unfortunately.

A. Peasant said...

Well, this is my response to our little debate about resistance leaders. The more I thought about it, the more I see it coming back to this problem. There must be many people who know things, but how many can make the arrangements to withstand the process? And have the courage?

The financial corruption does cut across everyone. Leaked documents would be useful. It will be interesting to see what happens with the documents supposedly given to Hal Turner. Then you have a ball, at least, and just need people to run with it.

Greg Bacon said...

Saw one of the CNN talking heads, Rich Sanchez, interview Ritter and accuse him of being too strident when he was saying that Iraq had NO WMD's.

Think that things on the other side of the looking glass, with Alice, would make more sense.

Adamgv said...

Really great blog!

Please review our website at your earliest convenience. We need your help!

We are the REAL solution oriented team and have more solutions then any person or organization out there. If any

organization has more solutions to the problems plaguing our world than us, we will join that organization.

If not, then join us.


Adam Vohrer
Vice President

Citizens Committee for Restructured Government (CCRG)


legal mumbo jumbo

Disclaimer: The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.

Fair Use: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.