need more stuff?

October 22, 2009

What if you Google 'deluded' and 'egomaniac'?

Daniel Radosh

"I am tired of feeling like I'm doing this alone. All through the eight years of Bush, you Google `Bush' and `nemesis' and I'm the first name up. And there aren't a whole lot of other names," --Michael Moore

Names that come up before Michael Moore in a Google search for Bush and nemesis:
Tom Burgis
Paul Craig Roberts
Hugo Chavez
al Qaida
Osama bin Laden
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
Al Gore
Howard Dean
Russ Feingold
John Kerry
Harry Reid
Merriam Webster's Dictionary
Paul Krugman
John Paul Stevens


Anyone who spends eight years googling the same two words, is bound to feel lonely.

Unquestionably the relationship between Bush and Merriam-Webster's Dictionary was extremely antagonistic.

Oh, and as of a minute ago, the answer to the question posed in the title is "this blog", at least for me.

Fuck you, Rubrick.

Oh, wait, you're mean that as a statement of fact. Sorry.

I believe Michael Moore is obviously engaging in hyperbole here, and well-earned hyperbole at that. He consistently stuck his neck out (incredible feat since he barely has one). Mainstream media played it safe for eight years (i.e. corroborated) as the US descended into totalitarian hell. They played into Bush's badly performed idiot act, and virtually gave up trying to elicit a cogent response about any White House policy. They were and still are only too happy to slap the Orwellian pejorative "truther" on any who don't believe that for the first time in history a steel frame building collapsed due to fire on 9/11, and that by coincidence it happened three times on the same day, with each tower falling neatly on to its own footprint leaving mostly pulverized dust, a physical impossibility without controlled demolition. Few in mainstream media made much of Larry Silverstein's getting the World Trade lease from his UJA cronie, Port Authority Chairman Lewis M. Eisenberg, less than two months before 9/11, and Silverstein's $6 billion insurance payment on a $15 million investment. While it has become quite fashionable for New York Times-led zombies to brand Moore as dismissible for his outsider interpretations and anomalous gaffs, I'd say he is an American hero for "Fahrenhiet 911," along with those kids who did "Loose Change."

And why are we just now hearing reports of over 300 civilian deaths due to Obama-approved CIA drone-launched missile operations in Pakistan? Oh but he's so well-spoken and wife so dignified and kids so cute and puppy so ....

PS -- I had left a thank you to mypalmike for his mention of me before under the "guest blogger nomination" entry -- but it didn't take, or, perhaps didn't meet with approval. I am enjoying my exile for finding spilled innocent blood of any flavor abhorrent, especially when our taxes pay to have it spilled. Being awake and uninterested in pleasing editors, I can't help but agree with Judt, Alterman, Chomsky et al. that US/Israel policy toward the Palestinians is not just "complicated" as mainstream TV's Jon Stewart so so so bravely allowed once, but nothing short of apartheid and genocide, beyond atrocity. Less than a year ago 1400 innocents were deliberately exterminated in their walled ghetto.

It is assumed the usual kneejerk catcalls of "self-loathing Jew" and/or "Nazi" will ensue toward the ones who can't forget we all continue to subsidize blowing off the limbs of babies. I know ... buzz kill.

"Can't we all just get along?"

Answers to title post: John Edwards, Billy Corgan of the Smashing Pumpkins, Saddam Hussein, Barack Obama, and of course the granddaddy of them all, occasional Wikipedia editor David Bober.

"They were and still are only too happy to slap the Orwellian pejorative "truther" on any who don't believe that for the first time in history a steel frame building collapsed due to fire on 9/11..."

it was also the first time in history that two fucking boeing 767's loaded with jet fuel flew into the world trade centers. that could have had something to do with it.

i guess it's conceivable that someone planted a ton of explosives without anyone noticing and then got some suicide bombers to fly two airplanes into the buildings and then detonated the explosives after the fire was burning for a while.

people in government can't cover up a blowjob. what a surprise people are dismissive of truthers.


lmbao -- yeah let's have a 9/11 debate at this late date.

First of all, I'm so happy that everything our government does is transparent and they never lie to us, never do anything nefarious, and are always completely honorable. And in those rare times when some government lone nut fucks up it is so unskilled that the world finds out about it over night and that scoundrel acting alone is severely dealt with by their sterling superiors. Like Lindy Englund or William Calley, or Justin Volpe. You're so right in every way.

I guess 1930 building technology was so much better than in the 1970s:


Official US Government 9/11 Physics supercede all other theories: our teflon frying pans melt or "weaken" while cooking up eggs every morning, and steel manufacturers have been wasting money building blast furnaces.

Yes you are right and I stand corrected. 9/11 showed us it was necessary to redistribute a trillion dollars to Pentagon contractors in order to defend our great nation against bearded turbaned guys who hate both a) us for our freedoms and b) Jews, right? "Palestinian refugee" has been a ubiquitous term for 60 years. Why can't those people just find a place to live dammit? Time's up, so let's just kill 'em off now, shall we?, along with their Muslim friends in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. On to Iran now, shall we?

Anybody who disagrees is a holocaust denier, a self-loathing Jew, delusional, anti-American -- pretty much what Fox News has been saying all along. You have utterly convinced me with your irrefutable logic and superior objective analysis. I am forever grateful.

Re 9/11:

Wow, is it 2006 already?

The only thing I find interesting (and relevant to the theme of this blog) about all that is that the label "Truther" was originated and used by the 9/11 conspiracy theorists themselves, Like "pro-life" and "family values" it was a name that aggressively claimed political territory. It implied -- more than implied, it practically shouted -- that only those using it knew and told the truth about the events of 9/11.

Now, within the last month or two, all of the sudden all across the Internet the same 9/11 conspiracy theorists who once bridled at being called "9/11 conspiracy theorists" and insisted they were "Truthers" because it's the truth not a conspiracy theory dammit, are now objecting to "Truther" and claiming that it is a pejorative designed by others to belittle them.

An Orwellian revision of recent history, indeed.

The pejorative value of words does change, not only with time but with context, which is why a word even as old as "Yankee" can still be a vile insult to some and a badge of honor to others. "Idiot" and "moron" were deliberately coined as non-judgmental clinical terms free of the insult and disrespect inherent in earlier terms. A few decades later, "mentally retarded" was the new "politically correct" non-insulting term. Now we have "developmentally disabled" (after brief flirtations involving "impaired" and "challenged") which may hold out a decade or two before also adding to our growing supply of universal insults. It's just inevitable; how can any word or phrase that's used to identify less intelligent people not be co-opted for use as an insult?

This is not the case with "truther" though. Despite their present revisionist claims to the contrary, "truthers" didn't start out as identifying anything other than people who claimed to know the "truth" about 9/11 that others were unable or unwilling to recognize. If "truthers" has taken the fast track to becoming a perjorative, it can only be the Truthers' own fault, the natural result of all those years of, well, acting like truthers.

@Walt. All true. But don't overlook the coinage of "birthers" as a factor in the truthers' newfound skittishness. That is, the truthers are saying, "we don't want to be lumped in with those crazy conspiracy nuts."

Good point.

I'm pretty sure "birthers" itself was coined to be insulting, and that furthermore the nature of the insult was the implied comparison to truthers. That might have "woken them up" (as some of them are so fond of saying) to the fact they are being used as a pejorative.

What most of them remain oddly blind to are the reasons this happened. It is the truthers themselves-- not their name -- that are being used as a pejorative. The name only acquires insulting meaning by reflection from the people identified with it.

To them, this can only be perceived as yet another conspiracy: someone mendaciously gave them a name which despite clearly having the literal meaning of "people associated with the truth" is somehow inherently pejorative in and of itself.

Also conveniently forgotten is the panoply of names the Truthers themselves have used to refer to their critics. Which were and are deliberately insulting: "shills," "Bush lovers," "agents," "slurpers" to mention but a few. Even people who merely ignored them were worthy of the appellation "sheeple." Of course, this is all perfectly okay when the conspiracy theorists do it.

All fine regarding the word "truther," except the intent behind usage trumps etymology every time. Cf, "ew, that's so gay."

"Conspiracy theorist" means what -- FBI agent? investigative reporter? camp counselor? mom? Two creatures meeting to make mischief constitutes a conspiracy; whoever seeks to thwart a conspiracy must first formulate a conspiracy theory. We all are conspiracy theorists all the time. Fox News and their ilk use the term "conspiracy theorist" to discourage critical thinking and objective analysis of government propaganda. Children grow up under this influence, afraid it's not cool to question what they hear on TV.

Re the 2006 comment -- only a crazy person would question history set in stone by the Bush administration as rubber stamped by the US mainstream media, the paradigm of objective infallibility? Historical revisionism constitutes, what, a momentary trendy interruption of "serious" or "appropriate" or "in-crowd" fact established by government press officers and media celebrities, those two camps of impeccable and altruistic authorities who must be right because they are semi-rich, fairly famous, have neat hair and makeup, and in the employ of powerful people nobody should piss off?

Ok, now that you've schooled me I know the real truth: the US government version of the collapse of WTC Bldgs. 1 and 2 on 9/11 is the absolute truth -- infallible, unassailable. Evildoers who hate us for our freedoms and who also happen to be enemies of Israel, present-day Amalekites if you will, defeated the combined watchdog forces of our multitrillion dollar military, intelligence, law enforcement and media. The NIST report many years later about the third building to collapse on 9/11 -- the 47-story Bldg. 7 -- is wrong though. I know for fact it was hit by a magic bullet fired by a lone nut communist/Palestinian sympathizer. BBC reporter Jane Standley reporting its collapse 20 minutes before it happened before her live feed was abruptly cut was just, ha, one of those things.

Post a comment

Powered by
Movable Type 3.2