it is curious to me that in todays world, everything hyped in the MSM needs to be assessed not only for its relative truth, but its theatrical (staged) impact, as for something to make it into the Headlines, is not just a random truth sampling..and theater requires a lot of people to properly stage...ie how informationally can one look at productions and decide exactly how much staging was involved/ or not?
what still bothers me ..is how can one subtract "background".."noise".to qualify historical judgments...I grew up in the 50's in Texas..and my impression of background..well they killed JFK in broad daylight and WTF? Texas in the 50's and 60's was not lost eden..drugs and alcohol seemed to be an enhanced reality, so to speak.
i like JA's analysis, and understand jan urban's perspective. I stopped listening to DN 12 years AGO and found alternative media.I kind of liked this blog bc? not that many people cared.but i love to sort out multiple models of a "system"/ compare and contrast/as a method to search for Truth, as always premises inherent in a "model/construct" which filter the "truth" oh well BEST WISHES!!KEEP ON!!! KEEPING ON!!
please feel free to edit/delete any of my commentaries..I enjoy your podcasts, but of course I am semiretired trying to find the "sense" of it all.even in the 60's the defining role of mainstream media is clear, as there are always actors...just sometimes for no/ few stages. the evolution of MSM , as a thesis ....oh well...maybe this cancer moon shot!!! i just need to find directions???
anyway maybe all i wish to suggest..i see CIA involvement. 60's wise ..but wow..how can one calibrate?? where is evil, given the state of affairs..cold war wise...is it evil that we did not randomize communists?? as we seem to have fUed europe after dub dub two
i guess this perhaps bugs me, even if the 60's was CIA...was the fifties that much better?? wow what sort of eden did we lose..?? historically, and how can we make/restore a better EDEN future tense wise?? WTF?? so to speak??
sorry to bother you , but in my life, change does seem to be the only constant, in an otherwise extremely complex system...chemically speaking, extremely stable bonds (diamonds) do not break, yet only when they break can we determine how much energy held them together...
is not is all relative to say the 50's?? or popular social norms, which may not have been idealic? ie evolutionary-wise, how can one say the "dinosaurs" were better...in that change is part of existence??..is not there a "thermodynamic"s of sorts to evolution of social norms??