Friday, 8 February 2013

We all drink from a yellow cake canteen

The lawman seeks the most likely suspect. Unless... unless the most likely suspect - the one with the motive & opportunity & wherewith-whatnot - is indispensable to the lawman, like the lawman's bosses' benefactor and various parties between those apostrophes and, of course, the lawman his own self.

Sure, there are plenty of peddlers within the executive infrastructure of influence who end up scandalizing this notion - getting busted & paraded around to disprove that power is above the law. These are the alleged makers & breakers who find themselves having to sit out the game for a while or, for the less fortunate, in want of an answer to their one phone-call or, more pathetically, sitting on deathrow awaiting one or, the most tragic turn, dead in the dirt at the scene of the last loose-end about which no-one really gives a great goddamn, at least not enough that you'd think somebody felt the need to whack 'em for it. But maybe if you really knew what they'd gotten whacked for, you'd know why they'd gotten whacked. Also, there are sports that involve whacking.

So there's a proportional relationship in there somewhere, regarding who is and who isn't above the law; I'm not sure if it's inverse or direct, but imagine it's both an and/or & either-or kind of theorem involving the complexity of a self-regulating system. But what are the factors? "Indispensable" is so subjectively relative that there must be some subordinate coordinates to help make better sense of the real rules of what it takes to be best-connected.

The mob rules - by which everybody has so much filth on everybody else that one finger dare-not finger the other finger - are fine for the mob, but how do they so effectively keep the non-due-paying members from forming a mob of their own and storming the spaghetti restaurant? Or, more importantly, how do they keep everyone playing along?

Complacency? Indifference? Fear?

Maybe a little reverse-engine-theoring is in order: Who are the people who get away with the most of the most capital of all capital crimes, the crime of murder? To answer this question, you have to know about the murder, obviously, and to know the identity of the killer. As sheer numbers go, "military personnel" comes to mind, but they derive their authority from more than just a gun. While we're all responsible for our own actions, time & again we encounter the proposition that the people with the most blood on their hands are the ones calling the shots without ever having to pull a single trigger.

With apologies to the legacy of the Nuremberg Trials, there is for me no more notorious an example of striving to hold accountable those who call the shots on the one hand, and exclusively those who pull the trigger on the other, than Vincent Bugliosi with his successful prosecution of Charles Manson as puppet master, and his authorial allegation of Lee Harvey Oswald as independent assassin, respectively.

Vinnie Boogs, Esq. has brought out almost as many books as he has indictments, where here he also indites that George the Younger should face tens of thousands of counts of murder for misleading the poor innocent US Congress into authorizing war.

Warning: four-paragraph parenthetical!
(If only Manson had used the I was tricked defense: "The lyrics to Helter Skelter are misleading! Censure the Fab Four! You can't bury Paul, man. He's already dead."

That'd be silly, of course, when you listen to the actual lyrics of the song and not just use the generally threatening tone of Helter Skelter to justify itself while leaving in-depth analysis to those who either refused to go along with the crime, or stayed back at the ranch with Charley smoking weed because they knew there were enough to cover for 'em.

Of course, covering for them involved the outgoing & incoming secretaries of state going along with the rest - out to Sharon Tate's house where Senator Clinton held her down while Senator Kerry stabbed her 16 times as she begged for mercy for herself and her unborn child. I know what you're thinking: You thought Hillary did the stabbing.

But, ya see, they were lied to! If only they had listened to Tipper Gore and had that little sticker put on the cover of the intelligence report: Warning: Contains the case for killing people!)

Back to Bugliosi's book
Furthermore, the page-turner penning prosecutor purports premeditation based on a Memo from another Manning - not the whistleblowing pawn of American princes, but a triangulating knight of the British crown.

Conclusion? Covering a prime minister's ass increases the likelihood of landing a royal title, whereas uncovering your state's misdeeds will likely be your ass (I really put that a lot more mildly than I might've).

Interestingly, the Manning Memo includes a nugget about Beta Bush's suggestion that they provoke a pretense for an attack, to preempt the preemptive pretension of it all (the preemptive-ness itself being just another pretense anyway). Hey, at least he tried to go the traditional route of phony-flagging it first.

So who's beat the rap so far? George W.? George the Prince Regent? Sirs George Harrison and George Martin? Some other George?

Warning: not just another Beatles related digression
Is it utter anti-irony that The Catcher in the Rye snagged as separate traveling companions two May 1955-born Texomans who exactly 16 weeks-to-the-Monday apart from each-other put a bullet in the left lung of their respective targets, the second incident of which - even had it been mere copycattery - had the luck o' the limousine & the bullet's resulting ricochet on its side? I wonder, had Lennon had President Reagan's luck and not taken a direct hit (been more of a Teflon John, if you will) whether he might have finagled his way into a live duet of "Police on my Back" with Mick Jones or "Washington Bullets" with Joe Strummer. The Clash's triple fantasy album Sandinista! came out four days after the night he signed his last rights on the cover of Double Fantasy. Considering the twisted twist of fate of that album, maybe he and Strummer are singing "Career Opportunities" on a sidewalk somewhere in an imaginary heaven.

So who hasn't beat the rap so far? John Hinckley Jr. Mark David Chapman. Lee Harvey Oswald. Osama Bin La-- hey! How'd he get in there? Okay, I threw him in because of his three names, and that, like Oswald, he never stood trial, and because of his status as "the Manson of the group" (capable of sending others to slaughter), but mostly because of what he & Hinckley have held in common: Interfamilial Bushwhacking.

Soylent Yellow is Sheeple!
You know what they say about children who get away with shit: they keep on and on and on. What are adults except children of greater experience? Let's say, for example, that you're a bigshot international trade merchant with longtime familial connections to the court of your kingdom, but you don't like the way the current king meddles in your business, so you and a few other members of the court conspire to murder the king, which is, admittedly, an incredibly bold move. But it's also really simple because the masses hold two disparate beliefs simultaneously: 1) Everyone desperately wants to believe that no-one could do such a thing. 2) They're pretty sure this kind of shit has always gone on.

You don't get torched by an angry mob or spend the rest of your life in the citadel dungeon because nobody cares enough to question the cover stories of the royal court, who were, after all, confidants to the king, now freshly cremated. The loud skeptics' convoluted complaints are met by a kingdom who, correspondent to 2, are weary, and 1, maintain that such a secret could in no way be maintained, but don't take seriously anyone who tries to reveal it, and remain happily unaware of the clusters of those not lucky enough not to die in a car crash or fall from the 20th floor of a nut-house. The luckier losers are tossed into a pool where they figuratively drown with the roundly ridiculed and outright ignored. Certainly a lot of people in that pool are worthy of ridicule or best ignored, but who can tell the difference, adults always lie, and isn't it nap-time?

So wouldn't it only be a matter of time before you tried to off another king? Hell, he doesn't even have to be meddling in your business, it might be that you just think that he might some day, or that you heard that he was thinking about it from somebody else with mutual motive & opportunity & wherewith-whatnot. Maybe now you're nearer the throne. Wouldn't you love to be king? And this time all you gotta do is say, "Just get it done, I don't wanna hear about it."

Now, naturally the Hinckley's being big Bush boosters is a coincidence, or, rather, it's a coincidence that a renegade Hinckley would try to shoot Apple Pie's most be-hallowed Gipper. Even if VP Bush had eyes on the throne, the last thing he would do is use one of his prized political patron's creepy kids to make the hit. Ah, but that's the beauty of having the freedom to brazenly shoot whoever you want in the face; the more obvious it is that you did it, the less willing your kingdom's to admit it.

So we have an inverse proportional relationship here, and an oddly beautiful self-regulating one at that. Not that it didn't take time & effort to set things in motion, before which the same relationship might have tended direct or something. I dunno. I wasn't around for the big bang of deep politics.

But I remember nine-eleven. So does this guy, Philip Marshall, who last year wrote this book, which qualifies him as a Truther, which means he's in the pool with the ridiculed & ignored, or was until last week, when he cleanly executed his two kids & dog and, you guessed it, offed himself.

I never read the book, oddly enough, it's not really my genre of preference. It apparently goes heavy on the Saudi angle, which is indeed, the most incontrovertible aspect of any of the theories. I know there are a lot of people peddling crap out there and have no idea whether this guy was or not & if he was, for what reason. If you don't believe him, then you wouldn't believe his story that he was one of the pilots who flew missions in and out of Nicaragua and Mena. You know, Contras, guns, drugs.

The local newspaper quotes some seemingly randomly-chosen & ostensibly e-queried professor at the University of Pennsylvania, who writes that a "quick read (of news clips) and my experience suggests he might have been in a downward spiral of mental illness,” and cites other studies which profile Marshall as one who'd commit familial multi-cide: a White gun-owner who slapped his sister-in-law four years ago and is undergoing a divorce after a freaky separation period with tales of pain-medication intrigue, which may or may not have also involved child-custody issues. Hell, sounds like a typical cop or, indeed, a spook from Langley as well as a guy who would make up being one; frankly, there's a fine line between the personality of spies and pretend spies. Either way, it also sounds like the profile of a guy who knew he wasn't above the law.

The article's takeaway, however, was this comment from its author: "Whether the full details of the crime are ever revealed or not, those who sympathize with Marshall’s theories about a malicious covert government will likely never be satisfied."

Add to their obstinacy the countervailing certainty that, covert government or not, they could never succeed at such maliciousness, and you got a kingdom worth fighting for. Apparently. All that and public tv.