Part of my ongoing crisis has included this morning a sudden fear that Snowden is (still) an agent. When a person is putting on an act, there is a duality about them that is not entirely able to be hidden. It leaves clues. Why? Because necessarily, given the fact that there are two stories afoot, the one they portray and the reality behind it, which is contrary to some degree, more or less, necessarily there is a requirement of coordination. Unless the person is delerious and fully convinced that his onstage persona is reality, he will inevitably check his progress every so often, whether it is once a phrase, once a point, once a sentence. These checks cannot be completely hidden, but the effort will be made to conceal them. The effort to conceal is also a tell. It will appear as an emphasis that is slightly overplayed, functionally an attempt to recapture the credence of the listener, on the assumption that, after all, Im not a good enough liar, so I have to overcompensate. This overcompensation will be very tinny, very mechanical. This is the chief tell of all, the mechanicalness. The overemphasized effort to recapture the role, to prevent being caught out of character, to head off — by overclocking the tempo, very often — a cumulative skepticism on the part of the viewer or listener. Please view this very brief clip of Snowden with Brian Williams, and see if it doesnt jar your nerves, jar your trust a little. Again, I cant promise I will read your response, not in my current state. https://youtube/watch?v=TKuVnQv-wn8 This is Snowden commenting on 9/11, the greatest weakness in his persona — the fact that he, supposedly in possession of all internal knowledge, has added nothing to the understanding of the reality behind it. Knowing this (its obvious) he would naturally be at the zenith of his anxiety/need to overact, because this is what his most determined critics are most het up about. Snowden begins: I take the threat of terrorism *seriously*. He stumbles on the word terrorism. (He almost said, I take the threat of seriously.) He then drops his gaze and licks his lips. And I think we all do. By this line he has recovered his persona. Why? Because this is the payload. What does it mean for him to say I take the threat of terrorism seriously, and I think we all do. ? It means that 9/11 was the work of terrsts. If you dont take the threat of terrorism seriously . . . . If you DOUBT that its perfectly reasonable, explainable, and understandable how the richest most powerful, well-equipped military in the world, richer than all other militaries combined, could fail to protect their own headquarters from a big lumbering airliner, even with an hour and a half headstart, why then youre just a [fill in the blank]. The success of that act of terror was a result of incompetence, turf wars, too big a haystack. NOT by any means Crimes of Empire, intentional, caused, or even allowed by looking the other way. Never any mention of put options on the stock collapse of United or American Airlines, or Merrill Lynch, all of which were targets of put options at 5 times the normal C.O.T. levels net short, amounting to millions of dollars of instant profit (not counting the vast shot in the arm to the defense industries that own the Congress). ...programs, that have never been shown to keep us safe [we are not safe, and we are not likely to become safe] but that cost us liberties and freedoms Reminds me of the clip that Alex did in London, where a Cockney-speaking lady says, Awd be willin to give up some of moy liberty fo freydom. Now I understand that many who read this will say, Jeez, cmon. The guy was nervous being on the NBC Nightly News. You wouldnt be? I acknowledge that. And theres no one who more wants to believe that what I delighted in seeing in CITIZEN FOUR a couple of weeks ago was 100% genuine. I came out of that theater thinking, theres no way you could fake that. But for the record, Im struggling with it now. Im struggling with what that old lady in the Wendys commercial decades ago said, Wheres the beef? Williams: [notice how musical is the segue from Snowdens first paragraph to Williams next line. The metronome never falters.] But you can see HOW it happened. [smile and uplook — so satisfied. Notice how there is a dual take with two head angles, two distinct glances assumed, after happened. A good or mediocre theatrical director would insert the extra take — pure Jimmy Stewart, so the SPONTANEOUS mental process is visible to the camera] Guys with box-cutters spent [head reverses angle on every word, like old bobblehead Condie Rice. The odor of script is thick] Guys with boxcutters spent two hundred bucks [such street lingo! such punch to the consonants!] using our own aviation system [he forgot the pristine passport found on the sidewalk of the inferno that destroyed the black boxes, which obviously fell out of the terrorists pocket] to take down our own buildings and smash into the Pentagon. I could go on, but you get the picture. Ive been celebrating Snowden, but now Im deeply conflicted.
Posted on: Mon, 29 Dec 2014 20:51:48 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015