Sunday, February 10, 2019

Looks like Bezos fell into a honeytrap. Plus: Stone, Corsi and the JFK assassination

The embarrassing texts that Bezos sent to his lover apparently were given to Team Trump (or to AMI, which amounts to the same thing) by the lover's brother, Michael Sanchez. He's a Roger Stone pal.
The brother of Jeff Bezos’ mistress, Lauren Sanchez, supplied the couple’s racy texts to the National Enquirer, multiple sources inside AMI, the tabloid’s parent company, told The Daily Beast.

Another source who has been in extensive communication with senior leaders at AMI confirmed that Michael Sanchez first supplied Bezos’ texts to the Enquirer.

AMI has previously refused to identify the source of the texts, but a lawyer for the company strongly hinted at Sanchez’s role during a Sunday morning interview on ABC.

“The story was given to the National Enquirer by a reliable source that had given information to the National Enquirer for seven years prior to this story. It was a source that was well known to both Mr. Bezos and Ms. Sanchez,” attorney Elkan Abramowitz told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos.
Seven years? The obvious possibility is that this Sanchez fellow -- and his sister -- are part of a longstanding Roger Stone ratfucking team. In other words, she was the bait in a classic honeytrap.

I refuse to believe that Bezos coincidentally hooked up with the sister of one of Stone's agents. This was planned. This was a scheme. This was -- dare I use the word? -- a conspiracy.

Most left-wingers embrace "coincidence theories" because they do not want to be lumped in with the Alex Jonesians. But I take a different stance. I've said it before and I'll say it again:

Some conspiracies are real, and the conspiracy theorists are the conspirators.

If Bezos hasn't booted that double-dealing creature already, he's a fool.

Conspiracy. This Atlantic overview of the right-wing "conspiraganda" network tells us that Roger Stone met Alex Jones in 2013, at an event marking the 50th anniversary of the JFK assassination. I cannot convey how thoroughly this news disgusts me.

If Stone and Jones were of political age in 1963, they would have hobnobbed with JFK's enemies. Kennedy foes like General Walker, Revilo Oliver and Guy Bannister were conspiracy theorists par excellence -- the Alex Jonesians of their day. Much the same can be said of James J. Angleton, the CIA counterintelligence chief who, in my view, masterminded the great unpleasantness in Dealey Plaza. Angleton may be described as an Alex Jones with power. (Not to mention about forty additional IQ points.)

My standard line on Kennedy is this: "He wasn't killed by a conspiracy. He was killed by a conspiracy theorist."

No amount of Pepto Bismol can calm my stomach when I think about 2013. On the 50th anniversary, the JFK researchers allowed festering pustules like Alex Jones and Roger Stone to invade their domain. The Stone/Jones contingent did more than invade: They took over. If you say the words "JFK assassination" in mixed company, the name "Alex Jones" will probably come up within forty seconds. In the public mind, the connection has become ineradicable.

I just want to vomit.

Both Stone and Corsi have written JFK assassination books. Stone's is bullshit. Corsi's volume is actually not so bad, although he regurgitates the research of others, offering nothing original.

The danger of left-wing conspiracy research is that it inadvertently bestows credibility on right-wing conspiraganda. (A useful neologism, that. I didn't invent it.) Members of the general public can't tell the difference between good research and bad, between fact and fantasia. They know only that fear is delicious.

Paranoia is addictive. Paranoia is heroin. Say what you will about AJ: He sure as hell knows how to deliver an armload.

Last night, I gave Oliver Stone's JFK another look. It saddened me in ways it never did before, in ways that I would not have thought possible back in 1991, the year of the film's release. I now realize that the JFK researchers -- most of whom were and are liberals -- did little good and much harm.

Sure, they meant well. They made a responsible -- and sometimes heroic -- effort uncover new facts. I will always aver that they were, and are, basically correct, despite my quibbles on certain points and my impatience with with many of them on a personal level. Yet despite the rightness of their position, they were fools.

They never understood one basic truth, a truth which I began to glimpse about a quarter-century ago: Conspiracy theory is the foundation of fascism. Public alienation from government helps people like Vladimir Putin and Alexander Dugin undermine the very concept of democracy.

In the 1990s, the JFK researchers played a small but important role in the creation of the "paranoia chic" subculture. (The UFO buffs of that era played a larger role.) Over the course of the next 25 years, that subculture mutated into the Trumpist menace. I'm not saying that the assassination buffs bear full responsibility for Trump; I'm saying that they didn't understand that they were playing around with a dangerous substance.

Again: Paranoia is junk. Once hooked, addicts keep searching for a stronger rush.

I'm not sure that grass leads to H, but I'm quite certain that Oliver Stone unintentionally functioned as the warm-up act for Bill Cooper and David Icke -- and, eventually, for Alex Jones and the Alt Rightists. 

The buffs didn't understand the addictive properties of paranoia. Thus, they ended up aiding and abetting the very fascism they despised.

(And by "they," I mean "we" -- as in "I'm guilty too, and I really wish I had spent the '90s doing something else.")

Alex Jones is the bastard child of Jim Garrison, though the Jolly Green Giant would have denied parentage. And I say that as an obdurate Garrison admirer.
Sadly, I think you've hit the nail on the head. When I started reading about the JFK assassination a few years ago, I spent a lot of time looking at old articles from the 1970s and 1980s that discussed the assassination. The difference in tone between the way the subject was treated then, and the way it's treated now, is just incredible. Oswald was routinely referred to as the "alleged assassin" or "accused assassin." People who believed that there was a conspiracy weren't treated like UFO kooks. When Congress reinvestigated the assassination, it was taken seriously. It was a real subject, like Watergate; it wasn't a joke, like Bigfoot sightings or flat-earthers.

What happened? I think Stone, for all his courage in making JFK, just wasn't clear enough in the movie about who he thought he was responsible for the assassination. Stone cast the net so wide that he seemed to be accusing the entire government of being implicated in the crime, which is a very different thing than accusing the CIA (or rogue CIA agents) of doing it. Liberals didn't want any part of that, and understandably so. So they abandoned the subject to the cranks. And that, sadly, is why the JFK case has become a punchline, and why so many liberals greeted last year's release of (not enough) files with derision.
Look at how AMI got the texts and photos that Bezos sent as a Black Box. What Pecker did with the information is extortion with that "recant or we print" email. If some stupid prosecutor declares no extortion bc no money, it still violates a plea agreement made with Mueller. Somebody going to jail.
If you were still taking American movies seriously in the 1990's, you were probably snorting coke like the Hollywood maniacs who were making them. Pretty good casting in Stone's JFK, the best performance I've seen by Donald Sutherland.
First of all, why did the Enquirer think that blackmail and sextortion would work? Clearly because it has worked before. Second, about the Kennedy assassination, I still think it was Oswald, but one thing trouble me, the gun. If the bullet that killed Kennedy came from the Carcano, it would clearly point to Oswald. But what if it didn't? I have read a number of articles on the subject and I am still not clear whether of not the bullet definitively came from the Carcano. Do you have any insights into that question. As an aside, I have never believed the story about Walker being shot at by Oswald.
Sanchez was a Weather Person on Fox 11 in Los Angeles. She is attractive and apparently also has her own businesses as well. Being a television personality in Los Angeles added to her allure. She had her own life going on so that may muddy the waters just a bit about her intentions.
So here's a link to Lauren Sanchez's career very briefly encapsulated. She's very smart and very talented.
Sanchez's stint on Good Morning LA was as a Morning Host who also did the Weather. Before that she seemed to keep busy as an on air talent. She's a pilot as well. Kind of reminds me of a Female James Bond who never got the chance to be one.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is 

powered by Blogger. 

Isn't yours?