Rage Against the Machine II

I've had this one in the line-up for a while trying to decide if I should post it. the first "Rage" generated so much venum it made me a little weary of snakes. In the end though free speech has a value in our Newfoundland and Labrador...

The first "Rage Against the Machine" asked: When I read blogs and the like am I reading an opinion, or an advertisement? I did not really expect an answer. It was mostly rhetoric, and rhetorical questions by their nature don't demand an answer.

But I did receive a response. Veiled threats, articles on "Libel" and blogging. Promises that I would be revealed to the world, "my pants lowered and my forked tail exposed". (Even a cowardly anonymous e-mail apparently written by a nine year old.)

I can be faulted for one thing. I specifically stated being paid as the reason a bias would exists. That was wrong and I duly apologised for the implication. There are other rewards beyond the simple exchange of cash. Not that any of these apply to our local newspapers, radio and bloggers...

So, gagged as I am from speaking freely by those with "asbestos suits" and "lawyer friends". I will speak in vague terms and use an example that is not as locally relevent. Is there indeed a media machine that feds us redigested tripe? Take for example this article "Brain Injury, Not Steroids, Seen in Wrestler Death". As the title implies "Brain injury, not steroids" were the reason that Pro Wrestler Chris Benoit lost faculty of his senses killeding his family and himself. The article was sent to the news feeds by the "Sports Legacy Institute". But here is were that swallowed Red Pill causes trouble. Google that name... who is the SPI? Ex-WWE wrestler, some brain surgents and lawyers.

... and there I go opening myself up again to the accusation of being a perveyor of conspiracy. Am I the only one who would question the legitimacy of an article written by associates and lawyers of the WWE? Does that make me paranoid and delusional as I have been accused of by my own peers - or does it in fact offer a look at the paint beneath? These are of course baseless questions about motivation, offering only speculation, no evidence is provided or produced. For conspiracy theory none are needed. Condemnation through quiet implication. This is Newfoundland and Labrador after all, none of that here... (he whispers)

We need to be better sheep spouting the words we have read verbatum as if they are gospel. Selling the latest political candidate, or flavour of Coke. We are safe to adopt the opinion as our own because it has come from such learned blokes: I know its true, because I saw it on TV. When someone boasts they are in the "persuasion business" we should sip our Pepsi and Screetch ignoring the elephant in the room.

For those who are not registered lobbyists, opinions from regular Joes and Joannes like myself are like arseholes - everyone has one but no one wants to hear yours. No odds. Just an opinion. Fortunately we are the masterless men, we no longer bow to the elite. Those who in their income, politics and acedemics would close our minds.

I've said too much, my tinfoil hat has fallen loose and I fear they will be banging on my bunker door. Unfortunately for those of us who have swallowed the Red Pill, we'll always be prone to look for the underpainting. We scratch the surface and let the light in, even as the paint is still being applied.


Humbly yours,
Self-embarassing fork-tailed conspiracy theorist pseudonom sock puppet