Why The Yeti Didn't Kill Kennedy and Other Truths "They" Don't Want You To Discover

Here's something to wipe that Monday Morning Smile from your faces, cats and kittens – because I just know how invigorating and giddy-thrilling we all find saddling up for another week...
I was watching Oliver Stone's JFK the other night, when I found myself struck by a rather disturbing thought. Don't worry: it wasn't anything really soul-chilling like “come to think of it, Costner really isn't that bad an actor”, or a recollection of seeing my grandparents going at it like famished badgers triggered by the scrotal appearance of Ed Asner – but even so, it was far from pleasant.
Put simply, it went like this: even given that the movie had a specific agenda, it was sufficiently based on acknowledged and easily-verifiable facts to make the whole conspiracy theory seem credible; indeed, for years before the film came out, one would be hard-pushed to find anybody that has heard of the JFK assassination and yet doesn't think there are a couple of points that might bear a second look. Let's face it: that President Kennedy was murdered by a group of people with considerable clout within the US Government's infrastructure is pretty much seen as a fact – a historical event as certain as the discovery of America, the invention of the Spinning Jenny, or that 1971 saw the birth of a pallid, mole-blind baby who would, over the years, acquire a few harmonicas, a top-hat, and an insurmountable urge towards self-aggrandisement.

For all that, however - for the alleged smears against those who spoke out against the findings of the Warren Commission, despite the (probable) killings of key witnesses, and in the face of all the usual “you-don't-know-how-high-this-thing-goes” histrionics – nothing was changed. The real killer (or, as seems overwhelmingly more likely, killers) have never been named, and despite all the questions and absurd inconsistencies the Commission's report threw up (stuff that even a child – or even a chap as unhinged as Mr Stone is said to be in some quarters – could spot), as far as Officialdom was concerned, that's that. A dark, blood-red line was drawn under Jacky-boy's offing, and anything beyond that will always be written off as speculation, as paranoid rattling from liberal freaks or disgruntled leftist losers. In the final analysis, The Man (and let us not delude ourselves: The Man exists – and He is legion) has said, “So what? You keep on chatting about it; frankly, we can't even be bothered to arrest you or harass you over that shit now – we've moved on to bigger and better things.”

Quite fortunate, really – and it certainly enhances the myth of a “free society” where anyone can mount a soap box and foam at the mouth about whatever takes their fancy (subject to the permission and supervision of the relevant police authorities, of course). The fact is that – despite some appalling examples of State Terror like the recent arrest of a couple of Political Science students in America (the FBI were looking for such damning evidence of subversion/terrorism as textbooks on political thought, black clothing, and mobile phones) – those of us who constitute the tattered remnants of “the counter-culture” are left largely to our own devices. But why shouldn't we be? After all; with the global media ran by oligarchs who are engaged in a mutually pleasurable and financially-rewarding daisy-chain with the Powers That Be on hand to discredit, deride, and undermine any alternative world-view at every turn, with plenty of glittering diversions (anything from The Jubilee to the X-Factor auditions and Kate Middleton's bared breasts) to stop people getting too curious about things that are simply none of their concern, and with flag-fetishism and national anthems blinding and deafening the masses to the crazed grumblings of a few traitorous curs who might as well go and live in Russia, why, in all honesty, should The Man knock Himself out? Admittedly, many will say that the Internet has changed things: that information can be disseminated at the click of a mouse-button, and that it's getting harder and harder to keep anything a secret – that is why every day brings another conspiracy theory, and why The Man is running scared and building up the ramparts surrounding His secret goings-on. People say that groups like Wikileaks are heroic crusaders (and I wouldn't argue with them; they and those who provide them with data risk imprisonment, financial persecution, and worse every day) providing a pipeline for information to the public; that knowledge is power, and that the more we arm ourselves with facts, the stronger we are.

Yeah; that sounds about right – and I'm sure Dr David Kelly would agree with it.
If he were still alive, that is.

Another prime example, there: unquestionably, dreadful things are done on a regular (perhaps even daily) basis in order to Protect Democracy, to Vanquish The Forces of Evil, and generally to ensure that everybody gets to live Happily Ever After* - yet even when this is all but proven, nothing happens.

Why not? If a high-profile Scientific Advisor can come to a sticky and mysterious end, what protects the rank-and-file conspiracy nut from the dark forces of officially unofficial retribution? Could it be the tinfoil lining their hats? Pretty unlikely – from personal experience, I can tell you that stuff doesn't even keep the rain out for very long. No; neither is it wholly a matter of a shortage of time and resources – if a Government have enough people on hand to rubber-stamp the Fit To Work certificates of quadraplegics, they could probably spare at least enough to chuck the odd death-threat-wrapped note through the window of an alternative newspaper's office. It's not even – and do prepare yourself for the shock of just how unsurprising this thought is – because they are indulgent and tolerant of the odd wayward sheep wandering away from the herd and bleating about what really goes on at Area 51. Quite simply, it's because they don't have to worry all that much.

If The Greatest Conspiracy Of Them All can be pretty much exposed (in essence, if not in specific detail) world-wide yet without anybody responsible being held responsible or accountable, why should they? I should think that the chaps behind that Grassy Knoll were pretty edgy at the time – what with it being the first time something of that scale was pulled off in an era of mass media coverage; their knuckles would have gone pretty white as they clutched the high-powered rifles, and furtive and quick would have been their movements. Had they known just how easy it was for a Government (official or otherwise) to get away with it – how little most people would react, or how little difference it would make to their unquestionable and invulnerable power even if they did – they'd have shot the grinning little womaniser with a cannon.

While wearing clown suits.
Hell; they could have probably gotten the Yeti to jump onto the bonnet of that limo and pulled his head off in plain sight - had he not been busy disseminating pro-Chinese literature in Tibet as a CIA double-agent at the time.

And that, cats and kittens, was the essence of the thought that gnawed at me while Tommy Lee Jones was over-playing a gay Southern Gentleman: the suspicion that even if every conspiracy theory we encounter is true, the way things are, there's not a great deal we can do about it. Following from that comes the deduction that if Kennedy's assassination, the fake moon-landings, the bullshit about WMD in Iraq – all of the “secrets” exposed by the digging of “truthers” both professional and amateur – is the stuff that The Man can doesn't mind us knowing about or suspecting, the information He's keeping a serious lid on must be – at best – fucking horrifying.  

I might go and have a quick nap now I've finished this: for some reason, I didn't sleep very well this weekend...

* Or at least Ignorantly Ever After - the next best thing.

The One-Eyed Killer and the One-Finger Typists

I've always been - for reasons that are pretty obvious - pretty supportive of people with one eye: story-book pirates were suitably dashing role-models to the young Silver Fox; Lt Columbo's squinting perseverence in the face of celebrity murderers was inspiring - and for all his deficit in the charm and chumminess department, I've always been prepared to acknowledge that Gordon Brown is probably a nice enough bloke.  Clearly, though, I can't extend this to suspected cop-killer, Dale Cregan.  No; though it's an awful thing to say, I fear that if he's hoping for a wave of one-eyed supporters to cheer him on at his trial - or even to testify as to how having really bad depth-perception is stressful enough to lead anyone into a life of crime and violence ("After knocking my fifth cup off the shelf in a week, something just snapped inside me, your Honour - the next thing I knew I was dealing four keys a week and sleeping on a pile of severed heads..."), he's going to be disappointed.  We're a close-knit network, but we have our limits.
There you are: I've said it; I've made it abundantly clear that I'm not pro-murder - are you all caught up now?  Does anyone need any extra clarification?  One must be awfully careful these days, apparently, as it turns out that everybody - even those people old enough and wise enough to be secure in their own convictions and thoughts - can be distressed, offended, horrified, sickened, and generally spazzed out into a Chenobyl-grade eppy by stuff on the Internet.  Yes; I was surprised too - but in actual fact, we're all of us fourteen-year-old girls sobbing our hearts out over our keyboards because of some fucking idiot's opinion of us - or of just about anything, come to that.
The fucking idiot in question here, of course, is the 22-year-old Merseyside man (the jobless 22-year-old Merseyside man, The Daily Mail helpfully and crucially informs me) who set up a tribute page for Dale Cregan on The Facebook.  For expressing his support for a suspected killer and questioning the fact that anyone "gives a shit" about the murder of PCs Fiona Bone and Nicola Hughes, Neil Swinburne could face up to six months inside under the 2003 Communications Act. I'm reminded of the furore about two similar pages set up in 2010 to laud the works of Raoul Moat - the beet-faced steroid enthusiast.  He too - some felt - was a "legend", a "folk hero" who had shown the coppers that they couldn't have it all their own way and generally acted as a guiding light to spiritual outlaws and would-be badasses of all kinds.  Of course, it was a load of immature, asinine, crap then, and it isn't a view that has improved with age. The "trolls" that celebrated Moat were reviled in the media, and roundly condemned by the majority of the social-network-using public; the pages were taken down, and that was pretty much it.  In the end, the tributes to "Moaty's" victims and the condemnations of his dreadful, cowardly acts outnumbered the shitty little posts about his "heroism" by thousands to one: it was a triumph of the decency and sense of Right that lurks somewhere within the British public - and it was a triumph that owed nothing to Police intervention.
Look; I'm in no way condoning Neil Swinburne's tribute - I think that gloating over the death of anyone is a sign that an individual might need at the very least a little nudge in the direction of the fold of civilised, compassionate humanity, after all - but I'd be very cautious about querying his right to raise his digital voice on the matter.  Yes; I'd agree that his page is offensive; I wouldn't argue that it would be distressing for relatives of the two officers to read. In fact, I'd characterise it as a stupid, tasteless, and deeply unpleasant piece of work that attempts to elevate a brutal thug to a status he in no way merits - but a criminal act?  Stroll on, eh?
The fact is that there will always be cop-haters as long as there are cops: whether these are genuine cop-haters, or merely poseurs seeking the cheap and easy cred of plastic-gangsta status, they'll be around - and while their views are extremist and anti-social, I'd prefer to be able to dismiss them as juvenile nonsense for myself than to have them silenced by the force of Law.  Though I try to avoid clichés like the plague, I'm finding it exceptionally hard not to use the phrase "the thin end of the wedge" at some point here; if some mouthy berk can be nicked for posting thoughtless drivel on Facebook, where does it end?  At what point does a perfectly rational (and responsible) desire to question or criticise the Police become a crime?  It looks like it might become harder and harder to tell - which might prove convenient, eh what?  Only a few days ago, the report on the Hillsborough tragedy gave us a very unpleasant reminder of just how fallible and flawed police officers can be, and while no rational person would suggest that justifies the slaughter (and subsequent celebration thereof) of two dedicated and brave constables, it does lend force to the notion that unthinking support and glorification of those "in blue" is both naive and potentially dangerous to the public good.
 Of course, it could be argued that it wasn't Mr Swinburne's "beef" with the Old Bill that led to him being taken in; perhaps it was the emotional distress he's caused the families and friends of the murdered PCs.  That's fair enough, but while we're at it, let's see a few more arrests, shall we?  Why not prepare a cell for the founder of the page "Hang Dale Cregan, Murdering Scum"?  This hate-filled page is probably pretty unpleasant reading for Mr Cregan's family (not all of whom, I would think, are hardened and brutal criminals), so where's their protection against distress - or doesn't that matter in the face of the overwhelming thunder of the Moral Majority?  Mind you, a "troll" is only a "troll" if you don't happen to agree with what they're saying: there's probably something enshrined in the Statute Books to that effect - with a Latin phrase and everything - otherwise, arresting one cyber-twat and not another could be seen as absurdly inconsistent...
The fact that Swinburne's arrest has been reported with approval from pretty much all quarters is pretty troubling, I think; the fact that it's prompted the Director of Public Prosecutions to state that
"the time has come for an informed debate about the boundaries of freedom of speech in an age of social media" is doubly so.  Just who will be having this debate, and who is going to be "informing" it?
Hopefully - and it's a forlorn, pallid, sort of hope - it might be somebody with the deep-down good sense to say something like "it's only the Internet: it's the dissonant cawings of a madman's aviary - get a fucking grip, for crying out loud".  As I say though: I'm not optimistic about that.  It seems that Taking The Internet Seriously is now a way of life -  and if you don't agree, "like", or post numerous links to this blog on your Twitter account, I'll have no choice but to see it as an implicit act of cyberbullying and kill myself.