In the battle between the truth and the narrative, the latter is often the "winner."

 

Sometimes I wonder why it often seems that I am the only person who sees things in a certain way. Am I a cynic? Sure. Crazy? Maybe. Existential? Whatever that means. Macabre? Yeah that too. I remember when I was in college I went to the audio/visual department at the library and viewed Sidney Lumet's The Pawnbroker, starring Rod Steiger; afterward I left the library in a state of complete numbness. Perhaps I am like the dead-to-the-world character played by Steiger, whose very indifference to the human race inadvertently is the cause of something that forces him  back to the living. 

On the other hand, most people are "fortunate" to have choices about  the “narratives” they choose to follow; I suppose for a few of them the truth behind the facts of a case are important—but in most cases, the “narrative” is much more important than the underlying truth, which they can invent anyways as it suits their purposes.

Take for instance the Trayvon Martin case, where the "narrative" was that he was an "innocent child" just out to buy some Skittles and was "racially profiled" for wearing a hoodie. That "narrative" is utterly ridiculous and self-serving and yet it is the one that is put out there as what we are supposed to believe. The truth, being suspended from school for breaking, entering and vandalism, suspended again for theft, and again for drug possession just for starters, is merely a footnote in the "narrative."

The theft case was particularly interesting because as the Miami Herald reported, he was found wandering the halls with jewelry he claimed someone gave him; it was stored at the school as “found items.” That same day a nearby resident reported to police that their home was broken into and those very items “found” on Martin were missing. Martin should have been arrested for any one of those incidents and served some jail time; but he wasn’t—he was let go for what must have been for him a “vacation” from school and gave him “gangsta cred.”

But he didn’t go to jail or even to a juvenile detention center, and the truth is simply buried beneath the “narrative.” No doubt his mother was out of her mind about what to do about him, so she contacted his father to take him off her hands. Maybe they argued about it, and maybe the father told her about Sanford and the neighborhood he lived in, that as Reuters reported at the time was wracked by crime committed by “young black male transients”—just like Martin, and he would just get into trouble there, maybe this time arrested and charged.

Just two weeks prior to his surprise arrival—when he was “scoping out” darkened residences before being spotted by the “neighborhood watch captain,” George Zimmerman—a residence had been broken into and a laptop stolen, which was later found in the backpack of one of these non-resident black males by police. Reuters also noted that just a few months earlier a Hispanic mother was cowering in a closet trying to keep her infant son quiet as she whispered into a cell phone with 9-1-1 as two black males were ransacking her apartment. 

This was the backdrop for what would happen on that “fateful night”—except that the truth was not important, not even that at least one witness saw Martin trying to crack Zimmerman's skull open on the pavement. Only the “narrative” that the media and black activists were trying to push was what we were supposed to know; no doubt Zimmerman's acquittal came as "surprise" to some people.

The truth about the Gabby Petito case, which Andy Signore at Popcorned Planet seems to be fascinated by, also seems to be lost in its “narrative.” I recall that when Petito initially went missing there was mention of her mental health issues, but that quickly evaporated when her body was found. That “famous” Moab, Utah police video gave us some clues which were largely ignored or deliberately misinterpreted. The media showed images or brief clips of Petito crying in a van, but note we never hear the audio. Why? Because she sounds like a pathetic child who just got caught doing something “bad,” which was true, because the erratic driving that led to the pullover was due to Petito grabbing and scratching Brian Laundrie’s arm.

The other part about the video the media doesn’t want people to hear is Laundrie’s description of Petito’s behavior during this road trip they were on. It sounds very much like obsessive compulsive personality disorder. Why do I say that? Because that was what Julia Biryukova was diagnosed with. Who is she, you ask? She is the mother of Sky Metalwala, who “disappeared” under “mysterious” circumstances in 2011 and has never been found. The general belief around here is that Biryukova killed and buried him somewhere, yet she walks free. Frankly, the cynic in me finds it curious that while the media is fascinated with the disappearances of attractive white females of any age, Sky, who was 2-years-old at the time and whose father is Pakistani, isn’t the “type” that would interest the mainstream media.

Biryukova was hospitalized on at least two occasions for her mental health issues, not just about OCD, but about fantasizing killing her children. Despite this, the local child protective services saw fit to allow her principle custody of the two children she had with Solomon Metalwala after they split; it was only after Sky’s disappearance and police determining that Biryukova had been lying about the circumstances that their surviving daughter was removed from her custody to her father.

But what does this have to do with the Petito case, you ask?  Of course you are going to get the usual stories about why they “split,” but Metalwala told authorities that Biryukova’s OCD was often manifested as a “clean freak”; for example, he often felt compelled to go outside to eat his meals because she was berating him incessantly about how he was eating and the “mess” he was making. Neighbors in their condo also would complain that they heard a vacuum cleaner running at all hours of the night, interrupting their sleep.

And what do we hear in that Moab video? We hear Laundrie talking about how Petito was constantly berating him for seemingly innocuous “infractions” as putting things in the “wrong place,” or that his feet were “dirty.” But according to the “narrative,” Laundrie "lost it" for no reason at all; maybe he was just some closet psychopath. But what did he have to “gain” from killing her? Perhaps nothing in his mind save his life back, the fallacy of which he lost sight of in a fit of vexation turned violent.

Now let’s think about that for a moment or two. A two-year-old’s “messy” habits would probably drive someone with OCD “crazy,” and without the father around to keep an eye on things, someone like Biryukova might actually act out her “fantasies.” The father, of course, could “escape” from the behavior that was driving him “crazy”—leaving the house, or eventually simply just leaving the marriage, which of course Biryukova put the blame on him. But Brian Laundrie was a grown man, not a two-year-old, and unlike Solomon Metalwala, he was trapped in a van with a woman who was literally driving him “crazy.”

I know, the truth is hard when the “narrative” is easy. And the truth is that Petito and Laundrie should never have gone on that road trip to hell that would end in death for both of them; Laundrie himself likely had mental health issues that made it difficult for him to cope. Someone—probably Petito’s parents in denial—knew her problems and should have advised against taking a cross-country trip where there would be no escape from each other. Petito’s parents had in fact voiced the “hope” that Laundrie would “take care of her.” Why? Was there some hidden meaning in that? That like Trayvon Martin’s mother, they couldn’t deal with her problems anymore, and hoped someone would take her off their hands?

Damn this hype over the letter that is currently going the rounds. Why is it a "surprise" that Laundrie's mind would be fried over disbelief over what had happened to his life, that he could not have imagined before that road trip? Doesn’t anyone stop to think what a horrible tragedy this is for the Laundrie family too? I’m sure they are thinking they wish to God that their son had never met someone with as unstable a personality as Petito.

Does the truth matter? Well, that’s a matter of “opinion” in the Evan Rachel Wood case

 

This Memorial Day weekend finds  truth-seekers reloaded with fresh ammunition in the battle against the forces  of falsehood and fabrication: a California court ordered Evan Rachel Wood to give up custody of her child to former partner Jamie Bell, which I'm sure comes as a "shock" to people who during all this time have "understood" Wood to be the long-suffering victim of the bogeyman Marilyn Manson. Something is not quite right here, but then again people who have an interest in this case have known that for some time now.

I wondered why Wood and Bell had broken up so soon after their son was born, so I did some investigating. I found this 2014 story in Jezebel:

According to a source, Evan Rachel Wood and Jamie Bell split because Wood prioritized motherhood over her relationship. In a seemingly contradictory detail, Wood also reportedly thought Bell wasn't "edgy" enough.

The couple welcomed a son last July, and he became the focus, the source adds. "Evan loves being a mom. After her son was born, he has been her No. 1 priority. The marriage always came in second. They have different goals for the future and want to pursue them separately."

As for Wood's romantic future, the source adds: "Evan is very edgy and adventurous and wants to find a partner that she can share that with."

Well, first off, it seems that Wood was just using Bell to have a child and then discarded him as no longer needed. The article is in the "Dirt Bag" section of the website, and the writer, Lindy West, provides a few hints about who she thinks the "dirt bag" is here, as if it isn't obvious.

But the other part of this is very interesting because it doesn't have to do just with Bell, but Manson as well.  The “straight” definition of “edgy” or "on edge" is being “nervous” or “uptight.” But in a “not normal”—i.e. “adventurous”—individual, it means someone who “breaks social conventions,” has “controversial attitudes,” and is “unafraid to challenge societal norms or push boundaries.” 

People would say that Marilyn Manson was this kind of “edgy.” Was that what attracted Wood to Manson, because he was into the “very edgy” like herself? Or did she feel a need to be "different," and Manson showed her a way to "express" this, and she decided this was for her at the time?

While we can surmise that Wood was not serious about having a long-term relationship with Bell (note that like Amber Heard she has “bisexual” predilections), it is still a fair question to ask what exactly did she consider “very edgy” then—since what she says now can only be taken as self-serving and not the truth. What is quite certain is that Wood realized she had no credibility about being a MeToo "victim" if it was known she was into "very edgy" things back then. Thus she had to change the narrative and claimed she was forced  to do "edgy" things against her will.

This is a good starting point to examine the credibility of Wood’s accusations against Manson, particularly since in that article her alleged issues with Manson are not mentioned at all as if that was all over long ago, and she is portrayed as entirely at ease with a lifestyle outside the "normal." 

She may claim now she was “groomed” by Manson, but she was an adult when she met him, and she wasn’t a “naïve child.” If she had an “adventurous” nature, it wouldn't be surprising that she would think that the “scene” Manson was involved in was “cool.” And exactly what kind of “adventures” did Wood have in mind that Bell was not prepared to share with her?

Of course Wood denies all now, but why should we believe her any more than Amber Heard? The facts rather strongly suggests that she is being disingenuous and opportunistic at the very least—and more likely someone dealing with “remorse” about her previous life choices, and with the help of her former partner Illma Gore, chose to blame men for it. 

Who was the most convenient target? Why not Manson, whose artistic “tastes” and public persona were already bizarre enough to most people who were even aware of it? Nor would it be too difficult to find women involved in Manson’s projects to make check marks on a list. But just because something is “weird” doesn’t make it a “crime” or even "abuse."

Although a California judge used the state’s anti-SLAPP law to protect Wood and her co-conspirators from answering for perpetuating a hoax against Manson, there have been too many other defeats for Wood that continue to sink her credibility. The latest is Bell’s custody case against Wood that has just ended with a California court ordering Wood to hand over principle custody to him. In court documents that were not sealed, we see why this occurred. Wood, by moving from California to Tennessee, deliberately attempted to subvert the custody agreement and prevented Bell from seeing his son:

 

Bell discovered that the FBI letter Wood was using to “protect” their child was fake:

 

Wood was evading summons to appear in court to explain herself:

 

Even when Wood agreed to mediation, she and her representatives continued to block any resolution:

 

Bell provided testimony concerning how Wood was inflicting psychological abuse on their son:

 

Another effort at mediation was a failure due to Wood’s intransigence:

 

This was apparently too much even for a California court that would normally rule in a mother’s favor at every turn. Wood was clearly not acting in good faith, and now was apparently seen as “unfit” to continue having principle custody of the child because of her increasingly bizarre and unstable behavior. Of course Wood would need to “spin” the story to conceal the truth, and through some sublet media outlet called The Blast we we told “Evan Rachel Wood Gives Up Custody Of Son After Alleged Marilyn Manson Threats.”

This was immediately responded to by both Manson, who insisted he neither has had any contact with Wood in nearly a decade, nor has threatened her son. Bell also asserted in a statement that Manson had nothing to do with the custody decision, and that the decision to relieve Wood of custody of their son was due solely to evidence of her unfitness as a parent. Regardless of what side people are on, for a California court to remove a child from a mother's custody has to raise all kinds of red flags about what is really wrong with Wood.

Evidence of Wood's psychological defects should finally convince those on the “fence” or have no opinion that at the very least Wood's case against Manson is shaky at best, and dependent upon whether you can suspend your belief enough to accept the word of someone whose story has slowly crumbled in the face of reverses such as one case (by Manson’s former personal assistant) being dismissed for lack of evidence, and an former accuser (Ashley Smithline) signing a sworn statement that she was pressured to make false claims by Wood and Gore. These along with former partners who claimed that they resisted pressure from Wood supporters to make false claims, and one who “arose from the dead” to contradict claims made about her by Wood and her co-conspirators, could only lead to questions of what the real truth is.

Of course the "truth" for some people is often based on their opinions or choosing to deny what the evidence (or lack thereof) tell them. On one reddit discussion page we find the usual failure to inform oneself of the facts:

Attacks on the father:

 

Revelations of personal politics and bias:

Was this meant to be "sarcastic":

As noted before, Wood didn't seem "scared" of Manson back in 2014; Wood's relationship with Bell was clearly from the start all about her own selfishness, and now claiming Manson is responsible for the loss of custody is just another way to "remind" people what this was all "really" about.  Of course not everyone wants to understand just how disturbingly odd Wood's claims are, and just run with it without looking where it leads:

Some people admit that they didn't read the court documents before making an ill-informed statement of "fact":

A few people wondered what the hell is going on with these people:

 

 

Someone even had the audacity to suggest that Wood was lying about Manson:

 

And then there are the wingnuts who think a violent response is the appropriate answer:

 Of course I added my two-bit to the discussion:

The facts are clear enough in the Manson case: you have a disturbed woman who “suddenly” discovered these “revelations” that her “very edgy” behavior had become something of an embarrassment for her. Everyone has these  “revelations” where they remember some embarrassing thing they did from the distant past that brings a brief pang about wishing not having done “that.” 

Usually these feelings are temporary because you can’t do anything about it; it's over, you hope nobody else remembers it. Wood apparently had many of these “embarrassing” moments that she wishes people wouldn’t remember or know about, and the MeToo movement provided her with a way to "explain" herself by blaming someone else.

Of course for some people the truth isn’t really the point—it is the “feeling” one has when they are looking for scapegoats to explain their own “issues.” We see people with their own "issues" vicariously “connecting” with a celebrity who gives them a sense of "power" and "credibility." Unfortunately for these people in the cases of Wood and Heard, they picked the wrong horses. The truth doesn't matter; the more the evidence piles up that makes their supporters look foolish, the need to become even more foolish.

"Culture wars" are just foolish children at play, tolerated for now by the corporatocracy that really runs this country

 

On the surface, it appears that this country is locked in a battle between opposing “cultures,” involving “traditional” mores against those who demand the right to do as they please, and between those who believe the past is past against those who believe the past is present. Florida has become the principle battleground between these forces, although it is strictly an unfair fight with a governor with fascist-leanings backed by an equally fascist-minded legislative super-majorities.

But in general this country’s ethical and moral compass has certainly strayed far afield since Donald Trump was elected in 2016. Perhaps people don’t really notice themselves that much because life just goes on day to day without any real change; when politicians just bark at each other, it doesn’t matters all that much. But it is not true that one party can’t cause great damage if it gets carried away; we see the potential for that with a looming debt default that Republicans always happily pass “clean” debt ceiling bills when a Republican is in the White House, but then decide they want a “dirty” one when a Democrat is in office for purely partisan reasons. Fanatics on the extreme right even seem to take a delight in seeing the country to collapse in on itself.

The far-right extremists promise a “new world order”;  Ron DeSantis and Elon Musk gave us a “taste” of that yesterday announcing a “new direction” and “status quo-busting” future for America—DeSantis’ embarrassing and glitch-filled audio-only twitter presidential campaign announcement. It was an inauspicious opening for a campaign that outside the far-right Fox News bubble—which at best reaches 3 million viewers, a relative drop in the bucket as a whole. Outside some media exposure (mostly negative), DeSantis is a relative unknown, and frankly he looks like the political gangster he is.

I have problems with “woke” culture too, but DeSantis goes way beyond that, not merely expressing an opinion, but passing laws that literally make it a crime to express any opinion that he doesn’t like or makes him feel “uncomfortable.” DeSantis is a xenophobe and a racist, and so he passes laws wherever it is possible have his critics “muzzled”—such as in schools and on the streets: he hasn’t quite figured out how he can legally silence free press criticism against himself, but he’ll keep trying. DeSantis is notoriously “media shy,” and he only appears on Fox News for a reason.

It has been noted that DeSantis is so full of himself that he has made little effort at coalition-building outside of Florida, and both Democrats and many Republicans found much to amuse themselves with the disastrous opening of his presidential campaign. No doubt those on the far-right fringe may see him as more “electable” at the moment than Trump, but we remember how fast Howard Dean flamed out. If people think Trump has dangerously destructive impulses, wait until they hear what DeSantis has to say outside his Florida and Fox News bubble. 

People may have to learn the Barry Goldwater lesson once more: after the original favorite, Nelson Rockefeller, saw his poll numbers plummet, by June 1964 polling showed a dead heat between Goldwater, Nixon, Lodge and Scranton at 20 percent each. But far-right voters (who called themselves the “mainstream” of the party) mostly abandoned the others to back Goldwater and his “culture war” beliefs, and merely using “traditional” conservative tropes to mask an ideology of what one critic called “plutocratic profiteering” and “fascist-style thought control nationalism.”

The result was that even in a country divided by the civil rights struggle, Goldwater was seen as too “extreme” in his culture war views, and only the 1936 election rivaled the 1964 election as the worst defeat by a Republican nominee in a presidential election. I suspect that if DeSantis were to be nominated, he could do one of either two things: lose so badly that Trumpism/fascism is killed-off completely—or lose the popular vote by a wide margin but win narrowly by the electoral vote—and send this country down the path of becoming at least “culturally” a fascist state.

Yet the truth of the matter is that Republicans don’t so much as “govern” the country, but impose their own sordid, narrow-minded cultural and nationalistic views on the majority of the country. Beneath the surface of the rhetoric, we in fact live in a—how about this word—“corporatocracy.” It’s an actual “thing,” even if it isn’t in Microsoft Word’s spelling dictionary. It refers to “a society or system that is governed or controlled by corporations.” This includes the judicial system as well, and we can certainly see Clarence Thomas as an example of this; Thomas still claims he doesn’t think he has to report what is probably in the millions of dollars in gratuities he has received from his corporate “best friend” for voting the “right way.”

In a corporatocracy, no major policy decision is made without the approval of Wall Street; an example of this was the Affordable Care Act, which corporate America eventually relented to as long as they benefitted from it and didn’t need to worry about a “public option” as a competitor. Of course it was different during the Great Depression because FDR had super-majorities in Congress to work with and a Supreme Court that eventually included eight of his personal selection. But with “divided” government, corporations pretty much pick and choose their spots, and “ideology” is just what a politician says that is different from what another person says; in some people who are bought and paid for by corporations like Kirsten Sinema, we see that “ideology” and “principles” really doesn’t have anything to do with decision-making.

Some people think that if voters don’t come to their senses soon, fascism will be in this country’s future. Can one imagine the chaos and civil unrest that could ensue if someone like DeSantis is elected president and he tries to impose by authoritarian dictates the same personal “cultural” beliefs he has inflicted on Florida to the rest of the country—especially with a Supreme Court filled with right-wing culture war ideologues?

But this has nothing to do with corporate America, and before DeSantis picked a fight with Disney, his laws did not affect its own “rights.” Perhaps DeSantis (being Italian-American) looks to Mussolini for guidance; Mussolini referred to his version of fascism as “corporatism,” which in theory means that different elements of society form their own “unions” and they band together to work out their differences to agree to a common policy. This certainly sounds “practical” in theory, and unlike democratic government even those on the margins have their two-bit thrown in. 

But in “practice,” as we saw in Nazi Germany, not everyone’s voice in this kind of "system" was tolerated or heard, and in Florida, “dissent” in any governmental department is punished, and all must fall in line with DeSantis’ “vision” no matter how extreme it is.  

Meanwhile those on the outside looking in are being treated to a carnival freak show from Republicans in Congress and in states like Tennessee, as I discussed the other day. Remember January 6? What did you hear from the corporate community about that? Nothing. It was just a mob action that proved their “point” about “the people” being inherently unfit to govern themselves. 

As for their elected officials, you can throw out decorum and civility from any Republican committee hearing, especially one run by Jim Jordan. He doesn’t care if the claims he is making have no basis in fact or reality, or that his “witnesses” are bought and paid for by far-right activists, or are themselves far-right conspiracy mongerers—or in the case of “witnesses” of wrong-doing by Joe or Hunter Biden, they  have mysteriously “disappeared” or never existed in the first place. Jordan’s committee hearings generally degenerate into chaotic pie-fights in which he is only interested in insuring he gets the last pie in.

The corporatocracy is also apparently blasé about Trump, his legal issues or  his fan base. Despite his record of bizarre behavior, clearly false statements, deliberate efforts to turn people against each other and in turn destroying the country from within while alienating our friends abroad, it's tolerated as long as it doesn’t affect “business.” Trump can do and say anything he wishes just as long as he doesn’t do anything that is “bad” for business.  

What politicians do, crazy or not, is surface detail; it doesn’t actually have anything to do with how the country “runs” beneath the surface. If there is a “deep state” in this country, it is one in which politicians are bought and paid for by corporate America. To reach that end, you have to have an electorate that votes on its present whims, not looking to the future. 

You have the hardcore on the left and right, but in the “middle” there are voters who simply vote on “gut feeling.” They probably know more than most that their votes won’t change their day-to-day lives so long as one party doesn’t do something so stupid that actually does impact their lives in a negative way—like allowing the country to default on its debts, which the extremist on the far-right seem determined to do at the moment. And that is certainly not what corporate America wants to see happen; it would be surprising if behind the scenes they are not making their views on the matter known to the parties involved.

And so while DeSantis seems to be “winning” on his “culture war” agenda in Florida, it is another matter altogether when he takes on a corporate giant like Disney, which has announced it is pulling a project that would have brought 2,000 new jobs to the state. Disney has been struggling financially, but its parks and recreation business is still strong. 

But what is important—and that DeSantis doesn’t understand—is that what is bad for Disney is bad for Florida. While Disney isn’t leaving Florida anytime soon, what’s bad for its “business” is bad for the Florida economy, which makes DeSantis’ “culture war” antics revealing for its blindness to the “big picture.”

You have Florida Republican politicians saying, well, my family canceled Disney+ or we aren’t going to Disneyland anymore over the “culture war” issues, but if enough people think like that, who ultimately is going to be hurt by attacks on the company? How about the state where Disney has the largest footprint on its economy? It is people who ultimately lose when “culture warriors” win—both in their free speech rights, and their jobs either with Disney or businesses who rely on it along the peripheries.