Archive for the ‘Joe Giambrone’ Category

Originally posted on J. Giambrone:

maxresdefault (3)

There are some hard-hitting dramatic beats in this final installment of the series. Perhaps I’m just madly in love with J-Law. Yes, that could be it. But she is also a hell of an actress.

Katniss takes a dark turn early, and she leaves us wondering how the resolution will play out if she becomes the self-appointed assassin of the revolution.


Panem is a place of mythic symbols, and they take their propaganda seriously. The main metaphor of the series is the dichotomy between the people who see war as a game and the pawns whose lives are decided by others. Katniss springs from the powerless, the Tributes, but she will be tempted to rise through the ranks. Then what?

The climax left me befuddled for awhile. Stopping dead in its tracks, the air blew right out of the theater, and we lingered wondering what Suzanne Collins might have up…

View original 134 more words

UTR: Call Me Lucky (2015)

Posted: November 19, 2015 in -, Joe Giambrone
Tags: ,



This is the documentary that hits you on the blind side. Directed by Bobcat Goldthwait it shows a portrait of an American icon and a hero, one raving lunatic by the name of Barry Crimmins.

I’m sort of shocked I haven’t been acquainted with Crimmins before. He launched the early comedy scene in Boston. He’s been a loud voice of anti-war and anti-imperialism. He’s a wacky comic, and then there’s that twist to the narrative that I won’t even mention. You’ll have to see the movie.



My own twist–he follows the blog! I was stunned when I went to go find him on Twitter, and it said we already follow one another’s accounts. The world is smaller than they let on.

Anyway, he’s another rogue state and an interesting character who has made a difference. So check out the documentary, you shallow, heartless bastards…



Common Core: Hostile Takeover

Originally posted on J. Giambrone:


This ia a movie about writers, writers interviewing writers about the larger meanings and themes of their lives. So this was a natural fit for critical acclaim and raving reviews from the Literati.

“There’s gotta be some interplay between how difficult you make it for the reader and how seductive it is, so the reader’s willing to do it.”
-David Foster Wallace

David Foster Wallace wrote Infinite Jest, which I have not read. I did click over to the Amazon preview to get a sense of the style.  It is very, very dense. It takes paragraphs to describe the most minor observation. This reminded me of Gravity’s Rainbow, which I also rejected as too dense to possibly be a pleasant experience. It’s not my thing.

There are two extreme styles, the minimalists and the maximalists. Coming from movies and screenplays, I am absolutely bivouacked in the minimalist camp…

View original 368 more words


Still there after all these years and selective in discerning what can be corroborated — has published my two recent articles on the attacks.

I’ll add them to the blogroll too.


Pseudoscience & the “study” of “conspiracy beliefs” from message board postings
An open letter to Michael J. Wood et al.

Regarding: “What about building 7?” A social psychological study of online discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories

I read with some interest your “study” of some message board postings concerning the September 11th attacks. I found your efforts less than compelling. Random samplings of arguments on message boards are a legitimate way to understand the September 11th 2001 attacks? No. But it is a convenient way of lumping large disparate groups of people into simplistic categories in order to smear them.

As someone who has intensely studied the issue for some 13 years and counting, I would have to say that your approach is hamfisted, ignorant, and even juvenile. You and your partners have relied upon your own concepts of “belief” and “theory” and the utterances of message board posters, but lack a firm foundation to compare or contrast any of the information that was analyzed.

In other words, you don’t have an expert knowledge of the US government cover-up of the September 11th event (or even acknowledge it), nor of the many high-level government whistleblowers surrounding this issue. You lack an even rudimentary understanding of the event, and therefore have no basis to judge the competing arguments, at all. Nor do you concede the obvious fact of conspiracies throughout history, actual state crimes, of which there are numerous examples. This would lead to an examination of motive, and that the state gains an incredible amount of power after failing to stop an attack, including the power to wage foreign wars of aggression with impunity.

You know: 1 + 1=2 type stuff.

It is not difficult to engage in a conspiracy. Any two individuals on planet earth can commit a crime together, and voila: there’s a conspiracy. The idea that conspiracy is rare or even non-existent(!), as some mainstream media pundits have argued, is absurd on its face and should discredit the author entirely. As an obvious example, you–as someone purportedly studying government conspiracy–should be well versed in the Iran-Contra fiasco of the 1980s. Colonel Oliver North was convicted, with ten others, to refresh your memory. So, is someone who “believes” in the Iran-Contra conspiracy more or less prone to “belief” in conspiracy, as per your definitions and comprehension?

Clearly we have a problem when you divide the public based upon generalizations that cannot possibly hold true when tested against real historical facts. The knowledge, or ignorance, of these facts is paramount.

So, Mr. Wood, did the Iran-Contra conspiracy happen? Are you a “conspiracist?” Do you engage in “belief” about it?

Next, your “psychological study” has not even a mention of the concept of disinformation. This omission discredits your work. Disinformation is the deliberate seeding of the public debate with false data in order to muddy the waters and make discovery of the true facts of the conspiracy more difficult. It throws off the dogs. Disinformation is rampant and easily achieved as soon as any individual concocts a false narrative and presses “send” or “post.” Apparently this has never occurred to your team, as it received zero scrutiny.

Some number of message board trolls will turn out to be posting disinformation, in my decade-plus experience with them, a situation your study failed to even conceptualize, nevermind correct for. Others post misinformation. This is the problem with relying upon message board flame wars for your data.

Therefore your study is tangential and irrelevant to learning what actually happened. Its approach reinforces the idea that psychological pseudoscience has relevance to the facts of real world crimes and terrorist events. It champions a specious view, one founded upon ignorance and random arguments over misinformation and disinformation, rather than seeking to understand what is actually known and what is unknown, to date, about the criminal attacks you purport to study.

Similarly your “study” commented on other controversial topics without any accompanying examination of something the rest of the world likes to call “evidence.” You and your cohorts feel supremely confident in pronouncing sweeping generalizations about “belief” without providing context as to why someone would hold such a belief (factual evidence). It is for this exact reason that I have labeled your efforts “pseudoscience.” You have divorced some abstract concept called “belief” from the hard evidence that causes such “belief.” Cause and effect are alien to your own theories, at least as presented in your “psychological study.” Your article ends up lightweight pondering and lacks the gravity of facts, or the due diligence required to examine and test those facts.

You have come to this party from ignorance, and you remain there, blissfully unaware of the veracity of any of the data, whatsoever. That’s a pretty harsh criticism, but is warranted.


Mr. Wood, was the September 11th attack not a “conspiracy?”

Joe Giambrone


Hersh Vindicated? Turkish Whistleblowers Corroborate Story on False Flag Sarin Attack in Syria

The purpose of the attack was allegedly to provoke a US military operation in Syria which would topple the Assad regime…

I, and some others, called this at the time. It was glaringly obvious, too. The pattern of western deception and support for terrorism in Syria is a great stain on our entire civilization.

“The MKE [Turkish Mechanical and Chemical Industry Corporation] is also an actor that is mentioned in the investigation file. Here is the indictment. All the details about how sarin was procured in Turkey and delivered to the terrorists, along with audio recordings, are inside the file,” Erdem said while waving the file.


“Wiretapped phone conversations reveal the process of procuring the gas at specific addresses as well as the process of procuring the rockets that would fire the capsules containing the toxic gas.

So let’s recall the disgusting propaganda of 2013, and the attack on children and civilians in Ghoutta, Syria.

The local Catholic Mother Superior, Mother Agnes, investigated the evidence and published a huge report showing manipulation of the bodies, moving them from location to location for photo propaganda. She helped identify the dead and expose the propaganda as a fraud:


How was her investigation–that put her life in jeopardy–received in “the west?”

The US corporate monolithic press largely ignored her, of course.

BBC attacked her with specious claims, not showing ANY of the photographic evidence at all.

But the most despicable character to emerge was leftish foundation funded darling JEREMY SCAHILL:

Seymour Hersh would confirm what a lot of us already knew, only to be exiled to Britain in order to have his report published!

So the real question today is:

Where are the apologies and actual investigations of this sarin war crime from these propaganda organs, now that the plot has unraveled in Turkey?

You won’t find it. We are living in an Orwellian dystopia. This is the “memory hole,” which George Orwell brought into existence so eloquently.