Princess Diana articles by Seamus

[Charles Drago]

The phrase and framework of "conspiracy theory" is a psyop designed to delegitimize deep political research and any discourse which challenges the ruling elite's version of reality.

Phrases such as "conspirahypocrite" play into the aims of this psyop.

In short, they provide succour to the enemy.

Seamus,

I'll stipulate that your heart is in the right place; I believe that you are on the side of the angels, that you do your best to be a warrior for truth and justice.

But I am obliged by my commitments to discover deep political truth and, as a consequence, attain justice for JFK and all other victims -- past, present, and future -- of our enemy to speak to you bluntly.

Those who praise your skills as an analyst of deep political phenomena are not doing you any favors. That you would even consider including such a term as "conspirahypocrite" in one of your published pieces without contextualizing it as Jan does above is enough to get you drummed out of Deep Politics 101.

Another basic truth of which you seem wholly ignorant, concisely expressed by Jan elsewhere:

"[T]he bigger issue is [your] tendency to dismiss an entire area of legitimate deep political research because a particular individual has made poorly evidenced claims."

This is so basic an error on your part that it effectively disqualifies your work from serious consideration -- especially in light of the effort it takes to penetrate your prose perorations.

I like you, Seamus. I think that you're your own worst enemy. You're trying to run before you can walk.

Within your work I detect the potential for great and lasting contributions to our shared causes. But your Diana pieces, among others, are poorly reasoned, undisciplined, naive messes -- written so poorly, so opaquely, that they beggar even my ability to discern subtext and meaning.

Which is OK, because in the final analysis there is no subtext or meaning to discern.

And let me be even more blunt: Your Diana pieces are so supportive of the enemy's agenda that already they may have earned you a star on the CIA's wall.

To illustrate this point, let me reiterate what I wrote previously on this thread regarding your Diana piece -- at a point in time, by the way, when I had no idea that you were the author:


The author(s)' disparagement of assassination investigators prompts his/her/their use of the following rhetorical gems:

"conspiravangelists"

"conspirahypocrite"

"the gaping maw that is the conspiracy-hungry United States"

Sound familiar?

These half-witted, ham-fisted attacks, clearly intended to marginalize and demonize conspiracy research and researchers, are all TOO familiar to those of us who seek truth and justice for John Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, Martin Luther King, and, yes, Diana Spencer.

Who in God's name is responsible for these travesties? Moldea? Posner? Russo? Bugliosi?

"Colby"???


As your comrade-in-arms, I implore you to look deeply into yourself. Clear your mind. Detox. Get over the initial anger and hurt you may be experiencing right about now. Think about what Jan and I are writing to you. Think.

Don't just read James Douglass and George Michael Evica. STUDY James Douglass and George Michael Evica. Analyze their skills as essayists, as thinkers, and as deep political analysts. Do your best to discern the uber-significant distinctions between their product and your own.

And by all that is holy DO NOT GIVE UP!

Seamus, you are a work in progress. My criticisms of you are harsh because I see your potential and I want to do all I can to help you realize it.

Check your ego at the door. Be humble.

Grow.