Marie Claire Was an Inside Job!
The original article is not news, since Pat posted on it over 2 weeks ago, but the all too predictable troofer reaction to this is hilarious over at 911 Blogger nutbar headquarters:
On a side note, I might as well add: As a single 30-year-old guy who occasionally feels frustration over not being in a relationship right now, I'm actually happy to have come across this column, because it reminds me of one truism: "Better to be alone than in bad company!" I'll be happy to be single for a little while longer, knowing that when I do settle with someone it'll be someone of a much more open mind than the woman who wrote this piece of trash column.
kameelyun,
you aren't alone in your frustration but you are quite correct. I am happy to stay single until I find someone with an equally open mind.
SD
one of the most difficult relationship challenges i've ever experienced.
Her story reminds me of two patients who thought their boy-friend / husband was going insane when they started saying things like “Al-Qaeda is just a pet-false-flag-project of Western intelligence”. Both of them left their boy-friend / spouse around 2003 – 2004, and now, as it begins to dawn on them that their men were quite a bit closer to the truth than the bulk of the main-stream media, they regret having had senseless quarrels over these issues, and having wrongly judged the values and sanity of their ex-men. Both are alone now, and not any happier, struggling as lone parents.
I doubt this really happened to her (if the author is even really a "her"). It's a conditioning piece, and a good find. Marie Claire- the Popular Mechanics for the ladies, LOL.
I agree with lakezoarian. It is a hitpiece.
Marie Claire is handled in the US by Hearst Corporation.
This article has a distinct ring of inauthenticity. It's a propaganda piece and a nasty one.
Target audience: "strong" women ("Gloria Steinem collection") and their potential male companions.
It threatens the indirect male demographic with "alienation of affection" if they persist in their 9/11 activism, beyond the stock psycho-social marginalization--"regain his senses", "nuts", "insane"--and caricatures of the obsessive, paranoid "conspiracy theorist"--"mutter", "rambling diatribes", "stayed up until dawn", "accused me of betraying him".
Most truth activists belie these stereotypes.
Is it likely that a strong, intelligent woman who was attracted to a man with a "penchant for questioning everything in his path", who had "attended weekly 'truth meetings'" would not have developed some questions of her own?
Her story reminds me of two patients who thought their boy-friend / husband was going insane when they started saying things like “Al-Qaeda is just a pet-false-flag-project of Western intelligence”. Both of them left their boy-friend / spouse around 2003 – 2004, and now, as it begins to dawn on them that their men were quite a bit closer to the truth than the bulk of the main-stream media, they regret having had senseless quarrels over these issues, and having wrongly judged the values and sanity of their ex-men. Both are alone now, and not any happier, struggling as lone parents.
I agree with lakezoarian. It is a hitpiece.
Target audience: "strong" women ("Gloria Steinem collection") and their potential male companions.
It threatens the indirect male demographic with "alienation of affection" if they persist in their 9/11 activism, beyond the stock psycho-social marginalization--"regain his senses", "nuts", "insane"--and caricatures of the obsessive, paranoid "conspiracy theorist"--"mutter", "rambling diatribes", "stayed up until dawn", "accused me of betraying him".
Most truth activists belie these stereotypes.
Is it likely that a strong, intelligent woman who was attracted to a man with a "penchant for questioning everything in his path", who had "attended weekly 'truth meetings'" would not have developed some questions of her own?
posted by James B. @ 7:10 PM
<< Home