Coup de Thought
BTW, gretavo (RT) and casseia (Sara) will be on Kevin Barrett's radio show Friday from 6-7pm Eastern (Daylight) Time to discuss the Great Purge of 2008 (the alternative moniker). It's the one on GCN -- http://www.gcnlive.com "Network 4"
The call-in number is (866) 582-9933 -- I'm sure Kevin would like to hear from other people with a critique of 911blogger and certainly RT and Sara would like to hear from you!
In order to understand the 911blogger "coup de thought" (as I've been calling it) we need to take a look at the nature and structure of a similar sites. Discussion sites in general, and Drupal sites in particular, which can really facilitate ongoing real-time discussion and not only the static posting of information, are a fairly new medium. Analysis of this mode of group communication is sparse even within the larger field of "computer mediated communication" (CMC). Despite the very substantial body of literature that has emerged in the study of CMC (and the academic study of CMC seems to have begun approximately 24 hours after the first email was sent), most studies focus on email, email lists, and the comparatively linear and static discussion board model OR on instant messaging and text messaging. Drupal discussion sites exist in an interesting space somewhere in between -- they have the permanency of usenet lists and are a group (as opposed to dyadic) activity, but they also have the immediacy and intimacy of IM and texting.
So 911blogger needs to be examined as a site that operates on several levels, with differing degrees of fixity and control (as opposed to fluidity and anarchy). On the first level, there is the permanent structure, which would include the lay-out, the list of links, the policy statements and FAQ, and the tagline: "paying attention to 9/11 related alternative news." These things are all effectively under the complete control of the site owner/moderator. "Stories" (as opposed to blogs) are more transient, but are put forward as if in the voice of the site itself rather than that of an individual blogger, and thereby claim an additional level of authority and credibility.
Blogs make up the next level. At one time, any registered user could write and immediately publish a blog on the site. In late 2006, the policy was changed and blogs were submitted for review and publication if deemed acceptable by site moderators. Blogs, in addition to their great informational value, provide a structure for the discussions, which take place in the comment sections attached to them. The site would be very different, obviously, if it was merely one big discussion about any and every aspect of 9/11. (And in fact, this is basically what it was prior to the transition to the Drupal format -- during the "Haloscan days" -- not necessarily to be confused with "halcyon days" -- it was customary to talk about whatever you wanted under whichever story was at the top of the page -- and elaborate discussions could and did crop up under topics that were completely unrelated.)
Once the policy of blog approval was put into place, a larger measure of control was exerted over the discourse of the site. Not only could people only blog within the parameters of acceptability, the discussions deemed to be "off-topic" had nowhere to go. In the past, you might have responded to a commenter taking the discussion in an irrelevant direction by saying "go write a blog about it and discuss it there." Under the new policy, there was no guarantee that the commenter could post a blog, but the "on-topic" stricture was still in place. In this way, blog-approval policy provided a brick wall for many discussions.
However, this was not enough. The moderators and site owners of 911blogger have consistently evinced a deep discomfort with the idea that the site could be a place for vigorous, even unruly discussion. The statement "this is not a discussion board" has appeared many times -- never mind that it is a complete absurdity. 911blogger is and has always been a discussion site: that is undeniably one function of all comments sections everywhere(and in my opinion, their most important function). That statement is currently part of the site policy and users who are not satisfied with it are disingenuously directed to truthaction.org (where a whole other episode of blatant censorship and expulsion took place earlier this year and is continuing.)
What makes site moderators (and certain bloggers) so profoundly uncomfortable with commentary? I would argue that this is the space in which the discourse is the most difficult to control, and that this discomfort may even be understood as prima facie evidence of a desire to control it in some sense. (Legal liability issues have for the most part been resolved -- a site is not reponsible for material posted by users. Perhaps laziness is a factor -- it is necessary, at least from an ethical standpoint, to keep a close eye on comments sections and delete posts that threaten actual harm to an individual, for example.) In the comments sections, people will contradict you, they will analyze your motives, they will offer additional information -- they will do all the things that are part of a group effort to collectively or collaboratively try to make sense out of information overload and to resist mental manipulation. Minds will change, egos will be dinged, and new understandings will be embraced. It may be that this is best understood as an organic process, but to employ a different kind of metaphor, it is a kind of parallel-processing that greatly magnifies the sense-making capacity of the individuals involved. It is a process that can lead to truth.
It may be that the protection of egos is the root cause of this inability to accept the happy chaos of unmoderated commentary. People will protect their own egos and those of people they care about often even if it involves intellectual dishonesty. This is human nature, although it is also possible to work to overcome it. It is especially pernicious that some people cannot interpret sustained, profound disagreement about ideas as anything other than an affront to their self-esteem. I credit the mayhem in various classes I had at Reed for my perhaps above-average tolerance for this kind of engagement -- you might be pounding your shoe on the desk and/or cackling derisively in completely inflamed disagreement with someone one moment, and having a beer with the person you were railing against an hour later. Disagreeing honestly with and especially having your mind changed by a person in an atmosphere of uncompromising intellectual honesty can bring you closer, in the end. I suspect that a lot of my affinity for RT comes from the fact that way back in the day, he was willing to ask me very directly to rethink my ideas about Zionism and to back off from another poster I perceived as a judaeophobe. His direct confrontation did in fact inspire me to examine ideas that I had never examined, and I am grateful that he spurred me to change my mind.
Doesn't the issue of 9/11 (and the historical matrix in which it is embedded) deserve the very best thinking we can give it? Is this not without question an area in which egos must be put aside and intellectual honesty must trump all other concerns? We are up against the mother of all cognition-thwarting psychological operations, and collaborative intellectual parallel-processing seems to me to be our only hope for digging ourselves out of this rabbit hole, this massive rabbit warren that I am finding increasingly stuffy and claustrophobic.
Therefore, I am compelled to ruthlessly examine attempts to channel and focus discourse, especially when it happens in a top-down manner. It is clear to me that this is what has happened at 911blogger -- first when all comments were (temporarily) moderated, then when only some of us were moderated (and never, under any circumstances, allowed to respond to posters like Jon Gold, who has a "discourse agenda" of surpassing transparency) and finally, now, when many of us were banned -- or "disappeared" from the site, not even able to read the "explanation" because our IPs were blocked (or to see the nice video of Captain Kirk stomping on a Klingon's face that Reprehensor dedicated to us).
It would be easy to misinterpret Reprehensor's motivations as ego-protection -- after all, no one likes to be called a racist, or "LIHOP thought police." I think he is perceptive enough, however, to realize that most users will have little patience with personal pique as the "rationale" for banning and censorship, so he has offered an alternative theory: that we are Jew-hating Holocaust deniers, because we have linked to David Cole's documentary on Auschwitz, and because non-racist discussion of the Holocaust is permitted at wtcdemolition.com.
This strategy has a lot in common with the red-baiting of the past. Holocaust revisionism is cast as monstrous, a kind of thought-atrocity that is naturally, reflexively to be rejected by anyone who is not consumed with hate. The hate may be obvious -- think of neo-Nazis or white supremacists -- or well-concealed, the product of some subtle psychological imbalance perhaps. In a parallel fashion, particularly during the height of the second "Red Scare" in the 50s, the condemned might have been an obvious monster -- perhaps an open member of the Communist Part or a supporter of the Soviet Union -- or, even more threateningly, covertly Red. Perhaps the subject had some sympathy for Marxist theory or merely some sympathy (and solidarity) with someone else who did. Demands were made for loyalty oaths, public disavowals of communism and socialism, and the shunning of friends and colleagues who would not do the same. The accusation "communist" became a very effective, efficient tool to destroy credibility with one blow, and marginalize, often permanently, the "thought criminal".
We look back on this period with appropriate incredulity. The ideological and political basis for the Red scare is now transparent as part of the psychological warfare side of the Cold War. The fact that entire lives were sacrificed to the need to maintain a myth as a means of social control seems completely, embarrassingly irrational.
Of course, the users of wtcdemolition who have been banned as a result of the Holocaust-revision baiting at 911blogger are, so far, not facing the sacrifices and punishments of the McCarthy era. We just can't post at that blog anymore. But many of us felt that the comments at 911blogger were one of the central, essential nodes of cognitive resistance to the 9/11 lies, those coming both from the invisible maintainers of the official myth and those with what I am no longer too polite to call a Fake Truth agenda. We don't take the banning personally, we understand it as part of an information war, and in a sense we are perhaps even appreciative of the clarity it has offered us: some people we have in the past considered allies may not be on our side after all.
- casseia's blog
- Login to post comments
this is great. good for
this is great. good for Barrett for having a discussion about this and good for you guys for going on with him, im sure you'll make real truthers proud. dont go easy on the 911blogger crew.
i'll be listening
oh crap! i have dinner plans. please post a link to the show as soon as possible. nice synopsis, cass!
holy crap this is good!
pardon my french, but this statement is itself a coup. this phrase I love:
We are up against the mother of all cognition-thwarting psychological operations, and collaborative intellectual parallel-processing seems to me to be our only hope for digging ourselves out of this rabbit hole, this massive rabbit warren that I am finding increasingly stuffy and claustrophobic.
Considering this phenomenon, this process of information sharing/evaluation/refinement/etc. that we engage in as parallel processing and at the same time as an organic process is sheer genius, C455. For those who aren't up on the lingo, parallel processing is essentially the opposite of linear processing. Instead of going from A to B to C to D, A, B, C, and D are considered simultaneously. Parallel processing makes an analytical system exponentially more robust, and the idea that we need to employ such strategies in our mission to unravel the confusion surrounding 9/11 is key to our success.
In terms of this particular issue it is proper to ascribe a linear quality to the system of controlled discourse effected by the "ostensibly diverse but actually uniform" network of sites including 911blogger, truthaction, and others. While there is certainly on the surface an appearance of a diversity of views being presented, discussion of which could lead anywhere--but most importantly to where the truth ultimately lies--this is not in reality the case. Instead what is concealed is the actual uniformity of intent--the intent to direct the discourse in ways that protect the truth from exposure.
In this way, facts and concepts must receive attention and emphasis in their proper order. Early on skeptics had to be lured in so it was appropriate to allow discussion of most any issue that people seemed receptive to. Over time as the truth community was built up, allowing discussion of some of these issues became a liability--pods, no-planes, etc. are good examples. At this early stage a certain amount of parallel processing was accepted as necessary, and it shaped what became "acceptable" discourse in "serious 9/11 research" circles. Allowed to proceed unfettered, the parallel processing would continue to refine our knowledge such that ideas like LIHOP would go the way of no-planes and pods. Since belief in and eventual supremacy of the LIHOP view seems to be one of the goals of the fake movement, the controllers must try to surreptitiously effect a virtual linearity in the analysis by selective censorship and manufactured consensus.
This linearity is recognizable by those aware of its existence in the form of events that seem so conveniently linked as to be scripted. The Shill Game campaign, followed by the Keene on LIHOP Conference, the re-emergence of Daniel Hopsicker and Sander Hicks from relative obscurity within the movement--we are intended to believe that these events are not linked, that they are natural evolution and not intelligent design, that there is no conspiracy involved, and no cabal. We are supposed to believe that this is just the way the movement has evolved, though this causes cognitive dissonance in those who are asked, for example, to believe that the "most popular blogger" on the "premier 9/11 discussion board" happens to disagree almost entirely with the "premier author of 9/11 books" (David Ray Griffin--I assume people know who the "most popular blogger" is.)
What this all reinforces is the fact that for the truth movement to continue to grow in size and effectiveness, more and more independent nodes need to come into being to preserve the integrity of the parallel processing that is so crucial as a check on the intentions of those who wish to limit our effectiveness. Which is to say that WTCD, for example, does not need to grow any larger, it needs to promote replication of its best ideas in an ever increasing network of various media, including the idea of replicating ideas. This is not to suggest that WTCD be cloned, but that it help to create an "ecosystem" of intelligent, independent information processing nodes.
johndoraemi is the new token anti-Zionist at 911Blogger
The reason it is important to have him there is so they can point to him and say "see, we allow anti-zionism, just not from people associated with WTCD!"
The Bipartisan Coverup
None of this is news, of course. The 9/11 complicity issue has been a bipartisan cover up since the beginning.
I firmly believe that Israeli involvement insured that Democrats would never, ever cross the line on 9/11 treason. Doing so would mean a complete meltdown of the American political system. The idea is fundamentally unthinkable because of its implications. It's not just Bush and co. It's Clinton and co. It's CIA. It's MI6. It's Mossad. It's ISI and the Saudis. And, even the Turks have a place in the puzzle. It's global heroin and the domination of central asia and the persian gulf and the Israelis have their own ambitions reliant upon the demonization of 'the Arabs.'
This is a racist war, as most of them are. And it leads back to Israeli think tanks and the domination of US foreign policy by the Israeli lobby. The Democrats know full well that they can't tread there. I'm surprised Kucinich even mentioned it in his articles of Impeachment.
BTW -- Try using Kucinich's articles on Huffington Post. It's worth a try.
The Zionist Power Configuration in America
By James Petras
http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/2008/07/most-dangerous-parasite.htm...
70 Disturbing Facts About 9/11
John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State Blog
http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/
johndoraemi --at-- yahoo.com.
Submitted by johndoraemi on Thu, 07/24/2008 - 6:19pm
I have grave doubts about Emanuel Sferios, however
mostly because he "pulled a Ruppert" (or maybe Ruppert pulled a "Sferios") by doing the "farewell, cruel 9/11 truth movement" thing AND trying to sell his truth-related domain names for ridiculous amounts of money. However, other than the obvious canard in the beginning about analysis of explosive demolition being a drain on the energy of the movement (absurd on its face to people like me who did not give a fuck about pre-Steven Jones LIHOP "truth'), and the Pentagon crap near the end, it contains some interesting, relevant tidbits.
The World Trade Center Collapse: A Necessary Illusion
In my two years of 9/11 truth activism, I never emphasized the physical evidence. I always knew it was a dead end that would suck the movement's energy and accomplish nothing. But let me be straight up for a moment, if a bit speculative, because thinking about these things is helpful. They demolished the World Trade Center towers with explosives. I have no doubt about this, just as I have no doubt that the planes were flown by remote control. I also believe that hijackers did, in fact, board the planes (despite the articles claiming some of those named are still alive). I think the hijackers were trained US operatives (patsies), and that they likely did not know they were going to die. I also think the most probable explanation for the shoot-down of flight 93 is that the passengers did, in fact, storm the cockpit, only to discover that the plane was being flown by remote control. And so in order to prevent any of them from calling their loved ones and blabbing (yes, phones can work on planes), they had to shoot it down. Or perhaps the hijackers themselves learned their real fate and allowed the passengers into the cockpit to try to regain control of the aircraft. We'll never really know, and this is the idea. "Anything can be believed," and so it is equally plausible, as others have speculated, that the shoot-down of Flight 93 was planned from the beginning.
But the World Trade Center demolition is obvious, which leads to an important question: why did they do it? Wouldn't simply crashing the planes into the buildings have been enough? Why bring them down completely? The typical responses here apply: They needed their "New Pearl Harbor," a mass casualty event to shock the public into supporting a retaliatory war. They also needed a spectacle that wouldn't be easily forgotten. These explanations are true enough. Another often cited and plausible one is that they needed to make the lie obvious enough that the people who mattered (government, corporate, and military leaders, for example) would know that they--the secret government within the government--did this and got away with it. This sends a powerful message of invincibility to anyone who might be thinking of opposing them. And the fact that they demolished building 7 later that evening in a classic-style demolition sure seems to support that argument. It's as if they were saying, "just in case you didn't get it the first time, we'll show you one even more obvious."
But there is another reason they demolished the World Trade Center towers, in my opinion the most important reason, which is that they needed the lie to be incredible. As Hitler and Goebbels understood, the bigger and more incredible the lie, the more people will believe it, because they will have to make a bigger psychological leap in order to disbelieve it. Mass manipulation of this kind plays on the natural desire many people have to conform, and it is much more difficult, psychologically, for the conforming individual to disbelieve a popularly-held incredible lie than a mundane one, for to do so would set one widely apart from the herd. To put this another way, imagine if they had merely crashed four planes into the ocean. How much easier it would be then for people to speculate that the government may have done this as a pretext for war. To do so would not require a really incredible contradiction of the official story, marginalizing oneself from the mainstream. It would not be so easy to dismiss such claims as "outrageous conspiracy theory," and ridicule would be less effective. What is important to remember here is that propaganda of this sort is not designed to fool critical thinkers, but to provide conforming individuals with a reason not to start thinking critically. Thus the total destruction of the World Trade Center in such a dramatic yet obvious way was, in my opinion, an essential, psychological component of the operation.
[...]
One of the characteristics of 9/11 disinformation a lot of people have a hard time grasping is that much of it is designed specifically to convince people of US government complicity in 9/11. This might seem like a contradiction, until one understands that 9/11 disinfo is part of a broader system of mass manipulation where the opposing perspective plays an essential role. The basic idea is to control both sides of the debate, and frame it in a way that makes the opposing side ineffective (not necessarily unbelievable). In the end it doesn't matter whether even a majority of the people believe the US government was complicit in 9/11 (this is already the case). What matters is only that the perpetrators can never successfully be prosecuted. Thus they pollute the body of evidence with red herrings and false lines of inquiry. If, in the process, they happen to cause some people to disbelieve the official story (as in the case with the "no plane at the Pentagon" hoax)[edit: ewww], all the better, because the end result is a weakening of any legal case that might be brought against them.
There is an important quote by E. Martin Schotz from his book, History Will Not Absolve Us: Orwellian Control, Public Denial, and the Murder of President Kennedy. It is: "One of the primary means of immobilizing the American people politically today is to hold them in a state of confusion in which anything can be believed and nothing can be known." Conspiracy theories, in other words, provide the perfect cover for real conspiracies. When anything can be believed because the available information is a convoluted mix of truth, falsehood and probability; when the actual truth itself is convoluted, involving deception, mystery and illusion; then one is ultimately left to their own emotions to decide. And emotions, of course, can be easily manipulated. What do you want to believe? After all, it's up to you. You'll never know the truth, or at least you'll never be able to prove it in a court of law. Do you really want to be marginalized and ridiculed as a conspiracy theorist? You get the idea.
I agree that the part of the strategy *is* isolation -- and there is simply too much chaff in with the wheat for a single individual to hope to make sense of it alone. Thus the necessity of thinking collaboratively.
this seems like disinfo to me
First, consider the source and his other opinions. he is convinced that AA77 hit the pentagon, and that the US trained Arab patsies were hijacked themselves by remote control. Eh.
No Silverstein, no Eisenberg, no Lowy, no dancing Israelis. No, I don't think the towers were blown up for psychological reasons--they were blown up for ca$h by people confident enough that the truth would be suppressed. Who knew that they would get cooperation from all the necessary quarters. Who have folks like Bill Clinton and John McCain and Rudy Giuliani on a short leash made of blackmail. Who are able to strike more fear into congresspeople than into common people.
The perpetrators of 9/11 were, I suspect, high tech thugs--not snooty egotistical elites.
I don't think it's an either/or situation
Or a dis-/info situation -- yes, obviously the Towers were not blown up for purely psy-op reasons, but how convenient, how "two birds with one stone" that both a financial windfall, asbestos remediation (sic), and the violation of 6+ billion minds could be accomplished at the same time.
Your point is well taken, though
It would be a mistake to drift too far into psychoanalytic lala -land and ignore the just plain greedy, crass goals that are a large part of the motivational background for the events.
You got your high-tech thug in my snooty egotistical elite! No, YOU got YOUR PEANUT BUTTER in my CHOCOLATE!
i think he also confuses "the Big Lie" issue
"the Big Lie" is not supposed, as he says, to be incredible, it is just supposed to be big. in other words aliens came down and destroyed my hot dog cart is totally unbelievable, and yeah you could call it a big lie, but that's not the kind of Big Lie that we're concerned with. the effective "Big Lie" has to be credible but most importantly large in scale and/or scope. remove the aliens and multiply the hot dog carts into all the hot dog carts in the world and you'll have yourself a (big B) Big Lie.
Or, create a very elaborate network of fake truthers and fake truth sites--because "no one could have believed" that the perps would go to such lengths to cover their asses. Except that of COURSE they would. But most people cannot imagine being so dedicated to a disgusting occupation as fake truthing so they presume that there aren't enough people willing to do it to make the scheme work. Except of course that you don't really need THAT many people, and when you have enough cash to throw around it isn't hard to find people with absolutely no shame.
Ok, tell me, tell me...
how'd this come about? Who's idea was it?
You two are gonna rock. Can't wait to hear it! Gee, you might even make it to the Colonel's list...the dreaded list that the Colonel maintains on who's naughty and who's nice. Or even worse: You might find yourselves the subject of the 289643rd comment on a thread called, "Kevin Barret promoting disinfo fest 2007" on a certain blogging site that we don't (thank gd!), don't have to suffer through anymore...oh the horrors you will stir up!
Dude, we are both SO already on her list
OTOH, only one of us made it into her special year-end video. I guess I'm going to have to do some video blogging so that she'll have some material ;)
so, how long was this in the making and how did you
convince gretavo to get dragged into this ;)
Kevin and I have emailed in the past
Mostly about the Colonel, actually. When this happened I gave him a heads-up and he invited us. Gretavo was roped in via a combination of blackmail and mesmerism.
Kevin was himself banned a few months back for stating that no Israelis were killed at the WTC -- apparently a couple of people who did identify as Israelis were killed there. But rather than treat it as an error it had to be treated as a thought crime. Zzzzzzz...
Wow, what a great article Casseia!
Your educational training, work, and creativity are paying dividends in the truth analysis department already. That is for sure. I think this has been one of your best so far. You are in “fighting shape†now. “The Colonel†(if that is her/his REAL name) has already left for Argentina in retreat.
“Blackmail and mesmerism,†G, that’s how they always rope you in, buddy ;). Good for you Casseia, and super luck to the both a yas. It could (probably will) be the best Kevin Barrett Show ever, well worth burning to Blu-Ray Ultra or Betamax for that warm analogue sound quality. Say hello to Dr. Kevin for me, salaam ’alayka, duktur. If Barrett has been banned from 911B, then that just says something right there fer ya. “We have a strict ‘No Muslims’ policy here because it just ruins the whole purpose of our clandestinely supporting a ‘false Muslim flag’ terror operation in the first place, but thanks for coming and playing along with ‘9/11 Truth – The Game’.â€
And, yeah Gretavo, I will take you up on that pie deal after the storm.
P.S. Oh yeah, the videos of the red Manhattan Demolition Co. truck and the other moving company style truck painted with planes crashing into the New York Skyline on its right side panel are TWO separate videos, two separate trucks. This other truck with the painting is discussed, I believe, on NYFD/NYPD radio recordings on another video, which I believe was posted somewhere on this site within the last month and a half. As I remember it, this truck is actually described on the radios as blowing up, and the two guys connected to it are caught at the scene by NYPD or NYFD, and they are later sent back to Israel – the usual. Israel has a “no extradition†policy, btw. There is also a photo (or video) of this other truck (as well as the audio reference). I will check my files. I do remember the artwork painted on the side, not very well done either, as I can recall. Maybe it was done by one of those Israeli “art students†who were selling those awful, black velvet Elvis and Nixon paintings.
Need a download link.
Started listening but company interrupted.
"The happy chaos
of unmoderated commentary"Â awesome, Cass. how sad some others do not see it that way.
i especially admire:Â "In the comments sections, people will contradict you, they will analyze your motives, they will offer additional information -- they will do all the things that are part of a group effort to collectively or collaboratively try to make sense out of information overload and to resist mental manipulation. Minds will change, egos will be dinged, and new understandings will be embraced. It may be that this is best understood as an organic process, but to employ a different kind of metaphor, it is a kind of parallel-processing that greatly magnifies the sense-making capacity of the individuals involved. It is a process that can lead to truth."
"truth against the world"
just lost this whole comment...grrr
this was one of FLW's fave sayings. there is a mesoDruid symbol, The Awen which is related.
anyway, just finished "Loving Frank", Cass. I think you might like, written from the perspective of Mamah Borthwick Cheney, Frank Lloyd Wright's adored and tragic lover. she was a linguist, interpreter, writer, free-thinker involved in the feminism of the turn of the last century.
another fave quote: Life is Truth!
and from Goethe:Â "We live but once in this world."
Thanks for living bravely but once in this world, Cass!
Thanks, Kate
I just wikied Mamah Borthwick Cheney -- very interesting. FLW is also (somehow) tangentially related to the group of people who sprang up around GI Gurdjieff, someone I have taken an interest in, in the past.
I see this about her tragic demise:
"On August 15, 1914, a dispute with one of Wright's recently hired domestic workers led the worker, Julian Carlton[2] , to murder Mamah, both her children, three of Wright's associates, and a son of one of the associates. He set fire to one wing of Wright's house, Taliesin, and murdered the seven people with an ax while it burned. At the time, Wright was overseeing work on Midway Gardens in Chicago, Illinois."
The citation is from a newspaper story with the title (something like) "Wild Negro Chef kills 6, Wounds 4". Most unfortunate.
With the infernal error the way it is recently, it really pays to copy your comment before posting it!
tragic demise
in the book this event comes upon the unsuspecting reader in an intense and disturbing manner as described by Horan. i had not googled Mamah and so had no idea of what was in store
has stayed with me over the past day or two since completion.
Julian Carlton, a Pullman porter,  and his chef wife were from Barbados...it really looked good when they arrived but turned bad in a matter of a few days... i suspect he had suffered some great trauma induced by whites in his lifetime...to turn so mad with rage and revenge.