@detroitmechworks And really, who cares if an actress is brought up on drug charges? Isn't that just a part of the scene?

#4 They wait until the attention is elsewhere, then attempt to destroy the person when nobody is looking. Same tactic that internet trolls use, and unfortunately you can't just ignore the PTB when they decide to fuck with you.

Drug charges are the great catch all.
Doesn't even require you to do any work, just anonymously tip.
Cops are more than happy to help loot. They'll come to your house, search everything, and if they find any money or drugs they get to keep it! Win, Win, Win!

@arendt

I admit I’ve done no research on this idea. It was just a speculation, as I said, and I don’t recall where I read it.

I disagree with the idea that Rose McGowan and other women who stood up to Weinstein were motivated by politics.

I also have no idea who might have taken this retaliation, if someone did. Weinstein is known to have used mafia-like tactics to silence and punish his accusers in numerous ways, and has power and resources to hurt the women who helped take him down.

“Not outside the realm of possibility” also doesn’t mean I think it’s true. The fact that Rose has now been indicted on a drug charge is suspicious to me.

But again we will never know, there’s not enough facts or information to have a serious debate on it and reach a valid conclusion, imo.

Ymmv of course. Thanks for the reply!

#4

The only thing in all the media coverage about him that interested me at all, was the fact that his girlfriend was one of the women who has publicly accused Harvey Weinstein of raping her.

There were speculations his death might not even be a suicide, but a reprisal. This doesn’t seem outside the realm of possibility to me, but at any rate we will never know.

I'm not criticizing you personally for this. You probably just saw the idea posted somewhere. But, for the sake of common sense, let's apply some critical thinking.

1. The OG article demonstrates that Bourdain was a corporate asset/propagandist. No one from the corporate state is going to kill him.

2. The whole #meToo energy (e.g., Weinstein) is coming from the left fake/IP-left. Hence, the left fake-left didn't do it. That leaves only some renegade (non-corporate state) rightwinger or Weinstein himself. The idea that someone is going to take revenge for public shaming/prosecution of a really nasty bad guy by MURDERing someone related to a minor one of Weinstein's accusers just makes no sense. It is the kind of plot 20 year old cokeheads in Hollywood dream up for bad movies (or MI5 made up for the Skripals).

3. The suicide happened in France. That Weinstein, under indictment in the US, is going to put himself further into jeapordy/blackmail by ordering a contract hit on someone in France to "send a message" is beyond belief.You don't think the NSA is monitoring his every voice call, every email, every text message? And, he just happens to have hit men in his Rolodex?

4. No evidence, or even theory, is offered as to how the "hit squad" found out where Bourdain was staying (since his travels were probably a night here, a night there), got into his room (in a presumably swanky hotel), did the deed and escaped. Just assert it might have happened, magically, and leave the proof to others.

This is the kind of six degrees of separation stuff that gives genuine conspiracy theories a bad reputation.

Again, no offense meant to you. But this kind of bad CT is toxic.

@arendt
It’s driven by the right wing of a particular sub-culture (Feminism). I’m sure it’s just a coincidence that the preponderance of it’s targets are at least left-ish (Al Franken, Charlie Rose, Tavis Smiley, Garrison Keillor...)?

Check out the wsws.org website for actual left wing thoughts on mob justice and loss of due process as a detriment to democratic rights and social order.

#4

The only thing in all the media coverage about him that interested me at all, was the fact that his girlfriend was one of the women who has publicly accused Harvey Weinstein of raping her.

There were speculations his death might not even be a suicide, but a reprisal. This doesn’t seem outside the realm of possibility to me, but at any rate we will never know.

I'm not criticizing you personally for this. You probably just saw the idea posted somewhere. But, for the sake of common sense, let's apply some critical thinking.

1. The OG article demonstrates that Bourdain was a corporate asset/propagandist. No one from the corporate state is going to kill him.

2. The whole #meToo energy (e.g., Weinstein) is coming from the left fake/IP-left. Hence, the left fake-left didn't do it. That leaves only some renegade (non-corporate state) rightwinger or Weinstein himself. The idea that someone is going to take revenge for public shaming/prosecution of a really nasty bad guy by MURDERing someone related to a minor one of Weinstein's accusers just makes no sense. It is the kind of plot 20 year old cokeheads in Hollywood dream up for bad movies (or MI5 made up for the Skripals).

3. The suicide happened in France. That Weinstein, under indictment in the US, is going to put himself further into jeapordy/blackmail by ordering a contract hit on someone in France to "send a message" is beyond belief.You don't think the NSA is monitoring his every voice call, every email, every text message? And, he just happens to have hit men in his Rolodex?

4. No evidence, or even theory, is offered as to how the "hit squad" found out where Bourdain was staying (since his travels were probably a night here, a night there), got into his room (in a presumably swanky hotel), did the deed and escaped. Just assert it might have happened, magically, and leave the proof to others.

This is the kind of six degrees of separation stuff that gives genuine conspiracy theories a bad reputation.

Again, no offense meant to you. But this kind of bad CT is toxic.

@arendt

I haven't yet, but I will read the OG article. I have read other absolutely great pieces there. I completely agree that the corporate media are not going to allow a peace-promoting series to exist much less thrive on their channels. And I don't think Bourdain envisioned himself as a promoter of peace. But I do think no matter how CNN or even Bourdain himself sought to control what they expressed with this series, humanity's basic right to live and to exist in peace made its way to the forefront of their work, at least for a pacifist like myself.

#6

but I disagree.

I think he was honest enough to express his limited understanding of world events. In a recent piece in Armenia he took a shot at Russia, I thought, and I chalked that up to CNN requiring shots at Russia. I had all along wondered why he switched from the Travel Channel to CNN, and I always picked up on corporate sales pitches after the switch. No doubt part of that was my imagination. But I am such a conspiracy theorist I have reservations about his death being suicide, given the power I think he had to promote a vision of the world at peace.

Madison Avenue has been abusing people's trust of basic good stuff for decades. They invented the athlete endorsement. They have turned children into product salesmen. If there is something intrinsically good, Madison Ave will find away to use it to sell someone's product - and cheapen it in the process.

Mr. Bourdain may have been a good man. He may also have been nothing more than a highly marketable hot mess. The people he presented in his shows were clearly ordinary, decent people - with the kind of sincerity that makes Madison Ave. drool.

The problem is the lengthy list of neoliberal/neocon political spin in his purportedly leftwing shows, as chronicled by the OG article. In that article, political spin is documented as early as 2002, long before he came to CNN.

As I said in closing the OP:

the public needs to understand that nobody who is high profile in the media would be there if they were truly dangerous to TPTB.

I certainly can't dictate your feelings about Mr. Bourdain. They are yours. Its just that I have long since tuned out on the emotional manipulation that is the bread and butter of corporate media. The facts in the OG article mean more to me than the sentiments he was able to arouse in his audience.

As for this being a murder, see my comment above: A reprisal? I just can't buy that.

I have always had trouble defending my positions without coming across as attacking. I hope you understand that I have a different opinion than you; and opinions are not facts. So we can just disagree, respectfully.

@arendt

one of them had also retweeted bourdain's tweet close to 'anyone who believes libya was better under gadaffi [of course it was) should slam their nuts is a drawer'. but srsly, don't trust my memory, but you'd see it on cordelier's twitter thang.

as i'd said, i'd never heard of bourdain till he'd committed suicide. hadn't seen xi hung on twitter, for that matter. but yeah, i get sick of 'don't speak ill of the dead: throw flowers at them instead" (for what.ev.er reasons). wait until madeleine albright falls off her perch... ah: valley girl: 'gag me with a spoon'.

#10

I missed the F**k Hugo Chavez.

Thanks for your post. I especially liked:

Anglo Liberals are super triggered over the dead chef. Lot of projection wrapped up in how they saw him & their idea of themselves & their place in the world. He was a liberal imperialist. A Netflix comforter for the white helmet / Vice brigade.

BTW, what's a "tankie"? Googling says its some UK communist reference;

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2016/08/what-exactly-are-...