Toppermost Guns

Linked mostly unironically mostly taking its semi a conspiratorial analysis in as analysis: Top Gun Inspires Patriotic Fervor As Search Trends To “Become Fighter Pilot” Soar. From the messages of Zero Hedge and Alex Jones, it is an odd message: is it… Good?… that this movie is making superb Patriots of the public, in an environment where the immediate combat missions looming come out of pot commitment and mission creep for Ukraine against Russia, on behalf of “internationalists” of NATO, a war these people consider at best “not our battle” at worst a slimy “fighting on the wrong side”, resplendent in politically correct messaging coming out of the Department of Defense — celebrate pride — and articles from some liberal sources on that score sell the war in the same culture war battle that Putin is selling.

In a slightly awkward environment — say, Cold War and the original Top Gun movie — the overwhelming message of Top Guns popularity and use as military recruitment tool would be “Suck it, liberals! America, F*** yeah!”. Here, in the Alex Jones sphere — things get more blurred.

Though, it could mean Tom Cruise has escaped the popular perceptions off of Scientology based couch jumping.

Confusion reigns further afield. The liberal podcast I listen to weekly chimes in on one Republican primary candidate who takes “an anti-war stance” — good, “but” the kind of anti-war that appeases Putin. We proceed with no sense of contradictions.

I note the straightening in of different materials to fit narratives every which place. The Reason magazine podcast has one of its editors flubbing information from a Glenn Greenwald editorial — mis-stating out his premise of leftists committing acts of terror not being id-d as leftist as against the partisan findings from hate acts — id-ing the man who shot Scalaise Republicans at the Capitol Hill baseball game as example — and here the Reason magazine editor misstated that the Buffalo shooter was found to be referring Rachel Maddow and the like — having to make the correction that he mixed the two up. An odd mistake, as the politics of everyone here was never in doubt or mis-stated. But he was running from a preconceived proposition, and unconsciously fit them in.

… Which, I guess, is better than the conscious re-conceptions from the Huffington Post writer and Michelle Goldberg of the NYT regarding Johnny Depp’s aquittal. It was a case I was following not at all and know only commentary and commentary off commentary — so I have no idea if justice was a mis-carriage. I suspect not, as we are lobbed with the this here thing:

Whether you like Heard or not ? hell, whether you believe her or not ? is almost beside the point.

I suppose the question on the audacity of the facile of this statement comes down to the definition of “almost”. But ” whether you believe her or not” IS THE POINT. In a case that has to be narrowly defined as meaning nothing beyond its case and circumstances — “message” be damned.


Leave a Reply