Copyright 2020, InterAmerica
In the January 6, 2020 New Yorker, music
critic Alex Ross opens a review, of three contemporary operas about women by
women, with this:
“If you dare nothing, you can change nothing,” the Austrian
composer Olga Neuwirth recently told the magazine Profil. “In the moment
of paralysis and the resulting decay, there is always the possibility of
bringing something about.” [Page 64]
Current flaccid UFO theories, except for José Caravaca’s, fall into
a category of “do nothing.”
There are a few books about the Shakespeare controversy: that
he didn’t write the works ascribed to him, not one.
You can read about the controversy via Google but two books
that provide enough grist to the anti-Shakespeare “theories” are My
Shakespeare: The Authorship Controversy, edited by William Leahy
[EER Edward Everitt Root, Publishers, Brighton, 2018] and a lesser anti volume Contested
Will by James Shapiro [Simon & Schuster, 2011].
My pal Paul Kimball pooh-poohed the idea that others were
responsible for the Shakespeare oeuvre when I mentioned my belief in the
anti-Shakespeare theories a few years ago.
The anti-Shakespeare scholars had and have the guts to write
that Shakespeare didn’t write anything attributed to him. To go against the
common, plebian view that Shakespeare wrote such a diverse – in literary and
substantive style – array of books is what “dare to be significant” – even
great – means.
In the UFO community, who has dared or is daring to be great
– significant? You? Me?
I don’t think so.
José Caravaca has approached the door to significance. Nick
Redfern, too, with his Roswell “solution” and other risky journalism.
But what about everyone else? I’m struggling to come up with
any UFO advocate who is presenting significant explanation theory or any
insight that rises above the trite and commonplace.
Lots of “activity” – many conference visits – much writing
that is down-deep flotsam – me? – and podcasts, blog postings, Facebook
commentary, and others treading water, but nothing worth a fig. Just fluff and
much nonsense.
I’m struggling to keep this blog going. My input is pathetic
and commentary even more so.
A guy named Mitch visited here the other day after seeing my
Sophistry-oriented post on the Before It’s News web-site.
Mitch wrote, “Talk about vacuous” referring to my plaint
about comments and my own lack of substance.
So, do I dare to be great and abandon this puerile effort or
do I stay with my egotistical pomp and non-circumstantial rambling?
We’ll see. (And don’t send me comments saying stick with it.
I’m not persuaded by such feeble sycophancy.
RR
