Skip to content

how to kill a us president without taking their life while being a mass murderer?

How do I imagine a couple being accused of being a mass murderer by killing bush/obama/clinton – while the accuser acknowledging the people are still alive?
I think this will be an interesting and worth while search in itself!
However, or it might be an element of the search, the question of act & language might be interesting/relevant here.. People can fairly easily exploit what I take to be a possible human, perhaps cultural-specific yet cultural problem, by stoking a sense that words and acts should reflect one another – not cross, reflect upon, question, link, etc. – one another.
I think the idea is that once a person says they are hungry for food, this indicated/reflects a certain sense/feel of a bodily condition. I say X and am X. What if a person said:
am hungry because:
my body is tired? plausible?
am thinking of sound barrier based gallery? hummm..?
am an electric wire?
a coggable wheel?
now say they uttered the above while:
* running.
* cooking.
* dressing up.
* pointing towards the moon.

Perhaps when we attempt to communicate, acts and wording should illustrate and reflect one another? It is, I suppose a certain kind of elements-mutual support. However it distorts how stuffactually is.. (hence am thinking of communication.. an agreeable distortion..)

However, how is it when/if we share – or try to – the more complex rhythm, that of life?

..and then again, if we do the complex – how do we know whether or not a person is a mass murderer that killed a living us president without ever killing anyone..?

One Comment

  1. aharon aharon

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079083/ – A mogul merrily funds terrorists to boost his computer sales, by panicking West German government and industry c. 1980, as the third generation of Western European left-wing activists forms

    this is a sort of example that double act might disturb people. say what you do what you say, seems simple. if you say x and do y – the What, rather than How of it – seems immediately suspicious. However the devil says HOW – and if the different elements question, pull, search, diverge, cross, collide, etc. one another, then it can hardly be either or. can hardly be double speak.. no?

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.