It is becoming increasingly self-evident that one of the USA’s all-time greatest (in every conceivable sense of the term) divisions concerns how, arguments in defense of Trump, are as well arguments in defense of autocracy. I have before made the observation that when paid media persons grant exposure to public figures for the opportunity to insist their words or actions are taken out of context rather than intentionally xenophobic, those media persons never think to then ask those public figures to explain in their own words what indeed would quantity as intentionally xenophobic. They can say what is not, but never what is. Which I imagine is inadvertently not in keeping with the adage of good defining or revealing itself by the very nature of what is evil and evil defining or revealing itself by the very nature of what is good. In this same vein, public figures are platformed to explain how Trump’s words and actions must never be held to account, yet these platforms are not considerate enough to then ask these public figures to explain how their idealized preferential treatment of Trump casts him any differently from the textbook definition for autocratic. One of paid media’s most egregious faults is not necessarily in the contents of their coverage, but in what they opt not to cover. The regularity of admonitions almost always carry ulterior motivations in service of advertisers and investors and ever-elusive bragging rights, but the omissions speak the most volumes publicly.
But when the greater whole is either unable or unwilling to read anything at all, those who are capable largely doing so just to re-appropriate imagination or intelligence, then reading between the lines sadly proves that much more of a hopeless ideal.
Likewise, while Russia sold its rights to Communism in order for its most self-serving citizens to compete globally in the Capitalism games some three decades or so past, in a recent meeting of the World Economic Forum the Russian equivalent to Trump made the glaring admission of only now understanding what Capitalism is all about, in his warning of global tensions transgressing into a matter of “all against all“. But nobody reported that obvious conclusion. Putin was however more on the money by acknowledging that the for-profit tech megaliths have themselves become competitors to nation-states, but then, that dead in name only trio of global trade treaties from several years back rather overtly spelled out nothing else so succinctly. Were governments willing to enforce existing laws without prejudice, there would be no reason for these powerful multinational corporations to self-regulate themselves or to censor the public discourse, or for legal authorities to be reminded ad nauseum of what the terms and conditions to serving the public trust actually entails. With the youngest first world nations being old enough to earn social security, there genuinely is no cause for establishing any new legislation whatsoever, and if such needs exist nonetheless, then perhaps those governments culpable should reconsider what exactly they hoped to accomplish through decades misspent redirecting space and time away from the non-fiction section of book stores which not by coincidence are going out of business left and right.
Entrepreneurial chicken-fucker Bill Gates was recently quoted for describing as “crazy and evil” the mostly American citizen proponents of conspiracy theories suggesting that the in-progress pandemic is really about his subversively planting microchips in everybody so as to control them, but without actually denying the claims. I personally do not believe those suggestions myself, because the power and influence of his lot already seem to hold absolute power and influence over the malleable multitudes. As evidence to this end, take a look at the knee-jerk reactions to Peter Sunde’s casual reminder of online social networking not actually being a fundamental necessity. Humanity somehow existed for thousands of years without the internet, and while self-absorbed persons today can condescendingly anoint them as backwards for doing so, it was those generations who established Democracy, mathematics and philosophy. The CDC released stats declaring that one in five Americans sports a sexually-transmitted disease, and if someone were to presume the other four play video games, others would be hard-pressed to find proof against that. What if the only obstacle preventing utopia/nirvana from occurring, is this blanket refusal by the insecure masses to forgo altogether the self-importance of DIY segregation? On some level they must realize that short of enforced branding, they’ve nothing to share.
I do not take any issues generally with acts of treason or sedition by members of the USA against the USA, for legality and morality are certainly not synonymous, and I feel that arguments against the words and actions of Trump or his followers and supporters which cite those are merely attempts to wield the proverbial whip rather than see it abolished. Offenses to endangering words and actions should absolutely be taken, not over detriments to the national brand or any other branding applicable, but over endangering the lives of everyone off-brand or not. I watched a forgettable documentary the other day, forgettable chiefly for asserting that Democracy is an experiment that has failed. The reality is that Democracy has never existed, because when power corrupts then none must have it, yet self-destructive exceptions are generous and as free as criticisms to the contrary. But like I keep saying, if truth were welcome anywhere in this culture, then fantasy would never have become such a thing.