Writing for Forward, Cathy Young posits the possibility that one of the three mass-shooters of this past weekend, in El Paso, Dayton and the less-observed Chicago, may have been a leftist. And if so, what are we to do about this horrendous leftist violence?
I’ve explained all of this before, but perhaps this wordplay will strike the right chords.
Putting the needs of others first has jack to do with shooting strangers. The guy was *not* a leftist, and how dare this Forward site even try to pull a whatabout. There is no competition equal or greater to patriotic ego-cases with guns. Actual leftists fire one up, not fire away. The left/right paradigm is self-sacrificing vs self-aggrandizing, helping or hurting. For anybody to take a life irregardless of circumstances is fundamentally putting their ego or the ego of their fetishes before the needs of others. Yes, definitions for the paradigm are absolutely that simple, with the problematic confusion lying in how so many will so naturally rationalize the evils of their favorite brands.
Purported leftists who kill are conducting themselves as rightwing, mistaking their personal desires and bias for a greater good. It’s far easier to believe this administration created another Sirhan Sirhan, because when scapegoats fail to appear, they get forged. That is also USA foreign policy in a nutshell, no matter if it’s Neoliberals or Neoconservatives playing shot-caller, because they are all on the right side of the aisle, which is always the wrong side of history.
This definition of left/right doesn’t match what the rightwing politicians say, forgetting that the pursuance of power is inherently a self-serving thing, translating to no true leftwing voices in governance, by default. It doesn’t fit what corporate media pundits inform us either, forgetting that servicing for-profit advertisers amounts to brand loyalty, merely another argument favoring a few over the many. Again, not what real leftism is concerned with, so there’s no lefties in mainstream news. These digital socials we obsess over are categorically rightwing, as profiting from the efforts of others is not remotely leftism. Leftists understand wealth is finite, so any accumulation, any for-profit endeavor, is bogus. What the many need has no room to spare for what the few want. What is legal tends to be immoral and what is moral tends to be illegal.
With no representation in government and no money for platforms matching the scope of commercial news, is it any wonder how easy it is to give self-sacrificing folks a hard rap, and always in defense of the most self-serving? It consoles the public, excusing their own selfishness. After all, how many of the people who give a fuck about celebrities can name a food pantry worker or soup kitchen volunteer? “Good” is not the normal setting for humanity. It never was. Jack the Ripper. The Zodiac Killer. Son of Sam. The Night Stalker. We all know those names, but who can name any of the victims? We give praise and glory to the self-serving, and completely ignore who they stomped over on their merry way.
If some greedy billionaire slag gives away .ooo1% of their vast empire to a tax write-off, they are labeled publicly as philanthropists. Fuck that sideways.
Words having established syntax is what makes communication possible. We can’t just pull stuff out of our ass, make up our own definitions and expect others to oblige. There’s a girl I used to date who was repeatedly ripped off pretty badly by a bigger freelance journo. We parted on sour terms, but after all the time-stamped screen-grabs and forwarded email chains I saw, I can’t help but to look down on anyone who even retweets that journo.
I can understand growth and evolution, how learning about the ways of the world alters our perceptions and compels us to amend our opinions, etc. But you’d think arguing both sides of any debate in a relatively short amount of time would stand out more. I was telling someone just yesterday how I think partisan media has recognized a new power it wields through social networks, giddily exploiting how most people never look into these news stories themselves, much less read beyond headlines. That’s what the internet is. We are empowered to custom design echo chambers and safe spaces and gated communities galore. We take for granted how marketing and social optics were literally invented in the USA.
But this should prompt us not only to vet the veracity of news, but of the journalists paid to sell whichever take or spin. Yet the greater majority of audiences cannot be bothered to look close enough to ascertain which convictions carry through over time, if any. Copycats are empowered. As are people who directly contradict themselves across mere months. And ones such as Cathy Young, who disingenuously takes advantage of the unknowing masses. The public doesn’t notice, or seem to care, provided the news placates whatever preexisting worldview bounced around their favorite news bubbles. In professional circles I only see charlatans I would never be willing to work alongside.
As for myself, I’ve never wanted money or attention, only for principled convictions to be widespread, for truth no matter its form to mean more to more people than whatever the fuck is trending for these 15 minutes. What I want of this world is the very opposite of psychopathy.