Wednesday, 12 August 2020

Owning the opposition in any era

He had believed himself to have Facebooked a flight to a thousand & one likes. Click on this soul destroying link to see what happened next.
__

If I've said it once, I've typed it here at least twice. The problem with apologetics in support of historical figures is not just that it's another level of myth-making. It also relegates figures who might be more worthy of mythologising to the junkpile of historical afterthought. "Slavery was legal," discounts the moral standing of the abolitionist. Try to imagine who an abolitionist would be in today's currency, because that person will be just as mired beneath figures like Lincoln, who everyone credits with the abolition of slavery, the only point of contention being his intent.

Slavery apologist Type I likes to insist that the freeing of the slave was done in spite of Abe's self, and that he was anything but honest. Apologist Type II might admit to the seriousness of his repatriation considerations, i.e. deportation plan. To the most doe-y eyed American innocent that sounds too absurd to be true. I imagine his musings were as serious as when the current president mused about bleach, except that the former kept it to his inner circle. If the reaction to the latter is any indication, history will tell us that he'd recommended its injection to cure Covid. The idea that simply supposing such a thing out loud might be irresponsible, what with the level of human intelligence being what it is, is already an afterthought. It's the times and has always been thus. You might be able to find accurate history, but you'll have to wade through a sewer of mythology.

It is the times, is it not? I mean, is it not the times when you have to wonder how the Wendy's employee who called the cops feels? How the person feels who called 9-1-1 to report a kid with what they'd supposed was a toy gun? How the person feels who called to report that he thinks he got a fake twenty? I'll leave aside for the moment the legality of selling a carton of cigarettes versus the illegality of buying them and then making yourself the new retailer.

The people who love the cop callers no doubt tell them not to blame themselves. It was, after all, not their bullets or knees that led to the black death, an era that, no matter how you slice it up, leads all the way back to when it was the times to trade in people blacker than whoever's doing the buying. Speaking of which, given that human trafficking is still of our times, whether it's the sexualised variety facilitated by buddy to Presidents Don & Bill, Jeffrey Epstein, or the entirely racist based version in the aftermath of the NATO destruction of Libya, I wonder how Nicolas Sarkozy (or for the wonky historian Bernard-Henri Levy) feels about calling the cops on Gaddafi now. I'll speculate that Hillary Clinton loses more sleep over losing her election than she does the delivery of darker skinned ethnicities of northern Africa into bondage. But I'm not a historian, those people who probably fall along the spectrum of more seriously considered litigation, whereby the former Secretary of State either regrets what had to be done, or didn't do anything wrong in the least.

And anyway, those were the times, 2011. Ah, yes. When a president was presidential. A leader worthy of the word. A man who had the courage to admit that we tortured people, and admit it in such a folksy manner worthy of his admiration for being both scholarly and down-to-earth.

Not like the unworthy and unqualified-to-lead guy now, who is as many as six decades behind the times, unless all those black people were on meth or crack or PCP. Then he's only as little as six months in retrograde or as many as as three presidential administrations, before which a First Lady could still call a spade a spade (i.e. dog-whistle about super-predators) to bolster her husband's tougher stance on crime among the bourgeois feminist electorate, who'll be clutching their pearly white consciences in fear of a black planet all the way to their great-grandchildren's college graduations.

Ah, how one longs for the times before these ones... when not downplaying their hideousness. The historical importance of a black man as president versus his driving the getaway car for his predecessor-in-war-crimes, and then ushering historic amounts of wealth from bottom to top, and setting records for deportations and the prosecution of whistleblowers. Who would have thought that after so much progress he'd be trumped by a guy so petty and vengeful that he's plausibly motivated solely to break all of the records the black guy set?

What better times they would be if the powers aggregated to the American presidency had instead been passed along as they were supposed to have been, to another historically significant glass ceiling shatterer whose awareness of historical moments is downright Caesarian. In fairness, when she joked,  "We came. We saw. He died!" it was not known that Gaddafi had been sodomised with a bayonet. Still, the apologia for the treatment of the former Libyan president resembles the same wherever one is quick to point out that a person lacked the innocence required to avoid execution.

In the interest of accuracy, one might go to great pains to point out that with the color of the skin of the occupant of the White House relative to the US policy, we have slam dunk evidence of the systemic nature of all of its ills. Arguably, however, a more profitable journalism just juxtaposes the utterly modern and moderate black White House with the incredibly craven and corrupt version we see today, horrifyingly vindictive and utterly white.

With that in mind, it is the times in which it is apparently too difficult to understand why the phrase "all lives matter" is, at its most innocent, latently racist, in that it refuses to consider the conscious and unconscious inequality considered and not considered vis a vis skin color when the cops arrive to a call. After the fact, it is the extent to which one will consider every other factor other than skin color when evaluating what went down. Is it fair to be at pains to ignore those factors? During times where people call the cops to solve each of the problems that led to the black death, you'd have to say it is not fair, but... one who is truly interested in fairness and equality might want to consider more than just the times, or expand the era in consideration.

We do, after all, methodically reconstruct events that lead to others to enable fairer adjudication, albeit in times that have led to a statute of limitations, which, depending on your application of the language, precludes or not that which got us here.

Does not the sewer of modern mythology include the tedious stink that disregards where we might really find ourselves along a spectrum of bad apple analogies and the systemic racist policy, thank god so Progressive that a darker color of cop force and the big office holders who woo their unions might also disregard black lives, relatively, and even consider them less worthy when living in either fear or hatred of them?

How far behind the times does one have to be to be retrograde? Was the jury who acquitted those officers of the LAPD in the 1990s persuaded because of the defense argument that they were trying to subdue a dangerous man on a drug rampage, who, after all, was not yet cuffed? Wasn't he, too, a superpredator? I dunno. I'd like to see a version of their Twelve Angry Men before making that judgement, but I have my suspicions.

Surely kneeling on a cuffed man's neck is behind the times. Yet, the times tell us that it is not. The times tell us that Black Americans find themselves often enough on the wrong side of the law that there is no use of force that results in their deaths in or near police custody that cannot be justified by the police themselves when it's in response to delicts that range from brandishing a toy gun or failing to signal, shoplifting cigars and bullying a shop-owner, to being known to sell loose cigarettes or probably having just passed off a fake twenty. The dispute between the chiefs and the unions brings to mind the southern Democrat, strong on labor, not so much on civil rights.

And those who would rehabilitate Robert E. Lee, are they not as well on good enough standing as it relates to the times in which he had found himself? Oh, no. Not if you compare him to his opposite number just north of the imaginary line between worthy and unworthy of apologetics. To use such apologetics on behalf of General Lee takes General Grant for granted, right? But Grant didn't speak out on the evil of the Mexican-American war until it was entirely too late, which is convenient for both the war itself and the further mythologising of his goodness as it relates to his statue versus that of Lee. Are there no Americans who 'll justify the toppling of any great big pile of steaming mythology?

We live in times wherein you cannot leave it to the apologists for any kind of politics to research and find comparable situations in which white lives were extinguished under similar circumstances. You can count on certain people highlighting any time one was, or was not. I allude to videos posted by white guns rights activists brandishing real assault weapons on the open street as what they claim to be a reasonable test of their rights, who live to post it to YooToob. One interpretation is that the cops treat them with kid gloves relative to how they would their black counterparts, themselves being interpreted by others as belligerent towards men in uniform, whatever the context. And it's always a super-drug that is probably fuelling their super-predatory belligerence.

It is the times when the opposition need nominate a tough on crime black woman to reel 'em to the polls and lock 'em up when they aren't looking. Exaggeration? Maybe. But there are abolitionists in today's currency. Inflation keeps them from holding office, not that it would matter. That's a thought experiment for another time.

Al Gore Rhythm for Precedent 2020

Call this one 'both sides do it', though I'm loathe to refer to a world with more nuance than to have two sides about anything, even the proverbial coin has an edge, sometimes with an untold count of ridges.

For as the algorithm has probably indirectly informed everyone who hadn't known already by now, "they" aim to divide. Not just to justify clamping down on the resultant threat to stability that moderns and post-moderns alike have come either to cling to out of desperation or simply to surrender to, but to keep the coffers of both sides healthy enough to cough and breathe and breed for another untold generation.

Examples? Do I have to?

Ugg. I'm doing this. Let's begin with teh least healthy etre-meme: You know how the guy that played Forrest is somehow the center of the universal network of paedophiles (and cannibalists in certain parts)? No? Well, you're lucky, then. Because if the algorithm catches you and you have any sense of self-awareness, it can be depressing. Why me? Am I really a good target for this shit? Take heart. The algorithm doesn't care what you believe or will believe, even if it's designed to give you what someone might think you want. The algorithm doesn't think, it just spews forth. The algorithm makes the best argument for coitus interruptus that I can think of. Or maybe it's the advice not to go grocery shopping hungry. I've lost my own thread. Sorry.

It's okay, I know I'm not gullible enough not to see through someones' attempts to manufacture a conspiracy. Unfortunately, I'm also aware of the lameness of these attempts because I know they are just as likely part and parcel of the larger conspiracy surrounding them, whose modus operandi is too fill the pipes with shit. And as that metaphor would reveal, there's no conspiracy necessary for this conspiracy to exist. Just shit.

Okay, so this Gump-is-a-baby-eater notion, which probably sprang from the well of Pizza Gate, would appear to be most widespread among the Always-Trumper set. This is instructive. Not because all-things-Donnie Dumps-in his-pants render themselves dubious. Sometimes yea, sometimes nay. But because Always-Trumpers, like every other folk attached to their folksy belief in a personality, president, country, cult, or myth, or just downright nice guy who you'd be crazy to hate on, they have a blind spot for anything that would boomerang the criticism they project onto their pet enemies back into the tuft of weeds between their trailers.

Enter Florida Congress-croc Matt Gaetz. That this unmarried son of a politician, born in Hollywood, Swampland, and raised in the house where they shot The Truman Show adopted a twelve-year-old boy from Cuba  (these are just things he wants you to know) and was the lone vote against a bill passed in Congress called the Combating Human Trafficking in Commercial Vehicles Act (and who also just happened to think that an inquiry into former prosecutor Alex Acosta's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case set a dangerous precedent) would be enough for Always Trumpers to manufacture a YooToob with ominous music about the guy's links to the netherworld of reptilian baby eaters if he weren't one of their own. We do not eat our own.

To be clear, I believe that neither Hanx nor Gaetz is worthy of such untoward scrutiny. The creepiness factor that accompanies such a thing far surpasses that which was intended in the creation of the thing itself. The algorithm would lead one to the plausible belief that the sheer numbers of people who believe this shit is substantial enough to be concerned enough that "someone should do something about it" — a phrase that alludes to the irony of one nutter among the many true believers, who would like to think they are sceptics of narratives meant to shape their realities, but never saw a Yootoob that catered to their bias as anything other than unassailable proof,  might and apparently occasionally would or do take matters into their own hands to end at least one element of the baby eating.

That danger would lead to others demanding a gaggle of officeholders and appointees to disappear their YooToobs, banning them into the recesses of their subscribers' tortured imaginations. Hwut 'r' ye gonna do?!

So what are the two sides being bolstered here? It's complicated. I'll return to that after the next examples. As a future entry would have it: Shit gets deep.

The shitstain on Pennsylvania Ave., whether his racist bonafides are racistly bona-fide, is without any question from within my center of being someone who is actively using every trick of propaganda from Nazi Germany to bolster plausible support. It's updated for the era, and the support is plausible, sure, but it would seem to be the extremes he targets with his lowkey memes and dogwhistling, though that'd be a much higher set of notes. Interestingly, his most powerful opposition comes from the world of alphabet soup that co-opted and updates the methodology under the aegis of their own spin on freedom to be free to do whatever they please under the cover of their creepy darkness.

Whether it's entrapment and blackmail, whose tradition begins with the very founding of the FBI and continues to encourage terrorists of all stripes to do what they may or may not do, as it's anyone's guess whether or not a guy would buy and build dangerous toys even if he didn't have g-men providing his connections to purchase and training, often brushed aside in spycraft journalists' ease as "shadowing him", and whose efforts to land a high ranking general in jail as if it were by the arbitrary nature of political sport, because there's nary a person outside of the Always Trumper set who'll give a shit (and maybe that's the point (scored)), or torture and coup, whose tactics have gone from the pulling out of finger nails variety to a twisted web ex-nazi doctors dosing subjects with psychedelics for months on end in an attempt to create an unquestioning soldier or shady lone assassin,  and went from supporting whatever fascist faction would shoot and kill any democratically elected leader who could be written off, literally, with the brand of communism, to founding and/or infiltrating NGOs to encourage tweeters around the globe to provide emotional cover for the overthrow of whichever government the algorithm has whoevers' feeds exploding at whatever time in the glorious history of human progress.

These two sides are bolstered by forever switching biases based on the manner of the moment. The AlphAbetS have a new found appreciation from anyone rightfully afraid of the downright fascistic and plausibly apparent civil war wreaking reality star, a fear so agitated by their algorithm that it clicks and swallows without question any nugget of manufactured truth that comes from the authors of the new red scare. For their part, the ground dwelling fascists are encouraged by the fact that it's fascists who are plausibly apparently fighting them. So fervent is this feeling that they've forgotten how much they had worshipped at the altar of this same deep state only almost a generation gone-by.

Then, and probably most significantly, you have a kind of run of the mill status quo (as opposed to the general status quo, which is everything). The run of the millers keep on milling, approving every line in the budget while complaining to their constituents about every other line in the budget, pointing to the evils they guarantee will make tomorrow worse, which is one of the few promises not broken, ostensibly crowdfunding while raising the funds that funded the getaway car for the last time they transferred more wealth to their base at the top while crippling everyone's base at the bottom, and paid for the luxurious retirement communities for the cabal that was the most dangerous evil that would lead to evil if it wasn't stopped the last time they'd innuendo'd that campaign that continues to fill the coffers that cough and breed hope and desperation.

So how does a crazy fantasy that Hollywood and the Democratic Party form a cabal along with George Soros and Bill Gates that wants to usher in a New World Order wherein all your children are immunised against your will with poisonous tracking devices so that they can track them down and breed more of them in FEMA camps so that it will be easier to rape and eat them bolster "the other side" and what does that other side bolster in return?

Last question first: For one they provide get away cars and cushy retirement homes for them once the heat of their alleged crimes is quelled by the algorithm swing of a new election, which doesn't necessarily have to be historic in nature and whose campaign doesn't have to win a bunch of prizes from the advertising industry, but it doesn't hurt (imagine that?).

First question: You'd have to be nuts to express any worry about the Democratic Party, as such, the financial activities of George Soros, not that you'd necessarily know what those are, or the qualifications of the world's second richest erstwhile monopolist to lead the world's policy of dealing with pandemics. I mean, you could make statements like, "I don't necessarily agree with such and such, but..." but you certainly cannot make any of these anything remotely resembling your central concern.

And the 2sides bolstered by each other aspect exists in just about everything an algorithm spews forth, even if only of things of which, if you're lucky, you remain blissfully unaware.