Now Politics: the Political Opinions of Thomas Sarebbenonnato

A Friend of the People Opposing Elites; Social and Political Commentary of Thomas Sarebbenonnato; Publishing and Contributing Editor, Jay V. Ruvolo [Copyright (c) Jay Ruvolo 2018]

Archive for April 2019

RSVP

leave a comment »

 

Who am I? I ask. I do, I ask this question here. I have asked it many times. I am waiting for an answer, it seems, much the way Didi and Gogo are waiting for Mr. Godot. I pause before the mirror. I look to the mirror. I look in the mirror. In? I thought I settled this in and on dichotomy? duality? My poetry tries to settle much I cannot settle in my head.

I see me, I assume, when I look at the mirror, toward the reflection, how am not like the celluloid heroes I watch on the screen? Why do I assume there is more veracity in the mirror than in, on, the videos  watch? There’s that problem again, positional arrangements, fixed before . . . We do know that what is in the mirror is on, no?

I am standing there in front of me, a reflection of me, there is not reflection without light, no vision of any kind, without light. To say I seemeans let there be lighthas taken hold.  I am standing here in front of me, that him, that someone else who is me? Am I someone else; I am frequently someone else somewhere at some time.

Question after question, I string along so many questions.  I look into my eyes I think; eyes the world full of sorrow enough. My wife has sad eyes too; her eyes are a lot like mine. Vanity, vanity, thou art not verity. I never  appear too sad for me to watch. There is something Narcissistic in me. The mirror image. But like the Chimpanzee, I recognize myself. Narcissus does not. It’s never made clear just how long he watches himself. He does watch himself, not knowing it is himself. I watch me in the mirror too. I have often understood that I have to do more than look at me. But everything that appears in the mirror is on the mirror, the pane of glass a plane, again and again without gain. We speak of glass ceilings, but this is a glass wall, is it not. I know I recognize myself, so does the chimp–the dog barks at another dog never knowing it is himself he barks at.

Who answers me when I talk to me in the mirror, when I talk to myself, Hamlet is the father of modern consciousness. I have been over hearing myself since I was a child?  My question is the question.  I wonder more how I capture my conscience with these questions. I do sometimes wonder aloud about who I am, but not for long do I persist in this line.  Montaigne often stood in postures such as the ones I pose; to pose is to posit is to put in place a posture, the posture itself molding me. In his trials, his tests, Montaigne poses as is necessary. When French school children take a small test, perhaps a quiz, it is an essai; to essay is to test one’s ideas, one’s thinking. I remember believing that I did not know what I thought until I wrote.  When I talk to myself,  I proudly announce that Montaigne had as well, does as well, past and present in writing are matters of tense, not time; tense is not time you must know.

I talk to this Self of many selves, one self at a time? I’ve said this before. There is a larger ‘S’ self contained of many other selves. I do know that I am the same person over all time in my life, in every context with every person, every kind of person–not every person is the same as every other.   It would be folly to believe that my selves do not contradict one another.

I am not the same person in the world in every context, with every person. My wife is not my mother, my mother not my supervisor, my supervisor not my colleague, my colleague not another co-worker, my co-worker not my neighbor, my neighbor not my doctor et cetera. How could all the selves i me be alike. I wear masks outside; I wear them inside too. This Self I talk about, is a capital ‘S’ self, a complex of many selves, a nexus; so, this who I amis not as important as when I am or who I am when. This capital ‘S’ Self is it  made up of many other selves; simple enough said. But how many? Is it again an infinite potentiality; what are the probabilities?

Humans long for actuality. Only God gets to be actual all the time; He is pure actuality; He is no part potential. In my religion, it is He, although I have asked why God cannot be He, She and It if He is Father, Son and Holy Ghost. This Self inside, a many selves Self inside, what selves inside me . . . where would I find this Matroishka? The questions of who, of what, of when and where, are important, no? But then to question is to position an answer, or is that a response that puts, that places again–responses are in themselves not answers, I thought I settled this already. I lay out again each question with my responses; do answers differ so radically? Perhaps not in how we think of them today, but they should. Answers and responses are not one and the same; brandy and cognac, you know, brandy and cognac.

Advertisements

Written by jvr

April 12, 2019 at 10:59 am

POLEMICALLY SPEAKING [fictional essay]

leave a comment »

. . . the not last angry man

I

Diatribes can be useful. The force, the energy from them can be used to shake up, to startle, to put on their heels–who? Who should we be putting on their heels? We, herein, must mean We the People. To be a People or not to be a People and thereby become a Public, the latter always a People who have abdicated their responsibility to their people-ness for the seemingly more lucrative role of Public, this always in service of the State, yes, the people (lower case ‘p’ intended) in service of the State is what the Public is. Public and People are not synonyms except in America’s confusing and often in itself confused rhetoric of State control. The Romans understood the distinction between populus and publius.

What am I trying to say instead of just saying it? You ask, my brothers, my likenesses, all of us for certain living in one or another hypocrisy the more closely aligned we find ourselves with the dogmas of American Totalitarian Capitalism . . . and that mouthful speaks the truth of our political contemporaneity more so than any other commentary, essay, report, diatribe, political critique of what We suffer–and we do suffer politically–in America. You imagine otherwise, I can tell . . . I am not going to pity you, yet. I will give you the opportunity to understand what I am saying.

I do not always prescribe to the maxim–thus using it as my mantra–that more is less. No. Sometimes more is more, sometimes right action, which includes right speech, demands that more words are required; an insistence on less can become restricting, constricting, strangling? Don’t forget that sometimes a Samurai’s right action was enabling another Samurai’s suicide by chopping off his head. I do not want to scare you by making you think I have any connection to the Jacobins or the Girondist. I know you imagine that it was all of Les Jacobins who sponsored the use of Monsieur Guillotine’s contraption of executionary mercy. And it was mercy killing with the guillotine; absolutely if execution, historically, were to be examined and yes, compared. More horror!

I might ask, if I were to set myself in one or another pose herein as a political polemicist, a writer of polemics in the cause of social justice, as I and mine call it, should call it if we do not . . . yes, of course–all is a matter of course, virtually self-evident? I do not wonder any longer how you arrived at the conclusion that more is always less. You are mis-taken by this notion.

Let us move on to more–and not GEICO’s more.

Being polemical has always come easy for me. Combat in this sense is like water, or so I had been told many times by a close friend I have not seen nor heard from in twenty years. I do not doubt my words, or my ability to use them. So, what then must I say? To say or not to say what one sees, what one knows is happening politically in his country, this Nation, all too easily divisible–what? What then must I say, must anyone in my place say to you, the others like himself, this myself that I take to task, what I see–there are questions for each of us to answer.

Now, and I continue the diatribe, if I hear one more Post-Structuralist, anti-humanist, Heideggerean, Positivist, old neo-French intellectually informed determinist critique on race or white privilege from any one of too many Orthodox Politically Correct Cultural Marxist dogmatics (ironically and contradictorily allowing the artificiality of Marketing to determine their course and not the organic market-place), I will list them on the flip-side of all Trumpeting Proto-Fascist White Suprematist Anti-humanist determinisms I also hear haranguing people on the internet from any one of the nefarious mother-f-ers calling themselves The Alt-Right, as if what they are has changed with the strategic shift in title; as if Kentucky Fried Chicken ceased to be Fried the moment we started calling it KFC.

When Neo-Jacobins Clubs form across America–a fantasy I indulge (but then remember, if we could examine the psychology of women, just how fantasies function in that psychology, and what their relationship to a woman’s life really is, to what their desires are, to what their wants actually are, or what they would remain, perhaps we could understand better what I mean by fantasy, the act of fantasizing). Yes, with such clubs arising across America, we will know who the enemies of the People are, or so we could assume? In such a world–in such a country as ours, is it still difficult to know who the Enemies of the People are? And there are enemies of the People.

Considering the ping-pong played in America between what we call Left and what we call Right, thinking we have a clear sight on what is Liberal and what is Conservative, about as much as anyone in Garcia Marquez’s Macondo had when confronted with those who called themselves Liberals and those who called themselves Conservatives, we might never get a grip on what we are saying, our words ever elusive in our deference to their ephemerality. We have no more clarity on the subjects of Whiteness and Blackness in America either. It is narrowed and further narrowing, this restrictive understanding of race and racism in America. There is no room outside the boxes as dawn by our most ardent Conservatives, who themselves are confused by what they are or who is actually one of them, of their body. Those who call themselves Liberals suffer no less from this special American politically scientific confusion.

 

II

I used to list myself as Non-White Caucasian in college whenever I was asked to fill in ethnicity and/or race on any form I filled out on Campus. This does have something to do with the current print and social media marketed ideas on race. I am not White; not how either left or right mean it, want it too say something, although it continues to say nothing to me or for me, as it also says too little in facts concerning the problems inherent from traditions of racism, the social legacy of discrimination, which in itself does not possess complete synonymy with racism. Bigotry is one thing, racism is another thing, institutional or institutionalized from its pervasiveness as a set of received ideas that determine the logic used to oppress or repress.

It is interesting that collateral with black people becoming African-American, which was a conscious effort on the part of some of the people to step out of race identity and into that of ethnic identity, having seen that most “ethnic” white people, who were not White-White Protestant power and/or money, identified with their ethnicity first, if ever at all with race, such as Italian-American, Irish-American, et cetera; thus the forum or arena of identity politics based on ethnicity was extended; however, at this time while African Americans became an ethnicity, the push through the media and academic/intellectual marketing was the notion that I no longer had even the right to call myself anything other than White, bolstered by the idiocies or inanities of too many systematically under-educated from among the northern, urban ethnic working classes–the semi-literate being bad enough, but the il-literate from among the lower rungs (should we say) of ethnic working classes finding themselves as political allies with stupid White-white Protestant conservatives who were never White Money or White Power, real White Power and not the grotesque Halloween masquerade of White Nationalists envisioning themselves as White Power.

From this day forward, anyone Black or White or Other will be considered among the  enemies of humanity, so long as anything but a universal humanity is the talk-talk that gets talked in forums that are supposed to address the People as an institution of society, the only one with enough density and weight to counterbalance the weight of the State. They will find themselves, in my mind, right along with every other semi-literate tirade from any college educated American under forty who has developed, in the bubble he or she has grown up in, any one or more of many allegeries to life, not being able to live it in a way organic marketplace exchange would allow, but marketing strategies disallow; just as much as any of Trump’s Old White Conservatives will remain as they have been enemies to this Humanist humanity only ever human when humane. And when Irish and Italian Urban raised Catholics find themsleves in any camp with Evangelical Protestant Conservatives, right along with other Wonder Bread Republicans, I know America is lost.

If you identify with White Nationalism, what can I say–am I supposed to say something like Nazis are people too? If you identify with any of the insipid Marxist drivel spewed out of the mouths of too many variations on what some call liberal, but remains liberal in package, not in product, you will be lost to me and mine, to the aims of this publication, the reason for our being.

Am I supposed to respond with some other form of insipid white guilt apologetics, when I am told to check my White privilege? Deferring to the inanity that allows African-Americans to choose one or another steps in a grander Machiavellian dance will not happen herein, nor will it ever come from my mouth.

Black Lives Matter is not to be set up as a straw dog here, nor is it to be linked with any forms of nationalism or “nationalist” polemics.  Black LIves Matter because human lives matter and it is humane to support it. I am, though, as I imagine intelligent people everywhere are, really tired of less than intelligent people taking center stage for any political movement, all of them in one grotesque or inorganic performance in the theater of statecraft–and we do have them by the tens of millions in America, all shapes, all colors, all sizes and all identifications, many and varying forms of rhetorical ineptitude on my left and on my right, stormed at with shout and shrill sounding mono-syllables.

If you do not get what I mean by Non-white Caucasian, ask me? Do not assume. I have never shared in anything that has traditionally been about Whiteness in this greatly full-of-shit America, her mainstream conservatives and her mainstream liberals flip sides of one insipidly minted political coin, each one mutual and reciprocal participants in a uni-ideological political  system, that being Totalitarian Bourgeois Capitalist, an extension of  one or another version of the Friedmanesque Neo-Liberal Global Order where the likes of Regan, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama are alike, forever with more in common with each other than any of them would ever have with you or me.

We have been trading in positive and negative stereotypes for so long, we are unable to recognize an organic human being. White People are labeled, articulated in critique, and lumped together in the same ways Racists and Racism have done to and for Black Americans since forever ago.

I say Black Americans because I am not so sure the same dynamic or dynamism, in quite the same ways, exists for Black Africans, unless we consider how every genocide, civil war and/or famine in East Africa falls at the feet of Arab controlled East African governments in their non-black power play against black Africans in the region. But then, I must be mistaken, because only White European People can be racist in a pseudo-imperiaist colonialist way, right? No? Arabs are considered white by our government bureaucracies, another confusing and confounding example of how we do not really have a handle on what we are saying when we say White, or how I am not White; I am Non-White Caucasian. But then, we would not know what we should know in the formerly framed scenarios because too much of what goes on politically amounts to a shell game of words.

If Obama is our shining star liberal, then Democrat Hilary Supporters are as deluded as their flip side in the Trump Simians. I am tired of the ping pong we play, the debility we suffer when analyzing politics–we have become a very stupid people–and forgive me for suiting word to action and actions to this word. We are unable to defend liberty or understand it, so it is no wonder we have arrived where we are politically, yet the Power and the Money have no trouble managing the new in-effect politicking, if it were not in part or all of it by design.

If anyone were actually to get at the roots of racism, we’d understand that African-American ghettos in American cities and Catholic ghettos in Northern Ireland share something more than superficially in common, unless African Americans resent sharing their status as America’s privileged repressed group because you have to understand that Elites do not have privileges. Elites have only rights in the social consciousness. Now, whether that is valid or viable in a pronounced Democratic social nexus is another thing, but the fact we still have enormously wealthy Power Elites and enormously powerful Monied Elites gaining Oligarchic control, doling out privileges in small parcels to minorities and other shit-out-of-luck groups reveals how un-Democratic we are.

And yes, the doling out of privileges while denying access to much of this to anyone categorized as White, as if White people have a similar identity that Back Americans do, that is, as if there were no ethnicities and only race as the marker, perpetuates the Machiavellian control. But this has been part of the power dynamics of Black Identity Politics: deny the power base of non-black groups by denying the existence of identities other than the rhetorically constructed one of Whiteness. Yes, The Neo-Liberalism of Regan, Bush I and II, Bill Clinton and Obama fed the beast of White resentment by playing Machiavellian politics with the federal bureaucracy, federal mandates, which is what gave the Idiot Trump such valency among desperate people in America–and Trump got twice the number of African American voters that Romney had gotten. The chickens have come home to roost for politicians playing divide and conquer as if they were always going to be superior, and that they were superior humans because they shared a superior position of authority and influence, aligned with Real Power and Real Money. And the numbers do not need mohave been high for either Republican; whatever Romney got, trump got twice as many,which means African Americans found Trump more viablet than Romney.

Let’s not assume that what we understand the birth, the onset, the ascension, the manifest reality of aristocracy–and never forget royalty’s connection to, identification with and its synonymy with, reality. Yes, royalty was always reality, but that is not because they were aristocratic, but because they were Power Real, real power has always been royal, the only reality that counts or becomes the measuring stick for the rest of us, unreal.  This is why so often for so long African Americans have desperately tried to make of ghetto life a life more real . . . how many of us say get real as a critique of something that is not trenchant in a more visceral or violent way. Ghetto living becomes Ghetto Reality, very royal in its condescension for anything living that is not itself Ghetto.

Hubris.

And this smacks of class politics almost in line with how the Nazis played race politics for the purposes of class divisions in their attempt to evade class structure in order to create the illusion or enforce the dogma of a classless society, one of the chief ingredients in establishing a totalitarian structuring of society. This is also aligned, almost identically, with the way some Monied or Power Elite (read Media Elite) Ashkenazi like to play race suprematist politics in their rhetoric of Jewish exceptionalism as if there were no sociology and politics to explain what they so desperately play out in their positive stereotyping as being Jewish Nature, as if that in itself does not keep the flip side of it, Nazis rhetoric, alive (to use a paradigmatically similar [parallel] rhetoric and reasoning is to rationalize, and by sleight of epistemological hop-scotch justify, the same use by Nazis) . . . it’s nausea ad naseum. That is it in simply put: we will not rid ourselves of negative stereotyping of race or nationality or ethnicity because we cannot rid our attachment to affirmative stereotypes because they flater us, or so we imagine.

 

III

Now, Power has Right–that has always been the social consciousness. Whether it is fair through a Democratic lens is another thing. By undermining the validity of metaphysics and hyper-scientizing what could never become scientific, we have helped undermine the validity of democracy except through one will to power after another. It must be noted that traditionally, historically, repressed groups are divided by some of them being given privileges, such as Affirmative Action being initially used to separate the Black Bourgeoisie from Black Poor and Working Poor, the first great bureaucratic assault against the black community, just at the time Jim Crow no longer possessed viability.

Black community self-help and black ownership in black communities dwindled. What happened to African-American banks? The idea that Power does not have Right and takes privileges is born in the delusion that Democracy is the pre-textual or the preternatural condition for human beings historically. This is false. The Protestant Reformation and the Rise of the Bourgeoisie was a two-pronged affront to the traditions of Aristocracy and the Ecclesiastical Power of the Church, Protestant or Reformative Christian Missionary work at its most muscular was collateral with bourgeois colonialism, the great bourgeois reformation if imperialism, when it was not still at least pseudo aristocratic, as in the British Empire, whose aristocracy survives by themselves becoming bourgeois and entering bourgeois enterprises, thus giving us the colonialism of the Nineteenth Century, markedly as savage as anything since Colombus. This of course is not a contest. It becomes absurd to discuss more or less suffering, grotesque to use arithmetic as a barometer to measure heinousness, brutality, or simply to create a morality of death, of murder by addition and subtraction.

Even in Democracies, the Rights of Human Beings must always be asserted, articulated, defended and protected by Laws, and with constant vigilance. Now the unalienable rights of Human Beings are universal even in face of Post-Structualist critique that they are fictions. But their insistence on everything being a fiction and therefore invalid only results in The Will to Power and Dogmatism. I have never subscribed to adolescent responses concerning humanity, the Self or human nature, similar to those that arise when finding out that one’s parents are flawed and full of contradictions and do not meet with childhood notions of them as extra-human–no, my parents did not lie to me because they did not perform emotional seppuku for me when I was boy. Of course, Categories are fictions, things made, as is every thing we think, say, do, build, make–how is The Empire State Building not a fiction? It is, and if you do not understand this, you have no clue what fiction is, what fictional truth can be, has been, could be allowed to become.

I have known people who have grown bitter and cynical about Christmas because they discovered once in childhood that Daddy was Santa Claus. I still believe in Santa Claus, but then I know how absurd that sounds to too many hyper resentful people: Multicultural Resentment or White Resentment are flip sides of the same coin–each of them equally useless but terribly artless.

And it is not simplistic to assert or to frame this in a binary way because we have become horribly binary in our assertions and our pronouncements–because we have become very INarticulate. We do play a perpetual game of ping pong with slogans, with cliches, with media disseminated soundbites, with marketing strategies instead of dialogue produced from actually being in the marketplace of cultural exchange. When we are not engaging in these ping pong matches, socially, politically, economically–we are playing hop scotch with the Truth, confusing randomly passing images in the mind for thinking.

In the 60s, Power learned that it did not need Jim Crow, it could use the bureaucracy instead. They always knew they had to keep black poor and white poor separate; they learned how to use the bureaucracy to separate black workers from white workers–but then, the foundations for this manipulation had already been set by racist ideology, which then points me in the direction of understanding the critique of race, of racism(s) and racist tropes, dialogues, dialectics, monologues, messaging and messages, propaganda–yet, these have a flip side, which is in how much of the energy and force used one way has been adopted in the countermanding and counterpoints the other way.

The oppressed learn first and fore mostly from their Oppressors; Israel’s foreign policy decisions are no irony when examining immigration to Israel and who has informed much of Israeli Politics since the Second World War, or how Sephardic Jews have often found themselves having Second Class status in their native land. Not always, not unilaterally universally everywhere, but considerably and persistently over time.

Where we are headed, I cannot say absolutely surely, but we are bound to lose our heads in more than one way. We are following one or another road to perdition–another cliche we bandy about without heeding what we are saying. All I know is that in this sense of an essay on culture and politics, I know how firmly some are set in their aims to establish an American Jacobin Party of one kind or another, yet too many will not know exactly what they are aligning themselves with, nor will there be enough of them who have actually gained a handle on the history of the Left or what Liberal means.

I hear the murmurs, something like, Vive! Les Jacobins . . .  yes, these words coming from too many mouths mouthing words, speaking the way parrots do, but with an increased vehemence I find disturbing as much as I do stimulating, interesting in both a frightening and un-frightening ways

 

 

Written by jvr

April 10, 2019 at 8:48 am

“Better liars make better Presidents,” Alice Said [Fictional Essay]

leave a comment »

Better Liars Make Better Presidents! She said.

I listened.

Alice said: “Certainly things I say could have been more easily said when I was younger, and not because we were less cautious, or less respectful, or less aware of diversity; not because we were less respectful of a multicultural, multi-ethnic, multi-national, multi racial, multi-metaphysical world ( I do think that far too many persons under thirty, or thirty-five, or maybe forty, imagine, as we used to when we were undergraduates, yet certainly not as forcefully when we made it to graduate school . . . what is it that they think? Is it that they have discovered the remedy or remedies for all the ills of society, most of which they have been the ones to uncover, reveal, find, have the courage to say exists); nor were we less willing to realize our mistaken conceptions,  perceptions or received ideas; but because we were less programmatic about our diversity, more attentive to freedom of thought and expression, more tolerant of mis-steps or mis-takes in our general awareness, our political awareness, the limitations of our conceptions, perceptions, received ideas (which we have seemed to multiply exponentially); because we were certainly more understanding about our human foibles, less intolerant about mis-steps, less savage in our desire for vindication or gleeful in our efforts to shame, call out, become righteous about . . . yes, the license to be vindictive; and because we were far less propagandized in our thoughts about politics, in our opinions about politicians and their politicking; because we had more readily at out disposal and avail a press a little freer from corporate control, not to mention a system of education less systematic in its attempts to under-educate and decrease literacy, more firmly set on a path toward liberating the lower classes through education instead of separating education from jobs through the more immediately appealing idea of training, which in itself is not subtraction; because we had Democrats who were liberal and some Republicans who were more than moderately liberal; because our level of general literacy had not fallen as far as it has; because we still held in our minds the notion, the idea of free-will to counter balance the theories or hypotheses of one determinism following another determinism and so on seemingly in perpetuity; because we had a literacy that was able to handle and articulate how determinisms and free-will could interact in conflict or dynamism, which does not exclude conflict; because we did not raise doubt as the highest wisdom; because we still believed knowledge was possible and capital ‘T” Truth had valence, if not solely as a compass heading; because coextensive with our diversity we had articulated a universality, that there was something that could be called human nature,” Alice said.

I agreed. It was as if we were one in this, word for word mutually contingent and reciprocal.

Alice had said, I am recollecting having remembered “. . . yes, we knew decades ago that American oil companies had sold oil to the Nazis out of Mexico; why should anything surprise us about the Oil Gangsters or even the Koch Brothers Cartel. And their names on places for the Arts does not make them philanthropists anymore than the Nazis building theaters made them philanthropists. There was State Ballet in the Soviet Union. But please remember when we talk about the dark waters of Republican support that we do have to recollect that there had never been any President deeper in the pockets of Wall Street than Obama; and it was Jefferson who warned us about banks being more dangerous to a People and their Liberty than standing armies of occupation. Did we heed?

“Obama, with all good intentions, served another political marketing strategy, one set against the People as firmly as anything that the Conservative Moshiac Regan had done, or the heinously oily Anti-New Deal Bill Clinton did–and he was an oily piece of carnival barking shit, wasn’t he?” She asked. “We’ve become insipid, looking no further than the veneer of being Presidential. We don’t expect any substance, only dexterity with acting Presidential, aligning these expectations with how media imaging manages the varieties of stereotyped behavior shifting according to context, whatever the situation,” Alice said.

“Now, Democratic Party shifts to the right aside–and there has been a nearly monolithic shift to the right of the dividing line between eternal liberal and eternal conservative in American politics, make no mistake about that. Any decision between Hilary and Donald was one between more and less conservative–and I am here to say that Hilary was certainly the lesser of the two evils irrespective of whatever John Stewing-in-his-own-kind’s juices tried to pontificate after the election, speaking from being a player with the Monied elites, if certainly not from a position of power, although a place of one-time significant influence.”

I do have to say that his standing in front of Congress next to suffering First Responders at Ground Zero was something that made me rethink a lot of whatever resentment I imagined I might have had for him based on things I thought he meant by what he said when I heard them however whenever long ago . . .

“He garnered his small fortune in TV,” she said, “and I could never understand why until I looked further . . . more closely examining because I believed that it had to be either for what some call talent or what others call the what-he-is, the latter in their minds being more important than what he could do, am I sure that they are sure in whatever it is they think, have thought, said, imagined, believed, understood?”

Questions do beget other questions begetting yet more anymore questions. There is a difference between answering and responding . . .

Alice went on to say when she had said what she did, as I am remembering having remembered, when I did, words I think she said, does it matter how they are formed, by Alice or by me thinking that what I rec all to mind is what Alice was saying? “The being what he was part of the what-you-are that always becomes the first and the last of who gets to play in Hollywood––no?” She did ask, I think I recollect.  . . .

There are others who get to play in Hollywood or other conduits of entertainment who have had to pay with sexual favors––no? Just ask the women in Hollywood–those abused and those paid to enable–or the child stars . . . Hollywood has always been child prostitution central? I know many believe this.”

Alice says so many things that get all bound up together, balled up, we like to say.

“The stereotypes of Thailand having nothing on what some say has always been the core taste of those who run Hollywood,” Alice said.

What more could she have said that some will allow to take away from what there is in here, what she is saying, has said, had said, will likely say again, that anyone with mind to could take as true, as relevant, as significant, socially, politically, What’s it going to be then, eh?

“Those who are not what John is–let’s hear from them. Whatever he is–and he is many things–what-you-are always the same forms of who-you-know; like minded is likeminded, money comes to money and who you know is all anyone needs to know.”

I listened carefully, attentively, without a thought running interference in my comprehension, my later coming to together in mind to draw a conclusion.

“All of the former tags or labels reciprocally rooted for always in what-you-become . . . nevertheless, and let us diverge here––I cannot understand the man who stands with first responders standing with Hilary. It does make no sense, unless the sense we want to make is that both Democrat and Republican are nowhere near what they need to become in order to do right by those First Responders as a matter of course, without hesitation, the will could be there. All ways toward this following that will, which we do see is what is lacking. No courage.”

I do think what Mr. Stewart did took courage.

“Hilary was Obama’s McNamara, a fact that no one I know, coworkers or coleaugues , from among those who think they were Hilary supporters, can come near accepting,” Alice said.

Alice said, “the terms ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ have lost their valence in our current Political Science, neither one maintaining any acuity when we talk politics, our talk becoming an exchange of monologues as if the dynamics of ping-pong were best going to serve our rhetorical strategies in argumentation.”

I heartily agreed.

“Yes, both of them are devoid of their traditional sense, a sense that naturally runs an over arching course through history, mostly lacking in keeping their senses because we no longer have dialogue in America, having lost the capacity for any trenchant dialectic in the Self . . . I know this seems a bit over extended, but there are correlations and contingencies that exploration of the Self has with those of society and persons acting politically in that society––it is impossible, if we think about it, for any of us not to act politically. Apathy and dissociation are politicking of a kind. It has an effect; it is similar to understanding that you cannot not-choose.”

Alice went on, “Nonetheless, there has never been a man to occupy the Oval Office who is more dangerous to We the People and our Liberty, our security, whether that be personal, social, political, or national, than Donald Trump; and this is mostly because he is a horribly stupid man, something assessed by examining his long career in the media spotlight (the ironies derived from this upcoming),” she said. “Furthermore, continuing in the White House his terrible arrogance, his being incapable of showing anything but solipsism, the latter culminating in the geo-politics of nihilism? Hyperbole intended. And irrespective of what you think about Donald, the fore stated is hyperbole,” she said.

“All of these persist in Donald’s actions or acts, having been refracted through the prism of gross egoism, resulting in Vanity being every kind of verity for him and his decision. One delusion follows another and another delusion follows yet another; more and more delusions mounting in a Lear-like tragedy for all?” Aliceasked.

She does not need to be more polite; in fact, I think she is still too restrained. If anyone examines politics and politicking over the last two and half millennia . . .

“Perhaps the only leader of so powerful a country as ours with less sanity was Josef Stalin!?” She wrote. “The exclamation point preceding the question mark makes a necessary split. I knew the Donald was an idiot forty years ago, what happened in our collective acumen? Lost in the morass of under education and semi-literacy masquerading as literate enough?” Alice asked, wondering perhaps how we have come to the place where Donald Trump could be viable candidate for President; howeever, and quite peculiarly, his election is still populist even though he did not take the popular election.

“Don’t get started on the Electoral College because I do support it, and I have arguments for it based on how it has greater respect for minority voting than would be garnered by making the election a National one instead of the Federal one it is; and this is not some out-of-date conception that pertains to a time too remote from ours to be relevant; that’s just wrong thinking, and yes, opinions have value, qualitatively; if ever we get to a place where we raise Whose to say to a universal metaphysical maxim, we will be lost in a morass of quantifying opinions instead of discerning them qualitatively. This is one step shy of turning the People into a State serving Mob, not even a Public, which is what the State  wants from its People mostly, abdicate the role of We the People for that of the Public,” she said.

Alice said: “Let us not play the rhetorical ping-pong we love to play in our political arenas, back and forth with slogans and received ideas, half baked hypotheses we bandy about as if they were socio-political theories, and all in keeping with It is so because we think it is so, the result in a reformation of epistemology where knowledge is virtually impossible and Truth is a lie. Yeah, that Post-post Structuralist cluster-fuck in thinking was going to lead somewhere positive. We have been so systematically under-educated, kept so dismally semi-literate when we imagine ourselves to be educated, we can no longer handle anything but to mount one will to power in face of another will to power, thinking having gone the way of knowledge, Truth and wisdom,” she said.

“All of us creeping about day in and day in once more and again, today, tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow, every petty fragment of a notion arising in the masquerade of thinking we perform for ourselves to the last glorious tolling of whatever bell we imagine tolls for a humanity we have abandoned by relativizing human nature until it has become virtually impossible for too many to mount a defense of human rights,” she said. “Randomly passing images in our minds as if this were all we needed to do to think, all of these grotesques creeping in their petty paces through the labyrinthian twists we imagine we should call–I’m tired; I’m exhausted; I’m afraid, very, very afraid for our future,” she said. “There is no time other than now, right?” Alice asked.

“Ever increasing shifts to the Right by the Democratic Party, with a persistent confounding of what the political terms, positions, affiliations, arguments and policies of Liberal and Conservative mean, we must not allow the Donald and the Republicans off the hook,” she said.

“Nonetheless, facts remain facts, and a fact of the 90s was that no man made greater dents in the New Deal than did Bill Clinton––and I am not even saying that Roosevelt’s New Deal was even enough of what should have been done, could have been done, or that it is a shining example of what I would like to see happen (although it was something more than anyone else could have imagined, would have, should have . . .?). Bill was directly responsible for unleashing the banks that lead to 2008, and this is not a contemporary Republican party polemic against the Democrats: Clinton’s Pro-Wall-Street deregulatory actions began while Democrats were the majority in Congress, beginning with the appointments of Robert Rubin, and the Harvard University darling, Larry Summers, in the Treasury,” she said.

“Does anyone recall his dissolving the Glass-Steagall Law from the Great Depression, which had been passed to bar Investment Banks from Commercial Banking activities?” She asked. “No, of course you do not. Does anyone recall the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, ‘which left the derivatives market a laissez-faire Wild West,’ according to the Columbia Journalism Review,” Alice said. “No, of course you do not.”

I continued to listen raptly.

“Clinton got away with a lot of policies that led to the gutting of what we have called the American Middle Class. The only time we reference class is in a blanket over-arching assessment of income that is devoid of any trenchant political analysis of class structure, one that could lead to valid critique of Power and Monied Elites and allow us to see Regan, Clinton, Bush I and II and Obama as all of a piece in the protection of Monied Elites and and the perpetuation of Power as an Elite-only endeavor governmentally,” Alice said.

Alice said: “One does not have to be as mad as Donald Trump to see that the print and broadcast media do protect and support with appropriate spin the interests of elites–why do we still insist on believing that Media elites are not in bed with Corporate Elites, Wall Street Elites, Oil Gangster Elites? With Riegle-Neal, Bill Clinton gutted State regulations of Banks leading to grotesque bank mergers and the too-big-to-fail mind-set. And yes, he was responsible directly for more deregulation that lead directly to 2008 than any President–recall Obama blaming George W. for 2008? I do. But next to Bill Clinton, there has been no greater friend to Wall Street Greed in the Oval Office than OBAMA. But then, there is now no greater enemy of the People than Donald Trump, the charlatan who has harnessed discontent that the press and broadcast marketing strategies for news set entirely on Race, another way we sidestep any prescient discussions of class in America. Are you recognizing a pattern? Class politics structured for the further benefit of Power and Monied elites effects Black America more directly and pronouncedly than even race, but never a peep from anyone in our Politics, our government, our bureaus, our media, our Selves,” Alice said.

Red herrings are what they are, and we have no idea how many we have been following because we have been systematically under-educated for decades already, undermining our literacy and thus our ability to think in a way that can side-step State manipulation and coordination, I say as I have said and re-said, how many times to Alice for as long as I have know her, she and I talking for hours and hours through one or another and another night after night after night.

“Milton Friedman, Bill Clinton and Alan Greenspan are my triumvirate in the pit of a new Inferno,” Alice said, “but then, there are so many semi-literate systematically under-educated college graduates who imagine themselves liberals who, when they hear me rail against Neo-Liberal Globalization, they assume that I am an American Conservative, when in fact I am actually too linked with the Eternal Left to even be an American Liberal, offended as I have been by the Democratic Party and its grosser selling down river of all people–it’s almost as if the one way Power could think of making African-Americans feel better about once having been treated like and called Niggers was to make everyone else a nigger of Money and Power, much the way women everywhere have been Niggers of the world,” she said.

“But it’s carefully choreographed by absenting the word nigger, so everyone is the nigger of money and power, but no one is called a nigger, or the institutions of Money and Power and Media Influence and Governmental Authority do not permit its expression without chastising the expresser,” Alice said. “This of course is not to deny the heinous call and re-call to Jim Crow you hear covertly and overtly in the rhetoric of White Nationalists, White Suprematists and all of their Alt Right allies,” Alice said.

“Not to be out-done,” she said, “Obama went even further than either Clinton or Regan by spending 0ne Trillion dollars to upgrade our entire nuclear arsenal,” she said, “moreover in the process expanding it, making fifty years of attempts at disarmament irrelevant, meanwhile tweaking Putin’s nose as if he was going to say, Yes, please you arrogant Americans, push further for your MILTON Friedman NEO-LIBERAL Globalization; please take hegemony at our underbelly in Ukraine because we will let you,” Alice said. “If Russia had tried to negotiate with Mexico in half the way we tried to get into Ukraine, we’d already be at war. And Obama was a Democratic Party President. IN the seventies, there were many Republicans who would have been opposed to Obama’s geo-political policies; why is it that the American Mainstream Media did not see or say that the President that Obama was most like was Ronald Regan?” Alice asked.

“Furthermore,” she said, “and in direct contrast to all the pseudo-liberal fawning over Obama,” she said, “the former POTUS started more wars than Bush II,” she said, “deported more people than any President (perhaps primarily because he was able to more easily?),” she said; “he inititated no immigration reform (which may or may not have to do with his intentions), spread the drone assassination campaign to all quarters of the world, and okayed Hilary’s desire to topple Libiya by bombing the shit out of it, destabilizing The North African Mediterranean country to the point it cannot contain its borders and has become a hotbed of jihadist terrorism and a funnel for all refugees from Africa of any politicized persuasion, and without screening, to southern Europe (which may have been part of Hilary’s and Obama’s design: that is, to destabilize the EU and necessitate NATO expansion),” she said, Alice did.

“Libya has become one of the great cluster-fucks of our geo-politics, and a potential human disaster on the level of Syria–another of Obama’s great geo-political coups, and it will again become convenient for many of Hilary’s semi-literate college student supporters to blame Russia, when it was Obama who laid hands off ISIS for over a year (was it really that long?) in either an effort to pressure Assad (traditional geo-politics) or topple him in Syria (as the United States has had a hand in doing all over the world for decades and decades, using whoever might be the most expedient or convenient),” she said. “The spin on Obama’s hesitations in dealing with ISIS are in full articulation mode, having at his reputation’s defense, a great many of our mainstream’s most ardent supporters of our former political status quo, something that Trump ironically has us longing for, his election a little bit more than a year after we the people had become fed up with both Democrats and Republicans, especially in Congress, when both sides brought government virtually to a standstill,” Alice said. Alice went on, “Enough of this shit about Russia––when has Russia not tried to stick its fingers into the pie of American Politics; that is old hat. When have any of our allies not tried to do just as much as Russia had attempted during our 2016 Presidential Campaign. The democrats going after this Russia thing instead of anything else they could have done to fight Trump just might have given him the election in 2020. And if you want to worry about pollution or interference––The State of Israel represents repeatedly the greatest threat of governmental and electoral interference in the United States––Netanyahu? Please. There is no greater threat to democracy anywhere in the world including here at home than Reactionary Zionism.”

Alice said: “Obama wanted regime change in Syria more badly than Bush had wanted it, and Bush was training opposition to Assad, as was later Obama, not caring who the Moslem Brotherhood there or in Libya used as its allies. All was good so long as it could meet with U.S. Global Imperialist designs, those aligned with the State of Israel’s over-archingly reactionary political designs. If you want to know where liberalism became conservative and conservatives became reactionary in the grossest possible way, examine the politics of Israel since the late eighties. I just do not get why so many Conservatives have been against Obama, unless it is what his supporters have so persistently claimed, race,” Alice said.

Alice said: “When I tell you that Regan, Bush I and II, Bill Clinton, Obama and Hilary are all of a piece geo-politically, except for style of presentation, spin of the doctors of State and Statism, charisma and shifts in policy, or whether they are in the pockets of oil or Wall Street–why smirk as if your head in the sand is a wiser and more informed position–but maybe it is more in-formed because all information and acts of informing are just that: putting the people in a form the State likes and can easily manage,” she said.

“The media does not lie all the time, that would be absurd and counter-productive; however, the media does serve a propaganda-like function for the State by keeping Power in the shadows, by managing the right image for the Monied elite,” she said, “by maintaining favorable images in the marketing of Government Authority, so long as the agents of Governmental Authority play the games of Power by Power for Power, as Obama had with Wall Street, she said, Alice did.

“I am an OPPONENT of Trump–it sounds ridiculous for me to have to say this, at least to anyone who knows me, has known me these last few decades. I am still shocked–yet not actually for any length of time that could persist past what I already know about power, the dynamics of Power; about monied elites, about how money drives our media, how television has made and broken presidential campaigns. It is a bit surreal that the Trump we knew in New York City forty years ago has become President,” Alice said.

“I remember the people being free to go to hell in a handcart was an expression we used in the Seventies as a marker of a democratic society; however, the manipulation of the People, their transformation into a State serving Public is a lot less or other than the People going to Hell in a handcart,” Alice said, as she had before, all of this before having been said before, “one word or another, one way or another or another, everything creeping along.” 

“There is no time more than now. But Trump was an idiot 30 years ago, and I remember that Aristotle defines an idiot as someone with no general or social concerns–and Trump’s solipsism fits in this definition perfectly. But then, contempo-centrism has come to haunt us; a-historicism has turned and bitten us. Yet, Donald is left as Commander-in-Chief, unable to lead, unable to get out of his own head–there is no reality for him outside of his head. In geopolitics, he is in way over his head, beyond his capabilities. He is actually drowning,” Alice said.

Alice went to say, “And not as a way to say that Trump and Hilary were six of one and a half-dozen of the other, let us also not forget that Hilary and Obama were actually worse than Bush II in the number of conflicts they engaged and the number of times they violated international law and the sovereignty of Nations, allies and foes–and Bush II was bad enough, REAL BAD; but no American IN form(ed) by the mainstream media who are linked with finance capitalists on Wall Street (again, 6 corporations control 90% of our media) will ever read about it except on page 44 in the NY Times, a kind of State Pravda because it is Wall Street Pravda like the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post, all meant to keep power and money in the shadows. And this is not akin to Trump’s rants about the liberal media because we do not have a liberal media, unless in contrast to how much reactionary lunacy the Republicans suffer allows us to say anything left of reactionary is liberal. But then this would also amount to a form of insanity,” Alice had said.

Alice said again, “Bush was a liar, of course he would have to be. It’s not whether or not a President lies, but how well he does when he inevitably will. I have heard Obama called the blackface the Monied and Power elite wear in a Grotesque Minstrel Show, and the last time something like that was said in the vicinity of my ears was by a black guy in a bar in Brooklyn. But of course, you knew this, right–no? Minstrel Shows from the White House? It’s too much you say . . . do you not want to examine how grotesque our politics have become?” Alice asked.

Questions beget more horrible questions.

“As endemically racist as we are, was it true that only a black man could sell us the idea that he spoke for the People when he spoke for monied power more eloquently than any President in history?” Alice asked. “And yes, Obama has appeared more Presidential than Trump can muster, which is part of the Stagecraft of Statecraft.  We all too often mistake being Presidential with being a Great President, or it becomes the only way we judge a President–Obama is inordinately charismatic. But then Americans imagine that Rap is not a new minstrel show when it meets the paradigm, point for point. Rap is no more about authenticity than minstrel shows were, no more authentic than any of the costumes of diversity worn by American Totalitarian Bourgeois Capitalists.”

“And when I hear the term ‘white people’ mentioned by anyone, I know I am listening to a Machiavellian drawn received idea because there is no political or sociological term that is more overly generalized or stereotyped than the term ‘White People’,” Alice said.

“We have remained so overly generalizing in the way we talk about politics, about people in relation to political issues, about people in their social standing, in their relationship to the society at large and to the government, as well as government authority in its relationship to the people–that a person of color is often no closer to being precise and accurate when he or she is talking about “White People,” than white people of any ethnicity have a clue what they mean when they say “Black people.” Most White People or Black People have little to no clue what they mean when we say anything about the other, or any other other than each,” Alice said as she has said.

Alice had said, “And there has been no other racial or ethnic term that could possibly be used as we do “White People,” and that’s in Academic discourse and through media conduits, print and broadcast. And I am not even referring to Harvard Professor Ignatiev’s diatribes about Whiteness, White People, or his insistence on the necessity for the obliteration of White People, a particularly virulent form of American Ashkenazi Trickster Politics–one moment white, the next moment not white–and the not-white part I understand, but his blanket inclusion of all formerly referenced Caucasian people to the careful exclusion of Ashkenazi is disingenuous. Beware of this fucker.”

Alice said, “Out of the other side of another mouth Ashkenazi are White People, perhaps the only White People people of Color can trust in a new Hegemony?”

Alice continued, ” I remember having recalled to a friend that another friend had asked, and if one were to examine the politics and politicking of AIPAC . . . if we can talk about the politics and the politicking of White People, I am sure we can talk about the politics and politicking of Ashkenazim, particularly if you want to examine the socio-economics of Sephardim in Israel and their political interactions with European Jews in Israel, most revealingly in the first couple of decades after the British abandoned Palestine.” 

“Tribal politics at its best–and all ethnicities participate in this grotesque will to power, which is why truths and lies have become so relativized, so prevalent, to the utter displacement of any ability to discern little ‘t’ truths or understand and articulate what Capital ‘T’ Truth could mean for us in our pursuit of freedom.”

“We have allowed diversity and multiculturalism to become the new Tribalism, where liberals become conservatives and radicals reinvent themselves as other reactionaries to mirror or mimic the reactionary politics of the Republicans who have decided after Regan to jump off a cliff into right wing lunacy,” she said she had said to a friend. “If America is endemically anything, then it is conservative; the politics of and socio-economics contingent with become no surprise,” said Alice.

Again, she said, “I am a Trump opponent–how could I not be one, having respect for my intellect, and what I sometimes call common intelligence (is it Native intelligence, something provided since birth? by genetics? is their cultural memory encoded on genes as we used to think about when we were teenagers . . .? I cannot keep my tongue in my cheek for long); as well as my education and the culmination in what I call higher literacy (perhaps too much in the way of self-presumed)?” Alice asked.

“I have to add that I actually liked Obama–his presidential-ness mostly. But the truth is the truth concerning how we frame our discussions, frame our terms–we have become ensnared by or in the web of marketing which is never an organic marketplace of need and value of the people by the people or for the people,” she said.

She definitely had been saying for sometime before she said, “Furthering the idiots’s ping pong Americans love to play, are the people who voted for Trump believing anything he says, taking it as gospel! Trump’s supporters felt like throwing a monkey wrench in the machinery of American politics. I understand the frustration, I do. I know too many people of color who will mock me and mock my family and mock the people I grew up with and around, many of whom are fed up with government abandoning them. And, yes, I do believe  that these same people of color have and will over generalize White People, making a plethora of caucasian peoples from too many places and of too many backgrounds and of various metaphysical contexts of origin, religious and or ideological, if not simply class, which is socio-economic and often as well correspondent to levels of education . . . yes, way too over generalizing to be of any use in any kind of trenchant politics, politicking or politique . . . all as if they have a hot line to the Truth, which they will deny the existence of out of the other sides of their mouths . . . far too many do not have a hot line to anything, if the conversations that do get engaged are an indication of what they think, believe, understand?”

“But is it White people alone (I am using White People the way I have heard some African Americans use the reference, including in its use as referents all Caucasian people, even those who have not participated in the socio-political constructs of Whiteness in America, historically and traditionally) when 30 out every 100 Hispanics who voted, voted for Trump–how many tens of millions of hispanics are there in these United(?) States,” Alice said. “More than twice the number of African Americans who voted for Romney in ’12 voted for Trump, no matter how few, double that number found Trump viable, more so than Romney. Why? And if four voted for Romney, eight voted for Trump. Why was Trump more viable? No African American opponent?”

“So much for endemic authenticity from Record-Industry-created images that match African American reality in exactly the same way as Hollywood Stereotyping of any ethnic group you choose to examine has ever matched their social, cultural or political reality. I have never recognized the images of Italians manufactured by Hollywood. If you were to take Hilary’s margin of victory in California out of the election, she loses the election in the total of the other 49 states; and this is one more rationalization for the Electoral College–how regional tipping of elections is not more democratic, because it is not. The election, which is not a National one to begin with, should not be tipped by California.” Alice said.

“How is her gross margin of victory in California deciding the election more Democratic? It’s not. But to listen to Democratic Party leaders and their sour grapes is another reason in a long check list concerning how Democratic Party rhetoric and policy serves itself and not the People, firstly and lastly,” Alice said. “If it had been Hilary who won by the Electoral College, the Democrats would be singing the praises of the system and quoting Madison.”

Alice had said often: “Madison did not frame the Electoral College because he did not trust the people; there were enough popular elections in our dual sovereignty from the on-set. If that had been the reason first and fore mostly, we would have versions of the electoral college at the State level, which we do not. Governors were and are popularly elected. And remember how important Governorships were: John Jay, the first Supreme Court Justice (for life), left the position to become Governor of New York State. Madison made the distinction between Federal Elections and National Elections and the election for President was framed as a Federal election and not a National one. We are still insisting that the President and the Presidency become something other than what the framers went to great lengths to circumscribe so the power of can be reduced.” Alice had said.

“We have a Federal Government that coordinates and connects the States through its bureaucracy and over-seeing, although, from a horizontal position. There is no National Government, only some places under Federal jurisdiction.”

“So,” she said, “in light of this, I reject Michael Moore’s under-read history lessons. Only television constructs the election as a National one–much the way the Super Bowl is framed as a National event, simultaneously shared by most Americans, turning classes into masses, one of the prime ingredients for maintaining a totalitarian re-structuring of State and Society; as it becomes one of the principal results of any kind totalitarianism, a perpetual re-forming of classes into masses; another reason I call America a Totalitarian Capitalist Nation-State,” she said.

“I do not expect most of the people I talk to every day to have read or go on to read the Constitution, let alone understand it, not with what passes for literacy in New York City Education. Teaching majors still making up the bulk of the bottom 30% of university students,” Alice said, “and that has not gotten better, I mean, they have not gotten smarter, even if the percentage has not significantly increased. Having said this how many times to how many people in how many ways remains one of my greater exercises in futility. Yes, stupid is what stupid thinks, and ‘think’ here is not the imagined image, but how the process takes place in the handling of thought in matters of great social importance,” she said.

“You did hear recently how 76% of a Bronx High School graduated, as if that were an achievement, but allegedly only 4% were university ready. However, with liberal arts disappearing and themselves becoming vocations or a grotesque sort, reading and writing with any acumen, quality, or advanced standards of achievement will become a monastic endeavor. The Dark Ages are now–how in love with hyperbole need I become in this here Media manipulated/molded America, Marketing, Marketing, Marketing–it’s a cruel irony that we are ruled by what we used to refer to as Madison Avenue–MADmen, all,” Alice added.

“We have to stop being inane and ignorant and semi-literate and a-historical because those are what WE THE PEOPLE are being, turning into state serving Publicans–the Public versus the People has been a contest set by the Media for the State. Oh, and by the way–I do want to piss on the Patriot Act,” Alice Buconiglio said. Yes, Alice Buconiglio.

“Trump won’t know how to do what he imagines he wants to get done? Remember. Obama’s biggest problem was his entire absence of CACHE coming into office. No one owed him anything. People owe Trump even less; it’s not exactly money that is not the first or the last or the everything of anyone’s cache in Washington. We are not talking about Monied Elites or Power Elites or power, influence or authority in matters or manners of State when we talk about Trump’s money. Trump is a small dog in this kennel or pack. As Obama owed everybody else, so does Trump––the difference we feel is that Trump does not know how to pay back what he owes––he does not have that track record. When Trump is lambasted for his crudeness, his rudeness, his imbecility by print and broadcast media, it is primarily because Trump does not know how to play along with the bigger dogs. He lacks all Presidentialness, which too many find refreshing, but it is hardly efficient or effective in battling special interests . . . although he is as he has been working hard at trying to please the alpha dogs, or those he sees as the alpha dogs. The only respite from Trump will come from a collective understanding by Power and Money and agents of the State Apparatus that Trump is a liability for all concerned. Roosevelt was tolerated politically (which is not to suggest grand conspiracies or direct manipulation of strings) because what he was offering was a way to assuage the populous and get them to go along with being a great social en masse, a Public receiving Public Assistance; all with little cost to Power and Money, real Power and real Money, and by real money, I do not mean Blankfein or other CEOS on Wall Street who are the managers of the Money the Monied elite control.”

“When any virtual political nobody has the banks behind him as Obama did in 08 and 12, you know he has to deliver favors if he ever wants to do anything he thinks he wants to do when listening to the better angels of his nature,” she said. “Does anyone recall the CEO of Citicorp delivering his cabinet suggestions on a piece of paper to Obama, not even hidden behind closed doors, but in view of too many witnesses ever to keep it in the shadows!”

“I would rather be happy than right, but this here political quagmire makes me right when for 25 years I have been saying that without the Soviet Union, with the Democratic Party shift to the right of eternal center, with the way we educate, with our contempo-centrist views of history to the point of becoming a-historical, with the decline in literacy and a multi-culturalism meant only to become costume for American Bourgeois Capitalist, we were headed for being in a deep river of shit with only our hands for paddles,” Alice said.

“Now, I will hopefully unleash the same fury on Trump, only more so?”

As I say too because I like him so, so, so much less than I actually liked Obama. Charisma is worth something; smooth oratory is worth a lot; being able to lie better than the other guy was something as young men in bars with beers in our hands we respected . . . for some reason I pretend is vague.

Written by jvr

April 8, 2019 at 10:24 am

WOMAN IS

leave a comment »

Deus Est, or, in other words, God is, a proclamation made by Aquinas at the head of his assertion that to give attribute to God subtracts from God; that is, the idea of God must be given no attributes because in itself to give attributes is a subtraction from anything as pure in His actuality as God is. I remember Aquinas’s Deus Est from medieval philosophy when I was an undergraduate. This idea of Aquinas hinges on the dichotomy of actuality and potentiality which he gets from Aristotle. Aquinas refers to God as that Being of whom no part is potential or in potentiality. God is the Being for whom all is actual, he exists as pure actuality.  

I have assumed that when we want to do for other notions what Aquinas assumed for his discussion of God, we could use like syntax. Again, Aquinas was asserting the pure actuality of God, a being for whom there was no potential. Humans are beings of potentiality, but this arithmetic advantage is not a metaphysical one. To give attribute to God would subtract from God, at least rhetorically. Actually being able to subtract from God was and is impossible for mere mortals to do, but I understood what Aquinas was saying. We do the same when we give attributes to a woman, though, listing and labeling as we do to ourselves and others everywhere by saying this or that is what the person is. We are always going to be bound by potentiality, and unless we become God, we will not be in a state of pure actuality. However, the notions of one’s being and one’s becoming are at our command herein: when talking of woman as pure being, whole being, we say she is, a woman is. This is here being in itself being or being in herself to be.

To give attributes to her by saying she is this or that or X or Y or Z is to subtract from this being she is in herself to be. Now stages of becoming are always bound by attributes. To become something or someone even is to be marked and marred by attributes. Nonetheless, we miss the individual perpetually, daily, hourly, minute by minute every time we assert what or who a person is, yes, that is, a person in herself a person. And yes, what I assert herein for woman is also true for any person, man or woman. It is a necessity that we develop a feminology to move toward articulating a woman’s humanology. 

If I were to speak of Women with the word ‘Woman,’ that is, not in the plural but in the rhetorically more advantageous singular, although an assumed collective, I could assert my thesis like Aquinas, Woman is. This notion of woman, any woman, as all women, as also a sum greater than any of her parts, that is, attributes we may observe or ascribe, I do take to be self-evident  that is, undeniable. So, herein let it be said that to give attribute to Woman (whether that be the woman who is all women, she is they, as I am we, any I being we, you also being many, yet one) would rhetorically subtract from Woman. Yes, Woman is. This is first, this is last, this is all.

We use the pronoun ‘she,’ but then, what is contained in this she? We say she is a woman, she is a mother, she is intelligent, she is an alcoholic, she is pretty, she is articulate, educated, affluent or poor or neither; she is thin, she is active, she is lazy, she is fat, she is generous, she is tall, she is soulful, kind, compassionate, apathetic, disinterested, aloof; moreover, we can string any number of subject complements following she is. The string would stretch as far as infinity.

A valid question concerning reference and the limits of not only what is sayable, but what is said when said arises. The necessity for knowing what she is in order to say anything at all about her is not as great as knowing who she is, and this is for reasons greater than who is for persons and what is for things. The who we speak is beyond name or title, Mary, Doctor Spencer.

So many of the things we do, the actions we engage, make up who we are; however, these things are interrogatively expressed with ‘what,’ so the who of them is not directly relevant.

A woman is a being of potentiality as every human being is a being of potentiality; yet she does so many things in her life, which one of the many, including the unseen, the unknown, the unconscious, the forgotten, the latent, the closeted (and we have many opportunities to closet our being, what we might want to call nature, irrespective of sexuality or gender identity). We examine what she actualizes, what she realizes in her living; but does this tell us all that we need to know. Is it not true for every person that he or she is totality, an accumulation of summation that  no other can add.

How much of her life is defined by her living, though? We must also recognize that we could continue this, when, where, why, how is she and so on perpetually. All the subject complements we could string after she is, attaching one attribute after another, may bring us no closer to who she is, than following the path of infinite regression would bring us closer to God, or in this Aristotelian’s logic, the Prime Mover. The infinite is unreachable; infinity is the uncountable number. Lists of attributes bring us no closer to understanding a person than if we did not consider the person at all. This is why my answer to “Why do you love her?” has always been, “I have no idea. I just do.”

Woman is and in her is she exists apart from all notions of what she is and who she is. We rhetorically subtract from the presentation or representation of a person, which leads us into confusions about the person, about the woman, any time we attempt to define them this way, with more and more subject complements. And I refer to rhetoric here because we cannot metaphysically subtract from a woman–yes, we do perform this rhetorical arithmetic on a woman and think we are acting rightfully, normally, humanely. And I stress humanely here as the first and last in being human; without this humane treatment of others, there is no being human; if allowed, our humanity suffers an assault. I suggest that feminists have been doing the like in counterpoint to real and imagined patriarchal constructions of woman, from whatever contemporaneity or historical continuum might be used as frame, lens, prism.

To be a woman or not to be a woman; becoming a woman is what she might be in face of her being one. Each woman is actually herself greater than herself as a woman. She is macrocosmic to the microcosm of her womanhood. This is what we need to understand in order to respect her as anything, anywhere at any time, but most assuredly in total as she is, yes, she is, nothing more or less or other or in addition or subtraction or division.

A woman is is the first and last step in her humanity. This is the humane approach.

Written by jvr

April 5, 2019 at 10:27 am

SUSPENSION OF DISBELIEF

leave a comment »

 

The President swears an oath to protect the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. The people are domestic, therefore always potential enemies. Enemy is a foreign state, both meanings herein applicable. The people are domestic and foreign at once, doubly suspicious. The President, in his sworn oath to protect and defend the Constitution, must look at all citizens as potential enemies of the Constitution. Of course not nearly to the degree our contemporary Supreme Court has been, a lot more this time around than at any other in the last fifty years or so.

The Chief Executive is the Chief Enforcer of the Law making him the Chief Cop. You and I are not innocent in the potential we have to become enemies of the State, of the Law. Suspicion must rule some of his sense of order the President must keep. Don’t forget that outside the Democratic National Convention in 1968 was about order; Kent State was about order, beating up on Occupy Wall Street demonstrators has also been about order.

The Presidents notions of order may be mediated individually, but they are also formed by the protocols of the Office itself. And police are in the market of suspicion. They must always look with suspicion, or at least with a unique suspension of disbelief. They must always suspend disbelief in a persons guilt. The possibility of guilt must always loom.  There are always grades of suspicion, good and bad suspects determined by how much a person fits the motive and ability to have committed the crime. Unless some evidence countermands all clues pointing toward the possibility of guilt, any belief in a suspects innocence must be questioned. This is the nature of police work.

Mencken reminded us about a century ago, a police officer is given a truncheon for only one reason; police today, in any capacity, are given guns for no other reason but to use them. Whenever police officers shoot at people we should not ask why they have done so, but why they do not do so more often. It is a wonder that more of the people are not shot by the police. Nonetheless, the people would always need some threat to relinquish the will to be at liberty, to transform from being one of the people to being a publican, a full member of the public who serves, the State, who defers his humanity as one of the people for a more lucrative role as one of the public, always less than a person. Do not forget that the president is the chief cop of America. He is no less a cop than Bull Connor was a cop in Selma.

Innocence in America is a presumption, the latter never a good thing. Not-guilty always carries some of its presumed opposite, guilty. Not guilty cannot be defined except  as contingent with guilt.

 

Written by jvr

April 3, 2019 at 11:50 am

Grand Conspiracies, There are None

leave a comment »

When it rains in your dream it is not exactly raining as rain does when it rains in a place in the world. Rain in a film has another meaning. Now dreams are not fantasies, although fantasies have been called waking dreams. As dreams are not literal; fantasies also have nothing to do with wishes, especially in the way wishes become something of desire when the wish is wished in earnest. What will be, will be? What we want and what we fantasize are not one and the same thing; I’ve known this since I cannot recall when I first became aware of the difference.

I do know that too much of print and broadcast media in America is meant to serve a propoganda function for the Power and Money Elites, particularly derivative of how tied the media elite are to both Power and Money in America; and this propaganda function is not an indication of the fakeness of news, but just the opposite. No well functioning propoganda organ of the State can be fake in the ways the media have been called fake by the imbecile in the Oval Office, which is something that most New Yorkers have known for decades . . . but this fake President has become a convenient straw dog for too many contemporary Democrats and other American liberals to deflect from the grotesque fact that they are either latent or closet conservatives.

Even someone whose book is as well written and articulate as Kakutani’s remains only a great source of neo-liberal propaganda in service of the former Status Quo, supporting the Power and Monied Elites in their efforts to continue the truly totalitarian re-structuring of American Bourgeois Capitalism. She is as dangerous as those she helps keeping the shadows, but one whose book should be on every shelf. It’s too easy–maybe even too effete–to use Orwell to critique old line totalitarianism, the formation  and dissemination of propaganda by totalitarian regimes (like Bolshevik Russia/the Soviet Union or Nazis Germany, but not Mussolini’s Italy or Franco’s Spain [and for reasons I will iterate at another time, in another place, with other words . . .]), without turning the critique onto Western Democracies, as Orwell had.

But then, Kakutani’s focus on Trump and her far too sweeping over-generalized explication of how we have come to the period of Trump and his assault on Truth and what is true [both are not the same things], is an effort to reassert support for the closet conservtism of Bill, Hilary and Obama, the latter having more in common with Reagan than anyone will want to see . . . yes, Democrats are virtually all of them closet conservatives when they are not latent conservatives . . . so of course the Republicans were going to leap off of a cliff of Reactionary lunacy . . . unless the goal was for them both to meet in a blissful middle which for America will always be somewhere right of center?

Kaskutani could have turned her critique of the loss of Truth, the metaphysics and epistemology of Truth, onto the Democrats, or the potential of or the seemingly near attainment of Oligarchic rule of America by Monied elites become the Power Elite . . . but she did not. She turns again and again her focus on the historical facts, analyses and interpretations back onto explicating Trump, avoiding anything that might bespeak of trenchant observations about Democrats, about Hilary’s connections to wealth or her and Obama’s bitch status with Wall Street Pimps . . . and the top 0.1% of the income/wealth strata only control 20% of the Nation’s wealth. It is the next 9.9% who control  in themselves, 60% of the nation’s wealth. So, then . . . we will always address the symptoms of disease, the symptoms of cancer, the symptoms of collective psychosis or neurosis without ever getting to the causes. Leave the system alone––and Roosevelt managed that in a way that neoliberals like Clinton, Blair, Bush II and Obama, along with Hilary and her oily slick husband Bill never were, have not been, will not ever be.

Of course, we can only imagine a controlled population in other societies, not in our own, no never in America–and no matter how vehemently we might persist in this belief, this leap-off-a-cliff of faith becomes yet another fact we add to the many facts we make, and we do make these things we call facts, facts and more facts. Of course, give us nothing but facts, just the facts every police in every police state want and want alone, just the facts, the unadulterated facts . . . the purity of something factory made  . . . another received idea that becomes a current political dogma, one that, in its animation, has turned to bite US in the ass.

State management, manipulation, coordination, effort, design is elsewhere, State control cannot be here, in this Democratic America. Free and brave enough to move straight away into the abyss of State managed America; but then we have been equating Capitalism with Democrac y and freedom for so long, how could our freedom and democracy not become State Totalitarian Bourgeois Capitalist?

In Democracies, the People always vote for their loss of liberty. No consensus had ever been garnered in the Russia that became the Soviet Union because it was not the practice. The Nazis, on the other hand . . . theirs was a different maneuvering.

The carnivore’s teeth are embedded with the force of a wild beast’s jaws, a beast we cannot fathom because that bast is all too human when not being wholly Homo-Sapiens, not exactly the same things, the two of them being bitten straight through our collective anus. State administrators and politicians are preoccupied with your asshole, every one of them a closet proctologist inservice of the State when not just the government.

I am assuming that if we still can talk about the body politic when speaking about US (the U.S.) collectively socio-politically, then we can refer to the parts of that body as part of what we feel collectively, what we experience as a society, and that is what it might be that does affect US all. So then, right there in our socio-political shit-hole are the teeth of this dogma, again animated, our Political Anima or Animus, we could say, as all our beliefs have both the potential and a randomly measured actualization for the investment of spirit–some of us still speak of the Spirit of the times, the spirit of history, the spirit of the People?

Part of the media’s manipulation of democracy–and that would entail just how democracy is defined and articulated in/through/by various media, as well as handled by the government, understood and utilized by the People in their interpersonal endeavors, their endeavors with government and its bureaucracy–yes, part of all of these is the Hollywood-like expertise at presenting sets of images that amount to some meaning . . . yes, how the media use this Hollywood like precision and expertise to present a new fiction of democracy to the people who are by now full-fledged members of the Public is not what the Oval Office Imbecile means by calling all news Fake News . . .

Trump is actually combatting the idea that mainstream media, print, broadcast and even social, serve a propaganda function by helping to keep Power and Money in the shadows; and this would best be served by not lying all the time, by providing genuine journalism some of the time, and only partly lying enough of the time, when deflecting would ensure credibility and be less likely to be seen (that is understood for what it is . . .) never lie all the time. That’s not propaganda. A propaganda function the media does serve, and it deserves this best by not being fake. Trump’s success will be our having been dissuaded that print and broadcast news serve a propaganda function, will be how we dis-understand our position in society, what the function of government has been and is and will remain, just what the State is and what the State apparatus does; particularly what the limits of that State Apparatus are, and how institutions of Power, Influence and Authority coalesce in like values, or like interests in a field of common values.

Yes, the Public and the People are two quite distinct social entities; the People and the Public having a mutually exclusive relationship to the State.  Now Media manipulation makes of our news anything but fake; propaganda, here and there, now and then, sometimes more overtly disseminated, other times, sprinkled like salt or pepper; however, moreover, none the less . . . our Media, particularly print and broadcast, serve a propaganda function for the Power Elites and the Monied Elites by speaking the truth beside the point . . . but then this should not be a surprise, or is it?

Centurions and Priests of the Temple participating in crucifying Freedom and Democracy. Hyperbole herein calculated. States have served only the public good; what is good for the Public though might not be good for the People. States want everyone to join in Public works. Yes, all for the Public Good–this is true, but never really the good of the People. From the time of Kennedy, the Oval Office has been quite adamant in sustaining the idea that we should not ask what our country can do for us because it no longer intends to maintain its responsibilities to the people. We should only ask what we can do for our country because a state serving people as a public goes much further in servicing the needs of the few, the needs of the elite while appearing to serve the public good, although less and less.

This is the given; it is not going to disappear, nor are states or governments or politicians ever going to relent, not without pressure from the People, We the People of the United States . . . a More Perfect Union . . . But with master demagogues from the Oval Office–and Trump is not a master demagogue–or is he? With these demagogues selling the idea that we should sacrifice, when bankers do not, that we should look to serve when those presumably elected to public service only serve the monied and power elites of our society and other societies before drawing on some semblance of responsibility to the People, we will lose whatever remains of Jefferson’s We the People, yes capital ‘P.’  Another kind of Master demagogue this Baron Von Trumpeter of his own horning in on the spoils of the Monied Elite whom he was never really a part of or a player among . . . he desperately wants to join.

The public, again, is the people in service of the state, a people who disinvest their weight as the people for the more state-buoyant public. The People are the only institution that could counter balance the weight of the state–that has that potential, but only if . . . if what? I ask, but I know and because I know I am suspect by even those who agree with my vision? my position? my arguments of and for the People? When that People we We are, who We need to be, who We need to remain becomes only a state serving public, our weight is thus added to the State against the People in counter leverage.

The management of numbers and how agents of the state imagine the numerals that are tossed about in discussions of state while managing the state . . . these may vary from age to age, from government body to government body, but numerical value you and I have always had, in fact, this is the only value you or I have ever had for any state, in the minds of those who service the state in the most functionary way–the functionaries, the bureaucrats.

A public before the people is always in the interests of the state. The state is not your friend or family, even then, it might not be the best for you. Cain was Abel’s brother, Absalom, David’s son, and so on, you understand what I mean. You are a numerical variable because you have always been one in the marketing of politics–not even politics itself. The marketplace of political need and demand are one thing; what we have is the marketing of candidates, the marketing of issues, the creation of issues by marketing. To repeat: the organic marketplace of the People’s needs is one thing, marketing issues and candidates and needs is quite another. Marketing is an artificial creation of market. Each of us becomes an enemy of the People the moment we abdicate our responsibility to We the People for what we might imagine is a more lucrative role as a State serving Public, at least in a situation where crumbs from the table of State are served to we the dogs of State. And we wonder why we have become so bitchy, men as well as women.

Most states are the mortal enemy of all that is good in the individual human soul (and yes, I have not allowed the non-locatableness of soul to cause me to disbelieve in it). No government management of the state is friendly to people. The people as an amalgamation of individuals is never in the state’s interest; the state sees best the management of the people in a manner best understood by cattle farmers. Yes, cattle farmers do not abuse their cattle, even when they are leading them to slaughter.

A population that can read is not a population that is easily controlled. States only ever want control. A population that reads and reads well, other than the organs of State Propaganda, as in most of our media too much of the time, cannot be easily transformed into a state guided and supported public. States are not interested in people, really; never have been. States form truth in a special tautology: the state is the state of the state for the state by the state to which the state stands will only ever withstand in itself the state. The Media in America is meant to keep Power in the shadows, primarily; secondarily its job is to disseminate information, that in itself all about keeping order.

What say You, if this were a short fictional diatribe against the Power and Monied Elites represented first and fore mostly and certainly lastly by one President after another and another and another until the last syllable of recorded democracy . . . while all our yesteryear liberties have gathered dust among the ruins of our freedom? No? Yes? Maybe? What next? Yet instead, an essay . . . to essay or not to essay would then be a question, if not the question. What then shall I say to you my hypocrite brothers and sisters? Readers we are not, no longer critically minded deeply enough to handle an adequate defense of democracy against those who would abuse it, those who would dismantle it, and those who would destroy the economic stability of too many Americans, too many in the name of the advance of new technologies, presumably intended to save us from ourselves, make our lives more connected, yet only to the sources of State control, all the while disconnecting us from ourselves and any others in a meaningful way, isolating each of us, turning each of us into a solipsist and an Idiot . .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Written by jvr

April 1, 2019 at 10:03 am

%d bloggers like this: