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]

Polemically Speaking [fiction]

. . . the not last angry man


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-Franco 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.



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.

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.


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.



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

September 9, 2017 at 9:51 am

%d bloggers like this: