Tuesday, February 28, 2017

The Manufacture of Consent and emotionality

First off, I will repeat that all Leftists memes directed at the right need to make a U-turn and point back at them.  If Noam Chomsky accuse the Right of it, he is guilty of it.  He may as well talk about the Manufacture of Reality, because that is his main preoccupation: creating atrocities where they do not exist, and vanishing those which do exist, but do not fit his narrative.

Secondly, anyone who cannot process emotion, who cannot or does not allow it to flow freely, is governed by little else.  The most rigid, ideologically driven people you know, the "analysts", the "logical" people: they are deep wells of emotion.  This is what makes them rigid.  Free e-motion allows free motion.

And allowing feelings to flow does not mean that one is feeling all the time.  One is sensing and perceiving all the time.  One is awake, alert and alive.  I go up and I go down, and it is all interesting.  An ocean, on balance, is level, even if no part of it is level at any time.

Third, the point I wanted to make, is that our media exists to create an illusion of consensus and reality.  They historically have been able, themselves, to shout and scream about a politician or a policy, throw some trained and paid or brainwashed activists in the streets, and create the sense among the people consuming their media that everybody thinks a certain way, that they represent the mainstream.

But to state the obvious, whatever is happening, wherever it is happening, chances are quite good you are not there. You are getting your news, at best, second hand, and those hands have long felt it their right and duty not to report what happened, but to carefully sculpt a reality which supports their political ideology.

Thus to say newscasters exist to "report the news" is farcical.  In the main, they exist to CREATE the news.  They exist to ignore stories which do not support their narrative--choosing what to cover is the first part of their filtering process--and then to spin whatever stories they do cover in disingenuous and unethical ways.

Banning CNN or the New York Times is not to ban them from reporting the news.  It is to recognize that they abandoned any serious efforts at journalistic integrity long ago.  What is anti-democratic is a free press which supports the agenda of the continued erosion of ACTUAL civil liberties, which supports the on-going vitiation of our Constitution, which supports politicians who further this agenda, which LIES to further all these goals.

I was wondering yesterday if the Left has the stamina to keep up this hyperventilating for four years. I  was very upset when Obama won, but even I was not calling for impeachment the first day.  That would have been ludicrous: he won the election after all, and had done nothing to warrant impeachment (although of course he later did, e.g. the IRS scandal or Fast and Furious, or the Bo Bergdahl swap).

But many Leftists continue to seem to feel there is a quick and easy "solution" (Endloesung) to the Trump question.  There isn't.  He is not impeachable.  There is no Russian connection. And even if Trump went down, somehow, Mike Pence is a very able and competent man who will continue implementing the same ideas.  The Democrats--and their media partners--LOST, bigly, and as Obama so snidely remarked, roughly, "elections have consequences".

No comments: