----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------
Hi Simon, a few comments interspersed below -
Dear <<empyreans>>,
Outside of (reacting with moral disgust or nausea) a reactive opposition,
what can be done to form and inform an active (political) nonopposition to
political powers which claim the right to be considered nonpolitical? and
which in so claiming are claimants to a constituency of the politically
exhausted (the Left)?
*/the opposition is already there on all sorts of grassroots levels; while
the press understandably concentrates on larger-scale mass-movements,
there are practices on a local leve that receive (local) attention -
student protests, local marches, sanctuary discussions and legislation,
and so forth; it's happening on the level of TAZ (temporary autonomous
zones) in a way I haven't seen before./*
Nietzsche had it that god died of pity; do we now try and raise her with
disgust?
A journalist commented on the Trumpulist derogation of news media that it
is part of a general strategy of delegitimation: unlike Europe, the US has
no experience of the fabrication of popular truths to support political
regimes.
*/This just isn't true; during the Vietnam war tne 'Pentagon' was
consistently lying, not only about actions, but also about body counts,
etc.; Fire in the Lake, I believe, has covered that in depth. We've had
our share of fake news all the way along - even the onslaught years ago by
the tobacco lobby.../*
Too readily to accept we live in a posttruth world is to accept also that
the delegitimation of news media is to some degree justified, that they
have justified this to some degree themselves--and even doing so in the
smallest degree, because of pluralist leanings, sociohistoricocultural
relativism, or economic realism, is a quiescence, if not acquiescence. In
other words, Trumpulist declarations of the falsity of fake news, even if
they are not believed, serve just as well, since they raise it as
plausibly possible: it is not us lying to you, but the others, the ones
cynically declaring for truth, who are the true liars. After all, we, the
winners, have nothing to gain, have nothing more to prove and have to
prove nothing more: the burden of proof is with the losers and the liars
in the media. And after all, Trump has no need for them--he has his own
media.
*/Absolutely, and this is the core of the problem; if Trump says X and
news says non-X, then both are seen as critique-in-opposition. A great
deal of this, I believe, has to do with the dismantling of the K-12 school
system in the U.S. which has resulted in literall most of the country
getting their daily news from right-wing radio, Rush Limbaugh at the top
of the heap. This is a complicated situation, but for most rural or
small-town Americans, the main news sources for the past thirty years have
been Fox and right-wing Net, yes, but in the car, the home, the story,
it's been a constant barrage from the extreme far right. I've noted how
Limbaugh among others has grow increasingly out-and-out racist and
strident, beginning with Obama. This is daily, this proceeds without
contradiction, this hammers home like Father Coughlin did in the 30s./*
Best,
Simon
Thanks!, Alan
_______________________________________________
empyre forum
empyre@lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au
http://empyre.library.cornell.edu
