20 Years Post Morality in the Age of Trump - Coming Soon to a Blog near you!
I probably will write soon something about my Morality: Individual and Social collection of short essays which I wrote almost 20 years ago near where I am now, though it was finished on Cape Cod about 8 months later. That work stressed how peoples notions of what is and is not immoral changes over time and it sometimes mentioned "20 years ago", or "20 years from now" in the text.
Seeing as now it is close to 20 years later after writing that, it seems a good time to list a few notions of how what people think about morality has changed since then. It is also almost 10 years since I wrote on TruthRevival.org about how notions of what is and isn't "politically correct" I saw as a greater threat to free speech and freedom in general than anyone on the left or right of the political spectrum could then imagine.
Now there is a great obviousness to how speech is being controlled by powerful interests, always as always, in the name of 'freedom' and 'protecting free speech.' I said in my Notes pages that I thought political propaganda was still in its infancy in comparison to where it may end up. Now it should be apparent to all despite what you think of President Trump, or who's news is fake and what is propaganda.
The common consensus if there ever is to be one, should be that the "news" has become ever more manipulative. It is not so unfamiliar to those who have studied dictatorships, totalitarian states, communist or fascist states, and Central and South American politics. In the latter examples, when those with economic power or the media's "owners" decide they don't like a current government, they are quite skilled at highly sophisticated propaganda non-stop until their political enemies are out of power.
Obama waved the prohibitions for the US citizens to be targeted by our own propaganda agencies or offices of our intelligence services. The obscuring of what is really going on, something our government as much as any other (and often more), has always done to some degree, has gone beyond something that those who studied such things can recognize. It is becoming in some respects plain to all, though camps of blame are well drawn as to who or what is causing it. Whereas in the past Fox News could be singled out as propaganda-like, now there are too many corporate news sites who have obscured the line between opinion and fact, and truth is quite purposely being ever more marginalized and subjective.
Our "Culture of Make Believe" (as Derrick Jensen called it in his 2002 book of the same name) is now having its most prominent news organizations reveling in providing whatever mindsets to its readers and viewers benefit their owners economically and suit their aims politically.
Interesting times indeed.
Seeing as now it is close to 20 years later after writing that, it seems a good time to list a few notions of how what people think about morality has changed since then. It is also almost 10 years since I wrote on TruthRevival.org about how notions of what is and isn't "politically correct" I saw as a greater threat to free speech and freedom in general than anyone on the left or right of the political spectrum could then imagine.
Where things stand today hopefully at best is to begin that necessary broad or broadest possible dialog for change which is more important or as important as any implemented or chosen changes. The dialog will need to be far more inclusive that what is or can be done, or even should be. All things and roads ought to be considered someday and in due time. And for a greater range than ever before, that time is increasingly right now.
As much as consensus is a good thing and necessary, I prefer to embrace also the right of people saying things I disagree with, even despise, than to simply safely swim in a stream of a world finally coming to it senses, hopefully. Both things are necessary to me. what people deride as political correctness is far more dangerous than either side, left or right, anarchist or neo-con, or those of most any political or philosophical stripes realize. Even good ideas and platforms I agree with get carried to extremes in the absence of any countervailing opposition, even wrongly-founded opposition, which prevents totalitarian-like nanny or police states replacing true freedom. What is beyond question to be thought to be right, without proper checks (and the best, most eloquent arguments possible in opposition to it) from those opinions that are greatly (even universally) thought to be wrong, devolves without being checked into a forced compliance and well-intended insanity, and complete devolution of freedom and an open society.
So neither will I try to overly praise what I think is good about the way the world is moving now nor simply knee-jerk take a devils advocate point of view (because of being used to being dissatisfied after many years of the trying and torturing hope), which is necessary to keep things moving at all or on course to a better future. Every step forward to be forward at all not only needs to be second guessed, but third, and fourth guessed, and more. The point above all is knowing that at the same time, steps MUST be undertaken and even seemingly trying to stand still means drifting toward some unknown or unintended direction. And such inertia will quickly lead toward multiple cliffs which will undermine or destroy the ability to take any necessary changes of direction at all.
Sunday, February 1, 2009
Truthrevival.org
. Now there is a great obviousness to how speech is being controlled by powerful interests, always as always, in the name of 'freedom' and 'protecting free speech.' I said in my Notes pages that I thought political propaganda was still in its infancy in comparison to where it may end up. Now it should be apparent to all despite what you think of President Trump, or who's news is fake and what is propaganda.
The common consensus if there ever is to be one, should be that the "news" has become ever more manipulative. It is not so unfamiliar to those who have studied dictatorships, totalitarian states, communist or fascist states, and Central and South American politics. In the latter examples, when those with economic power or the media's "owners" decide they don't like a current government, they are quite skilled at highly sophisticated propaganda non-stop until their political enemies are out of power.
Obama waved the prohibitions for the US citizens to be targeted by our own propaganda agencies or offices of our intelligence services. The obscuring of what is really going on, something our government as much as any other (and often more), has always done to some degree, has gone beyond something that those who studied such things can recognize. It is becoming in some respects plain to all, though camps of blame are well drawn as to who or what is causing it. Whereas in the past Fox News could be singled out as propaganda-like, now there are too many corporate news sites who have obscured the line between opinion and fact, and truth is quite purposely being ever more marginalized and subjective.
Our "Culture of Make Believe" (as Derrick Jensen called it in his 2002 book of the same name) is now having its most prominent news organizations reveling in providing whatever mindsets to its readers and viewers benefit their owners economically and suit their aims politically.
Interesting times indeed.
People in the West are allowed to be concerned about governments who control their medias. That is one of the few Soviet-styled controls of the population not adapted to the US in the last few years. They are NOT allowed to work against those who control the media from wanting to control the government and blinded by ideology and their own media's propaganda enough not to see that is not only just as bad, but potentially far worse.
Notes 2 - 2004
Tuesday, January 21, 2014
Truthrevival.org
Of any lead or highly ranked (top of the) news stories by major (news) services, I find only 20% or so of my interest is motivated by the "facts" presented, even when I believe them to have been attempted to be put forward without biases and prejudices, difficult to do and too rarely now (unslanted news) even attempted. At least twice as much or 40% of my interest is what effect this story will have on peoples' attitudes, actions, and beliefs as that is at least twice as important as the "news" itself. Equally as important as that, say the other 40% remaining of my interest is how and why that story was chosen to be considered of major or more emphasis than the thousands of other things equally as important that will be covered less or, as with most, not at all. What is it editorially, financially, politically, sociologically, or psychologically that says this is what people will think is important or want to be told about, or what those with the power to decide such things will decide to be placed in front of peoples' eyes to read, to hear about or to see. Those who see things in the news (hierarchy) in this manner can learn from it. Those who follow it (the news) without putting most of their attention on its effects on them and others, and who, how, or why it has been decided that that information should be told to many to inevitably wish to produce an effect by the telling, (those who) simply react to the news, they are simply sheep being lead around wherever anyone with the power to influence what the media decides to lead with or considers of more importance, wishes to take them.
Notes 3 - Early 2005
Tuesday, January 21, 2014
Truthrevival.org
. posted by Jared DuBois | 7:27 PM
