Some more Punditry with Your Coffee

The manifesto of mass murderer in SC was thankfully short enough to read in one sitting. Adam Kokesh wrote a whole book basically saying “We need to take responsibility for our own freedom.” And then justifying it with proof that responsibility is "good" and the government hinders our self-governing abilities. And he did a horrible job at demonstrating anything other than his own narcissism as he used the plural “we” throughout the book, never used the pronoun “I” and then signed the book with only his name. So, who the fuck is the “we” you were referring to? Why aren’t “their” names on the manifesto? Bizarre.

Well, the latest manifesto isn’t signed but comes across as a “My 10th Grade Summer Vacation Race War”.

This is serious and here I am trying to be funny. What kind of asshole makes fun of this? The Oggy kind.

Well, it gets at the heart of many of my other essays/manifestos. The redacted syllogism is like this:

1)     Punditry is poisonous.

2)     Poisonous punditry is endemic

3)     Endemic poisonous punditry will lead to civil war.

4)     A free society is not possible with corrupt media filled with pundits.

5)     Punditry must end.

6)     Punditry will end if I REDACTED and wwww until they all dddddd.

It’s not a complicated manifesto. In the past, I’ve attempted to draw these conclusions out to meet the word count my internal editor asks for, but it doesn’t need defense.

Now we have the latest in real-life demonstrations that punditry is simply antagonistic media intended to incite violence and will accomplish that goal. A guy selling cigarettes* gets choked to death by the cops, but a guy who murdered 9 people gets a take out meal from Burger King...because he was hungry and asked for some food. wow. The US has drone attacked people for doing nothing more than publishing antagonistic media intended to incite violence. But it has not attacked Americans for doing the exact same thing. We’re basically saying that to live in a world full of hateful antagonistic media we will tolerate occasional mass murderers. Really we’re saying that to ban antagonistic media we might accidentally ban some sincere criticism of oppression. Oh, boo fucking hoo. It’s the same argument that protects reckless torture porn: we wouldn’t want to infringe on anyone’s right to paint nude portraits by banning fist fucking videos! Right, like that makes any sense. The intractability of the war between Puritanism and Liberalism is really interesting. I have to admit that with age the complexities get more defined until I conclude a resolution is impossible. There will only be a cycle from one extreme to the other over history and neither extreme is perfect and a compromise will never satisfy the extremists. There is no solution to this problem. But it’s bizarre because the attack on civil rights of homeless people is precisely the opposite of protecting the masses. Homeless are treated like dirt in the name of protecting consumers, the extremes are absolutely persecuted and hunted like diseased rats in order to protect the elite. But when it comes to torture porn this is protected in favor of allowing all forms of art. This contradiction is obviously the work of the corrupt power elite.

I don’t want to place all the blame on Conservatives because it takes two to tangle. What I see is basically an action/reaction cycle that started so long ago that no one is responsible anymore. The hate is literally self-sustaining now. Right Wing media reports on Left Wing Media reports about Right Wing Media. You see? This, I feel, is the product of children of my parent’s generation having children when there was no fucking reason to have children, then getting divorced because they actually hated each other from the beginning, and their kids now are filled with resentment at an unloving world. Or maybe that’s just me. Hahaha! Seriously, the working class of today are basically my age and I know from experience that this generation is drunk, stoned, grew up with The Simpsons, don’t know shit, totally isolated and blighted world view, their public school experience was watching Young Guns over and over in History class. I remember listening to the journalist class in High School and recognizing deception even at age 16. The kids were being taught to deceive, to manipulate, to create news when there was none. What fuckhead Journalist teacher taught modern news anchors to lower their sweater neck so I can see their tit cleavage? WHO THE FUCK TAUGHT THAT? So, we have media reporting on media reports…. “CNN reports that MSNBC has reported that FOX has reported an anonymous source from Al Jazeera might take a shit sometime this afternoon.” What the fuck kind of reporting is that? I ask you? Are you not entertained? The internet created a generation of pundits and by pointing that sad fact out I actually become a pundit who is no better than the lowliest race war shill. And I break my rule of being a pundit for exactly the same reason that all pundits enter the ring: because they find the status quo intolerable. So it is pundit against pundit and the war will be won not by sanity or logic, but by the person with the highest click count, the lowest sweater neck, the most free giveaways.

Pundits are defined by a desire to radicalize, influence, incite, anger, emotionally terrorize, spread lies, deception. Even I will stoop to all of these strategies if I think it will make a difference in the life of the Arctic Wolf. I will lie, I will deceive, I will incite. Why not? When the bare truth inspires you to immediately click over to the latest cheerleader porn video then what the fuck can I do? The unadorned truth will instantly be ignored while Fox News anchors with their cleavage hanging out like post-partum Beagle bitches in heat draws millions as they pour the poison into your brains.

I’ve written Manifestos like the one this mass murderer wrote. No, I don’t have a problem with races because the race pundits didn’t poison my mind, but I’ve reached conclusions about the media that are final and every day is a struggle to convince myself that my solution will not solve anything. “It takes an army to beat an army” I tell myself. And the only army in a bleak naked whorehouse will be the one that speaks with the dollar. Economic embargoes, boycotts, walk-outs. These will work to change the status quo, I tell myself. But a part of me, and probably a part of everyone, thinks in polarized terms of a man against the world, only I have the answer, only I can stop the flood of poison into the brains of children. Is this true?

Well, the only value a mass murder can have is by exposing the mechanics of genocide. This ought not be required since we have ample evidence of exactly how radicalization is accomplished and have taken steps to eliminate it in other countries, but the final step is killing that sacred cow “free speech” and recognizing that when you protect speech that is intended to incite violence then you are protecting the mechanics of genocide. The 1^st Amendment has been wrapped in velvet flag for too long and it’s a complete disgrace to the memory of James Madison. No chance in the world he would protect some of the hateful speech that is currently en vogue. He would be horrified to learn that his own words are now used to allow the persecution and emotional terrorizing of peacefully devout American citizens. He would be horrified that the 1^st Amendment is being used to protect speech advocating race wars. I do think this worldview is too evolved for mankind today. And I think steps to eradicate punditry are also futile. The consumer class is the true dominant race and it’s going to destroy the planet. Race wars concerning skin color are pathetically archaic. Talk of such things is in the realm of flat-earth and asbestos insulation. They are futile and merely a symptom of the larger problem of protected hate-speech. As long as you don’t plan to commit mass murder then you can write countless manifestos advocating mass murder and the 1^st amendment will protect your right to do so. If someone else commits the mass murder after reading your manifesto then you are blameless in the eyes of the law. This is indefensible. We’re simply doomed from a depletion of natural resources and climate catastrophe no matter what steps we take. Everything else is basically unenlightened metaphysical projection, stabbing at the shadows of inept parents who didn’t love each other. Yes, he wants his murderous rampage to be about something bigger, and his manifesto basically is his own attempt to convince himself that he’s doing something important and bigger than his own wounded inner child, but I don’t pin martyr status on people so casually. You have to earn that title and this punk did no such thing. He is lashing out at a lot of things and he uses a lot of big words but his arguments are paper thin rhetoric and justify nothing so that makes me wonder what was really behind his hate. Behind it all is a kid who overdosed on pundit poison and had no method of balancing out the rage that it was intended to evoke. Pundits want to incite violence but they mostly incite rage and discontentment. Most people are satisfied with a burning hatred that is never brought to fruition. The emotional response is a classic Orwellian “5 Minute Hate”, but Orwell suggests Winston didn’t like that ceremony, while I think there is ample evidence that people first resist it, then seek it out, and then need it because of the raw emotion it inspires in a bleak and emotionally inauthentic world. All our emotions are manipulated from instagram photo auto-color filter editing to Rock Star poses to movies with tear-jerking tropes and songs about fucking the slut with the big tits. We know it’s unhealthy, but the method of delivering hateful rhetoric has been polished with the gnashing spit of a million petty pundits until it’s a gleaming gem of spiteful shit-stirring. This is the era of the polished pundit and it’s reached code red status but it’s considered protected speech.

While I don’t think this mass murder could be blamed on pundits, since the underlying psychology is rage at an ineffective society, I also think no healthy society will tolerate pundits whose opening monologue includes the phrase “Reporting to you from Occupied America…this is Dickwad Joe.”

So, what can be done about this army of rhetoric chefs? The radicalized part of me feels they should should and ggggggg with their dddddd above their ddddddd, but would that really solve the problem? The Liberal in me says that strict regulations of internet content (hah!) and talk shows and radio programs needs to begin in earnest. Protected free speech is a sacred cow that needs to be slaughtered before it brings the whole herd down in flames. And the Conservetard in me think that will simply not be effective in a country of 300 Million people and an internet community that is global and unregulated, not to mention the secretive web that I can’t bring myself to investigate out of fear that there is something more twisted than cosplay porn and Sean Hannity pundit porn. So the only option is effective, engaged, responsible parenting. And that’s outside the realm of any government so maybe Kokesh has a point;  as long as Government tries to be the surrogate parent then the real parents will have their responsibility hindered. So the elimination of government is the first step to enabling everyone to take complete responsibility for their actions and to teach their kids better thinking. Obviously there has to be a break down in some social network if completely normal kids are being radicalized to try to start a race war and single handedly kill more people than Manson’s whole clan did in 1969 during their own failed Helter Skelter attempt. It’s fucked up beyond all recognition and I suspect in 1937 many many French, British and Americans tried to ignore the reports coming out of Central Europe, “Persecution, Ghettos, unlawful executions…blah blah…” it was ugly to confront, far away, too messy, another country’s problem, not our concern. What can be done? The world is thus, is it not? Are you not entertained?

But I know that thus have we made the world and thus can the world be unmade. The how is a different story but the time is coming when either we will have civil war or we will collectively choose a different path.

*I have to ask exactly what it means to sell 'untaxed cigarettes'. how is the cigarette untaxed? Didn't Garner buy the cigs at a discount, but paid tax, and now he's reselling the cigarettes without tax. so he's selling a used item. don't ask me why someone would buy a used cigarette but it happens all the time in Central America. But my point is that the tax has already been paid for the cigarette and now Garner is selling them without a second tax applied. At some point an item isn't taxed. If I resell a bicycle the new owner doesn't pay taxes, because I already paid them when I bought it new. I guess it's too complicated for my gypsy brain.