Last summer he told me about a weird encounter. During one of his “let’s help” projects a pair of American dudes from the midwest joined the team for a day. They kidded and kibbitzed with the larger group, but mostly committed to a back-and-forth with each other, extolling the virtues of the 45th POTUS, who according to their narrative was accomplishing one outlandish feat after another — feats that even Fox News wasn’t covering, never mind the MSM.
Dude 1 grinned at the godson. “We freakin’ you out yet?”
Godson: “Well, I’m just wondering: what do you make of 44?”
Dude 1: “Obama? Great for the gays!”
Dude 2: “Had to be, if he was going to get his own marriage legalized.”
Godson: “What are you talking about?”
Dudes 1&2: “Michelle’s a man!”
Godson: “... ... Wheeeere do you get this stuff?”
Dude 1: “Do the research, friend. Do the research.”
A part of me died when I heard this story, a part of me I did not know was still at that point alive. I realized then that we were collectively treading very deep and dark waters.
One year later I’d rather not meditate on what might have changed in that time.
The thing is, I believe in conspiracies. It’s just that I think the way conspiracies actually work is not through cunning (although a little goes a long way) but through adept on-the-fly improvisation. The Bezoses and Zuckerbergs and Gateses and Cooks and Pichais of this world are finally, for all their conceptual thinking, rapidly fluid responders. I won’t ever buy that they’ve initiated the COVID Crisis. But will they capitalize on it in potentially de-humanizing ways? That’s where the smart money is, you might say.
But none of those guys can capitalize on a chaotic situation quite like 45.
“Do the research.” Well, there’s research, and then there is actual research. I prefer the latter, though I am as lazy a sod as any. If this is the standard, I’d say I’m up for the second tier, but rarely the third, and never the first.
 |
| "Reception's bad... better in the theatre, maybe?" |
7 comments:
I’ve been sidestepping acquaintance with the QAnon thing all through the days of Trump, here. (Aren’t the screwball elements of ‘Christian worldview’ I have to contend with among my own relatively conspiracist-resistant family and friends already plenty sufficient basis for a depressive episode, when I want one?) Guess it’s as good a moment as any to let myself be nudged toward paying more attention to that particular dark corner, though.
Well, attention should be given lightly, I'd say. Even if you attend to the bullet-points you will already be dragged down the rabbit-hole. But LaFrance's Atlantic piece is right to point out how these conspiracies manage to communicate effectively to those who feel beleaguered and bedeviled by institutions seemingly set in opposition to their community's health. The unhappy irony is that suspicion is frequently the tie that binds for these groups.
Further: Kendzior's larger point is that "truth disruption" services best those willing to reach for absolute control. Which is why they -- subtly, and not so subtly -- encourage its proliferation.
The past couple months I've been getting really frustrated with how crazy my Facebook feed has become. It seems like half the people I know have lost their minds to these crazy right wing propaganda conspiracy theories.
And you can't reason with anybody nowadays. If you cite something they disagree with, they'll just tell you it has a leftwing bias. Snopes has a leftwing bias. Factcheck.org has a leftwing bias.
But what to do about it? How to regain sanity?
I used to love a good political debate back when I was 20, but I'm completely disillusioned with it now. I don't want to talk politics anymore. I just want to retreat into escapist entertainment.
I'm a bit worried that we on the left are the ones who opened the door to this whole thing--if you go far enough back that is--what with our Chomsky and telling people they couldn't believe what they read in mainstream media.
Well, one has to wonder if "regain sanity" is a societal option at this point. The best we can do is tend to our communities, I suppose, with great care.
As for Chomsky, I think there's some truth to your suggestion his project got co-opted. I'd amend your summary a bit though -- I think Chomsky wasn't telling people they couldn't believe what they read, but rather that they had to be careful in their reading of MSM material. Anyway, it's pretty much a moot point now.
Back in the day I had a couple of buddies who, at various times, worked for Ted Byfield at The Alberta Report. Byfield wasn't quite Alex Jones, but he was in Jones' end of the spectrum. Anyhoo, it was common for untried journos to cut their teeth under Byfield's tutelage, regardless of their political convictions. Byfield, I'm told, was amiable about hearing out their concerns about factuality, etc. But once they'd had their say, Byfield would shake his head sadly and say, "You don't understand: we're at war."
Byfield seems now to be a grandfatherly relic, but it seems to me the "we're at war" mindset is thoroughly ingrained into the mindsight of the right. It isn't about "conservatism" any more -- it is about winning until the other side declares unconditional surrender.
That ain't democracy.
Regarding Chomsky:
Yes, you're right. I was oversimplifying. A careful reading of Chomsky is that he was using the mainstream media to critique the mainstream media--e.g. Look at what the New York Times buried on page 30 compared to what they put on page 1.
I was oversimplifying because I believe his actual legacy has been to breed a distrust of the mainstream media.
I'm reminded of one of your previous posts--that Chomsky is no longer popular among young people because we've gotten to a point where it's no longer revolutionary. His message is just taken for granted nowadays.
Kids today were raised by 'rents like myself and my wife. God knows Chomsky was a nearly central figure to our way of thinking. But what did we know about the internet shaping childrens' consciousness? Once it became a matter of OBVIOUS fact that everyone had a "public voice," albeit one groomed by algorithms and many other unaccountable forces, it didn't matter what the MSM said or begged us all to believe. The meatballs who can't trust their own eyes to confirm that Michelle is NOT a man will lean on -- and generously share -- "research" that keeps their dopamine levels equivalent to their daily (sic) porn experience.
Post a Comment