Any information is always understood first of all according to the framing through which we see information.
So for example, any political information is understood primarily based on the framing, and these days the most common framing is a combination of two concepts:
- “personalization“, and
- “us versus them”
That is to say, any bit of political information, any point or counterpoint, on any topic, tends to be understood in terms of person A and person B, and, A versus B, rather than in terms of the meaning of the information, and the societal context within which the information matters.
American media perpetuates this framing, so thoroughly and so relentlessly that one can understand that media does this as if that’s its job.
So every bit of information, every story, every thing and every idea, these are all framed through the lens of “Trump” and “Clinton”, and “Clinton versus Trump”.
It should be easy to see already that even the possibility of meaning evaporates, because of this framing. So in a very real sense, the job of American media is to annihilate meaning. And this of course, annihilates humanity.
So I give here a couple of examples.
George Clooney is slated to star in a movie glamorizing The While Helmets http://theduran.com/george-clooney-comes-out-in-support-of-isis-al-qaeda-terrorist-organization-the-white-helmets-calls-them-heroes/
I shared this article on Facebook, complaining that this movie will exist, and yes, indeed sad that Clooney will star in it. Clooney’s a good actor. Put aside The Monuments Men, for which he was partly responsible, which surely nearly has to be the greatest pile of shit ever put to film, but nonetheless…
To this, someone replied,
“George is a movie actor, not a sage of the era. Get over it/”
Here’s my answer:
I’m not personalizing it. I never do. If Hollywood is going to glamorize Al Qaeda and US war of aggression and regime change by proxy, then it’s doing that for a reason. The reason is that Hollywood is the sage of an era. It operates that way, with purpose. Of course Hollywood operates through persona, through persons, actors. So to that extent it’s personalized. Actors act as the voice of the sage of an era. This sage is illegitimate. This era, illegitimate
The second example is the US war of aggression in Ukraine.
After years of planning and preparation, the United States implemented its coup d’etat in Ukraine, in February 2014. This shocked me at the time, because this goes way beyond anything that even Stanley Kubrick could have imagined in terms of American aggression even at the height of the Cold War. It should have shocked you too, and still should shock you. Here’s an analogy describing what it would look like to Americans if the tables were turned: https://dagsljus.wordpress.com/2017/04/24/philadelphia/
My shock and opposition to this American war policy dates to the day of the coup, in February 2014. My opposition to this American war, and opposition to the series of American wars in the middle east running through both Bush and both Obama administrations, and continuing now with Trump, has nothing to do with Donald Trump.
Donald Trump wasn’t even a candidate for political office in February, 2014. So his opinion on the US war in Ukraine, and his opinion on US demonization of Russia, if he as an opinion, has nothing to do with my opposition to these wars, nor does Trump have anything to do with the meaning of these war policies, nor with the human context within which these wars of choice and aggression exist.
Framing these wars in terms of personalities, Clinton or Trump, or as “Clinton versus Trump”, or as “Democratic Party versus Trump”, is infantile, and meaningless.
Your interest in the issues should predate your interest in any political persona or party.
Loyalty to Party and adherence to political “thought” as “personalization” and “us versus them” is the road to the annihilation of thought and meaning.
The Democratic Party, which I voted for in every election from 1986 through 2008, has since then transformed itself into a Party that’s more pro-war than Dick Cheney. I’m not following the Democratic Party down that road, and I couldn’t care less for any of its personalities. Likewise for the other Party.
My outspoken opposition to American wars predates Trump’s existence as a political figure by years. If Trump happens to say things that align with my anti-war views, good; he agrees with me sometimes, not the other way around.
It’s the ideas and the policies about which I form my views and my agreement or disagreement, not the personalities or the parties.
The personalities and the “us versus them” framing?
I couldn’t care less.