A surviving monument.

It has all been said before.

 

This picture is of a monument dedicated to William Cooper, who in his lifetime achieved much. Please see his Wiki page, try typing in William Cooper Australian, and in contrast here is a link to a national Australian education page adb.anu.edu.au/biography/cooper-william-5773 . Interesting reading when doing a critical comparison, and one of many stimuli for this dairy entry.

 

(Musings from my diary.)

 

Despite my office 365-word processor giving me 100% editorial rating after correcting this writing, l recorrected my diary entry, so that it scores lower. I recorrected my dairy entry after rereading it, so it was more accurate. l think office 365-word is incredible, and l will admit that it did help me, but l needed to write my observations as untainted as possible… If that is at all achievable. This is not an argumentative essay, and office 365 had me talking in absolutes, defining a majority when I was discussing the influence of a minority over the majority. A personal consideration of current day hypocrisy and war.

Well, it is my diary!

Why is it so important to be apolitical when reporting on politics?

Personally, l feel that if a person reads the above question and does not know, they might have missed critically observing the last ten or so years of social division, and extremism, from both the right and left. Extremism that has cost lives and revealed ugly truths. I think as an Australian looking from geographical isolation at the world, everything might be a lot easier while viewing it all at a distance, and with hindsight. It leaves me a bit ignorant, but l think that helps with my objectivity.

Why did it happen? The causation was like a hydra, with multiple self-replicating heads, and it was like watching a social media battle between school children who had never been hurt in the real world. Not the type of hurt that you get when you metaphorically fall, skin your knee, and get back up, but the type you get when you enter a fight, get brutalised, and lose. Bones and tissue crushed by an opponent driven by a hatred so strong that they would injure you, another human being. Was it caused by people who had never learned that to enter a fight is to risk everything? That to fight is a last resort? This lack of political and social experience cost some their friends, loved ones, and others, members of their families. But it raised in me a question. Despite the efforts of the well-meaning, what did they achieve?

America the crucible for everything, descended into something that some would call near anarchy. Some on the left assumed both fascist and anarchist tendencies that go back to the 1930s, all the while not reading the social and political history of pre-World War Two Germany. That would have been militaristic and did not serve the narrative. A narrative produced to generate a political outcome. Could they have committed the errors of the past if they had read it? Given to wide a birth, media extremists influenced millions with emotive prompting. On the other hand, some on the right looking for relief from the relentless onslaught, sold out. Losing patience, self-fortitude, and political integrity. They reduced the work of their group’s past into a parody. Debasing the history of men and woman who had really made a positive impact. Like two spoilt children in the new education system, no one could suggest or admit that they had done wrong, while the media produced single sided political narratives, but in general did not report.

Political moderates and swinging voters pondered when it would end, while living in perpetual despair. Watching a school yard fight that had descended into a riot, one that involved the media as a cheer squad for two opposing sides. The radicalized media would not allow moderates to be objective, you had to be either a right-wing neo fascist or a left-wing neo fascist, with the spectre of your personal anarchy to drive your decision. You had to take a side. The mainstream media had descended into a form of politically opportunistic rhetoric, as if it had learnt the lessons of the sixties, but this time, it was not a foreign war, it was a form of civil war at home. One thankfully that lacked major armed war fare. Thankfully, the military were not involved. All credit due, but it left western law prostrate. The law could not be consensually blind. It was not a peaceful protest, people did not thread flowers down barrels of guns pointed at them in acts of peace, and monks did not self-immolate, producing images that moved millions to peace. Some asking for peace and equality, did the opposite, mostly peaceful protestors tried to immolate others. They tried repeatedly to incinerate living humans. It was shocking. The sixties saw the west implement peaceful protest, and we all saw how effective it was at causing change, but in the last decade those that referenced the sixties insighted indirectly by narrative omission the used Molotov cocktails and violence. Peaceful protest is notoriously difficult to combat, as the law was and is hamstrung with misdemeanours, aided by the images of people not harming others. But this new form of western protest differed. Who needs a little naked burnt Vietnamese girl running down the road to achieve peace, when you can try to incinerate a people, to force for peace? Simultaneously, the right with extraordinarily little representation outside of the lumbering behemoth of Fox, surrendered to social media, a place where the Kardashians once ruled. Quite a historical event. History was made, if you realise that one of the reasons for the development of the internet, was as a military defence system. One designed and built to defend communications, if all else failed. It was a war in which both sides lost, but extremism gained power. Media integrity on both sides was and is running ragged, with no one prepared to fly their flags at half-mast, to mourn the distress of western communications. Distress caused by the media’s dissemination of radicalized neo right-wing and neo left-wing politically biased narratives. Narratives enforced by wilful omissions of blatant historical truths and current day conduct.

The result was that America regardless of political persuasion had failed to successfully defend the constitution, not the second amendment, but the principle of the constitution. It was America’s greatest failing over the last ten years, but they were not alone in this failure. With the use of the internet and the world media, the world failed to defend the principle of a document that 620,000 lost their lives for, and it destabilized the world. A document that was purported by some in the world media as an antiquated inadequate document, neglecting the principle that all men are equal before the law, but not created equal. This consideration made me reflect heavily on me experience of university. The adage was, “…That the best you can do, is stand on the shoulders of giants….” And I wondered how a person could neglect the work and sacrifice of those that had built humanity. Institutions promoted as being pacifist and educated, institutions built to serve everyone, now indirectly instigated violence. In this new form of civil war, where was Hans Blix to say no weapons of mass destruction are to be found? Was this modern achievement, achieved by children, now adults, whose parents had lied to them? Where these the children that had been told they could do anything, or become anyone? It raised in me the rhetorical questions, did the neo right, and neo left media, use a military grade apparatus to wage a war? And had everyone forgot that the pen is mightier than the sword, and thus just as dangerous?

History education starts at school, and I personally had experienced the new education system as a stepfather here in Australia. When it comes to educating children, the new system that fails no one, has become a system that has already failed. How can you learn history, and think critically, if you cannot read? I considered the potential political motives for the instigation of an education system that does not indiscriminately educate, but selectively indoctrinates. I thought that it was an effective tool for maintaining power. It is something l heard about the church. Someone had told me that the church had only allowed priests to read the bible in Latin. It is said that this practice allowed those in positions of power to quote verse, and interpret codes of conduct, for those under them. It kept those who could not read Latin ignorant. This is an activity, that has now been banned by the church. It appears that the new education system has now adopted a similar practice. As a result, the education system, now has a new ignorant flock to shepherd. What happens when the history channel algorithms or sponsored feeds, have turned into a political shill? Yes, even history, is not apolitical. I think someone, somewhere, had read the adage, that “…those that win the war, write the history…” Ironically, someone was ignorant enough, not to know that it was not a term of endearment, nor did this fact entitle the writer a position of everlasting power. Ironically, people postured one position, and then did the reverse. Some in the media left and right, assumed what some would call, a militaristic imperialistic mode, using their viewers, fans, and their audience as cannon fodder. Driving them with politically vested rhetoric and association, to achieve a political end. Both sides looked for someone to blame other than themselves, or looked for someone other than themselves to pay.

Fascists once did this, now neo liberals and neo conservatives in the media looked for a group to classify as mentally deficient or ill. The mob had to become the populous, classifying the opposition as inferior. Someone to other, someone internally to blame for all the world’s problems. The language from both sides was remarkably familiar. It had all happened before. But on the media chanted like zealots, willingly oblivious to history like a petulant child, and it resulted in deaths. Instead of reporting, the media sold themselves to become a self-pontified populist political cheer squad of indoctrination. In this communications war, some in the media’s right, and some in the media’s left, had surrendered to a form of self-serving political prostitution. It produced 1930s like self-cannibalism. The radicalized political media’s appetite to feed their opposing mob’s zest, could not be quenched. They ate their own, seeing who could jeer the loudest, while destroying the integrity of all the institutions that surrounded them. Neo right, and neo left, used 1930s fascist language and influence, while relying on others to apply anarchy as the vector for change, thus negating any personal responsibility for death and violence.

I think back, and to be honest, what the west in the majority lacked, was apolitical reporting. The result over the last ten years, was that we had all lost. In a political war of words where the media became the protagonists, the west did not just sacrifice its integrity and dignity, the west surrendered lives.

 

 

 

Done