Monday, July 24, 2017

Asymmetrical Freedom Of Speech

Allowing someone, whose opinions we find offensive, the right to voice them anyway, is a basic part of American ideals. This would not be so much of a problem, in and of itself, for a Democracy, were it not for the way money, and the mutated economic operating system that supports it, works to make people, who have large accumulations of it, have voices so much larger than what the rest of us, as individuals, have.

How does a Democracy survive that, and still preserve an important part of its ideals? How can it even begin to decide objectively when said asymmetry has already been in place for decades now? Do we stand by idly now and just let it continue? And do you really think reforms can really be created to do what they need to do, and to remain in place over time? While money is always working to do what makes making more as easily maximized as is possible (because to do otherwise risks losing the clout to stay on top)?

I have certain confidence that, if he were aware at all of what I write, he would be laughing at it right about now. And mostly, I think, because he can count on two things. First how obviously small my voice is in comparison to his, and second, that he knows you are too uninvolved, uncaring, or distracted to pay attention, in any case. And as long as he has the money he'll just be able to keep spreading his hateful image of what supposedly "separates" us from human, or not human. A message that gains a little more traction, and a little more "legitimacy" every day it exists without challenge.


William Regnery II, a man who inherited millions but struggled in business, tried for 15 years to ignite a racist political movement — and failed. Then an unforeseen phenomenon named Donald Trump gave legitimacy to what Regnery had seeded long before: the alt-right.