posted on Aug, 22 2016 @ 02:28 PM
Trump's Specter of Violence
In a recent episode of Real Time with Bill Maher, the glib comedian blamed Trump supporters for the phenomenon of
Trump's candidacy in a fit of pretzel-logic, right before continuing to slander and dehumanize them as “fact-free racist rednecks” to a jeering
and snickering audience. This charge, as fact-free and racist as it was, gave me sufficient evidence not only of Maher’s spuriousness and posturing,
but of the reactionary double-standards at work in maintaining the political status quo.
The compulsion of piety has always been the mortal enemy of the open mind, the open book, and the open discourse—and people like Maher are pious.
Nothing illustrates this point more than the puritanical hatred of what Trump has said and how he delivers it, which does not conform to the political
orthodoxy and their preferred mannerisms. Of course Trump has never hurt a soul, but he is a blasphemer in both words and style, and his supporters
are evil by extension. As soon as Maher later remarked in a tweet that this was an “election of decency”—this from a man who makes a living off
partisan mockery and insult—a whiff of sanctimony and pretence aired throughout a hypocritical breeze.
This odor is common among defenders of such an orthodoxy. Where fundamentalists congregate the air usually stinks. Notice the prevalence for
name-calling, body shaming, and other bullying among the card-stacking intelligentsia of the media class. Statues of a naked Trump populate the
streets just for these people. Outright mockery of his skin, his hair, finds itself on the lips of those who claim to oppose Trump’s bullying ways.
Like Maher and John Oliver, they have the dehumanization down pat. All they need now is the violence.
When Donald Trump mentioned that he could walk out onto 5th avenue, shoot someone dead, and his supporters would still vote for him, it didn’t take
long for opponents to feign outrage and start posturing as if this was their first time in contact with figures of speech. CNN and CBS picked up on it
quickly, with an oily Huffington Post biting at the bit with the narrative that “the specter of violence at a Trump rally is hardly new”. Trump's
opponents followed suit. In an attempt at humour, the animatronic Ted Cruz reassured his supporters in an ingratiating tone that he had "no intention
of shooting anybody in this campaign", and everyone fell satiated when the familiar lullaby of sanitized and forgettable political humour rang
through their ears once again.
E.B. white once remarked “Explaining a joke is like dissecting a frog. You understand it better but the frog dies in the process”. Leave it to the
Cable News Network to dissect frogs all day when Wolf Blitzer had to ask Donald Trump, sitting as he was behind the illiterate graphic "Trump reacts
to 'shoot somebody' remark controversy", if he was joking. After confirming to Blitzer what we and Wolf already knew—of course he was
joking—Trump no less had to explain to CNN and its obsequious consumers the reasons for why he was joking, what it meant, and at any rate, why they
couldn’t understand it, questions easily answered by watching the speech. But by that time the comedic effect was long gone, and the media’s
posturing had served its course towards its desired effect: namely, beating into malleable brains the notion that Trump advocates violence.
Not only violence, but unless you’ve been under a rock for the past year or so, he also advocates racism, bigotry, misogyny and the assassination of
his political opponents, like any good ol’ fascist. At least that’s what they tell us.
If we are to trust the gutter press, the violent perpetrators at Trump’s rallies are his supporters, while the protesters are innocent victims. The
supporters, who just wanted to see a rally, are inspired to violence by Donald Trump’s words, and not by the protesters, whose sole motivation was
to disrupt the rally. A man pushing a protester out of the rally was driven by racism, because she was black, which was inspired by Trump’s
“divisive rhetoric”, and not because he was pushed and shoved himself. The Chicago protests, resulting in a heckler’s veto (ironically, because
Trump didn’t want anyone to get hurt) were the result of Trump’s tone according to nonsense-pusher Donald Lemmon. Meanwhile, the media’s tone is
fine and dandy.
Cracking jokes in a typically New York fashion, speaking how we might around friends, and not laying prostrate before a politically correct orthodoxy,
constitutes a “specter of violence” and incitement to it. Yet the labelling of a political candidate as a violent, racist, misogynistic and
bigoted danger to the world, whom is sure to bring about the coming holocaust with an army of racist brownshirts, is accurate reporting. Considering
the effect of propaganda on the worst of atrocities, I’m not so sure about that.
When New York Magazine asked its readers if they would kill a newborn Hitler given the chance, 42% said "Yes", 30% said "No", and 28% were "not
quite sure". This telling piece of information indicates that calling someone Hitler seems to be a great incitement to violence, so much so that
people would kill a child if convinced it was him. Suppose they carried out such a killing, consoling themselves with the hope that they had done the
right thing, that they had saved the world. The paradox of hindsight becoming prophecy proves how irrational such consolation would be. All they had
really done was murdered a baby on a hunch.
What would happen if an unsound mind was presented with this same kind of moral dilemma? Illegal immigrant Michael Sanford got the chance when he came
up with the idea to assassinate Trump on a similar hunch, except he wasn't from the future as far as I could tell. After his failed attempt, his
parents were left to guess what had turned their impressionable son into a would-be assassin, supposing whether he had been "blackmailed or put up to
it". Who or what may have put him up to it we can only guess, but in the background, a darkened corner, and a flickering tele-screen, "the dull
rhythmic tramp of the soldier's boots formed the background to Goldstein’s bleating voice" (1984).
Prophetic writers and pundits have written extensively about Trump’s fascist, authoritarian tendencies, while comparing him to Hitler, Stalin and
Mussolini, even before he has spent a single second in public office. We cannot be certain of how they arrived at their revelation about the future,
convinced that somehow the country will doomed, but we can be certain it doesn’t reflect anything else but their own sophistry. But in all
likelihood, their fear-mongering has directly contributed to the motives of those who protest Trump, those who planned to assassinate Trump, and those
who justify violence against his supporters, because they surely haven’t derived their fears from anywhere else.
We don’t hear much about plots of assassination or that kind of violence against Trump from the media anymore—supporters getting egged, spit on,
or beaten in the streets, their cars keyed, their signs vandalized, stripped of humanity by pundits and morally bankrupt individuals—but we’ll
never forget that a grizzled Trump supporter punched a guy at a rally that one time.
Trump's specter of violence is indeed a specter—it is a ghost. The real specter of violence surrounds the media.