monkinetic the blog

Jay Rosen, journalism professor at NYU and blogger for PressThink, wrote a fantastic piece about the rise of “make our own reality” politics (starting in the W. Bush White House and largely but not exclusively on the Right) and the war on objective reality as represented by Facts, devoid of spin.

This is what set the stage for the Trump candidacy and explains why he is dismissive - no, derisive - of reportable, objective facts. His intent is to replace reality with a consistent, constructed story that rings the bells for his supporters:

> Stanley made the point that fact checking Trump in a way missed the point. Trump was not trying to make reference to reality in what he said to win votes. He was trying to substitute “his” reality for the one depicted in news reports.

Jay explains that Trump’s (and other totalitarian leaders) communication style is all about power: the power to define reality for his supporters (and by extension, everyone else, by simply refusing to acknowledge any facts outside the preferred narrative):

> The goal of totalitarian propaganda is to sketch out a consistent system that is simple to grasp, one that both constructs and simultaneously provides an explanation for grievances against various out-groups. It is openly intended to distort reality, partly as an expression of the leader’s power.

He goes on:

> Trump’s campaign was “openly intended to distort reality” because that is a show of power. Power over his followers. Over the other candidates he humiliated and drove from the race. Over party officials who tried to bring him to heel. And over the journalists who tried to “check” and question him.

This is the closest I’ve ever been authoritarianism and totalitarianism in my lifetime, and it’s terrifying.

Because I’m easily amused and have an image editor:

(Thanks Trent Walton for the inspiration)

Elizabeth Bonesteel tweeted about Star Trek: Into Darkness, to which I will not link, nor which will I discuss right now:

Y’all got me thinking again about ST: INTO DARKNESS, & I realize I went into that one already annoyed.

— Elizabeth Bonesteel (@liz_monster) November 7, 2016

But it got me thinking about why Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan was so epically fantastic for me. I’m having Real Feels right now just thinking about it.

I was 11 when Khan came out, so I didn’t see it in theaters. I had watched much of the original series in syndication with my family, and I was in my late teens when I finally saw Wrath of Khan.

I don’t have the time or skill for a proper exposition right now, but some bullet points on why WoK still inspires some deep emotion for me:

• Khan is charismatic, cut like a boss, and leads a Mad-Max-style horde of 80s bad-asses. What’s not to love?
• For the love of God, Ceti eels. I’m cringing in terror right now.
• THIS IS Ceti Alpha V!!
• The movie exposes many of Kirk’s character flaws, the real pain he causes, and does not excuse them by the end. That’s bold film-making right there, especially in the 80s when everything had a happy ending.
• Kirk’s consummate self-assurance that he’s done the Right Thing, without ever looking in life’s Rear View Mirror, is cuttingly White Male thinking.
• And he more or less doesn’t get away with it. His thoughtless hubris costs him friends and subordinates, and by the end, costs him his deepest relationship.
• Spock’s real death. I know that the ending was tweaked to show the torpedo tube intact, but as a teen in the 80s who did not yet know the Ways of Hollywood, that was pretty f’ing permanent.

Sorry I need to go have a cry.