Member preview

Will We Ever Get Tired of Looking The Other Way

Definitely Not Doing Enough To Limit The Damaging Affects of Political Despair and Social Discohesion

Our vacant wayward deference towards our newly elected leader has by and large lead me to believe that we are simply frightened, and lost sheep. We should be quite familiar with our traverses towards democratic principles. If the shepherd-in-chief decides to rabble rouse a few of those sheep to run in one direction we appear to instinctively by default go along down that path, either reluctantly or rather coercively. I fear that this strain of compliance predicated on the foibles of Trump’s narcissistic supply will be our own undoing. It is an ominous sign the fall of civilization when their insensitive beliefs and damnation(s) are mired in — knowing something we don’t know — wanting to be so virtuous while proving others as so wrong out of sheer emotionality. What remains accurately and demonstrably close-minded is which amounts to nothing more than xenophobic calls to, and tirades against our interdependencies. Our present democratic compass has become further obfuscated by everyone looking the other way in the midst of such flawed guidance.

When we look the other way, and we all do — because societal pressure both encourages and simply demands it — do we look the other way because of the culminating meaninglessness of life in and of itself? Are we trying in vain to construct some idealist meaning where none exists? And in that same vein with our efforts, does our lack of certainty (clearly defined and agreeable objectivity and cooperation) encourage this current preponderance of nihilism?

Is it possible that our culture, our education, our political institutions, our deepest values have really just been a massive farce? — Ranier Marie Rilke., The Notebooks of Malte Laurids Brigge, via www.timeshighereducation.com

I challenge myself cognitively to remove this despair almost daily, only to receive a trouncing by a contingency of dimwittedness during my interactions, which end haplessly on a nightly basis. I try in earnest not to make a folly of my life — in all its interactions and interdependence, whether intentionally or inadvertently. I find solace in the few that find mutual benefit with our exchanges. I find hope in those who do so reluctantly but in earnest. I find meaning with and in this.

President Trump, whose incorrigibly doltish character managed to grant him a privileged authority on both legal and ethical grounds, has thus established himself to be somewhat of an enigmatic leader. An engrossing enigma so embedded with benefit of the doubt that he seemingly cultivates a cult-like persona. The ensuing Trumpian values proffered comply with an intrinsic fatalism that is hierarchical, and predetermined by a fraudulent social construct. It does not require broad consensus as the popular vote proves. Trumpism is based on a conditioning of moral turpitude that qualifies insensitive beliefs for an imagined self-preservation in expressively zero-sum fashion.

Under the political xenophobic banner of the ‘America First’ rhetoric there are mandates forestalling peaceful globalization-type foreign policies such as the Paris Climate Agreement and the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, also known as the Iran nuclear agreement. The latter only described by the President as “the worst deal ever” was remarkably a landmark event that was years in the making and achieved rare (involving Russia and China and the European Union) consensus just like the former accord achieved with every country as a signatory to it, except Syria which is still mired in civil war. The New Yorker offered some profound perspective.

Gutting a deal that Americans conceived, brokered, and secured would undercut decades of U.S. leadership on non-proliferation. Thomas Graham, Jr., a retired ambassador who worked in a senior capacity on every major American arms-control and disarmament negotiation over a period of twenty-five years, said of Trump’s comments about the Iran deal, “I’ve never seen anything remotely like this. There isn’t any reason in my opinion to decertify it, except for narrow political advantage, or if you really want to have a war. Historically, there was certainly opposition to some arms-control agreement, but this just seems like we’re reading Kafka.”

Trump seemed to take delight in the belligerent puerile swaggering with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un both on and off twitter. Mr. Trump appears unaware of wide reaching consequences beyond death and environmental fallout. This sort of behavior is bereft of any plausible rationale.

On October 7th, Trump, having ridiculed Tillerson for seeking a negotiated solution with North Korea, all but threatened an attack, tweeting, “Sorry, but only one thing will work!” Last week, NBC reported that, during a Pentagon briefing, Trump called for a nearly tenfold increase in the nuclear arsenal. National-security aides were unnerved — any such increase would violate a raft of disarmament treaties and set off a global arms race. (It was after this meeting that Tillerson reportedly called Trump a “fucking moron.”) The President and his aides denied the account, and he tweeted that it might be time to challenge NBC’s broadcast licenses.

Instances like these with little in the way of rebuke and resistance suggests that the White House cabinet operates out of a defeatist protocol. All of whom appear to be made to look the other way — when accounts of distress and anguish are revealed.

Decertifying the Iran agreement would fracture the United States’ credibility among its original partners in the deal. It would open a rift with China just as it is weighing whether to join the United States again, this time in negotiating with North Korea. Global Times, a state-backed Chinese newspaper, has asked, “If America would overturn a pact it made to the rest of the world, solely because of a transition in government, how can it retain the reputation of a great power?”

Completely unaware of our nations’ strength outside of its military, there is no eagerness on the part of Trump to learn and become apprised of America’s consensus building prowess.

Decertifying the Iran agreement would fracture the United States’ credibility among its original partners in the deal. It would open a rift with China just as it is weighing whether to join the United States again, this time in negotiating with North Korea. Global Times, a state-backed Chinese newspaper, has asked, “If America would overturn a pact it made to the rest of the world, solely because of a transition in government, how can it retain the reputation of a great power?”

When you couple this with what is perceptibly an ethnic cleansing stratagem via nationalist immigration proposals, you get a sense of this social hierarchical reach. Notwithstanding the unnecessary and incessant denigrating of President Barack Obama — a visibly tribal and racially troubling disposition of Trump has many Americans (especially those who are racially white) looking the other way.

racismreview.com
Trump himself began using the slogan formally on November 7, 2012, the day after Barack Obama won his reelection against Mitt Romney. He first considered “We Will Make America Great”, but did not feel like it had the right “ring” to it.[12] “Make America Great” was his next name, but upon further reflection, he felt that it was a slight to America because it implied that America was never great. After selecting “Make America Great Again”, Trump immediately had an attorney register it. (Trump later said that he was unaware of Reagan’s use in 1980 until 2015, but noted that “he didn’t trademark it”.)[12]

This Trumpian dissonance has made the euphemisms of ‘Make America Great Again’ has put forth a non negotiable, illiberal domestic policy. It is the resentful rallying cry for disunion and authoritarianism. Trump’s contentious verbal sparring with the White House press corps and national media outlets exacerbates his call for a time when minorities did not achieve much in the way of socioeconomic improvement towards equality.

NFL players who knelt in deference to the military, and in peaceable protest to government for grievances of injustice were deemed “sons of bitches” for not standing for the unfulfilled symbolism of the flag during the abbreviated Star Spangled Banner. Our pledge is an allegiance to the white racial framing of standing indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. The truth behind such pride will make you look the other way in utter disbelief.

Like what you read? Give Interculturalisticman a round of applause.

From a quick cheer to a standing ovation, clap to show how much you enjoyed this story.