So we lost O'Reilly but perhaps Alex Jones is going down too?, oh the horror, someone get me a fainting couch! So who did not know he was a character? That he was as pj and tiassa would call it "satire"? Now I had no problem with Alex, I love him actually: he makes the right look bad. The fact Trump takes him seriously is very disconcerting though. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/i...-conspiracy-theory-donald-trump-a7687571.html
It's a rarity to see a little honesty on the right these days. But one has to wonder, does The Donald know this isn't real? Based on a number of things The Donald has said and done, I don't think The Donald knows this is all fake, and that is scary. Personally, I think you have to be unhinged to do the things Jones does, and you have to be either more unhinged or incredibly stupid and gullible to believe his bullshit.
eventually the act becomes you, lie enough times and eventually you come to believe your own lies. This is what is important about poe's law is that all trolls become kooks if given enough time. So if alex and trump are truly ignorant moronic nut jobs or faking it is irrelevant at this point.
Ah, WTH Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...-infowars-alex-jones-my-blood-is-on-fire.html
#WorldTelevisionChampion | #WhatTheyVotedFor Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Necessary incongruous distraction: Click to visualize it. They always get to it at strange times. Mr. Jones' predecessors include Rush Limbaugh as comedian and Bill O'Reilly on facts, as I recall. Also, Kellyanne Conway. Yes, really. Somewhere in there, part of Conway's response to criticism over her microwave oven surveillance line included complaining that nobody can take a joke. I overworked the punch line↱ on that, but yeah, it seems as if in her case Ms. Conway does not recognize that she is part of the White House. The transition has caught them all off guard a bit. That is, maybe the difference between candidate and president-elect didn't seem to make a difference, but it did, and still that difference is overshadowed by the extraordinary transformation between what the "president elect" says and what the "White House" says. But the thing is that even Priebus didn't seem to comprehend that he was part of the White House; after all those years of criticizing the White House, it did not take him long to rack up some blind infamy breaking protocol by his attempt to enlist the Justice Department in political messaging. It is of course less stark a difference 'twixt, say, a discussion board and infotainment, but I was born under the bad sign of a failing Nixon presidency, and that means my lifetime includes a period of moralist-supremacist largesse by which society made a big deal out of the idea of a role model, but generally exempted sympathetic politicians and business leaders. All of that, of course, has been called off, or set aside, or some such now that it comes home to roost; in truth, O'Reilly, Jones, and Limbaugh would face stricter expectations as role models if we counted them among entertainers, or, at least, according to that conservative-moralist once upon a time. It's also true that, independent of politics, we pretty much wrecked all that over the years; it was hard to take seriously a system whereby a pro athlete got in more trouble for doing something stupid like throwing firecrackers off the bus than, say, (ahem!) making the mistake of getting caught (cough!) beating your wife (hack! wheeze!). And there is also the quarter-century of anti-Clinton hysteria. It's almost impossible to calculate what has happened to the idea of a role model during that period. To the one, sure, there was Bill Clinton himself, but what part of the right wing didn't bury the proposition of a role model over the last twenty-five years? The bit with moralists → Newt Gingrich → Bob Livingston → Dennis Hastert is actually supposed to be funny, except it can't be, because the punch line ends up beyond the pale. Still, the moralists are empowered, and Newt Gingrich becomes Speaker. And, you know, this bit where it's that much more important because it's the president, or the executive branch, just doesn't work: the Speaker of the House is a role model. Gingrich, Livingston, Hastert. Really, we ought to be able to laugh at that, except, well, right. And, well, this is the Wrestlemania administration. Sure, there's the romance of the bad boy, but one thing I remember about, say, the Macho Man, is that he tried to "murder" someone in the ring. There are people who believe pro wrestling is real in that way, though we might hope fewer today than once upon a time; I happened across a listing in which some wrestling league I'd never heard of turns out to have a television show, and the capsule openly acknowledged the acting out of drama and adventure. And I must also note that I love how these two-bit barely regional operations manage to pretend not so much that they're the only organization, but I remember Tom Zenk making a career stop in NWA/PNW before taking off to Montreal, before moving up to WWF. There are these great speeches, now, about why you wrestle in this league or that, and, you know, whatever. I prefer the one when it's about the fans, because at least in this room they still care who the wrestler is, so it's an honest line. It's funny, though, I had forgotten about Zenk except for the fact of a pizza joint near my place called "Can-Am". So, just for sharts and giggles, juggle me this: (1) The bully's retreat to just joking and what's everyone's problem that they can't take a joke. (2) Various theses on electing a president: Scapegoat → Who would we rather see on television for the next four years → Pro wrestling in context of antisocial sentiment (3) How many people believe pro wrestling, i.e., the hype? And in this moment I wish I could explain this line from Ta-Nehisi Coates (The Beautiful Struggle), actually about pro wrestling, sort of, except it gets really complicated as a punch line. Still, though: Internet troll? Pro wrestling? Tough-talking game show host? Everything about Donald Trump's persona, his rise to political power, seems invested in cultivating an image of admirable villainy and despicability. The thing about supremacism is that when the white male Christian traditional regime was securely in place, it ran by some functional definition well enough. Many people are still deeply invested; if nothing else consider that among conservative power women are some who will assert themselves true feminists because they argue toward a very strange context of women's liberation that whispers invocation of an obscure notion that Rousseau's salon-doll outlook on women did, in its time, actually represent some arguable manner of improvement about woman's quality of life. And when we get right down to it, though, the idea of admirable villainy and despicability in the conservative tradition is not especially surprising. That is, there is plenty of traditionally admirable villainy and despicability in American history, to the one, and Republicans are, after all, the conservative party, to the other.
