For the Prophet Jeremiah.
The perpetual demand from criticism that it be specific or specify with strings of isolated examples to prove what it is saying is one of the great diversions of criticism, one of the crippling effects on critique. It establishes a pretext for criticism that stands with the first and last step in our guiding epistemology: Doubt is the highest wisdom and Knowledge is impossible. It requires us to misjudge our senses or our experience, and unless we have reserach teams at our disposal as any monied-elite-funded Think Tank we are disallowed from expressing our opinion, and I did say opinion not testimony (itself more questionable than even the Doubters imagine, especially when facts, facts and more facts are manipulated in quality spin to dizzy even the best of minds) or proof.
To prove or not to prove is the dizzying question we are beset with before we speak our minds. I am not talking here about courts of law and trials of persons or corporations (who have now become like persons in our jurisprudence, so the ‘who’ is appropriate for some). I am talking about editorials written or should I say expressed in the collective We, not because the editorialist is omniscient, but because each and every person in a deomocracy is We the People when he expresses himself or she expresses herself in defense of her or his freedom; because to defend one’s Self in the manners of Democracy and the matters of Liberty is to defend all.
We have to be able to generalize and assert in a general way our critique of power and how power operates as an elite force in society collaterally with and cooperatively with the monied elite. And it is in an instance like this where if we had to provide examples of this, we either would need to garner evidence of guilt thus establishing a pretext where power and money were innocent in our minds thus our choices for how to live democratically until they were proven guilty, which is not the case we are addressing. It also has the reciprocal effect of focussing on isolated cases in common together as alleged proof, when in fact, they become isolated cases never strung far enough or long enough for power and money not to be able to slip out of the trap supposedly set.
It must be part of the given that power and monied elites must be firstly and lastly mistrusted until actions show the possibility, if not the potentiality of something to the contrary in results. Jeremiads or editorials against power must be allowed and understood for their historical valence, and the necessity for perpetual alleged proof is in itself a red-herring chase. It is set up to fail. It follows the demands of a society less than literate and horribly unconscious of its history or any history in the world that would teach us what we all should know about power and monied elites.
I say no to the clever demands of the elite–I do not need evidence as I would in a court of law to express the opinion that Blankfein of Goldman Sachs is a vampire. One should understand the literary application and understand Goldman Sachs’s roles in the first Great Depression in 1929 and its role in the last or most recent economic debacle in 2008. Not to be able to do so is a boon for power and money and becomes the great dodge from the judgemnent of the People. It is how power and money have helped turn the People into an State and Elite serving Public, dissociated from its obligations to itself–to themselves–as the People, who must always be present and validly asserted by each and every simple separate person as We the People.