We are known by authorities and institutions and corporations and government in every way that does not serve our interests, whether that be politically, socially, economically.
We remain in a grotesque anonymity by every way political, economic and social through this very process of individualizing our in-formation, and all the while keeping us, our persons, collective, thus anonymous..
IN Formation, the result of being IN Formed, which is the intention of every effort to IN Form, put facts into a special form, put us in a special collective form .
Race consciousness has been raised to the level where it drowns out helping any simple separate individual black person.
We is made to remain an aggregate always, a sum-total never realized, never achieved, always just around the corner in the socio-political labyrinth of lies, deception, half-truths, incomplete knowledge where statistics masquerade as facts and facts are perpetually confused for knowledge, or worse, wisdom.
I am the author of my texts; being a writer is a social role one adopts when he abdicates his responsibility to his authority over his or her texts.
To hell with all French, American or any other thinker imagining himself critical in a particular way that necessitates his proclaiming throughout the land that The Author is Dead!
All proclamations of the author being dead smack more of morality and moralizing than they do of politics and defending political freedom, freedom in itself freedom universal.
Freedom is as it was, as it has been as it will always be universal, even if the critical apparatus of those who object to this idea cannot hold onto the notion that freedom has always been universal and true even where the greatest brutality has been set against it.
Freedom must be the same everywhere for all time irrespective of what the laws impose to the contrary, the very same laws that do not give freedom; and irrespective of what the people say they want, think they need, act against or in abdication of . . .
Freedom is freedom always freedom for all yet never less than itself in any part where full or total freedom is not yet achieved because it has been acted against, imposed against by laws that do not respect it––most often in democratic societies, laws we have voted for . . .
Freedom is still true and still a fundamental human right
In matters of morality, the moralizer is always wrong.
I am We the People as you are We the People as he is and she is and they are and of course we are . . .
We are disallowed bureaucratic and governmental anonymity, are we not?
We are provided with a set of values meant to elicit our complicity in our self-betrayals, that aid each of us in our self-abnegation, all behind the mask or veil of one illusion or another concerning ease, comfort, what else could we want
Will I write essays about literature? Of course I will, but then I would need to write, at some point, anyway, what literature is, or what kind of writing I would call literature, or what writing I would not consider literature. I am sure that shopping lists are not literature; shopping list not being one of the genres of literature either ancient or modern. Is that the limit of what is literary––I’m sure one could submit a grocery list as poem, or subject the writing of a grocery list to the aesthetic and rhetorical demands of a poem, Grocery list become a genre? A a sub-genre? A category of kind? An aesthetic choice? What then must I say in defense or in explication?
There is writing that is literary that is not prose fiction, poetry or drama; historical writing, essays or biography, just for a few examples of what could be in the realm of the literary.
If whiteness (whatever that is) overly determines the definition of literature; blackness or non-whiteness (whatever each is) overly determines the critique––can we stop playing ping pong––I am speaking for no one but myself, but then, however I speak, it is still for myself, of myself, by myself not always––who am I to say anything?
Equally valid would be a consideration of who any of you are to tell me what I think, how I think, let alone anything deemed to be relevant to what I think, as if that could discerned––nor do any of you have anything valid in the way of telling me what my identity is, or what my traditions are, or what my cultural milieu is, could be, should be? None of you, even if you were Catholic, working-class, Italo-American––even of you were my father or brother, that would only go so far in the ways of credibility and valence.
There is writing that is not literary, yet of a higher quality than other writing. Journalism does not need to be literary in the way I mean here when I say some writing is literary and some is not; and these are biases I hold about literature and the literary, which for myself and this Review are self-evident, in the Jeffersonian sense. Some journalistic writing can be literary. I do take these Truths to be self-evident.
There are commentary, editorials, and op-eds that reach the literary, and here I am alluding to the heights of what is literary. Yes, there are hierarchies of the literary. You must be aware that not every thing we do can be democratized; and there are enough that you would never want to become democratized in that baser way we have of making everyone feel better about themselves intellectually by challenging them less, by undermining the very ways they could achieve a higher election of literacy and the literary––let’s not require people to have to achieve as much to get credit for having achieved what has only become a facade of achievement rather than a building of such secure on a foundation that could support the building.
I am not herein going to address in these present lines, but elsewhere within the larger context of the Review, the corporate take over of education and its funding of educational lobbying and the bureaucratic and legislative initiatives that run parallel; nor am I going to address the systematic way in which we are under-educated; nor am I going to address how semi-literacy has paraded as literate enough for far too long––you do not really believe that people on average today can read and write as well as they did fifty or sixty years ago, do you?
All of this plays right into the hands of Power and Money Elites. But we never address this; we only ever address race as the first and the last of your problems, and part of every other problem lying between those antipodes.
We will continue to imagine that so much of what we hear today about Power addresses Power in itself Power acting Powerfully against the People when it only addresses half of the issues, thus by remaining only half of the TRUTH it finds itself getting shuffled into the realm and proxy of propaganda––yes. Propaganda is never all lies; it cannot be fake, or contrived.
Goebbels himself said Never lie all the time. Always just enough truth or truths to lead the people in becoming a public astray or right where you want them––serving one or another agenda of Power, whether by design or in effect.
Opportunistic always is Bourgeois Capitalist Power in its ever encroaching, totalitarian webbing of society––
Is it an irony how much the World Wide Web has aided in this.
Is it then only an irony that Social Media gravitates toward State Power and State Administrative Authority managing the accumulation of personal information as once Capitalists accumulated wealth.
But information is wealth, which is why Zuckerberg’s FACEBOOK is valued at what it is when his company only generates about 30 million in actual revenue.
If ever the People were to become wise to the motives and drives of Social Media Greed, they would, en-masse, shut down their accounts in numbers approaching the billions world wide; and then they would see the effects they could have on Monied Elites who garner influence and authority (thus that much closer to Real Power by each of us being more docile than sheep or cattle would be).
Macchiavelli 101 presumes the motives and opportunities turned into favor by those in control of information or the dissemination of information as actualities.
The NAZIS were one of the first 20th century Power establishments to use statistics to confound and confuse, to detract, distract, keep the People divergent and off-line, which is what diverse actually means.