The phrase, ‘Not the Russians' has been popping up frequently in defense of Wikileaks, the integrity of the 2016 Presidential Election, justice and our very democracy. A better defense of our democracy would be the phrase, ‘Even if the Russians did it.' The leaked emails only hurt our democracy to the degree that hiding the state's dirty secrets is somehow beneficial to the American people. What if the hacks were performed by a nine year old girl? A Polish man with a bowler hat? A robe-donning secret society? An insider with the DNC? In any event, leave democracy to itself and let our politicians defend what the leaks reveal plainly without all this white noise about the vehicle of revelation, unless, of course, these actions cannot be defended in good conscience.
The establishment has blood on its hands and tries to call attention to the mere dirt under the fingernails of its antagonists. Where it can be maintained that a few omelets certainly warrant the cracking of more than one egg, the state would have a few of these dirty fingernails chopped off if it bares a chance of turning attentions outward, away, or anywhere else at all. Their mimetic toolbox is full of every outworn piece of double-speak, every tripled and quadrupled-down cliché from each and every pigheaded ideologue of the 20th century. They'd do better to take scapegoating lessons from their Stalinist, Fascist and McCarthyite predecessors; at least the pretentions of these three were akin to promising the masses shovels for their shit. Our elites think us none the wiser if they hand us spoons.
Let us not turn a deaf ear to this ‘threat to our democracy' and it's real implications. The only democracy which has been threatened takes the form of those few geographically concentrated groups who, though willing to be bought, apparently can't be paid enough to relocate for the sake of swaying an electoral system they either don't understand or pretend not to. Wave your hands and call it a fable, a conspiracy theory; it makes not a single-swayed vote's value of difference. The fact that such possibilities exist in even a purely rhetorical form means that democracy contains an ample set of inbuilt self-destructive mechanisms, or rather, a set of inbuilt self-tyrannizing mechanisms. Fairness, by definition, is not and cannot be a feature of democratic language, no matter how ‘fair' its initial development. Democracy is only fair to the victor; only in this is it a fraction of a degree more ethical than war. It's not becoming of the man who chops off his wife's head to scold a burglar for noticing the blood. The outrage of the Democratic Party in the wake of this election proves just how little they actually believe in democracy. In the event that they want a geographically concentrated group to decide policy for the rest of the nation means that they advocate tyranny. If they wish to secede and go their own way, then they merely advocate total consensus, which is called ‘racist' when the right wing does it and ‘real democracy' if the left wing does it. In either event, the question of fairness never crosses the threshold opposite the emotional domain where they obstinately reside.
The fakest of ‘fake news' is closer to the truth than the truths handed out like candied apples to the American people by the establishment and its media support. The fakest of ‘fake news' at least encourages people, through a bit of intrigue and a provocation, to search out facts for themselves. Even if all that was released were the altered and tampered-with emails of our politicians, they would still contain factual details with far greater frequency than every line of every nationally syndicated journal and newspaper in the entire nation. Just as ‘democracy' is their synonym for ‘truth,' our synonym for ‘false,' since time immemorial and which is now apparent more than ever, is the media. I challenge anyone to tell me that this is an unfair approximation. In fact, it is so pervasive that people now habitually believe the direct inverse of what they are told, victims of the misconception that every lie has an obvious, opposite truth.
The establishment up to this time, with private fanaticism and public equipoise, has depended upon exactly every single most immediate and most subtle threat to our democracy they can possibly grope with their bloody fingers, unable to help but return to them again and again like the fix at the end of a needle. Democracy is the narcotic of our politicians; the mainstream media the whore whom they'll use it to kill silently on some quiet night when the world has gone to sleep. As the world dreams of the day it might wake from this reality of untruth, this narcotic floods the streets, encouraging ever new insatiable fixes, its pushers constantly promising that freedom is just around the corner, though it may cost you or someone else life itself.