Truth? Hardly a politick move!

      We are moving our Animal Farm into a scientific laboratory, searching for root causes. Specifically, our looking into that desolate Washington, D.C., farm. Curious, that much smell, yet hardly animate. Quickly we discover, our Washington farm has entered a phase known as "cannibalism." That Washington menagerie, being faithful to undead tactics, has fallen to dismembering the truth. [of clinical significance, the pathology of this inhuman malignancy keenly interests sociopaths of note] For instance, their artful use of listening as a weapon and purely leveraged relationships. Along with individual animals craftily measuring success as a popular feeling within farm management (fitting voters with a noose of their own making). In retrospect, we leave those animals few options, compelled to thoroughly gut results and strategic vision while spinning a truth from all that is popular. A simple calculation, seeing as how you and I are quite sensitive to political spin. Having to admit, pressed to look down my nose at the opposite side of the aisle, I narrowly reviling those I don't like, always, "those other animals."
       You now find yourself at the playful beginning of a series of articles that provide context. A careful consideration of the leverage we produce in our weaponization of relationships and listening. All of which leaves your preferred politician a narrow course of duty: mastering the art of talking from both sides of their mouth at the same time.
[also on substack.com/@mickymcconnell ]

      Technology, society, but mostly "conveniences" have changed our lives, in the blink of an eye. Whereas, our political system might never change, at least will never admit to it. Instead, they make believe, “250-year-old ideas are fresh,” as they lead us into a Brave New World. Where truth and relationships are supposedly “at your convenience,” rather like garbage pickup, and that smelling exactly like a political end game. Then again, perhaps those politicians are onto something, truly fresh? Not the least pleasant to sniff out, but if you go back more than 250 years, you’ll discover something that looks a lot like our future. Back then, only those entitled to define "relationships" and "the truth" experienced any conveniences whatsoever. Kings and rulers, exercising complete control over all narratives, become the source of all truth, often ascending a godlike pulpit. Which conveniently points out what’s just over the horizon, and that, seriously inconvenient.
    Historically, rulers of the truth could be completely transparent as to whose pursuit of happiness mattered. By contrast, our current lack of transparency is quietly growing: empowered by technologies that can remake reality; furtively leading you to know no different. More so, warmly inviting dark money to produce any result it desires, even requiring your happiness, reminiscent of Orwell's 1984.
     With all that leaving you cautiously curious, "Ancient history?" As you bask in the conjured benefits of our modern technology, "My every imagination, virtually poured out before me!" Quite nice, if you’ll just overlook what the least of politicians concoct from that, an unctuous mixed drink. Emptied into rose-colored glasses, one’s longing to belong, a religious affliction; echoes of a vaporous Neverland.
       We could now cite many examples of afflicting vapors, but we'll resign ourselves to the only person redefining all truth for himself on social media from 2016 to 2046, iconic. Henceforth to be named: 2016.*  Of celebrated rank, he demands that a crowd be forcibly ejected; making a statement of fact, he regales himself in front of a church while posing a Bible in the air. Godlike to some, perhaps issuing in a new order?
        When night is day and up is down, soon we'll discover that anything can become, and must be, “The Truth.” In time, desecrating every virtue while preparing nihilism and cult religiosity as practical options; equally, symbolizing the breadth of our divide. Maybe even the point of the exercise, a divide-and-conquer strategy? It's all too exciting; one hardly needs to imagine what might come next!
       Yet, for those of us seeking some boring stability, I have some suggestions (a series of eight articles). Endless examples of our dysfunctional political scene, but really, making fun of the whole thing while making my point. I also have some practical solutions, which will force inclusive dialogue and accountability. Finally, I'll tear it all open, looking for insight.

*  "2016"  Endowed as one of the Presidents of the United States.
I have determined to use what should be a common precedent concerning 2016's actual family name: Said name is retained as an asset, but we lack documented legal authority to dispense this asset, leaving us a singular patriotic duty. In defense of the honorable office of POTUS, that surname should never be written, enunciated, or thought of.

      2016 illustrates the power of authorities in driving the narrative. 2016 being of limited import, but deadly serious in premodern times or in V. Putin's neo-USSR (aka, capitalism). We find both Putin and 2016 posing themselves as 'man-na-kins' of the truth, yet given a childlike glance, not a stitch of the truth! One should feel for the inner desperation of our two bunker grandpas, as they plant their best members on thrones of the truth, ill clad for such cold realities. An essential nobility underlies the truth, in stark contrast to our every textile imagination, hiding the truth, even from ourselves. For instance, we find our two rulers of the truth rather exposed: in the demonic sacrilege of Ukraine, unearthing a dark affection; and also, a little white riding hood bit of chicanery, some 17 years earlier. Examples of those two leveraging modern tools of power.
      The world's high-tech cartel is now selling the truth to the highest bidder - capitalism at its best. The Truth, completely isolated, battles every well-heeled thought, feeling, and investment. In truth, isolating all of us, hearing only dog whistles to our least human finger pointing. Deadly taken so seriously, unlike the following.

      Concerning 2016, there is a question of origin. With 2016's traditional stance on birth certificates, presenting us with an awkward problem. Not having viewed 2016's birth certificate, it is not at all obvious what pronoun we should apply. Notwithstanding common disparaging references to a particular appendage, typically used to assign gender on said document. Given that those who have seen 2016 naked, will do most anything to avoid that memory. Equally, the rest of us recoil at the very idea of any such penetration, despite its superficial nature. All of which mirror the unqualified character of our hapless quandary. Surely hope drains out, should we find 2016 resurrecting an endowed position, ill-equipped and rudderless, producing a swamp of uncertainty.
       Still ticklishly curious, one might stop to consider some trumped-up tripe that draws a correlation between hand size and that dodgy appendage; at best, complex, undetermined, and a pronouncedly flaccid datum. There is, however, a strong correlation between hand size and gender, arguably providing a gender designation.

A conundrum, as I seek to uncover this, in closer scrutiny having to admit,
"Wrapping my arms around such a small and ambiguous issue is tricky."

      Then, providentially, I discovered an article written by a clearly authoritative individual, attached to an acronym with perspective, who pointed out that we should use any pronoun preferred by that person.

      Incidentally, speaking to those endowments, we should update the acronym "potus" with the more technically accurate PUSs.