“An analysis of past elections in Spain allow me to summarize everything that we have lived through in two words: lies and fear.” – Francisco Rebolo
Lying as a concept, as a resource, as a way of dealing with certain people eager to find excuses that justify what they have already decided to believe (without even knowing it themselves), and who now feel part of a strange Crusade in favour of an ‘imposter for truth’.
We crossed the red lines of the grotesque and the absurdly unreal a long time ago. As an example, let’s look back to the “politician” who, when he came into power in 2007, fully aware of what he had done, announced:
“I said: I will bring the beach to Xátiva. And they believed it! If I am in charge, I will bring the beach! And they believe everything. They were donkeys! And they voted for me.”
(By the way, it doesn’t hurt to remember that Xátiva is about 40 km from the sea and that yes, they did vote for him.)
We could assume this is not the case now, but there is a whole other cohort of talk-show guests, reporters and media directors glazing over reality with lies to devise a parallel world in which they have settled to make a subculture of Fake news more palatable, like a doughnut.
For some time now, certain political classes have operated under the conviction that lies yield results; benefits that apparently could not be achieved in any other way.
We should start from the following premise: history, as we have learned it, is not true at all. We only have access to the sweetened or directly invented version of the victors, those who tell us that Carthage and Hannibal were the bad guys and that Custer was the good guy, that Barca’s “heroism” against PSG or Chelsea was epic and unfading, for example.
But, in hindsight, these are lies – backed by television, Hollywood and indoctrinated newspapers with the right amount of money.
On the other hand, we have now passed into to the dark side of the Force, to the pre-emptive lie and to vulgar disqualification using the non-ethics of a reality show, the ones that say you have to prove your innocence, thus reversing the burden of proof.
Here we see the campaign in favour for Brexit, because Europe is stealing from us; against immigrants because they have come to take what is ours (the crumbs that those who really have something deign to lend to us temporarily); or against politicians whom we deny bread and salt, through the use of a new grammatical subcategory, the disqualifying adjective.
We don’t like to get to the bottom of these questions because that would imply an exercise of thought, to which we are not accustomed.
Hence, it is easier to repeat a mantra associated with each person or party, and to think that we have endowed an empty discourse with substance, because it is repetitive and because of the words we distort, using fictitious neo-language pulled out of someone else’s sleeve.
As an exercise, does anyone remember anything from the speeches given by any of the four candidates in the two national, televised debates last month? Any proposals beyond childish simplicity and the “you are worse” arguments?
On the other hand, we were made to believe that the worst part of the debate was the fact that one of the candidates was not wearing a jacket and had a long ponytail. This has been reiterated ad nauseum.
Worst of all, is not the use of manipulation through lies, but, as the beach example has proven, it’s the fact that it works for them. And it seems as though fear loves totalitarianism.
Let’s remember that there’s no one more like a fascist than a frightened bourgeois.
Francisco Rebolo: Glazed Lies