EXEMPLARY DIALECTIC AND NEWS
NOTES
Dr. Eugene Narrett, Ph.D
March 23, 2012
NewsWithViews.com
“This was the government: first they shake hands with you, he thought, and then they murder you.”[1]
The main leitmotifs and goals of the campaign, which is an aspect of this culture’s ‘dead spiral’ are clarified by the angle of the spin and dazzle. Even more basic than distracting attention from the economic and monetarypolicies whose purpose is to mortally damage the nation, the gist of the dialectic seems to be to enflame the gender war and diminishment of men that destroys culture at its root.
After the Kansas primary, Rick Santorum began his speech by exalting his wife. Since his comments on the obvious, -- that woman should not be in active combat roles --he has been portrayed as ‘hostile’ to women. The media has flogged this in their typically relentless fashion. So his ‘brain trust’ must have advised him to extol his wife, which he did with a gusto made easier by their no doubt loving marriage (seven home-schooled children: no wonder they hate this guy). Aw shucks, he said, she advises, corrects, manages & tempers him; it was the familiar role now common in adverts: the man is essentially a child tutored by Mom. This is the conservative. This is how defensive most public figures are who are even a tad outside the globalist-Statist consensus. The media uses every remark Santorum makes as an excuse to browbeat him and what remains of conservative social views. Apologies are demanded and often, not always given. The synthesis, the world sought by Dr. Strangelove, draws ever more near.
The same process occurred with Limbo. It seems like the players are part of an arranged dialectic that allows the Directorate, via the media, to herd us toward the scripted synthesis, the corral in which we thankfully pay for what the therapeutic State deigns to give us as a reward for being docile capons.
The Secretary of State remarked that ‘we’ must remain in Afghanistan to protect the ‘human rights’ of Afghan women, and that they expect us to do so. Ah… does this not put us afoul of various diverse folkways, customs and religious practices? Of course it does, thus ramming us against a wall of contradictions and leaving us stunned and confused. So too is the effect of this outrageous and dubious ‘rationale’ for an undeclared war, an endless, no-win war of attrition on behalf of ‘women’s rights’ in an artificial (created by Britain) state of radically different culture. Perhaps those who are offended by or profess to be ‘in fear’ of the possible abridgement of subsidized contraception and “sex re-assignment surgeries”[2] and related medications should consider re-locating to Afghanistan and pressing their claim for ‘rights’ and emoluments there. “Das wird ein freudige liebe sein…”[3]
This is what “our brave men and women” are dying for: a situation designed to drive people mad and get them maimed or killed. “You either emigrated or they burned your ass in some fruitless war. The government did not even bother to justify war, now. They just sent you out, killed you and recruited a replacement.”[4]
A “Huckabee” show early in March featured alternating panels of diverse and interesting folks from various stations questioning the candidates (Ron Paul did not attend). In choosing the panel the media steers the discussion and ‘conclusions.’ Thus, with a former secretary of commerce and Wall Street journalist (who exposed the vacuity of Governor Romney’s economic ‘plans’) there was a small business man whose concerns were not only those of an economy crippled by rising fuel and feed costs, regulation and a true jobless rate estimated at 14.9 – 19%, but personal: he has a son with traumatic brain injuries from our suicidal war in central Asia. At one point, struggling to stem tears, he asked Romney to look him in the eye and tell him his son’s VA benefits would no longer be held up or cut back.
It was a powerful moment and Romney seemed genuinely touched (who would not be?). He promised to see the matter was redressed, told Dave to keep in touch with him and said fervently that “we owe everything” to those who put their lives on the line for freedom, etc. If only it was our freedoms for which they were fighting rather than our enslavement, their harm and the exploitation of their desire to serve their nation would be less terrible.
A week later Dave appeared briefly on Huckabee: Lo and behold, the Monday after the first show the VA had been in touch promising to expedite processing of benefits. The next day there was an email pledging action in a week. The day after that, a check arrived. Presto! Dave noted that while he was grateful, if he hadn’t been on TV, like nearly all those injured in the recycling program in Afghanistan and Iraq, they’d still be at the mercy of the VA and government. It’s been known for decades that treatment in VA hospitals often is awful: would this change significantly in a Romney administration? Can any of the rest of us get on a panel and ask Mustapha Mond for help with a pressing life issue?
Several other points were buried by the emotion: why were the other candidates not allowed to address this question (as was the format at the debate in Alabama). The issue was highly dramatic and why was only Romney given the chance to hit this slow-pitch heart-warmer? Commentators sighed over and praised his seemingly heartfelt response to the agonizing tale. But what about his remark that “we owe everything” to our armed forces personnel who are not, after all, fighting on the shores or in the hills of America against an invader. At nine years and counting, there are scores of thousands of soldiers with serious health problems and injuries. If Americans owe them everything or ‘as much as they need’ which is difficult to determine, the war sounds like a way not only to kill, maim and traumatize Americans on the front lines but to destroy the nation by bankrupting it, too while distracting it with pity. Indeed, the war sounds like the “National Health Care” (sic) or ‘green energy’ plans or ‘environmental regulations” that destroy business, cut jobs or prevent hiring and generally sink the economy until still more Americans are underwater, dependent and thus in the hands, not of a loving G-d but of a demoniac State consumed with the lust for power. Santorum has a good grasp on this situation but all one hears about are his ‘gaffs’ and ‘extreme’ remarks, grist for chattering media ‘experts.’
Maybe this is why bastions of anti-war, anti-military, and anti-American sentiment, like Boston and its major institutions, have in recent years become fervent promoters of all sorts of voluntary programs to help subsidize “our brave men and women in uniform.” Now that the military has been crippled by its unisex agenda (Elaine Donnelly wrote about this for many years)[5] as well as its increasingly exotic missions of assisting Afghani agriculture and ‘women’s rights’ the cheerleading is led by the major sports leagues as well as politicians from the top. Who can say no to such appeals? Thus the war goes on.
It’s curious: when it was a matter of helping a nation fend off the attack of Communist armies, the media and left-correct message was “bring the boys home.” Now that the war is an endless attrition against a vague threat in a totally artificial State, the ‘antiwar’ party is waving the red, white and blue and telling us “how much should we give.” As one knows, “the only answer’s more, more, more…”[6] The population reducers strike again, wrapped in the flag, the scoundrel’s last refuge.
Sadly and needless to say, none of the questioners at any major debate or interview ever received a question about “the terrible way fathers are treated in divorce courts.” Indeed, the one time a minor-party candidate mentioned this a decade or more ago, she was silenced and driven from her profession.[7] The destruction or severe damaging of father’s relation to his children, the beggaring of fathers, their humiliation and powerlessness is a main goal of the divorce industry which serves the role of destroying America at its roots, continuity of generations and the role of a father in his children’s lives; also a child’s steadiness and ability to resist State-school conditioning.[8] The three+ decades of this assault now are enhanced not only by a conspiracy of silence but a recent media blitz to cheer closer ties between a mother and a son. No more “momma’s boy” epithets: they are long gone, incommensurate with the forces of cultural decline.
But the main point, as so often in our era, is the subtext: the discarding and destruction of fathers by divorce courts amped by the media-engrained attitude that men are superfluous, optional, buffoons, nerds, childish, etc. As in many real estate ads the past decade, fathers are invisible. It began in Academia with attacks on the patriarchy. The disease has metastasized and now is terminal. Making the human father a fiction complements making the State a god.
This returns us to Miss Plug the poster-child of spurious compassion, “women’s health” and victimhood with those mean conservatives and nasty Mr. Limbo cast as villains. We must fight in Afghanistan and in Congress because “Transgender persons wishing to undergo the gender reassignment process frequently face heterosexist employer health insurance policies that label the surgery as cosmetic or medically unnecessary and therefore uncovered.”[9] As pointed out above (note 2), these recently invented people about whom the Directorate does not care a hoot, are denied “family-related benefits.” And what is a family? It takes a village. Then also is the “denial of benefits to transgender persons physically transitioning to the other gender” as the authors euphemistically veil the surgeries and drugs. The culture has passed the point where one could note that such people are a linguistic as well as political trap to which a legal component is now being added. Americans must believe that their refusal to subsidize this mutilation proves “ignorance and bias against transgender persons” [sic]. This cresting wave of noise, apologies from on high and competition between female anchors and guests, ‘left and right’ about the widespread bias against women fit with the gender dynamics forced (?) on GOP campaigns and the new model of having Republican wives make speeches introducing their hubbies as the articulate and impressive Mrs. Romney was doing for Mitt last Monday in Moline. This latest round in the belittling of men is another great leap forward for the population reduction and sexual hysteria phase of culture; the end game of its own immolation.
Amid this nightmare stew, Judge Napolitano was replaced by a blonde, smart-talking gal who sports short tight skirts and an anti-administration tilt. The evening of March 16, her guests included Steve Forbes who often offers good sense about policy matters (if one accepts that Federal taxes are a given, like death). After praising the proposals of Newt Gingrich but noting that he was failing to win primaries, Forbes expatiated on the inability of Mr. Romney to articulate detailed policy alternatives or to command much more than 35% of votes. Stating that Romney might end the campaign season with scarcely half the votes and a deeply riven party, he offered what he termed “a surprise” and suggested that Republicans might need to bring in an outstanding figure like… Jeb Bush. “I’m shocked, Rick: shocked!”[10]On March 21, Jeb endorsed Romney. “Should we go to the right or to the left?”[11]
Americans are being maneuvered into a deeper circle in the inferno of cultural collapse, the State’s multifaceted war of terror against its ‘citizens,’ i.e. those from whom it extracts its substance while absorbing theirs. The alternative to the increasingly offensive exotic consortium of electrons is a scion of the distinguished Bush family. The answer to the ‘embattled’ status of American women is medical insurance for “transgender persons physically transitioning to the other gender”; men must defer still more to women, as with the displacement of Napolitano by a tough blond; we must fight for the rights of Afghani women; we all must pay “whatever it takes” for “our brave men and women in uniform” and continue to diminish our carbon footprint, by ceasing to breathe, if necessary. Female media anchors agree that women should control most of the nation’s wealth (as they have for decades). Perhaps they could do a ‘special’ praising “Family Courts”: the game grinds on.
As for true heroism and enduring love, if the chronicles of these times ever are written they will highlight what both mainstream and ‘alternative’ discourse bury: the dedication, strength and love of fathers fighting for their bond to their children in the toils of Divorce Courts. Ignored except when they are vilified, they are among those that strove, alone, unheard, unaided, to save this nation at its roots.
Meanwhile, on the antithesis, Miss Tin Foil, Miss Top Knot and Mr. Buckle are lucubrating about the ‘energy policy’ of the admin which has poured billions into electric cars that don’t run and that only hairstyles, stars and starlets can afford. A veil of evil enshrouds earth, the delusive dazzle that displaces reality with official truths. What passes for truth is a hologram massaged by the hairstyles who ‘in-form’ us on behalf of their pay-and-puppet-masters.[12]
Pat Caddell, a chief Democratic pollster and strategist for four decades comments that not since the Watergate has he seen so much interference by a sitting administration in the other party’s campaign. There is no chance, however, that the current iteration will prompt media outrage, impeachment or cries that the Emperor not only is grossly nude but not even real. “There’s no news at the new court but the old news”:[13] the nation is ever more desperate for change one can believe in; for substantive change soon. Perhaps a new script can be written… What kind of essay on Marionette Theatre might von Kleist write if observing today’s media distraction machine?[14]
His comments about the merging of the animal and divine fit the motifs of Greek tragedy but are not where we want to go: horror and fantasy films, which life increasingly reflects, show us that: a degrading apocalypse in which that returns humans to primitive conditions while the masters’ hands remain veiled.
Dr. Narrett has published a short Memoir, Thanksgiving available here.
Eugene Narrett blogs on literature, cultural identity & dynamics.
Eugene Narrett’s recent book Culture of Terror: The Collapse of America, on Amazon.
© 2012 Eugene Narrett - All Rights Reserved
Footnotes:
1. Philip K. Dick, The Divine Invasion (NY 1981; Vintage edition 1991), 8.
4. Ibid. 11; see a similar basic situation in Anthony Burgess, The Wanting Seed (1962)
6. Creedence Clearwater Revival, “Fortunate Son” (1969)
8. Dick op. cit. 7-9, 43-51 passim
10. Casablanca (Warner Brothers 1942, Directed by Michael Curtiz, produced by Hal B. Wallis)
11.Chumps the quote is from Laurel & Hardy, “Chumps at Oxford” (Hal Roach Producer, Hal Roach Jr. Director; written and filmed April – August 1939; USA release February 1940 by United Artists; a longer version released in Europe)
12. Philip K. Dick, op. cit. 7, 68-9 passim; in his fiction, rather than the media, the government directly imposes what we now term virtual reality from satellites via “Valis,” a “vast, active living intelligence system.” See also his novel, Valis (Bantam Books 1981)
14. Heinrich von Kleist, “On the Marionette Theatre” (1810); my concept-term the distraction machine is a valuable interpretive tool. Read The Wanting Seed (1962; reprint 1996) by Anthony Burgess for more insights on this era.
Posts
