The Stewart and Colbert Purity Crusade
0 views
Skip to first unread message
Patrick McEvoy-Halston
Nov 2, 2010, 3:02:05 PM11/2/10
to realpsychohistory
Many of you probably watched the famous Jon Stewart "smackdown" of --
in particular -- Tucker Carlson on Crossfire. I knew then that the
primary crime Tucker was guilty of was possessing too much personality
(his bow-tie, pink shirts, buoyant, boyish hair), self-determination
(he is famous for being the ostensible conservative who did the non-
permissable, the treasonous, in accurately reporting the extent of
Bush's "potty-mouth") at a time when Stewart's accrued fame had
accumulated to the point that his maternal alter would hereafter
determine his course, telling him to activate to punish / suppress
those who most closely represent his own desire for self-
satisfaction.
Stewart and Colbert still now strike me as the type liberals will look
to to ensure a guilt-free purity crusade. Ostensibly, what they
champion is sanity, reasoned discourse, but what they are against is
uncurbed personality, individuation, show that you still respect /
value (are reluctant to denigrate) that part of you that still aims to
make your own particular mark on the world (Colbert's "I AM
AMERICA"): they want denatured, reasoned neuters reporting both sides
of the news, becalmed not from being reasonable but for being in
denial of agitating emotions, for being wholly in sync with the needs
of the purity crusade -- for the pervasiveness of this type, and its
successful idealization, will show Mother that the kind of self-
attendance (mother-neglect) that leads to personality has been
throughly repudiated from the public scene.
The following DeMause quotes are playing on my mind (taken from "War
as Righteous Rape"). From them, I am alert to think of non-pejorative
forms of our desires that people like Stewart and Colbert are blasting
in their call for sanity. Along with genuine lack of reasoning (as
we see every time Stewart showcases any of the genuinely always-
unreasoning FOX News types), we will see grouped its actual opposite:
the impassioned fight to resist obfuscation, curtailment of truth,
flight from sanity toward group disassociation, we consistently find
with the likes of Joan Walsh and Chris Matthews (two liberals who have
showcased as insane -- or at least as talking insanely -- by
Stewart). As I have suggested elsewhere, I have no doubt that
Krugman will be targeted by liberal "reasonables" as amongst the
clearly unreasonable. They have to (go after him), for he has too
strong a claim on being reasonable right now himself, and yet so
strongly and genuinely opposes the sort of personality-killing
depression / suppression most liberals are increasingly drawn to
insist upon. It's risky, because disposing him (considerably) arouses
the spectre of undeniable guilt -- of feeling impure, fraudulent,
intrinsically hypocritical. So when they close in on him,
psychohistorians have to be prepared to remind them throughout their
efforts of deposition that the only way HE could now be the one they
target is if THEY are in fact the ones behaving irrationally, crazily
-- scrutiny-worthy. That is, their upcoming attack on Krugman will in
my judgment be our best means of playing to the part of liberals that
may yet resist this strong pull towards ensuring the depressive end to
this historical cycle (of seeing huge crimes against people). It can
be used to draw some back to sanity, and keep some part of our age
still innovation prone, genuinely aspiring and happy, despite the
clawing, claiming efforts of the regressive-prone.
Patrick
DeMause quotes:
1) If there ever were a society where parents really helped their
children to individuate, it would be a society without growth panics,
without engulfment fears and without delusional enemies. The enemy is
a poison container for groups failing to grapple with the problems of
an emerging self. The enemy therefore inherits the imagery of their
growth panic, so the enemy is usually described in terms of our
childhood desires for growth. "They" (for instance, Jews) are imagined
to be guilty of the pejorative form of every one of our desires:
"greed" (all our wants); "lust" (our sexual desire); "pushiness" (our
striving) and so on. It isn't even necessary that the enemy really
exist. Simple societies imagine that witches, ancestors and spirits
are relentlessly persecuting enemies, and some nations-including Japan
today-can even imagine Jews as bloodsucking national enemies when
there are virtually no Jews in their country.231
2) In fact, nations enter into depressions because they feel
persecuted for their prosperity and individuation by what Jungians
have termed the "Dragon Mother"--the needy, "devouring mother of
infancy...who cannot let her children go because she needs them for
her own psychic survival."152 Weston has found anorexics in particular
are dominated by fantasies of persecution by the Dragon Mother, who
"gives her child the impossible task of filling her ‘limitless void'''
so the child fears being "eaten alive."153 To prevent this, when these
children grow up and try to individuate, they refuse to eat so they
won't have any flesh on them for the Dragon Mother to devour. Economic
depressions evidence similar group-fantasies of devouring mommies;
they are "economic anorexias" where nations inflict economic wounds
upon themselves to limit consumption, become "all bones" and not tempt
the devouring Dragon Mother. Banks, in particular, are often pictured
as greedy dragons. For instance, President Jackson imagined the Bank
of the United States was what he called the "Mother Bank" that by
issuing paper money was a "bad mother dominating her children" who had
to be stopped before the nation was eaten up, and so conducted a "kill
the Great Monster" campaign that would "strangle the many-headed
hydra" and kill it.154 Needless to say, his success in "crushing the
Mother Bank dragon" led to an economic downturn.
in particular -- Tucker Carlson on Crossfire. I knew then that the
primary crime Tucker was guilty of was possessing too much personality
(his bow-tie, pink shirts, buoyant, boyish hair), self-determination
(he is famous for being the ostensible conservative who did the non-
permissable, the treasonous, in accurately reporting the extent of
Bush's "potty-mouth") at a time when Stewart's accrued fame had
accumulated to the point that his maternal alter would hereafter
determine his course, telling him to activate to punish / suppress
those who most closely represent his own desire for self-
satisfaction.
Stewart and Colbert still now strike me as the type liberals will look
to to ensure a guilt-free purity crusade. Ostensibly, what they
champion is sanity, reasoned discourse, but what they are against is
uncurbed personality, individuation, show that you still respect /
value (are reluctant to denigrate) that part of you that still aims to
make your own particular mark on the world (Colbert's "I AM
AMERICA"): they want denatured, reasoned neuters reporting both sides
of the news, becalmed not from being reasonable but for being in
denial of agitating emotions, for being wholly in sync with the needs
of the purity crusade -- for the pervasiveness of this type, and its
successful idealization, will show Mother that the kind of self-
attendance (mother-neglect) that leads to personality has been
throughly repudiated from the public scene.
The following DeMause quotes are playing on my mind (taken from "War
as Righteous Rape"). From them, I am alert to think of non-pejorative
forms of our desires that people like Stewart and Colbert are blasting
in their call for sanity. Along with genuine lack of reasoning (as
we see every time Stewart showcases any of the genuinely always-
unreasoning FOX News types), we will see grouped its actual opposite:
the impassioned fight to resist obfuscation, curtailment of truth,
flight from sanity toward group disassociation, we consistently find
with the likes of Joan Walsh and Chris Matthews (two liberals who have
showcased as insane -- or at least as talking insanely -- by
Stewart). As I have suggested elsewhere, I have no doubt that
Krugman will be targeted by liberal "reasonables" as amongst the
clearly unreasonable. They have to (go after him), for he has too
strong a claim on being reasonable right now himself, and yet so
strongly and genuinely opposes the sort of personality-killing
depression / suppression most liberals are increasingly drawn to
insist upon. It's risky, because disposing him (considerably) arouses
the spectre of undeniable guilt -- of feeling impure, fraudulent,
intrinsically hypocritical. So when they close in on him,
psychohistorians have to be prepared to remind them throughout their
efforts of deposition that the only way HE could now be the one they
target is if THEY are in fact the ones behaving irrationally, crazily
-- scrutiny-worthy. That is, their upcoming attack on Krugman will in
my judgment be our best means of playing to the part of liberals that
may yet resist this strong pull towards ensuring the depressive end to
this historical cycle (of seeing huge crimes against people). It can
be used to draw some back to sanity, and keep some part of our age
still innovation prone, genuinely aspiring and happy, despite the
clawing, claiming efforts of the regressive-prone.
Patrick
DeMause quotes:
1) If there ever were a society where parents really helped their
children to individuate, it would be a society without growth panics,
without engulfment fears and without delusional enemies. The enemy is
a poison container for groups failing to grapple with the problems of
an emerging self. The enemy therefore inherits the imagery of their
growth panic, so the enemy is usually described in terms of our
childhood desires for growth. "They" (for instance, Jews) are imagined
to be guilty of the pejorative form of every one of our desires:
"greed" (all our wants); "lust" (our sexual desire); "pushiness" (our
striving) and so on. It isn't even necessary that the enemy really
exist. Simple societies imagine that witches, ancestors and spirits
are relentlessly persecuting enemies, and some nations-including Japan
today-can even imagine Jews as bloodsucking national enemies when
there are virtually no Jews in their country.231
2) In fact, nations enter into depressions because they feel
persecuted for their prosperity and individuation by what Jungians
have termed the "Dragon Mother"--the needy, "devouring mother of
infancy...who cannot let her children go because she needs them for
her own psychic survival."152 Weston has found anorexics in particular
are dominated by fantasies of persecution by the Dragon Mother, who
"gives her child the impossible task of filling her ‘limitless void'''
so the child fears being "eaten alive."153 To prevent this, when these
children grow up and try to individuate, they refuse to eat so they
won't have any flesh on them for the Dragon Mother to devour. Economic
depressions evidence similar group-fantasies of devouring mommies;
they are "economic anorexias" where nations inflict economic wounds
upon themselves to limit consumption, become "all bones" and not tempt
the devouring Dragon Mother. Banks, in particular, are often pictured
as greedy dragons. For instance, President Jackson imagined the Bank
of the United States was what he called the "Mother Bank" that by
issuing paper money was a "bad mother dominating her children" who had
to be stopped before the nation was eaten up, and so conducted a "kill
the Great Monster" campaign that would "strangle the many-headed
hydra" and kill it.154 Needless to say, his success in "crushing the
Mother Bank dragon" led to an economic downturn.
Christopher Effgen
Nov 2, 2010, 3:45:12 PM11/2/10
to realpsyc...@googlegroups.com
This post reminds of the saying, "that it is a good thing that god gave man
reason, for this enables a man to find a reason for whatever he wants to
do," in this case say.
A rally for sanity can only be so in the eye of the beholder. It can't stop
anyone from making it be whatever they want to.
Christopher
Patrick
DeMause quotes:
"gives her child the impossible task of filling her �limitless void'''
so the child fears being "eaten alive."153 To prevent this, when these
children grow up and try to individuate, they refuse to eat so they
won't have any flesh on them for the Dragon Mother to devour. Economic
depressions evidence similar group-fantasies of devouring mommies;
they are "economic anorexias" where nations inflict economic wounds
upon themselves to limit consumption, become "all bones" and not tempt
the devouring Dragon Mother. Banks, in particular, are often pictured
as greedy dragons. For instance, President Jackson imagined the Bank
of the United States was what he called the "Mother Bank" that by
issuing paper money was a "bad mother dominating her children" who had
to be stopped before the nation was eaten up, and so conducted a "kill
the Great Monster" campaign that would "strangle the many-headed
hydra" and kill it.154 Needless to say, his success in "crushing the
Mother Bank dragon" led to an economic downturn.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"realpsychohistory" group.
To post to this group, send email to realpsyc...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
realpsychohist...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/realpsychohistory?hl=en.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages