Skip to main content

When people've been bad, they don't deserve to survive

We all need a strong leader, even if it's just that little voice in our heads telling us that the CIA is tapping our phone. Dictatorships, domestic abuse, religions centered around loving but vengeful patriarchs, the military, yoga retreats, Oprah — all symptoms of our childlike desire to be led around by our noses.
And never before has the populace strained quite so strenuously against the unbearable oppression of free will. Look what our independence has bought us, after all: Houses we can't afford that are worth less than our gigantic loans. A terrible legacy as the world's jackboot-wearing cops. Lady Gaga. Where does it end?
[. . .]
So far this season, though, we haven't seen much evidence of strong bonds forming between other players. Sometimes we're kept in the dark about these bonds, but this year, somehow it seems likely that they don't exist. In fact, everyone seems to recognize that Russell is double-dealing, but no one knows quite what to do about it.
Why? Because they've all enjoyed the luxury of being led by their noses since they landed on the beaches of Samoa. If someone else is doing most of your thinking and your dirty work for you, and miraculously you remain on the island day after day, why stir the pot? That's like landing in paradise, then taking God to task for the inadequate flavor profile of the pineapples there.
And let's remember, these players are weak. They're hungry. They're not sleeping well. Is this really the time to take a stand? Once it comes time to fight, will any of us recognize that the hour of destiny is upon us? Most of us, when pressed to face up to a big challenge, tend to order a pizza and cue up "South Park" instead.
[. . .]
Will Russell prevail? Personally, I'd love to see him emerge victorious. (Heather Havrilesky, “Will ‘Survivor’ mastermind Russell reign supreme?,” Salon, 12 Dec. 2009)

The kids were spoiled, rootless, and pathetic--they were asking to be fucked over!
I've noticed for a bit that Salon's solution to "too much garbage in our face" is veering toward becoming, becoming the Axiom. This, "those left behind got what they deserved, anyhow," will help quieten any guilt, if they still have the capacity to emphathize.
If we find ourselves in the position where we're cheering on, not only abusive people, but justifications for abuse, let's hope somebody let's us on to this fact, in a way we are likely to be able to hear. I don't know if Heather is in full possession of herself right now, but what we heard just here sounds like it was voiced from the persecutory alter in her head, the "place" we switch to when reminding ourselves what it is to be weak and vulnerable, is all too much to handle.
When nazis put jews in filth, feces, and torment, some would openly masturbate in excitement. If this sadist here wins, and we exult, are we participating in this sort of glee? Given this article, it sounds like it.

sure shows up in the strangest places. (sansh01, response to post, “Will ‘Survivor’ mastermind Russell reign supreme”)

BTW, sansho1 is absolutely correct; Godwin's Law is inarguable. I hardly consider voluntary participation in a competitition to win $1 million comparable to the suffering of victims of the Holocaust. (Guy Caballero, response to post)

A story that exults of a sadistic leader and his broken, pathetic, subjects, is no place for a nazi reference
"It's time for a sure-handed, charismatic commander to lull us into sheeplike complacency once again. Fascism, communism, whatever flavor suits his or her mood is fine with us, as long as we don't have to make bad decisions all by ourselves anymore. Just make sure the little cameras in our bedrooms broadcast to the Web, so we can watch along with our fearless leaders, thereby helping to snuff out insubordination, laziness and chronic masturbation.
We'll be just like the Red Guards in China, only less fit and much more perverted."
So THIS is a "strange" place for a nazi reference? Really, sansh01? Given it's lead, it would seem the most appropriate of places.
"I hardly consider voluntary participation in a competitition to win $1 million comparable to the suffering of victims of the Holocaust."
Guy Cabellero: Jews were eliminated, in large part because Germans came to think of them as greedy money-strivers, whose immorality needed to be removed for Germany to be pure. Setting up people as DESERVING what they get, is how you get holocausts. Their humiliation and disposal thereby can be done, without guilt. This show is helping some people view most people this way.

@J.C. Miller
Underneath what we love to hate as accurately pathological and socially destructive in Russell-as-instinctual-Man is something protective and as valuable to each of us as life itself – the capacity to feel and experience the competence and will to Survive in the face of threats and chaos. (J.C. Miller, response to post)

I was wondering if you ought to save this bit for when Stephanie reviews Blood Meridian. But in my judgment, "we" bond to Russell because we ID him as perpetrator -- it's a way of keeping way distant from the weak and abused. That is, there's some sanity (or at least compensation) in it, but not a whiff of goodness. It's born from being abused when "you" were wee, and it's something we have to stop altogether, and never legitimize or mythologize.
It leads one into beneficially discomforting experiences, such as explaining to one’s teenage daughter just how one finds somehow an element of satisfaction in Dr. Lector’s intent to “have a friend for dinner” at the ending of that story. How can we integrate abhorrence with something uncomfortably affirming? By not disowning and reacting in kind, which leaves the thing intact, but understanding, knowing, owning, and digesting to assimilate into an integrated and stable whole. We transcend antisocial drives not by projecting, spitting out, but by chewing up and transforming into something new. (J.C. Miller, response to post)

You are aware that during the medieval times parents used to take their children to see corpses, while telling moral tales of life's futility. Supposed to help the children, of course, but no doubt left them screaming half the night, at some level knowing their parents were really behind all the death-beckoning phantoms that invaded most of their dreams. With true poisons -- which is what sadism is -- you're ONTO something if you decide to spit out, rather than ingest.

Yes Progressives are to blame for all the betrayal he dishes out and there is more to come. But those who have buried their head in the sand when others were betrayed have no right to complain when they get their a**es kicked.
[. . .]
You all got as good as you gave. Now that it’s their ox that’s being gored Progressives who remained silent in the face of a shyster and pettifog will get no sympathy from me. This is what you all bargained for.
[. . .]
This is what you all get for marching backwards in lockstep on two left feet. (Arouete, letter to editor, "Yes, it's Obama's war now," Salon)

Heather is trying to point that "Survivor" evidences your belief that most people are demonstrably pathetic, and deserve their comeuppance. Perhaps you think what is befalling progressives who voted for Obama sufficient to evidence this, but maybe some might better appreciate your belief that fools deserve -- or rather, SHOULD, MUST -- have their fall!, if they spend the much more than 5 minutes required to get a comprehensive feel for the show. You sound like Heather. And she actually has a taste for this sort of thing.


Popular posts from this blog

Superimposing another "fourth-wall" Deadpool

I'd like to superimpose the fourth-wall breaking Deadpool that I'd like to have seen in the movie. In my version, he'd break out of the action at some point to discuss with us the following:
1) He'd point out that all the trouble the movie goes to to ensure that the lead actress is never seen completely naked—no nipples shown—in this R-rated movie was done so that later when we suddenly see enough strippers' completely bared breasts that we feel that someone was making up for lost time, we feel that a special, strenuous effort has been made to keep her from a certain fate—one the R-rating would even seemed to have called for, necessitated, even, to properly feed the audience expecting something extra for the movie being more dependent on their ticket purchases. That is, protecting the lead actress was done to legitimize thinking of those left casually unprotected as different kinds of women—not as worthy, not as human.   

2) When Wade/Deadpool and Vanessa are excha…

"The Zookeeper's Wife" as historical romance

A Polish zoologist and his wife maintain a zoo which is utopia, realized. The people who work there are blissfully satisfied and happy. The caged animals aren't distraught but rather, very satisfied. These animals have been very well attended to, and have developed so healthily for it that they almost seem proud to display what is distinctively excellent about them for viewers to enjoy. But there is a shadow coming--Nazis! The Nazis literally blow apart much of this happy configuration. Many of the animals die. But the zookeeper's wife is a prize any Nazi officer would covet, and the Nazi's chief zoologist is interested in claiming her for his own. So if there can be some pretence that would allow for her and her husband to keep their zoo in piece rather than be destroyed for war supplies, he's willing to concede it.

The zookeeper and his wife want to try and use their zoo to house as many Jews as they can. They approach the stately quarters of Hitler's zoologist …

Full conversation about "Bringing Up Baby" at the NewYorker Movie Facebook Club

Richard Brody shared a link.Moderator · November 20 at 3:38pm I'm obsessed with Bringing Up Baby, which is on TCM at 6 PM (ET). It's the first film by Howard Hawks that I ever saw, and it opened up several universes to me, cinematic and otherwise. Here's the story. I was seventeen or eighteen; I had never heard of Hawks until I read Godard's enthusiastic mention of him in one of the early critical pieces in "Godard on Godard"—he called Hawks "the greatest American artist," and this piqued my curiosity. So, the next time I was in town (I… I was out of town at college for the most part), I went to see the first Hawks film playing in a revival house, which turned out to be "Bringing Up Baby." I certainly laughed a lot (and, at a few bits, uncontrollably), but that's not all there was to it. I had never read Freud, but I had heard of Freud, and when I saw "Bringing Up Baby," its realm of symbolism made instant sense; it was obviou…