Skip to main content

The Stewart and Colbert Purity Crusade

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 punchy bow-tie, pink shirts, buoyant, boyish hair), self-determination / initiative (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 and true power had accumulated to the point where his maternal alter would hereafter determine his course, telling him to activate to suppress / destroy those who most closely represent his own desire for full autonomy / actualization and 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 -- on defining what it is to be reasonable in our current era -- and yet so 
strongly and genuinely opposes the sort of personality-killing 
depression / suppression most liberals are increasingly drawn to 
near openly 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.


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.

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." 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." 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. Needless to say, his success in "crushing the 
Mother Bank dragon" led to an economic downturn.

Link: The Stewart and Colbert Purity Crusade (realpsychohistory)


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…