Skip to main content

When Greats finally pass up the ball, it may not be about fatherly benefaction and selfless generosity: take heed if you accept it

ABC News: All Chinese children learn English starting in kindergarten. By the time they are ten they are bilingual! American schools can't teach reading and

writing one language very well.


Lloyd (Lloyd DeMause, “Learning,” Realpsychohistory, 15 Nov. 2011)

- - - - -

"ABC News: All Chinese children learn English starting in kindergarten. By 
the time they are 
ten they are bilingual! American schools can't teach reading and writing 
one language very well. 
Lloyd"


Lloyd. Your current posts would not make it past your own 1999 - 2005 
filter for *others'* posts. (Rachel Stoltenberg)

- - - - -

Rachel: Did you see the ABC News report on Chinese children now all 
learning English from the 
beginning of their schooling? It was very detailed, had lots of 
schools reporting, gave 
statistical evidence that was convincing. Your doubt below is unvalidated. Can you
give evidence the ABC News report was wrong? 



Lloyd (Lloyd DeMause)

- - - - -

Lloyd!

"Rachel: Did you see the ABC News report on Chinese children now all 
learning English from the 
beginning of their schooling? It was very detailed, had lots of schools 
reporting, gave 
statistical evidence that was convincing. Your doubt below is unvalidated. 
 Can you 
give evidence the ABC News report was wrong?"


Apology. My remark appears to be in response to your last post re. China. 
It' not. It's about several of your recent posts, at least. (Rachel Stoltenberg)

- - - - -

Lloyd, for me the concern would be that you tend to make America seem "bad," fully worthy of the downfall it seems intent on willing on for itself. The rest of the United Nations – Europe, whose social improvements you frequently delineate for us, mostly, but also now not-so-long-ago, absolute-progress-stopping, foot-binding China (are you for memory, or not?; or is it that you would just have us put aside or showcase as suits the momentum of your current inclinations?) – are by contrast mostly made to seem sane and civil. You kinda get the sense that you're mostly concerned these days, through the like of flattery and appropriately directed scorn, to count yourself amongst the few deserving Americans around still able to appreciate the maturity of the international community, and who maybe won't be suffering from what their peers' folly has earned for themselves. The feeling is that you're shirking most of the rest of us off, to count yourself amongst the bland but safe. Lloyd the revolutionist is at the end neutering himself to seem as prosaic as denatured, internationalist Obama.

Patrick

- - - - -

Patrick wrote the following: "The > feeling is that you're shirking

most of the rest of us off..."


My commentary: Please remember, that this is not a tea party group but

a psychohistorical discussion group. So

your formulation "most of the rest of us" is hardly true. If you

believe the contrary, please do so. During the times of neoliberalism

I never used my limited ressources to discuss with neoliberals. I did

not estimate it as something productive. I do not judge it appropriate

to behave in another way with Tea Partiers. That's all I have to say

to that.

Florian (Florian Galler)

- - - - -

Patrick: You cannot tell what my views are when you have never

subscribed to my Journal

and read my articles. You just endlessly attack me on

realpsychohistory for unstated crimes.

Lloyd (Lloyd DeMause)

- - - - -

Not so, Florian. With posts like this he is showing he is talking directly to (and counting himself amongst) civilized but a bit dull people, while bleeding into the background those who've encountered all he's done before who he knows would instantly recognize / sense his going simple (we may be sane and unpredictable, but he's quickly judged, probably not of most consequence). (And there is a sense that he's not even so much talking to any of us as he is to someone beyond who would approve of all he is saying, of the clear deference [to Her] he is with his words communicating.) He is making himself more boring – and certainly more "in-line" – than he actually is, as Pauline Kael used to remark about fellow critics, feeling inclined to turn traitor, I'm sensing, on people who represent the striving and accomplishing “Lloyd” he could never quite convince himself would ever find safety from retributive attack.

This long story of prosperity is terminating in a colossal way. We know who's coming, know it's payback time, and his inclination is to skip as fast as he can to the side to get out of the way. There is always a ball in play here, and sometimes it’s still drawing us to stretch out, participate, and still grow, but you do get a weird sense that the pleasure derived whenever it is made part of an 
interesting game, also derives from it outing into firm remembrance and therefore later sure punishment, who exactly it tempted to not only take but run with it.

- - - - -

And just a reminder, guys. When the next purity crusade is on us, an era in absolute obeisance to the sacrifice / punishment-desiring maternal alter, it will not come about in any form that would tip its hat to its true nature – it cannot, cannot, cannot make the liberal, well-behaving, civilized amongst us feel anyway GUILTY. That is, it will not be (for example) anti-Semitic (the exact last thing it will in fact be), anti-black, against homosexuals, anti-woman or aggressively for the alpha male, for banning ALL alcohol, not Green, anything really Bush / Cheney, previous prohibition-looking in origin. It will come across as eminently sensible, reasonable, evolved, moderate, adult. Therefore it will be FOR education reform, digitization and access, for making America once again ahead of nations (like China, that now shame us) it was once so far ahead of before (as the story goes) individualism and greed became the cancer that destroyed its host, for reform /re-invigoration of industry, manufacturing, transportation – the muscle fiber of the nation – for making it clean, green, ordered, interconnected and finally vigorous again. It will be done multiculturally, through colors of every hue, operating in a preferred environment of cooperation, sanity, and mature decorum. Expect the United Nations to cheer it on. And all of this will be done to the overall effect of mounting more and more numbers to the increasingly DESERVING suffering, to the inhibition of freedom, to strangling what is actually good about America, though all the time its loudest proponents will actually come from the (regressing members of) Left.

That is, if you want to make psychohistory another means to serve Mother, you will be offered many things by the Obama administration that will look so very supportable but that actually work against what is real in psychohistory. Obama can be made to seem the only option
 against the Tea Party nation, and therefore a bulwark that MUST BE 
supported to the psychological health, to the evolutionary progress, of the nation – even if it this means the quieting-down / suppression, the stigmatizing of other (dissonant) liberal voices, which ostensibly now serve to weaken what must only now be supported – but, thank god, there are little demons and goblins all the way through (the likes of) Lloyd's "Emotional Life of Nations" that will be mocking you along the way for your ultimate capitulation to the voice you've spent a lifetime trying to steady yourself to no longer heed. I hope that if I keep pointing these irritants out, we'll at some point have feel the need to either address what is
 evidently moving us to cooperate with the so readily offered "easy outs" in discussion, and not stay true to what is still everywhere and 
obvious in "the text," or find some way to ostensibly guilt-free "burn the book," and in our moment of instant never-the-less-unavoidable “what have I done!,” self-recogize and re-orient, and thereby finally once again start up our goal to keep some hope alive through a clear-eyed look at historical motivations.

Link: Learning (Realpsychohistory)

Link: Emotional Life of Nations

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Discussion over the fate of Jolenta, at the Gene Wolfe facebook appreciation site

Patrick McEvoy-Halston November 28 at 10:36 AM Why does Severian make almost no effort to develop sustained empathy for Jolenta -- no interest in her roots, what made her who she was -- even as she features so much in the first part of the narrative? Her fate at the end is one sustained gross happenstance after another... Severian has repeated sex with her while she lay half drugged, an act he argues later he imagines she wanted -- even as he admits it could appear to some, bald "rape" -- but which certainly followed his  discussion of her as someone whom he could hate so much it invited his desire to destroy her; Severian abandons her to Dr. Talus, who had threatened to kill her if she insisted on clinging to him; Baldanders robs her of her money; she's sucked at by blood bats, and, finally, left at death revealed discombobulated of all beauty... a hunk of junk, like that the Saltus citizens keep heaped away from their village for it ruining their preferred sense ...

Salon discussion of "Almost Famous" gang-rape scene

Patrick McEvoy-Halston: The "Almost Famous'" gang-rape scene? Isn't this the film that features the deflowering of a virgin -- out of boredom -- by a pack of predator-vixons, who otherwise thought so little of him they were quite willing to pee in his near vicinity? Maybe we'll come to conclude that "[t]he scene only works because people were stupid about [boy by girl] [. . .] rape at the time" (Amy Benfer). Sawmonkey: Lucky boy Pull that stick a few more inches out of your chute, Patrick. This was one of the best flicks of the decade. (sawmonkey, response to post, “Films of the decade: ‘Amost Famous’, R.J. Culter, Salon, 13 Dec. 2009) Patrick McEvoy-Halston: @sawmonkey It made an impression on me too. Great charm. Great friends. But it is one of the things you (or at least I) notice on the review, there is the SUGGESTION, with him being so (rightly) upset with the girls feeling so free to pee right before him, that sex with him is just further presump...

The Conjuring

The Conjuring 
I don't know if contemporary filmmakers are aware of it, but if they decide to set their films in the '70s, some of the affordments of that time are going to make them have to work harder to simply get a good scare from us. Who would you expect to have a more tenacious hold on that house, for example? The ghosts from Salem, or us from 2013, who've just been shown a New England home just a notch or two downscaled from being a Jeffersonian estate, that a single-income truck driver with some savings can afford? Seriously, though it's easy to credit that the father — Roger Perron—would get his family out of that house as fast as he could when trouble really stirs, we'd be more apt to still be wagering our losses—one dead dog, a wife accumulating bruises, some good scares to our kids—against what we might yet have full claim to. The losses will get their nursing—even the heavy traumas, maybe—if out of this we've still got a house—really,...