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. 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)

- - - - -


"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 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


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…