Elections: “A form of public self-worship”

The paradox of education is precisely this — that as one begins to become conscious one begins to examine the society in which he is being educated. (James Baldwin)

Dangerous psychopath?
Dangerous psychopath?
The above quote came to me via Joseph McBride, and reminded me of something George Carlin use to say in his act. He, like me and McBride, was a product of Catholic schools, but Carlin’s education was progressive. He was not taught to be a Catholic. The assumption was that he would come around on his own by his own internal light as he grew in ability.

…somehow we got lucky, y’know. Got into a school where the pastor was kinda into John Dewey and progressive education and he talked the parish…talked the diocese, rather, into experimenting in our parish with progressive education and whipping the religion on us anyway and see what would happen with the two of them there. And [it] worked out kinda nice; there was a lot of classroom freedom. There was no…for instance, there were no grades or marks, … no report cards to sweat out or any of that. There were no uniforms. …there was no sexual segregation; boy and girls together. And the desks weren’t all nailed down in a row, y’know. There were movable desks and you had new friends every month. It was nice; like I say, a lot of classroom freedom…in fact there was so much freedom that by eighth grade, many of us had lost the faith. ‘Cause they made questioners out of us and … they really didn’t have any answers …

george-carlin-84

While the world is crawling with ex-Catholics like Carlin, McBride and myself, Catholic education these days does not mess around. They go for the mind, take ownership, and leave no doubt that Catholic is the righteous path.

I am reading McBride’s Into the Nightmare. It is about his growing up and coming of age after the Kennedy assassination. He and I have much in common, being about the same age, taking the same publications in our homes as youths, twelve years of Catholic schooling, and having the assassination as the lever by which were launched into the grown-up world.

JFK was just a man who tripped over real power. I seriously doubt he could have changed very much, as the office of president, while powerful, is not the center of power in this land. But the assassination is a focal point. If we examine it closely, we can come to grips with that power, educate ourselves, and free our minds of the deep indoctrination that is American education. It is a lever by which we learn to view the world with unfiltered eyes. It can help us grow up.

Don Draper: Grew up in whorehouse
Don Draper: Grew up in whorehouse
If was often said over the years that Europeans were not surprised at how JFK was murdered, that such intrigue is common and accepted over there. Americans still cling to childish beliefs about leaders and countries and systems of government. I know I did, so that finally coming to realize that JFK was murdered by Americans, and that the whole of our collective institutional structures formed a circle around the murderers was deeply shocking. I had to throw out my education and beliefs and start over from scratch. I realized that I had grown up in a whore house. (This is, I suspect, the underlying message of the TV series Mad Men, as Don Draper comes to grips with his life and real identity. The TV series is smuggling some truth to to us.)

The Saker wrote a nice short piece on this country called “Hillary, Jeb, Rand – does it make a difference anyway?”

[I] see the USA as run by a tiny elite which is good at “pretend democracy” but which makes darn sure that the people vote the “correct” way. I consider the primaries, conventions, caucuses, and elections themselves as a mix between a farce, a form of entertainment, a re-legitimization of a system and a secular liturgical act (a form of public self-worship). There is no “democracy” in the US and there probably never was. However, if the regime does not change, the specific clans within the 1% do fight each other and struggle for control of the regime.

Second, there are different clans, interest groups, factions who fight *within* the top 1% and they can, and do, make use of the electoral process not as a means of popular expression, but as a way to impose their agenda and interests. I often speak of the “old Anglo guard” (best represented by the Bush clan before Dubya) and the “Neocons”, but there are many more interest group[s] (oil, banking, military, drug warriors, big pharma, etc.) who all participate in the internal struggle for power.

Thus, there is no real difference between the Republicrats and the Demoblicans, they are all part of the same elite, but there are differences between different political figures who are more, or less, aligned with any specific interest group. Thus Greenwald is correct when he identifies the various groups who would support a Hillary Presidency. This has nothing to do with democracy, the political parties or even her own views and everything to do with which interest groups she sold out to.

The Saker, as a legal alien educated elsewhere, came to this country with a fully formed cerebral cortex. Unlike products of our own education system, he is a grown-up. Later in his short essay he says that given a choice we might be better off “having a generally mentally sane Jeb Bush (and his staff) … than a clearly rabid Hillary (and her staff).” This feeds my own sensibilities, affirms my own judgment to a degree.

My impressions of people that we only know via media and print is flawed, of course. Over the years I have come to view George H.W. Bush as a dangerous psychopath, for example, and Ronald Reagan as a dunce and the mere vehicle by which (the unelectable) Bush was handed the presidency (on March 30,1981). George’s son George W. is a ninny. Richard Nixon was a complex and intelligent man who, like JFK, thought the power of the office of president could be exercised roughshod over the other factions within the 1% who have different objectives. He failed to grasp the nature of the makeup of our oligarchical structure. Fortunately for him, his removal from office was bloodless.

And yes, Hillary, like George H.W. Bush, scares the crap out of me. She’s unprincipled and ruthless, and smart only to the degree that she can see up to, but not around the bend. Having no emotions or concerns about human suffering, she might indeed think war with Russia is a smart move, for example.

Why do only the good ones get taken down? Where are those damned hidden gunmen when we really need them?

30 thoughts on “Elections: “A form of public self-worship”

  1. Neither will have to do much real thinking. Whether we war with Russia, Iran or China will be made above any visible political puppet show. War contractors and banks will most likely decide our fate, as they always have.

    Like

    1. First I’ve heard of it. This thing was solved back in the sixties, and yes, there were some Mafia types involved. But they were mere agents. There was also CIA, FBI, ONI. Dallas police, military, Secret Service involvement, and perhaps inside knowledge by LBJ as well. But there was an attempt in anticipation of the 50th anniversary to lay it all in the mob, spearheaded by Thom Hartmann. It’s deflection, part of the ongoing coverup.

      Here’s just one little thing: photographers followed JFK in his every move, and there was an official White House photographer too, so that scores of professionals should have photographed the assassination. They were generally on a flatbed ahead of motorcades, and the WH guy was even allowed to ride in the limousine on occasion. On that one day all of them were moved to the very rear of the motorcade, around the bend, so that there were no professionals on hand when the shots came down. All the (surviving) photos we have are done by amateurs.

      I’d like to know how the Mob, which also apparently got the military to stand down that day, also ordered all photographers to the back of the motorcade.

      So much is known, so much uncovered, that when Newsmax suddenly solves the case, think “deflection.” Nothing more.

      Like

    1. Another jack booted, thug Democrat is just what this world needs. Skinheads are hiring. You auditioning, or just a mean drunk? If you’re human, apologize when you’ve sobered up.

      Like

  2. The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out… without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.
    H. L. Mencken

    Like

        1. Your view is so short-sighted because you have read so little. Being drunk with power is what affects all humans, private, corporate, government, military. It just so happens that with government we have recourse. It is imperfect and history is riddled with exceptions of course, but government tends to be the only power center that can be controlled.

          The Lord of the Rings stories – the ring represents power, and if affects everyone who comes close to it. Putting it on is deadly.

          Like

        2. Swede, you understand that governments are nothing more than groups of people, being told what to do by other people? A government has no ability to either drink or wield power. Only the people within it can do that.

          Do guns kill people, or does the person pulling the trigger?

          Like

          1. The first half of your claim is certainly true, JC. The second half is no more true of ‘governments’ than it is any individual who lives and breathes. If it is the human condition, as Mark argues often, of “being told what to do by other people” then why should anyone listen to the message from you or Mark or even me? Mark has offered weak excuses for what has freed him from mental enslavement. What is your alibi?

            That would be the core of my complaint with the purist progressive message. Governments do become ‘drunk with power’ because the people who fuel them or stand against them are likewise drunk with their own power.

            Like

          2. I don’t recall saying that the human condition is “being told what to do by other people.” That is learned behavior but the underlying comfort comes from sheer laziness, not having to think, allowing others to think for you. That is the human condition. Thought control is the norm, but damned if people don’t seek it out.

            Religion makes people happy. Why?

            Like

      1. He pushes your buttons very well, Mark.

        Our four-footed canine friends show us that to get them to ‘shut up’, we need to ignore them. If Swede is as stupid as you think, that probably out to work. A bit of a problem, we are not canines. This is all obvious, and no nuance is necessary. You get that, right?

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s