0 comment Saturday, November 1, 2014 | admin
In my recent piece called 'In the Country of the Blind...', I wrote about the tendency of Americans to be followers: followers of fads, trends, and above all, followers of dubious individuals. This need to follow all too often seems to center on some individual who is apparently 'charismatic' in the eyes of his fans or disciples.
As I was writing that piece, Glenn Beck was foremost in my mind, although there are certainly many other figures who have gained wide popularity in this country based on perceived charisma with a little snake-oil in the recipe.
On an article at American Thinker, which tends to be favorable to the brand of 'conservatism' endorsed by Beck and Fox News, there were two comments by the same individual expressing a lonely skepticism toward Beck and the rally. The comments tied in very much with my message here. I will quote from those comments.
''But there are not a few people who become histrionic if Beck's motives are questioned. Why? Isn't he just a man like the rest of us? Or am I wrong, and he has become a god? The point at issue is (or should be) this: When it is considered an outrage to apply reasoned criticism to an American public figure (even one so revered, so adulated, so "funny," so "adorably pudgy," and so adamant that he is "on the side of the little guy--even though he wouldn't waste a micro-second of his off-air time on the average Joe Shmoe American, then we've got a problem. And the problem is this: we've put peronalities before principles.''
Personalities before principles. That parallels something I said in my earlier post on this subject. And the tendency to reject any criticism of the personalities we admire is not a good thing.
This is the stuff of which cults are made of. It is not worthy of thinking people.
And in a later comment on the same thread, the reader says
''We've become a nation of televidiots. We sit down on our sofas and watch the TV talking heads, like the dolts on MSNBC, an assortment of unspeakably rotten attention whores, BTW. We listen to "talk radio" maestros who daily inform us of their luxurious lifestyles--their golfing, their jets, the famous and "important" people they mixed with over the preceding weekend. In other words, we get our info--ALL our info--second hand. That's not good. Our nation was founded on the premise that there would be an informed citizenry that would inform ITSELF. It's about doing our own heavy lifting in the intellectual realm--our own reading, our own internet research, our own townhall discussion groups. Once we make a commitment to sojourn in that realm we'll have a different view of these Pied Pipers who are reaping exhorbitant wealth by opportunistically using the current onslaught of the Left (a very real onslaught against the very foundations of our Republic) to make gazillions of dollars from selling books, and from astronomical speaking-engagement fees (and don't forget the revenue from show advertisers). This sort of thing sullies the unsung efforts of those who are genuinely and selflessly working hard to stem the tide of the leftist assault--it makes the conservative movement look like a raft of suckers being led by huckster carnival barkers. I have an uncanny feeling that the Left is actually not really that worried about Mr. Beck's impact on their agenda.''
[I have left the spelling in the quotes as it appeared on the original post.]
I can only agree with what this commenter says. I think his words get to the heart of this servile and gullible streak in Americans.
In the last paragraph of the second comment, he says that the conservative movement looks ''like a raft of suckers being led by huckster carnival barkers.'' That is the gullibility that I mentioned. In a way, though, perhaps this says something good about the basic character of many of these conservatives, in that honest, decent people are usually somewhat gullible, and trusting to a fault. I suspect it's easier to dupe heartland Americans than it would be to gull cynical city-dwellers. That's always been the stereotype of the heartland American: the 'country cousin' who is taken in by some sharp city-slicker.
But in today's more dangerous world, we can't afford that kind of gullibility and blind trust of anyone. Perhaps I've absorbed more cynicism than I would like to, but that's what life experience does to you, unless you live in some kind of Pollyanna bubble into which bad people and bad experiences never intrude.
The comments quoted above stated that Glenn Beck is not perceived as any kind of threat by the Left. Surely they must have enough sense -- mustn't they? -- to see that he venerates the same idols and bows down to their altars. Sometimes I wonder if their outrage towards him is feigned, as if to further cement his popularity with the naifs on the right. If the left attacks someone, surely they must be the real thing, right? Beck must be the conservative savior if the left hates him so much.
I do believe there is such a thing as controlled opposition, and that much of what is acted out on cable 'news' networks is so much pro wrestling drama. The two sides trash-talk and threaten and intimidate each other but behind the scenes they are all probably great friends. Rush Limbaugh's recent wedding is an example of this kind of thing, and yet Rush has his zealous defenders if anyone criticizes him, just as Beck. Or Ann Coulter, or any other such 'entertainer' on the political scene.
One more factor enters into this, in addition to the too-trusting nature of many Americans: the dearth of leadership. Where are our leaders? I can't think of any of the major political figures who inspire me; as Yeats said in The Second Coming:
The best lack all conviction
While the worst are full of passionate intensity.
Where are our 'best' people? Not on the political scene. There are a few who seem to have integrity, but they are lacking in the 'passionate intensity' that real leadership would demand in this time of trouble.
We've discussed leadership on this blog before, and the lack of leadership is more glaringly obvious now than it was a few years ago when I lamented it. Ron Paul has come and gone, having been a disappointment to many who put too much faith in him, and each betrayal or disappointment disillusions a few more people.
But as long as there is a void of leadership, the snake-oil peddlers and hucksters and charlatans and false messiahs -- and the 'one-eyed men,' the blind leaders of the blind, will step in to fill that vacuum.
And maybe the leaders that we need will not be in the political realm at all. It isn't all about 'Democrats vs. Republicans' or left vs. right, or Islam vs. Christianity or whatever Fox News says it is.
The best thing that could happen to the American populace would be to stop watching television and stop partaking of the 'mainstream' media, including Hollywood movies. That is the source of the ignorance or false information that has become so rife in this country. It should be obvious to even the most slow-witted that the media are not informing or entertaining us, but shaping our minds, thoughts, attitudes, and emotions, and shaping them in a way that may be the end of us, ultimately.
Every day I hear of somebody else dropping their cable or satellite TV service -- yet too many still devour the propaganda willingly. However even turning the TV off will not help if people do not care to inform themselves and cultivate some independence of mind, and a habit of examining what people in 'authority' tell us. That is also part of the message of the comments I posted above.
Long ago, the left liked to spout the phrase 'Question Authority.' Of course, that was in a time in which authority tended to be conservative. I wonder if the left at that time would have anticipated how quickly their kind would come to BE the authority in our society, to be the establishment and the entrenched orthodoxy. They still like to think of themselves as the brave dissenters and principled rebels. That's no longer true; it's the right, especially the politically incorrect right, that are the true dissidents and the upholders of truth.
If we fall prey to the con men and the false pied-pipers of the ''right'', who will be left?
As I was writing that piece, Glenn Beck was foremost in my mind, although there are certainly many other figures who have gained wide popularity in this country based on perceived charisma with a little snake-oil in the recipe.
On an article at American Thinker, which tends to be favorable to the brand of 'conservatism' endorsed by Beck and Fox News, there were two comments by the same individual expressing a lonely skepticism toward Beck and the rally. The comments tied in very much with my message here. I will quote from those comments.
''But there are not a few people who become histrionic if Beck's motives are questioned. Why? Isn't he just a man like the rest of us? Or am I wrong, and he has become a god? The point at issue is (or should be) this: When it is considered an outrage to apply reasoned criticism to an American public figure (even one so revered, so adulated, so "funny," so "adorably pudgy," and so adamant that he is "on the side of the little guy--even though he wouldn't waste a micro-second of his off-air time on the average Joe Shmoe American, then we've got a problem. And the problem is this: we've put peronalities before principles.''
Personalities before principles. That parallels something I said in my earlier post on this subject. And the tendency to reject any criticism of the personalities we admire is not a good thing.
This is the stuff of which cults are made of. It is not worthy of thinking people.
And in a later comment on the same thread, the reader says
''We've become a nation of televidiots. We sit down on our sofas and watch the TV talking heads, like the dolts on MSNBC, an assortment of unspeakably rotten attention whores, BTW. We listen to "talk radio" maestros who daily inform us of their luxurious lifestyles--their golfing, their jets, the famous and "important" people they mixed with over the preceding weekend. In other words, we get our info--ALL our info--second hand. That's not good. Our nation was founded on the premise that there would be an informed citizenry that would inform ITSELF. It's about doing our own heavy lifting in the intellectual realm--our own reading, our own internet research, our own townhall discussion groups. Once we make a commitment to sojourn in that realm we'll have a different view of these Pied Pipers who are reaping exhorbitant wealth by opportunistically using the current onslaught of the Left (a very real onslaught against the very foundations of our Republic) to make gazillions of dollars from selling books, and from astronomical speaking-engagement fees (and don't forget the revenue from show advertisers). This sort of thing sullies the unsung efforts of those who are genuinely and selflessly working hard to stem the tide of the leftist assault--it makes the conservative movement look like a raft of suckers being led by huckster carnival barkers. I have an uncanny feeling that the Left is actually not really that worried about Mr. Beck's impact on their agenda.''
[I have left the spelling in the quotes as it appeared on the original post.]
I can only agree with what this commenter says. I think his words get to the heart of this servile and gullible streak in Americans.
In the last paragraph of the second comment, he says that the conservative movement looks ''like a raft of suckers being led by huckster carnival barkers.'' That is the gullibility that I mentioned. In a way, though, perhaps this says something good about the basic character of many of these conservatives, in that honest, decent people are usually somewhat gullible, and trusting to a fault. I suspect it's easier to dupe heartland Americans than it would be to gull cynical city-dwellers. That's always been the stereotype of the heartland American: the 'country cousin' who is taken in by some sharp city-slicker.
But in today's more dangerous world, we can't afford that kind of gullibility and blind trust of anyone. Perhaps I've absorbed more cynicism than I would like to, but that's what life experience does to you, unless you live in some kind of Pollyanna bubble into which bad people and bad experiences never intrude.
The comments quoted above stated that Glenn Beck is not perceived as any kind of threat by the Left. Surely they must have enough sense -- mustn't they? -- to see that he venerates the same idols and bows down to their altars. Sometimes I wonder if their outrage towards him is feigned, as if to further cement his popularity with the naifs on the right. If the left attacks someone, surely they must be the real thing, right? Beck must be the conservative savior if the left hates him so much.
I do believe there is such a thing as controlled opposition, and that much of what is acted out on cable 'news' networks is so much pro wrestling drama. The two sides trash-talk and threaten and intimidate each other but behind the scenes they are all probably great friends. Rush Limbaugh's recent wedding is an example of this kind of thing, and yet Rush has his zealous defenders if anyone criticizes him, just as Beck. Or Ann Coulter, or any other such 'entertainer' on the political scene.
One more factor enters into this, in addition to the too-trusting nature of many Americans: the dearth of leadership. Where are our leaders? I can't think of any of the major political figures who inspire me; as Yeats said in The Second Coming:
The best lack all conviction
While the worst are full of passionate intensity.
Where are our 'best' people? Not on the political scene. There are a few who seem to have integrity, but they are lacking in the 'passionate intensity' that real leadership would demand in this time of trouble.
We've discussed leadership on this blog before, and the lack of leadership is more glaringly obvious now than it was a few years ago when I lamented it. Ron Paul has come and gone, having been a disappointment to many who put too much faith in him, and each betrayal or disappointment disillusions a few more people.
But as long as there is a void of leadership, the snake-oil peddlers and hucksters and charlatans and false messiahs -- and the 'one-eyed men,' the blind leaders of the blind, will step in to fill that vacuum.
And maybe the leaders that we need will not be in the political realm at all. It isn't all about 'Democrats vs. Republicans' or left vs. right, or Islam vs. Christianity or whatever Fox News says it is.
The best thing that could happen to the American populace would be to stop watching television and stop partaking of the 'mainstream' media, including Hollywood movies. That is the source of the ignorance or false information that has become so rife in this country. It should be obvious to even the most slow-witted that the media are not informing or entertaining us, but shaping our minds, thoughts, attitudes, and emotions, and shaping them in a way that may be the end of us, ultimately.
Every day I hear of somebody else dropping their cable or satellite TV service -- yet too many still devour the propaganda willingly. However even turning the TV off will not help if people do not care to inform themselves and cultivate some independence of mind, and a habit of examining what people in 'authority' tell us. That is also part of the message of the comments I posted above.
Long ago, the left liked to spout the phrase 'Question Authority.' Of course, that was in a time in which authority tended to be conservative. I wonder if the left at that time would have anticipated how quickly their kind would come to BE the authority in our society, to be the establishment and the entrenched orthodoxy. They still like to think of themselves as the brave dissenters and principled rebels. That's no longer true; it's the right, especially the politically incorrect right, that are the true dissidents and the upholders of truth.
If we fall prey to the con men and the false pied-pipers of the ''right'', who will be left?
Labels: Celebrity Culture, Conservatism, Media Figures, Party Politics, Populism, Propaganda, Republicans
0 comment Sunday, August 17, 2014 | admin
Reading around the Internet today, I kept coming across discussions about Obama and the frequently-repeated belief that his election will lead to some kind of turnaround in our favor. I suppose it could be said, then, that people on the right as well as on the left believe Obama's 'change' mantra, and somehow, both ends of the political spectrum believe that he is capable of working some kind of positive change, whether by accident or intentionally.
I hate to keep flogging the deceased equine, but let me go at this one more time from a slightly different angle. Assuming that Obama is incapable of delivering on his promises of 'healing' and 'unifying' and bridging the racial gap, assuming that a New Golden Age is not within his powers of manifestation, and assuming that things actually grow demonstrably worse (as most on the right assert) -- this is where it all breaks down for me. Suppose an economic collapse occurs, followed by conditions worse than in the depths of the Great Depression, which some believe will happen. Why should the masses of people out there, given their general cluelessness and passivity, suddenly begin to blame Obama, or even to be disillusioned with him?
Will the media desert Obama, or will they, like the good cult followers they are, cover for him and blame the crisis on the right?
If Obama fails in the sense that his agenda is thwarted in Congress (which I actually can't imagine happening), will the people blame Obama, or his opponents (who will of course be 'racists'?)
I think that just as when Bill Clinton ran into opposition and trouble, the left and the unthinking masses who are led this way and that will circle the wagons and support their beleaguered President.
Any economic crisis will likely be blamed on the greedy capitalists, who, as 'everybody' knows, are all WASPs who live in lily-white enclaves.
And if, as some foresee, there is a galvanizing of the White majority, what then? Any action, even lawful and legitimate, will likely be shown in the media as 'extremism' and the response will be to vilify any attempt by majority White Americans to press for their own interests.
The incident over the weekend of the church shooting is already being portrayed as 'right-wing extremism', and it will be followed by a lot of earnest condemnations of 'right-wing gun nuts' and bigots, with renewed calls for gun control and monitoring of 'right-wing hate sites' and groups. The man was deranged, to go after children and unarmed churchgoers, but he will be described as typical of White male 'right-wingers.'
And if some on 'our side', which means anybody White and right-wing, act out, that will only provide a pretext for more repressive laws and policies, and more ramping-up of PC propaganda.
I just don't see that the worsening situation, which will come regardless of who is elected in November, will automatically act in our favor. That's where I just can't take the giant leap of faith required to be a believer in the Worse Is Better, Vote Obama movement.
Oddly, it appears that on the left or among the 'moderate'/populist faction, many people are convinced we are on the cusp of some kind of momentous change, but of course they diagnose our problems very differently, and prescribe very different kinds of therapy for us.
I found a link at Occidental Dissent to James Howard Kunstler's blog, (which I won't mention because of its vulgar name), to a Kunstler article about 'Rebecoming', which seems to be his idea of this change that is supposed to be upon us, where the ugliness of modern America will be swept away by something along the 'small-and-local-is-beautiful' lines. Now, I happen to believe that small and local are beautiful. I happen to agree that what America has become, with strip malls, Wal-Marts, trashy entertainment and directionless, dispirited people, is not what America should be, or used to be.
However, both Kunstler's take and that of most of his readers seem to focus on what they no doubt perceive as 'White trash' culture, although no one uses that term specifically. They discuss women with tattoos (I agree about that), video games, drugs, and NASCAR. The last item seems to be a slap at Southron people, since the South is the basic fan base of NASCAR, though many heartland Yankees like it, too. But I get the sense that the people at Kunstler's blog look down on lower-class Whites as being the problem. If only everybody were educated and refined as the upper middle classes.
They leave out the obvious fact that of course working-class middle America is dispirited and demoralized; what can we expect after decades of dumbed-down schools and 'entertainment', all promoted by educated upper-middle-class and wealthy liberals? They mention thuggish, underclass behavior on the part of Whites (though they scrupulously avoid racial labels), but they fail to see or acknowledge how the liberal racial agenda has acted as a way of spreading underclass behaviors to the general population.
They ignore how 'free trade' has all but destroyed our manufacturing base, and how much of our agriculture has also been destroyed, leaving many previously hard-working Whites without the hope of work other than low-wage, part-time McJobs, and leaving some to nothing more than unemployment benefits, if they are lucky.
Many of the people they apparently despise were once people who had well-paying blue-collar jobs, with security, and now these people find themselves adrift. These people are mostly ignored by the Republicans, and because most are White, are now written off by Democrats as well.
Kunstler and his fans seem to remind me of Bill Kauffman, the populist/agrarian writer. I admire a lot of what Kauffman has to say, and have linked to his pieces. He writes wonderfully, and expresses a nostalgia for lost America -- but like Kunstler, he seems unwilling or unable to see that the old America that was so much better, so much more liveable and safe and clean and well-ordered, was so because of the people who made it what it was. Change the people, by means of liberal propaganda and maleducation and depraved entertainment, and you change America. Replace Americans with people from retrograde Third World environments, and again, you change America for the worse.
It's all well and good to lament for what America once was, or might still be, given the right circumstances, but a recipe is only as good as the ingredients. The right ingredients in the right proportions are necessary. You can't change the people of America, or exchange the people for others, and wonder why it just isn't the same.
But the message I take away from Kunstler's piece and his commenters' reactions is that everybody, right and left -- and center -- see that America is in great distress. Everybody can read the 'mene, mene, tekel, upharsin' on the wall, but not everybody can decipher it. And unfortunately, though lots of people see the need for a cure, not many of us agree on what medicine is needed, or even which doctor should prescribe and administer it.
And seemingly everybody thinks that a change, any change, is bound to be a change for the better. But the problem is, how can so many different opinions lead to any kind of constructive change?
Everybody seems to be cheering on some kind of apocalypse, and thus we all seem to be following the first pied piper who comes along.
I hate to keep flogging the deceased equine, but let me go at this one more time from a slightly different angle. Assuming that Obama is incapable of delivering on his promises of 'healing' and 'unifying' and bridging the racial gap, assuming that a New Golden Age is not within his powers of manifestation, and assuming that things actually grow demonstrably worse (as most on the right assert) -- this is where it all breaks down for me. Suppose an economic collapse occurs, followed by conditions worse than in the depths of the Great Depression, which some believe will happen. Why should the masses of people out there, given their general cluelessness and passivity, suddenly begin to blame Obama, or even to be disillusioned with him?
Will the media desert Obama, or will they, like the good cult followers they are, cover for him and blame the crisis on the right?
If Obama fails in the sense that his agenda is thwarted in Congress (which I actually can't imagine happening), will the people blame Obama, or his opponents (who will of course be 'racists'?)
I think that just as when Bill Clinton ran into opposition and trouble, the left and the unthinking masses who are led this way and that will circle the wagons and support their beleaguered President.
Any economic crisis will likely be blamed on the greedy capitalists, who, as 'everybody' knows, are all WASPs who live in lily-white enclaves.
And if, as some foresee, there is a galvanizing of the White majority, what then? Any action, even lawful and legitimate, will likely be shown in the media as 'extremism' and the response will be to vilify any attempt by majority White Americans to press for their own interests.
The incident over the weekend of the church shooting is already being portrayed as 'right-wing extremism', and it will be followed by a lot of earnest condemnations of 'right-wing gun nuts' and bigots, with renewed calls for gun control and monitoring of 'right-wing hate sites' and groups. The man was deranged, to go after children and unarmed churchgoers, but he will be described as typical of White male 'right-wingers.'
And if some on 'our side', which means anybody White and right-wing, act out, that will only provide a pretext for more repressive laws and policies, and more ramping-up of PC propaganda.
I just don't see that the worsening situation, which will come regardless of who is elected in November, will automatically act in our favor. That's where I just can't take the giant leap of faith required to be a believer in the Worse Is Better, Vote Obama movement.
Oddly, it appears that on the left or among the 'moderate'/populist faction, many people are convinced we are on the cusp of some kind of momentous change, but of course they diagnose our problems very differently, and prescribe very different kinds of therapy for us.
I found a link at Occidental Dissent to James Howard Kunstler's blog, (which I won't mention because of its vulgar name), to a Kunstler article about 'Rebecoming', which seems to be his idea of this change that is supposed to be upon us, where the ugliness of modern America will be swept away by something along the 'small-and-local-is-beautiful' lines. Now, I happen to believe that small and local are beautiful. I happen to agree that what America has become, with strip malls, Wal-Marts, trashy entertainment and directionless, dispirited people, is not what America should be, or used to be.
However, both Kunstler's take and that of most of his readers seem to focus on what they no doubt perceive as 'White trash' culture, although no one uses that term specifically. They discuss women with tattoos (I agree about that), video games, drugs, and NASCAR. The last item seems to be a slap at Southron people, since the South is the basic fan base of NASCAR, though many heartland Yankees like it, too. But I get the sense that the people at Kunstler's blog look down on lower-class Whites as being the problem. If only everybody were educated and refined as the upper middle classes.
They leave out the obvious fact that of course working-class middle America is dispirited and demoralized; what can we expect after decades of dumbed-down schools and 'entertainment', all promoted by educated upper-middle-class and wealthy liberals? They mention thuggish, underclass behavior on the part of Whites (though they scrupulously avoid racial labels), but they fail to see or acknowledge how the liberal racial agenda has acted as a way of spreading underclass behaviors to the general population.
They ignore how 'free trade' has all but destroyed our manufacturing base, and how much of our agriculture has also been destroyed, leaving many previously hard-working Whites without the hope of work other than low-wage, part-time McJobs, and leaving some to nothing more than unemployment benefits, if they are lucky.
Many of the people they apparently despise were once people who had well-paying blue-collar jobs, with security, and now these people find themselves adrift. These people are mostly ignored by the Republicans, and because most are White, are now written off by Democrats as well.
Kunstler and his fans seem to remind me of Bill Kauffman, the populist/agrarian writer. I admire a lot of what Kauffman has to say, and have linked to his pieces. He writes wonderfully, and expresses a nostalgia for lost America -- but like Kunstler, he seems unwilling or unable to see that the old America that was so much better, so much more liveable and safe and clean and well-ordered, was so because of the people who made it what it was. Change the people, by means of liberal propaganda and maleducation and depraved entertainment, and you change America. Replace Americans with people from retrograde Third World environments, and again, you change America for the worse.
It's all well and good to lament for what America once was, or might still be, given the right circumstances, but a recipe is only as good as the ingredients. The right ingredients in the right proportions are necessary. You can't change the people of America, or exchange the people for others, and wonder why it just isn't the same.
But the message I take away from Kunstler's piece and his commenters' reactions is that everybody, right and left -- and center -- see that America is in great distress. Everybody can read the 'mene, mene, tekel, upharsin' on the wall, but not everybody can decipher it. And unfortunately, though lots of people see the need for a cure, not many of us agree on what medicine is needed, or even which doctor should prescribe and administer it.
And seemingly everybody thinks that a change, any change, is bound to be a change for the better. But the problem is, how can so many different opinions lead to any kind of constructive change?
Everybody seems to be cheering on some kind of apocalypse, and thus we all seem to be following the first pied piper who comes along.
Labels: American Culture, Demographics, Liberalism, Populism, Societal Decay, Western Decline