U.S. Government Policies and the Subconscious
There has been, for some time, evidence that key elites in Washington and Israel are what was once called criminally insane--I believe that Hitler/Stalin/Mao who created the standard for depravity and evil in the world are the models for these people. I know this sounds like hyperbole to you but I believe it is true. Look at this honest quote that shows the Washington mentality when Secretary Albright was interviewed by Leslie Stahl:
"We have heard that a half million children have died," Stahl said. "I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And -- and you know, is the price worth it?" Albright replied, "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price -- we think the price is worth it."
Think of it!!! And think of the result. The result was that people died and suffered only to die and suffer even more a decade later. Why did she conclude it was worth it? Not because she necessarily thought it would, eventually, improve the life of Iraqis, but because it was an assertive and forceful expression (the policy) or U.S. power and might. It is akin to the headmaster of an orphanage beating to death one of the children and asserting that it is right because it severs the use of intimidating the others to stay in line. If you carefully analyze what U.S. policy has become, on a bi-partisan basis, you have to come to the conclusion that the dominant goal of that policy is to intimidate other countries. Now, this is not unusual of a great power in the European tradition and it wouldn't be particularly noteworthy except for a couple of problems. First, and most obvious, it runs directly counter to the stated intentions of U.S. policy, public opinion, and the stated intentions of the Founders; second, it has proven to be clumsily and stupidly applied in a cowardly and half-assed manner (by historical standards); and third, it runs counter to any rational analysis of the actual world situation and future needs of the United States as a government and a people.
Given the opportunity, this government (I include all of the Washington elite and media) would commit almost any atrocity--I believe the "decency" of American policy makers so much talked about by the media, by Washington insiders is a misreading of human nature in general and the individuals in particular. I've met some very violent characters who are very personable and sympatico--but when you cross a certain line something else happens. I remember Norman Mailer once noting that one of the most remarkable traits of Americans is their claim to wanting to do the "right thing". This may be changing now as the population is increasingly brutalized. This notion of being virtuous and right, despite the evidence, is very interesting. Nowhere, in the mainsteam media, have I seen an expression of regret and shame over the possibility of 400,000 to 900,.000 deaths in Iraq or the complete destruction of Iraqi civil society that the U.S. has brought to one of the oldest continuous civilizations in the world. And nowhere do I see a clear-headed analysis of the underlying reasons why the U.S. blundered (again on a bipartisan basis) into this insanity of a war. The irony is, and I can't emphasize this too much, is that the criticisms written about U.S. policy during Vietnam and after by alternative scholars and writers were just as valid today as they were then--if fact, the analysis was deeper then that it is now, as I recall, by that same community which now tends to demonize Bush/Cheney and imagines that a change of regime will change the fundamental policy.
I say Bush/Cheney attitudes (force first, intimidation second, and diplomacy to make it look good) symbolize and personify the subconscious attitudes of most Americans. We like to think we are civilized because we put on a veneer of smiles and optimism and cooperative attitudes but the subconscious contains other kinds of creatures. In some forms of psychoanalysis the things lying in the subconscious are not necessarily "repressed" urges but, "undeveloped" personality fragments that never were able to find full expression--thus in certain situations we may each act in very immature and undeveloped ways. Sometimes this comes out in sexual expression, particularly in the whole army of paraphylias that are well-represented on the Internet, and also in situations of intimate relationships, someone saying something insulting, cutting you off on the road, and so on. These situation will all evoke a relatively unsophisticated response because whatever aspects of the personality these things represented were not brought out (educare) in our upbringing. This is why I say that in order for things to improve we need to understand our psychic make-up individually and collectively. This is hard at first but one gets the knack of it if one is supported by others--otherwise we just fall back into our habitual patterns.
I say all this because I think it is important to understand that the Israeli tendency towards ever-increasing brutality tells us something. They use the Holocaust as a justification for whatever they do. We use both 9/11 and the fact we believe that we are the saviors of the world to justify whatever we do. This is a collective psychological illness of both these societies--it is an illness because if anyone rationally pursued the statement: "Past actions made against us and "good" intentions justify any action and any sort of brutality even in situations that may have nothing to do with those past actions" there is no way that any rational person could justify that--yet, rational people in the press, in government do actually justify that statement every day.
The Iraqis had nothing to do with 9/11. The Palestinians had nothing to do with the Holocaust. Think of the madness of it! Joe beat me up last week, so that justifies the fact that I beat the crap out of Jane because she insulted me and refused my kind offer to make love to her (and everyone knows what a privilege that is).
"We have heard that a half million children have died," Stahl said. "I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And -- and you know, is the price worth it?" Albright replied, "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price -- we think the price is worth it."
Think of it!!! And think of the result. The result was that people died and suffered only to die and suffer even more a decade later. Why did she conclude it was worth it? Not because she necessarily thought it would, eventually, improve the life of Iraqis, but because it was an assertive and forceful expression (the policy) or U.S. power and might. It is akin to the headmaster of an orphanage beating to death one of the children and asserting that it is right because it severs the use of intimidating the others to stay in line. If you carefully analyze what U.S. policy has become, on a bi-partisan basis, you have to come to the conclusion that the dominant goal of that policy is to intimidate other countries. Now, this is not unusual of a great power in the European tradition and it wouldn't be particularly noteworthy except for a couple of problems. First, and most obvious, it runs directly counter to the stated intentions of U.S. policy, public opinion, and the stated intentions of the Founders; second, it has proven to be clumsily and stupidly applied in a cowardly and half-assed manner (by historical standards); and third, it runs counter to any rational analysis of the actual world situation and future needs of the United States as a government and a people.
Given the opportunity, this government (I include all of the Washington elite and media) would commit almost any atrocity--I believe the "decency" of American policy makers so much talked about by the media, by Washington insiders is a misreading of human nature in general and the individuals in particular. I've met some very violent characters who are very personable and sympatico--but when you cross a certain line something else happens. I remember Norman Mailer once noting that one of the most remarkable traits of Americans is their claim to wanting to do the "right thing". This may be changing now as the population is increasingly brutalized. This notion of being virtuous and right, despite the evidence, is very interesting. Nowhere, in the mainsteam media, have I seen an expression of regret and shame over the possibility of 400,000 to 900,.000 deaths in Iraq or the complete destruction of Iraqi civil society that the U.S. has brought to one of the oldest continuous civilizations in the world. And nowhere do I see a clear-headed analysis of the underlying reasons why the U.S. blundered (again on a bipartisan basis) into this insanity of a war. The irony is, and I can't emphasize this too much, is that the criticisms written about U.S. policy during Vietnam and after by alternative scholars and writers were just as valid today as they were then--if fact, the analysis was deeper then that it is now, as I recall, by that same community which now tends to demonize Bush/Cheney and imagines that a change of regime will change the fundamental policy.
I say Bush/Cheney attitudes (force first, intimidation second, and diplomacy to make it look good) symbolize and personify the subconscious attitudes of most Americans. We like to think we are civilized because we put on a veneer of smiles and optimism and cooperative attitudes but the subconscious contains other kinds of creatures. In some forms of psychoanalysis the things lying in the subconscious are not necessarily "repressed" urges but, "undeveloped" personality fragments that never were able to find full expression--thus in certain situations we may each act in very immature and undeveloped ways. Sometimes this comes out in sexual expression, particularly in the whole army of paraphylias that are well-represented on the Internet, and also in situations of intimate relationships, someone saying something insulting, cutting you off on the road, and so on. These situation will all evoke a relatively unsophisticated response because whatever aspects of the personality these things represented were not brought out (educare) in our upbringing. This is why I say that in order for things to improve we need to understand our psychic make-up individually and collectively. This is hard at first but one gets the knack of it if one is supported by others--otherwise we just fall back into our habitual patterns.
I say all this because I think it is important to understand that the Israeli tendency towards ever-increasing brutality tells us something. They use the Holocaust as a justification for whatever they do. We use both 9/11 and the fact we believe that we are the saviors of the world to justify whatever we do. This is a collective psychological illness of both these societies--it is an illness because if anyone rationally pursued the statement: "Past actions made against us and "good" intentions justify any action and any sort of brutality even in situations that may have nothing to do with those past actions" there is no way that any rational person could justify that--yet, rational people in the press, in government do actually justify that statement every day.
The Iraqis had nothing to do with 9/11. The Palestinians had nothing to do with the Holocaust. Think of the madness of it! Joe beat me up last week, so that justifies the fact that I beat the crap out of Jane because she insulted me and refused my kind offer to make love to her (and everyone knows what a privilege that is).
posted by Christopher | 7:20 AM
|
2 Comments
