The War On Fathers
“THE WAR ON FATHERS”: analysis
http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=23383
Posted 6.07.06 reply to Gabrielle thread
The title is impotent whining of baby-boomer generation children (‘s children) about the war OF (their) Fathers on them, back in the ‘60’s, by the Nixon-Reaganoosky Vietnam war hawks. It’s the politics of generational memory-loop, with reversals.
The word-tokens, with “OF”, replaced by “ON”, reverses their own death-wish toward the Father (in their heads: Freud’s ‘superego’) by ‘dumping’ it into the post-60’s liberals. It isn’t them (neoconservative impotents) who have death-wishes toward The Father; it’s the liberals, released from their repression, who have declared war on Him with their abortions, homosexuality, constant rutting, out-of control attitudes. Have led to Americans becoming the most despicable form of humanity. (Note: this is not a defense of liberalism.)
By this reverse/dump psychological mechanism (also, “projection reversal”), the neoconservative impotents can act out, and call for others to join them in acting out, the destruction of what came from THEMSELVES, in THE ENEMY. Thus, the subjective “reverse/dump” stage of the process is followed up by the “kill” phase: “to purge the corruption”.
Now, on a metaphysical note, it is this psyche condition expressing itself in the mostly unconscious reverse/dump/kill mechanism which Christianity categorically rejects as the wrong way to be. Crucifixion of the Son, with the mob below screaming “crucify him!” is, after all, a display of just that, for those who have eyes to see.
True conservatism, if one may so speak, is indeed politically strengthened by the excesses now termed ‘liberal’, through death-wish psychology they express toward The Father. But that advantage is squandered, and it’s positive impetus reversed, when “the name of the Father” is explicitly invoked. This elicits the conflict and evokes the antagonistic reversals. “So’s your old man,” the taunt goes. But that, though a permanent latency, cannot be ‘seconded’ by official sign-use, else the threat of evoking the conflict gets built into the grammar of the situation. Anyone who compulsively goes around defending “the Father” raises suspicion about what they are really about. Nothing, imho, could put them at a further disadvantage. (One can say to onesself “I am fighting on God’s side”, but if you have to publicize it to get others to agree, you probably aren’t.)
Political talk evoking death-wish-toward-the-Father by conservatives will boomerang, if pressed. It comes from the side of the more strict Father, over against the less strict. In this form, the ‘liberal’ father’s children win out – not because they share a death-wish toward a universal Father, as symbol of Authority, as the ‘conservative’ projectively supposes; but because they are simply not inwardly constrained by the same pairs of opposites. They will thus resist the imputation of death-wish, as an insult, and policies based on their “God the Father” as infringement on their freedom.
When a nation’s Fathers call for war, entailing acceptance of killing and dying on the part of its youth, the Fathers cannot be authoritarian, to the extent of not taking the children into their confidence in explaining the true reasons for fighting. That annuls the inner ground of unity without which they are not a nation, except in name only. That is what the neocon Bush-backers have done with the Fathers of WWII, the Bible, American Independence. Now they throw this hi-jacked Demon Daddy back in our faces”.
This is tantamount to making war on liberal’s fathers. Allowing the fatherless adopteds to throw the owner’s children of the house
Whatever deprives youth of the right to know why they are ordered to kill or be killed by persons designated “enemy”, in truth, with honor, have reversed the situation. They would now defend what is Wrong, in the name of what is Right – and try to reverse those who attack it father as demonic.
Only false (neo-) conservatives act this way. But all of them now must. Play that Good Father Daddy War-Bucks card for all she’s worth.
http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=23383
Posted 6.07.06 reply to Gabrielle thread
The title is impotent whining of baby-boomer generation children (‘s children) about the war OF (their) Fathers on them, back in the ‘60’s, by the Nixon-Reaganoosky Vietnam war hawks. It’s the politics of generational memory-loop, with reversals.
The word-tokens, with “OF”, replaced by “ON”, reverses their own death-wish toward the Father (in their heads: Freud’s ‘superego’) by ‘dumping’ it into the post-60’s liberals. It isn’t them (neoconservative impotents) who have death-wishes toward The Father; it’s the liberals, released from their repression, who have declared war on Him with their abortions, homosexuality, constant rutting, out-of control attitudes. Have led to Americans becoming the most despicable form of humanity. (Note: this is not a defense of liberalism.)
By this reverse/dump psychological mechanism (also, “projection reversal”), the neoconservative impotents can act out, and call for others to join them in acting out, the destruction of what came from THEMSELVES, in THE ENEMY. Thus, the subjective “reverse/dump” stage of the process is followed up by the “kill” phase: “to purge the corruption”.
Now, on a metaphysical note, it is this psyche condition expressing itself in the mostly unconscious reverse/dump/kill mechanism which Christianity categorically rejects as the wrong way to be. Crucifixion of the Son, with the mob below screaming “crucify him!” is, after all, a display of just that, for those who have eyes to see.
True conservatism, if one may so speak, is indeed politically strengthened by the excesses now termed ‘liberal’, through death-wish psychology they express toward The Father. But that advantage is squandered, and it’s positive impetus reversed, when “the name of the Father” is explicitly invoked. This elicits the conflict and evokes the antagonistic reversals. “So’s your old man,” the taunt goes. But that, though a permanent latency, cannot be ‘seconded’ by official sign-use, else the threat of evoking the conflict gets built into the grammar of the situation. Anyone who compulsively goes around defending “the Father” raises suspicion about what they are really about. Nothing, imho, could put them at a further disadvantage. (One can say to onesself “I am fighting on God’s side”, but if you have to publicize it to get others to agree, you probably aren’t.)
Political talk evoking death-wish-toward-the-Father by conservatives will boomerang, if pressed. It comes from the side of the more strict Father, over against the less strict. In this form, the ‘liberal’ father’s children win out – not because they share a death-wish toward a universal Father, as symbol of Authority, as the ‘conservative’ projectively supposes; but because they are simply not inwardly constrained by the same pairs of opposites. They will thus resist the imputation of death-wish, as an insult, and policies based on their “God the Father” as infringement on their freedom.
When a nation’s Fathers call for war, entailing acceptance of killing and dying on the part of its youth, the Fathers cannot be authoritarian, to the extent of not taking the children into their confidence in explaining the true reasons for fighting. That annuls the inner ground of unity without which they are not a nation, except in name only. That is what the neocon Bush-backers have done with the Fathers of WWII, the Bible, American Independence. Now they throw this hi-jacked Demon Daddy back in our faces”.
This is tantamount to making war on liberal’s fathers. Allowing the fatherless adopteds to throw the owner’s children of the house
Whatever deprives youth of the right to know why they are ordered to kill or be killed by persons designated “enemy”, in truth, with honor, have reversed the situation. They would now defend what is Wrong, in the name of what is Right – and try to reverse those who attack it father as demonic.
Only false (neo-) conservatives act this way. But all of them now must. Play that Good Father Daddy War-Bucks card for all she’s worth.
posted by Sid Thomas | 2:05 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home