← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · TexasAnarch

REAGAN NEOCON'S ARM OF THE ALMIGHTY

Thread ID: 14108 | Posts: 5 | Started: 2004-06-09

Wayback Archive

TexasAnarch [OP]

2004-06-09 06:52 | User Profile

Reagan Neocon’s Arm of the Almighty

Unforgivable Sin

[url]http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ideas_opinions/story/200684p-173238c.html[/url] 8 June, ’04 THE NEW YORK DAILY NEWS Voice of the people

Liberator Jerusalem: Ronald Reagan will always be remembered as the President who felled the Soviet Union. Since the Almighty clearly placed Mr. Reagan in a position to act as His willing agent for those purposes, he surely occupies an honored place in heaven as one of the righteous among the nations. ….. Shaul Ceder

In a pigs eye. Who will preach that this man went straight to hell? –

Believing that anything connected with him is good is where hell starts

I will.  Taking illustrations like this supplied by Richard Cohen (same page)

     “During his 1984 reelection campaign, for instance, Lesley Stahl of CBS did a long (four-minute) piece about Reagan's contradictions. She showed him appearing at old-age homes and institutions for the handicapped, and then noted that he had reduced funding for those programs. Afterward, the White House thanked her for the piece. The pictures were terrific. They were all that mattered.”  (“He Was A Paradox:  Sunny But Opaque”)

     The contradiction is unconscious.  Reagan simply doesn’t relate to the fact that his ’82 budget cuts to offset tax breaks for the wealthy actually hurt old folks and children.  They are totally split off, in his mind, and for public consumption.  Although certainly connected.  It succeeded only because no one had both the unified grasp of economic policy, foreign policy (sharp increase in military spending) cuts in domestic government spending, plus the voice, legitimacy and credentials to balance the ship’s course.

So the country went down, splitting up and trailing off into the two sides of the many contradictions he cleaved. It is long past the time when such a man can be forgiven for not knowing what he does, however. Those who knew and used him are ultimately accountable.

Inability to confront Reaganism was the key failure of liberalism.  Jimmy Carter’s good husbandry had successfully brought Ford-era inflation under control.  Democrats always get stuck in the position of opposing military action started by Republicans, then nurturing the economy back to health after senseless mega-destruction of resources.  Like the tired bitch getting hit by her Old Man when he gets home, it’s been a hard day.  Doing what?  She can’t ask.  She needs love. That’s what it is.  Democrats need love and protection from Republicans, who have a matching need – drive, or obsession --  to bestow it.  (“Love”) all day long and into the wee hours of the morning.  Voting for Reagan sealed the deal for the punishers – self-punishers, those who punish themselves through their religion, as the neocon Jews now explicitly boast of getting right-wing Zionist Christian to do for Israel:

[url]http://forums.originaldissent.com/showthread.php?t=14088[/url]

“The war in Iraq simply was America's attempt to suppress rogue state behavior, the spread of weapons of mass destruction, terror-supporting regimes, and reshape the Middle East, whether others understood it, agreed with them or not. Whether America should act multi-laterally, uni-laterally, or be isolationist is an issue worth discussion. But, blaming one group, "the Jews" is simply anti-Semitic. All the accusations that it's "Likudniks" -- the ruling party of Ariel Sharon in Israel -- in the White House directing policy, bemoans the fact that the Bush Administration policy toward Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking -- the roadmap process -- might in fact be on a collision course with Israel, but, more of that later.

The biggest area of disagreement between paleocons and neocons is on interventionism overseas. Neoconservatives, like Reagan before them, have been willing to fight the "Evil Empire" and "Axis of Evil". Interventionism, couched in religious imagery, rights and wrongs, is a hallmark of Neo-conservative thought. So too, it dovetails with the Christian fundamentalist element in the Republican Party and elsewhere.”

This is the strain of Republicanism vrs. Republicanite punishment lovers parsing the grammar.   Includes The Teen Age Talmudist, Ben Shapiro.  Call them the Almighty angelists.   They don’t exactly preach their messiahism, they unload it on you.   AY has also downloaded a Raimondo piece driving home the same point:

[url]http://forums.originaldissent.com/showthread.php?t=14090[/url]

“He then segues into a denunciation of the Iran-Contra deal, neglecting to note that one of the chief figures in his "Committee for a Free World," Michael Ledeen, served as an essential go-between with the Iranian mullahs: and, somehow, Israel's key role in that affair also goes without mention…

Halper and Clarke make a good case that the neocons are very selective when they point to the invasion of Grenada and U.S. military adventurism in Central America as the essence of the "Reaganite" foreign policy legacy, while ignoring what doesn't fit into their mythological narrative. The Halper-Clarke piece, which first appeared in The American Spectator and was widely reprinted, also points to a difference in tone and style between the bright optimism of Reagan's "morning in America" "shining-city-on-a-hill" rhetorical style and the dark vision of the neocons:”

Summary:  Thus far we have seen how a strain of hard-line religious (Zionist) thinking has commandeered Ronald Reagan conservatism, to the point of defining its wings, or opposites.  The absolute, categorical rejection of US ties to Israel by the OD board brand of conservatism, the basis of America I join them under, is simply never mentioned.  As if it didn’t exist.  They have brought out the dark side of Reagan under the up-side of Noahide morality, and used it as a metaphysical rule against our existence.


I will next show how this connects through Sign-uses to Abu Ghraib.

I. TEXT: Ham’s Curse (Noahide Moral Majority and RR) (Or: A Punishment a Day won’t keep this Dr. away (and I don’t means Sanje Gupta) (Today, Ashcroft; tomorrow The World). The time may come when we have to punish everyone who is always picking on Ronald Reagan. They are Ham’s descendants.)

Genesis 9.

. 20 And Noah began to be a farmer, and he planted a vineyard.
.21 Then he drank of the wine and was drunk, and became uncovered in his tent. .22 And Hamm, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brothers outside. .23 But Shem and Japheth took a garment, laid it on both their shoulders, and went backward and covered the nakedness of their father. Their faces were turned away, and they did not see their father’s nakedness. .24 So Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done to him.
.25 Then he said: Cursed be Canaan: A servant of servants He shall be to his brethren.

II. TOKEN – Use Visuals from Abu Graib as background.

A Reaganesque contradiction: 1. “Bush Does not Approve Torture”, Ashcroft testies; 2. Male nudity used as religious defilement, punishing another for their religious beliefs by the specific device of despoiling their masculine sexual identity. This would, indeed, be a “sin”, under the Noahide law of Genesis 9. But that, itself, of itself, shows the level of regression into infantile unconscious fantasy the common mentality has sunk. When “sin” becomes the unmentionable abomination, then the “G-d” cited by Jews as overseeing “Noah” (=Hebrew copy of Sumerian prototype who survived the flood) gets linked with this stain on the psychohistorical Father- Son dynamics.

It has hitherto been largely neglected, but with the turn of hard-right Pentagon politics toward Almighty Talmudism I claim it to be absolutely central.

As evidence to support this thesis I offer thi New York Times article.  Bush has not only been manipulated into a Nixonian “I am not a crook” position – the last corner you ever want to paint yourself in, politically…..It has also provided extensive – but really extensive  – documentation that the entire fabric is sin-stained from top to bottom.  Much worse than Monica’s blue dress.

.
[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/08/international/middleeast/08NAKE.html[/url]

SEXUAL HUMILIATION Forced Nudity of Iraqi Prisoners Is Seen as a Pervasive Pattern, By KATE ZERNIKE and DAVID ROHDE

Published: June 8, 2004

In the weeks since photographs of naked detainees set off the abuse scandal at Abu Ghraib, military officials have portrayed the sexual humiliation captured in the images as the isolated acts of a rogue night shift. But forced nudity of prisoners was pervasive in the military intelligence unit of Abu.
Ghraib..

Quote: “Also, a father and his grown son were stripped, then forced to stand and stare at each other.”

“If you walked down through the wing of the prison where they were being held, they would have them strip down naked.  Sometimes they would have them stand on Boxes and hold their arms out.  That happened almost every night – having them naked.”

“Nudity is considered particularly shameful in Muslim culture, a violation of religious principles.  While nudity as a disciplinary or coercive tool may be especially objectionable to Muslims, ….(stop right there) …they are hardly the only victims of the practice.  Soldiers in Nazi Germany paraded naked prisoners in daylight,…”

 The fact that the reporter is supplying the color here confirms kmta's observation that the Times' is doing a number on the Bushies here, Big Time.

 So look what Zernike and Rhode have dug out of the archives to soften the accusation that “American” torture in this mode is not unprecedented.  Its what Nazi’s did to Jews, of course.

The father-son abomination scene cited specifically acts out mental rape, defilement of the male genital mystique.  This destroys the sublimation of spiritual manhood based on love of the father.  Shem and Japheth were not merely shielding themselves from Noah’s wrath, but from their Ham-ish side.  There are things hidden behind modesty that cannot be dumped into the public domain without demolishing its inner integrity.  Concupscentia  is what brought Rome down.  (The answer is not abstinence – that is what we have been through.  Praise the saints, but pity those condemned to sexual suffering, for it is a function of nature, whatever a person makes of “god”.  The Muslim religious abhorrence to nudity is psychologically sound.  Forcing them to violate it is psychosadistic perversity.  It is

pre-Christian sexual deviancy.

“At  Camp Rhino, John Walker Lindh, the American now serving a 20 year sentence for aiding the Taliban, was stripped and bound with duct tape to a stretcher for two days, according to the statement of fact in his pleas bargain agreement.”  This degredation was repeated in endless TV replays of his being helped into his clothes, from stretcher to bed, like human detritus.

Capping off this process of Arab/Muslim malehood castration is this tidbit:

“On two or three occasions, the two men sdaid, the women commented to one another about the size of the prisoner’ enises. “They wer laughing a lot,” Parkhudin said, adding that the women taunted the prisoners, saying “Your’re my dog.””

Conclusion. The Archetypal energy of Reagan, the idol neoconservatives use as the Almighty whip, is returned as Bush’s petard. The Sword of The Lord and Gideon.? -- Rocky Racoon

Mentzer

2004-06-12 04:51 | User Profile

Where does your post begin and others end?

You wish to blame Ronald Reagan now?

You need to have a coherent view rather than rely on the opinion of others. State it or close it.

A Germanic expression :D

Okiereddust

2004-06-12 06:00 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Mentzer]You need to have a coherent view rather than rely on the opinion of others. State it or close it.

A Germanic expression :D[/QUOTE] Mentzer, quoting others is as coherent as TA ever gets. At least to me, nothing persona TA.

Mentzer

2004-06-12 08:47 | User Profile

Very true.

We should state our true opinion, if possible, and in our own words. I find that more honest.

And Ronald Reagan should be at the top of our posts. As a figure-head and example of unity.

Mentzer.

TexasAnarch

2004-06-16 06:04 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Mentzer]Very true.

We should state our true opinion, if possible, and in our own words. I find that more honest.

And Ronald Reagan should be at the top of our posts. As a figure-head and example of unity.

Mentzer.[/QUOTE]

I distinguish opinions and judgments (in Kant's use of the term).

Philosophy may be viewed as being based on the distinction; opinion, not based on reasons, can change tomorrow, Socrates pointed out, and wish he were alive whom only yesterday they willed to put to death. Judgments based on shown reasons are tethered; take longer to state, but are the only things worth reading unless you just want to do reaction-polls. Not that I recommend philosophy for anyone, except myself, with whom I try to be somewhat strict. I can understand how those following bob-tailed one-liners for profoundity might find consistency incoherrent.

I thought the overall case was pretty clear. I am not from conservatism, remember (any more than this board is 'from' what is so-called, these days, in NR culture politics). I backed onto this board 2 years ago chaceing down the neocons FROM anti-Reganism.

Came to understand how they -- Jews and Catholics -- took him and and brought about the Great Reversal, portending the Descent into Darkness. "Contras" is the double-reverse (reverse of the reverse) of mercenary murderers of Nicaraguans. ("US sponsored", the TV news would say, extending Gipper's (useless in actuality, of course) cock up the Sandinistas wazoo.) I don't want to blame the spirituality of Catholics: Archebishop Oscar Romero was slaughtrered by death squads connected with d'Abuissan, a maddog killer embraced by Jesse Helms;and other good priests were later slaughtered by the military dictators backed by the official hierarchy, Jews like Elliot Abrams, and the Reaganite philosophy of non-being. ("One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist"; "Eschew value-neutral discourse."
"Miami drug dealers are the moral equivalent of our founding fathers". "liberalism (permissiveness) is bad" -- all conceivably true ONLY AS REVERSALS applicable to him and them: his mercenaries were terrorist, targeting professionals in the general population; the Sandinistas were freedom fighters. If value-neutral discourse were aborted he would would be judged evil in the extreme; the categorical reversal of what it is to be, itself, packaged as "the Great Communicator" - 666. Nobody listened to the words of his speeches, as if he understood them. The visuals were always great. This was the lower trying to reverse positions with the higher, and reducing the nation to his inferiority, as recognized by Jeanne Kirkpatrick's immortal defense: "They always blame America first". As if she was it.

Then the Israeli Jews maneuvered themselves into place behind his and Casey's back, ready, when the time came, to send out Sonny Boy tooting up his faith based initiative, also wanting to please Daddy mightily, the Most, Most Holy Son Of God there's ever been in the whole wide, wide, world, by golly.

And the rest, as they say, is history.