← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · il ragno
Thread ID: 3565 | Posts: 12 | Started: 2002-11-17
2002-11-17 05:20 | User Profile
There are plenty of valid reasons to be wary of any "Department of Homeland Security", and then there's the Zionist/neocon reason to fear it. Mickey Kaus shows his tribal colors here....he luuuvs the 'security', but despises the 'homeland'. Honestly, it's like they're so smug & secure in their opera boxes, they're beginning to drop their masks even when they know we're watching. They're running things - and they care so little whether or not we know it, they're flaunting it now.
[url=http://slate.msn.com/default.aspx?id=2066978]http://slate.msn.com/default.aspx?id=2066978[/url]
The Trouble With "Homeland" It's a creepy, morale-sapping word. Let's drop it. By Mickey Kaus
This morning, Peggy Noonan delivers an excellent, subtle OpinionJournal column on why Rudolph Giuliani should head the new "Department of Homeland Security." She notes, for example, that journalists by now have a vested interest making the heroic Giuliani a success, which would help him succeed. Of course, they'll never get the chance, because Bush isn't going to appoint Giuliani. (Even so, Noonan argues, pushing him for the job is a win-win-win-win position for Democrats). But the main public service Noonan performs is to put on the table the issue of the word "homeland." She thinks it doesn't work. She's right. "Homeland" is a terrible word! Let's say it now before it's too late.
I know I'm not alone in this -- I've heard enough grumbling from friends who don't want to be unpatriotic but can't help cringing and wondering out loud why this suddenly became a word we all had to use. Noonan touches on the main problems, but it's worth reviewing them in detail.
1) It's Un-American: "Homeland," as Noonan notes, isn't a word Americans have been used to using. It's word Germans have been used to using. "Heimat," a common German word, means home -- and not home as in "home and hearth" either (that's "heim"). "Heimat" means "home" as in a place or nation that's home. "Heimatland" is the literal analog of "homeland," as I understand it. It's not specifically a Nazi word -- it's a general patriotic and sentimental word. It was used during World War I, for example. My mother, who was born in Germany but fled at age 10, can sing from memory a pre-Hitler song with "Heimatland" in it. Still, Nazi or not, the word is uncomfortably Teutonic-sounding. (And you don't think the Nazis appropriated it?) My raw sentiments are these: I'm an American, not a German. My father fought in a bloody war so I wouldn't have to be a German. Why is the Bush administration telling me I need to be German now?
"Homeland" is un-American in another way: it explicitly ties our sentiments to the land, not to our ideas. Logically, this step makes no sense (presumably we want to stop terrorism even if it targets Americans and American institutions abroad). It also misses the exceptional American contribution that's worth defending. People throughout history have felt sentimental attachment to their land. We're sentimentally attached to something less geographic: i.e., freedom. Didn't Ronald Reagan make this point with some regularity?
2) It's too new: Why ask us to suddenly start spouting an unfamiliar phrase in the name of patriotism? That in itself has a Big Brotherish aspect, or at least a disturbingly phony PR aspect. We know 9/11 was a big change. And maybe there's an advantage to giving people a constant linguistic reminder that something big has changed. But I'd argue we need more to be reminded of the familiar, old virtues we're defending (admittedly on a new, more horrifying planet). We're disoriented enough already. President Bush won me over, in the days after 9/11, precisely because he wasn't so disoriented that he lost sight of the old American (and human, and masculine) virtues. We need a word that conveys and embodies those trusty things, not one that sounds like we've bought into some fancy new security-consultant's lingo.
3) It's creepy: Police and intelligence agents are partly, inherently, scary. When they honestly and openly call themselves "police' and "intelligence agents," they build trust and remind you why they're there and (more important) why you should cooperate with them. When the police start talking about kirche and kinder and get all mushy and sentimental, they get truly frightening, and start to remind you of Robert Duvall's character, the fascistic commander, in that awful movie, The Handmaid's Tale.
This isn't just an aesthetic issue. Morale is important in any war. If "homeland" becomes officially enshrined, I predict it will cause a non-trivial loss of morale -- mainly among Democrat-leaning, non-Bush-voters like me, true. But there are a lot of us. Our morale counts too, because the anti-terror effort will need our support, too. You could even argue that our morale is more crucial, since it's our morale that's most likely to slip. Red state voters will be with Bush no matter what he calls his new department. It's the blue state voters he needs to keep in line, marching in the same direction.
If "homeland" is the wrong word, what's the right word? The problem, of course, is that the right word is taken. The right word is "defense." In a linguistically honest government, what's now the Department of Defense would become the Department of War, which is the best description of what that institution is, and the projected "Department of Homeland Security" would be called the Department of Defense, which is the best description of what it is. But there's even less chance of that happening than there is of Bush appointing Giuliani to head it.
So what's wrong with "domestic security"? It gets the point across, without pretentious and disturbing PR overtones. It's the phrase ex-Senators Warren Rudman and Gary Hart use when they're not babbling about "homeland." Noonan, for her part, has asked readers to send in suggestions (I assume to the response link at the bottom of her page). She promises to forward the ideas to Bush aide Karen Hughes.
2002-11-17 19:59 | User Profile
Originally posted by il ragno@Nov 17 2002, 05:20 **There are plenty of valid reasons to be wary of any "Department of Homeland Security", and then there's the Zionist/neocon reason to fear it. Mickey Kaus shows his tribal colors here....he luuuvs the 'security', but despises the 'homeland'
**
This piece is pretty funny. It reminds me a little of that story of Theodr Adorno not liking the word "jazz" cause it reminded him of some I can't remember German word. Just shows his reflexive paranoia about nationalism, as with the Frankfurt School.
It is not just a neo-con thing of course, but common of course with elite liberalism as well. There's sort of a fuzzy break between the two actually in my mind. Think of the difference for instance between Sullivan and Kinsley at New Republic - I can't think of that big of a difference. I was just wondering exactly along these lines who Mickey Kaus is and what his neo-con credentials, are since he works for Slate's Kinsley.
I suppose regular neo-cons just sort of chuckled in the beginning of course. I can hear them chortle privately "now we never said which homeland". Eventually though they're going to start to get uneasy as it keeps crimping their style on immigration, etc., and they'll start trying to change things.
2002-11-17 20:09 | User Profile
Actually, FW, Kaus is the perfect example of the 'fuzzy divide' you speak of.
He's a 'centrist': the no-fire safe zone where Jewish liberals can change into their 'slowly turning Republican' clothes.....without having to stow any of their ideological baggage in a storage locker. (A la Hitchens, but without the withering elitism.)
And these are the 'converts' that have the GOP faithful turning cartwheels! Now all that remains is to harvest those twenty million 'lead-pipe-cinch' Mexican votes!
2002-11-17 20:33 | User Profile
Originally posted by il ragno@Nov 17 2002, 20:09 Actually, FW, Kaus is the perfect example of the 'fuzzy divide' you speak of.
He's a 'centrist': the no-fire safe zone where Jewish liberals can change into their 'slowly turning Republican' clothes.....without having to stow any of their ideological baggage in a storage locker. (A la Hitchens, but without the withering elitism.)
**
Glad someone has the time to wade through the muck of all those neocon and neocon leaning/sympathizing (a la New Republic) trash and explain the latest machinations of this world to us. Its hard for me to even stand reading National Review anymore, even if I only try to go straight to the O'Sullivan/Derbyshire articles.
BTW, you wouldn't happen to have that Noonan article would you? She sounds more significant as to the indications of the mainstream (crypto-neo) conservative establishment and which way its leaning.
2002-11-17 21:30 | User Profile
Originally posted by AntiYuppie@Nov 17 2002, 20:58 What's impressive isn't so much that the establishment "left" and "right" are really the same entity, but rather the fact that they do such a good job convincing the masses that they're polar opposites. If establishment "left" and "right" are virtually indistinguishable, how is it possible to be a "centrist?" There are no "centrists" any more than there is an authentic Left or an authentic Right among the establishment elites, rather, as Joe Sobran remarked, "they're all neocons now."
Basically what has happened is the "opinion managers" of the managerial revolution (as discussed in my signature piece) have so narrowed the list of acceptable topics for discussion there isn't much to acceptably disagree on anymore.
Of course there are blowups, like the 2000 presidential post election fiasco. But that was almost more like a dirty battle between the Kiwana's and Lion's clubs over which side gets control of city council and gets their respective streets repaved.
The 2002 election discussion was hilarious. It was like the world had changed, when in reality the only difference was that Trent Lott gets to have the camera focused on his blown dried hair again.
2002-11-18 00:47 | User Profile
Since I don't recall seeing any posted, I must assume the most 'historic' feature of this Historic Past Election is its microscopic turnout. A unified nation at war against the Axis Of Evil (ie, the non-Israeli world & everyone in it), rallying fervently behind the party of a beloved President, and I'd guess nationally the turnout barely topped....30%?
The only 'mandate' here is nobody cares. Either that, or we're already such a Third World backwater that we no longer have enough "Americans" capable of reading a ballot to approach half the total electorate.
2002-11-18 02:22 | User Profile
Its not just the rape of "homeland", the word, noodling our country under solid, German-like Home Depot sentiment. (Home Depot is a U.S. transmorph of old WWII Farben AG break-up; cf. L. Horowitz, "Death In the Air: Globalism, Terrorism & Toxic Warfare"; and at tetrahedron.org. Also, Fairfax, Va., backdrop to alleged shooting of FBI agent Lynda Franklin by Malvo.)
What is arch-criminal, and saturates the 'Amestrain media since Bush's election, is the systematic deception with sign-uses (S*) in communication -- words and pictures -- of which this is but one example. Since S* reproduce the inner side of national life, this deception and manipulation thereby constitutes soul rape. This crew has substituted their text for our tokens (text = meaning, token = particularity are two essential sides of any S*).
Consider the substitution of "faith-based" for "compassionate" following Bush's campaign pitch for "compassionate conservativism" to ring in enough right-wing bleeding-hearts to spread the turkey pattee.
Then...WHAMMARININOROONIE! -- lo and behond they had no more voted for the Man of Compassion, than they learned they had been RALLIED INTO THE ARMY OF THE FAITHFUL! GB's first personal iniaitive. He whose favorite philosopher was Jesus (who wasn't a philosopher at all, but what the hey.) Announcing 1. bucks for religious charities; 2. Catholics are target swingvote for '04; 3. 3,000,000 illegal mostly Hispanic aliens. Everyone prayed.
I think this has all been carefully, even meticulously scripted, beginning (this cycle) in l998, when Monica's blue dress was found-out about by some behind the scenes, and the movie Wag The Dog appeared. It showed how people who wanted to believe there was a war, needed to believe there was a war, could be brought to believe there was in fact a war, using pictures, words and TV. In the movie, the fictional war was "waged", and won, in order to call attention from a sex scandal involving the president. All the savvy mediameistes GOT IT! It was shown across the world as testimony to how the slimy side of US politics works.
WRONG!! This was a gigantic Trick Reversal. In actual fact, a fictional war wasn't staged in order to call attention away from Clinton's sex scandal; a fictional sex scandal was staged in order to call attention away from the Yugaslav war! In which Croatia and Albania come out all right, but Muslims take a terrible hit, and the WWII model of Nazi-killing-Jews was moralized into "ethnic cleansing" to justify it. Whether Bill Clinton was, or wasn't getting rolled, there was no question it was happening to America, and both sides are responsible for the utter debauchery inflicted -- not just the failed 60's generation of baby boomers perpetually trying to redeem themselves through their totally confused and vacuuous yuppie kids, and their grandkids. Basically its been right-wing operatives working both sides against the middle.
One effect such tricks with sign uses have is engendering utter hatred toward the soul rapists. They will have to use guns to fight off suicide bomb kids.
Suicide bomb kids are death-wishes, externalized and returned ("return of the repressed"; Freud). When they first appeared, Jewish policy toward Palestine saw its mirror image. And the world could not stomach what it was seeing, so pervasive was the conscious and unconscious guilt. So the name had to be changed to "homicide bombers." But it was kids, at first, and everybody knows it. A poem circulated: "In the room, the people go, and speak of Michaelangelo.....but down the street, didn't anyone know? a suicide kid was getting ready to blow." And how many, how many, there, here, and across the world, asked themselves, "Would I? Could I?" Then Mr FBI Man Mueller says its inevitable here -- he'll protect those Jews, by God! --probably already getting the cover-up PR ready, in case a kid with a backback approaching a rabbii gets popped, Horiuchi-style, in an over-eager, friendly fire pro-active approach to Islamic terrorists in our midst. Oh we hope not. That would be such a tragedy. I think Mueller, like Louie Freeh and Hanssen, have that RC blood in them that makes them fierce defenders of Jews against all things Nazi-like, such as Saddam Hussein and Arafat, because it went the other way back in the old country, and this is a way to pay off bad karma.
I think Osama bin Laden, or somebody, took a good look at all this that was going on and said something like, "faith-base this, George". And that's how America got ground zero.
2002-11-18 02:27 | User Profile
Originally posted by il ragno@Nov 18 2002, 00:47 **Since I don't recall seeing any posted, I must assume the most 'historic' feature of this Historic Past Election is its microscopic turnout. A unified nation at war against the Axis Of Evil (ie, the non-Israeli world & everyone in it), rallying fervently behind the party of a beloved President, and I'd guess nationally the turnout barely topped....30%?
The only 'mandate' here is nobody cares. Either that, or we're already such a Third World backwater that we no longer have enough "Americans" capable of reading a ballot to approach half the total electorate.**
I was busy that week, and missed the discussion board take on the elections. That's not the spin I got exactly from the talking heads. They're spin was that the democrats didn't turn out, while the pubbies did.
It seemed to vary somewhat nationaly too. In Indiana and other of the midwest states I got the impression turnout was pretty good.
2002-11-18 16:00 | User Profile
I'm not much concerned with 'impressions' because those can be impressed upon us by spin: I expect the GOP to crow about mandates and 'the people have spoken'.
I'd be much more interested in the actual numbers here. The 'impression' I got this year was :"vote? why? what will it change?". Again, that's just an impression that may or may not mean anything.
It's the actual percentage of voters who voted that I'm interested in. Anyone have them? I've seen the 30% figure cited on Drudge a few weeks ago. If that's accurate, then the cattle have spoken - the people took a pass.
2002-11-18 16:29 | User Profile
Il: I read that turnout this year was about 43%, which was higher than the 38% or so in 1998. So, people I guess were interested in voting and this could be a reaction to 9-11.
-J
2002-11-18 17:06 | User Profile
Dispiriting news, if true. But thanks, Jay.
2002-11-19 20:32 | User Profile
Il: I believe the rate in CA was much lower, tho. And for good reason: the people there know what happens when they vote against immigration. It's just thrown out the window.
The fools in Ohio, GA, Nebraska haven't had their votes trampled on. YET.
-J