Connecting Synchrons '88 - '10

CONNECTING DA'DOTS

11.1 COUNTDOWN to snakebrain election, w/ NZ '88 -- Swastika On the JSU
11.2 was writing: "There was no way to vote against the wars ..", even as each party had co-opted a gender-divisive reproductive issue, opposed to each other NZ style.


11.3 => NEPTUNE'S TRIDENT

A "Bipartisan Terror Fight". by Max Boot
NYPost p. 35 (hard copy -- not to be found on line, by me anyway)

Everyone knows the pundit class will define what you voted for after you voted for it -- "so what's new?" -- but it has never been more painfully and abundantly clear than at present. Here is how America's narrative (by 4<-3<-2<-1 Asymptotic Algorithm) has so far played out:

1. Negative reaction voting over domestic-reproductive issues neutralized the two-party opposition: those who voted against Democrats because they front for homosexuals; those who voted against Republicans because they front for anti-abortionists. The number of people adamantly opposed to homosexuality added to the number of people who oppose abortion would be a whopping majority. It is a majority existing nowhere but in politics, through the psychosemiotic incursion of these two issues relating to sex and birth. The for-against protagonists organized around these two sides of reproduction issues create an inner psychodynamic otherwise non-existent; its effect is to neutralize, by emotional suffusion, other choices the parties represent. That is to say, it's effect is to emotionally pre-judge other attitudes by whether "you" are a Democrat ('liberal') or Republican ("conservative"). Adding the more generic aligners "liberal" and "conservative" distributes the pre-existing emotional negatives over a broader scope, viz. foreign policy, monetary policy, health care, social security; as if they had something to do with alignment on reproductive issues. This in itself deligitimizes "democratic" used as adjective to describe the process, or its result.

2. Nevertheless, here is MAX BOOT claiming the vote shows bipartisan support of the 'war on Terror', citing a. the string of sting operations passed off in the media as "Muslim terror threats"; b. praising Obama for following Bush in calling it a "war" on terror, not a "law enforcement" problem. (Naturally enough: the law enforcement approach would require dealing with local police forces.) c. Obama's more-cruel-than-Bush drone kills, undercover operations expanded into Yemen, and other regional countries.

Summary: the legitimacy of the two party system, already corrupted by intrusion of sex/birth issues, is corrupted again (doubly*), by using it to predicate war on. (This is why the title of his article, "A Bipartisan Terror Fight" illustrates a "double reverse negative" sign use.)

It would be difficult to understand how such could have come to be the case, I think, without understanding that war, as child sacrifice, is a fusion of just these two instinctual energies. The unconscious intrusion of the dark (trauma) side of these two universal strata of developmental experience, plays out by resolves, at the group-conscious level, into support for sacrificing.