There's a little space of time I can never remember the right name for, it's either the hypogogic or the hypnogogic, and I'm too lazy to find it right now, but I have a period of returning consciousness where I get these relatively accurate thoughts before the concerns of the day and the ongoing nightmares of my personal life take over.
One of those is around the idea of "Anybody but Bush". Which is great in its way, but isn't it like that moral vacuum you get when you punish wrong-doing so severely you get a bunch of people who are so concerned with not doing wrong they spend much less time on doing what's right? The difference in the moral diagram between the 50-50 layout, right thought/action over there, wrong thought/action over there; as opposed to the only-one-true-way, where everything that isn't right is wrong.
And then more specifically here and now, don't we need to establish pretty reasonably that Bush did all this by himself, or at least that whoever he did it in league with is completely dependent on him? So that replacing him replaces them too? Because I don't think we've done that, I don't think we're doing that, and the other thought I had around that was they're preparing for this shift, a huge blossoming out of reconstructive positive energy, all organizing and paradigm-shifting, and it'll be:
"Bush - bad, that's the old way..."
"New whoever, new whatever - good, this is the new way... ". Which as a plan seems pretty crafty but doable. And it deposits all the guilt and accusatories on the cathartically removed Bush. Leaving the same guys, who did it all to begin with, free and clear to continue with their schemes for world domination.
Which is what it was about right? It's not about America that's for sure. These guys have run America into the dirt.
-
The other thought I had was about fundamentalist insistence that being homosexual is a choice.
Because it is for them. You see? They have homosexual urgings, they choose to ignore or repress them, viola! Choice! That makes it imperative that it be a choice-related matter.
That the fundamentalist world-view has absolutely no place for intra-sexual or hermaphroditic people, who have no connection with homosexuals except that they both get thrown into the same boxcars when the death camps start running. That the fundamentalist world-view has no recognition of any kind of exceptional and non-normative reality, well, that's really what they're for isn't it? To do the dirty work? Just like Bush, they accomplish the truly nasty jobs, then get thrown out. So the pretense of innocence can be maintained. They're disposable tools.
Another thought I had was the attachment of self-reinforcing mechanisms to naturally-occurring phenomena, or, in simpler terms, making people think you're doing things that are happening, or are going to happen, anyway.
The Catholic Church was great at that, making kids feel guilty about sex, before they had any strong sexual feelings, so that when they did, they would feel there was something wrong with them, and then the church supplied the relief for that, channeling the energy and the energy of the conflict into its own dynamo.
If you can make somebody feel that the bad things happening to them are the result of your disfavor, then, in a world where relatively bad things are pretty much par for the course in most lives, you're going to seem more and more powerful as time goes on.
One of those is around the idea of "Anybody but Bush". Which is great in its way, but isn't it like that moral vacuum you get when you punish wrong-doing so severely you get a bunch of people who are so concerned with not doing wrong they spend much less time on doing what's right? The difference in the moral diagram between the 50-50 layout, right thought/action over there, wrong thought/action over there; as opposed to the only-one-true-way, where everything that isn't right is wrong.
And then more specifically here and now, don't we need to establish pretty reasonably that Bush did all this by himself, or at least that whoever he did it in league with is completely dependent on him? So that replacing him replaces them too? Because I don't think we've done that, I don't think we're doing that, and the other thought I had around that was they're preparing for this shift, a huge blossoming out of reconstructive positive energy, all organizing and paradigm-shifting, and it'll be:
"Bush - bad, that's the old way..."
"New whoever, new whatever - good, this is the new way... ". Which as a plan seems pretty crafty but doable. And it deposits all the guilt and accusatories on the cathartically removed Bush. Leaving the same guys, who did it all to begin with, free and clear to continue with their schemes for world domination.
Which is what it was about right? It's not about America that's for sure. These guys have run America into the dirt.
-
The other thought I had was about fundamentalist insistence that being homosexual is a choice.
Because it is for them. You see? They have homosexual urgings, they choose to ignore or repress them, viola! Choice! That makes it imperative that it be a choice-related matter.
That the fundamentalist world-view has absolutely no place for intra-sexual or hermaphroditic people, who have no connection with homosexuals except that they both get thrown into the same boxcars when the death camps start running. That the fundamentalist world-view has no recognition of any kind of exceptional and non-normative reality, well, that's really what they're for isn't it? To do the dirty work? Just like Bush, they accomplish the truly nasty jobs, then get thrown out. So the pretense of innocence can be maintained. They're disposable tools.
Another thought I had was the attachment of self-reinforcing mechanisms to naturally-occurring phenomena, or, in simpler terms, making people think you're doing things that are happening, or are going to happen, anyway.
The Catholic Church was great at that, making kids feel guilty about sex, before they had any strong sexual feelings, so that when they did, they would feel there was something wrong with them, and then the church supplied the relief for that, channeling the energy and the energy of the conflict into its own dynamo.
If you can make somebody feel that the bad things happening to them are the result of your disfavor, then, in a world where relatively bad things are pretty much par for the course in most lives, you're going to seem more and more powerful as time goes on.
