Demythologising Political Rhetoric

drieux H. (
Sun, 28 Jul 1996 10:50:35 -0400

] During the Persian Gulf war itself, several women I marched with chanted
] "down with testosterone wars," which was rather annoying, since at the same
] time NOW was calling for women in combat positions. My own thoughts are
] that while I certainly support the right of women and gays to serve in the
] military, their presence will not fundamentally change the fact that with
] the notable exception of World War Two, US warfare is uniformly
] imperialistic and economically self-serving.
] Maggie

First off, Allow me to start by Agreeing with Maggie, that the
singularly Greatest Threat to the Average Run of the Mill Member
of the American Armed Forces remains the Civilian Population that
remains essentially unwilling, or unable, to be critical about the
types of 'media images' that they accept. But I think we need to
start by "demythologizing" the language that she uses, since the
phrase 'finding "politics in everything"` left free standing can
conceal as much as it reveals. I feel the need to do this, since
I fundamentally feel that her conclusion above is basically internally
inconsistent, and need to detach this discussion from the usual
Wankage about 'political correctness'.

A part of the problem remains, fundamentally, that akademiks tend
to speak in the 'professional jargons' of their fields, and being
essentially that close to the GreatBuzzPhraseGenerators over in
the PoliSci Department tend to forget that the average run of the
mill person does not speak the Stylized English of AkadamiaLand. I can
say this, since I am from time to time reminded of this basic problem
when ever I find myself again reading the sorts of Academicly Excellent
Works that relates to my fields of interest, and am struck in the face
time and AGAIN by that horrid recollection:

"Oh God, we really DID write like that."[1]

Besides the USUAL 'class warfare' between G.I.'s and Akademiks, there
would develop during the sixties a divergence on the nature of the
common language that we used. A part of this has to do with the basic
problem of 'representational government' as it occurs in the USA. The
Left then, as is popular amongst the Right Now, opted to become 'engaged'
in the process, and 'lobby' their representatives, or remove the seated
members of the government in favor of those candidates whom they felt
would better plead their case. We could simplify the language down to
the "pro's v. con's" - with the pro's being the 'proactive, progressive'
component, and the con's being the 'conservative'. In the Sixties, as
today, the con's wanted to maintain what we have in place, and leave the
representing of government up to the 'professionals' in D.C. - which is
what we pay them to do. The pro's, then as now, are not content with the
status quo ante, and want their 'paid consultants' to DO SOMETHING. I'm willing
to concede that this DOES lead to the problem that we no longer have the
simple mapping of "pro == LeftistRadical" and "con == RightWingFascism"
but as folks will have noticed with the change of things in the former
USSR, that old model BIT THE BIG ONE. Or maybe it's the case that now
that the KommieHordes are out of power they are BACK where the old language
works well enough. But it rather is a bit hard to say, with a straight face,
that a 'restorationists' now means one who wants to return to the OLD GUARD
Communist Model, which was once the 'left wing' - rather than the current
radicalism of progressing into a free society....

Thus a part of the problem is that the very notions of 'left v. right'
made some sembalance of sense under the british parlimentarian system,
when the Government sat on the Right, and the Shadow Government, or
Loyal Opposition, sat on the Left, and Traditionally Governments were
formed from the Conservative Party. This of course makes even More sense
when the enfranchisement was limited - and only Decent Folks had the
right to vote - So by the very nature of 'decency' one tends towards
conserving and cautious models. But once one begins to let the Rabble
into the Process, there is the clear and Present Danger that the Plebian
Masses MIGHT actually elect a Government that would embark upon the
dictates of the proletarian class!

As everyone will recall from the '68 democratic convention, being
the Government obliged them to sit on the Right. As some may have heard
from recent political commentaries about the Up Coming G.O.P. Convention
there will be some fun addressing how to handle Pat Buchanan, and some
of those who were in the Streets in Chicago have been willing to offer
some small advice as to how to manage a 'convention' outside on the streets.

Clearly the Simplest Path to 'depoliticising' the process would be to
change the OBLIGATIONS of the civilian society to vote representatives
into office to form the Government! Thus, if we return the franchise
BACK to simply the WhiteHetChristianMaleLandedGentry the rest of the
population would no longer need to worry their little heads about matters
of how the 'polis' is being organized, managed, controlled, since such
issues would be left to those DivinelyAppointedOfGod.[2]

Thus the SUPREME HORROR of the Whole Sixties Thing is that so many
young people decided that they needed to Fulfil Their Obligations
as members of the Electorate! Which, unfortuantely, lead to the complications
that the Government was NO LONGER the nice happy bastion of the Old Guard
Conservatives, and became the tool of the voting population! Oh Dear Oh Dear
the Plebian Masses have taken over the Government and imposed the dictates
of the mere proletarian masses!!! Some of them, as is still true today,
happen to adopt 'extremist' positions - and to lace their rhetoric with
'war language' - just as some did and do, with 'god language' - whether
we are speaking of the 'sixties spirituality' that would embrace non_traditional
gods, or the PatRobertsonIsm that also embrace a non_traditional god. Also
as anyone who spent any time with 'serious musicians' this did have the
unpleasant down side, that we adopted a culture based upon mere 4/4 time
and the basic three chord progression, cause the musicians weren't so good.

Having said that, allow me to turn to the complications of the transition
of the term 'imperialism' to begin with, and from there address the fundamental
internal contradiction that I believe exists in the phrase:

] with the notable exception of World War Two, US warfare is uniformly
] imperialistic and economically self-serving.

Part of the problem is that the token 'imperialism', as used, makes sense in
the classical marxianist model, as the final decaying stages of
decadent bourgiese kapitalism. Since clearly the USA was a Kapitalist
System, and following WWII was the Global Economic Power House. Where this
definition breaks apart is that it does not conform to the popular image
of 'imperialism' as being related to 'empires' in the old 'monarchialist'
model of the evolution upward from mere 'aristocratic land holdings' to
a unified kingdom, to a multi-crowned System. This of course makes no
sense in the USA, since we do not have a 'titled nobility' and no
institutionalised method for creating more than 'Col. Saunders'. [3]

I can appreciate that given the volitility of starting a discussion
with a clear definition of terms that requires the assertion:

"I will be utilizing the Marxianist Lexical System...."

this may be a less than PREFERRED notion. But the alternative will
be the simple Semantical Confusion as to which of the two definitions
is being addressed.

Even STILL, if we adopt the marxianist model, I am hard pressed to
understand how we can EXEMPT american involvement in WWII from the
uniform distribution of 'imperialistic and economically self-serving'
wars that america embarks upon. To start with, the American Kultur was
clearly already suffering the diletorious effects of Bourgiese Decadence
that would lead us from flappers to bread lines, to the NEED for a
Global War to provide for Full Employement and the securing of both
strategic resources as well as external markets! I can appreciate that
IT may remain unpleasant for some to recall the 'political analysis'
provided by the COMINTERN during the period of the Allignment With
the Hiterlites, but a review of that material will provide a far better
clarification of this point. Also, the Anachronistic Model of presuming
that the Americans entered the war to end hitlerite fascism and the horrors
of that Genocidal System, do NOT hold up under historical analysis. The
Americans, for the vast majority of the war, would not take seriously the
concerns of International Jewery that the German's WERE engaged in a
final solution. Romantic and Emotionally Stirring as this Revisionist
Position may be, america itself was still not addressing it's own internal
anti-semetic traditions.

Likewise if we wish to RESCUE the rhetoric of FDR, so as to sanctify
WWII as some form of exemption, then we clearly are obliged to differenciate
IT from the rhetoric of JFK. Having done that, we will of course have to
show that LBJ actually Stands OUTSIDE of his 'new dealer' 'populist'
tradition, and that over and against the rhetoric of FDR.

Needless to say, I have been unable to do this, and will defer to
anyone who can show me the proof!

I can appreciate that losing our forward positions in the Pacific
War, does conform with the american cultural appreciation for 'the under dog'
and that the subsequent military operations in both korea and vietnam
do NOT fully achieve this cultural requirement, since we were able to
retain access to the Vital Strategic Raw Material and Markets for the
duration of those wars. But try to remember, that we would be fighting
in the Pacific to SECURE or DEFEND those very same raw materials in
all three 'wars'.

What is Sauce for the Goose, Is Sauce for the Gander
in a Gender Free Analysis.


[1] that proposition holds true for mathmatics as well as
for poli sci. And I highly recommend that folks take the time
to step back and do a bit of 'cultural anthropology' on the
amusing circus that is AkadamiaLand. As a collection of brightly
painted savages the rites and rituals are somewhat amusing to one
looking at them from the outside. So that folks do not feel that I
am JUST picking on akademiks, in the traditional Akademiks v. WarMongers,
allow me to say, again, that my "HippyChickBerkleyGirlFriend" has to remind me
from time to time, that she can not tell, from mere context alone, whether
a reference to an M-60 is to a Tank of General Purpose Machine Gun.
It is this regards, that I became obliged to look about both of my
cultural contexts, the US Military as a Cultural Sub_Group, and the
amusing Bad Habits of the akademik world we collectively live in. So
before all the ChomskiestParasites over in PsychoSocioLinguistics go
breaking any arms patting themselves on their own backs, they should
first stop and ask a regular human being to read ANYTHING they wrote.

Any sentance diagram require a mathematical formulae greater than
Order N by definition needs to have at least a Tour Guide, or legal
guardian, present.

[2] I do have a resume ready should anyone wish to install
me as either Shogun, or GodHead, since I feel I can do the Job.

[3] As we would laugh around the world, one variant translation
leads us to the notion of:

"The Fat Little Colnel's Chicken House"

as being Commerical Name of KFC. But Economic and Kultural Imperialism
is a matter for another time. Not to mention the horrors of watching
AngloSaxonism Butchered both at home and abroad.