Feigned Emotion
|
Henry See
Signs of the Times
6 April 2006
|
"One of the great things about America, one of the beauties of our country, is that when we see a young, innocent child blown up by an IED, we cry." - George W. Bush, Mar. 29
" All judgements of value and emotional appraisals are sane and appropriate when the Psychopath is tested in verbal examinations.
"Only very slowly and by a complex estimation or judgment based on multitudinous small impressions does the conviction come upon us that, despite these intact rational processes, these normal emotional affirmations, and their consistent application in all directions, we are dealing here not with a complete man at all but with something that suggests a subtly constructed reflex machine which can mimic the human personality perfectly.
"This smoothly operating psychic apparatus reproduces consistently not only specimens of good human reasoning but also appropriate simulations of normal human emotion in response to nearly all the varied stimuli of life.
"So perfect is this reproduction of a whole and normal man that no one who examines him in a clinical setting can point out in scientific or objective terms why, or how, he is not real.
"And yet we eventually come to know or feel we know that reality, in the sense of full, healthy experiencing of life, is not here." - Hervey Cleckley, The Mask of Sanity
After five years of his oh-so fake John Wayne strutting and his obviously oh-so genuine "I've pulled one over on you this time" smirk, his equally genuine mangling of the English language, and his determination to maintain his course like a compulsive-obsessive Energizer bunny no matter the arguments thrown in his way, I thought I was inured to the verbal expressions of the vacuity of George W. Bush's inner life. George's reflex machine seems to be malfunctioning and his ability to mimic real emotion is slipping.
We know that George places the United States of America far above the rest of the world. Did he not say, in the days following the self-inflicted wound of September 11, about the need for the US to wage war against terrorism no matter what others might say: "At some point, we may be the only ones left. That's okay with me. We are America"? (Cited by Rodrique Tremblay in The New American Empire, p. 46) So what are we to think of his tears over children blown apart by bombs that would not be there if the US had not invaded Afghanistan or Iraq? If he is willing to sacrifice the rest of the world in some crazed effort to render "America" secure, how much does he care about this child or any other child? How much does he care about the sons and daughters who are in the US military?
Implicit in his statement at the top of the page is the idea that "Americans" alone are capable of tears at the sight of a shattered and dismembered body. Perhaps the US media isn't showing the images in prime time in order to spare the sensitive followers of the Commander-in-Chief from daily bouts of crying.
How thoughtful.
Bush's double-standard is one area where he is consistent. Here is his comment on what Tremblay calls "the relationship between his religious morality and American military power": "The best way to fight evil is to do some good. Let me qualify that--the best way to fight evil at home is to do some good. The best way to fight them abroad is to unleash the military". However, Bush, like the rest of the chickenhawks in his administration, didn't want any part of "fighting evil" themselves. They all found ways of avoiding military service altogether or of going AWOL from the National Guard.
You don't need to be a rocket scientist to see through the mask of sanity worn by Bush. More and more of his concitizens are doing just that; yet there remain the staunch supporters, the ones who think Jesus is going to be returning in their lifetime to escort them through the pearly gates. If you buy that, I suppose taking Bush at his word is less difficult. But, then, these statements are for public consumption only, and the Straussian stringpullers behind Bush don't believe at word of it. As an example, we can look at Bush's statements, oft repeated, that "they hate us because of our freedoms". Whenever someone makes the case that "they" hate "us" because of US politics in the Middle East, its one-sided support of Israel in the genocide of the Palestinians, its encouraging Israel's attacks on the Palestinians while denouncing the Palestinians as "terrorists", its rape and pillage of Iraq, and the other items on the long list of US crimes in the Middle East, Latin America, and anywhere it has set its jackboot, the right-wing pundits bring out the tar and feathers. Again, for public consumption.
What do the people committing these crimes think? A report entitled "Strategic Energy Policy Challenges for the 21st Century", published in April 2001, that is, before 9/11, and written by a group composed of energy industry people, including Ken Lay of Enron, who had advised Dick Cheney, had this to say:
"Bitter perceptions in the Arab world that the United States has not been evenhanded in brokering peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians have exacerbated these pressures on Saudia Arabia and other Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries and given political leverage to Iraq's Saddam Hussein to lobby for support among the Arab world's populations." (Tremblay, p. 81.)
Clear, isn't it? The leaders know full well that anger against the United States is founded in actions and not some vague opposition to "freedom", but these reports are not published in USA Today or discussed on Fox News. The two-layer media system in the US ensures that those who need to know have the data they need while keeping the population at large in ignorance, the better to be led by the nose via their emotional reactions to false flag terrorist attacks and the right-wing hatemongers so prominent in the mainstream media. The strategy is part of the Straussian textbook, along with the promotion of religion as a means of controlling the population. What is happening in the United States is not an accident; it is the result of a decades old plan on the part of the neo-conservatives, and, most likely the neo-conservative bid is part of an even older plan, one that goes back centuries or millennia. But, then, it is easier to believe in 19 Arabs led by a caveman pulling off 9/11 than it is to consider the possibility of such an idea.
|
|
![[Valid Atom 1.0]](/signs/images/valid-atom.png "Validate my Atom 1.0 feed")
