We aren't in Kansas anymore: SEX and FASCISM in an UNCONSCIOUS AMERICA

[nashville_brook]

I read Thomas Frank's book, What's The Matter With Kansas, unsatisfied, wishing it went "all the way."

I devoured it upon publication, agreeing totally with his thesis: that "red staters" vote Republican at their economic peril. But, I turned every page believing the next would reveal what lies at the heart of Kansas; what's the secret explanation for their peculiar "normality."

I got nothing. Just one story after another about "chronically outraged," Midwesterners "offended by everything...convinced that they are powerless to change the world."

THE PROBLEM OF AUTHORITY
WHY are Red Staters "chronically outraged'? WHY the "imagined persecution" and "hate" toward the left? HOW can a "taste for authoritarian leadership" blind them to real oppression? They weren't just born this way. It's not biological. These are psychological "units": hate, outrage, perceived persecution. Since 82 percent self-identify as white and Christian, it's easy to imagine a sociological explanation, based on religiosity (degree of devotion). But there's something beyond Sunday sermons -- something in the fabric of their existence. Something essential, psychological. I believe Kansans are psychologically conditioned to these affects. It's not geography. It's not farming. Otherwise we'd be talking about ALL Midwesterners. How come Iowans aren't our national symbol for conservatism?

"Kansas" has been used as a symbol for family paradise by everyone from Ann Coulter to Frank Baum. We imagine toe-headed boys at afternoon little league and fall festivals at the church. "Family" lies at the heart of the symbol. What is it in the psychology of these particular midwestern families, that predisposes them to paleo-conservatism? Why does the idea of family "equal" authoritarianism?

If we want to take the country back in one piece, we need to know what lurks in the hearts and minds of Red Staters that makes them prone to pushing this country toward fascism. HOW does it work that these folks can be herded into war and economic dire straits and take us with them?

Frank observes that Red Staters respond to identity politics, ironically, despite their "railing against" identity politics as it applied to gays and people of color in the late 80s and early 90s. They LOVE identity politics when it applies to THEIR identity, i.e. suburbs, SUVs and super churches. Frank digs deep into this "identity," asserting it's a Christ-like persona they affect -- a "humility to service," evident in their sacrifice of economic interest for the good of the culture. Abortion, homosexuality and sex education will be extinguished. Economic security will come later, I suppose in the thousand-year paradise on earth. This is their myth. What is their essence?

TO BE CLEAR, Bush DID NOT win either election. We have a problem with election fraud and this needs to be fixed. But I do think the acquiescence to authority throughout middle America most certainly ENABLED the stealing of the last two elections. Apathy toward authority (respect?) was reinforced by a mainstream media whose mission is limited by pandering to this demographic. If this country didn't have a malignant attitude toward "authority," Bush would have been impeached many times over. Now think about Clinton. He represented authority too. What's the difference?

S-E-X.

LETS UNPACK the mind of the Red Stater. Lets separate their individual and social consciousness and get to the bottom of the Red Staters' problem with SEX. Religious devotion requires servitude to authority and suggests limits to sexual behavior, but not all religious people crave unquestioning authoritarianism the Red Staters do (suicide bombers notwithstanding). There's something deeper the Red Stater psyche that drives them to church in the first place. Something deeper drives them to the particular forms of religion they choose. This "deeper something" REINFORCES social and religious conditioning. This quality renders the Red Stater powerless to authority.

If we can identify what, in the individual consciousness of a Red Stater, makes them prone to exploitation from authority, we will have the key to dismantling the mechanism of our creeping fascism.

EYES ON JESUS
Frank mentions a "Christ-like" sacrifice in their swapping economic issues for social issues, and yet he contends they aren't aware of how they are ripped-off in the trade. This is a very odd contention. They aren't AWARE of their exploitation? I usually know when I'm getting screwed. What's their problem? Perhaps we need for more blue collar spokesmen like Ed Schultz. But, how can we assume they will become aware of their sacrifice when they can't even see their setbacks or failures? Their political life seems entirely unconscious and beyond our reach.

In the individual consciousness of the Red Stater lurks a pre-modern world of Gods and monsters; good and evil.

Deep in the unconscious, it's S-E-X that separates the good from the evil.

Red Staters are OBSESSED with sex (and death, it's ugly sister). The struggle of good vs evil manifests in the bedroom. It's the same for everyone, no matter how low your knuckles drag. Sex animates our world and death sets it's limits. Advertising works because our unconscious psyches are fertile ground for symbolic conditioning. The difference between a Red Stater and a Blue Stater is the dominant myth that is used to unconscious desire. In the dominant myth of the Red Stater, the world is falling into social chaos and sex is to blame. This is convenient because ostensibly, we can CONTROL sex. Can't we?

The Red Stater can't just mind their own beeswax when it comes to sex, because if someone is getting a blow job, like the tsunami-causing Chinese butterfly -- they will feel it. They mean well. They are Do-Gooders at heart -- believing only "they" see the problem and only "they" can save us.

They are AGAINST sex education. "If kids knew what all that was down there, it would be like telling them, 'it's okay.' We can't have that."
They are AGAINST pre-marital sex -- "My parents waited. I waited. You can too." No wonder they are chronically outraged.
They are AGAINST abortion -- "If she wasn't ready for children she shouldn't have spread her legs."
They are AGAINST homosexuality. "Because that's just disgusting -- the thought of two men together."

sidebar -- funny they don't identify pedophilia as an urgent moral issue:
GOPedophiles

Notice how Red Staters animate these issues. Their outrage is pornographic. The examples I used above are from real conversations with co-workers, colleagues and friends. The focus is on THE DEED. The Girls' have done GONE WILD and it's no wonder if you read Genesis.

Progressives don't see (nasty, dirty) S-E-X when these issues are raised. Gay marriage? We don't imagine guys going at it. We imagine a loved one denied rights when their parter dies. As a matter of fact, it's unseemly to focus on sex willy-nilly. Everything in the world isn't about sex, and we are loathe to jump on that bandwagon. There's bigger fish to fry for christsakes. The fight for freedom, equality are all bigger than sex. Dogs and cats can be getting it on for all we care. Live and let live, we say. Our passion is empowerment, because "teach a person to fish and they eat for life." We trust in reason -- maybe a little too much.

DIG DEEPER
These folks have given birth to a theocracy movement, plain and simple. This is the paradise. This is the utopia. Dominionism, Constitutionalism, Reconstructivism -- they all prey on the mythical authoritarian family unit. Creating a cycle of obsession and repression is a means of control. Whoa, big leap here, you say. Stay with me.

As many psychologists of the last century pointed out, a child's first experience of sex is instinctual and parents must walk a fine line between allowing normal, constructive instincts and discouraging instinctual behavior that will prove harmful to a child's social development. A child's lifelong "moral code" develops from parental conditioning -- specifically training the child away from INSTINCT toward SOCIALLY ACCEPTABLE behavior.

Nose-picking is a good example. Nose-picking is instinctual for a kid with a booger. Little Johnny doesn't know that nose-picking is socially unacceptable. He just digs until he strikes gold. Mmm -- salty. It's instinct. And sickening. As the parent suppresses some instincts and reinforces others, the developing child experiences a conflict between instinct and morality which becomes their moral code for the rest of their life. Got an urge? Better check to see if it's moral. If Poppa would beat you for it, chances are it's not moral. Still got the urge? Better go to confession. Repeat the process until the urge is buried deep in your unconscious.

What happens in your basic authoritarian (patriarchal) family when a child begins experimenting sexually? Punishment? What "lesson" is given the child along with the punishment? What is the lesson they take away for the rest of their life? What becomes their "moral code"?

We can answer this EXACTLY, by following the James Dobson method of discipline where, instinctual, unsanctioned behavior (sexual or not) is punished with violence (spanking), and prayer -- used explicitly to "break the child's will" and "show them who is in control" in order that they will learn "to yield to the loving authority... to submit to other forms of authority which will confront him later in his life -- his teachers, school principal, police, neighbors and employers."

There you have the a priori conditioning that keeps the Red Stater in line, in church and fighting for The Victory.

As in any social movement, the new American Theocracy has folks at the top like Dobson, who move the pieces on the playing field and make a pretty penny from their instructional videos. The followers -- those who want nothing more than to live their "in service." The masses may not all be asses, but they are instinctual creatures whose behavior can be predicted and manipulated.

They are welcomed into The Family and provided a set of causes that resonate with their upbringing -- sex is a no-no, until the authoritarian, patriarchal family (Dad) says so. Just look at what happens to those who disobey. Abortion. Disease. Homosexuality.

For these guys, "a great heavenly host" fights the "forces of darkness" every minute. We are simply barking up the wrong tree looking for "reason" in the actions of Red Staters. They are driven by unconscious forces.

HOW TO MAKE THIS WORK FOR US: we aren't in Kansas, anymore
All ideology has a FUNCTION and a MEANING in The Unconscious. Yes, sometimes a cigar is simply a fine Father's Day present, but I contend, this cycle of obsession and repression is a sure way to imbue that cigar with a life of its own. We have to jump into this struggle and slay the dragons, especially the imaginary ones.

The nexus of their individual and social psychology is SEX. Look at how they are attacking Hillary Clinton. She's a lesbian. She let herself be raped. Chelsea is therefore an abomination. The way they talk you'd think they are minutes away from grabbing the torches and chasing the monsters down to the river.

UNVEILING their sexual sickness will disarm their only means of attack. This shouldn't be difficult. Our modern culture is saturated in decades of progress in sexual matters. It is an abomination that we are being dragged down in this muck. We already MASTER this aspect of the argument. We already have the high ground. Want to get them out of their comfort zone? Talk about sex. Expose this vulnerability by keeping the pressure on.

Remember Saul Alinsky's Rules For Radicals:

Pick your target.
Freeze your target.
Personalize your target.
Polarize your target.

Our target is the backwards, repressed sexuality of Red Staters.
Freeze them out of their comfort zone by making them face this issue.
Personalize the target. Here's a list
GOPedophiles
POLARIZE the target as they as they are forced to side with pedophiles or get back on track with democracy.

We aren't in Kansas, anymore.

The fascists need the repressed sexuality of authoritarian families to provide fodder for their endless wars. Let not give them that. I want our sons and daughters right here at home -- at lookout point, where they belong.

Do this today. Talk to your kids. Let them know they are okay. Sex is not a 4-letter word. Love them and give them the strength they will need on their journey. The Red Staters are correct on this matter. It all starts at home.

[villager]

1. good stuff, Nashville

I've long thought it really all comes down to sex, in the end.

Our hatred for -- and current destruction of -- the biosphere (messy, wild, uncontrolled, etc.) is tied in to the same thing...

[nashville_brook]

3. these thoughts are like vapors

this post took a lot of time b/c it's so close to the bone.

[nashville_brook]

13. deep ecology, gaia, eco-feminism

long lost friends

[villager]

17. yes, we need "re-wilding"

in many forms...

[nashville_brook]

41. this was my area of activism many years ago before moving to the city

and having to get a "real job." it's so nice just seeing these words again.

it's the place i'm writing from -- Woman and Nature, gyn/ecology. i always believed that writing was the infant stage of something everyone could get behind.

it is really difficult to re-wild your life personally. that's where it has to start. you know you are on the right track when things aren't easy.

[norml]

2. Recommended

I very highly recommend this writing.

[MountainLaurel]

4. Yowza!

The essay is quite long compared to the average post, but I think you hit the nail on the head, and I say that as someone who attended a fundamentalist baptist church during much of my childhood.


:applause:

[damntexdem]

5. Oh, I don't know:

it sounds pretty much like Kansas to me.

[NoBorders]

6. UC Berkeley Study on Conservatism

Great post. I think the article I link to below is a worthwhile read on the psychological basis of conservatism. Although it doesn't touch on the issue of sex as you do. I think the general theme from this study is the intolerance to uncertainty and ambiguity, which I think helps to explain the mythology of the 'authoritarian family unit'.

SNIP
BERKELEY – Politically conservative agendas may range from supporting the Vietnam War to upholding traditional moral and religious values to opposing welfare. But are there consistent underlying motivations?

Four researchers who culled through 50 years of research literature about the psychology of conservatism report that at the core of political conservatism is the resistance to change and a tolerance for inequality, and that some of the common psychological factors linked to political conservatism include:

-Fear and aggression

-Dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity

-Uncertainty avoidance

-Need for cognitive closure

-Terror management

"From our perspective, these psychological factors are capable of contributing to the adoption of conservative ideological contents, either independently or in combination," the researchers wrote in an article, "Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition," recently published in the American Psychological Association's Psychological Bulletin

SNIP

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/07/22_politics.shtml

[emcguffie]

7. I think it's guilt.

A reactionary swing from the sexual liberation of the sixties, and everything that went with it. Since that generation was reared on older values, and then abandoned those as hypocritical, it was easy to prey on the guilt those very "trailblazers" harbor for abandoning principles that had lasted millennia.

In all of them, all that's necessary is a little kernel of a lack of certainty that it was right. Then to have the realization that people were getting sick, meaning that perhaps it had all been a mistake. Growing up and wanting life to be comfortable, keeping up with the Joneses and all that crap that you criticized your parents for, but, after all, who wants to be uncomfortable in the face of all that -- luxurious consumption?

Easy marks. I know so many. It's a question of continuous self-examination of your principles and what they mean, and the reality of self-correction that is not a complete abandonment of progress.

My two cents.

[nashville_brook]

12. i'm not sure i've got your drift entirely, but i -- about disease...

everytime i hear a teenager talking on the radio about how great abstinence and abstinence education is, you hear about how birth control methods, including condoms, don't stop diseases. you mind goes into this mode where you think, "yeah, you can get a disease from sex... but... isn't that why we should be having complete sex ed in the first place?"

sure times have changed. few things ever stay the same regardless of it's the 1860s or the 1960s we are talking about -- but people will always have sex.

was there really all that much "liberation" in the 60s? or were we really talking about The Pill and the fact that women could come a little farther out of the closet.

[geniph]

19. An ironic fact about abstinence education

and teens who Take The Pledge (not to engage in premarital sex) is that many of them maintain what they consider "virginity" by engaging in anal sex (how that leaves the boys virgins is beyond me), which is far more likely to transmit disease owing to the microtears of delicate membranes.

[emcguffie]

21. seemed so to me.

I was born in 1953, went to Catholic School, and would never have contemplated extra-marital, or pre-marital sex, especially not without being "in love" with someone.

But all that changed.

Please, let me tell you a little story. I have a sister in law. Back then, when people wore bell-bottoms and guys all had long hair, my mother walked in to my little brother's room, to find this sister-in-law in my brother's bed, doing you know what.

She was 16, and she got pregnant. They decided to have the baby, but not to get married, it wasn't necessary -- just a piece of paper. Everybody pressured them to go ahead and tie the knot, but no, they didn't need to. They knew what was in their hearts. They went out and said their own personal vows under a tree somewhere. Finally, they agreed to a wedding, and the very day the ceremony happened, she gave birth to a beautiful little girl -- now a mother herself, by the way.

That sister-in-law experienced what I am talking about. She was a Catholic, one of ten, had gotten over her schooling and all that silly stuff. Right? Well, the pendulum swung, she "came to", "woke up", realized what she had done was WRONG. Went back to Church. She went further and further and further -- first the Catholics weren't Christian enough, and she became born again. Eventually, the born-agains weren't Christian enough. I don't know where she stands now, last time I talked to her no churches were Christian enough. But boy oh boy, does she like dubya.

Maybe she's come to her senses by now. She's not stupid. She has a really good heart, and loves to help people.

What I think I am trying to say is that the sixties brought in such an extreme change, so fast, that many participants were knocked over when the pendulum went back the other way. They were followers, maybe, and they followed the leaders in the sixties, and then when the voices for religious right got louder and louder, they followed them, and then went too far.

Sort of like during the Vietnam War, how everything got confused -- people against the war weren't against the vets, but people started to believe that. And I suppose some anti-war folks didn't support the vets, because there were those soldiers who supported the war, and feelings were pretty strong for some people that we were over there killing innocent people, and really needed to stop (sounds familiar, right?) Some people maybe some some soldiers as war-mongers, in a way. And anti-war feelings definitely got conflated with anti-soldier, anti-vet feelings.

Eventually, people who were strongly against the war began to feel -- maybe not "guilty" for not supporting the troops, but they were easy to put on the defensive. And that criticism has carried on right to today, and fed the right-wing backlash. Many people who were anti-war then over the years might get very defensive about it, because they've been accused so many times of not supporting the troops.

I don't know if that clarified anything or not. Maybe I am familiar with guilt because of my Catholic education:blush:. Maybe I'm projecting:shrug:. But I do think that for some people it's a very big factor. Not that it is legitimate guilt. I mean the kind that plagues you and makes you doubt yourself. The Woody Allen variety.

[bloom]

37. There was also Kinsey

"In 1935, Kinsey delivered a lecture to a faculty discussion group at Indiana University, his first public discussion of the topic, wherein he attacked the "widespread ignorance of sexual structure and physiology" and promoted his view that "delayed marriage" (that is, delayed sexual experience) was psychologically harmful.

His Kinsey Reports led to a storm of controversy and turned Kinsey into an instant celebrity. Articles about him appeared in magazines such as Time, Life, Look, and McCall's. His reports were regarded by many as a trigger for the sexual revolution of the 1960s. Indiana University's president Herman B Wells defended Kinsey's research in what became a well-known test of academic freedom."

Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948, reprinted 1998)

Sexual Behavior in the Human Female (1953, reprinted 1998)

"Kinsey's research polarized a segment of society. Many in the Christian Right community felt that their religious and socially conservative views were in conflict with Kinsey's methods and underlying principles. They saw his supporters as dissolute libertines and his work as a morally corrupting force. Even today his name can elicit partisan rancor." <more>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Kinsey

[nashville_brook]

47. Kinsey's stuff is still considered dangerous reading by conservatives

http://johnsoncity.blogspot.com/2005/06/top-ten-books-that-frighten.html

that's kinda what got me thinking about this. i watched the mediocre Kinsey movie and was moved by the fact that we have not progressed any further than that. the movie spent time on the problem of repression, but in a roundabout way. there's so much that we don't know about ourselves -- it's amazing.

[bloom]

48. ...

I don't think people/society is progressing, either.

I don't really know what that would look like.

The old way - too structured, unrealistic and repressed.

I don't think limitless sex is a realistic model, either. Though some people seem to like that idea.

With DNA testing - there are men who engage in casual sex and then are completely dumbfounded when they are expected to pay for child support and their share of the hospital bill (I know people who have to try to get them to pay up). Maybe in the past is was easier to get out of it. Maybe they expect all of the women to abort.

So what is the balance? Should society have expectations - other than people be able/willing to accept the consequences?

Is it left to each sub-culture to write their own unwritten rules with the members of that sub-culture expected to figure it out - and for people to find the culture that fits them best?

I would be happy to hear what people think about this.

[nashville_brook]

49. the opposite of repression isn't humping like bunnies

i just read a very relevant passage in Wilhelm Reich's essay, Gaps in Psychology and Sexology in Vol 1 of the Discovery of Orgone.

he is grappling with the tension between "functionalism" and "quantitativism." sexual DRIVES correlate to a quantitative approach (mechanistic universe being the philosophical equivalent of evangelism). sexual PLEASURE correlates to the functionalist approach, which is considered more progressive.

people think in terms of "utopia" when working in social science and "utopia" itself is a problem. notice that the opposites are "drives" and "pleasure" and the hope is reduce fascism.

sexual repression is a means of control. society does have expectations -- who do they benefit? just b/c there's people who engage in limiless sex, that doesn't mean those people are free of repression. as a matter of fact, if the opposite of drive is pleasure, then the optimal "model" would be a balenced life which, impe is clearly more satifying in a happy, long monogamous relationship (with all it's ups and downs).

i don't think the answers exist to the questions you pose, b/c those questions are the ones that are the domain of philosophy -- who are we, how are we to live, what is essentially human, being and becomiing etc etc. this is where we choose based on our moral code. my old profs would say this is "begging the question." which isn't a bad thing. it's a great thing to know where to start scratching around to live more authentically.

sorry for the jargonese... still have the migraine and i'm being a sloppy thinker.

[bloom]

50. I guess what I'm thinking is

something like - I think there should be the expectation that people engage in sex with people they have a respectful relationship with. But I think that other people would find that repressive.

And I guess what it comes down to is if we are going to say about the Kansas (anywhere, really) model that that model doesn't work - we should be able to say - this is what we think will work better.

Kinsey documented that people were/are doing various things outside the realm of the norm anyway - and opened the door to more people feeling comfortable living outside of what used to be considered normal - and to the idea that there can be a variety of respectable behavior.

While I don't think of myself as an esp. religious person - I was brought up with the Bible so I can see where a lot of it is rules for human behavior and interaction and relationships. I don't think it makes sense to all of sudden say there are no rules. That there are no expectations. (Even if I don't like them).

It rather feels to me that the Republicans would like to rein in everyone and get back to pre-Kinsey while some (but not all) of the Democrats would like to redefine (some here would throw out) the moral code. But it's difficult to argue for something that is nebulous.

You can see a difference on DU between people who are parents - who want to know what they should teach their children about sex (there was a thread about this recently) and the single people who don't want anyone telling them how to live.

The Republicans have an answer for the parents that makes sense to them - because it's the same one they've always had. The Democrats don't want to tell anyone how to live and frankly - I think it makes parents uncomfortable.

If we want a better system - I think we're going to have to spell out what the parameters of the system are. Maybe someone has done that and I missed it. But even if someone did - there is no way for it to be the basis for people to follow - without a common religion or ideology.

We have laws - but I think people need a code of conduct that goes beyond "if you do this you will be arrested/jailed and have to sign up as a sex offender for the rest of your life". There needs to be a positive code - the optimal "model" as you say.

It's funny to think about the "model" for the Christians - Jesus - did not really offer a model at all - when it comes to family (or relationships) life. And I guess it was Paul who suggested people were better off being celibate anyway. While the Shakers tried that model - they have pretty much died out.

[Karenina]

55. Wilhelm Reich

"The Function of Orgasm" is NOT about sex. ;-)

[Lydia Leftcoast]

57. From where I stood as a young person in the Midwest of the 1960s/70s

those areas underwent tremendous future shock during that period.

Until about 1965, the world was pretty Ozzie and Harriet, at least on the surface. But the surface was what counted.

Then the youth revolution happened. Unless you were there, you have no idea how fast it happened.

The Beatles caused a scandal in 1964 because their hair was about one inch long. In a mere four years, there were hippies in every major city.

In 1969, a young woman was expelled from Barnard College for living with her boyfriend. In 1972, my Lutheran college had coed dorms.

At some point in the early 1960s, Time magazine had a cover story "Abortion: One of Our Greatest Social Evils." In 1973, abortion was legal nationwide.

When I graduated from an exurban Minnesota high school in 1968, girls had to wear skirts or dresses to school, no matter what the weather. When I went back to visit in 1972, there was no dress code whatsoever.

A lot of people were reeling from the changes, especially the older people. As far as they were concerned, America was turning into Sodom and Gomorrah.

That was the number one reason Nixon won in 1968 and 1972. He masterfully campaigned on platforms of "law and order" and restoring power to "the silent majority." The Democrats became associated with hippies and racial minorities, and every good white Middle American knew that they couldn't be allowed to "take over."

At the same time, a lot of kids in the 1960s and 1970s were raised by parents who had suffered during the Depression and World War II and were determined that their children would never want for anything. But they went too far in the direction of not teaching their children how to behave, not giving them any values to live by, and overindulging them with stuff. The result was a bunch of youth who seemed all right on the surface but were adrift otherwise.

The fundies were just what both groups needed. To the older people and their traditionally raised children, they represented a return to the 1950s, when sex was bad. To the younger people who had been brought up with nothing but the consumer culture, they provided the moral guidance (although perverse guidance) and behavioral standards that they had not received at home.

To top it off, the fundie churches provided a much-needed focus for forming community in the sterile, brand-new exurbs. As long as you went along with the ideology, you were guaranteed a ready supply of hundreds of "friends."

[Mrs. Overall]

8. Excellent Post!

Such clear and articulate writing!

I agree with everything you say. I have family members who are "red" and I attribute much of it to lack of education and just simple ignorance of things outside their small community. I am the only one in my family to go to college and whenever I used to visit them on semester breaks, they would deride education and call me "uppity" and "fancy." I began to realize how limited the conversations were--they mostly talked or rather gossiped about other people in the community, no conversations about ideas, beliefs, the arts, etc... And when I would talk about ideas, especially political ideologies, they would become defensive and not want to know the information (ignorance is bliss syndrome). I think lack of education, lack of curiosity, and fear of the unknown and "foreign" creates much of the "red" mindset.

[mopinko]

9. i blame it on sleep deprivation

i'm blaming a lot on that these days, but it is a scientific fact that we are a sleep deprived nation. sleep deprived people are paranoid, fearful, and responding with their lizard brains. and who is more sleep deprived than blue collar shift workers, and farmers scrambling to survive? i would love to see a demographic comparison of sleep deprived citizens and voting patterns.

[nashville_brook]

14. at first, when i read this it seemed "out there"

but it's been a couple of hours and i totally agree. i wish i could nap, but i have an appt and a cookout to go to.

[Scout1071]

10. I've said it over and over again. How about starting by not lumping

everyone who lives in a red state, or in this particular case - Kansas, into the same red category?

I get so upset at the assumption that everyone who lives here is a Republican. My Kansas neighborhood was filled with Kerry yard signs during the election and I continue to see thousands of bumper stickers sporting Kerry Edwards and Impeach Bush/Cheney messages. Guess what? There are plenty of liberals and sane, moderate, blue voters out here as well. If you don't recognize that we are here and start giving us the support we need, we are never going to get anywhere.

The DNC needs to stop ignoring this state and others like it NOW. When I volunteered for the election, I was sent over to Missouri. Who gives a shit about Kansas? It's going to go red - that was mentality of the DNC. Nevermind that my Congressman is a Democrat. Nevermind that our Governor is a Democrat.

The DNC needs to take a good, hard look in the mirror. We didn't and haven't abandoned the Dems. But sometimes it sure as hell feels like they abandoned us a long time ago.

[nashville_brook]

11. Kansas is a symbol vis a vis Frank's book.

he even points out that parts of the midwest including Kansas at one time had a radical reputation.

just a matter of language and symbolism.

[geniph]

18. Frank's book points out Kansas' liberal legacy at great length

...but he uses it as a metaphor, because of its central position, both geographically, and symbolically, as the center of the nation.

It's not meant as an insult to the many fine Kansas progressives out there. But it's for the reason you state that I don't refer to "red-staters" and "blue-staters." No state - not even the most "red" or "blue" is all one or the other.

[nashville_brook]

23. i actually had a paragraph about the vast purple waves of sanity

and how i have no faith in the numbers, anyway, because of election fraud -- but it got too long and convoluted. sounded like i was channeling walt whitman, badly.

i've never lived in a solidly progressive area like Boulder, Ann Arbor or Portland -- one day, i hope to. it would seem so decadent and safe.

[Qanisqineq]

56. I'm with you

I'm tired of the whole "red state" thing. Sometimes it seems that blue-staters think there are no republicans in their state. And are all the republicans in blue states very moderate? I've lived in blue states and the answer is no, some are just as whacky as the ones described in red states.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

58. Excellent point

No state and no community should be automatically ceded to the Republicans.

How is the Democratic party going to grow if people never see its candidates or hear their neighbors advocating Democratic principles?

I've told this story before, but the Oregon Dems wrote off a certain suburb of Portland for years until a genuine Socialist ran in that state legislative district and polled 20% (1998). The Dems ran a candidate next time around, and he came close to winning (2000). The following time, he ran again and won (2002).

The moral: Don't write anyone off.

[geniph]

15. The hyperfocus on the DEED, not the idea

THAT's the piece of the puzzle I was missing, that's the part that wasn't making sense to me. You're right, a typical social conservative doesn't think about the idea of personal choice when discussing abortion, they instantly personalize it to mean killing their own infant. They don't think about abstract issues like rights of inheritance when discussing gay marriage, they immediately imagine themselves forcibly sodomized (their own government is doing that to them daily, but I digress). It's the focus on emotion/action/deed, not on idea/reason/principle that was confusing me.

Very well thought out. Thanks for giving me food for thought. You're right, Frank's book left me curiously dissatisfied too. It's as if he hadn't quite finished it. It was like half a sentence, dropped in mid-clause.

[nashville_brook]

26. i can't say that this was his intention, but he was speaking as an expat

and therefore he could claim experience. once you're part of a culture, maybe it becomes more difficult to explore the psychology. too inimate or presumptive. he really does go to the nines in reporting, but he never brings it all home.

Focusing on a mythical Deed or a mythical unborn baby juices them up. Gets the energy flowing, like a spirit rally. continuing with a mythical metaphor, the thing we to do is draw a cleansing circle, banish negativity, and breathe truth into life.

like someone said on a thread a couple of days ago -- this is a Pro-LIFE movement. real living life. i think more intimacy could not hurt us rhetorically. look these people in the eye and say, "i'm gay -- so what." or have bumperstickers that say, "My honor student won't take your abstinence oath." speak out at the water cooler -- be smart, ask question -- don't tell people they are wrong. just ask questions... we need to make real, intimate conversations that re-humanize.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kaitykaity]

20. Please don't take this wrong.

If you wrote this (you did, right?) then you should
submit it to Common Dreams or one of the bigger sites,
like Buzzflash. They publish original stuff.

This is really good and deserves a wider audience than
we have here.

[nashville_brook]

22. gosh, thanks!

i'll do that. :)

[kaitykaity]

24. Keep up posted if somebody picks it up, okay?

:thumbsup:

[geniph]

51. If nothing else, submit it to DU as an article

It's a very thought-provoking thesis, and one which needs to be discussed.

[Fire Walk With Me]

25. Pack behaviour, and I want to know about Euro Christian sexuality

Sex, one of the most powerful drives, has been demonized, and thus, owned. They control the sex drive in their customers.

But Italian and French and Spanish Christians, are they more sexually active/expressive? Has that destroyed their culture or their actual faith? Would Red Staters call them non-Christians?

[nashville_brook]

27. contemporary corporate christianity borrows a lot from pre-enlightenment

catholicism (especially as regards women) -- and look where that got spain, france and italy. witch burnings, auto du fe, exorcisms. anti-sex and anti-woman. there was an economic advantage to persecuting women. lots of women owned property and the church made it easy to "free that up."

[funflower]

31. Most evangelical U.S. Christians would not call a sexually "expressive"

person a "Christian" unless he/she was genuinely repentent.

[nashville_brook]

46. or pregnant

[nashville_brook]

45. maybe demonized b/c of its power

red-stater xitians of this stripe are only sure of those standing next to them in the pew.

i'm in a mood today.

[Eric J in MN]

28. What does "toe-headed" mean? nt

nt

[Tsiyu]

30. Spelling? white-blond haired, methinks n/t

[geniph]

35. He meant tow-headed

Hair like tow - white-blond.

[nashville_brook]

44. you are right and wrong -- towheaded

a head of hair resembling tow especially in being flaxen or tousled; also: a person having such a head of hair

In colonial times, families grew their own flax to make into fabric for clothing. Transforming the flax into thread was a complicated, involved process with many time-consuming steps. After the flax was harvested, it was soaked in water for several days to soften it so the inner fibers could be removed from the stalk. To separate the long, thin fibers from the shorter, coarser ones, the flax was pulled through a bed of nails or combed in a process called "towing." The shorter fibers that were extricated were of a lesser quality and were called "tow." This led to the term "towheads" to describe people, particularly children, whose hair resembled these strands.

and it's she :)

[geniph]

52. Should have known you were a woman

;-)

(me too)

I never realized tow wasn't strictly a noun.

[Tsiyu]

29. Very well written and thought provoking

Most of us were produced by a sexual act, but some people are too blind to deal with this "messy" reality. And there were many "pre-wedding" babies before this generation, but the Fundies have created in their own minds an era when all babies' daddies stuck around. Yuh! Right!

The only difference between the good old days and today is that we do not ostracize and demonize unwed mothers and pre-marital sex. The fundies do not like this tolerance of sinners.

I suppose they have no sins of their own to fuss over? Dunno, but enjoyed the read...

[nashville_brook]

43. i love your point -- it is a wonderful way of affirming what nature is

while we may not ostracize unwed mothers the same way we did in the 40s and 50s -- but we find ways to punish them nonetheless. i had a professor who claimed women had made no real advancements in the last 50 years -- i'm not convinced of that, but i do believe we still have a more difficult time getting on in life than our brothers, husbands and fathers.

another issue i'm working is the inherent bullshit of a compulsary 2-income family.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

59. Most of us were produced by a sexual act?

Try "all of us." :-)

[Tsiyu]

61. Well, there are some test tube babies roaming around

Lots of In vitro....So I was trying to be inclusive;)

[funflower]

32. The irony is that controlling sexuality requires authoritarianism, and

authoritarianism actually prevents people from developing their moral conscience to the fullest degree possible.

Hence, we have Hillary-hating, red-state soldiers in Iraq reading the Bible before killing people, believing that this is the morally correct thing to do because they are doing it in obedience to authority.

Letting people own their own sexuality from the start would free them from the need to be in constant submission to authority, which would require them to actually think about moral issue rather than simply doing what they are told.

[nashville_brook]

42. it's so obvious, it's hidden -- our purloined freedom

it's not the only area where we can emerge from the cave, but it's a damn good place to start.

[bonzotex]

33. fantastic analysis ....

I've thought this for years. Conservatives simply can't talk about sexual issues as adults. This would be a an approriate submission to Buzzflash.

[nashville_brook]

40. i've been sick with migraines ever since i posted this -- hmmm

but i plan on trying to scatter it amongst some other outlets. Buzzflash, Common Dreams...

i have been "in training" to kick my writing career up a couple of notches. i'm basically house-bound because of the migraines and the lasting effects of an infection in my spine, so writing is about all i can do to participate in a working life. my husband is hounding me to get a job and i just can't face the old marketing bullshit i've done for years. it's soul-crushing. the world doesn't need another marketing creative. the world dying for people who can tell the truth.

[bonzotex]

54. hang in there!

Ideas are more powerful than all the armies that have ever defiled the Earth. Unfortunately, bad ideas can take hold just like good ones. Right now we are suffering through a dark period where greedy, selfish, hurtful ideology is temporarily ascendant. You have a bright light.

Our idea are better. We have the truth on our side. You can do more than most just by being one of the truth-tellers.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

60. It makes sense, then, that the northern Europeans, who

have had much more relaxed attitudes about sex for generations, have less internally violent and less war-like societies than we do.

[NuttyFluffers]

34. ;) ok, does that mean i should throw sexual innuendos all over...

because, y'know, i'll do pretty much anything to save my country. if i must talk suggestively and erotically about the least little thing in front of conservatives... well, that's a battle plan i have no trouble getting in line with.

101st Flaming Cockteasers ready for duty, *sir*:loveya: :evilgrin:

[nashville_brook]

39. this was my hope! :)

but seriously, as far as political action goes -- this rates pretty high.

[htuttle]

36. Have you read any Wilhelm Reich?

He wrote a book very much about this called "The Mass Psychology of Fascism". The gist of it is that sexual repression is encouraged, then harnessed, by authoritarian political, religious and social entities.

His books were burned by the FDA in the 50's, and he eventually died in jail (in the US!) due to his writings, but you can get reprints of most of his books nowdays.

Much recommended if you haven't read it.

[nashville_brook]

38. i'm very interested in Reich, as a matter of fact.

this piece was inspired by mass psych of fascism and dobson's dare to discipline.

when i first came upon his material in college, profs were loathe to spend much time on him -- he was sort of presented as a crank. we could read him on our own time if we wanted to.

no one in my dept believed his findings on orgone energy -- i think they missed the point about him being caught between qualitative and quantitative study. anyway, i didn't believe in orgone either until i read about other researchers finding photobions -- living light. it was a long way back around, but his work is incisive with or without the existence of orgone. he was writing at a time where reductionism ruled the day and had to have the quantitative measure. ergo orgone. now it seems we might actually be able to measure this stuff as it relates to planets. wow, you know.

[Lilith Velkor]

53. Mass psychology of fascism

Here's a basic outline by the Surveillance Camera Players:

http://www.notbored.org/reich.html