Casey Anthony and the soulless droogs

I like the pic above and have no problem with the pursuit of fashion, it’s not necessarily vacuous and parasitic in itself and a woman who looks good … looks good. I do have a problem with the face and the nature of the human being [if we can use this word] behind the woman in this picture.

The main issue is the celebration of the type. Go to Femail in the Mail on any day, at any time and it is the promotion of people who simply should not be held up as objects for admiration. In a minute I’ll get down to a specific person but to describe this type.

It’s a girl child who, even though her actual years lived on earth are around 22 or 23, has never evolved past the hormonal teenage and she won’t evolve past it until she’s way past 40 and perhaps beyond because a combination of circumstances has stunted her emotional and spiritual growth.

Some of these are:

a. the partygirl persona aspired to by so many young females which requires vacuity, willingness to put no premium on their virtue beyond their own sexual satisfaction;

b. their politically and socially stunted ignorance, due to the gaming/music/fashion/consumer combination which sees her father as a money source, her sugardaddy or crime as subsequent sources;

c. utterly uncaring for anyone beyond herself and her own urges. This is Valleygirl or whatever and the worse and more uncaring, the greater the cred among her peers;

d. the grip on society that the socialist/feminist has, causing a sense of victimhood, self-entitlement, the career choice of the taxpayer funding her token child and herself;

e. the new virtue in uselessness and yet occupying positions in journalism that they are patently not fitted for, having nothing worthwhile to say to anyone educated or beyond their years.

A perfect example of the type is Casey Anthony

Though we all knew of her over here, Europeans perhaps did not get into it as much as Americans and certain aspects are quite noteworthy. This is a case along the lines of Amanda Knox, the McCanns, Lindy Chamberlain and others.

You can read it up here or here but basically, as far as I can understand, she took 31 days to report her daughter missing, during which time she apparently went out partying and debauching with men, she was caught out in so many lies about where she had been and so on and just when the whole nation took a guilty verdict as read, she was acquitted of all charges and they are now chasing her over some minor matter.

One of the jurors was interviewed and believed she was as guilty as hell but said the prosecution just did not present the evidence in such a form that she could be convicted. One pundit said she was exactly the type who added weight to the case for compulsory sterilization.

I’ve now read so many pundits on the issue and there is a real anger, a very deep anger about it. Surprisingly to me, it’s the women who are so down on her and possibly that’s the effect on women a mother acting this way has – men seem to excuse Anthony more. Why, I fail to understand.

Whatever the whys and wherefores of the specific case, it is this type which is highly worrying today because there are so many – you saw some of them in the riots – and they are growing into 30 to 40 year old mothers who have the same mindset:

One, two, three, four, five

And yes, it’s men too. In the case of men, more traditionally associated with coldblooded violence it’s more a Lost Boys scenario. Wiki describes it thus:

It is settled in an apocalyptic near-future, and the main plot shows the struggle between the wild boys – a revolutionary tribe of youths, living in a instinctual state existing outside the conventions of civilization, and free from mechanisms of social control like religion, nation and family – and the remnants of civilization itself, living an hedonistic and paranoic existence in totalitarian enclaves. The book embody themes like the idea of youths escaping from social control, anonymous sexuality, and shamanism. It has been described by some critics as a homosexual version of Peter Pan.

Now you only have to look at the Frankfurt School, Fabians and the Beat Generation itself to find William S Burroughs and his kind and the message is very much a glorification of dystopia and societal breakdown, precisely what the riots were a teaser for, a Mad Max bleak panorama so many now idealize because it’s the fashion to be this way.

In an article more specifically about the MSM than the actual breakdown of society, Don Pugh writes:

One of the most influential versions of this kind of “hypodermic” theory of media effects was that advanced by Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer, along with other members of the Frankfurt School of Social Research. Their “pessimistic mass society thesis” reflected the authors’ experience of the breakdown of modern Germany into fascism during the 1930s, a breakdown which was attributed, in part, to the loosening of traditional ties and structures–which were seen as then leaving people more “atomised” and exposed to external influences, and especially to the pressure of the mass propaganda of powerful leaders, the most effective agency of which was the mass media.

This “pessimistic mass society thesis” stressed the conservative and reconciliatory role of “mass culture” for the audience. Mass culture was seen to suppress “potentialities”, and to deny awareness of contradictions in a “one-dimensional world”; only art, in fictional and dramatic form, could preserve the qualities of negation and transcendence. Implicit here, was a “hypodermic” model of the media which were seen as having the power to “inject” a repressive ideology directly into the consciousness of the masses.

However, against this overly pessimistic backdrop, the emigration of the leading members of the Frankfurt School (Adorno, Marcuse, Horkheimer) to America, during the 1930s, led to the development of specifically “American” school of research in the forties and fifties. The Frankfurt School’s “pessimistic” thesis, of the link between “mass society” and fascism, and the role of the media in cementing it, proved unacceptable to American researchers. The “pessimistic” thesis proposed, they argued, too direct and unmediated an impact by the media on its audiences; it took too far the thesis that all intermediary social structures between leaders/media and the masses had broken down; it didn’t accurately reflect the pluralistic nature of American society; it was–to put it shortly–sociologically naive.

Clearly, the media had social effects; these must be examined and researched, but, equally clearly, these effects were neither all-powerful, simple, nor even necessarily direct. The nature of this complexity and indirectness also needed to be demonstrated and researched. Thus, in reaction to the Frankfurt School’s predilection for critical social theory and qualitative and philosophical analysis, American researchers, such as Herta Herzog, Robert Merton, Paul Lazarsfeld and, later, Elihu Katz began to develop a quantitative and positivist methodology for empirical audience research into the “Sociology of Mass Persuasion”.

Over the next twenty years, throughout the 1950s and 1960s, the overall effect of this empirically grounded “Sociology of Mass Persuasion” was to produce a much more qualified notion of “media power”, in which, media consumers were increasingly recognized to not be completely passive “victims” of the Culture Industry.

Russell, one of the muvvers who doubled as a Frankfurt School “intellectual”, wrote, on the soulless grip of Science on society:

[T]he scientific rulers will provide one kind of education for ordinary men and women, and another for those who are to become holders of scientific power. Ordinary men and women will be expected to be docile, industrious, punctual, thoughtless, and contented. Of these qualities probably contentment will be considered the most important. In order to produce it, all the researches of psycho-analysis, behaviourism, and biochemistry will be brought into play.” [Online here – part 3, XIV, Education in a Scientific Society p.251]

The Frankfurt School were only one bunch of evil but influential people dedicated to producing a dystopia – they were the pioneers and it was refined, in more extreme form, by people such as William S Burroughs. The current situation, of which Casey Anthony is such a vivid reminder of the future, is closer to Burroughs than even the original Frankfurters could have envisaged.

An interesting aside was from about four years ago when, for some reason, I started looking at satanist sites, just to see what the enemy actually wrote about. The reason I remember that now is that the picture of that soulless person in the picture at the top is almost exactly the art on those sites, where those girls were called The Slashers. You see the type far more frequently in film today than in previous decades. Why?

If you’re going to reject the analysis above, then the Casey Anthonys are going to spread, unchecked and schools, which have already become close to no-go zones in the U.S. and here, will be hellholes for young children who won’t conform to the new lost boys and lost girls paradigms, bullied into either silence or into joining this brave new culture.

Again, some will ask what this has to do with liberty, this blog’s remit?

I say it has everything to do with it because where will freedom be under the tyranny of the wild boys and girls, once they’re harnessed by the professional forces of oppression?

Is that your vision of a desirable future as well?

7 comments for “Casey Anthony and the soulless droogs

  1. August 15, 2011 at 3:41 pm

    Not sure Casey Anthony’s case compares with Lindy Chamberlain’s. One mum doesn’t report her missing child even after a month has passed – and she never did report it, her mother did – while the other raises the alarm pretty much right away; one child’s remains turn up near the family home a few months later and while the court case is ongoing, the other’s remains have never been found but clothing she was wearing with her blood on it turned up years later right by a dingo lair while the parents, or at least Lindy, was in jail for her murder. I’m not sure I’d have convicted Casey Anthony either because although I’m fairly convinced she’s a despicable woman it doesn’t sound like the prosecution proved their case, but I’m quite certain Lindy Chamberlain was the victim of a terrible miscarriage of justice. Possibly a hostile media too from what I’ve heard since living here.

    • August 15, 2011 at 10:45 pm

      All that’s as maybe, AE but it was mainly about a type of person. If not a Burroughs lost boy, how about a lost chav?

      • August 16, 2011 at 2:52 am

        Hmm, again I’m not sure the comparison is a fair one. Casey Anthony may well be deeply self-centred or a party hard kind of girl, but Lindy Chamberlain was religious and, from what I’ve heard, rather devout about it. And a Seventh Day Adventist at that, so pretty conservative and a long way from a partier (especially while missing a child), a chavette or the type of silly bitch who follows the wigger fashion of being white and doing gangsta signs for cameras. It may also have made her rather stoic and po-faced on TV, or perhaps she’s just like that. Either way it sounds like it did her no favours with the millions who wear their hearts on their sleeves and expected her to cry and sob and be very public about it. Anthony got similar treatment but I think because she is known to have lied about her daughter’s whereabouts to various people and has never satisfactorily explained why. Same kind of judgements made about them, that they were women who had no love at all for their daughters, but for quite different reasons and I suspect probably quite wrongly in Chamberlain’s case. I think the characters of the two women are chalk and cheese.

        • August 16, 2011 at 5:38 am

          Yup, Lindy Chamberlain and the Anthony woman were as different as chalk and cheese.

  2. john in cheshire
    August 15, 2011 at 5:15 pm

    Why do you equate William Burroughs with this trend? I read some of his books (The Exterminator, The Naked Lunch, are two off the top of my head) several decades ago, it must be said, but I found them to be disturbing rather than offering a lifestyle to be emulated.

    • August 15, 2011 at 10:44 pm

      They were disturbing and that’s attractive to many – look at gaming today and the tone of the new films. The despair is built in. I for the life of me can’t see the attraction of evil but some seem to like it. Ask DK. 😉

      • August 16, 2011 at 5:39 am

        Films like ‘Saw’ and its sequels have, as far as I can see, no redeeming feature whatsoever.

        I’d not want them banned, mind you.

Comments are closed.