Life At Versailles, In Sum: the Final Round

Versailles

Well. Wasn't that refreshing?

Himself and The Other One seemed to really get into it for once. The Other One looked to me to be pale and sweaty and even a bit blotchy under the intensity of the teevee lights and the penetrating gaze of Himself. The Other One even seemed to be "out of his depth" as they say on the all-important topic of Foreign Policy, unable to dent the rather gory record of the President of the United States even while bringing up a string of disasters and failures of this or that importance "on his watch."

"Commander-in-Chief" was the oft-repeated phrase, and as far as I could tell, Wromley (h/t Crowley) didn't really want that bit of Presidential Prerogative. This Killing of Brown People that Obama seems to relish these days appeared to make Wromley somewhat queasy. In a sense that's a good thing I guess. Presidents -- at least the way we are expected to regard them -- should not really be into the slaughter game. It hasn't been a celebrated characteristic in White House residents since TR, and he was always careful to make it clear that he "deplored" the slaughter he was (of course) forced to engage in (particularly in the Philippines)  and he loudly condemned the troops who went too far in their extermination of the Natives so as to secure that piece of American Empire.

Much of the "debate" -- which was closer to a real debate on substantive issues than previous forays -- focused on domestic issues and policies, particularly with regard to the economy, rather than foreign affairs. Good enough. There's not much to be said about America's foreign policy that isn't a factor of the rotten economy for the masses. Obama pointed out time and again that Romney would simply reinstate the same economic policies that crashed the economy under the Busheviks (true), but what he didn't say was that the Obama economic policies are almost identical. There has been very little positive change under Obama, and everybody knows it. As a rule, most of Romney's main criticisms of Obama economic policies are spot on: the economy is "sputtering," unemployment and underemployment is way -- way -- too high, ordinary people are struggling while the government lavishes money and favors on the rich, and so on. These things are not accidents, they are policy. And the Obama Administration proposes to "stay the course," essentially making no changes in the policies that are causing so much misery for the millions.

Meanwhile, Romney's prescription borders on insanity: he would return to the Bushevik Era free-for-all, crony-capitalist loot-fest, only now with the targets being Social Security and Medicare and whatever else is left of the social safety net and piddly middle class wealth, and he would call it a Good Thing.

Obama would do the same only with a few more controls on the looting and who gets first dibs.

Hm. Some choice there.

The "First Dibs" issue is basically all that the candidates are contesting. Their policies -- both foreign and domestic -- are all but identical in every important way (which is the way our political/governmental system is designed to operate in any case). The choice before the voters is not between policies, it is between personalities, styles, and who among the Highest of the Mighty has First Dibs on government and the benefits flowing therefrom.

It's not "tribal," it's inner-tribal. In other words, the political class is all the same tribe. The struggle, to the extent there is one, is between factions within the political class itself, and between factions of the Overclass that owns and controls the political class. But they are all, every single one, of the same tribe.

They are all denizens of Versailles. They all live in the bubble of a palace culture; and their realm is not that of the People.

For them, holding the keys to the Throne and the Treasury for the benefit of themselves and their friends is what it is all about; "First Dibs." The People don't factor in, or if they do, it is as an afterthought. Or sometimes, very rarely, because they are restless and throwing things.

At the on stage meet and greet after the "debate" the fact that these candidates were on the same side was made manifest what with all the Hale Fellow Well Met backslapping, hugs and handshakes. Even Tagg and the President had a good guffaw over something or other (Gee, I wonder what?) and the plethora of Romney children and grandchildren practically mobbed Obama ("Gee, can you be Our Dad?")

As for The Winner? I would give it to Obama because he didn't look like he was going to faint.

But who will win the election -- at this point -- I have no idea. The Rs have been diligently setting up their plans to steal the election outright if need be. Ds have done little or nothing about it, so even if Obama has a strong plurality at the polls, it won't necessarily lead to victory. I wouldn't be surprised if we had another Election 2000 situation, something that our Overlords seem to relish.

On the other hand, many have come to the conclusion that it will be a run-away Obama victory, that Romney will be thoroughly trounced, and that this has all been carefully planned for a very long time. What we see is just the Show; what's going on behind the scenes is what matters, and the result is to be a resounding Obama victory. He, after all, institutes Republican policies far better than Republicans ever did.

We'll see.

Meanwhile, an inside look at the Secret Rituals of the Mormon Temple is making the rounds. I watched the hour and twenty minute full version the the internet, embedded and linked below, because I'm into science fiction sometimes, and the whole thing seemed like it was straight out of a 1950's science fiction movie. Which makes me wonder how many science fiction authors and movie-makers were/are Mormons either current or ex. Anyway, it's an interesting -- if somewhat creepy -- diversion. Some of those who have watched it or the shorter version have claimed that "all religions" are creepy like this. Well could be, but this is on a whole nother plane.



http://youtu.be/5VrsFEiTpsQ

Life At Versailles, Or The Other "Debate"

Versailles

These people have been on the Government Teat too long.

I arrived back at our place in California just as the Vice Presidential "Debate" was beginning, so, still zzzzz-y from the long drive, I sat down to listen to and watch a bit of it. At least Martha Raddatz was awake, I'll give her that, and she maintained some sort of control of the boys.

Well, that was my impression. Both Biden and Ryan came across as boys, literal adolescents having at one another, more for fun and for show than for any real object at all, because both of these boys know that no matter who eventually sits in the Big Chair (and the not-quite-so Big Chair nearby) the strings will still be pulled by the same people, and the results will be about the same because the goal is the same: Empire, economic calamity (for the masses), and some sort of permanence, ie: "certainty" for the High and the Mighty.

There were times when Ryan came across as just a punk, which seems to be his personality in any case, but I don't know that my judgement about these things is actually valid any more, being as that I'm more of a codger these days than not.

By his advanced years -- 70 now, is he? -- Biden should have come across as the Doddering Old Count puttering around the Palace since he's been in office (thus part of the Palace culture) for nearly all his life (wasn't he first elected when he was a twenty-something... punk?)  Well, maybe that's how younger people saw him last night, but I myself saw him more as the older frat brother slapping around some random pledge. Ryan wasn't a real person to Biden (I don't know that anyone who speaks in constant sound bites and talking points could be mistaken for "real" in any case). He was an object, a cat toy.

For his part, Ryan seemed to enjoy it, but then he loves him some attention, doesn't he?

The world Ryan wants for the rest of us is one of submission, misery and despair. Apparently, this grows out of his religious faith somehow; but then I guess after the rejection of the reforms of Vatican II (now 50 years ago) the Church really does want to go back to submission, misery and despair for all except the Highest of the Mighty for whom no flattery is out of bounds.

Biden is old enough to remember Vatican II and the reforms that resulted, and like the Rebel Nuns, he seems to think that that now antiquated version of the Church ought to still mean something. Yes, well. Good luck with that.

How did misery for all (except those on top) become the standard outlook for the younger generation?

Do they even realize it?

But there is no less misery misery in Biden's future vision, such as it is.

And this is why both of these boys are basically Bubble Boys, living in the Palace of Versailles, completely divorced from the People they ostensibly serve.

Yes, they have personally suffered somewhat in ways that many of us can relate to, but I'm not at all sure that either of them can relate their own suffering and loss to what the millions encounter. On the other hand, I can easily imagine them ordering the masses to "suck it up like I did." True empathy is not really a strong suit of Versailles.

Back in the day, Versailles was "open." Anyone who could make their way to the Chateau was admitted so long as they were unarmed. They had essentially free rein to roam the corridors and grand salons at will; many were able to directly encounter one or another royal functionary, count, or duc, and it was even possible for the unwashed to encounter and directly petition the King Himself -- though such encounters were rare. In a sense therefore, the Ancien Regime was at least theoretically in closer touch with the masses than our own isolated and heavily protected Royals are. When the déluge came, therefore, the Anciens were not entirely unaware that the People were, shall we say, discontent.

These days, however, it is not at all certain that those who have lived in a version of Versailles all their supposedly adult lives -- like Biden and Ryan to take but two -- have any idea that the masses are not altogether delighted with them.

After his Victorious Performance at the previous "debate" with Obama, Romney attempted to adopt the trappings of Royalty, asserting his "interest" in and "care" for "all the People," but it is obviously a charade, something he knows he is supposed to do which he doesn't carry off very well. Ryan doesn't have to play that game -- and he doesn't -- any more than Biden does.

They're just  boys   playing. Doing what they do.

Somehow, I am not reassured.

Life At Versailles, or The "Debate"

Versailles

I watched most of last night's fol de rol with the candidates in Denver and listened to some of the post-game analysis on NBC. What a rollicking good time Chuck Todd was having: "Oh what a horserace we have now!" Because, it would seem, by consensus "Mitt Won!"

And Oh, the keening and garment rending over at dKos in the aftermath of the "Debate" between the two candidates for the Presidency of the United States of America, aka "The Big Chair."

At Versailles, they called it The Throne, and during the Bush Regime, that's just what I called The Big Chair, the Presidency itself. The Throne.

Our Government operates on Royalist lines, that is its way, it's nature. Internally, it's not a democracy at all. It is for all practical purposes a full on monarchy/dictatorship. Let's say a serial monarchy, to be sure, since there are periodic changes in who occupies The Throne, but the Institution carries on no matter what. And the Institution is monarchical, based rather closely on that of 18th Century Britain -- or "Fraunce" for that matter. Thus it is anachronistic as hell.

What we saw last night was an elderly, powdered, bewigged aristo, with very little class, try to sell the People (or at least that part of the People who cast ballots) on a series of bogus premises: that he's competent, that he "cares," that he's full of vim and vigor and energy, and that he has a Plan to "help" the Middle Class. None of this, of course, is true. He's old, he cares not for the Lesser People (and has repeatedly said as much), he's running on nearly empty, and his Plan has nothing to do with "helping" anyone not in his class of looters, predators, and mountebanks. That's just the way it is.

He was "styling" as we used to say in the Circus.

He was a straightforward, obvious hustler and huckster, which tells us something about our Ruling Class, I think, that might help in sorting the wheat from the chaff.

Many people believe they were deceived by Obama in 2008, claiming they didn't know he was a corporatist imperialist warmonger. I find that odd, because Obama was running somewhat to the right of Hillary Clinton, and she was obviously a corporatist imperialist warmonger, so how did it come about that Obama was seen through such a radically different prism -- when he wasn't campaigning as a Man of the People and a Populist or particularly Liberal Peacenik?

I don't know where the image came from because I never saw it. But that's me.  I sometimes see things others don't, sometimes not for years.

Last night, Obama was the Wonk to "Mitch's" (h/t Letterman) hyper-Aristo. Sanity, you might say, in the face of loopieness.

So of course "Mitch" won. It couldn't be any other way. What with "Mitch" hopping around like a string-puppet, and Obama plodding along with his "facts" and his "figures," how could it be?

"Mitch" talked airily about all the "jobs" he was going to "create" as President, but any sentient being  should know by now that he has never had any interest in creating any jobs for you. It's simply not in his portfolio. The fact is he will eliminate your job or ship it to some foreign land in a heartbeat if it will increase his bottom line and the bottom lines of those he serves. He simply has neither the time nor the inclination to fret about you. You, for the most part, don't exist in his world, the world of Versailles.

You might from time to time "exist" in the abstract in Obama's World at Versailles, but only to the extent that you and yours can be motivated or manipulated to go along with something that's already been decided as Policy by the Governing Class. Romney doesn't acknowledge that you exist at all, and his rhetoric about "jobs" is nothing but a sales pitch; Obama only acknowledges you to the extent you are... useful.

Thus, rationally, because you and I exist (if only as tools and abstractions) in Obama's World of Versailles, Obama is the better candidate. But because "Mitch Won!" last night, it's a horserace once again. Obama will not be allowed by the media to run away with the election (which he looked fair to do until last night.)

Many of the points "Mitch" made in his pitch were valid complaints the People have -- about high-end Government beneficence  and low-end despair, which he called "Trickle Down Government" which was interesting -- but he clearly doesn't intend to do anything positive about those complaints, any more than Obama and the Democrats will.

Interesting, too, was the fact that Obama proposed nothing for the short term improvement of the condition of the Masses, any more than he did from the outset of his tenure on The Big Chair. For what it's worth, the Masses are expected and required to pay for the Government beneficence to the High and the Mighty and not get uppity and not complain too much about it, either; rule from Versailles will be imposed, and the People will comply. Period.

"Mitch" on the other hand will promise all sorts of things to the Masses and not deliver anything that would change that fact. He lies. He's a huckster.

Obama is too, but he is in a different category; he's -- dare I say it -- "The Help." Romney and his allies see themselves as the Prime Movers, the Landlords, the rest of us, including Obama himself, being tenants or vermin.

Many of those keening and rending their garments last night were obvious plants, Romney supporters bent on sowing Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt among the Obama partisans. It was obvious. It was also surprising to see how easily FUD is sown through ostensibly liberal online communities. It's a cinch. Of course, I've seen it happen many times, so I shouldn't be surprised, but I still am.

Romney brings up all the things that Obama isn't doing for the People, or isn't doing well. He promises to do something exciting and positive to fix things, but he won't. He's a liar. On the other hand, Obama essentially promises nothing but more of the same, which isn't very good, but at least it's believable.

We have an electoral choice of Versailles or Versailles.  And it really can't be any other way given our anachronistic and balky system.

The only way to change it -- if the People really want to change it -- is through rebellion.