However there is a passage which may have even more applicability to the commenters on Dreher's blog. It comes from the second volume of Tolkien's Lord of the Rings trilogy, The Two Towers, and is a description of the attempt of the defeated, evil wizard Saruman to use the power of his voice to mesmerize his enemies.
Suddenly another voice spoke, low and melodious, its very sound an enchantment. Those who listened unwarily to that voice could seldom report the words that they heard; and if they did, they wondered, for little power remained in them. Mostly they remembered only that it was a delight to hear the voice speaking, all that it said seemed wise and reasonable, and desire awoke in them by swift agreement to seem wise themselves. When others spoke they seemed harsh and uncouth by contrast; and if they gainsaid the voice, anger was kindled in the hearts of those under the spell. For some the spell lasted only while the voice spoke to them, and when it spake to another they smiled, as men do who see through a juggler's trick while others gape at it. For many the sound of the voice alone was enough to hold them enthralled; but for those whom it conquered the spell endured when they were far away. And ever they heard that soft voice whispering and urging them. But none were unmoved; none rejected its pleas and its commands without an effort of mind and will, so long as its master had control of it.
I've often wondered if this is where George Lucas got the concept of the Jedi mind trick. It is very similar, especially in that the trick only works on the weaker minds, and there appears to be a certain magic which imbues the speaker's voice. It would explain why someone like Erin Manning continues to support Dreher even though he constantly bashes her religion and never once has pimped her books the way he has with Charles Featherstone. Maybe her nickname should be Wormtongue.
This analogy of some people being conquered by subtle writing also explains why people have become so irritated with us, going the whole way back to the Contra-Crunchies. When others spoke they seemed harsh and uncouth by contrast; and if they gainsaid the voice, anger was kindled in the hearts of those under the spell. We were stating long-form the words of Gimli the Dwarf who said of Saruman "The words of this wizard stand on their heads!" and we were receiving back insults not unlike "If we speak of poisoned tongues what shall we say of yours, young serpent?" which was Saruman's retort to Prince Eomer. (Except we were called incredible fools and nematodes rather than "young serpents".)
And, as always, we continue to receive the epitaph "obsessed" from people who show up over and over again to elaborate on their fierce agreement with Dreher's designer brand of paleoconservatism. And ever they heard that soft voice whispering and urging them...
The history of Dreher is also very much like the character Saruman the Wizard. He starts off as an up-and-coming "power" in the world of conservative commentating, but then he begins cashing in friendships and doing things secretly which are later exposed, arousing his anger. "When the plot is ripe it remains no longer secret," as Gandalf reminds us. He ends up stuck in an old "tower" called TAC—long deserted by the "greater men" of the West who built it—viewing wreckage all around him.
By no means should anyone think that I'm suggesting that Voice-of-Saruman analogy can only be applied to Dreher. Sullivan's minions act in much the same way, as if he himself has wound them up. You can almost see the keys sticking out of their backs. And reading the Daily Kos is revealing of how deep the brainwashing rabbit-hole goes. And I would be remiss not to mention our current President whose ability as an orator is probably his only real talent. It is just sad to see educated people who really should know better fall under this sort of wordsmith spell.
This herd of curated steriles is a far different one from the one who brung him to the dance long ago, and they really break down into a few major groups.
ReplyDeleteOne would be those always trying to be the first or most often to comment still holding out hope that he might name an "award" after them, like those two old Waldorf and Statler puppets who visited him in Milwaukee or that socialist college kid who wants Rod to run off with him to Russia.
Another would be a group I think Pik identified, libs and gays feeling all cool about themselves because their comment was intelligent enough to have been accepted on a "conservative" blog.
But the growing cohort seems to be academics with no other hope in their futures, just trying to stay in practice, not a few of them, frankly, giving every appearance of treating the discourse there as cynically as Dreher himself treats it: they rub him gently down there, he rubs them gently down there, and all parties know exactly what they're mutually engaged in.
Another group of sycophants along those lines are the trained seals who watched The Daily Show, and their fellow travelers. About whom this brilliant statement was made by AOSHQ:
ReplyDeleteNo, Jon Stewart, a man who got 1.5 ratings, a smidge less than Mike Huckabee's 1.7, was apparently beloved by the entire nation...
I think probably the biggest tell to the terminally inbred nature of the commentatariat there is that they either truly do believe or are content to actively aid in promoting the fiction that what they are involved in is a rigorous civil discussion among diverse points of view.
ReplyDeleteRight.
Just as what what you end up as on the other side of a TSA security station after you've removed your shoes, been patted down, and had your personal effects searched and your genitals flouroscoped is a rigorously civil discusser of diverse points of view rather than a lump of profitable, now-inert cargo having just been rendered thoroughly harmless.
Just the sort of human porridge I look to to save my culture and my immortal soul, I can tell you that.