Skip to main content

Isn't it romantic : my "shock troops" post

(Update: More information and an example of Beauchamp's writing here.)

Why do people *want* to believe Scott Thomas Beauchamp?

I think it's romance. It's that shivery slumming at the edges of barbarism, that leaving behind of civilization and reaching into something primal, that myth of a place where there are no moral rules, no limitations.

People *want* our guys to be cold killers, to walk that edge they could never walk, to give into base instincts. To whore and smoke opium in those SE Asia brothels. Like freaking Dear Hunter or something.

Oh *that's* real. When they read stories like "shock troops" they think, finally, someone is telling a story that is *real*.

War does a lot of things to a person in it but in "Shock Troops" Beauchamp is dehumanizing himself. He's telling a story in a way he knows will sell. He's a story teller, a writer, and he's creating an atmosphere and theme that he knows will resonate.

I've read accounts that were stark and honest about how bad it is and how it affected the person writing. Those accounts didn't dehumanize, they humanized, showing a painful reality, not this Hollywood version of morality free, repugnant, slumming.

Beauchamp describes *himself* as a caricature.

And he's judged his audience well.

Comments

Anonymous said…
It's that shivery slumming at the edges of barbarism, that leaving behind of civilization and reaching into something primal, that myth of a place where there are no moral rules, no limitations.

I thought that was sadism and torture?

To whore and smoke opium in those SE Asia brothels.

Sort of like Hollywood glamour. The trashier the more popular they are.

When they read stories like "shock troops" they think, finally, someone is telling a story that is *real*.

"real" would leave them in a spider hole. They don't want real, they want illusion that seems real. They will always freeze when confronted by surprise because their mental image of themselves isn't all that flexible. Their fail safes have no redundancy.

Those accounts didn't dehumanize, they humanized, showing a painful reality, not this Hollywood version of morality free, repugnant, slumming.

The diff is as I see, dehumanization lowers the defense ability of human to resist temptations and evil. Humanization raises our defenses against the forces of darkness. Two guesses which side Scott is on.

Popular posts from this blog

Tyranny.gov vs Tyranny.com

Compulsion is Compulsion, no matter who does it.  This is Brilliant Theft is Theft, no matter who does it. Freedom of Association has no room in it for *private* action   that takes that away Freedom of Association. If I have a business and have voluntary associations such that I choose to serve some people and to not serve others, that might make me a jerk and it might lose me business, it might make me smart and it might gain me business, but it's got to be my choice.  If I would normally serve the current disliked minority in my shop except for the fact that if I'm SEEN to serve them by the wrong people I'll have a private campaign against me as those people do everything possible to ruin me by preventing me from doing business physically or by attacking my customers or suppliers, then I am NOT free to make those choices. Does it really make a difference to losing my CHOICE to voluntarily associate if there's a law that says I may not serve "those people" o...

Some times some people.

 

What Cancel Culture is NOT

  Maybe we should talk about what cancel culture isn't. It's not a boycott.  It's not deciding to no longer go to a business. It's not giving a bad review for bad service. It generally involves two things. First, the offense is a matter of opinion. Second, secondary or even tertiary targets are threatened. Cancellation does not need to be successful, and often with very famous and wealthy people it is not successful. But it serves as a warning to vulnerable people who are not in a position to weather that kind of attack. The goal is terroristic in that it's about forcing social behavior in people who are not currently the subject of the attack. The message is always, this could happen to you. And the tactic invariably includes seeking out vulnerable people to threaten in order to put pressure on businesses or on the target of the attack. So it works like this: JK Rowling is invulnerable. But they can try, right? So what they do is they find out who works for the pub...