Warning, lot's of **gasp** speculation ahead. But essentially I'm theorizing that the charges of "blood libel" can stem from Palin herself possibly believing or thinking that on some level she IS guilty of human sacrifice. No. Really. Bare with me.
I hope everyone's had the chance to read G2geeks excellent diary on "stochastic terrorism". The main concept behind "stochastic terrorism" is fundamentally related to my thesis. You have to assume it's true in order to follow my reasoning. Link and summary:
Stochastic terrorism is the use of mass communications to stir up random lone wolves to carry out violent or terrorist acts that are statistically predictable but individually unpredictable.
This is what occurs when Bin Laden releases a video that stirs random extremists halfway around the globe to commit a bombing or shooting.
This is also the term for what Beck, O'Reilly, Hannity, and others do. And this is what led directly and predictably to a number of cases of ideologically-motivated murder similar to the Tucson shootings.
http://www.dailykos.com/...
Let's assume this presents an accurate theoretical "mechanical" framework to describe what happened in AZ and that Loughner was one of these "lone wolves" and the "puppet masters" or the actual "stochastic terrorists" are the RW pundits and politicians who have been using the violent rhetoric and symbolism, including Palin.
Next, I'd like to present a clear definition of what exactly "blood libel" is, or what will be my working definition:
Blood libel (also blood accusation) refers to a false accusation or claim that religious minorities, almost always Jews, murder children to use their blood in certain aspects of their religious rituals and holidays. Historically, these claims have–alongside those of well poisoning and host desecration–been a major theme in European persecution of Jews.
The libels typically allege that Jews require human blood for the baking of matzos for Passover. The accusations often assert that the blood of Christian children is especially coveted, and historically blood libel claims have often been made to account for otherwise unexplained deaths of children. In some cases, the alleged victim of human sacrifice has become venerated as a martyr, a holy figure around whom a martyr cult might arise. A few of these have been even canonized as saints.
In Jewish lore, blood libels were the impetus for the creation in the 16th century of the Golem of Prague by Rabbi Judah Loew ben Bezalel. Many popes have either directly or indirectly condemned the blood accusation, and no pope has ever sanctioned it. These libels have persisted among some segments of Christians to the present time, and recently Muslims as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/...
Bolding and italicizing is mine. And the parts that are bolded/italicized are important to keep in mind as I expand on my thesis.
The idea of blood libel was that jews sacrificed children for use in religious rituals. The whole idea behind these supposed rituals have pagan and shamanic roots that span most of human civilizaton. Human sacrifices were made in order to give the disciples and practitioners of the rituals magic powers and protections. There is a long history of these rituals actually occurring in many cultures across the globe, however, there is no real indication or evidence that they were ever really part of jewish heritage or worship (and btw, I'm jewish and for the record, I've never made a human sacrifice or seen or heard of any of my fellows jews ever doing so. So there.)
Now, some people are going to say she's using the term without really understanding it's meaning, and that may be the case, but for this, I'm going to assume she really does know the meaning, or at the very least the other people using it and her sources for it do know the real meaning.
Now, to my knowledge, I don't believe anyone has come anywhere near close to accusing Palin of sacrificing a child for use in religious rituals (although a child IS dead). Please correct me if I'm wrong.
However, I think most of us are aware of Palin's religious fundmental bent that's shall we say, a bit unorthodox. Anyone remember this?
The Witch Hunter Anoints Sarah Palin
--snip--
I went specifically to see a pastor visiting from Kiambu, Kenya named Thomas Muthee. Muthee gained fame within Pentecostal circles by claiming that he defeated a local witch, Mama Jane, in a great spiritual battle, thus liberating his town from sin and opening its people to the spirit of Jesus.
Muthee's mounting stardom took him to Wasilla Assembly of God in May, 2005, where he prayed over Palin and called upon Jesus to propel her into the governor's mansion -- and beyond. Muthee also implored Jesus to protect Palin from "the spirit of witchcraft." The video archive of that startling sermon was scrubbed from Wasilla Assembly of God's website, but now it has reappeared.
--snip--
But they hardly needed encouragement. On the first night of services, Muthee implored his audience to wage "spiritual warfare" against "the enemy." As I filmed, a nervous church staffer approached from behind and told me to put my camera away. I acceded to his demand, but as Muthee urged the church to crush "the python spirit" of the unbeliever enemies by stomping on their necks, I pulled out a smaller camera and filmed from a more discreet position. Now, church members were in deep prayer, speaking in tongues and raising their hands. Muthee exclaimed, "We come against the spirit of witchcraft! We come against the python spirits!" Then, a local pastor took the mic from Muthee and added, *"We stomp on the heads of the enemy!"*
--snip--
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
Well, seems Sarah likes to take part in some rituals of her very own, doesn't she?
Now I'd like to go into some territory that is highly theoretical (and yes, **gasp** speculative) regarding the functions and structure of a certain class of group psycho-social dyanamics. A little background might be in order.
There is method of analyzing social phenomenon that involves looking at the psychosocial-dynamics of a group as a prime motivator for both group and individual behavior. In other words, it's in essence a psyhchoanalysis of groups at large and you can look at individuals, such as Loughner, as carrying out certain wishes or fantasies or directives of the group that are fed and determined by its current psycho-social state. But alot of this happens on an unconscious level and it taps into deeper more fundamental symbolism and archetypes. The end result is that groups have large "collective fantasies" that they are not or may not be consciously aware of. One of these fantasies, in theory, relates to what you can call the "dark side" of the human psyche that taps into what seems to be a primal need for sacrifice, or blood, in order to achieve power/protection.
(If you're interested more in this sort of theoretical analysis which is sometimes referred to as "psychohistory", here's a good place to start: http://en.wikipedia.org/... )
Now look at the stochastic terrorism theory in light of a motivation supplied by a group fantasy of the need for a human sacrifice to achieve power/protection and what do you have?
In theory you have Sarah Palin (and/or others) possibly committing a literal act of human sacrifice (child) through a "lone wolf" disciple of sorts (Loughlin), either consciously or unconsciously.
The stochastic terror theory in essence is an accusation that Palin and others ARE in fact terrorists, or totemic terrorist leaders. In group fantasy framework the terrorist leaders are more than mere terrorists, they are symbolic shaman/witch doctors who can and do engage in rituals to empower their group through human sacrifice. Yeah, freaky, I know.
Now, in some sense, from Palin's POV if someone is assigning blame to her for the death of these people, the typical reaction for her to to defend herself would be to say we're lying, or to take it further that we're committing libel. But she's not JUST saying we're lying or libeling her, is she? She's accusing her critics of a very specific type of libel that takes it somewhat further: "blood libel".
However, it can only be blood libel from the POV of someone who believes she's being accused of committing a human sacrifice! No one's come close to doing that, have they? Some may have gone as far as to accuse her of being partially responsible for these people's deaths because of her violent rhetoric, but no one has accused her of sacrificing them in a religious ritual. So why the jump to "blood libel"? Where does this seemingly bizarre idea come from?
Sure, it all can be just an "innocent" use or misuse of an imflammatory term for some other bizarre reason I can't fathom. However, I submit that it's NOT actually bizarre if you look at in my proposed framework. In my framework it makes sense because on some level they DO see these deaths as a sacrifice, and on some level they KNOW they're responsible for them. Thus "blood libel" seeps up from their unconsciousness and is uttered as a defense.
To be even clearer: I submit that Palin and/or others do believe on some level that they are in fact guilty of and have partaken in an actual ritual of real, literal human sacrifice for the purposes of achieving power and/or protection in their battle against their perceived enemies. And therefore that is what they believe they are being accused of. And that is why this seemingly bizarre defense of "blood libel" so easily slips to their lips.
Crossposted at DFP:
http://democratsforprogress.com/...