Pro Wrestling has come to life (Vanity)

I have noticed more and more lately that the current political situation in our country very much resembles the old timey, pre-McMahon "professional rasslin'. I may have even mentioned it to some of you in PM's. But now it's getting to where the resemblance is no longer funny. It's downright scary.

In old-time "rasslin," there were two kinds of wrestlers: the "babyfaces" (or simply "faces") who followed the rules and acted like role models, and the "heels" who not only cheated but insulted the fans and were downright villainous in every way.

Even when I was a "mark" I noticed something very funny in all this: all the "heels"--every last one of them--claimed to be "the greatest of all time." Yet they never feuded with or got mad at each other. Instead each "greatest of all time" would feud with some "face" who spouted nothing but humility. Some examples:

One kind of heel would be the local "bully of the town." This was a thoroughly reprehensible character, but at least he wasn't that much different from the people who booed him. But then you had all the evil fiends from elsewhere who let you know in no uncertain terms what they thought of you and your area.

Living in the Upper South, we of course had plenty of villainous "yankee" heels who put down the South. Then there was the Texas heel (running his mouth about how great that state is in comparison to wherever he was), the Hollywood heel (usually dyed blond and with expensive vestments), then the very bottom of the barrel: the evil Foreign Heel.

First was of course (and, moderators, please pardon this expression as it is merely a description of the role the wrestlers played rather than of the wrestlers themselves) the "Pearl Harbor Jap." This character was sneaky, always attacking people from behind, hitting them with wooden shoes, throwing salt in their eyes, etc.

Then the Nazi German, goosestepping around and loudly trumpeting his "aryan" superiority.

On top of these omnipresent characters were others who came and went, representing whatever country the US might be having difficulty with at the time: Russian Communists, Cuban assassins, stuck up British nobility, oil rich sheiks, Mexicans who wanted Texas back (never mind that Texas was as evil as Mexico so far as rasslin' was concerned!), etc., etc., etc. (There have been militant "Black muslim" heels; there were even "heels" whose routine was touting their education in some prestigious institution in "the East" which made them superior to the "cretins" in the audience). Each one was hated completely, each was "the greatest," each represented "the greatest country on earth," etc. . . . yet, I repeat, they never seemed to manifest the slightest friction among themselves.

Each heel wrestler and heel team would be involved in a separate "angle" or storyline in which he/they feuded with a "face" wrestler/team. All these angles were white hot with "heat" yet they somehow remained separate and distinct, the only connection being the great shadowy areas of "good" and "evil."

The Bully of the Town would feud with a local "good old boy." Never mind that all the outside heels (domestic or foreign) were insulting the local area and its people. The Bully of the Town never noticed, was never offended. Instead all his malignant attention was focused on whatever face he was feuding with.

The wrestler/team from Texas would feud with another face wrestler/team. They praised Texas loudly but never seemed to notice other heels touting other places. When evil foreign heels desecrated the American flag (a very old schtick in pro wrestling that seems to have been adopted in toto by today's leftists) the American heels never seemed to notice or mind. Instead they were focusing on the babyfaces they were feuding with. And of course the foreign heels, though each claimed to be from "the greatest country in the world," never seemed to quarrel among themselves over all these mutually exclusive claims.

It often occurred to me as a naive youth that, if everyone in the world were a heel professional wrestler, there would be no conflict in the world!

Of course there were other styles of "heels" that logically should have come into conflict with each other but never did. I recall an very evil "cowboy" (or perhaps "outlaw") character who made a habit of referring to all the faces he was feuding with as sissies. But when a "gay" heel came on the scene, all that went out the window as the two of them teamed up and the heretofore macho heel boasted of the cleverness of a team made up of people with different philosophies and different perspectives. But of course, the faces were still "sissies."

Okay. I've spent a lot of time and used a lot of bandwidth to describe something we all know about already. But here is my point:

Look at our political/social situation today. We are coming apart at the seams, but where are those seams? Despite the general Left vs Right situation (similar to the Heel vs. Face in pro wrestling) we seem to be witnessing a number of separate "angles" all going on at the same time. The "heels" in these angles logically have nothing in common with each other. They should be at each others' throats. But they're not. Instead each segment of the "heel" Left is feuding with a specific "babyface" on the Right while ignoring those on its own side who theoretically share the same philosophy which they are opposing. And like on the old time local rasslin' shows, the angles flow thick and fast with barely time to catch one's breath between one staged "atrocity" and the next. No sooner have we stopped booing one heel that another enters and begins his routine, and we must begin booing him.

Let's look at some of these mutually exclusive yet strangely and illogically allied "angles":

In one angle America is menaced by the New Black Panther Party and angry urban youth demanding reparations as they "beat whitey."

In another America is menaced by Mexicans who view "gringos" as "foreign devils" occupying an ancient non-existent country that their Spanish-speaking Roman Catholic ancestors allegedly lived happily in until the "rednecks" sent Christopher Columbus over here to louse things up. Now one would think that Blacks who have lived with Anglos for four hundred years and Mexican invaders aiming on a reconquista would have very little in common, or at least would occasionally come into conflict. And while that conflict exists at the bottom (where it is never heard about), the "angle" is that the two groups are allied (just like the "outlaw" and the "gay" in the wrestling example above).

In another angle America is about to be destroyed by homosexual activists while simultaneously, the biggest angle of all has America in the midst of being converted into a "theocratic" moslem state (there's another angle involving Red China as a menace that seems to have, temporarily at least, slipped into the background). Meanwhile the "new atheists" are about to strip every mention of G-d and religion from our society.

Now logic says that these three groups, once again, should at least from time to time have a run-in with each other. I cannot help but marvel at how this never seems to be the case. Like the "outlaw" who hates "sissies" but who teams up with the "gay," atheists and homosexuals scream about "theocracy" while supporting islamic sharia. Neither do atheists, homosexuals, or moslems ever seem to have a point of contention with Catholic Hispanics or Protestant (Fundamentalist?) Blacks.

The Left seems to be one big, happy family with nary a fault line or quarrel or point of contention--just as it was in the "heels'" dressing room on the old time "rasslin'" show. Logically they should be quarreling all the time. But in fact they never do.

Of course there was a very good reason that the heels never feuded among themselves in pro wrestling--it was a "work."

So why don't our Leftist "heels" ever feud among themselves today? Why don't the various angles ever seem to so much as bump into each other?

One minute we on the Right send off a valiant "babyface" to fight the "gays." The next minute we're cheering the conservative "face" who fights the moslems. Then come the Mexican and Angry Urban Youth angles. There are "faces" who specialize in the "heels" from each genre, yet of course there is a consciousness that each "angle" is part of the same war between good and evil.

Before closing this vanity I would like to point something out. Most people do not intentionally alienate people or make themselves out to be villains. "Heel" wrestlers do of course because wrestling is a work. But really . . . does it make sense for "champions of the poor" to insult people who live in trailer parks or who can't afford health insurance or who can't afford college educations? Does it make sense that someone would "appeal" to Americans by desecrating their flag? That a clergyman would say something like "G-d d*** America" when he wants a parishioner to be elected by that very country?

Insulting the locals, the country, the flag . . . this is called "heeling." It is done specifically to stir up "heat" among the people who are being "worked." Only thing is, as many old timers in the rasslin' biz will tell you, sometimes working the "marks" up to the point of fury carries a price (in the old days it wasn't unusual for the "marks" to attack the heels).

Every time the news switches suddenly from "evil chr*stian vs. pure moslem" to "evil believer vs. good atheist" or "evil white chr*stian vs. good Black or Hispanic ch*stian" I feel as if I'm at a wrestling show and the characters in one angle, having done their bit, are being replaced by the characters from the next angle.

Every time someone who allegedly wants my vote calls me names I feel as if I'm at a rasslin' show and the Northern/Hollywood/foreign "heel" has just called me a "redneck."

It was fun being a "mark" for the old time rasslin'. Being a "mark" for the current political carnival is no fun at all. And it's going to get somebody hurt.

It's a really well-written and well-reasoned analogy.

I don't think the left is as coordinated as wrestling promoters were - it's just that they share such similar impulses. And they definitely do work together in a number of ways.

And, again, your resentment of Catholicism creates the only false note in the piece: Mexican nationalists do not argue that: "their Spanish-speaking Roman Catholic ancestors allegedly lived happily in until the "rednecks" sent Christopher Columbus over here to louse things up."

Mexican nationalists have for decades portrayed the Catholic Church as one of several key instruments of colonialist oppression. Mexican nationalist demonstrations, protests and marches never adopt a Catholic identity or even a Spanish identity - they look to the Aztec Empire and the anticlerical revolutionary nationalists like Villa and Zapata for their inspiration.

I understand your brief against the Catholic Church, but the Catholic Church's historical role in Mexico is, and always has been, associated with: (1) Spanish colonial sovereignty and European "cultural imperialism", (2) opposition to revolutionary independence movements in Mexico, (3) opposition to most social legislation in Mexico (compulsory public education, compulsory civil marriage, conscription, nationalization of land), (4) resistance to the second Mexican Revolution and the Zapatista movement.

To the advocates of "Aztlan", the Catholic Church is only just below the United States in their demonology. Their precious native languages and cultures were destroyed by the clergy who abolished their ancestral, environmentally-conscious religion that made them one with the land, and the Church imposed the tongue of the Spanish oppressor on their proud warrior ancestors turning them into meek slaves who almost forgot their heritage.

Thank you for your kind comments. Please allow me to correct this misinterpretation of yours and perhaps put your mind at ease.

The remark about "indigenous Spanish-speaking Roman Catholics" was actually tongue-in-cheek. However the Spanish are regarded in Latin America, in the USA Spanish language and culture are treated as if they were an indigenous "third world" language/culture. Militant Hispanic leftists proudly refer to themselves as "Hispanic" and "Latino," and Hispanic Catholicism is (like Black Protestantism) an aspect of revolutionary "otherness." Please recall that the late Cesar Chavez during his heyday staged "stations of the cross" and masses and was loudly supported by the same leftists who were at that very same time bashing Catholicism and the Vatican.

Please understand the statement in the spirit it was made (you don't honestly think I believe Christopher Columbus was sent over here by "the rednecks," do you?).

In Canada the French Quebecers are treated as if they were "indigenous" third worlders.

Again, thanks for your comments.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.