Hope 101

Drinking game: “Policy”, “Principles”, “Investment”

Sell that enthusiasm!

The Hope series is the economics course. Specifically, it's the Free-Market-Fuck-Bridges course. My strength is not economics, so I asked my friends Bill and Jacob to suffer along with me through this course. Our professor is David Buckner (not to be confused with Faith's David Barton). David Buckner, is some guy who looks really sweaty and nervous on camera, but he says his lines right, so I guess that's all that counts. And he hates bridges. And airports. 

 

My god does this man hate airports. Hope 101 opens with a 8 minute rant about why Buckner feels entitled to act like a rampaging jackass at an airport. The story goes something like this: He tries to get on the stand-by for a flight to JFK but every airport employee is a frothing vindictive crazy person that does their ungodly best to keep him boarding any airplane ever again. Every time he makes a simple request, they throw the word POLICY in his face, mock him for being poor, refuse to sell him a ticket, ask him to go away and never return, and lock him out of the system. You know, because of “Policy”. Good old Buckner gives each one of those evil airport bastards a wry sarcastic scolding, which, of course, they're too stupid to pick up on – but mysteriously makes them more angry anyway.

Bill: “I haven't decided whether he's conveniently omitting how much of an asshole he was to the airline clerk, or whether he genuinely doesn't understand why she acted the way she did because he's just not that aware of himself and others.”

His story is a bit strange, though. Maybe I don't through the right airports, but he says that he tried to purchase a stand-by ticket AFTER he went through security – hassling the beleaguered gate attendants instead of talking to the ticket desk at check-in. Ah well, I'm sure the rest of the story is completely true and his fits of sarcastic rage were totally justified.

Jacob: “I still do not understand the story... what it has to do with hope or with economics or.... anything. I really don't have any idea what this story is about. I mean, “Policy” keeps popping up like a curse word, so it's like "You should learn to be belligerent in the face of bureaucracy" is the lesson here.”

But, supposedly we're supposed to be talking about Economics. Now that everyone is fired up and pissed off about evil bureaucratic policy, we can jump right on into the economics course. Totally sensible.

Buckner: “What's important to understand is that as we unfold several of key principles that exist, these key principles, as simple as they may seem have been betrayed by policy makers in many cases. Policy makers over the decades, not just now. And yet it seems, presently, many of those policies have betrayed the very principles, even economic rules or laws, the rules of the playground, and they betray them at our own expense.”

I don't know what he said just there, but it sounded important.

We start with the idea of “Opportunity Cost” which, near as I can tell, means “pick the cheap shit.”

She cooks like a GIRL

Buckner's “Opportunity cost” example is a familiar, but overly complicated story about Joshua's and Jennifer's pies and cakes. If you've taken an economics or business course, you'd recognize the cakes/pies idea, but I dare you to figure out this chart.

Bill: Seems like he's trying to call to familiar old high school lessons in order to garner more legitimacy. "Hey! I remember hearing about this in school! this guy must know something!""

Buckner concludes the story with this statement:

Buckner: “The message herein is the most poignant message for wealth creation that we must get: Understanding that Joshua here is the lowest cost provider for pies. He gives up less.”

Jacob: “The female characters through this entire thing. First it was the ticket agent who hated him personally and didn't want him on the flight and now it's Jennifer who can't make pies as efficiently as Joshua”

#4 Don't think too hard about 1-3

Lowest Cost Provider is a free-market idea. The idea goes a little something like this: If you can do something for the Lowest Cost, then you should always be the provider of it. In free-market economics, it doesn't make sense to hire someone who isn't the lowest cost provider and, if you're the lowest cost provider, it doesn't make sense for you to do anything else. Lowest cost = Wealth. Somehow. This is why I'm not an economics person.

Buckner: "We should all specialize in what we are the lowest cost producer"

Jacob: “Fuck your normative conclusions from your cake example! What if he produces the lowest cost blow jobs? Well he better suck that dick!”

Buckner then leads us into a discussion about the two types of economies. The ONLY two. There can be no others. In Beck Land there are only two of anything; us and them, right and wrong, good and evil. It makes sense that there are only two types of economies. But, like everything else is Beck Land, we need a special politically-correct name for each thing. The two types of economies are called Market and Planned. A “Planned Economy” has more “Equity”, while the “Market Economy” has more “Freedom.”

Jacob: “Freedom and Liberty: Not the Same Thing? And More from Incoherent Blowhards at Glenn Beck U.”

Words!

In his example, he says that if you order pained glass in a Planned Economy you'll always end up with either a lump of glass or fiber-optic wire, because in a Planned Economy, there's no requirement that the customer will like what they get. It's a confusing example and relies on you believeing that bureaucracies get their kicks by screwing people over. By the warning tone in Buckner's voice, I'm gunna go out on a limb here and guess a Planned Economy means SOCIALISM (read: OBAMA)

Basically, Planned Economies are inefficient because they don't operate by the will of the consumer. This example implies another basic tenant of Free-Market ideology: the market will regulate itself because the consumer will choose the product that is best.

Buckner: “Efficiencies align with Market Economies because the customer is the producer. And the producer, through competition, must respond to the customer.”

Bill: "Because people are ALWAYS rational and informed and will consider long-term vs short-term”

Jacob: “This is not efficiency in the economic sense. What he really means is Pareto efficiency. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_efficiency Pareto efficiency is a minimal notion of efficiency and does not necessarily result in a socially desirable distribution of resources, as it makes no statement about equality or the overall well-being of a society. When he goes through his glass example where the glass producers are high functioning aspies who are waaay too literal, he's creating the expectation that a more Pareto efficient system is better for all even though Pareto efficiency is not necessarily socially desirable.”

Buckner then claims that we have more regulations on our economy than China. This is the only flat-out lie that I can point to. In the real world, there are no private corporations in China that aren't owned and operated by the state... so in that sense, yes, the “corporations” are freer, because they ARE the state.

Throughout the lecture, Buckner has asked us to be on the lookout for “policy makers” and “those” and “some” who try to trick you into thinking bad thoughts about planned economies. Buckner also repeatedly claims to watch out for politicians … sorry “policy makers” who might trick you into paying your hard earned money for alleged “Investments.” After a weird story about how he financed his own business with credit cards (not banks, as banks have rules and are therefore evil), he blows us away with the phrase “A bridge is not an investment.”

I want you to think about that.

A bridge is not an investment.

But why Mister Bucker, Sir? What is an investment if not something that benefits you in the long run? If a bridge is not an investment, then what is a bridge? Why do you hate bridges?

Because it does not turn a profit. Obviously.

Bridge hate!

It was around this point that Jacob lost his shit and started shouting about Marx. He'd been drinking pretty heavily, so I didn't get much more out of Jacob on this. Bill, on the other hand, was stone sober (as far as I know) and had this to say.

Bill: "Okay, so the bridge thing seems like he's not applying the opportunity cost concept to infrastructure like a bridge... or perhaps, that he refuses to apply opportunity costs to communities or societies as a whole, but merely to individuals. You build a bridge across a river, people don't have to use the ferry, saves an enormous number of man-hours - hell, you know how it works -- but he either doesn't see it like that, or he's being a bit dishonest. Also it appears that in his view, wealth = profit. He specifically dismisses public works projects, no matter how productive or successful they are... like the Bonneville Power Administration, a series of public-built hydroelectric dams, selling enormous amounts of power at cost. No profit. Now, to me, that's a big win for society. To him? government consumption or, as he might put it if he weren't trying to be friendly and approachable and not shrill, government redistribution.

Earlier, Buckner told us a story about how he buys milk. Apparently, he take a cab to the store to buy milk, but when he arrives and finds that the milk is too expensive, he takes the cab (presumably idling) to a different store to check the price there. He says that this is inefficient, and suggests that we should not take a cab. The moral, apparently, is that cabs are inefficient. You know what else is inefficient? Driving around a river.

Buckner: Governments don't invest. Governments transfer.

Jacob: Zombie Keynes is going to come back and eat this mans' brains.

Final thoughts:

#5 Profit!

Me: Buckner gives a seemingly basic, easy to understand lesson on economics, but each lesson is loaded with ideology. The pattern of the propaganda is familiar. The actual economics stuff is familiar and simplistic, but it's interspersed with “privileged information” about free-market ideology.

Jacob: This isn't about economics or hope. It's propaganda and poisoning the well. I hate his dumb old face. Seriously Karl Marx fucking disemboweled this guy's beliefs a century and a half ago.

Bill: I get the impression they're trying to lay a framework for political campaigns to build on "it's okay to keep going for more tax cuts because the government can't really make things better with that money anyway" and "Obama can't actually do anything for you because governments only consume"

Jacob: “I'm seriously annoyed I watched that whole lecture.”

Faith 101

"It Can't Happen Here" by Sinclair Lewis (1935) should be required reading. It's a dytopian novel about the United States. It is a blueprint for Authoritarianism in America.

It was written years before Germany flipped out and decades before other authors got around to writing Farenheight 451 (1951) and 1984 (1949). It Can't Happen Here is the Godfather of the modern dystopia genre. Brave New World was written in the same year as It Can't Happen Here, but even Huxley admitted that Brave New World was not terribly forward thinking. However, for some unknown reason, we still read Brave New World and ignore It Can't Happen Here. It Can't Happen Here is easily the greatest dystopian novel I've ever read, because it is consumed with America's journey to authoritarianism, not the dystopia itself.

It's an easy read, but it's deeply nerve wracking and hypnotic, like watching a train wreck that you can't stop. Lewis carefully chronicles each step that is necessary for authoritarianism in the United States, starting with a bad economy, a popular good-ol-boy presidential candidate (Buzz Winthrop), and a religious propagandist that whips the country into a nationalistic fervor. And oh my god it is believable. Afterward, you'll spend weeks cringing at every modern political ad, every speech, every everything, wondering to yourself where this idea or that idea might lead us. Because really, nothing about American politics has fundamentally changed.

Full text
Buy a Copy (Quit whining. Your library has it. But trust me that you're going to want your own copy.)

But I don't believe the tea party will lead to authoritarianism and ethnic cleansing... so why am I telling you all this?

One of the most important steps that Sincliar Lewis presents are the "Minute Men", a group of young people who brutally enforce Buzz's nationalistic ideals, under the banner of God and the Founding Fathers.

And now, with the very FIRST course of Glenn Beck University, long-time Christian Naitonalist and American Revolution pseudo-historian David Barton plants the idea of "The Black Robed Regiment".

Let the good times roll.

From Beck U News

Faith 101 Course Outline - The Black-Robed Regiment
"
Those who were long considered some of the most influential leaders in securing our independence and form of government are today largely unknown: the clergy and ministers of the American Revolution. The British called them “The Black Regiment” because of the black robes they wore; today, they are known as “The Black Robed Regiment.” Significantly, John Adams extolled that “the pulpits have thundered” and that ministers such as the Rev. Dr. Jonathan Mayhew and the Rev. Dr. Samuel Cooper were among the most influential in the movement that led to independence. Learn about these now unsung heroes of the American Revolution – leaders such as the Revs. Jonas Clark, John Steel, Peter Muhlenberg, Francis Willard and many others who not only preached liberty but even picked up their guns and led their churches to fight for liberty!
"

Missing introduction by Beck:

Hi, welcome to Faith. It is our class on American history. This (holds up book) is a original copy of the notes on Virginia, by Jefferson. This is the book that actually talked about the separation between church and state. But it's not what you've been sold. The separation of church and state... it's not the State protecting people from religion, it's quite the opposite. You'll also learn about the 1599 Geneva Bible. What's this? What role did the bible play with George Watshington and our Founders? Professor Barton is with us now with Beck University. David is an amazing, knowledgable man. You will learn more in the next hour than you have probably learned in your entire life about American history.

Full illegal video:

So far, links are all active. Don't worry if they get taken down. You don't need to watch the whole thing.

Terms you need to know:
American Exceptionalism or American Nationalism
Prosperity Theology

People to know:
None, really. You'll hear several obscure names of ministers and doctors. The Doctor part is mostly an Appeal to Authority. Ministers were REALLY well educated back then and were schooled in the classics, unlike today where Evangelical preachers simply go to Bible college. Barton is trying to tie ministers of the 1700s to the preachers of today... so just remember that there were Ministers that did a lot of propaganda from the pulpit.

Drinking game: Take one shot for every time he says Preacher or Reverend. Two shots for Doctor.

In short, Barton is making the claim that the most important Founding Fathers were Preachers that were part of the "Black Robed Regiment" and "some of these guys would take up arms and defend these ideas in battle" Though Beck has previously made it clear that "take up arms" means "vote" (a recurring theme in the 103 series) it's not made clear here. He also makes several claims to illustrate that the United States was founded on Christian doctrine. Therefore, preachers have the authority and duty to talk about politics because the bible is specific about elections of leaders and taxes. 

Note that Barton never actually quotes the important words that the ministers spoke, or the exact words of the Bible/Constitution that back up his claims. 

The Faith series is the backbone of Beck U propaganda and primes the viewer to associate Christianity with the American Government. Barton opens with lines that sound like the evangelical Prosperity Doctrine -- "So with all the prosperity we have and all the stability we have, historians have come to call that American Exceptionalism" -- which is how evangelicals are duped into supporting of free-market principles. This is the first signal that Beck U is a grab at estranged Evangelicals and abandoning Libertarians.

This is the class series that creates the mythos for the cult of personality. Here, we pretend that the most important founding fathers were preachers, but we also pretend that all of our documents are secretly modeled after the bible and popular sermons.

David Barton isn't known for his intellectual honesty, so if something sounds weird to you, he's probably either stretching the truth or flat out lying. It seems that he just strings lots of nice sounding words together into feel-good sentences, sort of like a motivational speaker.

There are a few debunks that are worth knowing, especially when he talks about the Signers of the Declaration of Independence. Here, I'll turn you over to Chris Rodda. She has an unmatched passion for the American Revolution and has been hounding Barton for years. There's 9 videos in her lecture and are an in-depth look at Barton's lies and methods. TLDR: "Seminary school" was just 1700's talk for "College" not "Minister training" and congress never put bibles in public schools and Barton is a mean, rotten liar.



Two important propaganda themes are happening in Glenn Beck U.

First, the viewers are being granted access to what they feel is "Privileged Information that THEY Don't Want You To Know". Here, Barton is dropping obscure names and events, to lend legitimacy to his claim that the most important events are evilly suppressed by godless historians. This is why we won't win any arguments with these people based on facts. The facts don't matter, because, as we hear in the introduction, the official story is a big, fat lie.

Second, the viewers are only being given suggestions. It's vital that Tea Partiers/Independents believe they've come to their conclusions independently of Beck, Fox, Palin, etc. (We Report, You Decide, remember?) If you "come up" with an idea on your own, then you've internalized that information, and tied that opinion with your ego. It's a bias we all have. But, as my REAL college professor once said "our stomachs just as responsible for creating the food in our bellies as our brains are responsible for creating the thoughts in our head." Here, Barton has planted the seed for "The Black Robed Regiment" a full two months before Beck spoke about HIS Black Robed Regiment at the 8/28 rally.

You'll notice that the Black Robed Regiment official web page has seen significantly increased activity since the 8/28 rally. These people are real. These people are voting.

You have my permission to panic now.

Barton plants another seed to set us up for the next class, Hope 101:
"The bible was so clear about taxes that it told you what kind were good and what kind were bad. It wasn't that the Founding Fathers were anti-tax, just anti-tax, they were just anti-wrong-kind-of-tax."

Onward Christian Soldiers...


Note ~ Much love to my dear friend Mallory who selflessly suffered through Barton for Truth, Justice, and The LOLs. Most of the references to the Evangelicals are directly from her. If she gives me permission, I'll post her various musings on the video.

Arab, Black, and Mexican

Glenn Beck talks constantly about race on his show. Seriously. But since he speaks only in Tea Party Dog Whistle Racism, it appears to outsiders that he's examining real issues. Well, he's not. Here's a handy translation guide:

Black -- Kenyan / New Black Panther Party

Arab -- Muslim

Mexican -- Illegal immigrant

I'm Just Asking Questions -- I'm White as Hell and I Won't Take it Anymore

Why won't they just say Black, Arab, or Mexican? First: nationalists blur together race, religion, nation, and language. Second: the tea party insists this "isn't about race" but about good versus bad. There are good black people, and then there are the uppity fuckers that keep trying to magically oppress white people. There are the good Arabs, and then there are the sneaky secret Muslims that are trying destroy America. There are good Mexicans (or "legal immigrants") and then there are the lazy Illegals who are only looking for a "Free Ride" -- or worse, are attacking American boarders with their evil drug wars. Why is this bad? Because they're making sorting people first by race, then judging them on their overall evilness.

Nationalism needs enemies to define itself. Lots of them. They need lots and lots of groups to show off as “not like us” which morphs into groups that are “against us.” Eventually, all the enemies blur into one big fat evil group of evil. In academic study of Nationalism, and similar ism-s, the "big fat evil group of evil" is known as The Other.



The fears about The Other are variations on the same tune.

• They're coming for our jobs
• They're coming for our women (The biggest fear about interracial marriage was that white people wouldn't be able to defend the white women against the black man's insatiable sexual appetite for white women. Curiously, no one was really worried about defending white men from black women. There's a lot of sexism in Nationalism.)
• They're coming for our land
• They're coming to oppress us (reverse racism) 
• They're coming to kill us first 
• They're trying to convert (or otherwise influence) our children
• They're twisting our culture/language
• THEY WANT TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD
  

This all boils down to fear, resentment, and a general feeling that we must protect ourselves from these outsiders. Why is protection bad? Because when humans are afraid, we tend to strike first and strike hard. Remember the Hutu's and the Tutsi's in Rwanda? "As an ideology, Hutu Power asserted that the Tutsi intended to enslave Hutus and must be resisted at all costs." So, naturally, the Hutus killed the Tutsi minority.

Godwin Moment: “It is almost a miracle that absolutely nothing has happened to Jews in Germany, but rather that only gradually the rights they stole from the Germans in politics and culture have been restored.” (Alfred Rosenberg).

Now, you know, I'm all about freedom of religion. I value the First Amendment as much as I value the Second Amendment as much as I value the Tenth Amendment and on and on and on," he said. "But you cross the line when they try to start bringing Sharia Law here to the state of Tennessee — to the United States. (Note the Tennessee joblessness rate)

The Other has taken something away from us. They're trying to undermine and change us. They won't stop until we take it back.


(Independence/Indipendents. I see what you did there.)

This is why we need to not ignore race baiting.

So who do we think is coming for us? Generally, The Other fall into two camps: one internal, one external. For our purposes, the internal is the Muslims and the external is the Mexicans. There's plenty of cross over, but here, lets keep them separate. (Note: Kenyan is a special over-arching term just for the President that combines both Muslim and Illegal. The New Black Panther Party mostly falls into "Internal Enemies.")

Examples of "internal" enemies.

• The Muslims are building Mosques to create terror cells within the united states.
• The Muslims are dropping terror babies to train to be future terrorists with citizenship.
• Any Muslim is a potential sleeper cell.
• They're already here, among us, waiting to strike, we must seek them out.
  

Examples of "external" enemies.

• Mexicans are bringing drugs into the untied states.
• We must secure the boarder so the Mexicans won't bring their drug war over here.
• The Mexicans are invading by the thousands to steal jobs and social services from real Americans.
• They're coming at us from all sides, we must defend ourselves and our tax dollars
  

Remember the Red Scare from the McCarthy era? Spies among us and Nukes from the outside. The internal enemy keeps us vigilant about each other, the external enemy keeps us vigilant about the outside world. This isn't limited to the Tea Party & Beck. Liberals who were LIVID about Bush's characterization of the Iraq War as a "crusade" (because we weren't attacked by an entire religion) are now turning around and claiming that the "ground zero mosque" is insensitive. It's bat shit and yet, it's happening.

And yes, I'm prepared to explain exactly why Christopher Hitchens and others are buying into really childish conspiracy theories and why you should be pissed off about that too.

Now who is constantly being accused of all three? Obama, of course. The ultimate "Other". The magic word here is "Kenyan" (Black.) Kenya is in Africa and as we know Africa has some of the most populated Muslim countries (apparently someone in the Tea Party noticed that Kenya is mostly Catholic so they've switched from "Kenyan" to "Indonesian") so Obama is probably a Muslim (Arab). Since Obama's birth certificate is apparently mia (it isn't) Obama could be an Illegal as well (stealing a job that belongs to an American.)

Are you getting the picture yet? Beck and crew is engaging in dangerous race-based nationalist vitriol just to get Obama out of office. But guess what? Fox knows this kind of Ethnic Nationalist bullshit leads to violence. Beck has a disclaimer that "violence isn't the answer" in his books and all of his speeches. Listen for it. That's the sound of lawyers covering their asses.

Rupert Murdock does not like to lose and he has stooped to inciting ethnic hatred to preserve his power over both parties. It's not cute. It's not funny. It's not going away.



Why aren't you pissed off yet?
No, seriously.
A Massive PDF
Some Onion
Breaking it all down (Video)

Now that the basics are out of the way, I'm gunna start working on Glenn Beck U. I'll do one or two posts for each of the Faith, Hope, and Charity series and I'm gunna try and keep it as entertaining as possible. You know, as entertaining as possible when you're faced with a steaming pile of bullshit.

Pained

This last Sunday, Glenn Beck handed me an excellent excuse to talk about his cult of personality with his 8/28 "Restore America" rally.

There's been a lot of surprise that the "Restoring America" rally wasn't political. It resembled an evangelical rally, and was seemingly focused on religion instead of politics. Many people have been dismissive of the rally because they think that Beck has somehow changed course. This isn't necessarily true.

In my last post, I said that religion, language, race, and the nation all start to blur at the edges and become one thing (at least, within a nationalist movement). For devotees, a religious rally is just as political as a voter's pamphlet.

The video below has some interesting interviews with the crowd. Listen how the interviewees talk about religion versus politics. (I will be doing a post on "The Mexicans" and "The Muslims" as the two "enemies" of the nation and a post on the "registered independent" movement.)


Via Cynical-C

(complete 3-hour rally is on CSPAN)

Even though the content of the speeches were largely about religion and soldiers, the audience felt that the speakers re-affirmed their political beliefs. Partly, they were excited to be in a group of like-minded people. Partly, the speakers were talking in politically coded speech. But why else?

We're pretty familiar with the idea of a personality cult in religions, especially, well, cults. We have an image of a white guy in funny clothes with 6 wives that miraculously worked out he's the second coming, so he convinced a group of people to leave their families, donate their possessions to the glorious leader, and join a fortified compound in the desert, because the feds have put aliens in the drinking water. It's a little different in politics. But only a little.

In politics a personality cult is where a population worship the leader (or founders) of a country. We're not talking "Abe Lincoln never told a lie" kind of worship. We're talking "Every public building has a room dedicated to the Dear Leader, every school day begins with a special prayer to the Dear Leader, and every private home has a small shrine to the Dear Leader." You know, the kind of things that Tea Partiers think "liberals" do to Obama.

Before you get any ideas, I don't believe that Glenn Beck is the Dear Leader that all the Tea Partiers are secretly worshiping. I don't even think his aim is to deliberately create a political personality cult. But there's something extra rabid and stubborn about Glenn Beck fans.

Glenn Beck has developed a minor personality cult around the Founding Fathers. Beck, in his eyes and the eyes of his followers, is the only one who is speaking the truth about American history and he is the only honest man who can see the truth about where America is headed. He is the only one who can give us unbiased information. He is our only connection to the past and the prophet of the future.

Back here in reality, Beck will only give airtime to those who will talk about the Founding Fathers in biblical terms. In Glenn Beck University, Faith 101-103 is presented by David Barton, who claims among other things, that the Founding Fathers were mostly ministers, that the first continental congress signed their documents with "In the Year of Our Lord Jesus Christ" and that that same congress paid for bibles in American public schools. (There is a beautiful and thoughtful take-down of Barton's major arguments at Liars for Jesus. Scroll down for the videos as well.)

You may remember that Beck spent a lot of time comparing himself to Thomas Paine, largely because he's a sometimes forgotten founding father but he wrote a key pamphlet called "Common Sense". It was the first major piece of American Propaganda that asked the colonists to stand up and separate from Britain. Beck liked it so much that he re-released it -- with a modest 111 page introduction. Beck's attachment to Thomas Paine is more than a fondness for history. It was a wink at his viewers. Beck feeds his viewers something that feels both like privileged knowledge about history and events to come. This was our first sign Beck had slipped into the shoes of "mouth of propaganda." Because really, what's a personality cult without the propaganda?

So now we have the founding father linked to religion and Glenn Beck linked to the Founding Fathers. But how do we turn them divine? Well, all you have to do is a little line blurring, which is easy when people are already starting to associate their religion with their country. That the "Founding Fathers" won the revolution is enough to prove that "God was on our side." This slips into "God helped us win" to "God wanted us to win" to "We were destined to win". Which brings us to America's "Divine Destiny". Ultimately, the Founding Fathers morph into divine creators of our country, guided by destiny and acting out the will of god.

What else do we need here? Well, a good personality cult needs words. Words to "study". Words that inspire. Words to live by. The writings of the founding Fathers must be holy because the Founding Fathers themselves were holy. Sound outlandish? Glenn Beck doesn't think so.

From Beck's Speech at the Divine Destiny Rally: "The words are alive. Our documents, our most famous speeches are American scripture. They are alive today as any scripture is."

As I mentioned in a previous post, Glenn Beck's "Overton Window" describes an ideal Tea Party. At the higher levels the "Founders Keepers" steal a page out of "Fahrenheit 451" (Becks ghost writers steal shamelessly from many dystopian novels) and the members memorize anything and everything written by their favorite Founding Father. They then recite these speeches at meetings like scripture. The love interest in the story, of course, memorizes Thomas Paine.

Worship tends to spill over onto anyone who is preaching the gospel of the Founding Fathers as does the reverence for his words. Beck has aligned himself with the Founding Fathers and is now aligned with Holy American Destiny. At least, in the minds of his followers.

Now, all a politician (like Sarah Palin) has to do is link themselves to the Founding Fathers and they have instant American Destiny cred. By speaking at the Divine Destiny rally, Sarah Palin was attempting to further align herself with prophecy. This is why I had privately assumed she would announce her presidential run at the rally.

But I was wrong. It seems that certain elements in the tea party aren't taking very kindly to Beck's self-anointment. We may be seeing the beginning of the end.

The Four Pillars of Nationalism

This is from an e-mail I wrote to a friend. Tomorrow is Beck's 8/28 rally and I want you all to be prepared with a small bit of background before I lay into the idea of a Personality Cult.

Tea Partiers may use weasel words like "Muslim" or "illegal immigrants" but that's just to avoid saying "Arab" and "Hispanic". If you ask a Tea Partier to draw a picture of a Muslim, they're not going to draw Ethnic Chinese Muslims (the Hui) and if you ask them to draw a picture of an "illegal" they're not going to draw Hollanders who overstay their work visas. To the tea party, it is the WORST INSULT to be labeled a racist, so they come up with creative Politically Correct replacement words.

Interestingly, in the 1960's when white people didn't want to seem racist they would make segregation arguments based on taxes. Poor people (Read: Blacks) pay less in taxes, therefore don't deserve the same level of social services. Sounding familiar? Now that no egos are involved, we can look back and declare all segregation to be racist, but at the time white people often wanted to avoid the "racist" title.

It's about fear of the Other, and it's also fear about jobs. Stupid, right? Economic crisis is the PERFECT time for a nationalist movement. Who "deserves" jobs, who doesn't. It's not a coincidence that Europe exploded in ethnic violence after the fall of the soviet union. People were literally trying to re-form nations as well as survive economic devastation. But who deserves a job? Well, first, we have to look at who is "us" and who is "them". This is a long process and will last throughout the movement. What we mean by this question is "who is most like ME?" but more on that later. The easiest way to group people is based on skin color. Like it or not, we're hard-wired for picking out one race versus another. People who claim to be color blind are full of shit. Religion is also a good one, and the two, historically, are connected. Back in the day before airplanes, your place of birth had as much influence on the shape of your nose as it did on which gods you worshiped. Ethnicity and religion often go hand in hand, but when they don't we can sort accordingly. Black and christian? Good. Black and Muslim? GTFO.

This is where the Nation comes in. To the nationalist, the nation you belong to is just as important as the color of your skin. More so. (Before nation-states we had "tribalism" but it's all part of the same pattern. It's a very Euro-centric study, but applies everywhere) Nationalism is the belief that the state is above everything else. It's that simple. Everything must be done in the service of the state; your life, your religion, your children, history, god, everything is compelled to serve of the state. There's a quote from a pope during world war two: "Nationalism is the pagan worship of the state" but that's not far enough. Think of a cult or an all-consuming abusive relationship. But... the Tea party is not at that level. It's Nationalism-lite.

So we have the four pillars of the nationalist movement, the nation (America), the skin color (white), the religion (Christian), and the language (English). Slowly, and I mean REALLY slowly, each one will start to equal the other three. If you're Christian, you should be an English-speaking White American. If you're White, you should be a English-speaking Christian American. If you're American, you should be a English-speaking White Christian. If you speak English, ... yeah. Now, that idea alone is scary as hell, but it gets worse. Before you know it, "Christian" isn't enough. You have to be protestant. "White" isn't enough, you have to be Germanic. "American" isn't enough, your family has to stretch back to the FOUNDING FATHERS. Etc.

Godwin moment: Language was a huge part of Germany's justification for invading Poland. The Polish spoke German too, and therefore must be occupying inherently German land. Also Poland was threatening Germany and Germany needed to protect itself.

I think you can see where this is going. The Muslims are non-white and non-christian, and therefore not proper Americans with the same rights (freedom of worship, mostly). The Mexicans are non-white, non-Americans and therefore don't deserve the same rights as real Americans. Those who closely fit the criteria get to be part of "us" and those who don't... well, they need to stay in line. They're here because we allow them to be here, after all. We "deserve" the jobs, the full benefits of being an American, the protection of the state, the medical care, to be patrons of privately owned business and, soon, the citizenship. Of course, past that we have "half-citizens" and slowly, slowly, half-humans... then, well, horribleness.

I don't believe the tea party will get there.

Let me say that again.

The Tea Party will not get genocidal.

But I do believe we will see serious violence against "the Other" in the next two years. It will probably be done in the name of "self-defense." 1960's race-riots level? Hard to say. But possibly.

Edit: I will continue to update this post with relevant links as I find them.
Also some spelling fixed by Robin.

Elbows Down, Pinkies Up

Stand back everyone. I'm going to to do politics.




Welcome to the Tea Party

So what am I talking about here? Am I going to talk about that horrible Alice in Wonderland movie? I hope not. Am I going to talk about those people who dress up like Founding Fathers and spew nonsense about Obama? Heck yes. Am I going to make fun of them? Only when it illustrates a point. Let me be clear: I don't think Tea Partiers are stupid. They're mostly being swept up in a phenomenon that can capture just about anyone. My angle is Glenn Beck. I don't know much about Sarah Palin, and at this point I don't care to. She'll be interesting when she makes her Presidential run.




I'm going to assume you have a pretty good grasp on the idea of the Tea Party. Probably you have an image of an older heavy-set white Libertarian in a home-made sarah palin t-shirt yelling about socialism. You probably also think of That Guy on facebook that clutters your wall with long rambling posts on Terrorism and the Liberty Tree. To sum up, older, white, male, libertarian, and short in the brains department.

Or are they? Well, Glenn Beck certainly doesn't think so! And he's going to help all those poor tea partiest people fight back against the big mean liberal elite. He claims the tea party is made up of every race and nationality and political group in the country. Young and the old, the tall and the small. From all walks of life. And black people. Just like you see in the video.

In Beck's NEW YORK TIMES BEST SELLER The Overton Window, he describes his ideal Tea Party movement. Except here, he calls them the Founders Keepers. (Their website hasn't been updated since June, but I'm sure they're just waiting for the revolution. But you can follow their Twitter.) And boy are they diverse.

"The dirveisty of the gathering was another surpirse; there seemed to be no clear exclusions based on race, or class or any of the other traditional media-fed american cultural divides. It was a total cross section, a mix of everyone -- three-piece suits rubbing elbows with T-shirts and sweat pants, yuppies chatting with hippies, black and white, young and old, a cowboy hat here, a six hundred dollar haircut there -- all talking together .... in the press these sorts of meetings were typically depicted as the exclusive haunts of old white people of limited means and even more limited intelligence. But this was everybody." ~The Overton Window

The Founders Keepers do a lot of strange things like LARP Founding Fathers, but only speak in the words the Founding Fathers use in their letters and speeches. This is also the first TOTALLY FICTIONAL book I've read that has references in the back. You know. For fact checking.

Yeah, I know. I'm about 6 months late in the "omg so white" thing. But think of it as a refresher for your first lesson. In Tea Party Land, they're not white people. They represent everyone.