You've been indoctrinated into a Psychological Civil War

I posted a statement that generated some interest, so I will expound

My take is that we have all been indoctrinated into a psycological civil war. The effect is a result of blowback. By defeating several power movements long ago we sowed the seeds of discontent.

1. The south never "got over" the Civil War. The tactical victory was won, but the hearts and minds of the south never were. The doctrines against separatism were only reluctantly followed. In a certain sense many southerners, black or white, embrace separtism, simply because it is human nature to reject a forced conversion into new cultural rules. This anger never died, but instead festered - hanging on to a lost identity, searching for a way to be reborn.

2. The US never really got rid of the Nazis. First off, they had valuable knowledge of the next US enemy, Russia, so they were somewhat embraced for this knowledge. They escaped and went into hiding to learn from their mistakes and rebuild for another run at it. No - not gas chambers - they can't make those PR mistakes again, but rather social structure and power grabbing techniques remain the same. Certainly, the success of corporate power was a path that led right back to the same values of totalitarianism - everyone tightening their belt to adequitely serve the power at the top of the pyramid.

3. There is a slowdown in the growth of Christian power. The country is evolving its own way culturally. As we enter the digital age we shed the old myths in the light of new ones that fit better with our observations. This modern age of reason is, itself, a threat to the perfect airtight logic vaccuums of religion that so effectively controlled peoples thoughts and ambition for tens of centuries. This leads to blowback from the radical christian agenda that sees itself fizzeling out. So they call for a "revival" a cleansing of the progressive element from America.

Combine all of these struggling powers into a generic group of angry "losers" and you'll foment the hate movement of the 90s that started with Morton Downey Jr. and ended with a pill addled Rush Limbaugh entering rehab to "cure" a decade of narcotic addiction in 30 days.

9-11 was an an event of Shock and Awe that won the hearts and minds of millions over to an agenda of revenge. It was an event to teach us a lesson - the media told us "the world would never be the same". it fit our myths - Biblically speaking, 3000 people dying is several times associated with indoctrination into a new era. The terrorizing image that the corporate networks broadcast into our brains over and over and over sparked fear and panic that enabled the leadership power to operate unchecked.

Now the rheotric has been whipped up enough to the point where a rally to bring soldiers home to safety is met by a "pro troop" rally desiring to keep the soldiers in harms way.

The sign that summed it up most effectively was this:


Support George W Bush
Weapons of mass destruction
Trust Jesus

Herein lies the ugly product of these angry losing forces.
What does Jesus have to do with WMDS?
What does Jesus have to do with President Bush?

This is an attempt to associate the power of "Jesus" - representing ultimate unquestioning trust, belief, and dedication with the Bush agenda of unending warfare - i.e. "enduring freedom", "infinite justice".

We have the national touchstone word of "liberty, liberals, liberalism" turned into a term of slander. Liberals are the enemy - they are to blame for everything. We have corporate owned media broadcasting a fabricated reality of 24 hour fear into the minds and soul of the nation. No wonder we are so out of step with the world community!

Just know this and be aware of the information bombs, missles and grenades being lobbed into your brains.

The first thing they did was to falsely cast our sucessful heros as theives and cover libery with a burqua; in essence to destroy the old myths and replace them. Everything else since has followed suit.

As soon as people realize that events are being manipulated and passed as reality to change how we perceive reality. For example, the Jessica Lynch story that never happened. The Yellow cake story wasn't about a big lie , it was only "16 words". Paul Wellstone just coincidentally had "Bad Luck" and Bush just coincidentally always has "Good Luck". "This computer model PROVES that Oswald shot Kennedy alone, it's IRREFUTABLE..."

Events are being manufactured and manipulated right before our eyes, but even DU is full of people who say "I'm embarassed that so many people think that some funny business is going on".

That, my friends, is the nature of this Psychological Civil War. You are being reprogrammed to accept fear as your motivation and rationale. You are being taught new bleak lessons about the universe and the nature of God's justice (karma) through these modern media parables that are constructed for your consumption.

Like our natural food has been recently Genetically Modified, our hearts and minds are being spiritually modfied to increase efficiency, obedience, loyalty and returns for the people at the top of the pyramid of power. You can deny it, but you know it in your heart - you can tell that it "feels different" ever since Bush took power.

essentially says the same thing, but you've updated it to the post-cold war era quite well.

If you haven't already, give it a read for s'more ideas on state/religion vs. self.

Bravo...and a pre-emptive *KICK*

3 will be determined in the next 20 years. They're still proselytizing.

i'm all for it, we got hi-jacked by the feds

Well said!

Keep this thread kicked :kicked:

to read posts like this.

Thank you. You nailed it.

I’m gonna tell all you fascists you may be surprised:
The people in this world are getting organized.
You’re bound to lose - you fascists are bound to lose
- Woody Guthrie

my feelings have changed since Bush shoe-horned his way into office.
It is like a weight on my shoulder that will not be lifted until that helicopter takes off and takes him away from DC. I have never detested anyone with this type of fervor in my life. I want to be there the day that he leaves, I want to see it happen. I will work until I drop to see that he is not there in 2005.

I never thought I'd know what it felt like to live in a place like the USSR or Nazi Germany. I never thought I'd know what it feels like to live under a dictatorship without freedoms. Maybe I was just naive before...or maybe it has gotten that bad...but, regardless, I feel that weight too.

....appears to have been an optimist.

I do not subscribe to the Paul Wellstone was murdered threads so popular here.

with those who visit those threads. A bit of selection bias. Many folks just tuned out to that particular discussion a long time ago, as such the threads have a bit of a preaching to the choir effect - without really singing to the entire DU choir.

:eyes:
Edit: There are at least 3 other professional pilots here on DU who also don't. demotex, sfecap and I can't remember the other right now who have all tried to put a little sanity into those discussions.

so for you guys, please replace that Wellstone business with this lie, it serves the same point just as well:

WASHINGTON "In what the government describes as a bizarre coincidence, one U.S. intelligence agency was planning an exercise last Sept. 11 in which an errant aircraft would crash into one of its buildings. But the cause wasn't terrorism -- it was to be a simulated accident.

http://www.boston.com/news/packages/sept11/anniversary/wire_stories/0903_plane_exercise.htm
http://www.questionsquestions.net/docs04/0514_coincidence.html

Ohhhhh - so that's why there were no jets protecting the nation's capitol an hour and a half into this thing... It all makes sense... right?

And you see, we got attacked because the "Hand of God's Protection" was lifted because America has been so sinful by those damn wicked liberals...

See?

Operation Iraqi Liberation is a good thing but Liberals are bad.

Liberation good - Liberalism bad - makes perfect sense, huh.

Thank you. You are an admirable writer and thinker. If only we could make copies of you the world would have a chance.

:toast:

:kick:

I was trying to remember what they used to be like three years ago! Everybody acts like Bush's press conferences are normal, but they are completely different than the other presidents' and yet there is no widespread commentary on this. It makes you feel crazy.

The part where the Cmdr. of the Praetorian Guard comes out to announce to the Imperial Senate that Caligula has metamorphosized into a God comes to mind. Not to mention the way the Imperial Senate meekly accepts this statement without question or resistance is also quite telling.

Of course, "Farenheit 451", "1984", "Animal Farm", "Brave New World" or ANY book which prophesied the rise of the Busheviks and the Mighty Wurlitzer of Goebbels v2.0 (even if they didn't name it specifically) can give you that feeling.

Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia must have had that feeling, too, early on, to people who could still think and remember.

Welcome to a very very large club.

Better not laugh at the idea of the mad emperor now being a god. And they play along to save their own asses.

that web page that has the book by the guy who interviewed the 1930s Germans, "They Thought They Were Free." Especially the part where the guy says everyone around you seems filled with hate, but they don't even know it because when everyone is like that, it seems normal.

And the part where they said they kept thinking, "Now, people will wake up and see it!" and they don't. I had been thinking that for years, people would see the dangers to the free press, to the separation of powers in the government, to the Constitution, and wake up and demand changes, but most of them don't even see it.

I didn't understand what propaganda could do and now I still can't even get it through my head. We keep thinking, now the press will stop being pushed around, now the Congress will start acting as another branch of government and so on. I don't know any more.

And the part where they said they kept thinking, "Now, people will wake up and see it!" and they don't. I had been thinking that for years, people would see the dangers to the free press, to the separation of powers in the government, to the Constitution, and wake up and demand changes, but most of them don't even see it.

Is it possible that they DO see it and that they approve?

It's been my experience that most people prefer clear, unambiguous social norms to guide behavior, and are uncomfortable with complexity or ambiguity. Is it possible that they accept the wrong and/or immoral norms only because those norms are clear? Do people prefer simple, black or white solutions? Will they actually prefer the black solution simply because it isn't gray?

Just wondering here...

So welll thought out and written! Your parents must have done something right.

Exactly. That is why the importance of the next election goes beyond Anybody But Bush. We have a few dem candidates who are touting their abilitities to better operate in the fear paridigm, and we have others who reject that view and offer a promise of hope and optimism.

http://news.myway.com/top/article/id/92206|top|10-28-2003::14:11|reuters.html

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush said on Tuesday the United States is not ready for a total abortion ban, but he would sign a ban just approved by Congress on what opponents of the procedure call "partial birth" abortion.

"Yes, I'll sign the ban on partial birth abortion," Bush said at a White House news conference. "And no, I don't think the culture has changed to the extent that the American people or the Congress would totally ban abortions."

---

but we're working on it... right?

To "create that culutral change" they would have to disenfranchise half the populace and reprogram the other half with Goebbels v2.0. In other words the END of the American Experiment in self-rule.

But I don't think that bothers the Busheviks much at all. They never liked the Old American Republic very much anyway.

:kick:

Well done!

:kick:

be aware of propaganda from any side and be reflective. An unexamined life is not worth living. That goes for issues that you approve of also.

we're now living behind.

Because since the media went corporate, the only place you can find any truth is on the freaking internet. Or to leave the country.

We're living behind the equivalent of the iron curtain right now. Only it's a psychological one.

It's just so weird.

Who can coin the phrase to describe it?

I've been using that phrase for quite awhile now that it has become clear that, whatever the Busheviks are transitioning the now-defunct Old American Republic into, it is going to have a hell of a lot more in common with the Old Soviet Union than it does with the Old American Republic.

Eyes. More poetic.

Today as I was waking up I saw a piece on ITV, International news, channel 366 if you get DirectTV, media from OUTSIDE of America ....

It was fascinating. It was from Baghdad, and it documented the situation there in a way that had heretofore been 100% unseen here in America.

I only caught the last 15 minutes or so, but it was following a Baghdadi policeman in his struggles with the new baghdad. They interviewed his wife, showed his home, and showed the daily horrors that are occurring there.

And it appears to be FAR FAR worse than anything we're seeing. Every morning there are bodies piled up at the morgue.

Feet sticking out of car trunks. A father holding his stiff, 9 year old son, weeping. The morgues are overwhelmed. Bodies are literally piling up.

And what was the most telling -- the looks on the faces of the people there. Looks of utter disgust, anger, bitterness ....

They went to a hospital and showed a man who had been shot by Americans. He was seriously wounded and wasn't receiving any medical care because there were no surgeons at the hospital and the Americans wouldn't give him the clearance to be worked on at an American medical facility.

He had been shot after chasing a kid who had thrown a grenade at the police. The Americans heard the noise and shot him.

The Americans were there in the hospital. They looked as upset as everyone else. They were trying to help him. They obviously felt absolutely sick about what had happened. The man was shaking and looked like he was dying.

Finally he was taken to a hospital, almost three hours after he had been shot, where there was a surgeon who could work on him. He survived.

Again, the looks on the faces of the people there told everything. One man was interviewed who said the Americans said they were sorry, but it's not enough. He was reluctant to say what he truly felt, but finally did.

It was fascinating, brutal, sad ..... and true. Unlike anything I've seen on American TV.

I'm not sure who actually produced it. I hope to see it again.

The cathode rays of the TV and computer screens compose projected images out of ions.

1. The south never "got over" the Civil War. The tactical victory was won, but the hearts and minds of the south never were. The doctrines against separatism were only reluctantly followed. In a certain sense many southerners, black or white, embrace separtism, simply because it is human nature to reject a forced conversion into new cultural rules. This anger never died, but instead festered - hanging on to a lost identity, searching for a way to be reborn.

I see no evidence of this existing on a large scale whatsoever. Do you have anything to support that?

2. The US never really got rid of the Nazis. First off, they had valuable knowledge of the next US enemy, Russia, so they were somewhat embraced for this knowledge.

'The' Nazis? Not really. 'Some' Nazis were assimilated into branches of Allied gov'ts, but to maintain that somehow the Nazi party wasn't dismantled completely, its power structure effectively erased, flies in the face of history.

They escaped and went into hiding to learn from their mistakes and rebuild for another run at it. No - not gas chambers - they can't make those PR mistakes again, but rather social structure and power grabbing techniques remain the same. Certainly, the success of corporate power was a path that led right back to the same values of totalitarianism - everyone tightening their belt to adequitely serve the power at the top of the pyramid.

Again, you provide no evidence or support of your contention.

3. There is a slowdown in the growth of Christian power.

Yes, I'm glad you noticed that. It began with what we call 'The Reformation', and it's been decreasing ever since.

The country is evolving its own way culturally. As we enter the digital age we shed the old myths in the light of new ones that fit better with our observations.

No, myths are measured against observations and data, they are not the product of them.

This modern age of reason is, itself, a threat to the perfect airtight logic vaccuums of religion that so effectively controlled peoples thoughts and ambition for tens of centuries.

Again, you have missed a phenomena that has been extant for hundreds of years now. There is nothing new under the sun.

This leads to blowback from the radical christian agenda that sees itself fizzeling out. So they call for a "revival" a cleansing of the progressive element from America.

There have been calls for 'revivals' by the deluded since the Pilgrims landed. This is nothing unique to this period in time.

Combine all of these struggling powers into a generic group of angry "losers" and you'll foment the hate movement of the 90s that started with Morton Downey Jr. and ended with a pill addled Rush Limbaugh entering rehab to "cure" a decade of narcotic addiction in 30 days.

Those are two rather cosmetic bookends to a development whose existence you haven't yet really proven.

9-11 was an an event of Shock and Awe that won the hearts and minds of millions over to an agenda of revenge. It was an event to teach us a lesson - the media told us "the world would never be the same". it fit our myths - Biblically speaking, 3000 people dying is several times associated with indoctrination into a new era. The terrorizing image that the corporate networks broadcast into our brains over and over and over sparked fear and panic that enabled the leadership power to operate unchecked.

Oh, so somehow, when there's news to report, especially one of the biggest stories in US history, the very fact that images are included makes it corporate propoganda? The fact that it came through corporate networks excludes it from being considered relevant or accurate? To people who didn't have to watch it in the first place?

Ok. Right.

Now the rheotric has been whipped up enough to the point where a rally to bring soldiers home to safety is met by a "pro troop" rally desiring to keep the soldiers in harms way.

Speaking of cheap rhetoric....

Herein lies the ugly product of these angry losing forces.
What does Jesus have to do with WMDS?
What does Jesus have to do with President Bush?

This is an attempt to associate the power of "Jesus" - representing ultimate unquestioning trust, belief, and dedication with the Bush agenda of unending warfare - i.e. "enduring freedom", "infinite justice".

What does that sign have to do with anything more than a miniscule handful of lunatics? They felt the same before Bush II and they'll feel the same afterwards. It has nothing to do with him or his agenda in particular.

Mountain, meet molehill.

Events are being manufactured and manipulated right before our eyes, but even DU is full of people who say "I'm embarassed that so many people think that some funny business is going on".

I'm embarassed that you submit something so full of holes and devoid of any substantial evidence and expect to be taken seriously.

"This anger never died, but instead festered - hanging on to a lost identity, searching for a way to be reborn."

I see no evidence of this existing on a large scale whatsoever. Do you have anything to support that?

Yes - this is exactly what the Confederate Flag controversy is about - the south doesn't want to be forced to relinquish the symbol of their separate identity.

"This anger never died, but instead festered - hanging on to a lost identity, searching for a way to be reborn."

I see no evidence of this existing on a large scale whatsoever. Do you have anything to support that?

This is exactly what the Confederate Flag controversy is about - the South doesn't want to be forced to relinquish the symbol of their separate identity.

It's pretty clear, even from your name, that your thinking is guided by anger and conceit, rather than interest, and I don't want to promote that tone of discourse any further.

So, you know how I respond to people like you?

Have a nice day! :hi:

an equal partner for quite awhile after the Civil War, then you could realize how it developed a separate culture because of it. The forced federalism that resulted has become a burden on us all. The federal never gave up its position of deciding that it was God, we lost the Republic then and turned into the same expanding empire we are today. There is no more give and take, balance of powers is but a joke after that.

I also don't think Lincoln was all that great of a president, he did a lot of things that were very much against the people so he could cobble back together what was already broke way before he got there.

If you would try to understand their positions rather than try to beat them over the head with symbolism it would be easier to see what is happening. The ideal that south wants to do onto the rest of the states is just a latent but learned response from what was done to them. They always get pasted up as the bad side of it in most any discussion, debate or other social discorse.

In no way am I defending slavery, I just don’t like the things that were put in place to take it away.

'The South's gonna do it again' about?

I am just trying to point out that colective puninshment is a no-go, It don't work, Hammurabi saw through it many centuries ago and outlawed it. Many cultures try to backtrack into it but using the US as an example in what has happened in the south, or even what goes on in the Palistine / Isreal conflinct. The victims often end up suffering the pychology of the persercuters.

Weak and shrinking cultures gravitate twords retribution and holding grasp on unstainable ventures. Growing and vibrant ones use the greater part of their resorces to try imilurorate suffering and strife of thier members

http://216.239.37.104/search?q=cache:ojcR5o3m00wJ:www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Arundhati_Roy/Seize_the_Time.html+The+laws+of+Hammurabi+%2B+collective+punishment&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

Seize the Time
by Arundhati Roy
In These Times magazine, July 2003
(snip)
The government's suppression of the congressional committee report on September 11, which found that there was intelligence warning of the strikes that was ignored, also attests to the fact that, for all their posturing, the terrorists and the Bush regime might as well be working as a team. They both hold people responsible for the actions of their governments. They both believe in the doctrine of collective guilt and collective punishment. Their actions benefit each other greatly.

The U.S. government has already displayed in no uncertain terms the range and extent of its capability for paranoid aggression. In human psychology, paranoid aggression is usually an indicator of nervous insecurity. It could be argued that it's no different in the case of the psychology of nations. Empire is paranoid because it has a soft underbelly. Its "homeland" may be defended by border patrols and nuclear weapons, but its economy is strung out across the globe. Its economic outposts are exposed and vulnerable. Already the Internet is buzzing with elaborate lists of American and British government products and companies that should be boycotted. Apart from the usual targets-Coke, Pepsi, McDonald's-government agencies like USAID, the British DIFID, British and American banks, Arthur Andersen, Merrill Lynch, and American Express could find themselves under siege. These lists are being honed and refined by activists across the world. They could become a practical guide that directs the amorphous but growing fury in the world. Suddenly, the "inevitability" of the project of Corporate Globalization is beginning to seem more than a little evitable.
(snip)

This is exactly what the Confederate Flag controversy is about - the South doesn't want to be forced to relinquish the symbol of their separate identity.

The CF is flown and/or displayed by a miniscule amount of people who think that it actually represents some bygone glory worthy of recreating. Once it's off flags and out of public buildings, it's not an issue of control, as it can freely be displayed on t-shirts, bumperstickers, etc.... It is a non-issue, and doesn't add anything to your contention.

It's pretty clear, even from your name, that your thinking is guided by anger and conceit, rather than interest, and I don't want to promote that tone of discourse any further.

So, you know how I respond to people like you?

I would suggest by actually addressing the point made to you, rather than making baseless assumptions based on a handle of a particular poster.

So rather than attempting psychoanalysis, how about actually answering my post?

While you raise a few interesting questions, you present them in a manner that doesn't warrant a response.

It looks to me like all you want to do is drag someone into discourse of a rude tone, i.e. flame wars.

Go read your post - where you can't make up some disagreement your only argument is "well, that's nothing new" or "we knew that already". And you invite me to prove the existence of right wing hate radio, as if I have to bother.

All you are doing is trying to create hard feelings.

I'm sorry for you. If you want people to interact with you socially, you have to learn some graces. But that's not what a person who calls themself "Character Assassin" is about is it?

So what are you about, Character Assassin?

Why bother? let's talk about you, Character Assassin.

No, let's stay topical, and discuss the points you originally raised, and that I responded to.

While you raise a few interesting questions, you present them in a manner that doesn't warrant a response.

No, I present them in a manner that makes you uncomfortable in responding.

It looks to me like all you want to do is drag someone into discourse of a rude tone, i.e. flame wars.

I responded directly to your assertions. Those assertions contained certain assumptions that I consider foolish, but you have not been flamed.

Go read your post - where you can't make up some disagreement your only argument is "well, that's nothing new" or "we knew that already".]

I'm not 'making up' disagreements, I'm stating them quite clearly, no artifice involved at all. What's happening here is that you aren't defending your point of view. As to 'that's nothing new', that's in direct response to you're pitching certain developments as only recently occurring, which isn't the case.

And you invite me to prove the existence of right wing hate radio, as if I have to bother.

Where have I done that?

All you are doing is trying to create hard feelings.

No, I'm disputing your points, dismantling your arguments and requesting that you respond in kind. There are no hard feelings here at all from my side.

I'm sorry for you. If you want people to interact with you socially, you have to learn some graces. But that's not what a person who calls themself "Character Assassin" is about is it?

Evidently, recognizing a play on words is not your strong suit.

So what are you about, Character Assassin?

As far as you're concerned, I'm about done, seeing as you are incapable of responding in any pertinent manner.

Those are two rather cosmetic bookends to a development whose existence you haven't yet really proven.

I have to prove right wing hate radio?

Oh, so somehow, when there's news to report, especially one of the biggest stories in US history, the very fact that images are included makes it corporate propoganda? The fact that it came through corporate networks excludes it from being considered relevant or accurate? To people who didn't have to watch it in the first place?
Ok. Right.

I have to prove that propaganda aspect of corporate media?

Speaking of cheap rhetoric....

Mountain, meet molehill.

I'm embarassed that you submit something so full of holes and devoid of any substantial evidence and expect to be taken seriously.

These are non substantive jabs...

The positive responses on this thread are sufficient to demonstrate that some understood and agreed with my hypothesis. I'm not going to put time into splitting hairs with an angry person who "didn't get it". Sorry. It was a 5 minute epiphany, not a thesis, and it relied on some assertions that are debatable, but widely accepted and understood by this audience.

3. There is a slowdown in the growth of Christian power.

Yes, I'm glad you noticed that. It began with what we call 'The Reformation', and it's been decreasing ever since.


What there has been, is a slowdown in the power of mental, emotional and in some cases physical oppression of people via the power of an institutionalized tyranny wrapping itself in the trappings of "religion." What there has been, is a slowdown in the power of those who would hold blindy to radically supernatual mystical dogma that sets itself up as against science, a slowdown in the power of Classical theistic approaches to the question of God, a slowdown in the power and hold of fundamentalist moralistic dogma over the hearts and minds of people.

And we can all rejoice over that fact.

What there has NOT been a slowdown in, is the power of a message of hope, peace, love and relationships - whether its form be via the symbolism of spirituality or otherwise. There has not been a slowdown in a spirituality of openness, nor in a religious understanding that seeks not to be at odds with science and rationality, but in harmony with them, nor in a spirituality that rejects the limited and often flaw precepts of classical theism, nor a in a spirituality that rejects literalize interpretations of historical religious texts, nor in a spirituality that is about the nutruing and sustaining of relationships, bound together by love and compassion, emphaszing an understnading of the ways in which we are all connected, and dependant on each other.

So, let's just get that straight.

Um, I'm not clear here.

It does indeed seem to me that as the fundamentalist Xtian right gains political power, which they have done remarkably in the past 20 years or so, that there has been an acceleration in the mental, emotional and even physical oppression -- I'm thinking here of the fundies who have attacked and killed abortion clinic workers, etc. -- in the name of an organized religious institution.

And certainly the influence that the right wing has in the current regime, especially via Ashcroft, is further evidence that they are gaining, not losing, power.

Mosse demonstrated how the Nazis' rejection of empirical science as a product of Jewish thought may have cost them the race to develop atomic weapons; they refused to have anything to do with Einstein's theories. Today we have the bushies' rejection of stem cell research, global warming, HIV/AIDs prevention, all in the name of rejecting non-ideological "science."

The rallies against the "under God" excision are another bit of evidence that formal institutionalized religion retains a very strong position in our culture and in our politics.

The attempts to expand relationships within a religious framework are meeting with sustained resistance. "Civil unions," those without the blessing of traditional religion, are grudgingly accepted in a minority of venues, but "gay marriage" still finds only minimal support. Marriage, though a religious institution, cannot exist as a legal civil institution without the consent of the religious.

We still see the vast majority agreeing with the saintliness of a Mother Theresa, and only a few daring, in the face of vituperative replies, to suggest she and her philosophy were more about letting the poor suffer because God wanted them to and she had no right to interfere with God's marvelous plan than about making the world of the poor a better place.

But then, I'm an atheist and I find a lot of things about "the spiritual community" personally uncomfortable.

Or maybe I just misunderstood.

"Biblically speaking, 3000 people dying is several times associated with indoctrination into a new era"?

Are you talking about events or prophesies in the Bible in which the deaths of 3000 people are mentioned? If so, would you give the citation(s) (book, chapter, verse)?

If not, what did you mean?

there are at least two events in the Bible where the magic number 3000 are slewn and then a new era is spawned. I had a link to a page detailing this; I'll try to see if I can find it

The Levites were formally set apart after the now-infamous incident with the golden calf idol that the Israelites made while Moses was away receiving The Ten Commandments from The Lord (Exodus chapter 32). The Levites did not take part in the idolatry, and actually killed 3,000 of those who were running wild, as ordered by Moses (Exodus 32:25-29).

After the incident was over, Moses said of the Levites, "Today you have ordained yourselves for the service of The Lord, each one at the cost of his son and of his brother, that he may bestow a blessing upon you this day." (Exodus 32:29).

----------------

(Judges 16:23-30):

Samson’s last words were, "Let me die with the Philistines!" as he brought down the two pillars of the temple, killing 3,000 men and women.

Who were destroyed: All the lords of the Philistines (#v. 27|), who had by bribes corrupted Delilah to betray Samson to them. Evil pursued those sinners. Many of the people likewise, to the number of 3000, and among them a great many women, one of whom, it is likely, was that harlot of Gaza mentioned

How they were destroyed. Samson pulled the house down upon them,

----

but this part of the service devolved on the priesthood, who called in, as in such case they might, the assistance of the Levites. When we remember that, besides the special "burnt-offerings" of individuals (70 bullocks, 100 rams, and 200 lambs), the "thankofferings" of the congregation amounted to no less than 600 oxen and 3,000 sheep (2 Chronicles 29:32, 33),

----
Saul now undertook the great and difficult enterprise of freeing the land from its hereditary enemies the Philistines, and for this end he gathered together an army of 3,000 men (1 Sam. 13:1, 2)

b

Education and Media indoctrinate us from birth to death with lies supporting the Validity of Authority. Socialization is mind-control and always has been.

Patriotism (nationalism), racism, sexism, homophobia and religion have always been used to divide and conquer the people/peasants/masses. Now ubiquitous mass media adds repetition of message to the propaganda arsenal. Tragedy ensues.

Quite simply, this spells out the Republican Platform: Sex/pleasure=sin, violence/suffering=justice.

Karl Rove exploits the ignorance of TV Nation by telling Americans they are Superman Jesus in a Cowboy Hat-the strongest, most virtuous lawman in the Valley of the Shadow of Death, promoting celibacy to Africans dying of AIDS, that is, 'dying of their sins as they should, just like the homos.'

Prussian education tactics+Patriotism+Fundamentalism=Nazi America.

Read the 9/03 Harper's magazine essay by John Taylor Gatto, a former NYC and NY state Teacher of the Year, author of the Underground History of Public Education.

In an essay called 'How Public Education Cripples Our Kids and Why,' he details how Prussian culture was adopted when public education became widespread in the 1800s.
>snip<
"...compulsory schooling on this continent was intended to be just what it had been for Prussia in the 1820s: a fifth column into the burgeoning democratic movement that threatened to give the peasants and the proletarians a voice at the bargaining table.

Modern, industrialized, compulsory schooling was to make a sort of surgical incision into the prospective unity of these underclasses...

The actual purpose of modern schooling...six basic functions:
1)THE ADJUSTIVE OR ADAPTIVE FUNCTION-
Schools are to establish fixed habits of reaction to authority. This, of course, precludes critical judgement completely. It also pretty much destroys the idea that useful or interesting things should be taught, because you can't test for reflexive obedience until you know whether you can make kids learn, and do, foolish and boring things.

2) THE INTEGRATING FUNCTION-
This might well be called "the conformity function," because its intention is to make children as alike as possible. People who conform are predictable, and this is of great use to those who wish to harness and manipulate a large labor force.

3) THE DIAGNOSTIC AND DIRECTIVE FUNCTION-
School is meant to determine each student's proper social role. This is done by logging evidence mathematically and anecdotally on cumulative records. As in "your permanent record." Yes, you do have one.

4) THE DIFFERENTIATING FUNCTION-
Once their social role has been "diagnosed," children are to be sorted by role and trained only sofar as their destination in the social machine merits-and not one step further. So much for making kids their personal best.

5) THE SELECTIVE FUNCTION-
This refers not to human choice at all but to Darwin's theory of natural selection as applied to what he called "the favored races." In short, the idea is to help things along by consciously attempting to improve the breeding stock. Schools are meant to tag the unfit-with poor grades, remedial placement, and other punishments-clearly enough that their peers will accept them as inferior and effectively bar them from the reproductive sweepstakes. That's what all those little humiliations from first grade onward were intended to do: wash the dirt down the drain.

6) THE PROPAEDEUTIC FUNCTION-
The societal system implied by these rules will require an elite group of caretakers. To that end, a small fraction of the kids will quietly be taught how to manage this continuing project, how to watch over and control a population deliberately dumbed down and declawed in order that government might proceed unchallenged and corporations might never want for obedient labor.

That, unfortunately, is the purpose of mandatory public education in this country...the Prussian system was useful in creating not only a harmless electorate and a servile labor force but also a virtual herd of mindless consumers."

Pretty horrifying, isn't it? I went to that school for sure.
A mythology of justification to keep the peasants in line has always been necessary.

American national power came from white men with guns stealing and killing. It is that simple.

Read Chomsky's 'Understanding Power.' It describes how the rich white men who have always owned and run the government have used violence and propaganda to prevent democracy in the US and around the world:

First the Native American holocaust and land grab.

Then African slavery in textiles back when cotton was the oil of its day, the source of manufacturing wealth.

Then corporations and robber barons using wage slaves in mass production factories and sweatshops. Unions were broken up by armed thugs. The Communist Revolution was used to demonize all popular movements as 'anarchists.'

Since capitalism failed in the depression of the 1930s, massive government spending on the Military Industrial Congressional Complex keeps the economy going, those not in these industries are on their own. This is the dictionary definition of FASCISM, the alliance of business with government.

As media became more pervasive and sophisticated, it was used to further propagandize and indoctrinate the population.

The Cold War brought Nazis recruited into the US government and intelligence services to fight the Soviets. A secret government took over from the business tycoons who had been using it for their own purposes.

The Bush family was key in this transition. The Reagan years saw the post-Vietnam re-militarization of the economy and the re-deification of corporations as symbolizing the Puritan Work Ethic in the (fictional) Free Market. Newt Gingrich used viciously partisan tactics to begin to drive back the progress of the 20th century.

Clinton only slightly slowed this process. Now the same people are back in power to finish the job of preventing democracy, looting the federal budget, neutralizing the masses, stealing the world's oil at gunpoint.

Religiousity helps them get away with it by turning racism, fear, and now 9/11 reactionary anger into a Crusade despite their denials.

A large percentage of Americans believe they are 'God's Chosen People In the One True Religion.'

And W. believes he was chosen by God to be President of the United States. Don't forget General Boykin, whose "god is bigger than the Muslim's god."

The Divine Right of Kings didn't go away; it is back with a vengeance. Ask Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia. In a speech he said that it is a shame that democracy impedes God's will in choosing leaders. I'm not kidding.

How many centuries back can they take us? It is up to us.

Personally, I think that this is just something that has to happen. It is the nature of man, pure and simple. Only after we are completely crushed can something better rise out of the ashes of the American empire.

But know this: we live in interesting times. The entire world is truly at a crossroads at this point in history, and whether the right or-much more likely-the wrong path is chosen, we can at least say we were there when the choice was made.

Because the planet is being changed and we may already be extinct:

The phytoplankton that make 70% of our oxygen is dying off.

Global warming is melting the ice caps. The fresh water can shut off the Gulf Stream (partly driven by salinity chemical dynamics) which can freeze Europe.

Animal species are disappearing.

This is indeed the Age of the Tipping Point. Life or Death for humanity decided in our lifetimes.

It's long been known as "the Culture War". And it is a rerun, of sorts, of the Civil War. In issues, in people, in levels and changes of relative power.

I don't buy the conspiracy aspect; it's more opportunistic collusion against the public good. And the propaganda technique you describe is called 'juxtaposition' or 'associationism'. (The Catholic Church would put crucifixes up with Jesus having a large money baggy on his hip- yes, while on the Cross- in the 1100s when the Pope came under criticism for his extravagance.)

If you read a description of the Civil War, like Grant's Memoirs or Sherman's, you can see lots and lots of parallels in the developments and arrangements of both sides. The South was 'an armed camp', it had a censored press to the point that parts of the civilian population in South Carolina was shocked to find out that those were Union troops marching through in early 1865 (Sherman was supposedly destroyed at Atlanta) and the people of Richmond thought Lee had won a great victory on April 2 of that year until they realized the Confederate government was getting on the trains and fleeing. The Commissioners of Secession said stuff like "Without slavery, there is no freedom." The Confederate Constitution contained a free trade clause. States' Rights were holy unless you wanted to secede from the CSA, which states weren't allowed to (Missouri, in 1863).

Gingrichism and its political 'incivility' (absolutism) is basically the Secession. And if you match the years of the Civil War to Presidential terms, there is a correspondence of events of a kind. Bush Sr.'s term was sorta like 1861, Clinton's terms fit to the campaigns of '62 and '63- his impeachment/nonremoval matches to Chancellorsville/Gettysburg-, Bush Jr.'s is a good fit to 1864. It's all more complicated than that but it works to remarkable detail. It works to fairly good predictive power, actually. E.g. Clinton as Grant, Daschle as Meade, W as John Hood, Herbie as Joe Johnston, Gore as Rosencrans, DeLay as Early, Bob Dole as Van Dorn, etc. The run-ups to both conflicts have pretty strong similarities, too.

But if you take your idea seriously, you can probably figure out what the rational strategy for Democrats should be- who the best/most appropriate leaders are, what issues are important and which ones only money and effort badly spent. Tell us about that!

The title is meant ironically, but often it is quite true.


3. There is a slowdown in the growth of Christian power. The country is evolving its own way culturally. As we enter the digital age we shed the old myths in the light of new ones that fit better with our observations. This modern age of reason is, itself, a threat to the perfect airtight logic vacuums of religion that so effectively controlled peoples thoughts and ambition for tens of centuries. This leads to blowback from the radical Christian agenda that sees itself fizzling out. So they call for a "revival" a cleansing of the progressive element from America.


I am so sick and tired of blanket criticisms on religion and spirituality that I could just vomit all over the screen. Not all men and women of spiritual faith see reason as a threat to anything, nor as the enemy of spiritual life. Not all men and women who embrace a personal spiritual experience have a relationship to dogma, or institutional control or anything else. Not all men and women who use the language of Christian tradition as their tools for articulating spiritual realities are fundamentalists, literal biblical interpreters, or classical theists. And not all personal spiritual understandings are contradictory to reason or intellect - they can be honest about truth, humble about ignorance, open to learning and discovery, and about the business of peace of heart and mind and joy of spirit.

But oh no, in this context of liberals and progressives, amongst a group of people who are supposed to be sophisticated, rational and well-informed, we have the most ridiculous and sweeping generalizations of all religion all the time. "Fundamentalist" dogmatic individuals have been a part of religion forever. They have also been a part of politics, and science (yes, that's right) and any other institutionalized structure. I agree that as modern advances continue to debunk some of the ancient and super-mystical dogmas of classical theism, fundamentalists lash out with greater tenacity as they feel their worldview threatened.

In other words, I probably agree with the spirit of your point on the religious question. You probably did not mean that any person anywhere who has a personal private experience which they call spiritual or religious is an idiot living in an airtight vacuumed of logic and responsible for ten centuries of oppression. You probably meant that the fanatical fundamentalists, a particularly nasty subset of certain religions deserves such critiques. But as a spiritual man who knows beyond any shadow of doubt that the symbolism of my personal religious language has made my life better, and as a person who does not attempt to force that understanding on any other living soul, I deeply RESENT being always, always, always, lumped into one generic category with other religious wackos.

My spiritual life has done nothing but make me a more loving compassionate person, and deepen and enrich my own sense of peace with myself and joy of life. Guess what, the spiritual life has the effect for many people. Many other people abuse religion. Just like neo-conservatives abuse the tradition of the republican party, just like some democrats abuse the tradition of the democratic party, just like some fringe scientists abuse and misuse the name of science, just like some business executives turn business into a horrible and exploitative hell. Guess what, not all business is bad, not all democrats are bad, not all scientists are bad, not all Republicans are bad (I know, its shocking).

So can we please, just remember this fact. I am a religious person, and I neither ask you to be nor apologize for that fact. I am not an ignorant idiot, I am well educated in the sciences, teach logic and believe in the power and value of critical thinking and a rational investigation of our experience of the world, both empirical and intuitive. I do not run around blowing up abortion clinics or spewing anti-gay hate speech, or telling everyone they are going to hell - and I am so sick and fucking tired of being lumped into that stereotype I just want to scream.

And before you say you were not speaking of me - yes you were. You said "religion" not "some people's religion" or "fanatical fundamentalists" or "the far religious right" or whatever else. You just said religion. I don't ask you to embrace my beliefs. But as a fellow democrat and a progressive, I ask you to give me some respect by making a DISTINCTION between fundamentalists or the "Christian right" and all forms of religious understanding.

Thanks.

Since I'm new here, I should probably keep quiet and just read, but... what you said is so very relevant, and, so far, hasn't received a reply, so here I go, jumping in where angels fear to tread...

I definitely hear the pain in your post, and also know that same pain of being painted with the same brush. The pain is increased because I expect more of "librals", and still think I *should* be able to expect more of those who pride themselves on being more accepting and inclusive. It just plain hurts to be in the position of defending oneself so often.

I was personally hurt by "churchy" people, so I don't have much place for it in my life. However, I also recognize that many of the more progressive actions are taken by spiritual people, and it's in direct relation to their strong beliefs. That is to be admired and celebrated. Frankly, I envy you your beliefs. I know that it can bring so much peace. It just has the opposite effect for me... wish it didn't. So, I appreciate what you have to say.

As it happens, I feel the same way about the issue of "assistance" programs. The right wing calls me a parasite, and the left seems to feel the necessity to preface any "support" by saying "We all know there are a lot of people ripping off the system." Yeah, it helps me get stronger to keep hearing that all the time, and feeling expected to prove how I'm not one of "them". NOT.

I'm tired. I can appreciate that you are, also.

Thanks for your post.

Kanary

I'm glad to hear from you. :D

"In other words, I probably agree with the spirit of your point on the religious question. You probably did not mean that any person anywhere who has a personal private experience which they call spiritual or religious is an idiot living in an airtight vacuumed of logic and responsible for ten centuries of oppression. You probably meant that the fanatical fundamentalists, a particularly nasty subset of certain religions deserves such critiques. But as a spiritual man who knows beyond any shadow of doubt that the symbolism of my personal religious language has made my life better, and as a person who does not attempt to force that understanding on any other living soul, I deeply RESENT being always, always, always, lumped into one generic category with other religious wackos."

What in particular I meant, was the sleazy soul fishers who are presenting some type of sophisticated arguments to con the victim into "giving their life to god", i.e. brainwashing - abandoning reason and control. For example - presenting an image of eternal damnation almost serves as a terroristic threat to scare someone into relinquishing reason. These people turn spirituality into Multi Level Marketing.

So I apologize for overgeneralizing and I'm glad you knew what my intending meaning was.

Thanks to the posters who have articulated and expanded the ideas far better than I was able to. There are some excellent posts in this thread.

How far is everyone here willing to go to see to it that this empire that Bush is TRYING to forge is strangled in the cradle?

I need not say anything save that it is a far better thing to die on your feet with a sword in hand than live on your knees as a slave bereft of all freedom, glory, and honour that you once possessed. Death comes to all in the end anyway, would you rather look upon your life as you lay dying on the battlefield of freedom or lying in your bed dying because you cannot afford medicine for the cancers that devour you while your countrymen fight to the last?

This is not a revolutionary society. The only choice is to observe and try to make sense of it all in relation to man's existence on Earth.

is when they tried to get rid of "classic coke" and replace it with "new coke". Now THAT pissed people off.

It's pathetic.

Is if people HERE will fight.

All it takes is one loud, articulate, and determined voice. If nothing else, it can get the rest of the world to save us from ourselves before it is too late.

right now the closest thing we have is Howard Dean.

The only thing that bothers me about this is that everybody seems to think that thing will be all hunky dory if we simply vote Bush out of office.

We need to send these people to jail. Or even to death row. And the sooner the better. The longer we wait, the more people die.

But how? Short of "things you're not supposed to talk about on DU"

That and we shouldn't have just ONE leader if things come down to that. All your eggs in one basket.

I saw that on a truck the other day (in Indiana). And I thought "what is up with that?" Obviously SOME people never will get over it. And it does seem to be fueling anger beyond the South by those of a certain persuasion.

Someone has probably studied this - but there does seem to have been a backlash following the Civil Rights movement where those groups of people who wanted to keep rights away from other groups have turned their anger towards whatever Fundamental cause they can come up with. Especially against groups such as Feminists, gays, etc. that also started to feel that they may also have rights that had been denied.

Jerry Falwell spoke so "well" for them when he blamed 9/11 on the Feminists and Pagans and Gays and whoever else he blamed.

It is like a river of bad feelings that one could watch flow from one thing to the next.

Review from Amazon.com:
This book is a clear and thorough analysis of one of the worst shortcomings of contemporary politics, democratic or tyrannical: the transformation of the public sphere into a mere show, a spectacle for audiences, not for citizens. Substance is always constricted by the spectacle. Hard, evident truths can not be expressed for fear of enraging the audience. Irrelevant debates obscure the issues our societies should be discussing. Politics as spectacle is what explains the kind of political leaderships, enmities and controversies that exist. Murray Edelman is very good at telling some of the hard truths I mentioned, one of the most important being that new political leaders, right from the start of their careers, have to follow the rules of politics as spectacle, otherwise, their careers get to nothing and they are unable to accomplish anything anyway, talented and brave as they may be. Politics as spectacle is the cause that a whole nation is for years focused on the sexual errands of a President, while other important things are happening to that very nation, with seldom anybody pointing at the real issues. Politics as spectacle is the cause that a crazy Marxist with a pipe and a ski mask marches around a nation (Mexico) with supporters who know nothing about the issues in discussion.

Summing up, Edelman has written a very good argument about how politics is the construction of a big spectacle in which every actor plays its role. One very interesting point brought up by Edelmann is that ethnic and religious conflicts are usually the result of manipulative politics by skilled but immoral politicians. That is, if those potential conflicts have nothing to give to political leaders, most likely they will not erupt, but will be solved in time. I think this book is a must read for anybody interested in knowing how contemporary politics (and, I would say, politics in all yimes) are constructed. Once you know the truth, you will be far harder to deceive.

All of what you described is pretty well summed up in Social Construction theory (covered best by Edelman). It is a must read. You will NEVER look at the world the same way again.

THAT seminal idea should irk the glacial majority into doing something.
Howe much proof, how many disasters and how much exposure to really unlikeable, spiteful gloating fantasists can we take in this age of mass coimmunication. It's not dressing up the sow's ear, but interpreting it that suffices for propaganda today. It's still a sow's ear and it's running everything into the ground.

:kick:

and actually printed it out! :-)

I do think there are many ways to understand what's going on in 21st Century USA. I'm just reading a book that frames things a bit differently.

Here's part of the editor's review...
"The American Foundation Myth in Vietnam" deals with how the results of the Vietnam War challenged the long-standing belief in America's role in the world as a unique nation favored by God that carries a global responsibility with it. The author disputes the commonly held belief that America discarded this foundation myth, developed out of John Winthrop's idea of a "city on a hill," following Vietnam. He reexamines the myth in the context of American history to show that the country still firmly attaches itself to the rhetoric of the foundation myth. The analysis divides Americans into one group that believes America's mission cannot be fulfilled without active involvement on the global stage, and one that maintains that its mythic goals are fulfilled most effectively by developing itself as the world's model for freedom and democracy.

I think you can legitimately insert Iraq for Vietnam in much of the discussion (except for the discussion of the post-Vietnam era, since we aren't post-Iraq just yet) and have the thesis hold up.

It really doesn't look good for those of us who aren't in the "Trust Jesus" camp though.

Now, let me tangle up this foundation myth with something else. Since I work on a college campus, I had the opportunity to attend a lecture on "Prejudice Without Intention" during my lunch hour. In one part of his presentation the instructor asked us to raise our hands if we believed that we were at least average, if not better than average, in the category of being a good friend. Of course everyone raised his or her hand. Then he asked us if there were anyone who felt that he or she was worse than average in that category, and of course not one hand went up. The conclusion that followed was that as different as we all must be, not one of us was willing to claim the "worse than average" category.

The lecture went on, but I think there's a lesson there... namely that the right wingers are convinced that they are at least average and probably better than average on the morality scale, on the intelligence scale, and on the patriotic scale. And, interestingly enough, the left wingers think exactly the same about themselves!

Ergo... I wonder if framing issues in terms of a "civil war," psychological or otherwise, is appropriate. We all believe, somewhere deep in our little hearts, that the U.S. is at least an average, if not a better than average nation. And we all believe that we are basically good people. The problems come when we assume that those who are different from ourselves are worse than average.

Maybe we have actually some common goal, and simply see different ways of reaching that goal? And maybe we are so busy marginalizing and criticising the other side that we do a disservice to them and to ourselves. Maybe we both are right, or maybe we both are wrong or even maybe we all are a little right and a little wrong... who knows, really? Maybe we on the left need to admit to, if not religiosity at least a spirituality in our lives. Maybe we need to tone down the criticism of the country, and once in a while talk about something that we all are doing well. Heck, even Bush must do something right once in a while, since statistically even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

I'm not saying that we need to all start being little Mister or Miss Sunshine, but maybe whenever we can we need to find commonalities. Who knows but that if we try, the other side might try also.

It seems to me that the deeply held beliefs of people motivate their behavior far more than all the logic in the world.

So, I ramble and I'll be still now. It was just my 2 cents anyhow. :shrug:

except that I think it may go back further than the civil war thingy.

I think the Christians are still pissed about blowing it as being the crusaders, in the 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries to recover the Holy Land from the Moslems.

The Crusaders believed they had God on their side. Since they couldn't permit the notion that He was a lesser God than the Infidels' God, the only reason for their defeat must have been that they didn't fight hard enough, believe hard enough, hate hard enough, to get His approval and support. And since it certainly wasn't possible that their side and their God were WRONG, for goodness' sake, then there was no other explanation.

In response to another post further up-thread, allow me to say that I do not think it is appropriate to tar all people of faith with the same brush that we criticize the fundamentalists of any faith. On the other hand, however, I think it is equally important, no matter how difficult, not to whitewash all religions and believers simply because there are some good ones.

IMHO, and again I offer the disclaimer that I am an avowed atheist, faith and spirituality must of necessity involve personal experience and commitment. They cannot be imposed. For those who maintain their spirituality as a personal thing and do not try to impose it even indirectly on others, I have the greatest respect and even admiration.

But for those who insist their righteousness as non-intrusive believers must extend to all believers, I merely say that they are, in so insisting, trying to impose their belief on others.

Walk in peace and beauty,

Tansy Gold

Kicking, sorry I didn't read it yesterday


:dem:

You're right about the South not getting over the Civil War. To Wit: I recently had occasion to work alongside a Southern white man about my age (25,: I was born in California) on a construction project. It was hard work on a hot day, and when we broke for lunch, I wasn't in the mood to do much talking and let the other fellow carry the conversation, in which he informed me that the Civil War wasn't about slavery, but a war for freedom by the South, and that he supposed I was an alright fellow because California was more or less neutral in the war. Never mind that none of us had been talking about the Civil War in particular or history in general. Never mind that there were three big black guys at the next booth (we were eating in a McDonalds). This fellow, like a born-again Christian just dying to tell you the Good News, simply had to inform me about the "truth" of a conflict I'd never given a second thought too. I don't think that every southern white man feels the same way, but where there's one, there's another and another. The idea of "the South will rise again" is not dead, nor is the racism it masks