drieuxster (drieuxster) wrote,

Blog against theocracy week end

For the reference Blog Against THEOCRACY which of course the nice folks over at talk2action: it's blog against theocracy weekend were kind enough to remind folks.

The comedy challenge of these times is that we have so many 'pro-war-like' rhetorical posturing out there, and yet, we are facing the scary times that these folks then play duck and cover about how pro-war like they really meant to be, as opposed to actually being. I put the pro-war problem into play here since we have the big bug problem that we have so few calls for national wars, and/or wars of coalitions of nation states. Instead we are looking at the problem of religious trans-national groups seeking to embark upon warfare to rescue us from the horror of which ever political system we are in.

If we are not careful, we might wander away from asymetric warfare scenario's and, tragedy of tragedies, revert to the boredom and tedium of life after the Holy Wars.

I just laughed at the funny in jon stewart's take down of the CNN freak show that is erik erikson, the red state blogger who is not sure which is the position he should be taking, now that his original media gaming at red state got him the job. Fortunately for CNN it is not like they are concerned with what happens, just so long as folks bring eyeballs to adverts. That is the business model, and the rest of it, well, there is something about a fourthier estate, and some truthier stuff, but isn't that really the department for places like comedy central?

This is not good.

It will help americans if they find a way to opt-in on a factualist based world view. This would allow them to work out what is true and what is false, and what types of questions are not at all resolvable. Yes, an argument can be made that the collapse of factualism in the evil liberal media has obliged americans to join 'the intelligence' revolution in which they need to learn the skill mix to know how to vet sources. One of the more interesting turns of phrase:
The FBI failed to understand the Guardians' peaceful intentions.
The appearance of Mr. Boustred in the mix may give some clue to the assertion by the Guardians that they had an agreement with "the military" to support their quiet coup.

[ cf Guardians of the free Republics looked to Gandhi, King, and Mandela ]
But of course those FBI guys are the enemy, eh no?

Ah yes... Can we return to those kinder gentler more halcyon days when all we needed was:
Support the Presidente,
To Support the Troops
and that was going to solve everything, because we would
Kick Their Ass,
and take their Gas.
Which I think helped fuel the economic miracle, eh no?

Or maybe not.

When I crawl into the unpleasant space, what keeps on worrying me is that ugly little question that I keep running into year after year. All of these pro-war fans, the fine folks who will of course advocate restoring some mythological christian nation that we would have been in the past, keep fumbling over how to get back to that never happened past! While at the same time raising all of these alleged war poseur position - such as the fight against this form, or that form, of Nazi Commie Death Kamps, and are all good about that war language. Right up until the indictments start rolling in on Levying War on The United States Of America at which point they either skuttle away saying that they had no way of knowing that folks would take them literally, or sideways trying to blame everyone else around them.

Most folks are of course pleased as punch that this or that terrorist threat event did not go as horribly wrong as it could have gone. It's not as bad as, which ever was the last instance of a domestic terrorist operation gone bad.

But what bothers me is that the core problem of the empire falling and the unbelievers arriving in their long boats to take over our white christian american way of life has not diminished. But we now have more folks who have come out with such a willingness to be the new stasi to the new overlords, beause, well, it is not like any of them meant any of the scary stuff about war fighting to restore and/or rescue the republic, you know after the empire falls.

{ why is it that christianists are all into the fun of Gibbon's The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire but are always a wee bit dodgey about their commitment to the Fall of the Roman Republic? }

I must say that the fun of the dominionists biblical literalism is that, gosh, you know, there is really nothing in the bible about republics, or elected officials, deriving their authority from the consent of the people. You really do have to support them on that part of their factualism. But doesn't that raise the even deeper problem - When a christianist has sworn their oath of honor to defend the United States Constitution - have they arrived at a conflict of interest? Or do they paper over that problem with the holy belief that it really is not as if they have an obligation to anyone in that nation save the saved?

For those watching the problems in Gaza, it is not easy for Hamas to rule in a state in which the core business model is religious charity for persons willing to kill 'the others'. Should americans be looking at that as a thot experiment and warning? Should they be looking to the internal conflict in Israel between the religiously Zionist and the secular communists, and, well the sabra, who just want to dance and meet gender affectionally appropriate persons?

Should americans look at waziristan, and the long and winding road, that was not on the beatle's albums, but covers amongst other problems the RAF's failure to pacify the area with what was in the 30's the state of the art air warfare mechanisms? Should we be looking at the crisis of faith about how do we want to allow autonomous unregulated religious crazy stations? Have we as a society gone past what we could do with that interesting approach to the problem? Or will we keep revisiting it as a part of the fail?

For a bit of completeness yes, we should make at least a reference to Persepolis the 2007 terrorist film by enemies of the state, since, how can anyone oppose the True Religion! and hence also the True Religious State! And.... or would this be a bad time to remind americans that not all Taliban are Shi'ite...

Hum.... Or should we just keep on disco ducking around the usual problems. In John Yoo's America, where the president is allowed to make as many nanking massacre's as are required for the domestic political expediencies, we really should take this holy weekend and wonder which positions do we as americans really want to be taking? Would we like a retreat to a mere rule of law?

Do we need to keep re-writing our history so that we live in the kinder, gentler america where there was no Father of Hate Radio? You know, the fun folks who were willing to rationalize their support for [GODWIN LAW MOMENT] and musselini? Ah yes... those fun times, when the communists and radical hard left were engaged in the terrorism of supporting the republic in spain against the fine folks whom the pope was supporting? Ah yes - the complications that we as a nation are still not sure we want to address openly in polite society.

Or can we some day find a way to be not only an actual historical nation, but also merely one more republics amongst other republics? Where it would be safe for folks like thomas paine to live. The actual historical thomas paine whom so many condemned for being an atheist because he was not christianist enough for them.

What if americans had to actually live in the actual flow of their actual history?

Would they still be able to arrive at a desire to restore a theocracy?

  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.