America by Thought Control: Sarah Palin's Pseudo-liberality

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

One of our guys remarked that Sarah Palin's Tea Party promotion book should be called, "America by Tart." Although I appreciate the humor behind the jab, I seriously doubt the Palin cult would share in the joke. Even though I cannot share Palin's egocentric admiration for American exceptionalism, I sympathize with her plight of being a victim of her environment. She demonstrates the potential for growth despite the fear she shows toward higher understanding.

Palin on Max Lucado

Palin holds up Max Lucado's work as an inspiration to shift from self-centerednes to Jesus-centeredness, but it is a flat-earth Jesus she and Lucado place on a pedestal. Just as there is a divinity above the level of the material Creator, there is a Jesus above the level of the flat-earth clown worshiped and glorified by the likes of Palin. Spiritual birth does not come from cultivated ignorance and superstitious groveling. Palin and her ilk deliberately refuse to seek out the truth for fear it will set them free.

Palin on Sufis

We could sum up Palin's attitude toward the planned Sufi community center in downtown Manhattan as: "If you fail to respect my religious intolerance, you are a bigot." Rather than insist that all Muslims are to blame for the attack on the World Trade Center, Palin should spend some time learning about the influence of American money in cultivating Muslim extremism. Perhaps then she would have a "Copernican shift" and realize that America is not as pure and holy as she assumes. She may also realize that by attacking a Sufi center, she executes the will of Islamists who despise the Sufis and consider them to be heretics.

Obligatory Anti-Communism

Palin makes quite a bit of hay over the rejection of the material Creator of the flat and immobile Earth by Lenin and his followers. She immediately writes Marxist-Leninists off as atheists simply because they fail to kowtow to her favorite idol. She sees herself a "free" yet she lacks the will to transcend the shackles of her "faith." The biggest difference between the U.S. and the Soviet Union was not that the Soviet government lacked religion, but that their material Creator icon bore a name foreign to Palin's experience.

The Source of Civility

Palin makes the assumption that civility stems from religion. If she truly believed that, she would seek a greater civility in a religion that doesn't condone brutality in the name of civility. What she fails to comprehend are the limitations of her own faith. At least she acknowledges a human inability to conceive of divine will. Given her hypocrisy in other areas, I can only take this as a mere lip service. Her position on religious tolerance seems to be an appeal to people of a more liberal faith than her own.

On Human Progress

Palin points out that people have a desire to improve things. She doesn't comment on the subjectivity of personal frames of reference for what constitutes improvement. There is an absolutism in her writing style that doesn't consider relativity. She is clearly grounded in a frame of reference that is better suited to the thirteenth century. Improvement within that frame means reversing the changes that have happened since then.

Condescending Humility

Palin takes the high ground in claiming that reaching out to Muslims on engineering accomplishments is "condescending" to Muslims. This seems like turning the event on its head. Heaven forefend we should recognize Muslim contributions to the sciences for fear of being condescending. It's better and less condescending to try to shut Muslims out of lower Manhattan. In Palin's world, up is down, left is right, forward is backward.

Founding Padres

Plain claims that "the men who laid the foundation of our republic said so little about the institution of the family." On the contrary, they wrote volumes about a family that Palin will never comprehend because her focus is on a flat-earth family. She sides with the Paxton Boys in their rally to seek revenge. She cannot appreciate the efforts of Benjamin Franklin to extend family protection to the victims of her own blindness.

Film Criticism

Palin claims that the movie "Green Zone" does a disservice to American soldiers. Either she never saw the movie and is clueless of how it portrays a virtuous soldier against a vicious bureaucrat, or she saw the movie and chose to lie about it. Either way, her rant discourages her cult followers from seeking the truth about the film. It also defends scum-sucking sycophants like Doug Feith with "Support our troops!" jingoism.

Absent Freedom

Palin claims that American youth have "never known the absence of freedom," yet they lived their entire lives as wards of a guardian. This explains the meaning of "freedom" when spoken by Palin. She equates living under subjugation with "freedom." Obviously, people who live outside the domain of subjugation live outside of "freedom."

Rage Against the Machine

Palin admires the move, "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington," as an example of triumph of American virtue over machine politics. What she fails to realize is that machine politics has bee a corrupting force since the days of Hamilton's establishment of a fundamentalist machine to promote despotism in federal policy. She also sweeps under the rug the fact that the Tea Party is itself a corrupting machine ant that she is a force for corruption in her espousal of despotic policies.

Health & Human Rights

Palin claims to promote human rights, but she attacks any right to health care outside of physician-approved rights. Her material Creator seems to smile on the AMA, private insurance providers, and right-to-life flat-earthers.

Declaratory Interpretation

Palin interprets the "Creator" of the Declaration of Independence to mean her very own personal Creator (who happens to be the master mind behind racism, sexism, and homophobia). The Deists of the time had a very different perspective on the Bible and on creation than the one espoused by Palin. We can see this in the issue of property rights. The Declaration of Independence substitutes the right to pursue happiness for the traditional right to property. The top minds of the time knew that property rights could not be considered equal. Doing so would imply that everyone has the right to sleep in your bed.

Constitutional Warning Label

Palin fails to comprehend the idea of putting a warning label on the Constitution for adult content. One of her admirers sent her a copy of the Constitution that warned parents that the language inside could be found offensive. Palin has never encountered the emotional reaction that children have when they encounter what they perceive as racist or sexist language. She fails to see that one of the personal liberties "enshrined" in the Constitution is the liberty to subjugate fellow human beings.

Comments

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

The biggest difference between the Soviet Union and the United States is that in one political opponents were silenced by being run out of town tarred and feathered and ridden on a rail, in the other they were shot in the back of the head and dumped anonymously in mass graves or worked to death in slave labor camps. I love this falsification atheists go to in order to turn the USSR into a Bizarro-Theocracy.

Just as Hitler's love of dogs does not make dog-lovers mass murderers, so does the USSR's state atheism not reflect on all atheism now and through the course of human history. Attempts to make it as though the League of the Militant Godless never existed, however, are on par with the claim that Hitler and Goering were diehard worshipers of Khorne and Slaanessh bent on throwing humankind to the Power of Old Night.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

And for Chrissakes she's the political Perez Hilton, not Father Coughlin or Huey P. Long. She just takes very literally the concept that politics is show business for ugly people (and to be blunt, I'd rather have Angie Harmon for POTUS as at least then the Wingnuts would be running someone who's actually worth the lauding about her looks. I suppose Palin looks sexy next to other politicians, but then there's the old saying about some fences being so low any cow can jump over them).

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

I know Karl Rove will be more than ready to shred Palin, should she make a run at the republican primaries.

Good point.

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

And Palin's hypocrisy doesn't imply that all Alaskans are hypocrites.

No doubt:

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Given she couldn't get her own puppet candidate in a victory in a state she completed half her term as governor in. Palin's not Father Coughlin or Stephen Douglas, to be actually *viable* as a candidate. She's more Huey Long or William Pelley than either of those.

[prader.livejournal.com]

The Deists of the time had a very different perspective on the Bible...

That's great, but irrelevant in the context of the founding fathers who signed the Declaration of Independence, who were mostly (over 50%) Episcopalian. Followed closely by Congregationalists (23%.)

And I say this as someone who used to think the founders were predominantly Deist until I looked it up myself.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

They mostly got their theology from the Freemasons as opposed to the Church. Certainly if they were good Anglicans they would not have led a revolution against the Head of the Church, His Majesty George III.

[prader.livejournal.com]

That's possible. Do you have any evidence for it?

[prader.livejournal.com]

And also. now that I think of it, what would the theology of Freemasons be? Gnosticism?

Not all Deists...

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

... were Freemasons. It is more likely that Freemasons got some theology from Deists. A better source for Deist ideas was the study of classical literature. Only the higher degrees of Freemasonry paid much attention to the classics. Also, not all classical scholarship was done under the protection of the Masonic Craft.

[anosognosia.livejournal.com]

Anglican theology has been an awfully mixed bunch for quite a while now.

I imagine the most important influence on the fathers is a line of thought coming from Locke, which prominently includes but is not at all limited to deism.

This would largely be thought within the Anglican church, but perhaps not what we would call an orthodox or conservative tradition of it. Then again, most Anglicans now aren't what we would call orthodox of conservative... it remains an awfully mixed bunch.

That's because...

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

.. Deists attended the services of the mainstream religious institutions. I attend an Episcopalian service, but I am not an Episcopalian.

Re: That's because...

[anosognosia.livejournal.com]

Do Episcopalians allow deists to take communion?

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Your anti-Christian diatribe here just isn't interesting enough to pick apart. Maybe next time.

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

Hey man, she worships a spiritual clown. Not a flat-earth clown. That's just crazy.

The anti-Christianity...

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

... is in Palin's work, not my comments on it. Anything that belittles flat-earthers is considered anti-Christian only by those with a limited paradigm of Christianity.

[green-man-2010.livejournal.com]

She fails to see that one of the personal liberties "enshrined" in the Constitution is the liberty to subjugate fellow human beings.

Really?
Speaking as an ignorant Limey on the subject of the US Constitution, I want to ask
"Does it make some vague statement about 'citizens may hold property' or does it specifically uphold the right of US Citizens to go out and buy black people as slaves"?

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

It's the vague thing about owning property and much like how we use language now like 'unlawful enemy combatants' to deny groups of people rights, the legalism of the time was framing slaves as property not people.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Technically speaking the Constitution of 1790 very much did authorize buying and selling human beings. Unlike the Confederate Constitution it used the euphemisms "persons in services" or "all other persons" but everyone at the time knew damned good and well what it meant. Lincoln, the lawyer, knew this better than anyone, hence why he defined the Emancipation Proclamation solely as a war measure/ultimatum and the real "Emancipation" was the 13th Amendment. Without the latter the former would have been (at least there would have been an attempt to do this) rapidly undone.

On the upside...

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

... the Constitution included a time limit on the slave trade. Massah simply failed to see the writing on the wall.

[rasilio.livejournal.com]

"Palin and her ilk deliberately refuse to seek out the truth for fear it will set them free."

No they don't. They believe they already know the truth and the whole truth and therefore any additional searching can only serve to distract them. Your posts might actually carry some weight if you at least tried to understand the world view of those you are attacking

That their belief is wrong does not matter it is not that they are intentionally self deceiving, it is that their beliefs are overriding their logical faculties.



"She is clearly grounded in a frame of reference that is better suited to the thirteenth century. Improvement within that frame means reversing the changes that have happened since then"

Also clearly not true. Modern Fundamentalist Christians do not seek a return to the "Divine right of Kings" or a reassertion of feudalism. Similarly they do not seek a return of slavery or a roll back on hundreds of years of technological progress (in fact most attribute the wealth of the West and the US in particular as a blessing from god for being the most "godly" people on the planet). Finally and most importantly they do not seek a return to the Catholic Church and the bible only being available in Latin with the only access to it's teachings being through the filter of the Priesthood.

Yes it is true that they are absolutists and that their minds are remarkably inflexible but once again you show that you are more interested in portraying them as backwards looking neanderthals than actually understanding them and attacking them for what they really believe.



"Palin claims that American youth have "never known the absence of freedom," yet they lived their entire lives as wards of a guardian. This explains the meaning of "freedom" when spoken by Palin. She equates living under subjugation with "freedom." Obviously, people who live outside the domain of subjugation live outside of "freedom.""

It does explain what she means by freedom but as usual you are incapable of comprehending it. The problem with the word freedom is that it is a tricky one. What does it mean to be free?

One of the best examinations on the subject I've encountered to date is in a Heinlein Novel called "Citizen of the Galaxy" in which the main character begins his life as a slave and ends it as the owner of one of the largest mega corporations in the galaxy transitioning through with a couple of stops in between each exposing him to different types of freedom. In another view of it there is Margret Atwood's "The Handmaid's Tale" in which the girls are taught to embrace the Freedom From rather than the Freedom To.

So in the end comprehending exactly what a speaker means by Freedom is essential to understanding what they are saying as freedom means something different to every person who ever lived. When a Conservative like Palin speaks of Freedom they are speaking specifically of the lack of legal barriers to pursuing the life one desires. From this point of view the fact that a child has not had the opportunity to make decisions for themselves because they have been wards of their parents (or some other adult figure) is irrelevant because the natural order of things requires that children be wards of some adult.

[rasilio.livejournal.com]

"Palin claims to promote human rights, but she attacks any right to health care outside of physician-approved rights. Her material Creator seems to smile on the AMA, private insurance providers, and right-to-life flat-earthers"

And yet again you fail to understand your opponent choosing to frame her views in your own terms. Conservatives deny any right to health care for the same reason they deny a right to sex a right to food, a right to housing, a right to clothing, etc. It has nothing whatsoever to so with their views on a creator it has to do with their views on natural rights and specifically only acknowledging negative rights while rejecting positive rights.

To the Conservative (and libertarian) view you cannot possess any right which creates an obligation for another to undertake any positive course of action, you only possess right which require others to refrain from taking actions. So you have a right to life because no one is required to take any action to allow you to live, merely refrain from killing you. You do not have any right to any of the other things I mentioned above because all of them create a positive obligation on someone else to provide them for you.

Now you may disagree with positive rights being invalid but that does not change anything nor does it automatically make a Conservative's view that they any more or less rooted in their belief in a deity and your attempt to frame it as if the only possible reason that they hold this belief is their sky daddy told them to only weakens your arguments.

(I will note on this issue however that it is unlikely that Palin herself actually understands the difference between positive and negative rights and only grasps that there is something wrong with considering Health Care a right at a gut level without really being able to effectively explain why she believes that)

Your spin on the right...

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

... to life is rather half-baked. There are errors of commission and errors of omission. If society withholds what an individual needs to live, then society kills the person by an act of omission. Likewise, forcing a woman to carry a fetus to term is a way to provide the fetus with what it needs in order to survive, albeit through coercion.

As far as my failure to understand Palin, the issue is more like an ability to understand her on a level at which she and her supporters would prefer her not to be understood.

All your strawmen are belong to us

[reality-hammer.livejournal.com]

When all you have is a hammer every problem starts looking like a nail.

[abomvubuso.livejournal.com]

DQ'ed.