Why Glenn Beck Is the Modern-Day Girolamo Savonarola

   Here's this for the sake of a brief history lesson if you need one.  I don't expect you to be familiar with Florentine history.

   Anyway.

   Now, I'm not saying Glenn Beck's next step is book burning and forcibly removing people's personal property, but what I am saying is that the two men have extremely similar styles of rhetoric and even came into prominence in the same fashion while having been regarded in much the same way before their rise.  It's absolutely worth noting that until fairly recently, I've not been all that against Glenn Beck and what he does.  I've been able to look the other way at the social calls and general "God stuff" so long as his focus was on being a watch dog for the extremist elements of the Progressive movement, the evils of George Soros and the nutjobs in the dark recesses of President Obama's administration.

   What he's doing now is harder to ignore, what he's doing now reeks of proselytising and it does so in a way I can only describe as nefarious.  It is much the same kind of strategy of "preemption" adopted by the Holy Roman Empire in its early days (and especially so before the first Crusades) as today adopted by modern American Protestants.  This is not, however, what give Beck his shades of Savonarola in my eyes.

   Girolamo Savonarola rose to power in Florence after French armies under Charles VIII drove out the ruling Medici family and their closest beneficiaries.  As the Medici had basically been de facto rulers (not to say that their rule was anything but absolute), Tuscany and especially Florence were left with a definite power vacuum.  With the powers tied to the Medici gone, even the budding middle classes of Florence were left voiceless.

   What happened in this vacuum?  Savonarola, a extremist Dominican friar who had, before the flight of the Medici out of Florence, been seen mostly as a rambling crank, suddenly developed a popular following.  At first, it was only with his fellow "far right" sorts, but over time, as Florence looked for leadership and a unifying voice, more and more of the middle class stood behind Savonarola.

   Now, let's stop for a second.  It's true and entirely fair to say that a lot of Savonarola's message at first was actually pretty fair.  The Catholic Church had become incredibly corrupt and the ascendancy of Alexander VI to the Papacy was an excellent example of this.  In an era of corrupt, whoremongering, murderous and downright villainous Popes, Alexander VI was a stellar example of an incredible bastard, it's fair to say that his rise to Pope was one that can be followed in a trail of blood.  To wit, cantarella, a form of arsenic, is historically tied to Alexander VI and the rest of the Borgia family because it was arguably their favourite way of killing people.  So it's fair to say that, at least at first, Savonarola's railing against the Papacy, the corruption in the upper echelons of Florentine society and the church and his general call for the Florentine people to expect more from their government and church was, actually, not that bad and not even that extreme.

   However, as more power, specifically public opinion, aligned itself behind Savonarola, his extreme views came to bear.  He called for an end to personal property, a return to a time of simplicity and freedom from the corruption of materialism and "impure knowledge".  At first it was a popular movement and entirely voluntary, but it wasn't long at all before Savonarola's vision of an ideal society became mandatory and the remaining middle and upper class that served under the patronage of the Medici aligned behind Savonarola, giving this batshit monk obscene social power.  Thankfully, this undeniably insane individual was lynched and burned to death by the very people he oppressed and freedom, thought and gambling returned to Florence.

   Glenn Beck rose to power in the same way.  His time on Headline News was spent being viewed as a joke, a rambling goober on the far-end of Social Conservatism.  It wasn't Barack Obama's candidacy and Presidency that led to Beck's rise, Obama only enables Beck.  If not for the faltering of Social Conservatism and its lack of a clear head from 2006 to 2010 (Sarah Palin does not count in any serious way) there would be no Glenn Beck as he is.

   Like Savonarola, Beck's message was originally completely valid and worthy of attention.  He spoke out against the extremist factors surrounding Barack Obama, warned the nation of the dangers and history of George Soros and reminded us of what the Progressive movement is.  However, there is an element of danger in Beck himself.  Like the Progressive movement itself and both Liberalism and Social Conservatism of the last 20 years, Beck has used a certain creative element in his retelling of American history, one that shines the best possible light on his message that only now is completely evident.

   Glenn Beck's call is not to restore responsibility and an expectation of worthy representation from our government.  His call is for a return to a time of community togetherness, honour and unity under God is, like Savonarola's, a call for a return to a time that never existed.  His tenets of "faith, hope and charity" are falsehoods in his own eyes as proven by what he now preaches with his malignant use of the Torah.

   This is where I lose my objectivity and we enter into what I consider the obscene connection between Beck and Savonarola.  Savonarola used his knowledge of the Bible to twist its message to suit his antisocial, anti-material world view.  The mad monk was an anarchist who wanted an anarchy that existed only under him as God's prophet.  Beck uses his knowledge of the Bible to twist its message and, now, the message of the Torah to claim that all morality and human decency is descendent from God and religion.  The disgusting irony of this view is that the the Torah says in no mixed terms that doing good for God or for fear of retribution is not doing good, it is a self-serving act.

   That Beck now wraps his message in both Jewish and Christian scripture while even daring to malign the Hebrew language itself by making bizarre, direct translations of a language that is arguably baffling to any outsider from an etymological perspective is an affront to an independent, thinking mind.  While I myself do have some world views that come with being a Right-Wing Jew (while not a Social Conservative), I have no problem saying that Glenn Beck's partner in crime, Rabbi Daniel Lapin, is a traitor to his people and heritage by enabling the rantings of the modern-day mad monk.

   I am hardly one of those idling, over-imposing twits who says that private individuals and companies shouldn't be allowed to have religious holiday displays, but there is another side to that freedom.  When someone like Beck, overtly supported by so many, makes aspersions that the concepts of faith, hope, charity and honour are unique not only to the religious but unique to Christianity (as, in his historical view, all of the "important" founders were absolutely devout Protestants without a deist among them).  This type of alienation breeds contempt, both among those whom are being elevated above the uninitiated and those whom Beck is tacitly denouncing as without faith, without hope, without charity and without honour.

   Girolamo Savonarola dared to abuse scripture and recent history to elevate himself as the vox populi, attack the Pope, attack the existing power structure and turn public opinion against the public itself.  His just reward for his deeds was being mobbed and burned at the stake.  While Beck's ultimate goals may be less extreme than a brief return to the Dark Ages, I must wonder what end his aims will reach and what will befall the important aspects of Beck's original message.  I don't see him being burned at the stake, but I do see his warnings of Obama's extremism, the dangers of George Soros and the elements of Progressivism that seek to destroy this nation going unheeded once he is widely regarded as the deranged theocrat he is.

Bluh Bluh, Gay Marriage, Bluh Bluh Bluh

First off, let me just say, I love women and am definitely very straight.  Also, for the purposes of this image, I love Indian women.  I usually do anyway, but...  Dang.

Padmapriya being ludicrously attractive.

I feel like I'm getting off-track here, it's just...  Wait, what does that subject line say?  Oh right, I'm going off about this whole thing.  As a bit of a preface, I'd like to point out a few things about myself.  I am not a Conservative, I am a Republican.  Fiscally, I am very much lockstep with the GOP, I am a hawk in terms of my views on national security and I am anti illegal immigration and amnesty.  In all honesty, I am probably a social liberal, my views on social policies are best-described as Libertarian.  Actual Liberals and Democrats usually don't like me because I'm not a fan of government intervention, and Conservatives usually hate me because, well, I'm not a fan of government intervention (funny how that works).  Just to get it out of the way, yes, I am completely for giving same-sex couples the right to marry as they so choose and yes, I think it should be a national standard (we'll go into why later).  I am being clear about this right now so as to remove any chance that this might seem like an attempt at "sneaking" my view across.  As a reader, you now exactly where I'm going with this in the end-game, just try to stick with me here.

This is a thorny subject, I know, like so many issues in the political domain, it's become a matter of morality, what is "right".  Many of the arguments for and against this subject are, quite honestly, invalid in the context of law.  While I am absolutely not a legal professional, I know enough as at least a layman to point out some basic fatal flaws with a few of the more common arguments surrounding this issue.  I don't pretend that this blog has sufficient readership for these to matter, but if a few people actually use their heads, then it's done some good (plus it's a good exercise for me).

• It is the right thing to do to allow gays to marry.

Or, conversely:

• It is the wrong thing to do to allow gays to marry (for whatever reason).

These are arguably the most simple, and most common arguments about the issue.  The simple truth is this:  Law and morality are unrelated.  Murder is not illegal because it is wrong, it is illegal because murder is a violation of another person's civil rights (the right to live) on the part of the murderer.  By that logic, it is outright unconstitutional to do anything on the basis of law for the sake of morality.  It is literally against the law to legislate morality.  You might note that there are instances in which we do exactly this, and, as a rule, these instances have some thin veil of constitutionality supporting them, but that still doesn't make it all right to add more on to the "legislated morality" pile.

• Marriage is a Christian institution and homosexuality is wrong in Christianity, hence, gay marriage is wrong.

I don't even know how this argument maintains any traction, to be completely honest.  I mean, I do, but there is a certain incredulity I feel with that understanding.  The First Amendment gets a lot of use and ludicrous beating from time to time, but the text's meaning is fairly easy to apply in the vast majority of instances (I bolded the relevant section of the Amendment; do note that it is the very first item noted in the First Amendment):

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 To me, it follows like this.  If marriage is to be accepted as a purely Christian/religious institution, then the government of the United States should in no way actively make allowances for marriage.  That means no marriage licenses, no tax conditions for married couples, no legal support in the case of wills (living and otherwise), no nothing.  If, however, marriage is a civil right of citizens of the United States and recognized as an institution by one or more religious groups, who cares what these religious groups think of how the United States government views marriage?  In legal context, marriage is not a religious matter and if it is treated as one, then it is a violation of the Constitution.

• The people of California democratically supported Proposition 8, it is not fair to all of those people that a single judge overturned their decision. 

Is the United States of America a democracy?  If you said yes, you're an idiot and didn't pay attention in school.  This country is a Republic.  We elect public officials to make laws, yes, but even the President is elected under the electoral college system and not democratically (I.E. via a plurality of votes).  We elect these officials to create and enact laws with the understanding that they have a greater understanding of American law than does the average American, furthermore, there's a very simple question.  Since when is it a remotely good idea to have the vast majority of people decide the civil rights of a vast minority?  The abolition of slavery, women's suffrage, black civil rights and the legal allowance of unions (when they were a very necessary thing) were not decided democratically.  It is against everything that is arguably American to allow a group of people to determine who does and does not get equal rights simply because they are larger.  This, of course, leads to a more unique argument that appears very intelligent.

• Marriage is not a civil right guaranteed by the Constitution. 

Not explicitly, no, that's completely true, but let's take a look at the Ninth Amendment while remembering that whole jazz about "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness":

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Ok, wow, that's confusing as all hell, let's break that down a bit.  "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights," reads, "The list of specific rights in the Constitution" and, "Shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people," reads, "Are not meant to be taken as the only or even most important rights held by the people."  Broken down, we can read it all together, "The list of specific rights in the Constitution are not meant to be taken as the only or even most important rights held by the people."  (Because you needed them meshed into one sentence, I know.)  What this means, of course, is that there are other rights, rights not listed in the Constitution, several of which were added after the Ninth Amendment's addition to the Bill of Rights in 1789.

Arguably, the next question has to be whether or not marriage is a civil right granted to a citizen of the United States.  Personally, I would say yes, two consenting adults have the right to decide to marry one another in a legally-binding agreement that grants them unique rights in relation to one-another (in relation to taxes, shared property, etc.).  If you agree, then you are basically required to consent to the right of same-sex couples to be married by Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which reads as follows (particularly important section bolded):

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Equal protection is a simple and incredibly vital element of American law, it is very simply that all citizens are required, under the Constitution, to be treated equally under the law.  Under the law, no individual is to be allowed special consideration or treatment based on their gender, ethnicity, religion, or any other trait.  Personally, I would consider "sexual orientation" a very notable trait, at least for the individual in question.  Furthermore, I would (and do) consider barring any two people from a group of people a right that is intrinsic to any two people of another group of people a severe violation of the first group's civil rights.

Consider, for instance, the anti-miscegenation laws that persisted in the United States until 1967 which barred people of two different races from marrying or having sexual intercourse.  As, arguably, these laws were primarily directed against blacks, it's fairly easy to say that in the context of the Constitution, the American federal government was calling blacks non-persons (as they did not have the rights of equal protection under the law).  I would hope that, in 2010, we have reached a point in society that we may openly call homosexuals persons.

• Marriage has always been between a man and a woman, it is tradition.

Slavery and misogyny were also tradition before they were outlawed.

• But slavery and misogyny were wrong, marriage between a man and a woman isn't!

Shut up, seriously.

As I've now descended into being silly, you can probably tell I'm done with this (or at least eager to go look at more pictures of hot Indian women).  Obviously, these aren't the only arguments that are just downright wrong, these are simply the ones I hear the most and the ones that bother me the most.  I think what people most forget, most ignore, or perhaps simply most don't know is that the law has very little (if anything) to do with what is "right" for anyone.  Morality is a personal matter and should govern a great deal in your life, it should not, however, govern how we run our nation.

Michelle Antoinette

First off, I'd just like to say this to keep anyone from potentially flipping out, not that anyone actually reads this blog with regularity (mostly because I don't post with said regularity). I am not now suggesting, I have never suggested, nor will I ever suggest that beheading anyone is a good idea.  Got it?  Got it.

This is the bug that has crawled up my ass today.  There are bigger bugs, there are more important bugs, and there are bugs that will very soon be chomping at a much larger section of my colon, but today, this is the bug that has crawled up my ass.  When unemployment is as high as it is (and undoubtedly quite higher with the uncounted discouraged workers) and, you know, this thing is just ticking away we have Michelle Obama and her two crotchspawn (don't get me wrong, the little one is super cute) living their entitled lifestyle of American royalty.  This little junket involves three people and forty of their BFF's (along with a cadre of secret service agents and whatever else) taking up sixty to seventy rooms that cost, on average, something in the neighbourhood of $2500 a night.  This, of course, does not include the cost of actually moving these forty-three people around in plane-that-is-sometimes-Air-Force-One-but-usually-isn't and the hilarious fact that they saw fit to have a ludicrously extravagant European vacation.  Apparently American hot-spots suck right now and aren't worth taxpayer dollars.  You know, American dollars.

This is not just a one-off event, honestly.  This kind of detachment from reality is endemic to Democrat politics right now and this is nothing more than a grotesque example of it.  You have Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA) saying that the reason why November's upcoming mid-terms will be tough for Democrats will be because there are so many who are not Democratty (not a word) enough.  That's right, they're just not far enough to the left for all of us and we're just going to have to teach them a lesson, the centrist fiends that they are.

Then you have this incredible gem in which Representative Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) suggests the IRS should afford tax breaks to people living in areas with higher costs of living.  I want you to think about that for a second and, if you know anything about history, I want you to think about what actually started the American Civil War (spoilers: not slavery).  Now, take a peeky-poo at this:

Source: Missouri Economic Research and Information Center, Cost of Living 1st Quarter 2010

Oh hey, the states with the highest costs of living are, for the most part, either (a) very liberal states (in the cases of the highest costs of living) or (b) ludicrously important swing states during elections.

Now, it occurs to me that these kinds of things are almost inciting the public not among the blessed chosen of the government to be resentful of their government.  I am an American, I am a very patriotic individual, and I can honestly say I would never hate America.  Right now?  America is dying, and the country it is turning into?  I hate it with every fiber in my being.  The political elite have formed themselves into a type of elected nobility, above the fray of the ignorant masses and, apparently, disdainful of the republic they represent.  While they're apparently familiar with concepts of condescension and self-righteousness, they're genuinely ignorant of history.  I know what happened to the French royalty the Obamas seem so happy to mimic and I know well enough what happened when Washington deigned that some states be more important than others, they either don't, or they choose to believe that it won't happen to us.  The mistakes they make and grievances they sow don't just hurt them and their political futures, they hurt every citizen of this nation and the very soul of the nation itself.

Just to wrap this up on a hilarious note, here's an awesome (and moronic) quote from Mr. Obama himself because he knows just what it's like to be you:
"It was just a few years ago that we had high credit card balances, we had two kids, thinking about college. We had our own retirement accounts, wondering if we were going to be able to get enough assets in there."



Yes, I really like overusing links and parenthetical statements.

James Cameron Is a Gigantic Asshole

I was going to make a "real" post about this, but I'm saving my butthurt for a later omnibus post.

In the meantime, I made this, click on this mofo for full size:

Yours in caring about Barack Obama's love of basketball,
Nameth Black

Not to be a cynical douche, but...

... I'm gonna go ahead and be a cynical douche.

With everyone (who isn't a jerk) rather stunned by the actions of individuals like this gomer (hurr, Fox News link) trying to infiltrate the "Tea Party" movement, there are quite a few people (Glenn Beck) who are going street rat crazy about the writings of a certain Saul Alinksy.  Because I'm lazy and you know you are too, here's a Wikipedia link for Rules for Radicals (that thing written by Saul Alinsky).

What I find out offensive about this crap isn't what he actually wrote, this is actually good stuff to be completely honest.  I mean, let's look at this douchebags rule-o numero uno:

Power is not only what you have, but what an opponent thinks you have. If your organization is small, hide your numbers in the dark and raise a din that will make everyone think you have many more people than you do.

My main problem with the fear/hatred (from the right) and the love/reverence (from the left) of Saul Alinsky is that this idiot didn't actually come up with anything original.  If you're like me, and I hope you aren't, you've read at least one version of Sun Tzu's Art of War.  In that case, you can easily recognise this advice as almost directly lifted from the text, even the phrasing is similar to many of the translations of the discussions (of Art of War) I've seen.

Just to borrow from Sun Tzu, here's what may well possibly be the most famous passage from the text.  You might note that, despite being translated from Chinese, it's far more descriptive and intelligent in its general meaning:

All warfare is based on deception. Hence, when able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must seem inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near. Hold out baits to entice the enemy. Feign disorder, and crush him.

Saul Alinsky was a "smart" guy in that he took concepts that have been outlined for centuries, maybe even millennia (Xerxes of Persian fame had a certain love of psychological warfare), but at the end of the day, his work is ultimately derivative.  If you want to know how to crush anyone who thinks they have a leg up on you because they know Alinksy's Rules, read Sun Tzu's Art of War at least twice (it makes sense the second time around) and, if you can, make your way around to Niccolo Machiavelli's The Prince.

Keep in mind, I'm not a Conservative, I'm a Republican, but I (unlike many Conservatives) can admit that I'd rather have people in power with whom I "mostly" agree than people with whom I do not agree whatsoever.  It is the alternative to this reasoned position that caused the Republican party to bleed so much in 2006 and it is this idealism with which Conservatism chains itself that will be the reason November 2010 is not the red-letter month it absolutely should be.  At this point, any successes are not the GOP's, but failures on the part of the DNC.

Long story short?  Saul Alinksy?  Not the liberal/progressive Sun Tzu.  At best, he's a hack, at most realistic, he's a relatively talented plagiarist.