DIVISIVE

 

The term divisive means “causing disunity and dissension,” such as “partisan and contentious quarreling.” It isn't just between political parties; sometimes this is occasioned by bickering between competing states of "victimhood," particularly between minority groups, white women and the LGBTQIA+ community; anyone "curious" about what the "+" signifies is illuminated for us thusly:

 

Whatever. Occasionally you can find divisiveness on Amazon’s product review pages, especially those involving matters of "taste" in films.  Frankly, once you sift out the one-word or one-line “reviews”—which tend to be positive—you get a better sense of what people really think of the product, especially for films you are unfamiliar with, especially more recent ones. 

Not that all “old” movies—even from the Seventies—is worth watching. You can hate a movie so much it can be more “fun” to review than one that is a “consensus” pick. The Seventies were certainly the greatest decade for “art” films, especially of the foreign variety, but there was a few “art” films that had no excuse ever to have been made, such as Salo, or the 120 Days of Sodom (whose director was murdered not long after its release) or the only film I examined on this blog that I did not think had any redeeming social or political value: Sweet Movie, to be found here https://todarethegods.blogspot.com/search?q=sweet+movie

Incredibly, 82 percent of Amazon’s customer reviews were four stars and above; my addition happened to be the “top critical review” with a one star rating:

 

 

I pointed out that this film was meant to follow the “misadventures” of the character played by French actress Carole Laure, who apparently quit the film halfway through production (I imagine it had something to do with either the scene where she was forced to wallow in a vat of chocolate nude, or there was something even worse for her to do up the director’s sleeve).  I noted that

This film includes scenes of coprophilia (if you don’t know what that is, you don’t want to know anyways) and emetophilia (same thing). Pedophilia is also present, and if scenes of the remains from the Katyn massacre site was supposed to have some political “point,” it escaped me. The eating scene with frequent bouts of vomiting makes one wonder about the mental state of both the director and the “actors” who agreed to do this.

Oh, and there is a scene when a musical heartthrob shows up and there is a "medical emergency" when his "member" gets "stuck" in the Laure character's "love muscle" during sex (don't ask, it's not even meant to be "funny"). The “pedophilia” by the way was part of the “subplot” that was apparently hastily inserted to fill the runtime after Laure’s exit, involving Polish actress Anna Prucnal (who played Snaporaz’s wife in Fellini’s City of Women, which I also looked at on this blog), which she consented to reveal what was between her legs to young boys. 

Of course in Europe, "pedophilia" isn't automatically assumed if an "adult" exposes themselves to a "minor," and nudity by itself is a less "divisive" subject for scrutiny than it is in America (when I was in Germany the film poster at a theater for Eighties American sex comedy Private School just showed a character  riding a horse topless). A film can be rated as low as a "6" without much quibble about content, meaning that only those below that age required "parental guidance" even if nudity was present. But while  the depiction of sex in regard to observation by minors is a different matter, but its is unlike the U.S., where  attitudes concerning nudity and “sex” since the Puritans first landed have become indistinguishable. 

In fact a "rebirth" of puritanism has taken hold in this country; in the "old days" a film rated "R" was assumed to have nudity, but today it might just be for "language," "drug references" or just "sexual situations" not involving either  sex or nudity. In fact, "violence" alone is rarely a reason for a film to clapped with an "R" rating, which suggests the level of violence tolerated in this country--even by the "law and order" Right.

Depictions of female nudity cause great divisiveness whether in red or blue communities; but then again, who is to “judge”? The Seattle arts community was given a $1 million donation by an "art enthusiast" to create a sculpture on the condition that one of the subjects was a male in his “natural” condition. Why I have no clue; but if it was decided that there was to be a companion to this nude male, shouldn’t it a nude female of similar age? 

Of course not; it all its wisdom, it was decided that a nude man would depicted preparing for the embrace of a nude boy. That makes three sculptures of nude males in downtown Seattle, and none of females; hell, even Starbucks was forced to redesign its mermaid logo because it depicted a woman’s breasts.

Yesterday I had to find something to do because the library was closed, and I encountered said sculpture with a family with children playing around it (that's one of the kids, not a jogger). Note that two separate water fountains are concealing the figures, the man entirely:

 

 

These people obviously had no idea of the controversy about this “artistic” display and its suggestion of pedophilia (at least in minds of some people, perhaps in others a source of “amusement”). I suspect that when the fountains shut down they split when they realized that this might not be for “children’s eyes:

 

Likewise, Sweet Movie certainly isn’t fit viewing for children, and those who gave this film five stars for no good reason save that it was “courageous” to make a film with this taste for the execrable—a “cult film looking for a cult,” says one glowing “review”--don't have any "boundaries" in taste.

Keeping to the subject of films, "divisive" could also characterize what happened at this year’s Oscars ceremony, when Native American actress Lily Gladstone was the “upset” loser when she didn’t win the Best Actress for her role in Killers of the Flower Moon as many expected. Count me in that group: this was a "battle" between past racist history and the "feminist" ideology of Poor Things and nominee Emma Stone, who already won an Oscar for La La Land. 

So what "ideology" would win out? That real-life historical “CRT” stuff not involving entitled blacks, or gender victim fantasies? What do you think? It's about voters: even far-right politicians like Ron DeSantis, and those in Congress who are running for their lives in the wake of the Alabama IVF ruling (hypocritically allowing the courts to do their dirty work) try to avoid alienating white female voters by not talking about girls empowerment programs in public schools and "critical" women's studies departments in colleges while decrying "CRT" and DEI departments. Teachers in Oklahoma are fearful of mentioning Killers of the Flower Moon book to students because it might run afoul of a state law that bans books or anything that might make white students feel “bad.” But it's "OK" to make boys  feel "bad" just because they are boys, unless who want to get "canceled" by complaining about it. 

I knew that Stone had the “inside track” on the Oscar because for a lot of academy voters doing frequent nekkid scenes by an actress previously reticent of doing so is considered “artistic” if done within the “framework” of feminist “sensibility.” According to Mr. Skin’s count, Stone made 14 separate appearances in Poor Things in some form of undress, which must be some kind of “record.”

While it's bad enough that female-made gender politics films beat you on the head with their self-serving hypocrisy, I’m probably like a lot of males who are also sick of male filmmakers “speaking” for “me” with their sado-masochistic self-flagellation (more like self-flatulation) fantasies about women. Stone hardly looks like the “sex fantasy” of men we are supposed to believe she is in the film (unless you think Frida Kahlo was a "sex symbol"), in fact I think she was the only “name” actress the director could find who was agreeable to do this as long as it was in the name of “gender empowerment,” with men treated as more or less objects to (eventually) undergo various forms of “comic” abuse.  Some of us just see abuse.

More amusing was that despite rave reviews for this on Rotten Tomatoes, the divisiveness Poor Things caused for most reviewers on the Amazon.com product page was pronounced:

 

Note that there are no four or two star reviews; outside the fence-sitters, you either loved or hated this film (the definition of divisive).  This film didn’t make any money until it received all those Oscar nominations, and people were “curious” about it, and thus discovering what its political slant is and its stereotyping of both men and women. 

Before mulling over whether I wanted to add this to my video collection, I perused the reviews on Amazon, particularly the negative ones; by far the most “liked” review had 40 “likes” and was savagely negative. Yet at the time the “top critical review” was from a person who complained about a broken DVD case. The review in question has apparently since been deleted by the “monitors” who didn't want to discourage sales, but I took a screenshot of it for this post before it was removed:

 

It wasn't a  “mystery” to me who was going to win the best actress award (yes, they still use the gendered term “actress” at awards ceremonies): making “history” by giving it a Native American actress wasn't a high priority on the "woke" totem pole. Gender politics shoehorned into colorful sets “trumped” the ugly truth; Killers of the Flower Moon was nominated for 10 Oscars and didn’t win a single one, while Poor Things won four, including Best Actress. 

Such is life; divisiveness creates two subsets of agendas who either “love” ore “hate” something, and it is up to people in the "middle" to decide who “wins,” and apparently in this case shameful "lost" history lost in favor of the more powerful agenda that people fear more. 

Meanwhile, we face an election year so divisive that it makes the few people striding the fences that much more powerful. In the “old days” more people strode the fences, but today, you have more politicians who strive to compel hate of the “others” from their followers, and you are either compelled to be on one side or the other.

Now, it is fairly easy to “hate” what Republicans are doing to this country; my “impression” is that the reason why Republican voters are so stoked with hate is because they don’t like their own evil tossed in their faces (we'll talk more about that next time). But more to the point, Republicans and their "base" absolutely thrive on divisiveness and hate to a much greater degree than relatively more unself-conscious-about-their-motives Democrats, who are more apt to "compromise" to achieve something useful,  basing their policies on what they believe is for the public good.

And not, as the other side has shown itself to do, resorting to juvenile name-calling and choose to do nothing at all save pout and whine if someone takes their clubs away so they can't spend their time beating on their culture war foes like playground bullies, the "enemy" which happens to be most people in this country.

Generals blame 20 years of failure in Afghanistan on Biden administration, and “mainstream media” allows racist border chief to go on a rant

 

Going off track again: According to an Associated Press story, two now conveniently retired generals who no longer have to answer to their commander-in-chief, former Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Mark Milley and U.S. Central Command retired Gen. Frank McKenzie,  

publicly exposed for the first time the strain and differences the military leaders had with the Biden administration in the final days of the war. Two of those key differences included that the military had advised that the U.S. keep at least 2,500 service members in Afghanistan to maintain stability and a concern that the State Department was not moving fast enough to get an evacuation started.

While in 2021 McKenzie testified that he believed that the sudden collapse of the U.S.-backed Afghan government was rooted in the Trump-Taliban “agreement,” and just a week ago took “full responsibility” for the Abbey Gate fiasco at the Kabul Airport, he nevertheless joined Milley in passing the buck to the Biden administration regarding the botched evacuation, despite the fact that the AP noted was “severely constrained by previous withdrawal agreements negotiated by former President Donald Trump" and that the military's "top commanders said they had enough resources to handle the evacuation.”

For Republicans, the yet another hearing three years on concerning the Kabul evacuation is just another political stunt to try to damage Biden while ignoring the Trump administration’s yet one more half-hearted and failed attempt at appeasement with our enemies until he became bored and left U.S. interests vulnerable, the mess they created to be cleaned-up by someone else (see Iran and North Korea) if it still could be.

Georgetown University professor Paul Miller observed that Trump’s policies in Afghanistan was a grab-bag of previous failed efforts. After first vowing to leave the country, Trump suddenly decided he was going to “win” the war. Miller noted that “Trump had no real sense of what was at stake in the war or why to stay” and that again, once he become “bored” and  decided to get out of Afghanistan, he decided to be a “deal maker” and  “negotiate” with the Taliban without any preconditions.

In fact, instead of demanding a “ceasefire,” Trump only asked the Taliban not to attack U.S. troops:

Trump signed a peace deal with the Taliban that obliged the U.S, to withdrawal all military forces within 14 months in exchange for a pledge by the Taliban that Afghanistan would not be used as a base for attacks against the United States or its allies—a pledge for which there were no enforcement mechanisms in the agreement—and to begin talks with the Afghan government toward a ceasefire and political settlement. The agreement did not oblige the Taliban to denounce al-Qaeda, acknowledge their responsibility for the 2001 attacks, or take proactive military or law enforcement action against them. It contained only a weak pledge by the Taliban “not to cooperate with or permit international terrorist groups or individuals to recruit, train, raise funds … transit Afghanistan,” or use Afghan passports. 

Miller noted that the Taliban’s deputy leader was allowed an op-ed in the New York Times in which he made no mention of Al-Qaeda or regret for 9-11, suggesting that the activities of unnamed “warmongering players” had been “exaggerated” by the West. Furthermore, Miller noted that “the U.N.—hardly a “warmongering player”—publicly judged that the Taliban retained ties to al-Qaeda after signing the peace deal, but the Trump administration withdrew U.S. troops anyway, bringing the level down to 2,500 at the end of Trump’s term, the lowest since 2002.”

The result was that while Taliban forces left U.S. forces alone, the Trump administration—and the U.S. military in Afghanistan—allowed the Taliban to infiltrated every corner of the corner of the country unmolested, allowing it to attack the weak Afghan army which was much less than what it was on paper, and apt to scatter once engaged without U.S. assistance. Like the U.S. supporting for 20 years of corrupt actors in the Kabul government, it also allowed regional commanders to pocket untold amounts of U.S. taxpayer money that was supposed to go to recruiting and arming nonexistent Afghan soldiers.

Miller’s claims that the Biden administration could have reversed course and sent in reinforcements to “stabilize” the corrupt Kabul government that had little popular support outside the city. But it was too late for that once the Trump administration allowed the Taliban to roam free; the Obama administration had already deployed 100,000 troops in the country to no effect, and whose fault was that except the military commanders on the ground who had to play with the hand they were dealt?

The failure of U.S. forces to “win” the war—failing to learn the lessons of the failed Russian occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s—was largely rooted in the failure to understand that Afghanistan was less a “country” but a loose conglomeration of tribal units who didn’t like to be told what to do. The failure to spend money on those things that could be seen or used in the countryside, such as infrastructure, hospitals and schools also did not create a mechanism for which tribal units could see benefit from an alternative way of being. Yes, in the cities there was a mite of changes that educated people (particularly women) did benefit from, but the “war” could only be “won” in the countryside—where the Trump administration's "peace plan" only allowed the Taliban to roam free and become stronger.

But the Afghan war was destined to fail from the start, when the Bush administration became bored with Afghanistan, failing to root out all the Taliban and al-Qaeda terrorists before leaving for what Bush apparently hoped that 9-11 would really draw public support for: the Iraq War, based on the lies of WMDs and al-Qaeda “links.” 

The U.S. could have destroyed the Taliban and al-Qaeda had it put in the military resources that were needed in the beginning; instead, by 2006 when Bush decided to turn his attention to pacifying the country, or at least make it “safe” for the Kabul government, it was too late without a far more massive undertaking in personnel and equipment, and enlarging the federal deficit even more.

And then there was this Sunday’s Face the Nation program, which shows us once again that the so-called “liberal” mainstream media talks about immigrants and not with them, giving free reign to bigots to describe them as they wish, feeding into the “invasion” and “vermin” narrative without ever once trying to report on the circumstances that migrants are fleeing from—apparently because the mainstream media in this country doesn’t want to be accused of being “humane.”

While  current Border Patrol chief Jason Owens tried to cover himself by noting that the “millions” of people apprehended at checkpoints are “good people,” we get the impression he only believes this because they are "good about" make it easier for the border patrol to prepare them for deportation proceedings. What he really wants you to know is this:

"That number is a large number, but what's keeping me up at night is the 140,000 known got-aways," Owens said in his first exclusive interview as Border Patrol chief, referring to migrants who are detected by cameras and sensors crossing into the U.S. illegally, but not apprehended. "Why are they risking their lives and crossing in areas where we can't get to?" Owens asked. "Why are they hiding? What do they have to hide? What are they bringing in? What is their intent? Where are they coming from? We simply don't know the answers to those questions. Those things for us are what represent the threat to our communities." The situation, Owens added, amounts to "a national security threat."

As we can see, Owens answers his own question about these people: they know if they fall into his hands they have little chance of “legally” being in the country. As mentioned before, these are likely people who know the “score.” They are not “threats” to your community, they are the “other immigrants” who according to the Brookings Institute study are the hidden reason why the U.S. economy has evaded recession and is actually growing faster than expected, because  they are filling jobs that otherwise would go unfilled, and they know where the work is without being “hindered” by the border patrol.

But back to Owens. Who is he really? When he was working as the chief of the Maine/Canada border, ProPublica reported on a Facebook page in 2019 called “10-15,” which is supposed to mean “aliens in custody.” It observed that among many other things

The three-year-old group, which has roughly 9,500 members, shared derogatory comments about Latina lawmakers who plan to visit a controversial Texas detention facility on Monday, calling them ‘scum buckets’ and ‘hoes.’

One image posted by the group showed Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez engaged in “oral sex” with a migrant with the caption “Lucky Illegal Immigrant Glory Hole Special Starring AOC.” Here, Trump is forcing her head toward his crotch:

 

We learn that

Members of a secret Facebook group for current and former Border Patrol agents joked about the deaths of migrants, discussed throwing burritos at Latino members of Congress visiting a detention facility in Texas on Monday and posted a vulgar illustration depicting Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez engaged in oral sex with a detained migrant, according to screenshots of their postings.

Bottom of Form

In one exchange, group members responded with indifference and wisecracks to the post of a news story about a 16-year-old Guatemalan migrant who died in May while in custody at a Border Patrol station in Weslaco, Texas. One member posted a GIF of Elmo with the quote, “Oh well.” Another responded with an image and the words “If he dies, he dies.”

Like these people:

 

I guess some people don't like to feel "guilty" about their lack human decency. Text messages obtained from one border agent’s phone described migrants as “gnats,” “wild ass shitbags,” “beaners” and “subhuman.” There was also “repeated” messages “about burning the migrants up.”

Owens, as reported by the Maine advocacy publication Beacon, is a charter member of this group. Outside of attempting to portray himself as not being a complete inhuman beast on “mainstream” news programs, Owens has made it know that he regards migrants in general as “threats” to this country and boasted of the number of “criminals” arrested. But as NBC News reported in 2019, the vast majority of federal arrests were by the border patrol and ICE of non-citizens for non-criminal immigration offenses—and that percentage without doubt has skyrocketed.

Owens knows this, and because he cannot know if those migrants who trek across dangerous points are actually “criminals” or not, he just wants to think they are because he can’t get his hands on them, just yet. We know what he “really” thinks of the migrants and those who treat them with on ounce of human respect from the "group" he belongs to. And why do people like him do border patrol work? Because it’s “fun” rounding up “wild ass shitbags,” unless some of them get away, and then they are a “national security threat.”

From COWARDICE comes CORRUPTION and CHAOS

 

More evidence that immigration policy for the political right is about politics and racism:

 

 

While Republicans hold up a picture of the only suitable white female victim they found that "proves" that migrants are all murderers and rapists,  Business Insider is reporting that according to a just released Brookings Institute study, that while other countries have experienced slow economic recovery from the pandemic period, the US experienced higher than originally forecast recovery thanks to the initial failure to take into account the impact of “other immigrants”—meaning “illegal” immigrants:

The trend has been noticed by Morgan Stanley's chief US economist too. "Immigration has been huge," Ellen Zentner said last week in a Bloomberg interview, referring specifically to illegal immigration. "It has boosted the labor force, it has boosted supply for labor, it has boosted job gains. That means the breakeven level for jobs has likely been just much higher than where we thought it was."

According to the Brookings researchers, pre-pandemic, the range of sustainable employment growth that would not cause inflation was expected to fall to 60,000 to 100,000 a month in 2024. But Zentner said the increased labor supply meant 200,000 to 250,000 would probably be a normal monthly pace of growth for the job market.

The labor market has recorded gains stronger than that, posting an addition of 275,000 jobs in February. But that strength has also been a key piece of the soft-landing narrative. "How, in 2023, did we have such fast growth in the economy, better than 3%, while inflation decelerated, while wage growth decelerated?" Zentner said. "Because of much more labor supply and supply chains normalizing." She added: "Over the medium term, this is a big positive for the economy."

As opposed to, say, bringing chaos to the economy, as anti-immigrant Republicans apparently prefer to do.

Of course Republicans don't want to talk about that, because it makes them look like, well, ignorant in their racism, and besides, the improved numbers look better for Joe Biden's handling of the economy by being less inhumane and more "practical" than his predecessor and Republicans generally. That is certainly another reason why far-right Republicans have made “the border” their number one campaign issue, because that influx of labor—not the living on the public dole and committing crimes that the right likes to talk about—has provided a “soft landing” that has cushioned the expected “hard” landing. Thank you very much, "illegal" immigrants who employers know are motivated to work hard without making a "fuss."

Of course Republicans want to arrest and deport every “illegal” they imagine, and if Trump is elected, you may expect an economic downturn because Republicans and the racists who vote for them are just that stupid. 

During my turn around the temp work turnstile, I’ve seen those immigrants doing the work nobody wants to do, or for long. After the 2019 raids on Mississippi chicken processing plants, NPR (which in an earlier story reported that immigrants working "the chain" in dangerous slaughterhouse work often face "life-long" injuries)  quoted one labor official as noting that "The industry is totally dependent on finding workers who will not raise issues and who, to a degree, live in fear of the company and they'll just keep their head down and do the work. For the last 30 years that's been immigrant labor." 

Not surprisingly, on the quiet the Trump-inspired ICE publicity stunt resulted in many of the arrested being released to go back to work at the plants after businesses complained that a "jobs fair" not surprisingly failed to attract many "natives" to replace the "illegal" workers.

This is what the Biden administration and Democrats should be at least be pointing out in supporting so-called “immigration reform” that allows migrants and asylum-seekers in the country who are working at such jobs legal status, since history tells us that they are here to work and American employers need them, legal or not. 

But Republicans just want to use them as campaign cannon fodder, because they are stupid and the people who buy this rhetoric are stupid, and the media (and that includes CNN) feeds into the stupidity with this "border crisis" paranoia. It isn't all happening in red states, of course. In Chicago migrants shipped from Texas are being kicked out of temporary shelters onto the street virtually without notice even if they have jobs. 

In the "blue" state of Washington (which not once but twice passed anti-affirmative action propositions), a judge was forced to redraw legislative redistricting maps in the central part of the state himself because the current maps were found to be in violation of the Voting Rights Act for deliberately diluting the Latino vote in Yakima County, where of course much of the state's agricultural output is located.

Perhaps we can say that the Biden administration has been a bit cowardly about addressing the economic benefits of immigrant labor (and that includes Asians and Indians in the country illegally, about one out of every nine you see on the street according to the Pew Foundation) in the face of media imagery that has corrupted people’s minds into seeing “chaos” on the border, which if it exists is because of immigration laws that make it virtually impossible (unless you are Asian, Indian or Ukrainian) to enter the country legally without years or even decades of "red tape," fueled by the hypocrisy that behind the scenes they know that there is work is waiting for them that no one else here wants to do. 

Why belabor the point? After the State of the Union address, which Republicans called “divisive” because it dared to point out the evidence that Republicans don’t really give a shit about “the people” the only-prepared-to-be-hysterical Sen. Katie Britt gave a  “response” that focused almost entirely on anecdotal "evidence" that migrants are out to invade your kitchens and steal your children.

And so after going on a sight-seeing tour out in the country as an excuse to take the long way, we arrive to the words of the day and how one follows the other. Cowardice is defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary “a lack of courage or firmness of purpose.” Those whose principles are lacking are apt to engage in Corruption, defined as “dishonest or illegal behavior especially by powerful people (such as government officials or police officers) and inducement to wrong by improper or unlawful mean (such as bribery)” and this can lead to Chaos, “a state of utter confusion.”

Cowardice is rampant among Republicans too fearful of the chaos that Trump has let out of the Pandora’s Box that they have sat on for decades and occasionally allowed some of its evils to escape. Of course Trump, being the fool he is, kicked open the box before closing it again, and like in the Greek myth did so before "hope" could escape to correct the damage.  What Trump let loose has spread like a bubonic plague, infecting Republican voters with the far-right disease that threatens to be fatal to constitutional government in this country.

Perhaps Republicans and their voting public are too thoughtless of their actions to be accused of cowardice in fighting the disease, and they are simply naturally corrupted by the society that formed them. But there is no denying the chaos that this is has created, as it is plain to see with one party mired in a directionless muddle making irresponsible demands. But how can it be "fixed" when ultimately it is voters who want to see “chaos” are responsible for it.

The current overseer (admittedly a somewhat reluctant participant) in the chaos is Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, who has a checkered past of extremist Christian views, but which have little to do with his current troubles in doing the things that need to be done without inflaming the vengeance of the far-right of his party. Unfortunately for Johnson, God is not on his side, or if he was, Johnson is too cowardly to obey his will, because there is a force much more powerful than God, and that is of an ungodly minority of corrupt chaos-sowers who hate at least half the population and want to do them harm in an "unchristian" way.

Now why am I bringing Christianity into this? To point out that the far-right that is principle sower of corruption and chaos claim to be more "Christian" than the rest us and insist on reestablishing a "Christian" country based on "Christian" principles. But it appears that that not only are they lacking in Christian humility, but seemingly are too cowardly to face their maker when it comes to explaining themselves when they are exposed as corrupt and lacking in "morality."

I’m not saying that Johnson isn’t “sincere” in his religious beliefs, and some if it creeps into his support of laws that are infected with the “culture war” virus. But just as he is a bit cowardly in putting his “faith” on the line when it comes to doing was is right for “the people,” he has been corrupted by the pressure to cave to a fanatic minority whose only mission is create chaos solely because they crave the media attention it brings.  

Johnson doesn’t appear to be the type who craves media attention, which is lucky for him, since he was a virtual unknown before he received the Speakership and that would have led to questions about his fitness. In "normal times" Johnson would appear to be someone willing to sacrifice his religious "principles" as a practical matter, but these are not "normal times" and Johnson finds himself confronted by hypocrites like Marjorie Taylor Greene, who bragged about voting "no" to earmarks, before bragging about the earmarks her district received because others voted "yes"--in the "vote no, take the dough" way that Republicans are known for. Does God like liars and deceivers? Well, maybe her voters do.

Before, we wouldn’t have found out that Johnson is an evangelical Christian who follows the guidance of some fanatic named David Barton, whose Texas-based organization is unsurprisingly called the “Wallbuilders,” which has been placed on the Southern Poverty Law Firm’s hate-group list. Barton preaches the revisionist history that the founding fathers never meant to separate church and state, and the country should be ruled by “Christian” principles. 

Of course for Johnson that means espousing the corrupt stolen election conspiracies and accepting campaign contributions from Putin confidant Konstantin Nikolaev, who among other things financed convicted Russian spy Maria Butina, who ingratiated herself with Republican bigwigs and oversaw social media election interference to aid Republicans. 

It’s probably not surprising to learn that this campaign season a Russian disinformation operation is underway to fuel paranoia over the border “crisis”—again to presumably help Trump, although even Putin admitted in his interview with Tucker Carlson it is hard to decide who is the more “dangerous” enemy to Russia —the enemy you know (Biden), or the guy who is “unpredictable” (Trump).  

Johnson in his “quiet way” comes off a member of a cult, even to Republicans who complain that they are not in a church when he lectures them about the “Christian” way of governance. In an interview on a Christian TV show, The Disciples Voice of Hope, we are told that Johnson believes “we don’t live in a democracy” but a constitutional republic “that the founders set that up because they followed the biblical admonition on what a civil society is supposed to look like.”

One wonders what people like Johnson believe a “republic” is. Jay Cost in the conservative National Review suggests that people like Trump and his MAGAmaniacs only have power because the country is a de facto  “democracy” and because of a failure of the “checks and balances” system set-up by the Constitution that is supposed to protect the rights of all people from the threats posed by Trump and his gang, particular the right to vote; the Constitution is supposed to guard against the kind of divisiveness we are seeing to today, but with the help of far-right extremist judges Trump put in place, the Constitution seemingly no longer provides that defense against rampant internal diviseness:

But take a look at the United States of today and ask yourself whether you really believe that. Are we not in fact more divided than we ever have been in our lifetimes? Mutual enmity is greater now than at any point in the last 50 years. What would happen if we did away with the various anti­democratic institutions of our republic and allowed a majority to do what it pleased? 

My wager: A narrow, fleeting majority — dominated by ideological die-hards of one side or the other — would use its temporary hold on power to really stick it to the detested minority. Those in the majority would do so under the false claim that they were simply advancing the national interest. And my guess, furthermore, is that they would do so in a way designed to create a permanent hold on power for themselves in government.

Of course Cost can be taken to task in insisting that Republicans ever represent a "majority" of the people, as they have lost 7 of the past 8 presidential popular votes. He is correct, however, in saying that the House and now increasingly the Senate (at least on the Republican side) have become become too closely aligned with the local rather than the national interest. The presidency, the Senate and the federal courts were originally intended to be less sensitive to corrupting influences, but that all changed with the election of the most morally and ethically corrupt individual ever to hold the office of the presidency in its history. And now we have "chaos."

At this rate, the country seems to be going the route of the Weimar Republic if it does not choose wisely in the coming election, which allowed a minority party (the Nazis) to simply do away with both “republic” and “democracy” by cowing conservative parties who did not realize the danger even to their own continuing existence, and establishing a rubber-stamp “legislature” that abolished all other political parties to ban dissent and have the country run by a dictator bent on revenge, murder and world war. 

Of course we can look to another example, Putin's Russia where he is a de facto dictator with a rubber-stamp legislature, with only a tiny fraction represented by the Just Russia party that doesn't have an authoritarian, pro-war and anti-democratic platform. There is plenty of cowardice and corruption in the Russian "system," but at least there is no "chaos"--which is what the far-right authoritarians want in this country, since they will be one ones ruling the country and suddenly abandoning their "states' rights" stance by trying to enforce their "culture" on blue states.

We see that Trump intends to “pardon” all January 6 rioters, and in Arizona, his minions are already creating chaos in a recent public meeting with Maricopa County election officials, with election officials forced to flee as MAGAmaniacs stormed the stage. These people apparently want a country “governed” by an authoritarian regime which decides what “rights” people are to have or not. We saw such action in Florida  with  a fascist governor who signed an “anti-woke” law that was struck down by the 11^th Circuit Court as violating the First Amendment, since it forced even privately-owned firms to allow only speech “approved” by the "state," and “penalized” viewpoints “not approved” by the far-right regime. The hypocrisy of this is that some states allow private firms to deny service on “religious” grounds.

Unfortunately for people who take their religion seriously, it has become too intertwined with the corruption of politics, and thus religion has become corrupted itself. Now, some people's belief in God is so unquestioning, like that of Bess (Emily Watson) in the film Breaking the Waves...

 

...who believes she has a speaking relationship with God and does whatever she is "advised" to do by him, even if it is seen by others as being induced by an outside "corrupting" influence. But maybe not (we are led to believe), because the final test of her faith (meaning her life) does result in a "miracle," because God knew that she had a pure heart and what she had done was out of love, even if it was misguided. Personally, I tend to dislike intensely Lars von Trier's pretentious, self-indulgent films (especially Dogville), but Watson imbues this psychologically-damaged character with so much childlike innocence (even her occasional temper tantrums seem that of a child) that it is impossible not to feel genuine sympathy for her, making one overlook (reluctantly) the implausible plot contrivances she is placed in.

Of course Trump's most demonic supporters may also be suffering from psychological damage  induced from having their paranoia and hate being a source of ridicule until it no longer was. On the other hand, religious types can be corrupted because in the opinion of some they don't follow the correct articles of faith. In fact, there are actually some so-called Christian organizations that think some evangelicals like Johnson are “confused” about what the Bible actually teaches, but not in the way you think. 

For example, The Gospel Coalition claims that “A significant number of evangelicals surveyed (i.e., those identified as having evangelical beliefs) have a profound misunderstanding about the nature and character of God.” Not that they don’t follow the Beatitudes (the “coalition” doesn’t either), but that a “surprising number" according to their surveys have allowed "secular" ideas to creep into their "faith.”

I'm sure that would come to a surprise to evangelicals. For example, a “shocking” 26 percent of them (according to the survey) believe the Bible is not “literal truth”—although still leaving 74 percent who do—and 38 percent believe that “religious faith is a subjective experience rather than an objective reality.” In other words, unlike Catholicism, engaging in “good works” is not part of the curriculum. 

Another “shocking” 29 percent believe that God “adapts his views” to suit “changing times.” Well, actually that isn’t all that shocking, since humans have—like those who advocate for the elimination of the separation of church and state have “adapted” their views into the minds of the founding fathers—basically told God he is the one who has to “adapt” to suit their political and social views since the Renaissance period, for better or worse, depending on your point of view and politics.  

Corruption and cowardliness seems to be the rule of the day for religion, at least to the outsider who sees it as more like a "business," and to those who were “taught” one thing and see others doing the opposite. Assuming that Jesus was speaking for God during the Sermon on the Mount, it seems that just got in the way of living a “Christian” existence:

Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven. Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted. Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the Earth. Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be satisfied. Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy. Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God. Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called the Sons of God. Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven. Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

But there is more:

 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that?  And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? For if you forgive other people when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you.  But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.

No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.

Do not judge, or you too will be judged.  For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye. Which of you, if your son asks for bread, will give him a stone? ¹Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake?

Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

A professor of religious studies, Jared Wilson, notes that this “adaptation” of God to “changing times” apparently includes ignoring the Beatitudes as enunciated by Jesus at the Sermon on the Mount, since they have become passé, at least to those who pray to the god of money: “Blessed, blessed, blessed. What is Jesus doing? He’s telling the losers that it’s their turn now—or, at least, that it will be soon.” People like Johnson believe that people with wealth and power is a “gift” from God, which of course ignores a few things: the far-right fanatics in his party are about as ungodly as they come, reveling in the  “power” to cause chaos and destruction and have people at each other's throats.

Wilson goes on to say that fake Christians are “too busy being played by those who’ve learned to game the system. We don’t really care to hear from these (“loser”) people (i.e. working class people or those in need of public assistance or health care). They’re messy, a little weird, socially awkward, kind of needy, and not very put together. What can they teach us? I mean, what can they teach us about what we really want? They aren’t winners. We don’t want a word from them. And we don’t typically have a word for them. And yet these people are exactly the ones Jesus is speaking to. His words are especially designed for and specifically targeted at…well, losers.”

For fat-cat Christians who think they are where they are at because of “faith” alone and are the “chosen ones”—or wish gullible people to believe this—the Beatitudes were

…a shot right into the side of these cultural values, a heat-seeking missile into the rusty hull of that worn old battleship, the SS Works Righteousness. They are an alien invasion, a monolith dropped right out of the other dimension like the thing in 2001 that drove all the apes crazy. Some got smarter, some got meaner, b.ut they all got different because the landscape of reality had been changed. That’s what the Beatitudes do. They change reality

A Rev. Brent White tells us that Jesus wasn’t really telling people that being poor and powerless was the way to paradise; after all: “Why would I even ask these questions? Justification by faith alone, we Protestants say—and I’ve got all the proof-texts on my side. Why does Jesus seem to be teaching works righteousness? Is he really saying that if you are this way, or you do these things, then all these good things will happen to you—including heaven when you die? Or, as in Luke’s version, if you aren’t and you don’t, you’re in trouble? Does even faith in Christ matter less than these things?”

Of the Beatitudes “Mostly—if we’re evangelicals—we ignore them…The Beatitudes, in particular, are not teachings on how to be blessed. They are not instructions to do anything. They do not indicate conditions that are especially pleasing to God or good for human beings.” They are merely Jesus addressing his listeners at that time, just ordinary people “of little or no account—and saying, ‘the blessings of God’s kingdom are available even to these.” White then adds, perhaps with a note of cynicism, that Jesus says that “With God, all things are possible—including the salvation of both rich and poor. Because, as we Protestants knew all along, salvation isn’t based on anything other than justification by faith alone.”

So now you know why far-right "Christians" and Republicans generally don't really give a damn about "the people." Let them wallow in loserville and fight amongst each other while they grab the dough. I mean, does MTG really deserve tax-payer money? 

An author named Erik Hare, who apparently is an “observer” of Christian behavior, tells us that those 25 percent who identify as evangelical protestants “are not Christians” at all, and 

They owe their influence to a rigid deference to leadership and a high degree of stubborn political action. For all of this power beyond their numbers, however, the biggest mystery is where their agenda comes from. It’s certainly not the Christian Bible. Very little of the evangelical agenda is justified by the good book, and some is even directly opposed to the words of Jesus. It’s long past time to call out the beliefs of this group and question their agenda because it is, if anything, not generally backed by consistent Christian writings or tradition.

Hare points out that the Bible says nothing about abortion, that on the subject of public prayer, that did not take the place of what Jesus taught on the Sermon on the Mount concerning the “basics of Christian life and practice. It begins with the famous Beatitudes, worth discussing at length elsewhere – along with their insistence on compassion, empathy, and mercy.” Hare notes that Jesus was unsympathetic to people who put on a self-serving public “show” of their “faith,” like, say, televangelists:

And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

Hare points out that evangelicals also 

have never called out materialism. Those who preach a 'Prosperity Gospel’ actually embrace it. But the true enemy of Christmas as a sacred holiday for family and faith has indeed always been the rush to spend and give.(Charles) Schultz had it right. Where did he get his values from? Jesus, again, in the same sermon: 'No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.’ I have yet to hear Evangelicals call out commercialism or indeed capitalism as a whole, and certainly it has never been an important part of their agenda.”

Hare notes that while there is evidence of condemnation of homosexuality in the Bible, it is not anything attributed to Jesus himself, and he is “satisfied” with that. 

He goes on to say that evangelicals who wish to post the 10 Commandments in front of public buildings tend to ignore the 600 laws given “directly by God, not just the first ten” of which “Most are ignored by Christians.” Of course the Fourth Commandment asserts that “Remember the Sabbath Day to keep it holy,” meaning Sunday for Christians. Hare notes that evangelicals and televangelists “violate one of the big ones every single week” for money.

So what is left after you weed out the culture war hypocrisy? Hare points out that “If you read the words of Jesus himself, it’s all pretty clear. There is a new covenant that cast aside the harsh laws of the past and is based on love. That love is for all of creation, of which we are a part. That’s not to say there won’t be people who say otherwise, but Jesus had a lot to say about those who would misrepresent his word for political gain:

Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.

False prophets naturally inspire false disciples. Take for example Lauren Boebert, someone who seems completely oblivious to the fact that she is a “Christian” in name only. Back in the days when she was still only just a candidate, The Denver Post recorded her on the campaign trail pronouncing

It’s time for us to position ourselves and rise up and take our place in Christ and influence this nation as we were called to do. We know that we are in the last of the last days…This is a time to know that you were called to be part of these last days. You get to have a role in ushering in the second coming of Jesus.

You know when someone like Boebert says these things, it must be the result of insanity. The Post reported another speech in which she expounded on these “thoughts”:

God is on our side. The blood has been applied. We are going straight into victory. You are all more than conquerors through God, through Christ who strengthens you every step of the way.

Here, Boebert was speaking at a Truth and Liberty Coalition conference, a “nonprofit” founded by a extreme-right “preacher” named Andrew Wommack, who believes there is no “disconnect” between the “secular and sacred.” Well, there is, and there should be, because, well, you shouldn’t be listening to hypocrites. The Post reported in the past that this person without those glasses as a "disguise"...

 

 

...was arrested twice in Mesa County in 2015. Boebert was detained on June 20, 2015, after a verbal altercation with police at Country Jam, a music festival near Grand Junction. Boebert, then 28 years old, allegedly shouted at people detained on suspicion of underage drinking, urging them to flee from police, which caused the young drinkers to become unruly. While she was being handcuffed for disorderly conduct, Boebert tried to twist away from police, according to deputies’ reports. She allegedly shouted that her arrest was unconstitutional, that “she had friends at Fox News and that the arrest would be national news.” It did not become national news.

Boebert was arrested a second for the same incident after failing to appear for a court appearance twice. Now for most people that means jail time for contempt of court, but not for a “Christian” like Boebert, since prosecutors determined that engaging in altercation with police while enjoining people to break the law is not a crime, depending on who you are. For Boebert, there was “no reasonable likelihood of conviction should the case go to trial.” Oh sure.

Boebert also showed her contempt for law and order a year later:

Boebert was charged with careless driving and operating an unsafe vehicle after rolling her truck into a Garfield County ditch in the summer of 2016. They were minor traffic charges, but Boebert skipped an October court date. She was booked into the Garfield County Jail on the morning of Feb. 13, 2017, for failure to appear and spent exactly 100 minutes as an inmate before being released on bond, according to sheriff’s office records. She later pleaded guilty to the unsafe vehicle charge, and the careless driving charge was dropped.

It was noted by one observer that “Lauren Boebert’s hypocrisy is clear — she thinks the law doesn’t apply to her. If Boebert can’t follow basic laws, how can Coloradans trust her to represent them with integrity as a member of Congress?” Good question. More examples of her “Christian” behavior, as reported by the Associated Press:

She was kicked out of the “Beetlejuice” musical last Sunday following complaints from people in the audience that she and another guest were vaping, singing, using phones and causing a disturbance. When the lights were still on and as people were taking their seats around Boebert, she could be seen in the surveillance video putting her hand to her mouth then blowing out a cloud of vapor. After the lights went off, the footage showed Boebert dancing in her seat and flashes from her phone as she held it up and appeared to take photos of herself during the performance.

Well, at least we know that Boerbert is a really annoying “Christian.” She is divorced and has full custody of her children, like son Tyler, who is 18 and has learned how to be a model Christian just like her mother:

 

 According to Newsweek

Tyler Boebert, the oldest son of Colorado Representative Lauren Boebert, was arrested on Tuesday after a string of vehicle trespasses and property thefts, furthering the 18-year-old's record with law enforcement. The Rifle Police Department announced that Boebert was arrested Tuesday afternoon around 2:30 p.m. in connection to the trespasses and thefts. He faces 22 charges, including five felony counts and over 15 misdemeanor and petty offenses. The felony charges include four felony counts of criminal possession of ID documents and one count of conspiracy to commit a felony.

Like his mother, he also has an “exemplary” driving record:

In 2022, he was given a "careless driving causing bodily injury" ticket when he flipped his father's SUV into a creek bed. His 19-year-old friend, who was sitting in the passenger seat, told the Colorado outlet Westword that he suffered "multiple concussions and a severely lacerated hand" as a result of the accident. "I know he didn't mean to do it. It was an accident. But the fact that [the Boebert family is] downplaying it like this is something else. Superficial injuries? I got multiple concussions. My thumb was almost cut off. I couldn't hold a torch. It prevented me from getting a welding job. So, yeah, harm was definitely done," Noah D'Amato told Westword.

What happened after that was just more “like mother, like son”:

Prosecutors eventually downgraded the case down to a "defective vehicle for headlights" ticket after Boebert accepted a plea deal, which required him to attend a driver's awareness program. However, he never appeared for his court date, and a bench warrant was issued. Boebert ultimately called the court and asked for the hearing to be changed to a later date, according to the outlet.

The incident sparked controversy, with some observers questioning if Boebert received special treatment because of his mother, Lauren Boebert, who is running for a third congressional term this year. The conservative firebrand is facing a tough uphill re-election battle, having switched from the 3rd Congressional District, which she currently represents, to the 4th District, a more conservative-leaning district that could give her a boost.

Boerbert herself has only suggested that she will allow “justice” to run its course in her son’s case, taking no responsibility for his behavior, while doing her best to pretend he doesn’t exist. No doubt this episode would have sunk her reelection chances in the 3^rd district, but the question of how many right-wing “Christian” voters in the 4^th will “forgive” her and her family’s sins. Maybe the vote will actually tell us how few “Christians” there are in that district, since they don’t hold Boebert to any “Christian” ideal, just a coward who can’t face the truth of who she really is—a corrupted individual whose dishonesty and lack of “principles” she actually follows leads to chaos whatever room she steps into.

Of course Matt Gaetz also claims to be a “Christian.” Word & Way, a Christian newspaper founded in 1896, had this to say about Gaetz, who represents a district that includes Pensacola Christian College. Observing that the school “has a very strict code of conduct”

Students are expected to “exercise control over their emotions and desires so that behavior is appropriate and right.” They are prohibited from possessing pornography, engaging in sex outside of marriage, and using drugs. Furthermore, “to guard purity and maintain a spotless Christian testimony,” men and women are not allowed to make physical contact with each other, be in secluded places together, or even ride in the same elevator.

Gaetz has appeared on campus giving “motivational” speeches about “Christian conduct,” but apparently failing to mention his own view of what this means:

Gaetz seems to have fallen short of this goal and broken all of Pensacola Christian College’s rules along the way. He reportedly bragged to other members of Congress about his sexual escapades, including sharing pictures and videos of naked women. He allegedly paid for sex on multiple occasions, and witnesses claim he used illegal drugs while partying with those “escorts.” The most horrific claims surround the trafficking and improper relationship with a minor, to which an associate has already pled guilty and indicated a desire to cooperate with federal investigators. Gaetz’s ex-girlfriend is also telling investigators what she knows.

The Justice Department closed its investigation of Gaetz in 2022, merely citing that a jury might find “credibility issues” with witnesses, including a “close friend” who was sentenced to 11 years in prison on basically the same charges as those made against Gaetz. It reminds one of the Whitewater Scandal, which Bill and Hilary Clinton were apparently neck-deep in, but they escaped justice while 15 others—including a sitting governor, Jim Guy Tucker, were convicted of crimes stemming from the scandal.

A New Yorker story in 2017 noted that evangelicals criticized mainline denominations for being “too focused on social ills rather than personal salvation.” As noted before, evangelical “Christians” have little use for the teaching of their religion’s namesake, they only care about themselves and how they make the whole world (or at least the whole country) beholden to their whims, which is surprisingly easier to do now with a little “court-shopping” and a willing Supreme Court. Faith, according to Protestant and evangelical sects like to tell us, is all that is needed to attain “salvation.”

It reminds me of Rudolph Hoess, the camp commandant of Auschwitz for most of its existence and the principle focus of this year’s Oscar-winning Foreign-language film The Zone of Interest, who admitted as he  awaited his hanging for the killing of 3.5 million people (most of them in the gas chambers that he personally oversaw the construction of) that he had found “God” and that he now realized what he did was “wrong,” and that he was “misled” by Nazi ideology, and he firmly believed that this was enough to absolve him of his “sins.” A military psychologist would say of him that while he showed “belated” remorse, this was only after he was confronted with this crimes, not out of self-examination. He was “schizoid apathetic” incapable of real remorse, and whose lack of empathy bordered on the psychotic.

Yet Hoess received the sacrament of penance from a Polish priest before his hanging and even received Holy Communion, which as I recall in my church days as a youth, you were only to do so if you had done your penance (a few Hail Marys and Our Fathers, counting them off on rosary beads), after going to confession. Of course Catholics are supposed to believe that unlike Protestants, “good works” are necessary for “salvation” and not something the people are simply motivated to do on their own because they have "faith." 

You can say you "believe" but then act in "his name" in ways I'm sure God didn't intend you to do (I mean why can't people just learn to live with each other, like the idealistic types sang about in the 60s and 70s)?  Somehow, I doubt that Hoess got off that easy when forced to confront the Catholic maker.

Too many “Christians” seem to abuse the “faith alone” doctrine, instead being in Christ like the would believing they have to breath oxigen in order to “exist.” They act as if they expect that their inaction will bring on the “end times”—like say, enhancing Ukraine’s “end times” by denying aid—and still believe that when the “chosen one” arrives they will be told they did “good.” One wonders if it is Satan who is the one who greets them on the other side and sends them to the “next world” for doing his work.

Meanwhile, aid for Ukrainians fighting for their liberty are being held hostage by Republicans who instead decry the imaginary crime-wave perpetrated by migrants, which no study has ever supported. We wonder what side “God” is on, but I suppose that doesn’t really matter to those corrupt of spirit.