The China Hub show! 12-21 edition of The Murdock Report.....

Join us when we have St. Senator-elect Maria Chappelle-Nadal and Jo Mannies of the St. Louis Beacon. We'll also have a lively discussion about the repeal of DADT.
Join us, would you?

The Millennialism Psychosis

We have touched on the concept of millennialism on the show, but I should state what it is once again. It is, perhaps, the most dangerous part of the appeal of the religious right. They are the World Ending Fables that attach themselves to religions. These fables become all-consuming to many lay followers, and often are the sole reason that families adhere so ardently to their Imperialistic religious paradigm. As we all know, we live in an age of incivility, and part of the animosity is generated from the uncompromising attitude that emanates from the religious right and their allies in politics. In my opinion, it is directly related to the psychological effect that such world-ending fables produce: millennialism.

Some would argue that millennialism went away with the Y2K scare. I respectfully disagree with this notion. The tragedy of 9-11 made sure that it would become a powerful undertone in our society, and it has been reinforced by war, recession, natural disasters, and things like the Mayan calendar, planets aligning and even reports of an asteroid that wil projected to come dangerously close to earth in 2027. Society has faced great challenges in the past, like the black death that was the bubonic plague, and has survived. We shall do so again.

But what exactly is millennialism? It's the belief that a powerful, omnipotent deity will bring all of existence to an end, the good being redeemed, the bad sent to a place whre they will be punished. Millennialism is also a pillar of each of the four great monotheistic religions. We are most familiar with the Christian paradigm, the Revelation To John, in which Christ will establish a one-thousand year reign of the saints on earth before the Last Judgement. For the Jewish faith (where Christianity borrowed the idea) it is the coming, unknown Messiahs, one spiritual and one a political leader. Muslims have a similar story with its' "hidden imam", and Buddhists have the expectation of Maitreya, a kind of messianic final incarnation of the Buddha. Indigenous, anti-imperialist (or anti-colonial) and new-age style movements all have millennialist characteristics with a multitiude of variations, but the theme is always the same; God will judge the living, resurrect his loyal subjects who have died, and reign as supreme temporal ruler who will deliver the ultimate divine justice. There are two streams of thoughts to millennialism: pre- and post-millennialism. Pre-millennialism sees the millennium as requiring God's supernatural intervention to initiate it; post-millenialism sees it as the climax and goal of all human progress, and humanity should contribute to this so-called "divine plan" and God will then come to rule. Millennialism can be construed as positive in some cases, like when it's used as the impetus to build infrastructure and better peoples' daily existence, but they seem to be rare. The power of these types of movements ebb and flow with the events that happen to humanity, but they are generally popular in any age. Yet, no matter how many times they have been predicted, they go unfulfilled. However, the key to its' appeal is not the time frame they exist in, but the earthly nature, the perceived tangibility of their cosmic message of a "new world" will come and sweep away all the suffering and oppression that has gone on for countless generations. It means an end to the current institutions of power and, therefore, gives all millenialist dogmas a revolutionary quality that has made them unwelcome to most who occupy positions of power.

This makes them almost irresistable to politicians, and the parties they belong to, who want to exploit them for their own ambitions. A perfect example of this is Newt Gingrich's newfound love of the "clash of civilizations" rhetoric. This, and similar messages, is how millennialism has infected the political arc that has come to define our world today: With the downfall of Communism in Russia and the Soviet bloc, the world reverted back to the old religious rivalries that had  previously dictated world history, which was quite unexpected to many. It produced a kind of "quickening" in society that turns into a longing for a messiah to produce himself and start the apocalypse. Since this "Judgement Day" is anticipated but goes unfulfilled, millennial hopes have given fresh fuel to a very conservative influence in politics. In quieter rimes, when societies aren't faced with war, natural disaters (like massive earthquakes and mega-hurricanes), and economic turmoil, millennial hopes merely console the suffering and inspire patience. They have even given birth to new sects, like Mormonism and the Seventh-Day Adventists in America. However, when the world is in turmoil for one reason or another, millennialists can become disruptive, even engaging in revolutionary efforts to overthrow the sociopolitical order in an attempt to foster the atmosphere that will bring about this celestial kingdom.

Here lies the real threat; every time the apocalyptic fever overtakes a population, two things happen; the efforts to create the millennial kingdom on earth have led to disaster, and the predictions always turn out to be flat wrong. From the days of Alexander the Great to the Jewish revolts against the Roman Empire, all the way up to the Taiping Rebellion (which led to the death of 20 to 35 million people in China), the Cold War against Communism or even the "War on Terror", such movements tend to self destruct, bringing great global catastrophes that exacerbate suffering and oppression.

Millennialism is part of what the Republican party has exploited to once again attain political power, and it's been part of their playbook for the better part of a century, if not longer. Millennialism arrived with the Puritans, and has been part of the American political landscape to this day. You see and hear it all the time, yet you rarely equate the two. It's there when Glenn Beck is prostelyzing to his listeners, then segues into an ad urging his listeners to buy gold from GoldLine, or to buy "Food Insurance". The term "American Exceptionalism" is a direct appeal to millennialists who tell themselves that they are one of "God's chosen", no matter what sins they may be guilty of. It fuels the current strain of Islamophobia that led to protests over an alleged mosque being built in New York's Times Square. It is central to the rise of hate groups associated with White Supremacy and Christian Identity movements all over the country.

With this exploitation from the GOP comes a strident anti-intellectualism; the demonization of anyone and everyone who would challenge the conservative power bases within America. Elite liberals are cast as the heretics that the religious right would like nothing more than to round up and burn at the stake. It is this dangerous undercurrent that most Republicans wink at on the campaign trail, and for the more cynical (and less sophisticated) ones like Sarah Palin, Sharron Angle, Steve King of Iowa, Rand Paul, Minnesota's Michelle Bachmann and Delaware's Christine O'Donnell, pander to openly. The women on this list are especially notable, since not only are they just socialist-hating McCarthyites; they are conciously attempting to channel Joan of Arc, another figure of history who thought she was fighting for God and the world was about to end. The message was the same then as it is now: conform to our radical vision of the world or be damned, possibly destroyed, by these self-described pious culture warriors.

Of course, the GOP brand of postmodern millennialism would not be as popular if it weren't for the constant repetition of the drum beaters that inhabit the Christian media Empire. Entire networks, like DayStar, TBN, and dozens of local media outlets reinforce Millennialism and the uber-authoritarian, Dominionist, and reconstructive theologies that accompany them on a daily basis. Here, they give the Jack Van Impes, Hal Lindseys and Tim LaHayes of the world a forum to preach death and destruction billed as "miracles".

However, Pat Robertson, John Hagee and Ron Parsley are just examples of the postmodern American models. We also have their Islamic counterparts; the Iranian Mullahs, Osama bin Laden and the Taliban leader Mullah Omar are just a few that we are aware of now. Each global monotheistic religion has their radical element out there. These men use the millennial message to undermine secular leaders legitimate power that there were (in most cases) elected as Chief Executives of their nations. All religious activists who use the legends of death as part of a greater agenda; to justify their violent and destructive actions under the historical precedents of religious sanction to kill for their religious theology. It is not just an American dynamic. In fact the American religious right may be the most passive of all the global religious insurrections. Not only are there the Islamic jihadists, but Orthodox Jews, Indian Sikhs and even Buddhist monks who engage in what they define as justified warfare and murder in the name of god in every (rounded) corner on the planet.

Then, there's the money factor. Since the days of Marx, there has been a sizable portion of religious leaders who sought out the corporate aristocrats, princes and nobility of the world to fund their holy wars against labor unions, civil rights movements and "communists" that threatened their positions of priviledge. In the America of the  late 1920's and early 30's, when the power of unions was at its' highest, corporate moguls were still tarnished (justifyably) as robberbarons and cold, uncaring elitists who only worried about their bottom line, and the great unwashed masses be damned. It was this characterization that gave union organizing its' own sense of missionary zeal. To counteract this, many within the clergy allied with the robberbarons, along with men who worked in the advertising field, repackaged their image and sold them to America and the world as pious crusaders engaged in a new capitalism, redefined as "God's work", in a strategy that was known as "publicity engineering". This is a carefully crafted message, 80 years in the making, that many white protestants want to hear because they've been indoctrinated to respond to it. They are told that they don't have to choose between God and Mammon, and those opposed to the religious right's agenda are ungodly and unpatriotic. It served as a way to vilify those who fought for social justice from the workplace to the ballot box, reinforces homophobia, cultural pluralism, sexism and racism with the idea that, since these redeemed robberbarons were engaged in "God's work", then anyone opposed to them must be heathens, ungrateful, arrogant people who rejected God's will, or worse, "satan's" minions. It is a message that the great despots of the world, including both Hitler and Stalin (although Uncle Joe cut his own path) have used to gain power. Hitler is way too easy, and used far too often to vilify people today, so we'll use Stalin.

Stalin was a well-known Atheist. However, it is a capital fact that he did study to become a seminarian in his native country of Georgia. His mother was widely known to be disappointed with her son, who rejected the priesthood, for the rest of her life. Stalin was said to be amused by this, but he did take the lessons learned to heart. Stalin used the cult of personality to instill a religious fervor in his dictatorship, promoting himself as a "God-man"- something that religious teachings can, and have, influenced. Stalin was also notorious for his anti-semitism, another Christian characteristic, which he employed against his political rival, Leon Trotsky. He also borrowed from the Inquisition the show trial, a lovely trick later used by Tailgunner Joe McCarthy. Hitler was quoted as saying that bolshevism was the bastard child of Christianity. Why was Stalin successful? Because the Russian Czar the Communists eventually succeeded also used religion, divine rule, the clergy and its millennialist undertones to maintain their hold on power for centuries. Stalin knew how to tap into that and designed his Communist party to mimic religion.

Let's return to the current political atmosphere and the conservative groups that are now engaged in the exploitation of millennialism. What interests do these three groups share? First, they all despise the secular states, plus the rights of the common person that are enshrined in documents like our Bill of Rights and France's Declaration of the Rights of Man, regardless of the disingenuous rhetoric to the contrary. Second, they resent the rules and regulations such countries have established to rein in the power of the aristocratic classes, whether they be nobles, royals, clergy or corporate CEO's. These people think all secular politics is invalid, unless they can control it and exploit it for their own self interests. These three groups, religious activists, the GOP and the corporate aristocrats who fund them, have come together in an effort to essentially rebrand the ancient, flawed idea that humanity should be under divine rule. It is, in a way, a one-world ideology that is openly hostile to democracy so they can do whatever they want without repercussions, and milllennialism is an essential lynchpin to their overall strategy to gain absolute power over all of us. They use all of their resources to hang the end of the world over our heads like the sword of Damacles, a constant threat to peace and prosperity in order to destroy all that democracy has gained since the dawn of the Enlightenment era. In short, all three partners of this power trio are out to sabotage real freedom and liberty, and the end of days dogma is one of their most effective weapons.

So, the question becomes, are these people serious? I would agree with the great philosopher Seneca the Younger, and personally doubt that most people highest on the food chain actually believe in millennialism. They just use the message to manipulate mankind for their own cynical purposes. However, there are plenty of people who take this very seriously, which leads us to the ultimate danger that only the modern world has faced; nuclear weapons. Some religious leaders see the mushroom cloud as a means to divine retribution, so they  delude themselves into believing that they will somehow return from their atomized state and rule at the side of God. Therefore, they do not care if we cure diseases or solve Global Warming. The threat of global thrermonuclear war is real, which makes such millennialist preachers, imams, mullahs and monks, along with their flocks, eminently more dangerous than just the despots of the past who have used millennialism. Their psychosis consumes and drives them to almost provoke such actions, just so their tale of destruction will be the narrative that will be the end of the world as we know it. It's an end that any rational human being knows there is no resurrection from.

Except for the atomic cockroaches.

One day, the apocalyptic hysteria will die down, like it always does, and the religious right will proclaim another "great disappointment", hole up in the boonies and go back into a holding pattern. It will be only then when rational heads will prevail, and we will have to ask some really hard questions about our society and it's attitude with religious freedom. Do people have the right to believe whatever they want about the world, creation and deities? Can we allow religious freedom to overwhelm the rest of civilization, so they can impose their worldview and canon laws upon the rest of society? If we do indeed allow this, aren't we then inviting another inevitable wave of millennialism?

These are difficult questions. However, we have to ask them and debate the merits, or we may in fact doom ourselves to a self-fulfilling prophesy that the religious right is programmed to follow.

Coming up on the Murdock Report

Here's who we have penciled in for the show in the next coming weeks:

On December 7th, former CIGNA exec-turned-whistleblower Wendell Potter joins us to talk about his latest book, "Deadly Spin". Wendell has worked tirelessly as an outspoken critic of corporate PR and the distortion and fear manufactured by America’s health insurance industry.  He's made frequent appearances on Countdown with Keith Olbermann.

December 14th will mark the return of Cathy Sherwin, Communications Director for the Missouri AFL-CIO to talk about the possible threat of the State of Misery going "Right to Work (is a RIPOFF)", and most likely tax cuts for the rich while the Party of NO lets us workin' folk starve and go homeless. We also have penciled in Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center. Let's hope he can join us.

We've got a show on the movies of the year planned for the 28th, and we will have our first movie ticket giveaway on the show for "Made in Dagenham", a story about how women in England fought the system, and WON, equal pay with men. Truly inspiring!
Be sure to tune in this and every Tuesday at high noon for the Murdock Report on WGNU 920 AM!

Tomorrow on The Murdock Report...

First, Kenny and Smokin' Joe will talk about the hottest topic in St. Louis, its ranking by CQ Press as the most dangerous city in America. We hope to have a guest from the mayor's office to comment, but has no been confirmed at this time.
(Spoiler alert: Smokin' Joe think this city is safe, and CQ Press is full of it!)
Then, we'll have Lawrence Korb, former White House counsel for the Clinton Administration, now a policy analyst for the Center for American Progress.
(Augh! Grevious error! Korb served under Reagan as assistant Defense Attorney! Apologies to Mr. Korb. He was a fantastic guest) His areas of expertise includes:

Terrorism retaliation and response, National security organization, policy, and process; U.S. foreign policy, arms control, and defense budget; NATO; conventional arms trade; military budget, ballistic missile defense.

Don't you dare miss The Murdock Report, Tuesdays @ noon on WGNU 920 AM.

"Byzantine"

The word "Byzantine" is generally used as a verb in modern day society, usually in a way that is derogatory and describes how bureaucratic an organization is. What Byzantine really is, is the history of an Empire that had a rich and complex history and represents the bulwark that held Islam in check, literally blocking the entry into Europe for Sultans, Caliphs and jihad for centuries. The reason I mention it here is that I feel there are parallels in history that Americans should know if they want to understand what is happening in todays world.
Typically, the start of the Byzantine Empire is marked by the rise of the Emperor Heraclius in 610 simply because that's when what was kown as the eastern half of the Roman Empire stopped using Latin as the"official" language, and moved to the heterogeous, greek speaking civilization distinct from it's Roman past. However, what people really fail to grasp is that the Byzantines were the survivors of the Roman Empire, or put another way, the only seat of Christian Roman Empire. We like to think of the Romans as always Chrisitian and always based in the eternal city.
This is not true.
Rome, whaile it was the center of the government for much of its' history, it NEVER ruled as a Christian center. The entire time Rome was the center of government it was a PAGAN government. The man who moved the government from Rome to what was originally known as the city off Byzantium was Constantine the Great, who was the first Christian Emperor. After the historic battle on the Milvian Bridge, he almost immediately decided to move all Imperial power out of Rome because he considered it hopelessly "pagan". A couple of his successors did rule the Empire from Italy for a time, but that was in Milan. Theodosius I moved back to Byzantium (now named Constantinople) in 390AD where the capitol stayed until the fall of the Empire in 1453.
So, why is this extinct Empire so important in regard of modern history?
Sure, there's the war with Islamic forces, and there's even the political intrigues between church and state on a few occasions. However, what I'm concerned with is the relationship between the Imperial Court and the aristocratic class of late antiquity.
First off, it's hard to deny the similarities between an Emperor and a President, or a corporation and aristocrats (with the notable exception that aristocrats were actual people while a corporation is only a legal person). It's also notable that aristocrats, like corporations, have a huge impact on the societies they operate in. In some ways, the true measure of a leader, be it a President or an Emperor, is how they cope with such grand forces. Which leads us to one of the most influential men to wear the purple, Justinian.
Justinian was born Peter Sabbatius, and came from humble origins in the ancient lands of Macedon, now part of Greece. However, he was fortunate enough to be the favorite nephew of Justin, a man would came to Constantinople,joined the Imperial army, then the Palace Guard, and was uniquely positioned in the Palace to seize power when the previous Emperor, Anastsius I, died.
Justin was not well educated and considered elderly when he ascended to the throne, so the populace did not consider him qualified. However, it seems Justin was smart enough to send for his youthful nephew, a man 36 years of age who possessed a sharp intellect and extraordinary ability to command respect. Justin adopted him (a common occurance among Emperors) and in gratitude, Peter took the name Justinian.
It wouldn't be long before Justin was dead and Justinian would now be the man in Purple. Justinian was a visionary who had grand designs for the Empire.
Unfortunately, the aristocratic class, who thought little of this upstart, did not share it.  Instead, they looked down their noses at him and worked to undermine his legitimacy as Emperor because they thought they were the only ones worthy to rule in that aristocratic way such people have.
Justinian understood that, to make a political entity like an Empire, a state or a country work properly, that entity hadto take in enough revenue for it to not just maintain the current infrastructure, but to expand it as well.
Of course, the nobility hated that idea. They worked to clog up the bureaucracy with their constant attempts to maintain the status quo. they would do anything they could to expande their lands and dodge their responsibilities to the government that provided for their safety and well being.
Justinian would have none of these games, and hired a man named John the Cappadocian to run his tax collections. John was ruthless, had no charm and suffered the cries of the aristocrats even less than Justinian. He closed loopholes, streamlined the system, and attacked corruption.
This is not to say that this did not cause problems down the road. Most historians blame these actions as a major factor that set off what's known as the Nika riot. It was certainly not the high point of Justinian's rule, since the population almost sent the Emperor running back to Macedon with his tail between his legs. The only reason he stayed was because of the tenacity of his wife (who the aristocrats also hated) and told her husband that she would rather die than retreat.
Andthen the blood flowed in the overrun ampitheatre. It was quite gruesome, and any leader should have some shame if they ever approved such a massacre. However, after the riots, the aristocrats were back on the defensive. John the Cappadocian was again unleashed on them, and Justinian didn't have to worry about their interference anymore.
It's a far cry from what happened later in the Byzantine Empire's history. By the 11th Century and the death of Basil II, a series of weak and pliable Emperors were installed by the aristocratic class, and the mediocre caliber of these "leaders" essentially guaranteed the Empire's decline. These so-called nobles gobbled up all the farmland to expand their wealth, which is important because the Empire usedto use this land to give to citizen soldiers. The deal was, they get the land to farm, and in return they would fight for the Empire when an imminent threat loomed. Since the noble's greed wiped out this farmer-soldier class, the Empire had to employ mercenaries (Blackwater, anyone?) to protect the Empire. They also had a trade problem. The city of Venice had positioned itself so it could monopolize the import-export industry of Constantinople. The Empire was able to eject the Venetians for a time, but the man who ran the trading industry, Doce Enrico Dandolo, found a way to exact his revenge years later.
What did Dandolo do? He hijacked the Crusades. In 1204, the Western Crusaders came to Constantinople with pious murder in their hearts, and the great city of Constantinople was nearly crushed, never to regain its' great glory and strength. This was the beginning of the end as the after effects of the 4th Crusade would eventually bring the city to the point where it could no longer be the plug of Europe that stopped Islam.
The walls crumbled and Islam took the city, renaming it Istanbul.
That is what an aristocratic class can do to destroy an Empire, and it serves as a warning as how corporations could destroy our President and our country.

You see, yesterday's aristocrats are today's corporations.

Oh the weather outside is global...

Global Warming in not really being talked about in the news cycle right now. I am a little happy about that I hate arguing about facts.

"I read the news today, O boy..."

I couldn't let this past, especially since it touches a small part of my life. See, I lost my job last week. Like so many others out there, I'm not particularly happy about it. I had to go to the "Missouri Career Center" and be humiliated by standing in line, wait around, get asked a bunch of questions that are mildly offending and then watch a video that is a thinly veiled accusation that the reason I lost my job is that I wasn't a good enough peon. Bruised ego, anyone?
So, I go get a paper, and on the front is the story about the ABB standoff (rampage, as the Post Disgrace put it) last year, and the resouces the city used during it. What bothers me is that it seems the report's purpose was to show public servants how to be better Pinkertons. I mean, what about the source, this man who snapped because his employer singled him out as a "troublemaker" and he felt "ostracized". I don't condone what he did, but why do we have this aversion to examine what drove this man to bring weapos to work?
 Here's what the paper had to say about him:

"Among those questioned was Kathleen Hendron, the shooter's wife.
She's a victim in some sense herself," Sack said. "This is not something you'd ever expect a loved one to do."
She told police her husband had been "ostracized" at ABB for trying to start a union and for participating in a lawsuit against ABB over its pension plan. She told police he was worried about his impending performance as a witness in the case in Kansas City four days later.
The morning of the shooting, Hendron left a Post-It note on their refrigerator at home in Webster Groves. It read, "I love you both," and was a common gesture toward her and their teenage son.
Sack said: "The one question we were hoping to answer was why. He left no notes. He confided in no one. ... We don't know why he did it, but the end result is that he did."

So, here we have some evidence that yet another pseudo-person who has all this power over someone's real life, and when a person decides that they need to exert their rights against such an entity, the entire scab ideology puts you in the crosshairs.
What you may not know is when Glenn Beck's ideology hits you at your job, coupled with the undeniable fact that anthropologists know that when people go to work for one of these mulinationals tends to generate "hostility, instability, and fear of being obsolete and unprotected in our kind of society. It goes on:

Multiple employees told detectives that Hendron had been a sociable, joking man who turned sullen over the previous year. Some said he changed after the shift he supervised was eliminated, sending him back to an administrative job in which he hated his boss, then back to ordinary labor. They said he was passed over as supervisor when the shift was restored.
One co-worker and self-described close friend, Kevin Podolski, told police Hendron "kept to himself and was prone to outbursts of anger." The report continued, "Podolski also advised that he has believed for a long time that Timothy H. was capable of doing something like this."
Rick Lawrence, a company supervisor, told investigators that Hendron 'seemed disgruntled and agitated much of the time."

This tragedy should have never happened, and in my not so humble opinion, I think that if Reagan and the Republican party had not worked to destroy the labor movement, not only would this tragedy probably wouldn't have happened, but our greater economic tragedy that is our current economy would not have happened.

This Week on the Murdock Report...

Our first guest is Dr. Reynaldo Anderson, who is an Assistant Professor of Arts and Sciences at Harris-Stowe State University. Reynaldo’s research interests are in African American Studies, Literary Criticism, Rhetoric, and Cultural Criticism. Recently Dr. Anderson was awarded the Governor’s Humanities award in exemplary community leadership. Dr. Anderson will discuss the demographic differences between President Clinton's Election and President Obama's. We will expound vociferously.
Next, author Angela Ruzicka will talk to us about her book, Wendy on Wheels, a children's book with a "diiferently abled" kid as its' star. We'll also touch on the challenges, and victories, of the differently abled, and what it took to get a book like this published.
Set your cell phone alarms for high noon tomorrow for The Murdock Report, only on 920 AM WGNU!

Introducing....

Yes, we finally took the time to go a little web presence for our little show. Be sure to check back from time to time and see how I, Smokin' Joe, actually thinks about certain issues in the state of Misery.
And check out the show, Tuesdays @ noon, on WGNU 920 AM.