let's return to this business of choosing *anchors* for oneself—reference points that people gauge themselves against, which remind them where (and when) they are in the world.
let's say you've anchored yourself in the world with...a stone. a piece of ordinary rock.
I have a stone right here in front of me—it's specular hematite, polished into an attractive, shiny, slightly irregular sphere about 4 cm in diameter. Chara named it _Orbis Ferox_ ("fierce sphere") partly in allusion to its composition: it's iron(3) oxide, Fe₂O₃.
(cont'd)
now imagine that we referred *all of our decisions* to _Orbix Ferox_. (we don't, but...try to imagine that we do.)
imagine that we got out of bed in the morning and first thing we did was pick up the hematite sphere and ask it, "what should we do today? what portends?"
(cont'd)
suppose we carried _Orbis Ferox_ around with us at all times, in our pockets or purse. suppose we were always handling it, *gripping* it when faced with anything challenging or confusing—suppose we were always *talking* to the sphere, and always listening for response.
(cont'd)
if we behaved this way with our hematite sphere, we'd have made _Orbis Ferox_ into a personal anchoring object to the highest possible degree: we'd have made the sphere into an *idol*, an object of reverence and ritual—something that was now *necessary* to our lives.
(cont'd)
because if we relied upon _Orbis Ferox_ for doing *everything* in our lives, we'd be lost without it. as it stands, if we lost our hematite sphere or if someone smashed it, we'd be really *peeved* and sad about it but we wouldn't feel like our lives had been upturned.
(cont'd)
now suppose that I did the same thing to @MattWalshBlog's favorite #Bible. or @PastorMark's, or @RepMTG's—Christian fanatics tend to own *heaps* of Bibles (the more Bibles, the more holy they feel!) but undoubtedly they have a *favorite* one. suppose I destroyed it.
(cont'd)
how upset do you think @PastorMark &c. would feel if I destroyed their favorite Bible, or their favorite Cross? I think they'd be *much* more upset than if someone smashed our hematite sphere.
that's the nature of idolatry: one puts part of one's identity in the idol.
(cont'd)
if we'd treated _Orbis Ferox_ as an idol, it would be like the hematite sphere was part of ourselves—if it were lost or smashed, it would feel a bit like losing an eye or a finger.
this is how Christians like @MattWalshBlog &c. behave towards their Bibles and Crosses.
(cont'd)
they're not *supposed* to do this; Christians are supposed to believe in high and lofty *abstractions*, not in concrete objects—but here's the dirty secret about Christianity (especially right-wing Christianity): people like @MattWalshBlog don't believe in abstractions.
(cont'd)
@MattWalshBlog and @PastorMark and @pastorlocke *do not believe in abstractions*. they want a "faith" that they can see and touch and feel, at all times—and they demand that all society and government prop up their faith, which is why they're moist for @RonDeSantisFL.
(cont'd)
if "God" (or the next best thing, i.e. President Ron) isn't sending police officers round to stomp on drag performers—why, then it's like "God" doesn't actually exist, for @MattWalshBlog &c.
these people are *idolaters*. they need physical, tangible icons to believe.
(cont'd)
and that's why Christian fanatics like the ones that run the @GOP (and who've been puppeting @mtaibbi) are so *dangerous*. they're "religious" but in a weak, wispy way that needs constant support and shoring-up—all society needs to affirm the faith of @MattWalshBlog &c.
(cont'd)
if they're not seeing "God" all round them, they get scared and angry and demand that laws be passed in order to protect their flimsy and idolatrous "faith". that's modern-day, politicized American Christianity; that's @MattWalshBlog's Christianity.
I have never watched Richard Nixon's actual infamous 1962 televised breakdown, after he lost the California gubernatorial election to incumbent Pat Brown.
this is the speech in which Mr. Nixon said "you won't have me to kick around anymore"—it's well-known. I haven't seen it!
Chara hasn't seen it, I don't think. Frisk almost certainly has, but a long time ago.
it seems to be difficult to find a straightforward clip of Mr. @dick_nixon's concession speech in 1962! here is a partial clip:
here's an edited video that uses a bit more of the *audio* from the concession speech:
fragments. this is frustrating! this is one of the most famous moments in American history! do I need to go to the @dick_nixon library to see the whole thing?
we aren't used to strict Christian upbringing; it's tough for us to watch. we have to remind ourselves that things aren't what they first seem.
Mrs. Nixon is a strict Quaker; she addresses young @dick_nixon with "thee"—this may sound merely *upsetting* to modern ears.
(cont'd)
"thee" and "thou" and "thy", however, are pronouns used to refer to human beings in a general way, i.e. not an excessively *familiar* and specific way. Spanish, for example, has a similar distinction between the general-purpose _usted_ and the familiar _tú_.
(cont'd)
in addressing her son with "thee", Mrs. Nixon is reminding her son that she speaks to him as one Christian to another—as one person to another. it's slightly distancing, yes, but it's not meant to be hurtful or punitive, even if it seems that way.
Murray Chotiner (played by famous Yiddish theatre actor Fyvush Finkel) gives us a summary of the dedicated politician, the person who believes for whatever reason that they ought to be in charge of things.
"Because if he's not this Nixon [i.e. President] he's nobody".
(cont'd)
this mindset is *foreign* to us. who thinks this about themselves?
lots of people, as it turns out. large numbers of Americans are raised to believe that they somehow *deserve* to have life-and-death power over millions of human beings—they think it's their *calling*.
(cont'd)
@elonmusk keeps staggering forward towards his antic visions of The Future™ because he believes in himself—wherever he gets his sense of destiny, he's got it, and he believes in it, and he thinks the Cosmos *needs* him. and thus, Elon Musk has admirers and believers.
Nixon: "Howard Hunt is working for the White House? Jesus Christ."
the very word *conspiracy* carries a lot of false connotations with it—notions perpetuated by peddlers of *false* conspiracies, like you'll find in the @elonmusk / @mtaibbi / @ShellenbergerMD crowd.
(cont'd)
people of @mtaibbi's stripe want "conspiracy" to conjure up mental fantasies of sinister organizations of evildoers—as if @TheDemocrats or "the Cabal" (the antisemitic QAnon trope) were like S.P.E.C.T.R.E. from Bond movies or S.E.E.L.E. from "Neon Genesis Evangelion".
(cont'd)
*real* conspiracies are messy and slipshod. they're still _conspiracies_—that is to say, they're still groups of people all working together (directly or indirectly) towards a common nefarious goal. but they're not all necessarily masterminds, or being masterminded.
Ollie Stone's "Nixon" begins with Howard Hunt's CREeP boys prepping for the Watergate breakin and for some reason they're watching a short film on sales technique—for all I know, this is historical, but for now we take this as a reminder of a common *theme* about Nixon.
(cont'd)
the theme was most famously explored in Joe McGinnis's book "The Selling of the President, 1968"—Nixon, the book asserts, was a triumph of slick *marketing*. young Richard Nixon was not an appealing man, but he was able to rebrand himself as an older, wiser statesman.
(cont'd)
there's a direct line to be drawn between Mr. @dick_nixon's 1968 marketing machine, and the current-day attempts of the @GOP—an extremist Christian fascist party—to rebrand itself, with the help of frauds like @elonmusk and @mtaibbi, as somehow the rebellious outsiders.
in the Pnictogen Wing we're also proud to host Chara's more famous sibling Frisk, who has a number of strong interests that Chara shares only to a slight degree. Frisk loves cars and typewriters and is better with machines than Chara.
perhaps "like" isn't the word. at any rate they've a *fascination* with Richard M. Nixon, and they've read a LOT of Nixoniana. Chara's only ever *watched* Alan Pakula's "All the President's Men"; Frisk has read the Woodstein book (and its follow-up, "The Final Days".)
(cont'd)
Frisk read all of Stephen Ambrose's huge biography of Nixon. I'm sure there's other Nixon books they've read. oh, there's an amusing *fictional* work: "The Last Pumpkin Paper", which follows Richard Nixon and his little team of loyalists on a quest for self-vindication.