Full Show 9/20/12: Romney Goes Dark

Thom talks about the latest efforts from the right to suppress the vote with "Ring of Fire Radio" host Mike Papantonio. Also discussed: Actor Richard Belzer on his new conspiracy theory book "Dead Wrong," economist Max Fraad Wolff on why the bailed out banks are taking big financial risks and whether Romney darkened his skin for his Univision interview. In tonight's "Daily Take" Thom discusses Romney's Mormon belief in the "White Horse Prophecy," and why this may be the reason he's running for president.


Antifascist's picture
Antifascist 5 years 3 weeks ago

The Myth Of Origin And Destiny

Chapter 1: Historicism And The Myth Of Destiny

Historicism, which I have so far characterized only in a rather abstract way, can be well illustrated by one of the simplest and oldest of its forms, the doctrine of the chosen people. This doctrine is one of the attempts to make history understandable by a theistic interpretation, i.e. by recognizing God as the author of the play performed on the Historical Stage. The theory of the chosen people, more specifically, assumes that God has chosen one people to function as the selected instrument of His will, and that this people will inherit the earth.

In this doctrine, the law of historical development is laid down by the Will of God. This is the specific difference which distinguishes the theistic form from other forms of historicism. A naturalistic historicism, for instance, might treat the developmental law as a law of nature; a spiritual historicism would treat it as a law of spiritual development; an economic historicism, again, as a law of economic development. Theistic historicism shares with these other forms the doctrine that there are specific historical laws which can be discovered, and upon which predictions regarding the future of mankind can be based.

There is no doubt that the doctrine of the chosen people grew out of the tribal form of social life. Tribalism, i.e. the emphasis on the supreme importance of the tribe without which the individual is nothing at all, is an element which we shall find in many forms of historicist theories. Other forms which are no longer tribalist may still retain an element of collectivism; they may still emphasize the significance of some group or collective—for example, a class—without which the individual is nothing at all. Another aspect of the doctrine of the chosen people is the remoteness of what it proffers as the end of history. For although it may describe this end with some degree of definiteness, we have to go a long way before we reach it. And the way is not only long, but winding, leading up and down, right and left. Accordingly, it will be possible to bring every conceivable historical event well within the scheme of the interpretation. No conceivable experience can refute it. But to those who believe in it, it gives certainty regarding the ultimate outcome of human history. (Karl R. Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies, 1962, pp.17-18.).

So doesn't this make Mitt Romney a "collectivist" on two counts? First, Romney has been a CEO nearly all his life and nothing is more collectivist than a corporation. The corporation is the ultimate collective with all members subordinate to its leadership and expected to sacrifice themselves for the greater good of the corporation. Secondly, is not the Mormon Church a collective? It is a closed elitist group that stockpiles supplies, a network of powerful men, secret doctrines, strict religious rules of behavor that rivials Maoism, and a cult of eschatological historicism.

I saw Paul Ryan's video rant that progressives were "collectivist" because they advocate the "We" society instead of the "Me" society. Ryan and Romney are calling those that paid into an insurance policy (Social Security) communists. The Republicans want to give that money to Wall Street. So should we not point out the contradiction of Romney's collectivist Corporatism and Mormonism? If this was only an issue about freedom of religion there would be no reason to bring it up, but Romney wants to become the President of the United States, Commander In Chief, and Economic planner. Do we have a duty to critically examine Paul Ryan's anti-altruistic ethical egoism, and Romney's collectivism irrespective of what name these syncretistic ideologies bare? Ryan labels himself a Randian, and Romney labels himself a Mormon--not us. War waged for power, or to fulfill prophecy have the same results.

What really bothers me is Romney is in effect a member of a secret society with secret doctrines.

I can't figure out what he really believes because he has contradicted himself so often. On the one hand there is his corporate history of predatory pirate equity asset stripping of companies that has harmed thousands of American workers. Romney's Bain corporation has sent untold numbers of jobs to Communist China de-industrializing America. He has cheated on his taxes (Son of Boss Tax Scandal) which is theft. But then on the other hand he labels himself a Mormon. Are his business practices consistent with Mormonism? Who knows. Mormonism is a secret cult! I think it is very dangerous to elect such a person as President. It's like asking us to elect Sun Myung Moon for President. And on top of all of this we are expected to accept atheistic Ayn Randian egoism preached by Paul Ryan. What is this mess?