I had an eye-opening conversation with a friend of mine yesterday on Yahoo Messenger. I know we are on far opposite ends of the political spectrum. We don't often discuss politics, but she was campaigning at a polling site yesterday and I was curious as to how it went, and then things just kinda went downhill from there. She introduce what (to her at least) were common conservative memes as if I would of course believe and understand them. I have cut-and-pasted our conversation directly, with several edits made for brevity's sake, and to remove "I still like you" reassurances on both sides. It starts mid-stream when things get odd.
As you read this, you can ask yourself what I was asking myself as we chatted: Is THIS really what the right-wing believes? Are they really THIS FAR down the rabbit hole? Or is this a bit much (please oh please?).
She was at a polling place yesterday campaigning for Stephen Broden in Dallas (the wing-nut who offered that in the face of tyranny, violent overthrow is not off the table. (Note that even though this is true, the race is close: His democratic opponent has been found guilty of funneling scholarships to children of her friends instead of those needy and deserving in her rather poor south Dallas district. The Dallas Morning News held it's nose and endorsed Broden, she is honestly THAT bad!).
I pulled Broden's quote and gave it to her, only to get this response:
Friend "J" (7:14:09 PM): I read about this morning
Friend "J" (7:14:16 PM): but it is wrong
LostBoyJim (7:14:52 PM): They are quoting him directly in the article. Are you claiming that the Dallas Morning News manufactured that quote?
Friend "J" (7:15:58 PM): Pastor Stephen Broden has endured an unprecedented and unsubstantiated assault from the mainstream media this past week. Using clever and sophisticated splice and dice techniques, WFAA and "newsman" Brad Watson concocted a video which purported to show Pastor Broden advocating the violent overthrow of the government. The Dallas Morning News played its own role by dropping the story on a Friday morning with a misleading and hysterical headline, letting it fester over the weekend so reliable allies in the left wing like Rachel Maddow and Anderson Cooper could whip up a media frenzy without Pastor Broden being able to respond
Friend "J" (7:17:04 PM): that was the information I read this morning, and since I have heard the man, I trust what I have heard from his mouth rather than this Watson guy.
LostBoyJim (7:18:37 PM): Well, I understand that if you talk to the guy you believe him. At the same time, you are basically saying that he is FAKING an interview. That is patently illegal. I'm currently watching the "full interview", that is, the unedited interview, currently. Are you stating that that interview has been cut and spliced?
Friend "J" (7:19:15 PM): did you read the information I sent?
Friend "J" (7:19:23 PM): cuz it says they interview was spliced
So I went and found THE ACTUAL INTERVIEW and fed it to her:
Link to complete interview(for those interested, it get's very interesting about the 5:00 mark, building to the 3.00 mark). We start discussing armed revolt (boring, it turns out. She doesn't support it, I don't support it, the pastor probably doesn't really support it). I pick back up where I pull back to a bigger issue:
LostBoyJim (7:32:06 PM): The problem is, that they are talking about it being possible in the future if democrats continue to win. (Sharon Angle said something similar in Nevada, where she spoke of "2nd amendment options").
Friend "J" (7:32:51 PM): it is not about being democrat, which is part of the regular American political system
Friend "J" (7:33:05 PM): it is about the socialist agenda
LostBoyJim (7:33:25 PM): I voted for a President who would support this agenda. The majority of the country did.
Friend "J" (7:33:33 PM): not me
Friend "J" (7:33:52 PM): a great many of them have been disappointed
LostBoyJim (7:34:09 PM): I know, and that's cool. But you can't start calling it tyranny because you lost an election.
Friend "J" (7:36:06 PM): we need to ask him what he [ed:Stephen Broden] meant by that, but my guess is that since tyranny is the opposite of freedom, which is what this election is about for lots of Americans, if this election is lost, it is perceived as a huge threat to freedom
LostBoyJim (7:36:21 PM): ...
LostBoyJim (7:37:54 PM): Please read and consider what you just wrote.
LostBoyJim (7:38:12 PM): Lost BY whom? Lost TO whom? So if more democrats vote than republicans, they lose "freedom"? And since the opposite of "freedom" is "tyranny", then violent overthrow is acceptable?
Friend "J" (7:38:37 PM): go back to socialism
Friend "J" (7:38:43 PM): this is not about democrats
LostBoyJim (7:38:48 PM): Obviously it is.
Friend "J" (7:38:49 PM): I have no problem with democrats
LostBoyJim (7:38:53 PM): Because if he loses, he loses to a democrat.
Ok, here's where it gets into more standard right-wing gibberish:
Friend "J" (7:39:31 PM): when Obama got in office, he pushed hard to accomplish his socialist agenda
Friend "J" (7:39:46 PM): that is what republicans are fighting against
LostBoyJim (7:40:02 PM): Democrats are fighting for it.
Friend "J" (7:40:05 PM): I consider myself a constitutionalist, albeit a fairly uneducated one
LostBoyJim (7:40:08 PM): It's not socialism, it's fairness.
LostBoyJim (7:40:11 PM): And I don't get this socialism thing anyway. Do you suggest we stop socialized: Medicare, Medicare, Military, SCHIP, Highway systems? I have just listed 75% of the national budget
Friend "J" (7:40:17 PM): democrats want socialism?
LostBoyJim (7:40:22 PM): So do republicans.
Friend "J" (7:40:33 PM): none that I know
LostBoyJim (7:40:37 PM): Or do you really believe most republicans want to give up medicare/medicaid?
LostBoyJim (7:40:41 PM): and social security?
Friend "J" (7:41:25 PM): um, I have been to Russia four times and I don't want to us to walk in that direction
LostBoyJim (7:41:32 PM): You didn't answer my quest.
Friend "J" (7:42:06 PM): I think you are still discussing democratic politics which is a far cry from what is actually going on
LostBoyJim (7:42:41 PM): When you say socialism you have to be talking about health care reform. It's the only thing Obama has really accomplished.
LostBoyJim (7:42:59 PM): and HCR is just an extension of medicare/medicaid to younger people, eh?
Friend "J" (7:43:05 PM): have you ever known a president to make decisions about who a CEO is in private industry?
Friend "J" (7:43:10 PM): Obama has
LostBoyJim (7:43:44 PM): or maybe I don't understand you statement. when you say socialism, it has to be democrats doing it, right? So it's still political decisions, by democrats, that you are complaining about.
Friend "J" (7:43:59 PM): Have you ever know a President to bleed the American economy so severely that it is nearly back to '30's Depression era economics?
We wrangle a bit more here, but then, well, then it just went over my head. Because so far we're pretty much in the nonsense we all hear every day: Socialist agenda, yadda yadda. But:
Friend "J" (7:45:52 PM): I think there is a movement, don't know who all it encompasses, but it is a great push to end American democracy as we know it
Friend "J" (7:46:37 PM): in January 2009 Henry Kissenger wrote a very well publicized article stating something to the effect of, we are grooming Obama to be the leader of the New World Order.
LostBoyJim (7:46:47 PM): lol.
Friend "J" (7:47:00 PM): Now, Bush Sr. was actually the first to speak of it publically that I can recall,
Friend "J" (7:47:13 PM): although there are lots of organizations that support the New World Order
Friend "J" (7:47:18 PM): The Builderburgs
Friend "J" (7:47:23 PM): The Illuminati
Friend "J" (7:47:27 PM): The Club of Rome
Friend "J" (7:47:29 PM): etc.
LostBoyJim (7:47:54 PM): Well, if the New World Order includes affordable health care, I'm all for it.
Friend "J" (7:47:57 PM): a rich America, democratic America would never, ever be part of a New World Order
Friend "J" (7:48:06 PM): a poor, socialistic America would
LostBoyJim (7:48:23 PM): ...we ARE a democratic america, or are we not having an election in 4 days?
LostBoyJim (7:48:38 PM): that's what being a democratic country MEANS, right?
Friend "J" (7:48:39 PM): we are today
Friend "J" (7:48:45 PM): God help us stay there
LostBoyJim (7:49:06 PM): wow...you know up until you last couple lines I thought we were just disagreeing about politics.
At this point I disengaged from the conversation and moved on to her job. Because once the cognative dissonance gets too deep, what else can you do?
So here is my question to my fellow Democrats at KOS:
What. The. Hell? How common is the "New World Order" thing? I thought that went out of style with the John Birch Society! The Illuminati? The Freaking Illuminati?!? I mean, I always have wondered "Why is Socialism bad?" But apparently the reason is, "Socialism breeds complacency, which means will voluntarily give up democracy if the gravy keeps rolling, which means that the President will bring in a New World Order and take over the US." Does that even make sense?
Elections are decided by small margins, and about 40% of the US doesn't even bother to vote. If things changed for the negative (and I would count, "losing the right to vote" a large change to the negative), then I think most everyone would rise up to put a stop to it. But remember, these aren't Democrats doing it, it's the shady Illuminati and Obama doing this together. Is this really what they believe? Really?
I know that people here will probably offer one of two things (1) tell me I shouldn't be her friend, and (2) offer suggestions to change her. To those, I think that friendship can and should overcome idealogical boundaries...we just won't discuss the New World Order any more (unless I find a cool NWO shirt to wear). And based on the conversation above, does it look possible to bother attempting to change her mind? I don't think so.
I post this more to give insight into the conservative mindset, and moreover what they fear. The New World Order. Sigh.