Conservatives Rehabilitate the Crusades While Scott Wolter Says He's Not Sure What Happened on 9/11

2/12/2015

In the news this week has been the disturbing reaction of Christian conservatives, particularly Republican officials, to Pres. Obama’s reference to the Crusades as an example of religious violence. Because history is a weapon in today’s world, this episode in history, which left between one and three million people dead, has become a litmus test for how much one loves Jesus and identifies with a particular brand of conservative Christian culture against all others. Here’s conservative former Sen. Rick Santorum justifying the Crusades:

The idea that the Crusades and the fight of Christendom against Islam is somehow an aggression on our part is absolutely anti-historical. And that is what the perception is by the American left who hates Christendom. They hate Christendom. They hate Western civilization at the core. That’s the problem.

Jonah Goldberg declared that the Crusades were defensive in nature.

Muslims conquered Jerusalem from the Christian East Roman (Byzantine) empire in 637 CE. (It had previously fallen to the Persians in 614, but had been regained.) The Crusades began in 1095, and the Crusaders retook Jerusalem in 1099—more than 450 years after the conquest! In chronological terms, it would be like Spain deciding today that it was finally time to revenge itself against England for the defeat of the Spanish Armada.

[Update: The claim that conservatives were citing the fall of Jerusalem as a justification for the Crusades, repeated in the Daily Beast article linked above, appears to originate with Slate journalist William Saletan, but after more research, I have not been able to confirm exactly how many conservatives specifically cited this. William Donohue of the Catholic League was one, and Jonah Golberg was another, both citing Bernard Lewis.]

This isn’t just a disturbing bit of Christian apologia but also symptomatic of the widespread revisionist history we see across the fringe spectrum as well. The Crusades made the careers of the Knights Templar, and we see in fringe history a similar justification of the Crusades as having a secret agenda that somehow excuses their barbarity. The Disinformation Guide to Ancient Aliens etc. attributes the Crusades to the Templars’ manipulation to recover the Ancient of Days. Similarly, Scott Wolter, as you remember, excused the Crusades as a conspiracy designed to get the Templars to Jerusalem to recover from the Temple Mount “technology,” “scrolls,” and other material that the Muslims somehow failed to find while building the Dome of the Rock. Wolter, like Santorum, similarly accused Islam of aggressive actions that resulted in the “proto-Templars” fleeing Spain for Arizona.

Speaking of Scott Wolter, over on his blog, our favorite forensic geologist expressed sympathy for the 9/11 Truth movement. When someone brought up a conspiracy theory that the Pentagon was not hit by a jet on September 11, 2001, Wolter, who worked on analyzing the Pentagon crash site after 9/11, rightly criticized this conspiracy theory before making some ill-considered remarks that suggest that he sympathizes with conspiracy theorists about the destruction of the World Trade Center: “I have no problem with people being skeptical about what happened on 9-11. I don't know all that happened at Ground Zero, but I do know what happened at the Pentagon.” Conspiracy theorists who share Wolter’s obsession with Freemasons have asserted that Al-Qaeda targeted the Twin Towers as representations of Freemasonry’s twin pillars, Jachin and Boaz, which in turn are implied in some Masonic texts to be related to the Pillars of Wisdom set up by Enoch before the Flood to preserve antediluvian knowledge.

It is perhaps interesting that Wolter sees no conspiracy where his reputation as a geologist would be directly impacted by such conspiracy theories, but remains open to questioning 9/11 events where he was not directly involved.

Wolter also told another visitor to his blog that he could not use the Hooked X® in a screenplay because (a) another company is already making a Hooked X® movie and (b) the Hooked X® is trademarked. The latter claim is false. According to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Wolter holds a trademark on the words “Hooked X” and that this trademark is limited to “publications, namely, books in the field of historical artifacts.” This wordmark does not cover the actual symbol of an X with a hook on the end of one stave, and I have a letter from the attorneys for A+E Networks, the parent of Wolter’s network overlords, confirming their agreement that the symbol, more properly called the variant-A rune, is in the public domain since it has been known since at least 1898.

It doesn’t really surprise me anymore when fringe history figures say weird things, but Ancient Aliens star Giorgio Tsoukalos surprised me by telling his Twitter followers that he believes that all organized religion is attributable to the influence of ancient astronauts.

One hundred percent. RT @FauxFawx what percentage of organized religion do u think cud be explained by or attributed to #AncientAstronauts?
— Giorgio A. Tsoukalos (@Tsoukalos) February 6, 2015

I suppose that if one’s claim is that God is simply a mask for aliens that this would make some sort of sense, but it grants the aliens an enormous amount of influence over human behavior, particularly when huge swaths of modern religious expression can be traced to specific decisions made by known humans in historic times. I’d also be interested to hear Tsoukalos debate his mentor, Erich von Däniken, on whether Jesus was an alien. Tsoukalos may be open to the idea, but von Däniken has repeatedly stated that he does not believe that Jesus was a space alien.

I will wait with baited breath for their views on the how the Crusades were organized by competing factions of aliens as a proxy war to control Middle Eastern monoatomic gold reserves. Oh, wait: In 2002’s The Gods Were Astronauts, von Däniken implies (but never actually says) that the Crusaders recovered space alien secrets from the tombs of the patriarchs in the Holy Land and hid them away in the Vatican.

You might also find it interesting that Wolter and Tsoukalos have both blocked me from reading their tweets, as though the minor inconvenience of having to log out of Twitter before they become visible somehow will keep their feeds hidden from me.

94 Comments

spookyparadigm

2/12/2015 06:10:20 am

His show suggests that 20th century engineers and physicists were divinely, I mean, extraterrestrially inspired. So sure, why not all religions. Agrees with what Vallee suggested about contactee groups in Messengers of Deception (that they were created either by intelligence agents or other political actors, or by his "control" force), as well as the suggestion in "The Call of Cthulhu" that religion stems from the psychic emanations of an ancient alien stuck in an ancient city underwater. I find all three sources to be about as good.

2/12/2015 10:22:51 am

I wonder if Tsoukalos meant to include the really dumb organized religions, like Scientology?

I mean, it's one thing to say that no human being is smart enough to come up with anything interesting without aliens holding their hand. It's quite another to suggest that no human being is smart enough to come up with total bullshit which enough humans (who are dumb, we must remember) believe.

Duke of URL

2/13/2015 03:09:51 am

EP, Scientology is /nothing but/ ancient aliens - haven't you ever heard of Xenu?

2/13/2015 03:46:49 am

That was part of the joke Duke of URL...

The serious part, of course, is that it's obviously too dumb to have actually been inspired by ailens.

Ah, of course you knew. Sorry, I've been reading too many posts by 666 and StL...

2/13/2015 07:31:49 am

2/12/2015 02:06:31 pm

I get the feeling that Tsoukalos of all the Ancient Aliens folks particularly aims at the "iconoclastic" sweet spot on the moebius strip of the fringe that reflexively rejects organized everything and believes everything is a lie but has no greater ideology beyond what has floated by them in the last month or so. It's that spot the Zeitgeist movie catered to a few years ago, and the one that Icke successfully danced on for a few years.

You know, dipshits.

2/12/2015 02:32:59 pm

I tried watching Zeitgeist. It became too disturbing because I caught myself literally fantasizing about everyone who is into it being herded into re-education camps. You know, razor wire, guard towers, the works...

What made it disturbing is the over-reaction, but it really is an amazing agglomeration of all the things I hate the most about our culture.

2/13/2015 07:19:48 am

Come on now. Your average Zeitgeist fan is going to be too wasted to get off the couch (as long as they have their phone on them to still be able to write comments). I get really worried about nutters who can get co-opted by or hijack political power. About all that crowd is going to seize is a bag of Doritos.

2/13/2015 07:28:09 am

That's why I readily admit that my reaction is irrationally excessive. I make no apologies for fantasies of Glenn Beck and his fans being herded into FEMA death camps :)

Byron DeLear

2/12/2015 06:15:01 am

To be fair, I think in reading the initial primary source, the call was made by Urban, and as wiki reports, was "responding to an appeal from Byzantine Emperor Alexios I Komnenos, who requested that western volunteers come to his aid and help to repel the invading Seljuq Turks from Anatolia."

If I remember correctly, re-capturing Jerusalem for Christendom was an add-on; it played really well in mobilizing foot soldiers and soon became a main goal. Point being, the initial idea coming from the East to the Western church was to defend against encroaching Muslim armies which was trending much more recently than the four century old fall of Jerusalem.

Jason Colavito link

2/12/2015 06:48:57 am

You're right, Byron, about the difference between the rhetoric and the reality. The Byzantine emperor needed help defending the empire, and he appealed to Christian solidarity to secure that help. But he wasn't as concerned that the invaders were Muslims as that they were invading his empire! The Church, on the other hand, according to accounts written after the fact, preached the Crusade as a way to free the Holy Land from the "wicked race." I'm sure the Byzantines would have been fine with it not being cast in those terms, but the Crusaders (though perhaps not Urban II himself) saw the goal as freeing Jerusalem, which they used as the justification for expanding the war beyond the Byzantine frontier. For them, if not for the top elites, the war was imagined as righting a 450 year old wrong, even though no one thought to try for 450 years!

Byron Delear link

2/12/2015 06:54:29 am

Also, I must mention, I believe of the few primary sources on Pope Urban II's speech at the Council of Clermont some were written decades after the event. These later accounts include the Holy Land and Jerusalem more than the earlier ones.

For example, in Balderic of Dol's account of Urban's speech written in early twelfth century we find particular flourish regarding the Holy Land which was not present to nearly the same degree in the source Balderic used, the Gesta, which only vaguely mentioned taking "up the way to the Holy Sepulchre":

"We who are become the scorn of all peoples, and worse than all, let us bewail the most monstrous devastation of the Holy Land! This land we have deservedly called holy in which there is not even a footstep that the body or spirit of the Saviour did not render glorious and blessed which embraced the holy presence of the mother of God, and the meetings of the apostles, and drank up the blood of the martyrs shed there. How blessed are the stones which crowned you Stephen, the first martyr! How happy, O, John the Baptist, the waters of the Jordan which served you in baptizing the Saviour! The children of Israel, who were led out of Egypt, and who prefigured you in the crossing of the Red Sea, have taken that land, by their arms, with Jesus as leader; they have driven out the Jebusites and other inhabitants and have themselves inhabited earthly Jerusalem, the image of celestial Jerusalem."

In another account from Robert the Monk, supposedly written 25 years after the event and also drawing from the Gesta source, we see explicit commentary on atrocities being committed on Christians including the Holy Land:

"From the confines of Jerusalem and the city of Constantinople a horrible tale has gone forth and very frequently has been brought to our ears, namely, that a race from the kingdom of the Persians, an accursed race, a race utterly alienated from God, a generation forsooth which has not directed its heart and has not entrusted its spirit to God, has invaded the lands of those Christians and has depopulated them by the sword, pillage and fire; it has led away a part of the captives into its own country, and a part it has destroyed by cruel tortures; it has either entirely destroyed the churches of God or appropriated them for the rites of its own religion. They destroy the altars, after having defiled them with their uncleanness. They circumcise the Christians, and the blood of the circumcision they either spread upon the altars or pour into the vases of the baptismal font. When they wish to torture people by a base death, they perforate their navels, and dragging forth the extremity of the intestines, bind it to a stake; then with flogging they lead the victim around until the viscera having gushed forth the victim falls prostrate upon the ground. Others they bind to a post and pierce with arrows. Others they compel to extend their necks and then, attacking them with naked swords, attempt to cut through the neck with a single blow. What shall I say of the abominable rape of the women? To speak of it is worse than to be silent. The kingdom of the Greeks is now dismembered by them and deprived of territory so vast in extent that it can not be traversed in a march of two months. On whom therefore is the labor of avenging these wrongs and of recovering this territory incumbent, if not upon you? You, upon whom above other nations God has conferred remarkable glory in arms, great courage, bodily activity, and strength to humble the hairy scalp of those who resist you."

But this account on Urban's call to take up the cross from Fulcher of Chartres makes no mention of the Jerusalem or the Holy Land and rather emphasizes defense against encroaching Muslim armies in the East:

"Although, O sons of God, you have promised more firmly than ever to keep the peace among yourselves and to preserve the rights of the church, there remains still an important work for you to do. Freshly quickened by the divine correction, you must apply the strength of your righteousness to another matter which concerns you as well as God. For your brethren who live in the east are in urgent need of your help, and you must hasten to give them the aid which has often been promised them. For, as the most of you have heard, the Turks and Arabs have attacked them and have conquered the territory of Romania [the Greek empire] as far west as the shore of the Mediterranean and the Hellespont, which is called the Arm of St. George. They have occupied more and more of the lands of those Christians, and have overcome them in seven battles. They have killed and captured many, and have destroyed the churches and devastated the empire. If you permit them to continue thus for awhile with impurity, the faithful of God will be much more widely attacked by them. On this account I, or rather the Lord, beseech you as Christ's heralds to publish this everywhere and to persuade all people of whatever rank, foot-soldiers and

Byron DeLear link

2/12/2015 07:00:30 am

(cont. from above)

...knights, poor and rich, to carry aid promptly to those Christians and to destroy that vile race from the lands of our friends. I say this to those who are present, it meant also for those who are absent. Moreover, Christ commands it."

Here is a compilation of the five accounts.
http://legacy.fordham.edu/halsall/source/urban2-5vers.html

666

2/13/2015 12:17:07 am

http://www.hfe.org/news/profiles/ywam5.htm

Early in 1993, I stood with my friend and colleague, Lynn Green, on the north side of Old Jerusalem's massive grey-white stone walls, east of the Damascus Gate. Together we read a bronze plaque announcing that at this spot, on July 15 1099, Godfrey de Bouillon had breached the walls of Jerusalem and had taken the city for the Crusaders.

At high school I belonged to a Christian club called 'Crusaders'. I wore a lapel badge depicting a white shield with the red St George's Cross, embellished with a sword and a helmet. A Jewish classmate would ask me in disgust why I wore that badge. Didn't I know, he would ask me, that the Crusaders raped and pillaged their way across Europe towards the Holy Land? Frankly, I didn't. Crusaders were heroes, weren't they? And Billy Graham held 'Crusades' too, didn't he?

Lynn now filled in the details not mentioned by the plaque. After breaking through these walls, he explained, the Crusaders had herded Jews into a synagogue, setting them alight in one great holocaust oven. Terrified Moslems had fled into a mosque on which the Crusaders had raised their banner indicating a safe haven, only to be slaughtered by the soldiers of Christ wading knee-deep into the defenseless crowd. After three years of killing Eastern Orthodox Christians, Muslims and Jews in similar holocausts on their expeditions down through Europe and into the Middle East, the "militia Christi" then knelt and gave thanks to God for delivering the city into their hands.

2/13/2015 12:21:59 am

https://web.archive.org/web/20030122071143/http://www.hfe.org/news/profiles/ywam5.htm

As the 900th anniversary of the First Crusade approached last decade, Lynn believed it was time to re-evaluate these events. It was high time Christians humbly and sincerely apologised for these misguided and destructive expeditions of sanctioned 'Christian' violence in which the cross was inverted into a sword, hacking out a blood-stained legacy across Europe, the Middle East, history - and current events.

The devastating events of the Crusades - there were eight in total - have remained bitter memories between East and West. They have continued to influence social, religious and political relations not only in Europe and the Middle East, but also in today's global politics: including the Gulf War, Russia's fears of NATO's eastward creeping borders, and even the latest terrorist attack on New York's World Trade Centre and the Pentagon.

2/13/2015 02:06:48 am

That's a touching travelogue, did you write it 666? Of course since the walls around Jerusalem were built in the 16th century by Suleiman the location of the crusaders breech is probably a guess.
Clicking above links to a report I wrote in 2009 regarding peace movements in the Holy Land. There's an oft seen animated map of all the conquests in the Middle East over a few milenia:

http://www.mapsofwar.com/ind/imperial-history.html

Every evolving amoeba blob on that map illustrates rape, pillage, the relentless siege and sacking of cities, torture, cruelty and mayhem, all backed by various religious authority, I believe more than 10 distinct traditions and sects. Expropriation of resources, slavery, mass mayhem, etc. Now I know from your past comments you have a very specific bone to pick with regard to Christianity, 666, but this is the world in which the crusades happened. The fact that the proponents sewed crosses on their shirts has little to do with the fact that this is how warfare was practiced in antiquity religious or otherwise.

Byron

2/13/2015 02:11:17 am

Broken link from above:

"People, places and the realities of conflict in the Holy War"....

http://mepeace.org/m/blogpost?id=661876%3ABlogPost%3A215407

2/13/2015 02:28:25 am

It was written by Jeff Fountain, YWAM Europe

JLH

2/17/2015 03:01:02 am

Excellent; I was going to make mention of similar, but you handled much better than I could have.

One other thing for Jason: "baited breath" should be "bated breath."

Turkey's troops went over the Syrian border because of ISIS/ISIL threats

2/22/2015 05:21:02 am

http://www.mfa.gov.tr/no_-70_-22-february-2015_-press-release-regarding-the-temporary-relocation-of-the-tomb-of-s%C3%BCleyman-%C5%9Fah-and-memorial-outpost.en.mfa

The Tomb of Süleyman Şah and Memorial Outpost is a Turkish territory within the borders of Syria as per agreements concluded in accordance with the international law.

The Tomb and its annex, since their construction originally on the hills of Caber Castle, have gone through several processes of demolition, relocation, and reconstruction. The Tomb was moved to its current location in 1975 as a consequence of a dam construction.

The ongoing conflict and state of chaos in Syria posed serious risks to safety and security of the Tomb located in Karakozak Village in Munbic/Syria, 37 km away from the borders of Turkey, and of the Turkish Armed Forces personnel valiantly guarding it.

Based on extensive assessments, the Tomb of Süleyman Şah and Memorial Outpost, together with the sarcophagus itself, have been temporarily moved to a new site within Syria, corresponding to the acreage of the previous one, in the north of Suriye Eşmesi village close to the Turkish borders.

The temporary relocation of the Tomb, conducted on the basis of security assessments, does not constitute any change on the status of the Tomb and its annex stated by the agreements.

The process of relocation, which is to keep the Tomb of Süleyman Şah and Memorial Outpost and its assigned personnel out of harm's way, was completed on February 22, 2015.

Decimus

2/12/2015 06:20:23 am

Without stepping into the modern culture wars - a difficult process - it's possible to argue the initiation of the crusades was defensive. But that's primarily because the Byzantine emperor under pressure from from the Islamic advance caused by the defeat at Manzikert wanted mercenaries, hopefully ones who could maybe push into Syria. He certainly didn't want a full religious crusade.

But then everyone tends to misrepresent the crusades. It was less defensive and more, perhaps, reactionary, combined with existing intra-European issues.

2/12/2015 06:51:11 am

It would be pretty hard for modern culture warriors to argue that the Fourth Crusade was a shining moment in "defending" Christendom.

2/12/2015 10:15:59 am

But I suppose they *could* argue that the Albigensian Crusade was purely defensive in nature and that anyone who doubts that hates Western Civilization (and America!)... :)

2/12/2015 06:40:17 am

Godfrey de Bouillon massacred both Jews and Muslims

L Bean

2/12/2015 06:56:14 am

Just wait until ppl who blog about '9/11' find out what Wolter's been getting up to recently, vis-a-vis his expertise wrt the 9/11 commission.

I'm actually surprised it hasn't happened. People like Wolter are the reason why no one trusts the government. Incompetence + greed.

Chris

2/12/2015 07:13:05 am

I also like how most people who try to rationalize the Crusades fail to understand that the Crusaders also ended up killing large numbers of Christians in the Byzantine Empire and across the Holy Land. Heck, the Fourth Crusade only really succeeded in sacking Zara and Constantinople, both Christian cities!

Brent

2/18/2015 05:08:34 am

Well said. As I recall, there were plenty of Christians in Jerusalem as well. The Crusaders killed everyone though- regardless of religious background/ beliefs.

B L

2/12/2015 09:58:11 am

My understanding of the Republican stance on the crusades as it relates to recent comments made by the President is a little different than yours, Jason.

I don't think Republican representatives are claiming that the Crusade circa 1099 was in response to a 637 Muslim conquest of the Holy Land. Rather, that the first Crusade was organized in response to the harassment and killing of Christians traveling to the Holy Land for worship contemporary to the time of the Crusade.

I believe you when you say that Rick Santorum made such comments, but I don't think his comments are accepted as stated by the wider Conservative audience. Further, if Santorum did make such a mistake, it is no worse than the President making the mistake of trying to come up with a 1000 year old moral equivalency example for the unspeakable evil that ISIS perpetrates today.

2/12/2015 10:14:06 am

To be fair, Santorum does not speak for the Republican Party. He speaks for the Christian Conservative fringe of the Republicans. Identifying him as the voice of the Republicans is almost like identifying the segregationist Southern Democrats as the voice of the Democratic Party circa 1950.

2/12/2015 10:52:41 am

Here we have a wide range of responses, which range from people like Santorum, who are pandering to extremists without reference to facts, to conservative pundits who have made various forms of the claim that the Crusades were a good thing. Some follow your line of reasoning; Ross Douthat for example notes exactly what you did, though, some of the less scrupulous pundits did not: http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/02/10/the-case-against-the-case-against-the-crusades/?_r=0

2/18/2015 05:14:06 am

Maybe not at the top, but I'm a conservative and know lots of diehard conservatives. They've mentioned the Muslim conquest of Spain way back in the day, as well as killing Christian pilgrims.

But the disturbing thing to me is that they think it matters somehow. As if that justifies the idea of a holy war. Maybe you could justify military action on behalf of a political entity ("stop killing our citizens"), but it's dangerously close to justifying the Crusades altogether.

And that is super dangerous. The Crusades may not be as black-and-white "we took their land" as many think, but it's still a messed up war with both sides full of horrible people doing terrible things.

You're probably aware of the horrible things, etc. But I think you may underestimate how most people have talked about it (especially with those angry fb posts). And I think maybe you're minimizing the significance of the reaction.

Andrew M

9/3/2015 09:13:27 am

Islamic forces had been conducting holly wars against Christians and other religions for sometime its how Islam spread at the time. and at several points they conquered European land. Islamic empires did not recognize " Infidel" governments. The main reason for the crusades was access to trade Constantinople was essential to Europe's trade routes. Most of the religious aspects of the crusades where purely rhetoric. The insinuation that the crusades are any more deplorable than any other conquest in history is absurd.

2/12/2015 11:01:58 am

By the way, it must be pointed out that even if we accept that the Crusades were largely defensive (a tenuous, though not an indefensible position imo), that does not stop them from being an example of mass relgious violence. Ditto if we identify non-religious causes of the Crusades (geopolitical, socio-economic, etc.) or think that they are morally defensible or ultimately beneficial.

The question of whether they are a prime example of religious violence is separate and those who confuse the two just demonstrate how pathetically desperate they are to go after Obama's every utterance.

2/12/2015 03:07:00 pm

I agree.

Harry

2/12/2015 03:22:56 pm

EP, I totally agree.

When the Crusader armies took Jerusalem in 1099, they herded all of the Jews of the city into the synagogue, locked them in and set fire to the building, burning them alive. I call that pretty violent.

2/18/2015 05:16:34 am

Yeah, it looks like anyone would want to distance themselves from any action that involves things like roasting dead babies and slaughtering entire populations (aside from stuff in the Bible)...even if religion hadn't been involved...but apparently not?...
- A confused Christian conservative

Shane Sullivan

2/12/2015 11:22:27 am

The Tsoukalos thing becomes weirder when we consider that believes in God (as he's said in the past), but doesn't believe that God is responsible for *any* organized religion.

That's...interesting.

2/12/2015 11:55:21 am

Surely Tsoukalos has progressed beyond the foolish consistency that is the hobgoblin of little minds!

2/13/2015 04:40:42 am

Does double-think count as a religion?

2/13/2015 05:23:59 am

Well... It *is* a way of life... ;)

2/13/2015 07:33:52 am

Shane, you have it backward - double-think is an essential part of religion, but not a religion in itself.

DTG

2/12/2015 06:39:27 pm

The Templars recovered ancient technology scrolls? Of course! Surely one of those scrolls contained schematics for building some kind of holographic projector which projected the image of a giant head much like Zordon from Power Rangers which lead to the eventual trial and destruction of the Templars! It all makes sense now!

Only Me

2/12/2015 07:42:42 pm

In regards to the Obama dustup, I understand the points Jason has made, as well as, those made by some of the commenters. I can also understand why some would be offended by what Obama said.

This is just the latest in rhetoric that provides ammunition to those who, as EP said, "go after Obama's every utterance." Remember, ISIS and it's ilk can't be referred to as terrorists; we've been told we need empathy for our enemies, even as they behead citizens from several nations. I agree with BL that Obama messed up trying to apply moral equivalency to the situation. Santorum, et. al., are also wrong trying to play to the crowd while disregarding facts. I consider the whole thing as both sides trying to score cheap points with their bases.

"It is perhaps interesting that Wolter sees no conspiracy where his reputation as a geologist would be directly impacted by such conspiracy theories"

Are you sure, Jason? I thought his whole spiel was the conspiracy, enacted by "they", to discredit him in every way!

Giorgio. The guy *still* can't say extraterrestrial and AA has been nothing but reruns recently, so why would anything he say *not* be an attempt to remain in the public eye?

2/13/2015 03:51:41 am

Giogrio should post that video of him making two rubber figurines hump at a dinner table. The one that is (or at least *was*) on his Facebook page.

2/13/2015 06:30:52 am

Now why would that remind me of the scene in Spaceballs, where Colonel Sanders walks in on Dark Helmet playing with his dolls?

2/13/2015 06:35:02 am

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10150652191196529

Warning: It cannot be unseen.

2/13/2015 05:04:30 pm

Why, EP, why!? I considered you my brother!

2/13/2015 07:40:01 am

Considering that the US has launched thousands of air strikes and at least a few covert on the ground missions against ISIL, and that Obama just asked for a declaration of war against the organization (which is being criticized largely as a fig leaf on an already existing war months old), I'm not really sure empathy is the right word.

There is a lot to criticize about the Obama administration. But the folks EP is talking about will believe him to be a Satanic Anti-Christ so long as his name sounds like Barack Hussein Obama, and so long as his skin is darker than a paper grocery bag. He could sign a law outlawing abortions, establishing Southern Baptists as the official religion of America, and giving a billion dollar grant to Answers in Genesis and they'd assume it was a Satanic false flag trick to establish the New World Order Caliphate. I mean, he's routinely called a socialist by supposedly serious conservative commenters even though he stuffed his cabinet with Wall Street people and has overseen a record high stock market.

And this is on topic for this site. Because the only way this worldview makes sense other than just naked racism is through a conspiratorial worldview. All of the major rhetoric since 2009 has been couched in conspiracy theories. Birtherism. Death Panels. The "he's going to outlaw guns next X" and when ever that X occurs, it never happens. Fast and Furious (as a supposed false flag attempt to jack up gun violence in order to ban guns). Benghazi (not that they screwed up, but that they purposely ordered a stand down). And then all the minor events, like this one.

One cannot understand the American Right in the early 21st century without understanding conspiracy culture, because that lies at the core of the movement now. And in turn, while there are still some lefty and non-partisan conspiracy theories, since the early 1990s the bulk of the conspiracy culture momentum has been driven by the American right. Conspiracy theory across the board is the rhetoric of those who feel disenfranchised from cultural capital, and the American right-wing media has discovered that the narrative of the oppressed white Christian sells. But just because an NPR announcer or Brian Williams is smooth and smarmy and has a studio-demanded Cleveland "non-accent" doesn't mean that chemtrails are evidence of battle between Illuminati extradimensional demons and the angelic powers Thomas Kinkade was paid NOT to paint.

2/13/2015 08:09:53 am

"One cannot understand the American Right in the early 21st century without understanding conspiracy culture, because that lies at the core of the movement now."

Let me just stress, once again, that we are not talking about the Right as a whole, but about the parts of the Right that are feeling (correctly imo) that their influence within the political establishment (via the Republican Party, primarily) is compromised. The utter insanity that one hears from the Christian Conservative fringe (along with some largely overlapping, primarily pro-gun and anti-immigration segments of society) is, whatever its original motivation, out of control and is seriously hurting the Republicans at this point. Or, to be more precise, I think there is an all-out power struggle between the traditional Republicans and neo-cons against the populist rabble rousers and the Christian Right. Alliance of the former with the latter was always seen by the former as a deal with the devil (almost as much as it is so seen by the Left), but social and cultural changes are making it less and less viable. (Kinda like what happened within the Democratic Party with the rise of the Civil Rights movement.)

I sometimes wonder whether Santorums, Huckabees, Jindals, etc. are *really* campaigning, or whether they are trying to sabotage the Republicans in order to reassert their slipping grip on power... Because they basically have no choice but to keep feeding the frenzy of their supporters if they don't want to be replaced by the next extremist-du-jour. It's a vicious spiral and at some point the Republican establishment is going to have to sever.

2/13/2015 08:49:39 am

There is something of a struggle, sometimes. Other times, they embrace.

But the only thing keeping the "traditional" Republicans which seem to be in short supply, and their neocon allies in the struggle at all is that they are closest to the business wing of the party and its money. In terms of boots on the ground, grassroots, basic numbers, the radical "fringe" (I don't like that term when we're talking about so many people) is clearly superior.

What's killing the party is that they can't control the media genie they unleashed. Once it became ok to run alongside the likes of Limbaugh or Beck, to say nothing of Falwell and Robertson, and even (reaching into the rabid Paul following) Alex Jones, how would one possibly stay sane?

Dogs and fleas.

And where can that devil's bargain be upended? As we've seen, one has to fool Iowa into thinking one is anti-science etc. if one wants the nomination. On most cultural conservative issues, millennials are not that interested. The one way out would appear to be libertarianism, which theoretically could be free of that "fringe" except that it is also swamped with conspiracy theories mostly but not entirely around guns.

2/13/2015 09:12:48 am

Traditional Republicans are there. They are just going Democrat (if they are sufficiently moderate and honest) or staying out of the fight until the wackjobs wipe each other out (if they are like Romney).

The wackjobs at prayer rallies and various "Marches" are barely enough to deliver some House seats in the boonies (often seats that are safely Republican to begin with). Maybe a Senate seat or two (if one already has name recognition and is riding the wave of anti-encumbent sentiment). Anything more than that has so far been utter failure. To which the response has been to go even *more* extreme.

One way out is to do what the centrist Republicans may already be contemplating: giving up on Iowa, concentrating on major states and establishment endorsements, and letting the crazies talk themselves out of contention.

2/14/2015 02:19:49 am

Interesting discussion. Conspiracy theories have paid political dividends for more than 230 years here in the U.S. that's why they are often employed. During the Tea Act crisis, theories were floated that tea caused all sorts of mental and physical maladies, kind of similiar to "Reefer Madness." Recently, during the Clinton years the crazies on the right came out accusing him of a spate of conspiratorial murders, akin to insane ideas about our current 'socialist Muslim anti-Christ' President. As long as people are so easily steered by their hatreds and dislikes instead of heeding any critical thinking we will have these wackadoos believing the latest two-bit Karl Rove claiming crazy things for political gain.

2/14/2015 02:35:59 am

Byron, did you ever endorse any anti-Bush conspiracies that you kinda now wish you didn't?

a pundit seyz

2/21/2015 03:05:30 pm

Rick Santorum is not a theologian, he is a politician.
He had 1/3rd of the votes in Iowa less than a year ago.
Mitt Romney is not going to run in 2016 so this boosts
Rand Paul over Rick Santorum in Iowa due to how all
of Mitt's voters might break apart into voting blocks.

Rand Paul has better odds at being the GOP nominee
than his father ever did. Watch a high craziness on the
Right masking 527 & PAC monies. If Raquel Welch was
in the flic ONE MILLION YEARs B.C then why did it take
about a half century for the "fundie" fringe to outlaw dinos?
that "Christian" group is astro-turf and a likely "front" for
the money in brown paper bags yet to be dumped into
the lap of SweaterVest Rick S. as in ooodles and boodles
of cash. Most true fundies deny dinosaur fossils their age,
they don't outlaw dinosaurs as being the work of the divvil.

MITT ROMNEY IS NOT A BAY STATE LIBERAL, HE's A CENTRIST....

2/21/2015 03:11:27 pm

Rick Santorum is running once again for the same high public office
he did in 2012. He most likely will get the same number of votes only
to see Rand Paul corral some of Mitt's Iowa + N.H + S.C + FL voters.
Rand Paul is the next Barry Goldwater and/or Ronnie Reagan. keep in
mind the funds the governor in KY applied to the ArK ParK as '16 heats up.

Rick S is not at all shy or introverted. he is driven.
he wants that public office soooo bad, he's going to be a phenom.
the GOP is about to tilt slightly to the RIGHT as Sen. Rand Paul runs... and
actually getz near to the nomination becuz of Majority
Leader Mitch McConnell. lomg ago i said Mitch has to honor the
senate seat promice he made to Trey Grayson. Ky has 2 seats!!!

2/13/2015 08:03:22 am

Don't get me wrong, spookyparadigm, I agree with you. The empathy thing is something I remember Hillary Clinton saying, well before Obama started asking for a declaration of war.

I was just pointing out that the whole scenario is an example of the ongoing fight between political ideologies, waged most noticeably by each side's paid pundits. Why use facts or remain objective when ratings can be had by making an emotional/cultural/religious appeal?

I think there are a lot of people who are miffed at being included with the extreme fringe at both ends of the political spectrum, simply because they are registered to vote as Republican, Democrat or Independent. Not all conservatives, liberals, libertarians, etc., are cut from the same cloth.

2/13/2015 08:40:45 am

Not all, no. But I also don't cotton to false equivalence on this topic. Things like corruption it seems are pretty bipartisan. But this particular thing is skewed to one side.

2/13/2015 08:53:11 am

Recall the Bush years, however. Loose Change, Skull & Bones, Leo Strauss... the list goes on. (Even the Segway fall was a Big Oil conspiracy, for God's sake!)

While I'm inclined to think that conservative mindset is generally more suceptible to conspiracy theories, it is very much, like you said, a matter of feeling disenfranchised (rightly or wrongly, justifiedly or not).

titus pullo

2/13/2015 09:05:35 am

EP,

You put traditional republicans and neocons in the same bucket against populists and christian conservatives. Neocons are about as far from traditional republicans as you can get. They favor big govt, deficit spending, interventionism in the economy and in foreign policy, debt, and not following the bill of rights (4th amendment specically). Traditional republicans are more classical liberals, they favor sound money (not keynsians and central banker types), limited govt, free markets, and peace. Robert Taft was a traditional republican, Bush wasn't. Big difference. Taft never would have invaded Iraq or bailed out Goldman Sachs...

2/13/2015 09:17:10 am

I'm putting them in the same bucket as desperate allies against the cancer destroying their party. I am not suggesting that they are ideologically close. In fact, that's why I distinguished between them in the first place.

2/13/2015 10:41:24 am

EP, both my experience watching such, and polls I've seen at the time and since, suggest that about half of 9/11 Truthers, Skull and Bones, etc. conspiracy believers during the Bush years were far-right conservatives of the Ron Paul/Alex Jones set.

This is not the case with Birthers, Benghaziers, etc..

I would suspect that more "moderate liberals" were likely to be sympathetic to conspiracy theory from 2003-2009, and more "moderate conservatives" from 2009-2015.

But I would also feel comfortable saying

- there is a much larger core of American conservatives who more habitually view the world through a conspiracy theory lens

- And that while it is debatable whether or not there is a "liberal bias" in the media, if there is one, it's of a relatively moderate sort. Actual leftists get minimal voice in mainstream media, and their own private media doesn't get much corporate backing. By contrast, major companies advertise with extremely hard right talk radio demagogues and extreme right wing figures, many who do produce the conspiracy theories we're discussing, are routinely sympathetically (not Daily Show) on both Fox and CNN. Before his fights with Piers Morgan, Alex Jones had been a non-freakshow guest on Fox (which of course gave massive airtime to his doppelganger Glenn Beck).

One could compare the problems the GOP is having with those of the New Left 40 years ago. The difference being, the New Left wasn't being mass broadcast and supported by billions of dollars from donors and corporations.

2/13/2015 10:48:47 am

To clarify, if conspiracy theory in the US followed who owns the white house, then we would expect that the vast majority of Birthers etc. now would be GOP, and the vast majority of Truthers to have been DNC.

This was not the case. Not because, I believe, of some non-partisan nature to Trutherism. Clearly, Trutherism should have been mostly disheartened antiwar liberals or leftists, and there were quite a few. But they were equaled by an already existing conspiracy 20% nearly entirely on the right for whom 9/11 just fit into an already loosely apocalyptic paranoid worldview of the Illuminati/NWO/OMGWTFBBQ.

2/13/2015 10:52:09 am

"there is a much larger core of American conservatives who more habitually view the world through a conspiracy theory lens"

We are not disagreeing about that. Like I said, I think conservatism somewhat predisposes one toward conspiracy theories. And I don't think it's just an American phenomenon, either. The same is true in Europe and, from what I understand, places like India and Japan.

"Actual leftists get minimal voice in mainstream media, and their own private media doesn't get much corporate backing."

My sense is that the Left has figured out that it's safer and more efficient to just sit back and snipe with meta-commentary. (Which makes sense, since, like I said, the far Right is its own worst enemy.) By the way, corporate backing is a double-edged sword, since Limbaughs and Becks must keep pushing the envelope to stay edgy and relevant, which leaves the sponsors with a dilemma of either backing out or financing the freakshow that ultimately undermines their interests.

"the New Left wasn't being mass broadcast and supported by billions of dollars from donors and corporations."

They did have a lot of support from the Socialist countries, however. Not always (only) financial, but in those days advertising dollars weren't as much of a driving force in the media, especially when it came to anything that wasn't totally mass.

2/13/2015 10:56:10 am

"This was not the case."

I would actually like to see some quantitative empirical research on this tbh

2/13/2015 10:57:20 am

The never ending well of corporate support for as "just entertainment" or "balance" is kind of the meta-point of Jason's TV reviews.

2/13/2015 11:17:34 am

It's one thing to flirt with Holocaust denialists if you're in publicity-reliant entertainment. It's another thing if you're planning to run for public office in America. That is why corporate backing of envelope-pushing, unpredictable wackjobs is a double-edged sword politically, even if it's good business.

2/13/2015 11:22:57 am

Precisely, but regarding your way out in the above post, there still seems to be way too much money interested in supporting the radicals. Sure, the GOP organizers who want Romney or Bush III clearly understand the problem they face, but between conservative media and various donors (Koch backing Scott Walker, at least for now) are insulated from failure and can continue to throw out red meat either because it is a legitimate business strategy or because they don't feel the sting of failure and just figure they weren't _correct enough_ last time.

2/13/2015 11:42:53 am

The Koch brothers should ask Ross Perot about the sting of failure. Or, better yet, ask all those who got burned by his antics. (Also, keep in mind that quite a few of these people, like Howard Ahmanson, have serious psychological issues and may not be the best judges of what to do with their own money.) Being good at making money doesn't always coincide with being good at politics. I think we're back to the question of scientists in conspiracy circles... heh...)

2/14/2015 02:24:28 am

I would like to make a couple points in response to Only Me.

First, I don't think that Obama was trying to make any moral equivalency between ISIS and Christian violence. I think that he sees ISIS as beyond the pale and indefensible. My take is that Obama was making a point about the moral equivalency of Islam and Christianity and I agree with him on that; both have used violence in the name of religion.

Second, I think that Jason is right about Wolter being unwilling to sacrifice his reputation as a geologist. He has never hesitated to dismiss a claim or artifact when geology can disprove it (e.g., the rock wall of Rockwall, TX and the Stone of Destiny -- although in the latter case, it is fairer to say that the Stone did not pass the particular test to which he subjected it, not necessarily that he disproved that it came from Israel). The problem is that he jumps to conclusions when geology cannot give a clear answer or when he goes beyond geology.

2/14/2015 08:20:51 am

The problem with Scott is he has made it a point to refer to himself as a forensic geologist. He has staked his reputation on the veracity of his "Big Three" rune stones. He has made repeated claims that because he's doing "hard science", academia simply must accept that he's right. Now he's trumpeting that the Church will have to come clean with their centuries-long conspiracies because of his "research" into the Templars-Holy Bloodline.

I don't know. It just seems to me that Scott is doubling down on his hypotheses, to the detriment of his reputation.

2/13/2015 09:01:17 am

As a libertarian and conservative this one is a tough one for me to respond to without appearing defensive. Defending the crusades as a defensive or preemptive war is beyond silly. Was it a way to unite a very fragmented Europe by the only central authority..sure. But by the time of the crusades, the Moslem threat to Europe for the most part had subsided at least until the fall of the Byzantium empire a few centuries later and by then it wasn't so much a religious conflect as a proto nation state (Ottoman versus the various Balkan kingdoms).

As for the right believing in conspiracies, I'm ot sure that is a purely right side problem. It almost depends on the party in power which side is more into some wacky ideas. That said, there are genuine concerns around economics that both sides tend to label those who voice the concerns "nut jobs"..the current debate around auditing the Federal Reserve is an example. Nothing wrong with challenging conventional wisdom, if the challange has merits it will win the day in the end, if not it won't.

But let's not go on a witch hunt and name calling of conservatives...many of us have science and engineering degrees, probably more than liberals.

2/13/2015 09:23:50 am

"many of us have science and engineering degrees, probably more than liberals."

True... if we're talking about undergraduate degrees ;)

2/13/2015 10:53:21 am

Actually, I'd disagree with that. Engineering degrees seem almost over-represented (I've not run any numbers if one could, but it seems very common in my experience) in conspiracy circles, followed by theology; with media studies degrees (for those on the left). I'll leave any explanation of that to the psychology people except to note that conspiracy theories are inherently about people, not physics.

Titus pullo

2/13/2015 11:06:01 am

All things being equal hard science or engineering degrees impart some level of critical thinking. It's not hard to find some very ill informed thinking by liberals based more on emotion than facts. And I'm still unclear on how republicans who are not wall steer or neocon types are a threat to the party. If being against crony capitalism,deficit spending, bailouts of the well connected , annd for peace is considered fringe we are in trouble.

2/13/2015 11:06:29 am

But we're talking about conservative engineers, not conspiracy-mongering engineers. As far as crazies, yeah, I get the same feeling. (Though one must always be careful to separate the worthless/fictitious degrees, which is a huge part of Theology degrees, I believe.)

"conspiracy theories are inherently about people, not physics"

Magic bullet, free energy, chemtrails, WTC collapse... :)

(Jokes aside, I do get what you're saying, of course.)

2/13/2015 11:12:56 am

What I was saying (I don't want to speak for spookyparadigm or anyone else) is that the Christian Right (as well as some xenophobic and anti-government hangers-on) are turning more and more extreme and in the process making it hard for the Republicans to make a persuasive case to the moderate Americans when it really counts. I mean, Sarah Palin, Todd Akin, the recent abortion ban fiasco, the anti-gay campaigners... things like that...

"If being against crony capitalism,deficit spending, bailouts of the well connected , annd for peace is considered fringe we are in trouble."

Welcome to the last 100+ years :)

2/13/2015 11:18:42 am

Re: Emotional "non-critical" liberals

As some one whose politics would definitely be considered liberal (though mostly not leftist, certainly not outside the American context), who (initially) teaches evolution by standing back and letting students organize (usually fairly accurately) a collection of hominin and hominoid skull casts based on what physical features they see so that they realize these things are based on observation and not dogma, and who writes about the fatal flaws with emotionally or ideologically based archaeological fantasies ... Yeah, ok.

2/13/2015 11:30:27 am

A lack of basic common sense seems to pervade fringe types. I asked scott wolter how the Minoans led minning expeditions to upper Michigan given their naval vessels, lack of navigation tools, problems of coming down the saint laurance. He responded that we need to learn more about their sea skills and engineering. Just read a book on the atlantic by the author Simon Winchester, until the 15 th century, the technology simple wasn't there for major minning expeditions and support across the Atlantic.

2/13/2015 11:34:27 am

I think we should all agree that no part of political spectrum is immune from appeals to emotion. And, unlike the case of conspiracies, I don't think there is even any prima facie evidence for thinking that one side is more resistant to them than the other.

2/13/2015 12:58:31 pm

As someone who is involved in local economics clubs you can't stop fringe types from participating. There was this guy dressed like a biker who came to debates we had on bailouts and the fed back in 2009. He was out there but just because he supported say a fed audit didn't mean the idea was fringe.

2/13/2015 01:23:44 pm

"you can't stop fringe types from participating"

Sure, you can! That's what freedom of association is all about! :D

2/13/2015 12:16:52 pm

Just a few additional recent statements made by Scott Wolter on his blog...

Scott Wolter, Certified Hermeneutician (Honorary):

"That the Bible and other religious texts are largely allegorical stories of the interaction of the heavenly bodies is a certainty. They were written for only the initiated to understand."

Not sure what Scott means by "verified identity", but hope y'all got your alt accounts ready to go, ladies and gents:

"I'll tell you what I will do in a month or two. I will write a blog about this garbage research explaining it in it's full context. I will also make a stipulation that whoever comments on the blog has to have a verified identity. The reason is because people like you could be the very one's dumping the mud."

And, finally, calling a spade a spade:

"hatred toward the oppression and tyranny of the monarchies of Europe and the Roman Catholic Church reflects the attitude of the Venus Families. They were behind the founding of the Cistercians and Knights Templar and continued to support the leadership of the Masonic orders that were instrumental in the founding of the what Francis Bacon called, "The New Atlantis," or "The New Jerusalem." That would be the country we now live in that embraces the ideals of freedom the Venus Families fought so hard for in Europe."

2/13/2015 12:24:17 pm

That last comment makes me wonder how hard Scott will have to work at exonerating Steve St. Clair's bloodline from the "oppression and tyranny" that *he* claims lead to the birth of the Templars...the same order Steve's family testified against!

2/13/2015 01:27:48 pm

Hey, you can't fight The Call of the Blood. After all, everyone knows that if there is anything crazy inbred Egyptian pharaohs were all about, it's freedom and democracy! :)

2/13/2015 06:11:09 pm

Get a load of this post on February 4th that Wolter put on his blog in regards to the KRS mold:

"Anonymous,

I did take a core sample out of the back of the stone. The subsequent petrographic work I did was invaluable in determining the significant weathering/age of the inscription. It helped prove the authenticity.

At the time, the consensus was the KRS was a hoax. Therefore, obtaining a core sample from the back side of the stone meant there was nothing to lose and everything to gain. In this case, it turned out to be a Home Run.

The "discoloration" from molding the KRS myth was a rumor put out by my disgruntled former co-author as a way to try and discredit me after our break up. I was not the person who made the mold which did no harm to the KRS.

No, this is not true."

Joe Scales link

2/14/2015 03:20:42 am

He won't allow proper rebuttal to be posted on his site, such as this from a University of Minnesota Geology Professor who had seen the KRS both before and after:

http://richardnielsen.org//PDFs/Runestone%20Museum%20Rpt%20062608.pdf

But on a more entertaining note, he did allow this rebuttal just yesterday:

SW: "The KRS is either a hoax or genuine; that's it."

Anonymous: "No. You either are an idiot or a calculating fraud."

2/14/2015 06:26:41 am

Sanatorium conservative? Maybe a bush conservative but the guys economic views are pretty statist and is foriegn policy pretty interventionist. The GOP before he bushes were very hesitant to engage in war. Warren Harding actually signed the peace treaty with germany, robert Taft was against the police action in Korea, Ike declined to fight the Russians in Hungary and ended the Korean war and stopped the illegal israeli,France, British Invasion of the suez in 56. Heck even Nixon ended the Vietnam war. It wasn't until those crazy neocons took over the party with daddy bush that the GOP wanted to fight to make the world safe for goldman Sachs, and crony Arab states like Kuwait. Sanatorium us the problem Ali g with Lindsey graham, McCain, and the whole israeli first gang that tends to dominate the establishment GOP foriegn policy experts. They should just go back to the Democratic Party where they came from. Bill kristol and friends are a much bigger threat to our rights than Bernie sanders.

2/14/2015 06:50:50 am

I think your use of the word 'conservative' is in conflict with contemporary usage. You're free to use it however you like, of course, but you can't expect to be understood or get exasperated when people use it appropriately.

"They should just go back to the Democratic Party where they came from."

Um... What?

2/17/2015 05:04:43 am

I disagree. Reducing down to a media driven paradigm maybe defines movements for the chattering classes but you would be surprised how many people understand the definitions given by the media and academic/govt elites are often wrong and simply serve their interests. What is "liberal" today? I would suggest liberals talk often about equality and economic populism. Yet the Fed has stolen billions from savers with zero percent rates...that impacts the poor an those on a fixed income the most all to bailout billiionare bankers. How could a liberal who believes govt should regulate pretty much everything by setting prices be against auditing the Fed? Yet so many are. If "contemporary" usage is wrong, then its productive to define the usage in the correct way. If we don't then we simply fall into the false narrative the political class wants us in to serve their agendas.

2/17/2015 05:17:56 am

I.e., you think you know what words mean better than the experts. Okay. How is one to respond to that?

a pundit

2/21/2015 02:19:10 pm

Rick Santorum holds views that are different from
those of Dwight D. Eisenhower and Robert Taft.
Curiously enough, Mitt Romney's ideas are more
typical of the type of ideas all great leaders of the
GOP have had over the past 150 years from Abe
Lincoln onward. Titus Pullo is correct. The GOP is
fragmenting badly. In the late 1960s and into the
1970s we saw this happen to the Democratic Party.
Barry Goldwater wrote THE CONSCIENCE OF A
CONSERVATIVE and Hubert H. Humphrey replied
with THE CAUSE IS MANKIND. This is the 1960s
version of Gov. Alf Landen's & FDR's party platform
stances in 1936. A Deep South Fundamentalism
in the 1980s left the Democratic Party and entered
the once Progressive more Northern GOP due to
Richard M. Nixon's Southern Strategy in '68 & '72.
Mitt Romney is Wendell Willkie's ideological heir...

tacitly...

2/21/2015 02:37:03 pm

Rick Santorum is a Reagan Democrat on metaphoric steroids
who is able to tap into a more extreme Fundamentalism than
the one William Jennings Bryan discovered in Tennessee in
1925. In the 1960s the whole Bible Belt was more upset over
the costume Raquel Welch wore in ONE MILLION YEARS B.C
and not that the flic had cavemen & dinosaurs cavorting about.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/one_million_years_bc/

MOVIE INFO
This film was advertised with the slogan "See Raquel Welch In Mankind's First Bikini!" While archeologists tell us humans did not live at the same time as dinosaurs, and our prehistoric ancestors probably didn't look much like Ms. Welch and her co-stars, One Million Years B.C. is a good bit more fun than more scientifically accurate portrait of the era might have been. Tumak (John Richardson) of the Rock People is exiled from his tribe after a fight with his father....

scot link

2/14/2015 11:18:47 am

Titus, so what that Harding signed the treaty with Germany and Austro-Hungary, or rather the nations that came out of the old Austro-Hungarian Empire and with Turkey and the rest of the old Ottoman Empire? The only reason it wasn't ratified prior to 1921 ( I believe) was that the congress and senate Republicans refused due to their opposition to the League of Nations. Frankly , giving him credit for ending WWI is like giving Jimmy Carter credit for the Vienna Congress. Neither did anything at all, and years after the fact they both signed because the congress and senate got their fingers out and ratified.

Ike did end the Korean War , by threatening to go nuclear, and yes he stopped the Brits , French and Israel during the suez problem but to what end? Leaving a dictator in place who , along with the Soviets that he brought in helped destabilize the region . He refused to go into Hungary and Vietnam but in 1954 when the French asked for help during Dien Bien Phu(sp?) he ignored the advice of advice of quite frankly a group of far better tacticians and strategists and did nothing. But when in 1955 he realized that South Vietnam was in trouble from the North was the one who sent in 700 + " military advisors" and in truth started our inclusion in Vietnam. Healso sent over 15,000 soldiers and Marines to invade Lebanon . Furthermore if you want to go back into history the Spanish American War began under Mckinnley, a republican and Lincoln was President for the war of northern aggression . So you might want to give the Conservatives as Peace mongers a rest.

2/21/2015 02:48:46 pm

Teddy Roosevelt served in Bill McKinley's War Dep't and
then in less than 20 years his distant/close cousin Franklin
had an almost identical job under Woodrow Wilson. Even
if i blame Jefferson Davis more than I do Honest Abe for the
start of the Civil War, we tend to win our foreign wars under
a bipartisan foreign policy approach. Neither party "owns"
the dove of peace or the metaphoric dogs of war. If FDR
was apolitical, or not a Democrat, would we have entered
WW2 even if we HAD to win it in order to be a nation now?