Texas Republican Party = Ultra Nationalists
 

While I try to understand peoples position, little that came to politics have baffled me so much than the official Texas GOP 2012 platform. There's nothing conservative about it, it's a radical revolutionary rejection of western culture along with promoting an authoritarian/totalitarian leadership based on ideas about ethnic purity.

2012 TEXAS GOP PLATFORM: TURNING BACK THE CLOCK IN AMERICA

I believe that the only label that fits this ideology is "ultra nationalism".

You see nationalism in every corner. It's your second favorite boogeyman behind religion. This little bit of nonsense covers both bits of terror, so I guess it shouldn't be any big surprise that you're jumping out of your skin.

Before you worry too much, I'd advise you to consider your sources. Many of those points are being dramatically distorted by your source. No surprise there. While there's undeniably some tremendously bad ideas in there, I think the same could be said of every single political platform in the entire world. Most of the ideas, when actually taken at face value, are either no-brainers or regurgitation of established constitutional law. Of course, that's not really very scary, so by all means play it up as you see fit.

Careful, though, I expect the ledges on the ivory tower would be rather high, so you might want to come back inside.

"Judeo-Christian Nation – As America is a nation under God founded on Judeo-Christian principles, we affirm the constitutional right of all individuals to worship in the religion of their choice."

There is a lot of weird shit in there like that if you read the whole thing.

The blatant "we own the land" that BillSeurer stated along with the many reforms to make it so is in the paper (which I read) and it is nationalism (the political ideology based on the belief that a specific people owns the land). The US do not have an ethnicity, the fact that they claim to represent Christianity rather than an Ethnicity doesn't make the movement "religious", they use the label exactly how ultra nationalists around Europe use their national identity and just like them tailor the identity based on their own political agenda.

The Goebbels-style strategy that at the same time lie about history and the constitution (which actually does includes the direct statement that the separation between church/state is a "myth") while also undermining the educational system is totalitarian. This is knowledge by design or brainwashing that doesn't let fact-based or democracy-driven education to get in the way. The strategy to undermine democracy such as undermining the general level of education AND the voting rights does speak it's own language.

Together they make ultra nationalism the correct political term.

Your comment simply mirrors the mentality that helps such movements to acquire power. But your comment also show a key component of why they work.

Ivory Tower, aka the windmill, is a ressentiment often found within lower classes that have been successfully used by many groups to gain power. The enlightenment learned early on that an universal education system is essential to keep totalitarian groups out from government because they always exploit this ressentiment, creating a dichotomy between the lower classes and the education system. In Sweden you rarely hear the line of reasoning anymore, people know that knowledge is an essential part of freedom and aren't fooled, but you do hear the very same ressentiment among voters of the Swedish nationalist party.

Some common expressions of this ressentiment includes;
* I didn't need education in my life so neither do you
* I do not need facts, I follow my gut/intuition
* <Education/Science/Academia> = Elitism

Students of the humanities (and students of gender science in particular) still run into that kind of resentment regularly in Sweden, by the way.

Übereil

Dear arrogant peckerheads,

I don't generally like to have cock measuring contests, but I'm truly tired of your continued arrogant assumption that because I don't agree with your leftie hoodoo and don't bow before your ivory tower idols, I must be uneducated.

I graduated with honors (Tau Beta Pi, Pi Tau Sigma, Alpha Lambda Delta) from the college that has been rated in the top 3 (#1 for the vast majority of years) undergraduate engineering schools in the nation since the beginning of the rankings by US News and World Report over 2 decades ago. Probably could have done better, but I was a little distracted chasing the woman I'd eventually marry. I was a participating member of their regional championship college bowl quiz team, with a focus on science and general knowledge. In high school, I was ranked in the top 200 in the entire nation for the International Mathematics Olympiad (rather disappointing for me actually, since they only took the top 100 to the final round). Out of one of the top recruiting classes in the country with 400+ of the best of the best, I was one of 7 with sufficient abilities and background to test out of a portion of the liberal arts requirements for my degree (I also tested out of some technical subjects as well, but y'all have a tendency to be more interested in humanities). I've been working for 2 decades now, successfully managing multi-million dollar projects. I've owned my own business for a time, prompting me to gain background in legal, accounting, human resources, and multiple other functions.

Although I currently live in the sticks, I'm not your typical inbred backwoods hick, you stuffed shirts.

And the real key of it all, is that for all the accolades and accomplishments, I'm absolutely no better than anyone on the factory floor, or even certain puffed-up ivory tower pricks. I have certain skills, knowledge, and training that aren't widely available that make me better suited to certain tasks than others, but simply having lambskins and trophies on the wall doesn't give me some magical elevation in stature, supposedly allowing me to dismiss the opinions of others simply because I know better.

Y'all really ought to give it a try some day.

Sincerely,

dte

While a compelling statement, it doesn't quite match your usual position. I mean, it's not like you generally speak as if you "didn't know better" is it? ;)

That said, it IS possible to "know better" - but the only meaningful way to demonstrate that is through solid arguments. I'll agree that solid arguments are infinitely more convincing than irrelevant accomplishments.

So then, posting obviously slanted links, screaming that the sky is falling, and dismissing anyone that's "simply too stupid to agree" (along with the obligatory Nazi reference, cuz that always adds weight to the argument) would be considered solid arguments? Just checking, ya know.

No, I must admit I find Jemy's style of debate unconvincing and one-sided (as in, a lot of talk - and a lot of not listening), if that's what you're referring to.

That link above takes pretty much the worst of the worst of the Texas Republican party and then presents it in an even worse light.

I'm certainly no fan of the religious right's effect on politics and I think the Republican party in Texas is severely messed up, especially Governor Goodhair, but ultra-nationalist? Ehh, not quite.

We spent some time with this in sociology. I do not believe it's controversial to point out that Swedish social sciences in particular have a strong relation to the workers movement, especially in the 70-ies/80-ies and nowadays primarily attracts their children. Anti-study culture among boys, ideas about "male sciences" among radical feminism and theories such as the school being an indoctrination facility ruled by the upper classes all seems to stem from these ideas. Postmodernism have begun to lose it's standing though, which is good because the groups that most frequently use such rhetoric are the ones who wish to sell something that lacks a scientific foundation.

You can get a good grasp about where people come from based on how they put forth arguments. The non-academic culture is often based on achievements, titles and heroes. So you see arguments like "scientists agree" or "professor X claims that…" The non-academic culture also projects itself on the academic culture, believing that someone who have a certain title or level of education tap themselves on the back and use this to glorify themselves. Also it all seems to boiled down to people with achievements have "opinions" and all opinions are equal and should be respected.

Academic culture is based on ideas, theories or data so you see arguments like "experiments show that…" or "the theory of electricity can be summarized as". Since people refer to objective data rather than subjective opinions there's never an argument about who's opinion matters, there's only data and interpretions. If I ever refer to something that I studied it's part of being an educator. I wish to increase general awareness and share what I learned which is why I often lecture people on what I know. But you never see me point at titles or achievements.

The irony is that it's you who use the term "ivory tower" whenever you can and following how you present yourself you are definitely presenting people rather than data.

I'll skip the rest of your elitist drivel, but I'd like to deal with this specific hypothesis of yours. The Texas Board of Education is elected by the people. Presumably, their positions reflect the will of the people that put them in office. That's how democracy works (I use-um wiki linkie-things, too! You pat on head, me smile.). Thus, even though those simple rubes in Texas don't have the basic decency to acknowledge that you know what's best for them, they're doing a fine job of using "democracy-driven education" just as you espouse. Obviously, they're just too dumb to understand that using the democratic tools available to them should just be a quick pitstop on the road to The World According to JemyM and all other results are clearly null and void.

If your studies have any basis in the real world, where do you think your precious data comes from? You sure as hell couldn't find a factory floor with a compass, let alone have any comprehension of what you might see, so where does your data come from? People like me, that's who. And, perfesser, let's take it one step further. In your enlightened opinion, which person will be better able to understand and interpret your precious data: the one that lives with it day in and day out, or the ivory tower academic that makes broad statements based on someone else's information? First hand or second hand, perfesser?

What they take is the official GOP 2012 platform for Texas. Is that the worst of the worst of the Texas Republican Party?

This isn't the RP as a whole as far as I concern. What Republican include differs from state to state. It's also not conservative but radical.

It's not a label I use likely. I base it on the following description from wikipedia;
"Ultranationalism is a zealous nationalism that expresses extremist support for one's nationalist ideals. It is often characterized by authoritarianism, efforts toward reduction or stoppage of immigration, expulsion and or oppression of non-native populations or minorities within the nation or its territories, demagoguery of leadership, emotionalism, fomenting talk of presumed, real, or imagined enemies, predicating the existence of threats to the survival of the native, dominant or otherwise idealized national ethnicity or population group, instigation or extremist reaction to crack-down policies in law enforcement, efforts to limit international trade through tariffs, tight control over businesses and production, militarism, populism and propaganda. Prevalent ultranationalism typically leads to or is the result of conflict within a state, and or between states, and is identified as a condition of pre-war in national politics."

Like I said before, the ethnicity in question is the "Judeo-Christian values" that the platform claim the nation was founded upon. Counterintuitive it might seem, this shouldn't be confused with Christianity the religion, just like Positive-Christianity shouldn't be confused with Christianity. Nationalism often runs on a vague label to which the party have it's own ideas about what the label actually consist of, so disagreements to the leaders is interpreted as attacks upon the nation.

This is backed up with defense against mythical threats such as sharia law, getting a president who weren't born in the USA, the homosexual agenda etc. Finally taking control over education and expanding direct control over individuals lives and the bedroom makes the movement totalitarian.

That is their interpretation of the official GOP 2012 platform for Texas. If you are interested in the platform, here is the actual official one:

http://www.tfn.org/site/DocServer/20…pdf?docID=3201

But isn't this the same document that is linked at the start of the page?

Page 8: Family Values ― We support the affirmation of traditional Judeo-Christian family values and oppose the continued assault on those values.
Page 15: We pledge our influence toward a return to the original intent of the First Amendment and toward dispelling the myth of separation of church and state.
Page 8: Homosexuality ― We affirm that the practice of homosexuality tears at the fabric of society and contributes to the breakdown of the family unit. Homosexual behavior is contrary to the fundamental, unchanging truths that have been ordained by God, recognized by our country’s founders, and shared by the majority of Texans.
Homosexuality must not be presented as an acceptable “alternative” lifestyle, in public policy, nor should “family” be redefined to include homosexual “couples.” We believe there should be no granting of special legal entitlements or creation of special status for homosexual behavior, regardless of state of origin. Additionally, we oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction or belief in traditional values.

that is the official document, hosted by the Texas Freedom Network. The page you linked, and seem to draw your conclusions from is written by TFN. Big difference.

And while I don't support necessarily those points you have referenced, they are hardly 'ultra-nationalistic.'

You might consider spending a little more time with your textbooks before screaming "Here come the Nazis!".

If you actually review the First Amendment, there is no actual statement about separation of church and state. The amendment bans the establishment of a state religion. The Supreme Court over the years has INTERPRETED that to imply a separation since any government action in the religious realm could be seen by the people as "choosing sides". That INTERPRETATION has evolved over the years and presumably will continue to do so, possibly in ways that don't fit well with The World According to JemyM. Thus, while a little worrisome to us heathens, there's nothing technically erroneous in the Page15 statement.

You've stated many times (and I actually agree with you, surprisingly enough) that most mainstream religions are saying the same things with different words, which would imply that there's nothing divisive in saying "Judeo-Christian values". While the Christians might lay claim to the Golden Rule, affirming a basic value structure of "Be Good to Each Other" (that's Bill and Ted level wisdom, there) doesn't really evoke images of jackboots.

The homosexuality thing? I did mention that there were some bad ideas in there and that seems like one to me, although I'm not so arrogant as to believe that my opinion a) is somehow measurably "right", b) matters in the slightest to anyone else.

TFN's page's first link is "Click here for the full 2012 platform as adopted by Texas Republicans." and this is the same PDF that you linked to, same formatting and everything. I try to understand peoples position and I seldom buy hyperbole or alarmism so I usually doublecheck this stuff. This leaves us at null, I do not draw my conclusions from TFN but by analyzing the PDF you linked to.

Have you ever read the national-socialist partys platform?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Program

The things to look for is obsession with identity, reformation of the educational system, reduction of rights for minorities and pseudoscientific threats.