Although politicians DO seem to enjoy
bizarre rituals like rubbing bundles of cash
on each other’s heads for good luck, this
should not be mistaken for brainwashing.

Although it’s easy to assert the idea that voters are for all practical purposes masses of brainwashed individuals, it’s not often that we question whether politicians have been brainwashed. I mean, although the millions of lobby and corporate interest dollars that wash over a politician in their career is a little like brainwashing, at the end of the day, that shower of dollars is really just good old-fashioned lubrication. Or bribery, or whatever you want to call it. So it’s interesting that in spite of the fact that the recent Rolling Stone piece Another Runaway General: Army Deploys Psy-Ops on U.S. Senators never once used the word “brainwashing”, it prompted enough references to the movie The Manchurian Candidate that experts felt compelled to publicly clarify that Psy-Ops is not “brainwashing”. At no point denying that brainwashing is employed by the military on politicians of course, but at least making that one important semantic distinction. But the truth is, it’s almost universally agreed upon by experts that even if the military were trying to brainwash politicians, it would probably fail, because brainwashing in the familiar sense simply does not exist. Pretty much all the high-profile scenarios typically cited as examples of brainwashing can be explained away as basic forms of coercion and persuasion. If the spy-novel motif of communist-brainwashed operatives that are triggered by simple visual cues like a playing card (as in The Manchurian Candidate) or a copy of Catcher in the Rye (as in Conspiracy Theory) were a reality, probably one of our greatest national liabilities would be John McCain, who has twice run for president, and was a POW in communist Vietnam for five solid years. But the absurdity of that notion just points up the fallacy of the idea that our politicians are literally being brainwashed. Frankly, I’m more worried about the American voter. As a person who might describe himself as residing somewhere in the realm between fiscally conservative Democrat and socially liberal Republican, I’ve almost entirely given up on talking about politics with friends that strongly identify with either party; the conversations tend to be so irrational that they border on delusional. But while perusing material about brainwashing and cult behavior after reading that Rolling Stone piece, I ran across something that describes this tendency in today’s political discourse disturbingly well. It’s the standard “Cult Checklist”. Below is one suggested by professor Eileen Barker, see a broader selection here.

Tell me this doesn’t sound like a typical contemporary Democrat or Republican:

1. A movement that separates itself from society, either geographically or socially;
2. Adherents who become increasingly dependent on the movement for their view on reality;
3. Important decisions in the lives of the adherents are made by others;
4. Making sharp distinctions between us and them, divine and Satanic, good and evil, etc. that are not open for discussion;
5. Leaders who claim divine authority for their deeds and for their orders to their followers;
6. Leaders and movements who are unequivocally focused on achieving a certain goal.

This image really has little to do with
the article, but we spent a lot of time on
it so we like to use it whenever we can.

I wish I were the US government, or a bank. Then, whenever I’m broke or actually running at a deficit, I could just say “that’s okay, Deficits don’t matter” or “people of America, if you don’t give me exactly the amount of money I need, life as you know it will cease to exist” and everyone in America (and their grandchildren) would give me billions of dollars, which I could share with my other friends who had been frivolous about finances or made some insanely bad investments. Unfortunately, I’m not a bank or the government, so it is mostly with a detached amusement that I sit and read about the shirtless flirts in Washington that we pay so much to sit around arguing about the annual budget. I mean, we shouldn’t be surprised that congressmen spend all their time looking for dates on Craigslist, when the alternative is actually trying to understand monstrously incomprehensible legislation like the health care bill, net neutrality issues, or for the near future, the federal budget. I mean, have you actually ever looked at the thing? Even when the New York Times creates a clever and relatively simple interactive graphic, it’s mind boggling. But definitely preferable to buying the darn thing, I mean, The basic overview is 216 pages and costs 38 bucks, and the Appendix is 6 times longer than that (1368 pages) and costs 75 bucks. If you bought all the available related publications, you’d have 2448 pages to sift through, at a cost of $214.00. And that doesn’t include the CD-ROM, which thankfully is not an audio book read by Timothy Geithner. If you want to learn more about how the budget is put together without spending 200 bucks, the Wikipedia page goes in-depth. Over 13,000 words in depth in fact. Remarkably, the words “billion” and “trillion” are only used 81 and 59 times respectively. Me? While everyone else sits around arguing about taxes, spending, sacrifice, and responsibility, I’ll be kickin’ back, ignoring the doorbell and the phone as creditors continue harassing me. Why? Because deficits don’t matter. And besides, I oddly find myself agreeing with Fox/WSJ writer Paul B. Farrell’s rant Fed dictator Bernanke needs to be toppled – Forget Mubarak, it’s Fed reign of terror that must end. To distract myself while I sit here broke with it not really mattering, I think I’ll play a few rounds of the poverty survival game  Spent. Because virtual homelessness is a lot more fun than real homelessness.

Hello (Transcript Below)

Transcript

Hello, my name is Jared Lee Loughner.

This video is my introduction to you! My favorite activity is conscience dreaming; the greatest inspiration for my political business information. Some of you don’t dream — sadly.

Firstly, the current government officials are in power for their currency, but I’m informing you for your new currency! If you’re treasurer of a new money system, then you’re responsible for the distributing of a new currency. We now know — the treasurer for a new money system, is the distributor of the new currency. As a result, the people approve a new money system which is promising new information that’s accurate, and we truly believe in a new currency. Above all, you have your new currency, listener?

Secondly, my hope — is for you to be literate! If you’re literate in English grammar, then you comprehend English grammar. The majority of people, who reside in District-8, are illiterate — hilarious. I don’t control your English grammar structure, but you control your English grammar structure.

Thirdly, I know who’s listening: Government Officials, and the People. Nearly all the people, who don’t know this accurate information of a new currency, aren’t aware of mind control and brainwash methods. If I have my civil rights, then this message wouldn’t have happen.

In conclusion, my ambition — is for informing literate dreamers about a new currency; in a few days, you know I’m conscience dreaming! Thank you!

Introduction: Jared Loughner

How To: Mind Controller

Loughner’s reading list, which curiously doesn’t include “Catcher in the Rye”

Animal Farm
Brave New World
The Wizard Of OZ
Aesop Fables
The Odyssey
Alice Adventures Into Wonderland
Fahrenheit 451
Peter Pan
To Kill A Mockingbird
We The Living
Phantom Toll Booth
One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest
Pulp
Through The Looking Glass
The Communist Manifesto
Siddhartha
The Old Man And The Sea
Gulliver’s Travels
Mein Kampf
The Republic
and Meno

Palin’s famous Twee:

And her cross-hairs themed political hit list featuring Gabrielle Giffords

How’s your Mandarin? Do you like Chinese food? These are good questions, because if you’re tired of the same old fear-mongering about radical Islamic terrorists, we have an even more terrifying thought for you. What if suddenly you couldn’t afford a new cell phone or flat-screen TV because China started restricting their exports of rare earth metals? Now there’s something the average American would go to war over. And the idea of war with China isn’t so preposterous; we’re already at war, and have been for a while now. So far we’ve been just fighting about who’s state-controlled capitalism is better for the world. Their brand, in which they cleverly make the Japanese buy dollars by buying Yen to manipulate currency? Or our brand, in which Ben Bernanke just prints more money to manipulate currency? Some think China is flipping off America with their strategies, while others take a more balanced view, pointing out that we need China to do this. And still others take a longer view and suggest we need to turn this “financial cold war” into a new game of Mutual Assured Destruction, only this time based on economics. But it’s not really just the sanctity of our electronic gadgets or the once almighty dollar we have to worry about, because China’s defense minister said yesterday that China is preparing for armed conflict ‘in every direction’. So what would war with China look like for the US? Pretty grim, according to a RAND study published a few months ago. Not only do they have submarines that can pop out of nowhere and a missile that can take out an aircraft carrier, but if you believe the stats on this page, China has twice as many people fit for military service as there are people in the United States. I’ll just be signing up for that Mandarin class now, so I can welcome our new overlords with a hearty Ni Hao! By the way, if you don’t understand why Ben Bernanke likes the money printing solution, see the video below.

Ben Bernanke’s Money Printing Explained:

Yesterday a friend asked me if I voted last week. I calmly said “nope”, to find myself on the receiving end of a laser-like liberal glare that screamed “how could you abandon us at this crucial juncture in history?“, but then out loud they said “Why the f— NOT? Are you RETARDED or something???” I then reminded my liberal friend that it’s not nice to say “retarded”, and went on to explain that my decision not to vote was part of my plan to accelerate my collapsitarian vision for a shiny new apocalypse. You see, what liberal, conservative, and especially that other bunch of voters seemed not to notice last week was the fact that Ben Bernanke had instructed Washington to print a bunch of money in a quantitative easing effort. For those of you not familiar with sophisticated economic terminology, 1 bunch=$600,000,000, and according to many, quantitative easing = bank bailout. To me the best part of this all is that since everyone’s calling it “QE2″, we no longer have to resort to that hackneyed “polishing the brass on the Titanic” line. The QE2, as you may recall, was the last of the great steam-powered luxury liners, whose only satisfied customers were probably the British soldiers that she ferried to the Falkland War. The debate will rage about this economic strategy until the results manifest themselves, but for one of the more balanced views of what’s going on (even if you do think he’s full of shibboleth) Paul Krugman sums things up here. And there’s one likely side effect of this cash injection that I find hilarious: in spite of the fact that if teabaggers had any idea what’s going on in the real world, they would be in a psychotic rage about the government printing a bunch of money at a time like this. But in their inexplicable ignorance, they’ll support it with every bone in their little heads, because clearly, if the rest of the world thinks an idea is stupid, it must be the patriotic thing to do. By the way, if you want to print your own money at will just like Ben, HowStuffWorks has excellent step-by-step instructions.

Here’s O’Donnell proving she’s ready to devour her opponents if necessary.

Recently I was going to write about the laws in Brazil that prohibit satirical political candidates during election time, criticizing such laws for denying free speech, which many of us would view as a cornerstone of modern democracy. I mean, sure. This can lead to odd results, like porn star Ciccolina being elected to parliament in Italy, but as we long ago pointed out, it’s hard to tell a prostitute from a politician in the first place. But a confluence of recent events has caused me to rethink things a bit. It started when I received an e-mail from a reader referencing my attempt at meta-satire of the Stephen Colbert/Jon Stewart events sheduled to take place in DC at the end of October. The reader – an obvious teabagger – actually said “I’m happy to see that someone in the mainstream media is calling out these socialist Obamanation jokesters for what they are doing, which is obviously ramming there [sic] liberal agenda down America’s throat right before the elections“. Never mind how much it hurt my feelings when they called Dissociated Press “mainstream”, what really was worrying was the fact that they were regurgitating satirist/comedian Glenn Beck’s humorous spin on political commentator Stephen Colbert’s rally in Washington. Oh. Wait. I think I reversed something there. This inability to distinguish the comedians from the commentators and the candidates wasn’t helped any by Colbert’s recent appearance at a congressional hearing. Although you could reasonably argue that Colbert was wasting taxpayer money somehow, or blew a great opportunity to use his clout to make progress on an important issue, I think he did something even more reckless: he not only highlighted how easily the public can be confused and misled, he exposed how easily a politician can be confused and misled. And in the process exposed the American public to something they should NEVER be allowed to see, i.e., the arcane and out-of-touch legislative process in action. It was hard to decide which was more surreal – Colbert’s presence, or the committee’s response. You’ve taken us into dangerous territory Mr. Colbert, the world of “quantum comedy”, in which the frame of observation can completely determine whether an individual is a comedian or a politician. Which now has me thinking that maybe the Brazilians had it right all along. Leave the comedy to the politicians, Mr. Colbert. They do just fine on their own.

In his opening statement to the congressional committee Colbert said “I don’t want a tomato picked by a Mexican. I want it picked by an American, then sliced by a Guatemalan and served by a Venezuelan in a spa where a Chilean gives me a Brazilian.”

Here are TWO Brazilians for you, Stephen. These are a couple of the candidates recently campaigning in Brazil

Like many candidates, Pat Paulsen often spoke from both sides of his mouth:

First of all, I want to be clear that I have NO IDEA whether or not the assertions of either side of this little debate are correct; both sides’ only evidence for what they’re saying is the words (or alleged words) of former FBI employees. I only selected the “terror baby” issue because I really think it sums up – and in an amusing fashion – the misdirected mental energy of today’s America.

Debbie Riddle Talks About “Terror Babies”

In this first clip, Texas lawmaker Debbie Riddle insists that terror babies are invading the US, and when asked what evidence she’s basing these ideas upon, says “at this point, I’m not going to reveal that”. And continues to talk about how the government (as if she isn’t part of it?) is ignoring this and other threats. I don’t know if her strange facial mannerisms are the result of a stroke, being a robot, bunged cosmetic surgery, or a botox overdose, but if it’s any of those four things, we should question her judgment in the first place. What I really want to point out though, is the bizarre nature of her concern about “terror babies” and how even a rudimentary assessment of its underpinnings points at a delusional mental state driven by the anxiety of losing control, which manifests as a projected fear of “monster babies that want to kill us”. She comes across like a cranky grandmother who can’t believe that none of her offspring are sharing her deluded thinking:

Anderson Cooper, Louie Gohmert Debate “Terror Babies”

Louie Gohmert is another perfect example of the frustrated paternal figure I’m describing. As he rants rabidly with utter disregard for the concept of “dialog”, Gohmert himself shouts “I’m a former judge!” If you know anything about what this means from a psychological standpoint, you know that a judge is typically a person who is accustomed to issuing edicts, decisions, and opinions that for all practical purposes are beyond reproach or that in any case may only be challenged via an elaborate legal process. He presents himself as the screaming angry dad that just walked in on your delinquent behavior and thinks that if just SHOUTS LONG ENOUGH, you’ll eventually be scared into listening to whatever kind of anger-driven jabbering he remains capable of after working up such a froth. And his jabbering is, as in Riddle’s case, all about “terror babies from the future”:

So what do you think? Is this psychology metaphor too much of a stretch? Feel free to share your thoughts. I’m gonna go visit ManBabies.com now.

How about every second of this video, which is basically an advertisement for a company that among other things tries to screw its own artists and sue its customers, and features the aging white master of third world exploitation famous for screwing pretty much every artist involved in the making of Graceland. Or maybe reason #268, which is that he may not qualify as a candidate anyway. I say this all in jest of course – who knows, maybe Wyclef as the president of Haiti is a great idea. Maybe the devastated island nation would actually benefit somehow from the excessive use of autotune. But joking aside, Wyclef as president of any nation sounds like a bad idea to me for the same reason that Bono, Bob Geldof, or Peter Gabriel as a nation’s leader sounds like a bad idea. No matter how much one may admire the artist or their philanthropic activities, they are still – at their core – people who made their living shilling corporate products in one of the most greed-driven and image conscious industries on the planet. What do YOU think? Is Wyclef as president a good idea?

And don’t make me explain the irony of the guy behind this video being the president of Haiti.

Sweetest Girl (Dollar Bill)