Update and scripts (Patreon)

Hi, everyone. Just a quick update. Earlier this month, some of my higher-tier patrons voted on the Halloween episode. It's going to be about our ol' pal Satan, but it will take a different spin than my previous video on the subject. My hope is to have that debut on the 31st, but we'll see. Work continues on the hierarchies mini-series. Expect at least one new entry before the end of the year.

Thank you for your continued patronage. My goal is to get back to making about three videos per month instead of two. The last couple years have been hard for a lot of us, but I think I have turned a corner, at least.

With that aside, here are some scripts from last year's episodes.

MARJORIE TAYLOR GREENE

AUDIO 1

Right-wing conspiracy theories have long been the background radiation of the conservative movement in the United States. Paranoia about communists hiding in every closet helped galvanize conservatives in the 1950's. In the 1960's and 1970's, the John Birch Society spread the conspiracy theory that President Dwight Eisenhower was behind the communist conspiracy to sabotage the United States from within. Moral panics of the 1980's about devil worship helped the religious right gain a greater foothold in politics. The Republican Party played along, acknowledging in private how these voters played into their hands while shrugging them off in public. During the Barack Obama presidency, at the height of the birther conspiracy theory, the president of the United States had to release his birth certificate to the public. Republican response was feigned innocence about this right-wing conspiracy theory. “Why even do this? This is a distraction,” House Republicans said, knowing full well they had benefited from this de-legitimization of their political opponent for the past several years. Traditionally, a right-wing conspiracy theory begins with a half-truth or a reference to a real event but with a secret, hidden agenda. The greater context or details that debunk this theory are either ignored or labeled propaganda.

To a conspiracy theorist, any attempt to debunk the conspiracy theory must be part of the cover-up. This allows the conspiracy theorist to continue believing no matter how often the claim is fact-checked or proven false. For example, the birther conspiracy begins with a real event: the birth of Barack Obama. It utilizes some truths, such as Obama's father being Kenyan, but spirals out into falsehoods after that – all of which have been disproved and discredited over the years by fact-checkers and researchers. Right-wing conspiracy theorists believe in birtherism not because the evidence is compelling but because the theory feels “culturally true” to them. It reinforces their pre-existing political belief about the duplicity of anyone to their left and their pre-existing racist belief about the criminality of African-Americans. Endorsement of a conspiracy theory is a form of motivated, false reasoning that is used to protect an individual's pre-existing worldview. In recent years, that traditional conspiracy theory has been turned on its head. Now, a conspiracy theory can flourish even without the half-truth or the real event. Instead, a conspiracy theory can gain a great deal of traction simply through repetition, by being adopted by someone in a position of authority, or both. In their book A Lot of People Are Saying, authors Nancy L. Rosenblum and Russell Muirhead described this new conspiracism as “conspiracy without the theory.”

Donald Trump's popularity on social media allowed him to create conspiracies out of whole cloth and legitimize them through repetition of his followers, through shares, and likes, and retweets. If “a lot of people are saying” it, and the President of the United States is endorsing it, the conspiracy theory has the illusion of being credible. Even with Trump no longer in office, other well-known Republicans are running with these conspiracies without theories. Senator Ted Cruz, Rudy Giuliani, and others are pushing the election conspiracy theory. House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy and others are using the term “deep state.” Right-wing conspiracy theories are propagated by two forms of bad actors: the manipulators and the true believers. The manipulators are usually the politicians, the pundits and others in power. The believers are the targets of this manipulation: the voters, the conservative base. It would be naive to think Donald Trump sincerely believed his invented conspiracy theories. After all, he was the one inventing them. However, on occasion, the manipulator is also the true believer – someone in power who fell down the rabbit hole of right-wing conspiracy theories, who later achieved some political power, then continued to spread these theories out of a partly sincere but completely misguided and wrongheaded belief. The most obvious example of this today is Marjorie Taylor Greene, Republican Congresswoman representing Georgia's 14thdistrict.

The sincerity of her wrong beliefs is not something to be admired – even in principle. It only shows her to be more dangerous and more gullible than the traditional manipulators. Greene makes headlines every time she speaks. She calls for the execution of her political rivals, harasses teenage survivors of school shootings, and engages in the most nonsensical buffoonery perhaps ever seen in United States politics. Nevertheless, she has a vote in the House of Representatives, a microphone to broadcast her outlandish, baseless claims, and her party is not particularly interested in stopping her. The idea that Greene is only a symptom of a larger problem is both true and misleading. Greene is a symptom of the broader, right-wing conspiracy culture, but she is not a mere spectator in that culture or an insignificant piece of that culture. We have to ask ourselves some questions. What does Greene believe? Why does she believe it? Why won't her own party do anything about it? And what can we do to prevent the flow of misinformation and the destruction of truth? [I. Down the Rabbit Hole] A common perception of right-wing conspiracy theorists is that they are poor, uneducated, “white trash” but this is a classist stereotype. The far right is actually often funded and motivated by wealthy benefactors, and the “true believers” are often suburban middle class whites.

Remember, conspiracy theorists accept their bizarre worldview because it feels “culturally true” to them – not simply due to a lack of higher education. Marjorie Taylor Greene's father Robert owned Taylor Commercial, a prime contractor responsible for the oversight of construction. Greene's family could afford to send her to the University of Georgia, a well-respected institution. She earned a business degree. In 2002, her father sold Taylor Commercial to Marjorie and her husband Perry Greene. The future congresswoman did not vote for President in 2008 or 2012, but the candidacy of Donald Trump in 2016 energized her and motivated her to seek out like-minded conservatives on the internet. In 2017, her search lead her to write for American Truth Seekers, a now-defunct conspiracy theory website, and Law Enforcement Today, a police propaganda website. Mixed in with her conspiracies were garden variety right-wing talking points. In one article for Law Enforcement Today, Greene warned of an “incredible amount of migrants and drugs invading the country.” The article came complete with pictures and grainy videos that allegedly proved her claims. As her articles continued, they became more and more unhinged. For example, another article for Law Enforcement Today was about how Beto O'Rourke, when he was fifteen, wrote a short story about two children being run over by car, which is true, but Greene's interpretation of this was that this alone made O'Rourke unqualified for public office and that writing this fiction meant that he was secretly a violent murderer.

Who knows what she must think about Stephen King? In 2018, Greene joined the conservative Family America Project and moderated its facebook page. Eventually, Greene turned her attention to guns, more specifically to conspiracy theories about school shootings. The conspiracy theorist right has long spread the idea that many of the most prominent mass shootings do not actually occur and that they are “false flags” staged by “crisis actors.” Alex Jones of Info Wars infamously said this about the Sandy Hook massacre. Greene speculated that the tragic Las Vegas mass shooting of 2017 was staged. In general, this theory can be debunked through common sense and critical thinking alone. In order for Sandy Hook or Las Vegas to be staged, an incredible amount of people would have to be involved, entire communities full of actors would have to be created, cemeteries, schools, law enforcement, public officials, every local news station, almost every other national news channel, many figures within a political party, and more would have to be complicit and with no real evidence uncovered. Experts and mathematicians have conclusively shown that the more people know about a conspiracy, the shorter the amount of time it would take for it to be exposed. Conspiracies do happen – any time more than one person collaborates on a crime or scheme, it's a conspiracy – but widespread conspiracies are exposed dependent on how many people know. The CIA has been involved in many bizarre conspiracies.

In 2019, Greene confronted and harassed David Hogg, a survivor of the Parkland school shooting. Over the next two years, through her articles and facebook posts, Greene focused her attention to prominent Democrats, spreading nonsense about a Hillary Clinton assassination list and the debunked Seth Rich murder theory. Greene called for the murder or execution of Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and Nancy Pelosi. She dipped into every popular right-wing conspiracy theory of the time – everything from the ludicrous “Pizzagate” to the lesser known “Frazzledrip” theory about Hillary Clinton mutilating a child on a video tape that does not actually exist. Many of Greene's theories are tied to her Christian faith, often engaging in Islamophobia and anti-semitism. Greene believes in various anti-semitic theories about a “space laser” that annihilates forests and that George Soros is a Nazi.

Soros is was actually a holocaust survivor. Her Islamophobia is perhaps even more pronounced. In February 2019, Greene visited the United States Capitol to harass Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib, declaring that if they took their oath of office on the Quran instead of the Bible, they are not official congresswomen. In truth, representatives are not legally required to take their oath with their hand on a Bible. Also that year, in a sign of things to come, Greene called for true believers to flood the Capitol and use violence if necessary. Greene supported the far right rally Unite the Right and called the tragic death of Heather Heyer another “false flag” operation. [II. The Culture of Conspiracy] In case it were not clear already, there is no evidence whatsoever to support any of Marjorie Taylor Greene's claims. There are so many conspiracy theories swirling around in Greene's mind that one might find it difficult to imagine that anyone could believe all of them – but it's important to understand that these conspiracy theories touch upon one another through the connective tissue of right-wing ideology. They are entangled into a larger web of belief, and this entanglement of belief is fostered through the interconnection of social conservatism, religiosity, and sensationalized media. There is a culture – or subculture – that contains qualities that makes it the perfect incubator for conspiracy theories. First, we need to broach the sometimes uncomfortable subject of religion.

According to various studies, higher religiosity is directly associated with a higher belief in conspiracy theories. Religiosity allows an individual to be more susceptible to supernatural thinking, taking unusual data on “faith.” A study by Professor Inga Jasinskaja-Lahti concludes that it is not self-categorization as a person of faith that increases likelihood of belief in conspiracy theories but the importance attached to that faith. A person of faith for whom their religion is a secondary or minor part of their identity is not much more likely to believe in conspiracy theories, but a person of faith for whom their religion is a primary or major part of their identity is more likely to believe in conspiracy theories. This may explain why a separate study by the Public Religion Research Institute found that white Evangelical Protestants are most likely to believe in the QAnon conspiracy theory. When asked about the core tenants of the theory, even without referencing QAnon by name, a staggering 22% of white Evangelicals responded that they agreed with its conclusion and only 21% rejected it outright. By comparison, only 9% of unaffiliated or non-religious Americans agreed with its conclusion, and 57% rejected it outright. Evangelicalism believe in the necessity of conversion, of being “born again” in order to receive salvation. It is not a faith about one's personalrelationship with God but about conversion of the masses to a very specific form of Christianity.

An undying and unwavering belief that everyone else is wrong breeds a mindset that any action is necessary in bringing the fold into their belief system and that those who oppose it are only merely outside their faith but actively working against God. A number of right-wing conspiracy theories center on religion, specifically the Devil. If Evangelicals believe that the Devil is influencing government or that government officials worship the Devil, then hostility, harassment and outrage feel like reasonable responses. Religiosity and political positions are often intertwined – reproductive rights, separation of church and state, school prayer, marriage equality, and so forth. Evangelicals are far more likely to be conservative and Republican. Thus, their religion makes Evangelicals not only more susceptible to supernatural thinking but also more susceptible to demonizing anyone who opposes their faith-based political positions. Second, a number of right-wing conspiracy theories are about the government, but it must be understood that the right wing does not mistrust the government writ large. I have said this before in a previous video, but it bears repeating here. Right-wing politicians' condemnation of the federal government as an oppressive force has nothing to do with actual oppression by the government – meaning oppression by the police, oppression of other nations by the military, and so forth. Right-wing politicians' condemnation of the federal government is about money.

The federal government regulates capitalism through safety laws and the minimum wage, and right-wing politicians and their donors don't want that. That is why right-wing politicians tell voters that “government is the problem,” because their presentation of “the government” is only the part of the government that puts a few limits on capitalism and provides a public safety net. Put more simply, the right does not oppose “the government.” That is merely a boogeyman when one is required. To use a different ideology for comparison, anarchists want to abolish the state and create a more egalitarian society. The right wants to abolish egalitarianism because they believe that egalitarianism violates their strict social hierarchy – natural law. Therefore, right-wing conspiracy theories about government are never about actual oppression. Instead, right-wing conspiracy theories involving the government are about threats to their strict social hierarchy. In the minds of conspiracy theorists, centrist politicians like Hillary Clinton transform into revolutionary figures who want to open borders and change the racial demographics of the nation.

Donors like George Soros transform into radicals who want to change the Christian demographics of the nation. The right does not fear the government – they fear sabotage from within. The sabotage of the United States and its traditions, its hierarchies, and they are so terrified of this potential change in the status quo that milquetoast politicians like Joe Biden are seen as communist devil worshipers – and obvious fraudsters like Donald Trump are seen as guardian angels sent by God to save the children. It is not some coincidence that right-wing conspiracy theories consistently cast Democrats, liberals, socialists, communists, anarchists and anti-fascists as the perpetrators – because the threat that they allegedly pose to their strict social hierarchy – their God-given natural law – motivates belief in the unbelievable. Finally, right-wing media has attached itself to recent conspiracy theories, particularly those related to the 2020 election. In a poll conducted in December of last year, only 18% of frequent Fox News viewers accepted the results of the election as legitimate. A separate poll conducted last year showed that among adults in the United States, 43% trusted Fox News, slightly higher than more legitimate news sources like PBS. Fox News may traffic in erroneous statements and conspiracy, but it has the aesthetic of being legitimate, the appearance of being mainstream and therefore trustworthy. If a conspiracy theory about, say, vaccinations is pushed on Fox News, its viewers might not recognize it as false.

They might recognize it as news. A significant portion of Fox News' primary audience does not get its news from anywhere else – except perhaps other right-wing channels like Newsmax and One America News. The consequence of this is that right-wing conspiracy theories feel real because the viewers have been conditioned to trust right-wing media and mistrust other sources. Any attempt to debunk something said on Fox, Newsmax, or OAN is merely “fake news” and can be discarded. Fact-checkers become liars. Experts become frauds. Researchers become biased. Up becomes down. So, why does right-wing media do this? Part of it is merely ideological – they have political goals that they wish to accomplish – but the other part is that it's profitable. Enraged, motivated viewers come back for more. Conspiracy theories are a con. There is more money in fear than in hope. In summary, socially conservative ideology, religiosity, and right-wing media that shelters viewers from legitimate news connect with one another to be the perfect incubator for conspiracy theories. In turn, this allows for an entanglement of theories, all related to Democrats, to the Devil, and to secret plots. These entangled theories can coalesce into a singular theory about a secret plot by Democrats who worship the Devil. [III. The QAnon Candidate] In 2017, Marjorie Taylor Greene began posting about devil-worshiping Democrats. This was weeks before the first QAnon post.

The basics of this lie already existed for religious, right-wing conspiracy theorists. Q simply popularized it, gave it a name, a brand, a motto and a new central figure: Donald Trump, the savior of children. Greene attached herself to this right away. For the uninitiated, QAnon was a 4chan op that went too far, baselessly implicating prominent Democrats in an elaborate scheme to capture children for the Devil and to drink their precious bodily fluids. Greene used to be elbow-deep in this conspiracy, but for reasons that will become clear later, even she has stopped talking about it. In December of 2019, Greene began her campaign for Congress. Fully behind QAnon and a host of other ridiculous, entangled conspiracy theories, Greene separated herself from the pack. What once would have a liability or even disqualifying became her defining feature and biggest boost to her popularity. The 14thdistrict of Georgia is about a deep red as they come. The districtvoted overwhelmingly for Mitt Romney in 2012, and Donald Trump in 2016 and 2020. The Cook Partisan Voting Index lists it as the 10thmost Republican district in the nation out of the current total of 435 districts. The further to the right, the better. Greene was able to pose with members of the militia group American Patriots USA.

Once sworn in, Greene peddled more and more conspiracy theories on the House floor, including wearing a mask that read “Trump won.” She also peddled the quickly disproved theory that anti-fascists were behind the Capitol insurrection. During her brief tenure thus far, she hasn't done much lawmaking. In February, Greene has harassed Congresswoman Marie Newman by hanging a transphobic sign in sight of her office. Newman's daughter is transgender. In May, Greene compared a grocery store full of vaccinated employees to Nazi Germany. Greene uncharacteristically apologized, then went right back to making similar references. Greene has been removed from her House committee assignments due to her behavior, but that is not the same as expulsion. She still has a vote, and she still has a tremendous amount of right-wing media attention to platform her views. The Republican Party has long courted the conspiracy theorist right, the fascist right, the far right, but conspiracists were previously manipulated through a wink and a nod – a dog whistle that justified their beliefs and their paranoia. Now, the rules have changed. The dog whistles have been replaced with bull horns. Why is the Republican Party going all in on conspiracy theories?

Some undoubtedly believe the conspiracies, most prominently Marjorie Taylor Greene. Some Republicans, however, are simply doing what politicians are trained to do: manipulate voters to stay in power. Despite the Republican Party sometimes being in power in Congress and the White House, party registration and identification with the party have smaller shares of the population than the Democratic Party. According to Pew Research, 33% of all registered voters in the United States identify as Democrats, 29% identify as Republicans, and 34% identify as independents. Most independents lean more toward one party over the other. When taking independents’ partisan leanings into account, 49% of all registered voters either identify as Democrats or lean to the Democratic Party, while 44% identify as Republicans or lean to the Republican Party. Put more simply, there are a lot more people in the United States who side with the Democratic Party than side with the Republican Party. The last two Republican presidents only reached the White House due to the electoral college – not the popular vote. Republicans only have as many Senators as they do because a sparsely populated state like Wyoming gets as many Senators as a massively populated state like California. Republicans only have as many representatives in the House as they do because of gerrymandering. This is not mere speculation, it's a Republican strategy called REDMAP, and the party is openly proud of it.

If Representatives and Senators were portioned through population, Congress would always be controlled by the Democratic Party, and the Republicans are keenly aware of this. If Republicans lost even a modest amount of voters going forward, their chances of retaking Congress would diminish, and their chances of retaking the presidency would evaporate. The Republican Party has a comparatively less diversebase of voters. They do not have a big tent. Because of their lower registration and their smaller tent, the party has never turned away even the most dangerous voters, and with their party now out of power, the subtle acknowledgment of the conspiracy theory right and turned into a public courtship. The Republican Party's interest in energizing the conspiracy theorist right has less to do with belief and more to do with mathematics. They cannot win without them. Now, what can we do about this? On an electoral level, not a whole lot. Unsurprisingly, Republicans who are conspiracy theory believers or conspiracy theory manipulators are in deep red districts or states. Remember, the 14thdistrict is deep red. Greene cannot possibly be voted out by a Democrat or Independent, which means the only way for her to ever leave office is through a Republican primary challenge or more unusual circumstances that would prevent her from performing her duties.

For example, Matt Gaetz is currently under investigation for a litany of crimes that could spell the end of his career in politics, but Greene is under no such investigation. Expulsion from Congress is theoretically possible and has been suggested by at least one Democrat, but it's extremely unlikely due to the great partisan divide. It requires a two-thirds vote. Thus, the only method in which to combat the manipulators of right-wing conspiracy theories is to combat the theories themselves and to confront  the true believers. Unfortunately, this is an incredible challenge. An individual who has previously not been exposed to right-wing conspiracy theories but learns about a ridiculous, unfounded theory over the course of a weekend could potentially be saved from going down that rabbit hole. A friend or loved one could explain why the theory is not true and provide resources that debunk the theory. However, an individual for whom their conspiracies are part of their political ideology, culture, and personal creed cannot be so easily swayed.

Right-wing conspiracy theories are not built upon a foundation of evidence in the first place. Remember, their theories only feel “culturally true” – and because of this, in order to give up the conspiracy theories, the individual would have to give up their culture. To a right-wing conspiracy theorist, believing that Joe Biden simply won an election has greater consequences than merely accepting a Democrat is now president. Democrats have been president before. To a right-wing conspiracy theorist, believing Joe Biden won the election also means that the people who they trusted were lying to them this whole time and that all the interconnected, entangled conspiracy theories must also be lies. The entanglement of right-wing conspiracy theories creates circumstances in which rejecting one means disentangling all of them. Because of this, right-wing conspiracy theorists will not allow for the possibility that even some of their most ludicrous beliefs could be false.

On a wider scale, misinformation in public spaces and the internet can only be combated through real information in those same spaces. Many of QAnon's true believers have left the movement, partly because Trump is no longer in office and therefore incapable of fulfilling the “prophecy” or whatever, but also because of a series of informative, popular documentaries exposing the origins of the conspiracy theory. Even Greene is basically done with QAnon – at least in public. As for Greene's career in politics, her future is uncertain. She might flame out spectacularly, but representatives in districts that heavily favor their own party often embed themselves there for years – even decades. Greene must never become “normalized” – never be thought of as simply another politician with a few bad ideas. Once that happens, the needle will move, and it will be difficult to ever move it back.

WHO WON THE SPACE RACE?

AUDIO 1

Earlier this month, the “billionaire space race” engaged in an embarrassing public spectacle as Richard Branson, founder of Virgin Group, had his spaceflight company Virgin Galactic fly him into a low, suborbital spaceflight. Not to be outdone, Jeff Bezos, founder of Amazon, had his spaceflight company Blue Origin do the same for himself. Bezos donned a cowboy hat for reasons unknown at time of writing. In a moment of sheer obliviousness and privilege, Bezos thanked his Amazon employees, remarking “I'd like to thank every Amazon employee and every Amazon customer because you all paid for this.” [uncomfortable laughter of people with real jobs] Bezos patronizingly thanked the workers whose wages he stole, workers desperate for a union, for wasting their money on giving the richest man in the world a space vacation. The billionaire space race is part of a larger effort to privatize space travel – galactic capitalism. This includes space tourism, outsourcing NASA programs, and in the case of Elon Musk, terraforming and colonizing Mars – a project that experts believe is simply impossible due to atmospheric conditions and therefore an incredible waste of time, money and resources. At the nadir of the discourse this month, former Nevada Republican chairwoman Amy Tarkanian made this declaration: “Capitalism, not socialism, sent Jeff Bezos into space today.” This statement is technically true in that Jeff Bezos was able to exploit his employees for so much and for so long that he was able to ride into outer space on the backs of the proletariat.

Tarkanian's praise of capitalism accidentally exposed its rigid, exploitative hierarchical structure. This lead the discourse to the last time capitalism tried to justify itself through space flight: the Cold War space race of the 1950's, 60's and 70's. If someone were to ask a random American who “won” the space race, that random individual would most likely respond that the United States did. After all, the US “won” the Cold War, and if the space race was a vestigial limb of the Cold War, it follows that the US won that, too. The problem with that answer and rationalization for that answer is that it is entirely superficial and does not actually explore what the space race truly was – nor does it explore what was accomplished in both the United States and Soviet Union. How can we judge who “won” the space race if there were no official parameters? Realistically, the best method might be in first determining the goals of the space race in the first place. In the United States, the incredible spending involved in space flight – not to mention the creation of NASA itself – was justified to the public as a matter of national security. [“Our obligations to ourselves as well as others require us to make this effort. To solve these mysteries. To solve them for the good of all men and to become the world's leading space-faring nation. … Whether it becomes a force for good or ill depends on man, and only if the United States occupies a position of preeminence can we decide whether this new ocean will be a sea of peace or a new, terrifying theater of war.”]

However, not everyone bought into this supposed goal. There was a great deal of public opposition to spending so much on a space race that provided so few material benefits. The 1960's were a time of notable unrest and greater public focus on socio-economic inequality. The United States pumping so much of its budget into going to the moon seemed out of touch with common, everyday concerns. Imagine the present backlash against billionaire space travel but amplified because the space race used taxpayer dollars – not personal fortunes. Throughout the 1960's, between 45 – 60% of the United States population believed that the government was spending too much on space flight. [“I can't pay no doctor bills, but whitey's on the moon. Ten years from now I'll be paying still while whitey's on the moon.”] Satellite and missile technology may have been deemed necessary for national security, but nearly every other mission and achievement related to the space race had few military applications and provided little to national security. The Soviet Union sending probes to the moon and the United States sending a man to the moon did not offer new strategic advantages to either superpower. No bases were built, no missiles stored. Photographs were taken and rock samples were collected. The Soviet Union sending unmanned probes to Mars and Venus did not secure their borders on Earth, and NASA's first orbital test flight did not bring down the Berlin Wall.

To take nothing away from the scientists involved and the knowledge gained from space flight, the space race simply was not funded out of any necessity of national security and certainly not to fill our textbooks with new data on the composition of lunar soil. The space race was funded for so long and for so much because of insecurity about the United States' goal of global hegemony and its status as the world's greatest superpower. The space race between the United States and the Soviet Union was state propaganda first and everything else second. If the propagandist goal of the space race was to perform impressive accomplishments to tout the superiority of their respective programs and respective economic systems, then these accomplishments can be tallied to determine who won the space race. For the purposes of condensing the information, this scorecard will begin in 1957, the true beginning of the space race. The first major accomplishment of the USSR space program was also arguably the inciting incident of the space race: the successful 1957 launch of Sputnik-1, the first artificial Earth satellite. In 1954, Soviet scientist Sergei Korolev, the father of practical astronautics, proposed an experimental artificial satellite as a necessary step in furthering rocket technology. In 1955, President Dwight D. Eisenhower was well aware of the advancements in Soviet technology due to the Lockheed U-2 spy plane flights over the Soviet Union as well as more traditional cloak-and-dagger espionage.

Eisenhower announced that the United States would soon launch an artificial satellite, prompting the Soviet Union to go public with their already existing plans to do the same. In 1957, the Soviet Union launched Sputnik-1, a small satellite with the capacity to produce a radio signal. The signal was actually detectable by amateur radio operators, and it sounded like this. [beep, beep, beep, beep] The launch of Sputnik surprised and horrified the United States despite the fact that Sputnik was in no way, shape or form dangerous to the US or to anyone else. Although an Earth-shattering accomplishment and a first in world history, Sputnik was also a small sphere that “beeped” and did precious little else. Nevertheless, the threat of “space communism” terrified the United States enough to create NASA and more officially step into the space race. In an address to the nation, President Eisenhower said “Earth satellites in themselves have no direct present effect on the nation's security. However, there is real military significance to these launchings as I have previously mentioned publicly. Their current military significance lies in the advanced techniques and the competence in military technology they imply.

For example, the powerful propulsion equipment necessarily used but in the main the Soviets continue to concentrate on the development of war-making weapons and supporting industries. This as well as their political attitude in all international affairs serves to warn us that Soviet the expansionist aims have not changed.” United States politicians used this opportunity to drum up fear of the Soviet Union – an always useful political tool. Only one month later in 1957, the Soviet Union launched a dog named Laika into space in the Sputnik-2. The launch of Laika was instrumental in paving the way for human spaceflight, as it proved that a living passenger could be launched into orbit. The Soviet Union lead the way in moon exploration. In 1959, as part of the Luna program, the Soviets launched Luna 1, performing the first flyby of the moon. Later that year, they launched Luna 2, which actually impacted the moon. Finally, Luna 3 photographed the far side of the moon for the first time in human history.

In 1961, Yuri Gagarin became the first man in space, completing one orbit of the Earth in his capsule, Vostok 1. Not to be outdone, the United States launched Alan B. Shepard into space one month later to far less international fanfare. If the space race was about firsts, the United States had few to its name. In 1963, Soviet cosmonaut Valentina Tereshkova became the first woman in space, flying a solo mission in the Vostok 6. The United States seemed to have little interest in matching the Soviet Union in this area, not permitting an American woman into space until 1983. US propaganda tries to claim that Sally Ride was the first “professional” woman in space and that her education makes her space flight more significant than Tereshkova's achievement. To take nothing away from the accomplishments of Sally Ride, who had nothing to do with this revisionism, it is extremely insulting to Tereshkova, who was an experienced parachutist, went through extensive training for the mission, was chosen out of a field of 400 candidates, and earned a military commission during her training. Furthermore, in her single flight, Tereshkova logged more flight time than the combined times of all American astronauts before that date. In 1964, the Soviet Union's Voshkod 1 performed a series of firsts: the first multi-person space mission, the first space flight without the use of space suits, and achieved the highest altitude of 336 kilometers.

In 1965, Soviet cosmonaut Alexei Leonov performed the first ever space walk, and in 1966, the Luna 9 unmanned spacecraft not only impacted the moon but landed properly. Up until that point, the Soviet Union had consistently performed every major “first” and held on to every major record related to space flight. The United States re-doubled its efforts, began performing “endurance” tests and eventually earned by far its greatest achievement: landing a man on the moon in 1969. The Soviet Union countered by landing an unmanned spacecraft on another planet, Venus, in 1970, launching the first space station, Salyut 1, in 1971, and landing the first unmanned spacecraft on Mars later that year. The fascinating part about United States' propagandistic, retroactive “win” of the space race was that United States politicians contemporaneously knew and sometimes even said outright that the Soviet Union was winning or will win said race. Before Yuri Gagarin made his historic flight, President John F. Kennedy famously said this in 1960: “The first man-made satellite to orbit the earth was named Sputnik. The first living creature in space was Laika. The first rocket to the Moon carried a red flag. The first photograph of the far side of the Moon was made with a Soviet camera. If a man orbits the earth this year, his name will be Ivan.”

Kennedy's words turned out to be prophetic. By the 1970's, the United States had finally advanced their space program to be as efficient as that of the Soviet Union, and some engineers might even say more efficient, but the space race was never about nuts and bolts. It was about propaganda and historic missions. If we define the parameters of the space race through by its actual political goal, the Soviet Union certainly won. Nevertheless, in defiance of the indisputable scorecard, if you ask an American who won the space race, they will probably answer “the United States” and cite the famous Apollo moon landing as their evidence, being their only recollection. So, why is this? The state fashions its propaganda not only about what is happening in the present and what will happen in the future. It also fashions propaganda by re-writing the past. When the George W. Bush administration invaded Iraq under the false pretense of dismantling weapons of mass destruction, and none were uncovered, the official line changed. Their true mission – all along – was to liberate Iraq and spread peace throughout the Middle East. When the United States consistently lost ground to the Soviet Union and was humiliated by the technological advancements of their adversaries, the space race became exclusively about who would land on the moon first. After all, this was a “race” and the United States determined the finish line.

After Neil Armstrong made a giant leap for mankind, he passed that line and nothing else came afterward as far as the American public was concerned – and nothing came before it either. We were always focused on the moon. More than simple state propaganda and loud, boisterous declarations about United States superiority, the American public has also come to understand the space race through curriculum. The curriculum is the planned instructions for students. In order for there to be uniformity in a school district, the district decides on the curriculum well in advance, including textbooks, subjects, and topics that may or may not be discussed.

The curriculum can be influenced or even controlled by local and state laws. For example, the Texas House and Senate have recently been arguing with one another about whether or not to include civil rights accomplishments as part of public school education. Public school curriculum is political. However, the space race and the Cold War in general are not topics in which liberals and conservatives disagree. They all want to portray the United States as the victor and as morally correct. There are no historians in the district who are going to attempt to overrule the popular consensus – the political consensus – no matter how questionable that consensus actually is. Thus, the history portion of the curriculum across public school districts in the United States will broadly cover the US victory in the Cold War as an accomplishment of ideas rather than covert warfare, political assassinations, and civilian atrocities, and will broadly cover the space race as a contest “won” by the United States when Neil Armstrong set foot on the moon. This moment is so ingrained in the popular consciousness and elevated to such importance that when a recent biopic of Neil Armstrong did not include a scene with the American flag on the moon, there was an uproar. As ridiculous as that seems, this iconic image is not only infused with nationalistic patriotism in a more general sense but is the defining image of “winning” the space race.

It is representative of passing the retroactive finish line, of defeating the Soviet Union. It's not enough to show the ingenuity of scientists – because the space race was not about science. It was about propaganda. It's not enough to show the bravery of mankind – because in spite of what Armstrong said, the space race was not about allof mankind. It was about global supremacy of one nation. The lie must be told over and over again to be believed, and deviation from this lie is anathema – treason to the United States. Another talking point that US propagandists use to declare victory in the space race is that even though the Soviet Union accomplished more in the 50's, 60's, and early 70's, the US achieved a kind of “moral victory,” claiming that the Soviet Union only made it so far because they did not value the lives of their cosmonauts. However, this argument is transparent demonization. The Soviet Union did not have an in-flight fatality until 1967, and their space program responded by delaying any further space flights for a year and a half to ensure the safety of their people. In the same year, three American astronauts were killed in a fire during a ground test, prompting a similar delay. The United States lost significantly more of its people during training, test flights and space flights than the Soviet Union. This is no “moral victory” for the Soviet Union either. These deaths were tragic and nobody should be applauding them or using them as demonization.

Furthermore, the United States cannot claim moral high ground for their space program for another important reason. [“It was the great, enormous superiority of American technology, of course, as provided by our great American scientists such as Dr. Wernher von Braun.”] The NASA engineering program manager was Werner von Braun, a Nazi scientist brought into the fold through Operation Overcast, eventually known as Operation Paperclip. Von Braun was not alone, as the United States provided safe harbor for many other Nazis in exchange for their contributions to NASA. The first Kennedy Space Center director was Kurt Heinreich Debus, a former member of Schutzstaffel, the paramilitary organization most infamously known for its involvement in concentration camps. Another key figure at NASA was Arthur Rudolph, a war criminal involved in slave labor at the Wittlewerk factory. The Soviet Union also employed former Nazi scientists. Both sides got their hands dirty, making any claims of a “moral victory” in place of an actual victory truly absurd. [“Call him a Nazi, he won't even frown. 'Nazi schmatzi' says Wernher von Braun.”] The Soviet Union's superior space program was not the result of devaluing the lives of their cosmonauts. So, what was it? Why did the United States trail so far behind the Soviet Union in the first place?

Why did the United States set so few records and have so few “firsts” during the space race until the end of the 1960's? It was simply a matter of priorities. United States intelligence reports from the 50's concluded that the Soviet Union was training two to three times as many scientists per year than the US. It simply was not a major concern until Sputnik. The Soviet Union invested in science, and the United States invested in industry and the military. In the early 1950's, partly due to US involvement in the Korean War, the federal government spent most of its budget on what is only euphemistically known as “defense.” The United States invested in imperialism – often called the highest stage of capitalism. To this day, the United States devotes a disproportionate amount of its budget and resources on its global interests. Imperialism is profitable. There was no immediate profit in space flight – only the advancement of knowledge and the potential for practical applications on Earth should greater knowledge of the universe grant us new ideas. Basically, the United States trailed behind in the space race because of the very philosophy of capitalism. So, what do you think about your best friend capitalism now, Amy?

HENRY KISSINGER

AUDIO 1

“In her book and in this last debate, she talked about getting the approval or the support or the mentoring of Henry Kissinger. Now I find it rather amazing because I happen to believe that Henry Kissinger was one of the most destructive secretaries of state in the modern history of this country. I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend. I will not take advice from Henry Kissinger. And in fact, Kissinger's actions in Cambodia when the United States bombed that country, through Prince Sihanouk, created the instability for Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge to come in who butchered some three million innocent people – one of the worst genocides in the history of the world. So, count me in as someone who will not be listening to Henry Kissinger.” This tense exchange between Senator Bernie Sanders and Secretary Hillary Clinton received a fair amount of media attention during the 2016 Democratic primaries. Sanders denounced former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger for his actions in Cambodia, in stark contrast to the traditional view of Kissinger as an American hero, patriot, and diplomat emeritus. In 1970, Kissinger opened back channels between the United States and China, ultimately resulting in the establishment of formal diplomatic relations in 1972. The left praised Kissinger for his surprising diplomacy with a communist state during the Cold War, and the right praised him for achieving his secondary goal.

Driving a wedge between China and the Soviet Union, diminishing the latter's attempts to further its influence in Asia. Kissinger's outreach to China was, in fact, in service of capitalism. Due to this Cold War diplomacy and other affairs throughout his career, Kissinger gained a lifelong status as an adviser to future presidents. Kissinger urged President Bill Clinton to focus on NAFTA instead of healthcare. Kissinger was a secret consultant to the George W. Bush administration, once urging the expansion of the War on Terror. Of this, Kissinger once stated, “Because Afghanistan was not enough. … And we need to humiliate them.” In 2016, the Barack Obama administration honored Kissinger with an awards ceremony where he received a Distinguished Public Service medal. Until the final months of the Donald Trump administration, Kissinger served on the Defense Policy Board, an influential group of experts advising top Pentagon officials. Kissinger, 98 years old, has only now disappeared into the background and has no more influence on United States foreign policy – as far as we know. The traditional view of Kissinger has been held together through normalization of his presence and advice throughout the presidential administrations. Speaking ill of Kissinger comes from the media, from fact-checkers, from firebrand politicians with nothing to lose – but never from the top. It is well understood – but never openly acknowledged by the President – that Henry Kissinger is a war criminal.

AUDIO 2

While United States foreign policy has been responsible for a tremendous amount suffering and clandestine crimes over the past century even without Kissinger's direct involvement, his contributions to this suffering are staggering in amount and scale. According to an estimate by The Nation, though an exact number may never be known, approximately three to four million deaths can be attributed to Kissinger's actions. When confronted with these staggering figures, several questions come to mind. What did Henry Kissinger do to cause this much damage, and decades later with irrefutable evidence now collected, why won't anyone do anything about it? Why are American politicians with blood on their hands never tried as war criminals in international courts? [I. Lies, Reality, and the Meaning of History] Henry Kissinger had reason to be paranoid, trauma that contributed to his cynical view of the truth and of humanity, and a career built upon the necessity of suspicion. In 1938, when Kissinger was only fifteen, he and his family fled Germany to escape persecution. 1943, Kissinger, like so many young men of that era, was drafted by the United States Army to fight in World War II. His knowledge of Germany and his academic studies up to that point allowed him to join military intelligence. He was charged with identifying, arresting, and interrogating German officers as well as securing confidential informants. According to Greg Grandin, author of Kissinger's Shadow:

“...the tension between fact and truth … was not an abstract question for Kissinger. It was the stuff of life and death...” After the war, Kissinger returned to his studies at Harvard University, writing his senior thesis, The Meaning of History. In its nearly 400 pages, Kissinger argues that history is not a set of empirical facts but is better understood as whatever the culture has decided was its history after the fact. He couches his assertion in anthropology and German philosophy, but in the end, when the grandiosity is washed away, The Meaning of History is simply a more academic justification for the antiquated phrase, “history is written by the victors.” Kissinger would undoubtedly rebuke this reductive interpretation, but his career in politics suggests that this is foundational to his foreign policy decisions. His innermost thoughts cannot be judged, but his actions can. In 1955, Kissinger joined the National Security Council's Operations Coordinating Board. He grew to prominence through a series of books that influenced foreign policy. In his 1957 book Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy, Kissinger advocated the use of nuclear weapons in warfare. In his 1960 book The Necessity of Choice, Kissinger helped popularize the Cold War term “missile gap.” These writings influenced policy in the Kennedy administration and encouraged the creation of enough nuclear weapons to wipe out mankind many times over. Proliferation also resulted in a series of close calls over the years that nearly did just that.

AUDIO 3

On March 31, 1968, with low approval due to the war in Vietnam, President Lyndon B. Johnson appeared on national television and announced that he was partially halting the bombing of Vietnam and that he would not run for re-election. Not long after, Kissinger contacted a Richard Nixon campaign aide, pledging fealty to Nixon and stating he would do anything to help him win the presidency. This blanket pledge of anything was soon put to the test. That same year, Kissinger helped Nixon covertly sabotage the Paris peace talks. The goal of the peace talks was to end a devastating conflict that had already killed countless Americans and Vietnamese. The goal of Kissinger and Nixon was to prevent Hubert Humphrey and the Democratic Party from ending an unpopular war ahead of an election. Nixon, through Kissinger, privately assured the South Vietnamese that an incoming Republican administration would offer them a better deal than the Democrats. By sabotaging the peace talks, Kissinger was able to sabotage Humphrey's electoral strategy as well. The North Vietnamese wanted the war to end, but every time the North Vietnamese side came closer to agreement, the US-backed South Vietnamese suddenly increased their own demands, making peace impossible. The South Vietnamese withdrew from the talks on the eve of the election. President Johnson learned of this as it was happening because the CIA had bugged the office of South Vietnamese President Nguyen Van Thieu and the FBI had wiretapped the South Vietnamese embassy in Washington.

CIA recordings and phone calls between President Johnson and Nixon have more recently confirmed this long-suspected rumor. [“And the oughtn't be doing this. This is treason.” “I know.” “I know this, that they're contacting a foreign power in the middle of a war.”] Johnson called Nixon and confronted him about this treasonous act but was unwilling to go public as it would reveal how he learned of it in the first place. As explained by Christopher Hitchens in his book The Trial of Henry Kissinger, even more than Nixon, Kissinger was the greatest beneficiary of this covert action. Kissinger tried to rewrite history for the victor, Richard Nixon, painting Humphrey and his emissaries as failures for even attempting diplomacy against such an implacable enemy, and by painting the war in Vietnam not the disastrous anti-communist quagmire that it was but an inevitability that they simply had to meet. [II.  Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia] Throughout the conflict in Vietnam and neighboring nations, the belligerents varied in their attitudes. Some were reluctant participants, drafted into service or ordered to commit questionable acts under the mistaken belief that there was no alternative. But Kissinger cannot be given such a defense. He knew that peace was an alternative because he himself helped sabotage that peace. This lack of alibi should be taken into consideration when learning about atrocities in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia with his fingerprints on them.

AUDIO 4

The nations of Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia formed a region commonly called Indochina in the west, but the three nations' involvement during the Vietnam War could not be more different. Laos and Cambodia were effectively neutral during the conflict, but both the North Vietnamese and the United States used these territories, often covertly, without the explicit authorization of said nations. However, the manner in which these territories were exploited were quite different. For example, the North Vietnamese used Laotian and Cambodian territory as part of their supply lines. The United States, on the other hand, exploited Laos and Cambodian by carpet bombing their civilians – men, women, and children – in hopes of also striking any unsuspecting North Vietnamese who happened to be there. The Nixon administration called this “hot pursuit,” a justification for tremendous, intentional civilian casualties. While a great many atrocities were committed by United States forces within Indochina, the actions masterminded by Henry Kissinger were among the worst. During the first week of the Richard Nixon administration, it was announced that the bombing halt was over and that full-scale involvement in the region would resume. Shortly after Nixon took office, Kissinger ordered the Pentagon to present a classified briefing on bombing options. Only weeks later, the United States began secretly bombing Cambodia.

The political argument against the bombing was self-evident: the United States was not at war with Cambodia. The total victims of the Cambodia bombings are disputed, partially because different historians and government officials use different criteria for who was directly killed by the United States and most studies do not include victims of US-involvement with the Khmer Rouge. But low estimates, such as in the Tufts University study, estimate approximately 250,000 dead, but the highest estimates reach 600,000. Again, this is only a total for these bombings. Not the conflict across Indochina in total. There were also significant casualties in Laos. US bombings in Laos were conducted secretly beginning in 1964 and escalated during the Nixon administration. So secret were these bombings that many in the United States Congress were unaware of it until 1970. Kissinger made a statement to the press, justifying the bombings by claiming that at least American servicemen were not being killed – only Laotians and Vietnamese hiding in Laos. This statement, while morally horrendous, was also untrue. The Pentagon revealed that American servicemen had been killed in Laos during the Nixon administration. These bombings were conducted without authorization by Congress and focused heavily on civilian areas in hopes of striking secret North Vietnamese bases. Though neutral, Laos suffered as many as 115,000 casualties – almost exclusively civilian.

AUDIO 5

In addition to Kissinger's initial sabotage of the peace process in 1968, he warned the Nixon administration against suing for peace once again in 1970, explaining that anything resembling surrender could negatively affect Nixon's chances in the 1972 presidential election. In other words, the war in Vietnam was extended, year after year, for political reasons – first to bring Nixon to power, then again to keep him there. Estimates of casualties in Indochina between 1954 to 1975 vary, partly for political reasons and partly because of the challenge of calculating civilian deaths among massive bombing campaigns. Among the most credible and widely sourced estimates come from Prof. Rudolph Joseph Rummel of Yale. In his study, casualties were as high as 3,595,000 – including Americans, Vietnamese, Cambodians and Laotians – both servicemen and civilians. These numbers are staggering, but this total could have been significantly lower without the sabotage and machinations of Henry Kissinger. [III. Bangladesh, East Timor, and Chile] Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos are the most well-known atrocities connected to Kissinger, but there are other crimes that must be addressed. In late 1970, the Pakistani military elite had permitted the first open elections for a decade. The vote was won by Sheik Mujibur Rahman, the leader of the Bengali Awami League. The National Assembly was scheduled to meet on the third of March, 1971, but General Yahya Khan, leader of the outgoing military regime, refused a peaceful transition.

On March 25th, the Pakistani army struck at the Bengali capital of Dacca and massacred Rahman's supporters. Kissinger, believing General Khan would be more supportive of United States economic interests than Rahman, sent military aid to assist in the genocide. Estimates for the total dead vary due to the chaos, the expulsion of the foreign press, and political interests, but according to the book Kissinger's Shadow, approximately half a million were counted among the dead, hundreds of thousands of women abused, and millions displaced from their homes. Allegedly, Nixon privately had concerns that the slaughter was comparable to the Holocaust, but Kissinger told him not to worry. In 1974, East Timor, positioned in the Indonesian archipelago, formed a post-colonial, leftist government. The movement was known as the Front for the Liberation of East Timor. Under the pretext of anti-communism, East Timor's neighbor, Indonesia, invaded in an obvious power grab in 1975. Immediately before the invasion, Henry Kissinger, then Secretary of State under President Gerald Ford, met with the leaders of Indonesia. The United States supplied Indonesia with the necessary military equipment for the invasion, in hopes of expelling the East Timor government and massacring a population that was not friendly to US economic interests. Civilian deaths during this invasion were enormous.

AUDIO 6

The United Nations concluded that the number of East Timorese who died from combat or famine during the occupation could be as high as 202,000 – approximately one third of their entire population. These incidents and massacres are only a sampling of United States war crimes in which Henry Kissinger was involved. He and Nixon plotted to overthrow Chilean president Salvador Allende, and Kissinger is widely suspected of conspiring to kidnap a Greek journalist living in Washington. The list goes on and on. Nearly everything stated about Kissinger's involvement in Cambodia, his role in extending the Vietnam War by sabotaging the Johnson administration's peace talks, and other crimes are widely known, mostly through first-hand accounts, declassified documents, investigative journalism and decades of research. The facts are no longer in dispute – only perspective. War hawks excuse the most indefensible actions, and Kissinger is put on a pedestal for his role rather than put on trial for war crimes. Why is that? [IV. The Normalization of War Crimes] War crimes are military violations of international law and international treaties, such as the Geneva Conventions. War crimes are most commonly defined as such actions as the intentional slaughter of civilians and torture. So, given the mountain of evidence, countless civilian deaths, and decades of unaccountable war crimes, why hasn't Henry Kissinger been charged through some international court or extradited to a nation that he victimized?

For that matter, why haven't so many other war criminals living in the United States been tried? International prosecution of Henry Kissinger for war crimes requires a power dynamic which does not exist. The United States is a permanent security council member of the United Nations, granting them significantly control over global politics, particularly as it pertains to war. The US has military bases all over the world. The US owns a considerable amount of the world's wealth and therefore has controlling interests in a great many trade deals. The US has significant sway over the International Monetary Fund and World Bank. In short, the United States of America is simply not on equal footing with the rest of the world, and both the US and the rest of the world know this. If, say, Laos wanted to extradite Henry Kissinger, with what could Laos threaten the United States? War? Trade? Allies? If, say, a number of powerful nations pressured the United States to extradite a war criminal, would could they actually do if the US refuses? Cut off trade? That would significantly damage the economies of these hypothetical powerful nations. Go to war? That probably would not end well for them, and frankly, it would not be a proportional response to punishing one man. There is no mechanism in which other nations can pressure the United States to do something it does not want to do. So, why does the United States want to protect its war criminals anyway?

AUDIO 7

What does it gain by allowing Henry Kissinger and so many others a safe and comfortable life? Put simply, allowing Kissinger to be tried in an international court or allowing him to be extradited would not suit US interests. If Kissinger were tried, the details of the trial would be embarrassing to the United States, and if Kissinger were convicted, it would open the door for future war crimes trials. It would prevent the United States from pursuing its policy of military interventionism that has, for a long time, furthered its ultimate goal of global supremacy. If Kissinger were convicted, who would be next? Former President George W. Bush? Perhaps every living president, for that matter? In order to maintain its global economic goals, the United States would sooner withdraw from an international treaty than help convict its war criminals, and it has. In 2002, for example, the United States effectively withdrew from the treaty that established the International Criminal Court. In 2018, the United States withdrew from the United Nations International Court of Justice. These treaties are voluntary, and the United States is in a position of such power and influence that it can effectively say “Oh, yeah? Make me.” and get away with it. When Henry Kissinger dies, the articles and obituaries and tributes will mostly call him a “controversial” figure and balance the millions who died through his actions and policies with trade deals with China and his friendships with heads of state – as if this tips the scales of this oh-so-complicated man.

Kissinger has written his own history, a history written by a victor. The United States legitimizes this history through its praise of Kissinger, and it will codify this history by mourning his passing one day.

When he dies, anyone who points out that these tributes are mourning a war criminal will be met with a clucking of tongues and a “How dare you disrespect the dead?” as if the civility of the discourse is somehow more important than the truth – more important than justice.

THEY HATE AMERICA

AUDIO 1

[“It's been considered out-of-bounds to question a person's patriotism. A very strong charge and we try not to make it, but in the face of all of this, the conclusion can't be avoided. These people actually hate

America. No longer a question about that. And yet, at the same time, they desperately want to control America more than anything. And that leads to the most basic of all questions: can you really lead a country that you hate?”] Fox News host Tucker Carlson is asking a loaded question– a question that can only be answered by first accepting a dubious premise. In order to answer “Can you really lead a country that you hate?” you have to first believe that “these people hate America.” Who are “these people”? Democrats? Black Lives Matter protesters? Anti-fascists? How can you conclude that they “hate” America? How does Carlson define “America” for that matter? “America” is shorthand to the predominantly conservative audience of his program who knows when Tucker says that word, he is not simply referring to territory – he means something else altogether. What is “America” to conservatives? Rather than defining "America" as the land, the people, the culture, or the state, conservatives in this country often define "America" as exclusively the values of their own ideology. That way, everyone to their left can be labeled an out-group that "hates America" or is un-American.

[“If you are wide awake, you understand that today's woke leftists hate many, many things. The Constitution, Donald Trump, Fox News, comedy, and, of course, you. But, if you've ever noticed, there's really one thing that woke socialist progressives seem to hate more than anything else. And that's babies.”] So, what is conservatism anyway? Conservatism in America is an ideology that adheres to strong private property rights for corporations, low taxes for corporations, faithful adherence to organized religion, specifically Christianity. A traditionalism that shuns social progress for marginalized people, a distrust of social programs that might help the disadvantaged, and an admiration and partnership with the military and the police. Not every conservative advocates for all these goals or shares all these values, but conservatives' varying beliefs all have enough family resemblance to be described as conservative and classified under the same or similar ideology. To define conservatism more simply, conservatives believe in natural meritocracy and natural hierarchy. Looking at the conservative criteria again, everything is related to a rigid hierarchy – the property rights and low taxes are related to the hierarchy of capitalism. The elevation of the majority or dominant people and disinterest in helping the minorities or subordinate people are related to Christian supremacy, white supremacy, patriarchy and other social hierarchies.

AUDIO 2

Finally, empowering the police enforces these hierarchies domestically, and empowering the military enforces American supremacy abroad. To a conservative, the playing field is neutral, and success and status are determined by hard work – meritocracy. This meritocracy naturally creates a social hierarchy and economic hierarchy that are both fair and just. However, these beliefs conflict with reality. Those born into poverty are significantly more likely to remain that way than those born into better circumstances. Those who are part of the racial majority are more likely to receive opportunities that those in racial minorities will not. Those who are part of the religious majority are unlikely to face the same obstacles as those in the religious minorities. These hierarchies do not flow naturally – they sustain themselves by keeping those at the top where they are. This is how conservatives dismiss accusations of sexism, racism and other forms of bigotry. To conservatives, nobody is being held down or disadvantaged. Everybody gets what they deserve– this is the order of things, and for many conservatives, this order is not simply natural but is ordained supernaturally by their God. Furthermore, this belief in meritocracy not only justifies hierarchy within America but justifies a hierarchy of nation-states. To conservatives, America is allowed to control the world through its foreign policy because it has earned that right through its military strength and economy.

Conservatives see “America” as American values– but they define American values the same way they define conservative values. In truth, there is a diversity of “values” in America – people are not a monolith. My values are not the same as a liberal's values, and a liberal's values are not the same as a conservative's values. Nevertheless, conservatives ignore diversity. They dispute diversity. They believe in hierarchy, and something must be at the top for them. To conservatives, “America” is their values, and opposition to their conservative values is un-American, treasonous and morally wrong. When conservatives say “You hate America” it doesn't have anything to do with the United States of America. It's a value judgment about you not adhering to their conservative values. When Tucker Carlson makes such a statement about anyone to the left of conservatism hating America, no evidence is required for his audience, because to them, it is self-evident. America is American values, American values are conservative values, opposition to conservative values is opposition to America, opposition to America is hating America. The American Olympic soccer team leans too far to the left? Well, then, they must “hate” America, despite choosing to represent America. Gosh, if only they didn't spend so much of their free time “hating America,” they might have won the gold instead of the bronze.

AUDIO 3

This is an actual talking point right now, and similar talking points are used whenever it's convenient for conservatives. Consider this: many conservatives are comfortable displaying the flag of the Confederacy, even though the Confederacy was quite literally treasonous to America. Why is this? Because the values that the flag symbolizes align with their own. Conservatives do not see the contradiction because their conception of America is only their values, not anything else. This also accounts for why the Confederate flag can be seen waving not only in the south but in many parts of the north. Conservatives often use the term “real America” to refer to themselves, the implication being that anyone to their left is un-American. [“Real America, and I think what I've been saying for weeks, and last time I was on with you, real America sees what's going on here.”] Conservatives do not see America as its people because they believe approximately half its people are not real Americans. Despite what Tucker Carlson claims, conservatives have a long history of “un-American” accusations that furthered their cause and diminished the left. The Immigration Acts of 1903 and 1918 prevented anyone from entering America if they were suspected of being an anarchist. The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 prevented anyone from entering if they were suspected of being a communist. Leftist ideologies were labeled un-American, incompatible with living in America.

Naturally, laws with such sweeping powers could also be expanded to anyone the state chose. Labor activists, scholars and writers were either prevented from entry or deported. In the 1950's, the House Un-American Activities Committee threw suspicion on ordinary citizens and popular celebrities if they ever espoused beliefs left of the center – too far to the left for America. Liberals resisted the purging of communists and communist sympathizers from Hollywood, universities, and other institutions due to the unconstitutionality of the effort. This painted liberals with the same brush as communists no matter how far apart they were on the political spectrum. In the 1970's and and early 80's, evangelicals like Jerry Falwell conflated liberalism and communism under the broader term “secularism” and marketed this dangerous new boogeyman as anti-American. In 1984, we had this: [“This afternoon, 6,500 young men and women will be married and with inflation at less than half of what it was just four years ago. They can look forward with confidence to the future. It's morning again in America and under the leadership of President Reagan, our country is prouder and stronger and better.”] At the 1992 Republican National Convention, Pat Buchanan claimed his party was fighting a war for “the soul of America.”

AUDIO 4

[“Friends, this election is about more than who gets what. It is about who we are. It is about what we believe and what we stand for as Americans. There is a religious war going on in this country. It is a cultural war as critical to the kind of nation we shall be as the Cold War itself. For this war is for the soul of America.”] This was also part of the Donald Trump campaign, particularly the slogan Make America Great Again. He ran on a right-wing platform, and the implication was that in order to restore American values, America needed to become more conservative. In one ad, entitled America First, the Trump campaign implied that politicians in the opposing party were unequivocally and inherently un-American. By using the term America First, the implication was that his opponents were putting America second and were therefore less American than himself. [“For too long, Washington flourished, politicians prospered. The establishment protected itself, but not the citizens of our country. Their victories have not been your victories. Their triumphs have not been your triumphs. That all changes starting right here and right now. From this day forward, a new vision will govern our land. It’s going to be only America first, buy American and hire American. No challenge can match the heart and fight and spirit of America. We will not fail, our country will thrive and prosper again. We will reinforce old alliances and form new ones and unite the civilized world against radical Islamic terrorism, which we will eradicate completely from the face of the Earth.”]

In the era of Fox News, the talking point of “hating America” has reached a fever pitch. In this exchange between Tucker Carlson and the founder of a pro-immigration group, when the guest tried to explain people fleeing their nations due to conditions created by American foreign policy, Carlson responded this way: [“So, our sins are what – so, what you're saying is you hate America.”] Carlson was incapable of defending his position, and once backed into a corner by a guest with more knowledge of the issue, he defaulted to “What you're saying is you hate America.” When confronted with a problem with America, the response from conservatives is obfuscation and accusation, all in one term: “You hate America.” Are you protesting racial inequality and police brutality? Is this something America should confront and reckon with? No, you just “hate America.” Are you marching to bring attention to climate change? Is this important to you and your children's future? No, you just “hate America.” Do you want to make sure students know about the history of the civil rights movement? No, you just “hate America.” Tax the rich? “Hate America.” Raise the minimum wage? “Hate America.” No matter what the issue, conservatives can reliably count upon the accusation of hating America to change the subject. Once the subject is changed, not only is the accused America-hater forced to defend their actual point, they must also defend this unrelated nonsensical point.

AUDIO 5

An accusation of this magnitude is always going to appear more sensational and captivating than the actual issue which will move audience attention to that accusation instead of the issue. Frankly, even if the accused person genuinely did hate America, that would not immediately invalidate their unrelated point. Liberals believe in reform, and many further to the left believe in revolution. But either of these perspectives are offensive to conservatives because the conceit of both reform and revolution is that something needs to change – that America needs to change. To conservatives, reform is un-American, and revolution is even less American, despite America's revolutionary past. Conservatives are even comfortable throwing their own cherished institutions under the bus if they prove themselves to be not conservative enough and therefore not American enough.

Remember how admiration of the police and military are key conservative features? That remains true, but only when the police and military reinforce explicitly conservative values and defend explicitly conservative politicians. Conservative pundits and politicians gleefully denounce police officers who defended the Capitol from right-wing intruders and admonish the military for not taking their side on critical race theory. No institution is sacred to them – only their conservative values, because their values are America. I hope this has been helpful in understanding where this talking point comes from, what this talking point actually means, and that the next time a conservative says “You hate America,” their intentions will be more transparent. It is a derailment of an argument – not a real argument. It's not highlighting a point, it's hiding a point. It's loud, obnoxious nationalism, like the guy who is still setting off his fourth of July fireworks in August. Put in your earplugs and ignore it.