Chuck Norris’s Tears are the Cure for Religious Zealotry. Too Bad He Never Cries.

I recently witnessed a tragicomic youtube video that some 50,000 other netizens have had the misfortune of viewing and it was one of those outrages so grand it demands a snicker-snack of the pen. I’m referring, of course, to the spot by your friend and mine, Mr. Chuck Norris, where he warns that if we re-elect President Obama he will usher in a thousand years of darkness for our country. If you’re not one of the 50,000 who have had the misfortune of being assailed by the video — and since you’re too curious to heed my warning about listening to stupid people talk — you will find it at:

The very first post in response to the video is fairly astute, it reads: At least now I know there is something stronger than Chuck Norris… money. However I believe there is something more than just a financial issue here (though I’m sure Mr. Norris stands to gain from any tax cuts directed towards the wealthiest few). I would amend the statement to read, perhaps: At least now I know there is something stronger than Chuck Norris… religious zealotry.

If you peruse Mr. Norris’s other youtube appearances you’ll find one where he accuses President Obama of attempting to bring about a one world government. There is something that lies beyond the purely tribalistic expression (i.e. America ought to remain independent) and that is a set of prophecies made in the biblical book of Revelations. These prophecies seem to say that the formation of the one world government will immediately predate the apocalypse. I believe it is to these prophecies that Norris is referring though the spot seems to exaggerate the circumstances: the Bible only promises us some 7 years of darkness followed by the very-much-light-filled reign of Christ on earth.

I have to first pose some questions about Norris’s spiritual acumen. First it seems that from his religious point of view this one world government — possibly evil possibly not — is nonetheless necessary to the fullness of god’s plan to bring about the reign of heaven on earth. God intends the one world government just as much as he intends the 7 years of darkness just as much as he intends the salvation of the earth and the ultimate victory over darkness of his people. Why then is Norris trying to avert the whole shebang? If he is a believer shouldn’t he work towards or at least passively accept the fulfillment of all those prophecies? Shouldn’t he be spending his time trying to convert as many as possible — instead of working on political campaigns — so that when the final battle comes, if it is as imminent as he says it is, the ranks of believers will be swollen and stand in unity against the darkness?

Norris seems to have some sort of religious identity crisis or, as I’d more likely guess, he hasn’t really thought his beliefs through. This is the quintessential failure of all zealotry, the failure to think things through. Religion and spirituality that is poorly considered tends to result in a lot more pain and divisiveness than our great spiritual forefathers have intended. If we thought our religion through we might realize that Christ told us to love our enemies, even if they are Muslim. If we thought religion through we might realize that though Christ was willing to die for his beliefs among which was the essential truth that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights even if they are gay. If we thought our religions through we might understand that Mohammed was more likely referring to an inner jihad of the soul, a scouring of what is unworthy within ourselves.

Norris, though, is drawing lines in the sand: if you vote for Obama you’re voting for an anti-christ of sorts. But Jesus himself, choosing to dine with tax collectors and mingle with lepers, was very specific about not drawing lines in the sand. In fact, if Jesus ever did draw lines, it was clearly against the “powers of this world”; he came, by his specific word, to free us from the law and, by his specific word, he was referring to the law of the Sanhedrin most especially, the Sanhedrin being Jerusalem’s governing body of the day. Shouldn’t Norris than be fighting against the oppressive powers of this world rather than shilling for candidates? Christ never had much to say to any politician, not even the ones who were trying to kill him.

Full disclosure: I support President Obama and have rarely disagreed with his views. So let me try and set sectarianism aside when I say that Mitt Romney is an essentially lackluster individual. The few compelling achievements of his life — the Salt Lake Olympics and Romneycare — he has tried his damndest to insulate himself from this entire campaign. That’s left him with few credentials except a vague claim to macroeconomic experience from his time in the corporate world and the occasional quip about his dad having lived in Mexico for a few years. So I ask the reader, if we are sincerely facing a thousand years of darkness as Norris claims, what do we expect Governor Romney to do about it? Bore it to death with stories about his Dad living in Mexico? Raise its taxes since a thousand year dark age is not a major corporation or a member of the top 1%? I’ll say this, he’ll certainly help us to avoid a one world government — a couple more quips about the London Olympics and he should have managed to thoroughly alienate our closest ally.

It’s so indicative that Norris can’t help but quote Reagan during the spot and he does exactly what so many other mouthpieces for big corporations do: he neglects to mention that almost all economists now see Reagenomics as one of the dumbest ideas anyone ever had. Of course, it’s nice that Norris’s religious beliefs dovetail so neatly with lower taxes for himself and fat paychecks from corporations that pay for anti-Obama commercials. It’s so nice that one can’t help but see the hand of providence!

Maybe, though, the problem isn’t Norris at all; maybe the problem is us. Maybe the problem is that somewhere along the way we decided it was a good idea to take political/spiritual advice from movie stars. Maybe the problem is that Norris is thinking for himself and what he’s thinking is that he’s speaking to an entire nation full of dupes — people who don’t think for themselves. Maybe the reason we hate Islamic extremism so much is because it holds a mirror up to our own faces.

What are we doing? Why are we drawing lines in the sand? What can war but endless war breed? (–John Milton) The more zealous we become the more zealous we can expect the other side to be; they are, after all, exactly as unreasonable as we are being — like us — merely human. There are so many billions of people on this green planet that draw so much strength from their religions yet the news is filled with terrorist attacks, qur’ran burnings, you name it. The zealous few are destroying religion, have been doing so since its foundation, and the moderate, god-fearing many are left to pay the price. Where is our zealotry going to take us? There’s only two ways through: either we bring Muslims to the table and talk or we wipe every single one of them off the face of the earth. Are we as a people prepared to commit a holocaust?

I think I’d like to end by adding one more quip to that statement about things that are stronger than Chuck Norris. I’d like to add: Chuck Norris is a fucking idiot.


About Ask Liesmith

All that is gold does not glitter. Not all those who wander are lost. The old that is strong does not wither. Deep roots are not reached by the frost. From the ashes a fire shall be woken. From the shadows a light shall spring. Renewed shall be blade that was broken. The crownless again shall be king. (---J.R.R. Tolkien)
This entry was posted in News-Ticker and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Chuck Norris’s Tears are the Cure for Religious Zealotry. Too Bad He Never Cries.

  1. Jim says:

    Well said, my friend.

    While I do not plan to vote for Obama, neither do I plan to vote for Romney. I will not vote for Romney because I would not vote for Obama, and they are very nearly the same person–at least as far as political leanings.

    I agree with your assessment of dear old Chuck.
    While I happen to think that Obama would very much like to usher in a one world government–is handing over control of our military to the UN enough? ‘Cause I could offer 100 other facts as evidence–I agree that citing Revelation is a childish, ineffective argument.

    I like your reasoning. If darkness is the way to glory, bring it on!

    I’ve much enjoyed your posts. Keep it up.

    • askliesmith says:

      Maybe it’s the subject of another post but I’m frankly not so terrified of a one world government regardless of whether Obama is going to bring it on or not. With the world in the state it’s in I believe that more unity, more cooperation is necessary. We as a species now face challenges so great — climate change for instance — that only by working together as a species can we hope to overcome them. The earth is still greater than us and if we stand apart she’ll offer an ice age to scour us from her face. And as far as handing over control of the military, I’m not really opposed: if our species was united, we wouldn’t need local militias to defend ourselves from each other, we would need only one military to defend us from threats external. Can you imagine a world where people don’t need to defend themselves from each other? You, I’m sure, know way better than me that we’d be much better off without war, regardless of what St. John had to say.

      If you’ve never looked into the more philosophical teachings of the physicist Michio Kaku you should, it might shed some light on my views. I believe that we, as Christ taught, will “win the prize” only as a whole. His teachings continously expound unity — love they neighbor, love thy enemy, the good Samaritan — his teachings are very much a no-man-left-behind type of thing. (Another reason I take the work of Revelations to be social/psychiatric in context. Christ spends his entire ministry teaching unity then ascends and suddenly starts ranting against unity? It doesn’t sound in character. In part, I suppose, he was teaching us to be wary of government in general — the power that is in this world — and then the lesson is not that one world government is a bad idea, it’s that all government is a necessary evil.)

      The book of Revelations is likely my favorite and the one I’ve studied most extensively; I believe that taking it for prophecy in the modern sense is not entirely accurate. In ancient times prophecy was not exactly a vision of the future but more a type of psychiatry, a way to understand our psyches and if a Seer ever Saw it would be more accurate to say that she understood a person’s psyche so wholly that she could discern his future. (The word “psyche” is taken from the name of one of the three fates of greek mythology.) The book of Revelations is not a window into the future but into ourselves and our society, I feel.

      Anyway, I wouldn’t mind hearing more about why Obama’s an anti-christ from somebody who’s not just spouting xenophobic nonsense, so write me back soon. The sooner the better, it’s only a matter of time before Chuck Norris round house kicks me into next tuesday now.

      • Jim says:

        Well… I can’t really speak to Obama being the anti-Christ, other than to say I don’t think he is he.
        And I don’t want to derail your blog by spouting “conspiracy theory” crap about the NWO, but I think I can respond to some of your comments.

        As for not being afraid of an NWO, here are my thoughts.

        First of all, regime change is never pretty. It will be violent, financially devastating and pretty terrifying. Normal life will be a thing of the past.
        Secret arrests, surveillance like crazy, check points, limited travel, searches to go anywhere. Abusive bureaucrats, police, no due process, etc.

        Secondly, power corrupts. The more centralized, removed and bureaucratic the regime, the easier it is for those that are part of it to see all the “citizens” as just so many groups or numbers. Who would you trust to run the whole world beneficently?
        I happen to side with the founders, who thought no one can or should. Most of all, George Washington. This is the genius of Montesquieu’s idea of Separation of Powers. In so doing, we bind government and assure liberty. Basically, we can’t have a massive central government and the kind of liberty we’ve enjoyed.
        Suffice it to say, the NWO will not be a bigger, better version of America.

        How do I know this?
        It is essential to see and understand that the NWO is not “emerging,” as Bush 41 said, on it’s own. It is not a collective planetary drift towards unity. Rather, it is being driven. There are those that have been working very hard for a long, long time (at least 100 years–maybe more like 250) to bring it about.
        It is imperative to see events leading to NWO can and have been predicted.
        Step by step, the plan has been documented (in plain view of the public), predicted (by “conspiracy theorists”) and implemented. This lends credence to the plan.
        For instance, if you found a note that said I was going to buy some milk, go get some gas, steal a goat and drown it in the lake, then discovered that I had indeed bought milk, I had then proceeded to get gas, and you learned I was looking for a goat, I think you could surmise with reasonable certainty that if I found a goat I would likely take it to a lake to drown it. Correct?

        So, what is the future that these people with the power to create it envision and write about? It is not a pretty picture.
        NWO is a massive consolidation of power. What will they do once they have this power? Well, they are eugenicists. They believe the planet should have anywhere from 500K to 3B on the planet. Just ask Ted Turner.
        Mind you, this is openly discussed in the same documents that said that we would establish the Federal Reserve, that said we would establish an EU, that said we would have a derivatives crisis and crash the global economy, that we would take out Middle Eastern nations one by one, that we would switch from Al Qaeda being the main terrorist threat to it being domestic terrorists (veterans, constitutionalists, etc.). You see where I’m going.
        If A thru W were documented, prepared for, predicted and occurred (even things unimaginable to previous generations–like the president of the USA signing executive orders allowing for secret arrests and maintaining a “kill list”), then why not X thru Z?
        For example, George Soros, an insider, predicted the 2008 crisis and made billions off of it. What he’s predicting in the next few years is far, far worse. Is it wise to just disregard his warnings?
        It gets to a point that it’s irrational and naive to deny that it could be/is happening.

        I’m trying to be as thorough as I can, but it’s hard to express so much in so few words.

        We are so complacent with our liberty that to even suggest that there are those out there seeking to take it from us and set up tyrannical rule (the historical norm) you are seen as a fear mongering crazy person.
        Just the fact of this state of mind should be evidence for that which I’m predicting. If I can see how it could be done, you think those in power don’t? We are ripe for the picking. We are fat and happy, and that is being exploited. This year alone we have lost an astounding number of civil liberties.

        I could get into much greater detail about tactics, future events, etc. such as Al Qaeda being used as a chess piece, moved around the board to create havoc, then (as in Libya right now) the globalist powers step in and say, “this looks like a mess, we better clean it up.”
        So, through the use of Al Qaeda, they take down a government, then when they’ve sufficiently wrecked the country, the Western powers step in as the saviors, clean it up, and take the country.

        So, what do you think is going to happen if the Tea Party links up with Al Qaeda (preposterous, I know, but this was a recent military exercise)? The Constitution is suspended (if it hasn’t been already), constitutionalists are labeled “terrorists” (as they already are), and UN troops come in to establish order.
        (Meaning transfer of power, just like it has throughout Africa, now the Middle East, and, most recently, Libya).

        Think that’s gonna be fun to live through?
        If so, just wait for what comes next.

        Sorry to be a downer, but, as you can see, I do not take the offering up of my country to foreign rule very lightly.

      • askliesmith says:

        I have to say your argument concerning the centralization of power is compelling, especially to myself whose motto is ‘sic semper tyrannis’. I suppose I must modify my ideas somewhat: it’s not global government that I’m after so much as global civilization, I’ve just never imagined the latter without the former.

        For the first time in the history of our species we are facing crises of a global nature and I believe only a global response will succor our civilization. Global warming is one example and we are now only in its earliest stages. Many respected scientists believe that if it will not precisely be an extinction level event it will certainly pack the power to destroy civilization; you may be concerned about offering up your country to foreign rule but many models and theories agree that we are actively offering it up to a sheet of ice some thousand feet high. Not the United States alone, nor even with Europe alongside, has the power or the technology to stop this from happening. It’s been described by some researchers as exactly a question of power: we produce some 31,000 teraWatt hours of power annually here but the potential energy of position contained in the atmosphere’s excess CO2 is now some million times that. By the law of conservation of energy, the situation is dire.

        My belief is that civilization is given to cycles: Dynamicism, Renaissance, Golden Age, Staticism, Squalor, Dark Age, rinse and repeat. While throughout history we’ve come a ways, the cycle is one of enslavement and it is part, I believe, of what Christ wanted to free us from. To break the cycle, both internally for our own souls and externally for ourselves and for our people is to ‘win the prize’. We’ve done well in the last 2000 years — even if we’re not getting top marks — but we are now reaching one crucial stage where the next step forward is radical and unprecedented. The next step has turned from a question o the survival of a single people or country to a question of evolutionary survival: will our entire species evolve to a point that we can survive the death of our planet (hopefully by preventing that death) or is our civilization going to be destroyed and wait another 2000 years to try again?

        So the situation may be dire but not hopeless. I believe that as a global civilization directed in union towards a singular purpose we have, if not in our coal-fired plants at least in our minds and spirits, more than enough power to defeat this crisis. To achieve that civilization and union, though, we will certainly have to stop fighting each other and start fighting our real enemies.

        While I am forced to agree with your argument concerning centralization I also am forced to say that without global, cooperative effort we may well be doomed to rinse and repeat. America will not survive the ice age (Mexico’s got a much better shot). I don’t think that should mean we hand over our rights to the UN but, I suppose, I’ve now become somewhat ineffectual. I can point out the problem and the only imaginable way to defeat it but I can’t tell you how to make that solution work; which is, again, exactly what I’m talking about concerning unity. I can provide technical and scientific skills, but without great political/social scientists I won’t be of much use. I suppose part of the trick is to unify without losing our identities.

      • Jim says:

        I would agree that a global civilization living in peace and harmony would be good. In fact, isn’t that what we imagine Heaven to be, if we believe in that?
        However, I don’t think that’s where we’re headed. You don’t get a utopia by adding corruption on to corruption, by centralizing power to fewer and fewer, by adding lies on top of lies, by killing more and more people more and more indiscriminately, as we now do with drones.

        I agree that global warming, and saving the planet is a powerful motivator; one that reaches to every aspect of life. The mantra of “save the earth” is the reason to regulate power plants, light bulbs, cars, food, housing, businesses, you name it. It is the ultimate ace up the sleeve. It is the green light for the government to regulate anything it wishes.
        And this is precisely what the UN’s Agenda 21 calls for, as a result of global climate change. It is a massive global takeover of everything–right down to land, water, personal property, everything–by reason of global warming.

        I am very wary of the “save the earth” argument because it is such a strong geo-political tool which can be (and I believe is being) used to take people’s property and liberty, as well as the money in their bank accounts, but also because it is so widely disputed and far, far from being proven.
        And I believe it is so politicized that rational, reasonable discussion of it is off the table. Anything you read on it is polarized. How can we possibly expect to get to the truth of climate change, when the real underlying theme is tyranny vs. liberty, us vs. them. Calculated, scientific discovery is impossible.
        For every article you show me on how the ice caps are melting I can show you one that explains it outside of global warming. For every statistic I have on how the earth’s temperature has stagnated, or is even cooling, you have ones that show it’s only getting hotter.
        How can we possibly hope to find the truth?

        For this reason I think it is not wise to make massive civil and political changes based on this “science,” especially when the notion of saving the Earth seems more and more to imply that in order to do so I must give up my money and liberty, so that a few can use that, ostensibly, to make me safe.

        And when there’s that powerful a payoff for the bureaucrats and power-hungry politicians, it makes me doubt the science in the first place. And then when champions of global warming like Al Gore (or any of them, really) refuse to even debate the issues with “climate change deniers” then that makes me doubly suspicious. Put on top of that that we had the same things said in the thirties when the Earth was on the hotter end of its cycle, and then in the seventies, when it was on the cooler side… boy, sure looks like we’ve got a cyclical system going here and groups that try to capitalize on that for political gain.

        My view is this:
        I like my freedom and my national sovereignty, and I’ll risk the Earth blowing up not to hand them over to you, my supposed savior.

        The consequences of doing so, in my opinion, are far more real, imminent and dangerous.

      • askliesmith says:

        As a student of science I have to agree there is little debate about global warming in the scientific community but, unfortunately, it’s because there is little doubt: the earth is certainly warming and the reason is almost certainly the by-product of civilization. I’ve read dissenting articles but only very few published by real scientists and most of the dissension seems to come actually from politicians looking to deregulate. I am talking about solid articles printed in scientific journals for peer-review (try the International Journal of Climatology for the definitive voice, also the Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology if you like something more American). The vast majority of work in climatology — even that done by scientists known for their extreme skepticism — agrees, as do models generated in the most rigorous laboratories, as does most of the scientific community, that climate change is a real and serious issue. Even if we abandon the idea that it might be man-made, we’re still left with a biosphere that is rapidly deteriorating; for our civilization to survive it will have to become more powerful than the next ice age one way or another. Or — global warming aside — do you suppose that ice ages will never come again? (The most recent was only 11,000 years ago but it was a small one.)

        However global warming is more an example and less to the point of what I was saying. The fact is the planet itself remains more powerful than our species — if the biosphere did collapse we would be helpless to stop it, it could mean our extinction — and beyond the planet there is the solar system — even a relatively small meteor could easily mean our extinction — and beyond the solar system, the galaxy — a supernova within about 20 light years of us would emit enough radiation to sterilize the surface of the planet — and so on. Currently we have no way to even know that a meteor or supernova is threatening us! And we have been lucky to have had a fairly stable 5 million years or so (did you know that about 75,000 years ago an unknown virus almost killed every living thing on the planet? It’s believed that only a massive volcanic eruption prevented universal extinction: the ash from the eruption blotted out the sun, caused massive famine, etc., and killed so many living things that the virus ran out of victims. The eruption was like a backfire lit to check the spread of a wildfire. Escapes don’t get much narrower than that!) The point is that as we stand — separately — we’re helpless against the vagaries of nature. We’ve been lucky for 5 million years — it’s given us time to build what we have — but how long do we plan to bank on luck for the survival of our species? The Chicxulub crater in the Yucatan is 180km across and it came from a meteor just about 10km across — it killed the dinosaurs! What will we do when the next meteor comes?

        The point is evolution. As humans we have two great strengths in this field, intelligence and society. Our intelligence has mainly stopped evolving though our knowledge continues to increase; in the last 10,000 years or so our evolution has been mainly social. Evolution is no longer occurring merely on the individual level but on the macro-social level. The hope — survival of the fittest style — is that before the next Chicxulub meteor our society has evolved to a stage where we are capable of dealing with the event, capable of surviving. Our species survived on the African plains because when lions attacked we closed ranks, drew spears and other crude tools, and proved ourselves not stronger or faster than the lion but instead smarter and more cohesive. If it takes intelligence and cohesion to defend against a lion, how much more intelligence and cohesion will it take to defend against a meteor?

        Dangers of global proportions will require intelligence and cohesion on a global level, at minimum, to confront. Dangers on the scale of the solar system will require intelligence and cohesion on the scale of the solar system to confront. And so on.

        Trust me, few people mistrust government more than I do. Perhaps the first step towards the global cohesion we’ll need is to develop government that we don’t need to mistrust; I’m not sure if that’s true or even possible. I can’t say exactly how we’ll get to the global society we need, all I can say is that we need to get there. We’ve had a pretty good run for 5 million years, but it seems silly to just cross our fingers for the next 5 million.

      • Jim says:

        Well said. Maybe if I’m feeling particularly frisky I’ll check out those journals.

        I agree that in order to avert a global catastrophe a global effort is required. I just fear that with global centralization our temptation to play king of the hill will lead us only into more infighting and subversion, rather than into global unity and cooperation.

        I absolutely agree that we need to get there. Will “saving the earth” be the catalyst? I doubt it, but it would be nice.
        And on that note, I am an environmentalist insofar as I think we should treat the earth with respect. We shouldn’t trash it, we should recycle, we should be careful with rainforests, etc.
        But, as with the point you are making, I don’t think the earth needs saving from us as much as we need saving from it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s