Some fun scatalogical politics.
Not too long ago I decided to go to to my favorite Mexican restaurant. I ordered a steak burrito with onions and cilantro. I asked for extra red and green pico de gallo. I would then go home and enjoy this sleep inducing feast with a few cans of Coca Cola. I also knew that this mix of flavors would be stimulant for my "morning glory" the next day. As such, I would allow a few extra moments in my start of the day routine for such an inevitable happening.
Like many of you, I have a morning ritual that I try not to deviate from. One of my habits is that I hate to use the bathroom once I leave home. I also hate disrupting the natural order of things by taking a good healthy poop after I get out of the shower. Such an order of events is just so wrong and unnatural to me.
[I wonder what Zizek would say about my stalwart belief regarding such toilet related matters?]
I sat down for my morning meditation in the bathroom and things went as expected. My meal the night before had the predicted effect of making for an easy bit of effortless relief. While cleaning myself with wet wipes, soap, and hot water, I felt an odd pressure. I was arrogant and bold. I thought that my personal matters had been concluded. I was so very wrong. What was supposed to be a wee bit of fragrant air--what I call a "butt chuckle"--was in fact a betrayal. I had crapped all over my hand and wrist: my burrito, pico de gallo, and Coke had gotten their revenge. Embarrassed. Broken. Beaten. I simply had to laugh. Thank the fates that I am still relatively flexible, had a bottle of bleach nearby, and could extricate myself without too much "collateral damage."
The dueling examples of political feces offered up by C.L. Bryant and the American Thinker's Daren Jonescu are a fitting epilogue to my tale of toilet peril.
C.L. Bryant is a professional self-hating black garbage pail conservative bootblack race hustler. His anti-black propaganda film Runaway Slave is definitive proof that Bryant is a double corked black race minstrel whose soul purpose is to exist as human chaff for the White Right.
Bryant's suggestion that African-Americans somehow do not have the good sense to make a rational judgement based on their own political calculi to either support (or not) Barack Obama's election is now boilerplate excuse-making for the Right. Romney did not lose because his policies held little to no appeal for huge numbers of voters.
Likewise, he must have lost because the "wrong type of voter," i.e. those who are not white, male, "middle class," and conservative, came out to support President Obama. Interestingly, Bryant and other black conservatives love to question black people's decision-making processes and political agency. However, they never ask if race and white identity politics drive white conservatives to reflexively support the Republican Party and its panoply of white candidates. Quite a puzzle.
The logic offered up by the American Thinker's Daren Jonescu in his essay "Obama and Slavery" is equally twisted.
Thomas Jefferson owned about six hundred slaves over the course of his life. That is to say, he was involved in denying individual sovereignty to six hundred people. Barack Obama, by comparison, wishes to deny individual sovereignty to over three hundred million people. And yet according to the left, Jefferson should be dismissed as a hypocrite, and one of the noblest documents ever written reduced to the status of mere "politics," whereas Obama, who seeks to destroy that document, ought to be seen as a champion of equality and fairness.
If you are inclined to incredulity at the notion of comparing Obama's policy agenda to slave ownership, then you may wish to excuse yourself from the rest of this discussion, as the comparison only gets worse for Obama.
What, at its base, is slavery? Slavery, we would casually answer, is the ownership of one man by another. That is to say, it is a perversion of the notion of private property, rooted in a fundamental illogic about the nature and source of property itself.[And if anyone can make sense of the internal logic and understanding of political philosophy driving Jonescu's work, please do explain it to me.]
He makes two fascinating and problematic moves. First, Jonescu, like many on the Right is engaged in the childish hero worship of dead people that he deifies as "the founding fathers." Apparently, Thomas Jefferson and company were Archons of greatness, supermen, above reproach and whose wisdom rains down from the mountaintop for all time. The framers are not people located in a specific time and place whose political worldview and theories fundamentally reflect their own personal self-interest and agenda.
Second, any suggestion that President Obama is a slave owner, one far worse than the traders in human chattel who presided over a global system of white supremacy, the murder of millions of black people both during the Middle Passage and in the "New World", and created a system of racial terrorism and herrenvolk democracy that lasted centuries, defies all logic and historic reality.
Moreover, the American Thinker's political fellatio of Jefferson, and Jonescu's subsequent belief in magical thinking where the former is somehow not accountable for his deep investment in white supremacy, and personal enrichment through the slave trade, is mind boggling. I am especially entertained by his notion of what one commenter described as "retroactive Emancipation."
What is more, for all the modern left's snide remarks about the fact that Jefferson did not free his own slaves, we can say that in a more fundamental sense, he did effect the change he sought, and did so more definitively than any private act could have achieved. After all, it was precisely Jefferson's own words and principles, as invoked by later Americans, which proved the ultimate downfall of the institution of slavery -- which, we must recall, was a multinational institution in his day, as irrationalism, socialism, and a degenerate popular culture are today.
We all live in conditions of moral inconsistency; correction is always maddeningly incremental. Jefferson, however, was instrumental in enunciating the founding principles of the nation that delegitimized slavery more thoroughly than any nation ever had.
The left, in its effort to undo the constitutional republic, would smear Jefferson as a moral hypocrite. On the contrary, we should all wish to be so efficacious in realizing our moral intentions in the grand scheme of things. There is a lesson here for all of us today, imperfect beings though we be, who seek a path to civilizational renewal.I guess we ought not to take Jefferson's own writings in his Notes on the State of Virginia too seriously after all.
Which of these two Right-wing bloviators is the bigger turd? And are there any other bodily processes which you think are a more apt description for the impaired thinking displayed by C.L. Bryant and the American Thinker's Daren Jonescu?
10 comments:
"[And if anyone can make sense of the internal logic and understanding of political philosophy driving Jonescu's work, please do explain it to me.]"
His definition of slavery is based on something called the self-ownership principle, which is commonly used as a philosophical foundation for libertarian arguments. It's a simple idea: people have property rights in themselves, and anyone who does anything to this property without the owner's consent is a thief. In other words, being kidnapped and forced to work while receiving nothing in return is the same as paying a tax in a republic you choose to live in. They're both violations of one's "property."
@Cav. As I have said before, libertarianism is a philosophy best suited for the drunk and/or high trustifarian set who want to have all sorts of high minded theories about autonomy and freedom on their parent's dime.
What is more, for all the modern left's snide remarks about the fact that Jefferson did not free his own slaves, we can say that in a more fundamental sense, he did effect the change he sought, and did so more definitively than any private act could have achieved. After all, it was precisely Jefferson's own words and principles, as invoked by later Americans, which proved the ultimate downfall of the institution of slavery. – Daren Jonescu
In Reply: And in other words, Daren suggests that Jefferson wasn’t only hypocritical, he also had split personality. Therefore, we shouldn’t care that he didn’t emancipate his own slaves, but more importantly, he initiated the eventual downfall of the slave regime that he so prominently participated in.
We all live in conditions of moral inconsistency; correction is always maddeningly incremental. Jefferson, however, was instrumental in enunciating the founding principles of the nation that delegitimized slavery more thoroughly than any nation ever had. – Daren Jonescu
In Reply: Daren should speak for himself in regards to moral incongruence. Hell,…the entire slave regime was built upon immorality, brutality, devilry, injustice and inhumanity. But yet, it appears that Daren believes that we all should still hold Jefferson in high regards simply because he effectively and forcefully spoke with a double-forked tongue.
The left, in its effort to undo the constitutional republic, would smear Jefferson as a moral hypocrite. On the contrary, we should all wish to be so efficacious in realizing our moral intentions in the grand scheme of things. There is a lesson here for all of us today, imperfect beings though we be, who seek a path to civilizational renewal. – Daren Jonescu
In Reply: Puh-lease, the left doesn’t have to besmirch Jefferson because he smeared himself through his own writings regarding his overwhelmingly, internally flawed and racist character. Furthermore, there is no lesson in regards to us all being as imperfect human beings emanating from Daren’s article or in relation to civilization renewal, whatever this is supposed to mean. This United Empire of States never reached the plateau of being in such an honorable condition. And of course, this was all intentionally done so.
Additionally, what would’ve been a deed worthy of praise by Jefferson was to emancipate all of his slaves as a suggestive act prior to them being freed. This is not what he did, he did just the opposite. Therefore, he was in fact, a fat hypocrite.
In any event, Daren’s thoroughly faulty revisionist attempt to paint Jefferson in a favorable posture has failed miserably.
You are gross Chauncey!
MB in CA
@BS. You are going to go crazy trying to figure out the logic. Remember the warning in the Exorcist movie. Do not talk to the beast. It will mix lies with truth in order to deceive you. Be weary and careful or you too will start to believe the beast.
@MB. Me. Never.
CD....self-defecating humor?
Very appropriate to use feces and C.L. Bryant shameless utterances in the same sentence.
@Razor. Couldn't resist. Given Kanye's very poorly chosen set for the Sandy relief concert he is also worthy of some "self-defecating" humor too.
@CDV, it’s not that I believe or am I trying to figure out the logic of idiot, twisted-Afro wearing C.L. Bryant or bald-headed Daren Jonescu. However, I do think that it is quite hilarious that conservative types speak of the thugger/slave regime members as if they’re still alive and if they know of these common criminals on a personal basis. Perhaps all of these bobble-head conservatives need an increase in dosage of their psyche meds.
Thomas Jefferson’s original draft of the Declaration was consistent with his belief in the inferiority of Afrikan people
"We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independant, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable…"
Winthrop Jordon says of Jefferson in “White over Black:” “He could not rid himself of the suspicion that the Negro was naturally inferior. If this were in fact the case, then it was axiomatic that the Creator had so created the Negro and no amount of education or freedom or any other tinkering could undo the facts of nature. Thus Jefferson suspected that the Creator might have in fact created men unequal…”
“Jefferson felt that the alterations made in his draft of the Declaration…had weakened the force of the document.”
In other words Jefferson wanted to use the Declaration to justify his white supremacist views, but John Adams and others would have no part of it.
@BS. I am just concerned for your health brother. Got to look out for each other.
@MB. Anytime Winthrop Jordan is mentioned I give much respect. I love the part of White Over Black that gets into theories where European "scientists" though that black people came from inter-species sex between apes and Africans.
Post a Comment