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?