In Which I Agree with the White Supremacist Vaginarchy that the Future is Nasty

Donald Trump is not the first “pseudo-modern” American president, and he won’t be the last. Because what pseudo-modern Americans really want is the “People’s Choice President.” Voting “should” be as easy — and mindless — as texting “Yes” or “No” to a political poll streamed to their “smartphone.”

In philosophical terms, says Alan Kirby, “the culture we have now fetishises the recipient of the text to the degree that they become a partial or whole author of it. Optimists may see this as the democratisation of culture; pessimists will point to the excruciating banality and vacuity of the cultural products thereby generated. … By definition, pseudo-modern cultural products cannot and do not exist unless the individual intervenes physically in them.”

Thus are The People both elevated to the pinnacle of importance and reduced to utter banality. Radio listeners can influence radio playlists in real time, television audiences can vote TV show cast members off the island, and protesters can be applauded as they take over the microphone at political rallies.

Politicians are only too happy to give us what we want; indeed, that is what they’ve always done. But pseudo-modern voters have made it extraordinarily easy for politicians to portray themselves as a “blank slate” — upon which voters draw whatever they desire. Barack Obama proudly admitted this; it was one of his greatest achievements.

“I serve as a blank screen,” Obama wrote in The Audacity of Hope, “on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”

While Obama merely proved that Progressives don’t care if their emperor has no clothes, what The Donald proved is that politicians no longer need a party or the press. All politicians need now is The People to physically intervene, and all the “authors” of a political campaign need to do is pretend to abolish themselves — “for the people.”

It is no coincidence that Barack Obama, in his farewell address, and Donald Trump, in his inaugural, both made the same appeal.

“I am asking you to believe. Not in my ability to bring about change — but in yours,” said the man famous for being a community organizer.

“Everyone is listening to you now,” said the man famous for singlehandedly making America great again.

In some ways, all this empowerment of We The People is “for position only” (to use a term from my days in the printing industry) — a cheap, low-resolution, facsimile of the real artwork that is replaced by the experts at the printing plant before public distribution. Another analogy comes from the Obama Administration itself, which wrote the Affordable Care Act in a way that “treated” the “stupidity of the American voter” to prevent the infection of stupidity from spreading any further.

In other ways, the empowerment is good. The gatekeepers in The Media have lost much (if not all) of their power. The Progressive coalition — long kept by politicians in separate subcritical masses called identity groups (to prevent premature detonation) — has finally reached its long-sought “critical mass” only to result in what was always going to happen: fission. If the recent Women’s March against “government taking our rights” proved anything, it’s that Progressives have finally discovered government can be too big and too powerful; and that being a “woman” or a “minority” is no longer enough. After the march, transgender women (aka men) excoriated cis-pussied white women (aka the white supremacist vaginarchy) for the “oppressive message” that a “vagina is essential to womanhood.”

Across the pond, counter-culture pop icon Brian Eno has “anger at myself for not realising what was going on” with Brexit and now Trump. “I thought that all those Ukip people and those National Fronty people were in a little bubble. Then I thought: ‘Fuck, it was us, we were in the bubble, we didn’t notice it.’ There was a revolution brewing and we didn’t spot it because we didn’t make it. We expected we were going to be the revolution.”

Back here in California, a Progressive scientist has inexplicably declared the end of the “post-post-truth world” and a Progressive legislature has demanded “civic online reasoning” in high school curricula — even as Progressive scientists and legislators insist that men without vaginas can still be women and that “fake news” is damaging the very foundation of our democracy.

“Fortunately,” says the pseudo-modern scientist, “here in California citizens have many avenues for engaging directly with scientists to discuss issues such as climate change …”

I don’t know if Brexit and Trump constitute a revolution, as Eno says they do. Perhaps they are just the outward manifestations of the pseudo-modern revolution that “occurred” — as Alan Kirby says — “somewhere in the late 1990s or early 2000s.”

What I do know is that, in this brave new world, history is meaningless. All that matters is Forward, and whether we can “lean into” our “impactful lives” — where we have The Power to vote Hillary off the island and get Trump in return.

A Higher and More Powerful Title

Jimmy Carter had an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal yesterday, in which he extols the virtues of human rights.

Fortunately for all of us, free speech is one of the actual human rights, and state-sponsored “protection” from free speech (aka “hate speech laws”) is not. People like Barack Obama and Jimmy Carter are nothing more than lawfully-elected criminals running a protection racket: we elect them, they promise to “protect” us from “hate speech.”

Neither Carter nor Obama believe the words they speak. If they did, they would stop trying to redefine “citizen” as “undocumented resident.”

Yes, that’s the new phrase for “undocumented immigrant.”

In this civic atmosphere of “no borders” and “sanctuary city” resolutions, it is richly ironic (or, more accurately, cravenly pathetic) that Carter writes this paean to America: “In our democracy, the only title higher and more powerful than that of president is the title of citizen.”

“President” Obama literally tried to end-run the Constitutional rights of citizens with “a pen and a phone” – that, and the power of the Department of Justice.

In contrast, I actually believe that the “higher and more powerful” title is “citizen.” If only Jimmy Carter really believed that.

The Frivolous Power of Kings

“You are part of my dominion, and the ground that I am seated upon is mine, nor has anyone disobeyed my orders with impunity. Therefore, I order you not to rise onto my land, nor to wet the clothes or body of your Lord.” – King Canute, to the ocean, as chronicled by Henry of Huntingdon in AD 1129.

It is unclear, as I write this in AD 2016, how many know the story of Canute or what happened next: “But the sea carried on rising as usual without any reverence for his person, and soaked his feet and legs.”

One might be forgiven for thinking that humans have learned something about the quality of their leaders since 1129. But kings still walk among us, as do their followers.

“This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow, and our planet began to heal.” – Barack Obama, to the oceans, after winning the Democratic primaries in AD 2008.

Although Canute did not make his pronouncement in a stadium of screaming fans far from the sea, the primary difference between the two men is not that Canute confronted his opponent. But Canute did command “with the greatest vigor” that his throne “should be set on the shore when the tide began to rise.” And, seated upon that throne, “he spoke to the rising sea.”

Nor can the difference between the two men be estimated by the caliber of their followers. Canute’s men were snickering at him from the beach, while Obama’s followers were cheering deliriously, and writing profusely about the “Lightworker.”

San Francisco columnist Mark Morford, who chronicled the rise of His Holiness Barack I in AD 2008, was prescient enough not to name for posterity the “deeply spiritual” people – “not coweringly religious, mind you” – who identified Obama as “that rare kind of attuned being who has the ability to lead us not merely to new foreign policies or health care plans or whatnot, but who can actually help usher in a new way of being on the planet, of relating and connecting and engaging with this bizarre earthly experiment.”

The biggest difference between Canute and Barack is what they did after the sea proved them wrong. Canute is not remembered for his response, and it would be hubris on my part to say that Obama will be remembered for his. But the two men reacted very differently.

King Canute walked out of the sea and delivered his real message: “All the inhabitants of the world should know that the power of kings is vain and trivial, and that none is worthy the name of king but He whose command the heaven, earth and sea obey by eternal laws.”

Barack, on the other hand, doubled down. Not satisfied with his vain war against the oceans, he declared war on war itself. Speaking in AD 2013 at the National Defense University in Washington, D.C., he said, “This war, like all wars, must end. That’s what history advises. That’s what our democracy demands.”

War responded by declaring a new Caliphate – dedicated to the utter destruction of the West – in AD 2014.

If you like your freedom…

I have spent many hours reading Obama’s major policy speeches, and he is always redefining the ideas of freedom into principles that support authoritarianism. His speech in Cuba is a perfect example of why I will never trust a single word this man says, even though I agree with many of the actual words he speaks.

Too many people listen to his words in isolation. He believes in a kind of “freedom” that would be good for people on the prison-island of Cuba, but in America – a country built on individual rights and a free market – his ideas are making us less free.

He tells Havana, “I’m appealing to the young people of Cuba to build something.” But he tells America, “You didn’t build that.” (If I have to give you more examples, you haven’t been paying attention.)

This is perfectly consistent with his worldview: America is too free, too rich, and too arrogant. It’s all just a zero-sum game, and for other nations to prosper America must come down a few pegs.

Never mind that has no idea how wrong he is. Barack Obama is a good politician, and he may be a good man for all I know. But he is also a man who stands on both sides of history while telling the world that America is on the wrong side.

Vote wisely for Obama’s successor. If you like your freedom, you can keep your freedom.

The War on Nothing

“I always wanted to be in a show about nothing and here I am,” our President recently said, sitting in a 1963 Corvette Stingray with a comedian driving in circles on the south lawn of the White House. “There’s nothing more nothing than this,” replied the comedian famous for his show about nothing. “Nothing.”

Seinfeld, the long-running TV comedy featuring four narcissistic friends in New York, has been widely described as “a show about nothing” – a riff echoed by both Obama and Seinfeld in the December 2015 episode of Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee (season 7, episode 1, “Just Tell Him You’re the President”).

It turns out that the show was about everything. As Jerry Seinfeld noted in a Reddit discussion from January 2014, “the show about nothing was just a joke in an episode many years later, and Larry and I to this day are surprised that it caught on as a way that people describe the show, because to us it’s the opposite of that.”

Just as Seinfeld was not about nothing, this essay is not about the show. But it is a useful starting point – not only because most Americans are convinced that the show was about nothing, but because America is embroiled in a world war about everything that too many Americans believe is about nothing.

On the home front of this war, certain combatants have gone to great lengths to convince Americans that nothing is superior to anything.

Commander in Chief Obama told the world at the NATO Summit of 2009, “I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.” In other words, the so-called leader of the so-called free world wants you to believe that every country believes it is exceptional and no country is exceptional in fact.

In our educational institutions, the doctrine of Multiculturalism demands that students believe no culture is superior to any culture. Higher up in the Ivory Tower, the philosophers of Relativism posit that all cultural standards are local – that beauty, or good, or justice, are only beautiful or good or just in their local context – and that no one has a “framework-independent vantage point” from which to create a universal concept of good or justice.

Outside the green zone – the military term for “safe space” – Social Justice Warriors interpret these orders to require cultural suicide: cultures which believe themselves to be superior must open their borders to immigrants from every other culture; recognize and accommodate the group differences of those immigrants; grant a host of legal exemptions to foreigners who demand those accommodations; and abandon their own local standards in favor of others.

SJW’s are against Capitalism, Christianity, and Israel. They use freedom of speech, religion, and assembly to incite violence against the same. They press every tenet of Western thought into the service of a gelatinous cultural Marxism that has no foundation but power. They even pervert the vision of Martin Luther King, Jr., whose objections to this ideology are well known:

“This deprecation of individual freedom was objectionable to me,” King wrote in his 1957 book, Stride Toward Freedom: The Montgomery Story. “I am convinced now, as I was then, that man is an end because he is a child of God. Man is not made for the state; the state is made for man. To deprive man of freedom is to relegate him to the status of a thing, rather than elevate him to the status of a person. Man must never be treated as means to the end of the state; but always as an end within himself.”

Okay, that seems to be a fair – if minimalist – description of America’s domestic enemies; and America would survive the onslaught from the legions of nothing if they were not allied with enemies foreign.

In 1947, an Egyptian Muslim intellectual named Sayyid Qutb wrote of his country, “Either we shall walk the path of Islam or we shall walk the path of Communism.” He was convinced that Islam was the only complete system – laws, government bureaucracy, social and economic rules – which could create a just and godly society.

A year later, threatened with arrest in Egypt, he sailed first-class to New York, NY – the city where “the show about nothing” was set 41 years later – for a two-year educational tour of America.

Lawrence Wright describes Qutb’s journey – from New York, to the District of Columbia, to Colorado, and finally to California – in The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11. Although he appeared to like our country, its combination of racism and sexual hedonism radicalized Qutb so that, when he returned to Egypt in 1950, he wrote:

“The white man in Europe or America is our number-one enemy. … We are endowing our children with amazement and respect for the master who tramples our honor and enslaves us. Let us instead plant the seeds of hatred, disgust, and revenge in the souls of these children. Let us teach these children from the time their nails are soft that the white man is the enemy of humanity, and that they should destroy him at the first opportunity.”

Where have we heard that before? #EgyptianLivesMatter?

Executed in 1966 for jihad against his own country’s secular government, Qutb became the father of the Muslim Brotherhood and modern political Islam. “I performed jihad for fifteen years until I earned this martyrdom,” he said from prison. When his sister pleaded for him to accept parole, he said, “My words will be stronger if they kill me.”

Qutb’s writings motivated men like Osama bin Laden, Ayman Al-Zawahiri, and countless others. Today, Sunni Islamist groups – Boko Haram, al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and the Islamic State, to name the most prolific – have declared a War on Everything. They’re against Capitalism, Communism, Socialism, and Democracy. They’re anti-Christian, anti-Jew, and anti-Atheist. They hate the Gay Community enough to throw suspected gay men off tall buildings. They even hate the minority Shiite Islamists who share their hatreds.

America’s response to the moral certainty of Islam has been predictable: Nothing will win the War on Everything.

Even though the stated goal of ISIS is to reestablish the worldwide Islamic Caliphate, President Obama has said repeatedly that the Islamic State is “not Islamic.”

In September 2014, Secretary of State John Kerry said, “In terms of al-Qaeda, which we have used the word ‘war’ with, yeah … We are at war with al-Qaeda and its affiliates. In the same context, if you want to use it, yes, we are at war with ISIL in that sense. But I think it’s a waste of time to focus on that.” In other words, America is finally at war with an Islamic State that isn’t Islamic, but it’s a waste of time to think about that.

More recently – after a Philadelphia man fired 11 rounds at a police officer and told authorities that he “pledges allegiance to Islamic State” and was “called upon to do this” – the mayor of the City of Brotherly Love said the act of Islamist terror had “nothing to do with being a Muslim or following the Islamic faith.”

Which brings us back to the home front, where those who insist there is no “framework-independent vantage point” feverishly put labels on the consequences for which they fight. Social Justice is superior to Blind Justice. Income Equality is superior to the idea that Everyone is Created Equal. Human Rights are superior to the Natural Rights of Humans. Black Lives Matter but All Lives do not.

This is the war that matters most. Not just because it is an absolute lie to assert that some truths are absolute and simultaneously that no absolute truth exists; but because believing that obvious lie imbues us with a self-humiliation, or, as Theodore Dalrymple once put it:

“When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is to co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself. One’s standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control.”

I would like to say that the self-evident truths of the Constitution will prevail in both of these wars, but the very foundations of our society are being destroyed just as ruthlessly as the ancient monuments of the Middle East.

It is cruel justice that America’s future – and that of Western Civilization – will be determined at this intersectionality of Nothing and Everything: where America’s un-American Social Justice Warriors find themselves allied with Islam’s non-Islamic terrorists.

There is nothing more everything than this. Nothing.

Photos: “Women March Against the Phony ‘War on Women'” courtesy of Ringo’s Pictures. Islamic Warriors March Against Other Phony Islamic Warriors during the Safavid dynasty in modern-day Iran, from a fresco in Isfahan.

Barack’s Christmas Story

“This week, many of us will hear a familiar story about a young couple in a foreign city, just looking for a place to stay for the night, and being told over and over again that there is no room for them. And I hope in the spirit of this holiday, we’ll take the time to think about how we can come together and live up to the founding ideals of this country.” – Democrat Party fundraising email from Barack Obama, Dec. 21, 2015.

Bethlehem was not a “foreign city” – it was Joseph’s home town. Why was there no room at the inn? As Luke 2:1 tells us, “Caesar Augustus issued a decree that all the world should be taxed. And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.”

Barack would have us believe that all the innkeepers were white Roman elitists named Ebenezer Scrooge, and the “young brown foreign couple” were kept out because they were illegal immigrants.

The truth is that Mary and Joseph were turned away because the tax policies of the God Emperor ensured there were LITERALLY NO ROOMS LEFT in the city.

If Barack had his way, he would have forcibly ejected other customers to “spread the wealth” of rooms in favor of Mary and Joseph. And, in the process, he’d have compromised beyond repair one of the most storied truths of Christianity: that Christ was truly a man of the people, having been born in a manger instead of a hotel suite.

Since the President is lying about the Christmas story – using even the birth of Christ himself to slander opponents of illegal immigration for craven political gain – let’s look at one alternate universe if Barack’s version of the story had come to pass.

The young couple get a hotel suite instead of a manger. They consume an unfair amount of limited resources, contribute to Global Warming, and bring their child into a world of privilege. Jesus grows up a Jew in the apartheid state of Israel, but his father wisely abandons the family and his faith to become a pantheist Man of the World. Jesus questions his identity, agitates for a two-state solution with the Roman Empire, and dies in a riot after helping stone a woman to death for adultery. The Apostles go on to found the Muslim faith, and the Religion of Peace brings Joy to the World at the point of a sword. In 2008, Barack becomes Caliph of the World.

For Christ’s sake (and I say that respectfully) why does anyone believe anything Obama says? He’s a proven Liar of the Year – if you like your Christmas Story you can keep your Christmas Story – who sows division among the people while pretending to bring us together.