Friday, February 22, 2008

The Theology of Obama: The Freaks Shall Inherit the Earth (3.28.09)

Yesterday we spoke of how the omnipotent baby creates the parents who gave birth to him. Today we shall discuss how the parents create the demons who rule over them. For it is written (in the Book of Petey): male and female, they created him.

Unknown Friend (UF) writes that a demon "is the result of cooperation of the male principle and the female principle, i.e., the will and the imagination" fueled by "a desire that is perverse or contrary to nature." These interacting principles, then -- will + imagination -- "are the parents of the demon." In turn, the parents (and the principles they embody) "become enslaved by their own creation," specifically, "to a being endowed with desire and imagination, which dominates the forces that engendered it."

As is true of my own book, there is little in Meditations on the Tarot which is explicitly political. However, that only emphasizes the importance of what is there, for one requires very few principles to understand a great deal about politics -- for example, as reader Mushroom put it in a mycelial comment a couple of days ago,

"The Founders said, to the extent possible, let the individual decide. Then let the locality decide, then let the individual states decide. Only in the extreme should the central government become involved.... We are simple people -- not brilliant and elite like the Obamessiah. Hence we ask you to answer a simple question: Suppose someone could stand up today with the power to 'act' and put all of Obama's words into practice. What would that person be called?"

Another way to ask the question would be, "what if the ungoverned fantasies and perverse desires of the group could somehow be embodied in an individual who served as a sort of 'lens' for their collective will?" What would you call such a being? Bear in mind that Führer and Dear Leader are already taken.

In another fungamentally sound comment, Mushroom wrote that "the left may mean well, but they consistently fail to recognize that the law of unintended consequences is more fixed -- if occasionally more subtle -- than the law of gravity. Who was it who said that 'no man's liberty is safe when Congress is in session'? The only way government can effect change is through coercion. Obviously, coercion is in opposition to freedom, but -- as noted in Van's quote from Rousseau -- the obvious is often lost in the feel-good sophistry of the left."

As I said, very simple principles, but with deep and complex ramifications, for, depending upon your fidelity to this or that principle, you won't just create a different form of government, but a different type of human being. In the case of leftist principles, you will put in place a system guaranteed to ensure that Man falls beneath himself, as he will be ruled by his own perverse will and lower imagination in a collectively projected form.

Therefore, if you wish to be left alone to imagine your own life and will it into being (with the assistance of grace, of course), you are an enemy of the leftist hive. As Mushroom explains, "To the left in general, rights are 'gifts' from the government. The Founders wrote the Declaration, the Constitution, and specifically the Bill of Rights, not as instruments granting rights, but as an enshrined recognition of inherent rights. The only conditions under which a government may undertake to violate or usurp those rights are when an individual has, purposely and intentionally, so violated the rights of another (criminally) or of the populace in general, i.e., acts of war, that the offender must be restrained. Even then, the effort to restrain must be isolated to the individual offender and not used as a pretext to usurp the rights of the innocent."

But the left "acquires power by promising to restrain, not criminals or terrorists, but the bogeymen: the fictional rich, the fat cats, the corporations, the racists, the chauvinists, Big Oil, Big Pharma, Big Insurance. The freedom pushed by the left will ultimately be only the freedom to be one’s worst, to be immoral and unproductive. All the other freedom will have been crushed by a tank with UNITY painted on one side and DIVERSITY painted on the other."

Yes, precisely. The left creates false demons in order to conceal the real one they embody. One either understands this or one doesn't, so I won't belabor the point.

UF discusses these principles as they manifested in 20th century Europe. After all, the first line of the Communist Manifesto is "A specter is haunting Europe -- the specter of communism." Marx didn't say much that was true, but that statement certainly was. "Specter" is an interesting word, for it is etymologically linked to speculum, or mirror, and means "a visible disembodied spirit" or "something that haunts or perturbs the mind." As UF explains, this specter, or mirror of the lower vertical, was

"engendered by the will of the masses, born from despair following the 'industrial revolution' in Europe, nourished by the resentment accumulated amongst the masses through the generations, armed with a dummy intellectuality which is Hegel's dialectic misconstrued -- this specter has grown and continues to make the rounds in Europe, and in other continents... Today already one third of mankind is impelled to bow down before this god and to obey it in everything."

Now, UF makes the subtle point that for the secular leftist, there can be no true gods, only demons "in the sense of creations of the human will and imagination." For example, if you attend an elite university, you will learn that "truth" doesn't really exist, but that those in power -- mostly privileged male people of pallor -- merely construct oppressive texts to legitimize the existing power structure. Underneath it all, it is merely economic interests that determine one's ideological superstructure. In short, human thought is just a thin veneer over a crass power grab.

Which, of course, is true of the left. As always, they are talking about themselves and their strange gods. When the leftist insists that "everyone is racist" (every white person, that is), he is referring to himself. When he rants about "corporate greed," he is disclosing ugly attributes of his own grasping heart. When he laments "the rape of the planet," he is probably someone like Al Gore, who has a carbon footprint the size of my entire readership. I'll worry about climate change when Gore lives in a house the size of the Slackatorium (or Dupree's converted garage) and leaves the earth less polluted than when he found it.

Now, Raccoons of every denominational stripe are intrinsically logoistic beings. We believe in the Cosmic Word that was, is, and will be, and without which nothing makes sense. As UF writes, "there is revelation of divine truth, and the manifestation of the will of human beings." Or, "there is the cult of God, and that of idols made by man." Thus,

"Is it not a diagnosis and prognosis of the whole history of the human race that at the same time that Moses received the revelation of the Word at the summit of the mountain, the people at the foot of the mountain made and worshipped a golden calf?" On the one hand the Word; on the other hand, "ideological superstructures of the human will." In truth, there hasn't been "a single century when the servants of the Word have not had to confront the worshippers of idols," who "have cost humanity more life and suffering than the great epidemics of the Middle Ages."

Now, back to the perverse will and imagination of Male and Female. I direct your attention to this piece at American Thinker, entitled Barack and Michelle Keeping the Faith. The two belong to the Trinity United Church of Christ, which is rooted in the doctrine of "black liberation theology," which, properly speaking, neither liberates nor is theology. Rather, it represents the instantiation of leftist ideology in religious form -- or the perverse attempt to make Christian Truth conform to Marxist "truth." This twisted gospel

"revolves around a single dimension of the Christian faith and necessarily interprets the very nature of 'oppression' as solely material and of this world. In effect, black liberation theology reduces the entire Gospel down to a Marxist people's struggle and hijacks the Christ for political purpose." As one of the movement's founders wrote, "What else can the resurrection mean except that God's victory in Christ is the poor person's victory over poverty?"

Yes as taught by the R e v e r e n d James Cone, "To be sanctified is to be liberated -- that is, politically engaged in the struggle of freedom. When sanctification is defined as a commitment to the historical struggle for political liberation, then it is possible to connect it with socialism and Marxism, the reconstruction of society on the basis of freedom and justice for all" (emphases Shiver's).

In another piece today at American Thinker, Lee Cary observes that "while Barack is the softer, social justice side of black liberation theology [i.e., imagination], Michelle is the harder anti-white-supremacy side [i.e., will]."

Thus, consistent with the lifetime of shame Michelle Obama has felt toward her country, "America can lay no claim whatsoever to any sort of goodness, and will perhaps never be able to do so until we are all residing in one, big, happy Marxist America with the presently 'oppressed' on top and the evil 'oppressors' on the bottom" (Shiver).

Or, to put it another way, the freaks shall inherit the earth.

Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zones. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed. --Bride of Messiah


NoMo said...

Quick caution (too late for me) - don't be eating or drinking when you read the end of paragraph 5. Now back to screen cleaning and hopefully reading.

Webutante said...

This is such a homerun in my opinion. Thanks for hammering on and on at this, Bob.

Anonymous said...

Only the lazy stoner students learn that there is no truth (hey Bob, I hear you were a real hellraiser).

If you pay attention, you learn Truth exists but can't totalize (the ontological critique) and is a process (the epistemological critique). It's really nowhere near as bad as you say.

You'll never colonize minds (er, evangelize?) with direct antagonism - use their structures to more subtly bring them to your side.

Sal said...

Nomo- did you see yesterday's 'Day by Day'? Synch!

The demonic fruit of 'will' and 'imagination'.
That clears up a lot. Thank you for the tools to survive the upcoming year.

Petey said...

Truth exists but can't totalize and is a process.

Is that true? Or just the reification of stupidity?

Frithjof said...

Profane philosophy is ignorant not only of the value of truth and universality in Revelation, but also of the transcendence of the pure Intellect; it entails therefore no guarantee of truth on any level, for the quite human faculty which reason is, insofar as it is cut off from the Absolute, is readily mistaken even on the level of the relative.

Anonymous said...

You know it's true. Truth that would totalize renders everything flat - you wouldn't want that, I know. Ya'll are big on the anti-horizontal thing.

Anonymous said...

Dude, the point of either reason or revelation is there is no guarantee at any level - hence, leap of faith. If there were a guarantee, we'd all be flatland robots mechanistically following orders.

Frithjof said...

Nonsense. It is not for the truth to be “dynamic,” it is for us to be dynamic thanks to the truth.

Truth in the current sense of the word, that of a concordance between a state of fact and our consciousness, is indeed situated on the plane of thought, or at least it applies a priori to that plane. As for Intellection, its object is “reality” of which “truth” is the conceptual clothing.

hoarhey said...

"Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zones. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed."

I'm sure that she must have been speaking to a room full of welfare and foodstamp recipients. I'm also sure she made a mistake and that she meant to substitute the words unemployed and uneducated for the last two words uninvolved and uninformed.
I'm sure of it'
Obama Supporter, care to shed a little light and wisdom on this?

Anonymous said...

Frith, that's material reductionism. You cannot credibly say that there is an absolute guarantee. Even in Christianity, the point is that faith is the guarantee. The divine doesn't magically incarnate a golden sheet of paper with a lightning pen for you to sign your name at the bottom. You have to leap into the unknown - then you can know. While it's True, it's not guaranteed. I would have imagined that is a pretty basic point of theology.

Anonymous said...

hoarhey, I'll take it. I think there is an ironically cynical component to the entire Obama phenomenon. Everything they say they mean literally, but they also are referencing their own literal meaning in an ironic fashion. I think that most young people, weaned as they have been in the post-modern self-referential mindset, just grasp that a little more easily than those who are a bit older.

hoarhey said...


Frithjof said...

Speak for yourself, anon. Faith is the intuition of the transcendent brought about by Grace. It is conformity of the intelligence and the will to the truth revealed to the intellect -- itself an "interior" revelation of that selfsame truth. It is called gnosis when the intellectual element predominates over the volitive. Fervor gives belief its spiritual quality, while certitude is an intrinsic quality of gnosis.

Anonymous said...

Fair enough, I'll speak for myself, and some of parts of what you say add up. But I think the truth of this matter is your interpretation of faith obliterates the very concept of faith and renders it a function of this interior, intuitive state of being awash in grace. Which might be fine if you were talking merely of grace, but this was in reference to Truth, so you've shifted - you first said Truth includes the aspect of fact - the correspondence with the "exterior" world. My point is that relationship, "interior-exterior" is not a guarantee - it is a leap. There is a gap there. You can speak with certitude only by way of this unguaranteed leap.

Frithjof said...

Well, so long as I can speak with certitude by way of an unguaranteed leap, I'll accept that guarantee.

hoarhey said...

I was sent this in an e-mail newsletter I subscribe to.

In January, the communist newspaper People’s Weekly World published a letter from a supporter celebrating Obama’s Iowa caucuses victory as “more than a progressive move; it was a dialectical leap ushering in a qualitatively new era of struggle.” The letter goes on to say, “Marx once compared revolutionary struggle with the work of the mole, who sometimes burrows so far beneath the ground that he leaves no trace of his movement on the surface. This is the old revolutionary ‘mole,’ not only showing his traces on the surface but also breaking through.”

Wakey wakey!

jwm said...

Clever exercise in sock puppetry anon and Frithjof. Do you often argue with imaginary friends?


cousin Dupree said...

More news of the Messiah from PowerLine:

It goes without saying that Barack Obama will end the hardship and "struggle" in our daily lives. Under the Yes We Can Man, folks (other than conservative bloggers) will be able to quit their second jobs, the price of gasoline will plummet, and Ivy League grads will never again have to work for hedge funds to pay off their college loans.

Nor does Obama's magic end at our borders. Last night, he said he would solve our immigration problem in part by improving the economy of Mexico to the point that illegal immigrants will have no need or desire to enter the paradise Obama will create here.

Most magically of all, Obama will fix Mexico's economy even while refusing to trade with Mexico unless it complies with U.S. labor and environmental standards.

I know the competition is fierce, but Obama may turn out to be the most intellectually dishonest Democratic presidential nominee of my lifetime.

Anonymous said...

Bob writes:

"Underneath it all, it is merely economic interests that determine one's ideological superstructure. In short, human thought is just a thin veneer over a crass power grab."

Yes, now you finally understand. It IS all about the economic power.

Since each Raccoon represents his Master, God, the question is how do you grab more power for God. When God controls the money (and Raccoons manage it) then money will become holy.

Work on it.

Petey said...

Good point. Would you care to purchase an indulgence? We have a sale this month, absolution of two venial sins for the price of one.

walt said...

Petey -

I know March 4th is right around the corner, and participation in "All This" is not without obligation.

But I will purchase two indulgences NOW if you can explain WTF Anonymous is talking about in plain English!

Or, must I await "Clarity and the Word" from O-Bama?

julie said...

Hah - thanks Walt, I'll even split the cost with you on that one :)

debass said...

BO is the kind of person I need to help me change music to the metric system. Instead of eighth notes, we would have tenth notes. A quarter note would be a fifth note. It makes more sense, as it matches up with human design of ten digits and I'm sure the Euro-pee-ans would love it.

Beat me daddy, ten to the bar!

I also have a line of metric tools that I'm sure his followers would be able to put to good use on their foreign cars. Metric crescent wrenches, screwdrivers, pipe wrenches, etc. It will be a wonderful time of prosperity for the US.

jwm said...

Metric pipe wrenches.
Those are the worst kind!
Almost as bad as a metric vice, or metric pliers.
The mind boggles.
(In increments of ten, of course)


Booger the Cat said...

Boogr th cta

ximeze said...

Booger!!! Where ya been dude? We missed ya. Whatcha been up to? Have ya seen Fergus lately?

I'd ask ya ta tell all, but, umm...what with yur being...umm...clarity-challenged
and all....dude, just don't want ya to be confused with those two losers who dropped by earlier.

If ya can just get Yottle to phonhome, my day would be complete.

julie said...

Will wonders never cease? A surprisingly rational anti-O screed by Roseanne.

julie said...

Hehe - plus the comments are worth the price of admission...

walmart shopper said...

Continuing Hoarhey's theme --

Marxist Daniel Ortega sees the Obama campaign as part of "laying the foundations for revolutionary change". Luis Lunares Zapata, Mexican presidential candidate and socialist, has a similar take: "If Barack wins thereafter the presidency of the United States, he will be the first leftist politician in that country and another signal of the present and future times in this continent."

Isn't it interesting how the international left openly recognizes Obama as a fellow traveler, yet our homegrown lefties insist he's some kind of centrist? I guess that's how it goes when you've got a trojan horse to get through the gate.

walmart shopper said...

Also a good one over at NRO.

EggSpurt said...

Al Gore, “I helped create the internet – Polar bears are dying” John Kerry, the memory of a trip into Cambodia that Nixon purportedly authorized (even though he was yet to take office) and never happened is “Seared, seared into my memory,” Bill Clinton, “I never had sexual relations with that woman,” and wife Hillary of her mother, “So when I was born, she called me Hillary and she always told me, ‘It’s because of Sir Edmund Hillary,’” - an obscure beekeeper from New Zealand scaled Everest in 1953 while her birth was in 1947, have all been caught fabricating reality to suit their own ends.

Obama joins the grand tradition while delivering a speech about a year ago in a church in Selma, Alabama.

Obama, born in 1961, claims the marches in Selma (first one, 1965) set in motion the events that led to his existence – and Bobby and Teddy Kennedy were instrumental in bringing his father to the United States. I wonder when the mainstream media will call him on it.

The following is from an E-mail I received authored by Paul R. Hollrah.

“Obama told his audience that, because some folks had the courage to 'march across a bridge' in Selma, Alabama, his mother, a white woman from Kansas, and his father, a Black Muslim from Africa, took heart. It gave them the courage to get married and have a child. The problem with that characterization is that Barack Obama, Jr., was born on August 4, 1961, while the first of three marches across that bridge in Selma didn't occur until March 7, 1965, at least five years after Obama's parents met.

Obama went on to tell his audience that the Kennedys, Jack and Bobby, decided to do an airlift. They would bring some young Africans over so that they could be educated and learn all about America. His grandfather heard that call and sent his son, Barack Obama, Sr., to America.

The problem with that scenario is that, having been born in August 1961, the future senator was not conceived until sometime in November 1960. So if this African grandfather heard words that ''sent a shout across oceans,'' inspiring him to send his goat-herder son to America, it was not a Democrat Jack Kennedy he heard, nor his brother Bobby, it was a Republican President, Dwight D. Eisenhower.”

ximeze said...

Interesting, isn't it, that plenty of people outside the US can recognize a fellow traveler & are perfectly willing to say so.

Couple of days ago I listened to phone-ins to a SF Bay Area political talk radio program where there was a string of calls from foreign-born, naturalized Americans who were going bananas about Obamania. They kept saying: how is this possible, that Americans can fall for this crap?

They'd heard it all before, in the countries of their birth. Two calls especially were poignant: an Iranian & a denizen of the former USSR. They knew exactly what BO is up to, and it's not to be Obambi. They weren't fooled for a minute.

Fortunately the bloom seems to be starting to come off the rose & it's a long time til the election.

ximeze said...

BO is also following another tradition from his past: it's perfectly ok to lie to Dhimmi. In fact a duty.

What a deal - a two-fer

fm said...

Obamaphant (noun): A person emotionally mesmerized by pathos (excluding ethos and logos from the decision making process) and develops a frenzied man-worship for the worst kind of pied-piper-hope-merchant who will blindly lead them, their children, and their country off the proverbial cliff.

walmart shopper said...

Yes, God bless those who've actually lived in a state-as-cult and can't be fooled. I used to work with a guy who managed to get out of Cuba. I can only imagine his revulsion at seeing Obama's people flying the Che flag.

What would be sweet would be for Obama to get trounced like George McGovern. Here is some heartening talk of that very possibility at one of the lefty forums.

Voltron said...

Just dropped in to say hi and...

Wow! Am I a little (or a lot) out of my depth here?

As to indulgences, can I share one with a friend if I've only committed ONE venial sin?

As usual I'm a day late and a dollar short but from the previous thread:
"...and it it is perhaps not surprising that many adult babies pluck a "mask from the ancient gallery" and banish Mother and Father from the garden"...

Do I detect a follower of "The Lizard King™"?
(and do these adult babies then "Walk on down the hall"?

I either gotta spend more time here or go away completely...

Voltron said...

Oh, and agreed on Obama, or as I like to put it:

"Non specific change we can believe in".

Anonymous said...

dilys here.

More info on Obama church and rhetoric. He's ladling out potent stuff, archetypal, devil in the details.

baldilocks said...


Actually the Kennedy Foundation sent Obama's father to America. I know because my father was on the same plane.

EggOnSpurt'sFace said...

Baldilocks - Thank you for the correction. I should have done a little research rather than just passing along the misinformation.

There are, of course, more substantive reasons for opposing Obama.

Mea culpa

baldilocks said...

No worries. And you're very gracious. That's more important than always getting things correct.