Did he just not study? Or did he study the wrong historians? Or did he perhaps unconsciously assimilate the latter by virtue of having no contact with anyone else, and then having insufficient curiosity to find out what the revisionists are so busy revising? Or what these tenured apes unknow and why they are so dead set on unknowing it?
I have to be honest and think back, because I too once believed all that revisionist crap. Passionately. I was as passionate about it as I am about truth, because I thought it was true -- not only true, but suppressed and denied by the Powers that Be, so that made me doubly pissed! How dare they deny us the truth! So what if truth doesn't exist! That doesn't permit Big Whitey to patronize us with childish myths!
Not only is Obama failing history, but his fellow treedwellers in California are actually enacting a law to force children to learn about what an important historical figure Obama is! Well, that he is. Not because he is a half-white, but because he is a half-wit.
To put it another way, it will henceforth be against the law in California to tell the simple truth about Obama, or in other words, to desist from mindfucking the children. Children Will Learn, for example, that Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize within moments of being elected because of "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples."
Fastest president ever! No wonder he needs so much down time. Those extraordinary efforts in the first days of his presidency wore him out. He gave us peace. Now let's give him some.
Let's look at some of the ways Obama has failed history: "He exaggerated Muslim contributions to printing and medicine, for example, and was flat-out wrong about the catalysts for the European Renaissance and Enlightenment" (Hanson).
True, but in rebuttal, Obama might point out that VDH is naive about the real purpose of history, which is to boost the self-esteem of various abstract racial, religious, and pervertarian "classes" and groups -- in particular, the privileged historical losers -- and to denigrate the evil winners. And by "winners," we mean western civilization, i.e., Christendom, so it turns out that Obama is in fact rigorously intellectually consistent. Or a consistent anti-intellectual, rather.
Next, Obama "also believes history follows some predetermined course, as if things always get better on their own. Obama often praises those he pronounces to be on the 'right side of history.' He also chastises others for being on the 'wrong side of history' -- as if evil is vanished and the good thrives on autopilot" (VDH).
To which Obama would no doubt respond: a-DOY! As if Hegel and Marx were just some dead white European males! Modern leftist gnosticism is rooted in those two rascals, who wasted barrels of ink proving that history is indeed on dialectical autopilot, and that its outcome is foreordained.
Except when it's not, in which case you have to break a few skulls, or bribe a few senators, or use the IRS to harass the enemies of History. Don't worry, it's all good -- the end, that is. So long as we are serving it, the means scarcely matter.
Let's pause for an aphorism or three, since Dávila saw Obama coming in his vast world-historical rearview mirror: "Reason, Progress and Justice are the three theological virtues of the fool." Which is why the progressive is a priori a fool. All the fool has to do is get out of the way of history and don't do Stupid Shit, because Progress.
Obama often repeats that crack about "the arc of the moral universe bending toward justice," seemingly oblivious to the fact that 1) it's just a poetic metaphor, not a literal truth, 2) it doesn't bend at all except insofar as bent human beings undertake the lifetime task of trying to unbend themselves, one assoul at a time, and 3) "justice" does not simply refer to "what progressives want."
Or in other words, justice is not to be confused with the arousal and appeasement of envy -- the latter being social justice, not Justice. Justice means giving a man his due, not stealing a man's goods to satisfy the envious mob.
However, Obama might respond -- except without irony -- that "It is customary to proclaim rights in order to violate duties" (ibid.).
Indeed, as Dávila points out, "Every day we increase the number of words that signify their antonyms" -- in this case, using the term "social justice" to signify justice, for what is social justice but using the power of the state to unjustly give people what they don't deserve?
Obama despises our kind of course, but he cares deeply about those Others, i.e., the envious mob. Why? Because "Compassion is the best excuse for envy" (Dávila). And "Envy differs from the other vices by the ease with which it disguises itself as virtue" (ibid.). So, get on the right side of history and pay up, sucka'!
"Another of Obama's historical refrains is his frequent sermon about behavior that doesn't belong in the 21st century" -- as if one can distinguish right from wrong by consulting the calendar. Well, if it doesn't belong in the 21st century, then how did it get here? Can't we just synchronize our calendars, and advance Islamist watches forward a dozen centuries or so?
What leftists fail to grasp is that their ideas and behavior not only do not belong in the 7th (or any other) century, but that the Islamist means to do something about it, i.e., kill you.
Besides, telling an Islamist he's living in the 7th century is the sincerest form of flattery. It's like telling a Marxist he's accurately parroting the party line, or correctly propagating the Truth of the Day.
One man's myth is another man's guiding star. I would sooner believe George Washington never told a lie than Obama ever uttered a truth.
To put it another way, it will henceforth be against the law in California to tell the simple truth about Obama, or in other words, to desist from mindfucking the children. Children Will Learn, for example, that Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize within moments of being elected because of "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples."
ReplyDeleteCripes. It's as though a significant portion of the people of North Korea got together on their own initiative to tell the story of the godlike significance of the Kim family, and decided all on their own to erect all those statues and put up shrines in their living rooms, instead of having it imposed from on high. Actually, these days maybe they do, but only because it's been that way for generations.
"...what these tenured apes unknow and why they unknow it?"
ReplyDeleteAsking that question is the secret path to pursuing an Education in the 21st century, one that could even be acquired in college... as long as you remained wary and mindful of the snakes, monsters and other faculty & alumni.
Leftists freely do what normal souls will only do under compulsion.
ReplyDelete... as, you know, anthropological field work, dangerous, but potentially rewarding.
ReplyDeleteWhat leftists fail to grasp is that their ideas and behavior not only do not belong in the 7th century, but that the Islamist means to do something about it, i.e., kill you.
ReplyDeleteAnd rape all your women. Apparently, it's how the menfolk bond in Muslim communities.
The news stories about Rotherham are only the tip of the iceberg. Notably, this is also a big problem in Amsterdam where they've legalized prostitution. Muslim gangs run the brothels, and they recruit girls from the local schools. Funny, I thought legalizing it was supposed to make it safer for "working girls." Oops. Who could have seen that coming?
Julie said "Cripes. It's as though a significant portion of the people of North Korea ..."
ReplyDeleteIt's not as though, it's exactly the same means, the only difference being how vulgar you have to be in displaying your means of forcing them to worship.
Fastest president ever! No wonder he needs so much down time.
ReplyDeleteThe dude is the Rosie Ruiz of American presidents. Ran the entire marathon at 100-meter sprint speed -- except for the part on the subway, but, shoot, you can't expect a guy to run 26 miles like that, right?
Not only is Obama on the right side of history, he found a shortcut!
ReplyDeleteJustice means giving a man his due, not stealing a man's goods to satisfy the envious mob.
ReplyDeleteThat's worthy of repetition. I notice that even with all the rhetoric, the left doesn't talk so much about what they earned as what is "owed" to them.
It's the same way with the minimum wage and all that. No one has a right to "a living wage" unless they are doing something that generates revenue over and above what they cost to employ.
Don't pay me what I'm worth because I can't live on that.
This would all be a lot funnier if he were president of Liechtenstein.
ReplyDeleteLeftists forget that the minimum wage is always zero, and that by pretending to increase it you end up with more workers making zero.
ReplyDeleteThe left also loves to talk about rights, never responsibilities. But not only is there no right without a corresponding responsibility, the responsibility is ontologically prior, i.e., a condition without which rights cannot exist. For example, a right to free speech is meaningless if not pernicious without a responsibility to truth. Every scientist knows this, even if he denies it.
ReplyDeleteLeftists freely do what normal souls will only do under compulsion.
ReplyDeleteI just troll here for tweet-worthy stuff. Raccoons are very laconic when they're being witty! :o)
Thanks, tweetheart.
ReplyDeleteWhoa there!
ReplyDeleteJust doin' my job, Boss. Pointing the clueless to the Big Clue. Tweeps thank me and assure me that finding this blog was a gift to them. I consider that a small and successful sortie into the enemy camp. A raid on the trashcan of the 21st Century!
ReplyDeleteHow do people who don't have "living wages" survive?
ReplyDeleteNo one knows (well, no one on the left knows. All they know is that if we don't pay workers far more than they are worth they will die. Any minute now. Seriously).
"Indeed, as Dávila points out, "Every day we increase the number of words that signify their antonyms" -- in this case, using the term "social justice" to signify justice, for what is social justice but using the power of the state to unjustly give people what they don't deserve?"
ReplyDeleteIn the old days we simply called it extortion or theft. I guess calling it social or economic "justice" makes the criminals feel better about their crimes since it's "justified" in what's left of their minds.
"Not only is Obama failing history, but his fellow treedwellers in California are actually enacting a law to force children to learn about what an important historical figure Obama is! Well, that he is. Not because he is a half-white, but because he is a half-wit."
ReplyDeleteI reckon it was inevitable. Leftists deny reality in the present and try to impose their delusions in it's place so it makes sense(lessness) they would give history the same treatment.
Memo: burly is now a racist adjective.
ReplyDeleteI seem to recall back in '08, the racist term was "skinny."
ReplyDeleteNext, they'll be saying that "nondescript" is racist, too.
I wonder if they'd have their knickers in a twist over "hulking," "brawny," or "linebacker-sized"?
(Don't answer that - I know they'll scream racist over any description other than "gentle giant")
ReplyDeleteFor Joan: "She's terse. I can be terse. Once in flight school, I was laconic."
ReplyDeleteThe NYT might as well cut to the chase and say that truth and justice is racist as well as non-PC.
ReplyDeleteLike the DOJ, the Obamaburo, and indeed, most leftist institutions, the press is all about demobcracy.
Lynch mobs are all the rage dontcha know.
Ben, there's no need to cut to the chase, that IS the chase.
Delete