While Obama Ran the Country


Jed BartletOur Intemperate Correspondent writes:

Regarding Maureen Dowd’s October 6th Op-Ed piece in the New York Times, entitled: Two Presidents, Smoking and Scheming. I finally read it through. It’s better after learning that the other guy was a TV-show president. Quite funny, and she sounds like Obama when he gets going.

It must have been easy, being a TV pres, the lines are all written by somebody else. Kind of like Romney; they try to never let him speak his own words; he usually screws up. I think they worked for a week on how to lie most loudly, while Obama ran the country. Obama maybe had to talk to an Arab before the debate that day.

The common, ignorant people don’t care or understand what is said, nor if simple-minded lies are spoken; they really can’t tell the difference. It’s just who looks and sounds better, strong, confident; and because the masses are so amazingly ignorant (and sadly quite stupid) they will follow any bully or insulting ass, They are like the mob following the shouter and the finger pointer.

They will vote on reinforced prejudice if they feel a swing that way, to justify their instinct to disparage those they don’t understand, or who sound or look different from them. They are easily swayed by any lie that panders to their self-centered, greedy nature. Without the teaching of enlightened religion — such as was growing so well here in 1905 — and little real education, they are left with nothing at all to go on. They don’t understand anything about making a future world.

Even superstitious religion gave them something beyond the greed, security, and physical comfort that instinctively is their goal in life. And those instincts are all they are left with when the superstitious parts of their religion are no longer believed. Most never understood the true philosophical parts. It was mostly about getting them to not live as animals for a few centuries. As we saw at WWII, the results were mixed.

They may need superstitious allegories to affect behavior, just so as to not stand in the way of the better world to come (right here on earth); just as they did in the Mediterranean two thousand years ago, and in the High Middle Ages; these people who got the germ of their best idea from us, at least the simple version proposed by the “Buddhist Rabbi.” But perhaps they cannot be returned to that kind of influence — it would mean giving up on their possibility of progressing individually — and certainly it backfired a few times on these “enlightened”, as in their confusion and tendency to violence (partly genetic?) the converted pagans went off track and started killing the hand that fed them (us Jews), forgetting what their “rabbi” told them: the little trick that would let them become a part of the concept of historical progress, change deliberately created through time, toward a future destination in  mind, to both enjoy the fruits of civilization and to help create paradise.

Since they could not be Jewish — as that requires fluid literacy by age thirteen, and study of the true force of creation, and adherence to 613 some odd laws to create the society and state of mind that would propel that future — he gave them maybe 10, and boiled that down to a sentence: “Do unto others …”

I gather Paul, in Aleppo and elsewhere, saw that even that was too much, and his followers often became confused. He tried reducing it to just three words, the simple trick whereby they could help to make the new world: “Love one another”.

They didn’t… and this is the U.S. electorate.

They also, for the most part, never quite learned how to read properly. But they can tell the string beans from the chile, with the help of pictures on the label. Today my new painter pretended to be reading the color on the paint can when I pointed to the little label they stick on the lid. It’s something I’ve become used to.

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

  1. #1 by Jewish Jihad on October 29, 2012 - 11:10 pm

    One of Obama’s best lines of the third debate illustrated what’s wrong with his campaign, even as it showed his historical knowledge and fine analytical qualities. It was when he said:

    “When it comes to our foreign policy, you seem to want to import the foreign policies of the 1980s, just like the social policies of the 1950s, and the economic policies of the 1920s.”

    For the minority of voters old enough to remember the 1950’s (not as children), and the miniscule numbers who remember the 1920’s, this certainly meant something. And for historians (real ones, researchers, not political analysts) it was a brilliantly concise combination of analysis and denunciation.

    But as an effective means of communication to American voters, it probably wasn’t as effective. Certainly the voters described by our Intemperate Correspondent have no reference points within real American history. At most, they possess only the social programming that passes for history in elementary and high schools.

    The “Roaring Twenties” was a time of increasing institutionalized racism, increasing open anti-semitism, organized criminal cartels in control of whole cities, impositions on personal behavior (prohibition) enshrined in law by moral fanatics, a runaway inflationary economic boom with inadequate regulation and that ended with the crash of 1929.

(will not be published)