The rape of intent: “Austin Man Hangs Empty Chair From Tree Symbolizing President Obama”
The proof of your racism is the fact that we see it. You can deny it — as “investigative journalists” we’ll fight for your right to burn a flag or shit on a police car or burn Bushhitler puppetes in effigy, after all — but once you hang a folding chair from a tree, regardless of whether or not you used twine or a lynching rope complete with noose, well, we all know what that means. It means you’re racist.
And by that we mean that, even if you aren’t, you’ve nevertheless provided us the raw material to pretend that you must be, and that your dislike of Obama’s empty-chaired presidency is really just your backwood, unreconstructed view of race, whereby a Negro man and his uppity Negress wife have no business lording it over you. Cracker.
Note the intro to the report, where the “journalists” notes she “tracked the man down” to “ask him what he meant” — and yet her questions suggest she’s already decided what was meant. The empty chair is clearly Obama. But the string used to put it up? That becomes a “lynching,” the same descriptor used by NBC News in its coverage of the story.
So, see? You need to be very very careful with how you metaphorically or emblematically display your criticisms of Obama. Specifically if you are white. And those you criticize are either black, Muslim, homosexual, or (on occasion) womyn.
Reasonable people — one offended African-American in another report asked, “what does that say about me?”, to which the easy answer is, why would you presume it says anything about you, save that you yourself are so committed to racial politics that you equate a political statement regarding Obama’s failures as President with race, and consequently don’t see either him or yourself as disparate individuals? — can conclude reasonably that you heart is filled with the most racisty of hateful racism. And they will have concluded correctly — regardless of whether or not they are actually correct, which in point of fact depends on whether or not you hung the chair to suggest your racialist malice; because it is just as reasonable to assume you merely did it symbolically in a way that would be seen, lest the whole political statement (or, you know, hate crime) be, well, merely an empty folding chair sitting unattended in a front yard, which I suspect is quite common in front yards in which no one is currently sitting in them, or in which those who have been sitting in the just got up and left them empty as a result.
The message from Moveon.org, and the race-baiting “tolerance” crowd in the media, let’s face it, is this: We are entitled to take your meaning the way we like, and to insist that you meant what it is we are going to claim you meant in order to take the fangs out of the actual protest itself by deflecting it into an indictment of the protester. Why ask you about you really meant, after all? Frankly, we don’t care. We have reasonable suspicion, and the raw materials, to turn your free political speech into a possible hate crime — because, when used by the right, all twine is lynching rope, and all knots nooses. Sorry, cooter, but you’re white and you don’t like the President’s policies. Ergo, you’re most likely racist.
And no, of course it’s not racist on our part to make such an assumption, run a news story on it implying that you’re a violent old racist, or show you or your house or your angry reaction to our “investigative journalism” that essentially begins with images of your guilt and then demands you prove your innocence. After all, citizen: we’re just asking questions. If you aren’t guilty, why the need to avoid our loaded, goading, leading queries…?
Meanwhile, in other news, somewhere between 15-20 years of Obama’s life remains stubbornly missing. No word yet if Austin, Chicago, Hawaiian, Washington State, or Indonesian reporters have taken to checking trees or dangling twine or unused folding chairs for clues.
I’m going to say it again: the way to beat back this incoherent view of language, and the defensiveness and stink that is then collecting to apply to all conservatives / classical liberals with a big thick brush, is to reject the very kernel assumptions used to coalesce these kinds of public lynchings.
Because the fact is, it’s the media and left wielding the noose here. And they see all of us as empty chairs waiting to be strung up — all because we’ve institutionalized as legitimate the semantic and hermeneutic tools for them to do so.
Rob them of that — by making the forceful case for how and why the semantic assumptions now ascendant and spread through the academy and feel-good popular culture and pop-psychology are in very tools that are being used to take apart the Enlightenment, and with it, all the foundational assumptions of our country’s nascent principles.
Again, to any TEA Party leaders, organizers, etc., out there: I am willing and able to put together a series of lectures on these subjects that I am certain will, once internalized, enable us to explain to our fellow citizens how, by way of language and the assumptions about its usage, we are having our liberties stolen from us; I can show how our most cherished ideals are being deconstructed and then re-imagined as their precise opposites (eg., “tolerance,” “fairness,” “investment”); and if the past is any indication, I will be able to do so using such simple texts as Curious George.
I’ve been putting this message out for years, and watching with increasing sadness as the right largely ignores the basis of our own classical liberal demise. Gramsci, the reader-response leftists, the anti-foundationalists, the deconstructionists, et al: they weren’t all acting politically to gain power. But some were, and there is absolutely no doubt that the current establishment theoretical view of meaning making, “truth,” and what comes to be regarded as legitimate hermeneutics is an attack on the Enlightenment principles that undergird our republic and help secure our individual autonomy and natural rights.
The politically-activated anti-foundationalists in the progressive movement, in fact, are so secure in the entrenchment and cultural acceptance of their faulty and malignant ideas concerning epistemology, meaning, and interpretation — and so convinced it is now inexorably moving toward the PC tyranny that uses “consensus communities” and the like to determine truths and individual claims to ethnic authenticity — that they no longer ever hide the fact that charges of “hypocrisy” have no effect, structurally, whatever on their plans.
When your linguistic and rhetorical worldview is in fact a modern embrace of sophistry and anti-intellectual relativism rebranded as intellectual high-mindedness and semantic nuance, what care do you have that some may wish to point out your “hypocrisies.” After all, why be constrained by some rigid use of reason when, as with all totalitarian endeavors, the ends justify the means.
I offer my services to combat this. I’ve been doing it here for years.
But a bunch of petty bullshit from some “our side” — many of whom, since taking the reins as our most prominent online spokespeople, have proven persistently feckless and consistently wrong in both their promoted tactics and strategies — has kept me somewhat marginalized. Often times through coordinated agreements and secret missives, a whisper campaign, and unofficial deals with shady characters whose job it was, presumably, to elevate attacks on my supposedly malignant character while depressing my site’s visibility in search engine results, etc. Combined with the linking freeze-0ut of the past 4-years — recall, this all began when I rejected rather forcefully the idea that Obama was in any way a good but misguided pragmatist and centrist — I have been forced to reassert myself as a blogger, slowly building back up an audience.
And as I rebuild my own brand, I once again do so on the very message I’ve always preached: it’s not the polls, it’s not the Party; it’s the kernel assumptions that underlie the epistemology and therefore are permitted to insinuate themselves into every aspect of our lives, where it becomes entrenched thanks to easy bromides: “the democraticization of meaning!” “It says what it says!” “Well, that may not be what you meant, but it sure sounded that way to me.”
This is the poison that has been injected into the roots of liberty’s tree.
If we don’t stop it, the game is already over, and our country — the greatest political experiment in the history of man — is gone, just as sure as you’re reading this. Losing more slowly is still losing.
I can only do so much from here. I’m a resource. Use me.
Beyond that, what’s really left to say?