Bush isn’t the Devil, actually, but he’s just like the Devil

Now that the uproar over Chavez’s speech has ended, those who were at first a little embarrassed to see someone say at the UN what they’ve been saying everywhere else, have regrouped, and started agreeing with and echoing Chavez. The latest hit piece I read struck me as amusing, because, in a heavily joking fashion, it conceded that Chavez isn’t correct — Bush isn’t really the Devil. But before you think there’s some sanity there, the same article went on to explain that Bush is nevertheless just like the Devil, only he’s the low-rent version. (And wait until you see the terms in which he describes those who vote for Bush.) You can read the whole silly thing here, but the following are a few choice morsels:

Here is Lucifer, a massive, thunderous hero, subtle and intelligent and enormously articulate, full of passion and red-hot anarchy, the ultimate rebel. He is often seen reclining in his cavernous, rocky lair, lying on his side, all muscled godlike beauty and ruined glory and deep seduction and heat. He is just terribly, wonderfully alluring.

See? Right there, already we’re a galaxy away from Dubya. Bush, of course, has no such magnificence. Bush is small and quivery and eats his vanilla pudding with a fork. While Satan orates and philosophizes at great intellectual length, Dubya can’t even sit still during an entire State of the Union address without fidgeting and moving his upper body back and forth like a little metronome, twitching and squirming like a child.

***

In Milton, the glorious angel Lucifer’s incredible act of defiance, his stunning rebellion against God, marks him as not merely proud and insolent but powerfully courageous. After all, Satan chooses to endure unbelievable suffering for the sake of his independence, rather than endure numb cubicle-like servility in heaven. Also, hell has better booze. Cooler dance clubs. Less insufferable harp music. That sort of thing.

And lo, here is Bush. Dubya is, everyone agrees, a bit of an intellectual midget. He is a champion of sameness and mediocrity and unquestioned obedience, a hero to absolutely no one with a functioning soul, the cubicle personified.

***

Are there some similarities? You bet. Like Dubya, the devil desperately wants a grand holy war to settle, once and for all, just who owns the kingdom of heaven. And Satan degenerates horribly in “Paradise Lost,” begins to take the form of many “lowly” animals (a toad, a snake, etc.) as he degrades. Bush, too, has devolved. He started out as a barely tolerable but initially benign political tumor. He has since become dangerous and deadly, a weird strain of Texas mold creeping into the heart of a wary nation.

The devil smells of sulfur and fire. Bush smells of cow pies and stale beer. The devil is wickedly, tremendously deceptive, bending entire armies of lowly demons to his will. Bush cleverly inflamed armies of lemming-like evangelical Christians to vote for him by way of gay bashing and woman bashing and fear, through the snarling machinations of his very own shiny Moloch, Karl Rove. It’s a worthy comparison.

I continue to be amazed by those who view Bush as the most effectively evil leader in this history of mankind (Mao, Hitler, Ghengis Khan? Just pikers), while simultaneously believing him to be moronically stupid. There’s a logical disconnect there that seems to elude those must severely affected with BDS.

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

  1. jg says

    The truth, I always felt, is that those who demonize Bush are actually demonizing America, more especially the average American.
    The President does not go out of his way to disguise his persona. Many people hate who Americans are (including the American Left).There is a vast hatred out there to be harvested by the hate merchants.

    Those who hate him, and us, need to be numbered and counted.
    What benefit does HATE bring them? What or who does America obstruct? Who are they? WHAT do these hate peddlers desire (to do to the rest of us)?

    That’s the real question. I think you will find some real devils present (two of which appeared at the UN last week.)

  2. says

    But before you think there’s some sanity there, the same article went on to explain that Bush is nevertheless just like the Devil, only he’s the low-rent version.

    you mean instead of cutting you off at the knees with a buzzsaw, he’ll just strongly admonish you?

    That kind of low-rent?

    Here is Lucifer, a massive, thunderous hero, subtle and intelligent and enormously articulate, full of passion and red-hot anarchy, the ultimate rebel.

    Why are they talking about Democrats? I thought this was supposed to be about Bush? Three synapses short of a neuron.

    In Milton, the glorious angel Lucifer’s incredible act of defiance, his stunning rebellion against God, marks him as not merely proud and insolent but powerfully courageous.

    So Bush isn’t the Devil, because Democrats are powerfully courageous? Hrm.

    Like Dubya, the devil desperately wants a grand holy war to settle, once and for all, just who owns the kingdom of heaven.

    It would make more sense for the Democrats to want a grand holy war against conservatives and Christians, than to say that Bush who is totally unlike the devil, wants exactly the same thing as the devil. It is more likely that those who are like the devil, will act like the devil. Unless someone failed psychology or something.

    There’s a logical disconnect there that seems to elude those must severely affected with BDS.

    It is just logic, Bookworm. If they didn’t believe that Bush lacked aptitude in those fields, they would have to call him things like, I don’t know, “powerfully courageous” or “red-hot anarchy”. If they did that, they would have to worship him, they can’t hate something they love, their ultimate rebel idolatry. So obviously Bush has to be bad, because he isn’t the rebel, but acts like a failed rebel. Failed rebels, you can blame and hate. Successful and charismatic rebels, are protected on the Left.

    Therefore to hate Bush, you must, you must I say, believe he is not charismatic, that he is a failure at deception.

    Just as the requirement for hating the West more than hating Islamic Jihads, is that you must lack a fear of the West. If Bush was charismatic, powerfully courageous, and the ultimate rebel, wouldn’t that make him scary? If you crossed him, wouldn’t you burn in hellfire? But if Bush is a failure, expulsed from hell even, then there is no danger. There is no danger to attacking America, so logically people will do. There is danger to attacking Islamic Jihad, so people don’t do it. Logic wins.

Leave a Reply