A New Notion, Conceived in Comedy

Masksby John Kirke7/6/15
Friday, June 12th, already seems to be relegated to the distant past, overshadowed in the following fortnight by the mass shooting in Charleston, the unhinged reaction of the popular culture, and a set of Supreme Court rulings that were nothing less than tyrannical.

After years of being told that we must not rush to judgment and indict an entire group for the murderous madness of an individual, “right-wing” white Americans were told to take responsibility for this particular mass murder.  This was despite that fact that the murderer had previously posted a picture of himself torching an American flag, an act that is unthinkable at a Tea Party event but not inappropriate at Occupy protests.  It was an act that was reproduced, ironically enough, at a Charleston protest of the shooting.

When the murderer’s choice of weapons made a push for gun control less feasible, the Two Minutes Hate crowd turned its attention to a barely related flag, just days before another controversial flag became ubiquitous on social media and even government property – a flag that is, at least arguably, less about pride for gays and more about prejudice against Christians and other traditionalists, a flag now being waved in the celebration of increasingly explicit threats to free speech, free assembly, religious freedom, and the right to self-government.

With three separate rulings over a two-day period, the Supreme Court let the mask slip and made it impossible to argue that we’re still a constitutional republic:  they rewrote law from the bench, declared that mere statistical disparity is proof of “unconscious discrimination,” and claimed that a Civil War amendment somehow requires an androgynous definition of marriage at every level of government.

Mark Steyn began the paperback version of After America with a line about how bankruptcy hits:  “Gradually, then suddenly.”

The last few weeks, things have been moving very suddenly indeed, but that Friday in mid-June still stands out for me, for two events that had me nearly delirious from laughter.

First was Mark Steyn’s keynote address at the tenth International Conference on Climate Change.  I saw the live stream and shared the video with my wife, who found it hilarious as well.  For a man facing a ridiculous civil suit for defamation, Steyn was simply ballsy.

He didn’t just make fun of Michael Mann’s lawyer, who tried to sneak into the conference without paying, he also turned his attention to a legal system that evidently never heard that justice delayed is justice denied.

Reading from prepared notes, Steyn turned to his own attorney and confirmed that he was advised to take out his “mocking and sneering at the incompetent DC courts,” so he turned the page without reading it.

Then he turned another page.   And another.  And another.

Like a master comedian at a Friar’s Club roast, he turned five pages without saying a word and communicated exactly how he feels about the judges presiding over his case.

(The contrast between Steyn and his codefendants National Review is striking.  Just a few weeks ago, Mark Steyn highlighted the fact that, in their latest brief, NR claims to be only an “interactive computer service provider” and not Mark Steyn’s publisher.  This might explain why he has been omitted from any brief history lessons in NRO’s fundraising pitches, and why his author page isn’t listed among “All Authors.”  Steyn hasn’t been published there since 2013, but Mark Levin and James Bowman have evidently been absent since 2010, as has Dinesh D’Souza since 2009, and they’re still listed.)

The second laugh riot was the Rachel  Dolezal story:  the news broke the previous night, but the story  broke the Internet that Friday morning, and I don’t think Ben Shapiro was too presumptuous in tweeting that the story is proof of God’s love for us and a literally divine act of trolling the left in light of their embracing Bruce Jenner’s claim to identify as a woman.

Like the end to the 2013 Iron Bowl, the Dolezal story is almost too good to be true.  A lily-white woman transformed herself to pretend to be black, becoming a college teacher in black studies and the president of a local chapter of the NAACP – in an area with very few blacks – and complaining that a white woman benefitted from the black struggle in writing the book on which the movie The Help was based.  She evidently sued Howard University for discriminating against her as a white woman, and it appears she later fabricated evidence of being the victim of racial intimidation through hate mail.

(Apart from postal workers, she was apparently the only person with a key to the mailbox, and the supposed hate mail had no postal marks indicating that it was actually processed and delivered by the USPS.  There’s a fine line between genius and madness, but that doesn’t mean that every loony is especially bright.)

The following week, Dolezal doubled down and identified as black in a live interview on NBC’s Today Show.  Whether she believes it or not, it was the only smart play and the only possible way to save face (if you’ll pardon the expression).  She resigned from the NAACP and is evidently no longer working for Eastern Washington University, but it’s hard to imagine that she’ll never make the news again.

Look behind the hilarity, and you can see the tragedy of a very disturbed woman, alienated from her biological family and marrying someone who more authentically belongs to the group with which she is so eager to identify.  (About the latter, I can’t help but see parallels to Barack Obama and Jeb Bush.)  But the story is still amusing for the pretzel-twisting effects it has had on the leftists who have insisted that being black is never a position of privilege – and who now claim that sex is socially constructed while race is biologically determined.

Mark Steyn commented on the Dolezal affair, first on the Michael Graham radio show out of Atlanta, and then on his own site, noting that no one apparently wants to be a white heterosexual male, but an even more interesting feature of society is how few want to be like Mark Steyn.

That’s the profundity behind the comedy, highlighted by the contrast of the nearly simultaneous speech and viral news story.

On the one hand, a man was being deliberately funny about the very serious subject of political speech, and we conservatives were laughing with him.

On the other hand, a woman was being quite serious about her transparently ridiculous claims; she wasn’t laughing at all, and so we were laughing at her.

Mark Steyn is the satirist standing up for the truth, and Rachel Dolezal is a real-world satire living out a lie.

While few of us are as delusional as Dolezal, far too many indulge and even celebrate the delusions of political correctness.  And while hardly anyone else could credibly rival Mark Steyn’s laser wit, far too few of us emulate his courage in expressing very inconvenient truths.

There’s a line from the title track of David Gray’s first album, A Century Ends.

Be careful what you say
Because reality offends
Just sit back and let your soul decay
As a century ends

Mark Steyn takes the opposite approach, living a public life of almost reckless integrity.

His example is literally inspiring.

I’ve recently clarified my beliefs about God’s particular purpose for me, that I find fulfillment most when I’m meeting needs in truth, and I’ve also realized that I’ve been skittish about writing online under my real name.

Working in IT, I was struck by how Brendan Eich was driven out of Mozilla for contributing a tiny amount to California’s Prop 8 campaign to affirm marriage as the union of man and woman.  He was attacked despite his inventing JavaScript – the ubiquitous client-side scripting language for web browsers – and a reputation for courtesy toward everyone.  I know that crazy people on the Internet aren’t limited to leadership positions in leftist political organizations, I know that part of the terror of the Two Minutes Hate is its random caprice, and I have a family to support.

And yet, my writing for Stubborn Things seems disconnected from my life because I publish anonymously, and I’m less inclined to share my writing with friends on social media, when I could permanently document my thoughts here and point people to them later.

I understand that there’s safety in numbers, that the PC mobs wouldn’t have power over the culture if more people fought back, but a social movement begins with individual initiative.

But even if I walk alone – or nearly alone, with my supportive wife and the excellent writers here – I can walk with greater integrity.  I can be more bold in my defense of what is true, what is noble, and what is simply sane.

That begins with my putting my own name to this essay, and I hope I follow through with more regular writing here:  an otherwise somber Independence Day weekend can be celebrated with this simple act of defiance.

I like the pseudonym “John Kirke.”  It has a ring to it, and I’ll keep using it when I’m inspired to do so, but I’ll no longer hide behind it.

I’ll stand up for myself, writing as myself – Lawrence Bubba Beasley – and I rededicate myself to this new notion, conceived in comedy, that a risky life defending the truth is the only life worth living and is the only state of being that deserves to be called “alive.”

John R.W. Kirke is a pseudonym of a Christian husband, father, and engineer who has written elsewhere under other names, including “Lawrence” in the comments at National Review Online. He remains deeply moved by the unpublished memoirs of Professor D. Kirke (1888-1949). • (698 views)

John Kirke

About John Kirke

John R.W. Kirke is a pseudonym of a Christian husband, father, and engineer who has written elsewhere under other names, including "Lawrence" in the comments at National Review Online. He remains deeply moved by the unpublished memoirs of Professor D. Kirke (1888-1949).
This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to A New Notion, Conceived in Comedy

  1. Timothy Lane says:

    Safety in numbers isn’t useful only against the liberal thought police. It’s been pointed out that the Muslims who target those who in any way offend them (which is awfully easy to do even unintentionally) would be less of a threat if everyone did it. Every time the synoptic media surrender to them while denying their cowardice (and indeed preening themselves for their courage in attacking harmless Christians), it makes it easier for them to target the small number of exceptions.

  2. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    Thank you for this piece. Good luck.

  3. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    The following week, Dolezal doubled down and identified as black in a live interview on NBC’s Today Show.

    There is a growing awareness that America is reverting to a land that Joseph Goebbel’s might have loved. Instead of being blind to the color of one’s skin, we obsess on it — crediting some for their color, demoting others for theirs (whites, basically).

    This noxious way of thinking (often sanctified under the guise of “diversity” or “multiculturalism”) is such a reality that — well, people being people — many have taken a marketable advantage of this color-conscious Zeitgeist. The only thing Left to parse is whether people who do this are mere liars (that would at least be sane) or actually believe because they have high cheek bones that they therefore are Indian (crazy).

    I also think a big impetus behind white people, in particular, covering their bodies with comic-book-grade cartoons is because they are trying to look more “ethnic.” In essence, they have learned the lesson of “white guilt” well and are trying to escape it by morphing into a new skin color, or at least to give the appearance of a creature who is more “tribal” and who thus is more sympathetic to the plight of, say, blacks who still suffer under the effects of slavery. What else could account for this repression of them whereby they are not allowed to loot at will?

    Is this yet another bubble that will burst? Likely we’re already seeing some things being stretched as black yutes are regularly engaging in mob violence against whites…and just because some people are white. And this makes sense. If blacks are victims, and due “social justice,” and whites are the oppressors who are due nothing but contempt, why not knock around a few white people?

    noting that no one apparently wants to be a white heterosexual male

    Makes sense. All three attributes are regularly demonized. And most people being sheep, they run from their whiteness, or maleness, or heterosexuality. I’d love some scientist (if they still exist) to do a study and find out how many people who practice homosexuality do so in order to escape the “stigma” of being normal.

    I’ve long noted to my brother that the speech patterns (accent, if you will) of males (generally 35 and under) have been clearly feminized. There’s just a lilt of pansieness to the speech patterns, as if they are trying to soften any hint of a more masculine baritone. Again, we’ll just have to wait for a brave and objective scientist to quantify this. But your cultural observer has already made note of this.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *