While some see John’s peak wingnut theory as having been totally discredited by the events of the last few months, I tend to believe that something really has changed in wingnuttia. I’m referring specifically to the fact that I am no longer able to understand many wingnut posts. The one from the law professor at Cornell that John linked to earlier (via Tbogg) is a very good example. The increasingly complicated, incoherent updates are something that seems new to me:
UPDATE No. 3: There may be addictive behavior involved. Here is one of Obama’s favorite lunch recipes:
President Obama’s Tuna Salad
Grey Poupon mustard
And here is the video proof.
There are several embedded videos, in fact, along with some screenshots from a Vanity Fair article. The writer insists that the piece is some kind of a joke, but I’m not sure how exactly. I think it may be mockery of what he feels were conspiracy theories about Bush and the press being put forward by left-wing bloggers, but it could be something far more complicated than that.
Could it be that wingnuttia has blasted past “Bush is a genius” simplicity into some kind of inadvertent right-wing version of “Pale Fire”? This isn’t about the increasing complexity of wingnut mythology; the stuff about bear DNA and field mice makes some kind of logical sense if you look at it from the right perspective. Dijongate — along with a great deal of what happens on Glenn Beck — doesn’t make any sense. It isn’t clear to me that it’s even supposed to make sense.
It’s been said that it’s almost impossible to follow the real plot of a Raymond Chandler novel (famously, Chander himself was unable to account for one of the bodies in the “Big Sleep”), that the books work more on the level of conveying some vague, overriding sense of corruption and decay. Is wingnuttia moving away from simple easy-to-follow diatribes about Islamofascism and soc-ial-ism and towards more vague, inscrutable, doomy stuff? Or am I getting carried away here? I can’t help but feel that the whole texture of wingnuttia is starting to feel different these days. And that more generally, any kind of mythology eventually moves towards forms that cannot be understood on a literal level.
I understand the stuff about Reverend Wright and his grandmother and after I read Weigel’s explanation, I understood the stuff about the guy living in the shack, but around the 2 minute mark, it has him throwing Sean Hannity and a paperback copy of “Atlas Shrugged” under the bus. Isn’t the idea of throwing someone under the bus that you were chummy with them before, that they were “on the bus”? Wouldn’t Sean Hannity and “Atlas Shrugged” already have been under his bus before he threw them there, metaphorically speaking?