Two Termites: Bergoglio and Biden

I sometimes refer to the current pope as Bergoglio the Termite to underscore the destructive effect he is having on a once-great institution. Early this morning it occurred to me that I might write a post comparing the various termites undermining our institutions. Of course 'President' Joe Biden immediately came to mind. Just now, an e-mail crossed the transom pointing me to an article in which William Kilpatrick, whom I have often approvingly quoted,  does part of the job for me, comparing the termitic attributes of Bergoglio and Biden. I recommend it for your perusal.

Needless to say, when I refer to Bergoglio as a termite, that is a figurative use of language: I am not suggesting that he is literally an insect or ought to be 'rubbed out' by chemical or other means.  People who cannot distinguish between the literal and the figurative show a lack of intelligence. Most recently, Joe Scarborough of MSNBC and others of his scrofulous ilk have shown this lack of intelligence when they failed to grasp  that Donald Trump's recent use of 'bloodbath' was figurative, not literal.* 

Joey B struggles with the distinction as well. Remember his  “The American people literally stood on the brink of a new Depression”?  That was around 2013 if memory serves. 

It is worth noting that not every term of abuse is purely abusive: 'termite' as applied to Jorge and Joseph (both of whose initials are 'J. B.') is not purely abusive in that it contains a factual core: both of these clowns are in fact working to destroy  their respective institutions.  Wittingly or unwittingly? I am inclined to say wittingly in the case of Bergoglio, unwittingly in the case of the demented Biden.  

There is of course a serious moral question connected to the use of abusive language meant to express contempt for fellow human beings.  But in a war against such anti-civilizational forces as we now face, different rules of engagement are permissible. Or so it seems. A hard nut to crack.

___________________

*You could of course respond to me that Scarborough and Co. understand the literal-figurative distinction and also understand that context is crucial in the interpretation of anyone's oral or written remark.  They probably do. But then it is even worse for them: they are trying to bamboozle the American people.  This is a moral defect, which is worse than a failure of understanding. Dripping with intellectual dishonesty and disregard for truth, these people warrant our contempt 

Comments

[Joe Odegaard]

Another termite: Professor Bethany L. Letiecq, and many, many more like him:

Link

https://spectator.org/advocacy-for-marriage-as-the-ideal-is-racist-says-professor/

[Joe Odegaard]

Oops, the professor is a 'she.' I should have known. But her article glazed my eyes, & I missed that.

[Malcolm Pollack]

Bill, I doubt very much that the widespread mischaracterization of Trump's "bloodbath" remark was due to lack of intelligence (which is not to deny that Scarborough et al. lack intelligence). They do this all the time, as with "fine people", etc.

Twisting Trump's words in this way is down to malice, not stupidity: they know that the propaganda will be swallowed whole by many of their poorly informed audience, and will have the intended effect.

[BV]

Malcolm,

You seem to have ignored my footnote signaled by the asterisk.

[Malcolm Pollack]

Oh! Guilty as charged. (Was that always there? Yikes.)