EPA CHIEF SCOTT PRUITT RESIGNS, AND BTW DID I EVER MENTION WE PUT A SATANIC CURSE ON HIM?
EPA Chief and out-of-context Captain Planet villain Scott Pruitt finally resigned this week, caving to the Satanic curse we placed on him last year.
I’m kidding, of course. Although not about the curse, we totally actually did that. But it’s not the reason he quit. It can’t be, since I don’t even believe in magic. Though I guess if I did I’d be having a really good week.
But Scott Pruitt himself does believe in magic. He’s never said that, but it’s a question of reading between the lines. Something Pruitt only ever does when he’s trying to find a loophole in an audit, for the record.
See, in addition to being a clear analog for Paul Reiser’s Aliens character, Pruitt is a fundie. As his resignation letter made psychotically apparent.
But whereas Satanists keep our paranormal policies crystal clear, Pruitt, true to form, works hard to muddy the waters on his.
To clarify: In April of last year, Satanic San Francisco mailed a “curse” to the offices of Trump’s cabinet picks (Pruitt included) and to most of the Senators who confirmed them.
It contained some “sigil magic,” some colorful verses, and also an illustration of cabinet members as a giant hydra-headed Beast of Revelation. It was a touch on the busy side in design terms, but mostly good work.
We called it a curse, but that was a tongue in cheek term. The letters simply communicated our displeasure with the newly formed government. The “magic” iconography presumably made a bigger impression on staff than just a normal letter, but that’s all.
So our letter to Scott Pruitt admittedly looked a little weird. But it was nothing compared to the letter he just sent to ostensible US President Donald Trump.
Mother Jones called it, “The weirdest thing we’ve ever read.” Business Insider declared it “bizarre.” Washington Post critic Ron Charles says “nothing is creepier than the Messianic language of [t]his resignation.” Presumably up to and including spider clowns, so that’s serious business.
In his 286-word ejaculation (a word I’m using entirely by its proper and original definition, for the record…), Pruitt said of Hair Furor:
“You are serving as President because of god’s providence. I believe that same providence brought me into your service. I pray as I have served you that I have blessed you.”
If your ex talked about you this way, you’d get a court order. If your current partner did it, you might never sleep again.
Critics are making much about this talk of “god’s providence.” And they should, it’s fucking weird. For my money, it’s no different than saying, “You’re president today because magic.”
Of course, this provokes inevitable follow-up questions. Is it also “providence” that Pruitt is now out of a job? That he got pinched on some 114 ongoing scandals? Or that Obama was president first and did it better, etc?
I doubt he’d say so. And yet, what’s the difference? Where does “providence” end, if not just at the Seekonk River?
Mind you, I’m not saying that Scott Pruit’s fundie ideas are stupid or silly. They are, but the Internet is full of acerbic atheists who will already say so. No need for me to man that barricade.
I’m saying that this kind of magical thinking is inconsistent. Opaque. Internally Byzantine. Try as I may, I can’t make sense of it even on its own terms. And yet, a majority of Americans buy into this.
Now us, we’re atheistic Satanists. We adopt the imagery and aesthetics of superstition for artistic and political purposes, but we don’t believe they have supernatural power. This is admittedly unusual, but I maintain that it’s consistent.
But the religious opinions of people like Scott Pruitt seem almost intentionally impervious to analysis. I suppose at the end of the day that’s just how it goes. Arguably, nobody owes me answers about their faith.
But they do owe us all answers about policy. And when the former starts dictating the latter, the murkiness of certain beliefs (and waterways, consequently) becomes a problem. If your beliefs don’t add up, then how can your decisions? And how can your politics?
In the case of Scott Pruitt, it’s now less important. But there’s plenty more where he came from.
Originally published 7.9.18