Are you a leftist who opposed US invasion of Iraq? Then, explain your defense of the 'right of Israel to exist'?

Though Hussein was a scumbag, a good argument could be made against the invasion. One could argue that Iraq didn't attack the US, was no threat to the US, and was not involved in 9/11. (By the way, moveon.org went one better and even opposed the invasion of afghanistan because, in its warped anti-neo-imperialst worldview--typically chomskyite--, any group that hates or attacks the US is motivated by American domination of the world through global capitalism. This argument is funny since it really amounts to a new form of anti-semitsm. The most important agents and champions of globalism are American Jews, most of them liberals. Of course, neocons are also for globalism, but they've been much at odd with Paleocons who tend not to be Jewish and prefer national capitalism over globalist capitalism. Anyway, if US economic 'domination' is imperialist, the villains are mostly American Jews. It's not the dimwit Southern white baptists, negroes, Hispanic lettuce pickers, or South Dakotans who manage and reap huge rewards from the global economy. Sure, there is Walmart but much of its business operations are run and managed by liberal Jews. And, look at Hollywood and US media with worldwide influence and control. They are mostly Jewish-owned. Even Fox is an hononary Jewish company because Murdoch is a neocon pro-Zionist and has hired mostly super liberal Jews to run the entertainment departments. It's not Mormons, hicks, or Midwestern Swedes who own and run Hollywood. So, if globalism dominated by the US is indeed imperialist, neo-imperialism is controlled by Jews since Jews control the US. So, anti-Americanism has become the new anti-semitism, which explains why Godard's anti-American sentiments cannot be disassociated with his anti-Jewish sentiments. Many leftists feel betrayed because the holocaust was supposed to have taught the Jews a lesson once and for all; Jews were supposed to be noble saints and lovable victims for all time, but most Jews turned out to be 'greedy' capitalists or imperialists--over the Palestinians. So, it's awful frustrating to people like Godard. He's sorry that cinema didn't stop the Holocaust--come to think of it, it didn't stop the Great Famine in Ukraine, the Great Leap Forward in China, and the Killing Fields in Cambodia either, but I guess they matter less. He dutifully obsesses over the horror of the Holocaust. But, the very people he wants to embrace and sympathize with are now the richest and the most powerful people on Earth. Jews run Hollywood and have commited 'cultural genocide' the world over. Jews have manipulated US political and military power to make trouble in the middle east. Jews, with the help of the US, has crushed Palestinians and gotten away with murder.)


Since Iraq didn't attack the US, what right did the US to invade Iraq? Every one of the pro-war arguments could be dismissed as bogus. One was that Iraq had WMD. It turned out that Iraq didn't, but even if it did, was the invasion justified? After all, China is a non-democratic nation with WMD. Russia too. And, whole bunch of other nations. So, why pick on Iraq? There was the argument that the middle east was important because of oil, and a man like hussein shouldn't control all that wealth--which he may use to cause trouble, as when he invaded Kuwait. Okay, but US pushed Iraq out of Kuwait. Weren't there ways to check Hussein's power without actually invading the country? And, a whole host of other arguments could be made against the invasion, all legitimate--though legitimate reasons could be made for the war too.

But, let's suppose the invasion of Iraq was wrong, violated international laws, was unprecedented(for the US in relatively recent times anyway), and didn't serve the interests of the US. And, it must be said that opposition to the war came from the right as well from the left. Paleocons and libertarians generally denounced the war as the doing of ex-trotskyite neocon jews. Many on the right denounced the invasion as radical democratic fundamentalism and/or zionism controlling US foreign policy. The left has denounced the war as neo-imperialism. (I must say I'm a bit confused by this. Again, the world economy is pretty much run by Jews, most of whom are liberal. The most powerful leftists are also Jews. So, are Leftist Jews attacking Liberal Jews for global neo-imperialism? Perhaps, but it's never stated this way. Leftist Jews blame ALL of America for global capitalism when most ethnic groups in the US are not the masters of the world economy. Take Alaskans like the Palins. They are national capitalists who fish and drill for oil for fellow Americans. Or, take them bible thumping hick farmers down sooooouth. They never been travelin' around the world and makin' deals. Their entire world is their smalltown community. The masters of the global economy are mostly the Jews in the US. So, you'd think leftist Jews would attack liberal capitalist Jews by name--like the Wall Street Jews who took bad loans and sold them all over the world and has sunk the economy of places like Iceland. But no, leftist Jews blame ALL of AMERICA as though all Americans are equally to blame. The fact is that though Jews make up only 2% of US population, they own more than 40% of the wealth. 35% of donations to the Republican campaign came from Jews. 70% of donations to the Democrats came from Jews. This is JewSa. So, why do leftist Jews blame ALL of America for neo-imperialism when the masters of this world order are the liberal and neocon Jews? Also, even your average Marxist-leaning Leftist Jew is significantly richer than your average conservative 'greedy' goy. Lawyers, professors, academics, and even rich businessmen are leftwing Jews. Just look at Hollywood with its many billionaire left-leaning Jews. They sell cultural sewage all over the world, buy huge mansions, bang shikse bimbos left and right, and then put on airs as progressive saints who care about humanity. Is it any wonder why anti-semitism has been a worldwide phenomenon? Not only are Jews pretty gross, they are awful hypocritical.)


Anyway, to get back to the original point. why so many liberal and leftist goyim--who got their worldview from reading the books of more intelligent leftwing Jews--support Israel while attacking the invasion of Iraq? Wasn't the creation of Israel worse than the invasion of Iraq? Iraq wasn't invaded for keeps. US sought only to remove Hussein, put in a better regime, and then pull out. But, when Western imperialists allowed Jews to settle in Israel, it was for keeps. The people who'd lived on that land--the Pallies--would be dispossessed forever. Suppose US had invaded Iraq with the intention of dispossessing Iraqis, pushing most of them out of the territory and then settling non-Arabs to create a new nation. Wouldn't that have been far worse than merely invading a nation to bring about regime change? That is what happened in Palestine which was turned into Israel. Western imperialists allowed European Jews to arrive in ever larger numbers, push out the original inhabitants, and set up a new nation. Today, Palestinians are living in utter squalor. They are hungry, diseased, poor, and dehumanized by the Jewish controlled media in the US--worse than how Jews were dehumanized by Nazi propaganda. Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not romantic about the Pallies. They are a bunch of sand negroes as far as I'm concerned. But, they are people too(and still better than actual negroes, not to mention them rascally Jews.)


What I wanna know is why American progressives who bitch and whine about the American invasion of Iraq are okay with the fact that Israel was created and continues to crush the Pallies? Why are they far more offended by the Iraq invasion than the Jewish invasion of Palestine under the cover of Western Imperialism? I've heard the arguments before. Jews got burned in the holocaust and so deserved a land of their own. Then, why not give Jews a piece of land in Europe since Europeans killed the Jews? Some argue Palestinians had colluded with the Nazis and therefore deserved to be punished. But, Italy and Japan were closer to Nazi Germany. So, why not give a chunk of Japan or Italy to the Jews instead? Besides, so what if some Palestinians had been chummy with Nazi Germany. They were merely playing power politics since the Middle East was dominated by British and French imperialists. And, didn't US and UK side with mass murderer Stalin? Some have argued that Palestine was the homeland of the ancient Jews, but if we wanna send everyone back to their ancestral homelands going back centuries or millennia ago, expect there to be WWIII, IV, V, etc.


So, I want all your progressive jerkoffs to explain why you oppose the invasion of Iraq but agree that "Israel has the right to exist"? Don't you see that Israel's right to exist negates the right of Palestine to exist? You will say, 'give West Bank and Gaza to the Pallies and call that Palestine'. But, does that make sense? Suppose the chinese invade US, create New China and drive Americans to California and Florida. Suppose the chinese demand the 'right of new china to exist' and are willing to compromise by allowing california and florida to be america. So, does that mean America too can exist alongside New China? What American would swallow his pride and fall for this shit? When a little island was attacked in 1941, US totally bombed Japan and killed millions. Yet, this nation--created by killing and taking land from the red man--is now lecturing, at the behest of Jews, to Palestinians about peace. You'd think Palestinians are the aggressors because they cannot accept the idea of 'right of israel to exist'. But, Palestinians have nothing against the idea of a Jewish homeland. They just don't want it on top of their own homeland. Similarly, Americans have no problems with chinese having their China. Americans just don't want New China on American Soil. It's bad enough that US is turning into JewSA at the top and negroland on the bottom and spreading wider and wider.


So, why are progressives okay with Israel? Allow me to venture to guess. It's because Jews taught us history where they've always been saintly victims and noble folks all throughout history. And, we've been taught that ONLY Jews--and negroes--suffered and know pain. We've all been drummed day in and day out in schools, tv, hollywood, etc, etc about the holocaust--though we know next to nothing about 100 million killed by communism(much of it dominated by Jews. Chomsky and other leftist intellectuals in the US did everything to help khmer rouge come to power in cambodia, but he hasn't been hounded out of the academia like James Watts who only spoke the truth about race.)


Also, I believe there is a natural worship or admiration of all things Jewish since so many of our intellectuals, artists, writers, etc, are Jewish. I think it happens like this. Suppose you dig Dylan or Norman Mailer. You look up to them, admire them, and wanna be liked by them. Even though they don' t now you and you don't know them personally, a part of you is like Rupert Pupkin in "King of Comedy". You want to win the approval of those Great Guys--if only in fantasy. I think the rise of acceptance of gayness also has to do with the fact that so many gays are in culture, arts, and entertainment. Why, it's so unhip, uncool, and un-smart not to bend over for the gay agenda(Clay Aikin and Ellen Degenerate)!

Suppose Arab-Americans were a lot smarter than Jews. Suppose most of our intellectuals, artists, writers, and movie makers were Arabs for a free Palestine and opposed to Zionism. I'll bet most of the progressives in this country would be anti-Zionist. So, a kind of cult-of-personality operates here. Perhaps, one could call it a cult-of-nationality. Jews are not only seen as the saint victims of history but as the ultimate cool, intellectual, smart, talented, creative, and brilliant people. So, sucking up to Jews is prerequisite for being cool, progressive, and etc since Jewish artists and intellectual determine and define what is 'intelligent', 'cutting edge', 'brilliant', and 'genius'.

This may also be true with blacks as well. If blacks weren't so good at pop music, dance, and sports, there may be less sympathy for them. But, because of the power of cult-of-nationality, even when blacks riot and go crazy, progressives go out of their way to make excuses for the 'cool' negroes.

This must be true. We need only consider the case of Edward Said. Recall that prior to Said, most of the compassion and sympathy were with the brilliant, smart, and original Jews. But, Said in the 1970s wrote a book called "Orientalism" which has come to be considered one of the most brilliant books ever written. Said became admired, revered, worshipped, and dick-sucked by many. He was said to be the most insightful, radical, daring, and blah blah thinker ever. (I read the book. It sucks.) Said's celebrity had a huge impact on the Israeli-Palestinian equation, at least in the academic setting(which is signficant because academic trends eventually ripple outwards.) Those who came to admire Said's brilliance also came to agree with his positions. So, admiration of brilliance leads to adherence to commitment(of the brilliant personage). There is a conceit in the intellectual community that something brilliantly argued must be truer than something dumbly argued--even if the dumbly argued position is true or true. This is the conceit of brilliantism and accounts for the appeal of Marxism. Had Marx not been so brilliant, his positions wouldn't have amounted to much. But, people who came to admire his Moses-like aura and intelligence couldn't help but think that a man so intelligent must be true. Same goes for the sheep of Ayn Rand. Rand, though a nut, brilliantly argued her case and suckers fell for it. Jews, because of their high intelligence, have a way of making even falsehoods sound true. Take a show like Seinfeld or Curb Your Enthusiasm. It's about nothing and annoying as hell; but they are addictive to many people because they are brilliant. Jews can even make nothing look valuable. If women(and men) have fallen for Woody Allen for his wit, this is all very understandable!
Anyway, my point is Jews will control much of our intellectual culture because many people look upon them as the smartest, most talented, most creative, and most original. So, we feel this emotional need to be in good graces with such Great People; so, our admiration of their artistic and intellectual talent leads us to sympathy with their political and social positions as well. But, notice how a single brilliant Palestinian challenged the equation significantly. Said wrote one brilliant book, influenced a whole generation of academics, and there is now a good amount of anti-zionism on campuses. There had long been anti-zionism among Pallies before, but it was Said who made it intellectually respectable. The most powerful weapon is the pen, not the sword. If Pallies produce more Saids, Jews will really be in trouble.


In a way, Jews too had been blinded by brilliantism in the 19th and 20th centuries. Many Jews loved and even worshipped French and German culture. Though many of the great artists were anti-semitic, Jews were blinded by brilliantism. Consider the fact that the Jew Mahler wept and wailed out in the streets when Wagner died. He screamed, 'the master is dead, the master is dead'. And, this is why so many Jews never woke up from their doldrums when the political landscape was changing fast in the 20th century. Many French Jews, so deeply in love with French culture, shared the French prejudice against Eastern European Jews. And, many German Jews refused to believe that something terrible would happen in a land that had created Bach, Beethoven, Goethe, and Rilke. Today, many honkeys refuse to believe in the dangers of negroes because they are so enamoured of jazz and blues and etc. And, consider the film "Last Samurai". It's so fascinated and amazed by Japanese aesthetic and culture that it fails to see the dark side of the samurai order.

This applies to our sympathy for victims too. For all their professed egalitarianism and brotherhood-of-man-ism, even leftists have their favorite victims. Jews are favored because we feel that a Jew is more capable of greatness than a goy. When we hear of 10 million Ukraianians killed by Stalin( and his Jewish henchmen), we have this picture of a whole bunch of dirty, illiterate, dimwitted peasants dying. But, when we hear of a single murdered Jew, we wonder, 'could it have been another Einstein, another Dylan, another Mailer, another Don Rickles'?
In our imagination, some nationalities have a face, a voice, a mind--a personality. Even if we don't actually know them intimately or directly, we feel a certain kinship or admiration or reverence through the personality of the nationality. Perception-through-personality shapes nationality. Consider the effectiveness of Aung Sung Suchi and Dalai Lama. Without them, stories of Tibetans and Burmese would merely be faceless sad stories--dime-a-dozen on BBC. But, because we know their faces and heard their voices, we feel greater sadness when we hear of oppression in Tibet or Burma; we visualize the saddened or anguished faces of Dalai Lama or Aung Sung Suchi, individual personalities we've come to regard as 'friends' or 'teachers' or 'gurus' or 'heroes'. Anne Frank did much the same for the Jews. She added a face to the 6 million dead.
In today's public perception, Jews have a lot more faces and personalities than Palestinians. This may be why Hollywood is eager to suppress the rise of Arab or Muslim actors or film folks. When an Arab or Muslim American seeks a role in Hollywood, the Jews only offer roles of evil terrorists. Jews in Hollywood know that if Arab and Muslim Americans become more famous and liked, their possibly anti-Zionist causes too will be more popular and acceptable. Of course, none of this is rational, but humans are like this. Ever since we've had more gay celebs, more and more Americans are for 'gay marriage'. Ingmar Bergman was right. The Face is the key.

No Enemy to the Right? We must think again.

With the election of Obama, it’s clear that the liberals have fully revived the strategy of ‘no enemies to the left’. Is it time–with counter-moral justification–for conservatives to embrace ‘no enemy to the right’? To be sure, this is much tougher for conservatives to pull off since the extreme right is generally perceived as more odious than the extreme left, not least because the academia and media have long been in control by leftists who’ve persuaded generations of Americans that anti-communism was worse than communism. Still, we are at a new juncture in American politics. Liberals betrayed the unwritten rule that neither side should reach out to extremes, at least in national politics. (Besides, national candidates perceived as 'extreme' by the populace had been rejected—Goldwater in 64 and McGovern in 72—and national politics remained in somewhere in the center). In regional politics and lower offices, there have been extremists among both Democrats and Republicans; this is only natural in a two-party winner-takes-all system like ours. But, in national elections, both sides understood that the candidates must be center-left or center-right. When hard right or hard left candidates ran for office(as when Pat Buchanan ran in 1992, 1996, and 2000), the media tore them down or the people rejected them. This tradition has been violated in 2008 because the media decided to portray the radical Obama as a centrist and uniter and the people swallowed this lie. The liberal media joined forces with the left–and even the far left–and overlooked and covered up the true essence of Obama. This is unacceptable. There is no longer any reason for conservatives to play by the rules–even if unwritten–after liberals have completely violated it. It’s intolerable that a man like Trent Lott must be destroyed for a speech at a man’s birthday while Obama not only got off scot-free but was elevated as the messiah by our liberal(Jewish)dominated media. Many conservatives simply don’t want to deal with this because they are afraid of Jewish power, but a new chapter in American politics is opening up, and we cannot allow the liberals and leftists to write the entire history. The biggest news of 2008 is the liberal betrayal of the golden rule of American national politics. Liberals practiced ‘no enemy to the left’ in national politics. And, through their dominance in the media and academia they brainwashed the American people that Obama is the second coming of Jesus. That the liberal media, which takes great pride in speaking-to-power and in the role of serving as the bastion of skepticism and scrutiny, did this to this country is unforgivable. Of course, the media also see itself as idealistic and activist, but if their idealism is based on alliances with or apologies for the likes of Jeremiah Wright and William Ayers and on telling lies and covering up the truth, it has no more value than the promises of Bolsheviks or snake oil salesmen.
Though many people are angry with Obama, he didn’t do anything wrong as a candidate. He’s scum, but his goal was to win. He played down and dirty, but that’s politics. But, the role of the mainstream media is supposed to be quite different. Mainstream media, unlike the partisan media(talk radio, Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, The View, Oprah, etc), were supposed to cover both candidates with a degree of fairness, equal scrutiny and skepticism. Mainstream media have the greatest control over the wide middle–the center-left, independents, and center-right–, yet the media violated every journalistic ethics to push Obama to victory for personal, emotional, irrational, and quasi-religious reasons. If Obama were a center-left candidate it might have been forgivable, but he’s clearly a man of the far-left. Some people ask, what does it matter if he’s ideologically far-left as long as he’s pragmatic in office? Following this logic, it should be okay to have David Duke as president too as long as he
pragmatically sticks to the center. A president is more than an executive. He’s supposed to embody mainstream America, whether it be center-left, centrist, or center-right. Obama is ideologically a far-leftist who has mastered the art of sounding like a middle-of-the-road uniter. Duke tried to pull the same stunt when he ran for governor of Lousiana as a reformed Christian candidate, but the media relentlessly went after him and challenged his sincerity. And, even if the media had concluded that Duke was sincere, they still would have objected to his ascendancy because of his background. But, none of this mattered with Obama, the compulsive liar, sleazy opportunist, and far left radical.
Obama did what he had to do in order to win. The media didn’t have to do what they did. They betrayed their most fundamental principles. In their anti-Bush and anti-GOP zeal(and pro-Obama ecstasy), the media espoused ‘no enemy to the left’. According to the media, William Ayers was merely an inconvenient friend, not one of the vilest scumbags that ever lived. The people in the media most responsible for this are the liberal and leftist Jews. They own much of our media and serve as the brain-centers and eyes/ears of America. Liberal and leftist Jews make up 2% of America but control just about all of the media. Even conservatives are afraid of criticizing Jewish power lest it offend or alienate a handful of powerful conservative Jews. If conservative Jews really mean business, they must attack liberal and leftist Jews as enemy vile Jews. It’s becoming more difficult for conservatives to support Israel when 80% of Jews supported and voted for Obama. Without Jewish support and without Jews giving him cover, Obama could not have won. Without the Jewish control of the media, the vast goy middle would not have fallen for Obama’s BS. We must never forget the Liberal and Leftist Jews did this. They did it to America, a country that has been so good to them. They put a stealth Marxist in the White House through their control of the media and academia. Our main enemy is not Obama who did what he had to do to win. Our main enemy is the liberal and leftist Jews who used their near-monopoly of the media and academia to hoodwink us. We must not let them get away. We must reminds ourselves every single day, “Liberal and leftist Jews gave us a lying, corrupt, opportunistic Afrocentric and stealth Marxist president. This is how they pay us back for saving them from the Nazis, taking Jewish refugees from the Soviet Union, and supporting Israel with all our hearts.” We must not attack Jews per se, as many are good people. But, the left-wing and liberal Jews who did this to us are unforgivable. They are rubbing their hands in glee; they are feeling the power. In liberal Jewish mags, we can sense their arrogance, confidence, and contempt for us. They feel the POWER to ram their ideological programs down our throats and up our arses. They want to exploit the current economic crisis to implement their shock doctrine policy of 'socialism for the 21st century'. To the liberal and leftist Jews, we are a bunch of dupes and saps who must beg for mercy from the Obama administration. (This is all very ironic since if any two groups caused the current crisis, it's the liberal finance Jews and countless blacks who got easy loans for homes, cars, etc. The clever liberal Jews on Wall Street and in Washington cooked up clever and sophisticated financial schemes and government programs to give easy loans to credit risky borrowers—many of them blacks--, and then packaged these loans into financial kosher sausages—which were not financially kosher by the way—and sold them to goy peoples all around the world. Since the economic meltdown, the liberal Jewish Wall Street crooks, along with liberal crooks in Washington and their allies in the media, have blamed it on all the Wasps and pushed for bail out of rich Wall Street Jews and lousy blacks facing foreclosure on their homes. It's the great white middle that must bail out both the clever liberal Wall Street Jews and the lousy black underclass. The great white middle is being sandwiched and squeezed between the liberal Jews at the top and the black mob on the bottom. Yet, the liberal Jewish blamed it all on Bush and McCain. This is how liberal Jews play the game, and it explains why anti-Jewish feelings were so rife all throughout history. It's not the first time they pulled this kind of shit.) With every new day, we realize what it is like to be a Palestinian living in the West Bank. To be dispossessed, humiliated, and dehumanized.
In the 30s and 40s, and even well into the 50s and 60s, there was a policy among many liberals which called for ‘No Enemies to the Left’. It argued that the Right was so evil or that the progressive agenda was so important that there had to be a united front among all ‘progressive minded’ people. So, even center-liberals were expected to side with the extreme left.
There used to be some of this on the right as well, and it had been acceptable in many circles until World War II happened. Suddenly, the free West was pitted against the radical right fascist regimes as the primary enemy. Prior to Hitler’s war, many people in the free West had seen communists as the main enemy. People like Churchill at one time even considered leaders like Mussolini and Franco to be useful allies against the communist threat. But, Hitler changed all that. Democratic nations felt compelled to side with the communists against the fascists.
A more long-term blow to the ‘no enemies to the right’ policy was the revelation about the Nazi genocide of the Jews. The film footage, the Nuremberg trial, books, tv documentaries, and other material seared into our collective psyche as to the nature of radical right evil. Also, the victims happened to be Jews who would gain tremendous influence over our academia and media. Also, the problems of Western imperialism and racial discrimination became associated with the crimes of the Nazis, and so, conservatives in the post-war era scrambled to disassociate with elements of the radical or hard right.
William F. Buckley played a key role is disassociating himself with the hard right. He purged the movements of ‘anti-semites’. I use quotes because while some hardline conservatives were indeed anti-semitic, many were merely counter-Jewish critics who had the courage to speak truth to Jewish power. At any rate, in the shadow of World War II and the gravity of Nazi crimes, Buckley felt a moral duty to purge the New Right of any anti-Jewish elements. Buckley also sensed the rise of Jewish power, and he wanted to win more Jews over to his side.
But, this was still not easy. Too often, it was hard to separate Jewish power from liberal/leftist power. Buckley didn’t support McCarthy to ‘get the Jews’, but it may have seemed that way to many people because so many leftists were Jews. At any rate, McCarthy had a rather bullying and unpleasant personality, and his opportunism and boorishness did great damage to the movement of anti-communism. The liberal media took full advantage of this, and generations of Americans have been taught that anti-communism was a greater evil than communism.
Because of the bad rap McCarthyism got, American conservatives felt even greater compunction to reject ‘no enemies to the right’ line. Also, there was the rising Civil Rights Movement. It became crucial for conservatives not to be associated with Southern segregationists, the KKK, and the like.
The new dominant political narrative took hold arguing that Rightism is tolerable only if moderate. In other words, conservatism is acceptable only if it seeks to slow the pace of change initiated by the left than espouse its own hard values. Supposedly, the moral premise of rightism is evil whereas the moral premise of leftism m is noble. Liberals and leftists may commit acts of evil, but they are supposedly always working and fighting for the good of humanity. Conservatives, on the other hand, may sometimes act noble and good but their main goal is to preserve or return to the bad old ways. This whole dichotomy was dramatized on a grand scale in the film “Spartacus”. So, the KKK is just plain evil whereas Bill Ayers committed acts of evil for 'social justice'.
One wonders why didn’t the Right effectively fight back? After all, anyone with sense knows that the moral premise of leftism is neither noble nor good. Its concept of equality violates freedom and liberty; it destroys culture and heritage. American concept of equality always meant equal freedom. It didn’t mean being forced to give up freedom to be equal prisoners of the state. Though liberalism isn’t communism nor even necessarily socialism, good liberals should not have employed the policy of ‘no enemies to the left’. Because liberals embarked on such policy, widespread Soviet espionage in the US took place during the 30s and 40s. That story has still not been told in our schools nor to the public at large. Most people still think FDR was just swell, and that those who raised alarms about espionage and treachery were simply deluded or paranoid.
Anyway, the nature of World War II, the rise of Jewish power in the US, the leftist drift of most intellectuals and teachers, the lack of cultural and intellectual talent on the right, and the moral disadvantage of the right in relation to the Civil Rights movement all conspired to favor the left in the postwar era. Even when conservatives won at the ballot, they failed to win the deeper moral argument. For instance, we now know that Great Society and liberal crime policy were failures. We also know that radical feminism is an evil of sorts. More recently, we know that the liberal scheme of giving out easy loans to poor people with bad credit was disastrous. So, how do liberals and leftists get away with all the mess they’ve created. By persuading that even though the measures and policies were stupid or misguided, the basic goals were ‘noble’. The left and the liberals have hooked everyone to the notion of ‘social justice’. So, never mind that subprime loans played a major role in the fall of the housing market and our current economic woes. We are still supposed to believe it had all been for a good cause to help poor people and minorities. This is why black leaders and politicians can get away with so much bad stuff. They simply need to fall back on the macro-narrative that’s been fed to all of us. Most people don’t think. They simply wish to conform to the general social or political trend controlled by the elite, which today happens to be liberal.
Anyway, the no-enemies-to-the-left policy has been far more acceptable than no-enemies-to-the-right policy. One reason is even people on the far left tend to be well-read, intellectual, intelligent, and talented whereas many on the far-right are intellectually shabby, of low IQ and zero imagination, and so on. The left has one major advantage in that most Jews, the smartest people in the world, tend to be overwhelmingly liberal-to-leftist. Also, due to the history of Jews and the generally anti-Jewish characteristic of the Western far right, the far right is unlikely to attract Jews who, with their intelligence, might add some intellectual and artistic luster. The fear of blacks is another factor. Blacks often get together, march, howl threats, and shake their fists. Nothing frightens white people more than this. In contrast, white conservatives generally don’t get together and march. So, if an institution offended conservatives, there would be little opposition from the right, vocal or otherwise. But, if an institution offended blacks, blacks would march and go nuts. Generally, the left is pro-black and less likely to come under pressure from black groups. The Right, on the other hand, ranges from being anti-black to being critical of black power, which can anger blacks who will then march and protest and make threats. As a result, newspapers, schools, and other businesses and institutions are far less likely to hire people who go might offend blacks—people who tend to be of the Right. Generally, if a conservative associates with a man like David Duke, his career is finished in respectable community. Even associating with Pat Buchanan has become dangerous for many conservative politicians. And, no one calls this kind of pressure as oppressive or intolerant. But, if a liberal associated with members of the far left, it’s the critics of such associations who are called ‘extreme red-baiting McCarthyites’. So, if a symphony conductor associated with David Duke, he will lose his job. But, if he associated with Noam Chomsky, his critics are the ones who are attacked as ‘paranoid’.
In the 80s, any orchestra that visited South Africa would have been condemned as aiding and abetting evil. But, when Maazel took his NY orchestra to North Korea, a far worse country, there was hardly any criticism.
Though liberals have associated with the far left much more comfortably and without censure than conservatives have associated with the far right, something remarkable has happened in recent years.
And, this is something the Right must not let go, forget, nor fail to exploit. Liberals supported Barack Obama, a far-leftist as a NATIONAL candidate. Obama's close associates are of the far far left. You cannot go any farther left than William Ayers. And, Jeremiah Wright is an hateful nut. Also, Obama’s ideology comes from Saul Alinsky, an anarcho-Marxist. Obama may even be close to Farrakhan who praised Obama as the Messiah. This is a classic case of no-enemies-to-the-left. It didn’t matter that Bill Ayers was a terrorist. Some liberals even apologized for him, saying his terrorist acts weren’t so bad because they were meant to oppose an evil war–Vietnam. (Anyone who knows the history of what happened in SE Asian after US pulled out can’t possibly believe the communists were the good guys!) Some liberals said Ayers had been careful not to kill people when he set off the bombs. Oh, so it’s okay if you set off bombs as long as you warn people in the building. I wonder if liberals would think this way if rightwing terrorists planted bombs in liberal newspaper headquarters and college campuses AS LONG AS they notified the people before the bombs went off.
Jeremiah Wright is a nut who preaches the worst kind of paranoid hatred in his church. He tells his flock that white man is spreading drugs and AIDS in the black community. His paranoid fantasies go far beyond what the far right peddles. Obama called this man the ‘best that the black community has to offer’. Obama freely chose Wright as his mentor and stayed in his church for 20 yrs. Obama repeatedly lied about what he knew about Wright. Obama, as we know, follows the policy of no-enemies-among-blacks. It doesn’t matter if it’s Farrakhan or Wright. Obama believes that blacks should stick with other blacks, no matter how crazy they are. It’s the politics of righteous rage, narcissistic victimhood, and even racial supremacism(as much of black rage at whites is premised on the notion that blacks are/should be the true masters of this planet).
Liberal Jewish Americans, who’d been telling us repeatedly about the dangers of paranoia, social and racial scapegoating, and so forth looked the other way when it came to Obama’s record and associations. The hypocrisy was unmistakable. When the crowd got worked up at McCain rallies, it was said to be ‘hateful’, ‘extreme’, and ‘ugly’. But, liberal media that condemned McCain supporters never denounced Obama supporters who rioted at the Republican convention in Minneapolis or interrupted, over and over, the speeches of Palin and McCain. Leftists and liberals can pull any stunt, hold up any posters or placards, yell any epithet, and make any kind of outrageous accusation, but the liberal Jewish dominated media will tell us that it’s merely Dissent or freedom of speech in action. But, if a crowd at a Republic boos the name of Obama and Ayers, they are ‘hateful’. Liberals are allowed to have friends to the left and even far left. Conservatives are forced to stick only to the middle. Conservatives may be allowed stylistic excess but not the substantive kind. The Limbaughs of the world may express anger and contempt but their message must stay in the mainstream. If Limbaugh cozied up to people like David Duke or Don Black, his career would be finished. But, it's okay if liberals in the media and academia cozy up to and even wholeheartedly agree with the likes of Noam Chomsky or Naomi Klein. Many are holocaust deniers or apologists. By ‘holocaust’, I mean the communist kind. Communists, as we should know, committed massive holocausts everywhere–despite the liberal Jewish attempt to make us believe that only the Jewish tragedy is the only holocaust. (Notice that academic and media Jews often refer to communist mass killings as mere 'tragedies' but refer to the Jewish holocaust as a 'crime'? So, 10 million Ukrainians killed by Stalin and his left-wing Jewish supporters were mere victims of an historical accident—or mistake at best--whereas Jewish victims of the Nazis were victims of evil.)
It is time to consider the concept of no-enemies-to-the-right. It cannot be achieved and practiced overnight, but it’s becoming more necessary everyday. Liberals in 2008 brazenly sided with and supported a man with far left ties. Hollywood, journalism, and academia have fallen into the hands of the far left. Even non-political departments are run by people of the left and far-left. This is why even young people who aren’t particularly political turn into leftists. Even the study of literature, music, movies, or whatnot leads students to the leftist world view. Leftists also believe that everything is political and is a contest of power along racial and class lines. As Harold Bloom has written, the Humanities have become hotbeds of every racial, ethnic, and gender group demanding its own power base. And, liberals have accepted this state of affairs, even when liberals too get burned in the process. Larry Summers, we may recall, got in hot water because he said there’s a possibility that men might be better than women at math and science. The Left attacked him, and the liberals didn’t really stand up for him though Summers was only practicing freedom of thought and open scientific inquiry. Generally speaking, there really is no liberal philosophy anymore, except in economics. Most liberals are actually leftists putting on mainstream ruse for pragmatic reasons—just like Obama. Their ideology is actually premised on leftist notions taught in colleges across America.
In the 60s, the boomer generation of students either demanded either greater freedom or greater correctness in college campuses. Those demanding freedom found the traditional curriculum and faculty stuffy and limited. Those calling for radical correctness found our institutions run by the wrong kind of people and ideology. Though both elements were of the left, the freedom side really wanted more liberty and openness. They were for all sides arguing and contending, not shutting anyone down. It was libertarian. The correctness side didn’t care so much for freedom. They cared about power. Indeed, they were suspicious of the very notion of freedom. ‘Freedom’ was supposedly a bourgeois concept that lulled the exploited masses into thinking they were free when they were cogs and commodities in an exploitative capitalist-imperialist state.
Why did the correctness crowd win over the freedom crowd? It was due to the nature of academic culture. One has to devote long hours over many years to earn a degree and win tenure. Two kinds of people go into academics. Those who really love their discipline and those who seek power. Generally, freedom lovers don’t want to be nailed down to a single area of interest and unfit for the rigors of academic life. Also, when pitted against power fanatics, the freedom lovers tend to be less willing to fight tooth and nail. Oscar Wilde is no match to Lenin when it comes to power. Also, freedom lovers tend to be individualistic and value their autonomy. Power fanatics are collectivist and unite for a common purpose. If a power fanatic’s freedom of speech were threatened, a freedom lover would come to his rescue even if he didn’t agree with the power fanatic’s views. But, if a freedom lover’s freedom of speech were threatened, the power fanatic will not support him if the views happen to be ‘incorrect’. Freedom lover is for allowing freedom to all people, even his enemies. Power fanatic only wants freedom for his side and will unite with others to silence the opposition.
This is why the academia turned more and more left. The Leninists won over the democrats. This is why the main dichotomy on campuses is not right vs left, but liberal vs leftist. In many campuses, there may actually be more liberals than leftists, but the leftists have the advantage because they are united, determined, power-mad, fanatical, and take no prisoners. Also, liberals tend to promote and support people based on genuine merit–and will even support a conservative based on merit–, whereas leftists will support, endorse, and promote only fellow leftists—even if they are without intellectual merit--and oppose conservatives–no matter how distinguished in the field.
Another thing that gives the power-fanatics of the left the advantage is the cult of radical brilliance. Academics isn’t just about preserving old knowledge but coming up with new ones. There is a conceit that radical theories are at the cutting edge, that they advance knowledge and understanding. Of course, it’s true enough that the purpose of progressive ideas is to open up new frontiers, but a distinction needs to be made between genuine liberalism and radical leftism. Genuine liberalism is open-minded and, at the very least, committed to the idea that a free, open, and pluralistic society along ‘bourgeois-democratic’ lines is the best system developed by man for the purpose of free inquiry and liberty for all. Genuine liberals accept the core essence of our society and want to expand around the edges. Leftists call for the fundamental overthrow or dismantling of the core essentials of our society.
Considering that most of our intellectuals come from middle-class or privileged backgrounds, why are so many of them attracted to radicalism? Part of the answer is no different than why middle class kids dig punk rock, heavy metal, goth music, gangster rap, violent movies, and other outrageous expressions. It is the excitement factor. We may not want to get in auto accidents, but we sure like to watch them in movies. We may not want to be robbed, but we love movies like “The Wild Bunch” and “Bonnie and Clyde”. All said and done, intellectuals are no different. They want a sense of excitement, of pushing the envelope. And, radicalism offers such fantasies in spades–certainly more so than liberalism. The image of the liberal professor is that of a fuddy-dud with a bow-tie; he’s usually an amiable fellow, sometimes absent-minded; his main focus of attention is knowledge. There are still many professors of this kind, but it’s too ‘geeky’ for many academics. Since most academics are geeks, they want to convince themselves that they are badass and dangerous; they don’t want to come across as a bunch of Arthur Schlesingers; they want to be come across as bunch of Lenins and Trotskyies. Marx said philosophers of the past had merely tried to understand the world when the real purpose of philosophy is to change it. This is what excites intellectuals on college campuses and foundations. They live in an enclosed world reading books, looking at stats, and writing articles for journals no one reads, BUT they want to believe that they are the great agents of change. And to be sure, the cream of the crop do influence mportant and powerful people, and that does indeed play a role in changing the world. Thugs like Hugo Chavez got their ideas from reading Marx and Chomsky. And, one of the reasons why Bill Gates is a globe-trotting liberal philanthropist is because he read Jared Diamond and Jeffry Sachs. (At any rate, it must be said Marx was wrong about philosophy prior to his arrival. It had always been the purpose of philosophy to change the world. Plato didn’t merely analyze society but offered a blueprint for an ideal society. Confucius didn’t idle his time away in contemplation but sought to change the political order around him and offered his advice and criticism freely. The intellectuals of the French Revolution were men of action. And, men like Jesus and Muhammad were philosophers in their own right and sought to change humanity. Still, it was true enough that most thinkers in Marx’s lifetime sat behind the desk and read and read–rather like Marx himself ironically! Marx offered a vision of the intellectual with pen in one hand and a rifle in the other though he himself only took up the pen. This explains why Che holds such a fascination among radicals. He was supposedly both a man of thought and action. Never mind that his thought was third-rate and his action pitifully inept.)
Excitement is important, but not the only reason for the appeal of leftism. There’s also the safety factor. Few intellectuals come in direct contact with social reality. And, even if they do, they have the option of retreating back to the safety of their academic enclaves and can fall back on the same old(‘new’)intellectual cliches. A poor white person living in an integrated neighborhood is trapped. He sees crime all around and boorish black behavior. A sociologist who ventures into the community may see the same reality, but he’s not stuck there. He can only focus on what he wants to see, go back to his college town, and write up a piece that only confirms the paradigm that’s been fed to him by his mentors. A policeman must deal with urban blight all day and all night. He must do so with guns, often in situations where it’s kill or be kill. An academic only need to do interviews, often in safe surroundings. Cops have to arrest and haul in the killers of the street. Academics need only interview the thugs in the safety of prisons or police stations; as such, they end up with greater sympathy for the criminals since all they have to do is talk and write. The paradox of modern leftism is it’s safely distanced from social reality while putting forth an impassioned answer for our social ills–either in terms of solution or analysis. Marxists may no longer admit that they know HOW to fix the problems, but they still claim to know WHY the problems exist in the first place. (Round up the usual suspects: white ‘racism’, white ‘sexism’, white ‘homophobia’, white ‘xenophobia’, white ‘greed’, etc.)
If intellectuals were forced to live in troubled communities, their minds may change as they would have no safety zone–the ivory tower–to retreat to. But, intellectuals are like modern animal specialists who venture in the wild to take photos of animals and gather data–all the while guarded by men with high power rifles. For them, animals are something to study and admire. For someone who has to permanently live in close proximity to dangerous animals, the outlook is very different. We feel anger with Indian farmers who harass or even kill elephants. We find it cruel that Alaskans kill wolves from helicopters. Our sympathy with animals is understandable since we live in a safe world where we are in control; it’s hard for modern people living in dense population centers with no dangerous animals to appreciate the fact that some people still live in areas where animals pose a threat to human life or economic well-being. And, we ignore the inconvenient fact that when a dangerous animal prowls into our communities and pose a threat to ourselves, our children, or even our pets, we demand that cops and animal control immediately kill it and haul it away. Because of the privileged way of intellectuals living in idyllic college towns or serving in fattened bureaucracies, they can afford to be radical.
Anyway, conservatives must rethink the strategy of opposing ‘no enemy to the right’ at all levels of politics. This doesn’t mean that conservatives should embrace the loony right or endorse its views. It simply means no one should be rejected in a wholesale fashion. Of course, liberals will make a big issue out of the evil of 'no enemy to the right', and it must be admitted that this condemnation will be damaging. We have a situation where the referee waves the penalty flag only when the Right violates the rules. So, when McCain brought up Bill Ayers, the media waved the penalty flag. But, the fact that Obama had been close to Ayers for many years was okay. Also, the media let Obama get away with the fact that an Obama add viciously tied McCain with Limbaugh when the two men haven't seen eye to eye on much of anything. McCain didn't touch the issue of Wright because the media would have skinned him alive as 'race-baiter', but it was okay for Obama to have associated with an hateful demagogue for over 20 yrs.
But, because the liberal media showed their true face so blatantly in 2008, we must never let them forget it nor get away with it. We must make the American people know the true nature of our media and academia—that it's largely owned and run by liberal Jews. Of course, some of these liberal Jews are now trying to cover their tracks by criticizing Obama in a token way AFTER the election. Since they got what they wanted by giving us lopsided media coverage, they are now trying to reclaim some legitimacy as an objective news source by running a few articles that are just barely critical of Obama. Dummies will be fooled by this, but let us not be fooled. We can never forget nor forgive the liberal and leftist Jews for abusing their dominant power to make the disgusting Obama president. Obama makes our skin crawl and should be seen as the skin disease of America. He's Melonobama.
Anyway, it must be said 'No enemy to the Right' is problematic for other reasons too. The right is particularist, and for that reason it's harder to unite the various groups and factions than it is to pull forces of the left together. There is a wide range on the Left too but they are all united by the ideology of universalism and egalitarianism. Rightism divides, leftism unites. China and Russia had been united by leftist ideology up until the early 60s; what drove them apart was the rightist passions of nationalism. Consider the fact that the Nation of Islam is really a far right organization. But, black supremacism cannot co-exist peacefully with white supremacism. Non-white groups are actually rightist in orientation and allied with the left for reasons of tribal power. La Raza is a Mexican nationalist organization. In terms of economic ideology, blacks and many Hispanics may be leftist, but that doesn't in anyway lessen or ease their tribal loyalties. Just because Nazi Germany had universal healthcare and socialistic full employment didn't mean that its citizens were social or cultural leftists. They were nationalist-rightists. In the US, the only true leftists are people of white gentile backgrounds for only they are obligated to put aside or suppress their 'racial pride' and embrace the notion of pure universal man. White gentile folks are pressured to be bland and never talk of white power, German-American power, or Anglo-American power. Jews are the most leftist people in the US, but there is a powerful tribalist component among Jews as well—even among leftist Jews. Even the Jews at “The Nation” believe in Israel despite their harsh criticism of its policies. They may reject the founding myth of Israel, but they still believe that Israel was right to have been founded. When it comes to Jewish power, most Jews all stick together. Though harshly and ruthlessly critical of all nations and all powers around the world, most Jews throw stick together if anyone dares to say anything about Jewish power. So, Jews tell us that Cuban-Americans hold this nation's foreign policy 'hostage'. But, if we say the same of AIPAC and American Jews who are 1000x more powerful than Cuban-Americans, then the Jews all circle the wagon and call us 'anti-semitic' savages who should be shot off our horses and scalped. Even Daniel Lazare of The Nation attacked “The Israel Lobby” by Walt Mearsheimer. When it came to sticking up for Israel, The New Republic and The Nation suddenly became one. Indeed, the only difference on the issue of Israel between the two magazines is The Nation pretends to be critical of Israeli excesses and historiography. When it comes to the 'right of Israel to have been founded and to exist', there is no difference.
Anyway, multiculturalism has been both a boon and curse to the left. It's been a boon in the sense that it harvested the anger, rage, and resentments of the 'people of color' against the white right. (To be sure, much of this hatred was planted in the souls of 'people of color' through the leftist controlled education system. Many non-white immigrants come to US with love, but their kids are taught hatred of white America by leftist white and Jewish teachers.) Commentators see Obama's victory as something akin to Star Wars—diverse peoples uniting to overthrow the power of the all-white GOP party. Leftists have reversed the Reagan's rhetoric about the 'Evil Empire'.
To be sure, some white liberals embrace multiculturalism not really to empower non-whites but to control them. The Democratic Party is still largely run by whites and Jews, and one could cynically say that the formula is essentially that of offering a few special concessions to minority groups to win votes and loyalty. Even with Obama as president, the people who will really run most of our foreign affairs, economy, and other departments are whites and Jews. Similarly, the Soviet system was essentially a way for Russians to maintain power over non-Russians while making every nationality feel that it too had a place at the table. Of course, Republicans haven't so much rejected non-whites as have stood on the principle that there shall be no special privileges, preferences, or rights for non-whites. (The one non-white group—or non-white gentile group--that Republicans shamelessly offer special favors to is the Jews whose Zionism has become the foreign policy of Republican administrations. This is because Jews are rich and powerful and also because GOP hopes to win some moral points by having 'holocaust victims' on their side.) But, this has been a losing strategy compared to the Democratic strategy offering special favors for non-white groups. GOP offers equality to blacks whereas Democrats offer affirmative action. GOP stands for legal immigration whereas the Democrats favor open borders that attract Hispanic and Asian voters. Whites and Jews in the Democratic believe that they can afford to be generous since they are so much richer than non-white groups. But, how will this play out in the long run? Multiculturalism may become a curse for the Democrats because it contains the seeds of discord. Multiculturalism is a deviant and perverse form of universalism that really makes no sense. It's completely reliant on historical context and has no unifying set of rules. The uniting factor is victimhood under white gentile. If we are to include women and homos in the noble victim camp, the unifying factor is the shared hatred of white heterosexual gentile males. But, beyond this common enemy—more imagined than real as white heterosexual gentile males are not Nazis out to rule the world--, what unites all these groups? Muslims, Jews, Mexicans, blacks, Chinese, feminists, gays, and so on don't see eye to eye on much of anything. Economically, socially, ideologically, and historically, these people have little in common and much in contrast and in conflict. Democratic Party has become the Yugoslavia of politics. Obama is the so-called great hope, but good luck with a guy equally admired by Farrakhan, Ed Koch, Khalidi, Wall Street Jews, Muslims, Ayers and his radical cronies, blue collar Democrats opposed to illegal immigration, 'undocumented workers', and so on. Some people may look upon Obama as the Tito of the Democratic Party who can unite all the warring factions, but Tito had iron-fisted control over Yugoslavia. Obama gained power by vaguely pandering to every group. There is no way his promises can gain real substance without alienating many groups and factions within the Democratic Party. This is perhaps why the cult of personality has been crucial to Obama and his supporters. The worship of personality makes the people forget about contradictions and just blindly follow. In Nazi Germany, the worship of Hitler meant that Hitler could attack communism, then make a pact with Stalin, and then attack the Soviet Union. Because many Germans became loyal to the Fuhrer than to any set of ideals, right and wrong or moral logic no longer mattered. The Fuhrer was always right—even when wrong. Even when the Fuhrer reversed himself or appeared contradictory, it was okay because the people had FAITH in the Fuhrer; and, of course, ordinary mortals simply could not grasp the complexity nor the profundity behind his decisions—in the way that we say we can't fathom the workings of God. Same was true of Mao Zedong. In the 50s, Mao said China and USSR would be brothers for a 1000 yrs while USA would be the permanent enemy. But, by the early 60s, USSR was China's worst enemy. By the early 70s, USA was China's new partner. Also, people who had once been hailed as Mao's best comrades were attacked as 'capitalist roaders' and 'foreign spies'. Great many Chinese people ate all this up, but why? Because they were under the spell of the cult of personality. It didn't matter so much WHAT Mao said as the fact that HE said it.
Hooking people to the cult of personality is easiest with young folks, which is why there was the Hitler Youth and the Red Guards. It's no wonder that many liberal and leftist teachers are now trying to hook kids to Obama-ism from the earliest age possible. These activist teachers want kids to pledge their lives and souls to Obama. And, the liberal Jewish dominated Pravda-like media have also joined in the act of
promoting the cult of Obama. Both the media and academia have been taken over by radical activist types or redemptive guilt-ridden types. For either quasi-religious or radical reasons, they want to hook our kids to Obama-ism as early as possible. Kids today are hooked-on-Obamics. Liberals and leftists hope that the cult of Obama will keep the vast and contradictory multicultural coalition together in the future. But, if history teaches us anything, secular gods don't last. Even the obnoxious cult of personality around Martin Luther King—accepted by nearly all Americans—have failed to bring together blacks, whites, Hipanics, and others on key issues.
Pitifully, this mindset seems to have befallen many in the national media. It appears that what they teach in journalism schools these days isn't so much rationalism and skepticism as politically correct idealism and dogmatism. A generation that was weaned on the cult of personality of Martin Luther King and Camelot(and Bobby) hungered for a figure who would unite all the symbolisms. In this sense, Obama didn't so much make himself as was packaged and built up by his handlers and the media—and the dupes desperate for some meaning in their worthless lives. But, like in the story of Pgymalion, the stupid clods seemed to have fallen under the spell of what they've created. To be sure, there are those who know what this is all about as opposed to the suckers who've really fallen for the hype. Similarly, makers of Hollywood movies are cynical individuals who know exactly what emotional buttons they are pushing whereas the idiots who actually pay money to see these films are suckers. 'Shawshank Redemption' is one of the most shamelessly phony, contrived, and manipulative movies ever made, but don't tell that to the suckers who boo hoo hoo cwy and call it the greatest movie—and spiritual experience—they've ever seen.

Obama. What about the Dreams of My Grandparents?

Consider how the media have focused on Obama's family background. There has been great emphasis on his mother and his father, but almost nothing on his grandparents--until when Obama compared his 'typically white' grandmother with the toxic Jeremiah Wright. Obama also made a big thing about his white grandmother in ads run in southern States to convince white voters that he was raised white.
But, on the national scale, the focus has been on Obama's mother and father. Obama wrote a book about his father, and Newsweek ran a photo of Obama's mother holding baby Obama--channeling Madonna and Child image for secularists looking for a new religion.

On closer observation, this is all very strange. If anything, Obama should have written a book called 'The Dreams of My Grandparents'. Without his grandparents--their time, devotion, money, effort, support, etc--, Obama would not be where he is today. His mother was a selfish woman who hooked up with some African lover boy who turned out to have another wife. Both Obama's mother and father were extremely self-centered people.
Like the Charlotte Rampling character in "Georgy Girl", Obama's mother dumped her kid and ran off with another man half way around the world. Obama's father refused to have anything to do with Obama, his own child. This was also true with other kids he had with other woman in Kenya and who knows whereever else. Both father and mother lied to one another, lived for their own pleasure, and abandoned the child they had together. If Obama's white grandparents hadn't stepped in, Obama would mostly likely have ended up as dead, criminal, confused, or at best, a humdrum individual.
Lucky for Obama, an old white couple provided a classic and traditional nuclear home for him. His grandparents were his defacto father and mother. They fed him, clothed him, educated him, took care of him when he was sick, supported and encouraged him.
Yet, Obama has been mostly silent about the very people who did most to help him succeed. Instead, he has shown embarassment about them. Why? Obama's personality is much like his father and mother's. Selfish and self-centered. Ever since he was a young boy, he thought of himself as a cool, badass, and out-of-sight dude. Yet, his defacto parents were lame old folks. Worse, they were lame old WHITE folks. He felt like Siegfried raised by Nibelungen. His grandparents were nice to him alright, but he felt superior to them. Just like Muhammad Ali distanced himself from Jews and whites who built him up and established his blackness and find black spiritual guides, Obama wanted to cast off the soft shackles that chained him to his white grandparents. His grandparents were nice to him, but it was very niceness that most upset him. He felt obligated to be 'white-like' or 'white-friendly' since whites were nice to him, but his real wish was to a great, badass, tough, cool, and hip black dude. Obama's problem was never a sense of black inferiority; rather, he always felt superior to whites. He felt like a swan being raised by ducks. But, unlike the ugly duckling story where the nastiness of ducks gave impetus to the 'ugly duckling' to find his true greatness as a swan, the niceness of the white ducks dragged on Obama who wanted to get away and find his greatness as a black swan.

And, he felt this even more so when he met Franklin Marshall and other leftist and black radicals. At any rate, if his white grandfather knew Marshall, even Obama's radicalism may have partly come from his white grandfather. How many stuffy old middle class white folks have black communist friends?

Anyway, though Obama owed everything to his white grandparents, he wanted to get away from them as far as possible. He sought what he considered to be his TRUE father figures. He went to Africa to meet his real father. Obama wanted a narrative where his black father hadn't abandoned him but had been forced to give him up due to trying circumstances. But, the fact is his communist Kenyan father was just a lowlife rat and skunk. Obama called him a 'goat-herder' but that's like designating Himmler mainly as a chicken farmer. Obama's father was a hateful communist radical, and had his side taken over Kenya, it would have been another Ethiopia-under-Mengistu.

It's not that so much that Obama hated his white grandparents. Rather, he resented their presence in his psycho-biography. He wanted to see himself as a black revolutionary, a radical prince, a badass mofo dude, a great leader much like Che Guevara, and etc. Yet, his biographical resume said, 'raised by two old white folks from Iowa on the beatific island of Hawaii'. It's as if James Brown had to admit that he'd been raised by a white family that sang polka every weekend.
So, Obama sought out Jeremiah Wright. Here was a fire-breathing black preacher. He was angry, he was mean, he was nasty. He sho was black. Wright became his spiritual father. And, Obama mythologized his real loser-father as a tragic figure when he had been just as an alcoholic womanizer and clod. Obama reshaped his narrative so that his real father represented the tragic black hero defeated by the (white ruled)world and his pastor 'father' represented the anger of the black man crying out for vengeance and justice. Had there been absolutely no chance of Obama becoming president, Obama would have edged even closer to black politics. After all, he married a very hateful and resentful bitch and hung around arch radicals like Wright, Ayers, and worse. Obama felt comfortable in that world. But, when the presidency became a possibility, he had to make things look more balanced.

Even so, what most of us know revolves around Obama's feelings and thoughts about his mother and father, both of whom had little to do with his life. His defacto parents were his white grandparents.
Now, why did the media support's Obama's mytho-narrative? It's because the media are mostly liberal to leftist. Their dominant ideology is feminism and anti-family-ism. To say that Obama's success owes to an elderly white couple who provided for him a traditional nuclear family of middle class values undermines the whole conceptual ideology of the Left. The media want us to believe that Obama's success owes to race mixing, single motherhood, African nationalism, spiritual fathers like Alinsky and others. But, take out the role his grandparents played, and Obama wouldn't have been anything. Before one learns about the world, one must be taken care of--fed, clothed, walked to school, read bedtime stories, treated when sick, etc. Who does all this for kids? Parents. So, where were Obama's radical leftist parents during his youth? His mother was in another country with yet another man--whom she divorced eventually as well. His father was in Kenya boozing and banging more chicks and begatting more kids--like the George the hut-dweller. His defacto parents were his grandparents. But, even though Obama's white grandparents and the nuclear family environment did the MOST GOOD for Obama, they've been given the least amount of credit. Indeed, we've heard NOTHING about his white grandfather. Well, I guess he's a white male, and of course, we can't say much good about no white male.