|
|
|
Obama-speak “Big Brother” - the king of reality shows - is, they say, coming to the end of the road. But then along comes Obama to prove that our life as passive consumers of shallowness and narcissism is not over yet. The 44th President of the United States, apparently, graced Britain with his presence on Friday - a busy schedule of private meetings and no more engagement with the public than the inevitable sight-seeing photo-calls and a quick appearance outside No.10 (the impudent demand to address both houses of Parliament having been rejected on grounds of protocol). That left little opportunity for we Brits to guage the exact degree of “greatness” Obama is supposed to have about him, falling from his lips and his fingertips like so much fairy gold. Just as well, really. We are in a politically carnivorous mood, and probably not well dispositioned towards snake-oil salesmen. But not so the 200,000 “people of Berlin“ who renounced critical thinking to stand for 45 minutes and listen to what, I suppose, the American media will sell as Obama’s JFK moment. Because every Democrat candidate has to lay claim to something of Kennedy. Jimmy Carter had his hairstyle. Now, everyone should read Obama’s testimony to his own coming greatness and all-round magicality. So I reproduce the speech in its entirety here:-
There. I think I got it all. Well, it flirts with a truckload of vacuity. Can’t deny that. Alright, there was some foreign policy substance: Obama wants to withdraw American forces from Iraq over a sixteen month period, though only to commit them to Afghanistan. Or possibly the Horn of Africa because, you know, what‘s happening down Darfur way shames the world, and America cannot turn inward. Etc. But getting out of Iraq is certainly a positive. And, though it wasn’t part of his speech, so is the left-Dem line on NAFTA that he has taken thusfar. But beyond these and a few other scarcely detailed policy hints, everything but everything is 100-octane aspiration. John Gast should be raised from the dead to paint it. Now, obviously, it’s mighty tempting to swing a wrecking ball at anything that has 200,000 naïve Germans swooning over a junior American politician on a dais in Berlin. But let’s set temptation aside, and also cease accusing this poor man of shallowness, narcissism and having unfortunate ears. Instead, let’s consider what Obama-speak might portend for white America. First, and importantly, it conceivably offers an alternative to hegemonic warfare. The notion that Americans are united by pride in America, that this outweighs racial and class divisions, and further that this unity of positives can be impelled upon a progressive path … this notion is incompatible with the still-dominant mentality that whites have to be dispossessed of cultural power. Self-evidently, a journey “together” to a new house is different to confining the owner of the present house in the basement. I don’t know, of course, whether Obama-speak is capable of translation into a meaningful, progressive programme … whether, indeed, it has any intellectual depth at all. But if a few brains better than Obama’s whirl away and something is put together, and if white America is offered, in effect, a reprieve from the slavery thing, all the college guilt-making and the Jewish culture of critique generally, that would be fairly seismic. At the very least, it couldn’t all be started up again after Obama is an embarrassing electoral memory. If that’s the case, then, it could also prove a challenge to the raising of white racial consciousness. White Nationalism’s apocalyptic vision of racial decline and death is a child of the present white dispensation. WN will have to take account of any meaningful new realities that emerge. But what if, as seems more likely, there is nothing substantive in Obama-speak? It rests, after all, on the pious expectation that human nature - especially black nature - can be carried indefinitely aloft a Kool-Aid scented breeze of thrilling words and promises and will, by definition, get somewhere. It will not betray itself as it always has in the past. It will not piss whites off with its violence and dirt and its welfare habit. Because that’s the price that whites demand of blacks for inclusion in their society. That’s the deal. But we all know that Obama can’t deliver on that ... can’t turn blacks into whites. Teleological games never work out as teleologicians plan them. Actually, they are extremely dangerous, and have a history of killing people by the million. Especially the more socialistic plans like this. Really, I see Obama-speak as the last appeal to America to be, finally, the sum of its parts. It is the last appeal to Americans to profess their identity and their aspiration in the manner that has always been expected of them. The only conceivable lesson to be drawn from its eventual failure will be that America is not, in fact, whole, nor ever will be. One has to look at Obama with hopeful eyes, whether one is a naïve idealist or a hard-bitten white racialist. One or other will come out ahead, and to me it doesn’t look likely to be the idealist. Comments:2
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 28 Jul 2008 08:16 | # You are right, Friedrich. I had noticed the black and Turkish faces, and should have said “100,000 naïve Germans”. Still not very healthy. They were all the “people of Berlin”. 100,000 of them simply weren’t Berliners. 3
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 28 Jul 2008 08:49 | # Stanley, We don’t know what hard politics would flow from the stream of very tiresome platitudes this guy utters. But he is suggesting a progressive journey based on the presumption or insistence of an existing unity. Here’s what he said in Berlin:-
Without any question, he is seeking to get everyone in America, white, black and mysterious, to commit to one another on this wholly American basis. OK, the word “pride” might jar with you. How about “belief” or the word he uses himself, “love”? As real-world politics I think it’s all hopeless. But I am trying to penetrate Obama-speak on the unprejudiced assumption that it isn’t simply the electoral output of a sockpuppet who doesn’t happen to be Hillary. 4
Posted by Stanley on Mon, 28 Jul 2008 19:06 | # Guesedworker, if I understand your comments correctly, it appears that you are suggesting (or hoping?) that Obama’s words have some intrinsic meaning, that he has enough integrity to provide words to match his inner values and beliefs. Let’s take a look at this partial quote from the quote you provided: “What has always united us - what has always driven our people; what drew my father to America’s shores - is a set of ideals that speak to aspirations shared by all people: that we can live free from fear and free from want; that we can speak our minds and assemble with whomever we choose and worship as we please.” First, his claim that a set of ideals drew people to America (sorry Canada, sorry Mexico) is manifestly untrue. Some came, like the Pilgrims on the Mayflower, to seek to establish their own independent church. Some came, like the Spanish with Columbus in search of new territory, new wealth, and missionary opportunities. Some came in chains like the poorer Irish and English judicially banished to lengthy periods of servitude in America, and others came in chains like the unlucky black Africans defeated in tribal wars and enslaved by other black Africans, followed by sale to opportunistic slave traders. Obama’s married father came with a full scholarship to study here and acquire the patina of US-certified-scholar to take back to Kenya and financial/political success. [By the way, Obama’s horny father is being re-defined here as an immigrant, presumably to create symbolic linkage with Latino and Asian illegal and illegal immigrants. Obams’s father was merely an exchange student, a temporary category not close to an immigrant category.] Others came for asylum from treacherous regimes abroad, or as refugees from natural disasters. And always whenever we engage in war, whether we win or lose, we pick up another half-million immigrants as we did from WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq (Gulf War I). So his first words about a set of ideals that drew people to America is the rawest sort of guff. Second, there is no evidence that there is a set of aspirations shared by all people as Obama claims. The Bantus in southern Africa, the Berbers in the Atlas Mountains, the Mongols north of China, and the Eqyptians on the Nile delta do not share a set of aspirations. Their values and goals are as different as the day and the night. Just more guff. Third, Obama’s list of two freedoms (from fear and from want) are by no means present or potentially present throughout the USA. This list has such a paucity of the actual freedoms listed in the US Constitution that it is worrisome. Fourth, Obama’s claim that “we can speak our minds” is manifestly untrue. We can get our point across one way or another, but the truth is that the dominant media culture routinely ignores facts it finds inconvenient, and broadcasts non-facts it finds convenient. I do believe that there are ways of speaking that can get the point across without hitting any tripwires, but the diverse white American peoples seem to have an inability thus far to want to learn and use these ways. Speaking truth to power is possible, but very difficult. Fifth, Obama’s claims that we can assemble with whomever we want and worship as we please are also manifestly false. The experiences of new religions teach us this is a bizarre claim—on every continent. And the fight to grow from cult (new religion) to church (socially-approved religion) is an arduous battle. There is not a bit of factual content in even Obama’s most cheerful remarks as I have demonstrated above. 5
Posted by name on Mon, 28 Jul 2008 19:14 | # 6
Posted by Revolution Harry on Mon, 28 Jul 2008 20:35 | # Obama’s a New World Order stooge. The Government in America never changes, it’s always made up of various members of the Trilateral Commission, Council on Foreign Relations and Bilderburg Group. Obama’s the one they want and McCain is just waiting in the wings in case Barack messes up during the election. His speech was pure ‘one world government’ with it’s ‘tearing down of walls between races and religions’. Those in charge of America have no concept of the ‘white race’, that’s of no interest to them whatsoever. Both candidates are keen to continue with high levels of immigration for the following reasons; weaken the sense of being ‘American’ so as to make the transition into the American version of the EU that much easier; create divisions which, if they develop into social problems will require solutions that can either only be dealt with by pan-national or international ways and thirdly weaken resistance to the New World Order by demoralising the those most likely to resist the most. Obama’s foreign policy advisor is Zbigniew Brzezinski. He co-founded the Trilateral Commission with David Rockefeller and he’s also a member of both the Council on Foreign Relations and Bilderburg Group. Same people in power behind the scenes, pulling the strings but a different front man smiling for the cameras. Every single President of the USA has had blood line links to the British or French Royalty. Presidents are chosen not elected. http://sifupaul.wordpress.com/2008/07/11/royal-bloodlines/ http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/1357 It seems like Obama may be ‘one of the family’. http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?noframes;read=119414 7
Posted by Revolution Harry on Mon, 28 Jul 2008 20:38 | # I should have added to that should increased immigration result in social upheaval that the ‘solutions’ will inevitably be more state power and less personal freedom. 8
Posted by snax on Mon, 28 Jul 2008 21:39 | # The convergence of interest-groups which Rev. Harry’s post points to is very interesting and encouraging. Kevin Macdonald meets Peter Brimelow meets Paul Craig Roberts meets Alex Jones meets Ron Paul meets Pat Buchanan meets Patrick Cockburn meets Israel Shahak meets Wintermute meets GW. I’d be genuinely surprised if more people hadn’t had their pro-diversity prejudices challenged by Rense.com and Infowars.com than by vdare and amren. Fred’s ‘normals’ make up most people… it’s a very small island our controllers occupy, and their position will not easily be defended if their divide and rule tactic should continue to fail them the more everyday. 9
Posted by skeptical on Mon, 28 Jul 2008 22:19 | # Guessedworker,
A very astute remark. My sense is that if America can’t be made whole, in spite of an Obama Presidency, then a serious blow will have been dealt to the egalitarian psyche. They have placed so much of their hopes & dreams in this man that when he inevitably fails to bring about “the change” they so desperately want we might actually witness a real loss of confidence in the grand liberal project. It’s always darkest before the dawn, so to speak. 10
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 29 Jul 2008 03:24 | #
God damn right. And once that’s taken care of, start on the legal ones who are the wrong race and never should have been let in in the first place. UAE folks look like they’ve got their heads screwed on frontwards. It’s doable, folks. Anyone who pretends otherwise is a liar. (I was going to put “a filthy liar” but GW says I’ve got to tone down the emotion around here.) 11
Posted by English Martyr on Tue, 29 Jul 2008 12:18 | # Apologies for being slightly off topic, but i’ve asked this question numerous times and have never received a precise answer - Can non-domiciled, non-Germans join the NPD? I’m white, obviously, with a German grandfather - if that helps. 12
Posted by the Narrator... on Tue, 29 Jul 2008 13:20 | # We often see references in MSM to “cool-aid drinkers” as a way of deriding the oppositions views. The reference is of course to Jonestown, yet most people fail to consider the true implications of ‘THE PEOPLES TEMPLE’ Ideology and what it means to The West today. “Peoples Temple was a cult founded in 1955 by Reverend James Warren Jones (Jim Jones). In 1961, Jones helped to (racially) integrate churches, restaurants, the telephone company, the police department, a theater, an amusement park, and the Methodist Hospital and became the executive director of the Indianapolis Human Rights Commission. Jones received considerable criticism in Indiana for his integrationist views. In 1965, Jones left Indiana, moving the Peoples Temple to California. The Peoples Temple purported to practice what it called “apostolic socialism….Jones often mixed those concepts, such as preaching that “If you’re born in this church, this socialist revolution, you’re not born in sin. If you’re born in capitalist America, racist America, fascist America, then you’re born in sin. The Peoples Temple made strong connections to the California state welfare system. During the 1970s, the Peoples Temple owned and ran at least nine residential care homes for the elderly, six homes for foster children, and a state-licensed 40 acre ranch for developmentally disabled persons. In 1974, the Peoples Temple signed a lease to rent land in Guyana…Former Temple member Tim Carter describes the reason for this move….“the United States is a racist place.”......Carter said the Temple concluded that Guyana was “a place in a black country where our black members could live in peace”. Marceline Jones described Jonestown as “dedicated to live for socialism, total economic and racial and social equality.” -wikipedia Jim Jones and his followers, comprising peoples of various races and backgrounds, gathered together in one integrated community of tolerance and social justice to promote racial harmony and diversity…..then they all drank poisoned cool-aid.
Obama, is the cool-aid… 13
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 29 Jul 2008 13:34 | # If McInsane were smart, that would be his slogan: “Obama’s future for America is Jonestown.” The only problem with that is, so is McInsane’s. 14
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 29 Jul 2008 13:36 | # It would be like Cameron saying “Browns’ future for Britain is Jonestown.” So’s Cameron’s. 15
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 29 Jul 2008 14:54 | # Narrator, You are right about Jonestown. You might be interested to know that it has featured at MR before:- http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/the_most_gruesome_multicult_of_all/ 16
Posted by the Narrator... on Tue, 29 Jul 2008 16:30 | # Thanks Guessedworker. The reality of what Jonestown was ideologically has escaped many people. I think part of the problem with so many Westerners is what they don’t know rather than what they refuse to admit. Whenever a conversation turns to the PC side of life, I usually ask people what percentage of the World they believe is White. Most guesses are between 40% to 80%. Most people simply have no idea. Slogans seem to work for politicians, they should work for us as well. For someone who has the time, ‘Jonestowning The West’ would be a great theme for a series of articles or even a snappy title for a blog. I would encourage everyone to never underestimate the power of planting thoughts and ideas in the course of conversations. Many times, when speaking with someone, I have thought my points went in one ear and out the other (with the person usually gesturing as though my points were incredulous), only to hear that very same person repeat those very points months later to someone else… 17
Posted by Alex on Tue, 29 Jul 2008 19:10 | #
That’s an excellent point Narrator. As it stands, many are being subject to what amounts to a devastating and almost near perpetual surprise attack upon themselves. While a good number might have come to a vague realization that they are in some way being attacked, how can they hope to resist successfully if they don’t know or understand the nature of what is attacking them? Without some solid knowledge of what is taking place and the history of it, their attempts at resistance, and or simply defending themselves, becomes all too often something like boxing at fleeting shadows…tiresome, not particularly productive, as well as no doubt demoralizing. That’s why at some point it would be a great thing were someone to write a brutally honest (letting the chips fall where they may, even when it hurts) and comprehensive separate history of the US and the UK of the past several hundred years (ie back to the year 1500 lets say), and perhaps even better to write one in the same mode that was a history of both the US and UK, being that the history of the two is in so many instances intertwined, particularly prior to the 1776 North American Revolution and after the formation of the ‘special relationship’ in about 1900. Were someone to do that useful thing they’d probably want to seriously consider writing that history anonymously for a variety of reasons…one of those reasons being that it would make it difficult for the writer to be the subject of the conversation rather than what it is they have written. 18
Posted by skeptical on Tue, 29 Jul 2008 20:51 | # Narrator,
My experience has been that whenever I approach my interlocutor, or audience, with what we might consider to be an important [ethnic] truth, I am invariably met with some form of cowardice or feigned incredulity as in the following: “Even if such were true it is not good to think about it.” “I don’t believe it.” “You may have a point but I am not prepared to discuss the issue further.” “But if what you’re saying is true then the racists are right and we just can’t have that.” It is almost as if people are instinctually responding to the fact that what we have to say is dangerously unorthodox and are loathe to keep an open mind about such things. I’ll never forget a conversation I had with a woman who has very proud of her British Isles ancestry but if she was unable to have a child with her white American husband then she wanted to adopt an Asian baby because, “They [Asian] are the cutest babies.” Luckily, I know for a fact that her husband would never permit such a decision; however, it just boggles the mind to witness whites who are even consciously proud of their ethnic heritage to fall for such media-induced brainwashing. Conversing with the unawakened can be very disheartening. 19
Posted by Alex on Tue, 29 Jul 2008 21:12 | # While like probably many here I would not agree with a good deal of his politics, it has to be said that Aldous Huxley (1894-1963) made some excellent observations regarding modern media. And as the convergance of a senior Capitalism with a junior Marxism/Socialism to form the modern ideology of Multi-Culturalism becomes more and more readily apparent, I have a certain doubt as to whether Huxley would have retained his socialists leanings were he to have been alive today to see that spectacle as we are. The same with Orwell. They both seemed to have had a bit too much sense about themselves for it to have been otherwise. ‘There are two kinds of propaganda - rational propaganda in favor of action that is consonant with the enlightened self-interest of those who make it and those to whom it is addressed, and non-rational propaganda that is not consonant with anybody’s enlightened self-interest, but is dictated by, and appeals to, passion...In the democratic West there is economic censorship and the media of mass communication are controlled by members of the Power Elite…’ ‘...In their propaganda today’s dictators rely for the most part on repetition, supression and rationalization - the repetition of catchwords which they wish to be accepted as true, the supression of facts which they wish to be ignored, the arousal and rationalization of passions which may be used in the interests of the Party or the State.’
20
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 29 Jul 2008 22:23 | # After his death, Huxley was said by his wife to be one of “the Great and the Good”, which is pretty damning when you think about it. But he was one of the authors I read quite a bit in my youth - Ape and Essence, Island, Eyeless in Gaza and BNW, of course. I read somewhere the other day that in BNW Huxley invented Reality TV (when the reporter filmed John self-flagellating in the gorse-strewn heathland of Surrey). I’m sure Huxley can never have read Leo Strauss (or Strauss’s mentor, Carl Schmitt). But his vision of a life of entertainment sans any possibility of political struggle accords entirely with the burden borne by Strauss’s philosopher kings to steer the masses safely away from their own destructive impulses. Huxley lived and wrote at an interesting juncture in the life of our civilisation. The freedom to imagine as he and Orwell, Elliot, Tolkien and one or two others imagined ceased to exist after the 1960s (Huxley died in 1963). Despite Huxley’s dalliance with mescalin, it was DH Lawrence, with his self-conscious shock-value and feminised poeticism, who was more in tune with the social and moral decay of the second half of the 20th Century. But today, with the horrors we understand only too well all about us, Lawrence looks as self-obsessed and dated as Hemingway, and has nothing significant to offer us. Huxley, by contrast, is starting to look like a seer and a genuine Man of Ideas. 21
Posted by the Narrator... on Tue, 29 Jul 2008 23:00 | # “That’s why at some point it would be a great thing were someone to write a brutally honest (letting the chips fall where they may, even when it hurts) and comprehensive separate history of the US and the UK of the past several hundred years (ie back to the year 1500 lets say), and perhaps even better to write one in the same mode that was a history of both the US and UK,...” The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle Vol. II
“My experience has been that whenever I approach my interlocutor, or audience, with what we might consider to be an important [ethnic] truth, I am invariably met with some form of cowardice or feigned incredulity as in the following: “Even if such were true it is not good to think about it.” “I don’t believe it.” “You may have a point but I am not prepared to discuss the issue further.” “But if what you’re saying is true then the racists are right and we just can’t have that.”
Generally it’s good to play devil’s advocate with your own arguments, reasoning out your rebuttals to their (usually typical) objections before you engage them. We’ve all been linguistically shot down before. We just have to each develop a style of presentation that is both casual and factual….. Some people have a verbal style that is sarcastic, others are effectual with a ‘tortured artist’ kind of approach while some employ the “lost puppy” demeanor to engage their audience. We can be smart about our approach without being manipulative. Really though, the best forum in which to actually engage someone in an in depth conversation on these topics is the one-on-one.
22
Posted by skeptical on Tue, 29 Jul 2008 23:18 | # The Narrator, I completely agree with your thoughts and in truth I have had some positive experiences when discussing with the unawakened, it isn’t always disheartening. Every so often I do find someone who hasn’t surrendered his mind and who is willing to look at the matter objectively, it is always a joy when we can find each other. Like needles in a haystack. 23
Posted by Alex on Tue, 29 Jul 2008 23:35 | # The Narrator, That’s a good point…all former major centers of the Empire. 24
Posted by Alex on Tue, 29 Jul 2008 23:45 | # Great post, GW. The scene of the drug addict watching tennis matches on television while lying in bed in Brave New World always struck me as being quite prescient, not in the positive way naturally. 25
Posted by Alex on Tue, 29 Jul 2008 23:49 | # Some additional Aldous Huxley. Excerpts from a thread at another site from Huxley’s speech entitled ‘The Ultimate Revolution’ given at the University of California at Berkeley in 1962. Apparently, not having as yet developed (or perhaps perfected) human cloning, or some other artificial means to create people as alluded to in Huxley’s Brave New World, they are doing from their point of view the next best thing, and rely on the corporate mass media’s promotion of the ‘mixing’ away of races so as ‘to standardize the population, to iron out inconvenient human differences, to create, to say, mass produced models of human beings…’ Recall the need for this on the part of those relative few doing it at most everyone else’s great expense. With the preying upon and exporting/importing of many millions of people yearly as ‘cheap laborers’, a euphamistic term used for a variant of slavery which superseded the far less profitable and cumbersome variant known as ‘chattel’ in the 19th century, it was found that ethnicity (ie peoplehood, of which race is in many instances often a natural part of) was in the way of the incredible profits to be had…profits effectively calculated by the former US treasurer and slave speculator Robert Walker in 1863 to be four times those of the already lucrative chattel slavery. Being that the acquisition of money is at the center of the multi-culturalists being (particularly those at the higher levels) and is also the source of the cult’s power, rather than doing the proper thing and desisting, the relative few elites so engaged decided to foresake the peoples of the world and humanity as a whole in the pursuit of this wealth. However, they couldn’t very well tell people the plain truth of what they were doing as it wouldn’t go over very well, but instead they tell people the utter social chaos and destruction they see around them due to this exploitation is the building of ‘a brotherhood of man.’ To get the peoples of the world to embrace the destruction of their collective physical selves (Europeans getting the brunt of this…at the moment), ie ethnicity, race, etc, they are told that it is simply ‘a natural progression’, when it is of course anything but. Barack Obama, with a European mother and African father, thus being ‘mixed’, makes for the almost perfect candidate for these elites, being an example they present to the world of the New Multi-Cultural Man they wish for the peoples of the world to emulate. How a brotherhood of man is to be built out of slavery is never explained, and those doing the promoting of that propaganda must, in their more lucid, honest, and thoughtful moments, wonder at just how many have believed.
‘...This is, I say, in this field of pure persuasion, I think we do know much more than we did in the past, and obviously we now have mechanisms for multiplying the demagogues voice and image in a quite hallucinatory way, I mean, the TV and radio…’
Aldous Huxley, author of ‘Brave New World’, gives his speech “The Ultimate Revolution” 26
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 30 Jul 2008 00:09 | # On suggestibility:- http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/on_suggestibility/ Not perhaps as good as Huxley. 27
Posted by Alex on Wed, 30 Jul 2008 00:18 | #
An appropriate Huxley quote regarding that observation The Narrator.
Another great Huxley quote…
I suppose I see those we deal with at present attempting to utilize both Huxley’s and Orwell’s methods so as to maintain control. If on the one hand the Brave New World like pleasure society doesn’t do the trick, on the other they have a fast evolving 1984 Orwellian police state that they are prepared to use. 28
Posted by DJ.357 on Wed, 30 Jul 2008 00:54 | # Barack Obama’s Stealth Socialism: http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=302137342405551 29
Posted by DJ.357 on Wed, 30 Jul 2008 01:28 | # Obama’s Global Tax: http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=302222641317480 30
Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 30 Jul 2008 01:50 | # Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Adm. Mike Mullen recently flew to Tel Aviv to tell the jews he doesn’t want a repeat of the U.S.S Liberty incident. 31
Posted by Fr. John on Wed, 30 Jul 2008 14:39 | # “I see Obama-speak as the last appeal to America to be, finally, the sum of its parts. It is the last appeal to Americans to profess their identity and their aspiration in the manner that has always been expected of them…” I am at an utter loss to know how the illegitimate bastard son of an African polygamous bastard son, has ANYTHING to do with White, English-speaking, Christian, Literate, Europeans!!! Possibly as a candidate for the dubious position of an Antichrist…. Other than that, the “Obamanation” serves to merely give corroboration to the ‘3/5ths’ clause in the Constitution. Or, as James Edwards says, ‘It’s time for the rise of ethnopolitics.’ http://www.americansagainstobama.com/2008/06/26/2nd-amendment-upload-dc-gun-law-struck-down/ 32
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 30 Jul 2008 15:30 | # Stanley, Your post on July 28, 2008 at 06:06 PM ... I’m a cynic where politics is concerned, and I’ve never found it let me down. I don’t expect any ambitious politician to deal in the truth, and certainly not Obama. He wants to be elected and all must be expedient to that end. But there is still a truth of sorts, a truth not yet known, that clings to the ends of his sentences and fills the spaces between words. That’s what I was looking for in the Berlin speech. It’s not really in the meaning of the words themselves, it’s something that they never violate, something that they point discreetly towards, if we only knew how to look. It’s a lesson I learned from Tony Blair back in 97. He made plenty of vacuus statements that seemed to say what people thought a future leader should say, but really said very little. The Tories assumed he must be a hidden class-warrior of the only variety could conceive. I thought he was a shocking lightweight who, given time, would doubtless be destroyed by some dreaded personal issue, probably homosexuality. But by and large the press reported positively on what he said and praised his smartness and charm. But then they knew he would be elected, the world was changing and they had to make an accomodation with him (and with his very aggressive and dictatorial press secretary, Alastair Campbell). We didn’t know it at the time but, actually, what he said all respected the ideas that Anthony Giddens had distilled from his no doubt innumerable academic conferences around the globe. This was the Third Way, and it became the dynamic not only of the New Labour government but also of Gerhard Shroeder’s New Centre movement and the subsequent Clinton-Blair-Schroeder initiative. But is there a Giddens behind Obama? That’s the thing. Is there, or will there be, something to which Obama, with all his aspirational puff, genuflects - even though its form is not at all clear today. And if so, what will it mean for white America? 34
Posted by Stanley on Thu, 31 Jul 2008 00:54 | # Guessedworker, the law of unintended consequences could kick in on the street level even before Obama is sworn in. Here’s an example in wretched taste, but somewhat titillating. http://podblanc.com/jews-are-insane-detroit-is-crap It’ll all be entertaining…well, for a while. 35
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 31 Jul 2008 13:59 | # There’s a piece up today by Matthew Richer over at Vdare.com offering a little foretaste of what a Barack Obama administration is likely to resemble by giving an account of the performance of Obama’s friend and co-racialist, Deval Patrick, in his positions in the Clinton Administration and as governor of the People’s Democratic Soviet Socialist Democratic (And Don’t Forget Irish Catholic) Republic of Taxachusetts. All well and good: an Obama administration without any doubt would be as bad as all that and even worse. BUT ... so would a McInsane administration, as regards matters pertaining to driving whites to extinction: immigration, race, affirmative action, race quotas, race-replacment, and so forth. On these matters touching on the white race’s ultimate interests in North America a Juan McInsane administration would be every bit as bad as, and potentially worse than, if that can be imagined, an Obama administration. Matthew Richer paints an accurate picture. But he might just as well be painting the same picture of John McCain as of Barack Obama. Is Bush any better than Obama on these issues of ultimate concern to U.S. whites? No, obviously. McCain would be <i>Son of Bush. Whites would get no relief on the race-replacement front from a McCain administration. None. Might as well not vote. 36
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 31 Jul 2008 14:02 | # (Sorry, I messed up somehow on the italics tags above, but looking at the way it came out it’s even better—the most important lines got emphasized!) 37
Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 31 Jul 2008 17:46 | # I don’t think there is any esoteric meat behind the aspirational vagueness of Obama’s utterances. Who is his guru, if indeed he has anything that or equivalently pretensious? He already told us in his memoirs: Rev. Wright. When the heat got too hot he didn’t hesitate long in throwing him under the bus. Black Nationalist my ass. Obama, in my opinion, is a kind of black Bill Clinton. His real convictions and loyalties don’t run an inch deep or a mile wide. He wants to be President of the number one military and economic power in world history. Obama knows, at least sub-consciously, that the 150+ million European-Americans is the engine that propels this bus. That is the real power and greatness of America. That’s a hell of a toy to play with for a shallow and grandiose man. Even Farrakhan seems to have toned down his anti-White rhetoric in recent years. He seems to be striking more of an American, populist-nationalist tone is distinguishing between Jewish and White power/economic elites and poor/working-class Whites. Why? Again, because at least sub-consciously he realized what I stated above. To put it in the most blunt terms: a twenty million man army of White Americans (this could be mustered WWII style through the draft) combined with our military/economic might takes all comers. That is a hell of a toy to play with. 38
Posted by Dave Johns on Thu, 31 Jul 2008 19:01 | # “Obama, in my opinion, is a kind of black Bill Clinton. His real convictions and loyalties don’t run an inch deep or a mile wide.” How can you utter such blasphemy about the “Messiah”, cc? And it came to pass… http://timesonline.typepad.com/comment/2008/07/and-it-came-to.html 39
Posted by Dave Johns on Sat, 02 Aug 2008 15:59 | # The following is yet another typical example of why blacks should never be given something of value they haven’t earned. But will whites ever learn that lesson? Will whites be foolish enough to surrender the keys of the Whitehouse to the Obamas? http://www.docstoc.com/docs/978511/Harper-Family-Extreme-Makeover http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080728/ap_on_en_tv/tv_extreme_makeover_foreclosure Post a comment:
Next entry: A further conversation with my pal Lester ... updated 30th June
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) |
Posted by Stanley on Mon, 28 Jul 2008 06:29 | #
Some general comments.
1) The vast crowd in Berlin was apparently really about 100,000, not 200,000, and doubled as an act of courtesy. The crowd was substantially influenced to turn out to listen to a fashionable German rock band which Obama followed very quickly. He did apparently charm the crowd, but he did not draw the crowd nor speak to one so large as claimed.
2) “The notion that Americans are united by pride in America, and this outweighs racial and class divisions, and further that this unity of positives can be impelled upon a progressive path … this notion is incompatible with the still-dominant mentality that whites have to be dispossessed of cultural power.” The only thing to say here is that the suggestion that Americans (sorry Canada, sorry Mexico) are “united by pride in America” is a very strange thing to say, and something that I haven’t heard in many years. The current notion is that we are “united by our diversity” or that we are “united by our support of the troops” (pick any war). I think “united by pride in America” died completely at the same time we were told to embrace diversity, maybe in the 70s.
3) Whether Obama is capable of putting together a progressive program is one thing, but the good news is that he appears to be part and parcel of the Mayor Daley machine. That’s a strange thing to say on several grounds, but no one has ever accused Daley of being anti-American or purposefully vicious except to traitors to his machine. Daley’s own adviser, David Axelrod, is Obama’s chief adviser, too. This is to rebut the possibility that Obama is some kind of floater, untethered to the earth. Courtesy of the city of butchers, Obama’s been hog-tied. Oh, if he wins, there’ll be massive thefts; turning government jobs into full-employment programs; and waste of materials, supplies, and resources enough to boggle the mind. Probably a scandal a month for his last three years in office.
4) Let us not forget that Obama has been unwilling to apologize for his flagrant use of slurs or stereotypes against the diverse white American peoples, e.g., “acting white,” “white resentment,” and “typical white American.” They may not mean much in the Atlantic islands, but politicians here are regularly hectored on slurs such as these and they will come in useful to the future when some poor white soul is hoist for using similar terms. But I do think his casual use of slurs comes naturally to him, and will harm him in the campaign and thereafter, and shows a pathology in his mind that could be dangerous.
5) “The only conceivable lesson to be drawn from its eventual failure will be that America is not, in fact, whole, nor ever will be.” Sadly, this is probably true.