December 2012 Archives

OBAMA INCITES HATRED OF WHITE AMERICA

Black power.png

Jamie Foxx and Samuel L. Jackson attend a screening of "Django Unchained" hosted by The Weinstein Company with The Hollywood Reporter, Samsung Galaxy and The Cinema Society at Ziegfeld Theater on December 11, 2012 in New York City.

"Wasn't Obama's election supposed to mark a new post-racial era? What happened?"

So historian and classicist Victor Davis Hanson asks. We all know the answer. Obama was lying. Obama has promoted racial and class division since the day he became president. The white people are the enemy and they must be put in their place as blacks and other coloreds get their revenge. He has four years ahead of him to exact retribution. The plea of Martin Luther King Jr. that content of character rather than skin color be the measure of a man is being flipped the other way round by Obama and his racial avengers.

The New Racial-Derangement Syndrome

By Victor Davis Hanson

December 20, 2012 12:00 A.M.
National Review Online

There is a different sort of racialist derangement spreading in the country -- and it is getting ugly.

Here is actor Jamie Foxx joking recently about his new movie role: "I kill all the white people in the movie. How great is that?" Reverse white and black in the relevant ways and even a comedian would hear national outrage. Instead, his hip Saturday Night Live audience even gave Foxx applause.

Race-obsessed comedian Chris Rock tweeted on the Fourth of July, "Happy white peoples [sic] independence day . . . "

Actor Samuel L. Jackson, in a recent interview, sounded about as unapologetically reactionary as you can get: "I voted for Barack because he was black. . . . I hope Obama gets scary in the next four years."

No one in Hollywood used to be more admired than Morgan Freeman, who once lectured interviewers on the need to transcend race. Not now, in the new age of racial regression. Freeman has accused Obama critics and the Tea Party of being racists. He went on to editorialize on Obama's racial bloodlines: "Barack had a mama, and she was white . . . very white, American, Kansas, middle of America . . . America's first black president hasn't arisen yet."

Freeman's racial-purity obsessions were echoed on the CNN website, where an ad for the network's recent special report on race included a crude quote from three teen poets: "Black enough to be a n. White enough to be a good one."

In the 21st century, are we returning to the racial labyrinth of the 19th-century Old Confederacy, when we measured our supposed racial DNA to the nth degree? Apparently, yes. ESPN sports commentator Rob Parker blasted Washington Redskins quarterback Robert Griffin III last week for admirably stating that he did not wish to be defined by his race rather than by his character: "He's black, he does his thing, but he's not really down with the cause." Parker added: "He's not one of us. He's kind of black, but he's not really like the kind of guy you really want to hang out with." (ESPN suspended Parker for his remarks.)

Unfortunately, the new racialist derangement is not confined to sports and entertainment. The Reverend Joseph Lowery -- who gave the benediction at President Obama's first inauguration -- sounded as venomous as the Reverend Jeremiah Wright in a speech that Lowery delivered to a black congregation shortly before this year's election: "I don't know what kind of a n***** wouldn't vote with a black man running." Lowery reportedly preceded that rant by stating that when he was younger, he believed that all whites were going to hell, but now he merely believes that most of them are. And in his 2009 inauguration prayer, Lowery ended with his hopes for a future day when "white will embrace what is right."

Wasn't Obama's election supposed to mark a new post-racial era? What happened?

For nearly a half-century, cultural relativism in the universities taught that racist speech was bigotry only if it came from those -- mostly whites -- with power. Supposedly oppressed minorities could not themselves be real racists. But even if that bankrupt theory was once considered gospel, it is no longer convincing -- given that offenders such as Foxx, Rock, and Lowery (who was given the Presidential Medal of Freedom by Obama) are among the more affluent and acclaimed Americans.



Read it all.

While focus is on the disastrous course Obama is pushing this nation along domestically, we cannot ignore his pro-Islamic policies that are a threat to the entire West. His speech in Cairo of appeasement and false praise was followed by his support of the anti-western and anti-American Muslim Brotherhood to take over Egypt from the pro-America Mubarak.

Now Obama is doing the same thing in support of the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria.

Melanie Phillips is a distinguished British writer whose book "Londonistan" was the earliest of modern alarms about how Islam is infiltrating the West seeking to destroy Western culture and capture Europe from within through immigration and non-assimilation. The Britain she wrote about several years ago is worse today as the Islamic advance has continued unabated aided by those who refuse to see reality. Britain is not alone. The same war of conquest is underway throughout Europe, Asia, Africa and the Americas, non-violent in some places, aided by violence where Islam is strong enough so it can be.

Phillips sees Obama clearly for what he is:

But when you look at Barack Obama, you see another factor at work which is not simply the strategic stupidity that results from an appeasement mentality, nor a myopic view of the national interest, nor the unsurpassed arrogance and ignorance of cultural hubris, all of which drive western foreign policy.


What therefore is the factor that Obama brings to the west's dismal foreign policy table ...?

Malice.

Against the west, and also against the ancient civilisation that lies at the heart of its moral codes.


To sum up, what Phillips in effect is saying in this important piece and other warnings she has issued is this:

Obama's hatred of the West, the white West, nurtured from his earliest days by his mother, his years in Muslim schools in Indonesia, his communist high school mentor's hatred of white America, his Marxist and black power associates at Occidental and Columbia and the anti-Israel academics he sought out at Columbia and in Chicago, along with white America-hating Jeremiah Wright and Obama's communist community organizer hero Saul Alinsky, dedicated to the destruction of the America's free enterprise systems, now has free rein. America the oppressor of all colored peoples deserves to be brought down and he is the one to do it. He has the power to do it. And he is doing it.

While speaking of British and European leaders Phillips speaks of catastrophic "mistakes."

But, in her assessment of Obama, she sees America and the West being betrayed. "Malice" is what she sees.

Into the abyss
Melanie Phillips
12.21.12
www.melaniephillips.com


To an astonishing silence by the media on both sides of the pond, the US along with the UK and a number of European governments is leading the west into an abyss. I have repeatedly noted here that the US, UK and France helped bring to power in Egypt Islamic extremists hostile to the free world, and were threatening to do something very similar in Syria. Now they have indeed done so by recognising the Syrian National Council as the legitimate leader of the Syrian opposition.

The thinking behind this is to designate the al-Qaeda linked Jabhat al-Nusra as a terrorist group, while supporting the Muslim Brotherhood - which dominates the Syrian National Council -- as a reasonable alternative. But this is the same catastrophic mistake the US et al have made in Egypt. For the Brotherhood are not a reasonable alternative to Islamic extremists hostile to the west. They are themselves Islamic extremists hostile to the west.

The disastrous implications of this fundamental strategic mistake were spelled out in a forensic piece by Jonathan Spyer in the Jerusalem Post. As Spyer observed:


'The difference between the Salafis and the Muslim Brotherhood affiliated groups is one of degree, not of kind.

'... The focus on Jabhat al Nusra should not obscure the fact that the better-organized, non-Salafi, home grown, Muslim Brotherhood elements that the US is backing are no less anti-western and no less anti-Jewish.

'Could things have been different? As with Egypt, perhaps, if the west had perceived the risks and opportunities clearly at the start. This might have triggered a vigorous policy of support for non-Islamist opposition and fighting elements, which were there.

'The result is that the force now facing the retreating Assad regime is split between differing brands of Sunni Arab Islamism, some aligned with the west, some directly opposing it, but all holding fast to fundamentally anti-western ideologies.'

Barry Rubin spells out even more starkly the looming disaster for the west from its idiocy over Syria:

'American intelligence agents in southern Turkey supervise the handover of weapons to the rebels. They make no attempt to stop arms from going to the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafists while they make no attempt to funnel the guns to moderates. The only restriction is that they not go to al-Qaeda-affiliated Salafists.


'One day, those guns will be used to commit unspeakable atrocities against Christians and other minority groups just as they will be used to install an Islamist regime and to kill or intimidate its opponents.'

The mistake being made by the US and the rest is as deep-seated as it is egregious. The campaign in the west to promote the Muslim Brotherhood (to its motto: 'Islam is the solution' one obviously has to ask, 'But what is the problem?') as helpful allies against those who want to bring the west down has been making relentless and dismaying progress into the establishment for years - an establishment that refuses to see the Brothers for what they are, in essence because it refuses to acknowledge that what the west is now up against is a religious war. From that most profound and seminal error, all follows.

But when you look at Barack Obama, you see another factor at work which is not simply the strategic stupidity that results from an appeasement mentality, nor a myopic view of the national interest, nor the unsurpassed arrogance and ignorance of cultural hubris, all of which drive western foreign policy.

Just look at Obama's favoured candidates for the two US administration positions central to the defence of the west. They are both people whose attitudes would in fact deeply endanger it still further. John Kerry, tipped to become Secretary of State, is an anti-war activist and left-wing fantasist who, despite serving as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations committee, is such a man-made global warming fanatic that he believes climate change is

'as dangerous as any of the sort of real crises that we talk about'

ie, as dangerous as say, Syrian chemical weapons or a nuclear Iran.

The record of Chuck Hagel, Obama's favoured candidate for Defence Secretary, is more troubling still, as outlined here. He has consistently downplayed Iran's terrorist record and the danger it poses to the free world. He consistently voted against sanctions on Iran to stop its pursuit of nuclear weapons capability; he voted against naming Iran's Revolutionary Guards a terrorist organization; and he refused to sign a letter calling on the European Union similarly to name Hezbollah - which has the blood of countless Americans on its hands -- as a terrorist organisation. Instead, he advocates 'engaging' with Iran - ie, appeasement, which he prefers to parse as

' "... a bridge-building process, an opportunity to better understand" others on the basis of "mutual self respect."'

This is all of a piece with his attitudes towards Israel and the Jews. Not only is he associated with gross anti-Israel canards which reverse truth and lies, but he also said that

'the Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people up here...'

'up here' meaning Washington.

Whether or not these men are actually appointed is not the issue. The key point is that Obama wants to appoint them, from which we may infer that he believes they will enact his own vision of foreign and defence policy.

What therefore is the factor that Obama brings to the west's dismal foreign policy table as illustrated by these truly appalling choices? Malice. Against the west, and also against the ancient civilisation that lies at the heart of its moral codes. Factor that into the truly stupendous myopia and worse of Britain and Europe, and you are looking at the emergence of a new world order: the eclipse of the west, brought about by the unholy alliance between the Obama administration and death-wish Britain and Europe - and leaving Israel, once the forward salient of the west in the Middle East, emerging instead as the lonely and isolated defender of liberty in the face of the gathering Islamic storm.

Powered by Movable Type 4.23-en

About this Archive

This page is an archive of entries from December 2012 listed from newest to oldest.

July 2012 is the previous archive.

January 2013 is the next archive.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.