Barack Hussein Obama and the Triumph of Marxism

One of the recurring themes in my essays is the realization that the West didn't win the Cold War as decisively as we should have done. A generation after we "defeated" Marxism, Marxist-inspired groups control much of the Western education system as well as Western media and form alliances with our enemies, especially Islamic ones. I have concentrated on Europe, but this is a problem in North America as well. Barack Hussein Obama represents the triumph of cultural Marxism; or perhaps we should simply say Marxism. One generation after Ronald Reagan led the USA to "victory," a person with Marxist sympathies could be about to be elected President of the USA. When the Nazis were defeated they were seen as evil, as they should be. When the Communists were "defeated," they were not seen as evil; they are misguided individuals with good intentions, a bit like Santa Claus with a bad hair day.

Journalist Stanley Kurtz has done an excellent job at tracking the many ties to radical organizations in Obama's personal history. Dr.Daniel Pipes lists some of the indirect ties he has to the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Nation of Islam. Pipes states that "Obama's multiple links to anti-Americans and subversives mean he would fail the standard security clearance process for Federal employees. Islamic aggression represents America's strategic enemy; Obama's many insalubrious connections raise grave doubts about his fitness to serve as America's commander-in-chief."

In my view, it's insane that the United States can even contemplate electing a person such as Obama. Americans will look like a defeated nation to the rest of the world if they pick an individual who has for a generation been a member of an organization dedicated to hating the majority population of the country. That's exactly why so many of their enemies want him elected. Meanwhile, 7 years after Saudi Arabian Muslims staged Jihadist attacks against the United States, the Saudis are systematically infiltrating the Western education system at all levels with pro-Islamic propaganda. Americans are outsourcing their industry to China, their education system to Saudi Arabia and their breeding to Mexico. This is not a wise strategy followed by a country that wants to remain a superpower, or simply continue to exist.

A person with such a radical background should never have been close to nomination. The only reason why Obama got so far is because the media deliberately downplayed much of the most troubling information about him. The mass hysteria whipped up in favor of Obama in the press is disturbing. A person who had been a member of an openly anti-black or anti-Asian congregation for a couple of decades would never have been seriously considered for presidency, but being a member of an anti-white congregation is apparently OK. This tells us much about the cultural climate in the West at the moment.

The term "Fascist" is so misused that people no longer remember its original meaning. A "Fascist" is now any person to the right of Hillary Clinton, especially if he's white and doesn't like Multiculturalism. However, the personality cult surrounding Obama is a traditional hallmark of Fascist and Communist societies. When an average voter dared to ask a few critical questions about Obama's Socialist sympathies, he was virtually ambushed by members of the mainstream media. This is the kind of behavior one expects to see in authoritarian societies when someone questions the Divine Wisdom of the Great Leader. It is disappointing and not very reassuring to see it in the land of the free, home of the brave.As journalist Nidra Poller put it: "The chance encounter between Barack Obama and a commoner—Joe the Plumber—not only exposed the Hope & Change candidate's plan for redistribution of wealth, it also revealed his attitude toward the ordinary guys he has pledged to serve. Leftists everywhere love the wretched of the earth…as long as the poor stay poor and the downtrodden downtrodden."

The Iranian ex-Muslim Ali Sina, author of the book Understanding Muhammad, comments on the dark sides of Obama's personality:

Understanding Obama: The Making of a Fuehrer

 

"Never did George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt. Martin Luther King Jr. or Ronald Reagan arouse so much raw emotion. Despite their achievements, none of them was raised to the rank of Messiah. The Illinois senator has no history of service to the country. He has done nothing outstanding except giving promises of change and hyping his audience with hope. It's only his words, not his achievements that is causing this much uproar. When cheering for someone turns into adulation, something is wrong. Excessive adulation is indicative of a personality cult. The cult of personality is often created when the general population is discontent. A charismatic leader can seize the opportunity and project himself as an agent of change and a revolutionary leader." 

 

"If Obama turns out to be the disaster I predict, he will cause widespread resentment among the whites. The blacks are unlikely to give up their support of their man. Cultic mentality is pernicious and unrelenting. They will dig their heads deeper in the sand and blame Obama's detractors of racism. This will cause a backlash among the whites. The white supremacists will take advantage of the discontent and they will receive widespread support. I predict that in less than four years, racial tensions will increase to levels never seen since the turbulent 1960s. Obama will set the clock back decades."

 

I don't agree with everything Sina says, but I am pretty sure an Obama presidency would dramatically increase racial and ideological tensions within the USA; I cannot see him "heal" anything. I agree that such displays of personality cult are always a sign of dark ideological undercurrents. Jimmy Carter was one of the worst presidents in American history. I don't recall that there ever was a "Carter Youth" movement in the 1970s or people claiming that he was the Messiah, but we do have an "Obama Youth" movement. This is unprecedented, a disturbing indication that the world's most powerful state no longer thinks in rational terms. Obama represents everything the American Founding Fathers tried to avoid when they wanted to make their young nation a constitutional Republic, not a mass democracy.

The dilemma is that both major parties ended up with arguably the worst possible candidates. The choice is between John McCain, an open-border fanatic with an anger management problem who isn't a real conservative, and Barack Hussein Obama, who has for a generation been a member of a church which is explicitly hostile to the majority population of his country, who has Socialist sympathies and ties to anti-American and Islamic radicals. As in the rest of the Western world, the radical Left has largely succeeded in moving politics to the left. The Republican candidate is now what the Democratic candidates used to be like, and the Democratic candidate comes from a background where open shows of hostility to one's own country are commonplace.

In 2007, a proposed immigration bill hundreds of pages long and supported by the Bush Administration would have amounted to the greatest changes in US immigration policies since the 1960s and de facto legalized millions of illegal aliens. As writer Matthew Spalding said at the National Review Online, "the devil is in the details. This legislation is long and complicated, with lots of details — and lots of devils." Yet its supporters were keen to have it implemented as soon as possible. "We all know this issue can be caught up in extracurricular politics unless we move forward as quickly as possible," said Senator John McCain, a key architect of the bill. The bill was stopped after massive popular resistance, but there is reason to fear that a future President McCain will support it in 2009 or 2010 as well.

There are both left-wing and right-wing Globalists. They have different agendas, for instance with left-wing Globalists putting emphasis on silencing free speech and promoting "international law" through the United Nations and similar organizations while right-wing Globalists concentrate more on the free flow of people across borders, just as they want free flow of goods and capital across borders. The presidential election campaign in the USA in 2008 between Obama and McCain is a race between a left-wing and a right-wing Globalist. Both want open borders, if only for slightly different reasons, and tend to think of countries as ideas, not as entities populated by distinct peoples with shared values and a common history.

This does of course not mean that President Obama and President McCain would follow the exact same policies in all areas. For instance, I fear that President Obama would be more aggressive in weakening the freedom of speech enshrined in the First Amendment than President McCain, although I could be wrong in this. Obama would most likely also be more active in pushing Socialist economic programs. When it comes to mass immigration, legal and illegal, I see little difference between them.

An Obama presidency would be bad for the United States but also bad for the world. Many Europeans seem to like Obama. I'm not one of them. Here in Western Europe, we are faced with increasingly aggressive Islamic colonization. How would the American political elites react if native Europeans suddenly grew a backbone and implemented serious policies aimed at halting and reversing Islamization? I don't think we should expect much sympathy from President Obama or the mainstream media. Since Americans are indoctrinated from birth with the idea that any person of European origins defending his cultural heritage is a white supremacist and a Nazi, I suspect we would be viewed as something along those lines. By that point it wouldn't be America Alone, as Canadian writer Mark Steyn says, it would be Europe Alone. Leftists have complained about virtually all American military campaigns except the NATO bombing against Serbs on behalf of Muslims.

For that matter, it isn't self-evident that President McCain would be wholly sympathetic, either. It is a great irony that the USA is vilified for its "anti-Islamic" policies. What anti-Islamic policies would that be? The American political establishment is dedicated to making the world safe for sharia. Muslim immigration to the US has increased since 9/11. The Bush Administration has sponsored the eradication of non-Muslim communities of Iraq, supports Turkish membership of the European Union and together with the EU awarded the ethnic cleansing of Serbs in Kosovo by granting Muslim Albanians their very own Jihadist state.

I'm not going to blame Europe's problems on Americans; we made our own mess and should deal with it ourselves. Besides, it is quite possible that the Americans will soon have their hands full with problems of their own and will be in no position to assist anybody even if they wanted to. Europeans can and should maintain good relations and cooperate with ordinary North American citizens, who live under the same Multicultural regime as we do, but we cannot and should not rely on aid from the American elites.

Barack Hussein Obama hasn't been elected President yet, and it is quite possible that the polls we are shown in the media do not accurately reflect the popular support he has, but the very fact that he has come this far represents an unprecedented triumph for radical Leftism in the heart of the largest state in the Western world.

Anti-Western ideologies have penetrated the very core of our societies at the same time as we are under siege from outside. This is clearly not a sustainable situation and it will need to be resolved if our civilization is going to survive this century. Regardless of who wins this November, the West is in for a bumpy ride.

They have different agendas,

They have different agendas, for instance with left-wing Globalists putting emphasis on silencing free speech and promoting "international law" through the United Nations and similar organizations while right-wing Globalists concentrate more on the free flow of people across borders, just as they want free flow of goods and capital across borders. The presidential election campaign in the USA in 2008 between Obama and McCain is a race between a left-wing and a right-wing Globalist. Both want open borders, if only for slightly different reasons, and tend to think of countries as ideas, not as entities populated by distinct peoples with shared values and a common history. cheap car hire Namibia

Follow up

It seems that White Catholics went for Obama 49-41 according to a poll I found that was conducted before the election. I did a religious breakdown of the votes using pre-election polls and copied a racial exit poll here.

In Disbelief

Excellent article, I couldn't agree more.

"A person with such a radical background should never have been close to nomination." A few days before the election and I'm still in disbelief that Senator Obama has gotten this far even with the support of the Socialist media. If the voters do not have the wisdom to send him back to Chicago, the road will be a much bumpier ride than you think!   

Soviet Union

One of the recurring themes in my essays is the realization that the West didn't win the Cold War as decisively as we should have done.

First we defeated the Soviet Union, then we became it.

Obama majority vote

Fjordman wrote:

Barack Hussein Obama hasn't been elected President yet, and it is quite possible that the polls we are shown in the media do not accurately reflect the popular support he has, but the very fact that he has come this far represents an unprecedented triumph for radical Leftism in the heart of the largest state in the Western world.

Fjordman you are not breaking the US electorate down into its' subgroups. If you broke the electorate down by group it would give you a better picture. Here are the groups that will go for Obama as far as I can tell:

A. Blacks - 10% of the votes cast
B. Hispanics
C. union members
D. single women
E. Catholics
F. coastal elites
G. college students/kids just out of high school
Only the Blacks will give nearly 100% of their votes to Obama but based on articles about previous elections that I have read the groups I have listed *probably* will give the majority of their votes to the Democratic candidate. It is worth noting that the Democrats benefit from women not being married or being divorced, as single women are more likely to vote for the Left. The most likely person to vote for the Republican candidate in any election is a White Protestant male, and after that his wife and grown children.

It is also worth noting that two of the categories overlap: Catholic and Hispanic. The Mexivasion has been protected and encouraged by Catholic politicians from the last wave of Catholic immigration. In addition the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has often come out against rightist positions such as the second amendment, illegal immigrant deportation, capital punishment, controlling the border and often comes out in support of welfare in the name of 'social justice.' Your fellow columnist writing the 'Empire of Yin' stated that the RCC in America might as well be a paid agent of the Mexican government got it backward, the Mexican government might as well be an agent of the Vatican. Since the United States still stupidly has birthright citizenship the children of the Hispanic invaders who are born here get to vote in elections and almost always vote for the Democrats, driving California and possibly some other southern states to the left.

Marxist USA: yes, but why?

Well put, Akira. You touch on a very deep mystery: Why would those who have enjoyed the greatest prosperity and possibly the greatest liberty in history turn against the very liberty that has brought them their prosperity? With approximately half the U.S.A. getting ready to vote for Obama, the rot is indeed general and cannot be attributed to any group or institution. Not academia, not the press, not Hollywood, not the Jews. Dostoevsky plumbed this pit when he realized (or when Ivan Karamazov realized) that people don't want freedom, they want security. The deepest analysis I know of is that of Eric Gans, developed in his books and especially in his on-line "Chronicles of Love and Resentment." Resentment is universal to human societies, inherent in the fundamental structure of human culture (though differing in different stages of culture), and can be dealt with by coercion emanating from the center, as in non-market societies, or channeled into the creation of infinite differences in market societies, in which the minimal authority of the center merely protects the circulation of meanings and goods. We are facing a crisis in which resentment of the market society itself will cause us to reject the relatively empty center in favor of a center occupied by a big brother who will assuage our resentments and provide us with goods and meanings. Gans has written penetratingly on white guilt in the Chronicles, which is very much involved in the perfect storm Obama is riding.

Gans links anti-Americanism to anti-Semitism in that both express resentment of the emptiness of the center and wish to replace that emptiness with some figure of authority.

in reply to KO

"With approximately half the U.S.A. getting ready to vote for Obama, the rot is indeed general and cannot be attributed to any group or institution. Not academia, not the press, not Hollywood, not the Jews."

Voting for Obama does not mean you think in the same way as Obama. I think the problem comes from the top, not from the population at large. And the group and institutions you mentioned are all playing a role.

"Resentment is universal to human societies"

But white voters who will elect Obama are not moved by resentment.

"Gans links anti-Americanism to anti-Semitism"

I think anti-Americanism is usually a form of anti-Whitism.

impolite comment

Akira: "I think Communist infestation is always achieved by force, weakness in the host [i.e. opportunism], and/or deception."

It is also a good description of how neocon rot spreads. I read an 1992 article by Branko Lazitch, and his list was slightly different. He said that communism (especially in the Soviet Union) was based on 3 parameters: lies, fear and stupidity.

Melanie Philips: "...a nexus comprising black power anti-white racists, Jew-haters, revolutionary Marxists... / And apparently it's considered impolite to say so."

Something important is missing from her list: Jewish immigration fanatics.
I don't think Obama and McCain could have been selected without their support.
Or is it impolite to say so?

Vile Christians

Akira: Thanks for your prompt and vigorous reply. Provoking you, it seems, is quite rewarding. Although I still object to your rude treatment of Trinitypower on this site, I concur in your disgust at the bassesse of many prominent so-called Christians through the ages. Today, leftist Christians are no better than Communists. When the Lord returns on his white horse with his two-edged sword, he will scarcely consider them his allies!

Why insult an ally?

Always glad to read your comments, Akira. Thanks for posting here. But why call Trinitypower names? He or she is obviously an ally, advocating traditional Western culture against the anti-Western alliance. I agree with you, it is odd to attribute leadership of the alliance to Russia in particular, but maybe you could give us your ideas on its nature and origins, possibly starting with the serpent's offer to Eve.

FATIMA PREDICTED THE TRIUMPH OF MARXISM

At Fatima the Blessed mother said that Russia would continue to spread her errors if Russia was not consecrated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

It is becoming clear that the consecration performed by JPII was not in accordance with her wishes.

The errors of Russia appear to be spreading i.e., communism. Communism was never destroyed--only the ugly sounding word was destroyed. It is alive and well in Europe and has potential under an Obama administration to take hold in America. We will continue to see the resurgence of what was once known as communism but it will be called something else which will appeal to those who seek to create a utopia on earth--which is nothing more than a false peace and false justice.

Russia also has armed Islamic nations who are enemies of the West. Everything is indeed lining up in accordance with the predictions contained in scripture and catholic prophecy.

I wish I could disagree.

A collective insanity has settled over the West. It seems like a recurring  Biblical theme is playing itself out once again.     The lessons of history are once again being dismissed and mocked.  And just like the Bible, those who attempt to urge caution and  warnings are dismissed, mocked, vilified,  and persecuted.   Some things never change. Human nature is what it is and it is repeating itself.   People hear only what they want to hear and right now, they seem quite mesmerized by vacuity. The unseriousness of it all is surreal. 

Perhaps a severe and painful reintroduction  to reality is the only cure for our postmodernism disease at this point.   Logic and reason certainly seem inadequate.

Yes, we are in for a very rough ride. 

And thanks for your noble efforts to sound the alarms and help us  save ourselves form ourselves, Fjordman.   It takes courage to tell people what they don't want to hear - which, more often than not, is the truth.