From the desk of Fjordman on Mon, 2008-10-27 17:08
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.
www.brusselsjournals.com