Stop-Obama

Towards a Theoretical Understanding of the Obama Social Movement and the Anti-Democratic & Anti-American Revolution.

***

There is something fundamental that just happened in America, and by default, the rest of the world. It is so fundamental, that it has been entirely ignored by analysts and grossly distorted by pundits.

Most commentarors hail Obama’s victory as a reinvigoration of the American Dream. They cite the euphoria of countries that literally weeks ago, spat in America’s direction as proof of the nations capacity of reinvention. Talk of a new-age, of breakthroughs, of Peace in the World is everywhere - and everywhere, all of it, is wrong.

For what the world just witnessed is not the start of a new Dream, but exactly its opposite, the beginning of a long nightmare. Not only would Martin Luther King have turned in his grave, soon enough, someone will actually turn him.

The power of the pro-Obama movement, its enthusiasm and excitement, is awesome. Obama’s election victory revealed a level of energy, and mobilization, never seen in a healthy democracy.

Fortunately, such energy would be labeled as “passion” by our Founding Fathers, and treated warily. The wise men who shaped this nation explicitly sought to prevent the reigns of power from passing into the hands of the hysterical, and immunized the institutions of power from the fervor of the masses. All too familiar with the nexus of demagogue-power-crowd, these erudite deists explicitly asserted the supremacy of deliberation, reflection, and hesitation over extortion, excoriation, and precipitation.

As a form of energy, a mob’s ardor can be neutral, but socially, it goes where politicians take it. Rather than err on the side of hope, the founders preferred to err on the side of caution, and put up obstacle after obstacle to the madness of crowds. Everything to prevent the temptation which stems from control over hyperactive masses.

Either unawares of their Civic duty, or openly contemptuous of it, pro-Obama voters have put American Democracy in Danger by electing to power a man who tapped their passions with demagoguery, and whose campaign used intimidation to suppress opposition turnout.

Obama is no longer a Democrat nor a political figure. Obama is a Cult Lader/Personality at the heart of a Social Movement. A Social Movement ignorant of American values, seeking to impose concept and principles on the American body-politic contemptuous of American history and identity. It is a movement where the cerebral cortexes of a few opaque opportunists plot and scheme behind the veneer of Obama’s Orwellian cult symbols.

***

There is a reason Obama chose Rahm Emanuel, as his chief aide. Like Obama, Rahm Emanuel is a man with the thinnest of connections to America. Like Obama, he boasts a thug mentality. Obama flashes three pit-bulls - the most dangerous dog on the planet, responsible for more child deaths than any other domestic animal on Earth- as presidential pets! Rahm Emanuel, didn’t even bother learning Proper English, because in the confines of Democratic smoke-rooms, a few expletives sufficed to organize party tactics and strategy. His mafia style is no secret to anyone.

That Rahm is a Jew from Israel is irrelevant. Personally for me as a Jew, it’s just a shame, little else. His pedigree is no excuse for him being wrong. It is absurdly illogical to suggest that his origin can possibly serve as justification for his politics or the morally decrepit individual he has chosen to be.

On the whole, America has known its slew of foreigners, who have served this country well. Rahm Emanuel under the tutelage of a Hyphen, will not be one of them. He belongs in the Brzezinsky camp - a Polish émigré with a biological hatred for Russia, single-handedly responsible for Carter’s calamitous foreign policy. Whatever the talent of foreign transplants to Beltway soil, it can’t be guided by hyphens if it is to have any use to this country. Only a self-respecting American (not self-loathing like Carter) will do. A Rahm Emanuel under Clinton, would have been a different story. Under a Hyphen, it’s the story of a puppet-master.

Now add the diabolic presence of David Axelrod and David Plouff, and countless other criminal-political types with no patriotic credentials, and you understand the dynamic of the Obama social movement. Again, these are types who could be tapped for their talent, and channeled in a constructive fashion. But this would require sound leadership, sound knowledge, and two feet soundly planted on American soil - none of which Obama has.

Basking in glorified love of the worlds leading anti-Semitic actors and organizations, Obama feared a backlash among his pro-Israel Jewish backers. Having won the election over the dead body of the Clinton faction, relying largely on her x-backers and toadies, he placated both the Jewish and Clinton Democratic coalitions (sometimes overlapping) with Rahm’s appointment. It’s a move which presages the schizophrenia and dynamics of the tragedy that awaits America’s next four years.

That Rahm would antagonize Obama’s terrorist and anti-Semitic supporters from Tehran to Trinity Church of Christ, mattered to him- but not enough. Politically, Obama had no choice. The supreme demagogue, he tied himself down in so many election strings, made so many contradictory promises to the myriad groups who prayed for his victory, that he can now only reward those, who were actually responsible for it.

The Rahms and Axelrods would have been good for America, if they weren’t going to run it. In the case of Obama, they have found themselves a way to unchecked power, and as an incidental by-product, in the middle of a Revolutionary Social Movement.

Revolutionary for two reasons. For reasons of size, and reasons of context. Size, I’ve mentioned – it’s the energy, the force. The context has to do with geography, and culture. Culturaly the Obama Movement is Un-American. Stupid things like pit-bulls, or forced community service, are expressions of a deep-seated disregard for America’s context.

Weak as Obama may be to reconcile his retainers inevitably contradictory interests, he rose to power on an Anti-American trinity of Fear, Censorship, and Intimidation, hence shares his retainers a-historicity, their a-contextuality, and their ability to distance themselves from the interest of those people, who define themselves as Americans.

***

The Democratic Party has always suffered from a Democratic deficit, and hence a deficit of Americana. It was founded by a foreigner, in opposition to Republican Abolitionism. Its role in the Civil Rights movement has been exaggerated, and its crimes against minorities covered up, downplayed and swept-under the rug. Already by the times of Roosevelt (PBUH) it consisted of a largely self-loathing Anglo element in coalition with an immigrant one. The latter had absolutely no experience with Democracy, hence little understanding of American Values. Perhaps since the days of its inception as a modern American political party, the Ass has made a living off of those who are either alien to, or scornful of significant portions of, America’s cultural traditions.

Since the late sixties, The Democratic notion of Freedom of Speech, translates into uncritical support for anything involving nudity and obscenity. The party’s ideas about Democratization amount to dropping a few bombs on Serbia and then jumping ship, or funneling billions of dollars into the pockets of Russian oligarchs, and then harping on about Putin when he tries to redress the balance in favor of the Russian people. Civil Rights in the Democratic sense mean abrogation of American Federalism. As the latest threats by select Californian interests groups to legally filibuster the will of the people of California on Proposition 8 demonstrate, Democrats are a party who consistently cares little for actual democratic principles, or the voice of regular Americans.

Democrats make the impression that they will side with anything that denigrates America’s Western Tradition, and historical Values. At its core, it is a party of several large victim groups with consistent anti-social, anti-middle class , anti-American, anti-Western platforms; e.g. exemplified in the uniquely Democratic ability to defend radical Islamists, terrorist, and Jihadists, without so much as batting an eye for the women, minorities, and innocent civilians who are their main victims.

For those of us who voted Clinton in the Democratic Primaries, all of this was a Democratic heritage we unambiguously rejected, but a heritage which the Obama Revolution has unequivocally embraced.

***

Never in his life has Obama referred to himself as an “American.” The goons who will run this country, even if they could drop their hyphens, would still refuse to say “American’ with any sense of a priory pride. Unless there is an immediate benefit, to being seen as an “American,” they will prefer something more sophisticated. They are multi-culti. They are this or that. But they are not “Americans” in an ordinary sense, and even worst, they are deeply resentful of labels such as “Western” or G-d forbid, the notion of being “Civilized”.

All of this is already clear in the Obama Social Movement they have now spawned on this country. A social movement which will seek to redefine this nation along the lines these compradors see fit, in keeping with their fragmented and schizophrenic identities, and not those of the country’s Founders; not in keeping with the traditions and culture of the people who built this country - taken with all their faults as well as their blessings.

It will not be a social movement encouraging values, principles, and hard work. It will not be a social movement encouraging dissent, debate, and deliberation. It will not be a social movement capable or even interested in the country’s national interests and political imperatives. No. It was from its inception, and will be till its death, a movement based on verbiage and rhetoric, dissimulating its intention to make this country represent what those who have hated it, want it to represent. It is a movement which rejects everything America has ever been, because it’s run by the disconnected, with the intention of disconnecting.

Obama is the face of a new fascist force in global politics. A face, without which it could never have risen.

***

Prior to his win, the Obama movement had already become largely negative to those who opposed it. Just imagine if tomorrow Obama has a heart-attack? Is it a stretch to speculate that the same joyous hordes celebrating Obama’s victory today, will take to tearing this world apart tomorrow?

Such is the force of the Obama movement. And it is a frightening force. A force which the Founding Fathers of this Nation – either did not foresee, or simply couldn’t offer any functional assurances against.

Publics the world over, may think that Obama’s victory is their victory, and Americans assume we have increased good-will for our nation. While few members of these international publics understand what American Democracy is about, nor what Obama’s victory beckons for this Democracy, Americans who voted Obama, exhibit an even greater form of ignorance as they fail to properly comprehend our civic duty and evaluate fairly the impact of their voting conduct on our political process. It is an impact high on promise, low on delivery. So far, here is what Obama’s done for the country, and the world:

-1- Never in our country’s history has a candidate transformed his name into an official campaign, and political logo. In fact, this is something which last happened only in Turkmenistan! Even Stalin and Hitler, didn’t have logos which represented any part of themselves.

Logos are important. Symbols are important. They channel energy, and make it a force. It is via symbols, that the diverse, becomes the united. It is through symbols, that power is accumulated. Obama’s logo, the “O” is unprecedented in the American context, but even internationally, its hard to find precedent. While uniting can be good, democratic unity is by definition anti-personal. Unity through the manipulation of cult logos at the national level in America, is simply mind-blowing.

-2- In the case of the Obama Social Movement, it is one which is entirely personal on the activist level. Activist have little care for the details and facts of their object of worship. Talking to them about insider politics or the strings used to pull their idol’s appendages is to enrage them. In the case of Obama, this is a stage already reached with most of his supporters; oblivious to his reality.

What matters is Obama’s symbolic value, and it’s a value entirely focused on Obama’s personal narrative-story. On his face, voice, character, words. A total negation of American concepts of leadership.

-3- Obama represents the Weberian charismatic leader. This is precisely the leader which time after time undermines all reason, all rational, all democratic systems. He is the authoritarian prototype. He is the Mohammed razing hell throughout the desert. The Jesus get people to abandon the family type. He is the Nasserite, Hitlerite, Lenin type. Hardly American.

-4- Since Obama has no experience, no credentials, no significant achievements to his name, it is all the more contradictory to see his cultural preeminence with the above characteristics all of which are profoundly antagonistic to American culture. This begs the question, isn’t Obama simply a culmination of Anti-American sentiment? Perhaps as a caveat to those elites who think that an Obama victory has resulted in sudden reversal of Global Anti-Americanism: In as much as his victory is a reflection of a subconscious distaste for sound American values, the global good-will is better understood as the joy of the victors over the vanquished.

The Obama social movement, is perhaps a coagulated form of various strands of anti-Americanism of the last 100 years. All the way from minority resentment and socialism, to third-Worldism and Islamism. As such, it is a movement, which is contradictory to the likes of Martin Luther King, or similar staunch pro-American reformers.

-5- The amount of energy channeled by the symbolism and activism of the Obama camp, becoming the Obama Social Movement is of Revolutionary magnitude. It is a force so strong, that to challenge it in an open confrontation, will result in an actual, physical, social and political Revolution. So much so, is already apparent from our election.

Why?

-6- Contrary to what all the analysts may suggest, Obama’s victory on November 4th was largely the product of fear. At a basic level, first Clinton, and then McCain refused to hit Obama where it hurt most. The reasons probably differed, but Clinton’s are not really clear. Here is what clearly took place:

a) Official Republican party fear - at the highest level of the GOP, Karl Rove convened a meeting with leading academicians and scholars to discuss the role of race in this year’s election. It was then that the Party formulated a hands-off approach to anything related to Race. McCain received the info, and followed it to the T. Hence, it can safely be concluded that McCain feared the social effects of really going after Obama on his anti-Americanism, and did so in effete and comical ways to placate the Laura Ingrams.

b) Journalist fear and inhibition - The Karl Rove study filtered through to Fox. Hence Fox didn’t pull the cards it could have. Sowell and Steele weren’t invited to the show. James Manning never made the headline. Black Republicans weren’t pulled out of the hat. This was Fear in Fox. Then there was another kind of fear in the rest of the journalist profession. Fear of being labeled Racist, if any questions about Obama were put forth. The fear was so great - AND STILL IS- that any initiative to raise question, remains inhibited.

c) Analyst fear - analysts fear pulling the Michael Lind and Sean Wilentz types of anti-Racial analysis which seek to expose the use and abuse of Race framing by Axelrod/Obama, and to present honest analyses of the cultural and social events which are taking place this very moment in our country.

c) political activist fear - McCain and Clinton camp had a hard time opposing Obama vocally. The breakthrough came with Palin, who effectively channeled some of this opposition. But in personal conversations, and in public discourse, Obama supporters were often aggressive and intimidating. They created an atmosphere of fear, where anti-Obama voters felt demoralized in stating their obvious, natural, and reasonable reasons to oppose Obama. There was a nasty burden of proof upon any Anti-Obama voter, and it’s as if everyone was up against an irate Black-mama, that would scream your head down if you disagreed. So much so was clear from Whoopi Goldberg’s notions about “nigger,” and thousands of other anecdotal examples.

d) voter fear - in the end, the greatest threat in this election came with the actual voting done by mixed race precincts. Americas political elites (rightfully) feared an election day tainted with Racial animosity. The specter of mixed race polling stations erupting in violence was real - and had McCain and the GOP chosen to take down Obama for the Fabricator and Liar that he is , this animosity would have been inevitable. Axelrod/Obama skillfully manipulated the Black and “Anti-Racist” vote to anticipate a defeat at the hands of Racists. They injected tension into the atmosphere, which was entirely in their favor. In the end, the refrain of “racists” and “Bradley effect” worked to suppress Anti-Obama turn-out.

Five basic fears, all with one source: the Obama Camp. Fear skillfully created and manipulated by David Axelrod and decision-makers parallel to the Obama campaign.

-7- The victory of fear, in a political election, is a fundamental blow to America’s political institutions, and the heritage that sustains it. American democracy had reached a terminal point - that of Race Relations.

We’ve gone from the Civil Rights victories of the sixties, into a veritable Defeat of Democratic Rights in the 21st century. The naive nature of Civil Rights, with their emphasis on militant politics, has been exposed as anathema to a healthy democracy, which relies on democratic cultures such as freedom of speech and access to media to sustain the larger freedoms of Civil Rights. At its core the Civil Rights movements were more about minority nationalism, than actual equality. Its vindictive nature permeated American culture for fifty years, and has now gained political ascendancy. The un-Democratic nature of its culture, does not predisposes it to running a country such as the United States. It bodes terror. What was nominally a quest for equality, in reality stifled intellectual exchange and hence created an atmosphere of race-based opposition politics. It had in effect, annulled freedom of thought, expression, and intercourse.

-8- Symptomatic of this un-democratic heritage are forms of anti-social militancy, often ethnocentric and nationalist, or self-negating and nihilist. Politically, it has the following traits:

A) Comformism. It already stands out as the unifying characteristic of the Obama movement, and of the Obama Revolution. Obama trolls intimidate others, when dissent is in the air. This is the case in America, and in all the Developed World except Japan.

B) Suppression of thought and expression, is the default mode of this movement. If you’re Berlusconni, we don’t care if you are joking, you’re Racist. Comedians are scratching their heads. This is especially the case in America, but the same has taken place abroad.

C) Media deterioration. Fox was Out-foxed by ten other foxes. It didn’t stand a chance. But even worst is the situation in other developed countries, where 80 % of the population support Obama, having had absolutely ZERO negative or recriminating information about him during the entire campaign, and largely negative information on Clinton and McCain. The media are a pillar of a Free Society, and with Obama, this is a Pillar, which no longer stands.

D) The negation of obvious reality. That Obama’s victory presents:

a) a victory for lobbyists and special interests - CONTRARY to his rhetoric.

b) a victory for money, IGNORED entirely by the Obama movement. A further commoditization of the vote. The Entrenchment of the role of political merchants and technocrats. Money was more central to this election than any in previous history.

c) a victory for rabid partisanship CONTRARY to any Obama rhetoric. Even a Schwarzenegger appointment is pointless - as he has been a lifelong Democrat, and married into the Kennedy clan.

d) victory of slander and calumny CONTRARY to Obama claims. The slander of “racism” pinned on all questions pertaining to Obama.

e) issues not important at all in election CONTRARY To all Obama claims. Issues were debated, and Clinton beat Obama on all of them. When faced with McCain, Obama lacked any initiative on oil prices, the economy, and Georgia. The first two were the leading issues in this election. McCain lead on both. In the end, he even won more voter trust on them. Didn’t matter to the election one bit. Issues were irrelevant on the backdrop of the “historicity” of the election.

-9- The end result is the defeat of America’s oppositional Democracy. The Republicans have absolutely no discursive means at their disposal that can effectively challenge the Obama Movement in the public market-place. They may be able to fight him on spending, but this will be a fight they will fight alone in their rarefied Senate-world. It will speak little to Americans, and even less to the rest of the Obama-loving world.

This lack of discursive space, was apparent from day one, and is why Clinton, and not McCain, was the real contender in this election. Clinton herself, was defeated as a result of un-democratic practices within the Democratic party, because otherwise, as the popular vote shows.

-10- With America’s fall, comes the fall of the Western Democratic tradition, of Democracy, and the West. Europe is already blindly following in America’s wake- even more militant Socialist and left-wing parties demand their own Obama on the same Affirmative Action grounds, with absolute disregard for Democratic tradition, and soft institutions.