Monday, August 25, 2008

Elect Obama, Destroy America: Revisited

A note from Radarsite: For whatever reason, according to our sitemeter this old Radarsite article has been getting a lot of readers today. So in honor of the theme of this week's great Dem celebration, "Change We Can Believe In" we are reposting it. In truth, we don't really need an excuse. Whatever Radarsite can do to help derail the Obama train we will happily do without hesitation or further justification. For those of you who have read it before, just skip over this one. - rg

Elect Obama, Destroy America

Political hyperbole? Right-wing alarmist propaganda?

Consider this.

The Ruinous Bequests of the Sixties

Most protest movements begin as an organized expression of a legitimate grievance -- some perceived societal injustice, perhaps in response to actual governmental or judicial tyranny. If the timing is right and the issues resonate, successful protest movements can flourish and quickly grow into full-fledged revolutions, and revolutions can often degenerate into bloody civil wars.

Is America presently in the midst of such a potentially explosive scenario? Unfortunately, the signs appear to be more and more ominous. Since those traumatic events of September 11, 2001, this nation has been resolutely dividing itself into two increasingly hostile and irreconcilable camps. That reasonable 'middle ground', traditionally amenable to compromise, has been steadily shrinking until it has become all but hypothetical. It has been argued, not unconvincingly, that not since those anxious years in the mid-Nineteenth Century, prior to our perhaps inevitable, but monstrously destructive Civil War, has this great country been so split asunder.

Once again, the split is to be between Republican and Democrat, Right and Left, but this November's election will not be between the traditional Republican Right and the traditional Democratic Left; but rather between an ascendant but conflicted New Left, and a beleaguered and conflicted New Right. This New Age Democratic Party is torn between the Hillary Clinton Political New Left of old-style Democratic politics -- i.e., pro-labor, pro-big government, "One World", Socialistic agenda -- whose ultimate goal however appears to many to be primarily a personal return to political power, and the charismatic Barack Obama's Cultural New Left, an idealistic social movement, which views political power as simply a means to an end, the end being the implementation of sweeping cultural changes in our American society. Each in their own way are ideological products of the Sixties. But, as destructive as the victory of either candidate would ultimately be to our cherished American Dream, of the two, the prospects of an Obama presidency are by far the most alarming.

Despite his oft-repeated promises to "bring America together", by his own words and actions and revealing personal associations -- and that of his prospective First Lady -- for all of his undeniable charismatic appeal, Barack Hussein Obama is simply a racist. His vision of America is racist, and his solutions to our problems are racist. His appeal is to those backward-looking, self-destructive forces of negativity and defeatism inherent in all cultures at all times. His song is not a new one, it's that same same old seductive siren song of victimization which has lured countless gullible societies to their doom -- 'You deserve more than what you have, and you would have more than you presently have, had you not been victimized by Them, the Enemy, the Other -- the colonialist, the Jews, or the Whites.'

Thus, in Barack Obama's skewered vision, America is to be seen as a battleground: it is to be Us versus Them again. The historically suppressed colored peoples of this world versus the ruthless and domineering post-colonialist Whiteys. His appeal is to the politically naive or the purposefully ignorant, those who willfully, for their own selfish motivations, deny all political and cultural progress and achievement, no matter how obvious. Far from the high-minded rhetoric of their humanistic speeches, they are simply the latest genus of that same old species of self-serving politicians -- devious, amoral and cynical. They are intellectually, emotionally, and often financially invested in defeat. They are the dangerous products of protest movements gone awry.

As history has repeatedly proven, once a nascent protest movement begins to succeed and achieve a certain level of public acceptance and validation, it can easily devolve into an entrenched political entity, virtually indistinguishable from any other entrenched political entity, with its own newly-acquired set of selfish goals and objectives. This new political entity no longer has one single clear cut societal agenda (i.e. the Cause); their efforts now become divided. One of their most important goals inevitably becomes self-perpetuation -- often by even more ruthless means than the original tyranny against which they successfully battled. At some point, this political survivalist mentality can, and usually does, completely subsume the lofty goals of the original movement. Thus a new -- and perhaps even more dangerous tyranny is born. A tyranny, like all tyrannies, whose primary mission is to sustain itself at all costs.

How many times during these last few turbulent centuries have we seen this fateful scenario play itself out on the world's stage -- in Robespierre's France, in Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia, Mao's China, Castro's Cuba -- all with invariably murderous consequences?

But what happens if the primary goals of the original protest movement are actually realized? Does the movement then merely melt away and quietly re-assimilate itself back into that society which it has successfully transformed? Hardly. The movement's leaders have too much invested in the Cause to simply disband their troops and ride off into the sunset. Through the Cause these leaders have achieved power, and power seldom voluntarily walks off the stage.

But with their original goals accomplished and their real or theoretical enemies defeated, what possible purpose can be served by their continuing existence? They have now essentially become Rebels Without a Cause. How, then, can they perpetuate their own legitimacy?

The answer of course is to ignore the reality of their victories and create new enemies -- or to somehow skillfully resurrect the old ones.

Virtually every successful revolutionary movement which has morphed into a tyranny has sustained itself in this manner. The once fanatical revolutionaries are now battling counter-revolutionaries. Their entire raison d'etre has now become to prosecute this never-ending battle to purportedly protect the achievements of the Glorious Revolution from its innumerable reactionary enemies. This is an unalterable prerequisite to their survival; there can be no successful tyranny without enemies. Thus the Revolution becomes a perpetual 'work-in-progress', a never-ending war. Now, ironically, to admit success would be to admit defeat. They must continuously convince their followers, or subjects, that they are constantly under siege from these relentless counter revolutionary forces. The leaders are now to be viewed as society's protectors, protecting the helpless vulnerables from the predatory Enemy. And if perchance there is no viable predatory enemy, then they must create one.

The American -- and eventually, world-wide -- protest movements of the 1960s provide us with a perfect example of this ultimately self-destructive paradigm, which -- due in large part to America finding itself in the midst of yet another contentious and unpopular war -- is drawing us once again into its deadly vortex. The protest movements of the Sixties produced some truly remarkable changes for the better in our American society. But there was also a dark side. Part of the message of the Sixties was the message of helplessness. It is "attempting to cure the alcoholic by convincing him that he has good reason to drink". Its well-intentioned but deadly condescension has brought us the bleak realities of inner city despair. The self-perpetuating crime-ridden, drug-infested, inter-generational poverty and hopelessness of the Seventies. And now, they are bringing us this devastating message once again.

The Seventies: The Bleak Landscape of Victimization:

Does it matter that Barack Hussein Obama is at least partially black? Yes, tremendously. Not to us, but to Barack Hussein Obama. It is the very essence of his being, the banner of his Crusade. Without the 'race issue', Barack Obama would be just another politician. It is his focus and his justification. And, if we are not careful it will become ours: there are many among us who have unwittingly bought into the false premise that all of the existential threats we face in this turbulent world are of our own making. They are not evidence of our real enemies evil intentions, but rather the results of our own inherent racism and prejudice. And they will proudly cast their vote for Barack Hussein Obama merely to prove to themselves and to the world that they are not racists.

However, it is certainly fair to ask, if race or color are still truly overriding factors with the American public, then how is it that we exhibited no such national hang-ups when coping with Colin Powell or Condoleezza Rice? And if race and gender are still the salient issues they were in the Furious Sixties, then how does one explain the current makeup of our Democratic Presidential Candidates? One a woman, one a black? It's a pretty difficult argument to sustain.

To all but the most blind and biased liberals, the surprising victories of the Feminist and Civil Rights movements of the Sixties have been nothing short of astonishing. How anyone in today's America can watch television, go to a movie, listen to popular music, or read a national newspaper and come away feeling that either blacks or women are underrepresented is incomprehensible. Today there are women and blacks -- and, yes, lesbians and homosexuals and transgenders -- in every conceivable facet of American life -- in the military, the media, the business world, sports, entertainment, politics. Only those deeply invested in a contrarian agenda would be cynical enough to deny it.

We, the United States of America, have come closer in this Twenty-First Century to achieving a pure meritocracy than any other civilization in history. But will this undeniable fact impress those self-doomed generational victims and their professional enablers? Hardly. For these aging warriors of the Sixties and their current ideological offspring the very concept of victory is an unpleasant, perhaps even a deadly admission. For without a battle, what use are warriors? If gender-based and racial parity have actually been achieved, then what possible use do we have for a Gloria Steinem or an Al Sharpton ? What, then, can these poor dispossessed Bands of Brothers -- or, more often, Sororities of Sisters -- do with their disbanded warriors ? What roles can there be in today's meritocracy for a NOW or an NAACP? Those roles which would actually benefit man -- or womankind, they have, to their everlasting dishonor, steadfastly refused to even consider. These disenfranchised organizations could help to change the world, but they cannot get past their own deflated and bruised egos. The feminists could be rising as one powerful voice in support of their oppressed sisters in Islam; and the black activists could be wooing their brothers and sisters away from the devastating consequences of a life lived as a victim. But they don't. They won't. To keep themselves in power, to preserve their personal tyrannies, they choose rather to perpetuate the myth, and seal the plight of the true victims of this world.

To vote for Barrack Hussein Obama and his dark vision of America is to vote for defeatism and negativity. It is willfully turning your back on the hope and promise of this wondrous meritocracy we call America. It is buying into the outrageous lie that America itself is the problem, and that only by changing the whole concept of Americanism can we hope to cure the evils of this world.

Would electing Barack Obama mean the destruction of America?

Only you can decide.


  1. Bombshell article after bombshell article. My blog's on the road to being a radar site proxy!

    I truly like how you turned around their argument that WE are creating false enemies. They say that there is still racism and sexual oppression in the world, but the only place I see it is in Islam, which they mind-bogglingly accept.

    Thankfully the optimists who believe in the fundamental goodness of America have at least a slim margin over Obama. I can only hope that they mobilize on this year's election.

  2. Thank you for the nice words, Ryan.
    Your blog is looking great. in the future if you ever want one of my articles, just ask and I'll send you the html, so that you can get the pics and everything.
    PS If you notice, I always take stuff from other authors that I like. We all do.

  3. "Would electing Barack Obama mean the destruction of America?"

    I think more than anything, that is what worries the Republicans the most. It isn't just that what he will do in office will destroy America, but that this is actually his intention, his ultimate goal.

  4. What scares me about Obama is the easy pass he gets because he is black. If a white candidate came before the American people and media with the same credentials, same hateful background, the MSM would have tarred and feathered him. But Obama is given a pass.

    Obama's vision is one that could only have been dreamed up by a stoned-out hippie. We live in the real world, he thinks in the Kumbayah world. His Presidency would destroy the defense and common good of this nation.

  5. As I said before...

    From the first time I heard about the boogey-man as a child to the first time I got shot at in Vietnam, nothing in my entire lifetime, THAT'S NOTHING! has put more fear into me than this man Obama.
    Norman E. Hooben - July 2008

  6. It was spot-on the first time I read it and it's spot-on now.

    What scares me about Obama are his Muslim ties. Assuming he isn't Muslim, he will have strong ties to them. What will he do, when he must do the unthinkable?


  7. Does it strike anyone that the images Obama likes to employ are not unlike those of Weimar Germany? And his solution;
    "We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set," ..."We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded."
    Nazrallah has Hezbollah (a party)which has a veto on the Lebanese Parliament (basically a captive body). Hitler had first the SA (party), then the SS, which had a veto ..on life. And the KGB motto was "the sword and shield 'of the Party'..(party).."The speaker I cited has already spent enough money to employ an aggregate of the above.

    With an organization such as he describes (which sounds like a policy 'special executive'), added to the imminent "Fairness Doctrine" and a dissolute media diseased to deviancy from excessive prostitution; 1984 was only delayed in art becoming life.
    Well, Speer's floodlights were something. But, Barack's fireworks and temple columns were something else again.
    CAUTION: 'Americana' doesn't read. 'Americana' is influenced by sound-bites and picture-books (visuals).