Andrea Freiboden

There are several reasons why Obama has won over many Americans, but I shall consider two. There are two kinds of Obama supporters. There is the genuinely duped, the kind of people who really look at him as the messiah of CHANGE and HOPE for whatever pitiful reason–ignorance, sappiness, guilt, fear, anxiety, etc. But, there is also the duplicitous, the kind of people who know exactly who and what Obama is and feel that they know the Grand Game Plan. It is the combination of images of radiance(for the duped) and of radicalism(for the duplicitous) that has fueled Obama to power. Unless one understands this duality, one cannot grasp the essence of the Obama phenomenon.

We have seen countless images of swooning crowds at the feet of Obama. He is their Jesus, their Leader, their Lord, their Prophet. He might even be their Will Smith or Oprah. Many of these people tend not be well-informed nor too bright. Many of them are young, which means they are impressionable and prone to social and cultural pressure. (Though young are said to be rebellious, most happen to be slavish to peer pressure; even oddballs who take pride in their deviation from The Norm are acutely aware of their social exile, and as such, even their rebellion is a form of emotional slavishness. They need to prove themselves out of a sense of inadequacy.) Many of these people surely heard of reports of Obama’s sleazy Chicago politics or his many lies. But, they are essentially emotional people who respond to images and sounds than think rationally about issues. Once they’ve latched onto Obama, he’s their ‘rock star’ hero; and, whenever in doubt, they go into the ‘say it aint so, Joe’ mode. They WANT to believe that Obama is the savior. This desire is so powerful that evidence to the contrary doesn’t make much impact. The ONLY way they can be woken out of their doldrums is if the media finally do their job and go after Obama for all his lies and expose and shame him. Only if the authority higher than Obama–the liberal Jewish-run media–says he’s no good will the sheeple who worship him finally come to realize he’s a false god. Many of these people are good people, fine people. They are like the dupes in "MEET JOHN DOE". They so desperately want to believe in hope and change and a bright future where everyone gets along–especially whites and blacks–that they don’t want to know the truth about Obama. It would break their hearts and force them to think and use their brains–something they are not equipped to do. As they happen to be intellectually limited, they would rather believe in mantras and symbols. Whenever they hear bad things about Obama, they pray,‘say it aint so, O’. ONLY IF the media seriously go after Obama and expose him in a serious way will the minds of these people change. Remember that in "MEET JOHN DOE", the rich and powerful had to unite and expose Doe as a ‘fake’ before the minds of people finally changed. Obama supporters are just like that.

This of course raises a question. How can so many people be so stupid? Well, they just are. Why do so many Americans prefer stupid TV shows and movies to serious literature and art cinema? And, this is a problem in both camps. Remember that conservatives went with the mediocre George W. Bush because he promoted himself as a pious man of God and a ‘regular guy’–though he was born with a silver spoon his mouth. Many people are dumb.

But you may ask, ‘but, how come so many intelligent and well-educated people also support Obama?’ Why did 50% of upper middle class people vote for Obama? Why did the majority of very rich people support Obama? Why was Obama’s support so overwhelming among the Ivory Tower crowd in the academia.

There are many reasons for this, and let me run them down as fast as possible.

But, there’s another reason why well-educated people–often in influential or powerful positions–support Obama. It’s not so much that they are duped but that they are duplicitous. Conservatives sometimes wonder why so many well-educated and intelligent people aren’t troubled by the fact that Obama is of the Saul Alinsky school. Anyone who has paid attention to the news knows that Obama’s intellectual influences and political associations are pretty radical. We know that Alinsky-ism isn’t open and honest but subversive, cunning, and deceitful. It is the strategy of shrewd and devious ‘progressives’ manipulating the gullibility and stupidity of Middle Americans. Alinsky deviated from other radicals and came to the conclusion that Middle Americans had to serve as the clay for revolution. America didn’t have masses of poor, and the classic working class was shrinking. So, no great social change could be achieved without the support or involvement of the vast Middle Class. Alinsky-ism was about playing to Middle Class anxieties, fears, doubts, guilt, naivete, and hope. This didn’t mean that Alinsky-ism was pro-Middle Class or embraced American Middle Class values. Instead, it sought to change Middle Class values by pandering to Middle Class fears, anxieties, and hopes. Radicals would cut their hairs, act all-American, put on respectable three piece suits, and go among Middle Americans, work through mainline churches, and penetrate Middle Class culture. Through control of education and media, they would gradually persuade Middle Americans that there was something fundamentally lacking or wrong in their lives and in America. This missing element could be economic, spiritual, moral, or psychological.

Alinksky-ism is the most dangerous kind of subversive-ism as it comes with a hug and a smile, flowers and chocolates; it is radicalism made(or feigning to be) respectable and ‘safe’. Just as some radical leftists in the US served international communism by pretending to be for PEACE, Alinsky radicals served their hidden brand of radicalism by pretending to be for Middle Americans. (Of course, some of these radicals were indeed very much into Middle American life and fooled themselves about being radicals only to add some socio-intellectual spice to their humdrum lives. How much cooler if a suburban or yuppie couple flattered themselves as being part of some intellectual underground!)

We know that Obama and his close IDEOLOGICAL associates don’t care for Middle America. Obama is, at heart, a black internationalist and a stealth Marxist. He wants to take white wealth and give it to ‘exploited’ people-of-color around the world, mostly to black Americans and black Africans. Of course, Obama knows he can’t do this overnight as people will wake up and see his black ass for what it is. So, he’s in the Jackie Robinson mode of politics. He knows that national politics still has a long way to go to catch up to the NFL and NBA level, which are so black-dominated that blacks can say and do as they please. Recall that when blacks first entered professional sports, they were met with fear and suspicion from white players and fans, and so they had to act like they were nice gentle fellows who simply wanted to play ball and get along. So, we had guys like Jackie Robinson as the face of Integration in sports. Whites were assured that some nice Negroes would come and play, and that would be that. Well, look at the NBA and NFL today!

Obama knows that national politics is still in the age of Jackie Robinson, so he smiles a lot and acts partly like a nice and polite ‘House Negro’. But, it’s all just an act.

Now, good many educated people must know what Obama is really about. They read books, watch the news, read magazines, and etc. Even if the media are slanted to the Democratic Party and favor Obama, anyone with any brains and knowledge should know what he really is, what he really stands for, and where he came from. So, why do intelligent and well-educated white liberals and leftists go along with a man who built his career on deception, manipulation, two-faced-ness, and shrewd cunning? It’s because they find it all very exciting and feel that they themselves are IN on the Big Lie. This may sound crazy. One may indeed ask why intelligent and well-educated people would find pleasure or seek pride in participating in a Grand Lie. It’s because radicalism has long been very chic and hip among well-educated folks. You and I may see radicals as a bunch of extremists, but educated folks and intellectuals think RADICALISM is where real truth(or the spirit of truth) is, what the grand future holds, where real values lie, where real courage and purity can be found, where no compromises are made.

For radicals, subversion is the necessary weapon against a society that is all too compromised–and requires everyone to compromise and conform to the oppressive Middle Norm to get along. (According to the Frankfurter left-wing Jewish intellectuals, Middle America offered false freedom, sham liberty, and a form of oppression that fooled people into thinking they were free through commodity-centric consumerism and socially normative conformism where one gauged one’s worth by keeping up with the Joneses. Though leftist and radical, this theory expressed the contempt and snobbery of European elite culture toward ‘materialistic’ Americans.

For European intellectuals, materialism was a philosophy for understanding the world as it really operated. For Americans, materialism was a way of life where one’s happiness and ‘freedom’ were measured by how much material wealth one accumulated and enjoyed like silly little children. So, even as Frankfurter School intellectuals were egalitarians, they exhaled elitist contempt for mass society. According to Marxism, capitalism was supposed to make the masses poorer, and intellectuals were supposed to lead them to freedom. But, in America, the great masses had no desire for revolution since they ‘never had it so good’. Through the prism of Marxist theory, it was not acceptable that American capitalism had improved the lives of workers and ordinary people and expanded their freedoms. Since Frankfurters couldn’t find open oppression, they looked for invisible oppression in the hidden structures of society and people’s thoughts.

From this arose Radical Feminism which argued that housewives were psychologically like Holocaust victims and Alinksy-ism which said Middle Americans were slaves but just didn’t know it because they ‘had it so good’. Since Middle America could not be convinced that their lives were horrible based on material evidence, the left had to play on emotional and psychological issues, which was why Marxism and Freudian psychology merged in the social sciences dominated by the Left.) Since subversion is deceitful, it merely pretends to compromise while concealing the radicalism within. Real compromise in a democracy is where two people openly and honestly come to an understanding and accept the compromise as just. Leftist radicals don’t think or act this way. Alinsky told his students to act as if to compromise, all the while gaining more and more power until the day arrives when they can take total power. For people who really believe in democracy, compromise is a worthy goal. For radicals, it is merely a means in order to gain greater and greater power untilthey can grab ALL the power. Salvador Allende of Chile was that kind of radical. So is Hugo Chavez. The reason why Chavez moves gradually is not because he likes to compromise and work with the other side. Instead, he wants to make it seem(especially to outsiders) as though the people democratically granted him ALL the power. Similarly, Hitler was a radical with a purist ideology who employed democratic compromise only as a tool in order to gain more and more power so as to eventually do everything his way.

We must never confuse compromise-as-goal with compromise-as-means. The former is made in good faith, the latter in bad faith. People who embrace compromise-as-goal regard it as a hallmark of a true democracy. People who employ compromise-as-means look forward to the day when they no longer need to compromise since they will have ALL the power. US is moving in that direction, not necessarily because of the rise of Obama but because of the increasing power of the liberal and left-wing Jews.

Consider an average white goy whose total wealth may be around $30,000 in the bank. Compare that to people like Michael Bloomburg who’s worth $15 billion. That means that Michael Bloomburg’s net worth is equal to that of 500,000 white goyim. One rich liberal Jew = half a million white goyim. There are many liberal Jews with that kind of wealth and power, and they’ve come to own all the networks. Even the so-called conservative movies are made by liberal Hollywood, which means the profits made from conservative ticket buyers go to liberal Jews just the same. Many conservatives appreciated Spielberg’s "Saving Private Ryan" as a patriotic movie, and 100s of millions of dollars flowed into Spielberg’s coffers. So, how did Spielberg the liberal Jew honor this country that did so much for Jews? He helped elect Barack Obama, the stealth Marxist. Nearly half of all billionaires in the US are Jews, and most of them are liberal. Even so-called conservative businesses like Walmart are largely managed by top Jews, most of whom are liberal. Same is true of Fox News. We can grumble all we want, but the fact is Jews are smarter. Worse, conservative culture is largely stupid, un- and anti-creative, and simple-minded.

Anyway, affluent whites grew up watching movies, listening to popular music, and getting fancy education. All those things inculcate and celebrate radicalism as cool, cutting-edge, badass, heroic, exciting, far-out, and groovy. Some got radical chic or radical hip through Matrix movies, some got it through punk music, some got it through Che t-shirts, some got it through Rolling Stone magazine, some got it from their highschool teachers, some got it from books, some picked it up in college.

Frankfurters were wrong about Americans not being free, but they were right about American popular culture producing mental and spiritual zombies, gimps, and airheads. Intellectually vapid and spiritually empty in a vast pop cultural and consumerist wasteland, many Americans–everyone from college students to housewives glued to the Tube–were bound to be won over by at least certain aspects of radicalism. This transformation also involved many conservatives. After having grown up in the staid or banal culture of Christian fundamentalism, small town hick values, or colorless suburbia, many kids raised as conservatives found meaning in radicalism.

Generally, leftists own radicalism, but there’s also radicalism on the right, especially libertarianism and Ayn-Rand-ism. Libertarianism’s main attraction is its purity and un-compromised ideology. Though libertarianism will never gain power, it makes a lot of rightists feel good about their un-compromised ‘integrity’. Libertarians don’t seem to understand that their brand of radicalism is useless for gaining power because it is anti-statist. How can you gain political power if you’re anti-government? Just as anarchism lost out to the communism, libertarianism always loses out to liberalism. All libertarianism can do is appeal to people to be more self-reliant, but truth be told, many people don’t want to be self-reliant as it means not only more freedom but more responsibility. They would rather shove the burden and cost to government. Of course, some people choose libertarianism precisely because it has no hope of ever coming to power. Some radicals want power, but some radicals just want to feel nobler-than-thou and pretend that the reason why power is denied them is because they are just too good, too smart, too pure, and too deep for the stupid crass world. Lost-Cause-Libertarianism is really just a form of intellectual-moral-narcissism.

Anyway, the reason why so many intelligent and well-educated people support Obama is they see themselves not as dupes but as the dupers or ones participating in Obama’s dupe-a-rube routine. They see Obama, a student of Alinsky, as their leader and comrade in hoodwinking the entire nation, especially Middle America. But, one may ask, "didn’t many of these smart and well-educated white Americans come from Middle America? Aren’t they subverting their own world and their own power?" Yes and no. Yes, many of them are indeed the products of Middle America. But, there is Middle America as economic status and Middle America as heart-and-soul. Many economic Middle Americans are culturally, spiritually, and politically ‘radical’ since they grew up on stuff like Matrix, rock music and its related politics, liberal or leftist education. Just as many rich people have been leftists and many poor people have been rightists, it is wrong to think that economic status = political/spiritual/cultural identity. If such were the case, Karl Marx, born and raised in privilege, would not have become a radical socialist. Entire generations of kids have been raised on left-colored music, movies, magazines, textbooks, teachers, media. Though Hitler is said to have been evil, evil, and evil by our media and academia, the same has not been accorded to the mass killers of the Left. Though Stalin and Mao are remembered for their evil, the general liberal line is that they committed evil because they betrayed their leftist principles. In other words, Hitler was evil because he was indeed a true rightist whereas Stalin and Mao were evil because they weren’t properly leftist. So, rightism is evil for what it is whereas leftism can be evil only for what’s done in its name. In and of itself as an idea, leftism is supposedly of the highest moral order.

Marxism has a place in the West similar to that of Christianity. Christians feel that they cannot live up to the highest principles of Christianity and that trying to create a Christian utopia may actually do more harm. They reject theocracy not because a world ruled by God’s laws would be bad but because man cannot be trusted to rule the world according to God’s wisdom. Even so, Christians believe that Jesus was a perfect man and that it would be nice IF INDEED we could all live in a perfect Christian world. In other words, the problem is not in the ideas of Christianity but in the sinful nature of man who makes a mockery of those ideas.

Liberals and leftists feel the same way about Marxism. Though they acknowledge the miserable history of communism and accept the fact that communism failed as a totalitarian or ideocratic system, they believe that Marxism as an idea still holds the highest principles of Human Justice. In other words, it’s no so much that communism failed mankind but that mankind failed (to live up to) communism. Liberals and leftist reject communism or Marxism not because they think it’s a bad idea but because they think it’s an unattainable Great Idea. In contrast, fascism is regarded as evil in both ideology and practice(as opposed to communism which is supposedly good in ideology but was bad in practice–because stupid man couldn’t live up to its noble and demanding ideals).

So, even as liberals and leftist reject classic communism, they spiritually long for the Marxist promise. This isn’t surprising since man is naturally ‘spiritual’ and seeks something to cling to with his deep emotions and prophetic imagination. Christianity isn’t enough for their spiritual needs because (1) liberals and leftists are supposed to be rationalist and scientific and immune to ‘superstition’ (2) Christianity is 2000 yrs old, too old for modern people with a fetish for the New. (Though Marxism too is pretty old by now, it’s been repackaged time and time again as a fresh idea. Consider that with the recent financial collapse, some liberals are pushing Marx as relevant again (3) much of Christianity is culturally associated with the Right.

So, liberals and leftists prefer Marx to Jesus. Even liberals and leftists who readily admit that Marx got it wrong maintain that he was a man of the highest intellect, moral character, seriousness, noble intentions, and so on. Just as Moses has been revered by Jews for having led the way despite his major flaws, even ‘progressives’ who now admit that Marx had been wrong on crucial issues and ideas still revere him for what he stood and strived for. They believe that even if Marx ultimately proved to be wrong, his bold and determined search for Truth should be the template for all true intellectuals with a moral stake in the world.

What appeals to many liberals and leftists about Marx is his total devotion to the radical calling. Marx chose the life of a ‘starving radical’ through and through(though, to be sure, he had rich patrons who supported him time and time again). Most liberals and leftists feel that they ‘sold out’ and feel guilty and compromised as a result. They grew up with fancy ideas about justice and saving-the-world by gaining wealth and power, but most of them turn out to be affluent and privileged professionals or businessmen. And, even the less successful spend a lot of time scrambling to make more money and get ahead in life. There’s nothing wrong with this per se, but something in their education and cultural experiences/preferences informs them that it’s so lame and a waste of a life to be a privileged materialistic yuppie who lives the Ugly American lifestyle. They long to be AUTHENTIC, and you can’t attain that brand by being a middle class middle of the road white yuppie!! The only way you can buy some Authenticity is by supporting some ‘radical’ cause, listening to Afro-pop and calling for more aid to Africa, going on travels to less developed places around the world where pristine cultures haven’t yet been spoiled by rich materialistic Western people–as opposed to ‘caring’, ‘sensitive’, ‘cool’, and ‘progressive’ Western people such as themselves.

Just as materialistic and compromised Christians attend church on Sunday and seek forgiveness for their sins and trespasses, modern liberals and leftists pray to Marx and Martin(the Noble Negro) for their compromises with the materialist ‘greed’.

Che Guevara is also very appealing to modern liberals and leftists because he, like Marx, supposedly went all the way and compromised nothing. If Marx was intellectually 100% committed and courageous, Che was physically 100% committed and courageous. He died in the jungles of Bolivia, and attained the status of new Jesus for the New Left. Of course, most actual liberals and leftist are more like Naomi Klein. They want their yuppie privilege, fancy condos, fine dining, expensive coffee, travels and tourism to exotic places, and etc. Though politically, culturally, and spiritually raised to be leftists, they are the beneficiaries of the ‘capitalist-imperialist’ system. So, they latch onto something that gives them meaning and assures them that they are indeed involved in the radical revolution, if only indirectly or in spirit. Some affluent ‘progressives’ find radical redemption by vacationing in Cuba, smoking Cuban cigars, going to rock concerts where the star-as-saint yammers between songs on saving the rain forest/feeding the hungry in Africa/impeaching George W. Bush.

Anyway, the point is that many leftists and liberals know what Obama is about and up to. They know all about his Alinsky past and his far left sympathies. They know that Obama is a subversive radical. But, this excites than disturbs them since they too grew up with the notion that being ‘radical’, ‘revolutionary’, ‘subversive’, and so forth is cool. Indeed, being straight and forthright are considered white, middle-class, and lame. Educated people who listen to NPR and watch PBS prefer slick and sly jazz to straight-forward country music or even sober & dignified classical music. Obama is a radical slickster and jive-master, but being a subversive, he also knows how to feign earnestness. He knows how to pull the Will Smith schtick in ‘Six Degrees of Separation’.

That’s what makes him subversive as opposed to people like Malcolm X who were radical and anti-mainstream but not subversive. Malcolm X was straight forward in everything he said, regardless of whether they happen to be true or false, sane or insane. In contrast, Obama always wears masks, and he must be understood in terms of an actor in a blockbuster movie financed and written by liberal Jews. He’s their Will Smith in politics.

Anyway, though ‘subversive’ has negative connotations for conservatives, it’s a badge of honor for leftists and even many liberals. It means being cutting-edge, daring, cool, exciting, rebellious, slick, tricky, witty, and brilliant. Just as con-men take pride in their ability to trick people, many ‘progressives’ take pride in fooling and hoodwinking the lame, banal, bland, and dull white middle class. ‘Progressive’ subversives also take moral pride since they believe their deviously naughty fun will bring about ‘social justice’. (It’s a matter of having the cake and eating it too. They get to have fun playing bad boys and girls rebelling against The System, but miraculously the end result of all this conceited and contrived game is supposed to be the Better Future.

Of course, there has long been a connection between the super-rich and the radicals, not least because the super-rich are vain, narcissistic, and want to share in the fun of being ‘progressive’ and ‘revolutionary’ in the locomotive seat of history. So, it’s not surprising that many rich people have tried to appropriate the radical style, rhetoric, outlooks, and manners. In a way, the rise of Obama is the product of an understanding between the liberal super-rich business class and the super-privileged Ivy League radicals. Obama is like the most expensive political doll built or bought by the super-rich class who, having amassed tremendous fortunes in the past 30 yrs, want to play at being big government socialists by pulling the (purse)strings of their toy radical puppet. In this sense, Obama is to the rich liberal Jews what Will Smith is to Hollywood Jews.)

It’s surprising that many ‘progressives’ come from the white middle class, but it’s not hard to understand why that is. Having come from Middle America, they feel lame and inadequate(as middle class America is depicted that way by popular culture and higher education), and many seek meaning and excitement though radical politics, subcultures, or avant-garde intellectualism. Look on youtube and you find a whole bunch of bedroom philosophers and kitchen table revolutionaries speaking into the digicam to prove that they are not just another lame middle class person but a member of the avant garde or some cool secret society or movement. And so, when conservatives point out Obama’s Alinsky past, many ‘progressives’ think it’s so cool that Obama is a subversive, wink wink.

Of course, there is genuine awe and admiration for Obama on the part of many liberals and leftists, among both the duped and duplicitous. But, how can the duplicitous who know what Obama is really about look upon him as a ‘shining prince’? It’s because the human mind is infinitely complex and can fool itself in countless ways. Yes, it’s possible for even cynical and subversive duplicitous individuals to fall under the spell. Man is half intellect, half emotions.

‘Progressives’ have long sought a racial healer or a deliverer who embodies the positive qualities of Kennedy, King, FDR, Lincoln, Oprah, and Malcolm X. So came Obama, the master of many masks. (Even makers of masks can fall for their own masks, just like liars can come to believe in their own lies, and fabulists can fall for their own fantasies. It’s like the spider is forever the prisoner of the web it spins.) Also, no matter how subversive or cynical ‘progressives’ may be, their deepest core is enervated by a naive quasi-religious view of world salvation. Leftists may be tricky and sly on the outside, but their inside hugs-n-tugs an innocent child who wants the world to be perfect. So, strange as it may seem, not only the duped but even the duplicitous can get carried away by the Obama cult.

This was true of communist movements as well. In Stalin’s Soviet Union, many communist members were subversive, ruthless, hard-nosed, and pitiless. But, many of them did indeed believe in the shining myth of Stalin EVEN WHEN THEY KNEW that Stalin gained and maintained his power through the dirtiest and the most sinister of means. All people need something to stake their faith in, especially idealists. Therefore, even people who would later be crushed by Stalin died believing in the noble myth of the all-knowing Big Brother.

Similarly, on the one hand, many ‘progressives’ are deeply skeptical, sly, cynical, and cunning people. They are subversive. On the other, they are naive and quasi-religious idealists intoxicated with faith in a Better Future. They have this powerful need to attach onto some Great Theory or Great Personality. So, even those who know Obama for what he is are willing to project onto him their hopes and delusions. Even the duplicitous are capable of duping themselves. Obama, of course, knows this, how it works, and how to manipulate it. He knows that many of his followers are the duped while others are duplicitous. But, he also knows that even the duplicitous have a certain psychology that needs to cling to a Great Faith or Myth, and he knows how to play to those emotions. Even the smartest person responds to the world rationally only 50%. The other 50% is affected by sights, sounds, rhythm, texture, the groove and style, etc. This is why a man as smart as Einstein could fall for socialism or delude himself that Gandhi is a great saint.

Jesus said man doesn’t live on bread alone. It’s also true that man doesn’t live on ideas alone. The ideas he espouses must be attached, embodied, and expressed by a personality. Personality gives life to ideas. So, the "I Have a Dream" speech was just an idea from the pen of a Jewish writer. It came to life only with the delivery by Martin Luther King. King gave Life to those ideas, and in a way, became the very embodiment of or even bigger than those ideas. Today, his message of Love and Peace mean nothing to most blacks who listen to rap music and demand racial favoritism. But, the cult of King-the-personality is bigger than ever. Ideas become personified, and the person becomes mythified. In the end, the meaning of the ideas takes a backseat to the Myth of those ideas as embodied by The Great Personality. Same is true of what has become of Mao in China. Chinese no longer care for his communist ideas but still revere him as a symbol of Chinese unity, glory, pride, and power. Maoism isn’t no longer about actually following Mao’s ideas by the letter but celebrating the spirit of those ideas by adapting them into symbols of nationalist power and glory.

Similarly, blacks embrace Martin Luther King personality cult not because they believe in color-blindness or peace but because the cult guarantees them automatic moral superiority and racial pride. White ‘progressives’ cling to the King cult either out of opportunism, naive idealism, or radicalism. Scared conservative opportunists want to use the King cult to argue against racial favoritism(‘content of character’ over ‘color of skin’) and to persuade blacks to choose peace over violence. Liberals cling to the King cult in the hope that some kind of racial harmony may prevail. Radicals want to use the King cult as a Trojan Horse tactic to fool white people into dropping their guards against the rise of black and Jewish power.

Anyway, just as King imbued white liberal ideas of 60s with Music and Charisma, Obama aims to do the same today. Again, we see a similar set-up and pattern. Most of the writers are Jewish. Jews have great intellect and cunning but not much in the way of charisma. Blacks have that hormone charged intensity but aren’t much for ideas. We saw this in pop music too. Brill Building was largely made up of Jewish songwriters, but many of the singers were black. Jews supplied the songs, and blacks delivered the performances. Of course, Jews did this with whites too. Jewish Hollywood came up with screenplays but found big tall handsome goyim to bring the pages to life. Ayn Rand the Jewess wrote the novel and screenplay of "The Fountainhead" but big tall handsome Gary Cooper brought it to life. Milton Friedman was the funny looking yoda-like man of ideas behind Reaganomics, but Reagan was the man who gave it a face that inspired millions. Jews are brilliant, smart, and/or cunningl but tend to be gnome-like and funny looking. They need to partner up with the ‘Aryan’ or the ‘Negro’. In the past, Jews used ‘Aryans’ like Charlton Heston to popularize their artistic ideas and political values. Today, ‘Aryans’ have been vilified and dehumanized while Negroes have been elevated in their place. But, the people who are still financing this and writing the script are the Jews. Even in the conservative movement, the writers have often been people like David Frum, Richard Perle, Bill Kristol, etc.

Many white liberals and leftists see themselves as people of brilliance, knowledge, intelligence, and ideals. But, they feel that they themselves lack either charisma or the moral right to preach to the world about a Better Future. After all, leftist history says white people are to blame for all the evils in the world. Of course, Jews are exempt from ‘white guilt’ but good many of them tend to look funny and have annoying public personas. Anyway, most white people feel that they don’t have the right to be moral leaders or exemplars because of the morally stained history of white people.

With white liberals, the problem is compounded by the fact that they’ve also burdened also themselves with American guilt, whereby Americans are supposed to apologize to the rest of world, especially to Europeans, for being too powerful, being too rich, and consuming too much.

Therefore, many ‘progressives’ have wanted a ‘person of color’–innocent of the sins of Western History–to lead the way, but most blacks turned out to be crazy and unfit for this role. Even Martin Luther King, observed closely, was a scumbag in private life. Liberals felt they had the message but not the proper messenger nor the ‘perfect storm’ through which their ideas could be embraced by most people. Of course, conservatives too had a similar problem for a long time before Reagan finally came along during the Perfect Storm of 1980.

Conservatives felt they had strong and solid ideas but suffered an image problem in the 60s-70s. There was the granite-faced not-very-likable Goldwater, the dark and shadowy Nixon, and the inept Ford. The great conservative moment came when Reagan arrived on the scene just when the Carter administration was in total free fall. The Great Communicator had the physical and charismatic instruments to deliver those ideas to the public at large. He had a way of making conservative theories sound simple and accessible, even inspirational. He persuaded people as to why America needs a strong military and how that could restore American pride and power.

Just as a bomb, no matter how well-conceived, is useless without a missile to deliver it to its target, an idea is useless unless there is a personality that can deliver it far and wide to the public. Otherwise, it remains a just another intellectual idea or policy proposal. Conservatives really had to wait until 1980 for a man like Reagan to arrive.

Democrats thought their star had arrived with Clinton, but Billy boy turned out to be too rascally and childish(and out of control). Clinton let everyone down. So, Obama is the New Hope. If Clinton was the first black white president(prone to reckless self-destruction), Obama is like the first white black president(disciplined in terms of what he needs to do). Therefore, many liberals are crazy about Obama for this reason for the Messiah of the Great Liberal Message has finally arrived.

Obama is the great missile that white liberals–especially the Jews–have been waiting for all these yrs to carry their message all the way to the Moon. He is the political equivalent of the Final Frontier. He’s the (Rock)Star Child of 2001: A Space Odyssey.

White liberals have had Grand Ideas they’d wanted to implement for a long time but all their missiles proved to be duds or faulty. Duds were Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry. The ambitious but ultimately flawed missile was Clinton. There was Hillary with the Great Healthcare Plan but she lacked the charisma and ‘character’ to deliver it on target to the American public. Many people just didn’t warm to her nor trust her. They saw her as overly shrewd, cold, arrogant, and calculating. (Obama is no different but he knows how to seem different, at least to all the dupes out there.)

But, liberals now have Obama, perfect in the age of Will Smith, Oprah, and Hip Hop(when most young white people are more into blackness than whiteness). He’s supposed to be the super missile that delivers all the Neo-New Deal ideas right on target. Liberals are further emboldened by the fact that 2008 has been a year of the Perfect Storm. 8 yrs of Bush made the white male unfashionable. Bush was a poor missile who never hit the target; his public persona was especially a disaster. His words seem to drip out of his mouth like saliva. The Iraq War as long, painful, and costly. The economic meltdown of 2008 played into liberal hands since the blame usually goes to the party in power. McCain had the wrong image–weak voice, old face, wobbly body, etc–in a nation that’s into hip hop culture and youth narcissism. Also, Obama as a missile could rely on support of the launching pad and airspace–liberal Jewish controlled media and academia.

Anyway, when white liberals and leftists see Obama, they don’t just see a fellow duplicitous subversive radical, but the deliverer that has finally arrived to take the liberal (Jewish) ideas to their intended targets. He is the giant mythical bird that has finally arrived to take liberal ideas to the promised land. He’s supposed to finally finish what FDR started, what Kennedy failed to achieve due to the assassination, what LBJ failed to accomplish due to Vietnam War, what King failed to reach due to assassination, what Robert J. Kennedy failed to bring forth due to assassination, what Humphrey failed to do thanks to 60s out-of-control radicalism, what Carter failed to do due to his incompetence and bad luck, what Clinton failed to do thanks to his self-destructiveness, what Gore failed to do thanks to GOP having ‘stolen’ the election. In the liberal Grand Narrative, history was stolen from them by tragedies, accidents, bad luck, recklessness, etc. Obama is supposed to embody the perfect balance between white and black, between religious and secular, between national and international, between elitism and egalitarianism, between intellectualism and populism, between confidence and humility, between hip and the hop. So the stupid liberals think in their Hollywood-induced fantasies, as though mankind can be redeemed by mindless social engineering and pop-political gimcracks.

No less funny was the delusions of the Bush administration and many gentile whites in this country. White gentiles still seem to think they control America when they do not. The rulers of this country are liberal and leftist Jews. Liberal and leftist Jews dominate Ideas, Education, Information, Knowledge, History, and what we see, hear, and read. NY, the financial and intellectual capital, is mostly Jewish. LA, the pop cultural capital, is mostly Jewish. Northwest Coast, the center of high-tech billionaires, is dominated by Jews. Pharmaceutical companies are dominated by Jews. Most Jews are liberal or leftist. Most of the powerful lawyers are Jewish.

Yet, people like Bush and McCain still act as though white gentiles have all the power and therefore must be generous, kind, and tolerant of other people WHEN IN FACT the real people in power are the liberal and left-wing Jews(and their brainwashed goy allies and puppets)whose determined goal is to destroy and bring down white power, white interests, white unity, white pride, and the white race.

There’s a weird relationship between gentile whites and Jews, especially in the GOP. Though Jews are the most powerful people in this country, the political charade between white gentiles and Jews requires that white gentiles pretend that they have the power(and therefore must be overly kind and generous to others) in exchange for Jewish financial and intellectual support.

We have pretty much the same situation in Hollywood where Jews have the money and power, but they put forth bigshot gentile stars who give the false impression that Hollywood is dominated by people like Tom Cruise or Angelina Jolie. As the public face of Hollywood, gentiles are supposed to act like they rule and control Hollywood(and therefore be exposed to endless scrutiny and accountability)whereas the truly powerful Jews remain behind the scenes and amass bigger fortunes and gain greater power without any scrutiny whatsoever. We can see this with guys like Charlie Rose too. Having Charlie Rose as interviewer gives the impression that WASPS still control the media, but he’s just a puppet of Jews who really control the media. Well, that’s just how it goes.

¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤

Source: http://freiboden.blogspot.com/2009/05/duped-and-duplicitous-secret-of-obamas.html