The Duped and the Duplicitous. The Secret of Obama’s “Popularity”

[No Bull Savage]

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. (1) Higher education these days means higher indoctrination
where thinking CORRECTLY counts for more than thinking FREELY. (2)
People with most education tend to come from the privileged class,
which means they have had little contact with REAL reality, and as
such, are prone to be more naively idealistic. (3) The rich, at least
white gentile kind, tend to feel a degree of guilt and ‘social
obligation’ since this country was founded upon Christian ethos which
says ‘greed is evil’. So, one could argue that even intelligent and
well-educated people can be duped or can dupe themselves. They are
human after all.


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 ideologic. 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.