Is Obama’s socialism essentially of the Right or the Left?

[The Iron Boot]

As a pragmatist and student of history, Obama knows well enough that
capitalism produces wealth and that modern socialism essentially
amounts to taxing the private sector to maintain the bureaucratic
state. Few people on the Left would argue for socialism as means of
production as well as for distribution. Most people agree that
capitalism produces far greater wealth than any other system and also
does a better job of distributing good and services. Even so, there
are certain goods and services that aren’t conducive to profits, and
so the state provides those services with tax revenues from the
private sector. Conservatives would like to keep the public sector as
small as possible while liberals want to expand it as large as
possible. Even so, conservatives believe in the need for the public
sector, and liberals believe in the importance of the private sector–
without which there would be no tax revenues.


So, Obama is not a communist who wants to abolish private property or
capitalism; he wants to tax it as much as possible without killing it.
A modern socialist sees capitalism like a mule; if the socialist kills
it, then the socialist has to do all the lifting for himself; if the
socialist lets it run wild & free, the mule will do what it wants to
do, and the socialist will have no means to power; so the socialist
seeks to derive as much labor from the mule without seriously
exhausting and killing it. Obama is a socialist who wants to tax
capitalism(golden goose)as much as possible without destroying it and
expand the size of government as much as possible without it having to
take on the burdens of production. (Fundamentally lazy and jive-ass,
Obama wants to take credit by working with other people’s wealth than
actually doing any productive work on his own.)


But, the key question remains. Is Obama’s socialism rooted in rightist
sentiments or leftist ideology? In other words, is Obama committed to
socialism because he sees it as a positive for black people or because
he thinks it’s morally good for all of mankind? The Right tends to
be tribal or nationalistic whereas the Left tends to be universal and
‘inclusive’ or embracive. If Obama embraced socialism mainly because
of its advantage to blacks, he would qualify as a (black) national
socialist–a rightist. If he chose it as a universal good, then he
would be a leftist or internationalist(or trans-racial or trans-ethnic)
socialist. The German National Socialists were clearly socialists of
the Right. Hitler thought his brand of socialism would make Germany
prosperous and strong. He didn’t care for non-Germans. Malcolm X too
was a national socialist(or perhaps ‘social nationalist’ is a better
term). Malcolm X simply thought socialism would be more empowering
for blacks. It was a matter of tribalism. Indeed, it could be argued
that many communist movements of the world were forms of national or
right-wing communism or communist nationalism. People like Mao, Ho,
Castro, and many others opted for communism largely or initially
because they thought it would make their nations or their peoples
stronger and more independent. Though there was an internationalist
component in communism, each communism was a national communist or
communist nationalism at the end of the day.


On these terms, the only true leftists have been the white Western
Left because they adopted socialism in the idea of helping non-white
people and creating a more equal and socially just world. People like
Malcolm X and Ho Chi Minh(and today’s Islamists)may be allied with the
Western Left against capitalism, but ONLY white leftists are sincerely
trying to go beyond boundaries of race and nation. Other groups
espouse socialism or certain tenets of socialism because they see it
as an advantage to ‘my people’.


So, it begs the question, to what extent is Obama truly a global
socialist or a black nationalist? As a post-racial or trans-racial
figure(at least in the public perception), of course he cannot be as
blatantly honest about his racial feelings as Malcolm X, Louis
Farrakhan, or Rev. Wright has been. But, would Obama be a socialist if
most blacks were successful capitalists, and if capitalism advantaged
blacks over other groups? Isn’t socialism useful to blacks in America
and Africa because it amounts to wealth transfers from Europe,
America, and Asia to the black regions of the world? It’s about white
and Asian wealth going to black people. Whites may feel leftist in
giving to blacks, but blacks feel awfully right-wing when they take
from whites. Blacks are thinking, “yeah, honkey, gimme mo’ gimme mo.’”
It’s all about BLACK interests.


We tend to equate the Right with only the white right, but all forms
of nationalism, clannishness, tribalism, and such-ism are actually
essentially right-wing. Socialism may be leftist in the sense of
seeking a degree of equality among the populace, but socialism can
also be tribal or nationalist. It can be about ‘my people’. It can
serve the cause of rightism.

My guess is Obama is cleverly manipulating white leftism based on
guilt and moral confusion to serve what is essentially a black
socialism or black national socialism or black social nationalism. In
this sense, Obama is a lot closer to Hitler than we might think, at
least in the sense that both figured that statist socialism is better
for their people than rampant individual capitalism which favors the
rootless, cunning, and unscrupulous capitalists. For Hitler, such
people were the Jews. For Obama, they are white people. But, Obama was
able to take advantage of the division within the white community. On
the one hand, you have powerful rich white conservatives. On the
other, you have powerful liberal Jews. Both sides are vying for
dominant position, and Obama allowed himself to be used by the Jews by
using the Jews in turn. Jews, ever so clever, nurtured, brought up,
and bought Obama so that Obama the black social nationalist is forever
indebted to the Jews. Jews fear the nationalism of the goy
population. Jews couldn’t buy Hitler in the 1930s as Hitler had a
large non-Jewish power base. But, Jews have been able to buy Obama the
black nationalist. Obama is useful to the Jews because he’s part of
minority racial group in America. As such, Obama’s national socialism
cannot reach the kind of power and critical mass that German National
Socialism did. Jews know full well that Obama’s black or nationalist
ambitions will be checked by the fact that the majority of people in
America are not black. If US were 90% black, Obama would not feel so
indebted to the Jews. He would know that he can rely purely on black
power to gain total power for himself and his people. He would not
have to play running boy to the Jews. But, blacks make up 15% of the
US population. With black power alone, Obama could not have gone far.
He needed the help of Jews who are superrich, own most of the media,
run Hollywood, are immune to criticism, and control the way we think/
feel through their influence in education and government. So, that was
the compromise between Obama and the Jews.


Anyway, are Jewish socialists leftist socialists because they helped a
person outside their race or ethnicity? There may indeed be a degree
of idealistic internationalism and universalism in Jewish socialism,
but if we look at it more closely, we see that Jewish socialism is
also largely tribal or nationalistic. Jews are pretending to care for
‘disenfranchised’ minorities to use them against the white gentile
majority by invoking historical guilt and social/moral shame(which is
ironic since Jews are by far the richest and most powerful single
ethnic group in America). Also, Jews are using Obama to fool the world
that US is not run by Jewish interests. Gee, how can Jews be powerful
when Obama has Palestinian friends and was raised as a Muslim? Jews,
ever so clever, fooled a lot of people. Jews, fearful of anti-Jewish
black leaders like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, are also trying to
wean blacks away from thug black politics to a defanged ‘nicer’
politics as embodied by Obama. These Jews are cunning and clever as
hell. Many people know what the Jews are doing, but as Jews run the
schools and media, most people are afraid to say it because you get
called an ‘anti-semite’ and then found yourself blacklisted from all
successful positions in society. If anything, white gentiles need to
stick together like Jews stick together. Jews gave us Obama-as-
President. Most Jews are our enemy. We cannot forgive the Jews, or
most of them anyway. We must do everything to bring down Jews and
their interests. And, when Jews suffer, we should laugh with glee...
just as Jews laugh with glee when we suffer. NY Times laughs at the
white victims of illegal invasion crime in the Southwestern states.
Jewish media almost never cover stories about black rape of white men
or black violence against white men. Jews cover those stories up just
like they bury the plight of Palestinians.


Obama, having been raised by his radical leftist white mother, may
indeed be both an ideological socialist and a black national socialist
(or black social nationalist). His mother told him that white people
are evil, greedy, and stole the wealth of non-whites. That explains
why Obama’s socialism isn’t ONLY black-oriented but people-of-color
oriented. He told his cousin that Asian-Indians in Kenya are actually
fellow victims of white imperialism. And, Obama spent enough time in
Ivy League universities to soak up all the ideological leftism. But,
there is a crucial difference between a black person and a white
person adopting socialism. A white person who adopts ideological
socialism feels that he owes others and must abandon all sense of
white-ness and white power. In contrast, a black person or a ‘person
of color’ who adopts ideological socialism feels that he is owed and
that he must embrace his ethnicity or racial identity more strongly
than ever. Among whites, Jews think and feel like the ‘people of
color’, which is why Jewish socialists are different than other white
socialists. Jewish socialists can be both ideologically leftist and
Zionist-nationalist. And, Jews can go on and on about Jewish pride,
heritage, identity, power, and so on. And, any criticism of Jewish
power or influence makes all Jews pull together into a phalanx. So,
the only socialists who are genuinely leftist–anti-tribal and working
for the interests of other peoples–are white gentile socialists(or
perhaps only white gentile straight male socialists since women are
allowed to embrace female power and gays can pursue their narrow gay
agenda). Indeed, notice that even most ideologically liberal and
leftist Jews–so-called socialists–are not bothered by the fact that
Jewish capitalists own much of the media, Hollywood, academia, banks,
and so on. As far as they are concerned, it’s Jewish power, even if
capitalist. And, would black socialists be worried if more blacks
became billionaires and owned giant corporations? No, as long as it
amounted to Black power, blacks would love it–just like Chinese
communists love and are proud of the fact that overseas Chinese are
superduper rich. So, most blacks who adopt socialism do so out of
Black interest, not in the interest of abstract socialist principles.
Gentile white socialists sacrifice tribalism to serve socialism,
whereas black socialists make socialism serve black power. If
socialism favored or empowered non-blacks whereas capitalism favored
or empowered blacks, you bet that most blacks would be pro-capitalist
and anti-socialist. (One may ask why so many Jews are socialist when
capitalism has made them so rich. There are three main reasons. 1.
Culture of intellectualism makes many Jews want to think lofty ideas
and serve noble causes than roll up sleeves and give into sleazy
greed. Karl Marx was typical of this. For all their idealism, these
kinds of Jews are fundamentally arrogant, lazy–at least when it comes
to productive work–, and parasitic. But, because of the Moral aspect
of Jewish tradition, even capitalist Jews respect socialist Jews, just
like ancient merchant Jews respected the prophets and rabbis. 2. Jews
fear that the masses of goyim will grow jealous of Jewish wealth. So,
Jews want to at least appear generous and caring by yammering about
‘social justice’. 3. Also, socialism, though it may tax Jewish
wealth, also empowers Jews since a socialist state is run by
intellectuals, many of whom are Jewish. So, socialism puts
intellectual Jewish children of Jewish capitalists into positions of
power. So, even as socialism is supposed to help the people, the
people who end up with most power in government are the Jews.)


There is a famous circle showing that the far right converges with the
far left, but this concept is rather misleading. More often than not,
it was a case of people with rightist passions using leftist ideas for
right-wing purposes. It’s not like Hitler became like Stalin because
he pushed to the extreme right. Rather, Hitler used elements of
socialism from the very start to strengthen German nationalism.
Hitler didn’t end up socialist at end of the day but employed it from
the beginning. And, Stalin used elements of nationalism to bolster
the power of communism. Hitler didn’t become communist-like because
he pushed more to the right; rather he employed socialist programs
because he thought they would strengthen German bonds of unity. In
any case, even if the circle theory is true, it only points to the
Means, not the Values and Ideology–differences of which remain crucial
to the nature and future of both radical right and radical left
societies. Ideology matters because it means Jews could amass
tremendous power in the USSR to kill millions of people while millions
of Jews would die under Nazism. And, despite some of the similarities,
Nazi Germany and Soviet Union had far more differences.


Obama is a megalomaniac opportunist as well as a black nationalist and
socialist, and so he was willing to work with the rich powerful
influential liberal Jews to get as far as he did. He knows he cannot
be his own man. The only way Obama would be able to do everything he
wants is if US were a majority black nation. Then, he would have the
kind of power over the entire nation that black politicians have over
their mostly black districts. He wouldn’t have to rely on Jewish money
and white votes to stay in power. He could fully come out of the
closet and pursue his brand of socialism for that he deems good for
black people. (Of course, if US were mostly a black nation, it’s
likely that a rowdier and crazier black guy would be president than
Obama who lost to Bobby Rush in a Congressional race in a mostly black
community. Most blacks voted for Obama over white McCain, but if
blacks were given a choice between Obama and a wilder black dude, good
many would go with the latter. Indeed, look at the fall of Mbeki and
the rise of Jacob Zuma in South Africa.)


People generally think socialism is leftist, but this isn’t true in
all cases. It’s leftist in the sense of communal sharing of the
wealth, but it must be stressed that only radical socialism–communism–
is fully egalitarian. Italian Fascist socialism and National
Socialism were not egalitarian. Though the state did provide certain
services and programs for the people at large, the concept of
hierarchy was sacro-sanct in both. Indeed, both systems used
socialism not to level the field but to maintain the hierarchy. The
bourgeoisie who supported Mussolini or Hitler hoped to buy off the
unwashed masses by offering certain concessions, programs, and
favors. The New Deal had a similar goal; it was not to destroy
capitalism and rich people but to save them lest the masses grow angry
and revolt during a prolonged depression. And, the global rich elite
that runs the United States is trying to do the same through Obama.
Those who think Obama is some communist is a missing the point. He is
essentially a black nationalist socialist who’s in the pocket of the
global Jewish elite. He knows he has to curb his black nationalism;
essentially, blacks will get more handouts for supporting the power of
the liberal Jews. Rich liberal Jews hope that it will be enough to
pacify and satisfy the blacks. And, since so many working and middle
class Americans lost out in the New Global Order, the idea is that
Obama’s expanded social programs will pacify us with stuff like
universal healthcare and other goodies. Of course, the rich will have
to foot the bill, but what do they care? In the new global order, they
can make profits undreamt of 20 yrs ago. They can make gazillions.
They have more money than they know what to do with. And, they want to
preserve and even expand the global system which made them so rich and
powerful. But, the New Order has left many working and middle class
people out. How do you win these people over to globalism or at least
pacify them? With the second New Deal which offers them some goodies
and bread-n-circuses so that they won’t grow desperate, angry, and
rise up.


If socialism can be rightist or at least serve the interests of right-
wing passions, capitalism can have a leftist effect– at least for an
industrious people. If leftism is about transferring wealth from the
rich to the poor, global capitalism or ‘free trade’ has done it better
than communism. American wealth has been flowing to China and India
under the ‘free trade’ regimen. To be sure, this kind of wealth
transfer can only occur when the poor nation is made up of talented,
disciplined, and industrious people. In other words, African nations
cannot take or earn our wealth this way. They can only rely on global
socialist welfare as most Africans are stupid, lazy, uncultured, and/
or confused. But, for industrious Asians–Chinese and Indians–, global
capitalism has lead to leftist results. (To be sure, Chinese and
Indians worked and toiled for their wealth and didn’t take handouts,
the staple of leftism.) Both China and India grew at the expense of
America and EU, the traditional rich zones. And, recall that Germany
grew at the expense of Great Britain in the late 19th century and
early 20th century thanks to British adherence to Free Trade. Germany
had been an economic Johann-come-lately but caught up quickly by
practicing both capitalism and socialism centered around nationalism
while Great Britain stuck to free trade though it was allowing other
nations to take advantage of Great Britain. It led to wealth flowing
from richer Britain to less developed Germany which eventually came to
pass ahead of Great Britain. So, capitalism can help the poor to get
rich and even richer than the original rich. Indeed, it was capitalism
that empowered Jews in America. Jews arrived poor but amassed a huge
amount of wealth. Capitalism turned poor Jews into rich Jews. There is
something leftist in this notion because capitalism transferred wealth
from a rich nation to its poor members who eventually grew rich. Of
course, Jews worked and earned their wealth, but it was made possible
by capitalism. Jews were not given all that wealth–as happens under
socialism–but worked for it in a system that allowed freedom and
success to hardworking people. So, capitalism, far from being the
ideology of ONLY the rich, can be a system that transfers wealth to
the poor in record amount of time. We need only to see the rapid rise
of Spain, Chile, South Korea, Taiwan, China, and India under
capitalism. Of course, capitalism favors the industrious, energetic,
and enterprising, but more businesses created also means more jobs,
opportunities, and goods/services to even the less energetic and
inventive people. Capitalism is the only free economic system that
grows the pie even as capitalists take a bigger piece of it.


Capitalism/free trade need not be a zero sum game with total winner
and total loser. Both parties can benefit through free trade by
complementing and coordinating each other’s advantages and
disadvantages. China is technologically backward but has a lot of
people willing to work for peanuts. US is technologically advanced but
has expensive labor. So, both nations have much to gain via trade. The
problem is China cheats when it comes to free trade, practicing a
mercantile economy. Meanwhile, though Americans benefit with cheap
goods, America has been buying far more from China than vice versa.
The great imbalance was bound to lead to major problems, and it
certainly made the current economic meltdown more possible. Because
China didn’t buy from us but merely piled up a tremendous amount of
trade surplus and lent it to us in the form of cheap money, it led to
speculation and other craziness and finally the meltdown.


Anyway, if we define rightism as tribalism or nationalism(though there
are other ways to define it), then we must understand that capitalism
isn’t necessarily rightist or nationalist. Indeed, no ideology–not
even communism–has done more to promote internationalism and
globalization than capitalism. The Iron Curtain was oppressive, but
each Eastern European nation(even non-Russian Soviet Republics)
maintained its cultural uniqueness and national identity. In contrast,
EU, under a social-democratic-capitalistic regimen, is an entity that
erodes away cultural and national barriers. And, observe how the
American economy have been melded with that of China through
international capitalism. Just look at what free trade capitalism has
done to the border between US and Mexico.
And, consider the amount of our wealth that has flowed to Mexico and
China in the past 15 yrs.
So, capitalism can lead to ‘leftist’ results.


And, it must also be said that leftists thrive under a capitalist
system more than any other system. Under communism, a bunch of leftist
radicals rule the nation but all other forms and strains of leftism
are suppressed or eradicated. As a result, only a SINGLE leftist group
takes power while all other leftists and ‘progressives’ get it in the
neck. Only under a capitalist system can communists, anarchists,
socialists, and other such radicals all enjoy liberty and thrive. As
such people tend to hit the books, deal with intellectual ideas, and
earn college degrees and seek jobs in journalism, they gain cultural
hegemony and come to shape the way we see the world, think about
ourselves, and the kind of values we embrace. Indeed, most leftists
generally do better even under an autocratic capitalist system than
under communism. Most Spanish, Italian, and Chilean leftists were
safer under right-wing regimes than dissident leftists trapped in
communist run nations. A deviant socialist could get killed in the
USSR, Red China, and North Korea. Under communism, you could only be a
‘correct’ kind of leftist as permitted by the state. In contrast,
even most right-wing nations tolerated leftist radicals as long as the
latter didn’t make too much trouble.


Anyway, it’s time for white people in America and around the world to
consider ideologies other than pure capitalism or individualism. The
idea that free markets is synonymous with white power or survival is
pure bunk. I’m not against free markets, but economics is a separate
issue from race and nation.
After all, ANC ditched communism in the early 90s and embraced free
markets. Mandela didn’t take power as a communist but as a market
pluralist, and his successor Mbeki stuck to capitalist principles. So,
what did that do for white people in South Africa? It led to
aggressive and angry black power and loss of white power just the
same. And, if capitalism is always so great for white power around the
world, then why didn’t capitalist white nations in Europe and America
stand up for whites in South Africa? How come most American and
European capitalist companies boycotted South Africa? How come the
governments of white capitalist nations applied sanctions on white
ruled South Africa?
And, why is it that the richest people in America are liberal,
leftist, anti-white-power(even if they are white), and often happen to
be Jewish(and anti-American or supportive of anti-Americans)?


It goes without saying that capitalism is the best economic system if
done right by a cultured population. But, the results of capitalism
can be just as leftist, suicidal, or ruinous for white folks. And, the
example of National Socialism (Germany) shows that socialism can also
be rightist. And, examples such as communist China and Vietnam shows
that socialism can be used as a nationalist or rightist weapon. China
and Vietnam implemented leftist or egalitarian programs in their own
countries, BUT men like Mao and Ho adopted communism mainly as a means
for national(rightist)power. They did so out of love of their own
country and with conviction that communism would strengthen China or
Vietnam AGAINST other nations. In this sense, they were right-wing
communists, or leftists devoted to right-wing nationalism.


So, is Obama a right-wing socialist or a left-wing socialist? I
would say he’s essentially a right-wing socialist(black social
nationalist) in the garb of left-wing socialism because he has to fool
white people that he’s looking out for ALL of us when he really cares
mostly for black folks.
And, we must also ask, ‘is American capitalism leftist or rightist?’
If ‘free trade’ ideology leads to loss of national sovereignty,
weakening of white power & unity, open borders, crass Hollywood sewage
teaching our kids to practice miscegenation and accept ‘gay marriage’,
then our capitalism is anti-white and pro-leftist; and, we need to
oppose it. No, not oppose all of capitalism. Rather, we must not
assume that capitalism is ALWAYS or NECESSARILY pro-white, pro-
American, pro-conservative, pro-rightist. We need to develop a new
kind of fascism that utilizes both capitalism and socialism for the
benefit of the West, White People, right-wing ideology and sentiments.