No Enemy to the Right? Think Again!!!

[andrea_f...@live.com]

http://freiboden.blogspot.com/2008/12/no-enemy-to-right-we-must-think-again.html


With the election of Obama, it’s clear that the liberals have fully
revived the strategy of ‘no enemies to the left’. Is it time–with
counter-moral justification–for conservatives to embrace ‘no enemy to
the right’? To be sure, this is much tougher for conservatives to
pull off since the extreme right is generally perceived as more odious
than the extreme left, not least because the academia and media have
long been in control by leftists who’ve persuaded generations of
Americans that anti-communism was worse than communism. Still, we are
at a new juncture in American politics. Liberals betrayed the
unwritten rule that neither side should reach out to extremes, at
least in national politics. (Besides, national candidates perceived
as 'extreme' by the populace had been rejected—Goldwater in 64 and
McGovern in 72—and national politics remained in somewhere in the
center). In regional politics and lower offices, there have been
extremists among both Democrats and Republicans; this is only natural
in a two-party winner-takes-all system like ours. But, in national
elections, both sides understood that the candidates must be center-
left or center-right. When hard right or hard left candidates ran for
office(as when Pat Buchanan ran in 1992, 1996, and 2000), the media
tore them down or the people rejected them. This tradition has been
violated in 2008 because the media decided to portray the radical
Obama as a centrist and uniter and the people swallowed this lie. The
liberal media joined forces with the left–and even the far left–and
overlooked and covered up the true essence of Obama. This is
unacceptable. There is no longer any reason for conservatives to play
by the rules–even if unwritten–after liberals have completely
violated it. It’s intolerable that a man like Trent Lott must be
destroyed for a speech at a man’s birthday while Obama not only got
off scot-free but was elevated as the messiah by our liberal(Jewish)
dominated media. Many conservatives simply don’t want to deal with
this because they are afraid of Jewish power, but a new chapter in
American politics is opening up, and we cannot allow the liberals and
leftists to write the entire history. The biggest news of 2008 is the
liberal betrayal of the golden rule of American national politics.
Liberals practiced ‘no enemy to the left’ in national politics. And,
through their dominance in the media and academia they brainwashed the
American people that Obama is the second coming of Jesus. That the
liberal media, which takes great pride in speaking-to-power and in the
role of serving as the bastion of skepticism and scrutiny, did this to
this country is unforgivable. Of course, the media also see itself as
idealistic and activist, but if their idealism is based on alliances
with or apologies for the likes of Jeremiah Wright and William Ayers
and on telling lies and covering up the truth, it has no more value
than the promises of Bolsheviks or snake oil salesmen.

Though many people are angry with Obama, he didn’t do anything wrong
as a candidate. He’s scum, but his goal was to win. He played down and
dirty, but that’s politics. But, the role of the mainstream media is
supposed to be quite different. Mainstream media, unlike the partisan
media(talk radio, Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, The View, Oprah, etc),
were supposed to cover both candidates with a degree of fairness,
equal scrutiny and skepticism. Mainstream media have the greatest
control over the wide middle–the center-left, independents, and center-
right–, yet the media violated every journalistic ethics to push Obama
to victory for personal, emotional, irrational, and quasi-religious
reasons. If Obama were a center-left candidate it might have been
forgivable, but he’s clearly a man of the far-left. Some people ask,
what does it matter if he’s ideologically far-left as long as he’s
pragmatic in office? Following this logic, it should be okay to have
David Duke as president too as long as he
pragmatically sticks to the center. A president is more than an
executive. He’s supposed to embody mainstream America, whether it be
center-left, centrist, or center-right. Obama is ideologically a far-
leftist who has mastered the art of sounding like a middle-of-the-road
uniter. Duke tried to pull the same stunt when he ran for governor of
Lousiana as a reformed Christian candidate, but the media relentlessly
went after him and challenged his sincerity. And, even if the media
had concluded that Duke was sincere, they still would have objected to
his ascendancy because of his background. But, none of this mattered
with Obama, the compulsive liar, sleazy opportunist, and far left
radical.

Obama did what he had to do in order to win. The media didn’t have to
do what they did. They betrayed their most fundamental principles. In
their anti-Bush and anti-GOP zeal(and pro-Obama ecstasy), the media
espoused ‘no enemy to the left’. According to the media, William
Ayers was merely an inconvenient friend, not one of the vilest
scumbags that ever lived. The people in the media most responsible for
this are the liberal and leftist Jews. They own much of our media and
serve as the brain-centers and eyes/ears of America. Liberal and
leftist Jews make up 2% of America but control just about all of the
media. Even conservatives are afraid of criticizing Jewish power lest
it offend or alienate a handful of powerful conservative Jews. If
conservative Jews really mean business, they must attack liberal and
leftist Jews as enemy vile Jews. It’s becoming more difficult for
conservatives to support Israel when 80% of Jews supported and voted
for Obama. Without Jewish support and without Jews giving him cover,
Obama could not have won. Without the Jewish control of the media,
the vast goy middle would not have fallen for Obama’s BS. We must
never forget the Liberal and Leftist Jews did this. They did it to
America, a country that has been so good to them. They put a stealth
Marxist in the White House through their control of the media and
academia. Our main enemy is not Obama who did what he had to do to
win. Our main enemy is the liberal and leftist Jews who used their
near-monopoly of the media and academia to hoodwink us. We must not
let them get away. We must reminds ourselves every single day,
“Liberal and leftist Jews gave us a lying, corrupt, opportunistic
Afrocentric and stealth Marxist president. This is how they pay us
back for saving them from the Nazis, taking Jewish refugees from the
Soviet Union, and supporting Israel with all our hearts.” We must
not attack Jews per se, as many are good people. But, the left-wing
and liberal Jews who did this to us are unforgivable. They are
rubbing their hands in glee; they are feeling the power. In liberal
Jewish mags, we can sense their arrogance, confidence, and contempt
for us. They feel the POWER to ram their ideological programs down
our throats and up our arses. They want to exploit the current
economic crisis to implement their shock doctrine policy of 'socialism
for the 21st century'. To the liberal and leftist Jews, we are a
bunch of dupes and saps who must beg for mercy from the Obama
administration. (This is all very ironic since if any two groups
caused the current crisis, it's the liberal finance Jews and
countless blacks who got easy loans for homes, cars, etc. The clever
liberal Jews on Wall Street and in Washington cooked up clever and
sophisticated financial schemes and government programs to give easy
loans to credit risky borrowers—many of them blacks--, and then
packaged these loans into financial kosher sausages—which were not
financially kosher by the way—and sold them to goy peoples all around
the world. Since the economic meltdown, the liberal Jewish Wall Street
crooks, along with liberal crooks in Washington and their allies in
the media, have blamed it on all the Wasps and pushed for bail out of
rich Wall Street Jews and lousy blacks facing foreclosure on their
homes. It's the great white middle that must bail out both the clever
liberal Wall Street Jews and the lousy black underclass. The great
white middle is being sandwiched and squeezed between the liberal Jews
at the top and the black mob on the bottom. Yet, the liberal Jewish
blamed it all on Bush and McCain. This is how liberal Jews play the
game, and it explains why anti-Jewish feelings were so rife all
throughout history. It's not the first time they pulled this kind of
shit.) With every new day, we realize what it is like to be a
Palestinian living in the West Bank. To be dispossessed, humiliated,
and dehumanized.

In the 30s and 40s, and even well into the 50s and 60s, there was a
policy among many liberals which called for ‘No Enemies to the Left’.
It argued that the Right was so evil or that the progressive agenda
was so important that there had to be a united front among all
‘progressive minded’ people. So, even center-liberals were expected to
side with the extreme left.
There used to be some of this on the right as well, and it had been
acceptable in many circles until World War II happened. Suddenly, the
free West was pitted against the radical right fascist regimes as the
primary enemy. Prior to Hitler’s war, many people in the free West had
seen communists as the main enemy. People like Churchill at one time
even considered leaders like Mussolini and Franco to be useful allies
against the communist threat. But, Hitler changed all that. Democratic
nations felt compelled to side with the communists against the
fascists.
A more long-term blow to the ‘no enemies to the right’ policy was the
revelation about the Nazi genocide of the Jews. The film footage, the
Nuremberg trial, books, tv documentaries, and other material seared
into our collective psyche as to the nature of radical right evil.
Also, the victims happened to be Jews who would gain tremendous
influence over our academia and media. Also, the problems of Western
imperialism and racial discrimination became associated with the
crimes of the Nazis, and so, conservatives in the post-war era
scrambled to disassociate with elements of the radical or hard
right.
William F. Buckley played a key role is disassociating himself with
the hard right. He purged the movements of ‘anti-semites’. I use
quotes because while some hardline conservatives were indeed anti-
semitic, many were merely counter-Jewish critics who had the courage
to speak truth to Jewish power. At any rate, in the shadow of World
War II and the gravity of Nazi crimes, Buckley felt a moral duty to
purge the New Right of any anti-Jewish elements. Buckley also sensed
the rise of Jewish power, and he wanted to win more Jews over to his
side.
But, this was still not easy. Too often, it was hard to separate
Jewish power from liberal/leftist power. Buckley didn’t support
McCarthy to ‘get the Jews’, but it may have seemed that way to many
people because so many leftists were Jews. At any rate, McCarthy had
a rather bullying and unpleasant personality, and his opportunism and
boorishness did great damage to the movement of anti-communism. The
liberal media took full advantage of this, and generations of
Americans have been taught that anti-communism was a greater evil than
communism.

Because of the bad rap McCarthyism got, American conservatives felt
even greater compunction to reject ‘no enemies to the right’ line.
Also, there was the rising Civil Rights Movement. It became crucial
for conservatives not to be associated with Southern segregationists,
the KKK, and the like.
The new dominant political narrative took hold arguing that Rightism
is tolerable only if moderate. In other words, conservatism is
acceptable only if it seeks to slow the pace of change initiated by
the left than espouse its own hard values. Supposedly, the moral
premise of rightism is evil whereas the moral premise of leftism m is
noble. Liberals and leftists may commit acts of evil, but they are
supposedly always working and fighting for the good of humanity.
Conservatives, on the other hand, may sometimes act noble and good but
their main goal is to preserve or return to the bad old ways. This
whole dichotomy was dramatized on a grand scale in the film
“Spartacus”. So, the KKK is just plain evil whereas Bill Ayers
committed acts of evil for 'social justice'.

One wonders why didn’t the Right effectively fight back? After all,
anyone with sense knows that the moral premise of leftism is neither
noble nor good. Its concept of equality violates freedom and liberty;
it destroys culture and heritage. American concept of equality always
meant equal freedom. It didn’t mean being forced to give up freedom to
be equal prisoners of the state. Though liberalism isn’t communism nor
even necessarily socialism, good liberals should not have employed the
policy of ‘no enemies to the left’. Because liberals embarked on such
policy, widespread Soviet espionage in the US took place during the
30s and 40s. That story has still not been told in our schools nor to
the public at large. Most people still think FDR was just swell, and
that those who raised alarms about espionage and treachery were simply
deluded or paranoid.
Anyway, the nature of World War II, the rise of Jewish power in the
US, the leftist drift of most intellectuals and teachers, the lack of
cultural and intellectual talent on the right, and the moral
disadvantage of the right in relation to the Civil Rights movement all
conspired to favor the left in the postwar era. Even when
conservatives won at the ballot, they failed to win the deeper moral
argument. For instance, we now know that Great Society and liberal
crime policy were failures. We also know that radical feminism is an
evil of sorts. More recently, we know that the liberal scheme of
giving out easy loans to poor people with bad credit was disastrous.
So, how do liberals and leftists get away with all the mess they’ve
created. By persuading that even though the measures and policies
were stupid or misguided, the basic goals were ‘noble’. The left and
the liberals have hooked everyone to the notion of ‘social justice’.
So, never mind that subprime loans played a major role in the fall of
the housing market and our current economic woes. We are still
supposed to believe it had all been for a good cause to help poor
people and minorities. This is why black leaders and politicians can
get away with so much bad stuff. They simply need to fall back on the
macro-narrative that’s been fed to all of us. Most people don’t think.
They simply wish to conform to the general social or political trend
controlled by the elite, which today happens to be liberal.

Anyway, the no-enemies-to-the-left policy has been far more acceptable
than no-enemies-to-the-right policy. One reason is even people on the
far left tend to be well-read, intellectual, intelligent, and talented
whereas many on the far-right are intellectually shabby, of low IQ and
zero imagination, and so on. The left has one major advantage in that
most Jews, the smartest people in the world, tend to be overwhelmingly
liberal-to-leftist. Also, due to the history of Jews and the generally
anti-Jewish characteristic of the Western far right, the far right is
unlikely to attract Jews who, with their intelligence, might add some
intellectual and artistic luster. The fear of blacks is another
factor. Blacks often get together, march, howl threats, and shake
their fists. Nothing frightens white people more than this. In
contrast, white conservatives generally don’t get together and march.
So, if an institution offended conservatives, there would be little
opposition from the right, vocal or otherwise. But, if an institution
offended blacks, blacks would march and go nuts. Generally, the left
is pro-black and less likely to come under pressure from black groups.
The Right, on the other hand, ranges from being anti-black to being
critical of black power, which can anger blacks who will then march
and protest and make threats. As a result, newspapers, schools, and
other businesses and institutions are far less likely to hire people
who go might offend blacks—people who tend to be of the Right.
Generally, if a conservative associates with a man like David Duke,
his career is finished in respectable community. Even associating with
Pat Buchanan has become dangerous for many conservative politicians.
And, no one calls this kind of pressure as oppressive or intolerant.
But, if a liberal associated with members of the far left, it’s the
critics of such associations who are called ‘extreme red-baiting
McCarthyites’. So, if a symphony conductor associated with David Duke,
he will lose his job. But, if he associated with Noam Chomsky, his
critics are the ones who are attacked as ‘paranoid’.
In the 80s, any orchestra that visited South Africa would have been
condemned as aiding and abetting evil. But, when Maazel took his NY
orchestra to North Korea, a far worse country, there was hardly any
criticism.

Though liberals have associated with the far left much more
comfortably and without censure than conservatives have associated
with the far right, something remarkable has happened in recent years.
And, this is something the Right must not let go, forget, nor fail to
exploit. Liberals supported Barack Obama, a far-leftist as a NATIONAL
candidate. Obama's close associates are of the far far left. You
cannot go any farther left than William Ayers. And, Jeremiah Wright is
an hateful nut. Also, Obama’s ideology comes from Saul Alinsky, an
anarcho-Marxist. Obama may even be close to Farrakhan who praised
Obama as the Messiah. This is a classic case of no-enemies-to-the-
left. It didn’t matter that Bill Ayers was a terrorist. Some
liberals even apologized for him, saying his terrorist acts weren’t so
bad because they were meant to oppose an evil war–Vietnam. (Anyone
who knows the history of what happened in SE Asian after US pulled out
can’t possibly believe the communists were the good guys!) Some
liberals said Ayers had been careful not to kill people when he set
off the bombs. Oh, so it’s okay if you set off bombs as long as you
warn people in the building. I wonder if liberals would think this way
if rightwing terrorists planted bombs in liberal newspaper
headquarters and college campuses AS LONG AS they notified the people
before the bombs went off.
Jeremiah Wright is a nut who preaches the worst kind of paranoid
hatred in his church. He tells his flock that white man is spreading
drugs and AIDS in the black community. His paranoid fantasies go far
beyond what the far right peddles. Obama called this man the ‘best
that the black community has to offer’. Obama freely chose Wright as
his mentor and stayed in his church for 20 yrs. Obama repeatedly lied
about what he knew about Wright. Obama, as we know, follows the policy
of no-enemies-among-blacks. It doesn’t matter if it’s Farrakhan or
Wright. Obama believes that blacks should stick with other blacks, no
matter how crazy they are. It’s the politics of righteous rage,
narcissistic victimhood, and even racial supremacism(as much of black
rage at whites is premised on the notion that blacks are/should be the
true masters of this planet).

Liberal Jewish Americans, who’d been telling us repeatedly about the
dangers of paranoia, social and racial scapegoating, and so forth
looked the other way when it came to Obama’s record and associations.
The hypocrisy was unmistakable. When the crowd got worked up at
McCain rallies, it was said to be ‘hateful’, ‘extreme’, and ‘ugly’.
But, liberal media that condemned McCain supporters never denounced
Obama supporters who rioted at the Republican convention in
Minneapolis or interrupted, over and over, the speeches of Palin and
McCain. Leftists and liberals can pull any stunt, hold up any posters
or placards, yell any epithet, and make any kind of outrageous
accusation, but the liberal Jewish dominated media will tell us that
it’s merely Dissent or freedom of speech in action. But, if a crowd
at a Republic boos the name of Obama and Ayers, they are ‘hateful’.
Liberals are allowed to have friends to the left and even far left.
Conservatives are forced to stick only to the middle. Conservatives
may be allowed stylistic excess but not the substantive kind. The
Limbaughs of the world may express anger and contempt but their
message must stay in the mainstream. If Limbaugh cozied up to people
like David Duke or Don Black, his career would be finished. But, it's
okay if liberals in the media and academia cozy up to and even
wholeheartedly agree with the likes of Noam Chomsky or Naomi Klein.
Many are holocaust deniers or apologists. By ‘holocaust’, I mean the
communist kind. Communists, as we should know, committed massive
holocausts everywhere–despite the liberal Jewish attempt to make us
believe that only the Jewish tragedy is the only holocaust. (Notice
that academic and media Jews often refer to communist mass killings as
mere 'tragedies' but refer to the Jewish holocaust as a 'crime'? So,
10 million Ukrainians killed by Stalin and his left-wing Jewish
supporters were mere victims of an historical accident—or mistake at
best--whereas Jewish victims of the Nazis were victims of evil.)

It is time to consider the concept of no-enemies-to-the-right. It
cannot be achieved and practiced overnight, but it’s becoming more
necessary everyday. Liberals in 2008 brazenly sided with and supported
a man with far left ties. Hollywood, journalism, and academia have
fallen into the hands of the far left. Even non-political departments
are run by people of the left and far-left. This is why even young
people who aren’t particularly political turn into leftists. Even the
study of literature, music, movies, or whatnot leads students to the
leftist world view. Leftists also believe that everything is
political and is a contest of power along racial and class lines. As
Harold Bloom has written, the Humanities have become hotbeds of every
racial, ethnic, and gender group demanding its own power base. And,
liberals have accepted this state of affairs, even when liberals too
get burned in the process. Larry Summers, we may recall, got in hot
water because he said there’s a possibility that men might be better
than women at math and science. The Left attacked him, and the
liberals didn’t really stand up for him though Summers was only
practicing freedom of thought and open scientific inquiry. Generally
speaking, there really is no liberal philosophy anymore, except in
economics. Most liberals are actually leftists putting on mainstream
ruse for pragmatic reasons—just like Obama. Their ideology is actually
premised on leftist notions taught in colleges across America.

In the 60s, the boomer generation of students either demanded either
greater freedom or greater correctness in college campuses. Those
demanding freedom found the traditional curriculum and faculty stuffy
and limited. Those calling for radical correctness found our
institutions run by the wrong kind of people and ideology. Though both
elements were of the left, the freedom side really wanted more liberty
and openness. They were for all sides arguing and contending, not
shutting anyone down. It was libertarian. The correctness side didn’t
care so much for freedom. They cared about power. Indeed, they were
suspicious of the very notion of freedom. ‘Freedom’ was supposedly a
bourgeois concept that lulled the exploited masses into thinking they
were free when they were cogs and commodities in an exploitative
capitalist-imperialist state.

Why did the correctness crowd win over the freedom crowd? It was due
to the nature of academic culture. One has to devote long hours over
many years to earn a degree and win tenure. Two kinds of people go
into academics. Those who really love their discipline and those who
seek power. Generally, freedom lovers don’t want to be nailed down to
a single area of interest and unfit for the rigors of academic life.
Also, when pitted against power fanatics, the freedom lovers tend to
be less willing to fight tooth and nail. Oscar Wilde is no match to
Lenin when it comes to power. Also, freedom lovers tend to be
individualistic and value their autonomy. Power fanatics are
collectivist and unite for a common purpose. If a power fanatic’s
freedom of speech were threatened, a freedom lover would come to his
rescue even if he didn’t agree with the power fanatic’s views. But, if
a freedom lover’s freedom of speech were threatened, the power fanatic
will not support him if the views happen to be ‘incorrect’. Freedom
lover is for allowing freedom to all people, even his enemies. Power
fanatic only wants freedom for his side and will unite with others to
silence the opposition.

This is why the academia turned more and more left. The Leninists won
over the democrats. This is why the main dichotomy on campuses is not
right vs left, but liberal vs leftist. In many campuses, there may
actually be more liberals than leftists, but the leftists have the
advantage because they are united, determined, power-mad, fanatical,
and take no prisoners. Also, liberals tend to promote and support
people based on genuine merit–and will even support a conservative
based on merit–, whereas leftists will support, endorse, and promote
only fellow leftists—even if they are without intellectual merit--and
oppose conservatives–no matter how distinguished in the field.

Another thing that gives the power-fanatics of the left the advantage
is the cult of radical brilliance. Academics isn’t just about
preserving old knowledge but coming up with new ones. There is a
conceit that radical theories are at the cutting edge, that they
advance knowledge and understanding. Of course, it’s true enough that
the purpose of progressive ideas is to open up new frontiers, but a
distinction needs to be made between genuine liberalism and radical
leftism. Genuine liberalism is open-minded and, at the very least,
committed to the idea that a free, open, and pluralistic society along
‘bourgeois-democratic’ lines is the best system developed by man for
the purpose of free inquiry and liberty for all. Genuine liberals
accept the core essence of our society and want to expand around the
edges. Leftists call for the fundamental overthrow or dismantling of
the core essentials of our society.

Considering that most of our intellectuals come from middle-class or
privileged backgrounds, why are so many of them attracted to
radicalism? Part of the answer is no different than why middle class
kids dig punk rock, heavy metal, goth music, gangster rap, violent
movies, and other outrageous expressions. It is the excitement
factor. We may not want to get in auto accidents, but we sure like to
watch them in movies. We may not want to be robbed, but we love movies
like “The Wild Bunch” and “Bonnie and Clyde”. All said and done,
intellectuals are no different. They want a sense of excitement, of
pushing the envelope. And, radicalism offers such fantasies in spades–
certainly more so than liberalism. The image of the liberal professor
is that of a fuddy-dud with a bow-tie; he’s usually an amiable fellow,
sometimes absent-minded; his main focus of attention is knowledge.
There are still many professors of this kind, but it’s too ‘geeky’ for
many academics. Since most academics are geeks, they want to convince
themselves that they are badass and dangerous; they don’t want to come
across as a bunch of Arthur Schlesingers; they want to be come across
as bunch of Lenins and Trotskyies. Marx said philosophers of the past
had merely tried to understand the world when the real purpose of
philosophy is to change it. This is what excites intellectuals on
college campuses and foundations. They live in an enclosed world
reading books, looking at stats, and writing articles for journals no
one reads, BUT they want to believe that they are the great agents of
change. And to be sure, the cream of the crop do influence mportant
and powerful people, and that does indeed play a role in changing the
world. Thugs like Hugo Chavez got their ideas from reading Marx and
Chomsky. And, one of the reasons why Bill Gates is a globe-trotting
liberal philanthropist is because he read Jared Diamond and Jeffry
Sachs. (At any rate, it must be said Marx was wrong about philosophy
prior to his arrival. It had always been the purpose of philosophy to
change the world. Plato didn’t merely analyze society but offered a
blueprint for an ideal society. Confucius didn’t idle his time away in
contemplation but sought to change the political order around him and
offered his advice and criticism freely. The intellectuals of the
French Revolution were men of action. And, men like Jesus and Muhammad
were philosophers in their own right and sought to change humanity.
Still, it was true enough that most thinkers in Marx’s lifetime sat
behind the desk and read and read–rather like Marx himself
ironically! Marx offered a vision of the intellectual with pen in one
hand and a rifle in the other though he himself only took up the pen.
This explains why Che holds such a fascination among radicals. He was
supposedly both a man of thought and action. Never mind that his
thought was third-rate and his action pitifully inept.)

Excitement is important, but not the only reason for the appeal of
leftism. There’s also the safety factor. Few intellectuals come in
direct contact with social reality. And, even if they do, they have
the option of retreating back to the safety of their academic
enclaves and can fall back on the same old(‘new’)intellectual cliches.
A poor white person living in an integrated neighborhood is trapped.
He sees crime all around and boorish black behavior. A sociologist who
ventures into the community may see the same reality, but he’s not
stuck there. He can only focus on what he wants to see, go back to his
college town, and write up a piece that only confirms the paradigm
that’s been fed to him by his mentors. A policeman must deal with
urban blight all day and all night. He must do so with guns, often in
situations where it’s kill or be kill. An academic only need to do
interviews, often in safe surroundings. Cops have to arrest and haul
in the killers of the street. Academics need only interview the thugs
in the safety of prisons or police stations; as such, they end up with
greater sympathy for the criminals since all they have to do is talk
and write. The paradox of modern leftism is it’s safely distanced
from social reality while putting forth an impassioned answer for our
social ills–either in terms of solution or analysis. Marxists may no
longer admit that they know HOW to fix the problems, but they still
claim to know WHY the problems exist in the first place. (Round up the
usual suspects: white ‘racism’, white ‘sexism’, white ‘homophobia’,
white ‘xenophobia’, white ‘greed’, etc.)

If intellectuals were forced to live in troubled communities, their
minds may change as they would have no safety zone–the ivory tower–to
retreat to. But, intellectuals are like modern animal specialists who
venture in the wild to take photos of animals and gather data–all the
while guarded by men with high power rifles. For them, animals are
something to study and admire. For someone who has to permanently live
in close proximity to dangerous animals, the outlook is very
different. We feel anger with Indian farmers who harass or even kill
elephants. We find it cruel that Alaskans kill wolves from
helicopters. Our sympathy with animals is understandable since we live
in a safe world where we are in control; it’s hard for modern people
living in dense population centers with no dangerous animals to
appreciate the fact that some people still live in areas where animals
pose a threat to human life or economic well-being. And, we ignore
the inconvenient fact that when a dangerous animal prowls into our
communities and pose a threat to ourselves, our children, or even our
pets, we demand that cops and animal control immediately kill it and
haul it away. Because of the privileged way of intellectuals living
in idyllic college towns or serving in fattened bureaucracies, they
can afford to be radical.

Anyway, conservatives must rethink the strategy of opposing ‘no enemy
to the right’ at all levels of politics. This doesn’t mean that
conservatives should embrace the loony right or endorse its views. It
simply means no one should be rejected in a wholesale fashion. Of
course, liberals will make a big issue out of the evil of 'no enemy
to the right', and it must be admitted that this condemnation will be
damaging. We have a situation where the referee waves the penalty flag
only when the Right violates the rules. So, when McCain brought up
Bill Ayers, the media waved the penalty flag. But, the fact that Obama
had been close to Ayers for many years was okay. Also, the media let
Obama get away with the fact that an Obama add viciously tied McCain
with Limbaugh when the two men haven't seen eye to eye on much of
anything. McCain didn't touch the issue of Wright because the media
would have skinned him alive as 'race-baiter', but it was okay for
Obama to have associated with an hateful demagogue for over 20 yrs.

But, because the liberal media showed their true face so blatantly in
2008, we must never let them forget it nor get away with it. We must
make the American people know the true nature of our media and academia
—that it's largely owned and run by liberal Jews. Of course, some of
these liberal Jews are now trying to cover their tracks by criticizing
Obama in a token way AFTER the election. Since they got what they
wanted by giving us lopsided media coverage, they are now trying to
reclaim some legitimacy as an objective news source by running a few
articles that are just barely critical of Obama. Dummies will be
fooled by this, but let us not be fooled. We can never forget nor
forgive the liberal and leftist Jews for abusing their dominant power
to make the disgusting Obama president. Obama makes our skin crawl and
should be seen as the skin disease of America. He's Melonobama.

Anyway, it must be said 'No enemy to the Right' is problematic for
other reasons too. The right is particularist, and for that reason
it's harder to unite the various groups and factions than it is to
pull forces of the left together. There is a wide range on the Left
too but they are all united by the ideology of universalism and
egalitarianism. Rightism divides, leftism unites. China and Russia had
been united by leftist ideology up until the early 60s; what drove
them apart was the rightist passions of nationalism. Consider the fact
that the Nation of Islam is really a far right organization. But,
black supremacism cannot co-exist peacefully with white supremacism.
Non-white groups are actually rightist in orientation and allied with
the left for reasons of tribal power. La Raza is a Mexican nationalist
organization. In terms of economic ideology, blacks and many Hispanics
may be leftist, but that doesn't in anyway lessen or ease their tribal
loyalties. Just because Nazi Germany had universal healthcare and
socialistic full employment didn't mean that its citizens were social
or cultural leftists. They were nationalist-rightists. In the US, the
only true leftists are people of white gentile backgrounds for only
they are obligated to put aside or suppress their 'racial pride' and
embrace the notion of pure universal man. White gentile folks are
pressured to be bland and never talk of white power, German-American
power, or Anglo-American power. Jews are the most leftist people in
the US, but there is a powerful tribalist component among Jews as well—
even among leftist Jews. Even the Jews at “The Nation” believe in
Israel despite their harsh criticism of its policies. They may reject
the founding myth of Israel, but they still believe that Israel was
right to have been founded. When it comes to Jewish power, most Jews
all stick together. Though harshly and ruthlessly critical of all
nations and all powers around the world, most Jews throw stick
together if anyone dares to say anything about Jewish power. So, Jews
tell us that Cuban-Americans hold this nation's foreign policy
'hostage'. But, if we say the same of AIPAC and American Jews who are
1000x more powerful than Cuban-Americans, then the Jews all circle the
wagon and call us 'anti-semitic' savages who should be shot off our
horses and scalped. Even Daniel Lazare of The Nation attacked “The
Israel Lobby” by Walt Mearsheimer. When it came to sticking up for
Israel, The New Republic and The Nation suddenly became one. Indeed,
the only difference on the issue of Israel between the two magazines
is The Nation pretends to be critical of Israeli excesses and
historiography. When it comes to the 'right of Israel to have been
founded and to exist', there is no difference.

Anyway, multiculturalism has been both a boon and curse to the left.
It's been a boon in the sense that it harvested the anger, rage, and
resentments of the 'people of color' against the white right. (To be
sure, much of this hatred was planted in the souls of 'people of
color' through the leftist controlled education system. Many non-white
immigrants come to US with love, but their kids are taught hatred of
white America by leftist white and Jewish teachers.) Commentators see
Obama's victory as something akin to Star Wars—diverse peoples uniting
to overthrow the power of the all-white GOP party. Leftists have
reversed the Reagan's rhetoric about the 'Evil Empire'.

To be sure, some white liberals embrace multiculturalism not really to
empower non-whites but to control them. The Democratic Party is still
largely run by whites and Jews, and one could cynically say that the
formula is essentially that of offering a few special concessions to
minority groups to win votes and loyalty. Even with Obama as
president, the people who will really run most of our foreign affairs,
economy, and other departments are whites and Jews. Similarly, the
Soviet system was essentially a way for Russians to maintain power
over non-Russians while making every nationality feel that it too had
a place at the table. Of course, Republicans haven't so much rejected
non-whites as have stood on the principle that there shall be no
special privileges, preferences, or rights for non-whites. (The one
non-white group—or non-white gentile group--that Republicans
shamelessly offer special favors to is the Jews whose Zionism has
become the foreign policy of Republican administrations. This is
because Jews are rich and powerful and also because GOP hopes to win
some moral points by having 'holocaust victims' on their side.) But,
this has been a losing strategy compared to the Democratic strategy
offering special favors for non-white groups. GOP offers equality to
blacks whereas Democrats offer affirmative action. GOP stands for
legal immigration whereas the Democrats favor open borders that
attract Hispanic and Asian voters. Whites and Jews in the Democratic
believe that they can afford to be generous since they are so much
richer than non-white groups. But, how will this play out in the long
run? Multiculturalism may become a curse for the Democrats because it
contains the seeds of discord. Multiculturalism is a deviant and
perverse form of universalism that really makes no sense. It's
completely reliant on historical context and has no unifying set of
rules. The uniting factor is victimhood under white gentile. If we
are to include women and homos in the noble victim camp, the unifying
factor is the shared hatred of white heterosexual gentile males. But,
beyond this common enemy—more imagined than real as white heterosexual
gentile males are not Nazis out to rule the world--, what unites all
these groups? Muslims, Jews, Mexicans, blacks, Chinese, feminists,
gays, and so on don't see eye to eye on much of anything.
Economically, socially, ideologically, and historically, these people
have little in common and much in contrast and in conflict.
Democratic Party has become the Yugoslavia of politics. Obama is the
so-called great hope, but good luck with a guy equally admired by
Farrakhan, Ed Koch, Khalidi, Wall Street Jews, Muslims, Ayers and his
radical cronies, blue collar Democrats opposed to illegal immigration,
'undocumented workers', and so on. Some people may look upon Obama
as the Tito of the Democratic Party who can unite all the warring
factions, but Tito had iron-fisted control over Yugoslavia. Obama
gained power by vaguely pandering to every group. There is no way his
promises can gain real substance without alienating many groups and
factions within the Democratic Party. This is perhaps why the cult of
personality has been crucial to Obama and his supporters. The
worship of personality makes the people forget about contradictions
and just blindly follow. In Nazi Germany, the worship of Hitler meant
that Hitler could attack communism, then make a pact with Stalin, and
then attack the Soviet Union. Because many Germans became loyal to
the Fuhrer than to any set of ideals, right and wrong or moral logic
no longer mattered. The Fuhrer was always right—even when wrong. Even
when the Fuhrer reversed himself or appeared contradictory, it was
okay because the people had FAITH in the Fuhrer; and, of course,
ordinary mortals simply could not grasp the complexity nor the
profundity behind his decisions—in the way that we say we can't fathom
the workings of God. Same was true of Mao Zedong. In the 50s, Mao
said China and USSR would be brothers for a 1000 yrs while USA would
be the permanent enemy. But, by the early 60s, USSR was China's worst
enemy. By the early 70s, USA was China's new partner. Also, people
who had once been hailed as Mao's best comrades were attacked as
'capitalist roaders' and 'foreign spies'. Great many Chinese people
ate all this up, but why? Because they were under the spell of the
cult of personality. It didn't matter so much WHAT Mao said as the
fact that HE said it.
Hooking people to the cult of personality is easiest with young folks,
which is why there was the Hitler Youth and the Red Guards. It's no
wonder that many liberal and leftist teachers are now trying to hook
kids to Obama-ism from the earliest age possible. These activist
teachers want kids to pledge their lives and souls to Obama. And, the
liberal Jewish dominated Pravda-like media have also joined in the act
of
promoting the cult of Obama. Both the media and academia have been
taken over by radical activist types or redemptive guilt-ridden types.
For either quasi-religious or radical reasons, they want to hook our
kids to Obama-ism as early as possible. Kids today are hooked-on-
Obamics. Liberals and leftists hope that the cult of Obama will keep
the vast and contradictory multicultural coalition together in the
future. But, if history teaches us anything, secular gods don't last.
Even the obnoxious cult of personality around Martin Luther King—
accepted by nearly all Americans—have failed to bring together blacks,
whites, Hipanics, and others on key issues.

Pitifully, this mindset seems to have befallen many in the national
media. It appears that what they teach in journalism schools these
days isn't so much rationalism and skepticism as politically correct
idealism and dogmatism. A generation that was weaned on the cult of
personality of Martin Luther King and Camelot(and Bobby) hungered for
a figure who would unite all the symbolisms. In this sense, Obama
didn't so much make himself as was packaged and built up by his
handlers and the media—and the dupes desperate for some meaning in
their worthless lives. But, like in the story of Pgymalion, the stupid
clods seemed to have fallen under the spell of what they've created.
To be sure, there are those who know what this is all about as opposed
to the suckers who've really fallen for the hype. Similarly, makers
of Hollywood movies are cynical individuals who know exactly what
emotional buttons they are pushing whereas the idiots who actually pay
money to see these films are suckers. 'Shawshank Redemption' is one
of the most shamelessly phony, contrived, and manipulative movies ever
made, but don't tell that to the suckers who boo hoo hoo cwy and call
it the greatest movie—and spiritual experience—they've ever seen.