Much of the writing on who Obama is and what his agenda entails has defined Obama’s actions within various revolutionary frameworks: Marxism, socialism, fascism, black liberation theology, and radical Islam.
To a large extent, Obama embodies elements of each of these ideologies: his economic policies are decidedly socialist; his focus on himself as the savior and his draconian threats is fascist; and his apologies for America are central to black liberation theology and to radical Islam.
In my view, what all of these revolutionary ideologies have in common is that they are at their core anti-American, and following close behind, anti-American capitalism.
Reflecting on the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize and what actions Obama has taken, it strikes me that the NPP Committee was rewarding Obama’s anti-Americanism and his socialist policies. And knowing Obama’s ego would not permit him to decline an award for diplomacy (after all, that implies actual leadership 🙄 ) the NPP Committee ties the hands of the President of the United States on military matters.
But as Logistics Monster points out, when something like this comes out of left field, it can be a gift: it illuminates the kinds of forces we are up against, both internally and internationally.
The purpose of this post is to look at what’s playing on the board of anti-Americanism internally, and how an international event such as the NPP award is intended to move the sleepers pawns and the Messiahs knights, Bishops and Kings on this board.
By moving to describe ‘anti-Americanism’ is in no way intended to diminish the validity of the analysis and application of revolutionary ideology to Obama and the importance of continuing this research. Importantly, the thread of anti-Americanism offers a useful ‘platform’ that may enhance these discussions and help identify useful strategies.
The essential character of anti-Americanism is to view America as
..some sort of collective entity, not a nation of individuals, and the qualities of the governing class must be attributed to the people at large…
Here is the starting point for anti-Americanism: to denigrate the concept of individual liberties, and a government serving the people. The actions of the ‘governing class’
Those who genuinely hate America, and all it stands for, good or bad, suffer a collectivist mentality of hatred for a country, its traditions and its people, that can be just as obnoxious and insidious as racism or any other such collectivism
Gregory continues on anti-Americanism with the example of Ward Churchill, former professor at the University of Colorado:
The very few extremists who thought that the victims of 9/11 deserved what they got were voicing anti-Americanism. Ward Churchill stood as a paragon of this rare breed of malcontents when he compared the innocent businessmen who died in the World Trade Center to ‘little Eichmanns”. Those who believe that every American is directly responsible for the real and perceived sins of his government, and for the ravishing of the earth at the maw of what they view as predatory global capitalism, are also usually anti-American.
The film presented in an earlier article is an example of this blaming of America for all the ravaging of the earth.
In discussing both the extreme left and the extreme right, the author notes that both have their inherent anti-Americanism:
Both nationalist warmongers and anti-American agitators agree that the U.S. government exists as a symbol and representation of the people and the economy of the country it dominates…the anti-Americans agree with the nationalists that the essential character of American cannot be separated from the ruling regime’s foreign policy.
And the ruling regime’s foreign policy is most often associated with the United States Armed Forces.
Where did this Originate?
I notice that both the extreme left and the extreme right call each-other ‘anti-American’, and this has served to somewhat ‘neutralize’ the true danger and insidious nature of this ideology. Where did this come from?
As background, we know that there has been a deliberate attempt by the KGB to infiltrate and disrupt the American thought system, and that a few ‘sleepers’ have emerged as leading this chaos. Within that context, there has been America’s own evolution, unsuspecting for the most part(?), of its own essential self-doubt.
An interesting article by Daniel Pipes, of the Jerusalem Post, attributes this internal anti-Americanism to the assassination of John F. Kennedy. First it involved ‘deleting Oswald from the narrative’, by
ignoring his communist outlook by characterizing him as an extreme rightist. Thus, New Orleans district attorney Jim Garrison asserted that “Oswald would have been more at home with Mein Kampf than Das Kapital.“
Citing a book written by James Piereson,
With Oswald nearly deleted from the narrative, or even turned into a scapegoat, the ruling establishment…proceeded to take a second, astonishing step. They blamed the assassination not on Oswald the communist but on the American people, and the radical right in particular, accusing them of killing Kennedy for his being too soft in the cold war or too accommodating to civil rights for American blacks.
Blame it on the American people! 😯 Piereson cites four examples of that wild distortion:
- Chief Justice Earl Warren decried the supposed “hatred and bitterness that has been injected into the life of our nation by bigots.”
- Senate majority leader Mike Mansfield raged against “the bigotry, the hatred, prejudice and the arrogance which converged in that moment of horror to strike him down.”
- Congressman Adam Clayton Powell advised, “Weep not for Jack Kennedy, but weep for America.”
- A New York Times editorial lamented “The shame all America must bear for the spirit of madness and hate that struck down President John F. Kennedy.”
A very turbulent 1960’s ensued, along with Vietnam and social revolution. At this time period, the Cloward-Piven strategy was also being used as the anti-war movement grew and the ‘welfare state’ expanded. Makes you wonder who the ‘sleepers’ really were and who they are now.
And doesn’t this distortion sound familiar to you today, as American citizens are labeled racists, bigots, and un-American?
There are several essays on anti-Americanism in Victor Davis Hanson’s Between War and Peace that are well worth the read, and a few excerpts are presented here.
On the theme of anti-Americanism, Hanson notes–as do researchers above– that the association of individuals in a country with the actions of its government is the basis of anti-Americanism, and conversely, allows our government to do things cause us self-doubt. The ‘hatred of a country’ permitted (and permits) the large scale bombing of civilian populations, which became a major reason for American self-doubt and hatred.
Hanson strongly criticizes that liberals are more concerned about what Muslims think about us, and that their rights are protected in prisons, than the needs of our soldiers and the regions the military has stabilized (successes).
“Rather than creating new programs to teach others about America, I would prefer that our government instruct Americans about the exceptional history of America, reinvigorate civic education in the schools, explain that racism, sexism and prejudice are endemic in the human species–but under the American system of government can be identified discussed, and then ameliorated. If we could instill in our citizens a tragic rather than therapeutic sense of the world, they would understand that utopia is not possible on this earth but that the Constitution and institutions of the Untied States are man’s best hope for eradicating the evil and ignorance that plague us all…”
On the Nobel Peace Prize and Anti-Americanism
I started this article before the NPP was awarded because I wanted to get at the persistent but pernicious theme of anti-Americanism that does plague the left, generally, Congress, our schools and universities, and the media. Then my first reaction to the 2009 NPP award was that it rewarded anti-Americanism. If I was biased in my first reaction, I think the research here bears it out.
From a 2007 article in the UK times on line:
There’s another, more important aspect to the world’s affection for those in America who are most critical of it. The Americans who win global approbation in Oslo or at the UN are not simply critics of current American policy. They want to construct an international system that will for ever prevent the US from pursuing its own objectives, a system designed to dilute, counterbalance and constrain America’s ability to govern itself. They prefer a world in which American democracy is subordinated to a kind of global government, rule by a global elite, tasked to make decisions on everyone’s behalf in the name of multilateralism.
In other words, the New World Order types, European socialists, and UN global governance.
Hanson sums it up nicely:
More seriously, the Obama Prize represents two recent larger Nobel trends: 1) an effort to curtail American foreign policy in favor of international deference (as in the case of rewarding Carter and Gore for their defamation of Bush in their opposition to Iraq); 2) a general disconnect from accomplishment in favor of leftist intentions, as in the case of Elbaradei or Rogaberta Menchu who accomplished essentially nothing (and spoke or wrote about that nothing in suspect fashion), but were a hit among international Western elites as authentically anti-Western non-Westerns.
Think of the tiny Norway’s Machiavellianism: A utopian American President is now supported for his rhetoric—and yet also sent a signal that brave new Nobel Prize laureates simply don’t support Israel, pressure Iran, stay in Afghanistan or Iraq, or keep open Guantanamo. It is as if that Oslo is saying ‘our man in Washington’ is, well, now really ‘our man in Washington.’