The Conspiratorial Style in American Politics

Richard Hofstadter wrote a famous essay — followed by a book — on the ‘Paranoid Style of American Politics’. Of course, being a good Jewish liberal, his target was the American Right, but in reality, the ‘paranoid style’ was no less prevalent on the American Left as on the American Right. But the powers-that-be in the academia and media decide what is ‘extreme’ and ‘paranoid’ and what isn’t. One’s man paranoia is another’s truth, and vice versa. Though Hofstadter wasn’t wrong about problems of the American Right, the term ‘paranoia’, like ‘phobia’, has a way of shutting off than expanding debate. After all, who wants to be accused of ‘paranoia’ and ‘extremism’? When the powers-that-be in the academia and media label some people thus, most ‘respectable’ people distance themselves from the reviled group regardless of whether the charge is true or false. One might call this the ‘hysteric style of American politics’.

While there were undoubtedly elements of the American Right that were indeed paranoid and partial to outlandish theories of hidden international plots, it also needs to be asked why such mind-sets existed in the first place. Also, we must remind ourselves that the ‘paranoid style’ can accompany the telling of hard facts. Style isn’t the same thing as substance. After all, one can tell the truth hysterically and stupidly, and one can tell the lie soberly and intelligently. Within that context, Hofstadter’s essay hints as to why the American Right became so disreputable in intellectual circles in the post-war era. It wasn’t so much what they said but how — the style — with which they said it. And the posterboy of this style was Joseph McCarthy — and then the grumpy-looking Barry Goldwater. History would prove many of McCarthy’s allegations to have been true, but his style was so often boorish and extreme that he even made the truth sound ‘hysterical’ and outlandish, not to mention ugly. Style matters in politics as in boxing and dancing. Politics isn’t just about the what but the how. In contrast, many radical and extreme Jewish intellectuals of the post-war era tended to have an intelligent and sober styles. Though some were stooges of the USSR while others adopted all kinds of paranoid and conspiratorial stances against American society and power, they put forth the image of diligent and thoughtful intellectualism. And indeed, despite their radical ideologies, some of them were diligent and sober, at least in their role as cultural and social critics. The counterpart of such people in Britain was the Marxist historian Eric Hobsbawm who was a hardline Stalinist radical but carried out his duty as professor and historian with great dedication and commitment. So, even when the substance of Jewish ideologues may be radical and extreme, they’ve earned great respect by playing the role of genuine thinkers and intellectuals. In contrast, many ideologues of the American Right in the post-war era seemed stupid and extreme because they lacked intellectual credentials and manners. Even if they were right about the communist threat, they came across as know-nothing philistines whose ideology was little more than Old Glory and Apple Pie. Their entire creed seemed to little more than ‘better dead than red’. (Of course, the 60s saw the rise of the firebrand radicals who turned off much of America. If not for the hippies and yippies in 1968, Humphrey probably would have won the election. The crazy style of leftist politics in the late 60s certainly offended Middle America and paved the wave of Republican victories for the Presidency until 1992. Carter won in 1976 — just barely — thanks only to Watergate and Ford’s pardoning of Nixon. Because of the mess created by the crazy style of leftist politics in the 60s, damage control had to be carried out by an older radical who believed in the effectiveness of the sober and respectable style. That man was. of course, Saul Alinsky, who was already middle aged when the young radicals of the 60s were calling the police ‘pigs’ and flashing the middle finger at Middle America. He taught the youngsters to stop acting crazy and to put on three piece suits and gradually normalize and mainstream-ize radicalism by wrapping socialism and anti-white-ism with the American flag. And he proved to be one of the architects of the revival of the Left in the late 80s through today. To be sure, the notion of the ‘long march through the institutions’ is somewhat misleading. Though traditional liberals didn’t see eye to eye with many boomer radicals, the fact remains that the liberal establishment in the media and academia were nevertheless more sympathetic to boomer radicals than to boomer conservatives. And so, boomer radicals didn’t have to struggle much to take over the institutional thrones in the 80s and 90s. Traditional liberals had long warmed the seats for them. A show like WILL & GRACE is pure Alinksyism mixed with Gramsci-ism in action. On the other hand, one can argue that the Left didn’t win the war either. As is so often the case, when something tries to take power by pretending to be something else, it essentially becomes that something else, though the synthesis is far from pure. A good example of this would be modern Japan. Japanese originally Westernized to use Western ways to preserve and strengthen the Japanese way, but Japan become a Westernized, if not Western, nation. Even Japan’s mad efforts to ward off the West and ‘protect Asia’ was by Western means of aggressive imperialism, especially against China. In the 80s, Deng in China and Gorbachev in the Soviet Union sought to adopt elements of capitalism to strengthen their communist systems, but China eventually became more capitalist than communist, and the structures of Soviet Union buckled under the reforms and soon collapsed until communist ideology effectively became moot. Similarly, the American Left isn’t really truly leftist anymore. In attempting to use mainstream symbols and styles to take power, it took the power and merged far too much with the mainstream to effect revolutionary change in the name of the masses. Leftists who sought to practice and use capitalism against capitalism found themselves raking in so much cash, power, and influence via capitalism that they became addicted to capitalism. The ropes with which they were going to hang the capitalists were tailored into neckties by homos and hangs around their own necks. To be sure, the new mainstream isn’t the old mainstream, but the new-new ‘left’ isn’t the old left or even the New Left of the 60s. Do Jewish radicals with billions in cash really want a revolution to overthrow the capitalist class? Do they really want social-democracy that taxes them at 90%? Do affluent urban Jews and homos really want to see the masses of white poor & working class, black underclass, and Hispanic poor rise up in anger? Anyway, if the sober and respectable style did wonders for the Left in institutional circles — where drudgery and diligence are of great importance, as much of academics and bureaucratic culture is about grinding away through stacks of papers — , it didn’t suit the Liberals so much in national politics. Adlai Stevenson may have been more intelligent and knowledgeable than General Eisenhower, but Americans during the Cold War felt safer with a manly general than some egghead. Kennedy won in 1960 thanks to his freshness and charisma, and the memory of his passing won the election for Johnson in 1964. But as the Cold War heated up and American streets were on fire and filling up with criminal thugs, Americans wanted commanders, not nice guys. Humphrey was a nice guy. McGovern was a nice guy. Carter was a nice guy and just barely won in 1976 because of Nixon scandals and Ford being even a nicer guy than Carter. But Carter was handily defeated by Reagan the tough guy, who then easily defeated Mondale the super-nice guy. And Dukakis the nice guy got throttled by Bush the nasty guy. Clinton finally figured out that the nice style of national Democratic politics wasn’t a winner and played the tough guy, and he won twice. Gore was not a nice guy, but he made the same mistake that Nixon and Goldwater made respectively in 1960 and 1964. Americans like tough guys with nice smiles, not frigid frowns. Reagan, Clinton, and Obama perfected the tough-guy-with-the-nice-smile style. Gore was hampered in 2000 by Clinton fatigue and stock market slump, but he would have won if he didn’t come across as such a mean tough guy. His toughness seemed of a bullying kind, and people sympathized with Bush the nice guy. Bush won in 2004 because Kerry was even a nicer guy. By ‘nice’, of course we don’t mean that all these politicians are nice people. We are talking of styles. John Edwards is a sleazebag, but his problem was he came across as too nice and bland, rather like the Jack Tripper character on THREE’S COMPANY.)

Why is the paranoid style so appealing to large segments of the population? It is due to the nature of power in a complex system. If we all lived in a tribal-communal village, there would be little need for the paranoid style. Everyone would take part in and be part of the political process, which would be transparent in terms of why this guy is chief and that guy isn’t. Everyone would know everyone, and indeed they could all be related one way or another by blood. Even the lowest member of the village would greet the tribal chief everyday and even go on hunts with him. In such a world, paranoia would be useless. In such communities, there’s more likely to be paranoia about the mysterious forces of nature and diseases, about which primitive folks know little. In this sense, religions first arose as paranoia about nature. Why did earthquakes, floods, tornadoes, hurricanes, volcanic eruptions, tsunamis, and etc. happen? Primitive man had no way of knowing, and so he imagined dark and mysterious forces governing the world around them. Since these forces were thought to be supernatural, paranoia turned to worship and plea for mercy.

Things are different in the modern world. While we still fear natural disasters, we don’t fear the mechanisms of nature(as dark mysterious forces) since we have a pretty good scientific understanding of why it rains and why volcanos sometimes erupt. It’s all due to the laws of nature, i.e. there is no mysterious force, almighty or sinister, behind them. Even religious people accept the facts of geology and the scientific understanding of hurricanes and the like.
But if we no longer feel paranoia about the ways of nature, we experiences pangs of paranoia when it comes to the power of man because we live in complex social, economic, and political systems. Though we can see the official faces of power in the media, it’s only natural and even smart of us to wonder what is the real power behind those faces. Are the talking heads who read the news on TV the real controllers of the media? Are Hollywood movie stars the real power-holders in Hollywood? Are pop scientists like Neil Degrasse Tyson really the best scientists in the world? Are politicians and elected officials really the most powerful people in America? Is the American president really the most powerful man in the world? Of course, to some extent, the official faces of power wield real power and influence.
But is it foolish or wrong for us to wonder as to the real nature of power given that our socio-economic and political world is such a complex system of networks and associations? So, who has the real power in America? Though such query can lead to genuine paranoia and ridiculous theories, is the Naive or Gullible Style of American Politics what we really want? Do we really want to take at face value all the truisms and factoids fed to us by the official organs of the media and government? Was it really the modest summer heat that shut down the Oak Street beach a few yrs back as reported by Chicago Tribune and the Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s office? Or was it ‘youths’ attacking white people at random? Is it true that ‘youths’ and ‘teens’ — euphemisms for blacks thugs — are wreaking havoc on some streets all across America? Is it true that the KKK is lurking around Oberlin University? Is our system really meritocratic? What is the true nature and extent of Jewish power in America? Why do Jews seem so powerful but deny they are powerful? What was the truth about MLK and how did he become a sacred icon in American culture and politics, and who made it so?

Though many people still believe in God and His control over nature, the kind of power that most modern people are concerned about is the power of man, and the most powerful men happen to reside in the metropolises of the most advanced and complex societies. They are so complex that we can only learn of their true nature after years of study, but then, even study and research in the modern West are directed and guided by the powers-that-be, e.g. most top journalism students are taught by Liberal Jewish professors who prefer to push agendas than pursue any kind of ‘objective’ truth.
So, given all these complexities, everyone is bound to feel some degree of ‘paranoid style’ when it comes to his or her thoughts about the nature of power. In some systems, it’s pretty clear who had the real power. Stalin ruled the USSR, Hitler consolidated control of Nazi Germany by the late 30s, and Mao had a firm grip on China from 1949 to his death in 1976.
Of course, paranoia isn’t only what the people feel about the powers-that-be but what the powers-that-be feel about the people and other spheres of power. Stalin to his dying day was a paranoid, but his paranoia was as necessary as it was crazy. He often suspected the wrong people and had ‘innocent’ people killed, but he also never forgot that the Bolsheviks came to power through subversion, intrigue, and terror. And he knew that, in the absence of rule of law in the USSR, the power struggle had to be won largely through conspiracies and secret alliances and coalitions. He knew he had to outmaneuver those who might be trying to do the same thing to him. In this game, the most cunning and ruthless would win, and Stalin won. But he made a lot of enemies along the way and was surrounded by men who might potentially stab him in the back, just as Julius Caesar was killed by his ‘friends’. In a game of zero-sum power-struggle — where the losing side could be annihilated without mercy — , it was always better to be paranoid and safe than trusting and sorry. The mentality was that of gangsters, the kind we see in GOODFELLAS and CASINO where the various personalities outwardly act like they’re all friends but secretly make moves to gain an extra inch. Excessive paranoia can be paralytic — as with the case of Howard Hughes — , but no one survives or gets anywhere in a world of gangsters without being at least semi-paranoid. In a dog-eat-dog world, obsessive sniffing is as important as constant barking.

While the world of democratic politics and civil society may work according to the Rule of Law and the freedom of information, those factors can paradoxically lead to even more paranoia. Whether one likes Hitler, Stalin, and Mao or not, one could at least be sure in Nazi Germany, USSR of the 30s and 40s, and China of the 50s to mid 70s that, respectively, the Hitler regime, Stalin regime, and Mao regime were in power. But who’s really in power in America? The president and other politicians? Big businessmen? Big media? Academia and the intellectual class? The high-tech industry? Of course, there is no single locus of power in America. Instead, American power is the sum of all the networks and interconnections of various powers. So, all groups have some degree of power and influence, and they must all rely on alliances and coalitions with other groups. Even so, we know that not all groups are equally powerful or influential. American Buddhists aren’t as powerful as American Christians. There are many more Christians than Buddhists obviously. And there are many more white Americans than American Indians. But not all power is quantitative. Some groups, especially Jews and homos, have power far beyond their numbers. Jews control much of Wall Street, Big Media, top law firms, elite colleges, Washington, Silicon Valley, Big retail, and etc. Homos have their place in elite business circles, creative pursuits, and upper echelons of government as either bureaucrats or aids to big-name politicians. Whispering into the ears of a big time politician may be more of a penetrative act for a homosexual than buggering some guy in the ass.

Paranoids see conspiracies everywhere, and oftentimes, they fantasize about conspiracies that simply don’t exist and never existed. But, in a way, it’s natural for us to imagine being surrounded by conspiracies since we live a complex world that seems, on the one hand, so atomized and alienated, and on the other hand, so united and harmonic. The rise of modern individualism and self-centrism has cut many or even most of us from our roots, from a sense of organic community. We are all strangers, especially in big cities. But non-stop stream of popular culture and much hyped ideological causes bring masses of people together to push for ‘gay marriage’ and participate in ‘gay pride’ — even if they are not homos themselves. Fans of a movie star will flock to the same place to catch a glimpse of him or her. Many people watch the same TV shows and feel part of the same community, and fictional characters can seem almost like real friends. This accounts for the success of HARRY POTTER, TWILIGHT, and other such series. Social networking has greatly expanded this sense of shared community. Facebook, for example, has redefined the meaning of ‘friend’ and has even turned it into a verb. A friend is no longer a fixed person you know personally but a cyber-presence that can slip in and out of your circle of networks. The atomized and alienated part of us feels paranoid because we wonder, as Joseph K did in THE TRIAL, about the true nature of the system that we live in. But the united and harmonic side of us is also liable to feel bouts of paranoia because we know that the entire communities formed by popular culture and social networking can’t really be real. There’s something weird about so many people so obsessed with celebrities who don’t know them or care about them. And as those celebrities ‘perform stunts’ in music and movies — strutting around as sexy thugs or running around with big guns — , we know it’s all fantasy. Yet, many people really seem to be taken in by this power of fantasy, and there are many devious social scientists and psychologists who eagerly tap into this facet of mass psychology to formulate more effective means of social and public manipulation. Thus, there is a conspiratorial nature to power in America.

Of course, we need to be careful about what we mean by ‘conspiracy’. If it means small groups of ‘sinister’ people coming together secretly behind closed doors to hatch an ‘evil’ plot, we know such things happen all the time in business and politics(and also within religious organizations), but we also know that it’s not always easy to define what is and isn’t a conspiracy. Must conspiracies violate the Rule of Law? Or can conspiracies be perfectly legal? After all, one can argue that there was a hidden and concerted effort on the part of the MSM to vilify Sarah Palin and lionize Barack Obama. Since such bias was perfectly legal, was it or wasn’t it a conspiracy? Also, people can also conspire to do what they believe to be goo(though others may disagree as to the goodness of the objective in question). In a way, the Rosa Parks story was a conspiracy. The official narrative was that a tired black woman just wanted a seat on the bus but a white redneck harassed her, and she proudly stood, or sat, her ground. But in fact, Rosa Parks had planned the whole incident ahead of time with MLK and members of the communist party. One can say it was morally justified, but the real story was something other than what many people were led to believe. And MLK phenomenon could also said to have been a conspiracy. He was favored by liberal and leftist professors who overlooked his plagiarism. He was put on the fast-track to lead the Civil Rights Movement. His boorish and thug-like ways were suppressed and hidden by the big media, indeed even by the government that had the dirt on him, which was considerable. He was used as a Trojan or Brojan Horse to fool the white public into thinking that blacks only wanted peace and harmony. It was rather like the Peace Movements in the West that was secretly funded by the Soviet Union in order to disarm Western resistance against communist aggression; notice that while US was condemned for its ‘aggression’ in Vietnam, the peace-mongers applauded the aggression of North Vietnam and the Khmer Rouge. While promoting communist agitation and revolution around the world, the Soviets used Western front groups to spread the message of Peace. So, even though communists were being aggressive in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, the liberal and ‘progressive’ people of the West were used as useful idiots marching for Peace. So, if communists come charging, don’t fight back but just throw flowers at the conquerors. This culminated in the communist victory in Vietnam. Though North Vietnam and its sponsor nation China and USSR were the aggressors while US was trying to defend South Vietnam and Cambodia, the narrative of the Peace Movement made Americans the aggressors and the Vietnamese people, of North and South, as hapless victims of ‘American Imperialism’. And in the 80s, the so-called Peace Movement groups in the US marched for reducing military spending and hands-off approach in Latin America where Marxist rebels were planning to topple governments. Again, the Peace Movement overlooked the aggression of the Marxists and placed all the burden of Peace on America. After the fall of the Soviet Union, it finally came to light that most of these Peace groups had indeed been fronts for the USSR. Of course, the issue was complicated by the possibility that most people who joined the movement were sincere in their support. Indeed, not everyone involved in a conspiracy are IN on the conspiracy. Consider the movie MEET JOHN DOE where so many people sincerely come to embrace the virtues of Doe-ism and are utterly ignorant of the machinations of the whole thing by a rich fat guy. Capra also worked in paranoid anti-conspiracy mode in MR. SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON. Of course, one could also argue that those films themselves were part of the conspiracy by the powers-that-be in order to assure the American public that America is indeed a good nation when push comes to shove, i.e. the good guys do finally win in the end, and America is saved from tyranny and corruption. It’s possible that most people — especially at the lower levels — who worked for Bernie Madoff had no idea of what was really happening. And all of this happened for so long in the cultural and financial capital of America and the ‘free world’. Madoff got away with so much for so long in partnership with so many famous and respected people while running what was nothing more than a massive ponzi-pyramid scheme; as long as he was stuffing billions into Jewish pockets and causes, he was a much-liked guy. And there was the Enron scandal in which many Republicans were involved. If Enron crooks finally ended up behind bars, it seems most Wall Street crooks — many of them Jews — got off the hook. We’ve all heard the phrase, ‘Too big to fail’. But isn’t such a rationale part of the conspiracy? Could it mean ‘too Jewish to fail’? Doesn’t it mean that Jewish Wall Street has its claws so deeply inside Washington that there is nothing the latter can do about it? Worse, especially pertaining to the collapse of the housing/financial bubble, it seems that the legal, extra-legal, and illegal are so closely bound together in Wall Street and Washington that it’s no longer possible to tell which is the healthy tissue, which is the cancerous tumor; what is the conspiracy and what is the clean-up operation?
In most movie conspiracies, there is a specific cabal of evildoers with fiendish smirks who need to be defeated in order for the system to be restored to health. But in reality, we are no longer sure what is good and what is bad, what is truth and what is a lie. When Wasps held much of the upper echelons of power and Jews were rapidly making their climb, the tension between Wasp power/privilege and Jewish ambition/ferocity may have produced the golden age of journalism and intellectual seriousness. Not that people in the 60s and 70s were all a bunch of shining idealists, but Jews and their allies really did ask big questions about the nature of power in America. Wasps held sway over much of the government and even academia whereas Jews had control of much of the media and was gaining in academia. But today, it’s Jews controlling Wall Street, law firms, big media, Washington, high-tech, big pharma, Hollywood, and much else. Long ago, Jews were anxious about rocking the boat(at least too hard) because they didn’t want to stir up ‘antisemitism’. But Jews gained the courage in the 60s and made a lot of noise, much of it obnoxious and crazy but much of it informative, insightful, and necessary. Today, Jews again don’t wanna rock the boat, but this time, because they themselves have most of the power. Is this a kind of conspiracy? Not in the strict technical sense, but when there’s a wink-wink understanding among the various power centers in America networked along tribal lines, we can’t help but suspect a kind of low-burner world of secret power all around us. Indeed, when a group holds so much power, even silence and lack of action can be part of the coordination if not of an outright conspiracy. For example, suppose Rick Sanchez was attacked as a ‘communist’ and fired from his job. The mass media would have gone into a tizzy and brought up the ghosts of McCarthyism, and there would have been a massive counter-red-baiting campaign. But when Rick Sanchez was accused of ‘antisemitism’ for speaking truth to Jewish power and lost his job, much of the mass media just gave him the cold shoulder, the silent treatment. The media have the power to both stir up controversies and to bury them. Rick Sanchez was effectively blacklisted, and there was a minor controversy, but the story gained no ‘traction’ because the media just decided to forget that he was gone. He was ‘disappeared’, as if without a trace, as if he’d never worked for MSM and been one of the big ‘brown’ hopes. The current climate of blacklisting and ‘disappearing’ people is far more dangerous than the so-called ‘red scare’ during the McCarthy Era. Joe McCarthy at least openly declared war on communists and over-extended his reach. Though McCarthy didn’t always play fair and made some outlandish accusations, he never hid what he was trying to do. In contrast, Jews who silence, demote, fire, and blacklist politically incorrect voices never declared a war on free speech, free inquiry, and controversy. They just stick in the knife and bleed their victims in silence. Or, they orchestrate outrage in such a way that the demand to have someone fired or blacklisted materializes from the ‘good people with good conscience’ than from the actual powers that be. This is where punditocracy is very useful, indeed more so than politicians in some cases. If you don’t wanna seem the tyrant by acting nasty, train the dogs to do the barking for you. McCarthy was a politician who barked, so it seemed as if the government itself was going after free speech and civil liberties. In contrast, when powerful Jews shame someone via their control of punditocracy and celebrity culture, what is generated is popular outrage among the masses of sheep and barking/running dogs, and the overall public impression will be that the fallen(the blacklisted) was rejected by the People.

Perhaps, there is a need for us to think paranoid-istically since so much of power is carried out conspiratorially. We cannot be entirely free of ‘paranoia’ since the powers-that-be can never be free of conspiratoriality. In a democracy, it’s foolish for us to stupidly and naively trust the power-that-be. Nor can we simply rely on the mainstream media, which should really be called the Jewish media, to report the news honestly. When Jews rule finance and government and when Jews control the media, why would Jews air out their dirty Jewish laundry? If US were 90% to 100% Jewish, I suppose angry Jews in the media would call foul on rotten Jews in government and finance. But Jews are only 2% of the US population. Even or especially because of all the power they have, they feel anxious and vulnerable as an elite minority. Even if some Jews in the media want to blow the whistle on rotten Jews in Wall Street and Washington, they are afraid that such a revelation will lead to the rise of ‘antisemitism’ and lend fuel to masses of goyim who might finally wake up and boldly challenge Jewish power. Even decent and idealistic Jews are Jews first and idealists second. (Charles Lindbergh led an organization called America First. Jewish power might as well be called Jews First.) And even the most liberal Jew is tribally proud of the fact that his/her kind has come to own and control the most powerful nation in the world. They are so stunned by their achievement that they don’t wanna do anything to undermine it. And they still see the white majority as their main rival.

Thus, more than ever, much of the power machinations in this nation happens conspiratorially. In the past, when Wasps had the power, Jews were heavily into investigative journalism mode and trying to dig out as much dirt on wasps as possible. Jews are no longer in that mode, and this change can be seen in a film like LINCOLN by Steven Spielberg and Tony Kushner. Though I haven’t seen it yet — having only read about it — , it seems that Spielberg and Kushner are relishing the fact that Lincoln acted in conspiratorial mode. It’s as if Jews feel that most Americans don’t know what is good for them and that most politicians have to be bought and sold like whores or horses. And this is what Lincoln is shown to be masterly at. There is the ‘paranoid style’ in American politics, but there has also been the ‘subversive’ and ‘conspiratorial’ style. Andrew Jackson lost his first bid at the presidency due to a conspiracy of sorts in the inner circles of power held by the heirs of the Founding natural aristocracy. Lincoln was a very devious figure who used all sorts of tricks to manipulate public opinion, form coalitions, betray allies, wage war, and etc. But he got things done. And the same could be said for FDR, a man whose deviousness was much written about by Gore Vidal.
And of course, Obama has been a lying machine who made all the Alinsky-ite promises that appealed to Middle America, only to make the switch in government and hand over economic policy to Wall Street Jewish sharks, nominate people like Sotomayor and Kagan who hate the Constitution, come out for ‘gay marriage’, and maneuver to take guns away from white people. Indeed, Obama is himself a conspiratorial tool of the Jews. When we consider the number of political scandals and the media’s silence about them, we have to ask as to what is really going on — or otherwise, we will become like the Japanese or Russian public who’ve become politically and socially docile. Whom can we trust? How could the media have been asleep all those years when Jesse Jackson Jr. was stuffing his own pocket? How did Blagojevich win governorship twice though it was clear as day that he was a lousy crook from day one? We can understand political crooks making deals, but what good are the media if they can’t even blow the whistle on government rot? And what about lies about having achieved racial parity in New York schools a few years back? And the conspiracy of black teachers to mess with student scores in Philadelphia and Atlanta? Granted, some of these stories eventually came to light, but how could so many people get away with so much before it finally became news? And will most of the people involved get what they deserve? We blame Blagojevich, but who were the enablers of Blagojevich? Who were the sponsors and patrons? Where did all the money come from that Obama was able to spend over a billion dollars in 2012? Where are the media on this issue when, not long ago, they were all for campaign finance reform to clean up electoral politics? To what extent have Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, and Obama have brought into Chinese influence? What are the Chinese doing to undermine the US, and vice versa? And what are the Jewish moves in this game? All these questions need to be asked. But we must be careful to ward off the crazy paranoid style, the kind that has the government planting micro-chips into our butts or Pentagon blowing up in 9/11 from the inside.

As long as the powers-that-be work ever more in conspiratorial mode — and journalism has become mostly a politically correct exercise in enforcing taboos, pushing Jewish and gay agendas, and trading celebrity news for real news, indeed so much so that journalists should now be called propagandists — , we need to be wary and suspicious of what is going on, and we need ever more channels of information, and we need to be ever more vigilant. How did the Iraq War happen? Were Bush and the rest of the gang merely mistaken about WMD? Even if they really thought WMD would be found, surely that wasn’t the reason US was dragged into war. It’s very likely that neocon Jews used George W. Bush the way Liberal Zionists are using Obama. No people are more conspiratorial than Jews and for good reason. Having survived for 1000s of years as a ‘hostile minority’ in gentile lands, Jews have learned how to be secretive, subversive, devious, and cunning. In a way, Richard Hofstadter was worried about the ‘paranoid style’ because it stood in the way of the Jewish subversive style. Whenever cunning and sneaky Jews sought to push an agenda that would favor their kind, the ‘paranoid’ right would sound the alarm and say Jews were up to no good. Jews wanted to fool the American public that they were working in good faith, with good will, and with the purest of intentions, i.e they weren’t hiding anything. But it’s natural for adults to question the ulterior motives of a people who are pushing certain agendas. Only stupid children accept at face value what they hear from politicians, public intellectuals, and other men of power and influence. Jews had ulterior motives in pushing leftist politics, Civil Rights Movement, Holocaust Cult, Open Immigration, and the Peace Movement. And the ‘paranoid’ right suspected that something was up, and this suspicion is what the likes of Hofstadter were trying to neutralize. They wanted Middle America to totally accept at face value the notion that Jews were working only for the good of all Americans and in accordance with the Constitution. Jews wanted Middle America to see the American Right as a hotbed of paranoids who saw ‘conspiracies’ everywhere. But from the perspective of 2013, what has become of this country thanks to the machinations of Jewish power? What did massive immigration do to America? What happened to our economy with the Jewish takeover of Wall Street? What happened to academic freedom once Jews consolidated their hold on the universities? What have become of the free media that now do little but serve as propaganda machines for AIPAC and GAYPAC?

Jews cherished William. F. Buckley Jr. because he promised to do away with the ‘paranoid style’ of American politics and accept professed Jewish intentions at face value. So, Buckley opened up American conservatism to neoconservatives, whose real agenda was nothing more than to use dimwit gentiles to support Israel. Also, even though Buckley disagreed and debated with Liberal Jews, he accepted the assertion that Liberal Jew, even if benighted and misguided, had the best intentions of the nation at stake and weren’t secretively working to boost Jewish power uber alles. If anything, Buckley became one of the biggest whores for Zionism. To be sure, in his own personally conspiratorial way, being so pro-Jewish masked his own ‘crypto-Nazism’ as Gore Vidal put it, i.e. how can he be ‘racist’ when some of his best friends are the People of the Holocaust? Anyway, with the benefit of hindsight, he was outplayed by the Jews. Jews were aiming for Jewish Supremacism all along, and they achieved it at the expense of white power, white interests, and white America.
But then, the ‘paranoid’ style of American politics in the 50s and 60s did have serious problems. McCarthy was a drunken boor who made anti-communism look stupid — and he unwittingly played right into the hands of the liberal establishment. And the John Birch Society could only come across as cuckoo with its Eisenhower-is-a-communist nonsense. There is smart ‘paranoia’ and dumb ‘paranoia’, just like there is smart conspiracy — what Jews pulled off with Obama — and there is dumb conspiracy — what Blagojevich tried to profit from Obama’s vacated Senate seat.

Are You Duped or Duplicitous. The Obama "Popularity" Formula.

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.