► Show Top 10 Hot Links

Posts Tagged ‘J.R Dunn’

American Blacks Are Not Responsible For Barack Obama

by Mojambo ( 81 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Democratic Party, Political Correctness, Progressives at July 21st, 2011 - 5:00 pm

The article points out that Barack Obama has very little in common culturally with American blacks and is a product of white American culture. Obama has been throughout his life promoted, benefited, and  given a pass by guilt ridden White liberals snd I am glad that the author points out that it was the Republican Party lead by the odious Richard Nixon which came up with the “affirmative action” plan (“The Philadelphia Plan”) that riles up so many conservatives. American blacks may be “responsible” for Barack Obama only because they voted 95% for him, but they automatically vote 95% for Democrats – and that is the problem! That is why people such as Allen West, Tim Scott, Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams and Clarence Thomas are so threatening to the white liberal establishment as well as the race hucksters such as Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.  Someone who has the audacity to think for himself is a heretic to the plantation mentality. As a commenter wrote “Sadly, a vast majority of Blacks in America have exchanged the real shackles of slavery for the mental shackles of slavery offered to them by the Democrat Party.”

by J.R. Dunn

I’m responding to a number of comments that in large part have gone unseen because they were intercepted before they ever went up.  Racists are always attempting to hitch a ride on legitimate sites, and AT is unfortunately no exception.  Anyone operating in the millennial media world must be careful, particularly a center-right website dealing forthrightly with sensitive topics as we do here.  There is nothing more common than fanatics of various stripes stepping over the line in the guise of “telling it straight.”  And there is no topic where this is seen more often than race.

The argument here appears to be that, Obama being black, he acts as a natural representative of black Americans as a whole, that his faults are their faults, and that the entire Obama administration represents yet another instance of the unworthiness and inferiority of blacks.

[…….]

First the contention that Obama is a “representative” American black.  AT readers will be well aware that I don’t believe that Obama is representative of much of anything at all, that he is sui generis to an extent that he might as well have walked off a starship from the planet Zong.  I haven’t shifted in that opinion one iota.

First, let’s consider how we define American blacks.  This is an exercise that is generally overlooked, surprisingly so considering how much debate has occurred on the topic.  As a people, American blacks are West Africans who were taken as part of the slave trade, and unwillingly brought to America where they suffered an undeniable ordeal lasting centuries.  Once here, they developed a culture sharing both African and Southern aspects, a unique combination of Scots-Irish and West African traits, particularly marked by an intense form of Christianity.  After enduring almost a century of legal segregation after their liberation as a result of the Civil War, they have for fifty years been entering the mainstream of American society, with not unexpected snags and delays.  They lag to a slight extent economically and scholastically, as might be expected considering their historical background.  (I’m well aware that there plenty of exceptions to these statements, but we don’t construct arguments out of exceptions.)

And Obama?  Here we have man with a white American mother and an East African father.  No connection to West Africa whatsoever.  He spent his early years in Hawaii, one of the most racially diverse areas in the United States.  He was raised in large part by his white grandparents.  He spent several years in Indonesia as the stepson of an Indonesian Muslim.  After returning to the U.S. he attended some of the country’s leading universities including Columbia and Harvard.  (At some point here, possibly at Columbia, which is set cheek-by-jowl with Harlem, he laid eyes on his first black slum.)  Virtually his entire professional life has been spent among white elites.

[….]

He has nothing in common with American blacks.  He shares neither their legacy nor their experience.  His posture as representative of black America is a pose, one of the many that comprise the persona of Barack Obama.  A charade, as we have been reminded of recently by no less an authority than Cornel West.  Unlike Colin Powell, Condaleezza Rice, and Clarence Thomas, raised respectively in Harlem, Alabama, and the Carolina Gullah region, Obama is in no way a product of American black culture.  American blacks have no responsibility for him, and cannot be held to blame for his excesses.

If anything, Obama is a product of white American culture, by means of affirmative action.  Obama is to some extent the stereotype result of affirmative action, the black kid made good who is continually trotted out to justify these obnoxious programs.  (Recall Patrick Chavis, the black doctor who took Allan Bakke’s place in medical school, and was presented as a towering success and proof positive of the value of set-aside programs until it was discovered that women were dying in his liposuction clinic.)

[…..]

Affirmative action is not a black innovation at all.  It was first instituted as policy by President Richard Nixon in the form of the “Philadelphia Plan,” evidently as an effort to mollify liberals.  (We all know how that worked out.)  So affirmative action is not only a white atrocity; it is a Republican atrocity, part of the long litany of crimes committed by RINOS in the name of proving that they’re not right-wing trogs.

The liberals latched onto affirmative action for their own purposes.  As with forced busing, it was utilized as a method of putting the screws to working-class whites to assure that they got with the program.  As has been pointed out repeatedly by Shelby Steele, Thomas Sowell, and Walter Williams among many others, any benefit that accrues to blacks is totally accidental.

[…..]

What affirmative action does is provide an easy leg up for those sly individuals who can figure out how to game the system.  We have all become acquainted with the master gamesman over the past few years.  Obama has successfully gamed Occidental, Columbia, Harvard, the U of Chicago, the Cook County political machine, the Annenberg Foundation, the U.S. Congress, the Nobel committee, and the American voter.

These are not black organizations.  The system that put Obama into office is a system constructed by white liberals for white liberal purposes.

[…..]

Obama has been a disappointment to American blacks along with everyone else.  (Proportionally more blacks than whites are suffering unemployment due to the Obama recession, for one thing.)  Obama has served as a wakeup call to black America.  It’s more than possible that Obama, by his very nature, will expose the phoniness of the liberal racial system.  We must not let the racist remnant wreck this opportunity.

It was the Democrats who supported slavery, the Democrats who established segregation, the Democrats who have excused racism at every turn and in every form.  That’s their record, and it can’t be denied.  It’s best we leave it to them.

Read the rest – American Blacks cannot be blamed for Barack Obama

George Soros, Glenn Beck, and the Hungarian Holocaust

by Mojambo ( 214 Comments › )
Filed under History, Holocaust, Progressives, World War II at November 15th, 2010 - 2:00 pm

At times we need to make a concession to the truth, and the truth is that George Soros is a diabolical, evil, totalitarian enemy of freedom. Soros is clearly a complete sociopath who admittedly had no pangs of guilt or conscience about  helping his “adoptive”  non Jewish father inventory Jewish property in Budapest as his fellow Hungarian Jews were being packed into cattle cars .  From May 15, 1944 until July 8, 1944  a total of 437, 402 Jews from Hungary were sent to Auschwitz on 147 trains and 90% were gassed immediately upon arrival.

Auschwitz Selection, May / June 1944, of Hungarian Jews.

Auschwitz “Selection”, May / June 1944. To be sent to the right meant slave labor; to the left, the gas chambers. This image shows the arrival of Hungarian Jews.

by J.R. Dunn

It will come as no surprise that Glenn Beck’s broadcast biography of George Soros last week has triggered a vast brawl concerning his interpretation and treatment of the topic.

The uproar revolves around Beck’s portrayal of Soros’ role in the Holocaust. Beck repeats the widely-known story concerning Soros’  involvement in handing deportation orders to Jewish families on behalf of the Nazis. He emphasizes that Soros was only fourteen at the time, and does not condemn the activity, asserting that the matter remains “between Soros and God”.

I happen to have researched the episode in depth for my upcoming book Death by Liberalism,  and I can state here that Beck’s narrative is completely accurate. His treatment of it is commendable, in particular his statement that no one has a right to judge the efforts of Jews to survive in Nazi-occupied Europe.

All the same, the segment has triggered a firestorm among the usual suspects, who appear to view Soros as sharing in Obama’s divine status. In a hagiographic fresco dealing with the Advent of the One, the Soros halo would only be slightly smaller than that of Obama himself. In this regard, he must be defended at all costs.

The piece from Mediaite can serve as an example. Both the text and the comments are revealing. They express three major objections to Beck’s treatment:

  • 1) The incident never happened
  • 2) Its import and meaning is quite different that what is implied
  • 3) Beck is throwing around Nazi associations in much the same way that the left does when they assert (one example out of thousands), that Prescott Bush “assisted the Nazis”.

First off — as stated above, there’s no question that the incident occurred. In fact, there’s considerably more to it. Soros also assisted in the collection of Jewish chattels — clothing, furniture, and the like — for shipment to Germany. We have this on the highest authority, from an eyewitness of unimpeachable status: Soros himself. During a 1998 60 Minutes interview, Soros admitted to the entire story without hesitation, He also stated that he felt no guilt, adding that the situation cannot be understood be anyone who was not there. Then, in what might be called typical Soros style, he concludes by comparing his cooperation with the Nazis with his later activities in the markets.

As to the import of the episode — many of the comments draw very close to Holocaust denial. How do we know, they ask, that the Jews in question were being sent to the death camps? They could have been going anywhere “to Hawaii”, one thoughtful commentator states.

This is a standard trope of the Holocaust-denial industry. “Revisionists,” as they fancy themselves, have given up complete denial of the exterminations in favor of minimizing Nazi crimes by shaving away at the margins. So we get claims that not all the victims died in Auschwitz, Treblinka, Belzec, and the other camps, but instead were “sent” somewhere, nobody knows quite where. In the 1980s, one insightful little scholar suggested that a large proportion of the missing six million could be found in Israeli retirement homes. The odious David Irving, a legitimate historian who slid into denial for reasons unknown even to himself, blithely insisted that he had “no idea” what happened to the European Jews, even though he had access to the largest private archive of Nazi documentation ever assembled.

The truth is simple: every Jew deported from the European ghettos went directly to the camps. Most of them were gassed immediately and then — as the survivors put it — went up the chimneys. There is no denying this, or eliding it, or making it mean anything else other than what it is. Holocaust denial is a crime. Anyone denying the exterminations is engaging in criminal activity — particularly if it involves, as it does here, an attempt to silence a political opponent.

On to the claim that Beck is slandering Soros as a Nazi. This type of smear is not uncommon, and is usually seen headed from the left in a rightward direction, under the assumption that both conservatism and Nazism are “right-wing” doctrines. The Prescott Bush libel is instructive here. Apparently the bank on whose board Bush sat loaned money to Nazi Germany during the 1930s. This is enough for him, his son, and his grandson to be damned from here to eternity as Nazi collaborators of the foulest type, according to the American left.

[…]

There’s something terribly wrong here. This is not the way a benefactor of humanity actually behaves. It’s as if Gandhi financed his independence movement through a network of casinos, or Martin Luther King sat on the councils of Murder Incorporated. What can the explanation be?

I believe that it can be found in Budapest in 1944. The Holocaust left deep and lasting scars on all who survived it, scars that often acted to cripple their psyches for decades afterward, if not for their entire lifetimes. It’s highly unlikely that George Soros is an exception. Did the brutalization of those days find a response in buccaneer raids on the financial markets? Did the memories of what he was forced to do transform him into one of those creatures who “loves humanity and hates human beings”? Is he now little more than a shattered clockwork figure attempting in his twilight years to “do good” without the vaguest notion of what such a concept might entail?

[…]

Read the rest here: Soros, Beck, and the Holocaust

Lessons from the Landslide

by Mojambo ( 106 Comments › )
Filed under Democratic Party, Elections 2010, Republican Party at November 12th, 2010 - 9:16 am

I agree that Nikki Haley’s campaign should be a model for future GOP candidates on what to do – while the Angle/Buck/O’Donnell/Miller  fiascos are textbook examples on how not to run a campaign.  Haley was smeared by the GOP Establishment with claims of adultery, yet she was experienced enough to stick to the issues and not get dragged down int0 the mud and you would never see her in a commercial declaring “I am not a witch”.  We should not  be surprised that populist campaigns are often rife with amateur mistakes, however we need to draw the right lessons from them.  South Carolina  is a good example  of a dilemma – on the one hand you have Lindsey Graham who is an obstructionist and a pseudo liberal who follows the John McCain playbook, on the  other hand you have Jim De Mint who made the outrageous comment that you cannot be a fiscal conservative without being a social conservative thereby telling Independents and libertarians to take a hike, he also said he would rather have only 30 Republican Senators as long as they thought like him – a prefect game plan for permanent minority status.

by J.R. Dunn

It’s taken a good part of the past week for the breadth of the conservative achievement in the midterms to sink in. Over sixty new House seats, six Senate seats (we can safely say, no matter what occurs in Alaska, since Murkowski is a member of the Murkowski Party representing only Murkowski), thirty-plus statehouses, and no fewer than twenty “trifectas” — that is, states in which the GOP owns the House, Senate, and governorship. The 2010 election was a victory both broad and deep, one that will be paying dividends for years to come.

It could have been better. Anything, in this imperfect world, can be better. The failings, needless to say, have drawn the attention of the media and the left, along with renegades such as David Frum, who have crowed over them as triumphs, as if retaining Harry Reid is something to be proud of. This has convinced the Democrats to continue banging their collective head against that same leftward stretch of wall. Evidently, both Reid and the most successful speaker since Cicero, Nancy Pelosi, are to be retained as party leaders. That too is a product of victory.

It’s quite true that Sharron Angle should have beaten Reid and that Joe Miller should have beaten the repellent Murkowski (with Specter and  Grayson gone, certainly the most odious politician of either party) in a walk. Neither came anywhere near. In Colorado, Ken Buck was barely edged out, which can happen under any circumstances. As for Christine O’Donnell, she never really had a chance in hyper-liberal Delaware, quite apart from the fact that “endearingly odd” is not a compelling senatorial persona.

Could these defeats have been avoided? With the exception of Christine O., I think so. What we’re dealing with is the type of error that comes with lack of experience. The failings in the cases of both Angle and Miller were self-inflicted, involving gaffes that an experienced candidate would have known to avoid. This is something that future Tea Party candidates — that is to say, candidates emerging from outside the traditional political class, and lacking the experience of that class — will need to consider and overcome.

Most of these difficulties involved presentation. A number of TP candidates made remarks that they came to regret. Rand Paul’s notorious comment on the unconstitutionality of the 1964 civil rights act might have sunk him if he’d followed it with anything similar. Luckily, he seems to have realized this (or perhaps Dad straightened him out), and he sailed through with no more such errors, praise be to Aqua Buddha.

Not so with Sharron Angle, who made an entire series of obtuse blurts culminating in a remark to a classroom of Hispanic children that she “didn’t know what country they were from,” a comment unworthy of her and one which helped seal her defeat by the obnoxious Harry Reid. This has been widely attributed to personality flaws on Angle’s part, but I don’t think that’s entirely fair. There’s a tradition among populist movements, of which the Tea Parties are the latest example, to speak forthrightly without self-censorship as a contrast to the euphemisms and verbal formulae of the political establishment. While there is nothing intrinsically wrong with this, it can lead to problems. It is often abused, as is constantly seen in public meetings where someone gets up and starts bellowing about “wetbacks” or the like, embarrassing the entire assembly and enabling the media to label all present Neanderthals. Or, as we saw in this recent campaign, populist candidates forget that the general public is not familiar with populist usage and may mistake straightforward comments for something else, which is precisely what happened with both Paul and Angle. We need to keep in mind that discretion is not an evil in and of itself and that forthrightness is a tactic not suitable to all circumstances.

[…]

Consider Nikki Haley in contrast. Haley was badgered even more consistently and vilely by her establishment Republican opponents. She scarcely acknowledged the attacks and ran a classy campaign, so doubts never crystallized around her despite the best attempts of the media to run with the adultery stories. Future Tea Party candidates should closely study the Haley campaign, which in many ways can serve as a model on how to prevail in a universally hostile political environment.

They should also pay close attention to experienced politicians and operatives, whether they fully share their views or not. These people possess a universe of irreplaceable knowledge that must not be thrown away. Tea Party candidates are in the position of amateurs who must develop professional capabilities without losing their amateur virtues. Professional political figures can aid immensely in this task. While the GOP handled many TP candidacies poorly, in the wake of 2010, this is not likely to recur. There has been a lot of loose talk since the election calling for open warfare on GOP figures for trivial reasons or none at all. This is asinine — nothing can save the left at this point other than a civil war on the right. Much of this chatter appears to be coming from provocateurs, mixing as it does sheer vituperation with obvious ignorance of conservative politics. It would be best to simply ignore it.

[…]

And yet this ultraconservative state features one of the most ultra-liberal political establishments in the country, typified by the RINO sisters, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe. Nobody foresaw this as changing anytime soon, and certainly not as early as 2010. But changed it has with the gubernatorial victory of Paul LePage, a Tea Party man, along with the conquest of both legislative houses. The state of Maine has come under Republican control for the first time in fifty years.

This naturally leads us to ask: if Maine, why not West Virginia and Arkansas? The GOP has for far too long followed a policy of leaving liberal control of such states unchallenged. Why, I’m not sure. Perhaps out of judicious husbanding of resources, perhaps out of fear that the Dems would retaliate. Whatever the case, the recovery of Maine proves any such policy to be mistaken and shortsighted. Arkansas and West Virginia should be targeted as soon as 2012 and remain on the list until they are flipped at last. The Tea Parties are the perfect vehicle for carrying out such a strategy. Nonpartisan, impeccably middle-class, untainted by Republican flaws, capable of persuading where career pols would fail, the TPs can go where formal political parties cannot. The Maine example must not be ignored. There should be no privileged sanctuaries where the likes of Robert Byrd can set themselves up as state Grand Kleagle in perpetuity.

[…]

Read the rest: Learning from the Landslide