Wednesday, April 14, 2010

Building the Myth of the "Great Man" of History...

Okay, so I haven't pummelled Obama this week, but maybe that's because he's given me an awful lot to think about, and gimme a break: I was busy. Anyway, this was a big week-to-ten-days for the DopenChanger-in-Chief, in terms of futility, stupidity, and surrender to our enemies.

To begin with, he's still pushing this ObamaCare crap as if it was the greatest thing since penicillin. There isn't a day that goes by that the dems aren't defending this thing in some of the most astonishing language (in terms of how they use a lot of words to say a whole lot of nothing). If you want to see just what kind of verbal gymnastics dems are now reduced to vis-a-vis Reparations for Slavery Stage I, then I suggest you take a look at Greta Van Sustern's interview last night with Sen. Ben Nelson, he of the Cornhusker Kickback.

Next, we come to the problem of Israel. Or rather, Obama's problem with Israel. The new talking-point this week is that we care more about second-bedrooms being built in Israel than we do about nuclear bombs being built in Tehran (it's kinda catchy, but a little too simplistic). For some reason, the Obama Administration, which was supposed to "strengthen the Old Alliances" continues to kick the "Old Allies" squarely in the nuts. But that's okay: Obama didn''t actually snub the Israeli Prime Minister by not inviting him to dinner and leaving him to wander the White House all by himself until after he got the "moneyshot" photo-op.

The Obamatards are simply following the lead of the several generations of the "Enlightened" Anti-Semites in liberal politics (small 'L' intentional) that came before them. It is a well-established fact, despite protests to the contrary, that the political left hates Jews. It's more than happy to accept self-hating Jews within it's ranks (and their numbers are legion), if only because it helps speed up the ultimate decline of the Jewish people by weakening them from within -- a common lefty tactic. Besides, best to know your enemy and all that.

These previous generations have all held that the primary source of conflict in the Middle East (actually, is there a war in the last 1,000 years that Jews don't get blamed for in some way?) is the existence of (in order) a) Jews (Hitler's view) and b) a Jewish state (The consensus opinion of the European Union and American Left), and that if you simply got rid of both, there'd be no more war or violence. Ever. Of course, this ignores the readily-evident facts that Arabs are violent, inbred, wife-beating retards, who if they didn't have Jews to hate would just as quickly turn upon each other. In fact, one could make the argument that when Arabs turn upon one another, the depths of the depravity, the intensity of the violence, exponentially increases. Just look at what happens when Sunni fights Shi'ite.

The real problem swirling about the State of Israel is not so much that it has Jews in it, as much as it is that it stands as an alternative to Islamic or Strongman rule. It is representative of the best aspects of Western Civilization, something Arabs so desperately admire, but cannot recreate for themselves. Israel is a viable and successful and very wealthy, and therefore extremely-attractive, alternative to what passes for civilization in Arab culture. Islam, much like Communism or National Socialism, can brook no competition, and it must strive to destroy those rivals completely before it's grip upon the minds and cultures poisoned by it fails. That is why Israel must be pushed into the sea; because it's very existence serves as a shining beacon of what Life Could Be without the Imams, Repressive Monarchies, and Leader-by-virtue-of-successful-coup-Colonels. The fact that Arabs will never learn the finer points of democracy, nor will they ever develop the attendant cultural underpinnings, is beside the point.

And of course, there's too much money involved in the violence. Do you really think Hamas and Fatah wants peace when the EU and United States simply open their wallets everytime the Israelis put a whipping on them in a fight that they started? Hamas and Fatah skim that "aid" money, and fund themselves in perpetuity with it. Anyways, back to the original point...

"Enlightened-Liberal-Anti-Semitism" basically holds that without Israel, there is no rationale for War. And if, by some chance the process of chucking Israel overboard just happens to mean the end of the Jews, well, then that's a price They're willing to pay for the appearance of peace. As an American (and a Gentile who grew up amongst some of the most Orthodox Jews you've ever seen in your life in Brooklyn), this is disgusting. What's even more nauseating is that the entire time The Left hides it's Anti-Semitism behind words like "Peace" and "Diversity". Stopping the expansion of Israeli settlements will not bring Peace; killing Arabs in numbers large enough, by methods terrible enough, to cause them to rethink the logic of their "struggle" will.

Anyways, no sooner do we piss the Israelis off and give them no assurances about their security against Iran, than Iran goes ahead and basically calls Obama a punk-ass-pussy-bitch. His response? To beg the Russians for a Nuclear Arms treaty that basically disarms US -- cutting our arsenal in half, with no ability to modernize what's left -- while getting no help from the Russkies on Iran -- the people who are building the Iranian reactors in the first place. But, the Obama Administration claims yet another "accomplishment" because it got a piece of paper with someone's signature on it (I seem to remember a certain man named Chamberlain who waved around pieces of signed paper...). The "accomplishment" is not even a workable system of actual Arms Control; it's the fact that there's a Treaty at all that is supposed to be the incredible accomplishment.

Still on the subject of Nukes, Obambi then goes to this Pantomime Dog-and-Pony show that's supposed to be about nuclear weapons, but turns out to be a sort of Woodstock for Liberal Israel Haters. No, the thrust of the meeting of a gazillion dignataries (where Obama bowed to yet another foreign dictator-in-disguise. Why not just do a tap dance, or get down on your knees and sing "Mammy!" and get it over with?), where those present "promised" to police up their loose plutonium and other nuclear materials that could be used by terrorists to make bombs.

I hate to be the one who breaks it to you, but because Obama didn't get the Russians and Chinese to help with Iran, terrorists will soon have all the plutonium and uranium they need, regardless of whether or not the Canadians, Belgians and Cayman Islanders put every speck of the stuff under lock-and-key, and keep meticulous records. Because as soon as Iran can, it'll be giving the shit away to Al'Qaeda and Islamic Jihad and anyone else who wants it, and promises to use it against Israel and the West while denying Iranian complicity. But hey, it was a stunning visual effect, that cool-looking diplomatic cluster-fuck-aerial-photo, huh? Made for a great pic for the Presidential scrapbook!

That "Summit" accomplished nothing. Because none (or very few) of the countries which are likely to be the biggest problems were in attendance, or have any intention of actually abiding by any agreements whatsoever. It was a masterful piece of political kabuki, but it means absolutely jack shit. But then again, that was the ultimate goal; to put Obama into a scenario where he looks Statesmanlike and dramatic and all leadery-like, and fuck-all if he actually manages to get something important done for all the effort; the spin-meisters will turn it into something it isn't, and half the people in America won't even know or understand what has happened.

He then has the audacity (The Audacity of Dope!) , after showing this much stupidity and ineptitude, to question Sarah Palin's expertise on nuclear policy when she criticized him? People in glass houses and all that...

Anyway, the modus operandi of the Obama White House is becoming abundantly clearer every day; they don't really care about the actual results of their policies, what they care about is creating specific moments in which Obama can be portrayed as something he isn't, and then they claim Victory. It's a Presidency that will be defined by images and by claiming that unrealistic expectations were transformed into actualities. It has to be, because after the image there isn't much of substance -- and when it all fails, as fail it must -- it will always be due to some mysterious outside force, or as Commies liked to call them, Reactionary Elements, or Counter-revolutionaries.

In the Old Days, this was a code word for Monarchists and Jews. In the New America, this is a code word for Conservatives...and Jews. The reason Obama will have failed in the eyes of future historians will be because he was Super-Human, and we were not; the photographs,the Treaties and the Summit Meetings prove it. Only Great Men have Great Moments.

So what really matter is not whether any of Obama's policies actually works; it's that he gets to have a series of Historic Moments. That these moments have to be contrived and manufactured is besides the point; a hundred years from now, no one will ever know they were, and if the Left is lucky, most or all of what Obama ushered in will have stuck. The World Will Have Changed, and in that light, Obama becomes the next best thing to Jesus -- even if that means a mushroom cloud over Jerusalem, millions of Americans dead in the street for lack of food, shelter and medical care -- and that's when they weren't killed by the nuclear weapons smuggled into the country by terrorists allied to Iran.

And we'll have the photographs to prove just how great he was.

No comments: