Wednesday, May 27, 2009

Obama lives down to my expectations

Are you really surprised that President for Life Obama has, in Lawrence Auster's words, nominated a "Hispanic racialist, with a Hispanic racialist judicial agenda" to the highest court in the land?

Sonia "I am the Law" Sotomayor is exactly the kind of nominee I would have expected from a man who sees it as his duty to overthrow the Constitution and turn the United States into an unofficial dictatorship of his favored racial, gender, and ethnic groups.

Despite my interest in psychical research, I have no known psychic or precognitive abilities. Nevertheless, I am experiencing a strong sense of déjà vu. It is all unrolling just as I foresaw during the election campaign last year. Besides being a Marxoid product of a corrupt state political mob, His Eminence is boringly predictable. Ideologues like him invariably are.

If Americans allow a blatant Constitution denier to be placed on the Supreme Court, and do not actively take steps to reform the court that is now our ruling oligarchy, they will deserve the serfdom that will be theirs.



Anonymous said...

It is tempting to change my prayers for the country and white people to 'let's hurry up and get this over, as there might be something left to salvage'.

zazie said...

Will you allow me to borrow your description of Obama and apply it to Sarkozy? It fits, you know! Both are "Marxoid products" ; as I told a sincere socialist( there are some) : Sarkozy is doing what "the left" dreamt of doing without ever daring to"
I never asked for the red underlining of my comment ; where does it come from?

zazie said...

funny, the red line disappears when the comment is published! I am not keen on mysteries....

zazie said...

Me again ! Is Anonymous advocating what we call "la politique du pire" ? If so, I am afraid it won't work any better than in the past.

Rick Darby said...


I can think of no reason for the red line unless your browser expects French words and thinks the English is misspelling, and is letting you know. But if it's never happened before, that's probably not the answer. Qui sait?

"The politics of the worst"? Let's hope it doesn't come to that.

MnMark said...

To understand how to battle what is happening, we have to understand what is happening and why it is happening.

My diagnosis is that our society has been taken over by an idea, egalitarianism. It was adopted partly because the previous idea, liberty, which was so successfully implemented by the Founders, built up a tremendous reservoir of wealth, power, and safety that provided a sort of host body in which the parasite idea of egalitarianism could flourish. Egalitarianism has a childishly simple appeal to it. Anyone can understand it and it makes for easy, appealing slogans. But it's actually a disaster in real life. A real catastrophe. But that's what we're in the process of learning and I don't think it will be learned simply through discussion and argument. The mass of people will have to feel the poverty and oppression that it brings before they will see the lie of it.

If that is true, and I think it is, then the best thing is for the poverty and oppression to come rather quickly so people don't simply gradually become accustomed to it. Just like 9/11 awoke the American people in a way that the previous Al Qaida operations had not. We'd grown used to an occasional bombing. But skyscrapers falling woke us up and led us to take the fight to Al Qaida, and they have been drastically set back.

To extend the 9/11 metaphor a little further: if the changes come too slowly, we won't wake up. But if they come too catastrophically (the equivalent of, say, a nuclear carpet-bombing of the country), we may not recover.

So we don't want Obama being too much of a gradualist and we don't want him to be able to implement an Orwellian/North Korean style state. We want something sufficiently shocking in between that wakes people up and makes them realize the whole egalitarian thing is a disaster. I think a fairly sudden, rapid decline in living standards, accompanied by dramatically increased levels of crime would do that. We just have to be there at that time to get the message out so people identify the problem with the real cause, egalitarianism.

Rick Darby said...


Thank you for taking the time to write a detailed and thoughtful comment.

The leftist, size-XXL-government, borrowing-and-spending, tribal-group-fawning course we are being led, or dragged, on will create a debacle sooner or later.

And I agree it's of the utmost importance how it registers on the shock-o-meter.

Too gradual, and the damage will be done and possibly irreversible (without a civil war) before enough people acknowledge the disaster and determine to push back. Too big a shock — say, half a dozen U.S. cities rocked by riots, vast armies of unemployed — will bring hysteria, demoralization, and probably an ill-considered response.

As you say, "We want something sufficiently shocking in between that wakes people up and makes them realize the whole egalitarian thing is a disaster."

You cite 9/11 as an analogous game changer, but the reaction to 9/11 has not been encouraging. Yes, it made lots of people angry, and persuaded some to educate themselves about the nature of Islam. But the majority's attitude hasn't really shifted that much; it has just added a "war on terror" to the war on global warming and the war on tobacco. And with King O, the clock has been turned back to 9/10.

Further shocks to the system will come — let's hope they are such as to provoke constructive responses.

Anonymous said...

Good discussion here. Thanks, Rick and everyone.

This is somewhat off topic, but I thought it interesting (or alarming) enough to mention on a couple of blogs. Lead:

SAN DIEGO -- A local pastor and his wife claim they were interrogated by a San Diego County official, who then threatened them with escalating fines if they continued to hold Bible studies in their home, 10News reported.


Thanks, Rick. Hope you don't mind that I strayed a bit.


Anonymous said...

1st Anon again. I've finally reached the point where I don't even consider myself an "American" anymore because that term means nothing at all now. I consider myself a White Christian Traditionalist Conservative Male living in what use to be the UNITED States of America.

I look at Obama, Sonya, Rahm, Pelosi, Holder, et al and I do not see any "Americans" there, only destroyers and leeches. Oh how far we have fallen from John Adams.

MnMark said...

I've finally reached the point where I don't even consider myself an "American" anymore...This is exactly the thought I had when Obama was elected. My entire adult life, my favorite holiday has been the 4th of July because to me what the Founders accomplished was something truly noble and good and to me the flag of the United States symbolized this good thing. Every July 4th I read the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and would actually get teary over it.

But now the flag no longer means those things to me. The country has been captured from inside by hostile forces who consider the Founders just "dead white males" (not even MEN, just "males") and are happily going about the work of getting revenge on white men for succeeding more than they could.

Just as 1st Anon said, now I consider my "people" to be the other white Christian or Christian-friendly traditionalist conservatives in this country. I happen to live in the political entity named "America" but now, for example, if a white Russian is competing against a black "American", I find myself rooting for the Russian. He's more "my people" than the nominal American is.

If I were a white liberal reading what I just wrote, I'd probably think that guy was overreacting. But one's identity as a member of a larger people is not a matter of rational analysis, it's something that's felt on gut level. And Obama and his ilk are not my people and never will be.

I can understand better why white liberals talked about leaving the country when Bush was president. At the time they seemed like emotional idiots to me, but now that I feel the same thing I recognize that what it means is just that we should not be sharing the same country. The optimal thing would be a peaceful separation into two nations, a liberal one and a conservative one.

Terry Morris said...

Amen, brother. You get what you pay for. Why does this surprise people?

Rick Darby said...


Thank you again for contributing to this blog and, more than that, for your eloquence. You have all the qualifications for a worthwhile blog of your own. Why not? Your voice might count for more than you think. When I dashed off this posting in great haste, it was just a spontaneous outpouring, and I didn't imagine it would strike a chord as it has.


Thank you for adding to the discussion. You are always welcome here.

Anonymous said...

Anon 1, I too cheer for the "white guy", not the black/brown "American" in any and all competitions.

MnMark said...

Rick, I used to have a blog. I stopped posting to it and in fact deleted it because my intuition tells me that before the dust settles, there is going to be real persecution of white men who won't "get with the program." And I didn't care to put myself out there as an easy target with a blog that marked me as a target for a re-education camp or for some self-righteous leftist true believer who wanted to make it his personal mission to ruin my life. I was posting anonymously but my IP would have been easily traceable to my ISP and thus to me. I decided there was no point in making it easy to find me. I'd prefer to work quietly and anonymously.

I see tonight Lawrence Auster has a post about Takuan Seiyo's lastest piece concerning the Galtian/separationist movement that is going to be necessary at some point. I want to be part of that and my intuition says the best approach is a very low visibility approach. I respect very much the people who post with their real names. I give them all due credit. But I am afraid it makes them an easy target and my gut tells me that in this age of databases and sophisticated electronic surveillance, it is going to be a real advantage to appear to be a nobody, just as the John Galt character in Atlas Shrugged worked as a janitor while quietly working behind the scenes to recruit and build a retreat in the mountains. (I'm not suggesting such a retreat is even possible - it's just an example.)

If I were to start a blog again, I think I'd only post by using a laptop on a public wireless connection that could not be traced to me. Yep, I'm that paranoid. I don't put it past the leftists, once they find a way to interpret the "living constitution" in such a way as to outlaw "hate speech", to use whatever Big Brother means available to them to find out who is opposing them. My intention is to appear to be just another nondescript cog in the machine.

Thanks for the compliment tho!

MnMark said...

I wrote above that what we needed was a shock that would shake white liberals out of their delusions. This story makes me wonder how many can actually have their minds changed however. Here's a white liberal woman who actually goes to try to interview Taliban, gets kidnapped, raped repeatedly, and then ransomed, and her analysis of the situation is just that that particular Taliban was a guy who "couldn't control his testosterone" and "felt guilty" about raping her. If a woman who has been kidnapped with a threat to slit her throat if ransom isn't paid, and is raped repeatedly, STILL holds firmly to her liberalism, claiming that "real" Taliban aren't like that, what chance is there that white American liberals would change their minds about the wonders of diversity even if they were raped, robbed, terrorized? Perhaps even the murder of their loved ones would not change their minds.

I guess what it means is that there are whites who will die before they will change their opinions. We have to try to win over the ones who can be won over, and I guess we abandon the rest to their fates.

Rick Darby said...

Thanks for keeping the conversation going, everybody, as I have been too busy to add a new post.


I am betting that the repression will not go to the lengths you describe. Otherwise I wouldn't be posting under my own name very publicly. But the possibility can't be ruled out, and if the wind seems to be blowing that way, I will go anonymous. I don't want to spend my sunset years in a federal prison as an enemy of the multi-culti state.

Of course it might be too late to go to ground. Fortunately for me, there are much bigger targets than this blog with its modest readership.

MnMark said...

At the risk of beating this into the ground, the thing is that the repression doesn't have to come from the government. Even if things never get so bad that the government itself hunts us down, left-wing brownshirts who appoint themselves guardians of the public order can publish your name on left-wing blogs or otherwise publicize it and make you a target of a campaign to ostracize you, get you fired, or who-knows-what. These acolytes of Alinsky love to "make it personal" and "demonize" their targets. It's not about a gentlemanly discussion of ideas with them, it's about crushing us and eliminating us. And unless you are considerably wealthy, you're vulnerable to their efforts to get you fired at your job. All they have to do is put you on a hate list somewhere and anyone who might be interested in hiring you will find that stuff when they Google your name, and perhaps decide they don't need the hassle of hiring someone who might cause them trouble.

That's why I am careful not to put anything out there electronically that is associated with my real name. Anything that goes on the internet is forever archived and could follow you around for the rest of your life. This might even go for emails sent to friends. Those can be forwarded without your knowledge and propagated indefinitely, and even if your friend doesn't send it, who knows who is recording what is being written in emails sent in plain text across the net. We don't know what the situation will be like ten or twenty years from now. Why take the risk?