Home Mobile Archives Reader Blogs Register Login

Thursday, February 28, 2008

Spengler on Obama: Be Very Afraid, America

“Cherchez la femme,” advised Alexander Dumas in: “When you want to uncover an unspecified secret, look for the woman.” In the case of Barack Obama, we have two: his late mother, the went-native anthropologist Ann Dunham, and his rancorous wife Michelle. Obama’s women reveal his secret: he hates America.

Thus begins an in-depth examination from afar of Barack Obama written by the pseudonymous “Spengler” in the Tuesday edition of The Asia Times.

The portrait of Obama, who he calls “an empty vessel filled with the wishful thinking of those around him…” is by no means an attractive one, and it is painted from the palette given us by the two women in Barack Obama’s life, women who have shaped and molded him, and whose aspirations, disappointments, and ideologies he reflects.

Of his mother Spengler writes,

America is not the embodiment of hope, but the abandonment of one kind of hope in return for another. America is the spirit of creative destruction, selecting immigrants willing to turn their back on the tragedy of their own failing culture in return for a new start. Its creative success is so enormous that its global influence hastens the decline of other cultures. For those on the destruction side of the trade, America is a monster… (T)he anguish of dying peoples rises up in a global cry of despair. Some of those who listen to this cry become anthropologists, the curators of soon-to-be extinct cultures; anthropologists who really identify with their subjects marry them. Obama’s mother, the University of Hawaii anthropologist Ann Dunham, did so twice.

Obama profiles Americans the way anthropologists interact with primitive peoples… The probable next president of the United States is a mother’s revenge against the America she despised.

Of Michelle Obama,

Her February 18 comment that she felt proud of her country for the first time caused a minor scandal, and was hastily qualified. But she meant it, and more…

The desperation, frustration and disappointment visible on Michelle Obama’s face are not new to the candidate’s wife… they were the theme of her undergraduate thesis, on the subject of “blackness” at Princeton University.

Obama’s choice of wife is a failsafe indicator of his own sentiments. Spouses do not necessarily share their likes, but they must have their hatreds in common. Obama imbibed this hatred with his mother’s milk.

Michelle Obama speaks with greater warmth of her mother-in-law than of her husband. “She was kind of a dreamer, his mother,” Michelle Obama was quoted in the January 25 Boston Globe. “She wanted the world to be open to her and her children. And as a result of her naivete, sometimes they lived on food stamps, because sometimes dreams don’t pay the rent. But as a result of her naivete, Barack got to see the world like most of us don’t in this country.” How strong the ideological motivation must be of a mother to raise her children on the thin fair in pursuit of a political agenda.

And finally on the end product, Barack Obama himself,

Barack Obama is a clever fellow who imbibed hatred of America with his mother’s milk, but worked his way up the elite ladder of education and career. He shares the resentment of Muslims against the encroachment of American culture, although not their religion. He has the empathetic skill set of an anthropologist who lives with his subjects, learns their language, and elicits their hopes and fears while remaining at emotional distance. That is, he is the political equivalent of a sociopath. The difference is that he is practicing not on a primitive tribe but on the population of the United States…

Be afraid - be very afraid. America is at a low point in its fortunes, and feeling sorry for itself. When Barack utters the word “hope”, they instead hear, “handout”. A cynic might translate the national motto, E pluribus unum, as “something for nothing”. Now that the stock market and the housing market have failed to give Americans something for nothing, they want something for nothing from the government. The trouble is that he who gets something for nothing will earn every penny of it, twice over.

By all means, read the whole thing… carefully.

I would also suggest a careful look at the comments appended to Richard Fernandez’ post on Spengler’s article over at The Belmont Club.  They are insightful, running the entire gamut of opinion, and as always, are well worth the time spent.

Comments

Avatar for Hawk

Why the use of a pseudonym?  Probably because he is too ashamed to put his own name on this psychobabble crap.

This is just a meaningless hit piece.

Anthropologist hate America therefore his mother taught him to hate America?

Hawk on February 28, 2008 at 09:09 am

Spengler loves America,

Americans are the world’s biggest suckers,

WOOF on February 28, 2008 at 09:15 am

That is, he is the political equivalent of a sociopath.

The best and truest description of Obama yet.


"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

robert108 on February 28, 2008 at 09:33 am

Hawk: Why do you use a pseudonym?


"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

robert108 on February 28, 2008 at 09:44 am

The use of a pseudonym… or screen name, if you prefer… is irrelevant, and has nothing to do with whether or not Spengler’s observations are correct.

I don’t recall that anyone on the Left got their metro-sexual thong in a wad when CIA vet Michael Scheuer published his Imperial Hubris under the not-so-original pseudonym “Anonymous” or when Joe Klein published his Clinton puff-piece, Primary Colors under the same pseudonym some years before.

Taking swings at the messenger rarely impugns the message… especially if the one taking the swings has nothing more substantive to offer.


“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Bat One on February 28, 2008 at 10:08 am

.. especially if the one taking the swings has nothing more substantive to offer.

Even more so if he uses a pseudonym himself.  Delicious irony!


"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

robert108 on February 28, 2008 at 10:24 am

Why did the authors of Primary Colors and Imperial Hubris decline to put their names on the covers of their book?

Wing Chun Geologist on February 28, 2008 at 10:57 am

Lol, this cracked me up:

[Obama] hates America.—Some Dumbass

That’s friggin’ hilarious!

Damn there are some stupid people on the right. How could Obama not love America? It has given him fame, influence and wealth. Power.


“All the war-propaganda, all the screaming and lies and hatred, comes invariably from people who are not fighting.”
“Every war when it comes, or before it comes, is represented not as a war but as an act of self-defense against a homicidal maniac.” —George Orwell

Anarchist Vegetarian on February 28, 2008 at 06:20 pm

It has given him fame, influence and wealth. Power.

Exactly why it’s so crazy that you lefties hate America, but you do.  Don’t lie, now.


"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

robert108 on February 28, 2008 at 06:29 pm

More rightie smears and hate filled lies from r-Gumby.


“If a conservative is still a republican after the last 13 years, he is blind to the fact that his party of choice has failed him utterly.” – Realitybasedbob

realitybasedbob on February 28, 2008 at 06:37 pm

AV,

You are unbelievably perceptive.

Really. Truly the next generation of innate philosophers.

Are you willing to use those same words and that same perception to describe the President?


“To love is not to stare steadfast at one another...it is to look forward, in the same direction.”
Saint-Exupéry

laydownSally on February 28, 2008 at 06:42 pm

Master Baiter: Poor baby!  You’re such a victim.  /sarcasm
Maybe you should go back to your solitary pleasure of spamming the Reader Blogs.


"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

robert108 on February 28, 2008 at 06:43 pm

AV also makes the assumption that Obama is rational.  Assuming facts not in evidence.


"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

robert108 on February 28, 2008 at 07:05 pm

Maybe you should go back to your solitary pleasure of spamming the Reader Blogs.

This from a guy with 16,203 solitarily pleasured comments.

Nice job making friends and influencing people around here the last few weeks , r-Gumby.


“If a conservative is still a republican after the last 13 years, he is blind to the fact that his party of choice has failed him utterly.” – Realitybasedbob

realitybasedbob on February 28, 2008 at 07:12 pm

Bat,

Interesting full-read on the article.

Almost, but not quite, as insightful as the comments at The Belmont Club.

You post there, do you not?


“To love is not to stare steadfast at one another...it is to look forward, in the same direction.”
Saint-Exupéry

laydownSally on February 28, 2008 at 08:01 pm

Sally,

On occasion, but not often.  Richard “Wretchard The Cat” Fernandez has been a favorite read of mine for several years.  He is as intelligent and insightful as anyone I know of posting on the internet, and his commenters rarely fail to live up to his quietly extraordinary standards.  I can’t think of anything I wasn’t pleased to have read and learned at Belmont Club.


“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Bat One on February 28, 2008 at 08:22 pm

I can certainly understand why you feel that way.


“To love is not to stare steadfast at one another...it is to look forward, in the same direction.”
Saint-Exupéry

laydownSally on February 28, 2008 at 08:42 pm

This reads like classic Freudian psychoanalysis. What the author is describing is what Freud called the Oedipus complex.

This author is trying to project the neurotic state derived from inferiority feelings and overcompensation of masculine protest from Obama and his relationship to his mother and wife.

Everyone has a neurosis of some kind. I find Obama’s lack of experience and global/political naiveté more of a concern than psychoanalyzing his alleged personality flaws.

For crying out loud. He is a liberal; of course he needs a shrink.

Mickey on February 28, 2008 at 09:30 pm

This reads like classic Freudian psychoanalysis. What the author is describing is what Freud called the Oedipus complex.

This author is trying to project the neurotic state derived from inferiority feelings and overcompensation of masculine protest from Obama and his relationship to his mother and wife.

Everyone has a neurosis of some kind. I find Obama’s lack of experience and global/political naiveté more of a concern than psychoanalyzing his alleged personality flaws.

For crying out loud. He is a liberal; of course he needs a shrink.

Mickey on February 28, 2008 at 09:31 pm

Ok, something else is whack besides Obama

Mickey on February 28, 2008 at 09:32 pm

Are you serious? Stand up like a real man (or woman) and let us know what idiot writes this conjured filth.

watashiwa on February 28, 2008 at 09:50 pm

MC-CAIN STRATEGY IN THE PRESIDENTIAL BATTLE OF THE AMERICAN CULTURAL WAR

McCain, with Neo-Lib Hillary now burnt at the stake by Kennedy Liberals, is the presidential candidate of the desperate Podhoretz Neo-Cons and Leiberman Neo-Libs.  His puppeteer, that shrewd political trickster Charlie Black, to compensate for McCain’s core values being notoriously subversive to traditional Reagan Conservatism and Kennedy Liberalism, shall presumably follow Marxist strategy and tactics, to get McCain a date for the presidency or date for the Republican firing squad. 

This strategy shall be to miraculously transform Podhoretz Neo-Con McCain into a Reagan Conservative, to buy betrayal from Judas ministers for 10 pieces of silver, to buy betrayal from turn-coat Conservatives for promises of pork, to suppress internet freedom of speech by hook or by crook, and to orchestrate political collusion among the millions of Neo-Cons and Neo-Libs.

Then slanderous propaganda attacks shall be made against Obama’s youthful mistakes, his mother, his father, his religion, and his friends; and hate-baiting attacks shall be made against selected religious and political groups within his broad spectrum of supporters.  These deception strategies are all based on the belief that the majority of American voters are sufficiently gullible to be fooled.

But this strategy is flawed, because the leading Conservatives and Liberals have long recognized that their enemies in the American Cultural War are the Neo-Cons and Neo-Libs in the government, colleges, schools, news media, and Hollywood.  Their incessant subversion of traditional Christian culture and the Constitutional government has been intensifying since the McCarthy Era, when defeated as Marxists they evolved into crypto-Marxists, Neo-Marxists known as the Neo- Conservatives and the Neo- Liberals, to resume their relentless ideological struggle to gain political control over the social and economic resources of the America People. 

But it is well within the powers of the Reagan Conservatives and Kennedy Liberals, fighting shoulder to shoulder, to defeat McCain and expel the Neo-Cons and Neo-Libs, for the common goals of restoring their traditional Christian culture and Constitutional government.

There are two strategies to defeat the Neo-Cons and Neo-Libs. The first is a coordinated offensive, where both Reagan Conservatives and Kennedy Liberals vote for Obama. The second is for the Kennedy Liberals to vote for Obama; and for the Reagan Conservatives to vote for Ron Paul, Huckabee, and Romney as their write-in candidates.  The first strategy offers the additional benefit of quickly re-unifying the Republicans and Democrats spiritually, under their shared love of Christian culture and Constitutional Law, against the Neo-Cons and Neo-Libs who have so bitterly divided them.

Jeugenen on February 29, 2008 at 08:24 am

Damn there are some stupid people on the right. How could Obama not love America? It has given him fame, influence and wealth. Power

Speaking of Obama’s Fame and influence. The right is to blame if (when) it loses in November. It was the right-wing media (O’Reilly, Hannity, etc.) and other GOP pundits that gave Obama positive notoriety and sway by constantly comparing him with Hillary, extolling his virtues, endlessly bashing Clinton, and especially allowing fired ex-Clinton advisor Dick Morris to appear and pontificate with his worn-out Clintonian vendetta. It’s time to stop barking up the wrong tree, redirect fire pointedly at Obama and get rid of schmucks like Morris. Somebody tell the man to shut his trap about Hillary. He practically comes across as pro-Obama.

Oswaldo on February 29, 2008 at 09:03 am

These deception strategies are all based on the belief that the majority of American voters are sufficiently gullible to be fooled.

Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld exploited that belief very effectively

Oswaldo on February 29, 2008 at 09:10 am

Oswaldo,

It was the right-wing media (O’Reilly, Hannity, etc.) and other GOP pundits that gave Obama positive notoriety and sway by constantly comparing him with Hillary, extolling his virtues…

Newscasters and pundits on the right (I wouldn’t include O’Reilly in that group...not sure where his alligence lies, certainly not to the right) are always very fearful of being considered racist and as such temper their comments about Obama.

Even “Spengler” the author of the above is being accused of that, when there is no evidence he is anything off the kind.


“To love is not to stare steadfast at one another...it is to look forward, in the same direction.”
Saint-Exupéry

laydownSally on February 29, 2008 at 01:02 pm

Somebody tell the man to shut his trap about Hillary. He practically comes across as pro-Obama.

Why wouldn’t Hannity, O’Reilly and so on compare Obama favorably to Hillary?

Obama just simply is a more interesting and charismatic figure, whether you are from the left or from the right.

Ken McCracken on February 29, 2008 at 01:05 pm

Coincidentally, A&E broadcast a biography on Obama last night that gave much of the same history as did “Spengler”.

Different spin, of course.


“To love is not to stare steadfast at one another...it is to look forward, in the same direction.”
Saint-Exupéry

laydownSally on February 29, 2008 at 01:07 pm

Wow! What a piece of writing!

Yet, I find Mickey’s and Hawk’s comments on the subject a legitimate concern.

Anthropologist hate America therefore his mother taught him to hate America?

A bit radical.  You are right Hawk.  Here the poet’s vanity comes into play...: It sounds good, but is it true?

I think the analogy is startingly and powerful.  When someone attempts to explain the deep feelings of a man he will inevitably profess it with abstract and complex ways such as Spengler’s piece here.

dirl126 on February 29, 2008 at 09:57 pm

Are you willing to use those same words and that same perception to describe the President?—laydownSally

Why not? Are you trying to say that dubya hates America?


“All the war-propaganda, all the screaming and lies and hatred, comes invariably from people who are not fighting.”
“Every war when it comes, or before it comes, is represented not as a war but as an act of self-defense against a homicidal maniac.” —George Orwell

Anarchist Vegetarian on March 1, 2008 at 04:31 pm

Sally, you say

I wouldn’t include O’Reilly in that group...not sure where his allegiance lies, certainly not to the right.

My goodness, sweetheart. Looks like his spin has worked on you.

I found interesting the other day when he attacked Ariana Huffington, a Democrat, saying she hated Nancy Reagan and was hoping the former first lady would die. An outright lie that was typical of the kind of anti-left nonsense spewed daily by BO, and relayed by right-wing AmericaNewsToday. It was not Ariana who made such a comment, but some fool mouthing off on her blog. But Bill accuses her. His headline was “Ungrateful Immigrant Ariana Huffington Attacks Nancy Reagan. If we adhere to the principle of freedom of speech, all the vile statements made by people commenting on her blog are not necessarily shared by Ariana. Just like Rob does not share the views of everybody speaking out on this blog.

So, saying BO’s “allegiance does no lie to the right” makes me think that perhaps you have not tuned in on the swirling No-Spin Zone often enough. Actually, I tune in for laughs, not for news or serious comment. No offense meant.

Oswaldo on March 1, 2008 at 05:55 pm

Billow’s show is as funny as The Daily Show night in and night out.
It’s a good lead in actually. Great conservative insight.

I don’t know how he does it with a straight face.

He must have something on Murdock or Ailes, I can’t understand how this guy still has a job.


“If a conservative is still a republican after the last 13 years, he is blind to the fact that his party of choice has failed him utterly.” – Realitybasedbob

realitybasedbob on March 1, 2008 at 06:33 pm

Oswaldo,

As I said on another comment, I tape O’Reilly so I can go through his show quickly. I disagree with him on many points and issues, but he does have some merit.

And actually you are wrong on your facts. O’Reilly critized Huffington for allowing a poster on her site to say those things about Nancy Reagan. He never said Huffington wrote those things.

To wit, B.O. is wrong. Like you I don’t believe she should be held responsible for her posters.

That said, for the above and many other reasons, Bill O. is no darling of the right. It’s a matter of relative perpective really, those on the left often confuse moderates like him to being on the right. As they do so with McCain.


“To love is not to stare steadfast at one another...it is to look forward, in the same direction.”
Saint-Exupéry

laydownSally on March 1, 2008 at 06:40 pm

It’s a matter of relative perpective really, those on the left often confuse moderates like him to being on the right.

There is room to his right?
We’re gonna need a bigger boat.


“If a conservative is still a republican after the last 13 years, he is blind to the fact that his party of choice has failed him utterly.” – Realitybasedbob

realitybasedbob on March 1, 2008 at 06:57 pm

Ahhhh, Sally, tsk. tsk. Can’t let you get away with that little dig at John McCain.

Those on the left don’t confuse McCain with being on the right, they know he is.

The liberal left will wage the most hostile, vicious campaign in recent history to keep McCain out of the White House. Hopefully they will not succeed.


"Here lies, in honored glory, an American soldier, known but to God.”

THIS ELECTION IS ABOUT TWO THINGS: WINNING THE WAR ON TERRORISM AND SAVING THE SUPREME COURT.

pparets on March 1, 2008 at 07:15 pm

Those on the left don’t confuse McCain with being on the right, they know he is

And who better to speak on their behalf.


“To love is not to stare steadfast at one another...it is to look forward, in the same direction.”
Saint-Exupéry

laydownSally on March 1, 2008 at 07:28 pm

Um… Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid… to name a few.

But then, you were ever the one for an idle jest…
wink


"Here lies, in honored glory, an American soldier, known but to God.”

THIS ELECTION IS ABOUT TWO THINGS: WINNING THE WAR ON TERRORISM AND SAVING THE SUPREME COURT.

pparets on March 1, 2008 at 07:48 pm

And actually you are wrong on your facts. O’Reilly critized Huffington for allowing a poster on her site to say those things about Nancy Reagan. He never said Huffington wrote those things.

Hmmm. Maybe that’s what he clarifies later, but his intention was to have his viewers believe his bogus headline:

Ungrateful Immigrant Ariana Huffington Attacks Nancy Reagan

.
That’s pretty clear:

Ariana Attacks Nancy Reagan

. And why call her an ungrateful immigrant?
Check the video. Check his behaviour:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uR3FTVqTK0

The clip shows just how much the man is a horse’s derrière. With all due respect. His guest disagrees, even laughs at his preposterous statements, and tries in vain to make him acknowledge that that’s how things work on blogs and that Ariana, like most bloggers, believes in free speech and should not be held accountable for what some nutjobs are saying. Even though, admittedly, if the nutjobs are consistently going overboard, the blogger could decide to ban them. In any case, he won’t listen. He repeats, “it’s her, it’s her, it’s her.”
The guy really has intellectual issues. Tell me seriously, do you think Ariana was willfully attacking Nancy Reagan?

Oswaldo on March 1, 2008 at 10:42 pm

Those on the left don’t confuse McCain with being on the right, they know he is

Hmmm.  McCain has long been their favorite Republican. 

Could it be because he is so much like them—all the time?

Conservatives, by whom I mean patriotic and perceptive Americans, know a Leftist when they see one.  Those Republicans voting for him simply haven’t looked at his past just yet.

If it quacks like a goose and steps like a goose—it must be a goose.

Juan McCain is no Conservative.  The constant caterwauling that he somehow is has become tiresome and not unlike pissing down our virtual backs and telling us it’s raining. 

It’s really insulting our intelligence.


...for great justice

Move_Zig on March 1, 2008 at 11:11 pm

...Ariana, like most bloggers, believes in free speech…

This is pure crap; just try to post any conservative ideas on her blog.  She believes in free speech for lefties only.  Many blogs, in fact most blogs, remove offensive comments as a matter of course.  I can only conclude that AH didn’t find those comments offensive.  O’Reilly is no conservative, but he hit the nail on the head with HuffPo.  It’s just another leftie hate site.


"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

robert108 on March 1, 2008 at 11:35 pm

Tell me seriously, do you think Ariana was willfully attacking Nancy Reagan?

No. If you look at my post, I believe I answered that.

Apparently, you don’t like O’Reilly. Fine. I find that most people who don’t like him...don’t watch him.

Your comment,

My goodness, sweetheart. Looks like his spin has worked on you.

is disingenous, hurtful and I suspect sexist.

I’ve already stated that I think most of his stuff is BS...but he also has some good issues.

He believes: children should be protected with better legislation, news organizations should be held accountable (by the way..he’s not news, he’s opinion), he believes the left wing tends to more vitriolic...I could go on.

He is at times pompous and arrogant and thinks he has the “pulse of the people”. Wrong.

But, with all I dislike about him, he still brings stories to the forefront which you would never hear elsewise.

As so, he serves a purpose.

Does that answer your question?


“To love is not to stare steadfast at one another...it is to look forward, in the same direction.”
Saint-Exupéry

laydownSally on March 2, 2008 at 12:55 am
Page 1 of 1        

Post a Comment


Before commenting, please recite:

Grant me the serenity to ignore the trolls,
the courage to debate with honest opponents,
and the wisdom to know the difference.

Name   
Email   
URL   
Human?
  
 

Upload Image    

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Note: Notifications will only be sent to confirmed email addresses.