I saw 2016 this afternoon. I have strange feelings about the whole thing. I did not come away justified as a conservative, self-righteous and ready to fight. Rather I walked away from the theatre with a feeling of great sadness, for both Barack and for America.
It seems Obama is a man who has no authentic identity. The identity he does have has been fabricated by him from a mythology, the content of which includes a false view of his biological father taught to him by his Marxist mother, a distorted view of the past and of America learned from Frank Marshall Davis, and reenforced by his Marxist and radical associations throughout his life. He has let that distorted view guide and direct--nay, dictate his actions. It wouldn't be going too far to say he is enslaved by this artificial, intellectually derived identity. And this is the man who is now president of the United States.
Deeply Disturbing–––a man who is living a completely artificial life, his decisions rooted in prejudice and falsehood--and his decisions affecting millions worldwide in the most profound and immediate of ways. Obama is obviously a very complex (read: confused) person, but in essence what we have is a typical Jacobin--a typical iconoclast: a person with a clear idea of what he hates, but not a clear idea of what he loves and what he really wants. People of such a mindset, driven more by their hatred than by a precise and definite love, proceed to do all they can to tear down the thing they hate and worry about what is left later. Consequences have never been a big concern of the Jacobin mind-set.
In contrast to Barack's muddled thinking, I have to say I was taken with Barack's half-brother, George Obama--who obviously has LOTS of personal problems. But he is real, not artificial--he really exists. With Barack the real person is missing. I have sensed that for the longest time. But George puts up no front. There is no phony, smiley demeanor he uses to confront a world he misunderstands and secretly hates. George is clearly not burdened and ruled by ghosts and fantasies about his father and a past that does not exist. He sees things much more honestly and realistically. Unlike Barack, he has lived in the reality of it. He does not idealize the country of his origins and its' history, and he is not blinded by his brother's ideology and false, distorted view of the past.
What impressed me most about George was his lack of affectation and his plain, immediate and unequivocal acceptance of an understanding of Kenya's past that is the very antithesis of Barack's evanescent fantasy; an understanding, for George, that is so obvious as to be undebatable. His conclusion: Kenya's progress and development was seriously attenuated by the departure of the colonialists, whom he wishes had stayed longer.
Stated another way, the colonialists were a benefit, a plus to Kenya and the people there--and not the parasitical drain Barack fantasizes about and which fuels his rage against what he sees as the colonial west. When DeSousa read that from George's book his response was instantaneous, simple and unaffected.
"It's true," he said softly.
It was so obvious to George as to need no further defense or comment.
This must infuriate Barack and is perhaps the reason George, who lives in debilitating penury, receives no help from his famous half-brother, who is constantly reminding the America people about fairness, sharing and concern for the poor.
Who is Barack Obama? After reading his books, observing his acts and choices as president for four years, examining his past and past associations, and even after seeing this movie, no one knows--and that includes Barack.
Men, such as Barack, who lack an inner sense of identity from their youth, men who have artificially created an image of themselves by a series of rationalizations, distortions and tortured reasonings, are men who feel powerless and lost. And nothing, not even becoming president of the United States, can make up for it and fill the void.
The real Barack is hidden, encrusted over by the narcissistic artifice he himself has created. Such people compensate for their inner confusion by seeking external power. In such a fertile ground the seeds of the despot and the tyrant can easily be sown--and their fruit is increasingly autocratic acts and the alienation of others.
DeSousa's conclusion is disturbing: America's waning influence in the world will bring on the modern version of the end of the Pax Romanum. What follows now will be much the same as what followed then: violence, factionalism and collapse on a wide scale--a possible new dark ages. This is some scary stuff.
On a personal note, there is, I believe, a middle and more sane position between DeSousa's Neoconism and Obama's vision of a weakened (and endangered) America, with not even adequate defensive capabilities. It is Ron Paul's vision of strong military used only in defense--NO wars of choice, no policing the world, no dictating of policy to other nations, no nation building. Stated another way, it is the policy of the Founders.
If DeSousa is right, and Obama gets his way, America will not even be able to defend itself, let alone nation build. If the Neocons persist America will be burdened with an impossible task that will inexorably lead to fiscal collapse and utter defenselessness. Ironically, the Neocons and Obama's policies lead to the same disastrous conclusion for America--proving once again there is more than one way to skin a cat. Ron Paul's policy deftly avoids the scylla and the charybdis upon which the Neocons and Obama shipwrecks.
I think DeSousa is right and he has presented some critical information about Barack that ought to be widely known and discussed as a valid means of understanding and explaining the President's actions and choices. His thoughtful and well-reasoned analysis and clear presentation is impressive. As DeSousa himself says, it is the only understanding of the man and his policies thus far that covers all the bases--the only perspective that explains it all. Others who have tried to explain the phenomenon of Obama have quickly drawn a conclusion based upon superficial observation or their own biases, and then sought to cobble together bits and pieces of supporting evidence. In contrast to them, it seems clear that DeSousa tried to begin at the beginning and see where all the evidence would lead him--the only process that ever leads to a correct conclusion.
If DeSousa is right then it is clear Obama has shown us and the world a false image--a mask, and racism in America has helped him get away with it. DeSousa also tackles this issue in his documentary by turning to Shelby Steele, a man, like Obama, of mixed race.
Mr. Steele insists that Obama was elected SOLELY because he was black, and no other reason. In other words, by my definition*, his election was a collective racist act by millions of Americans, most of them white. White Americans voted for him in droves to prove to themselves they were not racist. What they proved, by voting for him JUST BECAUSE of his race, was the very opposite.
I'm sure many people read my remarks from time to time and conclude I'm a racist. That, I always say, tells a lot more about them than it does me. The fact is, I'd never vote for or against anyone because of their race--because doing so would be straight up racism. That's madness when you're selecting a political leader. Competence and sane policies, not sex or race or looks, should be the determining factors--and the ONLY factors. For instance, I would vote for a Tom Sowell and Walter Williams ticket in a New York minute--with not the slightest hesitation.
Alas, America is obsessed by race, and whites, as you know, have been brainwashed by the media for decades, and intimidated by political correctness to such a degree they are terrified of being called racist. My sense is a lot of whites today are not coming clean when they participate in polls. They do not want to say what they actually think because of the fear of appearing as racist. But the voting booth is still sacred. It is there and in the Catholic confessional one can still be honest with one's self.
My concern about the election is that Obama and his minions are so unbalanced psychologically, so fanatical in their lust for power that they will use any and all means to steal the election. It has been done before. Just ask Joe Kennedy.
If Barack wins, it will be a pyrrhic victory, at best. If the Republicans can maintain control of even one house there will be Hell to pay on Obama's behalf for running so low, sleazy and unprincipled a campaign. Hidden behind his friendly mask is a man seething with resentment and hatred, and the veneer that hides it is growing thinner and thinner.
What the result will be in 2016 no one knows. (DeSousa does give us a likely scenario.) But if Barack's re-election comes to pass in 2012 I think I'm safe in saying we will limp there---and we may end up on our knees...and don't look for anything to improve, at home or abroad. And when and if things totally collapse around us don't look for Barack to shoulder the blame then any more than he has thus far. Jacobins, who are myopic, don't accept blame any better than they calculate the full consequences of their actions.
2016: Obama's America. A must see. Watch it and think long and hard about it.
*Racist act: Any act done for or against another person or persons SOLELY because of their race.