July 31st, 2010

Still not getting it about Obama

On reading two recent pieces about Obama—this one by Jeff Shesol for The Daily Beast, and this by Jay Cost of HorseRaceBlog—I get the idea that both authors are still struggling to understand the guy and still not quite getting it.

That’s unsurprising. To a certain extent Obama is inscrutable, I believe purposely so. What’s more, IMHO, to understand him requires thinking outside the box. If a person approaches the task with the idea that Obama is just a politician, or in the mold of past presidents of this country (whether admired or detested), that person isn’t going to understand what’s actually happening here.

Cost writes about Obama’s vanity, and declares that it “makes him do silly things like appear on The View” and “strips him of a sense of self-awareness,” causing him to make obviously insincere statements like “We shouldn’t be campaigning all the time” during his stint in front of the show’s cameras.

Cost goes on:

Obama ran for and won [the Democratic] nomination based upon the claim that he could sell the party’s ideas to Americans who regularly hesitate to pull the lever for Democrats. He is failing to do that, and his vanity is one reason why…The party is going to need crafty, deft leadership if it hopes to avoid ceding further ground to the Republicans. I have my doubts that this President – overcome as he seems to be with self-adoration – can supply it.

Cost is right to doubt that Obama can supply that leadership to the party, but he’s wrong in thinking that it might be a priority of Obama’s to do so. And while I agree with Cost that Obama is vain, I disagree with the idea that it’s a garden-variety type of vanity that is an obstacle to Obama’s political success and could be overcome with more awareness on his part.

No. Obama’s vanity is more on the order of grandiosity of the type common to tyrants, a sense of his own power and superiority to all surrounding him. It makes him believe he has the right to jettison the usual checks and balances of government in his quest to have his way. And saying something as absurd as “we shouldn’t be campaigning all the time” in the face of the bald fact that he, almost more than any other president, has been in continual campaign mode since the day he was inaugurated is more in the nature of the Big Lie than anything else.

Obama lies with the smooth and unruffled mien of the con man. There is little reason for him to stop now, nor could he. Most of his life he has gotten away with lying and benefited from it. What’s more, if he abandoned lying, he would have almost nothing left except the truth about himself and his intentions—which he knows the American public would reject. So what else is he supposed to do?

Like Cost, Shesol also misses the mark. He thinks—along with Joy Behar on The View, Maureen Dowd in a recent column, and Bob Shrum—that Obama’s problem is that he’s “lost control of the narrative,” and needs “a compelling framework” to grab the nation’s attention.

Shesol is a former Clinton speechwriter, and an expert on the history of FDR’s term of office. He counsels Obama to take a leaf from the book of the latter and to present an animating vision that can speak to America and inspire it with renewed faith in him. What Shesol does not understand is that Obama is very far from being FDR or Clinton. One of his strongest characteristics—one that has often puzzled both left and right—is the fact that he ignores the wishes of the American people, something neither FDR nor Clinton would ever do.

What’s more, the public—or much of the public, anyway—has caught on to that fact. Obama sees the public as his enemy, a stumbling block that he needs to get around if he is ever to reach his goals. For Obama, the public is an entity to deceive and manipulate if possible, and he regards it contemptuously rather than respectfully. He no longer needs to inspire people. He just needs to exercise power over them.

94 Responses to “Still not getting it about Obama”

  1. I R A Darth Aggie Says:

    the public is an entity to deceive and manipulate if possible, and he regards it contemptuously rather than respectfully

    That fits hand in glove with that weapons-grade vanity. He is the smartest man in the room, dammit! actually listen to the hoi polloi? nothing but sheep, not a bright idea amongst them!

    Which is why The Won and his fellow travellers have no compunction against persecuting us, for they do so with the best of intentions. We’re just too stupid to live on our own, without their guidance.

  2. LAG Says:

    You know, Neo, reading through this piece prompted an interesting thought. Obama is behaving like a man who doesn’t plan to have to run again. I just wish I could be assured that also meant he didn’t plan to continue in office.

  3. F Says:

    I share LAG’s concern: could anyone who contemplates another campaign treat the voters with such disregard? Or does he know something we do not — i.e., that there will be no presidential race in 2012 because the election will be canceled (if he has his way)?

    The word from your piece that stands out, Neo, is “contemptuous”. This is a man with absolutely no regard for the people he needs to court if he is to run for office again. Of course experience has taught him that: being a product of affirmative action, he never had to say thank you. In fact that might be seen as acknowledging that his success is due to someone else’s work/money/generosity, so never say “thank you” or “please”.

    Nothing about this post, Neo, is reassuring. F

  4. Marine's Mom Says:

    I hadn’t really thought about the fact that, were this not America, Obama would probably be “tyrant for life” by now. It would be interesting, in an alternate universe (pleasepleaseplease not ours!), to see what he would become.

  5. T Says:

    He lies with the ease of a con man because that is, indeed, what he is.

    I am in the financial services business and I have seen people make judgements in the best interest of their clients, but lose all sense of that reality when they become totally absorbed in “closing the deal.” It’s as though rejecting the recommendation is tantamount to rejecting the recommender, and their ego simply won’t tolerate such rejection.

    I suggest that Obama falls into that same category, but has been so insulated throughout his life that he is unaware of his own detachment.

    I think that there is also a liberal Manicheanism involved in his outlook. We (liberal ideas, Dem party) are good and the opposition is evil. That is personalizing the struggle from the Alinsky playbook.

    While I recognize the danger as noted in the comments above and recognize the importance of the struggle to keep ouselves free, I don’t share the same fear. We Americans do not share the same sense of subservience to authority that our ancestors did. Those who were subservient didn’t give up all that they had to emmigrate to this country; those who rejected the authority of the homeland came here.

    To govern this country is much like herding cats. This is the very process that Obama and his minions see as an impediment to their goals, and it is an impediment because his goals stand athwart the goals of free Americans. Because he does not know how to capitalize on this power I am convinced that Obama will fail, I just worry about the amount of irrevocable damage he might do in the meantime.

  6. Kae Arby Says:

    Neo,

    One of the things to keep in mind, when people like Dowd, Cost or Shelol express confusion about Obama’s behavior and such, is that they still religiously believe in Obama. The way that I look at it is that Obama is the spiritual leader of a cult and when the followers see their leader behave in ways that appear strange, the only reason that it appears strange is because aren’t enlightened enough to understand the deeper truth that is Obama.

  7. G6loq Says:

    I like this post it helps me think.

    Obama to me is a kind of a side show. It is his retinue that I am trying to understand. Obama is a product of his current operating environment.

    Overall I am reminded of certain business situations. At some point there is nothing to negotiate anymore and no more going along to get along. It then gets really interesting and, rough.

    I wonder if some at the Pentagon are discussing how long they can let this craziness go on ….

  8. betsybounds Says:

    No, nothing about Neo’s post is reassuring, not the first thing (brilliantly insightful, though, it certainly is). I saw something yesterday that I haven’t noticed for some time (I’m sure it’s been there all along, but you know I’ve gotten to where I pretty studiously avoid actually either looking at Obama or listening to him speak), it was part of the Fox coverage of his Detroit/Volt Show (and, btw, wasn’t that a bit of a tyrant-style walk among the adoring pleb crowd? He is, after all, the company’s effective CEO). I saw him smile. The thing flashed as it used to during his campaign, like someone had flicked the switch to “on.” It was awful. Those gleaming, white teeth against his medium-dark skin, intended to transfix, an ideal tool for the personality cult, making him an icon. It lacked only the flip-off that he occasionally indulged during his campaign. LAG makes an interesting, even compelling, observation: Obama acts like a man who doesn’t really contemplate running again; whether this is a clue to his intention to continue in office or not is not clear.

    But perhaps it’s not so unclear as it has heretofore seemed. He’s acting like a tyrant, and his prior obscurantism about that is beginning to fall away. I do not understand how anyone paying any honest attention can fail to see that he has contempt for the American people and their Constitutional self-governing will. I held my breath as his EPA geared up to control carbon, absent a Congressional law directing implementation of his will. I held it again as his Interior Department repeatedly over-rode a judge’s ruling against his oil-drilling moratorium. I’m holding my breath now as his Homeland Security wench floats directives to circumvent immigration law. There are other examples.

    My nephew is a fully committed Leftist, an Ecology PhD from a major university now in a tenure-track position at a private New England college. I’ve mentioned him here before. A couple of years ago we had a heated exchange in which he waxed passionate over how the government needs to impose controls on just about everything. I observed (rather quietly, in the event), “You’re talking about tyranny.” He leapt to his feet and, punching the air with his fisted hand, shouted, “Yes! Yes! Yes!”

    And now, here we are. And now, here we go.

    The past is prologue.

  9. expat Says:

    I had the same impression when I read Cost’s piece earlier: Obama’s vanity is not garden variety. Most people are vain because they want to impress people, with their wealth, their appearance, their sophistication. Often, there can be insecurity behind it. I don’t think Obama really cares what others think of him because he knows he is the greatest. Whatever insecurities he may have are buried so deeply as to be inaccessible. He cares about the opinion of others only in so far as it makes them pliant. For instance, I don’t think he was hurt by Jeremiah Wright; he was angry. There was never the emotional bond that could be betrayed and cause hurt. Obama doesn’t even use humor naturally. There is always the facial expression that says, “Aren’t I clever?”

    As to the missing narrative, you need a plot or a theme to tell a story. Obama has picked up bits and pieces of worldviews, mostly leftist and victim oriented, but they aren’t part of who he is. They aren’t deep or coherent enough to be a foundation for any sort of overarching communicable narrative. He doesn’t believe certain things because experience has shown them to be right; instead, he feels things are right because he believes them, because that’s what he has always heard. Getting a more articulate TOTUS will not solve Obama’s problem. Axelrod and Emmanuel can coach all they want, but Obama will still be acting.

  10. Mike Mc. Says:

    This is surreal.

    We have a President who people say they don’t know.

    1. In a certain sense, this is true. No one knows this fraud. He does not even know himself. But he’s President! Of the United States. That’s impossible, but true.

    2. On the other hand, it’s a lie. People know he is a nothing from nowhere. People know he is an unreflective and unintelligent Marxist ideologue. People know he has no ability or energy to do anything useful – like get a job and earn money doing real things. People know he hates the country he is now currently dismantling and changing into one he might like at some point in the future. People know he is President because his skin is dark and he can speak in complete sentences.

    Anyone who says they do not know those things in #2 is probably lying or so woefully deluded that they are not worth paying attention to.

    There is only one thing we don’t know about Obama – Whether we are going to un-elect him in two years or not. That is the only thing that matters about him at this point. He’s a nuclear disaster that needs to be contained, and then removed. That’s all there is to know at this point. He’s a cancer that needs to be treated.

    It’s one or the other. The cancer wins, or the patient wins. Not both.

  11. T Says:

    Expat,

    I think that your observation is an important clue to understanding him (“Obama has picked up bits and pieces of worldviews, mostly leftist and victim oriented, but they aren’t part of who he is).

    Trying to figure himout is like trying to see the pattern in a patchwork quilt. So it is futile to try. We need to turn our energies to the upcoming elections, the first opportunity that the American people have to nullify his work. We need to be supporting those candidates who espouse smaller govt and who are willing to committ to undoing what has been done thus far. Further, we need to support a national consensus that what has been done SHOULD be undone.

  12. G6loq Says:

    Wishful thinkers … Going thru the motions … Obama and his retinue —> Teleologists:
    This:
    To teleologists, none of that matters. What matters is the fact that it’s a beautiful idea. It’s how things should be. In a world in which socialism was implemented and which worked the way the teleologists think it should work, you really would have a utopia. The fact that it’s invariably failed when used doesn’t change any of that. (When asked to explain all the failures, usually the answer is, “They didn’t do it right.” But for teleologists, a long string of failures doesn’t matter because fundamentally teleologists don’t believe things like that make any difference.)

    It’s teleologists who drive around with bumper stickers that say, “Imagine world peace.” I can imagine it just fine. I don’t expect to see it in my lifetime, though. Why would they want me to imagine it?
    http://hotair.com/archives/2009/12/06/government-by-wishful-thinking/

  13. betsybounds Says:

    “Imagine world peace” = “Imagine whirled peas!”

  14. Mike Mc. Says:

    G6,

    Teleology does not deserve to get a bad name by being tied to Obama. Aristotle was a ‘teleologist’. So was Aquinas. Obama and Progs are Platonic and Demonic.

    He is an Idealist (Platonist) and not a Realist (Aristotelian).

    It’s all laid out in The Republic with its Philosopher Kings and disdain for democracy and the hoi polloi.

    Since the first thing liberals did was destroy real education (this was done 30-40 yeras ago), they left us blind and in the dark. The long game in beatung them is taking back control of education.

    Palto said, give me the children and I will control the society. He was 100% right. Liberals have abused a generation and a half of children by being grade school teachers of all things/.

  15. expat Says:

    betsybounds,

    And if you point out to Obama that his world peace is a blob of green mush that landed on the floor, he would respond, “That’s what I said–whirled peas.”

  16. Poole Says:

    I believe that he is going to resign from the Presidency – not that he has any plans at this time to leave.

    Basically, he appears that he holds himself to be above the Presidency and he is elevating the office, not vice-versa.

    His history also indicates that he has a low threshold for adversity. All jobs have the ups and downs. Constantly taking new jobs without achievements may indicate someone who knows when it is time to move on before job performance becomes an issue.

    Next year, will be a bad year for Obama if the Republicans get a majority in the House and come close to teh same in the Senate. The Bush tax cuts expire and people’s taxes are going to go up. AMT is still not indexed for inflation so more people are going to be paying even more taxes than they would have paid under the higher tax rates. HCR starts going into effect so people will be taxes on their company provided health care, if it still being provided. If not, then the cost of private insurance is going up.

    Employers are going to have more overhead added to their costs by having to send IRS 1099 forms to their suppliers and having to account for the 1099s they will receive from their customers.

    The Inheritance Tax will return – more family businesses will close because the tax burden will be too great.

    If the House goes Republican, the Republicans will investigate every dollar spent to fly the First Family around the world. Obama will not be able to pass a bill and his only power will be the Presidential veto until the remaining Democrats join in over-riding the vetos to save their jobs in 2012.

    Hillary will resign and start her exploratory committee and will this time hire people who know how to win the primaries.

    The cards are not shaping up to be in Obama’s favor for re-election. He will get tired of being the object of derision on late night television.

    He will declare that he has completed all of the tasks that he se tout to achieve; he wants to spend time watching his daughters grow up and he will resign knowing that he has left the fate of the country into the very capable hands of Joe Biden.

  17. G6loq Says:

    To Mike Mc,

    Upon further readings on the term and concepts, you are right …

    I think that the situation we’re in with these people is akin to having the marketing department and PR people take control of the business …

    Lala land … Islam is waiting to pounce.

  18. J.J. formerly Jimmy J. Says:

    expat said, “Axelrod and Emmanuel can coach all they want, but Obama will still be acting.”

    Exactly! He has always been a role player on the stage of life.

    I have a relative who is Obama’s age. They both grew up in Hawaii at about the same time. They both were abandoned by their fathers. My relative can lie with the best of them, and he has that easy, almost cocky charisma of Obama. There is, IMHO, something about navigating through the difficulties of racial tension in Hawaii that seems to develop a facility at acting and prevarication. My relative, because he is caucasian, has never had the breaks that Obama got (Affirmative action Ivy education, law school, useful political contacts, etc.). He does have the outsize ego that he developed to survive a rough childhood. He’s gone far with his schtick. Had he had Obama’s breaks, he might well be on the national scene as well. To my amusement and relef he’s finally becoming aware that he cannot go on with his deceptive ways. Too many people are on to him by this stage in his life. I’m sure if he were surrounded by the enablers that are on team Obama, he would still be as insufferable as Obama.

    I think those of us of the conservative persuasion cannot believe Obama would be as narcissistic and tone deaf as he is because we are trying to judge him by our standards. He fits nicely with the tone deaf, ultra progressive, tony elites that inhabit the major cities of both coasts. Remember his remark about bitter people who cling to their guns, religion, and racism. He and all those elite progressives believe it. To them we are sheep to be led to “Greener Pastures.” Even if we disagree.

    Gallup claims their polls show that there are 44% dems, 40% Repubs, and 16% Indies. The polls show 36% still approve of Obama and the job he’s doing. So, it appears that we have a good chance of electing a majority of fiscal conservatives in November. Control of the House would be good. Control of both the House and Senate would be even better. 93 days to go!

  19. JohnC Says:

    Mike McC: I have come to the same conclusion that you outline in your comment at 9:37. It’s is a good blue print for defeating anyone who tries to rationalize Obamit’s behavior. Good work.

  20. Cynthia Yockey, A Conservative Lesbian Says:

    The best book to read to understand Obama is The Sociopath Next Door by Martha Stout. Obama is a sociopath. Sociopaths have a very limited range of authentic emotions. What they want is power and the only thing that truly give them joy is the ability to make other people jump. They do NOT have consciences, so nothing within them limits the harm they will do to others in order to obtain power. I believe Obama is weakening America in every way possible in order to create a panic that he can use to suspend the Constitution and become president-for-life. Whether or not you think Obama would pursue his ambitions that far, the rule for understanding Obama is that everything he says and does is about getting and keeping power. That means if he agrees with you — especially if you are conservative — he wants you to relax, shut up and go away so he can do whatever he wants. Don’t, don’t and don’t.

  21. coco Says:

    This is not a presidency. It feels more like an occupation. And the useful idiots trying zealously to keep this regime afloat are aplenty. They come in the form of the Behars and the Dowds and the Matthews and the Millers and on and on, right down to the nincompoops on entertainment gossip shows. And there’s the rub. There are so many idiots who refused to look at the character, or lack thereof, of Obama. My goodness, his speech at the 2004 Democratic convention was filled with sops and patronizing drivel, and yet he was regaled. During the campaign of 2008, a few stalwart men and women in the media who actually did their due diligence exposed the candidate’s foul associations, his nefarious ideological heroes and his own expressions of enmity for his country. And yet he was and is regaled by a stew of media charlatans. Many, many of us were not hoodwinked by this man. We were terrified of the consequences his election would bring and of the level of ignorance of the voters who put him there. Horse, barn, gone.

  22. F Says:

    President for life. It has a nice ring to it if the title is applied to you — until you realize the only way to unelect a president for life is to terminate the life. Ask Samuel Doe.

  23. PA Cat Says:

    A little comic relief, perhaps? Obama’s grandiosity is getting some competition from the mother country’s next king:

    “The Prince of Wales says he believes he has been placed on Earth as future King ‘for a purpose’ – to save the world.

    Giving a fascinating insight into his view of his inherited wealth and influence, he said: ‘I can only somehow imagine that I find myself being born into this position for a purpose.

    ‘I don’t want my grandchildren or yours to come along and say to me, “Why the hell didn’t you come and do something about this? You knew what the problem was”. That is what motivates me.

    ‘I wanted to express something in the outer world that I feel inside… We seem to have lost that understanding of the whole of nature and the universe as a living entity.’

    His impassioned comments come during a film about his belief that unbridled commerce has led to the destruction of farmland and countryside.

    The documentary, called Harmony, is due to be aired on the U.S. network NBC in November to coincide with the launch of a book of the same name by the prince.”

    http://jammiewearingfool.blogspot.com/2010/07/megatool-prince-charles-declares-hes.html

  24. expat Says:

    I have mixed feelings on Charles. He is decidedly over the top on saving the planet, but he did take on the architects and I think his charity does some good down to earth work with the young and jobs. I also have no problem with his experimenting with organic farming on his own farm. He has just taken it too far, which is what always happens when you have causes instead of a job. I’m quite content to pay very little attention to him. I wish I could do the same with Obama.

    I can’t imagine what it would be like to grow up in a fishbowl with a completely planned life laid out before you. It has to distort you. I am glad I had more options, even if they were at the lower end of the scale.

  25. rickl Says:

    There’s another possible reason why Obama might not complete his term, but most of us don’t really want to talk about it.

    If Obama really is a puppet of George Soros and/or some sinister anti-American outfit, they might regard him as a useful idiot–and expendable.

    That could also give us our “Reichstag Fire” incident. Remember the DC snipers? Before they were caught, both the police and the media automatically assumed that the shooter must be a disgruntled white man. Now take that publicity and multiply it by 1000.

  26. Moss Says:

    Obama is our 1st post-modern President and as a result hates America and believes that America is evil and that the world is better off without it.

  27. Thomas Says:

    “the public is an entity to deceive and manipulate if possible, and he regards it contemptuously rather than respectfully”

    I wonder if our beloved ‘stupid party’ (instapundit’s phrase for the republicans and their pattern of making dumb mistakes) can figure out how to convey that.

    I have some ideas but the republicans will probably wimp out.

  28. Alex Bensky Says:

    I think use of the word “tyrant” in this context is a bit over the top.

    One thing I think I do understand about the president is that he got where he is, and you can’t get any higher, because of what he is and not what he does. If that had been my experience then by golly I’d probably decide it was because I had it coming.

    And yes, Thomas, I am a former Democrat (not just nominally; I was a party activist) but not a nascent Republican because I don’t see the Republicans as likely to adhere strongly to the principles they’re avowing once they get into power.

    I remember election night in 2008, after I had voted Republican for president, watching the returns and thinking, “Well, he can’t be any worse than Carter and we survived that.” Turns out he could be worse than Carter–disastrous domestic policy and a foreign policy that is potentially catastrophic.

  29. SteveH Says:

    My question is was this crescendo of post modern liberalism we call the Obama administration inevitable and in fact neccessarilly unavoidable? When i think of McCain squeaking by in that election, i see nothing but an increasing majority of Americans displeased with a free America they childishly take for granted.

    Adversity fixes that problem in people and boy do we have it.

  30. br549 Says:

    One can only hope more and more people come to the conclusions expressed here. That being those who believed in him, in his party, and who voted to put him in office.

    Yes, this is different than anything ever before in this nation. I sensed that, as did many, a long time ago. The cover has been pulled from the hidden agenda. Those of that ilk are closer than ever before. They smell blood, and will not stop. They must BE stopped. Remember what Lenin said about the ballot and the bullet. May the vote be that which halts this move our nation is taking. May I one day wipe my brow with a “phew!” added. God save the Constitution. For only that will save the nation.

  31. Tom Says:

    Alex:
    Like many of us, you have come a long way. But you still have quite a ways to go. The judgments here are not over the top. You simply have not reached that summit yet, though I hope you will. Time is short.

  32. Tatyana Says:

    *expat – I find Charles an insufferable nosy fool exactly because he took on architects!
    What a pompous ignoramus.
    See mine (and others’) take on this clown in peacock feathers here. Don’t miss the video supplied by Michel Jennings in the comments.

  33. ligneus Says:

    Marine’s Mum, If you want to see what he would become were he to finagle himself into President for Life, just look at Mugabe and the other African Marxist Despots.

  34. Richard Aubrey Says:

    Tatyana,
    Charles, although a warning against inbreeding, has been said to be not too far off when he remarked that post-war architects had done more damage to London than had the Luftwaffe.
    Never been there, so I will simply say that he’s not been uniformly condemned for his views on London’s architecture.

  35. Roman Says:

    I am torn between two very different scenarios, one is that the president does not know what he is doing, especially concerning foreign affairs. The other is that he knows exactly what he is doing, but does not care what the people think. I believe that an argument can be made for both?

  36. Tatyana Says:

    Richard Aubrey: said by whom?

    I recommend you watch the video in the thread of the post I provided a link to. Destructive and ignorant “Neo-neo-classicism” of Prince of Wales, or more aptly, his adviser Leon Krier and other “New Urbanists” is explained and illustrated rather convincingly there.

    I have been to London. It is a lively, vibrant city thanks to diversity and variety of its architecture. It would be a boring conserved tin of museum periodic decoration if not for British post-war architects.

    It is a principled view of mine that every time has a right and obligation to be expressed through its architecture and art. History, including history of manufacturing, construction materials, new engineering achievements and new methods of building, has not stopped in 17th century.

    City – and in fact, every built environment – is a growing, living mechanism. Like a tree. Some branches are beautiful, some ugly, but all eventually die after their time is up – and new branches grow in their place. It is futile and UNNATURAL to try to preserve dead wood.

  37. Thalpy Says:

    Barack Obama knows exactly what he’s doing. As a totalitarian, he and his group feel no obligation to explain to the asses of the mass what is going on. Had he told the country where he planned to lead them, he would not be President now. Behar and the other giggly airheads are too stupid to see it.

    G-d help us.

  38. Mike Mc. Says:

    What makes you think Behar et al are giggly airheads – as if they do not want the totalitarianism too?

    I think everyone and anyone who at this point still supports Obama, Pelosi, or Reid is a totalitarian thug at heart. There were millions who Seig Heiled. They are the same sort of person.

  39. ETAB Says:

    Obama is a pathological narcissist, a state he probably moved into as a young boy. This isn’t simple egoism; it’s a deep malignant need to control other people, how they interact with you and above all, to reduce the individual power and strength of other people.

    This also means that Obama is detached from the real world. He lives in a virtual world of his own authorship where what he says and what he does – exists..and what he cannot control…does not exist. That famous ‘coolness’ is not an intellectual gaze but a basic lack of empathy. Obama has no connection to the real world or real people. He can only interact with them via his manipulation of them.

    This pathological need is expressed through three major tactics that Obama has learned to deal with the world. Misinformation or lying is a major tactic. Obama has no ability to explore, accept or search for the truth. He says what is needed to control you. This statement can change in an hour in front of another crowd..to control this different crowd. Listen to his outrageous tales about health care and greedy doctors..and unemployment and so on.

    Then, there is emotional manipulation using fear and hope. Obama will control you to his will by declaring that IF you don’t accept his Will, THEN the apocalypse will result. He’s done this with the Stimulus, with Health Care..and with Immigration.

    Finally, if you continue to resist His Will, Obama will accuse you of fault. You are ignorant or biased. Politically or, above all, racially biased. Racist accusations are a major tactic in Obama’s tactics of dealing with other people. If Obama feels he can’t control you then he has no interest in you; you cease to exist.

    Obama’s contempt for Congress and the law, and thus, the American people, is obvious. He’s quite willing to throw Congress to the electoral wolves and is distancing himself from the November elections. Meanwhile, he is upping his image as ‘The Charm Boy’ (The View).

    I feel that Obama was picked up by the radical socialists of the Democrats (Soros, etc) to push through their socialist-marxist infrastructure. He’s their puppet. I think they are finding his vanity, his thin-skinned rejection of debate, criticism, his narcissistic need to control and his contempt for America – rather difficult to deal with. They wanted The Charm Boy and they are getting someone with an increasing pathological need to control everyone.

    Will they dump him in 2012? Will they find him a position on the world stage where he can pontificate his empty vapid rhetoric but be isolate from power? Obama is destroying the Democratic Party – as well as America. He has moved racism back into the 60s and even the Civil War – and he’ll use it more and more as he tries to control Americans. He’s removing financial strength from small business and individuals. He’s empowering rogue states in the international realm (Iran). What’s next?

  40. » Rounding Up The Psychbloggers Says:

    [...] see what I mean).  In today’s choice, neo neo-con focuses her amazing insights on Mr. Obama: Still not getting it about Obama. On reading two recent pieces about Obama—this one by Jeff Shesol for The Daily Beast, and this by [...]

  41. rickl Says:

    Tatyana Says:
    August 1st, 2010 at 10:25 am

    every built environment – is a growing, living mechanism.

    I’m going off topic, but I like what you said there.

    I live in a suburban development, and for decades they have often been mocked and looked down on by sophisticates. A famous example is Malvina Reynolds’ song, Little Boxes. In David Byrne’s movie True Stories, one scene had the camera zooming past street after street of identical houses with barren lawns. But that was a brand new development and no one had moved in yet.

    The neighborhood where I live was built in the 1950s, and my house is now over 50 years old. Even though the houses were all built to the same three or four plans, with the passage of time they have taken on the unique personalities of the various people who have owned them. Some have had additions built, others re-roofed and re-sided. Everybody’s yard is different, and there are flowers, vegetable gardens, and some truly enormous trees, none of which existed when the development was new.

  42. Leslie Says:

    How right you are, Neo. Also, regarding Maureen Dowd, it seems to me that she picked the wrong president to harass for having daddy issues. This president is obsessed with his father—or the notion of. Whatever the reasons for the long psychological track of this obsession, it is obviously a guiding force in his actions (his desire to “reach out” to the Muslim world being a policy ubiquitous, almost trite example). Do you suspect, as I do, that the inability of these two writers to see past the president’s political facade is in large measure due to their own lack of self-awareness?

  43. Leslie Says:

    How right you are, Neo: ADDENDUM. By the way, though I do mean the standard dictionary explanation of the term “self-awareness,” I’m also thinking in terms of awareness of the self, the self as an individual but also, simultaneously, as a member of a larger society, the debts and obligations drived from that, and so on.

  44. Thalpy Says:

    Mike Mc., Brhar and the other panelists may be totalitarian, but the masses will accept whatever “ism” being put forth at the moment without too much thought, if any at all, about it. Most sheep want to be loved and petted–that’s all.

    As Charles Murray has said, ” half of the people are below average.”

  45. kasper Says:

    T says: “We Americans do not share the same sense of subservience to authority that our ancestors did. Those who were subservient didn’t give up all that they had to emmigrate to this country; those who rejected the authority of the homeland came here.”

    I wish I had such confidence. Betsybounds describes her twerpy little PhD nephew — tyranny is OK with him. This is what we have allowed our schools to raise up, and those of us who would resist the tyranny they teach have been, and still are, too polite.

    I think it’s too late to push the reset button.

  46. rickl Says:

    kasper:
    I’m not hopeful either. See this comment I made earlier. I was responding to waltj’s comment two comments previously.

  47. rickl Says:

    T says: “We Americans do not share the same sense of subservience to authority that our ancestors did. Those who were subservient didn’t give up all that they had to emmigrate to this country; those who rejected the authority of the homeland came here.”

    That was true of the people who came here, but their descendants have been domesticated.

  48. LAG Says:

    rickl, I thought your Reichstag comment an interesting one, and such a circumstance would surely create great upheaval and opportunity for mischief. You and Kasper make further comments about anemic modern Americans that would suggest that such a scheme might even work, but before giving yourself over to despair, I recommend you take a drive across the country.

    Stick to the two-lane and stop in small towns when you get a chance. I recommend you talk about local hunting for a bit. Then, if you can do it without building an obvious link, switch to talk about government. I think you’ll find that people would be comfortable with a switch for new game. (You could start in my home state, South Carolina, and run to the Pacific. I recommend ending in the city of Bell, California.)

    I firmly believe that an obvious overthrow of American institutions would start a real, not figurative, fight. First there is no force commanded by the federal government that could subdue the American people who count–that is, those who are committed to the nation and armed. The military would fracture as it did once before (would you fight for a usurper you would not vote for?), there is no national police force to do the job (Joe Arpaio?), and bureaucrats and most leftists aren’t armed or willing to fight and/or die. Many of the rest of us are armed and willing, though mostly in the Patton sense. (“Make the other poor dumb bastard….”)

    Whatever Obama may intend, it will be in the end as many other things he has started have been–different in their outcome than anticipated. I hope and believe that includes any president-for-life plans.

  49. T Says:

    Rickl,

    I don’t think we’ve been domesticated, I really believe that it’s in our genes. We must be careful to distinguish between the will of the people and the national dialogue. The latter has been in the hands of the political elite for quite sometime and studies show that the elite are absolutely out of step with the will, beliefs and mores of the American people (I am struck by the wisdom of Ben Franklin’s comment: “We have given you a democracy. Can you keep it?). Futhermore, ignore the outliers on the fringe. Even in the best of times there will be supporters of tyrants among us. I’m willing to bet that such people are a small minority on the left and right wing fringe.

    Kaspar,

    As for pushing the reset button, I believe that is exactly what Rick Santelli’s rant did. The spontaneous rise of the Tea Party is the voice of a silent American majority. They are waking up to the fact that if you want to be left alone to live your life, the golden rule doesn’t work. When you, in turn, leave other people alone, then those who want to control you have the opportunity to assume power. For that reason, the silent majority has lost the battles over the last 50-70 years, but we have not necessarily lost the war. Resetting—just as renewing your computer—is a labor intensive task that doesn’t happen in an instant.

    November is the first step. If I am correct, then it will be a political bloodbath for the Democrats, if not it will be business as usual.

    My primary concern that it WILL be a political bloodbath for the Democdrats and STILL be business as usual. If the Republicans regain control of either or both houses of congress, will they be up to the people’s task? Remember, they’re not Democrats, but they are still part of the “ruling elite” that put us in this position in the first place. DId they get the message?

  50. T Says:

    Further thoughts on the Tea Party.

    This political, small govt movement is the perfect weapon to fight the leftist Alinsky thugs. Alinsky’s rules target established powers with individuals as their representatives. The Tea Party is essentially a leaderless movement of small, independent parts. There is no perswon to demonize so they try to personalize and demonize the movement.

    It can’t be done. Their charges of racism have fallen short and boomeranged. First the Tea Party was a group of ignorant white NASCAR rednecks, now it’s a sophisticated anti-American movement dedicated to the destruction of the country as we know it. The left is throwing charges at the Tea Party to see if anythings sticks, and in the process they are revealing their underlying malevolence and lust for power. This is desparation and everyone, including those on the left, knows it.

    This is the potential beginning of “reset.”

  51. T Says:

    Sorry, should be “This is desperation . . . .”

  52. kasper Says:

    I hope Rickl and SAG are right about a more positive outlook. In the past I have gotten excited about elections, thinking surely people will vote with their brains this time. History has taught me to be disappointed. I’ll take even small victories this November, but the Republican leadership doesn’t give me confidence it will make a difference.

    As to who Obama is … it doesn’t really matter, but it is interesting to try to figure him out. Obama’s most useful behavior is to not let what his has said and what he has done in the moments past have anything to do with what he is saying and doing at the moment. And his skill at wordiness works well with his adoring media, and allows him to be all over the map with his messaging.

    It has been maddening to watch the contortions of the press in explaining him away, but I have to admit, there do seem to be a few cracks in the foundation. His extreme narcissism might eventually mess him up.

  53. neo-neocon Says:

    Roman: that’s an argument that’s gone on for a long time at this blog. I call it the “Obama, knave or fool?” argument. Some of the posts on the subject are listed here.

  54. Occam's Beard Says:

    If Obama really is a puppet of George Soros and/or some sinister anti-American outfit, they might regard him as a useful idiot–and expendable.

    Yes. Allende became a leftist martyr and icon, although he was actually something of a bozo, a fact that would have become increasingly apparent the longer he served. In similar fashion, JFK was in fact a mediocre President and so dangerously inexperienced that he inter alia almost triggered a nuclear war (because Khruschev was so underwhelmed by him that he decided to try to test by putting missles in Cuba). But, having failed to duck at the operative moment, he became a talisman for liberals babbling about Camelot. Word to the wise, Barry. It’s hard to make a myth once someone’s performance is there for all to see.

    I see Obama as a spokesmodel for Soros et al., a Ted Baxter-type of vain, narcissistic buffoon who was selected and groomed to read the teleprompter, and the beneficiary of a massive marketing and disinformation campaign. His life story is so extraordinary in its good fortune that it is literally incredible. But those who rely on the MSM believe Obama is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being they’ve ever known in their lives.

    Obama himself is brittle and weak, so we don’t have anything to fear from him himself. He’s at worst an American Kerensky.

  55. CV Says:

    It’s highly ironic that one of the favorite expressions of the left during the GWB era was “Bush Lied, People Died.” Bush was continually derided as “a liar,” remember? Although one may not agree with everything Bush did or said, I came to view him as an honest and honorable man who never stooped to the level of the criticism flung at him on a regular basis.

    Now we have a president who truly DOES lie, often and as a matter of habit.

    Allesandra Staley of the NYT, writing about the Obama appearance on The View, opens her article with the observation that Obama said that “we shouldn’t be campaigning all the time” during an interview that looked and sounded a lot like a campaign appearance.” Of course that’s exactly what it was (an ill-considered attempt to woo back female voters). Only Obama has the chutzpah to do a campaign appearance on television and tell people “we shouldn’t be campaigning all the time.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/30/arts/television/30watch.html?_r=1&ref=alessandra_stanley

    But I won’t hold my breath that we’ll be seeing any “Obama is a big fat liar” books from Al Franken any time soon.

  56. Barb the Evil Genius Says:

    T, Ben Franklin said that we were a Republic. A very important distinction.

  57. T Says:

    Barb,

    Thanks for the correction. I was actually atempting to paraphrase–shouldn’t ahve used quotes–but I must learn to stop relying on my memory.

  58. Assistant Village Idiot Says:

    In terms of Obama’s puzzling lack of self-awareness and inability to pick up some fairly obvious clues from the American people, I suppose we haven’t spent enough time considering the possibility that he is actually from Mars. Or something. Like a distant Chauncey Gardner, listening in on us all these years, getting his views of our reality from the media, and having a go at posing as a regular person. There may be chuckles throughout the galaxy that he succeeded well enough to become the ruler of the most powerful nation on the planet.

    I got the idea from Marine Mom’s musings about an alternative universe. Let’s see if the internet filters this out and refuses to publish it. After all, my computer seems to break down every time I write that George Soros is the antichrist.

    It would explain the birth certificate thing and why no one seems to remember him before he hit Harvard Law as well.

    We need to get Dirk Gently working on this. Don’t Panic.

  59. Mike Mc. Says:

    Thalpy,

    I don’t agree that most people are sheep. I think there is a committed minority that is going for a takeover and destruction before the majority – which it has spent 30 years dumbing down, outlawing, and PCing – wakes up enough to do anything.

    The figure who comes to mind more than any other, the one we need now more than any other, is Paul Revere. The difference is that the enemy is in charge of the WH, Congress, the Courts, Public Education and all Public Services.

    Their last remaining task is to so control the crowd that it bnecomes a herd they can lead anywhere they want, or feed anything they want.

    It is us against them. Period. If we don’t beat them, they will own us and control everything. We’ll be no better than serfs on their manor.

  60. T Says:

    Mike Mc,

    If you are correct, then it would seem that a major part of their plan was disrupted by the internet and the 24/7 dissemination of information. Clearly the net did not filter out Asst Village Idiot’s post nor did his computer crash this time as he called George Soros the AntiChrist.

    If so, perhaps the figure that comes to mind will be not Paul Revere, but Snidely Whiplash (“Curses, foiled again”).

  61. FenelonSpoke Says:

    Excellent commentary, neo, and absolutely chilling last paragraph, but frighteningly accurate, I think.

  62. kasper Says:

    ‘There may be chuckles throughout the galaxy that he succeeded well enough to become the ruler of the most powerful nation on the planet.’ — Assistant Village Idiot

    I’d cry about that if I wasn’t such a cynic.

  63. johnnyquark Says:

    If Obama has some narcissistic disorder it would show up in his relationship with his wife. Has anyone heard or read about behaviors in that relationship that indicate such a disorder? I just want to see if enough pieces fit together in this Obama-as-narcissist hypothesis.

  64. Occam's Beard Says:

    If you are correct, then it would seem that a major part of their plan was disrupted by the internet and the 24/7 dissemination of information.

    I have no doubt of this. YouTube alone set back their machinations by years.

    If Obama has some narcissistic disorder it would show up in his relationship with his wife.

    First, how would we know? We can’t even find his transcripts or birth certificate. We don’t know who his donors are, because his campaign went out of its way to turn off address verification on credit card donations. (Whyever would they do that? Hmm. Media reaction: bupkis.)

    He’s gotten away with being surrounded by communists, terrorists, and lunatics. A little argy-bargy with the Mrs. doesn’t even budge the needle. And his marital relationship is one on which the media would – and in my opinion, properly should – keep quiet. The other matters, not so much.

    Furthermore, to the extent one can tell from this remove, Michelle seems a lot more hard-nosed than Buraq. He’s the one more likely to sport a shiner, I suspect.

    That’s in the weak version. In the strong version, if Obama really was selected for and groomed in a Red farm system, making sure his spouse wasn’t a liability would be an elementary and obvious consideration that if overlooked could obviate a lot of time and effort.

    Either select an ideologically simpatico mate from the Party (thanks for playing matchmaker, Bernardine!) and/or make damned sure his wife keeps her mouth shut if any problems should arise.

    In any case, methinks Michelle is too enamored of the wagyu beef and the celebrity-filled galas to raise much of a stink.

  65. neo-neocon Says:

    Actually, Michelle seems to buy into Obama’s narcissism, big-time:

    Michelle told Vanity Fair that Americans would have only one chance to anoint her husband, vowing “it’s now or never” and explaining “there’s an inconvenience factor there” and a “really, really hard” pressure and stress on the family that can only be justified if her husband can win the presidency and “change the world.”

    She told a group gathered at a nursing home in Grinnell on Monday that “Barack is one of the smartest people you will ever encounter who will deign to enter this messy thing called politics.”

    If a spouse shares the narcissist’s idea of his tremendous superiority, there’s no problem.

  66. Occam's Beard Says:

    OT: Another one for Artfldgr’s files. Howard Zinn was, according to FBI informants, a card-carrying member of the CPUSA after the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.

    I know. I can’t believe it either.

  67. Oblio Says:

    OB, I take it that was sarcasm. It’s only too easy to believe.

  68. Occam's Beard Says:

    Oblio, yep, that was sarcasm.

    Of course Zinn was far far left, but anyone who would have accused him of actually being a CPUSA member – rather than as a concerned liberal – would have been written off as a nut.

    It’s becoming increasingly clear that people dismissed as right-wing nuts didn’t know the half of it.

    It’s further becoming increasingly clear that anyone of prominence posing as a liberal is mostly likely in fact a communist.

  69. James Says:

    All of the pessimism that is reflected here may well be true. But there is an equally likely scenario, which “could” be more benign.

    The game that Obama plays is molded to fit the press narrative. The lies he tells, the stories he weaves are printed or not printed by the press to continue the narrative. Obama can’t change because the governing and behavior model is meant to work with the way the press works. Its true that it is all a pack of lies, but its still the way Obama works and the way the press plays it.

    Secondly, it is quite possible, even likely that Obama believes the things he has done will become popular. Social Security is popular, so is Medicare. Obama believes that the Medical system he passed will become popular just like those programs, and he will win in the end because of it. The things that Obama has passed are not that different, maybe less severe, than what the Europeans have, and they seem to like it, so he thinks we will too.

    If all of this is true, I’m not sure how Obama will react if the Republicans get close to taking it apart. That is the scary scenario for me.

  70. Occam's Beard Says:

    Back on topic, l’affaire Zinn makes one wonder how many JournoLists and journalists are also members, in spirit if not in fact. I assume everyone on JournoList is a communist (even if many do not admit it, even to themselves) until proven otherwise, and that many, if not most, journalists are as well. One need only read Witness, and appreciate the vilification to which Whitaker Chambers was subjected by the NYT and WaPo, to realize that the rot is of longstanding.

  71. Baklava Says:

    Off topic:

    Democrats charging 4 black representatives.

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/40533.html

    racists !

  72. Gringo Says:

    Occam’s Beard :

    The people on the JournoList most likely cannot conceive of an end to expanding government control- and we know where that can lead. However, most of them lack the intellectual rigor to be doctrinaire Marxists. In spirit, if not in the letter.

  73. Occam's Beard Says:

    Gringo, you have it exactly right: most of the JournoList members are fundamentally too stupid to realize what they in fact are. And all the while desperately impressed with their perspicacity. God must be chuckling.

  74. Bob from Virginia Says:

    I just read three senate races switched from likely Republican or toss up to likely Democrat. We here at Neo are apparently in an echo chamber, Yes Obama is clearly a America hating, democracy hating neurotic, he made that clear with the apologies, Honduras and Obamacare, among others. The problem was and is that he is not as unpopular as he deserves. An improvement in unemployment, or some strong words and an apparent show of force in Iran, or even a slap on the wrist military strike against Iran and enough people will see him as the messiah again and beg to readmitted to the cult. The battle is not over by a long shot and it is hard to be optimistic when you see someone who had no business being anyone near a position of any responsibility being elected president. Obama is not this republic’s main problem.

    BTW, telling wasn’t it, that the Messiah preferred an appearance on the The View to an appearance at the Boy Scout Jamboree. It makes complete sense though, the Boy Scout’s do not admit girls (there have been lawsuits against because of it), gays, or atheists. Worse they represent traditional masculine values. Definitely not his venue.

  75. rickl Says:

    Occam’s Beard Says:

    God must be chuckling.

    More likely Lenin.

  76. Col. Bunny Says:

    Obama stumbles when he’s reading the teleprompter script with too little preparation. However, he can be very exact and eminently capable of subtle locutions too. Note one time that he very deliberately finessed the issue of his lack of patriotic feeling for the America that actually exists. Obama will not, apparently, express any love for that America.

    I decided I won’t wear that [flag] pin on my chest. Instead I’m going to try to tell the American people what I believe will make this country great and hopefully that will be a testimony to my patriotism.

    ~ Pres. Obama, Mark Levin Show, 7/4/08 (15:33).

  77. Thalpy Says:

    Mike Mc.,

    The few do it all. The Jews, the Gypsies, and others outnumbered their captors in almost every case, but were unable or unwilling to turn their numbers to advantage. Throughout the South you can hear conversations about gun ownership. “We have guns.” So what? Without proper leadership, organization, and experience, guns have little value.

    You are absolutely right that it’s them or us! We will be fighting a belief, an orthodoxy with reason and I hope charismatic, competent leadership.

  78. Ilíon Says:

    Poole:I believe that he is going to resign from the Presidency – not that he has any plans at this time to leave.

    Some weeks ago, as I was awaking, I dreamt that the news of the day was Obama’s sudden resignation. In the dream, it was a Friday morning (I don’t know how I knew that, and I don’t know which Friday it was). So, if the dream is somehow a glimpse of the future, I suppose the resignation must have happened Thursday evening.

  79. Artfldgr Says:

    I do not understand how anyone paying any honest attention can fail to see that he has contempt for the American people and their Constitutional self-governing will.

    because a society as created by feminists, is a victim society who needs to herd up to be safe…

    that is a victim society are masochists waiting to be rewarded with a sadistic act. and unlike people playing masochism and sadism, these don’t let someone top from the bottom…

    i have explained that such people see power differently and they cant feel it unless they force you to do things. applying what i keep explaining is why no one gets it…

    to a normal person like george washington, or even a kid learning karate with honor, power is an internal facet, something that you have regardless of whether you exercise it. so a mother has power over her baby in utero, she doesnt ahve to act on that power to realize she has it or know it.

    but these people don’t see power this way. to them power is the ability to force or compel others to do what you want and they don’t want.

    doing what they don’t want is key…

    this is the key difference between power as a tool, and power for power. the difference between using a knife for dinner and having picarism.

    the normal persons use tools for tools.
    the abnormal persons use tools to their own ends.

    so a normal person using a knife uses it as a tool, puts it away, and that’s it. a person with picarism is looking for more opportunities to cut things. (like a surgeon i met once).

    the tool for the tools sake becomes a person wishing to use the tool as they get their jollies from using the tool itself. (like looners get jollies from the fetish around balloons).

    this is why these states are so brutal… mao knows he had a lot more power than the king of france… why? he was able to subject his people to more horrible acts and they could not rebel.

    the sexual sadist is one of the easier ways to see this. in our society, sexual sadism can take two categories. the people who play at it, as a sexual game and everyone to some degree knows whats going on… and the person who is a REAL sexual sadist.

    the latter, could get their jollies off all they want within the framework of all these sexual fringe groups and aware people. they could find masochists who want to be mistreated 24/7.

    why dont they? because it goes back to the old joke. what does a real sadist say to a masochist that begs them to hit them? no!

    so real sexual sadists, as well as real power freaks, have one slightly different note to them. they need the other person to not want whats being done. so the people within such communities that play with this stuff, are not like the real ones. (and they tend not to mix which is why its safer to be in community than out on your own – in community, its play, out of community, its roulette).

    so if you read about these people you will find they share a common thing in which they want the kind of power in which they can compel people against their will.

    and power over one person in private is not enough.
    as the mass murderer is slightly different than the criminal sadist psychopath… so are these.

    they want to make thousands cry in pain, suffer, plead with them to make their lives better.

    they want to feel the power…

    and not understanding this difference in people, in a culture that says there arent any (hiding them), means what when such gets the reigns of power?

    it means that they regret not having Maos opportunity to exterminate and torture so many and not lose their farm of victims.

    in the communist collectivist mind is neitsches uber men… in which the world can be broken down into two classes, the powerful and the powerless, the sadists and their victims…

    there is no room for anything else if the sadistic are to finally be liberated as THEY are the ones oppressed by man since time began. the bible tells them.

  80. Artfldgr Says:

    I think that your observation is an important clue to understanding him

    boy, everyone is pretending to be the great freud, the great marx, the great anything… refusing all references to history, knowlege, etc.. they will just glean with their special insight…

    and yet, not know that they are doing what eggs born yesterday do!!!!!!!!

  81. Artfldgr Says:

    Cynthia Yockey, A Conservative Lesbian,

    i have recomended that book ages ago… quotes tracts when no one looked it up. got yelled at for the length…

    ANYTHING BUT read it, or other things. why? because if they dont read and study, this debate here is a debate of equals (in ignorance). if they do read, they are going to ahve to sort and not stand as equals to those that have read a lot more.

    that is, they go from a boat with no captains or all captains… to one with a hierarchy of people taking up a temporary structure to achieve an end.

    the later is fleeting, the former is eternal :)

  82. Artfldgr Says:

    Cynthia Yockey, A Conservative Lesbian,

    what they want is power and the only thing that truly give them joy is the ability to make other people jump. They do NOT have consciences, so nothing within them limits the harm they will do to others in order to obtain power.

    yes..

    now, i will put up a link to another key document, and well see if anyone finally reads it.

    George Kenans long telegram:
    http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/coldwar/documents/episode-1/kennan.htm

    the reason is that he describes the state which came out of such sociopathic success.

    that is, the soviet union and communist states in general (Which are socialist in process), end up being rule by cargo cult sub-clinical sociopaths.

    Party line only represents thesis which official propaganda machine puts forward with great skill and persistence to a public often remarkably resistant in the stronghold of its innermost thoughts. But party line is binding for outlook and conduct of people who make up apparatus of power–party, secret police and Government–and it is exclusively with these that we have to deal.

    i keep saying deal with the statist holding a gun to you, don’t bring up your clique of friends who don’t agree…

    the leaders maintain an act of a certain type. lets them know who is on plan, who is a victim class, and so on…

    it also would let someone like neo and others know that 180 degrees opposite of the equality thing, they see themselves as having all value, and you having none. so any ideas that they would be honest to you are as Lenin said. a quaint bourgeoisie custom.

    they would no more tell you the truth than you would explain to your dog that they are going to cut his balls off on this car trip.

    Second, please note that premises on which this party line is based are for most part simply not true. E George kennan long telegram

    as i said… its a game… you guys are in the game, they are outside the game. (how sociopaths think).

    you think that your thoughts inside the game and all that have meaning. but they don’t. not to the game. they just are the things you cling to to keep yourself inside now, rather than outside yourself (which can be a very unhealthy place).

    they have learned to seek security only in patient but deadly struggle for total destruction of rival power, never in compacts and compromises with it.

    they only feel safe when we are dead
    then they go to work on each other

    In this dogma, with its basic altruism of purpose, they found justification for their instinctive fear of outside world, for the dictatorship without which they did not know how to rule, for cruelties they did not dare not to inflict, for sacrifice they felt bound to demand. In the name of Marxism they sacrificed every single ethical value in their methods and tactics. Today they cannot dispense with it. It is fig leaf of their moral and intellectual respectability. Without it they would stand before history, at best, as only the last of that long succession of cruel and wasteful Russian rulers who have relentlessly forced country on to ever new heights of military power in order to guarantee external security of their internally weak regimes. This is why Soviet purposes most always be solemnly clothed in trappings of Marxism, and why no one should underrate importance of dogma in Soviet affairs. Thus Soviet leaders are driven [by?] necessities of their own past and present position to put forward which [apparent omission] outside world as evil, hostile and menacing, but as bearing within itself germs of creeping disease and destined to be wracked with growing internal convulsions until it is given final Coup de grace by rising power of socialism and yields to new and better world.

    since they admire and reset soviets, they have taken on that world view, and so what kennan wrote applies to them. just change out the time bases specifics, and replace them with the newer ones.

    here is a short paragraph updated minimally in such a way
    It should not be thought from above that progressive party line is necessarily disingenuous and insincere on part of all those who put it forward. Many of them are too ignorant of the outside world and mentally too dependent to question [omission], self-hypnotism, and who have no difficulty making themselves believe what they find it comforting and convenient to believe.

    i only replaced soviet with progressive
    and you cant tell if it was written then or now, or russia or US…

    the rose by any other name DOES smell as sweet

    Progressive policy, as Department implies in its query under reference, is conducted on two planes:
    (1) official plane represented by actions undertaken officially in name of Progressive Government; and
    (2) subterranean plane of actions undertaken by agencies for which Progressive Government does not admit responsibility.

    sound familiar?

    the rest is too big to put up…
    but here is one more updated example as to what to see openly, then one more examole as to what you see closed.

    remember they have been tweaked slightly for the present, rather than the past.

    On official plane we must look for following:

    (a) Internal policy devoted to increasing in every way strength and prestige of progressive state: intensive military de-industrialization; maximum development of social forces; great displays to impress; continued secretiveness about internal matters, designed to conceal weaknesses and to keep opponents in dark.

    (b) Wherever it is considered timely and promising, efforts will be made to advance official limits of progressive power.

    For the moment, these efforts are restricted to certain neighboring points conceived of here as being of immediate strategic necessity, such as Northern Iran, Turkey, possibly Bornholm However, other points may at any time come into question, if and as concealed progressive political power is extended to new areas.

    Following May Be Said as to What We May Expect by Way of Implementation of Basic Progressive Policies on Unofficial, or Subterranean Plane, i.e. on Plane for Which Progressive Government Accepts no Responsibility

    think of journolist when you read below

    Agencies utilized for promulgation of policies on this plane are following:

    1. Inner central core of Progressive Parties. While many of persons who compose this category may also appear and act in unrelated public capacities, they are in reality working closely together as an underground operating directorate of world Progressive , a concealed committee tightly coordinated and directed by Progressive Leaders outside of public view.

    It is important to remember that this inner core is actually working on underground lines, despite legality of parties with which it is associated (like democrats, feminists, race hucksters, etc).

    i said they are following the same plan.
    it works because we refuse to learn it.

    even when someone tells you where to look, its more fun to pretend to be geniuses born yesterday and make up crud.

    this is why they win. they each keep the other in line, while we each keep the other out of line (to prevent any empiricism from functioning!). the crabs in the bucket refuse to listen to the crabs trying to climb out, and rather than join them, they pull them back in.

    this describes the evolution they took…
    [again tweaked for today]

    2. Rank and file of Progressive Parties.
    Note distinction is drawn between those and persons defined in paragraph 1. This distinction has become much sharper in recent years. Whereas former or fringe Progressive Parties represented a curious (and from Progressive’s leaders standpoint often inconvenient) mixture of conspiracy and legitimate activity, now the conspiratorial element has been neatly concentrated in inner circle and ordered underground, while rank and file–no longer even taken into confidence about realities of movement–are thrust forward as bona fide partisans of certain political tendencies within their respective social domains, genuinely innocent of conspiratorial connection with Progressive leaders.

    Only in certain places where Progressive are numerically strong do they now regularly appear and act as a body.

    As a rule they are used to penetrate, and to influence or dominate, as case may be, other organizations less likely to be suspected of being tools of Progressive Government, with a view to accomplishing their purposes through other organizations, rather than by direct action as a separate political party.

    sound like progressives taking control of democrats, eh? they refuse to actually become a substantiated something, preferring to be like a religion not a party.

    in this way, like the catholic church they copy for ill, they are an internal persona country which is laid over the borders of others.

    everything they have been doing, you can read in george kennans long telegram.

    including their inability to govern, and seeking power to the exclusion of all else.

    why? because these are teh people George kenan warned you outside the body, now inside the body politic.

  83. Neo-Neocon | Little Miss Attila Says:

    [...] . . on the mystery of Obama: Obama is very far from being FDR or Clinton. One of his strongest characteristics—one that has [...]

  84. Artfldgr Says:

    Occam,
    Obama himself is brittle and weak, so we don’t have anything to fear from him himself. He’s at worst an American Kerensky.

    no… not that.. he is something more complicated and a new twist on the old history.

    he is a puppet put in place to fail

    as i have said, whats missing from everything everyone talks about is the ‘other’.

    when the soviets ‘fell’, we were the other, we refused to swoop in, take over, etc. (rationalize it all you want any way you want, bottom line, we didnt).

    well, when we ‘fall’, will all the other countries that unlike us are sworn to our destruction, just sit around.

    or rather, will they pull out all the people that they have that have been putting us in a place. and stop what they are doing, or accelerate it?

    we are not getting report of the Zetas sending people to mexico for insurgency training.

    we are not paying attention to the cheif of police in ny this morning describing the protected classes…

    and a lot more..

    it takes credit to fight… you have to borrow to build up to fight. when we are forced into conflict against the 30,000,000 extra Chinese… (meaning they have over 50,000,000 to field in a new war…

    will they loan us the money and wait for us to rebuild manufacturing capacity?

    will the iron fist in a velvet glove squeeze the balls soon ?

  85. Dan Says:

    First off, the Democrat party will not, and what’s more, DARE NOT, deny the nomination to Obama in 2012.

    There was a reason that Hillary did not really tear into Obama during her primary run against him. Because were she to have hit him hard during the primary, even if she prevailed against him, she would only have alienated the black vote that she desperately would need in a general.

    WHOEVER a Democrat nominee is in a Presidential match, that nominee needs roughly 90% black turnout to defeat the Republican nominee.

    Which leads me to conclude that however much damage the creature is going to do between now and 2014, the Democrat party will nominee him notwithstanding all of that simply because they dare not effectively insult all of black America by witholding the nomination from the “historic first black President.”

    Which means the Democrats are saddled with him come what may in 2012.

    Black America would go absolutely bonkers were Obama denied the nomination. They’ll cry racism even if he faces a serious battle for the nomination! And were any Democrat serious about wresting the nomination from him, it would prove a Pyrric victory for Black America would despise him for displacing Obama.

    Secondly, the search for the “real” Obama is vain.

    What did Saint Augustine write centuries ago? “I sought whence evil came, and found it not.” Ultimately the deep animus that lurks within Obama is an evil, and like most evil, mysterious. To reject America, with all that America has done, and meant, ———————– is utterly sinister. To bow before pederasts and upholders and enforces of religious apartheid is sick. Sick.

    There’s a tremendous amount of spiritual darkness within Obama, {his wife too…}, and it’s all going to ooze on out.

  86. Gary Rosen Says:

    neo, this post is absolutely chilling and frighteningly on the mark.

  87. Gary Rosen Says:

    Having come late to this thread I posted before reading all the comments and now find that someone said almost the exact same thing as I did (FenelonSpoke, 8/1 6:58PM)! You certainly struck a nerve here, neo.

  88. Gary Rosen Says:

    re neo, 8/1 8:35PM – Michelle’s (in)famous comment that “for the first time in my life I’m proud of my country” shows that she buys into both his narcissism and his disdain for America, its history, and its values.

  89. IgotBupkis Says:

    > I get the idea that both authors are still struggling to understand the guy and still not quite getting it.

    Yeah, well, to be completely honest, they and a lot of their libtard cronies still haven’t quite figured out the left-foot-left-shoe/right-foot-right-shoe thing, either.

    I mean, they keep winding up with the shoes in the wrong place — their mouths, their asses, you know…?

    All too often they really, really, REALLY bollux it up and wind up with their heads stuck up their asses, and it’s sheer hell to pay before they get them back out of THERE.

  90. Artfldgr Says:

    serendipity again:

    Simon Heffer of the Daily Telegraph of England finds President Obama and his administration interested in their philosophical agenda at the expense of good governance. He writes: ‘This immediate proof of mismanagement adds to the cumulative feeling on so many other fronts that Mr. Obama and his team simply don’t understand governance.’”

    http://www.freedomworks.org/blog/teda/if-president-obama-carries-on-like-this-he-will-be

    For this, i would suggest another George Kennan document… George Kennan, “The Sources of Soviet Conduct”

    it was here that he explains the psychology behind things. here and in other documents the point is made that they are so wrapped up with seeking power, and removing ALL other potentials to ANY power, that good governance or any such principals have been put off until AFTER the goal has been reached.

    Our first step must be to apprehend, and recognize for what it is, the nature of the movement with which we are dealing. We must study it with same courage, detachment, objectivity, and same determination not to be emotionally provoked or unseated by it, with which doctor studies unruly and unreasonable individual. G Kennan

    Progressives will, as a rule, work toward destruction of all forms of personal independence, economic, political or moral.

    Their system can handle only individuals who have been brought into complete dependence on higher power.

    Thus, persons who are financially independent–such as individual businessmen, estate owners, successful farmers, artisans and all those who exercise local leadership or have local prestige, such as popular local clergymen or political figures, are anathema.

    It is not by chance that even in their own ranks, members are kept constantly on move from one job to another, to prevent their taking root.

    Sociopathic, and paranoid, monomaniacal, sycophantic, and more…

    Progressive power, unlike that of Hitlerite Germany, is neither schematic nor adventurist.

    It does not work by fixed plans.

    It does not take unnecessary risks.

    Impervious to logic of reason, and it is highly sensitive to logic of force.

    For this reason it can easily withdraw–and usually does when strong resistance is encountered at any point.

    Thus, if the adversary has sufficient force and makes clear his readiness to use it, he rarely has to do so. If situations are properly handled there need be no prestige-engaging showdowns.

  91. Artfldgr Says:

    A bit more insight to how things work internally:
    [i tuned it up a bit]

    the fact that the progressive leadership is at liberty to put forward for tactical purposes any particular thesis which it finds useful to the cause at any particular moment and to require the faithful and unquestioning acceptance of that thesis by the members of the movement as a whole.

    This means that truth is not a constant but is actually created, for all intents and purposes, by the progressive leaders themselves.

    It may vary from week to week, from month to month.

    It is nothing absolute and immutable — nothing which flows from objective reality.

    It is only the most recent manifestation of the wisdom of those in whom the ultimate wisdom is supposed to reside, because they represent the logic of history.

    The accumulative effect of these factors is to give to the whole subordinate apparatus of progressive power an unshakable stubbornness and steadfastness in its orientation.

    This orientation can be changed at will by the leaders but by no other power.

    Once a given party line has been laid down on a given issue of current policy, the whole progressive governmental machine, including the mechanism of diplomacy, moves inexorably along the prescribed path, like a persistent toy automobile wound up and headed in a given direction, stopping only when it meets with some unanswerable force.

    The individuals who are the components of this machine are unamenable to argument or reason, which comes to them from outside sources.

    Their whole training has taught them to mistrust and discount the glib persuasiveness of the outside world.

    Like the white dog before the phonograph, they hear only the “master’s voice.”

    And if they are to be called off from the purposes last dictated to them, it is the master who must call them off.

    Thus no outside and unsecured representative cannot hope that his words will make any impression on them.

    The most that he can hope is that they will be transmitted to those at the top, who are capable of changing the politically correct party line.

    But even those are not likely to be swayed by any normal logic in the words of someone they think is a bourgeois representative.

    Since there can be no appeal to common purposes, there can be no appeal to common mental approaches.

    any such progress with people employing such, becomes something else to a normal person who thinks that they are debating some valid thing, when all the other is doing is trying to find the right combination of rationalizations and training that will move the damn idiot the way they want to.

    but, we refuse to understand things as we KNEW them, and so seek some rational explanation against a system that has no such core of empirical rationality.

    why?

    its very simple..

    if you play chess, your rationality is the line to what you will do, and act like, and so is your weakness.

    there is a lot more…
    there are principals at work here we have forgotten

  92. Artfldgr Says:

    ack!!! my blockquote didnt work!!!

  93. NJArtist49 Says:

    @Artfldgr
    Thanks for an excellent post.

  94. Helen Says:

    AMERICAN TYRANTS – 2010

    Tyrants can turn peaceful citizens into ranters. One citizen, who is fed up with the depraved nuts and devils running America these days, was heard to shout: “John Hinckley Jr. and Eric Rudolph, now that we REALLY need you, where are you?” For insights into some of the worst tyrants, Google or Yahoo “Obama Avoids Bible Verses,” “Obama Supports Public Depravity,” “Obama’s Re-Election Promise,” “Un-Americans Fight Franklin Graham,” and “Imam Bloomberg’s Sharia Mosque.”

    [above bit lately seen by me on the net]

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>



About Me

Previously a lifelong Democrat, born in New York and living in New England, surrounded by liberals on all sides, I've found myself slowly but surely leaving the fold and becoming that dread thing: a neocon.
Read More >>








Blogroll

Ace (bold)
AmericanDigest (writer’s digest)
AmericanThinker (thought full)
Anchoress (first things first)
AnnAlthouse (more than law)
AtlasShrugs (fearless)
AugeanStables (historian’s task)
Baldilocks (outspoken)
Barcepundit (theBrainInSpain)
Beldar (Texas lawman)
BelmontClub (deep thoughts)
Betsy’sPage (teach)
Bookworm (writingReader)
Breitbart (big)
ChicagoBoyz (boyz will be)
Contentions (CommentaryBlog)
DanielInVenezuela (against tyranny)
DeanEsmay (conservative liberal)
Donklephant (political chimera)
Dr.Helen (rights of man)
Dr.Sanity (thinking shrink)
DreamsToLightening (Asher)
EdDriscoll (market liberal)
Fausta’sBlog (opinionated)
GayPatriot (self-explanatory)
HadEnoughTherapy? (yep)
HotAir (a roomful)
InFromTheCold (once a spook)
InstaPundit (the hub)
JawaReport (the doctor is Rusty)
LegalInsurrection (law prof)
RedState (conservative)
Maggie’sFarm (centrist commune)
MelaniePhillips (formidable)
MerylYourish (centrist)
MichaelTotten (globetrotter)
MichaelYon (War Zones)
Michelle Malkin (clarion pen)
Michelle Obama's Mirror (reflections)
MudvilleGazette (milblog central)
NoPasaran! (behind French facade)
NormanGeras (principled leftist)
OneCosmos (Gagdad Bob’s blog)
PJMedia (comprehensive)
PointOfNoReturn (Jewish refugees)
Powerline (foursight)
ProteinWisdom (wiseguy)
QandO (neolibertarian)
RachelLucas (in Italy)
RogerL.Simon (PJ guy)
SecondDraft (be the judge)
SeekerBlog (inquiring minds)
SisterToldjah (she said)
Sisu (commentary plus cats)
Spengler (Goldman)
TheDoctorIsIn (indeed)
Tigerhawk (eclectic talk)
VictorDavisHanson (prof)
Vodkapundit (drinker-thinker)
Volokh (lawblog)
Zombie (alive)

Regent Badge