The Scam that is Obama

ObamaScamby Jerry Richardson   9/13/14
What worldview is required to produce the sort of gullibility that makes one vulnerable to Barack Obama’s fraudulence?

In a comment to my previous article A Broken Promise…Worse than a Lie, Brad Nelson suggested “I propose that you or someone pen the next logical article in this series: “Why we believed, or became presupposed to believe, the lies.””

That was a very logical suggestion, and the reason for this article.

It is a fact that many Conservatives, thankfully myself included, where never the slightest bit taken-in with Obama’s pied-piper, “Hope and Change” scam.  Why?  The superficial surface-answer is age and political affiliation.

But, there was another very important factor.

There were all those unanswered questions about Barack Obama and his past.  All the things that the dishonest media refused to explore.

Many people; myself included, saw no sensible reason for the lack of information concerning Barack Obama’s background other than the common-sense conclusion that the real history (not the bogus one in Dreams from My Father) about the man was being hidden. Why? He was being politically anointed by Progressives—so no one, especially the media (the PR arm of Progressives) should ask any prying questions.

Enough tidbits of truth leaked out to confirm our suspicions.  In addition, an untried, unexperienced, at anything other than community agitation, tax-and-spend Democrat was staging (with the help of the gaping, applauding media) an unprecedented campaign of self-glorification (“This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.” —Barack Obama). And we should ask no questions?

Time has now proven that our distrust of Barack Obama was incorrect only because there was not nearly enough—not even close to enough—distrust.

But what about those who were beguiled, conned, deceived?  What experience, wisdom, or quality did they lack that apparently many of us, ordinary citizens, possessed?

Serendipitously, I happened upon some of the answers in a rather unexpected place; a very recent book I am reading on the problems of evangelism in the millennial age group (the cohort of 18-to-29-year-old voters).  There is a definite overlap between Christians and Conservatives, and anything that affects either group has important political ramifications.

While I don’t presume that millennials exhaust all of those voters who were hoodwinked by Barack Obama, I do believe this group represents a good proxy for that in terms of how they voted and what their values and beliefs are.

With this in mind, I am interested in the following questions:

QUESTION 1: Who was deceived in The Obama Scam?

QUESTION 2: Why were they deceived?  What was their worldview, mindset, or predisposition?

QUESTION 1: Who was deceived in The Obama Scam?

Notice I italicized and capped The Obama Scam.  Why? The entire planning and staging of Obama’s public career has been one, interconnected, unitary scam.  A deception of such breathtaking deceit and arrogance that, I believe, future historians and political analysts will write about it in head-scratching mode: How could such a scam have been so successfully foisted upon so many of the American people?

Although Obama has perpetrated a multitude of fraudulent schemes upon the American people, he and his administration have collectively been a unitary, primary-focused scam.

The primary focus of the scam has been to place the American political system under the control of the Progressive-left.  The operating motif was revealed in Obama’s famous declaration: “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”

Nothing about Obama or his administration has been what it was portrayed to be; hence he and his administration (regime) can appropriately be labeled The Obama Scam.

It would be naïve to believe that all of the people who voted-for and support Barack Obama have been fooled by him.  We know that a number of people supported him and continue to support him because they trust that his bandit-ideology (spread the wealth) will put money into their pockets.  This is the Entitlement group.

There is little doubt as to why the Entitlement group offers no resistance to The Obama Scam.  For this group, President “Santa-Claus” is the explanation for their actions.  They firmly believed that President Barack Obama will “take care of them” and give them “free stuff.”

But those are not the people I want to focus-on most in answer to my two QUESTIONS.  I wish to focus-on millennials, an Idealism group; I will consider them to be a very representative proxy group for those who have been fooled, duped by The Obama Scam.

Who are they?

“Eight days after Americans elected their president in 2012, it was reported that nearly 6.4 million evangelicals cast their vote for Barack Hussein Obama II—a proven supporter of taxpayer-funded abortions who voted three times to continue the horrific practice of partial-birth abortions, an advocate for same-sex marriage, an expander of the national debt, a national security risk-taker, and a religious liberty compromiser.

“America’s future looks pretty dim when evangelicals elect to the United States’ highest seat of power a leader whose policies blatantly conflict with God’s Word, the blueprint that determines how we live. Yet I hear my fellow churchgoers wonder aloud, “What’s going wrong with our country?”
Vicari, Chelsen (2014-09-02). Distortion: How the New Christian Left is Twisting the Gospel and Damaging the Faith (p. 19).

It is a sad fact, to me, that so many evangelicals voted for a man of documented-affiliation with biblically-definable evil.  Were these people simply not paying attention?  Were they part of the Limbaugh-declared “low-info” group?  We are going to explore.

“On their own, 6.4 million evangelicals were not a large enough voting bloc to secure President Obama’s second term in the White House. Can you guess which bracket of voters ultimately decided the 2012 presidential race? You’re right if you guessed America’s youth. According to the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement, a whopping 67 percent of national voters between the ages of eighteen to twenty-nine voted for President Obama.”
Vicari, Chelsen (2014-09-02). Distortion: How the New Christian Left is Twisting the Gospel and Damaging the Faith (p. 20).

The 67 percent of the millennials (the cohort of 18-to-29-year-olds) may be questionable—looks closest to other-source stats for 2008—but of course there is no way to know for sure since voter demographics are determined by exist polls, which vary depending upon who is conducting them.  Regardless, there is no doubt, a significant number of millennials voted for Barack Obama as President, both in 2008 and 2012.  Below is a table of pertinent numbers built from other sources:

VoteTable

1 The Roper Center for Groups 2008
2 Wikipedia Presidential Election 2008
3 The Roper Center for Groups 2012
4 Wikipedia Presidential Election 2012

Using numbers from the VOTE TABLE there were 15,378,282 millennials who voted for Obama for President in 2008, and 14,460,819 in 2012.  Were these numbers decisive in the Presidential elections?

 “The youth vote ultimately tipped the scales by giving President Obama majorities in the key battleground states of Virginia, Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania [in both 2008 and 2012]. These young voters were white, black, Southern, Northern, atheists, and yes, evangelical. Their backgrounds and experiences crossed a wide spectrum, but their shared political convictions ultimately led to four years [plus 2nd term] of moral decline in America because they chose a candidate whose policies do not reflect biblical teaching.”
Vicari, Chelsen (2014-09-02). Distortion: How the New Christian Left is Twisting the Gospel and Damaging the Faith (p. 19,20-21).

I believe that the millennial vote in both the 2008 and 2012 presidential elections was decisive.

QUESTION 2: Why were they deceived?  What was their worldview, mindset, or predisposition?  Why were the millennials conned in such large numbers by The Obama Scam.

It would be no surprise to “discover” that the youngest cohort of voters would comprise a group whose voting was influenced heavily by progressive-Idealism. I don’t completely agree with Winston Churchill’s famous quote, but it does contain a sliver of truth:

“Show me a young Conservative and I’ll show you someone with no heart. Show me an old Liberal and I’ll show you someone with no brains.”  Winston Churchill

The “sliver of truth” that I refer to in the above quote is that young voters because of their I-want-to-change-the-world nature are more susceptible to the influence of liberal (now progressive) ideology than to the influence of conservative ideology.  A common (although inadequate) motif for Progressivism is change; and for Conservatism is preserve.

The large numbers of millennials who voted for Barack Obama in both presidential elections were definitely influenced by something.  What was it?

As I see it, there are three social-emotional phenomena that have influenced millennials in favor of The Obama Scam.

INFLUENCE #1: Animosity toward Christianity and Conservatism from university Faculties

INFLUENCE #2: Acceptance of “coolness”, by millennials, as indicative of ability or accomplishment

INFLUENCE #3: Elevation, by millennials, of the principal of “feel good” to the ultimate criteria for the evaluation of personal decisions

I introduced the three numbered items above as “social-emotional” phenomena because I believe that the most powerful influences on millennials are social (peer) pressures and feelings—as opposed to thought.  Before we make any progress toward understand why, we must first recognize that our endeavor is taking place primarily in the arena of peer pressure and feelings. Systematic thought is NOT the arena.

INFLUENCE #1: The animosity toward Christianity and Conservatism from university faculty.

Of course not all millennials are directly influenced by university Faculty, because not all millennials go to college.  But the trend in college attendance has been upward.

“Between 2001 and 2011, the number of 18- to 24-year-olds increased from 28.0 million to 31.1 million, an increase of 11 percent, and the percentage of 18- to 24-year-olds enrolled in college rose from 36 percent in 2001 to 42 percent in 2011.”
NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATION STATISTICS

The influence of university-breathed ideology is simply impossible to discount in today’s American society with the increasing emphasis, and job-market need, for college education.  (Sidebar: The extent to which a college education is actually worth the cost is a discussion for another time, but the belief that college education is needed is currently the prevailing assumption.)

Even if this is true, why would this influence millennials toward acceptance of The Obama Scam?  One of the most obvious ways is by influencing millennials to reject any opposition to Obama’s ideology. Christianity and Conservatism are both opposed to virtually every tenet of Obama’s progressive ideology.  But guess where most of the faculty members of our universities align?  I bet you can guess.

Volume II, Religious Beliefs and Behavior

Graph3538

The animosity from progressive (formerly liberal) professors in our nation’s universities toward Christianity and Conservatism is too well-known to be sensibly deniable.  Figure 35 and Figure 38 above supply some quantification for this animosity.

In Figure 35 we see that 92% of “Liberal” (better named Progressive) Faculty agree with the proposition that “This country would be better off if Christian fundamentalists kept their religious beliefs out of politics.” 

And while many Christians, themselves, oppose Christian fundamentalism, it is certainly a fair question to ask, “Why should their [Christian fundamentalist] voices not be heard in the public arena of politics”?  And what is the rationale for not hearing them, especially in view of our Constitution’s 1st Amendment.

Are the 92% of Faculty letting their belief in not hearing certain voices in the political arena—“…better…if…kept…religious beliefs out of politics—influence their classroom behavior?  I think so.

I do, of course, understand that the belief that it would be better for someone to stay silent is not identical to being willing to silence them; but given existing college-campus speech codes; and given the rash of recent attempts, by the IRS and others to silence Christian and Conservative voices in our nation; it is difficult to sympathize with, or place much confidence in, university Faculty members who express the opinion: “…better…if…kept…religious beliefs out of politics.”

Figure 38 shows that the negative attitudes toward Christianity are not confined only to Christian fundamentalism. In Figure 38 we see that 69% of “Liberal” Faculty holds an Unfavorable opinion of Evangelical Christians.

The undeniable, empirical conclusion is that Liberal (Progressive) university Faculty members do not like Christianity.  So the best attitude we could hope for, from them, would be an attitude of tolerance.  In the main, we don’t get tolerance—there is much anecdotal evidence for this—what we get is an attitudinal-atmosphere of “animosity.”

Examine Figure 21 and Figure 22 below. In Figure 21, notice the large overlap between self-described Christians and Conservatives on university Faculties, especially the overlap between Conservatives and Evangelical Christians. On university faculties, 54% of self-described Evangelical Christians identify themselves as Conservative, as well as 20% of Catholics and 15% of non-Evangelicals.

Figure 22 shows the party breakdown being similar to the political-position breakdown as we would expect; 48% of Faculty self-identifying Evangelical Christians self-identify as Republican as well as 19% Non-Evangelicals, and 17% of Catholics.

Volume II, Religious Beliefs and Behavior

Graph2122

In summary, I submit that these, empirically measured, faculty desires and feeling translate into outright animosity toward Christians and Conservatives.

“Moreover, it is interesting and even perplexing to see a shared inclination  among  faculty  atheists,  those  faculty  with  no  religion, and  those  faculty  for  whom  religion  holds  no  importance:  They defend  the  right  of  Muslims  to  express  their  religious  beliefs  in American  politics,  while  holding  openly  hostile  views  of  fundamentalist Christians.”

“A  more  accurate,  though  perhaps  uncomfortable  explanation is  that  faculty  are,  in  fact,  hostile  to  Christian  influence  in  public policy specifically, while they at the same time feel morally bound to  support  a  perceived  underdog  in  American  politics—Muslims. The  idea  of  Muslim  religious  involvement  in  politics  would  seem to  offend  liberal  sensibilities  about  religion  and  state.  However, it does not.
—-
Whatever  the  reason,  the  hostility  faculty  direct  at  so  large  a proportion of the general population in America is a cause for questions.”
Volume II, Religious Beliefs and Behavior, p.76-77

CONCLUSION FOR INFLUENCE #1

INFLUENCE #1: Animosity toward Christianity and Conservatism from university Faculties

The large numbers of millennials who voted for Barack Obama in both presidential elections had absorbed the prevailing-academic opinions that oppose both Christianity and Conservatism and hence they (millennials) were predisposed to support The Obama Scam.

INFLUENCE #2: Acceptance of “coolness”, by millennials, as indicative of ability or accomplishment

I think it is impossible not to have noticed how often individual millennials have referred to President Obama as being “cool.”  And it is for that reason that commentators, including myself, have referred to Barack Obama as President “Cool.”

And the flip-side of that adulation was the absence of respect for McCain and Romney—they were “out-of-touch” or “too old.”  So part of President Cool’s coolness has been his relative youth in comparison to the other candidates.  But age alone cannot account for the perception of “coolness.”

What is the essence of that coolness?

We can thank Hollywood for most of it.  In large measure Obama’s coolness so admired by millennials is a result of his becoming a Hollywood-mode “celebrity.” Obama achieved Hollywood-mode “celebrity” status by constantly hanging-out with “real” Hollywood celebrities, and by his completely unprecedented, numerous appearances on talk-shows:

[October 25, 2012] “…President Obama most recently appeared on Wednesday’s “The Tonight Show With Jay Leno,” where he and the host chatted about superheroes, Donald Trump and the World Series. Obama is certainly no stranger to these types of chat-show forums, as he’s also appeared alongside Barbara Walters, David Letterman and Oprah Winfrey to discuss current events or simply share a laugh.”
President Obama’s Many Talk Show Appearances

So, Coolness from the Hollywood perspective, and make no mistake this is primarily where it comes from, is much like beauty; it is in the eye of the beholder.  It is a perception.  But the perception must contain a few essential ingredients.  And those ingredients are superficial and surface ingredients—you can forget about character or any other inner-qualities such as that.

A note on the word “cool” found in the New Oxford American Dictionary says:

“As is often the fate of popular slang, the word itself became ‘uncool’ for a couple of decades, before reclaiming its place as a favorite way of expressing positive feelings (there is some really cool stuff going on at some of these companies | winning awards is such a cool thing) or agreement (if you want to use mine, that’s cool).”

Why of course, with coolness, we enter the brave un-new world of feelings.

But coolness is not dangerous, IMO, just because it is an expression (of approval) concerning how you feel toward someone or something.  No, I claim, that celebrity-mode coolness is dangerous because it is so often and so easily taken as an indicator of ability.  Think about it for a moment:

Many super-cool characters (actors) in TV and the movies are virtually always portrayed as extremely smart, efficient, and capable at whatever they really want to do.  They are also usually very cool about it; they are “laid-back”, relaxed and joking even in the midst of life-and-death crises.  They are often detached and unemotional about some endeavor that would be, anywhere but on the silver-screen, extremely difficult to carry out.  But they do, most often, carry out the endeavor—think James Bond—without as much as even mussing-up their well-coiffured hair.

I submit that, in the manner I have described, many millennials, without realizing their terribly-false assumption, view coolness as equivalent to ability.  Hence, Barack Obama because he was viewed by many millennials as cool was automatically believed to be very intelligent (“the most intelligent President evah”) and to possess outstanding ability—for what?—for anything, including being President of the USA.

CONCLUSION FOR INFLUENCE #2

INFLUENCE #2: Acceptance of “coolness”, by millennials, as indicative of ability or accomplishment

The large numbers of millennials who voted for Barack Obama in both presidential elections had a mindset that equated Obama’s perceived coolness with ability; hence they fell for The Obama Scam.

INFLUENCE #3: Elevation, by millennials, of the principal of “feel good” to the ultimate criteria for the evaluation of personal decisions

Millennials would have difficulty perceiving their false equivalence between coolness and ability due to the fact that they are, in a very real sense, children of post-modernism which means that feelings, rather than truth along with pertinent thoughts and facts, undergird their decision-making process. For millennials, decision making is mostly about how to “feel good.”

“The Millennial generation’s susceptibility to “feel-good” doctrine is playing a big part in America’s moral decline. Millennials’ religious practices depend largely on how the actions make us and others feel, whether the activities are biblical or not. For example, we only attend churches that leave us feeling good about our lifestyle choices, even if those choices conflict with God’s clear commandments. We dismiss old hymns that focus on God’s transforming salvation, love, and mercy and opt for “Jesus is your boyfriend” songs. Or we contribute to nonprofits that exploit and misuse terms such as justice, oppressed, and inequality because tweaking the language makes us feel more neutral, less confrontational.”
Vicari, Chelsen (2014-09-02). Distortion: How the New Christian Left is Twisting the Gospel and Damaging the Faith (p. 5).

And make no mistake, Obama’s expert marketers knew exactly how to cash-in on millennials need to “feel-good.”  The mantra “Hope and Change”, and those extended chants of “yes we can” were not about clear-thinking, not about vision and planning, not about thoughtful decision-making, they were all about “feel-good.”

“People in the world today are by and large feeling-driven pleasure seekers. We do what feels good regardless of what is right or wrong.”
—-
“You see, there is a traitor within…I am talking about our brains. Our thoughts. Our postmodern, politically correct, feeling driven minds.”
—Rambo, Damon (2013-12-14). A Traitor Within: How our Feeling Driven Minds are Undermining Our Purpose, Kindle Locations 110; 51).

Post-modernism has had an insidious effect on American (and others) society because it goes mostly unnoticed.  And it is especially unnoticed by those who are infected with it. It is like having a deadly virus and never realizing that you are sick.

Those of us who were born, and partially grew-up, in a strictly “modern world” (before the advent of post-modernism) can see and appreciate the destructive impact of post-modernism.  This is especially noticeable among millennials.  But, briefly, what is post-modernism and how did we as a society get to it:

“Modernism is the idea that reality extends to the limits of the physical world, and no further. Some (enlightenment thinkers), contended that reality could only be known through science, logic, and reason. You may have heard someone say something like “I believe in what I can touch, taste, and feel.” They are expressing a kind of enlightenment modernism.

“Others, called romantics, said that feeling was the way by which truth can be known. Human beings have a kind of “connection” with the universe around them, and they “feel” the truth by intuition . If you have seen any of the movies in the Star Wars saga, the Jedi’s connection with the “Force” is an excellent example of romantic thinking. Romanticism is truth known by feeling. This was bad enough, but it was about to get worse.

“This is where postmodernism came on the scene. Thinkers such as Jacques Derrida went one-step further than their modern counterparts had. They kept the feelings, but rejected truth. Rather than saying that a person knows the truth by their feelings (or by their logic, as per the enlightenment crowd), they made each individual the final determiner of their own truth. Each individual determined their own truth, they said, according to their own feelings. Any kind of absolute truth or objective truth was completely rejected.”
—Rambo, Damon (2013-12-14). A Traitor Within: How our Feeling Driven Minds are Undermining Our Purpose, Kindle Locations 235-246).

CONCLUSION FOR INFLUENCE #3

INFLUENCE #3: Elevation, by millennials, of the principal of “feel good” to the ultimate criteria for the evaluation of personal decisions

The large numbers of millennials who voted for Barack Obama in both presidential elections had an underlying worldview that included the for-popular-consumption results of post-modernism.  Their worldview is largely a reflection of current Progressive Political Correctness.

Each person determines his or her own truth based upon how they “feel” about something. How they “feel” is not impacted by any notion of long-standing or absolute truth (there is no such thing for post-modernism); facts count for little because, per post-modernism, you can simply manufacture your own facts—they are whatever you “feel good” about.

Peer pressure is the one immense force that can readjust any and all individual “feelings.”  All must bow before this modern Dagon1: Political Correctness.

1 Note on Dagon: “The worship of Dagon is quite evident in ancient Palestine. He was, of course, the foremost deity in the cities of Azotus, Gaza, and Ashkelon. The Philistines depended on Dagon for success in war and they offered various sacrifices for his favor.”  —Dagon

Dagon is appropriate as a god of Political Correctness in our modern times, due to the fact that in many circumstances, success and favor have become disgustingly dependent upon whether one’s beliefs and actions are in line with the modern Dagon, Political Correctness.

© 2014, Jerry Richardson • (11428 views)

Share
This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

19 Responses to The Scam that is Obama

  1. Timothy Lane says:

    Dagon was also used by Lovecraft in his Cthulhu series (such as the Esoteric Order of Dagon in Innsmouth). This may make it even more appropriate as a liberal deity. But I still prefer Moloch, the god of child sacrifice.

    It must be remembered that for millennials, as for so many voters, the crucial key to their votes is that their information sources consisted of Obama shills in academia and the media. This is harmful even for those who realize this unanimous bias, but even more so for those who fail to realize it. Thus, my interest is the question of why many conservatives (especially Establishment types) fell for a line that was already known (by anyone paying attention, anyway) to be a fraud. The supposed moderate unifier was in fact a persistent leftist, and this was well known. The revelations of his connections should have been the final straw. But the likes of David Brooks, Peggy Noonan, and Christopher Buckley were still eager to carry his water. Their blatant stupidity is what really interests me.

    • Glenn Fairman says:

      Mr. Buckley has recently befriended me on FB

    • Tony Bonagura says:

      A couple of decades ago kids were growing up in conservative homes with a mother and father who loved and cared for them. Today there are not many of those conservative homes and where some remain they are busy 24/7. Sitting down at a dinner table in conversation are long past. Once the child is turned over the the secular/public education system they will become vessels of the state. As one familiar radio talk show host would say, their brains become full of mush. Most are unable to defend their faith so they run from it. Evolution, the adult fairy tale becomes their religion. Those that are fortunate to remain faithful to faith in Christ are left to fend for themselves. Main line denominationalism sold their souls to the state and progressivism a long time ago and evangelicals are following in their footsteps – witness the 6 million who voted for this anti-Christ President and his wife.

      When it comes to politics the 18 to to 30 year old group are politically incoherent. Most don’t know their own representatives in Congress nor can they name their Vice-President. They only recognize the (R) and the (D) and the (D) is winning.

      Of course none of this matters anymore since the media has full blown progressivism, a disease that affects the entire thought process. They refuse to be our watchdog anymore and this present Fraud in the White House is living proof of this statement. A first year journalist could have blown this man’s fraudulent presidency out of the water before it had a chance to fester into this nightmare. Barry Soetoro (aka Barack Hussein Obama) has never been a legitimate presidential candidate. He is NOT a “natural born Citizen” and rose to power via the use of at least three fraudulent documents – a forged birth record, a forged selective service registration and a fraudulent SS# NONE of which were investigated. Only one brave small county Sheriff had the courage to investigate this fraud. He is doing the job that all of our federal law enforcement agencies are paid to do. Prayerfully, this sheriff and his lead investigator will eventually succeed in exposing the biggest fraud ever perpetrated against the United States. Prayerfully this Fraud in Chief will be arrested and prosecuted along with the many who aided and abetted him in that scandal. I still have faith that justice and truth will prevail. If it does it will be a huge blow to the progressive movement in this country. It needs to happen if we wish to survive this nightmare.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        Holy smokes. Welcome to the discussion, Tony. You hit that one out of the ballpark. But as for whether Obama is a natural-born citizen, I’ll take the word of others who have investigated this who say that he is. But he’s certainly a foreigner to the American ideal.

        • Timothy Lane says:

          There are many interesting questions about Obama. All the evidence indicates that he was born in Hawaii, but Joe Arpaio did argue that the long-form birth certificate was in fact a forgery. My suspicion is that there was something on it that Obama didn’t want the public to see, such as some sort of declaration of Kenyan citizenship (his mother likely planned to emigrate with her “husband”).

  2. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Bravo, Jerry. And there is no “but” involved as you work your way through my response, although there is always room for expanding this argument and understanding it in different ways, perhaps even adding new fundamental elements.

    Your thoughts on “coolness” are among the best I’ve read. They are self-evidently true. And your thoughts on “feelings” jibe with Dennis Prager’s formula which he calls “feelings over standards.” Again, nothing to quibble about in what you said regarding these two things.

    And you touch on postmodernism at the end, which is very important (a huge topic unto itself), and which I think jibes with the Mr. Kung principle of “culture is everything.” Well, culture may not be everything, but it counts for a lot.

    It’s a scary notion to realize that there is much truth to relativism in that man, via culture, is a highly-programmable animal. If all that one hears is the marginalization of Christianity, conservatives, and Republicans while at the same time their opposites are being hailed as not only “cool” but particularly competent and enlightened, this is going to have an effect. (Andy McCarthy has an excellent article that notes the insidiousness of this indoctrination: Indoctrination by ESPN.)

    While reading your essay, I couldn’t help thinking of Libertarians as being just another brand of indoctrinated yutes who put feelings over standards, are fools for “cool,” for any and all libertarian ideas I have ever been presented with are in the words of Wolfgang Pauli, “not even wrong.” Libertarianism is a different brand of liberalism, for sure, and seems caught up in the “sex, drugs, and rock and roll” paradigm with conceits of “reason” thrown on top. The converts to libertarianism have been swimming in the same progressive sea and have drunk down the same progressive basic assumptions. If some idea makes you “feel” smart or superior, good luck in getting a libertarian to let it go.

    Looking at those charts, it once again is evident that something else that Dennis Prager says is true, that most Jews don’t actually practice their religion. It has been replaced with Leftism. The same is true with large number of Catholics and other Christians.

    Now, I have no beef with those who don’t believe in God or believe in a different kind of God, including the God of War and Pestilence such as Allah. That’s not to say that I prefer some demented idea of God as with Islam. But I have no logical problem with a different conception. Who knows?

    But it is impossible to be a Jew or a Christian and to also be a Leftist. Either one believes in the God of the bible or one does not. And to simply substitute a bunch of social(ist) fads for theology is not a good enough answer. But, I think, we see once again the true influence of this progressive/postmodernist culture. If it “feels” good, do it. Glenn (the Greater) often talks about this in terms of narcissism, and I think he is completely correct.

    My question to you, then, is When can it be cool again not to bet a complete git, to use a British term? I don’t expect another essay in answer. But it’s another consideration.

    And I do think the whole postmodern element is extremely important to understanding the affinity for superficial “coolness” and for “feelings over standards.” We live in an age where science and technology (as well as industry) have, with good reason, made us forget about the significance of anything that came before us (perhaps anything before about 100 years ago…maybe at or around the age of the Wright Brothers).

    Given that humanity, at least in modern terms, has been stumbling through an ignorant and tribal darkness for tens of thousands of years, we can rightly demarcate a line that separates this modern age from all that has come before (we’re now stumbling around in a Leftist darkness, but that’s another story). As conservatives, we know that human nature itself hasn’t changed, nor the basic laws of necessary morality. But the world itself has changed radically, at least outwardly.

    This has caused the baby to be thrown out with the bathwater. It’s reasonable to question what relevance thoughts from hundreds of years ago have to our age. The ancient peoples (even as “ancient” as two hundred years go) didn’t know about the atom, did not fly in airplanes, did not have computers, did not know of the Big Bang, did not know of other galaxies (or that we lived in one), did not know of radio waves and how to make use of them, did not have iPods, and did not know a great many other things.

    This change did not kill the idea underpinning conservatism (the idea the some things are eternal truths, despite whatever superficial appearances may change via culture). But it made conservatism a much more difficult sell. And we should not underrate the effect of our consumer culture. Trillions of dollars of science, technology, marketing, industry, and business are all oriented toward placating and fulfilling every wish and desire of the consumer. No perceived inconvenience is so small that a multi-million-dollar business can’t emerge to address it.

    It is then no wonder that the ideas of beneficial suffering, delaying of gratification, caution, the law of unintended consequences, and non-materialist paradigms are so readily ignored and dismissed? Obama, first and foremost, represents the theology of no limits, as do libertarians. Conservatives, on the other hand, not only understand the necessity of limits but see many of them as a virtue, not something to be dispensed with at all costs.

    But everything does have a cost, as we will horrifically see in the next twenty to thirty years, if not sooner.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      One correction: it’s impossible for a well-informed genuine Christian or Jew to be a leftist. Of course, it’s easy for the ill-informed to follow both religions, since they have no idea of the contradictions involved.

      As for Jews, my understanding is that most are either completely secular, or Reform Jews (who ignore most of their religion’s precepts). Apparently the Orthodox Jews (who do practice their religion) are increasingly conservative in their voting, at least partly on moral grounds. (Note that they’re much less likely to be rich; the Brooklyn Hasidim are relatively poor Orthodox Jews, for example.)

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        I accept your objection with the caveat that even being well-informed, many will find it convenient or desirable to swim with heretical “feel good” versions of Judaism or Christianity.

        Yes, no doubt religious Jews veer more towards conservatism (although one would be right to suspect that their voting habits might be at odds with their “conservatism.” Just a hunch.) As Dennis Prager says in Why Are Jews Liberal?:

        And the question is further sharpened given that traditional Jewish values are not leftist. That is why the more religiously involved the Jew, the less likely he is to be on the Left. The old saw, “There are two types of Jews — those who believe Judaism is social justice and those who know Hebrew,” contains more than a kernel of truth.

        And an interesting admission by Prager (who himself refers to the Nazis as “far right”):

        Most Jews are frightened by anything that connotes right wing — such as the words “right-wing” and “conservative.” Especially since the Holocaust, they think that threats to their security emanate from the Right only. (It is pointless to argue that Nazism stood for National Socialism and therefore was really a leftist ideology. Whether that is theoretically accurate doesn’t matter; nearly everyone regards the Nazis as far Right, and, therefore, Jews fear the Right.)

        So according to Prager, if a prejudice is well-established, it should not be confronted and corrected. And you wonder sometimes why the right is so feeble in terms of shaping the culture.

        Here’s another interesting quote from that article:

        4. Liberal Jews fear most religion. They identify religion — especially fundamentalist religion and especially Christianity — with anti-Semitism. Jews are taught from birth about the horrors of the Holocaust, and of nearly 2,000 years of European, meaning Christian, anti-Semitism. They therefore tend to fear Christianity and believe that secularism guarantees their physical security. That is what animates the ACLU and its disproportionately Jewish membership, under the guise of concern with the Constitution and “separation of church and state” (words that do not appear in the Constitution), to fight all public expressions of Christianity in America.

        If any culture has a right to think of itself as “victims,” that would be the Jews. That said, it would seem this sense of victimhood is so strong they don’t know who their friends are (conservative Christians, particularly in America) and put their sense of victimhood over the actual facts of history. (I can see Mr. Kung nodding his head, but I still insist that Avi’s article was not a case of this. And even if it was, his conclusions were quite reasonable.) Earth to Jews: Nazism was not a Christian movement, nor was it “far right.” It was a totalitarian socialist/statist movement different from Stalin only in that the Nazis (as Prager has noted elsewhere) were organized around race rather than class. And what are modern Jews doing? They are supporting those who have taken up this same paradigm. If the God of the Bible is real, he must be rolling his eyes at his “chosen people.”

        And as far as the religious orientation of Jews, Dennis has this to say:

        5. Despite their secularism, Jews may be the most religious ethnic group in the world. The problem is that their religion is rarely Judaism; rather it is every “ism” of the Left. These include liberalism, socialism, feminism, Marxism and environmentalism. Jews involved in these movements believe in them with the same ideological fervor and same suspension of critical reason with which many religious people believe in their religion. It is therefore usually as hard to shake a liberal Jew’s belief in the Left and in the Democratic Party as it is to shake an evangelical Christian’s belief in Christianity. The big difference, however, is that the Christian believer acknowledges his Christianity is a belief, whereas the believer in liberalism views his belief as entirely the product of rational inquiry.

        That is to say, most Jews are very religious, and their religion is that of Leftism. These same worldly (its a secular religion, as odd of an animal as that may be) prejudices are shared by the Left and Progressives. Society is perfectible if wise people just work at it long enough. And, most importantly, the conduct, beliefs, and morals of the individual man are secondary (if they count at all). What counts most is the “society” that we build up around him. This society is the determinant of how well or badly man acts. The mantra for this cause is “social justice” which has nothing at all to do with reforming individual man but in trying to reform “society.”

        And even if this theory were true (and it is not), it does not take into account the fact that the very people elected into office (or holding other positions of power) quite often have agendas other than “social justice,” creating utopia, or just improving society. For anyone who is supposedly following god’s calling to miss this gigantic aspect puts them firmly on the side of useful idiot, if not also a narcissist. To overlook clear deception (if not outright evil) in order to hold onto one’s political/social conceits is not the mark of a better and more enlightened human being. It is the mark of an ideologue, a nut. And that goes for Jews, Christians, Catholics, Leftists, Progressives, etc. One can’t climb the mountain to a better society if one doesn’t have a proper sense of skepticism and some mechanism for fault-checking, fact-checking, and diagnostics of “what went wrong.” Jaw-dropping blinkered prejudice combined with gullibility will not tend to bring good results in any endeavor of life.

  3. Glenn Fairman says:

    One could in theory cherry pick scripture and attempt to shoehorn Christ as a Marxian redistributionist. But no honest seeker who reads the gospels in their entirety will arrive at this conclusion. Since the reconciliation of Marxism and Christianity is impossible due to their conflicting first principles —the primacy of matter, the denial of essence, only a nominal Christian with a cynical instrumental understanding of theology — the elevation of man and his earthly kingdom, will buy into Liberation Theology or any of its damnable heresies.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      no honest seeker

      So let’s add that caveat to Timothy’s “no well-informed.”

      Ultimately such messing about with “secular” religion calls into question the legitimacy of faith itself (and on some level is probably designed to do so). Are our religions little more than wish fulfillment? Are they no more than the expression of the normal political, social, and economic facts of life but with the ornaments (stained glass, incense, candles) of something bigger?

      That’s what most Jews, and a significant number of Christians, have done. To believe in a Supreme Being, First Cause, or God Almighty? Such a belief is consistent with the fact of existence itself. That God is deserving of awe and more than a little fear.

      But the secular God of “social justice” is not a God to fear and thus not a god to revere. It’s a return to a more pagan-like existence where the Roman gods were but elaborate good-luck-charms to be rubbed, like a rabbit’s foot, in the right way in order to achieve quite worldly goals (and to explain why such goals were not met). The secular God(s) (social justice, “diversity,” “equality,” “tolerance,” and multiculturalism) do not require a God to approve them. They simply require an idol to accede to them. And mankind has no problem, inside or outside of existing churches and synagogues, in making such idols.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        This careful cherry-picking of the Gospels is akin to the idea that libertinist “Christians” adjust their Bibles to their behavior rather than trying to adjust their behavior to their Bibles.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          This careful cherry-picking of the Gospels is akin to the idea that libertinist “Christians” adjust their Bibles to their behavior rather than trying to adjust their behavior to their Bibles.

          It’s ironic that if you point out the clear preponderance of violence and ugliness of Islam, you are accused of “cherry-picking.” But to the mind indoctrinated by secular Leftism, the only verse that exists in the Bible is the one that says that rebellious children may be stoned (and no, libertarians, not that kind of “stoned”).

          It’s perhaps beside the point that Dennis Prager explains Deuteronomy 21:18-21 ESV as taking away the parent’s supposed absolute right to treat children as they will and, instead, binding them to an external legal authority. The point is that such a saying is not said to be “cherry picked” but used to condemn the whole by bypassing the whole.

          In that same list (if you follow the link) you’ll find the problematic Romans 13: 1-5:

          Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad.

          This is where a literal reading of the Bible (or failing to put the ideas in their time and place) is problematic. Does anyone believe that Obama is instituted by God (except perhaps as a prank) and thus should be obeyed no matter what our laws and Constitution says? And rulers are not a terror to good conduct? Obviously this idea in Romans is not a mindset that resonates with today, and for good reason. It’s just not good advice for our time, although it is arguably applicable to a bare minority of Christians living under a Roman dictatorship hostile to them.

          • Timothy Lane says:

            Historical context is something liberals and other christophobes tend to ignore in their Bible critiques.

            • Glenn (the lesser) says:

              Historical context is not the only thing progressives tend to ignore, even more fundamentally damaging is their rejection of transcendent truth. To them truth is malleable in service of progress and progress is anything distancing itself from anything rooted in transcendent truth, most notably Christianity and our founding documents.

              They do make an exception for Islam though – the “enemy of my enemy is my friend” would seem to apply here.

              • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

                Throw libertarians in there as well regarding “lack of historical context.”

                In an otherwise innocuous article about the vote for Scottish independence, Doug Bandow writes:

                To his credit, Prime Minister David Cameron is no Abraham Lincoln: in the event of secession, there would be no invasion, no people killed to prevent them from going their own way. In recent years Czechoslovakia allowed Slovakia to break off. Serbia accepted Montenegro’s departure.

                Is that a fair assessment of the Civil War? Note that it says under the article that Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute.

                As one commentor mocked:

                Hey! Wait a minute here. That’s not the way it happened. Is it? Those evil racist Southerners attacked the U.S. at Fort Sumter and were threatening to invade the North and impose slavery on everybody, everywhere on the continent, right? And anyway, it was a righteous crusade by the morally superior, angelic Northerners to free the slaves so they could enjoy full equal citizenship, prosperity, voting rights, peace, harmony and kumbaya like all the Black people then in the North enjoyed. It was all led by Abe, from the beginning, right? Just never mind all those primary source documents that show things otherwise, like: [in no particular order] it was about collecting taxes, “property” rights, the Constitution, that the North was still practicing the African slave trade in violation of the law, all the Northern fortunes being made from Southern slave produced goods, politics, GOP cronyism, Northern control and exploitation of Southern raw materials and resources, etc. That’s all Southern propaganda.

                “Just you remember young Jim, Southerners were, are and always will be evil, and Northerners are never wrong, and always were and always will be angels who walk the earth doing God’s work.” That’s what I lernt in publikk skrool anyways.

                Libertarians are in no shape to restore this nation if they don’t even understand its history. I’ll grant that the Civil War is a complex topic. But the South did not exist for hundreds of years an an independent nation as did Scotland. And if Scotland fired upon a British army base, would you expect England to just roll over and take it? And if Scotland was seceding for the supposed right to bring slaver to Wales and other territories, should England or Wales just shrug their shoulders?

                I’m generally a tolerant kind of guy in most ways. But libertarian thought has no place here. It’s complete rubbish. And it seems to flow fairly regularly from the Cato Institute.

              • Timothy Lane says:

                Yes, we’ve noticed many times that there are many affinities between liberalism and Islam, and a shared antipathy for the traditions of the US and the West is one of the most important.

                As for the War of the Rebellion, Fort Sumter is very relevant to the discussion, but there was no desire by the South to impose its will on the North (though a few of the western territories may have been another matter; there were actually Confederate units from Arizona, which at the time meant the southern parts of what today are AZ and NM). Nor was the war initially about slavery, though slavery was the reason why the South seceded.

  4. Jerry Richardson says:

    The shelf-live for the misguided belief that all of Barack Obama’s plans, actions, and efforts to destroy America have been due to inexperience, incompetence, and ineptitude is way past due.

    We are way-past the shelf-life for that deceptive belief.

    We must understand and accept the FACT that Barack Obama is intentionally working for the destruction of America—economic destruction, moral destruction, financial destruction, foreign-policy destruction, homeland-security destruction, legal-immigration destruction, legal-voting destruction; and any other types of destruction that he and his head-council-for-wrecking-America, Iranian-born Valerie Jarrett can concoct.

    The only thing that Obama want to preserve and build is a permanent, perpetually-in-power, Democrat party—this is the purpose of his amnesty efforts.

    We can’t say Obama didn’t warn America. Many people just didn’t understand what he meant when he notoriously stated before the 2008 election that:

    “We’re five days away from the fundamental transformation of the United States.”

    This is perhaps the only promise he has truly labored to keep.

    At that time even his opponents did not fully realize that the Obama translation of the the word “transformation” is “destruction”; yes, we got “change”, destructive change, and are left with no “hope” from him.

    And as far as Obama’s appeasement of evil is concerned, if you are one of those misguided persons who believes that Obama’s appeasement-efforts are directed only toward over-seas Islamic-jihadist—that Obama refuses to name—you apparently have not been paying attention to the homeland-terrorists efforts in such cities as Ferguson, Missouri, and now Baltimore, Maryland.

    Obama wants to let-loose destruction on this nation in any way that he can. The man has amply demonstrated that he hates America.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *