The Obamanation of Desolation
The appearance of John McCain and Barack Obama at Saddleback, California's "purpose-driven" church marks the ultimate ascent of Rick Warren to the Gantry-in-Chief of the P.T. Barnum Church of America. Warren's success is living proof of Barnum's oft-quoted observation that there is a sucker born every minute. In the event, Obama's imitation of Christianity was so poor that even John McCain—the very model of a Christian divorcé--looked good by comparison. Obama could barely bring himself to stutter out the Scriptural passages he had memorized as his answer to the scripted questions.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Please note: While no topic is off the table, the discussions on this website are conducted with the courtesy and sweet reason expected in an after-dinner conversation among friends or the debates of colleagues at a Socratic seminar. Irrational tirades, stream-of-conscience fantasies, personal abuse including ethnic slurs, and the impudent familiarities engaged in by juvenile bloggers are not tolerated. Violators will see their posts either put into moderation or deleted. Frequent violators will be blocked permanently.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Obama needs to establish church-cred, if he is ever going to win the votes of the people he hates and fears. I mean White People. It is true that the majority of Obama supporters are White People, but most of them fall into the category of self-hating Whites otherwise known as liberals. A liberal, as I never tire of quoting (from Robert Frost), is someone who would not take his own side in an argument. Rich liberals naturally support high taxes and extravagant government expenditures on the poor, preferably the undeserving poor. A male liberal—we can hardly call such creatures men—favors women’s rights; heterosexual liberals favor “Gay” “marriage,” and European-American liberals prefer all cultures to that of Europe. And, if these idiots condescend to note their skin color, they hate it or at least they think they do.
Mr. Obama may or may not like the White liberals who burn incense to his TV images that fill up the evening news broadcasts, but he knows he cannot stand the illiberal Whites who do not hate themselves. Obama spent two decades attending Trinity United Church of Christ and claimed its pastor, Jeremiah Wright, as his friend and mentor before discovering that Wright was an anti-White bigot. He even borrowed his book title “The Audacity of Hope from one of Wright’s sermons. Every time I hear that phrase—so redolent of the old stereotype of half-educated blacks who insert pretentious words into their conversation--I imagine how Johnny Lee, aka Algonquin J. Calhoun, would deliver it. Like all the stars of the Amos ‘N Andy television show, Lee was a fine comic actor, and it is some kind of weird racism that has sent immortal comics like Tim Moore (Kingfish) and Spencer Williams (Andy) down the memory hole. The NAACP’s persecution of Amos ‘N Andy does prove one thing, and that is that black liberals (including Barack Obama) hate themselves as much as white liberals do. What is left for them to love? Not much.
Jeremiah Wright not only hates Whites, he does not even pretend he doesn't. Imagine the SPLC in a parallel case, if it found out that Pat Buchanan regarded the comparatively mild David Duke as his mentor. The DNC and the media can tell any lies they like, but they cannot change the fact that the Democratic presidential candidate hates Whites, including the members of his mother's family who showed him every kindness. Compared with the average self-proclaimed white bigot who says he loves his ancestors, Obama is one sick and sorry excuse for a human being.
The Wright story does have its lighter side. It is Obama’s membership in Wright’s “church” that has justified his claim to be a Christian, and his claim to be a Christian is his best evidence that he was never a Muslim. No one has called him on this, so far as I know, even Christians who are fully aware that the United Church of Christ has nothing to do with the historical Christian faith taught by the apostles. Some Christians have questioned Obama’s credentials as a Christian because of his support for abortion and infanticide, but in the UCC a woman’s right to kill her children is part of the creed, perhaps the only article of faith (apart from support for “Gay” “marriage”) from which no dissent is permitted. When the UCC says “God is still speaking,” they do not bother to explain why their “God” has been contradicting himself so much. I used to think black people had more sense than to put any stock in the post-Christian conventicles that joined together in the great anti-Church known as the United Church of Christ, but in joining the Middle Class upwardly mobile Blacks have apparently become as gullible as their white counterparts.
If membership in the UCC is the best argument Obama has for refuting the claim he is a Muslim, he would have to explain how the leader of the Nation of Islam came to speak at his “church.” But, I suppose, better Louis Farrakhan than Jeremiah Wright or Rick Warren. No, I do not think Barack Obama worships Allah or any other “god” he cannot see in his own mirror. In the solipsistic universe he makes up from speech to speech, press conference to press conference, there is no god but Barack and Obama is his prophet.
How did we ever reach the point where an Obama could be the presidential candidate of a major party? A political unknown in Illinois until the Republicans, in one of their frequent fits of self-destructive frenzy, decided to run Allan Keyes against Obama. That is how this Marxist nonentity entered the Senate, where he did nothing for a year or so and then decided that he was that any boy in America who could refuse to grow up and become president. And, although he made Hilary Clinton appear to be a conservative or at least a pragmatist, people still voted for him. Who are they?
I understand why blacks vote for a black candidate, though by the same token Germans should revere the memory of Adolf Hitler and Georgians would have a statue of Stalin in his home town. (Oops.) I can also understand why public school teachers, social workers, and other welfare-dependents vote for a politicians who will certainly increase their income and power. But setting aside race-loyalty, greed, and the libido dominandi, how could anyone else hold his nose long enough to vote for anyone who talks in that smarmy adenoidal voice? When Obama gets on his pulpit, it sounds almost like he is swallowing his words in a sea of phlegm. He does not so much speak as (to quote what Alexander Wolcott once said of a theater audience) strum his catarrh. His self-righteous public persona should grate on the sensibilities of normal people--like nails on a chalkboard or the voice of Mariah Carey. And yet, some otherwise normal people voted for him in the primaries and will vote for him again in the general election. Why or rather how?
A few months ago I had a white driver in Texas, who was an enthusiastic supporter of Obama. When I politely asked him why, he explained, anyone will be better than Bush. That is not an easy argument to refute—except in the case of Obama and McCain. The one great comfort of this campaign is that we know the outcome: Whoever wins will turn out to be the worst president in American history. What I wanted to ask him, though, was how could a working white guy vote for a man who so obviously hates him and his people. The driver was, admittedly, not one of those gun-toting religious bigots Obama is so afraid of, but an Obama administration, backed by a Democratic Congress, will certainly do everything possible to enhance the opportunities of everyone who is not white while forcing white taxpayers—and, let us be honest, we do pay most of the taxes because we have most of the money—to fund what might be described as Operation White Out.
Here is an allegedly true story going round the Internet. “Overheard in New York City:
Thug #1: Yo, I can't wait for Obama to win the election, yo! He gonna make white people illegal!
Thug #2 (stopping dead in his tracks): You one ignorant m-f, ain't you?”
The first thug, though something of a dreamer, does at least reflect something of the hopes that are entertained in the event of an Obama victory.
The racial logic of the Obama campaign is far from new; it is as old as Affirmative Action programs that ask white parents to take privileges away from their own children to give special assistance to the children of strangers, so long as the strangers belong to a different race. It is one thing to argue that we should practice charity toward the poor or even that we should be selectively more charitable, for one reason or another, to this or that group of poor people, but quite another to ask me to put the needs of my own children—along with those of my nieces and nephews, grandchildren and cousins, neighbors and friends—behind the needs of other people. However you describe Affirmative Action and minority set-asides, they represent a deliberate and systematic policy of discrimination against people like me in favor of people not like me simply because they are not like me. Such disgusting and immoral policies are worse than any form of racism I have encountered because they teach us to hate precisely those whom we are most supposed to love.
An electorate that accepted the Affirmative Action policies imposed on it by the political class had already made a national suicide pact. American Whites simply cannot wait to be marginalized, and in the media they are already reserving places in the internment camps—for you and me and also for them. One of the big news stories this summer was the revised date by which the Whites will be a minority in the United States. News readers and columnists could barely contain their glee and actually took some time off from extolling Obama. On ABC Charley Gibson and the gang were like small children at a birthday party, unable to decide which to eat first—the cake or the ice cream. Oh boy, you could hear their minds turning over, “We’re going to be aliens in our own country.”
At this point, ordinarily, I would say something about the problem of white backlash being worse than the anti-white racism of Obama. But there is no backlash to speak or complain about. Bubba has got better things to worry about than his second-class status. There's the new truck, American Idol, and, if he is really ambitious, a meth lab. I expected, at least, to see NOBAMA signs—a GOP effort whose creators insist is not racist-- cropping up around town, but I have yet to see even one. When I made my first Nobama joke, even before Nobama.com was put up, it was greeted with unease or rather dis-ease, since we are all dying of a surfeit of sensitivity. It may hardly matter at this point who wins the election, because America is already an Obama-Nation (this pun courtesy of the “Christian” “Right”).
Yes, I know. Describing the Obama campaign as an expression of anti-White racism proves I am a bigot. Somebody, call the Southern Poverty Law Center so they can advance me in their rankings. Bigotry these days has nothing to do with the way you treat people or even with what you actually say. Bigotry is what they say you are thinking when the play your speech backward at half speed. As I have said long ago and many times, we have only two choices in America: The first is a society that is legally color-blind, that is, a political and judicial system that does not discriminate on the basis of race though it cannot, on the other hand, prevent people from following their personal whims in private life. This is what I have always advocated, and it may be one of many possible dreams arising from the classical liberal fantasy that must be dear to the hearts of Americans. The other choice is a society that discriminates on the basis of race. If that is the choice--and it is in fact the choice Obama is forcing on us--we are in something of a bind.
The Obamanation is a racist nation that will leave white Americans few honorable options. They can, of course, emigrate, an option that gets more attractive every day. If they stay, they will have to resist the temptation to turn liberal and sign on to the suicide pact. If they refuse to sell out, all too many will lose their souls in a poisonous hatred that may drag them down as low as Barack Obama and Jeremiah Wright. In resisting the campaign to "make white people illegal," as every sensible person of any color should, we should not make the mistake of blaming black people for the suicide we continue to inflict on ourselves. We white males are the problem, not blacks, women, homosexuals, or Mexicans. We--at least the liberal part of "we"-- turned away from our religion and our civilization; we made war on property and marriage; we rejected Haydn and Sophocles in favor of John Cage and Kate Chopin. We have emasculated ourselves, pithed our brains, destroyed our vision and hearing, and now, all that is left, is to vote for a candidate whose rhetoric at least is telling us to fling our worthless carcasses off the cliff. I blush even to hint at this but John McCain is now the only alternative to suicide.
98 Responses »
Trackbacks
- Politeuma · Obamanation of Desolation
- Conservative Heritage Times » Thomas Fleming Tells it Like it Is About Obama!
- Beska droppar » I valet och kvalet
- Abortion and Riverboat Gambling « Floyd’s
- Barely A Blog » ‘The Obamanation of Desolation’
Entries(RSS)
Dr. Fleming,
If I can voice a somewhat dissenting opinion that will likely elicit a volume of objections, I think you overstate the significance of affirmative action. While I think your characterization of the conflict associated with (harming my fellows in favor of strangers) is hard to argue with, AA is relatively narrow in its impact, I think; essentially affecting professionals and academics. The reality is, there simply aren't that many candidates among the favored minorities, blacks and Latinos, to take those jobs.
I think of much more harm to Middle American households have been the plutocratic, "free trade" and antiunion policies fomented by the GOP over the past 40 years combined with immigration. The decline of union representation in private industry (and its rise in the public sector) have seen a stagnation and even decline of household income along with an increase in public sector employment. It has also seen the rapid decline of our manufacturing base. The full impact of these dynamics is masked by military enlistment (the armed forces taking the place of the assembly line for rural and "working class" young people.)
While doubtless my favorable statement of unions will not be popular here, the reality is they have been, on balance, a conservative social force throughout history; predominantly consisting of ethnic whites, committed to family, church, home, etc. It is the "creative destruction" of capitalism and the antiunion, corporatist policies of the GOP (aided by some elements of the Democratic Party) that is more responsible for the ills we see in the decline of families and communities (particularly in your part of the country.) The decline of the industrial midwest has tracked the decline of unionism in those areas.
All institutions have failings, of course. But I think we fall into a trap similar to the phony pro-life advocacy of the GOP, when we allow Republicans and their "movement conservative" cohorts to use affirmative action as a distraction from their economic policies that are actually harmful to the majority of Americans.
The sheer sort of fanaticism surrounding Obama ought to give anyone pause. Obama himself, if elected, will be a gross incompetent -- a leaf in the windstorm of the "change" he continually babbles about. He is the perfectly fashioned Trojan horse with a smiling face whose election would trigger convulsive events at home and abroad likely before he is even sworn in. It will at least rival the unraveling brought on by the election of Lincoln in 1860.
But I would not expect Obama to function as executive before long before the money behind him reduces him either to figurehead or pushes him out of the way -- as the Kerensky government was pushed aside and as the black shirts massacred the brown shirts. So it doesn't matter what Obaba says or thinks on any issue. He is a dot on a sharply descending graph. The only thing certain is that we will not be able to surf the tide of history he is fomenting, more than milliseconds. Surer, darker hands will be necessary.
Funny thing, Obama & McCain agree on this nonsensical Georgia business already well analyzed on this website -- funny position for Mr. Absolute Pacifist & Presumptive Conciliator. He personally of course is just an absolute fraud. McCain, personally, is merely the corrupt modern equivilent of a Borgia pope. Both are avatars of a vast, arrogant unconcern of at least 3 generations running -- the so called "greatest generation" big government airheads propagandized since their teens, the solipsistic baby boomers who consider themselves rebels yet behave like an army of rats in a Skinner box, and the openly demented generations X,Y etc deadened by lack of education & sado-masochistic mass entertainments.
TJF's haunting questions are how did we come this far, ie, when was the point of no return? My 2 cents is bet on the point of time that Earl Warren was Chief Justice, and LBJ in the White House. The country might have survived either of them alone, but not the 2 together operating as a tag team. The public -- even learned people -- still have virtually no idea of the virtually irreparable constitutional damage done in that era -- i.e. the invention of entitlement theory (now enshrined in amendment 14 & not mere legislation), mandatory benefits for aliens, the destruction of adoption by "natural parents' rights" (Obama laughably says adoption can be revived to court the religiously befuddled), lunatic restrictions on law enforcement, the Balkinization of America by reverse racism & etc etc. Not to speak of Roe v. Wade, the most arrogantly incoherent decision ever handed down, whatever else one may think of it. The indoctrination in the schools then long in force (50 years) & the destruction of the commerce clause (30 years at that time) & much else then linked up.
But for all that, could any of this have occurred if the public had not acted as willing sheep?
Maybe the problem was earlier, more cultural than legal in its genesis.
Probably it wasn't a very good idea to erect Mount Rushmore.
Once again, I would point out that I am merely explaining the immoral logic of affirmative action against the broad backdrop of Western self-hatred. This logic, which teaches us to hate ourselves as ourselves, is even more destructive than the admittedly devastating forces you have outlined. We do not disagree on this. On the economic point, you are of course perfectly right in that the American middle class has been able, for the most part to protect itself from civil rights and affirmative action--though it has left the bubbas and Joe Six-Packs to twist in the wind. But it would be better to be poor and proud than rich, deracinated and filled with self-loathing as so many of our younger people are.
In the past,white liberals could always run off to Vermont or Oregon and preserve a love for diversity in the least diverse places.This is now a doubtful option in the face of unrestrained Third World immigration,multiculturalism(except European),higher"brown"birthrates,etc.I doubt the white minority of 2042 will be a liberal,peaceful group of folks and then who knows?There simply is no competent American military or police force conceivable to me if whites decide the government is the oppressor and walk out(much as blacks are currently opting out from our "volunteer" military).At least I don't plan on being a liberal peaceful old man in 2042.Sadly,I concluded about ten years ago as the US went after Serbia that the "West" or Christendom or Europe(meaning Russia too)has a great enemy in the US as it is and will be.But the US is on the way out...as the comical stooge in Tblisi just found out.Obama/McCain will just further along the decline and continue alienating the world away from us.And that's probably good for the world.The Obama spectacle in Berlin will only increase this alienation when he turns out to be Pepsi instead of Coke.
It is only my opinion, but for whites to awaken to the danger of dispossession of their country, there are two possibilities: I believe a severe economic depression with resulting debilitating unemployment will compel the expulsion of alien groups. Secondly, a mind-set reversion away from materialistic desires and back to one's offspring and their uncertain future in a minority white America. When it becomes not "all about me" but about my progeny, things will change remarkably.
I want to commend TJF for his wonderful little essays - I genuinely enjoyed reading your posts.
Someone mentioned the role of environmentalists in preserving (conserving) natural spaces. I think the only effective argument young people will heed regarding immigration is an environmental one, whatever its metaphysical merit. It is unrealistic to expect college-aged kids to have much racial or ethnic consciousness; these are insights one learns with time and experience. Y must follow X over and over before one learns, for example, that culture and ethnicity are not fully divisible. The stock neocon argument that only "values" matter is very attractive as it appeals to our better color-blind qualities. Let's be honest: it's an argument must of us have un-learned, as it has become a kind of national mantra.
But the link between conservation and conservatism, especially if one is not too overtly political, can have resonance. The back-to-nature crowd is in some important respects quite conservative. It is the neocon revolution that has turned conservatism into a Wall Street phenomenon of cheap, disposable goods and culture. There must be a way to tap into that dissatisfaction with pre-fabricated modernity that leads the young to a fascination with urban scum because they are - and the kids have a point - more "real." Environmental conservation is an argument we can exploit to explain the effects of mass migration while also subtly giving kids the habit of preservation. The fact remains that only European people have ever given a damn about the effects of environmental degradation, the morality surrounding mass animal slaughterhouses, clean air and all the rest. It was a huge mistake to concede this legitimate aspect of the human condition to the Left.
“Environmentalists and conservatives are both in search of the motive that will defend a shared but threatened legacy from predation by its current trustees.” - Roger Scruton, Political Philosophy: Arguments for Conservatism.
Dr.Fleming,
Courage these days has more to do with endurance than attacking, but of all the living stones I know or read, you have more of both than anyone else. If Diogenes were still searching the dark streets of the world for one honest man, I would recommend he take his lantern to some of the shady, quiet bars in Rockford and ask for a gertleman named Tom. rr
I know that many Catholics today believe that their Church teaches and has always taught that national and ethnic groups are insignificant and that all Christians have a universal obligation to help equally all people everywhere. Therefore, no country can pass and enforce immigration and trade restrictions or conduct wars that protect and benefit its citizens as opposed to all mankind. This is, quite simply, a grotesque misreading of Catholic/Christian doctrine.
This is no place to go into a lengthy and complicated discussion of this point, but a few simple observations are in order. In the Old Testament, we are given the story of Babel as a warning against human presumption. Babel is figuratively an attempt at a multi-cultural empire and it falls apart because of its diversity. We are also told the story of a peculiar people whose special relationship to God requires them to defend their way of life against others. In the NT, Christ and the Apostles do teach us that the distinctions between Jews and Samaritans, Greeks and Jews are insignificant in spiritual and religious terms, but they say nothing about the amalgamation of all nations and responsibilities. in the Scriptures and in the writings of the early Church, Christians are told repeatedly to carry out the ordinary obligations of everyday life--the duties of spouses, parents and children, slaves and masters, and citizens. Even the gentiles do these things, we are told, which makes it even more incumbent upon Christians to fulfill such obligations.
The fact is that in a flawed world, we must defend ourselves, our families, our neighbors, and our fellow-citizens from those who would prey upon them, whether the enemies are domestic criminals or foreign invaders. When distinctions, no matter how arbitrarily arrived at, are made, we have a duty to make sure that they are not used to cut against interests of our people as opposed to their people. In the color-blind world of liberal theory, there would be no special programs privileging people of one color over another and people like Jeremiah Wright and Al Sharpton would not be given a public forum. But when a movement has been created to marginalize and extinguish the group you happen to belong to, you are justified in protecting your own interests and in refusing to sign on to a suicide pact.
The Catholic universalism that Tradcat invokes is a product of the anti-Christian Enlightenment that borrows Christian phrases and puts them to decidedly non-Christian uses. A good example is the pseudo-Catholic support for the welfare state, which invokes the Christian language of charity as a justification for imposing Marxist policies.
The choice that we face today is not between sentimental universalism, whether in its anti-Christian Marxist or pseudo-Christian form, and racialism, but between the historic Christian view, demanding justice and charity to strangers but also requiring us to fulfill our particular duties to family, friends, and fellow citizens, and two nasty ideologies created in the Enlightenment, universalism and racial nationalism. One does not have to be a Marxist to practice charity--quite the contrary-and one does not have to be an anti-Christian bigot to protect one's children.
What we all must remember is that voting for Obama confers the psychological equivalent of absolution. This is the great opportunity for all the liberals, guilt laden with their sins and those of their ancestors, to walk away from the "confessional" with their sins forgiven. They can now "feel good about themselves" and at one with the universe. It is a powerful incentive to vote for the "deserving black fellow." Besides, even though he is an incompetant, "we can provide the direction to make sure he succeeds" they'll say top themselves.
David writes:
"What we all must remember is that voting for Obama confers the psychological equivalent of absolution. This is the great opportunity for all the liberals, guilt laden with their sins and those of their ancestors, to walk away from the “confessional” with their sins forgiven. They can now “feel good about themselves” and at one with the universe."
No David, what we all must remember is that you know absolutely nothing about sinning, nothing about Justice and nothing about mercy. Grace is an awful, humiliating and good thing. Voting Obama is an awful, prideful, arrogant and damnable thing.
Ah, Robert, I quite agree with your understanding of Grace, but you have completely misunderstood my post. You have taken it literally as a position I embrace, rather than as a comment on how it seems to those of the liberal persuasion who, generally, without God, have no means of obtaining forgiveness. So they obtain that "forgiveness" by the vote they cast. They obtain, as I said, the equivalent of absolution and forgiveness. Of course, that has nothing to do with we understand by these terms!
David,
My apology. I agree entirely with your explanation. I am too sensitive about The Church and should let more slide, especially among friends at Chronicles. Thanks for having the guts to respond and for correcting my presumption. A lifetime of trying to understand and then defend the tradition is a thankless task in most situations but not here, but I sometimes get carried away. With My Respect, Robert
The choice that we face today is not between sentimental universalism, whether in its anti-Christian Marxist or pseudo-Christian form, and racialism, but between the historic Christian view, demanding justice and charity to strangers but also requiring us to fulfill our particular duties to family, friends, and fellow citizens, and two nasty ideologies created in the Enlightenment, universalism and racial nationalism. One does not have to be a Marxist to practice charity–quite the contrary-and one does not have to be an anti-Christian bigot to protect one’s children.
Well said, Dr. Fleming, well said.
The voters of Obamanation, I believe based on those of them I know ages 17 to 87, are motivated much much more by white self-loathing as TJF correctly nailed, and less by "guilt" -- but more than either by a sort of weird vicarious ecstasy. Guilt was something for the so-called great generation & more conservative boomers. The white self-loathing truly takes fire in the 60s & accelerates since then, & the gen x, y etc seems entirely motivated by it and not to comprehend guilt in any form, other than something which may cause you to lose self-esteem & is therefore to be avoided. Self-esteem as a be-all end-all creates a giant crater at the center of self to be constantly filled by tv screens, computer screens, earphones, "myspace," facebook friends," ipods etc etc
lso besides white self-loathing there is another sort of loathing at large these days too, aimed at the whole human race (as distinguished from the great god Me). It can usually be found on the same chromosone strand which causes people to endlessly babble about "the planet." I have professionally had occasion to take some of the purveyors of this kind of thinking on, and if you do so it is usually important to park your car blocks away from your business with them lest you find its windows shattered after. Loathing for real and/or personal property of planetary parasites (other human beings) goes hand & hand with the other fore-mentioned chromosomes.
Do the presumptive voters/members of Obamanation seek "forgiveness"? In what comprehenible sense of the term? They don't recognize sin, I don't believe, even metaphorically -- "that's your vocabulary" would be their reaction. What they seek is HEALING by extinquishing self-identity into the kinda warm kinda BIG kinda cool mass ecstasy and dissolution of personal boundaries of Obamanation, already massively underway in the sheer plethora of media they are constantly absorbing with its attendant vicarious living & attention to mass trends.
You might say they love Big Brother, but actually its a kind of cult of personality beyond any particular person or personality, more the breakdown of personality as well exhibited in Obama's two striptease auto-biographies. This is a personality in such a state of dissolution that it makes their last big fantasy fulfilment object, Clinton, look sound & sane. The Obamaman now fulfills their fantasies in turn, tickles them as in his present Veep silence despite decision already reached (OMAMA HAS ALREADY DECIDED ON VP) today's headlines portentiously state, even as he prolongs the foreplay by silence -- yet promises (wink) that this ecstatic fulfilment will be first delivered by TEXT-MESSAGING (Massaging?) I'M I JUST LIKE YOU the believer hears in the privileged realm of his or her (or his/hers?) personalized OBAMA vicarious climax. Someday people may remember that like they remember where they were at Pearl Harbor, the JFK assassination, 911, etc (I WAS ON CAMPUS AT ----- I WAS STANDING UNDER A TREE AT ----- AND AND AND --)
Metrosexual Obama is part invention of the metrosexual test model Howard Dean, new and improved, with the bi-racial element Dean lacked even spicier with dashes of Hawaii & Islam in the brew, plus genuine high powered live jive "oratorical" self-repetition which has been his whole campaign -- 80% up to now in high school gymnasiums & college campuses where our ever more babyish "youth" population is both susceptible biologically tio such subliminal eroticization, plus even less sexually or otherwise differentiated for their age than any generation anywhere else in history. Go to a photo sharing site such as Flickr & run a word search on obama, obamarally etc & look long and hard at what you are seeing.
These pathetic youth are not that far removed from the dudes who shoot up Columbine & Virginia tech etc, just cooler. Their rage at the entire history of civilization (under attack in American schools for the better part of a century now) is more, shall we say, channeled -- plus rallies in Obamanation are also a cool place to "hook-up" with whoever (or whatever) one feels the urge for at the moment.
Obamanation is our very own Americanized diversified politicized & ambiguously sexualized substitute for Nuremberg on the scale (at present) of a thousand mini-Woodstocks. The point being, we can't define them by "guilt" -- a word not only absent from their vocabulary but from their entire life experience, hard as it is for some of us to imagine. Real laugh is this -- these numbskulls are the only ones who REALLY BELIEVE in the power & inevitability of democratization as practiced at gunpoint by USA these days as a matter of Mainest Destiny Super-sized. Not even the cynical neocons or hapless Iraquis so believe, but Obamanation does and is set -- to borrow new age/Star Trek lingo -- " to make it so."
(( The national situation, while certainly not good, isn’t anywhere near as bad as it has been. If you’re old enough, you may perhaps remember the late 70s/early 80s, where there was real fear, and in intelligent circles to boot, that the US would either be invaded and occupied by Soviet troops or be devastated by a nuclear war. ))
I hope that you're right. However, I was working on Capitol Hill in the 1980s and don't recall anyone I knew worrying about a Soviet invasion. I enjoyed the film "Red Dawn" as much as the next person, but the only real danger we faced from the USSR was nuclear incineration -- which was no small thing, of course.
In America today, our industrial base has been dismantled: we no longer create very much apart from war and paperwork. Our culture has been all but destroyed by corporatism and political correctness. Our Constitutional system has been turned on its head. Our population is being rapidly and forcibly replaced by tax-subsidized immigrants from incompatible, poverty-stricken, disease-ridden third-world cesspools. Our middle class lives in terror that the coddled rajahs of top management will outsource their jobs and throw them into poverty. Our federal government owes trillions of dollars beyond its ability to repay, and we no longer have a way to produce our way out of the hole we're in.
Obama is a roll of the dice. We know what we'd get with McCain: "more of the same," leading to bankruptcy and dictatorship. We aren't sure what we'd get with Obama. It's unlikely to be good, but if it's radical in some way (good or bad), it might be enough of a shock to re-start America's heart. That's what might save us: a bucket of ice-cold water right in the face. If it woke up enough people, we'd have a chance.
I'm thinking that we will see a meltdown in much the same way as the Soviet Union went. Or at least we'd better hope so.
Look for peaceful protests on the model the sixties, the Berlin Wall and the Orange revolutions. That's the mindset of the X and Y types and their ex-hippie mentors. It will come as a result of poverty and hunger caused by job outsourcing and increased socialism and the increasing violence caused by lack of law and order. If Obama is president, look for some kind of white reaction as the young realise they are being played on with an evil guilt trip. They really are cynical enough to catch it, because cynicism is their one and only trait which may be healthy given the right circumstances.
If social and political meltdown comes under Obama, would he have the guts to massacre protesters in the streets? If so, look for all out Bosnia-type violence in the bigger cities and an exodus of minorities from the countryside as they begin to fear the whites they once disdained, as civil war threatens or happens, perhaps a military coup.
A more peaceful Soviet style collapse would be far preferable, but with the mindset of the young, it would devolve into social chaos, with the mentalities of nihilism, radical environmentalism, etc., running wild and violent until these cowards who think they are God are put in their place by armed people no longer too afraid of the legal system to kill in self defence and in the interest of civic order.
It will take severe poverty and suffering to wake up the propagandised X and Y types so they can break free for the evil they have been indoctrinated into. That's what lies ahead for them.
The next to the last sentence from should say: 'so the can break free from the evil they have been indoctrinated into'.
So many people believe that Obama will somehow usher in a new age. Even conservatives who should know better, think that he will be so bad that he will shock Americans out of their torpor. That will not happen. Americans will not be shocked into consciousness, they will be numbed and ennervated. They will be conditioned to accept radical changes and eventually embrace them. The radical satanic agenda will explode into a frenzied vortex in their mind. It will be too much to grasp, too much to resist or even understand. Society will spin apart under the centrifugal forces of cultural Marxism. Simultaneously, a police state will be "required" to effect the necessary restructuring of society, to equalize the inequalities, to punish those who resist.
I would like to share just this one sobering thought so that I, hopefully, don't have to hear this stupid statement ("I am voting for the lesser of two evils.") again.
Voting for the lesser of two evils, spread over a lifetime, is what got us into this mess. Whether it's too late or not perhaps you members of the "lesser of two evils" crowd should break down and vote for the right person instead of the lesser of two evils. Who klnows, it just may be a trend that will catch fire. I, for one, will continue to vote for the right person, period.
And that is why I will vote for Chuck Baldwin.
In addition, when the lame statement that we are to blame for where we are at is brought up in conversation in the future, polite or otherwise, I will plainly speak up and say "Do not include me in that statement. I have always voted for the best choice and never for the lesser of two evils." As one who has been fighting the good fight all his life, I resent being included with the "lesser of two evils" crowd.
And just for the record, I would tell anyone who says that "Obama is better than Bush" that Obama is not running against Bush. Only mindless parrots repeat such inane statements. I would also point out to that mental lightweight that I did not vote for Bush but that does not mean I would do something equally stupid and vote for Obama.
(I am constantly amazed at the lack of consistency of logic in most people's statements and actions. Hypocracy, intentional and otherwise, abounds to no end among the sheeple of this country. That is precisely why the founding fathers gave us a Republic with the Constitution we had that was supposed to bind us so we would not commit socitial and political suicide. Some are managing to hold that kool aid party anyway.)
I have learned to laugh at myself. As I read my previous post I see slips of my own wording that would certainly group me with the irrational crown.
I should have said that I did not vote for Bush, but I would not do something equally stupid as voting for Bush such as voting for Obama.
Humor is a helpful tool that keeps us living longer than we would if we did not laugh a lot, even if it means laughing at ourselves.
@#71
Dan,
you write:
But we can't know the future.
What we do know is that a McCain presidency won't be much different. The only significant difference between the twins is that one's perceived as "leftist" (black, Democrat, liberal, etc.) and one isn't.
With McCain we'll get amnesty, and there'll be little reaction because he's "of the right". And make no mistake, McCain will get along with the liberal Dems to pass amnesty. There won't be in fighting. And McCain will energise a "left wing" reaction against him for 2012.
---
Do you remember the Clinton years? Surely they were better than the Dubya years. McCain v. Obama is a choice between Dubya and Clinton.
Obama offers hope for a reaction. You write that "It will be too much to grasp, too much to resist or even understand." but it requires such unpleasantness to stoke a reaction. Heat the pot slowly, and the frog won't hop out - you can boil him alive.
Not to say I'm voting for Obama, but by my voting for Chuck Baldwin I might as well be voting for Obama.
We're going to get a terrible president in 2008, and there isn't a peso's worth of difference between the two candidates. The only question is whether the terrible president will be of the "conservative team" or of the "liberal team". Whom will be blamed?
@#74
Frank,
I know they will not be shocked, because that is not how people are reacting. There will be no rising, there will most likely be sullen withdrawal.
I take the excellent example of Massachusetts, which has recently elected Deval Patrick, a man that approximates Obama in more than physical similarity. His administration has been uniformly hard left and it has been an unmitigated joke. His leftist policies have alienated most of the electorate, but the media and intellectuals work feverishly to hide every failing, stifle any voice of critique or concern. In the national media there has been an almost complete blackout of the malaise.
For their part, the people of Massachusetts have simply withdrawn in disgust and confusion. Even in Massachusetts, the people are against sodomite marriage, but the legislature simply quashed the people's attempt to put the issue to a vote. The legislature's contempt for the people met no response. However, it should be noted that Obama lost Massachusetts in the primaries and is almost tied with McCain among the general public.
Perhaps Obama would sharply antagonize the American people enough for them to turn against his hard left program. But what do they have to turn to? Who is there to provide an alternative that the media would allow for them to know about? Or, in the alternative, instead of antagonizing them enough for them to turn against liberalism, could his presidency have a dialectical effect, his liberalism being so extreme that it makes standard leftism seem reasonable/centrist in comparison?
I will also be voting for Chuck Baldwin. The lesser evil always wins anyway and hence doesn't need my vote. Did anyone ever advocate or admit to voting for the greater evil? Thanks to lesser evil voting we have an abortion regime in power for a generation and it was placed and is maintained in power at least partly by the almost unanimous vote of "pro-lifers". Now we have a militarist regime in power which actually gets credit with a large part of the electorate the more Americans it gets killed in wars and by terrorists and even its supposed opponents feel the need to reassure the electorate that they will start new wars to make up for any they might wind down.
There's no certainty with politics - what you say is spot on.
With McCain there's a fairly certain leftist reaction, but with Obama there's a possible right wing reaction that may or may not lead to something better. Movements are easily taken over, so it'll just depend on who steps up to influence and lead any reactions.
Americans sure like to fuss about their President, and I wish Gore had won in 2000, Kerry 2004, and Obama 2008 just so that target would be "liberal". I dunno enough about Massachusetts, I've never even been there, but I suspect your governor will become vulnerable as the country as a whole changes with Obama's election. Presently we blame everything on the "right wing neocons", so the left is the great hope - there's little room to contemplate a man being too far left right now.
Policies aside, Obama likely hates whites more, but he's also vulnerable to such a charge, so his Presidency could be more right wing as a result of his defending against biases. Clinton's Presidency was relatively right wing due to the relatively right wing Congress energising in opposition to him.
---
The internet is a source of media that isn't yet fully controlled.
Dan,
#78 was in reply to you.
Kirt Higdon,
glad to hear you're voting Baldwin, though I've given up on abortion. I can't bear to think about that topic...
All we can do is ensure those we've a close duty to protect, ie. our immediate family, aren't aborted. Outside that, Americans must fend off the jackals on their own, just as the Iraqis have to fight off the neocons on their own. We can only do so much - that's at least how I've come to view things...
Frank,
Perhaps the case of Massachusetts under Deval Patrick can be covered in the next issue of Chronicles as a potential glimpse of things to come under an Obama administration. It is rather interesting that the first black governor's administration has been totally buried in the national press as the country prepares to weigh the election of its first black president. Don't be shocked when you find out why.
Judging from the coolness of Massachusetts Democrats to Obama's candidacy, one could say that his presidency would sour the majority of Americans towards black liberals or "liberals" in general. But it is most likely that he will further the hardest of hard left agendas as long as he can. Whatever damage he does, it won't be undone by any Republican successor. Rather, it is more likely that he will shift the entire political debate leftward. His radical agenda will be merely "liberal", the liberals of today will seem the centrists of tomorrow, and so on. This dialectic has been going on for decades. An Obama presidency would only accelerate it.
The Republicans are so corrupt and out of touch that they could not even annunciate a coherent alternative, to say nothing of an attempt to shift the debate "rightward". What terminology could they base a platform on? Democracy, equality, security (i.e. taking off your shoes at the airport)?
Times change though - you can't expect the trends of the last 50 years to continue. I'm very much an elitist, so I still have hope.
There are some positive cultural movements in Europe right now at least - I recently was shown an English (not Celtic!) band singing a song about the need for roots heh, and that to me is striking since the English are blamed for so much.
This about Deval Patrick sounds potent. I see he has his own Deval Patrick Watch site. Watch sites are usually only reserved for right wing patriots (e.g. Tancredo had one). So he must be ruffling some feathers.
I don't watch TV much anymore, so the fact that I've not heard of him shouldn't be thought part of a larger trend.
I recall in a political science class the definition of conservative being one who wishes to further progress more slowly and a liberal being one who wishes to go more quickly.
What I'm hoping is these revolutionaries will get what they've been dreaming of good and hard and jump to a new dream. That's not to say I think there's much difference between the twins, only that the perception will be different, and sadly that's largely all that matters in this age. So, it's not "worse is better" but "perceived worse is better". The mass media largely sets the perception though, so short of replacing those currently in power there the best alternative might be to focus on areas with more potential.
Conservatives tend to focus too much on politics and the national when culture and education are a hundred fold more important though. I don't want to get too far off on a tangent, but I think American reactionaries would play a better game of chess if they looked more honestly at the pieces on the board. Bush or McCain... there are other events taking place.
Writing from Iron Lake just south of Iron River, WI, I heartily agree with Frank's complaint about the short-sighted "conservative" emphasis on politics. I brought Dante along with me and, on my laptop, the Italian text of Villani's old history of Florence. His villains--often the same as Dante's--are so brilliantly bad and so virtuous in their loyalty to kith and kin--I prefer them to most of the pusillanimous good people of the past 100 years. These are people you could sink your teeth into--assuming they did not sink theirs into you. Dante puts Farinata in Hell, but cannot help paying tribute to his lofty character character even there.
Whatever good we can do in politics is generally negligible and always transitory. The Ghibellines were run out of Florence and they were followed by both factions of Guelphs leaving nobodies like the Medici to take over. Dante and Guido Cavalcanti, Giberti's doors and Masaccio's painting survive and continue to do some of us some good. The same might be said of lesser folks like the Confederate deserter Sam Clemens and Booth Tarkington. It is not that writers and artists and philosophers are better men or matter more, but they do for many what a good father and mother do for a few. Honor your parents, take care of your children, and cultivate your mind. Oh, and catch a few fish and drink a little whiskey along the way. When Obama came up at the dinner table last night, everyone begged to change the subject and go back to fish.
This is the best discussion on the Obama question I have yet read and Dr. Flemings cogent thoughts and interesting perspective on this looming threat is fascinating. I'm afraid there is no political solution for us at this time.
I was in the old Soviet Union on numerous occasions (from Moscow to Sakalin Island) while it was winding down. Some of the sights I saw were quite disturbing and the people totally demoralized. Once, while in Moscow, I was staying in the Metropol Hotel, just off of Red Square: inside all was as elegant and clean as ever, but outside all was gray and sad, the roads, even in Moscow, were full of large pot holes. Inside the Kremlin walls all seemed well. The Orthodox Church buildings in perfect condition (some irony there) and Lenin's statue was pondering things. The line to Lenins tomb had disappeared. It was an amazing time: the Soviet Union was exhausted, but Russia was about to be reborn. Spring was just around the corner.
What I'm wondering is, will something like this, in time, be the fate of America? We have more wealth, so it will likely take longer to appear; and we have more military might and capability, but as the Soviet Union found out, military might alone is not enough. There has to be a strong vibrant culture on the inside, strong families and equally strong communities that they can thrive in. This is our failure and was theirs, as I see it. Feminism has to be one of the largest elements of our eventual decline. It is a destroyer of marriage and families.
The readers of Chronicles are the remnant and we must be ready, when the time arrives, to step in and reclaim our communities, to reclaim our culture. We need to support Chronicles and its many fine editors and writers and, as Dr. Fleming recently urged in his latest fund raising letter, at least be willing to pay for the full cost of Chronicles.
Thank you Dr. Fleming and thanks to all the staff at Chronicles.
Cheers!
Dr. Fleming,
Thank you for your perspective. A political solution, especially a "conservative" one, will be fleeting. Conservatism in America is a compromising posture, not a defensible position. Our attentions are best focused on our families, and our souls.
I had read a blog post by Kevin Drum at the Washington Monthly before reading Dr. Fleming’s post on Obama in which Drum wonders if conservatives were starting to freak about at the possibility of Obama presidency. I hope that post wasn’t in response to what Dr. Fleming wrote.
We don’t really know what an Obama presidency will entail because Sen. Obama has not been very helpful in providing specifics. We can only guess and speculate. Certainly I would agree Obama’s presidency would be the pinnacle of multiculturalism, indeed a post-racial nation where figures like Obama and Tiger Woods, neither of whom are 100 percent black or 100 percent anything, become transcendent figures in our culture where one cannot focus on race because the lines have been blurred. No doubt this dovetails nicely with the whole “Citizen of the World” aspect to his presidency. It would be a stark juxtaposition to the Bush II presidency which no doubt many see as the pinnacle of white America. Indeed, if one wants to know what the effects of unlimited immigration from Mexico or any other third world nation to American culture will be, certainly one such effect will more and more mixed marriages and more a more mixed race children, Obama’s children one could call them. If traditional ethnic cultures were broken down after World War II because mixed marriages (Italians and Irish for example), now imagine the number of mixed race marriages after Obama gets elected.
It may very well be that Obama presidency for whites will mean more taxes to pay slave reparations and white U.S. soldiers dying in the arid wastes of Darfur. But tale of the tape with McCain is not encouraging either. McCain, along with his neocon advisers, plans on making war against a white, Christian Russia instead of making them allies. He plans on signing sweeping immigration reform that would make Obama’s “one-world” America society as much a reality as Obama’s election would. Four years ago, the argument was made that as bad as the choice between Kerry and Bush II at least we could comfort ourselves with the fact that Republicans were more in tune with the “normal people” of the country compared to the Democrats. After eight years of Bush II, I don’t think that argument holds water anymore. If you really want to know the difference between the two parties, think of the Democrats as the party of Eckhart Tolle "Brand New Earth" and the Republicans as the party of Rick Warren’s "Purpose Driven Life". And yet supposedly it’s the Libertarians and Constitutionalists who are on the fringe.
In fact, I would have thought conservatives would be praising Obama for slaying the dragon Clinton which they could not do themselves for the past 16 years. Unlike a lot of conservatives, I do not have a memory hole for 16 years worth of rhetoric decrying the Clintons as the modern-day Jacobins, which they were, on top of being called murders, drug dealers, thieves, fanatics and Satan-worshipers. In fact I have a book in my shelves entitled "The Non-Patriotic Presidency" by Janet Scott Barlow, I do believe a former contributing editor of Chronicles, which was published by The Rockford Institute. This book both lamented and attacked the legacy of the Clinton presidency. Given all that’s been said, whether true or untrue, I do not see why anyone would want them around again. Is Obama really that bad that we want The Big Creep, the mad bomber of Serbia and the Queen of the Harpies to occupy even the Vice-Presidential mansion? Looking at Obama’s career so far (and I would recommend reading Ryan Lizza piece about his early career in Chicago politics in the New Yorker) Obama strikes me not as agent for change so much as an ambitious pol looking to make his way in the world and who will do and say anything to get going. We’re seeing this already in the general election with the amount of flip-flops he’s made in order to make him appear more “centrist” and less like a radical reformer and the people he’s willing to deny like Rev. Wright as if he was St. Peter the night of Christ’s arrest. I think Obama himself realizes that the change he represents is more symbolic and cultural than political which is why he has no problem acting like a traditional politician. It’s a means to an end. The term “new politics” can mean changes in the way politicians campaign, but so long as politics deals with human frailties and vanities, there is simply no way one can have a “new politics” without a “new man” to engage in it. Attempts at that have failed miserably.
As Sam Francis pointed out, such Clinton-hating rhetoric gave conservatives an excuse not to think too deeply about their own contradictions and problems with their beliefs corresponding to the nation that actually voted for the Clintons. They simply became another enemy to demonize, another figure to raise money off of. Are we now planning the same strategy for Barak Obama or are we actually going to come up with better ideas, better policies and a different worldview for those who are going to be naturally opposed to Obamaism? Demonization of one’s opponents may make one feel better about themselves and may rake in the big bucks, but it does nothing to seriously threaten the person being demonized. An Obama hater is treading down the same fool’s gold path as Clinton haters and Reagan haters once did, telling us what they oppose more so that what they support. If Obama wins, the question will not be so much what he supports as who is going to oppose him? What different vision will be that to contrast to Obamaism? Will it be the neocon Pax Americana? Mike Huckabee’s Wal-Mart nation or the Ron Paul Revolution under the leadership of someone like Gary Johnson? Hopefully that’s going to be discussion in the early stages of a potential Obama presidency, not the lament of a white America which will be easily dismissed out of hand.
#53
The first paragraph is an irrelevant collection of straw men. It's not what THEY do, it's what those who collaborate with them because they are not affected personally or as a class do or don't do. Affirmative Action and all that it is shorthand for thrives on class division, you feed what you claim to deplore. One can only conclude that you think "Bubba" bears some special responsibility for the continued maintenance of such programs, since you mention no other group, and that if only he were more "manly" he would somehow bring the situation to an end, though how he might do that you fail to inform us. Vote Republican? He's done that for the last 25 years, and got nothing for it because, you see, the Republican leaders are of a class that . . . well I won't go over that again.
If you would have aimed your remarks at the population in general, well who can deny it, the problem is you have chosen to single out this one group and that the group you have chosen is probably the least responsible and most affected by the programs you abhor, and is probably the least influential group in this country and least able to do anything about it, short of violence. "There's the new truck, American Idol, and, if he is really ambitious, a meth lab" is a throwaway line that should have been thrown away.
I believe Mr. "Smith" has "contributed" similarly incoherent contributions in the past. He probably means well and may even have a point to make, although he does not make it.
We all have the temptation, after hastily scanning an editorial and misreading it, to respond with an intemperate screed. Few of us are innocent. But why do so few people not take a breath, for just three seconds, and wonder, "well, since I have nothing to say other than to express my unhappiness with the fact that other people do not agree with me, perhaps I should remain silent."
I have just been discussing with a good friend who is a racial nationalist (with whose opinions I often disagree as friends do) why it is that so many of these people behave so badly. He had no answer except to observe that the racialist movement is filled with third-rate losers who have trouble getting along in normal life. Probably Mr. Smith does not fall into this category, but his unfortunate utterances suggest the opposite. The question on the table is how to respond to a moral, social, cultural, and spiritual crisis that has been building for some centuries. The decent redneck population has been corrupted as much as the rest of America. The only point to the reference was to note that these poor helpless victims, whose parents and grandparents might once have been part of the solution, are now, alas, part of the problem. To deny that most obvious fact of modern life is, well, delusional.
" The decent redneck population has been corrupted as much as the rest of America."
Sad but true. As Belloc once noticed, " Lawyers and experts can be formed in one generation to break the strong back of the independent agrarian class but it takes at least three generations for a culture to develope real farmers and husbands."
In my view, it's unduly hyperbolic to say that David Duke is "comparatively mild" as compared to the loudmouth Jeremiah Wright. David Duke associates with people who, to say no more, have fond memories of Nazism. Such people are either deluded or contemptible. Even if Pastor Wright really hates whites, at least he doesn't condone killing them. Anyone with Nazi sympathies, by contrast, does implicitly condone widespread murder. Jeremiah Wright is an idiot, but David Duke is a dangerous fanatic.
David Duke has had a checkered career, as klansma, alleged FBI informant, and pal of Neonazis. Publicly, however, Duke in his political career has generally called for an end to anti-White racist policies. He is certainly a silly person and, I am told, less than perfectly reliable. He does not pretend to be a Christian minister, however, nor does he damn his country in explicit terms or even blame black people for everything that has gone wrong. Duke has said publicly what a majority of Whites believed in the 1940's and 50's, though, admittedly, he has injected a certain amount of pseudo-scientific racism and historical revisionism. Wright is a uni-dimensional person, a prophet of race hatred, who puts the new poison of bigotry into bottles with Christian labels. It is poor Duke who is merely a goofball. Wright is a would-be John Brown.
'The question on the table is how to respond to a moral, social, cultural, and spiritual crisis that has been building for some centuries.'
Dr Fleming: Perhaps we would all benefit from some kind of study and discussion of this topic. At some point in the future, when you have the time and inclination, would this be a possibility?
To Allen Wilson: I have, under your inspiration, begun a discussion on the most recent column.
TJF: "Wright is a would-be John Brown." Really surprised at the analogy. Brown, regardless of methods, had a noble cause: freedom from slavery which was in the cards. Wright has no cause; blacks today have opportunity and a govt breaks; they or rather a significant percentage has failed as Sowell has pointed because of culture; not because of the evils of some dominant race. So, I suggest you rethink your analogy.
First time person and it is pleasure to read this; it does stimulate useful thinking which is rare in our society
I've never heard of, or read any of your material before, but I sure as Obama is God will now!
Buck
The nation is lost. I suggest learning Russian, Chinese, or Spanish and go abroad. Actually, Uruguay seems pretty nice in climate, no hurricanes, good beaches, European flavor as well. Nothing can be done, short of White Chrisitian males taking off the yoke of their faith and getting that ass kicking pagan spirit back. Christians are a pathetic lot anymore. In a way I am glad it is dying a slow death.