Obama's faith community is particularistic, racial and organized around anti-caucasianism, and he can't 'disown' that. Therefore he can't reasonably be presented as universal, non-racial nor 'transcendent' of racial hatred. The left-friendly media and other leading elements are holding to a code of silence on this and more.
Obama takes the side of the black man's freedom-for-aggression, as shown most recently in his Jena comments, as here: Obama on the Jena 6 . When one automatically takes the side of the subhuman aggressors, trying to liberate them and make excuses for them, this is the main part of what it means to be on the left. That it is racial is no surprise, that it involves and profits from codes of silence should be no surprise, nor that it effortlessly shifts into alliance or sympathy with terrorists, as shown here:
"Consider his ties to indicted Rezko, Kenyan Islamist ally Odinga, Iraqi Auchi, the Black Panther Party, the seditious La Raza, Farrakhan, and Barack's spiritual mentor, hate Pastor Wright, his presence on FARC's hard drive ....and then this.
TALK SHOW HOST REVEALS OBAMA CONNECTION TO TERRORISTS"
With the above associations and sympathies, even having been politically advanced by the terrorists Ayers and Dohrn, how can the national security operations reasonably be entrusted to him?
To return to the kind of religion which Obama can't 'disown', the inspirer of his 'inspiration', Mr. Cone said:
"White religionists are not capable of perceiving the blackness of God because their satanic whiteness is a denial of the very existence of divinity. " [This example found at Discriminations]
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Are you saying Blacks are not humans JSB?
No, that some are subhuman, criminals beyond a threshold, and that the 'authentic' black loyalty appears to be interpreted by many, such as Obama, is to be for the aggressor. This is driven by the low relative IQ, such that the greater chance for prestige is for freedom-for-aggression on the street level to receive loyalty. These are population-genetic constants, which politicians seeking street credibility ignore at their peril.
Yes, I see that now:
When one automatically takes the side of the subhuman aggressors, trying to liberate them and make excuses for them, this is the main part of what it means to be on the left.
But still, I think the worst criminals should be described as human, possibly all-too human.
At this point, we seem to be at a question of faith. Holding to rational interpretation, though, if there are not some considerable number of subhumans among the criminals, and especially the violent ones, the treatment they get, would also be legitimate for response to anyone. In that case, it would be a matter of indifference whether Obama or Stalin were in charge of the government.
I have no problem describing some criminals as subhuman
And you can call me racist all day long for doing so and it wont bother me a bit. Some of the offenders are white, hispanic, and black. I feel no sympathy for example for the group of young men (two blacks one white if I remember correctly) that murdered an Iraqi veteran at a Nashville ATM. They asked for his card, and he said no..............they just shot him right in the face and murdered him. They didn't even get to use his card or get any money. Subhuman...............in my eyes they were, at least in that moment, they descended to acting like our primate ancestors and not like human beings in the 21st century. This definitely includes the white guy.
I've eliminated 'reflexively', so that it now says, Obama takes the side, rather than reflexively takes the side. This way there is less excuse for reading it as blacks being controlled by instincts, reflexes and suchlike.
Post a Comment