The fatuous nonsense that radiates daily from a regime in crises is a verifiable datum, a diffraction pattern, allowing us to assess a foreign policy based not on facts but immutable multicultural myths. Thus, to challenge them is to challenge a regime of a regnant priesthood. The still fawning media has failed to do any substantial reporting on the murder of our ambassador and three former Navy Seals and its subsequent cover up and deceitful obfuscation behind the veil of a you-tube video. The media has been served up a savory scandal much more egregious than Watergate, but refuse to partake of the meal for fear of harming the embattled Holy See. Americans interested in the failure of Obama’s foreign policy, myself included, have been forced to track down decent reporting in the foreign press.
Obama is the pontifical saint of a crusade against reality and empiricism promising fast progression towards a vacuous multicultural absurdity that is in effect a march towards the societal dustbin. His worldview is the result of a highly choreographed mythology of history. Edward Said and Rashid Khalidi, both marginally anti-Semitic, both marginally intelligent, both mentors of Obama, are the archetypal academic Cardinals who administered a regimented catechism to an Obama to be formally frocked. Upon ordination, our president spent too many an hour in the faculty lounge, where, it must be stated, he was unable to muster the necessary intellectual battery to pen even one meaningful academic essay in a reviewed Journal. This is not entirely against his credit. The academy is best left to the academicians. But it is certainly a state of affairs that begs us to question whether Obama can forcefully argue any intellectual topic, or, for that matter, understand them. No one but Obama acolytes were surprised by his recent debate performance, where the man exerted and taxed his intellect in bedraggled and exasperated temperament to advance a coherent point on more terrestrial concerns like basic economic theory, a topic in which he can be assessed the lowest of marks, leading the more comedic among us to wonder whether Obama refuses to release his academic records because lurking somewhere in the bowels of the university archives there exists a bill charged the university patrons for the installation of teleprompters in his lecture halls.
That will do, I suppose, for the introductory ad hominem. I never weary of abusing Obama, but at times this sporting fun is at the expense of the topic I wish to write. Such is the power of his stupidity and the weakness of my character.
I wish to direct the reader’s attention back to an ancient event. In the beginning of the end, the year 2009, President Obama gave a speech in Cairo, Egypt. His newly crowned majesty had already received the Nobel Peace prize for doing precisely nothing — the divine right of kings, as they say — joining the ranks of Yasir Arafat and Jimmy Carter: a mass murderer, a peanut farming anti-Semite, and a Law professor, a compilation of absurd figurines that even a Camus would be repelled. Jay Z and a few other equally idiotic cultural propaganda artists had written songs extolling the new world of peace and harmony. Jay Z, though, could conjure nothing more ambitious than the following refrain: “My president is black, my lambo blue, and I’ll be ***damned if my rims aint too.” Are his rims black or blue? No one knows. Philosophers of history will, in the future, argue vociferously that this line was a societal/cultural manifestation of the facticity of ambiguity of being and a reflection, if not the diffraction, the diffusion, effusion or suffusion, of the cultural milieu beginning to incorporate into the corporate-state-consumerism hegemony a sense of depredation and angst. The previous sentence makes no sense, but, as I said, it will be argued vociferously.
Before moving to Obama’s foreign policy, as an aside I would like to review Jay Z further.
After four years of this maniac in office, there still exist millions of people that will be voting for him again in 11 days, none of them more intelligent than Jay Z. There seems to be an upper IQ limit.
Faced with the Libya debacle, the failed economy, and the beating that he received in the first debate, Obama has taken again to the war on women mantra. Ads about abortion rights and gay marriage are ubiquitous in the swing states. Rage and anger is on the rise.
While our ambassadors get slaughtered, the Israelis plead for help against Iran, and the economy limps along inflated by QE3, Obama again enlisted Jay Z to his aid. Obama met with Jay z, the ambiance was celebratory, and Mr. Z gave him a 40,000 dollar contribution. Now, Jay Z has written many a song that degrades and humiliates the fairer sex. Why is this not a problem for women voters? Why are abortion rights, the right to kill something living, albeit dependent, considered to be more important to the “liberation of women” than to be merely treated with basic respect? Since the left never answers anything, I’ll proffer an answer.
The answer is that there is no answer. Liberalism is just that incoherent, that debauched, and morally and intellectually abysmal. By giving audience to such a contemptible character while at the same time championing women’s right to kill things liberalism suggests that it is okay for men to debase and objectify women, treat them a sexual objects; and if a man impregnates them, not to worry, they can kill it. So long as women have the right to kill a baby that in all likelihood was conceived in the midst of a sexual frenzy lubricated by pop culture and moral decline, the dignity of women has not been advanced but recanted. Women now seek abortion rights so they can be treated as objects rather than creative vessels. That’s precisely what “sexual liberation” means.
Back to Egypt
This was and still is the societal setting of the Cairo Speech. The magisterial proscenium was ornate with a glittering spectacle of hard line equivocations. There were his Teleprompters, erected like two Roman sentries standing guard against any failure of nerve or imposition of thought. The President of Egypt, conspicuously absent, was not invited, nor were his representatives. Instead, a row of Muslim Brotherhood members, the KKK of the Middle East, were invited to sit in the front rows to get a glimpse of the madman from Chicago. They sat with diabolical poise, anxious to get done the business they now knew was achievable, they saw a Dhimmi president. Buttressed by a scaenae frons of sycophantic media dignitaries, a graceful affirmatively actionable president set to record one of the most absurd speeches in modern history. If it is never remembered for its intellectual charity, it will be remembered for its suicidal ecumenicalism.
“The relationship between Islam and the west,” President Obama proclaimed,
“includes centuries of coexistence and cooperation, but also conflict and religious wars. More recently, tension has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims, and a Cold War in which Muslim-majority countries were too often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations. Moreover, the sweeping change brought by modernity and globalization led many Muslims to view the West as hostile to the traditions of Islam.”
To begin, of the 14 centuries of Islam’s existence, there has never existed a single century when there was coexistence and cooperation with anything. Where Islam today is dominant, from morocco to Malaysia, there existed at once Christians, Buddhists, Hindu’s, and Jews living in relative harmony, or keeping to themselves as much as possible. Egypt was once mostly Christian. In fact, many of the ancient Christian gospels that today are displayed in museums were unearthed in Egypt. As Islam rose to prominence, its sword cut and slashed a path from Arabia all the way to Constantinople to the north, and across the Sahara to Cordoba to the west; eastward it went to Pakistan and Indian, leaving in its wake a path of dead bodies. After 5 centuries of Islamic barbarity, the Christian world finally realized that it had a problem, and it launched the crusades in 1099 under the edict of Pope Urban II. Cooperation between Saladin and the Christian rulers of the Holy land only came at a time when it was backed by considerable western military strength. Obama’s first assertion is wrong.
If we are then to look to the modern colonial narrative for an explanation for Islam’s violent tendencies, we are further hindered. The Turks reigned for centuries over their Arab coreligionists, often with brutality. Are we to blame them? Never. Apparently, a mere 50 years of British and French rule is supposed to supply us with the necessary historical conditions for Islamic violence. But British Orientalists were fascinated with Islam, and at every occasion they tried to appease and pamper the various Arab tribes, granting them independence from British rule as soon as they could manage. When in 1956 Egyptian president Abdul Nasser closed the Suez canal, the British and French intervened militarily. President Eisenhower came to the defense of Egypt and, in the first modern example of financial warfare, demanded that Britain and France retreat or face a calling in of their debt, an act which would have crippled the respective countries’ economies. The British and French disengaged within days. Western colonialism lasted less than a half century, and was in most cases benign and restrained by American influence.
We are thus only left with the cold war as an appropriate series of abuses that could explain why the west is at fault for Islamic terror. However, the cold war in the Middle East revolved around Israel and Arab nationalism, not western imperialism. Furthermore, the idea that the west used the Middle East as chess pieces is flawed if only because it ignores the initiators of engagement. During the 50′s, the Middle East Arab states were looking for support in their war against Israel. While the United States eschewed the Israelis in one form or another until 1973, they refused to provide the Arab regimes with weapons and means to accomplish their Jihad against the Jews. Therefore, having been rejected by the United States, the Arab regimes turned to the soviets for support. In an effort to gain legitimacy with the eastern bloc, Arab states began to incorporate socialist and communistic ideas into their national identities. This period saw the rise of socialist Arab parties, the Baathists being the most notorious. Consequently, the United States was then forced to engage at least diplomatically with the Middle East in order to fend off soviet expansion.
Western involvement in the Middle East was entirely of the Arabs making so as to advance in their desire to kill the Jews. Remember, the reason that Israel is referred to today as a mini-colonial state is because the Soviets told the Arabs that this was so. Before soviet engagement, there was no talk of Israel being a neo-colonial state. After, Israel somehow morphed from a state with highly socialistic tendencies to a pawn of western capitalist imperialism. This narrative still works wonders as a propagandistic revision of history that gullible left wing sociology students absorb and then disseminate in blind dismissal of the historical facts. In the case of our president, it appears that law professors are also not immune from its absurdity.
So our president’s history of Muslim aggression is wrong. The narrative of western exploitation of the Muslim world for western ends is completely inverted. The truth is the Arab states exploited soviet avarice to gain ground against Israel and, in doing so, invited western influence to the region. Further still, those of left wing ideology to this day proclaim historical fabrications that were cooked up in the bowels of the Kremlin. Barack Obama is a descendent of this intellectual milieu.
With these facts in mind it is no surprise that the Obama regime’s explanation for the killing of our ambassador was predicated on, first, the west being responsible for something, a video, and the Muslim reaction to it being the cause of the attack. All the evidence suggests, nay, affirms, that the Obama regime was aware that the assault was not in reaction to a video. There is very little to argue in this regard. It is as plain as day. The intelligence community is in full revolt against the regime’s narrative. Having been the scapegoat of the regime’s failure, they are leaking more and more documents which clearly affirm that the regime knew within two hours of the seven hour assault that it was an attack by an Al-Qaeda affiliated group. Now, the attempt at cover up can be explained by three different theories:
1) Politics. The Obama regime has been running around the campaign trail declaring Al-Qaeda to be on its knees due to tactics that the Obama regime uses, targeted killings. And thus to have an attack on an American consulate is to reveal the impotence of these tactics and the Obama policy mere months from an election.
2) Incompetence. The Obama regime is a bumbling leviathan.
3) Cognitive Dissonance. The attacks are in direct conflict with ideology and are thus explained only in terms that they understand: it’s the fault of the west.
One and two are probably partially true. Obama is an idiot without doubt; but he is not a political idiot. Politics requires a special kind of idiocy of which Obama is adept. However, one is problematic because there is little doubt the Obama regime would have used a similar excuse if this happened in 2009. Three is the most likely explanation.
As revealed above, Obama believes that the west is to blame for Islamic discontent. Therefore, to be faced with any Islamic barbarity, as a matter of ideological faith, he must try in some way to fit this atrocity into this ideological framework. In his world, Islam cannot be violent as a matter of its nature, which it is; it can be violent only when provoked. He may have been in possession of information that countered the idea that the assault was the result of the video, but the video explanation is the only one that makes sense to Obama. So for days and weeks the video provided the cause. He even went to the U.N and declared to the whole world that this “disgusting and reprehensible video” violates some new American doctrine that demands we not criticize any faith. Obama has sacrificed empiricism at the alter of ideological immutability; this is how dictators think.
Now, this explanation for Obama’s pathetic explanation of Islamic violence runs head long into disaster as soon as it is given thought. The video in question is not disgusting and reprehensible; it is a fifteen minute trailer that accurately depicts the nature of Mohammed. One could easily come up with the storyline by examining Islamic texts. The Hadith is more reprehensible and disgusting than the video, and the Koran is only a few notches removed from mien kampf; the only distinguishable difference is that Hitler was a better writer than Allah. Daily videos are made by the Palestinian Authority quoting Islamic sources and scriptural referents authorizing Muslims to kill Jews and infidels. The problem is that this video does not glorify Mohammed for his debauchery but criticizes him for his inhumanity. When Muslims react violently to criticisms of Islam that highlight its violent temptations, the criticisms are proved correct.
Given that Obama was educated in an Islamic school as a child, how could he miss this? How is it that Obama does not know that the Hadith lionizes Mo for killing 700 Jews with his own hand? —- A story that contrasts the founder of Islam with Moses, Isaiah, Jesus, Buddha, and Confucius in vibrant blood red texture. I submit that it is impossible that he could be so ignorant.
This leads to one inescapable conclusion: Obama is a sociopathic liar. He lies in his ideology, his actions, his beliefs, his sentiments, his policies. He is in effect a president of Sartre’s dreams, a president of “Bad Faith.” He daily lies to himself, the American people and the world. His ideology is not an end it’s a means of control he uses to dazzle people under a post-modern spell. What he intends to do, no one knows. This last four years will go down to the texts of history as one of the most embarrassing moments in American history. Would to heaven that future historians have the moral clarity to reveal it.