Will A Diverse Coalition Based On Myths Survive?

Flopping Aces ^ | 11-06-09 | Skookum

[Starman417]

Borrowing from a myriad of myths, Obama has ridden the myth phenomenon into the White House. There is an underlying problem with myths, they are most often based on falsehoods, exaggerations, and innuendos. Can a presidency based on myths survive four years? Perhaps we can draw a conclusion if we examine his personal myths with perspicuity.

The Ubermenschen Myth, Obama’s myth designers borrowed heavily from Nietzsche’s concept of Ubermenschen symbolism. In the novel, Thus Spoke Zarathustra, written in 1833, by Friedrich Nietzshce, features Zarathustra the protagonist, who offers his gift to mankind, the idea of Ubermenschen. A literal translation of Ubermenschen from my high school German, translates Uber as over or superior, while menschen would translate to the species of man. Mankind or especially the Middle Class is unaware that a problem exists, let alone that man himself is the problem; therefore, Zaraththustra must convince mankind that man is the problem and that the concept of Ubermenschen is the solution.

Thus says Zarathustra, “I teach you the everman. Man Is something that shall be overcome. What have you done to overcome him.”

Using bible verse and prose as a template, Zarathustra proceeds to discredit Christianity and Semitism in an attempt to revise traditional morality. Thus nihilism and existentialism are the precepts of a new meaning of man’s relationship to the earth and rejection of asceticism and spirituality. Rejecting minor details such as a man’s soul being released upon mortification of the body, Zarathustra argues that the soul is merely an aspect of the body. Although Obama spent twenty years in the church of Black Liberation, the emphasis seems to be more towards racism than Christianity. Neutralizing the traditional Judeo-Christian ethics has evolved into a form of secular humanism, with sympathies for Islam, in reverence for a father he never knew, Obama bases his personal and political philosophy on this unexplained and undefined relationship with the earth and the environment in a poorly executed parody of Zarathustra’s quest for a dignified new values of co-existence with the earth. Now with Obama’s pledge of trust and dedication, we the Middle Class are to assume a type of self-flagellating vow of poverty, while the rest of the world is given the chance to participate in the production and marketing that made the US a powerful nation, while disregarding Al Gore’s ascendancy to billionaire status and George Soro’s acquires the wealth he needs to achieve the deity status he craves.

Zarathustra teaches that a new meaning for life will be redefined by new values that unleash a new individuality and an artistic brilliance that will be fine tuned by future generations. The Existentialist must reject standard ideas of academic philosophy, just as Obama has found supposed flaws within the Constitution, in that it is incomplete at best. Thus the Existentialist Obama envisions a new concept of freedom based on a collective individuality of purpose with requisite wealth redistribution. Old ideas of egalitarian modernity are to be replaced by high achievement and artistic brilliance. The phrase “Hope and Change” reflects the promise of high achievement and artistic brilliance tempered with huge stimulus funds to the NEA so that they become propagandists rather than artists. Their artistic brilliance is subverted to reflect the high achievement and artistic brilliance of Obama. Unwittingly, Obama creates himself as a Machiavelian partisan who is trying to crush the egalitarian values of the Middle class and replace them with his own value system, the Obama Collective of Social Justice.

[2banana]

Or obama could just be a power hungry marxist...

[nickcarraway]

In the novel, Thus Spoke Zarathustra, written in 1833, by Friedrich Nietzshce

This article is very poorly researched. Nietzsche (which he misspells) wasn't born until 1844, so how could he write a book in 1833? Thus Spoke Zarathustra was actually finished in 1885. To me, calling it a novel is somewhat misleading. It's a philosophical treatise or a philosophical novel. I've never seen it in the fiction section. If this writer got this wrong, how can he be trusted on whatever else he says about this?