Posted on 04/29/2008 9:25:32 AM PDT by shrinkermd
INTRODUCTON
Barack Obama became an Illinois State Senator eleven years ago. While still a state senator, he gave the keynote address for the Democrat National Convention four years ago. He took the oath as a United States Senator three years ago. He declared himself a presidential candidate one year ago. Presently, he is the likely Democrat nominee for president.
What explains this extraordinary rise to power? Some believe personal charm and political grooming are sufficient explanations. No doubt, charm and party efforts helped; however, his 20 year membership in the Trinity United Church of Christ is more helpful in understanding his rise to power.
Barack Obama joined Trinity United Church of Christ twenty years ago. This 8,000 member mega-church is the United Church of Christ’s largest congregation. Until a few months ago, Reverend Wright was the senior pastor.
There can be no question that his church served Senator Obama well. It provided his original political base. But beyond a network, the church provided him with a psychological understanding of the black masses.
This psychological understanding underlies black liberation theology and sanctifies radical, secular leftist belief. Senator Obama has been described as a black, political messiah. If one sees religion as a system designed to give meaning to life, then one can see that Senator Obama has unified two religions—black liberation theology and the secular, leftist theology of the Democrat Party.
Senator Obama began his campaign as a “uniter” and as an “agent of change.” He was seen as a mythical hero who would finally make America one. This fell apart when Pastor Wright’s proselytizing videos became widely known.
I assume the reader is familiar with the recent publicity surrounding Pastor Wright’s proselytizing sermons. If not, you check the following links: here and here for a start.
I also assume the reader is familiar with black liberation theology; a link to begin with can be found: HERE. Because of the importance of black liberation theology in the following discussion, I will excerpt several authorities as background.
James Cone, a leading theologian of the movement, defines the movement as:
"Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community ... Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love”
And Reverend Cone further states:
“The black theologian must reject any conception of God which stifles black self-determination by picturing God as a God of all peoples. Either God is identified with the oppressed to the point that their experience becomes God's experience, or God is a God of racism...The blackness of God means that God has made the oppressed condition God's own condition. This is the essence of the Biblical revelation. By electing Israelite slaves as the people of God and by becoming the Oppressed One in Jesus Christ, the human race is made to understand that God is known where human beings experience humiliation and suffering...Liberation is not an afterthought, but the very essence of divine activity. (A Black Theology of Liberation, pp. 63-64)”
Besides the above there is a strong underlying assumption that black liberation theology also justifies Marxism, a redistribution of wealth and so forth. According to Anthony Bradley (The Marxist Roots of Black Liberation Theology):
“One of the pillars of Obama's home church, Trinity United Church of Christ, is "economic parity." On the website, Trinity claims that God is not pleased with "America's economic mal-distribution." Among all of controversial comments by Jeremiah Wright, the idea of massive wealth redistribution is the most alarming. The code language "economic parity" and references to "mal-distribution" is nothing more than channeling the twisted economic views of Karl Marx. Black Liberation theologians have explicitly stated a preference for Marxism as an ethical framework for the black church because Marxist thought is predicated on a system of oppressor class (whites) versus victim class (blacks).”
“Black Liberation theologians James Cone and Cornel West have worked diligently to embed Marxist thought into the black church since the 1970s. For Cone, Marxism best addressed remedies to the condition of blacks as victims of white oppression. In For My People, Cone explains that "the Christian faith does not possess in its nature the means for analyzing the structure of capitalism. Marxism as a tool of social analysis can disclose the gap between appearance and reality, and thereby help Christians to see how things really are."
“In 1979, Cornel West offered a critical integration of Marxism and black theology in his essay, "Black Theology and Marxist Thought" because of the shared human experience of oppressed peoples as victims. West sees a strong correlation between black theology and Marxist thought because "both focus on the plight of the exploited, oppressed and degraded peoples of the world, their relative powerlessness and possible empowerment." This common focus prompts West to call for "a serious dialogue between Black theologians and Marxist thinkers" -- a dialogue that centers on the possibility of "mutually arrived-at political action."
How to approach this matter? Quite naturally, being human, we approach this problem by values. We like to think we are objective and factual but we cannot escape our values. The result is, our first approach is to either justify or deny what Pastor Jeremiah Wright said. If we stop here, the outcome results in two camps—those supporting and those denying the beliefs. Settling such an impasse is not easy.
But there is another way. We can try to understand the origin of these beliefs and how this augurs for their continuation. By doing so we will also come to an understanding of how and why Senator Obama’s church membership and convictions underpin his success. No doubt, he is telling the truth when he indicates disagreement with some of his faith’s tenets as well as those of Reverend Wright; however, his heart, his faith and his political beliefs are unified and bound together with psychological hoops of steel. These hoops of steel are based on black ressentiment.
Those demanding he renounce Pastor Wright or leave his church just don’t understand that his faith and his politics are a coherent unity. He can’t very well leave who he is. Senator Obama will not become a hollowed out, self-serving cynical apostate. If he did so, he would not only lose his political base but himself. IMHO this will never happen.
BUT HOW AND WHERE TO START?
I choose Nietzsche as a way to explore and understand the origin of Senator Obama’s beliefs. I do so for two reasons. First, when I first heard Pastor Wright’s statements I was struck with their similarity to what Nietzche wrote about the beginnings of Christianity. Almost the same words are used by the pastor and Nietzsche to describe the nature of faith and its consequences. Second, Nietzsche’s thoughts about how those with little or no power relate to those with great power provide a powerful tool of understanding.
Friedrich Nietzsche remains influential but misunderstood. As far as his life goes, his pastor father died when he was young and Nietzsche was raised by his mother and sister. Both women did their best to inculcate an overbearing, Lutheran morality. He was a brilliant, classical scholar who at 26 became professor and chairman of the classics department of Basle University. He was plagued with ill health and wrote for only 17 years. Ten years of this was quite intense and produced the bulk of his thought. Some believe that on his visits to Sicily he consorted with male prostitutes. In any case he died of syphilis. During the last ten years of his life he wrote nothing because of his dementia and psychosis.
He never married. He did propose to a reigning, intellectual beauty of the day-- Lou Andreas-Salomé; later she wrote about Nietzsche and described him as a thoughtful, sensitive person who did not condone or incite violence. She later became a friend and student of Freud’s; it would seem a safe assumption that Freud was more familiar with Nietzsche than he later indicated.
Nietzsche remains the most quoted modern, western philosopher. He is hard to understand because he deliberately avoids any systematic theory. He also never made a fetish of consistency, so some of his later works contradict his earlier efforts. Also confusing things is with his illness his mother and then his sister took over his care. His sister was married to a proto-Nazi before the origin of the Nazi Party (1919). She edited and touted Nietzsche as an anti-Semite and a believer in Hitler. Of course, Nietzsche had died almost twenty years before the founding of the Nazi party; further, Nietzsche had actually condemned both anti-Semitism and German nationalism in his writings.
Since I am writing this for a conservative Web site, it is important to understand Nietzsche’s most recognized quote, “God is dead” has a different meaning than usually assumed. Nietzsche surely was an atheist, but there have always been atheists. What he meant by this quote was that God had died in the hearts and beliefs of the movers and shakers of the late 19th century. He predicted that without the restraint of Christian morality the early 20th century would be noted for dangerous, immoral leaders. Hitler, Stalin and Mao proved him right.
Nietzsche never attacked Christ. He saw Jesus Christ as a revolutionary who attempted to make this a better world. Nietzsche did attack the other worldliness that developed out of Apostle Paul’s and the other Christian leader’s focus on the hereafter. Similarly, Nietzsche rejected the other worldliness of socialism. Nietzsche argued life should be lived to the fullest in the present and not some abstract future paradise.
As a believer, I have no problem reading and citing Nietzsche. After all, he was one of the founders of modern psychology; in addition, with Kierkegaard, he provided the basis of what later became existentialism. Freud said Nietzsche was one of the few people not needing an analysis. Freud also said he had to quit reading Nietzsche because if he didn’t he would not have had anything original to write about. Nietzsche was not the first to discuss unconscious mental processes (he never used the word unconscious) but his emphasis and understanding predated Freud’s.
I find reading Nietzsche difficult. Nietzsche sometimes writes in aphorisms. At other times he uses ad hominem tirades as a way to make his points. Finally, even with great translations his writing is difficult to follow. To do this essay, I rely on two Nietzsche scholars—Professors Robert Solomon and Kathleen Higgins. There DVD course, The Will to Power: The Philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche, made life easier.. I also read Professor Solomon’s books, From Rationalism to Existentialism and Existentialism.
Solomon has two other courses on DVD: Existentialism and The Passions: Philosophy and the Intelligence of Emotions. These two courses also have extensive discussions of Nietzsche’s works. .
I specify my sources since I have only a lay understanding of Nietzsche; I have no original observations on Nietzsche and the discussion here is based on the work of others.
RESSENTIMENT
Nietzsche uses ressentiment as a means of explaining class warfare. This is a French word that is not the same as what we mean “by resentment.”
Ressentiment is a reactive emotion that lacks the power to express itself in action. It connotes a feeling of inferiority and impotence. It is a bitter emotional reaction against the real or imagined superiority of others. People experiencing ressentiment are trapped and do not have an effective means to discharge the feeling. Those experiencing ressentiment usually see it as a justified response to injustice; however, it is more akin to hopelessness and weakness.
Ressentiment occurs automatically whenever there are substantial class differences in power and success. Since ressentiment is a bitter emotional reaction against the superiority of others, it is unspoken, not acted upon but it can become “resentment.”
Resentment is more focused; resentment seeks revenge. Resentment often happens instantly after a perceived or real injustice. Longer term, the twin sister of resentment is envy.
A good example of explosive resentment was the Los Angeles Rodney King riots of 1992. Here the police who beat Rodney King were acquitted of criminal acts. Immediately, thousands poured out into the streets. Robbery, looting were compounded with murder and physical attacks on bystanders. Eventually, 53 deaths were attributed to this riot.
In a different way OJ Simpson was acquitted of murder when it was discovered the investigating officer used the “n” word in a conversation with a journalist. After the trial it was found that the overwhelming majority of whites thought he was guilty while an overwhelming majority of blacks thought he was not guilty.
Another example is the recent black outrage over Geraldine Ferraro saying Senator Obama would not be where he is if he were not black. She was urged to apologize and when she didn’t the Clinton asked her to leave the campaign. The accusation of racism was made even though Senator Obama was receiving 85-90% of black votes. The attitude seemed to be the mere mention he was black was proof positive of racism.
The point is that ressentiment exists whenever there are superior and inferior (top dog/under dog) differences. It may be in the background but it can appear suddenly as resentment whenever there is a real or apparent injustice or insult. I am sure the reader can come up with more vivid examples than I have.
Generally, white people often sense this ressentiment but seldom talk about it until there is some explosive consequence. Then, the talk is how irrational and uncalled for the outburst is. Seemingly, whites are flummoxed as to what ressentiment is and what to do about it so they don’t even think about it.
Surprise anger and revenge seeking is the rule. For instance in 2006 a black stripper and escort falsely accused three white members of Duke University's men's lacrosse team of raping her at a party held at the house of two of the team's captains. This easily fit the black victim fantasy of white men raping black women. The result was Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and the Duke faculty assumed guilt and condemned this nonexistent crime. Later the prosecutor was both dismissed and disbarred for his actions and the University prepared to pay money damages. Nothing happened to the mistaken but outraged black activists. Many Blacks are aware of their ressintement and its genesis. A recent Atlantic Monthly article said this:
“Part of what drives Crosby’s activism, and reinforces his message, is the rage that lives in all African Americans, a collective feeling of disgrace that borders on self-hatred. As the comedian Chris Rock put in one of his infamous routines , ‘Everything white people don’t like about black people, black people really don’t like about black people…It’s a civil war going on with the black people and its two sides—there are black people and there are n*s and the n*s have got to go…Boy I wish they’d let me join the Ku Klux Klan. Shit, I’d do a drive buy from here to Brooklyn..”
Rock stopped performing this routine when he noticed his white fans were laughing a little too hard. Liberalism, with its pat logic and focus on structural inequalities offers no balm for this sort of raw pain. Like the people he preaches to, Crosby has grown tired of hanging his head.
This article was written by Ta-Nehisi Coats. The title is “The Audacity of Bill Crosby’s Black Conservativism. It was in the Atlantic Monthly (May 2008).
But besides self-hatred there is a different way to deal with ressentiment—religion and correcting matters by changing values.
THE WILL TO POWER AND TRANSVALUATION OF MORALS
Nietzsche used the historical development of the Christian Church as a prime example of how the underdog deals with ressentiment. The early Christians were mostly slaves and women; yet, they developed morals different from their Roman masters. This changed morality Nietzsche called slave morality.
What Nietzsche does is to show how this Not in spite of differences in power between the believers and the Roman masters but because of these power differences..
Nietzsche uses “the-will-to-power” as a primary psychological goal driven motivator. Most psychologists, including the Freud, assume that the basic human goals are maximizing pleasure and avoiding pain. Nietzsche thinks the pain and pleasure goals are secondary to “the-will-to-power.”
Nietzsche was not altogether clear in what he meant by “will-to-power.” Sometimes he even implied it was a universal principal that affected inanimate matter as well. But for our purposes we will focus on the psychological meaning of the term.
“Will-to-power” in the psychological sense is a generic motivation for human beings and all living things to enhance life. Nietzsche used “will-to-power” not as a justification for political or military conquest although this could be one manifestation but, rather, anyone and everyone to extend their influence in the world. “The-will-to-power” was clearly a motivator for the creative person where it represented a striving for excellence.
Slaves, quite naturally, had enormous ressentiment by virtue of their powerless condition. Since they also had a “will-to-power” they had to make the best of a bad situation. Since they were hopeless and weak they could not directly confront the Romans. What they could do was change the debate by changing the morals.
To make this change they found something immovable that could protect themselves from the vicissitudes of the world. They found Jesus Christ and a religion that revolutionized moral values. By transvaluation, master morals were turned on their head. Power was denied as moral; “the meek shall inherit the earth.” Riches were seen as sinful; “the rich man cannot get into heaven any more than a camel can get through the eye of a needle.” And so on and so forth. While slave morality was pessimistic and fearful they made the best of their situation. High value was placed on humility, friendliness and the persuasive power of a large group of slaves over a few powerful masters. Good came to mean less suffering and evil was equated with fear. Equalitarian values were championed and their dominance eventually developed into Western democracy.
The mirror image of resentment is guilt. The masters of the early Christians where made to feel guilty; their power and success were seen as immoral. As a general observation, those with ressentiment make strenuous efforts to guilt their real and imagined oppressors. Once this is achieved, the only out for the oppressor class is to agree and change their behavior and speech.
Listen to Jeremiah Wright and read James Cone. They voice the typical complaints of an oppressed class and, then, do their best to turn the tables and make capitalistic economic success (“Middleclassness”) a sin. Listen again to Pastor Wright berating whites as Italians looking down their noses at blacks. Or review, again, part of the quote of Pastor Cone:
“The black theologian must reject any conception of God which stifles black self-determination by picturing God as a God of all peoples. Either God is identified with the oppressed to the point that their experience becomes God's experience, or God is a God of racism...The blackness of God means that God has made the oppressed condition God's own condition…
As to inculcating guilt, note that political correctness has abolished not only the “n” word but also the word “negro.” Indeed, in some circles “black” has been replaced by “African American” or “persons-of-color.” Some of our speech is now more carefully controlled by custom and law than in the past. Yet, at the same time profanity and pornographic references are not only tolerated but celebrated.
BLACK IDENTITY AND ITS DISCONTENTS
Go to any haute bourgeois cocktail party and you will discover the participants judge each other by three major means—looks, reputation and occupation. What we look like, what others think of us and what we do for a living basically determine our self- image. We also judge ourselves, but this is usually weaker than the other three.
From their point of view, black people go to bed black and wake up black; education, success and good fortune does not change their blackness. In addition they know what they and others think of black people. Rarely discussed, is both blacks and whites are aware of black social dysfunction. Ta-Nehisi Coats, in the previously quoted Atlantic Monthly article, notes the following:
“Given the state of black America, it is hard to quarrel with that analysis. Blacks are 13 percent of the population, yet black men account for 49 percent of America’s murder victims and 41 percent of the prison population. The teen birth rate for blacks is 63 per 1,000, more than double the rate for whites. In 2005, black families had the lowest median income of any ethnic group measured by the Census, making only 61 percent of the median income of white families.
Most troubling is a recent study released by the Pew Charitable Trusts, which concluded that the rate at which blacks born into the middle class in the 1960s backslid into poverty or near-poverty (45 percent) was three times that of whites—suggesting that the advances of even some of the most successful cohorts of black America remain tenuous at best. Another Pew survey, released last November, found that blacks were “less upbeat about the state of black progress now than at any time since 1983”
Paradoxically, blacks respond to these abysmal statistics with defensiveness and blaming. The result is ressentiment is enhanced. Human nature is such that it is easier to deny a problem or project the problem outside of one’s group than it is to face up to the problem and solve it. Further, there is a great fear that these problems are unsolvable; hence, the problems are explained by the presence of persistent persecutors.
Recently, I listened to Pastor Wright speak to the NAACP. Among his proposed solutions was to provide a different educational system for blacks and others who have troubled or impaired social functioning. In a round about way, Pastor Wright is trying to remedy what is the unspoken issue of our time—the average black IQ is 85.
In 1994 Herrnstein and Murray published the Bell Curve. This book was pilloried at the time as “racist.” A substantial number of academics agreed with the findings of Herrnstein and Murray and published their findings in the WSJ. Their findings can be found: HERE. A more recent discussion can be found: HERE.
Always to be understood, is that when we say blacks, on the average, have an IQ of 85 we are talking about a group statistic. Any given black person can be a genius or a dunce just as any white person can. Further, remember the spread, high to low, of IQs within the average family is 12 points or very close to the difference between blacks and whites.
But having half the black population with an average IQ of 85 or less does have consequences. An IQ of 85 or less augurs for difficulty in graduating from high school. It takes a highly motivated child and a determined teacher to permit high school graduation.
White flight, both white and black, from the inner cities has now left the inner cities with children who have an average IQ of 85 or less--unfortunately and actually, less in some areas. This means teachers are often blamed for a problem they have not control over—the intellectual ability of their students. Actually, it is worse than that since the egalitarian belief system has resulted in strenuous efforts to dumb down the curriculum as a means to permit increasing rates of high school graduation. For a while in California it was illegal for a mental health professional to give a child an IQ test and provide those results to the school system.
Among the many excellent sources for IQ information is La Griffe du Lion; the link can be found: HERE. Among the many excellent articles is “The Effect of Urban Flight on IQ Distribution.” We can preach “No Child Left Behind” but the sad truth is those with higher IQs have left the inner city.
A lower average IQ is also found in perpetrators of crime. A meta analysis of the available literature documents the average incarcerated American felon has an average IQ of 92. Those with the highest incidences of recidivism or violence have even lower IQs. Some of the best investigations are done in Sweden. The Bell Curve reports these as 30% of the arrests were of men who had an IQ of 77 or less (about 6% of the population). A full 80% of all incarcerations in Sweden are for offenders with an IQ below 100.
The point of this is that the black middle and upper-class seem to identify blackness with crime and other social pathologies when they are better correlated with intelligence. Whites also identify these social pathologies as being a black group characteristic. The result is both blacks and whites miss the true nature of the problem and slide into some quasi paranoid, blaming solution.
Pastor Wright is surely on target when he calls for different approaches in our educational system. It is not a black educational problem we face, but an ability educational problem.
At the present time, the upper 25% of the bell curve do just fine. The other 75% need varying levels of assistance to enter our modern service and technology economy.
Before the mid-twentieth century education included moral teaching. With broken families the norm, it would seem imperative to include values as a significant part of any educational curriculum.
CONCLUSION
In a recent press conference Reverend Wright pointed out the Hebrew portion of the Bible was written under six captivities: Egyptian, Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, Greek and Roman. He then noted the American blacks understood this oppression because they knew of their former status as slaves. The audience applauded. Actually, they more than applauded, they shouted their affirmation. Ressentiment is not confined to the uneducated nor to the social failures.
Twenty years ago Senator Obama joined Pastor Wright’s church. A safe assumption is he both knows and agree (at least to some extent) with this ressentiment. He must also see the very close connection between Marxism’s emphasis on the desirability of a classless society and ressentiment. Again, such a connection is also furthered by his church doctrine of black liberation theology.
Senator Obama has said he will not quit his church or condemn Pastor Wright any more than he will abandon being black. We must take him at his word. Surely what is binding him to other blacks and leftists is ressentiment. We are puzzled and surprised by this only because it is a different approach than that of Pastor Wright, Pastor Jesse Jackson, Pastor Al Sharpton and Minister Louis Farrakhan.
Fortunately, Shelby Steele has an answer for this dilemma. In his recent book, A Bound Man: Why We Are Excited About Obama and Why He Can’t Win, Shelby Steele opines as follows:
“Bargaining and challenging are the two great masks that we blacks wear when we seek success and power in the American mainstream.” These broad means of interaction can also be thought of as quasi-identities. Of course, those who predominantly use one of these approaches will, from time to time, use the other as well.
Bargainers make a specific deal with whites. The bargainer does not hold the history of white racism against whites if they do not use race against blacks. By taking this approach bargainers give goodwill and receive goodwill. They give before they ask. Bill Crosby, Oprah Winfrey and Barack Obama are bargainers. Basically, bargainers give racial innocence (remove the stigmata of racism) to whites; hence, the whites are both relieved and grateful. Their gratitude is such that many talented, black bargainers receive not only white recognition but riches as well.
Challengers confront whites. Challengers put all whites in the position of having to prove their racial innocence (not racist). Challengers assume all whites are racist and whites need to do something to prove otherwise. Among blacks, challengers usually have no power; however, once they interact with whites they gain great power. The black skin gives them moral authority in a society where being labeled a “racist” is one of the worst sins imaginable. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are challengers. Affirmative action and other special actions are demanded of whites. Prominent challengers even function as racial priests. Witness Don Imus’s appeal to Al Sharpton after Imus was pilloried for racist remarks. Steele’s book is summarized and discussed on FR and can be found: HERE.
Senator Obama is surely a bargainer and a charming one at that. He uses and understands both black ressentiment and white guilt; this understanding has permitted a virtual unknown to become the likely Democrat presidential nominee.
WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?
Nietzsche died108 years ago, yet his theories about class differences remain apt and of heuristic value.
As noted, one of the characteristics of ressentiment is becomes resentment when there is a real or perceived injustice. The result is an outpouring of anger and a demand for grievance resolution. Real or symbolic revenge is common. This means that Reverend Al Sharpton’s threat of disorder if Senator Obama is cheated out of the nomination is dead on and likely.
Previously, whites have been shocked and dismayed when ressentiment has changed to resentment and social unrest. Whites are increasingly aware of black ressentiment. As this awareness occurs, it becomes less and less likely that whites will vote for Senator Obama simply on the basis of guilt. Whites will see those with ressentiment as trying to extort special privilege or power simply on the basis of race. Once this occurs ordinary white people will lose any warm, fuzzy feel- good feelings. Senator Obama will find only the white leftists with class grievances will continue to support him..
I didn’t realize he has been a Senator for 11 years?
I’ve noted your kicking about this apt linking of ressentiment to Obama for some time here; I’m glad you put it together in a good article and hope you will email it along to prominent bloggers who might post it.
Wright teaches Black Liberation Theology that was the creation of the black radical James Hal Cone, who took the Latin American Liberation Theology that had been created by Marxists to lure poor catholics into their "revolution" (because they knew their totally Godless marxism would not work), and revamped it for blacks in America.
This theology teaches that Christ was an oppressed black man living under whitey rule (the Romans) who was as much or more of a social revolutionary against white oppression as he was about spiritual salvation. In this sense, the theology is much closer to what the Islamics teach about Christ than what true Christians teach about Him.
It is a hate-filled, bigoted, anti-American, race bating, marxist construct. Here is what it's creator, James Hal Cone, says about it, the same James Hal Cone who Wright constantly refers to and holds up as an icon:
"Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community ... Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love."This then is the trough from which Barack Hussein Obama has fed and the well from which he has drunk deeply for the past 20+ years.
THE AUDACITY OF TRUTH - BLACK LIBERATION THEOLOGY AND OBAMA'S CHURCH
THE AUDACITY OF TRUTH - OBAMA'S CIRCLE OF FRIENDS AND SUPPORT
THE AUDACITY OF TRUTH - BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA
State Senator. He is still on his first term as a US Senator.
Thank you. That’s an interesting analysis. Your explanation of how “ressentiment” can turn to resentment and then (occasionally) to violence, makes sense.
If I said a senator for 11 years that is a typo. I am so tired of editing and putting links into this article, that I will not read it again.
If I said a senator for 11 years that is a typo. I am so tired of editing and putting links into this article, that I will not read it again.
Ok, cause I just ranted for days to people about someone with only a few years experience as a senator wanting to be president. Wanted to be sure I didn’t make an ass out of myself. But great article!
Obama's sponsor is George Soros and the moveon.org crowd. They are smarter than the Pendergast machine because they wanted to make sure their boy was loyal before they sponsored him.
While the Pendergasts were small-time crooks satisfied with graft, skimming public dollars and lining their pockets, Soros will be satisfied with nothing less than world domination.
It was Niebuhr, not Nietzsche that the Black Liberationists use as the basis for their political theology. They also take a lot from Tillich, like his God as the ultimate concern and Jesus as the ultimate role model rather than a sovereign being.
Obama has mentioned the relationship between Wright and Niebuhr and Tillich several times, both in his books and in interviews.
I think a huge contributor to these low IQ issues, among any race -there’s plenty of stupid white people in my neighborhood- is the issue of prenatal and first year health. A poor diet while pregnant and in the first year are going to cause some irreversible setbacks to the child’s intelligence.
The huge numbers of teen pregnancies and babies born without a solid family structure that encourages people to take care of each other contributes to the breakdown of passing down needed child-raising knowledge. Additionally, the selfish aspect of single parenthood/multiple fathers creates an environment where someone won’t do what’s best for the baby/family, but will do what gives them the most short-term satisfaction.
bookmark
This is an excellent essay; was it written for a wider audience as well?
Reading it with an editor’s eye there were virtually no flaws other than the most minor: using there for their; where for were; buy for by [in a quote?]; using guilt as a verb (pet peeve); using not for no; and a single omission of an article, “it”, near the end.
I think I know more about the whole subject now and may even read further if Obama succeeds in this “race.”
As far as Black Theology is concerned, their methods are like a man reaching for a bigger club only to find his hand full of God and smashing all in his path with Him.
Again, Excellent work.
Ken
Heh. You have just described the effects of the Democrats’ “Great Society” welfare state on the urban black family. The welfare check replaced the father, and it was all downhill from there.
No wonder blacks hate the Democrats so much.
/sarc
Sorry to nitpick, but I think you mean “Bill Cosby”, not “Bill Crosby”.
Uh...that was in the article posted by shrinkermd, not in my reply in post 4.
Well, unfortunately that urban baby mama garbage has filtered down into every town. Across the street from me lives a young woman, her 3 kids from at least 2 different men, plus her mother. To my right are the new neighbors, another young unmarried woman with 3 kids (perhaps from the same father) and an assortment of other men come and go and it’s unclear who may be family, friend, or lover. It’s really disheartening. The longer it goes on and the more dumb kids they raise, the harder it will be to recover. I really think (part of) the answer is for conservatives to “counter-infiltrate” the public schools and other places of influence.
A lot of focus should immediately be placed on the prospect of a Kenyan co-president, a fellow Marxist who could find himself as an unofficial Presidential Advisor to Obama and, as well, an unofficially appointed US Cabinet member with perhaps more negative influence than Obamas’ loose cannon wife. Odinga is Obamas’ first cousin. Here is the link discussing what should become a major topic...Obamas high level African connections. Kenya has many relations to Iran and Islamic interests...the LINK: http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/2649
First cousins are important!! Maurice Strongs’ (Of world evironmental movement, Energy Minister of Canada, UN office right across from Sec Gens., ...google Henry Lamb Maurice Strong for info) first cousin was a deceased US communist who travelled with Mao on the Long March, and was granted her own mausoleum outside of Beijing by Mao...Maurice Strong ...Mr. Strong has excellent relations with China. The Kenyan co-president can expect good relations with Obama, and Iran will have an indirect/direct pipeline to Obama. What have the Dims offered us for President? Obama is a potential Trojan horse for so many negative and enemy interest it boggles the mind...who needs enemies when the Dims offer this?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.