In a context that is fairly longer, Obama said this:It's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.He said it at a fundraiser to big-city, liberal donors from San Francisco.
This comment has been vetted and debriefed in columns and on talk shows and news programs. What's wrong with it? It manifests an elitism and he's out of touch. That's the Hillary interpretation. Others say he doesn't get history. The term "cling" was a bad choice of words---condescended by making them look weak and needy. These people have guns for pleasure and they attend church for faith, so his sociology is wrong. I haven't heard anyone say that the comments were 'stereotyping.' They thoughtlessly and callously stereotyped these rural and small-town whites, prejudicing their motives and convictions.
I'm not arguing that the pundits have been wrong. It's just that I haven't heard the point I'm about to give you and I think that it nails the Obama comment bullseye.
His comment revealed his Marxism. That's right Marxism. Blatant Marxism. I'm not exaggerating at all. I believe that Obama is a Marxist who believes that socialistic economics is the answer to most human ills.
One of the most quoted statements of Marx is that religion is the "opiate of the people," literally the "opiate of the masses." The exact quote is in the introduction of his 1843 work Contribution to Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right sounds very much like the statement of Obama:
Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.Doesn't this sound familiar? Like everything was sex to Freud, everything was economics to Marx. If you've got problems, to the Marxist they're economic ones. Therefore, we explain everything by economics. Those poor middle class white workers are bitter, so they turn to religion and guns and more. Of course, Obama and other Marxists would want them to turn to government. They won't, says Obama, because they have been promised so much in the past by politicians and the government never did anything to deliver them.
This is the normal way of thinking for Obama that fits with his view of the world. It is the view of his church. Since he made the comment, he has been in spin control by saying that he is a "man of faith," and that faith has gotten him through troubled times. Real men of faith don't say that faith gets them through. The Lord Jesus Christ can get us through. And truly Jesus Christ gets us through a different kind of trouble then what Obama is thinking. The faith of a true man of faith is faith in God's Word as an unchanging absolute.
Obama has the social Jesus of liberation theology in mind. His Jesus leads out of socio-economic troubles. The Jesus of the Bible, the one and only Jesus, delivers us from sin. The Jesus of Obama delivers from oppression and poverty. Salvation of liberation theology is social and economic, not spiritual. When they say spiritual, they don't mean sin and damnation. They mean the spiritual discouragement that comes with poor social conditions, burdening the human spirit. Their Jesus will lift them out of the miry pit of economic despair.
Obama hung around Marxists all through college. He carefully chose them as his friends by his own testimony. Nothing was by accident. He had the most in common with Marxists. They spoke and thought the same way that he did.
When he made his comment, he was talking to other socialists who would be in sympathy with his interpretation of things. They are people that can't understand why their class warfare doesn't work with the working class white man. They refuse to believe that these men don't vote Democratic because of cultural reasons. The cultural conservatives that belie their social architecture believe in a literal, historical Jesus. They believe in the second amendment even as they interpret the Constitution literally. They don't believe in breaking the law, so they are against illegal immigration. They think that a different culture will ruin the America that they stand for.
So Obama gives a Marxist explanation. He sees these rurals in Pennsylvania small towns as the untapped proletariat. The Marxist believes that the bourgeoisie, the merchant class, and the capitalistic system exploit the working class. The proletariat has no means of production so must look for a job working for an upper class. The goal of the proletariat is finally to displace the capitalistic system with socialism. This is the change that Obama is looking for. The poverty is a kind of economic slavery from which the working class needs deliverance.
You may like Obama. If you do, you should at least take this into consideration. Incidentally, this has nothing to do with his race (read Thomas Sowell, and here are some Thomas Sowell quotes sent to me). If you don't think that Marxism is the solution for a successful society, then Obama isn't the man for you.
11 comments:
I actually heard that point made on talk radio this morning. I heard that same quote also. You are right. Obama is the most liberal Senator in the United States right now according to his record. He is very socialistic in his speeches and in his voting record. I have no choice but to agree with you on this matter. Logic demands it.
White people are bitter and frustrated. Better-qualified white students, employees, etc. face intense racial discrimination. Obama and his liberal comrades call it “Affirmative Action”.
Millions of white Americans see “people who aren’t like them” illegals and inner-city parasites sucking up on free benefits.
Millions of tax paying white Americans can no longer use the public school system because “people who aren’t like them” have made the schools awash with violence, drugs, and gangster rap.
Hey Anonymous,
When you make this type of comment, I think you should attach your name to it. If you think you're telling the truth, then let people know who you are and not hide behind your anonymity. It forces you to make your point, which might be a true one, with a little more pathos.
Thanks Nicholas. I hadn't seen anyone make the Marxist connections, but it all came together for me when I gave it a thought this morning.
Kent Brandenburg said that Anonymous might be right. Whether he/she is or not, there are some alternatives to consider. 1)Better qualified whites are bitter because others get the opportunities? The same is true with better qualified blacks who are passed over for jobs like police chief and other positions.
2)While "inner-city parasites (may be) sucking up on free benefits," there are many law abiding, Bible believing, tax-paying people in the "inner-city" who can not escape these parasites (They have no where to go). So I guess they have a right to be bitter too!
3)And I don't know why tax paying whites can not use the schools. They can go there like tax paying law abiding blacks (and other minorities) who suffer from the violence, drugs, and gangster rap. And many of them are not receiving a good education either. Addionally, if a lot of whites did not buy this worthless gangster rap, then I guess all of us could be better off. HMMMMMMMM!
Abraham,
I didn't say anonymous may be right. I said it might be true. And when I say "true," I mean that this is what "bitter" whites in these industrial stats might think, that is, that partly their poor condition is based on those types of things. I said it might be true. Of course, we're only talking about the bitter ones.
Maybe anonymous is one of the bitter ones. Does everyone get passed over for better jobs for some reason? Yes. But we don't have it as a government policy to do so; just the opposite. My son recently went to a guidance counselor to talk about future educational opportunities and she said that his opportunities for acceptance at a lot of schools would be hindered because of affirmative action. I'm not bitter, because I trust the Lord; plus I know that everybody gets ripped off in a sin cursed world. I say to anyone, "Get over it!" Do you need to get over something?
Regarding the other two points, 2 and 3, some people think this. I think they're wrong, like you say, but it doesn't mean that it is false that the reason they're bitter is because they think that others have ruined their opportunities, and so they take it out in their votes against Obama. Do you think that the Republican party loses any votes because of bitter black Americans? I think the percentage is probably higher, but I'd be glad to be shown I was wrong.
Thanks for the comment.
Kent,
It seems to me that you are drawing a distinction between whites who may discriminated upon the basis of affirmative action and blacks who may be discriminated upon some other basis. I would like to know if that is what you are suggesting before I comment further on your first two paragraphs.
Regarding your last paragraph, my guess would be that "bitter" whites (and some others) blame the policy of democrats for creating the conditions that lead to the problems we see in inner cities. They do not benefit from affirmative action, so I suppose they would not be inclined to vote for Obama, who in their minds, is representative of such policies.
Of course everyone should know that all we do is a product of what is in our hearts, including drug dealers. So a separate question would be what are the factors that can change the hearts of people, government policy? Hardly not.
On the other hand, if a black person thought that affirmative action was his savior, then he might vote for the political party that would be "best" in his eyes.
But there are so many issues that everyone should be concerned about, regardless of whether one is black, white, or any other race.
Abraham,
Pretty much I was just giving my interpretation of Obama's thinking that spurred his comment, based on his view of the world.
Regarding Anonymous, I thought his opinion of the evaluation of blue-colored whites in industrial states might be true.
In a separate issue, do I think that both whites and blacks vote based on bitterness? Yes. Should they vote based upon what's right? Yes.
Do I think that the state has institutionalized racism through affirmative action? Yes. Statistics shows this clearly to be true. Performance is not the sole criteria.
I believe the true, Scriptural gospel is what is most needed for the most important changes in the U.S.
Kent,
First let me say that I appreciate you sharing your thoughts with me.
As for Obama's comment, what you say might be correct. For the record in my estimation, none of that would be the main issues to be considered in this election, or any other. I believe God has blessed this nation. And what America needs is a president who will bring leadership that will bring about continued blessings upon America.
I would find much agreement with you if you say the gospel is God's means for bringing about change in the heart of a man. There is but one gospel. If the gospel is perverted by addition or subtraction or by altering its primary emphasis, then that would be another gospel. What puzzles me is that often I hear people who agree that the gospel is the means for change, but do little to implement the means of change as they understand it. In essence, I would ask those who are disgusted with "inner city parasites" whether they or not they have attempted to carry that gospel, as they understand it, to those who are "parasites"? If not, then such are nothing but hypocrites and have no room to complain.
Your comment about the state institutionalizing racism some what puzzles me. I am not God, but if He wanted to, He could tell me how many whites were discriminated upon the basis of affirmative action. If He wanted to, He could tell me how many blacks with greater qualifications than whites were discriminated as well. I don't know what statistics you are relying upon to determine that many whites are discriminated upon. But it is easy to show that many blacks as well are discriminated against. In our city, the city counsel (the governing body) passed over a black man several times in favor of white men. On one occasion, the white man did not even meet the qualification. the black man sued for justice and a jury ruled against him. It seems that if a man is passed over for a job, and he has greater qualifications, it does not matter if it is by affirmative action or racist traditions.
I hope you don't mind me posing a thought question for you and all your readers. If a county of people were 60 percent Hispanic, many of them seemed to be qualified for government jobs, but only 10 percent of them were hired, would you think it to be unfair to make a policy that at least 40 percent of new hires would be Hispanic? And lets add to the equation that other attempts to bring about parity have failed.
Abraham,
No doubt everyone gets prejudiced, as I said before, but is it a written down policy, that the government itself has instituted? People get passed over based on skin color, very likely, sometimes not proveable. I'm talking about when there is raw data. A child with better performance, grades and test scores, gets left out because he is Asian or white, just to hit a quota. That doesn't help anyone to make it a policy.
The government also prejudices based upon career choice---you're a developer or because you have worked hard and earned more money, the tax rate is higher. Sometimes the government will make a decision to disallow a white man a contract for political purposes or will not give a permit to an American-Iranian because of fear.
All of these things are wrong. Doing more of them doesn't even things out in order to right a wrong.
I would think that people against racism would be against, well, racism, even if it is racism against some other race. Or would be against taking from the rich (stealing) and "redistributing that wealth," or against taking someone else's property, even if it is a developer. I would technically be in the poverty level, so I don't say this to benefit myself, but should it matter?
Kent,
After thinking about your comments for a while, I think I am in disagreement with your post. Let's suppose that 60 percent of a county was Hispanic, and the "raw data" suggested that many of them were qualified to get a job, but for some "strange" reason (let's call in prejudice), they were not hired. It certainly would benefit them for the government to have a policy that overrides the prejudicial barrier that keeps them from getting a job. It is for situations like this that affirmative action was instituted.
Perhaps the efforts to make the playing field level is out of step with modern day progress. And perhaps others have used affirmative action as a tool to include those who are not qualified for fear that they would be other wise left out. This latter reason reminds me of a friend of mine who shared with me how that as a teenager, he was faster than a handicapped boy in track and field. But the coaches included the disabled boy and excluded him. My friend accepted this because he knew he had so many other opportunities that were not afforded to the disabled child.
I think that many people assume that many "minorities" are like the disabled child rather than like the qualified Hispanics who were passed over. In my judgement, it would be "wrong" for the government to nothing when various classes of people are discriminated upon.
I wish you would clarify upon what basis you conclude that the government would be wrong to place higher taxes upon me because I make more.
I do not think it is racism when any of us place a greater emphasis where there is a greater problem. A friend of mine is white and he lives in an area where some middle east people have stores. Maybe one of his neighbors is from Iran like you mentioned in your previous post. But his business struggles. So my friends makes it a point to support his business. There might be better business owned by a white person. Is my friend racist because he tries to help this person who is struggling?
Post a Comment