At the Intersection of Faith and Culture

At the Intersection of Faith and Culture

Blackism: Obama’s True Ideology

posted by Jack Kerwick

Over the span of the last four years, there has been much talk over whether or not our 44th president is a socialist.  Of course, that Barack Obama is a socialist will be denied only by those who choose to give his redistributionist agenda a different name.  But in the final weeks leading up to Election Day, we ought to realize that Obama is no less committed to another ideology, one that hasn’t been nearly as often remarked upon.

Obama, you see, is every bit as much a proponent of blackism as he is a champion of socialism.  In fact, it is his embrace of the former that explains his embrace of the latter.

Like any other ideology, blackism consists of a small handful of basic, interrelated principles.   

First, the blackist affirms an explicitly—and thoroughly—racial conception of history.  Historical actors, here, are nothing more or less than abstract racial categories—whites, blacks, etc.  And history is an epic melodrama, a perpetual contest between the forces of white “racism” or “supremacy,” on the one hand, and, on the other, the “oppression” suffered by people of color. 

Second, white racism is endemic.  This the blackist must believe with all of his heart.  Whatever gains black Americans and formerly colonized peoples of color in other parts of the world have made over the decades, white racism remains as formidable, and destructive, a force as it has ever been. This explains the blackist’s insistence that white racism, far from diminishing, has simply gone covert.

Third, blackism demands of all of its adherents in good standing that, whenever possible, they express some measure of indignation or rage regarding the historical injustices suffered by blacks and the persistent omnipresence of—what else?—white racism.

Fourth, the blackist unabashedly heeds the call of “social” or “racial justice.”  What this in turn means is that he must favor a robust and activist government, for only such a government will possess the power necessary to compensate blacks for the past harms that had been visited upon them by white racism.  And only such a government will be strong enough to protect them against its ravages in the present and future.

Finally, central to blackism is the idea of “racial authenticity.”  Racial authenticity can be achieved, it promises, by way of the very simple act of affirming blackism!

Like all ideologies, the ideology of blackism is a distillation of what we may call “black culture.”  It is the cliff note, so to speak, the Reader’s Digest version, of a complex of black cultural traditions stretching back centuries.

In theory, the tenets of blackism can be affirmed by anyone.  However, only a biologically black person can be a blackist.  That is, it is instant made for just those blacks like Barack Obama who, while biologically black, know next to nothing about black culture.  For those blacks, like Obama, who are in search of racial authenticity, the ideology of blackism is their Rosetta stone.  It is their salvation.  The reason for this is simple.

To genuinely know a tradition well enough to make it one’s own, it is necessary to immerse oneself in it.  In glaring contrast, the knowledge of an ideology can be mastered by anyone in no time at all, for an ideology is constituted by just a few simple propositions that any school child can effortlessly confine to memory.     

The blackist par excellence was, not coincidentally, the one person whose autobiography Obama alludes to more than any other book in his first memoir: Malcolm X. 

Malcolm would invoke “the authority of history,” as he put it, in condemning whites for having “stole our fathers and mothers from their culture of silk and satins” and bringing “them to this land in the belly of a ship [.]”  He famously declared that blacks “didn’t land on Plymouth Rock,” but “Plymouth Rock landed” on blacks.

Malcolm also blasted whites for having secured their “position of leadership in the world” through “conquering, killing, exploiting, pillaging, raping, bullying” and “beating.”  Throughout the white man’s “entire advance through history, he has been waving the banner of Christianity” in the one hand and, in the other, “the sword and the flintlock,” Malcolm charged.

The light-complexioned Malcolm, who, like Obama, was raised and schooled within a predominantly white environment, never spared an occasion to assert his racial authenticity.  In addition to decrying white racism from the rooftops, he was also fond of blasting other blacks—like Martin Luther King, Booker Washington, Jackie Robinson, Joe Louis, and Roy Wilkins—as “Uncle Toms.” 

Obama, obviously, is not of the same temperament as Malcolm.  But he is every bit as much of a blackist.

As its subtitle makes abundantly clear, his first memoir was designed to be “a story of race.”  This alone weighs substantially in favor of this thesis. But if this doesn’t convince, there is much more evidence ready at hand.

Obama has a long history of allying himself with the most radical and anti-American of types, it is true.  But it is his 20-plus year relationship with his pastor and friend, the self-avowed champion of Black Liberation Theology and Louis Farrakhan admirer, Jeremiah Wright, which most decisively determines his allegiance to blackism. 

Yet now that Obama has had four years to govern, we can see that he hasn’t governed in a manner that is appreciably different from that which we could expect from Wright himself. 

As Pat Buchanan and other commentators have noted, Obama’s redistributionist policies have the effect of disproportionately benefitting blacks while disproportionately harming those whites whose resources will be confiscated to fund these policies.

Obama has uttered not a word to stop his supporters from charging his opponents with racism.  He has actually exacerbated interracial relations by siding with those blacks, like Trayvon Martin and Henry Louis Gates, who were involved in nationally publicized confrontations with whites.  Flash mobs have formed all across the country during Obama’s tenure, yet he has been silent in the face of these orgies of black-on-white violence.

His appointments, from Eric Holder to Van Jones, further reveal Obama’s racial commitments.

Going into the voting booth on November 6, let us realize that while our current president is an ideologue, the ideology to which he is most attached—and that is most dangerous—is not socialism or leftism.

It is blackism.

Romney or Obama: A Choice Between Two Evils?

posted by Jack Kerwick

Many of my fellow Paul supporters insist that in this year’s presidential election, under no circumstances will they vote for either Mitt Romney or Barack Obama.  Even if one of these two candidates can rightly be judged the lesser of two evils, an evil is still an evil.

And one must never will an object that conscience has declared to be an evil.

The great Christian thinker Thomas Aquinas agreed.  However, he was quick to make two observations.

First, conscience, because it is nothing else than a species of reason, does indeed go wrong.  Just because my conscience declares this or that to be a good or an evil doesn’t make it so: each object of the will is good or bad independently of what we happen to think of it.

Secondly, one’s ignorance of the moral significance of an object may or may not be pardonable.  For instance, ignorance of right and wrong—the natural law, Aquinas would say—fails as miserably as a justification for evil doing as ignorance of the law fails as a justification in court for unlawfulness.

There are just some things of which we must be aware.

In light of this highly attenuated account of Aquinas’ ethical analysis, it is safe to say that while my fellow Paul supporters are correct in their judgment that conscience forbids us from deliberately choosing evil, it is their application of this principle to the presidential election that demands further examination.

Liberty is a good.  Paul supporters recognize this.  But what is liberty? Liberty consists in a decentralization of authority and a diffusion of power.  Paul supporters know this also.  They know that the more centralized a government, the less free are its citizens.  In desiring liberty above all, every Paul supporter seeks, then, a decentralized government.

Sadly, it has been quite some time—arguably a century-and-a-half—since Americahas had anything even remotely approximating a federal government of the scope and size delineated by our Constitution.  So, Paul supporters know—or at least should know—that if such a lost governmental structure is ever to be restored, it is not going to happen over the next four to eight years—regardless of whether our President over this time is named Obama, Romney, or Paul. 

We must judge matters from where we are at.  In other words, ignorance of our reality—ignorance of the immensity of our national government, say, and ignorance of the sheer powerlessness of any one person or even group of persons to scale it back to so much as a shadow of its counterpart from the eighteenth century—is inexcusable.  To make a decision regarding something as momentous as the future of our country on the basis of this sort of ignorance—even if it accords with one’s conscience—is to condemn oneself.

You should know better. 

From the standpoint of liberty, I agree that Paul is a better choice than Romney.  As I have already indicated, though, this is not because Paul would necessarily be able to do all that much more than Romney would be able to do in the way of freeing up the American citizen.  But he would at least be willing to do more than Romney.  And, at this stage in our national life, this makes him a better choice. 

Paul, however, is no longer an option.  Still, the same reasoning that drives the liberty lover to choose Paul over Romney should drive him to prefer Romney to Obama: though Romney is not going to be able to dramatically reduce, or reduce at all, the size of government, he is resolved to prevent it from growing to the size that Obama desires.

There are a number of policies that Romney advocates that are less inimical to liberty than are those advanced by Obama.  The latter—like Obamacare, for example—Romney promises to repeal.  Will Romney follow through?  No one–maybe even Romney himself–can know for sure.  But even if he doesn’t, that he has pledged to reduce the scope of the federal government while Obama has pledged to expand it yet further should be enough to bring the lover of liberty around to his side.

Think of it this way: if your loved one, your child say, had a terminal illness and there was the slightest—just the slightest—chance that he could be either saved or maybe even kept alive longer in the hope that, in the meantime, a cure may be discovered, would you not jump at the chance to stop the Grim Reaper from claiming him then and there? 

Our country is our loved one, and it is sick.  It is very sick.  We should attend to it with all of the care and concern, all of the sobriety, with which we would attend to our children.

But, the Paul supporter will object, even if Romney is the lesser of two evils, the lesser of two evils is still an evil, and it is always wrong to choose an evil!

To meet this objection, we should again turn to Aquinas.

Aquinas articulated what has since been recognized by theologians and ethicists as the doctrine of “double effect.”  The doctrine asserts that since moral worth hinges primarily upon an agent’s intention, it is permissible for a person to will a course of action that he foresees will have bad consequences if the consequences are unintended and the action is necessary in order to prevent a greater evil. 

For example, suicide is always immoral.  Even if a person is terminally ill, it is not permissible for him to intend his own death.  But suppose a terminally ill person seeks not to end his life, but to administer to himself dosages of morphine sufficient to relieve his pain but equally sufficient to end his life.  This would be permissible, for though death is a foreseeable consequence of his action, it is not an intended one.  It is an unintended side effect of a non-suicidal act: an act intended to relieve pain—not end life.  

It is indeed always and everywhere unacceptable to willingly choose what one thinks is evil.  Yet even if one is convinced that Romney is the lesser of two evils, in voting for him, one need no more be guilty of choosing an evil than a terminally ill person who consumes a lethal dosage of morphine to relieve pain can be said to be guilty of having chosen evil.  A liberty lover needn’t be any more attracted to any of Romney’s policies in order to vote for the Republican nominee than need the prospect of a fatal drug overdose appeal to the terminal patient in search of pain relief, or chemotherapy appeal to a cancer patient.

The liberty lover simply (yet reasonably) needs to believe that the only way to achieve some measure—any measure—of relief for his country from Obama’s liberty-eroding agenda to “fundamentally transform” it is to vote our 44th president out of office.

However, the only way to do this is to vote for Mitt Romney.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

How Political Talk Threatens Liberty

posted by Jack Kerwick

American political talk has always revolved around the concept of “liberty” or “freedom.”  This remains the case.  However, what often goes unnoticed, at least by the more vocal champions of liberty, is that much of this talk militates decisively against liberty.

Our founding fathers, recognizing that liberty requires as wide a dispersion of power and authority as possible, bequeathed to their posterity a government that is self-divided.  In spite of the singularity of the term, the American “government” actually consists of many governments, each sovereign in its own specifically delineated arena. Even the federal government is comprised of multiple branches, and within these branches, authority and power is further distributed.  As the founders conceived it, the federal government—precisely because it was a federal, and not a national, government—was severely limited in its scope.

Although we still talk the talk of liberty, our vocabulary reveals that we have long since stopped walking the walk.

For example, we insist on crediting politicians when they “lead,” and blaming them when they fail to do so.  But this concept of leadership in politics is inimical to liberty.  The last thing that a liberty-loving people should want is a political leader.  Indeed, a champion of liberty who elects a leader is a contradiction in terms: the lover of liberty is not about to “follow” any politician anywhere. 

Although our elected representatives are custodians of our laws, they are as much bound by them as is every other citizen.  We are a nation of laws, not of men, as we are fond of saying.  Law—as opposed to commands or orders—doesn’t tell us what to do.  It simply tells us how we must do whatever it is we ourselves decide upon doing.

Law doesn’t lead.  It has no destination, no end or purpose.

The lover of liberty abhors the notion of a political leader.  He wants nothing more or less than for his representatives to govern or, what amounts to the same thing, to rule in accordance with constitutionally sound law.

Interestingly, right-leaning commentators seem to have a glimpse of this insight when they decry as condescending or even “racist” the idea of the black leader.  Why is it, they facetiously ask, that it is only blacks who allegedly need leaders?  What they appear to be getting at here is that blacks should be treated like every other American as self-governing agents.        

Another word that I would like to see go the way of the dinosaur is “capitalism.”  This is a term that was originally coined by communists in the nineteenth century.  What it suggests—and what it was meant to suggest—is that societies differ from one another principally in terms of their economic systems or ideologies.

In reality, however, what is derisively referred to as “capitalism” is neither an economic system nor an ideology of economics.  It isn’t a system or an ideology of any sort.  “Capitalism” is what happens when people are free.  That is, it is what occurs when political authority is decentralized and power diffused. 

Terms like “free enterprise system” and “economic liberty” are better than capitalism.  But they too fail to do justice to the liberty that we at one time prized.

As for the former,America is not an enterprise at all.  An enterprise is defined by its goal, some satisfaction that it wishes to achieve.  A business, for instance, is as clear an illustration of an enterprise as any, for the primary goal of a business is to procure the goal of profit.  In a business, there are leaders—CEO’s, say—who everyone in its employment are expected to follow.

“Economic liberty” is a misnomer insofar as it too implies that there is some kind of liberty that is distinct from other kinds.  In other words, it obscures the fact that the liberty to trade material goods is part and parcel of the very same liberty of people to do whatever they want to do so long as their activities conform to law.

There is no “economic liberty.”  There is only liberty.

Americans from across the political spectrum have a penchant for lamenting “divisiveness” and longing for “unity.”  In some contexts, this is appropriate.  Yet the context of the political arrangements of a liberty-loving people isn’t one of them. 

Our liberty depends upon a divided government. It can thrive only if there is divisiveness—lots of divisiveness.  Indeed, if people are at liberty to formulate their own beliefs and pursue their own ends, how can there not be conflict?  How can there be unity in such an environment?

The words we use are crucial. They are the terms in which we think.

If we wish to think clearly about liberty, then we need to recognize and rid ourselves of those words that promise to impede this task.      

originally published at World Net Daily

The Denver Debate: A Second Look

posted by Jack Kerwick

The first presidential debate of 2012 is now behind us.

And Republican challenger Mitt Romney won it handily. 

No one challenges this verdict.  Even President Obama’s most ardent supporters concede it by way of the truly laughable excuses to which they’ve resorted in accounting for the decisive drubbing that their candidate received.

But while the conventional wisdom concerning the victor is sound enough, the conventional wisdom concerning the debate’s loser is not so much.

Obama, we are told, was “off his game.”  From Denver’s altitude to personal family issues, every conceivable rationale has been offered by the President’s admirers to explain how or why he was “off his game.” 

No explanation is necessary, however, because there is nothing to explain: Obama was not off his game. 

The Obama who arrived for his showdown with Romney is the same Obama that we have been seeing for the last four to five years, the Obama who clashed with and defeated John McCain in 2008.  He was cool and collected.  He spoke reasonably well.  He smirked and didn’t spare the occasion to look down his nose at his rival a time or two.  He threw out the same sound bites to which the country has had the great misfortune of being subjected for what now seems like an eternity.

Things like the widely accepted notion that Obama’s heart didn’t join the rest of his body in Denver are what happen when illusion and reality clash.

The illusion is what we may call “the Messianic syndrome” (TMS).  Obama suffers from TMS, it is true, but so do his supporters. 

Jesus’ closest disciples came to recognize Him as the Messiah before He was arrested, tried, and crucified.  Yet upon witnessing His Passion, they lost faith.  From the debris of their shattered messianic expectations doubt and even despair took flight.  It took the Resurrection to resurrect their belief in Jesus’ true identity.

Obama’s disciples have also had messianic expectations for their leader to fulfill.  In part this is because Obama himself has done everything to give rise to those expectations. Yet it is also partially owing to the fact that his followers—particularly his followers in the media—have been just as diligent in creating those expectations as has Obama himself.

The problem, though, is that Obama and his accomplices in the media have been laboring away at this enterprise for so long that they have actually come to believe their own hype.  Obama, they are convinced, truly is the Messiah.  Because of this, he deserves to be recognized as such by everyone—including his opponents.

Messiahs are supposed to be bottomless fonts of wisdom and virtue.  Messiahs are supposed to be more intelligent than everyone and anyone else.  Messiahs are expected to prevail over all countervailing forces.

And this is all because Messiahs are expected to redeem those to whom they have been sent.

Just as Jesus’ disciples were paralyzed with shock when they saw their Messiah crucified, so too are Obama’s followers still reeling in shock from the sight of the verbal crucifixion that their messiah suffered courtesy of Mitt Romney.

Of course, because Jesus really was the Messiah, His glorious Resurrection was more than enough to vindicate the faith that His disciples had placed in Him.  The reality, as opposed to the illusion, is that Obama, on the other hand, is no kind of messiah at all.  Thus, rather than accept this, he and his followers have no option but to avail themselves of any and every means—however preposterous—that enables them to evade reality.

And the cold, merciless reality is that their candidate lost, and lost resoundingly, not because he was unprepared or disengaged.  He lost because, for at least the first time since he has been in the national limelight, Obama had to square off with a man who is in every respect his superior.

Whether measured in terms of intelligence, worldliness, articulation, or even physical appearance, Romney outshines Obama by miles. 

This is the ugly reality that Obama and his disciples can’t acknowledge. 

Still, reality is persistent.  It has a way of creeping into the consciousness.  Things are only going to get worse for the One and his followers. 

Obama will be more fired up during the next debate, for certain.  But it will be to no avail.  Romney can no more desist in overshadowing Obama than the Sistine Chapel can desist in eclipsing “piss Christ” as an artwork.

Illusions are beginning to give way to reality.

originally published at Townhall.com        

Previous Posts

Myron Pauli: "Barack Obama: All American"
In what follows, all-around bright guy, Myron Pauli, weighs in on the brouhaha surrounding Rudy Giuliani's judgment that President Obama doesn't "love America."  Dr. Pauli provides some real food for thought.  If he's right--and, tragically, it's tough to show that he isn't--than America's pr

posted 10:21:51pm Feb. 26, 2015 | read full post »

A Pop Quiz for African-American History Month
In honor of African-American History month, let’s take a quiz. In each of the following problems, a famous African-American is quoted.  Identify that person among these answer choices: (a) Jesse Jackson; (b) Jeremiah Wright; (c) Al Sharpton; (d) Louis Farrakhan; (e)Barack Hussein Obama; and (f) M

posted 9:24:35pm Feb. 21, 2015 | read full post »

Obama and Our High Horse
It’s a sad commentary on our time that anyone, to say nothing of the President of the United States of America, would so much as think, much less publicly announce, that there is some sort of moral equivalence between the contemporary phenomenon of Islamic barbarity and such oft-cited examples of

posted 9:33:45pm Feb. 17, 2015 | read full post »

Frank Borzellieri and the Death of Free Speech
Back in 2011, Frank Borzellieriwas terminated from his position as principal of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, a predominantly black and Hispanic Catholic elementary school located in the Bronx, New York. The Daily News charged Borzellieri with “white supremacy,” the Church to which Borzellieri devot

posted 9:29:22pm Feb. 17, 2015 | read full post »

Islamic Oppression of Christians in Niger and Nigeria
Scarcely a day passes that media personalities aren’t sounding the alarm over the relentless march of “Islamism”—i.e. militant Islam.  To hear them tell it, one could be forgiven for thinking that “Islamism”—exemplified by the likes of ISIS—is mere centimeters away from destroying b

posted 10:19:36pm Feb. 12, 2015 | read full post »


Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.