The Roots of oBUMa's rage by Dinesh de Souza

High Culture, Religion, Philosophy and Esoterica.
Post Reply
User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 809
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

The Roots of oBUMa's rage by Dinesh de Souza

Post by cassowary » Wed May 10, 2017 6:44 am

Image

I just finished reading "The Roots of Obama's rage. "

Dinesh's theory is that oBUMa is driven by the ideals of his long dead father, Obama Snr. Obama Snr was a Socialist and an anti-colonial activist. He father, ie oBAMa's father was imprisoned by the British for being a suspected Mau Mau sympathizer.

Therein lies oBUMa's rage, all inherited from his father who abandoned him when he was 2. Obama snr was a jerk and an alchoholic. He abandoned his first wife to marry Ann Stanley, oBUMa's mom. Then he abandoned her to return to her African wife in Kenya. Then he abandoned her too and married another woman. He worked for Mboya, a Socialist leader in some government job.

When Prime Minister Joma Kenyatta of Kenya fired Obama senior, he became poor. His drinking got worse. He got into car accidents and lost the use of his legs. Then he died in a final car crash. But he left behind anti-colonial and Socialist writings.

His ideology was in line with Soviet-era propaganda. It went something like this. The Socialists were eager to explain why Marx's prediction of the coming collapse of Capitalism did not occur. They explained that it was postponed by exploiting the brown and black people in the colonies. Do away with the European empires and Capitalism will collapse. as Marx predicted.

The White man was always exploiting the black, brown and yellow races. Hence the struggle for Black equality at home is the same as the struggle for Indepence in Africa. Even after Independence came, the Blacks were still oppressed. That's because the companies in Africa were still in the hands of the Whites. The Whites still controlled most of the wealth in Africa. This line of thinking is known as neo-colonialism. The Whites owed the Black man and other races something for the past misdeeds. The wealth of the First World came from the colonies they created. This wealth needs to be redistributed in order to redress past oppression.

So, if Dinesh is right, it explains the pain oBUMa inflicted on America. It was all because of oBUMa's unresolved daddy issues.

My guess is that, as a young child, oBUMa must have asked her mom, "Why is my dad not with us? Other kids have dads living with them. How come my dad left me?" Mom must have replied, "Your dad is an important man in Africa. He has very important things to do - like fighting against colonialism and neo-colonialism. He is fighting for a just, Socialist society. That is why he can't be with us. "

As an adult, oBUMa went to Kenya to discover his roots. He spoke to his family members to find out more about his dad. He came back determining to carry out his father's ideals. This is the framework Dinesh proposed to explain oBUMa's motivation.

America elected the last anti-colonial Socialist to be its President! Needless to say, this bunch of anti-colonialists that led African governments ruined Africa. I am referring to people like Nkrumah, Julius Nyrere, Idi Amin etc. They were Socialists who despised capitalism.

America was led for 8 years by a man who took a Socialist jerk as a role model and his 1960s ideology as his guide to running America. Even Africa has abandoned that ideology.

User avatar
SteveFoerster
Posts: 667
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:17 pm
Location: Northern Virginia, USA and Dominica, West Indies
Contact:

Re: The Roots of oBUMa's rage by Dinesh de Souza

Post by SteveFoerster » Wed May 10, 2017 9:56 am

Well, it's a theory that may appeal to people who want reasons, however specious, to keep hating Obama. But it doesn't explain an administration that pushed a healthcare bill written by giant insurance corporations, did nothing when police brutality against minorities captured headlines across the country and world, and bombed brown people from the day he took office until the day he left.
Writer, technologist, educator, gadfly.
President of New World University: http://newworld.ac

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 809
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: The Roots of oBUMa's rage by Dinesh de Souza

Post by cassowary » Thu May 11, 2017 6:43 am

SteveFoerster wrote:
Wed May 10, 2017 9:56 am
Well, it's a theory that may appeal to people who want reasons, however specious, to keep hating Obama. But it doesn't explain an administration that pushed a healthcare bill written by giant insurance corporations, did nothing when police brutality against minorities captured headlines across the country and world, and bombed brown people from the day he took office until the day he left.
That's not true, Steve. oBUMaCare was written by insurance companies? oBUMa had to win them over by promising them more customers (his individual and company mandates). In return, it gives the state more control over the insurance industry. This is in line with his Socialist upbringing. He can't nationalize them. So the next best thing is to control them.

Some called it corporatism. But it is really Fascism because Mussolini was the first to claim to represent the "Third Way".

Excerpt from link:
Mussolini’s political ideology stimulated both the revolutionaries and traditionalists, and created what he called the ‘Third Way’. This way was neither socialism/communism, nor laissez-faire capitalism, but a combination of ideas from both of the extremes.
Mussolini was a former Socialist before he was kicked out for supporting Italy's entry into WWI. What is this "Third Way"?

The Third Way has always been started by Socialist politicians after they discovered that Socialism did not work. It seeks a middle path between free market capitalism and Socialism. Socialism, in its original definition, means the state ownership of the assets of production eg farms and factories. That turned out to be a disaster and leftist politicians like Tony Blair sought a middle ground.

Instead of owning the assets of production, it allows companies to remain privately owned. But Third Way politicians want to tell business what to do. Like the Socialists of old, it believes that a bunch of wise men (themselves) can do better to direct the economy than the free market. This is really Fascism since Mussolini was the first one who came up with the idea.

Besides Blair, oBUMa is also in this category. Here is Thomas Sowell's excellent explanation:

Socialist or Fascist
It bothers me a little when conservatives call Barack Obama a "socialist." He certainly is an enemy of the free market, and wants politicians and bureaucrats to make the fundamental decisions about the economy. But that does not mean that he wants government ownership of the means of production, which has long been a standard definition of socialism.

What President Obama has been pushing for, and moving toward, is more insidious: government control of the economy, while leaving ownership in private hands. That way, politicians get to call the shots but, when their bright ideas lead to disaster, they can always blame those who own businesses in the private sector.

Politically, it is heads-I-win when things go right, and tails-you-lose when things go wrong. This is far preferable, from Obama's point of view, since it gives him a variety of scapegoats for all his failed policies, without having to use President Bush as a scapegoat all the time.

Government ownership of the means of production means that politicians also own the consequences of their policies, and have to face responsibility when those consequences are disastrous -- something that Barack Obama avoids like the plague.

Thus the Obama administration can arbitrarily force insurance companies to cover the children of their customers until the children are 26 years old. Obviously, this creates favorable publicity for President Obama. But if this and other government edicts cause insurance premiums to rise, then that is something that can be blamed on the "greed" of the insurance companies.
It is also not true that oBUMa was bombing brown people because the majority of people his drones killed were white. The Afghans, Yemenis and Syrians his drones killed were white. A few brown skinned Pakistanis might have been killed. But the drones operated in NW Pakistan where the people were fair skinned.

oBUMa didn't do anything about police brutality? Ferguson, Trayvvon Martin were not killed by by racists which a racist police and courts let go scot free. oBUMa sided with Black Lives Matter and weakened policing procedures which results in more black people killed.

User avatar
Doc
Posts: 968
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:09 pm
Location: Cradle To Grave

Re: The Roots of oBUMa's rage by Dinesh de Souza

Post by Doc » Thu May 11, 2017 7:06 am

SteveFoerster wrote:
Wed May 10, 2017 9:56 am
Well, it's a theory that may appeal to people who want reasons, however specious, to keep hating Obama. But it doesn't explain an administration that pushed a healthcare bill written by giant insurance corporations, did nothing when police brutality against minorities captured headlines across the country and world, and bombed brown people from the day he took office until the day he left.
SIngle payer was the desired end result. ObamaCare was made to fail to then be replaced by single payer. So buying the rope from the giant insurance companies for which to hang them make perfect sense. Saying Obama did nothing about police brutality is not particularly true. The Obama Justice dept in effect took over local police depts That it did little for the deceased individuals did not serve the "Greater Good" in their eyes, as individuals are to be expended for the "Greater Good" not the other way around,
The classes and the races to weak to master the new conditions of life must give way {..} They must perish in the revolutionary holocaust --Karl Marx

User avatar
SteveFoerster
Posts: 667
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:17 pm
Location: Northern Virginia, USA and Dominica, West Indies
Contact:

Re: The Roots of oBUMa's rage by Dinesh de Souza

Post by SteveFoerster » Fri May 12, 2017 6:36 am

cassowary wrote:
Thu May 11, 2017 6:43 am
It is also not true that oBUMa was bombing brown people because the majority of people his drones killed were white. The Afghans, Yemenis and Syrians his drones killed were white. A few brown skinned Pakistanis might have been killed. But the drones operated in NW Pakistan where the people were fair skinned.
So, Syrians are white but Palestinians are brown? :?

Anyway, I think you know exactly what I was saying, that the Obama administration's continuance and acceleration of war throughout the Middle East directly contradicts the notion that he secretly considered formerly colonised peoples to be his true constituency.
Writer, technologist, educator, gadfly.
President of New World University: http://newworld.ac

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 809
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: The Roots of oBUMa's rage by Dinesh de Souza

Post by cassowary » Sun May 14, 2017 9:57 pm

SteveFoerster wrote:
Fri May 12, 2017 6:36 am
cassowary wrote:
Thu May 11, 2017 6:43 am
It is also not true that oBUMa was bombing brown people because the majority of people his drones killed were white. The Afghans, Yemenis and Syrians his drones killed were white. A few brown skinned Pakistanis might have been killed. But the drones operated in NW Pakistan where the people were fair skinned.
So, Syrians are white but Palestinians are brown? :?

I said Pakistanis and not Palestinians. oBUMa used drones in the NW frontier in Pakistan. So some brown people were probably killed. But the people in that area are mostly white, not brown. The Syrians, Yemenis, Iraqis are all white.
Anyway, I think you know exactly what I was saying, that the Obama administration's continuance and acceleration of war throughout the Middle East directly contradicts the notion that he secretly considered formerly colonised peoples to be his true constituency.
Not necessarily. oBUMa probably felt that there is a distinction between putting boots on the ground and simply killing US enemies from the air. The former comes with administrators and advisors telling the locals what to do. Thus, it smack so of colonialism. The latter simply seeks to kill what he believes to be America's enemies.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest