Monday, July 4, 2016

On Weisel: My Comment at Cory Robin's Blog

Roy Cameron July 4, 2016 at 12:51 pm | #
It’s all about staring into the face of the Medusa. Got the phrase from Dr Adriana Mazzarella, a Jungian psychiatrist who also happened to be Italian and Jewish. I helped her prepare her English for her seminars in the US for her book, Looking for Beatrice, a Jungian interpretation of Dante’s Divine Comedy…and, yes, she lived through WWII.
Medusa represents that horror of life that simply turns your entire will to life to stone…something inanimate. I think what is happening here concerning the Holocaust is just that: looking at the Holocaust destroys faith in human nature and in the God that is supposed to have designed us.
If you follow the idea of a Covenant with God quite literally, then you have to ask yourself what good it did to have the Covenant. If God’s means in the world are so terrible, you have to doubt either the existence of God or accept his means-and-ends POV as something apparently unjustified…calling into question every aspect of one’s faith.
Another point of central importance would be the Holocaust’s apparent singularity. Its singularity derives mostly from our capacity to document it. 6 million Ukrainians were killed off by the Bolsheviks without anywhere near the documentation level, given that Russia was essentially a Third-Wold backwater without a great industrial base, and, as a result, the “singularity” of the Holocaust derives from the fact that similar events barely exist in human consciousness.
I also add that, as the Khmer Rouge conducted their Holocaust, I wondered why the phrase “Never Again” did not spur the world into action to prevent such a crime against humanity. Instead, I felt relief that Vietnamese communists, our enemy, rode to the rescue, albeit late.
I also have to agree with anyone who thinks that Wiesel takes it way too far getting into the “sacralizing” and “mystification” of the event. The motives of those who do evil can be understood and fought against. As I said, this happens to anyone who "stares into the Medusa" too long.
Last, but not least: the range of the comments here and their tone..impressive.

Friday, June 3, 2016

China Is the Bomb! (Or is it just the firing pin..?)

The world is going to economic hell, a trans-national globalist hell, in a Made-in-China handbasket that anyone without the usual blinders on saw coming years ago as China successfully reproduced the Japanese export model...without any adjustments for the now plain-to-see after-party no-growth scenario getting played out in Japan....

China Trade And The Inevitability Of Systemic Reset

China has built out its infrastructure, one of the few areas where the US, Brazil, Australia and others could get in on China's growth as a market, furnishing raw materials.

That supplied us with a modicum of cash that did not offset, but took some of the sting out of our enormous trade deficit with China. Now that the infrastructure build-out has slowed down, the world price for iron ore, copper and other raw materials is down. Our deficit grows and our economy slows...

China's exports are down in turn as we import less. The US economy cannot seem to recover...GDP growth on the point of recession...even in the face of extremely low interest rates and OPEC's suicidally low oil price.

This means that the US economy and the world economy are both structurally unsound....too much production in China with artificially low prices from a fixed-currency regime whose government has subsidized all manner of industrial production for export...while the US lives on credit, "monetizing" its debt...

The problem is now so bad that the Obama regime has taken the unusual step to slap a 500% tariff on Chinese steel...a story not covered widely by the financial press.

China Furious afterUS Launches Trade War Nuke: 522% Duty Slapped on Steel Imports



Sunday, March 20, 2016

China Trade I: Black Hole of World Faux Free Trade : Japan '89 & Macro Econ 101

In 1989, when I was living in Milan, Italy, I had the opportunity to learn a very big lesson about macroeconomics. It came about because of the systemic collapse of the Japanese economy, which, at that time, had the top 10 banks in the world.

Japan didn't just have the banks; it had an economy which was the envy of the world. Articles had begun to appear in magazines such as Newsweek and Business Week about how journalists wanted to relocate from Washington DC or New York to Tokyo because that's where the action was.

I was going through the process of registering for my job as an ESL teacher, and I had purchased a copy of the International Herald Tribune. It had an article about those banks. They were all Japanese; it was emblematic of the whole transformation of Japan from a country which had lost to the US in World War II to a country which now had an economy in many ways superior to the US and led it in socio-cultural parameters as well.

There is an awful lot of anti-Americanism throughout Europe, and, though I'm broad-minded and can understand a lot of it, there are those who simply wish to strike back at Americans to enjoy a moment of fleeting superiority. There was such a person working in the Milan employment bureau, and he had to go out of his way to notice the article tucked under my arm, and then make a comment about how the top banks were now Japanese - and not American. Of course, it irritated me, but, other than that, I gave it little regard.

The thing that really struck me, though, happened within a year; the Japanese economy imploded. Not only did the Japanese no longer have any of the top ten banks, four of those banks that had failed.

Because so many of my students in ESL were businessmen, and because of my own decades long interest in economics, self-taught, I read whatever I could about the Japanese crash and got to consult with Italian bankers on the whole thing.

Finally, all of it got condensed down to a couple of articles in Business Week that summarized the relevant information and explained what had happened. It was not that complicated to understand the reasons of just how the economic and financial structures had failed.

The real problem, the one I had trouble understanding, was how the Japanese and international financial community had failed to interpret the immediate and relevant economic data correctly.

In other words, there was no great secret or backdoor manipulation that was responsible for creating the crash. There was no really new or particularly novel aspect to the situation. What had created the crash was the failure to interpret their world, a moral and existential blindness, that was fueled by greed and over-optimism.

Essentially, Japan had huge trade surpluses. The trade surpluses with United States were the result of a certain degree of currency manipulation designed to keep Japanese companies in a position to compete with American companies. The surpluses were also the result of internal barriers in Japan which added to the cost of American goods due to the internal inefficiency of their distribution system, which insured even higher prices. Even Japanese goods distributed in Japan cost more than the same product in Los Angeles, which was why Japanese businessmen bought themselves Toshiba computers while they were there.

Japan "sterilized" its US dollars by printing up corresponding sums of Japanese Yen, which were then deposited in the bank, keeping the exchange rate essentially the same. This mountain of Yen had to find its way into the Japanese economy and ended up creating bubbles in the stock and real estate markets. When you combine this with a couple of bad moves by Japanese companies, their economy went into a deep recession. Nissan, one of the most successful automobile companies in the world bet wrong and ended up being owned by the French.

Nissan invested heavily, bent on continuing to improve its robotic assembly line, but the major investment did not provide the return anticipated. The drop in cost of production didn't provide the ROI as the drop in cost didn't result in a significant slice of the US auto market going their way. Renault, a French automobile company, ended up owning Nissan, a tremendous reversal of fortune, emblematic of the whole fall of Japan's econ juggernaut.

The stock market, the real estate market, and Nissan failed within months of each other. Oh! The Japanese mafia, known as Yakusa, was involved as well, making it just that much harder to call in loans...

Four of those great Japanese banks died, while the others lost their status, and the Japanese economy and still hasn't grown in more than 25 years.

So what's the lesson here?

The lesson here is that the financial press and the business community and the government agencies in charge of banking and other aspects of our economy are not capable of seeing past their own prejudices, the narrowness of their own perspective, to get at the truth when the truth is uncomfortable and goes against the grain of what might be deemed the conventional wisdom of the stock market and international banking system.

We saw this again in 2007 when Wall Street collapsed and major banks died, such as Lehman Brothers, and we went back to the same processes that got us there in the first place.

Now what does this have to do with China? Answer: everything...

Tuesday, February 16, 2016

How to combat gang life in Los Angeles in 5 Easy Steps

Based on a lot of thought and some substantial experience in the problem area, I propose:

1) Put an end to illegal immigration.

2) Put an end to mass immigration, reducing the numbers substantially.

3) Make trade agreements which are of net benefit to the United States, and not just certain corporations or groups within the United States. Be able to quantify and document that net benefit by documenting every negative as well as the positives, in every way possible.

4) Put an end to the culture of self-indulgence and hedonism that was brought in by the late 60s, a culture that hurts poor people the most, even as it's preached by our moneyed elites in all of our media. Here a spiritual renewal, broad-based, will be necessary...

5) Improve the schools. There are a lot of ways to do this without spending more money. One significant way would be to eliminate those teachers, the one in five, who were actually totally incapable. It's been demonstrated ("Waiting for Superman") that just eliminating that one teacher in five will substantially raise reading, writing and math scores for inner-city kids.

Fathers, Fatherhood and Families.

Let's understand that gang life thrives in neighborhoods without fathers where entire groups of young men raise themselves.

Families lack fathers for a number of reasons, all of which are important.

Among them, the first is that poor men contribute little with their small wages to the well-being of the family. Wives see the husbands as expendable and can go on welfare.

There is also a tremendous issue today of war against males, of masculine identity, the false notion that a mother can raise a son as well as a father.

Simply not true.

At a certain age, adolescents typically become hostile to their mothers as they break away from the childhood psyche. Those young-men-in-formation need both the chance to break away and to be initiated into manhood by men who have done just that.

Essentially, gang life is a substitution for this process.

The atmosphere within the home and the capacity of a man and a woman to live together on good terms is also an issue. The general lack of sexual self discipline in our society particularly hurts those at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder, much more than those at the top.

Once the cycle of poverty begins, its great momentum helps it continue.

If your parents had a bad marriage, and if your same-sex parent, with whom you identify, had enormous problems in life, whether it be in work or in relationships, you usually inherit a lot of the problem and much less of the solution.

So, it can't be said that as soon as we have certain economic issues settled, marriage will become reestablished as the norm among people for whom it has not been the norm for several generations. It can't be said that neighborhoods will suddenly be full of fathers supervising their sons. But, without an economic basis, no family can exist, just like anything else in our society.

Let's take a look at the economic nexus surrounding this problem.

When I was a boy in a major East Coast city, the vast majority of jobs were in industrial production. At a certain point, the shipyards were moved to South Korea because of cheaper labor (?), and the neighborhoods that depended on the shipyards for work were simply destroyed.

These were white people, educated to some extent, having real job skills, who depended on these jobs to take care of families. I didn't see any real efforts to help these families adjust, and the neighborhoods turned into neighborhoods very similar to the poor black neighborhoods in Los Angeles.

The neighborhoods were full of families on welfare, young people on drugs, and a lot of violence secondary to the drug trade, besides whatever went on with the families themselves out of the general sense of frustration and hopelessness.

This pattern has continued.

NAFTA increased the number of illegal immigrants coming to the United States from Mexico because NAFTA killed the livelihood of small Mexican farmers. Their corn was too expensive compared to the price of corn from the United States.

Whole villages have been abandoned.

These farmers without a livelihood used to go to the Maquiladora region to get work on the border with the United States. American managers lived on the American side and commuted to their factories just south of the border where Mexican workers manned the plants.

Then this wonderful thing called "China trade" happened.

The Maquiladora region could no longer expand because they couldn't compete with products from China. So, what did the dispossessed farmers (and others) do and what have they been doing to this day?

They continue to come illegally into the United States to find work. As a result, wages have gone down. Butchers in LA supermarkets get the same wages as decades ago. Young black men and women have a harder time getting jobs. Even summer temporary work has been shunted off to immigrants.

Worse, in some areas, such as Compton, Mexican gang members  have begun harassing, hunting down, killing black people living there in an effort to "ethnically cleanse" Compton of blacks, giving the Mexican Mafia greater control.

Who speaks of this? Practically no one...

Have you ever thought to ask yourself why George W. Bush never secured the border in the wake of 9/11?

Have you ever thought that George W. Bush never secured the border in the wake of 9/11 because, had he done so, the illegal immigrants from Mexico, the refugees from NAFTA's effects there, would have had to stay in Mexico causing major civil unrest?

Have you ever thought that George W. Bush never secured the border in the wake of 9/11 because, had he done so, Mexico would have pulled out of NAFTA, and that would have hurt some enormous Chamber of Commerce-New World Order-Internationalist-Globalist itch that they seem all intent on scratching, starting with a few American farmers who could no longer sell their corn there?

China trade, the cause of the failure of the Maquiladora region to thrive, is premised on fixed currency regimes that are to our detriment. These fixed-currency regimes are a violation in every sense of the notion of actual free trade. For those of you unfamiliar with the notion, if two countries really have free trade, then the medium of exchange, their currencies, do not have a fixed value.

I will do more on that in another blog. There is a lot more to be said.

So, there you have it.

On both sides of the political spectrum there are people dedicated to internationalism and mass immigration. 

They mouth all kinds of platitudes regarding minorities and the poor who are already here, but they refuse to see the evidence that they've actually hurt the situation. They refuse to see the evidence that the only way to help minorities and the poor of any color who are already here is to restrict immigration and to stop the export of jobs.

So, how to fix the problem?

Once again:

1) Put an end to illegal immigration.

2) Put an end to mass immigration, reducing the numbers substantially.

3) Make trade agreements which are of net benefit to the United States, and not just certain corporations or groups within the United States. Be able to quantify that net benefit in every way possible.

4) Put an end to the culture of self-indulgence and hedonism, which poor people are most hurt by.

5) Improve the schools by eliminating those teachers, the one in five, who are actually totally incapable. It's been demonstrated that just eliminating that one teacher in five will substantially raise reading, writing and math scores for inner-city kids.


Thursday, January 28, 2016

Corsi Quotes on Vattel's Definition & Concept of "Natural Born"

In the 18th century, the term natural-born citizen derived from an understanding of natural law—the universal, self-evident law America’s Founding Fathers presumed came from God. Natural law was seen as God’s law that ruled human affairs, distinct from positive law, which specified statutes written by human beings to govern human behavior. The Founders would have understood that positive law, to the extent it was correct and bore authority, had to derive from and be consistent with natural law. Writers in the natural law tradition, including Swiss philosopher and diplomat Emerich de Vattel, profoundly influenced the thinking of the Founding Fathers. The term natural-born citizen appears first in a treatise Vattel wrote in 1758 titled Law of Nations: or, Principles of the Natural Law Applicable to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns. In Chapter 19, Section 212, Vattel specified: The citizens are the members of the civil society, bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority; they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.

Jerome, Corsi (2011-05-17). Where's the Birth Certificate?: The Case that Barack Obama is not Eligible to be President (pp. 33-34). Midpoint Trade Books. Kindle Edition.

He continued: As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation, and it is presumed as matter of course that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. Vattel again emphasizes the concept that natural-born citizens are those born in the nation to parents who are citizens of the nation: The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children, and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born.

Jerome, Corsi (2011-05-17). Where's the Birth Certificate?: The Case that Barack Obama is not Eligible to be President (p. 34). Midpoint Trade Books. Kindle Edition.

Vattel concluded: I say that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will only be the place of his birth, and not his country. Thus, the point of requiring that presidents be natural-born citizens was to prevent foreigners, or those whose allegiance could be attributed to the jurisdiction of foreign sovereigns, from ever being chief executive with the awesome powers of commander in chief. Using Vattel’s definition, natural-born citizen is not a vague concept. Rather, applied to the U.S. Constitution, a natural-born citizen is someone born in the United States to parents who are United States citizens.

Given this definition, a person born in the United States to one U.S. citizen parent and a second who is a citizen of another country would not qualify. Obama’s situation is precisely this: He says he was born in Hawaii to a Kenyan father and a U.S. citizen mother. The assertion that a presidential candidate should be disqualified for being born on foreign soil was arguably weaker if both parents were U.S. citizens when the child was born. Under Vattel’s definition, if the child’s birth location were under U.S. jurisdiction at the time and both parents were U.S. citizens, the child was arguably a natural-born citizen. So, according to Vattel, Charles Curtis and Barry Goldwater would be considered natural-born citizens, provided we consider the territories of Kansas and Arizona to have been part of the United States before they were granted statehood.

Jerome, Corsi (2011-05-17). Where's the Birth Certificate?: The Case that Barack Obama is not Eligible to be President (pp. 34-35). Midpoint Trade Books. Kindle Edition.

Had George Romney or Lowell Weicker advanced as presidential candidates, their birthplaces would have become an issue under Article 2, Section 1. With regard to John McCain, whose Democratic critics in 2008 investigated whether he was born at a civilian hospital in the Canal Zone or in a U.S. Navy hospital, some believed birth outside the Navy base would have disqualified him from running for president. There can be no doubt the Founding Fathers were familiar with Vattel’s Law of Nations. On December 9, 1775, Benjamin Franklin wrote to Vattel’s editor, C.G.F. Dumas, in France: “I am much

Jerome, Corsi (2011-05-17). Where's the Birth Certificate?: The Case that Barack Obama is not Eligible to be President (p. 35). Midpoint Trade Books. Kindle Edition.

obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. [I]t has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author.”73

The First Congress in 1790—whose members included twenty delegates to the Constitutional Convention, eight of them members of the Committee of Eleven that drafted the natural-born citizen clause—passed the Naturalization Act of 1790 (1 Stat. 103, 104), which provided: “And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural-born citizens.”74

If we incorporate this into the meaning of Article 2, Section 1, it becomes less important for natural-born citizenship that the person is born in the United States, as long as his parents are both U.S. citizens. This interpretation might have allowed Romney and Weicker to be eligible for president despite being born on foreign soil. Still, it is questionable whether being born in Vermont would make Chester Arthur qualified or whether being born in Hawaii would qualify Barack Obama, because of the foreign nationality and presumed allegiance of their fathers.

Critics who object to interpreting the meaning of natural-born citizen in Article 2, Section 1, as a term of natural law have argued that there is “no source to which an appeal can be made to determine what natural law is.”75

 This argument, however, would not make sense to the Founding Fathers, who were familiar with philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and David Hume, all of whom wrote extensively of natural law as derived from classical Greek and Roman philosophy.

While Hobbes, Locke, and Hume all differed in their exact definitions and applications of natural law, the concept that natural law derived from God and was imbued in human nature was held in common. Moreover, Vattel is careful not to leave the term natural-born citizen vague, but to define it carefully as applying to those born in the nation to parents who are citizens of the nation.

Critics also object that it “makes no sense for a nation of immigrants to consider ‘natural allegiance’ to be determined by where their fathers came from.”

Yet, consider that in Article 2, Section 1, the Founders stipulated as eligible for the presidency not only “natural-born Citizens,” but also “Citizens of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution.”

Foreigners, including persons born to one or more foreign parents who were not citizens at the time the Constitution was adopted, were not eligible to be president.

This was the entire point.

The Founding Fathers wanted to exclude foreigners from the presidency because they were distrustful of elevating to chief executive of the nation or commander in chief anyone who by birth might bear allegiance to a foreign nation. That someone was born to a foreign parent reflects no fault of their own, of course, but the Founding Fathers were distrustful that a dual citizen at birth would owe his undivided loyalty to the United States of America.

One final point is grammatical in nature.

 In writing the natural-born citizen clause of Article 2, Section 1, observe that the Founding Fathers capitalized “Citizen,” such that the phrase read “natural-born Citizen.”

In 18th-century English grammatical tradition, the principle was that the noun “Citizen” was being modified by the phrase “natural-born,” which served to further qualify the understanding of “Citizen.”

That is, to be eligible for president, it was not sufficient that a person be a citizen; he also had to be natural-born.

The point is that not all citizens are natural-born, but only natural-born citizens are eligible to be president.

The phrase “natural-born Citizen” was intended to specify that “natural-born” constituted a sub-class within the larger class of “Citizens.” To modern thinkers, the idea of restricting the presidency to natural-born citizens can seem archaic or xenophobic, especially when the United States is itself a nation of immigrants. Still, the clause remains in Article 2, Section 1, and has never been modified or removed by constitutional amendment, even if some today think it would be wise to do so. As long as the natural-born citizen eligibility requirement remains in the Constitution, Americans have an obligation to take the entire phrase seriously and to apply its standard rigorously, without exception. Barack Obama—a Dual Citizen at Birth


Jerome, Corsi (2011-05-17). Where's the Birth Certificate?: The Case that Barack Obama is not Eligible to be President (pp. 35-37). Midpoint Trade Books. Kindle Edition.

Saturday, December 26, 2015

"I Giusti"- The Just Ones. The Role of Diana West with American Betrayal

Dear Diana West,

Essentially, i giusti, the "just ones", are the keystones in an archway.Without keystones, archways fall down and the passages are blocked.

When you wrote American Betrayal, you constructed an archway to a view of just how badly the US government had been infiltrated by Marxists and Soviet agents. You were able to successfully de-mythologize World War II. Amazingly enough, you also succeeded in answering many questions that go back all the way to my childhood when I first became aware of things such as the occupation of Eastern Europe by communism, the Berlin wall, the invasion and conquest of Italy which the Allies abandoned, and communism itself.

You were propelled to that understanding by the another archway you had built with The Death of the Grown-Up, which essentially describes just how bad American and Western culture had become. It helps account for our weakness in discernment regarding Islam and Jihadism.

They are both tremendous pieces of work and only the Just Ones are capable of doing such work. Master Masons were allowed to put in and sign the keystone, as you see it in the arm of the Statue of Liberty, because it was only their skill that permitted that construction.

After writing American Betrayal, you were assaulted in a barbarous way by people who objected to your construction, seeing as an assault on their pantheon of people and events. Then, you finished off your keystone with a second book, The Rebuttal,  countering the arguments against American Betrayal and against you as a person.

You planted the flag, Iwo Jima-style, and then you kept the  high ground.

So thank you.

Sunday, October 21, 2012

Part II: President Nefasto: Obama and "2016": Review and Analysis


President Nefasto! Has a ring to it as if something from a bad B movie about an evil president, doesn't it?

In my previous blog, the concept of “nefasto”, an Italian word for evil, was introduced as the best word to describe what it meant functionally and morally to subvert, overthrow, or undermine America itself as a functioning nation.

I chose this word as a result of my familiarity with the Italian language, the result of a decade of living there, the furthering of my interest with Roman and Church history, and because the word captures the essence of what had been achieved in the first "people's thing", the Roman republic, by describing its undoing

Basically, nefasto derives from what unbinds the fas, the binding of the fasces, the bundles of sticks that represented the coming together of the thirteen tribes of Rome to replace the Etruscan kings they had overthrown. They are visible on Lincoln's throne in the image below.



Fas is the word that generated fasces, fascial (in anatomy), fashion, fascinate. Yes, fascist also comes from this. Mussolini used this as part of his re-invention of international socialism, Marxist-Leninist style, to a national socialism. He tried to invoke Rome's origins to make his approach attractive to the average Italian who resisted socialism by giving the Italians a way to identify with it as a people.

To reiterate from the first blog, a nation-state needs to have three functions and an animating principle driving those functions to keep itself in life.

The functions are: 1) control of its borders; 2) control of its interior to have law-and-order; 3) a tax system that provides the money to do all that based on a viable economy.

The animating principle, though, is the real telling element of the nation-state: its identity.

Without a shared vision of what the nation-state is about, there is no motivation to achieve this status. 

All of Roman religious and spiritual culture answered that question. That vision of what life was about gave the Romans their dedication to the Great Mother Rome and its Stoicism allowed them to remain stalwart in the face of what lesser groups would have reacted to with total panic. Hannibal's invasion is the greatest example.

So, then, what about that title, there: “President Nefasto and "2016".

"2016" is the new documentary on President Obama by Dinesh D'Souza. 

What can I say?

A shockingly good documentary that says a lot of things many of us have been saying about President Obama since he took office. In short, that Obama is on a mission to take down America, hamstring it, and that his relationship to his father is at the root of the whole thing.

“2016” begins with commentary on an event that appear to be of less importance: i.e., sending the bust of Winston Churchill back to the UK. For me, it was a small thing that sent up a big red flag.

It struck me as the political equivalent of the Taliban blowing up statues of the Buddha or gang members in Los Angles crossing out the name of a rival gang member on the list under the gang graffiti that declares that territory as theirs.

Surely, this is an exaggeration. I wish.

That rejection of Winston Churchill, one-time head of the British colonial office, was the essential statement of President Obama’s point of view: the point of view of a hardened anti-colonialist. Any achievement of Churchill in WWII was more than negated by being part of the original colonial system.

There are different shades and degrees of anti-colonialism. D'Souza's own father and grandfather were anti-colonialists, but, not abandoned by them, D'Souza had the grace to come to a more objective view of the West, whites, and the US, in particular since his own identity as a male was secure and not involved.

Obama's anti-colonialism is of the Rev Wright-Bill Ayers-Frank Marshall Davis kind. His anti-colonialism is a negation of the animating principle of our "We, the People" constitutional republic itself. Wright's is of the "God damn America" kind, while Frank Marshall Davis, his mentor growing up, was a card-carrying communist, editor of a leading American communist paper, and on a list that, should the US had gone to war with Russia, called for his detainment by the FBI for the duration of the war.

We all remember Ayers if we are of a certain age. He planted bombs and was a member of the Weather Underground  during the Vietnam era.

In effect, we are a lie for those three men and the others mentioned in the film. Our Founders' vision was false, a mask worn to promote neo-colonialism. Those men see no invention or hard work, no diligence, at the basis of our development and power. Just pure theft. And no essential vision of "All men are created equal" with a Bill of Rights to secure and to promote to the world.

No, no. Quite the opposite.

Obama has made it abundantly clear through his actions and policies that Obama is driven by his anti-colonialist animus and wants to realize it by making America less powerful,  thus more equal, and less capable of projecting force, interfering much less with the weaker nations of the world.

How to do that? 

Simple. By interfering in every legitimate and necessary expression of our three preserving functions: from failing to safeguard our border, even our embassies, to interfering with legitimate police and state function of government internally. Then Obama undemines the economic system, which will eventually make the tax dollars we collect of much reduced worth, further undermining our capacity to keep our borders secure and preserve law-and-order.

Obama  refuses to really enforce immigration laws. He works to block the introduction of photo ID to assure the integrity of the vote, while opposing E-Verify for hiring. He turns down energy from Canada and shuts down drilling in the Gulf, hamstringing our energy supply while aiding Brazil and others to drill. He debases our currency through huge deficits after having promised to halve the deficit, and fails to keep goods dumped by nations that manipulate currencies from entering our markets.

All of that interferes with the express interests and will of "We, the People" whose representatives have made those laws. Our tax system will soon be collecting the most worthless dollar in our history as Obama chooses to continue creating huge deficits. In this, the Fed Reserve bank aids him. All of this, added in with his energy and trade policies, destroys the engine of wealth America has traditionally been.

Obama has also failed to grasp the reality of the threat to the West posed by Jihadism, the militant wing of Islam’s thousand-year old campaign to impose Islam on the rest of the world. His attempt to reset relations with the Muslim world was based on his anti-neocolonialism.

Essentially, our problems are just blow-back. His anti-colonialism assigns the basis of all present dysfunctional aspects of those nations to the West's instrusion into those nations. Use your Arabic name, your non-white heritage, he thought, and I could magically reset the whole relationship. Yes, He Could, even while using drones to kill Jihadists.

This kept Obama from realizing how dangerous Benghazi was after repeated warnings from the intelligence community and the ambassador himself. His exalted view of his own powers is the immediate cause of the denial, something he shares with people throughout his administration.

It's the same for not safeguarding our borders where human trafficking, drug smuggling goes on and Jihadists can enter.  To boot, Obama ignores the effects of it all on the crime rates in Phoenix, Arizona among many other American cities of the South.

In the case of Arizona, Obama has gone out of his way to not only not guard, but to prevent Arizona from guarding itself. After all, didn't we clean up methaphetamine production in the US just so it could become another one of the "exports" helping Mexico bootstrap itself out of poverty?

What exactly would the aim of the policy be that left the border open after 9/11, while druglords, capitalizing on the access to the American market, destroy the very fabric of Mexican society, its honest citizens, its police, living in fear?

President Nefasto's policies have international consequences, and some of them, as in Mexico, are nefasto there as well.

There is, in essence, no functional aspect of America as a society and nation-state that Obama has not impeded and worked against. Americans have gone along with this because of the promise of a cleansing of racial guilt coming from a man with a middle-class persona and a winning smile. That we live in a time of spiritual crisis yet to be resolved also allows us to give the benefit of the doubt to the motivations of people we don't know very well. And, we certainly didn't know Obama.

We also have an uncertain loyalty to our own values, our own sense of the rational, the just and the good. That spiritual crisis' dysfunctional aspects are manifest in the general corruption of the intellectual classes, our educational institutions and, especially, the main stream media, all of whom acted in concert with Obama to get him elected.

Oh, by the way: Obama had to act the way he did.

In effect, by taking on the political theology of his father (as a way to absolve himself of the anger toward his father and general sense of unworthiness his father's abandonment of him created), everything evil that happens to us is the blow-back from something evil we have done. More on that later in the next blog.

Last point: The opposition party, the GOP, is also very much at fault.

George W Bush and GOP failed to safeguard our republic's borders, to supervise our trade deals to see we are not exploited, to reign in budget deficits, to properly supervise our banks, our Wall St firms. That laid the groundwork for Obama's ascendancy. There was no abiding sense that "We, the People" were protected by the supposed purveyors of traditional morality. We voted (not me) for Hope and Change.

W and the GOP actually practice internationalism, helping Wall St at the expense of Main St. More on that in the next blog.

In part III of this blog, we will get into the specifics of those policies, and we will look at some of the "mini-me" policies that the local politicians favor as well.

I will really get into what it means to have a "We, the People" society as opposed to mob-based pseudo-democracy.