Here we go with another cut and paste job. You folks might notice that I have been doing a lot of that lately.
Blame it on blogger and their spell check not working, because I am damn near dyslexic, adn I htae to psot without spell check. I am seriously thinking about dropping blogger even though they have promised to have this little problem fixed really soon.
But I am thankful for my fam. who send me print worthy shit on a daily basis. Like Prince and his songs, I could fill a vault with this shit.
The following story is from Reikki who e-mailed it to me.
It's for you Obamaholics, just so you can see what some folks out there are saying about your boy.
Riekki says it's from a site that links to David Duke, so take it for what it's worth.
The author is some guy named H. Millard, and the title of his little hit piece is called "IS BARACK OBAMA AN UPDATE OF MALCOLM X?" (And he doesn't mean that in a good way, trust me)
So here goes:
"When I saw Barack Obama giving his victory speech Saturday night after winning the South Carolina Democrat primary, I was struck by how much he looks like and talks like Malcolm X.
Put black framed glasses on Barack and this guy could play Malcolm X in a movie.
Even though Obama appears to be trying to broaden his support to people of all races and ethnicities–a necessity if he is to win the presidency–it is clear that he is especially attractive to Blacks, just as was Malcolm X.
I had to wonder to myself, if Malcolm X had come on the scene today and wanted political power, wouldn’t he also try to broaden his message in just such a way so he’d be electable?
Now, maybe this doesn’t sound like a fair comparison to you. But, remember, I’m not suggesting that Malcolm X and Obama have the same message. I’m just saying that to me they seem to have a similar appearance and manner.
After all, if a politician came on the scene who was a ringer for Stalin, no one would notice, right? People wouldn’t think that just because he looks like and talks like Stalin that in some sort of synchronous way that this person shares some of Stalin’s murderous ideas, would they?
At any rate, like Malcolm, Obama seems to be able to motivate Blacks. And, that’s a good thing. Right? Anyone who could be against that must be a racist. Right again?
In South Carolina, Obama won due to a massive turn out of Blacks. In fact, more than 81% of the Black voters in South Carolina voted for Obama. They apparently turned out in record numbers just to vote for their fellow Black, because of the color of his skin, and defeat pro-Black, liberal, White Hillary Clinton. Malcolm X probably would have received a similar total.
Peculiarly, even as they repeated this 81% figure, some liberal White pundits were saying that Obama’s win indicates that we have moved beyond race. Even Ted Kennedy has said that Obama “transcends race.”
Huh?
I don’t get it. If most of the people of one race vote for a person of the same race because of his race, is that not voting for race? Is that what moving beyond race means in this nutty Dark Age in which we live?
Even a large number of the 24% of Whites who voted for Obama in South Carolina may have done so not because they are color blind–as the pundits want you to believe–but precisely because they do see color and they, like Black, also voted for Obama because of the color of his skin.
How can we come to this conclusion? Well, the demographic of White voters that gave the most votes to Obama was the group between 18-29 years old (49% of this demographic voted for him). Frankly, that looks to me to be a result of the blending propaganda that, like most propaganda, is most effective when it is started with young children when their minds are most vulnerable and before they can reason for themselves–say about 30 years ago in earnest.
Propaganda–call it brainwashing–often has mixed results in adults, but when young children are subjected to it, it often becomes fixed for life and comes under the heading of conditioning. Shaking such conditioning is as difficult for humans as it is for rats in a Skinner box. The brain is simply hardwired to believe certain things and to reject anything that is counter to those implanted beliefs.
My guess is that these days you’d find this same demographic would tell you that smoking is bad, but if you went back 60 years or so, they’d tell you it was a fine thing to do. It just depends on which ideas are planted in their brains. We’re all subject to conditioning, folks. Sometimes it’s for our good and sometimes it’s not. But in both cases we are being influenced by others who are trying to get us to have certain mind sets and behaviors.
The smoking is bad, or good, type of propaganda, when given a blender twist, puts messages into the subconscious minds of easily suggestible people that Whites are evil and that they must overcome their evil by voting for Blacks and by treating them better than Whites.
And, what about Obama’s wins in Iowa and New Hampshire where older Whites voted for him in large numbers? Does that show we’ve moved beyond race and counter what I wrote above? Not at all. Pundits are quick to point out that these two states are both overwhelmingly White. Then, based on this, the pundits leap to the conclusion that race had nothing to do with the fact that Obama won.
Again, this is nonsense. The correct conclusion is that because there are so few Blacks in Iowa and New Hampshire, that most of the Whites there have little actual experience to counteract the conditioning. Yes, even older people are subject to conditioning. Generally, it’s not as strong as in those who received if from infancy, but it’s still a factor.
The problem for Obama may be that the conditioning hasn’t taken in all people. Millions of Whites were born before the massive brainwashing began and others aren’t as susceptible to it. The implanted ideas didn’t take. These Whites across the U.S., who look at the statistics of South Carolina, may start believing en masse that Obama really is just a Black candidate for Blacks and other non-Whites and for brainwashed White self-haters. They might start wondering what will happen to them and their families if Obama gets the presidency.
Perhaps, they may think, he is not going to really be a president for all the people after all.
And, it probably has not been missed by many Whites who are against amnesty for illegal aliens that Obama’s supporters use the same chant used by illegal aliens when they march demanding amnesty and open borders: “Yes we can!”
Could it be that the Obama movement is inherently anti-White? “Yes we can. Yes we can. Si se puede. Si se puede.” What are we to make of that chant?
Would some folks be considered paranoid if, upon hearing that chant, they thought they were hearing an echo in their minds from the darkest lands, including Haiti, where Whites were slaughtered in genocidal blood baths because of the color of their skin? Might some not think they hear, in the darkest hours of the night, a drum beat sound, a cadence and a chant once heard from the Mau Maus: “Kill the Whites, Kill the Whites, Kill the Whites.”
Of course “Kill the Whites” aren’t the words of the present chant. No one would suggest that. That does sound paranoid. But, when you hear people saying that Blacks and Hispanics need to join forces, just exactly who are they joining forces against? Even in the most paranoid fantasies, there is often a touch of reality.
Maybe, the hidden meaning of the chant is somewhat less harsh and isn’t “Kill the Whites,” but: “Replace the Whites.”
So, and we’re still speaking of appearances and subconscious cues, one wonders whether or not millions of Whites will also have noticed, as I have, that Obama looks like and talks like Malcolm X and whether or not they’ll subconsciously put that together, rightly or wrongly, with the fact that Blacks appear to be voting for Obama because he is Black. And, if they do think along these lines, will they then start wondering if an Obama presidency might be bad for them and their families?
Will some also fear that Obama will fill all the top positions in the U.S. government with people similar to those on the O.J. jury who acquitted O.J. of murder? Will they recall that most Blacks believe O.J. was innocent while most Whites believe he was guilty? And, if they do recall this, will they wonder what this means for an Obama presidency, if anything?
And, some may wonder about Obama’s ties to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the minister of Trinity United Church of Christ, whose church publication praised Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan. Farrakhan, you may remember, has called Whites “blue-eyed devils.”
Of course, Whites, who have been conditioned to be pro-anything-but-white, will offer various rationalizations for the anti-White connections. That’s how conditioning works in humans. It’s a little like schizophrenia. The schizophrenic will often offer plausible sounding reasons for, say, wearing a tin foil hat and believing that there are space aliens in toilets.
Schizophrenics are often very intelligent and they can even convince many others that there really are space aliens in toilets and that tin foil hats will protect people. No doubt, our political schizophrenics will convince many that anti-White statements and Blacks voting for a Black because he is Black don’t mean what they appear to mean.
As we move toward more primaries, one wonders (but, we really know the answer) if those supporting Obama will try to claim some noble high ground and try to brow beat Whites into voting for Obama with subtle cries that they are racist if they don’t; when the statistics clearly show that Blacks are voting for Obama precisely because he is of their same race and that this, by definition, is the real racism?
One has to feel a little sympathy for the Clintons in all of this. They must feel a little like they’re caught in a real life version of that old joke about the Lone Ranger and Tonto when the two are surrounded by Indians. When the Lone Ranger says “We have to defeat the Indians,” Tonto replies, “What to you mean “we” pale face?”
Many readers of my columns may recall that I once wrote a column in which I called Bill Clinton our first Black president, and that after that column was published, a Black writer called him the same thing and then there was massive publicity about her doing so.
I bring this up because Hillary Clinton, by extension, was the first Black First Lady and her work for Blacks went way back before Obama was ever in politics. But, as she is learning this year, the content of her character doesn’t outweigh the color of her skin in the Black and other non-White communities or among many White liberals.
Obama is taking the Black and the Hispanic vote and he has done nothing to get it except being born non-White. But, that’s not racism, right?"
Take heart Obamaholics, this guy doesn't seem too bright to me. The problem is that a lot of not too bright people will be voting this year.
