The new racism and the mind of Obama
By Alisa Craddock
Barack Obama says race will not be a factor in the November election. "What the people are looking for," he says, "is somebody who can solve their problems." That may be what Democrats are looking for, but I think most people on the right are looking for someone who will stay out of our lives and our business, and stop looking for new ways to "solve our problems" by more federal legislation. And Barack Obama's race is going to be a factor, not because America is not ready for a black president, but because America isn't looking for a Barack Obama.
In my column, "The Desolation of Obama Nation", I examined Barack Obama's views on social issues and religion. I noted that he had cast himself as a thoughtful, committed Christian, while simultaneously making faithful Christians who actually believe in the wise and time-tested moral precepts of their faith seem like radicals, sanctimonious hypocrites who dress up "closed-mindedness in the garb of piety, cruelty and oppression in the cloak of righteousness." I see nothing in his recent remarks that refutes that.
I don't entirely disagree with Barack Obama's comments from which the now infamous "guns and religion" quote came, though he got it all wrong about the guns and religion part. People of faith find solace and strength in their faith, and meaning to their lives, both in times of trouble, and in times of prosperity. But the implication of Obama's comment is that religion becomes a form of aggression, and guns become a childish defense. It's not something he said directly, but it is implied in the context of what he said in that speech, and is entirely consistent with comments I excerpted from The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream (Random House, 2006) which I quoted above, regarding the religious right. Further, I expect there are three main reasons people keep guns: 1) hunting, 2) personal protection and 3) they feel they may have to defend their way of life someday. They feel that as long as they can still own weapons, they haven't entirely lost their freedom, or their ability to defend that freedom. It is a well-known fact that throughout the 20th Century, in each of the countries where communist/socialist dictatorships were imposed on the people, weapons were first systematically confiscated and outlawed. We are guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms precisely to defend from internal tyranny, which people are increasingly concerned about in this country.
Why would people feel that way? The answer may be found in a story that made national news in October of last year. WorldNetDaily (among others) reported a mandatory program at the University of Delaware (since rescinded after the program came under national scrutiny) that required all residence hall students to acknowledge that "all whites are racists", and provided "treatment" for those students who harbored incorrect attitudes. According to the university's Office of Residence Life, the definition of a racist is:
"one who is both privileged and socialized on the basis of race by a white supremacist (racist) system. 'The term applies to all white people (i.e., people of European descent) living in the United States, regardless of class, gender, religion, culture or sexuality. By this definition, people of color cannot be racists, because as peoples within the U.S. system, they do not have the power to back up their prejudices, hostilities, or acts of discrimination….'"
Reverse racism and reverse discrimination cannot exist, according to this perspective. Neither can hate crimes perpetrated against whites by blacks, an increasing problem in American society. It is impossible, according to this ideology, for a black man to be a racist, since he lacks the power structure to back up his prejudices, hostilities, or acts of discrimination…. (Actually, since the establishment of "diversity workshops" backed up by the government and the ruling of the courts that diversity is a "compelling state interest", the power structure is not only in place, but is indeed practicing racism by treating whites differently [that is, unfairly], sometimes employing degrading and abusive indoctrination methods against them, because they are white.)
The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) got involved in the University of Delaware case, charging that this program was nothing short of Orwellian, requiring students to adopt highly specific, university-approved views on issues such as race, sexuality, sociology, moral philosophy and environmentalism. Describing it as a "shocking program of ideological reeducation," FIRE noted that the school defined it as a treatment for students' incorrect attitudes and beliefs, which is totalitarianism. The program was set up in such a way that students who had ideas or ideologies that didn't conform to the expected groupthink would be identified and pressured or stigmatized.
The President of the University of Delaware eventually cancelled the program. But even though the mandatory program there is cancelled, the "diversity" mandatum on every campus is, nevertheless, an aggressive agenda to compel ideological conformity. This method was used in the Soviet Union and in Adolf Hitler's Germany. It is used in Islam now. In fact, our educational system has been, for some time, based on the Soviet model, which is fundamentally behavior modification.
What has that got to do with Barack Obama? Everything. Because if you take the time to examine the ideology that the diversity workshops and programs of various universities promote, Barack Obama (and his wife, Michelle) seems to be a both a product and promoter of them.
The materials provided by the University of Delaware laid out certain "educational objectives", among which were:
"Students will recognize that systemic oppression exists in our society."
As one Residence Assistant (RA) at the University of Delaware put it: "Like it or not, you all are the future Leaders, and the world is Diverse, so learning to Embrace and Appreciate that diversity is ESSENTIAL." [sic]
Compare that with this statement by Michelle Obama:
"Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation. That you move out of your comfort zones. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed."
Few who have a clear understanding of the true nature of "diversity" is, as it has been hijacked, defined, and formed into a "program" by liberal elites, have any doubt about the totalitarian nature of it. And of those who understand what is being done, most recognize that liberalism has taken upon itself the ending of civil strife by the imposition of ideology, to establish equality by coercion via brainwashing and legislative and judicial fiat . "Diversity" programs are all blatantly anti-white, anti-Christian, and anti-American. The way to end the white created black self-loathing is to create self-loathing in whites. The way to destroy Christianity is to force Christians to respect, not Buddhists, but Buddhism. Not atheists, but atheism. To embrace immorality, not merely to extend charity to people who have made their immoral conduct their identity. Basically, to respect a lie and to deny truth in the name of "diversity". But the way this is accomplished is by denigration of Christians and Christianity, ergo. Those whom the schools and universities cannot brainwash, the "grass-roots, working class, bedrock Christians, will be controlled (in theory…) by legislation designed to coerce their compliance. Obama has said publicly that the first thing he'll do as President is to sign the "Freedom of Choice Act", and that he will use the presidency as a "bully-pulpit" to advance what he sees as equality for homosexuals, bisexuals, and transgenders (which will instantly make opposition a hate crime).
Though there is much I can agree with in Barack Obama's speech that he made about race to counter the backlash from his association with his pastor, the implication from his other speeches is that we are disunited because the government is not doing its job. He proposes the big government fix. In the end, he can not unite us because of what he believes about white Christian America, and that makes it about race—Since he cannot unite us, all he can do is sign legislation to coerce us into submission, just as the University of Delaware tried to do. That is unacceptable.
Alisa Craddock is a columnist and activist in the culture war, a convert to Catholicism, and describes herself as a Christian Libertarian. She may be contacted at alisa.craddock at hushmail.com.