I never signed up for a course in the “-isms“; Marxism, Socialism and Communism – but researching the ideological underpinnings of the two progressive contenders for the presidency is teaching me more than I ever wanted to know.

I will frankly say that I will not vote for any black presidential candidate who chooses to designate himself as an African-American (as opposed to an American). In my mind that hyphen has come to symbolize race card politics, signaling an agenda of divisive grievances, not national unity.

And quite frankly, I could never bring myself to vote for a woman. Do with that what you will, but there was only one Margaret Thatcher and Hillary is her anti-thesis. But Hillary feeds at the same socialist trough as Obama, devouring the same multicultural, kumbaya swill.

With either candidate, it’s always about race, or class warfare, or gender issues, but never about celebrating America and it certainly is never about promoting – dare I say it – American exceptionalism.

The trinity of American exceptionalism could be described as (1) dynamism (support for equality of individual opportunity, entrepreneurship, and economic progress); (2) religiosity (emphasis on character development, mores, and voluntary cultural associations) that works to contain the excessive individual egoism that dynamism sometimes fosters; and (3) patriotism (love of country, self-government, and support for constitutional limits).(link)

I always find it amusing that the admonitions to respect the traditions of all cultures that are preached from the pulpits of multiculturalism have failed to make an impression on the very “cultures” that seek protection behind the PC mantle. But then, multiculturalism is a weapon aimed directly at the idea of “American exceptionalism”, as well as at whites, Euros, Anglos and other various “oppressor groups”. You may denigrate those cultures at will.

Obama and Hillary are steeped in the rhetoric of white supremacy, sexism and oppression, as are the academic elites who have poisoned American education.

Kors states that at an academic conference sponsored by the University of Nebraska, the attendees articulated the view that “White students desperately need formal ‘training’ in racial and cultural awareness. The moral goal of such training should override white notions of privacy and individualism.” One of the leading “diversity experts” providing scores of “training programs” in universities, corporations, and government bureaucracies is Hugh Vasquez of the Todos Institute of Oakland, California. Vasquez’s study guide for a Ford Foundation-funded diversity film, Skin Deep, explains the meaning of “white privilege” and “internalized oppression” for the trainees.

from…Why There is a Culture War

Might I suggest that the generations of blacks who have been indoctrinated to believe that they are oppressed get some training as well. If they want to claim that racism is institutionalized by whites, than I would have to say that entitlement and victim hood is institutionalized among all so-called minorities who jump on the grievance train.

From Shelby Steele’s ‘A Dream Deferred”

I believe this acceptance of victimization is a totalism caused by the downfall of post-sixties liberalism. This is where liberalism lost it’s balance and ultimately its integrity. Many observers who lived through the sixties realize that it was the old American problem of race that did liberalism in. To accept victimization not as one of many variables but as a totalism was to see it as structural – so built into the patterns of society that that it could be manifested apart from human will. And if the evil was structural. only structural remedies would work against it. You couldn’t fight racial victimization on a case-by-case basis; you had to put into place structures that would prefer the victim in compensation for the victimization we could presume he or she endured. Thus liberalism becomes preemptive rather than defensive. It no longer protected individuals and fought for equal opportunity but it pursued group rights and equal results. It remedied the victimization before it was manifest. This transformation came from the embrace of victimization as a totalistic explanation of black difficulty. But it changed the basic terms of American liberalism from freedom, rights, and responsibilities to planning, engineering and entitlements.

I absolutely do not buy that minorities in this country suffer under systematic oppression. Instances of prejudice and incivility, yeah, I am sure that there are incidents galore. It’s called human nature and the only fools who think that they will be able to extirpate prejudice completely from the human psyche are , well – fools like Obama and Hillary – magical thinking elitists who presume to know just the right alchemy necessary to recreate the human soul.

One such social engineer is a far left radical Saul Alinsky, often mentioned in both Obama’s and Hillary’s accounts of influential political mentors.

Diane Alden on Saul Alinsky…

Alinsky asserted that he was more concerned with the acquisition of power than anything else: “My aim here is to suggest how to organize for power: how to get it and how to use it.” This is not to be done with assistance to the poor, nor even by organizing the poor to demand assistance: “[E]ven if all the low-income parts of our population were organized … it would not be powerful enough to get significant, basic, needed changes.”

Alinsky advises his followers that the poor have no power and that the real target is the middle class: “Organization for action will now and in the decade ahead center upon America’s white middle class. That is where the power is. … Our rebels have contemptuously rejected the values and the way of life of the middle class. They have stigmatized it as materialistic, decadent, bourgeois, degenerate, imperialistic, war-mongering, brutalized and corrupt. They are right; but we must begin from where we are if we are to build power for change, and the power and the people are in the middle class majority.”

But that didn’t stop Alinsky and his followers from using the middle class for their own purposes. They counted on the guilt and shame of the white middle class to get what they wanted. In order to take over institutions and get power, the middle class had to be convinced that they were somehow lucky winners in “life’s lottery.”

Alinsky’s radicals found a perfect vehicle for their destruction of the American system and more particularly for taking and maintaining power. That instrument was the Democratic Party.

from….Saul Alinsky and DNC Corruption

More on Alinsky and the political lens through which Obama and Hillary view America in coming posts.

Related Reading:

Hillary Clinton’s Wellesley Thesis

Center for Community Change

Mr. Obama, You’re No Jack Kennedy