[Reprise] SOLO-International Op-Ed: The Anti-American President, Pt. 2

Lindsay Perigo's picture
Submitted by Lindsay Perigo on Mon, 2009-06-15 02:31

"Death to the Government" and "We want freedom" are not chants we in the West associate with Iranians, whom we more commonly hear shrieking "Death to America" and "Freedom go to Hell." As we speak, however, the former chants are rending the air in cities across Iran as youngsters in their tens of thousands, yearning to be free in spite of the theocratic brainbashing by which they've been pummeled since birth, protest against the clearly-fraudulent elections returning Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, doyen of Islamofascists, as the country's President.

Elections in which the main opposition candidate, Mir Hossein Mousavi, was out-voted in his home town. Yeah right.

Mousavi's newspaper never got to leave the printing house on Sunday. Authorities shut it down because Mousavi had already said he wasn't going to take his "defeat" lying down. The paper's web site claimed that more than 10 million votes in Friday's election were missing the national identification numbers that would legitimize them.

The regime has closed down Twitter and Facebook, jammed foreign broadcasts and sent foreign journalists packing.

Ahmadinejad has just held a press conference saying, "Don't worry about freedom in Iran. Newspapers come and go and reappear. Don't worry about it."

Yeah right, again. And by the way, there are no homosexuals in Iran.

Time will tell whether we are witnessing, in effect, a counter-revolution overturning the one in 1979 that morphed a West-friendly, secular dictatorship into a West-hostile theocratic one. It's important to remember that the election of Mousavi would have had no effect on the country's Constitution which vests ultimate power in the Supreme Leader selected by the Assembly of Experts from candidates vetted by the Council of Guardians (did anyone ever think Ayn Rand's Council of Scholars in Anthem was far-fetched?!). The Supreme Leader's brief is to keep the original revolution on track, ensuring that the stinking, stupid superstition that is Islam, started by a murderous paedophile, continues to make the lives of millions miserable and precarious. Mousavi would be powerless to change that, assuming he even wanted to.

A more potent force keeping Ahmadinejad in power is the acquiescence of the people he routinely excoriates. That, dear reader, is us. Or rather, our leaders, with too little protest from us. We are embodiments of the Great Satan whose Great Sin is our Love of Life. Rather than be flattered by the compliment, our leaders are intimidated by it and indeed partly agree with the spirit of it.

Barack Obama had already offered unconditional negotiations with Ahmadinejad. His Administration has just made clear that offer is still on the table, whatever the ultimate election outcome might be. Chavez-Obama still wants to "reach out"—to filth. In earlier times, such moral equivalencing by an American President would have been unimaginable. But this is no ordinary American President; this, I say again, is the anti-American President. This is a President who, more explicitly and conscientiously than any of his predecessors, thinks the enemies of freedom are on a par with its advocates, and that freedom pertains to the collective rather than the individual. “Spreading the wealth around” from those to whom it belongs to those to whom it doesn't is "good" because it serves the common good. Nationalizing everything in sight, including the automobile industry and health care, is required for the common good, notwithstanding that the Iranian mullahs, no less, are waking up to the benefits of privatization and proceeding with a program thereof. Appointing a bunch of bureaucratic "czars" to run the economy is required for the common good, even as the whole world apart from North Korea scoffs at the notion of central planning. Indebting the nation to a communist tyranny is necessary for the common good, even as that very tyranny pleads with him not to go down the communist path.

An attack on free speech will follow as surely as night the day this unparalleled assault on the free economy.

How did it come to this? The thumbnail version is: Marx via Gramsci via Alinsky to the likes of Obama and Hillary Clinton.

We all know what Marx advocated: pretty much what Chavez-Obama is implementing now. The Italian theoretician Antonio Gramsci realized that the overt preaching of the violent overthrow of capitalism was unpalatable to the working classes in the West who were thriving under capitalism. He proposed instead a "Long March through the Culture"—infiltrating every major institution and subverting it from within under such guises as "consensus," "equity," "national unity" and "global justice." (For elaboration, see my article Doing a Gramsci.)

We all know how successful that strategy has been, thanks in no small part to Gramsci's biggest fan and most conscientious student in America, the Marxist Saul Alinsky. As Richard Lawrence Poe puts it, "True revolutionaries do not flaunt their radicalism, Alinsky taught. They cut their hair, put on suits and infiltrate the system from within." Alinsky set about giving practical implementation to Gramsci's Trojan Horse strategy on a local level first of all, ingratiating himself with Chicago's corrupt political and religious establishment. He set up the Industrial Areas Foundation—a training school for radical "community organizers"—and was adept at raising money for it: “I feel confident that I could persuade a millionaire on a Friday to subsidize a revolution for Saturday out of which he would make a huge profit on Sunday even though he was certain to be executed on Monday.” He offered a besotted Hillary "It Takes a Village" Clinton a position as a community organizer but she jilted him, choosing law as a career instead (though the two remained friends till his death in 1972). Barack Obama received his training as a community organizer through the Industrial Areas Foundation and in turn spent years teaching workshops in Chicago on the Alinsky method and working with Alinskyite fronts such as the now-disgraced ACORN. (Part of his brief was to build coalitions of black churches, requiring that he attend one himself, thus exposing himself to the "burn-in-hell, America" rhetoric of his friend and pastor for twenty years, Jeremiah Wright.)

In 2008, Alinksy's son David wrote:

"Obama learned his lesson well. I am proud to see that my father's model for organizing is being applied successfully beyond local community organizing to affect the Democratic campaign in 2008. It is a fine tribute to Saul Alinsky as we approach his 100th birthday."

Those who expected Obama to become "mainstream" in the face of political realities once he assumed office, rather than proceed willy-nilly and at breakneck speed with his radical agenda, as he has, can be forgiven their fantasy—after all, that's what Presidents usually do. But to entertain it in Chavez-Obama's case is not to reckon with the background in which he is steeped and the zeal with which he still embraces it.

Just like the Ayatollahs in Iran, Chavez-Obama is driven by an ideology that is irrational, anti-freedom and anti-American. If he serves a full term, America in 2012 will be unrecognizable. That is exactly what he intends. Change? You’d better believe it!

Freedom-loving Americans should be exercised at least as much by the threat from the White House as that from Tehran right now.

Lindsay Perigo: editor@freeradical.co.nz

SOLO (Sense of Life Objectivists): SOLOPassion.com

( categories: )

Obama's tacky 'I Shot Bin Laden' ad

Marcus's picture

Obama's tacky 'I Shot Bin Laden' ad has turned a military triumph into a political disaster

"Furthermore, this ugly ad compels the press to debate just how much Obama understands the cultural politics of the presidency. In the hours after bin Laden’s death, the Pres did the right thing by praising the work of the troops and promising not to “spike the ball” by over-celebrating the incident. But now he’s turned that ball into one giant spike, not only by ramming the bin Laden adventure down the voters’ throats but also by claiming sole responsibility for it. Michael Mukasey points out that it’s traditional for Presidents to ascribe victory to the troops and failure to themselves – recognising that while the Commander-in-Chief is responsible for decision making, it is the man in the field who takes the risks and so deserves the credit.

By contrast, this ad leaves the emotional impression that Obama personally swung into bin Laden’s compound on a rope and took the terrorist down with his own sweet moves. It’s tacky and unpresidential. Consider again Bill Clinton’s words, “Suppose [the SEALs had] been captured or killed. The downside would have been horrible for [the President].” Actually, it would have been rather more horrible for the American soldiers. Presumably, what Clinton means here is that Obama’s re-election would have been imperiled if he’d made the wrong call. Is that all that motivates this President, the hunger for four more years? If so, his need is so great that it’s causing him to make some bizarre, unforced errors."

You were completely right when you wrote this

Sandi's picture

KASS 2012!

Foreign policy for hysterics -- "Scream loudly, and wave sticks"

William Scott Scherk's picture

DeSalvo: Mr Sherk, just because a few Republicans think Obama is handling Iran correctly does not defuse the mess he is making.

You are conjoining two things, Scott, though I see where you are coming from. "The mess he is making" and "a few Republicans." That was not the point I was making.

Firstly the "few Republicans" I mentioned (along with Kissinger and the appeasers at the Wall Street Journal**) in the other current thread are ordinarily hardline anti-Obamaists. If the argument is simply that it is obvious to all correct thinkers that Obama is blundering in his measured reaction to the events in Iran, then you see I am pointing to the range of opinion. If those who loathe Obama and all that he stands for support his measured stance, what does that mean? Have you considered, carefully considered, what these folk are saying?

It means it's not simple enough to slop hysterical epithets about, for me at least.

I think it's also important to consider what the Iranians in the know think about what the US should do -- to consider all the options and to reason out the consequences.

If you are paying attention, I think you will agree that they say, "speak to ideals, but otherwise stay the fuck out of this mess . . . " Even if you don't agree with them, Kissinger, Lugar, Buchanan, WSJ, whomever, you should, I think, acknowledge that it is not a simple game with an easy solution. The game is fluid, fraught, dangerous for the Iranian protesters. I think those in power should not throw up grand slogans and aggressive posturing that can be used to taint the dissidents' homegrown efforts. I haven't seen anyone answer this objection sensibly. Handwaving doesn't cut it.

I think what Marcus and a few others don't quite get is that America has enormous power, and more power in reserve. Hard power, soft power, the bully pulpit, and the covert power of its dollar, its culture, its media and its free debate. I agree with Teddy Roosevelt: speak softly and carry a big stick. As many thoughtful observers have noted, the use of American power to influence events is tricky. Booming rhetoric can backfire, given the history of Iran versus America.

I understand the impulse to utter bellicose warnings and glowering threats . . . but surely you ask yourself, Scott, to what effect? Far better that those who oppose Obama's presumed appeasement get in the game themselves, and do what they can to help. This is what McCain and others who disagree with the tone of the administration response are doing, and good for them. Good for you and Marcus and Jeff Perren if you are participating via proxy, Twitter, blogs and forums or whatever, in encouraging the revolt. I'm sure you are all doing what you can to express western support to the courageous marchers over there, or at least sounding opinion as to what the folks on the frontlines think should come out of Obama's mouth. Surely they are more important voices than mine.


It is signal to me that the current Iranian nutcase president denounced the US meddling immediately after Obama's remarks, and also notable that the views of the US administration are not important on the street in Iran. Iran has been an implacable foe of the US since 1979, when its favoured dictator was overthrown. I just don't think they need or want a bellicose response from the US administration right now.

I just wish some voices here weren't so strident, uniformed and kooky sounding on this subject. Marcus, you make me laugh. Your remarks are exemplary.

Thanks for response, Scott. I'll bow out and get back to the unfolding situation. I did wonder what kinds of outcomes you foresee as possible or in balance, especially with regard to the clerical regime and Khamenei's power itself.



** here's a story from an anonymous Tehran student in today's New York Times.

-- here's 'How not to help Iranians,'an opinion piece from the Boston Globe that echos what I have been saying about prudence, quoting the Nobel Peace Price winner Shirin Ebadi (I would ask Marcus if this woman is a 'pissing and running into the corner like a coward' . . . )

-- here's a Fox News interview between Greta Van Susteren and Kissinger. Money quote:

KISSINGER: Well, you know, I was a McCain supporter and -- but I think the president has handled this well. Anything that the United States (INAUDIBLE) puts us totally behind one of the contenders (INAUDIBLE) behind Mousavi, would be a handicap for that person. And I think it's the proper position to take that the people of Iran have to make that decision.

Of course, we have to state our fundamental convictions of freedom of speech, free elections, and I don't see how President Obama could say less than he has, and even that is considered intolerable meddling. He has, after all, carefully stayed away from saying things that seem to support one side or the other. And I think it was the right thing to do because public support for the opposition would only be used by the -- by Ahmadinejad

Again, is Kissinger a 'pissing coward,' Marcus?

-- Scott, here's another thoughtful piece from Foreign Policy's The Cable. It takes no sides, but lays out the challenges faced by those whose job it is to advance US strategic goals.

Yeah, Marcus

atlascott's picture

What IS wrong with a clear, strong and unequivocal statement in support of the protesters who have the audacity to demand a fair election?

Mr Sherk, just because a few Republicans think Obama is handling Iran correctly does not defuse the mess he is making.

"The US will rise up against Obama sometime around the time his approval ratings climb down from 65% or so."

The chance of productive political violence in this country is not great. But what difference does popular support make as long as there is a strong Constitution enshrining inviolate rights?

Oh yeah--Obama, the Con Law professor wants to AMEND the CONSTITUTION to include the government's right to redistribute wealth.

This is not a guy who understands the Constitution or rights.

I don't think Obama is dracula or the devil. Just a stupid, brainwashed American liberal who does not likely realize fully that he is a Socialist.

He is the natural political consequence of what kids have been tauight in America now for--oh--35 years or so?

Naked Marxists rewrote public school curriculum in the 1960's and '70's. And here we are, and down the rabbit hole we go, Alice.

Scherk living up to his name!

Marcus's picture

"....giving them an excuse to justify repression of their democrats by virtue of their manipulation by the Great Satan."

Is that your justification for pissing yourself and running into the corner like a coward. Oh, if you give support to protestors, those big old Mullahs might not like you.

I heard on the radio an Iranian protestor saying that would like to have more support from the west.

Not military inteference, but support for their side. Obama pees himself in case the protestors don't win and he sides with them, because then he doesn't get to kiss face with Ahmadinejad for the next few years.

Even the Chinese are laughing

gregster's picture



"When is the US going to rise up against Mullah Obama?"

William Scott Scherk's picture

The US will rise up against Obama sometime around the time his approval ratings climb down from 65% or so. Kinda like how the US rose up against Bush when his ratings slumped to the lowest of any US president on record (+/- 25%).

Or, maybe the US will wait until 2012 when the oppressed and deluded masses can elect Sarah Palin in his place, or even 2016 when they can replace with him with another Republican firebreather. They may need the time to regroup, since polling shows the Grand Old Party at their lowest ebb in forty years, with no discernible leaders or policy.

Bear in mind that beyond the paranoid nutcases, chicken littles and assorted zany folks who consider Obama a combination of the AntiChrist and Dracula/Stalin/Hitler/Mussolini/FDR, there are a number of hardline rightists who think Obama is playing exactly the right game vis a vis Iran, among them Richard Lugar and Pat Buchanan(!) in today's Townhall column, Outlasting the Ayatollahs.

The side of the argument that the FEMA-camp frothers, birthers and warmongers don't appreciate is that giving an explicit nod to the 'reformists' in Iran would play into the hands of the desperate Mullahs and the Iranian president in their power struggle -- giving them an excuse to justify repression of their democrats by virtue of their manipulation by the Great Satan. Read Buchanan and Lugar's remarks, Marcus. Bill Kristol also . . . all with impeccable GOP, Iran-loather, Democrat-despiser credentials.

Open up your scope a little bit; sometimes it appears that SOLOist political analysts all read the same comic book version of world events.

With this remark, "Obama probably shares Ahmadinejad's fantasy of wiping Israel off the map too," you officially join the No-longer-in-touch-with-reality anti-reptilian faction at SOLO.



Well said, Marcus

Jeff Perren's picture

So when is the US going to rise up against Mullah Obama?

The Iranian public are putting you Americans to shame.

I was thinkin' the same thing. Revolting (in the other sense), isn't it?

Ahmadinejad's mistake

Leonid's picture

Ahmadinejad’s mistake was his silly decision to play Jewish card as many dictators did in the past. He hoped to release the steam by directing people's anger toward Jews and Israel. However he forgot that there are practically no Jews left in Iran and promised nuclear pogrom thousands kilometers from Iranian borders is not sufficient to substitute people’s aspirations for freedom. I hope he will pay dearly for this mistake.

A good Obama comparison would be Ahmadinejad himself...

Marcus's picture

Both men like to say that they are for peace and are popular representatives of their people. Obama probably shares Ahmadinejad's fantasy of wiping Israel off the map too.

That's probably why Obama loves him so much and is dying to have talks with him, so they can compare rhetoric and tactics against Isreal.

So when is the US going to rise up against Mullah Obama?

The Iranian public are putting you Americans to shame.

"...even if a nuclear weapon

atlascott's picture

"...even if a nuclear weapon were exploded in Chicago. (A mixed blessing, to be sure.)"

Not even funny to joke about. I live in Chicago.


Jeff Perren's picture


I really think you're being unfair to Chavez, here. Evil as that socialist scum is, he openly owns up to his philosophy without apology. Time to find a more appropriate hyphenate for The Great Pretender, Jr.

Another superb PR Linz

Sandi's picture

"Chavez-Obama still wants to "reach out"—to filth."

He's a "muck raker" to the max.

Amen x 2

Ross Elliot's picture

Great article, Lindsay. Plenty of meat.

I'm convinced Obama would really prefer not to be bothered with all this troublesome foreign affairs stuff. A nice quiet eight years socialising America is where he's at.

That's not to say he doesn't enjoy pumping hands with the likes of Berlusconi, but he and his underlings must be frightfully bemused by the resurgent Axis of Evil. Being nice just doesn't seem to be working too well.

Obama's Adjectives

Jeff Perren's picture

"He's 'deeply troubled'" Yah, uh huh. If anything, he really is deeply troubled because it presents the necessity for his Everything-to-Everyone-ed-ness to actually take a stand that might be unpopular with his worshipers, or with someone. Remember how one of Keating's greatest fears was actually making someone, anyone, angry at him?

I can't find the link but someone prominent wrote a column not too long ago about Obama and his tendency to pile on adjectives in lieu of action (when it comes to fighting evil; he's plenty active in fighting the good). It reminds me of the old line to the unarmed sheriff: "What are you going to use against them? Harsh language?" Which reminds me in turn of the scene with the fencing master, the logic master, the music master, and the Bourgeous Gentilhomme, of the eponymous Moliere play. "Sir, take care! I could kill you with a syllogism!"

Chavez-Obama ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... has finally made a comment. He's "deeply troubled"! Wow! But unconditional negotiations will go ahead.

Wotta weakling.

Mind you, it's hard to be outraged at folk you have an affinity with.

Jeff's post is spot on. I

Mark Hubbard's picture

Jeff's post is spot on. I really am surprised at the groundswell toward freedom and against tyranny, that has survived and obviously grown under one of the most repressive modern regimes. Very heartening.

In a sense it's logical, and reasonable that this is so, humans yearn for freedom, but I'm still surprised to see it so strong in Iran.

Now if we can only get the sheeple in NZ ...

Revolution, All For It

Jeff Perren's picture

"On BBC radio today one Iranian interviewed claimed that the protestors were against the whole repressive regime that includes the Ayatollah."

That, I definitely believe. You don't usually get a million people to come out and shout "down with the dictator" primarily in order to support another dictator. And, anyway, there are many Internet leaks suggesting that a large number of Iranians are fed up with the whole situation in their country.

I know almost nothing about Mousavi and I'm inclined to doubt the press on the subject (if Mousavi, as Richard claims, did found Hezbollah, he's evil in my book) but anything that causes internal agitation could only be good for both the Iranians and us. And I'm definitely rooting for revolution, unlikely as it is without major support from a western country. (That said, I'd suspect the Saudis wouldn't be too annoyed to see the mullahs go. They're scarcely better internally, but much less of a problem to us so supporting their wish to undermine the Iranian regime might not be a bad idea.)


Marcus's picture

According to the press Mousavi is more pro-west.

On BBC radio today one Iranian interviewed claimed that the protestors were against the whole repressive regime that includes the Ayatollah.

If this is true, it would definitely be a revolution worth rooting for.


Jeff Perren's picture


A valid point, but it assumes that any other figurehead is less likely to do the same, an open question at best. In any case, we both know that (a) Obama will do nothing to or about Iran, even if a nuclear weapon were exploded in Chicago. (A mixed blessing, to be sure.), (b) There is far more than needed as casus belli for any decent, rational observer who might be inclined to do something, [added in edit], (c) Ahmed-squiggle or any other figurehead wouldn't and couldn't say anything for long without at least the passive approval of Khameni and his buddies.

It matters in the sense that

Richard Wiig's picture

It matters in the sense that a figurehead like Ahmadinejad, who's constantly shooting his mouth off, will keep the focus on Iran's nuclear program and leave little doubt that Iran is the threat that it is.

Does That Matter?

Jeff Perren's picture

Since the mullahs run things anyway does it really matter what figurehead they have in place?

This, "Trying to rule exclusively by force is not feasible over an extended period." is simply empirically false. The Soviets were in power for three generations and the Czars for centuries before that. Iran has never been a remotely free country. What could this author be thinking? He contradicts himself almost immediately by saying "At the top is the Supreme Leader, with almost limitless powers." That's not a Stalinist dictatorship? Apparently if you have a cell phone, in this person's view, you're not completely enslaved.

It's fervently to be hoped, encouraged, and supported that the Iranian people throw off the shackles, but this sort of editorial doesn't help.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's hold on power is weak

Marcus's picture

There is cause for hope yet. I'm sure Obama is still willing to bum-lick Ahmadinejad no matter the outcome. After all he has been fantasizing about it since the primaries last year!

From The Times
June 15, 2009

Analysis: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's hold on power is weak

...But as the demonstrations over the weekend showed, Iran is not a stalinist dictatorship. Trying to rule exclusively by force is not feasible over an extended period.

For a start, Iran is now part of the global community. People have mobile phones, access to the internet and satellite television. The state monopoly over the media has been broken and young Iranians are better informed than ever before about what happens in their country and better able to communicate with one another.

Then there is Iran’s unique constitution, which was deliberately created to avoid the rise of a new shah.

At the top is the Supreme Leader, with almost limitless powers. Beneath him are competing branches of State — the presidency, parliament, the judiciary, the Guardian Council and the security forces. Ayatollah Khamenei may, on paper, have supreme authority but in practice he rules by building a consensus among the various strands of government.

Mr Ahmadinejad has the support of many important and powerful bodies in Iran but, as the election campaign revealed, he has also made many enemies and is deeply unpopular with the young, urban population — the fastest growing group in the country...


Daily Telegraph

Iran protest cancelled as leaked election results show Mahmoud Ahmadinejad came third

Iran's reformist presidential candidate Mir-Hossein Mousavi has called off a major rally to protest last Friday's election results, amid claims police had been cleared to open fire on protesters.

...Mr Mousavi's cancellation of the protest came as sporadic disturbances continued around the Iranian capital, and reports circulated of leaked interior ministry statistics showing him as the clear victor in last Friday's polls.

The statistics, circulated on Iranian blogs and websites, claimed Mr Mousavi had won 19.1 million votes while Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had won only 5.7 million.

The two other candidates, reformist Mehdi Karoubi and hardliner Mohsen Rezai, won 13.4 million and 3.7 million respectively. The authenticity of the leaked figures could not be confirmed.

Mr Mousavi has accused Iran's government of "fraud" after Mr Ahmadinejad was declared on Saturday to have 62.6 per cent of the vote, making him the landslide winner. The capital has been rocked by disturbances for the last three days.

It was not clear whether Mr Mousavi's supporters would heed his call to stay indoors. About 200 relatives of people arrested during protests over the weekend staged a brief protest outside Tehran's main revolutionary court...


Machination in Chicago

F L Light's picture

Chicanes of machination in Chicago would,
Dissembling communismus, cry, “The common good.”


James S. Valliant's picture

... and Amen.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.