Barack Obama would not be the first national leader to wish to “fundamentally transform” his country. He also would not be the first to use his country’s power to fundamentally transform the entire globe.
The truth is that to transform America is to transform the world.
The almost seamless transition from British to American hegemony after WWII ensured the continuation of Western global influence. But many entities resented the influence of the West, seeing it as imperialistic, repressive, and racist, none more so than the new leaders who embraced the Pan-African philosophy that gripped the continent during the 1960s and beyond. As Patrice Lumumba wrote in Paris, 1963:
“Africa will tell the West that today it desires the rehabilitation of Africa, a return to the roots, a revalorization of moral values…Africa will have no blocs as you have in Europe. Instead there will be active African solidarity. The government of Congo is a nationalist government that doesn’t want imported ideologies, but which demands nothing but the total, complete liberation of the Congo. We have absolutely no intention of letting ourselves be guided by any [foreign] ideologies whatsoever. We have our own ideology, a strong, noble ideology which is the affirmation of the African personality.”
Trending: Does Supreme Court Need Term Limits?
In other words, nothing is authentic if it is Western. Therefore, for the present administration, which has absorbed the ideas of the African liberation movements, it is imperative to transform the U.S. into a non-Western nation, not just by the wholesale importation of third-world peoples, but by the promotion of non-Western ideology that includes neo-Leninism melded to Pan Africanism, and a host of other leftist “isms.”
In sum, it is imperative to establish a new world order, with the transformation of the United States as the leading example.
The idea is to transform the world into a world freed from West’s pernicious influence, including the influence of Christianity, which is touted as the white man’s religion and therefore inauthentic. The only authentic voices are those voices of native peoples. The West, which is seen as having shot its wad by repression of native peoples and their authentic voices, has nothing left to say to non-Westerners.
From about the 1960s onward, leaders in Africa and elsewhere rose strongmen who attempted to replace the thinking and politics of the West with a unique worldview that included Africa’s self-reliance. Pan-African advocates wished to empower African people globally, including the disaporic Afro-Americans. Foreign leaders such as Patrice Lumumba, Kwame Nkrumah, Muammar Gaddafi, and Americans such as Marcus Garvey, W.E.B. DuBois, and Malcom X sought empowerment of African people globally, including those of the diaspora wrought by chattel slavery.
The Pan-African objective was to consolidate power in Africa. But empowerment of Africans also meant there would have to be a complete reallocation of global resources coupled with an ongoing attempt to unsettle the social and political power structures in the Americas, particularly in the United States and Europe, both of which were often seen as colonial powers that had raped non-Western continents. The end result would be that Africa (and the Far East) would have the ability to compete on and even dominate the world stage.
The aim of Pan-Africanism and other similar liberation ideologies was and is to allow the repressed peoples of color to achieve spheres of influence while reducing America’s (and Europe’s) hegemony or eliminating it altogether. The philosophy of multiculturalism, which is a type of Marxism defining class warfare not so much by classic Marxist terminology of the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, as by racial and ethnic groupings would be the ideological vehicle that would provide the bases of action ensuring the cessation of what is termed “white privilege.”
Included in the attempts to empower non-whites is what historian Paul Johnson calls “inverted racism,” a concept most thoroughly embraced by UN Secretary General Dag Hammarskjold, whom Johnson describes as seeking a “ride to world government on a swelling tide of Third World emotion.”
Hammarskjold’s ideology included the “inverted racism” Johnson describes. When violence, the inevitable result of the withdrawal of colonial powers from Africa and the Far East, gripped entire continents, Hammarskjold “formulated what became a characteristic UN double-standard: that whereas the killing of Africans by whites (as in Sharpeville in South Africa on 21 March 1960) was of international concern and a threat to peace, the killing of Africans by Africans (or whites by Africans, or of Asians by Africans or all three races by Africans) was a purely internal matter outside the purview of the UN. Thus the UN became identified with a form of inverted racism, which was to cost an incalculable number of African lives over the next two decades.”
It is not too much to say that Hammarskjold’s “inverted racism” has permeated the thinking of this administration, including the justice department. More than one observer has noted the only violence this administration seems to note is that of white on black violence. Skin color is seen an indicator of intrinsic good or evil, an odious replication of the Nazi concept races as intrinsically superior or inferior. Once again, racial theory threatens the Judeo/Christian concept of the inherent worth of every human being as created by and under the rule of almighty God.
It is well to remember that our president was raised in the ideology of Pan-Africanism/Leninism and its accompanying ideology of anti-colonialism and multiculturalism focused on the diminishment of the Western powers. That ideology gripped the imagination of his father and mother, his minister, “God damn America” Jeremiah Wright as well as current racemongers such as Al Sharpton, who was recently invited to the White House to give counsel in the Ferguson incident.
Obama’s insistence on the mass importation of third world peoples and values into the United States may be seen as an attempt to eradicate “white privilege.” The effort has been accompanied by what Johnson terms “imperialism by international bureaucracy.” Obama appears determined to imitate here in America the apparatus and mindset of a UN dominated by third world countries whose chief goals include the destruction of Western influence and hegemony. Obama has already shown he is determined to use bureaucracy, including that now being established by ObamaCare, to achieve his goals here in the United States. Once the American system of government is radically changed, the populace will be more inclined to accept the idea of global transformation led by entities like the UN.
It cannot be emphasized too strongly that the president is determined to bypass the newly elected Congress and by so doing, bypass constitutionally drawn parameters and balances of power. He has shown himself to be in favor of authoritarianism bolstered by a faceless and servile bureaucracy that will do his bidding — both third world dictatorial concepts exemplified and enacted by those whose ideology is diametrically opposed to Western concepts of the universal rule of law and constitutional republicanism.
He is also determined to disempower the U.S. military, which is seen as a holdover of U.S. imperialism and global hegemony, while increasing reliance on international entities such as the United Nations. However, he appears willing to use the U.S. military as mercenaries in order to achieve his goal of empowering third-world peoples.
In brief, President Obama and his administration are seeking a Brave New World Order based on the underlying ideas of Pan-Africanism, Leninism, multiculturalism and anti-Western sentiment.
From Tiglath Pileser III, king of ancient Assyria to Mao Tse Tung, top warlord of China, transforming the world according to his own image has been the dream of every tyrant, all of whom have wanted to have no more worlds to conquer.
Ah, to have the world in one’s grasp and to be the director of a gigantic experimental theater. Ah, to be the scripter and impresario as well as the chief actor in a cosmic play that speeds up history!
It’s heady business.
But as Soviet premier Nikita Khrushchev, himself no stranger to the drama of political experimentation put it, the attempt to be a world stage manager who believed mind could overcome 4,000 years of Chinese history through the Great Leap Forward indicated that Mao was “acting like a lunatic on a throne and turning his country upside down.”
Let that quote sink in for a moment, as it encapsulates the Obama presidency in a few words: “…acting like a lunatic on a throne and turning his country upside down.”
To each and every tyrant, there comes a day when megalomania takes over and reality becomes whatever is in his mind. He begins to believe that his mind transcends matter and that he and he alone can produce the miracle of fundamentally transforming the world. He believes that illusion and abstract ideals may be achieved by fiat, not persuasion; certainly not by what he considers the outdated concepts of a constitutionally-ordered republic.
Against the brave new world mentality — a faith, actually — that has gripped major institutions of the United States for decades, stands another mentality now strongly represented by a radically changed United States Congress and a coalition of states now governed by conservative governors and legislatures generally committed to the rule of law — the constitutionally drawn governmental parameters that include balance of the power of the legislative, judicial, and executive branches.
The battle lines are increasingly more clearly drawn. Impending is a showdown of momentous import, a showdown that will reveal the split in ideologies as never before in U.S. history, though perhaps the pre-Civil war split in ideology was of similar import.
We can expect wracking battles for the next two years and probably much longer. We will see if our Constitutional republic will prevail or not.
God help and bless America.
First published at American Thinker.
The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Barb Wire.