Conversation on WHITEISM: PLAYING FOR KEEPS or: What the Hell is Obama up to? or Washington’s Secret Civil War.

ReflexRedux posted the following comments on

WHITEISM: PLAYING FOR KEEPS or: What the Hell is Obama up to? or Washington’s Secret Civil War.

I have commented on his comments below.

‘Okay I’m not sure, even granting the assertion that a moral narrative is a standard component of a socially functional personality (after all, presumably not having one is tantamount to being a psychopath yet, as we know, many psychopaths are socially functional and effective), that this is especially relevant. We don’t have access to Pres. O’s moral narrative except via such clues as he may choose to present us with, and the objective record of his actions and decisions (determined by factors of which we have only limited knowledge) with the result, as indeed in ordinary social life, that multiple opinions and interpretations are possible concerning an individual’s moral narrative and, by extension, their motivation. So it may be that, as you suggest, in his own mind Obama is a moral hero whose cause is the eventual full enfranchisement (beyond formally constituted, as at present) of black and other non-white people in the USA – but he can’t say this openly because it would involve a) too radical a critique of current formal freedoms and b) he would potentially attract dangerous opposition. This is an interesting hypothesis – I can’t say that you’ve provided evidence. What you have done is suggested a context (almost certainly correct) of competing factions and pressures around Obama which he has to negotiate in order to survive politically and, accepting your interpretation become the symbol of a success which will facilitate a development in US politics for which demographic trends are currently providing a potential base.

What I like about your observation is that willingness to contextualise Obama and his power instead of (as a majority of commentators tend to) assuming that his role and title confer absolute uncontested political sway. And I think your suggestion about his _personal_ vision and motivation are interesting, ingenious, possibly persuasive, but unproven.

I’m very interested by what you say in closing about ‘the moral rehabilitation of Anglo-Saxon America’ and ‘Whiteism’ as a discussion. To take the moral rehabilitation point first, there is surely no official recognition of moral collapse, so the rehabilitation ‘project’ is presumably more a pet fantasy of a liberal-left constituency in the USA (which does feel the moral taint of the slide towards a fascist police state and the global military grandstanding and trashing of international law that are projected externally), including a few voices in the commentariat. Regarding ‘Whiteism,’ which I take to be your coinage, I thought from reading you this was a political stance based upon a background assumption of ‘white’ superiority (in effect, one possibility of a ‘speciation’ model of human variation, which reifies visible physiological differences into differing core endowments and then takes this to imply a hierarchy of human sub-species). If this understanding is correct (I’m really struggling to understand ‘Whiteism’ as a discussion) then I think it is fairly clear to see the cultural narratives which are already in place to make ‘Whiteism’ possible and, given that the background assumptions _are_ background and culturally tacit, the ease with which what is effectively a global _supremacist_ political stance/project can draw strength and support from large numbers who are not consciously committed to global apartheid. How an ideological position can be a discussion (as opposed to being discussed) I don’t see. Alternatively, to describe as a discussion the historical struggle for such a position to become politically dominant or hegemonic seems to stretch the boundaries of metaphor unnecessarily.

I am genuinely interested in your ideas and in particular your reading of the global economy today resonates very strongly with my own experience, so I hope you won’t be offended by these comments, which might appear somewhat critical. My own blog, reflexredux, is where I am trying to map my own struggles to comprehend the world but it is private and, having tried to invite you to it, I find that I don’t have the wp ID required to do so successfully.

I have grouped together related comments and then responded

We don’t have access to Pres. O’s moral narrative except via such clues as he may choose to present us with, 

and

multiple opinions and interpretations are possible concerning an individual’s moral narrative and, by extension, their motivation.

This perspective assumes that the moral narrative Obama operates within is somehow generated by Obama alone which I point out, would make it powerless. Obama’s moral worldview was not created by him and in truth has not even been taken further by him. (It would be hard to argue that Obama is an intellectual in that or any other sense). Obama’s moral narrative was created outside of him, it is something that he portrays. Two elections show that the narrative is  demonstrably held by a large majority of non-whites and a substantial majority of Saxons. In fact, Obama’s moral worldview and even his ‘personal’ vision of himself was created by Anglo Saxon society! This is what  is worth writing about. Not the second rate politician Obama actually is. To attempt to ‘understand’ Obama and his actions on a personal level is as odd an enterprise as those people who shout at an actor in the supermarket because of something the character he portrays said or did in a soap opera. The Obama you know is a social construction and that is all. You or I will never know anything truly personal about Obama- it is bizarre to think you or I ever could. Once you begin to grasp the implications of this you can begin to consider Nelson Mandela, the template for Obama. Who created Nelson Mandela? And what is the name of this soap opera?

Moral narratives are group creations and the debate over Obamas morality is a moral, social and political debate. Think about the critique of the way that Obama operates politically and as an individual. Even the ‘Obama is a Muslim’ meme has a moral component. The moral debate over Obama is really : ‘Did we do the right thing in inventing civil rights? Have we done the right thing in allowing a ‘black’ man into the Whitehouse?’ and so on.

‘he would potentially attract dangerous opposition. This is an interesting hypothesis – I can’t say that you’ve provided evidence.’

‘What I like about your observation is that willingness to contextualise Obama and his power instead of (as a majority of commentators tend to) assuming that his role and title confer absolute uncontested political sway.   I think your suggestion about his _personal_ vision and motivation are interesting, ingenious, possibly persuasive, but unproven’.

I would say Mc Cains attempts to hang Obama over Syria are precisely evidence. Apparently Obama decided to go to Congress without even telling Kerry! Would you do that to a friend and confident? Can you really believe that the alliances and enmities that operate in Washington are those that are reported in tabloid newspapers and on the TV?

I believe that the test of analysis is its predictive ability. What else but the strategic perspective I have outlined can explain Obama’s strange and halting tactics leading to the bizarre, unprecedented stand off we have over Syria now? The proof (in its true sense meaning ‘test’), is my ability to predict Obamas actions and their outcomes more effectively than anyone else.

But let me go further, I would argue that the ‘moral’ narrative that endows Obama also allows politicians like Nelson Mandela to enjoy wealth and privilege while many of his compatriots who struggled as hard if not harder against apartheid, languish in poverty. This is something that should be explored.

there is surely no official recognition of moral collapse, so the rehabilitation ‘project’ is presumably more a pet fantasy of a liberal-left constituency

What about the ‘N’ word, Hiroshima and most tellingly Auschwitz? The entire edifice of modern western politics, has been built upon the repudiation of the history of the Western world. Find me anyone who matters, in any Germanic society who would dare to break these taboos. This is Whiteism. There are those who seek to overturn this straitjacket on Germanic society, they are Post Whiteists. The real division in Germanic societies is the division between Whiteism and Post-Whiteism. You are right that the liberal left was allowed to provide coverage for the discredited Germanic system in the post war period. I have written about this in ‘War, Welfare and Whiteism’ which I will post soon.

Regarding ‘Whiteism,’ which I take to be your coinage, I thought from reading you this was a political stance based upon a background assumption of ‘white’ superiority (in effect, one possibility of a ‘speciation’ model of human variation, which reifies visible physiological differences into differing core endowments and then takes this to imply a hierarchy of human sub-species).

You have hit one of the key points. Whiteism is not based upon an assumption of white ‘superiority’ but on an assertion of common ‘white’ interests. This is what makes it superior and subtle in contrast to white supremacy. I will re-post ‘ Forget about Racism, lets talk about Whiteism’ soon.

If this understanding is correct (I’m really struggling to understand ‘Whiteism’ as a discussion) then I think it is fairly clear to see the cultural narratives which are already in place to make ‘Whiteism’ possible and, given that the background assumptions _are_ background and culturally tacit, the ease with which what is effectively a global _supremacist_ political stance/project can draw strength and support from large numbers who are not consciously committed to global apartheid.

How an ideological position can be a discussion (as opposed to being discussed) I don’t see. Alternatively, to describe as a discussion the historical struggle for such a position to become politically dominant or hegemonic seems to stretch the boundaries of metaphor unnecessarily.

Since Whiteism is the assertion of a common white interest it’s purpose is to persuade non-Germanic whites to participate in white civilisation under Germanic control. Two fascinating examples:

Convincing the Slavs to take part in the war on Islam

Convincing the Irish population to integrate into the German economic system and the collapse it caused.

This is the ongoing discussion.

My own blog, reflexredux, is where I am trying to map my own struggles to comprehend the world but it is private and, having tried to invite you to it, I find that I don’t have the wp ID required to do so successfully.

Thank you for your contribution Reflexredux. Your engagement with the ideas helps to clarify and strengthen them. I look forward to speaking again.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s