The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

If Dinesh D’Souza’s Thesis In 2016 Is Correct, Then Riddle Me This . . .

Posted on | September 9, 2012 | 13 Comments

by Smitty

Insty points to Polliwood, where 2016: Obama’s America is a major topic:My review of the documentary is here, but the Polliwood clip brings up another angle that has taken a while to form: if D’Souza is correct, then isn’t Obama the ueber-hypocrite for the ages?

I recall reading A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East and thinking, yeah: imperialism is a bastard’s game. The notion of a small clique of people in power dividing a larger population against itself to retain control is the antithesis of liberty. And yet, that was the consistent British game across multiple continents for a couple centuries. Bad British: bad.

And so BHO has made a political career out of surfing the waves of resentment to reach the Resolute Desk. And yet, hasn’t the purportedly evil British playbook been exactly what Obama has used since he was sworn in, twice? We’ve seen the verbal uniter act as the divider on, come to think of it, just about every issue: health care; the right to life; marriage; the economy; foreign policy.

Thus, Obama’s chief complaint does not seem to be that the evil British were squashing people under the bus of colonialism; rather, Obama’s complaint appears to be that it’s unfair when he’s not driving that bus.

Rule Obama! 
Obama rule airwaves 
Americans ever, ever, ever shall be slaves.

Update: check Belvedere’s response. I don’t know how comfortable I am with his argument:

In almost every place the British had colonies, there is civilization today. Unlike other nations, they gladly ’took up The White Man’s Burden’, as it were, and sought to improve the lot of the non-Western peoples they ruled over — and they succeeded in the vast, vast majority of cases. You can point to their foul-ups in the Middle East after World War I and rightly say ‘the Brits screwed-up’, but this can be explained by the twin failings of arrogance and idealism [ie: Leftism] that had invaded even Winston Churchill’s soul.

While worth noting, this does not amount to an end-justifies-the-means argument. If all you need to do is point to a little bit of good done, you can justify ObamaCare.

Bookmark and Share

Comments

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_YWCTNWLSOY5PSSBOXIKMTI7ZJY Laurence

    I think it is a common mistake to look for one reason or cause to account for any person or event. Life and history are more complicated than that. Unfortunately, in this age of 30 second sound bites. we tend is to explain everything based on a single cause regardless of whether that cause was a major factor or not.

    Yes, Obama has been molded by anti-colonialism but also by exposure to both the Old and New Left and seems to have a talent for cognitive dissidence. You need more than one explanation to understand the mess he is.

  • http://evilbloggerlady.blogspot.com/ Evi L. Bloggerlady

    2016 Obama is the second highest earning documentary ever, topping Bowling for Columbine, Sicko, and an Inconvienent Truth. It would be a brilliant marketing strategy for Dinesh D’Souza to do a play on the Larry Flynt strategy and make a $1,000,000 offer for Obama’s college transcripts and applications (and he probably has that million to offer now given the success of his film). If anything pans out and someone does come forward, beyond impacting the election it could also be his follow up film.

  • http://evilbloggerlady.blogspot.com/ Evi L. Bloggerlady

    Although Professor Reynolds did find this photographic proof of Barack Obama attending Columbia! http://hogewash.com/2012/09/09/heh/

  • http://evilbloggerlady.blogspot.com/ Evi L. Bloggerlady

    As far as your hypocrite theory Smitty…yes of course! And in support of your theory let me give the emoticon for bi-polar! :):

  • http://evilbloggerlady.blogspot.com/ Evi L. Bloggerlady

    I totally agree with that. D’Souza’s movie is hardly the sole explanation of Obama’s motivations. But that said he does a good job explaining his theory.

  • gjoubert

    Thus, Obama’s chief complaint does not seem to be that the evil British
    were squashing people under the bus of colonialism; rather, Obama’s
    complaint appears to be that it’s unfair when he’s not driving that bus.

    Yeah, that actually pretty much sums up the left generally.

  • http://thecampofthesaints.org Bob Belvedere

    In practically every place the British had colonies, there is civilization today. Unlike other nations, they glady ‘took up The White Man’s Burden’, as it were, and sought to improve the lot of the non-Western peoples they ruled over – and they succeeded in the vast majority of cases.

    You can point to their foul-ups in the Middle East after World War I and rightly say ‘the Brits screwed-up’, but this can be explained by the twin failings of arrogance and idealism [ie: Leftism] that had invaded even Mr. Churchill’s soul.

    If you had to be a colonial subject, it was much better to be one under the English.

    As to the issue of liberty, we cannot forget that the vast majority of lands colonized were filled with peoples who had no idea of what liberty was, and that it was The West that helped to tame their savage breasts. And it was the British who did the best work in this area.

  • http://twitter.com/richard_mcenroe richard mcenroe

    “dissonance” not “dissidence”.

  • http://twitter.com/richard_mcenroe richard mcenroe

    “Hypocritical Progressive” is redundant.

  • http://thecampofthesaints.org Bob Belvedere

    I point, instead, to the fact that the Brits did an awful lot of good within their colonies.
    Their failure in the Middle East after WWI, can also be exxplained by utter exhaustion – wanting to move on to domestic concerns as quickly as possible.

  • http://thecampofthesaints.org Bob Belvedere

    BTW: Jeffersonian!!!

  • http://evilbloggerlady.blogspot.com/ Evi L. Bloggerlady

    Yes they can!

  • http://thecampofthesaints.org Bob Belvedere

    I apologize, as I realize it was grossly unfair to tar you, my dear Admiral, with an association with that pinko, T. Jefferson. He was an ideologue – you, clearly are not.

    The more appropriate term is probably ‘Masonian’, after George Mason, who was a fierce opponent of colonizing, but did not come to that belief via ideology. Rather, Mr. Mason believed it did more wrong than right – for both the ones colonized and for the colonizers.

    You, sir, are a damned Masonian!