Monday, June 16, 2008

The Year of the Long Knives: A Postscript

Here are some observations I did not think appropriate to include in Part IV of these commentaries on Barack Obama, or which I omitted for length considerations.

In the New York Magazine article, "Money Chooses Sides," note the composition of the photograph that accompanies it. I do not think it is accidental. I do not know if the photographer (or even Obama himself) intended the tableau, but of all the pictures doubtless taken of the event, this was the one selected by the magazine's editors to illustrate Obama's influence. Their motive may have been mockery of the guests or unintended adulation of Obama. That is irrelevant. The picture captures the essence of Obama's appeal.

Obama seems to descend the stairs, microphone in hand, looking very preacherly as he brings the "gospel" to the mortals below. All the mortals gape up at him with undisguised worship, as though he were indeed a messiah or savior, and are hanging on his every word. Remember that these are all Park and Fifth Avenue millionaires there by RSVP. A good political cartoonist could render the photograph to show Obama in Moses-like robes, one hand raised with an instructive finger pointed in the air, the other arm cradling two stone tablets with the Ten Commandments of socialism (the words, however, would be fuzzy and nearly illegible).

The only person not gaping at Obama is George Soros, seated directly behind Obama's left. He looks vaguely bored but also smugly content with what he is hearing and with the undivided attention of the other guests.

Then, another point I did not dwell on, for I wished to leave the reader to make his own inferences, is why so many wealthy people are throwing their money and support behind Obama. Basically, and this is connected to his making them feel good, it is a form of penance for and expiation of the "sin" of wealth, not unlike that being performed by Bill Gates and Warren Buffet. This picture was taken long before Obama "resigned" from Jeremiah Wright's church, but one cannot help but suspect that he and his campaign managers were consciously but subtly instituting the Obama Church of Hope, Change, and Salvation.

I end this postscript with a brief excerpt from Book II: Hugh Kenrick, of the Sparrowhawk series (pp. 115-116). Political and charity events to raise money from the wealthy and the politically influential are nothing new. The place is London, the time, 1755:

Bucklad House had undergone lengthy renovations, and the Pumphretts wished to mark their completion with a concert, to which were invited a list of London worthies. Lady Chloe, wife of Sir Henoch Pannell...was the mover behind this event. A donation of five guineas per person was levied, the receipts to be given to Lady Chloe's own organization, the Westminster Charity for London Waifs. "She's doing her penance early," confided Sir Henoch with sly derision to friends in the Commons who had been invited to the concert, "so that she may enjoy the rest of the season without the encumbrance of conscience. She is essentially a moral woman."


Ed said...

Two odd or not so odd things about the photograph: First, it is obviously posed. Second, Obama is facing the camera, his back turned on his audience. I didn't remark on that in the Postscript, because they were obvious flubs of the photographer.


Charles T. said...

Is it wrong that I want to, how shall I put this, "be very unfriendly" towards all the people in that photograph? I know that most of them are not explicitly aware of their own evil, that they might even be consciously "well-intentioned", but that does not change the fact that they are a very real threat to ME and likewise to the liberty and individual rights of everyone, and that they are, I believe, far beyond the point of being rationally persuaded of their evil ways. Those are the people who make tyrants and dictators possible, even today in the "modern U.S.A."

If our gov't were properly constituted, it would serve precisely to protect me and everyone else from the unfluence and activism of such people, but because our gov't is not properly constructed, it becomes (it now IS) the very tool which those people use to further enslave me.

It's unpleasant to think about it, but that is the direction which logical thought leads me. Perhaps my premises are flawed. I would prefer to think that the trend toward general enslavement can be reversed without force, but it's been going on for so long now, and only seems to be gaining momentum and strength, that I feel discouraged, to say the least.

And then, perhaps a public forum isn't the best place to discuss such things. lol Enough said.

Charles T. said...

Of course I meant that if properly constituted, our gov't would protect us from the "influence" of such people, not the "unfluence". Whatever their unfluence might be, I'm sure it would be preferable to their influence.