Sunday, July 28, 2013

Obama and Ho – a marriage made by Jefferson

From Mr Alexander Boot:

It’s unkind but true to say that President Obama is as long on ideology as he’s short on intellectual rigour, unless it’s of the mortis variety.

Had he been a student in the 1960s he would have been singing, “Ho, ho, ho, Ho Chi Minh, NFL are gonna win!” or else “Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?”

As a big boy in 2013 Barack Hussein has just pronounced that Ho, a mass murderer and a lifelong Soviet agent, was 'inspired by the words of Thomas Jefferson'. Considering Obama’s ideology he probably meant that Ho was a romantic idealist. Murderous international socialists always are, as opposed to murderous national socialists.

Yet delving deeper than Obama’s level, one may agree that all modern revolutions, including the American one, were Enlightenment offshoots. As such they were inspired by a similar animus: hostility to the political manifestations of Christendom.

Mutatis mutandis, Jefferson and Franklin were philosophes in exactly the same sense in which Diderot and Helvétius were. The qualifying clause reflects the temperamental differences between the French and the Anglo-Americans, and also the tactical adjustments they had to make in order to realise their vision. But the vision was the same.

At the positive end the philosophes on either side of the Atlantic set their sights on empowering the common man or, to be exact, the radical intellectual elite acting in his name.

At the negative end their vision was focused on emasculating Christendom and marginalising the faith that had begotten it. (Jefferson’s views on religion were informed by Locke’s Essay on Toleration, preaching equanimity towards all creeds, except Trinitarian Christianity. Jefferson was at best a deist, who detested every Christian dogma and sacrament.)

It was irrelevant whether destruction involved, as a first step, the cull of aristocrats sporting the powdered wigs of French nobility or of soldiers wearing the red coats of British infantry – along, in both instances, with those who sympathised with the hated group.

Americans, taking their cue from Burke, like to portray their revolution as somehow being ‘conservative’, unlike the radical French one. They don’t seem to realise that a ‘conservative revolution’ is an oxymoron.

In fact, the American revolution, the first in Western history to create a purely secular state, overturned the traditional order as radically as any other such event ever did. Presumably to merit emulation by all subsequent revolutionaries, it also laid out the groundwork for criminalising not just deed but also word.

Those expressing the mildest sympathy for British rule, or even merely suspected of harbouring such feelings, were routinely attacked by both the new-fangled law and the extra-judicial mob.

The law hit suspected infidels with confiscation, fines, imprisonment, deportation from any area threatened by a British advance, confinement to internment camps. The mob would torture suspected Tories by tarring and feathering. The infidels would be made to recant and forced, often at gun point, to take an oath of allegiance to the new republic.

Burke was sage on most political matters, specifically when he tore the French Revolution to shreds in his Reflections. But he was sorely misguided when describing the earlier similar event in America as 'a revolution not made but prevented'.

Dr Johnson, who unlike Burke was a Tory and therefore less susceptible to serpentine liberal seduction, begged to differ in his typical epigrammatic fashion: “How is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of negroes?”

Commenting on the opposite polarity of Burke’s passionate reaction to the two revolutions, Coleridge insisted that in both cases the great Whig proceeded from the same principles. That may be, but he certainly did not display the same prescience.

While the French revolution proved every bit as hideous as Burke’s prophetic vision of it, the American one was far from being as benign as he believed.

Not only was it as unlawful and radical as the French version, but it caused comparable damage by wreaking destruction on the political dispensation of Christendom. And even the death toll of the two upheavals was similar if we legitimately regard the Civil War as the second act of the American Revolution.

One can argue that the perennial effect of the self-evidently inalienable right to the pursuit of happiness has been as harmful as that of liberté and fraternité, underpinned by egalité. The very term ‘pursuit of happiness’ appropriately comes from Locke who, armed with Hobbesian agnosticism, was the principal prophet of the new order.

With the benefit of hindsight, Jefferson’s friend John Adams rued in 1811, “Did not the American Revolution produce the French Revolution? And did not the French Revolution produce all the calamities and desolation of the human race and the whole globe ever since?”

In his letter of reply Jefferson reassured the doubting Thomas that it was perfectly acceptable to spill 'rivers of blood' as long as it was in the cause of advancing whatever it was that the revolutionaries wished to advance.

This sentiment has been shared by quite a few other politicians in history, with Lenin, Hitler, Mao and Ho immediately springing to mind. Unlike Jefferson, however, none of them is regarded as the distillation of political virtue.

Except on those occasions when President Obama pontificates on his fellow socialists of the past.

Alexander Boot is a writer on political, cultural and religious themes.


Blogger Span Ows said...

"Murderous international socialists"...some would say that describes Obama too! There is so much not known by the general public about his youth, influences etc but much is coming out; very slowly: Marxism, rich Pakistani roommate (or more than just roommates?), Low Down programme, Reggie Love etc

28 July 2013 at 10:30  
Blogger Roy said...

@ Span Ows

I am not a great fan of Obama but there is nothing at all wrong in having a roommate who is rich and Pakistani.

Thou shalt not go as a talebearer online

28 July 2013 at 12:37  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Well, what do you expect from the son of a Kenyan rebel. It’s in the blood you know, this sympathising with revolutionary programs...

28 July 2013 at 13:05  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Those expressing the mildest sympathy for British rule, or even merely suspected of harbouring such feelings, were routinely attacked by both the new-fangled law and the extra-judicial mob.
This is clearly the way this country is heading. No longer will we be able to speak against the new political order that defies Christianity for fear of persecution or physical attack.

28 July 2013 at 13:35  
Blogger Charles Cottam said...

Excellent, but you wander away from a very good point that might have been made.
The church been unable to resist the siren voices of enlightenment philosophers because it has lost touch with its Hebraic roots. As the preponderance of brilliant Jewish Nobel Peace prize winners shows to think Hebraically does not necessitate being anti- intellectual but it does involve subjugating rationality to faith and revelation.
The early church fathers compromised the faith by allowing their "insights" to be based on the pagan errors of the Greek philosophers.
If you do not start with God ( In the beginning God...) then you strip the church of its source of power.Ineffectual "witness" and perceived irrelevancy to society can only follow. Thank goodness for the growing core of Messianic/ Hebrew Roots christians trying to put this right.

28 July 2013 at 13:36  
Blogger IanCad said...

What! Mr. Boot?

You dare to question that which was conceived by Liberty and Equity and born full grown a paradigm of Justice, Truth and Mercy could be otherwise?

Do you not know that the perfection of character as exhibited by the lives of the Founding Fathers is evidence of the Divine provenance of the USA?

The wickedness of the Tories in their stubborn persistence of loyalty to their King and Country was treated with the utmost gentleness.
Tarring and feathering? They should be so lucky!

Today we have Guantanamo and water boarding.

28 July 2013 at 14:24  
Blogger Belsay Bugle said...

Brilliant Mr Boot from one who has the ring of a true Tory about him!

Another truth from the great Doctor,
'The devil was the first liberal Sir, never could bide authority,'

28 July 2013 at 15:36  
Blogger Peter D said...

And of course, let's not forget, all this was started by the 'Christian' protestant revolution that placed individuals above the authority of both the Church and Kings.

28 July 2013 at 19:57  
Blogger Dr.D said...

Many in the US have known that Big O is a communist, known it since before his first rigged election to the presidency. The problem is that far too many were addicted to socialism and the government freebies. They were willing to sell out the country for an O-phone, the promise that he was going to put gasoline in their car, or that he was going to pay their mortgage! Those same folks will make excellent serfs. I do worry, however, about how the rest of us will fare. We are not prone to listen to his foolishness, much less obeying it.

28 July 2013 at 21:08  
Blogger Span Ows said...

@Roy, I know, I've had one! the idea was that you do a little exploring!!

28 July 2013 at 23:02  
Blogger Span Ows said... back home: tale bearer? That could be the whole blogosphere and the whole world media then, no?

28 July 2013 at 23:58  
Blogger Manfarang said...

"Citing the language and the spirit of the U.S. Declaration of Independence, they expected U.S. President Woodrow Wilson to help remove the French colonial rule from Vietnam and ensure the formation of a new, nationalist government. Although they were unable to obtain consideration at Versailles, the failure further radicalized Nguyễn, while also making him a symbol of the anti-colonial movement at home in Vietnam."

29 July 2013 at 04:06  
Blogger OldJim said...


I hope that it is not too long until the writers on this site get together and trace their quarrel with the modern world still further back, and that between them they then pen a repudiation of the noxious events of 1688.

Peter D is getting ahead of himself. One step at a time.

29 July 2013 at 08:03  
Blogger IanCad said...

So, James 2nd. was your man then OldJim?

If any subject of a post could possibly garner more responses than one even remotely related to sodomy, then perhaps one extolling the virues of the "Glorious Revolution" could be it.

29 July 2013 at 08:29  
Blogger IanCad said...

Sorry Peter D,
I should also have addressed you in the above post.

29 July 2013 at 08:34  
Blogger LEN said...

Obama seems to be a Muslim, communist,Christian.A sort of Chameleon all things to all men.

Is this the new religion?.

29 July 2013 at 09:31  
Blogger richardhj said...

There is a recent children's film that begins with a child saying something along the lines of

"I am a Christian, I am a Hindu, I am a Muslim"

Yes, Len. It may well be.

29 July 2013 at 16:48  
Blogger Peter D said...


Oh I'd go further back than the rebellious events of 1688.

29 July 2013 at 17:56  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

Peter D,

1688? I wonder if that year provides an answer to Albert as to why the Queen didn't break the oath with ssm?

I have my current avatar as the 'Merchant of Venice- England' and it is not that I'm taking a mick out of Jewish stereotypes, as the great Englishman Shakespeare did(nor do I appear in 'SKY' ads).

I kinda figured that quite a few people here are living in the 1500s, so I'd better join the club! And the Tudor bonnet is quite fetching. [Just wish I'd got a PhD, like the rest of my brothers and sisters!].

29 July 2013 at 18:20  
Blogger Mr. Mcgranor said...

America is an enemy of the Church, and has successfully trapped all of Protestantism.

5 August 2013 at 20:52  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older