Saturday, November 08, 2008

Mephistopheles revisited

I was hoping that someone would scream "racist" at me after I yesterday compared Obama with Mephistopheles (The Devil in human form). I had hoped that they would say that I was equating a brown skin with evil. I had the perfect reply ready: Mephistopheles is a product of the European imagination and, as such, is normally portrayed as white. So, if anything, I was in fact seeing Obama as white. But it was not to be. No shriek of protest arrived. Apparently no Leftists were reading this blog. I guess that's no surprise.

A deeper point I had in mind was that another widely-used name for Satan is "Lucifer" -- which is Latin for "light bearer". Compare that with the now widely mocked effusion about Obama by the egregious Mark Morford:
Many spiritually advanced people I know (not coweringly religious, mind you, but deeply spiritual) identify Obama as a Lightworker, that rare kind of attuned being who has the ability to lead us not merely to new foreign policies or health care plans or whatnot, but who can actually help usher in a new way of being on the planet, of relating and connecting and engaging with this bizarre earthly experiment. These kinds of people actually help us evolve. They are philosophers and peacemakers of a very high order, and they speak not just to reason or emotion, but to the soul.

So Morford saw similarities between Obama and the Evil One too! And that great inspiration of both Obama and Hillary, the far-Leftist Saul Alinsky, wrote as follows:

(H/T Moonbattery)

So there is more than one connection of Obama to the Evil One. I am not religious so I do not believe in the Devil but if I did, I think I would be concerned about that connection.


The big picture: America is no longer ruled by whites

The article below is written by the Chief Reporter for Britain's leading conservative newspaper. It addresses matters that U.S. commentators tend to slide over (out of political correctness) but which need mentioning, in my view. There have been many knowledgeable analyses of the demographics behind Obama's victory (e.g. by Karl Rove) but to me they seem unable to see the forest for the trees. The plain fact is that there is large population growth in segments of the population who are systematically hostile to the GOP and it is difficult to see a way around that. Will Obama be the first in a long line of Democrat Presidents?

The only hope -- and it is a good one -- is that the Donks will make such a huge mess of things in the next two to four years that many voters will vote for any alternative to them. That suggests to me that the GOP senators should make sparing use of the filibuster in the next two to four years. Let the Democrats have their own way on most things and just say "I told you so" when it all implodes (e.g. in huge unemployment). Let them hang themselves by their own stupidity.
President-Elect Obama attracted 43 per cent of the white vote, with 55 per cent backing John McCain. But because white voters make up an ever-decreasing percentage of the total, Mr Obama still achieved an overwhelming victory because he attracted 95 per cent of the black vote and two thirds of Hispanic and Asian voters. Black and ethnic minority voters accounted for 26 per cent of all votes cast in the election. As recently as 2000, they made up just 19 per cent of voters. At the current rate of change, white voters will be in the minority by 2042, and with black and ethnic minority voters traditionally voting Democrat, regardless of the candidate's skin colour, the Republicans are facing a long-term problem.

Mr Obama's campaign team said the Democrat had put together a "national coalition" of voters from all backgrounds. "We were able to overcome a lot of the things that a lot of people thought were insuperable barriers in our politics," his chief strategist, David Axelrod, said. Mr Obama may not have won over the majority of white voters but he still managed a larger slice of the white vote than any of his recent predecessors, including Bill Clinton. The President-Elect also increased the Democratic share of the vote in almost every other demographic sector. Male voters were split almost exactly down the middle between the two candidates, compared with 55 per cent voting Republican in 2004, and Mr Obama increased the Democratic share of the female vote from 51 per cent in 2004 to 56 per cent.

One of the biggest swings to the Democrats came among the youngest voters, with 66 per cent of 18-29 year old voters backing Mr Obama, compared with 54 per cent in the previous election. Mr Obama also picked up 69 per cent of first time voters, compared with just 53 per cent who voted for John Kerry in 2004. One in five of all first time voters were black. Dr Scott Blinder, Research Fellow in US Politics at Nuffield College, Oxford, said: "As well as the changes in the racial composition of the electorate, we have seen a significant shift in the youth vote towards the Democrats. "Obama has taken 69 per cent of first time voters, a significant increase on previous elections, and that might have long-term implications for the Republicans, as we are seeing a whole new generation of Democratic voters coming through.

More here



The ladies liked Obama: ""Soccer moms" - suburban married women with young children - have drawn the attention of campaign strategists over the past decade, but an exit poll of voters showed single women were a decisive factor in Barack Obama's historic victory. "If not for the overwhelming support of unmarried women, John McCain would have won the women's vote and with it, the White House," said the international research firm Greenberg Quinlan Rosner. Tuesday night, unmarried women supported the Democratic candidate by a stunning 70 to 29 percent margin, the firm said in a summary of its calculations, based on the Edison/Mitofsky National Election Pool published by CNN. By contrast, married women supported Obama by a 50 to 47 percent margin."

Swing Voters Don't Want Big Government: "Barack Obama and congressional Democrats won big on Tuesday night, but they should not mistake their victory for a big-government mandate. The evidence tells a very different story. A poll commissioned by the Club for Growth in 12 swing congressional districts over the past weekend shows that the voters who made the difference in this election still prefer less government -- lower taxes, less spending and less regulation -- to Sen. Obama's economic liberalism. Turns out, Americans didn't vote for Mr. Obama and Democratic congressional candidates because they support their redistributionist agenda, but because they are fed up with the Republican politicians in office. This was a classic "throw the bums out" election, rather than an embrace of the policy views of those who will replace them."

British security chief quits over failure to check his own staff: "The boss of the Government agency that vets security guards quit his $200,000-a-year job last night after admitting some of his own staff did not have proper clearance. Mike Wilson was forced out after 14 months as chief executive of the Security Industry Authority, which has licensed more than 40,000 guards in four years. The Home Office is reviewing all decisions made by staff who were not vetted for criminal records or immigration status. Seven did not have clearance. At least one has since failed a security check. It will check if guards passed to work in posts such as pubs or Government sites were wrongly cleared. Last year, the authority was found to have cleared more than 7,000 illegal immigrants to work as guards and last month, the National Audit Office accused it of overspending by $34 million.

British injustice: "Drivers who challenge speeding fines should be made to pay their legal bills even if they win their case, ministers said yesterday. The proposal would see successful defendants lose their century-old right to claim back their costs. A change in the law would affect many of the 1.7million drivers a year who take their cases to court. It costs around $3,000 to fight charges of speeding, illegal parking and other motoring offences. Motoring groups and lawyers said the proposal was a breach of fundamental legal principles. Edmund King, president of the AA, said: 'This is against the common law and against the common man. If you prove your innocence you shouldn't have to pay for it.' Ian Kelcey, head of the Law Society's criminal law committee, called the scheme a disgrace. He added: 'This means that an awful lot of people will not be able to get a fair trial. They will not be able to get a proper defence.' "


List of backup or "mirror" sites here or here -- for readers in China or for everyone when blogspot is "down" or failing to update. Email me here (Hotmail address). My Home Pages are here or here or here


The Big Lie of the late 20th century was that Nazism was Rightist. It was in fact typical of the Leftism of its day. It was only to the Right of Stalin's Communism. The very word "Nazi" is a German abbreviation for "National Socialist" (Nationalsozialist) and the full name of Hitler's political party (translated) was "The National Socialist German Workers' Party" (In German: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei)



Robert said...

The words about Lucifer reminded me of how the word "lucky" may also be derived from "Lucifer". This summer one of my cousins got married, and the invitation mentioned bringing "pot blessings". Having not seen the term before, we researched it, and found it to be another term for "pot luck", but certain Christians don't like to use the word luck, apparently because it is derived from Lucifer, or they believe it is, so they use "pot blessing" instead.

JR said...

"Luck" is actually dervied from the German "Gluck", meaning good fortune