Here is a more detailed follow-up to my hastily-written previous post.
Last September, Dinesh D’Souza wrote an article for Forbes in which he explained that Obama is an anti-colonialist.
Here’s some follow-up commentary from Newt Gingrich:
"What if [Obama] is so outside our comprehension, that only if you understand Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior, can you begin to piece together [his actions]?" Gingrich asked. "That is the most accurate, predictive model for his behavior."
"This is a person who is fundamentally out of touch with how the world works, who happened to have played a wonderful con, as a result of which he is now president," Gingrich added.
"I think he worked very hard at being a person who is normal, reasonable, moderate, bipartisan, transparent, accommodating -- none of which was true," Gingrich continues. "In the Alinksy tradition, he was being the person he needed to be in order to achieve the position he needed to achieve. ... He was authentically dishonest."
In other words, I reached the same conclusion that Newt Gingrich reached many months ago. Obama’s foreign policy has nothing to do with him being stupid or out of his league. Rather, he secretly pursues an anti-colonialist foreign policy that few are smart enough to understand.
What the heck is anti-colonialism, you may ask? Well the radical left believes that the policies of European nations of prior centuries was about perpetrating great evils against the indigenous peoples of other continents.
Do you recall my previous post about Democrats and the wealthy? I wrote:
To the extent that Democrats believe in value creation at all, they believe that value is created by evil deeds such as enslaving black Africans, stealing land from the American Indians, and desecrating the planet in order to extract resources.
Unknowingly, I was explaining the concept of anti-colonialism. Anti-colonialists believe that the United States is rich not because we were better at creating value, but because of evil deeds we did in the past which involved abusing and even enslaving indigenous peoples for the benefit of white Europeans.
Anti-colonialists further believe that these evil policies continue to this day, and that the United States is the world’s major colonialist force. But today, instead of directly taking over countries, we indirectly take over countries by subverting their ruling classes with our wealth and influence. This is known as neocolonialism, and is described in a Wikipedia article:
[Kwame] Nkrumah [former president of Ghana] argues that "In place of colonialism as the main instrument of imperialism we have today neo-colonialism. … Neo-colonialism, like colonialism, is an attempt to export the social conflicts of the capitalist countries." He continues:
The result of neo-colonialism is that foreign capital is used for the exploitation rather than for the development of the less developed parts of the world. Investment under neo-colonialism increases rather than decreases the gap between the rich and the poor countries of the world. The struggle against neo-colonialism is not aimed at excluding the capital of the developed world from operating in less developed countries. It is aimed at preventing the financial power of the developed countries being used in such a way as to impoverish the less developed.
To the neo-colonialist, any undeveloped country which is friendly to the United States is only friendly because that country’s ruling elite are collaborating with the Americans to make themselves rich at the expense of the vast majority of the undeveloped country’s non-elite. The righteous countries are those which are anti-American.
Don’t you think that the philosophy of anti-colonialism explains everything Obama has done? Obama has encouraged revolutions in Egypt and Libya because they were friendly to the United States. Libya, especially, is an interesting case. Gadaffi used to be a righteous crusader against the United States, but he became seduced by the evil enticements of American money, so now he must be punished for his apostasy. In contrast, Obama doesn’t want to see a revolution in any countries that are hostile to the United States such as Iran or Syria.
Obama’s anti-colonialism also explains is actions against Honduras. As you recall, the democratically elected legislature ousted the anti-American president Zelaya who was violating the constitution of Honduras by taking actions to make himself a president for life. Obama sided with the anti-American Zelaya and demanded his reinstatement. Luckily for the people of Honduras, the legislature refused to acquiesce to Obama’s anti-American foreign policy.
* * *
Obama also supported the wrong side in the Ivory Coast (according to a Front Page Magazine article).