Ayers and Dohrn, Barack Obama, the death of Andrew Breitbart and the rise of Third Position fascism

(06-08-2012) N.B.: Before I let you read the article, here are a couple of points that I posted on SpitfireList.com on May 20th 2012 as a response to some criticism about the article from the website host. These remarks should serve as caveat, precisions, to be able to put into context the core of the text. I admit that this article was a reckless attempt, not necessarily successful, to explain and put into context something rather difficult to conceptualize. In the end, I think Obama is a good man but he is surrended by people who are not and who are trying to seize the occasion to do harm. Here it is:

Thanks for these remarks. I will clar­ify a few points just to be sure we agree on my posi­tions con­cern­ing Obama and the rest. Maybe the writ­ing of my arti­cle could be improved to reflect that.

First, I have never said that OBAMA killed Bre­it­bart or that he wanted to kill him. He nev­er­the­less signed, if I am not mis­taken, an Exec­u­tive Order that legal­izes tar­get­ted assas­si­na­tions of Amer­i­can cit­i­zens. Some­body else could have done it. Maybe.

Sec­ond, I have never said that Obama was third posi­tion. It is rather the crowd sur­round­ing him and with whom he evolved that gives me that impres­sion. For me, the Chicago milieu is bad and breeds rad­i­cals. But the right is not any bet­ter, of course.

Third, I agree, the Weath­er­men were prob­a­bly agent provocateurs.

Fourth, con­cern­ing Israel, reli­gious Zion­ism is prob­a­bly wrong as you say, but we must not for­get that Israelis face anni­hi­la­tion not only since 1922 (that’s 1917 in fact- Ed), year of the Bal­four Dec­la­ra­tion, but since the begin­nings of Chris­tian­ity. John Loftus’s The Secret War Against the Jews remains, for me, the best tool to under­stand the sit­u­a­tion. When the fate of the Jews is secured, the state of Israel is secured, we will have plenty of time to crit­i­cize Zion­ism and Netanyahu or any other politi­cian in place. I don’t like Netanyahu court­ing right-wingers, but there is not much of a choice. Obama is not favor­able toward Israel and the U.S. has only two parties…

Fifth, yes, Obama is very dif­fer­ent from Bush. Ide­aly, if we could com­bine the best of the two in just one can­di­date, that would be great. But unfor­tu­nately, it doesn’t work like that it seems.

I kept it brief and I hope it clar­i­fies things.


The recent death of Andrew Breitbart has opened a Pandora’s box. The controversy has raged over the fact that he was very vocal during the whole month of February about releasing, on March 1st, some tapes that would irremediably hurt Barack Obama and seriously undermine his chances to get re-elected. Apparently, the videos show Barack Obama during his college days with radicals. The fact that he died only hours before having the occasion to do so, has led many in political circles to ask themselves whether or not Breitbart could have been eliminated. The sudden heart attack that brought him down is seen by certain people as possibly only the official version of the story. Well, we may never know what really happened. However, this event has opened a rift, so to speak, in the political analysis spectrum, and now certain connections from the past emerge on the surface. A first tape has been released on March 7th. It shows Barack Obama during his college days at Harvard University endorsing and hugging Derrick Bell, a controversial professor who expressed radical leftist ideas about race. The hugging part of the video was censored at the time of the Presidential Election to avoid doing any damage to Obama’s campaign.

A thread is common and I want to present it to you. Kevin Coogan, a marvelous author, has written a book titled Dreamer of the Day: Fran­cis Parker Yockey and the Post­war Fas­cist Inter­na­tional. This book presents the political philosophy of Francis Parker Yockey, a post-war fascist political thinker. In a nutshell, Yockey wanted to breed a new kind of fascism where nazism/fascism, communism and Islam would merge, along with elements characteristic of Third World sensibilities, to create a new form of fascism that didn’t exist before WWII. Uniting the Far-Left and the Far-Right, with the Iran of the Ayatollahs and the Nation of Islam, was a priority and a goal in itself for him. Continuer la lecture

Obama’s policy on the Middle East: Three strikes out?

Here are two videos. The first shows Obama during the adress when he uttered the famous « 1967 lines » for the borders of Israel. The second is Obama’s presentation at AIPAC a few days later when he tried to say that he didn’t say what he said… I don’t know about you but I begin to turn sour about Obama. His Cairo speech was dubious but at that time, I wasn’t ready to think that he would put into jeopardy the future of the world. I thought he would favor an evolution of the situation in the Middle East, a resolution of the conflict. But still, it was kind of strike 1. Then happened the uprisings in North Africa. At this occasion, he could have taken the opportunity to warn the world and the American public about terrorist groups or Islamist/reactionary elements that could try to take advantage of these « revolutions » to further their own agenda. Did he do it? No, he endorsed the uprisings, he vouched for them regardless of whoever was involved, whatever their political platforms were, whatever their backgrounds were. Was it enough to throw the towel with Obama? No, that could still turn out good for the world, we would have to wait and see. But still, that was strike 2. And now, with that proposition on the 1967 lines, the terrible fiasco that it produced with Netanyahu during his last visit and the vote that is coming to the UN in september, I think that’s it. Three strikes out! I don’t see how this guy could be re-elected as President for another term. The world is more unstable now since he is in office, much more than when Bush was there… Can you imagine that? But, what is Obama’s agenda anyway? Are you sure that you know what it is? Because, speaking for myself, I don’t know. Is he an Islamist? Possibly. It’s beginning to be dubious and scary. He acts almost as if he would like the Islamists throughout the Middle East to get a firmer grip on their societies, at the detriment of pro-democratic elements and the West as a whole. After you watch these two, don’t forget to watch as well the marvelous presentation that Netanyahu gave to U.S. Congress a few days later. He took the opportunity then to retort as a real head of State can only do. Continuer la lecture