Obama and Urban COIN

This TV ad condemning Barack Obama for opposing some gang-related death sentences has been making the rounds. Here it is (with a hat-tip to PA Pundits):

This is a fair ad. Counter-Insurgency (COIN) against gangs has unfortunately not been a major issue, and “gang terrorism” is as good a shorthand for what’s going on as any. Obviously, there’s no “exit strategy” for America’s big cities, and the long-term answer will be jobs, but a variety of factors make too many urban youths unemployable in the short- and medium- turn. Eliminating rogue elements and gang “dead enders” should be a priority for the government, as gangs are quiet adapt at flexing power and extracting rents from the prisons supposedly meant to discipline them.

Barack Obama’s weak on urban COIN, weak on gang terrorism.

Don’t vote for him.

28 thoughts on “Obama and Urban COIN”

  1. Of course Obama’s “weak on urban COIN”, he feels solidarity with the gang members. I understand that this is very difficult for a white North Dakotan to understand. But minorities don’t think like white people when it comes to politics. They instinctively look out for their own racial interests. Obama sees gang members as his “brothas.” In the future these gang members will act as soldiers as black and Hispanic politicians shake down middle class whites. The future is not a bright one (pun intended). North Dakota is looking better every day…..

  2. Counter-productive, or you could just call it racist. “Them [insert slur here], they don’t think like us white folks!”

  3. Adrian,

    Was going to say something similar, Seerov’s undefined term “minorities” as long as with reference to petite bourgeois made me grant that Seerov may be arguing from a Right Marxist line (Bill Lind does that all the time).

  4. This is a factual question. What is Obama’s track record as a “community organizer” and a state senator with regard to gangs? There must be some track record. I suspect he has at least verbally been opposed to gangs.

    The days when someone like a young Jesse Jackson would be photographed with gangbangers is long past.

    Obama’s relationship with Bill Ayers is far more pernicious and destructive. A gangster can shoot somebody, but Ayers, through his influence on the teaching of teachers, is working to undermine the cultural and intellectual foundations of American society. If you want a picture of a 5GW warrior, Ayers is it.


  5. “Counter-productive, or you could just call it racist. “Them [insert slur here], they don’t think like us white folks!” (Adrian)

    They obviously don’t. Black and Hispanic voters vote for what’s good for them. Hispanics and blacks vote/support illegal immigration, income redistribution, hate crimes laws, UN monitoring of US elections, and racial quota’s. When blacks are on death row for killing white people, Sharpton is over there defending them.

    Contrast this with whites, who actually vote against their own racial interests. On the one hand there’s the Democrats, who champion the issues I just mentioned. And on the other hand is the GOP-“the white Christian party”-who doesn’t mind sending the white working class all over the world to fight for “our interests” but who do NOTHING about the issues above.

    The biggest group of suckers in the US are white working and middle class men. This is why I can go hours debating so called “white nationalists” on how wrong they are about white people being “superior.” How can we be “superior” when we won’t even vote in our own interests? In fact, white people actually look out for the racial interests of others, before our own! We have women like YOU Adrian, who will call me a racist, while excusing the violent behavior of “poor oppressed minorities.”

    And since you like to call people “racist,” What is the definition of a racist?

    “Non-substantially, I wonder if you realize how counter-productive your rhetoric is to your aims?” (-Dan tdaxp)

    What do you believe my aims to be?

  6. So, what are the interests of the white race, Seerov?

    “We have women like YOU Adrian, who will call me a racist…”

    I’m not sure if you’re trying to emasculate me or if you are unaware that I am male… although it’s interesting that you assume I am white.

    “while excusing the violent behavior of “poor oppressed minorities.””

    Could you give me an example of when I excused violent behavior, by minorities or any other group?

    I don’t think there is a single definition of racist. I don’t even know if I could define race itself. And while I’m not sure how you can spin the phrase “minorities don’t think like white people do” to make it NOT racist, it’s fun to watch you try.

  7. Well, I glad you you’re having fun. But I don’t think you should use words if you can define them. So tell me what a racist is and I’ll continue talking you.

  8. “minorities don’t think like white people do”

    I would also suggest that you read the whole statement. Here it is:

    “But minorities don’t think like white people when it comes to politics.”

    Now there’s a big difference between the two. So you can call it “spin” and chuckle until your stomach hurts, but the fact is, if you look at the political behavior of negros and mestizos, we find an explicit campaign to take from whites, and give to themselves.

    Obama has made a career of these type of transfer payments. This is why I hope, very, very much that he wins. Because nothing will alert the white working and middle classes more than black nationalist as the president of the United States.

    So you see, we’re on the same side.

  9. It would be racist, except, you get the ladies on the view doing the ‘white goggles’ thing. It was a story on memorandum yesterday. Why did they say it was okay for some people to vote for Obama simply because they and he are black? they’re black.

    It’s an odd thing. It’s hard to say who’s racist about this. QUite frankly, yeah, Obama probably does have policies very much in tune with what the majority of a given demographic wants. And yet, you get people who don’t know anything about the man saying it should be done because ‘it would be earthshattering to have a black president’. Now that just sounds dumb to me, but you’ve got Whoopi Goldberg getting on national tv saying it.

    So, I would hope seerov would find a much more cautious way of saying it(which he hasn’t. dude, when you hit bottom QUIT DIGGING), but he’s not 100% in the wrong.

    Goldberg(whoopi, not Jonah) has come right out and said that, yes, black people think differntly than whites and that voting entirely on merits of a candidate is a ‘white attitude’. Does Whoopi speak for the entire community? No, but it is a data point to consider.

    “blacks vote/support illegal immigration” Uh, no. Not as a whole any way. In LA there’s actually quite a lot of political fighting occuring between the black and latino communities over this. Blacks are upset about illegal immigrants taking construction jobs that blacks used to do to move out of poverty.

    I’m with Dan, your rhetoric isn’t helping seerov. I’m a bit emberassed that we’re even remotely on the same side of the issue given what you’ve written here.

    Right Marxist? Dude, Dan, I missed coming here while I was helping my buddy Yujiro’s widow for the last 4 months. Always a flippin’ education. WTH is a right marxist?

  10. ry,

    I’m not sure what you’re “embarrassed” about? The fact is, as this country becomes less white, its going to be a more dangerous place. Look at Zimbabwe when it transitioned from white to black rule. Look at South Africa. I don’t think I’m a “racist” (I still don’t know what this means) for pointing out that it may be good to start organizing for our interests.

    The “civil rights coalition” in America will push for reparations, more AA, more quotas, land reform, and more wealth redistribution. If there is no organized effort in place, it will be easy to shake down whites. Look at what happens when blacks don’t get their way in a legal situation. They demonstrate and if they’re really mad, they riot. Are you prepared for a time when whites are minority in this country?

    Look, we’ve all been socialized in this country to get very scared when a white man starts talking about pursuing white interests. But you better get over this fear, because in the next 15-20 years, you’re going to have something serious to fear.

    Next, when Dan tdaxp talks about Right wing Marxism, I think he’s talking about Buchanan style “Paleoconservatism.” Basically its somewhat racialist in origin, but also suspicious of the corporate, political , and academic elite.

    Last, you are correct that blacks in LA oppose illegal immigration. In fact, they’re being ethnically cleansed from the area. So ask yourself: Why don’t we hear anything from Sharpton? If whites were forcing blacks out of their neighborhoods by gunpoint I think we might hear about it? Well, the reason is Sharpton doesn’t want to split up the anti-white coalition. The black leadership overwhelmingly supports the illegals. An Army is being built, and guess who the enemy is?

  11. Lexington,

    You make a great point.

    Trinity UCC’s racist-progressive rhetoric makes them somewhat analogous to a klavern of the Second Klan. Not every klavern was violent, but each associated with others that were. It would be interesting to know to what extent Obama was “organizing” with associations that either directly excused violence or else had paramiliary/gang wings.


    Thanks for the kind words! And very insightful!

    By “Right Marxist,” I meant in general someone who agrees with Marxian rhetoric and analysis, but takes the side of the petite bourgeious. So Seerov’s remarks appear to be an internally consistent attempt to defend the interest of a racially white American petite bourgeious against their “enemy” of proletarian blacks and latinos.

    Perhaps I’m wrong, but so far it fits his rhetoric better that simple racism.


    Over at Dreaming 5GW, we had a discussion over two thinkers who similarly use extreme and divisive rhetoric that hurts their cause. [1] Here’s another example [2].

    [1] http://www.dreaming5gw.com/2007/07/william_lind_and_john_norman.php
    [2] http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2008/03/17/the-dead-hooker-in-the-trunk.html

  12. Since Seerov is throwing a fit and refusing to respond to me, perhaps someone else could ask him what he thinks the interests of the white race are?

  13. The very fact that you don’t know, is representative of the situation we find ourselves in. I’ll give you some ideas on what white interests are.

    1. An end to all racist programs such as affirmative action, racial quota’s, and so called “set-asides.”

    2. The return of freedom of association. IOW, if I want to start an all white school, or social club, I should be allowed to do so.

    3. Along with freedom of association, I should be able to sell or rent property to anyone I wish. I should also be able to hire and fire who ever I wish.

    4. The amount of crime committed against whites by blacks id about 85% to 15%. Interracial rape is literally 99.9% committed against white women. The media is very scared to bring stuff like this up. Another White interest would be bringing these issues out for discussion and making it very clear that failure to stop this behavior will result in repercussions.

    5. The vast amount of whites in this country wish the flow of illegal immigration to stop. If big business is too powerful for this to happen, then another white interest would be to stop ALL benefits that go to illegal immigrants. There was a referendum in California about this, which the population overwhelmingly voted to stop the benefits. The courts threw the referendum out.

  14. I’ve noticed that there’s two types of people when it comes to discussing race:

    People who can’t think straight due to years of socialization on questions of race which leads to falling back on the comfortable position of explaining anything that is contrary to their socialization as “racism.”


    2. People who show signs of defeating their racial socialization.

    Note: I’m not sure its possible to totally “unsocialized” yourself from racial brainwashing. I’m pretty close, but still find myself displaying symptoms to the socialization.

    Women have the most trouble overcoming the socialization. There’s an evolutionary reason for this. Women evolved under circumstance which they socialized mostly with people “within the tribe.” Because of this, women are more likely to “accept” people due to their genetic experiences of interaction with “in-group” members. Men on the other hand “see nations.” Their evolutionary experiences required them to make alliances, go to war, and trade with the “out-group.

    Psychologists have pointed out that women tend to have more intimate friendships, but with less people. Men tend to have more alliance based friendships and a larger quantity of friends.

    On studies of “racism” or “prejudice,” men are overwhelmingly more likely to have “racist” feelings.

    This also explains why women are more open to universal health care, open immigration, and other egalitarian policies. To women “everyone is accepted.” 🙁

    So you ask a good question Dan tdaxp. And I will be back with an explanation. I’m not even sure if accept the premise of your question? IOW, I’m not totally convinced that race is the optimal basis for political organization.

  15. Seerov,

    Thank you for your prologue.

    To clarify my question, I was wondering why it is currently a legitimate mode of political organization, not whether it was an optimal one or not.

  16. It would be better if everyone supported non-racialist policies and supported full freedom of association. This would be the best policy.

    But that’s not very likely.

    So if every other ethnic group is organized for optimizing their political interests, then any group that is not organized that way is going to see their way of life diminished.

    White people are not only unorganized when it comes to political interests, they’re actually “scared” to even talk about these interests.

    Failure to organize will result in a situation similar to Zimbabwe or S. Africa.

    I would prefer to see a totally non-racialist America.

  17. Seerov,

    So if every other ethnic group is organized for optimizing their political interests, then any group that is not organized that way is going to see their way of life diminished.

    Certainly there are factions in politics that seek what is best for themselves, but I doubt that race or ethnicity is the best unit of analysis. Consider Mark in Texas’s comments, for instance, on the beneficiaries of affirmative action including old WASP families [1].

    I would prefer to see a totally non-racialist America.

    Can this be accomplished? If so, how?

    [1] http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2008/03/05/barack-obama-should-denounced-affirmative-action-and-race-based-politics.html#comment-61322

  18. I just read Mark in Texas’s explanation of the “defense aspect” of AA and found it to be quite insightful.

    A non-racialist America will probably never occur but I do think the race-racketeer coalition can be weakened.

    First of all, Asians need to get with Whites when it comes to race politics. While they’re usually a very merit based people, there are signs of giving in to the victim status[1].

    The Republicans need to find a way of attracting NE Asians, Indians, and more Jews. These people need to be made to realize that in the next 25 years, a storm of socialism is coming their way. As the country is Hispanized, South American socialist influence will creep into America. The groups I just mentioned need to realize that they will be taxed for their hard work by a coalition of race-racketeers (Blacks, Hispanics, White Liberals, Jewish Liberals).

    I feel the way of making Asians, Jews, and White liberals more comfortable in the Republican party is by moving away from the religious right. Instead, focus on taxes, ending race-based quota’s, and a strong defense.

    The immigration issue can drive many non-whites away from the GOP. Because of this, the GOP can be practically open borders in nature as long as they allow freedom of association.

    But the religious right is the biggest problem. The GOP needs to be the party of technology, science, innovation, and responsibility. The GOP needs to get rid of the anti-evolution forces, anti-stem-cell crowd, and the “the universe is 6000 years old” crowd. Instead of the party of praying to the heavens, the GOP needs to be the party of traveling to the heavens.

    They also need to get away from this obsession with abortion. If anything, they should take a “States-Rights” approach but it would better if they just left it alone. They also need to push for programs like mandatory birth control for welfare abusers.

    Let the abortion people go to the Democrats. The Democrats can be the party of oppression and saving babies. They can be the socialist/Christian party and the GOP will be the party of wealth, technology, aggressive foreign policy, and merit.

    The GOP can attract the worlds brightest people. Make immigration easy (But remember, we must have freedom of association) for people and cut taxes in half. The world’s talent will come to America and join the GOP. This will lead to America increasing its power by increasing its human capital. The GOP will become the de facto “World’s party” of technology, innovation, military power, globalization, gap shrinking, and socialist smashing.

    But the people will have to agree to the basic principles of America. These principles are low taxes, freedom, rugged individualism, hegemonic foreign policy.

    This ideology of real progress, will generate more power, wealth, and technology than ever imagined.

  19. Seerov,

    Would it be fair to say that you support the transformation of the Republican Party into a Whig Party (pro-growth, pro-investment, quiet on social issues)?


    Did you have a substantive question or comment?

  20. Yes, freedom of association allows for communities to develop their own social issues. Although I’m really not a Christian, I actually like living in conservative rural/small town Christian America than in wealthy urban liberal East-side of Manhattan America. I don’t complain about Nativity scenes.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *