“The walls between old allies on either side of the Atlantic cannot stand. The walls between the countries with the most and those with the least cannot stand. The walls between races and tribes; natives and immigrants; Christian and Muslim and Jew cannot stand. These now are the walls we must tear down.”

Barack Hussein Obama
Berlin Speech

I don’t know if I’ve read a speech from an American Politician speaking in such a public context that was more explicitly globalist than the speech delivered by Barack Hussein Obama in Berlin last week. It was clear when reading the speech that Obama has his sites set on something quite loftier than President of These United States. Obama clearly understands that if he is elected as President he is literally the leader of the free world.

There is much that troubles me about Obama’s wall deconstruction vision. Obama wants all kinds of walls to fall choosing the fall of the Berlin wall as a metaphor for barriers in society and between nations that he believes likewise need to come down. The problem is that the metaphor doesn’t work well without some kind of enemy named that needs to be defeated. It is true that the Berlin wall fell but it was only because some enemy (communism) was totally defeated and extinguished. It would seem then, that in order for Obama’s other walls to fall what has to first happen is that an enemy has to be identified so that it may be defeated so that the B. Hussein Obama’s walls can fall.

First, what will a President Obama do to make sure that the walls between the haves and the have not countries will fall? What enemy is to be defeated here? Is the enemy the wealthy? Will they be defeated by his entering into some kind of trans-Atlantic socialistic redistribution of wealth where America will “share” (by plunder) its wealth with those designated as have nots? People don’t generally seem to realize that Marxist plans to tear down walls between countries with the most and countries with the least result not in the country with the least being lifted to a plane of equivalence with the rich country but rather the richer country, as an enemy, is brought down to the same level of misery as the country that has not. Socialism never enriches people, but instead gives those who are impoverished the satisfaction of knowing that everyone is as miserable as they were and are. Tearing down walls between the countries with the most and countries with the least when not pursued in the context of genuinely free market incentives only leads to all countries being equally impoverished and results in the enemy of wealth creators being defeated. If Obama does for the poor countries of Europe what LBJ did for the poor people of America in his war on poverty we are certain to move from our current economic twilight to the darkest midnight. If the walls between the countries with the most and the countries with the least are to fall then some enemy in all this needs to be identified and crushed just as the communists were crushed leading to the fall of the Berlin wall. My guess, given what Obama has spoken about concerning his economic plan, is that the enemy is private property not held by the State. This is the enemy that must be defeated so that the countries with the least can become the equal of the countries with the most.

Second, what will a President Obama do to make the walls fall between races and tribes. Who is to be the enemy identified here? Is the enemy that must be destroyed before the walls fall between races and tribes those who find satisfaction in the race and tribes God placed them? Will President Obama have a forced miscegenation program? Will he give tax incentives to people to marry out of their race and tribe? (By the way… what tribes still exist in Europe?) It is clear as Obama’s speech is read in full that Obama believes in the idea of America being a proposition nation.

“What has always united us – what has always driven our people; what drew my father to America’s shores – is a set of ideals that speak to aspirations shared by all people…

It is his belief that Mongolians, Rwandans, and Venezuelans,et. al. can be genuine Americans if they just believe the same set of ideals. The insistence that a nation is made out of shared culture, shared history, shared sense of homeland, shared religion, and a shared extended family is the enemy that must be destroyed if the walls are to fall between races and tribes. America is to become the universal propositional (set ideal) nation where concrete realities are set aside for abstractions. The walls that come with being a particular people in a particular place with a particular history, religion, culture and lineage must come down. Everyone should understand that the result of the walls falling down between races and tribes is becoming part of one global race and tribe. The pursuit of the erasing of racial, ethnic and cultural distinctions is the pursuit of the Tower of Babel wrapped in soaring egalitarian rhetoric.

Third, a President Obama would tear down the walls between native and immigrant. Consistent with our approach so far, we ask, where is the enemy that needs to be defeated before those walls can fall? I suspect the enemy is the native who cherishes his way of life and how his culture and society is organized and doesn’t desire to pay for his own destruction through confiscatory taxation so as to prop up the, more often than not, illegal immigrant. Immigration in America is being used to destroy what is left of what little remains of Christendom and the lingering memory, kept alive in out of the way lacunae, of what it means to be uniquely American. America’s globalist imperial elite have decided that they desire a constituency that is anything but American and so the walls must fall between native and (illegal) immigrant so that we can achieve status as a universal nation.

Fourth, and perhaps most troubling is that a President Obama desires to tear down the walls between Christians, Jews, and Muslims. And so we ask, who is the enemy that needs to be defeated so that these walls can fall? The answer to that question is any adherent of these particular faiths who take their God and faith seriously. In order for the walls to fall down between these faith expressions the content of these faiths systems must be watered down so that the respective gods in the systems are made subservient to the new faith system that will unite the global village where the distinctions that come with economic variance race, tribe, homeland, culture, or religion are completely eclipsed. What is ironic here is that the pursuit to tear down the walls between Jews, Christians and Muslims, could conceivably unite them in order to oppose a one world religion.

Obama’s speech in Berlin was boilerplate globalism. He understands that the next epochal move for humanity, as directed by the religion of humanism, is to reconstruct Babel. Before that can be achieved the walls that keep the unitarian and unipolar world from being achieved must be destroyed. This is a different vision from Christianity. Christianity sees a world where walls fall because false religions (Judaism, Islam, humanistic globalism, etc.)are destroyed through the proclamation of the Gospel and Spirit wrought regeneration but where the diversity of races, tribes, and culture is retained and treasured. The vision of the Christian faith and the vision of unipolar humanistic globalism is the difference between heaven and hell.

Batman, The Dark Knight, is a morality play told by Nietzsche, wherein the only non-conflicted premier character who manages “moral” clarity is one who would be considered demented and insane in any non-Nietzschean world. When truth is arrived at in Gotham’s little Nietzschean shop of horrors it is truth that is arrived at by a will to power and the only reason that it bears any familiarity to what any non ubermensch being would understand is a sheer “accident” created by Batman’s will to power.

The film is a very good piece of cinema when one considers the art of it. The script is tight. The One hundred and fifty minute length of the film gives plenty of time for character development. The film techniques are varied and are used in a thematic fashion that fit the scenes used for the different techniques. The composition scores draw the viewer in and heightens the drama of the movie. The acting is solid with Christian Bale being quite good and Heath Ledger being brilliant, though personally I didn’t care any more for Maggie Gyllenhaal’s work in this film then I did Katie Holmes’ work in the previous film. In my opinion that role was never cast right. The costumes, colors, and lighting, were muted and dark fitting the theme of the movie. Nolan has created a comic book movie that seeks to leave the “comic” behind and instead seeks to give us a realistic Gotham City and a realistic story line. Nolan’s work is ambitious as movies go. Definitely too ambitious (the problem of evil, the nature of man, chaos vs. order, chance vs. design, the symbiotic relationship between hero and villain, the use of evil to advance good, freedom vs. security, etc.), though the sheer breadth of the subject matter and the quality of the film leaves one forgiving Nolan for biting off to much. We should hasten to add that it is precisely because the film is so ambitious that it is difficult to give a review that captures the whole film.

Nolan’s film finds all of his characters except one conflicted with divided loyalties. Rachel Dawes is conflicted about love with her loyalties divided between Harvey Dent and Bruce Wayne. Harvey Dent, an ambitious District Attorney, is conflicted about career as seen by the fact that he was known as “two face” by the police force. His divided loyalties fluctuate between his own personal advance and the means by which that advance is attained. Commissioner Gordon is conflicted by loyalties to family and loyalties to work. Bruce Wayne is conflicted by identity. Only The Joker is unfamiliar with the uncertainty that being deeply internally conflicted brings. Nolan’s characters, excepting one, all seem to be in some existential internal crisis. The entrance of the Joker becomes the meaningful, and sometimes final, experience that resolves this cornucopia of internal existential crises.

Nolan works the film so that his only morally non-conflicted character becomes a kind of anti-god who forces the other characters to operate out of a will to power to rise above the conflict brought about by divided loyalties it their lives. The result is that as the film rolls the main characters become more and more like the anti-God of the film inasmuch as they legislate reality by their fiat word. The consequence of this is that even when the “hero saves the day” the reality that is created out of that deliverance is one based upon a noble lie that is as irrational as the “truth” that the anti-god desired to foster upon Gotham city.

Good wins out in the end but it is a good that has no reason for existence. Nolan’s good is an existential leap in the dark night.

As we explore the movie we begin to see that Bruce Wayne and Harvey Dent become symbols for Gotham, and by extension, humanity as it wrestles with the world left to us by the death of God and the presence of the anti-God. Dent and Wayne come to us as a set of covenant heads for humanity. Harvey Dent is labeled as the White Knight who is portrayed to Gotham as a man of virtue and justice and symbolically he is set up as the man who can bring a sense of meaning and order to Gotham. As the film unravels though Dent’s virtue is destroyed by the anti-god God and Dent comes to “see the light” to the point that he Himself takes on the scarred image of the anti-god and becomes a being that differentiates himself from the rest of the herd by sheer will as directed by chance. Dent’s covenant headship fails. There is no justice and virtue that can withstand the anti-god. Batman, on the other hand, is the Dark Knight and so is Dent’s reverse mirror image. While Dent, as District Attorney, uses the Law to pursue the end of criminality, Batman is a criminal turned inside out. He uses the vices of criminals to destroy criminals. Batman is The Joker with a deeply misplaced and irrational sense of morality. Nolan seems to be saying whereas the Dent character captures the idealistic for fallen man, the Batman character captures the sordid reality, and in a narrative twist the sordid reality is used to prop up the existence of the idealistic for those of the Gotham herd, who, because they do not have it in them to rise above the herd and become ubermensch, need the idealistic myth reinforced in order to function. The Dark Knight, uses the powers of the anti-god (the constructed noble lie spoken out of creaturely fiat) to create order for the herd.

Batman, as the Dark Knight covenant head, by means of substitution, takes on the sins of the White Knight and so brings order to Gotham. The White Knight remains the hero but for all who can see behind the veil we know that any order or justice is based on the noble lie. The Joker has won even if only a handful of people in Gotham know it.

In this sense, Batman is a deeply cynical movie. In a culture where God is dead an optimistic cynicism used to prop up the myths that make society governable is perhaps the best we can hope for.

This movie is not for children, or the feeble minded.

Go to about 4:40 in the recording. These guys are so contemptible that they put in the mortgage “bailout” bill a provision requiring that all credit card transactions be reported to the IRS. Do you really think we are free?

Our family just watched Night Crossing, a true story about two families taking extraordinary measures to escape a police state. So where is there to go now? We’re looking at the Pacific Ocean this week, and it would be a long balloon ride to ferry everyone across it to another land— I don’t think it would be an improvement once we got there. Maybe Mars?

Below a letter is reproduced that I received from my “conservative” Congressman Tim Walberg. Walberg is a former evangelical minister.

Dear Friend:

As I travel the 7th District, I have met with numerous religious groups, elected officials, non-profit organizations, school leaders, and small business owners who have all expressed one common message – times are tough, budgets are tight, and funds are scarce. Since I’ve been in Congress, I have discovered that a valuable and under-utilized source of assistance for religious groups like yours is federal grants.

Religious organizations, in particular, help the community strengthen itself through social functions, charitable work, and by providing a safe haven for those in their hour of need. I know, however, that these valuable services come with a cost, and this is where I encourage you to explore the potential for federal grants to help you fund your community building endeavors.

In order to share what I’ve learned and what may be of great interest and support to you, I am hosting workshops on How to Access Federal Grants on … I encourage you to attend. The first session from 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. will discuss how to properly write a proposal to obtain federal grant from a Grant Writing Specialist from the University of Michigan….

Respectfully yours,

Tim Walberg
Member of Congress

Now, keep in mind that this clown is supposed to be conservative. He’s so conservative that he wants to teach his constituents how to most effectively suckle up to the teat of the Federal government in order to get their share of the ill gotten booty.

This is a guy who rails against excessive taxation. So on one hand he complains about the Feds taxing to much but on the other hand he encourages and teaches people to behave in such a way that the excessive taxation must continue. It’s the glaring inconsistency of being against higher taxes while at the same time being for constituents accessing all the money they can get, even setting up seminars so your constituents can learn how to access the Federal pool of money created by the higher taxes that you putatively oppose. This kind of stuff just wants to make me scream!
Next, I wonder if Congressman Walberg realizes that the reason budgets may be tight and funds scarce (first paragraph in his letter) is because people are being over taxed. Does he realize then that his promotion of “accessing Federal Grants” leads to budgets being tight and funds being scarce?

One wonders if Congressman Walberg ever considered that one way to build a community is by letting people in the community keep their money. That money that Congressman Walberg wants religious organizations to access is money that was stolen from other people in other communities.

Walberg is no conservative! Walberg has no problem with stealing from one group in order to give to another. His only problem with Statist Government would be when the Statist Government isn’t redistributing money in the direction Walberg would like to see it go.

You would think a former Evangelical pastor like Walberg would take seriously the 8th commandment, but I guess it’s ok to steal as long as it is for a good cause.

It’s hard to say if guys like Walberg do more harm in the ministry or in politics.