Obama gets the finger

How sweet it is. Hat tip Urban Future

In the photo op for the Apec economic leaders meeting, hosted by China, they positioned Obama away from the leaders and with the wives and mistresses of leaders, they placed a tall man behind him to make him look short, and the man behind him gave him the three finger horns.

Also, while everyone else is wearing their polite photo op smiles, the man giving Obama the three fingers has a big genuine grin like a raccoon eating fishguts off a barbed wire fence.

And they titled the another photo featuring Putin and Obama “fiends and neighbors”, implying that since Putin is a neighbor, Obama is a fiend.

Sweet!

Of course some might think this is mere pettiness, but on the contrary, it will take the wind out of the sails of the Umbrella Revolution without the risk of martyr creation that tanks might pose.

54 Responses to “Obama gets the finger”

  1. peppermint says:

    Obama’s handlers carefully taught him just how much to bow to the Emperor of Japan, but couldn’t teach him not to chew gum in public in China. So it looks like Obama is being personally abandoned.

    Meanwhile, top story on Fox News is an MIT professor openly talks about why the Obamacare bill was written the way it was written. That’s not just Obama’s bill, though. DailyStormer thinks the professor is just a Jew that is biologically incapable of not bragging about jewing us, but I wonder if he’s actually wondering about these new Dark Enlightenment ideas and how they describe his strategy and arrogant enough in his position at MIT to wonder aloud.

    • Perturabo says:

      If you continue to allow Peppermint to bleat about “Jewing” in response to every post, it will ruin your blog. His posts are grotesque, and make the comments section an unbearable experience for otherwise interested readers. You obviously aren’t tolerating Peppermint’s presence because of adherence to principals of unfettered free expression, so although your blog is often very interesting, I can’t keep visiting it if you continue to give his nastiness your tacit approval. I suppose this anonymous ultimatum might not seem to present you with high stakes, but it is a sincere complaint from an interested reader and I ask you to consider whether the participation of someone like Peppermint is worth losing the interest of smarter, better people.

      • Toddy Cat says:

        “participation of someone like Peppermint is worth losing the interest of smarter, better people.”

        Probably not, but it might be worth losing the interest of would-be SJW censors. If you don’t like Peppermint’s posts (which I don’t, particularly) don’t read them, rather than asking that the comments of Jim’s blog be tailored to fit your delicate sensibilities.

      • Thales says:

        It’s called the “Dark Enlightenment” for a reason.

        Being able to stomach that which might offend is a basic prerequisite.

      • Adolf the anti-White says:

        I, for one, blame the Jews for your post.

      • Anonymous says:

        I’m ok with this blog losing sad sack whiners like you. Pepper mentioned, by way of referencing the position of stormfront, that a guy was a jew… This is beyond the pale for you?? Cry more and good riddance.

        • Zerg says:

          “Anonymous”, wipe the slime from your lips; there’s a line of big Aryan men in long leather coats waiting for a turn.

          • Lars Grobian says:

            So you’re freaking out and hysterically jabbering obscenities to convince people they’d rather have you around than Peppermint?

            I don’t think that’s going to work they way you planned.

      • jim says:

        No one censors commies. If I censor Nazis, I risk sliding into the Cathedral trap of no enemies to the left, no friends to the right, which results in the situation that all your enemies are your friends, and all your friends are your enemies, as Scott Alexander discovered.

        In fact, Jews are a problem, because diversity undermines cohesion, and because, as B argues, outsiders are dangerously useful to an elite that is hostile to its subjects. Obsessing about this minor problem is apt to blind one to more serious problems, but so does denying this problem. Jews are a problem because our elite is hostile to its subjects. Our elite is not hostile to its subjects because of Jews.

        Secondly, I am committed to the principle of free expression – just not for government sponsored and government funded expression, since this results in the official belief system mutating to greater virulence and forms ever less tolerant. Teacher’s colleges operate as states within the state, funded by the state to commit acts of Marxist violence against the state and teach the overthrow of the state in the name of the assorted groups that have been substituted for the proletariat, and require that their students participate in demonstrations that symbolically perform criminal activities, so that a key requirement to be authorized to teach children is to have performed criminal acts. That I advocate that the inquisition should be applied to government employees and in particular the professoriat, and in particular the Marxist revolutionary cells that control teacher accreditation, does not mean I think that blogs should operate in a similar fashion.

        • Perturabo says:

          If there is a problem with Jews, it is not that they perpetrate the act of “Jewing.” The verb “to Jew” is a construct of liars.

          To be a force for good, one must first not be a liar.

          It won’t help you to place Peppermint to your right, because he is a liar. Liars do not aid those who are good, regardless of their positioning – left, right, or perhaps on top, sweating and groaning.

          Let’s not go through logical contortions about censorship. When I go to mainland China I can’t access WordPress, where I go to read Lion of the Blogosphere. So in China, the boosting of which makes you gleeful, I can’t even open the website of a reactionary blog that I like. But you have a problem with purging liars from your own comments section.

          • Red says:

            I’ve seen B do his fair share of lying, obfuscating, and distorting with his pro Jewish supremacy positions. No bans are needed. If people make stupid comments they should be ignored.

          • Steve Johnson says:

            “When I go to mainland China I can’t access WordPress, where I go to read Lion of the Blogosphere. So in China, the boosting of which makes you gleeful, I can’t even open the website of a reactionary blog that I like.”

            Half Sigma isn’t a reactionary.

            This is a guy who’s views on economics amount to “the labor theory of value is about right”.

            He obsessively hates Sarah Palin (who cares? – she’s a sideshow).

            He says that if people think Obama is unintelligent and got to where he is on the basis of affirmative action then they’re racist (anyone who ever uses “racist” as an insult is no reactionary).

            He thinks it’s important that the Republican party wins elections (speaks for itself).

            • jim says:

              It is pretty obvious that Obama is considerably less intelligent than the average Ivy Leage graduate or politician, and, in particular, considerably less intelligent than Sarah Palin. Politicians are required to be good speakers. Obama stumbles over the teleprompter, while Sarah Palin can fluently deliver a long speech about complex topics containing complex sentences from brief notes.

          • B says:

            Where have I lied/obfuscated/distorted? Now you’re just bullshitting.

            As for Jewish supremacy-anyone who believes that the Jooos run the West is a Jewish supremacist. I mean, you’d have to be pretty supreme for a few million of you to govern hundreds of millions of others.

        • peppermint says:

          so anyway, what do you think is happening with this MIT professor openly talking about the strategy that got Obamacare passed, and this other Tufts professor mentioning “dual government”?

          It sounds like these professor guys are obeying their immediate incentive to say interesting things. It seems like a “tragedy of the commons”, though, because if too many professors start saying this kind of thing, they’re going to run out of money and students.

        • Dave says:

          So let me get this straight: Elite whites loathe non-elite whites, and use Blacks to terrorize them, Latinos to take their jobs, and Jews to divide them against each other and debase their moral values. Because after 2000 years as a stateless people, Jews have it in their DNA to serve the gentile elite in exchange for protection.

          • jim says:

            Not “because”. The availability of Jews to do the elite’s dirty work is merely a happy convenience for any elite that is hostile to its own people. If Jews were not around, would find other tools.

            Repeating: Jews are a problem only because our elite is hostile. The hostility of our elite is not caused by Jews. The problem that our elite is hostile is a much, much bigger problem than the problem that they have Jews to do their dirty work, and getting rid of Jews would not substantially reduce the amount of dirty work done – though it might well reduce the amount of science and technology done.

          • Dave says:

            My “because” was only to explain why Jewish bankers, pornographers, and propagandists do the elite’s bidding with such enthusiasm. I suppose the elite’s hatred of the common white man stems from its fear of being pushed aside by the more talented of these men.

          • peppermint says:

            — I suppose the elite’s hatred of the common white man stems from its fear of being pushed aside by the more talented of these men.

            The model here is that there are two people, a capitalist and a worker, and the capitalist has contempt for the worker, and the worker hates the capitalist as much as his semi-feral mind is capable of it.

            It makes more sense to talk about the elite as separate from the common White man when the elite holds titles to human capital. But that’s actually the solution to the class conflict, because why would the elite hate his own capital?

            But we’re not talking about money here (by the way, Marx was a Jew), we’re talking about power.

            The elite hates the common White man because the common White man alone of God’s Creation is given a choice between a Republican and a Democrat, and it is his burden to use that vote to care for the rest.

            • jim says:

              The model here is that there are two people, a capitalist and a worker, and the capitalist has contempt for the worker, and the worker hates the capitalist as much as his semi-feral mind is capable of it.

              That is a Marxist National Socialist model. On the contrary, it is natural for the capitalist and the worker to ally, because they each need each other, each has what the other needs. Workers, however, compete with workers, and capitalists compete with capitalists.

              So the natural condition is that Workers of group A want to exclude workers of group B, while welcoming all capitalists, while capitalists of group A wish to exclude capitalists of group B, while welcoming all workers. Hence the upper class view that the white working class is racist, which view is the view of the clerisy, not the view of the capitalist.

              Capitalists don’t rule. They never have. The natural condition is that priests or soldiers rule, or some balanced constitution giving both some power. Right now we have entirely unbalanced rule by priests, and priests alone, which arrangement tends to result in religion ever more extreme and ever more discordant with reality.

          • Contaminated NEET says:

            Maybe elite whites hate non-elite whites because their beliefs place all other groups off-limits as objects of hatred. We’re naked chimps; we need and crave an out-group to despise. By picking on non-elite whites, white progressives can pretend they’re trying to improve their in-group through criticism rather than demonizing an Other-with-a-capital-O.

          • B says:

            >My “because” was only to explain why Jewish bankers, pornographers, and propagandists do the elite’s bidding with such enthusiasm.

            A banker, pornographer or propagandist who approached his job with no enthusiasm would not advance very far.

            When you have populations whose IQ and verbal ability make up overlapping bell curves, the further you go to the right, the more disproportionately the one with the higher ability is represented.

            Since pornography, banking and propaganda are all very demanding of IQ and have Pareto distributions, it is obvious that in today’s America, you will see a disproportionately higher number of Jewish pornographers, bankers and propagandists, and a disproportionately lower number of black and hispanic ones. Is the dearth of prominent black bankers and propagandists proof of blacks’ moral superiority over whites?

            I would also like to point out that the Jewish propagandists, bankers and pornographers are largely conversos (especially the pornographers,) and that until mass assimilation (driven by whites, by the way,) the whites had no problem whatsoever creating their own pornographers, propagandists and bankers. For instance, mass production of porn started in the Renaissance. Bankers came from the Lombards. Propaganda, well, we’ll just say that the French Revolution and the Revolutions of 1848 happened without the slightest Jewish involvement. In other words, Jewish bankers, propagandists and pornographers are acting like goyim, not the other way around.

            >I suppose the elite’s hatred of the common white man stems from its fear of being pushed aside by the more talented of these men.

            The elite doesn’t hate anybody, any more than a farmer hates his livestock. The elite’s servants in the talented tenth, who are in the Outer Party (I mean, if the NYT and Harvard are elite, how come they are subject to purgin’?) hate their Prole cousins.

      • Thrasymachus says:

        So Jim can be as reactionary as he wants as long as he doesn’t let anyone criticize Jews, or blacks, or women, or gays, or Obama, or communism, or capitalism. That is a whole dump truck load of free speech there, exactly what is guaranteed to us by our American Constitution.

      • B says:

        Peppermint may be hold the views of an idiot asshole, but it’s not Jim’s responsibility to shield us from idiot assholes. I am not personally fragile to such an extent that idiotism or assholery affect me much. If I had a choice between Peppermint giggling about soap and showers on some forum and Obama’s State Department tut-tutting about how many Palestinian babies we’ve killed and how dare we buy houses in East Jerusalem, well, the choice is pretty obvious.

      • ProblematicPrivilege says:

        Censoring people we don’t like? That sounds awful leftist of you Perturabo.

    • Contaminated NEET says:

      Wow, just wow.

      • Zerg says:

        It is you who are flapping your emotive little tentacles about, longing to be reassured that, yes, you are part of the club, the Putin-adoring, Chinacommie-adoring, Jew-hating, America-despising club; watch attentively for the signs of belonging, “NEET”, that you may eagerly present them at every opportunity.

    • Andrew E. says:

      No doubt that the Left is not worried in the least about the potential of the Dark Enlightenment to strip them of their power.

  2. Athrelon says:

    Pretty sure the guy behind Obama is Lee Hsien Loong, the PM of Singapore (and son of LKY). Is not obviously a Chinese lackey (in fact works with ASEAN which is one counterweight to Chinese influence in SE Asia) and has little incentive to Obama-bait.

    Rest of positioning is possibly deliberate though – unsure how much selection bias is involved in finding this awkward picture.

  3. Gary Seven says:

    What is Obama doing dressed like that? Wearing native costume never indicates strength and superiority, which is probably the point anyway.

    • jim says:

      Everyone is wearing Chinese clothes, but only Obama is getting the three fingers.

      • Adolf the anti-White says:

        Everybody else is either a non-leader, Asian, or Putin, correct?

        And Putin looks scarier the weirder clothing he wears.

        • jim says:

          I see Tony Abbot, Australian Prime Minister, standing behind Putin in the image you will see if you click on the reduced image.

    • WowJustWow says:

      It looks like he’s wearing a Snuggie.

    • Alan J. Perrick says:

      This is my way of thinking, too. But, it helps us because we can see that these aren’t our people.

      A.J.P.

    • scientism says:

      He’s paying tribute to the Chinese Empire.

    • Merovan says:

      Yes, for everyone to dress in Ch. clothes seems uncannily strange. It does look like deference (by everybody). Does China rule the world already, is it that simple?

      • Stephen W says:

        Every APEC conference has a photo op with all the leaders dressed up in a costume provided by the host country. That is nothing unusual.

        • Merovan says:

          Stephen W: Many thanks.

        • pa says:

          What costume does the USA provide when we host foreign leaders? Cowboy outfits? George and Martha Washington minuet gear? Davy Crockett coonskin caps? Weeki-Wachee mermaid get-ups?

          I don’t recall seeing photos of any visitors wearing traditional American costumes in formal photographs. I am sure Stephen W’s comment is correct — but now I am wondering, mostly in fun, what the American equivalent is.

        • pa says:

          Steve:
          Yes! We dress like actual grown-ups for formal events, including meetings with foreign dignities. Ah, dignity. I remember it like it was just a couple decades ago. Not seen in the wild much, anymore.

  4. […] breaking: Jim on the Decline of Google. Also Obama Gets the Finger. LOL. We’re so […]

Leave a Reply