Martyrdom is the selfless commitment to a cause, leading to one’s own demise. It has remained an essential concept in practically all religions. For example, in recent weeks, Catholic authorities repeatedly referred to the “martyrdom” of Christians in the Middle East at the hands of ISIS; and Islam, more than any other religion, still preaches the glory of martyrdom in expectation of a better afterworld.
But martyrdom is not restricted to religion. It has also been the bedrock of political nationalism and ideology, enshrined in historical mysticism, warfare, and revolutionary zeal. Even fairy tales and children books promote the concept of martyrdom to this day.
This should not surprise, since martyrdom is a seemingly logical consequence of any belief in absolute truth, which, of course, warrants ultimate self-sacrifices in its defense. In this sense, it is evident that martyrdom is common in religion, political ideology.
Since last November’s mid-term elections, President Obama has been increasingly revealing himself as the most ideologically-driven U.S. president since Franklin D. Roosevelt, attempting to “remake” the country in accordance with his ideological beliefs: Alas, Obama’s fondness of Saul Alinsky’s community organizing theories holds true, since on larger scale, they favor income redistribution, big spending, and big government in domestic politics. This is all a part of a classical Marxist/Socialist political effort to create a new, permanent majority coalition of the downtrodden in society.
In his foreign policy he, however, favors small government, restricted spending and minimal involvement in other countries’ affairs, because his ideological view of world history believes that the West’s foreign policy has been driven by colonialism, imperialism, racism, exploitation and suppression of the poor.
Liberated from further election concerns, he sees himself as a savior, here to destroy the White European power structure that has governed the country’s capitalistic economy since the arrival of the Pilgrims. He wants to replace it with a new, permanently governing majority coalition of downtrodden minorities. This realignment also requires that our country and the world be liberated from the historical dominance of the Judeo-Christian social philosophy.
In his foreign policy, he is basically attempting to achieve this goal by dismantling the Judeo-Christian coalition’s influence on world policy and culture, primarily represented by the U.S. and Europe (and more recently also Israel), in favor of a multicultural dominance of mostly poorer countries and their often non-Judeo-Christian cultural and religious frameworks.
The recent public clash between Obama’s administration and Benjamin (Bibi) Netanyahu, Israel’s Prime Minister, and especially Obama’s remarkable fury (while otherwise such a “cool dude”), which has been described by many pundits as “inexplicable,” becomes very explainable.
Simply said, Bibi’s stance on the nuclear agreement with Iran has the potential to derail Obama’s domestic and international goals: In domestic politics, it threatens to create a veto-proof majority of Republicans and Democrats in opposition to Obama’s policies. Even the slightest hint of reconciliation between Democrats and Republicans, however, threatens Obama’s plans for the remainder of his presidency, which are absolutely dependent on the continuous discourse between the two parties. Only such continuous conflict can guarantee that Obama will not have to face up to a veto-proof two-thirds majority in the Senate.
Just how far Obama is willing to go to prevent such a veto-proof majority was, once again, demonstrated in the announcement that the U.S. is set on charging New Jersey Senator Robert Menendez (a Democrat) with corruption. It is remarkable that Obama’s highly politicized Justice Department only now, after years of investigation, reached the conclusion to indict the senator when, coincidentally, he leads a group of Democrats who have been coalescing with Republicans in opposing Obama’s Iran policy.
What a coincidence.
The pending agreement with Iran is the cornerstone of Obama’s foreign policy, – though he is not, as widely claimed in the media, in pursuit of a legacy in resetting relations between the U.S. and Iran.
The real reason is actually exactly the opposite: Knowing that any such agreement virtually secures the breakout of Iran as a nuclear power (contrary to all of his own assurances), he virtually does away with the current global power structure overnight. With Iran, and most like Saudi Arabia, in possession of nuclear weapons, the “third world” will finally have the power to challenge the longstanding exploitative, imperialistic Western coalition – the Judeo-Christian culture and Western political values of democracy, which in Obama’s anti-colonial mind have dominated for far too long.
Obama’s “inexplicable” fury at Bibi (and Israel) is very understandable: Like much of the left, Obama views Israel as a capitalistic, colonial outpost of Western culture, religion, and policy in the Middle East. In other words, he sees in Israel everything he hates and attempts to change for the better in his own country. Like his Republican opponents in the U.S., Bibi is pure evil in Obama’s eyes!
Which leaves us with the question, what next?
We predict that the President will become increasingly strident in his executive actions, circumventing Congress, even going as far as challenging lawmakers to impeach him. Knowing the unlikelihood of a successful impeachment of a sitting president, relieved of all reelection concerns, Obama has significant space to exercise truly revolutionary presidential power over his remaining presidential term. But even if he miscalculates, and does get impeached, Obama would enter history as having “martyred” himself on the altar of his ideology, an outcome he may view as desirable, independent of race and religion.