Michelle Obama’s Permanent Waves

As you are perhaps aware by now, Michelle Obama, the former First Lady of the United States who said during her husband’s election campaign that his rise to power constituted the first time she had ever felt proud of her country, has doubled down on that sentiment with her first statement (on Twitter, of course, where the world’s morons gather) on the election win by her husband’s vice-president, Joe Biden.

Millions — about seventy millions, to be precise, Shelly — voted for “the status quo,” which, as she emphatically clarifies, equates to voting for “lies, hate, chaos, and division.” Her response to this fact is most interesting, however, and bears careful parsing: “We’ve got a lot of work to do to reach out to these folks in the years ahead and connect with them on what unites us.” (That final “us” is telling in its ambiguity.)

As for exactly what it would mean to “reach out” to millions of Americans, most of them fully-formed adults over age forty, who have willingly embraced what a Marxist activist identifies as “lies, hate, chaos, and division,” we must recall that Michelle Obama’s old friend and neighbor, and the man who personally kickstarted hubby’s political career (as well as perhaps working as Michelle’s co-author on Barack’s most famous “autobiography”), is none other than Bill Ayers, who is known to have discussed this issue himself in past iterations of the permanent wave of “reaching out” that is progressive totalitarianism.

“Oh, come on! No one’s going to kill millions of Americans.” That’s probably true. It won’t be necessary, and it wouldn’t be the most effective course, practically speaking. Young revolutionaries grow up and learn the value of being more patient and prudent. But you are telling yourself comforting stories if you doubt that pragmatic considerations are the only reason it will not happen.

This is what they do. This is what reaching out means to Marxist authoritarians. You will join us, or you will be eliminated from society, one way or another. That the practical “way” they opt for may turn out to be less overtly (i.e., physically) violent than the methods employed by their ideological forebears only proves that they believe they can do it more efficiently, or perhaps that they are cowards — or both.

You may also like...