Conspiracy Theories

D'Souza Puts Obama On Couch, Discovers Male Elektra Complex


Obama Derangement Syndrome has now produced a strain as brain-devouring as Bush Derangement Syndrome was. Dinesh D'Souza traces President Obama's misrule directly to his father – a "philandering, inebriated African socialist."

Has anybody seen this man's death certificate?

Why the sudden reappearance of Barack Obama père, 28 years after his death? Unclear. But D'Souza, author of the 2007 book The Enemy at Home: The Cultural Left and its Responsibility for 9/11, lists examples of weird governance: President Obama blocks offshore drilling in the United States while subsidizing it in Brazil. His administration waffles about when and whether banks should be allowed to repay the Bush Administration's TARP bailout. Obama continues to push for more of a stimulus that has manifestly failed to revive business activity or reduce unemployment. He wants to tax the rich unfairly. He supports (maybe) the proposed Cordoba House; bungled the diplomacy around the release of a Lockerbie bomber from a Scottish prison; and has reportedly assigned NASA the mission-non-critical task of improving relations with the Muslim world.

That list contains a dosage of foolishness, but are these really examples of government so strange as to require a radical explanation? D'Souza believes so, and he has the explanation. Our nation is being held hostage to the thwarted dreams of a "Luo tribesman of the 1950s," who marinated his hapless son in Fanonian anticolonial politics and "is now setting the nation's agenda through the reincarnation of his dreams in his son." The tell? It's right in the title of his book:

What then is Obama's dream? We don't have to speculate because the President tells us himself in his autobiography, Dreams from My Father. According to Obama, his dream is his father's dream. Notice that his title is not Dreams of My Father but rather Dreams from My Father. Obama isn't writing about his father's dreams; he is writing about the dreams he received from his father


It may seem incredible to suggest that the anticolonial ideology of Barack Obama Sr. is espoused by his son, the President of the United States. That is what I am saying. From a very young age and through his formative years, Obama learned to see America as a force for global domination and destruction. He came to view America's military as an instrument of neocolonial occupation. He adopted his father's position that capitalism and free markets are code words for economic plunder. Obama grew to perceive the rich as an oppressive class, a kind of neocolonial power within America. In his worldview, profits are a measure of how effectively you have ripped off the rest of society, and America's power in the world is a measure of how selfishly it consumes the globe's resources and how ruthlessly it bullies and dominates the rest of the planet.

Sometimes things seem incredible because they are. Dreams From My Father is in fact a narrative of Obama's non-relationship with his father. The whole point of the book is that the author's paternal heritage is delivered in fragments during brief and usually troubled encounters. While Obama goes on about his father's misfortunes—many of them clearly self-inflicted—in Kenya, there is no evidence for the claim that the elder Obama bequeathed his son a coherent or even a partial political philosophy.

The book does track a foggy course through Obama's political growth, toward one inescapable goal: Obama's formation came through and in reaction to his mother, a New Deal leftist whose social views were slightly more advanced than those of her cohort. There's no need to go to Kenya for the kind of indoctrination into Frantz Fanon and socialism D'Souza describes: It was widely available at Occidental and Columbia. In fact, the book's literary interest—and possibly its biggest political misdirection—rests in Obama's putative skepticism about the leftish consensus of the sixties.

To listen to D'Souza you'd think Obama's book was a large-easy-to-read-type call to arms for Mugabean anti-colonialism. In fact, when something close to the grievance-centered politics D'Souza rightly denounces comes up in Dreams, it comes packed in caveats and windy second thoughts. Witness one chapter dealing with the future president's Chicago "community organizer" days that begins:

Winter came and the city turned monochrome – black trees against gray sky above white earth. Night now fell in midafternoon, especially when the snowstorms rolled in, boundless prairies storms that set the sky close to the ground, the city lights reflected against the clouds.

ZZ! ZZZZ! ZZZZZZ– Huh! (Blink) Shnuff! (Slurp!) Whoa! (Snort!) Sorry, nodded off for a second. So Obama's talking about the militant nationalism of a co-worker he appears to have made up. He writes:

Nationalism provided…an unambiguous morality tale that was easily communicated and easily grasped. A steady attack on the white race, the constant recitation of black people's brutal experience in this country, served as the ballast that could prevent the ideas of personal and communal responsibility from tipping into an ocean of despair. Yes, the nationalist would say, whites are responsible for your sorry state, not any inherent flaws in you. In fact, whites are so heartless and devious that we can no longer expect anything from them. The self-loathing you feel, what keeps you drinking or thieving, is planted by them. Rid them from your mind and find your true power liberated. Rise up, ye mighty race!


It was a painful thought to consider, as painful now as it had been years ago. It contradicted the morality my mother had taught me, a morality of subtle distinctions – between individuals of goodwill and those who wished me ill, between active malice and ignorance or indifference. I had a personal stake in that moral framework; I'd discovered that I couldn't escape it if I tried.

I would suggest that D'Souza read Jesse Walker's more closely argued case that Obama is in fact not radical enough. D'Souza, a self-made traditionalist, would probably not agree with the argument, but at least there's some support for it. In the event, D'Souza's argument from fatherhood takes a long trip in a circle, in the process revealing more about the president of The King's College than it does about the president of the United States: At one point, Obama's sentence "I sat at my father's grave and spoke to him through Africa's red soil" is described, without explanation, as "eerie." (A simple "uninspired" would have sufficed.)

D'Souza's thesis is catching on. Sleepless Dave Weigel hears it back from Newt Gingrich, rising master of the politics of personal self-destruction. Bonus: Gingrich closes the audio with a joyful patriotic flourish: "We're the most wonderful, open and chaotic society in human history." Hope he meant that as a compliment.

NEXT: What We Saw at the 9/12 Tea Party Rally in DC

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. pers? Do you mean p?re? Or both?

    1. I like pears. And pie.

      1. “They all want cake.”

  2. He wants to tax the rich unfairly.


  3. Wasn’t someone ascribing this “anticolonial ideology” to the Obama Administration’s serial dissing of the British?

    1. He returned the Churchill bust and acted like an uncouth ass with his man hands wife around the queen.

      Hanlon’s Law will most likely apply to these, but the bust thing is a little shady.

      1. there was also giving Gordon Brown a set of DVDs that would’ve cost about $9.99 in Costco (Region 1, to boot, so he couldn’t even see them, which he couldn’t because he’s basically blind) (Hanlon’s Law); and giving the Queen an iPod preloaded with his speeches (ridiculous narcissism).

      2. there was also giving Gordon Brown a set of DVDs that would’ve cost about $9.99 in Costco (Region 1, to boot, so he couldn’t even see them, which he couldn’t because he’s basically blind) (Hanlon’s Law); and giving the Queen an iPod preloaded with his speeches (ridiculous narcissism).


  5. Okay, I read D’Souza’s piece fairly skeptically as a way too easy Grand Unified Theory of Obama. But at the same time, I’m not exactly swayed by the argument “He couldn’t be his dad’s anti-British Mau Mau-ist because he’s obviously his Mom’s red diaper baby!” It’s not like 60s leftism wouldn’t have pointed someone with his heritage right in the direction of being more authentic and Third Worldy; it’s not like the hippie chicks wouldn’t have been all over Baraka Zulu if he played that card with them. I’m not seeing the stark either/or you apparently do, in other words.

    My feeling about Obama– as a literary character– is that he’s been pulled throughout his life in two directions by his Organization Man tendencies (and he played the Chicago power structure as perfectly as any white guy with a IV after his name ever did) and his desire to be more authentic by doing things like attending Reverend Wright’s superbad church. Fulfilling those dreams from his father is hardly a contradiction with that struggle. Explanation for everything, no, but in his makeup, pretty obviously yes.

  6. I’m glad I didn’t have to read that book this weekend.

  7. At least he didn’t invade a country to finish his daddy’s work!

    1. Nope, he just fucking stayed there after the last guy invaded. After promising to GTFO.

      1. And I suppose doubling down in Afghanistan was just a ruse to hide his vicious anti-colonialism?

        Next you’ll be accusing him of wearing Che underwear!

        1. Nope, just stating the obvious.

          Thanks for adding support to my point that he’s similar to Bush by doubling down in Afghanistan? I’m not sure how that helps your case.

  8. How the fuck did did the ObamaDaddy, die in a drunken car crash, when he had his legs amputated in the his last drunken car crash?

    1. He was handy capable?

      I’m going to hell.

  9. D’Souza went full retard on this one. Daniel Larison has a pretty good post on it:…..egemonist/

    1. A good read, thanks for the link.

  10. I peed a little laughing at the Alt-Text. Good job, Tim.

  11. The whole point of the book is that the author’s paternal heritage is delivered in fragments during brief and usually troubled encounters.

    That’s not a point. And its point, if it had one, was “I hate my mama’s white ass so much, I’m black. SHUT UP I AM TOO. I have a basketball, some weed, and a white bitch o’ my own. She’s Canadian, so you don’t know her.”

    B) I don’t think D’Souza quite gets the Obama thing, but I’m surprised you don’t see the obvious sameness/nexus between Chicago machine politics and “third-worldism,” both Afro-actual and lefty-theoretical.

    3) Weigel? Seriously?


    1. “B) I don’t think D’Souza quite gets the Obama thing, but I’m surprised you don’t see the obvious sameness/nexus between Chicago machine politics and “third-worldism,” both Afro-actual and lefty-theoretical.”

      Yeah, that’s the big irony, there’s basically no better example of colonialism today than being the handpicked bwana to Hyde Park of the great white father Daley.

  12. “His administration waffles about when and whether banks should be allowed to repay the Bush Administration’s TARP bailout.”

    That was one of the weirdest episodes of Presidential politics…ever!

    It was so weird, I had ostensibly libertarian types who frequent this board claim at the time that it wasn’t really happening…that it was all my imagination.

    I have three explanations for why they did that.

    1) They were forcefully bailing out Wall Street institutions that were resisting being bailed out–and there had to be a public justification for that. It was bad enough that they were using taxpayer money to bailout Wall Street–the idea that they were bailing out Wall Street institutions who didn’t want the money is still something too bizarre for average people to digest.

    So, they had to make it seem like they were screwing over Wall Street by bailing them out. You have no choice but to take the funds we force-feed you, Wall Street! …and the fact that much of Wall Street was against it was supposed to be proof that it was good for the taxpayers.

    If Wall Street hates it, then it must be good! …or so went the logic.

    2) They wanted to reform Wall Street, and they needed the bailouts as justification for doing it.

    Much of the TARP funds forced down Wall Street’s various throats by the government wasn’t wanted–specifically because Wall Street saw that as an excuse to reform them, and they didn’t want to be reformed. …especially in regards to executive pay. The Obama Administration thought that cracking down on Wall Street pay was what the American people wanted–like seeing Enron execs do the perp walk. They thought that was what the Tea Party was about.

    So, the Administration (and their cronies in Congress) wouldn’t let the banks pay back the TARP money because the government needed that justification to reform Wall Street in various ways.

    People still buy this theory–people think that because of the bailouts using taxpayer money, that we have a right to reform Wall Street.

    Most of those people still have no idea that much of the bailouts were compulsory–much less that Wall Street was legally prohibited from paying the TARP money back.

    3) The following is the explanation I now subscribe to mostly. It’s basically Occam’s razor. It very well may be that the Obama Administration was and is completely incompetent–maybe they equivocated because they had no idea what they were doing!

    That’s the simplest explanation, isn’t it? No need to look for complicated explanations involving developmental psychology and Obama’s relationship with his father. It seems to me that his reaction was similar to what we saw him do when asked to name his favorite player on the White Sox–he filibustered and blundered and gave every conceivable answer under the sun, hoping one of them would be right.

    Same thing here. That’s actually pretty typical behavior of someone who doesn’t know what they’re doing.

  13. And those 365 electoral votes… how did he do that?

    1. Magick?

  14. Jesus Christ! Is Cavanaugh vying for the longest pointless post award? What a dismal fucking emnty-headed asshole.

    1. Max, we all know that brevity is the soul of pointlessness, which makes you the reigning champion.

  15. the Bush Administration’s TARP bailout

    It is at least as much the Democrats and Obama’s TARP bail out.

  16. Anyway, D’Souza’s “Illiberal Education” stands. He wrote that before he became a minor political celebrity.

    1. He made some sense in that book. It came out as I was in college and I could directly observe the deconstructionist leanings of the humanities staff and faculty. When exactly did D’Souza go off the rails and into the Bircher/Birther world?

  17. The only person you can tell anything about from “Dreams From My Father” is Bill Ayers. He likes boats and sailing.

  18. It’s understandable that Obama will get his dreams from his father, however, he losses his own identity. It seems that he only pattern his ambition through his father’s eye.

    We help Americans move to Asia for jobs and prosperity. Learn more at

  19. The other night at the kitchen table (where we Americans always discuss our Important Things–ask Harry Reid if you don’t believe us) the topics were football, pizza, and whether this summer was hotter than last summer. Dinesh D’what? Never heard of it.

    1. You cannot trademark that.

      I’ve already been using it–and I plan to keep using.

      Don’t like it? Get a lawyer.

  20. “there is no evidence for the claim that the elder Obama bequeathed his son a coherent or even a partial political philosophy.”

    And that disproves the theory that Obama’s style of governance is a direct reflection of his father how?

  21. “Winter came and the city turned monochrome ? black trees against gray sky above white earth. Night now fell in midafternoon, especially when the snowstorms rolled in, boundless prairies storms that set the sky close to the ground, the city lights reflected against the clouds.”

    After reading that, I can now understand why Bill Ayers denies writing the book. He might as well have started the chapter with “it was a dark and stormy night”.

    1. I can picture him typing furiously atop his little dog-house now…

      1. Quit talking about me like I am a dog!!

        1. Your father left. What happened? Did he hate you?

          I sat at my father’s grave and spoke to him through Africa’s red soil.

          How do we forgive our fathers? Maybe in a dream. Do we forgive our fathers for leaving us too often, or forever, when we were little? Maybe for scaring us with unexpected rage, or making us nervous because there never seemed to be any rage there at all? Do we forgive our fathers for marrying, or not marrying, our mothers? Or divorcing, or not divorcing, our mothers? And shall we forgive them for their excesses of warmth or coldness? Shall we forgive them for pushing, or leaning? For shutting doors or speaking through walls? For never speaking, or never being silent? Do we forgive our fathers in our age, or in theirs? Or in their deaths, saying it to them or not saying it. If we forgive our fathers, what is left?

          . . .


  22. “Obama Derangement Syndrome has now produced a strain as brain-devouring as Bush Derangement Syndrome was.”

    You’re so even-handed, Tim. I’m sorry, but Dinesh makes Maxine Waters look stable, if not honest. Oh, and I can’t let this one get away:

    “Krugman Derangement Syndrome has now produced a strain as brain-devouring as Cavanaugh Derangement Syndrome was.”

  23. Obama spent his childhood in (a) Indonesia with his globetrotting Red Diaper Baby mother, and in (b) Hawaii, with his Old Left grandparents and their commie cronies. That pretty much explains the philosophical development of Obama fils. The father seems to have had very little to do with anything, other than providing a sperm donation.

    Obama seems like kind of a weird dude, but then his childhood was a strange and sad one, in many ways. Unfortunately, we are all paying the price for this now.

  24. Since when was anti-colonialism a bad thing? Conversely, is being pro-colonialism popular among the Tea Party base of the GOP which Gingrich will be relying upon for fulfilling his presidential ambitions? The irony would make my head explode.

    Seriously, Huckabee, Palin, Gingrich…is it really that hard for the GOP to demonstrate that they would be more competent than Obama? They don’t even seem to be trying…

    1. Obviously, anti-colonialism is not inherently a bad thing. In fact, the USA for a time played a strong role in getting France and the UK to give up their overseas empires.

      However, anti-colonialism in the USA is a different thing than what Obama Sr. experienced in Kenya. It manifests itself here as a form of national self-hatred and individual egotism. Look at the twerps like Obama’s mother who go around proclaiming how much better and more “cultural” and “authentic” the Third World is, all from the coziness of their expatriate enclaves or university perches.

      1. First of all, I don’t understand how the desire for national independence from oppressive colonial powers could manifest itself as national self-hate.

        But even if it could, humility is preferable to Manifest Destiny, empire, nationalism, jingoism, nativism, etc. I will give Obama props where he’s due; an objective examination of history indicates America does not really deserve the exceptionalism it claims for itself.

        Politicians love stroking our own ego, though, because it is so satisfying for us and we in turn elect them to continue to do so.

        1. You misunderstood me. Modern “anti-colonialism” in the USA has little to do with colonialism, and is really just an outgrowth of the inferiority complex some Americans traditionally felt towards Europe. The hippies and their progeny simply expanded that complex to include the Third World.

          Nationalism is a tricky thing. I think most nations and individuals experience it to some degree. Jingoism and nativism are negatives, but humility is not preferable when it leads to self-abasement.

          BTW, there is no such thing as an “objective examination of history.” Every people views history through its own lens. American claims of exceptionalism have merits in some ways and become comical in others.

          In the end, it really doesn’t matter. We Americans are perfectly capable of pissing away the legacy our ancestors without any outside help.

          1. I just guess I wouldn’t classify some artificial idea of third-world purity and goodness as anti-colonialism. More like idealized primitivism, but that’s not inherently a response to colonialism, per se.

            You are probably correct, that there is no “objective” view of history in practice and quantifying it as such would be prone to debate. I was attempting to presume an analysis of history void of nationalism is indeed possible, or at least that alternative viewpoints of American influence have strong enough merit to question our widely assumed superiority of morals, peacekeeping, etc.

    2. How about being anti-colonial for some places (India, China) and pro colonial for places that desperately would have benefitted from a little more colonialism(most of Africa, parts of the Middle East)

      1. You’re being sarcastic, right?

  25. I have read Mr. D’Souza’s article. It is pathetic. He owes an apology to everyone who has lived in Hawaii, and especially to everyone who (like me) attended Punahou School. Having gone to Punahou, I know the values it taught. They are far different from those Mr. D’Souza presumes to accord to Mr. Obama.

  26. There can’t be any truth to D’Souza’s book. Obama is a great, great leader and our country has never been better. Our president has the most appropriate values and beliefs and has enacted policies that will only promote the success and well being of all citizens of the US. We are thriving economy with low unemployment and the lowest taxes in the world with the smallest amount of Federal regulation and interference with our individual success. Each citizen of the USA has never been in a better place.

  27. OBAMA goes about his business by speaking the lie. II Thessalonians 2 says that he comes “with all deceivableness of unrighteousness.” Revelation 13:12 says, “and he spoke as a dragon?.” Revelation 17 tells us that he was a false prophet, a prophet being one whose calling it is to speak and to teach. The armies of the world may have guns and tanks and bombs to bring people into submission; but the power of speech and ideas is a mighty power. In his initial attempts to destroy the cause of God, OBAMA used a serpent to deceive the woman with crooked speech: “You will be like God.” Now he uses a “dragon” who speaks crafty, lying words. His speeches will be heard by millions who will hang on his persuasive rhetoric. The content as well as the form of his speech will attract. Like most false prophets, he will even be sincere and passionate. But he is a liar. He adds dashes of truth to the mix, so that his lie tastes like truth. He will use all the right catchwords, using the language of the church, even throwing in a Bible text or two. But he is the ultimate Liar, and will deceive many.
    OBAMA will use every tool available: school teachers, politicians, news broadcasters, artists, musicians, scientists and doctors, lawyers and businessmen. All will be pressed into the service of OBAMA to deceive men. But especially he will use those whose calling it is to persuade and to teach ?quot; men who claim to be preachers of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

  28. REMINDER!!!!!!!!!!!!


    theythink that

    putting hearts and butterflies on the new stamp will make most

    people not realize that the rest is Arabic and probably not

    something we want to support.

    New Stamp

    – the
    second one!!!



    Stamp Celebrates

    there is

    only ONE thing you forward today… let
    it be



    Obama has directed the United States Postal

    Service to REMEMBER and HONOR the EID

    holiday season with a new commemorative

    First Class Holiday Postage



    to adamantly & vocally BOYCOTT this stamp,

    when you are purchasing your stamps at the post


    All you have to say

    is “No

    you, I do not want that Muslim Stamp on my



    use this stamp would be a slap in the face to

    all those AMERICANS who died at the hands of

    those whom this stamp


    the MUSLIM bombing of Pan Am


    REMEMBER the
    MUSLIM bombing of the

    World Trade
    Center in 1993!

    REMEMBER the

    MUSLIM bombing of the Marine Barracks in Lebanon


    REMEMBER the MUSLIM bombing of


    Barracks in Saudi Arabia


    the MUSLIM bombing of
    the American
    Embassies in


    REMEMBER the MUSLIM bombing of

    the USS


    attacks on 9/11/2001 !

    REMEMBER all

    the AMERICAN lives that were lost in those

    vicious MUSLIM


    this along to everyPatriotic

    American that
    you know

    and get the word

    United States of America ! the commander,stop communist obama

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.