Wednesday, January 21, 2009
The Pet Rock Presidency
With Obama officially in the White House, legions of idiots in this country are all hopped up on hope and his approval ratings are going through the roof, all before he has actually done anything, of course. As such, it seems that his Hopefulness has much in common with the pet rock, bullshit toy par excellence of the late modern era. See that's not just any rock one can pick up off the ground, it's a pet rock, get it? And this new administration it's really different from all the previous ones, especially the Bush and Clinton ones. Can't you feel the change happening already? It's even stronger than that high I got from smoking banana peels.
Hot on the heels (and discarded peels) of this massive delusion, the Church of Feel Goodism has issued another communique. Good to see that the Hollywood liberals are intent on proving me right when it comes to characterizing their psychosis. However, I am a little saddened to see Miss Richie leaving the celebutante league for their antithesis. I was hoping that the oppressive vapidity and unquenchable thrist for decadence displayed by those moneyed members of my generation might actually develop into something truly Bacchanalian. Anyway, here is Sean Jobst on what we can expect from the New Boss:
The masses have succumbed to the hysteria surrounding the inauguration of Barack Obama as the next President of the United States. The calamities of the Bush administration have conditioned them to accept with open arms anyone who raises the slogan "change". The very mention of this slogan has sent them into a whirlwind of giddiness. But what is behind all the hype? Are the masses deceiving themselves in believing Obama represents change?
There is much to the fact that Obama was the first Democratic candidate in a long time to receive even more corporate money than his Republican challenger. There is much to the fact in his voting record, which is certainly not a record of one who challenges the system. One can best understand a politician's true motives and interests by examining their corporate money-trail and their own voting record.
Despite all his rhetoric about ending the war in Iraq, when has he decisively struck a blow to the Bush administration or even attempted to do so? He has said nothing about ending the American military presence in Iraq, and will actually escalate the conflict in Afghanistan. This is because he still operates from the common interventionist framework, such that to question American intervention overseas is anathema.
Where is he in criticizing the Israeli crimes in Gaza? Or the Palestine issue in general? He has demonstrated there will certainly be no change in American support for Israel. This is shown by his rhetorical and voting record, his kowtowing before AIPAC, and nomination of the Israeli dual-citizen Rahm Emanuel for the crucial post of White House Chief of Staff. Indeed there is much to the fact that Emanuel was his first appointment, as if to assure AIPAC that it will be business as usual.
Only the rationale for these interventions will alter, as they will now be given the guise of "humanitarian" concerns. They are fundamentally designed to perpetuate the interests of the American financial elites, and assumes an utterly patronising attitude which proclaims one global standard which trumps distinct cultural traditions and historical institutions.
Once again the delusion that America has a moral obligation to spread its ideas and institutions across the world, that nations with their own traditions nevertheless yearn for the globalised mono-culture based on profane market concerns. A mere playground for the multinational corporations to rape the land and plunder resources at will, of course with the connivance of governments in the "third world".
There will be an expanded role of internationalist organisations to provide the legitimation of such interventions. NATO will be expanded to serve the interests of American elites in the crucial region Zbigniew Brzezinski termed "the Grand Chessboard". The U.S. government will continue to rely on mercenary forces drawn from their "allies", to secure the resources of Eurasia for American corporations and serve the broader crusade against Iran.
Of course all this shall occur under the conniving eye of the United Nations, an ineffectual organization if there ever was one. All the protests about "national sovereignty" will mean little with the emerging Global State. Words are utilized to connotate different things to different people - the masses or the intellectual elites. To the elites "change" merely refers to a change in rhetoric, while the fundamental paradigm shall remain the same.
The masses who believe they have voted for some revolutionary change, fail to recognize they are utterly subject to the basic assumptions of the system, such that they cannot accept any other reality other than their condition. The society has made it "chic" to support Obama, as seen in the proliferation of Obama-themed art. The masses fail to realize the implication of the same media which lied to them and manufactures their consent to serve the interests of the power elites, suddenly jumping on this Obama bandwagon. Their thinking is confined to the dialectic established by the system, with no tolerance towards those who question their basic assumptions.
There will be no efforts at monetary reform, to break the power of that cartel of private banking interests called the Federal Reserve to create money out of nothing. This system exerts global influence through institutions such as the IMF and World Bank. There will be no change to this massive concentration of wealth. The financial and political elites will continue to make decisions affecting billions of people, literally behind closed doors with such elitist organizations as the Council on Foreign Relations or Bilderberg.
Obama is not beholden to the people, despite all his populist rhetoric. Rather, it is all a game to deceive the masses and manipulate public opinion according to the desires of the Globalist-Corporate elites. There will be no investigations of 11th September, nor efforts to bring top Bush, Cheney or other leading officials of the previous administration to justice for their war crimes.
As for serving corporate interests, Obama has repeatedly voted for corporate welfare such as the "bailouts". He has stood against any efforts by common people to hold the corporations accountable, such as with the tort laws. Obama voted for the Class Action Reform Bill, which has made it much more difficult for workers or consumers to hold them accountable. The State will continue with its symbiotic relationship to Big Business and the banking interests.
The calamities of the Bush administration led increasing numbers of people to distrust the government, seeking to reassert the broad powers ensured to them by the Constitution against government. Statists reversed this trend by raising the mantra of "change", to condition the people into believing government is perpetuating their interests. But their civil liberties will be further eroded, as Obama voted to re-authorize the Patriot Act and supported the FISA warrantless wire-tapping bill.
Given the preceeding information, it is my firm contention that there will be no real change during the Obama administration. Merely the rhetoric will change, while the State continues to expand and increase its powers through interventionism. The corporations will benefit and so will the ever-influential Zionist lobby. To those who have fallen for all this hype, I can only somberly lament that they have been terribly deceived. To those who know better, it will be a sad reminder of the despicable state in which we find ourselves.
Real change can never come from within a political structure dominated by two parties with little differences, both beholden to the same interests and who have made politics a charade with their corporate wealth and selling out to the highest bidders. Rather, change can only come from those who reject this dialectic and have escaped the matrix.
I say this as an American with close connections to Europe, the son of an immigrant on one side and the great-grandson of immigrants on another. And I reiterate for those who struggle for Europe a nation, the prescient warning of another American with a European outlook, Francis Parker Yockey, that if Europe does not unite and pursue a neutralist policy within its own interests, then it risks becoming subordinated to American hegemonic power. The world certainly needs viable regional power-blocs which can provide checks on concentrations of power, which are dangerous for all - even Americans. We need a multi-polar world and not a Global Superstate.