Following scepticism after the appointment of a number of right-wingers, neo-cons and war hawks to his administration, Barrack Obama still insists change is possible in America. His spokesman made the following impassioned plea for faith in America's ability to change... Some critics remain sceptical....
Sunday 11 January 2009
Thursday 7 August 2008
‘Islamofascism’
I first heard the term ‘Islamofascism’ used by George Bush when talking about the biggest threats to western: liberty, equality, justice, freedom e.t.c. At the time I was a little surprised to hear the term ‘fascist’ used in this sense as the term originated in Italy under Mussolini who said, “Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power”. As far as I’m aware Muslim terrorists aren’t overly interested in doing deals with corporations, and unless I’ve missed something, don’t have a state – at this point I could get into Halliburton, Exxonmobile, Enron – but I’m not heading in that direction. I must point out that I have no particular affiliation to Islam and that in fact I think the idea of people fighting over whose invisible friend is the best is preposterous, but who am I to judge?
In fact, I’m writing this as a means to redress the balance somewhat between reality and perceived reality. From observing the media and listening to our politicians it would be easy to think that Muslims are out to get us, that they are savages with a bloodlust who wish to impose shariah law and kill all of the white people. By any sane definition this is blatant racism, yet daily these images are disseminated through the BBC, SKY news, Fox News and their equivalents in the print media. However, when someone in a Muslim country burns the American flag in protest at the sanctions imposed in Iraq that killed half a million children, the U.S supported apartheid in Palestine, the million plus dead from the Iraq war or the army bases in their country, they are presented as Neanderthals all set on the destruction of our ‘freedom’. The hypocrisy would almost be laughable, if it wasn’t such effective propaganda. To be a Muslim now must be equivalent to being Jewish in 1940; The state is against you and you’re being blamed for everything that is wrong in the world while in reality you’re being used as a tool to control the populace and fulfil their hidden agenda.
Aside from the fact that a whole race/religion is being portrayed in such a negative manner, lets examine the very idea of ‘terrorism’. The official definition of terrorism is using violence to further political goals – now, certainly the attacks on 9/11 could be considered terrorist attacks, as could the bombs in London – they were explicitly political. They were a protest at western meddling in the middle east. But, if terrorism is using violence for political means then what is killing a million Iraqis in order to control their natural resources? Oh yeah, Saddam had Weapons of Mass destruction, er, actually, he’s just a bad guy who killed his own people with the weapons we gave him and we need to bring democracy to that country?... Oh yeah? If you’re reading this and still believe any of that then send me an email because I’ve got a talking unicorn you might be interested in buying. The media were complicit in the Iraq war as they failed in their journalistic role of actually doing research or asking pressing questions, embedded themselves with the soldiers as they engaged in ‘shock and awe’, (a euphemism for genocide), and even now keep us distracted with Paris Hilton, Britney Spears and the coming election rather than report the reality of hell on earth created in order for the powerful few to profit.
In any situation, for someone to take their own life then they have to be beyond desperate – for a Palestinian, excluded from your homeland, raised in a refugee camp with no hope, no choices then how do you fight back against a (American donated) nuclear armed Israel that has one of the biggest armies in the world? Unfortunately, some choose to use their bodies as weapons in order to show the sheer desperation they face in the hope that some day the world will see the injustice that has been perpetrated on that land for over sixty years. I am against suicide bombing, I’m against stealth bombing. There’s really no difference, both are morally decrepit and kill innocent people. Terrorism is wrong – whoever is doing it. The Palestine situation fuels anger throughout the middle east and makes a mockery of any western claims of believing in freedom, justice or liberty. The fact that George Bush holds hands with the Saudi kings, because the two nations are so close, is spitting in the face of the Saudi people. Saudi Arabia is the country with the worst human rights record on earth and most of the negative stereotypes about Muslims come from there – women can’t drive, public stoning e.t.c. Yet, like Iraq, Saudi Arabia is oil rich, but unlike Iraq, has a willing ruling class who are happy to invest in America.
Supporting repressive regimes, while claiming to be the world’s moral police is why so many people around the world hate the west. Alas, the domestic populations of many of these western countries never see this reality – reality to them is manufactured so that every Arab is Ali Baba or Osama Bin Laden. Being at war with Islam is very convenient for certain segments of our ruling classes in the same way that being at war with Russia was, and Emmanuel Goldstein was to the rulers in Orwell’s 1984. While 'our boys' are off defending liberty we have to give away our own domestic liberty in the form of I.D cards, having our phones tapped, and of course there’s less money to be spent of domestic social needs, like education and healthcare, as we’re off spending all the treasury money on weapons in order to 'defend freedom'. I’m going to go a step further than Mussolini here, he said that fascism was the merger of corporation and state, well, it is my stance that the only purpose of a state is to provide the best possible education and healthcare for its people, and that any nation that isn’t striving towards those goals is representing the few at the expense of the many and rightly deserves to be called fascist. It’s a scam of the highest order. And one last thing, if the President of the most powerful nation on earth had spent his whole career working in the milk industry and after 8 years in charge the price of milk had gone up by 1000%, would you be suspicious? Not if you were paying attention to the media you wouldn’t be.
Wednesday 6 August 2008
Hope, change and hoodwinked
The myth of Barrack Obama
Think of Barrack Obama and what words spring to mind? If they're 'hope' or 'change' than you've obviously being paying attention to the media hype surrounding the upcoming U.S president elections - but will anything really change?
A good friend of mine recently pointed out to me the aura that seems to surround Obama is reminiscent of the coverage that Tony Blair received in his early years, when he was painted as the man who would bring about sweeping changes and free us from the dark years of Conservative party rule. Blair was a fresh face, but ultimately the image change was only on the surface as the policies of the previous Conservative government continued under his rule. This is well illustrated by Tony Benn who when asked what Margaret Thatcher’s greatest achievement was replied, “New Labour”. Blair was Prime Minister of Britain for ten years and during that time the debt, inequality and poverty rates of the country shot up, as he pushed through the privatisation of hospitals and schools that even Thatcher herself wouldn’t have dared to do. Blair received such positive press as he clearly represented the business interests of the few at the expense of the many – Even the Murdoch newspapers came out in support of him at election time, and if there’s a sure fire way to know who’s representing business interests it’s to look out for who Murdoch endorses.
Fast forward to 2008 as Obama is gearing up for the November election and the worldwide coverage of him is almost universally positive, but does anyone actually know anything about his policies? It is undeniable that an Obama presidency would represent change, however, it is my opinion that any change that comes with him is in aesthetics only – a black president with an Arabian middle name certainly looks different than what has come before. Obama represents a re-branding of America for the ruling powers, in the same way that Blair did for the UK. With Obama in charge, the world will feel hopeful that perhaps something really has changed, that perhaps the racism and arrogance of previous presidents has been replaced with a more benevolent and understanding leader, but anyone that reaches that conclusion does not understand the dynamics and the unshakable structures that are in play. Malcolm X once said when discussing the black civil rights movement of the 1960s that…
"The time when white people can come in our community and get us to vote for them so that they can be our political leaders and tell us what to do and what not to do is long gone. By the same token, the time when that same white man, knowing that your eyes are too far open, can send another negro into the community and get you and me to support him so he can use him to lead us astray -- those days are long gone too."
Unfortunately those days are not gone and we’re soon to be led astray. The actions of Obama just don’t match his sweet words and suggest that his presidency will be only different from the Bush presidency in terms of eloquence. In America in order to even get into a position to run for president one needs to have substantial funds, and from the start of the campaign Obama has received extravagant donations from the same corporations that funded Bush’s campaigns – these organizations don’t just give their money away for free – they’ll get it back with interest once their guy wins. It’s significant that Obama chose to make his first speech after receiving the nomination of the Democrat party at the Israel lobby – not in front of his supporters, at a community centre, a union or even a Democrat rally – at the lobby of one of the biggest providers of financial assistance to political candidates, the Israel Lobby called AIPAC. It may come as a shock to some to learn that Israel is the recipient of 1/3 of all American foreign aid, many times more than any developing nation receives despite the fact that Israel is already a first world, developed nation. The link between the political funding of American candidates and both the financial, military and political support Israel receives is not inconsequential. If Obama had not already shown his willingness to act for the special interests that run America (oil, military, pharma, Israel) then the ruling classes would’ve destroyed him long ago and gone with Hillary Clinton - a tried and tested stooge, but not in keeping with the re-branding of the American image as she represents the Bush/Clinton dynasty that they're trying to re-brand. Remember that it is the media that have created this universal idea of Obama as the bringer of change – what has he actually done to justify this reputation?
Obama will preside over a country that is ranked by UNICEF as being the worst place to raise children in the developed world, as well as having the worst healthcare, greatest discrepancies between rich and poor and a staggeringly high infant morality rate in its poorest areas. This dire situation for the majority in the U.S has been brought about by the economic system used in America that cuts taxes for the super-rich and cuts back on social programs, such as schooling, for the for the poor. Obama will reside over the country that controls 51% of the World Bank and therefore controls the economies of the developing world, tying them into repressive deals in which they lose their natural resources and industries to foreign corporations in return for financial aid on terrible terms. Obama will reside over a nation in which pharmaceutical corporations set the rules for health; it is illegal in America for the government to try and lower the price of medicines that could help the many as it’s interfering with the ‘rights’ of business. The same industry that blocks other countries providing cheap AIDS drugs to Africa, so that they can maintain their monopoly on selling overpriced drugs to people that can’t afford them as millions upon millions die. The same country that has a defence budget equivalent to the rest of the world combined with ‘defence’ the furthest thing from their mind. The country this is the ‘land of the free’, but is ranked 135th out of 166 in the world for freedom of the press, below such notably free countries as; Afghanistan, Liberia, Iraq, Algeria, Lebanon and many many more. Full list here - http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=8247 .
Ultimately, it’s the banks that make the decisions in America and what’s good for business is good for the banks, it’s all interconnected: banks, corporations, the media, the government all sing from the same hymn sheet and the money goes round in a harmonious circle. The Democrat party and the Republican party are identical apart from a few fringe issues and receive their funding from the same special interests and corporations. An illusion of choice is created so that tiny divisions in policy are given so much coverage that they seem enormous, we hear from the corporate media about candidates’ haircuts, sexual discrepancies and other such nonsense, but nothing about the real issues that affect real Americans and real people all over the world. While abortion and gay rights are important issues, there are so many more issues that need to be part of the discourse but are never even presented to the people, and so might as well not exist in the eyes of the many. How can ‘The Greatest Country’ on earth have such a corrupt media system, such a poor healthcare system, such a low minimum wage, and other such pitiful conditions for their workers, including only two weeks holiday allowance a year? The people have been hoodwinked by the system for years and Obama is going to continue the hoodwinking in the name of ‘change’.
Think of Barrack Obama and what words spring to mind? If they're 'hope' or 'change' than you've obviously being paying attention to the media hype surrounding the upcoming U.S president elections - but will anything really change?
A good friend of mine recently pointed out to me the aura that seems to surround Obama is reminiscent of the coverage that Tony Blair received in his early years, when he was painted as the man who would bring about sweeping changes and free us from the dark years of Conservative party rule. Blair was a fresh face, but ultimately the image change was only on the surface as the policies of the previous Conservative government continued under his rule. This is well illustrated by Tony Benn who when asked what Margaret Thatcher’s greatest achievement was replied, “New Labour”. Blair was Prime Minister of Britain for ten years and during that time the debt, inequality and poverty rates of the country shot up, as he pushed through the privatisation of hospitals and schools that even Thatcher herself wouldn’t have dared to do. Blair received such positive press as he clearly represented the business interests of the few at the expense of the many – Even the Murdoch newspapers came out in support of him at election time, and if there’s a sure fire way to know who’s representing business interests it’s to look out for who Murdoch endorses.
Fast forward to 2008 as Obama is gearing up for the November election and the worldwide coverage of him is almost universally positive, but does anyone actually know anything about his policies? It is undeniable that an Obama presidency would represent change, however, it is my opinion that any change that comes with him is in aesthetics only – a black president with an Arabian middle name certainly looks different than what has come before. Obama represents a re-branding of America for the ruling powers, in the same way that Blair did for the UK. With Obama in charge, the world will feel hopeful that perhaps something really has changed, that perhaps the racism and arrogance of previous presidents has been replaced with a more benevolent and understanding leader, but anyone that reaches that conclusion does not understand the dynamics and the unshakable structures that are in play. Malcolm X once said when discussing the black civil rights movement of the 1960s that…
"The time when white people can come in our community and get us to vote for them so that they can be our political leaders and tell us what to do and what not to do is long gone. By the same token, the time when that same white man, knowing that your eyes are too far open, can send another negro into the community and get you and me to support him so he can use him to lead us astray -- those days are long gone too."
Unfortunately those days are not gone and we’re soon to be led astray. The actions of Obama just don’t match his sweet words and suggest that his presidency will be only different from the Bush presidency in terms of eloquence. In America in order to even get into a position to run for president one needs to have substantial funds, and from the start of the campaign Obama has received extravagant donations from the same corporations that funded Bush’s campaigns – these organizations don’t just give their money away for free – they’ll get it back with interest once their guy wins. It’s significant that Obama chose to make his first speech after receiving the nomination of the Democrat party at the Israel lobby – not in front of his supporters, at a community centre, a union or even a Democrat rally – at the lobby of one of the biggest providers of financial assistance to political candidates, the Israel Lobby called AIPAC. It may come as a shock to some to learn that Israel is the recipient of 1/3 of all American foreign aid, many times more than any developing nation receives despite the fact that Israel is already a first world, developed nation. The link between the political funding of American candidates and both the financial, military and political support Israel receives is not inconsequential. If Obama had not already shown his willingness to act for the special interests that run America (oil, military, pharma, Israel) then the ruling classes would’ve destroyed him long ago and gone with Hillary Clinton - a tried and tested stooge, but not in keeping with the re-branding of the American image as she represents the Bush/Clinton dynasty that they're trying to re-brand. Remember that it is the media that have created this universal idea of Obama as the bringer of change – what has he actually done to justify this reputation?
Obama will preside over a country that is ranked by UNICEF as being the worst place to raise children in the developed world, as well as having the worst healthcare, greatest discrepancies between rich and poor and a staggeringly high infant morality rate in its poorest areas. This dire situation for the majority in the U.S has been brought about by the economic system used in America that cuts taxes for the super-rich and cuts back on social programs, such as schooling, for the for the poor. Obama will reside over the country that controls 51% of the World Bank and therefore controls the economies of the developing world, tying them into repressive deals in which they lose their natural resources and industries to foreign corporations in return for financial aid on terrible terms. Obama will reside over a nation in which pharmaceutical corporations set the rules for health; it is illegal in America for the government to try and lower the price of medicines that could help the many as it’s interfering with the ‘rights’ of business. The same industry that blocks other countries providing cheap AIDS drugs to Africa, so that they can maintain their monopoly on selling overpriced drugs to people that can’t afford them as millions upon millions die. The same country that has a defence budget equivalent to the rest of the world combined with ‘defence’ the furthest thing from their mind. The country this is the ‘land of the free’, but is ranked 135th out of 166 in the world for freedom of the press, below such notably free countries as; Afghanistan, Liberia, Iraq, Algeria, Lebanon and many many more. Full list here - http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=8247 .
Ultimately, it’s the banks that make the decisions in America and what’s good for business is good for the banks, it’s all interconnected: banks, corporations, the media, the government all sing from the same hymn sheet and the money goes round in a harmonious circle. The Democrat party and the Republican party are identical apart from a few fringe issues and receive their funding from the same special interests and corporations. An illusion of choice is created so that tiny divisions in policy are given so much coverage that they seem enormous, we hear from the corporate media about candidates’ haircuts, sexual discrepancies and other such nonsense, but nothing about the real issues that affect real Americans and real people all over the world. While abortion and gay rights are important issues, there are so many more issues that need to be part of the discourse but are never even presented to the people, and so might as well not exist in the eyes of the many. How can ‘The Greatest Country’ on earth have such a corrupt media system, such a poor healthcare system, such a low minimum wage, and other such pitiful conditions for their workers, including only two weeks holiday allowance a year? The people have been hoodwinked by the system for years and Obama is going to continue the hoodwinking in the name of ‘change’.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
