RIA Novosti reports:
Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili awarded on Monday the National Hero of Georgia title to U.S. Senator John McCain.
McCain, along with Senators John Barrasso and John Thune, arrived in Georgia on Sunday. The award ceremony was held on Monday in the southwestern Georgian resort of Batumi.
"The fact that a part of Georgia is free today is the achievement of our friends. It was the idea of freedom that stopped [Russian] tanks in Georgia," Saakashvili said. (What? Until now we had been told that what "stopped" the Russians was the glorious Georgian military and now we are told that the Russian tanks were stopped by and *idea*?! - VS)
The U.S. senator, who repeatedly expressed his support for Georgia during and after its August 2008 military conflict with Russia, told Saakashvili by telephone on the day the ceasefire was agreed that "Today we are all Georgians."
-------
Commentary: clearly, the Georgians are "loosing it" and lunacy has become the hallmark of Georgian politics.
Showing posts with label McCain. Show all posts
Showing posts with label McCain. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
It will be is easier to live among people who rejected McCain
So Obama won, predictably I think. The McCain/Palin ticket was truly the perfect embodiment of everything the world hates about the USA. But that is not the important thing here. What is far more significant is that the McCain/Palin ticket also embodied what so many Americans hate about their own country and that is why Obama won such an overwhelming victory.
The readers of this blog must know by now that I am under absolutely no illusions about the fake "change" which Obama pretends to bring to the USA and the rest of the world. But this election was about far more than reality. It was also about symbols, about hopes, however naive and misguided. The War Party, the Israel Lobby, the military industrial complex and corporate American got together and offered two puppets to the American people. But when a puppeteer offers a choice of puppets he also offers the people not only a choice of puppets, but also a choice of symbols. And while the election of Barak Obama is utterly irrelevant to the future of the puppeteers running the USA, it has, I submit, a huge importance for the American people who at least got to show the rest of the world - and themselves - the puppet, the symbol, they wanted to choose.
Only a person who has lived in the USA can really measure the social magnitude of the election of a Black (ok - half-Black, but dark skinned nonetheless) President. For a country founded on racism and which has a long and utterly appalling history of racism the election of Barak Obama is nothing short of a social earthquake. Simply put - there are still plenty of rednecks in the USA, but most Americans do not want to live in a "Republic of Redneckia". There is a basic truth which American Blacks now cannot deny: most American Whites are willing to vote for a Black president. Of course, this does not mean that racism in the USA is over, not at all, but we need to remember here a basic historical truth: symbols always fall before the reality which they represent. Even if Obama turns out to be the "Tom" which Colin Powell or Condi Rice proved to be, the victory of Obama is, I think, a huge victory for the American people and, in particular, White Americans who have unequivocally shown the world and themselves that they are not the racists which many cynics believed them to be. Again, the election of Obama is a huge victory for *White* America.
Sadly, I predict that Obama will be a huge disappointment for both White and Black Americans. In fact, I think that he will be a huge disappointment for everybody besides the Israel Lobby. Remember how "liberal" Clinton did nothing about health care, how he bombed the Serbs in violation of the UN Charter, how he put millions of poor Americans into the streets and trashed the already highly dysfunctional American Social Security system, how his entire administration was filled with Zionists from top to bottom? I predict that Obama will be a repeat of Clinton in all these ways.
Still, something has changed in the USA today. I think that my wife put it best. This morning when we woke up she said to me "you know, it will be easier to live among people who rejected McCain". I agree. By voting for Obama Americans have taken a first step towards rejoining the rest of the planet, the rest of civilized mankind. A vote for McCain would have shown that most Americans think of their country like an ugly trailer park populated by uncivilized, ignorant, frustrated and hostile rednecks.
The almighty lobbies which ruled America yesterday will still rule it today and tomorrow. No argument here. But at least the puppets which they will condescendingly offer to their subjects will not be drooling idiots like Dubya or the two clowns of the Republican ticket.
I would never have voted for Obama. In fact, I would never have voted in such a parody of democracy like a US Presidential election, if only because I am a foreigner (a "legal alien" in US parlance). But if I had to vote I would have given my vote to Nader (or Ron Paul if he had formed a third party - really a *second* one). But I am glad that Obama won.
It will be easier to live among people who rejected McCain and everything he stands for.
The Saker
The readers of this blog must know by now that I am under absolutely no illusions about the fake "change" which Obama pretends to bring to the USA and the rest of the world. But this election was about far more than reality. It was also about symbols, about hopes, however naive and misguided. The War Party, the Israel Lobby, the military industrial complex and corporate American got together and offered two puppets to the American people. But when a puppeteer offers a choice of puppets he also offers the people not only a choice of puppets, but also a choice of symbols. And while the election of Barak Obama is utterly irrelevant to the future of the puppeteers running the USA, it has, I submit, a huge importance for the American people who at least got to show the rest of the world - and themselves - the puppet, the symbol, they wanted to choose.
Only a person who has lived in the USA can really measure the social magnitude of the election of a Black (ok - half-Black, but dark skinned nonetheless) President. For a country founded on racism and which has a long and utterly appalling history of racism the election of Barak Obama is nothing short of a social earthquake. Simply put - there are still plenty of rednecks in the USA, but most Americans do not want to live in a "Republic of Redneckia". There is a basic truth which American Blacks now cannot deny: most American Whites are willing to vote for a Black president. Of course, this does not mean that racism in the USA is over, not at all, but we need to remember here a basic historical truth: symbols always fall before the reality which they represent. Even if Obama turns out to be the "Tom" which Colin Powell or Condi Rice proved to be, the victory of Obama is, I think, a huge victory for the American people and, in particular, White Americans who have unequivocally shown the world and themselves that they are not the racists which many cynics believed them to be. Again, the election of Obama is a huge victory for *White* America.
Sadly, I predict that Obama will be a huge disappointment for both White and Black Americans. In fact, I think that he will be a huge disappointment for everybody besides the Israel Lobby. Remember how "liberal" Clinton did nothing about health care, how he bombed the Serbs in violation of the UN Charter, how he put millions of poor Americans into the streets and trashed the already highly dysfunctional American Social Security system, how his entire administration was filled with Zionists from top to bottom? I predict that Obama will be a repeat of Clinton in all these ways.
Still, something has changed in the USA today. I think that my wife put it best. This morning when we woke up she said to me "you know, it will be easier to live among people who rejected McCain". I agree. By voting for Obama Americans have taken a first step towards rejoining the rest of the planet, the rest of civilized mankind. A vote for McCain would have shown that most Americans think of their country like an ugly trailer park populated by uncivilized, ignorant, frustrated and hostile rednecks.
The almighty lobbies which ruled America yesterday will still rule it today and tomorrow. No argument here. But at least the puppets which they will condescendingly offer to their subjects will not be drooling idiots like Dubya or the two clowns of the Republican ticket.
I would never have voted for Obama. In fact, I would never have voted in such a parody of democracy like a US Presidential election, if only because I am a foreigner (a "legal alien" in US parlance). But if I had to vote I would have given my vote to Nader (or Ron Paul if he had formed a third party - really a *second* one). But I am glad that Obama won.
It will be easier to live among people who rejected McCain and everything he stands for.
The Saker
Saturday, October 25, 2008
A vote for either John McCain or Barack Obama is—at best—an act of criminal negligence.
by Mickey Z. for Dissident Voice
You don’t stick a knife in a man’s back nine inches, and then pull it out six inches, and say you’re making progress.
– Malcolm X
Another Election Day approaches and I’m reminded of something the late Pakistani dissident, Eqbal Ahmad said about Noam Chomsky in the book, Confronting Empire (2000): “He (Chomsky) has never wavered. He has never fallen into the trap of saying, ‘Clinton will do better.’ Or ‘Nixon was bad but Carter at least had a human rights presidency.’ There is a consistency of substance, of posture, of outlook in his work.”
But along came 2004…when Chomsky said stuff like this: “Anyone who says ‘I don’t care if Bush gets elected’ is basically telling poor and working people in the country, ‘I don’t care if your lives are destroyed’.” And like this: “Despite the limited differences [between Bush and Kerry] both domestically and internationally, there are differences. In a system of immense power, small differences can translate into large outcomes.”
Standing alongside Chomsky was Howard Zinn, saying stuff like this: “Kerry, if he will stop being cautious, can create an excitement that will carry him into the White House and, more important, change the course of the nation.”
Fast forward to 2008 and Chomsky sez: “I would suggest voting against McCain, which means voting for Obama without illusions.” And once again, Howard Zinn is in agreement: “Even though Obama does not represent any fundamental change, he creates an opening for a possibility of change.” (Two word rejoinder: Bill Clinton)
This strategy of choosing an alleged “lesser evil” because he/she might be influenced by some mythical “popular movement” would be naïve if put forth by a high school student. Professors Chomsky and Zinn know better. If it’s incremental change they want, why not encourage their many readers to vote for Ralph Nader or Cynthia McKinney? The classic (read: absurd) reply to that question is: “Because Nader or McKinney can’t win.”
Of course they can’t win if everyone who claims to agree with them inexplicably votes for Obama instead. Paging Alice: You’re wanted down the goddamned rabbit hole.
Another possible answer as to why folks like Chomsky and Zinn don’t aggressively and tirelessly stump for Nader or McKinney is this: 2004 proved that the high profile Left is essentially impotent and borderline irrelevant. Chomsky and Zinn were joined in the vocal, visible, and vile Anybody-But-Bush ranks by “stars” like Michael Moore, Susan Sarandon, Medea Benjamin, Sean Penn, Barbra Streisand, Manning Marable, Naomi Klien, Phil Donahue, Barbara Ehrenreich, Martin Sheen, Bruce Springsteen, Eddie Vedder, Cornel West, etc. etc. and John Kerry still lost.
News flash: The “poor and working people in the country” that Chomsky mentions above are paying ZERO attention to him or anyone like him…and that’s a much bigger issue than which millionaire war criminal gets to play figurehead for the empire over the next four years.
Zinn talks about Obama and the “possibility of change.” It seems odd to be asking this of an octogenarian but: Exactly how much time do you think we have?
Every twenty-four hours, thirteen million tons toxic chemicals are released across the globe; 200,000 acres of rainforest are destroyed; more than one hundred plant or animal species go extinct; and 45,000 humans (mostly children) starve to death. Each day, 29,158 children under the age of five die from mostly preventable causes.
As Gandhi once asked: “What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy?”
I promise you this: The human beings (and all living things) that come after us won’t care whether we voted for Obama or McCain in 2008…if they have no clean air to breathe, no clean water to use, and are stuck on a toxic, uninhabitable planet. They’d probably just want to ask us this: Why did you stand by and let everything be consumed or poisoned or destroyed?
Conclusion: A vote for either John McCain or Barack Obama is—at best—an act of criminal negligence.
Mickey Z. is the author of the recently released Bizarro novel, CPR for Dummies, and can be found on the Web at MickeyZ.net
Monday, October 20, 2008
Colin Powell takes the prize for the lamest endorsment ever
I just came across the transcript of Colin Powell's endorsement of Barak Obama. Take a look:
“So when I look at all of this and I think back to my Army career, we’ve got two individuals, either one of them could be a good president, but which is the president that we need now? Which is the individual that serves the needs of the nation for the next period of time? And I come to the conclusion that, because of his ability to inspire, because of the inclusive nature of his campaign, because he is reaching out all across America, because of who he is and his rhetorical abilities, and we have to take that into account, as well as his substance—he has both style and substance—he has met the standard of being a successful president, being an exceptional president. I think he is a transformational figure, he is a new generation coming into the world—onto the world stage, onto the American stage, and for that reason I’ll be voting for Senator Barack Obama.”
Is there any substance here? Am I missing something?!
First, Powell says that *either* candidate could make a good president. Bad, bad start for an endorsement, in particular one made by a former Dubya cabinet member dumping his own Party and Party candidate. But then it gets worse.
What kind of nonsense is this? Hitler had a terrific ability in inspire, did he not? How about some *substance* here? Inspire for what?!
What about the 'inclusive' and 'reaching out across America'? Is there anything to this nonsense other than Barak is Black and he wants Whites to vote for him?
Rhetoric, style and substance? Back to Hitler again? No seriously, what kind of substance is Colin Powell talking about?
Turns out it does not matter in the least. You know why? Because,
"he has met the standard of being a successful president, being an exceptional president"
Really? Even before being elected Obama has ALREADY met the standard of being an exceptional President? Doing what? Just running for the Presidency?!
Colin Powell's endorsement of Barak Obama should displace his disgraceful speech at the UNSC about Iraq (imaginary) weapons of mass destruction as the single dumbest and most inadequate public statement he has ever made.
The fact that Obama immediately reciprocated by offering Powell a position in his cabinet is not even funny. It's scary.
Guys, lets' face it: Obama or McCain - we are screwed.
The Saker
“So when I look at all of this and I think back to my Army career, we’ve got two individuals, either one of them could be a good president, but which is the president that we need now? Which is the individual that serves the needs of the nation for the next period of time? And I come to the conclusion that, because of his ability to inspire, because of the inclusive nature of his campaign, because he is reaching out all across America, because of who he is and his rhetorical abilities, and we have to take that into account, as well as his substance—he has both style and substance—he has met the standard of being a successful president, being an exceptional president. I think he is a transformational figure, he is a new generation coming into the world—onto the world stage, onto the American stage, and for that reason I’ll be voting for Senator Barack Obama.”
(source: Democracy Now!)
Is there any substance here? Am I missing something?!
First, Powell says that *either* candidate could make a good president. Bad, bad start for an endorsement, in particular one made by a former Dubya cabinet member dumping his own Party and Party candidate. But then it gets worse.
- Ability to inspire?
- The inclusive nature of his campaign?
- Reaching out across America?
- Rhetorical abilities?
- Style and substance?
What kind of nonsense is this? Hitler had a terrific ability in inspire, did he not? How about some *substance* here? Inspire for what?!
What about the 'inclusive' and 'reaching out across America'? Is there anything to this nonsense other than Barak is Black and he wants Whites to vote for him?
Rhetoric, style and substance? Back to Hitler again? No seriously, what kind of substance is Colin Powell talking about?
Turns out it does not matter in the least. You know why? Because,
"he has met the standard of being a successful president, being an exceptional president"
Really? Even before being elected Obama has ALREADY met the standard of being an exceptional President? Doing what? Just running for the Presidency?!
Colin Powell's endorsement of Barak Obama should displace his disgraceful speech at the UNSC about Iraq (imaginary) weapons of mass destruction as the single dumbest and most inadequate public statement he has ever made.
The fact that Obama immediately reciprocated by offering Powell a position in his cabinet is not even funny. It's scary.
Guys, lets' face it: Obama or McCain - we are screwed.
The Saker
Thursday, October 9, 2008
So is there a difference between Obama and McCain? A guide for non-Americans
The readers of my blog know that I see no substantial difference between Obama and McCain, I have said so many times. The choice between these two is about as meaningful as the choice between the SA and the SS in Nazi Germany or between the Trotskysts and the Stalinists in the Soviet Union. In the context of the USA, I like the following metaphor: the choice between the two Presidential candidates is akin to the choice between (Kosher) Pepsi and (Kosher) Coke when what one really wants to choose is a bottle of good French wine. As the "kosher" label on these two soda-candidates indicates, both have been vetted by the Israel Lobby and both are puppets of the same Neocon puppeteers. To repeat, there is no *substantial* difference between these two puppets and the outcome of the next election will decide exactly nothing in terms of the future of the USA.
But difference do not need to be substantial, there are other, often salient differences which should not be overlooked: style, appeal, etc. And here, in the realm of non-substantial differences, Obama and McCain are dramatically different.
First, there is the personal stuff. Obama has undeniable charm, he has brains, he actually understands most of the issues he discusses and, at times, one can even get the feeling that Obama might have some actual beliefs or values. In contrast, McCain is a drooling idiot, clearly as senile as Reagan was in his late years, McCain has absolutely no idea what he is talking about, and his "personal charm" is one micron think: underneath the nasty nature of McCain's character is obvious. This is why Obama and McCain appeal to very different types of people.
Obama "sells" himself under the "change" slogan and most people voting for him are sick and tired of Dubya and what he has done to the USA. They want a different course for the USA and Obama dangles this hope in front of them: put me in power and I will stop this insanity.
McCain, on the other hand, offers what many have called "Dubya on steroids" - more of the same, only much more of it. Some say that where Dubya was a hollow man, McCain is an evil one. I agree. The reason why most non-Americans are absolutely baffled by the fact that, at least judging by the polls, McCain is trailing Obama by only a couple of points is that they fail to understand a simple truth: McCain appeals to the worst and the most barbarically stupid and ugly Americans out there.
Who are the McCain voters? They are a toxic mix of rednecks, trailer-trash, TV-watching ignoramuses mixed with Bible-thumping Evangelicals, "Dispensationalists", Southern Baptists, inbred hicks, mixed in with the rich guys who made a killing during the Dubya years, mixed in with NRA-types, flag waving militarists, good ole nigger-hating racists and, last but not least, most of the left side of the Bell Curve of American IQ: the amazing variety of morons populating the USA. Truly, the McCain voters are the worst of the worst, not only because they are so gloriously stupid, but because McCain appeals to their worst, most evil character traits.
Yeah, I know - Obama voters are naive as hell, they are kidding themselves, they believe in the constant stream of propaganda the idiot box is spewing at them. Obama voters sometime are ideological Party automatons which would vote for *any* Democrat (even a SOB like Liebermann); others will vote for him only because of the color of his skin. All this is true, but the contrast with the McCain voters could still not be greater.
To sum it up, while Obama voters are gullible McCain voters are evil to the core. Let me repeat this here: Obama voters will mostly vote for Obama because what they think is the good things they see in him. McCain voters will vote for him because of the evil the see in him.
McCain voters want to kill them AYE-rabs and "win" the war in Iraq, they want to teach them Russians and Chinese a lesson about how America is great, they want to kick the "Latinos" back across the Rio Grande, they want guns to shoot at any terrorist who might show up in their trailer park, they want to get cheap gas into their SUVs and fuck up any raghead who dares to mess with the US of A. Either that, or they want to keep the millions of dollars they made during Dubya's reign. Both of these groups have the same message to the rest of the world: fuck the UN! fuck the Eurotrash! fuck all them foreigners who dare to bash America the Greatest! America: love it or leave it! These colors don't run! Support our troops! Nuke all the al-Qaeda bases in Iran and Russia!!!
A good way to visualize these guys is to think of Neanderthal on his Harley-Davidson bike with a US flag and a KIA-MIA flag flapping behind his back, or a pimply nerd in a suit and tie on the way to a to a 'mega-church' meeting, or a lawyer or banker with a huge house (usually of breathtaking bad taste) on a lakeside or oceanfront. Sure - these are all very different creatures, but McCain unites them all in one all-encompassing promise of more violence, more boots, more guns, more uniforms, more wars and more money.
Does all this matter? Yes and no. No matter who gets elected, the Neocons and the Zionist Lobby will remain in power. Yes, I know the old "Anglo" guard (Rockfeller, Brezinsky & Co.) is pushing the Obama candidacy while the Neocons and the Israel Lobby (Liebermann, Giuliani & Co.) seem to be uniformly backing McCain, and there is some truth to this, but you can be sure that the ZioCon Puppet Masters have already made plans for the (still likely) victory of Obama and that, should he be elected, he will be as obedient to them as Bill Clinton was.
It is very important to stress here that there is a "Third America" out there. Its the America of Ron Paul, Ralph Nader, Pat Buchanan, Cynthia McKinney and, even more so, of the millions who disillusioned Americans from all walks of life who will simply not vote at all. I actually feel that they are the real majority in this country, the political system has simply totally excluded them from any form of representation. This "Third America" does not agree on everything, in fact, they disagree on many important issues, but they agree on a basic set of fundamental principles: they want the USA to be a *normal* country (and not an Empire), they want the USA to be a *republic* and not some bizarre "Fascist Plutocracy", they think that the national interests of the USA are more important than the ones of Israel, they think that wars should be fought only to repel an aggressor and that the USA has no business ruling the entire planet (something which even most Democrats and prospective Obama voters do *not* understand or agree with).
So here is what will happen in November: the worst of the worst will vote for McCain and the naive but generally well-meaning folks will vote Obama. Those who understand the system (be it on a gut-level or analytically) will either vote for Nader or simply say away from this entire circus.
See, the *real* function of the Presidential elections in the USA is *not* to bring the Executive Power in sync with the popular will. The real purpose is to offer a spectacle, a "secular liturgy" if you wish, whose main purpose in to instill a sense of relevance, of legitimacy of the system, into the American public. If for a full year the corporate media bombards the population with debates, polls, talkshows, reports and all sorts of dramatic (if irrelevant) scandals about the candidates this just must be an important event, no?! Actually not. It exactly that: a media-event with absolutely no relevance or purpose other than to numb out an already totally stupidified public.
So how should we, foreigners, look at this amazing "secular liturgy?
Here is my advice to my fellow "aliens" (this is how they call us in the USA). Set aside all other considerations and just remember these basic pointers:
a) if you hate the USA - hope for a McCain victory as he will run the US Empire into the ground even faster than Obama ever will.
b) if you love the USA - hope for an Obama victory: while Obama voters are naive, they are ashamed and disturbed by the burning hatred with which most countries now see the USA and they want to change that. Obama voters do want to be part of Planet Earth and they do sincerely care about the rest of the world (McCain voter don't give a damn and if you oppose them they will "motherfucking nuke you!" to teach you a lesson).
c) and if you love Americans, but hate what the USA has become - then reach out to the "Third America", show it your support and understanding. Never let the "Obama illusion" hide the existence of these millions of "other Americans" who suffer deeply from what is being done to their country and how are forced into a type of internal exile (just like real Russian patriots during the Soviet era).
As for my American readers, I can only urge you *not* to vote for any of the two clowns running for the two factions of the War Party. If you believe that the system can be changed from within, if you have any hope at all, then vote for Nader or McKinney (Ron Paul is not running anymore). And if you think (like I do) that the system is non-reformable, that it is a charade, that is is an integral part of the problem - then stay away from this "secular liturgy" and go and read Alexander Solzhenitsyn's brilliant and still highly relevant piece Live not by the Lie (and remember that the Soviet system was brought down exactly as predicted by Solzhenitsyn).
But whatever you do, do not vote for the presumed "lesser evil". Vote your conscience or don't vote at all.
The Saker
But difference do not need to be substantial, there are other, often salient differences which should not be overlooked: style, appeal, etc. And here, in the realm of non-substantial differences, Obama and McCain are dramatically different.
First, there is the personal stuff. Obama has undeniable charm, he has brains, he actually understands most of the issues he discusses and, at times, one can even get the feeling that Obama might have some actual beliefs or values. In contrast, McCain is a drooling idiot, clearly as senile as Reagan was in his late years, McCain has absolutely no idea what he is talking about, and his "personal charm" is one micron think: underneath the nasty nature of McCain's character is obvious. This is why Obama and McCain appeal to very different types of people.
Obama "sells" himself under the "change" slogan and most people voting for him are sick and tired of Dubya and what he has done to the USA. They want a different course for the USA and Obama dangles this hope in front of them: put me in power and I will stop this insanity.
McCain, on the other hand, offers what many have called "Dubya on steroids" - more of the same, only much more of it. Some say that where Dubya was a hollow man, McCain is an evil one. I agree. The reason why most non-Americans are absolutely baffled by the fact that, at least judging by the polls, McCain is trailing Obama by only a couple of points is that they fail to understand a simple truth: McCain appeals to the worst and the most barbarically stupid and ugly Americans out there.
Who are the McCain voters? They are a toxic mix of rednecks, trailer-trash, TV-watching ignoramuses mixed with Bible-thumping Evangelicals, "Dispensationalists", Southern Baptists, inbred hicks, mixed in with the rich guys who made a killing during the Dubya years, mixed in with NRA-types, flag waving militarists, good ole nigger-hating racists and, last but not least, most of the left side of the Bell Curve of American IQ: the amazing variety of morons populating the USA. Truly, the McCain voters are the worst of the worst, not only because they are so gloriously stupid, but because McCain appeals to their worst, most evil character traits.
Yeah, I know - Obama voters are naive as hell, they are kidding themselves, they believe in the constant stream of propaganda the idiot box is spewing at them. Obama voters sometime are ideological Party automatons which would vote for *any* Democrat (even a SOB like Liebermann); others will vote for him only because of the color of his skin. All this is true, but the contrast with the McCain voters could still not be greater.
To sum it up, while Obama voters are gullible McCain voters are evil to the core. Let me repeat this here: Obama voters will mostly vote for Obama because what they think is the good things they see in him. McCain voters will vote for him because of the evil the see in him.
McCain voters want to kill them AYE-rabs and "win" the war in Iraq, they want to teach them Russians and Chinese a lesson about how America is great, they want to kick the "Latinos" back across the Rio Grande, they want guns to shoot at any terrorist who might show up in their trailer park, they want to get cheap gas into their SUVs and fuck up any raghead who dares to mess with the US of A. Either that, or they want to keep the millions of dollars they made during Dubya's reign. Both of these groups have the same message to the rest of the world: fuck the UN! fuck the Eurotrash! fuck all them foreigners who dare to bash America the Greatest! America: love it or leave it! These colors don't run! Support our troops! Nuke all the al-Qaeda bases in Iran and Russia!!!
A good way to visualize these guys is to think of Neanderthal on his Harley-Davidson bike with a US flag and a KIA-MIA flag flapping behind his back, or a pimply nerd in a suit and tie on the way to a to a 'mega-church' meeting, or a lawyer or banker with a huge house (usually of breathtaking bad taste) on a lakeside or oceanfront. Sure - these are all very different creatures, but McCain unites them all in one all-encompassing promise of more violence, more boots, more guns, more uniforms, more wars and more money.
Does all this matter? Yes and no. No matter who gets elected, the Neocons and the Zionist Lobby will remain in power. Yes, I know the old "Anglo" guard (Rockfeller, Brezinsky & Co.) is pushing the Obama candidacy while the Neocons and the Israel Lobby (Liebermann, Giuliani & Co.) seem to be uniformly backing McCain, and there is some truth to this, but you can be sure that the ZioCon Puppet Masters have already made plans for the (still likely) victory of Obama and that, should he be elected, he will be as obedient to them as Bill Clinton was.
It is very important to stress here that there is a "Third America" out there. Its the America of Ron Paul, Ralph Nader, Pat Buchanan, Cynthia McKinney and, even more so, of the millions who disillusioned Americans from all walks of life who will simply not vote at all. I actually feel that they are the real majority in this country, the political system has simply totally excluded them from any form of representation. This "Third America" does not agree on everything, in fact, they disagree on many important issues, but they agree on a basic set of fundamental principles: they want the USA to be a *normal* country (and not an Empire), they want the USA to be a *republic* and not some bizarre "Fascist Plutocracy", they think that the national interests of the USA are more important than the ones of Israel, they think that wars should be fought only to repel an aggressor and that the USA has no business ruling the entire planet (something which even most Democrats and prospective Obama voters do *not* understand or agree with).
So here is what will happen in November: the worst of the worst will vote for McCain and the naive but generally well-meaning folks will vote Obama. Those who understand the system (be it on a gut-level or analytically) will either vote for Nader or simply say away from this entire circus.
See, the *real* function of the Presidential elections in the USA is *not* to bring the Executive Power in sync with the popular will. The real purpose is to offer a spectacle, a "secular liturgy" if you wish, whose main purpose in to instill a sense of relevance, of legitimacy of the system, into the American public. If for a full year the corporate media bombards the population with debates, polls, talkshows, reports and all sorts of dramatic (if irrelevant) scandals about the candidates this just must be an important event, no?! Actually not. It exactly that: a media-event with absolutely no relevance or purpose other than to numb out an already totally stupidified public.
So how should we, foreigners, look at this amazing "secular liturgy?
Here is my advice to my fellow "aliens" (this is how they call us in the USA). Set aside all other considerations and just remember these basic pointers:
a) if you hate the USA - hope for a McCain victory as he will run the US Empire into the ground even faster than Obama ever will.
b) if you love the USA - hope for an Obama victory: while Obama voters are naive, they are ashamed and disturbed by the burning hatred with which most countries now see the USA and they want to change that. Obama voters do want to be part of Planet Earth and they do sincerely care about the rest of the world (McCain voter don't give a damn and if you oppose them they will "motherfucking nuke you!" to teach you a lesson).
c) and if you love Americans, but hate what the USA has become - then reach out to the "Third America", show it your support and understanding. Never let the "Obama illusion" hide the existence of these millions of "other Americans" who suffer deeply from what is being done to their country and how are forced into a type of internal exile (just like real Russian patriots during the Soviet era).
As for my American readers, I can only urge you *not* to vote for any of the two clowns running for the two factions of the War Party. If you believe that the system can be changed from within, if you have any hope at all, then vote for Nader or McKinney (Ron Paul is not running anymore). And if you think (like I do) that the system is non-reformable, that it is a charade, that is is an integral part of the problem - then stay away from this "secular liturgy" and go and read Alexander Solzhenitsyn's brilliant and still highly relevant piece Live not by the Lie (and remember that the Soviet system was brought down exactly as predicted by Solzhenitsyn).
But whatever you do, do not vote for the presumed "lesser evil". Vote your conscience or don't vote at all.
The Saker
Friday, August 22, 2008
Who is Randy Scheunemann?
McCain's neocon warmonger
by Pat Buchanan for World Net Daily
He is the principal foreign policy adviser to John McCain and potential successor to Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski as national security adviser to the president of the United States.
But Randy Scheunemann has another identity, another role.
He is a dual loyalist, a foreign agent whose assignment is to get America committed to spilling the blood of her sons for client regimes who have made this moral mercenary a rich man.
From January 2007 to March 2008, the McCain campaign paid Scheunemann $70,000 – pocket change compared to the $290,000 his Orion Strategies banked in those same 15 months from the Georgian regime of Mikheil Saakashvili.
What were Mikheil's marching orders to Tbilisi's man in Washington? Get Georgia a NATO war guarantee. Get America committed to fight Russia, if necessary, on behalf of Georgia.
Scheunemann came close to succeeding.
Had he done so, U.S. soldiers and Marines from Idaho and West Virginia would be killing Russians in the Caucasus, and dying to protect Scheunemann's client, who launched this idiotic war the night of Aug. 7. That people like Scheunemann hire themselves out to put American lives on the line for their clients is a classic corruption of American democracy.
U.S. backing for his campaign to retrieve his lost provinces is what Saakashvili paid Scheunemann to produce. But why should Americans fight Russians to force 70,000 South Ossetians back into the custody of a regime they detest? Why not let the South Ossetians decide their own future in free elections?
Not only is the folly of the Bush interventionist policy on display in the Caucasus, so, too, is its manifest incoherence.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates says we have sought for 45 years to stay out of a shooting war with Russia and we are not going to get into one now. President Bush assured us there will be no U.S. military response to the Russian move into Georgia.
That is a recognition of, and a bowing to, reality – namely, that Russia's control of South Ossetia and Abkhazia and occupation of a strip of Georgia cannot be a casus belli for the United States. We may deplore it, but it cannot justify war with Russia.
If that be true, and it transparently is, what are McCain, Barack Obama, Bush and German Chancellor Angela Merkel doing committing the United States and Germany to bringing Georgia into NATO? For that would commit us to war for a cause we have already conceded, by our paralysis, does not justify a war.
Not only did Scheunemann's two-man lobbying firm receive $730,000 since 2001 to get Georgia a NATO war guarantee, he was paid by Romania and Latvia to do the same. And he succeeded.
Latvia, a tiny Baltic republic annexed by Joseph Stalin in June 1940 during his pact with Adolf Hitler, was set free at the end of the Cold War. Yet hundreds of thousands of Russians had been moved into Latvia by Stalin, and as Riga served as a base of the Baltic Sea fleet, many Russian naval officers retired there.
The children and grandchildren of these Russians are Latvian citizens. They are a cause of constant tension with ethnic Letts and of strife with Moscow, which has assumed the role of protector of Russians left behind in the "near abroad" when the Soviet Union broke apart.
Thanks to the lobbying of Scheunemann and friends, Latvia has been brought into NATO and given a U.S. war guarantee. If Russia intervenes to halt some nasty ethnic violence in Riga, the United States is committed to come in and drive the Russians out.
This is the situation in which the interventionists have placed our country: committed to go to war for countries and causes that do not justify war, against a Russia that is re-emerging as a great power only to find NATO squatting on her doorstep.
Scheunemann's resume as a War Party apparatchik is lengthy. He signed the PNAC (Project for the New American Century) letter to President Clinton urging war on Iraq, four years before 9/11. He signed the PNAC ultimatum to Bush, nine days after 9/11, threatening him with political reprisal if he did not go to war against Iraq. He was executive director of the "Committee for the Liberation of Iraq," a propaganda front for Ahmad Chalabi and his pack of liars who deceived us into war.
Now Scheunemann is the neocon agent in place in McCain's camp.
The neocons got their war with Iraq. They are pushing for war on Iran. And they are now baiting the Russian Bear.
Is this what McCain has on offer? Endless war?
Why would McCain seek foreign policy counsel from the same discredited crowd that has all but destroyed the presidency of George Bush?
"Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence ... a free people ought to be constantly awake," Washington warned in his Farewell Address. Our Founding Father was warning against the Randy Scheunemanns among us, agents hired by foreign powers to deceive Americans into fighting their wars. And none dare call it treason.
by Pat Buchanan for World Net Daily
He is the principal foreign policy adviser to John McCain and potential successor to Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski as national security adviser to the president of the United States.
But Randy Scheunemann has another identity, another role.
He is a dual loyalist, a foreign agent whose assignment is to get America committed to spilling the blood of her sons for client regimes who have made this moral mercenary a rich man.
From January 2007 to March 2008, the McCain campaign paid Scheunemann $70,000 – pocket change compared to the $290,000 his Orion Strategies banked in those same 15 months from the Georgian regime of Mikheil Saakashvili.
What were Mikheil's marching orders to Tbilisi's man in Washington? Get Georgia a NATO war guarantee. Get America committed to fight Russia, if necessary, on behalf of Georgia.
Scheunemann came close to succeeding.
Had he done so, U.S. soldiers and Marines from Idaho and West Virginia would be killing Russians in the Caucasus, and dying to protect Scheunemann's client, who launched this idiotic war the night of Aug. 7. That people like Scheunemann hire themselves out to put American lives on the line for their clients is a classic corruption of American democracy.
U.S. backing for his campaign to retrieve his lost provinces is what Saakashvili paid Scheunemann to produce. But why should Americans fight Russians to force 70,000 South Ossetians back into the custody of a regime they detest? Why not let the South Ossetians decide their own future in free elections?
Not only is the folly of the Bush interventionist policy on display in the Caucasus, so, too, is its manifest incoherence.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates says we have sought for 45 years to stay out of a shooting war with Russia and we are not going to get into one now. President Bush assured us there will be no U.S. military response to the Russian move into Georgia.
That is a recognition of, and a bowing to, reality – namely, that Russia's control of South Ossetia and Abkhazia and occupation of a strip of Georgia cannot be a casus belli for the United States. We may deplore it, but it cannot justify war with Russia.
If that be true, and it transparently is, what are McCain, Barack Obama, Bush and German Chancellor Angela Merkel doing committing the United States and Germany to bringing Georgia into NATO? For that would commit us to war for a cause we have already conceded, by our paralysis, does not justify a war.
Not only did Scheunemann's two-man lobbying firm receive $730,000 since 2001 to get Georgia a NATO war guarantee, he was paid by Romania and Latvia to do the same. And he succeeded.
Latvia, a tiny Baltic republic annexed by Joseph Stalin in June 1940 during his pact with Adolf Hitler, was set free at the end of the Cold War. Yet hundreds of thousands of Russians had been moved into Latvia by Stalin, and as Riga served as a base of the Baltic Sea fleet, many Russian naval officers retired there.
The children and grandchildren of these Russians are Latvian citizens. They are a cause of constant tension with ethnic Letts and of strife with Moscow, which has assumed the role of protector of Russians left behind in the "near abroad" when the Soviet Union broke apart.
Thanks to the lobbying of Scheunemann and friends, Latvia has been brought into NATO and given a U.S. war guarantee. If Russia intervenes to halt some nasty ethnic violence in Riga, the United States is committed to come in and drive the Russians out.
This is the situation in which the interventionists have placed our country: committed to go to war for countries and causes that do not justify war, against a Russia that is re-emerging as a great power only to find NATO squatting on her doorstep.
Scheunemann's resume as a War Party apparatchik is lengthy. He signed the PNAC (Project for the New American Century) letter to President Clinton urging war on Iraq, four years before 9/11. He signed the PNAC ultimatum to Bush, nine days after 9/11, threatening him with political reprisal if he did not go to war against Iraq. He was executive director of the "Committee for the Liberation of Iraq," a propaganda front for Ahmad Chalabi and his pack of liars who deceived us into war.
Now Scheunemann is the neocon agent in place in McCain's camp.
The neocons got their war with Iraq. They are pushing for war on Iran. And they are now baiting the Russian Bear.
Is this what McCain has on offer? Endless war?
Why would McCain seek foreign policy counsel from the same discredited crowd that has all but destroyed the presidency of George Bush?
"Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence ... a free people ought to be constantly awake," Washington warned in his Farewell Address. Our Founding Father was warning against the Randy Scheunemanns among us, agents hired by foreign powers to deceive Americans into fighting their wars. And none dare call it treason.
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
John McCain's AIPAC speech
John McCain. He makes Dubya look smart, articulate and almost educated. He makes Rumsfeld look like a pot-smoking peacenik. He makes Hillary look principled. But most frighteningly, he makes Hitler look sane. Though I intensely dislike Obama and Hillary (the latter being at least as sold to the Israel Lobby as McCain), there is something in McCain which makes him truly frightening, a sense of radiating utter lunacy, something about the way he blinks his eyes, the way he clasps his lip to impersonate a deep felt emotion. Dubya is dumb, but he is not crazy. McCain looks as crazy as it gets.
If Hillary is the kind of politician which would start a war with Iran, McCain is the kind which would start a war with Russia. There is something apocalyptic about him and it is no wonder that the Bible-thumping rednecks in the USA love him so much. Next to his lunacy, the most amazing characteristic of McCain is is boundless adoration for Israel.
While all US politicians need to kowtow to the Israel Lobby, McCain's worship of Israel is something akin to Hitler's adulation of the Germanic race. And let me stress here that I am not making these comparisons to Hitler just because it involves Israel and I like to shock. I make the comparison to Hitler because that is the only one which comes to my mind when I listen to McCain. Sure, McCain does not scream like Hitler did, but that does not make him less of a raving lunatic hell-bent to do absolutely anything to serve his masters. Whatever may be the case, I can only hope and pray that if McCain comes to power his Neocon puppeteers will keep him as an irrelevant front man, just as what was done with Reagan in his last years in the White House. The problem with that hope is that while the people around Reagan were evil as hell, they were not insane. But the Neocons? They just might be as crazy as McCain himself.
Just imagine what a McCain-Lieberman ticket could do once in the White House. Where Dubya was pitiful, McCain is frightening. Scary as this may sound, we may all come to miss the ape-like Dubya one day.
Anyway - here is the video of McCain's speech at AIPAC. See for yourself what kind of man McCain really is. Some, most, of you will be sickened by what you will see here, but I urge you to watch all of it, it to the last second. At this point in history, all of us need to take the full measure of McCain's abject brown-nosing of the Lobby of the last openly racist country on earth, we need to see for ourselves how the Neocons celebrate the Zionist pageant which the AIPAC conference is. We all need to see for ourselves what kind of shameless sniveling bitch McCain really is and how that "great patriot" genuflects to the very organization which spied on the USA and pushed the USA into war in Iraq. This is sickening, but everybody needs to see it.
Click here to watch the video
In the meantime, Ha'aretz reports that the Knesset on Wednesday approved in a preliminary reading an amendment to the Basic Law whereby Jerusalem would be considered not just the capital of Israel, but the capital of the Jewish people. The amendment was submitted by the chairman of the National Unity - National Religious Party. It won coalition support and was passed by a majority of 58 to 12. "There is the Jerusalem of citizens and the Jerusalem of above, which we want all Jews to see as their home," Orlev said of the amendment.
Whether one understands the word "Jew" as a religious or as an ethnic quality, this resolution is bizarre to the extreme. What kind of grotesque worldview would make an (occupied) city a 'capital' to millions of people not even holding the citizenship of the country where this presume capital is located? There is something uniquely medieval in Jewish racism, something which reeks of a long ago past dark age and which makes Apartheid look outright modern.
Just imagine the outcry worldwide if Ahmadinejad declared Tehran the "capital of all Aryans"...
If Hillary is the kind of politician which would start a war with Iran, McCain is the kind which would start a war with Russia. There is something apocalyptic about him and it is no wonder that the Bible-thumping rednecks in the USA love him so much. Next to his lunacy, the most amazing characteristic of McCain is is boundless adoration for Israel.
While all US politicians need to kowtow to the Israel Lobby, McCain's worship of Israel is something akin to Hitler's adulation of the Germanic race. And let me stress here that I am not making these comparisons to Hitler just because it involves Israel and I like to shock. I make the comparison to Hitler because that is the only one which comes to my mind when I listen to McCain. Sure, McCain does not scream like Hitler did, but that does not make him less of a raving lunatic hell-bent to do absolutely anything to serve his masters. Whatever may be the case, I can only hope and pray that if McCain comes to power his Neocon puppeteers will keep him as an irrelevant front man, just as what was done with Reagan in his last years in the White House. The problem with that hope is that while the people around Reagan were evil as hell, they were not insane. But the Neocons? They just might be as crazy as McCain himself.
Just imagine what a McCain-Lieberman ticket could do once in the White House. Where Dubya was pitiful, McCain is frightening. Scary as this may sound, we may all come to miss the ape-like Dubya one day.
Anyway - here is the video of McCain's speech at AIPAC. See for yourself what kind of man McCain really is. Some, most, of you will be sickened by what you will see here, but I urge you to watch all of it, it to the last second. At this point in history, all of us need to take the full measure of McCain's abject brown-nosing of the Lobby of the last openly racist country on earth, we need to see for ourselves how the Neocons celebrate the Zionist pageant which the AIPAC conference is. We all need to see for ourselves what kind of shameless sniveling bitch McCain really is and how that "great patriot" genuflects to the very organization which spied on the USA and pushed the USA into war in Iraq. This is sickening, but everybody needs to see it.
Click here to watch the video
In the meantime, Ha'aretz reports that the Knesset on Wednesday approved in a preliminary reading an amendment to the Basic Law whereby Jerusalem would be considered not just the capital of Israel, but the capital of the Jewish people. The amendment was submitted by the chairman of the National Unity - National Religious Party. It won coalition support and was passed by a majority of 58 to 12. "There is the Jerusalem of citizens and the Jerusalem of above, which we want all Jews to see as their home," Orlev said of the amendment.
Whether one understands the word "Jew" as a religious or as an ethnic quality, this resolution is bizarre to the extreme. What kind of grotesque worldview would make an (occupied) city a 'capital' to millions of people not even holding the citizenship of the country where this presume capital is located? There is something uniquely medieval in Jewish racism, something which reeks of a long ago past dark age and which makes Apartheid look outright modern.
Just imagine the outcry worldwide if Ahmadinejad declared Tehran the "capital of all Aryans"...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
