Obama, Neo-Con

About this title: Obama enabled maximally prominent Neo-Cons to represent and govern the USA. When I asked Silicon Valley cognoscenti what it meant for a supposedly “democratic” presidency to nominate maximally prominent neofascists, I was told: “They represent the HIDDEN government of the USA.”

For years it was incorrect to point out that emperor Obama had no clothes, that all he had was playing with his brown skin. That observation was called racist. Yet, it has been made recently, loud and clear, by leftists of renown: president Obama has been incompetent, and a sell-out. As Thomas Frank puts it in Salon:

“Right-wing obstruction could have been fought: An ineffective and gutless presidency’s legacy is failure.

Yes, we know, the crazy House. But we were promised hope and change on big issues. We got no vision and less action.”

Change? Skin Color

Change? Skin Color

Within days of Obama’s accession to power, banks were given public money without any counterparts. This was an outrageous theft of public money. I advocated it was “Time for RICO“. I may as well have told the mafia to summon the police.

Just as Reagan-Bush 25 years ago, and Sweden later, after 2007, the UK and Germany nationalized giant banks such as Northern Rock, RBS, Hypo Real Estate, when they had to give them hundreds of billions to save them. Instead in the USA, the banks were given trillions, without so much as a change of management; the fact the banks were given money was hidden by the simple device of TARP, then giving plenty more to banks through Quantitative Easing, to reimburse TARP…

To the great applause of conscientious, politically correct “liberals”, such as drummer boy Krugman.

This has world consequences: it made American financiers rule the world, more than ever; GE, saved by Obama’s $60 billion, just bought a French giant competitor, Alsthom. This is the Faustian deal of the USA: its plutocrats may rule the USA, but they also rule the world, and that increasing empire profits average Americans.

The dying Roman Republic went through a similar Faustian bargain with its increasing militarization: the resulting empire profited the Populus Romanus, while killing the Republic. The most insidious corruption corrupts the souls.

Real Change: Beggar In Chief

Real Change: Beggar In Chief

[Profitable presidency: Obama spent at least 400 day raising billions from the richest plutocrats.]

Then, unbelievably, Obama kept on saying he could not do a thing without Republican’s approval (never mind that he had 60% of the votes in the Senate, and a strong majority in Congress). It was, Obama explained disingenuously, a new way of doing politics by consensus. The savages opposing him rejected it, Obama’s fanatics informed us, thus making him a failure.

In truth, Obama had such strong control of all the government and the legislative, he could easily have imposed “Medicare For All“.

I have said all of this in the past, but, from another pen, my point of view comes out stronger. Thomas Frank again:

“America should have changed but didn’t… [how] to explain an age when every aspect of societal breakdown was out in the open and the old platitudes could no longer paper it over—when the meritocracy was clearly corrupt, when the financial system had devolved into organized thievery, when everyone knew that the politicians were bought and the worst criminals went unprosecuted and the middle class was in a state of collapse and the newspaper pundits were like street performers… for an audience that had lost its taste for mime and seriousness both. It was a time when every thinking person could see that the reigning ideology had failed, that an epoch had ended, that the shitty consensus ideas of the 1980s had finally caved in—and when an unlikely champion arose from the mean streets of Chicago to keep the whole thing propped up nevertheless.”

As early as 2009, it dawned on me that Obama was neither incompetent nor a sellout. I said so on some leftist sites, and was promptly thrown out, as a “troll” and a “Neo-Con”. Obama was a Neo-Conservative from the start and was chosen for that, by the higher-ups of the “democratic” party: they gave him a keynote speech, and their top master operative.

Obama practiced Dick Morris and Bill Clinton’s theory of triangulation — basically the democrats do the republicans’ work for them: democrats deregulated, balanced the budget, and unleashed the financial markets of the USA, while allowing huge corporations to pay no taxes. Clinton declared that the “era of big government is over.” Big banks, small government.

All of this covered by noises to the contrary while the notorious weasel, Dick Morris, chuckled. Weasels are somewhat below apes in the evolution of evolution. Not to worry, French judges never heard of Dick Morris, and he is white, in any case.

Nearly all American leftists, including myself, did not see early enough that Obama was a Neo-Con with Martin Luther King’s mien. We got manipulated by his speeches and rhetoric. His King-style voice rhythms sucked all back to the nostalgia of the progressive 1960s.

We were blinded by political correctness. I recovered quickly, in the first few weeks of Obama’s administration: it was clear Obama was all in rhetoric, and no action.

Obama claimed he could not do a thing, because the “Republicans” blocked him. In truth, fifth generation plutocrats such as Max Baucus, a major democratic senator, were the excuse Obama evoked, in democratic circles, to say he could not a thing. (That Max Baucus lather authored “Obamacare”, is pretty telling.)

I wrote, on this site, about the commonality between Obama’s behavior and that of the “boys” who used to serve white masters in Kenya. Some in my family wrote to me I had trampled on their hearts, and had no common decency. I replied my decency was uncommon. (No doubt it made their stays at Camp David less comfy, so they have hated me ever since.)

Obama is a far more competent Neo-Con than Bush Jr., or even Reagan, ever were. Those had opponents. Obama got collaborators, all over. No banana peel shaking for him. No need for French judges.

The two Bushes generated a backlash and really could only rule in secret, or though devious means. Obama instead pushed the agenda of Wall Street Banks, USA corporations, and the CIA/NSA much further than Bush ever dreamed of, by going public about it while carefully misrepresenting the truth.

For example, Obama officially clashed with Netanyahu. However, below that surface of enmity, extensive cooperation developed, say on anti-missile systems (the fact I like those systems is irrelevant). Such systems were crucial to allow Israel to not negotiate with the Palestinians.

Clinton was the best president the republicans ever had. Under him Franklin D. Roosevelt’s revolutionary reforms of finance and banks were completely undone; Rubin, that is Goldman Sachs and their followers were solidly in command. Clinton, while officially at war with Newt Gingrich, was actually doing the work the Republicans could never have done, had Bush Senior still been president.

As the Republicans got all they wanted, the debate switched further to the right. When the democrats acquired control of Congress in 2006, they went right. Pelosi and company accepted to give all the money banks and shadow banks wanted in 2008. Without any counterparts. Obama became the best president the Neo-Cons could dream of.

Obama once convoked all the top bankers to the White House. He announced, triumphal, that the Obama team was “the only thing between you and the pitchforks”. He delivered. Thanks to political correctness, nobody important dared say that the emperor had no clothes. That, would, indeed, have deemed to be racist. Still is. But not for long.

The picture that will stick with Obama is the one I observed six years ago: a black boy, serving the white masters. and not for brains: under Obama, the share of scientific publications by the USA has collapsed. Why? Under Obama, plutocratization has jumped (as I said, because of the treatment of finance). So it has in academia. But money has deleterious effects on research (if nothing else, it creates the wrong mood and obsession).

Obama ran his first campaign as “change you can believe in”. Yes, none at all. Obama, at best consolidated Bush’s Neo-Con rule. At worst he is still the engulfing lie that appearance is all what reality is about.

Patrice Ayme’

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , , , ,

22 Responses to “Obama, Neo-Con”

  1. Paul Handover Says:

    And what does 2016 bring, do you wonder?

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      It seems clear that the way to handle the situation is to suggest we all go SWISS. Instead of pushing this individual, or that. I spent a fortune in efforts, treasure, book writing, talking to reporters (!), and even attending events, to support Obama, a friend. And all I got from the effort was plenty of fiends.

      Some people (friends, and, or, who became) very familiar with the president, and I knew, more than a decade prior, and were both apolitical and ignorant, at best, later accused me to be a racist right winger… Because I thought Obama supported the Wall Street banks and USA shadow banks….

      2016 will bring nothing good, if we do not get more direct democracy in the system. I make a lot of enemies, in the USA, or Europe by suggesting that.
      PA

      • Paul Handover Says:

        If you are right, and this newcomer to the USA supposes you to be correct, then the medium term outlook is pessimistic. All one can hope for is that Mother Nature focusses some minds in the not too distant future. Crazy times!

        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          One of the thing that worries me the much is the collapse of USA science, which has started by some measures. I know that some of the top guys in Silicon Valley are worried by that. But they won’t do anything about it, because their solutions all go through money, and, to succeed, educational power has to dominate money power.
          PA

  2. Hadrian Antiochus Says:

    Who made Obama?

    http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2008-12-12/news/0812110155_1_barack-obama-bettylu-saltzman-jewish-vote

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Thanks Hadrian, and welcome! I had problems with some of my commenters recently, who found me too politically incorrect, it’s a delight to aggravate my case with the link you provide.

      BTW, long ago on my site, I had pics of Obama and some Jewish billionaires (like Prikzter, who he nominated to the government). I have nothing against Jews in the abstract (I have had Israeli and also Jewish friends), but I certainly have something against plots to enact what ought to be unlawful.

      Most people, BTW, as I said in the essay, are persuaded that the relationship of the USA with Israel is not too good, whereas, in truth, it’s better than ever (it’s all an act). Silicon Valley and Israel collaborate closely (not a very well known fact).
      PA

  3. Benign Says:

    Obama was our Manchurian candidate. The Big Lie has arrived in America.

    Benign

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      The worst lie is not Obama. After all, he just fired a broadside at tax evading USA corporations, along lines found on this site for more than 8 years. Not to worry: the “enemy” controls Congress.

      Happy wake-up, Mr Marmot-In-Chief! Did you sleep well in the last seven years?

      The worst is the immense popularity of Bill Clinton.
      Bill efficiently dismembered FDR’s work on finance, and he is still revered. When Obama became prez, Eskerine, a Pluto who used to control Bill, immediately took Obama over, in Reno Nevada, November 2008. Told him to keep his friends away (the real ones, not the ones he made in Chicago).

      It’s all over now, that presidency I lived like a hope that became death. Hillary, BTW, if she becomes president MAY turn out to be very different from Bill (because she suffered like Bill never did).
      PA

  4. Dominique Deux Says:

    A bit of taxonomics is called for.
    I think Obama’s classification as a neocon merely illustrates the fact that “neocon” has evolved into an all-purpose insult (along with anything “neo”, such was the neocons’ nastiness).
    I am not disputing that Obama may be a pawn of the plutocratic power structure. In fact, “Citizens United” guarantees that no US President can be anything else in the future.
    However I would suggest that “neocon” proper must designate that particular breed of thinkers who produced and embraced the tenets of the PNAC, which focused on foreign policy and could be summarized as “world democracy at guns’ end”.
    Of course they were in love with money, including as spoils of war, but their motivation was really political. It harked back to their Trotskyite ancestry, through Leo Strauss’ teaching. Trotsky’s main idea was that it was Russia’s duty to spread Communism all over the world by force. Strauss wanted instead the US to spread democracy all over the world by force. The peoples’ preferences were to be ignored, or rather, blithely assumed to be in agreement (“we’ll be greeted with open arms”).
    This transmogrification of extreme left radicalism into extreme right authoritarianism is nothing new, as any historian is well aware. We’ve had our share of neocons in France, all of them former Maoists or Trotskyites (not Sarkozy; although he was dubbed a neocon, he was merely a born lackey, and could find no better Emperor to kowtow to than GWB; democracy was never an issue with him).
    Sorry for the nitpicking. But in order to fight nasty critters, it is necessary to identify them properly, not designate them all as “bugs”.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Victoria Nuland and her long term husband, Robert Kaplan are in charge of foreign policy under Obama (they are there for the horse power, Kerry is there for show… I wanted Kerry, Obama wanted Susan Rice… tied in to the dictators of Africa from Rwanda to Ethipia). Nuland and Kerry are NEO CON CENTRAL. (I have plenty of Kaplan books, BTW, I read them for the fascism.)

      Here is Wikipedia about Kaplan:

      Robert Kagan is the son of Donald Kagan, Sterling Professor of Classics and History at Yale University and a specialist in the history of the Peloponnesian War. His brother, Frederick, is a military historian and author. All three are signatories to the Project for the New American Century manifesto titled Rebuilding America’s Defenses (2000).[4] Kagan has a BA in history (1980) from Yale, where in 1979 he had been Editor in Chief of the Yale Political Monthly, a periodical that he is credited with reviving.[5] He later earned an MPP from Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government and a PhD in American history from American University in Washington, D.C. Kagan is married to long-time career diplomat Victoria Nuland, who is currently serving as Assistant Secretary of European and Eurasian Affairs in the Barack Obama administration.[6] The couple has two children.

      Ideas and career[edit]

      In 1983, Robert Kagan was foreign policy advisor to New York Republican Representative Jack Kemp. Between 1984 and 1986, he worked at the State Department Policy Planning Staff and was a speechwriter for Secretary of State George P. Shultz. From 1986 to 1988, he served in the Bureau of Inter-American Affairs at the State Department.[7] In 1997, he co-founded and served as a director for the now-defunct Project for the New American Century.[1][2][8]

      Kagan spent 13 years as a Senior Associate with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, before joining the Brookings Institution as a senior fellow in the Center on United States and Europe in September 2010.[9][10][11][12][13] During the 2008 presidential campaign he served as foreign policy advisor to John McCain, the Republican Party’s nominee for President of the United States in the 2008 election.[14][15]

      Kagan also serves on the State Department’s Foreign Affairs Policy Board,[16] originally under Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.[17] He is also a member of the board of directors for The Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI).[18]

      Because of his association with PNAC and his early endorsement of the Iraq War, Kagan is widely considered a neoconservative foreign-policy theorist.[19][20] Kagan describes his foreign-policy views as “deeply rooted in American history and widely shared by Americans”

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear Dominique: In the USA, the concept of “Neo-Con”, although harking back as you said, indeed, is not perceived as the will to spread democracy as much as BS, big time. Driving to the invasion of Iraq, they used the popular argument that Iraqi oil would pay for the invasion. (So Iraq bought F16s and other USA products… paid by Iraqi oil, indeed.)

      After 5,000 GIs killed, and dozens of thousands gravely wounded, cul de jattes and with IED liquefied brains, the acumen of the Neo-Cons in matters military is discounted.

      However, in finance, they are on a roll. In the guise of banking political correctness, Neo-Cons thinking is re-establishing the USA financial empire, as it has not been for a long time.

  5. Nathan Daniel Curry Says:

    I know hardcore democrats who jump and sing Obama’s praises…but I personally feel he is one America’s worst ever Presidents. Patrice Ayme wrote: ” Obama is a Neo-Con with Martin Luther King’s mien. We got manipulated by his speeches and rhetoric. His King-style voice rhythms sucked all back to the nostalgia of the progressive 1960s.

    We were blinded by political correctness. I recovered quickly, in the first few weeks of Obama’s administration: it was clear Obama was all in rhetoric, and no action.”

    I find the American Empire a dismal disappointment to what it could be. Men of genius like Emerson, Lincoln, Thoreau and Whitman were the founding fathers of the country. What it could be is not what it profligates. Obama has not brought hope and sharp strategy as he promised…but he has handed America and the American people to the banksters.

    The Bushes were wolves that hunted in packs and acted clandestinely. Obama has the aura of a liberal but the money trail yields the behavior of a neo-con; a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

    Reagan and Clinton were good at selling out but Obama puts them to shame. It reminds me of that scene in the Scent of a Woman where Pacino champions character over snitches. Obama has used the aura of his character to betray his own people.

  6. John Michael Gartland Says:

    He is one of the worst presidents but THE biggest disappointment. The emperor has no clothes. Yet his cult of worshipers adore him.
    Obama is a fraud.

    • Christina Resell Says:

      I am amazed you think Bush is better!!!

      • Nathan Daniel Curry Says:

        What has Obama done that makes him better? Please please please explain to me in simple English what merits such adulation. Actual policy change. Actual improvements. From a meta level. Not from a blinded sheeple level.

        He bailed out the bigs crooks in history. He let them get away with murder and gave them trillions for their crimes. He maintained the status quo. Iceland has a president. Obama is a sham.

      • Patrice Ayme Says:

        Bush did Medicare Part D. Obama did droning in a big official way. Plus gave 8 trillion to banks. BTW, I campaigned heavily, 2 years, for Obama (first and last time I do campaigning).

  7. Nathan Daniel Curry Says:

    Bush was a sleeze of a man. A petty bourgeoisie devoid of culture and riding on the slush fund of big granddaddy’s world war 2 milking of the german war machine. To say he is better than Obama is to compare apples and oranges. The world cringed while Bush was in office (except Africa which sucked up his Christian aid).

    Obama is a stylish new story but he is pumping the neo-con agenda. It is frightening people do not see this. It’s like Samson and Delilah.

  8. wim Jenniskens Says:

    He has one advantage; the alternative is a lot worse.

  9. Dominique Deux Says:

    So far, France and the US have been on an eerily parallel path of engineered decadence with Bush-Sarkozy replaced with Obama-Hollande to little benefit.

    Well, count your blessings. Ann Coulter is not looking at a POTUS appointment.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Indeed. Don’t forget Cameron, who has gone off the deep end…
      There is a common reason to all this: the fact oligarchy cannot fake democracy forever.

What do you think? Please join the debate! The simplest questions are often the deepest!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: