US elections: a waste of your time and energy
It's a very effective game. It is not necessary that anyone actually like their own candidates, it is only necessary that they fear and hate the other candidate. There is no necessity for either candidate to express any kind of vision or comprehensive program, because people are mainly concerned that their candidate score debating points against the hated opponent. To the extent either candidate has anything positive to say, that is limited to stroking the egos of their supporters, spouting meaningless rhetoric that appeals to their constituency's psychological profile. The sign of a good con man is that he appears to be trustworthy and honest to his mark (constituency). As Walter Cronkite put it, when asked what makes for a good news anchor, "the ability to lie convincingly". - Richard Moore
Richard Moore
World Prout Assembly
10 Oct. 2008
I am amazed at how many of you have been sending me messages about the elections, most of them telling me how bad McCain is, and the rest campaigning for Obama as if he was the second coming. I've been trying to figure out why this is. Neither candidate is proposing to end our policy of military aggression, both support the financial bailout / sell-out, neither talks about the Patriot Acts and the destruction of the Constitution, neither has any kind of recovery plan in the manner of an FDR, and neither talks about any substantial issues in their campaigns. Obama's main advisor is Zbigniew Brzezinski, the architect of modern US aggressive imperialism. The Democrats have totally supported Bush at every step, and it was the Democrats, more than the Republicans who pushed through the bailout fiasco. I'm not arguing for McCain or the Republicans, not at all, but I have a very hard time understanding why people think a Democrat President will make any kind of real difference in how the country is run.
I do have a theory, however, about where all this energy comes from, this irrational support for Obama on the one side, or McCain on the other. The game works this way... The Republicans field a President-Vice-President team that liberals will hate, and the Democrats field a team that conservatives will hate. That's the reason for Palin. She has nothing at all to offer other than the fact that she's totally abhorrent to anyone with any kind of liberal sensibilities. Fear and loathing are strong motivators, and I think this explains why people allow themselves to be captured by the pointless electoral circus.
It's a very effective game. It is not necessary that anyone actually like their own candidates, it is only necessary that they fear and hate the other candidate. There is no necessity for either candidate to express any kind of vision or comprehensive program, because people are mainly concerned that their candidate score debating points against the hated opponent. To the extent either candidate has anything positive to say, that is limited to stroking the egos of their supporters, spouting meaningless rhetoric that appeals to their constituency's psychological profile. The sign of a good con man is that he appears to be trustworthy and honest to his mark (constituency). As Walter Cronkite put it, when asked what makes for a good news anchor, "the ability to lie convincingly".
It is important to understand what the actual job description of the Presidency is, post-JFK. It has nothing to do with running the country or making decisions. That is all handled by the Cabinet and other advisors, people who are selected by the ruling elite and are not elected. These advisors are typically on loan from the major corporations, law firms, and financial institutions, and their loyalties remain with their 'real' employer, and with the elite agendas laid down for them. Cheney is a perfect example of this, on loan from Halliburton, and using his position to assign extremely lucrative government contracts to that company - while at the same time pursuing the agendas of the banking elite. Everyone in Washington knows that Cheney has been the real CEO of the 'Bush' regime, up until this recent bailout coup.
Henry Paulson (King Henry I) is an even better example, being part of the elite financial community. His loyalties are entirely with Wall Street, and the bailout bill gives him, as Secretary of the Treasury, essentially dictatorial powers over the US economy. 1913 is the year the banking elite achieved behind-the-scenes control over America, and 2008 is the year they achieved direct control. Paulson's new role is comparable to that of Herr Krupp in the Third Reich, who was made OberFührer of all industry in Germany and the occupied territories. This kind of direct dictatorial control is a clear sign of fascism. If you haven't seen Naomi Wolf's recent videos, I recommend watching them ASAP, while we still have YouTube and the Internet. As she says, we are now in the 1933 Nazi scenario, just prior to the Storm Troopers dissolving by force the democratically elected parliament (Reichstag).
The End of America: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aW9PulYpjGs
Give me Liberty: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XgkeTanCGI
As for the Presidency, that is actually a PR job, an advertising job. Both as a candidate and as a President, the job description is to make speeches and to present US policy with an appropriate spin. That's one of the reasons we sometimes have actors like Reagan or Schwartzneger for politicians - actors are experts at playing roles, learning lines, and projecting personas on cue. In Bush's case, it is intentional that he talk like a fool, because then people assume his personal idiocy is responsible for disastrous policy. Anything to keep you from looking behind the curtain, to see who's really at the controls. Anything to make you think the next election offers hope.
If Obama wins, he'll put a liberal spin on policy, just as Clinton did. Interventions will be 'humanitarian', and policies will be to 'help the little people'. If McCain wins, he'll put a conservative spin on policy, like a Bush or Reagan would do. Interventions will be a show of 'US strength', and policies will be to 'make America strong'. The underlying policies themselves will be decided for other reasons and by other people. A change of Presidents is like a change of advertising campaigns for a soft drink; the product itself still tastes the same, but it now has a new 'image'.
Elections are one example of a media circus. The OJ Simpson Trial was another example, as was the Monica Lewinsky affair, neither of which was an event of any real significance or interest. There's usually one useless media circus or another underway at any given time, designed to capture the public imagination and attention, while the real business of empire and politics goes on outside the circus tent. Television is our version of the Roman Colosseum.
At this particular time, on the verge of economic collapse and martial law, we cannot afford to be distracted by this or any other circus. Naomi Wolf expresses the urgency of the moment very eloquently. She's the Paul Revere of our day, sounding the alarm (first video), and she also has useful ideas about popular rebellion (second video). The title of her new book is, Give Me Liberty, A Handbook for American Revolutionaries. Among other things, she talks about how we need to begin dialoging with one another in our communities, overcoming left-right divisions.
To paraphrase a saying I recall from childhood, Now is the time for all good men and women to come to the aid of their country. The elections are nothing but a distraction, and that's what they are designed to be. Our attention needs be elsewhere.
No comments:
Post a Comment