Donating the Rope
by Srdja Trifkovic
[Subscribe online to Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture. Click here for details].
On January 30, 1933, Adolf Hitler became Germany’s Chancellor after the corporate Germany decided to bet on him – in spite of his radical rhetoric – because it believed it could control him. On January 20, 2009, Barack Obama will become the 44th president of the United States in large part thanks to gigantic contributions from corporate interests, Wall Street interests, and big law firm attorneys. They, too, think that his social, cultural and economic program –- no less radical, in its peculiar way, than that of the NSDAP –- will succumb to their kind of “reality,” and that they can control him.
Lenin said that capitalists will sell you the rope with which to hang them. It’s even better than that: they’ll give it to you. As Ralph Nader notes in his “Open Letter” to Obama, never before has a Democratic candidate achieved this level of supremacy over his Republican counterpart in corporate donations:
“Why, apart from your unconditional vote for the $700 billion Wall Street bailout, are these large corporate interests investing so much in Senator Obama? Could it be that in your state Senate record, your U.S. Senate record and your presidential campaign record (favoring nuclear power, coal plants, offshore oil drilling, corporate subsidies including the 1872 Mining Act and avoiding any comprehensive program to crack down on the corporate crime wave and the bloated, wasteful military budget, for example) you have shown that you are their man?”
Obama is not “their man,” however, although he may play their game for a while. In the fulness of time his and Michelle’s grand vision will prove to be light years from theirs, but it will be too late. Just ask Krupp, Flick, or von Papen.
The man Corriere della Sera hails as a “black Roosevelt who can save America from utter breakdown with a New Deal, who can win over the financial markets while promising to give more power to labor unions and rein in free trade,” will bring about “an utter breakdown” just as surely as January 30, 1933, led to May 8, 1945. That breakdown will entail less physical breaking (and Goebbels welcomed the Allied bombing for its destruction of the old bourgeois Germany!), but its cultural, moral and spiritual consequences will be the same.
Here in Europe, the ruling elites sense Obama’s essence far better than his corporate donors in the U.S. Their ongoing apotheosing of Obama as the Redeemer of a fallen civilization is based on their perception, which is entirely correct, that he is their ally on the same global project. Undreamt-of new vistas are now on offer to the revolutionaries who want to move beyond the Gramscian “long march,” and Brussels can hardly wait.
The silver lining is that, had McCain won, we would have had four years of Kerensky offering an illusion that the end is not nigh… while ensuring its rock-solid irreversibility. Provided he didn’t start a thermonuclear war first, that is.
[Subscribe online to Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture. Click here for details].
1 Comment by Boba Borojevic on 6 November 2008:
I agree with your opinion Dr. Trifkovic. Here is how The Financial Post in it article ‘Welcome to the world of Obamanomics’ on Nov 4th, explains Obama’s economic policy :
…”At its heart, Obamanomics is essentially about taking more money from the rich and giving it to the poor, plain old-fashioned “neighborliness” as Obama has described it or, as others have less charitably so: taking money from those who earn it and giving it to those that don’t.
Under his income tax plan, Mr. Obama says he will provide tax cuts for 95% of Americans. He will do this by repealing Bush tax cuts and bumping the top rates back to 36% from 33% and to 39.6% from 35%. Individuals earning over US$200,000 and families over US$250,000 will see sizable tax increases. This includes sole proprietors of businesses like lawyers, accountants or plumbers called Joe.
Since 38% of Americans currently do not pay federal income taxes, Obama will provide them with refundable tax credits. Under his plan, 48% of Americans will thus pay no income tax.
“For the people that don’t pay taxes, he is simply going to write them a cheque,” says Andy Busch, global foreign exchange strategist at BMO Capital Markets. “That is income redistribution at its worst and produces very little value.”….
2 Comment by SternRepublicanVirtue on 6 November 2008:
An extravagant parallel.
Could it be that corporate donors sensed a winner and wanted to be on the right side of the next administration? Does it really have to be more sinister than that?
The US is supposed to be a constitutional republic with all the paraphernalia of checks and balances that that entails.
If Obama really possesses the ability to revolutionise American culture and society then it’s time for a return to constitutional basics (curbing the power of the federal government, restoring rights to the states, and limiting the scope of the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction).
Perhaps the right could devote part of its thinking and writing to devising a practical programme to restore what the American republic has lost and conserve what it still retains of constitutional circumscription.
And btw: isn’t the position of many paleos that the Iraq war was embarked on, amongst other reasons, to serve corporate interests? The same corporate interests that we’re now being told bankrolled Obama, who has been clear in his desire to pull out of Iraq?
Paleos are at risk of falling into the same category as Muslims and Blacks: groups who will complain whatever happens, even when what they wanted to happen occurs, and who prefer airing a grievance than getting their hands dirty and putting together a viable political programme of their own.
3 Comment by Leo on 6 November 2008:
The majority of Americans of European descent did not vote for Obama in distinct contrast to our self-appointed elite.It is probable that this resistance will grow if Obama reverts as you suspect to form.The lesson for Europeans from Madrid to Moscow might be too obvious for even their elites to ignore.Congratulations to Russia for putting the Child President-Elect on immediate notice that it will not be business as usual.
4 Comment by george on 6 November 2008:
“Provided he didn’t start a thermonuclear war first, that is”
More likely to start a thermonuclear war under Obama than McCain.
Want to know Obamas foreign policy for the next 4 years read Brezinski’s book The Grand Chessboard.
Military shift will be from the Middle East to Europe and Central Asia or as Zbig refers it to as Eurasia.
5 Comment by Sebastian on 6 November 2008:
I’m happy to see an article making this comparison. As the pictures of Marxists and Muslims celebrating worldwide indicate, the enemy knows he’s their man; our corporate “elite” are clueless. Brooklyn was filled with stupid white kids celebrating on Tuesday as if the Giants had won the Super Bowl (which they did not celebrate). This is a game to them, like cheering for Federer versus Nadal. Part of me hopes Obama will deliver so I can stay up for the party and watch the narcissists beaten and crucified by the Muslims. Already, resisting rape is becoming Islamophobic. It is a thankless task to defend people who think you’re the enemy. Three pretty blonds from Denmark emailed me with “Thank God Obama Won” messages. But my better half knows now is the time to buckle-down and get ready for a fight. Growing up during the Reagan and Clinton eras I never thought the old adage would become relevant in my life: you may not be interested in ideology but ideology is interested in you. Indeed it is. Hold on to your wallets and bullets…
6 Comment by robert m. peters on 6 November 2008:
I know that historical analogies are dangerous because contexts, personalities and events are never exactly the same no matter how analogous and similar they might appear; however, I assert that Bush and Cheney and, behind them, Clinton and a host of other Presidents are the socialist of the Weimar Republic. They have further shredded the already tattered and torn Constitution through executive orders, signing statements and unconstitutional legislation such as the Patriot Act.
Obama has, thanks to them, the antecedent precedents which he needs to govern by edict.
Man wartet auf das nächste Ermächtigungsgesetz!
7 Comment by J. Meng on 6 November 2008:
Your assessment may be correct, and I am stepping into deep water, here, and open to drowning by repudiation of my simplistic argument, but I think Nader is “more” correct. For one, both Hitler and his financial backers were nationalists, he may have gotten out from their control to a certain extent, but his policies served their interests; Obama and his backers are not nationalists; they are globalists. They have global objectives which transcend nationalism. A study of U.S. history, especially, since the Civil War, shows the marked advance of the corporate world (which includes financial institutions) in terms of influence on the national government’s foreign and domestic policies. It has evolved to the point that now these transnationals have spun a web of global economics within which Obama (or any political leader) must operate. He can never get outside of it. Thus, he can never divorce himself from the order set down by Corporate CEO’s. He may be allowed to work his Marxist politics within the domestic front, but his foreign policy will be shaped by the needs of the multinationals. One other thing, I believe Obama is a straw man; he comes nowhere near the political acumen of Hitler.
8 Comment by Joseph Salemi on 6 November 2008:
Robert M. Peters@5
“Obama has, thanks to them, the antecedent precedents which he needs to govern by edict.”
Absolutely correct. And you know, when the Patriot Act was being debated some years ago, I recall a leftist associate of the late William Kunstler making this very point. The Bush-types and their brain-dead superpatriot goons were singing the praises of this new unconstitutional enactment that gutted American liberties. And the leftist said “You know, guys, what are you going to do when this power falls into the hands of Mrs. Clinton in a few years?”
He was mistaken about the beneficiary, but he was right on the general principle. Even our enemies make valid points sometimes.
9 Comment by Derek Leaberry on 6 November 2008:
Though the Rockford Institute’s David Hartman(and, from the grave Ronald Reagan) would disagree, it seems that absolute free market capitalism is corrosive of traditional cultural life. No wonder that Wall Street and the new capitalist class, from Bill Gates to Tim Gill to Oprah Winfrey, support Barack Obama. President-elect Obama, like his mother, father and wife, despises tradtional American culture as does America’s economic elite. One can only hope that part of the Obama program will include much higher marginal tax rates for the well-to-do, a surtax for the superwealthy, a vastly higher capital gains tax, and a raid on the trust funds of the Kennedys, Rockefellers, Guggenheims, Fords, Houghtons(one of whom lives on an estate just east of me on Maryland’s Wye River) and the others.
10 Comment by Joseph Salemi on 6 November 2008:
Derek Leaberry@8
“…it seems that absolute free market capitalism is corrosive of traditional cultural life.”
Seems? SEEMS? Free market capitalism is the most destructive, anti-cultural, secularist, counter-traditional force on the planet. It is just as corrosive of received ways of life as Marxism, even more so because it is more efficient and ruthless.
When you think of free market capitalism, don’t think of the amiable and grandfatherly Ronald Reagan. Think of the evil witch Ayn Rand, and her old boyfriend Alan Greenspan.
11 Comment by T.E. Connor on 6 November 2008:
Derek,
Rest assured that the Kennedys, Rockefellers, Guggenheims, Fords, Houghtons, etc. will see no greater burden placed upon them. They are the ones who put Obama into power. When Rush Limbaugh and the other faux conservatives say “only the rich pay taxes” it is only partially true. The moderately rich, say a small businessman who has done well for himself, pay tons of taxes, but the super rich, those who you mentioned before, pay no taxes at all. They tie their wealth up in charitable truts, foundations, tax shelters, etc. and pay absolutely no taxes. I remember when Kerry ran for president and it was reported that his wife had paid 8% tax on the few hundred thousand dollars that she had claimed for income in 2003. Do you really believe that she lived on a few hundred thousnad dollars in 2003?
12 Comment by T.E. Connor on 6 November 2008:
Sorry Derek. I grossy overestimated what Teresa Heinz paid in taxes. After going back and researching some old articles, she paid $627,000 in federal taxes on $55 million in income (the majority of which was unclaimed because it was held in off-shore tax shelters). This equates to a federal tax rate of 1.14%. I wish my federal taxes amounted to 1.14%…
13 Comment by Derek Leaberry on 6 November 2008:
OK, Mr. Salemi, please strike SEEMS.
14 Comment by TJF on 6 November 2008:
Actually, David Hartman is complete agreement that the irresponsible greed of the business elite is at the root of the problem. The price of liberty, including economic liberty, is eternal vigilance.
15 Comment by KMarx on 6 November 2008:
Trifkovic,
Interesting you draw a comparison between Hitler and Obama! I see where you stand. I mean, Hitler, of all people to compare anyone to!
How about the present fool in the White House? His top campaign funds in 2000 and 2004 were from “gigantic contributions from corporate interests, Wall Street interests, and big law firm attorneys”? Oh excuse me, I forgot, unlike Hitler, these interests did control bush. That’s what the bailout is all about – it’s was an insurance policy should the Wall Street crowd get too greedy and tank the economy.
16 Comment by Derek Leaberry on 6 November 2008:
Dr. Fleming, my respect for Mr. Hartman is absolute. He’s the sort of businessman that any conservative would admire, the antithesis of the Wall Street stockjobbers with no loyalty to locality or nation. I would appreciate any response Mr. Hartman would have to Dr. Trifkovic’s observation.
17 Comment by Theodore Van Oosbree on 6 November 2008:
Mr. Obama is not disappointing his corporate sponsors yet – he is peopling his administration and transition team with Clinton retreads. Dr. Paul Craig Roberts noted months ago that Obama prostrated himself before the two political gods that count in this country: Wall Street and AIPAC. Perhaps he will be the Usual Suspects Stepin Fetchit after all.
18 Comment by george on 6 November 2008:
Actually Hitler made speeches against the countries economy being dependent on foreign banks I guess the equivalent somewhat would be Ron Paul speaking against the Federal Reserve.
I doubt Obama would make any such statement indeed I doubt he understands the policies he will enact will in office.
Alex Jones made a good point on RussiaToday that Obama was more behind the bailout than McCain.
Actually a better example would be to compare Obama to Mussolini.
19 Comment by Ken Zaretzke on 6 November 2008:
Great McCain joke. But there seriously was a prospect of McCain getting us in a nuclear war. His contempt for Russia is irrational–and incredibly dangerous. In that limited sense, thank God for President Obama.
20 Comment by george on 6 November 2008:
@19Ken Zaretzke
Did you check my comment @4?
Do you know who Obamas foreign policy advisor Zbignew Brezinski is and his record and rhetoric towards Russia?
Russia couldn’t get a worse candidate. That makes it official that the US number one target will be the destabilisation of Russia.
I hope Russia does stick those missle on the Polish border in Kalingrad.
That would send a message to Brezinski that if Russia goes down then your country Poland is going down as well.
Why does Gates want to reactivate and test new nuclear weapons?
21 Comment by Daniel Maxwell on 6 November 2008:
Re: #9
“it seems that absolute free market capitalism is corrosive of traditional cultural life. No wonder that Wall Street and the new capitalist class, from Bill Gates to Tim Gill to Oprah Winfrey, support Barack Obama. President-elect Obama”
Trust me, none of those people you named support anything resembling a free market.
22 Comment by J. Meng on 6 November 2008:
@18 George: I’m just learning, old man, but how is a comparison between Obama and Mussolini better? Or,even relevant?
@19 Ken Zaretzke: How do you know with absolute certainty that McCain would have gotten us into a nuclear war with Russia? Is that what the plutocrats, who really control us, want? I mean, after all, if there is nothing left but a world of cinder caused by a nuclear holocaust, how can these financial bastards make any money?
Folks, the enemies of Christ have us on tenterhooks, like the tenterhook of a loss of freedom, or a loss of democracy (as if it were the only means of governing), and free trade and all of that B.S. So what if it all goes over the falls. If all of the ideologies fall into oblivion, human life will continue. We are the victims of our own fears; we can take over, but fear has us paralyzed. When you realize that the fear is artificially imposed, then we can neutralize it and eliminate the instigators of it. But, that takes courage and a firm conviction. At this point, amid the yuppie-metro generation that I witness, I doubt if anything will happen. We’ll abide the Obama excursion of reality and just be happy to be able to fill our gas tanks.
23 Comment by Chris on 6 November 2008:
George @ 20
I’m not sure if Zbig considers Poland his country. He probably considers that to be Israel.
24 Comment by Miles Gloriosus on 6 November 2008:
Had GW Bush been less willing to make the United States a subsidiary of Procter & Gamble, the charge that Obama is a socialist would have enjoyed greater resonance with the American people.
(“Hmmmm, be enslaved to a socialist state or sell out my rights as a citizen to international business? Be enslaved to a socialist state or sell out my rights as a citizen to international business? Which to choose? Which to choose?”)
Just as Jimmy Carter made Ronald Reagan possible, so too did GW Bush make Obama.
25 Comment by metamars on 6 November 2008:
“Obama is not “their man,” however, although he may play their game for a while. In the fulness of time his and Michelle’s grand vision will prove to be light years from theirs, but it will be too late. Just ask Krupp, Flick, or von Papen.”
OK, out with it. What, exactly, is this “grand vision”?
I had heard Michelle Obama speak, and she said that before the decision to run was made, she of course discussed it with Barack. Although she didn’t say so, amongst other things I’m sure they talked about was the possibility of assassination. In any event, for her the most important factor was that she was tired of living in fear.
I say, good for her. The Bushies shamelessly peddled fear, in their endless quest to manipulate the public towards their foul ends. Maybe you believe Michelle Obama, and maybe you don’t, but I don’t think you can argue that her concern was for naught. (If you do think her concerns were for naught, please read Naomi Wolf’s books.)
If you really think that Barack and Michelle have some sinister plan, you should at least argue for what you think this plan comprises. Of course, nobody expects you to reveal this plan in all its glory, as it would have been foolish for the Obamas to have given firm evidence of it. But surely, you can provide some suggestive evidence, no?
I also think your imagination is ruling you when you say,
“Here in Europe, the ruling elites sense Obama’s essence far better than his corporate donors in the U.S. Their ongoing apotheosing of Obama as the Redeemer of a fallen civilization is based on their perception, which is entirely correct, that he is their ally on the same global project.”
Besides Obama’s obvious charisma, I think what has the Europeans (and indeed, so much of the world) enthused is impression that Obama will attempt to lead more by consensus (I suppose intervention in Pakistan will be an exception). Plus, let’s not forget that he’s obviously intelligent. Having suffered 8 years of a not-too-bright cowboy, with the awesome American military to back him up, I believe that they see in Obama somebody that they can work with to achieve common goals.
Whether those goals are as Hitler-like (though with an internationalist twist) as you fear, remains to be seen. Personally, I think a likely economic blow-out will preoccupy Obama for most of his first term. (Barring another 9/11). Military adventures abroad aren’t going to be cheap, and until Russia and China are convinced that Obama will not be the loose canon that Bush was, it’s in their interest to make sure that the price of any such contemplated adventures rises.
As for those who are predicting dire conflicts with Russia, based upon the Brezinski factor, I just can’t imagine
a smart guy like Obama being taken in by his paranoia. Whatever Russo-phobic baloney Obama might have spouted to get elected, running a country is another matter.
26 Comment by Jacob Aitken on 6 November 2008:
Excellent article, Dr Trifkovic.
Thank you
27 Comment by Boba Borojevic on 6 November 2008:
Re: # 22 J.Meng
Here is how Webster Tarpley compares Obama with Mussolini?
http://www.deepjournal.com/p/7/a/en/1497.html
…”..If you look at those themes (Obama’s themes); those are the typical themes of the young Mussolini.
People don’t remember what fascism was, I am afraid. A lot of people think, especially here in the U.S. where people are ignorant, people believe that fascism is a purely top down phenomenon. When they think of fascism, they think of something like a dictatorship of Bush Cheney that becomes more and more oppressive, more and more intrusive, more and more totalitarian, more and more dictatorial. That is not fascism. You would not need a new word for that. Fascism is the march on Rome; fascism is the storm troopers fighting in the streets. It is a gutter and street level movement; it is a grass roots movement that has anti-authoritarian cover, anti-parliamentary, anti-congress cover. It has left cover. Mussolini of course was a revolutionary socialist and a lot of people in his movement were left wingers, you now, extreme trade union activists, syndicalists and stuff like this. …”
28 Comment by J. Meng on 6 November 2008:
@#27 Boba Borojevic, Thanks for your imput. I listened to the Webster Tarpley audio interview and it was scary what he revealed. Who is Mr. Tarpley? Forgive my ignorance. At the same time, I am not sure I understood his idea of fascism. He claims it is a street or grassroots movement, but does not elaborate much after that. If Tarpley’s idea is to equate Obama’s movement as grassroots, like Mussolini’s, then I disagree. I firmly believe that Obama is a packaged product of the plutocracy and pushed by the media. In other words, contradicting Mr. Tarpley, it IS a top-down dynamic. Thanks again for your contribution.
29 Comment by jack bailey on 6 November 2008:
While I am agreeing, I wonder if it’s possible for a Paleo to ever like someone who’s in charge. Also if McCain was a lesser of two evils, the Paleos did noting to make him win. So where is the value of a Paleo viewpoint really, if it underestimates and ignores the tremendous and unrelenting pressure from the left on anyone who is on the right and prefers to see the person on the right as deficient? Someone like Goldwater or Reagan can take it, but there is none like that now, mainly because they are not allowed to grow and succeed in the first place. They get coopted and declawed on the way by the left. I take issue with anyone who does not believe that leftism in all its forms and mutations is not the main issue of modern times, over graft, neoconservatism, phony conservatism etc. Someone like Bush could have been a great president and it’s a miracle he’s done as well considering and I believe he will eventually be rehabilitated in a way that Nixon has been. All the Bush hating from the Right had a great deal to do with Obama’s victory. Therein lies the biggest difference between the left and the right. The left knows how to close ranks. That is why they win.
30 Comment by george on 6 November 2008:
@23Chris
Zbig is not Jewish but Roman Catholic or at least claims to be doing un-christian things like creating international Islamic terrorism and getting the Chinese and Thais to suppport the Khamer Rouge.
I’ve wondered if he didn’t have a role of overthroughing the Shah of Iran.
Is it just a coincidence that a radical Islamic, anti-Soviet regime is installed in 79 the same year Brezinski is secretly training Islamic militants 6 months prior to Russia invading Afghanistan.
Remeber at this time there was no Hezbollah as Israel hadn’t invaded Lebannon till 82.
31 Comment by Bob Johnson on 7 November 2008:
George,
He certainly was the hand behind the Carter Administation’s refusal to give the Shah the arms he requested to beat back the Islamic Revolutionaries.
Also the hand behind allowing the revolutionaries to assert their strength (which was very important from the standpoint of keeping the Iranian public behind them) by holding the American diplomats hostage.
I don’t know, somebody created this pan-anti-zionist coalition that is the real juice behind Obama.
The problem is that we have no way of knowing who Obama knew first: Wright or Brezinski.
BTW, let’s keep pretending to the Jews that AIPAC will protect them.
I want them to figure this out for themselves, as it’s the only way of finding out just how self-blinded and idiotic they actually have allowed themselves to become.
32 Comment by A. Hayter on 7 November 2008:
Here’s the ugly reality. The Authentic Right had a great standard bearer in Pat Buchanan in 1996 and 2000, and in Ron Paul in 2008. The people, OUR people, rejected them. Insofar as I am further to the Right than these distinguished gentlemen, it pains me to acknowledge this, but it’s true, isn’t it?
Worse, Ron Paul was not badly funded. Buchanan was well known in ‘96, even a celebrity. He’d been around the GOP for decades, worked in the White House, etc. But the idiots chose Dole, and later McCain. And those were the ‘conservatives’!
Let’s face it: America is basically leftist, as is the Anglosphere, as is Europe. The West is now left-liberal in its primary ideo-cultural orientation. The Left has never really lost since its violent birth in 1789. Sometimes it overreaches, as with vicious, inefficient communism, or the cultural excesses of the 60s, but the macro-trend is clear.
On one side of the ideological divide stands work, family, country, patriarchy, racial exclusivity, sexual normality, liberty, order, value, morality, discipline, law, sovereignty, justice, culture, civility, rationality, tradition, life.
On the other side stands EQUALITY. Equality has won unconditionally.
The American Right should forget about winning “the whole enchilada”, political majorities, the Presidency, and the like, and instead focus its very limited capital simply on promoting those issues most related to basic cultural, economic and physical survival for OUR people: 1) stopping all immigration; 2) protecting gun rights; 3) preserving private property and capitalism; and 4) executing or at least incarcerating violent criminals. These are the core issues (note I did not mention national defense: liberals want some military, probably enough actually to protect the nation from any unlikely invasions).
Yes, we care about many other things, but they are secondary. The liberals can ruin them without harming the physical interests of ordinary people. And we on the Right have so very, very little influence or power …
33 Comment by Homophobic Horse on 7 November 2008:
“27 Boba Borojevic”
I see your point Boba. What I’ve noticed is this: Obama excuses his association with Weather Underground terrorist’s by downplaying the malignancy of their politics and actions. He say’s the Weathermen’s violence was not so bad because it was done for an idealistic “anti-war” cause.
The same psychology was used in the run up to the Iraq war.
October 8, 2008, Regarding Ayers, Obama told ABC News’ Charlie Gibson:
“I’ll repeat again what I’ve said many times. This is a guy who engaged in some despicable acts 40 years ago when I was eight years old. By the time I met him, 10 or 15 years ago, he was a college professor of education at the University of Illinois.”
As if being a professor of education latter had some redeeming relationship to the former “despicable acts”. Conclusion? Obama agrees with unrepentant Ayer’s politics.
Associated Press dispatch that described Bill Ayers as:
“A co-founder of the Weather Underground, which claimed responsibility for nonfatal bombings in the United States during the Vietnam War-era.”
So it’s ok if done for a noble cause..
My conclusion? Obama, in collusion with the supine and hubristic media which peddled the Iraq war mania, is capable of despicable acts. Combine this with his plans for a “Serve America” public corps, I think we may be looking at an American Fascism.
It’s on the same continuum with George Bush’s global crusade’s and PATRIOT act. It’s too early to say what’s going to happen. But there are now extremely malignant tendencies in American politics.
34 Comment by Bob Johnson on 7 November 2008:
@44 Etienne Gervaise
You could very well be correct, though I hope to god you are not.
Just in the interests of giving my model of reality a fair hearing, I’ll provide you with some more details of said model:
“Then how do you explain the cast of usual suspects to be put in charge of things? All 5′6″ of pit bully Rahm-BO Emmanuel (son of Irgun terrorist) as BO’s new chief of staff, Larry Summers and Robert Rubin handling the money, it just keeps gatting better and better.”
And the Corleone family put Hyman Roth in charge of their money, in a situation where most of the real power resided with the Corleones. How did that work out for Roth?
In the same way that Michael Corleone went places vis a vis the killing of Moe Green that Roth was unwilling to follow, Mr. Obama will go places that Emmanuel will be unwilling to follow.
And then he will be taken care of. (You don’t think a chief of staff can be fired?)
If you were Obama, which side would you go against, the Christians with their guns and their relatively massive numbers, or the Jews with their tiny numbers and mere pieces of damned paper that could easily be made to be worthless?
The Jews thought their money, and the fact that the Warburg family was central to funding Hitler, would protect them in Germany.
How did that work out for them?
Why is David Duke, a man who has devoted so much of his life to exposing and fighting the satanic evil that is Jewish power in the World, why has he made so many arguments about how a Obama presidency could be good for White America?
How do the Jews control Obama once he gets sworn in, my friend? I can’t think of a single way that would actually work.
There weren’t enough loyal Jews in the media to successfully tabooize the rather strongly worded anti-Zionism of Jeremiah Wright.
Watch the tape of how pro-Wright Mr. Bill Moyers was in his interview with the Reverend on PBS. Moyers went from being pro-Zionist Liberal under LBJ, to an anti-Zionist Liberal under even the prospective presidency of Barack Obama.
Just imagine what he’ll be like once Obama is actually his boss.
Nobody has suffered like the Palestinians.
35 Comment by rjrafferty on 9 November 2008:
“Nobody has suffered like the Palestinians”
I remember who danced in the streets on 9/11 and gave thanks to Allah for sticking it to the Great Satan. I remember a people and a leader so stupid they wouldn’t even accept the sell-out of Israel that Bill Clinton offered them. I remember who voted for Hamas to lead them, slaughter them, and then make them believe that they were victims of Israel. The Palestinians probably rival the Kalahari bushmen in intelligence. And they will continue to suffer until they realize that their only function is to serve the ends of those who wish to destroy Israel.
Oh, and I am a christian, btw.
36 Comment by Bob Johnson on 9 November 2008:
If you think the anemic concessions offered the PLO by the Clinton administration represented a sell out of Israel, you must be one of those “I want a Greater Israel” people.
The person who wanted to make meaningful concessions wasn’t Clinton, it was Rabin.
But in an odd bit of bad luck, a Jew “decided” to murder a fellow Jew and one of the greatest heros of his own country.
How do you feel about the Jew settlements in the West Bank?
And if you support Jew settlements in the West Bank, would you support a Muslim settlement in Washington, DC?
37 Comment by rjrafferty on 9 November 2008:
Actually, I don’t equate Palestinians with muslims. And most muslims I know consider Palestinians to be pariah dogs–even the christian ones. So I’ll pass on your last question. There is however a Palestinian settlement in the USA–it’s called Dearbornistan.
38 Comment by rjrafferty on 9 November 2008:
Sorry, I was a little intemperate there. Make it read “be little better than pariah dogs”
39 Comment by Etienne Gervaise on 9 November 2008:
@34 Bob
Since we’re not up to 44 yet, I don’t know which post you’re referring to, it must be on some other thread. But to repeat myself, Obama’s cabinet will more likely represent Tel Aviv than America, such as it is. Catholics need not apply for any major cabinet position with this regime. Well, maybe one of the more recent inventions like Veterans Affairs, or Energy.
And look for another Clintonesque Supreme Court nominee like Breyer or Ginsburg. Plus ca change plus ca meme chose.
40 Comment by Bob Johnson on 9 November 2008:
He hasn’t appointed a Jew to post which isn’t easily firable yet.
If he does, and I have a funny feeling he won’t dare just based on the basic politics of it, I’ll admit you are correct.
I doubt Jerimiah Wright of all people in the World allowed himself to be a patsy for some sell out, but I suppose stranger things have happened.
41 Comment by Michael Averko on 10 November 2008:
Re: 23 Chris
Brzezinski isn’t exactly considered a big supporter of Israel.
On a related matter, I suspect that O’s nomination of RE was done in part to offset any apprehension among Israel’s American supporters (not that this will ever be acknowledged).
Within that grouping, ZB isn’t the most liked of foreign policy wonks. Nominating RE serves to tone down the mentioned apprehension.
42 Comment by Etienne Gervaise on 10 November 2008:
@40 Bob
Even Sarah Palin got a once-over-lightly from AIPAC, just to be sure she held no Buchananite tendencies as in cutting off foreign aid. As a good little evangelical, I’m sure she dutifully told them, “The Bible says Israel is the apple of God’s eye.”
More insidious is that Soros money went to McCain to resucitate his New Hampshire effort. The Hungarian had both major parties in his pocket. If you don’t think that’s true, look at Arabic editorial cartoons.
@41 Michael
My father served in Palestine in 1948, and was aware of Pere Emanuel’s fun and games involving bombs in biscuit tins placed on buses that would most often kill arabs, but would be reported as an attack on jews. Irgun was a vicious gang of terrorist criminals equivalent to Detroit’s Purple Gang, the Plug Uglies or Murder, Inc. Like father like son, the leopard does not change its spots.
43 Comment by Natalie on 10 November 2008:
Excellent article. I have noticed troubling parallels between Hitler and Obama as well. Of course there are differences, but there is more alike between them and their respective situations than many would like to admit.
44 Comment by slim on 11 November 2008:
Bob Johnson has no clue on palestinian Arab history. Palestinian Arabs are supporters of the same jihad that killed hundreds of thousands of Serbs during WWII: http://www.sanfranciscosentinel.com/?p=12613
Some of them are actually Bosnian nazis that moved to that region to kill Jews in 1948. For the truth on the poor pathetic palestinians, google ‘British Record on Partition’ and read about how their Arab league leaders (lapdogs of the British), the British, and a mix of German and Bosnian nazis all tried to crush Israel in 1948.
45 Comment by Bob Johnson on 12 November 2008:
Etienne,
“Even Sarah Palin got a once-over-lightly from AIPAC, just to be sure she held no Buchananite tendencies as in cutting off foreign aid.”
And if she went along with them on that particular point, I don’t really disagree with her very much.
If you actually tried to cut off the foreign aid, it could all too quickly lead to some kind of civil war in the establishment of this country (with all too many foreigners and aliens, both legal and otherwise, trying to intervene on behalf of one side or the other).
It seems to me that the realistic choices are between:
Strategy #1 (Constructive Disengagement):
An American presidential administration says flat out (or as close to flat out as you can in this context), either in public or to the relevant leaders, that they will not use force to intervene in the Middle East to protect either Israel or the Palestinians. However, we will cut off all aid to any nation-state (including Egypt, but also of course including Israel) in the Middle East presently receiving foreign aid if they launch aggression against their enemies that we (the Executive Branch of the American Government) consider unprovoked.
Then whatever we do or don’t do on Iran will be considered an entirely separate issue.
Please note that my very strong preference would be for Strategy #1.
Strategy # 2 (Constructive Engagement):
After laying the groundwork as quickly as possible, an American presidential administration calls a regional summit including the United States of America, Russia, Israel, China, France, Great Britain, Iran, the PLO, Hamas, every member of the Arab League, and no one else. Then we announce a time and date and make clear, either in public or to the relevant leaders, that any country that declines to come will have no say in a settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian question.
“More insidious is that Soros money went to McCain to resucitate his New Hampshire effort.”
I 100% agree.
“The Hungarian had both major parties in his pocket.”
With the Republicans he just barely managed to get his favorite in, and then after the primaries he lost control of him on the most important choice he made (VP selection).
“The Hungarian had both major parties in his pocket.”
The impression I get is that the vast majority of his American Political Money went to the Democrats this cycle. Therefore it stands to reason that Soros has far more power over the Democrats than over the Republicans.
Now there is a certain way the Republicans could start behaving where I’d conclude they decided to sell out to the Hungarian foreigner who views America as nothing more than a rook in his profoundly and utterly anti-conservative agenda.
I haven’t seen that yet, though, thank god.
46 Comment by Suvorov on 14 November 2008:
It would be great if you would write an article about Nikola Kavaja sometime.