Don't believe the hype

Barack Obama is being lauded by liberals but the truth about him is that he represents the worst of

My first visit to Texas was in 1968, on the fifth anniversary of the assassination of President John F Kennedy in Dallas. I drove south, following the line of telegraph poles to the small town of Midlothian, where I met Penn Jones Jr, editor of the Midlothian Mirror. Save for his drawl and fine boots, everything about Penn was the antithesis of the Texas stereotype. Having exposed the racists of the John Birch Society, his printing press had been repeatedly firebombed. Week after week, he painstakingly assembled evidence that all but demolished the official version of Kennedy's murder.

This was journalism as it had been before corporate journalism was invented, before the first schools of journalism were set up and a mythology of liberal neutrality was spun around those whose "professionalism" and "objectivity" carried an unspoken obligation to ensure that news and opinion were in tune with an establishment consensus, regardless of the truth. Journalists such as Penn Jones, independent of vested power, indefatigable and principled, often reflect ordinary American attitudes, which have seldom conformed to the stereotypes promoted by the corporate media on both sides of the Atlantic.

Read American Dreams: Lost and Found by the masterly Studs Terkel, who died on 31 October, or scan the surveys that unerringly attribute enlightened views to a majority who believe that "government should care for those who cannot care for themselves" and are prepared to pay higher taxes for universal health care, who support nuclear disarmament and want their troops out of other people's countries.

Returning to Texas, I am struck again by those so unlike the redneck stereotype, in spite of the burden of a form of brainwashing placed on most Americans from a tender age: that theirs is the most superior society in the world, and all means are justified, including the spilling of copious blood, in maintaining that superiority.

That is the subtext of Barack Obama's "oratory". He says he wants to build up US military power; and he threatens to ignite a new war in Pakistan, killing yet more brown-skinned people. That will bring tears, too. Unlike those on election night, these other tears will be unseen in Chicago and London. This is not to doubt the sincerity of much of the response to Obama's election, which happened not because of the unction that has passed for news reporting since 4 November (eg, "liberal Americans smiled and the world smiled with them"), but for the same reasons that millions of angry emails were sent to the White House and Congress when the "bailout" of Wall Street was revealed, and because most Americans are fed up with war.

Two years ago, this anti-war vote installed a Democratic majority in Congress, only to watch the Democrats hand over more money to George W Bush to continue his blood-fest. For his part, the "anti-war" Obama voted to give Bush what he wanted. Yes, Obama's election is historic, a symbol of great change to many. But it is equally true that the American elite has grown adept at using the black middle and management class. The courageous Martin Luther King recognised this when he linked the human rights of black Americans with the human rights of the Vietnamese, then being slaughtered by a "liberal" Democratic administration. And he was shot. In striking contrast, a young black major serving in Vietnam, Colin Powell, was used to "investigate" and whitewash the infamous My Lai massacre. As Bush's secretary of state, Powell was often described as a "liberal" and was considered ideal to lie to the United Nations about Iraq's non-existent weapons of mass destruction. Condaleezza Rice, lauded as a successful black woman, has worked assiduously to deny the Palestinians justice.

Obama's first two crucial appointments represent a denial of the wishes of his supporters on the principal issues on which they voted. The vice-president-elect, Joe Biden, is a proud warmaker and Zionist. Rahm Emanuel, who is to be the all-important White House chief of staff, is a fervent "neoliberal" devoted to the doctrine that led to the present economic collapse and impoverishment of millions. He is also an "Israel-first" Zionist who served in the Israeli army and opposes meaningful justice for the Palestinians - an injustice that is at the root of Muslim people's loathing of the US and the spawning of jihadism.

No serious scrutiny of this is permitted within the histrionics of Obama mania, just as no serious scrutiny of the betrayal of the majority of black South Africans was permitted within the "Mandela moment". This is especially marked in Britain, where America's divine right to "lead" is important to elite British interests. The Observer, which supported Bush's war in Iraq, echoing his fabricated evidence, now announces, without evidence, that "America has restored the world's faith in its ideals". These "ideals", which Obama will swear to uphold, have overseen, since 1945, the destruction of 50 governments, including democracies, and 30 popular liberation movements, causing the deaths of countless men, women and children.

None of this was uttered during the election campaign. Had that been allowed, there might even have been recognition that liberalism as a narrow, supremely arrogant, war-making ideology is destroying liberalism as a reality. Prior to Blair's criminal warmaking, ideology was denied by him and his media mystics. "Blair can be a beacon to the world," declared the Guardian in 1997. "[He is] turning leadership into an art form."

Today, merely insert "Obama". As for historic moments, there is another that has gone unreported but is well under way - liberal democracy's shift towards a corporate dictatorship, managed by people regardless of ethnicity, with the media as its clichéd façade. "True democracy," wrote Penn Jones Jr, the Texas truth-teller, "is constant vigilance: not thinking the way you're meant to think, and keeping your eyes wide open at all times."

159 comments

a.m.r.'s picture

writeon, I'm not sure if you're aware of your hypocrisy (but of course you are).

You write : "I think war is literally Hell on Earth. "

So, from your own words, one would assume you would be very critical of anyone who starts a war, no?
Yet when I attempt to point out that the 1948 war was started by the Palestinian and Arab side, and with much preceding Arab-on-Jew violence (and deeply anti-semitic rhetoric and exhortation), you are not interested. Yet I'm not aware of any historian who deny this, even the 'new historians'.

The 1930's, and 1940's are not lost in the "mists of time" - they're quite recent, and there are many contemporary reports.

You write:
"After the first few million casualties in WW2 who the hell cared or remembered who started the whole miserable business or who fired the first shot?"

For a start, perhaps the victims of the war and those who were forced to defend themselves care who fired the first shot? Your relativism is quite sickening. The horror of war makes it all the more important who decided to start it, not less.

a.m.r.'s picture

Pencils: "Can a.m.r give us a reference to any writing where Morris 'concedes' to Efraim Karsh?"

Sure. The reference you ask for, via Wikipedia's article on Efraim Karsh:

"In reviews of Fabricating Israeli History, Benny Morris was forced to concede certain refutations made by Karsh:

"Karsh has a point. My treatment of transfer thinking before 1948 was, indeed, superficial...He is probably right in rejecting the transfer interpretation I suggested in The Birth to a sentence in [a speech by Ben-Gurion on December 3, 1947]." (from The Times Literary Supplement, November 28, 1997)

"Karsh appears to be correct in charging that I stretched the evidence to make my point.". (from Refabricating 1948 p. 83)

This is quite important - if Karsh's book is dishonest propaganda, why is Benny Morris conceding anything at all? Why isn't he suing instead?

Karsh demonstrated in his book how Benny Morris, Pappe and others had dishonestly presented material. If you do not have access to the book, you may at least want to read two articles by him on the same topic :
http://www.meforum.org/article/466
http://www.meforum.org/article/711

Whilst Karsh has been criticised as being polemical, distorting, not a real historian, and so forth, no-one has actually been able to refute his work. Hence Morris' concession.

a.m.r.'s picture

Pencils: "The partition of Palestine was illegal under the UN's rules at the time [...] Israel has no legal validity whatever."

Are you able to give us a reference to support this assertion?

Pencils's picture

I intended to include a ' since' in this passage in my first post above, which should have read " Morris originally expressed some regret for Israeli behaviour, He has SINCE said that he thinks the zionists should have 'finished the job'..."

The above was my acknowledgement that Morris had indeed backtracked to an extent. But I can't comment on the examples a.m.r. sites without the context e.g. " "Karsh appears to be correct in charging that I stretched the evidence to make my point.". Which point? Is it a substantial point?

or " My treatment of transfer thinking before 1948 was, indeed, superficial...He is probably right in rejecting the transfer interpretation I suggested in The Birth to a sentence in [a speech by Ben-Gurion on December 3, 1947]."
He acknowledges that a couple of things could do with some second thoughts; that's hardly the same as being " less than honest in his presentation of materials".. No historian or writer could fail to have second thoughts about something, somewhere in their work.
Furthermore, I'm not going to take anything from wikipedia as gospel; concerted zionist manipulation of wiki is well known - google 'slim virgin' for some case studies.
Morris may have backtracked on his attitude to what his work showed, but he has not backtracked on the substance to any significant degree. I've read Karsh's ' New Historians' , and stick to my assessment: nobody needs to refute him, because the works and documents on which he bases his position have all been thoroughly refuted.
As to a reference for the partition of Palestine being illegal: the UN charter did not award it power to allocate or partition land. I know you're well aware of that, so I'm not going to look for the resoluiton or article.

a.m.r.'s picture

Pencils: the "Refabricating 1948" article by Benny Morris can be found on-line at http://www.palestine-studies.org/enakba/debates/Morris,%20Refabricating%... - there's no need to second-guess Wikipedia's reliability .

You say: "I've read Karsh's ' New Historians' , and stick to my assessment: nobody needs to refute him, because the works and documents on which he bases his position have all been thoroughly refuted. "

I thought Karsh based most of his work on the same archival documents that the New Historian's used. If there are specific documents and works

re: the legality of the U.N. partition
The League of Nations and its successor organisation, the U.N., were responsible for the formation of the border-drawing and partitions of Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Palestine. Why was it only illegal in the case of Palestine?

a.m.r.'s picture

(again, sorry, the sentence should read : "If there are specific documents and works that have been refuted, I'd appreciate it if you could point me towards the refutations.")

writeon's picture

oh dear, we are getting into deep and very hot water here, and Obama has been pushed to one side at the beginning of this epic struggle. I suppose it's my fault for 'defending' Pilger and taking up the gauntlet of the charge of being a 'Jewhater' and 'anti-Semetic'. This vile charge would amuse my Israeli and Jewish friends, in grotesque sort of way.

I think, or believe, I'm unsure, but this whole conflict, which gives such exaggerated prominance to the Palestinians and the Jews, over their rival claims to 'Israel', is fading into 'insignificance', if it ever really was that important. The wars and conflict are really just about Power, who has it and who doesn't. Who can fight and take what they want, using force and war as a method. Israel had the power and took what it wanted. The Palestinians didn't and they lost, driven out more or less. The winner took all and calls the shots. In this sense there's precious little 'right' or 'wrong' involved, but unquestionably a lot of might and power. One ethinic group was simply more powerful than the other and they won. Of course this precludes the idea of 'justice' entering the conflict. Is war ever really just? Does one really expect the losers to agree and sanctify their own exclusion and defeat? Isn't this what lies at the heart of the demand that the Palestinians accept Israel's 'right' to exist? Doesn't Palestine have a 'right' to exist as well? Or does this 'right' only apply to one people exclusively?

a.m.r.'s picture

"Indeed the struggle is about ideology, not about facts, Who knows what facts are? We [ie. the 'new historians'] try to convince as many people as we can that our interpretation of the facts is the correct one, and we do it because of ideological reasons, not because we are truthseekers," Illan Pappe, interview with Le Soir, Nov. 29, 1999

I would say John Pilger does the same.

Krisco's picture

Thank you Mr Pilger for yet another insightful piece on the machinations of a military-industrial complex, a phrase coined by Eisenhower. As USA’s stooge, Blair lied to the UK Parliament and the world and WMDs which ot only resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis but also hundeds of British soldiers and cost us 10s of billions of pounds. That has led us all into the current state of our bankrupt economies and this clearly demonstrated the need for us all to be vigilant. It is the modus operandi of the US establishment which led me to suspect the endorsement Colin Powell a Republican, gave to Obama. It is worth remembering, Powell also lied to the UN about the WMDs thereby precipitating the Iraq war by terror [yes, I do mean ‘by’, not ‘on’] and ‘shock and awe’ that engulfed the Iraqi population and destroyed its infrastructure. I still wonder what the quid pro quo might be as I watched the ‘warm’ welcome Bush extended to Obama at the White House to make sure that Bush and his other cronies are not indicted for war crimes I Iraq/Afganistan under Obama’s watch.

Krisco

Latest tweets