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

HELL12345's picture

Well Mr Pilger, you are entilttle to your opinon but it is not one that I agree with. talking about the 1960's are gone but we can learn from the histories.

HellVeiseex's picture

It would be lovely if Obama staffed his administration with Marxists like Pilger wants, but the reality of modern governance wouldn't countenance it.

Also, the idea that Obama wants to start a war with Pakistan is hysterical hyperbole.

America has given itself a kick up the arse by electing Obama and this is to be welcomed.

MBP17's picture

Give us a break, WO. I mean really. You never answered why Pilger felt the need to bring Obama's ethnicity or anyone else's race into the discussion. Why was it relevant? Colin Powell is his own man, just as Donald Rumsfeld was, or any other person who works for a living and has to answer to a superior. Again, I feel I'm repeating myself here, but I suppose I must to let it sink in. Ethnicity has nothing to do with it. Racism will never go away until people like Pilger and yourself let it, until you stop obsessing on it. If constantly calling attention to someone's skin color or eye shape or any other outside characteristic isn't racism, then for christ's sake what is? Grab a dictionary, look up racism, then get back to me on that.

And what are talking about Obama used his ethnicity in his campaign? Are you mad? He wouldn't have been elected dog catcher if he'd run as the "black" or "biracial" candidate. He's in the White House for the very opposite reason. He ran as just another candidate, who happens to be black. People of all ethnicities voted for him because he ran the superior campaign. My god man, your understanding of US politics is shockingly ignorant. Do you really think if he'd gone around saying "vote for me I'm browner than those other guys", he would have gotten elected? Really?

It's you who are falling back on propaganda. You appear to be a somewhat young person, studying some humanities courses at University and now because you've read a little Marx, or Trotsky or whatever, now you've got the world figured out. Let me tell you, you don't. Why don't you try actually talking to minority people sometime, not as minorities but as people just like you. Relate to them as individuals instead of members of a group, then you might actually begin to learn something about how the world works. You know what you'll learn by reading guys like Pilger all the time? PROPAGANDA.

Petite Anglaise's picture

"Remember "Madeleine Albright"? Well, see is also making a return to the Whitehouse fold."

Jonesy, you CAN'T be serious!!! That puffed up pigeon of a woman is evil! The 'Termite Terminator' is back? Don't tell me it's true!

writeon's picture

a.m.r.

Now, after I've been so restrained, pulling my punches so to speak, giving you the benefit of the doubt; you launch into me with accusations and barely concealed anger, why? I could use lots of abusive words to describe you, but would that be especially intelligent or smart? I've been holding back, I'm not sure why really.

Your legalistic approach to history isn't mine. You make it sound like something that can somehow be decided in some kind of court. Where you calmly, or not, present the 'facts' to a jury, your evidence, and then a they 'vote' and a balanced, concensus about right and wrong and what happened is agreed opon.

Unfortunately, reality isn't like that. History isn't even like that. It's always full of holes and contradictions, and it's partial, biased, full of falsehoods, myths, and unbalanced. In other words extremely complex.

I actually meant to write WW1instead of WW2, but I'm not sure that matters, as WW2 was really only the second round of WW1, which means that WW2 started not in 1939, but in 1914, and what is more, seen from a wider perspective, arguably continued on a smaller scale, in a different fashion, throughout the intervening years.

I don't accept most of your premises, or your version of the history of the etnic civil war in Palesine, isn't it enough that Israel won and destoyed Palestine and took it over, what more do you want?

I don't no why you seem so elated to have 'caught me out' in some form of 'hypocracy' some obvious 'falsehood'. I've chosen to overlook many of the inconsistancies in your approach, because I don't want to appear too pedantic and arrogant. I've given you the benefit of the doubt. I was being charitable. But it's like you been waiting and lulling me into a false sense of security, and now, with a flourish and fanfare, you attack me, congratulations! I was fooled

genecrabtree920's picture

I too wrote a poem:

Oh writeon writeon writing poetry like youre saying something
You spend many hours trying to impress.
repeat and repeat but are you actually saying something?
You spend many hours trying to impress.
No, youre saying just nothing.
You spend many hours trying to impress.
Doesnt impress me because youre not saying anything.
And who cares if this rhymes or not?

genecrabtree920's picture

What kind of a geek writes political poetry on the new statesman website anyway?!

writeon's picture

a.m.r.

Why aren't you just satisfied that Israel won, occupied vertually all of Palestine and is mater of the region?

You seem to want me and others to not only accept reality on the ground, but that the war of conquest and the ethnic cleansing that occured, was right and just and lawful, that's why you are so pedantic and interested in the fine detail of the conflict, especially who is the unlawful, outlaw and agressive party in the conflict. This attitude makes it seem like an agressive war of conquest was justified and lawful, and not a crime or disaster, as it's seen from a Palestinian perspective.

Here's an alternative perspective. In a nutshell, official Israel needs convincing narrative that can be used to sanctify and justify conquest, making what many would describe as a typical, imperialist and colonialist war, seem like something else, a war of defence and liberation. The myth of little, weak, David, facing mighty Goliath, and even though he puts out his hand in friendship, ready to share, evil Goliath, spurns this offer and picks up his mighty sword, determined in his blood rage to drive plucky little David into the sea!

It's an interesting story/history, but I don't buy it. It's a little too much like a b-movie script to ring true, a little too much like propaganda, which one could argue all history is, in a way. The winner writes the hisory books and decides who the good guys and the bad guys are and who fired the first shot, and God, if only things were really that simple!

writeon's picture

Mike,

I agree with you. Obama doesn't want to start a war with Pakistan, that would be madness.

Unfortunately escalating the war in Afghanistan and winning it, whatever that really means, is going to be very difficult indeed without going over the border and taking on the Pastun resistance in Pakistan. The border is a Western construct and really doesn't mean much to the Pastuns on both sides of it.

Crushing a growing Pastun 'national liberation struggle' by military means is going to destabilize Pakistan as well. If the West isn't careful the war in Afghanistan is going to spread and become even worse and unwinable. Wars seem to have their own logic and momentum, so Obama may find himself dragged into something really terrible unless he's very careful.

aflatoon's picture

the truth bites.it will go on biting those who do not possess the freedom of spirit n those who dont treat all equally.after all what is the use of being civilized if one does not believe in the basic ethics.john pilger will conninue to be hated by those consienceless persons who think of enslaving others in the name of globalisation n free market. aflatoon india

Latest tweets