Return to: Home | World Affairs | North America

102 comments from readers

JC3
05 February 2009 at 11:25

"I'll Take Everything"

Oh these feet carry me far. Oh my body. Oh so tired.

Mouth is dry. Hardly speak. Holy Spirit rise in me.

Here I swear, forever is just a minute to me.

I'll take everything in this life.

I'll join everyone when I die.

Have my body. Have my mind. Have my coat. Take

my time.

These I borrow. Borrow so far. Turn to dust. Fall

apart.

Here I swear, forever is just a minute to me.

I'll take everything in this life.

I'll join everyone and understand.

'Cause all men die. 'Cause all men die.

I'll take everything in this life

I'll join everyone since I'm gonna die

I'll take everything in this life

I'll join everyone 'cause all men die

Carl Jones
05 February 2009 at 12:42

Another excellent article, but its a real shame that Pilger is forced to fight with his sward still in its scabbard. :(

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=10094

"Binyamin Netanyahu"....wasn`t he in London on 7/7...and forewarned by the Met. police not to leave his hotel, because bombs were about to go off.LOL

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=3314

I can`t wait for Obama`s new major crisis, as indicated by Joe Biden.LOL

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/...

So desperate to remain in control, the NWO heaps more designed pain on the world...crisis after crisis, depression after staggering debt and war with no intention of winning, read link.

http://www.ihr.org/news/weber_ww2_may08.html

eki
05 February 2009 at 12:51

''There was no significant balance of view from the

Yugoslav side, and not a single mention that the flight

of Kosovar refugees began only after Nato had started

bombing.''

My family in Kosovo spent one year on the run from the

Serbian forces who burnt and destroyed village after

village and you have the audacity to say that refugees

fled only after Nato started bombing.

Please Mr Pilger get your facts right.

Otherwise your arguments look like bollocks.

eki

a.m.r.
05 February 2009 at 12:54

"Apart from the US, the world’s most dangerous state is demonstrably Israel.."

Bollocks.

a.m.r.
05 February 2009 at 12:59

eki: "Please Mr Pilger get your facts right. "

That would ruin his story, eki.

sam the pantisocratist
05 February 2009 at 13:26

To the mystery censor:

How come everyone else can get away with saying 'bollocks' but me?

JC3
05 February 2009 at 13:30

Well Mr. a.m.r. perhaps you could inform the world

what the world's second most dangerous state

actually is. Oh, and does that mean that you agree

that the U.S. is THE most dangerous state?

Carl Jones
05 February 2009 at 13:33

They are not only dangerous, as they always have been (US, UK and Isreal), they are all "FAILED STATES" by their own definition.

JC3
05 February 2009 at 13:48

Yeah I agree Carl Jones. And one day everyone else

will too. Oh, and I like to spell Isreal like that too.

hahaha.

JC3
05 February 2009 at 13:50

http://www.elyrics.net/read/s/silverchair-lyrics/

israel_s-son-lyrics.html

OrwellianUK
05 February 2009 at 13:58

a.m.r.

Bollocks? Hardly. Israel is in violation of at least 63 United Nations Resolutions, (to

Saddam Iraq's 16), and is constantly violating International Law and Human Rights, all

exhaustibly documented.

In addition, the invasion of Lebanon in 2006, and the Military devastation of the Gaza Strip,

which like the West Bank it still illegally occupies (United Nations has termed the blockade

of Gaza and the control of land, sea and air an occupation), is yet another demonstration of

the dangerous aggression of Israel who has invaded and occupied all its neighbouring

countries and contrary to popular belief, began the 1967 war (and broke the recent

ceasefire in the Gaza Strip).

What more evidence do you want? There's plenty if you can be bothered to look. On the

other hand, Iran has invaded no-one, but has been under sustained attack by the West

since the early 20th Century, with a CIA engineered coup in 1953 that overthrew a

democratic regime and installed the Shah and his brutal Savak Secret Police. For rising up

against this US client dictator, the Iranian people have been demonised ever since by our

government and media, while Israel is treated with kid gloves.

The bollocks, is the myth perpetrated by Western Powers: that they are benevolent.

aam
05 February 2009 at 14:04

Yes eKi I agree with you, my family was on the run and I sat crying that the free idiot West let it happen. John i have always supported you and love your work but on this issue ( I am an Australian), your comments on Kosova were down right ignorant and demented.

My father escaped from communism after WWII, then to see Serbia attack all its co-republics while the West entertained that dictator(Non Serb - just EVIL).

Remember the freedom loving Serbs marched for EU help in their streets of Belgrade begging for western help, they were ignored and their backward idiots took them over. Both Serbs and Albanians wanted to be in the EU like all the other Eastern block countries were allowed to enter. But the cold war crap of US/England/Germany(Protestant) and Russia destroyed a wonderful union.

I blame the EU/USA/Germany?RUssia/BBC/CNN and every other idiot who sat on their backsides and let the murder go on for so long. Remember John 90% of Kosova is Albanian if it was such a heart land to the Serbs why did they not want to live there?

ALso why were the Albanians not allowed to speak their language? Oh see how they actually treated the Albanian minority over the preceding 40 years? School burnt, surnames changed to slav names!

ANd John it was only when the US where looking like idiots again after they let Bosnia happen that they took action not because they wanted it. Come to brisbane my name is Adam Krasnic and I will tell you a little bit more about it. Call it a history lesson you certainly need one I think.

Kosova is not Iraq maybe the Serbs are happy they have a chance to get into the EU and not have RUssia control them anymore? Old powers fighting their battles in someones home. Don't dare talk about Serbs and Albanians until you grasp the complex nature of the last conflict, we did not start it, you need look North of our borders to find the NAzi's, the communists, the free west to see who pumped all the weapons into the region.

Mate!

Carl Jones
05 February 2009 at 14:18

JC3 , not an intentional mistake. :(

JC3
05 February 2009 at 14:33

Carl Jones:

Oh well I liked it. Surely that's the least we can do

no? :)

Jonty Stang
05 February 2009 at 14:38

Woah Pilger - you are SO out there. I mean OUT THERE! "Bollocks" indeed, you sock it to the man. I LOVE the fact that the New Statesman keeps paying for this stuff.

writeon
05 February 2009 at 16:23

My take on Obama is that his successful election is arguably the greatest triumph in history for the methods of advertizing and public relations.

Just like cars get a facelift and other products are re-branded, Obama is the new, acceptable face of US imperialism. It's the political version of the Cosby Show we are witnessing. A perfect family, role models, as bourgeois as they come, they are white, yet they have black skins, and this is seen as significant.

The financial aristocracy, the incredibly powerful and fabulously rich minority, who own and control the United States, are not completely stupid. They are always on the look-out for useful young men and women willing to serve their interests. People with potential.

This aristocracy is the most important constituancy in the United States. There support and 'votes' the ones theat really count. They can make and break a candidate or a politician.

Obama fitted the bill as a new face perfectly, exspecially compared to the disaster that Bush represented. All the stops were pulled out for him. He is the chosen one of the ruling class. An almost unknown, untested and inexperienced, politician, whose name and skin colour are a dream, because they represent change and a new start, a clean slate, a face-lift.

Unfortunately the character of the product, underneath the gloss, remains the same. An agressive and thouroughly militerised empire that aims to control what's left of the world, and that makes everyone else pay for the privilege of joining the empire of their own free will. One is either inside the empire, like Israel, which is allowed to get away with murder, or one is outside the empire and barbarian, like Iran and then you had better watch out, especially if you've got oil.

writeon
05 February 2009 at 16:36

Oh, my God! Here we go again, again. Pilger states the obvious and out come posse, riding hell-for-leather in the wrong direction. Lots of heat, but precious little light, as usual. If they are going to launch attacks on Pilger which are effective and not laughable, for daring to speak the truth, they need to find some people who are far more intelligent, articulate, knowledable and can write; otherwise don't bother.

If one is going to hit Pilger with a propaganda barrage then the quality control has got to be tightened-up considerably, otherwis it just defeats its purpose and seems ridiculous, amateur and ineffective.

Jonny Mac
05 February 2009 at 16:42

"Just as Blair was the prime mover of the London bombings of 7 July 2005..."

Aagh! Again Pilger comes out with this...bollocks. Repeat after me, the "prime movers" of the 7/7 bombings, the only people with any moral responsibility for them, were the utter bastards who decided to protest against UK foreign policy and get a fast track to 72 virgins by blowing up innocent people and themselves.

Pilger, you are a moral cretin.

sam the pantisocratist
05 February 2009 at 19:22

Blimey, is there anyone in this thread who hasn't said 'bollocks'?

Jonny Mac:

Cretin may be defined thus:

A Person that is: brainless, stupid, child-like, and full of pointless information that makes no sense and appeals only to other cretins. They can be found in abundance in every single populated internet forum, where they race to post as many mind-numbing messages as possible in a single session. In addition, they seemingly interbreed with other cretins, ensuring that their cretinous genes continue long after they end up dead meaning the Internet will never be rid of their kind. More's the pity.

JC3
06 February 2009 at 00:33

I wonder if Jonny Mac [and plenty of others just like

him] would be so personally abusive if this were a

live face-to-face forum. I do just wonder. Got anything

for me Jonny Mac? Or are you fresh out of insults

after that one?

kosmet
06 February 2009 at 02:32

Stop lying Eki, no one is buying your pathetic story anymore. We suffered enough because of Blair's best intentions. His wife was protecting war criminals like Serbian organ seller Ramus Haradinaj. As a former BBC employee, I can only say you are all financing Bla Bla Corporation. Mr Pilger, thank you very much for publishing this article.

whatthe
06 February 2009 at 02:57

John pilger article are filled with such venoums hatred of america I doubt he would be satisfied with anything less then obama nuking it into oblilvion as punishment for its "past wrongs". That or it turns to communism.

JC3
06 February 2009 at 03:20

whatthe:

Would it be too much to ask you to maintain basic

standards of spelling and grammer. eg: It's P ilger,

venoums is actually spelt venomous, 'america' starts

with a capital A [although, admittedly, it probably

doesn't deserve that level of respect], and Barack's

surname also starts with a capital letter. Here's a

website that might be of use to you if you want to

continue posting here:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/old.htm

As for the sentiment expressed in your post perhaps

you are correct in saying that Pilger hates America

but that does not make his article any less credible or

irrelevant. If you want to attack him take a leaf out of

eki and aam's book and make a rational argument.

What makes you think John is a communist? See,

this is typical of people like you. If John does indeed

want America to become communist then please

provide some evidence. His work is all on the record

so with a bit of EFFORT you should be able to find

something if it does indeed exist. And as for your

hypothesis that John wants America nuked well ... I

dunno. I give up. See above, I suppose.

nawawimohamad
06 February 2009 at 03:31

Yeah I agree with you John.

JC3
06 February 2009 at 03:32

Ramush Haradinaj was not Serbian. He was an

Albanian leader in the Kosovo Liberation Army.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramush_Haradinaj

[but, yes, he was very very 'lucky' to escape a war

crimes conviction]

ReallyEASY
06 February 2009 at 03:44

Calm down John. let it ride, you'll be OK.

JC3
06 February 2009 at 04:20

ReallyEASY:

"Calm down John. let it ride, you'll be OK."

John bloody Pilger knows very well that HE will be

okay. It's the injustice being inflicted on others that

motivates him. Okay?

"you have my love and that's all you

need."

That sounds like something Jesus would say. Are

you Jesus?

"Just write poetry. Forget about the conspiracy, just

enjoy yourself and listen to some music and dance.

... Go and have a swim, be with some friends, laugh

and joke, and don't pay attention to the news"

So what you're basically telling John to do here is to

forget about being a journalist and to go and stick his

head in the sand. Now I'm all for a bit of head-in-

sand-sticking every now and then but why can't one

do both, ReallyEASY? Hmm?

aflatoon
06 February 2009 at 04:50

so the warning by ms arundhati roy that mr.obama will be a more white predident than any white is coming true.. i shudder at the prospect of any war in this region, deatroying iran .is the west arrogantly inclined to fight the zionist's war only. what will happen to its much touted and shouted values of liberalism and humanity.

mr.pilger has shown in candid terms what is going to happen to the middle east and adjoining areas only because it is the interest of the three biggest sponsors of state terrorism in the name of ighting terrorism itsel.oh! what a deceit.

aflatoon india

max caulfield
06 February 2009 at 07:33

"What the childish fawning over Obama obscures is the dark power assembled under cover of America's first 'post-racial president'."

Concepts revolutionary, inviting questions, fifty years ago are now very much the norm and the mainstream. For many it would even represent the culmination of all they are struggling, or think they are, through their lives. As long as the conscience seems clear and not too out of joint, one shall choose to rest easy. Man is after all short sighted animal.

Kurus
06 February 2009 at 08:57

Well said Mr Pilger.

Freddy the Fox
06 February 2009 at 10:22

Incidentally, I don't dispute that Mr.Pilger has a positive role to play in investigative journalism, of which he is very good. It's just that his articles always seem so very one-sided. I wish things political discourse was as easy as one side being right all the time and the other side being wrong all the time. I think, on many occasions, political truth is a shade of grey.

JC3
06 February 2009 at 10:51

Freddy the Fox:

"political truth is a shade of grey"

Yes because politicians can't be trusted. They love

the creating shadows 'cos that allows them to do

things that they wouldn't be able to do in the light.

Pure truth is exactly that. Pure. There are no shades.

John Pilger is a seeker of truth. And he doesn't do a

bad job of it. Not bad at all. Better than most

journalists, that's for sure. That's why he has ended

up on the margins of the mainstream media.

And this:

"paranoid-schizoid" and "He was clearly frustrated as

a child."

is completely uncalled for. You should apologize

Freddy the Fox. Coward.

pete999
06 February 2009 at 11:12

So long as we can 'depend' on the resistance in Iraq its not all bollocks though eh John?

On reflection Ive worked out where you get your ideas from and who you are. Everyone nip out and get a copy of Viz and see if you think John is Malcom in the Modern Parents...

a.m.r.
06 February 2009 at 12:56

kosmet: "Stop lying Eki, no one is buying your pathetic story anymore."

Why do you say he's lying? Ethnic cleansing and people fleeing their villages in Kosovo had been ongoingly reported in Kosovo before the bombing began.

eg. From http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/RWFiles2005.nsf/FilesByRWDocUNID...$File/fmr-srb-31aug2.pdf

"From February 1998, when fighting

intensified between separatist Albanian

guerrillas and repressive Serb forces,

until the end of February 1999, UNHCR’s

estimates suggest perhaps as many as

200,000 to 300,000 persons were displaced

in Kosovo."

Bombing started in late March 1999. This supports eki's account.

a.m.r.
06 February 2009 at 13:21

JC3: "Well Mr. a.m.r. perhaps you could inform the world what the world's second most dangerous state actually is. Oh, and does that mean that you agree that the U.S. is THE most dangerous state?"

I feel I have more cause for fear from Russia and Pakistan than I do from the US or Israel.

A nuclear theocracy in Iran would also be worrying. North Korea doesn't leave me with any sense of ease. Non-national actors like jihadist Islamist groups, especially were they to acquire a 'suitcase nuke' or other WMD, fill me with a greater sense of danger than the US or Israel.

I perceive the US's overall role and influence in this last century to have been of more global benefit than harm. I'm glad that out of the powers that vied for global supremacy (Communist Russia, Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, and the (imperfectly) democratic US), it was the US that prevailed.

JC3
06 February 2009 at 14:35

Hey a.m.r. you haven't answered the reasonable

question I posed to you earlier. Here it is again:

"Well Mr. a.m.r. perhaps you could inform the world

what the world's second most dangerous state

actually is. Oh, and does that mean that you agree

that the U.S. is THE most dangerous state?"

Please.

a.m.r.
06 February 2009 at 14:43

I feel I have more cause for fear from Russia and Pakistan than I do from the US or Israel.

A nuclear theocracy in Iran would also be worrying. North Korea doesn't leave me with any sense of ease. Non-national actors like jihadist Islamist groups, especially were they to acquire a 'suitcase nuke' or other WMD, fill me with a greater sense of danger than the US or Israel.

I perceive the US's overall role and influence in this last century to have been of more global benefit than harm. I'm glad that out of the powers that vied for global supremacy - Communist Russia, Nazi Germany, (Imperial Japan) and the democratic US - it was the US that prevailed.

a.m.r.
06 February 2009 at 15:04

With respect to a potential nuclear conflict between Israel and Iran - Iran is clearly the dangerous aggressor, having funded and directed proxy military operations against Israel, and having held a steady genocidal line in rhetoric against Israel and the Jews since Khomeini's time.

William Brett
06 February 2009 at 15:32

Who is this tiresome JC3 figure? Berating people for bad grammar (which he spells grammer) ON A BLOG, and generally making a po-faced nuisance of himself? What's your real name, JC3? Would you prefer the ruling political and moral structures of Iran and North Korea to be dominant, rather than America's?

As for you, Mr Pilger, don't spoil my buzz, please. I'm high on Barry Obama and I don't care who knows it.

a.m.r.
06 February 2009 at 15:32

JC3, in case it's not clear, my longer reply to your question is @13:39, just before your post @ 14:35 .

Freddy the Fox
06 February 2009 at 15:40

I wanted to apologise about the comments I made earlier. They were uncharitable and unnecessary. Sorry Mr.Pilger. I'll stay down my foxhole in future!

DC Alec
06 February 2009 at 16:55

Of course Israel should be condemned and sanction, but a sense of proportion is called for. Unless black lives are inconsequential, Zimbabwe is killing far more of its citizens than is Israel. The total death toll from the Arab-Israeli conflict pales beside the state-non-state wars of Central Africa.

michaelpetek
06 February 2009 at 18:31

Now, I think we're getting to it with Mr Pilger.

First it was "the Bush gang".

Now, it seems, Obama is Uncle Sam's Uncle Tom.

The Americans simply can't do anything right for Mr Pilger.

Why doesn't he come straight out with it and declare that Americans are the existential and irreconcilable enemies of humanity who ought to be wiped from the face of the earth?

Carl Jones
06 February 2009 at 20:34

michaelpetek

Mr Pilger laid his Obama cards on the table before the election.

There is a lot of ANTI Amerikan feeling around the world and many would say, "its not our (American people) fault that we get two chose between two lumps of SHIT...but you know what, there comes a time when the people of a country must become accountable for what is going on....people have a responsiblity to know what is going on.

"Why doesn't he come straight out with it and declare that Americans are the existential and irreconcilable enemies of humanity who ought to be wiped from the face of the earth"?

The reason why he (Mr Pilger) doesn`t come straight out, is that the WORLD already KNOW THIS TO BE FACT.LOL

We were FED this NWO lie that after 9/11, Amerikans would take a greater interest in global issues...this has not happened and is clearly illustrated by Gazar and just like the BRITISH people need to take responsibility for their quiet part in the financial crisis.

writeon
06 February 2009 at 22:20

Why on earth should anyone have confidence in the abilities of the American ruling-class to do anything right?

Haven't they proven, to all but the most credulous and gullable, that they pursue their own, narrow, and shortsighted interests no matter what, or who suffers.

This ruling-class thinks it has a God-given right to rule the world. They think they own it. It's their private property.

This tiny group doesn't care much about the lives on their own people either, as long as they keep buying junk and don't get out of line, if they do they get slapped down, and hard.

Ordinary American people are great, but their rulers are simply the pits of the world. Greedy, brutal, murderous, arrogant, ignorant, anti-intellectual, self-righteous, hypocritical, spoilt, corrupt, contempteous of democracy... George Bush and his ghastly family exemplifying all the worst traits of his class. But he's not alone.

These people are the real owners, leaders, and controllers, of the United States. Presidents come and go, some are bad, some are worse; but the ruling-class remains unchallenged, nobody can vote them out of economic power, which apart from military power, is all that really matters.

Obama was spotted, recognised, nurtured, groomed, supported, and financed by the ruling-elite, the people once he was chosen, were allowed to vote for yet another safe candidate, a safe pair of hands, business as usual, Big Business in charge, as usual.

JC3
07 February 2009 at 02:12

William Brett:

Gee I'm very sorry I'm making you tired. Perhaps you

need a coffee? But thanks for the heads up on the

correct spelling of 'grammar'. Funny though, I almost

feel berated by you. Hmm. And while I'm at it it's

interesting to note that you only commented on the

first half of my response to whatthe and not at all on

my other posts. The second half of the whatthe post

was much more substantial and relevant. Why did

you choose to attack me on only the first half William

Brett? Would it possibly be because I gave you an

easy angle with my misspell?

Why on earth should I give you my real name?

Hardly anyone else here uses their real name

[maybe no-one does. How do I know that's your real

name?]. Why do you treat me differently?

As far as what ruling structure I would like to be

dominant well ... that's a good question. I don't know.

I really don't know. Sweden seems to be a pretty

good place. How about that?

a.m.r.:

"I feel I have more cause for fear from Russia and

Pakistan than I do from the US or Israel."

Oh my God where do I start. Are you Georgian? Is

that why you fear Russia? But then why would you

fear Pakistan which is so far away and, I assume,

does not have the capabilities to attack you. Maybe it

does though. But why would it? It's actually more

likely that you are American or English or maybe

Australian. Well ... Western. Which explains why YOU

don't fear the United States. But what about those in

the non-western world? Don't their feelings count for

as much as yours?

I could go through the rest of your post but, quite

frankly, I don't see the point. You appear to have

been completely and utterly indoctrinated by the, as

good ole Carl Jones would put it, NWO.

jednightingale
07 February 2009 at 04:07

I get the feeling that John Pilger is jealous that the

American public has elected an Afro_American to

highest position in the land. I doubt very much that

within our lifetime we will get to see a Catholic, Black,

or Hindu be elected to 10 Downing Street. For all the

liberal, left-wing propaganda that people like John

Pilger advetised, Britain still remains a avery racist

society. Take a look at what Prince Harvey's public

utterances about the "Pakis" in his unit . I can just

imagine what he says behind closed doors. Can any

one mention which cabinet positions have been held

by non-Brits in the last 150 years. I guess that

D'Israeli was the closest.....

max caulfield
07 February 2009 at 04:16

Quite apart from the fact that Pilger was giving it to them when many here still worried sitting on their fluff, detractors are in danger of not seeing the forest. The work of a practising journalist as against say a PR writer, should be no less that of examining truth from all possible angles and many are simply held up here in the above piece to be greatly wanting.So much so that the simple workaday act of journalistic reporting can be revolutionary indeed against such routine deficiency.

The undercurrent of criticisms of U.S in its continual role as the largely unchecked influence on world going-ons is no doubt ever present. Yet, even it is legitimate to be taking side in politics, the scope of defensiveness exhibited for the new President does verge on the paranoid, suggesting even an unhealthy spiritual dependency. It is as if a panacea to most of our moral baggages is decreed and we are ruled free otherwise to pursue our petty preoccupations.

proudlyleft
07 February 2009 at 07:14

Yes, he is changing very little. If he changed too fast, there would be anarchy or Bush III in USA. God's own land lacks the capacity for quick change. Perhaps all privileged societies and circles do. But it is worse when you also have poor sections in the same society -- for the conservatism of the powerful can build on the (often legitimate) fears of the poor and the deprived. After all change, especially if it goes wrong, will always hurt the poor too, and the poor are always easier to hurt and less likely to afford bandages. Even Marx, remember, called for revolution only when "YOU HAVE NOTHING TO LOSE BUT YOUR CHAINS", that is as a last resort. Let Obama proceed at a slow pace; give him time. He is running a country, not writing an article!

JC3
07 February 2009 at 07:22

William Brett:

Gee I'm very sorry I'm making you tired. Perhaps you

need a coffee? But thanks for the heads up on the

correct spelling of 'grammar'. Funny though, I almost

feel berated by you. Hmm. I also notice that

thefreedictionary.com states that spelling grammar

with an ‘e’ is ‘a common misspelling’ so I don’t feel

too bad about it. And at least I got my capitals right

and made an effort with punctuation. By the way, this

is a comments page, not a blog. But that’s beside the

point. Why should comments pagers and bloggers

be exempt from making an effort with the language

being used? ‘Po-faced’ William Brett? How could you

possibly know what my facial expression is? And

while I'm at it it's interesting to note that you only

commented on the first half of my response to Mr

whatthe and not at all on the second half or on my

other posts. The second half of the whatthe response

post was much more substantial and relevant. Why

did you choose to attack me on only the first half

William Brett? Would it possibly be because I gave

you an easy angle with my misspell?

Why on earth should I give you my real name?

Hardly anyone else here uses their real name

[maybe no-one does. How do I know that's your real

name?]. Why do you treat me differently? As far as

what ruling structure I would like to be dominant well

... that's a good question. I don't know. I really don't

know. Sweden seems to be a pretty good place. How

about that? And Costa Rica doesn’t have an army so

that sounds promising.

a.m.r.:

"I feel I have more cause for fear from Russia and

Pakistan than I do from the US or Israel."

Oh my God where do I start. Are you Georgian? Is

that why you fear Russia? But then why would you

fear Pakistan which is so far away and, I assume,

does not have the capabilities to attack you. Maybe it

does though. But why would it? It's actually more

likely that you are American or English or maybe

Australian. In other words - Western. Which explains

why YOU don't fear the United States. But what about

those in the non-western world? Don't their feelings

count for as much as yours?

I could go through the rest of your post but, quite

frankly, I don't see the point. You appear to have

been completely and utterly indoctrinated /

brainwashed by the, as good ole Carl Jones would

put it, NWO.

writeon
07 February 2009 at 10:13

But is it Obama's constitutional role, even it were possible, to 'run the country'?

Is he an elected 'king/emperor' or merely an elected government official, one part of tripartite system based on the separation of powers?

The last thing, according to the Constitution and the men who wrote it, wanted was another king 'running things.' So political power was split into three peices, which were supposed to balance each other. The president was designed to be the 'weakest' of the three. The Supreme Court and the Congress the more powerful.

Of course as the United States became an expanding empire the role of the President grew out of all proportion. Today it's evolving further. Bush became not just an emperor, but aguably, for the first six years of his reign, a dictator, perhaps even a military dictator, in his expanded role as commander in chief of the empire's legions.

This is a worrying development, the greatly expanded and unchecked role of the President as commander in chief, a leader who can make laws, who is the law, who is above the laws, who can launch wars on his own without Congressional approval.

Isn't there something odd, something paradoxical, that one man, in a democracy, has apparently, in theory, been given so much power, and the hopes of so many are riding on an individuals shoulders?

Surely this is a strange concept of democracy? We, the people, willingly give up our hopes and power and invest them all in a single leader who we want to run the country and make everything allright again,so we can get on with our lives undisturbed. Isn't the central, core, of democracy the concept of active citizenship? The cult of the Presidency seems fundamentally at odds with this basic tenet of democracy, or am I missing something important here?

Of course, in reality, the whole thing is a myth. Obama isn't 'in charge' of the United States. He was, after all, only elected. He's a temporary figure. The centres of reall power are never up for election.

writeon
07 February 2009 at 10:29

Who runs the country then if it isn't the politicians? Basically, and increasingly, 'market forces' run the country. We live in a market-democracy. Over the last thirty years in both the UK and the US, as the most extreme cases, but followed by most other nations, market forces have increasingly taken over most aspects of society. Society itself, the very idea of something called 'society' has been undermined and replaced by 'freedom' 'individualism' and 'privatisation.' Society has been privatised, atomized, broken in bits, bits that either sank or swam in the unstoppable tide of 'market forces.' Sink or swim. The strong versus the weak. All power to the winners and devil take the hindmost.

The irony of even the Conservatives talking about Britain as a 'broken society' when their policies were designed to break society up, the sheer hypocracy, can't be ignored, can it?

Yleinenmies
07 February 2009 at 10:38

John Pilger is a commercial product and he markets himself aggressively, and he is aware of this. Currently the easiest way to do that is to write articles, like the one published here, about the new president that everyone expects to correct at least some of the horrendous policies of his predecessor.

These "commercial" and "false guru" type of "journalists" like Pilger are very damaging to journalism in general. What they always do is that they present themselves as outside observers and gurus who know how things really are (in reality all issues are very complex) and attempt to gather a following among people who like to feel better than others.

We can also apply his "logic" to the past; surely not Al Gore would have done all the same mistakes as George Bush. It cannot simply be that the president doesn't matter.

This is not to say, however, that some controversial American policies will not continue, and that there will not be new issues to tackle. As I said before, in reality all issues are very complex - something these "alternative" journalists should keep in mind while marketing their "product".

JC3
07 February 2009 at 11:33

William Brett:

Gee I'm very sorry I'm making you tired. Perhaps you

need a coffee? But thanks for the heads up on the

correct spelling of 'grammar'. Funny though, I almost

feel berated by you. Hmm. I also notice that

thefreedictionary.com states that spelling grammar

with an ‘e’ is ‘a common misspelling’ so I don’t feel

too bad about it. And at least I got my capitals right

and made an effort with punctuation. By the way, this

is a comments page, not a blog. But that’s beside the

point. Why should comments pagers and bloggers

be exempt from making an effort with the language

being used? ‘Po-faced’ William Brett? How could you

possibly know what my facial expression is? And

while I'm at it it's interesting to note that you only

commented on the first half of my response to Mr

whatthe and not at all on the second half or on my

other posts. The second half of the whatthe response

post was much more substantial and relevant. Why

did you choose to attack me on only the first half

William Brett? Would it possibly be because I gave

you an easy angle with my misspell?

Why on earth should I give you my real name?

Hardly anyone else here uses their real name

[maybe no-one does. How do I know that's your real

name?]. Why do you treat me differently? As far as

what ruling structure I would like to be dominant well

... that's a good question. I don't know. I really don't

know. Sweden seems to be a pretty good place. How

about that? And Costa Rica doesn’t have an army so

that sounds promising.

Hercules
07 February 2009 at 11:58

Investigative and conscientious journalists like John are, unfortunately, few and far in between. To my mind , by the way,only politically ignorants won´t appreciate John´s excellent articles.

John I thank you from the bottom of my heart and look forward to reading your articles in the near future. And what goes your critics, just ignore them because they so few that they can be counted on one hand.

JC3
07 February 2009 at 11:59

a.m.r.:

"I feel I have more cause for fear from Russia and

Pakistan than I do from the US or Israel."

Oh my God where do I start. Are you Georgian? Is

that why you fear Russia? But then why would you

fear Pakistan which is so far away and, I assume,

does not have the capabilities to attack you.

Maybe it does though. But why would it? It's

actually more likely that you are American or

English or maybe Australian. In other words -

Western. Which explains why YOU don't fear the

United States. But what about those in the non-

western world? Don't their feelings count for as

much as yours?

I could go through the rest of your post but, quite

frankly, I don't see the point. You appear to have

been completely and utterly indoctrinated /

brainwashed by the, as good ole Carl Jones would

put it, NWO.

proudlyleft
07 February 2009 at 15:44

I do not agree with Pilger here; I feel he is expecting too much and too soon (as I wrote earlier). I also feel that Obama, or anyone else, cannot change too much, as power in USA is invested in some very invisible lobbies as well as a very visible market. But having said that, I have to add that cheap attacks on Pilger are deplorable. Pilger is a brave journalist; he is entitled to his perspectives and so are you, but that does not give YOU the right to call him names! And you know who YOU are!

voice
07 February 2009 at 16:08

Well done John, great article. It is surprising how

many who comment on this cannot see the wood for

the trees! Obama has surrounded himself with

Clinton's, that is Bill's coterie.

Holebrooke, Hillary, just to name two. His policies

cannot and will not stray far from Bill's.

As far as the Albanians on this thread are concerned.

Why is Kosovo now cleansed from all other minorities

whereas under those "terrible" Serbs there was room

for all of them?

Cut the mumbo jumbo. The KLA is a terrorist

organisation which has ethnically cleansed an

murdered Serbs, Gorani, Gypsies and even Albanians

who did not agree with their "final solution"! Stop

painting them as victims!

writeon
07 February 2009 at 17:34

Pilger doesn't expect too much from Obama. The point of his article is precisely this; that we shouldn't expect any, real, substantive, change at all; only a change of rhetoric, a change of style.

But it's wrong to regard this a reflecting cynicism. What it refects is knowledge and experience. Pilger has seen and heard it all before, many times. The slate is always being wiped clean, but the underlying slate remains solidly the same.

Nixon, forty years ago, was elected becuase he was perceived as the anti-vietnam war candidate, though it's hard to imagine today, and who even remembers? He promised the American people, "Peace with Honour." Yet he lied and kept the war going for years.

Jimmy Carter was elected on a platform of "hope" and "change" after the debacle of the Nixon years, rather like Obama in fact. Nixon, like Bush, lost support of the ruling elite and he was forced from office in disgrace, by something that increasingly looks like a coup organised by the military and the security services.

Presidents don't really change things one way or another in the United States, that is not their job. They couldn't even if they wanted to. They don't have the power. Presidents don't have real power, they administer political power for the powerful ruling elite; people who can elevate a man into the Whitehouse if he's useful, and emasculate or remove him, in the twinkling of an eye, when he's no longer useful. This pattern is repeated over and over again down the decades, president after president.

It's important not to get confused, or distracted by the democratic show. The entire charade resembles professonal wrestling. To understand the system one should see it for what it is, a form of fuedalism. Wealthy, aristocratic, business families, are in charge of everything that counts. They and their interests are the core. They are the paymasters. Around them revolves the state apparatus. It is split into two parts. The military and the political class.

writeon
07 February 2009 at 17:50

The aristocracy choose, sort, and vet, those candidates that the electorate are allowed to vote for. It's at this stage, before the elections, that the really important decissions are made. Both the major parties rely on a system of patronage and accommodating themselves to the interests of the rich and powerful, who, after all, pay for everything. Candidates that question the twin-party, business orientated structure, are banished from influence and the financial largesse of the leading families.

Politics becomes interesting only when there is disagreement withing the ranks of the ruling elite, as there was over Bush's foreign policy. It's important to remember that Bush was a child of the ruling aristocracy, a wayward prince, who reformed, and showed promise when he adopted his 'cowboy' persona. Then when things went wrong in Iraq and the US faced a disasterous military defeat, the wise men pulled the rug out from under him and he was effectively put on probation for the last two years of his reign.

Next time, things had to be very different. A new face was required, as far away from Bush the cowboy as one could possibly get. Step forward the unknown Obama figure, everything Bush wasn't. A mix of Martin Luther King, Kennedy and Lincoln. The more things change, the more they remain the same.

Carl Jones
07 February 2009 at 19:15

Yes, it looked like Klinton was a cert, but even I was fooled, as she was just the expeditionary force which pulled away to reveal Obama....the dark knight (no racial slur intended.

There seems to be a common response, which insinuates that Pilger expected too much....this is an utter untruth. Pilger expected NO CHANGE and a CONTINUATION of the NWO agenda, of course, Pilger didn`t use the term "NWO", more the pity.

All over Amerika, people are cleaning their guns and going tpo sleep with dreams of either popping a cap in Obama`s ass, or leading a full scale revolution.LOL

Carl Jones
07 February 2009 at 19:16

i might add....Joe Biden sounds like he`s the REAL president....how long?LOL

writeon
07 February 2009 at 19:22

Finally, one needs to drop most of the democratic model if one wants to understand American politics. Of course there are many splendid democratic traits in American society, but it's a fundamental mistake to believe that the United States is a democratic state, in the sense that the people rule and have the power.

The people are allowed a vote, but only for carefully selected candidates. The people, the citizens, most certainly don't have control over society, its wealth or political institutions, the state apparatus, the military or the business community. It's not that kind of democracy. On a basic level, the people have those democratic rights that money can buy in the market-place. The richer one is the more free one is.

The fundamental core of equality that must be the heart and basis of any true democracy is absent, in a society which structured like a pyramid based on wealth and power, which are grossly and obscenely mal-distributed.

The real model one should apply, isn't a democratic one at all. One has to remeber that democracy was only meant to apply to small, city-states, in the first place, not entire countries or empires.

The United States is more like Renaissance Italy controlled by super-rich and powerful family dynasties. Rather like the movie 'The Godfather' only on truly massive, continental, and imperial, scale. Only with the added complication in the United States that the system is supposed to be democratic, even though elite rule is the paramount characteristic of society.

What this means is that there is an extraordinary ammount of pretense, ritual and hypocracy involved in the political process, and crucially the control and manipulation of the people, to convince them, despite the witness of their own eyes and lives, that they do live in a democracy after all. This requires an enormous, expensive, and skilled propaganda apparatus, that follows the people from the cradle to the grave. Here ends the lesson!

jimdenham
07 February 2009 at 23:51

Pilger likes to quote Orwell: try this:

"...there is a minority of intellectual pacifists whose real though unadmitted motive appears to be hatred of western democracy and admiration for totalitariansim...pacifist literature abounds wih equivocal remarks which, if they mean anything, appear to mean that that statesmen of the type of Hitler are preferable to to those of the type of Churchill."

Hayward
08 February 2009 at 02:13

writeon,

Your post @1922 on 07/02/2009 sums it up exactly.

Summed up by Alexander Hamilton statementalong

the lines that...as much capital as possible should be

in the hands of the few rather than spread among the

many .

How did this come to be?

Alexander Hamilton was in charge of putting the new

Republic on a firm financial footing following the

success of the Revolution. He had suggested that the

new Republic’s government should reimburse the

securities it owed to those who fought at their full

price. When speculators heard of this, they bought

the securities from the fighters in the Revolution at a

fraction of their cost, knowing they would make a

good profit. This because most of the people and

families that had done the fighting needed cash to

restart/resume their businesses/farms/professions/

trades. There was much opposition to this, many in

the newly established Congress wanting a fairer

reimbursement for those who had actually done the

fighting. Much wheeling and dealing was carried out

on this and other matters which were to have long

term consequences for the new Republic. Two of the

most important were to do with slave holding and the

siting of the capital of the Republic in a swamp on the

banks of the Potomac, rather than in Philadelphia.

Both of these were to accommodate the slave

holding South to gain their vote. So the many people

and their families who fought , died and suffered for

the Revolution were short changed for the benefit of

the rich few.

Same as it ever was, to quote David Byrne. Look who

fought and died in the Viet Nam Farrago and does

now in the Iraq Fiasco and the Afghanistan Imbroglio.

The most recent and egregious examples of capital

being left in the hands of the few were the Savings

and Loan Affair of 1980s, the bailout of Long Term

Capital Management in the 1990s and now the Wall

Street Tsunami and the bailing out needed following

the swamping of financial markets. (cont)

Hayward
08 February 2009 at 02:35

writeon,

cont.

S&L“the largest & costliest venture in public

misfeasance, malfeasance & larceny of all time.”

Until the Wall Street Tsunami! The ultimate cost of

S&L is around US$150 billion, about $125

billion of which was directly subsidised by the US

government, really the taxpayer, & contributed to

the large budget deficits of the early 1990s. It hit the

many but not the rich few, including Neil Bush.

LTCM, 1998, lost $4.6 billion in less than four

months & became the most prominent example

what over leveraging can do. Until the Wall Street

Tsunami! The Federal Reserve Bank of NY

organised a $3.625 billion bailout by major

creditors to avoid a wider collapse in the financial

markets. In spite of this the fund folded in early 2000.

Why did the Fed step in? Then Chairman Alan

Greenspan to the Committee on Banking &

Financial Services, U.S. House of Representatives.

“..Had the failure of LTCM triggered the seizing up of

markets, substantial damage could have been

inflicted on many market participants, including some

not directly involved with the firm, and could have

potentially impaired the economies of many nations,

including our own...”

Chairman speak for the fact that many very rich

people (market participants) would lose their shirts

as would some banking & finance institutions.

Adding the threat to “the economies of many nations

including our own” was there to reassure the House

Committee that this was really the act of a patriot!.

In other words, the intervention prevented the market

from operating as it is supposed to according to all

the gung ho free marketeers. To put it bluntly the Fed

stepped in to stop the very rich from becoming very

poor. The very rich can become even richer with no

risk. For them there is no downside as they will be

bailed out by Governments or through government

intervention.

What Alexander Hamilton said in in the 1790s is still

very much in the minds of those who really control

the Republic.

sashko_1
08 February 2009 at 09:14

the true magnitude of most people's naivety truly astounds me, thank god there are people like John Pilger to educate those of us intelligent enough to understand the truth. Oh and to those defending the Kosovar Albanian mafia (ie present government in Kosovo-(not 'kosova')... we should not allow a criminal fiefdom to be created in the heart of Europe!!!!!

amanfromMars
08 February 2009 at 09:21

"...as much capital as possible should be in the hands of the few rather than spread among the many . " .... Hayward 08 February 2009 at 02:13

IT would work much better for Capitalists and SocioResponsible Capitalism if as much capital as possible should be in the hands of a Chosen Few for elaborate profligate spending among the many. ..... 42 Energise Intellectual Property Power Generation and Virtual OSSystems Controls for Transparent Administrations and Mirroring Satellite Operations and Applications.

Perhaps the Banking Sector needs to Consider Pioneering a Champion Using a Novel Service for Both Attracting and Spending Quantitively Eased Funds. Cascading Currency Flows for Power Potential Realised, Virtualised 4ITERated Drivers2

Hayward
08 February 2009 at 10:09

Martian,

I quoted Alexander Hamilton gave an account of

why it came about and some cogent comment on

why it appears to be "The same as it ever was"

Socioresponsible Capitalism, an oxymoron?

writeon
08 February 2009 at 12:50

What's Obama interested in? What I mean is, he's not exactly an expert in the field of economics, he doesn't seem all that knowledgable about foreign affairs, just to name two areas. Two areas which, today, for obvious reasons are of paramount importance to the United States.

OK, one can say that he's got a team of specialists around him givning him advice, but at times like these, is that a sign of strength or weakness?

It seems odd, that a politician that one knows so little about politically, someone who rejects 'ideology' in favour of something defined as 'pragmatism', someone with so little experience of government, someone without a record, could become president so easily and on such a flimsy platform. What do 'hope' and 'change' really mean? What about 'yes we can!' what does that mean? 'Yes, we can!' What?

It appears that what Obama was interested in, his area of expertise was in giving rousing speeches to large crowds, which is the easiest type of speech to make. He doesn't debate very well and he's not impressive in interviews.

I think, that despite all the hype surrounding him, all the hope, that he's simply completely out of his depth, coming from nowhere to lead an empire mired in its darkest and deepest crisis, both economic and military. At least that's how he strikes me. A 'pragmatist' without real political substance, an 'innocent' abroad in a very dangerous world, a bit like Jimmy Carter or Tony Blair.

amanfromMars
08 February 2009 at 15:14

"A 'pragmatist' without real political substance, an 'innocent' abroad in a very dangerous world, a bit like Jimmy Carter or Tony Blair."

writeon,

Are you saying that Tony Blair was a dupe for ten years, playing at leading the nation for Media pictures and stories?

Is that the very best that the nation can do, a puppet fawning for the camera and soundbite moment, like a love-forlorn fool?

And what of the military and intelligence units, what is their pathetic excuse for being asleep on duty.

Strewth, what a shambles. Who needs a bloody good dressing down for being so Negligent of Diligent Duty.

Who calls the shots?. Who gets all the praise also takes all the hits?

proudlyleft
08 February 2009 at 16:37

Sure the people do not 'rule' in USA. Half the time they do not even seem to rule in Denmark, which has only five million people, higher literacy and a better model of legislative representation. So, do we write off all of it!? I think it it time we on the left stop being such bloody purists and idealists: let us work with what works, and concede that it works (in USA or Denmark) and then change what needs to be changed by way of what CAN be changed...

writeon
08 February 2009 at 16:53

Martian,

I think Tony Blair adored the national and world stage, and enjoyed hearing the sound of his own voice. The leadership of the Labour Party was just a fantastic career opportunity, a once in lifetime, golden, chance to strike it rich. There's an awful lot of money in politics these days, probably because the last vestiges of democracy have been steadily squeezed out, at the same time as the states revenues and the economy has expanded enormously.

Gordon Brown actually ran the country as Chancellor. But Gordon didn't believe he was getting enough credit, whilst Tony struted around the world, Gordon toiled in the boiler-room. This was the root of their conflict - jealously versus ingratitude - almost like a marriage, the husband carves himself a glittering career, and the wife is left at home with the kids and the smelly nappies. Both of them were, of course, extraodinarily ambitious people aiming for the top. Politics had nothing to do with their estrangement. It was all about conceit, egotism, and the lust for power.

In our version of democracy we've seen a system emerge that gives enormous power, virtually unchecked, to the Prime Minister. In the British system, for centuries, and increasingly, the PM has become the centre of political power, a de facto monarch in all but name. Blair became, in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, more than a monarch, he became, in reality, a dictator. He used every bit of his considerable power, every fibre of his being, every trick in the book, every imaginable lie, exaggeration and distortion, to drag, force and cajole the country into an illegal war, in the service of his true master, where his true loyalty lies, the United States, where the real money is.

So he was, and still is, a traitor who did it for money. And now he's being talked about as serious contender for President of Europe, a man whose first loyalty is to the United States.

Oh, God. Sorry, the first rule is, don't get me started on Blair!

writeon
08 February 2009 at 17:23

Proudlyleft,

I don't think we should 'right off everything' at all. I like the idea and theory of democracy as a way of organising society. I just don't think 'democracy' is an accurate description of how our political system or society functions in practice. Because I don't think we actually live in democracy, it doesn't follow that I don't support the ideals of democracy, on the contrary.

The core of democracy isn't voting, it is the concept of citizenship and arguably equality. This may sound like a purist or theoretical discussion, but it isn't. It should be a programme to inject reality and politics into the entire system. Democracy is, among other things, about power and control in society. It isn't meant to be a passive, spectator sport, where people watch their elected representatives 'ruling.'

In reality, we live in a form of oligarchy and probably always have. Democracy is an ideal, almost a utopia, but one that we have striven to create for centuries and we've been reasonably successful in many respects. The people have a say, they have influence; they just don't have very much and certainly they don't have power.

It matters that the most democratic period in the West, for centuries, occurred in twenty-five year period from the early 1950's to the mid 1970's, and since then the level of participation in the democratic process has been reversed steadily.

The gap between the leaders and the people in our representative democracies has widened and widened, at the same time as the power of the executive has grown enormously, with virtual monarchs at the top of the political pyramid, the exact opposite of democracy.

I think we need far more democracy, if we are to deal with the substantial challenges we face, not less of it. Only we are moving in the opposite direction. The people have less and less influence and real power, and this is a problem, a practical problem, because power has arguably never been more concentrated in society,

writeon
08 February 2009 at 17:58

In essence Obama is an amateur, surrounded by professionals in a very dangerous world. What worries me about him, is that he doesn't seem particularly knowledgeble, or hasn't shown much interest in two vital areas; the economy and foreign affairs.

I think this is Big Problem, especially now, when the economy is on the edge of collapse and one has an incredibly expensive empire to maintain, and two colonial wars, in Iraq and Afghanistan, that are destabilising the entire region.

His lack of knowledge, inexperience and lack of interest, means he's out of his depth, and could easily become a 'prisoner' of his main advisors, people, unlike Obama, who have spent their lives in politics, and who all come from the establishment wing of the democratic party. Not one of them comes from the anti-war wing of the party, or those who were against the invasion of Iraq. None of them really have fresh ideas or fresh eyes. Basically, they are in opposition to Bush's policies, so much as his methods, his incompetence. This is what they mean by not being 'ideological' and 'pragmatic.'

For Obama's team Iraq wasn't a crime, it was a mistake, which is something very, very, different. Not really much change or ground for hope there. None of this bodes well for the future, probably more of the same, but with less counter-productive and needless excess, a new gloss on old, imperial policies.

The face of the emperor changes, the face of the empire remains the same.

Aly-Khan Satchu
08 February 2009 at 18:07

Dear John,

It is easy to be churlish about the President but surely it is politically naive to seriously expect, the President to challenge the jewish Lobby at this early juncture. There is a political landscape and he has to operate and within it. The delineation of the Islamic threat as coming from a 'network' was also important.

So I do feel it easy to beat the President but its a little unfair.

I think the conundrum for the President is this. It's the Economy stupid. The Republicans have smelt blood in this regard and know if they obstruct the Stimulus package [its undersized anyway], the real economy will continue to crater and The President will be left dangling in the wind and as helpless as Jimmy Carter was over Iran.

I think you might also be underestimating the degree that the Obama campaign was c21st in the way [new] media was leveraged to communicate with vast swathes of People directly. I suspect the President has a very strong headwind behind him and The Republicans will be broadsided.

This Presidency's success or failure will be all about the Economy. It is here that he needs to be his boldest, to keep Volcker close by and not forget that many of his Advisors were part of the problem.

With regard to the Middle East. I will ask you to consider the following

George Mitchell has been considered the most impartial of American Interlocutors, by the Palestinians. Mrs. Clinton might well be one of the few People who can lay down the law with the Israelis.

It surely becomes increasingly difficult to sustain the aid given to israel, in these tough economic times.

I think we should cut the President some slack here.

Aly-Khan Satchu

www.rich.co.ke

MickyQ
09 February 2009 at 00:26

I would argue that Israel is the most dangerous state in the World. Through infiltration at the highest levels in the UK and the US they control both politicians and the media. How else can one explain how once again (as in the Lebanon) they get away with the mass murder of so many innocent people without Universal condemnation. If they continue to deny they are state terrorists and mass murderers (we have all seen the pictures of the dead children), it may make one wonder – Holocaust, what holocaust – same deal!!

proudlyleft
09 February 2009 at 07:39

Writeon, I basically agree with you about the recent 'history' of democracy, though my take is perhaps more 'generous' than yours. But I think you under-estimate Obama when you call him an amateur with little knowledge of foreign affairs and economy. To some extent you are right: all politicians, being elected representatives, are basically amateurs in such areas, surrounded by professionals. But Obama is more aware than most: his relative silence in those two areas has to do with practical politics. For the moment, these two areas are minefields for any US president, and in any case it is easy to say do something than to suggest a foolproof step.

amanfromMars
09 February 2009 at 10:49

writeon,

I thoroughly enjoyed the immense common sense in 08 February 2009 at 16:53 and would not waste any time or effort in disagreeing unnecessarily.

Blair is a vainglorious non-entity for no one can ever believe and/or trust a traitor to queen and country and religion for the Love of Money and the Root of All Evil.

He's as a Worm in the System to be flushed out into the Sewers where he can feed the Rats. Do you think he thinks he is Rome's plant in the New World World Order.... a Colossus a'stride two land masses, XXXXtraordinary Influencing both?

Or would that be too much of a Psychological Flaw to be true even whenever Hubris confirms its Delusion Reality..... and ITs Naive SurReality?

amanfromMars
09 February 2009 at 11:10

And is anyone else having trouble posting to the "Interview: Charles Clarke" thread which doesn't appear to want to accept a posting for Change and Changes ..... http://amanfrommars.baywords.com/2009/02/09/090209/

A computer gremlin, New Statesman, or Operator Instruction/Subjective Indifference and Blinding Myopic Interference to Objective Opinion? Or even both, of course, is another nice excuse.

showboater29@aol.com
09 February 2009 at 11:12

Dear Mr Pilger.

Without people like you in this world people like me would still be ignorant of the all important truth. Thank you for all your courageous articles, those who criticise the work you do are a big part of why The Select Few get away with the hideous crimes against humanity that they do.

Wake up everybody!

Thanks again.

amanfromMars
09 February 2009 at 16:06

Aly-Khan Satchu [re 08 February 2009 at 18:07]

Why would one wait for Obama to get with Program whenever one can Virtual overwhelm the Markets with ZerodDay Phantom Trades which XXXXChange and dDeliver Intellectual Property Rights.

QuITe Perfect for Emerging Switched On Nations to Micro/MacroManage and at Zero Cost, and thus is everything Mutual Profit for Spending, rather than its Saving in Banks for their Reckless Free Gambling.

Camus
09 February 2009 at 16:26

This is a very wearying battle of the minds. amanfrom

etc: I really don't grasp what you mean. Showboater:

who are 'the select few'? Are we in some kind of

conspiracy theory track again? You or we get the

politicians we deserve because nobody in his/her

right mind would take on the job otherwise. That

being said, it is naive to have expected Obama to

change the world and downright illogical to then

blame him for NOT doing so!

a.m.r.
10 February 2009 at 00:27

What on earth ?

From the article : "At the time, 85 per cent of British voters favoured the policy and, given that the discounts on sale prices to long-term residents could be as high as 60 per cent, it seemed a rare example of the state offering something for nothing. But it was also a form of gerrymandering, as the effect of the policy was to break up the public housing estates that formed the basis of Labour Party mobilisation."

As well as seeming to regret, earlier in the article, that the working-class man has gained access to greater lines of credit than he had before, the author here objects to the fact that Thatcher's Conservative government enabled many working-class people to purchase their state-owned homes, something that as he points out had a very powerful democratic mandate.

Incredibly, the author objects to this because he sees it as gerry-mandering, breaking up one of Labour's constituencies. That is to say, he feels that the Conservative government should have gone against the peoples' will and instead acted partisanly in the interest of the opposition Labour party in order to maintain Labour's voting base (!). Unethical, and kind of absurd, surely.

(Maybe this is what New Labour had in mind when they felt the need to take on an extra 400,000+ government employees not long after coming into power : they were just reclaiming some lost votes.)

a.m.r.
10 February 2009 at 00:33

Apologies, previous post was written in reply to Peter Wilby's article at http://www.newstatesman.com/economy/2009/02/housing-societie... , and accidentally posted here.

writeon
10 February 2009 at 17:05

I think I've figured out what the Obama Whitehouse means by the word 'change.' Change = competence, compared Bush's gang who were considered incompetent custodians of the Empire's interests.

This central quality 'competence' is also linked at the hip with the idea of 'pragmatism.' Obama's policies are based on what works, plain and simple. Dumb wars like the one in Iraq are out, smart ones, like Afghanistan are in. Only one can loose a smart war just as easily as one can loose a dumb one. How one chooses to define a war, means nothing to the enemy who are fighting a simple war, everyone can uderstand, kick the foreign invaders out. Whilst we in the West don't really have any idea why we're in Afghanistan anymore, simple or not.

Domestically Obama is also on very shaking ground. Competence and pragmatism, doesn't actually mean very much 'change' at all, not compared to the economic challenges one faces. A kinder, gentler, version of Bush's policies just won't work, domestically or internationally.

JL
10 February 2009 at 19:59

Absolute bollocks.

antonio.napoli
10 February 2009 at 23:00

Hallo,

my name is Antonio.

I agree with John Pilger that modern media are doing propaganda and not providing information.

BBC is by the way, among the institutional media, one of the best. I am Italian, and for me BBC, compared to the current media in Italy, it resembles the ideal way to provide information.

About Obama.

You are right when you complain about his first acts.

Complaining and protests are fundamental for a health democracy.

But, please do not forget that if Obama acted as he wanted, he would be assassinated immediately.

In my opinion, he is a very honest and intelligent man, and he proved that during his whole life. So please do no judge him for two weeks...

Obama cannot and is not allowed to rapidly bring dramatic changes in the US society, which is too conservative, ignorant and selfish. He needs first to prepare his way. It is hard to say, but this is the point.

Moreover, you should have understood that Obama won and he is supported only because the US establishment needed him (for example they needed him and his high-level collaborator to solve the current financial problems). The day they will not need him any longer they will put him aside, by employing all the possible means.

JFK did not get such a nice judgment by M.L. King until the beginning 1963. Only that year MLK started appreciating the man JFK. That year the president Kennedy was barbarously assassinated in Dallas, few weeks before he decided to withdraw the troop from the Vietnam.

After his death, L. johnson moved forward to really start the war in South Asia.

This is the difference between a great man (JFK, Obama) and puppets in the hands of the corporatocracy (Johnson, Bush, etc.). This is what you should point out, at least as a hope, in your next article.

your sincerely,

Antonio

Fred Preuss
11 February 2009 at 03:33

Pilger-still not nearly as interesting as Wilfred Burchett.

max caulfield
11 February 2009 at 06:37

An earlier poster (writeon 10 Feb 2009 17:05) is right that Obama's change is to be set against the country's, probably the world's too, perception of the "incompetent custodians of the Empire's interests".

And given that a lot of rejections, revulsions, even convulsions associated with his predecessor's administration are self-inflicted own goals in terms of how its works are being negatively depicted in the mainstream opinion manufactory, it would be indicative of the prevalent mindset of the electorate to which the new Whitehouse occupant has strived, and very successfully, tapped into. The "change" they are sold on is nothing like radical to begin with; probably in truth they are not really fundamentally against the reported excesses, domestic or foreign, as long as their ways of living are maintained, or not ar risk of being compromised.

What they could not bring themselves to reconcile with, I would suggest, is the perception, regardless of sources, of being placed in opposition to ambigious concepts of righteousness and morality; they simply do not want to be the baddie and then have the reputation stick. And Obama's campaign rhetoric seemed to be delivering them from their emotional purgatory. No doubt now an on-side mediaspeak would be reinforcing the message to the point that his non-dumb war(s) would be free from much of the previous negativity regardless of actual military and political results.

Stripped of words which is misleading in many an instance, one is simply dealing with a winner's mindset.

max caulfield
11 February 2009 at 07:01

For reflections, it would do to keep in mind how history is being taught in classrooms. Of course in western societies one is largely exempt from undiluted propaganda glorifying say the founding of so and so worker's paradise. But the words in use in standard textbooks do have subjective meanings and connotations. For the majority who are also the beneficiary (I try not to be sarcastic here) of continual fact manufacture by semi-official news outlets, their world views, insofar theirs could be said to be such, would continue to be of the orthodox; they simply could not, and would not if presented with hard choices (no one in their right mind would for that matter) contemplate being without the material advantage of the orthodox.

What then passes as human-ness would pose interesting questions seen in this light. How far and how exhaustive should one go to be true in this respect, or to be answering that void that seems to be speaking to us. Of course the power of language, with the built-in quality of agreed common consent and purpose, that reinforces our own meaning would be over where the real battle seems to be joined.

Claddach
11 February 2009 at 12:03

No Fred Preuss, Pilger is not as entertaining as Wilfred Burchett. Probably the nearest journalistic comparison to Pilger for amusement, histrionics, hyperbole and downright craziness would be Julius Streicher. Although Pilger does have more hair and a better tan.

writeon
11 February 2009 at 12:17

Seen from a UK perspective, Obama is a Conservative. Why is this fact ignored by the UK media? Why is he portrayed as something else? Arguably he's to the right, (on most important issues), of David Cameron. But maybe this is irrelevant, in the same way that Bill Clinton was a conservative on almost every issue. Why do centres of power in the UK continually portray Democrats as being more liberal/left-wing than they really are, at least from a UK perspecitve?

For example, Obama supports the death penalty, even though we know emperically, how racially biased the applicaition of the death sentence is, in the United States. I've mentioned this fact to a number of people in the UK and they are more than surprised to hear that he is a vocal supporter of the death penalty.

Obama's economic policies, his perspective, is thouroughly conservative. He is, after all, a Chicago boy and a believer in the Washington, neo-liberal, concensus; which has destroyed so much and led us to the very brink of economic collapse.

His foreign policy is deeply conservative, only his tone and rhetoric is milder, less strident than Bush's. The central issue, the US support for Israel against the Palestinians, is indistinguishable from Bush's. He is, if anything, even more dedicated to putting Israel's interests first.

So those who believe that there is going to be substantive change, are in for a rude, and sad, awakening.

musafir
11 February 2009 at 16:34

For those of us who supported his campaign, the signs began to appear soon after he won the nomination. He backed off from his earlier position on various issues. Yet we voted for him because of our visceral distaste for the Republicans.

We must face the fact no president -- Democrat or Republican -- will do anything to change the relationship that exists between America and Israel.

The AIPAC's influence is pervasive.

So, for a brief period we saw, or thought we saw, a

streak of blue among the dark clouds. Not even a month after the inauguration of Obama, it has become clear that the "change" he talked about is not what we hoped for. The system is corrupt and Obama is proving to be a creature of the system.

proudlyleft
12 February 2009 at 07:19

No, Afghanistan is not a 'smart war'. Give Obama and his team some credit: they know more than that. No war in Afghanistan can be 'smart': it is a perennial 'Vietnam', as British colonizers discovered two centuries ago, and the Spviets did more recently. It is a difficult terrain, inhabited by peoples with a warlike code and incredible personal loyalties at times, and now it does not even have any economic attraction (apart from illegal ones). Afghanistan can never be a smart war: it is a very dangerous one. But it is a necessary war, to the extent that any war can be necessary. It is necessary not only to combat Islamic militantism (please note: I says Islamic militantism, which is socio-political aggression, not fundamentalism, which is a matter of belief) but also to restore some kind of law, order and civic life in a region that has been serious fxxxed up by Western powers, starting with colonial Britain, via the Soviet Union to Bush's USA.

proudlyleft
12 February 2009 at 07:25

And much as I sympathise with the Palestinian people and dislike the Zionist aspects of Israeli politi, I must add that Israel (or USA, Obama or not) can hardly be expected to hand them a Palestinian state on a platter if the Palestinian leaders and parties cannot even get their own act together and stop fighting each other! Palestine has a chance not only if Israel and USA change their policies, but PRIMARILY if Palestinian politicians start co-operating with each other and change their own policies to a more PRAGMATIC and DEMOCRATIC one. Firing haphazard rockets into Israel is the act of a juvenile delinquent.

writeon
12 February 2009 at 08:13

Why is the United States at war anyway? I think the core problem its total and unquestioning support of Isrrael. Increasingly Muslim radicals see this as one, big, conflict. This has profound consequences.

Is it in the interests of the United States to be identified with Israel to such an extraordinary degree? Are the interests of the United States and Israel the same?

Carl Jones
12 February 2009 at 19:56

writeon, the US has spent over $3 trillion in Iraq/Afghanistan. As I have said before, this has been financed by debt...imagine if this money hadn`t been spent????? Just imagine the state of the US economy today, if this money hadn`t been spent????

War has kept the US economy afloat...just afloat. This financial crisis is just one of several stepping stones to hell.

Global food production is tumbling, currency devaluation is coming soon, the Dollar will either collapse, or the US will hyperinflate, maybe both.

As people slip into survival mode, the nuances of the FC will slide onto the back burner.

BTW, you should watch this video, "7/7 Ripple Effect" on google, its about an hour long, but well worth it. :)

writeon
12 February 2009 at 22:58

The war in Afghanistan is lost. Just like in Iraq. We cannot impose our will on countries and people who reject our authority and right to impose our will on them.

The tragedy is, the conflict in Afghanistan is spreading into, and destabilizing Pakistan too. This is a truly terrible prospect for the West; yet another defeat on the horizon. Will we ever learn? First we are fought to a standstill in Iraq, so we 'negotiate' a ceasefire. Then we get into a terrible mess in Afghanistan which is drawing us into conflict with Pakistan.

In Afghanistan we'd need another half a million men to have any chance of 'winning' whatever that really means? Pakistain has a population many times that of Afghanistan, are will really going to take them on as well? Our leaders are knaves, and what's worse, they are fools, leading us towards a criminal blunder of truly historic dimensions - a long and protracted, and unwinable land-war in Asia.

lavinia moore
13 February 2009 at 04:33

It seems that too many people are still seeking that mythical leader/father christmas/ god who will solve all the problems of the world and save them from having to use their own brains to think through the issues themselves.

Obama will fail. At something.

he will sometimes forget that he promised to be inclusive.

He will fail to realise that the rest of the world does not always view the USA as the saviour of mankind- or conversely the destroyer of the world.

Americans are like citizns of all nation states. Intelligent and not, aware and not, right/left wing etc etc.

What the citizens of america, and we in the rest of the world need to do is to realise that we cannot always blame everyone else for the troubles of the world if we persist in saying nothing or doing nothing about those wrongs.

If you did not speak up or act to prevent the war in Iraq, if you thought it was alright for CEOs to earn millions in bonuses while some workers were paid peanuts, if you think it is ok to throw people out of work so your company can make bigger profits, or that university education should be only for the elite or the rich....

get it?

the system is not one person.

Obama is part of the American system.

He needs challenging and confronting as we all do when our thinking is not consistent with our own wellbeing, and that of our fellow human beings.

So dont worship Obama. Speak out to him. Disgree with him when that is necessary. And criticise him when you believe he is acting wrongly.

Yes he can-fail and yes he can succeed. A loyt of that will depend on the honesty and courage of those who advise him, and those of us who observe him and care enough to speak up and act.

Gideon Polya
15 February 2009 at 04:59

Excellent article by John Pilger.

I agree that "the "man of change" is, in fact, changing very little".

This is well illustrated by Obama's "business as usual attitude" to the continuing, illegal and highly abusive Israeli occupation of the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

Horrendous mortality and morbidity in Apartheid Israel’s latest Gaza Massacre have been revealed by the paper “The Wounds of Gaza” just published in the prestigious medical journal The Lancet – 1,350 killed (60% children) and 5,450 severely wounded (40% children) in what the Catholic Church describes as Israel’s “Gaza concentration camp” in reprisals for zero (0) Israeli deaths from Gaza rockets in the preceding year (see: http://www.thelancetglobalhealthnetwork.com/archives/608 ).

According to The Lancet: “Over the period of 27 December 2008 to the ceasefire of 18 Jan 2009, it was estimated that a million and a half tons of explosives were dropped on Gaza Strip. Gaza is 25 miles by 5 miles and home to 1.5 million people. This makes it the most crowded area in the whole world. Prior to this Gaza has been completely blockaded and starved for 50 days. In fact since the Palestinian election Gaza has been under total or partial blockade for several years.”

These continuing Apartheid Israeli war crimes demand International Criminal Court and intra-national prosecutions (e.g. in major Israeli military R & R destination countries, notably Australia, the US, the UK and India) and Sanctions and Boycotts against Apartheid Israel and its backers by all decent people around the world.

Unfortunately Obama has clearly taken justice for the Occupied Palestinians off the table. Yet a minimal interim solution can be implemented tomorrow by the UN replacing Israeli forces in the OPT within the Internationally agreed 1967 borders coupled with UN and US guarantees of total airport level security for Israel.

What can you expect of man who ignores the horrors of the 1.1 million dead Kenyan Holocaust ?

MK
04 March 2009 at 03:04

John Pilger is a master of the Chomskian rant. Is Israel really the world's most dangerous state? Really? I don't support Israel's policies towards the Palestinians but Pilger is so condescending towards them. Does he give them any responsibility, hence power to do anything about their own problems. I think not and this is deeply ironic and a form of inverted racism as you blanket the people you are supposedly defending. I at least agree with Pilger on Netanyahu but he is so caught up in 'American power' and 'western imperialism'. The world is dialectic, isn't Marxism meant to teach one that? Instead, Pilger presents a completely stupid view of history...that it is a one way street where the West projects it's fantasies onto the the rest of the world. It's a typical Said fallacy and so simplistic and wrong it is annoying. This article has no nuance, just generalisation after generalisation and yes...I am probably a Stalinist and living proof of the manufacturing consent thesis since I don't agree with Pilger and Chomsky...just like Vaclav Haval