|
Writers Articles And Opinions |
|
|
01 October 2010 By Reason Wafawarova
IT is very easy for us all to put aside the
disquieting thoughts brought about by the vociferous
leftist voices inspired by Karl Marx and Engels from
centuries ago, and to equally dismiss the tin foil hat
crowd that produces volumes and volumes of conspiracy
theories with such self-proclaimed importance that
they even declare emphatically that Dubya (George W
Bush) and Cheney were the real War Lords behind
September 11, 2001.
Marxists can be dismissed easily as failed
communists while the conspiracy theorists can be
dismissed with easy as hate-filled Islamic
fundamentalists bent on destroying the civilised
world. That is the prevailing right wing rhetoric.
This writer will assert that some theories
dismissed easily as the baseless work of the tin foil
hat crowd of conspiracists are not as baseless, and
they do stand on solid legs. It is one such theory
that we will look at this week.
One theory that has been pushed forward is that the
US government by its design and nature is presided
over by a chief executive who is employed by the rich
folk, and that this is the whole essence of capitalist
democracy.
We did see the rich folk voting for Barrack Obama
in 2008, or at least we are sure of their funding of
his presidential race campaign.
These rich elites included among many others,
Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, George Soros and Donald
Trump.
The Democrats are supposed to be for income
redistribution, higher taxes, welfare based policies
and pro-poor governance. The question is why elites
would ever back a presidential candidate from the
Democrats, or think of funding the party itself.
Some argue that this is to ensure stability as
elites seek to pacify leaders from the Democrats
through funding and bribery, while others argue that
the Democrats have in fact moved so much to the right
that they are as good as the Republicans, only better
in that they can still fool the poor masses into
believing that they still have some measure of
representation from politicians.
Elitism is about protecting self interests and the
rich will only want to be richer and exclusive
regardless of whatever amount of wealth they
accumulate. So when Obama secures the support of these
rich folks it must always be seen in the capitalist
theory of self-interest and selfishness as the driving
forces behind capitalist survival.
The self-interest and selfishness on Barrack
Obama’s part is the lofty and now acquired desire to
get down into history as the "first black president"
of the United States of America, a reality we all know
has been distorted by near-global consensus.
There is no biological logic or evidence to suggest
that Obama is blacker than he is white and any serious
thinking person knows that. In fact, Obama was
fathered by a black man, and he was mothered, nurtured
and socialised by a white woman.
This does not matter in this essay. Obama is black
by paternal ancestry and that of course makes him
black enough to make history on behalf of all blacks,
as the rhetoric currently dictates.
George Soros vowed in 2004 that he was prepared to
lose all his wealth in ensuring that George W. Bush
was out of power. This was because Bush was such a
hopeless actor for his role as the voice fronting the
rich folk, disguised as a people’s president; so much
that his lack of convincing acting capabilities was
just a disaster for the public relations gurus that
often handle US presidents, as it also undermined the
propaganda machinery of capitalist democracy.
The same year Soros met Barrack Obama and did a
fundraiser that helped Obama on his way to become a
Senator for Illinois.
In 2006, George Soros met Barrack Obama in his New
York offices when the later was laying his groundwork
for his eventual run for the presidency.
The Republicans got wind of this and accused George
Soros of being the employer of Barrack Obama, and
perhaps they were very right on this one.
Barrack Obama has twice extended the illegal
sanctions regime on Zimbabwe since he assumed office
and the advocates and backers of this draconian action
are the various human rights civic groups operating in
Zimbabwe. They are about all funded by the Human
Rights Watch, directly or indirectly.
Obama receives reports on the human rights record
in Zimbabwe directly from these groups and sometimes
through the Human Rights Watch itself. It is on the
basis of these reports that Obama recently said he was
"heartbroken" over Zimbabwe, and it is on the same
basis that Obama has so far twice extended the
sanctions regime on Zimbabwe.
George Soros funds solely and directly over 80
civic organisations and among these are Free Press and
Human Rights Watch.
So we have a situation where Obama is catapulted to
be the Illinois Senator by George Soros in 2004,
before meeting the same Soros in 2006 to prepare for
his ascendancy to the presidency of the United States.
Then we had Soros and other rich elites openly
funding Obama’s campaign in 2008 and eventually
Barrack Obama became the United States President.
Once in office, we can only make an educated guess
that Soros meets and talks with Obama. Obama’s White
House suddenly becomes the reporting office for the
civic groups funded by George Soros and what they
report goes as American foreign policy at once. It all
adds up very easily does it not?
So this Zimbabwean delegation on the drive to have
the illegal sanctions lifted were met last week by a
junior officer in the US State Department, Susan Page,
and she forthrightly declared that the illegal
sanctions will remain, without even pretending to go
back to Obama for consultation.
This is because neither Page nor Obama have a say
in this. The Employer cannot and could not meet the
Zimbabweans but gave his clear instructions on the
matter and the message was delivered. There was no
need to play diplomatic protocols and all — it’s all
pre-determined by the employer.
Who in this case employs Barrack Obama? Is it the
people of the United States of America or George Soros?
Do ordinary American citizens prefer illegal sanctions
on Zimbabwe? Dear reader, meet Barrack Obama’s
employer.
Let us move back to the eighties and see what was
happening with the Reagan administration then. With
regard to the political system that sustains
imperialism, the Reagan era represents an outstanding
image of capitalist democracy.
For the eight years Ronald Reagan was in power it
was apparent to all serious thinking people that the
US government functioned virtually without a chief
executive. It is quite unfair to assign to Ronald
Reagan, the person, much responsibility for the
policies enacted in his name.
It is like blaming Barrack Obama, the person, for
the policy of extending the illegal sanctions regime
on Zimbabwe, or the continued operation of the torture
base Guantanamo Bay.
Despite the efforts of the educated classes to
invest the proceedings with the required dignity, it
was hardly a secret that Reagan had only the vaguest
conception of the policies of his Administration and,
if not properly programmed by his staff, he regularly
produced statements that would have been an
embarrassment, if it were not for the fact that no one
really took Reagan’s stage antics seriously.
It is doubtful Barrack Obama has the vaguest idea
of why Guantanamo Bay cannot be closed, there is no
evidence he is convinced of that logic. It is a policy
that he needs to articulate on behalf of those who own
it, and not on his own behalf. We all know that his
personal policy on the matter is to have that torture
centre completely dysfunctional by next month.
That is what Obama promised the world on 20 January
2009 when he assumed office. He said Guantanamo would
be history by October 2010, and of course now he reads
a different script provided to him by those who rule
America and employ him to front their cause.
For Reagan, the question that dominated the
Iran-Contra hearings on whether he knew or remembered
the policy of his Administration was hardly a serious
one.
Reagan’s duty was to smile (Obama does a great deal
of this), to read from the teleprompter in a pleasant
voice, tell a few jokes, and keep the audience
properly bemused. Ronald Reagan only qualified for the
presidency because he knew how to read the lines
written for him by the rich folk, who pay very well
for that kind of service.
Obama is an excellent orator of the same lines and
he seems to perform not only to the satisfaction of
his employer but also that of the audience he is
employed to mislead.
Reagan was a seasoned actor by profession and he
was a good performer who enjoyed the experience that
came with his duties. He spent many pleasant days
enjoying the pomp and trappings of power and should
have had a fine time in retirement before death took
over proceedings.
It was not really Reagan’s business if his
employers left mounds of mutilated corpses in death
squad dumping grounds in El-Salvador or hundreds of
thousands of homeless in the streets. One does not
blame an actor for the content of the words that come
from his mouth. The words belong to the employer and
not even to the script writer.
Reagan was a construction of a symbolic figure by
the public relations industry and as such he helped
solve the critical problems that must be faced in any
society that combines concentrated power with formal
mechanisms that in theory allow the general public to
take part in running their own affairs, thus posing a
threat to privilege.
Capitalist democracy will always ensure that the
unimportant people are taught to submit with due
humility, and the crafting of a figure larger than
life is a classic device to achieve this end.
The strategy is to distance the leader from the
public while creating a legend that says he is a being
of a different order from mere men, a leader shrouded
in mystery; that leaves the secrets of government,
which are not the affair of the vulgar and the
inquisitive — to those entitled by the system to
manage them.
The Obama mystery is quite useful for his employer
actually. Here is a man sold to the public as a far
thinking visionary who is a compendium of uprightness,
fairness, hard work and uttermost achievement. People
often fall in love with such illusions.
The founding fathers of the United States are
recorded as "above the level of mankind" and as being
of "unparalleled perfection" and so on. Such reverence
persists notably among intellectual elites today, and
leaders often ascend to semi-divinity among loyal
worshippers, and may be described as "a Promethean
figure" with "colossal external strength" and
"colossal powers" as the Israeli Prime Minister Golda
Meir was once described by New Republic editor and
owner, Martin Peretz.
Frank Delano Roosevelt was described is such lofty
superlatives with an exclusive aura of sanctity from
intellectuals who worship at the shrine. That was
despite his grand style secret love affair with Lucy
Mercer and his rather poor record on economic reforms
and civil rights.
Try as they might, the spinners of fantasy could
not do much to elevate George W Bush and Ronald
Reagan, and largely that was the case with George Bush
Senior too. Reagan was a good actor but the elevation
still failed, due to his ruthless misadventures in
Central America.
The Bushes were absolutely hopeless in carrying
themselves as larger than life characters that the
employer wanted them to be.
The greater goal of Western democracy is to
eliminate public meddling in policy formation and that
has been achieved well in the US where there is very
little by way of independent political organisation,
functioning worker’s unions, media independent of the
oligopoly, or other popular structures that might
offer people means to gain information, clarify and
develop their own ideas, or work to realise them.
Formal freedom in the West poses no threat to
privilege for as long as each individual is facing the
television screen all by themselves, or just as
families. The Television itself is the primary tool of
thought control and the elites are too happy for the
people to watch it endlessly.
One major step towards barring the annoying public
from serious affairs is to reduce elections to the
choice of symbolic figures, like the flag, or the
Queen of England — who, after all, opens Parliament by
reading the government political program, though no
one is allowed to ask her whether she believes it, or
even understands it.
We have seen with the Obama era that the
indoctrination system must perform its tasks properly,
investing the leader with majesty and authority and
manufacturing the illusions necessary to keep the
public in thrall — or at least otherwise occupied.
We have seen the rhapsodising over the popularity
of the august figure selected to preside over the
White House from African ancestry, so to speak.
So we Zimbabweans must accept the repeated
sanctions decrees from Barrack Obama as part of the
popularity of this larger than life character created
by the money from George Soros and his mates from the
class of the elites.
We must by definition believe that Obama can on one
hand decree annual measures of ruinous sanctions on
the masses of Zimbabwe, and on the other carry a
broken heart over the suffering of the same people.
It is shocking that people miss this irony.
Zimbabwe we are one and together we will
overcome. It is homeland or death!
Reason Wafawarova is a political writer and can
be contacted on
wafawarova@yahoo.co.uk or reason@rwafa warova.com
or visit
www.rwafawarova.com
EsinIslam.Com
|
Save
Add Comments To This Story