Friends,

Happy New Year!

I hope things are looking up for 2009. For some reason, I feel pretty optimistic even though those ominous dark clouds are still on the horizon, the same ones that began to appear in 2001. But I promise you I won't be waving any flags on the eve of Obama's inauguration in the hopes that the winds of "change" will blow them away.

Sorry for sending such a long email, but I've been writing this rant below now for over a month, because I was tired of hearing the Obama rhetoric, and I am really tired of the narrow framework for debating the context of Mr. Change, while ignoring an historic analysis of the American Empire, a freight train that is not stopping anytime soon. I've included dozens of interesting links below.

Before the collective sigh following McCain's defeat, a lot of people got involved in political debates and thinking about collective responsibility to some degree. But I fear an Obama administration because it certainly means a return to the more sophisticated Clinton era "soft" imperialism and a reaffirmation of the neo-liberal economic violence that destroyed hundreds of thousands of lives both in Central America and at home, for example.

The last thing that has to happen right now is to believe that the US Empire is benevolent, or that Obama will change anything substantial in this regard. In fact, he is dangerous because I fear that his "hope" and "change" rhetoric on Afghanistan, Iran, Israel, and the environment, for example, could go unchallenged by his supporters; not to mention a retreat into an apolitical hangover after his inauguration at precisely the time when we are in a state of global crisis.

His interests are not our interests, no matter the millions of dollars worth of propaganda spent convincing us otherwise, or the Soviet-style propaganda posters of the great leader plastered on street signs throughout the country. What's next? A crafty and "ironic" bronze statue in every major city?

Now is not the time to rally around the flag, any flag. Or for that matter, any leader, and certainly not one representing the corporate-military-industrial complex, whether by choice or political expedience.

To quote Emma Goldman, "Patriotism is a superstition artificially created and maintained through a network of lies and falsehoods; a superstition that robs man of his self-respect and dignity, and increases his arrogance and conceit."

I wrote down some things on all of this below. Perhaps you may find something interesting.

Take care of yourselves this year.

For a more sane future,

Chris

Some thoughts on Obama and the US Empire

Bottomline: Industrial capitalism with its lack of environmental and human ethics, and in combination with the nation state, will continue to destroy the planet, destroy countless human lives, and drive the rate of species extinction beyond the current 50,000 per year, a rate unprecedented in geological history (i.e. an 'ecocide'). Corporate power will remain un-changed as the US empire marches onwards towards more death and destruction, unless we radically change our trajectory.

Now, what again is so special about Obama? I suppose if I have to answer that; the only real answer for me is that McCain didn't win, and given a choice between TB and cancer (Nader's line), people chose the best they could. Lets not forget that corporations run this government, not citizens. Period. It's a slow motion coup de`etat.

For me, the national vote in the US, in the context of an insane business class waging a vicious class warfare campaign, is itself just a facade that allows the real owners of this society to present to us a "choice" in who will rule over us. It is a cynical farce in which we participate, where we are simply choosing which faction of the business party will steer the US corporate empire towards its hegemonic goals, while paying lip service to "our" democracy; lip service that is indeed seductive when we live under the thumb of neo-conservatives or neo-liberals, and within an authoritarian fear-based culture.

If any candidate actually ran for office based on policies supported by the majority of the public (universal healthcare, support of labor rights, free education, harsh sentences for polluters and white collar crime, anti-interventionist, etc) and not the financial sector, they would never get elected. Any campaign rhetoric that suggests otherwise is the result of a sophisticated and expensive advertising campaign. The constituency represented by the two parties are the financial top 5%.

No doubt Obama's victory is a victory in rejecting 8 years of the "Bush Doctrine". But his victory is only meaningful if he actually reverses the damage done, and I seriously doubt he will reverse anything but a small percentage of the most egregious violations, if that, precisely because the democrats supported a large majority of Bush's policies, the spineless rats that they are.

His victory is a hurdle which has been overcome in the 40+ years of the civil rights movement, and no doubt it will inspire a lot of people of color, and young people of all backgrounds, to create a new vision of equality on many levels we may not even see yet (especially when their enthusiasm confronts the reality of US power with Obama at its head). The symbolism is huge, and not to be dismissed in this culture, even if institutional racism and bigotry is alive and well.

And I believe Obama will support movements that address some cultural issues in the US (if forced to), but will stay far away from even mild structural adjustments of the capitalist system itself (rolling back NAFTA, a return to a real progressive tax, reinstating the glass-steagall act that the Clinton administration removed, and a return to real regulation of capital, for example). At the end of the day, this is about political and economic analysis, not just about the symbolism of Obama's victory.

So, I think we need to set our feet squarely on terra firma and engage reality; namely, that the US empire is an extraordinary violent institution, run by an elite power structure that will stop at nothing to dominate the resources of this planet. It is a kleptocracy of enormous proportions (think John Perkins, "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" / Bernard Madoff / Blind support of Israel) and Obama has been vetted and allowed to participate in the elections by the business class, precisely because he will not fundamentally change anything. Nearly 1.5 million dead in Iraq since Bush I, via Clinton (think Madeline "the price is worth it" Albright), represents the trail of blood visible to anyone that will open their eyes. Remember, this guy is a conservative, but in a right-wing culture like the US, his image is that of an FDR liberal.

Quoting economist Michael Hudson in his recent article, "The Neo-Yeltsin Administration? The Obama Letdown":

"Obama is looking more like Boris Yeltsin – a political umbrella for the kleptocrats to whom the public domain and decades of public wealth were given with no quid pro quo. This is not what most people hoped for. But their hopes were so strong that it was easier to indulge in happy dreams and put one’s faith in a prince than to look at the systemic problems that need to be restructured in order for real change to occur. Individuals do not determine who owes what to whom, who is employed by whom or what laws govern their work and investment. Institutional economic and political structures are the key. And somehow the focus has been on the politics of personalities, not on the economic forces at work." (http://www.counterpunch.org/hudson11262008.html)

I recommend the following inteview with Dr. Michael Hudson done by Bonnie Faulkner on Pacifica radio's KPFA explaining how tax burdens are shifted off the wealthy and placed on workers. He also details what is essentially the new face of class warfare in the financial sector, including the latest scams that resulted in the recent crisis:

http://www.kpfa.org/cgi-bin/gen-mpegurl.m3u?server=aud1.kpfa.org&port=80&file=dummy.m3u&mount=/data/20081112-Wed1300.mp3

And contrary to what Obama says, the US has no intention of leaving Iraq (military bases are the Empires signature). Sadly, Obama is surrounding himself by Clinton era war criminals, and hawkish militarists like Rahm Emanuel. Read Alexander Cockburn's analysis here:

http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn11072008.html

And read Jeremy Scahill's recent article called "This Is Change? 20 Hawks, Clintonites and Neocons to Watch for in Obama's White House" at Alternet.org:

http://www.alternet.org/audits/107666/this_is_change_20_hawks%2C_clintonites_and_neocons_to_watch_for_in_obama%27s_white_house/

And don't miss Jeremy's latest article, "Not One Anti-War Voice, Obama's Kettle of Hawks":

http://www.counterpunch.org/scahill12022008.html

Lets take just one example of so-called 'hope' and 'change' in the form of Lawrence Summers, appointed by Obama to Director of the National Economic Council, a position inside the White House. From a recent article by By Damien Millet and Eric Toussaint (http://www.counterpunch.org/millet12012008.html), listen to a small sample of this mans legacy:

"In December 1991, when he was the World Bank’s chief economist, Summers went so far as to write in an internal note: The under-populated countries of Africa are largely under-polluted. Their air quality is unnecessarily good compared to Los Angeles or Mexico (...) There needs to be greater migration of pollutant industries towards the least developed countries (...) and greater concern about a factor increasing the risk of prostate cancer in a country where people live long enough to get the disease, than in a country where 200 children per thousand die before the age of five.[1] He even adds, still in 1991: There are no limits on the planet's capacity for absorption likely to hold us back in the foreseeable future. The danger of an apocalypse due to global warming or anything else is non-existent. The idea that the world is heading into the abyss is profoundly wrong. The idea that we should place limits on growth because of natural limitations is a serious error; indeed, the social cost of such an error would be enormous if ever it were to be acted upon.[2]" And while at Harvard in 2005, "Asked why there are so few women in senior positions in the scientific field he claimed that women are naturally less gifted for scientific studies than men and swept aside possible explanations based on family or social background, or on discrimination."

These people are insane. This culture is insane.

But what I am seeing is inspiring up to a point: people who have never been politically active became engaged. This is a good thing, but there is a sense that people are equating their admiration for Obama with an admiration of the US empire (obviously not using that word). Confusing Obama's personality with the structural goals of the empire is dangerous. Just because some may like aspects of Obama should not blind us to the crimes against humanity that this system is routinely engaged in.

Taking a cue from John Pilger, we should filter what enthusiasm we may have for Obama through those families and children in Afghanistan who were recently bombed by the US military (why do they always bomb weddings, funerals, and children’s soccer games?), especially as Obama talks about expanding those crimes there, supporting the farcical defense-company-sponsored-ad-campaign known as the "global war on terror".

But, Obama does appear to be a reasonably thoughtful guy, especially in comparison to other politicians in his position of power, but we can't forget that the real forces that run this society are deep and structural, and we shouldn't be fooled by slick, well educated individuals in positions of power. His foreign policy rhetoric is extremely dangerous and reckless (Listen to Democracy Now below to hear John Pilger, Tarik Ali and others talk about these concerns.), as it reflects established defense industry interests.

And if he had opposed these interests he would never have been a candidate in the first place (think Israel, Iran, Russia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Venezuela, etc, etc.) Even if he did believe what he said on the campaign trail, he will not have much room to "change" much here. No doubt he is way more level-headed than McCain, and thats important when you are talking about nuclear weapons. We shall see if he intends to provoke Russia the way the neo-cons did in Georgia.

Paul Craig Roberts said it best in this recent article (linked below) about Obama and his choice of people to surround him:

"Obama’s victory speech was magnificent. The TV cameras scanning faces in the audience showed the hope and belief that propelled Obama into the presidency. But Obama cannot bring change to Washington. There is no one in the Washington crowd that he can appoint who is capable of bringing change. If Obama were to reach
outside the usual crowd, anyone suspected of being a bringer of change could not get confirmed by the Senate. Powerful interest groups--AIPAC, the military-security complex, Wall Street--use their political influence to block unacceptable appointments.

The change that is coming is the end of American empire. The hegemon has run out of money and influence. Obama as “America’s First Black President” will lift hopes and, thus, allow the act to be carried on a little longer. But the New American Century is already over."

And we shouldn't forget Chalmers Johnson's analysis of the US empire and it's military bases, and the military-security-complex (interview below). None of this is likely to disappear anytime soon. Forget universal healthcare, forget an end to the bogus "War on Terror"(TM), and forget about Obama preventing the US government from spying on you (he supported the FISA Bill). Hopefully, he will close Guantanamo (he just started showing early signs of back-peddling here), reverse the Patriot Act and the 2006 Military Commissions Act, and all the COG legislation. But I am not holding my breath.

If you haven't read Project Censored's top censored story list for this year, by the way, check it out. It is astonishing what is being covered up in the capitalist press. The crimes this state is guilty of go far beyond the most obvious ones. Check it here:

http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/category/y-2009/

We are still "the rabble" in the eyes of the elite, and we are treated like a problem to be dealt with rather than a force to be reckoned with. Real liberation will only come when we demand it collectively from the bottom, stop kissing the ass of the powerful, and dismantle a system that allows power to be concentrated on such an obscene level in the first place.

Naomi Wolf's ten points on fascism in the US are still there in concrete structural terms. Whether Obama will roll them back is debatable. We have to force that to happen.

As Carlos Fierro discusses below from the anarchist perspective, every movement in history that has forced the hand of the state has always come from movements in the streets. I think now is a good time to put that spirit into action.

Afterthought: I often think that the environmental crisis is far more profound and dangerous to the survival of all life on this planet that it will trump almost any issue in the coming decades. The crisis is intricately linked to the economic system (capitalism run amok) and an anthropocentric world view, and without a significant shift in consciousness on this issue, our focus on elections and the machinations of the powerful covers only a part of the picture. At this point, we are simply rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. It is time for a much more holistic view of the crisis we all face, a coherent critique of the capitalist system, and a willingness to take bold action if we are not only going to survive, but live sustainably on this planet.

And if you haven't read Derrick Jensen's book "Endgame Volume 1: The Problem of Civilization", read it now. You can read the premises here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endgame_(Derrick_Jensen_books)

I suggest we all heed this warning: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article21363.htm

Links and videos and such:

1. Just about everything I wrote about above was covered very eloquently by Joshua Frank, author of Left Out! How Liberals Helped Reelect George W. Bush, and the editor of the new book Red State Rebels: Tales of Grassroots Resistance in the Heartland:

Forecasting Obama, And Assessing Bush:

http://www.counterpunch.org/frank01162009.html

2. Real Change Starts on the Streets, An Anarchist View of Elections. By Carlos Fierro (teaches Journalism & Mass Communication at a local community college in Fresno)

http://www.counterpunch.org/fierro11042008.html (one of the most sobering and enlightening takes on Obama's victory)

3. President-Elect Obama and the Future of US Foreign Policy: A Roundtable Discussion

http://cdn2.libsyn.com/democracynow/dn2008-1106-1.mp3?nvb=20081106184819&nva=20081107184819&t=001ab06b1c0f8f7ecdb04

with investigative journalist John Pilger in Britain, Columbia University professor and Africa scholar Mahmood Mamdani, Laura Carlsen of the Center for International Policy in Mexico City, Iraqi analyst Raed Jarrar, Pakistani author Tariq Ali, and Palestinian American Ali Abunimah of Electronic Intifada.

4. Naomi Wolf's film on the ten markers of a fascist state. DON'T miss this! Putting aside the patriotic mythologies in here, this is an excellent analysis of the structural and cultural steps on the path to fascism.

http://www.snagfilms.com/films/watch/the_end_of_america/

5. Interview with Chalmers Johnson about the military industrial complex, and the end of the US republic.

http://vodpod.com/watch/1058270-chalmers-johnson-us-wrong-to-believe-it-can-maintain-both-a-military-and-civilian-economy

6. Obama, Rahm-bo and the End of the New American Century. Conned Again? By Paul Craig Roberts

http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts11102008.html