Imperial Realism and Its Liberal Advocates

It is a sad spectacle to see how many so-called liberals defend Obama's naked imperialistic policies in the Arab world on the grounds that they are simply being realistic. The charge of "realism," is a notorious propagandistic technique aimed to discredit those who have different views without dealing with the substance of their argument. Yet, the fact is that even a cursory perusal of the facts reveals how there is nothing realistic about supporting dictatorial, oppressive governments in the Arab world until it is simply no longer tenable.

Today, the failure of American self-interested foreign policy in the has been exposed for what it is in the Arab world. Obama was caught with his pants down when he supported Mubarak against the majority of the Egyptian people, up until it was crystal clear that his regime was not going to survive. The same is true for Hillary Clinton, who backed the Ben Ali regime in Tunisia until its fall. The point being that because of Wikileaks and the Arab spring, people all over the Arab world fully understand, in case they didn't do so before, that the U.S. is in the business of promoting policies which are antithetical to the interests of the vast majority of the people in the region. This, incidentally, is perfectly understandable, since if these people could have a say, they would throw us, and our invading armies out in a nanosecond.

In this regard, Jill Stein represents the very change that Obama promised and failed to deliver. It is my strong belief that we no longer have the luxury, if we ever did have it, to pretend that by voting for a different flavor of the same corporate brand we will bring about the change which is sorely needed in the United States and the world.

Rebecca Solnit: A Necrophile for Empire

Writer and activist Rebecca Solnit has recently penned an essay criticizing those on the left who have chosen not to support the re-election of Obama on moral grounds. What else can one expect from someone who, just recently, praised the pornographic violence of The Hunger Games book trilogy – she found it "irresistible" – as some kind of radical anti-corporate message?

Faux liberals such as Solnit are so deeply embedded in the current corporate cultural system – from which, not surprisingly, she directly profits from – that they have lost touch with reality and, most importantly, with their own humanity. These are the morally corrupt American so-called liberals who choose to believe they are reading/watching an anti-corporate book/movie so that they can feel free to enjoy the ultimate necrophiliac pleasure of imagining/seeing children kill other children. Henry Giroux writes:

The film and its success are symptomatic of a society in which violence has become the new lingua franca. It portrays a society in which the privileged classes alleviate their boredom through satiating their lust for violent entertainment and, in this case, a brutalizing violence waged against children. While a generous reading might portray the film as a critique of class-based consumption and violence given its portrayal of a dystopian future society so willing to sacrifice its children, I think, in the end, the film more accurately should be read as depicting the terminal point of what I have called elsewhere the suicidal society (a suicide pact literally ends the narrative).

Given Hollywood's rush for ratings, the film gratuitously feeds enthralled audiences with voyeuristic images of children being killed for sport. In a very disturbing opening scene, the audience observes children killing each other within a visual framing that is as gratuitous as it is alarming. That such a film can be made for the purpose of attaining high ratings and big profits, while becoming overwhelming popular among young people and adults alike, says something profoundly disturbing about the cultural force of violence and the moral emptiness at work in American society. Of course, the meaning and relevance of "The Hunger Games" rest not simply with its production of violent imagery against children, but with the ways these images and the historical and contemporary meanings they carry are aligned and realigned with broader discourses, values and social relations. Within this network of alignments, risk and danger combine with myth and fantasy to stoke the seductions of sadomasochistic violence, echoing the fundamental values of the fascist state in which aesthetics dissolves into pathology and a carnival of cruelty.

Perhaps, this is the same type of hidden pleasure that Hillary Clinton and Obama (like Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al) must feel as they rain drones over the heads of helpless children in the Arab world under the guise of humanitarian intervention – aptly renamed humanitarian imperialism by Jean Bricmont.

Sadly, Solnit and other supporters of the Obama imperial status-quo are the very product of the American corporate culture of violence, the subject of Chris Hedges's Death of the Liberal Class and Empire of Illusion and of many enlightening commentaries by Henry Giroux.

Fool Me Twice, Shame on Me

Katrina vanden Heuvel, the editor of The Nation, has written an opinion piece in The Washington Post titled Progressives Must Work to Retake the Supreme Court.

After having read the piece, I must say that Katrina shows a clear lack of understanding of the U.S. constitutional system. The U.S. Supreme Court is, by design, a reactionary institution whose function is to limit the power of the most democratic branch of government (Congress). And while, historically, there are instances of socially progressive Court decisions, by and large, the institution's primary function is to protect and promote the interests of corporate America. Just look at the current composition of the court: eight out of nine justices are pro-corporate individuals. These include Obama's appointments.

Also, the right-wing nature of the institution notwithstanding, if Katrina vanden Heuvel wants to be taken seriously she needs to be more candid about who she wants to retake the Court from whom; advocating for Obama's re-elections implies the socially liberal corporatists (Dems) v. socially conservative corporatists (Reps) dichotomy. If, instead, she means that the People need to retake the Supreme Court, then she should advocate electing a president by the people rather than by the corporations such as Obama.

Only when we elect a president who truly represents the people, we can talk about retaking the Supreme Court. Until then, the cries by the likes of Katrina vanden Heuvel are simply scare tactics to make people vote for Obama and the corporate state. This is why in the current presidential election, I will vote for Jill Stein of the Green Party.

(To those who chastise voters who vote their conscience rather than voting  for the lesser-of-two-evils – itself an oxymoron, given Obama's pitiful record – I say this: if you vote Democratic thinking that the Democratic party is going to take your vote as anything other than a full endorsement of their policies, you clearly do not understand electoral politics. Because, make no mistake, after every election parties look at results very carefully, including those of smaller parties. Any spillover in any direction is assessed and, if considered worrisome, addressed by modifying the party's message to include those voters' concerns. If you don't believe me, just look at how much time both major parties spend courting the so-called independents.)

President Strangelove

US Soldiers Kill Afghan Civilians in Rogue Attack

Up to three drunken soldiers took part in the attacks taking the lives of up to sixteen civilians including nine children. This is what war does to people. This is what those who vote for Democrats and Republicans vote for. We've lost our way. Somebody help us.