The United States was once known for its shared
values with that of Great Britain. As divergent as the two countries are, and
as little as Britons are yet inclined
to free themselves from the abhorrent shackles of their monarchy, both cultures
have instilled for a very long time the concept of “fair play.” This is most
obvious, of course, on playing fields of sport, where expressions like “that’s
not cricket” and “personal foul” are everyday occurrences. In America, the most
influential work of Niccolo Machiavelli, The
Prince, is usually not assigned to school reading lists until someplace in
the college syllabus. In Europe, however, of which Machiavelli was a product,
and in many places, a cultural hero, his works are read early and often cited
as beneficial instructions to those who seek to rule.
The shortcomings of Machiavellianism as a moral
cause are legion, none more frequently cited than the maxim “the ends will
justify the means.” The derisive political epithet “Machiavellianism” has come
to represent political figures devious, banal, wicked, and malign. What made
America different from European culture was the concept that such ideas as
“princes” would not be tolerated in the new democratic republic created out of
revolution against hereditary monarchy. And yet Machiavellianism always manages
to flourish both inside and outside of Washington DC, as more and more players
eventually adopted the philosophy— also of Machiavelli’s— “what evil you must
do, do it quickly, for it is better to be feared than to be loved.” The Nazis
took this idea one step further when they realized that once the Leader is
sufficiently feared, the Love of the Volk will and must soon follow.
What perhaps most galled the American
prosecutors at the Nuremburg trials was the sheer lengths to which the German
ruling class had appropriated the idea that the ends —in their case, the
genocide of the Jewish people— would be justified by the means (“special action”;
i.e.; a “final solution). That this was precisely the point of Manifest Destiny
in the USA is another matter we might take up at some another time. I am
speaking here of what was generally thought of as an inherently American sense of Fair Play, which extended
as far from the playing fields into everyday life as could be drawn— to the
courts, for instance, and to the general rule of the populace. There were some
things our politicians just would not do, and were restrained from, either by
virtue of the fear of impeachment, or criminal indictment. Americans have
always had more of a sense of justice, which of itself in its pure state is the acme of a sense of fair play.
And to find Machiavellian concepts and “pragmatism” infecting American politics
is certainly no improvement for the American society but evidence of a banal
sense of moral decay.
No such inhibitions plague the current crop of
American politicians and bureaucrats. From the top and eye of the pyramid on
down, a blasé approach of cynical opportunism spreads like a malignant cancer
upon the body politic. Legislators are bought out by lobbyists. “Constitutional
scholars” present their case for the destruction of the Bill of Rights with
platitudes such as “a balance that must be struck between liberty and security”
and “my first responsibility is to keep the American people safe.” I never
noticed those words in the oath of office any legislator makes, but I do note
that “uphold the Constitution of the
United States against all enemies foreign and domestic” plays a rather
prominent part.
I do not know if Hif Majeftie has actually read
Machiavelli, but I think it is a safe bet he never read Sun Tzu, (The Art of War) either. There, he would
notice on the fist page “there has never been a society that survived a
protracted war.” You can say that for the War on Terror, for the wars of Iran
and Afghanistan, as well as the War on Drugs. The adoption of adversarial
positions is the hallmark of the insufficiently diplomatically gifted. It might
occur to many that the aims and goals of Al Qaida—to turn America into a
caricature in donkey-draw of a free society—have basically been achieved by the
fiat of the United States Congress and Executive branch. The Patriot Act. The
indefinite detention clause of the 2012 NDAA. The blanket surveillance of persons of international internet aptitude or
awareness. All of these are incursions on what had once been the greatest hope
for freedom in the world. Millions have died in defense of a Constitution which
the president himself has evidenced—by his actions,
not his words— he has absolutely no intentions of protecting. Millions who it
may well be argued that with the system of American law and civil liberties as
it now stands, died in vain.
One person I am sure he has read however, is Saul Alinsky, the author of the hilariously
oxymoronic Rules for Radicals. (If
you are a “radical” and you need rules, then you most probably are not quite as radical as you like to think
you are- let alone that you need to get your rules from yet another old dead white dude). Alinsky is also cited often by those who have studied both Mr. Obama
and Mrs. Hilary Clinton as being influential to their formative political
thinking. He is also advocated what might politely be called “toilet tactics” and much like Machiavelli, saw benefits of
making points by hitting below the belt with untruths. “Ridicule is man's most
potent weapon” as a signature quote of Alinsky’s, shows in a stark way how cynical and how
intolerant his disciples can be. The opposition are to be ridiculed, not tolerated. Liberalism used to mean the ability and
willingness to allow contrary and opposing ideas to exist. Now it seems to, if
we take Mr. Alinsky’s words seriously, indicate appropriate ridicule of anyone
who feels otherwise to be no more than an “idiot.” Indeed, all one has to do is
peruse the comments section of any political article anywhere in America these
days and you’ll find someone using the word to describe someone of a differing
opinion. Liberal democracy and civilization cannot flourish under one party
rule, no matter whose party that is, whether Communist, Socialist, Fascist,
Republican, or Democrat. Since enough people of either major party (and many
who belong to neither) love tossing the word around these days, one could
easily conclude that Mr. Alinsky’s maxim has now become de rigueur for
examining polemic and debate. Which is why people such as Alinsky, while worth
a read (just as much as Hitler or Marx, if only to inform oneself as to what
the hoopla is all about) ultimately belong in the dustbin of history, and the
generation of American leaders who took his guidance for gospel should be
scrutinized in the extreme when they make their empowered suggestions leading
to “ultimate” answers to social problems. Do you have a problem with someone
else’s ideas? Just call them “idiot”. It sure saves the trouble of thinking up
and expounding on an intelligent rebuttal, doesn’t it? Better to insist that
they shut up, since living with their words and ideas is so impossible to take.
And since Rules
for Radicals was self described by Mr. Alinsky in this manner: “If The Prince is for the haves to hold on
to power, Rules is The Prince for have-nots to gain power,”
I see no virtues in that at all. For the Bolshevik revolution, ostensibly a
revolution of “Have-Nots” taking power, was accompanied by a great deal of the
same type of “better feared than loved” sensibilities. It was, also, actually,
an accomplishment of an Elite— in the name of the Have-Nots— which quickly
reversed itself into its own parody- an elitist group of self-proclaimed Have-Nots
who immediately set about depriving the actual Have-Nots of what little they
had. The famines of the 1930’s and the forced resettlements, the pogroms
against the kulaks, not to mention the vast social engineering intent of
Stalin’s purges, were all orchestrated by elites in the name of
state-manufactured equality, equality which would never be realized, and Machiavellian
in their extreme both in organizational scope, and in procedure. I just do not
see how overcoming amoral tyranny by amoral means manufactures automatically a somehow
more moral social order.
It does not matter to Barack Obama that he was
elected, in a great part, by idealistic believers in the things he had to say about the Constitution and rule
of law. Who believed he really was an “environmentalist” and not just another Wall Street puppet. Who
believed that he would actually create a national public health system, not
some piecemeal tyrannical demand that- just as they once had demanded male
citizens register for military service- all citizens must register for their chaotic “Affordable Care Act”— or else,
face extortive criminal sanctions. Well, that’s one way to balance the
federal budget, eh? Barack Obama has shown by his actions that he is not a man
of morality or fair play. Hell, he won’t even apologize for an “accidental”
murder which he himself authorized. “I’m pretty good at killing people” he brags.
Well, bully for you, punk, but some of us are absolutely not willing to go so
quietly. Once he had his votes in place, he figured he could do whatever he
liked and people would never notice, for his love of power is seemingly greater
than his sense of responsibility to American ideals and values.
Machiavelli has another role to play in
American politics these days. George W. Bush brought “ends justify the means”
back big-time with his justification of the use of torture on detainees. “What
matter is it that we torture people if it saves American lives?” Obama too-
“what matter who we kill, even if we kill innocents, (or even fellow
Americans!) if we kill terrorists as well?” For many people living in central
Asia now, their first representative of American policy is a robot death plane
delivering a Hellfire missile to their neighborhood, not a package falling from
the sky filled with boxes of oat flakes and peanut oil. And what about the
winner of the “more feared than loved” award of all time in Washington DC, Dick
Cheney? Obviously he won’t be winning any “most likeable” awards, either. Machiavelli
seems to have all but invaded US thought these days and the result is an amoral
government which is as much instinctively repressive as it is paternalistic.
People can think whatever they like about
Barack Obama’s high-flying rhetoric on “NSA reforms”, that he will, actually,
do more to restore the trust of the public in the NSA and other intelligence
arms of the US Government. But I have listened to his promises before, and I
have been disillusioned before, by his accompanying actions. As John N.
Mitchell, that unctuous jailbird Attorney General of Richard Nixon’s, once so
well put it “Watch what we do, not what we say.” Barack Obama needs to be
completely scrutinized for every aspect of his presidency and held accountable
for his outright lies and the obvious apparent discrepancies between his words
and actions. He cannot eternally campaign for an office he has already won. He
will never need work again another day in his life, should he not wish to,
being assured of a federal pension for
life assumed by we the taxpayers who have suffered under the wheel of his
nonexistent “economic recovery” and whose electronic metadata must exist— somewhere,
for lord only knows how valuable it is— in some far off never-never land in the
hands of who-knows-who what consortium of dataminers he eventually sends it all
away to. No, I have heard too much from this man to listen to his sweet talk
and his con game any longer. It’s my sincere wish that most of you will tune
out the lies- or keep your bullshit detectors on wide-stun, because he has
snuck a number of things past us all in the past, and he is very much— in all
likelihood
going to sneak something past us all again,
given time and circumstance. I plan to ride Mr. Obama all the way down to Hell
like Chill Wills on the atom bomb in Dr.
Strangelove, for the unconstitutional murder of Abdulrahman Alwaki. If I
must. Even if I were the only American left standing willing to do so on the sheer principle of it. Life
cannot be made forfeit without the burden
of proof falling on the state. Letters of Attainder are illegal under the US Constitution. For I prefer that my
president be above outright murder,
whether it be by design or accident, and regardless any issues on which he and
I could possibly agree about the
culpability of Abdulrahman’s father as a “terror suspect,” President Obama must
live with that death forever, and I for one hope to ensure that he, indeed,
will never be allowed to forget it.
Barack Obama can do one thing, and one thing
only, if he wishes to restore “trust in government” with the American people.
It is a very good thing that for a very long time, Americans have not nourished
a blind faith in their government.
But if the numbers mean anything, less are willing to swallow his painful ACA
pill than he would like to see. That says more about their trust in him than
anything else. (And more about the viability and validity of his “solution”
than he cares to admit). That one thing is to abolish forever the National
Security Agency. The ability for governments and their secret intelligence and
police arms to abuse power has never, ever in history, been something which
once available, has ever before been set aside. More people are, this very day,
taking part in international protest against this super-secret-police arm,
which would like to be everything the NKVD, KGB, Gestapo, and Stasi once were,
and in fact, possesses powers which they would be only all too jealous to have
had at their disposal, in their day. What the NSA propose to do— completely
eliminate the concept of personal privacy and instill obedience, chill free
speech, and crush dissent— (and which President Obama would like us all to
believe they never-ever would possibly
actually put into play) is no less than the murder of the Republic, that “hope
of the nations” and the very ideals out of which the United States of America
was born.
At this time, Hif Majeftie Barack Obama is openly contemplating committing yet another murder. The rot begins from
the top down. Indict and try James Clapper
for perjury. Impeach Barack Obama for murder. It’s well nigh high time.
*****
As usual, I have marshaled
a “legion of demons” (an entire MS Word doc’s page worth!) in the form of relevant
recent articles which expose the situation, as is, from a less deceitful
perspective than that being pimped out by Washington officials in order to rain
on Hif Majeftie’s parade (as well as bite him on the ass) and which support my
assertions, reflecting that in these matters, my criticisms are not alone... ENJOY!
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/242
https://www.ccrjustice.org/targetedkillings
http://privacysos.org/node/1229
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/article/2014/02/10/the-nsas-secret-role/
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/01/the-nsa-speech-obama-accepts-the-logic-of-staying-terrorized/283173/
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/commentary/la-oe-adv-ackerman-nsa-obama-20140126,0,1771812,print.story
http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/1/nsa-intelligencereformamericansecurity.html
http://www.salon.com/2014/01/23/glenn_greenwalds_heroism_standing_up_to_our_new_orwellian_police_state/
http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/01/17/from-surveillance-to-assassination/
http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/01/31/obamaphelia-a-short-history-and-diagnostic-guide/
http://www.emptywheel.net/2014/01/17/obamas-speech-annotated-version/
http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2014/02/06/read_the_memo_explaining_why_the_u_s_can_totally_kill_its_own_citizens_without.html
http://original.antiwar.com/jwhitehead/2014/01/20/obamas-lies-nsa-spies-and-the-sons-of-liberty/
http://www.thenation.com/article/178225/has-nsa-wiretapping-violated-attorney-client-privilege#
http://www.dailyprogress.com/opinion/guest_columnists/lies-spies-and-choices-dangerous-freedom-or-peaceful-slavery/article
http://libertycrier.com/the-united-states-is-in-fact-an-orwellian-tyranny-obama-statements-at-the-national-defense-university/
Finally, I have been
making many of these same points all
along:
http://www.infowars.com/top-constitutional-experts-obama-is-worse-than-nixon/
http://www.unz.com/article/veracity-in-government/
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/11/world/asia/us-debates-drone-strike-on-american-terror-suspect-in-pakistan.html?_r=0
