Archive

Posts Tagged ‘neoliberal’

Barack Obama is the Political Equivalent of Bill Cosby

March 3, 2019 9 comments

Let me start this post by making one seemingly outrageous prediction- a couple of decades from now, the legacy of Barack Obama will be widely seen as similar to that of Bill Cosby today. To be clear, I am not suggesting that Obama is going to be tried and sentenced in court for drugging and raping women as Bill Cosby was in 2018. Rather, Obama and his specific brand of neoliberal black respectability politics will elicit the same degree of revulsion and pity as the mention of Bill Cosby and his older brand of that same viewpoint do today. Some readers might remember my previous series on why the Obama presidency was a disaster for establishment democrats.

The parts relevant to this post are that Obama was, politically speaking, a Reagan-era republican whose policies either preferentially hurt the interests of black people (e.g during the foreclosure crisis after 2008) or did very little to help them (e.g. police brutality, drug decriminalization and criminal justice reform). But more importantly, he did all of this while claiming the mantle of black leadership- which is a fancy way of saying that he was a conman who advanced his career as the ‘great black hope’ while at the same time stepping over a large number of innocent black people. And he still received over 95% of votes by black people during his re-election in 2012.

But how does any of this make him similar to Bill Cosby? Well.. for beginners, Barack Obama and Bill Cosby, in addition to many currently serving black political leaders, are part of what is best defined as black respectability politics. In fact, the black backlash against Obama has already started to build as we can see in the NYT piece which correctly points out how Obama used the white fear of young black men to advance his career and make himself rich. I would go so far as to say that Obama is now seem more positively by white people than black people (except maybe older black women). But how does this make him the political equivalent of Bill Cosby?

To understand this, we have to go back to an era decades before most of us (including me) were born. Bill Cosby, you see, was one of the first black entertainers in USA who was both widely successful and considered respectable. His standup comic career started in the early 1960s, an era when many states in USA still had separate drinking fountains for white and black people and Jim Crow laws are still in vogue in the retarded.. I mean southern.. states. More relevantly, this was an era when every black person in showbusiness was either portrayed as either a slave, servant, stupid, subhuman or otherwise flawed. If you do not believe this, just check out any movie On YouTube with black characters from the pre-1960 era.

So how was Cosby able to succeed in that era? Well.. for two reasons. Firstly, he was able to put forth the image of an articulate, intelligent and harmless black man telling good but inoffensive jokes for his white audience. Secondly, his success with white audiences at a time when there were few universally famous black entertainers resulted in him receiving unconditional support from his black audience. Barack Obama was the first black politician with a national reach who successfully appealed to white voters tired of idiots such as Bush43. His popularity among the black community increased only after it became obvious he could beat HRC in 2008 primaries.

And this brings us to the question as to why Obama had a large white following before getting a similar black one. Well.. in case it is not obvious enough, the appeal of Obama to white voters was almost exclusively based in the fact that he portrayed himself as an articulate, intelligent and harmless black man who shared many of the beliefs about themselves and those ‘other undesirable’ people. Sure.. he changed his speaking style in front of predominantly black audiences and pretended to care about the issues affecting them- but let us face it, he never cared about them. While his pre-2004 political career in Chicago is rarely talked about nowadays, it is a well-known fact that he built it by colluding with all sorts of shady people and causes, including urban “gentrification”.

In other words, Obama was always willing to walk over multitudes of poor black people to further his own career. Ironically, he would then turn around and try to get them to vote for him because of his skin color. This is also why his rise in local Chicago politics was slow until a set of unusual circumstances allowed him to win a Senate seat in 2004, thereby giving him a national stage. Yes.. that is correct- if Jerri Ryan (of Star Trek fame) had not sued her then husband for divorce and revealed lurid details about their sex life, Barack Obama would not have been elected to the Senate in 2004. To make a long story short, he used his new-found visibility to position himself as a national-level black leader who just happened to more popular with whites.

But why did Obama’s popularity take off so quickly among white voters? Well.. for starters, he studiously avoided talking about the legacy of racial discrimination in USA- and when he did broach that topic, Obama tried to make it sound that most of it was in the past (at least when talking to whites). He was also clever enough to not support the Iraq War and generally take positions which looked good on paper but entailed no real sacrifice on his part. He portrayed himself as the political equivalent of Cliff Huxtable, and that does make Michelle Obama his Clair Huxtable. The LIEbral class in USA ate all that shit up because they could finally support a token black politician and tell themselves and others that they were not racist.

There is a reason why writers on SNL and rich white LIEbral actors still sing the praises of Barack Obama, in spite of the sheer mediocrity of his presidency- not unlike how Bill Cosby’s career took off in 1970s and 1980s, despite the mediocrity of his family friendly acts and shows. A lot of white people just wanted to make themselves and others around them believe that they were good people and not really racist. And there is one more major similarity between Barack Obama and Bill Cosby. Both were, and are, big proponents of the scam of black respectability politics. See.. according to proponents of black respectability politics, racial discrimination against blacks in USA was their own fault and could be totally corrected by embracing CONservative beliefs.

As it turns out, that bullshit does not work and racism against black people in USA is due to the perception of their skin color by white people- most of whom are incredibly mediocre. Sure.. black respectability politics can help a few black people (Bill Cosby, Barack Obama, Cory Booker, Kamala Harris etc) succeed, but they can do so only by screwing over many scores of people who look like them in order appease a few rich white people who might throw them some crumbs. Some might describe this behavior as treacherous, but that is what still passes for black misleadership (political and cultural) in USA. Hopefully this will change..

To summarize, both Barack Obama and Bill Cosby are street-smart, but mediocre, men who built their careers by pandering to white liberals while simultaneously screwing over tons of black people and then demanded fealty from the very people they abused to make their benjamins.

what do you think? Comments?

Western Attempts at ‘Regime Change’ in Venezuela Will Fail or Backfire

February 25, 2019 3 comments

While I try to focus on topics of more lasting relevance than the latest ravings of mobs on social media, some contemporary events are worthy of coverage because they fit into larger themes. As many of you know, USA and some of its west-european catamites.. I mean allies.. seem to have embarked on a tragically comic project to effect ‘regime change’ in Venezuela. Trump, led by Pompeo and Bolton (henceforth referred to as Guinea Dago and Bolt-on), seem to think that they can depose Maduro in Venezuela and set up a puppet regime in that country, without significant problems or negative consequences. Trump, in particular, seems to be stupid enough to believe people as incompetent and strategically stupid as Guinea Dago and Bolt-on. Then again, that orange buffoon also thinks that Sebastian Gorka (a Hugo Drax impersonator) is a genius.

In the rest of this post, I will tell you why this poorly thought brainfart will fail and backfire. But before we go there, let me ask you a simple question. Why didn’t Obama ever push things to this level- whether it was with Venezuela, Syria, Iran, Russia or China? Why did he instead prefer to either make some half-hearted effort, not do anything or try to cut a deal? The answer is that Obama being a neoliberal was a couple of notches smarter than a neocon. He looked at these conflicts carefully and came to the conclusion that they were either unwinnable or carried a very high risk of failure. He knew that being a mediocre non-failure was vastly superior to being seen as the second coming of Bush43. Furthermore, Obama’s post-presidency plans for making his millions via writing, speeches etc were highly dependent on being seen as a non-failure.

And let us clear about something else.. Obama has no qualms about extending the ‘war on terror’ BS in some poor African countries. Neither did he any issues with actively supporting the Saudi and gulf state funded effort to prop up ISIS and similar religious nutters in Iraq and Syria. To put this another way, Obama was no anti-imperialist or supporter of democracy and ‘human rights’. And yet, on certain issues, he chose to stop at strong words- rather than concrete action because of concerns related to self-preservation and not being seen as the loser. Trump, on the other hand, being less intelligent than Obama actually seems to trust the judgement of chronic failures such as Guinea Dago and Bolt-on. Perhaps the orange buffoon thinks that he will achieve some kind of “victory” which could translate into better prospects during the 2020 electoral season?

Now let us get back to the reasons why Trump’s attempts to effect ‘regime change’ in Venezuela will fail- regardless of whether he eventually approves an actual military invasion of that country. Yes.. you heard that right, the USA-led project of ‘regime change’ in Venezuela is doomed to failure regardless of the course of action taken by Guinea Dago and Bolt-on. To make it easier for readers to follow the rationale behind this prediction, the rest of this post is sub-divided into a couple of main points followed by an explanation for each one.

1] Military and non-military influence of USA has been in decline since end of WW2. The speed of this terminal decline has greatly accelerated since the late 2000s.

Ok.. many of you might have come across lists circulated by white academic leftists which show USA interfering in the governance and elections of many countries since 1945. While that list might look long, it reveals an important trend in the terminal decline of USA. For example, in the 1950s USA could successfully interfere in the governance of countries as distant as Italy, Greece, Iran and Japan. However, starting in the 1960s, that ability fell pretty sharply and soon the USA could succeed only in African countries and Latin America. The defeat in Vietnam and upset in Iran constricted this ability even further and by the late 1970s, they could do so only in smaller Central and South american countries (including the Caribbean). By the mid- 1980s, it had atrophied to the point where they were restricted to small countries with barely an army.

Some of the jingoists might counter by pointing out that USA was able to depose Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi in addition to helping Yeltsin win in 1996. Well.. let us for a minute ignore that Saddam was hated by over 2/3rds of his population for a number of reasons (religious and otherwise) and Libya was always an artificial entity stitched up from groups who hated each other- ask yourself, what was the lasting impact of these actions? In the case of Iraq, deposing Saddam and going after Sunnis made Iran the most important power in that region. Also, USA lost that war of occupation. Libya has not been a functionally unified country for years, is a major base for smuggling African refugees into Europe and its oil output has declined since then. Did I mention that the reaction to what USA tried to do in 1996 ended up giving us Putin.

In other words, USA as nation-state has been the loser in these recent attempts at ‘regime change’. Sure.. it made a few people in its military industrial complex much richer, however that wealth was taken away from the 99% in the country making them even poorer. Did I mention that USA is also the loser in its attempt to depose the government in Syria. They lost there too. Then again, this is how dying empires behave..

2] South and central american countries are not what they used to be, in more ways than one.

So understand what I am getting at, ask yourself another question- what is the defining common characteristic of south and central american countries? Hint: it is not their language or last names. Ok.. they are all racial hierarchies in which whiter people (irrespective of competence or ability) end up at the upper end of income and power while the less whiter ones end near the bottom regardless of how hard-working or competent they are. While racial hierarchy was never as rigid in those countries as USA, it has always been there and has had some rather negative consequences. Ever wonder why those countries still make most their money by selling raw and semi-processed natural resources to the outside world? Or why they have been always been so politically unstable and easy to manipulate from the outside?

The answer to that question requires us to appreciate something which is seldom mentioned nowadays- namely, that the elites and upper class in those countries have long obtained their legitimacy by virtue of their cultural and economic connections with the west. Even worse, for many decades, the less whiter members of those countries and societies used to believe in that crap. Which is a fancy way of saying that those countries were filled with white-worshiping losers. That is why they would rather import weapons from the west, send their kids to western universities and trade almost exclusively with the west. The flip side of this mindset is that they never funded their own educational system properly or developed institutions which were equivalent to those in the west. The world, however, changes irrespective of what people want.

The first of the two important changes which have occurred in those countries concerns their demographic makeup. To put it bluntly, fertility of the whiter members of their population has declined far faster than those of their less whiter members. There is a reason why the population of countries such as Brazil, Colombia, Mexico and Venezuela look less whiter than they did in the 1950s and 1960s. There is a reason why countries such as Bolivia, Venezuela and Brazil increasingly have had leaders who look like the majority of their population. Moreover, this change have also occurred in their civilian bureaucracy and armed forces. Also, whiter south-american countries such as Argentina have not done better than their less whiter neighbors.

And this brings us the second, and related, issue of money and trade. See.. for the longest time, the west was the largest market for south-american commodities. This is also why USA could influence events in that part of the world even after it lost the ability to so in Africa. But the world keeps on changing and the USA is no longer the top industrial producer in the world. Long story short.. it is Asia, especially China, whose trade with these countries has exploded over past two decades even as their older trade with the demographically stagnant west has well.. stagnated. However, unlike their white western counterparts, Asians have no special racial connection with the rapidly shrinking numbers of white elites in those countries.

Asian trade partners have no interest in supporting one racial group over the other beyond what is necessary to keep the wheels of commerce running. And all of this is occurring in the backdrop of USA losing wars of occupation in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya etc. The present state of affairs in Venezuela has gone on for more than a few years and as I wrote in a previous post, things are likely nowhere as bad as they are portrayed in dying western white-imperialism funded media. The thing is.. less whiter south Americans no longer see the USA, its aging white population and decaying capabilities as something they cannot win against- specifically in a war of occupation. The Vietnamese realized they could defeat white nations in 1954 and that is why they persisted against USA and won in 1975.

What do you think? Comments?