Anyone who still believes Obama’s rhetoric and honesty would be wasting time to read the following analysis, which is only for people who have doubts about his honesty; and thus an open mind to the possibility of his lying about his intentions is a pre-requisite to receiving the following argument:
On Christmas Day, London’s Daily Mail bannered, “North Korea was NOT behind the Sony hack according to multiple security experts who discredit FBI findings and reveal that a studio insider named ‘Lena’ may be responsible.”
Two days earlier, on December 23rd, CBS News had headlined, “Was FBI Wrong on North Korea?” and they presented evidence that the FBI was, indeed, wrong.
On December 30th, the brilliant individual who blogs as “George Washington” assembled all of the news-reports up till that time on this matter, and headlined, “FBI Busted Falsely Blaming North Korea for Sony Hack: I Hate North Korea’s Leaders … But They Didn’t Do It.”
The evidence that he presented is overwhelming.
Nonetheless, on January 2nd, the BBC bannered, “Sony cyber-attack: North Korea faces new US sanctions,” and they reported: “The US has imposed new sanctions on North Korea in response to a cyber-attack against Sony Pictures Entertainment. President Barack Obama signed an executive order on Friday allowing sanctions on three North Korean organisations and 10 individuals.”
Then, on Sunday, January 4th, CNN headlined “North Korea pushes back against U.S. sanctions for Sony hack,” which push-back is, of course, reasonable for North Korea, given that the U.S. sanctions are based on lies, just as the invasion of Iraq by George W. Bush was based on lies, and just as Obama’s bombings in both Libya and Syria were based on lies. North Korea can recognize the threat: the American President’s lie against them, and his initiating sanctions against them on the basis of it, displays unmistakably his hostile intent.
A pattern of aggressive lying for secret objectives is by now clear under Barack Obama; and in both the North Korean and the Russian and Ukrainian cases, nuclear weapons are very much on the table. Previously, after he had failed to achieve from the European Union the stringent economic sanctions that he had wanted against Russia — a nation that’s, of course, a far larger nuclear power than is North Korea — Obama used the pretext of the downing of the MH17 Malaysian airliner in order to obtain from the EU a hiked set of sanctions that are now causing real damage to Russia’s economy. Subsequently, it was virtually proven that the Ukrainian Government had itself actually shot down this airliner; furthermore, the Ukrainian Government had, in fact, been installed in a violent U.S.-financed coup on 22 February 2014 which had been misrepresented as being a democratic revolution. As I headlined on December 22nd, “Head of Stratfor, ‘Private CIA’, Says Overthrow of Yanukovych Was ‘The Most Blatant Coup in History’,” and this fact that it was a coup, which is now known to the entire world’s knowledgeable community, has caused the Czech President publicly to break with the U.S. and EU and to make clear that his own country’s 1968 “Velvet Revolution,” unlike the overthrow of the Ukrainian Government in February 2014, was non-violent and expressed the public’s will, no coup at all.
President Obama seized control over Ukraine on 22 February 2014 in order for Ukraine to join NATO and become a staging-area for U.S. missiles aimed at Russia, next door. Of course, this wouldn’t be at all more acceptable to any Russian leader than was, to U.S. President John F. Kennedy in 1962, the attempt by Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev to do that sort of thing to the U.S., in our own neighbor Cuba. So: this is a real provocation to nuclear war, but Obama keeps describing Russia as the aggressor here. (It’s ordinary for an intelligent aggressor to use defensive rhetoric, to fool his suckers.)
The background of President Obama’s efforts to provoke a nuclear war has been presented in a succinct 14-minute video by the superb documentarian Aaron Hawkins, and also in an article that I wrote (which is to the same effect as that documentary, but cites different documentation). Basically, it has to do with something that is of intense concern to the U.S. aristocracy: continuation of their domination over all other nations’ aristocracies. It’s like the buildup to World War I was, which war likewise was aristocratically sponsored in order to achieve global aristocratic dominance.
Unfortunately, this time, that war would have to be nuclear. Obama is doing everything he can to win it, but he is hoping to be able to achieve this win by something called “Prompt Global Strike,” which would eliminate Russia’s ability even to respond to a nuclear attack. Scientists are virtually unanimous that, with the current generation of vastly more-powerful nuclear bombs, even if only a few nuclear weapons are involved in an exchange, this planet will experience nuclear winter and massive starvation, so that if the nuclear exchange goes beyond that, then life as it has existed on this planet will essentially be ended. However, a doctrine of “U.S. Nuclear Primacy” was introduced by the U.S. aristocracy in 2006, which concludes that, “If Washington continues to believe such preeminence is necessary for its security, then the benefits of nuclear primacy might exceed the risks.” The authors ignored nuclear winter, because their article was addressed to America’s aristocrats, not to the public (whose concerns and especially their priorities are very different).
A historical analogy to President Obama’s thinking might be found in the thinking that guided the Japanese Government during World War II. According to the 1999 book by Richard B. Frank, Downfall: The End of the Imperial Japanese Empire (p. 230): during 17-21 July 1945, Japan’s leaders were considering U.S. terms of their surrender in which no atomic bombs would be dropped, and Japan would even be able to “retain the Emperor” (something that their aristocracy were extremely determined to do), but their response still was: “We are unable to consent to it under any circumstances whatever.” The U.S., which then was an authentic democracy, nonetheless reluctantly went the next step, and President Harry S. Truman ordered it.
The aristocracy have different concerns, and very different priorities, than does a democratic public. U.S. President Obama, like his predecessor George W. Bush, embodies those aristocratic concerns and priorities, though his public rhetoric frequently expresses the opposite (for political reasons, to fool voters).
Perhaps the only way for the U.S. aristocracy to continue its global dominance will entail a nuclear war. It would be the final tragedy, the ultimate crime by the aristocracies, against the publics everywhere. Anyone who would say that it’s insane doesn’t get the point, which is that, for aristocrats, status is more important than everything else: dominance is everything, to them.
Here are some statements from Obama that seem to reflect his actual feelings as those have been reflected in his policies as President (so they’re worth quoting):
At West Point, on 28 May 2014: “Russia’s aggression toward former Soviet states unnerves capitals in Europe, while China’s economic rise and military reach worries its neighbors. From Brazil to India, rising middle classes compete with us. … So the United States is and remains the one indispensable nation. That has been true for the century passed [properly spelled ‘past,’ but this is his text] and it will be true for the century to come.” He wasn’t only saying that the graduating cadets would be facing an enemy that consists of America’s economic competitors and so these soldiers would fight and kill and die for America’s aristocracy and should accept and honor such a commitment, but that Russia’s resistance to subordination to America’s aristocracy and to America’s actual aggression is itself “aggression” that they must wage war against.
On p. 234 of Ron Suskind’s 2011 book Confidence Men, Obama tells assembled megabank CEOs in a private meeting with them (as was leaked): “My administration is the only thing between you and the pitchforks. [The public are here analogized to the KKK; and the banksters, whose looted-by-themselves-from-the-inside banks are being bailed out by the U.S. taxpaying public, are instead being portrayed as the Blacks whom the KKK are trying to lynch] … I want to help. … I’m not out there to go after you. I’m protecting you [against the public].”
Obama does not represent the American public. He has fooled the American public, just as his predecessor did. If the only way to preserve the international dominance of America’s aristocracy will be a nuclear attack, he will probably do it. He represents fascist, pro-aristocratic and anti-public, values. He sees the public as the enemy.
Think of Tojo, Hirohito, Hitler, and other fascists and nazis; and then consider Obama and Bush in that light, and ask yourself: What other intelligent and well-informed way is there to understand Obama, except in this type of historical context?
Retaining the illusions (which are spread by agents of the aristocracy) could turn out to be extremely dangerous. The direction in which things are actually heading is horrific.
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.