John Pilger On Obama

It still seems astounding that neither the Murdoch or the Fairfax media in Australia publish Australian journalist John Pilger's writings.

Next year, both Fairfax and Murdoch will be asking readers to pay to read some, or all, of its columnists. But the columnists that people might actually pay to read, like Pilger, won't get a run. Why is that? What is the truth that Pilger speaks that so many in the Australian media are so clearly afraid to publish?

The harshest kind of truth.

A Cool Change


"Seriously man, one day I'm gonna be president!"

Obamamamamamamama : a short essay I wrote over at Your New Reality

The New Anti-Americanism : Obama Win Is A "Victory For Stupidity"

By Darryl Mason

It's only been 48 hours, but the rise in Australia of the new anti-Americanism, now that Barack Obama has won the White House, by millions of votes instead of just a few hundred, has been swift, shocking and sickening.

And the worst of this vile new anti-Americanism comes from the Murdoch media.

Tens of millions of Americans voted to end the nation-gutting eight year rule of Republicans in the White House, but Australia's finest conservative, Liberal minds can't stop talking about the colour of Obama's skin. Obama didn't win, they tell us, because he had more popular policies and ideas, he only won because he is black, and "many, many Americans" only voted for him because they were stricken with whitey guilt.

Evil Pagan Lefties hated the Bush administration, that much is clear, but these anti-American extremists in the Murdoch media are claiming the majority of Americans are so dim, so deluded, they only voted for Obama because he is black, like them, or black enough to assuage white man guilt for building a nation off the broken backs of millions of African slaves.

America is now, claims one Murdoch dancing bear, "a racist nation".

Another claims Obama's win is a "victory for stupidity".

Seriously, this is how fucked up Murdoch's ballistic-bile-brethren have become months before Obama takes his seat behind that beautiful old desk in the West Wing. No doubt, their anti-American extremism will grow only more bitter and twisted.

One of the worst of these new anti-American extremists is The Australian columnist, Janet Albrechtsen. It should come as no great surprise that this anti-American sits on the ABC board.

Here Janet suffers a hilarious but disturbing downward spiral of the brain. She starts by making up headlines for an event that didn't happen :

Had Republican John McCain beaten the odds and been elected the 44th US President today, the sure-fire headline would have been “America is a racist nation”...

Now, I’m sure there are many Americans who did not vote for Obama because he is black. Some may well live in Wasilla. Hockey-mom Palin may well have encouraged them to turn out to vote for McCain. But let me run this by you. If it’s racism when an American refuses to vote for Obama because he is black, surely it is also racism when an American votes for Obama because he is black. And can anyone deny that plenty of Americans did just that when they voted for him?

Yes, they can deny that. They voted for a Democrat who wants to end the Iraq War and provide health care to the poor, for starters.

...let’s not for a second be so deluded – or hypocritical – as to imagine that race was not a reason why many, many Americans voted for him.

That must be it. They successfully fought the irresistable urge to return the Republican Party to power, while more than 90% of Americans say the country was headed in the wrong direction, just because Obama's dad was from Kenya? You're insane!

...in the meantime let me be the first to say...that this election result confirms that the US is still, in part, a racist nation.

Maybe through your hate-blinded, anti-American eyes, Janet, but the rest of us saw millions of grinning young Americans, of all religions and races, dancing in the streets of their hometowns, together, united, and so damn happy.

The Professional Idiot remains obsessed, as usual, with the colour of a man's skin. November 5 :

The Democrats are offering the cool, young black guy promising change - the African American whose mere election will heal the country’s racial wounds. The man whose age, colour and African heritage suggests he’s of a new century, a new order.

A black president. Fantastic. Now can we all get over this colour thing?

Sure. Can you?

No.

November 5 (later) :

America has elected its first black president.

If you are really looking for a race-based vote, how can anyone avoid the black vote in this election?

No. No. No. No.

November 7 :

Some 95 per cent of black voters backed the black guy against McCain...

True, looking black, he didn’t need to say more...

The Daily Telegraph's Piers Akerman claims Obama's big win is "a victory for stupidity." :

Without a white woman contesting the party’s nomination, it seems unlikely a black man would have won the party’s vote.

Though Obama’s Republican opponent, war hero and former PoW and US Senator John McCain, has not raised race as an issue, the Democrats have used it to engender a sense of guilt in white Americans who harbour doubts about Obama’s capacity as the leader of the free world. Not to support Obama raises the question of whether that decision has a racist undertone...

Then there was the Daily Telegraph's Tim Blair trying to claim, on ABC's Insiders, that the only reason Barack Obama could pull 100,000 people to a speech was because he had "The Rolling Stones" opening for him, which never happened.

How shocking and crushing it must be for these new anti-American extremists to actually realise that 100,000 "Victory For Stupidity" Americans could gather to hear a political speech because they were interested in...politics?

Maybe they preferred it when Americans didn't pay enough attention to national politics so that George W. Bush could get 'elected' twice? Because Americans sure seem to be paying attention now, don't they?

Seriously, all of you Murdoch-sponsored anti-American extremists need to GET SOME HELP.

John Howard, February 2007 : Al Qaeda Should "Hang On" In Iraq And Pray "As Many Times As Possible" For Barack Obama To Become The American President

By Darryl Mason

Pointing out that President George W. Bush can have moments of confusion about international forums ("APEC/OPEC"?) is not an international scandal. Kevin Rudd is right. What John Howard tried to do to Barack Obama as soon as it became clear he might have a reasonable shot at ending two centuries of mostly privileged white male rule of the White House was far, far worse, and will be a larger and far more noticed footnote in history now that Obama is president.
John Howard was the first high profile conservative to carefully try and link the words 'Obama' and 'Al Qaeda' in the international media, back on February 11, 2007, doing so within hours of Barack Obama announcing he intended to go for the Democratic Party's presidential
nomination :

The conservative leader said on commercial television that Senator Obama's pledges on Iraq were good news only for insurgents operating in the war-ravaged country.

"I think that will just encourage those who want to completely destabilise and destroy Iraq, and create chaos and a victory for the terrorists to hang on and hope for an Obama victory," Mr Howard told the Nine Network.

"If I were running al-Qaeda in Iraq, I would put a circle around March (sic) 2008 and be praying as many times as possible for a victory not only for Obama but also for the Democrats."

Obama's response was tough, and quick :

"I think it's flattering that one of George Bush's allies on the other side of the world started attacking me the day after I announced," Mr Obama told reporters in the mid-western US state of Iowa.

"I would also note that we have close to 140,000 troops in Iraq, and my understanding is Mr Howard has deployed 1400, so if he is ... to fight the good fight in Iraq, I would suggest that he calls up another 20,000 Australians and sends them to Iraq. Otherwise it's just a bunch of empty rhetoric."

Kevin Rudd's response on February 12, 2007 :

"Mr Howard must not allow his personal relationship with President Bush to impact on Australia's long-term alliance relationship with the United States."

"I disagreed with the coalition's decision to invade Iraq ... But I have seen it as my role to discuss the future of Australian foreign policy on Iraq, not lecture United States citizens on how they should vote in the upcoming presidential election."

Of course, Al Qaeda want the wars that have cost the United States tens of thousands of lives, minds and limbs, and more than a trillion dollars, to continue for as long as possible. Bin Laden's announced strategy at the start of the war was to bankrupt the United States through endless war, so Al Qaeda endorsed John McCain :

"Al-Qaeda will have to support McCain in the coming election...(McCain will continue the) failing march of his predecessor."

Howard's unprecedented interference in American elections was the first sign to me that he was was full of panic over the majority of Australians, British and Americans rejecting the continuation of the Iraq War and that he was going to lose the late 2007 elections, if he didn't get tossed from the leadership first. It was an extremely stupid thing to do, and a clear sign that Howard was losing his previously razor-sharp political instincts, perhaps from drinking, or a bit of dementia.

Howard's attack on Obama was the first or second story on every American national news broadcast that Sunday night, and both Republicans and Democrat senators told Howard to butt out of their politics. President Bush did not come to Howard's defence, and made no comment on the incident.

Howard's hilarious, but sad, attempts to unfuck his monster fuckup only showed further how much he'd lost the plot :

"...my job is to try and call what I think are the consequences of certain actions against Australia's national interest..."

"...if America is defeated in Iraq, it will be a colossal blow to Western prestige and it will give an enormous boost to terrorism and to terrorists not only in the Middle East but in our part of the world and that will not be in Australia's national interest..."

"...if we are out in a year's time it will be in circumstances of defeat."

"Now that would be circumstances of defeat and I know that the consequences of that for the West, its prestige, American prestige and influence in the Middle East, to spur that would give the terrorism in the Middle East, the implications it would have for the stability of other countries in the Middle East and also in our part of the world, the spur to terrorism..."

So will John Howard publicly welcome the Barack Obama administration, and will he apologise for his bizarre and utterly false February 11, 2007 comments?

More sttories on this from February, 2007 :

Prime Minister Advises Al Qaeda In Iraq On Strategy To Defeat America And The West

Howard : Democrat Win In 2008 Presidential Elections Will Spell Victory For Al

Demands Made In Parliament That Howard Retract Obama Comments And Apologise To All US Democrats

Howard Steps Up Attack On Obama

US Democrats Say Howard's Comments "Bizarre"

Howard Vs Obama Over Iraq Dominates US News

Obama To Howard : Send 20,000 Troops To Iraq Or Shut Up