WHITEISM: PLAYING FOR KEEPS or: What the Hell is Obama up to? or Washingtons Secret Civil War

I am updating this piece as it is being written in the light of ongoing events

Whatever else is going on, one thing is clear; everybody is playing for keeps in Syria.

The Damascus chemical attack is a rare moment, clearly seen by everyone as a turning point and not just for the Middle East. Room for a fudge has diminished until it is vanishingly small. One way or another, everyone is now going to be forced to take sides in the Syrian conflict. On the surface this is how it splits:

The attack either took place or it did not.
There is no independent way of verifying that an attack using a known chemical weapon agent such as Sarin actually happened. The evidence of a chemical attack of this nature will always be open to dispute in any event. There is no doubt that the ‘Neo Con’ faction will say such an attack occurred even if the evidence is highly contentious.
(Cameron admitted in the House of Commons debate that evaluating the available evidence of an attack was ‘a matter of judgement’)

The attack resulted in mass casualties including women and children or it did not.
There is plenty of evidence of the Cannibal army producing propaganda material, especially to promote the case for western intervention. There is also plenty of evidence that the western media uncritically jump on this material and use it to promote war. But it is also clear that much of the public has become increasingly wary of the ‘stampede’ tactic- weapons of mass destruction in Iraq etc. If it should turn out that the footage of casualties is not all it seems to be, the media which accepted it unchallenged would suffer a major, possibly even a terminal blow.

Either the Assad regime or the Cannibal army carried out the attack.
If the Assad regime did it then there will be the perfect pretext for an attack and the overthrow of the last secular regime in the Middle East. But if the Cannibal army can be shown to have done it, then they too are finished.
(Since it is clear now that a significant minority of the public and politicians are not willing to accept the media narrative, you can expect a major corporate media offensive to shore up credibility and make the public accept their version of events)

Somebody is going down and pretty soon. Given the way these things have played out in the recent past it seems reasonable to assume (barring a major upset), that it is the Assad regime that is due to go.

But hang on a minute, the fat lady is not singing, not just yet.

First of all, there is still no widespread public support, either in USA or England for an attack on Syria despite nearly two years of pro war propaganda.

Second, there is no public trust in the official narrative with regard to Syria (eg. the public does not yet believe that Assad carried out this or any other attack)

Third, there is no widespread support within Syria for the Cannibal Army

Fourth, there is no guarantee that the Russians and the Chinese will roll over and take it.

In short, there is no guarantee that the West can pull it off.

But why should that matter? -there was no guarantee that the Saxon Axis could pull off Iraq and Libya (and in point of fact, the Saxon Axis secured at best limited and partial success in these areas), but that did not stop them going ahead with those adventures.
The determining factor is not if Obama achieves his stated objectives in atacking Syria.

What matters is that Obama can get away with it if he fails to achieve his objectives- what matters are the consequences of failure.

If you think I am predicting some kind of peasants uprising that will bring the elite to justice for war crimes across the Middle East, I am not. The danger to each faction of the elite comes not from the public but from the other of the two. One section of the elite might be willing and able to pin a failure in Syria on the other one. This is what is different and defining about contemporary events and this is why both sides in this secret war are playing for keeps.

Weapons of mass destruction in Iraq are a familiar illustration of this principle. It has been clearly shown that there were none. Which means that the invasion of Iraq was a war crime, yet no-one has been brought to book.
Why?
Because no one with the real power to cause any trouble is interested in causing any trouble. In other words the media and political elite regard it as being in their best interest to present a common front against the idea that any of them could be brought to book for events in Iraq. So even though Blair and Bush were shown to have committed what was at least a terrible act of incompetence they know they are in no danger of facing a war comes tribunal. This foreknowledge is essential if elites are going to have the confidence to act.

Ask yourself this question: What would politics look like if politicians didn’t have that confidence?

There are two elite Anglo Saxon political factions that no longer have an interest in the consensus as it has previously existed. Events in the Middle East are one arena they are fighting in. Whoever loses in the international arena as a consequence loses in the domestic arena. Most people have figured out the conflict has nothing to do with Republican or Democrat allegiances. In fact, these allegiances can be said to be secret from the public.

We need a framework within which we can understand who these two elite competing groups are, and what exactly divides them.

Obama is plainly not left wing or even liberal, either in terms of domestic or international policy. Yet it is clear that his agenda diverges significantly from that of the Neo Cons in the USA elite.
In domestic policy he has followed the policy of reducing ‘entitlements’ and supporting the financial sector.
He is plainly less enthusiastic about military action as it is undertaken by the Neo Cons. But this is not because he is anti-war;Obama likes to use drones. Obama just does not want to fight Neo con wars on Neo Con terms.

Obama’s sees himself as the forerunner of a whole generation of black politicians in the run up to 2040 (racial tipping point in USA). He sees himself as struggling against a racist Neo-Con plot to bring him down using whatever means come to hand, including Syria. His entire purpose is his personal political survival and by extension the survival of what he represents- the new black political class. He sees the ‘red-lines’ as a trap that McCain sprung on him. In return he is now busily wrapping McCain and the Neo-Cons up so tightly in the coming attack that no matter how it plays out they cannot use it against him. This is Obama’s politics and his morality- the struggle against McCain and all the other Yankee Boers- his war against American Apartheid.

The secret civil war in Washington is every bit as vicious as the one in Syria is.

Advertisements

3 thoughts on “WHITEISM: PLAYING FOR KEEPS or: What the Hell is Obama up to? or Washingtons Secret Civil War

  1. Not a single comment anywhere on your blog. Do you delete them all? Loved your film (Democratisation of Money) and read C-nomics last week. A unique (so far as I know), incisive and highly persuasive analysis. I would like to see it published in Chinese and Spanish. Any chance of that?

    re Obama – you suggest his loyalty (invisible in any other direction, unless to self-promotion which is a politico default) is to a future in which (some) black Americans are able to be political and economic leaders. In general you essentialize (Whiteism, Germans, Pagans) and see the broad lines of historic development as driven by these contrasting ethno-ideological formations. Your Obama accords with this explanatory principle. You may be right, this may be the bedrock of the man – but could he not simply be a ruthless opportunist who has played his race every way he could to climb where he has without a thought for future generations? After all avoiding impeachment doesn’t have to have altruistic motives.

  2. @reflexredux
    I have had comments but I must admit I have been a little lax in figuring out how to approve them so they will appear on the site.
    Of course I welcome your comments and look forward to hearing your opinions and the opinions of everyone that reads this stuff. Discussing and arguing about ideas always makes them better.
    Ref your point about Obama the opportunist, I don’t doubt for a moment that Obama is as venal and shallow as only a corporate politician can be, but bear in mind:
    No matter what the true nature of an individual is, don’t they all have a moral narrative ( in which they star of course) that justifies what they do? Isn’t it is this makes Blair so fascinating and repellent at the same time- the fact that at some level he has really convinced himself he is trying to do the right thing?
    And perhaps more importantly, Obama’s moral narrative is the basis on which his followers can convince themselves to continue to give him support ,despite the fact that he is so obviously so much less than he appeared to be at first glance.
    Electing a ‘black’ politician to the White House is part of the moral rehabilitation of Anglo Saxon America . If Obama can be shown to succeed or fail by friends or foes it will taken as the proof of a moral point. Whiteism is a discussion of what exactly that moral point is.

  3. Okay I’m not sure, even granting the assertion that a moral narrative is a standard component of a socially functional personality (after all, presumably not having one is tantamount to being a psychopath yet, as we know, many psychopaths are socially functional and effective), that this is especially relevant. We don’t have access to Pres. O’s moral narrative except via such clues as he may choose to present us with, and the objective record of his actions and decisions (determined by factors of which we have only limited knowledge) with the result, as indeed in ordinary social life, that multiple opinions and interpretations are possible concerning an individual’s moral narrative and, by extension, their motivation. So it may be that, as you suggest, in his own mind Obama is a moral hero whose cause is the eventual full enfranchisement (beyond formally constituted, as at present) of black and other non-white people in the USA – but he can’t say this openly because it would involve a) too radical a critique of current formal freedoms and b) he would potentially attract dangerous opposition. This is an interesting hypothesis – I can’t say that you’ve provided evidence. What you have done is suggested a context (almost certainly correct) of competing factions and pressures around Obama which he has to negotiate in order to survive politically and, accepting your interpretation become the symbol of a success which will facilitate a development in US politics for which demographic trends are currently providing a potential base.

    What I like about your observation is that willingness to contextualise Obama and his power instead of (as a majority of commentators tend to) assuming that his role and title confer absolute uncontested political sway. And I think your suggestion about his _personal_ vision and motivation are interesting, ingenious, possibly persuasive, but unproven.

    I’m very interested by what you say in closing about ‘the moral rehabilitation of Anglo-Saxon America’ and ‘Whiteism’ as a discussion. To take the moral rehabilitation point first, there is surely no official recognition of moral collapse, so the rehabilitation ‘project’ is presumably more a pet fantasy of a liberal-left constituency in the USA (which does feel the moral taint of the slide towards a fascist police state and the global military grandstanding and trashing of international law that are projected externally), including a few voices in the commentariat. Regarding ‘Whiteism,’ which I take to be your coinage, I thought from reading you this was a political stance based upon a background assumption of ‘white’ superiority (in effect, one possibility of a ‘speciation’ model of human variation, which reifies visible physiological differences into differning core endowments and then takes this to imply a hierarchy of human sub-species). If this understanding is correct (I’m really struggling to understand ‘Whiteism’ as a discussion) then I think it is fairly clear to see the cultural narratives which are already in place to make ‘Whiteism’ possible and, given that the background assumptions _are_ background and culturally tacit, the ease with which what is effectively a global _supremacist_ political stance/project can draw strength and support from large numbers who are not consciously committed to global apartheid. How an ideological position can be a discussion (as opposed to being discussed) I don’t see. Alternatively, to describe as a discussion the historical struggle for such a position to become politically dominant or hegemonic seems to stretch the boundaries of metaphor unnecessarily.

    I am genuinely interested in your ideas and in particular your reading of the global economy today resonates very strongly with my own experience, so I hope you won’t be offended by these comments, which might appear somewhat critical. My own blog, reflexredux, is where I am trying to map my own struggles to comprehend the world but it is private and, having tried to invite you to it, I find that I don’t have the wp ID required to do so successfully.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s