Michael Tsarion, aside from some of his rather esoteric views, curiously points out a bust of George Washington, I believe in DC, which says “George Washington: Free Mason and first US President”, in that order. One doesn’t have to wonder excessively where the priority for public servants lies, and in that there’s more to the meaning of the eye atop the pyramid on the $1 bill, the dogma of our present system.

It’s an interesting time to be alive, and as our movement toward the inevitable continues its accelerated curve there is much to learn along the way, and much to do. We cannot change the external without changing internally. We all have the responsibility to confront that fact if we are to effectively bring about needed change. So long as people are reluctant to abandon their false hope in a fundamentally corrupt system, and not see reality for what it is through historical investigation, reality will continue to mirror irrationality.

Best to you.

A true progressive movement needs an entirely different narrative. One that moves us away from imperial empire. Reading FDR (as seems t be Obama’s inclination) and what he did during the Great Depression is not progressivism. It is about saving capitalism; tho there are elements of progressive initiatives with FDR’s New Deal, it never touched the fundamental structure of empire which is with us today. A progressive narrative is not about saving capitalism, imperial empire, exceptionalism, or the dominant narrative of prosperity which concentrates power and wealth in the hands of a few thus sustaining not life, nor justice, nor peace, but imperial empire ruled by a plutocracy – not a democracy of the people.

The other night I was listening to the old school notion of progressive economics as espoused by Robert Kuttner. As I listened I heard the imperial empire talk of GDP and economic prosperity through growth, etc. Kuttner was describing what he thought a “progressive” economic agenda need to be to achieve those goals of economic prosperity. These are clues not a progressive agenda but to the business as usual talk of Dem/Repub. Considering Obama a progressive because he voted party line in the Senate is the perfect example of how deep the imperial empire’s narrative goes.

A new narrative is required to provide a real alternative to empire thinking. Moving the empire narrative so it’s a tad more palatable to a shallow 20th Century progressive notion of change, only sustains the imperial empire and provides what we’ve seen with the Bush administration. The latter was born out of the narrative chosen and amplified by not only Reagan but Clinton, and soon Obama.

Real change, deep structural change, must be precursored by a new progressive narrative that starts local, on a human scale and moves out from there. Yes, leaders come from the movement not the other way around.

When the empire narrative rules, then people expect a simple vote to represent change. It will never happen that way. Make it happen locally, lead by example. Usher in a new narrative which makes the American empire and the hideous past that brings us to this point, a relic of the past.

Obama does NOT represent this change. He’s busy reading FDR to figure out how to fix the system so it continues down the path of empire.

While apparently intelligent, and quick to pick up on rhetorical phases, Obama has yet to display, courage or wisdom. It is not his age that is the issue, it is his personal self-absorbed ambition. Change will NOT come from the top of the empire pyramid.

Max goes on to define reality even better by acknowledging that Obama did fool some of you (Obama supporters), although I’d say he fooled the lot of you high hopers who believe they have a movement built behind Obama. Ending the imperial empire that is the US should be at the top of everyone’s priority list after more than a century of imperial war mongering and democracy destruction — thanks for the momentum Teddy. Obama and his picks are for preserving that establishment, not changing it, as their positions clearly indicate. Are the fooled ones still hopeful that all these hawks will suddenly shape-shift into doves come January? That would be real change, and nothing short of a miracle.

Political movements are apparently subject to opinion and/or interpretation, albeit inaccurately according to general consensus. For those of you who adhere to this fallacy, remember that political movements lift candidates from their own ranks, e.g. Gaitan and Colombia circa 1948, Mossadegh and Iran 1951, Arbenz and Guatemala 1951, Allende and Chile 1970, Aristide and Haiti 2000, Morales and Bolivia 2005, and of course Chavez and Venezuela on nearly a dozen occasions since coming to office in 1999. These movements are comprised of people who organize, rally and hit the streets with their fists in the air, time and time again. Rocking the vote for a candidate propped up by the corporate establishment barely surpasses complacency, certainly not a movement. Were you fooled by the color and a phenomenal bandwagon?

Real, altruistic change will be easily recognized when it’s proposed;
1. end the entrenched US imperialist disposition
2. abandon sanctions which operate as silent WMDs against countries like Cuba
3. close down our military bases around the world
4. abolish Homeland Security and the Patriot Act
5. transform capitalism by moving from a monetary system to a resource-based economy that prioritizes stewardship and equal distribution of necessities
6. start prosecuting white collar criminals and their governmental cohorts
7. implement a national health care system and a functional education system
8. invest and reward for practical green energy alternatives
9. quit supporting tyrannical governments like Israel
10. start cooperating multi-laterally with the UN and international community
11. quit trying to lead the world like a lost puppy while violently protecting US interests
12. apologize to the world and humbly request forgiveness for our past behavior and short-sighted arrogance

Radical transformations like these constitute real change, anything short of this maintains the same general trajectory of the past 100+ years of a corrupt, plutocratic doctrine.

Don’t continue to be fooled by the charades, the media spin and Hollywood props for Obama fails to represent or constitute anything that resembles real change, unless of course one’s perception of real change is utterly skewed.

Best to all

I’m not interested in every little itsy bitsy liberal whim (or however you characterize it).

I’m interested in ending the imperial empire that is America. That’s a tall order and Gates is about preserving that empire. I also think that Obama is about saving it, not changing it.

So, you little complacent, sanctimony about how upright Robert Gates is compared to the neofascist monster Rumsfeld is so much in place chatter.

But if that’s all you’re after you’ve got your administration. But when you’re ready to talk about real change, I’d be glad to discuss.

Many, here, argued that he never made a credible case. In the end, at the end of his “positions”, he came out sounding pretty much like the so-called “Bush Doctrine” (really the Plutocracy Doctrine). His responses at debates and press-conferences were aligned with Bush (and McCain/Hillary). What he did was fool some of you (and he’s still persisting with the ruse even as he appoints one neocon/neolib after another, amazing!!).

He does not surprise at all. He would have surprised me had be selected some progressive econonists – Michael Hudson, and a few others – as well as some folks who understand non-imperialist foreign diplomacy. But he’s been true to form.

As the song goes “man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest…” Obama, from what I can tell is doing precisely what he said he would do. He may even move further to the right. For sure this is no friend to the poor and people of color.