The time has come for Robert Mugabe to answer for his crimes against humanity, against his countrymen and women and for justice to be done. The winds of change that once brought hope to Zimbabwe and its neighbours have become a hurricane of destruction with the outbreak of cholera, destitution, starvation and systemic abuse of power by the state. Robert Mugabe and his henchmen must now take their rightful place in The Hague and answer for their actions.

Nobel Peace Prize laureate, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, said African nations should come together to use military force if Mr Mugabe refused to go. US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, agrees. She said it was “well past time” for Mr Mugabe to go.

UK PM Gordon Brown also agrees and called the Zimbabwean government a “blood-stained regime“: “We must stand together to defend human rights and democracy, to say firmly to Mugabe that enough is enough”

The spiritual leaders of the Church of England are crossing an ocean of blood to join the greatest mass murderers of our times in a spectacularly indecent show of hypocrisy. The notorious humanitarian interventions, sponsored by Human Rights Watch and welcomed by the lib-left intelligentsia, have finally got the blessing of the holy men.

The Church of England’s message is clear: in Iraq and Afghanistan they’re children of a lesser god.

Everything has to change so that nothing changes.

– Giuseppe Tomasi Di Lampedusa, Il Gattopardo

The color of money. Senator Barack Obama’s campaign has now raised more than $600 million, almost equaling what all the candidates from both major parties collected in private donations in 2004.

Where do you think that awful lot of money comes from?

Many of these large donors come from industries with interests in Washington. A New York Times analysis of donors who wrote checks of $25,000 or more to the candidates’ main joint fund-raising committees found, for example, the biggest portion of money for both candidates came from the securities and investments industry, including executives at various firms embroiled in the recent financial crisis like Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers and AIG. (…) More than 600 donors contributed $25,000 or more to [Obama] in September alone, roughly three times the number who did the same for Senator John McCain.

Endorsements, or the big orgy.

Colin Powell, one of the major war criminals with the blood of millions of innocent people on his hands, has endorsed Barack Obama who, in exchange, has endorsed war criminal Powell:

Obama told NBC television Monday that Powell was welcome to campaign for him and might have a place in his administration. He said Powell “will have a role as one of my advisers” and that a formal role in his government was “something we’d have to discuss.”

The (ex)change we can believe in.

All the President’s Men. Among Barrack Obama’s godfathers there are: Warren Buffett, the world’s richest man, George Soros (the multibillionaire Good Samaritan affiliated with the Council on Foreign Relations, International Crisis Group, Human Rights Watch, etc.), the diabolical Zbigniew Brzezinski, and the notorious media mogul Rupert Murdock with his nefarious empire. The list goes on and on.

No doubt there will be advantages to have a liberal emperor. Alan Dershowitz explains:

The reason is because I think it is better for Israel to have a liberal supporter in the White House than to have a conservative supporter in the oval office. Obama’s views on Israel will have greater impact on young people, on Europe, on the media and on others who tend to identify with the liberal perspective. Although I believe that centrists liberals in general tend to support Israel, I acknowledge that support from the left seems to be weakening as support from the right strengthens. The election of Barack Obama — a liberal supporter of Israel — will enhance Israel’s position among wavering liberals. As I travel around university campuses both in the United States and abroad, I see radical academics trying to present Israel as the darling of the right and anathema to the left. As a liberal supporter of Israel, I try to combat that false image. Nothing could help more in this important effort to shore up liberal support for Israel than the election of a liberal president who strongly supports Israel and who is admired by liberals throughout the world. That is among the important reasons why I support Barack Obama for president.

Dershowitz is absolutely right of course. Not to mention Mr. Vice-President Joseph “I am a Zionist” Biden, the man in charge of the implementation of an old Zionist dream, the partition of Iraq and one of Obama’s top foreign policy advisers, Madeleine Bloody Albright, the modern Herod who proudly claimed the responsibility for the massacre of half a million Iraqi innocent babies.

Empires don’t elect presidents, they select emperors. The Empire’s Establishment picked up an unknown politician and made of him a star to save itself and control the masses with the American Democracy Show. Casting a handsome, charming black man (yes! the Establishment played the race card. Remember? Everything has to change so that nothing changes) to cover the ugly face of a bloody, ruthless Empire, the ruling class plans to rebuild the illusion of a respectable civilization, the stars and stripes mythology, the American way. The media – owned by those who control the political process, the same people who control the economy and our lives – played marvelously the game and another Hollywood movie is brainwashing the four corners of the planet.

Killing hopes. A self-complacent politburo with its well-funded progressive think tanks and publications has once again participated in this colossal work of whitewashing and propaganda. The King is dead. Long live the King! No surprise of course. Yugoslavia, Iraq and Afghanistan have shown the intellectual and moral collapse of the Western Left, a phantom that continues its long march toward irrelevance.

Bennis wrote,

“I never supported Saddam Hussein, who was ‘resisting’ the U.S. during the sanctions years, and I didn’t — and don’t — support what is called ‘the Iraqi resistance’ today.”

Note that “what is called.” One could try stop for a second and reflect why so many people use that “what is called” when addressing what is called the anti-war movement Bennis now has become the official spokesperson for.

The US peace movement’s spokesperson explains why “the U.S. peace movement doesn’t embrace the Iraqi resistance”:

[W]hat is understood to be “the Iraqi resistance” against the U.S. occupation is a disaggregated and diverse set of largely unconnected factions, in which the various often-antagonistic armed movements (including some who attack Iraqi civilians as much as they do occupation troops) hold pride of place. There is no unified leadership that can speak for “the resistance,” there is no NLF or ANC or FMLN that can claim real leadership and is accountable to the Iraqi population as a whole. There is no unified program, either of what the fight is against or what it is for. We know virtually nothing of what most of the factions stand for beyond opposition to the U.S. occupation — and from my own personal vantage point, of the little beyond that that we do know, I don’t like so much.

The Western post-modern anti-war movement got to the point to decide which resistance movement we like and which one we “don’t like so much.”

So now you know!

You, the resistance movements around the world that are resisting this rapacious Empire whose fat belly we live so comfortably in, you must be approved to have our respect, sympathy and intellectual support.

Approved by whom?

We shall create a special office for this task. We may call it the Empire’s anti-war movement’s department for the right to exist of the indigenous peoples. If you have a better name, please, send your suggestions. We are tolerant and encourage politically correctness to make you feel at home.

But please remember. We have become a little fussy, you know. Try to look a little more like those resistance movements we so much admire in those romantic Hollywood movies. And since you are at it, shave and get a shower.

Let’s go back to the peace movement’s spokesperson.

On another point, she writes,

As to our movement. Cockburn is wrong when he claims the peace movement is dead. How does he think that 70% anti-war opinion he notes was created? Certainly spontaneous opposition has played a part, based on rising casualty figures from Iraq (unfortunately only U.S. casualties seem to have this effect, not the enormously larger Iraqi casualties) and the lengthening litany of Bush administration outrages. But the peace movement’s work has been critical as well.

Unfortunately indeed! Especially when it’s that anti-war movement to conceal the real extent of the horror the Anglo-American invasion, [read: our leaders, our troops, our money, our will and our indifference] brought into Iraq.

But the post-modern anti-war movement doesn’t do resistance.

Bennis is even more explicit, I would say honest, in her realpolitik approach:

“I don’t think we gain strength by making sympathy with resistance fighters a demand of our movement.”

Indeed. To know why, please read my two pre-emptive replies:

Once upon a time in Iraq… Money makes the world go around

Once upon a time in Iraq… A Nobel Peace Prize for the Anglo-American Peacekeepers?