The Emperor Doth Protest Too Much

His Most Elevated Majesty, Barack the Blessed, gave a speech in Talinn (Estonia) on Wednesday, filled with words such as "freedom" and "democracy" and "real progress" - whatever that means.

I'll deal with it in more detail in my Antiwar.com piece tomorrow (update: here's a link). For now, though, just some thoughts.

photo via RT

C-Span has the 30-minute video. The White House has a transcript.

Listen to it. Compare what he says to be the truth, with actual truth. Compare the actions of his own government, his own officials, his own troops - to his platitudes about "big bullying the small" and "dignity" and "independence". I dare you to listen with a straight face to his words about freedom of press and thought, what with Anglosphere media marching in absolute lockstep and every dissent dismissed as "propaganda."

Listen to his soothing platitudes about how NATO isn't aimed against anyone - the blood of Serbs, Iraqis, Afghans and Libyans begs to differ. Listen to his lies about how there were no Nazis in the Maidan, or how there was no coup in Kiev. "These are facts, provable, not subject to dispute" - except they are not.

And the "currents of history... flow towards freedom"? Who wrote this speech, Citizen Kang?

All this talk of the inevitable triumph of freedom, democracy, "real progress" (whatever that is) - methinks that's just His Imperial Majesty protesting too much. He is trying too hard to persuade his "allies" (i.e. clients) that he is still the most powerful, still the strongest, still the richest, that End of History is just around the corner.

Not everything in the speech was a lie. Moral strength is more powerful than tanks. People generally do wish to be free from bullying, and be independent. Might indeed does not make right.

So why is his country and his own government using tanks (or planes, or missiles)? Why does he bully other countries into making only the "choices" his government dictates, under threat of "kinetic military action" or "color revolution"? Why is it the core belief of the current government of the United States of America that might does make right?

He lies about motes in the eyes of others, while failing to see the beam in his own.

At Face Value

What is one to make of Barack Obama's remarks yesterday, during a visit to Mexico, when he condemned violence against "peaceful protesters" - considering that the tele-operated mob in the Ukraine determined to violently overthrow the government may be many things, but is most assuredly not peaceful?

(via Facebook)

Everyone knows that violence against peaceful protesters is wrong. That is why Ukraine's President Yanukovich has offered a general amnesty, offered a leader of the protesters the post of Prime Minister, and tolerated the occupation of Kiev's central square and public buildings for three months. The problem are not peaceful protesters, but the violent ones.

So, either Mr. Obama's statement applies to an abstraction, or what he said was that Washington doesn't mind legitimate police action against violent protesters. After all, the U.S. government has repeatedly resorted to force, both at home and abroad, to make its point. Surely, a government committed to the rule of law, freedom and democracy, i.e. the equality of all before the law (pace the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights) would not hold other governments to a different standard than itself, right? And surely it would be grossly unfair, and possibly bigoted, to suggest that Barack Obama does not know exactly what he is talking about.

With that in mind, Mr. Obama's remarks yesterday represent a clearly implied approval of subduing the violent law-breakers by all legal means. To interpret them any other way would be to suggest Mr. Obama is either a hypocrite, duplicitous, or stupid. Surely, the American public and the media don't mean to do that.

Do they?

Sublimely Ridiculous

Look, this isn't exactly a travesty. Martti "Kosova" Ahtisaari winning last year, now that was a travesty. He actually hurt the cause of peace. Barack Hussein Obama hasn't done, well, anything.

And that's rather the point, isn't it? Until today, one at least had to have done something - however twisted or misinterpreted - to merit a peace Nobel. I'm not aware of any prior occasion that someone got this award for accomplishing nothing.

This is beyond strange, it's downright silly.

O tempora, o mores.

Continuity, Confirmed

The title says it all: "Obama the Imperialist," writes Richard Seymour in The Guardian.

I couldn't have written it better myself, though I've tried.