John Pilger on Obama, page 1

Thought this was very interesting for obvious purposes.
By Khephra Maley
Many Americans were shocked by Obama’s meteoric rise to power. Although plenty of other ‘relative unknowns’ have made the jump from Congress or a governorship to the Oval Office, none of them were visible minorities or able to galvanize public sentiment nearly as well as Obama. Following 8 years of despotic rule by George Bush & Co., huge segments of the American public embraced Obama’s candidacy with wanton enthusiasm. His campaign rallies took on an imperialistic tenor, and for many confused Americans he was psychologically conflated as a political messiah – ready, willing and able to act as civilization’s great panacea. Unfortunately, much of the public was simply projecting dreams for a better future onto Obama. They saw in him a clear improvement over Bush and more integrity than Hillary Clinton, and this branding helped him handily mop the floor with John McCain. Nevertheless, branding aside, with a little critical attention Obama’s rise to power begins to seem less accidental, and takes on all the hues of a prolonged, successful grooming process. Barack Obama did not become a global sensation by accident. He had help getting where he is. That help obviously included corporate and financial interests, but it may also have included the involvement of covert intelligence agencies – perhaps most especially the CIA.

In contrast with the enthusiastic shock many felt towards Obama’s rise to success, fewer would be surprised at the suggestion that the military-industrial complex exercises undue influence in the American political system. Eisenhower warned the world before leaving office in 1961, and JFK’s condemnation of ’secret societies’ operating within the American government may have contributed to or hastened his assassination. A few decades later the Iran-Contra debacle illustrated that the military-industrial complex could act with impunity without fear of legitimate censure. Oliver North, the scandal’s sacrificial lamb, now works as a ‘political commentator’ for Fox News and is a best-selling NYT author. If this is how we punish culprits found dabbling in treason, one might begin to wonder if Lady Justice should remove her blindfold.

In the modern era, however, the scope of the military-industrial complex’s domination has escaped all semblance of notoriety. This, like Obama’s success, did not arise by accident. Society today has been immersed in Hollywood’s mythology since birth. Most of us would be hard-pressed to remember before we first met Mickey Mouse, for example. But Mickey Mouse isn’t benign, and neither is Hollywood. Among the many useful things Mickey Mouse will teach you is that males solve problems, females need males to solve problems, and the ‘good’ guy always finishes the day happy. Few of us view life this simplistically and many would balk at the suggestion that Mickey Mouse really ‘teaches’ us anything, but we are unwise to think this conditioning has no effect on our psychosocial development.

Similarly, Hollywood has spent the last three decades churning out a remarkable slew of movies involving or centring on war, military life, crime and punishment, and intelligence agencies. More often than not, audiences transpose these romanticized characterizations onto how they think the military-industrial complex operates. In the audience’s eyes acts of dubious morality become justified – the heroes actions are always legitimated by the results they achieve. An obvious example of this perceptive tendency is the public’s enthusiasm for 2008’s The Dark Knight, in which the antihero’s actions – which include illegally surveilling civilians, wanton disregard for social accountability, perjury, vigilantism, tax evasion, and blackmail (to name but a small few) – are excused because he gets the ‘bad’ guy. Likewise, in the popular sci-fi spy drama Alias, covert intelligence agencies are portrayed as rogues while their roguish behaviour is beyond reproof. The lead character, Sydney Bristow, was a top-tier college freshman who was courted and recruited by a covert intelligence agency. She goes on to save the world a few times – occasionally while pregnant – but throughout it all the world remains ignorant of her actions. In Alias’s fictional world, the public is kept perpetually ignorant of the very real threat it is under, all manner of resources are marshalled for various sundry endeavours, and the government exists merely as a means of enabling the antihero’s success. This implicitly anti-democratic message isn’t innocuous and it isn’t simply a rhetorical device used to weave a story. It mirrors an established psychopathology: narcissism.

Narcissism, like any other human characteristic, can take on many different masks. Even still, I don’t think this narcissistic/patriarchal worldview is limited to Hollywood, serialized television, or literature. In fact, I think many within the military-industrial complex would readily sympathize. From their vantage, they’re “watching over” us and “keeping us safe [from ourselves, if need be]“. Thinking the application of this patriarchal worldview passive, in my opinion, would be a mistake. Rather, I would argue this narcissistic psychopathology infects large swaths of the military-industrial complex’s leadership, and some of these ‘defenders of the public’ are willing to go through similarly despotic means to reach their desired ends. As a result, I think it pertinent to consider whether president Obama’s success may be a byproduct of a similar agenda.

[edit on 4-2-2010 by mikelee]