Posts Tagged ‘change’

One of the first things Obama did when he was elected was promote some rather hawkish long time career democrats as his staff. The rigid pro-Israeli Rahm Emanuel, who voluntarily joined the Israeli army to serve became his chief of staff. Secretary of Finance? 3 nominees, all 3 straight from the Federal Reserve Bank. Having someone from the Federal Reserve as a head of finance is like having someone from KLM be the head of Schiphol Airport. It’s essentially corrupt.

Now, one of the first things Obama lets us know, besides that Iran is still on the list, is that the rockets will still be installed in Poland. Excuse me? Is this supposed to be someone with an agenda for ‘change’? He doesn’t even sound like someone from another party than Bush – in fact probably most Republicans sound more revolutionary than he does. Do me a favour and look at a world map. Now, draw a line between Iran and, say, Paris. Does the line cross Poland? Of course not. The only countries a rocket installation in Poland would protect against Iranian missiles are Norway and Sweden.

What a strange kind of ‘change’ we have here. We have a weird, provocative plan to build a rocket defense system at the Russian border. Then a ‘new president’ comes out and the first thing he lets us know is that this plan won’t change. Wow, that’s rich. I bet Norway and Sweden are going to be really happy to feel safe & protected from Iranian missiles.

You can’t institutionalize change. I wrote an article about this last week in respect to dutch poetry. Renewal and change are protest movements. Once you institutionalize them they die. This is true for politics as well. In Holland we had countless politicians who ‘would change the existing elite’ and ‘change Den Hague’ and in reality they have always proven to be worse than the thing they pretend to be fighting. There is a reason for that. Change is a sacred phenomenon, a high and creative sort of energy. Once you stick something holy into a mudpool, the mudpool just looks much much worse.

Prior to the ‘change’ it looked just like what it was: an unpretentious mudpool. After the ‘change’ it looks like the same old mudpool, but with something you hold dear lying in the middle, all smudged up and dirty. That’s what happens when you institutionalize change. It will never work. Holy things and mudpools aren’t fit to be partners.

So McCain, Obama, the so called advocates of change: I would never ever vote for them. The only person I would perhaps vote for is the guy that would say he wouldn’t change a thing about this mudpool he’s going to manage. That you can expect the same kind of corrupt crap from him as from the others. Such honesty would likely win him my vote, and lose him the votes of all the idiots who believe that one can baptize turds.

These are not presidents, these are marketing products. Anything that answers exactly to the expectations of the mass consumers is suspect. The fact that people nowadays vote for marketing products is evidence that these products have no power whatsoever of their own. It’s the guys that paid the marketing agencies to come up with these products that are pulling the ropes. Sometimes it seems evident the same guys pay for both products. At any rate, the only real change would be an entirely different system. Obama isn’t interested in change. You won’t hear him say anything about the idiotic media circus, the waste of hundreds of millions of dollars on fake shows, the inherent flaws in the system he represents. It is the Janus-head dictatorship of the media, disguising as a popular democracy. Nothing will change, or, if it does, it will probably get worse.