The Nobel Prize, the Brand and the President
By Gilad Atzmon
12 October 2009
Gilad Atzmon views the decision to award Barack Obama the Nobel Peace Prize as an inducement to help “Obama the Brand”, which stands for hope, ethics and humanism, resist the pressure from warmongering creditors on “Obama the President” who is struggling, failing to deliver, failing to keep promises and says things and does the opposite.
People out there are divided on whether it was a right decision to award US President Barack Obama the Nobel Prize for Peace. In fact, almost everyone around me is outraged: what “peace?” they ask. “What about Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo Bay, Palestine? We are tired of promises,” they insist. The Nobel Prize Committee, for its part, “highlighted Obama’s effort to support international bodies, build ties with the Muslim world, act in favour of nuclear non-proliferation and fight climate change”. Those who are unimpressed with Obama stress that the above is just empty rhetoric, nothing but hot air’ “We want to see action, we demand facts on the ground.”, they say.
While Obama’s critics raise some valid points, they also fail to grasp the distinction between “Obama the Brand” and “Obama the President”. The “Brand: stands for hope and humanism. It tends to say the right things on the right occasions. It is ethically aware. It employs reason occasionally and it even manages to talk sense often enough. Obama the Brand is, no doubt, a refreshing event in the Western political arena.
Barack Obama: imprisoned by Zionist guards
Obama the President is a different story altogether: it struggles, it fails to deliver, it fails to keep promises. It says things and does the opposite. Obama the President is a politician and politicians are conditionally untrustworthy.
The failure of Obama to merge the Brand and the President into a continuous ethical reality is indeed a colossal tragedy. But it is not just Obama’s tragedy, it is actually our own disaster. As much as the Brand manages to spread some cheering humanist and universal statements, the President is actually imprisoned by some of the most dangerous Zionist guards. Obama the President has a big open bill to pay to the people who gave him the keys to his current white dwelling. In other words, he has many Zionists to appease and another bunch of rabid Sayanim that have managed to invade his office. To a certain extent, Obama's failure to establish an adequate continuum between the Brand and the President is due to the unfeasibility of a continuum between humanism and Zionism.
Unfortunately, within the Western liberal discourse there is no obvious political means to confront the Zionist lobbies and their infiltrators within the American administrations or any other Western democracy. Catastrophically, there is no practical or political means to stop the Wolfowitzes from taking us into another illegal genocidal war. As with America, no one in British politics or the media is courageous enough to highlight the close ties between Tony Blair’s cabinet and his party’s leading fundraisers at the time when Britain was taken into an illegal Zionist war in Iraq. The West in general and the English-speaking world in particular have lost their survival instinct. It would be right to argue that within the post World War II Liberal discourse we lack the political apparatus to defend ourselves from the infiltration of foreign Zionist interests. By the time we are convinced that we have managed to silence one Wolfowitz, five Emanuel Rahms pop out in the background.
This is exactly where the Nobel Peace Prize comes into play. Rather than waiting for Obama to launch another Zionist war, rather than letting him nuke Iran just to make the Jewish state a “safer place”, they, the Nobel Prize Committee, have hopefully pulled him in: they gave him their biggest trophy in a very early stage of his presidential term. They basically bounded him to his “Brand” i.e. hope, humanism, harmony and reconciliation. They told him: “Listen to us, Mr President, here is your trophy. Once you accept it you may have to say NO to your Zio-cons [Zionist neo-conservatives] at home, for people with a peace medal cannot launch wars.” Obama may have to find some other policies to pursue peace rather than killing Muslims. Time will tell whether the Nobel Prize Committee gamble justified itself. For the mean time we may have to agree that the Nobel committee offered Obama an opportunity to bond the Brand and the President into a unified, dignified and ethical stand. Let’s hope that he takes the challenge.
As far as the Nobel committee is concerned, this is probably the most clever thing to do. The committee should have thought about it a long time ago. Rather than waiting for too long, they should have awarded the prize to Blair and Bush in the immediate beginning of their terms. This could have saved the lives of millions of Iraqis and Afghans. They should also have considered awarding Shimon Peres with a Nobel Prize already in the 1950s – this may have prevented him from building the Dimona nuclear reactor and later transforming it into a leading Zio-terminator. Henry Kissinger? Very much the same – they should have awarded him the peace medal on his Brit Mila (circumcision) ceremony when he was just eight days old. This could have saved the lives of millions.
The Nobel Prize for Peace should be used as a preventative means. Rather than wasting it on tedious humanists and boring peace lovers who do nothing but make the world nicer, we should better employ it in a preventative method. In current world affairs it should be used as an inducement to peace so we can avert the risk of Zionist wars.
If I read it correctly, the Nobel Peace Prize is there to help Obama the Brand withstand the pressure posed on Obama the President by his Zio-con ring.
Gilad Atzmon is an Israeli-born musician, writer and anti-racism campaigner. His latest jazz album, "In loving memory of America", was released on 1 March 2009 and can be purchased here.
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten