To Vote or Not to Vote

[Anonymouse]

Re: To Vote or Not to Vote

Although I did not vote for anyone (I don't believe in democracy, especially the one practiced here in the US), I still prefer Obama over McCain. However, I agree with Anon. Now that Barak is the president, his administration will do everything in its power not to utter the term - Armenian Genocide. Being pro-Armenian 'before' you are in the driver's seat is one thing... When real geopolitical/economic issues come into question, it's a whole different world... Do you really think Washington is about to ruin its strategic relations with a major ally in the region over a tiny little speck on the map? Incidentally, the ANC supported Bush in 2000 because he had promised the same thing... If Barak, or any other official, wants to stay alive they have to go with the program setup for them when they enter the Oval Office, be it the one set up by Zionist or the one set up by this nation's financial/political elite... I still don't understand how/why Americans still think they actually have a say in real politics... You are still young and idealistic, but it's not a matter of despair or hope, as you put it, it's a matter of realpolitik.

Not to mention, Obama's backbone is Zbigniew Brzezinski who is as Russophobe as they come. They will take a very hard stance against Russia, which is basically against Armenian interests.

[Armenian]

Re: To Vote or Not to Vote

Most people who voted for Obama did not do so because they understand his position on the "issues". The issues are irrelevant as there really isn't a difference between the two party system. It's the illusion of change and voting is the mechanism by which the masses are able to pretend to partake in this system. The allegiances of these politicians, including this Obama character, are to other organizations, overt and covert. You cannot rise that high in politics without being bought or sold long ago. The naivety and myopia which pervades the masses in this mass movement voting gyration is astounding. The newsreel images of these Obama supporters crying and yelling is eerily fascinating at how zombie-like mass-minded herd thinking is. The only other time where I can remember someone was able to create such a cult of personality and create such blind zeal and fervor in a crowd amounting to idolatry was Mr. Hitler. There is an almost messianic feel to Obama that his minions are eating up.

I fully agree, eerily fascinating it is.... In a nut shell, Barak Obama won because of the deep hatred Americans developed for Bush (and all those associated with him) and the deep fear the current financial crisis put in their hearts... Nonetheless, Barak Obama was allowed to participate in the political system here precisely because he was adopted/chosen by the establishement four years ago when they made him speak at the Democrat Convention...

So, don't expect any drastic changes.

I'm sorry but this post demonstrates exactly your naivety. If you think anyone can become president without the support of AIPAC, and other interests such as the Council on Foreign Relations, or the Trilateral Commission which one of Obama's key backers was a supporters of - Zbigniew Brzezinski - then you have alot of reading to do. And in case you don't know, he is considered the Democrats' version of Henry Kissinger. Zbigniew Brzezinski is a Russophobe, and that doesn't bode well for Armenia.

Good point, Anon. This alone should make Armenians think twice about him. Actually, this was one of the major reasons why I turned cold towards him, the other being his newly found love for Israel and his hardening stance on Iran... If I had to pick between Armenian Genocide recognition and a Russian-friendly stance for an American politician to have, I would pick the Russian-friendly stance for obvious geopolitical reasons that directly impact the Armenian Republic. But we are again forgetting that presidents do not make policy. So, regardless of who Barak Obama is a course has already been set for the United States by forces way above him.

[yerazhishda]

Re: To Vote or Not to Vote

Good point, Anon. This alone should make Armenians think twice about him. Actually, this was one of the major reasons why I turned cold towards him, the other being his newly found love for Israel and his hardening stance on Iran... If I had to pick between Armenian Genocide recognition and a Russian-friendly stance for an American politician to have, I would pick the Russian-friendly stance for obvious geopolitical reasons that directly impact the Armenian Republic. But we are again forgetting that presidents do not make policy. So, regardless of who Barak Obama is a course has already been set for the United States by forces way above him.

You are correct Armenian. However I would like to remind you that we're choosing the lesser of two evils here. Both candidates had 'tough stances' on Russia due to jooish influence as well as old cold-war mindsets. Going from that, we can either decide on a candidate who has proved himself to be pro-Armenian or a candidate who is pro-Georgia, pro-Turkey and pro-Azerbaboon.

I would also like to say that claiming that Barack Obama is not the major character in the American political field is one thing (I agree that the American presidential office is all bought and paid for) but to say that he has no power whatsoever is not true. The president has the power push for Genocide legislation and aid to Armenia/Artsakh. I get that many dual Israeli citizens are higher-ups in Washington but we have to realize that Obama is not completely controlled by joos. Yet.

Hope in Obama is the only things Armenians in America have to stand on. I could give a xxxx what Obama thinks about anything else because I realize that the American ship is going down, sooner rather than later. However, I agree with crusader in that if by some odd chance Obama does not recognize the Armenian Genocide within his first term, we should give up the fight and fix our eyes ampoghchovin tebi Hayrenik.

[Armenian]

Re: To Vote or Not to Vote

We are on the same page, Yerazhishda. I more-or-less agree with everything you stated. The only difference between you and I is that I don't think the president of the US can make policy that can potentially go against Washington's longterm geopolitical and/or socioeconomic interests around the world. Yes, Obama may provide better assistance to Armenia but Obama simply can't risk alienating Turkey over Armenia, nor can Obama risk turning the Israeli/Jewish lobby against him. However, there is one very important factor none of us here are taking into serious concideration. Obama's presidency will be by-far the most difficult assignment faced by any American president; a collapsing economy, geopolitical tangles all around the world and two major wars... It's no secret that the Bush administration thoroughly screwed this nation, perhaps beyond repair. So, the first "black" president will have his hands full from day one, and on his priority list of things to do, I don't think Armenia would even appear... I actually feel very sorry for Obama, what a massive weight he has baring down on his shoulders. He may not make it all the way to the end. Anyway dude, you have become one of my favorite poster here. I actually look forward to reading your posts now. Are you sure you are only part Armenian?

[yerazhishda]

Re: To Vote or Not to Vote

OK, point taken Armenian.

P.S. As you know, there's no such thing as being 'part' Armenian; you either are or you aren't. You are either for the Republic or you are against it. You are either actively working for it or you are working for foreign auspicies. Because of the help of patriots like you, Federate, and crusader1492 in particular I have been able to realize this in the face of Diasporan defeatists. I have you to thank.

[Anonymouse]

Re: To Vote or Not to Vote

The problem with Obama is that he is heralded as a near-messianic type savior. The reverie and fervor which he generates among the masses is irrational exuberance. There are so many factors and variables in reality (per chaos theory) that centrally organized systems cannot account for all the variables and stimuli that goes into peoples' decision making and actions that the idea that one man (Obama) can "change" anything is beyond preposterous.

The problem with mankind is that when man stops worshiping God, he makes idolatry of mankind and the state. Then there is this unhallowed faith and belief in the Emperor figure (Obama) and the state (government) as the healer, provider, defender, judge, etc. These people cannot listen to reason, which means that reason alone cannot change peoples minds. You see, faith comes natural to man. Man must believe because man is not made up purely or wholly out of reason, but also of faith. There are two sides to this coin. When man stops worship in God (or Gods) man begins worship of man and earth. In either case man is prone to extremes, and this is an earthly extreme.

There was once a belief in an earthly utopia (Marxism/ Communism), and the unhallowed belief that the government and the state via some leader can deliver on that promise. We saw what communism did, and now people think Obama will do the same.

[Anonymouse]

Re: To Vote or Not to Vote

And who says this was far behind from coming? Already we see Obama giving homage to the zionist supporters that got him where he is. He named Rahm Emanuel as chief of staff who was also an advisor under Clinton. There are more rumors of Washington insiders like Tom Daschle, and Albright, etc. Wow, talk about "change"!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081105/ap_on_el_pr/obama_transition_7

http://www.njdc.org/site/page/rahm_emanuel

http://www.observer.com/2008/emanuel-endorses-obama-after-aipac-speech

[crusader1492]

Re: To Vote or Not to Vote

And who says this was far behind from coming? Already we see Obama giving homage to the zionist supporters that got him where he is. He named Rahm Emanuel as chief of staff who was also an advisor under Clinton. There are more rumors of Washington insiders like Tom Daschle, and Albright, etc. Wow, talk about "change"!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081105/ap_on_el_pr/obama_transition_7

http://www.njdc.org/site/page/rahm_emanuel

http://www.observer.com/2008/emanuel...r-aipac-speech

I thought the same thing when I heard this news...not a good sign.

[Anonymouse]

Re: To Vote or Not to Vote

Barriers Broken?

by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

Among those who are bemoaning the election results, one must ask supporters of liberty: given the choices, what would have been a good outcome? We've lived through eight years of what might possibly be the worst executive-driven meltdown of human liberty outside civil or world war in American history, and this is true regarding domestic policy and foreign policy.

A McCain victory would have been perceived at home and abroad as a ratification of the past eight years, and it is hard to imagine a worse course of events than that. The Obama victory symbolizes a well-deserved repudiation of this ghastly experience.

Of course, the Obama victory elicits its own spin, which is also highly dangerous. The main message concerns race. All the headlines blared that a racial barrier had been broken. The subtext here is impossible to miss: heretofore America has been a hopelessly racist country that put up barriers to the advance of people of color.

But why should politics be the standard for what constitutes a barrier or a barrier broken? The ability of individuals in a group to navigate the murky and treacherous waters of electoral politics has no necessary connection to the status of the group as a whole.

A much better indicator concerning the status of any group – racial, religious, sexual, or otherwise – is commerce, which is the real engine that makes society work. And here we see that there are no such barriers in existence. We need only look at the status of black-owned businesses to see that there are more than one million in the United States, generating revenue of some $89 billion per year, which is more than the GDP of 140 countries around the world, and growing (according to most recent data) at a faster pace than all businesses.

Tragically, Obama does not seem to see that expanding this trend is a pathway forward. For him, the answer is the failed politics of redistribution, a pathway that can only exacerbate racial tension. Far from being a healing force in American life, his success at taking from one group to give to another will only increase conflict.

Conflict is the critical word here, for the conflict view of society is what is really behind the hysterical claims that Obama's real contribution is to have broken through barriers. To understand this view, we must examine the implicit social philosophy held by those who write the headlines and put the political spin on all important events.

Lacking any kind of serious training in economics or liberal political philosophy, these people assume a soft-Marxist approach to social observation, believing that all important steps forward grow out of great clashes between intrinsically antagonistic groups.

Step back in history and try to understand how the Marxists came to understand the Industrial Revolution and all subsequent steps forward in economic development. There were ever more people benefiting from economic exchange and investment, and the standards of living of the working class were rising year after year, while the population was living longer and better. But the Marxists refused to see this or understand its meaning. All they could see came from their fixed frame of mind that posited a conflict between capital and labor. All the gains of one came at the expense of the other. If there were rich capitalists living luxuriously it could only be due to their having robbed surplus value from labor. The only way forward was to turn the tables: to expropriate the expropriators.

Now, this old-fashioned mindset is not much on display today, but other versions of the conflict view of society are all around us. There is the view that the relationship between men and women is inherently antagonistic, and the only way to overturn this and push history forward is to unseat the economically dominant group and exalt via state intervention the economically weaker group. (In case you are wondering which is which, the convention asserts that women are the exploited group.)

So it is with religion. The conflict view asserts that only one strain of doctrine can assume the commanding heights, and so all the progress of groups lower on the faith chain depends on unseating others from power. Secular groups can hold this view, believing that religion must be vanquished from the earth, and so too with religious groups that believe secularism must be destroyed.

You can go through the list here: age, ability, education level, class, region – really there is an infinite number of directions you can take this conflict view of society. One of them is race, and this one has been around a very long time and has its roots in America in genuine exploitation as represented by actual physical slavery. And yet under the conflict view, a form of slavery persists in all relations between black and white. They see only exploitation and antagonism while ignoring all contrary evidence. The path to advancement for blacks, in this view, comes only through taking power and wealth from whites, and the surest way to do that is to empower the state.

These are the underlying assumptions behind much of the media celebration of the Obama victory. It stems from the belief that the "tables must turn" – the strong must be made weak and the weak made strong – in order for history to move forward on its path toward some imagined social ideal. Again, evidence of progress that conflicts with this agenda is routinely ignored, which is why you don't often hear about peaceful, productive, commercial associations among blacks and whites at all levels of society.

This is why we hear about "breaking barriers" rather than encouraging opportunity, about policies rather than freedom, about power rather than entrepreneurship. For the media writing about all this, it is the only intellectual model they have in mind. The conflict view of society was taught to them in college and is reinforced daily in the press. Also, unless you have some clear filter in mind, it seems like the conflict view is supported by plenty of evidence, given that the rise of the state has actually generated social antagonism where none should exist.

The workplace is a good example. The legal minefield that has replaced free contract has increased tension. So too with a discriminatory welfare state. It creates the impression that some people are looting others and benefiting from it.

What is the alternative to the conflict view? It is the old liberal view of how the social order works. There is a harmony of interests in society in which people cooperate and exchange without the aid of an outside, all-controlling, leviathan state. Society contains within itself the capacity for self-management. Another way to put this view is that the free society works. Sadly, this view is not held by either the right or the left in our political culture.

To the extent that there is truth in the conflict view of society, it concerns the real issue: that the state always and everywhere exists in an antagonistic relationship to the rest of society. For this reason, the true liberal could find himself loathing the Obama administration as much as he did the Bush administration. As I've said many times, the real problem is not the person; it is the institution.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/barriers-broken.html

[KarotheGreat]

Re: To Vote or Not to Vote

I got a question for all the Armenians living in the US, who do you think should have won from all of the democratic and republican candidates? I have heard some good things about Ron Paul.