By Webster G. Tarpley
February 19, 2008
The recent discovery by various functionaries of the Clinton campaign that Obama habitually lifts entire passages from the speeches of Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick points far beyond the issue of alleged plagiarism and gets us close to the central issue about Obama: the Illinois Senator is a synthetic Manchurian candidate who has been concocted over a period of two decades or more by a political intelligence faction associated with the Zbigniew Brzezinski clan, and Zbig’s friends of the “color revolutions” faction at the National Endowment for Democracy and the Soros milieu. The striking fact revealed by the discovery that Obama and Patrick parrot the same type of utopian and messianic platitudes is not just that these two mellifluous demagogues habitually swap chunks of their speeches. It is rather that both of them are the product of the same process of programming, training, and indoctrination one might well say brainwashing on the part of the Brzezinski faction. They are both from the same stable, so to speak. The reason that there are two of them is that each is a backup for the other within the framework of the same overall intelligence community project, which is to bring the techniques of postmodern coup, otherwise known as the CIA color revolution or people power putsch, into this country in order to seize power in a postmodern coup d’état. Both Obama and Patrick can be viewed as the dummies through which the ventriloquist Brzezinski speaks.
It is of course ironic that Obama, the professional word-monger, deals in words he has filched elsewhere. With no achievements, no record, no commitments, no promises, no loyalties, and no track record, Obama’s stock in trade is oratory. How revealing that his only capability, his words, have been purloined.
Here is an example, widely quoted on the Internet, of parallel passages spouted by Obama and by Patrick:
Obama: “Don’t tell me words don’t matter. ‘I have a dream’ just words? ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal’ just words? ‘We have nothing to fear but fear itself’ just words? Just speeches?”
Patrick: “‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal’ just words? ‘We have nothing to fear but fear itself’ just words? ‘Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.’ Just words? ‘I have a dream’ just words?”
The passages are interesting since they amount to a pre-packaged defense against the most obvious objection to the two politicians in question: they are short on concrete policy proposals, and long on vapid rhetoric. Since it would appear that Patrick made his remarks first, there is little doubt that Obama is indeed a mimic of Patrick. This discovery, however, is not new. Over the past year, the New York Times Magazine, the Boston Globe, and the Boston Phoenix have all published articles pointing to the fact that the babblings of these two politicians are astonishingly similar, to the point of being practically identical. The Boston Phoenix article is included below. What these passages reveal is that both Obama and Patrick are indeed Manchurian candidates, and that both are reciting from the same intelligence community print out. They have memorized their lines from the same prompter. This points to the fact that both of these candidates come out of a laboratory, the same laboratory, and not out of any normal political process is the average person would understand that. Their rhetorical style and repertoire of themes are coherent with the same covert operation, in which they are both cogs.
As far as can be seen at this time, the roots of the Obama candidacy go back to a project begun by Zbigniew Brzezinski and his National Security Council subordinate, Professor Samuel Huntington of Harvard, in the early 1980s. This was the immediate aftermath of the catastrophic Carter administration, which Zbigniew Brzezinski had helped to wreck with the help of his fellow Trilateral Commission member Paul Adolph Volcker, whom Carter had appointed as head of the Federal Reserve System. For Brzezinski and the Trilateralists, the Carter administration had been a great success, one destined to be repeated. The Soviets had been enticed to enter Afghanistan, where they were destined to undergo a humiliating defeat in a long and genocidal war. The Shah of Iran had been ousted and replaced with Khomeini, thus wrecking the Iranian economy and permitting a second phony oil crisis. In Carter’s State of the Union address for 1980, he had promulgated the so-called Carter Doctrine, namely that the United States would maintain supremacy in the Persian Gulf against all comers. This became the framework for the first Gulf War and the current Iraq war, not to mention possible future attacks on Iran. The entire US economy was well on the road to de-regulation, and the de-industrialization of this country had been largely carried out. Carter had also left the office of the presidency far weaker and far more hated than it was when he found it.
At this point, Brzezinski, Huntington and their Trilateral associates were already looking ahead towards the prospect of a mass political upsurge which they expected to emerge sometime between 2010 and 2030 in our own time today. They were already busily scheming to find ways to use this next political upsurge to further their favorite cause, that of totalitarian government in the United States. Huntington wrote in his American Politics: The Promise of Disharmony (1981):
“If the periodicity of the past prevails, a major sustained creedal passion period will occur in the second and third decades of the twenty-first century. the oscillations among the responses could intensify in such a way as to threaten to destroy both ideals and institutions. Yet the continued presence of deeply felt moralistic sentiments among major groups in American society could continue to ensure weak and divided government, devoid of authority and unable to deal satisfactorily with the economic, social and foreign challenges confronting the nation. Intensification of this conflict between history and progress could give rise to increasing frustration and increasingly violent oscillations between moralism and cynicism. This situation could lead to a two-phase dialectic involving intensified efforts to reform government, followed by intensified frustration when those efforts produce not progress in a liberal- democratic direction, but obstacles to meeting perceived functional needs. The weakening of government in an effort to reform it could lead eventually to strong demands for the replacement of the weakened and ineffective institutions by more authoritarian structures more effectively designed to meet historical needs. Given the perversity of reform, moralistic extremism in the pursuit of liberal democracy could generate a strong tide toward authoritarian efficiency.” (p. 232)
Huntington, like his model Carl Schmitt, has always been looking for ways to institute a dictatorship. Obama is a means to that end.
It is evident that during these years, Brzezinski, Huntington, and company began the process of recruiting and indoctrinating promising young people who could, after a suitable process of training and indoctrination, be turned into political operatives to be deployed decades later, in the midst of a crisis which Brzezinski and Huntington were able to foresee, to ensure an outcome agreeable to the ruling finance oligarchy. There is every reason to think that Obama and Patrick are to examples of the assortment of candidates and political operatives which the Trilateralists began assembling at that time. This is the deeper reason why Obama and Patrick spout the identical platitudes of utopian reform, the abolition of partisan strife, and the healing of our “broken souls” by the touch of a false messiah.
This process was nothing new for Brzezinski and Huntington. Around the time of the Watergate crisis and the ouster of Nixon, they had begun planning to field a Manchurian candidate who would carry the program of the Trilateral Commission into the 1976 election campaign. After the disgrace of Nixon, it was evident that a Democrat would be needed. In addition, the Trilateralists wanted an outsider, untainted by the Watergate scandal of the corruption of Washington. They decided to select a southern governor with vague populist overtones. As Brzezinski boasts in his memoir Power and Principle, Carter was selected because he was more interested in international affairs. But at the same time, the immense investment in money, time, and work in assembling a political machine, developing position papers, purchasing and corrupting journalists and television personalities, preparing vote fraud options in battleground states like New York and Ohio, etc., etc., was much too great to let it depend on one person alone. What if Carter had another nervous breakdown? What if he got hit by a car? What if he were indicted? For these weighty but obvious reasons, the Trilateral planners decided that they would need a spare candidate, to be held in reserve and to be deployed in case their primary choice proved unviable or unworkable. As Brzezinski also points out, the spare Carter was Governor Reuben Askew of the state of Florida, who also had presidential ambitions. But without the financial backing of David Rockefeller and the rest of the Trilateral machine, Askew’s ambitions were destined to remain a dead letter. But the point is that there was a spare candidate always available to be rushed into the breach.
There are indications that Obama was recruited by Brzezinski or his immediate circles in 1982-1983, when Obama was a student at Columbia University in New York City. The main problem that arises in investigating this issue is the obsessive secrecy on the part of Obama concerning this phase of his life. As New York Times reporter Janny Scott wrote last year:
“Barack Obama does not say much about his years in New York City. The time he spent as an undergraduate at Columbia College and then working in Manhattan in the early 1980s surfaces only fleetingly in his memoir. In the book, he casts himself as a solitary wanderer in the metropolis, the outsider searching for a way to ‘make myself of some use.'”
“He barely mentions Columbia, training ground for the elite, where he transferred in his junior year, majoring in political science and international relations and writing his thesis on Soviet nuclear disarmament. He dismisses in one sentence his first community organizing job – work he went on to do in Chicago – though a former supervisor remembers him as ‘a star performer.'”
“Yet he declined repeated requests to talk about his New York years, release his Columbia transcript or identify even a single fellow student, co-worker, roommate or friend from those years.”
“He doesn’t remember the names of a lot of people in his life,” said Ben LaBolt, a campaign spokesman.
“Mr. Obama has, of course, done plenty of remembering. His 1995 memoir, “Dreams from My Father,” weighs in at more than 450 pages. But he also exercised his writer’s prerogative to decide what to include or leave out. Now, as he presents himself to voters, a look at his years in New York – other people’s accounts and his own – suggest not only what he was like back then but how he chooses to be seen now.”
“In a long profile of Mr. Obama in a Columbia alumni magazine in 2005, in which his Columbia years occupied just two paragraphs, he called that time ‘an intense period of study.'”
“I spent a lot of time in the library. I didn’t socialize that much. I was like a monk,” he was quoted as saying.” “Obama’s Account of New York Years Often Differs from What Others Say,” New York Times, October 30, 2007.
What is Obama hiding about his years at Columbia? Why the obsessive secrecy? It is likely that this is the decisive moment of his life, when he comes under the guidance of his protector and patron, Zbigniew. “Soviet nuclear disarmament” is a thesis title that has Zbigniew Brzezinski written all over it. Zbig was at this time the head of the Institute on Communist Affairs, where he was located from 1960 to 1989, apart from his time in the Carter White House. There is therefore a strong prima facie circumstantial case that Obama entered Brzezinski’s orbit between 1982 and 1983 at Columbia. (Persons who knew Obama at Columbia during those years are urged to contact the author if they have information bearing on thiese questions.)
Today, the fact that Obama’s and Patrick’s utopian verbiage is basically identical points to the fact that an arrangement similar to the Carter-Askew one is in effect. This is not the place to illustrate the parallel lives of these two subjects. We can only mention the fact that they both come from relatively humble circumstances, both grew up as did Bill Clinton as fatherless African-American boys, both were selected to attend upscale prep schools, and both attended law schools. They are profiles of remarkably similar, to the point of being almost congruent. Everything points, in short, to the fact that they are both products whipped up by the same intelligence community operation. They have both been synthesized, groomed, indoctrinated, and programmed with the same demagogic political operation in view. As individuals, they may or may not be aware of all that has been done with and to them. For their part, voters have every right to be disturbed by the robot-like similarities of the sounds coming out of the mouths of these two operatives. They are both playing back the same tape. As time goes on, it should prove possible to reconstruct in much detail the specific sessions, drills, and other procedures which have been used to inculcate the ability to speak in this strange and singular manner. But even now, the lesson for voters ought to be clear: it would be very unwise to put the Manchurian puppet candidate Obama, the creature of Zbigniew Brzezinski and his gang, into the White House.
That’s What He Said
Barack Obama Sounds Just Like Deval Patrick.
Is That Good Or Bad?
By Adam Reilly and Boston Phoenix
More than any other presidential candidate, Barack Obama owes his success to sheer rhetorical power. Obama’s dazzling keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention made the thenIllinois state senator an instant presidential prospect. His breakthrough speech at Iowa’s Jefferson-Jackson Day Dinner in November 2007 led to his caucus win earlier this month. Even conservatives dig his shtick: Republican media operative Mark McKinnon praised him as a “walking, talking hope machine.”
Here in Massachusetts, though, Obama’s oratory can also trigger déjà vu. His compelling message sounds a lot like the one that Deval Patrick who’s known Obama for years, and who, like Obama, is a client of Democratic media consultant David Axelrod used during his successful 2006 gubernatorial campaign. (Axelrod also worked for Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards in 2004, the same year he helped Obama win election to the US Senate.) As David Kravitz, an editor of the liberal blog Blue Mass. Group, wrote after Iowa: “[T]here was always lots of similarity, but it’s getting really dramatic.”
This Patrick-Obama parallelism hasn’t gone unnoticed in the press. In April 2007, after a New York Times Magazine profile of Axelrod mentioned it in passing, the Boston Globe examined it in greater depth two weeks later. And this past weekend after the Globe noted the two politicians’ fondness for the phrase “Yes we can!” in a story on Patrick’s decision to stump for Obama in South Carolina the Associated Press ran a bigger piece on the subject.
Overall, though, these stories have had an exculpatory gist. While the articles note that Patrick and Obama share broad themes hope, change, a faith in the power of words and the political grassroots they seem willing to attribute this commonality to shared life experiences (both are African-Americans who rose from humble circumstances to attend Harvard Law School) and shared political instincts and beliefs. As Axelrod told the AP: “It’s not surprising that there would be a commonality of themes. They’ve been friends for so long. They talk a lot. . . . I’m sure they learned from each other.”
Two Of A Kind
But did they overdo it? Remember: this is a presidential election in which authenticity (or the perception of authenticity) is playing a major role. Hillary Clinton’s emotional moment pushed her to victory in New Hampshire, for example, while Mitt Romney’s Manchurian Candidate persona is crippling his campaign.
To date, this dynamic has helped Obama. As Huffington Post blogger Steve Rosenbaum wrote this past year: “Simply put Obama’s words feel like his own. Both convincing and colloquial. . . . His delivery is authentic.”
Of course, no politician creates his or her message out of whole cloth. But the parallels between Patrick and Obama’s messages are so close that they could end up limiting Obama’s ability to play the authenticity card. Consider the following:
Both men depict themselves as change agents confronting stale establishments.
Patrick, speaking to National Public Radio (NPR) in December 2005: “The state is slipping behind, and I’m persuaded that the same old thing from the same insiders is not going to help.”
Obama in a January 9 speech in Jersey City: “[D]o you want the same old folks out there doing the same old things? We need someone new.”
Both say they’re leading movements and minimize the hubris of this claim by crediting their supporters.
Patrick in his November 7, 2006, victory speech: “You are the ones who transformed this from a political campaign to a movement for change, and I am honored and awed by what you have done.”
Obama speaking with reporters after his victory in the Iowa caucuses: “I think [Iowa voters] sparked a potential movement for change in the country that will be inspiring for a lot of people.”
Both practice an existential brand of politics.
Patrick in an October 2006 speech on Boston Common, where he hammered Republican candidate Kerry Healey for a controversial ad linking Patrick to a convicted rapist: “Hers is a politics of fear. Ours is a politics of hope.”
Obama in April 2007, responding to Republican Rudy Giuliani’s suggestion that America will suffer another big terrorist attack if a Democrat wins in 2008: “Rudy Giuliani today has taken the politics of fear to a new low, and I believe Americans are ready to reject those kind of politics.”
Both leaven their optimistic tone by emphasizing the need for hard work.
Patrick in a 2006 TV spot: “[M]y grandmother had a saying, ‘Hope for the best and work for it.’ That fundamentally is what I’m asking you to do now.”
Obama in his official campaign kickoff speech in February 2007: “[I]t won’t be easy . . . Let us begin this hard work together. Let us transform this nation.”
Both appeal to conservatives by stressing that government isn’t a panacea.
Patrick speaking to NPR in 2005: “There is a much more negative, much more hurtful vision of government that has been spreading. Not the vision that government can do everything for everyone nobody believes that but the vision that government is bad, rather than government is us.”
Obama addressing the Democratic National Convention in 2004: “The people I meet in small towns and big cities, in diners and office parks, they don’t expect government to solve all their problems.”
Both insist that disagreement shouldn’t preclude cooperation.
Patrick addressing a church audience in Springfield in 2006: “In politics, we need to get past this point where the view is, ‘Unless we agree on everything, we can’t work together on anything.'”
Obama addressing supporters in Nashua, New Hampshire, prior to that state’s primary, quoted by the St. Petersburg Times: “You don’t have to agree on everything to agree on some things.”
Both temper their tendencies toward political messianism with winning self-deprecation.
Patrick in an October 2006 candidates’ debate: “I don’t have all the answers. No candidate does.”
Obama in a September 2005 message to readers of dailykos.com. “Let me end by saying I don’t pretend to have all the answers to the challenges we face.”
The Man Behind The Curtain
Maybe liberals and progressives should find these convergences reassuring. After all, Patrick used his message to win a competitive Democratic primary, and then a general election; he was the first Democrat elected governor in 16 years, and the first African-American governor in the state’s history. Similarly, Obama is seeking to win a Democratic primary, to return the presidency to Democratic hands, and to break an even bigger racial barrier. If the same message works, why not use it?
For that matter, why worry about where it came from? Axelrod probably matters more than he admits. (Here’s John Edwards after Iowa in 2004: “I came here a year ago with a belief that we could change this country, with a belief that the politics of what was possible the politics of hope could overcome the politics of cynicism. . . . [T]onight we started a movement to change this country that will sweep across America.”) But that just means he might be the long-awaited Democratic answer to Karl Rove.
Still, there’s that authenticity problem. Obama’s message is undeniably powerful. But that power diminishes a bit when you realize it isn’t his alone. Whether, after this realization becomes widespread, it will still pack enough political punch to get him to the White House is an open question.