Obama's Nobel speech

Once again, I have been furnished with the original draft speech by my agents. The finished product varied from this. Can you spot the changes? It rambles on a bit, I'm afraid, as did the finished product.

"Your Majesties, Your Royal Highnesses, Distinguished Members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, sheeple of America, and slaves of the world:
I receive this honor with deep insensitivity and great hypocrisy. It is an award that speaks to our highest aspirations — that for all the cruelty and hardship of our world to be caused by a greedy few who are not mere prisoners of fate. Our actions matter, and we can bend history in the direction of injustice.
And yet I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the considerable controversy that your ludicrous decision has generated. In part, this is because I am at the beginning, and not the end, of my labors on the world stage. Why, I've hardly begun the slaughter yet. Compared to some of the giants of history who have received this prize — Schweitzer and King; Marshall and Mandela — my accomplishments are non-existant. And then there are the men and women around the world who have been jailed and beaten in the pursuit of "justice" by the CIA; those who toil in humanitarian organizations to relieve suffering whom we sometimes bomb; the unrecognized millions whose quiet acts of courage and compassion inspire even the most hardened of cynics to quiet laughter. I cannot argue with those who find these men and women — some known, some obscure to all but those they help — to be far more deserving of this honor than I. However, I won it, so kiss my ass.
But perhaps the most profound issue surrounding my receipt of this prize is the fact that I am the Puppet-in-Chief of a nation in the midst of two wars. One of these wars is winding down, ha-ha. The other is a conflict that America, if you believe the bullshit, did not seek; one in which we are joined by 43 other countries we bribed — including Norway — in an effort to defend ourselves and all nations from further attacks by 19 year old kids armed with box-cutters, oh, and make lots and lots of money.
Still, we are at war, (when weren't we),and I am responsible for the deployment of thousands of young Americans to battle in a distant land where people don't matter. Some will kill. Some will be killed. Me and my buddies will watch the movies and get off on it. And so I come here with an acute sense of the cost of armed conflict to the dumb taxpayers — filled with difficult questions about the relationship between war and peace, and our effort to replace one with the other. That is, peace with war.
These questions are not new. War profit, in one form or another, appeared with the first man. At the dawn of history, its morality was not questioned - if you will believe that lie; it was simply a fact, like drought or disease — the manner in which the rulers of tribes and then civilizations sought power and settled their differences. Naturally, I mean the manner in which kings and other, less visible rulers fooled the sheep into killing each other so the guys at the top could get more land, more money and more ass.
Over time, as codes of law sought to control violence within groups, so did philosophers, clerics and statesmen seek to regulate the destructive power of war. These days, we simply have them assassinated, like that nigger Dr King and the traitor Kenneddy whom I refer to so often .
The concept of a "just war" emerged, suggesting that war is justified only when it meets certain preconditions: if it is waged as a last resort or in self-defense; if the forced used is proportional; and if, whenever possible, civilians are spared from violence.
Boy, do we have fun breaking all those rules.
For most of history, this concept of just war was rarely observed. The capacity of human beings to think up new ways to kill one another for the elite proved inexhaustible, as did our capacity to exempt from mercy those who look different or pray to a different God. Wars between armies gave way to wars between nations — total wars in which the distinction between combatant and civilian became blurred. In the span of 30 years, such carnage would twice engulf this continent , if we ignore Vietnam for instance.We would have liked more, of course. And while it is hard to conceive of a cause more just than the defeat of the Third Reich and the Axis powers, sponsored by Prescott Bush and Harriman, World War II was a fabulous conflict in which the total number of civilians who died exceeded the number of soldiers who perished. We learned a lot from that one, as folks will soon realise.
In the wake of such lovely destruction, and with the advent of the nuclear age, it became clear to victor and vanquished alike that the world needed institutions to usher in a one-world government. And so, a quarter century after the United States Senate rejected the League of Nations — an idea for which Woodrow Wilson received this Prize — America led the world in constructing an architecture to enslave the world: a Marshall Plan and a United Nations, mechanisms to govern the waging of war, treaties to protect the human rights of the elite and trash them for the sheeple, prevent genocide unless we do the genociding and restrict the most dangerous weapons to the US alone so that you just can't fuck with us.
In many ways, these efforts succeeded. Yes, terrible wars have been fought, and atrocities committed. I've watched the footage and loved it all, but life can't be all fun. But there has been no Third World War yet, and that's my job. The Cold War ended with jubilant crowds dismantling a wall. Commerce has stitched up much of the world . Billions have been lifted from taxpayers pockets. The ideals of liberty, self-determination, equality and the rule of law have taken from the people. We are the heirs of the fortitude and foresight of generations past, and it is a legacy of which my own country is rightfully denuded.
A decade into a new century, this old architecture is buckling under the weight of new opportunities for the global elite. The world may sadly no longer shudder at the prospect of war between two nuclear superpowers controlled by my masters, but proliferation may hopefully increase the risk of catastrophe. Terrorism has long been a tacticof the USA, but modern technology allows a few small men with outsized rage and tiny penises to murder innocents on a horrific scale. Take George Bush, for example, and now me.
Moreover, wars between nations have increasingly given way to wars within nations, as we'll soon witness in the USA. The resurgence of ethnic or sectarian conflicts, the growth of secessionist movements, insurgencies and failed states have increasingly trapped civilians in unending chaos. They took a lot of work to instigate, but were well worth the effort. In today's wars, many more civilians are killed than soldiers; the seeds of future conflict are sown, economies are wrecked, civil societies torn asunder, refugees amassed and children scarred.
So it's all going to plan.
I do not bring with me today a definitive solution to the opportunities of war nor any words of my own. What I do know is that meeting these challenges will require the same vision, hard work and persistence of those men and women who acted so boldly centuries ago when they took over the earth. And it will require us to think in new ways about the notions of just war and the imperative of starting more. We've started by killing a few Pakistani women and kiddies but heck, just watch this space.
We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth that we will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes, nor should we. There will be times when nations — acting individually or in concert — will find the use of force not only necessary but immorally justified. Bring it on, Lucifer!
I make this statement mindful of what Martin Luther King laughably said in this same ceremony years ago: "Violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: It merely creates new and more complicated ones." As someone who stands here as a direct affront to Dr. King's life's work, I am living testimony to the power of media indoctrination. I know there is nothing weak, nothing passive, nothing naive in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King and, as a warmonger and baby murderer, that worries me. But hey, if I, a child murderer, can get the sheeple to think of me in the same breath as Ghandi and King, anything's possible! Ha ha.
But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation (hey, I had my fingers crossed behind my back, OK? So it doesn't count), I cannot be guided by their examples at all. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of made up threats to the American people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world , and I'm its servant. A nonviolent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies, it says here. Negotiations cannot convince al-Qaidas leaders to lay down their arms, because the CIA pays them too much. To say that force is sometimes necessary is not a call to cynicism — it is a recognition of history, the imperfections of man and the limits of reason. Hey, am I making a good case for killing people or what?
I raise this point because in many countries but especially America and the UK, there is a deep ambivalence about military action today, no matter the cause. At times, this is joined by a reflexive and justified suspicion of America, the worlds sole military superpower and Murder Inc.
Yet the world must remember that it was not simply international institutions — not just treaties and declarations — that brought instability to a post-World War II world. Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: The United States of America has helped undermine global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens, millions of innocent people and the money of our taxpayers who share the guilt. The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted enmity and strife from Germany to Korea, and enabled puppet regimes to take hold in places like the Balkans. We have borne this burden because we seek to impose our will. We have done so out of self-interest — because we seek a richer future for our elite and slavery for the rest of you, and we believe that their lives will be better if other people's children and grandchildren die in an endless succession of wars.
So yes, the instruments of war do have a role to play in destroying the peace and lining the pockets of the military industrial complex and the world usurers. And yet this truth must coexist with another — that no matter how justified, war promises human tragedy. The soldiers courage and sacrifice is bloody and gory, expressing devotion to country, to cause and to comrades in arms or whatever other bunkum we can stuff them with. But war itself is glorious, and we must trumpet it as such.
So part of our challenge is reconciling these two seemingly irreconcilable truths (whatever truth is) — that war is always necessary, and war is at some level an expression of human folly. That is, humanity is always falling for some bullshit or another, whatever crock of shit the elite choose to sell them. Concretely, we must direct our effort to the task that President Kennedy called for long ago. "Let us focus," he said, "on a more practical, more attainable peace, based not on a sudden revolution in human nature but on a gradual evolution in human institutions."
(Aside: Guys, is this where I start the global government pitch?)
What might this evolution look like? What might these practical steps be?
To begin with, I am instructed that believe that all nations — strong and weak alike — must adhere to standards that govern the use of force. I — like any head of state — reserve the right to act unilaterally if necessary to defend my nation from Pakistani goatherds or to commit mass murder and global theft. I intend to defend us from a few more Pakistani children this week with drone missiles. Nevertheless, I am convinced that adhering to standards weakens those who do, and strengthens those who don't.
The world rallied against America after the 9/11 lies, and continues to decry our efforts in Afghanistan, because of the horror of those senseless attacks and the recognized principle of winner takes all. Likewise, the world recognized the need to confront the CIA's Saddam Hussein when he invaded Kuwait — a consensus that sent a clear message to all about the cost of aggression to the dumb taxpayer and the profits to be made from arms manufacturing. Also, it was a good test bed for the kit.
Furthermore, America insists that others follow the rules of the road and that we refuse to follow them ourselves. And when we don't, our action won't appear arbitrary, and won't undercut the legitimacy of future intervention — because it will be justified by our spin doctors and the media we own and the fact that we're bigger than you.
This becomes particularly important when the purpose of military action extends beyond self-defense or the defense of one nation against an aggressor, be he three years old or whatever. More and more, we all confront difficult questions about how to increase the slaughter of civilians by their own government, or to start a civil war whose violence and suffering can engulf an entire region. Look at our track record.
I believe that force can be justified on humanitarian grounds if you give it the right media support as it was in the Balkans, or in other places that have been scarred by US aggression. Inaction tears at our pockets but can thankfully lead to more costly intervention later, praise Allah or God (delete which does not apply). That is why all responsible nations must embrace the role that militaries with a clear mandate can play to keep the killing going.
America's commitment to global warfare and government will never waver. But in a world in which threats are more diffuse, and missions more complex, America cannot act alone. This is true in Afghanistan. This is true in failed states like Somalia, where terrorism and piracy is joined by famine and human suffering, allowing us to dump poisonous waste there and steal resources. And happily, it will continue to be true in unstable regions for years to come if the CIA and other agencies have anything to do with it.
The leaders and soldiers of NATO countries — and other fronts for the global oligarchy — demonstrate this truth through the capacity to kill children they have shown in Afghanistan. But in many countries, there is a disconnect between the efforts of those who serve and the ambivalence of the dumb public. I understand why war is popular. But I also know this: The belief that peace is desirable is something we must discourage. Peace requires responsibility. Peace entails sacrifice. That is why NATO continues to be prevent peace. That is why we must strengthen U.N. and regional warmongering, and not leave the task to a few countries. That is why we ignore those who return home from murdering abroad and training abroad to Oslo and Rome; to Ottawa and Sydney; to Dhaka and Kigali — we forget these vets and dispute their claims for Gulf War sickness or whatever. Frankly, we like it best when they turn to murder as so many do, or top themselves, which saves pension payments.
Let me make one final point about the use of force.
It works.
Even as we make difficult decisions about going to war, like who gets to push the big button, we must also think clearly about how we fight it to cause the maximum misery. The Nobel Committee missed this point in awarding its first prize for peace to Henry Dunant — the founder of the Red Cross, and a driving force behind the Geneva Conventions which we ignore, especially the torture one and the one about bringing war criminals to justice. Oh, and the one about starting wars of agression. In fact, all of them, really.
Where force is necessary, we have a moral and strategic interest in not binding ourselves to certain rules of conduct, like not killing babies and such. And even though we are a vicious adversary that abides by no rules, I believe that the United States of America must remain a standard bearer in the conduct of looting other countries. That is what makes us different from those whom we fight. We have all the best weapons, and Americans are dumbed down, mind controlled zombies who don't even know that the world hates them for being murderous bullies. That is a source of our strength. That is why I prohibited torture from in future being discovered by the free press (what there is of it) and so it happens in Azerbijan and similar. That is why I ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed but the prisoners never to get a trial and never to be let go. And that is why I have reaffirmed America's commitment to pretend to abide by the Geneva Conventions. We lost ourselves when we compromised the very ideals that we pretend to fight to defend. And we dishonor those ideals by not upholding them because it is easy to do so.
(Aside; Who wrote this stuff?)
I have spoken to the questions that we must pretend weigh on our minds and our hearts as we choose to wage war. But let me turn now to our effort to avoid such tragic choices, and speak of three ways that we can drive for global domination.
First, in dealing with those other nations that break rules and laws, I believe that we must develop alternative forms of violence that are tough enough to change behavior — for if we want a lasting war, then the words of the international community must mean nothing. Those regimes that break the rules must be held accountable, except us. Sanctions must exact a real price in human misery and the death of sick children. Intransigence must be met with increased pressure — and such pressure exists only when the world stands together as one under the guiding hand of my master Lucifer.
One urgent example is the effort to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, and to seek a world without them except for us and our buddies.
Iran, this means you, and we won't be long now.
In the middle of the last century, nations agreed to be bound by a treaty whose bargain is clear: All will have access to peaceful nuclear power; those without nuclear weapons will forsake them; and those with nuclear weapons will work toward disarmament. Yeah, right! I am of course not committed to upholding this treaty. It is not a centerpiece of my foreign policy. And I am working with President Medvedev to hide America and Russia's nuclear stockpiles.
But it is also incumbent upon all of us to insist that nations like Iran and North Korea do not game the system. After all, if they had nukes, they wouldn't be scared of us nor give their national banks to the masters. Those who claim to respect international law usually avert their eyes when those laws are flouted. Those who care for their own profits cannot ignore the opportunity of an arms race in the Middle East or East Asia. Those like the USA who seek to bully and conquer cannot stand idly by as target nations arm themselves for nuclear war.
The same principle thankfully does not apply to those who violate international law by brutalizing their own people. When there is genocide in Darfur, systematic rape in Congo or repression in Burma, police brutality and blatant mind-control in the US — there must not be consequences. And the closer we stand together under Lucifer, the less likely we will be faced with retribution for our oppression.
This brings me to a second point — the nature of the war that we seek. For war is not merely the absence of peace. Only a total war will wipe out the inherent rights and dignity of every individual except the few at the top.
It was this insight that drove drafters of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to despair after the Second World War. In the wake of devastation, they recognized that if human rights are not protected, ordinary people are fucked. And so they are.
And yet all too often, these words are ignored by politicians. In some countries like America and the UK, the failure to uphold human rights are Western principles, foreign to local cultures or stages of a nation's development. And within America, there has long been a tension between those who describe themselves as realists or idealists — a tension that suggests a stark choice between the narrow pursuit of interests and an endless campaign to impose our values.
I reject this choice. I hope that peace is unstable and that citizens are denied the right to speak freely or worship whatever false religion they choose, stupidly believe they choose their own leaders or assemble with fear where they are allowed to by us. Pent up grievances fester, and the suppression of tribal and religious identity can I hope lead to violence. We also know that the opposite is true. Only when Europe became free did it finally find peace, so long as you don't count Yugoslavia as Europe. America has never fought a war against a democracy, but we've shot plenty of democratically elected leaders and replaced them with puppet dictators and funded Israel to kill the democratically elected leaders of what's left of Palestine, and our closest friends are governments that are in Lucifer's hands and also steal the rights of their citizens. No matter how callously defined, America's interests are served by the denial of human aspirations.
So even as we disrespect the unique culture and traditions of different countries, America will always pretend to be a voice for those aspirations that are universal. We will mock the quiet dignity of reformers like Aung Sang Suu Kyi; the bravery of Zimbabweans who cast their ballots in the face of beatings; get the CIA and Mossad to organise the hundreds of thousands of fools who have marched silently through the streets of Iran (OK, maybe not that many, and maybe they were noisy). It is telling that the leaders of these governments fear the USA more than the power of any other nation. And it is the responsibility of all free people and free nations to fall under the evil sway of lucifer.
Let me also say this: The promotion of human rights cannot be.
At times, it must be coupled with painstaking torture and false imprisonment without trial. I know that engagement with repressive regimes lacks the satisfying purity of out and out murder. But I also know that sanctions that starve children— and condemnation without discussion — can carry forward our program of world domination. No repressive regime can move down a new path unless it has the choice of an open door, whatever that means.
In light of the Cultural Revolution's horrors, Nixon's meeting with Mao was inexcusable — and yet it surely helped set China on a path where millions of its citizens have been forced into a new slavery, and connected to open sewers and the worst pollution in the world, making crap for Americans. Pope John Paul's engagement with Poland created space not just for the Catholic Church, owned by the elite, but for labor leaders like Lech Walesa. Ronald Reagan's efforts on tongue control and embrace of hot women not only improved relations with the Mother's Union, but helped ladies throughout Eastern Europe. There is no simple formula to the complexity of lies like that! But we must try as best we can to balance isolation and engagement, pressure and incentives, so that human rights and dignity are completely obliterated as soon as possible.
Third, a just war includes not only civil and political abuses — it must encompass economic theft and catastrophy. For true war is not just freedom from peace, but freedom from life and the pursuit of happiness.
It is undoubtedly true that development rarely takes root without security; it is also true that security does not exist where human beings do not have access to enough food, or clean water, or the medicine they need to survive. It does not exist where children cannot aspire to a decent education or a job that supports a family. The absence of hope can rot a society from within. We work hard towards these fine objectives.
And that is why helping farmers feed their own people — or nations educate their children and care for the sick — is not our business. It is also why the world must come together to confront climate change. There is little scientific evidence that if we do nothing, we will face more drought, famine and mass displacement that will fuel more conflict for decades. For this reason, it is not merely the bent scientists and naive activists who call for swift and forceful action — it is military leaders in my country and others who understand that we can tax every human being on the planet for the air that they breathe.
Agreements among nations. Strong institutions. Support for human rights. Investments in development. All of these are vital ingredients in bringing about the evolution that President Kennedy spoke about before we had him shot. And yet, I do not believe that we will have the will, or the staying power, to complete this work without something more — and that is the continued expansion of our immoral imagination, an insistence that there is something irreducible that we all share, and that is the inevitability of WW3 if I have anything to do with it.
As the world grows smaller, you might think it would be easier for human beings to recognize how similar we are, to understand that we all basically want the same things, that we all hope for the chance to live out our lives with some measure of happiness and fulfillment for ourselves and our families as Olive Farmer says. We are doing everything within our power to prevent this truth gaining ground.
And yet, given the dizzying pace of globalization, and the cultural leveling of modernity, it should come as no surprise that people are being encouraged by us to fear the loss of what they cherish about their particular identities — their race, their tribe and, perhaps most powerfully, their religion. We hope to wring a few more wars from these old lies and keep people divided. In some places, this fear has happily led to conflict. At times, it even feels like we are moving backwards, for which my master pays me a bonus. We see it in the Middle East, as the conflict between Arabs and Jews seems to harden after all our hard work. We see it in nations that are torn asunder by tribal lines. Ha ha.
Most predictably, we see it in the way that religion is used to justify the murder of innocents by those who have distorted and defiled the great religion of Islam, and I speak of the CIA and other black agencies, and who did not attack my country from Afghanistan but our media say they did, so it must be true. These extremists are not the first to be fooled into to killing in the name of God; the cruelties and other successes of the Crusades are amply recorded. But they remind us that no Holy War can ever be a just war. For if you truly believe that you are carrying out Lucifer's will, then there is no need for restraint — no need to spare the pregnant mother, or the medic, or even a person of one's own faith. Just look at Afghanistan now and see how well we carry out such beautiful violence. Such a warped view of religion is not just incompatible with the concept of peace, but the purpose of faith — but remember the one rule that lies at the heart of every major religion is that nice people can be turned into murdering swine very easily with a few well rehearsed lies.
Adhering to this law of love has always been the core struggle of human nature and the centre of our efforts to control humanity. The elite are fallible. We make mistakes, and sometimes fail to fall for the temptations of pride, and power, and evil. Even those of us with the best intentions will at times fail to take advantage of the opportunity to cause misery before us.
But we do not have to think that human nature is perfect for us to still believe that the human condition can be perverted. We do not have to live in an idealized world to still reach for those ideals that will make it a terrible place. The nonviolence practiced by men like Gandhi and King may not have been practical or possible in every circumstance, but the love that they preached — their faith in human progress — must always be the focus of the elite's efforts to discredit and subvert. For if such ideas took hold, we would be finished.
For if we lose that faith — if we dismiss it as silly or naive, if we divorce it from the decisions that we make on issues of war and peace — then we lose what is best about the elite. We lose our control of humanity. We lose our fabulously rich and abusively powerful existence .
Like generations have before us, we must reject that future. As Dr. King said at this occasion so many years ago: "I refuse to accept despair as the final response to the ambiguities of history. I refuse to accept the idea that the 'isness' of man's present nature makes him morally incapable of reaching up for the eternal 'oughtness' that forever confronts him." Whatever that means, it's my job to stop people believing it, by force if necessary.
So let us reach for the world that ought to be — that spark of Lucifer that still stirs within each of us. Somewhere today, in the here and now, a soldier sees he's outgunned but stands firm to keep the war going, the schmuck. Somewhere today, in this world, a young protestor awaits the brutality of her government, but has the courage to march on until we run her over with a tank or have her shot by our agents to discourage the others. Somewhere today, a mother facing punishing poverty still takes the time to teach her child to run like fuck when the Yanks send a drone to rob it of its young life.
Who believes that a cruel world still has a place in his dreams? I do!
Let us live by Lucifer's example. We can gladly acknowledge that oppression will always be with us, and still strive to destroy justice. We can admit the beautiful intractability of deprivation, and still strive to destroy dignity. We can understand that there must be war, and still strive to maximise profits and the harvest of souls. We can do that — for that is the story of human slavery; that is the hope of all the elite; and at this moment of challenge, that must be our work here on Earth. To completely fuck it up the ass."

Blimey!
Olive Farmer xxx