NTOABOMA—If Trump wins, will he drag the United States into an Amexit much bigger than Brexit? Or can Wikileaks or “Carlos Danger” single handedly bring down the Clinton (cash) machine? Otherwise, will the Clintons win and then declare a world war against Russia, Iran, Syria and China—countries that the hawks in Washington now refer to as the “axis of evil?” Will the world implode? Will China rise from the rubble and become the sole superpower in 2025?
As an Ntoaboman these questions have some kind of gravitas for my own existence post November 8th that I am wont to admit, in much the same way that I was willing to admit the shock I felt in the sixth year of the reign of U.S. President, Barack Hussein Obama (the son of a Kenyan Harvard economist and a pole dancing Caucasian American woman), that I care to fully comprehend the danger ahead. That last point about pole dancing is a rumor. But considering how many of my kind this Obama has slaughtered in Libya, Somalia, Nigeria, Sudan, to mention but a few, I am not ashamed to hope that the conspiracy theory about his mother, if not true in content too, is in fact true, at least in form.
In an age of feminist rigor, pole dancing per se can be lucrative. So are wars. Silly wars. Amidst the frenetic fragments of the definitive metaphysical, geopolitical and cultural Instagram of Anglo-American Exceptionalism, precariously shored against our ruin since Western Europeans first set foot on this quarter of the world, in West Africa, the temptation is irresistible to hark back to colonial terrorism and link it appropriately to the present paroxysm of pole-dancing war mongers—of pole dancing drone builders, of ejaculatory execution of the innocent and of the murder, and abortion, of babies.
On November 8, the dire specter of this madness routinely visited upon the rest of the world every four years might continue. For one, the Clinton in the race, in the third act, will perform a solo with a shepherd’s crook, swivelling her hips and stroking the staff of Dr. Strangelove with her legs, like a pole dancer in a dubious Soho nightspot. Nonetheless this dance is at current so hypnotizing that many have learned to stop worrying and love the bombs that will come flying in with her.
As a non-American, I am concerned then with the wider global implications of Anglo-American politics alone. I am indifferent to American domestic issues. This does not mean I do not love my fellow humans in that country. A saving few are worried about the threat of a third world war via Hillary Clinton; a still larger group are not ill-disposed, but they fear prevailing public opinion.
There are even allegations that many Americans who have campaigned against Hillary have died under suspicious circumstances. Whether this is true or not, it is beside the issue of her alleged lust for power. For as long as she ends up at the helm, the first female American President, even if she has to be Commander In Chief from behind the control button of a wheel chair, she achieves the persona of her proverbial soul mate—Dr. Strangelove!
The great mass of Americans, nevertheless, are merely representatives of average humanity. They muddle along with their own affairs and scarcely can be expected to take seriously the affairs of strangers or people whom they partly fear and partly despise. For this reason, my interest in American politics remains focused on foreign policy matters alone; and to this effect, I am only able to relate to the choice between the major two Anglo-American parties from the perspective of their foreign policies.
In between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, who fits and is less-harmful to the life I live in the small hamlet in Ghana—Ntoaboma? This is the question.
November 8 is so close that sooner or later one develops a metaphysical relationship with that ubiquitous warning, “Objects in this mirror may be closer than they appear.” But what if they, Trump and Clinton, may also be further than they appear?
According to the contemporary instant event of celebrity culture deluge of images upon us; does it get us closer to a so-called “real” world that is in fact very far away from us? Or does it in fact keep the world at a distance – creating an artificial depth of field that protects us from the imminence of the true character of presidential candidates and the virtual danger they represent?
For some reason, the American Republican Party, the Great Old Party (GOP), is seen from the rear view mirror, as the party of the hawks and the Democrats are seen as the doves. But are they?
To answer this question in an unbiased manner, we ought to look back at history. Notwithstanding the colorful history of the GOP, the Bushes; father and son, Cheney, the NeoCons and Co., what is really the history of the American Democratic Party? A few landmark historical decisions make it very clear.
First, the “War On Syria” was the mindless concoction of the so-called “Arab Spring”, a spring that was heralded by the visit of the son of a pole dancer turned president. He marched into Cairo in tow with the order and he delivered a speech to Sunni Muslim clergy at Al-Azhar University, endorsed the Arab street, and to be specific instigated the Sunni Muslim Arab street to rise.
Second, the Maidan Square circumambulation by the Goyim and their slave masters in the Ukraine. Clearly, this fueled the anti-Russian sanctions following escalations and intimidations and the creation of a very volatile situation in Europe. All was orchestrated by the said president. A democrat. Obama.
Third, the current tension in the South China Sea is also the brainchild of the same president, whose genius allowed him to manage a miraculous appearance on the campus of Columbia University after a short stint at the lesser known Occidental College. Ironically, by way of the same spell, Obama is a Noble Prize laureate.
Fourth, the Vietnam War started under the tenure of JFK and it reached its climax during the reign of LBJ. Both kings are democrats.
Fifth, and perhaps this is the most notorious act of all. Harry Truman, a democrat, dropped “Little Boy” (on Hiroshima) and “Fat Man” (on Nagasaki) at a time the Second World War was [essentially] over. These are the first, last and only times that Atomic Bombs have ever been used. Ever. At a time that conventional weapons could have done more damage if the damage was indeed necessary.
If my calling Barack Obama, the son of a pole dancer; if my calling Hillary Clinton a pole dancer herself and if my calling the Democrats pole dancers in Soho, sent chills down your spine, then this story of Truman, of the mere testing of Nuclear Bombs on actual human beings, for absolutely no human-survival reason, should split your spine in two.
Last but not least, the smiling Colgate-ad President Jimmy Carter. It was Carter’s National Security Advisor, a criminal with a twisted mind, aka Zbigniew Brzezinski, who actually established the first Jihadist army as the best way to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. This plot eventually generated ISIS, a monster that turned against the hand that fed it. Once again, Carter and Brzezinski were both Democrats.
Finally, it is Clinton who is beating up the drums of war against Russia, China, Iran and Syria. Not Trump. It is Clinton who has said that Russia (Vodka, not blood, runs through their veins) is not a threat to America in private (Emailgate); that Russia is in fact the scariest American threat ever, in public. Not Trump. To this effect, and as we stand today, on the international arena, she is the hawk; not Trump.
God forbid if one reads this article and comes away with a defense of the GOP. The GOP is also run by the rich and the privileged, and as described by George W. Bush himself, by “the haves and have mores”. It is the party of Dick Cheney and Haliburton. This is the party that condones and feeds Racist Christian Zionists. It is the party that wishes it could run the world like it is a business enterprise.
Sadly, whether we like it or not the choice lies only here: the GOP’s Trump or the Democrat’s Clinton.
But then again, the great mass of Americans are, however, mere representatives of average humanity. On November 8, they will muddle along with their own affairs—they might bow more to the taboo of the alleged thought of groping women and insulting the disabled—and scarcely could be expected to take seriously the affairs of strangers whom they partly fear and partly despise and whom together with the rest of the world would be vaporized ten times over in another wicked Trumanian decision should the horny spirit of a pole dancer be employed again in American politics.
For you, for the non-American supporter of Clinton, does this painting here, however, get you closer to a so-called “real” world that is in fact very far away from you? Or does it in fact keep the world at a distance – creating an artificial depth of field that protects you from the imminence of the true character of Hillary Clinton and the Democrats, and the virtual danger they now seemingly represent?
You must remember, it takes laissez-faire hippy idealism and she will be called upon to declare in a whole-hearted laugh once again: “We came, we saw, he died!” Only this time the “he” will become “We.”
This is a pulsating essay by Narmer Amenuti about the imminent danger of more wars, wars on terrorism and world war that is incumbent on the results of the United States presidential elections on November 8. In this intriguing use of the film, “Dr. Strangelove or: How I learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb,” Narmer weaves in an easy to grasp handle on the recondite facts about the Clintons in comparison with Trump. In ending however, he is of the opinion that the choice for the rest of the world, irrespective of U.S. Domestic politics, must be Trump. Narmer feels that the Clintons will bring upon our heads a Nuclear Apocalypse.
But, by all means enjoy a lively debate!
Insightful dissertation on how the rest of the world views this US elections.
We are at the cusps of a new dark age which involves the Clinton’s and all their double dealing with the sole purpose of enriching themselves and stakeholders at the expense of all the sheeple who follow the liberal Democratic ideology.
Unfortunately as usual Black people stand to be the primary losers of this new Clinton era. Black’s will queue up in their numbers to worship at the altar of the Clinton’s. any independent thinker in the black community will quickly be shamed and ushered back in line to cast a vote for the Clinton machine.
One can only wonder what ills the Clinton’s have designed for black people not only in this country but globally. The Clinton’s were so kind to visit on us the school to prison pipeline an era of super predators, a very dangerous foreign policy especially in countries around Africa where they stood by idly and completely ignored the genocide in Rwanda. The Clinton’s through their so called Global initiative amassed great wealth under the guise of humanitarian efforts.
In closing the alternative is not that great either. This is a year where I will personally sit at home and observe. A new Clinton era is upon us, brace yourselves.
Intriguing, complex and insightful. one can only hope that bill’s love of cash and sex will in some way temper hillary’s hawkish proclivities.
“One can only wonder what ills the Clinton’s have designed for black people not only in this country but globally.” Ares Mars, this is a scary line since we know what she has done before to Black people in America and to Black people in Haiti. To think of what she has done to Black people in the past, now on a scale of global politics, she is no doubt capable of more in Atomic proportions. Atomic proportions is a scary thought and this essay lays it out on the mark on what could be expected of our collective future in the world in general and in Africa in particular.
Now must be Afrika’s Time to Seize for definitive total Liberation! With Donald Trump and, even much worse, with the SheDevil Hillary Clinton, we can only expect things not to get better for us at home and abroad! We are faced with what our heroic Black Panther Party Commandante Huey P. Newton put as: “Revolutionary Suicide or Reactionary Suicide”! So we have cause to fear but can better organise instead of agonizing and strive harder to put our all into daring more courageously to rise up higher to the exhortation of Osagyefo Kwame Nkrumah: “Service, Sacrifice and Suffering” for our total emancipatory dash for real Freedom now! For, as Claude McKay put it in his immortal lines:
“If we must die, let it not be like hogs,
Hunted and penned in an inglorious spot,
While round us bark the mad and hungry dogs,
Making their mock at our accursèd lot.
If we must die, O let us nobly die,
So that our precious blood may not be shed
In vain; then even the monsters we defy
Shall be constrained to honor us though dead!
O kinsmen! we must meet the common foe!
Though far outnumbered let us show us brave,
And for their thousand blows deal one death-blow!
What though before us lies the open grave?
Like men we’ll face the murderous, cowardly pack,
Pressed to the wall, dying, but fighting back!”
Chimamanda Adichie, a Nigerian novelist, nonfiction writer and short story writer, penned a counter narrative to my view on the ongoing U.S. elections. I provide it here for your perusal.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/why-is-hillary-clinton-so-widely-loved/506402/
Oh Chimamanda paaa. I don’t see her argument. In fact, there was no argument there in this essay. Perhaps Kwame Yeboah can help me understand the import of her essay. Thanks Kwame!
Here is my view… another calculated move to make her self the speaker for feminism. As you said, Solomon Azumah-Gomez there was no argument there, hence my suspicion that this is an attempt to back Killary based on being female.
For many western women, both being women is enough to support this empty article, and I think she is out to bank on that.
Yes Audu Salisu, I am not surprised that the Atlantic publishes such empty narratives. There’s a better case to make for Hillary for president but this is not it. There are several examples, even in conservative US media of the reasons why Hillary might be the best candidate. Adichie is also being used here to get African immigrants in the US to vote for Hillary. But since West African immigrants and their second generation are the most educated in the US, I will be surprised if they read this and changed their mind about voting for someone else.
Yes, Audu Salisu and Solomon Azumah-Gomez, in many ways, Hillary is the traditional candidate. She has a case management folder and Trump does not, except for his business acumen, if he has any (really!). But that is another discussion. Surely, this essay, no matter what one may feel about the content, was meant to appeal to young female voters and to Blacks in America. These groups are Hillary’s targets.
But there’s a little more. She is continually being installed as a scholarly voice in Africa. This is good, not bad. The more critics we have in Africa, the better. However, and this is what I think, we must wary of such installations especially when they come from those, whose goal has been for the past hundreds of years, to impose their intellectual will on us.
Tnx for the caution
Thats, my point, if she is a darling of the pseudo feminist, then ultimately she becomes the darling of the liberal Africa lover in the west, then at last, an imposition on us in Africa…
Narmer Amenuti here is the thing, you have to see what Solomon Azumah-Gomez said, what I said and what you said as all some form of processes in the making of the monster that will later be imposed on Africa later.
It will be naive on our part to forget that after an article like this, when Hillary is finally installed, Adichie could land some kind of a position on advising her on bogus issues concerning US Africa relations.
That is true Audu. You make the point a more vivid one.
Solomon Azumah-Gomez, I have not had the time to study Hillary Clinton’s intelligence but I know she is smart. My problem is that I am a citizen of the United States and I am supposed to vote. There is no way I can get a candidate with the characteristics close to what I aspire in the United States. I am a leftist and it may take a long time for a true leftist to be president of this country. But I know the implications of an election of a President in this country and the world. I will rather vote for somebody with intelligence than a con man and a fool who has no grasp of social justice and world politics; who will use war and other oppressive tactics to project strength to hide his weakness, who treat women like objects and immigrants like me as criminals, and somebody whose ambition is to project white supremacy.
what does US constitution say about abstention, I mean active abstention?
So u are saying that you are stuck with Killary?
Participatory “democracy” like the one in the US where we are to choose between two powerful blocks, abstention is not very good option because it is not spontaneous. Asking me to abstain means you want me to vote for Donald Trump and I WILL NEVER DO THAT, sorry. Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State did not kill or authorize the killing of anyone even if she supported it. In this country only the PRESIDENT decides POLICY.
Alright. All that about being leftist, which leaves you no choice but to vote for Hilliary are fair Kwame Yeboah. What is not fair is that you paint Hilliary’s opponent as Racist, Foolish and one who paints Immigrants as Criminals. That is untrue but even by those standrads is Hilliary not equally Racist (mass incarceration queen), equally Foolish (leading America into Libya) and just as guilty when she also called Immigrants criminals and still supports the mass deportation of illegal immigrants?
Let’s keep to the facts for a second. Trump has only referred to “illegal immigrants.” Now, I understand the sentiment expressed by recent legal immigrants to the U.S. since any mention of “immigrants” is sort of a taboo, a net that drags everyone with it. But the difference in saying that “illegal aliens” are criminals and “legal aliens” are not (Trump’s own wife is an instance of the latter) is not insignificant. It is also true that illegal immigrants in the US are taking jobs away from Americans. Whether they pay taxes or not is nonsense since anyone who works pays taxes and you can’t blame those who no longer can find work for not paying taxes they would have been paying had their jobs not been snatched away because Hillary believes in “open hemisphere.”
More, that Trump is foolish is unnecessary. He is not. The term is lazy branding on the part of the left. Conservatives are not foolish. They have points of view that need only to be squashed with scientific reasoning. No foolish person in the U.S. is a billionaire that employs thousands of people. You may not like their beliefs but that is a different matter.
Then it comes to racism. Is Trump racist? You cannot prove that. Has he expressed interest in policies that the DOJ has found to target a disproportionate number of African Americans and Latinos? Yes. But there are scientific studies that challenge the DOJ findings as well. So his belief in say Stop & Frisk can be notorious but does it make him racist? That is another matter.
On the other hand, Hillary is racist. She used one term to refer to Black boys and everyone has forgotten it. She spurred on her husband to reform welfare which went to target the inner cities. She supports trade deals that ship jobs from inner cities (mainly Black) to China, Indonesia and Mexico. She wants open borders to let in no-skilled workers to undercut African Americans who were, unfortunately, employed in those menial jobs but nonetheless had something to eat. Now, in the past eight years alone, Black wealth has plummeted.
All this, and we haven’t yet talked about foreign policy, which I think Narmer Amenuti did a wonderful job of in this article.
Solomon, you could have been the chair of Trump’s campaign. You are so good in defending the indefinsible. Reforming the welfare was racist? Empowerment is racist? Asking the powerful to pay their fare share of taxes is bad? Who is an illegal immigrant in the US, those who just came, those who came withTrump’s wife or those who came with Trump’s parents and earlier generation? Where is the cutoff? I don’t think we can come to an agreement on who to vote for in this election so why don’t we agree to disagree. Trump has never been in government in the USA so he has not got any dirt associated with American foreign policy. So was George Bush and Reagan and Nixson. Just make your choice. I JUST VOTED AND I PROUDLY VOTED FOR HILLARY CLINTON. I very much hope you are not speaking for the left in Afica and particularly Grandmother African Scholars. If this is your line of thinking, that will be so bad and we will have a long long way to go in our liberation movement. This will be my last post on this topic. It is not worth the time.
An “illegal immigrant” is a person who needs the correct documents to reside in a given country but doesn’t have them. Therefore that person is living in the country illegally! There exist no other definition of an “illegal immigrant.” Why do smart people behave as if simple things are not so simple?
I don’t believe anyone is here to sway voters one way or another. As far as I know, no one is being paid by any campaign. This is just a community where we debate and discuss ideas, politics just being one of those areas
Kwame Yeboah, I think we all joined this group to debate. If you are not interested in debating, it’s your choice! I speak for no one but myself! Why do debates always go into personal attack modes. Jesus.
Interesting that some people think that the US is a participatory democracy. Even former president Jimmy Carter does not think so. He thinks the US is now an oligarchy. A Princeton University study confirmed what Jimmy Carter said. The illusion of democracy is not democracy.
Kwame Yeboah: An “illegal immigrant” is a person who needs the correct documents to reside in a given country but doesn’t have them. Therefore that person is living in the country illegally! There exist no other definition of an “illegal immigrant.” Why do smart people behave as if simple things are not so simple?
I read this article hoping to get some view into if there are some ardent Hillary supporters and why they feel proudly about such a flawed candidate. And I left with the same feeling as Audu Salisu and Solomon Azumah-Gomez, that the article was empty of an argument. If anything, it just shows that the Hillary fans don’t really have a rhyme or reason to their support, which makes sense because the campaign’s strategy is to get you to hate the other candidate and make a defensive vote and not an offense one. (Something like you abhor the Eagles so you cheer for the Black Stars.)
There is hardly any pro-Hillary substance. At this point I am convinced it is because she has no political positives. All we get is “she won two terms to the United States Senate” and Republicans liked her (because she voted for the Iraq war). Oh and that decades ago she worked at the Children’s Defense Fund, which at this point just sounds like a glorified internship. There’s never anything there when people say they love her. Even in this article I am at a loss for evidence. Only vague praises. She’s intelligent, industrious, hard-working, well-prepared, and so on. Is that it?
Unfortunately the fact that people are satisfied with these unspecific references just speaks to the uncritical and unanalytical audiences to whom this article is targeted. That the editors possibly feel that for an article targeting young Blacks or African immigrants, there need be no evidence to secure some votes.
Boom!
Some campaign talking points from the article:
—People who think Hilliary is a liar are misogynists. (Isn’t this anti-feminist?)
—To say that “she cannot afford spontaneity” is an excuse for why she doesn’t hold press conferences.
—Any criticism of Hillary’s credibility is unwarranted because we shouldn’t expect that “politicians be perfect.”
—The private server “mistake” is understandable because we all love our own smartphones more than our work devices, right?
Smells like a mix of old cabbage and farts to me!
Seriously I wonder how much Chimamanda was paid to have this article under her name. I guess she can add American politics expert to her feminism speaking appearances. Maybe the next article we will see from her will be on deep space travel.
Abena Maanu, wo ye buey!