The House Negro's first act on assuming presidency of the HyperImperium was to authorise an illegal bombing raid into Northern Pakistan.
This followed on swiftly from his precarious silence on the Israeli slaughter (in the usual 100:1 ratio) of 1300 Gazans, utilising high-tech US weaponry especially delivered for the genocide-to-be.
And, prior to being the latest branded pseudo-leader of the free world (sic), the carefully crafted personality declared that, once installed as president, he would recognise the Turkish slaughter of Armenians in 1915 as an act of genocide. Once the votes had been delivered, the hyperreality of trade and military geopolitics took over and the 'G' word never parted company with his lips.
So, the US president ignores genocide, supports war crimes and, indeed, instigates them.
Well, obviously, in a neohyperreality of universal magnitude, the House Negro has only been given the Nobel Peace Prize!!!
Now when people choose to add extra letters before and after their names, we are obviously in the arena of fake - think Sir David Richards, Baroness Thatcher, Sir Alan Sugar, Professor Niall Ferguson.
But just how fake do they wish it to be?
Three other US presidents have been awarded the Peace Prize - Woodrow Wilson, laughably, Theodore Roosevelt, hilariously, and Henry Kissinger, incredibly!!!
Did he get it for Laos?
And we know that he wasn't formally president...
...and you think Ronald Reagan was?
As Howard Zinn stated about Kissinger, "[Kissinger] who matches the definition of a war criminal very accurately."
But the Establishment reward one another for their acquiescence and compliance.
Always have done.
It is probably the Armenian issue that provides the best overview.
Robert Fisk: "In the autumn of 1915, an Austrian engineer called Litzmayer, who was helping build the Constantinople-Baghdad railway, saw what he thought was a large Turkish army heading for Mesopotamia. But as the crowd came closer, he realised it was a huge caravan of women, moving forward under the supervision of soldiers.
"The 40,000 or so women were all Armenians, separated from their men - most of whom had already had their throats cut by Turkish gendarmerie - and deported on a genocidal death march during which up to 1.5 million Armenians died.
"Subjected to constant rape and beatings, some had already swallowed poison on their way from their homes in Erzerum, Serena, Sivas, Bitlis and other cities in Turkish western Armenia. "Some of them," Bishop Grigoris Balakian, one of Litzmayer's contemporaries, recorded, "had been driven to such a state that they were mere skeletons enveloped in rags, with skin that had turned leathery, burned from the sun, cold, and wind. Many pregnant women, having become numb, had left their newborns on the side of the road as a protest against mankind and God." Every year, new evidence emerges about this mass ethnic cleansing, the first holocaust of the last century; and every year, Turkey denies that it ever committed genocide. Yet on Saturday - to the horror of millions of descendants of Armenian survivors - the President of Armenia, Serg Sarkissian, plans to agree to a protocol with Turkey to re-open diplomatic relations, which should allow for new trade concessions and oil interests. And he proposes to do this without honouring his most important promise to Armenians abroad - to demand that Turkey admit it carried out the Armenian genocide in 1915."
Or take Nagorno-Karabakh.
From Ryszard Kapuściński, quoting an Armenian imprisoned within his own land: "Our question is, How do we survive? It has been weighing on Armenians for hundreds of years. For centuries already we have had our own culture, our own language and alphabet... But our culture has a passive character, it is the culture of the ghetto, of a defensive fortification."
The House Negro was the third successive US president to promise the Armenian diaspora that he would recognise the 20th century's first example of a holocaust, only to backtrack under the glare of realpolitik.
And, as ever, the fake worlds of geopolitics and football repeatedly brush up against each other as UEFA and FIFA co-ordinate agendas to a political template.
The first trade-thawing between Armenia and Turkey occurred with dual presidential attendance at the World Cup Qualifier in Yerevan last year, and following Saturday's deal, Armenia travel to Turkey for the final match in the Group on Wednesday.
And, in Armenia's Group, Turkey were one part of a triumvirate of tilted playing fields in the penultimate round of matches at the weekend.
In tournaments where the rules are not made up as you go along ie not the FIFA World Cup South Africa 2010, a key meritocratic input to the conclusion of the Groups is that matches kick off concurrently.
This stops any advantage to the team/nation kicking off later.
So, why were Turkey allowed to start 2 hours 45 minutes after Bosnia Herzogovina?
And with both matches having Italian referees too!
As it happened, it was irrelevant as Estonia weren't up to giving the Bosnians a game, but the template existed.
Or take Portugal.
The marketing desperation to get Cristiano Ronaldo to the World Cup took precedence over fair play as the Portugal match began as the one between Denmark and Sweden ended.
Even more outrageously, Israel unilaterally altered the kick off time, delaying their match for an hour so that it started half an hour after the Greece versus Latvia event.
Once again, the Greek victory undermined the advantage but the tilt still existed.
That Turkey and Israel were two of the three countries favoured in this way is rather indicative, we think.
© Football Is Fixed/Dietrological