Movie Review: The Obama Deception
For my fellow Americans who don't know what's been going on, there is such a thing as the red pill genre of news and information. The term "red pill" comes from a movie, The Matrix, where a character can choose a red pill to disconnect from the matrix, or a blue pill to remain blissfully ignorant of the matrix -- even forgetting the opportunity to choose one pill or the other.
While The Matrix was a fictional movie, The Obama Deception is not. People such as President Barack Obama, Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, and Press Secretary Robert Gibbs would dearly love to call the movie fictional, but they are not disinterested parties because they are subjects of treatment in the movie. The Obama Deception places them on the hot seat, and they might call the movie "insulting," "slander," "libel," or "defamation of character."
Ah, but this is America. The law would protect an Anonymous Joe against slander, libel, and defamation. But, for public figures, our system allows debate and discussion, consistent with political free speech as assured by the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment. Public figures cannot win cases for slander, libel, and defamation, unless they also prove a fourth factor: malice. And when a call is borderline, the First Amendment protections weigh very heavily. At least in some previous years, the American system has strongly protected its free speech rights.
So every now and then, something is released like Michael Moore's Farenheit 911, or now Alex Jones' The Obama Deception. These are examples of the red pill genre. Red pill material posits that most people are plugged into a matrix, where everyday life is a controlled experience because we are surrounded by the masses of people who are brainwashed by disinformation and propaganda. Most people are creatures of habit, not critical thinkers, and hence their responses come from habits inculcated, and rules of thumb that are promulgated, by the society around them.
If that were the extent of the proposition, I would say "there's something to it," and add that Madison Avenue has highly developed the techniques of marketing, advertising, and public relations. I've had first hand experience working on 'Madison Avenue,' and in political campaigns. (In my case, 'Madison Avenue' needs scare quotes, because N.W. Ayer -- my former and now-defunct agency -- was literally on Sixth Avenue in New York City.) In fact, propaganda and spin are their own highly refined disciplines. Political strategists won't deny it, so there is essential plausibility for the tenets of the red pill genre.
Alex Jones takes it a bit farther, by uncovering hideous evil (whether real or perceived), naming names, and ascribing evil intentions to those he names. In some ways, this is inconvenient, because I have Obama criticism that comes from a different angle. My angle is "the politics of practical idealism" and I would prefer to think of it as "no pill" politics. What if I don't have to swallow either a blue or a red pill? I think of our scene as inconvenient, because the other side -- the Obama administration -- would love to conflate all of its critics together and use broad brush strokes to tar them simultaneously.
Personally, I think there are enormous differences between Rush Limbaugh, Alex Jones, and John Kusumi. But there is a man called Robert Gibbs -- perhaps I'll nickname him Robert Glibs -- who would like to be dismissive of all administration critics. Well, the paint fight comes later. First, here, I'm rendering my own review of the movie.
An essential premise of the movie is that while Obama occupies the throne, real power rests elsewhere. Private bankers, the Federal Reserve, and Wall Street are a financial cabal, and they buy the candidate of their choice. The movie includes another narrative, in which power goes from the Bilderberg group to the Trilateral Commission to the Council on Foreign Relations. And as a willing stooge, Barack Obama rewards these groups by packing his administration and cabinet with people from Wall Street and the Council on Foreign Relations. Then he proceeds to break myriad campaign promises, on the road to implementing a "globalist agenda."
I see some aspects that are disturbing on both sides -- for viewers, and for the Obama administration. Review this quote from the paragraph above: "Obama rewards these groups by packing his administration and cabinet with people from Wall Street and the Council on Foreign Relations. Then he proceeds to break myriad campaign promises". What's disturbing is that this part of the movie is clearly non-fiction and accurate. The President's own behavior validates, or punches the ticket, of The Obama Deception. It reflects and reports his real life behavior. It's disturbing, because it makes the movie all the harder to dismiss. Barack Obama, you are being documented and chronicled! This much is true.
And so yes, Obama is being documented and chronicled, but the other side can say not always fairly. In an earlier paragraph, I hinted that evil can be real or perceived. The eye of the beholder must take in the information, process it, and arrive at a conclusion as to how evil is the material as witnessed. When we come to "ascribing evil intentions," this is necessarily the realm of conjecture and speculation. In a court of law, conjecture and speculation are tossed out, and someone at the podium of Robert Gibbs can come back with just that point. And, my earlier paragraph ended with the words, "on the road to implementing a 'globalist agenda.'" When the topic is the future, none of us really have it in hand to speak for.
As a result, there is an element of speculation that a court of law would toss. But, the court of public opinion is where we really are, and that's not the same as a court of law. Political free speech definitely supports the right of Alex Jones and anyone to point an accusatory finger about a globalist agenda.
It is worth saying some more to review the fears of a globalist agenda. I believe that nations are good things to keep. I believe that a one-world government would be a very, very bad thing. I believe that lovers of liberty don't want to go there. That's my view, but of course there will always be some on the other side who think that yes, the world should move towards a one-world government. That's the problem. Jones and myself are solidly in the camp or column "against" global government. Anyone on the other side, by definition, favors a massive violation of American sovereignty.
There have already been massive violations of American sovereignty, as Bill Clinton brought in NAFTA / CAFTA / WTO / PNTR -- these are the so called "free trade" agreements that made our trade policy hostage to unelected, unaccountable, private sector bodies as found at NAFTA and the WTO. The entire concept of "investor to state" litigation (one of the precepts in the free trade agreements) is a massive violation of state sovereignty.
Talk of the globalist agenda wrinkles the nose, for people who want to be seen as "politically correct." PCness suggests, bury one's head in the sand on this issue. But, policy makers and informed Americans don't have the luxury to do so. (Apparently news rooms can keep their feet on the desk, and they DO have that luxury -- that, due to the remarkable low standards of THEIR industry. PNTR may be screwing America, but they were trained not to ask questions about it and to not challenge free trade.)
The above matters (free trade agreements) reveal that there has already been some implementation of a globalist agenda. So, it isn't pure speculation -- it has a history that we can review. But at some point, Alex Jones and I part company. I've expressed above where we agree, but in the face of all the bad news, I keep calm, while Jones continues into a full throated tirade against evil.
Sometimes, it may be hard to tell the difference between marauding evil and really bad policy. I keep my eyes out and ears tuned for policy mistakes. There is a role for those such as Jones who would fire up a base and rally the troops to the Rebel Alliance, in a face off with the Evil Empire. It's well and good that Jones occupies that niche. But my concerns range to other places, where Jones and I might disagree. The following is an example.
While I oppose a one-world government, I could support a one-world currency. Floating exchange rates, which we have now, are one way that the rich get richer while the poor get poorer. Fixed exchange rates, or a one-world currency, would stop the regime of floating exchange rates. On a level playing field, Ethiopians (e.g.) would not need to bemoan the fact that their currency is worthless. In fact, Wall Street includes forex traders who should logically be against this reform, since a one-world currency would obviate the existence of forex and the trading of currencies and related financial tricks.
Do I agree that the Federal Reserve should be nationalized and have its functions placed under the Treasury Department? Yes. But, that's in the absence of a world agreement for a world currency. The likelihood of world agreement is low. But if that were available (with no tiers, no tranches, no privileged treatment that disenfranchises poor people in poor countries), then I would say yes, let's take the agreement for one currency. And my parenthetical note is really the reason why agreement is unlikely. Bankers and Wall Street will want to rig the system so they remain advantaged. Because world agreement is likely not forthcoming -- I expect to remain in the camp with Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, Alex Jones (and even Glenn Beck!) saying, "End the Fed."
As for reviewing the Obama administration, Jones offers a very damning review. I've previously published some of my own thoughts -- Barack Obama is off to a shaky start. I was disappointed on Day One. On Day One, I would have the United States out of the (bad) WTO, into the (good) ICC, and recognizing (the nation of) Taiwan. And I believe in vigorous prosecution of the prior Bush administration. But I prefer to allow 100 days to elapse before I come out with my full review.
Jones and I have some overlap in our Obama criticism, so I can vouch for our points in common. When campaigning, Obama went to the (formerly) industrial mid-West, and denounced NAFTA. But, his campaign talked from both sides of its mouth, and told the Canadian government "not to worry." I suppose that means that Obama's NAFTA talk was just posturing. To me, the passage of NAFTA in the 1990s crossed a divide. The American republic gave way to the American kleptocracy. Now, Obama seems determined to "preserve, protect, and defend" kleptocracy.
In fact, if he can re-inflate the housing bubble, he will. He cannot do so, but he didn't mind supporting the $700 billion bailout of Wall Street -- a mugging of the American taxpayers that passed Congress in October, 2008.
To me, it is troubling that Obama would re-inflate the housing bubble and have everybody pick up and continue like nothing ever went wrong. That is a mental model that says we will, or can, or should go back to "the status quo ante." When the entire model and paradigm has failed, and when free trade exacerbates the recession and dilutes stimulus efforts, it's time to re-evaluate the model and paradigm. Instead, we saw U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton go to China like a pan handler, saying "please buy our debt." Obama and Clinton have not yet wrapped their heads around the point that the old model is unsustainable; that the economy imploded because that unsustainable model had run its course. Things need to be different going forward, but Obama and Clinton reveal "status quo ante" thinking. That's not change that I can believe in. That's continuity -- not leadership.
Jones and I also note that Barack Obama reversed himself on the quetion of warrantless wiretapping. During the campaign, he voted for the FISA immunity bill, which lets 'off the hook' those telecom companies that cooperated with the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping program.
If Obama is a brilliant reformer, then he is aware of how compromised he is by surrounding himself with corrupt people. Twenty years ago, Nancy Pelosi was a new Congresswoman, and she became a hero to Chinese dissidents right after the Tiananmen Square massacre by going to bat for them on Capitol Hill. Now as I watched The Obama Deception, it was saddening to see how corrupt Pelosi has become. Also I was amazed at how off base and unrealistic is the thinking of Rahm Emanuel.
Jones' point is that Obama is NOT a brilliant reformer; just a brilliant liar. He may or may not be right. Thus far, I have seen no cessation of American kleptocracy. In fact, Obama took up crusading against the intellectually-dishonest shibboleth of "protectionism." The word protectionism is used by sell outs to avoid and evade sanity in trade policy.
There are parts in the movie that are absolutely brilliant. Complex material was covered at a level for general understanding. I'm thinking of one scene where the "Burger King analogy" is presented. It's more easily watched than described.
In the mildest formulation, Barack Obama is at least sold out. With his harsher and more scathing formulations, Alex Jones will be accused of twisting the truth. But there are many grains of truth included, and these naturally invite analysis. Alex Jones is standing on solid ground, but his "analysis" becomes the full throated tirade that wrinkles my nose and seems wearing.
I think that different people are going to have different take aways from The Obama Deception, but to arm yourself with information is always worthwhile. Alex Jones presents "red pill politics" while sold out mainstream news presents only "blue pill politics." Because the media are so one-sided, I value Jones' material as an antidote or tonic. In conclusion, I recommend this movie. It beats turning on the news and seeing less sincere blue pill stuff.