The type of person to run for office of United States will obviously require barely comprehensible levels of narcissism. And of course the position of commanding armed forces of a nuclear empire will require the type of person capable of mass murder. But is the Obama Deception documentary overreaching in its claims?
It is interesting to think how the first generation that politically matured with the internet would view United States politics if Al Gore had won instead of Bush. It is doubtful that the level of outrage would be as great considering Gore's better neural faculties. We could however expect the same level of popular dissatisfaction as occurred against the similarly well spoken and relatively sharp Tony Blair. The ability of internet browsing to strengthen connections in the frontal lobe (unlike more passive media) allows heightened political participation and criticism to emerge during the growth period from puberty to 30 years of age.
A crisp younger challenger like Barack Obama supported by youthful internet backing would have emerged in the United States regardless. We are seeing the overall age of world leaders drop because the internet capable youthful brains see youngerl politicians as more similar to themselves. The cutting edge of technology is then used against the elderly politicians and entrenched interests.
Senior citizens like McCain are less capable of fighting back since the increasing complexity of the world allows their younger challengers to override decades of experience with meritocratic functioning when it comes to political power plays. We see the age of new leaders in China and Russia drop with every succession cycle and we're about to witness Cameron take office in the UK. Throughout the third world governmental structures trying to find themselves must have growing younger members within them if they are to prudently evolve. The Russian government is staffed with 40 somethings and we should expect to see Chinese government continue to undergo similar overall drop in age.
Now that Obama is in office, the constantly expanding social networking and internet tools will be directed at him in mass attack. The shrinking republican party is
too pathetic and weak to be honored by professional attacks.
Another Alex Jones documentary has been making rounds on the internet. It is called "The Obama Deception" and utilizes familiar quickly made style of 911 truthers and simple youtube editing. The production quality is poor and the interpretation of real world facts is at times incoherent. So why honor it with a review? Well, it's more of a review of the mindset of the opposition and analysis of how same facts can be interpreted in vastly different ways.
Strong willed individuals like Alex Jones, Michael Moore, Michael Savage, and Rush Limbaugh do not have enough power to become national elites and decision makers through skill (forceful behind the scenes corruption, psychopathic power plays, and constant lies that are required). They then make the rational decision to attain power by rallying the masses against the elites. They don't have the creativity and life energy to build and command and exploit but they have more than enough talent to react and force multiply popular outrage. The Obama Deception is a prime example of strong willed on the outside looking in and resenting their position. They'd rather burn down the gated mansion if they can't be inside of it.
This documentary has been spreading on the internet and became very popular on youtube. Once Ron Paul supporters and dissatisfied ideologue democrats get financial support from dissatisfied oligarchs, more documentaries of higher quality can be made regurgitating the same points in the future. Lets review these points and see if they can be put in context.
Point 1: The presidency of US has been a puppet position since JFK got assassinated. Obama has been groomed and successfully marketed by the banking interests to resell the same oligarchic control to the American people as existed under Bush and many others. Puppets that grow beyond control and challenge banking interests are often physically or character assassinated. Examples are: 1) Lincoln who spoke against moneyed interests, 2) Andrew Jackson who prevented a national bank from being formed through increasing his power by giving non-wealthy men the vote, and 3) JFK who wasn't a weak playboy drunkard but started exerting against oligarchs.
Woodrow Wilson is mentioned as having apologized to the American people before his death for getting them into a war that only benefited the bankers.
An interesting quote from a rural agricultural oligarch and revolutionary intellectual Thomas Jefferson is given,
"
I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."
Reply: The power of the moneyed interests is undeniable as well as manipulation of politics by banking interests throughout history. However, rise in popularity of a certain way of managing resources is a good indicator of the way's utility and efficiency for power elites. It is natural
for a certain way of hierarchical exploitation to become popular and thus to raise the influence of those who do that business best. History has shown us that majority of elites tend to agree on increasing bank centralization which then morphs into a reserve bank. Quasi public bank like Federal Reserve does a much better job at preventing constant busts and booms than a more decentralized banking system (busts and booms lead to populism from the poor and are thus destabilizing to elites as whole). The bank always evolves and adapts. It might arguably just reduce the frequency of busts and time between them but they still come with greater intensity as shown by Great Depression. Overall however, due to evolutionary nature of the reserve bank, we've seen less economic disturbance in last 50 years than the last 50 years of the 19th century.
Each crisis creates a more intense centralizing tendency and co-operation with national government and governments abroad. Just like seatbelts didn't reduce fatal car crashes since people now could drive faster safely, each new stronger bank allows more risk taking to happen safely. Gambles increase, bubbles occur, and major corrections are inevitable. The final result (as long as the inefficient monetary way of doing business continues), will be a central world bank with one global currency and close co-operation of leading world powers, UN, and nations' reserve banks.
America has already passed its civilizational peak in 1970s and its economic decline can only be managed non-violently by powerful men who talk and listen to each other. It would be very dangerous for global social stability if powerful men and women didn't meet, talk, dine, and laugh together.
European Central Bank will most likely be the example that the world reserve bank will follow. ECB was modeled on old German reserve bank which grew out of multiple states shrugging off confederacy and becoming a German state. German oligarchy has been through all the busts booms and confederate difficulties that have plagued US oligarchs in 19th century. They not only overcame them by becoming a nation but also created a good way to curb inflation for a whole continent by losing German sovereignty within a new greater EU confederacy. The world's reserve bank of the future will without a doubt have many former oligarchs within it because of their "expertise" (whatever you may think of such notion).
Rothbard's anarcho-capitalism for the world is at this point impossible and neither is it possible for United States or any other country. Technological means of production and distribution
are evolving rapidly and undermining a possibility of a very decentralized monetary system that ideologues like Ron Paul desire. The only way forward towards the inevitable global economic/political unification is for world's financial and political elites to meet frequently and discuss how to evolve towards global currency safely. For the most part, they want to do this with compromise and without great depressions or outbursts of genocidal violence. Many of these
powerful people do not want catastrophic world events to occur since it would be bad for business, electoral/political success, or even for personal safety if wars go nuclear. Some blatantly psychopathic elites undoubtedly only care about quick profits (instead of glory and desire to use their power to shape the world in their image as is the historic case with strongest elites) but they are collectively managed and restricted by majority of other powerful internationals.
Jefferson is correct. Bankers are more powerful than jack booted thugs but they are instrumental at bringing world peace and rapid technological/social progress that would follow (once creative energies and resources are less focused on weaponry but transport and communication which then ensures an international anti-monetary system solidarity). There is no immediate safe alternative to evolving banking. Only thing to be discussed is how much transparency and public/private integration to have to minimize detrimental private influence. Even if there is one nationalized bank as the Soviets had, the underlining exploitation of most of society would continue through wage labor.
Banking elites are without a doubt major players and stronger than military industrial complex players or oil company executives. That does not mean that they can run rampant indefinitely during an international recession of their own making. Other elites in business want economy to recover so they can sell more tanks or Pepsi and public/political elites can always smell blood in the water. Wall Street banking/financial big wigs can be divided and conquered like any other group. During the upcoming chain of bank failures and consolidations, many will survive to serve and thrive in new financial structures. Legislative and executive branch have always been the right hand man of the oligarchy in the western world. What people forget is that bankers are just one stripe of oligarchs among many. They are not guaranteed to always have undivided attention from their personal lawyer (congress) or guard (military).
Obama is only a puppet to collective opinion of strong individuals if his power is roughly the same as the average power of congressmen/wall streeters/industrialists/generals. If he is further on the
power bell curve of American heavy weights, he can lead and direct them with time. It's too early to talk about his puppet status. It's also early to speculate why a mulatto won presidency at this time. Most likely it's simply due to personal strength and cunning (dutifully obtaining Jeremiah Wright's support for votes like Hillary did in Congressional prayer meetings), obtaining elite support (yes, including some bankers) that want new image for America, as well as obtaining support from common men personally. Men like that are historically unpredictable, especially if they are young and adapt/grow rapidly.
Point 2: Obama's administration is stuffed with individuals who belong to secretive elite organizations like the Bilderberg Group and Trilateral Commission. These organizations restrict access to only the world's most wealthy and powerful and create a secretive internationalist agenda without any concern for opinions of the common man. Their goal is to eventually form a North American Union and integrate United States into either a North Hemispheric Block or make USA a backbone of a new world government controlled by bankers.
Reply: Trilateral commission's purpose is to bring closer union/understanding between Europe, USA, and Japan. Founding members, like David Rockefeller, were always blunt that they want more integration to prevent another world war. Considering how oligarchic control in USA is beginning to stagnate American society, perhaps USA losing a bit of sovereignty to Europeans and Japanese (with their technocratic tendencies) is a good thing. Increase in international political/economic co-operation and emergence of common world reserve currency is inevitable as long as world economic system is capitalist.
The best way this can be done as smoothly as possible is for all the world's heavy weights to gather and talk, become cosmopolitan friends, and develop mutual respect. All countries in the world have elites meeting behind closed doors and this isn't an American problem in the slightest. We saw what happens when elites fight or when some elites refuse to sit down with others, talk, and listen. When some of the world's strong headed don't want to give any power to others (through attention, co-operation, trade, or not disrupting world order too much) all the others unite against them. Chinese leadership has learned from the experience of Napoleonic, Nazi, and Bolshevik leaderships and definitely chooses to sit down in exclusive hotel gatherings rather than be destroyed. Obama and people like Putin also learned from the experience of earlier independent strong willed nationalists who tried changing domestic or international environment. It requires slow compromise making, divide and conquer of domestic opponents, keeping it real with the people, and energizing the legislative branch through strength of personality and hand outs to wealthy. True success comes from listening to other aristocracy and making former enemies a function of oneself or at least tacit allies.
USA will not merge with Mexico or Canada into one state on EU model. It's too late for that considering the crisis of confidence we are seeing in our socioeconomic system. Canadian elites don't want our problems and being controlled and destroyed culturally. They can make a lot more money and thus gain a lot more power if they exploit
their vast national resources to sell down south. American citizens although completely politically impotent still matter and definitely don't want Mexico's problems. Surrendering national sovereignty however is a good way of achieving more power for the nation's ruling ethnic group. Germans have had a history of losing national sovereignty in order to increase influence. It goes back to Holy Roman Empire and the Prussians becoming leaders in a new German state. Recently they've done it again with unification and now gradual transformation into the heart and wallet of EU. Russian elites also know that losing sovereignty doesn't mean losing control. If USA enters into some sort of loose confederation in the western hemisphere with other states, white Americans will still be able to really benefit financially from the arrangement since domestic exploitation of the poor and uneducated will continue. Nationalist conservatives have always effectively performed their function of filtering immigrants and making economic/political union with other states organic and gradual.
Losing economic sovereignty is not a matter of if but when and The Obama Deception has a valid point for those who would be adversely affected by that (most Americans if not most Mexicans). However, people like Alex Jones always view it from the perspective of American citizens not gaining anything at all from the arrangement. Citizens of 13 colonies uniting into a more perfect union also had a lot of conservatives screaming about their lifestyles being destroyed. Many Europeans now don't want to go back to the days of visas and trade barriers and tariffs on the continent. The cultural argument of American way of life being wiped out remains the best one and internationalists have to be kept on their toes in that regard. EU does not want Turkey in and USA has plenty of Turkey equivalents in its neighborhood. In any event, considering that 50% of babies born in United States are now Hispanic and that white American population will slide under 50% in the near future, the cultural argument will soon fade compared to the economic class argument. There is also the wild card of
potential separatism that some regional elites might entertain if global economic downturn becomes severe enough.
Point 3: Obama has gone back on most of his campaign promises thus he is in cahoots with the elites. He lies all the time.
Reply: Yes, Obama is a politician who now tasted reality on the inside. One lies to get elected. This is a democracy with a
poorly educated public. Ideologues don't get financial support from elites since they are seen as inflexible, uncompromisable, and thus likely to fail and be pushed around. People like Ron Paul are not really politicians but conduits for ideology. Somebody like that can be easily marginalized and out thought and thus would pose a national security risk. One also forgets that politicians don't just lie to the public but lie to the elites and fellow politicians. Obama is as likely to break promises to his donors as he is to the public. Second term will show his real intentions and the fruits of more mature thought process. Obama is also not a white blue blood and doesn't have the pedigree binding him to other elites in the same way George H Bush/Reagan did. If Obama has Putin level prudence he will keep the public and the elites constantly guessing while bringing surprises and making examples of certain organizations.
The very first major speech Obama gave to the nation was the one he gave to congress. That speech was directed mostly at the congressmen and not the audience in front of TVs and computer screens as one would think. He was telling them that if they work together they can achieve serious influence on the world stage. He was appealing to their desire for power. Many of the congressmen, Republican and Democrat, once were passionate about something and overflowed with life energy. Obama's first speech had the feel of a frat house rally. He was trying to energize the world's most powerful individuals. He would not be doing that if he thought he was their equal. If he thought he was their equal (or in Bush W's case even their intellectual inferior) he would just be giving the TV watching public regurgitated bland statements.
Since Barack Obama is racially different than fellow congressmen and have achieved more at younger age than many of them, he thus feels different, superior, and more capable than them. Many congressmen are possibly open to being inspired by a new dynamic world leader and might join him on this quest. They can recognize a life force at this point. A person like that only stays a puppet until he is able to figure out a way to break free. It took Putin a couple of years to not be seen as Yeltsin's puppet. Obama is growing and unpredictable. He is as likely to make banks buy each other out and then make the survivor his tool as he is to bring social authoritarianism that Alex Jones fears. The recent Obama meeting with South American leaders has shown that he is perhaps too confident with powerful people. Fidel Castro wrote an article recently calling Obama's smiles and handshakes the manner of a conceited aristocrat. He said Obama was humoring the Latin leaders
in a way one humors old or uneducated people. Castro knows a thing or two about power hungry intellectuals ( being one himself). He thinks Obama is a real American nationalist as opposed to Bush (who only benefited his supporters) and as such, a bigger threat to Cuba.
Point 4: Globalists now don't have Soviets to keep them in check and be more accountable to the people. They can expand their global agenda endlessly and just switch one puppet for another every election. To accomplish that goal they need to deny African natural resources to Chinese and to encircle Russia with military bases.
Reply: That might be applicable to Anglo-American internationalists. England is not as integrated into the Euro Zone since their currency is not regulated by the European Central Bank. Considering the
decline of American economy and the status of the dollar as a good reserve currency, if major international structures arise, it will be despite Anglo-American designs rather than because them.
Anglo-American elites don't want Russian integration with Europe and as such are troublemakers to be overcome. European Union has more future economic common interests with Russia and China than with America. US does not have enough funds and incentives to keep central Europeans loyal for too long at the expensive of Russo-German cooperation. If Obama is prudent he will join with Europeans as partners, equals, and allies before America declines to the point where even that is not possible without hurtful compromises. That means a gradual end to NATO and encouraging German-Russian economic integration despite British objections. China gets 60% of African resource exports with EU getting the second biggest share and USA only getting 10-15%. Westerners can compete with Chinese in African deal making better if they co-operate.
Chinese have made a bit of a splash recently by proposing that IMF have more Chinese members and encouraging it to start a process that will lead to a global currency. Brazil, India, Kazakhstan, and Russia have joined this call. Chinese elites are culturally more alienated from the laughing white playboys that typically make up a Bilderberg Group meeting. Some of them might view Western leaders and billionaires as a temporary annoyance to be cooperated with until they can be overcome. This separation needs to be dealt with rapid action of the internationalist community so it doesn't pose a security risk. The mere fact that
China feels secure enough to propose a new international structure (and be supported by countries with 1.5 billion people) is a serious warning light to Anglo-American leadership. Americans still have enough time and power to propose an alternate road to global currency where the declining dollar can play a bigger role. This will prevent humiliation of going along with some internationalist plan not of their own design in the future.
Point 5: Globalists want a world wide carbon tax and to really tax all manner of things in authoritarian way in the name of pseudo-science of "global warming' (which is really caused by sunspot activity)
Reply: This is either a positive sign that world leaders finally take climate change seriously enough for this kind of coordinated action or a sinister revelation that the scientific community is in the pockets of the bankers. Or that this review is finished.
CONCLUSION:
We all thought Bush was on the payroll of oilmen and military industrial complex leadership since he promoted their interests. We were right. Many documentaries touched upon it. Oligarchs in America really expanded their reach. However, we had a very incapable president who didn't respect himself and didn't attempt to seem respectable. So far everything Obama said in press conferences seemed that he was keeping it real. He repeatedly made a point that he has to overcome many entrenched interests and obstacles. We'll see where he is in a year. So far his power has been rapidly growing and it doesn't seem that he is puppet material. Even the right hand man of the rich that is US government can at times have the tail wag the dog. As far as exploitation goes, corruption is inevitable at higher levels of power since those people make the rules. Obeying the fluid rules that they create over drinks, fine food, and laughter is a silly thing of them to expect. The most we can hope for in immediate future is to live on a better plantation with kinder masters who provide us with
more autonomy.
Posts
