RE-THINKING OBAMA AND “2016”
D'Souza Errs in Two Conclusions
By Wayne Jett © August 27, 2012
The documentary film “2016” provides insights into early influences on Barack Obama and how they affect the U.S. president’s agenda. But author and co-director Dinesh D’Souza errs in two basic conclusions expressed about his subject. Obama is not an anti-colonialist, and his agenda is not a socialist America in the image of Europe. On each count, Barack Obama’s aim is markedly different, and worse, than D’Souza portrays.
This is colonialism: a powerful nation uses imperialist policies (military and/or economic oppression) to exploit resources of weaker nations on unjust terms. The exploitation may incidentally benefit the colonialist “nation.” But colonialism usually exerts government power to put big money into the pockets of specific private interests.
In other words, colonialism is standard policy of the mercantilist political-economic system. An anti-colonialist opposes exploitation of weaker nations by a more powerful government, and seeks a level playing field for less-developed nations in global markets.
President Obama has filled every financial-economic post with an operative of the ruling elite. Timothy Geithner, Secretary of the Treasury, came straight from the presidency of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. The New York Fed is a major command post of the ruling elite. Geithner worked closely with Treasury secretary Henry Paulson (who was Goldman Sachs’ CEO) in orchestrating the events of 2008.
Obama’s primary economic adviser initially was an academic Keynesian from UC Berkeley, Christina Romer, who naively assumed Obama’s agenda was economic recovery. She was the first to jump ship (or to be thrown overboard) when her focus was out-of-step with Obama and other advisers.
Hedge funds with ties to Wall Street banks enriched Larry Summers and Rahm Emanuel before they took posts in Obama’s White House. Paul Volcker had important ties with Chase Bank before serving pivotal roles in gaining power for the ruling elite to manipulate the dollar through the Federal Reserve, and then using it to produce the economic crisis of 1980-1982. William Daley held high posts at Chase Bank for years before becoming Obama’s chief of staff.
The list could be extended at length. The point is that Obama is the antithesis of anti-colonialist. But that is not to say he wishes to make the U. S. a colonialist, imperial power.
The Ruling Elite's Agenda
Obama was put into office by the ruling elite, and his role is to serve their agenda. The ruling elite now wish to move past the era of using national governments to project power on their behalf. They are ready, they think, to use global government for that purpose, and they believe they can do so if the U. S. government is deposed.
That is where Obama comes in. Obama’s role is to move constitutional government in the U. S. towards its demise in the relatively short term. Beyond question, he has made important strides towards that end. He may yet attempt to finish the job, especially if re-elected. But if and when he moves out of the U. S. presidency, he will continue as an operative of the ruling elite, not as an advocate of exploited colonies.
The Vision Thing
This should inform us regarding D’Souza’s conclusion about Obama’s vision for America. Whether Obama desires socialism in the image of Europe hardly matters. The important consideration is the ruling elite’s vision for America. Socialism is the ruling elite’s “holding pen” for captured populations. Communism is their transitory approach to capturing belligerent people.
Let’s not contemplate the ruling elite’s “final solution” to their problem that republican democracies attempt to impose laws upon them. We have seen enough to know better than to proceed down that path. ~