A review of the new movie, The Obama Deception, from Alex Jones. by John Kusumi
Friday, March 20, 2009
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.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 257
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of John Kusumi only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
John Kusumi is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
In the movie you see Webster Griffin Tarpley speaking over and over…. back in 1999 he wrote a book called ‘Surviving the Cataclysm’ in which warns of the worst financial crisis in human history. His second chapter bares the title: “Derivative Madness.” In short, this man not only predicted the coming collapse 10 years in advance, but he also understood the true cause. If that is not enough evidence to bring you to a firm belief what this film says is true, then NOTHING will convince you.
Fans of Alex Jones are used to seeing these condascending articles from the supposedly more "reasonable" and "grounded" commentators like yourself but it\'s always clear to us that your extend of knowledge is vastly limited compared to that of Alex Jones and the excellent guests he has on his radio show.
Sure, he has an irreverant and blustery style but so what? His research is extensive and only a tiny fraction of it could fit into a two hour film. Is there speculation? Is there exaggeration? Yes, of course there is but you will always find innacuracies and bias in any media.
What shocks me is how little talk or concern there is over Obama\'s proposed national security force. The G.I.V.E bill has already passed the House and is the first step towards establishing that fascist civilian security force. Is that just a mistake or a bright idea on Obama\'s part? No! It\'s part of an AGENDA. What possible reason could there be for such a force? Terrorists? You\'ve got to be kidding.
Alex Jones is one of the very few people that is stating the obvious here. That is, Barack Obama is a controlled asset of the financial elite. Look into his background which is so well researched and presented by Webster Tarpley in "Barack H Obama : The Unauthorized Biography". He worked for Kissinger, the University of Chicago and the foundations for God\'s sake. He\'s not a civil rights fighter from the streets like a Martin Luther King.
The movie has a few flaws. Jones heart is in the right place, but he gives the elites too much credit. As Gary North put it in "[link edited for length]":
Anyone who does not understand the magnitude of what is taking place is an economic ignoramus. I have plenty of these ignorami contacting me, telling me it was all planned by the insiders. The conspiracy has won again! In their worldview, the conspiracy always wins. That is because they believe that the conspiracy has the attributes of God. It is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent.
Here is their intellectual problem. They do not believe in the free market. They cannot conceive of a social institution based on voluntarism that can break the backs of government planners and central bankers. They will believe anything but this. They think of themselves as defenders of the free market. But they do not grasp the power of the free market to enforce consumers' decisions.
The conspiracy of well-placed insiders is now tottering. The whole structure of the national American political system has rested on the solvency of the largest American banks. These banks have all been called into question. They are now gutted.
So au contaire Mr. Jones, the elites are staining their drawers over the crisis & have no clue how to solve it. All they know how to do is to loot the taxpayers as much as they'll allow themselves to be looted.
Very, very positively impressed with the well-balanced evaluation of the Obama administration. In politics, it is exceedingly rare that impartial, evenhanded analysis is performed. Thanks for a job very well done.
Although Alex Jones does often end up in a "full-throated tirade", he is doing the hardest job out there and that is waking up the masses. It seems that mainstream Americans have become so conditioned by the media, and pehaps "dumbed-down" after generations were raised on fluoridated water and received seasonal vaccines laced with mercury, that it takes someone up on his feet and yelling to get their attention. These Americans have become entertainment sponges who require lots of flashing lights and action to keep them tuned in. They are hardcore "blue pill junkies" and they have been brainwashed to believe the "red pill" is bad. "Don't look at that, it will hurt you!" Alex reaches a broad spectrum of people and that is extremely important. I will go as far to call him a "Living Legend" and just as heroic as any soldier who ever charged the enemy under fire. He understands that time is critical and if nothing else his tirades attract attention and that is exactly what is needed. To shake the hand of Andrew Jackson or Abe Lincoln whould have been a great honor, but just as great an honor to me would be to shake the hand of Alex Jones. If America survives this battle with these bankers, we will owe much to this undeniable patriot. Thank God for Alex Jones and all of the work he has done for this nation. If we don't survive, we owe him no less, for he has devoted his life to preserving liberty and there is no pay check that comes with that job.
Posted By: Jahfre Fire Eater
Date: 2009-04-18 08:21:52
Thanks for the review. having my first introduction to Alex Jones through his minions who comprised the core of Ron Paul's army of Poison Fans, I wouldn't personally ever deliberately watch or listen to anything from Jones or his minions.
As far as I'm concerned he and they killed the Ron Paul campaign and continue today to provide fodder for ridicule and marginalization.
I see him, and them as dire enemies of my liberty and as destructive, corrosive agents against the actions responsible, constructive participants in the political process are taking.
His venom is deeply addictive. In the past two years I have seen only ONE person come back from the futile behavior and attitudes Jones instills in his foam-mouthed zombie audience.
Since the power of Jones' futility and anger sermons is so strong, I no longer have any patience for these people. They are not worth saving. It is so unlikely they can ever be turned towards positive, constructive behavior in the defense of liberty that any breath spent engaging them is breath wasted.
The odious nature of Alex Jones message and the bahavior of those who have become his blindly faithful ignorant angry flock make everyone who believes in the constitution, who believes in freedom and who values individual liberty a target.
You're right, Jones' enemies do lump us all together and I blame Jones and his looney followers for undermining my effectiveness as an empowered, informed individual.
If Jones would begin to encourage his audience to express their emotions in constructive ways as effective individuals I could change my view of him (and perhaps some of them) but until then, he is my enemy due to the disastrous harm he does to the defense of liberty. I judge them not on their beliefs. I agree with much of them. I judge them on their ignorantly destructive behavior which identifies them as enemies of the individual and of liberty.
As always, if the shoe doesn't fit, don't wear it. Some of Jones audience are simply not well informed, don't or can't read and get all their information from peers and radio; they will move away from him at their own pace once they see who he is and who his disciples are.
This is partly in answer to Jahfre Fire Eate's comment above.
While The Obama Deception does contain a lot of hype and fighting talk, I believe that it still stands as a resource with accurate information. It is not the only movie of it's kind; there are plenty of others.
I would reccommend "The Money Masters", and "America: Freedom To Fascism", the latter by Aaron Russo. Both of these are easily searched at Google Video. If one were to watch both of these in concert with "The Obama Deception", one might end up with a reasonably balanced and accurate idea of what is really going on.
I don't feel that there is a need to lambast Alex Jones for his work; there is enough fighting talk already without adding to it. A more reasonable approach would be to listen to everyone and think for ourselves.
I'd just like to agree with Ian Boggs final comment .
the whole idea of watching these things is to make your mind up about the information given. despite Alex Jones' off putting shoutey manner, the film has prompted me into having a good look at the subject matter and the claims made, if a film like this prompts you into learning about or analyse the information, ideas and accusations presented then that can only be a good thing.
As it was said in the review, amongst the inflamiatory stuff there were at times grains of truth.
Finally i'd like to say that If people are so easily swept up by the "fighting talk" to think for themselves then you'd hope that some day they will able to appreciate the irony in allowing that to happen in the first place!
“Rush Limbaugh, Michael Moore, Alex Jones share remarkable similarities of power hungry individuals who don’t have the skill to become power elites so they resort to rallying the uneducated against the elites. The Obama Deception is a good example of this”
I am suspect of any film that contains obvious errors designed to inflame viewers. While this film contains some damaging statements by obama Jones either lied or was careless in his reseach. He claims JFK was going to get rid of the FED and cites Executive Order 11110 as evidence. In fact this order only authorizes the FED to print silver certificates and says nothing about limiting or abolishing the FED.
Never seen the movie, but love the title. I have for months followed political blog posts , actually since my worry over what Obama had in mind with, "CHANGE", but now we all know, his way or the highway! Don't everyone hate criticism, but when you get to a certain level of politics, my understanding is, you use it to your advantage, but not this guy, he is on a mission and it scares the crap out of this observer. The name JONES is kicked around quite a bit in this post and subsequent comments and I liken the style of Barrack Obama to the Reverend Jim Jones, you know, the following, the teaching, the preaching, the kool aid !!
I forced myself to watch the entire thing. It's a good 10-minute movie, which accurately portrays Obama's many policy reversals ... all of which has been tediously documented by the MSM since he took office.
Of the remaining 120 minutes, we find adequate proof that Alex Jones has a big mouth (or a big megaphone), but has very little to say. One minute, it's a vast worldwide conspiracy of the Bilderbergers (which is nothing more than an annual conference of financial leaders), a few minutes later it's all run by "Wall Street" (though I suspect that 95% of Wall Street employees have no idea they're in charge), a few minutes later it's the FED Board, (composed of a dozen banks spread around the country who aren't making as much money as Google), and a few minutes later it's all being run by the Council on Foreign Relations.
Wait ... excuse me .. all secretly run by these groups. All of which have public websites describing their objectives, who publish their membership and even the agenda of their meetings. Alex Jones apparently considers them "secret" if most people are too bored to read their websites.
It is true that Jones advocates for good conservative/libertarian ideals and interviews some competent economists and politicians who have been saying the same things on their websites and YouTube videos for years.
So, if you're expecting an ASTOUNDING revelation of new SECRET information on Obama or the military industrial complex, don't waste two hours watching Alex making a fool of himself.
Posted By: Scott McMorran
Date: 2009-12-27 09:26:07
I must compliment you on another well written article. Your writings show you to be that rarest of all commodities, an honest Liberal (centrist). The ability to give the other side credit, when due, is a good indicator of character.
I have seen several of Alex Jones films. They frequently make very good points and then draw conclusions that strain credulity. Do the mega-rich want to make as much money as possible, by any means, of course, that is self evident. However, Jones would then jump to the conclusion, that they are capable of manipulating world events like an Excel spreadsheet. To summarize Jones work I would say he uncovers alot of excellent points and then draws unsupportable conclusions.
I do have one bone to pick with your commentary. One World government and a World currency both lead to the same thing. The loss of American sovereignty. There is not a "pounds" worth of difference between the E.U. and the E.M.U. Both relinguish sovereignty of the members.