https://youtube/watch?v=LAjGxvCc3qE The key anticolonial idea is that how did the rich countries become rich. Why do people live better in Britain and Germany and America than they do in lets say Rio de Janeiro or Jakarta or Mumbai? Answer -- because the West invaded and occupied and looted all those countries, taking all their stuff. Wealth in this view is not earned. Its not the result of creativity or initiative. Its basically the result of piracy. In 1965, Barack Obama Sr. wrote an article in the East Africa Journal -- he was talking about what does a country do when you got all these rich guys at the top. He mentions a bunch of solutions but one of them is very high tax rates. He says, Theoretically there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100% of income -- 100% tax rates. You might say, anyone who is familiar with economics would know that this is kind of nuts. Why would anyone propose it? Once you plug in the underlying anticolonial idea it actually makes sense. Imagine if you came to my house and stole all my furniture, whats the proper tax rate for you? One hundred percent because its not your furniture. If wealth is seen as appropriated then there is nothing wrong with the government using all its power to take it back. Lets fast forward now to Obamas recent comment of business guys, You didnt build that. Its not you. Its society. Society created the wealth. You the entrepreneur youre swooping in and skimming off the top. It doesnt belong to you. There is here an authorization for the government to seize, to confiscate. But the government isnt taking from you. Youve got to realize the underlying assumption is, it wasnt yours to begin with. All the conservative arguments about incentives dont really matter. The question, how do you deal with thieves? You dont provide them with incentives. You punish them. You take away their ill-gotten gains. The second part of anti-colonialism quite apart from the idea of theft is also the idea that America and American power is very bad for the world. In other words, America is not a force of freedom but America is actually a force of exploitation. If you look at the dual movement of Obamas policies, domestic and foreign policy, theyre kind of linked. Whats he doing? Domestically he is expanding the power of the state at home. Internationally, he is shrinking or contracting the power of the United States. Its a scissors motion. He is expanding state power locally and he is reducing Americas power in the world. Why would Obama support oil drilling abroad but not here? It has nothing to do with environmentalism. I dont believe Obama could care whether the Earth is getting hotter or colder. He doesnt know. He doesnt care. What hes attempting is global energy redistribution. Hes trying to make sure that the previously colonized countries have more energy so they can grow faster and hes putting the expense on what he sees to be the colonizer which is to say us. Why is Obama promiscuously spending money as if the deficit didnt matter? Its very obvious that if the Republicans didnt have the Congress he would have spent a lot more. The reason hes doing it I believe is because he is using debt as a way to settle Americas colonial debt. In other words, the idea here is that America owes the world big time trillions of dollars. Obama knows that he cant possibly propose a foreign aid program even Democrats wouldnt vote for that much giveaway. Now think about how debt achieves the same result because if our children and grandchildren are saddled with trillions of dollars of debt, theyre going to have to pay back and to whom? Well, a good deal of that debt is owned by the Kuwaitis, it is owned by the Saudis, it is owned by the Chinese. Debt becomes a form of global redistribution. Hes trying to restore the world before colonialism. If we lived in the year 1500 and looked around the world, there were several great powers -- China, India, the Arab-Islamic world, the civilizations of the Americas. It was a multipolar world without a single superpower like America. I believe Obama wants us to go back to that world. Where does this really leave us? I think one of the powerful things about our film 2016 is it shows Obamas agenda in his own words. It links them to his actions and it shows what the likely next move is going to be in a number of key areas. Ultimately with Obama you can understand where hes going if you dont know his core ideology. Remember, we havent even seen the real Obama. Well see the real Obama only in the second term. A first-term president is kind of tendered to public opinion. He has to maintain constituencies. In the second term, in a sense, he can come out of the closet. He can be himself.
Posted on: Mon, 08 Dec 2014 00:10:40 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015