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 let’s 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. It’s not the result of creativity or initiative. It’s 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, what’s the proper tax rate for you? One hundred percent because it’s 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.
Let’s fast forward now to Obama’s recent comment of business guys, ‘You didn’t build that. It’s not you. It’s society. Society created the wealth. You the entrepreneur you’re swooping in and skimming off the top. It doesn’t belong to you. There is here an authorization for the government to seize, to confiscate. But the government isn’t taking from you. You’ve got to realize the underlying assumption is, it wasn’t yours to begin with. All the conservative arguments about incentives don’t really matter.’ The question, how do you deal with thieves? You don’t 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 Obama’s policies, domestic and foreign policy, they’re kind of linked. What’s 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. It’s a scissors motion. He is expanding state power locally and he is reducing America’s power in the world.
Why would Obama support oil drilling abroad but not here? It has nothing to do with environmentalism. I don’t believe Obama could care whether the Earth is getting hotter or colder. He doesn’t know. He doesn’t care. What he’s attempting is global energy redistribution. He’s trying to make sure that the previously colonized countries have more energy so they can grow faster and he’s 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 didn’t matter? It’s very obvious that if the Republicans didn’t have the Congress he would have spent a lot more. The reason he’s doing it I believe is because he is using debt as a way to settle America’s colonial debt. In other words, the idea here is that America owes the world big time trillions of dollars. Obama knows that he can’t possibly propose a foreign aid program even Democrats wouldn’t 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, they’re 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. He’s 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 Obama’s 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 he’s going if you don’t know his core ideology. Remember, we haven’t even seen the real Obama. We’ll 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.
americanpeoplenews 