I was persuaded to see D'Souza's recent film by a friend who although he never has registered to vote in the U.S., invariably praises Republicans and demonises Democrats. He does understand, however, that 'Israel' is NOT a friend to the U.S. and that the Zionist cause is corrupt at its very foundation. I personally believe that until the U.S. jettisons the two-party system and gives true Independents a chance to aspire to the Presidency as well as other government offices, little true democracy exists for the people. Of course, what most people fail to understand is that the U.S. is a Republic rather than a Democracy in any case. Despite the fact that the official U.S. propaganda machine endlessly professes that all American acts of aggression are undertaken in the cause of democracy, the voice of the People and the Will of the People is filtered through a Republican system of so-called elected and appointed Representatives. Invariably, it is a carefully orchestrated farce wherein the most powerful and wealthy multinational corporations and domestic financial groups pull the strings while the political candidates respond as directed. Republicans and Democrats are nothing more than Frick and Frack for the most part performing under a single director.
The film is interesting in the details about Obama's personal history even if the interpretations may be flawed. When Barry Obama transformed himself into Barack Obama to enter the national political arena, it was obvious that he was trying to gain support from American Muslims. It was equally obvious to me, however that, despite his name, he did not come as a blessing from Allah S.W.T. and would not implement any real reforms in terms of American international policies. I perceived Obama even then to be as much of a political opportunist as Hilary Clinton and he has not supported the Palestinian cause any more than she ever did, despite an assertion on her part (rather quickly disawoved by her when she needed the Jewish vote) that the Palestinians deserved a State. Obama is as much Caucasian as he is Black but he used his African-American identity to gain the Presidency and I very much doubt his political ascent would have been successful had he not been of mixed race. In this, I do agree with Dinesh D'Souza.
The man who made the film as well as Obama himself is from a mixed background. D'Souza may be from Goa, technically part of India, but his family name is Portuguese in origin and indeed his family is Roman Catholic and to some extent rooted in the colonialist heritage of India. D'Souza was educated initially by Jesuits, then came to the States for a privileged Ivy League education. In the film, he declares that there would have been no way for him to advance in India as if he were a poor person from one of the slums in Mumbai but that is far from the truth. (He even makes a rather sly reference to 'Slumdog Millionaire' at another point in the film.) His father worked as an executive for Johnson & Johnson, a powerful corporation with products that are recognised throughout the globe. With an American Ivy League education and an influential family at home, Dimesh D'Souza is very much an example of the third-world 'brain drain' in which the brightest and most promising of the sons and daughters of third-world nations abandon their homelands in favour of making even more money in the U.S. It is no wonder then that he became involved with Republican Conservative politics and attached himself to the Reagan administration.
D'Souza is articulate and well-educated and therefore was able to produce some evidence for the basic principle on which his so-called documentary was founded, to wit, that Obama essentially has an anti-colonialist background and some anti-colonialist sympathies. Any intelligent law student can write a thesis based upon a declaration and find supporting evidence for it, even if the declaration is that White is Black and Black is White. The Jesuits, source of D'Souza's early education, have been famed for centuries for their dexterity in the arena of Logic. Exercises in Logic, however, sometimes bear little resemblance to reality.
My background is in History and Law rather than Economics (although all disciplines intersect) but I do understand colonialism and anti-colonialism, having spent some of my childhood in Asia. Even as a child, i detested colonialists and the compound lifestyle and preferred to find my friends among the real people of the country in which I lived. D'Souza, however, appears to be conflicted in his attitudes. Almost at the very start of the film, he pokes fun at his Caucasian comrades at Dartmouth in a little dramatic portrayal of a dinner for the International student association where he has a Caucasian declare that he absolutely loves India without being able to give any reason whatsoever for his passion. As he makes this statement, the student shows a terrible disregard for table manners as well as his lack of intelligence by waving a utensil in the air. I find it difficult to believe that most of the Americans who take the trouble to join an International Club at any University would be so utterly ignorant and gauche. I have some knowledge firsthand of international Student Associations on different continents and never met any one quite like the pathetic specimen D'Souza conjured. I certainly have met countless Americans who are woefully ignorant of international affairs but these, of course, are the Americans apparently that D'Souza seeks to convince in his mock documentary. The little drama at the International Club did show something about the man who made the film: D'Souza, while espousing the Conservative American ideals and coming from a family entrenched in multi-national colonialism, shows himself quite capable of biting the hand that feeds him.
D'Souza may be able to waffle convincingly about economics but where it comes to the Arab Nation and Muslim world, he either is hopelessly ignorant or pandering shamelessly to Zionist interests and lobbies. In fact, he was distressingly similar in his abysmal ignorance of the entire Arab Nation and Middle East as his imaginary utensil-waving International Students Club alumni was about India.
It was at the end of the film that he made the error of attempting to tie Barack Obama to what his cronies call 'the threat of radical Islam'. His 'expert', believe it or not, was the wholly discredited Zionist propagandist Daniel Pipes. I could not believe my eyes! Surely D'Souza was aware of Daniel Pipes' reputation as a laughingstock among real political analysts, even some of those of the Zionist persuasion who find him rather embarrassing.
It was here that D'Souza showed his lack of knowledge about the Arab Nation in general and Palestine in particular. He spoke of the uprisings in Libya, Egypt and Syria as movements by 'radical Islam', totally ignoring the fact that the CIA and other covert American operations were supporting these uprisings as they supported various uprisings against Saddam Hussein prior to the American invasions of Iraq.
The fact is that the strong leaders of Arab Nations who supported Palestine to some extent and did not bow wholeheartedly to American international policies have been ousted or murdered in the past decade. D'Souza spoke as though all the regime changes in the Arab world had supplanted U.S. allies with radical Muslims. The only deposed leader he named, not surprisingly, was Mubarak. Surely even the most ignorant of viewers of his mock-documentary would have recognised fundamental differences between the corrupt Mubarak and Libya's murdered leader had he mentioned Colonel Qaddhafi by name.
It is interesting that D'Souza denounced the Indian caste system but made no mention of the apartheid system that is fundamental to Zionism, a political philosophy that seeks to create a 'wholly Jewish State' in a land that was at least 95% Arab before its proponents undertook programmes of ethnic cleansing. The only just and 'democratic' solution in Palestine would be to end the Zionist Occupation throughout the land and create ONE SECULAR, DEMOCRATIC STATE, but few Americans, despite their avowed protestations of unqualified support for democracy would have the courage to go against Zionist American interests. It is interesting here to note that more Jews who actually live within the Zionist entity support this solution than American Jews who never set foot in the 'Holy Land'. Far easier to ignore sickening acts of a barbarous Occupation against a native population if you stay hundreds of miles distant from it.
D'Souza incidentally made a brief mention of international nuclear policies but failed to disclose that 'Israel' is one of the powers that still refuses to sign any Non-Proliferation Treaties, despite the fact that its formerly secret nuclear capacity now cannot be denied. The nuclear facilities at Dimona have been creating weapons of mass destruction since the 1960s. More recently, sophisticated submarines made by the Germans have been sold to the Zionists and been equipped with nuclear warheads. Americans foolishly may continue to proclaim that 'Israel is our FRIEND' but it is a friendship based on an implicit threat of potential nuclear retaliation should unequivocal financial and political support be withdrawn at any time. The Zionists made the threat explicit at least once in fact in the 1970s when the U.S. government sought to delay the shipment of some F-16s to them.
The mock-documentary D'Souza cobbled together uses only traditional Zionist propaganda and makes no mention of the real and continuing threat of potential Zionist use of nuclear weapons against its ally, the U.S.
It was when D'Souza spoke of Obama's alleged 'Founding Fathers' that he truly veered into the realms of utter fantasy by including Dr. Edward Said in his list of what he deems to be dangerous radicals who shaped Obama's principles (or lack thereof). This inclusion leads to a bizarre declaration that the U.S. soon is to become the 'United States of Islam' and the Middle East a bastion of 'radical Islam'. As his sole source for knowledge of the Arab world appears to be Daniel Pipes, one probably should not be surprised by the conclusions that D'Souza made. Daniel Pipes is an individual whose sole claims to fame are his rabid diatribes against Islam, his self-generated so-called 'think tank' and his 'Campus Watch', designed to root out any academic in an American University who might be at all critical of the Zionist dream and its American proponents. For all his vaunted support of 'democracy', D'Souza evidently is quite happy with a man who believes that freedom of expression has no place in American academia. Of course, this is part and parcel of a political diet that supports a nebulous 'war on terror' without ever contemplating the real causes of dissatisfaction with American foreign policy. Support of a racist, apartheid regime created on the ruins of almost 500 Palestinian villages and its existence as a rogue nuclear power in the very centre of the Arab Nation is easier to sell if one can pass off all objection to American foreign policy and the billions of dollars sent to 'Israel' as hatred of 'our freedom'. Never mind that those billions of dollars could house, feed and give medical attention to thousands of poor Americans and that withdrawing unqualified support from the Zionist entity would make the U.S. a potential friend rather than the enemy of justice abroad.
Dr. Edward Said evidently taught a class that Obama attended. This is quite sufficient, according to Pipes' 'Campus Watch' witch hunt logic to embed notions of justice for Palestine in the soul of Barack Obama forever. If only that were true! Alas... Zionist funding in American elections speaks far louder than fundamental principles of justice!
To use Dr. Edward Said as an example of a dangerous radical who supported the idea of a world embraced by the Sharia is absurd as well. For a start, Dr. Edward Said was a Palestinian Christian, and had no links whatsoever to Islam, radical or otherwise. Furthermore, international Palestinian activism tends to embrace secularists, Christians and Muslims under the common overriding principle of simple justice and the right of return to the Homeland. Although I admired Dr. Said immensely for his personal courage and integrity, I found him a bit of a defeatist where Palestinian rights were concerned. Unfortunately, perhaps, He was NOT a radical political activist. he was first and foremost a brilliant academic who had Palestine in his heart but did not believe in taking every avenue in order to achieve that goal.
Ali Abunimah, Palestinian activist, creator of 'The Electronic Intifada', is a well-regarded expert on Palestine who first made his name on NPR years ago. Mentioned in the same breath by D'Souza as one of Obama's supposed advisors, Ali Abunimah actually has been highly critical of Obama's policies towards Palestine since he took the Presidency. Obama, far from showing himself to be a real supporter of justice for the Palestinian people, ultimately is giving the Zionists free rein and no doubt either will support a Zionist illegal act of aggression towards Iran before the November election or will engineer an act of aggression by the U.S. in a bid for voter support.
Unfortunately, many Arab-Americans as well as other ethnic groups in the States placed their political hopes in the hands of Barack Obama when he ran for President initially. This hope was misplaced. To those who still have not allowed themselves to see the truth, I would declare: Beware of a Sheep in Wolf's clothing. Obama did not carry the seeds of change. He is nothing but a chameleon, neither fish nor fowl. He may appear to become whatever it is that you wish to see, but look to his deeds and not his words.
D'Souza does not pretend to be objective but he does attempt to portray himself as a serious analyst. It is a pity that he did not choose better sources for his segment on the Arab Nation. As a matter of fact, if one were to list D'Souza's 'Founding Fathers', Daniel Pipes would have to be included in that rogues' gallery. Seriously though, I would like to give D'Souza the benefit of the doubt here, and attribute his pandering to Pipes and his hysterical outpourings to practical needs rather than lack of intelligence.
Films, unlike weblogs, usually require financial backing. D'Souza's lame parroting of radical Zionist 'warnings' about so-called 'radical Islam' in the U.S. and Arab Nation, may have been the price he paid for hefty Zionist funding for his mock documentary.
Despite the arrant rubbish spouted at the end, the film did display some real hints as to Obama's true nature, which is that of a political opportunist who constantly attempts to win people from every side to his support and then quite callously ignores their interests when forging ahead on his disastrous domestic and foreign 'policies'. One of his policies is the spurious 'war on terror', supported no doubt for the purposes of keeping the military machine and its multinational investors prosperous. No communist agenda there, alas. It is nothing more than typical capitalist profiteering dressed up to look like an idealistic political stance. In this as in much else, Obama is no different from his presidential predecessors. He is firmly under the control of multinational economic giants, whether in the military or medical fields. If and when the disastrous 'Obama Care' comes into effect, the extent to which Obama supported the economic and political interests of the most powerful pharmaceutical corporations and HMOs no doubt will become clear. Again, there are no high-minded philosophical principles here. It is all a matter of money and Obama's desire to increase his own power and sphere of control in the world.
No comments:
Post a Comment