Far-right film fest just in time to expose their own stupidity before the election

The entertainment industry has frequently been accused of being “liberal,” although you can hardly tell it by the “product” that is actually released for public consumption. The so-called “conservative” 1950s was actually a surprisingly socially and politically-conscious decade in regard to motion pictures, and the Sixties and Seventies continued the trend toward trenchant and penetrating exploration into the darker aspects of the human condition—especially in regard to bigotry, political and personal corruption, and jingoism. Today, there is none of that; it doesn’t “sell.” Perhaps the exception is the occasional Michael Moore documentary. Moore hasn’t made a documentary in a while; he certainly could have made a timely one in regard to the Tea Party and its extreme bigoted, nationalistic, and nativist roots—paid for and orchestrated by right-wing billionaires with their own agenda. 

Instead, what we have seen recently are the release of a “documentary” and film by the far-right, portraying Barack Obama and his “socialist” agenda as both dangerous and disastrous. Of course, we have heard this propaganda since Obama first entered the presidential race, but the release of these films coincidentally are timed to give “substance” to their arguments just before the election. Whether they convince anyone but the true believers is another question.

First on the board was India-born far-right “academic” Dinesh D’Souza’s so-called documentary “2016: Obama’s America.” D’Souza is perhaps most “famous” for coining the term “rational discrimination,” which infers that bigoted white folks and their “model minority” stooges (who are even more racist) are “justified” in expressing their racism, even when their assumed stereotypes about the “others” do not apply; racists must not be inconvenienced with having to actually find out if their hatred toward an individual person of a “despised” race  is justified. D’Souza has also made a “point” of suggesting that Indians have demonstrated their superiority as a race over Africans because India has been successful in the post-Colonial period. Now, most people from India in this country are decent, intelligent, hard-working people; it is too bad that the ones getting the media play (Bobby Jindal, Nikki Haley and  D'Souza) have chosen to hitch their wagon to the racist right. So with talk like this, you should expect to reap what you sow; what D'Souza neglects to mention is that depending on the Indian government’s constantly changing definition of what constitutes poverty in that country, up to 77 percent of the population of over one billion lives below the poverty line—quite a shocking statistic for such an “advanced” society. In fact, India is still rent by the discriminatory caste system, even though it was technically abolished; D’Souza’s self-conscious sense of “superiority” over someone comes from this cultural milieu. It always seems that those conscious of their dark-skin try to "fit-in" by out-doing the bigots in their bigotry; Michelle Malkin, Clarence Thomas and D'Souza are all examples of this, and far from giving them "credibility," it only "enhances" their lacking in self-respect.

Anyways, “Obama’s America” predicts—among other things—that by 2016 an Obama second term will transform the country into the “America of Islam.” I’m not kidding. According to D’Souza, Obama has this “dream” of “avenging colonialism” and “downsizing America.” We could probably stop right there, because you get the general drift of the documentary; it is also probably useful to note that Hindus and Muslims have a violent history in India, so it isn’t hard to understand D’Souza’s paranoia. However, if you do choose to watch this (what for?—you can listen to this garbage every day on Fox News), it is useful to remember that D’Souza deliberately misinterprets Obama’s “dreams,” continually juxtaposes imagery of impoverished Africa and violence in the Middle East with white boy scouts on parade, concerned “decent” white folks, capitalist America, and his own mealy-mouthed mug. Does it matter that D’Souza infers characteristics on Obama that simply have no basis in fact save in the paranoid minds of the right? It should, but that’s only because I’m paying attention.

Next on the agenda is the film adaptation of Ayn Rand’s novel “Atlas Shrugged”—Part II. You missed Part I? So did I. It “bombed” at the box office even in miniscule release, and film critics with a reputation to protect judged it dull, boring, philosophical bull shit and generally inane and anachronistic. However, a majority of viewers actually “liked” it, which probably means nothing other than the fact that most people who did see this film are probably fans of Rand, or at least heard of her. I won’t discuss who Rand is, except that she was a Russian émigré to the U.S., was an uber-capitalist, and she propounded the “philosophy” of “objectivism”—which can be boiled down to the following: An extreme-reactionary philosophy that supports the idea of an “elite” class of society whose achievements are due solely to their individual capacity, and that any effort to control their selfishness and recognize the role of the working people in creating their largesse is a Judeo-Christian shibboleth—and humanism, philanthropy, selflessness, compassion, empathy and other like concepts to advance  the “common good” and “civil society” are nothing but “delusions” of the “left.” Of course, Randians and libertarians can pretty it up all they desire, but that is basically what “objectivism” de facto accomplishes—a “Lord of the Flies” bestiality.

 “Atlas Shugged: Part II,” out this week in “wide” release, has also received universally negative reviews, save from right-wing wing-nuts like Michael (Weiner) Savage and Sean Hannity. While the era in which Rand wrote her novel allows the setting to make “sense,” the film’s effort to remain “true” to the source makes its premise absurd today. The “heroine,” Dagny Taggart, who inherited a railroad business than actually build it herself (ironically, nullifying her as a true example of objectivism), although she at least deports herself with plenty of pomposity. Taggart is having an affair with a married man who happens to be a steel magnate who has created a “magic metal” that competitors want off the market, and the evil government has passed a regulation to do just that. This movie looks “futuristic,” but plays like a weird kind of time capsule. Today the train and steel magnates have very little impact on the economy as they did back in the day, when they certainly deserved their appellation of “robber barons.” The anti-government, anti-tax and anti-anything speeches in the film remind one of the lack of simple human decency of many on the right, and is right-off the presses of the latest Tea Party paranoid propaganda sheet. 

 There are quite a few other head-scratching ideas floated about in this movie, like the “creators” and other “superior” beings taking their toys and going home rather than be forced to “share.” The “mystery man” behind all of this “John Galt.” Who is John Galt? Let’s hope that selfish assholes like this don’t ever really appear on the scene (like Paul Ryan, an objectivism fanatic?). “Part III” of this trilogy will no doubt reveal that Galt has been “recruiting” all those disappearing superior beings in some secret paradise where their “genius” will be withheld from the civilized world, because they don’t like being forced to “share”—the result of which will be the collapse of the universe, unless the government agrees to wipe-out all regulations and laws that offend the rich and powerful. The supreme irony and stupidity of this is manifest when you realize that being a “superior” being means absolutely nothing if you exist only among other “superior” beings, and being “superior” equally means nothing if there is no one to “appreciate” it—especially by “common” people who you force to live in poverty, who despise you for it and only perceive you as the oppressive  organ of tyranny that you claim to be fighting against.