Simulacrum of a President: 84R4(K 084M4

In 2002, Al Pacino starred in a movie called S1M0NE about a Hollywood director whose star actress walks off the set after a dispute with him. The director is so obnoxious, no other actresses will work with him.

To complete the film, the director substitutes a computer-generated character for the live actress. The movie becomes a great success and the public becomes enamored with this new shining star named Simone (short for Simulation One).

The director's scheme begins to fall apart when he's unable to fulfill requests for live interviews with Simone. Someone also figures out that the scenic backgrounds behind Simone's photos are just stock images.

To extricate himself from the situation and destroy the evidence of wrong-doing, the director erases the hard drive of the computer and dumps the hardware into the ocean. A security camera catches the director loading his boat with the materials, and he is soon charged with murdering Simone who has mysteriously vanished. The director's family finds a backup copy of the Simone program, and he is cleared in court of the murder charges.

This story captures the essence of President Obama. Of course, Barack Obama is a real person but President Obama doesn't exist. As one blogger commented:

The philosopher Plato described two types of images or copies of reality. The first is an accurate representation of a real object. The second is a simulacrum: an image which is intentionally distorted in order to seem more real to the observer from their perspective. An example of this is the Parthenon in Greece. The true object is a building. The image is a representation of a perfectly engineered, majestic structure. The base of the Parthenon was intentionally curved so that observers would see the base as a perfectly straight line from their visual perspective.

The simulacrum, if viewed from the proper perspective, is seen as malformed. But how can you say what the "proper perspective" is when the simulacrum is intended for people to view it in the manner for which it was constructed? To those people, the simulacrum is the accurate image and the true representation is distorted.

Obama's life story, his "experience", his ascent to the presidency, his popularity, and now his accomplishments are a simulacrum of a successful man and leader. They are an image of a real person which is intentionally distorted in order to make him seem more real to you. He is a man who is overwhelmed with tasks requiring superhuman powers. The truth of how little he's done, how little he knows, how selfish he is, and how feeble his abilities are is inconceivable. He must be able to do everything he says he can and to think otherwise is to be a defeatist and an obstructionist.

These qualities of him are not accurate representations of reality but the projection of a carefully crafted persona in whom people can believe, admire, and seek solutions to their problems. Other people see him as unbelievable, uninspiring, accomplishing nothing, and malformed. Both are wrong, and both are correct.

No man can possibly live up to all those expectations, but that is the whole point. You want President Obama to be all the things his image portrays. He is meant to be loved by his followers and hated by his opponents. The hatred of his opponents makes him more loved by his followers, and the love of his followers makes him more hated by his opponents. He is perfect in the eyes of the people for whom he was created to look perfect and distorted in the eyes of the people for whom he was meant to be distorted.

Whether he actually meets your expectations or not is irrelevant. David Axelrod and the mainstream media will ensure he does. If Barack Obama was portrayed as he really is, he would never have been elected President, and we would not be moved to action or emotion for such sweeping changes in policy and expenditures.

Is there a master philosopher or King Maker who created this simulacrum or is it a manifestation of an unintentional, collective self-delusion? Barack Obama may have thought he was running for a powerful political office to make changes he wanted. David Axelrod may have just thought he was using his talents to wage a successful PR campaign. The media may have thought they were being great journalists and (by the way) supporting their own causes. Limbaugh and Hannity don't have to think about how to react to President Obama because the simulacrum was constructed for them to see him as they do and react as they have. In a way, they helped create him.

Take, for example, the incident of Somali pirates capturing a ship and holding its American captain hostage. Barack Obama played absolutely no role in the captain's rescue, yet he is credited, by some, for saving his life. No one staged this series of events.

Obama killed no pirates. He didn't order any pirates killed. He didn't make any decisions regarding killing pirates. He ostensibly gave a rubber-stamp of presidential approval for armed SEALS to do the jobs they were paid and trained to do.

But there was actually no "decision" to make. It's like signing an executive order for the sun to rise in the morning. It's like telling an apple to be an apple. If Obama even bothered to utter the words, "Take them out!" he was merely making noises with his vocal chords. Uttering the words wasn't necessary. All that was necessary is for you to believe he uttered those words giving the order which killed the pirates which rescued the captain which frightened other pirates from attacking any more ships.

Suppose that same day, a janitor at the Smithsonian unclogged three toilets. One could just as easily and just as meaningfully give credit to President Obama for unclogging three toilets that day.

President Obama promised to "save or create" 3.5 million jobs. How can anyone claim to have saved jobs without an observation of the counterfactual of enacting different policies. How many jobs would have been lost otherwise? He could claim to have saved 150,000 jobs, 1 million jobs, or 10 million jobs. All claims would be equally plausible and equally meaningless.

President Obama hasn't cut any taxes. He hasn't balanced any budgets. He hasn't killed, captured, or convicted any terrorists. He hasn't ended any wars or closed any dreadful prisons. He hasn't made us more respected in the world. We heard that he was going to do those things and we were told that he has or will soon do so. You see, it doesn't matter whether he has or not. It's the saying and the hearing and the believing that matter.

President Obama is not a man. He's an abstract idea. He's the shadows on a mountain on Mars which resemble a human face which conjures conspiracy theories about mysterious alien civilizations. He is a group of words thrown together, forming a sentence, but devoid of meaning.

There is not a bit of difference between a demon-inhabited wristwatch and a non demon-inhabited wristwatch. The statement is empty. It has no consequence. I connected the nouns "demon" and "wristwatch" with a verb, an adverb, a preposition, a possessive pronoun, and an article. You assumed that I meant to make a statement about my wristwatch which is both meaningful and falsifiable. But rather than argue with me about my wristwatch statement you might as well have ignored me, looked at my left shoe, listened to birds chirping, or looked inside my watch for a ham sandwich because I didn't actually say anything. I merely sent air through my vocal chords and made noises. The sentence possesses structure and syntax and the individual words have meanings which we both understand, but "Good grammar does not a thesis make."

You've heard some stories about a man who was born in Hawaii, lived briefly in Indonesia, went to college, married a woman, became a lawyer, organized some communities, wrote some books, taught Law, became a state senator, became a US senator, then became president. This man has a black face, a bright smile, and he speaks with correct English grammar. You've heard about his "experience" and "judgment" and "intelligence" and "empathy." You were dazzled by promises and hopes and dreams. He plays basketball, likes hamburgers, and secretly smoke cigarettes. He bought a puppy for his daughters.

But none of this tells us anything. They are a collection of irrelevant facts. Hundreds of thousands of people bear similar characteristics, yet none have become so celebrated so fast.

At the core of all these stories lies not a man, but a generic figure like Da Vinci's Vitruvian Man. From such an image an observer gets a basic idea about human activities, motivation and physical attributes but it explains nothing of humanity. The image looks like every man, but it doesn't look like any particular man at all. Over time, the image loses all semblance of humanity and the core becomes an empty shell in the shape of a man - a fossilized cavity.

George Orwell's protagonist in 1984, Winston Smith, asks whether the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent dictator Big Brother really exists. The question itself demonstrates Winston's inability to understand the answer.

It doesn't matter if B.B. is still alive. It doesn't matter if he was ever alive. The Party says he exists, so he exists. People believe he exists; they think (or nonthink), feel, and act as if he exists; therefore, he exists. But thinking is neither required nor necessary. In fact, thinking is discouraged because it leads to Doublethink - holding contradictory beliefs simultaneously. Doublethink is avoided by Crimestop - the conscious effort to suppress subconscious awareness of contradictions. Without Crimestop, the cognitive dissonance would cause intellectual rejection and physiological revulsion to the information at hand.

Morpheus: If real is what you can feel, smell, taste and see, then 'real' is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain.

For a simulacrum, it's not even necessary for you to feel, smell, taste, see, or hear it. You must perceive it in some way, directly or indirectly, through its consequences. Giving it a face and a name merely provides a convenient label for a concept upon which to attach memories and emotions. The principal foe of Big Brother in 1984, Emmanuel Goldstein, is also a simulacrum - an enemy upon whom one can channel all the negative emotions arising from one's dismal state. President Obama has several Emmanuel Goldsteins: George W. Bush, Wall Street, "greed", lobbyists.

Luke: Why didn't you tell me? You told me Vader betrayed and murdered my father.

Obi Wan: Your father was seduced by the Dark Side of the Force. He ceased to be Anakin Skywalker and became Darth Vader. When that happened, the good man who was your father was destroyed. So what I told you was true... from a certain point of view.

Obi Wan: Luke, you will find many of the truths we cling to depend upon our own point of view.

Barry Obama was a shy, quiet young man filled with idealist notions impressed upon him by leftist mentors and teachers. His ambition led him to Chicago to seek power, but in so doing he lost himself. He has been destroyed. Everything that composed him has been displaced by the simulacrum. Michelle Obama doesn't even know where he is anymore. When he walks out to a podium and smugly holds his chin up and reads his teleprompter, there is nothing left of Barry Obama within him.

Barack Obama's image has moved from one type of image to the next until the end product became nothing resembling the basic reality of his existence. Any similarity is purely coincidental and entirely irrelevant. He could easily be a cardboard cutout with any of his pre-recorded speeches playing over a PA system. He could become a computer-generated President killing computer-generated pirates.

His images can be airbrushed, idealized, iconized, distorted, and lampooned. His skin color could get lighter or darker. He could get taller. The mole on his face could disappear. And all we will see is the simulacrum. His speeches could be generated by a machine like the diddies and dime novels distributed to the proles in Orwell's 1984. It's not necessary for them to have meaning, only that they provoke consequences of emotion and action.

The simulacrum becomes truth in its own right. It cannot be false because it is its own reality. You cannot argue against it because its statements are empty. You can't destroy it because it has no substance.

Whether President Obama is reelected and elevated to the pantheon of great American presidents or fails miserably and becomes the question to a $2000 Jeopardy answer in the 22nd century, all that will remain is the simulacrum. The simulacrum will evolve according to the viewpoints of those who remember it and how it made them feel.

Did you "earn" any money this year? Did you pay any "taxes?" Did you get any "benefits?" All these things are abstract constructs which possess little tangible evidence other than the satisfaction of your physical needs, the source of your emotions, and the object of your desires. The money you earned and was taxed away was vaporized just like the unpersons who fell out of favor with the Party in 1984. Winston's job was to eliminate all references to them and photographs of them. When his job was done, they ceased to exist or, more correctly, they never existed at all.

You have a vague remembrance of having opinions, casting a vote, working to earn money, and paying taxes, but the tangible evidence is gone. All that remains are stories.

Hope, though, is not controlled by 084M4 and is not forlorn. There is indeed objective truth and reality which can be discerned from the proper perspective.

One must, as in the movie The Matrix not try to bend the spoon. "That's impossible. Instead only try to realize the truth...There is no spoon. Then you will see, it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself."

Morpheus: "That system is our enemy. But when you're inside, you look around, what do you see? Businessmen, teachers, lawyers, carpenters. The very minds of the people we are trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that system and that makes them our enemy. You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it."

Businessmen are lining up for bailouts. Teachers unions are trying to lower education standards, protect poor teachers from being fired, abrogate their responsibilities, but continue to have their pay and benefits increased. We have a justice system which is operated by lawyers for the sake of lawyers, not their clients. The lawyers' motive is to maintain continuous conflict in the system so their services are always in demand. We have carpenters whose every swing of a hammer creates the oversupply of housing which contributed to the collapse of the housing market and subsequent tumbling of our financial markets.

None of these people accept their actions or roles as problematic. It would never occur to them that they are overpaid or overemployed. They don't see themselves as villains. They all see themselves as hard workers, innocent victims, and an integral part of the solution. Most of them are chanting praises for 084M4 and will stay plugged into The Matrix as long as he promises them that the steak will be juicy and delicious. But, really, there is no steak - just electrical impulses in their brains. "Ignorance is bliss."

President Obama is creating a system where Americans are entirely dependent upon him and his government, essentially turning everyone into slaves. The Party lives off the productive energy of people living at the margins of their existence. Many are poor and live at minimum subsistence levels. Others are middle-class, but are unable to save for their future or advance themselves or their children because their surplus income is taxed away; they are comfortable but not content, safe but not secure. Then there are the rich who live in the gilded cage of high marginal tax rates. They are either forced to be the scapegoats for the plight of all the others or they must voluntarily flagellate themselves.

For at least the last four score and seven years, from one president to the next, from one Congress to the next, we have been living on false hopes and empty promises of:

- a secure job - an easy retirement - free health care - a car - a house - safe communities and a safe world - a fair society

Training Apes
A number of years ago, animal psychologists performed an experiment that goes a long way toward understanding some of the more perverse and illogical aspects of human behavior. And while I’m NOT putting humans down there with the monkeys, recent political events certainly make it increasingly difficult to maintain that separation.

Here’s what they did:

They began with a cage containing 5 apes. In the cage, they dangled a banana on a string near the roof and placed a set of stairs beneath it. One of the psychologists stationed himself above the cage with a high-pressure water hose. When the first ape attempted to climb the stairs toward the banana, the man on the hose opened up and thoroughly sprayed ALL the apes with ice cold water. The moment another of the apes attempted to touch the stairs, they ALL got another ice water shower. When yet another ape attempted the climb, another freezing deluge ensued.

At some point in the process, when one of the apes touched the stairs, the other apes frantically PULLED HIM BACK - even though NO water was sprayed on them.

They then removed one of the original apes and replaced it with a new one not involved in the first part of the exercise. The new ape spied the banana and headed for the stairs. He was IMMEDIATELY attacked by the other 4. After a few more attempts - and attacks - the new ape soon understood that any further attempts would result in another assault.

They then removed ANOTHER of the original apes, again replacing it with a new one. The newcomer went to the stairs and was promptly attacked by the other 4, INCLUDING the first replacement ape who had NEVER received the cold water shower.

They then removed the third of the original apes and inserted a new one. The new ape made it to the stairs and, as with the others, was promptly attacked. Two of the 4 apes that assaulted this new member had no idea WHY climbing the stairs was a forbidden activity or WHY they were participating in the assaults on the transgressors.

The experimenters then replaced the 4th and 5th apes leaving none of the original apes. No apes subjected to the cold showers remained in the cage.
Nevertheless, NO APES AGAIN EVER APPROACHED THE STAIRS.

I’ve thought about that for a while, and after initially thinking what the reader is meant to think: that it’s just some psychological effect that degrades the apes and what animal intelligence they have, I’ve come to the conclusion that it’s not so surprising.

It’s an unfair experiment, and contrived, and I’m sure the researchers expected to see those results. It doesn’t really matter that the new apes don’t know what the problem is. There is an organizational memory that knows that there is some major problem with doing that.

It also makes the assumption that the apes have no way of communicating with one another, at least some simplistic notion of the problem.

This is an example of a very well-written, yet self refuting and contradictory essay.

The writer makes some valid points about the media’s role in creating and protecting this phony image of Obama. But, I feel the writer invalidates himself when he says that truth depends on your point of view.

By his own thesis, if truth is based on one’s own expectations and perceptions, how do you know what is the “matrix” and what is the true reality.

The reason we can identify the truth from the “image” is because there is true reality - truth really does exist and it is not dependent on our perception of it.

Rush and Hannity are listened to because they “unveil” the matrix image regarding not just Obama, but all of illusions of liberalism. They are not part of the creation of Obama’s image. They, and everyone else who point out the distortions of truth, are actually revealing true Truth (if you get what I’m saying).

So, the writer had me at times but lost me at his overall thesis.
He does say toward the end of the essay that there is absolute truth, but that would seem contradictory to his premise that “truth” is based on one’s own perception (or matrix). At least that’s how I perceive the writers essay.

“invalidates himself when he says that truth depends on your point of view”

That’s a quote from star wars. I didn’t think the author was agreeing with it, or some kind of moral relativism. It was more about the specific issue of reality vs. simulcrum, as I saw it. The people who see the simulcrum as real have that “point of view” (i.e. viewpoint, vantage point). That doesn’t change the truth, of course.

I thought the author drew on a lot of cultural references, which can be a good way to make a point, but also runs the risk of alienating people from your overall point, as you indicate.

Let's re-make Plato's Cave:

Let's assume that not only were there 5 monkeys getting soaked when they went for the banana, let us also assume that there was at least one monkey who was "backstage".

He watched the humans set up the stunt. He saw through the one way glass the other monkeys getting hosed by the humans when they went for the banana. He saw how the other monkeys learned to avoid touching the stairs and how new monkeys introduced into the cage were taught to avoid touching the stairs at all costs.

Now, let's assume that the humans who hosed the monkeys at the start of the experiment vanish one day, but they leave the "backstage" monkey behind who now watches his monkey brothers still avoiding the stairs leading to the banana.

The reality is that we're always part of the experiment both front stage and back....

The organizational memory to which you referred is even more pronounced among humans.

That — and the current government school dumbing down and ignorance, media promoted apathy and indolence of the bulk of the population — make it almost a certainty that we now have our first president for life and the America those of us over 50 knew and loved — and for which countless thousands perished to preserve — is over.

Welcome to the NEW planet of the apes.

OVER HERE
(Tune: WWI ditty “Over There”)
Over here, over here,
freedom’s gone, we are doomed over here.
For the feds are winning, the Founders spinning
in their graves, I hear them over here.

Over here, over here,
We are taxed to the max over here.
Bureaucrats are feeding, taxpayers bleeding
Like bone dry turnips over here.

Over here, over here,
Schools produce all those sheep over here.
From the bull they’re hearing, they love the shearing,
And line up, smiling, over here.

Over here, over here,
Solons buy all those votes over here.
With the sheeples’ money and think it’s funny
And know they’re always in the clear.

Over here, over here,
Don’t resist they insist over here.
IRS is comin’, your books they’ll summon
For audit, lookin’ up your rear.

Over here, over here,
ATF comin’ in over here.
With their guns a blazin’, with tanks they’re razin’
That house, those kids they’re gonna sear.

Over here, over here,
DEA fightin’ drugs over here.
Bill of Rights in tatters, not that it matters
To folks with cable and a beer.
For it’s over, I know it’s over,
For my kids I’ll weep, ‘cause it’s over over here.

(Permission granted to use if credit given to author, Dick “Mr. Sunshine” Bachert)

You see, it doesn't matter whether he has or not. It's the saying and the hearing and the believing that matter..

We are in a technological time-frame in which Behavioral Psychology and Marketing have been linked more effectively than ever before. The cutting edge of this alliance is an increasingly common technology called Search Engine Optimization, (SEO) in which the thoughts of those using the internet to communicate on even the most mundane matters are an open book to marketers. (Yes Virginia, e-mail is public!)

Computer programs pick out the "keywords," a particular marketer needs to reach his optimal audiences, and the appeal can be custom tailored to ever more finely sliced market segments, which then can be reached by effective direct methods, usually e-mail, in which the words you used in your recent e-mails are fashioned into effective marketing messages to just you. Of course, older methods like focus-grouping are still used, and are very useful tools for refining information about demographic groups. But now, the information most sought after is "psychographic." It's taken decades to achieve this level of sophistication, and effectiveness.

Not only that, but "keywords" can be computer-generated to unlock your e-mail's spam filters (it's the often meaningless jibberish preceding or following an intelligible message on an unsolicited e-message.)

Our alleged POTUS needs that teleprompter to make sure he is hitting the carefully researched keywords his communications team gets from the consulting companies working for them at phenomenal cost, and paid for by the usual BHO, Jr. financial cadre.

This is the major reason why BHO, Jr.'s speeches sound great until you listen to the words, or heavens forfend, look for some linkage between sentences and paragraphs, or some connection to reality or history. (Hint: unless you wish to go mad, never read a transcript.)

It is also the reason why the perhaps somewhat more rationally educated older survivors in our society find the statements of BHO, Sr. maddenly preposterous.

TS, old timers. The message isn't meant for you, anyway, but for your children and grandchildren, who do not, and apparently no longer can, receive information by any effort of their own.

THIS old timer will go to his grave fighting the sons-of-biatches. Perhaps a legion of pissed off grandfathers can lead us out of this mess.

When an opponent declares, “I will not come over to your side,” I calmly say, “Your child belongs to us already... What are you? You will pass on. Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know nothing else but this new community.”
Adolph Hitler Speech November 1933

(After multiple generations of indoctrination of our kids in the government schools, Obama – or a Marxist clone of him — was inevitable.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0lR1KQq2-U

Dick, the SOB in question was elected.

Perhaps our experiment has reached the tipping point. A majority of the voters saw fit to choose a virtual "Affirmative Action Figure," over a real John McCain, unfortunately perhaps the most ineffectual candidate seen since the fall of the Kerensky Government in 1917.

Unless the Republican Party decides to stand for something, and has the brains to put it in the video-game format today's dumbed-downers can understand, I do not see a good outcome for the country, pissed-off grandfathers such as myself to the contrary.

I promise to go down fighting.

chuck_the_tv_out wrote: “invalidates himself when he says that truth depends on your point of view”

Nevadan:

I did realize that was a Star Wars reference - I just wasn’t sure whether the writer was agreeing with that or that some people think that way. You’re probably correct about his not being moral relativist. I agree with all his points about the facade of Obama and liberalism - but it almost sounded as though he was saying everyone’s frame of reference is what determines truth - therefore there is no absolute truth. There are people who actually believe that. I was hoping that that was not what the writer believed. I’m probably reading too much into it.

Thanks for your imput.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.