MovieChat Forums > The American Dream Discussion > Simplifications, generalizations, and ou...

Simplifications, generalizations, and outright lies


The film accused Lyndon Johnson of reversing JFK's Executive Order 11110 immediately after Kennedy's death as a way to implicate both the Banks and Johnson in the assassination of The U.S. President... In truth it remained in effect until Ronald Reagan reversed it with E.O. 12608 in September of 1987.

The cartoon character that looks suspiciously like Danny McBride also flat-out lies about the Federal Reserve, calling it a Private Bank run by shareholders. In fact the whole critique of the American Banking systems is pretty much a thinly veiled repackaging of the old standard worldwide Jewish banker conspiracy theory.

This film is nothing more than an attempt to take advantage of the American public's general ignorance concerning it's own economy, and evoke anger in it's viewers. It does not seek to inform and is not intended for informed audiences... there is a reason it's presented as a nonthreatening cartoon. It's rhetoric is well crafted and sure to stir up emotions in a lot of people who may or may not do any further investigations into the subject.

No doubt there are terrible, unthinkable, unknowable problems with our economy, our government, and our banking system. Problems that need to be solved and probably never will be. But this film doesn't even begin to know the root cause or possible solutions to any of them... Except violence... it advocates a lot of violence.

Any actions the American people take based on the sort of misinformation presented in The American Dream are at best going to accomplish nothing, and at worst completely destabilize what little faith the people in this country still have in its institutions.

Any day now I expect to see Glenn Beck lend endorsement to this little piece of propaganda in the form of a glowing review.

This is your comment, you may delete or edit it.

reply

Your de facto support of the Federal Reserve Banking system demonstrates to me that you either are supportive of it because you are an active stakeholder or have a vested interest in its continuation or you are ignorant of the reality of the matter at hand. Your mentioning of a shock-jock entertainer/person with mental instability such as Glenn Beck is an obvious attempt to portray those who see the Federal Reserve system as a threat to sovereignty and liberty as being "crazy" and therefore, do not deserve the time of day to listen to what they have to say. Furthermore, your usage of phrases such as "this film is nothing more than" exemplifies your thinly-veiled attempts at ridicule and psychological manipulation for those who are interested in seeing, or have seen, this film. Finally, your mention of the term "conspiracy theory" whilst including the mention of Jews is indicative of your attempts to dispel any factual information given in the film by playing on the emotions of individuals who have been conditioned to perceive those two terms together in a deeply negative manner. Your craftiness can fool some, but I am writing this post to ensure that your falsities are influential at a minimal level. Good day to you

reply

As an American citizen, no *beep* I have a stake in how the federal reserve handles our money... Mostly though I'm just a person who doesn't like to be spoon fed biased and unfair oversimplifications of serious problems.

So, as for the conspiracy the cartoon is hinting at...Red Shield Banks = Rothschild Banking Family... It's not even that thinly veiled actually. They just took the origin of the family name and used it for their cartoon.

I don't necessarily think Glenn Beck is crazy or an idiot, I just know who he is and what he does... My inclusion of Glenn Beck in my statement comes from an official picture on the film's website titled "THE GOOD GUYS" With the two main characters lounging on a lush green lawn covered in picket signs, one of which features the name "Beck" and links to Glenn Beck's website.

I didn't touch on it before, but the film also unfairly uses quotes attributed to Thomas Jefferson that can never and will never be proven, and because of that should never be used as any sort of official source of information. Especially never with captions underneath stating "Thomas Jefferson actually said this" "Yes. He actually said this." Because you know, he might not have... no one really knows. I'm not going to say he never could have said those things because I can't prove he didn't.

If I'm being polite about it, this cartoon has several untruths in it that its creators are unaware of for some reason. There are multiple statements made throughout that can easily be proven false by looking up any number of sources. If there are things that I know for a fact this cartoon isn't being honest about, why would I not question its validity as a whole?

You disregarded the comment I made about how the film lied when it said Johnson reversed E.O. 11110 (He didn't...Reagan did in '87.) in order to implicate him and the banks in a government coup. I'll just bring it up again to further make my point. They lied. They lied to the viewer to make a point, and probably just crossed their fingers and hoped nobody would question it. If there really is something sinister going on, they shouldn't have to LIE about it.

I understand that as human beings, seeing an opposing point of view only further reinforces our own preconceived notions. I'm not trying to change minds because that isn't going to happen. Ever. I'm just putting it out there that this cartoon isn't honest or fair.

This is your comment, you may delete or edit it.

reply

[deleted]

Haha, holy *beep* dude...

reply