Near the beginning of the movie, Dr. Creed unveils his "Yellow Jacket" suit, heralding it as a return to warfare away from the public eye. Loosely quoted, "in a world where the use of military force is constantly under public scrutiny," cue bystanders using cell phone cameras, cue Internet users sharing said footage, "isn't it time we took the fight back to the shadows?"

Hyper aware of media propaganda, it's easy to spot when an agenda is being pushed. Moments like these stand out to me and I wanted to take a moment and deconstruct this idea that the government shouldn't be monitored and held accountable, and open discussion about it.

It's important to note that Hollywood makes this message purposefully vague. The idea of government accountability is not one that the average moviegoer really cares about. Much of that apathy is because we're told the government is always correct, and we should follow blindly, because they have our interests in mind. We don't need to worry, because they have it covered. We know that isn't the case, but the average moviegoer doesn't question it. Not only is it unpleasant to think about, because they came to a movie to have fun and not think about problems like these (keep them distracted), but it is also offensive to question everything they've been told to believe and have subscribed to.

The case presented, Anti-Governmental Surveillance, is brought to our attention in such a way as to dissuade discussion on the topic, causing people to not want to talk about it. The first point is that the presentation is given by the "bad guys," saying that governments shouldn't be held under scrutiny. This is the first lump of mud to confuse the message. By having the bad guys bring up the topic of surveillance, the topic immediately becomes something that people want to distance themselves from, and so they start to "turn off" to the topic right from the start.

Secondly, the presentation implies that governments need to be free to operate on their own terms and that when you record them doing something bad, you are keeping them from completing their goals (unspecified). This supports the pre emphasized rhetoric that governments have our best interests in mind. The problem with this is that when people record governments doing shady things, then those shady things must be accounted for, and the perpetrators must be held accountable. We will be quick to assert the line they feed us, "If you're not doing anything illegal, you have nothing to hide," but they want to (through censorship of discussion) have us believe they are innocent yet hide their own actions from scrutiny. The message of accountability conflicts with the cookie-cutter story they tell us, and viewers will further turn off to the idea, because here in America, critical thinking is not exactly praised. If it's hard to understand, might as well just forget about it.

Lastly, a solution is provided for the governments that have less than public-friendly goals: just make sure they don't see you doing it. Yes, this idea, under the guise of fancy new * cool * technology, will allow governments to operate behind the view of the public. Not only do you accept that your masters will do as they please, but deep down, you like it. This seems to be the most telling piece of the puzzle, essentially reinforcing the idea that there have been things we don't know about, there are things going on we don't know about, and there are going to be things we don't know about, all of which could never happen if it was out in the light for us to see and hold them accountable for.

We have to hold them accountable for the criminal actions that they commit. Just because media is pulling you under like a strong undertow, it is our responsibility to continue filming police acting against our rights, continue whistleblowing for crimes our government commits against U.S. and other nations, and continue calling out falsehoods, derailments and threats while engaged in conversations that matter.