I'm sure Obama was talking about disinformation as defined by the WEF and similar groups.  One thing about Obama is that he wasn't totally committed to the agenda of the globalists however.  Some of the hippy mindset got instilled in him from his mother and he tried to find some idealism in his communist father.   Here is another quote from Obama.

"For all the magnificence of the global economy, all the shining skyscrapers that have transformed the landscape around the world, entire communities, entire neighbourhoods, entire cities, entire regions have been bypassed.”

Like the hippies, Obama sold out in the final analysis.  Very few people can actually resist the golden ring.  Money and power tends to dampen idealist passion.  The truth is however that the whole concept of decolonization of the minds of disadvantaged people fails to take into account the reality that their cultures keep them impoverished.  The disadvantaged cultures were more than willing to accept the technologies of the West but not the culture that made those technologies possible.  Japan, South Korea and China are examples of what happens in terms of economic development when you accept both the technology and the culture.  The two are obviously linked but people like Obama can't accept that entirely.  They know it's true but cling to a romantic idea of the disadvantaged.  In large part that is because the educational system is corrupt.  

The nature of reality is often rejected by the religious.  That includes the religion of "liberalism".  Stephen Jay Gould is an excellent example of how liberalism corrupts science.  Another example is James Flynn.  Both are highly acclaimed proponents of environmental factors dominating human development and ignoring the importance of selection.  Simply improving nutrition, parasite loads and education have proven inadequate to overcoming genetic and cultural problems.  If you start with a high IQ population such as in Japan, South Korea, and China you get higher results when there is a cultural shift.  For most liberals that is simply too much for them to accept because it goes against their romantic and unrealistic concepts of human nature.

What makes these issues so hard for people to grasp is that small differences in genetics have magnified effects at the population level.  Jordan Peterson likes to use the example where despite decades of "gender leveling"  women in Sweden still prefer relatively low paying people jobs to higher paying technical jobs.  At the individual level the difference in preferences between males and females is not great but they proved to be significant at the population level.

Poverty is tied to technology.  That is one of the reasons liberal economic policies that could be classified as effeminate continually fail.  Civilization requires a harsh but stable environment.  Networking and fairness will not get you there.  That is because the evolutionary roots of "fairness" exclude merit to a large degree.  The natural environment is one of ease and instability.  By that it is simply meant that nature provides productivity and fairness means more or less equal distribution of resources.  Where resources are not produced merit comes down to networking and grooming.  Liberals are naturally inclined towards lower conscientiousness and openness combined with agreeableness.  The colloquial definition of those personality traits cause a lot of confusion.  Conscientiousness for our purposes could be simplified to mean inclined towards productivity.

To counter these rather obvious observations liberals came up with the concept of "emotional intelligence".  In some ways it is similar to the obsession of conservatives with "common sense".  Both lose a lot of their meaning when placed in the perspective of the relationship between poverty and technology.  Certainly some level of emotional well being is essential to human development and a lack of "common sense" will not lead to good life outcomes.  They are however necessary but insufficient precursors to social development.  Their profundity is diminished by their link to naturalism.

A lot of common sense is acquired unconsciously through the social environment.  People predisposed to conservatism will look to what has worded in the past to present problems.  They will conscientiously follow long established cultural paradigms.  A liberal low in conscientiousness will look for novel solutions.  Civilization requiring a stable environment will be best maintained by conservatives.  Common sense or social indoctrination being largely cultural in origin and tied to a specific civilization will be unnatural.  The open personality type for complex reasons will be more inclined towards a natural orientation.  To rely on feelings not history for cultural direction.  Small differences in personality types at the individual level have been magnified in the general population.  Liberals will be quick to point out problems in a cultures history and conservatives slow to acknowledge them.   With greater freedom in the modern world the differences are more profound as was the case in Sweden when women were given more economic freedom.  

Almost all cultural change will be negative.  It is a rule of life.  While mutations are necessary for evolution the vast majority will be deleterious.  Any complex chaotic system such as an organism or culture will be easily disrupted by small changes in the environment and genetic code.  It comes down to unintended consequences.  If you want change you have to be particularly conscientious.  The irony is that the most conscientious people are the ones most resistant to adaptation.  The result being the increasing political divide and chaos.  Liberals seem unable to maintain the systems they instigate and conservatives unwilling to adopt new strategies.             

@wolfhnd Make no mistake, Obama is a diehard Communist/socialist. His electioneering slogan was the "fundamental transformation of America". You can't do that without trashing the Constitution that provides the "fundamental principles of America".

Has he ever admitted to being a socialist? Even though he pushed through his Obamacare plan before anyone knew what was in it and lied about keeping your existing plan and doctor. His speech after winning the election in 2008 was not about healing America it was about healing the planet where the seas would stop rising.

Obama was the epitome of the crafty socialist. He wanted another term to do more damage to the American republic but his term was up. It could only continue with an agreement to run a proxy that he could control. Hillary was the perfect patsy to do his bidding and he, along with the DNC, made certain she was the Democrat party's nominee for President. Hillary was a shoe in, especially when she was exonerated from some of her criminal national security breeches and the momentum to break that glass ceiling. They made sure also that Trump would get the nomination for the Republican party by portraying him as a loudmouth clown. It turned out Hillary had too much baggage to win and President Trump had to be vilified to ensure he couldn't win a second term.
The media, complicit with the intel community, parroted everything they were told to print.
Covid helped them to change State electoral laws to make it easier to commit fraud or at least be a step ahead of the electoral process. Obama was finally able to get his third term by proxy. Now he could implement as much Marxism as he wanted without being held to account. All the damage he does can be blamed on the demented old fool Biden who can plead, "I'm old and confused."

For all the magnificence of the global economy, all the shining skyscrapers that have transformed the landscape around the world, entire communities, entire neighbourhoods, entire cities, entire regions have been bypassed.”

This quote form him serves to illustrate his view of America as fundamentally flawed, a creation of haves and have-nots, where equality is needed and can only be realized through a mandated State redistribution of wealth.