2. «Obama» — a project of global deceit
2.1. Why Obama and not someone else? — Some aspects
2.1.1. Aspect of internal politics
One of the key factors of existence and development of every society is its psychological spirit or dominant – optimistic or pessimistic one. If pessimistic spirit prevails in a society for long period of time or several generations then this society will face not only problems in its development but also the issue of its survival in general.
If we were to compare Russian and American societies using this factor then the result will not be in favor of Russia:
- American society is in many ways dynamic because it is optimistic. Ask any American how he/she is doing and almost every one will respond “fine/great/terrific”. And even if his/her life is very far from perfect or even disastrous he/she will stick to the norms of society and would never off-load his/her pessimism on the collective subconscious. Russians are completely different case
- Ask anyone living in Russia how he is doing and his answer will vary from total pessimism- “worse then ever”- to very careful optimism – “well, nothing special, trying to survive”. And in this age of reform Russian mass media set the ton for pessimistic dominant. E.g. when Masha Gaidar, a host of “Echo of Moscow” radio show “Special opinion” on November 11 2008 asked her guest, well known publicist and humorist Victor Shenderovitch the following question: “How do you view our future during this financial crisis” he immediately responded “I don’t see anything good”.
Here the matter is not in introducing moral bans on “crying on the shoulder” of someone who can help or at least console the “crier”, but in the fact that one should not complain about his/her life, outpouring pessimism and therefore spoiling algorithmic of collective unconscious. And in relation to this cultural norms of USA are more socially safe.
All precedent presidents before Obama – were not just random people, meaning that all of them come from “elite” clans, and some of them (according to press) are heirs of Merovingians, just like Western European monarchs and therefore go way back in their genealogy to David and as it is perceived – directly to Jesus Christ.
And pre-election of B. Obama poses a question: What could have happened to force American establishment to deviate from “pedigree” rule, at least as it seems?
In the United Stated, as in Russia, not all of the citizens participate in the elections, including the president. Those who ignore procedures of American pseudo-democracy are people who feel that independently of who will win the election – republicans or democrats – their life will not change to the better.
In 8 years of republican governance the amount of those people (mostly afro-Americans and Latino Americans) have risen significantly. And in general in past 2-3 years usual American optimism in many layers of society has started to change into such a strange feeling to “middle-class American” – pessimism. This must have caught attention of those who really rule the USA and caused the appearance of “successful African American” – B. Obama.
2.1.2. One of the aspects of foreign politics
When on November 5 2008 the news of the election of Barack Hussein Obama for the president of the United States were announced, many TV-reports showed people celebrating on the streets not only in the USA but also Japan, Greece, UK, not even mentioning Kenya, where Obama’s father comes from. No other presidential victory caused such response before. In order to provoke ordinary people to go on the streets celebrating election of one or another candidate in presidential elections in foreign country, even if this country is the most economically and military powerful in the world – such people response takes special “psychological treatment” of the crowd.
Such sort of pro-Obama “psycho-treatment” of masses has not reached Russia and its population took the results of presidential elections rather neutrally. None the less, an unprecedented event took place in Russia: in the course of US presidential election campaign – 25000 of copies of a book were published and hit the stores – that was a book of then candidate, senator Barack Obama “The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream”. Interesting that Russian edition of this book has the following line on its cover: A book from a man who can change America and the whole world” (those words “and the whole world” mean that Russia as a part of it is going to be changed as well). To our knowledge, never to this day a book or speeches or a monograph of an American presidential candidate or a president has been published in Russia in thousands of copies. However none of the speeches or publications of competing candidates ( H. Clinton, J. McCain) have been printed in such quantities.
In the USA this book quickly became a best-seller according to “New York Times”, “Los Angeles Times”, “Washington Post”, “San Francisco Chronicle”. In general book answers the question why it was Obama who was chosen by American back-stage to win the elections, although neither now president nor other democrats and republicans could notice the fact of this “back-stage pre-election” for further strengthening in this position based on US “democratic procedures”
One of the West problems in doing politics after year 2000 consisted in the fact that western leaders looked quite pale comparing to Putin and were not able to produce in public polemics with him on difficult issues between Russia and the West. One of the causes for is in that Putin’s horizon is wider then mental outlook of western politicians and journalists, and his understanding of the world is a lot deeper. Because of this Putin was able to raise discussion and view virtually any question to a level that was unavailable to western politics and journalism because of either their limited worldview or psychological blocks.
That is why to look credible in their political relationship with Russia West needed to fins such politician that would have even wider horizon than Putin in his views on human history and regions, on politics – past, present and prospective- and who would be not a “desk-worm” but a true human with initiative and sincerity (at least when circumstances demand) required to be able to maintain dialog with different people, to understand their opinions and who earns respect to his persona for sounding his opinion on various issues of life in the USA and the world, who would be convincing in maintaining stability of American model of crowd-“elitarism”. And judging by “Audacity of hope” backstage powers of USA found this man in Barack Obama.
Without a doubt, this is just one of many aspect of the answer to the question “Why Obama?”. The other aspects consist in the fact that USA also has problems, partially rooted in local American specifics and partially in globalization, which USA do not manage, as well as any other country cannot manage it.
Barack Obama writes about many of such sort of problems and about some connections. And even if the book is written with support of speech-writers from his team, then not only they were “selling” Obama to the public like dumb puppet, but Obama with their help could express in the book his actual opinion on questions of life in the US and the world, their problems and those ideals that in his view had to come true for the good of people of USA and the whole world. And it was his book and his speeches that inspired and drawn crowds of voters: if none of it made sense to people Barack Obama would have lost the elections.
However the principle “everyone works for his own good to the extent of his own understanding, and for the good of others to the lack of thereof” works even for Obama. And it is obvious from his book – Obama himself is not on the required level of understanding the problems that he said he was ready to tackle. Precisely because of this American “back-stage management” gave him heads up for the elections… In other words Obama’s endorsement as the president of USA just seems as an indicator of growth and development of true democracy in biblical “crowd-elitarisme” of USA.
Due to the fact that neither Putin nor Medvedev have published such books we can only benchmark both of them on the basis of their public speeches. Such comparison is not in favor of the duo, but in Obama’s: topical spectrum of the book is a lot wider and deeper than subjects that Putin and Medvedev can discuss in their public speeches. In other words Barack Obama in his book goes into depths of the questions that both Putin and Medvedev have to avoid in public.