2.4. Barack Obama is not free…
2.4.1. Obama and Freedom
In Russian language word ‘freedom’ (“свобода”) derives from abbreviation of “conscious leadership given by God” (С(овестью)ВО(дительство)БО(гом)ДА(нное)).
And the problem of both Obama and the U.S. (and possible of the world in prospective future as well) is in that fact that:
B. Obama is not a “sower of freedom” but a captive of general American culture, in which he was brought up like the rest of Americans, as well as of that special political sub-culture of the USA, based on which U.S. politics is developed and implemented.
In other words Barack Obama is not free in two ways:
- First – in the sense that he’s limited by certain ‘elitist’-corporate discipline, as well as all other representatives of these ‘elite’
- Second – in the sense that his conscious, intellect, worldview – are all limited and perverted by historically developed culture of the USA, which Obama himself does not fully realize
In the book he never mentions freemasonry, and none of the politicians are named as a mason, although freemasonry in the USA is a skeleton base of their subculture of socio-political activity. We point out: “free masons” were originally assigned to politics, including geopolitics, it’s not just a hobby like collecting coins or stamps…
None the less the book mentions series of episodes, in which Barack describes his relationship with people, whose association to masonry on quite high level is whether already a publicly known fact, or can be deducted by some circumstantial evidence. Therefore, according to “those in the know will understand” masonry circles took Obama’s campaign according to the hints, that can be found in his book: he is already one of that back-stage political mafia, even if by some chance he manages to “pass” formal initiation. And masonry ringleaders wouldn’t trust him with presidential post, if by the moment of his nomination, he hasn’t already proven himself in the capacity to support an appropriate “elitist”-corporate discipline.
In particular, one of the indicators of Obama’s loyalty to masonry and its leaders consists in the fact, that in public he gives opinion typical for those, who portraits masonry as non-implicated into real policy making.
Expressing his opinion on worldview, typical for both political parties of the U.S., Obama writes:
“And yet publicly it’s difficult to find much soul-searching or introspection on either side of the divide, or even the slightest admission of responsibility for the gridlock. What we hear instead, not only in campaigns but on editorial pages, on bookstands, or in the ever-expanding blog universe, are deflections of criticism and assignments of blame. Depending on your tastes, your condition is the natural result of radical conservatism or perverse liberalism, Tom DeLay of Nancy Pelosi, big oil or greedy trial lawyers, religious zealots or gay activists, Fox News or the New York Times. How well these stories are told, the subtlety of the arguments and the quality of the evidence, will vary by author, and I won’t deny my preference for the story the Demicrats tell, nor my belief that the arguments of liberals are more often grounded in reason and fact. In distilled form, though, the explanations of both the right and the left have become mirror images of each other. They are stories of conspiracy, of America being hijacked by an evil cabal. Like all good conspiracy theories, both tales contain just enough truth to satisfy those predisposed to believe in them, without admitting any contradictions that might shake up those assumptions. Their purpose is not to persuade the other side but to keep their bases agitated and assured of the rightness of their respective causes – and lure just enough new adherents to beat the other side into submission.” (p.24)
From this extract, as well as from some others, one can understand that:
- Although dialectic as cognitive method is by default programmed in Constitution of the United States, but nobody is going to make this fact public, and a very small circle of those, who, mainly by default and also not realizing it, is still using this dialectic in political goals, which spectrum is limited by traditional U.S. culture.
- Conspiracy theory in public political culture of Euro-American crown-‘elitarism’ is the only theory that is trying to convince an average man that global historical process is not developing independently, but is being managed and adheres to certain reasoning, developed by some (depending on the theme of given conspiracy theory) initiators of conspiracy.
2.4.2. Globalization and the United States: issues of president Obama
However, inarticulateness of all cult for crowd-‘elitarism’ conspiracy theories devoted to problems of cognition, creativity and theory of ruling, actually allows to classify them as “urban myths”, as does classify them Obama. But the latter doesn’t eliminate the need to answer the questions, discussed by Internal Predictor (IP) of USSR in the papers of Concept of Social Security:
- Is there a ruling/management in global historical process and if there is – to what extent?
- How is it (ruling) executed?
- What are the goals (and for those who do not buy into conspiracy theories – what is the direction of the course) of historically real globalization?
- If a prospective of historically real globalization is unacceptable, is there an objective alternative?
And if a prospective of historically real globalization is unacceptable and its alternatives are objectively possible, then independently of the core of historically formed ‘conspiracy theories’ (meaning independently from the extent of adequacy or inadequacy of each of them as a whole, or of their parts) – then we are facing a milestone, where objective possibility of, alternative in its prospective, globalization demands to organize the ruling of the course of global historical process, that will be true to chosen prospective (i.e. goals) of an alternative globalization.
Therefore in order to identify an opportunities for alternative historically real globalization, which many people estimate as unacceptable for it’s prospective, it is necessary to not only work out a conspiracy theory, but also to implement it.
However B. Obama is getting lost in the face of problems of globalization. A problems there are indeed, and those are pretty big. U.S. development trends in the course of un-managed globalization, as portrayed by Obama are as follows:
«A strategy of doing nothing and letting globalization run its course won’t result in the imminent collapse of the U.S. economy. America’s GDP remains larger than China’s and India’s combined. For now, at least, U.S.-based sectors as software design and pharmaceutical research, as our network of universities and colleges remains the envy of the world.
But over the long term, doing nothing probably means an America very different from the one most of us grew up in. It will mean a nation even more stratified economically and socially than it currently is: one in which an increasingly prosperous knowledge class, living in exclusive enclaves, will be able to purchase whatever they want on the marketplace – private schools, private health care, private security, and private jets – while a growing number of their fellow citizens are consigned to low-paying service jobs, vulnerable to dislocation, pressed to work longer hours, dependent on an ender funded, overburdened, and underperforming public sector for their health care, their retirement, and their children’s educations.
It will mean an America in which we continue to mortgage our assets to foreign lenders and expose ourselves to the whims of oil producers; and America in which we under-invest in the basic scientific research and workforce training that will determine our long-term economic prospects and neglect potential environmental crises. It will mean an America that’s more politically polarized and more politically unstable, as economic frustration boils over and leads people to turn on each other.” (p.148)
In other words, in the above quote Obama talks about the fact that trends, indicating that “propaganda organization” of liberal-bourgeois capitalism in the foreseeable future will stop its existence, in the form so much desired by many people - are not just groundless speculations of the IP of USSR.
For many people in American population globalization means lack of prospective in life for their children, because for many years now there is a substantial outflow of capital from the U.S. and manufacturing off-shoring in the regions with substantially lower labor costs. As a consequence, collapses the usual for many people picture of the world, as well as American myth saying that, if one works hard, than no matter what his job is, it is possible for him to lead a wealthy life, being able to provide himself and his family with everything necessary.
This disillusionment and crash of the myth, fundamental for millions of people, jeopardizes continuation of U.S. existence in its current state. And Obama, as the president, will have to deal with it:
- In the best case scenario – he will manage to solve it not damaging interests of his country and the rest of the world.
- In worst case – America (and possibly the rest of the ‘highly civilized’ liberally-bourgeois Bible-based world) during his president term will face a disaster, which has long been predicted by many analysts, and which American ‘elite’ is preparing to survive in advance. Such possibility is another reason why Obama was pre-chosen for the president in such dangerously close to catastrophe period; if it happens he will be a good scapegoat for white Anglo-Saxon and Jewish ‘elite’…
Obama admits that the USA is not in control of its own destiny, when talking about mass immigration to the U.S. and life of immigrants, who in vast majority, came to the States on their on, and not as a result of an effort from the American government:
«Native-born Americans suspect that it is they, and not immigrants, who are being forced to adapt. In this we, the immigration debates comes to signify not a loss of jobs but a loss of sovereignty, just one more example – like September 11, avian flu, computer viruses, and factories moving to China – that America seems unable to control its own destiny.” (p.264, underline – ours)
The underlined phrase is a confession of conceptual powerless-ness of American ‘elite’ and U.S. society as a whole. But because neither such term nor the theory of conceptual power exist in public politics of the USA, then they do not understand the essence of this confession, and as consequence – they can’t see the source of their captivity and ‘slavery’.
2.4.3. Bible – slave’s shackles
B. Obama Characterizes America:
«… our law is by definition a codification of morality, much of it grounded in Judeo-Christian tradition.” (p.218)
When describing his conversation with Senator Byrd (the oldest member of U.S. Senate and is though to be freemason), Barack Obama quotes him:
“So few people read the Constitution today,” Senator Byrd said, pulling out his copy from this breast pocket. “I’ve always said, this document and the Holy Bible, they’ve been all the guidance I need.” (p.100)
Barack Obama is a professional lawyer, and although he notices massive incompetence in practical solving of concrete problems by many professional lawyers and political scientists, he still doesn’t go into investigation of the reasons for this incompetence, that is programmed by the own character of historically formed legislative and political education.
Many professional lawyers are incapable of understanding the following:
- Any legislation is in essence a manifestation of an algorithmic of self-ruling of society and of state operating in the following concept – ruling ALWAYS assumes a conceptual certainty: legislation is written according to a given concept. Legislation’s objectives are: 1) provision of standard ruling according to this concept; 2) resolution of its internal conflicts; 3) it’s self-protection from ruling according to other concepts
- Conceptual ambiguity shows in the life of society as a controversy of its legislation, when different laws on the same subject give different solutions; as well as the flaws of law-executing practice, executed by the principle that the law can be used in many different ways based on the different wording and convenient precedentBesides, conceptual uncertainty (as well as certainty) shows though state symbols. State symbols are a serious business, that should be taken seriously. Has anyone thought: Why in 1991 new regime changed soviet symbols for the symbols of Russian monarchy – two-headed eagle? The fact that change of symbols on its own and its procedure were not impromptu but thoroughly planned at least in Gorbachev’s times, if not earlier, says in the highest levels of soviet political hierarchy there were people powerful enough to sentence UUSR statehood to liquidation, ignoring public opinion (referendum). This group knew very well the history of Rome and Byzantine and must have had an understanding that two-headed eagle, being a symbol of conceptual uncertainty of the ruling, has destroyed not only Empire of Rome but also Roman dynasty of Russian Emperors. Did they lack in creativity and imagination to come up with a new heraldic, or did they knowingly started the algorithm of “kingdom divided in itself” in order to continue collapse of USSR with the fall of Russia? And as it is obvious from the later events, this conceptual uncertainty of symbols has continued in Russian anthem: it has soviet music but words are of liberally—bourgeois-‘patriotic’ mood. Ask any Russian student a question – which part is the strongest: music or lyrics?
- Conceptual incompetence of management shows in the fact that strictly following the norms of concept of ruling provokes many problems that cannot be solved in this particular concept of problematics, and resolution of which demands refuse of the prevailing concept and switching to an alternative one.
Obama feels the conceptual incompetence of ruling according concept to prevailing on the West in general, and in the States in particular, because in his book we can read such expression as “incurable soars of capitalistic system, which either lower effectiveness of the market, or irreparably damage the society.” (p.173 of Russian edition). However a algorithmic of the origin of conceptual incompetence of ruling is outside Obama’s understanding.
As it says in one Russian expression “some things we cannot understand not because we have weak notion, but because these things are not included in the list of notions that we have”. In this case the reason for incompetence of some honest politicians, acting on the basis of traditional law or political education is in the resolution of many critical problems of social development – in their managerial and mathematical illiteracy.
- Sufficiently universal (meaning can be used in different ways) theory of ruling, including the method of dynamic programming (not as a formal algorithm or solving one or the other problems of optimization of all processes or ruling in general), is not included in the schools syllabus.
- And in order to be able to metrologically efficiently talk about financial problems, ways and means of their solution, it is necessary to have at least notion of linearly algebra, probability theory and mathematical statistics.
In regards to the economics of the society the second requirement provides an opportunity to work with balanced models of products and financial exchange in industries and regions, and the first one provided an opportunity to build managerially-coherent balanced models and excludes a leaning towards managerially-incoherent models.
Combination of the first and the second form the necessary basis for implementation of many sincerely good-willed economic scientists’ dream: to combine in one system a planned origin, expressing economic interests of social development in general (not only needs of richest 1% of the society), and macroeconomic mechanism of market self-regulation (providing optimization of manufacturing-consumption activity on the macroeconomic level).
Actually this is one of the components of that knowledge that is objectively necessary to become a public notion in order to guarantee salvation of the USA, as well as other countries, from historically real globalization.
However, having degrees in both law and arts, Barack Obama does not posses such knowledge, primordial for execution of his, publicly announced, political mission. Chapter 5, Opportunities, of his book is a kaleidoscope of possibilities, but not a mosaic of their inter-connections in the concept of ruling, which Obama should have known. We have to point out also the fact that Barack Obama reproaches Bushes administration in the lack of ‘coherent concept of management” (p.160), although he deserves such reproach too, if not a more serious one.
Therefore a success of publicly declared political mission of Barack Obama, as a savor of the USA from historically real globalization, [success] is explained not by Obama as a person, but by the support from the owners of financial ‘know-how’, which he will include in his team, and by adequacy of those ‘know-how’ towards goals declared, including economic ones.
Without such support Obama will find himself in the same position as Gorbachev and Yeltsin, when they had nominal state power, but despite their good intentions were manipulated.
The same works for his second, global, mission – to build a worldwide socially-oriented, environmentally-friendly “capitalistic socialism with human interface”, which should make the States a wheel of progress.
Being managerially-incompetent in above mentioned sense and ruling the country on the foundations of the Bible and Constitution, the good-intentioned part of American ‘elite’ and Obama do not perceive the Bible as a source of the concept of ruling and doesn’t think whether or not this concept is a manifestation of Good or Evil. While the concept of ruling of historically real globalization is actually written in the Bible and is:
- Firstly, a doctrine of buying the whole world with all its inhabitants and their property by international Jewish usury mafia (fourth tier priority of universal instruments of ruling/weapons) and building a system of financial usury based slavery (or if you wish – usury feudalism) of humanity and destruction of those who is opposed to this project or unable to abide.
- Secondly, a faith and system of brainwashing (third tier priority) with the fact that this global political doctrine is a manifestation of Gods Will.
Without asking himself a question about differences between a human in his fullness of dignity and a highly civilized human-like, and not answering it, Obama doesn’t realize the subject of crowd-elitarism in general, in which foundation lies purposeful imposition of anti-dialectic worldview and thinking, and also – perversion of individuality by people’s religion (inc. atheism).
On the subject of religion Obama writes:
“For my mother, organized religion too often dressed up closed-mindedness in the guard of piety, cruelty and oppression in the cloak or righteousness.
This isn’t to say that she provided me with no religious instruction. In her mind, a working knowledge of the world’s great religions was a necessary part of any well-rounded education. In our household the Bible, the Koran, and the Bhagavad Gita sat on the shelf alongside books of Greek and Norse and African mythology. On Easter or Christmas Day my mother might drag me to church, just as she dragged me to the Buddhist temple, the Chinese New Year celebration, the Shinto shrine, and ancient Hawaiian burial sites. But I was made to understand that such religious samplings required no sustained commitment on my part – no introspective exertion or self-flagellation. Religion was an expression of human culture, she would explain, not is well-spring, just one of the many ways – and not necessarily the best way that man attempted to control the unknowable and understand the deeper truths about our lives.” (p. 203-204)
Having such a library of religious and cultural sort Obama was ought to notice that all scripts, pretending to be from one source, are contradicting on the same issues of both religion and society. However Obama somehow passed this by. Eventually in his religious quest Obama chose one of the evangelical churches, which leaders of freemasons have appreciated as a pass of another test of loyalty to the biblical project.
And consequently Obama doesn’t understand the specifics of American crowd-elitarism and the fullness of spectrum of its problems, provided by biblical doctrine of enslaving humanity on behalf of God, although Obama writes quite adequately about many other issues. But in this – he is a captive of the Bible and variations of historical myth of USA, and he doesn’t doubt that myth in general (second tier priority). For examples he mentions a false statement:
“ Woodrow Wilson instituted the Federal Reserve Bank, to manage the money supply and curb periodic panics in the financial markets.” (p.152)
Whereas in reality, with establishment of Federal Reserve System American statehood lost control over its financial system, delegating to private hands of representatives of trans-governmental “financial aristocracy”, by which they robbed the U.S. of a chance for more independent development, and let it sink into situation when whole population is held hostage by usury and financial speculations.
Although Barack Obama write something somewhat adequate concerning priority of universal instruments of ruling, he still does not possess dialectic as a method of cognition and creativity to the extent that would let him out of captivity of inadequate historical myth, under which reign lives the USA ( as well as other countries where Bible is a foundation of culture) and biblical project of in-slavering humanity on behalf of God.