Bureaucratic despair in
Russia
and global project “Obama”
CONTENTS
1. Russia’s place in the global crisis.
1
1.1. Key question to Russian and
foreign bureaucracy with an answer
1
1.2. Kingdom divided against itself…...
4
2. «Obama»
— a project of global deceit
8
2.1. Why Obama and not someone else?
— some aspects.
8
2.1.1. Aspect of internal politics.
8
2.1.2. One of the aspects of foreign
politics.
9
2.2. Forbidden questions in public
politics of USA and Russia.
10
2.2.1. The original sin of statehood.
10
2.2.2. Fairness in the life of
society: political ethics — mercenary or
work
14
2.2.3. An individual and culture.
19
2.3. Top secret: mentality of state
power in the USA and in Russia.
22
2.4. Barack Obama is not free…...
26
2.4.1. Obama and Freedom..
26
2.4.2. Globalization and the United
States: issues of president Obama.
27
2.4.3. Bible – slave’s shackles.
29
2.5. Prospective relationship
between USA and Russia.
31
1.
Russia
’s place in the global crisis
1.1. Key question to Russian and foreign bureaucracy with an answer
Global
financial crisis forced heads of number of states to gather for two meetings: first
on November 13 and 14 in Nice in EU +
Russia
format and then on November 15 in
Washington
in the format of twenty most economically powerful countries. Judging by media
reports even though both meetings paid significant attention to global
financial system malfunction (subject was impossible to ignore), it did not
deliver any worthy results, because delegates of both summits do not take into
account and therefore do not discuss the fundamental principles of functioning
of the system of global finances and credits. As consequence, no one either
discussed a complex of alternative principles for building global system of
finance and credits nor ways of switching to them without revolutionary and
post-revolutionary shocks, all aimed at eliminating even the possibility of
such crisis’s occurrence in the future.
Therefore
G-20 summit in Washington turned out to be just pointless talks, for which none
of the delegates would be accounted for, and it ended with same in its essence
pointless declarations of goodwill, even though all participants might be
sincerely convinced that they have completed a big deal of preparation work and
in the summit’s course produced constructive results guaranteeing an overcoming
of the current crisis and economic prosperity of the humanity.
“The
leaders of the Group of 20 nations, including the world's richest countries and
such major developing economies as China, Brazil, India and Russia, issued a
joint statement and detailed action plan after their meeting Saturday pledging
to take a variety of steps to combat the current economic crisis and make sure
it doesn't happen again.”
– reports The Washington
Times.
In this article Martin
Crutsinger, a corresponder of Associated Press agency, lists key points of the
statement and the action plan.
According to the
delegates, the root of the crisis lies in the fact that investors did not fully
recognized the risks involved in their actions. “Part of the problem stemmed from the fact that the
global economy had been doing so well for so long that that investors were
lulled into a false sense of security.” - states
the author, pointing out that this joint statement does not actually
acknowledge the boom of high risk mortgages in the USA, which many believe to
be the epicentre of the current crisis.
In the statement
the leaders took an obligation to, when necessary, continue money transfers
from central banks to commercial ones, aiming at restoration of normal lending
and at stimulation of consumer demand, states the newspaper. According to them,
Bush’s administration was opposed to these new pricey obligations especially
now, in the times when
USA
budget is deep in deficit.
Mr. Crutsinger
also mentions the improvement of regulation mechanism: G-20 leaders agreed on
establishing before
March 31
2009
a number of “supervisory colleges” which will include all
major regulators of financial system from all over the world and which will
meet regularly to discuss the state of largest banks, operating in several
countries. The article also says that the
participants pledged to improve regulation of derivatives.
In addition The
Washington Times reports that the leaders agreed to quickly expand the
“Financial Stability Forum” organization encompassing high-rank officials,
management of central banks and regulator-agencies from a number of countries.
Leaders stated
that International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank need to be
comprehensively reformed to give more influence to developing countries and to
expand the duties of IMF in economic monitoring of countries, mentions the
author.
“Concerned that this severe financial crisis
not lead to the same beggar-thy-neighbor trade policies that contributed to the
Great Depression, the group pledged to refrain from erecting new trade barriers
for the next 12 months” newspaper reports.
G-20 leaders
pledged to meet again before
April
30th 2009
and gave their ministers of finance an
extensive list of measures to be taken before the next summit, concludes the
newspaper (http://www.inopressa.ru/washtimes/2008/11/17/09:29:28/g20).
Many expected
Washington summit to be sort of second Bretton-Woods (back then world leaders met
to discuss post - WWII depression which resulted in creation of current
financial system, oriented to US dollar as global currency). Gordon Brown,
UK
prime minister, held especially high hopes for such turn of events. However,
breakthrough did not happen, delegates only outlined agenda for the nearest
future. The only consolation to Brown was probably the fact that the next G-20
meeting in March 2009 which might bring the breakthrough might take place in
the
UK
.
Dimitry Medvedev
did not expect this summit to repeat Bretton-Woods, but in his speech he
pointed out that “now world is in need for the ideas as powerful as decades
ago”. Here is one of the many ideas expressed by the president before the
summit: to establish an international organization of “recognized and independent “financial
gurus””. Another one – make G-20 a main coordinator of reforms and development
of global financial system – was supported in
Washington
. Consequently countries forming
G-8 were named responsible for global financial security architecture.
Summit
’s final declaration encompasses
general principals for financial markets reform and tasks that all members of
G-20 should give to their ministries and experts. Reformation plan also
includes measures to be taken both in short term (before
March 31 2009
) and in mid-term. Those
measures will affect standards of financial accounting, increasing requirements
to rating agencies, management of risks. Declaration also mentions that
Bretton-Woods financial organizations should undergo complete reformation. This
concerns in the first place IMF and World Bank. For example, it has been
decided to analyze if their resources are sufficient and to increase them if
necessary. IMF will also inforce it’s role as a consultant in macro-economic
policy.
All of the above
show typically bureaucratic approach:
·
a problem forced the biggest layer
of international bureaucracy to gather
in order to take measure towards this problem’s resolution
·
however, bureaucrats themselves are
not completely competent in the field and therefore could only direct financial
resources and delegate problem resolution to the group of “financial gurus”,
which come to think of it, has itself created the problem last year – same
financial specialists were acting in the field of monetary exchange and
providing consulting services to the same bureaucrats.
On
October 12 2008
,
on the eve of the Nobel prize in economics winner’s announcement, a “news of
the weeks” informational tv-show on Russian tv-channel “Rossia” dedicated it’s
air time to financial crisis that has taken over the world. There was an
attempt to figure out what was the role of Nobel prize in economics winners in
the course of global economic processes. As a result, Nobel winners Harry
Markowitz (USA) (also shared the prize in 1990 with Merton Miller and William Sharpe
“For their pioneering work in the theory of financial economics”) and Robert C. Merton (USA) and
Myron Scholes (Canada) (shared together the prize in 1997 “For the nez method
to determine the value of derivatives”) were explicitly declared the creators of
current economic crisis, because it was precisely them who theoretically proved
the harmless nature of speculative machinations for the global economy, which
reality proved were exactly the causes of crisis.
However
information on pseudo-Nobel laureates, creators of global financial crisis,
presented in Sunday (October 12th) news report on tv-channel
“Rossia” was only an extended version of the report passed on the news of the
First Russian tv-channel of
October
5th 2008
(http://www.1tv.ru/news/world/129484.).
None
the less, blaming current crisis on Nobel prize winners is quite superficial in
its essence. This crisis is not a result of evil intention or incompetence of
pseudo-laureates of Nobel prize, to whom trusted honest stock brokers and
bankers, but it is a purely a logical outcome of fundamental principles of
organization of monetary exchange in liberal bourjois West, principles that
spread throughout the world, which turned this crisis into global disaster.
Since
above mentioned economists and those winners of pseudo-Nobel prize in economics
that have not been named here all are pretty far from resolving such issues as
economical provision of human prosperity, then the only question to D.A.
Medvedev and other participants of G-20 summit in Washington is as follows:
How do
you – bureaucrats - intend to distinguish
·
“gurus” that are actually competent in the
matters of organization and management of regional and global macroeconomic
systems and therefore have the ability to resolve this crisis once and for all
·
from those “gurus” that with their thorough
research and findings have actually paved the way to current mess
— provided that your own education in economics
is either non-existent or of the same quality that those of the mentioned
pseudo-Nobel laureates, and when you yourself are not willing to go into trouble
of looking into the root, studying economic problematic and inadequacy of
prevailing schools of economic science?
Unfortunately bureaucrats do not face the
question of how to tell an efficient professional from efficient talker only
posing as professional, and this problems concerns not only economic domain.
And this is the major problem of societies
that rendered their governance power to bureaucratic apparatus. Sadly, post-soviet
Russia
is not an exception here.
Who will
be chosen into this international committee of financial “gurus” by G-20
bureaucrats if this suggestion will be put into practice – only time will tell.
However one cannot hope neither that these “gurus” will be more capable of
efficient functioning than above mentioned pseudo-Nobel laureates in economics
nor that those chosen will produce “powerful ideas” which will lead world
economy to the mode of crisis-proof functioning because:
·
Firstly, economic theories of the
West are meant to solve radically different problems. Example of that are Nobel
laureates’ theoretic “proves” that the crisis was impossible and that pumping
speculative “hernia” of economy is absolutely safe for the real sector, for the
sphere of consumption and political stability, which only allowed those
managers of “hernia” achieve their goals and cause the crisis
·
Secondly, bureaucracy is notable for
its inscrutable “wisdom” and therefore does not need side ideas that in its
content do not adhere to morals and opinions of authoritative “gurus” supported
by bureaucracy.
As history of
economic degradation of post-soviet Russia shows, its bureaucracy finds only
defective “gurus” in its pursuit to solve its publicly declared goals of
country’s modernization, poverty elimination and increase of wellbeing of its
population, and not only multiplication of assets of oligarchs and other
“elite” (including bureaucratic elite, which quotes its salary based not on its
achievements).
If
bureaucrats continue clinging to such approach to the problem, the matters will
only become worse. None the less president D.A. Medvedev in his “Address to the
Federal Assembly of Russian Federation,
November 5th 2008
” declared:
“We should not
delude ourselves that the economic crisis is anywhere near over yet. We need to
keep our wits about us throughout this period and pay close attention to the
effectiveness of our work and the justification of our new plans and programs.
This applies to the state, business, and to each individual.
I am sure that we
will manage to resolve all of these difficulties and will soon put in place a
modern and independent financial system able to withstand any external
challenges and ensure stable solutions to its own tasks.” (English
version of the “Address to the Federal Assembly of RF”)
This
last passage is particularly interesting because before stating anything of
that sort it is necessary to:
·
Unveil the flaws of current
credit-financial system
·
Work out principles of building a
credit-financial system free from the flaws of the current one
·
Prepare a transition plan from the
flawed system to improved one
·
Prepare executive resources that
will be able to function efficiently in the new system
·
Find ways and means to retire
representatives of current executive apparatus which would not be able to conform
to the new system
Otherwise the statement is nothing
but empty words which will never lead to realistic results.
1.2.
Kingdom
divided against itself…
On the
contrary to the leading countries of West and East who managed to successfully
develop their economies in the past ten years after 1998 crisis Russian society
accepted conditions of socio-economic crisis as a way of life for many years
since back-stage junta hiding behind M. S. Gorbachev came into power. None the
less
Russia
has also been affected by current global financial crisis and has to find means
to recover from it.
A few
weeks ago Russian prime-minister V.V. Putin asked business community the
following question: When oil prices in the world are falling why then in
Russia
oil and petrochemical products prices are not following the trend?” Russian petrochemical market responded to the
question posted by the head of parliament by lowering prices, in particular:
petrol prices dropped 1-2 rubbles per litre (5-8%).
Due to
the fact that oil and its products are included in price-list basis - fall in
its prices opened opportunities for manufacturers and sellers of goods (in
conditions of lack of solvent demand on products with earlier announced prices)
to be able to lower their prices not risking bankruptcy, and therefore support
manufacturing and consumer exchange of goods in conditions of monetary deficit
in times of financial crisis. But these opportunities were immediately
eliminated by Central Bank of
Russia
.
“Bank of Russia
(Central Bank or CB) demonstratively decreased by 30% rate of Russian ruble to
currency basket and increased
refinancing rate to 12% - when traditionally right anti-crisis measure is
considered to be interest rate decrease. CB’s official explanation to such
measure – the need to fight outflow of the capital – did not convince
analytical experts” (source: http://www.newsru.com/finance/12nov2008/unpredictable.html).
·
Reduction in Russian currency
exchange rate improves situation for export but only worsens it for import. If
this measure is adequate to public needs in situation when
Russia
imports up to 70% of food
supply and even bigger part of industrial good – is an open question. To answer
it we must analyze balances of goods exchange and financial statements of both
external trade and internal inter-industrial and inter-regional commerce. But
there is not doubt that Central Bank is not trusted anymore to manage Russian
ruble exchange rate in the best interest of socio-economic development or
Russia
since CB became a “state within the state” in 1991.
·
Interest rate increase creates
additional debt, which we know we will not able to pay and that is aimed at
worsening the crisis and destroying V.V. Putin’s influence on stabilization of
oil products market.
It does not matter if Central Bank’s
actions are manifestation of bad
intentions of its perverse comprehension of the nature of macroeconomic
processes, the consequences are all the same – crisis aggravation.
Besides for one more time it became
clear that Russian bank sector as a whole (and not only CB) is not influenced
by patriotism: commercial banks that received government aid to overcome
liquidity crisis immediately distinguished themselves in the
banks statistics by increasing purchases of foreign currencies and transferring
financial assets on overseas bank accounts, although financial aid was given to
support the real sector of Russian economy. Then representatives of the real
sector started to complain that they were having hard times in obtaining
credits and in consequence were forced to save money by decreasing production
volumes, cutting salaries and laying off people. Hence crisis is spread through
chains of exchange of goods both in real sector and in end-consumption sector.
Correspondingly
one of the problems of overcoming the crisis in
Russia
consists in overriding
Central Bank and whole banking sector to the state and its crisis recovery
policy. This task might prove to be more difficult than “forcing
Georgia
to the peace”.
But main
problem is inadequacy of historic science, sociology and economics, which is
supported and reproduced by educational system in these fields, by Russian
Academy of Science (RAS), Higher Attestation Committee (HAC) and scientific
councils that award candidate and doctorate degrees in history, sociology and
economics – those are the “gurus” officially acknowledged by state officials as intelligent and competent
professionals. And as we know those are big on giving advices…
Because
crisis is primarily a manifestation of intellectual and creative bankruptcy of
historically formed social science, in order to advance in development our
country needs to:
·
Turn RAS into community of interest,
suspending its unofficial status of “ministry of science”
·
Annul already awarded degrees of
candidates and doctors of science and HAC and respective science councils were
dismissed for being useless
[i]
·
Deviate from historically formed
educational standards, primarily in history, sociology (inc. psychology and
economics). Those need to be qualified as giving students an opportunity to
learn about alternative opinions and views. It is only through such sort of
deviation from standards that new knowledge, adequate to new needs of social
development, can be introduced in the system of development of new generation
of specialists.
On the one
side abolition of scientific degrees will free many people from necessity to
waste enormous amount of time and effort on writing dissertations and
participating in its defense procedures, even more because dissertation defense
is only a basis for receiving “official statements” to the fact that
degree-holders are certified “know-it-all’s by default”
[ii]
. On the other hand this
measure will force at least part of officials to stop covering their expensive irresponsibility (funded by tax-payers) with science degrees and titles of brought
in “guru”-consultants, and try to understand on their own the heart
of the matters and learn to tell real professionals and experts whose advice
can be trusted from those sweet-talkers who take “consulting” for if not a horn
of abundance than at least for guaranteed free lunch.
Besides,
as we mentioned in analytical note of IP USSR “It is not worth making the same mistake
twice” in the series “On the current moment” № 11 (71), 2007, “socio-economical theories of
liberal-bourgeois nature are principally not suited for realization of “Putin’s
Plan”, because rise of Russia as a great state and major player of global
politics is deeply repugnant and unacceptable for leaders of liberal-bourgeois
West. Therefore based on liberal-bourgeois sociological and economical
principles, these theories will inevitably become legal cover for political
sabotage of “Putin’s Plan” by liberal-bourgeois branch of masonry”
This is
exactly what is happening at the moment:
Russia
was affected by the crisis
“thanks to” its economic science, to its officials ideologically dependent on
the science, to its banker and stock brokers and to its morally rotten “elite” in
general. And now, actions of state officials, banking and stock moguls in
Russia only aggravate the crisis, which in the best case scenario will slow
down realization on “Putin’s Plan” if not kill it in the bud because current
management will lead the country to full-on economic disaster. On the day when
G-20 started its summit in
Washington
,
newsru.com source published the following information:
“Judging by the
poll of working Russians about 30% of companies were affected by the crisis: 9%
of the respondents say that their employer had delayed salary payments, 6%
indicate that there have been a few cases of lay-offs
[iii]
. At the same time 60% of employed
respondents(35% of all respondents) sate that their colleagues and employees of
various companies have not experienced any effects of the crisis. In addition,
sociologists of FOM (Public Opinion
Foundation) point out that these figures haven’t changed in the past week.
At the same time
monitoring of personal well-being of respondents (in their own opinion) shows
that for now only insignificant number of Russians were personally affected by
the crisis. Today, according to FOM’s research, 37% of polled state that in the
past 2-3 months state of their personal finances has worsened. Here
sociologists point out that even before the crisis (in summer and in the
beginning of autumn) this indicator has been constantly at 30% mark.” (http://www.newsru.com/arch/russia/15nov2008/kri.html).
Those
“powerful ideas”, necessity of which declared D.A. Medvedev in
Washington
, have already
been voiced by Concept of Public Safety (CPS) organization, but were ignored by
the regime since parliamentary hearings in 1995. Apparently the regime does not
need them. And massive preparation of executive and governmental personnel is
and will still be carried out based on ideas that were proven harmful.
And this is
despite the fact that lingering crisis of post-soviet society in Russia obliges
the state to educate executive personnel not based on new ideas (whether
already published or not formed yet, but in some way alternative to traditional
thinking) but based on methodology of figuring out new ideas adequate to
current reality by each individual facing one or another problem.
For now, the regime have not taken any measures as to lead the country out
of algorythmics of development of times of troubles, which was described in
analytical note of IP USSR "Time of troubles: its origin, rise,
overcoming…” from “On the present moment” series #11 (59) 2006. The regime
continues leading the country to the collapse of “mass-elite” culture. And the
regime cannot avoid responsibility and say that it has no knowledge about it:
photograph on the left shows Vladislav Surkov,
First Deputy Chief of Staff of V. Putin’s Administration as he holds one of the
issues of above mentioned article. As you can see the issue is in quite large
format (A3 paper to be exact) and designed in contrast colors (designed to be
noticed) – so obviously such article can
be either ignored or taken into consideration.
To learn
more about similarities in personalities of V. Putin and B. Godunov see analytical
note of IP USSR “Egoists are doomed to be and die as slaves…” in the “On the
present moment series” #5 (65), 2007.
To
comment on it in the light of the events happened after it was printed – it is
necessary to add that the beginning of the end of reign of B. Godunov was an
economic crisis – several years of bad harvest, that caused famine in many
regions of the country. Then B. Godunov opened state granary to the people, but
was not able to organize efficient allocation of the grain. It resulted in
quick rise of mass speculation, possibly fueled by Godunov’s political
opponents, which only aggravated the situation. Very soon after that Godunov
died and (not taking into account 4 years long reign of V. Shuisky, a.k.a. Vasili IV of Russia)
Russian tsardom was taken over by a man
who called himself Dimitriy and who according to the prevailing belief of
historic community was playing the role of somebody he was not (in other words False Dimitriy I)
There
are two main reasons for the fall of Godunov’s regime:
·
On the one hand – he was not
practicing violent elimination (“slaughter”) of his political opponents, which
was the favorite practice of Tsar Ivan The Terrible (also he was one of the contestants in “Name of Russia” project, the analogue
of “100 Greatest Britons”)
·
On the other hand – Godunov failed
to establish his own pool of personnel, which he could have trusted to help him
move “un-slaughtered” political opponents from the field of politics to more
“domestic” activities
·
In addition, ordinary people at the
time were not interfering with politics, being too involved in their
“domestic/routine” issues, but were actively spreading nonsense and
irresponsible rumors “he killed the little tsarevitch (young heir)…”.
As a result – the uprise of Time of
troubles
Possibility that financial crisis
will put an end to Putin-Medvedev regime is also a hope of their many political
opponents (inc. G. Kasparov, B. Nemtsov and others). And therefore it seems
logical that the opposition and its allies (both inside
Russia
and abroad) will make a lot
of effort to advance development of current economic disaster. In this
connection economic ignorance of state officials and many entrepreneurs may well
become both an instrument and a cover for well calculated sabotage in order to
stop which it is objectively necessary to turn to stronger measures, then just verbal admonition and appeals to the
conscience and common sense of saboteurs and fools-their allies; and even more
so – not years-long court trials which
only serve to feed parasite-attorneys such as G. Reznik – those are not adequate
measures to stop sabotage (measures have to be quick and efficient).
In
connection with this though we would like to quote an analytical note of IP
USSR
from
December 31 2007
“On discharge of destructive anti-Russian matrix”, which a year ago explicitly
warns:
“But the
rumors that all evil events of the past are the fault of “Godunov” – is a
“humanist factor”, which is capable of rising the trouble only in the specific
sub-section of Russian intelligentsia. In order to motivate sufficient number
of people to raise trouble one thing is necessary – financial crisis and
inevitably following it – socio-economic crisis, which is capable of wrecking
“Putin’s Plan”: we need to remember that even having state debt, due to the
efforts of Putin’s regime the situation in the country is rather stable, but
private entrepreneurs were put into such conditions that for many years it was
more profitable for them to take credits in foreign banks
[iv]
.”
In other
words – the history is repeating itself, at least on the surface:
·
The regime principally does not
“slaughter” its opponents
·
There are no signs of establishing
executive personnel pool, based on new alternative ideas and principles, which
is necessary for “pushing” the fools and saboteurs into “domestic” routine
·
Meanwhile, simple people are
occupied by the same “domestic routine”, not interfering into “tsars business”,
but spreading nonsense and irresponsible rumors: “Buildings in Moscow were
blown up to start second Chechen war; they served polonium-flavored tea to
Litvinenko, potential opposition to the
regime; they killed truth-seeking Politkovskaya; they bankrupted “Ukos” and are
“marinating” prisons ardent idealists-opponents – Khodorkovsky and pregnant
Bakhmina, meanwhile they rob the people and hide money in offshore accounts…”
What in that situation is done by means of
non-public politics, carried out based on discipline of internal corporations,
special services and their periphery in the society – is still an open
question, which
everyone answers to the degree of their own perception of the world and
understanding of it.
But in looking
for such kind of answers it is utterly important not to turn one’s own thoughts
into the ranks of conspiracy theories.
·
None the less the regime will face
the consequences of its actions, because personnel is a crucial factor. And
personnel that received inadequate education and having flawed morale and
ethics will do harm…
·
In addition the people are not
entirely innocent in their financial suffering – every nation deserves the
leaders that they either purposefully chose or let them be chosen…
·
And God does not help those who do
not help themselves
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.
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.
2.2. Forbidden
questions in public politics of
USA
and
Russia
2.2.1. The original sin of statehood
One of
the forbidden subjects for public discussion in post-soviet
Russia
is the issue of its
“original sin”. The matter here is that post-soviet
statehood of
Russian Federation
as well as of the rest of post-soviet states on former
USSR
territory originated despite
the will of people of USSA, who during 1991 referendum explicitly declared
their desire to maintain the union and continue development of its culture and
economy.
And consequently current statehood of RF is legislatively illegitimate,
which both Putin and Medvedev are bound to understand as both have degrees in
law.
And the
“founding farther” of post-soviet
Russia
– Boris Nikolaevitch Yeltsin, often referred to as EBN by the people – one
of the destroyers of the
USSR
despite the will of its people. But this is not all: liquidation of socialist
regime and Soviet power with its own internal forces, dissection of the
country, destruction of its military force and creation of the system of
economical and ideological dependency of the country on outside world is
clearly stated in the Directive of Department of Homeland Security of the
USA
20/1
of 08. 18.1948 “The goals of the
USA
in
Russia
”
[v]
. Therefore one cannot help but
raise a question of treason of the people of
USSR
and RF by M. Gorbatchev, A.
Yakovlev, B. Yeltsin and number of other politicians of the time (officially is
a crime).
And
fairly large part of ex-USSR population is convinced that Yeltsin was not at
all the leader of democratic movement and founder of democratic (and in future
prosperous)
Russia
.
They believe that he was nothing but ambitious carrier bureaucrat of
party-apparatus incompetent in any professional field, whose outlook and depth
of worldview were clearly insufficient to lead a country not mentioning country
in crisis. They are convinced that he was hypocrite and shameless villain who
was tricked with ambitions to take the role of the “motherland savior” in order
to, behind his back, first execute above mentioned DHS Directive 20/1 from
08.18.1948 and secondly “cut coupons” on the principle “money don’t smell, and
if they do – they smell quite nicely”: what was primary objective of every
participant of USSR destruction and of building bandit-oligarch’s capitalism in
Russia of Yeltsin times – does not matter.
However
on the contrary to this historical truth
[vi]
all representatives of
Russian “elite” and mostly political “elite” in all their public speeches talk
about Yeltsin as a man of exceptional good will, who work hard and honestly,
risking his health and life (second presidential campaign continued despite his
heart attack) for the good of humanity even though he made a lot of mistakes in
the difficult business that he started. However for those mistakes he sincerely
apologized in his address to the people of
Russia
on 12.31.1999, which showed
his non-lust for power and an example of democracy. He also found very capable
successor, under whose management
Russia
succeeded to solve many
issues of nineties, which boosted his ratings higher than those of Yeltsin
himself. And all in all for the total sum of his actions he deserves respect
and therefore to preserve his memory his name should be given to many streets,
libraries (inc. the Presidential Library in
St. Petersburg
), scholarships and educational
institutions.
Opinions
of those who stick to negative assessment of Yeltsin’s personality and his work
are not discussed in Russian public politics, as if those opinions do not exist
at all, or as if those are obvious nonsense and lies, as if there never was
DHS’s Directive 20/1 of 08.18.1948, executed in its major propositions with
active involvement of Yeltsin, who allegedly returned the country to the main
route of the development after 70 years of deception and evil actions of Soviet
forces.
The
worst that Putin could allow himself to say in public speeches was admitting
that fall of the
USSR
was
the greatest tragedy for many people and for which he was reproached by whole
liberal community both in
Russia
and abroad. In all other cases Putin publicly acknowledged his adherence to the
following version: “Boris Yeltsin is the founding farther of democratic Russia
and an outstanding politician whose grateful memory should be kept for
centuries”, although as an employee of Special Agencies Putin is bound to know
about DHS’s Directive 20/1 of 08.18.1948
and many other facts that do not conform to the cult liberal myth about
establishment of post-soviet states on former USSR territory. And neither Putin
nor any other public politician or journalist bothered to look into algorithmic
of that catastrophe, using facts that do
not fit into sweet-liberal version of Russian history.
United
States of America also have an “original sin” of their own: USA started as
slave-ship state and functioned in those conditions for not less than hundred
of years before legislative abolishment of slavery as a result of the North
victory over the South during civil was of 1861-1865.
It is well known that slaves were massively
imported from Africa, they were black and even founding furthers who wrote
American Constitution and Bill of Rights themselves owned slaves. Now black
people in
America
(in the
majority descendants of slaves) are called African-Americans and legislatively have the same rights as any
white citizen of the
US
.
But American historical past has such nature that US future is in many ways
dependent on the question of whether or not their society can overcome
“original sin” of American statehood, elaborating a common and uniting approach
to the historic past of their country, which will be a sound foundation for
building future America, free from flaws of the past and present one.
Barack
Obama, who himself is not a descendent from African slaves (his farther
immigrated from Kenia and his mother is Caucasian) freely deliberates on the
problem of “original sin” of American statehood, focusing on the task of
freeing society from its burden, in the way that he understands it. He is ready to dialogue with his opponents, but
only if the talk is to the point, and not in some “abstract humanism” style
deadly to people; and he does not hold grudge towards founding fathers of
the US, who, although owned slaves, could however express ideals that can be
supported by many millions, if not billions of people around the world. Barack
Obama writes:
«I recognize the risks
of talking this way, In an era of globalization and dizzying technological change,
cutthroat politics and unremitting culture wars we don’t even seem to possess a
shared language with which to discuss our ideals much less the tools to arrive
to at some rough consensus about how, as a nation, we can work together to
bring those ideals about. Most of us are
wise to the ways of admen, pollsters, speechwriters and pundits. We know how
high flying words can be deployed in the service of cynical aims, and how the
noblest sentiments can be subverted in the name of power, expedience, greed, or
intolerance. Even the standard high school history textbook notes the degree,
to which, from its very inception, the reality of American life have strayed
from its myths.” (p.8).
And never the less he insist on the truthfulness of ideals and necessity of bringing them about, despite all the mistakes and abuse of the past and despite the actions of those who make mistakes and abuse their power in present.
And this is precisely the key idea of the book,
that gives an impression that Obama is not a talkative hypocrite, but sincere
activist with good intentions, and then one can understand those Americans who
trusted him with presidential power.
“ “We hold these truths to be
self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their
Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and
the pursuit of Happiness“
Those simple words
are our starting point as Americans; they describe not only the foundation of
our government but the substance of out common creed. Not every American may be
able to recite them; few, if asked, could trace the genesis of the Declaration
of Independence to its roots in eighteenth-century liberal and republican
thought. But the essential idea behind the Declaration – that we are born into
this world free, all of us; that each of us arrives with a bindle of rights
that can’t be taken away by any person or any state without just cause; that
through our own agency we can, and must, make of our lives what we will – is
one that every American understands. It orients us, sets our course each and
every day.
Indeed, the value
of individual freedom is so deeply ingrained in us that we tend to take it for
granted. It is easy to forget that at the time of our nation’s founding this
idea was entirely radical in its implications, as radical as Martin Luther’s
posting on the church door. It is an idea that some portion of the world still
rejects – and for which an even larger portion of humanity finds scant evidence
in their daily lives.” (p.53)
Of course
every nation has their own Smerdyakovs
[vii]
and at times there are too
many of them due to the particularities of historical development of events,
but generally the majority of people will full heartedly agree with the above
quoted words of Declaration of independence of the USA, because they would
prefer to live in such society which will make those words reality.
However the
problem is in the fact that the majority, including Americans, does not know
how to bring those ideals about…
And therefore
entire history of the
USA
is a consequence of their original sin: a gap, often abyss, between undoubtedly
humanistic declarations and practical politics.
A bit
further in the book Barack Obama looks in more details into Constitution of the
USA and its role in life of the country throughout its entire history
(obviously, talking about Constitution in a manner detached from life with its
many realistic factors is nonsense):
In sum, the
Constitution envisions a road map by which we marry passion to reason, the
ideal of individual freedom to the demands of community. And the amazing thing
is that it’s worked. Through the early days of the Union, through depressions
and world wars, through the multiple transformations of the economy and Western
expansion and the arrival of millions of immigrants to our shores, our
democracy has not only survived but has thrived. It has been tested, of course,
during times of was and fear, and it will no doubt be tested again in the
future.
But only once has
the conversation broken down completely, and that was over the one subject the
Founders refused to talk about.
The Declaration of
Independence may have been, in the words of historian Joseph Ellis, “a
transformative moment in the world history, when all laws and human
relationships dependent on coercion would be wept away forever”. But that
spirit of liberty didn’t extend, in the minds of the Founders, to the slaves,
who worked their fields, made their beds, and nursed their children.
The Constitution’s
exquisite machinery would secure the rights of citizens; those deemed members
of
America
’s
political community. But it provided no protection to those outside to
constitutional circle – the Native American whose treaties proved worthless
before the court of the conqueror, or the black man Dred Scott, who would walk
into the Supreme Court a free man and leave a slave.
(…)
There’s a school
of thought that sees the Founding Fathers only as hypocrites and the
Constitution only as a betrayal of the grand ideals set forth by the
Declaration of Independence; that agrees with early abolitionists that the
Great Compromise between North and South was a pact with the Devil. Others,
representing the safer, more conventional wisdom, will insist that all the
constitutional compromise on slavery – the omission of abolitionist sentiments
from the original draft of the Declaration, the Three-fifths clause, the self-imposed
gag rule that the Twenty-fourth Congress would place on all debate regarding
the issue of slavery, the very structure of federalism and the Senate – was
necessary, if unfortunate, requirement for the formation of the Union; that in
their silence, the Founders only sought to postpone what they were certain
would be slavery’s ultimate demise; that this single lapse cannot detract from
the genius of the Constitution, which permitted the space for abolitionists to
rally and the debate to proceed, and provided the framework by which, after the
Civil Was had been fought the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments
[viii]
could be passed, and the
Union finally perfected.
How can I, an
American with the blood of
Africa
coursing
though my veins, choose sides in such dispute? I can’t. I love
America
too much, am too invested in what this country has become, too committed to its
institutions, its beauty and even its ugliness, to focus entirely on the
circumstances of its birth. But neither can I brush aside the magnitude of the
injustice done, or erase the ghosts of generations past, or ignore the open
wound, the aching spirit that ails this country still.” (P.95-97)
In short, his
position on the matter of the relationship between present and past is similar
to the one of Russian historian V.O. Klutchevski: “We need to know the past not because it has happened, but because on
its way out it could not hide its consequences”, which means that
unacceptable consequences of the past must be eliminated.
Further
on B. Obama concentrates on history of fight against slavery and names those –
slaves, free, simple people, and state officials – who sacrificed their lives
to the noble task of slavery elimination, and concludes:
“The blood of
slaves reminds us that our pragmatism can sometimes be moral cowardice.
Lincoln, and those buried at
Gettysburg
,
reminds us that we should pursue our own absolute truths only if we acknowledge
that there may be a terrible price to pay” (p. 98).
He also pays
attention to the crimes of
USA
statehood towards both its own people and population of other countries, which
throughout American history were a great many. And he clearly expresses his
opinion getting to the heart of the matter.
——————
In
relation to the whole problematic mentioned in Obama’s book, he expresses a
right – from managerial education point of view – position:
·
It does not matter how the managed
object (managed system) has come to one or the other situation
·
It only matters to what extent this
situation is adequately identified and its problematic is being diagnosed, what
future goals are set, and what ways towards achieving those goals are
suggested.
The
goals themselves are unchangeable – bringing to life ideals, expressed in the
Declaration of Independence, Constitution, Bill of Rights, which includes the
totality of: 1) objective ideals, 2) real
goal-setting in politics, which is provided by objective and subjective factors
of historical specifics, and 3) means to achieve the goals. The second and
third, as history shows, can be deceiving, and keeping in mind possibility of
mistakes, it is necessary to act in the direction of revealing and bringing
those ideals about. To illustrate such example Obama brings up A. Lincoln:
“ I like to believe that for Lincoln, (…) it
was a matter of maintaining within himself the balance between two
contradictory ides – that we must talk and reach for common understandings,
precisely because all of us are imperfect and can never act with the certainty
that God is on our side; and yet at times we must act nonetheless, as if we are
certain, protected from error only by providence.” (p. 98).
That last phrase
would have been a more precise expression of the reality of life is it sounded
like that: “we must act in the way for
the providence to protect us from error”. But independently from the way
you put it in words, this morally-ethical principle is in itself very well grounded in reality, provided that the
subject will follow it sincerely, because God is not indifferent to what is
happening on Earth, and religion – dialog with God through one’s inner world
and flow of life circumstances.
From the systematic position of such sort of
principles B. Obama concentrates not only on problematic of life of American
society: possibility of personal growth and self-realization in given historical
and cultural circumstances, real and desired policy of American statehood in
relation to these circumstances; internal and external policies and other
questions. He looks at those issues in in their mutual correlation, in
specifics, not avoiding the facts, that are unpleasant for nice myths about
USA
,
and thus confirming the principle mentioned in the beginning of his book:
“I
believe in free speech, whether politically correct or politically incorrect…” (p. 10)
2.2.2. Fairness in the life of society:
political ethics — mercenary or work
And
another un-politically correct subjects in Russionia – theme of justice in the
life of society, “elite’s” approach to “simple people” and of people’s approach
to “elite”.
But
before showing how the subject of social justice is given in “The Audacity of
Truth” and in the public speeches of Russian political “elite”, we’ll focus on
some specificities of socio-political life of the
USA
and
Russia
,
that characterize each of the countries.
——————
In
general, comparing US life with ideals mentioned in the Declaration of
Independence and in the Bill of Rights, than undoubtedly, the USA are
progressing in the task of turning their cult ideals to life; racial inequality
they have already overcome de jure, and are working on overcoming it de facto;
many other problems were solved as well.
And the source of this progress is – public
discussion of the real divergence between declared ideals and real life, which,
although it is often clouded by lengthy speeches of the participants and
although the truth often gets lost in those speeches, still is a notable part
of socio-political life of the United States, and Obama’s book is very
clear example of that. Of course in the
US
, as in any other country, there
is also a non-public discussions of the issue, which in many ways form
country’s politics and business actions, but this part is forced to react on
the public part of the process.
But
along with such progress the USA created many problems both locally and
globally, and in the historically defined shape, they became a problem to the
rest of the world, that need a solution.
One of the main reasons for this is that in the public and non-public politics
even as free speech is a cult – free thinking in the US is still limited by
their specific culture, which is why US in their demands on the role of the
global leader and a wheel of progress are constantly faced with objections,
which can be responded to only by force, following wisdom of the unrighteous: “Out
force will be the true law, because powerlessness proves to be useless” (The
wisdom of Solomon 2:11) – but not many people in the States know these words,
because “The wisdom of Solomon” is excluded from the Canon and is not in the
standard Bible.
Russia
is indeed not
America
. For the centuries of it’s
historical past (starting at least from the “Words of Law and Prosperity” of Kiev’s
metropolitan bishop Illarion, dated 1037-1050) its socio-political life is
characterized by:
·
In public politics the desired is
often taken for the real
·
In public politics the subject of
power abuse and other problems are often left unspoken, as if they do not exist
·
And when problems become critical,
and force to be openly discussed, then
Ø
Discussion
of them is often far from the point (e.g. mass media discussion of the global
financial crisis during the tenth meeting of “United Russia”)
Ø
Or
the discussion is substituted for by official declarations like “yes, there are
some problems, but our father-tsar has already taken measures to solve then,
and they might be already solved and the messengers have not yet reported on
that…” (e.g. mass media coverage of the Tchernobul catastrophe and the first
few days of rescue operation of the “
Kursk
”
submarine sunk by NATO).
·
And when some of the events move to
the past, then an official myth is created, which in its content can be very
far from the actual reality (e.g. official version of the establishment of
post-soviet statehood of the RF or the official story on the “
Kursk
” submarine).
And
overcoming development problems in Rus’ is taking place based on the non-public
“underground-couloirs politics”, to
which both the power and the opposition are equally adherent. In Rus’ everything is secretive, but
nothing is secret, although along with non-secretive truth society has and
spreads many rumors: that’s why everybody “knows” that Alexandr I
officially publicly died in 1825 in Taganrog and was buried in Peretburg side
by side with other emperors…. After what he spent few more decades incognito
living as in
Siberia
, where he died very old.
And if
in Rus’ official declarations the power says that
·
Everything is fine, that they have
achieved some goals in life and that many problems have been solved
·
At the same time many people do not
see any proved of that in their everyday life
― then the powers, on the background of
public, knowingly hypocritical declarations of loyalty by unbelieving and
despising it people, faces politically amateur actions of the people – as
un-public as the actual politics.
All of it happens because direct appeals to the
power on the issues and ways of solving them, are ignored by it, because those
issues do not fit in the format of public policy of the state.
The question is in:
·
How much time will it take the state
power to commit suicide by not being able to handle the problems ignored by it?
·
And how much time after that will it
take the underground opposition to become legitimate de-facto state power?
·
In such circumstances de jure
legitimacy of power – is a question that means little to both sides – to power
and its social opposition.
The key reason for such difference in public
and non-public approaches of socio-political lifes in Rus’ and in the
USA
is
because:
·
Russian “elite” is shameless anti-nation egoistic corporation that only wants the people to admit that they
are rednecks in whose presence the “elite” does not have to explain itself.
Whether ‘elite’
takes this position consciously or unconsciously does not matter – it would
have been just as comfortable in cast society: you belong to one group and
therefore you have the right, if not –you don’t have the right, and all your
talents and advantages worth nothing. It is almost impossible and very rare to
work one’s way from the bottom to the top/ “elite’, because all the space in it
has already been taken by representatives on historically formed “elite clans”,
some of which manage to keep their status despite revolutions and
counter-revolutions (e.g. clan of Mikhalkov). With the change of ‘elite’ after
catastrophes, the process starts again (e.g. Yeltsin came from deep country,
but where are his kids now – highly elite, but for what concrete talents or
work? And besides Yelstin there were many other officials, whose children were
‘eliterized’..)
·
And in the
U.S.
"elite", with all its flaws, prefers that people beleived
that the "elite" responsible to him and is working in the general
public interest, being an «avant-garde» of the people in their socio-historical
development.
And ‘elite’ occupies this position
as a corporation, knowingly or unconsciously - does not matter. In the American
"elite" there is also a hereditarily-clan core (in particular it is
widely known by its representatives such as Kennedy, Mc Cain, senior and junior
Bush, Rockefeller, Ford), but a lot of those who withdrew from the American common
people or the middle class (the most widely known, General Colin Powell,
Condoleezza Rice,- At different times were both U.S. Secretary of State; even
B. Obama - elected president: all are black and would not have been able to
make their career, have they been born at least 50 years earlier).And the
influx of new mass flows of people into US "elite" has been going on throughout
U.S. history in every generation, resulting in that "elite" of the US
is more clever and more capable than hereditarily clans isolated from the rest
of society "elites" of other countries, including Russia, and
corporate discipline and lack of freedom (this is explained further in the case
of B.Obama) in the USA "elite" are different.
Consequently, all political and ideological
conflicts between the U.S. and Russia (except for the period starting from
about 1930 to 1953) are - conflicts over good and civilized, refined ways to implement the "elitist"
slavery on the basis of the Declaration of Independence, U.S. Constitution and
the Bill of Rights by the U.S. against the ancient unabashedly naked
"elitist" slavery in Russia.
Now we can go back to the essence of
justice in society and its implementation.
——————
Notions
of fairness and injustice in life of society if double-conditional:
·
Firstly – from the Above, by
humanity’s sole purpose (in atheist formulation – by genetic potential of
personal development of all members of society, which it either allows to grow
and realize in its full capacity or suppresses and limits it).
·
Secondly – by historical facts – by
what of the already predetermined from Above is already implemented, what needs
to be implemented and to which implementation is blocked by greed of some or
the others social groups, often supported in written and unwritten social laws
influencing personal growth of people in this society.
Therefore
notions of justice in social life are, firstly historically concrete and
secondly are changing from age to age according to the character of social
development of degradation.
Besides,
in its cultural conditioning they are the consequence of the answer on the
question about relationship between body physiology and biology of Homo
Sapience species and a raison d’etre of humans and society. History knows only two answers to this question:
·
Live to experience pleasure, including pleasure from food, sex, not necessarily aimed at
reproduction.
Actually United States are
programmed on it, and with more or less success are implementing it. This is a
consequence of the fact that their cult Declaration of Independence and a
Constitution, Bill of rights do not say
anything about what objectively is dignity of a successful person, and even
though the dignity is not defined, his pursuit of happiness can still be
realized. Bus the
USA
do not know that. In
Russia
“elite” also lives but this
principle.
·
Eat and procreate to live: meaning to implement some higher plan.
In
Russia
the “Smerdyakovs” among common people as well as among the “elite” are more or
less active in that direction.
And both
principles are objectively and inevitably antagonistic to each other, in
addition adepts of the first one are aggressive.
Then social life
in civilization of technical-technological nature, where production is based on
the organization and collective work, one of the aspects of justice is linked
to an opportunity for a person to receive sufficient (in one of the above
senses) part of the product, manufactured by collective work – whether directly
(sharing the product in its natural state – when where is no monetary exchange)
or in financial equivalent (when monetary exchange prevails products exchange).
Societies
that have realized in themselves the meaning of human existence in all its
fullness do not exist at the moment.
——————
Now let
us move to Obama’s statements on the questions of economical justice in social
life.
In 1980,
the average CEO made forty-two times what an average hourly worker took home.
By 2005, the ratio was 262 to 1. Conservative outlets like the Wall street
Journal editorial page try to justify outlandish salaries and stock options as
necessary to attract top talent and suggest that the economy actually performs
better when
America
’s
corporate leaders are fat and happy. But the explosion in CEO pay has had
little to do with improved performance. In fact, some of the country’s most
highly compensated CEOs over the past decade have presided over huge drops in
earnings, losses in shareholder value, massive layoffs, and the under funding
of their workers pension funds.
What
accounts for the change in CEO pay is not any market imperative. It’s cultural.
At a time when average workers are experiencing little or no income growth,
many of
America
’s
CEOs have lost any sense of shame about grabbing whatever their pliant,
handpicked corporate boards will allow. Americans understand the damage such an
ethic of greed has on our collective lives, in a recent survey, they ranked
corruption in government and business, and greed and materialism, as two of the
three most important moral challenges facing the nation (“raising kids with the
right values” ranked first). Conservatives may be right when they argue that
the government should not try to determine executive pay packages. But
conservatives should at lease be willing to speak out against unseemly behavior
in corporate boardrooms with the same moral force, the same sense of outrage,
that they direct against dirty rap lyrics.” (p.62)
Is there
any Russian politician that has publicly brought up such questions? – No, there
isn’t
Publicly
discussing greedy ethics of ‘elite” of
Russia
and its basic flawed
morality of praising itself and other hedonism – representatives of “elite” in
Russia
(inc.
politicians) tend to avoid, although in
doing that they can theatrically reproach so-called “social greed” – discontent
of those who did not receive “elite” positions. So-called “social greed” in
fact exists, because as it has been known or centuries, a large part of slaves
are not dreaming about freedom, but about having their own slaves. However,
reproach os social greed should not replace discussions of issues of justice
and reproach of other forms of injustice, besides the “social greed”. In particular this concerns economic aspects:
Justice manifests in the fact that statistics of distribution of
finances in executive level of sate and business should not be different from
statistics of financial statistics in all other fields. Justice in this sense
is really economically functional despite the Wall Street Journal’s opinion
that effective management is army of “fat and nice” executives, and to make
sure they are nice and fat their incomes must be many times the average salary.
Besides, there no
biological or cultural objective reasons to lift top executives and their families
according to their consumption above social statistics to the heights
unreachable to the rest of the society.
However
Russian political “elite” is fundamentally against public discussion of problem
of social justice. Here is a recent example: Once a well-respected Russian
newspaper “Vedomosti” published an article discussing injustice in relationship
between bureaucracy and common people in conditions of crisis, it immediately
received a warning “on necessity of strict obedience to the law of counteraction
to extremism” from Federal Service on Supervision over the Legality in the Sphere of Mass Communications (http://www.newsru.com/russia/22nov2008/ved.html). It seems that for Russian political
‘elite’ it is rather easy and common practice to issue a law of extremism
counteraction. But it is a lot harder to raise and discuss the matter of social
justice and expressions of injustice of system of social relations, inherited
from soviet times, on the congress of “United Russia” and then take real
binding decisions and implement them in life – for the ‘elite’ and its
‘entourage’, from party mass gathered at the congress. In such conditions
issuing orders on “necessity of obiding the law of counteracting extremism”
means purposefully charge revolutionary situation. And therefore it is those
people who issued this order who should be taken to court.
More to
the point:
From
purely managerial point of view, price of a good in conditions of somewhat free market is a measure of its defecit.
This also concerns the price of qualified personnel in all industries.
In other
words, if a society is ready to pay executives according to “the higher in
hierarchy – the deeper is the gap between your salary and average one”
principle, then such society is experiencing an acute deficit of effective
managers. Sittuation is aggravated by the fact that various aferists, that
neither are able to nor are willing to learn to do anything useful, can
successfully penetrate managerial field driven by greed for high incomes and
irresponsibility in the face of their employees and hard workers.
This is exactly
the reason, according to Obama, why it was namely high-paid executives that
made the worst mistakes in their company’s management
It is no
surprise that Barack Obama noticed this – at least for those who are familiar
with articles of Concept of Social Security. They described this phenomenon
already back in 1994 in the paper of IP of USSR “Short course…” giving examples
of USA, then GDR and Japan.
However
such materials are only an obstacle for Russian bureaucrats and top executives
crushed by their ethics of greed in their work of dividing the budget and obtaining
gigantic salaries on the basis of the laws taken by themselves and in their
task of extortion of bribes.
And we
repeat:
Subject of justice in specifics of displayed
injustice – is also a banned subject for public discussion amongst all
representatives of “elite” (political, corporate, “intellectual”) in post-sovier
Russia
,
including editors of mass media under their control.
And if in
non-public circle of representatives of political “elite” they were forced to address
the issue of injustice in its full, then instead of dialogue and talking to the
point we would receive only cheap talk of the sort “those people deal with increased responsibility, and therefore to
reward them for taking such burden we have to pay substantially higher
salaries”
But when
directly asked “which of those bearers of
“enormous responsibility” has actually been called up on their mistakes? Which
of them have actually paid for making mistakes of strategic gravity?“ those
adepts of inflated salaries get stunned, often turning to hysterical remarks that
“repeats of Stalinism must not be allowed”. And even less often some of them start
mumbling something incoherent on “guilty conscience” and mistakes they have made
(M. Gorbachev, B. Yeltsin, A. Yakovlev, A. Tchubais, E. Gaidar, B. Berezovsky
and many others – those are just victims of their conscious???). But
agree with us, please, that real victims and real tortures of guilty conscience
are actually beneficial and priceless and therefore cannot be financially
estimated and paid and therefore – super-incomes of top executives as compensation
for “damages caused by guilty conscience” are inappropriate.
Besides,
in such extent of income comparison of top executives and other people
manifests deviation from God. In particular, Koran clearly expresses on the
choice of leaders: “Follow those who do not ask you for reward and who is on
the straight path!” (Sura 36:20) – in other wards managers should be as righteous
as possible and do not ask for any consumption privileges from the rest of
society.
——————
From
above arguments it is clear that in public discussion of the problems of social
justice Obama, if necessary, can beat any Russian politician (Putin, Medvedev,
Zuganov, etc) either because for them social justice is a banned topic because
of their “elite’-corporate obligations and deeply rooted psychological blocks,
or because their understanding of the problem is very vague because they see
the world from the window of their corporate cars and luxury apartments and
from behind the backs of bodyguards, living in the conditions that everything
they need is already prepared for them and paid from state funds.
——————
Only one
politician could adequately and convincingly stand up to Barack Obama – Joseph
Stalin:
“You have the point, Mr. Obama, but
you do not go to the limits in your argumentation: in economy, that operates in
best interest of workers, increase in production will inevitably involve
decrease of prices, as peoples needs in certain products are being met, and the
state objective is to manage the extremes of profitability in industries, based
on price dynamic. But in your countries economy usury and stock speculations.
However you are right in general: to make economy work for people, and not for
small group of parasites, it is necessary to increase general culture and
improve upbringing of children, as you put it “in right value systems””
Now in your
(Russia) country’s economy the main obstacle for this is the ethic of greed of
all generations of post-stalin ‘elite’, multiplied by impudent parasitism and
stupidity of economic science, and add here indifference of the majority of
population too involved in their routine business or slaving on several jobs at
the same time to somehow provide for their families.
2.2.3. An individual and culture
The
question of ‘right value systems’, which is essentially the question of ideals
and ethics, that should be the key values of the society and in children’s
upbringing are also taboo for Russian ‘elite’. Therefore in
Russia
there is not and cannot be
public discussion on right values and culture that should normally form the
foundation of child’s personality and which he should carry on in his life and
express in his ethics, independently from his family, ancestors and chosen
sphere of work.
When
Russian ‘elite’ representatives, including politicians, talk about supporting
cultural development, their speeches are restricted to:
·
Issues of funding: realistic and
possible
·
However, support of development of culture itself, meaning “right value
system’ in which kids should be brought up, is avoided, or expressed with
meaningless phrases unrelated to reality – when this is a question of outmost
importance for society.
In this topic, Barack Obama is more independent
that any Russian ‘elite’ activist, ‘patriot’ and ‘mecenats’:
“ Dr. King once said:
“It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me but it can keep him from
lynching me and I think that is pretty important, also”
Sometimes we need
both cultural transformation and government action – a change in values and a
change in policy – to promote the king of society we want. The state of our
inner-city schools is a case in point. All the money in the world won’t boost
student achievement if parents make no effort to instill I their children the
values of hard work and delayed gratification. But when we as a society pretend
that poor children will fulfill their potential in dilapidated, unsafe schools
with outdated equipment and teachers who aren’t trained in the subjects they
teach, we are perpetrating a lie on these children, and on ourselves. We are betraying
our values.
That is one of the
things that makes me a Democrat, I suppose – this idea that our communal
values, our sense of mutual responsibility and social solidarity, should
express themselves not just in the church or the mosque or the synagogue; not
just on the blocks where we live, in the places where we work, or within our
own families; but also through our government. Like many conservatives, I
believe in the power of culture to determine both individual success and social
cohesion, and I believe we ignore cultural factors at our peril. But I also
believe that own government can play a role in shaping that culture for the
better – or for the worse.” (p. 63)
And on the first pages he talks about culture:
“I think much of what ails the inner city
involves a breakdown in culture that will not be cured by money alone, and that
our values and spiritual life matter at least as much as our GDP.” (p. 11)
And further he
points out that key to solving all social problems is in proper upbringing of
its children. (“instill values of hard work and delayed gratification..” ). If
kids are brought up with right values they can do better job for the good of
the society they live in. But only those parents that have right value system
can instill it in their children. And if for some reason parents do not have
such values – then it is a work of government to teach kids a love for work and
patience through day-care, school and arts.
Can anyone recall Putin or any other Russian
‘elite’ politician raising the issue of “hard
work and motivation for creative activities as critical factors of stability of
social system and development of its culture and economy”? That’s right – it
has never happened. And even so-called
“fighter for the good of people”, Gennady Zuganov (now
First secretary of Communist party of RF) avoids this topic.
And main reason for avoiding this subject is
that talking about it will inevitably lead to discussion on what is fair and
what is unfair in social life. And as we know, this is not their favorite
topic. Because historical facts of life of civilization, whose economic
prosperity is based on collective work, and not just some abstract hard-working
and motivation, but very concrete motivation to work for the system of
inner-social relationship of people. Therefore,
·
If the workers find the system fair
and satisfactory of their needs, then work motivation exist and their diligence
is rewarded by the result of their work.
·
If workers find the system unfair
because all their lives it cannot satisfy their primary needs, then work
motivation disappears and the less diligence, supporting the system, there is,
the quicker it moves to full collapse. However, here some part of residual
ambitions can be directed on destruction of current system and its substitution
with another one, or on efforts in cleansing this system from its flaws.
In accordance
wit this B. Obama many times turns to the subject of work ethics and personal initiative
(entrepreneurship in its wider sense) which in the context of his books is
strongly tied to the subject of fairness.
“I
believe in the free market, competition and entrepreneurship, and think no
small number of government programs don’t work as advertised. I wish the
country had fewer lawyers and more engineers.” (p.10)
As long as
individual men and women are free to pursue their won interests, society as a
whole will prosper, Out system of self-government and our free-market economy
depend on the majority of individual Americans adhering to these values. The
legitimacy of our government and our economy depend on the degree to which
these values are rewarded, which is why the values of equal opportunity and
nondiscrimination compliment rather than impinge on our liberty”. (p/54)
Obama reproaches
the situation when in the USA for many people “politics became business rather than mission”, and further down the
text, talking about the role of money in his campaigns, he reminisces on some
of his sponsors: “As a rule they were smart, interesting people, knowledgeable
about public policy, liberal in their politics, expecting nothing more than a
hearing of their opinions in exchange for their checks. But they reflected,
almost uniformly, the perspectives of their class: the top 1% or so of the
income scale that can afford to write a $2,000 check to a political candidate.
They believed in the free market and an educational meritocracy; they found it
hard to imagine that there might be any social ill that could not be cures by a
nigh SAT score. They had no patience with protectionism, found unions
troublesome, and were not particularly sympathetic to those whose lives were
suspended by the movements of global capital.” (p. 114).
And
further down he characterizes social consequences of such human behavior.
“…the Ownership Society doesn't even try to spread the risks and rewards of the
new economy among all Americans. Instead, it simply magnifies the uneven risks
and rewards of today's winner-take-all economy. If you are healthy or wealthy
or just plain lucky, then you will become more so. If you are poor or sick or
catch a bad break, you will have nobody to look to for help. That's not a
recipe for sustained economic growth or the maintenance of the strong American
middle class. It's certainly not a recipe for social cohesion. It runs counter
to those values that say we have a stake in each other's success.
That is
certainly not who we are as people”
However,
let’s come back to the subject of how money influence politics. Further on,
Obama describes his relationship with unions and their leaders, that also
financially supported his campaigns through the course of his political career.
Here is his conclusion:
«So I owe those unions. When
their leaders call, I do my best to call them back right away. I don’t consider
this corrupting in any way. I don’t mind dealing obligated toward home
health-care workers who clean bedpans every day for little more than the
minimum wage, or toward teachers in some of the toughest schools in the country,
many of whom have to dip into their own pockets at the beginning of every
school year to buy crayons and books for their students. I got into politics to
fight for these folks and I’m glad a union is around to remind me of their
struggles.
But I also
understand that there will be times when these obligations collide with other
obligations – the obligation to children not yet born whom we are saddling with
debt.” (p.118).
So this is to say that problems of upbringing,
teaching kids diligence and maintaining fairness are connected from the point
of view of Barack Obama and his voters. And although these issues are broadly
discussed in public, very little is done in real politics in order to enforce
those values, which only brings problems both for Americans and the
USA
as
a state. Obama writes that upon his initiative was passed a bill protecting Americans
from loosing their jobs to immigrants, willing to work for smaller wages. And then he cites a part of conversation he had with one of his colleagues:
“ – My small business guys are still going to hire immigrants,” he
said. :All your amendment does is make them pay more for their help.”
“But why would they hire immigrants over
U.S.
workers if they cost the
same?” I asked him.
He smiled. “’Cause let’s face it, Barack. These Mexicans are just willing to work harder
than Americans do.” (p.
266)
For Russian
“elite” however, the question is different: “How can we make or trick people to
work for our own prosperity in conditions when we deliberately impose injustice?”
This problem has no solution and all attempts to solve it, as history shows,
have only led to political suicide of some “elite” representative and of
“elite” as a social class.
In the
works of the Concept of Social Security concerning global historical process
from the point of view of Sufficiently Universal Theory of Ruling, as early as
in 1991 we defined hierarchy of instruments for ruling social systems in the continuity of generations (from most to
least powerful):
1. Information of worldview nature, or methodology, which, once adopted, allows men to project –
individually and socially – their “standard automations” of identification with
regard to particular processes within the completeness and integrity of the
World, and to define in their individual perception the hierarchic order
of these processes in their mutual interconnection. This information lays
foundation for the culture of thinking and for the completeness of ruling
activities including also intra-social absolute power both on regional
and global levels.
2. Information of annalistic, chronological nature, in all do-mains of
Culture and all domains of Knowledge. It allows seeing, in which direction the
processes are developing, and to correlate particular domains of Culture as
a whole and of branches of Knowledge. To those, whose worldview is
based on the sense of proportion and is conformable to the World, this
information allows identifying particular processes while sieving the “chaotic”
flow of facts and phenomena through the worldview “sieve” – subjective human
measure of identification. (Within the present context the culture means
all information, which is not transferred genetically in the succession of generations).
3. Information of fact-descriptive nature: description of particular
processes and their interconnections constitutes the substance of information
of the third priority, which includes the faith-teachings of religious cults,
secular ideologies, technologies and facts of all domains of science.
4. Economic processes, as an instrument of influence subordinated to purely
informational instruments of influence through finances (money), which embody a
totally generalized type of information of economic nature.
5. Genocide practices, affecting not only those who live today but also the
generations to come, eliminating the genetically determined potential for learning and for development by them of the cultural heredity of ancestors:
nuclear blackmail-threat of use; alcohol, tobacco and other kinds of narcotic
drugs genocide, food additives, all ecological pollutants, some medicines-real
use; “gene engineering” and “biotechnologies” – potential danger.
6. Other instruments of influence mainly by force – weapons in
traditional sense of this word; killing and crippling human beings; destructing
and exterminating material and technical objects of civilization, cultural
monuments and bearers of their spirit.
Although there are no evident distinctions between the instruments of influence
because many of them, by their capacities, could be related to different
priorities, their classification in hierarchical order, as presented
above, allows nonetheless to identify the dominating factors of influence that
may be used as instruments of ruling, and in particular, as instruments of
suppression and elimination of those phenomena in the social life that are
conceptually inadequate in the sense of ruling.
Although there’s no certain differentiation
between named instruments of influence, because many of them hold qualities
allowing us to classify them to different priorities, but this hierarchically
organized classification allows to define dominating factors of influence,
which can be used as instrument of ruling, particularly for suppression and
elimination of conceptually unacceptable events in the life of society.
This set of instruments when used inside a
social system is just a general way to manage it. However when used by one
social system towards another and provided that their concepts of ruling are
the generalized weapons, meaning
warfare in its widest definition; or those are the means to maintain
self-ruling in another social system, provided that there is not conceptual
incompatibility between their systems.
Above
mentioned order defines priorities of names classes of instruments of influence
on a society, because any change in the condition of society, caused by the
instruments of the highest priorities, will have much worse consequences than
those, caused by the instruments of lowest priority. Therefore
In long historical
intervals efficiency of instruments grows from the top to the bottom, and
irreversibility of the consequences of their use (predominantly defining how
effectively states goals were reached – meaning
once and for all) – declines
from the first to sixth. The same is fair in majority of cases and how
noticeable they are.
In our culture
it was made public back in
USSR
era in “Young Guard” magazine #2, 1990
in the article “Conceptual power: myth or reality?” published in 700 000
copies, distributed mainly among patriotically concerned and politically active
audience. Reaction of more than 700 000 “patriots” was close to zero, as
many of them were either atheists or controlled by biblical-“orthodox”
conceptual power, equating it (power) to the Gods will. Since than, although
some people often mention terms “conceptual power” or “conceptual independence
of Russia” none of the public politicians neither political analysts ever go
into details of these social events, as they never realize the real outline of
internal and external policy of Russia and foreign countries according to six
priorities of universal instruments of ruling / weapons.
·
Russian
‘elite’ can acknowledge instruments of sixth
tier priority as means of reaching political goals (meaning as means of
management both inside and outside our country), but they never realize
potential of instruments of higher level of priority.
·
Fifth tier priority is actually a total mess made out
of “individual rights”, people claiming that it is unacceptable to force
alcohol/drugs detox and rehabilitation, and whose right to see explicit sexual
and violent scenes on TV should not be violated, same as their right on
depravity – on the one side and on the other – on social needs of sobering all
people from all addictive substances (drugs) and protection of young generation
from corruption (including concept of “safe sex”) coming from both older relatives and from society, mass
media and school.
·
As
reality shows – financial crisis is unquestionable prove to it –
credit-financial system (forth tier
priority) for Russian political ‘elite’ is not an instrument of ruling, but
an analogue of natural disasters.
·
Third tier priority is the state’s ideological position
– state (national) idea, which is in fact banned by Constitution of RF, and the
way it is formulated is a manifestation of outrageous stupidity of those who
agreed on it, and a sabotage act by those who pushed it into the constitution.
But despite this, Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) is still very persistent in
trying to make its ideology a state religion.
·
Second tier priority is taken by parliament, ROC and RAS
and also their representatives in power. In the same way as in A. Gertsen’s
times, they are concentrated on “improving the past” according to their wishes
for the future, which actually only puts obstacles on the way of improving unavoidable future.
·
The first tier priority comes from
Lenin’s saying “Marks’ doctrine is omnipotent because it is right”, which meant
only that at least politically part of society should study dialectic
materialism as a method of learning – ‘elite’ abandoned this principle, but has
not come up with any alternative. Current communists – Zuganov and his comrades
– being deeply in opposition still have not reported to people why and how even
armed with “omnipotent” doctrine they managed to lead USSR to stagnation, after
what they ruined perestroika seizing their power to all the bad guys.
And therefore:
Ø
To
become strong on the sixth-tier priority, country has to have sober nation and
powerful army (fifth tier priority), because nowadays intoxicated generals
won’t be able to adequately protect the country and will sober up either in the
afterlife either in captivity (not even mentioning that intoxicated militaries
cause enough trouble even in times of peace)
Ø
Country
should also provide it’s military financially (fourth tier priority), and
therefore it need to not only open financial programs of all sorts but also to
learn how to manage monetary flow.
Ø
In
addition it is necessary to have some cutting edge ideas in various fields
(military, strategic, and tactical, technical and technological). Because
without ideas (third tier priority) financing of programs will turn not into
progress of science and technology (including military) but also into just a
show of reports on prosperity (as it was in Brezhnev era)
Ø
Ideas
(third priority) come from good knowledge of the past (second tier) and it’s
negative experience, dissatisfaction with inherited issues. Additionally
systematically “intoxicating” descendents (fifth tier) by the force of
biological and social degradation are barely able to learn and understand
culture of their ancestors not even mentioning developing their own.
Ø
And
the ideas in itself are an expression of effectiveness of individual cognitive
and creative culture (first tier priority) and how well it is spread in the
socium.
·
And the totality of all mentioned
above demands appropriate organization in order to enable the universal
instruments of ruling/ weapons to mutually support one another in their common
implementation (and as statistic shows, Russian ‘elite’ can’t deal with them as
their sum)
None the less
individual’s culture of learning and creation – is the most important skill in
life, as it allows to reproduce (even from the scratch) all knowledge and
skills that prove to be necessary to define and solve problems people face by
Life. And due to the fact that linguistic culture is a dominant way of
knowledge exchange, dialectics then is a
method of learning and creating, that is available to everyone because it is
genetically encrypted in us.
Dialectic is an
non-formalized psychological practice – a method of solving uncertainties in
the process of leaning and creating through raising special in their sense
questions and finding appropriate answers, confirmed by life.
Dialectics
efficiency in this case is provided by individual’s psychological organization
and the discipline of his psychological activity – both being a matter of
practice.
All of
it was important to mention in order to clearly explain Obama’s reasoning on
U.S. Constitution.
——————
“ In the end, the question I keep asking myself
is why, if the Constitution is only about power and not about principle, if all
we are doing is just making it up as we go along, has our own republic not only
survived but served as the rough model for so many of the successful societies
on earth?
The answer I
settle on – which is by no means original to me – requires a shift in metaphors,
one that sees our democracy not as a house to be built, but as a conversation
to be had. According to this conception, the genius of
Madison
’s design is not that it provides us a
fixed blueprint for action, the way a drafts-man plots a building’s
construction. It provides us with a framework and with rules, but fidelity to
these rules will not guarantee a just society or assure agreement on what’s
right. (…)
What the framework
of our Constitution can do is to organize the way by which we argue [Methods]
about our future. All of its elaborate machinery – its separation of powers and
checks and balances and federalist principles and Bill of Rights – are designed
to force us into a conversation, a “deliberative democracy” in which all
citizens are required to engage in a process of testing their ideas against and
eternal reality, persuading others of their point of view and building shifting
alliances of consent. Because power in
our government is so diffuse, the process of making law in
America
compels us to entertain the
possibility that we are not always right and to sometimes change our minds; it
challenges us to examine our motives and our interests constantly, and suggests
that both our individual and collective judgments are at once legitimate and
highly fallible.” (p.
92)
“It’s not just
absolute power that the Founders sought to prevent. Implicit in its structure,
in the very idea of ordered liberty, was a rejection of absolute truth, the
infallibility of any idea or ideology or theology or “ism”, any tyrannical
consistency that might lock future generations into a single, unalterable
course, or drive both majorities into the cruelties of the Inquisition, the
pogrom, the gulag, or the jihad. The Founders may have trusted in God, but true
to the Enlightenment spirit, they also trusted in the minds and senses that God
had given them. They were suspicious of
abstraction and liked asking questions, which is why at every turn in our early
history theory yielded to fact and necessity.” (p.107, italics made by
authors)
The
quoted paragraph shows that Obama adequately covers problematic of the
first-tier priority of universal instruments of ruling, and the only question
is – how effective is his individual culture of dialectic cognition and
creativity.
At the same time
in the given section he answered the question on the reasons for such
historically proven stable capacity of USA statehood (in comparison with other
contemporary states) both in defining and solving their issues and in
implementing their political views: the U.S. Constitution has programmed
procedures, that express dialectic in its essence - culture of cognition and
creativity.
And according to
its pre-programmed procedures, expressing dialectical essence of cognitive and
creative culture, the Unites States have an advantage on the matters of first
tier priority, and, as consequence, on other lower priorities of the universal
instruments of ruling/weapons in comparison to other cultures of self-governing
societies, in which dialectic of perception and understanding of life and
creativity is suppressed in the operations of state apparatus as well as in
life of the rest of society.
But
above mentioned issues, regarding problematic of first tier priority of
universal instruments of ruling/weapons, stated by B. Obama in a way, that can be
understood only on the basis of the principle: those who know and master dialectic will understand what it’s all
about, and as for those who doesn’t know – it’s their problem…
And evidently,
Russian ruling ‘elite’ and as consequence – all people of Russia, have and in
the coming future will have many problems coming from the fact, that they do
not master first tier priority of the universal instruments or ruling, and
therefore they do not master lover priorities as well.
But there is still
a huge paradox – even taken into account above mentioned advantage of the USA
over other cultures the root of all their problems lies in the same fact that,
in the States neither public-political ‘elite’, nor ‘elite’ in general, nor
common people do consciously master the instruments of ruling of first-tier
priority; everything, that’s going on the first level of priorities of
universal instruments of ruling/weapons, is just unconsciously automatic
activity.
As can be seen from quoted reasoning
of Obama on general methodological-creative-cognitive level, programmed by U.S.
Constitution – hardly he knows what sort of issues he had touched, and
therefore his understanding of it is quite superficial: most probably in the
sense that results, given by dialectic, are useful for the society, rather than
in the sense of the core of cognitive-creative processes.
Some more
quotes from the book:
“We have no
authoritative figure, no Walter Cronkite or Edward R. Murrow whom we all listen
to and trust to sort out contradictory claims. Instead, the media is
splintered into a thousand fragments, each with its own version of reality,
each claiming the loyalty of a splintered nation, Depending on your viewing
preferences, global climate change is or is not dangerously accelerating; the
budget deficit is going down of going up.” (p.126)
We underlined phrases that are key
to understanding the core of the issue. If a culture is based on the foundation
of cognitive methodology, dialectic, then:
·
Its society doesn’t need
authoritative figures, that are though to be unerring in all their judgments
and recommendations
·
The world and its development
trends, although versatile, can not be unambiguously cognized, therefore such
nation cannot be split by ‘pluralism of opinions’, which can exist only as an
intermediary half-raw product in the process of development of common for
everyone, adequate, and therefore well functioning opinion on any matter, be it
global climate change and environmental catastrophe or problems of corporate
budget.
In this “plurality of opinions” only
few are concerned by which one is true, and even less are preoccupied by the
need for methodology of dialectic cognition and creativity to form the
foundation of individual culture of each man. And such plurality is dangerous
for Obama, and for the U.S., and makes this country a source of danger for the
rest of the world, because ambiguity of the answer to the question on
differences of a man in fullness of his dignity from a highly civilized man-like
, that’s not established culturally because of different circumstances, but
still dangerously self-assured and certain of his rights as highly-civilized
man-like – such ambiguity is fraught with disastrous consequences.
——————
Soon
after publication of Russian translation of “The Audacity of hope” internet
burst with accusations of this book being just an ordinary populism and
election propaganda of those powers, that pre-approved Obama for the president
of the
United States
.
Indeed, in
crowd-‘elitist’ society politics cannot do without attempts of ‘selling’ a charming
and appealing ‘cutie’ candidate to the crowd, with intention of making policies
on his behalf, and in worst case scenario either make him the scapegoat or start
brainwashing the crowd saying that “the 'cutie' is an outstanding politician
and you, the illiterate crowd, just don’t appreciate the fact that in tames of
crisis he spared you of even worse disasters”. However there is a difference between
two different PR techniques:
In our case “The Audacity of hope”
is a campaign for happiness, which (happiness) requires a lot of effort from
the nation, in which (nation) people believe in themselves and in their
leaders.
If
Barack Obama will succeed in mobilizing creative potential of Americans from
different social classes and unite them in this work, then many of the problems
discussed in the book will be solved, and dealing with the rest of them will be
just a matter of time, because the United States (as a state and as a society)
will stay on political course, that leads to guaranteed solution.
And to
unite the nation and mobilize its creative potential “The Audacity of hope”
presents as a dramatically more efficient remedy, than introduction of
meaningless public holidays (e.g. Day of national unity) by Russian post-soviet
‘elite’, which (introduction) in its essence is just a means to distract people
and thus “unite the nation” outside any concept of solving actually critical
problems.
However
the principle, that “everyone works for himself to the extent of his
understanding, in the lack of thereof – for someone who understands more”, is
also valid for B.Obama and his team, as well as for those who actually pre-elected B.Obama.
And
therefore, even if Obama will be able to mobilize the creative potential of his
nation, this will be followed with some side effects. And the question is –
what sort of effects will those be – because some of side effects can be
harmful… But such kind of effects do not result from anything: they have their
own causes, that lie in some flaw of the culture of thinking and worldview
based on it.
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’.
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 precedent
Besides,
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.
2.5. Prospective relationship between
USA
and
Russia
Undoubtedly,
policy of statehood in the
USA
and in
Russia
(both domestic and foreign) – are not two free flows. Both have mass-elitarism,
in both it is modified based on the biblical project of Mafioso-corporate
political activity of various ‘elite’ groups, whose ambitions in many cases
concern global policy – the policy that encompasses goals of whole humanity.
But at the same time, obviously there is some deception. Then, in his book,
Obama often and ironically uses expression “ten points plan”. Also as you might
know Medvedev’s “Address to the Federal Assembly of the RF” was made public on
November 5 2008
– the day
when the election results were finally announced and the world found out that
Barack Obama would be the next president of the
United States
. Medvedev’s Address
to the Federal Assembly has exactly ten points. Since “The Audacity of Hope”
was published before Russian president’ address, his copywriters should have
added or removed at least one point in order to avoid Obama’s irony. But since
it was left as ten – then it is a hint to the political ‘elite’ of
Russia
: “those who started Obama projects do not
take view them as serious opponents”.
Also
mass media focused its attention on the fact that D.A. Medvedev’s
congratulating speech to Obama was left unanswered, mentioning at the same
time, that he thanked leaders of Australia, UK, Germany and other countries.
What
does Barack Obama say about
Russia
in his book? – he mentions his visit in 2005. The aim of it was control over
execution of the Nann-Lugar program for protection of nuclear arsenals in on
post-soviet territory (financed from the
U.S.
funds).
“It was my first
trip to Russia and Ukraine (…) we visited the nuclear facilities of Saratov,
where Russian generals pointed with pride to the new fencing and security
systems that had been recently completed; afterward, they served us a lunch of
borscht, vodka, potato stew, and a deeply troubling fish Jell-O mold.” (p.312)
And further:
“There were moments during our travels when we were reminded of the old Cold
War days. At the airport in
Perm
, for example, a
border officer in his early twenties detained us for three hours because we
wouldn’t let him search our plane, leading our staffs to fire off telephone
calls to the
U.S.
embassy
and
Russia
’s foreign affairs
ministry in
Moscow
.
And yet most of what we heard and saw – the CK store and Maserati show-room in
Red Square Mall, the motorcade of SUV’s that pulled up in from of a restaurant,
driven by burly men with ill-fitting suits who once might have rushed to open
the door for Kremlin officials but were now on the security detal of one of
Russia’s billionaire oligarchs; the throngs of sullen teenagers in T-shirts and
low-riding jeans, sharing cigarettes and the music on their iPods as they
wandered Kiev’s graceful boulevards – underscored the seemingly irreversible
prices of economic, if not political, integration between East and West.
While they were in
Donetsk
“ One
of our team called me over and showed me a yellowing poster taped to the wall,
It was a relic of the Afghan war, we re told: instructions on how to hide
explosives in toys, to be left in villages and carried home by unsuspecting
children.
A testament, I
though to the madness of men.
A record of how
empires destroy themselves” (p.314)
Ask international
warriors that have been through
Afghanistan
:
how would they comment on this passage
We can
stay: This statement is a lie, aimed at common man in the
USA
and in other countries as well.
Even such sort of operations by soviet military on Afghanistan territory could
have taken place, then such poster could not have been printed (for obvious
reasons of necessity to cover this fact from the eyes of public, including
international community) or would have been classified as “top secret” and
hidden in the archives now, and at a time it would have had to be checked in
and out personally by those who had clearance to view it. Therefore it is not
possible that a poster containing “top secret” information would be just
hanging on the wall for public display, especially in
USSR
, because such event violates
principle of personal responsibility for secret strategic information of the
state.
If Obama
really saw described poster in one of the facilities of independent
Ukraine
, then taken into account that it does
not conform to
USSR
norms of
handling secret information, all questions should be addressed to special
services of post-soviet
Ukraine
.
Besides
from above quotes it is clear
Russia
fascinates Obama with things that he considers serious issues in the life of
the
USA
.
Here is an obvious example of double standards of morality and ethics and
imperial syndrome of the States, that allegedly have undisputable rights to
teach other nations how to live, although themselves they cannot live
realistically due to the conceptual powerlessness; and those alleged rights to
“teach” other nations only mean intrusion into domestic business of other
countries under various groundless reasons following the principal: “Our power will be a law of truth, because
powerlessness turns out to be useless”.
Talking
about politicians on the
U.S.
,
that supported Obama – amongst them are some well known in
Russia
– Madlen Albright,
Clintons
– all of whom in some way in the past expressed their intentions towards
Russia
as an object of potential colonization.
And some
of the speeches of Obama’s supporters on the prospective of American policy
leaked into mass media:
Back in
19 October 2008
Senator J.
Biden, vice presidential candidate, impressed public with his sensational
revelations. While speaking amongst small circle of fund raisers for
presidential campaign he said that in the first six months of presidency Obama
will face serious trials that can be compared to those of JFK in 1961-1962. It
will be strongest international crisis when Obama will have to make tough and
possibly unpopular decisions, both in domestic and foreign policies.
In very vague
manner Biden said that for international crisis there are 4-5 scenarios, where cause
of one of the crisis will be
Middle East
,
Afghanistan
,
North
Korea
or
Russia
.
He also mentioned
Pakistan
,
bristling with nuclear weapons.
In Biden’s opinion
Obama will have to clean up the mess in American economy, because current
crisis is of a system nature, not only financial. Therefore Biden advised his
audience to “gird their loins”.
When asked to
comment on those speeches of Biden, Obama write it off on Senator’s rhetorical
flourishes, saying not to take it too seriously. However there is something
serious to think about. Even more so because Madlen Albright called Biden’s
talks a “stating the fact”. This means that something might actually happen,
although not necessarily by the will of the new president. Source: http://www.rpmonitor.ru/ru/detail_m.php?ID=11591)
In other
words there already exists a political scenario for Obama – both on domestic
and external policies.
All of
these are signs that project of “orthodox renaissance” with monarchial
prospective, which Russian ‘elite’ supports, or in the absence of better
pretends to support, is not accepted by the rulers of the biblical project and
they will be working on suppressing it, and alongside on suppressing Russia as
it’s bearer.
Barack
Obama is a manifestation of alternative global project of “capitalistic
socialism with human face”, controlled on global scale by the world’s
“backstage mafia” and not “Politburo of Central Committee of Russian Orthodox
Church”.
Consequently
adepts of ‘elite’-‘patriotic’ ‘orthodox renaissance” will face many problems in
communication with B. Obama and his team members.
As for
the Russian people – each project means trouble, as well as a conflict between
them.
Internal Predictor of the
USSR
17-27 November 2008