Текст книги "Bureaucratic despair in Russia and global project “Obama”"

Автор книги: (IP of the USSR) Internal Predictor of the USSR

сообщить о нарушении

Текущая страница: 4 (всего у книги 5 страниц)

And therefore:

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)

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.

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)

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.

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’.

2.4.3. Bible – slave’s shackles

B. Obama Characterizes America:

«… our law is by definition a codification of morality, much of it grounded in Judeo-Christian tradition.” (p.218)

When describing his conversation with Senator Byrd (the oldest member of U.S. Senate and is though to be freemason), Barack Obama quotes him:

“So few people read the Constitution today,” Senator Byrd said, pulling out his copy from this breast pocket. “I’ve always said, this document and the Holy Bible, they’ve been all the guidance I need.” (p.100)

Barack Obama is a professional lawyer, and although he notices massive incompetence in practical solving of concrete problems by many professional lawyers and political scientists, he still doesn’t go into investigation of the reasons for this incompetence, that is programmed by the own character of historically formed legislative and political education.

Many professional lawyers are incapable of understanding the following:

Any legislation is in essence a manifestation of an algorithmic of self-ruling of society and of state operating in the following concept – ruling ALWAYS assumes a conceptual certainty: legislation is written according to a given concept. Legislation’s objectives are: 1) provision of standard ruling according to this concept; 2) resolution of its internal conflicts; 3) it’s self-protection from ruling according to other concepts

Conceptual ambiguity shows in the life of society as a controversy of its legislation, when different laws on the same subject give different solutions; as well as the flaws of law-executing practice, executed by the principle that the law can be used in many different ways based on the different wording and convenient 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: