The upcoming reincarnation of Barack Obama’s team and the genesis of the “American theocracy”
If we take popular analytics, then the central topic, in addition to the fighting in Ukraine, will undoubtedly be the November 2024 elections in the United States. The main contenders for the Oval Office are clear - D. Trump, whom for some reason Russian observers write down as “conservatives”, “industrialists”, “traditionalists” and generally “anti-globalists”, and J. Biden, who is similarly recorded in the opposite camp "greedy financial globalists."
The program that D. Trump came up with in 2016 and, in general, with not very significant changes is going on in the year 2024, dealt with material “Why recent events bring to mind the “Trump Program.”
It's time to try to describe his opponent's program.
The peculiarity of this program is that J. Biden (which is obvious at the moment and does not require summarizing the evidence base) is only a functional unit of the American management system. He is not a puppet, not a “self-propelled grandfather on punch cards,” as we like to joke on TV. He makes decisions (if possible) that are binding, and he makes them himself.
But J. Biden is not a conceptualist, not the person who takes ideas from the depths of the Deep State and processes them into programs. No matter how much his opponents in the United States sometimes make fun of D. Trump, they cannot help but recognize his authorship and co-authorship in a number of serious published works and personal program interviews. Others write all this to J. Biden.
And those who do not make decisions for J. Biden, but establish the conceptual framework for these decisions, will, in fact, take to the wrestling mat with the Trumpists in November. Moreover, with the highest degree of probability we will see that this group will nominate a new candidate, since J. Biden’s health is indeed not easy.
Who is the conceptual leader of the opponents of the Trumpists?
B. Obama, and it is absolutely possible that his wife will be the alternative candidate in 2024 from the Democrats. B. Obama has also published several published works, including an autobiography, which, it is clear, is much less a biography than a political vision; there are several extensive and rather in-depth interviews (for example, in Atlantico).
Our media also often made fun of Barack Obama, for example, over a photo from the gym where he trains with children’s dumbbells, comparing it with “toothless politics” in the Middle East. They were fussing completely in vain, since the level of competence is not determined by dumbbells and weights, but by an individual’s ability to process ideas and concepts into administrative decisions and strategic programs.
B. Obama is the author and co-author, along with part of the Deep State, of the conceptual framework and the creator of the administrative apparatus, which first threw out D. Trump’s team, and then himself, from the administration.
In 2020, for the first time, in front of everyone’s eyes, the apparatus rigged the American elections and crushed everyone who decided to fight it. Moreover, there is little doubt that in 2024 the device will do “as it should.” Whether they went too far or not, finally splitting society in the United States, this will become clear in the process, but they will carry out the decision “as it should.”
However, B. Obama is the tip of the iceberg. At one time, the creators interestingly showed the image of the captain of the Flying Dutchman and his henchmen in the movie “Pirates of the Caribbean”: “Part of the ship is part of the crew.” This ill-fated Deep State with the Obama administration is “part of the ship - part of the crew,” i.e., one whole.
The program of D. Trump and his co-authors is much easier to disassemble than the program of B. Obama and his team, since his co-authors de facto have a whole system of institutions, and B. Obama himself is part of this system.
Unlike D. Trump, this program is part of a whole complex of ideas that are rooted in religious philosophy. Moreover, this is not a specific current, but a kind of cabbage, where from each period and from each current there is one leaf in the head of cabbage. And it’s not for nothing that B. Obama’s big book is modestly called “The Promised Land.”
The Americans themselves did not hesitate to call the ideological basis of the American political system in the 19th century “American theocracy.” Traditionally, the roots of theocratic thinking are usually sought in the fusion of Puritan ideas of society and Masonic ideas of the elite.
English Protestantism of the American “version” was directed inward to the individual and the community to which the individual belongs. This is a kind of path to transform the wild land (old Canaan) into the new Promised Land. If individuals and communities converted the old into the new land of Israel, they were saved; if they did not convert, they were not saved.
What is America in such a design?
America is the land predestined by God for salvation.
How to find out whether an individual himself is predestined for salvation?
To go and cultivate the land predestined for salvation.
The Masonic ideas of early libertarianism, while maintaining an elite hierarchy of the elite, already assumed proselytism and distribution. Which, in fact, is what happened when the United States came up with “Wilson Wilson’s 1918 Points” in 14. The United States, relying on the growth of industrial production and the created Federal Reserve System (New Land), declared itself the source and measure of ideas and values in the world.
All these well-known constructions about the “City on a Hill” were born from the ideas of the land predestined for salvation, onto which, after preparation and transformation into the New Land, this City actually descends. And since the Heavenly City has descended on her, then everything else is straight according to the message of St. Paul to the Romans (8:31): “What then do we say to these things? If God is for us, who is for us? By the way, it is not difficult to notice that this is one of the favorite passages in Scripture and in the Russian church, and even in political culture in the past.
If European Freemasonry degenerated by the end of the 1940th century, having solved the problem of incorporating the assets of the aristocracy, then in the USA it turned into a conglomerate of efficient horizontal groups, which only after the XNUMXs began to fuse into a common elite mass. At the same time, horizontal associations remained and still exist in a modified form.
While Christianity in Europe was gradually marginalized and losing ground, in the United States the American branches of Catholicism and Anglican Protestantism, on the contrary, had quite strong positions until the 1960s–1970s.
The famous political philosopher P. Shchelin in the series “Gnostic Thinking” (which is highly recommended to watch on the wicked YouTube) unearths the roots of this phenomenon in historical transformation of the ideas of Gnostic schools.
This largely explains the paradox that we see today in the United States in the form of the screaming libertarianism of the new time with its transhumanism, digital transformation, a million types of genders, with deliberately aggressive anti-Christian overtones.
This conflict was originally inherent in the genome of the “American theocracy.” If you live on already saved Earth and your people already saved, then the Puritan search for predestination to salvation becomes unnecessary. The land has already been cultivated, predestination has been completed, now everyone has been chosen here, and any reflection is heresy. Everything that the chosen one does is chosen.
In the USA, anyone is a priori saved, any gender, any transvestite and heterosexual, monarchist and anarchist, communist and capitalist, etc. Accordingly, any restrictions previously imposed by the “old religion” are not just redundant, but directly contradict the salvation that has already been accomplished .
Religious conservatism in this case simply becomes an instrument of evil, chains that pull the saved person back into the old world. This is the paradox of the transformation of religious consciousness, but the paradox, alas, is real. This is a complete inversion of the worldview with which the ancestors of today's elite transgender people arrived to explore the continent.
In this regard, American society, without realizing it in many ways, has gone much further than the “chosenness of the Jews by God.” If a Jew, by right of birth, gets the opportunity to ascend to the level of the “primordial Adam” (salvation is not quite the correct term here), but only an opportunity, and the ascension itself should be based on years of studying the scriptures, the esoteric practice of Kabbalah, good deeds, then the American turns out to be the new chosen man, the original all-encompassing Adam, already in fact.
In ancient times, this was typical only for narrow sectarian schools and societies, but this is the first time when such an ideological basis extended to the entire population.
When D. Trump knocks his fist to ban illegal immigration, the new type of libertarians are horrified - this monster wants to deprive the descendants of these people of nothing less than the very right of salvation.
And in their eyes, D. Trump is truly a godless Satanist, a sadist, a fiend of evil and, in general, Beelzebub - the Lord of the Flies. Although 98% of these libertarians don’t even think about why this particular ideological construct is correct and where it even came from.
In one of the past materials (“On the phenomenon of global economic “incest”) the author considered the question of the economic base of Trumpists and Democrats - the base, surprisingly, is the same.
Therefore, all the talk about D. Trump being an “isolationist” and B. Obama being a “financial globalist” is just a way of diverting attention. But what really separates them is the “flock” itself with its deep patterns of behavior, the so-called. "patterns".
Trumpists are basically still the old conservatives before the 1970s. This does not mean that there is “America aged”, it means that there are people there who are characterized by old patterns, before transformation. Therefore, it is still somehow possible, in principle, to conduct a dialogue with them, even though they are conductors of the same globalist agenda.
But with a society that has gone through the described paradox of transformation, especially with its elite, neither we, nor the Chinese, nor the Trumpists can speak at all.
In the United States, there is a famous TV presenter T. Carlson, who used to periodically invite representatives of anti-Trumpists to debates. From the outside, all this looked ridiculous, since D. Trump’s opponents could not find any arguments at all, and in the end it came to natural hysteria on the air. But why is that? But because if a person is already saved, then he does not need arguments.
He is a transgender, transgender is a blessing, because a transgender is saved. If a person has doubts about gender, and you interfere with him, then you are interfering with his salvation, and you should be removed from the scene as the wicked D. Trump. And this is the truth, because the speaker is already saved.
Next, “the horses run in circles.” And it really is a vicious circle. The metaphysical search has been completed, and there is no longer any need to painfully decide for oneself the question of personal election to salvation. Everyone who lives on the new earth is holy, everything that people do on this earth is chosen. Another thing is that adherents of such ideologies are susceptible to neuroses, psychoses, etc.
This feature completely closes any possibilities for discussion outside the agenda of new libertarianism, which the author calls “ultra-liberalism,” although there are many terms. But that’s exactly what he is – a voter of the “collective Barack Obama.”
If D. Trump's voter is the distant ideological heirs of puritanical industriousness, directed towards himself and towards himself, then B. Obama's voter has long surpassed these reflections. To paraphrase the classic: “if there is no God, then everything is permitted,” but for this voter it sounds like this: “if I am saved, then everything is permitted.”
And the best of all job specializations is to tell others that they too are free. The fact that the rest of society pays for it is an insignificant cost. Therefore, when D. Trump’s followers say that it’s bad to live on benefits, then B. Obama’s voter does not understand him and will not understand him.
In fact, for a representative of a traditional society, this is an anti-world, an anti-system, which, although it emerged from both orthodox and Gnostic Christianity, is today equally alien to both branches. This is already a kind of “post-ecumenism”, when everything that such a new libertarian does is saved, even if he serves the bloody goddess Kali, believes in reincarnation and opens and closes two or three chakras every day.
This is the peculiarity of the conflict in the United States, not between isolationists and financial globalists - this conflict is essentially religious and that is why it is so tough. Here “values” act as confessional markers.
Due to these circumstances, the difference between D. Trump with his team and B. Obama with his team is only that it is possible to negotiate with the first and even sign something, but with the second it is possible, but it will not work out. But the result in terms of the economy will be strictly the same. However, in foreign policy too. Both “confessions” earn money for the United States and forge it within the same model, albeit with some variations.
Due to the above circumstances, most of the conceptual works from this camp are devoted not so much to economics, but to social modeling and trade relations, which act as points of intersection not so much of goods, money and services, but of social flows - all this “metaphysical schizophasia” needed to be controlled and guide.
Within the framework of traditional approaches, where “being determines consciousness,” these libertarian teams of ideologues stopped working around the beginning of the 2000s. It was by this time that considerable experience had been accumulated in the theory and practice of managing cognitive processes. Research schools have been created and models have been calculated in which it has become possible to direct the manipulation of value factors and aspirations to trade transactions.
The second half of the 20th century in the United States was concerned with satisfying social needs, but in the 21st century it turned out that the needs themselves can be developed, expanded, limited, they can be rethought, thereby forming a commodity base in the reverse order.
“We will not release what you want, but with all your heart you will want exactly what we release.”
Many were surprised by the foreign policy of B. Obama's tenure - instead of aggressive military pressure, there were stories about messianism, an “exceptional nation” and the chaos of color revolutions. However, let us consider this in the context of what has been stated above, and we will understand that there was an ideological basis behind this.
The main foreign policy track of Barack Obama's cabinet is social transformation in the world and the transformation of trade associations, the creation of different levels of trade superstructures, since in this paradigm trade is the management of the same social processes. However, we can clearly see from the result that they learned how to plan, but not how to administer processes.
In domestic policy, Barack Obama and his team were forced to change the social security system, which resulted not only in an avalanche-like increase in government spending, but also in the creation of a social layer of permanent recipients of benefits, benefits, and preferences that was atypical for the United States. To cancel this means to violate the almost religious principles that we described above. COVID-19 tested this system and found it shaky.
The new program of the “Democrats” will inevitably be devoted not just to issues like “raise the rate or lower it” and not even to the return of “American hegemony.” In this paradigm there is no longer any “hegemony”. Barack Obama's Promised Land is not a hegemon, but a torch, and this is far from the concept of the modern Roman Empire, which was fashionable to talk about 25 years ago.
For this team, the first priority is the need to develop rational and realistic models for the administration of social and foreign trade processes, on the basis of which more mundane tasks will then be solved. We will try to present them in a separate material.
Information