It’s a very long essay and shouldn’t be spoiled by using many excerpts. Besides, if you don’t read the whole thing, you miss the connections he makes to a more palatable future. In order to understand those connections you need to see his take on a previous grab for power by the elites.
In the course of arriving at his optimistic prediction, he shares some gob-smackingly amazing
For example, we have this to ponder, as Whiskey describes the mindset of the trans-national elites:
This model, that of a trans-national elite, taking steps to control the US Presidential election, does seem to describe what Obama’s campaign really is. There are other data points. San Francisco columnist Mark Morford describes Obama as a “Lightworker”, a near-parody of the WB series “Charmed” “White Lighter” characters.
Here’s where it gets gooey. Many spiritually advanced people I know (not coweringly religious, mind you, but deeply spiritual) identify Obama as a Lightworker, that rare kind of attuned being who has the ability to lead us not merely to new foreign policies or health care plans or whatnot, but who can actually help usher in a new way of being on the planet, of relating and connecting and engaging with this bizarre earthly experiment. These kinds of people actually help us evolve. They are philosophers and peacemakers of a very high order, and they speak not just to reason or emotion, but to the soul.
Yep, these folks really believe that Philosopher-King Obama is going to help us to evolve into more soulful beings. I can’t wait.
- - - - - - - - -
Whiskey compares the rise of Obama-ist transnational elites to the rise of monarchies and the consequent taking by force the wealth of which monasteries were the repositories:
The Kings of Medieval Europe could not match the production of wealth that the Catholic Church’s Monasteries produced. The Kings could not produce the large amounts of educated, loyal to Rome, and absolutely required functionaries that the Church alone provided. But the Kings could create alliances to seize said Monasteries and distribute the wealth among themselves and barons, such as Henry the VIII. Or found universities such as Oxford, Cambridge, and the University of Paris, to create their own, loyal, literate functionaries. Because while the Monasteries were a huge source of wealth, they could not be defended. Defending the wealth required men under arms, something the Church was never able to produce.
So, Whiskey says, did Obama perform likewise, in creating alliances to gain power, though he sees a problem arising in O’s bypass of the large populist group in America:
In the same manner, the “Obama Model” of media in the tank, illegal foreign money (not reported by said in the tank media), voter fraud, and thug tactics has a weakness.
By moving entirely outside the media, through building grass-roots organizations, populists can control their message and use it create wedge politics, particularly through using nationalism and populism. This would include such things as various social events, private insurance, entertainment events, and so on. Particularly as the global economic crisis makes the ability of trans-national elites to provide welfare payoffs to broad slices of the electorate very questionable…
I don’t want to give away the rest of his argument. Go read it for yourselves and make your own judgment in the matter. I will leave you with this quote, though it is not his last word on the subject:
…It is a simple matter to show the intimidation and thugocracy of minority-oriented governments, be it an Obama thugocracy, or that of a Sarkozy, or Gordon Brown Sharia-compliant regime, and make the case that the majority, made second-class citizens or worse in their own nation, have no other alternative but the populists…
I prefer the term “Culturism” myself. As the author of the text on it says:
The words “multiculturalism” and “racism” undermine important policy discussions. “Culturism” can start them again.