US presidential elections - the starting point of the "color revolution" in America?
As the general hysteria around the presidential elections in the United States increases, is directly proportional to the number of hours left before the voting begins, the need to summarize the most active section of the campaign company becomes obvious, the official nomination of candidates from the dominant senate political forces for the post Oval office. This is all the more relevant because as long as the winner in the electoral race is not determined, there is absolutely no need to adjust our conclusions in proportion to the results of the citizens' will, which allows us to more or less objectively identify both strengths and weaknesses in the electoral campaigns of competing subjects, as well as try to predict in the near future the consequences of the victory of certain political forces. Meanwhile, such extensive attention from the international community to the election of the head of the North American states union, despite the conventionality of this institution in modern realities, is largely due to the fact that destructive processes, which are rapidly gaining momentum in the world, have reached such proportions since the Second World War. And the fact that the overwhelming majority of them were sanctioned with the knowledge of the administration of the President of the United States imposes certain expectations on the future configuration of this structure within the framework of the initiated international processes.
We believe, no one will news the fact that the figure of the chief executive in the United States is in many respects the projections of certain political forces in the establishment of the United States, which expresses the will and aspirations of which, in fact, it appears. From this standpoint, the confrontation between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump should be viewed as an opposition between two parts of America’s political and economic elite for the right to dictate and realize the vision of the political, economic, social and ideological world order that they consider to be as satisfying as possible in the United States itself. and in any other part of the world. This aspect was very detailed in our previous discussions. Let me remind you that we, abstracting from putting all sorts of labels like popular categories among publicists, such as neo-ratsxists, globalists, imperialists, and so on, carried out their gradation in accordance with those ideas that dominate the elements of the opposing elements of the American management elite. The first category is conditionally attributed to supporters of the creation of global financial regulators (the priority of the economic component in this vein is largely derived from the winged sayings of Mayer Amschel Rothschild: "Give me the opportunity to print and control the money of the country, and I will not care who writes its laws" ), the second - to the adepts who share the idea of the need to diversify (as far as the term is appropriate in this key) the world capitalist world-system into several large relatively autonomous ohm regions, which draw a source of economic growth in more intensive development of domestic markets. As a result, the articulation of the positions of the first physically embodies Hillary Clinton in his election program, the second - Donald Trump. It is precisely the confrontation between the two categories of the US establishment that we can observe in the struggle of these two candidates for the presidency.
At the same time, it is necessary to understand that there is no question of revising the place and role of America in the world political process either before the first category or the second, because both of them agree in their desire to preserve the existing position of the United States dominant subject of international legal relations. The discrepancies between them are rooted mainly in the set of those methods and methods that are thought of by different categories of the elite as the most optimal for achieving the stated goal. So, if Hillary Clinton categorically declares America’s special status, her otherness, which seems to mean her personal (Hillary) commitment to the current ideals of the unipolar world, then Trump, based on his statements, is ready to reduce the degree of control over some " problem regions of the world, delegating their supervision to other representatives of the international community, but at the same time retaining their influence on those areas of international activity that seem to be of the highest priority. In general, both positions do not imply the exclusion of America from the world political process as a world gendarme, only the sphere of its competence varies, which, however, the world hegemon is free to determine purely individually. Thus, it is the methodological differences in the implementation of this provision, without exaggeration, that are key to understanding the very essence of the differentiation of both the American and the world political and economic elite as a whole.
It is worth noting that until recently the question of the need to regulate capitalist relations was absent as such. Inspired by the success in the struggle with their main opponent - the socially oriented states of the communist sense, capitalism and the social relations generated by them, sung in the works of Francis Fukuyama, seemed unshakable. However, the logic of crisis existence, in which the world capitalist system is today, compels us to turn to those forms of its resolution that previously seemed unacceptable.
I would like to begin my excursion into the American election process primarily with Hillary Clinton, the candidate from the Democratic Party. As you know, even before the start of the primaries, Mrs. Clinton noted that the size of her electoral fund amounted to an unprecedented number - 2,5 billion US dollars. But it was not possible to fully appreciate the true scope of all the power of the Democratic campaigning machine: by the beginning of September, the electoral funds of the candidates for the presidency from both competing parties were approximately equal, making approximately 250 million off the nose. What does this tell us? First of all, that Hillary Clinton, despite such a wide advertising of his person, is also not a figure who suits the political elite of the United States to the maximum extent. How else to explain the fact that the lion’s share of Mrs. Clinton’s money seems to have gone to overcome the primary vote, where opposition was made by Bernie Sanders, a veteran of political battles who didn’t have such an impressive financial base, but had considerable authority within the Democratic Party. Of course, it would be foolish to argue that all of these funds were directly involved in the election campaign. Knowing the specifics of the Russian electoral process, which in terms of the level of corruption and black schemes hardly differs conceptually from a similar procedure in the United States, it is safe to say that any electoral budget can be easily buried under electoral procedures. However, it will not be surprising that some of these funds will end up in the family budget of the Clinton couple. Be that as it may, we can safely say that Mrs. Clinton took at least the same amount of funds for the primaries procedure, which was envisaged for the main stage of the company, but already as a real candidate for the country's presidency. In this regard, even more respect is the person of Bernie Sanders, who, again, was able, with very limited potential, to delay a significant amount of resources and, apparently, health from the main favorite for the presidency of the United States, thereby significantly undermining the initiative of the latter, for unequivocally demonstrated the fact that even in the camp of party members, Mrs. Clinton is at least a lesser, but still evil.
As for the propaganda period of the last two months, then, according to the price list for these goals, Mrs. Clinton remained only a miserable quarter of a billion. How did they dispose of in the electoral headquarters of the Democrats?
As follows from the analytical article by Alexander Nikishin (https://topwar.ru/102073-ssha-predchuvstvie-grazhdanskoy-voyny.html), a miracle did not happen: these funds, like previous financial expenses, were still used extremely inefficiently. This is partly due to the poor health of Hillary Clinton, which she undermined in the framework of the primary vote, but personally the situation seems to us that after receiving the “approval” among the party members, Ms. Clinton was so convinced of her own victory that she simply let the situation take its course. And it should be noted that at that time the hope for the realization of such a favorable outcome of the elections for a candidate from the Democrats had very weighty grounds.
Meanwhile, a pause in Mrs. Clinton’s campaigning array was eagerly filled by her antagonist from the camp of the Republicans Donald Trump. Focusing mainly on his personal funds, rather than on the aggregate budgets of private investors and political associations, he managed, taking advantage of the breathing space of the Clinton team, to significantly strengthen his position, reducing the gap separating them to a minimum. However, his campaign is also not without flaws. First of all, the main and seemingly conceptual mistake of Donald Trump, which could cost him the presidency, is concluded, no matter how paradoxical it sounded, in Donald Trump himself, more precisely, in his selfish desire to act alone as a spokesman for the interests of that part of the United States political elite which understands the need for a deep transformation of existing political institutions. It should be understood that this category of people is not fully identified with the Republican Party and the United States party system in general; moreover, the overwhelming majority of these people prefer not to participate in public politics directly, using a wide range of lobbying tools for articulating their opinions and positions. However, it seems that this institution ceases to fully comply with its functions, since the “order” that has matured among industrial magnates, largely dictated by crisis phenomena in the economy, cannot be transmitted through these communication channels - due to the fact that on the restructuring of the key provisions of the American political model that these channels serve. All this together led to a personalized appearance on the political arena of Donald Trump, while in previous electoral cycles he preferred to act solely as a sponsor of political actors he favored.
However, as we have already noted, this was the key mistake of Donald Trump, who, despite his entire outrage, through which he conveys the very understandable, and most importantly, consonant aspirations and desires of both ordinary Americans and parts of the US political elite, ideas and meanings, Remains largely a "dark horse" of the American political process. In addition, the fact that, on the one hand, provides close attention to Trump's figure and the ideas that he voices, on the other hand, plays against him, since it raises serious concerns that in a critical situation, the emotional urge does not prevail over the rational component. With this in mind, it seems that the most successful configuration of the political company of the Republican Party conventionally would be the situation when Donald Trump would give way to a more cautious candidate in the presidential company who could weigh his position and rhetoric more carefully. Moreover, this statement does not necessarily mean the complete elimination of Trump from the political scene and, moreover, from the presidential company. The presence of such an outstanding figure as Donald Trump, also serving in the electoral race, but already as a candidate for vice-president with a more moderate candidate for the highest state post, seems to be optimal. In essence, in this situation, Trump would not only acquire a real position, the functionality of which is slightly inferior to the presidential one, but also retain its influence on the adoption of key policy decisions. Such a “tandem” (forgive us, reader) would be very appropriate in the current political and economic conditions of the United States, because, on the one hand, it would ensure a balanced consideration of issues, and on the other, ensure uncompromising regarding those actions that require radical and no alternative intervention.
Of course, the selection of an alternative candidate to Donald Trump as a candidate for the presidency would have been complicated not so much by a high moral standard, which is given to possible applicants, as by his readiness to unconditionally obey the demands that are put forward by the political establishment, the physical incarnations of which are the person of the presidential candidate . At first glance, the ideal for 100% victory over opponents from the Democratic Party could be the figure of Ted Cruz, the Republican senator from the state of a single star who satisfies a whole set of parameters that Donald Trump doesn’t have or has obvious problems with: enough a young, exemplary family man (unlike Trump, who, although he had lived a rather long period of marriage together with his chosen ones, was still married four times, which characterizes him as an “addicting" person, and this is not x Good for a very pious American society) and, importantly, has considerable experience in state legislative activity as a senator. However, with all its advantages, it also has a number of shortcomings, which, apparently, do not satisfy the ideas of that part of the political elite that nominated Donald Trump as a presidential candidate. Of the most obvious, ambition should be mentioned (previously attempted to become a presidential candidate) and the relative financial autonomy of a Texas cowboy, which automatically turned him into a very difficult to manipulate figure, since the offer of cooperation from the same Trump, albeit formally on terms the latter would have been interpreted by the Republican senator as the weakness of his billionaire opponent, which would only aggravate the struggle between them during the primaries. In addition, in all likelihood, the current conditions of the political sphere require from the presidential candidate not only and not so much blind executiveness, as the presence of faith in the ideals he broadcasts. With this, Ted Cruise, too, seems to have problems, since he positioned himself more as an embodiment of the classical Republican president, like Bush Sr., while the current political-economic situation requires a reformer-president rather than a crusader.
However, those who say that there are no figures completely meeting the given parameters in the American political beau monde are still deeply mistaken. As the events of recent days, associated with the name of the director of the FBI, such candidates are quite possible to find. And, you see, it would be very interesting to see how James Komi goes to the Oval Office hosts, feeling behind him the moral and material support of such an ambiguous, but undoubtedly able to focus on the attention of the philistines of the vice-president, like Donald Trump. However, this did not happen. The reasons for such a development of the situation remain a mystery to us, since they lie more in the plane of individual preferences than in the sphere of objective reasons.
Meanwhile, Donald Trump’s main opponent, Hillary Clinton, has not only a “safety cushion” in the amount of two billion American rubles (and above all not so much financially, but in the face of those patrons who donated these funds to her election campaign, but therefore, they will by all means try to protect their investments, even if it requires additional financial investments), but also with a powerful shield in the face of all sorts of feminist and human rights organizations defending the rights of “oppressed” men shinstv. Despite the fact that these categories of citizens are cumulatively much smaller than the overwhelming majority of “traditional” voters, they are distinguished by a high degree of consolidation, cohesion and “charge” to fight until final victory. This categorical nature largely stems from the failure of 2008 of the year: at that time, only the first woman, a candidate for the presidency of the United States, lost to her party member, Barack Obama. However, if in the 2008 situation of the year, the candidate from the equally oppressed and numerous black population of America was on the opposite side of the scale, which somewhat alleviated the bitterness of defeat, not to mention the primaries procedure, which was not equivalent to full presidential elections, today it is on the other side despised by these categories, a representative of the opposite sex, also known for his frankly sexist position, which a priori serves as a basis for the development of the most negative pleasant scenario for the Democratic Party to announce the recognition of the election is not inconsistent with the Constitution and invalid. And there is no doubt that the voice of these disadvantaged categories of the American public will surely be heard and picked up by an entire media group, especially if they take to the streets to publicly declare their disagreement with the results of the past elections. In this connection, we believe that it is precisely this part of American society that has every chance of becoming the driving force that will be released from the chain if the Republican Party candidate gains an advantage during the voting. At the same time, Donald Trump does not possess such tools, which makes him, and so not too confident, even more unpredictable, because even if he wins, he cannot be sure that he will get the chair of the President of the United States, as required by the US legislation.
The categorical rhetoric abounding in the pre-election speeches of both candidates makes the development of such scenarios very plausible, since the space required to form a single consensus field or at least the variability of the ideological paradigms of the two parts of the American political elite as such is absent. Thus, it is obvious that the outcome of the election of the President of the United States will be decided not by the American people as such. And even the notorious Russian factor in the way in which it is presented by the Western media will not have a conceptual impact here. The outcome of American elections will depend solely on one variable, expressed in whether the political will of that part of the economic and managerial establishment, which advocates the deepening of the globalization of the modern world order, appeals to the masses to take to the world’s paradigms as key for the United States itself, and for the whole world.
We believe, no one will news the fact that the figure of the chief executive in the United States is in many respects the projections of certain political forces in the establishment of the United States, which expresses the will and aspirations of which, in fact, it appears. From this standpoint, the confrontation between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump should be viewed as an opposition between two parts of America’s political and economic elite for the right to dictate and realize the vision of the political, economic, social and ideological world order that they consider to be as satisfying as possible in the United States itself. and in any other part of the world. This aspect was very detailed in our previous discussions. Let me remind you that we, abstracting from putting all sorts of labels like popular categories among publicists, such as neo-ratsxists, globalists, imperialists, and so on, carried out their gradation in accordance with those ideas that dominate the elements of the opposing elements of the American management elite. The first category is conditionally attributed to supporters of the creation of global financial regulators (the priority of the economic component in this vein is largely derived from the winged sayings of Mayer Amschel Rothschild: "Give me the opportunity to print and control the money of the country, and I will not care who writes its laws" ), the second - to the adepts who share the idea of the need to diversify (as far as the term is appropriate in this key) the world capitalist world-system into several large relatively autonomous ohm regions, which draw a source of economic growth in more intensive development of domestic markets. As a result, the articulation of the positions of the first physically embodies Hillary Clinton in his election program, the second - Donald Trump. It is precisely the confrontation between the two categories of the US establishment that we can observe in the struggle of these two candidates for the presidency.
At the same time, it is necessary to understand that there is no question of revising the place and role of America in the world political process either before the first category or the second, because both of them agree in their desire to preserve the existing position of the United States dominant subject of international legal relations. The discrepancies between them are rooted mainly in the set of those methods and methods that are thought of by different categories of the elite as the most optimal for achieving the stated goal. So, if Hillary Clinton categorically declares America’s special status, her otherness, which seems to mean her personal (Hillary) commitment to the current ideals of the unipolar world, then Trump, based on his statements, is ready to reduce the degree of control over some " problem regions of the world, delegating their supervision to other representatives of the international community, but at the same time retaining their influence on those areas of international activity that seem to be of the highest priority. In general, both positions do not imply the exclusion of America from the world political process as a world gendarme, only the sphere of its competence varies, which, however, the world hegemon is free to determine purely individually. Thus, it is the methodological differences in the implementation of this provision, without exaggeration, that are key to understanding the very essence of the differentiation of both the American and the world political and economic elite as a whole.
It is worth noting that until recently the question of the need to regulate capitalist relations was absent as such. Inspired by the success in the struggle with their main opponent - the socially oriented states of the communist sense, capitalism and the social relations generated by them, sung in the works of Francis Fukuyama, seemed unshakable. However, the logic of crisis existence, in which the world capitalist system is today, compels us to turn to those forms of its resolution that previously seemed unacceptable.
I would like to begin my excursion into the American election process primarily with Hillary Clinton, the candidate from the Democratic Party. As you know, even before the start of the primaries, Mrs. Clinton noted that the size of her electoral fund amounted to an unprecedented number - 2,5 billion US dollars. But it was not possible to fully appreciate the true scope of all the power of the Democratic campaigning machine: by the beginning of September, the electoral funds of the candidates for the presidency from both competing parties were approximately equal, making approximately 250 million off the nose. What does this tell us? First of all, that Hillary Clinton, despite such a wide advertising of his person, is also not a figure who suits the political elite of the United States to the maximum extent. How else to explain the fact that the lion’s share of Mrs. Clinton’s money seems to have gone to overcome the primary vote, where opposition was made by Bernie Sanders, a veteran of political battles who didn’t have such an impressive financial base, but had considerable authority within the Democratic Party. Of course, it would be foolish to argue that all of these funds were directly involved in the election campaign. Knowing the specifics of the Russian electoral process, which in terms of the level of corruption and black schemes hardly differs conceptually from a similar procedure in the United States, it is safe to say that any electoral budget can be easily buried under electoral procedures. However, it will not be surprising that some of these funds will end up in the family budget of the Clinton couple. Be that as it may, we can safely say that Mrs. Clinton took at least the same amount of funds for the primaries procedure, which was envisaged for the main stage of the company, but already as a real candidate for the country's presidency. In this regard, even more respect is the person of Bernie Sanders, who, again, was able, with very limited potential, to delay a significant amount of resources and, apparently, health from the main favorite for the presidency of the United States, thereby significantly undermining the initiative of the latter, for unequivocally demonstrated the fact that even in the camp of party members, Mrs. Clinton is at least a lesser, but still evil.
As for the propaganda period of the last two months, then, according to the price list for these goals, Mrs. Clinton remained only a miserable quarter of a billion. How did they dispose of in the electoral headquarters of the Democrats?
As follows from the analytical article by Alexander Nikishin (https://topwar.ru/102073-ssha-predchuvstvie-grazhdanskoy-voyny.html), a miracle did not happen: these funds, like previous financial expenses, were still used extremely inefficiently. This is partly due to the poor health of Hillary Clinton, which she undermined in the framework of the primary vote, but personally the situation seems to us that after receiving the “approval” among the party members, Ms. Clinton was so convinced of her own victory that she simply let the situation take its course. And it should be noted that at that time the hope for the realization of such a favorable outcome of the elections for a candidate from the Democrats had very weighty grounds.
Meanwhile, a pause in Mrs. Clinton’s campaigning array was eagerly filled by her antagonist from the camp of the Republicans Donald Trump. Focusing mainly on his personal funds, rather than on the aggregate budgets of private investors and political associations, he managed, taking advantage of the breathing space of the Clinton team, to significantly strengthen his position, reducing the gap separating them to a minimum. However, his campaign is also not without flaws. First of all, the main and seemingly conceptual mistake of Donald Trump, which could cost him the presidency, is concluded, no matter how paradoxical it sounded, in Donald Trump himself, more precisely, in his selfish desire to act alone as a spokesman for the interests of that part of the United States political elite which understands the need for a deep transformation of existing political institutions. It should be understood that this category of people is not fully identified with the Republican Party and the United States party system in general; moreover, the overwhelming majority of these people prefer not to participate in public politics directly, using a wide range of lobbying tools for articulating their opinions and positions. However, it seems that this institution ceases to fully comply with its functions, since the “order” that has matured among industrial magnates, largely dictated by crisis phenomena in the economy, cannot be transmitted through these communication channels - due to the fact that on the restructuring of the key provisions of the American political model that these channels serve. All this together led to a personalized appearance on the political arena of Donald Trump, while in previous electoral cycles he preferred to act solely as a sponsor of political actors he favored.
However, as we have already noted, this was the key mistake of Donald Trump, who, despite his entire outrage, through which he conveys the very understandable, and most importantly, consonant aspirations and desires of both ordinary Americans and parts of the US political elite, ideas and meanings, Remains largely a "dark horse" of the American political process. In addition, the fact that, on the one hand, provides close attention to Trump's figure and the ideas that he voices, on the other hand, plays against him, since it raises serious concerns that in a critical situation, the emotional urge does not prevail over the rational component. With this in mind, it seems that the most successful configuration of the political company of the Republican Party conventionally would be the situation when Donald Trump would give way to a more cautious candidate in the presidential company who could weigh his position and rhetoric more carefully. Moreover, this statement does not necessarily mean the complete elimination of Trump from the political scene and, moreover, from the presidential company. The presence of such an outstanding figure as Donald Trump, also serving in the electoral race, but already as a candidate for vice-president with a more moderate candidate for the highest state post, seems to be optimal. In essence, in this situation, Trump would not only acquire a real position, the functionality of which is slightly inferior to the presidential one, but also retain its influence on the adoption of key policy decisions. Such a “tandem” (forgive us, reader) would be very appropriate in the current political and economic conditions of the United States, because, on the one hand, it would ensure a balanced consideration of issues, and on the other, ensure uncompromising regarding those actions that require radical and no alternative intervention.
Of course, the selection of an alternative candidate to Donald Trump as a candidate for the presidency would have been complicated not so much by a high moral standard, which is given to possible applicants, as by his readiness to unconditionally obey the demands that are put forward by the political establishment, the physical incarnations of which are the person of the presidential candidate . At first glance, the ideal for 100% victory over opponents from the Democratic Party could be the figure of Ted Cruz, the Republican senator from the state of a single star who satisfies a whole set of parameters that Donald Trump doesn’t have or has obvious problems with: enough a young, exemplary family man (unlike Trump, who, although he had lived a rather long period of marriage together with his chosen ones, was still married four times, which characterizes him as an “addicting" person, and this is not x Good for a very pious American society) and, importantly, has considerable experience in state legislative activity as a senator. However, with all its advantages, it also has a number of shortcomings, which, apparently, do not satisfy the ideas of that part of the political elite that nominated Donald Trump as a presidential candidate. Of the most obvious, ambition should be mentioned (previously attempted to become a presidential candidate) and the relative financial autonomy of a Texas cowboy, which automatically turned him into a very difficult to manipulate figure, since the offer of cooperation from the same Trump, albeit formally on terms the latter would have been interpreted by the Republican senator as the weakness of his billionaire opponent, which would only aggravate the struggle between them during the primaries. In addition, in all likelihood, the current conditions of the political sphere require from the presidential candidate not only and not so much blind executiveness, as the presence of faith in the ideals he broadcasts. With this, Ted Cruise, too, seems to have problems, since he positioned himself more as an embodiment of the classical Republican president, like Bush Sr., while the current political-economic situation requires a reformer-president rather than a crusader.
However, those who say that there are no figures completely meeting the given parameters in the American political beau monde are still deeply mistaken. As the events of recent days, associated with the name of the director of the FBI, such candidates are quite possible to find. And, you see, it would be very interesting to see how James Komi goes to the Oval Office hosts, feeling behind him the moral and material support of such an ambiguous, but undoubtedly able to focus on the attention of the philistines of the vice-president, like Donald Trump. However, this did not happen. The reasons for such a development of the situation remain a mystery to us, since they lie more in the plane of individual preferences than in the sphere of objective reasons.
Meanwhile, Donald Trump’s main opponent, Hillary Clinton, has not only a “safety cushion” in the amount of two billion American rubles (and above all not so much financially, but in the face of those patrons who donated these funds to her election campaign, but therefore, they will by all means try to protect their investments, even if it requires additional financial investments), but also with a powerful shield in the face of all sorts of feminist and human rights organizations defending the rights of “oppressed” men shinstv. Despite the fact that these categories of citizens are cumulatively much smaller than the overwhelming majority of “traditional” voters, they are distinguished by a high degree of consolidation, cohesion and “charge” to fight until final victory. This categorical nature largely stems from the failure of 2008 of the year: at that time, only the first woman, a candidate for the presidency of the United States, lost to her party member, Barack Obama. However, if in the 2008 situation of the year, the candidate from the equally oppressed and numerous black population of America was on the opposite side of the scale, which somewhat alleviated the bitterness of defeat, not to mention the primaries procedure, which was not equivalent to full presidential elections, today it is on the other side despised by these categories, a representative of the opposite sex, also known for his frankly sexist position, which a priori serves as a basis for the development of the most negative pleasant scenario for the Democratic Party to announce the recognition of the election is not inconsistent with the Constitution and invalid. And there is no doubt that the voice of these disadvantaged categories of the American public will surely be heard and picked up by an entire media group, especially if they take to the streets to publicly declare their disagreement with the results of the past elections. In this connection, we believe that it is precisely this part of American society that has every chance of becoming the driving force that will be released from the chain if the Republican Party candidate gains an advantage during the voting. At the same time, Donald Trump does not possess such tools, which makes him, and so not too confident, even more unpredictable, because even if he wins, he cannot be sure that he will get the chair of the President of the United States, as required by the US legislation.
The categorical rhetoric abounding in the pre-election speeches of both candidates makes the development of such scenarios very plausible, since the space required to form a single consensus field or at least the variability of the ideological paradigms of the two parts of the American political elite as such is absent. Thus, it is obvious that the outcome of the election of the President of the United States will be decided not by the American people as such. And even the notorious Russian factor in the way in which it is presented by the Western media will not have a conceptual impact here. The outcome of American elections will depend solely on one variable, expressed in whether the political will of that part of the economic and managerial establishment, which advocates the deepening of the globalization of the modern world order, appeals to the masses to take to the world’s paradigms as key for the United States itself, and for the whole world.
Information