“Today the colonies of Great Britain are the whole world”
- Nikolai Viktorovich, during World War II, in exchange for military supplies, England gave almost all of its gold reserves to America, and after the war, Great Britain as an empire fell apart. What is the role of London today in the system of international relations? Still the main - or secondary and subordinate? Do the United States and Britain have fundamental contradictions or do they "play the same tune"?
- If you will describe history football, then by all means tell about the Brazilian national team. If you tell the history of hockey, your story will begin with victories of the Canadian and Soviet teams, you will not avoid mentioning the teams of Czechoslovakia and Sweden, at a certain stage the Finnish team will join them and so on. What is it about? The fact that in any sport has its recognized leaders. Similarly, in a political game that has been going on for several centuries, there are winners and outsiders. And my books are not an “ode” to any country or group of people. This is a statement of facts that have developed over the past three centuries. And the facts are that the UK, managed by bankers - the owners of the Bank of England and later - the Federal Reserve System, in other words - the world "banking backstage", more than others achieved success in formatting the geopolitical space.
Did they have a solid success? Not. Winning tactical battles, they constantly lost strategically and several times over the centuries were on the verge of death. And only a combination of circumstances helped them survive. I mean the situation of 1941 year, when Hitler drove the British to the islands and could very well end their power. The situation of 50-ies, when they were defeated after defeat on the world stage, driven out of Asia, where the Communists won in China, Vietnam, and the Americans, the closest partners of the British, at the same time had to chase from the Philippines, from Indonesia and so on . You can recall the beginning of 80-x, when the Soviet Union won the economic race.
As for today's relations between Great Britain and the United States, I must say that the Anglo-Saxons constantly absorbed various nations and states into their orbit, deprived them of their sovereignty and forced them to act in their own interests. Including the United States, which at one time broke away from Great Britain, but then was again put under the "banners of the queen." It happened at the time of the creation of the Federal Reserve System (in 1913, on the eve of the First World War, which resulted in the disappearance of the four largest monarchies in Europe - Russian, German, Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman, and the British reached the peak of their power - ed.) . And today, the United States is such a big body, with the help of which bankers bring order in the world to them. At the same time, the control structures, the brain, in my opinion, are far from being in the USA. (In general, it seems to me that the words “USA” and “brain” do not really fit in with each other). Talking about the fact that Great Britain as a world power has broken up is deeply erroneous. She just formally released the freedom of the colony. Today, the colonies of Great Britain are a whole world; the British see their function as a world hegemon in this way.
- Judging by your books, England constantly bought "friends", their fleets and armies to fight with their enemies. Where did she have so much money?
- I wrote about this in one of my books “The nationalization of the ruble is the path to the freedom of Russia”. The invention of the bankers was that they began to issue money without tying them to the real wealth, which at that time - in 1694 (the date of creation of the Bank of England - Ed.) - were gold and silver. They began to draw money, create it out of thin air, in the form of paper notes of the Bank of England. With these IOUs, they paid for their “contractors”. Gradually, the British were in a very difficult financial situation, and if not for the defeat of Napoleon, they could go bankrupt and turn into a secondary state. But they managed to carry out a coup d'état in the Russian Empire, kill the conspirators Paul the First and completely change the situation when two continental powers - Russia and France - jointly opposed the sea giant of that time - England. And she slipped along the razor's edge, a hair from death. I consider the details of the murder of Paul in my book “Geopolitics. How it's done".
- You tell that England was behind the deaths of many Russian rulers - not only Paul the First, but Peter the Great, Catherine the First, Peter the Third, Alexander the Second, Alexander the Third, Nicholas the Second. Are these assumptions or are there any documents that allow making such conclusions?
- There are documents. The fact that the British killed Paul I, at the moment - a proven historical fact. You can find these facts, for example, in the writings of the founder of geopolitics, American admiral Mahan - he tells in detail how things were, what anti-British steps the Russian emperor took and what could have led to this. When the Russian tsar was killed, the situation changed diametrically. As for the shooting of the family of Nicholas II, it is known that the UK refused to accept it, simulating the situation so that the Romanovs did not get out alive outside Russia.
If we talk about the murder of Alexander the Third, then logic works here. Those who killed his father, Alexander II, received money from the UK, and the plans of these Popular Democrats were absolutely comparable with the plans of the Stalinist Trotskyites or today's belolentochnikov: the dismemberment of Russia, the loss of entire territories. If we study the facts and understand who would benefit at one time or another, the death of a Russian ruler, it turns out that there are not so many beneficiaries. And there is always an external force that does not like strong, resolute, strong-willed Russian rulers.
Russia began to struggle from the very moment when it became a dangerous competitor. Prior to this, the United Kingdom fought in the same way with other competitors — Spain, France. And won. If she had lost, with the ambitions of Peter the Great and the Russian emperors following him would have fought from Paris.
- You really write that London has always been the refuge of the enemies of Russia — the fugitive revolutionaries (Herzen, Lenin), the source and sponsor of the revolutionary contagion (the Decembrists, the People of the Volga, the Bolsheviks, Trotsky). Nowadays, London welcomes the runaway Russian oligarchs. Does England continue to create revolutionary bacteria and distribute them in Russia today? Please name the names of today's Russian revolutionaries raised by England.
- It is difficult for me to separate the revolutionaries grown by England from the revolutionaries grown by her American colleagues. For Russia, these microbes are equally harmful, I do not think that they should be divided into species. Need "antibiotics" to destroy all at once. Do they act today? Yes. Example literally from a tape News: in Moscow and St. Petersburg, emissaries of the Hizb ut-Tahrir terrorist organization were detained, who delivered sermons directly in mosques, addressing Muslims living in Russia, guest workers, calling for, to put it mildly, illegal actions. See where the Hizb ut-Tahrir headquarters is located. In London. Where does this organization come from to call for jihad, to train terrorists, and in the long term - the Islamic revolution in Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan? From saudi arabia? Maybe. But do you really admit that Saudi Arabia, and even less so a tiny state like Qatar, are international players? So that they convince their British partners not to notice the headquarters of a terrorist organization very similar to al-Qaeda on their territory. As soon as you ask yourself about it, everything will become obvious. So when we talk about revolutionaries, we don’t need to think only about Alexei Navalny. Look wider. They sponsor everyone who can destroy their rivals in the long run, sponsor even their potential enemies. As was the case with Hitler, through whom they thought to control the German war machine, hoping that it would not fall on England.
"The governing structures, the brain is far from being in the USA"
- The thought runs through your work: almost any anti-government speech in Russia is inspired by its ill-wishers, primarily the UK, in order to “educate [the Russians] hatred of their state.” You adhere to the same idea when you talk about the “swamp opposition”. Have the Russian orders always been so good, and the leaders so clever, fair and just, that the protest grew artificially, from somewhere from abroad? Do you think that the subjects of the Russian Empire, the USSR and the Russian Federation did not have and there are no compelling reasons to protest? Why do you not admit that a revolution in our country is an objective straightening of the spring, which was compressed during times of political reaction?
- I do not know the countries that have never had problems, at the head of which have always stood the worthiest and smartest people. Maybe it is the Greeks impoverished today? Or the Americans, some of whom are besieged by the manifestations of Wall Street? Or the Spaniards, whose 25% do not have a job and for the time being, but only so far, can still feed the European Union? There are always problems, with everyone, in any society, under any authority. They were under Nicholas II, under Lenin and under Stalin. Objective problems are sometimes aggravated by situational components like war, famine, natural disasters, as well as the stupidity of some leaders. But without external influence on these natural problems, there have never been any revolutions, with the possible exception of Cuban, in the world.
What has changed in Russia between 1913 and 1917 years? Yes, the war with millions of victims. But this does not mean that in Russia in 1917, they starved more than in Germany, in France or in the United Kingdom. Moreover, cards in the UK and in France appeared earlier than in Russia. Our cards were introduced by the Provisional Government. It was this that turned on the printing press, allowed the ruble to fall, its solvency, and destroyed the country's economy. All the trials came after the February Revolution, not before it, and were the result of the revolution, not its causes. And if we study the mechanism of this revolution, it turns out that the conspirators went to the very same British embassy, which the leaders of the “swamp opposition” are going to today.
Imagine: if today in the World Cup the price of a loss would be the same as in the ball game of the ancient Maya? When the captain of the team of losers, or even the whole team was dragged to the pyramid and sacrificed. Probably, then the management of a rival team would try with all their might to prevent an intelligent coach from their opponents, but on the contrary, would push the confused coach. It would cause chaos, quarrel between other players, in order to simply survive. This must be understood: geopolitics are not abstract chess games of highbrow intellectuals, it is a way of survival of civilizations and peoples, when all means are good, including revolutions. There are always problems, but a revolution occurs when gasoline is poured into this fire from abroad.
Look closely: in the US, no one is trying to bring about a revolution; No matter how tight and no matter how many demonstrators go to occupy Wall Street, there will be no revolution. And London rioters who smash shops and fight with the police, no one taught to raise posters: "Down with the bloody regime of the queen!". Therefore, there everything is limited to ordinary hooligan actions.
"Talking about remorse of American politicians is naive and ridiculous"
- Nikolai Viktorovich, you are convincingly writing that the US Federal Reserve, owned by individuals, is almost uncontrollably printing dollars that are not backed by gold. On this paper, the army and the navy are being built, wars are being fought, resources are being bought all over the world, pro-American regimes are being created. And who owns the Fed? Who exactly is the “master of the world”?
- It seems to me that the matter is not in the names, they do not interest me. The fact is that we know which organizations really control world politics.
- We learn from your books, that in due time, in order to raise the demand for dollars and get out of the crisis, the USA made huge investments in China. China has become a global factory, and America is the main market for Chinese products. Then came the turn of the dollarization of Russia. Who will be the next victim? Are there still weak countries in the world with cheap labor and rich natural resources?
- I think that the next victim would have become Mars and Jupiter, if there was life. Then the aliens would be explained that they only need to drink Coca-Cola, buy only green pieces of paper with portraits of American presidents and build only multi-party democracy. But there is one small problem - life on Mars has not yet been found, which means there is no place to merge American debt securities. On Earth, further inflate the economic bubble, which created the United States, for a long time nowhere. On our planet, this bubble covers almost the entire life. And North Korea’s dollarization will prolong the life of the agonizing system of minutes on 15, it’s like an elephant’s grain. Another thing is the Soviet Union and the entire socialist world, which was swallowed up by the Americans in the 90-s.
"There is nowhere to inflate the economic bubble that the United States has created"
- America, whose external debts have gone too far beyond the annual GDP, is faced with a growing distrust of the dollar. The states, forced by the pressure of the American military power to buy dollars as an international unit of account and support the demand for them (Russia does that), are increasingly thinking about creating other world currencies to trade with each other. Do you think America is capable of unleashing new wars in order to provoke a flight of world capital into a dollar against this background?
“I think instead of searching for life outside our Universe, Americans, being practical people, will really choose the option of starting a big war that can solve the big problems of a big financial system. No bombing of a single Libya will solve anything for Americans. It will turn out in the USA or not, we will see, probably, during our life. In this case, America will not fight itself. According to all previous scenarios, it must either stand aside or enter the fray at the very last moment, as it was during World War I and how it happened to World War II to a certain extent. Especially since the combat capability of the American army today rests only on the “good old” Anglo-Saxon principle: they are brave and warlike, only when they have machine guns, and those who oppose them have spears. In the same way as the British shot defenseless Zulus, today the Americans are trying to throw rockets at the state, which can not answer.
- Is it possible for America to use nuclear weapons?
- It is problematic to use nuclear weapons, for example, against the “bloody regime” of Bashar al-Assad, because they will have to explain to the whole world what kind of Syrians they have defended from Al-Assad if they have reduced all Syrians to ashes with a single nuclear strike. It is unlikely that they could explain this strange situation. Therefore, they cannot deliver a nuclear attack on small states. If such a blow is dealt to large states, there is a risk of getting "in the opposite direction". Therefore, I would not take nuclear weapons into account when analyzing dangers and risks for our state. This is like honey in Winnie the Pooh: he seems to be there, but he is not there. But if we are so stupid and naive that we disarm or allow the Americans to build a missile defense system like a clock, then, of course, they will be able to strike a nuclear strike on us. Talking about the remorse of conscience among American politicians is naive and ridiculous. For those who have forgotten: the United States already used nuclear weapons in 1945.
"In the spiritual realm, we definitely do not need any modernization."
- Recently, in an interview with Znak.com, your associate in the Izborsk club, economist Mikhail Khazin, said that the World Bank and the IMF plan to further strengthen the position of the dollar, the Rothschilds opposing them - for creating new world currencies; the liberal part of the Russian elite (Voloshin, Chubais, Medvedev) - for the IMF and globalization, the Putinists - for the Rothschilds and Russia's economic independence; between these groups is a struggle for power. Do you share such a picture?
- As I said, I would not use in vain the names of the Rothschilds, the Rockefellers and other hired managers, including Russian ones. It is, in principle, about leaving the world financial system in its present form or transforming it. Of course, there are forces that would like to maintain the status quo by unleashing a mass of regional and major international conflict. There are also "pigeons" who agree to change the current financial configuration of the world in order, on the contrary, to avoid war. In this sense, the most expedient way is to expand the list of reserve currencies at the expense of the yuan and the ruble. Here I agree with Mikhail Khazin.
- That year we hear: modernization, modernization. But you can upgrade in different ways. You can take everything away from everyone, put them in camps and modernize - quickly and cheaply - at the expense of cheap and obedient workmen. You can create an attractive investment climate, protect private property, improve the work of security forces and courts, reduce the state’s presence in the economy and the state apparatus itself, develop federalism (Medvedev wrote about it in his recent article in Vedomosti), democratizing the political system. What do you think, which option will Putin choose?
- The reader asking this question, it seems to me, is not quite familiar with the policy of our "partners." Here are the measures that the reader gave with a minus sign in China are not implemented? And what measures, which the reader gave with a plus sign, are implemented in China? Is the Chinese economy developing? Or is everyone waiting for China to improve the investment climate? Maybe investors will come to China only after the appearance of a dozen of various parties there? Maybe, in protest against the harassment of unconventional sexual minorities and shootings at corrupt stadiums, investors will close their factories in China? For some reason it seems to me that they will simply turn off the channel of Chinese television, which is broadcast live this broadcast.
You do not need to think that the capitalists have any principles, - Karl Marx spoke very well about this. There is only a desire to earn as soon as possible and as much as possible, that's all. Maybe they are inactive go to Russia, because the system, built with us, does not give them such an opportunity? After all, what is today's investor? Is he building a factory? No, he buys some stocks, hoping to resell them later for profit. Simply put, it is a parasite that does not create anything. And we need those investors who are not going to play on the stock exchange (because everything is virtual and has no relation to real life), but to build factories and bring new technologies here. In different areas. For example, in the field of mining. As Germany did, which transferred gas to the USSR in exchange for gas, which were not produced in the Soviet Union - this was the way the famous pipeline to Europe was built in the 70s of the last century.
Further, it is impossible to demand the development of the economy, as in China, while maintaining the situation in the political sphere, which is still present in Russia. If you want the same economic growth rate as in China, the country should have the same order as in China. Including - in the political sphere. Then the order will be followed in the economy. In China, people are being shot for stealing a serious amount of state funds, which is why Chinese corrupt officials also flee to London and the United States, the same picture there. They only steal less than ours, and shoot them more often, and they are much less willing to repeat their “heroic way” in China than we do. There, on television, they talk not about inmates in London, not about how wonderful they are “prisoners of conscience”, but about people of labor. So let's first define what we want. You can not be a little pregnant. If we want to modify our economy in a short time and make it modern, then we must appropriately transform our political system, without this growth, as in China, is simply impossible.
"If you want Chinese economic growth, the political order should be the same"
- Will Putin, in principle, be engaged in modernization? He is a supporter of cautious steps, but decisive and operational measures are needed. Do you personally, Nikolai Viktorovich, have any hopes that the current generation of Russian leaders will restore order?
- The current generation of leaders of the country is already engaged in establishing order. But with a certain speed, which is fully consistent with the contradictory desires that are poured in our society. Any leader of the country should be guided by the opinion of his people. And he, the people, still wants results, as in China, and methods, as in today's Russia.
- It is obvious that the country, the state, the people who will show mankind how to overcome deadly diseases, hunger and thirst, how to escape from the oil curse and environmental threats, how to dramatically increase the exchange rate of goods and information will receive leadership in the world. Do you know any similar groundwork in Russia? Or are we already doomed only to pump raw materials in all directions?
- I risk not to please the reader who asked this question. I can write, perhaps, with a dozen of such beautiful phrases and sentences, this will have nothing to do with real life, with real politics. No political forces, no states are going to fight hunger and thirst on a global scale. And the sale of humanitarian agricultural aid is one of the means of subjugating the whole continents of the USA. No one in the world is going to move away from the “oil curse,” because it is control over oil resources that allows the Americans and the British to control entire nations.
Do not be naive. Russia's proposal to get rid of the "oil curse" smacks of a suicidal smell. Oil and gas is not only our wealth and wealth, it is our weapon. Does a dear reader really want to invent some piece that will allow Europe to be heated without the use of our resources? Then first let him find work for several million fellow citizens. I think they will listen with pleasure to his suggestions and thoughts about what they will do and how they will feed their families. I think they will also have a lot of "proposals" addressed to a person who expresses himself with such beautiful phrases, but does not want to realize the possible sad consequences of this "beauty."
- What, besides natural resources and the military machine, to which trillions of rubles are now being sent, can ensure Russia's competitiveness in the world?
- Answers should be sought, above all, in the spiritual realm. The coming century will definitely be the century of spirituality. Look: only Russia with its heightened sense of justice can take off her last shirt and break in half the last piece of bread. Only the Soviet Union built schools in Afghanistan and treated people (the Americans simply bombed and do not bother with any moral scruples). Except for us, no one in the world does this - because we have left the world for a while and are only now returning. And as long as we are in a state of weakness, no one will solve these problems.
But the universal moral degradation will lead to the fact that the people who have not lost their moral guidelines, will favorably differ from others. We already see: some two decades have passed, and against the background of Europe, Russia is not something that does not look somehow unattractive - on the contrary, every year it becomes more attractive. So, thinking about new industrialization, we should not forget about the preservation of our spiritual traditions, our foundations, our morality. Here in this area, we definitely do not need any modernization.
- Europe has long been torn between Britain and Russia. The most vivid examples are Napoleon and Hitler. Which of the European countries are included today in the "English club", and which - in the pro-Russian? Which of these “clubs” does Germany belong to - the heart of continental Europe?
- The pro-Russian club was called the “Warsaw Pact” and was dissolved by Mikhail Gorbachev. Unilaterally, without any need and without guarantees of the dissolution of NATO. This is the most real betrayal. The stupidity of such "crystal purity" in nature simply does not happen. Today, the pro-Russian club in Europe does not exist. Today, the club of countries united by common interests, with the participation of Russia is called BRICS, and we are the only European countries out there. Europe is focused on the one who is stronger. The strongest at the moment - the United States and the United Kingdom. When someone else becomes strong, and I hope that this will be Russia, the orientation of European states will change. There are no principles - there is one desire, like a woman: lean on a strong shoulder, that's all.
- How do you assess the reality of the bloc of Germany, Russia and China, when the first would be a source of technology and investment, the second - energy resources, the third - production and labor, and together they would “hold” practically all of Eurasia and Africa? Or are the countries listed too dependent on the United States?
- Today such a scheme is from the area of good wishes, it is not yet possible. But who knows what configurations the world political system will take in ten years? Wait and see. In the world there have been the most bizarre political alliances - there would be corresponding prerequisites, for example, in the form of leaders in power.
- And if the USA and the West are so strong and powerful in general, maybe we should adopt their orders and be friends with them, and not with Syria and Iran?
“Maybe you didn’t notice, but we are already more than 20 years old, having adopted their orders and even tried to be friends with them.” But let me say that friendship is a process of non-resistance of the two sides. We wanted to be friends with the United States and Europe, maybe we still want to be friends. But from their side there is no such desire; they do not consider us equal to themselves. In this situation, it is possible to continue to implement their pseudo-values in their own lives, destroy their industry in favor of the International Monetary Fund and carry out all sorts of reforms to reduce population, as we are constantly advised from there. But what's the point?
As for Syria, for centuries it has never been an ally of Russia, until 1946, this state was not physically, and only in Soviet times, Syria, yes, focused on the USSR. Today we were united by the actions of those with whom the dear reader is going to be friends. We are returning to the Middle East after the collapse of the Soviet Union, because what Americans are doing there directly threatens the security of not only Syria, but also our own security. We were united in Syria with a common danger.
If you do not want to be friends with Iran - for God's sake, but this will again lead to the fact that the United States will bring a pro-American regime there to power, which will bring down the price of oil, and you, dear reader, who wants to be friends with the US, will again be in a difficult situation. economic situation. Iran is one of the largest oil fields and the largest gas reserves. After gaining control over Iran, the West will be able, instead of buying gas from us, to bring down prices for it.
Thus, our friendship with Iran is not due to ideological intimacy, not religious principles, but a pragmatic desire to support the prices of the goods we trade in - gas and oil. In the world, politicians are generally friends based not on skin color or talk of freedom and fraternity, but of simple, understandable economic and geopolitical interests. I propose to pick up friends on the basis of common sense and certainly not to be friends with those who do not want to be friends with us.
Recall the situation with our diplomat in Holland. A meeting of the BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa - ed.) Is being held in Bali; it is about expanding the authorized capital and the objectives of the Development Bank of these countries. And on the same day in the Netherlands, unknown people in camouflage beat up and handcuff a Russian diplomat. After all, this can not be just a "Dutch mess." No sane policeman will ever get involved with a diplomat, because he can be dismissed for such behavior, as he really quarrels between two states. Any sane policeman will call his boss and ask: what to do? This police chief will call the next boss. And so in any country. And if the police do not look at the diplomatic certificates, it means that they got the installation - come, beat, put our diplomat in the monkey house and make the most of the fun. The injured diplomat spoke on Russian television the other day. He has a big bruise under his eye! That is, "on the face" violation of all conceivable laws of diplomacy. This is a direct pressure on Russia, as they say, “classics of the genre”.
And what about the USA’s constant desire, without asking Russia, to deploy along its borders the antimissile system, allegedly against Iran’s missiles, which it does not have? And what about the regular US attempts to interfere in our internal affairs and finance the opposition? Do friends do that? Why should friendship always be at our expense? So let them first show their friendly attitude towards us in deed, and not in words. Only after this and we will go on friendship.