Here, for example, unrest in Thailand, which unfold simultaneously with the Ukrainian buchey. The local opposition, the People’s Council for Democratic Reform (NSDD), comes up with a rather original program that can surprise even the most sophisticated political scientist. NSDD leader Suthep Thiaksuban declares: “We do not set the task of postponing the election to another date, as some people think. Such a transfer will not satisfy us at all. We set ourselves the task of completely canceling the elections for an indefinite period, until political reform is carried out. Until then, we, the people, will not allow any of the politicians to come to power. ”
And what is this political reform? Maybe it aims to expand democracy, which opposition politicians in different countries love to talk about? No, not at all! It turns out that the liberal opposition demands "a legislative ban on populism" and also "an end to the dictates of majority in parliament and in politics." And the “majority” that “dictates” are the inhabitants of the province, due to their low income and lack of education, they are not yet mature to parliament and democracy. Hence another requirement - the introduction of a selective qualification.
This program aroused the lively interest of Y. Latynina with her liberal views, who already noted that “The Thai revolution, or rather, the Thai opposition, as I understand it, is the first opposition in the XXI century, which put forward the requirement of depriving universal suffrage, which put forward the demand introducing educational and property qualifications. ” This interest is understandable, Latynina and herself to the qualifications of restrictions "breathes unevenly." In 2011, Novaya Gazeta published her article “Europe, you went nuts!”. There you could read such wonderful, truly liberal thoughts: “We are also told that democracy is a European value and a European conquest; that this is the most awesomely good regime, and at the same time, democracy means universal suffrage. Who is against universal suffrage is a fascist, a scoundrel, and in general is a reptile. Now, for a minute, I will refrain from assessing the efficiency of universal suffrage in any Ghana or Palestine, but here’s the problem: what does universal suffrage have to do with traditional European values? ... In the West, during its heyday, various modes were presented ... But universal suffrage was not decisively neither in Great Britain nor in the USA, and Thomas Macaulay, a historian and member of the British parliament, wrote in the middle of the 19th century that this concept was “completely incompatible with the existence of civilization”. The first time universal suffrage was introduced in France during the Great French Revolution and ended with a guillotine and terror; the second time (for men) he was introduced by the Iron Chancellor Bismarck in the German Empire in 1871, wanting to dilute the free-thinking of the German owners with chauvinistic frenzy of brainless masses. The census began to decline, and the right to vote began to spread to the poor after the First World War, and it finally became universal after the Second World War, under the influence of socialist ideology. In all the poor countries in which they tried to introduce it - in Africa itself, universal suffrage led to the redistribution of property, the spread of religious and national fanaticism, and ended in dictatorship. " (http://www.novayagazeta.ru/politics/48064.html)
It may be objected that Latynina’s opinion is her opinion and it is hardly worth paying attention to any “extravagant” judgment expressed in a liberal newspaper. However, ideas here, as they say, are in the air. When discussing an article on Radio Liberty, 58% of callers listened for the idea of introducing qualifications. Observers also saw some sympathy for price restrictions from the Chairman of Business Russia, B. Titov, who wrote in the same 2011 year: “The father of the Singapore miracle, Lee Kuan Yew, said that“ in matters of democracy, it is important to remember that in order to create open political competition and free media requires that 40 – 50% of the population belong to the middle class, that is, have incomes above $ 5 thousand per month and are well educated. ” And here I fully agree with Mr. Yu. Both America and Europe on the way to universal suffrage went through a long period of electoral qualifications, and in many countries with it the electoral process for a long time differed little from what is happening now in our country. ” (http://izvestia.ru/news/511057#ixzz2riBEAsgY)
The demand of the Thai opposition should not be considered a fad of local opposition politicians. In politics, in general, nothing is done just like that, everything has a certain meaning, is a definite signal. It is very likely that some new technology is being driven around in Thailand, designed to bring the democracies of the world back to their original qualifications. If you think about it, then it is very logical to choose some not too “advanced” country in the “third world” and experiment with it. Well, and then, if everything goes well, try to introduce price limits in other, more “advanced” countries. In principle, this would be in the best way possible for the interests of the current elites, who have long been making a neoliberal turn, accompanied by the folding of social guarantees and the reduction of the middle class. It is clear that democracy here becomes undesirable, after all, it’s unchallenged that “cattle” who imagines about itself can use its mechanisms for its own purposes. While this is not so bad, but the global crisis of capitalism promises to worsen, and this will require a powerful crackdown.
It should be noted here that projects of folding democracy have been developed for a long time, the earliest since the 1970-s, when world elitist people with great displeasure observed the growth of social movements in the world. In 1975, prominent Western intellectuals (S. Huntington and others) compile a report, The Crisis of Democracy, commissioned by one of the centers of mondialism, the Trilateral Commission. It directly indicates that democracy (as, incidentally, the state of social welfare) are beginning to threaten the ruling elite. There is no external threat, in the opinion of the authors, but there is an internal threat based on the dynamics of the development of democracy. “Conclusion: it is necessary to promote the non-involvement of the masses in politics, the development of a certain apathy,” writes A.I. Fursov. “It is necessary, they say, to moderate democracy, based on the fact that it is only a way of organizing power, and not at all universal.” ("Man-made crisis")
Against the background of such analytical revelations, the idea of returning to “price democracy” doesn’t look so fantastic, does it? Moreover, actual political forces are also behind this, albeit so far on the Asian periphery of global capitalism. Of course, if it was the will of the elites, they would never refuse to qualify, and continued to hold the majority in the position of submissive wage earners. However, too powerful forces were awakened by capitalization and the industrial revolution. In the 19 century, not only the democratic and socialist intelligentsia, but also the middle bourgeoisie made a fair vote for the provision of electoral rights to the widest possible circle, thereby annoying the elite elite. The serpent of capitalism painfully bit its tail and had to make democratic strides. Well, and then build such a hated "welfare state", which is now in every way trying to break.
It is obvious that a feudal lord woke up in the elitist, who always dreamed of complete power over slaves and complete freedom from all government restrictions. For many centuries, this feudal lord fought a tough battle with the monarchs, who, on the contrary, tried to limit his freedom, often relying on the support of the “common people”. The classic example is Ivan the Terrible, who “was angry” at the boyars, but appealing to the townspeople. He is often represented as a kind of executioner, who cut the heads of the unfortunate boyars, however, sources indicate that it was a question of a real war, in which Grozny was confronted by well-armed and numerous feudal troops. A. Tyurin in his monograph "The War and Peace of Ivan the Terrible" gives an excellent description of the struggle against Prince Ivan Petrovich Chelyadinov. Albert Schlichting reports: "... Many noblemen, approximately 30 people, with Prince Ivan Petrovich ... led by ... pledged in writing that they would give the Grand Duke together with his guardsmen to your royal highness, if only your royal highness moved into the country" (it is about King Sigismund II Augustus).
A well-known author, a foreigner, Heinrich Staden, describes the defeat of the conspiracy: "And the Grand Duke, along with his guardsmen, went and burned all the lands belonging to the aforementioned Ivan Petrovich across the country."
And here is A. Tyurin's apt remark: “In this description we see a quick and intelligent elimination of the threat. The estates of Ivan Petrovich are not country dachas, but feudal possessions located in Bezhetsk Upper and other regions of the country, with numerous military servants and battle slaves. According to the synodics analyzed by Skrynnikov, 293 military servants and 50-60 nobles Chelyadnin-Fedorov died during the oprichnich raid, but the peasants did not suffer. ”
In Europe, the elitist managed to accumulate sufficient resources to defeat the monarchs. What is one Freemasonry, which initially functioned as the initiatory organization of the builders, but over time became weapons in the hands of rebellious aristocrats "! As a result, autocracy in Europe was destroyed, and puppet parliamentary “monarchies” or putocratic republics took its place. Obstacles to the enrichment of the elite upper classes were removed, which, by and large, was the triumph of feudalism.
In his interesting constructions, G. Cemal argues about the existence of a certain “Traditionalist Club”, which includes the apex of traditional society, which retained, if not power, then influence: “The First and especially the Second World Wars pushed them a little bit, they are forced to retreat from the front stage behind the scenes , but they exist, and they exist very effectively. Suffice it to say that all transnational corporations, boards of directors are titled people, they are representatives of dynasties, both current and retired. This is a traditional club that includes the Dalai Lama, the Pope, the monarchist houses of Europe and not only Europe, because the British monarchy created the system, or the mycelium of the aristocracy as a party around the world, which includes the Hashemite dynasty and the Sultan of Brunei, and Raja Hindustan, and Mikado Japan. This is a colossal mycelium, which is not obvious in its influence, in its resources for the general public, but, nevertheless, these resources, this influence are enormous. ” ("Political Theology")
The feudal elite retained and multiplied its power, and spread it to new lands. First of all, in the USA, which, although they are considered the most democratic democracy, however, it is ruled by the descendants of noble families. In this regard, it is necessary to turn to the studies of the American author D. Ike (“The Greatest Secret”), who made many interesting observations. Although he overdoes with conspiracy, but social reality is fixed quite accurately, so you can’t argue: “If you research the genealogy of American presidents, you will be amazed. All presidential elections, starting with George Washington at 1789, were won by the most “purebred" candidates, and the benchmark is European Royal Blood. Of the 42 presidents who preceded Bill Clinton, 33 was genetically linked to two people — Alfred the Great, King of England, and Charlemagne, the monarch who ruled over modern France. 19 of them had family ties with King Edward III of England, a relative of Prince Charles. And the same applies to all key posts of power, everywhere - the same tribe! Whether it is a family of bankers in America or any other. Say, George W. Bush and Barbara Bush come out of the same blood line — the Pierce Line (formerly called Percy), one of the aristocratic families of Britain, flourishing to this day. J. Bush is a relative of Charlemagne and Alfred the Great, as well as Franklin Delano Roosevelt. The idea that anyone can become president is simply not true. If you go back two generations back, according to research, you can see: Prescott Bush was a member of the Society of the Skull and Crossed Bones at Yale University and was involved in various political maneuvers. In the next generation, you will see George, who was trained from birth and raised as a power holder. He became the head of the CIA, vice president and president. He led the Republican Party during a Watergate hearing. He was the UN ambassador and unofficial ambassador to China. All of these are key. In addition, Jed Bush became governor of Florida. According to the Book of Peers of Burke, even according to the official genealogy, B. Clinton is genetically related to the House of Windsor, as well as to every Scottish monarch, King of England Henry III and Robert I - King of France. Clinton comes from the Rockefeller family a generation ago, which is a clear explanation of why the so-called “street boy from Arkansas” received a Rod scholarship at Oxford University, which is awarded only to the elect. At a very early age, Clinton became the governor of Arkansas, who is considered to be the Rockefeller staff. Then he became president of the United States. ”
By the way, the current US President B. Obama is also not a proletarian, to put it mildly. According to the published data of the New England Historical Genealogical Society, on the maternal side, he is a relative of H. Clinton, D. McCain, D. Bush, D. Ford, L. Johnson, G. Truman, D. Madison, and even W. Churchill. This is the aristocratic Kublo is the elite of the world's greatest democracy.
In the near future, the elitist will establish their open power - shamelessly and ruthlessly. And the predictions of this can be read by many cult authors. Thus, the collapse of democracy recently predicted the famous theorist of globalism, J. Attali, in his book история of the future. " There he writes about the future emergence of a planetary hyperimperium, which will be characterized by unprecedented states and unprecedented poverty. In this empire, absolutely everything will be private - justice, the army, the police. Actually, private armies are being created now and very successfully: “This happens for the first time after the Peace of Westphalia, concluded already in 1648 year and which put an end to the existence of private armed formations,” says Col. Gen. L. Ivashov. - Then they were forbidden to have the electors and other European grandees, giving the state a monopoly on the use of military force. Present private military corporations have little resemblance to the primitive divisions of mercenaries. They consist mainly of highly professional representatives of the special services, generals and officers capable of organizing powerful, efficient operations, intelligence officers, psychologists, and even specialists in destabilizing the work of banking systems. The main initiators of the creation of these structures were the Americans, and the “ancestor company” was an organization with the abbreviation MPI. Today, there are such companies in the world around 200. ” ("Secret armies do not leave traces")
And this is so far just flashes - a real doomsday is still to come (it can be caused by at least the second wave of the world crisis). And if Europe and the United States explode properly, the “national” states will not be able to curb the wave of revolutionary protest. And then merciless terminators from transnational private armies will go into action. They will pacify the “mad masses”. And TNCs form something like the World Council of Global Corporations (the idea of E. Toffler), which will become the notorious “world government”. As for national governments, they will be cursed for “nationalism,” “socialism,” “militarism,” “populism.” In general, these same states are no longer needed by the transnationals. The state, however arbitrarily bourgeois, is to a certain extent social, for it somehow rises above the classes. His superclass was needed by the elites when the globalization of the economy had not yet gone so far, and one had to put up with the fact of the existence of various national communities. In addition, at a certain stage, the elites were forced to retreat, throwing the bone of the social state to the masses. But this retreat itself plunged the elite into a state of depression, threatening to devalue all its might. And then there came the globalization of the economy. Therefore, the elites decided that the time to retreat was over, it was time for a decisive attack - on the social and national.