"Bear with the liberals? - Get ready for the bombing!"
"Tomorrow". Mikhail Gennadievich, our newspaper has repeatedly printed your interesting and deep articles and materials. Now it seems to us that the world has come to an important turning point, undergoing fundamental changes. In a series of these events, US-made coups in Middle Eastern countries, the rapid movement to the second phase of the global economic and financial crisis, increasing regional military conflicts, the turn of our country under Medvedev’s leadership along the liberal channel into America’s arms and much more. How to interpret this all, how to bring it together and comprehend? How does our country and our people live and act in this stream?
Mikhail Delyagin. We really are not just in a crisis situation, but at a point of catastrophe where Russian civilization has never been in its millennial stories, including the Tatar-Mongol yoke.
Almost all of its history, the Russian people fought with various nomads, whose waves — first horsemen, then motorized — rolled on our country and, sometimes temporarily flooding it, inevitably broke up and rolled into historical non-existence, enriching our people with courage, fighting experience and elements of their culture.
Globalization did not abolish this pattern, but only slightly modified it: today's nomads are no longer the Polovtsy and not the Nazis, but representatives of a qualitatively new, global management class.
This is a new world-historical subject, the folding of which was the most important result of a fundamental simplification of communications in the course of globalization.
"Tomorrow". But about the "new nomads" speak for a long time. What gives you reason to allocate them in a separate class, and even global?
Md A qualitatively new phenomenon of the last 20 years, due to which the concept of globalization appeared, is the simplification of communications. New communications unite representatives of various control systems (both state and corporate) and the special services, science, media and culture serving them based on common personal interests and lifestyles. The people who form it live not in countries, but in five-star hotels and closed residences that provide the minimum (beyond the ordinary for ordinary people) level of comfort regardless of the country of location, and their common interests are provided by private mercenary armies.
The new global class of owners and managers opposes societies divided by state borders not only as a simultaneous owner and manager (the undifferentiated "master" of the Stalin era, which is also a sign of deep social archaization), but also as a global, that is, comprehensive structure.
This global ruling class is not tied firmly to any country or social group and has no external obligations for itself: it has neither voters nor taxpayers. By virtue of his position “over the traditional world,” he opposes not only economically and politically weak societies, destructively assimilated by him, but also any nationally or culturally (and even more so territorially) self-identifying community as such, and first of all traditional statehood.
Under the influence of the formation of this class, falling into its semantic and force field, state control systems are reborn. The leaders of state administration are beginning to consider themselves not part of their peoples, but of the global governing class. Accordingly, they are moving from management in the interests of the nations-states created by the Westphalian world to managing these same nations in their interests, in the interests of the "new nomads" - global networks that unite representatives of financial, political and technological structures and do not associate themselves with this or that other state. Accordingly, such management is carried out in disregard of the interests of ordinary societies established within states, and at the expense of these interests (and sometimes at the expense of their direct suppression).
This is exactly the situation that we have seen in Russia over the past two decades of national betrayal.
This is precisely the situation against which people are revolting not only in North Africa and the Middle East, but even in the very citadel of the global ruling class - the United States, where hundreds of thousands of people participate in silent protests. In Wisconsin, at the end of February, 25 thousands of civil servants stormed the Senate and several administrative buildings, then riots swept Alabama, Ohio, many major cities like Philadelphia — but official media around the world are silent about it.
Not because it is harmful to the Americans, but because it is harmful to the global steering class.
"Tomorrow". It turns out that the world is entering a new era?
Md Yes, and its main content will be the national liberation struggle of societies divided by state borders and customs, against the all-destructive domination of the global governing class. This content raises the question of the solidarity of all nationally oriented forces - for the difference between right and left, patriots and internationalists, atheists and believers - does not mean anything in front of the general prospect of social utilization unfolding under the feet of the new nomads ".
Moreover, for the first time in history, contradictions between patriots of different countries, including those directly competing with each other, lose their meaning. They turn out to be simply insignificant before the depth of the general contradictions between the forces seeking the benefit of individual societies and the global controlling class, equally hostile to any community of people separated from it. As a result, there is an objective opportunity to create another, fifth after the existing socialist, Trotskyist, liberal and financial, paradoxically, nationalist International, united by a common opposition to the global governing class and a common desire to preserve the natural lifestyle, well-being and cultural potential of their peoples.
"Tomorrow". And in what and how is the activity of the global governing class manifested?
Md By virtue of its informal, networked, and weakly structured nature, the global control class is poorly observable; its activity can be monitored mainly by indirect signs.
So, as follows from the memories of retired CIA employees, in 1985, on the basis of a common enemy - the Soviet Union - a new global network emerged - the Texan-Saudi clan, which contributed to the decline in world oil prices and thus the downfall of the Soviet Union.
In 2003, this clan’s activity manifested itself "in a negative form": the destruction of Iraq as a sovereign secular state was unprofitable both for the United States and Saudi Arabia as states, but it brought huge profits to the oil communities of both.
However, for the first time, the explicit global governing class has manifested itself, as far as can be judged, in the course of the ongoing series of unrest, uprisings and revolutions in North Africa. It was his activity that appeared to give rise to the striking contradiction between the complete surprise for the USA of the events in Tunisia (which "started" the Arab revolutions) and the swiftness of their reaction (from using Wikileaks materials to the distribution of professional instructions for revolutionaries) to events in North Africa generally.
The reason for the contradiction is that within the framework of the same US state shell today there are two fundamentally different in their aspirations, although they coincide in the institutions (and sometimes in individuals) of the subject: the national bureaucracy and the manipulating it ") using it as its tool a global steering class.
The events in Tunisia came as a complete surprise to the short-sighted, inertial and largely “situationally responsive” to the events, rather than the national bureaucracy that was actively constructing them.
The Global Steering Class, as far as can be understood, prepared them - and with delight took advantage of the beginning of the revolutionary process.
"Tomorrow". Why destabilization of North Africa and the Middle East?
Md On the surface, we see the old-fashioned, traditional logic of the struggle for resources. Here, within the framework of the general trend of archaization, there is a return to the logic of colonialism, which led the war for direct control over territories, first of all, over oil and gas of Libya.
In addition, there is Gaddafi’s revenge for socialism, or rather, for spending resources on ensuring social justice. It is fundamentally important that not for the terrorist attack in Lockerbie - although the Libyans themselves, in turn, as far as can be understood, considered him a retaliatory step, but Gaddafi bought off the West by issuing direct perpetrators, paying money and allowing foreign capital to Libya. This very clearly characterizes the quite medieval character of the legal consciousness of the leaders of "all progressive humanity": pay the ransom - and live peacefully!
But do not forget that the resources of your country are viewed by these leaders as belonging to "all of humanity", that is, translated into ordinary language, to global corporations whose interests they represent.
And when Gaddafi paid a thousand dollars to a nurse, and 64 thousands to a young family; when he almost tripled his people by creating human conditions for him, when he provided almost free gasoline, free education, health care and electricity, he turned himself into an enemy not only of Chubais. First of all, he debunked the nonsense of liberal propaganda that there is no free social sphere. He unwittingly, quite unwillingly, and probably not realizing this (because in recent years he began to introduce into politics serious elements of liberalism, which is why his support weakened), created for her the mortal threat of exposing lies.
In addition, by sharing petrodollars with the people of Libya, at least on a much larger scale than the Russian ruling party does, it deprived these petrodollars of the Western financial system. After all, an oligarch or a corrupt official, plundering people's money, takes their main part to the West, as a result of which they fall into the Western financial system and support its existence.
If a relatively honest statesman gives people money to the people themselves, these funds remain in the country and do not feed the financial system of its strategic competitors.
Thus, the destruction of the “Gaddafi regime” is aimed not only at direct seizure of the wealth of the mineral resources of Libya, but also - if this fails - at concentrating the income from the export of raw materials in the hands of a handful of compradors and corrupt officials who still won't get anywhere and Western financial system.
"Tomorrow". Well, what if nothing happens at all? If in Libya, there will be self-sustaining chaos in the Iraqi scenario?
Md The probability of this is small: not the relief, not the population - both quantitatively and qualitatively. The Libyan army will be able to resist for several months until food supplies run out, after which, under the blockade of the coast, the only source of food will be collaborationists who receive it from the aggressors, and widespread resistance will subside.
At the same time, the modern, postmodern superstructure of the traditional strategy of capturing resources is that if everything goes awry and the development of resources becomes impossible, it will not cause the management group any noticeable inconvenience: it will simply change the strategy, somewhat reject the focus of its application. forces
And the point is not that control over resources in the information age is more important than their use, but the fact that oil will not bring profit to competitors, more importantly that it will not bring profit to anyone at all.
First of all, it will bring in a qualitatively new, informational sense: withdrawing resources from circulation, creating a deficit, will raise prices - and increase the demand for the dollar, prolonging the functioning of their less controlled injection into the global economy.
However, the pursuit of this benefit is only a special case of a qualitatively new strategy of a global governing class - chaos.
Exhaustion of the “managed chaos” strategy and its tragic failure in Iraq proved fruitful: it showed the possibility and effectiveness of the qualitatively new “uncontrollable chaos” strategy that we see in North Africa and, in particular, in Libya.
The logic of this strategy is simple: "in troubled waters you can catch a bigger fish", chaos gives more opportunities to rapidly increase power and wealth, and most importantly - to sharply change the trajectory and the very logic of the development of entire societies. The emancipation of the global governing class from the countries of its origin (except, perhaps, Switzerland, the Vatican, Luxembourg, Monaco and some similar state entities) removes all restrictions on provoking chaos: up to "Pelorus" with its submarine and its own Defense Neither Libyan soldiers nor Japanese radiation will reach them.
And in this regard, the alliance of the USA and France with radical Islamists (which form the basis of Libyan rebels from the north-east of Libya - a region where only one or three thousand people of the population have only al-Qaeda known to the West) is quite logical and rational. After all, Islamist militants, better than anyone else, can plunge the modern world into bloody chaos.
So far, Algeria has become the only apparent failure of the “new nomads”: the horror of its ruling system over Islamic fundamentalism has given it immunity to the Protestants. But the development of it in the Tunisian or Egyptian versions would interrupt gas supplies to Europe, put it on a “hungry ration” and, forcing the Europeans themselves to divide each other into countries of the “first” and “second” grades, mercilessly restricting the latter’s access to energy, would put an end to the european project.
However, the cataclysms in the Arab world are still far from over. Probably, the attempts to destabilize Algeria are still ahead, and if the second attempt after Yugoslavia and the creation of a cancer in the form of Kosovo and Kosovo organized crime to torpedo the European project fails, the time will come for the third and fourth.
"Tomorrow". What do the events in Libya mean for Russia and, most importantly, for our people?
Md Usually, when evaluating the consequences come from purely accounting estimates. They consider losses on promised military contracts (over 2 billion dollars) promised by Libyans, on a railway construction contract and some other similar projects. Then they say: "But, on the other hand, because of the tension, oil will rise in price - or, at least, it will not become cheaper." Then they begin to grieve and recall that the price of oil is little connected with the welfare of the people, since the bulk of petrodollars are brought to the West by the criminal bureaucracy and, probably, the state budget that it manages.
"Tomorrow". But judging by your intonations, you do not consider this approach to be correct.
Md Like any accounting approach, it is dramatically incomplete. First of all, direct and explicit military support by the West for radical Islamists against any regime that is legitimate and recognized by the same West is frankly scary. Especially if we recall the massive information support that the West had provided to Islamic terrorists in their struggle against Russia during the first and even second Chechen wars.
In Egypt, the military, whom Mubarak pushed aside from various kinds of "feeders", returned them to themselves during the revolution and now will be able to, if not suppress, then at least substantially restrict the activity of the "Muslim Brotherhood." But Libya, with the support of the West, could easily become a new global platform for training Islamist militants - a kind of what Chechnya was during its de facto independence after signing the treacherous Khasavyurt agreement.
At the same time, these militants will be afraid to beat the “feeding hand”, which means that Russia may take a prominent place in the list of their goals. Considering the state of domestic "law enforcement" bodies, which demonstrate complete impotence and the ability to just beat students, disperse retirees and imprison inaccurately criticizing the authorities of "extremists", we have to state: the overthrow of the Gaddafi regime may haunt a new terrorist war in Russia.
But the most important consequence of aggression is in fact the final abolition of international law.
"Tomorrow". But after all, back in 1999, when NATO tried to “bombard Yugoslavia in the Stone Age”, all its norms were grossly violated - did something change?
Md You are absolutely right, but in Yugoslavia, and in Afghanistan in 2001, and in Iraq in 2003, this was exactly the “violation of norms” that caused a massive protest, including in the West itself. “Defiance of norms” means it was a trample. Now there is nothing to trample.
The aggression of the United States and its satellites against Libya has shown that you can simply think of a non-existent conflict, suck it out of your finger - and on this basis, begin to “bombard the country into the Stone Age”.
You can buy or scare the ambassadors of the country so that they stay for permanent residence and make all the required statements, falsify the events with the help of staged shootings (which are broadcast by global TV channels, ignoring the real news) and unfoundedly accuse the leader of the sovereign states of monstrous atrocities. At the same time, recognizing the former Minister of Justice as the legitimate leader of the new state - who, if Gaddafi did create some kind of lawlessness, should be responsible for them first after Gaddafi.
However, even US Secretary of Defense Gates was forced to admit that Gaddafi didn’t show any signs of crimes against civilians, which were sounded by Western — and Russian, too — propaganda could not be found either by intelligence or by the most sophisticated methods of technical observation. Of course, this did not stop the propaganda. As one of the leaders of the global TV channel said, "We have no censorship - we have an editorial policy." Then he hesitated and explained: "It is more effective."
The aggression against Libya showed that it is possible to completely falsify reality and, on the basis of this falsified reality, push the necessary resolution through the UN Security Council - with a gross violation of the rules (no word was given to the representative of Libya). And then, when the country's legitimate leadership cries for a cease-fire and the admission of international observers, you can quickly attack it - so that the observers do not have time to arrive and fix the monstrous lies of global propaganda. By the way, to attack in direct violation of the UN Charter, which requires the creation of international command for such operations under the UN auspices and with a gross excess of the mandate, but there is no one to be outraged by this.
It is in this absence of the protest subject - if, of course, Ambassador Chamov is not considered hysterically, with complete demotion, dismissed for, as far as one can understand, an attempt to protect Russia's interests - and this is a qualitative novelty, a qualitatively higher cynicism of the situation, which can be defined by the term "disappearance international law. "
Not “trampling”, but “disappearing”: the difference is great.
At the same time, as they say, “everyone understands everything”: there are no fools. As one Western diplomat put it about a week before the invasion, "the problem of the world community is in the physical absence of rebels in Libya." Some small groups, of course, were, but only the lazy one did not speak about the tribal character of tribalism, tribalistic in the most regrettable African sense of the word. These groups seized power in their village, in extreme cases, in their own city, and began to wait longing for bribes from the central authorities.
"Tomorrow". And what is the absence of international law bad for the people of Russia?
Md The practical implementation of the ancient Roman rule "Woe to the Lost" and the creation of a situation where the only way to protect yourself and your people from bombing, from the American and NATO "Tomahawks" is not just the presence of nuclear weapons. weapons and means of delivery, but also the willingness to use them.
This is a complete collapse of the nonproliferation regime: now, thanks to the US and its satellites, no leader trying to acquire its own nuclear weapons can be blamed for anything but reasonable forethought.
In fact: why doesn’t anyone dare to touch North Korea and Iran with the finger of the axis of evil long ago declared parts of the axis of evil? Because the former has a nuclear bomb, and the latter has radioactive materials that can be used to create a dirty bomb.
Why does it calmly and, as it is written in the Russian Criminal Code, “with special cynicism” bomb Libya? - because Colonel Gaddafi at one time recognized the correctness of the West and abandoned the idea of creating their own nuclear weapons. And he did not even create his own military industry, an unhappy socialist.
For Russia, liberals like the inhabitants of Medvedev’s “collective brain”, the notorious Institute of Modern Development, are particularly dangerous for Russia, who immediately before the attack on Libya declared that Russia's nuclear weapons are a hindrance to modernization in Medvedev. This gives the impression of informational preparation for Russia's abandonment of nuclear weapons and either its subordination to NATO, or the bombing of its territory, or both.
"Tomorrow". But this is a betrayal!
Md Do not forget: the key part of the liberals - and not only in Russia, but throughout the world - is aware of itself as part of not its own country, but of the global governing class. For them, betrayal is the protection of the interests of the country and the people of their biological origin from the claims of this class, in particular, global monopolies.
And the destruction of their country and their people may well be for them an honorable duty, the execution of which they will sincerely, like Gorbachev and Dzhindzhich, be proud of until the end of their days.
The formula for the future is simple: "Suffer the liberals? - Get ready for the bombing!"
Information