Who is the Owner of the World?

Russia possesses two major historical and cultural features which are usually suppressed.

First of all, we are very open country. Even separated from neighbors by "Iron Curtain" and plague we develop with surprising synchronism with them and exchange of people and ideas is amazingly intensive even at the time of such criminal offense as “suspicion in espionage”.

Our development approximately equally is defined by internal and external factors. By the way, absence of universal history is one of its unpleasant consequences. After all it’s political, especially instrumental science serving as the major substantial instrument of formation of nation - and representatives of external and internal forces tragically counterbalance each other at its formation. On the one hand, "Westerners" can't reconcile with the fact that “the Russian cattle” (as recently the spouse of one of the great theatrical directors called his actors who dared to remind him about strongly detained salary) dares to define the destiny on one level with brilliant most illustrious sirs. On the other, nationalists feel inescapably bad at one thought about “damned global cabal”.

Other our feature is advancing nature of development: we are the first who, let even in tragically exaggerated form, show to "progressive" and "advanced" mankind its future. The world already learned: when Russia chokes from tuberculosis, it’s necessary to buy medicine from flu.

One should know his features during critical times.

They can be useless in usual conditions: you peacefully walk among lemmings and simply have no possibility to show personality.

While in critical situations, when suddenly it becomes clear that a pack runs not to the supermarket and even not to fishing, but to the abyss and categorical need to escape from it appears - understanding of own peculiarities becomes literally survival condition.

We have such time now: the world breaks under a cargo of global crisis.

At all its complexity and depth mechanic of economic component of what’s happening is scarily simple: global monopolies which have developed in the global market, are getting rotten that is outwardly shown in shortage of demand and crisis of debts. Historically rotting of monopolies was overcome by the admission of external competition reducing level of monopolization and liberating technical progress from under them, but insufficient development of interplanetary connections makes this standard exit impossible. Technical progress is effectively blocked by monopolies (including notorious "intellectual property") which fairly see in it own grave-digger. As a result their rotting becomes fatal, it leads to inevitable transition into global depression which will be heavier than previous Great depression and can lead to wars which, however, won’t help to overcome it. After all World War II finished the Great depression only by sharp expansion of markets (instead of five macroregions – the USA, the British Empire, Europe united by Hitler, the USSR and Japanese “zone of prosperity”) which lowered monopolism on each of the remained: while global market has no place to extend.

It means that overcoming of the global depression will be more terrible than of the Great depression: not by expansion of the markets, but by their destruction and separation, by transition from uniform global market to macroregions – with clear cataclysms in the majority of them and along their borders.

Every objective tendency divides people – let even very influential – into two groups: one owing to their way of behavior vainly try to revolt against it, others – for the same reason – having realized its inevitability accept it and submit to it, trying to use it.

The same way today representatives of global financial structures and information technologies connected with them for whom disintegration of the global market into macroregions means disintegration of space of their domination categorically don't accept prospect of global development becoming more and more obvious. Diligently closing eyes and savouring the slightest short-term changes to the best with ecstasy they preach ideology of business as usual. Relying on power of FRS they are capable to destroy every organized resistance - but they aren't capable to break a course of history. On the other hand, as representatives of youngish elite they can't understand this course and reconcile with it: their structures simply saved up insufficient life experience for this wisdom.

On the other hand, representatives of old global elite, rather free from structures of the American statehood are capable to keep the power and influence in the divided world at the expense of cross-border activity. Moreover: quite recently, before creation of the global market it was the main way of their functioning, for them division of the global market into macroregions will mean only return to simple, clear and absolutely recent "Golden Age". For this reason (not owing to the wisdom coming with age) this elite appear able to accept objective course of events and without trying to revolt fruitlessly against them would try to make advantage of them.

Demonstrative unification of structures Rothschilds and Rockefellers, insignificant compared to the scales of activity of these groups became demonstration of the second approach: competing global groups realized unity of their interests against destructive strategic inadequacy of "FRS group" dominating for long.

Basic divergence between these two global groups and beginning of fight between them are accurately reflected both on practical policy and ideology.

For Russia the policy of "FRS group" focused on preservation of the global market means preservation of excessive cargo of global competition, complete submission of elite to a global ruling clan, continuation of a course of Gorbachev-Yeltsin-Putin and, finally, destruction of this or that system crisis in spasms.

The group recognizing division of the world into macroregions is in principle ready to allow Russia to become own macroregion. For it it’s in many respects a question of business: the more macroregions, the more borders between them and that higher are the incomes from organization of crossing of these borders. For Russia it is a question of survival: if the Customs Union remains the highest point of development of chatter about the Post-Soviet reintegration has been taking place since 2006, it will quickly enough turn (let even without formal transfer of borders) into a set dying out suburbs of China, Europe and Islamic world.

The alternative to this prospect appeared just now: part of global business ceased to consider integration on the former Soviet Union with participation of Russia catastrophe absolutely unacceptable for it.

It gave to the offshore aristocracy ruling Russia huge historical chance – simply because every not liberal feeble effort was automatically stopped by the western holders of its assets. Now possibility of development of the country and, moreover, becoming of macroregion becomes not simply "kosher" way of behavior but – gradually – global mainstream.

Putin with improbable speed which forced to recollect the beginning of the 2000s grappled this idea. His words at a shameful as a whole for Russia summit APEC-2012 about need of creation of many regional reserve currencies are resolute and unequivocal acceptance of the side of "old" group of global elite in its opposition to leaving "FRS group" – acceptance which for the first time for the last decades slightly opens tolerant strategic prospect before Russia.

Certainly, the ruling party doesn’t become better because of it.

Resolute involvement into the global conflict offers rational explanation to Putin's fly. It is demonstration of personal fearlessness and force: publicly using extremely unreliable and absolutely vulnerable equipment which is represented by hang-glider Putin as Mao with his legendary swims in Yangzi showed power and determination.

It’s different thing that a person who perceives advises of political strategists non-critically usually reminds mad - but change of a global context, at least, allows to find not simply acceptable, but even rational explanation to his act (as well as to extreme ballyhoo round it).

Anyway, the conflict between “owners of the world” opens possibility of development for Russia,for public thought – possibility of anti-liberal, anti-fascist in its essence Renaissance.

After all only naive philologists and pedants think that liberalism today is love to freedom.

In policy and in economy liberalism is a deep, sincere, pure belief that the state should serve not to its people, but to global monopolies and if their interests are incompatible with survival of these people, these are people’s problems.

Let’s look at the consequences of such approach: yesterday in the undeveloped countries, today in Russia and tomorrow in already for the decade less "gold" and more and more "gilded" billion liberalism is modern appearance of fascism.

That which our grandfathers and great-grandfathers crushed 67 years ago, that which is present in our country for already last quarter of the century of national treachery.

Not without reason poll on the Internet and social networks - certainly not representative in strictly scientific meaning of a word – gave the result which made me scared and confused: only 11,2% of respondents from 3,8 thousand on a question what made bigger damage to Russia - Hitler's attack or liberal reforms - chose Hitlerite fascism as bigger harm. Absolute majority – 74,0% - consider consequences of liberal reforms of last years more terrible. 5,6% were at a loss with the answer, those who didn’t accept such form of the question also shared significantly: 5.0% against 4.1% or, in absolute expression, 190 against 157 morons (for it is really so) considered Hitler's invasion bigger blessing, than liberal reforms.

These proportions testify deep moral health and judiciousness of, at least, Internet segment of the Russian society which now has possibility of humanitarian, civilized, anti-liberal, anti-fascist Renaissance.

It will be very difficult and very terrible.

Probably we won’t succeed and we will die.

But serious, system hope – I tell it as a person has been working in the state from 1990 to 2003 - appeared for the first time for all life of our generation.

To let this chance go means to let life go.

Go ahead!

Send by mail

Print