ПСИХОИСТОРИЧЕСКАЯ ВОЙНА
One of the lines of struggle for the past is the falsification of history, in particular, the denial of the existence of hidden subjects of global governance. One who seeks to dominate the world, doing everything to conceal their actions and to represent them as either coincidences, or some system of mass processes, developing allegedly themselves.
For us, the analysis of the subjects of global governance is especially important, because Russia and the Russians are their existential opponent. For destruction in the first place of Russia or to establish control over its resources and territory was organized two world wars of the twentieth century, and in fact one Big war of 1914-1991., which still has not made many important insights. In particular, until now, these events and their consequences are analyzed without taking into account the interests, goals and activities of the main arsonists and beneficiaries – supranational structures, which today continue to wage a psycho-historical war against Russia and the Russians, planning the final solution of the Russian question.
NATO aggression against Yugoslavia, or rather – against the Serbs began a permanent hot war, which was the result of the destruction of the USSR: Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria. At the same time hot, then parallel to it, intertwined with her, developing growing power of a different form of the Cold war – an organizational war. Its main goal is to destroy the organizational structures (management structures) of the target society-everyone: from social and financial to the structures of consciousness and knowledge, i.e. the structures of the Psychosphere in the broadest sense of the word. It is this sphere that gradually becomes the main theater of action of the organizational war, which in the Psychosphere becomes a war of psychohistory.
Do psychohistorical war (orgvoyny in Psychosphere) multiple levels (dimensions): informational, conceptual, and metaphysical (semantic). Information war in a narrow sense is actions at the level of facts, their falsification, distortion in a certain way. The conceptual dimension of psychohistorical war, as the name implies, touches upon the conceptual interpretation of facts, i.e. develops in the sphere of transition from empirical generalizations to theoretical ones.
Metaphysical war – aerobatics orgvoyny in Psychosphere – mostly a war of meaning; physical victory without a victory in metaphysics, in the semantic field of the impossible.
As a concrete example, we can cite the version of the Katyn events that goes back to Goebbels. Information level psychohistorical action: we are told (by gross factual fraud, collapsing in setting basic questions), that the poles were shot by the Soviet NKVD. Then-the transition to the conceptual level: shot, because the NKVD-an element of the “bloody Stalinist regime”, and the whole history of the USSR-a manifestation of totalitarianism, illustrating it; here hang on the ears of the image (“bloody Stalin’s regime”) and the concept of” totalitarianism”, and the term itself should push the object of information aggression to equalize” Stalinism “and”Hitler”. In General, I must say that the images in psychohistorical war is extremely important: it is possible to act on the information and the conceptual level, in the spirit of some Svanidze, and the figurative-conceptual in the spirit “type Gelman”. But this is a separate issue.
And, finally, metaphysics: totalitarianism allegedly follows from the paradigm of Russian history, from all its experience, its meaning, which, therefore, are subject to change. It is not for nothing that one of the main demons of Gorbachev, looking after her from overseas, said that by restructuring they break not only the USSR and communism, but the thousand-year paradigm of Russian history. This is the action argarose, and its use of “physical realm”, in “physics” was preceded by such in metaphysics. The destruction of the power and financial-economic structures of the USSR was preceded by the destruction of the meanings and values of the Soviet society, ologram Psychosphere. At the same time, the main blows were inflicted on the facts, concepts and metaphysics of history: aimed at communism, and beat on Russia and Russian; aimed at the present and the near past (“Stalinism”), but in fact beat the past in General, on the historical, civilizational whole, and therefore on the future.
The purpose of psychoistorical war is to destroy the organization of the opponent’s Psychosphere, putting him on a false information flow, introducing his concepts of his self in space and, most importantly, in time and depriving him of his own meanings and values and imposing alien – destructive and paralyzing will to fight.
The battle for history is in fact the main battle of the orgwar in the Psychosphere, because it undermines this last in several directions, including psychoanalysts on historical memory (the most important events, the most significant and iconic figures – hence the mud pouring of our Victory, military glory, specific individuals, especially Stalin, the scheme “the myth of Gagarin”, etc.), on identity, on traditional values for this civilization.
The Central event of Soviet history-the Great Patriotic war, the victory in it. This is an absolute value, an absolute bond that unites people not only in Russia, but also in the CIS, and in some ways even beyond its borders. And of course, it is war and victory that become the main target in the psycho-historical war. Very the Great Patriotic war geeks from science and okolnyi or renamed “Nazi-Communist”, or add to the great Patriotic determination of the “so called”. Others after the traitor Rezun try to prove that Stalin was preparing to attack Germany, but Hitler was ahead of him by two or three weeks. Still others try to prove that the USSR bears the same responsibility for the outbreak of world war II as the Third Reich, arguing this fact “Ribbentrop – Molotov Pact” (as they prefer to call the Soviet-German Treaty of 1939). It is this position is held by a number of Western, primarily Anglo-American and German researchers (if in this case you can call the researchers, rather we should talk about propaganda, about the soldiers and officers orgvoyny for the story), and their hangers-on of the comprador (the comprador-collaborationist, patakango) segment of science in the Russian Federation.
Often with propagandists of such views begin to argue in particular or – worse-to justify. But both schemes – the “plan” Stalin’s first attack Hitler and ostensibly equal responsibility of Germany and the USSR for the occurrence of the Second world war – apart from the elementary to the offensive attack at the lowest level psychohistorical war information, allowing you to deploy offensive on a conceptual and metaphysical level.
In the next five years we will have a lot of round dates of Russian and world history: 2014-100 years since the beginning of the First world war; 2015 – 200 years since the end of the Napoleonic wars and the establishment of the “Vienna system”; 2016 – 25 years since the destruction of the USSR; 2017 – 100 years of the October revolution; 2018 – 100 years since the beginning of the Civil war in Russia and 200 years since the birth of Marx. There is no doubt that these dates and the events, trends and faces behind them will be the reason (and the field) for the further development of the psychohistoric war against Russia. Having fantasized, it is possible to imagine, for example, the edition of the multi-volume book devoted to a subject “Russia: world war and revolution”. The goal is to prove that Russia did not play a significant role in the war. The money will give the Western “scientific” foundations. 90% of authors are Western scientists, 10% – representatives of the “comprador” science of the Russian Federation, “children” grant (but not captains of Grants), mostly narrow specialists, not threatening a great narrative and generalizations (is – a monopoly of masters-funders). Well, “sanctify” all the editorial Board of the titled okolonauchnyh officials who do not shun to accept awards from foreign authorities for the protection of their interests in our science. The same, or even worse, can be imagined about the role of the USSR in world war II.
One of the lines of the “game of demotion” in the assessment of the role and importance of the great Patriotic war can be the opposition of the First world war as the “first German” – “second German”. The first signs of this opposition are already appearing. Two war – two German, two world. They played a huge role in history. And in their history a huge, decisive role was played by Russia, whatever it was called. Next year will be the centenary of the first world war, and it is already written about today, including in our country. They remember the heroes of this war, the course of hostilities, the era. Historical memory is being restored, and this, of course, is good. Another thing is not good: it is already clear that there is a tendency to oppose the First world war – the great Patriotic war. It develops in the context of the opposition of the Russian Empire as something positive to the Soviet Union – as something negative.
Today we can say with confidence: the attempt to glorify the white movement, the use of “Lieutenant Golitsyn and Kornet Obolensky” as an org weapon against the red period of our history failed. It is more than likely that under the slogans of restoring “historical justice” about the First world war, an attempt will be made to use it as an anti-Soviet organizational weapon, at least equalizing it in historical significance with the great Patriotic war.
That would be a lie For Russia, Russian and world history the significance of these two wars is incomparable. In Russian 1914, Wilhelm II and the Germans did not, unlike Hitler, set the task of erasing the Russians from history – the physical destruction of one half of the Russians and the cultural and psychological (ie oskotinivaniya) – the other. The stakes in the great Patriotic war were immeasurably and incomparably higher than in 1914 – to be or not to be Russia and Russian in General, and therefore about any equalization of the two wars can not be, with all due respect to the memory of the fallen in the First world war. I Russian soldiers on the fields of the First world war not so much for the Russian interest, but for the purses of Anglo-American and French bankers, who had the autocracy of Nicholas II almost to the ears in debt.
This is first. Secondly, the first German for Russia ended in defeat and disintegration of the state. Of the great Patriotic war the Soviet Union was not just a winner but one of the two superpowers – the Foundation of the Victory the Soviet Union lasted almost half a century, and the Russian Federation exists only because he still failed to destroy this Foundation.
Third, two wars are clear illustrations of the fact that in one case (the Russian Empire) we had a sick society, in the other (the USSR) – a healthy one. Once in 1915-1916 were knocked out of the old officer corps, the army collapsed, and with it the monarchy, the state. To replace officers as personification modal personality type (and it needs some 7-8% of the population) has appeared there is nobody. In 1941, the pre-war officer corps was knocked out, the army collapsed, losing millions of prisoners. But a few months later another newly created officer corps, another army defeated the Wehrmacht near Moscow, followed by Stalingrad, Kursk and the red banner over the Reichstag.
This happened because in the 1930s the very modal type of personality was created, the Soviet man, who emerged victorious in the war by signing the Reichstag. The topic of fundamental differences can be continued for a long time, but it is hardly worth doing it in this work. Here it makes sense to say something else – about an important lesson of the First world war. That war was lost by the oligarchized, corrupt autocracy which turned Russia into financially-dependent raw materials appendage of the West, appendage with considerably limited sovereignty. In the acute situation of the then “chief” – the king – overthrew the Grand Duke-General-bourgeois oligarchy (with the assistance of the British), i.e. representatives of 200-300 families who ruled (as they thought) Russia. Objectively, the oligarchy played the role of the “fifth column” and History – primarily by the hands of the Imperial-minded part of the Bolsheviks and the military General staff – kicked her out of the country. Explaining the reasons for the success of the USSR in world war II, Churchill said that, unlike, for example, from the same France, the USSR on the eve of the war was eliminated “fifth column”. And with the Agency, I will add, both influence and illegal did not stand on ceremony, acting “under the laws of war and the rules of conduct in the front line.”
The history of world wars shows that family-oligarchic systems have no chance to win. Yes, they hand over “chiefs” or overthrow them, hoping to pay off their heads and to prolong the “picnic on a roadside” of History. Vain hope: they fly after the “chief.” The first world war in Russia has demonstrated this with glass clarity, but people do not change, they only apartment (or business – or what other) spoils the issue. This lesson of the First world war, in contrast to the victorious lesson of the great Patriotic war – “good fellows lesson”, unless, of course, they are idiots (in the Greek sense of the word: a person lives as if the world does not exist). This lesson, as well as the sacred memory of our fallen in both wars, we must remember, paying tribute to our heroes of the First world war and not allowing anyone to belittle the value of the heroes of the great Patriotic war and Victory – our Victory – in it. The fact that this kind of humiliation takes place to be that it will develop on the eve of round dates (for example, the 70th anniversary of Victory) will be particularly strong, there is no doubt.
The moral of all the above: in psychohistorical war in General and in information in particular, especially in such an area as history, you should not wait for the enemy to strike, you need to beat the first. We need our own work on the history of events, the anniversaries of which are approaching, but also in General on the history of Russia and – necessarily – on the history of the West, with which and in favor of which Russia is compared. At the same time, in the course of comparison, Russia’s negative protrudes, and then it is simply attributed to something that did not exist in reality, and the West retouches dark spots. In General, it must be said that the ability to taboo topics unpleasant for the West and unsightly criminal pages of its history is a characteristic feature of Western culture, including scientific. It is impossible not to agree with the English historian D. Lieven, who in the work “Empire: the Russian Empire and its rivals” (English edition – 2000) noted that in modern comparative history and political science dominates converted into dogma “strange version of the Anglo-American self-healing-self-praise (self-congratulation), written in the German manner.”
The West, above all its Anglo-Saxon core, has transformed itself, its unique historical self, into a universal yardstick against which everything else is measured. Anglo-Saxons are free, like the “King” and “Duke” of the “Adventures of Huckleberry Finn” to make any kunshtyuki. Our task and duty – not to be caught on them and to bend the line, first of all in the Psychosphere. Therefore, we must write not only our own history, but also the history of the West (and the East, of course) without retouching. We need a systematic, offensive and strategically calibrated work in the field of “fighting for history” (L. February), in the past – primarily his own, but someone else’s too. This is a necessary condition for victory in the battle for the future. In turn, writing the history of the West, Russia, the world as a whole as a condition-the imperative of Russian victory in psychohistorical war requires a theoretical interpretation of the history of the West, Russia, the world as a system. As applied to the last centuries, this means the creative development of the problems of capitalism and real communism (i.e. the Soviet system). At the same time, the analysis and theory of capitalism as a system is primarily an analysis of supranational (global governance), the subject of which is a system-forming element of the capitalist system – organized into closed structures of world coordination and management (“lodges”, “clubs”, “commissions”, etc.) the top of the world capitalist class. This elite, mainly Anglo-Saxon, seeks to turn everything fundamentally non-capitalist into functions of capital and to suppress everything unlike Protestantism. In this regard, Russia is a triple enemy of these structures: the Orthodox experience, the Communist experience, the great power – 200 years standing in the way of creating a “world government”.
History has long been a battleground not only of scientific theories, but of information schemes, ideological constructions and conceptual viruses (memes), a field of psychohistorical war in all its hypostases – informational, conceptual and metaphysical. Psychoinformational attacks on identity, on historical memory have long been included in the Arsenal of various forces of the modern world and are actively used against today’s Russia, as once used against the USSR, and even earlier – against the Russian Empire. We have tried and are trying to impose someone else’s, alien to us the vision of its history, and to present our history as incomplete, not reaching to some universal standards of civilizational value, for which the West (and its “fifth column”) gives himself, beloved. Surprisingly, many still buy this self-styled universality (or universal imposture) of the West and begin to look at their (in this case, our, Russian) history through someone else’s eyes. As M. Voloshin wrote, “We still dream of Russian dream / Under names alien to us”. Well, the one who looks at his country and at his history through someone else’s eyes, sooner or later begins to look at them in someone else’s interests. Pushkin Russian history was right to note that Russian history requires its own formula, that is, its own theory, and not someone else’s, mainly Anglo-Saxon conceptual dress, which is put on Russian history. Conceptualizing its history in accordance with its nature and extent is, therefore, the task is not only scientific, but also psychohistorical war.
Opposition to the theories, interpretations and assessments of Russian history imposed from the outside is one of the directions of psychohistorical war, our actions in which in no case should be defensive in nature – we should write the history not only of our country, but also of the West such as it is in reality – a capitalist predator, behind the democratic facade of which real owners are hiding, United in lodges, clubs and other structures.
No less important is the resistance to attempts of the geohistorical (class, system, civilizational, etc.) enemy to destroy or replace our historical memory, distort identity and instill a complex of historical, cultural and psychological inferiority, as it was done after 1945 with the Germans, speculating on the “inescapable fault of the German people” before all – mainly before the Jews, “forgetting” that the greatest losses, including consciously destroyed civilians, suffered by the Russians.
In Russia, in the last two decades, attempts to instill a complex of historical inferiority have been made by Western propagandists and their “fifth column” as attempts to repent for the “crimes of Stalinism.” The meme “crimes of Stalinism” had not only internal, but also external, foreign policy aspect. It was implemented as an attempt to lay the main blame for the outbreak of world war II on the Stalinist Soviet Union, whereas previously this blame was laid only on Hitler. The Foundation of this accusation was the identification of Stalinism and Hitlerism, the USSR and the Third Reich as two – left and right – forms of totalitarianism, and as a concrete historical evidence used “Ribbentrop – Molotov Pact” (as in the West called the Soviet-German Treaty of 1939), allegedly opened the way to the Second world war and even allegedly became its actual beginning. In fact, the Soviet-German Treaty was the last of a series of treaties between European powers (Italy, France, great Britain) and Germany, which were to create conditions for the aggression of the Third Reich against the USSR, which had no such Treaty with Germany until August 1939. The August Treaty thwarted aggression in 1939 and pushed it back for two very important years for us. Well, really opened the way to war September (1938) Munich collusion, but this is a separate topic for us now important fundamental statement of the question.
Often in response to accusations that the Soviet Union is guilty of inciting the Second world war at least Hitler, our side is on the path of a simple response, ie refutation of unscrupulous concrete theses opponents. This is clearly not enough. It should be about something else – about fixing the fact (the benefit of evidence – an excess, and this much is written by serious and honest Western scientists), that, firstly, it was the British and Americans led Hitler to power, creating a “Hitler incorporated”, that it was the Anglo-Saxons pumped the Fuhrer with money and provided (the British) Munich the military potential, without which Hitler could not start a war against the USSR; secondly, that it was the UK “Munich-38” thwarted the conspiracy of German generals, ready to overthrow Hitler-this the British allow could not; thirdly, what the position of great Britain in may – June 1941 (secret negotiations with Hess and others), Hitler created the impression that the British or peace with him in case of his attack on the USSR, or, at least, will remain de facto neutral, continuing the “strange war”: the blitzkrieg against the USSR was possible only with the guarantee of no strike by the British in the West.
In other words, in may – June 1941, the British pulled off a secret special and diplomatic operation, similar to the one that they worked in July 1914, provoking William II to war, so much so that he, as well as, of course, Germany and the Germans were to blame. Of course, formally to blame the one who started the war, i.e. the one who dropped the last drop in the already filled to the brim bowl. But here’s what he wrote about the First world war, the Frenchman Gustave Le Bon, which, of course, can hardly be suspected of sympathy for Germany in General and Kaiser Wilhelm II in particular. It was Wilhelm, thought Le Bon, – “author” of the last drop, but the historian, the Frenchman emphasizes, it is important to understand who filled the Cup to the brim, as a result of which it was overflowed. This applies not only to the First world war, but also to the Second – and all wars in General.
Below in order psychohistorical offensive combat falsification of history we will focus on the mechanism of occurrence, but rather the organization of the two world wars of the twentieth century, these Wars were not accidental, as in this we are trying to convince some historians – Western and Russian formally to work out the detachable masters silver coins. The owners, of course, it is advantageous to present the war random, they supposedly could not be, if it were not for Germany and/or Russia: in 1914 – two authoritarian regimes, in 1939/41 – two totalitarian. This scheme is collapsing from the elementary information impact, so below will be offered a brief factual analysis of the emergence of both world wars, an excursion into the sphere of historical information. As the father of Cybernetics N. Wiener said, “the right to live is to live with the right information”. We will also talk about the subject or subjects of the organization of world wars, they are also historical enemies of Russia. Russian version of the world, i.e. not only Russian, but also Western history, Russian view on the events of the last century and a half will be offered. I’m not going to refute Western propaganda from science and their henchmen in Russia, the best response is a holistic alternative interpretation, which is based on the question cui bono? – who benefits?
Materialized in the form of institutions, educational structures, systems of grants, etc., the falsification of history is one of the elements of global governance, which as of fact and of process, as a rule, denied the conventional (professors-profane) science qualifying attempts a serious study of supranational structures global coordination and control as “conspiracy”, “conspiracy theory”, etc. it is Clear that science, which subject of global governance, needs to deny the fact of its existence. Therefore, the analysis of supranational governance, its structures, forms, stages of development, methods, etc. as a POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC reality means the fight against the falsification of history. In addition, it means the study of the real main enemy of Russia and the Russian, who was hiding behind the signs “UK” and “USA”. Finally, the analysis of these structures allows us to understand the real mechanisms of history and weakens the potential of the organizational weapons, which are used by those whom B. Disraeli called “masters of history”, and O. Markeev – “masters of the world game”. And therefore, acts as an organizational weapon in the ongoing “invisible wars” – information, network, memory, weapons of resistance to global governance. This knowledge is very necessary for us today, when a new global redistribution begins, a new revision of the maps Of History, which will determine the future of the world for the coming centuries.
Today, Russia is more an object than a subject of global governance, which is fixed by its role in the international division of labor. Often the understanding of this “object”, maximum – “semi-object” state is made in the form of conclusions about the randomness of the current situation, about global governance as a simple conspiracy of certain forces. In fact, supranational governance is conditioned by the nature and logic of the development of capitalism and resistance to it: one should not forget, in particular, that the Soviet Union was a subject of world governance both in the Comintern era and in the post-war (i.e. until the end of the 1980s). And, of course, we must remember that without the structures of supranational (since the 1870s – the world, since the 1980s – global) governance capitalism would not be able to reproduce itself as a system.
Supranational governance is not an illusion, not a whim, not a luxury, not a twist of history, but a means of removing one of the most important contradictions of capitalism. Economically capitalism is a whole-world system, a world market, while politically it is not an integrity, but a set, a sum of States. Hence the triple contradiction between capital and the state, the whole and the sum, the world level and the national-state. The big bourgeoisie, no matter what country it lives in (especially if it is a large country), first of all its financial segment, always has interests that go beyond the national framework, beyond the state borders – its own and others’. And these interests can be realized only by violating the laws of your state or others, and often your own, and others at the same time. And it is not a one-time violation, but a permanent and systematic one, which, therefore, must be somehow formalized. It is one thing when capital is opposed by weak or even not very weak politics in Asia, not to mention Africa – there is enough power option, “gunboat diplomacy”. And how to be in the world of equal or relatively equal: Britain, France, Russia, Austria, from the second half of the XIX century. – Germany, USA? That’s different. To solve the problems at this level, we need not firearms, but organizational weapons of a special type, which, solving the problems of the top of the world capitalist class, would remove the contradictions between capital and the state, supranational economic and national political interest and, finally, between the world economic integrity and the world state-political totality.
The structures in the form of which there is such an organizational weapon should be:
– supranational (supranational); – closed (“secret»);
– long-term by type and principle of activity, because, among other things, Express the holistic and long-term interests of the top of the world capitalist class. It was such closed structures of supranational coordination and management that the bourgeoisie needed at the turn of the XVII–XVIII centuries.
However, the bourgeoisie did not have ready-made structures, and it used the existing ones, filling them with new content. We are talking about Masonic structures, the official development of which started in 1717.
Simultaneously with the need for supranational governance and the emergence of its first structures, there was a fundamental possibility of design approach to historical practice. And it is also an immanent feature of capitalism. One of the main meta-historical, institutional differences of capitalism from earlier systems is that at a certain point of development, his story is becoming more of a designed character.
The ability to design and direct the course of history by constructing it depends on several factors:
– the existence of an organization that can set and solve problems of this kind, i.e. has a geohistorical goal-setting, the ability to strategic planning on a global scale and the will to act on this basis;
– adequate object of manipulation as a means of solving problems of design and historical activity;
– having a financial base to ensure access to power and property and to maintain a strong position in both areas;
– control over information flows with a significant role of the latter in the life of society, or at least its top;
– the presence of structures of rational knowledge, analyzing the laws of history, mass processes and behavior of social groups as objects, and means of implementation of design activities.
Any traditional collective, rooted in the “small tradition”, having common norms, values, tradition, whether community, clan, tribe, caste, etc. is difficult to manipulate. Another thing is “the lonely crowd” (D. Roman) cities, especially preindustrial and early industrial, not yet turned into “the working classes” and turning into “dangerous classes”, so vividly described by Eugene sue; it is an adequate facility for large-scale historical manipulation. It appears this object is a “substance” – mass is in the middle of the XVIII century to explode, or rather, to be detonated in the “era of revolutions” (E. Hobsbawm), 1789-1848 in years.
The release of the masses to the forefront of history has provided great opportunities for large-scale manipulators. It is the mass, i.e. such atomized-aggregated human material, which consists of poorly connected with each other individuals is an adequate object of manipulation. In the middle of the XVIII century. surprisingly at the same time there was an adequate object of manipulation – the mass (“substance”), and a powerful financial base (money – “energy”), and new information flows (“information”).
In the middle of the XVIII century begins the financial explosion; if in the second half of the XVII century “high Finance” off-crop “long XVI century” (1453-1648 gg.), in the middle of the XVIII century. formed the basis of the modern financial system. Of course, in the pre-capitalist era, at the dawn of capitalism in the XV – XVI centuries. bankers could have a significant impact on the course of events, but their scale is not in any comparison with the possibilities of the capitalist era, when the object of influence were no longer individual events or their chains, and the course of history. The explosion in the development of banking capital in question, which made it all-powerful, was due to three factors that stimulated the development of “high Finance”: the British-French struggle for world domination; the colonial expansion of European powers and the industrial revolution that began.
Finally, last but not least, the role of information. In the XVIII century there was another change in the cardinal order – sharply, qualitatively increased the role of a certain way organized (“Packed”, structured, generalized catalogued, decoded, etc.), supplied as a rational, scientifically sound, fundamentally new and directed information and control over it. These information flows justified the claims of new social groups and their allies from the structures of the Old Order to participate in power and became a powerful psychohistorical weapon of conspiracy in reformatting the consciousness of the elite, social recruitment of adherents by means of carefully prepared interception of power by means of a mass movement, the first of which will later be the French revolution of 1789-1799. “Encyclopedia” has demonstrated the role played in society by applying for rational novelty and socially oriented and ideologically charged and structured information (information for special and political purposes), what is its impact on the elite, putting them under the influence of a certain information flow and thus opening them to the influence of their interests outside the conspiracy or even turning into the outer circle of the latter. In fact, the encyclopedia is the first example of a successful psychohistorical war of the modern Era.
Thus, in the second half of the XVIII century for the first time in history, the unprecedented scale and shape there was a connection came to the fore the logic of the development of capitalism as a system of “big Finance” (money, gold), informaticav and large masses of atomized population. This happened in accordance with the nature of capitalism in General and with the logic of the development (change) of hegemonies in the capitalist system.
It is significant that the formation of supranational governance structures occurred during the period when the peak of the hegemony of Holland (1620-1651 years) gone by the end came the Dutch cycle of accumulation and began to take its first steps to the British cycle of accumulation and the industrial revolution, which became the basis of British victories in the wars with France (1756-1763; 1792-1815 years) and the establishment of British hegemony (peak – 1815-1873 gg.). And although in the twentieth century. British hegemony ended, it was replaced by the American, ie. for two hundred years, the Anglo-Saxons are the hegemons of the capsystem, and their functioning as such is closely linked, first, with supranational governance structures – British in origin and, secondly, with Jewish capital, closely linked, as if sewed Britain and the United States and gave the Anglo-Sphere additional integrity and unity. The history of capitalism of the last 200-250 years is a pax exelence history of supranational governance, the structures of which expressed the interests primarily of the UK (and later the US and the UK) and capital with the British (later American and British) “residence permit”.
The subject of supranational governance originally was the upper segment of the ruling British class, including the crown. Structural forms of this subject a long time (until the end of nineteenth digits) were almost exclusively regular Masonic lodges. And almost from the beginning they were represented by two types, what was the main principle and the main mystery of supranational governance, which in the mid-nineteenth century was truly global. The first type included island lodges, the second – continental.
Island lodges, the existence of which was kept secret from the “neostrovityan” – a form of organization of those persons who play an important role in the political, socio-economic and spiritual life of great Britain. The ideology of the island lies the original wore a Patriotic, nationally oriented in character, rests on the age-old English tradition, following the principle of “right or wrong, my country”. At the same time locus operandi island lodges – the whole world and especially Europe, where there was another type of lodges – continental, but heading from the island – ie from the UK.
The installation of continental lodges was diametrically opposed to that of the island States – cosmopolitanism, which undermined the statehood, traditions and religion (primarily Catholicism) of the continental States in the interests of great Britain; in some cases it was the installation of “self-determination of Nations”, in others – “unification of Nations” (for example, Germany and Italy under the control of lodges). “From the depths of these lodges, which over time covered all the States of the world with their branches, – Baron de Rennes once wrote, – the so-called liberal doctrines”, intended especially for export, came out: continental “brothers” led on the way, directly opposite to that, to which there were “island”: “destroying traditions in other lands, England protects them at itself as an Apple of an eye, for this its main spiritual wealth made as synthesis from centuries-old experience […] Ridiculing external forms of traditional life of other backgammon, England with emotion holds on the forms, for the customs and for the ceremonies as the factors separating it from the others races and peoples, and in this she should footsteps another people, which is due to the same reasons, carried through the millennia their nationality and preserved its vitality to the present day”.
While both types of lodges were organizational weapons, it should be added that the continental lodges, in turn, were the first truly large-scale island weapons – the pan-European scale and global consequences – the experience of design action was the French revolution of 1789-1799. Using the real problems that have accumulated in France for a hundred years and riding mass processes, the British establishment, continental lodges and Swiss bankers toppled the monarchy in France, permanently eliminated a competitor to the UK and conducted a very important social experiment, the results of which were actively used for more than a century. Of course, they used the real problems and difficulties of France, which to a large extent created themselves (financial and information impact). These actions were decisive, as in the XVI, XVII century and the first half of the XVIII century the socio-economic situation was worse (sometimes much worse than in the reign of Louis XVI), but the revolution did not happen. As noted by I. Ten, when Louis XIV and XV more were starving, but then userewrite riots were being made. In 1789, the subjective factor was added to the system factor (not to be confused with the subjective one). In fact, the French revolution became the weapon of supranational financial and political conspiracies and the UK in their struggle against France, the French monarchy. These supranational forces in Europe became the main winners of the Napoleonic wars, the main beneficiaries of the British accumulation cycle and British hegemony.
The French revolution opened the “era of revolutions” (1789-1848). “Era of revolutions” and the “long fifties” (1848-1867/73), when at the Masonic patterns and under the supervision of the UK created the whole of the state, became the period of the arrival of the masons to power and, as a consequence, the partial nationalization of Freemasonry, i.e., the triumph of supra-national structures of coordination and control. However, there were also problems. The parish in various European countries in the mid-nineteenth century in one form or another to power elite classic lodges left in the political offside, a considerable part of the members of these lodges. In addition, not all participants of the revolutionary movement was satisfied with the results of the French revolution of 1830 and to an even greater extent the European revolutions of 1848-1849, In the face of the state they are now often resisted “the power of the masons”, and it created a conflict inside of Freemasonry in the world of cancerstricken. The result: dissatisfied with steel to create a “wild box”, which is caught takes the place of the monarchy of the classical lie the banner of “world revolution”, and in addition imparted a class character – the anti-bourgeois and anti-state at the same time. This was very much in line with the struggle of the “dangerous classes”, which gradually turned into “working classes”, and the emerging struggle of the proletariat. It is no accident that those who moved to the “wild lodges” and just in the revolutionary conspiracy, began to call themselves “Carbonari”, ie coal miners.
At the same time, supranational structures are beginning to emerge with a claim to control the struggle of workers on a global scale – I international led by Marx. This is not the place to analyze the links of the I international with the masons, Carbonari, large financial capital and British intelligence. I will limit myself to pointing out that the principle of supranational governance began to work not only on the class “horizontal”, but also on the “vertical”, penetrating society from top to bottom.
In the last third of the XIX century under the influence of the financiers, the revolutionaries and secret service begins to rapidly emerge as a dual system of world governance, government agencies, and open externally, which is an achievement and the embodiment of “democracy and progress” political forms (parties, parliaments) national level in a significant (sometimes very significant) extent a function of the closed structures of the world level.
During this period it also becomes clear that in the complicated political and economic situation (economic depression of 1873-1896; decline of the hegemony of great Britain; the split within the masonry into the British and German sectors; the rise of the USA and Germany; the beginning of the struggle of the West for Russian resources; the aggravation of the class struggle and much more) masonry as a form of supranational governance ceases to be adequate to the era. There is a need for fundamentally new forms, new structures, which, first, must unite the Anglo-Saxons (British and Americans) in the struggle against Germany and for Russian resources; secondly, to become a truly world – Freemasonry bore the imprint of the European world-system XVII – the first half of the XIX century.
New structures (subjects) of world governance are societies created by S. Rhodes, A. Milner and others in the UK. After the end of the First world war, this line of development continued interpenetration of supranational and state (“national”) structures, i.e. interpenetration of the two circuits while maintaining the principle of double-circuit. Western States have increasingly become the function of the structures of world governance, based on the Finance and the informal but highly effective political control.
A similar process of formation of the two-loop system has developed since the 1920-ies in the USSR, in the area of system-capitalism, but in the opposite direction to the West: in the West, the state has become a function of “nadnatsionalnoj”, Fininterna, etc., the Soviet Union, the command of Stalin, turning the project “world revolution” and began the construction of the red Empire began to turn a personification of the world revolution and the third international (Comintern) in function of state of the USSR, essentially eliminating the bypass ratio. Having become the key to Soviet victories in the 1930s-1950s, later this elimination, not compensated by the Soviet elite, played a cruel joke with the socialist camp, the USSR and the CPSU[1].
Summing up the preliminary result, it is possible to distinguish evolutionary and revolutionary (crisis) periods in the history of supranational management. The first period (evolutionary) was almost the entire XVIII century. Then came the “era of revolutions” (1789-1848), which became the era of the crisis of supranational governance of the XVIII century., the crisis of its structures and the search for new forms. The stabilization of the 1850s and 1870s only temporarily froze this problem, breaking through the 75-year crisis of 1870-1945 and the emergence of fundamentally new – world – forms of supranational governance. This was followed, as in the XIX century., thirty years of stabilization, followed by a crisis (at first it was “softened” dashing 1990-due to the robbery of the former socialist camp). The crisis has created new structures of supranational governance – global. These latter – dialectics – gave rise to this crisis as much as they did. The paradox is that globalization is developing as the source of the crisis – the crisis of global governance. The current crisis of supranational governance (global), as well as the previous one – global – is closely connected with Russia, its historical destiny, which should be mentioned in particular.
From that moment to the confrontation of Orthodoxy split for political reasons from this very Orthodoxy Catholicism added confrontation at the geopolitical level. In the last third of the XVI century in the West there are two establishment of control over Russia Catholic (the Habsburgs, the Holy Roman Empire) and Protestant (England). Both plans (with modifications) went through the centuries and in the late twentieth century took the form of approaches of the Rothschilds and the Rockefellers to the weakening/destruction of the USSR.
In the early nineteenth century right after the Napoleonic wars began the confrontation between Russia and the Anglo-Saxons; if in the XIX – early XX century it was the British-Russian struggle for geopolitical basis, that almost the entire second half of the twentieth century is the Soviet-American standoff on the US side was not only their British “cousins”, but the West in General. In the twentieth century. to the geopolitical aspect of the confrontation with the Anglo-Saxons added a social system: the USSR acted in relation to the West, to the world capitalist system not just as a power, but as a systemic anti-capitalism and an alternative world system.
Through the struggle of both the British and Americans against Russia, i.e. through the entire struggle of the Anglo-Saxons against the Russians from the XIX century to the present day are two more “red lines”, closely associated with supranational/world/global governance. The first “started” in the 1820s, simultaneously with the beginning of the British-Russian struggle, the second – since the 1880s.
The first “red line” is connected with the desire of European bankers, especially the Rothschilds, to create something resembling a world government, having formalized/institutionalized supranational governance, which was already manifested in the 1820s. In the way of the aspirations were objectively Russia of Alexander I and then Nicholas I, what did Romanov enemies, not only the UK but also the European bankers, led by Rothschilds (later they will Finance and the Crimean war, and the revolutionary movement in Russia). The situation has not changed after the October revolution. Taking a course on the construction of “socialism in one country taken separately”, ie, the red Empire, the command of Stalin was objectively in the transformation of world governance to world government – Stalin thrice thwarted the plans of the globalists, both right and left, earning the hatred of the first and second.
The struggle of the Anglo-Saxons and the West as a whole against Russia was conducted not only and not so much on the state line, but through closed supranational structures of world coordination and management, the state was often only a means and facade of this struggle. You could even say that the evolution of forms of global governance in the twentieth century was largely determined by the logic and objectives of the struggle the tops of the West, the world capitalist class of Russia. To a large extent, this was facilitated by everything that was connected with the second “red line”, which started in the 1880s and is associated with the desire of the West to put Russian resources under control.
By the 1880s, the main resource zones of the world had already been put under Western control in the form of either colonies or semi-colonies. Capital required new resource zones (and at the same time markets and a source of cheap labor), this requirement was intensified by the negative economic situation – the world depression of 1873-1896, which hit primarily the UK.
In 1884, a conference was held in Berlin, at which it was decided that the countries possessing natural resources, but not able to master them, should open up to the “international community”, i.e. the West. And those who do not want to open by force. Officially, it was claimed that we are talking about Africa, but this, of course, was not true: about Africa in this context, no such decisions would not take – just come and take force, as it was done at the end of the XIX century. in relation to Africa, not only black, but also white – Boer. In fact, the Berlin conference sent a warning – the “black mark” – to Russia, testing the strength of its young Emperor. Alexander III nerves were strong, and his Russia was strong enough, not a couple of the Empire of his son-a loser, was not yet entangled in debt, but because the “black mark” has not reached its goal. Goals and objectives of 1884 they were decided by means of the First world war and the February revolution of 1917, which was to knock Russia out of the category of great powers (the minimum program) or lead to its dismemberment with the establishment of not only economic but also political control (the maximum program).
In Russian revolution in the early 1920s, the international socialist phase and the Civil war created a situation very close to that of the transnational oligarchies; it seemed that Russian resources were about to be under Western control. However, Stalin’s team swatted the NEP together with the project “world revolution” and only a dozen years after the expulsion of Trotsky from the USSR created a powerful military-industrial complex and provided industrial autarky from the capitalist world (two of the five world industrial “nodes” of that time were on the territory of the USSR).
The West’s attempt (primarily the UK) to put Russian resources under control with the help of Hitler failed and, contrary to American calculations, the USSR recovered not in 20, but in 10 years, already in the early 1950s becoming a superpower. And Russian resources were no longer up to the West in the 1950s and 1980s- the struggle was with a systemic and geopolitical enemy, but during and especially after the destruction of the Soviet Union, the question of Russian resources was again on the West’s agenda, especially given the importance of oil and gas for the current economy. To Russian resources today is added another “prize” – Russian (North Eurasian) space. The fact that almost all experts agree that the looming threat of climatic disaster (attenuation Gulf stream, restructuring the planetary occurring every 11,5–12,5 thousand years, and got XX – the beginning of the XXII century with the active phase in 1990-2030 years) the only stable and resourced area will be Northern Eurasia, i.e. Russia, especially the TRANS-Ural part. This is what makes establishing control over Russia imperative for Western tops, representatives of which did not hesitate to say that the Russian can’t develop Siberia and the far East, but because they have to go under the control of the international community, i.e. transnational corporations and global governance structures and institutions (the repetition of the situation in 1884); that the Russian too much, and in General they need is a 15 or a maximum of 50 million, as to serve the “pipe” (this is according to the scheme of the West historical destiny of the Russian) is no longer necessary.
Well, their “fifth column” in Russia actively sings along with the hosts. The destruction of the USSR as a form of historical Russia had to solve a number of problems for the West and open the “gate” of globalization. That is, to achieve one of the main results for which the First world war was started, for the sake of which (her) conspirators and arsonists worked for several decades. It was in this war that the twentieth century was born. In fact, it was the beginning of the Great war of the twentieth century, the “hot” world phase which lasted 31 years (1914-1945 gg.), and the “cold” global – 45 years (1944-1989 gg.). Understand the “short twentieth century” (1914-1991) and the two “watersheds” (1871-1929 and 1986–? the world and global governance of this era is first of all to understand the mechanism of the organization of the war of 1914-1918, the goals and motives of its organizers-arsonists.
It is a complete picture of the era that started the Franco-Prussian war (1870-1871) and the economic depression (1873-1896) and ended with the destruction of the USSR (1991), and not some counterattacks against the USSR in the wine of the Second world war, it seems an adequate response to the psychohistorical enemy; not a counterattack, but a counterattack along the entire front line. As albert Schweitzer noted, the winner of the dispute is the one who undermines the foundations of the views and positions of the opponent. And, I add, offers a broader picture of the world and cause-effect relationships than he does. I Russian not to mention that from the beginning of the First world war and the decades preceding it, a straight line is drawn through 1939-1945. in our days, in the “watershed”, something reminiscent of both the 1900s and 1930s at the same time pre-war era, fraught with a new explosion – even the destruction of the USSR in 1991, the Russian question, the problem of Russia was not solved by the West to the end; the battle for Russian resources, and taking into account the threat of a geoclimatic catastrophe and for Russian space as a reserve territory is still ahead. It is necessary to learn the lessons of History and use their science against the main enemy – “Go, poisoned steel, on purpose” (“hamlet” Shakespeare in Pasternak translation). And if we want (must!) replay the results of the Cold war as the USSR once outplayed the results for Russia of the First world war, the lessons of history need not only to know and learn, they need to be used as an organizational weapon in the information, psychohistorical war.
In the 1820s was launched psychohistorical (information) program “Russophobia”, which was morally and ideologically prepare all Western Europeans to participate in the British struggle against Russia, the culmination of which in the XIX century. was the Crimean war – the first all-Western war against Russia. Its result was a reduction of Russia’s influence in Europe and some strengthening of France’s position of Napoleon III, but at the same time Russia has retained the status of one of the five great European powers and continued to resist the UK in Central Asia. To change this situation, the British took care to create a continental counterweight to Russia, which at the same time could cut and Napoleon III, who showed increasing independence. Such a counterweight was to be United around Prussia Germany.
In 1870-1871, Prussia defeated France. The rapid victory of the Germans even then caused some surprise among his contemporaries – they were not so much stronger than the French militarily. Over time, the situation became clear: the defeat was largely the result of betrayal. The latter was due to the fact that the “brothers” from the Masonic lodges of great Britain, France and Germany agreed – and the fate of the Third Empire was decided. The British were able to triumph. And here the Germans gave them an extremely unpleasant surprise, the consequences of which largely determined the course of European and world history for almost eight decades.
Having finished with the French, the Germans United their (continental) Masonic lodges, which had previously been in a separate form to some extent under the control of the British (island) lodges, in one major superlog – “Geheime Deutschland” (“secret Germany”) and thus not only got out of their control, but made an application for an independent game in the world processes. For the first time (and, incidentally, the only time in history), Anglo-Saxon supranational structures of world governance and coordination were challenged on a national basis. The power of this challenge was reinforced by the national political position of the German ruling class and the growing economic power of the Second Reich, while Britain in the 1870s the peak of its political and economic hegemony in the world has passed.
British public opinion, not knowing about the Masonic background of the Franco-Prussian war, the victory of the Germans and so frightened to such an extent that in 1871 saw the light of the story of Colonel J. Chesney, “the Battle of Dorking”. The plot is simple: the Germans landed in England and start a war. Even for 10-15 years before such a Briton and could not come to mind, but life changed.
So, the Second Reich created a two-circuit system of power in one, a single country – before that, only the British had a two-circuit structure of power. Although the “treacherous Albion” threat realized immediately, in the 1870s, the British were not up to Germany: the situation in the middle East, the Russian-Turkish war and the Big game did not allow them to address the German issue. Meanwhile, Germany was building up its power, the Russian-German Union was forming, and the economic situation in the UK was not improving.
In the 1880s, the British elite faced two closely related issues – German and Russian. The growth of Germany, the “German spirit” had to be stopped at all costs, but the Russian resources had to be put under control. And, of course, it was impossible to allow the realization of the nightmare of the British – continental Russian-German Union. Moreover, the British could only stop the Germans with the help of Russia by using it (and then, by using it, bring it to its knees, as they tried to do in 1917-1918). As noted by the remarkable Russian geo-politician E. A. Edrikhin-Vandam, the British solution of the German question “may not a single combat of England and Germany in the North sea and the pan-European war with participation of Russia and under the condition that if the latter would assume, at least three-quarters of the total burden of war on land.” Note a critical detail: at the end of the XIX century, the very existence of the British Empire and its leadership has largely become dependent on the destruction of Germany and Russia, but a means of destruction could only be conflict between them. Tied tight knot Russian-German question became the Central question of the existence of the British, and from a certain point in the American elite in their globalist aspirations. The globalist and Imperial principles of the organization of space are incompatible, especially when the Imperial principle is embodied by the white, Christian, but not Protestant-Catholic, and Orthodox and besides non-capitalist in fact civilization – Russia.
The solution of the German question by the British rested on the European war, which had to be somehow caused, and the need to create an Alliance with Russia. Given the half-century Anglo-Russian confrontation, even the Treaty of 1887 on Afghanistan, concluded after the panjdeh Incident (1885), which almost led to war, was not enough for the Foundation of the new Union. In addition, the British sought to clamp the Germans in ticks, and this needed France as an ally of great Britain and Russia. But the fact of the matter is that France at that time had strained relations with Russia and even more strained – with the UK. And the British found a strong move: to come to an Alliance with Russia through an Alliance with France, which previously will enter into an Alliance with Russia. This scheme was divided into several moves.
Apparently, the final decision on the defeat of Germany, the British took no later than 1888 (economic problems propped up), and the work began to boil; looking ahead, I note that at this time the Rothschild man Cecil Rhodes began to create a closed management organization of a new type. First, we had to work on the Franco-Russian Union. The Pope had to convince the French to move towards Russia. He hardly willingly took up the case, but at that time the Vatican is pretty indebted to the Rothschilds, had to work. The Russian-French rapprochement was also facilitated by the post-Bismarck deterioration of German-Russian relations – partly objective, partly the result of the actions of the British Agency of influence in Russia, closely associated with British bankers. In 1892-1893 the result – the Franco-Russian Union – was obvious. Well, the situation of great Britain on the world stage was complicated so much that Rhodes spoke about the need to create a single Anglo-American establishment and engaged in the creation of fundamentally new closed supranational structures of world coordination and management, more adequate to the new era than Freemasonry, on the one hand, and the German superlage and other closed structures – on the other. One of these new structures has become a society under the discreet name “We” (“We”), or “Group” (“The group” – there is still); it was followed by others, such as the Milner society (“Round table”), which grew out of the “Group” and became at some point its core. The new structure is actively involved in the salvation of great Britain by the destruction of Germany, with its two circuits of power (by the way, the Germans were also on alert, creating neorganika structures and corporations are a new type) and the destruction of Russia.
The next step in Britain’s long-term strategy was to push France into an Alliance with Albion. To do this, it was necessary to demonstrate to the French that the Russians are not so strong and should not rely too much on them in the confrontation with Germany. And for this, in turn, it was necessary to really weaken Russia, but not in the European zone – there it will still be useful, and, so to speak, “on the distant shores.” For example, in the far East. This Russian-Japanese war (1904-1905) preceded the conclusion of the Anglo-Japanese Treaty (1902), which played a significant role in determining the outcome of the Japanese-Russian war, in which the British actively helped the Japanese. Similarly, “played” and the Americans, acting against Russia. It is significant that the favorite target for shooting at the shooting range of President T. Roosevelt, which in us policy begins a turn to a new relationship with Britain, was a portrait of the Russian Emperor Nicholas II.
The British achieved their goal: after the Japanese-Russian war, the frightened French went to an Alliance with Britain. Russian British agents of influence, which disrupted the Russian-German rapprochement after Björk, also pushed for an Alliance with the British, which after the war with Japan and in the presence of Russian-French and Franco-English unions seemed logical. In 1907, the Russian-English Union was issued what went down in history as “Entente” – “Entente”, or “Heartfelt consent”. To heart there is was very far, especially since Britain in fact did not take on any commitments, leaving France and Russia one-on-one with Germany, and it was undisputed success of British diplomacy, or rather, those forces that are behind the scenes directed its development, preparing large-scale war, new ReDeal History. And it makes sense to say a little more about these forces and look at what is said above, on the other hand, and from a different angle, and then we will return to 1907-1908.
In the 1870s and 1880s, it became clear that Freemasonry as the dominant organizational form of closed supranational forms of coordination and management did not work, not adequately to the modern world.
Moreover, it split into two opposing camps, one of which – German – was:
– first, nationally oriented and illiberal, which clearly violated the liberal-cosmopolitan principles of Freemasonry (the so-called “Prussian capitalism”, which has some “PRA-communitarian” features – approx. ed.);
– second, was clearly opposed by the UK and its lodges, as an island, and continental. Before the British ruling class, which for almost two centuries somehow controlled all or almost all the Masonic lodges of Europe, the task of creating a fundamentally new form of organization of closed supranational structures of coordination and management, supported by British power, was acute.
But that was just the problem: for those tasks which had to deal with a new closed (“secret”) structure (or structures) of a single British power wasn’t enough, Albion’s “designers” need turned in the only direction in which they could be deployed in the United States. They saw the way out in strengthening the Anglo-American (Anglo-Saxon) unity – financial,economic and political, up to the formation of the Anglo-American establishment, of course, mainly secret.
Only such a subject could solve the “pentagonal” (“pentagram”) problem:
– to put under control the us finances, thus creating a single Anglo-Saxon financial system; – to crush Germany (and other European and Eurasian empires);
– to appropriate Russian resources, weakening, and even better completely destroying Russia;
– to unleash the Eurasian, and even better world war and thus eliminating competitors;
– to establish world domination of the Anglo-Saxons as a special (high) race under the auspices of the world created by them (supranational) government.
The initiator of the creation of a new subject of the world game, the subject is not just a supranational European, and already world governance made Cecil Rhodes, which stood for the Rothschilds. “On a winter day in February 1891, three people had a Frank conversation in London. The consequences of this conversation were of great importance to the British Empire and the world at large.” So begins an interesting study of the “Anglo-American establishment” brilliant historian Carol Quigley. The three men in question are three staunch British imperialists: Cecil Rhodes, journalist and scout William stead (steed) and Reginald Balliol Brett (later Lord Asher, confidant first to Queen Victoria and then to Edward VII and George V). The Troika met to discuss the creation of a secret organization that should take over the real leadership of the foreign (and in many ways domestic) policy of the UK, to strengthen the British Empire in the new conditions (the German challenge), connecting to the process of strengthening the United States and creating something like a single Anglo-American establishment that dominates the world. It was meant simultaneously domination of “Anglo-Saxon race” (the doctrine of racism was in detail developed in the second half of XIX – the beginning of XX century). it is in the UK, not in Germany, which later implemented the British developments in practice) and the dominance of the British ruling class with its socio-political and ideological and intellectual traditions.
The idea of a secret Anglo-American organization was formulated by Rhodes in 1877 in his first will (wills were seven, because the ultracolonizer was quite flimsy health), and the conspiracy is mentioned in five of them. Rhodes formulated the purpose of the organization as follows: “the Spread of British rule in the world, improving the system of emigration from the United Kingdom and the colonization by British subjects of all lands where livelihoods can be acquired by energy, labor and enterprise… ultimately the return of the United States of America as an integral part of the British Empire, the consolidation of the entire Empire, the introduction of a system of colonial representation in the Imperial Parliament, which can contribute to the cohesion of the divided members of the Empire, and, finally, the Foundation of such a great power, which will make war impossible and will promote the best interests of humanity.”
Rhodes chose the Jesuits as a model for the organization and functioning of the secret society. In his last two wills, the society is not mentioned: being already very famous, Rhodes did not want to draw attention to him. The members of the group (called the “Group”), which was divided into two circles – internal (“Society of the elected”) and external (“Association of assistants”), were active in the fields of politics, journalism, science and education.
The Group and Milner paid special attention to the media. Thus, they established control over a large part of the British press. “Group” approved the fact that Alfred Harmsworth (“their man”) became in 1908 the owner of the most important of the British Newspapers – “times”, which immediately gained unprecedented access to the Affairs of the ministries of defense, foreign Affairs, colonies. In addition to the “times” under the control of Harmsworth (and hence the Milner – Rhodes organization died of a heart attack in 1902) a lot of “mass” press. It is not surprising that the “Group” helped Harmsworth become Lord Northcliffe. The times has become the mouthpiece of a “Group” but from 1910 began publishing the quarterly “The Round Table”. The magazine had to influence those who form public opinion, to determine the agenda. In addition, the “Group” had a substantial impact on the journals, “Quarterly Review”, “The Economist” and “Spectator”.
Closer to the beginning of the world war, the “Group”, relying on generals and officers, many of whom served in South Africa, significantly strengthened its positions in the military sphere.
The strategy of the society (group) was simple: first, to win over people with abilities and position and bind them to the bloc through either marriage bonds or a sense of gratitude for promotion and titles; second, influence through those involved in public policy, mainly by holding high positions by members of the group, which are as protected from the influence of the public as possible, and sometimes are simply hidden from it.
The creation of the Rhodes – Milner organization Quigley considered “one of the most important facts of the history of the twentieth century.” Its members skillfully concealed its existence, because being prominent representatives of the old privileged class, they understood perfectly well: the real, i.e. secret power is much more important and effective than the external form. The ideological and intellectual center of the organization and – in the future – the center of training of political and intellectual elite of the Anglo-Saxon race of masters became Oxford.
Rhodes managed to lay a strong Foundation for the structure, which was to become an organizational weapon of world governance of a narrow group of British-American elite, and appointed five Trustees who were to further develop the cause of life – his and the Rothschilds. These were Lord Nathaniel Rothschild, Lord rosbury, Earl grey, Alfred Bight, Leander Star Jameson (Rhodes’s lover) and Alfred Milner, who were destined to play a huge, largely decisive role in the development of supranational structures of coordination and management. As noted by George. Doherty and j, McGregor, together with the five leaders of the secret society, whose goal was to create a secret elite of the world-Rhodes, sted, Escher, Rothschild and Milner – was a fundamentally new force in British politics, born in the 1880s-1890s, but they actively cooperated with representatives of traditional aristocratic families, dominated in Westminster and often closely associated with the monarchy. For example, Robert Gascoigne-Cecil, the third Marquis of Salisbury, who controlled the Conservative party or Archibald primrose, the fifth Earl rosbury – almost complete owner of the Liberal party. Doherty and McGregor emphasize that British political life was controlled by half a dozen families, often married, but the era forced them to “recruit” new blood – mainly from Oxford Balliol and new College.
Thus, the secret organization led by the “five” (but not Cambridge, and abruptly) became the shock part of the old British class and at the same time the core of the new world Anglo-American elite, various segments of which are also firmly linked Jewish capital. Once again, the resumption of ties with the United States and its global strengthening was the Central point of the Rhodes program – without this, the dominance of the Anglo-Saxon race and the British model in the world of the twentieth century.
In the early 1890s, badly battered by the recession of 1873-1896, great Britain needed funds. The Group was even more in need of an independent financial source, and its members turned to South Africa. In 1889, on the model of the East India company was created by the British South African company, whose task was to provoke a war with the Boers and capture the gold mines in the Transvaal. However, an attempt to organize in 1895 the revolt of the British (“Outlander”) against the Boers and start a war failed, causing reputational damage to the Rhodes, and then took over the case appointed a Commissioner of the Cape colony, Milner. His goal, as previously “sweet couple” Rhodes and jameson, was provoke war. The “group” neutralized the influence of the Minister of colonies Joseph Chamberlain, who did not want a war with the Boers, started a war and brought it to a victorious end. However, the reputation of the Milner was pretty spoiled by his role in the organization of concentration camps for civilians, which killed 32 thousand Boer women and children.
In any case, however, the “Group” broke the jackpot, which sought and could begin to implement for a decade hatched plan of war with Germany, a war that could not be won without continental allies – France and Russia. After signing in 1904 the Anglo-French Alliance “Group” began to actively support the revanchist-minded groups in France, joining with them in close contact. Immediately after the end of the Russian-Japanese war, unleashed by the Japanese with the active participation and assistance of the British, began processing Russia. Understanding the geopolitical need of Russia in a real naval port in the unfrozen sea and depriving it of the opportunity to create such a port in the far East, the British began to seduce the Russian elite with Constantinople and the Straits, explaining that the only means of gaining control over them is the war with Germany, i.e., inciting the Russian-German conflict, naturally in Alliance with Britain and France. The Anglo-Russian Convention (formally) on Persia removed the last obstacle to the formation of the anti – German Union, and closely associated with the “Group” (in fact – its high – ranking agent in Russia), Alexander Izvolsky helped the “Group” and Edward VII to disrupt the björk agreement of the king and the Kaiser-for this “Group” will contribute to the appointment of his Minister of foreign Affairs of the Russian Empire (1906-1910), and when it is needed-will transfer to France as a Russian Ambassador (1910-1916); at the same time, Albion “group” began to actively move Churchill and Lloyd George.
Izvolsky, who received from the “Group” not only career support, but also money, did everything for the indignation of the Balkan States, especially Serbia and Bosnia, against Germany and Austria-Hungary. In Russia, he was sharply criticized and even ridiculed for it, but the support of a loyal ally of the “Group” Edward VII always saved him. It should be emphasized that in the deadly game started by the “Group” Izvolsky played on the side not of Russia, but of the “Group”, i.e. of a certain segment of the British elite, representing the Russian cell in the network woven by them.
Izvolsky was not the only European politician, “tightened” to the outer circle of the “Group” – selection was conducted in other countries, especially in France (for example, Delcasse and many other members of the government), not to mention the vastness of the British Empire and the UK itself. In this widely used weaknesses and vices. So, Lloyd George got into the network because of his love of “beautiful life” and insatiable sexual appetite.
And, of course, great attention was paid to the United States, Back in 1902 in the UK was created “Society of pilgrims” (“Pilgrim society”), whose main goal was to develop friendly relations with the United States. “Rhodes scholarship”, most of which received and receive Americans, prepared not very large in number, but very influential Pro-British-minded segment of the American elite. A small, but again very influential, was the British-oriented segment of us financiers. Economic power in America in the early twentieth century. it belonged to several family dynasties concentrated in new York, primarily the Morgans and Rockefellers. The Rothschilds were closely associated with the Morgans, as well as with the banking families of kun, Leeb, Schiff, Paul (Paul) Warburg, through them influencing the financial and political situation in the United States and, of course, faced with the Rockefellers.
By 1914, 80% of Russian debts belonged to French banks, and these banks, like the Bank of France, were controlled by a very small group, the main ones being the Rothschilds. London and Paris Rothschilds provided loans to Russia, at the same time sponsoring through third and fourth companies of revolutionaries and liberals, working to weaken and – in the future – the destruction of the Russian state. It must be said that the Rothschilds, as a rule, preferred to act, using as a screen other companies or even chains of companies – this is their family handwriting; therefore, few people know what and how really control the Rothschilds, and some even naively believe that this family has long been in the background.
To destroy the US Rothschilds and their Anglo-American partners were not going to: the US – not Germany and not Russia. Here was involved a different scheme: the establishment of control over the us finances, and therefore over America as a state, i.e. partial deprivation of US sovereignty. To this Anglo-American bankers were several decades, physically destroying those presidents who resisted it – Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley. To achieve the establishment of private banks ‘ control over the money supply, in 1907 the bankers provoked a financial crisis in the United States, but it did not solve the problem, and the bankers, retreating (“who will jump the furthest, will be able to jump again” – Confucius), began a more thorough preparation, which required the appearance in the presidential chair of the near puppet, all obliged benefactors-financiers.
In 1907-1908, the “masters of the world game”, the players and their immediate entourage completed preliminary preparations for war as a means of establishing world control, lined up to attack, like deadly torpedoes, placed “stones” on key points, like players in weizi/go.
The attack was to develop in several directions:
– completion of the operation to establish control over the us money supply through the creation of a fundamentally new financial organization, adequate to the new crypto-political structures of the Anglo-American establishment; it was the “innovative” financial organization that was necessary to Finance the Great war;
– intensification of inciting Russia to Germany and Austria-Hungary with the active use of the Balkans as a zone for the future of casus belli;
– provoking Germany to a military conflict – so that later all the blame could be blamed on the Germans, paying them for the “treachery” of the early 1870s (out of control of the British lodges);
– creating the impression of the Germans about the complete neutrality of the UK in the event of a military conflict “flank” (Russia, France) powers with the “Central” (Germany, Austria-Hungary), ie luring Germany into the British trap;
– at the same time, active work in the Balkans to create a trap there for all continental powers, especially for the Russian and two German empires, i.e. work on the implementation of Bismarck’s prediction that if a new war breaks out in Europe, it will happen because of some stupidity in the Balkans; it was thus about the preparation of this stupidity, and in such a way that it looked stupid, accident, which could accuse anyone, but not the British.
Solving all these problems, the “Group” has expanded its network in Europe, actively including in it the Russian diplomats – who became an Ambassador in France, Izvolsky, the Ambassador in Serbia N. Hartwig; contacts were established with the new Minister of foreign Affairs of the Russian Empire Sergei Sazonov. It’s hard to tell until the end whether he understood all the details of the game, but the essence of the game and the fact that his “play”, he could not understand, but prefer not to enter into conflict with powerful players (especially since serious support from the king was not); however, to play along with the arsonists, he did not want and did not intend. Let me repeat: isvolsky and Hartwig worked in Russia, where war with Germany was not needed, and to a “Group” (as her “outer circle”, “figures”), which was needed for the war and who decided to impose it to the whole world, including the part of the British establishment and political class, which did not want war. In this regard, the First world war, its beginning is a triumph, the victory of a supranational Alien and Predator in one orgflacon over the States of Europe and America (USA); the winners benefited to the extent that they were either a “home port” or allies of the “Group” (this did not apply to Russia, it was originally a target, which was put on a mask with the inscription “ally”). But we got ahead of ourselves.
So, in 1907-1908, after almost 20 years of play, Britain and the “Group” gave themselves the trump cards, preparing the stage for the Russian-German war. Now it was only necessary to set fire to the fuse, rubbing his hands, like Gaidar’s bad Boy rejoice: “Something is now going to jerk.” The question, “where is rush?”, in fact, did not stand. Clear where – in the Balkans. It has already been mentioned above that at the turn of the 1870s and 1880s Bismarck warned: a new war in Europe will break out because of some nonsense in the Balkans. Especially, I will add, if “stupidity” is well prepared. And it began to prepare immediately after the Russian-Turkish war of 1877-1878, and after 1907 the process was sharply intensified on the basis that was created for two decades. And by the end of this period, some information could not be leaked. Thus, speaking at the beginning of 1914 at a meeting of the Geographical society in Paris, the future dictator of Poland, and then the socialist Y. Pilsudski said that soon a war would break out in Europe between the blocs, in which Austria-Hungary, Germany and Russia would be defeated (Pilsudski made a mistake only in the order).
The war in Yugoslavia the mid 1990-ies the writer O. Markeev called “model” in the sense that it tested certain models of action in emergency situations, possible future actions against the multi-ethnic and multi-religious (and Yugoslavia), Russia, was the recruitment and the elimination of others, laid the scout and sparsity for future operations. Most of all, Americans, British, Germans, and – to a lesser extent – representatives of middle Eastern and middle Eastern countries were quick. Russian-Turkish war of 1877-1878 and “afterword” to her, too, were a time of laying the nets for future operations. The pawners were mainly the British, for the exploration of which the Balkans were a traditional zone of activity – this is very well written by W. steed (sted) in a two-volume “Parliamentarian for Russia”, published in the late XIX century. the British (in some competition with the Russian and Austro-Hungarian intelligence) created in the South of the Balkans, its network of secret organizations, including Serbian terrorist, which they used “in the dark” (or “half-dark”).
By 1912, the secret Anglo-American elite twice unsuccessfully tried to provoke Germany into war; these failures forced the “Group” to finally concentrate on the Balkans as a place of future explosion, and more precisely – on Serbia. Why Serbia?
First, because of its ties with Russia – manipulation “team Izvolsky” on this line could cause the Russian-German conflict.
Secondly, Serbia was literally Packed with British agents.
Third, among the Balkan countries, Serbia was the most dependent on foreign capital, and therefore there was a place to roam the Europeans in General and the British in particular. Here’s what they write about it. Doherty and George. McGregor: “…the Balkan countries had neither the infrastructure nor the investment capital to develop their natural resources. Romania and Serbia were particularly dependent on international bankers, resulting in real wealth floating away to London, Paris and Vienna. Before doing anything for the development of local industry, European financiers sucked everything they could from the Serbian national economy. Banks used local agents, influential politicians, representatives of the legislative and Executive authorities as intermediaries between the European exchange and Serbia. Lev Trotsky, then correspondent of the Kiev thought in the Balkans, wrote: “the Same door (in Serbia. – AF) leads to the Ministry and the Directorate of the Bank. […] Serbia was carefully prepared for a very special role. It was ideally located as the epicenter of the seismic explosion, which was to destroy the old order.” It was here that the representatives of the “Group” – British and Russian-were operating. Nicholas Hartwig, Ambassador to Serbia, who in fact controlled the Pashic government, was closely associated with Colonel D. Dmitrievich (APIs) – the head of the semi-Masonic-semi-terrorist organization of Serbian nationalists “Black hand”, a participant in the murder of king Alexander in 1903 and (according to the official version) one of the organizers of the murder of Franz Ferdinand in 1914.
It is Izvolsky and Hartwig in the company of Bushier created the Balkan League, uniting the Balkan countries in an Alliance objectively directed against the allies of Germany – Turkey and Austria-Hungary. The results were not slow to wait – the First Balkan war against Turkey and the Second Balkan war against Bulgaria, the traditional then (and today, after the destruction of the USSR) ally of the Germans. However, in both cases, neither in 1912 nor in 1913, the Kaiser did not succumb to provocation, preferring diplomacy. In addition, he believed in the possibility to negotiate with the British about neutrality (in 1941). in a similar trap, apparently, Hitler will fall – history repeats itself), especially since the British did everything to convince him of this. In February 1912, Haldane went on a visit to Germany, during which he convinced (in fact deceived) the Kaiser that the Second Reich may well conclude a Treaty of neutrality with the UK – as they say, “I see no obstacles.” At least, so thought Wilhelm, processed Haldane.
In the same 1912, American bankers, many of whom were active members Of the society of pilgrims managed to push their puppet Wilson into the White house, who in the first year of his presidency (1913) signed a decree on the creation of the Federal reserve system (fed) – the money supply became the property and under the control of a limited number of private banks. Now it was possible to start a world war – it was already a question of technology: a shot in Sarajevo ordered? Get. And Franz Ferdinand, by the way, the enemy of the war with the Slavs, killed along with his wife. Kills a member of the black hand. For some reason they forget that two days later in Paris they kill another enemy of the war – a politician of the European level, a socialist Zhores. And a month earlier, Rasputin received a severe (planned – fatal) wound from a knife strike. Later he will say that if he was not in the hospital, and at court, “dad” (so he called Nicholas II) would not fight – he Rasputin, would be able to convince him (I think, really, would be able).
Gavrila Princip’s attempt to commit suicide immediately after the Archduke’s murder failed: potassium cyanide failed. This was as it should be: the killer-Serb was necessary for testimony, for the investigation, for the court, i.e. to foment the conflict. Well, after the moor did his job, you can die – the Principle died in 1918 from tuberculosis in prison. Hartwig died suddenly in 1914 at the Austrian Embassy in Belgrade (sic!); APIs was shot in 1917; in 1917 the same year mysteriously disappeared correspondence Hartwig with Sazonov. Well, in 1919, as soon as he began his memoirs, Izvolsky suddenly died. The dead are silent (however, not always).
Immediately after the shot in Sarajevo, representatives of the “Group” began a manipulative game in Vienna and St. Petersburg. British politicians and the press – attention – clearly spoke on the side of Austria-Hungary, supported her claims to Serbia and condemned the Serbs. The Austro-Hungarians had the impression that European public opinion or, as they say now, “the opinion of the international community” was on their side. Moreover, the British press described the murder as an act of aggression by Serbia, to which Austria-Hungary is simply obliged to respond. The center of the most important political decisions for Europe became in this situation St. Petersburg, more precisely, the British skillfully moved it there.
The task of the group’s agents – Izvolsky and poincaré, who were actively assisted by the French Ambassador to Russia Palaeologus and British Ambassador Buchanan, was to ensure a tough position of St. Petersburg towards Vienna. Sazonova all attempts to mitigate the situation – he knew that Russia does not need war, moreover, it is dangerous for her – crossed this “team”. And the king was acting sluggish, as if surrendering to the will of the rock. The role of “rock” performed “Group” and its agents.
To provoke Russia needed in order to provoke aggressive actions of Germany: “Group”, gray, Buchanan and Co. were aware that in the UK few people want war and war sentiment will not arise as long as Germany does not show the aggressiveness of Russia and France. In turn, this manifestation depended on the position of the UK. If she had declared her solidarity with the “flank” powers, the Kaiser would not have risked any war, and the long-term efforts of the arsonists and conspirators would have gone to waste. Therefore, the “Group”, Edward VII and foreign Minister grey has done everything to convince William of the British neutrality; grey constantly talked about the possibility of the conflict as a “conflict of four”, thus eliminating Britain from among its members; British journalists and parliamentarians wrote and spoke (many of them honestly) about Germany and Austria-Hungary in a calm tone, thereby lulling the Germans.
The “group” managed to misinform many British parliamentarians on the question of how the situation in Europe is really developing and how explosive it is. Meanwhile, by July 25, 1914, gray already knew that Russia was ready for war, because the actions of Austria-Hungary and their skillful interpretation of the directed agents of the “Group” did their job: July 26, responding to the partial mobilization of Austria-Hungary (in response to Serbian mobilization), the king gave the order for partial mobilization of the Russian army. Despite this, lulled by the British (how, they will remain neutral!) Kaiser was confident that the conflict between Austria-Hungary and Serbia will not go beyond the local framework and will not become serious. But the mess was quite serious, and Wilhelm was already trapped, and he did not even know to what extent.
In the “Group” knew that in case of war with France the Germans move through Belgium, thereby violating its neutrality and providing a casus belli against yourself. But they understood that the Germans understand this and can try to play differently. In this case, the “Group” had a “plan number 2”, which did not leave Germany a single chance to avoid the war and be accused of unleashing it.
For some time prior to the outbreak of the First world war, the group’s agents purchased weapons and ammunition from Germany and transported them to Ireland, where they armed both Ulster Protestants and Catholics in the South of the country, preparing an “armed uprising of the Irish against Britain and Protestants.” In the organization of the uprising would have blamed Germany (whose weapon?) – and this would be a reason for war. However, the “plan № 2” was not needed, everything happened differently, and the decisive role at the last stage, in the opening of the lid of the “storehouse of the abyss”, in fueling the European conflict, which eventually turned into a world, was played by the British foreign Minister Edward gray, and helped him another person “Group” – Lloyd George.
The majority of the members of the Cabinet of Ministers of great Britain were against the war, and the “Group” was supposed to circumvent, to beat them. Not only have permission, but do not put the Cabinet on notice, Churchill began the mobilization of the Navy; Prime Minister Asquith sent Haldane to the war office for the mobilization of the army, Field grey assured Cambon that Britain will protect France against aggression. On August 3, 1914, gray gave a completely false speech in the House of Commons that the Ministry of foreign Affairs had done everything to keep the peace. Despite their support for gray’s bellicose statements, members of the House of Commons still declared the need for debate, but they were abruptly stopped by Asquith. Nevertheless, it was decided that a debate on gray’s speech was necessary. After the break, gray immediately left Parliament and sent a tough ultimatum to Germany, knowing what the parliamentarians did not know – that the German invasion of Belgium in response to the actions of France has already begun.
When the House met to debate against supporters of the world was made by a member of a “Group” by A. Balfour. He said that there was not enough quorum for the debate, and they would make a bad impression on the public. The question of war was resolved, and on August 4 George V at Buckingham Palace declared war on Germany. It was a surprise and a blow to Wilhelm, a kind of “black mark”: “It’s done, Willie.” Now he could stomp his feet as much as he wanted, spit out curses at the “dastardly tradesmen” – the trap slammed shut, Germany was at war on two fronts with three leading European powers.
English historian N. Ferguson clumsily tries to explain the emergence of the First world mistakes of great Britain and its diplomats. No, my friend, this is not a mistake, but the implementation of a clear plan, bringing to the end of the line, conceived in the 1880s. It is clear that N. Ferguson, who previously wrote a panegyric biography of the Rothschild family, is trying to shield the UK, you can only sympathize – hard man earns his bread, it is difficult to prove the unprovable. Who is not blind, he sees: it is Britain, the international Union of Anglo-American bankers, organized in clubs and lodges to the brim filled the bowl, drop the last, overflowing drop in which he was able to force simpleton Wilhelm. I must say that the Anglo-Saxons in the early twentieth century was very lucky: the head of the States of the targets they had two narrow-minded, inadequate modern world rulers, Wilhelm II and Nicholas II. And if about Wilhelm is almost forgotten, with Nicholas II otherwise – there are still historians who are trying to “sing” this incompetent ruler as a major statesman.
Already August 1914 (not to mention the war in General) proved the correctness of EA Edrikhin-Vandam, who predicted the success of Britain in the fight against Germany only if the British side will be Russia, which will drag three-quarters of the military burden. In August 1914, the offensive in East Prussia, conducted before the mobilization, Russia saved Paris and France. If this had not happened, the war – with the defeat of France – would have ended differently, perhaps not with the victory of Germany, but not with its defeat.
True to the plan of the organization of mutual destruction of Germany and Russia during the war, from the end of 1916, when it became clear that the war was won and Germany would be defeated, the British turned to the solution of the Russian question. They supported the conspiracy against Nicholas II (revealing that killing Rasputin was sent the killer is from London); without this support the conspiracy hardly would take place – if the British could simply destroy it. But in the event of the overthrow of the monarchy in Russia, they received a grateful Pro-British government, which not only would not dare to demand what was promised to Nicholas II (Constantinople and the Straits), but became an obedient tool in the hands of the “Group” and would completely turn Russia into a raw material appendage of the West. In 1918, the Russian, German and Austro-Hungarian empires no longer existed. The Versailles system, created by the political servants of the Rothschilds, Rockefellers and other banking families seemed a complete triumph of the plans of the Anglo-American establishment, Anglo-American clubs, lodges, closed societies. But Hegel is not accidental, wrote about “the cunning of history.”
The first world war contributed to the strengthening of closed groups of world coordination and management of the Anglo-Saxon elite and the strengthening of Anglo-American relations on the closed line with the growth of contradictions on the open line – between Britain and the United States as States. In 1916 Milner’s team, his grown-up “kindergarten” finally became the core of the “Group”. Arnold Joseph Toynbee, Jr., a historian and scout, played an increasingly active role in it. It was from the ideas of Toynbee Milner learned the installation, according to which the expansion of the Empire and the integration of English-speaking elites are necessary in order to continue to exist British way of life, the way of life of the British ruling class as revealing the best and highest abilities of mankind.
After the war, the institutionalization of the Anglo-American elite continued. First, the Royal Institute of international relations was established in London. The true founder of the Institute was Curzon, and was founded at a joint conference of British and American experts at the hotel “majestic” in 1919. the Staff of the Institute was a Council with the Chairman and two honorary secretaries and a small group of employees. Among the latter, the most significant figure was Arnold J. Toynbee, the nephew of Milner’s friend at the College of Belliol (Oxford University), in the future – the author of the famous 12-volume “A Study of History”and many other works, as well as coordinator of the British intelligence during the Second world war.
KIMO organized discussions and research groups, sponsored studies and published their results. The Institute published a “History of the peace conference” and published a “Journal” with records of the discussions, as well as an annual “Overview of international Affairs” compiled by its employees (primarily Toynbee) or members of the Milner group. Another Yearbook was the review of British Commonwealth relations, funded by a grant from the new York Carnegie Corporation. The Institute established branches in the dominions and even extended its influence to countries outside the Commonwealth – through the League of Nations Intellectual cooperation organization. From the time of the Czechoslovak crisis of September 1938, the RIIA became an informal adviser of the Ministry of foreign Affairs, and with the beginning of the Second world war officially turned in his research Department.
In 1924, the American equivalent of KIMO – the Council on foreign relations (CMR) was established in Washington. In addition to the RIIA and the CFR both in the UK and the USA, formed a club structure or otherwise associated with a “Group”. A good characteristic of the clubs of the Anglo-American elite was given by G. J. The drug, which defined them as “entrenched and self-replicating brotherhoods that ruled the Anglo-Saxon States: they were (and are) formed by a conglomerate of dynasties originating from the banking houses, the diplomatic corps, the officer caste and the ruling aristocracy. This conglomerate is still firmly woven into the fabric of modern “democracies”. Such “clubs” operate, manage, educate and think as a compact, closely-knit oligarchy, attracting the middle class to cooperate, which it uses as a filter between itself and cannon fodder – commoners. Indeed, in the so-called democratic choice, which is now the most ingenious model of oligarchic rule, the electorate still has no influence, and political ability is nothing but the name of the persuasive force needed to build “consensus” around vital decisions that are not made by the electorate.”
It follows, first, from makingeasy logic environment of a Eurasian array and prevent it from consolidating in a single or allied unit. Secondly, from the fact that Russia (USSR) and Germany at that time were two test sites, two experimental fields of development of two different brutal new forms of creating a new world order and technologies (primarily mass-manipulative) of its establishment. In Russia, the “Group” and its American “colleagues” established contact with the Bolsheviks, the international socialists; in Germany, she actively supported the policy, which will eventually become the national socialists. During the Civil war in Russia, the Bolsheviks of the international socialists arranged Anglo-Saxons more than the whites set to restore the Empire. The policy of world revolution was quite happy Finintern, because it was broken, undermined, weakened the national state, eliminating the obstacles in the path of commodity and financial circuits and providing conditions for the creation of Venice the size of Europe or even the world. It is clear that the revolutionaries and the bourgeoisie, the left and right globalists – the enemies, but in its own way the world revolution, destroying the state and erasing the state and political borders, brought into line the political organization of the capitalist system with the economic (world market without borders). Of course, the revolutionaries had their own goals, and the world elite – their own: the world-revolutionaries sought to organize a systemic crisis of capitalism and create a new system led by the world Communist government, and the supercapitalists used revolutionaries (as if looking into the future and looking “Matrix-2”) to deepen the crisis of the old structure and create a new structure of the former capitalist system, but without States, and led by the world government.
Describing today’s cooperation of radical globalists and radical Islamists, S. A. Goryainov writes: “In history, there are quite short periods when future opponents are forced to work together, solely for the sake of creating strong long-term foundations of a global conflict that will determine the world balance.” The situation of the 1920s with the opposition of radical globalists “left” and “right” was similar. And if the globalists and Islamists 2000-ies the enemy – the state in General, the left and right globalists 1920-1930-ies the enemy was a specific state – Stalin’s USSR, which broke the plans of both. From this point of view, the Trotskyist-Bukharin, left-right anti-Stalin bloc is not fiction or logical nonsense, but a reality conditioned by the dialectic of the development of capitalism and systemic anti-capitalism.
The role of the shock force (and firewood) of the world revolution was planned Soviet Russia, where after the October revolution of 1917 in power were the international socialists Lenin and Trotsky. However, after the end of the Civil war, the introduction of NEP, the formation of the partapparat as a special subject of Russian history and with the beginning of the struggle for power in the Bolshevik elite, the situation changed: Stalin’s team, especially after the failure in 1923 of the revolution in Germany began to gradually curtail the course of the world revolution, moving to the construction of “socialism in one, a single country.” This course won in 1925-1927, the Imperial socialists were stronger than the international socialists, because they expressed the interests of the Big system “Russia”. A Large system of “Capitalist world” in its post-war state, torn by contradictions, could not impose the will of Soviet Russia – the USSR. So the team of Stalin and the USSR for the first time thwarted the plans of the globalists – left and right. Now the way to world control for the closed structures of the Anglo-Saxon elite lay in the way of implementation of the project “world revolution”, and the project “world war”, and the decisive role here was given to Germany, or rather its nationalists, who had to create a new Reich, to crush the Soviet Union and this crush themselves, ultimately working on the Anglo-Saxon clubs.
Nationalists of Germany, the Anglo-Saxons began to be interested in 1919, the British and American intelligence contacted with Hitler, but so to speak in a quiet mode, in the “active standby”, in reserve. Since the end of 1927 (suppression of the Trotskyist putsch on November 8, 1927 in Moscow) contacts intensified, and 1929 became a turning point. That year was one of the most important in the twentieth century. The expulsion of Trotsky from the USSR Stalin “explain” to the Comintern and Fininternu that return to the project “world revolution” will not only “Red Empire”, but we’ll see. In Russian, “right-wing globalists” began to prepare a new world war, for this purpose it was from 1929 to power in Germany led Hitler to Germany and the USSR, the Germans and the Russians once again clashed in a deadly battle, so that the German-Russian question, thus, received a final decision. In the same 1929 man who weighed on the scales of history, perhaps as much as Roosevelt, Churchill, Hitler and Mussolini combined – Director of the Central Bank of England Montague Norman began to close the British Empire from the outside world (the process ended in the summer of 1931), ie. first of all, from the US, from the Rockefellers, and they began to solve their problems, investing not only in the Third Reich, but also in the USSR.
Norman’s decision, dictated by a certain part of the Anglo-American bankers, paved the way to the great depression, and with it – to the war, during which the United States had to destroy not only the Third Reich, but the British Empire. However, first it was necessary that the war broke out in Europe, for this purpose, and began to rapidly create what GJ. The drug was called “Hitler, Incorporated.” That is the Third Reich. Not only the Anglo-American closed structures, but also the German and French bankers and Industrialists and, of course, historically closely connected with London “Swiss gnomes”were vitally interested in the creation of this structure.
One of the tasks (of course, not the only one) of the world economic crisis of 1929-1933 was to create conditions for Hitler’s coming to power in Germany. “No one will ever be able to find the key to understanding how Hitler rose and came to power, – G. J. said. Drug – if you do not understand the functioning of the traditional banking system and the nature of money. It is the lack of such understanding that leads to the fact that the most decisive events that led to the rise and coming to power of Nazism are blamed on the unfortunate coincidence of random circumstances in a crisis situation. But there are no such things as chance in history – good or bad – and the crisis never belongs to the number of natural disasters, but always reflects the lowest point of the economic situation in the cyclical processes caused by the relatively simple dynamics of money circulation.”
About the connection of sophisticated financial games of the 1920s, interesting and important in themselves, but are not the subject of this work, says a simple fact, which drew the attention of the same G. J. Preparation’s. Three months after Hitler was sworn in as Reich Chancellor on January 30, 1933, the Nazis called on the nicknamed “American” (behind him was a large Anglo-American business) Yalmar Schacht to lead the Reichsbank, and exactly 6 months later Montague Norman without explanation and apology publicly announced the sale of Nazi debt in the London markets.
From 1933 to 1938, Germany carried out the modernization of the economy and, naturally, the rearmament of the army. Corporations of the Third Reich – IG Farben and others prospered, but in most cases they were backed by American capital. About how American corporations, especially Rockefeller, invested in the economy of the Third Reich, as collaborated with him not only in the 1930s, but also during the war, as much until 1944, written so much that here it is unnecessary to write about it. I note only that investing in Germany, thus solving their economic problems and at the same time preparing it for a fight with the Soviet Union, American capital, especially the Rockefellers continued their struggle with the Rothschilds, preparing to weaken and undermine their offspring – the British Empire. One of the main goals of the United States, the Rockefellers in world war II was the dismantling of the British Empire. This was said of the Rockefellers, the same Allen DULLES. And, I must say, “Rockefellers – USA” the task was solved: if the First world war they won against the Rothschilds with a small margin, in the Second world won completely. This once again shows that the world elite does not constitute a single world government (this is a dream, a project), but represents a set of several clusters that are part of various supranational structures and are in a complex and contradictory relationship of cooperation and rivalry – sometimes very tough, if not cruel.
The British had an interest in the rise of Hitler, mainly political – to incite him to the USSR, and eventually in June 1941 they succeeded, but it had to work for almost all 1930-ies. The purpose of this work was the destruction of the USSR with the help of Hitler, and then the defeat of Germany, ie repetition of the scheme implemented during the First world war, but, as it turned out, primarily due to Stalin’s maneuver, not to the end.
Since the days of Versailles, writes H. G. wells. The drug, the British elite divided into three currents:
1) anti-Bolshevik;
2) Milner’s Round table group (i.e. the whole cluster of the Group). – AF.);
3) pacifiers.
Milner’s group was the true core of the Imperial monolith; it was closely associated with E. Simon, J. Smuts, publisher of the times J. Lawson, two key players of the mid – Lord Lothian (F. ker; when Secretary of Lloyd George as a representative of the “Group” played a more important role than the Prime Minister); Lord Halifax (E. wood). The presence of three groups, chief among which was a “Group” – the three masks of the British ruling class allowed him depending on the situation it is easy to move from one strategy to another, simulating the fight (victory and defeat) groups. However, often simulation turned into a real fight, and this further confused the situation. By signing an Alliance with Poland on January 26, 1934, Hitler showed that his main enemy was the USSR and that he was preparing to fight it in Alliance with anti-Soviet Poland. He knew perfectly well that such a step would entail the help of great Britain in the rise of German military power. Since 1935, despite the protests of France, the UK (here at the forefront put forward pacifiers) began to support the rearmament of Germany. However, “the anti-Nazi faction led by Churchill, using the funds of wealthy Jewish circles, has become a more compact and highly secret group known as “Focus” (G. J. Drug), but its impact on the British establishment, and even more so on European Affairs was minimal. Again to quote H. G. wells. To the drug: “the Goal of the British ruling elite remained the same – to keep Hitler in suspense, then winking at him, then driving away like an annoying fly.”
I agree with those researchers who called the mission of Lord Halifax (“the Group”) to Germany on November 19, 1937 a turning point in the chain of events that directly led to the Second world war. It was there and then that the closed British structures pushed the Fuhrer to war (although they pushed him to war with the USSR, and it turned out differently, but this was already “production costs”, especially since in the end Germany, as it was intended, was destroyed, and the USSR again failed, had to wait until 1991). Representatives of the “Group” carefully read “Mein Kampf” and spoke to Hitler in his language – and plebeian Hitler bought as a quarter of a century before, in 1912. patrician Royal blood Wilhelm (however, there is reason to believe that “Mein Kamp” was created not without the whispers of agents of the “Round table”: the English political intelligence, which has had a huge impact on the psychopath “Adolf aloizovicha” through a host of psychics – quack Eric Jan Hanussen (Hartmann-Chaim Steinsnyder), to the Satanist Aleister Crowley (the latter, incidentally, financed and close to the Trotsky family, a clan of bankers Rafalovich who took an active part in the collapse of the Russian Empire) – approx.ed.) . Halifax explained to the Fuhrer that the United Kingdom considered the Third Reich as a Bastion against communism and therefore did not object to the accession of Austria and Czechoslovakia to the Reich, but it should happen peacefully. Hitler correctly realized that peaceful means with the help of Western plutokratiyami and above all a Wheeler – UK, the reaction of the seat of France could not care.
The British were well aware that in order to fight the Soviet Union, Hitler must significantly increase its gold reserves, increase its military-industrial potential (Hitler’s own with all the economic success was not enough) and go to the border with the USSR. Joining the Reich of Austria solved the first problem, Czechoslovakia – the second and third. On March 3, Reich troops entered Austria, and on April 21, Hitler instructed Keitel to develop a plan for the invasion of Czechoslovakia. Hitler would never have done this if he was not confident in British support – the Czechoslovak army (34 divisions, 1 million people under gun) at that time was at least not weaker than the German, especially since the Wehrmacht would have to attack in very difficult conditions. Hitler also knew that in the two weeks following the annexation of Austria, the British made every effort to weaken, intimidate and demoralize Czechoslovakia.
On March 24, Chamberlain said that Britain would not help either the Czechoslovaks in case of an attack on them or France, if it decided to take the side of Czechoslovakia. The British press began to brand Czechoslovakia not just as an artificial state, but as a disgusting, racist, whose ugly attitude to the German-speaking population of the civilized world and above all the UK can no longer tolerate.
After the end of may Hitler, following the British scheme, set the date for the attack on Czechoslovakia – 1 October, not privy to the game plan the German generals, who assumed that the attack will lead to disaster, made a conspiracy. It was headed by the chief of the General staff Ludwig Beck, who brought to the attention of the British information about the conspiracy and the readiness in case of an attack on Czechoslovakia to overthrow the Fuhrer or even kill him – the attempt was scheduled for September 28, 1938. The British, who started the “Czechoslovak mess”, of course, not only did not support the naive German generals, but also thwarted their plans – thwarted the Munich agreement, signed on September 28, 1938.
However, this agreement can be considered as a contract only formally. In fact, it was something else, much bigger and more serious than a Treaty whose international legal nature is highly questionable. In fact, it was a blatant international robbery. First, it was actually a formally legalized act of aggression by four European powers – great Britain, Germany, Italy and France-aimed at dismembering an artificial but sovereign state, a member of the League of Nations. This act was to be the beginning of a new Eastern war in Europe, a kind of second edition of the Eastern (Crimean) war, smoothly flowing into the Second world war. Hitler himself stressed that the war in the East, i.e. with an eye on the USSR should begin a sudden operation against Czechoslovakia, i.e. the beginning of the Eastern campaign, he considered the capture of Czechoslovakia.
Second, the act of aggression actually created in Europe’s aggressive anti-Soviet bloc, a kind of “protonate” shadow the owner of which was the United Kingdom, “clubs”, “Lodge”, the “group” of its ruling class, and the striking force of the Third Reich.
Thirdly, the Munich-38 was objectively means of solving the British some internal political problems in Germany, in particular the failure of the conspiracy of the generals seeking to overthrow Hitler – he was too need bankers and Industrialists of the West to crush the Soviet Union and the destruction of national States in Europe. The regime of Hitler’s power with its domestic and foreign policy, which took shape between September 29, 1938 and September 1, 1939. – the result of coordinated actions of the Western European leaders or, as Lenin would say, “international interweaving of the clique of financial capital”, their hired clerks in the form of formal heads of government in Munich.
Hated Hitler as a Jew and liberal Raymond Aron said that if Hitler had died in 1938 before Munich, before the aggression against Czechoslovakia, he would have entered the history of Germany as its greatest figure; after Munich, everything changed. But Munich as a geohistorical operation was carried out by Western European leaders, especially the British. Hence “negative Hitler”, his regime “Hitler” or “incorporated” in the form in which it started the war, and therefore, at least indirectly, the handiwork of British (and French and Italian). In the form in which Czechoslovakia existed in September 1938, Hitler could not capture it, the country had to be previously dismembered, which was provided in Munich, which in this regard should be considered the actual beginning of the Second world war, or rather, its European phase (in June 1941, the war will be Eurasian, and in December 1941 – world).
Accustomed to blame the sick head on a healthy Anglo-Saxons and their “fifth column” in Russia constantly write that the inevitable Second world war made the “Pact of Ribbentrop – Molotov” (as they call the Soviet-German Treaty), but because the USSR allegedly bears the same responsibility for the outbreak of world war II, as Hitler’s Germany. This interpretation, designed to divert attention from the main warmongers of Albion and to create as much fog as possible, is a double lie.
First, the Soviet-German Treaty, signed in August 1939, was the last in a series of treaties of major European powers in the Third Reich.
Second, the USSR was forced to conclude this Treaty in response to the Munich agreement. The Munich agreement, I repeat, was essentially the formalization of an aggressive anti-Soviet bloc, which Stalin destroyed by a Treaty with Germany in August 1939, deploying the Fuhrer against his anti-Soviet allies – this is what the anti-Soviets in the West and in Russia cannot forgive Stalin. But we got ahead of ourselves, back in 1938.
Immediately after the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia by Germany and the “European Jackal” Poland (signed with Germany “Hitler-Pilsudski Pact” and incited Germany and Japan to war against the USSR – approx. Hitler began to prepare for the seizure of the rest of the country, which was done in March 1939, after which Montague Norman handed over to the Reichsbank the gold reserve of Czechoslovakia (6 million pounds) stored in the UK – nothing is sorry for the Fuhrer’s war against the Russians, especially since now the Third Reich was to border the USSR. And here the British puppeteers came bobble. In 1939, Hitler did not want to fight the Soviet Union, was not ready for war. He jumped (or rather, tried to jump) from the British hook, turning one part of the country – the Czech Republic – into a protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, but the other part, the border with the USSR – Slovakia, he declared an independent state, and the independence of Slovakia Hitler guaranteed personally. Thus the Fuhrer showed that in the near future to fight the Soviet Union is not going to, which is clearly contrary to the British plans to involve Germany in the war with the USSR (and, incidentally, the American plans to involve the British Empire in the European war began).
The indignant British decided to drive the Fuhrer into a stall with the help of Poland, which was ordered to demand from Hitler Slovakia as a protectorate. But Hitler was not afraid, he put Poland counter-claims on Danzig and we can not say that they were unfounded. Poland, confident in British support, behaved brazenly, and the Fuhrer decided to eliminate this annoying obstacle in relations with the West: the Jackal interfered in his relations with the tiger. But removing it was impossible without an agreement with the Soviet Union, which was signed in August 1939 After Hitler attacked Poland. In doing so, he was confident that neither Britain nor France would intervene in the event of an attack on Poland – he was used to dealing with pacifiers. The British ruling class all 1930-ies taught the Fuhrer to strike from the left. And necessary suddenly hit to the right. However, until the middle of 1940, both sides – both British and German – fought sluggishly, if this strange war can be called a war.
The situation began to change in the summer of 1940, and largely under pressure from the United States. Hitler did not want to fight the British, believing that he could negotiate with them, and the potential for world war III Reich was not. Historically, Russia was a much greater enemy to him than Albion, and he was ready to demonstrate this by turning strategically to the East. Tactically this suited the British, but it seemed unacceptable even tactically the United States, which were ready to take the side of Germany only in one case: if the Soviet Union will attack the Third Reich or will provoke (statement of the us Congress of April 17, 1941).
This nexus was severed in June 1941, and a huge role was played by the British. His terrible blow to Germany and Russia Albion struck, when in the first half of June during the ultra-secret (documents are classified until the middle of the XXI century.) negotiations Hess with representatives of the British elite Hitler, apparently, received from the British certain guarantees (at least neutrality), without this he would never have dared to start in the second decade of June 1941, the transfer of troops from the Western front to the Soviet border to attack the USSR. Treacherous Albion, of course, deceived – he is insidious, and the arch-enemy of Russia, Churchill immediately started talking about joint struggle against Hitler. The führer got involved – the same as Wilhelm, but with even more severe consequences for Germany than in 1918-1919, the British managed once again to pit Germany and Russia, again to provoke a world war – this time with dire consequences for their Empire and their enclosed structures consequences. Right was Hegel – history of the crafty, of the Albion there is no monopoly on deceit.
The above clearly demonstrates the fact that the real subject of the history of the West since the second half of the XVIII century and the history of the world since the second half of the nineteenth century were a supra-national structure of coordination and management. Supranational governance itself goes through several stages in its history: European, global, global.
The main forms of governance at the world stage (1880s-1980s) were world wars and closely related large-scale revolutions. In fact, the solution of these problems and formed these closed structures (overwhelming numbers of British and later British-American), which replaced the Masonic as shock troops, orgeta the top of the world capitalist class (without canceling the masonry).
Analysis of the preparation and organization of the two world wars clearly shows the methods and forms of activity of the “masters of the world game”, allowing you to learn some lessons for today. Some may doubt: the report refers to the period 1871-1939/45, the period of the Cold war and the last 20 years is not covered. That’s right. But we must remember that, first, the Great war of the twentieth century, which began in 1914, in fact ended only in 1991, and a number of tasks set before 1914, was not solved in 1991.; it has not been resolved to this day and there is no doubt that the historical (existential) enemy of Russia will try to solve them. In this regard, the experience of the “watershed era” (1871-1929/33) and the 1930s is extremely important. I’m not talking about the fact that we also live in a “watershed era” that our days are very similar to the beginning of the twentieth century, and the current Russian Federation is much more like the pre-war Russian Empire than the pre-war Soviet Union. Secondly, I am convinced that the analysis of the preparation of the First world war to a greater extent than the Second (it was a kind of repetition) clearly demonstrates the methods and forms of activity of supranational governance structures created on a powerful British basis, based on the rich talents, ability to work and the breadth of the strategic vision of the British ruling political and intellectual class.
In the early twentieth century., in the midst of training based in London supranational structures of world war II wonderful Russian geopolitician A. E. Edrikhin-Vandam wrote: “…for the world conquerors and our life rivals Anglo-Saxons one undeniable quality – never in anything our vaunted instinct does not play the role of virtuous Antigone. Carefully observing the life of humanity as a whole and evaluating each event in terms of impact of it on their own business, they are tireless brain develop ability to a great distance in time and space to see and almost feel what people with lazy minds and weak imagination seems empty fantasy. In the art of fighting for life, i.e. politics, this ability gives them all the advantages of a brilliant chess player over a mediocre player. The surface of the earth, strewn with oceans, continents and Islands, is for them a kind of chessboard, and the peoples, carefully studied in their basic properties and in the spiritual qualities of their rulers, are living figures and pawns, which they move in such a way that their opponent, who sees in each pawn of an independent enemy standing in front of him, is finally lost in perplexity, how and when they made the fatal move that led to the loss of the party? This is the kind of art we will see now in the actions of the Americans and the British against ourselves.”
So it happened: we saw these actions at the turn of 1910-1920, 1930-1940, 1980-1990-ies. We see them now. What were the weaknesses of Russia, the Russian ruling class in the early twentieth century, the weaknesses that doomed it to defeat and to which we are today because of the similarity, almost niche equivalence of eras and systems need to pay attention?
First, corruption, rottenness of the top and domination of clan interests over the state, and private-family – over the clan.
Secondly, the inadequacy of the modern world, manifested in the absence of the state and the ruling class and the real picture of what is happening, and not just an independent strategy of historical development, but in General any strategy.
Third, the top of the ruling class directly or indirectly, i.e. through its own or foreign capitalists was closely linked with Western capital, often depended on it, hence – one step to becoming an agent of influence or simply an agent of Strangers and Predators (we saw this on the example of Izvolsky, Hartwig – this public is enough in the Russian Federation); the background, contributing to all this was the raw material specialization of the country, i.e. not the best position in the international division of labor, and financial dependence on foreign capital, because of which the Russian man had to die for British interest and die to save Paris.
Once again propianate elite ruling class of the Russian Empire in the early twentieth century, foreign agents of influence and just. With such a density, it was difficult to pursue a nationally oriented policy and it was easy to get into other people’s networks, to become a figure, or even just a pawn in someone else’s game. The Soviet ruling class of the late 1930s was consolidated, the “fifth column” was effectively destroyed, the country had a clear strategy and program of historical development, and the country itself was a powerful military-industrial complex, independent from the West. Hence another result of the world war – Victory. Unfortunately, the late Soviet ruling class reproduced many features of the late-power and therefore many of its representatives were on the side of the main historical enemy, and the USSR collapsed. The current ruling stratum in the mass represents a product of decomposition of the late Soviet. To whom he more like postmenopauzalny or pre-war Soviet – a rhetorical question.
In conclusion, I will give a metaphor of O. Markeev, a quote from the novel which I used as an epigraph. On Yeltsin’s inner layer (is it only about him?) through the mouth of one of his heroes O. Markeev put it this way: “the New inhabitants of the building from the hustlers of the presidential administration seemed to Maximov ridiculous penguins, foolishly climbed to the top of the iceberg. They could poop on it, make their own idea of the world in which they live, set their own laws for the other inhabitants of the bird market, even consider that they are plotting an iceberg. But he carried them, in obedience to the unseen deep currents. His world was an Ocean that could not be grasped by a bird’s mind.”
The metaphor of penguins on an iceberg believing that they are guiding its movement without representing either the underwater mass of the iceberg (6/7) or the currents that carry it is good. The late-power ruling class are also penguins mired in overconsumption and entertainment, not knowing that the closed structures have already caught them in the sight of their “geohistorical hyperboloids”, that the signs have already appeared on the wall: mene, tekel, parsin.
History shows: “penguins” bad end, they and their societies – easy prey for Predators and Strangers, and do not count on admission to the bourgeoisie: the bourgeoisie at all is not enough, and besides Rome traitors (and fools) does not pay. Bad Candidates should always remember what happened to Ostap Bender on the Romanian border. And learn from the British their main military secret: right or wrong, this is my country – “right or wrong, but this is my country.”
_______________
[1] the Postwar thirtieth anniversary, which became a period of unprecedented prosperity for the West, for some time postponed the need to create new forms and structures of world governance. However, by the end of the 1960s, there were serious signs of an impending crisis. The proactive reaction of the top of the world capitalist class was the creation of structures of world coordination and management of a new type – the club of Rome (1968) and the Trilateral Commission (1973). And since the striking force behind their creation was the corporatocracy – a young and predatory faction of the world bourgeoisie, which entered the arena of history immediately after the war and was no longer just a world, but a global in potential and orientation, then these structures were already structures of global governance. Their task was to give a start to globalization as an organizational weapon of the upper segments of the capitalist class in the fight against the external (USSR) and internal (working class, most of the middle classes) class enemy. The destruction of the Soviet Union for some time pushed back a new crisis era – pushed back due to the robbery of the former socialist camp by the West and the possibility of international robbery, which in the absence of the Soviet Union had no one to resist. However, at the end of the 1990s, a new crisis broke out, and we have been living for a decade and a half in a global crisis that manifests itself, among other things, as a crisis of global governance.
Marxism did not provide a meaningful answer to the fundamental questions of existence in the…
Corruption is fought actively, loudly and at all levels: it is eradicated, reprimanded for it,…
It is time to put an unambiguous bold point in the discussion of the events…
The practice of many modern conflicts, some scientific developments allow us to consider color revolutions…
A whole series of scandals over the rights of various minorities and the "struggle for…
The Bank for International Settlements (BIS), headquartered in Basel, Switzerland, is the most important international…