Add products by adding codes
The 21st century will be won by those who can create a new science about man, about society
Who launched the processes that destroy the overall picture of the world?
How was the degradation vector of world development in which we live formed? And why didn't the direction of 1945-1975 continue with its rapid development of industry, space programs, the creation of a welfare state, and unbridled faith in scientific and technological progress? Andrey Fursov is sure: the whole point is in the very predatory faction of the bourgeoisie that was formed at the same time - the corporatocracy. She led the world on the path of financialization and brought to the threshold of the stage of post-capitalism. The most desirable is the anthropological transition to it - the division of mankind into two biological species.
Age of the Four Wonders
The world we are now leaving is the post-war world that emerged after 1945. The world we are entering is a post-capitalist world. And the most interesting: this is the world that is between them. The result that we have in the last two years was not the only possible one, but it was completely programmed by the development of the world system in the post-war period, is the logical result of this development. Although it seems that, at least for the first thirty years of this development, he completely refutes. The world we are leaving is the world between 1945 and 2020. It is divided into three segments. 1945-1975 is what the French call the "happy thirtieth year". Then a very interesting transitional period began in 1975-1989, when, in fact, the future, our present, was being decided, and the degradation, destructive vector that we received was formed ...
By the way, a strange coincidence: this post-war socialized capitalism lasted 74 years, like the Soviet system. Only he has years of life - from 1945 to 2019, and not from 1917 to 1991. And the first relatively light phase is 1945-1975. These are four "industrial miracles": Soviet, German, Japanese, Italian. This attack of industrial capital on financial capital is very active. This is Keynesianism. Nixon, shortly before his overthrow, said: "We are all Keynesians." This is a continuation of the uprising of the grassroots against the elites. This is the left in Europe, these are national liberation movements, this is the collapse of the colonial system, this is the creation of a social state, a “social security state” in the West, this is a socialist camp in Europe. This is a bipolar world, the transformation of the US through a "creeping" coup that began with the assassination of Kennedy and ended with the impeachment of Nixon. This is an unbridled faith in scientific and technological progress, these are space programs, absolutely fantastic forecasts: immortality, lunar stations by the year 2000, etc.
But this light had a shadow. The shadow side, which at that time was not paid attention to in the euphoria of ever new victories and achievements, true and imaginary (creation of a computer! mastering the energy of the atomic nucleus! going into space! deciphering the genetic code! landing on the moon!), was the design of a fundamentally new, very predatory the faction of the bourgeoisie - the corporatocracy, which in the mid-1970s the special services reoriented. This was an understanding by the Western elite of the exhaustion not only of the economic dynamics of capitalism, which happened already at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries, but also of the military-political dynamics.
The dollar was "untied" from gold and tied to oil. Offshore system was created. Financialization has begun. And what is most interesting: even then the ideological preparation of those poisonous flowers, which came up much later, began. This is the Club of Rome with its report "The Limits to Growth", calls for limiting and reducing consumption, the environmental movement. Back in 1971, the now well-known Klaus Schwab in his book “Enterprise Management in the Field of Mechanical Engineering” put forward the idea of “stakeholder” capitalism, which is not at all classical capitalism, but the exact opposite of it, since it focuses not on ownership, but participation. And this period is crowned in 1975, with the report of the Trilateral Commission “Crisis of Democracy”, where it was very clearly stated that the main threat to the West is not the Soviet Union, but an excess of democracy in the West itself, and that this excess must be eliminated. At the same time, in the mid-1970s, despite the famous Helsinki meeting, the Soviet Union lost its historical initiative and switched to strategic defense. And in almost all major Western countries, people began to come to power, who were appointed by the Trilateral Commission. That is, it was the final chord of the first post-war thirty years.
The second period started very interesting. In 1982, three groups of forecasters who worked on Reagan's assignment, first separately and then together, made a very disappointing forecast for the US and the capitalist system. They gave a forecast of the crisis, the "two-humped" crisis of 1987-1992/93. According to their forecast, two things were especially unpleasant for the West. Firstly, the socialist camp emerged from the crisis with significantly fewer losses than the "free world". The decline in production in the socialist camp was expected in the range of 5-12%, and in the West - 15-20%. And secondly, the “outcome” predicted the coming to power of the communists in Italy and France, on their own or as part of the “left front”, as well as the left laborers in Great Britain. In the United States, left-wing forces did not come to power, but Negro riots were predicted in all the largest cities of the country.
At the same time, if we talk about the USSR, attempts to integrate into the capitalist system intensified. This is the project of Andropov and those generals who stood behind him. This is the so-called "Firm", it is also the "Network". Further, the growth of structural problems in the Soviet Union, which eventually turned into systemic ones. And, finally, the surrender by Gorbachev, first in the Vatican, and then in Malta, of the entire socialist camp, including the USSR. Euphoria began, Fukuyama proclaimed the "end of history" ... Ahead - only liberal "high"! Ahead - only liberal "happiness"! The looting of the socialist camp began, which - especially in the "post-Soviet space" - took on absolutely fantastic proportions. But there were very important changes implicitly, and it makes sense to dwell on them separately.
First of all, its immaterial factors, social and spiritual, that is, information, social behavior of a person, came to the fore in the material production itself. I emphasize that they have always been important in general, but they have become the primary factor in material production for the first time. Already at the beginning of the 21st century, what was later called “exism” took shape, from the word “access”, that is, “access”, “right of access”. We are talking about social information platforms such as Microsoft, Google, which now occupy the top of the world pyramid. This is not yet a dominant way, but it is an advanced way in terms of possibilities.
The same thing happened with classical capitalism. It was not the dominant mode until the industrial system of production took shape in the middle of the 19th century, but by then it had been the advanced mode for quite some time.
The gradual attenuation of industrial growth began, the destruction of modern institutions, primarily the state. Already in the 90s, the term “fade away” appeared, that is, the disappearance, extinction, melting away of the “nation state”, the national state. Transnational financial funds became the decision-making center, which united, on the one hand, the upper floors of the global economy, and on the other, the old financial aristocratic families and the “new money”. In parallel, there was a depoliticization of society, the shrinking of civil society, its substitution by branches of financial structures, which during this period led to a crisis of absolutely all traditional identities. In addition, already in the first years of the 21st century, the inferiority of the unipolar world was revealed. It became clear that at least two centers are needed for rapid development. And it was then, on the eve and during the crisis of 2008, which dispelled the last illusions about the “liberal high” for the next 100 years, that a 16-year plan for the transition to post-capitalism based on the United States arose: 8 years - Barack Obama and 8 years - Hillary Clinton.
Within the framework of this plan, the creation of two global transoceanic communities was envisaged: the Trans-Pacific and the Transatlantic. These were mega-corporations, called upon to subjugate the states and everything else in the corresponding spaces. Moreover, if in the Transatlantic Community there was no talk of some kind of institutional design of a new order, then in the Trans-Pacific it was very clearly stated that the legal system of this community would be focused on the relations of the English East India Company with the Indian states - only the East India Company would now be replaced by Western TNCs, and the states of the Trans-Pacific Community will obey them implicitly.
The second objective of this plan was the widespread dismantling and expropriation of the "middle class", combined with the establishment and tightening of global control over the population as a whole - what Shoshana Zuboff then not very well presented as "surveillance capitalism" ... All this was to take place in an evolutionary mode , “boiling the frog” was supposed to be done on a slow fire, imperceptibly to itself and without any mass protest excesses.
But there was no direct transfer of power from Obama to Hillary Clinton. The "black swan" arrived - Trump, who represents those groups in the American and world system that this scenario did not suit. Before Trump, there was a smaller "black swan" - Brexit. Both of these events derailed the evolutionary plan for the transition to post-capitalism using the potential of the United States. Who is to blame for them? Part of the Anglo-American establishment. So what to do? If the transition to post-capitalism does not work out in an evolutionary way, then it is necessary to carry it out in a revolutionary way. What?
In 2018, a very interesting conference was held in Santa Fe, at the Institute of Complexity, where representatives of the leading “control centers” of the global world gathered under the auspices of the NSA. They discussed different options for the transition to the future: revolutionary, optimal, catastrophic and anthropological. Revolutionary variant - in which humanity solves all its problems and completely passes into a qualitatively new state. Optimal - solves problems, remaining approximately in the current state. But the conference participants (there were only about thirty of them) rejected these options, because the problems were recognized as unsolvable for the current state of humanity and its elites. First of all - as a result of intellectual-volitional "burnout" over the past 70 years. The probability of a catastrophic variant - with the loss of the current civilizational level - was recognized by about half of the participants. And the fourth option was recognized as the most desirable - the anthropological transition. This term refers to the transformation of human society, as a result of which the "tops" and "bottoms" will turn into two different biological species. And no "middle layers". The "tops" will live 120-140 years or more, in ecological zones, using all the benefits of civilization: information, transport, communications, and so on. And the "lower classes" will be under the pressure of diseases and epidemics, poor nutrition, bad ecology in general. And the less the "bottom" will be in contact with the "top", the less you know about them, the better.
Such an anthropological transition was recognized as a desirable option for the future. Here the question arises: how to launch this transition in such a way as to minimize the resistance of the "bottom"? In principle, in the history of various kinds of projects have been implemented more than once. This does not mean that they were implemented the way the planners wanted them to be. I will give just one example. On the eve of the French Revolution, the Grand Orient of France Masonic lodge asked a certain Adrien Duport, a lawyer who was not himself a Freemason, three questions. First: "How to start a revolution?" Second: “Will the European monarchs react harshly to the revolution in France?” And the third: "How to manage the revolutionary process?" Duport replied that it was very easy to start a revolution: you need to assemble an old, medieval institution, forgotten by the Estates General, which had not been assembled for a very long time, this would not arouse suspicion. But all its participants must be unanimous in their demands for royal power. Duport said, "It's up to you how you get it." And this was ensured by distributing notebooks with the relevant content to all deputies of the States General. Each deputy had such a notebook (le cahier), in which the “voice of the people” was recorded. Regarding the reaction of the kings of Europe, it was said that they "will take a long time to grow out of their minds, two or three years." And the third point, Duport said, is also very simple: "In order to lead the process of revolution, you need to start the mechanism of terror, which, like a funnel, will involve more and more people."
Duport, by the way, was later forced to flee France himself, leaving his wife and children, so as not to fall into the "funnel of terror", but his plan was fully implemented. That is, the project approach in history is possible and cannot be reduced to some kind of conspiracy theory. Another thing is that it is almost never implemented in the way it was originally planned. And if someone wants to restart history, he must find or create what Andy Russell called a "trigger event", that is, an initiating, triggering event.
Such a trigger event for the modern world, which launched the transition to a new world order, was the COVID-19 pandemic. Schwab said very frankly and clearly in his book, co-authored with Thierry Malleret, that this pandemic is the occasion for a “great reset” of the entire human civilization. That there will be no middle stratum, there will be no state. That the rich will win and the poor will lose. All this is written there. But at the same time, two conditions were identified for the success of such a reboot. First, it must be universal. So that not a single large state - the United States, China, Russia or India - stays away from it, so that they all carry out commands to reset. And secondly, everything must pass quickly and irreversibly, like a blitzkrieg, so that no one has time to come to their senses, and everyone is already vaccine dependent.
Now we can already say that the reboot did not work. The Russian elites were not allowed to make money on vaccines and sanctions were not lifted from them. Chinese elites have been threatened and threatened with trillions in fines for the "Wuhan Strain". And, most importantly, they overestimated the degree of passivity of the population, primarily in Europe. To be honest, I did not expect that 300,000 people would come out for a protest demonstration in Vienna, that the same thing would happen in Brussels, London, and Paris. But people felt very well that something very, very bad threatened them. And some of the elites gave back. Bill Gates has already said that in 2022 this epidemic will end. The Economist magazine, published by the Fabian Society and the Rothschilds, said the same thing.
About two years ago, under the influence of events related to COVID-19, I began to use the term "bio-techno-fascism" or "BET-fascism". "Bio" is medicine and genetic modification; “eco” is “green” and near-climatic nonsense, and “techno” is everything related to “digitalization”. It is necessary to make a reservation only about the word "fascism". This is not a political, but a metaphorical term - something that can't be worse for a person. But the problem is that the political fascists and National Socialists in the 1930s did not have the technical and biological means that the BET-fascists have at their disposal today. And the world that Schwab painted is much worse for humanity than political, historical fascism. It's just that in our tradition there is no term for this "worse", so I use the term "bioecotechnofascism".
And the fact that the COVID-19 pandemic has stalled does not diminish the danger of this amount of technology. Viktor Nebenzya, as a representative of the Russian Federation to the UN, thwarted the creation of a global climate police, which the ultra-globalists wanted to "smuggle" in order to put a bridle on all states. But no one canceled the digital noose bridle. That is, the process stalls, but does not stop. COVID-19 has not passed - new, more dangerous and deadly viruses will appear. Or we will create a different reality.
Wernher von Braun, the same Nazi designer who developed American space and ballistic missiles, six months before his death, told his assistant - and this is the end of 1976 or the beginning of 1977 - he said that the Soviet Union as a threat would someday disappear, and then the West will come up with another "horror story", it will be Islam. But he is not a suitable replacement. The next, apparently, will be a climate threat. And when asked if the climate threat does not work, he replied: “Then there will be only one thing left - an alien threat. Alien Invasion!" And so, on June 25, 2021, NASA made an official statement that UFO, that is, UFOs, is a serious threat to the United States. That is, bookmarks are made for future use, “augmented reality” technologies are being improved and worked out ...
To another space
And now for the most important thing, I think. The world we find ourselves in, the post-capitalist world, is a world that is built on the decisive role of social and spiritual factors. And somewhere this future has already arrived. For example, in my opinion, it has already arrived in China, where this system has formed a very organic Chinese social system. In its own way, this future is coming to the United States. When Trump was "thrown off" there, it was completely clear to me that his winners - financialists and exists - would soon squabble among themselves. Indeed, already in the summer of 2021, attacks on Microsoft and Google began. But these guys quickly hit back. In late October - early November, they announced that they were creating a "metaverse", that is, they were leaving for a completely different space, "out of control of you guys." In general, it must be said that new dominant groups always go into the space whose resources are not controlled by the old dominant groups.
So, for example, England became a maritime power - a power of the "high seas", which was not regulated by any law, where you could do whatever you want, what your ships allowed you to do. Going into the metaverse is also going into a completely different space. And by the way, Zuckerberg said: "We will operate in a space that is not regulated by any law." Except, it turns out, the right of the strong. But this process is accompanied by the process of futuristic archaization of society, almost primitive norms operate in social networks.
But the most dangerous thing, in my opinion, is that we are entering a world where there is neither order nor chaos, the zone "in between" - as Umberto Eco would say, "chaosmos", without having an adequate apparatus: a conceptual , operational - to study these processes. The science of the twentieth century did not doubt its viability, it discovered and formulated the laws of nature, that is, it performed the functions of power in the surrounding world. Even the term "statistics" in our country comes from "state", that is, from the "state". And now there are no laws, the states have melted away - it turns out "an order based on concepts." Some supranational structures play a decisive role in it. Not only TNCs, but various kinds of communities with a high degree of internal autonomy. The same Five Eyes, for example, or criminal structures. All of them create their research structures, their history. This is not only about "ancient ukrov" or "new chronology". These are global processes that further destroy the overall picture of the world. And therefore, subjectivity comes to the fore, reshaping causal relationships. This is the era of turbulence, Prigogine's "order out of chaos."
Therefore, the 21st century will be won by those forces that can create a new science about man, about society and, in general, about the world, and which can create a new education corresponding to this new science. This is a necessary, though not sufficient, condition for victory. Because the old triad: economics, political science, sociology, has worked its way out. The objects of its study disappear or turn into something completely different. I understand that doing all this is much more difficult than saying. But it must be said that it is necessary and why it is necessary. This may not lead to serious success, but it will help to avoid irreparable mistakes.
From a speech at a scientific conference on the topic "2022: trends, forecasts, risks" at the Foundation for the Support of Public Diplomacy named after. A.M. Gorchakov.