Go to Publicity
«Back to news

News

09.01.2017 - 11: 14

World of Tomorrow

1. Where is this world (ie. E. It looks like a picture of the future)?

- The world is rapidly moving towards the end of capitalism. From the latter is not much left: the market is almost gone, there is a global monopoly; the state withers away; skukozhivaetsya civil society; policy turns into a combination of administrative system and show business, money, lost a number of functions and largely ceased to be money; Europeans have lost one of their bases - work ethic, capital almost managed to swallow, eat work, but he himself against this ceases to be the capital.

1.1. Who builds a new world?

- At the same time, two processes are under way: the destruction of the old world and the design of a new one. The old capitalist world is being broken by the capitalist top - it does not need it more, at least in the long term. From the middle of the 1970-ies, capitalism has been dismantled. It seems to be "going" to its "pre-democratic past," in the era of the "iron heel" and the East India companies, these predecessors of the current transnational corporations, only more steep than the latter. Folding progress is the way to create a new world for the world. For most of humanity this "new world" will turn into new "dark ages" - not to be confused with the Middle Ages, which started in the 9th century. the collapse of the empire of Charlemagne. "Dark Ages" - this is the time between the middle of the VI. (the system of Roman aqueducts finally ceased to function, 476 as the end of the Roman Empire was the fake invention of the Roman high priests, thus exaggerating their role) and by the middle of the 9th century.

Temnovekove - is, indeed, the era of darkness and blood, in contrast to the figures of the Renaissance slander and especially the Enlightenment (Voltaire rogues type) of the Middle Ages - a light, until the beginning of the XIV century. age; XIV-XVII centuries. - New temnovekove, which, however, was just as invitingly as it is a false facade - Renaissance.

1.2. Is there an alternative to the Western model of the future (the new dark ages)?

At the moment, such an alternative is viewed poorly. Now the main thing is not to be realized temnovekovomu project, but we'll see. The alternative -.. Resistance to the global agenda, ie, the rate of reduction in the barbaric world's population, the destruction of the state (sovereignty), family, science, education, health care, recently, as noted by M. Moore, turns into Sicko.

1.3 Is it possible to return to the path of development, in which the planet was 50-60 years ago?

- Hardly. Returns and restoration in the history of impossible. You can not repeat a unique era 1945-1975 years. - Leap of mankind, led by the Soviet Union in the future, jerk, artificially interrupted blunt Soviet nomenklatura and prudently tip of the capitalist world. The Soviet elite for the situational alliance paid off the destruction of the USSR.

1.4 Can I restore people's confidence in the future, hope and optimism?

- Optimism is the state of the soul of strong and integral people who are able not only to change circumstances, but to create them. Optimism is a difficult, but at the same time joyful work, often in defiance of fate. Optimism can not be given, given, returned. He is born in the struggle. Of course, there is a biochemical (genetic) basis of optimism, nevertheless, optimism is a social function of healthy societies. Suffice it to compare the Soviet society of the middle of 1930-X - the middle of the 1960-ies ("We have no obstacles on land and at sea", "Andromeda Nebula" by I. Efremov and many others) with the Soviet society 1970-1980-ies - cynical, sarcastic and bleak. And this despite the fact that living in the 1970-ies became more comfortable, lighter and more satisfying; fear has gone, but happiness has not come. 1960-ies were a brief instant of hope, which did not come true either in our country or in the world.

1.5 Can I put the progress at the service of all the people (or at least most)?

- USSR tried. And thirty years we came out it. So - it is possible. Only need to be vigilant and remember Stalin's warning that with the development of socialism, the class struggle intensifies, t. E. There is a threat of degeneration. And so it happened, with one of the first regenerated certain segments of the CPSU Central Committee and the KGB. Unfinished party Inquisition.

1.6 Dream - a rough draft of the future. What did people dream today?

- Different people dream about different things. It depends on what they are focused - on reality, Nav and rights. Ie. A world of dark and vulgar passions (wealth and pleasure at any cost to myself and to the detriment of others) or solidarity work based on social justice and the preservation of their ethnic and cultural identity.

2 problem of the "golden billion" - the most dangerous problem of our time, whether you agree with that?

The problem of the "golden billion" in the form in which it was formulated is not the most dangerous, since this billion is being eroded. In Europe, it is eroded by Arabs, Turks, Kurds, Africans, and there will be more of them. It seems that the European part of the "golden billion" was written off and sent down to the "toilet bowl of history", or they try to select from Europeans a selective way, with the help of people from the South, who will fight for the future not with a number but with a decrease. True, while the young educated Europeans emigrate to Canada, Australia, New Zealand, but not in the US, where it will soon be too hot. Because there social problems are mixed with racial: Negroes, who are now called African Americans, Hispanic (Latino). The racial and ethno-cultural composition of the West is changing. Actually, the West in the usual sense no longer exists. There is a post-West post-Christian society, rapidly rolling into the "hole of History." Some plan for those whom B. Disraeli called "the masters of history," and the writer O. Markeev "the masters of the world game," is, but, first, it seems, the situation is getting out of control. Secondly, the struggle within the world ruling elite (it is not united) is unfolding for the future. Here we have to play on these contradictions, as Stalin did in the 1930-ies.

2.1 What place is given to Russian and Russian (in a generalized sense of the word, ie. E. The inhabitants of Russia) on the plan?

- In the initial plan, I do not think there are places for Russians and many other non-Western peoples. But, I repeat, the plan seems to be breaking. However, several lines of globalists handle very harshly: the destruction of the state, the family, education, health and science. This is part of their global agenda. Therefore, in spite of any rhetoric and situational high-profile actions in foreign policy, I will believe in good intentions only such a power in our country that will stop the pogrom of science, education and health, ie, break the global agenda in these areas. What kind of struggle for the sovereignty of the state today, if everything goes so that tomorrow there is nobody and nothing (lack of healthy peasants and brains) will protect him?

2.2 What plan can offer instead are we?

- Who are "we? The people, the oligarchs, the power? To propose a plan, you need to have a strategy. To have a strategy, you need to have an ideology. We have a state - formally - without and ideological, but the destiny of those who do not have an ideology, and therefore, their future project - a picnic on the edge of history in anticipation that the owners may be invited to a new holiday of life. They will not even invite the "bad guys" who served them: "Rome does not pay traitors." The goal for Russia can be only one - to survive and win in the XXI century, preserving identity, population and territory. This is a minimum program. This can only be done by creating a social system based on social justice, then the Power and the Motherland become one and the same. People can kill for money, but no one will die for money. For Motherland - will be, the Great Patriotic War it showed. That's why we won - we had a fair social system, whose collectivist-anti-capitalist character corresponded to the Russian archetypes of consciousness and subconsciousness and to the cultural-historical code; as Alexander Blok said, Bolshevism "is a property of the Russian soul, and not a faction in the State Duma."

The 21st century will be the time of the fiercest struggle for the future, when entire states, ethnic groups, cultures will be merciless, without sentimentals erased by the History Eraser. Frosts from power (their name is legion, one example - look at the face of H. Clinton) will not stop at nothing. In this struggle, the cohesive social systems that are united by a single value code, characterized by minimal social polarization and having a high percentage of knowledge carriers, such nation-corporations, will survive and win. Oligarchic systems in this struggle will not survive, their fate is to become an economic fertilizer, manure for the strong; in fact, they do not deserve another. In the second half of XX century. the oligarchic power structures in the USSR blocked progress twice and brutally paid for it. In the middle of the 1960-ies, the USSR was ready to make a scientific and technical breakthrough into the future, turning from a systemic anti-capitalism into a real post-capitalism, but this was in the interests of both the Soviet nomenclature and the leaders of the world capitalist class. The breakthrough was tightly blocked, and the surge in oil prices and detente brought a feeling of calm and deep satisfaction to the Soviet leaders. We often remember Brezhnev's times with emotion - stability, confidence in the future. And in the short term it was the same, but in the medium-term (not to mention the long-term perspective, the Brezhnev era was eating away the future, the time of missed historical opportunities. "Baggy old men ... afraid of their own wives" (E. Neizvestny) profukali future of the system - she died in them and through them, and this despite the fact that in the multi-layered USSR there was a super-powerful scientific and technical complex that was supposed to jerk the future no later than the beginning of the 1990-ies. However, if the 1960's rush was traced by the detente and oil, the second - by the restructuring and destruction of the USSR, based on the banal desire of some of the Soviet nomenklatura to "sign up for the bourgeoisie." It is to be hoped that the evacuation of the regime, which took place at the very end of the 1980s, was not only financial but also scientific and technical, a shot from the future "- this is fine, but we must not destroy ourselves.

3. To Russia (and us along with it) to survive in this situation, you must fend off external attacks. Known truth that when a dog beat with a stick, the one to be saved, should not bite the stick and not the hand, and the throat of the one who holds the stick. In order to find your throat, you need a good understanding of the structure of the modern world, to know the forces acting in it and their habitats.

3.1 whether science gives you represent you, the answer to these questions?

- Yes, it does. The enemy of Russia is global usurers and politicians serving them, journalists, show-figures, and not only outside of our country, but also inside it. In the latter case, we are talking about regressors that are destroying the value, intellectual and technological foundations of our society. But they are just faceless functions of the global matrix, the Chapekian salamanders, about which the writer said: "They come as a thousand masks without faces." In other words, the main enemy is a global matrix that has grown up to the planetary dimensions of the spider Shelob from The Lord of the Rings. By the way, the idea of ​​the Global Matrix (G-Matrix) as a structure and means, imposing a certain way of thinking on the world population, was put forward by the figures of the Club of Rome back in 1970.

3.2 there any mechanism for linking scientific achievements in practical politics (or diplomacy, or whoever decides today survival tasks and power) in our country?

- Survival Challenges and victories in every country should decide first of all the country's leadership. The question is, how skillfully and honestly it does, how much identifies with his country. Finally, how he developed the instinct of self-preservation, as he more grasping instinct and passion for a beautiful life. If the latter outweigh, then sooner or later it will be the story in the form of Shelob or his own people, and say with a wicked grin, "You sang it? This case: so go and also, I will dance "and dance, this is likely to be Dance macabre - Dance of Death!.

3.3 there any force in Russia that could lead her to salvation?

- I hope it is. But in general, the rescue of drowning - the handiwork of drowning. As sung in the "Internationale": "Nobody will give us deliverance: / Neither god nor king nor a hero. / We trying to achieve liberation / His own hand. " We long to swing, but quickly we go. So what hope is always there.

3.4 How to find them and unite?

- The best way to unity - a common cause on the basis of common values. But a common cause can be the rich man and the poor man, beggar and a thief?

3.5 What ideology should take Russia in the XXI century?

- Ideologies do not hang on a hanger in the store, they are born in the bloody and violent crises as an answer to the question, what kind of future we want for ourselves, our children and grandchildren. Great modern ideology - Marxism, liberalism (died 1910-ies, not to be confused with what is called so today in the West, and especially in Russia) and conservatism were born in Europe in the era of revolutions 1789-1848 years.

3.6 not whether Russia should create a military-clergy?

- Estates are not created, they arise in the course of history. I think, however, during classes, as well as the monarchy, passed - become obsolete, vixerunt, as told to Cicero. Especially strong in the history of Russian social class system, as well as the aristocracy, it was not.

3.7 400 Over the past years at the beginning of each century, Russia was involved in a war that threatens to destroy it:

1610-ies - Great turmoil;

1710-e - Northern War;

1810-e - the Patriotic War against Napoleon;

1910-e - the First World.

This is a coincidence or pattern? Now there are 2010-e.

- I can give you another number: Livonian (1558-1583), with Paul

necks (1654-1667), Seven Years' (1756-1763), Crimea (1853-1856), The Great Patriotic War (1941-1945). Their value is not less, so there is no mysticism of numbers.

4. "The owners of history" build their model of the future society. In this regard, a number of questions:

4.1 Is every model, invented by man, will be able to function (ie. E. Be a viable)?

- Of course, not all.

4.2 Is every model will be able to develop?

- Same.

4.3 there any criteria that allow to distinguish between viable and non-viable system at the stage of simulation?

- I'm afraid not. We can only assess the degree of probability. It may be frail model, but the world is changing, and this model is the most appropriate - is a recessive mutation in the development of biological systems. Conversely, there is a strong, well-adapted model, but the situation is changing rapidly and conditionally: the dinosaurs extinct, but marginal "shrew" capture the vacated ecological niches.

4.4 Is there a methodology that allows you to build a viable system known?

- In a rapidly changing world as soon as possible the principles of negative number -.. That is what not to do.

4.5 Do you own a model of the future with us?

- I do not see it. In general, the model born in the struggle, in particular - in resistance to evil.

5. You repeatedly mention in his lectures the theory of systems. But common to all systems theory there, dozens of them.

5.1 Which one you mean?

- Systems theory - a universal thing, it has subsections, for example, the theory of living (anti-entropic) systems, where the company is part of.

5.3. Are there any in this application of the theory of systems, describing the society?

- There are different theories of social systems, for example, Marx's theory of formations, by the way, is not the worst. Theories Alexander Bogdanov, Vilfredo Pareto.

6. What is the role of the Abrahamic religions in society?

6.1 How do you feel about the work of Leo Tolstoy "Why do Christian nations in general, and especially Russian are now in distress"?

Tolstoy recorded the obvious things - the difference of what Jesus taught, according to the Gospels, from what became a Bible project, the sources of which are Paul, in the latter in fact there is much left of Saul. Indeed, where there is love in Jesus, Paul and the church have fear; Jesus clashed with the authorities, Paul and the church called for submission to them. In Paul's scheme there is much from the Old Testament - this "window of vulnerability" of Christianity. It is no accident in Russia in the XIX century. The Old and New Testaments did not publish under one cover. As for the differences between the dream, the revolutionary impulse, on the one hand, and the organization, this impulse is utilizing, then Dostoevsky dedicated this to the "Legend of the Grand Inquisitor". Jesus would hardly have thought of the inquisition, Jesuitism and dogma about the infallibility of the pope.

6.2 Do you agree with the thesis that after Christ, Christianity has been rewritten by the Pharisees?

- After Christ, Christianity was not rewritten, but created; the process of creation lasted 150-200 years (III-IV centuries AD), when the corpus of literature was built and, according to the model of the Roman Empire, hierarchy and territorial structure were built. A Biblical project was developed that was adequate to the new era. If before that the social control was external in the Mediterranean zone, the main ones were the "culture of shame" and external power control - the "Egyptian model", which found its maximum embodiment in the Roman Empire and Roman law, the changed conditions required more subtle and deeper, interiorized forms of not just social, but socio-psychological control - from within. Hence - the culture of conscience. That is, peace and man at the turn of the 1st millennium BC. e. - I thous. e. so complicated that one violence was not enough. The biblical project is a combination of internal and external subordination with the primacy of the first, and part of the functions of external submission was undertaken by the Christian church, so many social movements took the form of heresies.

By the end of the XV century. The Catholic Church has so compromised itself, and heresies have so weakened its position that it was challenged by Protestantism. As a blow to Catholicism and confronting it (in a heat - up to the religious wars of the 16th - first half of the 17th centuries, compared to the figures of which our Ivan the Terrible is an example of humanism and piety), Protestantism paradoxically not only weakened, but temporarily strengthened A biblical project. First, he created it more modern (in terms of orientation to money, to success, to selectivity - in this regard, Protestantism is the most Judaized version of Christianity), a more cruel and at the same time a simpler form; Secondly, it became a kind of a valve for the outcome of the dissatisfied from Pax Catholica, making the final rest. But not for long. Time worked against both versions of Christianity, breakaway from orthodoxy (Orthodoxy). A new era was approaching, for structural and reflexive management, in which it was necessary to institutionalize rational knowledge - science. And it is not by chance that in the same France the development of such knowledge (for example, in the person of Descartes) was promoted by the Jesuits.

In the XVIII - early XIX century. The biblical project, seething at the seams, survived yet another mutation: the Christian faith was abandoned, and proto-ideology first appeared in the form of a project of British Masonic lodges, implemented mainly on French soil - Enlightenment, and then ideology in its three basic forms: conservatism, liberalism , Marxism. These were already irreligious, that is, terminal forms of the Biblical project, which acted simultaneously both as means of struggle and as forms of social control over a sharply complicated social environment. How once the Christian priests pushed aside or destroyed the priesthood (in the territory of Russia - the Vedic), so in the XVIII-XX centuries. Masons, ideologists of liberalism, Marxism, the Nazis attacked the Christian church. In this case, it is very appropriate to recall the phrase of St. Augustine that "punishment without guilt does not happen," or: what kind of court judge ...

In general, it must be said that the initial complexity of Christianity, reflecting the complexity of European civilization of the late antiquity period (elements of antiquity, Jewish and German traditions) is both strength and weakness. Complex composition can be disassembled. This is Islam is one - it can only be cut to pieces, but Christianity is fraught with unexpected mutations. After all, N. Berdyaev noticed that Christianity is fraught with Catholicism, Catholicism - Protestantism, and Protestantism - atheism (I would add here Freemasonry). This is one line. Catholicism is fraught with degeneration into the neo-Greek hierarchy. And is the Pope after the adoption of the dogma of the infallibility of the pope - is not the supreme priest of a neo-pagan cult? And the difficult relationship of Christianity and Judaism, already proclaimed by the Roman high priest, the "elder brother"? And is not the "big brother" Big Brother? Someone will say: whence is paganism? Christianity is a monotheistic religion. But, firstly, "paganism" is a negative label, which representatives of the Abrahamic religions hang on everything non-Abrahamic. Secondly, Judaists and Muslims cast doubt on the "firm sincerity" of Christians in monotheism - the Trinity, the icons. So it's not so simple with Christianity, and what contributed to its expansion may be a serious problem. However, it seems, in the same Vatican well understand this.

Currently, the Biblical project is almost at the finish, as is the phenomenon of ideology; world tops are urgently looking for a replacement. And already today something can be guessed. On the one hand, the "owners of the world game" famously demolish education and science, leading the first and the second into closed structures, trying to turn the population into eternal adolescents, to whom culture is replaced by comfort and a sense of deep physical satisfaction. I will give only two examples - American cinema and television. At one time journalist D. Robinson wrote in the Times newspaper: "1985 year will go down in history as the darkest period in American cinema. It was in this year that Hollywood, after almost seventy years of dominance in the film industry, rejected all claims to serve the healthy intellect of an adult. " And here is what the presenter of the rather primitive health broadcast "Live Healthily" E. Malysheva told us. In the program "At night watching" (from 11.02.2016), gloating about her journalistic training with other Eastern Europeans in the US in the middle of the 1990-ies, she said, on whom they were taught to navigate in their TV shows: "You have to make television by the simplicity of the presentation for eleven-year-old underdeveloped adolescents. " Judging by the transfer, she does it. What is the contrast with the programs on the health of the Soviet era, which, for example, was led by a clever, intelligent, far-off, self-satisfied and educated E. Belyanchikova!

Conversion of adults in underdeveloped adolescents living not by the intellect, and hormone-instinctive programs, simply put, mental debilitation (that also serve all kinds of talk shows) pursues a simple goal: to educate absolutely non-self-identity, which will easily connect to a global communications network as a fully managed "cells." Creative, minimally intelligent person in the "cage" electronic brain, controlled neozhretsami and techno-mages, not turn.

On the other hand, more and more funds are invested in NBICS research - nano-bio-info-kogno-sotsi. Speech, apparently, is about establishing remote control of the elite living on floating cities or in inaccessible land enclaves over the psychosphere of the mass of the population. Something tells me: today, in the form and under the guise of distance education, which maximizes the primitivizing of education itself, excluding the personal principle (teacher) from it and debilitating the object of instruction, in fact, the methods and forms of remote psychosocial control of the "upper" over the "lower classes" are being worked out. I think, however, this scheme will fail, first of all - in Russia. The fight against regressors requires one important thing: they can not be personalized in any way, they are not individuals, but functions, biorobots, Matrices, externally civilized and sometimes gorgeous orcs. But the orc is an orc, that is, something that does not have its own will and is driven by another's evil will.

6.3 Is Christianity is not a religion created by the slave-owners for the slaves?

"Ultimately, if you coarsen, straighten out and define something according to a social function, then yes," Jesus, clearly, it's about something else. But after all, Marx is one thing, and Marxism is another, and it is not without reason that Marx said that he is not a Marxist. I wonder what Jesus would say about the creators of the Christian system, not to mention the current state of the latter? I think I would have remembered my "not the world, but the sword ...". However, "slave owners and slaves" can be changed to "feudal lords" and "peasants", "bourgeois" and "proletarians". The Christian church existed in three social systems - ancient slave-holding, feudal and capitalist (and even in system anti-capitalism - the USSR - preserved, however, in a form modified by the KGB).

6.4 Do you agree with the thesis that the confession of someone else (who came from other people) religion - it is a spiritual enslavement?

- Of course, I agree. It is a spiritual sabotage, when an alien implant John terioriziruetsya, and certain system (ethnos, state) becomes a breeding ground for self-realization of strangers. Borrowed Gods - it's like a loan at a very high percentage, but not have to repay the money, and warped historical destiny.

6.5 In lectures you say: "Horde period was the most favorable for the Russian Orthodox Church." Do the adoption of the Horde resulted in the XIV century Islam to fight for destruction?

"He did not." Orthodox priests prayed in churches for the Basurmans king, who favored them. But as soon as the Horde went into oblivion, the Russian rulers immediately took up the church. The first steps in this direction were made by Ivan III, continued - cool - Ivan IV and - gently in form, but tough in content - Alexey Mikhailovich. Well, Peter I brought the form in accordance with the content: the patriarchy was abolished, instead, the Synod was established, the de facto ministry for the affairs of the church. So the actions of the Bolsheviks in relation to the church, if we ignore the excesses of Lenin and Trotsky, as well as of the half-Turkish Khrushchev, are completely in line with the tradition of Russian power. In Russia, since the time of the deceived Ivan the Terrible, the church has always been in power, the autocrat was more important than the church hierarchs, who, in case of what, quickly pointed out their place. That is why the church supported the Februaryists in 1917, anticipating freedom from the supreme secular power. Very short-sighted: soon the Bolsheviks explained it to them. By the way, at the same time, only much more brutally (Latin American temperament), Mexican revolutionaries explained to the Catholic priests their historical wrong. The only trouble is that in both cases - Russian and Mexican - many innocent simple priests suffered.

6.6 whether we Suitable Orthodoxy as state ideology?

- Orthodoxy is not suitable as a state ideology for several reasons. First, religion and ideology are fundamentally different forms of organizing ideas; ideology is inherently a denial of religion; The coincidence of functions in this case does not matter. Secondly, as VG Belinsky said, the Russian peasant is not religious, he is superstitious. By the way, until the middle of the XVII century., Before the reform of Alexis - Nikon in Russian Orthodoxy lay a strong imprint of the Vedic religion. Before this turn, there was no formula "I am a servant of God," instead, "a servant of God," that is, a descendant of God. This is a typical formula of the Vedic religion of the Slavs, in which the gods are the ancestors of people. Thirdly, in Russia, under Orthodoxy, as under the monarchy, the trait was summed up by 1917. - vixerunt (obsolete). It is interesting that as soon as after the February coup the soldiers were allowed not to go to the prayer services, more than 80% stopped doing this - that's such a "god-bearer nation". In general, we have an idea of ​​a Russian man formed by several writers, who practically did not know the Russian peasant. This is primarily Leo Tolstoy and Fyodor Dostoevsky, whose fantasies (in one case light, "daytime", in the other - sick, "nightly"), we take for reality. Read something in this regard, above all, N. Leskov, in part G. Uspensky and A. Chekhov, from a smaller part - I. Bunin. But this is by the way. Fourthly, Russia is a poly-religious country, I'm not talking about the fact that we have plenty of atheists (here I am, for example, an atheist). And the fact that former communist bosses with a candle in the church are, so it's just that they have to replace the membership card. There was a membership card, now an icon and a candle instead. As Habakkuk said, "Yesterday there was a son-in-law, and then, firstly, Father." Fifthly, the time of religion all over the world is going away; The current explosion of Islamism is a political phenomenon, it is rearguard fights.

7.1 Why in the socialist camp was commonplace dissatisfaction with life and the government?

- There are several reasons. First, people did not appreciate what they had. They saw photographs or footage from Western movies - full counters, 100 varieties of sausage and cheese, fashionable clothing; they compared wages. At the same time, they "forgot" how much in the West they go to pay taxes (up to 50%), "forget" about paid medicine and education, credit slavery, short leave. And they "forgot" to add to the salary those expenses borne by the system for providing free medicine, education and much more. When they felt it after the destruction, it was too late. As they say in the Qur'an: "Let them enjoy, then they will know!" Today it is clear: for Russia and Eastern Europe, the decades of socialism were the best in terms of welfare, and in terms of historical subjectivity of time.

Secondly, socialism is a much more vulnerable society for criticism. He postulates social justice and equality, and they were precisely violated in the course of the development of socialism and the transformation of the nomenclature into a quasi-class that satisfies its material needs to a large extent in the West. This was a clear contradiction of reality and a proclaimed ideals. But capitalism (and post-Soviet reality in the same Russia, the Czech Republic, Bulgaria, etc.), especially when, after the destruction of socialism, there is no one to be afraid and there is no one to be ashamed of, as if declaring: yes, we have an exploitative society, a market, the strongest survive - this is freedom. Many of the claims that can be brought to socialism can not be brought against capitalism. What can you say to someone who postulates: "Yes, that's what I'm shit! This is the norm! "And what can you say? In other words, much of the discontent in the socialist countries is discontent with the violation of the principles of socialism and the stupid certainty that this can be corrected by injecting capitalism.

I fix it? Got better? To paraphrase Gogol: "Well, son, you have helped your Pindos? He became the second Pindostanom your homeland? "

Third, almost all residents of Pax Socialistica to some extent irritated the Soviet Union, irritated by the Russians - the strong always annoy. Everyone - for various reasons: Poles - because we beat them and because, no matter how they boasted, they did not create a great culture, but as they were, they remained (and remain) the backyards of the West, and Russia created a great culture, and empire; many - because they fell under Hitler, and the Russians not only did not lay down, but the ridge was also broken down to the Third Reich; We have Victory - who else in Europe does she have? Russians are the only Slavic people of the imperial type, who created a successful empire (the Serbs are also an imperial people, but historically, for objective reasons, it was difficult for them to succeed). This opposes the Russians to almost all Slavs, as well as to all non-imperial peoples who found themselves in Russian orbit, but who never developed historical gratitude for the fact that the Russians always defended them from the West, primarily from the Germans, from the wolf Teutonic pack. Therefore, K. Leontiev was right in his skepticism towards the "Slavic brotherhood". The "imperial brotherhood" is stronger. It is necessary to remember this when, by the middle of the XXI century. Under the onslaught of millions of Arabs and Negroes, Europe will begin to crack and people will break into Russia for protection. We will need to "remember everything" - without gloating, but without emotion, only with sober calculation. Enough to save the ungrateful, who on the second day after another rescue spit in our backs and begin mowing "under the West." When I hear the same Poles say "we are the West," I want to say to them: "Tell this to the Germans!"

7.2 Was it the result of a bad economy?

- Economy - element of the system; system (distribution of non-economic factors of production, class interest) defines an element, and not vice versa. In addition, the economy of the USSR and the socialist camp as a whole was not bad or weak. Let's look at the numbers.

Until 1985, that is, before perestroika, the USSR occupied the second place in the world and the first in Europe for the production of industrial products. In 1975, the share of the USSR in world industrial output was 20% (for comparison: 1999 in the US - 20,4%, EU - 19,8%); Soviet GDP was 10% of the world. In the same 1975, the national income of the USSR was 60-65% of the US national income. Israeli intelligence provided even larger figures, according to Israeli analysts, the standard of living in the USSR, including paid and free services, as well as the so-called invaluable humanitarian factors (crime rate, social security), was 70-75% of the US and tended to rapprochement with him. From 1970 to 1975, the share of industries most influencing the efficiency of the national economy (machine building, electric power, chemical and petrochemical industry) increased from 31% to 36%; then the slip began, but the level reached to 1975 was high. In this period, the output of machine-building products increased by 1,8 times, including computer technology - by 4 times (at the turn of the 1960-1970-ies the most important directions in this sphere were curtailed, but not all, however, the lag behind the US on the computer increased rapidly), devices, automation equipment and spare parts to them - in 1,9 times. In 1975, with a population of 9,4% of the world CMEA gave more than 30% of world industrial output and more than 25% of world income; The USSR produced 60% of the CMEA industrial output. From 1951 to 1975, the share of socialist countries in world industrial output increased by 1,5 times (from 20% to 30%), while the share of capitalist countries decreased from 80% to 50% (and the USA - from 50% to 22-25% ).

To this should be added the successes of Soviet agriculture 1985-1990. and especially 1991: the growth was 9,8% compared to 5,8% in the previous five-year plan. The USSR provided the lowest prices for food in Europe. Consumption of food per capita in 1990-1991. reached a maximum in our history of XX century: bread - 119 kg, meat - 75 kg, fish - 20 kg, milk and dairy products - 386 l, eggs - 97 pieces. 1990-th and 1991 years are marked by an exceptionally large yield and an increase in the number of livestock. And the shelves in the shops were empty at the same time - the deficit was created deliberately, to finally embitter the population of cities against socialism, to provoke unrest. The collective farms deliberately did not buy their products, instead agricultural products were purchased from Canadian farmers - 5-6 times more expensive. Thus the collective farms also ruined. All this was done also in order to intimidate the population with the threat of hunger in order to justify the price increase. The last, representing nothing more than the expropriation of money from the population, was to deprive the people of financial opportunities to participate in the privatization, which they planned for their own. Intimidation of the population by the government and official media in the fall of 1991 was, therefore, the most important preparatory act of privatization.

In fact, there was no threat of hunger, it was a lie that was immediately exposed by specialists, later they were confirmed by the CSB. E. T. Gaidar insisted that the country's half-yearly need for bread is estimated to be 25 million tons, and at the end of 1991 there is supposedly only 10 million tons in the country with a monthly consumption of 5 million tons; hence the conclusion: in two months - the famine and the threat of civil war. It is on this that lies the false liberal myth about "Gaidar - the savior of the country". The reality was completely different. Gaidar deliberately considered bread with fodder grain, i.e., a monthly consumption of 2 million tons; to this we need to add the available 2 million tons from the State Reserve and 3,5 million tons of grain for imports, which was due in December 1991 - January 1992, ie, until the new crop in late July - early August 1992 this more than enough. But Gaidar's main lie was not even in 5 million tons of monthly consumption of bread by the country, but in that 26 million tons is annual rather than semi-annual consumption, which was confirmed by the statistical report of 1992. However, in the fall of 1991, Yeltsin's team managed to push through His lies in all media.

7.3 whether the system is possible, like a socialist, but with a good economy?

- I have already said that the socialist economy was not weak; Moreover, it was successful, especially in comparison with the capitalist, as paradoxically it sounds. Unfortunately, we do not realize the realities of the US economy in 1970-1980-s. Now we do not have socialism - do we have a good economy? In most of the capitalist world, a bad economy and a hard life. This was recognized even by such apologists of Westernism-capitalism as G. Yavlinsky and E. Gaidar. They recorded the "pathetic state" and "stagnant poverty" of most capitalist countries. True, the recipe for success was strange: the rejection of a part of sovereignty on the path to Euro-Atlantic integration, otherwise - periphery and poverty. It is difficult to say what is more here - a notorious lie or impassable stupidity. Indeed, it is the concession of sovereignty to the West that leads to the dictates of TNCs, and is the cause of poverty and periphery of most of the capitalist countries. The world of capital is a world of poverty, and growing: in 2009, 1% of the population owned 44% of world wealth; in 2014, 48%; in 2016, 50%. In 2015, under the poverty line (life at less than 1,25 dollars per day), there were 830 million people living in the world. (14% of the population); still about 40% live on 2 dollars a day. "Good economy" - in that part of the capmer, which robs the weak (colonies, semi-colonies) and stamped dollar bills. Yes, once again you will be surprised, people with what level of intelligence have thrown out upstairs perestroika and post-perestroika. However, it is possible that such people were chosen to implement the semi-colonial scheme.

7.4 deficit and turn - it is an indispensable companion of socialism?

- Unfortunately, the scarcity of the economy is a characteristic feature of socialism, in the form in which it really existed in history. She has several economic and political reasons. Firstly, it is the need to accelerate the development of the military-industrial complex and maintain military-strategic parity with the West with a smaller GNP than the collective West. It should be remembered that in the socialist camp the main military burden was laid on the USSR, whereas in NATO military expenditures were distributed somewhat more evenly. For example, in 1975, the military expenditures of the Warsaw Pact are 110,3 billion dollars, of which the USSR is 99,8 billion; NATO - 184,9 billion, of which the US - 101,2 billion; 1980, respectively, 119,5 billion and 107,3 billion and 193,9 billion and 111,2 billion. Naturally, such countries as the industrialized GDR and Czechoslovakia, faced a much smaller deficit. As for Poland, Romania, Hungary and Bulgaria, they were initially very poor countries. Now in all these countries there is no shortage, and people live much worse.

In the USSR in 1990, that is, on the eve of the collapse of the system, when we were persuaded that everything was bad, and scared of the coming famine, the consumption of meat and meat products amounted to 78 kg per capita (imports - 13%), and after 15 years in RF - 57 kg (import - 35%). So not everything needs to be measured by a deficit as an isolated indicator. Secondly, of course, the deficit had economic reasons associated with the specifics of socialism as a system - a sluggish administrative system, the lack of improvement of socialist methods of planning; Thus, in the USSR, the planned economy de facto ceased to exist in 1972-1973. and it was replaced by a conciliatory economy, which they tried to "treat" with capitalist methods. Have recovered. Third, the deficit, poorly compatible with the economic life of the system, was created artificially in the USSR in 1989-1990. through the implementation of the law on state-owned enterprises (adopted 30 June 1987, for all enterprises came into effect from 1 January 1989). According to this law, killing for the economy of the USSR, a large number of enterprises received the right to enter the world market directly, that is, the monopoly of foreign trade was de facto abolished. The goods of these enterprises were sold on the world market for dollars; then inside the country, dollars were exchanged for rubles and there was a huge ruble mass, not provided with the goods. In the USSR since the time of the credit reform 1930-1932 years. the balance between the mass of commodities and the money supply, between cash and non-cash, was firmly maintained. The effect of the law on the state enterprise already in 1989 broke this system, and the population rushed to sweep all that was in stores from the shelves. In 1990-1991 other zealous "democrats" openly called for creating a deficit to enrage the masses against the system, against socialism, as a salvation from which the "market economy", that is, capitalism, was slipped.

In general, I must say that we still live myths - about themselves, about the Soviet Union, on pre-revolutionary Russia, our historical figures. After 1991, on the shield suddenly stood committed to raise losers make them figures of historic proportions - Alexander II of, laid the foundation of revolutions and 1905 1917 years, Stolypin, Nicholas II.. All this is projected onto today's reality and, being based on poor knowledge of history, fraught with negative practical results.

Example: created the Stolypin Club (which, by the way, was charged with the development of the program of economic development of the Russian Federation). The Stolypin Club. Organizers, apparently, proceed from the fact that it was a successful statesman who solved the tasks that faced the country. Well, the same: remember the words of Peter Arkadievich about "great Russia", etc. However, if the "Stolypiklubniki" knew the history better, then most likely they would doubt: how to name the boat, so it will float. It's one thing - "Victory", the other - "... trouble." Apparently, strawberries are impressed by the fact that Stolypin wanted to conduct a massive privatization of the land (and compulsory) and destroy the collective farm. This is quite in the spirit of Yeltsin, Gaidar-Chubais schemes and their overseas curators. That's only with the results of the Stolypin reform - bummer. The reform did not stop the decline of all indicators per capita, on the contrary, it accelerated them, and the impoverishment of the peasantry in the center of the country took on a catastrophic scale.

First Agricultural Congress, held in Kiev in 1913, at fixed: most farmers did not get anywhere reform - failed. The Provisional Government was recognized in 1917 Stolypin reforms failed. It is significant that in 1920, during the Civil War, the peasants returned 99% of land in communal ownership - response Stolypin peasants.

Stolypin - a typical reformer loser, his work - this is not to win but to trouble, including the order system, which protects the interests of Stolypin and the existence of which is sought to be extended.

Even more deplorable were the political results of the reform. In an effort to destroy the community, Stolypin turned the most massive stratum of naive conservative monarchists, who were peasants, into agrarian revolutionaries. And what would have happened to Russia, if Stolypin had not turned out to be a grief-reformer, it's altogether terrible to think. In this case, the revolution in Russia would have happened in the year of commercials in 1912 or 1913, since 20-30 millions of lost peasants would have been thrown into the city, which would not have found any work in the city. That's where it would come to shame, and much steeper than in 1917. Stolypin - against his will - and so brought the revolution closer, but he could bring it even more.

And the thought creeps in: can, "stolypinoklubniki" know it all and secretly sympathize with the revolution? Have any ideas on this? Probably not. But then - hot school textbook on the history of the hands.

This is just one example of how to mishaps causes poor knowledge of their own history, and there are many examples.

8. Geological and climatic catastrophes:

8.1 It was an accident or a reaction smarter planet (and even the cosmos) to the destruction of her man?

- Geoclimatic catastrophes occurred before the appearance of man. Even today, the scale of human activity is still so small that it will not drag the global geoclimatic catastrophe. Do not listen to unscrupulous ecologists. But nature must be protected, including from man. As for the term "reasonable", it is unlikely that it is applicable to the planet. I would suggest: organized integrity, focused on maintaining the balance, i.e., self-preservation, and eliminating any elements that threaten the whole. Outwardly it looks like a reasonable behavior, but it is something else - not worse and not better - another.

8.2 serious attitude to them Western elites - is a manifestation of the fact that they know more than us about how nature works?

- First, know more, our Western elites older. Secondly, they are better organized, they are rooted in its history. Our "elite" - pre-Petrine, St. Petersburg, the Soviet - were relatively short period of time, to become truly elite. In addition, we have the dominant group has never been independent, representing the functional authority and elitism - it is always subjectivity.

Research on the possibility of geoclimatic catastrophe underway in the West behind closed doors last 50-60 years. According to my information, in the middle of 1980-ies in Western researchers came the belief that in the Western Hemisphere at the end of 1990-ies pro catastrophe and that only stable area is the territory of the USSR. In the early 1990-ies anxiety subsided, terms receded, but the threat of catastrophe geoclimatic will not go away.

8.3 Do you think it possible to view our planet itself erases deadlock branch of development, whether it be dinosaurs or unpromising civilization ( "Lucifer's Hammer")?

- Quite possible. Planet - a holistic system.

9 Do you agree with the fact that modern society like a cancer patient the body, in addition devoid of feeling pain?

- I agree, but the feeling of pain is, it appears ugly - in affectation, for example. This pain korezhit even freaks and sociopaths. And as your metaphor, I sometimes think that there is a huge tumor, which is perched on the edge of what remains of the healthy society. Here involuntarily recall the "Occam's Razor".

9.1 top does not experience discomfort when hit bottom in a difficult position.

- Horse riding, as a rule, generally insensitive towards the lows, especially those tops, which yesterday got out of the mud, which in its essence - antiaristokratichny, dud. Suffice it to recall the recent history, when another group of "aristocrats of garbage" required to protect them "Patrick" from the "ball" of the sleeping areas of Moscow. People do not realize that their social racism themselves incite class hatred, which then hit them or their children. They would read John Donne: "Ask not for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee."

9.2 bottoms do not have freedom of maneuver for the release of the difficult situation.

- The social triumph baseman - a rare thing in history. The USSR was for several decades a triumph of the common people, but since the mid-1950's popular socialism Stalin era began to turn into a "nomenklatura socialism" head clerks, which since the end of 1960-ies really wanted to integrate into the global capitalist system; that they were the masters of the world socialist system, they are not inspired.

And the world kapsistema associated with many of these people, as well as in post-perestroika their heirs, with a sweet and beautiful life, often - in its most vulgar form. It reminds me very much dream gangster John of Colorado from the film "Gold McKenna", carefully storing the faded newspaper "Parisian Life", which depicts kankaniruyuschie girls, rich pubs and their patrons. "Parisian Life" - the dominant behavior.

Those who exchanged the world socialist system, an alternative to capitalism, resent that they did not reserve a place in the center of the capsystem. Painful, before you were the masters of the Great System; agreeing to the "record in burzhuinstvo", i.e., to be included in another Large System as its element, you agreed to the position of the owners of the small system, turning it into the Big. The whole defines the element, not the other way around. The landlady can not sit next to the owner, for whom he is only an assistant. This is with the host of the Great System of the USSR the hosts of the West were on an equal footing, and now - excuses nous (excuse us). It turned out according to Timur Kibirov: "We ourselves poked the tambour. / And now they drive us, they take us out. " Even with the Brezhnev falling into marasmus, no Western leader would have allowed himself to talk like the later Gorbachev or Yeltsin.

10 Modern capitalism - a mill for milled resources and deflating them in the trash. Many of these resources are irreplaceable.

- The current capitalism is the cesspool. One of his characters - an installation with feces, torn jeans and fishnet female underwear.

-

10.1 Can the planned economy crisis-free, focused on the satisfaction of human needs?

- Hardly. The non-equilibrium and non-linearity - the inherent quality of wildlife; "Eternal rest heart unlikely to be happy, eternal rest for the gray pyramids." And speaking of the new century, it will generally be global "buntashny Century", instability and crises - its norm.

10.2 Can the resource based economy, where finance occupy a subordinate position allotted to them?

- Of course, it is possible. Enraged finance - it is a sign of the deadly disease of capitalism, its "kiss of death". None of the social system, in addition to capitalism, and then only at a later time, a lethal phase, we have not seen such an all-embracing power - not even money, but something strange, because money is essentially withered away. If you can print as many pieces of paper backed by nothing, it means that none of the five basic functions of money in these papers do not. It's sort of hearth, painted on canvas.

10.3 What prevented Leontiev to develop a theory of an economy?

- I do not know. Maybe the time has not come; We may have interests in the other; maybe the US - not the best place for the development of such a theory.

11 Any valuable science-based predictions on it. What predictions can offer historical science today?

- Historical science can not offer anything. Offer people, t. E., Historians, and they tend to deal with the past, with often describe his pieces. Scientific history - istoriologii - has yet to be established.

The outlook for the near future is simple: capitalism will die, it will hardly survive until the middle of the 21st century and certainly will not live to the beginning of the XXII century. It will be dying and bloody. A significant part of the planet is barbaric. White people on it will become noticeably less, and they will have to fight to the death in order to stay in history, but - they are to blame for having allowed such a situation. Already now children, first of all boys (from them will grow men), it is necessary to bring up for a life in the conditions of wartime: "You want peace - prepare for war". And you need to bring up the example of not buggers and prostitutes, but on heroic examples. Pay attention: the heroes disappeared from the screens, portraits of the pioneer heroes disappeared from the school cabinets.

Ideology and religion remain in the past, their place is likely to take the magic, it is closely related to high technology, primarily cognitive. The level of a society's culture as a whole will fall. Heirloom library will become a luxury, but a strong-willed intellect and knowledge futuroarhaicheskom world will be valued very highly. Tip to parents: seriously concerned with the education of children, do not let EGEizirovannoy school to turn them into cosmopolitan morons.

If there is no catastrophe, then at the turn of the XXI-XXII centuries. the situation will stabilize and a new social system will emerge, very far from the one described by the great Ivan Efremov in the "Andromeda Nebula" and the earlier Strugatsky in the book "Return. Noon, the 22nd century. " What kind of system - it depends on who and how in the XXI century. will win the battle for the future. Conclusion: we need to raise the winners. However, everything can change the geoclimatic catastrophe or, for example, a huge asteroid, as it happened 65-70 thousand years ago, when humanity left a few thousand, if not hundreds of people, slipped through the "bottleneck" of History. We are their descendants. It is possible that (conditionally) grandchildren of our grandchildren will have to survive a catastrophe of this kind. This does not mean that you need to be pessimistic, on the contrary. As taught by the great Marxist of the 20th century. Antonio Gramsci: "pessimism of reason, but optimism of will." Or, as the hero of D. Aldridge's story "The Last Inch" said: "A person can do everything, if only he does not undermine the navel." To be able to, it is necessary to have power; so as not to overstitch the navel - the mind. Together with an understanding of the trends of world development - this is the most powerful triad necessary for the Victory. Forward to the victory!

A source: Our contemporary

Author: Andrei Fursov

Tags: Russia, Opinion, the West, the Soviet Union, Economy, Research, Religion