Who will win the information war?

“The appearance of the Red Army soldiers seemed symbolic to me — it was the image of the winners. Our soldiers were not beaten or shot. Soviet soldiers among the destroyed city were pulling pieces of bread out of their pockets and gave them to hungry prisoners of war.”

From the memoirs of Colonel Adam, Adjutant of Paulus, about the end of January 1943 in Stalingrad

“The irresponsible attitude to war is a sign of peacetime and a shortened memory.”

Alexander Khodakovsky

At the end of the nineteenth century, people noticed that the relative number of people dying in wars was steadily decreasing. From this it was concluded that civilization had to lead people to peaceful coexistence. And as soon as such a conclusion was made, World War I loomed on the horizon and soon broke out. Of course, the words of Alexander Khodakovsky refer us to the events of that time, but the current situation has changed. Let’s see how exactly.


The causes of the First World War are associated with the development of capitalism, but I would point out the well-known reason we all know – the murder on June 28, 1914 of Franz Ferdinand, who bore the monarchical title of “Archduke”. The First World War was the end of the Middle Ages, when the war served as the last argument of the kings. With it, the monarchical empires have sunk into oblivion. The end of the New Age I would refer to the Second World War. Why?

The Second World War was the apogee of the development of the Nazi ideology about the superiority of some nations over others, which suffered a crushing collapse. This ideology was not born by chance and had its predecessors. From Western-controlled Wikipedia, we can gather the following information. Charles Sarolea in his 1938 article “Was Carlyle the First Nazi?” tries to answer this question affirmatively in the journal Anglo-German Review:

Nazism was not a German invention, it originally formed abroad and came to us from there … The philosophy of Nazism, the theory of dictatorship were formulated a hundred years ago by the greatest Scot of his time – Carlyle, the most revered political prophet. Subsequently, his ideas were developed by Houston Stuart Chamberlain. There is not a single basic doctrine of Nazism on which the Nazi religion is based, which Carlyle or Chamberlain would not have. Both Carlyle and Chamberlain are truly the spiritual fathers of the Nazi religion … Like Hitler, Carlyle never changed his hatred, his contempt for the parliamentary system … Like Hitler, Carlyle always believed in the saving virtue of dictatorship.

Bertrand Russell in his book “The History of Western Philosophy” (1946) stated: “The next step after Carlyle and Nietzsche is Hitler.” These are fairly modest confessions, giving the impression that only certain individuals were infected with Nazism in England. A much more detailed picture is given by the book of the historian Manuel Sarkisyants, “The English Roots of German Fascism”, specifically devoted to this topic. Here is a quote from its beginning:

It is impossible to call the observation that “the majority of English people cannot rule without declaring their superiority and that they have always been implicitly concerned with the problem of skin color,” Benjamin Jove, an instructor at Oxford College in 1870-1893, noted. It is also known that, for example, Lord Alfred Milner, High Commissioner of England in South Africa, declared: “It was the British race that created the empire … only the British race is capable of preserving it.” He also mentioned “blood ties” …

Also in the classic study of Toynbee, the fact was noted that “the racial prejudices generated by English Protestantism … unfortunately became the determining factor in the formation of racial relations in the whole Western world.” The following, obviously exaggerated, statement by the liberal Sir Charles Dilke about the uniqueness of the English practice of genocide was repeatedly published: “The Anglo-Saxons are the only exterminating race on earth. Never before — until the beginning of the now inevitable extermination of the Maori Indians and the Australians [Aborigines] —was one such numerous race wiped out by the conquerors”.

I think that the picture of the defeat of the English nation by Nazism is no secret to anyone. For Nazi ideology there was a material basis, which is revealed in Jared Diamond’s book “Guns, Microbes and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies” through the question: Why didn’t Native Americans, Africans and Australians abolished and conquered Europeans and Asians, but vice versa? The answer is obvious – the presence of guns and steel among the Europeans made it possible. Jared Diamond points to another factor, which is also the result of the development of civilization, and which knocked down the aboriginal forces – microbes. But we are not interested in the unconscious factor, which eventually disappeared, but only in consciously applied force, resulting in a certain ideology. Thus, the physical basis for the emergence of Nazism is technological superiority in weapons. It gave rise to the colonial era, designated in the history as New Time, and the Nazi ideology, which collapsed in the Second World War. Now we live in the contemporary world, in the postcolonial era, in which the material basis was torn out from under Nazism. It was made by the USSR, which by its appearance challenged the colonial civilization, in the 30s it passed through the era of industrialization and in the 40s created nuclear and rocket weapons. With the collapse of the USSR, we are witnessing a surge of Nazism, the conductor of which is the carrier of this virus, Western civilization, but globally in the balance of power nothing has changed. The rapid development of China guarantees that the situation of the beginning of the colonial era will never happen again.

On the other hand, we continue to live in the era of the collapse of the USSR, we are still reaping the fruits of this collapse. The last Kiev Maidan and the coming of the Nazis to power in Ukraine are the apogee of this process. Why? Because before Maidan, we passively perceived Western political technology manipulations using nationalists and dividing us along national lines. After the Maidan, we launched an offensive, giving rise to a phenomenon called “Russian Spring”. A single multinational Russian world has entered the information offensive. Defensively, the West creates structures such as, for example, the “EU unit for disinformation”. Of course, the West is strong, it continues to control its adherents through a liberal ideology and is able to conduct such counterattacks as the “Skripals’ case” and the doping scandal. So who will win the information war? West or Russian world?

Historians may give some historical analogies to answer this question. I, like any other player in SCII, real-time strategy, can say that the side that attacks strategically wins. And who is attacking now? Russian world is the one who attacks. It is us who terrify the West, they call us “Russian trolls” there. Let’s look at the Wikipedia article and see the falsity of this definition: “Trolling is a form of social provocation or bullying in network communication, which is used both by personalized participants interested in greater awareness, publicity, and shocking, and by anonymous users without the possibility of their identification.” For us, trolling is a refutation of an obvious absurdity, mockery of nonsense and ignorance. And I think that because of this Western confusion, the word “trolling” will begin to carry the meaning that we are investing in it, and not the one that is reflected in Wikipedia in relation with the technology of manipulation of public consciousness pf “trolls factory”. Again, strategically nothing has changed. The main work was done by our grandfathers, who knocked out the material base from under Nazism, and all we can do is disinfect the carriers of this virus.

Leave a Reply