Founder and CEO of an American private intelligence-analytical company “Stratfor” George Friedman in his speech to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs in 2015, indirectly explained the difference between the essence of European colonial civilization and Russian, so to say, peaceful civilization. Colonial civilization can’t control the colony troops because of the overwhelming superiority of the number of colony’s population over the number of colonial troops. Therefore the colonizers control their colonies through the collision of the colonial populations with each other. We should note that George Friedman in his speech referred to the experience of the Englishmen and couldn’t refer to a similar experience in the history of Russian civilization because of its absence. The link of an American to Englishmen also reminds us, what the country has been a leader of the European civilization, and which country is its leader now. now.
Continue reading Political cycles of civilization
Any technological advance will become property of the terrorists.
There are things worse than war. There is the dishonor of slavery.
Continue reading Playing soldiers
Liberal: Radical castration of the state is required.
The state should remain minimal.
The state should become a night watchman.
Socialist: To do this, we must stop promoting the freedom to do whatever you want to. People in their behavior should be guided not by their own personal gain, they should think about how their behavior affects other people.
Continue reading A dialogue between a socialist and a liberal
From the discussion:
– It’s funny that “the working people” attained a system in which labor is not valued at all in any way;) and what was achieved with this de-kulakization?:) History teaches: necessity is the mother of invention, but it has an impoverished mind 🙂
Continue reading A little about monetary systems
One of the declared objectives of the formation of a united Europe was to eliminate the possibility of one of the countries to prepare to a new war. The problem is that a united Europe without uniting with Russia itself becomes a source of war. Every time when Europe got united under anyone’s authority, it decided that its existence was under the threat of barbarian Russia. Then united Europe decided that Russia was weak enough, started war against it, lost it, on this point the next project of European unification without Russia ended and started new one. It was so under the authority of Napoleonic France, as well as it was under the authority of Nazi Germany. In Napoleon’s army in the campaign in 1812 against Russia there were only 50% of French soldiers, the rest of them came from other European nations. In 1941, in the Battle of Moscow it was German Field Marshal who encouraged French battalions, reminding them of how in the days of Napoleon French and German soldiers fought there side by side against a common enemy – Russia.
Continue reading Forcing Europe to peace
The other day I came across the story from the Voronezh region which said that the top seller in the local villages is old bread. Villagers, in the plot the elderly people, buy old bread not only for cattle, but also for themselves. On my Vkontakte page inflamed a debate about whether the residents of these villages can do anything to be able to buy fresh bread or not. My friends Ilyas and Tatiana defended the point of view that people are masters of their own destiny, and that these residents have the opportunity to earn fresh bread; I and other opponents – that everything is not so simple. The dispute ended when Ilyas said he didn’t understand me, and Tatiana converged with her opponents on a frequent occurrence in such cases, which can be described by the phrase “you’re a fool – you’re a fool yourself”. On this occasion, I had the need to systematically present my arguments, to look at the situation more broadly and to highlight the phenomenon to which Ilyas and Tatiana showed clear disdain (that, in my opinion, was the essence of their conclusions) – lumpenization. To do this, we will try to answer the question: what could the Romans do to save the Roman civilization?
Continue reading What do we have to do to change the course of history?
Soviet workers’ delegation in America.
– Whose is this factory?
– Ford’s one.
– And whose are these cars?
– Workers’ ones.
American workers’ delegation in the USSR.
– Whose is this factory?
– It belongs to the workers.
– And whose is this car?
– Factory director’s one.
Continue reading BRIEFLY ABOUT THE DEATH OF CAPITALISM
Socialist (anticorruption) ethics is the behavior that emanates from the public good. Corrupt (capitalist) ethics is the behavior that emanates from personal enrichment. Initially, the base of power is the behavior emanating from a public good, i.e., socialistic, anti-corruption ethics. In the absence of effective mechanisms to control the power, initial power is subject to corruption, the elite begins to increasingly act in the interests of its own enrichment, and violence (power) becomes the ground of corruption. Such a society over time breaks down because of the fact that the growth rate of consumption of resources exceeds the rate of growth of harvests. This phenomenon is called “Compression”. An example of such a society is ancient Rome. After the collapse of such a society, because of the lack of alternatives, its degradation occurs instead of moving, as according to Marx, to a more progressive social system. After the collapse of the Roman society, in Europe began the period called in history “dark ages”.
The next stage in the development of corrupt ethics is the idea picked up by the Jews in Babylon, the idea that the source of wealth is a private initiative. By the XIX century rationally grounded corrupt ethics transformed into liberalism. Does liberal society face the problem of Compression? Before answering this question, let’s trace the development of Compression on the example of the Russian Empire and serfdom.
Continue reading Socialist vs corrupt ethics
In order to prevent credits from going to the foreign exchange market, the Central Bank must stop the pyramid it organized there by printing rubles for the purchase of currency. Rejection of currency board policy opens the way to reduce the key rate, which the Central Bank is now raising and thus builds administrative barriers to deter the currency speculators from participation in the currency pyramid. Continue reading ABOUT THE NEED TO AVOID CURRENCY BOARD POLICY
There is a misconception that the Stalinist model of the economy is not a market one. This misconception takes origin from Marxists who think that socialism is a special system that is not subjected to market laws. But as it has appeared, it’s impossible to circumvent the law of supply and demand. Then, in the early ’90s, we rushed to the other side, starting to build “market economy”. This misconception induced the spread of the liberal dogma about “the ineffectiveness of state economy”. Most likely, it comes from Mises, who viewed the economy as a system of exchange of information about prices. But production of anything under the plan doesn’t mean the abolition of the price (perhaps it would be correct to express it as the rate of future cost savings, future growth or minimization of future costs to current costs) of the manufactured product and the rejection of the exchange of information about prices, i.e. market in Mises’ understanding. The most important thing that Stalinist economy could make in the meaning of Mises – to see real values, to invest them into prices, to organize the exchange of information about them, to meet the main demand for guns, tanks and airplanes and to become the winner of the Great Patriotic War. To Stalinist economy we can oppose the situation in modern market, where false values dominate, wrong, distorted prices circulate, as Mises would have said, and, as a result, money is washed out of the real sector of economy to the financial one, inflating the financial bubble, the ultimate objective or which is to burst. Continue reading STALINIST ECONOMIC MODEL