August 7th, 2015
Founder of Worldcrisis.ru, Foundation for Economic Research of Mikhail Khazin, president of consulting company “Neocon,” former state advisor of Russian Federation
Translated by Kristina Rus
I have raised this subject repeatedly, but today it appears to be very relevant, so I’ll write about it in greater detail. To begin with, there are three fundamentally different approaches to the existing world order.
- First – that all is well and nothing needs to be changed, except for little adjustments.
- The second is that the current system has substantial flaws, but they are not related to the fact that the idea is wrong, but that those who control and develop the system make serious mistakes. Classic example: the belief that the problems in Russia are not related to the fact that capitalism is a wrong path (as everywhere), but that it is developing incorrectly. There are many different options, for example: we need a Tsar-daddy, who will protect us from the evil Jewish Freemasons and to ensure that no one deviates from the Orthodox principles, or, on the contrary, we need to unite with the anti-Western neighbor-countries and create our own “rules of the game,” that are different from those offered by Washington, and so on.
- A third option is radical. It implies that the present world order is inherently unfair, that within its framework it is impossible to even significantly reduce the gap between the rich and poor, that finally the “world of violence” must be “razed to the ground” and then … And then we will see… Proponents of this approach, by the way, reasonably draw attention to the fact that the only system under which the rich have been restrained, was established on the territory of Russia exclusively by the hands of such radicals. Another thing is that they later turned “bourgeoisie” and destroyed everything created with their own hands – which is natural, the bourgeoisie doesn’t like the radicals.
Now, the first group is headed by the elite. The second, by the counter-elite. In a human sense, representatives of the counter-elite, of course, are part of the elite, but they are not allowed to approach the fundamental issues, relating to property. In our country, for example, representatives of the counter-elite can be writers, journalists, generals, scientists – but not the leaders of the government and the Central Bank. Remember the hysteria caused by a hint that Glazyev may be appointed to become the chairman of the Central Bank – because he is not from the elite (which today reflects the interests of the global financial elite), but a prominent representative of the counter-elite.
And the third group, a bright representative of which is the Islamic State, is a typical anti-elite. By the way, for this reason, it is naive to argue that its leadership is “bought” by the CIA, the US or someone else. Any commitments always make sense only in the framework of some system of values (in which to break the rules is more expensive). But if you set the task of destroying the global system, then by definition, you owe nothing to anyone. If your local interests align with someone else, you can accept the money – but they will go precisely for the tasks you have set yourself. Lenin, apparently, took the money from the German general staff – but it didn’t bound him (not counting the quite reasonable view that Lenin had curators from the Royal army counterintelligence, so that even under formal circumstances it was not a betrayal, but a special operation).
If we apply such an approach to the European Union, its elites are those who are trying today to preserve the unity and subordination to the U.S., even to the detriment of the interests of individual countries and peoples, and the counter-elites – are those who are trying to change the general model of the EU, imposed by the US (for today), well, and everything is clear with the anti-elite. Now, Merkel, Hollande, etc, etc. – are the European elite. But, say, the prime minister of Hungary, Orban is the representative of the counter-elite. Yes, he is integrated into the common EU context, but is constantly engaged in blatant opposition not because he is destructive, rather, on the contrary, he understands that the current system is not viable, and therefore, he is trying to modify it. Maybe because, being himself, in a universal sense, a nationalist, he is well aware of what would happen if the anti-elite comes to power in Eastern Europe in the likes of the “Right Sector”.
I note, the real “Right Sector” organisation is not the anti-elite – it is just a gangster-terrorist structure, created by certain puppeteers in the framework of specific tasks. And everyone, as usual, believed that as it was suddenly pulled out of the shadows, it can be put back. But the circumstances, as usual, were tougher than the plans of the intelligence services, and as a result, the organization became too complicated, creating a kind of a field of cancerous ideas, in which the anti-elite is sprouting. And you can be sure that they will mature, creating lots of trouble, including for the creators of the “Right sector”.
But, returning to the EU, it can be noted that the counter-elite today craves power, amid the economic downturn and quite harsh (with respect to the fate of the EU) plans of the US, which have become known to the public. This is Marine Le Pen in France, and Umberto Bossi (leader of the Northern League in Italy), and many others. By the way, the Greek Premier Tsipras, who, in fact, doesn’t want the destruction of the EU (yet?), quite possibly represents the elite, but a new one. However, we’ll see. The main thing is something else. Because the elite does not even want to discuss any changes (which is well illustrated by the fact that it refuses to acknowledge the fact of the economic crisis, limited to the mantras in the style of “All is well, my beautiful lady!”), today we can observe a wonderful picture in the EU – an alliance of the counter-elite and the anti-elite against the stupid and fat elite.
This spectacle will not be for the faint of heart.