What makes the pandemic and "decarbonization" related to World War III

32

The result of each past World War in our common history has always been a redistribution of spheres of influence, a change in state borders and a restart of a new cycle of development of the capitalist economics... The belligerent countries plunged into debt, and after that the winners wrote off their debts and solved problems at the expense of reparations from the defeated, who paid for this whole "banquet". And even if now there are no large-scale tank battles, and there is no naval battle for some Pacific atoll, but something like the Third World War may have already begun several years ago, but not everyone has realized it yet.

Let's calmly and without unnecessary emotions try to assess what is happening in the world. And there, for several years now, a real economic war of survival has been going on, with the goal of a new global redistribution. Moreover, two fronts were clearly outlined.



Corona crisis


We will not now argue about whether COVID-19 is man-made, or whether it really originated somewhere in Wuhan, China. Let the investigation and the court deal with this. Only the socio-economic consequences of the pandemic will be important for our reflections, and they are so large that they have yet to be understood and realized. Let's say the coronavirus really spontaneously originated and began its expansion across the planet without someone's malicious intent, and after that the cunning dealers from BigPharma and other “globalists” decided to take advantage of it.

What actually happened? Due to general lockdowns in 2020, industrial production was suspended around the world, and in some places was stopped. Stock markets collapsed, oil prices reached negative (!) Values, natural gas began to cost a penny. The world economy lost about 10% over the year, which is quite comparable with the consequences of a major armed conflict in which many countries are involved. At the same time, prices for the products of pharmaceutical corporations jumped up. And all this, we note, without a single shot.

The need to fight the coronavirus pandemic and its consequences has led to an increase in budget spending, and therefore in borrowing. IMF analysts have concluded that by the end of 2021, the total public debt of all countries in the world will reach 99% of the planet's GDP. Some parallels with the belligerent countries involuntarily arise, but, as in a conventional war, the economic potential of all is very different. Developed countries have more opportunities to build up their debt and service it than developing countries, so they will all come out of the war with different results. And then the IMF staged an attraction of unheard of generosity, offering to allocate monetary surrogates to all its partners, ostensibly to help restore the economy. The fact that this whole story smells bad, and Russia should not participate in it, we in detail told previously. The obvious goal of this international financial structure, despite the declared "noble" intentions, is to help the rich countries and at the same time drive the poor into even greater debt bondage. And again we see some analogies with an attempt to fix the results of the "world war". But that's not all, there is also a second front.

"Decarbonization"


By a surprising coincidence, the leading Western powers have decided to begin the active phase of the process of phasing out fossil fuels and switching to renewable energy sources right now. The leaders in this matter are the European Union, the United States and China. Oil and gas producing countries, including Russia, will suffer the most from their initiative. Also, big problems shine on all exporters, whose products will have a high "carbon footprint" in their production. All developing countries, including ours, find themselves behind the side of this “mighty handful”, which will have to pay an increased fee for the right to access the European, American and Chinese markets. Their economies are in need of a "green restructuring", but this is extremely difficult to do in the face of a pandemic and increased budgetary expenditures. Not earlier and not later did the world leaders start all this "decarbonization", however!

If you look closely, this whole "green initiative" against the background of the "plague" is very reminiscent of the project of a global world reconstruction and restart of the economy on a new technological order. Is all this some kind of cunning and inhuman plan, or just "it happened"? We cannot give an unambiguous answer to this question. But what can Russia do?

As we previously told, our country has all the necessary resources and competencies in order to integrate into a rapidly changing world. Note that, unlike other states, Russia does not recklessly increase its debts, but, on the contrary, seeks to reduce them. Moscow ignored the "gifts" from the IMF, and recently the Russian government decided to pay off its internal debt in the amount of 875 billion rubles. In this context, such a financial policy seems very reasonable.
32 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. 0
    12 August 2021 15: 58
    countries parasites are trying to get access to cheap raw materials and labor? lest they end up strangling themselves with their financial bubbles. it is rumored that covid and anti-vaccines are from the same source. the goal is to reduce the population to a billion.
    1. +1
      12 August 2021 16: 22
      No, up to 3 billion. To service the "golden billion" you need 2 billion slaves. No comments needed. This is "black humor".
      But apparently Salot Sar was right, who said "I only need 3 million to build communism in Kampuchea." The remaining five million are under the knife. Again, there is no need to comment on the "evil communists". Salot Sar studied in Paris and picked up his ideas there.
      1. dpu
        0
        12 August 2021 17: 51
        No, this is not black humor. This is a homely truth. All democracies have always been based on slaves. Therefore, the democratic billion desperately needs 2 billion slaves. Everything is like at all times ...
    2. -1
      13 August 2021 00: 16
      the goal is to reduce the population to a billion.

      The problem is being solved by vaccinating the population. In fact, this is a test of people for IQ. The stupid, the poor, and the elderly are the first in line to be eliminated.
  2. 0
    12 August 2021 21: 08
    Kakbe's debts are always wise to repay - regardless of the context. Otherwise, no one else will borrow. "To integrate into a rapidly changing world" means the destruction of Surkov's brutal concept of a "special way", "third Rome" and "we are not called, we ourselves come." And not only in the economy, but also in politics, and in public life, you will have to "fit in", which means - to be led. The voter is not yet ready for this - after so many years of propaganda and more than two terms (in a row?). This means that we will have to "break" the voter - we are waiting, as in the late USSR, for positive materials in the media about the kindness, success and wisdom of Western "civilization". Well, or to close the nuclear fuel cycle on an industrial scale and continue its "special path".
  3. -2
    12 August 2021 22: 09
    The belligerent countries plunged into debt, and after that the winners wrote off their debts and solved problems at the expense of reparations from the defeated, who paid for this whole "banquet".

    The experience of World Wars has shown that no amount of reparations and territorial gains is able to compensate the victors for the losses from the war to a significant extent.
    1. 0
      13 August 2021 08: 45
      Truth? Tell this to the Americans.
      How much did the United States lose and what did the United States gain as a result of the First and Second World Wars?
      1. -1
        13 August 2021 10: 38
        I don’t know how much the US received, but the expenses were colossal, including all sorts of post-war plans by Marshal. Tell us. You claim that the winners of the world warriors received compensation from the vanquished in excess of losses. Substantiate your statement.
        1. 0
          13 August 2021 16: 33
          A book about the achievements of German science could today be written much easier not in Germany itself, but outside its borders, because the main original documents are located there. One American report states: “The Washington DC Tech Service says its safes contain thousands of tons of documents... According to experts, over 1 million individual inventions, in fact, concerning all sciences, all industrial and military secrets of Nazi Germany, need to be processed and analyzed. One official in Washington called this collection of documents "a one-of-a-kind source of scientific thought, the first complete expression of the inventive mind of an entire people."

          http://militera.lib.ru/h/ergos/16.html
          1. -1
            13 August 2021 18: 23
            And how much is it in money?
            1. 0
              13 August 2021 18: 51
              For that money - billions. Trillions today.
              And why do you consider everything in money?

              full expression of the inventive mind whole nation

              One American expert in the field of dye production said that German patents contain methods and recipes for 50 thousand types of coloring substances, and most of them are better than ours. We ourselves would probably never have been able to make some of them. America's paint industry leaps ahead by at least a decade»

              Most of the information is so valuable that industrialists would gladly give many thousands for it. to get new information one day earlier their competitors. But the employees of the Office of Technical Service are carefully monitoring this. so that no one receives the report before its official publication. Once the head of a research institution sat for about 3 hours. in one of the Bureaux of the Office of the Technical Service, making notes and sketches from some upcoming documents. As he left, he said: "Thank you very much, my notes will give my firm at least half a million dollars in profit."
              1. -1
                13 August 2021 19: 15
                Did you calculate it yourself or do you have any estimates? If the topic of discussion is how bad Americans profited from world wars, what should I count?
                Judging by the elusive signs, the Germans lost the technological confrontation, and according to your link, there were serious problems in German science.
                1. +2
                  13 August 2021 19: 40
                  You asked the question - what is the profitability of war? For the States, profitability is in the billions or trillions. No one can accurately calculate. In this situation, 635 billion (at current prices) is not that much. We must also take into account that this amount also includes the equipment that was returned back to the States.
                  Pros for the States
                  Intellectual robbery of the vanquished. Nothing can be counted here. Hundreds and thousands of copyright certificates, discoveries, inventions.
                  The second is indicated in the book by E. Roosevelt "Through His Eyes". The main goal of the States (F.D. Roosevelt) saw in the demolition of the British, French and any other colonial system. The influence of the States began to spread throughout the world.
                  Third - perhaps most important - the creation of the Bretton Woods financial system. For which only on the status of the dollar, the States have earned trillions.
                  Moreover, all three factors did not act instantly, but over the course of decades.

                  Your thesis that war does not pay off is not supported by the facts. From your point of view, Germany's attack on the USSR was an outrageous stupidity from an economic point of view. The USSR was Germany's window to the world. Having attacked the USSR, Germany received an absolute blockade. As General Thomas (headed the Department of Armaments and War Industry) declared in the summer of 1941 (!) "From an economic point of view, the war is lost." But this is if we consider only the economy. No politics.

                  And finally (stick in the hive). Why did Israel annex the Golan Heights? Sinai was returned without any problems. But the Golan will never be returned. There are economic reasons for this. So the seizure of territories is quite a profitable business.
                  The same can be said about Kaliningrad, Crimea or the Kuril Islands. In addition to the economy, there are also geopolitical and military interests. They will never be given to anyone.

                  You profess the theory of "democratic peace". But it is being criticized fairly. And it does not correspond to reality. If, as you say, "democracies are not at war with each other," then they are quite free to howl with other forms of government.
                  But there is also a theory of "structural realism". Where the main actors are diplomats and soldiers. Democracies have been waging wars throughout the post-war period. The fact that they do not wage war among themselves does not make them peaceful. This is just how the real geopolitical situation developed. They are all in one block. Which, by the way, has long gone beyond the borders of Northern Europe. The expansion of democratic states is evident. They are already carrying "democracy with bombs" all over the world.
                  1. 0
                    15 August 2021 22: 27
                    Quote: Bakht
                    For the States, profitability is in the billions or trillions. No one can accurately calculate.

                    That is, you do not know how much, but just believe? Your faith is not enough for everyone.

                    Quote: Bakht
                    We must also take into account that this amount also includes the equipment that was returned back to the States.

                    And what is this amount? You said for the USSR some unrealistic figure of 8 billion. Can you substantiate?

                    Quote: Bakht
                    Intellectual robbery of the vanquished.

                    And what was the USSR doing at that time? Once again, the United States is then an advanced technology power. Yes, they borrowed something, how much it cost, but to make it cost trillions, it’s just a treat. The Manhattan project was worth $ 2 billion and I highly doubt the "intellectual robbery" brought in more than that amount.

                    Quote: Bakht
                    in the demolition of the British, French and any other colonial system.

                    You talk as if the colonial system is good. Decolonization of the ball was an objective process that began long before the First World War and the world wars only accelerated it. Apart from the War of Independence, the United States had nothing to do with this process.

                    Quote: Bakht
                    Third - perhaps most important - the creation of the Bretton Woods financial system.

                    This is all from the field of conspiracy. Why was the pound the main reserve currency of the XNUMXth century in the first half of the XNUMXth century? Because Britain was the main economy in the world. Why was this currency replaced by the dollar? Because the United States has become the main economy in the world. And wars became a catalyst for this process and not as an initial cause.

                    Quote: Bakht
                    Your thesis that war does not pay off is not supported by the facts.

                    But for some reason you are not able to give such facts. The verbatim statements "they made billions" do not count. Let's do this, give an example of an economically justified war, only so that you can calculate the credit debit. They spent so much, they robbed so much, the profit is somehow.

                    Quote: Bakht
                    From your point of view, Germany's attack on the USSR was an outrageous stupidity from an economic point of view. The USSR was Germany's window to the world.

                    Again, judging by the elusive signs in the form of a red flag over the Reichstag and Hitler's burned carcass in a roadside ditch, it was stupidity. Will it be a revelation for you that Germany lost primarily economically? And it's not so much a window to the world, but Germany's inability to wage an all-out war on an equal footing with its rivals. As soon as the blitzkrieg failed, the war was lost. Yes, the attack was stupidity and gamble. Do you know what motives for this attack were voiced by Hitler?

                    Quote: Bakht
                    Why did Israel annex the Golan Heights? Sinai was returned without any problems. But the Golan will never be returned. There are economic reasons for this.

                    What are the economic reasons?
                    1. +1
                      15 August 2021 23: 30
                      You just have a rejection of facts. The war was beneficial for the States. You demand exact numbers ... You were told that these were the intellectual losses of an entire people. "And the States earned enough to recoup the costs. Nobody ever counted this. And the reference to the USSR makes no sense. For the USSR, the loss of 27 million and the destruction of 1500 settlements do not pay off in anything.
                      There is no conspiracy in my words. I am not saying that the colonial system is good. The task of the States was to demolish the system, not because they are good, but because English trade laws interfered with them. In the conversations between Churchill and Roosevelt, it was clearly stated that the old trading system would not exist. According to Roosevelt to Churchill, "it is on this issue that we have great disagreements."
                      I have not argued with you for a long time. I just mark your wrong conclusions. It's useless to argue anyway.
                      1. -2
                        16 August 2021 11: 57
                        Quote: Bakht
                        You just have a rejection of facts. The war was beneficial for the States. You demand exact figures ... You were told that these were the intellectual losses of an entire nation. "

                        What facts? You haven't vaccinated one. "The intellectual loss of an entire people" is good for some novel, not very good for history, since it is not clear where the intellect of the people came from.
                        Here's how it should be. You once argued that the USSR returned the $ 8 billion delivered under Lend-Lease. As always, you did not provide any links from where you got it. But let's say you could refer to someone. I could say that your statement is not true, since according to this document
                        https://istmat.info/files/uploads/46317/rgae_413.12.9539_eksport_import_vov.pdf
                        Half of the deliveries were weapons, and we know that military equipment has a limited service life (Sherman 300 hours), respectively, even if the equipment was not lost in battles, then delivered before the year 45 either has already exhausted its resource or was close to it. That is, this is already scrap metal, the cost of delivering which to the United States is more expensive than the price of this scrap metal.
                        This is how, in my understanding, a reasoned discussion looks like. This is how the facts are justified.
                        And you are not in a position to substantiate your assertion, "The US has earned trillions" from the word at all. Where did you get this from? It seems to me that this is a myth, roughly like a persistent myth, that the USSR paid in gold for Lend-Lease during the war.

                        Quote: Bakht
                        And the reference to the USSR does not make any sense. For the USSR, the loss of 27 million and the destruction of 1500 settlements does not pay off in anything.

                        This is understandable, they have spies, we have scouts. They have an intellectual robbery of the vanquished, we have fair compensation for losses. Look, don't be confused. And no double standards.

                        Quote: Bakht
                        The task of the States was to break the system, not because they are good, but because English trade laws interfered with them.

                        If the colonial system is bad, scrapping it is good. You, as I understand it, got into Roosevelt's head and figured out his motives? Have you heard about Albright's dreams of taking away Russian oil? There, too, they climbed into her head.

                        Quote: Bakht
                        According to Roosevelt to Churchill, "it is on this issue that we have great disagreements."

                        Again, no links.

                        Quote: Bakht
                        I have not argued with you for a long time. I just mark your wrong conclusions. It's useless to argue anyway.

                        Oh, I’m talking with the bearer of the ultimate truth! Believe it or not, you are often mistaken.
                        Yes, it's useless to argue with me if you give out your own unfounded opinion as facts. You can't argue with that.
                      2. 0
                        16 August 2021 12: 49
                        I wrote somewhere about 8 billion?
                        You were told that thousands of tons of paper equivalent were taken out of the technical documentation.
                        What was the cruiser Edinburgh carrying?
                        The reference to Sherman is untenable. Most of them burned down. But the Studebakers returned. More than 400 of them were delivered. How many were returned - I do not know.
                        I don't see the facts with you. There is a set of numbers without analysis. The Americans themselves believed that they were supposed to pay from the USSR only 2,6 billion.
                        This is our second dispute on this issue. Therefore, I see no reason to argue.
                        I don't see any double standards. The USSR received the same reparations as everyone else.
                        The question was raised specifically. War is beneficial for the victors. In the case of World War II, it was not the USSR that was the instigator. He suffered colossal losses that could not be returned by any reparations. But for the States, the war was beneficial. The only undisputed winner in World War II is the United States. Economically. Everyone else lost. But the USSR, having lost in the economy, won in politics. This is another topic.
                        I repeat once again that your thesis that war is economically unprofitable and therefore impossible was shattered to smithereens 100 years ago.
                      3. -2
                        21 August 2021 00: 30
                        Quote: Bakht
                        I wrote somewhere about 8 billion?

                        21 May 2021 12: 57

                        Quote: Bakht

                        The deliveries of 11 billion were the whole amount. But having returned the unused, the remainder remained 2,6 billion. This amount was announced by the Americans themselves.
                        So talking about 11 billion is incorrect.

                        Quote: Bakht
                        You were told that thousands of tons of paper equivalent were taken out of the technical documentation.

                        Well, not in TNT. Simple question, how much did it cost? These things have a price. Well, at least what did the Americans use out of these "thousand tons"? Even the USSR did not particularly use its "thousands of tons" of waste paper that they took out for themselves.

                        Quote: Bakht
                        What was the cruiser Edinburgh carrying?

                        Gold worth as much as 6 (six million) dollars. But where did you get the idea that it was a payment for a lend-lease?
                        An English cruiser with an English crew goes to England. When gold was raised in the 80s, it was divided between the USSR and England (between insurance companies).
                        I give a tip, on August 16, 1941, the "Agreement between the USSR and the United Kingdom on mutual supplies, credit and payment procedure" was signed.

                        Quote: Bakht
                        But the Studebakers returned. More than 400 of them were delivered. I don’t know how much they returned.

                        Judging by these photos, not all were returned
                        https://fishki.net/auto/1749584-studebekkery-na-dorogah-poslevoennogo-sssr.html
                        And judging by the fact that they were put under pressure right in the port, the Americans did not need them. Which is not surprising, after operation in wartime conditions, personnel with low qualifications, with low-quality fuel and lubricants, with permission in the Red Army to transport up to 4 tons on it (and up to 5 tons were loaded into the troops), although the official carrying capacity is 2,5, XNUMX tons.
                        Well, OK.
                        https://istmat.info/files/uploads/46317/rgae_413.12.9539_eksport_import_vov.pdf
                        Here, unfortunately, there is no cost for the supplied vehicles, if all sub-items with the indicated cost are subtracted from the Armament and military equipment section, then 5239 million rubles remain for vehicles and merchant ships. The ships were not returned, and obviously not all of the transport was returned. I think you can safely divide this amount in half and it will be overestimated every 10 times. Let's assume that they returned 2,6 billion rubles. This is 5,5% of the delivered. Anything else?

                        Quote: Bakht
                        I don't see any double standards. The USSR received the same reparations as everyone else.

                        Did the USA take out entire factories? Was the USSR also engaged in "intellectual robbery of the vanquished"?

                        Quote: Bakht
                        The question was raised specifically. War is beneficial for the victors. In the case of World War II, it was not the USSR that was the instigator. He suffered colossal losses that could not be returned by any reparations.

                        That the USSR was not involved is a rather controversial issue, but oh well. Let's go over the instigators. Germany is the instigator, but lost. Japan is the instigator, but also lost. France is the instigator, among the winners, but it cannot be said that WWII was beneficial for her. Great Britain, the instigator, among the victors, actually lost the empire, the war was clearly not profitable for it.
                        The USA is not the instigator, but the main winner. According to you, I have acquired thousands of tons of paper of incomprehensible value. What else would you not be "plundered"? These thousands of tons of paper clearly cannot compensate for the costs of the war and the loss of hundreds of thousands of young people, taxpayers, consumers, value-added creators.

                        Quote: Bakht
                        I repeat once again that your thesis that war is economically unprofitable and therefore impossible was shattered to smithereens 100 years ago.

                        If about the First World War, the United States was also not among the instigators. And the instigators, including the winners, lost incomparably more than they gained.
                    2. 0
                      15 August 2021 23: 52
                      What are the economic reasons?

                      Don't you know the economy of your own country? It is regrettable. Or do you pretend that you do not understand something? All the more regrettable

                      The results of the 1967 war added to Israel the water resources of the West Bank and the Golan Heights, estimated at 1 billion cubic meters. m. Nevertheless, the lack of water, according to some experts, in Israel is about 500 million cubic meters. m per year. This, in part, explains the categorical position of the country's leadership on the return, in particular, of the same Golan Heights of Syria, because, even if you imagine it as a kind of friendly to Israel country, the loss of heights automatically doubles the water deficit, this is at least, and if the Syrians start developing there is agriculture, then Lake Tiberias is threatened. Therefore, not a mythical strike by Syrian tank columns, quite real, in 1973, but impossible now, nor a threat from Hezbollah and Iran, but elementary economics and vital interest in providing its population with water dictate a simple conclusion: Israel will not give up the Golan Heights of its own free will. With a lesser degree of relevance, but also applies to the West Bank, where there are also water resources that have long been integrated into the water economy of Israel.

                      According to experts from the Bureau for Relations with Jews of the CIS and Eastern Europe under the Prime Minister's Office (Nativ), the transfer of the Golan Heights to Syria would be associated with the loss of 70% of the Kinneret drainage basin. According to this opinion, the transfer of the Golan to Syrian control will inevitably lead Israel to water hunger and environmental disaster.
                      1. -1
                        16 August 2021 16: 24
                        I don’t know how it’s in your native Uzbekistan, but Israel has not yet been annexed in Russia.
                        Well, ok, it seems to me more a security issue, but let Israel unleash a war over water. Although for some reason the main hostilities were fought in the south. And statements like

                        From today, there is no longer an emergency international force protecting Israel. We will no longer exercise restraint. We will no longer appeal to the UN with complaints about Israel. The only method of influence that we apply to Israel will be a total war, the result of which will be the destruction of the Zionist state.

                        Our forces are now fully prepared not only to repel aggression, but also to begin the process of liberation, to destroy the Zionist presence on Arab soil. The Syrian army holds a finger on the trigger .... As a military man, I am sure that the time has come to enter the war of annihilation.

                        Quote: Bakht
                        Our forces are now fully prepared not only to repel aggression, but also to begin the process of liberation, to destroy the Zionist presence on Arab soil. The Syrian army holds a finger on the trigger .... As a military man, I am sure that the time has come to enter the war of annihilation.

                        we wake up to consider the personal opinion of unbalanced people.
                      2. 0
                        16 August 2021 17: 30
                        Did you quote my quote? Where did I quote it? Don't go overboard. Or check the text more carefully.
                        The question is not who started what. The question is in the war for resources. Your leaders believe resources are important.
                        And by and large, you will lose. I am not euphoric about this. Still, the Jews are closer to me than the Arabs. Mentally. But Israel will lose. Rather late than early, but the result will not change.
                        Uzbekistan is not my homeland.
                      3. -1
                        21 August 2021 00: 44
                        Quote: Bakht
                        Did you quote my quote? Where did I quote it? Don't go overboard. Or check the text more carefully.

                        This was a site glitch of some kind. This was said by the Minister of Defense of Syria, the future President of Syria, the father of the current President of Syria.

                        Quote: Bakht
                        The question is not who started what. The question is in the war for resources. Your leaders believe resources are important.
                        And by and large, you will lose. I am not euphoric about this.

                        How well you can see everything from your native Uzbekistan. I completely agree with you that Russia is not in a position to win the confrontation with Zapod, whatever you mean by that word. Yes, the question is about resources (as in any confrontation), and the Russian Federation does not have enough of these resources.
                  2. 0
                    15 August 2021 22: 46
                    Quote: Bakht
                    You profess the theory of "democratic peace". But it is being criticized fairly. And it does not correspond to reality.

                    There is no perfection in the world. But as Churchill said, all other forms of government are even worse. Can you suggest an alternative? No. But no, and no trial.

                    Quote: Bakht
                    If, as you say, "democracies are not at war with each other," then they are quite free to howl with other forms of government.

                    On average, much less than no democracy. For the ruling elites of democracies, wars are fraught with danger.

                    Quote: Bakht
                    But there is also a theory of "structural realism". Where the main actors are diplomats and soldiers.

                    Politics is the defense of the economic interests of groups of individuals. And diplomats and soldiers are tools. If soldiers become politicians, then oh happens.

                    Quote: Bakht
                    Which, by the way, has long gone beyond the borders of Northern Europe. The expansion of democratic states is evident. They are already carrying "democracy with bombs" all over the world.

                    First of all, they carry ideas. And today their ideas dominate the world. And there is no sane alternative. Democracy cannot be planted with bombs (which, in my opinion, Americans do not always understand), the peoples themselves come to this.
                    1. +1
                      15 August 2021 23: 34
                      Today their ideas do NOT dominate the world. Simply by using the power they are planted in the world.
                      The peoples may come to this, but the Americans do not just "not always", but in principle do not understand this. All Anglo-Saxon ideology is reduced to the "white man's burden." It is on the conscience of the Anglo-Saxon civilization that the most terrible crimes in the history of mankind. For this reason, I have a persistent prejudice against them. And it will not change, because nowadays I see the same goals wrapped in a different piece of paper.

                      You can't wash a black dog white
                      1. -1
                        16 August 2021 17: 08
                        Quote: Bakht
                        Today their ideas do NOT dominate the world. Simply by using the power they are planted in the world.

                        Why don't they dominate? Almost all countries of the world, if they profess liberal democracy, at least carefully imitate democratic institutions of the Western type. The whole world is part of the world capitalist system that originated in Europe. All success stories of non-European states are associated with the introduction of Western-style economic relations, most often accompanied by political reforms, again of a Western-style. You have not been able to formulate an alternative.

                        Quote: Bakht
                        The peoples may come to this, but the Americans do not just "not always", but in principle do not understand this.

                        Judging by the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan, the Americans are different.

                        Quote: Bakht
                        It is on the conscience of the Anglo-Saxon civilization that the most terrible crimes in the history of mankind.

                        If we assume that now on earth there is only one Western-centric civilization (the world system), then yes, it is on its conscience the most terrible crimes in the history of mankind. Like all the most beautiful in the history of mankind, and the noblest, and the most vile, and so on, the most.
                        If you consider this to be a separate civilization, then it is very controversial. In the 20th century, the record holders are still communists.

                        Quote: Bakht
                        For this reason, I have a persistent prejudice against them. And it will not change, because nowadays I see the same goals wrapped in a different piece of paper.

                        In the first half of the 20th century, there were individuals who, for example, considered the Slavs to be inferior, and the Jews as criminals just because they were Jews. And some considered the kulaks to be criminals, only because they were born into the family of a kulak, or Crimean Tatars only because they are Tatars.
                        There are no rogue peoples, there are no bad peoples. Can be criminal, only a single person is bad. And it is not the people who should be responsible, but the individual. This is very liberal in my opinion
                      2. 0
                        16 August 2021 17: 26
                        To be honest, I'm tired of repeating the same thing. But I liked this phrase.

                        And not the people, but the individual should answer

                        Tell that to Churchill and Bomber Harris. And also to Colonel Tibbets and the authors of the "carpet bombing". All bright representatives of democracies.
                      3. -1
                        21 August 2021 00: 59
                        Do you think that these barbaric bombings were a form of collective responsibility of the Germans? I have never thought about such an interpretation. Could you cite the statement of those responsible on the topic of collective punishment of Germans by bombing?
                        But these are all particulars.
                        You have not been able to formulate an idea, an alternative to the dominant idea of ​​a consumer society and the idea of ​​a liberal-democratic state structure.
                2. 0
                  15 August 2021 07: 34
                  Aren't you tired of spreading silly liberal myths yourself?
                  1. 0
                    15 August 2021 10: 21
                    Are these for example?
                    Apparently you are definitely not tired of spreading stupid jingoistic patriotic myths heavily involved in conspiracy theories.
        2. -1
          20 September 2021 09: 42
          You seem to think that the benefit is solely the stacks of colored pieces of paper in the safe. This is not true. Not at all. I would even say that banknotes in their pure form are the last most important section of the benefits received by the United States as a result of WWII. And about the Marshal's plan, read at least Wikipedia, there, in principle, is already enough to understand how enormous benefit the States received from its implementation. Well, for a smart one, of course.
          And what about the ratio of losses from war and benefits from it, then, let's say, if wars did not pay off the costs for themselves, then they would not exist as a phenomenon! Why start a war if you get nothing but losses? After all, no one heats the stove with banknotes, wood and coal, after all, it is somehow more convenient, is it? ;)
      2. -1
        13 August 2021 14: 34
        Let's do it this way. During WWII, the Lend-Lease program cost the United States $ 50,1 billion (750 billion in today's prices). According to the agreement, only the part that remained after the war and was suitable for peaceful use was subject to payment. Accordingly, the United States was paid $ 7,8 billion. Accordingly, 42,3 billion dollars (this is 635 billion in today's prices) is a net loss. How was the United States able to compensate for these losses?
  4. +2
    13 August 2021 10: 00
    Quote: Winnie
    the goal is to reduce the population to a billion.

    The problem is being solved by vaccinating the population. In fact, this is a test of people for IQ. The stupid, the poor, and the elderly are the first in line to be eliminated.

    Is this in the sense that those who are not vaccinated will simply die?