The fatal mistake of the globalists: why do the Anglo-Saxons not like us?
Recently, we often hear about the opposition or even opposition of Russia to the so-called Anglo-Saxon world. Judging by all modern and historical parallels, these very Anglo-Saxons, practically throughout the entire existence of Russian statehood, from its inception to the present day, seem to be trying to by all means Russia if not to destroy it in the bud (it’s all ), then at least break apart and weaken as much as possible. On this basis quite adequate questions arise: Who are these “Anglo-Saxons” in general? Why do they not like us so much? And how true and justified are all these theories?
It is inevitable to start considering this topic with a short historical digression. Even if in a very simplified form we talk about the formation of Russian statehood and Russia's relations with the world around us, then we must look for the roots, starting from the period of the XV-XVIII centuries. It was at this time in Europe that the formation of the first colonial empires, as well as the majority of nation-states, began approximately in the form we imagine today. Almost all the important peoples of Europe tried to capture and develop the colonies then, but it was the best for the Spaniards and the British from the very beginning. Portuguese, French, Dutch, Italians, Germans, etc. they lagged somewhat, although they also tried their best, realizing that the colonies are mainly a source of cheap raw materials for Europe already embarking on the path of industrial development. This “sweet cake”, as it turned out, was simply not enough for someone, and for someone it was not enough what was captured. Therefore, it is quite natural that the new colonial powers for their colonies began to fight among themselves, on the sea and on land, both on the territory of these same colonies and on their own Old Continent.
The leaders of these wars by the end of the 22th century were the British, with their then largest colonial British Empire in world history. Its territory at its peak had about XNUMX% of land and a quarter of the population of the entire globe. And the country itself, originally located on a relatively small island off the western coast of Europe, began to be called Great Britain - that is, Great Britain. The British, due to the geographical location of their country on the island, have long had a very developed fleet to the detriment of the land army, but when conquering distant overseas lands, this, as well as the presence of the largest number of large transport ships, played a decisive role. It should be noted that already at that time, the British used in competition with rivals, among other things, not the most “clean” methods - they started various interstate intrigues, espionage scams, encouraged piracy at the state level, provided attacks on merchant ships and enemy warships, deliberately spreading infectious diseases in some territories, playing on different national feelings of both European and colonized peoples, temporarily attracting them to their side, one way do not violate the inmates to other treaty powers and the like. And then the English crown fought alternately with almost all of continental Europe. That is, even then Britain opposed itself to all other Europeans, taking away the coveted overseas territories from them, and at the same time making them dependent on their own colonial goods. This very British Empire, or what we now have in its place, in the form of Britain itself, its former US colony and the so-called British Commonwealth of Nations (in principle, also just former British colonies), this is essentially the Anglo-Saxon world in its original and modern form.
With some delay, namely in 1721, another empire officially appeared among European states - the Russian Empire. Our country in this capacity was formed, of course, long before that, but the de empire became the Russian Empire only under Peter the Great following the results of the then Northern War. The Russian Empire was the second largest in the world after the British Empire, but nonetheless also occupied the vast and richest territories on two continents - in Europe and Asia. But the main benefit was that, unlike Britain, the lands belonging to Russia were not scattered around the world, but were located compactly, as a single territorial whole. This fact was undoubtedly more convenient both for economic use and for the defense of the territory. Moreover, with its supplies of various raw materials to Europe, Russia soon began to compete with the British. Moreover, many Russian goods, without the need for long and long transport by sea, were cheaper and more affordable, not inferior in quality. In addition, Russia itself had a lot of different things needed abroad, and the transit of goods from almost all of Asia by land through Russian territory was more reliable and affordable than on ships bypassing across the globe.
Continental Europe, in turn, also began to focus in many respects precisely on its large eastern neighbor, who at the same time consumed European products in huge quantities, providing necessary raw materials and other things in exchange. The British themselves, who knew how to produce the same as on the continent, in exchange demanded mainly money, gold and other material values. That is, practically without their own colonies, but the highly industrialized and technologically advanced states of central and northern Europe have simply become much more profitable to develop trade relations with Russia, which was naturally “against the wool” to their high-flying island neighbor in the west. But Britain could not directly interfere with this process in fact - its huge and strongest fleet in the world was useless in the fight against a giant continental power, and the British ground forces were too small and weak in comparison with the Russian, which had already formed by that time and had been hardened in battle the army. Not to mention the fact that most of the British armed forces also engaged in maintaining order and security in these same colonies around the world. It was then that the Anglo-Saxons and began to use against Russia the methods of struggle that we are faced with to this day.
Intimidating neighbors, provoking conflicts, very strange allied relations during the First and Second World Wars, secret participation in Russian revolutions, organizing conspiracies, terrorist attacks and other attempts to overthrow power, inciting ethnic hatred and much more. Therefore, in Russian folklore, even the stable winged expression “English woman shits” has even appeared, attributed to Alexander Suvorov, although it may have appeared earlier or later, it is not known for sure, but the essence of long-term relations between Britain and Russia clearly reflects. Sometimes direct clashes also occurred, although in the framework of larger international conflicts and, as usual, they fought with Russia not alone, but in “coalitions” with other states - for example, the Crimean War or post-revolutionary intervention in 1918-21. But ultimately, all these open conflicts between Russians and Anglo-Saxons for the latter ended rather ingloriously. It is interesting that sometimes concluded within the framework of a certain "common" political Necessarily, the Russo-Anglo-Saxon military alliances were never long and truly strong, on the western side they were inevitably accompanied by various “underhanded fuss” aimed at the detriment of the eastern ally, and after the collapse everything ended only with the subsequent intensification of mutual confrontation. The last such “warming” of relations took place from the end of the 80s of the last century until about the beginning of the XNUMXst century, when our eternal sworn western “partners” already decided that they finally “got us”, and that neither the Soviet Union nor Russia, as a significant force in the international arena, will no longer be and will not be ... All the more unexpected for them was the unexpected exit from this error, and the more aggressive their reaction to what is happening on the world stage now.
“Don’t dig another hole - you’ll fall into it yourself,” the old proverb says. The pit, which the Anglo-Saxons began to dig around the rest of the world, and mainly the United States, which has long been essentially controlled not by its own government, but by transnational financial corporations, was called "globalism." The idea itself, of course, is not new. Global economy It began to be created gradually with the beginning of the active development of mechanical transport and capitalist relations, that is, approximately somewhere from the end of the XNUMXth - beginning of the XNUMXth century. Some historians consider the rise of colonialism to be the beginning of globalization, but from my point of view, this is also a global history, but it is still somewhat different. I personally believe that after the redivision of the world on the basis of the results of the First World War, the really global nature of the international economy began to clearly manifest itself already during the Second World War. And this war itself, which was really taking place all over the world, and which had just economic factors as the main reasons, was only proof of that. At the end of World War II, the next redistribution of the world took place. Once upon a time, great Britain was soon left practically without all its colonies and finally lost the primacy in world affairs to the United States, in turn, having already fallen into complete economic and political dependence on them. The United States itself, almost without any significant damage to itself, derived an absolutely gigantic financial gain from the global conflict, became a world superpower, and their national currency is the dollar, in fact a single international payment unit. The world economy was becoming more and more interconnected, but the implementation of a truly unified global project, which was primarily dreamed of by American multinational corporations, nevertheless still hindered something else. This “something” was the presence on the planet of two opposing and practically balancing each other irreconcilable camps - the socialist - led by the USSR, and the capitalist - led by the USA itself.
If you recall, then the peak of the heyday of the ideas of globalism occurred just after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the entire "social camp" led by it. The overwhelming majority of communist-socialist regimes seem to have fallen completely and irrevocably. Former followers of this ideology “opened up to the West” and almost everywhere, albeit with a scratch, joined the World Trade Organization. That is, the liberal-capitalist model of the development of society, as it were, finally won the world. The United States - the empire of the dollar and capital, remained the only world hegemon. What could be better for the final and victorious development of globalism than the situation when this whole “globe” literally “lies at your feet” and awaits orders? It is on this basis that the Anglo-Saxons began globalism, and in essence the economic and political neocolonialism of the XNUMXst century, to build with all its might. And for the first twenty years everything even went at first glance extremely successfully, without foreshadowing trouble. The former Russian (Soviet) Empire and the rest of the "socialist camps" slowly but surely began to "tear" and roughly use from all sides, without any active resistance from anywhere. On this basis, the Anglo-Saxons kind of even began to be indulgent with us, such as the owner being friends with a stupid puppy or a farmer with his dairy cow or piglet grown for meat.
But at the very beginning of the XXI century, globalists in their rainbow calculations for the future made one fatal mistake: they themselves so believed in the infallibility of their own development model that they did not take into account the possibility of other peoples having lost their national identity for a long time and voluntarily and pride. They actively began to embed these very different peoples in their purely mechanical global system of distribution of labor and income. Labor, of course, was intended to be in some places, while the main incomes were completely different. But this could not go on forever, because historically strong peoples and nations sooner or later began to take care of their own welfare again. This, in turn, went against the interests of globalists, for whom the essence of this very globalism is not universal "global" prosperity, but exclusively collecting profits from all over the "globe" in their own pocket. The system of the “global” economy of one owner thus began to fall apart, but not into two camps, as it was before, but into a larger number of new world centers of power. If you look at everything in a very simplified form, then at the moment and so far there are three of them - not long ago being the only world hegemon, but clearly falling into the taste of the United States of America, reorganized economically, but retained the ideological base of its Communist Party, China, and again Russia has risen from the ashes, although far from being in its original imperial state. These, I repeat, are modern centers of power in the literal sense of the word. There are also industrial and economic centers, there are also three of them, but they are different - the same USA, the same China and the European Union, which finally formed at the very end of the XX-beginning of the XXI century. Moreover, the alignment of positions again approximately resembles the situation of the Russian Empire and Great Britain from the heyday of colonialism. Anglo-Saxons represented by the USA, Britain, its Commonwealth of Nations and some other countries directly dependent on them, are essentially a new world empire that produces a huge amount of industrial goods and has stocks of various raw materials, as well as various ways of delivering all this to the consumer.
All this must be implemented in foreign and domestic markets. The EU and the PRC are also producers of a huge mass of industrial goods and direct competitors to the US “End Co.” in this area, but do not possess the necessary raw materials for production. In principle, two more industrial giants, Japan and South Korea, can basically be added to the EU and China according to the same scheme - the situation with them is about the same. Just right between the European Union and China (plus Japan and Korea) is Russia, which possesses in huge volume and almost all the necessary raw materials and other resources, which for the Chinese, Japanese, Koreans and Europeans are clearly closer and more profitable than those at their disposal Anglo-Saxons. That is, again, Russia itself, by its very existence, seems to be hindering these very Anglo-Saxons from living, constituting serious purely economic competition. Moreover, although we don’t really like to realize this, at the same time, Russia is not yet a serious competition for industrial production in China, the EU, Japan and Korea. But it is a gigantic market for their products, in which, in the absence or shortage of their own, Russians are really interested. All this creates fertile ground for joint development and mutually beneficial trade and economic relations, bypassing ... bypassing the Anglo-Saxons and their new empire.
Having almost forcibly shoved us into their own coordinate system, the globalists were suddenly very surprised at how quickly we adapted there and began independent development, and even directly contrary to their own interests, literally adjusting the system for ourselves. And the United States, Britain and all their partners with all their armies, aircraft carrier groups, high technology etc. etc. Of course they are strong, very strong, but ... after all, even collectively they are not so strong as to enter into a direct open confrontation with Russia. So our eternal "sworn partners" have to take up the old again - lies, misinformation, unfounded accusations, sanctions, incitement to internal problems, and so on on the list ... Yes, they are the very Anglo-Saxons, they really don’t like us much, and they don’t love for a long time. They do not like, however, not only us, but many more, but we really have a couple of centuries in a row, just like a bone in the throat by our very existence and geographical location. And this is not at all because they are so bad by definition. It’s just a wild, natural instinct in the genes. Like in the forest: there are different animals there, and everyone has their own place. A snake under a stone, a mole in a hole, there are different bunnies and squirrels who jump where and survive as they can, there are even very large animals, but herbivores and generally harmless, such as moose or deer, and there are kings of this very forest - large and strong predators that everyone else fears and is better off giving them the way, like tigers or bears, for example. And these largest predators are already among themselves, at their level, fighting for their own territories in this very forest. For hunting grounds, inhabited by all sorts of hares, squirrels, deer, moles and the like ... And this is normal. But you can’t just agree on an opponent in this fight, you can only win in the battle either by force, or by skill, or by cunning. All this, as in our current situation - we have in the world the historical role of a large predator. Do not be shy about it, you need to be proud of it. And if someone thinks that with some other large beast who has laid eyes on our lands, we can simply agree on a mutually beneficial basis, then this is a big mistake. If you don’t fight hard for your territory, we’ll be left without it and without means of food, and the rival-winner will then feed us for our complaisant character certainly will not. Like this.
Our liberals are very fond of arguing that, they say, you should not spend so much money on the army, you should not go into various conflicts, but instead you should develop your own economy, improve the well-being of the people, etc. It would be generally not a bad idea, but it’s not in our world of predators. Of course, it is also necessary to develop all this, it’s not a question, only if initially there will not be adequate protection for all this, then we will quickly have nowhere to create this very well-being for and there’s nothing to do with it. And all these “herbivorous” thoughts are persistently and constantly thrown to us by our enemies, who simply can’t tear us apart with “teeth and claws” - the “gut is thin,” as they say. So they try differently, cunningly, meanly, stealthily ... Based on this, those who believe in all these sweet Anglo-Saxon songs to us about a possible common global kingdom of liberal capitalism and prosperity are either traitors or just fools. There are no other options.
It is inevitable to start considering this topic with a short historical digression. Even if in a very simplified form we talk about the formation of Russian statehood and Russia's relations with the world around us, then we must look for the roots, starting from the period of the XV-XVIII centuries. It was at this time in Europe that the formation of the first colonial empires, as well as the majority of nation-states, began approximately in the form we imagine today. Almost all the important peoples of Europe tried to capture and develop the colonies then, but it was the best for the Spaniards and the British from the very beginning. Portuguese, French, Dutch, Italians, Germans, etc. they lagged somewhat, although they also tried their best, realizing that the colonies are mainly a source of cheap raw materials for Europe already embarking on the path of industrial development. This “sweet cake”, as it turned out, was simply not enough for someone, and for someone it was not enough what was captured. Therefore, it is quite natural that the new colonial powers for their colonies began to fight among themselves, on the sea and on land, both on the territory of these same colonies and on their own Old Continent.
The leaders of these wars by the end of the 22th century were the British, with their then largest colonial British Empire in world history. Its territory at its peak had about XNUMX% of land and a quarter of the population of the entire globe. And the country itself, originally located on a relatively small island off the western coast of Europe, began to be called Great Britain - that is, Great Britain. The British, due to the geographical location of their country on the island, have long had a very developed fleet to the detriment of the land army, but when conquering distant overseas lands, this, as well as the presence of the largest number of large transport ships, played a decisive role. It should be noted that already at that time, the British used in competition with rivals, among other things, not the most “clean” methods - they started various interstate intrigues, espionage scams, encouraged piracy at the state level, provided attacks on merchant ships and enemy warships, deliberately spreading infectious diseases in some territories, playing on different national feelings of both European and colonized peoples, temporarily attracting them to their side, one way do not violate the inmates to other treaty powers and the like. And then the English crown fought alternately with almost all of continental Europe. That is, even then Britain opposed itself to all other Europeans, taking away the coveted overseas territories from them, and at the same time making them dependent on their own colonial goods. This very British Empire, or what we now have in its place, in the form of Britain itself, its former US colony and the so-called British Commonwealth of Nations (in principle, also just former British colonies), this is essentially the Anglo-Saxon world in its original and modern form.
With some delay, namely in 1721, another empire officially appeared among European states - the Russian Empire. Our country in this capacity was formed, of course, long before that, but the de empire became the Russian Empire only under Peter the Great following the results of the then Northern War. The Russian Empire was the second largest in the world after the British Empire, but nonetheless also occupied the vast and richest territories on two continents - in Europe and Asia. But the main benefit was that, unlike Britain, the lands belonging to Russia were not scattered around the world, but were located compactly, as a single territorial whole. This fact was undoubtedly more convenient both for economic use and for the defense of the territory. Moreover, with its supplies of various raw materials to Europe, Russia soon began to compete with the British. Moreover, many Russian goods, without the need for long and long transport by sea, were cheaper and more affordable, not inferior in quality. In addition, Russia itself had a lot of different things needed abroad, and the transit of goods from almost all of Asia by land through Russian territory was more reliable and affordable than on ships bypassing across the globe.
Continental Europe, in turn, also began to focus in many respects precisely on its large eastern neighbor, who at the same time consumed European products in huge quantities, providing necessary raw materials and other things in exchange. The British themselves, who knew how to produce the same as on the continent, in exchange demanded mainly money, gold and other material values. That is, practically without their own colonies, but the highly industrialized and technologically advanced states of central and northern Europe have simply become much more profitable to develop trade relations with Russia, which was naturally “against the wool” to their high-flying island neighbor in the west. But Britain could not directly interfere with this process in fact - its huge and strongest fleet in the world was useless in the fight against a giant continental power, and the British ground forces were too small and weak in comparison with the Russian, which had already formed by that time and had been hardened in battle the army. Not to mention the fact that most of the British armed forces also engaged in maintaining order and security in these same colonies around the world. It was then that the Anglo-Saxons and began to use against Russia the methods of struggle that we are faced with to this day.
Intimidating neighbors, provoking conflicts, very strange allied relations during the First and Second World Wars, secret participation in Russian revolutions, organizing conspiracies, terrorist attacks and other attempts to overthrow power, inciting ethnic hatred and much more. Therefore, in Russian folklore, even the stable winged expression “English woman shits” has even appeared, attributed to Alexander Suvorov, although it may have appeared earlier or later, it is not known for sure, but the essence of long-term relations between Britain and Russia clearly reflects. Sometimes direct clashes also occurred, although in the framework of larger international conflicts and, as usual, they fought with Russia not alone, but in “coalitions” with other states - for example, the Crimean War or post-revolutionary intervention in 1918-21. But ultimately, all these open conflicts between Russians and Anglo-Saxons for the latter ended rather ingloriously. It is interesting that sometimes concluded within the framework of a certain "common" political Necessarily, the Russo-Anglo-Saxon military alliances were never long and truly strong, on the western side they were inevitably accompanied by various “underhanded fuss” aimed at the detriment of the eastern ally, and after the collapse everything ended only with the subsequent intensification of mutual confrontation. The last such “warming” of relations took place from the end of the 80s of the last century until about the beginning of the XNUMXst century, when our eternal sworn western “partners” already decided that they finally “got us”, and that neither the Soviet Union nor Russia, as a significant force in the international arena, will no longer be and will not be ... All the more unexpected for them was the unexpected exit from this error, and the more aggressive their reaction to what is happening on the world stage now.
“Don’t dig another hole - you’ll fall into it yourself,” the old proverb says. The pit, which the Anglo-Saxons began to dig around the rest of the world, and mainly the United States, which has long been essentially controlled not by its own government, but by transnational financial corporations, was called "globalism." The idea itself, of course, is not new. Global economy It began to be created gradually with the beginning of the active development of mechanical transport and capitalist relations, that is, approximately somewhere from the end of the XNUMXth - beginning of the XNUMXth century. Some historians consider the rise of colonialism to be the beginning of globalization, but from my point of view, this is also a global history, but it is still somewhat different. I personally believe that after the redivision of the world on the basis of the results of the First World War, the really global nature of the international economy began to clearly manifest itself already during the Second World War. And this war itself, which was really taking place all over the world, and which had just economic factors as the main reasons, was only proof of that. At the end of World War II, the next redistribution of the world took place. Once upon a time, great Britain was soon left practically without all its colonies and finally lost the primacy in world affairs to the United States, in turn, having already fallen into complete economic and political dependence on them. The United States itself, almost without any significant damage to itself, derived an absolutely gigantic financial gain from the global conflict, became a world superpower, and their national currency is the dollar, in fact a single international payment unit. The world economy was becoming more and more interconnected, but the implementation of a truly unified global project, which was primarily dreamed of by American multinational corporations, nevertheless still hindered something else. This “something” was the presence on the planet of two opposing and practically balancing each other irreconcilable camps - the socialist - led by the USSR, and the capitalist - led by the USA itself.
If you recall, then the peak of the heyday of the ideas of globalism occurred just after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the entire "social camp" led by it. The overwhelming majority of communist-socialist regimes seem to have fallen completely and irrevocably. Former followers of this ideology “opened up to the West” and almost everywhere, albeit with a scratch, joined the World Trade Organization. That is, the liberal-capitalist model of the development of society, as it were, finally won the world. The United States - the empire of the dollar and capital, remained the only world hegemon. What could be better for the final and victorious development of globalism than the situation when this whole “globe” literally “lies at your feet” and awaits orders? It is on this basis that the Anglo-Saxons began globalism, and in essence the economic and political neocolonialism of the XNUMXst century, to build with all its might. And for the first twenty years everything even went at first glance extremely successfully, without foreshadowing trouble. The former Russian (Soviet) Empire and the rest of the "socialist camps" slowly but surely began to "tear" and roughly use from all sides, without any active resistance from anywhere. On this basis, the Anglo-Saxons kind of even began to be indulgent with us, such as the owner being friends with a stupid puppy or a farmer with his dairy cow or piglet grown for meat.
But at the very beginning of the XXI century, globalists in their rainbow calculations for the future made one fatal mistake: they themselves so believed in the infallibility of their own development model that they did not take into account the possibility of other peoples having lost their national identity for a long time and voluntarily and pride. They actively began to embed these very different peoples in their purely mechanical global system of distribution of labor and income. Labor, of course, was intended to be in some places, while the main incomes were completely different. But this could not go on forever, because historically strong peoples and nations sooner or later began to take care of their own welfare again. This, in turn, went against the interests of globalists, for whom the essence of this very globalism is not universal "global" prosperity, but exclusively collecting profits from all over the "globe" in their own pocket. The system of the “global” economy of one owner thus began to fall apart, but not into two camps, as it was before, but into a larger number of new world centers of power. If you look at everything in a very simplified form, then at the moment and so far there are three of them - not long ago being the only world hegemon, but clearly falling into the taste of the United States of America, reorganized economically, but retained the ideological base of its Communist Party, China, and again Russia has risen from the ashes, although far from being in its original imperial state. These, I repeat, are modern centers of power in the literal sense of the word. There are also industrial and economic centers, there are also three of them, but they are different - the same USA, the same China and the European Union, which finally formed at the very end of the XX-beginning of the XXI century. Moreover, the alignment of positions again approximately resembles the situation of the Russian Empire and Great Britain from the heyday of colonialism. Anglo-Saxons represented by the USA, Britain, its Commonwealth of Nations and some other countries directly dependent on them, are essentially a new world empire that produces a huge amount of industrial goods and has stocks of various raw materials, as well as various ways of delivering all this to the consumer.
All this must be implemented in foreign and domestic markets. The EU and the PRC are also producers of a huge mass of industrial goods and direct competitors to the US “End Co.” in this area, but do not possess the necessary raw materials for production. In principle, two more industrial giants, Japan and South Korea, can basically be added to the EU and China according to the same scheme - the situation with them is about the same. Just right between the European Union and China (plus Japan and Korea) is Russia, which possesses in huge volume and almost all the necessary raw materials and other resources, which for the Chinese, Japanese, Koreans and Europeans are clearly closer and more profitable than those at their disposal Anglo-Saxons. That is, again, Russia itself, by its very existence, seems to be hindering these very Anglo-Saxons from living, constituting serious purely economic competition. Moreover, although we don’t really like to realize this, at the same time, Russia is not yet a serious competition for industrial production in China, the EU, Japan and Korea. But it is a gigantic market for their products, in which, in the absence or shortage of their own, Russians are really interested. All this creates fertile ground for joint development and mutually beneficial trade and economic relations, bypassing ... bypassing the Anglo-Saxons and their new empire.
Having almost forcibly shoved us into their own coordinate system, the globalists were suddenly very surprised at how quickly we adapted there and began independent development, and even directly contrary to their own interests, literally adjusting the system for ourselves. And the United States, Britain and all their partners with all their armies, aircraft carrier groups, high technology etc. etc. Of course they are strong, very strong, but ... after all, even collectively they are not so strong as to enter into a direct open confrontation with Russia. So our eternal "sworn partners" have to take up the old again - lies, misinformation, unfounded accusations, sanctions, incitement to internal problems, and so on on the list ... Yes, they are the very Anglo-Saxons, they really don’t like us much, and they don’t love for a long time. They do not like, however, not only us, but many more, but we really have a couple of centuries in a row, just like a bone in the throat by our very existence and geographical location. And this is not at all because they are so bad by definition. It’s just a wild, natural instinct in the genes. Like in the forest: there are different animals there, and everyone has their own place. A snake under a stone, a mole in a hole, there are different bunnies and squirrels who jump where and survive as they can, there are even very large animals, but herbivores and generally harmless, such as moose or deer, and there are kings of this very forest - large and strong predators that everyone else fears and is better off giving them the way, like tigers or bears, for example. And these largest predators are already among themselves, at their level, fighting for their own territories in this very forest. For hunting grounds, inhabited by all sorts of hares, squirrels, deer, moles and the like ... And this is normal. But you can’t just agree on an opponent in this fight, you can only win in the battle either by force, or by skill, or by cunning. All this, as in our current situation - we have in the world the historical role of a large predator. Do not be shy about it, you need to be proud of it. And if someone thinks that with some other large beast who has laid eyes on our lands, we can simply agree on a mutually beneficial basis, then this is a big mistake. If you don’t fight hard for your territory, we’ll be left without it and without means of food, and the rival-winner will then feed us for our complaisant character certainly will not. Like this.
Our liberals are very fond of arguing that, they say, you should not spend so much money on the army, you should not go into various conflicts, but instead you should develop your own economy, improve the well-being of the people, etc. It would be generally not a bad idea, but it’s not in our world of predators. Of course, it is also necessary to develop all this, it’s not a question, only if initially there will not be adequate protection for all this, then we will quickly have nowhere to create this very well-being for and there’s nothing to do with it. And all these “herbivorous” thoughts are persistently and constantly thrown to us by our enemies, who simply can’t tear us apart with “teeth and claws” - the “gut is thin,” as they say. So they try differently, cunningly, meanly, stealthily ... Based on this, those who believe in all these sweet Anglo-Saxon songs to us about a possible common global kingdom of liberal capitalism and prosperity are either traitors or just fools. There are no other options.
Information