Controlled collapse: why the West and Russia organized a revolution in Belarus

Vladimir Vasiliyev looked at the situation in the neighboring country from the point of view of the "theory of revolutions":

On the Ekho Moskvy website, Vladimir Pastukhov suggested that with regard to Belarus, “Moscow will act outside the box and will give the Belarusian revolution an unexpected acceleration. This is a completely logical and natural upgrade of the Russian authoritarian political software from “controlled democracy” to “controlled revolutions””.

The "upper circles" dominating Russia have historically always not only orient themselves towards the New_West , but also consider themselves to be an organic part of the "elite" of the New West, aiming to achieve recognition of themselves as an organic part of the "elite" of the New West from this "elite" of the New West, at least...

Therefore, the social parasite organism dominating over "Russia", actually representing the "top" of the chimera state called Russia (USSR-RF), has always openly demonstrated and still demonstrates the essence of the ideology and practice of the ruling class of the New West. He openly demonstrated and demonstrates the essence of this ideology and practice, which is inherent in the ruling class of the New West in reality, and not according to the ideologically declared, including scientifically substantiated, assessments of the New West itself.

But this is the reason for the eternal lag of social technological science, as well as the entire technological science, practically applied by the social parasite organism dominating over Russia, and the ideology that actually owns the real members of this parasite organism, in relation to technological science and the ideology of the New West, at least , in two steps.

The first step of this eternal delay of the social organism-parasite dominating over Russia is formally conditioned by the New West itself, although it is also due to the parasitic social nature of the special social organism (special society) dominating over Russia, that is, its social nature of the parasite. This is the way of life of the parasite, by its very nature it is inherent in the vital (existentially) irreparable organic dependence of the entire life of the parasite on those organisms on which it parasitizes and from which it feeds.

The new West needs time to reflect on its social practice and the ideology that explains it. That is, the New West needs time to scientifically generalize and substantiate its social practice in general and the practice of production (creating new social technologies and modernizing old ones) of social technological science, including through its practical approbation, in particular.

We are talking about the social technological science of the New West, which is extensively reproduced and applied by it as part of the general "technology of knowledge-power over man (and over all living things) as a biological species", inherent in it since its inception as such.

The second step of the eternal lag of the social organism-parasite dominating over Russia is due to this social organism-parasite itself, which takes time to cognize, comprehend and "master" through its practice of organizing and implementing the application of social technological science, as well as all technological science, of the New West in their own interests.

Since the New West does not even recognize the actual members of the social parasite organism that dominates Russia, not only as an organic part of its "elite", but also as an organic part of its entire ruling class, so far as the social parasite organism dominating Russia is nothing else it remains, except to "tyrit" technological science in the New West.

Hence, all the consequences arising from this method of acquiring it in general, and the need for the dominant social parasite organism over Russia to reach "with its mind" the essence and secrets of "work" in this way appropriated by the technological, primarily social technological, science of the New West, in particular. This is also the reason for the “grievances”, “revelations” and “claims” regularly expressed against the New West...

“Theory of revolutions” as a technology of “collapse of states”.

The modern guru of social technological science of the New West, Randal Collins, summed up not more than 10 years ago: “Since the 1970s, there has been a revolution in the theory of revolution itself. Teda Skocpol (1979), Jack Goldstone (Goldstone 1991), Charles Tilly (Tilly 1995) and many other sociologists, based on comparative studies of the historical ways of building and disintegrating state regimes, put forward a theory that can be called the theory of revolution as the collapse of the state.

In order to understand the essence of what Collins is talking about, one must, firstly, know that #sociology in the New West originally arose and developed not as a science of society in general, but as a science of the New West - this is the scientific and technological self-knowledge of the New West as a special society, namely called to dominate all of humanity.

Secondly, one must also know that ethnology , anthropology and similar sciences originally arose and developed in the New West as sciences about all other, except for the New West, “ethnic groups”, "social groups”, “individuals” and their “societies". This is “calculus in two registers” (as biological individuals and as populations) of the rest of humanity as a whole and in parts in order to substantiate and improve the social technological science of the New West's domination over all this humanity as a whole and over each of its parts separately.

These are two fundamentally different practical attitudes of the New West to itself as dominating over the rest of humanity and called upon to dominate it by the difference in the very nature of the New West and the rest of the world, and to the whole other world, as predetermined, to completely obey the New West.

In other words, this is the practical attitude of the New West towards itself and for itself, on the one hand, and the practical attitude of the New West to all other itself, but not for another, namely for itself = for the New West, on the other hand.

It is not just the friend / foe = friend / foe division, which Karl Schmitt has characterized as the division that is supposed to and determines the political as such , but it is also the most fundamental foundation of racism as such. In reality, these are just two sides of the same coin - the New West, for these are inalienable attributes of the social nature of the New West as such.

The subsequent integration of all the sciences of the New West about man and society into "big sociology" did not change anything either in this very vision of the world and itself in it by the New West, or, even more so, in the practical attitude of the New West to itself and to the rest of humanity...

However, it was this integration of the social sciences of the New West that ideologically concealed the racism inherent in this social nature of the New West as the division of humanity into “people” and “not quite people = unterminable”, as well as ideologically concealed the very social nature of the New West as a whole.

So, the "theory of revolution", organically inherent in the social technological science of the New West , according to Collins, is nothing other than the "theory of the collapse of the state".

What states - the New West or the whole other world - are we talking about?

We are not talking about the states of the New West, which are subject to collapse in all those cases when and if it becomes necessary for the New West.

We are talking exclusively and only about the collapse of the states of all other peoples, which by their very nature, according to the assessment from the New West, organically do not belong to the New West.

About the essence of the vision of what is happening in Belarus publicly imposed on the masses.

The well-known political scientist Kirill Rogov, in a post on the Echo of Moscow website, analyzing the “scenario of a nonviolent revolution” currently being implemented in Belarus, concludes with the following:

“In any case, the Rose Revolution in Georgia took 21 days, the first and second Maidan lasted for two months; however, the last non-violent revolution in Armenia was completed in 11 days. I am not aware of any work on the usual duration of color revolutions and the factors of this duration, but such work is clearly obvious".

And in his very first brief analytical note on the events in Belarus ( #Belarus ), written on August 10-11, K. Rogov writes directly and bluntly that what happened on August 9 in Belarus “is one of the most important news for those who interested in the dynamics of authoritarian regimes and history in general".

And Rogov's entire analysis of what is happening in Belarus, starting with the qualification of all this as a “revolution”, is exactly an illustration of how the “theory of revolution” “works”, which, according to R. Collins, was developed by Teda Skocpol, Jack Goldstone, Charles Tilly and others.

R. Collins, generalizing the social technology of the implementation of the "revolutionary" collapse of states as "the collapse of the existing state regime", writes about all such "revolutions to demolish the state regime" in the country as follows: "The emergence of a revolution does not depend on the discontent of the impoverished lower classes, but on what's going on at the top".

“The main components of the process are: first, the budget crisis ; the state is no longer able to pay its bills and, above all, maintain its security forces, army and police...

The state budget crisis becomes fatal when it combines with the second component - a split at the top over what should be done in this situation...

The split of the elites paralyzes the state and opens up the possibility for the emergence of a new political coalition pursuing already radical revolutionary goals.

It is in this power vacuum (which social movement theorists now call the structure of political opportunity) that the successful mobilization of revolutionary movements becomes possible .

They usually speak on behalf of the disaffected lower classes, but in reality radical movements are led by groups that have emerged from the upper middle class at the time of the crisis and benefit from the superiority of their personal networks, skills and organizational capabilities.

And further Collins emphasizes that “the level of radicalism, apparently, what we now understand, refers rather to the field of ideological and emotional dynamics of the unfolding conflict - although the theory of how exactly these processes occur in different historical contexts is still incomplete.

(...)

[But] the process of revolutionary disintegration of the state is not necessarily accompanied by massive violence".

Actually, these "phases" or "stages" of the deployment of the "color revolution" in Belarus are illustrated by almost all political scientists and other commentators who are provided with a platform and whose assessments are replicated by the Russian media, not only from the camp "opposition to the regime" within the Russian Federation, but also from the camp "supporters of the regime” too.

Moreover, all practical conclusions and "recommendations" of both the first and the second are substantiated precisely by this "theory of revolution for the demolition of the state regime." Only the “signs”, “direction”, “goals” that they set and pursue are different due to the difference in the interests of those groups of the “top” of the Russian Federation, which they express and ideologically substantiate in public space.

As for the "budget crisis of the state regime", demolished through the "revolution", then sanctions of all kinds and types, managed by simulacra of prices for national currencies, exported and imported goods by the state, financial and economic crises are the most effective tools for organizing such a "budget crisis" state regime "subject to collapse and defeat.

It is obvious that different external subjects of policy in relation to the "state regime" planned by each of these subjects for demolition, based on their interests and for their own purposes, have different capabilities and resources for organizing and managing the "budget crisis" in this state.

Conclusion

But why is it now that a “controlled revolution to break down the state regime” has been undertaken in Belarus from all sides from outside? Not much earlier, but not much later?

Collins summarizes: "...political sentiment tends to fluctuate sharply about every twenty to thirty years".

How much is the now demolished "state regime" in Belarus?

26 years, firstly, and there is no better reason than the election of the President of Belarus, who has ruled for these 26 years, and secondly, especially since all the preparatory work on the controlled creation of a “budget crisis, etc. " in Belarus has already been done by the New West, and by the social parasite organism of the Russian Federation, and by the “government” of Lukashenko himself, thirdly.

What will happen to the masses of Belarus, how they will be able and whether they will be able to live as a result of this “controlled revolution” - no one will think, let alone care, neither from outside, nor inside Belarus, except for the masses of Belarus in general. and the proletarian masses of Belarus, in particular.

For protection and implementation of the interests of these popular masses of Belarus in all scenarios of this "color revolution" was not originally, there is no now, and there is no reason to believe that they may appear in the future.

From the editor

The opinions of the authors may differ from the position of the editorial board. Which in this case believes that Mr. Lukashenko himself dug the hole into which he fell, and any nation has every right to defend its life and dignity. At the same time, neither Russia nor the West forced Lukashenko and his associates to totally falsify the elections and incite riot police against civilians. Brutal beatings, illegal arrests, torture... What else had to happen for hundreds of thousands of people to take to the streets?