Posted 17 декабря 2020, 13:37
Published 17 декабря 2020, 13:37
Modified 24 декабря 2022, 22:37
Updated 24 декабря 2022, 22:37
Network analyst Anatoly Nesmiyan drew attention to the publication in Respublika of an article by Oleg Buklemishev, in which he predicts the consequences of the global economy after the end of the pandemic. The author, according to Nesmiyan, quite rightly notes that the system, which the coronavirus unbalanced, will no longer return to its original position, will become something different, depending on a complex mixture of natural and design factors. This means that it will be necessary to evaluate the new state of affairs in a new way: the beneficiaries will evaluate it completely differently than those who will lose from this shift. However, Nesmiyan also cites one thesis from this publication, which he considers controversial:
“...It is obvious that the current crisis has already surpassed in scale all the “greatness” of the recession a decade ago, causing much greater damage - not only to the lives and health of millions, but also to global economic development. Perhaps, for the first time in the history of mankind, the interests of the economy were deliberately and almost everywhere sacrificed to humanitarian considerations. Painful quarantine measures, which provided for the suspension of the work of enterprises and the forced isolation of citizens, were aimed primarily at slowing the spread of the disease, relieving additional burden on the healthcare system and preventing the death of people...".
According to the analyst, there is no question of any "humanitarian" considerations, and there can be no talk, since these processes are revolutionary in their essence, and revolutions always redistribute property. The analyst calls the ideologists of this revolution "globalists", under the leadership of Klaus Schwab (recently Novye Izvestia already wrote about him and his alleged role in the coronavirus crisis), who in his books spoke directly about the fourth technological revolution and measures to achieve its victory on a global scale ... The main question of this revolution, according to Nesmiyan, is who will pay for it?
And he gives the answer: it turns out that the globalists have already put the middle class under the knife, which was considered the main value of Western democracy. Now he has become a resource that must completely and completely burn up in the fire of the revolution, burn the very fat that he accumulated, according to the logic of Schwab, during all the post-war years, owning money comparable to the budgets of entire states and huge corporations. Now he is doomed to become poor on a global scale, which is leading to a gigantic social, political and economic shift.
Henceforth, the pyramid of society, which previously consisted of three layers - the poor, the middle class and the rich - will turn into a two-layer: many poor and some very rich. The very management of this pyramid will undergo changes, since the thesis “you choose - we rule” will cease to work from now on due to the fact that the poor are not capable of democratic procedures (the ancient Greeks, not without reason, having invented democracy, gave only wealthy citizens the right to vote). With the disappearance of democracy, the economic model of consumption, which until now has been driven by unbridled shopaholism, will also change. The poor, on the other hand, only need a guaranteed income and a distribution system - simply coupons for everything. Since owning property. it will become extremely burdensome for them, real estate will become a luxury, and humanity will return to removable models, which will provide a huge number of people with living space.
That is, in Nesmiyan's opinion, we are talking about a new feudalism, in which the lords in a narrow circle solve their problems, and all the other rabble bears the burden of duty to their breadwinners.
Schwab also writes about this, predicting the division of the world into "techno-democracy" and "techno-autocracy." The first will take as a basis the three basic directions of "leadership" - technological, managerial and leadership in the formation of values, that is, it will be collegial management, while "technoautocracies" will unite all three directions of "leadership" in one person of an autocrat. That's the whole difference.
It is for this that, according to the analyst, lockdowns and quarantines are introduced, that is, unbearable conditions are created for people's life in order to make their dependence total.
Nation states will disappear as unnecessary, and in their place will come corporate governance structures, on whose shoulders a not too burdensome volume of social tasks will fall, which they will solve in exchange for the complete submission of the entire population. Of course, with the disappearance of the middle class, a total simplification of the economy will follow, that is, the world will return for some time to the Middle Ages.
The analyst explains the reasons for this state of affairs by the fact that the rapid development of civilization came into conflict (the USSR collided with it, having failed to resolve it), when the control ceased to correspond to a too complex and rapidly developing controlled object. This prompted the managers, referring to the beautiful slogans about the market and freedom, to greatly simplify the complex Soviet social model. Today this is happening all over the planet, only the sign is different - "the fourth technological revolution", under the auspices of which the world elites, realizing the bankruptcy of the previous management style, simplify through degradation.
Well, the middle class is paying for it, it is assigned to complete destruction. We can only be glad that this stratum practically did not exist in Russia: its first shoots, which arose in the late 1990s, were destroyed in a bandit manner in the early 2000s. But the Russian authorities will not like the prospect of destroying the nation state, with the help of which they are robbing the country and the people. That is why they came into conflict with the liberal globalists. Truth without much chance for yourself, the analyst concludes.