/ world today news/ It must be said that the informational pressure against Russia, precisely against Russia (not just as against an Orthodox country, but as Russia), began in the 1920s, after the end of the Napoleonic wars. The British understand very well that their main adversary on the continent is Russia. At the same time, a more serious opponent than Napoleon. Napoleon is a European country while Russia is a Eurasian country.
Then a very powerful informational and propaganda project began – Russophobia, that is, dislike of Russia as the country of Russians. In fact, this is an informational preparation for the Crimean War (1853-1856)
It must be said that the preparation gives its results, if we look at how Europeans with different political views write on the eve of the Crimean War (for example, the Archbishop of Paris on the one hand, and Karl Marx on the other), they write the same thing – that Russia should to crash. Because (as Marx wrote) Russia is a barbaric reactionary country, and the Archbishop of Paris that he is a barbaric Orthodox country.
That is, it is not important whether it is Orthodox or reactionary, the important thing is that it is a barbaric country. And this is the result of this Russophobic campaign. After Russia after the Crimean War began to integrate into the world capitalist system, it became an object, or rather its resources became an object of Western appetites.
And the information war continues. Russia is presented as an undemocratic, autocratic, backward country. It is simply necessary to bring Russian resources under control.
In 1884, at the Berlin Conference, a resolution was adopted that countries that have large natural resources, but cannot use them themselves, should open up to the world. And if they don’t open themselves, they have to be forced open. Africa is officially spoken of, but Africa can be pressed without that. But it is actually about Russia.
It is assumed that the young Tsar Alexander III will give in, but he does not give in. In other words, the informational pressure against Russia is a function of the geo-economic and geopolitical struggle against Russia.
In the 20th century, the information war against Russia acquired a new dimension, because Russia became the Soviet Union, anti-systemic capitalism, and this process continues. And it must be said that, with the exception of the period of the 30s, 40s, 50s, (perhaps partly) 60s, Russia does not win the information wars, but, as a rule, loses them.
Where is the reason? I think there are several reasons. First of all, it is necessary to understand who is waging this information war against Russia. It is not led by individual countries, say in the 19th century Great Britain, and in the 20th century the USA, but it is led by the supranational elites of the West, who have a colossal experience of conducting information wars from the 18th century onwards. They have a good command of the information weapon.
In contrast, the Russian elites not only have a bad command of this weapon, but also after the reforms of Peter the Great, a westernized nobility arose in us, and in the 19th century, the westernized intelligentsia, liberal and socialist, was added to it. These people look at Russia with Western eyes.
In other words, on the state line, the Russian elite opposes the West, but on the informational level, it is part of the West. And she looks at her own people with Western eyes. That is, it is as if taken captive in an informational-ideological sense.
As Antonio Gramsci said, “he who controls the cultural discourse is also the master of politics.” In other words, the Western orientation of the Russian intellectual and political elite disarms it before the West. Because the western propaganda line is “You are a backward country”. Yes, we agree. Yes, we are a backward country. The West says, “You must become like us. You have to carry out reforms.”
This was said both at the end of the 19th century and during Perestroika. “Just carry out these reforms and you will become like us.” Russia is carrying out these reforms. And these reforms lead to revolutions and the collapse of the country, as happened at the end of the twentieth century.
From the diary of the famous American diplomat George Kennan (October 15, 1986):
„I told Anneliese (Kenan’s wife), that if I could talk to Mr. Gorbachev about these affairs, and he had asked me how, in his place, I could overcome the unusual suspicions and hostility with which the United States treats his country, I would have answered him: “You can do absolutely nothing. You can yield to us on all points in the negotiations and again meet with nothing but the stony hostility of official American circles. And your concessions will be used by the president as proof that he has scared you into submission and that the only language you understand is that language. You are dealing with a deeper and broader phenomenon than Mr. Reagan. Powerful elements of the American people feel the need for a completely inhuman enemy. They need such an enemy to convince themselves of their own exceptional virtues. Politicians know this, and being for the most part shallow and short-sighted people with a narrow outlook, they usually succumb to these chauvinistic reactions, even at the expense of our relations with other countries. You must look in all other parts of the world for opportunities for normal, satisfying relationships. You can write off the US in this regard. Seek peace, commerce, and civility elsewhere, but not here.’
By the way, at the very beginning of the 21st century, the high-ranking American official, Bush’s representative on conflicts, Stephen Mann, said very frankly that “the US strategy of controlled chaos in relation to Russia was carried out with the help of two things: pushing the Soviet Union (namely the Soviet Union ) towards democratic reforms in the political sphere and the creation of a market economy”.
This leads to chaos in the country. He sees both as carrying out the strategy of controlled chaos. And people my age and younger remember very well the era of Perestroika, when the dismantling of the Soviet system began with information attacks. First against Stalin, then against Lenin, and then against socialism.
At first they say: “More democracy, more socialism!”. Then they start saying that democracy is incompatible with socialism. Democracy is a sign of a civilized society (they don’t say “bourgeois” but “civilized”).
In other words, one of the main reasons for the defeat of the Russian and then the Soviet elites in the information war is the absence of their own worldview. If you get a foreign worldview and look at the world with other people’s eyes, then you begin to look at the world in other people’s interests.
The exception is the period between the 1930s and 1950s, when the Soviet people were convinced (we will not now say whether they were right or not) that they had the best society, with the best achievements. They send a man into space. They are winning the worst war in human history. They have the best death rate in the world – 6 per thousand – the lowest death rate in the 1960s. And that gives them confidence. Confidence in tomorrow as well.
And then in the 1960s it started to become clear that we have inequality. And the weak point of the Soviet system is that the ideology says that we are building a society of equals, but the reality tells us something completely different. Let’s say that in this respect today’s post-Soviet system is less vulnerable. But he said he was building a society of equals. She is saying something completely different. From that point of view, you can’t pin it. Just like western society that says, “Yes, people are not equal. Everyone has their chance. There is an American dream.” While it’s perfectly clear that in today’s America, the American dream is… Let’s just say that the shoemaker’s son can’t become a millionaire. This is a myth.
If the elite, which should be the main striking force of the information war, view the world with foreign eyes, it means that it is composed under the flow of foreign information. This means that the information weapon has been knocked out of her hands, that she is disarmed. No weapon.
Let’s say they tell you: “Your country is bad.” – Yes, my country is bad. Look: the attempt to impose on Russia, on modern Russia, the thesis that Russia is as guilty of starting World War II as Hitler, as the Third Reich. The excuses begin: “Oh no, we’re good.”
Another blow must be struck instead. To prove (and we have enough evidence for this) that the main culprits of the Second World War, along with Hitler, were the British and the Americans.
It was their contradictions that created the explosive situation that Hitler took advantage of. We must not make excuses, but attack.
Translation: V. Sergeev
Subscribe to our YouTube channel:
and for our Telegram channel:
Share on your profiles, with friends, in groups and on pages. In this way, we will overcome the limitations, and people will be able to reach the alternative point of view on the events!?
#Andrey #Fursov #Barbarian #Country #View #Info
