The Great Reset: COVID-19 as a New Point of Reference in the “Evolution” of Earth’s Civilisation

The concept of the geopolitical north allows Russia to take a place above the clash of west and east

The gradual manifestation of the results of the US presidential election in 2020 has intensified the discussion on the future policy of the US on all key foreign and domestic issues. Moreover, it is conducted mainly on the basis of the traditional picture of the world that has developed over the past 40 years, but is now completely outdated.

Hence the numerous erroneous forecasts on the theme, like, “Biden is better than Trump, because he is interested in restoring and preserving the Yalta political and economic system”. However, it is not clear where this thesis came from. All the signs that the future US administration may be giving indicate that the degree of confrontation with Russia will only be strengthened.

A similar thesis is being promoted with regard to the coronavirus pandemic. They say that all the problems that exist today, both in the global economy and at the level of specific interstate relations, are the result of the multifaceted consequences of the coronavirus pandemic. And as soon as world medicine copes with it, we will all be able to return to the fertile times of stable growth in the global market, characteristic of the first decade of this century.

However, there is an opposite point of view. In his book, the German economist Klaus Schwab proved that COVID-19 was only the notorious last straw that broke the camel’s back, its appearance only strengthening and accelerating the processes that were already beginning in the world economy.

This, in turn, turns the crisis that has arisen into a “unique window of opportunity” that needs to be taken advantage of. In particular, for the formation of a new capitalism without private property (“stakeholder capitalism”) on the basis of transnational enterprises.

Also mentioned is the prospect of the abolition of the Bretton Woods monetary system and the transition to a digital cryptocurrency (“monetary reset”), the total robotisation of labour and the introduction of a universal basic income, the widespread introduction of advanced technologies that blur the line between man and machine, as well as the formation of a system of total state control over citizens, excluding the concept of personal individuality.

In some sources, Schwab’s article “COVID-19: THE GREAT RESET” is even called a declaration of post-industrial financial capitalism. The truth, as usual, lies in the middle. Not even because the world has long lived not in the Bretton Woods, but in the Jamaican world financial system, which directly recognised the right of the US to make the dollar a generally unsecured “green wrapper”. The reason is much deeper.

Klaus Schwab correctly noted the key fundamental market processes. Ideas about the market mechanism based on the theories of the second half of the 19th century are outdated, since they were based on the absolute dominance of small owners and the insignificance of the scale of commodity-money relations, while since the late 1990s, the capitalist economy has exhausted the space for extensive trade expansion and entered the phase of accelerating the processes of business enlargement, i.e., it began the transition to the struggle of transnational corporations occupying a monopoly (or close to it) position in their niches.

Moreover, the consolidation of industrial capital initiated the process of consolidation of financial capital, thanks to the open market and ease of cross-border operations, which became dominant in the global economy as a whole. Material production is secondary today. In prime place came the task of finding a source of loans for launching a project and purchasing patent rights to use specific technologies.

As a result, if 200 years ago the largest business was considered to be raw materials and industrial giants, such as the oil-producing corporation “Standart Oil” of John Rockefeller or the automobile concern “General Motors”, until 2008 for 77 years in a row the largest car manufacturer in the world, today the first eight places of the ranking of world leaders in terms of the size of controlled assets consist entirely of financial funds and major banks.

Including: ICBC (China, the amount of controlled capital – $2.81 trillion); HSBC (Britain, 2.68 trillion); JPMorgan Chase (USA, 2.35 trillion); CCB (China, 2.24 trillion); ABC (China, 2.12 trillion); Bank of China (China, 2.03 trillion); Citigroup (USA, 1.86 trillion); Wells Fargo (USA, 1.42 trillion).

Their total combined profit for 2013 was $175.5 billion. This is approximately equal to the size of the annual balance sheet profit of an economy such as Russia, or slightly less than the profitability of the German economy. And the amount of capital they control is close to a quarter of the world’s GDP.

This is what determines both the meaning of what happened in the American presidential election in 2020, and the fundamental essence of the processes mentioned by Schwab, the upcoming world reset.

In the US, it is not just two systemic parties with different names and minor differences in political programs that are facing each other. And not even two Americas, although the latter is somewhat closer to the truth. There was the first major battle between industrial and financial capital, which the industrialists behind Trump eventually seemed to lose. Although it is too early to make final conclusions, we will wait until January 16th.

The civilisation we are familiar with today was based on making a profit from something material. For example, extracted raw materials (mines, wells, quarries), or goods produced in specific factories. Even in times of crisis, the economy was supported by state programs for the construction of material infrastructure (roads, bridges, ports). Banks in it acted only as a kind of wallet for storing money.

Thus, a physical space was formed for the functioning of the state as an institution for managing the economic processes of profit redistribution. Moreover, an institution of public and social. In the sense that the persons officially entitled to set rules and pass laws were elected in person, so they had specific surnames and patronymics. Industrialisation in the US is strongly associated with the name of Roosevelt, the revival of the German economy – with the names of Hjalmar Schacht and Konrad Adenauer, and in the Soviet Union – with the name of Joseph Stalin.

I.e., there has always been some government publicly responsible for the state’s policy and its results. Even the question of the outbreak of wars was necessarily only the result of an attempt by specific countries to seize foreign material sources in order to spend the profits they created exclusively for the benefit of a specific physical nation.

The victory of Biden, or rather, the world financiers behind him, means the beginning of an active process of transformation of the existing world into a new system that no longer has a territorial link. From the formula money-product-money, the product is excluded. Now money is made directly from money, which fundamentally changes the essence of the economy as a whole.

READ:  Oleg Tsarev: Ukraine Will Avoid Collapse Only After Pivoting to Russia

In any case, the western economy. The winners of the largest financial states need an open world, not divided (especially by customs and legal borders), in which they can freely move capital to any place that promises profit, but in such a way that the process of obtaining it is not associated with any social obligations. For this purpose, first of all, they are aimed at weakening the state as an institution and obtaining the official status of corporate extraterritoriality.

For the same reason, we should not expect the appearance of any “world government”. We are accustomed to understand any state as a mechanism of self-organisation of society to solve general social problems. The way the Democrats in the US fought against Trump clearly shows that the “world government” is becoming the boards of directors and leading shareholders of multinational, primarily financial, corporations, which no people of any country have elected to their posts.

But at the same time, they have enough power and resources to effectively influence the choice of presidents. Moreover, they may even violate public laws, considering this a perfectly acceptable way to achieve the desired goals.

As an example. There is no official censorship in the US, but companies that have a monopoly position in the social media market, such as Facebook, Twitter, Youtube or Instagram, openly censor content based solely on their own corporate, often directly biased, ideological and openly tendencious views, which users are not able to influence. The same applies to almost all mainstream media, and in recent months, the process has already begun to affect the mass media.

Three fundamental trends follow from this.

First, the scale of substitution of publicly adopted laws, which, at least in theory, society can challenge or change through judicial decisions or referendums, with corporate “agreements” that society is unable to influence.

A clear example of this is the attempt to cancel the internationally accepted “Space Treaty” of 1967 through the promotion of a purely chamber and completely private corporate “Artemis Accords”, which actually leads to the privatisation of the Moon, and then the entire outer space.

The consequence of this trend will be the weakening of the institution of any international agreements, since financial corporations do not associate themselves with states, therefore they do not consider themselves obliged to comply with obligations that they did not specifically undertake.

Roughly speaking, the US international commitment is not binding for, say, for example, JPMorgan Chase or Citigroup. At the same time, the requirements established by them in fact for the rest of the world, both public and private, should become mandatory.

Secondly, the world of “poor but happy people” becomes ideal for ensuring reliable corporate dominance. Ownership of property is positioned as an evil that interferes with universal happiness. The meaning of life is declared to be freedom from property and maximum mobility.

In the long run, this should lead to a drop in living standards and an increase, to a critical level, of people’s dependence on short-term income for a short period. In an environment where everything is available only on a rental basis, even a short-term loss of work will mean the threat of physical starvation and even death if a new job is not found quickly enough.

Already now, in particular, in terms of labour and the level of payment in the “Amazon” corporation, it is clear that the process leads to the emergence of mass consent to work in conditions close to slavery. Because the alternative is the prospect of starving and sleeping under bridges in cardboard boxes from under the refrigerator.

Third, the strategic goal is to maximise the atomisation of society with all possible inflating of internal conflicts in it on gender, race and any other grounds. For the same purpose, the destruction of any historical, cultural and religious foundations of society is intensified.

The higher the social disunity, the lower the financial costs of managing the population. Especially with the development of technologies for individual social control through social networks, access to education and even to free food, the volume and conditions of which are also easily controlled by corporate solutions.

And the canalisation of any public discontent is supposed to be provided by giving the new society a media-beautiful global goal of building a “green world”, fighting against climate change and demanding the early introduction of universal unconditional income, the provision of which is considered a task of the state budget. Thus, society is even more opposed to the institution of the state.

And this is all about to be spread to the whole world, including countries that adhere to other cultural traditions. Moreover, the implementation of the strategy outlined in principle begins to allow the possibility of waging ideological wars against dissenting countries, including with the use of nuclear weapons.

As for the preservation of the integrity of states, it carries an irremediable and intolerable threat, while network corporate transnational structures are weakly susceptible to damage from it. Which city needs to be bombed into oblivion in order to conquer, say, Microsoft, Apple, or even more so Facebook with Wells Fargo?

The projection of the above on the practical plane of the economy and politics of the planet leads to the following conclusions.

Within the US, for the first 1-2 years, “team Joe Biden” (meant only as the personification of the transnational financial capital behind it) will be engaged in a massive purge of the country “from Trumpism” to eliminate those Americans (over 70 million) who supported Trump for 2016 and 2020. Not in the sense of physical destruction, but, above all, their demoralisation, division and deprivation of the will to resist even at the local level.

Theoretically, this process can lead the US to a new civil war, but in the opinion of the “unknown fathers” (as today is often called a possible “world government”) it will be only local disturbances, which have little to do with the entire world under their control.

After the elimination of the “internal threat” and the restructuring of the state (and social) institutions of America under the new scheme, starting from 2022-2023, we should expect an intensification of attempts to aggressively expand the set rules and principles to the entire political and economic space controlled by the west today. And this is about 36-42% of world GDP.

In foreign policy, the “winners” will inevitably seek to recolonise the European Union and restructure it under the “new principles”.

It is important to understand that intra-European problems are now of a similar nature. European financial capital in the EU also breaks away from industrial capital and is opposed to it. But being smaller in size, it is not able to completely repeat the “American scheme” on its own. Which turns it into a classic “fifth column” interested in integrating “with leading money”. In the hope of getting a “worthy place” in the new system of world governance.

READ:  The First Imperceptible Response to the Pipeline Sabotage

In addition, the actively supported European program for the transition to a hydrogen economy involves a relatively rapid, in 10-15 years, complete reconstruction of the energy and other infrastructure of the continent, the scale of which will provide transnational financial capital with sources of profit for the future almost until the middle of this century.

In the current structure of the world economy, there is no money for such a grandiose project. But if to achieve the rejection of even the Jamaican financial system, and transfer finances to a combination of cryptocurrencies with unconditional income, the necessary funds can be obtained by unlimited issuance of unsecured money.

Due to the lack of opportunities for consumers to save up in any way, this allows them not to worry about the threat of inflation. In any case, at the level of current theoretical ideas about the principles of functioning of the financial system of the future.

There are only two obstacles to the success of the global project to rebuild the world.

The first is China, whose economic size is at least as large as that of the US, or rather, the scale of the resource base of western financial TNCs. As can be seen from the above, in the top 8 largest banking and financial structures of the planet, four places, including the first, are occupied by banks of the People’s Republic of China, which own $9.2 trillion in total capital out of 17.5 trillion of all participants in the ranking.

Actually, the aggravation of the confrontation between the US and Chinese economies is caused not so much by the problem of the negative balance of America’s foreign trade balance, but by the fact that China’s financial leaders remain under state control, and, playing by globalist rules, they gradually win the common world from western capital. 10 years ago, 7 out of 8 places in the ranking were occupied by “American” and “European” structures.

At the same time, the Chinese government strictly blocks all attempts by western capital not only to take control of “intra-Chinese sources of income”, but also in general the penetration of western money into China as such.

While the globalists will be busy strengthening their positions inside the US, on the international stage they will focus on the relatively peaceful rhetoric of “returning to the open world of pre-Trump times”. But then the question of the direct physical destruction of today’s Chinese state will take on an uncontested character.

It is important to understand that we are not talking about the direct physical destruction of China, of course. The main task of the globalists will be to achieve a replacement of the country’s fusing elite for a more pro-western one that is willing to put “global money” into the internal economy of China. And soften the conditions for accepting new participants in the closed economic cluster created by Beijing called the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP).

But the globalists will not be able to achieve this without a direct war in some separate theatre, for example, in Taiwan. Which makes the emergence of such a war after 2022-2023 almost inevitable.

RUSSTRAT wrote about the high probability of such a development in June 2020 in the report “Assessment of the probability and practical form of an armed conflict between the US and China”. And just a month ago, in the second half of December 2020, one of the leading Russian experts on China, Nikolay Vavilov, spoke about the high probability of such a scenario in an open lecture.

The matter is further complicated by the fact that, according to the results of the analysis of global economic trends, for the final integration of the RCEP space into its political and economic system, China will need no more than 10-12 years, after which it will acquire a sufficient economic base that makes trade with the EU and the US especially unnecessary for it. Moreover, the “Chinese” share in the total world GDP will also reach about 45-48%, which will automatically transform the competition into a long-term battle of attrition, in which state institutions have always been decisively superior to corporate ones.

In other words, in the event of a major war with China in the period between 2023-2027, maximum 2030, the globalists, acting under the guise of the US, still have a chance to win. Whereas after 2035, and even more so 2040-2045, they stand no chance. And then the defeat of the “western system of global capital” by the end of this century becomes almost inevitable.

The second, though smaller in economic size, but not inferior in geopolitical significance, is Russia, which is an obstacle to the global civilisational reformatting of the world by transnational capital.

Raw materials, especially energy reserves of the Russian Federation, as well as the domestic market for European technologies, allow Moscow not only to successfully compete in the EU with Washington, but also directly interfere with the process of the American recolonisation of Europe. And without it, the globalists’ own resources are acutely insufficient for successful competition with China. Especially to defeat it.

In addition, Russia offers Europe an alternative civilisational project based on traditional, compared to globalism, even conservative values. Attractive to a significant part of the European population and the ruling elite, especially in the segment of industrial capital, because their adoption allows them to maintain their power within the framework of traditional states.

Moreover, the weakening of American statehood, which is critically necessary for globalists, is associated with the international weakening of the US in all leading regions of the world. But the vacuum created there is beginning to be filled by a growing Russian presence. There is a kind of paradox when the actions of globalists lead to the strengthening of their own opponent.

In addition, the Russian economy, which continues to grow even under the conditions of western sanctions, is becoming, albeit on a general scale, small (at the end of 2019, the nominal GDP of the Russian Federation is only 2% of the global one, while the American one is 25.6%, the Chinese one is at least 17.8%, with the RCEP countries – 23.6%), but in a systemic sense it is almost a decisive weight that can tip the scales of the American-Chinese confrontation in favour of China’s victory.

To top it all off, Russia has dramatically stepped up the process of economic penetration into Africa, the last remaining relatively free and “no-man’s-land” region suitable for economic growth.

READ:  Referendums as Cornerstones of the New Russian Statehood

Therefore, it is not surprising that by talking a lot about the desire to abandon the consequences of the confrontational policy of the Trump administration, the newly elected US president has already begun to increase the degree of aggressiveness of anti-Russian foreign policy rhetoric. Publicly pointing out that Russia is once again America’s main adversary and a key threat to European democracy.

It is important to note that the new charges are no longer associated with any individual erroneous actions of the Russian state or specifically its president. Russia is directly declared an existential threat simply by the fact of its existence in nature. And to combat it, absolutely any means are good, including Navalny‘s “defamed by Novichok” underpants.

Hence, a natural question arises: how can (and should) Russia oppose the stated trend? Although it requires separate consideration in detail, the following recommendations can be summarised.

First, it is necessary to continue strengthening its classical defence capability. In particular, in terms of countering missile and aircraft means of attack as a fundamental tool of the entire western strategy of warfare. And also in terms of increasing the efficiency, lightning speed and irresistibility of strategic nuclear forces. Since at the moment only this keeps the globalists from launching a direct military attack on the Russian Federation.

Secondly, it is necessary to strengthen measures to increase the autarky nature of the Russian economy. First and foremost, the banking and financial sector. Not being able to hit the Russian Federation with military force, global banking capital will inevitably increase the activity of attempts to block and/or even withdraw any “Russian” money that is outside of Russian jurisdiction for any reason.

Third, quarantine restrictions due to the COVID-19 pandemic should be used to expand the scope of import substitution, with the main efforts shifting from agriculture to technological industries. Since the dependence on western suppliers of blocking equipment will be used by them to put pressure on the Russian Federation.

In turn, the current conditions can accelerate the modernisation and development of the Russian aircraft industry, the development and production of engines (from aircraft and marine to automotive and various types of turbines), as well as digital industries. In particular, the development of their own mass-produced software and digital equipment.

Fourth, it is advisable to abandon the concept of Russia as an integral part of western civilisation and the pan-European world. In fact, the civilisational incompatibility of our traditional fundamental values with “western” ones (both European and American) is already self-evident. Further, this gap will only deepen and expand.

Russia should move to the position of a world that is self-sufficient in its basic values and is aware of their superiority over the new western concept of tolerant depersonalisation.

To solve this problem, the RUSSTRAT Institute six months ago, in the summer of 2020, proposed the concept of Russia as a geopolitical north, where the artificial confrontation imposed on our civilisation several centuries ago within the framework of the false dichotomy “west-east” is removed at the ontological level:

“One of the most important components of the future Russian ideology should be the geopolitical concept of the north. What is the current geopolitical concept of Russia based on? It is based on the old dichotomy of our geographical location between the west and the east, dating back to the 14th century.

Part of our society and elite believes that we are part of the west, another — that we are the east. Until we remove this contradiction within the framework of a dialectical way out, we will not be able to develop our country. The Bolsheviks managed to get out of the dichotomy of east and west through the idea of communism, and immediately the country received a powerful ideological support, which instantly affected the degree of consolidation of citizens, the development of the economy, and ideology.

To get out of this ideological impasse, which has permeated Russian political and ideological elites for six centuries, is possible only through the introduction of a third component into this equation – the north, which dialectically overcomes the existing conceptual impasse. We are neither east nor west. We are the geopolitical north.

This concept already at its most mental and even unconscious level contains the idea of Russia’s superiority — the north always dominates the west and the east, higher than they are. This approach will fit very well into the Chinese political unconscious, otherwise some comrades there have come to believe that they have avoided the mistakes of the late USSR and can now look down on us because of their economic achievements.

This concept will also fit well into our confrontation with the west — a direct geographical clash will disappear. As in all martial arts, using this move, we leave the path of the main blow of the enemy, whose blow misses. If the west opposes itself to the east, then after the adoption of this concept, China becomes the east. And then let them find out who is the main one in this dead-end dichotomy. We from the north will be ideologically above this fight.”

Fifth, it is absolutely necessary to abandon the role of “big brother” in relation to the post-Soviet space, moving in relation to it to a purely pragmatic position of protecting only one’s own interests. We must no longer persuade “former relatives” to join us or unite with us. They themselves must see for themselves that without friendship and unification with Russia, they risk banal extinction. If such a fate suits their peoples and elites, then we are ready to respect their choice.

If it is necessary to take tough economic measures to resolve this issue in order to bring the partners to reason, this should be done without hesitation. To save a life, the surgeon sometimes has to perform an operation, despite the patient’s fears and screams.

Sixth, for the first time in a century, Russia once again faces the prospect of acquiring its own “soft power” as a collective attraction of our way of life. It is important to note that western globalism, especially over the past 6-8 years, has been purposefully and systematically destroying its attractiveness.

Due to the same paradox as with the geopolitical influence of the American state. Moreover, if in geopolitics influence in the future is supposed to be returned by tough forceful measures, up to military ones, then the formation of a new “soft power” is not envisaged even in theory.

As a result, “for us”, western cinema, mass entertainment, culture and even everyday lifestyle are already losing their appeal. While Russian realities for foreign audiences, on the contrary, will only grow in attractiveness. This process also requires full reinforcement.

RUSSTRAT Institute

Copyright © 2022. All Rights Reserved.