![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Что тревожит власть и чего она боится
[Ru]
nikpavl2002.dreamwidth.org/6739.html
[Eng]
Most people of the older generation have an idea of history, which interprets events from the point of view of the doctrine of the class struggle. In it the main driving force of the revolutionary change of the world is the people, or rather its most deprived and oppressed part. These are those about whom it was said: they have nothing to lose except for their chains. It is they who are able to sacrifice their lives to overthrow the oppressors.
The principle of the realization of the power is based on the division of those over whom this power is established. Since the time of the founders of the theory of class struggle, the bourgeoisie has been trying to control protest moods among the oppressed, in order to avoid the overthrow of its power. So, the theories of "peaceful transfer of power" is just an illusion and a bluff.
Within the framework of a bourgeois society, the System worked out the optimal solution to the process of implementation and transfer of power, based on the competitiveness of two or three political parties, representing, in fact, the interests of the ruling class at large.
The main task is to divide the "controlled majority" into several groups, which are defined by their belonging to parties and movements, thereby creating an illusion of the reality of an irreconcilable struggle between them for gaining the opportunity to exercise authoritative powers. In the mass consciousness, there is formed an impression that the "democratic will" occurs from delegating the plurality of voters' "responsibility of choosing" to a specific elected person, who will participate in the process of exercising power on behalf of those who elected him.
In fact, the "elected," having received a "mandate for power," is free to act as s/he sees fit. This is how the trust of voters is foully violated. That's what "democracy" in the mind of the people in power is. The "controlled majority" is not able to influence the process of exercising power through the election system because of the lack of an "influence mechanism" as such. It is also worth mentioning the fact that the personalities of the "elected" are proposed by the "controlling minority," which holds power firmly in its hands.
It turns out that the only option for gaining power by a "controlled majority" is to overthrow the power of the "controlling minority." The powers that be are aware of this, and therefore are taking action to prevent it. The "facade of the present power" is being changed, but its essence remains unchanged. Due to such factors as the processes of globalization and the existence of the "world government," it is not possible to realize the transfer of power from the "controlling minority" to the "controlled majority," which means that "current" powers that be have no reason to worry about their future. The only thing that is possible with respect to "personalities in power" is to remove them from it by "competitors" claiming the same place.
But recently things have changed. What yesterday the powers that be could easily and simply realize, today can be difficult or impossible to be done at all. The reason for this was the phenomenon of the presence of actions of the "external order," which are planetary in nature and have no analogues within the framework of human experience. The global character of the goings on the powers that be could observe during the events of the "Arab spring."
What did the US military, and, after them, the representatives of the NATO see? It's even hard to imagine. First of all, we are talking directly about those military sub-units and units, which forces were supposed to conduct "pacification of recalcitrant" and invasion of the sovereign states' territories. Let us remember, how it was in Iraq: a ground operation of troops with both aviation and missile and artillery powerful support, which was conducted steadily and straightforward.
Something similar was going to happen in Libya, but it did not take place.
The special forces of the US Army were the first to hit the ground, but that’s where their participation in the operation ended. The reason was the command's loss of control over the landing force, as well as the loss of combat capability at the individual level by each of the marines after landing. But as soon as the special forces left the territory of the country, the “influence” passed away. The nature of this phenomenon had remained a mystery for the Pentagon.
Under such circumstances, the regular units' deployment couldn't be carried out a priori. All information about the incident was classified, and the primacy in fighting was transmitted (without explanation) to the NATO forces. It were they who had to experience the force of the "external influence", which could not be determined by the origin, that had for a second time manifested itself forcing the NATO forces to refuse from conducting ground operations.
From that moment on, there had begun an unprecedented operation to cover up information about happenings on the territory of Libya, which lasted about 9 months. The bet was made to inflate the conflict between individual groups of the country's population on the basis of interethnic and religious "disagreements." So, there were formed the forces of "opposition" to counter the forces of Gaddafi. In order to "visualize" the picture of "hostilities," it was decided to strike missiles on the positions of "opposing" sides, which constantly sought to agree among themselves. Thus, in Libya, there was provoked a civil war, which result was the fall of the regime.
True, there was not much sense in this, because neither the US nor the NATO could control the development of events in the country, and the "traditional" way of entering the troops for the purpose of occupation was clearly not successful, although only this, according to the "interested parties from outside," could stop the "division of power" within the country. The consequence of the events in Libya was the decision of the US command to withdraw troops from Iraq.
No less important was the fact that experts from the United States and other participating countries were able to see, assessing the events of the "Arab Spring" outside the boundaries of state borders, how under the "external influence" large masses of the population of many countries carried out concerted actions to maneuver and seize strategic facilities and institutions of the power. Clearly, there was felt the presence of a certain "coordinating principle." The lack of aggression, unusual in such situations, as well as of strive for robbery and pogroms on the part of the "protest movement" has been scaring the witnesses of the goings on.
What lesson did the "power of the world" get during the "Arab spring?" The answer is monosemous. It received an unambiguous warning that such a thing could happen in any country. It was made clear to the authorities that people, outside of the framework of existing contradictions and disagreements, can be united and directed by some "external force" that has capabilities incomparable with the current level of human civilization. Any person can be affected and changed outside the context of social, ethnic and racial affiliation. It can be either a "bum" or a member of the "world government."
The powers that be were instructed that the only way to exercise power at this stage is to comply with the Law. Any attempts to return to the "traditional ways" of solving problems will be stopped at the level of motivation, and the "initiators" will bear personal responsibility, up to physical elimination.
The world has changed ... :))
Translated by professor Leonid Bilousov
The principle of the realization of the power is based on the division of those over whom this power is established. Since the time of the founders of the theory of class struggle, the bourgeoisie has been trying to control protest moods among the oppressed, in order to avoid the overthrow of its power. So, the theories of "peaceful transfer of power" is just an illusion and a bluff.
Within the framework of a bourgeois society, the System worked out the optimal solution to the process of implementation and transfer of power, based on the competitiveness of two or three political parties, representing, in fact, the interests of the ruling class at large.
The main task is to divide the "controlled majority" into several groups, which are defined by their belonging to parties and movements, thereby creating an illusion of the reality of an irreconcilable struggle between them for gaining the opportunity to exercise authoritative powers. In the mass consciousness, there is formed an impression that the "democratic will" occurs from delegating the plurality of voters' "responsibility of choosing" to a specific elected person, who will participate in the process of exercising power on behalf of those who elected him.
In fact, the "elected," having received a "mandate for power," is free to act as s/he sees fit. This is how the trust of voters is foully violated. That's what "democracy" in the mind of the people in power is. The "controlled majority" is not able to influence the process of exercising power through the election system because of the lack of an "influence mechanism" as such. It is also worth mentioning the fact that the personalities of the "elected" are proposed by the "controlling minority," which holds power firmly in its hands.
It turns out that the only option for gaining power by a "controlled majority" is to overthrow the power of the "controlling minority." The powers that be are aware of this, and therefore are taking action to prevent it. The "facade of the present power" is being changed, but its essence remains unchanged. Due to such factors as the processes of globalization and the existence of the "world government," it is not possible to realize the transfer of power from the "controlling minority" to the "controlled majority," which means that "current" powers that be have no reason to worry about their future. The only thing that is possible with respect to "personalities in power" is to remove them from it by "competitors" claiming the same place.
But recently things have changed. What yesterday the powers that be could easily and simply realize, today can be difficult or impossible to be done at all. The reason for this was the phenomenon of the presence of actions of the "external order," which are planetary in nature and have no analogues within the framework of human experience. The global character of the goings on the powers that be could observe during the events of the "Arab spring."
What did the US military, and, after them, the representatives of the NATO see? It's even hard to imagine. First of all, we are talking directly about those military sub-units and units, which forces were supposed to conduct "pacification of recalcitrant" and invasion of the sovereign states' territories. Let us remember, how it was in Iraq: a ground operation of troops with both aviation and missile and artillery powerful support, which was conducted steadily and straightforward.
Something similar was going to happen in Libya, but it did not take place.
The special forces of the US Army were the first to hit the ground, but that’s where their participation in the operation ended. The reason was the command's loss of control over the landing force, as well as the loss of combat capability at the individual level by each of the marines after landing. But as soon as the special forces left the territory of the country, the “influence” passed away. The nature of this phenomenon had remained a mystery for the Pentagon.
Under such circumstances, the regular units' deployment couldn't be carried out a priori. All information about the incident was classified, and the primacy in fighting was transmitted (without explanation) to the NATO forces. It were they who had to experience the force of the "external influence", which could not be determined by the origin, that had for a second time manifested itself forcing the NATO forces to refuse from conducting ground operations.
From that moment on, there had begun an unprecedented operation to cover up information about happenings on the territory of Libya, which lasted about 9 months. The bet was made to inflate the conflict between individual groups of the country's population on the basis of interethnic and religious "disagreements." So, there were formed the forces of "opposition" to counter the forces of Gaddafi. In order to "visualize" the picture of "hostilities," it was decided to strike missiles on the positions of "opposing" sides, which constantly sought to agree among themselves. Thus, in Libya, there was provoked a civil war, which result was the fall of the regime.
True, there was not much sense in this, because neither the US nor the NATO could control the development of events in the country, and the "traditional" way of entering the troops for the purpose of occupation was clearly not successful, although only this, according to the "interested parties from outside," could stop the "division of power" within the country. The consequence of the events in Libya was the decision of the US command to withdraw troops from Iraq.
No less important was the fact that experts from the United States and other participating countries were able to see, assessing the events of the "Arab Spring" outside the boundaries of state borders, how under the "external influence" large masses of the population of many countries carried out concerted actions to maneuver and seize strategic facilities and institutions of the power. Clearly, there was felt the presence of a certain "coordinating principle." The lack of aggression, unusual in such situations, as well as of strive for robbery and pogroms on the part of the "protest movement" has been scaring the witnesses of the goings on.
What lesson did the "power of the world" get during the "Arab spring?" The answer is monosemous. It received an unambiguous warning that such a thing could happen in any country. It was made clear to the authorities that people, outside of the framework of existing contradictions and disagreements, can be united and directed by some "external force" that has capabilities incomparable with the current level of human civilization. Any person can be affected and changed outside the context of social, ethnic and racial affiliation. It can be either a "bum" or a member of the "world government."
The powers that be were instructed that the only way to exercise power at this stage is to comply with the Law. Any attempts to return to the "traditional ways" of solving problems will be stopped at the level of motivation, and the "initiators" will bear personal responsibility, up to physical elimination.
The world has changed ... :))
Translated by professor Leonid Bilousov