For the first time in several months, I turned on the TV last night and watched two analytical programs at once: with Gordon (about Navalny's "poisoning") and with Solovyov (about our diplomacy at the present stage). Actually, I looked at Solovyov exactly because it became interesting to me, will that moment that interested me in Gordon will repeat or not? He repeated why I decided to write this text
The basic problem was, by the way, formulated in both programs: we do not have our own internal discourse for describing events. During the domination of the "liberal" paradigm, we switched to the appropriate language for describing events and, accordingly, all the time we confirm their version of history. Note that up to some time the description of internal events was also liberal, but in the early 2000s, especially with the appearance of the “Russian Doctrine,” this situation was overcome and the liberal description model remained only in the official language of the government. Which, by the way, is an important factor because of which our government strongly dislikes the people: it speaks a liberal language, in which the interests of the people and society, in principle, cannot be described. But back to the main topic.
In the book "Memories of the Future" I tried to describe the current situation precisely from the outside, that is, in illiberal language. And it was this that caused the main protest: they say, why are there different “pseudo-social” constructions in a book on economics, no, in order to describe the economy and not turn aside. And it was impossible not to turn away, because I needed to explain why many, in general, fairly simple questions and constructions, in the modern economic "mainstream" are silent and / or ignored. The notorious Shnobel Prize is an example of this: the economic "mainstream" does not recognize the economic crisis, well, at least you fight.
A similar situation with our reviews: we fundamentally do not use any “special” information, but its interpretation looks rather unexpected against the background of the “mainstream” (however, in recent days the situation has begun to change a little and this, as will be seen below, is not just like that) ... But in any case, I very carefully taught myself to separate the content from the propaganda part in any economic text and, if possible, isolate those moments that were either deliberately obscured, or, on the contrary, defiantly protrude from the foreground.
Therefore, I was very surprised that people who, in general, more or less understand the situation, did not pay attention (despite the fact that, having called back some of them, I was convinced that they saw this problem) those around them that the behavior of our "partners" (possibly after the speech of Lavrov, the former) looks like pure hysteria. From a purely economic point of view, this is understandable: they are not idiots and cannot help but see that the liberal model on behalf of which they are acting no longer works and following its standards creates a stalemate for them. But why do ours indulge them?
Note that all our diplomacy looks weak because it communicates with the West (more precisely, the liberal West) in its own language. And as soon as he starts trying, for example, to talk to Trump in a conservative language, then not only us, but also Trump arrives. Let us note, by the way, that no one in our country (except for Putin, for which he is fiercely hated in the West) can speak publicly and officially, my attempt in the already distant 16 year at least to make a faction in the State Duma conservative failed.
So, the supporters of the paradigm of the "Western" global project (who totally dominate in the West and very seriously in our power structures) find themselves in a situation where their monopoly on the language of describing reality (both economic and socio-political) starts to make them look stupid position. Since this very reality begins to differ strikingly from typical liberal formulas. But even to admit that there are alternative languages for describing reality, liberals cannot, because of which they constantly find themselves in stupid situations, including with Trump, who regularly pokes his nose into emerging inconsistencies. That is why hysteria begins.
And hysteria in such situations always looks the same: instead of discussing this or that reality, they begin to get personal and shout: "Well, how can you discuss serious things with these who ..." Well, further down the list, they poison everyone with war gases, they don't respect " freedom "and" democracy ", falsify election results (I wonder, what are the democrats in the US doing now?) ... And so on. Well, imagine what a petty American expert would look like who would have fled to Russia and began to seriously discuss that Trump was trying to poison him. I personally gave the order. Who would take him seriously? At the same time, they also block attempts to switch to their identities, including literally cleaning up social networks from unwanted information.
So, in this situation it is necessary not to agree to discuss the picture in the liberal model (as did the participants in both programs that I watched), but to reveal in detail the situation both with the problems of the liberal description of reality and describing this reality in alternative languages. And, of course, to show the hysterical background of the actions of the representatives of the liberal West, who, even on their own platform, cannot provide a satisfactory description of the growing problems.
No, I understand the problems of our experts: they are, in one way or another, connected with the authorities and it is not very convenient for them to directly accuse our officials of indulging the liberals. I am an independent person and I don’t get money from anyone, but for them it’s not quite so, and often not at all so. So they are forced to cover up the problems of our officials, who speak a liberal language and thereby automatically substitute our country and our interests. But I consider it necessary to convey this position to the audience, especially since at least 80% of the population of our country is already categorically not ready to recognize the liberal description of current problems.
And in conclusion, already for those who are responsible for security.
As long as the financial and economic bloc of the government and the Central Bank, as well as a significant number of other officials describe the world in a liberal language, it will be impossible to stop Navalny and other provocateurs.
And at the same time, their liberal curators will, as their internal situation worsens, hysteria more and more. Look, in Minsk they are already throwing Molotov cocktails - and so we will, if the liberal model of describing the world is not thrown into the trash. Moreover, it is desirable as hard as possible. I can assure you that hitting the detained youth on the streets is not very effective - but if you start hitting the deputy ministers and heads of departments for using liberal terminology, then the positive effect will appear very quickly!
Afterword. I ask you not to consider the proposal to "beat" the officials as inciting hatred towards them, since I propose to beat them not because they hold positions, but because, in fact, using liberal terminology at the present stage, they incite Russophobia and undermine the foundations of the existing political system in the country.