D. Galkovsky: "Good Bye, America!"
Originally published in 2014 on Dmitry Galkovsky's blog.
Good Bye, America!
I ended my last post about Ukraine on this note:
"Ultimately, it is America itself that is "on the cusp" and the question of the future world hegemon is now being decided. It turns out that the U.S. is not fit for this role AT ALL.”
People have asked me to expand on this thesis.
We live in an era of globalization, that is, the transition of humanity to the supranational stage of history. This is as radical a change as the transition from the polis system to the system of full-fledged nation states. Just as the first phase of nation-states were unions of cities, the first phase of the supra-state must be the creation of a super-hegemon, that is, a mono-superpower.
As nation-states struggled for existence, they became increasingly large, and by the end of World War I there were only a few hyper-states on Earth, occupying vast territories and concentrating huge populations. (In the case of Great Britain, for example, 22% of all landmass and 25% of the earth's population.)
This process continued even further. The seeming fragmentation that began after 1945 was only a by-product of the further consolidation of the major players and a greater disguise of actual control over the territories. Those interested can easily trace how the fictitious independence of, say, Australia or Canada developed. More precisely, the "kingdom of Australia" and the "kingdom of Canada". Or read about the "Franc Zone" in Africa.
By 1914, there were 10 major military powers in the world (England, Germany, France, Russia, Austria-Hungary, Italy, Turkey, USA, Japan, China). By 1918 there were 8 of them left, Austria-Hungary and Turkey fell off the rail. By 1945, Germany, Italy and Japan had fallen. There were five left. During the atomic era they all acquired nuclear weapons, but 98% of them were concentrated in the US and Russia. After 1991 the role of atomic weapons declined, the nuclear clinch was dissolved, and the qualitative and quantitative predominance of conventional weapons began to decide everything once more. Now the United States spends more on defense than all other countries combined, the entire world is covered by American bases and America's military strength is estimated at 85-90% of the combined power of all the armies of the world. (In 2010, for example, the U.S. spent $700 billion on defense, followed by China at $120 billion, England, France, Russia, and Japan at $60 billion, and so on down the line.)
Thus, for the first time in world history (since the brilliant and semi-virtual empire of the Roman Neanderthals), a phase of absolute military hegemony has been achieved.
True, things are not going so well with the economy. The top ten countries by GDP (in trillions of dollars) are as follows:
1.EU 16.092 - 19.36%
2.USA 15,684 - 18,86%
4.India 4,684- 5,63%
5.Japan 4,628- 5.57%
6.Russia 2,513- 3,02%
Brazil 2,356- 2,83% 8.
8.Mexico 1,759- 2.12%
9. South Korea 1,614- 1.94% 10.
10.Canada 1.488 -1.79%
-Ten - 76.04%
-Total -83,140 -100%
The USA is already falling behind the EU, and China is right on its heels. The dynamic is very bad, because 20 years ago America had 24% of world GDP, the newly constituted EU had 23.5%, and Japan was third with a big gap of 10%.
This year, the PRC surpassed the U.S. in energy production. Energy production is no longer an absolute, but still a very serious and reliable indicator of economic power. China produced 5.4 trillion kilowatt-hours, the USA 4.3, the EU 3.3, and Japan, India and Russia 1.1 each. 5.4 trillion is a quarter of global production.
However, it should be kept in mind that the EU is a loose entity, in fact a conglomerate of states with several centers of government (similar to the powerless "Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation"). As for China, it lags far behind the European level of science and technology, while the U.S. has pulled ahead even in comparison with Europe. Recall that the most advanced industries, like railroads, then automobiles, airplanes and rockets, came first in Europe. But the personal computer and modern robotics are almost exclusively the domain of the United States. Europe is only catching up, sometimes lagging behind the Far East. In the near future, robots will become a self-reproducing basis for industrial production, so the USA has the brightest prospects.
The U.S. has a huge metropolis, and the system of bases and aircraft carriers allows the Americans to be present everywhere. The population size is also more than sufficient for world domination, even without taking into account the coming robotization. The small British and French ruled vast territories with immeasurably inferior means of communication.
Moreover. No one wants to seriously resist the super-hegemony. For one thing, reasonable submission to a SUPERpower is honorable, and most importantly, the civilized world has long since matured to the stage of global unification.
Those who babble about a "multipolar world" are backward philistines. No one on Earth needs "multipolarity." What is needed is Eternal Peace, global standardization, a just World Court, a gradual transition to world citizenship and the implementation of global economic projects achievable only through the combined power of the earth's economy (for example, a world energy network or a unified global transport system).
These are such Gifts that they are worth tolerating some restriction of national sovereignty, and the fact that the world language is going to be English and not French or Russian. Mistakes and excesses can be easily forgiven. After all, it is clear that the task of a mega-hegemon is self-contradictory. While building a world state, it simultaneously buries itself in the ground and constantly transgresses nationalist fetishes and stereotypes.
In general, not much is required of a planetary czar-state. Absolute military superiority and relative (let's say) economic power need to be accompanied by a little goodwill. Namely, such a state must
1. be not petty and patient, sometimes to the point of acquiescence. This is the tactic of any empire.
In this sense, the Moscow fools who paid Kiev huge sums of money for Sevastopol which rightfully belonged to them anyway, and who put the entire Ukrainian economy on a permanent and free feeding enema, were absolutely right. They only forgot that in order to conduct such a broad policy at the expense of their own population, you have to be 10 times richer, and the beneficiary dependent has to be, in addition, 5 times smaller. Otherwise, he might break the crib and spit a gallon of vomit in your face. It's the size that saves one from rudeness. A pig can be rude, but a siskin can't. Ukraine was big even for the USSR, but for the weak Russian Federation this piggy is altogether too much.
2. (Directly arising from 1). The ruler of the world must be just. TRULY just. He must act justly, even to his own immediate disadvantage and really UNDERSTANDING what and whom he is judging.
3. The ruler of the world must ensure external ORDER. Violation must be punished quickly, with ironclad consistency and with one hundred percent efficiency. So that one or two or three examples will be enough for a century. And the basis of this activity must be a peace that ensures fair (that is, in today's world - national) borders.
4. (Directly related to 3) The ruler must ensure in his hyper-state – insofar as it still exists - exemplary internal order. So that any inhabitant of the world could come and marvel at how the Adults are living.
Now what have we seen in America in recent years, and what have we seen this year.
1. „Forgiving politics“.
I’ll give just one example. In 1903, the United States leased the Guantanamo Bay naval base from the young Cuban Republic on quite humiliating terms. The Americans were obligated to pay several thousand dollars a year in today's money for the lease. At the same time, the contract was open-ended and subject to termination only by mutual agreement of the parties. Such a contract was quite common at the time and was seen by the Americans either as a prelude to a full annexation of Cuba, or as a reasonable payment for Cuba's continued technical independence.
The treaty was constantly challenged by the Cuban side and caused Cuban-American relations to deteriorate more and more. After Castro came to power, Cuba refused to accept the bullshit rent (indeed, even a token payment of $1 would have looked much more decent) and declared its desire to denounce the treaty. The Americans were stubborn, although in the era of aircraft carriers the importance of the base was small, and its distance from the U.S. coast in terms of the 60's was tiny. As a result, Castro signed a military agreement with the Soviet Union and led a decades-long anti-American propaganda war among Latinos.
Formally, the U.S. acted rightly, and maybe in the context of the global confrontation with the USSR, correctly, but times have changed, the Cold War is a thing of the past. So what about Guantanamo? It's all the same. The American flag still proudly flies above the tribute from colonial 1903. Proudly. "We have won a cyclopean military victory." An international prison with unclear status has been opened at Guantanamo. The Cubans reasonably stated that it was a misuse of the base, since the treaty forbids any activity there other than strictly military. Obama, reluctantly, admitted his mistake, and even signed an agreement to close the prison (by that time, the good Europeans had turned the word “Guantanamo” into a slur). What happened next? Nothing - the prison is still there. Proudly.
The Americans could have at least raised the rent to $50-100 million dollars. That's how much such a thing is worth, and that would be a lot of money for Cuba.
What is the point? I repeat, from a military point of view, the base is absolutely unnecessary. It did not and does not exert political pressure on Havana. On the contrary, it strengthens the regime, because the Cubans are in their own right. After all, the US has not annexed or bought the territory, it is Cuban, according to their own words. Yes, the treaty mentions mutual consent. But any freshman law student will explain to you that the American position is unconscionable. You rent a house indefinitely for a nominal fee, and the contract says you can't break the deal without mutual consent. But under the same contract, no one forbids the owner from stating his disagreement with the terms of the deal. So it's his word against yours. You're in favor, he's against. Who is more right? Obviously, the owner. Because he is the owner, and he does NOT want you in his house. The whole neighborhood will be on his side, so will his children. Even your kids won't take your side, they don't want to be embarrassed. In addition, you pay for the house one hundred thousandth of its value, the contract was made a long time ago and signed under obvious pressure. In general, this kind of relationship is not welcomed these days. It's a typical "non-deal", when a man is held at knife point and signs a contract to sell his fur coat for one dollar.
That's not enough. Different things happen in politics, and there are situations in which the American behavior in Guantanamo would be justified. For example, Russia in the 90's should have behaved like this towards Sevastopol - get it, Kuchma, for an indefinite lease of 300 rubles a year, and a free ticket for your grandson to the Kremlin Christmas party. And if you don't agree, you'll have such a coup d’état that you'd be glad of a 20-year hard labor sentence. Because the dispute is petty, unjust, local, with a parasite, and most importantly, a dispute between the weak and the very weak. The weak cannot show weakness.
And how did it all turn out? That Sevastopol, paid for by the Russians a hundred years in advance, indeed, unlike the base at Guantanamo Bay, a city and port of national military glory, the Americans decided to snatch for themselves. In the sneakiest method of a low stinking ferret. In the style of “I am Guatemala, there was an island by Honduras, and now it's ours”. Now shut up.
Is that "imperial politics"? I doubt it. If it's the behavior of an empire, it's the behavior of a Central African empire. And the whole world gets a front seat to watch it. When every piece of paper is visible on the stage.
2. “World Arbitrator“.
Americans have long had their own view of Ukraine and Russian-Ukrainian relations. It is extremely one-sided.
First of all, for some reason Americans, like children, began to believe Zbigniew Kazimirovich Brzezinski, a native of the city of Kharkov, and for 40 years have looked at the world through his eyes. It didn't occur to Americans that for all his intelligence, diligence and devotion to America, he was not an American, but a small, resentful European with an inferiority complex towards one great nation and passing off his perception of that nation as immutable truth. The perception is true, but only to the extent that any caricature is true. In such cases it is useful to listen to the opinion of the other side, or better yet, to the opinion of independent experts. Building relations with Armenians based solely on Azerbaijani experts on the Armenian issue is a thankless task.
Second, Americans thought they knew Ukrainians well because they identified them with the descendants of Austro-Hungarian citizens who emigrated to the United States and Canada at the beginning of the last century. Although these were people who left not where Americans thought they were from, and who left a hundred years ago.
Not surprisingly, when first confronted with reality, the American picture of the world fell with a bang. Washington even began to talk about Putin's brilliant military operation, which far surpassed the boldest designs of NATO strategists and ensured the instant annexation of Russia's hostile Crimea without firing a single shot. The answer was simple: in Crimea, the Kiev authorities were hated and despised to such an extent that a hint from Moscow was enough for the collapse of Ukrainian statehood.
Now an even bigger surprise to Americans is the self-sacrificing defense of the Donbass. In response to the harsh shouting from Washington, Moscow said it did not understand the indignation of the Americans: it turns out that to satisfy the request of the Crimeans, they should have first waited for a general massacre. Otherwise, why are they breaking into the rescue boat unnecessarily? Okay, the Americans got what they wanted in Donbass. A bloody mess and refugees. There was no polite annexation, now everyone is crying bloody tears and dreaming of joining the motherland as unthinkable happiness. And cursing Obama.
Americans are rubbing their eyes: oh, how cunningly everything is CONSTRUCTED. After all, people can't voluntarily want to go join Russia. What about Brzezinski? Again, here's a grandfather from Oklahoma shouting in Austro-Hungarian dialect:
- Hail Franz Joseph! Beat the Mongol-Muscovites, they make the sign of the cross with three fingers! Glory to Franz Joseph!
Why don't the miners of Donbass love Franz Joseph? He is their emperor, he did so much for them, he fought in Galicia against the Moskal tsar! They bribed people, deceived them through television!
Again, the whole world sits in the front seats and watches everything without binoculars. Now, in 2014. Previously, the USA operated with the poise of a hippo in borderline savage Asia and Africa, and everyone considered Yugoslavia an accidental aberration due to the fall of socialism. Now everyone can see that this is a system and that Americans cannot do things any other way. IN PRINCIPLE. Either they negotiate for two years with some nobody who should just be killed or they kill their only ally.
Putin told them honestly, long before Crimea:
- Guys, I'm on your side. I am not a Russian nationalist and I am afraid of Russian nationalism. The current government in Moscow is the government of the national diasporas of the former Soviet Union, we are not interested in destabilizing the situation. Why are you pushing Ukraine into the EU and into NATO? You don't know these people; they were formed during the Soviet era and it is the Ukrainians who have real anti-Americanism. In Russia people laughed at the anti-American propaganda of the USSR, but in Ukraine they believe in it. And they believe in war propaganda much more than they do in Russia. For them it is Destiny. Ukraine will be split in two and a civil war may break out there. Yanukovich is a great compromise figure, calm down. WHAT ARE YOU DOING? And why do you want to remove me? Do you have a replacement? Do you realize that in Russia, it will not be the Kasparovs and the Gessens who will come to power, but the Russian nationalists who will sweep away all the renegade regimes with a fucking broom? Do you want that? WHAT IS THE REASON?
The reason, as it turned out, is that some creatures do not have binocular vision. In principle. That’s the way a cyclops is built, that’s the way a behaviorist is built. And such people will never rule the world. NEVER. But they will be ruled themselves. And in a historic timeframe, very soon.
3. “World order”
Well, that has already been answered in the previous paragraph. And recent events in Iraq speak for themselves.
In Afghanistan they do so even more eloquently. For the Americans went there after the Soviet failure and decided to show how the Masters do things. They did. Now people in Kabul remember the “shuravi” with nostalgia.
The American operation of the "three bitches" (Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice and Samantha Power) in Libya is a separate question. It's kind of embarrassing to describe it in a blog, which is too serious a resource for that. It’s material for a comedy show.
The American in international affairs after the Bipolar War of 1945-1991 is a drunk rabbit that has lost the fear of God. "Have you had any construction accidents? - No. - You will."
Whatever a fool does, he does it all wrong. And in 2014, our fool has forced himself into a big European country and is pushing for a head-on collision with nuclear power number two with all his might. These guys are cautious, far-sighted, and responsible. You can trust them.
4. “Internal order”
Recently there was a rumor that the U.S. government attempted to sell fake gold bars of gold-plated tungsten with "authentic" signatures and numbers to China.
A rumor is a rumor, but after the incident, the Germans were concerned about moving their gold reserve, which is stored in America (50% of all gold), back to Berlin. Like, somehow it will be safer. The practice of placing national treasures in another country is fairly common, the Germans had their own considerations (a guarantee against seizure by Soviet troops), there was some "good will" from the invaders, but in any case, the wishes of the owners are satisfied quickly and unconditionally. For obvious reasons. Especially at the international level.
However, the Germans were told that the gold would not be returned.
- How so?
- Just like that.
- We'll think about it in six years. Not yet. Don't worry, it'll be safer with us.
- I see. Can I see my gold?
- What's with the attitude, motherfucker? Didn’t I make it clear? We're renovating in there right now.
- I see. Can I see the repairs?
- Motherfucker, you're annoying. Well, let's go.
The Germans arrived, they were brought to one of several vaults, opened the door. Ahead of them was darkness.
- What's this?
- It's a renovation.
- Why can't I see anything?
- It's far away. There's a tunnel.
- I see. Is it possible to get into the tunnel?
- No, you can't. It's being repaired.
- I see.
This, unlike the Chinese rumors, is a completely proven, DOCUMENTED story.
Here is another example of American “order”.
Where do you think this picture was taken? If you don't know, you'll never guess. This is the center of modern-day Detroit. Detroit used to be one of the richest cities in America, with about two million residents. Now, after thirty years of rule by black mayors, 700,000 remain, a large number of them drug addicts, AIDS, tuberculosis, hepatitis patients. Many parts of the city lie in ruins, others, like the one pictured above, have simply disappeared.
Of course, this is one of the consequences of the decline of automobile production and the transition to the post-industrial era, but the post-industrial era is characterized by the ability to anticipate far ahead and to plan in depth. Detroit, on the other hand, has become a huge crime zone and a social bottom, like Brazil's favelas or, as a closer example, South Africa's cities that were captured by blacks.
The same fate befell New Orleans, which was flooded overnight. Is this a model order?
And might there be an African rapper sitting in an empty Fort Knox right now? Might there be there an empty syringe lying next to him instead of gold bars?
Now people say there was no moon landing, either. You don’t have to believe it, but after Fort Knox and Detroit, you can't help but wonder. It's food for thought. The future rulers of the world have a lot of nerve.
And here we come to the fifth condition for world hegemony.
5. Last, but not least. The superhegemon must be a scion of the cultural hegemony of the earth - that is, of Western civilization. It was Europe that gave the world democracy, modern science and technology. And tolerance for other peoples. Only this kind of cultural identity will force others to side with the superhegemon and recognize its claim to truth. Including non-Western peoples - who have achieved modern successes only through the reception of Western culture and Western technology, and have long been accustomed to seeing the white world as a bastion of EVERYTHING fair and objective. Without the West, China and Japan would still be fighting each other to the death, and a nuclear exchange between China and India would be a matter of time. In the East, 100 years is not a long time - sooner or later they would have figured it out. The Far East, the Middle East, Africa and Latin America understand this very well. Whenever they do not, life clears their minds within a generation.
Are modern Americans European? Obviously not. Is Obama a European? He is a mulatto, born in Honolulu and raised in Indonesia by his Indonesian step-father.
Condoleezza Rice was the U.S. Secretary of State, a black woman who was also an anti-white activist. Little Condoleezza (a made-up African-American name, like Poligraf Sharikov in Bulgakov's "Heart of a Dog") had a friend in elementary school killed by white racists with a bomb and spent a lifetime waging a race war.
Foreign Secretary Colin Powell was also a Negro (a Jamaican one).
Aforementioned Susan Rice, national security advisor and author of the modern concept of American "moral superiority" (no less than that), is also a Negro.
By the way, this doctrine alone puts an end to America's possible global hegemony. It is the ideology of a regional power like Turkey or Iran. When Napoleon was at the height of his fame and issued a decree celebrating the victories at Austerlitz and Jena, he even added a special safeguard clause there: "In speeches and odes it is forbidden to explicitly mention the Emperor". A true ruler of the world must constantly repent of his shortcomings and errors, and ask the world for forgiveness. No other way to be a Roman Pope. You'll end up with another Che Guevara, and that's the best-case scenario.
But I digress.
But it's not just the Negroes, of whom there are a LOT at the top, and who are increasingly making crazy political decisions at their own peril. The fact is that there has long been no distinction between them and the rest of America's politicians. How are Hillary Clinton, Bush Jr. or Clinton any different from African-Americans? NOT AT ALL.
The last generation of white Americans passed away in the 1980s, even though the TENDENCY was clear to forward-thinking Europeans twenty or thirty years earlier.
The great philosopher and expert in psychology (including ethnic psychology) Carl Jung wrote:
Another thing that struck me [in the American] was the great influence of the Negro, a psychological influence naturally, not due to the mixing of blood. The emotional way an American expresses himself, especially the way he laughs, can best be studied in the illustrated supplements of the American papers; the inimitable Teddy Roosevelt laugh is found in its primordial form in the American Negro. The peculiar walk with loose joints, or the swinging of the hips so frequently observed in Americans, also comes from the Negro. American music draws its main inspiration from the Negro, and so does the dance. The expression of religious feeling, the revival meetings, the Holy Rollers and other abnormalities are strongly influenced by the Negro. The vivacity of the average American, which shows itself not only at baseball games but quite particularly in his extraordinary love of talking – the ceaseless gabble of American papers is an eloquent example of this – is scarcely to be derived from his Germanic forefathers, but is far more like the chattering of a Negro village. The almost total lack of privacy and the all-devouring mass sociability remind one of primitive life in open huts, where there is complete identity with all members of the tribe.
Jung, on the basis of his observations, questioned whether Americans could be considered a European people, and Evola predicted many decades before Obama's election that a Negro would eventually become president of the United States.
The point, I repeat, is not Obama, but the fact that they are all black. Of course they are civilized, North American blacks, and not just blacks, but black elites, with prestigious educations.
But still. If something looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and swims like a duck, it's probably a duck. Clinton only quacks and swims, and Obama already looks like a duck. And with him the entire Washington Olympus.
Such is the irony of world history. The U.S. began as the first decolonized country, fought all through history for decolonization and finally became a world leader. The leader... of the third world which they decolonized.
The irony of this is rather sinister. When the morally superior America achieved the collapse of the white state in Southern Africa, the far-sighted and well-informed Anglo-Franco-Dutch gave humanity one last gift: they dismantled and destroyed the South African nuclear weapons.
African-Americans in the U.S. own the world's largest thermonuclear arsenal and the vast majority of conventional weapons. And they foment civil wars among whites. And then forbid them to stop. And this is just the beginning.
The problem is not with the wars ("divide and conquer" is a legitimate strategy), the problem is that American society, American economy, and American skyscrapers were built by OTHER PEOPLE. They were white WASPs or white immigrants from Europe. Negroes and mulattoes were used as (sometimes) necessary manpower. Whether they could build something like this, even using mobilized whites, is UNKNOWN. There are no examples in world history. But very possibly, why not. Only the rest of the world does not want to participate in this experiment. Especially in the face of Negroes accessing thermonuclear weapons. In South Africa, as I said, the question has been solved. Now the whole world is beginning to think about doing something similar with America.
THIS is the aftermath of the Ukrainian Obamiad. A billion Europeans realized that someone is coming for them. Until two years ago, Europeans didn't really want to compete with the United States for world hegemony. "Well, let the Americans do it". It would still end up with a world government and a global Holy Roman Empire where Europeans would dominate. And now people after Detroit and Iraq have seen Ukraine with raving American puppets and Obama laughing in front of the Odessa massacre and phosphorus bombs. So there will be no white hat unification of the world. It will have to be a black hat unification. Without black people. Will it work? It will. It would never work against the American WASPs - they tried it for 200 years and it didn't work. But against blacks, it's easy. The surviving WASPs will be happy to help.
Why did the WASPs themselves fall so swiftly? Probably the American top brass thought it extremely effective to manage defective human material. After all, the bulk of those going to America were natural beggars or broke losers, as well as freaks, thieves, and prostitutes. A man would not go to a faraway land if he had a good life. A judicious combination of strict regulation and connivance made it possible to colonize vast territories and create a great society. It was somehow forgotten that this whole mechanism was designed not just for bad people, but for bad EUROPEAN people. With the Chinese, the Americans realized very quickly that the system didn't work and shut them out of the country. The Indians were killed off altogether. As incapable of connivance. But the Irish, who were notorious troublemakers and criminals, became hereditary POLICEMEN in the United States.
Blacks, then Latinos, were at some point perceived by Americans as "their own" bad people. But they are alien bad people.
What, are these people Europeans? Very doubtful:
Even worse, Americans began to perceive as their own "displaced persons" who had their own CULTURE, hostile to the American one simply because it was un-American. The prime example here is the same Brzezinski. I doubt he would have written his irresponsible rants while living in Warsaw. He would have had pity on the Poles. He had no pity for the American foreigners, just as Condoleezza Rice or Obama had no pity. Mrs. Albright, who also suffered from some immigrant complexes, was of the same ilk. All of these people don't know or like America. It is NOT their native land.
And these people, over the last 30 years, have blown the "American dream" and 200 years of American statehood.
In general, everyone hates Americans now. Everyone has their reasons, Ukraine just was the last drop in the cup of patience. The meaning of a global hegemony is that, despite some degree of military coercion, in general, everyone agrees to it as it is. The Greeks, the Gauls, Carthage, the Egyptians, and the Thracians were all agreeable to Rome with its jurisprudence and perpetual peace. Consensus. So indeed peace there lasted 200 years, and the entire population of the vast empire became Roman citizens. Including Asians and blacks. The rest is history.
Perhaps therein lurks the tragicomic story of the "Pax Americana". Denial and even demonstrative disregard for national particularities paved the way to the throne of world hegemony, but it was so false that the challenger started drooling and saying "waa-waa" a few steps before his triumph. And now people want to break his neck.
Translation by Russians With Attitude