Алмаз Браев – The Zero Option. A Protocol for Survival Beyond the Fila (страница 2)

And nationalism flourished. Why? Because the Komsomol elites themselves had pointed the way along national-administrative lines in 1991. Financial donors of chaos subsidized new activists throughout the 90s. Initially, nationalism was hidden behind a mask of “democracy,” but it eventually grew into an independent branch, fueled by the number of victims of “reform,” usurpation, and corruption. Constant, permanent advertising eroded every impressionable mind. Temptations poured in from all sides, fueling envy and malice.

The Second Phenomenon

No one has considered why nationalism surged on the periphery of the USSR (the former republics), while in the center of the former empire, a reciprocal chauvinism emerged. It happened because the former were historical “outsiders,” while the latter were the carriers of an imperial code.

Finally, what do we see as the result of these opposing poles meeting? Two factions of the “religion of money” colliding? The masters fight, and the servants suffer… No, it is much more complex than that.

Consider the Civil War of 1917—1921. Class struggle, as the Marxist-Leninist definition goes. But even in the White Army, there were peasants. Representatives of the same village shot at one another. In Artyom Vesely’s Russia Washed in Blood, a son consciously kills his father from across the trench after a brief dialogue. The father saw his career in serving the “master” of the old system; the son saw his career in the leap toward a “new freedom,” free from the routine of serving anyone.

The conclusion: a civil war is a clash not only of classes but of generations. Few understood what Communism or Marxism actually was.

The young “leapers” were later culled by the more modest Stalinists. The Stalinists knew best that revolution brings new opportunities. This is why modern provincial Kazakhs admire the portraits of young Ukrainian ministers: “Look,” they say, “there are no old people in power in Ukraine. We could have had that, too.” We could not. We only need to look in the mirror. The “European Dream” is not entirely ours. Our path will lead to fundamentalism, following the fanaticism of greedy outsiders. Remember? “People grow tired of fanaticism…” We will have the old men again, but in ritual robes. The bourgeoisie and the “upstarts” always want to dream of their youth and the youth of foreign ministers. No, we do not need that kind of youth.

In general, provincials are “outsiders” in a conservative environment (though not all, as the authoritarian regime promotes the obedient). In a market, provincials simply become fanatical about temptations. There are no restrictions, only the regimes of corrupt officials in front of them and the West at their backs. Hence the Maidans, one after another, and then the hegemony of the rural, the aul, the hut. Chaos. And the death of the conservative contingent.

What is the result?

That various philistines, peasants, and penny-pinchers follow ideas? Not exactly. But one must consider the physical side of the question. In a conservative environment, the majority mattered. Whoever had the numbers held the fate of the state. But after the dreams, everyone wants to eat. And the struggle begins.

This explains the certain “slowness” in the new conflict between outsider factions in this hybrid war. These new outsiders are literate, rational people. They weighed the risks and chose to gamble. They could have negotiated across the trenches. On the other hand, where they were gathered by force, many fled, and others are held against their will. (Who holds them by force? Those who have already felt themselves to be “Europeans” with the necessary pedigree.) And yet, while this bloody, irrational “battle of the outsiders” continues, the algorithms of the digital concentration camp are glitching. They cannot calculate a “mad” impulse or chauvinistic fanaticism. They are afraid of the conservative population.

— — —

Chapter 3 The Most Audacious — The Russian Elite. The Shelf-Life of Defiance

The beginning of the 21st century has demonstrated: there are no truly local elites left in the world. Even China, with its 3,500-year history of “waiting it out,” possesses no real authority. Neither the pressure of the Eternal Heaven nor the teachings of Confucius — nor the material interests of modern rulers (and the Chinese are the Jews of the East) — have ever allowed China to mount a global protest. All it has produced in 2,000 years in the way of dissent are local uprisings and the paradox of Zen Buddhism.

The Russians, however, are a different matter.

Although they insist with foaming mouths that they are not of the East but of the West — that they are the “Third Rome, and a fourth there shall not be” — this is demonstrably false. One need not be a scholar to observe the Russian elite and their behavior: it is a fusion of East and West, painted in the colors of Russian audacity. It was precisely the Russian elites who rebelled in 2022; no one else did.

All the global “outsiders,” together with local conservative outsiders, are looking in this direction: will Russia be able to withstand the combined strike of the West, or will it fail? What are these outsiders hoping for? Why do they fix their gaze upon the Russians?

Beginning with the COVID-vaccination operation, the world showed itself to be “dead.” Following lockdowns, the introduction of QR codes, and the mandate of vaccines, every ruler (every elite outsider) was in agreement. The digital concentration camp had acquired — or nearly acquired — the clear outlines of its completion.

And then, suddenly, a disruption. The “upstarts” (from the Western perspective) did not remain silent. Moreover, an ultimatum was issued to the West. (The Russian elites had already behaved strangely before this — by releasing their own vaccine. This meant they had created their own local score in a game meant for one: “We are playing with you, but we are playing by our own rules.”) This meant: “Yes, we have come to you and your pile of money, but we brought our own chairs. We will not sit in your money-castle where we are told to sit. And we will sail away on our own yachts, not yours.”

How are we to interpret this? Is this behavior Eastern or Western? They seem to play the money game and love money — that was clear throughout the 90s and beyond. They bought up real estate in the West, moved their families there, and kept massive sums in bank accounts. And yet: “We will sail away on our own yachts.” Is this not a shock to the masters of the world?

We have already learned what the “East” is through the example of China. China played the Western game and was prepared to keep its population in pre-prepared “containment zones.” No one wore masks longer than the Chinese. China’s financial games and those of the international financiers had penetrated too deeply into the Chinese economy. The Chinese emperors never prioritized their own population. China is interested only in its empire — even if as a financial Western subsidiary. China viewed the COVID war with the West as a “Third Opium War.”

The rest of the world — including Latin America and Africa — viewed this conflict as a continuation of the anti-colonial wars of the past. It resonates in their genetic memory. Therefore, anyone who stands against the colonizers, anyone who makes a stand at all, attracts outsiders with their sheer audacity. The global chamber has once again filled with the air of the mid-20th century.

We have already examined the internal motivation and the reason for the mass flight of the middle class: once a person acquires money, they no longer view local governments as their primary concern. Such people may possess their own “chairs” to sit in the hall of money — at the most despised positions, or even better, outside the hall itself. They watch the “money-mass” from hundreds of miles away and perform rituals through a screen. These people made their “Western choice.” Others did not. This became the cause of civil conflict. Now, what do we — the outsiders of the world — have before us?

We have two “domes” before our eyes.

One is beautiful, called the “Golden Cage.” Highly attractive, pleasant by habit, prestigious, and status-driven. Everyone who could use their own “chairs” to utilize this world does so without hesitation. Give me one day of this! In the Golden Cage, everything is pleasant. Even the end will be golden — prestigious.

The second dome is the “Dome of Audacity.” It is not as pleasant. It is not as comfortable. Within it, the silhouettes of the past are all too evident. People appearing to be the new boyars and feudal lords. Does this picture attract all outsiders? After all, audacity itself ceases to work over time. One needs a more charming picture of the future.

Hence the question: Can the audacious Russians offer a comprehensive alternative?

The world of money has become clear. It ends in a digital concentration camp. Without an alternative vision to the DIGITAL, nothing will succeed. All of this is temporary. The wearing of luxurious beards by the ideologues of the “audacious” does not inspire trust. Every BRICS nation has its own ancient faith. Uniting the old faiths of post-colonial peoples does not provide a single beard that fits everyone. Especially if the ideologues themselves drive foreign cars and wear Western brands.