Post in social webs

A- A A+

G-Zero world and Putin

Saturday, 30 March 2013 16:36 | Hits: 105125 |

Mysterious list

The release of an article in the Foreign Policy (FP) journal issue has made a furor in Russian mass-media. The FP issue stated that Vladimir Putin (Russian president) is the number one in the rating of the most powerful people in the world of the year 2012. The 0th place was taken by the mysterious Mister Nobody.

BBC hastened to disprove this statement:

The article highlights that if such rating would ever be constructed, then it would not have been headed by an american.

Recently Russian news agencies have published that Foreign Policy journal named the Russian president the most powerful political, business and public person of the planet [1].»

However, this fact is not as interesting, as the explanation of it. Even more interesting is how the actual list of Ian Bremmer looks like:

«In Bremmer’s list Putin took second place, the first did not get anyone [1].»

"1. Nobody — In a G-Zero world, everyone is waiting for someone else to shoulder responsibility for the world's toughest and most dangerous challenges. The leaders you'll see named further down this list are preoccupied with local and regional problems and don't have the interest and leverage needed to take on a growing list of transnational problems [2]."

This is how the term G-Zero world (G-zero world) is explained in Wikipedia [3]:

"The term G-Zero world refers to an emerging vacuum of power in international politics created by a decline of Western influence and the domestic focus of the governments of developing states.

The term G-Zero was first coined by political scientists Ian Bremmer and David Gordon. G-Zero became the main theme of Ian Bremmer's book, Every Nation for Itself: Winners and Losers in a G-Zero World (Portfolio, May 2012).

It is a reference to a perceived shift away from the pre-eminence of the Group of Seven industrialized countries and the expanded Group of Twenty, which includes major emerging powers like China, India, Brazil, Turkey and others. It is also a rejection of terms like G2, often used to identify a possible strategic partnership between the US and Chinese governments, or G3, which represents an attempt to align US, European and Japanese interests to defend free market democracy from the rise of Chinese-inspired state-dominated capitalism".

Mysterious Mr.Nobody

A person ignorant of the global international issues may think that Ian Bremmer wrote a truthful list. If we consider public politics, no one seems to be carrying a single global political line. It seems that none of the people listed have any leverage on global issues.

However, the thoughtful reader must ask: are there people with the necessary leverage on global politics and are excluded from the list?

The answer to this question is yes, there are such people, and they were not excluded from the list. Rather, they were in it, but so that the common (uninitiated in the secret) people would not understand this.

The term "G-Zero world" can be loosely interpreted as "The world of invisible government".

Here it is necessary to recall the Greek myth of Odysseus, who blinded Polyphemus the Cyclops, who believed his own belly to be the god, and then introduced himself as "No one." In the myth, blind Polyphemus asks for help and the other Cyclopes ask: "Who hurt you?" Polyphemus replies: "No one" — and the other Cyclops go back calmed.

In the same way Ian Bremmer points out that in a world so far, no politician (or group of politicians) have not risen to a level for the necessary global politics leverage to be in their hands. Which leaves the first place in the global politics for the "Mysterious Mr. Nobody ", "zero group" or "no government".

However, Ian tied Vladimir Putin to the second place:

"2. Vladimir Putin — In Russia's personalized system, this is still the person who counts. He isn't as popular as he used to be, and his country has no Soviet-scale clout or influence, but no one on the planet has consolidated more domestic and regional power than Putin [2]."

This is no accident. Indeed all of the public politicians, Putin is the only one whose actions can not be understood by ordinary thought, hence constant and acute question: "Who are you Mr. Putin?" The roots of this confusion arise from failure to understand the current levels and principles of politics.

Non-existing policy

Practically all political observers as part of their analysis do not go beyond the scope of two types of policies:

Domestic policy — activity implementing objectives of the ruling class of the state on its territory within its jurisdiction.

Foreign policy — activity implementing the objectives of the ruling class of the state outside its territory and jurisdiction.

However, there are activities that do not fit into these two types. Separate political entities throughout history aimed at the whole world. And this kind of politics is called:

Global policy — activity implementing the goals regarding all humanity and the planet Earth.

The activity of any politician, political party, corporation, state, and any person or group of people in general can be expanded into these three types of policies.

For the layman world today is unpredictable because they only see two types of policies. But if they had included in the circle of ideas global politics, they would have seen that at the global level, there is the leverage and interest of certain groups of people to carry out the global power.

Like the Cyclopes, who do not see Odysseus act, hearing Polyphemus’ response, "No one" — to the question: "Who hurt you?" — the crowd does not see the acting powers in the society behind the information noise.

Therefore, the person holding the third place is not accidental:

"3. Ben Bernanke — The world's largest economy is still struggling to find its footing. To help, no one has more levers to pull and buttons to push. The world needs the US economy back on its feet, and Bernanke has more direct influence than anyone else on when and how that happens [2]".

Bernanke came in third place, because he is the head of the US Federal Reserve, through which the dollar supply is managed, and hence financial systems of countries tied to the dollar. But we should not deceive ourselves about Bernanke’s role in the Federal Reserve. The federal system has a board of directors, which is selected in secret by unknown [4].

In 2010 the representatives of the G-0 made an offer through the British Parliament Lord Blackheath, granting financial aid in the amount of £ 5 trillion.[5]

Necessary comparisons

"4. Angela Merkel — For the moment, her commitments are the glue that binds Europe. Merkel's ability to bankroll Europe's emergency funds, win concessions from the governments of cash-strapped peripherals, and maintain solid popularity at home continues to be a remarkable political and policy achievement [2]."

German Chancellor came fourth on the list because Germany is an industry leader in Europe, the fourth country in the world by economic power, Europe’s heart. The fate of half of the Eurasian continent depends on policies of this country. The actions of Germany today will determine whether Europe will still be under Western influence, or go through alternative development.

In this sense, Germany is truly unique, as it consists of two: former West Germany (Federal Republic of Germany), which developed the Western way, based on the ideas of bourgeois liberalism, and the former GDR (German Democratic Republic) — developed under the ideological influence of the Soviet Union.

The whole of Germany is able to compare the principles of Western civilization with their alternative. No other country of the West has this unique opportunity. That is why Angela Merkel is positioned higher on the list than Barack Obama.

"5. Barack Obama — Even at a time when Washington is focused almost entirely on Washington, the elected leader of the world's most powerful and influential country carries a lot of water. The Obama administration will watch the eurozone from the sidelines and keep commitments in the Middle East to a minimum, but America will continue to broaden and deepen security and commercial relationships in East Asia, and Obama's decisions on how far and how fast to move will be crucial [2]."

If we evaluate the book "The Audacity of Hope" [6], written for Obama, we can say that someone is making US ready for a dialogue about principles of the Western civilization, and in particular to the conversation on the subject of changing bourgeois liberalism with something else. It was not done in vain that the first Obama's election slogan was ”Change, we can”. Changing the US will be more difficult than other countries, but in its history, there were examples of politicians adequate to their situations, ready to make the necessary changes.

Conversation so close and so far

Today, apparently, the West faces the challenge of convergence — the development of the principles of governance, combining the best achievements of socialism and capitalism. This process began in the mid XX century, when the US and the Soviet leadership in the face of Franklin D. Roosevelt and Joseph Stalin, respectively, began the process of convergence, both economic and cultural. Few analysts would agree that the "affluent society" in US, in the 60th, is a kind of "our answer" to the socialist development of USSR.

What is surprising, in this mutual race, was described in USSR by Khrushchev’s saying "to catch up and overtake", was a slow and gradual convergence: such as some policy objectives, and the principles of their implementation. And it would be a great mistake to think that only the West influenced the Soviet Union and contributed to the destruction of "the Evil Empire," won the heavyweight battle of the Cold War and now rules incontestably over the former Soviet Union. USSR also affected the West: the program of free education, free health care, labor unions, and more have been implemented largely due to the introduction of all this in the practice of life in the USSR, "not to lose face". And it's the reverse effect of the Soviet Union on the West, many analysts do not see it, or turn, as they say, "a deaf ear", or are deliberately silent. It should be recognized that the West has also changed under the pressure of the race with the USSR.

Today, when the Iron Curtain is no more, the space for the convergence is cleared. And it is only possible through a conversation — an ongoing dialogue. And Obama, or creators of the text for him, in the book "The Audacity of Hope," is right, the democracy is a conversation. Convergence happens only through dialogue. And apparently, Vladimir Putin, too, is well aware of it.

A very difficult task was set for Obama — to prepare US for the upcoming complex and multifaceted conversation. To do this, the US need to see that the chosen path is a dead end, but it also has to be able to compare their way to an alternative. Germany has the experience to compare to, but the US does not. The United States need to realize how terrible a mistake they can made. Only with the knowledge of wrongdoing self-development begins. And sometimes, without the help of others spotting those can be very hard. In this context a new side of Putin's speech in Munich in 2007 opens. [7]

In general, there are reasons to believe that helping US to realize the mistake of choosing bourgeois liberalism, as a development path with no alternatives, is the task of Barack Obama.

Group swim

Apart from the "Mysterious Mr. Nobody", there is another feature in this list, that is generally characteristic to all Western analytics, made "for the crowd." In the real politics actors are always in groups, whether parties, families, mafia groups or associates. Thus, even Mr. Nobody, by default, is a representative of a group in the Group Zero World. However, Ian Bremmer makes other people on the list singles as well. They, allegedly, solely focus in their hands levers over the future of the world. While Angela Merkel is in many ways represents interests of industrialists in Germany, as well as the Rockefeller clan [8], at the same time. Ben Bernanke, at least — representative of the board of directors of the Federal Reserve, but in general — the world's financial clans[4]. Barack Obama — at least representative of the Democratic Party, as well as some Rothschilds [9,10], sources state.Vladimir Putin, is not only distributing power among several clans, keeps the economy and the political system of Russia, but also interacts with groups that operate around the world [11, 12]. The rest of the list are also members of some groups, clans, the Mafia or transnational corporations. But forgive our colleague this innocent substitution and let us turn to the started fertile topic.

At the meetings, G7, G8, G20, and many others it has been repeatedly said that there should be coherent collective interaction to solve common problems. Since the beginning of the financial crisis, there is constant talk of the need to consolidate efforts, work together to solve problems, and similar "semi-official" statements.

However, when all the while the EU has failed to adopt a single European Union constitution in 2007, developed in 2004 [13]. US can not agree on how to solve the problem of "astronomical US debt", which has become everyone’s talk [14]. What is the stumbling block? After all, as representatives of the Western civilization, they are, seemingly, guided by common principles, the same ideas, and seemingly morally akin to each other. But is that so?

Indeed, the control system in the West and in the newly annexed, after the collapse of the USSR, countries to the western civilization, is deployed under a single concept: inter-regional center, in some form or other, enslaves its periphery, spreads some common morality through the mass-media, movies, television, journalism and promotion of certain ideas. A political system, under pressure of this ideological process, transforms itself with a reform or a revolution.

One of the challenges of inter-regional center is have its management ideologically centralized, that is, to have only one source of the ideology for the whole conglomerate. This type of civilization is called interregional conglomerate [15].

Western civilization, as a whole, is a kind of a super system as well, but developed as a cross-regional conglomerate. In this type of civilization national structures are replaced by a single model of the unified culture.

It could be seen by the typical political system of the Western countries; by the Bologna process in the education systems of the conglomerate countries; by the englishficatation of languages of countries inside of the inter-regional conglomerate or those, which the conglomerate aimed to devour. All these facts show a single conceptually defined management of the western civilization.

But if the management is so well defined, then why the inability to agree on how to consolidate efforts?

The main problem of the conglomerate is when it reaches a certain size, the inter-regional center do not have time to develop the conceptually defined solutions with pace required for its development. In the middle of the XVIII century the conglomerate has chosen a modification of an existing control concept called "bourgeois liberalism" as its ideological weapon. Under the influence of ideas of bourgeois liberalism the mankind in 100 years has caused more damage to the environment than in previous 10,000 years. Moreover, there is another type of civilization, an alternative to the inter-regional conglomerate — multi-regional block. When conglomerate absorbs pieces of multiregional block (its partial or temporary failure), the conglomerate also adds alternative goal vectors, taken from these pieces, to its own goals. Which for the conglomerate seem as inevitable errors in the expansion of its influence. Exactly like that it had incorporated the Baltic countries, East Germany, Romania, Poland and other countries. “Correction" of goal vectors in associated countries takes time, resources, and personnel. And not only that! Because people, who were already inside the conglomerate, may become interested in the purposes and principles which were brought by the new pieces attached. By the various polls upto 70% of young people in East Germany and upto 30% — in Western, and, by different polls, from 40 to 60% in the whole of Germany; the population would like to live under socialism. [16] As a result, the conglomerate needs put effort again to disable the influence of these ideas.

With the constant expansion of the conglomerate, all mentioned resources are becoming deficit and it has to choose: either to spend on the "old parties" to hold its ground, or on the “new parties” to ideologically brainwash them. At the same time, a conglomerate cannot stop its expansion, because, while expanding, it translates a part of its domestic problems onto the newly annexed countries — onto the periphery. Like the US moves a portion of its problems onto Europe by relating euro and dollar. Which has been demonstrated by the financial crisis of 2008. Europe, in turn, relieves some of its problems onto countries of the former Soviet Union, which join the Union after the destruction of the Soviet Union in 1991 [17]. This conglomerate has striking similarity with the serpent-Ouroboros, which is eating itself and the whole planet.

What to do?

Let us refer to the previously mentioned alternative way of civilization development.

Multiregional block differs from a conglomerate by the fact that the choice of the civilizational goal vectors and development of conception of their achievement are not centralized, but are distributed throughout the block. Even if a regional center focuses in its administrative authority over affairs of the whole block, the ideas, goals and individual conceptions to achieve them, are drawn from all over the area of the multiregional block. Therefore cultural diversity is in block’s vital interests. And unlike the conglomerate, which replaces national cultures by a single unified culture, the block supports and participates in development of cultures, and particularly in those parts, that are similar to ideals of this type of civilization.

Expansion of the block is also different than that of the conglomerate. If it breaks the goal vector of the annexed piece and replaces it with goals of the inter-regional center, firstly, the block inscribes the goal vector, close to the ideals of the piece, into its own — adds them to its goal vector. This means in effect, that the block steps on the way of assistance to the piece in achieving these goals by sharing responsibility for them. People are drawn to the one who helps them sincerely. Therefore, joining a multiregional block is a matter of time, necessary for the applicant to self-cleanse internal problems, often associated with the desire of country’s "elites" to fit into a cross-regional conglomerate.

Common people understands preservation of their unique culture and development of civilization much better, as they talk “without equivocation" (frankly, without reserve, directly) and without undue obstacles of "politeness", not with the dry official language of treaties and declarations, but with the simple living word with people from other civilizations [18]. And in the block where the center is in the periphery — lively conversation is the way of civilization development.


[1] Article: Foreign Policy refuted the information about Putin’s rating —

[2] Article: The world's most powerful people —

[3] Article: G-Zero World, Wikipedia —

[4] Analytical brief: Cow gives milk ... To whom and what does the "sacred cow", nicknamed "The U.S. Federal Reserve", give? — (russian language)

[5] Article: conspiratorial "Fund X" wanted to buy the British government? (Whose messengers communicated with a sweet lord?) — (russian language)

[6] The book: Barack Obama. The Audacity of Hope — 

[7] Video: Putin's speech at the Munich Conference (February 10, 2007) — (english subtitles)

[8] Article: Angela Merkel, cared for Chancellor —

[9] Article: V.B. Pavlenko: "Great Game" of Rothschilds and Rockefellers in light and shadow — (russian language)

[10] Short background:

The Rothschilds:

- Closest clans to the "mysterious Nobody".

- Their ideology (or at least supported): Marxism, social democracy (in Belgium and France - in power, in Germany - still rising), pseudo-communism (China). Behind the popularisation of bourgeois liberalism, including through support to spread gay culture and other perversions (via Obama for example).

- Technology-Business: First of all precious metals and gold (hence the bet on China - there are plenty of metals, especially rare earth).

- Economy: The architects and owners of most financial pyramids, and other financial instruments. In accordance with that they set progressive taxes (eg, Hollande in France). Также держат драгоценные металлы и золото (поэтому ставка на Китай — там много металлов, в первую очередь редкоземельных).

- Will format America (because they came to power in the face of Obama).

- Neutral towards Europe (without binding Europe to the dollar). Friendship with Southeast Asia and is likely to sit at the head of China.

- Sold BP (British Petroleum) shares to pro-Russian clans, offering their own version of the Russian convergence.

The Rockefellers:

- "The American Dream" presented by conservative Republicans.

- Their ideology (or at least supported): bourgeois liberalism.

- Anti-Social Democrats.

- Technology-Business: First of all — oil tycoons, holding in their hands the automotive industry and the military-industrial complex of America.

- Economy: support abolition of the progressive tax. When Merkel became the Chancellor, she abolished the progressive scale of tax. Trying to conquer Europe and tie it to the U.S dollar (hence the losses of ThyssenKrupp (metallurgy). Try to discredit the head of the Social Democratic Party of Germany, the same for Hollande in France).

- Lost the election in the face of Romney, where they tried make Rothschild and Obama responsible for the collapse of the U.S.

- Removed the German President, who took steps towards Russia.

- Instead put a person affected by the Stasi as the President of Germany, and hence anti-soviet and anti-Russian.

- Did not sell Opel (General Motors) to Russian clans.

From the article "Mysteries of the World Economy: interest rate, exchange rate and capitalization of expectations":

"A strategic assessment of the principles of extracting wealth from the "power of money" during the passing industrial consumer society XVII - XX centuries suggests three main ways:
1. interest rate, 
2. exchange rate
3. goodwill

In the most general these three way of extracting "wealth out of nothing" in the world’s financial oligarchy (a very complicated pattern of the financial International) in the XIX - XX century were spread as follows:

On loan interest staked the Rockefellers Banking Group.
On the exchange rate - the Rothschild banking group.
And on the "goodwill" — the Vatican's banking group, who, for a long time, forbade interest rate and speculation on the exchange rate of any three items of value (gold - silver — copper, or, for example, the British pound — the Japanese yen — U.S. dollar).

During the Industrial Revolution, the Rockefellers banking group entrenched financial flows from the oil economy and the military-industrial complex.

The Rothschild banking group took control over the world's reserves of precious metals and precious stones, financial pyramid schemes and "liquidity reserves" in the form of drugs (opium).

The banking group for the Vatican gathered the financial flows of the "human capital" and the "knowledge economy". "

Link (russian language):

[11] Analytical brief: About the current situation №5(107), 2012 — The process of conflict escalation of interests in the Russian Federation and the prospects for its solution — (russian language) 

[12] Analytical brief: About the current situation №1(103), 2012 - About the Strategy of Russia's and the World’s future — (russian language) 

[13] Article: The Constitution of the European Union: a history of preparation and reasons for the failure of ratification - Journal of International Law and International Relations, 2009 № 2 — (russian language)

[14] Video: Who do all countries owe to? — (russian language) 

[15] Book: Sufficiently general management theory (courses materials of the Department of Applied Mathematics - Control Processes, St. Petersburg State University (1997 - 2003.) Section 13. Processes in Super System: Possibilities of flow — (russian language)

[16] Article with a survey (in German): The majority of Germans want a socialist state; Mehrheit der Deutschen wünscht sich sozialistischen Staat — 

Another article with statistics (in German): Jeder fünfte Wessi war noch nie im Osten — 

The article (in Russian): nostalgy phenomenon in modern Germany —'gii_v_sovremennoj_Germanii

Quote from the "Spiegel" (translation):

Berlin — for the majority of Germans living in a socialist state is not horrifying
As long as jobs, respect and security are provided - 72% of western and 80% of eastern germans would support life under socialism. Emnid poll quotes newspaper Bild.


Quote from the "Focus" (translation):

1. Every second German wants the return of the education and healthcare systems
2. 50% of respondents said that they were forced to accept the Western political system, 47% are of the opposite opinion
3. Socialism today is still relevant by the opinion of 39% of the eastern and 24% of western Germans

Link (german language):

[17] Article: The decline of global hegemony — (russian language)

[18] To quote from the article "I'm afraid that France comes to suicide":

Konstantin Melnik-Botkin, 84-year-old legend of the international intelligence, coordinator of the intelligence services of France during the de Gaulle government:

“When I was shown the KGB museum, I wrote in the Golden Book of visitors: "The best intelligence agency in the world..

The secret lies in the fact that a Russian man likes to relate to others, and has a genuine interest in them. In addition, the KGB Academy offers its students a very interesting and in some ways a great education. A Russian person has a specific spirit: they are interested in other countries. Whereas the French are only interested in themselves.”

Link (russian language):

Add comment

Security code