We are playing the same melody, if we`re not happy, we can`t say `stop` here, it`s impossible. We should go this route to the beginning – to the first note of this symphony. We should ask now: who is the author and began this process of urbanization, who has created trains, liberalism, democracy, progress, missile, computer, nuclear synthesis. Who is the real author? And that is essential: because it was human decision, that wasn`t kind of `natural process`. In one moment of the history we`ve decided to go that way, and now we can just slow it down or accelerate. But why we don`t ask ourselves: are we going the right direction from the beginning? Was this decision right one? We should go back to this moment, to the beginning of this melody – that is my idea. It could be too late, to wake up with robots around, perfect tax-payers, making democratic decisions, sending each other SMS messages from robot to robot... The conversation between robots is already possible, in neuro-network the special language is possible, during the conversation two computer have recently created the language without knowledge of the operator. So, they will replace us easily.

There is a second agenda the US has concerning Europe. There is official, open American agenda – US wants to continue the liberal strategy of the integration of Europe within the existing framework. America will continue to proceed with this as long as everything is going well. However, the second agenda is much more radical – an emergency or alternative agenda. This agenda would entail the American instigation of a civil war in Europe. The real state of things (rather than at the propaganda level) would be that mass immigration provokes more and more of a reaction, anti-systemic parties and groups start to gain power and influence, gender politics start to be rejected, and the middle class continues to decline. This wouldn’t fit with what we hear, so it makes sense that there would be another agenda of the US concerning Europe. There is a growing interest in the US and above all Israel in funding and influencing the far right movement in Europe, the identitarian movement being the most obvious example. 

Hi, my name is Mark Sleboda, and I will be your English language commentator for this section of GRANews, a segment called 'Dissent'.
In this, the time we are living in, it is often difficult, even with the seemingly unending diversity and plentitude of the internet, to find reliable sources of information amid the sea of deceit and disinformation, that the Western Mainstream Media spills into our heads. A veritable 'Tyranny of Choice' indeed. But it is difficult to find perspectives and voices that stray from the narrative of Western governments and the Western MSM. This segment is about deconstructing and dissenting from that tyrannical narrative. I hope to provide an alternative analysis and perspective of International Relations, crises and events informed from a distinctly non-Western perspective. This is our revolutionary act of 'Dissent' from the Western narrative.
Does this mean that 'Dissent' claims to be an 'objective' source of truth that you can trust implicitly? Certainly not. Such a thing does not exist. All media and theory are biased by national, ideological, religious, and economic interests and paradigms. If I may paraphrase Robert Cox, all theory (and media) 'is for someone and for some purpose'. 'Dissent' will strive to examine and deconstruct Western discourse of international relations, crises, and events, and present an alternative non-Western point of view. As with any other source of news and analysis, it is left to you to consider the arguments I raise, verify and compare them with alternate sources and perspectives, and in the end make up your own mind. I simply aim to present an oft unheard and alternative perspective from that presented by the Western government, MSM, and analyst narrative, as if from 'the Other'. Today I will be painting a broad brush stroke of the themes that the segment 'Dissent' will be exploring in the future.

Does financial capitalism represent just a random variant of the common essence of the development of the capitalist system ? Or is it rather the definitive incarnation of its whole logic, its triumph ?

The answer to this question can not be found within the classics of economic theory, their horizon being limited to the industrial phase of development - the general trend and the full economic significance of which they (and above all the Marxists) did investigate completely and correctly. Post-industrial society is still in many ways an obscure reality.  
In its analysis there are no adfirmed classics, although many authors have cast a deep-searching look upon this phenomenon. The task of understanding "financism" is ours, whether we like it or not.

Even to move the first steps in the direction of a consistent overview of this theme, we have to consider the whole history of the economic paradigm, and individuate there the place of "financism"- not just from  the point of view of quantitative chronology, but from the point of view of the qualitative relevance of this phenomenon in the general development of economic models.

Based on this fact, I have put forward the following idea: since there are two types of people with polar ideologies, the conservatives and the liberals, in our society, we, as the conservatives, in order to influence the educational and information policy, need to have at our disposal half of the broadcast instruments, half of the educational institutes and half of media expert Community. We, the conservatives, are actually a large part of society, but in the media environment we are the minority, and this discrepancy,  injustice, and usurpation of the powerful discourse concerning the principles and values by the liberals should be eliminated. My ideas were  approved  by everyone in the Club. Someone started to say that we need more than 50%, others - that we need to somehow appear in the  field of ideology and information, but the general direction was totally supported. All agreed that we, conservatives, have to go to the counter.

By the end of the nineteenth century, however, adjustments had to be made to the purely economic logic of society’s regulation and reproduction. These adjustments were less the result of conservative resistance than of the internal contradictions of the new social configuration. Sociology itself arose from real society’s resistance to political and institutional changes as well as those who invoked a “natural order” to denounce the formal and artificial character of the new mode of social regulation. For the first sociologists, the rise of individualism hatched a double fear: of “anomie” resulting from the disintegration of social bonds (Émile Durkheim) and of the “crowd” made up of atomized individuals suddenly brought together in an uncontrollable “mass” (Gustave Le Bon or Gabriel Tarde, both of whom reduce the analysis of social facts to “psychology”). The first finds an echo among counter-revolutionary thinkers in particular. The second is mainly perceptible among the bourgeoisie concerned above all with protecting itself from the “dangerous classes.”

While the nation-state supported and instituted the market, antagonism between liberalism and the “public sector” grew in tandem. Liberals never cease fulminating against the welfare state, without realizing that it is precisely the market’s extension that necessitates ever-increasing state intervention. The man whose labor is subject solely to the market’s play is indeed vulnerable, for his labor might find no takers or have no value. Modern individualism, moreover, destroyed the organic relations of proximity, which were above all relations of mutual aid and reciprocal solidarity, thus destroying old forms of social protection. While regulating supply and demand, the market does not regulate social relations, but on the contrary disorganizes them, if only because it does not take into account demands for which one cannot pay. The rise of the welfare state then becomes a necessity, since it is the only power able to correct the most glaring imbalances and attenuate the most obvious distresses.

After the Gulf War, almost all mass media outlets in Russia, as well as in the West, injected into the common speak the formula "New World Order," coined by George Bush, and then used by other politicians including Gorbachev and Yeltsin. The New World Order, based on the establishment of a One World Government, as has been candidly admitted by odeologists of the Trilateral Commission and Bildenburg, is not simply a question of politico-economic domination of a certain "occult" ruling clique of international bankers. This "Order" bases itself on the victory on a global scale of a certain special ideology, and so the concept concerns not only instruments of power, but also "ideological revolution," a "coup d'etat" consciousness, "new thinking." Vagueness of formulations, constant secretiveness and cautiousness, deliberate mysteriousness of the mondialists do not allow, until the last moment, to clearly discern the contour of this new ideology, which they decided to impose on the peoples of the world. And only after Iraq, as if following somebody's orders, certain bans were take off and multiple publications appeared, which began to call things by their own names. So, let us try, on the basis of analysis conducted by a group of employees of the editorial board of "Elements," to, in the most general terms, define the basics of the ideology of the New World Order.