Red. Fundamentalism. Almaz Braev

Чтение книги онлайн.

      If you deal with traditional people, you are not protected from betrayal again. The Zerefs want to dominate simply by culture. Genetically, they would like to become a ruling caste again.

      Chapter 11

      There will be no more Stalinism

      The Italian cynic and sage Machiavelli said that there are states where it is difficult to take power but easy to keep. And there are states where power is quickly taken, but it is difficult to keep. I do not know what type of society Asiopa belongs to; it is most likely Asian. This means that it is difficult to take power, but it is easy to keep it. Such society, cultural underdevelopment, and tradition will do everything for any dictator. The main thing is to take power. Then he will be deified, even during his lifetime. He will even be cursed, most likely after death (and so it is; this practice is a struggle for the sanctity of any new father of the nation), and then descendants will raise him on the shield again, at least in dreams. And so on, all that is characteristic of Eastern despotism.

      Then I asked myself the question: why are despotisms the same everywhere? There are similarities with other countries and continents not only in Asia; historical facts are connected by an invisible similarity but disconnected in time.

      And then I realized that all folks go through the same growing-up practice. These are the traditional peoples that multiply tirelessly. They multiply so diligently that they don’t have time to think. There is no time for them to raise their head and look around. This means they are not prepared for circumstances by regime, tyranny, climate, or tradition. Tradition is the most important reason for what follows what and what sequence. All dictatorships are the tips of folk culture. Fathers – family tyrants tyrannize and subjugate their loved ones, first of all, their wives and children. This paternal crowd of all fathers ends with the obligatory father of the nation, the father of all local fathers.

      By the way, the modern “dictatorship of the proletariat” question also depends on the next large family and the number of heirs for some kind of conditional profit (previously, it was land, a piece, a plot of land). As you understand, there has been a Cultural Revolution and industrial modernization in the world today. This means that the cultured urbanized population does not set the old tasks: building a house and having numerous heirs. It’s just not possible. The population cannot consume and give birth at the same time. Which of these two collective actions: either consumption and self-love or work for the benefit of all? Although there are Asian countries after the USSR where the elite “works” (rather engaged in corruption, in simple terms, steals) for the benefit of their families: they work and consume equally. There is no future for such regimes. These are the spoils of fate for them. They parasitize other people’s work and other people’s inventions. On the work of past hardworking generations (the Soviet generation is meant) and modern technologies, the population can’t tell them anything because family and children are first among traditional peoples. Although there are activists who shout, “Down with corrupt thieves”! But these activists are just a fashion statement; culturally, they are alien to these words. They immediately return to the cultural code when you let them near the feeder. The opposition consists of former officials who lost the privatization or stole too big a piece (out of rank). There is no need to talk about the conditional “rabble”. There is an eastern parable about a dragon on this score. Therefore, local screamers cannot be trusted in any way. Accordingly, local screamers cannot be charged in any way because of the cultural code. But such people can pretend to be socialists. In short, all socialists are former traditional people. It cannot be said that they are from large families. If Marx had not invented his scientific socialism, they would have been just rebels on principle (although traditional people have no principles). The main principle here is to build a house and produce heirs. If the heirs are unlucky, they will …). The medieval clan struggle often turns into politics, and one clan may even be called socialist, but this is not the case. Europe solved this problem in the fields of the First World War. All socialists, also nationalists, and other leftists and rightists as extra people died there. Therefore, Europe did not need Marx.

      But there are still traditional peoples in Asia and Africa. They could repeat the path of peasant socialism (the Jamahiriya and the like with their local specifics). However, information despotism prevents a real clan brawl from breaking out. However, in Libya, it does not interfere at all. However, some cranks call someone socialist and see the “dictatorship of the proletariat.” Marx did not study tradition at all. Therefore, Marxism lost.

      So, for Stalinism, a total traditional population is required, which has multiplied according to the precepts of antiquity, and there are not enough places (land, inheritance, goods) for everyone. Malthus, help us!

      Chapter 12

      The main ideology of the world

      One of my friends told me about such a case. A professor of microbiology and an Indian met once.