Autocracy vs. fake. Almaz Braev
Чтение книги онлайн.
Читать онлайн книгу Autocracy vs. fake - Almaz Braev страница 3
Название: Autocracy vs. fake
Автор: Almaz Braev
Издательство: Издательские решения
Жанр: Политика, политология
isbn: 9785005183620
isbn:
Who condemns indirectly?
Who might have forgotten about their family? Or maybe it compares someone else’s family and someone else’s fate? I suspect that the comparison has the appearance of simple greed, otherwise there are no other motives in the tradition. An indirect denouncer of a corrupt official is a weak warrior and nothing more. He’s weak and he’s jealous. He didn’t bring anything to the grotto.
Here are some examples.
When the barbarians sacked Rome and the Romans fled, after the plunder, The eternal city seemed to disappear. What was recently, but it immediately disappeared. What used to be called Rome turned into a Gothic village with the same Gothic name. How and how was it possible to unite the Gothic shepherds, who before the capture of Rome and its plunder grazed cattle with the natives. Some knew the law, others didn’t.
What is the law of the barbarians?
The barbarian must know that each of his actions will be appreciated by his clan, so the barbarian is generous and sympathetic, but not to strangers, but only to the people of his clan (that is, to his relatives). The most authoritative leader is the one who gives away, makes gifts to the people. (In Saudi Arabia, sheikhs still do this – they give out gifts, as the ancient sheikhs did 1000 years ago. But the sheikhs are very civilized people)
.
Where did castles come from in the middle ages. They didn’t exist before.
If it so happened that the barbarians (not only Goths, but Vandals, Alans, Huns) scattered across the free land, where the former owners escaped. What should they do here? Who should they answer to? After all, the Romans are not there. So the barbarian will not answer to anyone, he is his own master, and all the loot will be put in one place. To protect yourself from other barbarians just like him. He builds an impregnable fortress, digs it with a moat, and let the river into the moat – here you have a medieval castle – fortress. (Have you noticed such locks now? I see. Although in the yard of the XXI century – A. B.)
Medieval castles this is evidence of the lack of ideas and any responsibility.
No relatives and no judges. There are no judges, so I am the judge. I can trample everyone under my horse, or I can ride anywhere I want. Who should I answer to? In front of those who think to take everything to the family? Yes, they are the same as me, only they do not have a horse and a castle (mansion, account, car Park) This is how traditional people learn to co-exist in the new middle ages, which they create as if reluctantly. Anyone who wants protection must work for the owner, and they let him in. Those who do not want protection will go without a roof or protection. Traditional people are the sources of their own medieval troubles. The middle ages will come precisely and invisibly, while some fighters against corruption will build a democracy. After the fall of Rome, there was no democracy for more than 1,000 years. Even if the fighters build a democracy themselves or with the help of the West, it will still be a castle with new vassals and feudal lords. It’s always been that way.
Chapter IV
When the oppositionist is worse the official
Friendship against the blood.
Where the dictatorship comes from and where leads.
The traditional elite always could stand out and separate themselves from the rest of the crowd. At first, the crowd was understood as the inhabitants of one village and numerous close and distant relatives, then all the rootless and conquered peoples. And the family law required everyone to take care of their own blood. The Patriarchal elite was also to take care of the people. They could not and did not think of any other way to live. Any such village was a collective of mutual assistance and mutual support. This picture is still the same among the peoples of the tradition.
Probably, there comes a time when such care begins to strain the upper classes. Can someone stand high above others or can’t possibly protect others and feed them. Each case requires specific lighting. Maybe the relatives themselves have become lazy, they don’t want to go to war for the leader, because conquests are always trophies for everyone, or maybe they don’t even want to work. In addition, there are always competitors among relatives. Sometimes even the most half-brothers and close relatives became bitter enemies, there are a thousand examples of this, especially when it was necessary to share power and inheritance. In General, we will assume that some elite wants to separate from their relatives so that everyone can clearly see that they are the elite. They say we are all people, maybe even from the same village, maybe blood brothers, citizens of the same state, and we certainly want to get the most.
These two tendencies of fraternal hypocrisy and the immediate struggle for absolute power cannot be taken away. It is not immediately visible, it is not even clear what is really more important. On the one hand, all people from the periphery show at feasts that they are very close, irreplaceable as the real relatives, on the other side, there is no competition more evil than competition within this very family and this very circle. The same situation is possible at the very top. On the one side the traditional government presses on kinship: we are one people, they say, one country. On the other hand, it seems to this people that people from outside, that is, strangers, people in power would be less greedy than their own. It turns out that it is better for a conditional brother to be friends or, more precisely, to be in an Alliance with a stranger by blood, and for a people with a seemingly strange people at first glance. This has nothing to do with blood or the obligation to yield to an older person in the hierarchy with the main credo: you are for me, I am for you. And all the rest is the accompanying hypocrisy. It is clear that if you can do for me, I do for you.
Why are people of the same blood, the same tribe, and the same culture so despotic towards their own people? For example the bankers with their draconian interest rates.
Reason №1.
A radical desire to stand out and rise above everyone. Most of all, it is characteristic of outcasts. The first passion is the passion to prove and take revenge. If some people in search of terrible energy find the answer in Gumilyov’s passionarity, then they are mistaken and the tale of sub-passionaries will not help them. All the time to look for energy in people, because somewhere a crack has formed in the earth’s crust, it is, at least, ridiculous. Only the two-color tribal soul, the existence in the world of sharp categories of good-bad, friend – enemy you can find the answer, why if something is denied, then very clearly, if something is repelled, then very roughly. Elite means are elite. To push so hard. This is a world of contrasts and pressures.
The imposition of kinship together with responsibility for the crowd, then a sharp denial creates the phenomenon of feudal domination or repulsion. From the opposite: for – against, no – Yes, brother – stranger, and so on. This world is two-colored. Related people at the time of the crisis, and this may be a narrowing of the area due to the defeat, narrowing of borders, want to sharply separate themselves in their homes. The upper classes and feudal lords hide from their enemies in feudal castles all the time. Officials hide behind laws that protect them like the walls of a fortress. Officials above the law. Well, in castles, too.
Down with the relationship! Dizzy with success.
But СКАЧАТЬ