Бесплатный фрагмент - Red Fundamentalism

Today, the world is on the edge of a precipice. This gap is not only in the form of the end of the world, the apocalypse of humanity but also the world revolution, even though the world revolution will not be the worst way out for reformatting the world system.

Today, the world is under the power of the World Bank and financiers, who also control all the special services of the world. And they control peoples, governments, and presidents as consumers of one world currency on which everyone depends. There is not a single area that these people do not control.

Revolutions are divided mainly into orange and red. The orange ones reflect democracy and human rights, and the red represents socialist ideas. Due to mass urbanization, humanity did not want socialism and presented socialism in the form of Stalin’s concentration camp. In fact, socialism is not a concentration camp and is a system that frees people from all dependence on dark animal instincts. As it turned out, democracy does not liberate humanity, but on the contrary, enslaves and makes people slaves of consumption and slaves of money. Addicts of consumption today are the most dependent egoists. Therefore, they began to be treated for the pandemic. But you are not stupid people, and you already understand what democracy cures under the rule of financiers.

This book is intended for those who want to figure out what happened to the socialist idea and what perspective the new world has.

Chapter 1

Old dogmas. Trotsky’s foreign body

Only social democracy has remained of the left movement in the modern world.

It has shown vitality only in Europe and only thanks to democratic habits. The democratic ark should have “a pair from each species.”

There are also no prospects for the so-called leftists in other parts of the world. If you want social guarantees, go to the polling station.

One after another, the countries of South America stumble upon the electoral rake. There seem to be no more precedents, such as until the overthrow of Allende by the junta. But the victories of left-wing coalitions still happen, as they did during Allende. The world has changed. It became tolerant because maybe the USA became tolerant. Coups have also disappeared from world practice. Or rather, the danger has disappeared because the second camp and the second-world subject, the USSR, have disappeared. Now, it has become easier to turn people over and give injections. Who can prohibit, for example, vaccination?

We state that the left has no other way to achieve power today. However, there are no leftists in the world either in the sense of the leftism of the 20th century. Once again, the world has changed. From the left, there are now only talkers, only left-wing Pharisees. Actually, this is evidence of a global crisis. In the tolerant world of democracy, individuals and intellectuals disappear. Democracy has always led to degradation everywhere. The crowd selects lecturers and idols for themselves in the system and social networks. The system leaves communist artists to play communists, and a crowd of hedonists on social networks is looking for different clowns. Therefore, bloggers want to avoid explaining, not to teach, but to gain a crowd of subscribers.

So.

Our leftists repeat the mantras of a century ago; they resemble the Pharisees of the ancient Sanhedrin of Judea. But no, the ancient Jews are no longer looking at them because the ancient Jews should talk about the Old Testament. Therefore, imitating the hoary antiquity, our left-wing lecturers automatically turned into ancient Jewish Caiaphas because reliance on old dogmas is always more reliable. This is what distinguishes the Pharisees.

The more often they repeat the old formulas of Marx and Lenin, the more they know that they are talking nonsense. We can say they hide behind the old men — Marx and Lenin. But the old people lived in a different time and environment, even if they were authoritative. This is not Ancient Judea with its thousand-year history. The world has changed rapidly in a hundred years.

What to do?

We need to figure it out.

Why do young people not want communism today? Young people want democracy and to live like in the West. Young people enjoy equal rights. Or respect for their rights.

But should the left-wing Pharisees say we are also waiting for the second coming? As they immediately accuse revisionism of others. It has already been so! They’re still talking, Marx and the dictatorship of the proletariat would win! We believe in it. Do they really believe, or are they hypocrites? Many have tried, but what happened in practice?

What? What is a dictatorship?

There were feudal peoples in the world, which means peasant peoples.

These feudal-class peoples gave the so-called socialism in the first half of the 20th century. No matter how Trotsky defied the world system with the dictatorship of the proletariat after the time of Marx, there were no proletarian peoples in the world! Therefore, former peasants always opposed Trotskyism, which became a new communist elite. Trotsky could never win (there is one condition, but it is not for this short article.). And Trotskyism could never win because the state now does not make the factories. They are part of the economy of industrial modernization. They disappear as a stage of development. If there are no factories, there is no proletariat. If there is no proletariat, there is no dictatorship. If there are no activists of history, the basic subjects of action, then go to the ballot boxes! This is the simplest explanation for the crisis of the left idea.

Trotsky and Trotskyism have only one gratitude — for the left alternative to Stalinist-peasant communism. But, again and again. The world could not get any other socialism in the 20th century except socialism, which grew out of a class-feudal culture — from tradition. Russia, China, Korea, Vietnam, and Kampuchea are in Asia. This is the territory of a rigid collective tradition. The people with a similar culture of collectivism adopted the so-called communism, but new bureaucrats replaced the local feudal elites through the revolution. These are the nations where capitalism was underdeveloped. However, the alienation of the Eastern (fertile peoples) at that time was enormous. There could be no other communism. It’s all objective. Today, Marxists have one task for those who consider themselves such. Understand. Where from follows planetary individualism. Democracy or the market system has proved that a person needs alienation. He wants to separate himself from the crowd, to put it simply. Therefore, the left has no future with the old dogmas. Young people are for democracy.

Hence, the so-called Marxists have no choice but to join the ancient “Jews” crowd and shout, crucify him! I have not met any other reaction from hypocrites, impotent, and therefore envious, except for accusations of revisionism. Well, of course! Repeating the conclusions of a century ago in a new environment is not only a habit. It’s also an excuse. The Pharisees also justified themselves by the millennial experience of the people.

Chapter 2

Russia after the formal victory of Zyuganov’s Communists

What would have changed if the Russian Communist Party faction had taken the majority in the Duma?

Nothing. Because the second head of the fairy-tale dragon of the local bureaucracy would have risen conditionally. Actually, the Communist Party formally won. But this victory is not it. People voted for the opposite. Democracy is different in this. Everywhere. What is not pleasant or annoying is replaced by something less unpleasant. Communist Party was less unpleasant for people in a conditional store, where the same conditional things are sold. The Communist Party and its experienced leader, the compromiser, were chosen only from Russian hopelessness. The domination of the main boyars of the EP became simply unbearable. Even the main competitors of the state oligarchs on the business idea — Navalny’s liberal people, called for voting for the Communist Party through smart voting. This, too, is from hopelessness. Despite their cultural modernization and market tolerance, conditional Democrats would never vote for conditional communist Gulag members. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, like the old truth.

Modern communists, or people who call themselves such, are no less greedy. However, they have limitations because of their ideology. Each profession has specific professional clothing; the doctor, for example, has a white coat. The worker has a roba. The orchestra conductor has a tailcoat. Zyuganov’s communists learned to sell communist ideology professionally, although people thought less about communism in these elections. Communist Party members and many other left-wing Pharisees are obliged to talk about the people, for example, what the people are suffering and the people are getting poorer. But will no one of these communists leave the Duma to live as a people? What for? The Communist Party is a profession in one word. So, let’s imagine the professional actors of the second plan were brought out as the main artists. What would have happened? But nothing. First, the quality of the performance would drop. It’s natural. Then, the supporting actors would get a little comfortable with their new roles. The old mechanism or system would have been cleaned up and started working again at the same speed. What will change if you change the car’s details in the blue wrapper to those in the red wrapper? It’s a replay of cargo cult. Is that clear? Hypocrites and Pharisees cannot change anything; they can only repeat.

Few people came to the symbolic protest rallies. That’s why they are symbolic. And now, let’s remember how much came out for liberal Navalny throughout the Russian Federation — thousands of times more. The electoral triumph of the Communist Party, albeit formal, is not a victory of the communist idea. Nobody needs the communist idea. These symbolic rallies are evidence of this. Modern leftists, those who are called or those who consider themselves Marxists, prefer not to see this. Modern leftism is full of old Pharisees, middle-aged, and even their young parrots about the dictatorship of the proletariat, justice, and other ideas of Karl Marx from the 19th century. Modern left-wing Pharisees think in terms of a century ago and even more. (This is if the Marxists of Lenin’s time talked about the Mazdakids and their struggle’s eternal, holy methods). The modern left does not even understand why they are in crisis. They are nervously leafing through Lenin’s hundred-year-old records. They carry gibberish. They calm their ego.

First, the modern activists must admit that they are a product of tradition, that the so-called planetary communism was established on earth not only thanks to, and despite, Marx. Only nations with a rigid tradition have found a new traditional system and called it communist. Russia, China, Korea, Vietnam, and Kampuchea are in Asia. This is the territory of a rigid collective tradition. The people with a similar culture of collectivism adopted the so-called communism, but in fact, case new bureaucrats replaced the local feudal elites through the revolution. These were the nations where capitalism was underdeveloped. However, the alienation of the Eastern (fertile peoples) at that time was enormous. Europe solved its overpopulation by World War I. Then, it made an upgrade. By this time, the people of the East were not ready for a world war. These were the people of the periphery. They were late for planetary modernization, so they chose a catch-up project – communism.

The communist project is a catch-up project, as rigid collectivism in the tradition is compensation for the severity of the climate and conditions by common labor. The countries of the Asian tradition chose communist ideas because they approached their dictatorship (of the proletariat) to the collective memory of peoples, to the production culture of reflexes. Karl Marx, an urbanized citizen, despised feudalism, Asia, and Russia. Therefore, empirically, he could not connect the alienation of the slave personality to the alienation of the proletarian personality. The alienation of the proletarian personality is the same as a member of a generic collective. The generic “nothing” alienation could not happen unnoticed in the modern Marx city. It happened just in the kind of alienation described by Marx. But Marx concluded the reasons for a person’s dependence on society. Industrial relations in a duet with production forces did not allow a person to be free. From this, Marx found a solution to replace people with machines that create abundance. But if a tribal person is freed from relatives, will he become free? If a peasant is left without a village, won’t he run wild?

Similarly, a person who is not working and free from alienation will not write poetry and philosophize. Abundance will not make a person kinder. But the fact that Marx jumped over the traditional alienation and did not see the old capitalist alienation tradition still blinds all the so-called Marxists on the left (for me — a large crowd of Pharisees). They feel it would be better not to think at all. Alienation is changing; the city is replacing the village, but the culture and traditions remain. Production robots and other mechanisms cannot solve this problem.

That’s how Zyuganov and Co. are primarily traditional people from the village. What the system, like the tradition, tells them they will do. They received from the system all profits, and they will still receive, like that meek heifer sucking at two cows.

Chapter 3

There must be an emperor in the empire

The world of information and its consumers needs resonance. Information channels always scare or write “that the world shuddered.” The world shuddered because divers found something at the bottom of the ocean. The world shuddered that a famous politician said something. And so on. But who in Russia shuddered at the wedding? At the wedding of a man from the last tsarist Russian monarchical dynasty. After all, the late Russian tsar was overthrown in 1917. There was the same resonance. Who in modern Russia was not lazy and paid attention to the new wedding?

The world of information and its consumers needs resonance. Information channels scare or write “the world shuddered” all the time. Therefore, not everybody is true in the Russian Federation, but interested citizens also shuddered. These newsmakers and other creators of ideas “shuddered”. However, no one now cares about anyone or anything. The townsfolk have been in suspended animation for a long time at the resonances. Only the primary instincts remained. The modern man in the street seems to have no other traits except instincts. Such a tendency that soon reasonable people will not be found.

A lot of time spent online has confirmed the opinion that now people are very conservative. It is difficult for them to leave their cozy worlds. (They also rarely leave their apartments and sofas). Now, people look at the world with lonely egoism. This is such an answer to the extras of the soviet life (which is better, I do not know, but we want to live in a predictable world, and, in my opinion, in the soviet past, it was easier).

The so-called elite looks at the world with the same egoism. They also watch something during the breaks of their big affairs. They are also tired and want the world not to “shudder”. Furthermore, they are also painfully thinking about how to live and save their billions of stolen dollars.

Where is the coincidence between the “trembling” of people from large palaces and people from sofas? However, the inhabitants of sofas are more inclined to equality of rights with the inhabitants of palaces and self-exclusivity, in contrast to Central Asian migrants. Nothing has happened to traditional conservatism. It didn’t disappear. It turned into the struggle of the European bourgeoisie for equality of rights, like in the 18th century. This concerns ordinary citizens and the opposition to the existing regime. Conservatism usually turns into xenophobia.

What is the trend from below?

There are three of them. The first and main one is the liberal trend. There is a link between a group of liberals and young people who want to live like in the West. The second one is still nationalism. If you give nationalism the first place, Russia will not stand. Judging by the past elections, the voters used the oppositionists as part of the regime in the form of official communists to solve their problems. Nobody really wants Soviet-type communism. The people have explicitly been free for a long time and thus corrupted. I watch the conservatism of former Soviet and modern people, which turns into xenophobia. There are many disparate speakers, but the puzzle has not yet been matched. They’re looking, too. They search exit paths. But the elite is also looking. They’re looking, too. They want to rule forever.

Empowerment with a sense of superiority is the very imperial thesis. The so-called bourgeoisie wants the same equality as the third French estate of Louis XVI. The topic of civil equality is a European topic. Fascism emerged from bourgeois internal equality and external superiority. (There were no bourgeois revolutions, and the old nobility was preserved). The old generation quickly transferred the old superiority to the new civilian generation. They would be told that there was a time when we were great. Therefore, any failure outside and a crisis inside always creates a mini-war sent out by succession. That is why the former empires, even in disassembled form, have an active foreign policy, rattle weapons, and powerful propaganda. The population also likes such an active foreign policy (partly because it continues to greatness). Napoleon III, for example, also led an active policy (the Crimean War, the war with Austria, the war with Mexico, and the war with Prussia). But the bourgeoisie and the Democrats didn’t care. They demanded equality and accountability from Napoleon. However, the people around Napoleon III would not report to anyone. France is once again mired in corruption.

Actually, who is Napoleon III?

After the defeat of Napoleon I by the coalition of European monarchs, a restoration took place in France. The people who had tasted freedom at the first opportunity overthrew the Bourbons (1830) and the Orleans family (1848). Napoleon III was not a king, but an emperor like his uncle did not dismiss the monarchical tradition. The Second Republic was not much different from the regime of Louis Philippe (although the regime of Lee Philippe is very similar to the modern regime of the Russian Federation). No, to Marxists, this phenomenon of similarity of regimes between 200 years cannot be explained in any way. Combine the regime of Louis Philippe, where the big bourgeoisie elected a parliament for itself, and Philip’s friends were mired in corruption, plus the foreign policy of Napoleon III, to solve internal issues with the imperial policy. You will get a modern Russian Federation one-in-one). But there has been no monarchy in Russia since 1917. There is no monarchy, but Putin’s authoritarian power is a modern variation that is not much different from an absolute monarchy. In terms of population control, it surpasses all the monarchies of the world combined.

It turns out what?

Nationalism in the general retrospective arena of the empire is contraindicated. It turns out that imperial policy needs historical continuity. Furthermore, it is approved within the framework only in traditional legitimacy. But no one can cancel market relations, either — market relations in the permafrost of conventional hierarchical culture. Therefore, nationalists should love the monarchy and the current elite advertising it. Here, they converge on the path of superiority over peripheral peoples, in short, over migrants. Although the elite will need migrants all the time, not only do they support the economy of the regime, they are beneficial to the oligarchs. Labor migrants confirm the triumphant imperial policy (even in this form of a dismantled state. The Empire is stored in memory and imitated). At the same time, nationalists represent the second stage after democracy, which does not exist and cannot exist in the traditional permafrost.

Civil equal rights are a European culture. This association is also historical and is confirmed by examples. The bourgeoisie will unite against autocracy, empire, and probable monarchy.

But where are the Communists here? And why did the official communists suddenly become popular?

It’s all about elections without a choice. If you looked at the Russian Federation through France in the 19th century, there were communists in France. Gavroche and the Paris Commune. They were also bourgeois democrats, in fact, and fought for equality. But that, liberal Navalny spontaneously propagandized to support his ideological opponents, the communists – Pharisees, and this is the first objective of unification.

P.S. In 7—10 years, the idea of a monarchy will sound open at this rate. After another five years, they can choose a monarch at the Cathedral. After another five years, the monarchy could be overthrown, and someone would proclaim the emperor.

Chapter 4

Doomed to lag

How the left Pharisees manifest themselves.

They say the West’s technological breakthroughs and social guarantees are a triumph of Marx. Lies! Marx did not write anywhere that bankers and stockbrokers would fulfill his thoughts. This is the highest falsification of Marxist Pharisees, Marxist bankrupts, and Marxist swindlers.

He wrote about the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Of course, unlike stockbrokers and bankers, the proletariat had scanty chances to build developed capitalism in its proletarian state. The luckiest proletarian had to find a treasure trove of gold to turn into a banker. If a hundred thousand proletarians had simultaneously found a treasure trove of gold and staged a dictatorship of treasure hunters, they would have pushed back the descendants of those peasants who fled from hunger from their villages long before the 20th century. The successful proletarians who found the treasure that is, the late peasants, could not compete in any way with the early peasants, that is, those who escaped from the village from hunger a hundred years earlier, and maybe two hundred, three hundred and four hundred years as the haberdashers of Bonacieux. It was Bonacieux who became a banker.

However, the late peasants in the wild estate society made the so-called socialist revolution at the beginning of the 20th century. And did all other traditional peoples have the opportunity to build only such socialism? Only at the stage of total migration of the traditional population to the cities is socialism possible. Therefore, communism of the 20th century has always been a catch-up project, and the modern Leftists, the so-called Marxists, are only catching up all the time; they want to avoid getting ahead. That’s why they lie.

Catch up and overtake the West! Such a slogan has been preached in the USSR since the time of Nikita Khrushchev. The Soviet secretaries also added that we will live under communism a little more. Why need to catch up and overtake the West?

Because this West was a model for the late group of Soviet bureaucracy, the first Bolsheviks had no such task. It was standing indirectly. Stalin said, “If we don’t do this, we will be crushed.” Who would do that? Who could crush the USSR? Of course, the technologically advanced West. For the Communists of the USSR in the 60s of the last century, the task was already social benefits because social guarantees were given to the population from the very beginning of the Soviet Union. But did the old Marxists or people who considered themselves Marxists know that they were preparing a coup by creating benefits and weakening the first elite’s dictatorship (Lenin’s close comrades)? Therefore, the descendants of the peasants instinctively exterminated the first Soviet leadership and maintained an atmosphere of defense and discipline all the time. They created a showcase of socialism in one city of the USSR and brought oranges and bananas there. The population went to Moscow for sausage. Could the old men of Brezhnev fill the entire USSR, even if not with sausage, but with bananas and jeans? Thereby bribing the youth. Yes, they could. But they instinctively maintained the old atmosphere in which they grew up. At the same time, they provided their families with everything they needed.

The children of the party leadership benefited from the “catch-up project”, from peasant socialism. And… turned into the inhabitants of the West.

Does this mean that all peasant socialisms of the 20th century and all other peasant socialisms are doomed to repeat Western evolution? Yes, it is. (If China manages to carry out urbanization, it will skip the Soviet stage of the coup; it will not repeat the way of Russia) All peasant socialisms are doomed to catch up with the West because these were mobilization projects. The dictatorship of the proletariat was suitable for technologically backward peoples to create material goods with their culture, with the whole traditional collective. Only in the atmosphere of war, communism, discipline, and fear was a socialist man of the 20th century possible. If each Zeref individually wanted the profit for himself, this state would turn into a colony (the proclamation of democracy in the USSR immediately turned the USSR into a colony). Therefore, all peasant socialisms of the 20th century should be considered a mobilization form of the same evolution of humanity. (What Marx did not see and could not see.)

Different peoples had different mobilizations. If three-quarters of the population consisted of Zerefs, then this is Soviet socialism. Privileged elites and their favorites were allowed to embark on an evolutionary path in 1991. However, the new Russian elite is not recognized as equals to the Western elite in the West.

If the population was half conservative, then this is German National Socialism. Therefore the elite of German Nazis could easily fit into the Western elite.

If the population is totally feudal, it is the Jamahiriya and other African and Asian socialism. There is no third way. There are different degrees of imitation of Western ideals. And what are Western ideals? Today, it is a victorious democracy that everyone wants to build, even in completely traditional, backward communities. The whole question is whether the elite of the West recognizes the privileged elites from past mobilization projects.

Equality, justice, socialism.

Actually, why did the proletarians, as the last faction of the peasantry that escaped from the village, like the ideas of Karl Marx? Did they think about the good of humanity or only about the good of themselves?

Lenin, as a politician, acted correctly. Bolshevik slogan “Land to the peasants!” “Factories to workers!” They were absolute. When the workers seized the factories and began to divide the profits among themselves, Lenin disliked it as the head of state. The state could collapse. The state would collapse in 1928 if the peasants, who seized all the landowners’ lands, left the cities of the USSR without bread. This was unacceptable for a mobilization project. These examples show what slogans are like and what is actually happening.

Chapter 5

Dura lex, sed lex

Is it possible to explain the modern secondary nature of socialism? Is socialism secondary a priori? Does this explain the global crisis of socialism?

The ancient Romans talked about the severity of the law, which needs to be enforced. Just what law are we talking about? In the traditional world, the informal law is stronger than the official “which must be executed”. You can negotiate with an official, a traffic policeman, a lawyer, or a judge. Any administrator can humanly understand the petitioner. In Germany and the USA, such actions are corrupt, and both sides are fraught with such an informal agreement.

If we are discussing drawing up a secret and informal contract in this territory, then we are talking about a traditional society. Let it be far from primitive, not natural from the outside, and use modern technology, but it is feudal in its essence. An informal contract is characteristic of a society where there has always been a collective. Consequently, there have always been objective historical prerequisites for socialism here. The official takes an informal fee for the service. But he may not take it to show humanity. After all, in human solidarity in the traditional world, collective morality has always been first.

It turns out what? It turns out that society has lost its humanity in the West — nothing like that. A legal law replaced the informal contract. Officials from generation to generation are tired of “understanding” the petitioners. The number of petitioners has increased a thousandfold. They are cunning; they are pretending. They are tiring. Besides, there was no connection between people anymore. First, the blood relationship disappeared, and then the moral and religious kinship. (When the Rabbis came to Trotsky after the October Revolution in the Kremlin, he replied to them that he was not a Jew but a revolutionary). The second conclusion is that a huge migration must mix the population for informal solidarity to disappear.

But even in this case, attempts to negotiate will remain, for this is a tradition. Mass migration weakens the laws of blood and even religion but does not eliminate intermediaries. The number of intermediaries between the state and the people is growing. Fame is no longer critical to officials; money is always important for bribing officials from down. Any traditional society is highly corrupt. Even in a society without relatives and fellow countrymen, everyone will look for relatives and fellow countrymen because of their culture. Will these people seek socialism in this case? No, first, they will look for nationalism. Nationalism is the first stage of solidarity in the mixed world of citizens and new migrants. Large groups, maybe even a people (not a clan, not a tribe), can get sick with nationalism. Paradoxically, the French of the late XVIII century could have fallen ill with nationalism — chauvinism rather than the Russian revolutionary proletarians of the early XX century. All because the French have learned what property is. Still, the Russian peasants had no property (For xenophobia to appear, most of the population must get used to property, which gives the first freedom to hate different “chocks” wholesale). Therefore, deserters of the Russian imperial army, who escaped from the German front in the summer of 1917, seized landlords’ lands. French peasants burned debt books and beat lawyers (by the way, there were many lawyers then; Robespierre was also a lawyer, his parents preparing him to take bribes.

The Russian Federation is also full of lawyers. Everything repeats itself). The French had mastered property by the time of their revolution; that’s why Everything happened quickly for them. The dictatorship of the Jacobins lasted for one year (The Soviet government stood for a long time — 73 years.) Napoleon also quickly established his dictatorship. The reason for everything was the willingness of Europeans to legalize laws because they were protecting their property (and not the vast expanses of Russia, as an explanation for its “slowness”). Today, everyone in the Russian Federation has property.

To summarize the trend, the old Soviet socialism is the last thing they want, although they often discuss it. Here, rather, there is a craving for National Socialism. Thus, fascism is not explained by traditional culture and the victory over fascism in 1945. This is always the reaction of the mass of owners. In the USSR, private property was abolished. This is the main reason for the delay in the global evolution of democracy in the USSR. But no one can deny that everyone now loves democracy. The main difference between the population’s readiness for democratic universalism is elections. And they are not creating an alternative idea, party, or alternative elite). Thus, the peasants in 1917 needed only land. In 1789, the French demanded the abolition of high taxes. (Feels the difference? Today, all opposition economists in Russia talk only about Keynes and Nabiullina sitting in the Central Bank. We say we need to reduce taxes! Introduce duties).

Therefore, all migrants or raiders need to legalize new property. Karl Marx and the Bolsheviks helped the Russian peasants to legalize their new property. This explains the population’s love for socialism (“in the weak link of capitalism,” according to Lenin), not innate collectivism. Marx failed in Europe because of this very habit of Europeans. They had the property for a long time, hence freedom. (In 1933, the bourgeoisie reacted quite naturally when it supported Hitler and his fight against communism). But Marx was raised to the banner in Soviet Russia because there had been a massive internal “migration” of property in Russia. The socialist law simply abolished the property.

Redistribution of property and its simultaneous abolition by legal law immediately revived the old informal (folklore) laws and connections. It led to a variant of a new absolute monarchy, to the leader’s omnipotence and his bureaucracy. This new elite could not abandon Marx because it needed to show continuity. That’s why all traditional folks expect approximately such socialism if they undertake mass migration from the countryside to the city. But there are no such people in the world anymore. Or they are petite. This also explains why, throughout the 20th century, people were unable to see any other socialism other than peasant socialism.

Chapter 6

Worse than me!

Western culture blames dictatorships that dictators create a cult. They want to create themselves. Because they know perfectly well that the crowd chooses, according to the principle, “worse than me.” Take a look at the European leaders. The voters chose them. But for what? Macron married an adult woman by the age of his mother. Merkel lives like ordinary people. The crowd sees and rejoices: “They are worse than me!”

What is the difference between totalitarianism, sorry, autocracy, and such a democracy with a choice on the principle that he is worse than me? Dictators pick up harmless, spineless people without a face to secure their unlimited power. The degradation of totalitarianism comes from the top.

In a democracy, the crowd chooses idols, including politicians, on the same principle. But instead of power as the goal of life, self-love. The crowd chooses people worse than themselves. That’s why democracy degrades from below by mass egoism.

However, why does democracy look more stable than dictatorships? Because the choice of the crowd does not rise above the required level. With totalitarianism, a layer of managers is affected. Therefore, after the dictator’s departure, troubled times come. There are no guarantees of a quiet life for anyone.

In a democracy, people are selected, the same, really not independent. Parliament severely limits the Chancellor’s power. That’s why even women are appointed military ministers. You can safely say that, after all, nothing will happen. There is another invisible power over the state machine. But these are not the people. The crowd is interested in choosing a funny, harmless person. The crowd has long been studied. The egoism of the crowd has long been accustomed to and adjusted. The crowd was allowed to choose anyone, but only after controlling the consequences of the choice: you are worse than me. That is why no modern president does or cannot raise the issue of national security. The crowd never understands; it only feels. Therefore, voters are allowed to choose every four years. These elections don’t solve anything. Not because the crowd reduces the level of candidates to their egoism but because there is another level above the state level. This level is the new fascism, which is still unknown to the folks, but they feel it and are surprised by their modern so-called impotent elite.

Now, the level of money is above the level of the state. Money is the only deity for humanity. If you turn off moral values, it’s natural. The state level is the highest moral level of society. While there is still no de jure world government and the basic principle of the planet’s existence, the state principle remains the most recognizable and understandable. The new leadership style of nations is determined by money, the world currency. Hence, the crisis of state management. To put it simply, the state turns from the guarantor of the Constitution, that is, local morality, into a feeder. At this very time, people with no access to power are trying to have it in every way...money. In addition, they select idols — singers, buffoons, showmen, talkers, etc. They select according to the principle — worse than me.

PS

What is pleasant and, at the same time, unpleasant guest worker Jamshut for Russian fascists? Jamshut is cheap. He is an executive slave.

What is pleasant and, at the same time, unpleasant about Conchita Wurst? She has deviations (worse than me), but she is nice when she goes out in public. Only conservative (moral) people find it unpleasant. But these people do not decide anything at home. The media and the corrupt local rulers taught them to love money from the very beginning. In a generation, they will also love non-standard people like Conchita.

Chapter 7

The dictatorship of the proletariat is in the hands of Pharisees and fools

Who was the third? Will be a Future situation teaching German Nazism?

There are different dictatorships. Basically, these are the dictatorships of the elites. The ancestral nobility, the aristocracy of the military caste, and the junta finally. The dictatorship of the oligarchy. But where did the dictatorship of the proletariat come from?

No, I know; everyone knows that Karl Marx invented this dictatorship at the heart of a revolutionary dispute with bourgeois opponents in the first half of the 19th century. But Karl Marx hated any primitive community (like the Russian one). In his letter to Vera Zasulich, he did not count on the Russians in any way. On the contrary, he considered them backward people from the Asian world. However, here’s the bad luck! It was in Russia that the proletarian revolution took place. In any case, everyone still calls it that.

In fact, it was a great peasant and not a revolution at all, but a global parochial revolt that could spread to exactly the same backward Asian peoples. Folks who lived as a community. People who “suffered” under the despotism of their Asian elites. Throughout the 20th century, only Asia went on strike like this. But who, in fact, thought that they suffered? Asian peoples still, until our age of high technology and the Internet, quite live “under the yoke” of their elites and would have lived on if no one had interfered with them had not been liberated with a liberation mission. The meme of the dictatorship of the proletariat, as a cast from the primitive dictatorship of the genus, has lived an independent life of religious dogma. And it was picked up by all the religious, in fact, Asian despotic peoples. Not only the great revolutionaries shouted, but also fanatics with fools. The atheistic, at least deeply rational peoples of the West have abandoned the meme of Karl Marx. And they put forward their version of the dictatorship — fascism and the nation.

Why does this meme of dictatorship still live in the form of dogma? And prevents you from clearing the way from the old deity? There are also groups of dogmatists, fanatics, hypocrites, and talkers who will definitely use the proletariat, which does not exist in the coming revolt, but it still exists precisely because of stubbornness, the most primitive egoism of old believers. In each modern car, you can see a dray. And don’t strain yourself. Just turn on your imagination, and everything will match again. The descendants of Russian peasants under this meme will storm the monarch with revolutionaries, seize power, and choose their red monarch after killing revolutionaries (allegedly Jews). Then, in the third generation, they will again break up into new, super modern feudal lords and no less modern, but such disenfranchised peasants. Wherever another group of dictators appears, such Pharisees will immediately see the hand of the meme. The strict ancestral morality of taboo turned into the dictatorship of the proletariat in the 19th century, thanks to Marx. But Marx did not know, could not know in the heat, that his meme would not just live an independent life of dogma but would also repeat the evolution of the genus: a monarchy in the form of a dictatorship would retake place from the genus, then the fall of the monarchy, now red, and again disintegrate into new pieces, that is, the genus would necessarily decompose as it should. The meme of the dictatorship played its sinister joke with a lag of one century. Isn’t there the greatest catch here?

I’m not suggesting taking away their new, old religion from fanatics. They are believers anyway. Talkers and egoists know that millions of new people will go on these very rakes. New herds. But not these same talkers are egoists. In the end, we need to do something about the current dictatorship of the oligarchy, which in itself is the final part, the last link of the same evolution of the disintegration of the genus, the decomposition of taboos, and the emergence of the same feudalism. Has anyone detected a cart in a Mercedes today?

Now, to the point. Who’s the third? In the classification scheme of historical materialism, “those suffering from oppression” have never made coups. Barbarians came to ancient Rome and freed slaves. Not Spartacus and Oenomaus at all. Wat Tyler and Robin Hood did not come to the former peasants, who became petty-bourgeois citizens and proclaimed a republic. The bourgeois Cromwell and Robespierre came. It was not the proletarians by birth that showed the proletariat’s bright path, and Marx and Lenin were not proletarians at all. There is always a third-person present. And this modern new third, by analogy, is hindered by old religious dogmas in the minds of fanatics. The world has changed. But it never changes in religious minds, burdened with market selfishness.

Chapter 8

The phase of the dictatorship of the nation

How could it happen that the proletariat became a battering ram, then a meme? It was a collective force, the kinetic force of the collective.

Any collective has material (physical) strength. According to another apt word of Karl Marx, the whole story is generated by this grandmother of violence. In the ideological myth, the proletariat had destructive, positive, creative energy. He was destroying the old world for a new, bright, communist one. So, this is positive violence. There is a bright purpose in any religious myth. Any meme with a similar background will surely reach the right ears. So, what if the owners of these ears then blow up and destroy churches? They will shit in those churches that only promised paradise; that is, they would wait for a long time. Only religious people, therefore, could fall in love with the dictatorship. That is, everything is traditional. And the despotism of the elite and religious education. The Reformation took place in Europe a long time ago. People have learned to create another paradise on earth for themselves, thanks to money. No. Of course, everyone loves freebies. But the natural peoples of the tradition loved it and still love it.

Therefore, with the arrival of the market, they immediately split into new masters and new slaves, and no one wanted to work. We all are gentlemen! It was the same in Germany. The market corrupts the consciousness of non-existent greatness or, rather, independence. Private property necessarily leads to selfishness. And if you also give education — the weapon of the priests of all times- a new physical force in the form of a collective of offended owners will be ready. Fascism is actually a community, not a generic one, but a national one. This community is united not by kinship, blood, and morality but by interests and benefits. All the nations that have come to private property and the republic are independent people without relatives; they are egoists. They don’t need the help of the collective. They can do it themselves; they count on their strength. Therefore, the traditional people who did not know the property chose Karl Marx and his memes first and provided for their children. They want now to secure everything with private property.

But there are almost no such traditional people in the modern world. The largest traditional community is probably Indian. Suppose we collect the wishes of Indian peasants. In that case, they could repeat the experience of the Soviet Union to build a new peasant socialism with an Indian GULAG and other generic coercion of parasites. But information literacy is total today. Indian peasants will just shout, and then they will easily go home and be easily bribed as their leaders. They do it. Peasant socialism triumphed in the world throughout the 20th century; today, it is impossible. Russia has gone to the stage of total literacy. Russians have acquired the property for the last thirty years. They felt the uselessness of Gagarin and former soviet rockets. Nostalgia’s greatness remained. Several nostalgic egoists who do not remember kinship — that’s all that is needed for academic fascism. Here it is, the third figure, the third subject. This subject is the largest, with large kinetic energy. What happens?

That all nations are doomed to fascism?

Yes, Karl Max did not understand this when he came up with his meme of dictatorship. He had no time. If anyone guessed about world fascism in the case of failures of the proletarian revolution (again proletarian!), it was Trotsky. But Trotsky and Trotskyism in the 30s were the only alternative to peasant rebirth, the collapse of the ancestral taboo used by former peasants for their selfish interests. Today, Trotskyism also has finally degenerated. The same vile bureaucracy swallowed it up, not national but international. Therefore, modern official Trotskyism serves the world mafia and world fascism. Everyone who uses the meme of the dictatorship of the proletariat is a crook. Conscious or unconscious, if they don’t get money for their screams and another crowd of fools as helpers in a scam.

Another question is how to defeat modern fascism. It was necessary to divide fascism into the world and locally to accomplish this — which of them is needed by the new revolutionaries to study it and win.

Chapter 9

Smart energy

If, at the beginning and almost until the middle of the 20th century, the meme of the dictatorship of the proletariat could be used, then at the beginning of the 21st century, the use of a meme is already pumping a farce. Logical power already far exceeds religious mystification in this world now.

The crisis of the left movement is precisely due to the backwardness of the outdated Marxist doctrine.

Marxism has become overgrown with heroic parasites. Such Marxists only use old prayers, even if this prayer is just one meme about the dictatorship of the proletariat. Maybe these photos of a workers’ rally taking place somewhere raise the spirits of idlers and fools, but such things are just inertia, a repetition of the old agitation. All countries and peoples have undergone industrial modernization, and the use of memes on the situation in Asia and Africa has always been a big policy. In the 20th century, two blocs opposed each other in the world. The bloc headed by the USSR was called a communist, and the other bloc the USA headed. There were numerous other countries in between. Some of which have not yet come out of the natural world.

For example, the USSR paid a high price for the adventure in Afghanistan. But it was primarily a religious mistake. USSR’s bureaucrats and generals lost thanks to the Muslims; the dictatorship of the proletariat could not replace the Prophet Muhammad in any way and win in the country of Muslims. Well, nothing. However, in political science, any confrontation is usually called an ideological confrontation.

It’s elementary; the countries of Eurasia are actually a religious arena, not a logical one.

And the more international communications bring information into the modern world, the more logic pressures mysticism. Which countries are close to mysticism today? That's where you can penetrate the meme of the dictatorship of the proletariat unless there is no Islam, Buddhism, or Confucianism in this area and among these peoples. Marx did not win even in Europe, the stronghold of world atheism. But for any sane modern person, this is clear as day. Why do such activists shout, "Dictatorship of the proletariat!"? The social protest and the left movement drove into the museum of world politics.

Don't believe it if the proletariat came to power somewhere in the 20th century! It is a new peasant elite that came to power. It means in this area, the people lost faith in their saints and lost faith in the local bishops. Not because the advanced detachment of peasants who fled from the village was called the proletariat at the instigation of Marx, not because the bureaucracy necessarily gained power here instead of the proletariat, namely that the people stopped believing in old idols. They trusted the revolutionaries to create a traditional elite again. The new old traditional elite will rule among the traditional peoples everywhere and not the proletariat. It is necessary to do lessons already.

This does not mean we should expect global sadness or disappointment in any local area. The cry of some activists that he has few readers is from the same series of old political paganism. Of course, Marx found a way out in kinetic force in the millions of the European proletariat. It must be understood that the dictatorship of the proletariat is only a physical battering ram against the old world. And, as we discovered, a third force unknown at that time always came to power. Lenin’s comrades were not at all proletarian by birth. They were in solidarity with European slaves at that time and were their real elite. This is the very elite you need to look for at any time. Millions of fighters mean nothing if they don’t have leaders. Millions of liberal electors mean nothing without the religion of money (money is also a pagan religion); they cannot win without the elite if we look at the revolutionary Russia of 1917. Then, millions of peasants knew only the Socialist-Revolutionary party. The religious ram of the srs did not work because they had no religion: they promised only land — a million Social Revolutionaries against a thousand Bolsheviks. But the Bolsheviks won because they had the religion of dictatorship for a totalitarian people. They were dictators who, in the minority, managed to unite and lead the kinetic force of workers (disguised peasants).

Chapter 10

People in rockets

If a person is given machinery, he will become free. Technological progress and the dictatorship of the proletariat will create new communist freedom. Karl Marx bequeathed such freedom to people. An outstanding combination of technology and primitive organization, isn’t it?

Firstly, if primitive people are put in rockets, they will be indescribably scared. First, they will burn the rocket or try to do it if the rockets do not bring them clothes and meat.

But what will modern people do?

They have been sitting in rockets for a long time and making money on them again.

Yes, but there is no socialism around, is there? Some naive fool will answer me; maybe he is a fanatic or even an old man.

But the technology is there. Why did the dictatorship of the proletariat lag behind — this version of the primitive (clan) dictatorship was modernized by political science. Despite all the hidden primitiveness, peasants worldwide still liked this option. And it is absolutely not the peasants who repeat the same mantra, hoping that another chaos of capitalism will bring the proletariat to power; there is a new whim that guarantees inevitable defeat.

The proletariat cannot come to power.

What does not exist cannot come to power? Today it is clearer than clear. But such darkness leads to the mental devastation of any young activist.

The mass of workers, who represented physical strength for the battering ram of power, has long been not a mass; all citizens are the same now. Workers now are no different from all other people. They are not subject to class segregation. Feudal segregation is the main condition of the past socialism. Throughout the 20th century, workers flooded the squares of the suburbs first, then the squares of cities, and until the 20th century, when the petty bourgeoisie fought for their rights and equality with monarchies.

In the age of total market cynicism and hypocrisy, nothing is clear: who, why, why is shouting. On the contrary, all the world’s democracies claim that all people are equal, and equality is written in hundreds of their laws and in their constitutions. What is missing for people who want to wear the clothes of irreconcilable proletarian fighters? Although there are still other forms and names to express their dissatisfaction. Are there hypocrites among these loudmouths? Are there any naive people? And why do leftists stand side by side with liberals on maidan?

Today, when the most powerful totalitarianism in history is being established globally, why is there no organization against this new totalitarianism? Yes, because democracy leads to the degradation of the ruling elites. We’ve already talked about this. Especially now when the democratic system is considered ideal for the whole world. But this is a new global deception.

The proletarians resemble syndicalist anarchists. Everyone is interested in what is happening at his factory, at least in his country at most. There are two Trotskyist parties (parties of the world revolution) in France simultaneously; what are they doing? They are busy fighting for parliamentary seats and endless disputes among themselves — which of them is a Trotskyist. Democracy is the degradation not only of the revolution but of revolutionaries. A popular French postman activist wants to return to his post office. Why does he want to return to the post office and deliver cards? Yes, because in democracies, they choose under the motto “You are worse than I.” You’re just a mailman. You’re funny, and that’s why we like you. An activist wants to be liked and popular. That’s what the French Trotskyists are doing. Clowning.

Marx was utterly wrong when he relied on technology. All the provincials of the world still love technical inventions. And in the 19th century, all the provincials of the world loved inventions. Marx also loved, apparently, inventions. But he completely lost sight of the traditional world and its values. However, he chose a primitive dictatorship, a form of primitive communist dictatorship — the dictatorship of the proletariat as a guide for all the oppressed. This form was so universal that it was suitable everywhere, even in places like China, Vietnam, and Afghanistan — in peasant countries with no proletarians because there were no factories. But this very universality, which helped to win temporarily, also led to the total future defeat of world socialism because, once again, the tradition was hidden behind words. No one is still going to figure out the reasons for the defeat. All bureaucrats and fools accuse traitors and look for spies inside the peasant communists. However, all the world’s peasants should be obliged by evolution to turn into bourgeois, even if they held congresses as in the USSR with the righteous appearance of messiahs (or now in China). Hypocritical chatter has never saved anyone from collapse.

The collapse of feudal regimes of any type is inevitable — history has shown this. Anyone who learns from history and Marx also used historical material should be sure that the collapse of the feudal regime was primarily a feudal war, disassembly within the elite. The third figure and the third party can only play on the side of one of the nobles. Conditional masses and conditional proletarians played the role of a battering ram in 1917, but without their elite, they would have remained observers without their left aristocracy. What happened, that happened. The revolutionaries took power in Russia thanks to an excited mass of soldiers and sailors. Power itself fell into the hands of Lenin and Trotsky. (The feudal lords, even if they dress up in the outfits of capitalists and oligarchs, will do the same now. We need to be ready and create cells of the future government) Then, thanks to the bureaucracy and the dark masses, Stalin destroyed the revolutionaries. Then started the old evolution of the maturation of the bourgeois frog from the peasant tadpole again. The question here is not about the mass of proletarians. Here is the problem of the left elite. After the victory, neither slaves, peasants, nor conditional proletarians needed talented people, the left aristocracy. They want clothes and meat. They want to give their children clothes, meat, and primitive privileges. The dictatorship of the proletariat as a meme helped revolutionaries take power. Today, demagogues use this meme from basements and rubble; they scream every time a slab falls from above. What else can they shout? It is tradition and the traditional hierarchy that look out from the same basement simultaneously.

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.

Hindu: — The whole world is Krishna's creation; this world is perfect and beautiful, and people are divided into castes.

Professor: — Yes, undoubtedly, the world is beautiful, but there is still an invisible but perfect world, there are no castes, but even bacteria are unfriendly.

Hindu: — There is no other world besides the visible world.

Professor: — Here's a microscope; take a look. When the Hindu saw some very unpleasant organisms under the microscope, which also absorb and devour each other: — This can't be! And he left.

When the microbiologist returned to the laboratory, he saw that the Indian was breaking the microscope… The microscope is to blame the Hindu for seeing something unpleasant, breaking his picture of the world.

A Hindu or not a Hindu, maybe some other fanatic, an adept from another religion or sect, but I pass the story as I remember. When a revolutionary intellectual, a peasant soldier, or a sailor from the bourgeoisie takes power, they look at the world differently. And their goals for life are not the same. But it was the intellectual who led these comrades against the overthrown regime. Without him, a peasant soldier and a sailor from the bourgeoisie might have served the old government.

Moreover, whatever it was called, it would not matter to them. There would be no coups, riots, and revolutions if all traditional people could do it. The main thing of the tradition is to build a house, start a family, and breed heirs.

However, traditional people did not understand and still do not understand that a conflict is brewing because they are multiplying. Throughout history, humanity has been at war with each other, absorbing traditional people in bloody conflicts. With the development of technology, periodic conflicts changed to constructive work. If Zeref is not fighting, he works hard; that is, he does everything and goes out of his way to start a family, build a house, etc. Only the so-called communist regimes could turn the work of millions into progress and use it for peaceful purposes. But propaganda is always obliged to predict war right there. The traditional people feel good and at ease. Therefore, the communist idea is the most suitable for the traditional people because it united communities, clans, and families — the past forms of traditional cells for peaceful work and called this association the people so that other clans and traditional memories would not be offended. Do not forget that every nation, village, family, its head, and every man has his own goals. That’s why we’re all different. But something unites us periodically. And only an idea, an ideology, can unite this innate human sectarianism for a while. That is, leaders and revolutionaries. If necessary, then by force. This is how states and empires were born.

Nicolai Romanov, the last Russian tsar of the empire, has already inherited. But he got it just at a time when there were too many traditional peasants. Overabundance. The Zerefs wanted land to sow bread and feed families, but they were sent to fight; that is, labor was temporarily replaced by war (Stolypin could not change the paradigm). An empire cannot exist without war, which is exactly why it is an empire. Conquests always gave new land.

However, there was already a group, a community, a caste that did not need a war. A revolutionary is a revolutionary because he renounces tradition. All intellectuals, as well as townspeople, are losing touch with their small homeland. Therefore, they do not need land or a plot. Relatives living in a small homeland are also not needed. The revolutionary path is quite ornate on the part of the tradition. But imagine Zeremid (the first generation of citizens) and even Remid (the urbanized elite) are the same traditional people but have different responsibilities. And deliberate (during the revolution) irresponsibility. Because they, the revolutionaries, must take power from the old elite (to take it means interrupting someone else’s life motivation). Therefore, they, as it were, do not appreciate the old values, including their lives. But everything remains standard: start a family and build a house. This is still relevant (whoever does not start a family is a migrant, a democrat, a liberal, a Refag: all these people have no roots in their homeland, relatives, or the land of their ancestors).

But the soldier from the peasants and the sailor from the burghers helped the revolutionary not to value his life de facto and definitively. They will kill the revolutionaries and do it publicly. If you don’t appreciate tradition, you have no place in the land. This is the moment when a new “peasant elite” is formed from the mass of winners after the revolution. Revolutionaries will still dance on the stage by inertia. They will also adopt numerous decrees in the name of “working people”. They also shout slogans about the “dictatorship of the proletariat.” But no one will listen to them anymore. The people will submit to someone; they will fall before the one who says: Build houses, start families, be fruitful and multiply! In any case, after each revolution, a new version of the tradition wins in no other way (unless this nation consists of migrants alone). Tradition is the main ideology of humanity. The other slogans only cover up the mass egoism gathered by another idea.

How so? — The witness will talk about the triumph of democracy and liberal values. And tradition only puts pressure on a person.

The triumph of democracy is the power of people without land and relatives. They have no roots. Therefore, they also deny traditional families.

Chapter 13

The flies