- -
- 100%
- +
© Almaz Braev, 2023
ISBN 978-5-0051-0225-6
Created with Ridero smart publishing system
INTRODUCTION
The leader of the Russian Revolution, Trotsky, was asked in the last interview with the Western press: What will happen to the world if there is no world socialist revolution? Trotsky replied: If the world socialist revolution does not happen, the era of world fascism will come.
Of course, Trotsky was referring to the second totalitarian monster. Inspired by superiority, the German Zeremids will manage the Übermensch all over the world. However, Marxism sees under fascism the radical dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.
But we know that a market trader will not touch anyone, let alone put someone in a concentration camp. Here the question is one: who controls whom: the idea to the banker or the bankers to the idea. In the face of the German second monster, all the same, the idea managed the bankers who sponsored Hitler, that is, the tradition managed the banks, and not vice versa bankers egoism. In the present embodiment, the bankers control all of humanity. And there is no ideological group other than patriots scattered around the world, from leftists to right-wing activists of the fascist type. The Zerefs of the world can do nothing with their current ruling elite, which worships the dollar.
Why it worships, we have already said. It is better to buy than to fight. So, sellers and then bankers gained power over the entire population. The corrupt elite of nation-States has accumulated a lot of currency. Her personal interest prevails over that of the community. Because Refags magic stronger hits rootless parvenu, they found themselves in the managerial elite of these States for obvious reasons. Zerefs don’t like smart people. Nor did they love the noble ones. The Zerefs destroyed their feudal elite when the first horseman of the Apocalypse blew his horn. There are examples in the world when the feudal elite even survived. But she was still under the magic of money, not her dignity. Once you buy something in your life, it makes you powerless. The crowd, the people, the eternal appeal to the popular masses, the lower classes, who were the most powerless before a bunch of money. The world has lost its nobility. The world is being destroyed by hypocritical populism. There must be some divine purpose in this. Or absolutely not divine.
Bible (King James) /Revelation
There is neither communism nor fascism. These are all the conventions of a dictate. Conditionality of the will of the ruling group led by the leaders. In fact, what is called communism and fascism is a traditional scheme. This is how the traditional family was built over the centuries. Worldwide. It was only in Germany and the USSR that the traditional family and its expression took place through the state. That is, in these peoples, kinship was higher than interest, the collective higher than individuals. Only one chief and his men remained. In fact, one father of the people and his sons. It may seem strange and surprising to someone, but the whole difference between communism and Nazism is actually a difference not only in the “age” of people that they were later than others on the market path. The difference is also that Nazism is an indicator of market youth and communism of market childhood and infancy. And if we take the state as a traditional family, then the Nazi in this family is the older brother, and the Communist is the younger brother. They both obeyed their father.
But today, all Nations have lost their care. In plain sight, the great concern of the rulers is that the population does not get sick. But do the rulers care about their people? Or they’re thinking of something else entirely. And under the guise of caring for the population, they try to save only personal money. Who manages them at all? And who do they really want to please with their concern for the population? To understand this, to see the face of the third monster, you must first carefully study the first two. In the womb of the first two monsters, the third monster grew. This monster is now controlling everything. Most importantly, submission to the third monster is completely voluntary. Only people are forced into some kind of isolation.
Throughout the 20th century, the most radical struggle was waged against tradition and the traditional family in particular. It was a struggle for old and new traditions. Only in the U.S.S.R. and in Germany did market progress and universal freedom receive a total response at the state level.
All traditions today have become anachronisms.
“And the third angel sounded, and there fell a great star from heaven, burning as it were a lamp, and it fell upon the third part of the rivers, and upon the fountains of waters; And the name of the star is called Wormwood: and the third part of the waters became wormwood; and many men died of the waters because they were made bitter.”
CHAPTER I
HOW TO MAKE A CAREER
Who they choose and why (negative selection).
Command and administrative style.
What is everyone knows about the command and administrative style of leadership?
Where did it come from? Where does the philosophy of totalitarianism grow from?
Soviet people do not need to explain. They all lived under the command-administrative system, often called socialism; these words are sometimes uttered together, sometimes alone, but this does not change the essence. This is a style or organization where the non-initiative majority, you can call this majority the people, society, brigade, or collective farm, is subordinate to the head – the chiefs of different levels and caliber- from the General Secretary-General, director to ordinary caretakers. When the chief-the head of a smaller type of director or foreman, comes and tells everyone the will (plan, instructions) of the Secretary, and the Secretary tells the will of the General Secretary. And everyone starts working together to solve this will-plan depending on the number of employees. The proletarians, workers, and collective farmers are working, fulfilling the plan – will, the whole country is fulfilling, straining, or pretending. Agitators discuss the need and importance at fiery or hypocritically pretentious gatherings, or just formal and tedious, depending on what experience, meetings, workers shed three buckets of sweat. They can also pretend that they automatically go to work every day,; it does not exempt anyone from responsibility.
Let’s assume one option from the early versions when the responsibility was not only moral: the head of the correctional labor camp for the enemies of the people comes out. It informs: “Today, the plan increases by 5 percent. Every day now, you will give 5% more.” The prisoners are silent. “Any questions?”, – asks the head of the camp. “No question”. Escort! Here from the gloomy, impersonal, gray, melancholy crowd, a voice is heard: “Chief, will be increased the ration of bread?”. The Chief of camp snapped to voice: “Who said that? “One step forward!”
Of course, no one will take any steps if the boss doesn’t insist. Here is a grotesque version of the command-administrative extreme: I am the boss – you are a fool, and the conditional fool was not given the word. Everyone who has learned from their life experience knows that in such a system, the initiative is punishable; it looks almost like impertinence. It is better to mix with the crowd, and then the bosses will not take revenge, and the boss will certainly want to win back, to show others. To beat squirt so that others be afraid. In the camp, the camp commander may appoint the punishment, cancer, among free citizens the head will just lift the braves to laugh or try to do it, to show who is boss.
Why do people say keep quiet?
You can pass for a smart guy or a quiet calf sucking two cows. But in fact. And this is not a simple retelling of popular wisdom. This is a welcome paradigm of communication from top to bottom. It’s a tradition. A quiet heifer or the son of a strict father actually has many things, a bowl of soup, but most importantly, a greater chance of inheritance than the obstinate son, a man with a strong character. Traditional fathers and parents don’t like proud sons. They love compliant, obedient, maybe even cunning sons. Such a quiet little son will surely increase the family’s capital. And the rebel will spend everything on empty fantasies or just drink it up as wine. Idealists, romantics, and dreamers on the farm were to anything.
That’s why bosses don’t care that their subordinates are careerists and sycophants and that they lie. They themselves once adapted to be stroked by their fathers. The picture does not change what is down in traditional families, what is in power.The system is looking for heifers, sly, obedient, hypocritical, but not contradicting the authorities, and pleasing – honoring. Humble sons honor anyone, even an unworthy father. They don’t care what their father is, he’s their father, and that’s it. Even if he is a nonentity, a thief, or some other moral violator, the main thing is that he bequeaths business and money. The same personnel policy in power. One in one. And careerists do not care what kind of power, even if it is total, even if it is administrative and command, even if it is corrupt-stealing, rotten, immoral-at at least some. The main thing is that the power will let in the state’s coffers and, like fathers, give inheritance. Well, does not the command and administrative power want the sons to be truly submissive and executive?
The provincial government is gaining provincials.
In this system, there is a counter-evolutionary selection.
Negative selection. Provincials are not the front of society, and they are its backside. Middle-class fathers and party secretaries choose identical heifers in their image and likeness. Hence, this system of stagnation and decay. An oven is being built in the center of the state. The system of adaptors has no other morality or ideology than the traditional one, which is the traditional morality of survival. Therefore, in the center is built an ovine or corral for a cow. Only the application system is good for peacetime, and then not for very long. As soon as there is a danger, the owner’s people go to the woods or move to the steppe – you do not touch me, I do not you. Simultaneously, I’ll sit out until better times come. Bad boys give way to others for the feat. Why risk it all? At the moment of force of circumstances, all potential adaptors hide and good and their smiles. The life-loving, radiant smiles disappear behind the lips. They don’t just suck their tongues, and they just clap their lips in silence. And their antipodes, the adventurers and scoundrels, come on the scene. And they start. If, of course, the risk is not great again, then it will certainly be crooking. If the risk is limited, then the scoundrels will be behind the bushes with their life-loving, adaptable brothers. This is more suitable for the heroism of modern Maidan when the crowd can be controlled like a herd.
Scoundrels and cynics, this is a new version of a quiet heifer for the time being. They know that they will still win at the finish line when the chip is right. The enraged citizens will bring it themselves because they will no longer recognize meek and comfortable rulers. And losers voters will bring their pennies, not their poor fathers.
But when do the real characters come on stage?
This is when there is no benefit to look faithfully in the mouth from any situation senior-junior son, father-son, boss-fool. At the same time, there is no profit in deceiving the maddened and embittered crowd of the so-called electorate, which has been changed many times for affection from the next boss by the most docile heifers of the proteges. Moreover, the same active or creative new heifers perfectly know what the maddened and brutalized electorate wants. He’s not looking for any justice. Everyone wanted to. This is democracy and market relations now, baby! They wanted to be humble themselves. But they were cheated on and robbed.
This is the culture.
In the traditional system, the authorities choose the most docile and comfortable heifers regardless of the existing ideology. At the same time, the people pretend to be submissive to the point of stupidity because, in the traditional system, this is the only way to make a career. Regardless of ideology! It’s just the fashion to talk about socialism at first. Or they spoke, loyally and pompously, for the chance. Then those who said that this is socialism, this is a great invention, easily exchanged socialism for the market. The one who spoke about socialism betrayed socialism. Why? Because the other system (the market) is more profitable already.
You need to look at it faithfully and differently but creatively. All the people are still making loyal eyes out of habit. As all existing leaders did yesterday, and they do today. Everyone in the crowd hopes that their dull gaze will please the next chief (of the camp). This is a culture you prefer not to understand! If the people are traditional, it doesn’t matter what ideology is in the offices what banners are flying in the wind. Every traditional son wants to inherit. Therefore, he is silent and stares loyally into the distance but not in the distance and where it is necessary.
And now the scammers or other hypostasis of the heifer-the sons of Maidan. What they want and where they look. But you know exactly where they are going. They’ve already chosen the roof. It is the most powerful nation in the world. Both are money. But they do not look only there with quiet devotion. They are looking at a crowd that is raging and at the same time quiet in its root, which itself would not mind looking calmly, but patience has run out. And now these eyes meet. The crowd recognizes that the activists- a new emanation of heifers- lies to it. The meek have changed the fashion and understand that today’s expression of loyalty is entirely different from yesterday’s. They all want to suck. To suck the American cows for free just formed a generation of freeloaders. They don’t just show a denial of the camp’s morality. They had their last dance in the camp. One day, but it’s mine!
CHAPTER II
WHY IS HONESTY A WEAKNESS
In the traditional world, there is no concept of honesty. Perhaps modern people understand honesty as openness. The Zeref should be clear as the steppe wind for their brothers and sisters. By honesty, we must understand responsibility. And even more correct is the concept of duty, although for Zerefs the duties assigned to them and a relative’s daily duty. Who would think of calling a caring father honest? He’s not honest at all. He does what he has to do – take care of the children, about his wife, about his family, and then other duties. If he does not comply with them, he will be condemned by the entire tribe. He will be judged and expelled from the collective. Each unit is important to the people. Therefore, all Zerefs are trained or brought up from childhood: everyone in the family performs their role depending on age. Every man is not only a provider but also a warrior. Is a warrior not honest now? Rather, it is the opposite of the hero. Or is he a coward now?
The attitude towards hostile tribes is exactly the opposite. The Zeref of the neighboring tribe was also brought up, as was the Zeref of this one. Therefore, they are heroes if the neighboring clan is defeated. If one Zeref escapes, which is unlikely because he was not taught cowardice, only courage, then he will be a coward for the people. He would still be a coward if he kept the captured enemy Zeref alive. This moment of cruelty and lack of compromise will help us understand why Zeref honesty is a weakness.
The Zerefs have a Zerefs ambition. In addition to the responsibility to the team of relatives, Zeref wants to be higher. They want to be above everyone else and always seem honorable people.
If we take people completely wild, just to understand the motives in nature itself. Modern Zerefs are no less ambitious. They must always seem more authoritative than other Zerefs.
The more authority, the more honor.
The Zerots are the elite of the Zerefs, the honorary fathers of the people, the Zerot live very well. They may not even work. Relatives will bring everything necessary themselves. This pronounced desire to be, look like the elite while not forgetting about your family and interests is perhaps the most obvious quality for today. The lack of honesty, which is a responsibility, makes it easier for Zeref to live. There is no need to answer.
CHAPTER III
WHY IS THE ELDEST SON A FASCIST AND THE YOUNGEST A COMMUNIST
What do we know about fascism? We know from Soviet dictionaries that fascism is a reactionary movement of the petty bourgeoisie. Fascism is represented as a negative, a misanthropic current of morality.
The birthplace of the fascist movement is considered to be Italy in the 20s.
But most of all, fascism is associated with the Nazi regime of the Third Reich.
The fascist States profess the state’s monopoly, in plain language, state-monopoly capitalism. In other words, they do not deny market relations but try to put market anarchy under the control of the Nazi idea. The ideological officials, in this case, the Nazi officials, were opposed to the cosmopolitan exchange. In this way, elements of paternalism became apparent in the fascist movement. In fact, Nazism turned out to continue the German feudal tradition. No one was surprised at what was said? One will grow out of the other, no wonder. For what reason was it so hypertrophied? This is a question of another topic. But German statism or a tilt toward state interests did not appear out of thin air. German statism came from German culture, which in turn came from German history. Here, of course, it is appropriate to recall the economic lag in Germany’s development, as its former fragmentation left the Germans without colonies, and therefore without additional resources. Yes, it is. But how German culture turned into the militarization of the Germans. Was it not the Germans themselves, their Dukes, barons, and counts, who most resisted unification?
Similarly, militarization has occurred from traditional German feudalism. The German official turned out to be almost a medieval German knight. But why did he become a Nazi instead of a cosmopolitan stockbroker, as happened in other civilized Europe?
Big brother.
How could a German family contribute to this?
How did a German official become wildly belligerent?
We could turn to the German tradition to find the origins of statism. We found it in German feudalism. Others will say, why didn’t the same statism manifest itself in Europe in another dream? A radical tilt towards state interests is not only a disease of the Germans. But it was among the Germans that it became radical. Absolutism seems to grow out of absolutism – paternalism. In short, from paternalism. Nothing is superfluous. So, what is the reason?
Any European father passes the inheritance to the eldest son. Not just German. This eldest son not only inherits lands and things, but he also passes on the habits of the family to his children. This is how the tradition develops, and this is how the traditional people turn out. Fathers look at their older sons, and their sons try to adopt their father’s look. They imitate him in everything. The transmission of the father’s character, behavior, and style from generation to generation create this nation. When fathers saw that to the eldest sons (namely, the eldest!), not enough land, not enough inheritance, they armed themselves and went on a campaign. Thus, the entire feudal people armed themselves. But the ideologues were the eldest sons, who take over and pass on the tradition from father to son.
In fact, the official German Nazi was not a feudal lord disguised but a new copy of him. He was the eldest son of a German burgher. Throughout Europe, fathers passed on their covenants in the same way, through their elders. The older ones were the heirs of the tradition and of the property as well. That the people did not turn off the path trodden by their ancestors, and in the end did not disappear as a people, just all the older sons watched this. Some seniors grew old and passed them on to other seniors. Those in turn also grew old but managed to teach their older sons. All these operations are somehow connected with the earth. There is an invisible connection, a sacred unity of tradition with the aristocracy. The only career for the eldest son is an honorary military career. All the officers in the army are the eldest sons. So why, with the advent of the market, would these senior officers not support the Nazi idea? Younger sons also became officers. Suppose the eldest inherited all the property. Having entered the military service, the younger ones supported the very institution of the traditional family and society.
The military ruled Europe in the 20s and 30s. Many modes: in Hungary (Admiral Miklos Horti), Romania (Marshal Antonescu), Poland (Marshal Pilsudski), Portugal (General De Costa), Spain (Generalissimo Franco) did not grow up to Nazism, to the ideology of total superiority, but were authoritarian regimes, dictatorships. But they were very similar to the German regime.
Suppose you have noticed the connection between right-wing totalitarianism and right-wing statism. In that case, with the institution of inheritance to the eldest sons, now look at what the younger sons are doing.
I would like to ask you to take a particularly close look at Russia. In addition, it will have to be considered in the development of the movement of anarchists from Italy, Spain, and Russia have the same problem. This problem is not so much about bringing anarchism into the arena a little earlier than authoritarian and totalitarian regimes, but rather about getting the problem of younger sons out. In other words, any left-wing and other protests and themes of equality and social justice are tied to the problems of inheritance and the lack of inheritance for the young son.
“The old man has three sons: the Eldest was a clever fellow, the Middle son was a fool.…”
CHAPTER IV
THE NOMADS ALL LOOK ALIKE
The eldest son is smart because he does like a father. The eldest son is the father’s copy. He can’t be stupid by definition. All the older sons are sedate, important, walk strictly, and speak little. Where have you seen old people talking incessantly and crossing the village from end to end? There are no such old people. Older people don’t have much energy. They’ve already used it up. Similarly, older sons are not noticeable. However, there is still a lot of energy in them. The seniors will not waste it on trivial matters. Everyone is watching them. And the very first eyes in this observation are the eyes of the younger ones. The younger ones are the first to get slapped on the head by the older ones for indecent behavior and stupid behavior. Is there a demand from the younger ones? That’s why all the younger ones are spoiled behavioral waifs – fools, almost like in a fairy tale by the storyteller Yershov.
If such sons were to inherit, how would they be able to pay them back? No way. They will drink, waste, and skip it. How similar it is to the behavior promoted by advertising-take, walk, take advantage of the moment life had given one! If younger sons would not grow up later and become older brothers, all young sons would be possible to name to the democrats and Refags. Anyone who has had even a little experience with tradition in their biography, and there are many such, if not all of them, will not be able to be a democrat, even if they are the youngest in the family. In order for the younger to turn into a complete traditional degenerate and reformer, a certain period of the traditional vacuum is necessary. This person should be detached from the tradition, not have younger brothers. Or maybe just the only child in the family. Then no demand. Only self-indulgence. Here the ideology of hedonism is just right. Is this why the ideas of freedom and a market society are popular among young people? After all, this is a different congregation, a city crowd.