Red Fundamentalism. Fundamentalism

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.