bannerbanner
Red Fundamentalism. Fundamentalism
Red Fundamentalism. Fundamentalism

Полная версия

Red Fundamentalism. Fundamentalism

Язык: Английский
Год издания: 2022
Добавлена:
Настройки чтения
Размер шрифта
Высота строк
Поля
На страницу:
3 из 3

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).

Конец ознакомительного фрагмента.

Текст предоставлен ООО «Литрес».

Прочитайте эту книгу целиком, купив полную легальную версию на Литрес.

Безопасно оплатить книгу можно банковской картой Visa, MasterCard, Maestro, со счета мобильного телефона, с платежного терминала, в салоне МТС или Связной, через PayPal, WebMoney, Яндекс.Деньги, QIWI Кошелек, бонусными картами или другим удобным Вам способом.

Конец ознакомительного фрагмента
Купить и скачать всю книгу
На страницу:
3 из 3