Socialist. Elitism II

Revolution, out of turn

When the Bolsheviks carried out a coup in October 1917, their opponents accused them of a crime. There is a fact necessary to prove a crime for any criminal offense. If you combine the criminal law attempt on power and the civil code, it turns out that the revolution violates the right of inheritance. A massive violation of the most important, one might say, sacred right – a violation of the entire nation’s inheritance right. From here, the opponents of the Bolsheviks quickly narrowed down the group of criminals to the gang of Lenin and his Jewish accomplices.

But the citizen Lenin, or the revolutionary Lenin, has nothing to do with it. If someone wants to find out who actually carried out the coup, and this is not the revolutionary Lenin at all (although de facto Lenin), he would have to contact the civil code himself, to the extent that you understand how serious this case is in his fate. In the fate of everyone. In the fate of every family. And in the destiny of the state, In the destiny of the nation as a whole. Let’s start with the fact that the pillar definition of the state and the social system is the right of property. What is the right of ownership? So is the state. If this is a Salic right, then, as a rule, the people’s property is managed by one authorized person: the monarch and his children; the monarch, today the autocrat, his nobles, the new nobles, the court camarilla, and so on. If bureaucrats manage the property, then usually, as is customary, such a system is called socialism.

How so? Today, former officials also manage the property, but this is not socialism at all; readers will object. Really. Under socialism, private property is abolished. But only in terms of the appropriation of wage labor. In fact, the property remains. But this property was called “personal property” for convenience. It, they say, can be inherited. The underdevelopment of socialism is attributed to the shortcomings of the classics. The classics of Marxism here acted as gods (perhaps the lifespan was not enough for them; Lenin still fell ill at the wrong time). But in general, the whole problem revolves around the property. However, everyone wants to spin it around the Russophobe Lenin and his Jewish gang.

In fact, once again, Lenin had nothing to do with it. And Marxism has nothing to do with it. For Marxism to germinate in Russia, contrary to Marx, by the way, the soil must be “abated” by something else. Why Marxism, or its parody, started playing in Russia. No left-wing patriot, aka Stalinist, will ever answer. Usually, there is a quote from Marx on the topic of production forces and relations. Or it just sounds like the answer to your question, “you is fool himself”. This means they don’t have an answer to the question. If you have already heard about Salic law, we will continue.

Usually, monarchists are considered on the right, on the spectrum of political activity. This does not seem to concern the disposal of property.

The right also includes fascists. Officials are also present here. They also talk about the people and the nation. But they set priorities. The property belongs to the people, the nation, the state, and the officials. Do the Fascists have a Salic principle of inheritance transfer? No. The Fascists already have a majority. The ruling center shifts away from the center, the monarch and his relatives’ will, towards the people (to be more precise, towards the bourgeoisie). During the European revolutions, the European revolutionaries removed the distribution function from the sacred figure and handed it over to themselves. Hence, the same disposition of property, but on the surface, the rights are reserved exclusively to the eldest sons. The Fascists do not abolish property; everyone knows this (Please remember this point about the eldest sons)

Why was there no inheritance transfer from the father state to the eldest sons in the same way in Russia? First, Lenin advocated his doctrine of expropriation of expropriators. Ah, so Lenin and Marx still have something to do with it! Yes, Lenin and Marx are still at it. In Russia, there was no institution of private property. In the bourgeois sense, to convey it exclusively in the traditional sense. As a people’s community, the Russian world was deciding, and so it was.

The main principle of rural communities is not Salic. The community is based on patriarchal laws. But for the community and village elders, the main principle is justice. This means that they could pass their heritage to both the seniors and the juniors. With a large “turnover”, mortality, perturbations, and other anarchism, everyone could inherit. After all, what is anarchy? Why it appeared in agricultural communities. Although this is a distraction from the topic, anarchy is just the most communist principle of distribution. Anarchy is the work of the young, and it is the people’s right to abolish the old’s self-will. Marx is also a kind of Jewish anarchist. He was deprived of property, and he was engaged in the promotion of democracy all his life. Yes, by the way, promoting democracy does not imply the abolition of property. That’s why everyone likes it, including the eldest sons – Europe’s main contenders for property.

The eldest sons can always remain monarchists if there is enough property for everyone. They settle for monarchies. If the property is insufficient, all the older sons join the Blackshirt units. It all ends with a world war. It is this side of fascism that everyone knows.

The moment has come to explain why the eldest sons proclaim national socialism and the younger sons international socialism. No one will mind that in both cases – isn’t the monarch doing it? Every proletarian internationalist follows precisely the fate of the rootless revolutionary Marx, who has absolutely no claim to his father’s inheritance. Lenin too. And this situation of the abolition of patriarchal queues just corresponds to patriarchal Russia. But only during the crisis of the inheritance distribution system itself did all the younger sons cancel the old queue, cancel classes and ranks, and take whatever they wanted.

For Russia, it was the most important issue with the land; during the reign of the last Romanov, for forty years, the population of Russia had grown by a third. The first sign of overpopulation and rebellion of all the younger ones in the families is terrorism. This was not only in Russia. No one wanted to wait their turn. Especially if the younger son received the light of knowledge, none of them would tolerate it. They watched as the incompetent sons of generals and nobles got positions. They were filled with indignation, and it was a civil protest. Socialism, in the usual sense, is the system of all the younger sons. This is a denial of the patriarchal queue. After all, communism abolishes private property. However, this is not possible yet.

Lenin and his” gang” tried to abolish private property… by decree. Thus, legalize the right of inheritance in the form of personal property already. But the people are the people. The Russian people have never lived under formal laws, although they always want to teach them the European order (majorat). Under informal laws, new officials quickly replaced all the Leninist revolutionaries who had taken power in Russia. The bureaucrats replaced the revolutionaries within 15 years. And they bowed to the new secretary. Essentially, Stalin was a new red monarch. What has changed in the power structure? Nothing. The same dictatorship of the father of the nation.

Stalin tried to create a caste. They were all so quiet, bureaucrats, because they all had enough rations. The bureaucracy began to be selected according to the law of seniority so that no upstart could jump right into the generals on behalf of upstarts. Soviet elitism, when the general post is available for his son, is a repetition of the habits and traditions of the overthrown nobles. And the usurpation of power among the Russian nobles remained essentially the usurpation of the younger ones. However, the Soviet bureaucrats depicted a new, already Soviet hierarchy of the old style. Until 1991, this usurpation continued. Although the younger liberals have already come, they have taken power, and the future is now not from the “Lenin gang” but from the entire Russian state.

This did not make their Soviet law any more legitimate regarding historicism. As we can see, all these socialists, democracies, and other isms are just names for inheritance. Removing Lenin’s associates from their inheritance rights is essentially an accelerated transition to the old system – to the patriarchal majorat when the general’s son will be a general. But if we cancel historical materialism for the theory of reflection, everything becomes clear. Plain as day.

I anticipate the first reaction to this topic being, “You fool yourself.” Yes, it is so. For too long, the old analysis system has fed hordes of chatterboxes.

These are the rules. Or as the regime matures

Who, if not Egypt. Egypt flag. Abdel Nasser symbol.

When a bloodless coup occurred in Egypt in July 1952, the “Free Officers” carried it out. King Farouk quickly abdicated and fled to Monaco.

This was the first anti-monarchist act in the Arab world. Then, the coups followed one after another. Morocco declared a republic in 1957, and the monarch was deposed; he had just declared independence and was immediately overthrown. In Iraq, the “free officers”, yes, also free, as in Egypt, also carried out a coup in July, but six years after the Egyptian one, in 1958. The Iraqi coup was the most violent of all the coups because the royal family and the monarch, Faisal himself, were shot (In Iraq, the elite shooting will become a tradition). Algeria’s independence was declared in 1962 and Yemen in 1967. In Libya, Idris was overthrown in 1969. He just didn’t come back from the trip. A group of junior officers led by Gaddafi took advantage of this.

What do the younger sons have to do with it?

Senior officers carried out all coups in the former Arab Caliphate, except for the young Captain Gaddafi in Libya. Naguib, who led the anti-monarchist coup in Egypt, was a general, and Abdel Qasem was a general in Iraq. Only Houari Boumediene of Algeria was a colonel. The Arab world is a world of centuries-old tradition and hierarchy. Where there is tradition, there is a hierarchy. Why were these generals senior officers? Yes, because only the shoulder straps allowed them to turn into senior status. In addition, almost all the senior officers of the Maghreb and the Middle East and the entire republican elite had peasant, therefore not noble, origins. That’s the only reason they’re all junior in the traditional hierarchy. These generals were senior officers in the army but were junior in status in the traditional hierarchy. Perhaps even many of them did not have noble roots. They belonged to the peasant class.

If you look at all the Arab officers, namely, the officers will solve all issues (not in the likeness, but it is), like the traditional military class. If you want to go up the former Caliphate elevators, you must again wear shoulder straps. The military is still the main caste in the Middle East as if there was no Arab modernization. So strong are the traditional values here. (However, the picture is similar in Latin America. Although economists, lawyers, and other lawyers are actively replacing the military in the field of public administration. Gradually, but surely. Who they are by status in Latin America will have to be watched separately for each country. However, as a rule, the largest group of active military personnel in Latin America is the colonels. This brings them closer to the senior officers and the eldest sons in the hierarchy of inheritance of privileges, hence the charms of life.

Further.

Since the end of 2011, orange protests have swept through the Maghreb countries. They were orange because the orange coups sounded like democratic rhetoric. (In the East? Democratic rhetoric? In the former Arab Caliphate?) The people awoke from the long tyranny of the Eastern autocrats, namely, by name: in Tunisia against Ben Ali ( he fled to Saudi Arabia after 24 years of rule, then in Algeria against President Bouterflika (he ruled for 12 years but could have been more, the third term of the rule was not completed just because of the unrest), in Libya against Colonel leader of the Jamahiriya Gaddafi (ruled for almost 43 years, was killed by Islamists), in Egypt against Hosni Mubarak ( he ruled for 30 years, was put arrested). In Syria, against Bashar al-Assad (the Assad clan has ruled the country for half a century, a civil war began after the Islamists’ speech, only Putin’s military assistance prevented a coup). Spontaneous riots and regular self-immolations also occurred in Saudi Arabia (King Abdullah promised to distribute money, which paid off, although a coup was unlikely). In Morocco (Mohammed VI promised reforms), in Bahrain (King Hamad also promised payments, pay-off), in Oman, and so on.

I am not just listing the names of deposed Arab dictators. After the name, I confirm the duration of their reign. And this era of rule is no different from medieval “Asian” practices. This suggests that the younger sons, and according to the traditional seniority, are all younger, although they are the eldest sons in their families. But these are peasant families! (If we draw a parallel with Romanov’s Russia, these are all the children of the same Russians raznochintsy. These are the Russians Alexeyevs, Kornilovs, and Denikins – generals of low birth who also overthrew the Romanovs. They went on a campaign against Moscow under the tricolor. The tricolor is not the monarchy’s flag but the republic’s flag.

So, there are no doubts about the prospects of the Russian Revolution and Russia’s future destiny if one of the white generals won, Russia would have a dictatorship).

If, in the traditional world, someone has taken place beyond their age, this does not mean at all that they have abandoned the “overthrown” rules. Even if this ruler came to power through a coup and at the same time distributed Republican or even populist promises to the right and left. The environment, conservative system will still force him to turn into the subject, however he has taken over. Of course, he can’t turn into a monarch all at once. But what does it matter how he calls himself and others lick his ass? The essence of the matter does not change from this.

That’s how all the Arab generals and Colonel Gaddafi began to play socialism because socialism was the only justification for their insolence.

However, conservative socialism is different from really socialism. This is not real socialism. So far, we can call it cargo socialism because socialism was used voluntarily by people who were completely unsuitable for their status in the traditional environment. No matter how one of the young, conditionally younger sons does take a conditionally alien place, which the people have determined in advance in their culture (or, more precisely, in their reflection, the collective unconscious means), this ruler is doomed to play a not peculiar role to his age. He will become the “eldest son”, even more so into a dictator in 20—25 years. These are the rules.

The Ouroboros Cycle

The traditional world develops according to its laws. Marxists and other specialists of the old sociology can only “rest” here. These codes are not for them. Since sociologists and political scientists do not have a new “microscope” of Revcon, everything revolves around the symptoms. In turn, every old specialist interprets subjectively, but everyone understands. Because it is stereotypical, we will reject it at once. Imperialism has nothing to do with it. By analogy with the spiral DNA of historical repetitions, Revcon offers mankind a loop-like RNA. Namely, the tradition only looks eternal from the outside. It is also repeated in actions. Tradition is repetition. But traditional people are influenced by world news in terms of more than just technical discoveries. The earth is round, but the Mercedes is comfortable. Traditional worlds are also happy to breathe in social theories. It is for a civilization that the new thoughts of ideologists are theories. For traditional people, this is a new way. If you take a specific member of a collective kindred community, this is the path to fame- the most valuable prize among the Zerefs and, of course, to a new status. Zerefs not only love different discoveries that they will adapt to their household utensils but also like new ideas. I’ve already told you why. The new ideas destroy the hierarchy. In general, the process of influencing the development of traditional civilization communities in Revcon is called flotagia. The traditional world is developing in leaps and bounds (riots, coups, revolutions – who likes it, so count it). The reason for these jumps is the cycle (in Revcon, the general node of the cycle consists of loops). You can also call the entire loop a traditional loop.

So.

The Zeref’s loop.

Technical perfection, an invention, or a new skill causes an additional product. The additional product contributes to population growth. If the traditional people have a lot of food, they will have many children. The growth of the traditional population (Zerefs) is a Zeref’s loop. If we temporarily turn off the civilizational background and leave traditional communities without the surrounding modern world, then no visible shifts in this seemingly eternal traditional behavior are expected. All the Zerefs of the world are born for war. If the growth of the traditional population caused the war, it meant the inability of the elite to support a large number of new people. Therefore, the Zerefs are doomed to war with their neighbors. The whole story consists of wars caused by the disproportionality of the new population and the old product. Thus, all the Zerefs of the world are born for war. Socialist regimes replace war with labor. The Gulag of the Stalin system in the USSR is a clear example.

The most successful example is in the shock five – year plans of socialism. That millions of non-Serfs work for free in the camps is not the worst thing. The worst position is when the intellectual elite should engage in “such labor”. Intellectuals should create thought forms, and intellectuals should maintain high morals. If the Remids are engaged in Zeref affairs, the Zerefs in power get complete freedom for a future coup or counter-revolution. And modern local Asia dictators are being saved, just saved (by sending all guest workers to Russia, where they were used as a labor force; if they went to their homeland, they would soon revolt). If you do not create Remids from Zerefs, a military caste of colonels will arise for a series of sudden, violent seizures of power over time. Often, the elite, consisting of former peasants, feel the impossibility of constant repression, which is what the power apparatus of such regimes actually does, and goes to a soft development option. The former peasant elite obstructs the former system and defines the departed leader as a pest to move to the soft option. In the tradition of the Soviet regime, there was a constant practice of the new leader negatively assessing his predecessor.

Further, the Remids are the elite of civilization and, of course, of socialism. If you raise the moral atmosphere with moral authorities, there will be no colonels coup. I have a separate book for getting acquainted with the Remids. The Remids are the heroes of socialism. If the people dislike intellectuals, the people are doomed to traditional cycles. Another party of hypocrites will claim power under different ideas and pretexts. The next cycle will pass. The old rascals will create a base for their personal success. And what does a traditional person need? A good home (in the Bahamas), a good wife (model), what else do you need to meet old age? The next cycle will pass, and new scoundrels will criticize the previous ones with bad words.

It cannot be said that the Remids do not take part in this tragic cycle “Ouroboros”. Dictators find for themselves the hypocritical chroniclers and obsequious composers of solemn hymns. (It’s true, very often, all these hymn-writers belong to the same people.) If the traditional people found their destiny in the revolution, they did not love all revolutionaries – only those who promised the people a bright future. A revolution is such a massive leap after fate, after its success. Therefore, the crowds love and worship, as it will be presented to the public by the next propagandists and learn to claim the highest places. There is such a contradiction here.

The dictator’s fork of fate.

The revolution can train only a part of the lowest class. Then, there will be future Muammars of Gaddafi, colonels, and juntas. Or train all the people at once. So, that bloodless orange coups would take place later.

Now, however, what is a Remid’s loop?

The fact is that if you choose one leader from a dozen elite candidates. If they select the best, these same ten candidates themselves, all these ten will choose the weakest of the ten. What’s the point? Probably, every applicant expects a quick discredit from this manager. Or they will wait for him to die, his quick death because the second sign of selection to the elite is a physical illness and, therefore, senile infirmity. These elite oligarchs will select an old man or a sick man, and this is another guarantee of a quick release of the place. However, when a tiger and a bear fight, a monkey watches from the top of the hill. And no one will win the fight of unworthy people who beat and kill each other. If the next candidate, a monkey, wins, which the arrogant tiger and bear did not expect, it is the choice of the most unworthy of the squad of worthy candidates, which is really Remid’s loop.