Autocracy vs. fake

Paternalism

There is a direct dependence of population multiplication on the essence of the ruler. Traditional peoples grow in number under a strong ruler. Traditional people wait for a hard, strict hand, as children wait for an authoritative father. Just as if the family had a strict father. The steppe bore fruit under dictators, and under Democrats, it would collapse into internecine strife and cease to multiply.

We are a traditional people. We need guarantees of order. We need an authoritative leader.

If your people are not ready for democracy, then maintain the existing order.

The Republic of Kazakhstan should have strict Executive power.

Today, even the corrupt authorities fulfill this task. Here the question is, what is not corruption in the East? And what is good for the East, and what is bad for the West? Replacing corrupt Eastern officials with other Eastern “non-corrupt” ones will do nothing. Revolutionaries and new officials will also turn into corrupt officials after a while because they have relatives. And Eastern culture reproduces hierarchy all the time. This is why all the CIS republics have received traditionalists in power since 1991, even if these traditionalists always talk about their commitment to democratic values and open society in the future. All these people were born in the East anyway. For traditionalists who are born in the East, first, their personal status and… of course, wealth are important. If the people are 90% traditionalists, even to some extent literate and educated, every next traditionalist in power will inevitably think about their status and wealth. Thus, replacing the humble corrupt officials with the noisy patriots will also do nothing. The Republic of Kazakhstan should have a strong Executive power. Even the so-called dishonest Executive power is better than the Maidan. Although in an exceptional case, it is better to be honest, of course. But this must be earned. “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country”.

East without sun

“East is East and West is West and they can’t come together”

R. Kipling

Steppe Eurasia will never be liberal because the main occupation of nomads is nomadism and the struggle (war) for new nomads earth. But not trade. This has been the case for centuries, at any rate. This is culture. The European model that attracts our young bourgeoisie through the soft power and influence of Europe was formed at least two centuries ago, very far from the steppe expanses. After at least eight generations of social and cultural evolution, Europeans have become today’s Europeans.

Is this why our bourgeoisie is evil, greedy, insatiable, self-satisfied, vain, wild, and ostentatious? Because it’s first—generation? This applies to everyone, from top to bottom, from oligarchs to hawkers. Almost totally. Even the rules of decency were instilled not by Europeans but by Soviet institutions of culture and education. That is why it is unclear who is trading, what is trading, and why. It’s clear why. The rest is ostentation and imitation, imitation and ostentation, other monkey antics about democracy on the highest and lowest branches of the system it shows our complexes more than self-respect. What’s the first thing needs us, if not self-respect? (Don’t tell me that self-respect can be achieved only by dressing up in tailcoats or, conversely, in folk dressing gowns on holidays, or even by changing from a Russian Lada to a German Mercedes).

Liberalism passed quickly, but only as an economic scheme when it was necessary to register the inheritance and property of the USSR. All infrastructure and resources should be privatized and taken into their hands. Here, the market certainly helped to do this. There is nothing further to imitate. The government put everything in the hands of tame oligarchs and got rich. Only the demagoguery and groups of human rights defenders played in democracy. As soon as there were not enough distribution resources, conflicts immediately arose at the very top (or will inevitably arise – A. B.) At the top got rid of the disgraced oligarchs. All the opposition members are former high-ranking officials. Now the funds of distribution and liberalism (and therefore freedom) have shrunk even more. There was nothing more to divide and sell generally. That is why everywhere in the former Soviet Union, there were shouts and resistance from small opposition groups, shouts of small-scale oppositionists. Overturned oligarchs hired unemployed people, among whom there were outright psychos. The overturned oligarchs showed the whole world how the police persecuted and even beat these unfortunate people. Democracy is being beaten! In fact, they were deeply indifferent to the fate of these people. The main thing was to portray their former colleague as a radical autocrat.

Therefore, the next station is a selection from “corrupt officials” the money and transfer to their “oppositionists”, and in another way, it means Maidan?

Here again, the East will take its course, and other clans of no less, and perhaps more greedy parasites will appear. No Eastern person in the liberal trend will be a citizen, except for the status of the very first parasite. This must be remembered. In any case, this is what these “oppositionists” will say about him. This is not just our upbringing, but our culture, and who did not have time, then immediately – the oppositionist, just an Allergy to freedom for all Eastern people – manifests itself in this way. The more they talk about freedom in the steppe, the wider and thicker the noose around the neck of all other unfree people. Because we are incapable of democracy right away, Revcon suggests that we prepare for at least a limited treaty model. Revcon will prepare people for the Treaty-based on Eastern interests. Revcon will train a leader who everyone will imitate, including people infected with easy money from the first stream (the bourgeoisie). If there is no long-term urbanization in terms of trade, then the population will only imitate the idol. There is no real leader yet. Let’s draw together this desired leader.

What is our strength

Is our strength in our cultural squalor?

Part 1. External signs of conservatism

Why there is no democracy in a post-traditional society. Why can't build a democracy.

Because traditional people live in a traditional society. There is:

1. Fight for a place. In the traditional world, you need to fight for a place of grace.

Because in a traditional society, the main task is to get out in the people, take the place of honor and hold on to the place of honor as long as possible.

Indirect signs of this behavior.

No boss or VIP person wants to free up space in the chief’s chair in any way. From the outside, this can be seen well to the point of surprise. As in such a society, the entire nation ages along with a certain group of elites. If this is a chief, then the time is determined by the era of this leader. Together with the leader, the same politicians (whom the leader has designated as “politicians”) age long and persistently and do not want to resign. The same public figures loom playing and do not disconnect from the public. The same writers write books about the leader and his politicians. The same announcers report what politicians did today, what politicians did yesterday, and what they will do again – usually in bright colors. Or what the court poets write, what court composers play marches, what part of the unearthly origin was found on the leader’s body by the same philosophers.

Oppositionists talk about the cult; singers sing odes to everyone at once and to themselves, of course, at the same time. Even pop singers want to avoid disappearing from the airwaves. They also sing on Patriotic themes during the breaks of pop concerts. The feeling that in a traditional society, literally, everyone comes forward with their feet as imitating the first person? (The expression “forward feet” means that the person is carried out through the door when he takes the horizontal position of the corpse).

The entire population steps forward in feet.

The tradition of going forward with your feet is total everywhere. If the idols of society can't stand it, they will be thrown off, removed from work, by competitors, or they will leave themselves, then they know and everyone knows that no one needs them from that moment, if they actually leave. In fact, from now on, he is no one – not a boss, not a sage, not a philosopher, not a singer at all. No one to sing about, no one to praise, no one to suck up to. Everyone forgets him and passes by, and even excellent friends stop saying Hello. This encourages bosses, worthless politicians, and mediocre singers to sit until the end. Until they are actually literally carried out feet first out of the office.

2. Everyone is busy looking for a reliable host. This is protection from other robbers. "Roof".

People who do not fall into the category of respected, the stars, VIP authorities are always looking for such authorities to hide under their authority. And they want to tell everyone that he is my relative, my friend, he is my idol, and I love and respect him very much. I love him for life. Although love is certainly artificial in a competitive environment of fanatics without a direct relationship, the only way to stand out is to confess unlimited love. Hence, the potential accumulation of the cult of each first authority. I'm not even talking about the government, about the people in power, about the leader. Everyone can see it. This is all clear to everyone. The leader is simply doomed to popular love and adoration. At the bottom, at the very end of the pyramid, everyone is not interested and despised by everyone.

The leader has the biggest cult potential.

Everyone will confess their love, and others are afraid that not confessing is a crime. If the leader notices that someone does not show active love or the enemies inform him about the unlucky man, he is finished in terms of his career. Not literal. It’s about a career. Along with the market, the love of authority will also grow strongly. The cult will also grow. The field of authority is narrowed to a handful of people and one leader figure for the specific goals of each “loving” without looking back. Thus, the meaning of work is not the work itself, not the profession or professionalism, but the expression of love and devotion. Loyalty becomes a mandatory job. Even corrupt criminal offenses are forgiven for loyalty. The category outside the chosen circle and the chosen circle itself is in an eternal search for cover – a roof in a modern way. The father of nations inevitably becomes the greatest protection of the entire nation.

Who are the judges?

When the barbarians took Rome, they could only plunder and kill. Robbers and murderers were not responsible and could not answer for their crimes.

Who are the judges?

The sacred innovation of the times of the bloody Romanov monarchy gets new colors here. Judges are only descendants, and the judge is history. For contemporaries, if they are new Romans, then woe to the vanquished at once; if they are new barbarians, then barbarians are supposed to plunder and bring booty to the family. Barbarian’s family will not condemn him but will support him. Therefore, the barbarian carries everything into the house.

Ideologists of liberalism claim that if all Zerefs (traditional people) are given property, they will automatically become responsible. So responsible that they will eventually demand democratic governance and root out corruption. Is it true?

But what we see.

We see that the Zerefs are getting rich and don’t want to be responsible for anything. On the contrary, they carry everything to the family and build large houses (almost castles) for the family. What happens on the street the corruption and despotism of any kind; they don’t care, as long as to make the family feel good, they are not interested in anything else. On the contrary, any boss and corrupt official causes traditional people to understand: an official, a despot, and even a “tyrant” in his workplace does everything for the family. In fact, any Zeref in his place would do the same. And to infinity. Why is it that someone else is surprised that nothing will happen to big corrupt officials; they will not be convicted but amnestied? Answer. They carry everything to the family. What questions can there be? Does no one directly or indirectly condemn theirs? From the point of view of tradition and the depth of centuries, this is all normal. Who will bring the most to the grotto, the same, the most beloved?

Who condemns indirectly?

Who might have forgotten about their family? Or maybe he compares someone else’s family and someone else’s fate? I suspect that the comparison has the appearance of simple greed; otherwise, there are no other motives in the tradition. An indirect denouncement of a corrupt official could write only weak warriors and nothing more. He’s weak, and he’s jealous. He didn’t bring anything to the grotto.

Here are some examples.

When the barbarians sacked Rome, and the Romans fled, the eternal city seemed to disappear after the plunder. What was recently, but it immediately disappeared. What used to be called Rome turned into a gothic village with the same gothic name. How and how was it possible to unite the gothic shepherds, who, before the capture of Rome and its plunder, grazed cattle with the natives? Some knew the law, and others didn’t.

What is the law of the barbarians?

The barbarian must know that each of his actions will be appreciated by his clan, so the barbarian is generous and sympathetic, but not to strangers, but only to the people of his clan (that is, to his relatives). The most authoritative leader is the one who gives away makes gifts to the people. (In Saudi Arabia, sheikhs still do this – they give out gifts, as the ancient sheikhs did 1000 years ago. But the sheikhs are very civilized people)

Where did the castle come from in the Middle Ages? They didn’t exist before.

If so happened, the barbarians (Goths and Vandals, Alans, Huns) scattered across the free land, where the former owners escaped. What should they do? Who should they answer to? After all, the Romans were not there. So, the barbarian will not answer to anyone, he is his master, and all the loot will be put in one place. To protect yourself from other barbarians just like him, he built an impregnable fortress, dug a moat, and let the river into the moat – here you have a medieval castle – fortress. (Have you noticed such locks now? I see. Although in the yard of the XXI century)

No relatives and no judges. There are no judges, so everyone now judges. They can trample everyone under their horse (now under cars), or they can ride anywhere they want. Who would they answer to? In front of those who think to take everything to the family? Yes, they are the same as them, only they do not have a horse and a castle (mansion, account, car Park). This is how traditional people learn to co-exist in the new Middle Ages, which they create as if reluctantly. Anyone who wants protection must work for the owner, who will launch it into their feudal castle. Those who do not want protection will go without a roof or protection. Traditional people are the sources of their own medieval troubles. The Middle Ages come precisely and invisibly, while some fighters against corruption will build a democracy. After the fall of Rome, there was no democracy for more than 1,000 years. Even if the fighters build a democracy themselves or thanks to the West, it will still be a castle with new vassals and feudal lords. It’s always been that way. In medieval castles, this is evidence of the lack of ideas and any responsibility.

When the oppositionist is worse the official

Friendship against the blood.

Where the dictatorship comes from and where it leads.

The traditional elite could always stand out and separate themselves from the rest of the crowd. At first, the crowd was understood as the inhabitants of one village and numerous close and distant relatives, then all the rootless and conquered peoples. And the family law required everyone to take care of their blood. The Patriarchal elite was also to take care of the people. They could not and did not think of any other way to live. Any such village was a collective of mutual assistance and mutual support. This picture is still the same among the people of the tradition.

Probably, there comes a time when such care begins to strain the upper classes. Can someone stand high above others, or can’t possibly protect others and feed them? Each case requires specific lighting. Maybe the relatives themselves have become lazy, they don’t want to go to war for the leader because conquests are always trophies for everyone, or maybe they don’t even want to work. In addition, there are always competitors among relatives. Sometimes even the most half-brothers and close relatives became bitter enemies; there are a thousand examples of this, especially when it was necessary to share power and inheritance. In General, we will assume that some elite wants to separate from their relatives so that everyone can clearly see that they are the elite. They say we are all noble people, maybe even from the same village, maybe blood brothers, citizens of the same state, and we certainly want to get the most.

These two tendencies of fraternal hypocrisy and the immediate struggle for absolute power cannot be taken away. It is not immediately visible, and it is not even clear what is really more important. On the one hand, all people from the periphery show at feasts that they are very close, irreplaceable as the real relatives; on the other side, there is no competition eviler than competition within this very family and this very circle. The same situation is possible at the very top. On the one side, the traditional government presses on kinship that we are one people, they say, one country. However, it seems to these people that people from outside, strangers, people in power would be less greedy than their own. It turns out that it is better for a conditional brother to be friends or, more precisely, to be in an alliance with a stranger by blood and for a people with a seemingly strange people at first glance. This has nothing to do with blood or the obligation to yield to an older person in the hierarchy with the main credo you are for me, and I am for you. And all the rest is the accompanying hypocrisy. It is clear that if you can do for me, I do for you.

Why are people of the same blood, the same tribe, and the same culture so despotic towards their people? For example, the bankers with their Draconian interest rates.

Reason №1.

A radical desire to stand out and rise above everyone, most of all, is characteristic of outcasts. The first passion is the passion for proving and taking revenge. If some people searching for terrible energy find the answer in Gumilyov’s passionarity, then they are mistaken, and the tale of sub-passionaries will not help them. All the time to look for energy in people because somewhere a crack has formed in the earth’s crust, it is, at least, ridiculous. Only the two-color tribal soul, the existence in the world of sharp categories of good-bad, friend – enemy you can find the answer, why if something is denied, then obviously, if something is repelled, then very roughly. Elite means the elite. To push so hard, this is a world of contrasts and pressures.

The imposition of kinship together with responsibility for the crowd, then a sharp denial, creates the phenomenon of feudal domination or repulsion. From the opposite: for – against, no – yes, brother – stranger, and so on. This world is two-colored. Related people during the crisis may be a narrowing of the area due to the defeat, narrowing of borders, but they want to sharply separate themselves in their homes. The upper classes and feudal lords hide from their enemies in feudal castles all the time. Officials hide behind laws that protect them, like the walls of a fortress—officials above the law. Well, in castles, too.

Down with the relationship!

But the elite can also stand out from a series of victories. This is the vertigo of the traditional elite. They will want to fence themselves off from people and leave only the household and loyal servants. This dog-like loyal household is a very characteristic accompaniment of feudalism. Under the monarchy, all the rooms are packed with servants. If some blood-related group wants to say something, comes with a contender for the chair, it will mean a war of competitors. But if it is necessary to resist other people, then the closest circle can play the role of a friend, although relatives or friends can play for themselves. In any case, one day there will be a desire for undivided total domination of the allies. If the traditional culture remains the main one in this area, then every such feudal leader will strive to eliminate any competitors, no matter what it takes. (This was, even when the Soviet people were present as a phenomenon of comradely proletarian solidarity in international expansion. The repression was evidence of this).

There will be reminders that we are one people, one family, one country. And at this very time, people will always feel that something very heavy is pressing down from above and pressing on their backs. Oddly enough, the same old feudal boot presses on one family, one nation, one country; it is the leader's boot and his court servants. In any case, the one who is a brother or is considered a brother and "one people" presses and presses along with other people's sons in the literal sense. These very sons literally came out of the people from their very depths and niches. All the court servants in their highly polished boots guard the secret of this origin.

So, it turns out that the clan itself, or the people, or the Union of tribes chooses or tries to select from themselves not the noblest, but the most passionate. And for proving their superiority, the boots of the new rulers, who are considered brothers, become heavier and heavier. Despotic phenomena are growing. The traditional elite pupates into a narrow and hateful (or at least unpleasant) circle of fraternal luxury shoes. And this is not one and not a particular phenomenon. This is the system. This is the culture. I'm the boss, and you're nobody.

So, what happens? We just need to let them calm down.

It is necessary to give such supreme relatives a chance to calm down. Make it clear that yes, we as the people recognize them as the elite, elected persons, and authorized heirs of the bluest blood that we don't claim their places of honor. Let them have fun in their high palace. We do not impose on them as relatives and do not want to add to the court staff. However, these bosses love loyal people like dogs. Who wants success? Let them make a loyal appearance. The contradiction of the traditional people can be solved very simply. So, that other "relatives" do not look as a friend, and then a prop for a riot in the neighbors, the opposition and the violators of the brotherhood should be outlawed. Those who oppose the feudal elite cause chaos. They want to catch a fish in muddy water. And in general, dogs are better than oppositionists.

Reason №2

That post-kin people don’t know what friendship is, but they know what kinship is, we already know. Friendship is a soft phenomenon outside the generic hard field and categorical: friend – stranger, friend-enemy, good – bad. Therefore, generic or post-generic fiction always strives to get away from the rigid coupling with relatives, to show who I am and who you are. Those who did not know friendship and did not know love always want to strengthen the lack of friendship, with relatives or people, there is no difference. Where there are people in General, friendship always comes first. Friendship or solidarity of rulers and so-called citizens. But where there are no citizens, simply because there is no friendship, but there is a blood relationship or post-relationship, as you want to call it, in general, there are no people who are friends with each other, there will be orders and dictates. You can’t make friends with your family. Then they will come and do nothing. Everyone will become idlers. All will come to rule and enrich themselves with their brothers, their relatives near and far. Others who are not directly related will insist that they are one people: “Ruler, why are you offending us?”