Tradition against communism. Almaz BraevЧитать онлайн книгу.
with sausage, cheese, tea and other deficits, why not? Since any building rests on a Foundation, they began to dig a pit of products for nationalism. That is, the selection of less reflective people in the new market elite was not only at the expense of ethnicity, due to the fact that you are a zeref, a person from the people, and not a remid. Native speech became the best means of selection. What language was spoken before the revolution. Went permanent wailing and crying on the language of ethnic groups from different parts of the USSR. Which began to subside as the first forms of market building appeared. Don’t forget for a moment that all these reforms were written by a market composer. The market is the main customer of ethnic music here. The zerefs, people from the people born on the periphery, came out on top again and stood in the line of trumpeters of privatization. They were only needed for privatisation. According to the law the traditions they have become the new seretide to become the new traditional elite. And help. And join the new elite. At this time, new residents settled in the cities and their children grew up. And reflexivity has become borderline, has fallen. Now there is neither democracy nor freedom. Only food is plentiful in the supermarket. In a painted wrapper. But the market in the middle waving his wand invisible dirijor:" All who sell, all personality!“So the children of people who ran away from the settlements to the cities and engaged in anything, mostly in trade, became zephags (zephag = zeref+ refag) and gave the most real symptom of nationalism – being chosen based on external data and ethnic speech. Thus revkon reveals the influence of the market, which needs zeref workers. They will say that Marx had nothing to do with it. He wanted the proletariat to make them leaders, creators of socialism, and thus destroy the traditional world. Who was nothing became everything… And where is the market? How did you get back? Yes, the proletariat or a former member of the peasant world could become everything, but for this it did not have to destroy its intelligentsia. Only the intelligentsia, destroyed in 1937, could save it from failure. After all, zeref never gives a single front-the whole. And the market surprisingly came from the other side. In 1991. And he said: the person is the one who chews.
CHAPTER VI
COMMUNIST SHARIKOV
Karl Marx: “Crude communism” is only a form of manifestation of the vileness of private property that wants to assert itself as a positive community” (18, p.116). Great! Russian Russian peasants liked Marxism so much, but at first the Russian intelligentsia did not. The European intelligentsia and bourgeoisie did not show much passion for Marxism.
Russian peasants liked Marxism for its clear side of equality. When Marxism came to Russia, the soldiers of the Russian Tsar were tired of dying for the Tsar. Even before the world war and the revolution in Russia, the land issue became more acute. Russian Russian intelligentsia did not need land, Russian intelligentsia needed civil rights. The bourgeoisie did not have equal rights with the Russian nobility. Russia was still a feudal power. Not all Russian intelligentsia was fascinated by Marxism, but almost all of them sought equality in civil rights. Hence the search for truth, and this truth is actually bourgeois. The Tsar was not arrested by noblemen who had dynasties, but by young noblemen whose fathers had recently received the title along with their government jobs. Of course, there were no Marxists among these patriots. But then they appeared a few months later as the main actors of the revolution.
Someone will think that the main motive of the Russian revolution was banal envy. “Take and share!”. But this is not the case. You can’t say that about the intelligentsia, but you can partially say that. The main quality of the bourgeoisie here is ambition. Marxist intellectuals spoke on behalf of the people, who did not like this smart and important. In any feudal community, smart people were never liked, considered upstarts. Therefore, after the revolution, the people themselves became important and intelligent, and the revolutionary intelligentsia was shot. Russian Russian community (and not only Russian) has always wanted to have a strict leader. The leader of a feudal community must be strict, even cruel, and not necessarily smart. Therefore, any official elected by the revolution quickly turned into a feudal Lord. Such a master of Soviet Russia was Stalin – the new red Tsar and his people. They shot smart intellectuals and raised their own intelligentsia – the “lousy” intelligentsia. This intelligentsia also did not like talented people. Out of a dislike for smart and extraordinary leaders, every Soviet leader after Stalin was even funnier than the previous one. They looked more like the heads of a Soviet collective farm, a kind of Russian community, but without a Tsar, an Orthodox faith, but with mechanical tractors instead of an ancient plow. Soviet leaders replaced each other in high positions and decreased even in physical growth. Small, small, then even smaller. This is not the self-sufficient person that Karl Marx described. There was no place even for the intimidated Soviet intelligentsia. Although all the peasants wanted to get joy and got it. Everyone wanted to be intelligent. But to become a master. The feudal hierarchy has not disappeared. She just changed and became unrecognizable. But all former peasants received education in order to get a state position and a high salary. Then these same people wanted freedom and democracy. But all the intellectuals who came out of the people did not like their people, were Russophobes. Because all educated people, all intellectuals were harassed. They went through the path of bullying, as did the revolutionary intellectuals before them. But they were not shot as revolutionary intellectuals. Because they came from the people. Therefore, they kept their anger at the crowd and this anger accumulated from childhood. They were teased as children. Because the Russian peasants and proletarians did not like people in clean clothes, with exemplary behavior, with handkerchiefs and scarves. The whole country was a colossal construction site of socialism. The proletarians under the dictator Stalin built new factories, power plants, bridges, and Railways. And then there were some suspicious and clean people walking around. No, they didn’t like intellectuals. All liberal Russian intellectuals had some kind of flaw, some physical flaw, and even mental abnormalities. These children were teased cruelly from childhood. Why should liberal intellectuals love Soviet Russia? They suffered from strabismus, and many remained psychopaths. A type of Karl Marx’s alternative man, the Communists were destroyed by rural Pharisees and their assistants surnamed Sharikov in 1937. This means that Marx did not describe the social emancipation of a person from the people, in our case zeref (reflection zero, ze-re), but a person still average, with low intelligence and a person of weak culture. To remove self-alienation, that is, when a person is aware of himself as a person, they needed not only basic knowledge, the ability to read and write, but also culture, starting opportunities. But in conscientious Russia, the dictatorship of the proletariat, that is, the new dictatorship of the Russian community, was taken as the basis. Who are these proletarians? Why are they so just and Holy in Karl Marx? These are just Russian peasants who worked for a while at the factory, but were or remained peasants by blood and spirit. The Marxist intellectuals raised them above the ground. Did the saints almost. But then the tricksters and romantics were themselves destroyed, tortured, and shot by these same proletarians – former peasants. This ignorance. And Russian Marxism proved to be a heavy tax on the entire people, on the entire society, on all so-called Marxism, which eventually led to the fall of the USSR and the restoration in 1991. Farmers, even after becoming intellectuals, in the second and third generation will think about how to increase their allotment – to build a dacha, for example, or to arrange a son in a prestigious University. When this desire became great, privatization took place in Russia. Privatization and new feudalization based on new technologies is a continuation of the same tax on the elite, when the new elite wants not recognition by the Russian community, but recognition by the world elite. The children and grandchildren of Russian peasants have joined the ranks of the world’s elite with big money. This money, this gold, they stole from their people.
CHAPTER VII
WHERE DID “TAKE AND SHARE” COME FROM”
All traditional families have many children. Traditional fathers could not pass on the same inheritance to all their sons. In Europe, the father passed the inheritance to the eldest son. This transfer of inheritance to the eldest son in the family was called the entail. The younger children were forced to find their own luck. The younger sons went to the