Алмаз Браев – Autocracy vs. fake (страница 2)

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.

Chapter III

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.

Chapter IV

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.