Stalin once said that after his death his grave will cause a lot of garbage, but the wind of history will dispel. All and so it was, as anticipated the chief. Has not passed also several years as one of the main "Stakhanovite of terror" of the 1930-ies N. Khrushchev (on his request to increase quotas for the shooting of Stalin wrote: "shut up, fool") began to pour mud at the leader.
Khrushchev was not the first in this regard: a systematic watering Stalin (though interspersed with real criticism) began Trotsky, but not released mind is an ex-Trotskyite Khrushchev left only watering. Then Khrushchev as "scavengers" have joined the most zealous of the "sixties", but what about the dissidents, "sang" the strangers "voices" and "floated" on other people's "waves", and say nothing — they were part of a Western anti-Soviet propaganda.
Restructuring marked a new stage in the defamation of Stalin. Here, however, Stalin was the main target, and Soviet socialism, the Soviet system, Soviet history, Russian history in General. After all, said one of the demons of the restructuring that the restructuring they broke not only the Soviet Union but the entire paradigm of the millennial Russian history. And the fact that the main figure of the break was chosen by Stalin, once again demonstrates the role that the person-a phenomenon not only in Soviet but in Russian history — Stalinism, among other things, active and great-Russian form of survival in the twentieth century in an extremely hostile environment to set their sights on the "final solution of Russian question" — Hitler in this regard not just it — by plebeian manner — loudly shouted, repeating what had accumulated in the Anglo-Saxons. ("The USSR collapsed, destroyed the Soviet system. It would seem that somatotopy can calm down about Stalin and the USSR. But no, itching to do them. However, the current destalinization shape mostly farcical and offensive, look small compared to the perestroika punk. On TV screens rigged miserable social types like half-educated Paterno-fake publicist, academician dropout with the manners of a rat, of an alcoholic with pretensions to the role of international businessman and other mediocrity. It does make me think of Karel čapek ("they come like a thousand of masks without faces" — about the salamanders) and Nikolay Zabolotsky ("All mixed up in a General dance,/ And fly to the ends/ Hamadryas and British/ Witches, fleas, dead... / Candidate of former centuries,/ Commander of new years/ my Mind! These freaks —/ Only fiction and nonsense").
Indeed, otherwise as delusions not to name the fact that "kovërnye the anti-Stalinist" served as "argument". It's either solid, on the verge of hysteria emotions in the spirit of Amateur club with cries of "nightmare", "horror", "shame", very reminiscent of the Jackal tabaki from Rudyard Kipling "Mowgli" with his "Shame on the jungle!", — emotions without any facts and figures. Or manipulation of fantastic figures of victims of "Stalinist repression": "tens and tens of millions" (why not hundreds?). If you think about and refer to, "the GULAG Archipelago" Solzhenitsyn. But Solzhenitsyn was a master of legendirovannyh and blanks "pads". For example, he did not claim to "Archipelago..." on the arithmetic precision; moreover, it was expressed in the sense that the work is, so to speak, impressionistic character. Insure "the Winds" — that means school.
But over the past quarter century on the basis of archival data (the archives are open) and our, and the Western (primarily American) researchers, most of which are not noticed in sympathies for Stalin nor the USSR, nor even to Russia, estimated the actual number of repressed in 1922-53. (recall, incidentally, that, although the "Stalinist" era formally began in 1929, in fact, only since 1939 formally possible to speak about full control over Stalin's "the party and the government", although there were some nuances), and no "tens of millions" or even a "tens of millions" and there is no smell.
In recent years, there have been well-documented work, showing the actual mechanism of "repression of the 1930s" which were unleashed massive as it is the "old guard" and "regional barons" like Khrushchev and eikhe as a response to Stalin's proposal on alternative elections. To break the resistance "of starogardzie" the leader could not, but the point (not mass!) blow to their staffs struck. I leave aside the struggle with real conspiracies — the opposition left the globalists Stalin-the Comintern, like Trotsky, who believed that Stalin had betrayed the world revolution, etc. Thus, the real picture of the "repression of the 1930s" is much harder than it is trying to present Stalin's detractors; it's a multilayered and multidirectional process of completing the civil war, in which the "Stalinist segment" is not a big part.
Similarly fails the second main unit of the charges Stalin — how developed in the first months of the Great Patriotic war: "blinked", "asleep", "did not believe Sorge", "believed Hitler", "escaped from the Kremlin and the three days was in prostration" etc. All the lies disproven long ago documented, the researchers aware of this — and that Stalin did not conquer, and that in fact never believed Hitler, and that right did not believe Sorge, and the real fault generals on the eve of June 22. This is not the place to parse all of these questions, but one comment doesn't hold. I laughed as the anti-Stalinist over the TASS statement of 14 June 1941; the statement said that the relations between the USSR and Germany, everything is fine, that the Soviet Union continued to pursue peaceful course etc. "Scavengers" interpret this as "folly and weakness of Stalin" as "kowtowing to Hitler." They never think that the destination application were not Hitler and the Third Reich, and Roosevelt and the United States. In April 1941, the U.S. Congress decided that in the event of a German attack on the USSR the US would help the USSR, and in the case of USSR attack on Germany — Germany.
The TASS statement fixed the complete lack of aggressive intentions of the USSR towards Germany and has demonstrated that the absence of the USA, not Germany. Stalin was well aware that in the inevitable battle with the Reich its only real ally may be just the US, they will keep the UK from slipping into a German-British anti-Soviet Alliance. And, of course, it was impossible to prevent careless movement, which pushed the Russian Hitler provoke the North Atlantic (or rather, the world — with the participation of Japan and Turkey) anti-Soviet bloc. In this case, the Soviet Union (relative military capabilities on the 1937 — 14%) would have had to confront the USA (41.7 per cent), Germany (14,4%), UK (10,2% excluding Imperial possessions), France (4,2%), Japan (3.5 per cent), Italy (2,5%) plus smaller dragons. By the way, given these numbers and the fact that the decision of Congress all of the obvious falsity of the scheme rezuna and others like him about the alleged preparation of Stalin attack Germany in particular and Europe in General.
There is one more psychological nuance into allegations of scientific and pseudo-scientific brethren addressed to Stalin. All, or rather, all that is negative in the reign of Stalin (positive is along the lines of "in spite of Stalin") blame one person as supposedly endowed with absolute power, but because of the Almighty. But first, Stalin managed to consolidate his power only towards the end of 1930th years; before that, the struggle for life and death, walking on the blade, constant readiness to respond to a cry of joy pack: "Akela has missed". War is not the time for unilateral decisions. Well, the period 1945-1953, is the time constant infighting different nomenclature groups with each other — and against Stalin. Postwar 8th anniversary — is the story of the gradual obkladyvaniya, the environment, the aging leader nomenclature (with the participation of certain forces and structures from abroad); Stalin's attempt to strike back at the XIX Congress of the CPSU(b)/CPSU (1952) and immediately after it ended in the death of the leader. Thus, in the real, not a "Professor" of history, about which Goethe noticed that it has no relation to the actual spirit of the past is "...the spirit of the professors and their concepts, That these gentlemen out of place/ Over the true antiquity of the issue", Stalin has never been absolute ruler — the ring of Power he had. This does not mean that he does not bear sole responsibility for any errors, cruelty, etc., — together with a brutal era, and according to the laws of nature which we want to estimate.
But it's not just that. The simple truth is this: the one who led the team of at least 10 people, knows that absolute power is impossible — and it is even less possible, the more subordinates. Most of those who wrote and wrote about Stalin, never, nothing and no one was in charge was not responsible, i.e. in this sense the essence of people is irresponsible. In addition to power, they often project their ambitions, fears, grievances, desires, "sleepy thoughts are swinging" (N. Z), and, last but not least, the craving for denunciation (it's no secret that most of the Soviet era of Stalin and the KGB, the former hate snitches, informers, it's easier to hate the system and its leader, than to despise his own meanness — displacement, you know). Absolute power is the dream of cointelligence, who found one of his reflections in "the Master and Margarita"; among other things, is why the novel became a cult for cointelligence ("Notes of a dead man", where this layer was revealed to mirror, not steel). To the point of the system to the personality of one man — there is something of social schizophrenia, and from infantilism, not to mention the professional failure.
It could be observed and a mass of other absurdities, errors, and fraud "menoscikov garbage" on the grave of Stalin, but what's the point in digging poisoned by lies and hatred, mixed with complexes and phobias brains? More interesting to disassemble more: causes hatred for Stalin, fear of the entire layers and groups in our country and abroad, fear and hatred, which does not go of the past and, on the contrary, seems to grow as the distance from the Stalin era. Who knows, maybe this is the main Military Secret of the Soviet era, which is not given to unravel the military secret which hangs over them like a "sword of Damocles"?
It is often said: "Tell me who your friends are and I'll tell you who you are." Actually the person to no lesser extent determined not by friends and enemies: "Tell me who your enemy is, and I'll tell you who you are." Reflect on Stalin through the prism of hate and fear him of his enemies and their lackeys.
The attitude of the leaders: kings, General secretaries, presidents, — an interesting thing because of its, at least superficially, paradoxical. In Russian history there were three cool ruler — Ivan the terrible, Peter I and Joseph Stalin. The most violent and destructive was the work of the second: during his reign the population decrease was approximately 25% (people measures, ran); at the time of Peter's death the Treasury was almost empty, ruined economy, and from Peter's fleet in a few years, left three ships. And it's a great modernizer? The people Peter was the Antichrist — the only Russian Tsar Antichrist, and this is very significant. But Ivan IV went down in history as the terrible, and his time in the XVII century. remembered as the last decades of peasant freedom. And oprichnina in people is almost a bad word is not mentioned — it is "merit" liberal Romanov historians. Stalin, unlike Peter, left behind a great power on the material Foundation of which, including nuclear, we live still, but Russia is still considered a major power (albeit regional, but without Stalin the Foundation of the us was and is awaiting the fate of the Serbs, Afghans and Libyans, no illusions here, no need to feed).
Paradox, but of the three rulers Peter, despite the extreme personal violence and disastrous reign, love of power and a significant part of the intelligentsia. He didn't get a tenth of the criticism that liberal historiography and journalism brought down on the heads of Ivan the terrible and Joseph Stalin. The terrible king was no place on the monument "Millennium of Russia", and Peter — in the foreground. What Peter had done, what did John and Joseph? A very simple thing: let the top steal on a large scale, was liberal to the "mischief" of this particular layer. For this kind of power (the portrait of Peter I in the office of Chernomyrdin is very symbolic) and reflect her interests, tastes and preferences of a particular segment of historians and publicists. Ivan the terrible and Stalin were tough and even cruel in relation, first, to the top. "Damned caste!" — these are the words of Stalin, when he learned that evacuated to Kuibyshev nomenclature tries to arrange for his children's private school.
Throughout his life in power, Stalin opposed the "accursed caste", not allowing it to turn into a class. He knew, as this transformation of the "caste" will oppose the construction of socialism — that is what Stalin meant when he spoke of rising class struggle as you progress in the course of building socialism. As demonstrated by restructuring, the leader was absolutely right: already in 1960-ies formed quasiclassical shadow of the USSR-2, which in Alliance with the West and destroyed the USSR-1 with all its achievements. In this case the real discontent of the population was due to the USSR-2, ie deviation from the model, but interested layers cranked slick propaganda trick: put the population of the USSR-2 with its flaws, growing inequality, artificially created shortages, etc. as the initial design model of the USSR-1, which we urgently need "reform".
In Soviet times, as during Stalin's lifetime and after his death, the leader of the hated mainly two power groups (and thus related groups of cointelligence). First, this is the part of the Soviet establishment, which was aimed at world revolution and whose members considered Stalin a traitor to the Affairs of the world revolution or, at least, a draft Dodger from her. It is about the leftist-globalists-Comintern, for which Russia, the USSR were just a springboard for world revolution. They, of course, could not appeal to any "socialism in one, separately taken country" (i.e. the revival of "Empire" in the "red version"), nor appeal to Russian national traditions, which they used to look down upon, nor the abolition in 1936 of the celebration on November 7 as the First day of the world revolution, nor the appearance in 1936 of the term "Soviet patriotism" or more. It is significant that already in the mid-1920s, G. Zinoviev, "third Grisha" Russian history (he would know those who are numbered, how pathetic even in comparison with the third will be the fourth), argued the necessity of removing Stalin from the post of Secretary General said that, "I do not like the Comintern", and one of the main critics of Stalin in the 1930-ies was a high-ranking functionary of the Kominternovsky O. Pyatnitsky.
The second group of stalinisation can be called "Soviet liberals". What is "liberal Soviet-style"? Of course, this is not a liberal in the classical sense, and indeed not a liberal — even nize-e-enko-nize-e-enko not liberal. Soviet nomenklatura liberal — interesting can be customized processing: is the official who sought to consume more than it ought on the rigid rules of the Soviet-item Ranzhirovanie-hierarchical system of consumption, and therefore ready to change the power in wealth, more eager to travel to the West through his fingers and looking at the shadow economy with which it merges in more social ecstasy.
In our day it is called corruption, but to subsistema this term is hardly applicable, corruption is the use of the public sphere of private activities and interests. The fact of the matter is however, that in sovremennosti was not legally fixed differences between these areas, since there was no private sphere — "all around collective, all around me." It is corruption must go about undermining the system, which from time — to-time (mid 1970-ies, when the country has experienced unaccounted oil dollars) were quantitative in nature. Thus, it is more correct to speak about the deformation of the system. These deformers and Stalin hated the most, because the nomenclature and near-nomenclature thieves realized that if it or similar orders of retaliation can not be avoided; so feared the coming to power of neostalinist A. shelepina, put on Brezhnev — and lost. It was the "hero Malaya Zemlya" increased shadow of the USSR-2 (not shadow economy, namely the shadow of the USSR, connected with the shadow economy, and with Western capital, its supranational structures, Western intelligence agencies), but the shadow under Brezhnev knew her place, waiting for the time, and since the mid-1970s, ready to pounce, but under Gorbachev, she took the place of the master, destroying front-USSR 1. Real USSR in the early 1980-ies resembled a galactic Empire of Asimov "the Academy" ("Foundation") — a happy facade when eaten the insides. Only in the USSR, unlike the Empire, there was no mathematics Selden with his plan — we had a "mathematician"-resetmeter B. Berezovsky and that's it. But back to stalinophobia. She quite clearly corallium with pohrebinskyi installations with installations on consumption as the meaning of life. It is symbolic that one of the "kovarnyh of anti-Stalinist" stated on television: the national idea can keep and give me the opportunity to consume. If this type does not hate Stalin and Stalinism? . Stalinism is a historical work, installation work as the purpose and meaning of life, the USSR was a creative, highly spiritual project that is recognized even by those who the Soviet Union is clearly not sympathetic. Indicative in this respect phrase said former education Minister Andrei Fursenko that the defect (sic!) the Soviet school was the fact that she sought to educate man, whereas arapovski school — to bring qualified consumers. This, then, is the national, or rather, group idea, as the consumer and "petroplasma" no nationality, the main thing — the trough, and who will provide it, their own or others, minor matters, was so much grueling stick.
It is indicative the following. The same character who asked for "holiday consumption", expressed in the sense that if the land East of the Urals will be able to master the world government, so it will take them. So potreblenija install antistalinist coincides with globalism are two sides of the same coin. So a line is drawn from antistalinist to smerdiakovs, i.e. to Russophobia. The social world of the anti-Stalinist — a global "barnyard", whose main goal — to provide consumption under the guidance and supervision of a world government. Stalin thrice thwarted construction of such a world on Russian soil, and that is, I hate the anti-Stalinist. All prosaically, the same talk about freedom and democracy, "Soviet totalitarianism" of the former Soviet careerists and informers nobody can cheat.
Paradoxically, they were part of the left (conventionally: "the Trotskyites," the left-wing globalists) and the right part (related: "bucharica"). In this respect it becomes clear that the "Trotskyist-bugarinsky block" is not a violation of common sense, logic and dialectic, Stalin, replying to a question as possible left-right block, formulated as: "Go left — to-right will come. Go right — you will come to the left. Dialectics".
Fear of the late item before Stalin — is the fear of the "shadow of the USSR" before starting the project, fear the parasite before healthy body, before the retribution of him, fear of people. After 1991, this fear has found a new, explicit, and not hidden, class dimension, which, as demonstrated from time to time de-Stalinization campaign, does this fear panic, fatal.
An important question about the causes of hatred of Stalin in the West. Here two aspects – the practical and political metaphysico-historical. Practice-the political aspect is simple: Samaria Stalin, the enemies of Russia and Russians questioned our victory in the great Patriotic/Second world war, and consequently, the right of the Russian Federation to be among the great powers, belonging to the club which still strongly depends on the participation in the anti-Hitler coalition and the role in it.
Equating Stalin to Hitler, and the USSR to the Third Reich, coupled with the talk that Stalin lies on the same fault in starting the war as Hitler, and perhaps even more, working in the same direction – to hang on the Soviet Union (and hence Russian) blame for the outbreak of war, to impose the complex of historical guilt and inferiority. That is, from the practical-political aspect of everything clearly and simply.
More interesting, in my opinion, metaphysico-historical aspect of the problem causes of hatred of the Western elite to Stalin. The fact that Stalin thrice thwarted the plans of the top – right of the globalists is to establish a global peace under the aegis of something like world government, the need for which many said the Warburgs, the Rockefellers and their intellectual voices of attendants. However, it is fair to say that the necessity of something like a world government talked about in the nineteenth century the Rothschilds, however, the Russian tsars Alexander I and Nicholas I of its policy the opportunity blew. Hence the hatred of the Rothschilds to Romanov – as they say, at the end of the XIX century one of the Rothschilds said that their family peace with the Romanovs and their Russia is impossible.
Stalin made for breaking "tataki" global "Supreme," called "world government" more than all the tsars put together, using the contradictions between the right-wing globalists. Sickle red Empire three times he cut down sheaves of globalization on the field of the history of the twentieth century.
The first time Stalin did it in the second half of 1920-ies, in 1927 to 1929, when his team based on remaining power of a Large System "Russia", on the assistance of the representatives of razvedstruktur the Russian Empire and the contradictions in the environment of a military secret, replaced the project "world revolution" project "of the red (socialist) Empire". The finintern in its plans to create Venice the size of Europe or the world in General had to deploy the project "world war" and lead to power of Hitler in every possible way strengthening a particular state – the Third Reich. As a result of the Anglo-American pumping sharply increased in 1929 – the year of the expulsion of Trotsky from Russia ("farewell bow" Stalin's scheme of "world revolution"), "Hitler incorporated" was able to fight, playing the role of aggressor in written for him the play. By "play" he was to smash the USSR, and then to fall under the impact of the Anglo-Saxons.
However, the Story – treacherous Queen, everything turned out differently, and Stalin for the second time foiled the plans of the globalists, defeating Hitler. And helped him fight the UK and USA that crushes during the war, not only the Third Reich but also the Third British Empire (the Second ended with deposition of North American States).
The third time Stalin foiled the plans of the globalists in the USSR, not allowing to throw my neck into the noose of the Marshall plan, created the nuclear shield and sword, and not recovered for 20, as predicted Western specialists, and for 10 years, becoming at the turn of 1940-1950-ies in the superpower.
Stalin – the designer and General designer of the only geo-historical project that can oppose globalism – the neo-Imperial. In the early twentieth century globalist (capitalist-based) project of the Anglo-Saxons – the British Empire and the United States – faced with the fact of the existence of empires, which prevented by virtue of its existence, the realization of their project. Chief among these four were two empires – German and Russian. Them and bleed each other, and then broke, using and strengthening internal contradictions. The first world war – terminator Eurasian empires. About ten years everything went as planned, but at the end of the 1920s, the process is out of control: the command of Stalin took over and on left and on right (for those and other Russia was an appendage of the West, the bundle of sticks in the bourgeois hearth) and over 10 years built the red Empire with a powerful military-industrial complex – built by using a global trends and global contradictions, which put itself on service. Stalin found the Golden key to a secret door of a military secret-globalist – profit that one of them could get by investing in the USSR, competing with the other part.
Stalin is the author and Creator of the only successful anti-globalization project of the twentieth century. It clearly showed that it is possible to oppose the globalists and how to fight them. If you count the year of the collapse in the USSR globalist project in its "world-revolutionary form," 1929 (indicative of coagulation in the same year of the NEP, closely hanging the USSR to globalization – left-right dialectic), we can say that Stalin pushed the advent of globalization, exactly 60 years to the final delivery Gorbachev in Malta on 2-3 December 1989. Clearly, what is to forgive "Masters of the world game" never will. Moreover, Stalin demonstrated the technology of dealing with them by making a request for the deployment of the game and its economy, including alternative world market and undermining of the dollar's position. Here, the globalists had to exclaim, as one of Russian poets of the XVIII century: "Get the old man to love?" Of course, it is impossible. This "old man" as Uncle Joe or Old Joe, as Stalin called the Anglo-Saxons, to love not to hate. With that said, the analysis of Stalinism and the Soviet experience, mandatory historical criticism of the first and second, correction of mistakes – is an urgent task for us.
There is another interesting quirk of the anti-Stalinist campaign in the West (and we in this direction actively working "fifth column") – the equation of Stalinism and Hitlerism, practical-political aspect which were discussed above. But there is a more interesting aspect. I agree with those analysts who point to the similarity of objectives of the current global elite and the Nazi elite: both emanate from the need for a radical reduction of the world population, both fans neverdusky order and structures of global governance; both are anti – Christian. The third Reich was not an alternative to globalism; he was a tool of the global elite (highly benefited from the implementation of the project "the Third Reich" – above all, financially) and at the same time brutal experiment to establish a "new world order" (after which it was possible to implement soft).
Stalin's neo-Imperial anti-capitalism was an alternative to how Hitler's and the Anglo-Saxon "new order". That is why Stalinism trying not only to equalize with Hitlerism, but to present it more hard totalitarianism than this last. Thus, first, the similarity camouflaged Hitler's new order and the "new world order" of post-war Anglo-Saxon globalists; secondly, compromised, removed from the agenda the only real alternative to (capitalist) globalism and the stop Stories in the spirit of "3 D" (deindustrialization, depopulation, denationalization consciousness and behavior), which is commissioned by the owners to develop hundreds of "think tanks." This alternative – neomarket on anti-capitalist basis.
The stronger the resistance to globalism, the more will be remembered the figure of Stalin and the historical experience of the USSR, which, of course, impossible and no need to restore or replay. Stalin made mistakes, sometimes very annoying. Yes, it is wine for a number of processes and phenomena – wine, which he shared with his time. But it is the fate of all statesmen. And isn't the fault of the British and American politicians? Even as it is, and it is the negative aspect of Stalin. Who ordered to put the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, although there was no military necessity? Who ordered to bomb Cambodia, killing about a million people – to shade this fact Paul Sweat "colored" extra million and a half victims and began to shout to the world about the atrocities of the Cambodian Communists. And that's about almost 1 million Hutus and Tutsis, and about 2 million inhabitants of neighbouring countries, the cut in the 1990s, with the acquiescence (at least) of the world elite, i.e. Western and African capitalists somehow keep quiet. And only when it became necessary to use the genocide in Central Africa, these "dancing in the glory of monsters" (so is called one of the best books about these events) as a means to strike at 2-3 dozens of representatives of the global elite, i.e. for internal fights, about the massacre remembered 18 years later, and on August 17, 2012 a lawsuit was filed to the chief Prosecutor of the International court of justice. Examples could be multiplied, but the situation is clear.
...Once Stalin said: there is a logic of intentions is the logic of the circumstances and the logic of circumstances stronger than the logic intentions. There is the intention of some forces, layers to blacken Stalin and the Soviet past, hiding in the black many negative and sometimes catastrophic results postsovietique, lack of control, inability to historical creativity (what creativity? It's a flaw, and the task is to educate qualified consumers to stupidly bathed in wretched petroplast and nothing thought).
But there are circumstances. These circumstances – the real life of the Russian Federation on the eve of a new round of privatization reforms; this budget for 2013 budget, which sows doubt about the fact that Russia is a "social state"; it is the circumstances of the planned 1 January 2013 the reduction of accumulative part of pension with 6% of salary to 2% (this is not an elimination of the pension system?); it is the circumstances of reduction of the population of the Russian Federation and slipping it into raw material appendages of the West in comparison not only with the USSR but even with the Russian Empire; this and much more. These circumstances are the background and the object of comparison with the Stalinist era. The reforms carried out in Russia since 1992 – the best advertising of Stalin and his era, the argument in their favor, and not a random success of Stalin, in spite of the vilification of "scavengers" – in competition "the Name Russia". This success based on the achievements of the Stalin era, both material and social, on the Grand Style and Grand Strategy of the era, very many startled at the top. The contest showed that the leader was right: the Wind not only swept the debris from his grave, and blew on it gadiva pygmies. Contrary to blacken Stalin's name became the "name of Russia", technically not first, but long was in the lead (and we all understand).
Since the "Name of Russia" contest as time passed, but the fears persist, with new – before the revolution. Not so long ago one high-ranking official, apparently, trying to convince himself, said that Russia can not again turn to the left (mass nationalization, etc.). And then warned those of his unwise policy provokes such events: if the mood in society is changing, any attempt to influence him (apparently, means — to influence by force) will lead to very bad consequences: because if to influence, it is at once a revolution (that's all it is, "there it is" worth it). However, after a few days another high-ranking official Bravo reassured colleague: the scenario of "color revolutions", for example, "orange", nobody will allow.
Can't be distracted by "digression": the confidence of bureaucrats that they are – lords of the historic elements, touches. Don't forget, in 1995 Viktor Chernomyrdin stated that Russia has exhausted the limit on revolutions, believing that he could speak on behalf of Russian history. Not every statesman can afford these things, Oh and the hero of the age of premedicate. How do you need to break away from reality to blurt out such misuse?! Good about the ruling layer-1990s, said A. Markeev, comparing them with a flock of penguins, which are located at the tip of the iceberg and I think that control its movement, although don't actually know not only about the direction of ocean currents, but also of their existence. However, is it is characteristic only of 1990-ies?
In real history, as rightly said N. Mandelstam, "the winner is the one who caught the General trends of history and has managed to use them", i.e. someone who understands the direction of currents in the ocean. Stalin said on this occasion differently: harness the laws of history, but the essence is the same. In other words, revolutions happen or not not happen by volition or spells clerks and small hazeisim, which made the power, but even very large figures. Revolutions are driven by other forces.
Next. If Russia and possible revolution, not orange – red. And this last will be a response to something more terrible than the revolution. Revolution is something ofstructures and developing within certain limits, it is Order arising from Chaos. This Chaos is the reaction of the vast and seemingly amorphous, viscous mass at alien aggression towards her. Once K. Pobedonostsev noticed that Russia is a viscous country: neither revolution nor reaction here to the end don't pass (as if overhearing, the group "Nautilus-Pompilius sang: "In this country, which is as tough as dirt,/ You could be Tolstoy, you may be lost"). But the amorphous and the viscosity of these seem so with zapamietania point of view. Actually the mass is hard, Zapadenergo hidden from view, the frame. This is a Great System. The authorities in Russia, as a rule, or understood it poorly or not at all understood, except Stalin. Yes, the mass in Russia/in Russia did not rise to the power pyramid, they are introduced from the outside – from the Horde, from the eighteenth century from the West. "Rulers have always created the idea of the pyramid from the outside, – wrote O. Markeev, is fascinated by order and grandeur of the overseas capitals. They do not, and the weight was decided to envelop her life-giving slime to feed to the top of the life-giving juices or reject, allowing to live by itself to unexpectedly ruin one a powerful impetus bubbling energy of the womb [...] just a Matter of time and patience of the masses."
In many respects deceptive is chaotic and troubled times, including the one we are experiencing since the 1990's. Here's a look from the practice environment, very far from scientific. Legendary killer Alex-soldiers/Alexey Sherstobitov in a serious book "the Liquidator" writes about the 1990s: "Slowly I began to understand the chaos around me and paid attention to the harmony of his order – it was chaos not only created great works, but large-scale things from infrastructure to the universe. Those (chaotic. – A. F.) they appear to be due to a misunderstanding (by an observer. – A. F.) the rational order of things and the formulas by which they are created. And [...] even the possession of knowledge does not guarantee good luck in the ordering of chaotic motion, and even examine it in detail and that would be it understood, not able to describe." Not to mention not having the knowledge and considering any reality, including Russian, through the prism of Western order. It is clear that through this prism that any reality will be chaos – which is why almost all of the reforms in Russia were counterproductive, and the result brought Stalin's snatch.
A propos: separately in our days there is a kind of social necrophilia. The desire to role model, to the orders of this society, which is up in the pus blemish, immobile social impotence and not able to maintain any racial or historical or religious identity, i.e. covered by a will to death, is not that other, as a cultural-historical necrophilia, let's leave the dead to bury their dead. Those who are calling us in "the civilized world", I want to lead us to the cemetery, in the best case – in the trash "fields of wonders" in the "country of fools". Getting in the trash, and in peripheral-trademarka version, was blocked by Stalin and his team in the 1930-ies, and have enough inertia to 1980-ies. The Europe that one could say in the words of Arthur Rimbaud as a place "where a kid/ In odorous dusk before the groove is waste,/ zagruschu and Involuntarily listening to the quiet, For the boat in a hurry, like a moth is fragile", is long gone. Europe (and the West in General) today — it is rather a reserve of goblins, only the goblins themselves are mostly non-indigenous people (although the local goblins enough): kordowski "heart of darkness" now has scored in Europe – it's retribution for centuries of colonial plunder. But that's their problem – the problem of "nobody's home"; "nobody's house" – so named Britain the times of Thatcher, a British journalist, but the same can be said about Europe. "Nobody's home" is the ideal of the globalists, which several times in the twentieth century chipped Stalin: the USSR was the common house.
Returning to the pyramid scheme and weight, note: only such a pyramid that meets the established forms of the collective unconscious and meets them is able to function normally in Russia, relying on an invisible frame. It is very well understood, moreover, felt Stalin. "Reform is inevitable, – he wrote, – but in his time. And it should be a reform of the organic, [...] drawing on the traditions with the gradual restoration of the Orthodox consciousness (interestingly, you know these lines vehement detractors of Stalin from the ROC? – A. F.). Very soon, war for territory war will be replaced by "cold" for resources and energy. You need to be ready for it".
This passage is worth a lot. Moreover, the leader of predicted resource wars that raged at the turn of XX–XXI centuries, he has recorded the necessity of reforms in the Psychosphere, knowing that hostilities will eventually move there and that reform must rely on tradition (conscious and unconscious), and not to reject and not to break it. This since 1991, actively engaged in many of our media, especially TV, however, without the success that we expected, and often counterproductive, oslabla the population, and, in fact, pushing for "a powerful impetus to the bubbling energy of the womb". Of course, a significant portion of moral guidelines and imperatives destroyed over these 20 years and for 20 years prior to 1917, We see many manifestations of a moral crisis, and yet, the task of destruction of the Russian Psychosphere, the psychohistory of our enemy is not resolved (even computer shooting games have no effect on our children, as in the West – because of differences in the culture of laughter). And no wonder the officials fear anti-liberal revolution "and all" liberal "pyramid" (in both senses of the word) has remained alien, alien and hostile to the mass of the population, who feel slighted. I sang a group of "lube": "But for the fact that Russia is offended,/ Emelyan Pugachev't forgive you." "Underworld" has always played in Russian history a much greater role than saw and were ready to recognize the "bar" is far from frightening people, oriented to the West, the authorities and professorial science. What can you advise to these guys? Read Russian history and works of Nobel laureate Ilya Prigogine on chaos, dissipative structures, self-organization and complexity. However, if not too late "to drink Borjomi"?
Not a revolution (especially in spirochaetal belolentochnye legs) should be feared and not the new Stalin, and something cooler and scarier than known in Russian history as the "Pugachev rebellion", i.e. the reaction mass in an alien pyramid. Do not think that the times of Pugachevsky've gone through the Big System "Russia" they will not ever, can only change form. Pugachev and "village Ladomirova" (N. Leskov) is a constantly present dimension of Russian life, so to say it is parallel to the Lower world (NAV, Hel). He easily breaks in the Middle world, as the last defensive line in Russian life – physical substance, accumulated labor, property, right – historically weak. But today they repeatedly weakens the unjust (to put it mildly, but if not gently – that thieving, extortionate) the nature of the property in the 1990s. And who knows, we could end up not only able to tame a new breakthrough, Chaos — revolution and the new Stalin. Stalin was, together with Lenin, the tamer of Chaos through revolution, and then, independently, the tamer of the revolution (avoiding globalization) by red Empire "of capitalism in one, separately taken country" (incidentally, this subtly noticed N. Mandelstam in the "Second book"). And who knows, we don't have a new Stalin to press-assemble-designing the authorities, of course, if the instinct is not atrophied completely, amazed strangers and alien to the informational currents, thought-forms, memes and conceptual viruses.
In "Order out of chaos" by I. Prigogine and I. Stengers give the following example. Microscopic flat worm trematode, parasitic in the liver of sheep and self-perpetuating there, get there independently and with swallowed a sheep the ant, in which trematodes should get. However, after that the likelihood that the sheep will swallow an infected ant, very small. The parasite, however, the "who decides" problem in a simple, but inexplicable to scientists way, turning a low probability in the maximum. "Can justifiably say, – write the authors of "Order out of chaos" – that trematodes "grabs" the body of his master. It penetrates into the brain of an ant and forces the victim to behave in a suicidal way: enslaved ant instead of being on the ground, climbs up the stalk of a plant and frozen on the very tip of a leaf, waiting for the sheep". Perhaps the ant "seems" that he is free in his behavior or even "manages" a wiggle of the stalk (cf penguins on the tip of the iceberg). Actually he is a slave trematode, "invested" in his mind false and damning him for a "concept" behavior, completely eliminating the sense of self-preservation. We will put into place the "concept" of "controlled chaos" of "market reforms" and "human rights" – read C. Mann – and "oil painting" will be clear. Not by chance in information warfare first strike by the Psychosphere ruling class, especially its protective and immune structures (ideology and intelligence agencies) – in this respect, the history of the "Encyclopedia" in France of the XVIII century is highly instructive. The bottom line: with the blade you need to jump before it's too late.
But back to the taming of Chaos, if it occurs. To solve this problem, a new Stalin will have to throw to the crowd, or as they used to say in Russia, "to give head" some, perhaps a significant portion of unrighteous fat, taking the most odious of them from anywhere – the Hooch from abroad, the Hooch out of the Asses of the devil, and the Hooch from the Kuyalnik and allowing others to "join our movement". How to know whether destalinization to pray for the coming of a new Stalin, on hearing the heavy tread of the black man, and not Yesenin – the mirror, in the cylinder and with a cane, and Lermontov – real, with damask knife in hand. This "black man" is not "delusions of intelligence, terror Creswick" (M. Voloshin), to be more serious. It can bring a moment of truth to clarify the relationship between intentions and circumstances, the final decision of the question of their "negative dialectics". And have, to paraphrase A. Block, request: "Stalin, can you give us a hand/ Help in a silent struggle."
- 04-07-2012Russia cooking oil blockade and the collapse of the scenario of the 80-ies
- 23-12-2012The Vedic understanding of state policy
- 22-11-2013In the archives of the "world government"
- 08-01-2014Of a mega-Church and their communication strategies
- 08-11-2012The main threat to peace or a recipe for success