That is the trouble! When it happened
He has a frantic sickle
Passing on the field squall -
The sheaf fell behind the sheaf.
The truth is a bitter medicine, unpleasant to the taste, but restoring health.
Once, Stalin said that after his death, a lot of garbage would be put on his grave, but the wind stories dispel it. Everything happened just as the leader had foreseen. Less than a few years, N. Khrushchev (exactly at his request to increase the quota for execution, Stalin wrote: “Calm down, you fool”) began pouring dirt on the leader as one of the main “Stakhanovite terror” 1930s. Khrushchev was not the first in this regard: the systematic watering of Stalin (albeit interspersed with real criticism) was begun by Trotsky, well, the former Trotskyite Khrushchev, who did not come out of his mind, left only watering. Then Khrushchev was joined by the most zealous of the Sixties as "scavengers", and there is nothing to say about dissidents who "sang" against other people's voices "and" floated "on others' waves," they were part of Western anti-Soviet propaganda.
Perestroika marked a new stage in the defamation of Stalin. Here, however, not Stalin was the main target, but Soviet socialism, the Soviet system, Soviet history, and behind them Russian history as a whole. After all, one of the demons of perestroika declared that with perestroika they broke not only the Soviet Union, but the entire paradigm of a thousand-year Russian history. And the fact that Stalin was chosen as the main figure of breakdown once again testifies to the role of this man-phenomenon not only in Soviet, but also in Russian history - Stalinism, among other things, became an active and great-power form of Russian survival in the 20th century. in the conditions of an extremely hostile environment, aiming at the "final solution of the Russian question" - Hitler is not the only one in this regard, he simply - in a plebeian manner - shouted the loudest of all, repeating what the Anglo-Saxons had gathered.
("The USSR collapsed, the Soviet system was destroyed. It would seem that Soviet-style fools can calm down about Stalin and the USSR. But no, it’s bothering about them. True, the current de-Stalinisers are mostly farcical and odd, they look even small compared to the tuning rod. On the screens TVs grimace miserable social types such as the half-educated, bakery-fake publicist, the under-educated academician with snitches of a snitch, an alcoholic with a claim to the role of an international businessman and other meddling. Then you will remember Karel Chapek ("they come as and faceless masks "- about salamanders) and Nikolai Zabolotsky (" Everything is mixed up in the general dance, / And they fly to all ends / Hamadril and the British, / Witches, fleas, dead ... / Candidate of the past centuries, / Commander of new years, / Reason my! These freaks - / Only fiction and nonsense ").
Indeed, it’s not a delusion not to mention what the "carpet anti-Stalinists" serve as "arguments." These are either continuous, on the verge of hysterical emotions in the spirit of amateur club activity with shouts of "nightmare", "horror", "shame", very reminiscent of a jackal Tabaki from Kipling's "Mowgli" with his "Shame on the jungle!" - emotions without any facts and numbers. Or operating with fantastic numbers of victims of "Stalin's repressions": "tens and tens of millions" (why not hundreds?). If something is referred to, then Solzhenitsyn’s GULAG Archipelago. But Solzhenitsyn was a master of legend and the production of "linings". For example, he did not claim in the "Archipelago ..." for tsifirnuyu accuracy; moreover, it was expressed in the sense that this work has an impressionistic character, so to speak. Insured "Winds" - that's what the school means.
But over the last quarter of a century, on the basis of archival data (the archives are open), both our and Western (primarily American) researchers, most of whom are not at all noticed in sympathies with either Stalin or the USSR, or even Russia, have calculated the real number of repressed people. in 1922-53 (recall, by the way, that although the “Stalinist” era formally began in 1929, in fact, only with 1939 can we formally speak of Stalin’s full control over the party and the government, although there were some nuances here), and there are no "tens of millions" or even one "ten millions" there.
In recent years, well-documented works have appeared that show the real mechanism of the 1930-x repressions, which, like the mass ones, were unleashed by the “old guard” and “regional barons” like Khrushchev and Eiche in response to Stalin’s proposal on alternative elections. The leader could not break the resistance of the “old guards”, but a pinpoint (not massive!) Blow to their headquarters was dealt. I leave aside the fight against real conspiracies — the opposition of Stalin to the left globalists of the Comintern, like Trotsky, who believed that Stalin had betrayed the world revolution, etc. Thus, the real picture of the “repressions of 1930's” is much more complicated than Stalin’s detractors try to imagine; This is a multi-layered and multi-vector process of ending the civil war, in which the Stalin segment itself occupies far more than a small part.
Similarly, the second main block of Stalin’s charges fails - in the way the Great Patriotic War took shape in the first months: “missed”, “overslept”, “did not believe Sorge”, “believed Hitler”, “ran away from the Kremlin and for three days was in prostration " etc. All these lies have long been refuted by documents, the researchers are well aware of this - that Stalin didn’t oversleep anything, and that he never really believed Hitler, and that he didn’t believe Sorge correctly, or real guilt. Generals on the eve of June 22. This is not the place to sort out all these questions, but I cannot refrain from a single comment. Oh, how did the anti-Stalinists squirt over the TASS statement from 14 June 1941; the statement said that everything was fine in relations between the USSR and Germany, that the USSR continued to pursue a peace-loving course, etc. “Scavengers” interpret this as “Stalin’s stupidity and weakness”, as “currying favor with Hitler”. It does not occur to them that the addressee of the statement was not Hitler and the Third Reich, but Roosevelt and the USA. In April, 1941 of the United States Congress decided that in the event of a German attack on the USSR, the United States would help the USSR, and in the event of a Soviet attack on Germany, Germany.
The TASS statement recorded the complete absence of aggressive intentions of the USSR towards Germany and demonstrated this absence precisely to the United States, and not to Germany. Stalin was well aware that in the inevitable battle with the Reich his only real ally could be the United States, they would also keep the UK from slipping into the German-British anti-Soviet alliance. And, of course, it was impossible to prevent the careless movement, to which Hitler was pushing the Russians, to provoke the emergence of the North Atlantic (or rather, the world - with the participation of Japan and Turkey) of the anti-Soviet bloc. In this case, the Soviet Union (relative military potential on 1937 g. - 14%) would have to confront the USA (41,7%), Germany (14,4%), Great Britain (10,2% without imperial possessions), France (4,2%), Japan ( 3,5%), Italy (2,5%) plus jackals smaller. By the way, taking into account these figures and the fact of the decision of the US Congress, the entire falsity of the Rezun scheme and others like it about the alleged preparation by Stalin of an attack on Germany in particular and on Europe as a whole is obvious.
There is one purely psychological nuance in the accusations of the scientific and near-scientific brotherhood to Stalin. In everything, more precisely, in everything that is considered negative in Stalin’s rule (the positive is held along the line “against Stalin”) they blame one person as allegedly endowed with absolute power, and therefore omnipotent. But, first, Stalin managed to consolidate his power only by the end of the 1930s; before that - a struggle not for life, but for death, walking along the edge, constant readiness to respond to the joyful cry of the pack: "Akela missed." War is not the best time for sole decisions. Well, the period 1945-1953. - this is a time of constant undercover struggle of various nomenklatura groups with each other - and against Stalin. The post-war 8 anniversary is the story of a gradual obkladyvanie, surrounding the aging leader by the 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 real, not "professorial" history, about which Goethe noted that it has no relation to the real spirit of the past, it is "... the spirit of the professors and their concepts, / which these gentlemen are out of place / For true antiquity they give out" Stalin was never the absolute ruler - he did not have the Ring of Absolute Power. This does not mean that he does not bear personal responsibility for mistakes, cruelty, etc., he bears - along with a cruel era, according to the laws and the nature of which he should be evaluated.
But it's not only that. The simple truth is this: the one who led the team, at least from 10 people, knows that absolute power is impossible - and the less possible it is, the more subordinates. Most of those who wrote and wrote about Stalin have never been guided by anyone or anything, i.e. in this sense, people are irresponsible. In addition to power, they often project their ambitions, fears, claims, desires, “swaying sleepy thoughts” (N. Zabolotsky) and, not least, the craving for denunciation (it's no secret that most of the Soviet era, Stalin and the KGB hate former informers, informers, because it is easier to hate the system and its leader than to despise one’s own meanness — repression, you know). Absolute power is the dream of the Soviet intelligentsia, which has found one of its reflections in The Master and Margarita; among other things, that is why the novel became cult for sovintelligentsia (and the “Notes of the Dead”, where a mirror was revealed to this layer, did not). To reduce the essence of the system to the identity of one person - this is something from social schizophrenia and from infantilism, not to mention professional insolvency.
It would be possible to point out a lot of other absurdities, mistakes and falsifications of “debris nanos” on Stalin’s grave, but what’s the point of delving into those poisoned with lies and hatred implicated in complexes and phobias and brains? It is more interesting to make out another thing: the reasons for hatred of Stalin, the fear of him of entire layers and groups in our country and abroad, fear and hatred that will not go into the past, but, on the contrary, sometimes seem to grow as they move away from the Stalin era. Who knows, maybe this is the main Military Secret of the Soviet era, which is not given to guess the burzhuinam and which hangs over them like a "Damocles sword"?
They often say: "Tell me who your friend is, and I will tell you who you are." In fact, a person is no less defined by friends, but by enemies: "Tell me who your enemy is, and I will tell you who you are." Let us reflect on Stalin through the prism of hatred towards him and fear of his enemies and their lackeys before him.
Attitude towards leaders: tsars, general secretaries, presidents, is an interesting thing because of its, at least outwardly, paradoxical nature. In Russian history there were three great rulers - Ivan the Terrible, Peter I and Joseph Stalin. The most brutal and destructive was the activity of the second: on its board, the decline in population was about 25% (the people of the city, ran up); at the time of Peter's death, the treasury was practically empty, the farm was ruined, and in a few years three ships remained from the fleet of Peter the Great. And this is a great modernizer? In people's memory, Peter remained the Antichrist - the only Russian tsar-antichrist, and this is very significant. But Ivan IV entered history as the Terrible, and his time in the XVII century. remembered as the last decades of peasant freedom. And they did not remember the oprichnina among the people with an almost unkind word - this is already the “merit” of liberal Romanov historians. Stalin, unlike Peter, left behind a great power, on the material foundation of which, including nuclear, we still live, and the Russian Federation is still considered a serious power (even if regional, but without Stalin’s foundation, Afghans and Libyans, no illusions are needed here).
Paradox, but of the three lords, Peter, despite the extreme personal cruelty and disastrous reign, we love power and a significant part of the intelligentsia. He did not get even a tenth of the criticism that liberal historiography and journalism brought down on the heads of Ivan the Terrible and Joseph Stalin. Grozny Tsar did not have a place on the monument "Millennium of Russia", and Peter - in the foreground. What did Peter do that, which did not do Ivan and Joseph? A very simple thing: allowed the top to steal on a particularly large scale, was liberal to the "pranks" of this particular layer. For this he is kind enough to the authorities (the portrait of Peter I in Chernomyrdin’s office is very symbolic) and reflecting her interests, tastes and preferences to a certain segment of historians and publicists. Ivan the Terrible and Stalin were tough and even cruel towards, above all, the top. "Cursed caste!" - these words were spoken by Stalin when he learned that the nomenclature evacuated to Kuibyshev was trying to organize separate schools for its children.
All his life in power, Stalin opposed the "accursed caste", not allowing it to turn into a class. He understood perfectly well how as this transformation “caste” would resist the construction of socialism - this is exactly what Stalin meant when he spoke about the growth of the class struggle as he advanced during the construction of socialism. As perestroika demonstrated, the leader turned out to be absolutely right: already in 1960-s a quasi-class shadow USSR-2 was formed, which, in alliance with the West, destroyed the USSR-1 with all its achievements. At the same time, real discontent of the population was caused by the USSR-2, i.e. deviations from the model, but the interested layers did a clever propaganda trick: they exposed the population of the USSR-2 with its flaws, growing inequality, artificially created deficits, etc. as the original design model of the USSR-1, which must be urgently "reformed."
In Soviet times, both during Stalin's life and after his death, the leader was hated mainly by two power groups (and, accordingly, the soviet intelligentsia groups associated with them). First, this is the part of the Soviet establishment that was charged to the world revolution and whose representatives considered Stalin a traitor to the cause of the world revolution or, at least, a deviator from it. We are talking about the left-globalists-Comintern, for whom Russia, the USSR was only a springboard for the world revolution. Naturally, they could not like either "socialism in one single country" (ie, the revival of the "empire" in the "red version"), or an appeal to the Russian national traditions, which they used to look down upon, or the abolition of 1936, the celebration of November 7 as the First Day of the World Revolution, neither the appearance of the term "Soviet patriotism" in the same 1936, nor much else. It is significant that already in the middle of the 1920-ies G. Zinoviev, the “third Grishka” of Russian history (those who would have numbered what kind of nonentity the fourth would be even if they knew the third), argued the need for the removal of Stalin from the post of General Secretary. "they dislike the Comintern," and one of the main critics of Stalin in 1930 was the high-ranking Comintern functionary O. Pyatnitsky.
The second group of Stalinheenavistavists can be called the “Soviet liberals”. What is a "liberal Soviet"? Of course, this is not a liberal in the classical sense, nor is it a liberal at all - even Nizhe-e-enko-nise-e-enko is not a liberal. The Soviet nomenklatura liberal is an interesting stamp: it is an official who sought to consume more than he was supposed to by the strict rules of the Soviet-nomenclature ranked hierarchical consumption system, and therefore ready to change power for material goods, which tends to go to the West more often and look through the shadows an economy with which it is increasingly merging in social ecstasy.
Today, this is called corruption, but this term is hardly applicable to the Soviet system: corruption is the use of the public sphere for private purposes and interests. The fact of the matter is, however, that in modernity there was no legally fixed distinction between these spheres, since there was no private sphere - “everything is collective, everything is mine”. Speech instead of corruption should go about undermining the system, which for the time being - until the time (until the middle of the 1970-s, when unaccounted oil dollars poured into the country) was quantitative. Thus, it is more correct to talk about the deformation of the system. It was these deformers who hated Stalin most of all, since the nomenklatura and near-nomenklatura thieves understood that with his or similar orders, retribution could not be avoided; Therefore, it was so feared that neostalinist A. would come to power. Shelepina, put on L. Brezhnev - and not lost. It was under the “hero of the Little Land” that the shadow USSR-2 increased (not the shadow economy, but the shadow USSR connected both with its shadow economy and with Western capital, its supranational structures, Western special services), but the shadow under Brezhnev knew its place , waiting for the time being, and from the middle of the 1970-ies, preparing for the jump, but under Gorbachev she took the place of the owner, destroying the front USSR-1. The real USSR at the beginning of the 1980-s was reminiscent of the galactic empire from the Azimov Academy ("Foundation") - a prosperous facade with corroded guts. Only the USSR, in contrast to the empire, did not have the mathematics of Selden with his plan - we had a "mathematician" - Gesheftmatik B. Berezovsky and that says it all. But back to stalinofobii. It quite clearly correlates with consumer attitudes, with attitudes towards consumption as the meaning of life. It is symbolic that one of the "carpet anti-Stalinists" stated on television: you can keep the national idea for yourself, but let me consume it. Can this type not hate Stalin and Stalinism? Can not. Stalinism is a historical work, setting on creativity as the goal and meaning of life, the USSR was a creative, highly spiritual project that even those who clearly do not sympathize with the Soviet Union recognize. The phrase said by former Minister of Education A. is indicative in this respect. Fursenko that the vice (sic!) Of the Soviet school was that she sought to educate the person-creator, while the task of the Eref school was to educate a qualified consumer.
The following is also symbolic. The same character who demanded for himself a “holiday of consumption” expressed himself in the sense that if the land east of the Urals could be mastered by the world government, then let it take them. Thus, the anti-Stalinist installation of consumption coincides with the globalist one — these are two sides of the same coin. So a line is drawn from anti-Stalinism to Smerdykovschina, i.e. to Russophobia. The social world of anti-Stalinists is a global “cattle yard” whose main goal is to ensure consumption under the direction and supervision of world government. Stalin three times tore the construction of such a world on Russian soil, for which the anti-Stalinists hate him. Everything is prosaic, the talk of freedom, democracy, "Soviet totalitarianism" of former Soviet careerists and snitches cannot deceive anyone.
Paradoxically, they turned out to be part of the left (conditionally: "Trotskyists", left globalists) and part of the right (conventionally: "Bukharinites"). In this regard, it becomes clear that the “Trotsky-Bukharin bloc” is not a violation of common sense, but dialectical logic, which Stalin, answering the question of how the left-right bloc is possible, put it this way: “Go left - come right. Go right - you will come to the left. Dialectics ".
The fear of the late Soviet nomenclature of Stalin is the fear of the "shadow USSR" of the original project, the parasite's fear of a healthy body, of retribution from its side, the fear of the people. After 1991, this fear has acquired a new, frank, not hidden, class dimension, which, as the de-Stalinization campaigns demonstrate from time to time, makes this fear panicky, deadly.
The question of the causes of hatred towards Stalin in the West is important. There are two aspects here - practical-political and metaphysical-historical. The practical-political aspect is simple: marrying Stalin, the enemies of Russia and the Russians question our victory in the Great Patriotic War / World War II, and, consequently, the right of the Russian Federation to be among the great powers, whose membership in the club is still largely determined by participation in anti-Hitler’s coalition and role in it.
Equating Stalin to Hitler, and the USSR to the Third Reich, coupled with talk that Stalin is guilty in unleashing a war like Hitler, and perhaps more, works in the same direction - hang on the USSR (and consequently on the Russian Federation) the guilt in unleashing a war, to impose a complex of historical guilt and inferiority. That is, with the practical-political aspect, everything is clear and simple.
More interesting, in my opinion, is the metaphysical and historical aspect of the problem of the causes of hatred of the western elite for Stalin. The fact is that Stalin thwarted three times the plans of this top-right-wing globalists to create a global peace under the auspices of something similar to the world government, the need of which was much talked by by the Warburg, the Rockefellers and their snoops from the intellectual servants. However, in fairness it must be said that the first to talk about the need for something like the world government in the XIX century. The Rothschilds, however, the Russian tsars Alexander I and Nicholas I, under their policies, undermined this opportunity. Hence, the Rothschilds' hatred for the Romanovs - as they say, at the end of the 19th century. one of the Rothschilds declared that peace with the Romanovs and their Russia is impossible for their family.
Stalin did more to crush the "shakes" of global "leaders" called "world government" than all the Russian tsars together, using the contradictions between the right-wing globalists themselves. With the sickle of the Red Empire, he threw three times the sheaves of globalization on the history field of the twentieth century.
For the first time, Stalin did it in the second half of 1920's, more precisely in 1927 – 1929, when his team, relying on the power of the Great System “Russia”, on the assistance of representatives of the intelligence agencies of the Russian empire and on the contradictions among the burzhuins, replaced the project “World revolution” by the project of the “red (socialist) empire”. Finintern, in his plans to create Venice the size of Europe or the world as a whole, had to deploy the “world war” project and lead Hitler to power, in every possible way strengthening a specific state - the Third Reich. As a result of the Anglo-American pumping, which sharply intensified in 1929, in the year of the expulsion of Trotsky from Russia (Stalin’s “farewell bow” to the “world revolution”), Hitler Inc. was able to fight by playing the role of an aggressor in a performance written for him. According to the "play", he was to smash the USSR, and then fall under the blow of the Anglo-Saxons.
However, history is a treacherous lady, everything turned out differently, and Stalin for the second time thwarted the plans of the globalists, defeating Hitler. He was helped by the struggle of Great Britain and the USA, which destroyed not only the Third Reich, but also the Third British Empire during the war (the Second ended with the deposition of the North American states).
For the third time, Stalin thwarted the plans of the globalists by the fact that the USSR was with him, not allowing the Marshall plan sticking around his neck, created a nuclear shield and sword and recovered not for 20, as Western experts predicted, but for 10 years, turning at the turn of 1940– 1950's superpower.
Stalin is a designer and general designer of a single geohistorical project that can be opposed to globalism — neo-imperial one. At the beginning of the twentieth century. the globalist (capitalist) project of the Anglo-Saxons - the British Empire and the United States - was faced with the fact of the existence of empires, which, by virtue of their existence, prevented the implementation of their project. The main of these four empires were two - German and Russian. They were set against each other, and then broken, using and reinforcing internal contradictions. World War I - the terminator of the Eurasian empires. For about a decade everything went as planned, but at the end of 1920's, the process went out of control: Stalin's team took over both the left and the right (for both, Russia was an appendage of the West, a bundle of brushwood in the bourgeois hearth) and even in 10 years, it built a red empire with a powerful military-industrial complex - it built it using global trends and global contradictions, which it set for itself. Stalin found the golden key to the secret door of the burzhuinov-globalists - the profit that one part of them could get by investing in the USSR by competing with the other part.
Stalin - the author and creator of the only successful anti-globalization project of the twentieth century. He clearly showed what could be opposed to globalists and how to deal with them. If we consider the year of the collapse of the globalist project in the USSR in its “world-revolutionary form” 1929 (the closure of the NEP, which closely linked the USSR to globalization - left-right dialectics), then it can be said that Stalin postponed the advent of globalization on 60 years - until Gorbachev’s final delivery on Malta 2 – 3 December 1989, everything and everything. It is clear that such a "World Game Home" will never be able to. Moreover, Stalin demonstrated the technology to combat them, making a bid to deploy his game and his economy, including an alternative world market and undermining the dollar's position. Here, the globalists should have exclaimed as one of the Russian poets of the 18th century: “Do you really love the old man?” Of course, it is impossible. They are such an "old man" as Uncle Joe or Old Joe, as the Anglo-Saxons called Stalin, you can not love - just hate. Considering the above, the analysis of Stalinism and the Soviet experience, the obligatory historical criticism of the first and second, the work on the mistakes is the most urgent task for us.
There is one more interesting twist of the anti-Stalinist campaigns in the West (and the fifth column is actively working in this direction) —the equation of Stalinism and Hitlerism, the practical-political aspect of which was discussed above. But there is an even more interesting aspect. I agree with those analysts who point out the similarity of the goal-setting of the current global elite and the Nazi elite: both proceed from the need for a radical reduction in the world's population, both are fans of order and neo-Orden structures of global governance; both are anti-Christian. The Third Reich was not an alternative to globalism; it was a means of global elites (quite benefiting from the implementation of the Third Reich project — primarily materially) and at the same time a brutal experiment to establish a new world order (after which a soft one could be implemented).
Stalinist neo-imperial anti-capitalism was an alternative to both Hitler and Anglo-Saxon "new order". That is why Stalinism is trying not only to equate with Hitlerism, but to present it even more rigid totalitarianism than this last one. Thus, first, the similarity of Hitler’s new order and the “new world order” of post-war Anglo-Saxon globalists camouflages; secondly, the only real alternative to (capitalist) globalism and stopping History in the spirit of the “3 D” program (deindustrialization, depopulation, derationalization of consciousness and behavior), which hundreds of “thought factories” are ordering, are being removed from the agenda. This alternative is neo-imperial on an anti-capitalist basis.
The stronger the resistance to globalism, the more actively the figure of Stalin and the historical experience of the USSR will be recalled, which, of course, cannot and should not be restored or repeated. Stalin made mistakes, sometimes quite annoying. Yes, it is the fault of a number of processes and phenomena - the wine that it shares with its time. But this is the fate of all statesmen. Are there not guilt among British and American politicians? Even as it is, and it doesn’t compare with the negative aspect of Stalin’s activities. Who ordered the nuclear bombardment of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, although there was no military need for this? Who ordered the bombing of Kampuchea, killing about a million people - in order to obscure this fact, Pol Pot was “added on” an extra million and a half victims and began shouting to the whole world about the atrocities of the Kampuchean communists. But about almost 1 million Hutus and Tutsis and about 2 million people in neighboring countries, carved out in the 1990s with the connivance of (at least) the world top, i.e. Western and African capitalists for some reason keep quiet. And only when it became necessary to use genocide in the center of Africa, these “dances for the glory of monsters” (as one of the best books about these events is called) as a means for striking 2 – 3 to dozens of representatives of the world elite, i.e. for internal clashes, the massacre was recalled later on by 18 years, and on August 17 on 2012, the corresponding lawsuit was filed with the chief prosecutor of the International Court of Justice. Examples can be multiplied, but the situation is clear without it.
... Once Stalin remarked: there is a logic of intentions and there is a logic of circumstances, and the logic of circumstances is stronger than the logic of intentions. There are intentions for some forces, layers to denigrate Stalin and the Soviet past, hiding in this blackness many negative and sometimes disastrous results of post-soviet, lack of talent of management, inability to historical creativity (what kind of creativity? This is a vice, and the task is to educate qualified consumers to stupid bathed in wretched consumption and did not think about anything).
But there are circumstances. These circumstances are the real life of the Russian Federation on the eve of a new round of privatization reforms; This circumstance of the budget for 2013 is a budget that sows doubts about the fact that the Russian Federation is a “welfare state”; These are the circumstances of the reduction of the cumulative part of the pension from 1% from salary to 2013% planned from 6 in January 2 (is this not the liquidation of the pension system?); these are the circumstances of the decline in the population of the Russian Federation and its slipping into the raw materials appendages of the West compared with not only the USSR, but even the Russian Empire; this and more. It is these circumstances that serve as the background and object of comparison with the Stalin era. The reforms that were carried out in the Russian Federation since 1992 were the best advertisement for Stalin and his era, the argument in their favor, and Stalin’s success was not accidental - despite the denounced by “scavengers” - in the “Name of Russia” competition. This success, based on the achievements of the Stalin era, both material and social, on the Great Style and the Big Strategy of the era, very much frightened many at the top. The competition showed that the leader was not mistaken: the Wind of History not only swept up the garbage from his grave, but also blew away the pygmies who were shitting on it. Contrary to denigration, the name of Stalin became “the name of Russia,” formally, not the first, but it took a long time to lead (and we understand everything).
Since the “Name of Russia” competition has passed, time has passed, but fears do not pass, new ones are added to them - before the revolution. Not so long ago, a high-ranking official, apparently persuading himself, said that Russia could not once again survive the turn to the left (mass nationalization, etc.). And then he warned those who, with their unwise policy, provoke such events: if the mood in society changes, then any attempt to influence it (apparently implied - to influence by force) will lead to very bad consequences: because if you influence, it will immediately revolution, that's all (this “that's all” is worth a lot). However, a few days later another high-ranking official bravo reassured his colleague: no one would allow the scenario of “color revolutions”, for example, “orange”.
I can not help but be distracted by the “lyrical digression”: the officials' confidence that they are the rulers of the historical element is touching. I will not forget how, in 1995, Mr. V. Chernomyrdin declared that Russia had exhausted the limit on revolution, believing that it could speak on behalf of Russian history. Not every statesman can afford this, well, let alone the hero of the era of timeliness all the more. How do you need to break away from reality, to blurt out such inadequate? O. Markeev said good about the ruling layer of 1990-s, comparing them with a flock of penguins, who settled on the tip of the iceberg and think that they control his movement, although they really do not know about the direction of the ocean currents, but also about their existence . However, is this typical only for 1990's?
In real history, as N. Mandelstam rightly remarked, “the winner is the one who caught the general tendencies of history and managed to use them”, i.e. one who understands the direction of currents in the ocean. Stalin spoke about it in a different way: to saddle the laws of history, but the essence is the same. In other words, revolutions happen or do not happen, not by the wishes or spells of clerks and small proprietors, who are brought into power, but even very large figures. Revolutions are driven by other forces.
Further. If a revolution is possible in Russia, then in no way is orange - red. Moreover, this latter will be a reaction to something more terrible than a revolution. A revolution is something structured and developing within certain limits, it is an Order arising from Chaos. This Chaos itself is a reaction of a huge and outwardly amorphous, viscous mass to an alien aggressiveness towards it. Once K. Pobedonostsev noticed that Russia is a viscous country: neither the revolution nor the reaction do not end here (as if having overheard, the group "Nautilus-Pompilius sang:" In this country, viscous as dirt, / you can become fat you can be gone »). But the amorphousness and viscosity of these seem to be so from the West-centric point of view. In fact, the mass has a hard, hidden from the west-centered view frame. This is the Big System "Russia". Representatives of the authorities in Russia, as a rule, either understood this badly or did not understand it at all, the exception is Stalin. Yes, the mass itself in Russia / in Russia did not generate power pyramids, they were brought in from the outside - from the Horde, from the XVIII century. - from the West. “The rulers always introduced the idea of a pyramid from the outside,” wrote O. Markeev, “fascinated by the order and splendor of the overseas capitals. Not they, but the mass itself decided whether to envelop it with life-giving mucus, feed it to the summit with life-giving juices or reject it, allowing it to live on its own, in order to suddenly and unexpectedly destroy it with one powerful impulse with the waking energy of the womb [...]
The chaos of troubled times, including the one we have been experiencing since the 1990s, is in many ways deceptive. Here is a look at the practice from a very far from scientific environment. The legendary killer Lesha the soldier / Alexei Sherstobitov in a serious book “Liquidator” writes about 1990's: “Slowly I began to understand the chaos surrounding me and paid attention to the harmony of his order - because it is chaos that creates great not only works, but also large-scale things from infrastructures to the universe. As such (chaotic. - A.F.) they seem to be due to a misunderstanding (by an observer. - A.F.) of the rationality of the order of things and the formulas by which they are created. Moreover, [...] even the possession of knowledge does not guarantee good luck in organizing the chaotic movement, and even having considered it in detail and seemingly understood everything, is unable to describe it. ” What can we say about not possessing knowledge and considering any reality, including Russian, through the prism of the Western order. It is clear that through such a prism any reality will be chaos - that is why almost all the reforms in Russia have been counterproductive, and the result has brought Stalin’s breakthrough.
A propos: Westernism today is a kind of social necrophilia. Striving as a model for imitation, to the orders of such a society, which is drowning in the pus of vice, is immobilized by social impotence and is not able to preserve neither racial, nor historical, nor religious identity, i.e. seized by the will to death, is nothing other than cultural-historical necrophilia, let us leave the dead to bury their dead. Those who call us to the “civilized world” want to lead us to the cemetery, or, at best, to the garbage of the “field of miracles” in the “land of fools”. Hitting this trash, and in the peripheral-third world version, was blocked by Stalin and his team in the 1930-s, and the inertia was enough until the 1980-s. Europe, about which one could speak Arthur Rambo’s words as a place: “... where is the baby / In the fragrant twilight before the flute is drained, / Involuntarily saddened and listening to silence, / In a hurry for the boat, like a moth of fragile” is long gone. Europe (and the West as a whole) today is more like a goblin reserve, only goblins are mostly non-native people themselves (although there are enough local goblins): Konradov's "heart of darkness" now beats in Europe - retribution for centuries of colonial plunder has come. But these are their problems - the problems of a “nobody’s house”; “Nobody's house” - one British journalist named the Great Britain since Thatcher since the Times, but the same can be said about the whole of Europe. "Nobody's House" - this is the ideal of globalists, which several times in the twentieth century. hooked Stalin: USSR was a common home.
Returning to the scheme of the pyramid and the masses, I note: only such a pyramid that meets the well-established forms of the collective unconscious and responds to them, is able to function normally in Russia, relying on an invisible frame. He understood this very well, moreover, Stalin felt. “Reforms are inevitable,” he wrote, “but in due time. And these should be organic reforms, [...] based on traditions with a gradual restoration of Orthodox self-consciousness (I wonder if these are the frantic Stalin detractors from the Russian Orthodox Church? - AF). Very soon, wars over territories will be replaced by “cold” wars — for resources and energy. We must be prepared for this. ”
This passage is worth a lot. Not only did the leader predict wars for resources that unfolded at the turn of the 20th – 21st centuries, he noted the need for reforms in the psychosphere, realizing that hostilities would shift over time and that reforms should be based on tradition (on the conscious and unconscious) , and not reject or break it. This is exactly what 1991 has been actively involved in by many of our media outlets, especially TV, however, without the success that it was counted on and often counterproductively, embittering the population, and, in fact, pushing for a “powerful impetus with the womb”. Of course, a significant part of moral guidelines and imperatives was destroyed during these 20 years - just like in 20 years preceding 1917. We see many manifestations of moral crisis, and, nevertheless, the task of destroying the Russian psychosphere, psychohistory is not solved by our opponent ( even computer shooters do not act on our children, like on western ones - due to differences in laughter culture). And it is not for nothing that officials fear the anti-liberal revolution “and everything”, the liberal “pyramid” (in both senses of the word) has remained alien, alien and hostile to the mass of the population, feeling itself infringed. As the group "Lyube" sang: "And for the fact that they have offended Russia, / Emelyan Pugachev will not forgive." The “lower world” always played a much larger role in Russian history than it was perceived and were ready to recognize the “bar” - terribly far from the people, the West-oriented authorities and professorial science. What can you advise these guys? Read carefully the Russian history and the works of Nobel laureate Ilya Prigogine about chaos, dissipative structures, self-organization and complexity. However, is it too late to “drink Borjomi”?
Not the revolution (especially on spirohetoznye belolentochnyh legs), we must not fear the new Stalin, but something more abruptly and terrible, known in Russian history under the name "Pugachev", i.e. mass reaction to an alien pyramid. One should not think that the times of the Pugachev region have passed - in the Big System “Russia” they will never pass, only the form can change. Pugachev and the “village of Plodomasovo” (N. Leskov) is the ever-present dimension of Russian life, so to speak, its parallel Lower World (Nav, Hel). It easily breaks into the Middle World, since the defensive lines of the latter in Russian life — the material substance, accumulated labor, property, and law — are historically weak. And today, they are repeatedly weakened by the unjust (to put it mildly, and if not softly, then the thieves', predatory) nature of property formation in 1990. And, who knows, will not the only one capable of taming the new breakthrough, the Chaos revolution and the new Stalin. Stalin was, along with Lenin, the Chaos tamer through the revolution, and then, independently, the tamer of the revolution (with globalization prevented) through the red empire of “anti-capitalism in one separate country” (by the way, N. noted delicately Mandelstam in the "Second Book"). And, how to know if the new authorities will not have to push-assemble-construct the power itself, of course, if the self-preservation instinct has not completely atrophied, struck by alien and alien information flows, thought forms, memes and conceptual viruses. In the work “Order from chaos” I. Prigogine and I. Stengers give the following example. The microscopic flat trematode worm, parasitizing in the liver of a sheep and self-reproducing there, does not get there on its own, but with an ant swallowed by a sheep, into which the trematode must first fall. However, even after this the likelihood that a sheep will swallow an infected ant is very small. The parasite, however, “solves” the problem in a simple, but inexplicable way for scientists, turning the small probability into the maximum. “It is possible to say with good reason,” the authors of The Order from Chaos write, “that the trematode“ takes possession ”of the body of its master. It penetrates the ant's brain and forces its prey to behave in a suicidal way: the enslaved ant instead of remaining on the ground climbs the stalk of the plant and, waiting at the very tip of the leaf, waits for a sheep. ” It is possible that the ant "seems" to be free in his behavior or even to "direct" by swaying the stalk (cf. penguins at the tip of the iceberg). In fact, he is a servant of trematode, who “put” into his brain a false and murderous for him “concept” of behavior that completely eliminates a sense of self-preservation. Put in place the “concept” of “controlled chaos” of “market reforms” and “human rights” - read S. Manna - and the "oil painting" will be clear. It is not by chance that in information wars, the first blow is delivered to the psychosphere of the ruling stratum, especially its protective and immune structures (ideology and special services) - in this regard, the story of the “Encyclopedia” in France of the 18th century. very instructive.
But back to taming Chaos, if it arises. To solve this problem, the new Stalin will have to throw the crowd, or as they used to say in Russia, to “give away by head” some, perhaps a significant part of the unjustly fattened ones, getting the most odious of them from anywhere - huch from abroad, huch from the devil's ass, huch from Kuyalnik and letting the rest "join our movement." How to know if the de-Stalinisers will not have to pray for the coming of Stalin, having heard the heavy tread of a black man, and not an Esenin one - from a mirror, in a cylinder and with a cane, and Lermontovsky - real, with damask in his hand. Such a "black man" - this is not "a delirium of intelligence services, the horror of emergency" (M. Voloshin), it will be more serious. He can bring with him a moment of truth to clarify the relationship between intentions and circumstances, the final solution to the question of their "negative dialectics." And it is necessary, paraphrasing A. Blok, to ask: "Stalin, give us a hand, / Help in a mute struggle."
Stalin and the wind of history
- Andrei Fursov