Today we will have to compare Napoleon and Hitler in the light of the revcon. Why is one still considered an adept of progress and the other a fiend of hell? Both attacked Russia. Russia, the Russian people, have never put money first. In any case, when Russia had tsars and nobles. Yes, Russia has always been famous for high thieves, courtiers of the highest rank, who stole heavily from the treasury. But after all, who were these people? These were the new nobles. Those who were recruited from the street. Napoleon would have had a great chance to take Russia without Borodin if they were the majority. To take Russia by means of the abolition of serfdom these are all modern inventions. Russian peasants would have liked such an idea, but they did not know private property. Only people who would cultivate monetary relations for a long time could understand and accept Bonaparte. And also to honor him, as the entire bourgeoisie of Europe honors him for his Code. Russia had serfdom with folk zeref's self-reflection, with weak reflection; any outsider who came with the war "will die here by the sword." Even if he had come without a war, he would not have been able to bribe the elite of Russia, and the serf would not give a damn about money because he didn't know what it was. The serf did not see the money but worked out a natural corvee.
Now, let's look at Hitler through the prism of human rights.
Here is a real Zerefs parish. Hitler is the leader of the Zeremids, the first generation of citizens. The first generation is always the hungriest and the most greedy. Hence, the theory of Aryan superiority. Take modern social networks, teeming with petty bourgeoisie, imagining themselves. Everyone comes up with an incredible story of the superiority of his ethnic group, his people. And that means such the dreamer himself with schizo deviations. As the leader of the transitional layer, Hitler put the superiority of Germans over subhumans on the swastika flag. There was no way they could come up with non-traditional human rights. Thats why the genocide of the Germans was so radical, in fact, traditional. So did all the invaders before Hitler. But not a single invader brought an entire theory under the genocide of underdeveloped peoples. Such a theory is possible only after poisoning by the market of many peoples. All Zeremids are provincial. But it is the provincials who want quick success and quick results.
Chapter 10
«Im not like that!»
The last politician of the XX century
Since the XVI century, the fashion for freaks has appeared in England. This fashion has appeared in conservative Britain.
In 1814, a coalition of united monarchies entered Paris. Excerpt from the work of Guy de Maupassant Mother of Freaks show: I remembered this disgusting story and this disgusting woman, having recently met on a beach favored by the rich, a Parisian woman, well-known in the world, young, elegant, charming, the object of universal admiration and respect. My story is old, but such things are not forgotten The writer reports on an elegant and respected woman who gives birth to freaks for sale. Who is the ugly, really, woman or Parisian society?
The coalition troops of the Conservatives, of course, entered Paris. But they could not stop the development of capitalism. I am sure that the citizens of new France have always talked about democracy: you cant put what is released from there in a cage. Even when the Bourbon monarchy was restored, the bourgeoisie was the dominant class. The proletariat will notice only thirty-year-old Karl Marx after a series of riots in France in 1848. From the Code of Napoleon (1804) to the Manifesto of Karl Marx (1847), this is not just a biological time of two generations. This is a time of rapid development of capitalism. This means passions: fears, pain, anger, experiences, that is, all market stresses that President Putins contemporaries should not be introduced to.
We can say that Russia, from 1991 to 2022, went through the same «excursion» as France from the Bourbons to Louis Napoleon. Only France was preparing for total industrialization, such were the values of that time, and democratic Russia was monetizing, that is, deindustrialization, all this time (the hard coin fell into the pockets and entourage of Louis Philippe the penultimate Bourbon on the throne, the Restoration time and corruption is very similar to modern Russia and all the regimes of the former USSR).
The behavior of Russian compradors is explained as follows: in the middle of the XIX century, there was no common market and globalism in Europe; the French oligarchs did not suffer from inferiority complexes, although they were also the offspring of peasants. Not only revolutionary France but even monarchical France have always been the trendsetters of European fashion.
But not the fashion for fools.
Since the XVI century, as was immediately noticed, the fashion for freaks appeared in England. The Komprachikoses traveled around the country and bought children from needy, declassified people to disfigure their appearance, then exposed the freaks to the crowds amusement. The compromises did not monetize the horror of the freaks. The Komprachikoses monetized the populations need for other peoples suffering. Capitalism spreads across the territory through overwork, deprivation over, tension, and over-competition. What ethical conclusion are all moralists asked to make at the sight of cripples and beggars on the street? «You could have been among them. Rejoice, you are lucky.» The Komprachikoses monetized the human passion for seeing an unfortunate freak after another the most important passion of a man of the market the passion for profit. The officials of Edward V began to drive the English peasants from the communal land. Hundreds of thousands of vagabonds flooded the roads and squares of England. Only the kompracicoses could compete with the vagabonds in the spectacle. Only they created their freaks t with their hands. So that tramps look at cripples and laugh: «Im not like that!»«Im not like what the king made from all.
Why all this digression into the past?
To demonstrate the ferocity of capitalism?
Only partially. The need to see freaks is the main ideology of the market. Officially, this is called culturally, decently to democratic and liberalism. Hordes of dressed-up and official hypocrites talk about democracy at every turn. The people are ready to tolerate this and even dream of big money, so everyone will be lucky one time. Otherwise, Alexei Navalny would not have millions of small and large Democrat supporters. Nobody needs a red idea of socialism or a conservative idea. The crowds of left-wing Pharisees and talkers who chatter in response to the liberal flock about the dictatorship of the proletariat only add strength to future compromises. For the people to be silent, they must see freaks. I'm not like that! I was lucky! The presence of freaks on the official air and especially on social networks the focus of modern anger against fencing saves any hypocritical democracy, which cannot be anywhere in the world. But they talk about it brazenly, defiantly hypocritical, cynically. This increases the passion of the masses to see not politicians around but freaks not just freaks, but political freaks. People are ready to laugh at the system, even looking at one clown at the very top, the leader of the parliamentary faction. This is enough to rule for a long time. One cry of the socialite Buzova into the crowd is enough: "I'm a fool!" The whole crowd will howl from self-satisfaction and stress relief. I'm not like that! I was lucky!