Now, the younger brother is not only due to age, but also the practice of life is obliged to get a family by the deadline. He will have children. He becomes a father too. Now he is not even an older brother but a father, which is even worse for the Republic. Each time, he will rule and take the side of all the older brothers and the existing elite. Right or wrong?
The fact is that every father is the founder of a dynasty and, therefore, of a family tradition. Whose footsteps will his son follow? Even if it goes to the same factory.
Of course, under more favorable circumstances, the Germans could prevail not against Bolshevism, but Nazism. That is the Institute of Junior Republicans of the proletarian type. In this case, the German service elite would have changed its Nazi orientation and become entirely international? Quite possible. For all Remids, the state comes first. Let it be not German, but international German – what difference does it make? It does not matter which leader would curb the market bacchanalia.
But Stalin himself would not have needed an advanced Soviet Germany. Stalin needed a German leader-the younger brother and puppet, the sexless leader Telman. Telman must fulfill the will of another form of seniority – the Communist Moscow regime, which by this time was a continuation of the Russian feudal tradition. Stalin’s officials and nomenclature were only called Bolsheviks. The real Bolsheviks, world internationalists, were not yet killed by Stalin de facto but removed from power. He leaned on his “sons,” looking into his mouth, also almost ideologically sexless but willing to start a family—all according to the same laws of tradition. A quiet heifer sucks the two cows. You don’t have to be the oldest in the Russian tradition to get an inheritance. In the Russian tradition, obedience itself promised pies and the love of parents. Any poor Ivan is a fool or Emelya on the stove are not just folk heroes.
CHAPTER VIII
REMIDS STATESMEN
Why did the German statists, supporters of the state, still choose Hitler but not Telman? Although, Telman was already placed in the category of second-rate German deputies of Stalin. In the years 27—29, Stalin purged Lenin’s third Comintern from leftists. They left people similar to themselves, to their conditional family because the similarity of brothers is not necessarily external similarity. But it was not the figure and size of Telman’s personality that played a major role in the German’s strategic choice.
So, unlike the Russians in 1917, the Germans preferred the right-wing statists-the Nazis. Although, the success of the Russian Zerefs was before the eyes of the whole world. And the German Communist party was not a small one. And where else did Marx’s teaching receive the approval of peoples and development? We will say immediately, pursuing the reason for the choice of the German people. But why? Everyone knows that the dictatorship of the proletariat in various forms of its understanding and interpretation took root only in underdeveloped agricultural countries, and to be more precise – in Asia. In Asia, the word despotism was more consonant with dictate.
From the history of the development of all social systems in the world (and from Engels), we know that the state can be where there is property. The most important owner and his vassals dictated where there was no property, and no one could confirm their capabilities.
Even the comparison and evidence of the backwardness of the future Communist communities does not clarify the specifics. Yes, more technically underdeveloped. Yes, the culture has more emotions and a tilt towards mythology. Rational people do not believe in fairy tales at all. And traditional ones avoid rationality. Rational and meticulous Marxism appealed to the traditional peoples not by its content but by its completion. At which the end of the Marxist teaching good overcomes evil, there was a coincidence of myth and Marxism, and they met without logic for love.
But did the Germans abandon the tradition?
No, the Germans did not abandon the tradition. They remained loyal to their German state. Do you think that the ancient castes were abandoned in the rational, cold world of property and money? No way. The teaching of the Revcon says from the very beginning: the traditional (the Zeref) world has no semitones. The world of citizenship, the market, and money have many such halftones. They are like rubber shock absorbers, spacers between strata, cellophane with bubbles-they soften the relationship of superiority and humiliation. In the bourgeois world, it is not clear who is the master and who is his servant. Outside, everyone is walking the same way. Only very fine details are visible to old-timers and professionals. Castes are everywhere. The details and signals of the elite have stopped shouting and are located outside so that a hundred steps away, you can see who is who. Among primitive peoples, all the virtues are shown by clothing and drawn on the face.
The Germans remained true to the tradition of German semitones. They did not turn over their social pyramid. They didn’t destroy their middle class.
The Remids are simply fanatics of the state. German revolutionaries, German waves of indignation, approached the Remids just as the Russian peasants approached their landlords in a tight line. But they (the German middle class) were not liquidated, beaten to death, or stabbed. The German Remids, these German fanatics of Germany, the second Holy Roman Empire, and state, seemed familiar to them. They saw themselves in them, but eventually, the Zerefs become Zeremids, the Zeremids become Remids, everything is consistent and evolutionary. Even in reflection. (Who is this teacher or doctor? His great-grandfather or grandfather was also a peasant, and his father was a Philistine. A doctor and a teacher are successful careers. Well, a modern state cannot exist without them).
In the countries of the age-old despotism, the pyramid is reversed radically. There is no gradualness, but there is a jump. In addition, the proletarians did not come to lawyers, doctors, and teachers for advice. And the doctors and teachers tell them silently about the great state with their lips. They were a pitiful, defenseless lot, just as clenched and disenfranchised.
In addition, they destroyed them if excited peasants came to the feudal lords, and they did not agree. What kind of peasant revolt is it? The meaningless and merciless… as the poet Pushkin called the Russian revolt.
Suppose we look at the facts. Then the new leaders of the workers cut out the “exploiters” as the Eastern despots, but not vice versa. Not the feudal despots cut peasant uprising of peasants, as it was not once but many times over the centuries, but now the Marxist leaders cut all feudal lords. They change places. The results of local evolution were carved with feudal precision. This is not only evident in Stalin’s repressions. Look at the exploits of the revolutionaries in Kampuchea. All the local intelligentsia, more or less educated people, were cut out at the root. Even the bespectacled, the person who wears glasses was the enemy.
Remids-statesmen cannot be destroyed. The middle class can’t be touched.
Suppose this happened under Marxism or at the direction of the leader of the Asian peasantry. Then they, like the Hydra, will have to replace the severed heads. Instead of demolished ones, put your own. But the whole problem is that the state will lose from the new evolution. The newly raised heads of the officials will look in the wrong direction. Not in the direction of state property, but in the direction of oneself. The idea of a new state in executing upstarts or blanks to manufacture the old form is doomed from the very beginning. For the fate of the state, this means failure. But now, there is only the body of the state and the eternally hungry heads of officials. But why are they always hungry?