Almaz Braev - The Third. Covid liberalism

The Zerefs have a Zerefs ambition. In addition to the responsibility to the team of relatives, Zeref wants to be higher. They want to be above everyone else and always seem honorable people.

If we take people completely wild, just to understand the motives in nature itself. Modern Zerefs are no less ambitious. They must always seem more authoritative than other Zerefs.

The more authority, the more honor.

The Zerots are the elite of the Zerefs, the honorary fathers of the people, the Zerot live very well. They may not even work. Relatives will bring everything necessary themselves. This pronounced desire to be, look like the elite while not forgetting about your family and interests is perhaps the most obvious quality for today. The lack of honesty, which is a responsibility, makes it easier for Zeref to live. There is no need to answer.

What do we know about fascism? We know from Soviet dictionaries that fascism is a reactionary movement of the petty bourgeoisie. Fascism is represented as a negative, a misanthropic current of morality.

The birthplace of the fascist movement is considered to be Italy in the 20s.

But most of all, fascism is associated with the Nazi regime of the Third Reich.

The fascist States profess the state’s monopoly, in plain language, state-monopoly capitalism. In other words, they do not deny market relations but try to put market anarchy under the control of the Nazi idea. The ideological officials, in this case, the Nazi officials, were opposed to the cosmopolitan exchange. In this way, elements of paternalism became apparent in the fascist movement. In fact, Nazism turned out to continue the German feudal tradition. No one was surprised at what was said? One will grow out of the other, no wonder. For what reason was it so hypertrophied? This is a question of another topic. But German statism or a tilt toward state interests did not appear out of thin air. German statism came from German culture, which in turn came from German history. Here, of course, it is appropriate to recall the economic lag in Germany’s development, as its former fragmentation left the Germans without colonies, and therefore without additional resources. Yes, it is. But how German culture turned into the militarization of the Germans. Was it not the Germans themselves, their Dukes, barons, and counts, who most resisted unification?

Similarly, militarization has occurred from traditional German feudalism. The German official turned out to be almost a medieval German knight. But why did he become a Nazi instead of a cosmopolitan stockbroker, as happened in other civilized Europe?

Big brother.

How could a German family contribute to this?

How did a German official become wildly belligerent?

We could turn to the German tradition to find the origins of statism. We found it in German feudalism. Others will say, why didn’t the same statism manifest itself in Europe in another dream? A radical tilt towards state interests is not only a disease of the Germans. But it was among the Germans that it became radical. Absolutism seems to grow out of absolutism – paternalism. In short, from paternalism. Nothing is superfluous. So, what is the reason?

Any European father passes the inheritance to the eldest son. Not just German. This eldest son not only inherits lands and things, but he also passes on the habits of the family to his children. This is how the tradition develops, and this is how the traditional people turn out. Fathers look at their older sons, and their sons try to adopt their father’s look. They imitate him in everything. The transmission of the father’s character, behavior, and style from generation to generation create this nation. When fathers saw that to the eldest sons (namely, the eldest!), not enough land, not enough inheritance, they armed themselves and went on a campaign. Thus, the entire feudal people armed themselves. But the ideologues were the eldest sons, who take over and pass on the tradition from father to son.

In fact, the official German Nazi was not a feudal lord disguised but a new copy of him. He was the eldest son of a German burgher. Throughout Europe, fathers passed on their covenants in the same way, through their elders. The older ones were the heirs of the tradition and of the property as well. That the people did not turn off the path trodden by their ancestors, and in the end did not disappear as a people, just all the older sons watched this. Some seniors grew old and passed them on to other seniors. Those in turn also grew old but managed to teach their older sons. All these operations are somehow connected with the earth. There is an invisible connection, a sacred unity of tradition with the aristocracy. The only career for the eldest son is an honorary military career. All the officers in the army are the eldest sons. So why, with the advent of the market, would these senior officers not support the Nazi idea? Younger sons also became officers. Suppose the eldest inherited all the property. Having entered the military service, the younger ones supported the very institution of the traditional family and society.

The military ruled Europe in the 20s and 30s. Many modes: in Hungary (Admiral Miklos Horti), Romania (Marshal Antonescu), Poland (Marshal Pilsudski), Portugal (General De Costa), Spain (Generalissimo Franco) did not grow up to Nazism, to the ideology of total superiority, but were authoritarian regimes, dictatorships. But they were very similar to the German regime.

Suppose you have noticed the connection between right-wing totalitarianism and right-wing statism. In that case, with the institution of inheritance to the eldest sons, now look at what the younger sons are doing.

I would like to ask you to take a particularly close look at Russia. In addition, it will have to be considered in the development of the movement of anarchists from Italy, Spain, and Russia have the same problem. This problem is not so much about bringing anarchism into the arena a little earlier than authoritarian and totalitarian regimes, but rather about getting the problem of younger sons out. In other words, any left-wing and other protests and themes of equality and social justice are tied to the problems of inheritance and the lack of inheritance for the young son.

“The old man has three sons: the Eldest was a clever fellow, the Middle son was a fool.…”

The eldest son is smart because he does like a father. The eldest son is the father’s copy. He can’t be stupid by definition. All the older sons are sedate, important, walk strictly, and speak little. Where have you seen old people talking incessantly and crossing the village from end to end? There are no such old people. Older people don’t have much energy. They’ve already used it up. Similarly, older sons are not noticeable. However, there is still a lot of energy in them. The seniors will not waste it on trivial matters. Everyone is watching them. And the very first eyes in this observation are the eyes of the younger ones. The younger ones are the first to get slapped on the head by the older ones for indecent behavior and stupid behavior. Is there a demand from the younger ones? That’s why all the younger ones are spoiled behavioral waifs – fools, almost like in a fairy tale by the storyteller Yershov.

If such sons were to inherit, how would they be able to pay them back? No way. They will drink, waste, and skip it. How similar it is to the behavior promoted by advertising-take, walk, take advantage of the moment life had given one! If younger sons would not grow up later and become older brothers, all young sons would be possible to name to the democrats and Refags. Anyone who has had even a little experience with tradition in their biography, and there are many such, if not all of them, will not be able to be a democrat, even if they are the youngest in the family. In order for the younger to turn into a complete traditional degenerate and reformer, a certain period of the traditional vacuum is necessary. This person should be detached from the tradition, not have younger brothers. Or maybe just the only child in the family. Then no demand. Only self-indulgence. Here the ideology of hedonism is just right. Is this why the ideas of freedom and a market society are popular among young people? After all, this is a different congregation, a city crowd.