Khan. Almaz Braev
Читать онлайн книгу.
me not for my principles and honesty but for my money and opportunities.
Democracy is a state, a system, a regime, a society created by migrants.
The more migrants there are, the more democracy there is. It’s a long migration. In this sense, Americans are out of competition. What else could people without roots who fled Europe have built?
If there are half of the migrants and this half is active because of hunger and injustice, these are internal migrants. Thanks to internal migration due to modernization in the 20th century, Europeans gave the world such fresh ideologies of «short migration» – fascism and communism. If you want to look closer, you will find a solid landless peasantry among the migrants. At the very least, the provincials. And the leaders of the Communists and fascists are the children of provincial officials – this is the rule.
Moreover, quite accurately, the Zeremids (short migrants) choose fascism if private property has been cultivated among the people for several centuries and communism if private owners, as people, were not in honor (like Russia). All the countries of Western Europe were ahead of the whole world in democracy and then the inevitable fascism. Right-wing autocratic regimes, not unlike dictatorships, have been established in all countries of Eastern Europe. But these were obviously conservative countries. England and France went through bourgeois revolutions; the populations mixed up with each other so much that the population had only one cult left: money (It turns out that England and France turned out to have an ornate path towards long migration. In addition, the conflict with Russia in the 21st century shows that Germany and France are more like American colonies. This is the result of their defeat in 1945 and the occupation of these countries. Due to the defeat in World War II, Japan was also occupied. Therefore, Japan also has a developed democracy, although the Japanese have not really mixed with their neighbors. This means that the cult of money can be controlled even by deeply traditional peoples if the people no longer have a traditional elite or it is represented purely symbolically).
This means that countries and societies with strong traditions could avoid fascism, at least not march to the beat of drums in their squares.
But what is needed for a modern democracy?
When we know that democracy can be inspired not only by military bases and Soros funds but also by monetary funds can inspire democracy if the local people consist entirely of Philistines where the ancestral aristocracy does not represent the current elite. Suppose the current elite is recruited not for high morals, professionalism, or responsibility but for unscrupulousness. However, in the Asian tradition, silence, servility, and helpfulness were not called evil in any way. It’s just that many conservative nations have not cultivated a sufficient layer of intelligentsia. The intelligentsia, the children of the intelligentsia, have principles. For all others, the substitute for principles is either idealism or greed. Democracy panders to the very bottom in this sense. Democracy is a system of migrants. It creates migrants, literal and mental, who in their hearts want to migrate. In this sense, the lowest try to trade anything just to get into the stream of democracy – to migrate, to leave the village where everyone saw them as poor. They get into the stream so that they get rich unscrupulously, brazenly, and cruelly. Unscrupulously, greedily, cruelly profiting from his people.
Who are their officials?
Asians or intellectuals? Are they moral or ideological? Suppose the entire elite layer of officials is recruited from the very bottom «for help» in creating a dictatorship of money. In that case, all these people will build themselves mansions, buy expensive cars, engage in ostentation, save money offshore, migrate, and buy housing on islands in the ocean. This is what democracy turns out to be, where there are neither morals nor intelligence.
Everyone here is poor. And they want to show everyone how rich they are. All the officials want to show how rich they are! These are primitive instincts. These are not American migrants at all. These are not any «short» European peasants. These are just new nomads. And among the nomads, the Khan, an outstanding leader, was creating the state. Only the khan can stop the bacchanalia of beggars who want to show themselves but cannot anybody convinced. Besides, only if Khan is a socialist. So, the socialist Khan creates principles, an idea, and a new tradition. Without any of the list of concepts, nothing will work.
Chapter 18
Why did the Kazakhs dislike the cat
Democracy is a system for migrants, for people without roots, to build a hierarchy on a new basis – on the basis of money.
Nomads are migrants, too, of course. But the nomads never had property. Besides, they were moving constantly, so they didn’t seem to care, like, well, who are you – we’re all equal. In fact, nomads are not democrats at all, and they know their place from birth. For the nomads to turn into democrats, all the steppe outcasts should gather in one place – then all the nomads would be Democrats in the Western manner. And then it’s not a constant movement. Nomads always have a place to rest while cattle graze around. These are the most abundant meadows. Disputes between the clans could arise over these places. But each family knew its route and did not cross paths with others. If it is a constant movement, then it is a relative constant. If it’s a life on the road, it’s a very stalled life. This slowness does not allow you to forget who is who and refreshes your memory if someone has forgotten and drunk a lot of fermented mare’s milk.
It seems impossible to have yourself in such a state, except for the nobility and elders. Therefore, the nomads have no principles but the power of words. Taking a place in the family hierarchy, everyone catches up with the owner of indescribable Kazakh ambitions. It can be said that nomads could compete in the pride of posture with each other if they could take off their robes. But one confident pose is enough; one can present arrogance, an expensive robe, a few words confirming his rightness, so that any conditional weak opponent – with a slightly crooked posture, barely noticeably uneven – still bends and concedes an invisible stranger to the lists. There seemed to be a dispute between the Kazakhs, but no one noticed. Any inconspicuous detail, maybe his robe is cheaper, maybe his boots creak or squeeze, perhaps he has nothing to say in response. But everything that is there must be in plain sight. It seems that appearance bothers all people: appearance is obliged to tell more about a person than he speaks. How he says and what kind of posture he will have depends on the robe (how many horses, how many sheep, the herd size). «I carry with me all that I have». It could be called imitating the ancient Greek (a modern meme on this subject, a Kazakh without show – offs is a loser. What kind of principles are Kazakh ambitions? Uh, who are you (Sen Kimsin?) – this is usually such a question to settle down any impudent person who has forgotten his place as an upstart. In this sense, any intellectual, a passing example of a petty bourgeois and a descendant of a fugitive European, could trump only with his knowledge. Kazakhs do not need knowledge. They have not been honored in the past. No amount of knowledge will help a modern upstart, either. In the past, a Kazakh had to know his place: to name his family, his father’s name, and only if they considered him worthy of a conversation and an invitation – who his ancestors were by name and what they did. Kazakhs do conduct side discussions about the weather or fashion, as if they do not keep any unnecessary cats in their portable housing. If this is a relative, at the beginning, they will ask how the health of that one is, how he feels, if he is ill, how he looks; they say last time he was cheerful and healthy – give him greetings from us. Nomads are also interested in the weather, but it is not attractive for walking or love meetings in the open air, but only for the «well-being» of feeding livestock. These are the Kazakh principles of life.
If they are reinterpreted in the European manner, then there is no state here (or any other ideology other than kinship and neighborhood with other people). Kazakhs, even modern ones, are not interested in an abstract state. Kazakhs respect witnesses. It is almost the same as the weather in the past: it is interesting purely for applied purposes. The state