PEOPLE'S DESTINY OR ЕACH CRICKET HAS ITS OWN HEARTH

[Alik Bahshi]

Alik Bahshi



PEOPLE'S DESTINY OR

ЕACH CRICKET HAS ITS OWN HEARTH​

All people are different and differ from each other, not only visually, but also in the peculiarities of individual thinking and behavior. Each person has his own destiny and attempts to change it are hopeless, because it is impossible to change yourself as a person. A similar remark can be transferred to nations. By the common features inherent in each nation, it is not difficult to recognize typical representatives of different nations.

​

Just as we can characterize an individual, we can characterize an entire nation. Each nation has its own genotype, that is, hereditary traits by which it is highly likely that a nation can be identified and which determine its historical destiny. Thanks to genes, we have such a variety of nations and, as a consequence, states. From this we can conclude that a nation is also a group of people united not only by a common historical past, but also by a common future, that is, destiny. Thus, fate is determined by hereditary traits, from which there is no escape, which once again points to the truth of the well-known wise saying “you can’t run away from fate” and, most importantly, in our case, this is true for the entire nation as a whole, and not just for an individual.



The question arises, why did Peter the Great invite the Germans to Russia? Because he understood that only the Germans (not the French or the Italians) could teach the Russians legality, order and rational work, that only they could he rely on in the reformist reorganization of the state that he had conceived. On the territory of the former Soviet Union, one could come across German villages that stood out in contrast with their beauty, neatness and order. Even when not in their historical homeland, people do not part with their habits and way of life. If they say that in business an Englishman, as a rule, can be trusted on his word, then the conclusion naturally suggests itself that when dealing with someone else, one should not rely only on words. Gypsies love freedom, but hard work is a burden to them. Russians are distinguished by their .... However, it is better not to detail these differences, because both negative and positive traits can be found in any people. I would like to note only that, no matter how much, for example, the Arabs would like, they will not be able to become like the Scandinavians, and here the essence is not the external difference, but the difference in mentality.



You can conduct a mental experiment. If a German, a Russian and a Jew together with their families are dropped off on an uninhabited island and visited, say, ten years later, in what condition will we find them? The most likely seems to be the following simplified picture. The German has a solid house with a garden and a solid farm. The Russian lives in a dugout and works as a farmhand for the German, and the Jew acts as an intermediary between them, say, buying vodka from the German and selling it to the Russian. Or let's say what would happen if all the Swiss were resettled in Mexico and all the Mexicans in Switzerland. What do you think of the well-groomed, rich Switzerland and how would Mexico be transformed? It is probably not difficult to imagine what would happen to Germany and Russia if a cross-migration of peoples were carried out. No climatic or geographical conditions would change the character of the people. Why do the Japanese live richer than the Vietnamese or Russians? Because they are Japanese and no other explanation is required. Give the gypsies land, give them the opportunity to live and work it, alas, literally the next day you will not find any gypsies on this land. Such a situation is unnatural for the gypsies, they have a different way of existence, however, not only for them alone. Ruined after the war, having no natural resources, Germany and Japan, only thanks to the desire and ability of the peoples of these countries to work, have achieved much more than the victorious country Russia. Finland, a former colony of Russia, not rich in mineral resources, with harsh climatic conditions, is far ahead of Russia in terms of living standards, and there is only one explanation for this: Finns live there. There is no other explanation. We would have a completely opposite result if we hypothetically resettled Russians on this territory. I do not doubt for a minute that if the Russians had managed to return Finland to the empire in 1940, the standard of living there would have corresponded to today's Russian one. So the Finns knew why they needed freedom and valued this necessary condition for a people who knew how to work and wanted to control their own destiny. The huge empire could not break this will for freedom.



I do not pursue any racist or nationalistic thoughts here, I am only stating the fact that every nation has its own character and, accordingly, its own destiny. It would be pure madness to assert the superiority of one nation over another on the grounds that they are at different levels of social development. Yes, an Englishman is richer than a gypsy; he has his own home, his own country, the Falkland Islands, after all, a gypsy has nothing like that, but he does not need it, because the whole world belongs to him. To summarize, we can say that what a people, probably unconsciously, and according to its own, national mentality, has an inclination for, then it has. Then many social phenomena associated with this or that nation and, accordingly, its historical destiny become clear.



If you try to make a talented mathematician out of a person who has musical talent and loves music, then it is unlikely that anything worthwhile will come out of such an undertaking. Since Peter the Great, the Russian people have been literally pulled by the ears to Europe, but the distance has not come any closer. The latest venture, connected with the introduction of Western-style democracy, has been rejected by Russia, just like all the previous ones, alien to the Russian spirit of innovation. Since the time of the Ruriks, the Russians have become accustomed to being governed, preferably by people from outside, because they themselves are lousy organizers. Russia reached its greatest dawn under Catherine the Great, who could not string together two words in Russian. In Russia, Oblomovism is a phenomenon, not an isolated case. Who formed the backbone of the Bolsheviks led by Lenin? Were there many Russians there? I do not want to be like Russian nationalists who blame the Jews for all misfortunes. But on the other hand, where were you, Russian entrepreneurs, when, for example, freedom for economic activity was given after the collapse of communist ideology. Why did the oligarchs turn out to be people, let's say, not of Russian nationality? And again, it is not the fault of the Russians.


To be continued

 

[Alik Bahshi]

Continued:

The thing is that Russians see a different value in money than Jews or Germans. The value of money for a Russian is to get pleasure. From classical Russian literature: a Russian aristocrat could squander money, drink it away, and certainly not use it for a useful cause. For a Jew, money is valuable in itself and is a means for increasing it according to the scheme: money - (mediation, currency transaction) - money, in other words, money is put into circulation to make money. The desire to have money, preferring it to any other type of property, be it land, a factory, a farm, makes Jews mobile. They are like gypsies who value absolute freedom and gold, they are not tied to one place and can migrate to any country they like. A good example of this is the mass migration of Jews associated with the collapse of Communism and the disintegration of the USSR, with preference given to America and the rich countries of Western Europe, mainly Germany, despite the Holocaust, rather than problematic Israel. However, money cannot always buy everything. For example, if there is a famine, no one will sell you bread. And then, the money can be taken away by the one who made a gun with this money. It is not for nothing that the prophet Moses warned his tribe against worshiping the Golden Calf. Unfortunately, neither then nor after, this warning remained without due obedience. A people who cannot feed themselves will always be dependent - you can't grow bread from gold. And to grow bread, you need not only your own land, but also your sweat. The Germans see money as a means for producing goods, that is, they value not money as such, but the product that can be produced with this money (according to the scheme: product - money - product). That is why the banks ended up with Rothschild, and the means of production with Krupa. The Russians do not have such a cycle (money - pleasure - ...). Of course, this is a very crude and simplified to the point of caricature scheme.



In post-communist Russia, bankers, sellers and great schemers appeared, mainly from among the Jews who did not leave the country, but there were no serious industrialists. At least invite the Germans to the country again. The group of oligarchs formed under Yeltsin, taking advantage of the freedom of entrepreneurship granted by the authorities and using the lack of initiative of the Russian population, achieves significant influence in both the financial and political spheres. Yeltsin, who considered himself the guarantor of the Constitution, which for Russia was always an empty phrase, in fact was the guarantor of the financial well-being of the oligarchs. It was under Yeltsin that the symbiosis of power and money reached its highest apogee. The new government that replaced the communists provided an opportunity for easy enrichment, so corruption immediately permeates all levels of power. Money and power acquire unlimited possibilities in the current conditions of Russia. Oligarchs buy seats in the State Duma and posts in the government for money. B. Berezovsky, the richest man in Russia, who has Israeli citizenship, becomes Secretary of the Security Council. True, later, already being Secretary, Berezovsky renounces Israeli citizenship, but this fact only emphasizes the uniqueness of the situation. Can you imagine that in Israel a similar post would be occupied by a person of Russian nationality, and even with Russian citizenship. In Putin, as a traditionally executive KGB official, the oligarchs saw a spineless puppet who would allow them to further enrich themselves by selling the country's raw materials without creating production enterprises.



Such a trend in the economy could put Russia in the position of countries that are raw material appendages of the West and Japan. Russia could turn from a country of the former dictatorship of the "proletariat" into a country of the dictatorship of the oligarchs. (By the way, America is very cautious about Russian oligarchs, having closed entry to some of them.) Such an outcome was favored by the pathologically complete political lack of initiative of the Russian people. The new nouveau riche did not connect their future with Russia. First of all, they did not see it as their homeland. All of them had prepared their rear in Israel and other countries in advance, exporting their capital there as much as possible. Russia for them was only a means of enrichment. However, they did not see the other side of Putin's nature in time. As a true security officer, he managed to hide his future ambitious intentions, mixed with strong patriotism. At that time, the oligarchs did not foresee what a danger Putin represented for their financial empire. On the other hand, the reprisals against the oligarchs prevented spontaneous pogroms that would have inevitably occurred with further economic stratification of society, when the national factor is easily seen in one of the reasons for such stratification.



It is worth noting here that Putin's fight against the oligarchs and his anti-democratic policy served as a lightning rod from the approaching storm in the form of the growth of a large number of all kinds of nationalist and clearly pro-fascist parties and organizations in Russia.



The victory of democracy turned into complete impoverishment for the Russian people and the final collapse of the Russian Empire. Are the Russian people ready to pay such a price for their freedom? Do people who carry the Oblomov gene need freedom at all? Only a dictatorial regime is suitable for a society that does not want to deal with either political or economic problems. So Putin's appearance is not accidental, but fateful for the Russian people.



The collapse of communist ideology put the Russian people before the dilemma of choosing between freedom and dictatorship, and the people decided not to tempt fate and chose, traditionally, in accordance with their mentality, the latter. The unpopularity of democratic ideas in the Russian environment is reflected in the national composition of the democratic leaders. Moreover, the unjustifiably great political ambitions of each of them individually, Yavlinsky, Nemtsov and Khakamada, eventually burst the balloon of their empty talk.



The Russian people preferred the Tsar-father in the person of Putin, a man who is not a member of any party, who in a simple, folksy way, without any ambiguity promised to strangle the vermin (i.e. Chechnya), the militants (i.e. Chechens), to wash them down the toilet, and to circumcise all other Western champions of democracy. After such a clear and laconic programmatic speech, was it really possible to elect some chatterbox democrat as president, ready to hand over the empire to the infidels? The lavish celebration in the presence of priests and high-ranking officials of the state on the occasion of Putin's accession to the presidency looked more like a coronation than an oath-taking. Putin's arrival is not so much a revival of the empire, but rather a continuation of its agony, which is fraught with danger for the entire world, especially when a totalitarian regime is apparently being re-established on one-sixth of it.



Of course, the Russian young democrats are to blame for what happened, as they were obliged to take into account the mentality of the Russian people when implementing market reforms in the economic sphere and not to let things reach the point where oligarchs would emerge. The young democrats naively believed that it would be enough to deprive the communists of power, and the people would happily take advantage of the opportunity for free political and economic activity, as a result of which Russia would certainly reach the standard of living of the world's leading powers. However, in reality, having tasted democracy, the Russian people essentially rejected it as unacceptable for domestic use. Democracy and the Russian people are nonsense. Unacceptability to democracy combined with the well-known Great Russian chauvinism suggests only one option - an empire. Without an empire, the Russian people will be lost in a democracy. Hence, Putin's desire to restore the Russian Empire within the borders of the Soviet Union is understandable, which was manifested in his plan to return Ukraine to the bosom of the empire, which is quite consistent with his statement about the non-existence of such a people as Ukrainians, who, in his opinion, are Russian. I dare to suggest that there is a more material reason for Putin's refusal to support the independence of the Ukrainian people, namely, if Ukraine joins the EU, following the example of other Eastern European countries, and eventually finds a prosperous existence, then this will be a good, but disappointing example for the Russian people, for whom democracy is contraindicated.



21.04.2004

______________________________________



I would like to say a few words about the new party "Other Russia" - a new attempt by the talkative democrats, led by the paratrooper Garry Kasparov, who appeared from America, to fool the Russians and seize power. He decided to checkmate the Russian people outside the chessboard. True, Kasyanov seems to be a contender for the leading role there, but "The Other Russia" is not a Russian party. Even if we assume that they will manage to buy Russian voters, they will still not bring anything good to Russia (it is impossible to change the national character and its fate), and only an even stronger robbery will occur, because, unlike Putin, they will place all the currency in foreign banks, and the Russian people will get nothing. The Russian people will not gain anything from democracy for themselves, because, I repeat, Democracy presupposes the active participation of the people in politics and economics, that is, something that the Russian people traditionally do not have. This is precisely the circumstance that is tempting for people like Kasparov (Weinstein); why not use the political passivity of the people and enter power, pursuing personal interests. It would seem, why not Kasparov-Weinstein try themselves in Armenia or Israel, but no, he is eager to go to Russia, where he can use the passivity of the people. The closer the elections in Russia are, the more active the actions of the aliens from "Other Russia" for self-promotion are. Indeed, greed for power and money has eclipsed the mind of the former chess player - the new leader of the talkative democrats. The very name of the party "Other Russia" contains a hidden mistake. You can't make Russia different, but it is impossible to change the mentality of the people. Mentality is a kind of constant that distinguishes one nation from another.