Signal to the future

Animals - including humans - imitate each other.

Shoigu proposes to be tried “for denying victory”—Yabloko took up the initiative and proposes to try “for denying Stalin’s repressions.”

Both ideas, of course, sound quite anecdotal, but in fact they have a very definite political meaning.

It is clear that history or law were not lying around here. So this is what is proposed not by historians or lawyers, but by POLITICIANS.

Offered strictly according to specialty. This matter is purely political - in the first and second cases.

Yabloko is moving towards Shoigu

“Who controls the present controls the past.

Who controls the past controls the future."

The classic's message is crystal clear: those who have power (control over the present) can shape historical myths.

And these myths largely determine the trajectory of the nation’s further movement. Through the past - into the future. The “managed”, “sovereign” or “directed” past is an arrow sent into the future.

It is clear that all this is true to the extent that government control over the media is possible. That is, the more open and pluralistic the society, the weaker this pattern is—and vice versa. Today, as is obvious to everyone, the degree of control is great - especially on TV.

This is the difference between Shoigu (i.e. the “party in power”) and Yabloko.

The Party in Power (PV) controls the present - Yabloko does not.

Therefore, the PV can send a signal to the future. And he sends - Shoigu simply sharpens this arrow. And “Yabloko” (generally “liberals”), of course, cannot send any arrow - the bowstring does not stretch.

Violence for good

I believe that the creation of myths, brainwashing is an inevitable thing. Therefore, it’s even funny to discuss whether this is “good” or “bad”. It doesn’t happen otherwise.

The whole question is the degree of violence.

Criminal prosecution FOR VIEWS is also absolutely normal. Pouring molten lead into your mouth is overkill in today's humane times. And putting people on trial for certain statements is a good thing.

All refer to criminal prosecution for Holocaust denial. There are those who are indignant - what kind of violence! If you don’t like it, don’t listen, and don’t bother lying! If anyone is PERSONALLY (or corporately) offended by Holocaust denial, let them sue. But initially declaring OPINIONS is criminal?! How is it possible!

Can.

Elementary, Watson!

Holocaust denial is not a “scientific discussion”, not a “point of view”, but a MEANS OF NAZI (NEONAZI) PROPAGANDA. In this case, propaganda in the form of justification (by denying) one of the main crimes of Nazism. That is, a state crime.

Nazi views are a) dangerous, b) extremely contagious. If you don’t stop them, forcefully, of course, forcefully! - they will stop you themselves.

“But, excuse me, you can also go far! Today one thing is “dangerous”, tomorrow it is “different”. You can go far!”

Can. It is even easier to go far in democratic demagoguery. Or you don’t have to go there, but agree that a ban on Nazi propaganda in its most varied manifestations is not only a restriction of freedom of speech, but also a way to protect this freedom. As well as other freedoms. And practice shows: over the decades that this very “ban on denial” has been in effect in many countries, nothing terrible has happened to their freedom, there has been no escalation of “today is one thing, tomorrow is another.” And Voltaire’s witticism “your views are deeply alien to me, but I am ready to give my life for your right to express them” remains one of the many witticisms of a man who, by the way, set a good example of tolerance, declaring: “Let’s crush the reptile!” (about the Church).

Therefore, the ban on VIEWS, i.e. prosecution of “just views” in court is perhaps not the most pleasant thing, but it is absolutely understandable, reasonable, etc. etc.

Medicine is always poison.

The only question is the dose.

That is, who, how and for what reason proposes criminal prosecution for views.

The case of "Apple"

Stalinism in our country in the course of an HONEST discussion is INVINCIBLE.

This, as they say, is a medical, psychiatric, if you like, fact.

Pity for victims for many (most?) people is weaker than sadomasochistic love (admiration) for the Executioner. That's how people are built. Not in Russia - in the world.

Argument here is useless: facts, logical arguments and moral sermons are not capable, in principle not capable, of overcoming emotions and complexes - individual or collective.

Therefore, by the way, psychotherapists do not appeal to facts and logic, they use them only as an additional means. The main thing is to excavate the REAL SOURCE of the complex, identify it and destroy it.

This is a long and difficult WORK. Collective psychotherapy (especially on a NATION scale) is a particularly large-scale and complex work.

Replacing, replacing such work with “honest intellectual debate” is not even carrying water with a sieve, it’s trying to move water with your gaze.

Roughly speaking, you can’t cure a psycho by telling him: “Well, what kind of Napoleon are you, my friend?!” There's a mirror - look, please! It’s a complete fool to play the fool!” In response to such arguments, he will probably hit you over the head with a Napoleonic mirror!

I can refer to my experience.

Speaking on the radio, in response to the standard opinion of listeners: the Americans want to seize Russia so that they can own our oil and gas, I repeat in the same standard way: firstly, thermonuclear war is impossible, because means mutually assured destruction - therefore, neither the United States will go after Russian oil, nor the Russian Federation will go to Europe, where there is also something to plunder; secondly, non-nuclear countries are no longer robbed, the times of Cortez and Pizarro are gone - look, the USA captured (liberated) Kuwait or Iraq, but American oil companies did not OWN local oil wells, but the USA is not trying to seize Venezuela at all, how we are not trying to take over Turkmenistan; thirdly, what is in use today is not brute force, but soft power - and this is normal diplomacy, so there is certainly nothing to “be afraid of war”... Many more OBVIOUS considerations can be given. Well, what about the answer? There are two of them: “why do you hate Russia so much?!” and “why is the USA putting missiles in Poland and destroying Serbia?! Ass?!” The answers are quite logical - what I fought for, that’s what I ran into. After all, I am not able to break through the helmet of “defensive consciousness” with my words. And I make a dent on it. The patient (well, not the “interlocutor”!) becomes uncomfortable. He answers as best he can...

Well, with the Nazis (Stalinists) it’s a much more advanced case.

Their advantage in any dispute is irresistible: the appeal to instincts - aggression, boasting, tribal, simply suppressed cannibalism - is always stronger than the appeal to culture. As Stalin’s ally put it: “We must tear off the thin shell of culture from a person and expose the wild beast.” You can’t completely tear it off, but this shell is pierced simply, and the hard bristles of dense complexes creep into the cracks - you can’t take it with your bare hands, especially with the hands of an intelligentsia, you’ll only prick yourself.

The animal aggression and moral idiocy of the fascists (at the same time, their intelligence is no worse or better than that of all people) is a well-known fact. This also applies to a special case of fascism, “Stalinism”. (By the way, in private life these can be completely peaceful, kind, etc. people - as many residents of Germany were in the 1930s. A common thing: outside of his complex, a person can be normal.)

Moral: in the field of private discussion, appealing to a) humanity, b) logic, c) common sense, the victory of the Stalinists is guaranteed. With a clear advantage, victory is awarded to the effective maniac manager!

This means there is only one way out: the arguments are weak - you need to raise your voice.

We need targeted STATE PUNITIVE PSYCHOTHERAPY to cure its population. An example is post-war Germany.

Ban the propaganda of Stalinism (okay, call it a “criminal ban on denying Stalinism”). And introduce MANDATORY propaganda of ANTI-STALINISM - at school, on TV, in the media, etc.

The people will swallow this swill with disgust - it contradicts all, I repeat, basic political instincts. And the cult of strength, and aggression, and national arrogance, and all other sadomasochistic joys...

Nothing! The main thing is persistence. He won't fall in love, but he will endure it. There is no method against scrap, other than other scrap. And the state wrests “another scrap” from the fascist comrades. The Germans, one might think, didn’t like anti-Nazi propaganda either - but they got used to it, got used to it, and something really stuck in their heads. To paraphrase the “classic of political thought”: it is necessary to build up the shell of culture and, drop by drop, squeeze the wild beast out of man. The matter is difficult, no subtle methods have been invented, one has to press mechanically, but, as the entire experience of Mankind shows, the matter is far from hopeless.

Only for this you need one little thing: the DESIRE FOR POWER.

We are known to have ACTIVE REluctance.

More precisely, there is an active ANTI-DESIRE - a desire to promote soft Stalinism.

Shoigu case

The official propaganda is simple and clear: Stalinism - but without extremes.

Sorry for the expression “Stalinism with its balls tied up.”

The same Victory is depicted only with a Stalinist face. Which, by the way, is what she really was.

And not at all in the sense that Stalin was the Supreme Commander-in-Chief.

And in the sense that the IDEOLOGY of war, the METHODOLOGY of war then was Stalinist.

It is, of course, a complete lie that the Second World War was a “war against fascism”, almost “anti-fascist”. As Comrade said. Molotov in 1939, that “it is not only senseless, but also criminal, to wage such a war as the war for the “destruction of Hitlerism”, covered by the false flag of the struggle for democracy” - this is what Stalin thought in 1941-45.

For Stalin and the people, the war was like a war. The struggle of the Soviet military machine is against the German military machine. “Fascism”, “socialism”, especially “democracy” or, excuse the expression, “humanism” have nothing to do with it at all.

This is exactly how this struggle and Victory are presented today in our country.

This is historically HONEST.

This is CLEAR to people.

It's close to them.

But the most important thing is that this understanding of Victory DIRECTLY WORKS FOR THE AUTHORITY.

At the same time, understanding the Second World War as an “anti-fascist” war, ultimately a war “for freedom”, is historically false, and most importantly, it would work AGAINST THE AUTHORITIES.

A victorious army, a victorious country, a victorious people, a victorious government, sovereignty, POWER OF THE NATION - and no “democracies-plutocracies” or other “human rights” there. Here is a signal from the past that Vertical is sending to the people.

The authorities support themselves with THAT Victory, because they have nothing else to support themselves with (not the victory over the “wonderful Georgian” in August 2008!).

And somehow, almost involuntarily, it turns out “For Victory!” For OUR Victory! That is, for the “sort of COMMON” Victory of the then and present authorities over all former and future enemies of the Power, external and internal.

This is exactly why, 64 years after the war, its (Victory) gilding has not worn off at all. For comparison: in 1876 in Russia, the victory over Napoleon was not the most important ideological and political topic - “life invented new songs.” And our life, you know, sings old songs about the Chief Commander.

This is not entirely Orwellian.

The Past is not used to guide the Future... The authorities don’t worry too much about the Future of Russia - there’s no time for that... If there is oil, there will be money... That is... ugh - well, there will be a future, of course...

So here it is. The past is used quite simply: to support the PRESENT. And then the grass won’t grow...

Hence the real ideological hatred of “dear allies.”

These “allies” are disgusting not because they entered the war too late (i.e. on September 1, 1939 - although they really fought rather weakly). And not because they supplied us with little junk under Lend-Lease (by the way, these supplies did not, of course, play a decisive role in the war; the USSR made the vast majority of military equipment itself). And not even because the boastful allies exaggerate their contribution - but they actually uncritically exaggerate it.

But all these details are needed only by historians.

Our war allies are “historically disgusting” to our government for the same reasons they were disgusting to Stalin. Why are they disgusting even today, when they no longer act as “allies”, but as “partners”.

IDEOLOGICALLY ALIEN, ideologically hostile. For them, the war with Hitler was, at least in part, not only geopolitical, but also IDEOLOGICAL. Anti-fascist. Fight for Freedom. This is quite enough for our government, then and now, to experience a feeling of deep, almost physiological disgust towards them. Everything else is unimportant. Yes, they are indeed smug, arrogant, this and that - but these are details.

For Stalin, everything was clear: they were ideological ENEMIES.

And the “wonderful Austrian” is IDEALLY CLOSE.

As is known. Regarding the Fuhrer’s suicide, Stalin said: “I’ve finished my game, you scoundrel!” The meaning of this remark is fully revealed if we recall another of his phrases, after the war: “Oh, with the Germans we would be invincible...”.

Of course, Hitler is a scoundrel - he played the game, jumped to the end, son of a bitch, with his “racial theory” (that’s what we didn’t have, that’s what we really didn’t have!)... And if he hadn’t been such an idiot, we would have been invincible with him - this is where we would have all these “allies”! (By the way, these words prove the falsity of the Goebbels-Suvorov propaganda that the USSR was preparing an attack on Hitler.)

Sovereignty is the common denominator of all authorities, from now on and forever.

It shines brightest, after all, not on Nevsky’s helmet, or even on the sword of Peter or Alexander I. It shines brightest in Stalin’s shoulder straps on Victory Day.

Victory of the Power - “and let him be ashamed who thinks badly about it.” And to make it even more embarrassing, it would be nice to put him on trial, by the way...

But today it is a glamor-power.

What is the difference from a Great Power?

Very simple.

Power without blood. Power without war, without repression. Power without muscles is power jelly fat. Imitation of sovereignty.

Gilded-glamorous shell, gilded scabbard for a fake sword.

No need to judge

In this regard, a question.

Do I fall under the “Shoigu law”, i.e. Do I consider the Victory an evil, a historical defeat for Russia?

Here, however, I must make one reservation: for me there is no such question and cannot be by definition.

I emotionally consider that Victory to be a GREAT HAPPINESS. At least for myself. If there had been no Victory, my parents would have had a gas chamber. And I am not so great as to pretend, like many of my noble relatives, that this “minor topic” is unimportant, that I am ready to stand over the graves of my relatives. No. Not ready.

Rather, I am ready to say that I would be the last pig if I did not feel gratitude to my DIRECT SAVIORS - including not only soldiers and generals, but also Stalin and the NKVD. To deny their “role in the Victory,” to say that they won “in spite of them,” I consider, to put it mildly, ridiculous. They won THE WAY THEY WON - and they couldn’t have won any other way. And this was the Victory of the Stalinist System. That's why it cost 30 million lives. ...However, with all my gratitude, I cannot kill the ability to critically perceive reality.

But this is not about me. Jews in Rus', thank God, only 0.1% of the population remains... Their problems are not Russia’s problems at all, salvation for them is not necessarily salvation for Russia.

Maybe this is not the case for the Russian people?

So, let's repeat the main question.

Can the Victory of Stalinist Russia be considered a historical defeat for Russia?

It is clear that every victory in a war (and even THIS kind!) strengthens and concretes any victorious regime. And defeat demolishes this regime.

It is clear that victory in any war over an external enemy in itself is a great achievement of the people and country. In any case, the war is obviously just, completely defensive.

It is clear that the Stalinist regime - the highest point (along with Nazism) of the totalitarian regime in the History of Mankind - is catastrophic for Russia.

This Victory finally fixed the wheel of Russian history in “its own track” - the track of a crudely authoritarian regime.

The country itself and the people cannot (don’t want to) get out of this rut. Only an external push could push him “onto the broad road of life.” As was the case with Germany, Japan...

So, maybe the trouble is that there was no push? More precisely, there was a push - but literally jumping out of its skeleton, breaking out of its veins and all its tendons, Russia repulsed this push and remained in its rut. Up to your neck.

At one time, I was greatly impressed by the words of the son of Field Marshal Rommel. I do not quote them verbatim, but I am responsible for the meaning.

Rommel's son was still a boy at the front with his father. Many years later, in the 1970s, already a respected burgomaster of Stuttgart, Rommel spoke.

“We fought in Africa. It was an amazing war. I idolized my father, and I still do today. I consider him the best commander of that war. Our soldiers were the best in the world, the best in that war. Much better than the Russians, the British, not to mention the Americans. We fought the best back then. We should have won. The fact that we were defeated was the greatest misfortune, a catastrophe for Germany, for all of us.

THE ONLY GREAT DISASTER WOULD BE OUR VICTORY.”

Maybe a REAL Russian patriot should “repeat Rommel’s words inside out”? “Defeat would be the greatest disaster. Only Victory would have been a greater disaster”?

No. It’s not that I’m sure, I just KNOW that the position of Russian patriots and German patriots here is DIRECTLY OPPOSITE.

If only because the Germans lost to the Allies and they established - at least in West Germany - a democratic occupation.

And Russia could only lose to Hitler.

Akhmatova expressed the position of the Russian patriot.

It’s not scary to lie down under the dead bullets,

It’s not bitter to be left without shelter -

But we will save you, Russian speech,

Great Russian word.

We’ll carry you out of vibrant and clean,

And we will give grandchildren, and we will save from captivity

Forever!

Of course, the Russian word was far from freedom, it was Akhmatova who knew better than we, so bold critics of Stalinism today ...

But the Russian word, Russian culture was "purely Jewish."

Or - life. Yes, in the USSR, yes, not free, clamped, under the fifth "questions of linguistics", so to speak. Or - a gas chamber for Russian culture, when the Russian language in Russia will be replaced by simple and understandable: “Halt!”, “Hail!”, “Rusish Schwein!” And "Schrenel, Schrenel!". The Russian word would not have been captured - he would simply be killed.

Is there a “choice” for a Russian person?!

Yes, the victory of Nazism would not mean the physical extermination of all Russian people (although for a considerable part this would be exactly like that). But remaining to live as a “biomass”, they would cease to be Russian people, and in general people. Working cattle is dumb, for their language would be chopped into pieces, leaving the words-smoking, the words of the teams. The destruction of Russian culture, the Russian state-the Stalin, non-Stalinsky, any. This, as everyone knows, is not propaganda, but quite official, certain German plans for Russia. The “liberation of Russia” included these plans as the liberation of “space” from the Russian state, language, culture, from Russians, ultimately.

It is amazing that today it is necessary to remind someone!

Yes, not “someone”, but to people who imagine themselves “democrats”, a kind of “conscience of the nation”.

Well, here, and I also wrote above that “moral idiocy” is the lot of the Stalinists! I take my words back ...

What should be a moral idiot in order to say "the victory of the Germans would be better for the Russians than the victory of Stalin." Yes, the Vlasovites said so-but they had nothing more to say ... But those who repeat it today (apparently, with their courage ... as they themselves think)-they seem to be in a prisoner of war camp?

But they say!

On paper, I read this nonsense - and stunned, I must say - performed by one journalist. I won’t call his holy name - the comrade has become very much since then, so Shoigu did not answer. It is of course: to argue with Shoigu, this is not Nemtsov’s obscenities to cover, than the named wrestler and was engaged in years ... But, I repeat, Allah with him.

The problem is that he, handsome, is not the only one.

Not everyone laughs out loud, but many think so. They see a special “civic dashed” here: how, in their anti -Stalinist fearlessness, they reached the edge of the abyss - and moved on, smiling proudly.

And they give an amazing argument: “The Germans would sooner or later leave, and they would not have reached Vladivostok - but after that Russia would have been getting rid of the Communists forever ...”.

“Stupidity is not a lack of mind. This is such a mind ”(General Lebed).

They, therefore, know in advance that the Germans would “sooner or later” leave. No, about "sooner or later" who argues - "everything goes away." After 10 years ... or 50 ... or 150 ... When - do they also know? Or - anyway? ..

And how many more millions would have died? So all the same - people are mortal. You can't argue ...

And what would happen to Russia? Well, something would be ...

And what would happen to the whole world after Hitler’s victory, after he would finally conquer the whole of Europe - from the Atlantic to the Urals?

And where, by the way, the Japanese came ...

But after the departure of the Germans ... year in ... there would be democracy in Rus' ... this is where it is? True, the German occupation - unlike the power of the CPSU - would have enlightened the people very much, prepared, so to speak, for freedom and civil society? Ah, the Americans would have planted ... And if by that time ... a year to ... the Americans would not have been a little until that? And if ...

And if the German Ferdinand would not have pulled out a Russian cart from our eternal authoritarian track, but simply broke this cart in chips and even attached to the caterpillars everyone who rode in it?

Such a complex thought was not included in the head of the stalinophobes?

However, it is a shame to discuss such a clear and shameful nonsense.

But only for nonsense - do not judge. This nonsense is not dangerous for the country - it is too unpopular.

You need to judge

But there are a lot of completely different negatives of victory.

These are Russian Nazis.

Not the “Vlasovites” who served Hitler through force, not Bender (“plague for both of your homes”).

Nothing of the kind!

Russian Nazis.

Hale! - And no nails.

They, of course, have one disagreement with the Fuhrer - "on the Slavic question."

Here Adolf Aloizich gave a miss - the Slavs (at least Russians) are not non -nonsense. Not Tajiks, tea (by the way, according to the Nazi theory of Tajiks much closer to the Aryans than Russians).

Of course, similar Kholuski calculations are without the owner.

Hitler could not abandon his racial theory - everything was built on it. Refusing her - the idea of ​​world domination, mission, the Messiah falls (“And ask any of us: you are not Christians?” - Adolf Hitler is our savior, you will hear in response ”).

But be that as it may, from the point of view of the Russian Nazis, a alliance with Hitler, a general struggle with democrats-blutocrats (USA, England), together "saw the ball" was needed. Well, yet, of course, to conduct internal cleaning in the USSR - from the Jews, by the way, from the Communists ... Although the overlooking could well go to the Nazi party.

In general, close to the ideas of Stalin.

"Eh, we would be invincible with the Germans."

An alliance with the Germans - but not tactical, as in 1939, but strategic, ideological.

However, Stalin kept something from this (I wonder what?).

Be that as it may, for the Russian Nazis on May 9 - the day of sorrow about unfulfilled hopes.

Of course, they do not deny victory in the war - where can you go!

But, again, of course, they evaluate it as a historical defeat of Russia. Just like “extremely liberal anti-Stalinists”-however, for other reasons ...

Unlike Stalinophobes, the Nazis - as you know, is a rather popular flow.

And they are dangerous not by historical glitches, but by plans for the future.

All the same - to drag your vision of the past into the future.

Without Hitler, but along the Nazi path.

Instead of the “Cosmopolitan RF”-Nazi Russia-for-Russian. And so on...

These guys can be judged - no additional laws are needed. Not even for the removal of scalps, but simply for their ideology, the propaganda of Nazism. There are enough laws.

Only no one judges them.

And if, after the words, Shoigu had not passed new laws, but simply involved the existing laws against the Nazis - that’s nice! Thank you, Sergey Kuzhuhetovich, for architecture speech!

Only after all - by, by ...

The authorities do not experience “sympathy” for the Nazis - there was still not enough!

But he does not experience "class hatred."

Neurons of ideological hatred are included only with the appearance of familiar irritants - those very “Western plutocrats” and their “internal agents”.

And the Nazis - whatever freaks - but they hate the same people! (True, they also hate power, but the authorities do not think so in its eternal blinding.)

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend." Well, at least this logic does not work.

However, the Nazis and positive ideals partly coincide with the sovereign-stroke. True, they need a specific power, racially clean ... No, it will not work.

But be that as it may, if the authorities begin to press “offenders of victory” - then, I think, attention will not be paid to the Nazis.

* * *

Who controls the present - controls the past.

Who controls the past - controls the future.

Witty.

But not at all a witty, banal-fucked “past, the present defines the present” is also true. And our glamorous-power insanity today is a logical, almost non-alternative result of our blood-containing past.

And the future?

So where does he get something else?

"However, is that a miracle?"