The end of the Kalabukhovsky house

One of the best modern historians Niall Fergusson wrote in his last book Civilization: The West and the Rest. "We live at the end of the 500-year era of dominance in Europe."

In the West, about the same thing happened in the USSR in 1991 - namely, the collapse of the socialist economy. Alas, socialism, like syphilis, is a fatal disease, regardless of whether socialism is a consequence of Stalin's tyranny (as in the USSR) or a consequence of universal suffrage (as in the present West).

Although the forms of socialism, like syphilis, are different. If you drive the peasants to the collective farm with the help of the NKVD, then hunger will come next year. And if you systematically pick up the money of those who work and give it to those who do not work, then sooner or later you will begin a debt pit, a decrease in the country rating, riots in London and - further everywhere.

In this sense, riots in London are a much more indicative thing than a decrease in the US credit rating. More precisely, not the riots themselves, but the reaction of the system to them. Because any system is not characterized by a mistake. It is characterized by a reaction to an error.

Riots in London

Let me remind you how it all started. The 29-year-old gangster that has four or (some sources) of five children from different mothers fired at the policeman and was shot dead and was shot dead by return fire. After that, the gang, which included Mark Daggan, began to beat and burn shops, and soon other gangs joined it.

Just the rebellion is the most unimportant in this story. The reaction to rebellion is important. At first - in the first couple of days - English newspapers dedicated half of the articles about Mark Daggan from his relatives: what kind of respected member of society was and how these bitch dared to kill such an angel. For example, like Daily Maily - a newspaper that is honestly food that Mark Daggan was a gangster and Unlikely Martyr - begins his article:

“Semone Wilson Has Not Yet Told Her Children that Their Father Is Dead. 'How I Explain to them That Their Daddy Is Gone?' She Says ....

Her Fiance, Mark Duggan, Was Traveling in a Minicab in North London on Thursday Was Stopped by Officers from Scotland's Operation Tridential ... Moments Later Duggan Was Dead.

He and Miss Wilson, Both 29, Had Been Together Sincy They Were 17. They Had Sons Aged Ten and Seven, and Baby Daughter.

'Mark Was A Good Dad,' Says Miss Wilson, A Student At Middlesex University. 'He Loved His Kids Dearly. He idolized them. '

It was still possible to mention the gang of Daggan. But to say that the main source of income for the deceased and his roommates were not even drugs, but the state -ownedness of children and that for this reason, Daggan was going to marry, would be just Moveton.

As the pogroms increased, the tone of the liberal media has changed somewhat. All materials were shot down on one pattern. Having stated at first that “it is impossible to justify violence”, their authors further justifying violence, talking about why the pogromers feel the rejected society and why everyone owes them.

The Gardian erupted in an editorial article that the cursed policy of the capitals ministers who reduce jobs is to blame: as if from one of the pogrom, from BlackBerry in his hand, once worked.

But another typical article - a certain Camila Batmanghelidjh writes in Independent:

“Young, Intelligent Citizens of the Ghetto Seek an Explanation for White Are At the Receiving End of Bleak Britain, Condemned to a Darkness Wherer Humanity IS Not event enunch to be helppa. "

“Go to the Youth Centre,” continues Ms. Batmangelig, “And You Will Find the Staff Have Locked Themselves Up in the Office Because Disturbed Men Are Dominating THE Space with Their Violent Dogs. "

A strange thing: if the state is building youth centers, and young pastries turn them into a stable, then, probably, it's not about the centers? As Professor Preobrazhensky said, devastation is not in closets, she is in the heads. But Mrs. Batmangelid does not think so. She asks even more money to build even more centers that the pastry will smash with even greater passion.

Question: Why does Ms. Batmangelige think so strangely? The answer is that Ms. Batmangelij professionally engaged in charity in The Place to be and Kids Company. She professionally masters money to take care of poor unprofitable youth.

In other words, there is a terrible, monstrous drug on which they planted unemployed youth. It is called a social allowance. This is a terrible heroin - you will not get off it, and it leads to the same irresponsible behavior as heroin. And the experts on social policy are the dragdilers-Ms. Batmangelid and K.

At the same time, political correctness is surprisingly does not correspond to political reality. Political reality is expressed in the fact that over 100 thousand British signed an electronic petition requiring the pogroms of benefits. Because it is madness so that society contains those who smash it. But by the tone of the English media, this was imperceptible.

The most stringent words in this story said British Prime Minister David Cameron: “People Allowed to Feel that World Owes Them Something, That Their Rightweigh Their Responsibilites and Threes Actions do not have consequences. Well, They Do Have Consequences. "

And then Cameron did not clarify why people think that "the world owes them."

Do you know what Ed Miliband said - the leader of the Labor Opposition? He said: "There are a complex number of causes!" And what are the reasons for Partly About Parental Responsibility, Partly ABOUT GANGS and SOME of that Culture. "

In, damn it, depth! In philosophical understanding!

Truly tough comments were heard only from the United States, from a country where the idea of ​​a social state did not finally won and meets a fierce protest, if not for the majority, then at least many voters. Here, on FoxNews, you could find expressions like Britain Makes It Absolutly, Blindingly Clear that is liberal Social Welfare Policies. And they have turned a good chunk of their nation population into animals. They Are Absolute Animals. They Are not Humans with Free Will. They Eat, They Screw, They Drink. "

In Europe, everything is mainly discussed: what should we do for them, for poor pogromers? And no one discusses: what should they do yourself?

Rich and incorrect

Do you know what it reminds? Reporting from "Hot Pots".

Over the past ten years - from September 11 - there is an indestructible canon of liberal report on Islamic fundamentalists. There are guys who cut the infidels, then these guys are wetting, then they come to the wrong ones with the television camera and take off the sobbing family who tells how the bloody NATO regime killed a civilian resident for anything.

This has already become the rule of the game: we will cut the infidels, and when the infidels are in response, we will cry on the television camera.

And I thought all when this wonderful story will return to Europe? And now - returned. We will shoot at the police. We will smash the shops. And then we will stand in front of the television camera and complain that our “Humanity is not Even Valood En feing to be helper”.

Did you understand, bitches? We are here in kind of victims, and who does not recognize this, we will tear it to hell. Such an internal hamas. We hate you, and you owe us.

"Mark Was a Good Dad, ' - Says Miss Wilson. - He Loved HIS Kids Dearly. He idolized them. "

By the way, I remind you: Miss Wilson, the cohabitant of Gangster, 29 years old, with three children, is a student at the University of Middsex. As you know, not for your money is studying.

Can you find out in which society and in what era the 29-year-old cohabitant Gangster with three children could study at the university for the money of taxpayers? And these guys complain that society left them?

Jane Guddul, 45 years old, who studied chimpanzees in the Gombe Streams National Park in Tanzania, did not observe excessive aggression for the first eight years. They fought for bananas, but the eggs did not bite each other. And after eight years they began to bite. Do you know why? They began to feed them. The reserve established a social security system. And there it began exactly the same as in the suburbs of London. The abundance of freebies did not lead to an improvement in character. It led to an increase in aggression.

Injustice

It is impossible not to admit that the Welfare state device is really flagrantly unfair.

The injustice lies in the fact that a working person takes money and give him to Gangster Mark Daggan and his cohabitant Miss Williams. In an extremely practical article on Slon.ru, Alexander Baunov gives numbers and links: in the 2009-2010 financial year, the average annual income of 20% of the richest British households was 78 thousand pounds before taxation and 58 thousand-after. For 20% of the poorest households - 5,000 pounds and 15 thousand, respectively.
In other words, if we compare the income of 20% of the richest and 20% of the poorest, then before the payment of taxes first and receipt of benefits by second they differed 16 times, and then - only 4 times.

The injustice, no less, lies in the fact that these money selected from working people turn into a drug that the poor planted, and, as from any drug, it is impossible to get off the freebies. Millions of people are reduced to the state of animals, so that drug dealers who call themselves “socialists”, “labor -players”, “social workers”, etc. received the voices of drug addicts they have touched.

And you understand what's the matter? The 29-year-old gangster Daggan had four (or five) children. And the policeman, who shot him, had a tooth, one child. And when in the first generation one Daggan per policeman can still live. And when there are four Dagganov in the second generation, and to keep them, each well -working will have to pay not 20 thousand pounds of taxes, but four times more, this will exceed the amount of earnings of the worker.

Freedom of speech and Universal Suffrage

Everything that happened in London would be impossible in Singapore. Because in Singapore there is no unemployment benefit, and therefore there are 2% unemployed. And the ghetto is not there. There are less successful population groups, for example, Malays, but the ghetto is stupidly prohibited. Over 25% of Malays and 13% of Indians cannot live in the quarter. And-the third important point-if in Singapore some gang decreases to rob shops, it is unthinkable for the left press to write about the gang, what poor and suffering they are.

It was not by chance that I remembered Singapore. After my great article about this country, one of the listeners of Echo sent me the question: “I must admit that I don’t like the Singapore model at all. That is, I completely agree that it is vital to increase the level of income of the population and involve it in the management of the country as enriching it, but the country is noded to me, where everyone, like ants, obey orders from above, and the only wise and irremovable leader monitors every trifle and decides for all how to live. At the same time, one cannot disagree that Kuan Yu is very wise. ”

I must say that I have exactly such feelings as the author of the question. The generation of the Russian intelligentsia to which I belong was absorbed with the mother’s milk for universal electoral law and freedom of speech.

We are used to believe that these two pillars of the modern West are the highest point of evolution of human society.

And as a journalist, a writer, and a person whose very existence depends on freedom of speech, I am used to thinking that it is possible to write “everything”, but the truth will break through his way.

And now I somehow doubt it, because as a result of a policy you can write everything, it turns out, for example, that about 30% of Americans think that the government may be somehow involved in September 11th. Sorry, but this is a very sick society. This is a society in which a bunch of crazy marginals - and moreover Islamists, the enemies of this society - managed to impose a significant part of society with its point of view under the guise of “free discussion”.

Or another example. In 1838, when the authorities were preparing to repel the attacks of chartists (demanding universal suffrage in London) and when the Bank of England put down guns, and the employees of the state institutions issued weapons (mainly rusty muskets), Sir Thomas Macley wrote that "universal suffrage is incompatible with civilization."

The point of view of Macole is at least the right to exist. If only because in the poor Africa, universal suffrage instantly ended with massacre and cannibalism. And Great Britain, who ruled during the time of Makole with the whole world, with the advent of universal suffrage, turned into the patrimony of the bureaucracy, which takes money from the rich, turns them into a drug of social assistance and puts the poor on it.

However, try to repeat the words of Makoley now - they will devour and declare a fascist. How did it happen that the point of view, at least debatable, has become generally accepted opinion in conditions of freedom of speech?

They will tell me, this is freedom of speech. You express one opinion, your opponent is another - and as a result of your dispute, truth is born.

The small problem is that freedom of speech acts only in scientific discussions.

That was, for example, at the end of the XVIII century. The scientific discussion between the famous Bertollah, the inventor of Bertolet's salt, and Joseph Louis Proust. Bertolle believed that chemical elements can be combined in any proportion. And Proust believed that only in a certain one. For 8 years, Proust proved this, and after eight years Bertolle said: yes, you are right. I was wrong.

With social truths, the situation is different. For most people, those views that they express are inextricably linked with their position within society and with their attitude with friends. The views of most people do not exist on their own - they exist in a close connection with their social position and the views of their environment.

Imagine that you have come to the court, who took the money for the obsolete of the gangster, and prove to judges and lawyers that the arrested is a gangster. Zero attention, a pound of contempt. They will smile into your eyes and lie in the face.

Imagine that the conservative is arguing with Ms. Batmangelig and proves that if the society allocated one million to the youth center, and there they arranged a pigsty, then two million on the youth center, and there they arranged a pigsty, then there are no three million. We need to think about how it turns out that youth centers turn into pigsties.

With Ms. Batmangelid will be like water from a goose. She will breathe and explain that “poor alienated teenagers” need another center, already for three million.

They tell you: you can say everything, but the truth will find a way for yourself.

Not true. The history of science is really so arranged: a person comes, says that the Earth is spinning around the sun, and sooner or later it breaks the road.

But here the history of human society is arranged differently: a fanatic comes, gives an idea for which people are ready to die and kill, and this idea wins those who are not ready to die.

It is arranged so that there is a free -designed Roman Empire, Stoics, Epicureans, and suddenly a small group of fanatics appears, which reports that their God was crucified on the cross and risen on the third day. And this group of fanatics is first ready to die for it, and then to kill for this bright idea.

And the enlightened Roman Empire is covered with a copper basin, and people stop reading and washing for a thousand years.

And absolutely the same story happens in Europe of the 19th century. Everything is remarkable, for the first time in the history of mankind, private property is protected, the world moves at all pairs in an iron roller of progress, nothing in the history of mankind has yet ensured such an increase in the amount of good in society; The sun does not come over the British empire with the capital in London - and suddenly, in this very London, Karl Marx lives, a beggar, but always with a servant (the liberators of mankind without servants do not live) - with the money of the capitalist Engels.

And not that Marx just lived with the money that Engels gave him - he lived with the money that Engels earned. When Marx, who knew English poorly, settled by the English correspondent of the New York Daily Tribune, the idea was such that Engels would write, and Marx would receive a salary. And this next prophet, who took the money for what Engels wrote, opens that the capitalist takes the surplus value that the worker creates.

And it is as difficult to object to this revelation as to object to revelation that God died and risen here.

Universal suffrage is, of course, wonderful. But human society is arranged so that the number of voters who can be seduced by freebies can very easily exceed the number of voters who can be frightened by increasing taxes.

Freedom of the press - freedom of the press. But, starting from the middle of the XIX century, when education and composition ceased to be an exclusive destiny of the rich, 80% of people squeaking in this press, like Karl Marx, have more common psychological features with a lumpen, rather than an engineer or entrepreneur, and they do not want anything as much, how to explain to themselves why they are so smart and good, not as rich as Warren Buffye or Mikhail Friedman.

The instability of democracy

The problem is that democracy, based on universal election law, turns out to be an unstable system. It does not have the ability to self -regulation.

It does not happen that the state distributes more and more freaks more and more, and at the time of the crisis, the freebies say: oh, e-mine, we are too much, let's vote for the state to distribute less, and we work more. There is positive feedback - the more freeloaders, the more they require.

Now you ask me: what instead of this system? If society cannot regulate itself, then where will the regulator get? Who will hang the cat in the neck of the bell?

There are two other systems. The first is called the representative image of the rule. Когда голосуют только собственники, а собственников много. Второе не менее важно, чем первое. Потому что если собственников мало, то они закрепляют свои преимущества внеконституционным способом. Так произошло в Венеции, Латинской Америке и олигархической россии. Две страны, которые развивались в XIX веке наиболее быстро, Великобритания и США, были устроены именно таким образом.

Есть вторая система — просвещенный абсолютизм.

Вы спросите: а как отличить просвещенного деспота от тирана? Ответ очень простой — глазами. Отличие Екатерины II от Петра III видно невооруженным взглядом. Отличие Ли Куан Ю от Путина или Маркоса заключается в том, что первый поднимает ВВП на душу населения в 40 раз, а второй спускает всю страну в офшор.

Это знаете, как вопрос «а как отличить чемпиона мира от наркомана, который валвяется в канаве?». Ответ — по результатам соревнований. А наркоман тоже говорит, что он чемпион. Очень хорошо, а кроме него это кто-то говорит?

Вы мне скажете, что эти два режима тоже неустойчивы. Что просвещенный абсолютизм увеличивает число собственников, смягчается и переходит в демократию. Что это такой разгонный бустер на коротком историческом отрезке.

А вот эта самая главная мысль, которую я хочу высказать. У нас почему-то считается, что вот хорошо бы, чтобы человечество было едино. Чтобы была ООН, а лучше всемирное правительство, чтобы друг с другом не воевали, вечный мир и т.д.

Вот история человечества как раз заключается в том, что саморегуляция системы возможна только на надгосударственном уровне.

Вот у вас есть замечательный средневековый Китай, который, казалось бы, нашел точку цивилизационного равновесия. И вдруг его начинает обгонять нищая Европа. Вот у вас есть Европа, бюрократическая, мультикультурная, со свободой СМИ, — и вдруг ее начинают обгонять азиатские страны.

Каждое государство, которое развивается, неравновесно. Равновесно только застывшее общество. Австралийские аборигены до прихода европейцев, вероятно, были равновесным обществом.

Ни одно из более или менее хорошо устроенных обществ — то есть просвещенный абсолютизм, предcтавительное правление с широкой базой и богатая демократия — не являются устойчивыми. В своем развитии они отрицают сами себя. Но поскольку, кроме внутреннего развития общества, есть еще и внешняя конкуренция, то пока человечество двигалось вперед.

Photos of the hedgehog