Текст книги "Ford and Stalin. How to Live in Humaneness"
Автор книги: (IP of the USSR) Internal Predictor of the USSR
сообщить о нарушении
Текущая страница: 16 (всего у книги 32 страниц)
Although this scenario-maximum did not work out in the twentieth century, the Soviet-German Non-Aggression Pact still limited the freedom of the political maneuver of the «world backstage» and thus provided a victory of Bolshevism in global politics.
Without this treaty the German invasion into Poland[292], which had become imminent by that time could automatically develop into military conflict between the USSR and Germany. The USSR could take under its protection the western regions of Belarus and the Ukraine, which were occupied by Poland after the dissolution of the Russian Empire, or a part of the Polish troops could try to cross the Soviet boundaries to get interned.
This scenario of the Soviet-German conflict was bound to automatically develop if in August 1939, the USSR concluded the treaty of alliance with Great Britain and France instead of the non-aggression pact with Germany. The draft project of the treaty proposed by France and Great Britain did not oblige them to coordinate their military operations with the USSR within certain terms after the USSR’s enter in case of the German invasion into one of them or into Poland. Also, Poland refused to let the Soviet troops through its territory to come into military contact with German forces in the case of a German invasion into Poland.
It was idiotic of the ruling bourgeois regimes of Great Britain and France to pursue this policy. Their governments still cherished hopes to preserve historical capitalism and the global colonial system. For the sake of this they were determined in their effort to use German National Socialism to protect themselves from Marxism and Soviet Bolshevism, together with using Marxism and Soviet Bolshevism as protection from German National Socialism. Poland was made a sacrifice to this desire in 1939, as well as Austria and Czechoslovakia had been in 1938, whose fate nonetheless did not teach the “wise men” in Warsaw anything.
Thus the bourgeois democracies of the West fit the «world backstage’s» scenario to initiate the war between Germany and the USSR in 1939 (or in 1940 at latest).
As the following events proved, it was right of Stalin to refuse Franco-British treaty of alliance. France and Great Britain were perfidious to Poland when Germany assaulted it. Poland fell under the attack of Wehrmacht because France and Great Britain violated their treaty by not initiating the military actions against Germany to the extent and within the period stipulated in the treaty. This conduct of Poland’s allies allowed Wehrmacht to rout Germany’s enemies one by one: first concentrating all its forces against Poland and after its defeat – against France and expedition forces of Great Britain on the continent. This lead to the partial occupation of France with the creation of a puppet pro-Hitler regime there, while Great Britain was put on the verge of military and economic catastrophe in 1940.
There was no reason to suppose that the bourgeois governments of France and Great Britain should have been more conscientious at meeting their obligations to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics than they were at «meeting» them with bourgeois Poland.
The Soviet non-aggression treaty with Germany, which was ripe for aggression against Poland, excluded the possibility to automatically involve the USSR into the war with Germany and her allies given the position of observation of France and Great Britain. This really postponed the war by almost two years and gave the opportunity to rearm and reorganize the Soviet army. The Soviet-German treaty of 1939 was a shame for the USSR if we pretend that the «world backstage» does not exist. However, if we keep in mind the global supra-government political scenarios of the biblical «world backstage» then it was justified, for it was the first step to liberate the humanity from the tyranny of the biblical «world backstage».
The most important point for the USSR is that thanks to the Soviet-German non-aggression treaty the Western bourgeois democracies happened to be at war with Germany earlier than the USSR. That is why with the beginning of the war between the USSR and Germany, the USSR automatically turned out to be a de-facto ally of all states at war with Germany and its allies, no matter whether the ally relations with each of them bore the juridical character.
If the Second World War had begun as the war between the USSR and the Germany repeating the scenario of the First World War, the «world backstage» would have had a chance to choose at what time and on whose side to join the war of bourgeois democracies of the West, since it had its own view of the future and because both the parties at war were loyal to them. Thus they would exert their decisive influence upon the completion of the war and on the postwar system of international relations.
Another sign – ominous as well from the viewpoint of the «world backstage» – happened in a short while after the capitulation of Germany. It was the Parade of Victory on Red Square in Moscow on June 4, 1945.
From the viewpoint of a simple soviet person who is not acquainted with the Masons’ addiction to the rituals and the legends, it would be logical if the Parade of Victory would had taken place on June, 22 for the German invasion began on June, 22. It would be very symbolic: you wanted June 22? – Fine, here’s the June, 22, the Parade of our Victory.
However, the parade took place not on June 22, but on June 24, seemingly for no reason at all. But if we keep in mind the symbolism and the adherence to the rites of the Free Masons we will know that June 24th is John the Baptist Day, and one of the branches of the
sjid-masonry bares the name of this saint. Every year June 24th is the day of the order in John’s Masonry. Consequently, dating the parade to June 24th points at the real initiators of the war, which wished to achieve their own political goals through the help of the war.
Where did the initiative to date the Victory Parade to June 24th come from? From the «world backstage» representatives or from Stalin? This question is still open and we come across no publications on this account. However, it was significant that Stalin withdrew from taking a salute at the parade on John the Baptist Masonry Day. There are two reasons proposed for his withdrawal.
The first one, as they say, was he wanted to take the salute of the parade himself, but when getting ready for this he fell from his horse in the riding-hall. They could not provide him with a calmer horse. Supposedly, under these insuperable circumstances Stalin would grit his teeth because of the lost opportunity to parade himself, but nonetheless would hand the honor and glory of taking the salute at the Victory Parade over to the Marshal of the Soviet Union, Georgiy Zhukov. The latter was originally a cavalryman in the army[293].
The second version was proposed by Victor Rezun during an interview on «Svoboda» radio station in 2002. The essence of it can be rendered as follows.
Since the USSR could not occupy all the Europe, the plans of the world socialist revolution were ruined, which in Rezun’s view destined the USSR to decay and downfall[294]. As he claimed, Stalin was of the same opinion and believed that the USSR lost the war, in which Stalin intended to include all the European states into the USSR. At first, Hitler’s «preventive» strike on the USSR did not allow Stalin to carry out this scenario. After that, the presence of the allies in Europe in 1945 deprived Stalin of the chance to include even the East-European countries that had been freed from Hitlerism.
Supposedly reluctant to admit this personal loss in public, Stalin withdrew from taking the salute at the Victory Parade and allowed Marshal Zhukov to please his ambitions. Since Zhukov did not understand anything in global politics and in the «world revolution», just as none of the narrow specialists or general public did.
If Stalin felt that he won the victory in the sense he expected to, he would have taken the salute himself. Even if there were no quiet horses for him, he would have taken the salute from a jeep, from a tank or from a limousine (which became normal in the following epochs when less and less military men could ride horses).
Along with this, Rezun draws one more sign that in his view speaks of the failure of the global idea of establishing the Soviet power and socialism worldwide, which resulted from World War II. After Christ the Savior Cathedral was demolished in 1935, the Palace of Soviets was being built on its place until 1941. It was supposed to become a skyscraper with a gigantic figure of Lenin on its top several dozen meters tall.
In this Palace the last remaining state was supposed to join the USSR as a socialist republic, concluding the world socialist revolution and give the USSR worldwide statehood status.
With the beginning of the Great Patriotic War the construction was temporarily closed down and not long before the victory over Germany the decision was made to abandon it. After the war the swimming pool “Moscow” was built in place of the destroyed Cathedral and the might-have-been Palace of Soviets. In its turn, swimming pool “Moscow” was liquidated in the reforms years and an operating model of the former Christ the Savior Cathedral[295] was erected and sanctified by 2001.
But there is the third version as well.
If on June 24th, the Day of John the Baptist’s Masonry, the Head of the state and Commander-in-chief Josef Stalin observes the parade from the outside, then objectively this is at least a demonstration of disloyalty to the biblical «world backstage». Or else it means that Stalin, as the leader of the Bolshevist government of the USSR, possesses the same or even a higher inter-social rank than the «world backstage» leaders, while being opposed to them (as his postwar activity shows).
This version is also supported by the fact that the Victory Day became a national holiday only in 1965 when the state and the party were lead by the imitators of Bolshevism. But for the real Bolsheviks the victory over the puppet, artificially nurtured Hitler’s Nazism, which was gained in alliance with the puppets of the «world backstage», was only a victory in one of the battles. It was not yet the grand total victory in the struggle for liberation of the global civilization from the tyranny of the «world backstage». The struggle for the opportunity to establish a global civilization of humaneness was not over yet. That is why:
We still have to do a lot of things to make May 9th holiday a real Victory Day of the peoples of the USSR in the imposed war of 1941 – 1945, which became the Great Patriotic War. We won this war in terms of the sixth priority of the basic social control means, but in terms of higher priorities the Great Patriotic war against the tyranny of the «world backstage» is still going on.
* * *
EXPLANATION OF THE LAST PARAGRAPH
The rather «The Sufficiently common theory of control» observes a society in the historically long periods of time and distinguishes the following means of influence on a society, which if applied with skill are able to control its life and death:
Information of the worldview character. The methodology which helps people to build (individually and socially) their «standard automatic mechanisms» of recognition of the particular processes in the unity of Life and which specifies their hierarchy rank in the perception of the complex events. This information plays a key role in the culture of thinking and in the management activity, particularly in the extent of inter-social power.
Information of annalistic, chronological character from all the branches of Culture and Knowledge. This one allows to see the trend of the processes and to correlate particular branches of Knowledge and Culture on the whole with each other. Together with the worldview, conformable with the Life and based on the sense of proportion, this information allows one to distinguish particular processes by directing the «chaotic» stream of facts and events through the worldview sieve – the subjective human measure of recognition.
Information of Fact-descriptive character. The description of particular processes and their interrelation is the essence of the third priority information. Religious cults’ dogmas, secular ideologies, technologies and factologies of all scientific branches pertain to this kind.
Economic processes. Economic processes as a means of influence are subordinate to the purely informational means of influence through the finances (money), which are an ultimately generalized type of economic information.
Means of genocide, which strike not only the living people but also the following generations. These destroy the genetic potential of the people to learn and develop the cultural inheritance of their ancestors. These means include: nuclear blackmailing – threat of its usage; alcohol, tobacco and other narcotic genocide, food supplements, all ecological pollutants, some medications, cosmetics perfumery – real usage of it; «genetic engineering» and «biotechnologies» – potential threat.
Other means of influence (mainly of force influence). The weapon (in the traditional understanding of this word), which kills and cripples people, destroys material and technical objects of the civilization, objects of culture, and the bearers of the spirit.
There is no unequivocal differentiation between the means of influence because many of the possess qualities which can be related to different priorities. But nonetheless this hierarchy structured classification allows one to distinguish the domineering influence factors which can be used as management means in particular for the purposes of suppression and destruction of the social phenomena which are unacceptable from the point of view of managing conception.
When used within one social system these will function as its generalized management means. However, when they are used by one social system (or social group) towards others, in the case when the systems’ managing conceptions differ, these function as the generalized weapons, or the weapons of war in the general sense of this word. In case the managing conceptions of both the systems coincide, these function as the means of self-government support in the target social system.
The order specified depicts the class priority of the above-mentioned means of social influence. The society condition changes to a much greater extent under the influence of the higher priority means than under the that of the lower priority means, although the changes caused by higher priorities means are slower and go without “sound effects”. Thus, in the historically long time intervals the operating speed of the means grows from the first priority to the sixth, while the irreversibility of their results – which is significant in solving social problems for one and all – decreases.
6.7. How to Protect the Future
from the «World Backstage»
Stalin’s whole life proves that he did not belong to the anthropoids who live by the principle «after us the deluge». Those who live by this principle and interpret this principle in their own personal ways through the facts of history have distorted the conception of life. This concerns both the history of our country (including Stalin’s epoch) as well as the history of mankind. That is why to understand the epoch of Stalin’s Bolshevism we need to plan and to take active steps to make life definitely more righteous than it was in the past and in our times. If we become definite about it and thus get rid of abstract humanism, which is supposedly addressed to everyone but in fact – to no one, then the events of the epoch of Stalin’s Bolshevism will acquire another meaning, different from that ascribed to them by the abstract humanists (psycho-Trotskyites of bourgeois-democratic or of internazi-socialist branch).
* * *
Many of Stalin’s contemporaries say that he was rather ironic about the cult of his personality dominating in the society. In private talks (all of which were talks on the vitally important issues for the country) he encouraged people to take on initiative and the responsibility for this initiative, encouraged this kind of initiative responsibility[296]. One can see it in his written inheritance. In publications as well as in the texts of speeches addressed to various audiences over the years (gathered in his Collected Works) he repeatedly calls for taking on initiative, care and responsibility in the people’s common Life. He also repeatedly notices that simple people’s respect and love of the Party and State leaders is one thing and worshiping the chiefs is a different thing and it should be rooted out in the socialist society.
Neither in Stalin’s oral speeches nor in his written works may you find anything even partially similar to Hitler’s discourses on the chief-Fuhrer and crowd relationships (like, for example, in “Mein Kampf”, for nowadays you may find it in Russian translation without any problem). Nor will you find Lev Gumilev’s discourses on the relationships between chiefs – «people with drive» and the rest of the society[297].
But for anti-Stalinist this only proves that Stalin was much more sly, guileful and hypocritical than Adolph Hitler (together with Lev Gumilev and other sociologists who propagated in other terms the doctrines of leaders and the weak-willed crowd). Nothing can persuade this kind of psycho-Trotskyites that Stalin was against cults of personality, his own cult inclusive. He longed for the society to live on the basis of different morals and comrade ethics, which excluded crowd-“elitism”.
It does not matter what the person subject to this cult worshipping in the crowd-“elitist” society thinks of it. The crowd-“elitist” society by its nature craves for a cult, looks for idols, creates them, gets disappointed in the former idols and sometimes even shifts to the cult of their condemnation, and constantly craves for new idols.
For the society not to be under the cult of any person there should not be any internal or external preconditions of its emergence.
To avoid them the crowd-“elitist” society should stop being crowd-“elitist” and should be based on comrade morals and ethics. The process of transfer from idol-creating morals and ethics of irresponsibility and parasitic smugness to the morals and ethics of initiative comrade care and responsibility for the fates of all and sundry takes historical time. This transfer can happen only through practical activity in solving various problems of life of the society coordinated with solving global problems. This transfer cannot happen through idleness, abstract contemplation and moralizing in churches, at public meetings (including party and trade union meetings), mass manifestations and table talks.
From this viewpoint, the fact that the next 19th regular Congress of the Communist Party took place only in early October 1952 (after the 18th Congress in mid March 1939) does not prove or illustrate that Stalin suppressed democracy in the Party and in the country on the whole. Although in times of Lenin and Bronstein (Trotsky) the Party Congresses took place every year (from the extraordinary 7th Congress in 1918 to 14th in 1925) and even during the Civil War (which anti-Stalinists like to repeat very much to prove the suppression of intra-party democracy), in fact the intra-party democracy did not exist even in those times (though it looked like it was formally maintained).
First, the Party was initially created to perform the political will of the narrow circle of its leaders or of one leader. For this purpose in its Charter there was a special principle of the so-called «democratic centralism»[298], which implies the submission of the minority to the majority and all regular party members’ unconditional execution of the decisions taken by superior party bodies. More and more sundry matters captured the attention of the Party and thus, various projects and their handling were carried out by the machinery under the guidance of a narrow circle of leaders. Maybe Stalin did liquidate the so-called intra-Party democracy but it was the mafia «democracy» of this circle of leaders acting behind the scene of the Central Committee and the rest of the Party, which he liquidated first. After this he liquidated the «leaders» themselves, whose convictions and self-discipline were incompatible with Bolshevism as well as with each other[299].
Second, by the year 1917 the Party was a party of leaders and the Party mass who followed the leaders. As a result of this all the following, Congresses of the Party bore the crowd-“elitist”, but not democratic character. This circumstance was beyond Stalin’s control.
Third, while the Party was becoming the structure to manage the social and economic life of the state, it demanded more and more professionalism and various knowledge from a delegate to start new serious proposals and to soundly criticize the draft projects prepared for the Congress by the Central Committee, which worked on a professional basis and was consulted by the leading specialists in any field of science and technology when necessary. Not to speak of the possibility to write a Five-year Plan of Social and Economic Development of the USSR in the free time as an amateur personal or group initiative.
In these circumstances the Congress was no longer performing the function of collective social creative work, which is the essence of democracy regardless through what procedures it is implemented. As a result of this and of the crowd-“elitist” character of the Party and society on the whole regular Congresses could perform only two functions:
support the cult of the Party leaders in the Party and society;
provide the Party leaders and members of the Central Committee with the information on the opinions of the Party members and non-Party people in the provinces.
While the first function was antidemocratic for the Party and the society on the whole and thus detrimental, the second function of the Party Congresses lost its urgency after illiteracy within the population had been overcome and the structures of the state administration were established. Those who trusted the Soviet statehood would write to the Central Committee, administration organs and to particular Party and State leaders on the issues they considered vital[300]. The opinions of those who did not trust the regime or was its opponent were known to the Party and State leaders either from the letters of those who trusted the Soviet statehood or from the reports of special services and other State and Party bodies.
In other words if the Party Congresses did not supply the information from the provinces any more and did not represent the collective social creative work there was no managerial need in them for creation of real socialism and communism[301]. However the emotional and excited atmosphere of the Congresses facilitated idol making and thus supported the crowd-“elitism” based on misunderstanding of the events and prospects by both the Congress delegates and other Party members. This provoked passivity, unconcern, and irresponsibility. Such a party cannot be the ruling party to build the society of just community because through its activity it substitutes the genuine democracy with formal democratic procedures.
Lev Bronstein (Trotsky) and others declaim their adherence to the ideals of socialism and communism and blame Stalin for destroying the intra-Party democracy and that of the Soviet government and replacing it with the power of red tape machinery, which supposedly prevented the ideals of socialism from coming to life. But their pathos about it may sound convincing only to those who either do not know Marxism or, knowing it, do not see the incompatibility of its conceptions and categories with real life. This incompatibility does not allow us to discover and solve social problems with the help of Marxist philosophy (which is also due to the incorrectly formulated «key question of philosophy» and to the defective wording of the dialectic laws[302]). The real business accounting has nothing to do with political economy and, thus, the national economy cannot be based on it[303]. Consequently, Marxist philosophy and political economy can only serve as a cover for a mafia tyranny, which will present itself as a model of formal democracy to its people but will never become a scientific and theoretical basis for real democracy, socialism and communism as the society of just community of free people. Therefore it is completely out of place to blame Stalin for «perverting» Marxism because Marxism itself is a fruit of perverted morals, intellect and psyche on the whole.
Taking into account these characteristics of Marxism and those of Lev Bronstein (Trotsky) and his successors, it was not democracy or its beginnings that Stalin destroyed (and for which the society and Party was not ready yet anyway). He suppressed the attempt to establish the besotting mafia tyranny under the cover of plausible lies of Marxism. The masters of the Trotskyites could (but not necessarily would) have observed the formal democratic procedures in case if they had preserved their power in the USSR.
That is why in the epoch of Stalin’s Bolshevism the USSR did not need the regular Congresses of the ACP (B.) (Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks) and constant intra-Party disputes which only excited the emotional state of the Party and of the non-Party society. What the country needed was a good policy to overcome such gregarious psychological effects which are characteristic of crowd-“elitism” and which replicate it over and over again[304].
Thereafter a lapse of 13 years in the calling of congresses, that was also a period of the Great Patriotic War and a period of the after war recovery of the peaceful life and the economy of the country, objectively was useful. If not for the society as a whole, at least for the members of the leading communist party of Bolsheviks, so they could have time to digest the morals and ethics that for decades had been reigning in the soviet society after the Great October Revolution and gather for the next congress with a different attitude to the life of the country and the world, with a different attitude to the leaders of the party and the state, and the party comrades and non-partisan citizens.
Besides, any sovereignty of the people is a demonstration of freedom of the spirit of the people that belong to the society, demonstration of freedom of their feelings and comprehensive attitude to life. An individual acquires these qualities in the process of upbringing, starting from infancy, and also in the process of the individual personal development, maturing during his life. That is why it is impossible to introduce freedom and democracy by means of law or order and spread it with the help of force measures of the government: freedom and democracy should ripen, grow in the society and make itself known in the politics of the state.
But state measures may defuse pressure of many factors that pervert and suppress the process of attaining freedom of spirit and therefore – national spirit of each nation. This matter is very important for understanding the history of the USSR and the perspectives of the nations of Russia and other states that originated on the territory of the USSR.
Internazi character of the revolutions of 1905 – 1907 and 1917 wasn’t a secret for J.V. Stalin. He new many fact of the czarist history of the RSDPW (Russian Social Democratic Labor Party) and other
r-r-revolution parties and of the post-revolution history of the USSR, facts from the history of foreign countries that were not published neither in papers nor in the textbooks on History, but that witnessed that this is the way it was.[305] Besides commonality have been experiencing everyday and countrywide oppressive influence of the Bible internazism upon the life of the USSR people during the whole history of the USSR existence. It still can be felt after the state downfall that happened as a result the bourgeois reforms of the next years.
That is why the whole history of the czarist Russia, history of the USSR and the modern Russia has an epiphenomenon that some people, dependent on this understanding, during the last couple of year prefer to call «anti-Semitism». They explain its existence in the society solely by the flaws of the «anti-Semites» themselves: ignorance, reluctance and inability to think and be organized, drunkards’ and idlers’ envy of Hebrews that are considered to be in the majority geniuses, just talented, hardworking, highly proficient, united and supportive to each other. In reality this symbolic frothy word «anti-Semitism» that characterize neither people personally nor a community as a whole is used due to the introduced in the culture stereotype to define natural people’s reaction to the doctrine that we describe in the Appendix at the end of the book, although they keep silent about the doctrine itself and ask for no definite attitude of Hebrews or non-Hebrews to it.
This reaction of a man and society to the enslavement at the realization of the Bible doctrine in life may be put in a very wide range:
It can be purely personally-emotional, that does not express itself in the social theories by rejection of Hebrew (and/or Jews), each of who is “guilty”[306] firstly in the fact that according to the principals of the structure of the Bible doctrine he is destined to be a tool in its implementation and to be a means of its insinuation into the cultures of the non-Hebrewish national communities.
Or it may be conceptually powerful all covering-alternative in respect to the Bible doctrine.
Just because of the wide range of the reactions to the Bible doctrine of enslavement of all, the word «anti-Semitism» is highly symbolic[307] and frothy in its essence. This allows to use it in advocating internazism, cultivating in society absolutely negative emotional tone in the vision of its meaning, depending on the circumstances.
