Murzilka 42.
"ᝪẞᜱᜧᝪᝀ𐍃 ᜧᜬᢗᜠᠻ᠗ᜧẞ᠘ᠻ ᜬᠻᜦ𐍃"PRESS, CENSORSHIP
Here and there, unification primarily affected the press. Gradually, step by step, all the more or less unorthodox newspapers were liquidated. Bolshevik and Nazi commissioners were sent to the rest. The editorial offices were purged, placing loyal Bolsheviks and Nazis as heads of publishing houses. The system of supplying information to newspapers and magazines was unified. The monopoly on information was given to the state, and its only source was the German Telegraph Agency, or the German Information Bureau (DNB) - there, the Information Bureau and TASS - here.
In justifying the law on the press, the Nazis were more outspoken: “Every individual freedom has a meaning and price, since it takes place within the framework of the state and is disciplined by it. Therefore, the press must be subject to the discipline of the state. "
"Since 1940, Dietrich introduced a system of 'slogans of the day' - brief instructions on the nature of the presentation of materials for the current day. The introduction of 'slogans of the day' further strengthened the unification of the press, completely eliminating the possibility of other interpretations. The slightest deviation from the instructions was fraught with dangerous consequences for editors and publishers. ".
The communists, and then the fascists, instituted the most severe censorship and total control over the media, art and literature. Any oversight cost freedom, and sometimes life. Here and there, it was openly proclaimed that the liberal ideas of freedom and human rights are bourgeois prejudices and should not limit the activities of the government in its concern for the welfare of the working masses. At the same time, it was carefully veiled that the totalitarian state, in principle, is not capable of satisfying the needs of the masses due to the imperfection of its economic mechanism, operating on the principles of coercion. The political and economic system of totalitarian states was invariably based on the merciless suppression of public opinion, and in this respect, all totalitarian regimes turned out to be similar to each other, like twins.
We see that even proceeding from our own phenomenological sources, it is not only difficult, but simply impossible to discover the fundamental difference between the social system in the USSR and Nazi Germany.
A survey of "German consciousness" after the war revealed, on the one hand, a split personality (a conflict between fascist and anti-fascist sentiments coexisting among the same people) and, on the other hand, a high percentage of respondents who considered the period of Nazism the best time of their lives. The criminal state system as a flourishing - this is what totalitarianism of all stripes is in the image of its apologists and in the minds of its "citizens".
Until now, I have written about the deep unity of the two most anti-human regimes that the world has known, but when it came time to take stock, the difference was still revealed. The whole post-fascist Germany was busy with repentance, debunking myths, studying the causes of the disease, and recovering from it.
"Radio, television, the press did not tire of reminding about fascism. Historians mercilessly uncovered this past; artists put it on display. Cinematography cannot take their eyes off it. The best books about fascism are written in German, all the reproaches that a nation could throw to itself That is where they would not dare to call a writer who paints national history in gloomy colors, "Germanophobe."
And we have? And we have endless streams of verbiage: do not desecrate the ashes, do not touch or stir up history, do not destroy idols ... Do not touch bloodsuckers and destroyers, carriers of Satanism unprecedented in human history ... the ulcer of Bolshevism ...
Without denazification, there would have been no victory over fascism. And we have? And we still have the same slightly discolored "mind, honor and conscience" ... Children and grandchildren of former punishers and poisoners-KGBists now rule the country ...
Without the elimination of the idols that have surrounded us on all sides, there is no salvation from the devil. And we have? Instead of lynching, pangs of conscience, public symbolic execution of the wicked one - the same dances with the devil, the buildup of barbarism, the repetition of Rosenberg texts by the Shafarevichs, a new appeal to fascism, dormant in the hearts of deceived people and secretly inflamed by state bodies, as if in mockery, as if mockingly called state security. There - a demonstration of the atrocities of fascism and the punishment of evil, here - the buildup of evil by lies, endless and senseless attempts to find scapegoats, and sometimes vicious, militant attacks in order to protect the "principles and ideals" - the principles and ideals of cannibalism. Now they have lived to see the expulsion of the "brunettes" and the defense of the "indigenous nation" ...
T. Adorno was mistaken that after Auschwitz there is no more history. History continues, and often as if Auschwitz and the Gulag did not exist at all. And everything that is happening in our society today does not just throw it into chaos and madness, but it happens as if there were no shot, burned, frozen, mutilated millions. The main events of the era - the GULAG, genocide and the necrophilous nature of socialism in the camp - did not teach anyone anything ... Therefore, you can start all over again, along the same vicious circle along which everything has always happened in Russia ...
It's hard for me to imagine a communist revenge in modern Russia, even though Yeltsin most likely lost the second presidential election to Zyuganov. But they do not enter the same water twice - even Russia, walking in a circle, today gravitates more towards Nazism than towards communism. Analysts, however, do not rule out revenge in a country whose entire policy (including the "Russian idea" itself) for many centuries was essentially revanchist. Here the most dangerous is the alliance of left and right Nazis, “red” and “white” extremists. Its possibility is constantly indicated by the permanently strengthening link of these forces.
Now it is difficult to imagine the scale of economic problems, external and internal political complications, which will result from more or less consistent implementation of the programs of the communists and national patriots. But the life of the bulk of citizens will undoubtedly deteriorate, which may entail an increase in the social base of extremism. If at first the extremist organizations are completely or partially ideologically disarmed by the declarations of the new government, then, as the list of its failures lengthens, the demand for a new revolution will increase again.
Disappointment in the new government, of course, will increase the number of supporters of democratic parties, but also - and national-patriotic and radical-communist, in any case - those of them who will not participate in this government.
7 REASONS WHY COMMUNISTS WERE WORSE FOR RUSSIA Fascists
Communism is worse than fascism.
Maya Plisetskaya
Our system, as I have known it since 1937, is definitely a fascist system.
L. D. Landau
Despite the fact that fascism and communism have much in common, and that all communist regimes were as cannibalistic as the fascist, the purpose of this review is by no means to justify fascism and not to play along with the European Russophobic limitrophes, but more a less structured comparison of the troubles that the communists and fascists brought to Russia and the Russians.
1. Destruction of the country.
The Communists destroyed the Russian Empire, separating Finland, Poland, the Baltic States, Central Asia, and Transcaucasia from it. Later, the inclusion of part of the territories in the USSR did not save the situation, since the same communists later destroyed the USSR itself, finally breaking up the former empire into 15 parts.
The communists also destroyed Russia, artificially creating and tearing away from it “Ukraine”, “Belarus” and “Kazakhstan” and dividing the Russian people into Russians, “Ukrainians” and “Belarusians”.
The Nazis did nothing of the kind, i.e. by this indicator, the communists are much worse.
2. Destruction of the people.
During and after the October 1917 coup, the Communists destroyed at least 24 million people, according to various estimates, during the Civil War and the Red Terror, mass collectivization, mass industrialization, mass starvation, mass judicial and extrajudicial repression (including those who died in custody).
The Nazis destroyed in battles, during the occupation and in captivity, due to hunger and disease, at least 22.8 million people (9.1 million military and 13.7 million civilians), while a significant part of combat and non-combat losses was associated with the criminal actions of the chief communist of the USSR, Commander-in-Chief Dzhugashvili (Stalin).
That is, according to this indicator, the communists are slightly worse than the fascists.
3. Destruction of the nation
As a result of the seizure of power, the communists destroyed or expelled the flower of the nation: philosophers, scientists, artists, engineers, professors, doctors, officials, the military, destroyed the peasantry and entrepreneurs - the most effective land users and organizers. The Communists saw them as class enemies and insisted on the correctness and necessity of their physical extermination, imprisonment or deportation to regions of the country that were of little use for life.
Having seized Soviet territories, the Nazis tried to retain professionals - they were needed to work for Germany and restore what was destroyed. And until June 22, 1941, the Nazis actively collaborated with the Soviet military and industrial professionals.
Those. on this indicator, the communists are worse.
4. Destruction of society.
As a result of the seizure of power, the communists split society into two irreconcilable camps, decomposed morality, replacing spirituality with materialism, and faith in God with faith in Lenin / Stalin / communism, created total social dependence, forced the people to renounce their past and their history.
The Nazis tried to split society, attracting individual Soviet people to their side, but with the exception of individual traitors, they achieved the exact opposite effect - a complete consolidation of society, for Russia for the first time in the 20th century. And the memory of War and Victory has consolidated society to this day.
According to this indicator, the communists are absolutely worse.
5. Robbery of the country and the people.
From 1917 to 1991, the communists constantly plundered the country and the people. They spent the colossal funds received on the Comintern, support for socialist and communist parties around the world, support for regimes friendly to them, unlimited financing of their own inordinately inflated and senseless apparatus of parasites that do nothing for the country.
The Nazis robbed the people and the USSR for 4 years, but after the defeat in the war, these material losses were largely compensated by Germany.
Those. on this indicator, the communists are worse.
6. Mass repression.
The direction of the mass repressions of the communists was against their own people and against its best representatives: intelligentsia, clergymen, entrepreneurs, peasants. The purpose of the repressions was to create a new formation of people: without anything and completely obedient to the regime of proletarians and collective farmers.
The direction of the repressions of the fascists was against a people alien to them, against the communists and Jews. The purpose of the repression was to secure their stay in the occupied territories and ensure their functioning.
A particularly characteristic fact here is the repression of the communists during and after the war against their own soldiers and officers who were in captivity, and their own civilians who found themselves in the occupied territories, and the repression of Dzhugashvili (Stalin) against the generals who won the war.
According to this parameter, the communists are certainly worse.
7. Historical results
The communists, despite all their crimes against the Russians, are still popular in Russia, the fascists are unequivocally condemned. The revival of fascist ideology in Russia is impossible, the revival of communist ideology is already underway.
In terms of harmfulness for the present and the future, in this parameter, the communists are definitely worse.
I will end the text with a quote from Viktor Suvorov:
"Hitler has a red flag.
And Stalin has a red flag.
Hitler ruled in the name of the working class; Hitler's party was called workers.
Stalin also ruled on behalf of the working class; his system of power was officially called the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Hitler hated democracy and fought against it.
Stalin hated democracy and fought against it.
Hitler was building socialism.
And Stalin was building socialism.
Hitler considered his path to socialism to be the only correct one, and all other paths to be a perversion.
And Stalin considered his path to socialism to be the only correct one, and all other paths as a deviation from the general line.
Companions in the party who deviated from the right path, such as Rem and his entourage, Hitler mercilessly destroyed.
Stalin, too, mercilessly destroyed everyone who deviated from the right path.
Hitler has a four-year plan.
Stalin has five years.
Hitler has one party in power, the rest are in prison.
And Stalin has one party in power, the rest are in prison.
Hitler's party stood over the state, the country was ruled by party leaders.
And Stalin's party stood above the state, the country was ruled by party leaders.
Hitler's party congresses were transformed into grandiose performances.
And so did Stalin.
The main holidays in Stalin's empire are May 1, November 7 - 8.
In Hitler's empire - May 1, November 8 - 9.
Hitler has Hitler Youth, young Hitlerites.
Stalin has the Komsomol, young Stalinists.
Stalin was officially called the Fuhrer, and Hitler was called the leader. Excuse me, Stalin is the leader, and Hitler is the Fuhrer. Translated, it's the same.
Hitler loved grandiose buildings. He laid the foundation for the largest building in the world in Berlin - the Meeting House. The dome of the building is 250 m in diameter. The main hall was supposed to accommodate 150 - 180 thousand people.
And Stalin loved grandiose buildings. He laid in Moscow the largest building in the world - the Palace of Soviets. Stalin's main hall was smaller, but the whole structure was much higher. The building, 400 meters high, was like a pedestal, over which towered a hundred-meter statue of Lenin. The total height of the building is 500 m. Work on the projects of the Assembly House in Berlin and the Palace of Soviets in Moscow was carried out simultaneously.
Hitler planned to demolish Berlin and build a new city in its place from cyclopes.
Stalin planned to demolish Moscow and build a new city from cyclopedic structures in its place.
For Germany, Hitler was a man from the outside. He was born in Austria and almost until he came to power did not have German citizenship.
Stalin for Russia was a man from the outside. He was neither Russian nor even Slavic.
Sometimes, very rarely, Stalin invited foreign guests to his Kremlin apartment, and they were shocked by the modesty of the situation: a simple table, a closet, an iron bed, a soldier's blanket.
Hitler ordered to put in the press a photo of his home. The world was shocked by the modesty of the situation: a simple table, a closet, an iron bed, a soldier's blanket. Only Stalin has black stripes on a gray blanket, and Hitler has white stripes.
Meanwhile, in secluded places among the fabulous nature Stalin erected cozy and well-protected residences-fortresses, which did not resemble the cell of the hermit.
And Hitler in secluded places among the fabulous nature erected impregnable residences-fortress, did not spare them neither granite nor marble. These residences did not resemble the hermit's cell.
Hitler's favorite woman, Heli Raubal, was 19 years younger than him.
Stalin's favorite woman, Nadezhda Alliluyeva, was 22 years younger than him.
Geli Raubal committed suicide.
Nadezhda Alliluyeva, too.
Geli Raubal shot herself with Hitler's gun.
Nadezhda Alliluyeva is from Stalin.
The circumstances of Heli Raubal's death are mysterious. There is a version that Hitler killed her.
The circumstances of Nadiya Halliluyeva's death are mysterious. There is a version that Stalin killed her.
Hitler said one thing and did another. So is Stalin.
Hitler began his rule under the slogan "Germany wants peace." Then he captured half of Europe.
Stalin fought for "collective security" in Europe, spared neither forces nor means. After that, he captured half of Europe.
Hitler has the Gestapo.
Stalin has an NKVD.
Hitler has Auschwitz, Buchenwald, Dachau. Stalin has a gulag.
Hitler has Babi Yar. Stalin has Katyn.
Hitler exterminated people by millions. And Stalin - millions.
Hitler did not hang himself with orders, and Stalin did not hang.
Hitler walked in a paramilitary uniform without insignia.
And Stalin - in paramilitary form without signs of distinction. They will object that then Stalin was drawn to military ranks, marshal lamps and golden epaulettes. That's true. But Stalin took the rank of marshal in 1943 after the victory at Stalingrad, when it became finally clear that Hitler had lost the war. At the time of the rank of Marshal Stalin was 63 years old. He wore the Marshal's uniform for the first time during the Tehran Conference, when he met with Roosevelt and Churchill. We cannot compare Hitler and Stalin in this matter simply because Hitler did not live to such an age, nor to such meetings, nor to such victories.
And the rest is the same. Stalin without a beard, but with a famous mustache. Hitler without a beard, but with a famous mustache.
What's the difference?
The difference in the shape of the mustache.
And the difference is that the world considered Hitler's actions the greatest atrocities. And Stalin's actions are a struggle for peace and progress. The world hated Hitler and sympathized with Stalin."
We deduce the balanc 🧾 of the three blocks:
In the 40th part of Murzilk you could see "LOCK STEP" from 2009 from under the pen of the Rockefeller Foundation - in which the authors of the text describe the scenario of total control by governments over the world's population through an artificial pandemic. Thus, under the guise of combating an epidemic or supposedly "good cause" the population of countries are deprived of almost all their freedoms, and almost voluntarily. Doesn't all this remind you of the current situation? It seems that we have all painted you and we do not think it for a long time, and we clearly know what criminals do.
2010: Rockefeller's 'Operation Lockstep' Predicted 2020 ...
https://principia-scientific.com/2010-rockefellers-operation-lockstep-predicted-2020-lockdown/
The "Lock Step" scenario is the first of four narratives presented in the Rockefeller Foundation's summary document, " Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development ". It deals with a zoonotic viral pandemic that wipes out millions across the globe.
In this scenario of crazy terrorists everything is perfectly 😀 They develop only those technologies that are beneficial to a small group of people of government officials and mega corporations . That is, all technologies that improve control, surveillance, from the safety of staying in power and money 💵 and so on. And the undesirables will be blocked in the camps.
Super totalitarian order is established from bureaucracy in the consequence of total control, small entrepreneurs will be extremely difficult to develop from zero, they will have to undergo extremely complex and very expensive legalization procedures even for the simplest activities and projects.
And how will ordinary people live?
And they will live in poverty without savings and work for the government without anything behind their souls. And all to a penny to spend on food, treatment and other needs of the most primitive level.
Incredible benefits are born of crimes, and the highest virtues lead to disastrous consequences...
P. Valerie
The great evil most often is in the world in the shell of benevolent dreams, posols, virtues. For evil must be seductive, seductive, angel-like. These are the luxurious women who promise all the joie de vivre and the gifting of Dame Verble, maladie de Naple.
No, we don't deny utopia at all. A man cannot live without a dream. Utopia has the same right to exist as anything else in this world. Life is often more utopian than the craziest desires. We deny not the myths of Coquein, but the substitution of life by utopia. We deny what came the most eerie of utopias - our coe-like reality today.
Utopia is a child of good intentions. Its origins are noble. Getting into the hands of ascetics, it worked wonders. However, not for long... It is a year-old grain, which is not able to bear fruit for a long time.
Huge "experimental" material - a thousand years of historical experience - is literally crammed with utopia.
What are the results?
Only the eternal amnesia of mankind, the national unconsciousness, total obscurantism allow us to produce more and more experiments on the processing of good intentions into the immeasurable of human suffering... How many of them have been delivered? How much longer? Isn't it from the endless series of utopias that our super surrealism has become desolate? Is it not from the acidic shores, the milk rivers and the mouth-flying fried lobsters that most have nothing to eat?
What conclusions do we draw from everything that happened to us today, are we rationalists? Have we understood how the immeasurable evil emerges from benevolent dreams? Did you understand how, when, why, happened to us, eternal "true believers", what happened? What are the root causes of our spiritual poverty?
What is it: detachment from human soil? Exploitation of divine ideas by small demons? Growth mistakes? Infantilism? Universal frown? Monstrous ecstasy? Mass bigotry? degeneration? paranoia? Sperm defect ?...
True Marxism is what we say. We will cleanse the original Marxism of deformations and layers. Let's go back to the clean sources. But "authentic" is not the one in the mind, but the one that is in practice, in history. Truly not so much what we think, as what we do. Genuine is what it is. So let's not fantasize in subjunctive inclination. As if - a bad assistant. Not as it could have been, but as it was ! And not as it was there or there, but as it was everywhere and always. This is a sign of authenticity, everywhere and always. And there was no other authenticity. And so far there is no reason for it to arise: serafima are not born from Kadm's teeth...
Note: the dystopia of this work of the Rockefeller Foundation is swiftly virtuosic, sophisticated, sparkling, n- mostly talentless, limited, sulfur, fanatical, often ignorant... It's a poisonous life, here is a molassesive balagan.
But let's leave genius and incompetence alone. Life is not reduced to geniuses and build it, focusing on Swifts, Pascals and Kirkegors, Rockefeller - than not utopia?
Let's pay attention to another: utopia is prescribed by those who do not tolerate the truth, are afraid of pain, denies darkness, preferring benevolent and total pleasantness.
But is it possible to enjoy it without suffering?
The true expanse and the best field for deception is the area of the unknown. The very unusualness of the fantasy of the said inspires faith in her, and, in addition, these stories, not obeying the laws of our lives, deprive us of the means to fight them. For this reason, Plato observes, it is much easier to satisfy listeners by talking about the nature of the gods than about the nature of men; for the ignorance of the listeners gives a complete space and unlimited freedom to grind the unknown.
And yet, no matter how to treat utopia, the map of the world without it is an incomplete map. It is always necessary to have this Terra Incognita, but not to stay here, but to see this country again.
How was the nascent utopia perceived by culture? It's like a dream. The utopia of Alcofribas, Mosherosh, Grimmelshausen is wisdom with a human face with no sign of impending extremism. Satire, grotesque, travesty merge with utopian hope. Hence the complex attitude to it: ridicule, irony, sympathy, sad consciousness of non-fiction, deceit and illusion of hope.
But that's the point, that utopia is discord. One is a spirit-seeking, tolerant, tolerant, time-free, the other momentary, purely material, rationalized, all-negative, and therefore destructive, pernicious, de-multicultural, calling back into primitiveness...
Just as there are many varieties of socialism from religious-ethical to social-Darwinian and Marxist, utopia also has a significant number of modifications. We will not classify, because behind this action often escapes the specifics, the soul, and yet one of them:
centralist utopia - More, Bazaar, Anfanten, Kabe, Peker;
Co-operative - Louis Blanc, Hertzka, Jores;
Federalist - Owen, Thompson, Fourier, During, Oppenheimer;
anarchist - Godwin, Prudon, Kropotkin, L. Tolstoy...
Although most authors of utopias come from the idea of freedom, their creations are coercive and totalitarian in nature.
If Utopia, then - Milton, Blake, Shelley : shaky, ambiguous, prophetic. It should not be a place, but a ghostly, plurality, a multiplicity.
It's not about a spiritual utopia that is modifying culture, it's about a fanatical utopia of scaup, utopia- impatience, utopia - extremism, in short our coe-like utopia with us today. There is an extremist wing in the movements, acting from the position of "all or nothing", "life or death ☠️ ", "prick today or you are disenfranchised," "who is not with us, that is against us."
This is the extremism of utopia, whatever the banners it is, and a time bomb is laid. Here against such one-dimensional, "unmistakable" "only true utopia" that gave birth to us, we rise.
Living in a world of triumphant evil, one cannot but have hope, even if it is unfeasible. After all, isn't all art and all religions the viceroy of utopias? The greatness of art and religion is that they continue to create and hope no matter what. No evil can be great enough to extinguish their flame.
Utopia has the same right to exist as life, on the condition that it will not attempt its allness.
What happened? Before she could be happy, she would be happy for everyone. That's exactly this claim to totality, inevitability, obligatory and turns everything into obscurantism.
Is this not the highest point of utopianism: the belief in utopia, which does not claim to be totality. What kind of utopia, if not all, everyone, forever?
Instead of billions of unfortunate and hungry - millions of lucky, instead of suffocating metropolises - small towns of the sun in Hawaii and Seychelles, instead of armies of rapists and exhausted slaves - handsome poets and unsuited, lush-breasted, hot-backed women, controlling their fertility.
And eternal music...
But where in this paradise will come life-giving pain, as without suffering to receive Pascal and Kirkegaard, what will be the culture in the absence of Swift, Donna, Gongora, Marino, Keats, Goelderlin, Kleist, Gogol, Dostoyevsky, Kafka, Golding, Musil, Mahler, Schoenberg?
The constructions of historical transformations are, after all, always to a comfortable, well-fed, profitable state with a decent constitution, good justice and the police...
After all, to drive everyone to Thebeida means to make and discolore life.
Maybe someday people will learn to extract high poetry from well-being, happiness, smooth flow of established life, but so far no one has succeeded.
𝓔𝓭𝓶𝓸𝓷𝓭 𝓓𝓪𝓷𝓽𝓮𝓼