Читать книгу Kazakhs and Turks - Алмаз Браев - Страница 6

Kazakh Bolivar

Why is there a discrepancy between Asians and democracy?

The word bourgeoisie in Asia is completely inappropriate in the common sense of usage, as this word is used all over the world, because the bourgeoisie got its name in London and Paris, and not in Nanjing or Dhaka. No one has ever thought about equality in a strictly class environment, especially with the elite. So it was in Egypt since the time of the Pharaohs, so it was everywhere where the landed aristocracy was noticed (the landed aristocracy was everywhere) For example, in Japan, the bourgeoisie was the most despicable class until the Meiji era. The aristocrats of Japan themselves raised the start of their peddlers of nonentities for guidance, so that they were motivated: "if these nonentities won in Europe, maybe we will be lucky" (in the same spirit, Kazakhs call children by the names of other peoples to deceive the spirits. Japanese and Kazakhs are very similar in animism) They copied the West fanatically, because they copied some incomprehensible force. Before Japan, Europeans colonized all of Asia. Where did they get their power from? That's what the frightened Japanese were interested in.

In Asia, everything was decided and decided by the elite – I ask everyone to remember this. Allied detachments opposed to some third force were considered partners. Another partnership is not possible. The strategic alliance extends only to blood ties through dynastic marriages (modern marriages of children of Kazakh officials and oligarchs are proof of this. We are Kazakhs, «yes, we are Scythians…", we wanted to sneeze at the modernization of Russians and Communists. Self reflection cannot be deceived). Only a strategic partnership at the blood level, so that if you glue the two tops together, you get a horde against a third party. This can explain the fragility of the so-called states of the same nomads as in the past so now. Why nomads? Yes, because the nomads have full ambitions until now. (We are belligerent, close in energy to the Highlanders, northern Indians). Yes, because the nomadic states, like the medieval feudal lords of Europe, had a fluidity: there was a specific leader, a bright leader (an outstanding personality – in different places with different common names). As a tribute, his colleagues tried to support his sons, and the sons tried to continue their father’s work – little turned out. Somewhere the hereditary system was preserved, monarchical dynasties appeared, somewhere the sons could do nothing. Attila’s empire collapsed immediately after the death of its founder – because Attila’s sons quarreled and fought. A barbaric partnership is impossible without subordination, without hierarchy. «Bolivar can’t stand two..» If two candidates appear, even several – this is an emergency. It follows from this: barbaric, pagan, feudal-monarchical, Asian-traditional partnership is possible only at the top among the elite. And this is not a partnership at all, but subordinated in a rigid hierarchy of its members. Nomadic so-called states cannot be called states in the European sense of the word. All the settled peoples of the so – called farmers could cooperate at the lowest level, the cooperation of the peasants went beyond one family – from the cultivation of the field to the cooperation of the whole people in the battles for harvests. Of course, there is still a Cosa Nostra in Sicily, and a Camorra in Naples as an indicator of family life. However, this is the south, the proximity of clan Africa also affected. Italy is an exception. Italy – until then was European Asia, ito informally. Accept at least a thousand laws in Asia, where clan «legislation» rules, these official laws will not work. Attempts by nomads to imitate China with the involvement of Chinese officials was not work. Only in the khan’s bet it worked. (Kazakhs, too, are mostly guided by the informal laws of tradition, only the market element has involved all sorts of lawyers, lawyers and other rascals in this matter). Now I want to ask the most honest descendants of the steppe people: what kind of state can there be if the people are guided not by khan’s laws, but by informal law. If people ignore the laws invented by the bourgeoisie in the name of bourgeois property. Kazakhs have never had property in the European sense of property. Kazakhs had everything in common, at least it was considered common, even after the property distinction. What kind of states did the nomads have, all the nomads, even the blue Turks. It was a horde where the elite spread their power to keep everyone, or to show that these people were protected. Kazakhs are still not ready for a strategic partnership, except for the same blood unions – dynastic marriages of the elite. A beggar Kazakh always will imitate a rich Kazakh – a strange thing. To conditionally group the beggars, they must turn into an elite. Having become rich, they will be grouped only by dynastic unions, having outlived their elite children. That’s where the Kazakh «state» actually lives. In order for the Kazakh to group with the Kazakh on an ideological basis, it is necessary for a million Kazakhs to migrate sharply from villages to cities and meet market laws there in all the cynicism of their non-necessity and mockery. Corruption is a mockery not only of officials over the European tracing paper of the state in the form of a union of trading, very greedy nobodies with low taste and needs, accompanying these people throughout history. The Union of Kazakh Nationalists is a very interesting, one might say a rattling union of the impossible. People who are incapable of strategic partnership due to personal ambitions and cultural individualism should unite sometime (in theory), although no one has seen this union yet. «Bolivar can’t take two.» Therefore, a nationalist party is never possible because of an unclear leadership criterion. Only in the form of force majeure, for a short period of the eruption of Mount Fuji when the enemy of my enemy is my friend and the prey is close and everyone sees it. No strategic partnership in Asia is possible, until today. Do not look at the declarations of Asian elites. Even Chinese Communists have their own party nobility. But the Han Chinese are not nomads. Moreover, the nomads are always scattered, they call natural separatism freedom. Such people are ready to break any association, especially the state, because of immanent anarchy.