NAZISM AS THE PINNACLE AND DEAD END OF LIBERALISM

Liberal political philosophy is based on the sorting of people, social groups and ethnic groups into masters and slaves. However, in the end, the imperative of absolute freedom for the masters inevitably reaches the diametrically opposite — totalitarianism. Unable to fertilize society with a creative project, liberalism is nothing more than a fake filter that generates an illusion of security in society. And the main viral threat that liberal goodness conceals is Nazism.

Anticipating the accusations of the expert community in kitchen conspiracy, I suggest starting with the incredibly obvious. It is the liberal domestic and foreign community in the Ukrainian crisis that takes the side on which only a patient with a severe psychiatric diagnosis can catch the scent of freedom among the smoke of burning tires, napalm and gunpowder. In order not to be known as an urban lunatic who accuses at least a third of the globe of inappropriate behavior and perception of reality, I suggest looking for the logic of neo-Nazi sympathies of a liberal worldview outside the clip “news” context.

Liberalism as a teenage disease not (before) development

For example, in the field of psychiatry already mentioned in vain. One of the brilliant psychologists, theorist and practitioner of the highest level, Viktor Ponomarenko, took seriously my question about whether the inadequacy of liberal thinking is a reason for forced diagnosis.

Ponomarenko is the author of a unique theory of a non—questionnaire assessment of the personality profile “The Seven Radicals Methodology”. Once this theory was known to students of closed special service educational institutions, now it is actively used by those who take responsibility for choosing personnel and partners adequate to the task. For me, Viktor’s authority is reinforced by the fact that he was entrusted to lead an expert group of psychologists during the Nord-Ost tragedy.

Viktor Ponomarenko believes that in the case of the liberal worldview, we are dealing with a deep crisis of personality caused by the arrest of mental development at the adolescent level.

During puberty, a person enters the age of protest and risky experimental exploration of the possibilities of the surrounding world. He sharply rejects the usual ideas about parents as caring guarantors of existence. For him, “ancestors” become unbearable prohibitionists and mentors: “don’t hang out with bad company,” “don’t get into bad habits,” “don’t get involved in dangerous adventures,” “don’t be lazy.”

Youthful negativism in relation to all kinds of “not” is accompanied by the denial of all kinds of “adult” authorities and is characterized by an accentuated fixation on oneself. The egocentric picture of the world given to a teenager in sensations, and not in logic, is complemented by the illusion that the search for new sensations is the true purpose of existence. Remember, Zhvanetsky (it turns out, self-revealing): “The process is about life, the result is death”?

Viktor Ponomarenko believes that a liberal is not a (fully) developed personality in the psychological age of a teenager who experiences subconscious horror of any fixed result: such, for example, as a stable state with its conservative values. But most importantly, he subconsciously and, consequently, without any clear arguments rejects a leader with the charisma of a productive politician and a vision of a clear strategic scenario. For the result is… Well, then you know.

Tunnel thinking — looking and not seeing, listening and not hearing — at the age of decision-making and civic responsibility, like any mental inadequacy, is suicidal. This explains a lot in the liberals’ exalted sympathy for the “bad company” of activists and leaders of the Ukrainian coup and their own subversives of the foundations of the “bloody Putin regime.” Much, but not all.

Why exactly does neo-Nazism, as the most extremist and aggressive form of protest against dissent, arouse the organic sympathy of those living “according to Zhvanetsky”? Why did the ultra-Bolshevik Trotsky, with his permanent revolution, enthusiastically support Hitler in his intention to go to war against the USSR? The end of the revolution — death? Undoubtedly, as an unwanted pregnancy of an “experimental” girlfriend and the need to try on the role and logic of the social behavior of hated parents. After all, they are the bloody fascists who forbid Me to realize my idea of freedom up to blood and pogrom in my own house.

However, it’s time. It’s time to deal with the basic definitions in order to build an adequate system of logical coordinates without pubertal liberal emotions. And don’t miss the strategic perspective chart.

Nazism: terminology and essence

Until now, domestic political science operates with phantom connotations, considering the springs of the Ukrainian coup. The terminology base at the level of the “junta” and “Bandera” is good for news headlines and journalism, but is poorly effective as a tool for expert analysis and argumentation of top-level political decisions and actions. I believe that, albeit negative, but still romanticizing the image of the Maidan is a known stalemate in the discussion on the topic “is Bandera a fascist and what percentage of Bandera members are involved in the current bloodshed.” Which, alas, we are now observing. “Bandera” and “junta” do not work in the field of Western and domestic liberal Russophobia.

The domestic “civil society” continues to show vivid examples of mediocre dead-end initiatives that are based on emotional assessments of the subject. What is the desire of the former legislator, member of the Federation Council Boris Shpigel, to ban fascist symbols in the country! It is difficult to suspect the once powerful senator of wanting to make a splash on a bloody topic, but in fact, according to such a formulation of the law, it would have been necessary to demolish the fence of the Summer Garden in St. Petersburg, to destroy columns and knock down the stucco of countless historical buildings throughout Russia. Readers of the respected magazine “However” do not need to explain the difference between Italian fascism and German Nazism, as well as Roman fascia — bundles of brushwood with double—edged axes – and the German eagle with a swastika. But the creators of the legislation have an obvious gap in this. And not only them.

I have heard more than once from people who define themselves as Russian nationalists, and even “Orthodox fascists” (?!) that the Nazi criminals Shkuro and Krasnov, convicted by Nuremberg, as well as the notorious General Vlasov, are not traitors, but freedom fighters against the Stalinist regime. In Russia, the holy place of the “new hero” of Ukrainian freedom — the executioner of Bandera — will not be empty. Just let go.

In order not to get bogged down in a deliberately inconclusive discussion, we need to figure out why modern nationalist extremism, even without a reverse swastika or SS runes — just in a balaclava or an expensive suit — is still the same cannibalistic Nazism that cost humanity tens of millions of lives and is fraught with a global relapse.

Nazism is chauvinism, which is the basis of state policy. Such a universal definition, cleared of theoretical political science husks, creates a semantic and legal basis that equates with Hitler’s Nazism the modern regimes in the countries of the former Soviet Baltic States, Moldova, Georgia, the policy of the United States and NATO towards Russia, Iran, China, Afghanistan, Iraq, Egypt, Libya and Syria.

The proposed definition ontologically connects Hitler’s swastika, trident and the abbreviation NATO in the Goebbels logic of hatred of Russia as a second-class state, in respect of which “civilized” norms of international law do not apply. And if we talk about symbols, then this definition gives a direct Nazi content to the white ribbon and the term “fifth column” as a symbol of the attitude towards one’s own people as subhumans. After all, only this justifies in their unconscious logic the application of so-called double standards to Russia.

CAPITALISM AS A REALITY – SOCIAL NATURE, THE MAIN STAGES OF DEVELOPMENT, THE MODERN WORLD CRISIS

Liberalism as a breeding ground and a political tool of Nazism

According to Viktor Ponomarenko’s psychiatric definition, liberals in any country are an ideal protest mass against state foundations as a fixed result. That is why modern Nazism chooses a liberal stratum to crack the statehood, which is not pleasing to its world order. Undoubtedly, on the one hand, in the psychological logic of puberty, this is seduction. But in real life and politics, we are not talking about children, but about adults who are able to wield a bat or operate with words or capital and at the same time egocentrically demanding serious attitude. And if so, then we should take seriously the roots of liberal thinking.

It is obvious that there is no direct sociological connection with social, property, age, educational, intellectual and other statuses. The conservative-liberal rift has now become obvious in any stratum. The attitude to the Ukrainian events destroys long-term friendly ties and even family relations. And if the underlying cause is outside the field of standard sociology, then where to look for it, if not in some personal archetype?

It seems interesting to me to dissect in this vein the archetype of the notorious music critic Artemy Troitsky, known for his white-ribbon activity and the corresponding “Maidan” thinking. It would seem that he is a successful well-known showman, a brand personality, as they say now. Is there something wrong with the anamnesis? Perhaps. How did it happen that a person who did not take a single note in his life turned out to be a guru imposing his idea of “beautiful” on the audience?

Trotsky’s star rose in the era of the barrier that the Soviet leadership built in front of Western mass culture. The barrier was purely speculative, especially for those who, valiantly defending the interests of the USSR in the international arena, turned into an elite at home on the basis of access to those very Western values. In their diplomatic baggage, foreign consumer goods catalogs and music magazines easily overcame the Iron Curtain. Those who had access to these objects of lust were no different from the banal fartsovschikov, and often were simply part of this illegal system. Most of them have placed themselves in a virtual matrix “looking at foreign stickers with affection and eating Russian bacon.”

Perhaps this illusion of “real life” became the block that stopped personal development at the level of a teenage game of “I’m kind of in the West.” But it was in this environment, which gave birth to the contemptuous term “scoop” and experiencing fanaticism towards everything domestic as inferior, Troitsky stood out in a special way. His scathing articles about foreign music in the youth periodicals were distinguished by the “non-linguistic style”, although they were politically correct. Only a few who had the opportunity to read Western periodicals were surprised to discover the suspicious similarity of his texts with foreign originals.

The era of lifting bans deprived a whole layer of Troitsky not only of the elite status of “access holders”, but also forced them to look into the impartial mirror of their own professional aptitude. And it is quite logical that such a pseudo-elite followed the path of Kitty Vorobyaninov: there is no reason, but arrogance remains. As a reflex, respectively, to treat a country that does not suit them. And make a life-saving psychological escape to an elite childhood, continuing the game “I’m kind of in the West.” But unlike the post-revolutionary hereditary aristocracy with frayed elbows, these philistines in the nobility quickly realized that the game can be safely and profitably made a profession. And to regain the material and moral confirmation of their exclusivity.

The new time is a new game of exclusivity, devoid of a real basis and, by definition, taking the participant beyond the field of adequacy. Office plankton declares itself a creative class, in fact, without creating anything, and considers itself a champion of freedom, being in a rigid totalitarian corporate hierarchy.

Both generations share not only a negative attitude towards the rest in “this country”, but also a specific liberal idea of freedom. Let me remind you of the sacramental: “my freedom ends where yours begins.” If you think about it, it really rhymes with the opinion of liberalism as a juvenile psychiatric complex. After all, the beginning of “your freedom” should be felt experimentally: you can try from the first minutes of acquaintance to start an unambiguous action against an individual of the opposite sex or throw a stone at a representative of the authorities. After all, the process is life.

And the totalitarian regime does not like this freedom. He invents his own draconian laws and demands their observance (“the ancestors got it”). Their norm is a result imposed from above, this is the lack of new options to get thrills. This is death. And whoever obeys is a redneck and a slave. A second-class person. And the fact that the liberal idea of freedom at the junction of the boundaries of personal ambitions, by definition, in a weak state is fraught with a war of all against all, the owners of an infantile idea of the world do not care. Is anyone against it? The older boys from the next doorway will help us!

And the regime is therefore “bloody” and “fascist” because it protects the defenders of its freedom. But that’s not the only reason. Both the over-aged liberal and the pimply one have not grown up as a flawed person, an external culprit is required to compensate for their own hidden or obvious complexes of personal insolvency.

And here, no matter how deplorable it may sound for liberal intellectuals, they should see their reflection in the average sports fan, a person of anti-sports beer behavior, who considers himself a specialist more competent than a football commentator, and acquires an elite status relative to the “rest” of subhumans in the virtual ideal. (Did I say something about Trinity? Or Makarevich? Probably escaped from the depths of the subconscious.)

And here we come to the main element of the cultural code of the liberal, which merges it with Nazism in a binary charge.

THE SECOND CIRCUIT OF POWER IN THE WEST AND CAPITALISM

I will start from afar, since 1968. It is known that the events of the Prague Spring began with the most active information aggression of the West. The CIA-controlled media in Germany and Austria, neighboring Czechoslovakia, conducted round-the-clock processing of the Czechoslovak population. But so far, little attention has been paid to their main target group — sports fans. The developers of the area protest technology have calculated them as an organized, structured, hierarchically controlled mass, accustomed to acting outside the law. And most importantly, used to seeing a sports rival and his fans as deadly enemies. And to use collective aggression, not caring that it does not affect the numbers of the scoreboard. The first swallows of the “democratic revolution” on Wenceslas Square in Prague were the fans of the Czechoslovak hockey team, “suddenly” outraged by the regular defeats of their idols from the Soviet team. In international matches, internal contradictions between fans of the home championship merged into a common hatred for the country of the offender.

Does it resemble the Kiev Maidan and the Odessa pogrom in any way? Both there and in other cities of Ukraine, fans unite with extremists, journalists, financiers and become a political tool of Nazism as a policy of state chauvinism.

A natural conversion to the opposite

At the heart of this unity of liberals, extremists and leaders of the economic race is a clear division into themselves (the sector of the most right—wing, successful, exceptional individuals) and into “them” (a faceless second-rate mass, “people who grab”, “losers”, stupid disenfranchised slaves). “Russians who support Putin, “Donetsk”, who do not accept the ideals of the Maidan coup, are slaves,” the liberal public echoes Hitler, the current extremists and oligarchs. It is not by chance that the domestic liberals find themselves in their sympathies on the side of the Maidan coup. And it’s not just about the relevant targeted grants. I know that one popular figure of the domestic show business refused to participate in the sensational anti-Putin “peacemaking” PR campaign, despite a substantial fee, with the words: “The motherland is worth more.” On the other hand, it is difficult to classify those who went to it as those in dire need. The root cause is deeper than financial motivation — in the liberal cultural code.

Sorting people, social groups and ethnic groups into masters and slaves is at the heart of the political philosophy of liberal economics. For the engine of liberal development is her Majesty competition. The reverse side of the victory of one is the defeat of the other. By definition, a serving political system based on other principles cannot exist. And he condemns himself to self-destruction, because the liberal model “my freedom ends where yours begins” is in conflict with the ideal of unlimited freedom. It is possible to expand the boundaries of the kingdom of freedom only by infringing on the rights of those who will be appointed second-rate. For obvious reasons, the slave mass does not really put up with its second-rate. And then liberalism resorts to the standard means: it gives a group of “trembling creatures” the right to elect. The calculation is simple: to provide them with ideological and military weapons and point out the culprit in all the troubles. So, in fact, political liberalism is driving itself into a logical dead end in the name of the ideal of absolute freedom. In its name, the competitive principle of development will inevitably require the diametrically opposite — totalitarianism.

Such is the political impasse: what they ran from, they buried themselves in. Without noticing that one of the “slaves” otherwise realizes his freedom of choice.