In Asia, everything was decided and decided by the elite – I ask everyone to remember this. Allied detachments, as opposed to some third forces, 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 and now. Why nomads? Yes, because the nomads have full ambitions until now. (We are belligerent, close in energy to the Highlanders, northern American Indians). Yes, because the nomadic states, like the medieval feudal lords of Europe, had a fluidity because 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. The hereditary system was preserved, monarchical dynasties appeared somewhere, and 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 because «Bolivar can’t stand two..» If two candidates appear, even several – this is an emergency for us. It follows from this: brutal, pagan, feudal-monarchical, Asian-traditional partnership is possible only at the top among the elite. And this is not a partnership 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 indicators of family life. However, this is the south, and the proximity of clan Africa is also affected. Italy is an exception. Italy – until then, it was European Asia, 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 did not work. Only in the Khan’s bet did it work. (Kazakhs, too, are mostly guided by the informal laws of tradition; only the market element has involved all sorts of lawyers and other rascals.) 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 will always imitate a rich Kazakh. Is this a strange thing? No. 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. For the Kazakh to group with the Kazakh on an ideological basis, a million Kazakhs must 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 exciting, 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). However, no one has seen this union yet because «Bolivar can’t take two.» Therefore, a nationalist party is impossible 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 has been possible until today. Do not look at the declarations of Asian elites. Even Chinese Communists have their party nobility. But the Han Chinese are not nomads. Moreover, the nomads are always scattered; they call it natural separatism freedom because of intrinsic nomad anarchy; such people are ready to break any association, especially the state.
Chapter 7
Where did the Kazakh bourgeois come from
Why Kazakhs will never build democracy is just dancing with property. Kazakhs will always resemble the Mongolian army.
There are objective practices for the emergence of the bourgeoisie.
Conservative communities do not welcome the movement. The bourgeoisie appeared just from the movement of extra people because, in every traditional family, ten children are born. Not necessarily every tenth of a litter of many children, – having many children as a condition, as a guarantee of escape of folk: many bourgeois descendants appeared in the cities from landlessness, that is, from poverty, will be bourgeo.
In order for people to understand the need for cooperation, they had to live in a peasant community themselves. Both in rural areas and in cities, cooperation was a guarantee of survival. So in Europe, workshops appeared in medieval cities. Why couldn't Kazakhs create workshops? Why did the Kazakhs need them? Kazakhs didn't need them.
Who among the Kazakhs, in general, could be the first to turn into the bourgeoisie, given that the Kazakhs did not like money? Like all peoples of the tradition, the Kazakhs loved glory. That’s just out of love for status and contempt for the worthless; however, this feeling is familiar to the whole world; to all peoples, so Kazakhs, appeared as candidates for the bourgeoisie according to the Western type of maturation. Suppose the nomads did not like cities where strategic cooperation with the Kazakhs could occur. We need to find the reason for the Kazakh cooperation without relation to the main Kazakh attribute – belonging to the Kazakh clan (ru). Poverty and rootlessness are the two main bourgeois assets. All the beggars and the rootless want to become famous so that they are still respected; it is a fact.
If we remove the upper cooperation (in the Revcon, this is called the upper dubbing when another elite duplicates the elite of the people, necessary for creating a bourgeois class. No modernization is possible without the solidarity of former beggars who have become oligarchs. To create an industry, it is not nomadic; no other primitive and feudal elite is needed. All this traditional old elite should disappear. As practice shows, the primitive elite is destroyed by the new people themselves «in the name of progress.» None of these people will change old habits. I’m talking about the personal egoism of the feudal elite, about reforms – changing the stereotype of the behavior of the whole people is out of the question. For new people to appear, a crowd of rootless people must appear when people do not remember their relatives. If people remember the past kind, so only external intervention is possible – this is an exterior double of self-reflection when representatives of other peoples act as teachers), or you can immediately get into the prosak. Yes, these reform teachers are destroying the selfish feudal local elite in the name of progress. The versions that the primitive elites themselves will go to voluntary poverty to turn into the bourgeoisie seem to be seditious, devilry, and market demagogy. Japanese samurai would never agree to trade to retain power. Those who claim that the