If we manage to build a new state without Putin, what kind of state will we build? When they tell me that we will build a European state on European values, I have a question: “What exactly will these European values be?” Because there are certain values that created Europe. If possible, I will list them in random order.
European values
European values are expansion, the use of non-renewable energy sources, the inviolability of property and not universal, but partial suffrage: a citizen is only one who is a taxpayer.
First. The right to expand, the right to conquer. The history of Europe begins with the history of the great geographical discoveries. Europe is different from China, well, simply because America is discovered by Europe and not by China. Well, I don’t know a single historian of Europe who does not note the resettlement of Europeans around the world as one of the main facts that made Europe Europe. At the same time, it was accompanied by a rigid introduction of European values. And when the British saw the self-immolation of widows in India, they did not say, “Oh, we must preserve the local cultural traditions,” they forbade the self-immolation of widows.
Second. Use of non-renewable energy sources. It is no coincidence that I used this particular phrase instead of the generally accepted phrase «industrial revolution». Because every time you try to describe the industrial revolution, you come across a paradoxical fact, namely that many of the technologies that led to the industrial revolution in Europe were known in China 500 or even a thousand years before that. And there is even a seeder (I’m not talking about smelting iron there), a seeder was invented that evenly delivers grains to the soil by the Chinese in the Han era, while Europe sowed from a basket for almost 2 thousand years. That’s why all these inventions did not lead to an industrial explosion? Answer: none of these mechanisms consumed non-renewable energy sources. The use of coal first, then oil provided European civilization with billions of kilocalories of energy, which were equivalent to billions of hectares of land.
Here, in the XNUMXth century, a squirrel could cross England without descending from a tree. By the XNUMXth century, England had cleared its forests for iron production. At this point, if England had not switched to coal, disaster would have awaited her. It is quite easy to imagine this on the example of Japan, which abandoned the technological path of development under increasing pressure from the population, as a result, by the middle of the XNUMXth century, Japan forgot about eating meat, about fertilizers other than human feces, about mounts. Samurai walked, they carried the nobility in palanquins. It is very important to understand that the use of non-renewable energy sources has made it possible to save millions of acres of forest that were not taken away and that no longer existed, and has provided energy that is different from wind, water and muscle power.
The third. Private property is sacred. This idea is somehow absent in most of the non-European civilizations of the world. Because as a rule, most other cultures believe that «you know, the power has to distribute illegally acquired wealth.» There, some Ottoman sultan assumes the throne and swears, of course, to fill the empty treasury with the tears of those who robbed it. Here, filled-filled, and Turkey lost to Europe. Although it cannot be said that in all European countries property was absolutely inviolable, there is an iron pattern: the more inviolable the property was, the more the country prospered.
Here, France periodically, in the person of its kings, arranged trials of too rich merchants, Jacques Coeur and Jacques (INAUDIBLE). She lagged behind England, where no one arranged such courts. I’m not talking about Spain at all.
Fourth. Partial suffrage: a citizen is only one who is a taxpayer. First it was medieval city communes, then Great Britain, then the USA. These were unique historical circumstances and, thanks to them, the amount of taxes levied by the treasury began to be determined not by the supreme power, but by taxpayers, which led to the minimization of the state and the maximization of the rights and freedoms of the individual. If you are not a taxpayer, you are not a citizen, you do not have the right to vote. Far from everywhere in Europe, taxpayers also became voters. But again, an iron law: the more strictly this relationship was maintained, the better the country developed.
Social Democratic Values
And so, when I look at some cumulative set of rules that modern social-democratic consciousness offers me, I see that it does not correspond well to these values. Moreover, these values are in many cases turned 180 degrees. They explain to us about colonization that it is very bad, that it is a terrible sin, for which Europeans up to the seventh generation are obliged to pay to the colonized peoples. That representatives of these colonized peoples have the right to move to Europe, that, behold, special bureaucratic agencies will distribute money and allowances for them to preserve their unique and original culture.
Fossil energy sources? This is again very bad. These are malicious industrial concerns, atmospheric pollutants that cause global warming, it will end there with the end of the world. And this can be prevented, again, only if we create a world bureaucratic organization that will regulate all this bad business.
Private property? This is the source of self-interest, greed and all sorts of troubles. Barack Obama stigmatizes big business in almost the same terms as Adolf Hitler. Francois Hollande is going to take 75% of taxes from those who earn more than 1 million euros. The moral attitude towards big capital in modern Europe is, well, about the same as in Melanesia on the Trobriand Islands “Everything must be divided” or in the Ottoman Porte.
Fourth. The voter is the taxpayer. This norm is not just forgotten, it is trampled down, it is declared fascism, a violation of human rights. From the point of view of modern social democratic doctrine, suffrage should be universal. Everything else, by the way, contrary to the examples of history and common sense, is declared a dictatorship.
Well, of course, they can tell me that the world does not stand still, that something has changed for the better in Europe, that today’s world there is unthinkable without the police, without public education, public medicine. None of this happened in the XNUMXth century. But in the end, women began to vote. In a word, there were some values, there are others.
But a few things bother me. First, the fact that these values for some reason call themselves European. Well, it would be more correct to call them social democratic and emphasize that they have replaced the past, outdated, European ones. It is very bad when values call themselves that… They borrow someone else’s name. It is not good when they call themselves liberal, because they are the opposite of everything classical liberalism taught. It’s strange that they call themselves universal, because, you know, somehow any religion or ideology that claims to be universal, it’s actually not universal, it’s totalitarian. Total. I would call it «total values». Secondly, somehow these values can hardly be called new. I have already said that in terms of attitudes towards property, for example, this is such an ancient socio-political archetype, on which all archaic totalitarian cultures rely.
Also, this set of values is not very logical. Here, there, the reason why everyone’s right to vote is defended with foam at the mouth is logically incomprehensible to me. Because, here, there is a mechanism for deprivation of parental rights. That’s why in the modern politically correct world children are not taken away from their parents? There, last year, Norway managed to take the children away from an Indian who worked in Stavanger, because, therefore, the mother and father fed the children with their hands. Well, this, of course, is a rare case — more often children are taken away from alcoholics and drug addicts. But it is somehow strange that those same people who believe that not just a drug addict, but a Hindu mother cannot make decisions about the fate of their children, they believe that drug addicts and alcoholics have the sacred and inalienable right to decide on the fate of all us.
Margaret Thatcher did not like lumpen, that is, lazy people.
download video
And most importantly, this set of values is counterproductive. It simply contradicts the facts. If you bring refugees to Europe — whether from the Middle East, from Somalia — give them many, many benefits, make sure that they will not necessarily assimilate, you will not end up with a happy and free society. You will get a crowd of aggressive freeloaders. You will destroy your culture and, very importantly, you will destroy the souls of these people. But you will strengthen the power of the bureaucrats who distribute money to them.
A huge number of developing countries fall into the trap of these values. There, offhand, all of China’s political problems could be solved if China introduced partial suffrage for those who already pay taxes. Gradually, as prosperity grows, I would expand the number of voters. But within the framework of modern social democratic doctrine, China cannot do this.
Where did this set of values come from? This is a long historical question, which is connected there with the massive armies of the First World War, with the influence of socialist countries and socialist doctrines. At the moment, I see that we are talking about an alliance of a short-sighted voter who wants to get more and pay less, and the bureaucracy, not only national, but very often international bureaucracy, which is very profitable to regulate everything. The European crisis is not only a financial crisis, it is a political and cultural crisis, this crisis is associated with politicians who promise the population more than they can give, because otherwise the population will not elect them. And, unfortunately, the problem lies in the fact that it will not be possible to build in Russia as in Europe, because, firstly, it may not be very good in Europe by this moment. And secondly, with a lower level of Russian welfare, an attempt to build such a system where everything is divided and everything is regulated, instantly … How else to say? To say again in the words of the ancient Diodorus: «Tyranny ends instantly, as soon as the crowd finds a leader.»
I announce the results of the vote. 44,4% of our listeners believe that Ivan Tsarevich has the right to torture Baba Yaga in order to find out the secret of the death of Koshchei the Immortal. 55,6% think they don’t. You know, I feel the same way in my heart. I can’t decide and I know it all depends on the circumstances. Here, in some cases, it probably has, and in some cases it doesn’t, if he doesn’t want to become Koshchei the Immortal himself.