Шарман

[gb0]

Кого-то мне наши левые напоминают...

Originally posted by zombie_shaun at Пля, это не просто охуенно. Это ОХУЕННО!!! Такого я еще не читал.

Главная проблема современного Православия и, собственно говоря, России (потому что России нет без Православия) – это то, что мы разучились быть рабами.

Итак, наши критики правы – мы очень удобная религия для государства. Поэтому христианство и созидало великие империи. Ибо только православные рабы способны на великий подвиг самопожертвования во время войны и мира. Даже СССР смог восстановиться в пределах Российской империи, только благодаря потенциалу рабской психологии, еще по инерции сохранявшейся от Православия на подсознательном уровне в русском народе.

Цикл перерождения русского народа-раба через горнила советского и постсоветского общества в нового «свободного» человека эпохи рынка – человека-потребителя – завершился.

В христианской Традиции раб Божий – значит раб Царя, раб Государства (от слова Государь), раб судьи, раб своего начальника, раб чиновника, раб полицейского.

Раб не живет платой за свою службу и работу, он живет милостью со стороны Государя и надеждой на Царство Небесное. Его обязанность перед Богом – отдать свою жизнь за Веру, Царя и Отечество, будь то на войне или в мирное время.

Рабское сознание дает возможность нам правильно относиться и к часам Патриарха (если таковые вообще существовали), и к дорогим иномаркам священноначалия. Для раба престиж Господина – это его личный престиж. Для христианина должно быть унизительным, что у архиерея машина хуже, чем у светских правителей. Лучше ходить самому пешком, чем видеть Предстоятеля Церкви ездящим на трамвае (как, например, ныне почивший Патриарх Сербский Павел).

Для того чтобы постичь истину, мы должны перестать «включать мозги» и начать на деле себя мнить ничем и звать никем. Одним словом, мы должны взращивать в себе раба.
http://www.blagogon.ru/digest/737/

Comments

[olga-mw.livejournal.com]

Fake? Someone trolls Russians for alleged release of different stuff?

[gb0.livejournal.com]

Well, the paper version of the magazine dates back to 1998, and the online one to something like 2009.

Does not quite seem a fake to me :( A bit too complicated to be a fake, quite frankly.

[olga-mw.livejournal.com]

1998 is OK, that was a strange period of "Zavtra" folks who had struggled coping with the loss of clear, nice and simple set of ideas they ought to follow without any need to produce any idea on their own.
Pravoslavie, apparently, seem to be replacing the void created by the human failure, thus the question of whether the recovery is even possible remains open.

I wonder, does the conditioning, torture and oppression inevitably degrade human to a degree that makes the recovery hard if not ext to impossible?

Viktor farnlk proved the chance for recovery given the set of conditions are in place. i wonder, is there any other set of conditions for recovery?

[gb0.livejournal.com]

If I only knew. I've heard this theory in many places throughout the xUSSR.... ya know, the tzarist "prison of nations" thing and then the mass negative selection by the communists basically rendered a lot of the groups (like, ethnic groups and political nations based upon a state-forming ethnic group) of the former Russian Empire a bit FUBAR. I'd like to believe this is not true, but the reality seems to suggest otherwise.

I am fairly pessimistic of the Russian future if it were to remain a monolithic state mostly within its present borders (which would imply another two-syllable-surname-"in"-ending authoritarian leader like Le-nin / Sta-lin / Pu-tin). I do believe Ukraine stands a chance, and I have a bit more pessimistic prospect of Belarus chances.

In as far as Russia goes, it is fairly possible the recovery, or, as the east orthodox folks like to say, "catharsis" –– would require some external pressure, possibly a military defeat, hot or cold (my preference and the likely scenario). There are way to many myths and habits that need to be put down for good –– too much for the thing to happen on its own any time soon.

I used to be a big believer in the group average IQ (as in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations ) being the main factor behind the potential of a country to reach a decent living standard. In fact, the authors predict an economic boom in North Korea (which in the "intelligent" part of the world with average IQ being in the "100+/-5 and above" group). It has bee 25 years past communism in the xUSSR part of the world, the places I've been to like ... a lot (.RU/.UA/.BY/.KZ) are well in the "IQ 100+/-5 and above" group, but it does not look like sustained development. Moreover, the Ossie/Wessie (the words may be fairly offensive to the folks from DDR, which does mean a lot) difference is still pretty pronounced in Germany. The common factor between DPRK, xUSSR and East Germany is a history of authoritarian left-wing leadership. So –– commies are to blame. Is there a cure for the victims of continuous communist oppression and brainwashing? I do not have a definitive answer, and I wish I did. I also wish I would laugh less (or at least, take in a more serious manner) the staunch anti-communists, Chinese, Russian and Ukrainian, that I've met/known.

[olga-mw.livejournal.com]

Thanks a lot. I was more concerned with cultural adaptation (precisely, a chance for such thing) for people who came from the environments such as exUSSR, Saudi Arabia, Syria, or alike). I am observing the vast numbers of community organizers are hitting aforementioned crowd in the ghetto alike setting of a Big City converting them into "hit man" for the leftists.
I know, the sole purpose of identity politics lays in making it work this way forever.
I was curious, is there any term, condition or factor that may induce ghetto denizens to review their status and to start seeing other choices, given they can adopt to the idea of choice at all?

Do you think antecedent group has some difficulties embracing the concept of choice ( they do not believe in it just as i observed talking to some folks from exUSSR) or it is just the matter of a poor choice (judgement)?

Why these folks can be used so easily and brutal?

[gb0.livejournal.com]

Ah, this is even a tougher one. For the record, the tzarist russian orthodox prison of nations is not really as bad in my book as these allakhuakbarred despot-run places in the Middle East and North Africa, the war-ravaged Somalias (all of them) or Sudan. Again, it is much harder for me to meaningfully personalize the "democrat" way, id est, making useful non-trivial assumptions about individuals based upon the group identity of the said individuals or some averaged properties thereof, like group-averaged IQ, ethnic/religious background or profession of specific sexual preferences. Them dems are the real masters of the art, while I am pretty bad at it. The disclaimer said –– here's my fairly generic take.

1. Use as little welfare / assistance as possible/go max Sinn-Fein mode/work hard/avoid "locking" yourself up in an environment consisting mainly of the people of your ethnic / religious origin.

2. Study the language and culture. The (in)famous anecdotal story about an elderly immigrant guy ranting complains about that "darn Negro store owner" across the street refusing to learn his non-English (русский язык) language "after 25 years" has to be an anecdote, not an account of the actual status quo. This also includes doing your best to stop speaking, grammar-wise and sense-wise, your own language in English words with a thick easy-to-guess foreign accent. That, in turn, aside from learning/training/practice efforts, kinda implies reading certain books and (this is probably very American) watching certain movies, memorizing memes/cliches and probably learning history and basics of the legal system and civil government the way kids do in middle school.

3. Never vote for or support anything remotely resembling communist / socialist.

With regards to the cure to ghetto/group mentality and abuse thereof, pushing of the "we all should think alike on important issues" (an yeah, vote 97% for one Baraq ibn Baraq ibn Houssain abu Treyvun Obama al Amriki) – let me refer you to a youtube channel of an interesting (AfroAmerican) guy looking into this very topic with regards to the "cursed" black community.
https://www.youtube.com/user/5723davidmichael/
The guy is fairly pessimistic, lightly anti-Trump right-winger. A lot of his vids are repeating topics (they are out there mostly for the black, a bit lower-than-average-IQ audience, and the guy is a firm believer in repetition being the mother of skill) and do take time to start following, but he does come up with interesting ideas and solutions at times. What surprises me is that quite a few of his observations, originally made looking at the blacks in the US, are remarkably applicable certain zealot aficionados of the русский мир in Russia, L/DPR in Ukraine and so on. Which turns /me into believing short-term (from a genetics / evolutionary biology standpoint) environment influence, such as slavery (ended during 1861-71 in Russia, and 1861-65 in the US), and communist rule – may kinda be a bit more relevant vs what folks on the right would typically like to admit with regards to people. At any rate, the guy goes very nicely over dem politicians, community organizers, black pastors and the likes of Al Sharpton (aka black leaders) abusing the African American community.

Why do people abuse and exploit communities like the African American in the first place? Because they can. And because they can get away with it.

[olga-mw.livejournal.com]

Thanks a lot for the link, I knew Richard Sherman was talking on Crowder's show on that matter. There is another guy, Alfonzo Rachel. He also does some videos I like him a lot, he is amazing given his circumstances, what he does and the ways he is doing it.

There is a nice video Prager put on, I posted it on RusAm when someone started advertising Clinton so shamelessly bullying anyone who dared set an argument against leave alone those who strongly disagreed.

I do not think the welfare reform is something we may witness during our lifetime, however, I doubt we can survive both the welfare and the avalanche of folks with apparent lack of a free will.

Shouldn't we learn from the mistake Reagan made?

[gb0.livejournal.com]

I do not have much of an idea if there really is such a thing as free will to begin with :( I do act out of the premise that there is, though, but I have no scientific proof of the assumption. A quest towards becoming a 君子, a free-will-exercising responsibility-bearing virtuous man is therefore something that cannot really be enforced, to my taste. We can and are probably justified with forcing people into believing in Egyptian triangle/Pythagorean theorem sorta like the Egyptian priests did with nemhu, even if the said people cannot understand why that is –– as the theorem is true in a verifiable way. Bunch of conservative stuff is not really of that same nature as Euclidean geometry :(

There is also a good deal of a question as to how much people could and should be held accountable for the things they did not really chose. For one thing, the tradition called "conservatism" is really old and is strongly bound to the fact that we humans run, as all other animals do, on a rather limited set of resources. The "Western" balance between individualism and collectivism and consequently the West-European and American conservatism is really a child of specific environmental/economic conditions and religious beliefs. It is a good system of coping with limited resources provided we believe in free will as set forth by the non-Calvinist part of the Judeo-Christian tradition, specifically one mention thereof by one crazy rabbi and runaway Egyptian scientist/priest we know as Moses/Moshe in the book of Deuteronomy/D'varim:

I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live.

So pretty much that and limited resources with "reasonable egoism" (since nobody can always get what he or she wants, with limited resources, I am not necessarily obliged to immediately give you what you want, and you are not necessarily obliged to give me what I want, we do things by consent only following our promises and pay law enforcement to enforce the said consent) –– is the basis of Western conservatism. Free will and responsibility for one's actions also give birth to "through no fault of ones own" concept, which is very important, no matter what the left say about the right being heartless human haters who simply ignore people in distress regardless of circumstances.

Pretty soon we may well find that that automation has made a very significant progress, gozillions of people are unemployable through no fault of their own and the resource limit has been significantly alleviated by an abundant and very cheap and safe production of energy via something like thermonuclear or LTF reactors. Not that that's the immediate future –– but I can well see something like that, say, 50 years from now. The conservative principles of today may not quite make the same sense in that future society, but things like basic income and a bunch of other left fantasies may. Hey, most human societies were more collectivist vs 19th century Western Liberal or 20th century Conservative/Neocon anyway.

Until the above happens –– conservatism is the base way to go in my take. I'd love to see a constitutional amendment that forbids raising taxes in non-war times w/o the consent of the taxpayer. A special form of plebiscite would probably be required in order for the idea to work, namely, it should be a taxpayer-only referendum, where the 47% (or whatever that figure is by then) have no voice.

Heh, dreams.

p.s. Учиться, учиться и еще раз учиться –– one of the few thing I am with Lenin on. That surely includes mistakes of 君子 rules, like Ronald Reagan.

[olga-mw.livejournal.com]

I believe Viktor Frankl may serve as example of the matter I am calling here "the free will". I'd like to define it as such.
I see main problem of the matter you defined as conservatism arises from the mere fact that the nature of limitations had drastically changed due to advance of technologies. Moreover, I anticipate bigger shifts since we may enter the new industrial cycle shaped by aforesaid technologies. Such cycle may require us not just rethink the way we work but also the way we live.

It may require us to rely more on self learning rather then on institutionalized education.
It may require us to be more flexible in positioning ourselves.
The main danger that lays in automation is our lust for a simple solution for the complex problem. Even right now we saw strong attempts to solve the unemployment/unemployables problem thru the mean of redistribution. Given relatively cheap and plantiful resources will induce more people to buy into that idea, I think.
However, redistribution will inevitably lead to even further degradation for those who could not catch up on time and ended up as unemployed/unemployable.

That's why I believe in more of self-governance and broader deregulations, including the issues taht alays considered to be more of "social" such as family choices, abortions, lifestyle, etc

Our stereotypes among with some traditions (classical conservatism is one of them) in such case may play the role of regulations that hinder very important and absolutely necessary development.
Thus, conservatism may be revised in order to account for coming changes in the environment we may live in.

My point is-we have to come up with the idea of making a bridge for those who did not get it yet, give them a chance to adjust to the new environment.

No, I did not believe that virtue and/or rationality can be enforced. But I also do not believe that one can enforce a human to choose. We seems to agree on the former. I claim the choice does exist but it is not "given", we need to "process" it, thus we need the means to do so.

[gb0.livejournal.com]

Also, you seem to have raised a very interesting question with regards to personal responsibility and adoption of the concept of choice; and whether or not the case is that some cultures can have a problem with it more so than the others. Then a lot of people who believe that problem is uneven are saying it is about "oppressive" religion like the Russian variant of orthodoxy or certain schools of Islam. Well, religiously-motivated thoughts on fundamental freedom of choice and existence of free will as such do not always play, in my opinion, the way most lay people would expect. In particular, the "foundation" Americans, the original white protestants, are actually in odds with the free will concept as a group. A large portion of American protestants happen to be fairly Calvinist in their views, which implies a belief in double predestination of all things and basically a denial of free will. Similar teachings can be found in most branches of Sunni Islam. That said, the "anti-free-will" European or American Calvinists and "anti-free-will" Western-living orthodox Sunni Muslim groups seem to be doing very differently in terms of practical handling of choices and bearing responsibility for those choices.

I frankly have little idea on encouraging people to be responsible individuals making informed choices. If any "enforceable" recipe works, it is most likely the Confucian one. Not that it is doable anywhere in the West (they are trying it in Singapore full scale, though, and to some degree in China, Japan and South Korea as well). Basically, Confucianism holds it that any large society is made of 2 types of people: 小人 xiaoren / petty people, and 君子
/ junzi noble people (these can also have grades, with saints or, rather, sages at the top). The 小人 basically care about their mercantile / animal-essence related interests and are not too willing to make choices while being responsible for them. The 君子 are the people who are able and willing to be responsible for their free choices they are making based on certain guidelines such as humanness (仁, ren), righteousness / honesty (義, yi), and so on. While almost anyone can try becoming a 君子, very few actually get anywhere near. The ultimate ethic principle of 君子 is the same one as found in the Judeo-Christian ethics: something you do not want to be done to you, do not do to others. At any rate, the idea is that in order for a country to be become a success full of 君子, a group of 君子 (like, the emperor and the core players of his regime) has to establish a benevolent authoritarian meritocratic government, and keep it running for at least 100 years w/o interruption. According to the Confucian teachings, you keep the 小人 at bay not only with laws and law enforcement, but also using shame. It should be culturally and morally bad to remain 小人, sorta not unlike the Victorian age treatment of adultery.

Let's see where the neo-Confucian approach of the Lee clan takes Singapore. They are doing a good job with their meritocracy, but then most people in the West would not like the enforcement methods, such as corporal punishment, total spying, enforced housing patterns (like, enforcing certain percentages of ethnic groups in housing complexes specifically to avoid ghetto formation by the "ghetto-prone" groups), substance ban, mandatory military or paramilatry/law enforcement service and so on. I do not really mind any of these. Jbtw, Harry Lee Quan Yew once said he had no problem with people from Russia and Ukraine in Singapore –– they serve in the military, pay taxes and do not offend the law in a disproportionate manner. So bunches Soviet people must be well on their way of becoming 君子 :)