The main trouble of Russians

2024 Author: Seth Attwood | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-16 15:55

No one doubts that the views on society and social relations in the East and the West are different. Yes, in fact, a simple look at the geographical map in different eras allows us to notice that the territory of Russia for many centuries was the same for many peoples living on this land, while on the territory of Europe the unification of peoples, the erasure of borders took place quite rarely and always briefly.

The attitude of the peoples of the East and the West to these changes in borders is also different.

Europe is constantly making every effort to annex peoples and territories to itself, imposing the "burden of the white man", which sooner or later becomes unbearable for the peoples living in the territories occupied by the Europeans, and the peoples enslaved by the Europeans seek to throw off this burden.

By force or by deception, the Europeans suppress this desire.

Russia annexes peoples and territories to itself, as a rule, in a different way.

Russians do not impose an additional burden on anyone (white man), providing the opportunity for practically free development to all peoples accepted into the family of Russian peoples. There is no desire to leave this family among the peoples. As a result, white Europeans never recognize Russians as white people.

The secession from the Russian peoples occurs under the influence of the serious work of the special services of the West - from inciting hatred on any grounds suitable for this to the Orange Revolution. It is obvious that the complete enslavement of the peoples of the world by Europeans is impossible as long as Russia exists.

Russia is an opportunity to become strong.

This is the reason for the need to destroy Russia (as a state) and the Russian people.

Military force does not work, and it would never work - there is one reason for this: the quality of the people.

Courage in combat is not due to amphetamines.

It should be admitted that the formation of personality in Russians has always proceeded differently than in the West. The result in 1945 confirms the highest quality of the systems of personality formation among Russians. This fact has long been noted in the West.

From the middle of the twentieth century, the struggle from the military sphere moved to the sphere of personality formation.

There is an impact on the social institutions that shape the personality. As a result, research in the field of ethnography, history, linguistics, philology, psychology, psychophysiology, anthropology, sociology, pedagogy and related disciplines contains in the West a huge layer of secret data used to harm the development of personality in Russia - practically not only not known in Russia, but also prohibited from distribution on our territory.

Considering the damage inflicted on the country and the profits gained by the West in the course of the psychological war - moreover, the West received the main profit as a result of the loss of Russia's moral authority - these sciences in the near, and even in the distant future, will be available only to representatives of the fifth column, and only to the extent necessary for their pro-Western policy.

The success of the West is enshrined in the programs of the education system, the media, juvenile justice, and in the constitution

In fact, the reason is deeper. The fact is that to create a full-fledged personality, it is necessary to form a pedagogical environment … This environment is formed in society on the basis of traditions.

The rules of life of society, enshrined in tradition, are often not formalized, not formalized in the form of laws, although the laws of each country to one degree or another reflect the requirements of tradition.

The reason that the requirements of traditions cannot be fully reflected in the laws of the country is that the requirements of traditions take into account the creation of a pedagogical environment, and this environment implies the secrecy of certain information from persons of a certain age.

It is possible to precisely regulate the movement of this information in society - not allowing those who are not entitled to it due to age - only if there is a certain level of tact, which in turn is only possible if there are highly developed individuals in society.

Traditions, formalized in the form of laws and formal rules, inevitably raise issues for public discussion, which from the point of view of tradition can only be discussed under strictly defined conditions, as a result of which it is rather problematic to formalize them.

The Anglo-Saxon model of the world places precisely the law at the basis of the construction of society, and tradition is not only ignored, but also deliberately suppressed by means of culture-multiculturalism. Traditions are formed on the basis of living conditions, which are different for representatives of different nationalities.

The pedagogical environment for the formation of personality on the basis of the law cannot be formed. The pedagogical environment in society is always national, with the exception of the Russian pedagogical environment. To be Russian means to be able to take into account the influence of other, not only Slavic, traditions that form the pedagogical environment in society. In the Russian environment, full-fledged development of the personality of any nationality is possible.

The consequence of this is the ability to negotiate with anyone. Confirmation of this is the brotherhood of more than two hundred peoples in the USSR. The impossibility of reaching an agreement with the West lies, on the one hand (western), in the fact that the traditions of the Anglo-Saxons and Russian traditions have fundamental differences.

In Russian society, relationships are built like family relationships.

Man emerged from nature, creating speech, family and community as a single whole.

The family and community guarantees the transmission of speech as a mechanism for the formation of the human brain. This happens through the formation of a pedagogical environment that guarantees the full development of the individual.

A full-fledged personality is formed under conditions of constant stimulation of the brain when discussing difficult issues.

The most difficult thing is to reconcile different points of view, and this requires uniform rules of argumentation, the consequence of this is the preference for a scientific worldview, expressed in the twentieth century in dialectical materialism.

The main value of Russian society is unity. To achieve unity is possible only with the utmost sincere desire of everyone in society to be understood. Hence, all the rules - written and unwritten - are clear to everyone. All things are called by their proper names.

In Western society, relationships are built on natural (not rational) foundations. The rules of life are based on the law of power - physical, economic, informational. The unity of society is denied in principle, since everyone is considered unique and strives for absolute freedom, declared the highest value.

In fact, the highest value is strength, in our time expressed in money. The minimum necessary unity is achieved through covert violence - manipulation. The possibility of manipulation is based on the absence of highly developed personalities.

If for the Russians the cult of personality is the core of the worldview, for the West this core is money (as a concentrate of power). The scientific worldview interferes with manipulation, hence Eurocentrism is a collection of myths. The strong (rich) is always right. According to the situation, you can always choose the right British scientist, which, with all the necessary references, will justify the need for any meanness committed by the bankers.

From this work, we can conclude that the formation of Russian and Western societies occurs on the basis of two different ancient traditions. These two directions of human development reflect different mechanisms of human formation.

In the beginning there was a word, and those who created it were called Slavs. Speech is not given by nature for transmission through biological inheritance. Speech was created by ancestors under certain conditions (about these conditions in another place), while those who lived in other, more favorable conditions simply did not need to create speech.

Hence, the values of these two branches of humanity are different, different construction of social relations, the construction of society.

The Anglo-Saxons descended from the Cro-Magnons, who did not create speech, but who received it from other Cro-Magnons, the very ones who created this speech. Speakers and non-speakers were very different biologically. That they were technically and socially different is commonplace.

The fact is that, simultaneously with speech, the speakers also acquired a family, community, and limitless possibilities of the level of objective actions. The speakers lived in a society that was socially and technically human.

Non-speaking were animals in animal society, although they lived in houses, used clothes and fire, and had a religion. All collisions of the formation of a person and his modern degradation are based on the opposition of the creators of the speech and those who received the speech in a finished form.

From the point of view of the speakers, the non-speakers were underdeveloped people, which was completely true.

Emotionally, most speakers treated nonspeakers as seniors to younger ones. They wanted to bring the underdeveloped to perfection, to teach. Coping with such a desire is a difficult enough task for a developed mind. The value of communication with an equal for them is beyond doubt. In contrast to the underdeveloped - non-speaking.

The non-speakers stopped in evolutionary development.

Their ancestors did not have a vital need for volitional efforts for the development of the brain above the animal level.

And since there was no vital necessity, they perceived the need to form speech as an annoying duty imposed from the outside. Hence, their speech is based not on the desire to be understood, driven to the limit, but on the efforts of a troeshnik, for a small reward who agrees to do their homework.

Or, more precisely, the efforts of the animal being trained are supported either by reflexes, or by the desire to avoid punishment, in short, by the compulsion by external circumstances, and the teacher involuntarily imposes his will. Hence the asymmetrical relationship.

These speaking Cro-Magnons treat non-speaking benevolently patronizingly. Non-speakers, on the other hand, treat speakers like a parasite to their biological host. All this can be seen with the naked eye in our time.

We expect understanding from the West, and the West expects obedience from us.

Moreover, the very word "Slav" for the Anglo-Saxons is the designation of a slave. This phenomenon is a consequence of the asymmetry of the relationship between speakers and non-speakers.

The fact is that the formed speech gives an impetus to the development of the level of objective activity. As a result, speakers very quickly and easily formed an objective world that surpasses the objective world of non-speakers not even by an order of magnitude, but simply incredibly surpasses the imagination of non-speakers.

When these two groups (Slavs and Anglo-Saxons) came into contact, the difference in the objective worlds caused a commensurate, that is, cosmic proportions, envy among the future Anglo-Saxons. Their level of development allowed them to assess the quality of the objects of the Slavs, the significance of these objects for life, and aroused the desire to possess these objects.

Among the future Anglo-Saxons, the possession of objects of the Slavs became a sign of hierarchical status. The more Slavic items you have, the higher your level. This is how the foundations of the modern Western elite were laid.

The Slavs, the creators of the objective world, treated things differently.

Their attitude to things was, and in many respects continues to be based on the ability to make these things, and not even to manufacture, but to see the imperfection of the surrounding world, find a solution to improve the world and embody this solution in the manufacture of an object that fills the gap in the imperfection of the world. Having improved by the act of creation, the creator does not at all claim authorship.

Together with speech, he also acquired a sense of duty.

By creating, he fulfills his duty - a product of the upbringing of Slavic boys. He is happy with his creation as a fulfillment of duty. This joy of the creator, fulfilling his duty to his loved ones, is incomprehensible to the Anglo-Saxon.

The Slav creates the objective world for the sake of building correct relationships with loved ones. The Slav, creating the objective world, builds human relations. The Anglo-Saxon builds its objective world on the basis of the desire to possess, from the desire to become an alpha male, thereby reproducing animal relationships.

Improvement in the line of consumers and went along the line of improving consumption. The non-speakers were absolutely uninteresting as interlocutors. But they were wonderful social parasites. Just like cats and lap dogs, only much stronger - their limbic was more powerful than any other animal limbic.

The speaker, having fallen into the company of non-speaking (forcedly) did not strive for domination, he could have been a teacher for those wishing to learn, but the flock of non-speakers always had their own owner of the technology for making important (sacred) objects (first of all, fire), and the speaker was waiting for the fate of Prometheus …

His main misfortune was not the perfection of the level of objective activity, but the desire based on tradition to develop the underdeveloped. As a result, the Slavs put an ideal parasite on their necks - the Anglo-Saxons.

You have to not only feed them with the whole world, but also continuously make excuses to them in every action. At the same time, we are forced to submit for public discussion issues, public discussion of which leads to the destruction of the educational environment in the world. Thus, we help the Anglo-Saxons in their fight against the personality cult and the formation of personalities in the younger generation.

Moreover, our own youth are joining the ranks of the fifth column. It means that the educational environment is formed under the influence of the West.

The Anglo-Saxons will never accept the Russian point of view. At the same time, they perfectly understand Russians. They have studied Russians from many points of view for many centuries, their knowledge is impeccable. Russians don't understand Anglo-Saxons.

This misunderstanding is based on an emotional rejection of the desire to become an alpha male. For a Russian, this means becoming an animal, that is, lowering your status as a person.

For the Anglo-Saxon, it is quite natural to pose the question of the liquidation of any people, first of all, the one whose traditions most fully form the pedagogical environment that forms the personality. The Anglo-Saxons have a wealth of historical experience in this area.

They are currently planning and implementing a plan of genocide against the Russians. For a Russian, this is beyond imagination. The Russians, even having heard from the mouths of Thatcher, Gaidar and other "supermen" plans for the destruction of nine out of ten Russians, cannot regard this as a serious danger.

RUSSIAN CANNOT ACCEPT EVEN IN THOUGHTING THAT A MAN CAN PLAN THE DESTRUCTION OF PEOPLE WHO DID NOT DO ANYTHING BAD TO HIM.

This is the main problem of the Russians

What prevents the Russians from treating the Anglo-Saxons symmetrically?

Why don't we study them the same way they studied us? Why don't we create funds that, purely for grandmothers, will find villains in the Anglo-Saxon world (and there is no need to look for them there, there is corruption in blood, they are only afraid of the cudgels of the law), so that these villains would write them their history on the same principles, on what did they create our history?

So that in this story their best people would be exposed as villains, and their Vlasovs and Solzhenitsyn would be represented by beacons of purity and purity?

Why don't we play Kansas against Oklahoma, or the US against England? Why don't we make these creatures jump on Wall Street screaming "who doesn't ride is not Anglo-Saxon"?

Do we have no one to come up with such a thing? I think we would have found such masters.

We don't have time. In ten years, we will not have time to go the path that the freaks have traveled for millennia, and the question of our existence will be resolved precisely in the next decade.

But most importantly, if we act like the Anglo-Saxons, think like the Anglo-Saxons, raise our children like the Anglo-Saxons, then we and society will get indistinguishable from the Anglo-Saxon. Should I change the awl for soap?

We cannot give a symmetrical answer. We are not Anglo-Saxons, we are Russians. We are the heirs of those who created speech and humanity.

We will give an asymmetrical answer …