Totalitarian humanism

Totalitarian humanism

Mikhail Delyagin: in defense of Mr Medvedev

And maybe I'll be the razlyubezen people

I have lived a life fighting — not just grieving,

What's in my fierce century praised the lack of freedom

From the righteous struggle, freedom for you.


Beauty … and the whip.


Some characters simply by virtue of their existing style (fair or not — is another matter) involuntarily subjected to ridicule virtually any thesis invested in their mouths.

For example, if segodnyaschy State Duma approved the law thinks of the multiplication table, with a large part of her work suffering from a severe wobble of people there that, for example, a family of eight really is fifty six.

In the middle of other indisputable truths Premier Medvedev stated at the time the immortal "Freedom is better than non-freedom."

It would seem that "two plus two …" — and throughout the text.

And over Medvedev then ruthlessly and plenty of little substance naizdevalis banalschina. And it is in vain. Just because freedom is not always far better than non-freedom in their classical liberal comprehension, despite the fact that the whole history of mankind is insatiable zeal specifically to freedom.

Freedom in its liberal awareness as a tool dehumanization

The traditional example — a comparison of American and Russian schools. The first was, and to this day is still perceived as a sign of totalitarianism accursed, ruthless violence fragile baby showers, the second is more concerned about the fact that the child (under 18 years) at any cost (including a complete lack of knowledge and abilities) received from attending school only positive emotions. The result is visual: the South American school often do not even provide its graduates with the ability to read, let alone a good opportunity to express their thoughts (if any) in the native language of the UK, our fast catching up with her in it.

More impressively, and review of the scope of morality. Liberation of the individual from moral shackles and constraints are not just causes disgust, and is destructive to human physiology: it is just at the biological level is not adapted to certain degrees of freedom (as, in general, and to the freedom of the air, food, and other important substances needed)!

One of the main problems of the world's population at the end of the "cold war" is also associated with freedom. It turned out that the creation of new technological principles — this activity is not purely market. Put yourself in the investor comes to a scientist for you — and you are not aware of anything he says to you. You realize just what the result might not be — and if it is, it is not clear when. And most importantly, it is not clear what.

Fund on these criteria can only be under the gun — that's why the engine of technological progress from Archimedes to Gorbachev was a threat of war. New technological principles revealed in the main for the military — and later trickled from time to time with a delay of generation (or not trickled quite) into civilian life.

Military threat was gone — dead terror and coercion to survive — there will be freedom, and with it the deceleration of technological developments and, accordingly, its liquidation serving research and education. They are not random distortions, but completely natural consequences of modern democracy (which Aristotle, however, with the characteristic of the ancient Greeks on contemporary Yankee snobbery considered ochlocraty): the average person in normal conditions never sacrifice current consumption for the sake of tomorrow. Therefore, determining the policies of the country in the criteria of democracy, he just will not give money for research.

And now it turns out that the problem of "freedom" and "unfreedom" does not so straightforward as it seems the Russian character twitter.

And that did not seem as if the "problem of freedom" are the only wretched legacy of postmodernism in turning the world upside down, turn to the story.

As Aboriginal people appointed

A traditional example of humanism more centralized structure in comparison with the structure of a fully democratic comparative attitude of Catholics and Protestants to the indigenous peoples of America during its colonization. Catholics in droves not just willing to live with the local ladies, but even with them to the marriage, which resulted in the emergence of new racial types — mestizos and mulattos, not to mention the new nations (for example, the Creoles). Protestants have similar options were single and everyday attitudes towards indigenous peoples was the total extermination of the same.

Do you think pochetaemy reader, the reason for this?

And the reason was quite normal, though very nasty for the usual liberal consciousness.

Catholic Church, realizing the problem of mass collisions with non-Christians, who stood at a much low level of technological development, has developed a doctrine of "the man who walked in darkness." In the XIX century it was a stroke of genius ridiculed by Mark Twain, but some time ago, in the era of colonial capture this same doctrine has forced Catholics in general, treat the Indians (well, residents of South-East Asia and Polynesia) as people. Yes, the poor, a priori incapable of self-government, in need of education and otsivilizovyvanii (by which is supposed to be, obviously, first putting them into the bosom of the Catholic Church) — but as people, not as things or as an animal.

So said the head of the Roman Catholic Church, which already at that time with infallibility was all right.

In this case, the decision was made for all the Catholics of the world one person (in the best case, the role of the coming of his entourage). Under the so strictly hierarchical and, of course, the totalitarian system, as the Catholic Church (of course, comparing it, for example, with today's Russian Orthodox Church, despite the apparent non-trivial topic, not the subject of the true work) it was necessary to perform undeniable. And, as the decision is taken a narrow circle of persons not specifically involved in the adjustment process them — it was a chance to be in that number and humanistic.

Quite a different decision-making mechanism to function the Protestants.

Free and democratic genocide

The decision of the attitude towards Aboriginal people in each case perceived pastor respective communities, in terms of its narrow and short-term interests. This community is usually the first step of colonization was an island surrounded by the sea and aggressive native desperately struggling with it for their survival. It was a struggle for life and death — and the chilling attitude to Aborigines as "the same people" was completely unacceptable, threatens at best assimilation of Aboriginal communities.

Interests collective survival (not to mention the natural prejudices) imperatively dictated each separately to take the pastor is very probable exclusion, isolation from the natives — and they are not saying a word, in fact denied a soul. In what was then the coordinate system, this meant that the natives are not people and can exterminated level with feral animals — and cohabitation with them is as unnatural as, for example, cohabitation with monkeys. In practice it has turned mass destruction, which takes in a gentle way and at the moment (for example, on Indian reservations in the United States enforced by a huge number of marriages of closely obs
erved the birth of only the highest bit of intellectually handicapped people and maimed as a whole).

Certainly, the break-off of the scheme Anglican Church — strictly centralized and at the same time did not help humanistic towards Aborigines. Together with the fact it should be noted that according to his own spirit she was Protestant, anti-Catholic and anger have therefore had to take a position so fundamental question, strictly back position his own brain enemy.

So Makar, of course, more democratic, which is close to the daily interests and aspirations of the people the system of decision-making turned massive unprecedented brutality, often taking the character outright genocide. (We are quite often litsezreem this so called "national democracy", including the extermination of the Red Army prisoners in Poland, the national policies of Hitler and, more humane times — modern apartheid regimes in the Baltics).

In this series, you can remember that, for example, as in a democracy without any reservations postwar France spontaneous retaliation for the collaboration has undergone a million man, with about 100 thousand, according to available estimates, were killed (specifically "estimated" — because a significant portion of repression, including executions, carried out specifically "civil society", and their centralized accounting was not conducted). If we compare these with the repression of Stalin's totalitarian certainly Russian Union, in which besides the bitterness of the war was much higher than in France (and the extent of collaboration were at best comparable) — you have to repeat the paradoxical conclusion: in particular, and with all this quite frequent situations Democracy is more ruthless and destructive than authoritarianism.

What's all the same thing?

Accursed "perceived need"

Most likely, in the nature of man: striving for freedom as such, we can not get rid of a great deal — from his own body to its own society.

Realizing freedom in a liberal — as "freedom from" — and getting rid of the first really tightening our shackles, we are not hard to run across to the attempts of liberation not from the outside, third-party, but from the internal, inherent in us and makes us human. "Freedom from" — this is the path to the dehumanization: no wonder too far down this road stopped by German practices specifically promised to "liberate" their own fighter from the "chimera called conscience."

More Okujava looking, most likely in the mirror, bitterly pohihikival over fellow Poles — and in the face of and above all the usual Western, liberal consciousness of freedom:

… Do not sleep through the night — Freedom?

Freedom — to elect train and despise the stallions?

We cheated a youth drama of nature …

That "higher freedom", for which really do not wish to go all my life, even just dreaming about approaching it — is quite different: it is not freedom "from" and "to".

Freedom in the name of the goal that overshadows everything. And democracy is a Western standard — no sign of faith, not to take the dilapidated Christianity, but only one of many possible tools merits this.

Our grandfathers lucky: they have such a goal was, they built our lives in the struggle with death.

They have overcome — and we had luck a bit less.

Since in the decline in which we (as, in general, and the whole world) Ruhnu in a couple of years, we'll be free, too: the survival of the collective task, the task of saving their own people and their own country — and means, the task of development and progress, which by their nature are only collective — subordinate to everything.

As written classics — "perceived need", as my friend from the army — "like a bullet in flight, free."

I only recently figured out exactly what they had in mind.

But this is absolutely not the freedom of which they say liberals and they drove us to the head: it is freedom of vocation and ministry, but they did have kindly freedom escape.

We have nowhere to retreat again: The Earth is round.

And we will find freedom, finding her in a fight — just do not have to be embarrassed when the liberal clowns, foaming at the mouth rush to denounce it as slavery to totalitarianism.

Such is in their language, such at their "dimakratiya."

Like this post? Please share to your friends: