Damage to Western civilization: who is to blame?
Known criticism of the Kantian ethical principle by Herbert Spencer. The latter did not consider Kant's absolutes acceptable. Moreover, he declared such an ethic harmful. According to Spencer, Kant substituted altruism with the opposite — egoism: “... what then can keep us from the intended course of conduct? Consciousness that the result of it, if such behavior became universal, could become harmful for the person himself: he may not find help when he needs it. So, firstly, the issue should be resolved by examining the likely results of a particular mode of behavior, and secondly, this result is happiness or unhappiness for the individual. Is it not strange that the principle, praised by virtue of the altruism supposedly contained in it, ends up being justified in selfishness? ”(See for more information: Spencer G. Experiences are scientific, political and philosophical. Minsk: Modern writer, 1998. C .1135-1137).
Spencer explains that the offended man is ready to kill his abuser. Following the Kantian prescriptions, this person assumes that all people who have been insulted could take up the murder of their offenders. What can keep a potential killer from the temptation to go and get revenge? Obviously, Spencer responds, "a representation of the enormity of evil, suffering, deprivation of happiness, which would have been caused by this." But if you think about the advice of Kant, then it’s just easy to imagine the killing of offenders as a universal matter and leading to total happiness: after all, in this case, the “amount of happiness” in the world will start to increase rapidly. All who kill the offenders should be made happy. Moreover, they will deduce from this law!
Richard Dawkins wrote about Kant's imperative: “The imperative works wonderfully, for example, in the case of deception. Imagine a world in which people lie from a principle where a lie is considered a good and laudable norm of behavior. In such a world, a lie would lose all meaning. A presumption of truth is required for the very definition of a lie. If the moral principle is a rule that we want to make common to all people, then a lie cannot serve as a moral principle, because then it will become meaningless. Lying as a life rule is internally unstable. To sum up: egoism, or parasitism on others, can work and bring me benefit only in a society where my behavior is the exception to the rule. But I don’t want everyone to accept egoism and parasitism as a moral principle for themselves, if only because I willn’t be parasitic then. ” (See: Dawkins, R. God as an illusion. M .: Kolibri, 2008. S. 326-327). Dawkins thus proves the inadequacy of Kant’s "absolute" ethics by the law of the unity and struggle of opposites. A lie devoid of opposites dissolves in itself, and the lucky man who discovered a convenient way to live does not want to share this way with others. Not enough for everyone ...
Official parasites cannot exist without a people who are robbed: taxes, bribes, kickbacks, small “gifts” and offerings. This is typical both for Western countries and for Russia: in essence, there is absolutely no difference. Social evolution makes everyone adapt in one manner. If in Russia, a deputy’s place in the Duma is openly bought, and many warm places are occupied by friends and relatives of high-ranking officials, then in the USA Obama is openly trades ambassadorial posts (the price of “sponsorship” started during the election campaign varies between 2 and 6 millions of dollars; a place in France costs three times more than a diplomatic post in foggy Albion. 30% of ambassadors’s vacancies go to Obama's friends and sponsors, but not career diplomats). In some Afghanistan, which has followed the example of the United States, almost everything is openly bought right up to the school tests (corruption has always been there, but its monstrous rampant occurred under the influence of the West: more than two thirds of the population, according to recent survey, now approves bribes to officials; three years ago such approvals were only 42%).
Nevertheless, it comes to the fact that officials treat representatives of the "people" as "bydlu." Russian officials have an ordinary human contempt for those who despise them, feed and water them, put them on in fur coats, and charge Mercedes with gas flashes with flashing lights. In the West, in some Britain, the parliamentary party organizer (by status - the minister) can face a policeman as a plebeian and impose three-story “facs” on them. It seems, give officials the will - they simply destroy the people. Courts, prisons, insults, extortion, “raids”, “juvenile justice”. But you never know! Ways - darkness: after all, officials have the power and monopoly on violence. Only the one who made his way to the officials is capable of eliminating the threat of officials, that is, he successfully separated from the people and entered the fight at the highest evolutionary level. Marx characterized the similar position of the state and people with the phrase “on opposite sides of the barricades”.
There are two points here. First: the rulers act in their circle exactly according to Kant's maxims, turning their actions into law. On the one hand, this law blesses the officials, on the other - gives them the opportunity to continue to parasitize on the people, but only on the condition that at the very least, they allow the people to survive. Otherwise, their feeder will be covered with a copper basin.
The second point: democracy in modern political systems is no different than the management of a minority by a majority. The most adjusted minority with pleasure controls the least adapted majority. Judge for yourself: for example, two thirds of the registered electorate is going to vote for presidential candidates. Besides the fact that not one hundred percent is going on, not the entire population participates in the elections, but only those people who have the right to vote. 142 million people live in Russia, but about 110 million people could participate in the last election. And on the plots arrived only 71 million. Of these, only 45 with more than million voted for V. V. Putin. The very election of the 142 president by the millions in the 45-million country already speaks about the power of the minority. Exactly the same thing happens in Western countries. You shouldn’t shout about the primordially our autocracies, totalitarianism, “Sovdepiâ”, suppression of the opposition, etc., and so on. Everywhere and always - the same picture.
However, there is one curious difference between Western countries and Russia, caused no longer by the desire of the authorities for Western-style democracy (quite to the ancient Greek: many lords still dream of slaves), but by the very Kantian interpretation of absolute morality, in which a reasonable being wants to achieve states, "when everything ... goes according to his will and desire." This is the very principle of extreme egoism and individualism, which has been implanted with great difficulty for a quarter of a century already in Russia and in the CIS, and which has reached unprecedented heights in the advanced West. From these very heights the West has yet to fall. It will be very painful!
Nothing confirms the definition of democracy as the power of a minority, as new laws, very often adopted in the "tolerant" West.
Sergey Gavrilets, scientific director of the National Institute for Mathematical and Biological Synthesis at the University of Tennessee, explored reasons for the existence of same-sex love. The scientist built a mathematical model that showed that the solution to homosexuality may lie not in the genes themselves, but in the biochemical compounds and processes that control the gene activity, turning on or off the DNA components.
In some cases, children can receive from parents of the opposite sex - daughters from fathers, sons from mothers - epigenetic marks that promote the development of nontraditional sexual orientation. The ability to save tags in one and several generations has previously been experimentally confirmed in animals.
Mathematics allowed Gavrilc to confirm that the hypothesis really explains the preservation of a small homosexual stratum among the heterosexual majority.
What does this “small homosexual stratum” do in the name of attaining Kantian happiness (in other words, the values of liberalism)? By uniting and jointly defending their interests, they get the possibility of a huge influence on politics. The will of the majority does not interest them at all. They care about their own happiness. A presidential candidate (for example, Hollande in France or Obama in the USA) is well aware that five or seven percent of the population are gay and lesbian, and many of them have a fairly active political stance. Their voices can not be ignored. Therefore, Obama comes to the Pentagon for the gay holiday and speaks out in public for same-sex marriage, and Hollande makes a statement about the legalization of gay marriage as one of the central points of his election program, the implementation of which immediately begins after victory. So the minority rules the majority, at the same time gaining its happiness and despising the people who are powerless to change anything. Parliament and the people have nothing in common.
In early February, the French National Assembly voted to give homosexual couples the right to marry and adopt children. Deputies passed the law 249 votes. 97 people were opposed. This supposedly expresses the “will of the people”: suddenly the minority suddenly acquired the appearance of a majority.
In parallel, the same thing happened in Britain. On February 5, the House of Commons of the Parliament of the United Kingdom voted in favor of the same-sex marriage bill. 400 parliamentarians were in favor of changing the current legislation, and 175 was against it.
In France, a discussion of that part of the gay document, which says about adoption, is going on. At the end of February there will be a vote on this issue. That's freedom, freedom, happiness, happiness. Well, and this: "Act so that the maxim of your will could at the same time have the force of the principle of universal legislation." And the will of homosexuals becomes the cornerstone of the law. The nouns “mom” and “dad” are a thing of the past, and their replacement is the faceless “parent No. 1” and “parent No. XXUMX.”
In the progressive kindergartens of some Sweden, they experimentally teach children to say “it” instead of “he” and “she”. Boys are recommended to play Barbie, and girls are recommended to play bullet from plastic machines. So as not to take root “false” gender stereotypes. A girl should not grow up as a cook, and a boy should be a “brutal macho” like comrade Putin. Let the boys become more feminine, and the girls more belligerent. In Germany, children's comics preach blue love: Dad divorced his mother and began to live with another man. The plot ends with the fact that this dad's son, a schoolboy of ten, kisses a classmate.
If the officials understand that it is impossible to destroy the people, because then the man who can feed two generals will completely disappear, then the minority of the public is not concerned about the survival of the nation. The ultimate egoism here completely holds the spirit and dictates the rules of behavior that in the very near future - exactly with Kant's imperative - can disintegrate society to its very foundation and eventually destroy the whole civilization. The path from the minority to the majority is not so long: with the aging of Western civilization and the fact that in Europe and the USA it is considered unprofitable to “invest” in the birth of children, homosexuality is another curved path to elementary extinction.
The West faced a paradox - and found itself at an impasse. Defending democratic "freedoms" and "values" and fighting for individual "happiness", Western civilization buries itself. Probably Patrick Buchanan is right, believing that the 80-90 years remain of Western civilization. By the end of the century it will not. And the process can be accelerated if homopairs with the permission of the state (the power of a minority) are engaged in the adoption and upbringing of children. It is easy to assume that these children will grow!
In Russia, everything is the opposite. Today we see a departure from the former blind copying of Western liberalism, which began with a perestroika love for the Coca-Cola and the American flag. It’s not for nothing that the West is sounding the alarm: after all, the State Duma approved in the first reading a bill that would ban propaganda of same-sex love. This gave Kerstin Holm from Frankfurter Allgemeine a reason to write Article about the "blue" harassment in Russia. A German journalist reports that the opposition magazine "The New Times" conducted a survey in which eminent cultural figures gave advice to young people with "unconventional orientation." Director Kirill Serebrennikov advised young gays and lesbians to leave the country, and actress Renata Litvinova said: “The time will come when, going against all, but having saved yourself, you will be right. This wish is strong. I do not know how much suffering and humiliation you endure, but the obsession with a loner is stronger than even death. ”
As for the adoption of Russian children in the West, the State Duma is also engaged in this issue. Russia may revise the adoption agreement with France, if Paris legalizes same-sex marriage. About it in Paris said State Duma Chairman Sergei Naryshkin. The possibility of the adoption by the French side of a draft law on the adoption of children by the “gays” will be taken into account by Russia. Our children will not go to same-sex families.
Recently, Ivan Blo, deputy head of the French Ministry of the Interior, professor of sociology and, by the way, an election specialist, in an interview "Voice of Russia" presented his view on the coming disintegration of the West and on the spiritual role of Russia in the future world order.
Blo believes that the recognition of the right of homosexual couples to marry caused outrage of a significant part of the French people, which is absolutely not satisfied with this variant of the evolution of civilization. But the fact is that no one asks anything for these people.
The dominance of the minority over the majority in the West is expressed, according to the views of the scientist, in the good organization of the former, with its complete absence. This was what General de Gaulle said after the war when he accused the Fourth Republic of being a regime in the service of a minority. Blo continues:
Ivan Blo concludes that the West is infected with a moral crisis. The sociologist finds the ideal for the future society in the Christian image of St. George the Victorious striking the dragon. The Frenchman saw him on the emblem of Moscow and gave him the following original characteristic:
Here is the foundation of a strong society. But in Europe, the opposite is true. Today, speaking of the spoiled Western civilization and comparing its decline with the fall of Ancient Rome, the Western representatives themselves say with sadness not about victory "over baser instincts", but about the indulgence of the very minority that now sets the tone for democracy. For "everything in his existence goes according to his will and desire."
Information