Military Review

Principle of association

38
Many people wonder why Western countries are so persistent in promoting liberalism in its most diverse manifestations: tolerance towards people of non-traditional sexual orientation, juvenile justice, multiculturalism, etc.


What do all this have in common? In my opinion, one thing is common - all this contributes to the manifestation of differences between people, their separation. With the help of widespread propaganda, it is encouraged to manifest and advertise any difference that they have, contributing to the maximum fragmentation of people into smaller communities as possible, to find in oneself what distinguishes and separates a person from others.

It seems strange, because it is in the unification of people that the main force of any great or just great achievements lies where one person or a small group of people cannot cope.

Why is this required? In addition to the obvious goal of divide and conquer, there is another, much less obvious one. This is the destruction of the very method of unification, using a single idea for all. How can people unite around one idea, if they are taught throughout their life to look for differences in themselves, stand out from society, say no? The principle of a single idea stops working because they do not want to unite, “to be a flock,” as they call it. And this applies to everything: people cease to unite, even for their own safety. Young people in Austria in an interview, answering the question “What will you do if war breaks out in Austria?” Say that they will leave for Germany (see video of Sharia, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v= 1lMNV1Lhjms).

At the same time, people become a herd for a simple reason: in small communities there can not be the same large number of great leaders, the average intellectual level of a leader is inevitably substantially lower than that of a large community. Which makes it easy to manage these communities through media.

If the principle of unification around a single idea does not work, the principle of unification around material resources remains, i.e. of money. It is precisely to stimulate the use of this principle of uniting people that liberalism is used. The more often this principle of unification is used and the higher the importance of the issues solved with the help of it, the stronger the power of those who own money as a means of uniting people. It is their plans that become the goal of the efforts of society.
Author:
38 comments
Ad

The editorial board of Voenniy Obozreniye urgently needs a proofreader. Requirements: impeccable knowledge of the Russian language, diligence, discipline. Contact: [email protected]

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Teberii
    Teberii 21 November 2015 08: 55 New
    +2
    All countries of the "liberal circle" suffer from a lack of ideas, which are replaced by various consumer goods.
    1. Gani
      Gani 21 November 2015 09: 08 New
      11
      Yes, in general, all countries suffer from this, except for m. the poorest African countries - there is a clear unifying idea - how not to die of hunger tomorrow.
      1. Temples
        Temples 21 November 2015 10: 10 New
        +4
        If the principle of unification around a single idea does not work, the principle of unification around material resources remains, i.e. of money.

        Another striking example of a spiritless existence!
        Either ideology or money.
        Our country has lived in Orthodoxy for many centuries!
        It was created and united with the help of FAITH!
        The West systematically and meticulously destroys everything sacred; as a result, people turn into soulless individuals with permissiveness in their heads.
        And now rushing about in search of the guilty in chaos.
        But everyone has an iPhone and a hamburger !!!
    2. 79807420129
      79807420129 21 November 2015 09: 16 New
      11
      Yes, everything is simple, the whole principle of liberalism, divide and conquer a person, under the sweet tales of the individual freedom of man.
  2. venaya
    venaya 21 November 2015 08: 57 New
    11
    one thing in common - all this contributes to the manifestation of differences of people, their separation

    And yet, the main thing is the division of people (the basic principle: "divide and rule"), with the aim of general enslavement of large masses of the population, in order to obtain maximum profit from them. Apparently this is the primary task of a society with a political system called "democracy".
    1. Vladimirets
      Vladimirets 21 November 2015 09: 04 New
      +8
      Quote: venaya
      And all the same, the main thing is the division of people (the main principle: "divide and rule"), with the aim of general coaxing of large masses of the population, in order to obtain maximum profit from them.

      The meaning of this principle is that small groups are not able to effectively resist any threats. By the way, this is also evident in the destruction of states through the so-called controlled chaos. A bad state or a good one, but if it is divided, if internal contradictions are strong in it, the confrontation of individual groups is observed, then it has no time to influence foreign policy processes. This is achieved by the clique (if not to say the gang) of individual, imagining themselves elected, states.
    2. Nikolay K
      Nikolay K 21 November 2015 10: 34 New
      11
      Horses, people mixed up in a heap ... Let us first clearly understand what liberalism is, and not find fault with everything "theirs". Liberalism originated from the word freedom. But initially the liberals fought for the personal freedom of a person, i.e. against slavery, serfdom and for the equal rights of all people, which in my opinion was, on the one hand, progressive, and on the other hand, it was the idea of ​​the earliest possible acquisition of freedom and equality that led to all revolutions, including the October one. In this sense, Lenin was definitely a liberal. But the current radical liberals, in the absence of other problems (the main tasks of the liberal movement have long been solved), declare freedom as an end in itself, as the main idea of ​​human life, they bring freedom to the absolute, to a fetish that they worship, and this fetish becomes even more important than the values ​​of traditional religions. But, as any sane person understands, any freedom is limited by the freedom of another person. This has two consequences. First, keeping in mind that freedom is a conscious need, this need is driven into the heads of today's "free" citizens under the guise of tolerance, that is, tolerance towards others. Naturally, freedom and tolerance are dialectically opposite things, but this does not bother liberals in any way and they skillfully maneuver between one and the other, telling tales of absolute freedom. The second consequence of freedom is truly human disunity. Because any interest in the life of a neighbor is an interference with his personal freedom. But this is precisely a consequence of the liberal idea, not a goal. Summarizing, I will say that in my opinion, absolitization of anything, including freedom, is idealism reduced to the level of stupidity. And in this sense, the present Western civilization, built on the ideas of absolute freedom, will face the same collapse that the USSR experienced with its idealistic communist ideology. So the new Cold War has indeed been going on for a long time and the front line runs through the territory of the westernmost civilization, as we recently saw in Paris.
      1. a housewife
        a housewife 21 November 2015 12: 36 New
        0
        Nikolai K. It is a pity that I can only put one +. But there is a question - why the RSDLP? Is democracy only in the name, but in essence liberalism? hi
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. Yuri Y.
        Yuri Y. 21 November 2015 13: 33 New
        0
        Quote: Nikolai K
        But this is precisely the result of a liberal idea, not a goal.

        Your comment is in my opinion absolutely correct. I just want to add that pragmatists and not idealists choose their goals in their own interests. Their interests may be the consequences of the idea itself and bring the idea to the right condition.
  3. bronik
    bronik 21 November 2015 09: 02 New
    0
    This is the same information war. Only with makeup.
  4. Nymp
    Nymp 21 November 2015 09: 04 New
    +7
    In general, right! There is also an opinion; "victims live in a herd, lone hunters". But as regards state unification, the Soviet Union clearly showed what the national idea means. And yet, the essence of liberalism is certainly not in the creation of society, but in its decomposition. Here I agree with the author!
  5. Wolka
    Wolka 21 November 2015 09: 09 New
    13
    the author really outlined the fine line that distinguishes the mentality of Russians from Western thinking: this is instinct, for Russians there is always a call for unification and a universal struggle against evil, for Westerners it is a signal for flight and salvation, first of all, of their own skin and only then the rest, that’s why from early childhood we absorb this truth with mother’s milk, therefore we are invincible, and money has nothing to do with it ...
    1. Nikolay K
      Nikolay K 21 November 2015 10: 44 New
      +1
      You used to absorb the ideas of collectivism from childhood, but your children are already raising in a completely different way.
  6. Darkoff
    Darkoff 21 November 2015 09: 17 New
    +3
    The author stated a deep thought. Thank!
    But where is the line between unity and bondage? It seems to me that they are compatible only in different proportions and crowd out each other over the course of history. Everything has its time.
  7. Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter 21 November 2015 09: 22 New
    +4
    The nature of Russia does not mean survival alone! Neither to defend against a thief, nor to warm up in a harsh winter, nor to share bread in crop failure ... It was not without reason that the Russian community held out for so long. And Gayrope - now she has little choice. Or try to move towards individualism and surrender to the Muslim world, or remember about your heroic, in general, roots, about the "burden of the white man", unite and force the pseudo-Islamic obscurantists to hide in their graves - or civilize!
  8. barclay
    barclay 21 November 2015 09: 35 New
    +7
    The principle of a single idea ceases to work because they do not want to unite, “to be a herd,” as they call it.
    Increasingly become a herd, not realizing this. And the fashion from there - because of the big puddle.
    1. mikh-korsakov
      mikh-korsakov 21 November 2015 10: 56 New
      +2
      You are absolutely right. Liberal propaganda calls people who find satisfaction in work and its results - robots. In fact, robots are the crowds pounding into stores during sales. Only they were given the command "Run and buy"
    2. Turkir
      Turkir 21 November 2015 12: 02 New
      +1
      And the fashion from there - because of the big puddle.

      I agree that it came "because of the Big Puddle".
      Only this is not fashion, it is a focused ideology.
      Theory of pragmatism.
      John Dewey (1859-1952) —American philosopher, psychologist and teacher, a prominent representative of pragmatism (from the Greek pragma — deed, action, philosophy of action), a leading trend in philosophy and pedagogy in the United States of America. As a criterion of truth, pragmatists recognize the benefit, while the significance of the benefit is determined by the feeling of “inner satisfaction”, or “self-satisfaction”. Dewey's ideas had a great influence on school and pre-school education in America and other countries, and were part of the “new education” movement.

      “Pragmatism is a philosophical trend based on practice as a criterion of truth and semantic significance. Its origin is associated with the name of the XNUMXth century American philosopher Charles Pearce, who was the first to formulate the“ maxim ”of pragmatism. Pragmatism was further developed in the writings of William James, John Dewey and George Santayana.
      Pragmatism is a purely American form of development of positivism ”
  9. mikh-korsakov
    mikh-korsakov 21 November 2015 09: 35 New
    +4
    In Boston, multiculturalism even affects architecture. There is the core of the city, which is inhabited by the descendants of the British colonists, while being there it seems that he was in prim England. Step to the side. You find yourself in Chinatown with its small shops and brothels (I was not there, but I guessed it from the red lamps and aunts near the houses, if I was mistaken, I apologize), you recognize the Italian quarter by the shabby houses between which there are lines for drying clothes. But most of all I was struck by the area where immigrants from the USSR lived. I did not expect to see five-story "Khrushchevs" made of gray brick so far from the Motherland, how did they manage to build such a thing there? Immediately there were ads in the form of noodles pasted on lamp posts. The author is a hundred times right "to avoid clashes between different cultures helps the common service to the" yellow devil ".
  10. emercom1979
    emercom1979 21 November 2015 09: 40 New
    +4
    Tolerance, liberalism, democracy are great ideas for disuniting and fooling people. Communism and socialism are not a bad idea. They unified and led to a common goal. True, as elsewhere, the human factor interfered. Society should have the concept of "all people are brothers" and not "man, man is a wolf." This is the only way to try to unite humanity. There was before the USSR, now Russia. What are the bad examples of multinational states? Do not throw stones. I know that not everything is perfect and not everyone is happy, but society and PEOPLE are better !!!
    1. Nikolay K
      Nikolay K 21 November 2015 10: 50 New
      +1
      Communism fooled in the same way as current liberalism, because absolute equality as absolute freedom is utopia. But even without the idea of ​​living uninteresting, such a paradox.
  11. Angro Magno
    Angro Magno 21 November 2015 09: 43 New
    0
    Everything is exactly the opposite.
    If you make people uniform robot-like buyers, you can save a lot on targeted advertising.
    1. mikh-korsakov
      mikh-korsakov 21 November 2015 10: 49 New
      +1
      You have gone to extremes. At least they don't need to be made by a herd of rams pounding at the doors of shops during a sale. They can also be called robotic creatures. Only they were given the command "Run and Buy"
  12. 3officer
    3officer 21 November 2015 09: 58 New
    0
    Perhaps Europe has its own "unification plan" and this plan implies - unity under the rainbow flag of the LGBT community laughing
  13. Reptiloid
    Reptiloid 21 November 2015 10: 14 New
    +3
    LGBT - an illusion of freedom, a vile parody - like a boy, like a girl. Although every day I need to change my identity. As in a rhyme - it's good to be a kitten, a good dog. ... and so on.
  14. afrikanez
    afrikanez 21 November 2015 10: 19 New
    +1
    How to hammer this information to our liberals? What would understand what power!
  15. Riv
    Riv 21 November 2015 10: 39 New
    +1
    The author did not complete his thought. A crowd is a flock, yes. The idea for the crowd is like a shepherd’s command for the herd. People like sheep go one way and demolish everything in their path. Is it dangerous. A herd without a shepherd will not go anywhere. The rams will scatter, they will pinch the grass and ... will not break anything. This is just good when nothing breaks. Sheep can then be pulled out one at a time, sheared, or even put on meat.
    Actually, no one will be interested in the sexual preferences of the ram. The homosexual ram tastes just as good. But in the herd - let him stand out and be proud of it. Let it bleat: "I'm not like everyone else." For the time being.
    1. a housewife
      a housewife 21 November 2015 12: 42 New
      +2
      Well yes. And often a goat is placed as a leader in a herd. He is smarter, the shepherd is watching only him, the sheep are following the goat. The goat, as the desired individual will not be slaughtered. These are the leaders in and are eager.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  16. Al_oriso
    Al_oriso 21 November 2015 10: 39 New
    0
    The leader in a large society is strength; the absence of a leader is decline.
    For example: Russia with Gorbachev or Russia with Putin.
    1. Nikolay K
      Nikolay K 21 November 2015 23: 39 New
      0
      It’s bad when the well-being of a huge country depends so much on the success of one person, it’s not normal, don’t you? Yes, and I do not want to feel like a ram.
  17. veksha50
    veksha50 21 November 2015 10: 54 New
    +3
    "The principle of one idea stops working because do not want to unite, “to be a herd”"...

    Hmm ... actually, all my life I believed that the concepts of "herd" and "one people", having a certain common idea, are somewhat different concepts ...

    To achieve global goals, the unity of the nation-people and, naturally, an intelligent leader ...
    We had it (we need not just remember the 37th year in vain), and the achievements were visible to the whole world ...

    Strength - in unity and unification ...
    1. Nikolay K
      Nikolay K 21 November 2015 23: 44 New
      0
      Strength in unity is true. It is only important what kind of idea people have in common around, for example, the idea of ​​absolute freedom, as it is now in the West, or the idea of ​​transcending one’s own nation, as in fascist Germany. What idea do we have?
  18. rotmistr60
    rotmistr60 21 November 2015 10: 55 New
    +2
    When spirituality is instilled in childhood, the denial of once accepted moral standards of behavior and existence in the community, the unquestioning fulfillment of the requirements of the minority to the detriment of the majority, then what can be said. There is even no need to divide into small subgroups for power. Everything is driven into the head from the diaper. Themselves in orderly rows go to their destruction.
    1. Turkir
      Turkir 21 November 2015 11: 40 New
      +2
      There is not even a need to divide into small subgroups for power

      Theory of individualism. If you are poor, then you yourself are to blame.
      All this has already been tested in the USA. The American Dream is a carrot in front of a running donkey that will never catch up with it.
      "Laws are written for the rich" - a successful businessman R. Kiyosaki wrote for the Americans. It is the Americans who open a van for selling ice cream or sausages and consider themselves businessmen. They were so inspired: "What a fine fellow, soon you will have two vans, and then three."
      Kiyosaki wrote for these Americans: no, this is not a business. Business is a network.
      Or banks inspire them to take a loan to buy a house, it is profitable. Yes, Kiosaki notes this is beneficial, although the bank does not specify to whom it is beneficial.
      Therefore, in the United States there are so many preachers, lecturers to improve personal characteristics, allegedly they are the ones that impede your career growth or doing business. What can I say, we have a lot of these preachers.
      Improving your personality, they improve their financial situation.
      More illiterate people, more and gullible simpletons trusting their money to scammers in the hope of quick enrichment. The mechanism is debugged. MMM has proven it.
      ---------
      The author of the article reminded us of this dangerous trend, for which he thanks.
  19. mikh-korsakov
    mikh-korsakov 21 November 2015 11: 15 New
    +1
    The word democracy (power of the people) - if you do not fill it with content, this does not make more sense than the word "happiness". But as the children's writer Gaidar taught us - "happiness, everyone understood differently ...". American democracy is an opportunity for the common man to sue a restaurant for $ 100000 for too hot coffee. I remember how our liberals and their henchmen from the journalistic class rolled their eyes with delight, they say, how right it is. But if this is the beauty of democracy, then it is worthless. In my opinion, this is just the chicanery of a good lawyer who is able to put into practice any, the most and .diotic decision, if only a precedent is found. In my opinion, democracy should start, no matter how wrong it may seem, not from the law, but from the concepts, concepts inherent in the people. If the people have the main concept IS THAT EVERYTHING IS HONEST, then the laws for this people should be adopted on the basis of this concept "so that no ugly kind should deceive the people." Therefore, here in Russia, liberal laws, published according to Western patterns, will never take root, no matter how much the gentlemen there and here may want. In Russia, Western-style laws can only breed corruption. Our laws must proceed from the code of honor, that is, NOT ONE PERSON, BY LAW, HAS THE RIGHT TO BE A DECEIVER AND A SCILL. In our country, however, the leadership is still huddling and embarrassed to admit that Western laws do not work in Russia. You can borrow a lot of good things from the West, for example, cleanliness in toilets, and something else, but not laws. That's all.
  20. provincial
    provincial 21 November 2015 12: 02 New
    0
    Moscow. November 21. INTERFAX.RU - The leaders of the Baltic states have announced that they will not participate in the coalition to fight the "Islamic State" (the organization is banned in the Russian Federation) if Russia joins it. As reported by Delfi, this statement was made by the presidents of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia last night following a meeting in the Lithuanian Palanga.

    "Lithuania will not take part in any new coalition in which Russia participates or wants to participate," said Lithuanian President Dalia Grybauskaite.

    Estonian leader Toomas Hendrik Ilves, arguing for his country's refusal to participate in the unification, called Russia an "aggressor".

    The President of Latvia, Raimonds Vejonis, for his part, urged not to shift attention from Ukraine to the situation near the southern borders of the European Union.
  21. Basil50
    Basil50 21 November 2015 12: 26 New
    +2
    The colonial system of robbing colonies can have different beautiful and * correct * names, the essence does not change from this, and of course, the punishment of all those who do not want to obey the robber states can also be called beautiful and even romantic. In Libya, they destroyed the country, robbed and what * beautiful and sentimental * words were uttered. And so it is possible for each victim country of the American and European * democracies *.
  22. DobryAAH
    DobryAAH 21 November 2015 13: 43 New
    0
    They break the will and moral guidelines of a person. So that he would agree to Satanism in small steps. They want to ultimately create a faceless mass of slaves who live only for pleasure and a stomach. Transformation of a man into a pig. Such a mass will be led by reducing the number. The white race will be slammed, as the most thinking, it is not without reason that tolerance is instilled in the EU and the USA. Everything has already been described on the Internet. I believe that there was a false start with migrants in the EU. It is still early, while Orthodox Russia is still alive, they cannot arrange a melting pot in the EU. Therefore, they climb on us, and the "beloved Rothschilds" want to buy us through funds. There must be a barrier against all this.
    1. Nikolay K
      Nikolay K 21 November 2015 23: 55 New
      0
      I do not think that the fight against religion or morality is the conscious idea of ​​modern Western society. But the problem is that freedom on the one hand and religion with morality, on the other, are opposite things. Freedom provides the possibility of movement, and morality and religion provide stability, i.e. desire for peace. Therefore, the modern idea of ​​absolute freedom inherently conflicts with moral standards and religious dogmas. But Westerners simply do not have the mind to understand these elementary things.
  23. rotfuks
    rotfuks 21 November 2015 16: 03 New
    0
    The task of raising a person of a special kind is being fulfilled. Obedient tolerant worker cattle.
  24. gergi
    gergi 21 November 2015 19: 46 New
    +1
    The current liberals are fighting for the well-fed happiness of American blacks. For the sake of this happiness, they drown in the blood of all who reach out. The USA is a country of jubilant meanness and liberalists of all countries are their legion.