Do we need to love our state?
In our life in recent decades, the phrase: "I love my country, but I hate our state." Repeatedly, it came across in the comments on the site.
This expression has always seemed controversial to me, but somehow there was somehow no time for controversy. The other day, I read A. Maslov's book “Watching the Chinese,” and his analysis of the national psychology of our eastern neighbors prompted me to return to this problem.
Briefly from the book: “The national psychology and business ethics of the Chinese is embodied in society in the form of written and unwritten laws, norms of relationships and hierarchies, commonly known as Confucianism ...
... Confucianism preached several of the most important ideas on which Chinese political culture is still based:
1. The state is a priority value for each person; serving the state, the ruler, whatever it may be, is the duty of any citizen. The Chinese, even if they are unhappy with something in their state, always stand on the side of China as a supra-social entity, fear the state and see it as their only reliable advocate ...
... All Chinese are patriots ... Chinese love ... China as some historical community. The Chinese are statesmen in their essence. No matter where the Chinese live, inside or outside China, they always remain loyal to their state and their culture ...
... both in the past and today it is always emphasized that China has a special way of development, to which no Western schemes are applicable ... "
The idea that the stability of Chinese civilization for 4 for thousands of years has been explained precisely by this quality of its citizens is affirmed by the author several times.
When comparing the views on the state of the Chinese and some of our citizens, the difference becomes clear when solving the crisis of socialism in our countries. The Chinese have rolled out on the Tiananmen Square the meager slaves of Western civilization who have imagined themselves capable of driving the people into a global stall of democracy. As a result, China is flourishing and developing, becoming (become?) A superpower, the well-being of its citizens is steadily increasing.
The leadership of our country - including relying on the opinion of a part of the population - did not dare to use force against Moscow imbeciles. Having saved the lives of a certain crowd of American puppets, the people paid for this “humanism” with millions of completely normal lives, including those who were not born. Official statistics do not tell the whole truth, but doctors, professionally in contact with this problem, argue that for decades in Russia, up to 6 million abortions were performed per year. Multiplying this number only by 4 of the year and adding the tsunami of alcoholism to death (according to 40000-50000 people per year died from surrogates), drug addiction, industrial injuries, gangster clashes, etc., we get approximately the same 30 million people who died in the war against fascism.
Only the democracy that won in Russia does not last 4 of the year, like the Great Patriotic War, but much longer. And she was able to achieve such achievements in the genocide of the Russian people that the fascists never dreamed of.
Firstly, it is the “Russian cross”, when for the first time in history in peacetime the number of deaths began to catastrophically exceed the number of births. What was struck the whole world.
But, most importantly, if the fascists took the sin of killing people on their souls, then the Democrats created such living conditions that the Russians themselves began to kill their children before birth.
And then the question arises: do we need a democracy that is worse than fascism?
By the way, this victory of democracy in Russia was already the second in the twentieth century. The first occurred in February 1917. The democrats-masons could not cope with the country (in practice, managing it turned out to be much more difficult than in dreams), and the RSDLP, whose members are now persistently called Bolsheviks, took power, trying not to recall that in fact they were the most democratic , albeit with the prefix "social".
And the result was similar: as a result of the victory of the democrats, a civil war broke out in the country, which took lives from 30 to 40. In the course of the terror unleashed by the Trotskyists, entire sections (classes) of society were destroyed. Families of priests and noblemen, officers and merchants, Cossacks and wealthy peasants were driven into barges ... All, including mothers with babies in their arms, were drowned in rivers. No wonder that the Russian emigration of that time portrayed Trotsky in a Masonic apron with his hands up to his elbows in blood on a mountain of human skulls.
Nowadays, crafty crafty media are trying to put the responsibility for terror entirely on Stalin. However, as Vadim Kozhinov showed in his studies, Stalin was not the organizer of the repressions. He received them from the Trotskyists. Nobody could stop the repressive apparatus sharply: he himself would have fallen victim to it. But Stalin managed to significantly reduce the scale of repression (according to the research results of V. Kozhinov, 35 times as compared with the Trotskyists) and pass the organizers of this terror through this mechanism. What he can not forgive the descendants of these organizers.
As a result, we see that the Russians in the twentieth century crushed their imperfect states twice, after which the whole country washed for a long time with blood, and as a result received the worst versions of government.
It's a shame. After all, this could have been avoided. Many pre-revolutionary prominent figures warned of the mortal danger of democracy. About this wrote, for example, K.P. Pobedonostsev in the article "The great lie of our time."
You could just turn on your brains. After all, everyone knows that any person is imperfect. This means that any state consisting of concrete imperfect people will also be imperfect. It can only be improved by evolution. For life shows that in any war, especially civil one, the most honest and noble people are the first to die. And survive, as a rule, in the mass of the most cunning and mean. And these better states cannot build by definition.
I hope that, having read the written and remembered my life baggage, all normal people will understand that the question in the title of the article is rhetorical.
PS But let's not forget that, unfortunately, many not quite normal people live among us. Who sincerely believe that they are the smartest in the world, and the anchovies around them are simply obliged to give them the opportunity to rearrange the world at their discretion. According to which the existing world is imperfect and must be completely destroyed. And then, according to their intentions (if anchovies will only be able to conform to the plans of the elect), a new world will be built, perfect, in which, by the way, there should be no place for every wretched anchovy.
And before you run on the Maidan, you need to think carefully about how the whole thing can end. Examples before eyes. And not only Ukraine. Everywhere, where overseas serfs have destroyed their states, we observe the same picture: the people are paying with ruin and blood.
References:
1. Kozhinov V.V. "Russia. Century XX. 1939-1964. M .: Algorithm, 1999
2. Maslov A.A. Watching the Chinese. M .: Ripol-classic, 2010
3. Pobedonostsev K.P. The great lie of our time. M .: Russian book, 1993
This expression has always seemed controversial to me, but somehow there was somehow no time for controversy. The other day, I read A. Maslov's book “Watching the Chinese,” and his analysis of the national psychology of our eastern neighbors prompted me to return to this problem.
Briefly from the book: “The national psychology and business ethics of the Chinese is embodied in society in the form of written and unwritten laws, norms of relationships and hierarchies, commonly known as Confucianism ...
... Confucianism preached several of the most important ideas on which Chinese political culture is still based:
1. The state is a priority value for each person; serving the state, the ruler, whatever it may be, is the duty of any citizen. The Chinese, even if they are unhappy with something in their state, always stand on the side of China as a supra-social entity, fear the state and see it as their only reliable advocate ...
... All Chinese are patriots ... Chinese love ... China as some historical community. The Chinese are statesmen in their essence. No matter where the Chinese live, inside or outside China, they always remain loyal to their state and their culture ...
... both in the past and today it is always emphasized that China has a special way of development, to which no Western schemes are applicable ... "
The idea that the stability of Chinese civilization for 4 for thousands of years has been explained precisely by this quality of its citizens is affirmed by the author several times.
When comparing the views on the state of the Chinese and some of our citizens, the difference becomes clear when solving the crisis of socialism in our countries. The Chinese have rolled out on the Tiananmen Square the meager slaves of Western civilization who have imagined themselves capable of driving the people into a global stall of democracy. As a result, China is flourishing and developing, becoming (become?) A superpower, the well-being of its citizens is steadily increasing.
The leadership of our country - including relying on the opinion of a part of the population - did not dare to use force against Moscow imbeciles. Having saved the lives of a certain crowd of American puppets, the people paid for this “humanism” with millions of completely normal lives, including those who were not born. Official statistics do not tell the whole truth, but doctors, professionally in contact with this problem, argue that for decades in Russia, up to 6 million abortions were performed per year. Multiplying this number only by 4 of the year and adding the tsunami of alcoholism to death (according to 40000-50000 people per year died from surrogates), drug addiction, industrial injuries, gangster clashes, etc., we get approximately the same 30 million people who died in the war against fascism.
Only the democracy that won in Russia does not last 4 of the year, like the Great Patriotic War, but much longer. And she was able to achieve such achievements in the genocide of the Russian people that the fascists never dreamed of.
Firstly, it is the “Russian cross”, when for the first time in history in peacetime the number of deaths began to catastrophically exceed the number of births. What was struck the whole world.
But, most importantly, if the fascists took the sin of killing people on their souls, then the Democrats created such living conditions that the Russians themselves began to kill their children before birth.
And then the question arises: do we need a democracy that is worse than fascism?
By the way, this victory of democracy in Russia was already the second in the twentieth century. The first occurred in February 1917. The democrats-masons could not cope with the country (in practice, managing it turned out to be much more difficult than in dreams), and the RSDLP, whose members are now persistently called Bolsheviks, took power, trying not to recall that in fact they were the most democratic , albeit with the prefix "social".
And the result was similar: as a result of the victory of the democrats, a civil war broke out in the country, which took lives from 30 to 40. In the course of the terror unleashed by the Trotskyists, entire sections (classes) of society were destroyed. Families of priests and noblemen, officers and merchants, Cossacks and wealthy peasants were driven into barges ... All, including mothers with babies in their arms, were drowned in rivers. No wonder that the Russian emigration of that time portrayed Trotsky in a Masonic apron with his hands up to his elbows in blood on a mountain of human skulls.
Nowadays, crafty crafty media are trying to put the responsibility for terror entirely on Stalin. However, as Vadim Kozhinov showed in his studies, Stalin was not the organizer of the repressions. He received them from the Trotskyists. Nobody could stop the repressive apparatus sharply: he himself would have fallen victim to it. But Stalin managed to significantly reduce the scale of repression (according to the research results of V. Kozhinov, 35 times as compared with the Trotskyists) and pass the organizers of this terror through this mechanism. What he can not forgive the descendants of these organizers.
As a result, we see that the Russians in the twentieth century crushed their imperfect states twice, after which the whole country washed for a long time with blood, and as a result received the worst versions of government.
It's a shame. After all, this could have been avoided. Many pre-revolutionary prominent figures warned of the mortal danger of democracy. About this wrote, for example, K.P. Pobedonostsev in the article "The great lie of our time."
You could just turn on your brains. After all, everyone knows that any person is imperfect. This means that any state consisting of concrete imperfect people will also be imperfect. It can only be improved by evolution. For life shows that in any war, especially civil one, the most honest and noble people are the first to die. And survive, as a rule, in the mass of the most cunning and mean. And these better states cannot build by definition.
I hope that, having read the written and remembered my life baggage, all normal people will understand that the question in the title of the article is rhetorical.
PS But let's not forget that, unfortunately, many not quite normal people live among us. Who sincerely believe that they are the smartest in the world, and the anchovies around them are simply obliged to give them the opportunity to rearrange the world at their discretion. According to which the existing world is imperfect and must be completely destroyed. And then, according to their intentions (if anchovies will only be able to conform to the plans of the elect), a new world will be built, perfect, in which, by the way, there should be no place for every wretched anchovy.
And before you run on the Maidan, you need to think carefully about how the whole thing can end. Examples before eyes. And not only Ukraine. Everywhere, where overseas serfs have destroyed their states, we observe the same picture: the people are paying with ruin and blood.
References:
1. Kozhinov V.V. "Russia. Century XX. 1939-1964. M .: Algorithm, 1999
2. Maslov A.A. Watching the Chinese. M .: Ripol-classic, 2010
3. Pobedonostsev K.P. The great lie of our time. M .: Russian book, 1993
Information