Forum

Personally for myself - undoubtedly.
Every outside opinion is checked for adequacy, after which it either becomes mine, is discarded as crap, or put on the back burner (if its adequacy is unclear).

Some might, some might not.

The opinion that you express is stimulated for distribution precisely by those very organizations you describe. You define them yourself as unfriendly; the first step is taken, now it remains to understand that having such an opinion in your consciousness is beneficial to them, and then to see how they lobby it in the mass consciousness.

damn)
I didn't mean those organizations, not those people (I define those people as unfriendly, everything is correct), when I spoke about the fact that in every field, on every issue, there are far more qualified people. And isn't it logical to assume that by virtue of their greater qualification in this field and friendly attitude, their opinion is more correct than my own, even if I am absolutely certain of mine?

On the contrary, it is beneficial for these organizations that as little as possible be said or known about them and their cannibalistic plans. So why would they themselves stimulate someone to spread what they want to hide by all means necessary? Ignorant people are easier to manage and lead toward the "cliff."

But lately, these organizations—the "Committee of 300" (the wealthiest clans in the world)—couldn't care less whether someone speaks of their cannibalistic plans or not, because they believe that nothing and no one can stop the realization of their intentions.

If you or I had received such power, our minds would have snapped in a similar way. Not for nothing do they say: if you want to know what a person is really like, give them power.

It is precisely not beneficial for them that people be informed and aware of them and their plans; they want to remain in the shadows as much as possible.
So why would they stimulate something that is not beneficial to them? Especially among the masses?

The opinion of a father and mother is definitely not inherently unfriendly, but it should be checked for adequacy relative to oneself and the objective situation. And the older you get, the more you must check.

Well, and on what basis do you determine the adequacy of an alternative point of view that does not correspond to your own, which I, you, or we consider inherently correct only because it is ours (because we identify ourselves with it, or it with ourselves), due to the fact that we love ourselves a priori?

Well naturally, my opinion is based on something; it would be strange to deny the wisdom accumulated by humanity. But that doesn't make it any less mine.

But what if my opinion is based not on accumulated wisdom, but on a mistaken perception? And since I have accepted this mistaken opinion as my own, I begin to defend it, consider it the most correct (because I am proud, therefore I consider myself the smartest, therefore I also consider the point of view I adopted to be the most correct), and I begin to consider the person who tells me I am wrong as an enemy? Because if their opinion is correct, then mine is incorrect, meaning I was wrong, meaning I'm not the smartest, meaning they are insulting me.

In my view, conflicts, senseless arguments, etc., arise precisely because a person puts their own opinion at the center of everything.

A very superficial judgment. Like any general phenomenon, pride has both pros and cons.

Although I don't quite understand what pride has to do with this; imho some other word should have been used, but that's not the point.

Everything is correct; it is very difficult to discern any negative quality in oneself. "We do not see the beams in our own eyes, but we notice a speck in another's."

Please name even one plus of pride?
Pride means: I am Chapay, and who are you? And you can't treat me like that anymore! What are the pros of such a position?

And what word is better to use for a person who puts their own opinion at the center of everything?

Isn't it logical, when discussing chess for example, to rely on the opinion of someone qualified in this field?

I am also undoubtedly very proud; sometimes I see this in myself, sometimes I don't.

This is a commendable desire; the issues under discussion are quite relevant.

To be honest, it's interesting talking to you too :)
Your argumentation is quite detailed; one can understand why you think this way or that.

No, no, "proving" is not the goal... rather to knock someone down a peg + stop the spread of the contagion. You simply relayed several propaganda theses, both in content and form, which is why I got riled up and launched a counter-wave.

But where your own text appears—not chanting slogans, but some reflections and reasonings—I have no particular negativity toward that. I liked the Eastern story.

Fine), but why did it rile you up? Because it doesn't correspond to your understanding of things? And therefore threatens the inherent correctness of my own understanding, my rationality?

Like you, I try to understand and analyze various spheres of our lives based on the same common sense; naturally, I can easily be mistaken (due to the imperfection of senses and organs of perception), which is why I believe it is necessary to turn to people more qualified in the field under consideration.

If we are talking about chess, isn't it logical to turn to Anand, Kasparov, Karpov, etc., and put their opinion at the center? And then consider one's own opinion in light of theirs, not vice versa?

Even one slogan that I chanted? Did I call for anything negative?

The only way to fight this total deception, these cannibals of the 20th-21st centuries, is not to be in ignorance regarding what is happening around us! To try to be human, not to live only for sleep, sex, food, and defense.

And since you liked the story ), there is one Eastern wisdom:

"if something in another person irritates me, then that same negative quality which makes them irritate me also exists within me; otherwise it wouldn't rile me up or irritate me."

References to some closed info in such discussions are not very correct. If it is to be presented, it should be in the form of "rumor has it that...", and not as a truth.

Why is it incorrect?

In my view, the secrecy of any information, the unwillingness of state structures to publicize it only increases its authority!

But it's not even that closed; it's just not publicized: by googling well, one can stumble upon a ZAGS report—the place where information about births and deaths is recorded—according to which there are already 89 million of us, instead of the official 142 according to census data (which in my view is no more than a spectacle).

The same is claimed by Herman Sterligov, for example; I have more reasons to believe him than state media:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2yYhhZYaDg - Sterligov on population size and agricultural development strategies.

Your texts press on emotions, on the subconscious. That is how agitation is conducted. I try to press on logic, on the analysis of the situation and the development of a holistic vision.

I am trying to appeal to facts; sorry if I caused you any distress.

But what am I agitating for? To not be in ignorance? So as not to be "Ivans who remember no kinship"?

Understanding the same plight of the situation is not a reason for despondency ("dropping one's hands, feet :)") etc.

If someone tells me there is a hole in our boat, are they pressing my emotions? Is that a reason to give up? Isn't it a reason to stop the leak?
-====and in this case "stopping the leak" means not being in ignorance===-

You're great; your logic is reasoned and your holistic vision is quite attractive—but I cannot agree with much of it, sorry.

___________________________
___________________________

In the Bhavishya Purana: there is a story, a prediction about the mission of Lord Jesus Christ 2 thousand years before his appearance:

Once one of the last emperors of all the earth, Maharaja (maha - great, raja - king) Miti, through mantra meditation rose to the 2nd level of the Himalayas. (Now we know that the highest point in the world is Everest at about 9 kilometers; the average height of the subtle-material unmanifested level of the Himalayas is 16 thousand meters). There he met a sadhu (saint) in white robes; he asked, "Who are you, sadhu?" The Sadhu answered: "Isha putra ma vidi kumari garbhi sam bava": "I am the son of God born of a virgin, I have come to create a new religion for mlechhas (meat-eaters, for us) and stop their process of degradation, and you must know about this." Christ told him that he sought spiritual knowledge, and Miti pointed him toward Bharata-varsha, modern India. In many Hindu temples, evidence remains that Christ was there. To this day, a huge number of people worship the Mother of God and Christ there.

It is described that he knew what they would do to him; it is also described that he had Sidho-deho—a completely spiritual body that cannot be destroyed by any kind of weapon, but such was his mission, his duty: to show how to save the eternal soul and not the body, how to break out of the wheel of Samsara—the endless cycle of births and deaths—the "concept of resurrection." Which fully corresponds to the nirvana of Lord Buddha, the Vedic concept of the meaning of life.

Further it describes how Christ from age 13 to 30 traveled through modern India, how he studied under spiritual teachers, how caste Brahmins (priests) tried to kill him, how he was in Ilavrita-varsha (varsha - part of the earth), where there are rivers of kissel, honey, and milk, described specifically in Russian folk tales. Also, for example, in Russian tales there is a "thrice-ninth kingdom," a "thrice-tenth state"; Vedic cosmology asserts that these numbers indicate dimensions of time and space.

Vedic cosmology describes the structure of the cosmos and specifically Bhumi-loka (Earth).
According to this description, Earth consists of nine concentric circles separated by oceans; the island in the center is called Jambu-dwipa, which is also divided into 9 equal parts, one of which is Bharata-varsha, where we currently live. Further it describes how at age 30 he returned and preached his mission. Specifically, there are descriptions of how he told the scribes and Pharisees—that you are children of the devil.

In other Puranas, there is a description of the beginning of our era, Kali Yuga; it describes how a personality like Kali—described in the Bible as the tempting serpent, the devil—tells the sages who gathered to stop the arrival of the Age of Kali and its destructive influence that he has come by the command of time, that they must fulfill their duty while he fulfills his, and he says he will spread his destructive influence through "Adam's tribe."

And Hasidim are descendants of Adamy (Adam) and Avyevati (Eve) | (a - negation, dama - yog controlling his senses; avyevati - born by fire sacrifice, or vikambara - a living being devoid of bodily concept). It is described how the sages performed Ashvamedha-yagiya—the fire (mystical fire, a more subtle kind of fire in which a living being feels no pain) sacrifice of a horse, as a result of which if the mantras are pronounced correctly (rhythm, timbre, etc. are important), the soul—the living being itself residing in the body of the horse—receives a new, different coarse physical body: the body of a woman (this is one of the most complex sacrifices). But since degradation had already begun, they pronounced it incorrectly, and besides the woman, a fruit—an apple—rolled out of the fire, which absorbed all the sinful reactions of the people of that time and place; this same story in another form is described in the Bible.

Kali's task is to destroy culture; this is his mission (in this case, he is the executor of the karma of people who earned the opportunity to be born in the Age-Kali [the age of degradation, loss of knowledge, senseless enmity and arguments. It began approximately 5 thousand years ago [this is exactly when the main events described in the Bible begin to unfold]]), and since he acts through "Adam's tribe," whose descendants are the Hasidim—specifically the Hasidic-Freemason group—that is why they try by all means to destroy culture, and consequently its carriers: Slavs, Hindus, Veneds, Aryans, etc.

The serpent Kali, or Kalia—described in the Bible as the devil, Satan, and so on.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kCElkertCg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ocmv00VS9NQ - Venedian Rus in pictures, artist Konstantin Vasilyev)

This information specifically answers the question of why the Hasidic-Freemason group acts so cruelly and treacherously, and why they need this at all.
I am by no means calling for any national hatred in any form; in this case, "these guys" are executors of our karma, which means that sometime in past lives, we ourselves acted similarly toward other people.

Moreover, revenge only breeds revenge, and is satisfied by nothing but forgiveness.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I apologize for the mistakes and typos, thanks for your attention.