Connection ErrorBad RequestSession ExpiredSign in requiredForbiddenNot FoundToo Many RequestsServer ErrorBad GatewayService UnavailableGateway TimeoutHTTP Version Not Supported
Session Expired
Your session has expired. Please log in to continue.
Sign in required
You need an account to do that. Sign in or create one — it only takes a minute.
Request Failed
We encountered an issue while processing your request.
Please check your internet connection and try again.
Vik is a comedian :) He accuses Oelm of not reading carefully, but he himself didn't even understand the end of the world (the main idea of this book!!!) :)))
What are you talking about, clown? What main idea are you referring to? :)
The main point is to realize that it wasn't Stalin, or any leaders of countries north of the Black Sea, who set an example of imperial organization of life for the world. It wasn't Stalin, Hitler, or Ivan the Terrible who first taught the rest of the world to burn people en masse in furnaces and put them under saws. It wasn't them who covered the walls of captured cities with the skin of prisoners. This was done by the "gentle" Israeli king David, his Assyrian colleagues, their predecessors, and their closest followers in the very First Empire and the countries that arose from its ruins.
The system is "man-to-man." This is typical for this entirely propagandistic work. For example, before this, Khomyakov spends a long time and comprehensively proving the conventionality of official history, citing facts, and it seems that he naturally leads us to the thought that the further back in time we go, the more uncertainty, vagueness, and speculation there is. But, as if nothing had happened, at the end, he inevitably has to mention King David and his Assyrian colleagues. Isn't this an attempt to form a conditional reflex – King David is the source of evil, cruelty, destruction, etc.? This statement is certainly false, not because King David or the Babylonians were not cruel. They probably were. But to seriously consider them teachers for future generations of kings, emperors, and monarchs can only be done by a person who has become dull from the ideas of nationalism.
And this is the case for the ENTIRE monograph.
P.S. The same chapter begins with the words
Undoubtedly, the Great Patriotic War was the central event in the history of the USSR and Russia in the 20th century. Without a correct understanding of this war, nothing can be understood in our recent past.
Oh, how interesting it would be to read the "professor's" opinion on this topic. But no – perhaps he was told to write about it as a partisan. The customers of this article did not allow him to dwell on such topics. Instead, you will be provided with a lot of paranoia of a different kind. Enjoy!
2 Oelm
Searching for flaws boosts one's ego. Searching for constructive ideas develops one's mind. When I read texts like this, I don't pay attention to the flaws at all. The value isn't in them, but in the idea that the author is trying to express. When I grasp the idea, then I start to justify it, perhaps in a completely different way than the author. And this justification becomes my personal creativity and my opinion. And the author is often forgotten after that, especially if they really provided a poor justification.
So, the idea here is interesting. Both for personal use and for expansion outwards.
An important point is that there is a clear shortage of ideology in the world right now. The Soviet idea died 20 years ago, the last European one died 65 years ago, and the American one is dying now. What remains are the Chinese and Muslim ideas. Both of them, of course, are not suitable for white people.
Therefore, there is an active search for this very ideology right now. Everything that even remotely resembles it is being tested. It is difficult to say what they will ultimately latch onto; it could be something very simple and primitive, made on the fly, as long as it excites the crowd.
It is clear that Comrade Khomyakov's work cannot be compared to Marx's "Capital," either in size or in scientific rigor. But in the absence of anything better, people will eat what they can find. After all, not all Bolsheviks read "Capital," and the thinking of many did not extend beyond "beat the landowners and capitalists." But Khomyakov's work analyzes things much more deeply.
In addition, let's look at what is happening in developed countries. And what is happening there is this: there is a wave of resentment against immigrants. Gypsies are being expelled from France and they are targeting Arabs, in Germany they are targeting Turks, in England they are targeting everyone, and everywhere leading politicians are talking about the failure of multiculturalism. And in Russia, the slogans on Manezhnaya Square, I think everyone knows what was being said.
That is, the radical nationalism that Khomyakov preaches is not a marginal trend, but the most fashionable one. That is, there is a good chance that someone, somewhere, will adopt it in one form or another. Perhaps not Khomyakov himself, but someone else; the essence of it will not change. And he will definitely have arguments to draw on (or independently come up with the same thing), because he has dug up many different ones, and many of them may be useful.
And those who skim through and read phrases like "And so the ENTIRE monograph" will, as usual, just shrug it off and then be surprised, looking through their pince-nez, and wonder: what is this drunken rabble doing in the Winter Palace?
I'll try to answer briefly:
1. It's obvious that Yura is encountering these kinds of ideas, concepts, and thoughts for the first time, which is probably why he sincerely believes that Khomyakov's formulations are original and therefore valuable. I'm going to disappoint him: among the roughly fifty theses of this "personality" that I skimmed through, I didn't see a single one that could be considered original (except for a few insignificant ones). This is enough for me to stop studying it, because something worthwhile cannot be a mere compilation, even if it's well done. In general, I already pointed this out to you, but you're starting again about "Khomyakov's original ideas."
Here are a few examples:
To figure out for yourself who and what is "us" and who and what is "them."
However, according to sociological surveys, most modern Americans think that in World War II, the USSR was an ally of Nazi Germany. And the USA and England fought against this coalition.
In conclusion, when discussing the scientific aspects of our book, let us note that the author is a staunch opponent of the current trend of denying a number of basic scientific doctrines. Behind the guise of this kind of scientific modernism, the same irrationalism that we hate is actually being promoted.
However, nowadays, we often see a new synthesis of propaganda, religion, and entertainment. The Western Church, for example, is becoming increasingly theatrical. And in the 20th century, theater became either a tool of crude propaganda, as in totalitarian regimes, or a tool for lowering the intellectual level through delusional modernism and even more delusional postmodernism.
In terms of the history and ecology of their development, people who have not progressed beyond the Eastern Mediterranean are in an intermediate position between black and white people. Again, this should not be understood in a simplistic way, as some kind of mixture of white and black.
There was simply a mode of formation of the white race. And as a result, the white man was formed. And there was a mode of formation of the black race. And as a result, the black man was formed.
And so on.
That is, the radical nationalism that Khomyakov preaches is not a marginal trend, but the most fashionable one. That is, with a good probability, someone will seize upon it in one form or another. Perhaps not Khomyakov himself, but someone else, but this will not change anything. And he will definitely have arguments to draw on (or independently come up with the same things), because he has gathered many different ones, and many of them may be useful.
Marginality does not exclude trendiness, and vice versa. But nationalism certainly does not claim to be original or new, in any form or under any guise. Moreover, anyone interested in history will recognize that nationalistic ideas usually appear during times of crisis and decline, like miasmas on the body of a seriously ill person, and not during periods of prosperity. That is, in a sense, these words are synonyms: nationalism, crisis, decline.
By the way, I don't know of any state that, during its period of power, was based on national ideas.
The fact that this is becoming a trend in the modern world (I wouldn't assert this, but there are prerequisites) is only a symptom of the decay and decline of the current world order. What will replace it is more in the realm of science fiction; at least, I won't even try to predict it.
What is primarily associated with nationalism for me is African tribal wars, UNA-UPA, and Nazism.
The nail in the coffin of nationalism: if Nazism had not been based on a national idea, then, according to many people who are authoritative for me, it would have had a very high chance of winning World War II. (I just found a schizophrenic point of view of Khomyakov himself. It turns out that Hitler was not prevented from winning by nationalism, but by SOCIALISM, many emojis).
Now, about something more serious. About those who, adjusting their pince-nez, were surprised by the capture of the Winter Palace. Even if we assume that the worst-case scenario awaits the Earth – wars, catastrophes, terror, degeneration, the triumph of nationalism – what will Khomyakov's knowledge, as well as similar literature, give people? The ability to organize resistance? To blend in with nationalists in time? Or the answer to the question of what to do? Personally, this will definitely not help me acquire anything.
P.S.
Imagine that you and I decided to study some topic in your field of expertise. C++ 10.36 Vista. I think that in this case, even if you were just skimming through it, you would still be incomparably more competent than me, trying to study unfamiliar territory.
1. It is obvious that Yura has encountered such ideas — concepts — thoughts for the first time; perhaps that is why he sincerely believes that Khomyakov's formulations are something original and therefore valuable. I'll have to disappoint: among the nearly fifty theses of this "personality," which I took the liberty of skimming "diagonally," I didn't see a single one claiming originality (except for some completely insignificant ones). This is quite enough for me to stop studying it, as a worthy thing cannot be a mere compilation, even if it is well done. In general, I've already pointed this out to you, but you're starting again with "Kh.'s original ideas."
Individually, I have of course seen many of these theses before. But all together — yes, I haven't. If you have, share the link, I'll read it.
Ideology differs from a set of ideas in that within an ideology, ideas are organized, given a certain cohesive form, and instructions are formed on what to do with them.
Marginality does not exclude trendiness, and vice versa. But nationalism certainly does not claim originality or novelty, regardless of how it is prepared or under what sauce.
History develops in a spiral... each subsequent turn is similar to the previous one, yet differs from it.
Economic crises, for instance, repeat according to Kondratiev's algorithm written about 85 years ago, yet each time the next crisis arrives "suddenly." Oh, a crisis. Just like winter for public utility services.
Moreover, anyone interested in history will admit that, as a rule, nationalist ideas appear at a moment of crisis and decline, like miasmas on the body of a critically ill patient, rather than during prosperity. That is, in a sense, these words are synonyms: nationalism — crisis — decline.
Oh, how debatable... and the cause-and-effect relationship is even more debatable. Take, for example, recent manifestations of nationalism — in the Soviet republics during the collapse of the USSR. It is clear that the surge of nationalism here was purely a consequence of the Union's decline.
Essentially, the modern surge of nationalism is a kind of reaction to the decline of the global economy. And the delay is perfectly visible — first the crisis, then the ramp-up of nationalist ideas. Moreover, in many places independently of each other.
Which is understandable — in conditions of a dwindling trough, one has to start fighting to preserve one's share in it, taking that share from others. That is, some marker of "us vs them" is needed. Racial and national characteristics have served as a good dividing line in all times, and today's situation is no exception.
Now for something more serious. About those who, adjusting their pince-nez, wondered at the seizure of the Winter Palace. Even if we assume that the worst-case scenario awaits Earth — wars-catastrophes-terror-degeneration — the triumph of nationalism. What will Khomyakov's knowledge, as well as similar literature, give people? The ability to organize resistance? To mimic nationalists in time? Or an answer to the question of what to do? Personally, this will definitely help me acquire nothing.
Well, it gave me an understanding of the philosophical basis of Russian national-extremism. Before reading this text, I didn't have such an understanding. Although, I wasn't specifically looking for it, and here it just fell into my hands, so I read it. And at the same time, I realized the scale of the problem — that is, perhaps, the main benefit.
As for how this understanding can be used — I have no idea. Maybe it'll be useful, maybe not. In any case, knowledge is never redundant, especially in light of the factors I pointed out.
By the way, I don't know a single state — in its period of power — that was based on national ideas.
That depends on what is meant by "power"... if it's the size of the territory and the number of subjects, then naturally national ideas won't work here — imperial mechanisms are needed to incorporate neighboring peoples into the state. Khomyakov examines this process in detail.
What first associates with nationalism for me — African internecine wars. UNA-UPA. Hitlerism.
Try to make your associative array richer. Add examples from past centuries-millennia. You'll see the coloring of the term change. Especially if you add examples of Russian nationalism.
Regarding Hitler, keep in mind that he has such a reputation now simply because he lost recently, and in politics it is common practice to portray recent opponents in the darkest light possible. They probably spoke even worse of Carthage in the 2nd century BC, and now for us it's just a historical episode, a struggle for the right to lead the development of humanity. I think in about 500 years, a similar attitude will be toward Hitler.
The nail in the coffin of nationalism: if Hitlerism had not been based on a national idea, then, in the opinion of many people authoritative to me, it would have had extremely high chances of winning the Second World War.
A very debatable opinion... I would say that such opinions are generally anti-intellectual because they don't even allow for the possibility of constructive verification. From the series "if my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a bicycle."
P.S. Imagine that you and I decided to study some topic in your specialty. C++ 10.36 Vista. I think that in this case, even reading "diagonally," you would still be incomparably more competent than I, attempting to study territories unknown to me.
I didn't quite understand what this phrase is for. Is your specialty related to politics/economics/ideology? Well then, tell me, a fool, how it all works there. I'm not imposing my opinion here in the topic; rather, the opposite, I wish to obtain them, even if through a dispute-discussion.
1. You can ask any of your nationalist acquaintances for a list of nationalist literature (I think you have some), and they will probably not refuse. It is also distributed in special places (I used to know a few). Also, follow the link I gave you - poiskpravdy (correct the last letter in the name to y), it has many links to resources with a nationalist spirit; I apologize in advance for the lack of structure.
2.
Oh, how debatable... and even more debatable is the cause-and-effect relationship. Take, for example, the recent examples of nationalism - in the Soviet republics during the collapse of the USSR. It is clear that the surge of nationalism here was purely a consequence of the decline of the Union.
I did not indicate a cause-and-effect relationship. I only noted that nationalism is a kind of indicator and symptom of a disease. Which, in particular, manifested itself in the former republics of the USSR.
3.
It depends on what is meant by power... if it is the size of the territory and the number of subjects, then national ideas are obviously not applicable here.
I would like examples, and your own, not Khomyakov's.
4. Regarding the associative series, the same applies; it would be helpful to have examples.
5.
The final nail in the coffin of nationalism: if Hitlerism had not been based on a national idea, then, according to many people who are authoritative for me, it would have had a very high chance of winning World War II.
A very controversial opinion... I would say that such opinions are anti-intellectual because they do not even allow for the possibility of constructive verification.
On the contrary, there is room for analysis. You are probably not very familiar with military affairs. Neither am I. But, as you understand, the analysis and preparation for war takes many days, hours, years at the Ministry of Defense and not only. At the same time, when a war happens, there is only one real scenario. And subsequently, any military campaign is analyzed, thoroughly and in detail. Not only in the erotic plane, but also in terms of what would happen if grandma had a penis, and what would happen if grandma had 3.5 testicles and 10 members pointing backwards of different colors. By the way, Khomyakov expressed his position on this, and you will find it if you are interested.
But, in general, it is only appropriate to raise this issue if you have a good knowledge of the subject.
1. You can ask any of your nationalist acquaintances for a list of nationalist literature (I think you have some), they will probably not refuse. It is also distributed in special places (I used to know a few). Also, follow the link I gave you - poiskpravdy (correct the last letter in the name to y), it has many links to resources of a nationalist spirit, I apologize in advance for the lack of structure.
Thanks, I'll take a look.
I did not indicate a cause-and-effect relationship. I just noted that nationalism is a kind of indicator and symptom of a disease. Which, in particular, manifested itself in the former republics of the USSR.
But what's the use of this indicator? Okay, let's say it's an indicator, but what's the conclusion?
I would like examples, and your own, not Khomyakov's.
The same goes for the associative series - it would be more meaningful with examples.
Let me remind you that I don't have the task of convincing you. The task is to get information, not to instill it.
Moreover, to answer your questions, you only need Google and basic knowledge of history.
On the contrary, there is room for analysis. You are probably not very familiar with military affairs. Neither am I. But, as you understand, the analysis and preparation for war takes many days, hours, years at the Ministry of Defense and not only. At the same time, when a war happens, there is only one real scenario. And subsequently, any military campaign is analyzed, thoroughly and in detail. In the erotic plane, not only on the option "if grandma had a penis," but also on the subject of what would happen if grandma had 3.5 eggs and 10 members bent back of different colors.
I'm afraid that even the best experts will not be able to convincingly answer the question "how would World War II have ended if Hitler had a different ideology." This is an impossible task. This is a case where it is easier to come up with and even implement than to predict.
Here’s an observation, by the way. Practically all the nationalist movements I know of were founded and developed not on “nationalist ideas,” not on the idea of uniting based on blood, skin color, etc., but primarily on a focus on fighting an external enemy. That is, Ukrainian nationalists, Baltic nationalists, and Russian nationalists all fit perfectly into this pattern. It is quite possible that without an external enemy, it is difficult to impose such a perverted ideology on a sane person. Isn’t this the difference between nationalist ideas and national ideas? It is obvious that they should not be mixed. Here is an example of a national idea: “Orthodoxy, autocracy, and national identity.”
Do you have any thoughts?
Let me remind you that my goal is not to convince you. The goal is to get information, not to implant it.
It won’t work; you will still have to step out from behind the mask of a “detached scholar.” The point is not Google, and it is not basic knowledge of history. I am interested in an assessment of a “prosperous state” specifically from your point of view.
Here's an observation, by the way. Practically all examples of nationalist movements I know of were based and developed not on "nationalist ideas", not on the idea of unification by blood, skin color, etc., but primarily on the premise of fighting an external enemy. That is, Ukrainian nationalists, Baltic ones, Russian ones — all fit perfectly into this pattern.
Well, naturally. I wrote about that above — when the size of the feeding trough shrinks, an external enemy appears. Where would it come from if there's enough food for everyone? And where there's an external enemy, there's a fight against it, for the feeding trough. And to fight crowd against crowd, each fighter needs to understand how to distinguish friend from foe. The easiest way to do this is by skin color, eye shape, accent. And historically, enemies have usually turned out to be people who differ precisely in these characteristics. So this mechanism is firmly hardwired into the human psyche. That's why nationalism is aggressive towards foreigners.
It's quite possible that without the presence of an external enemy, it's hard to impose such a perverted ideology on a sensible person.
Why is it perverted? It's actually the most natural — in the living world, all creatures live that way.
Isn't this the difference between nationalist ideas and national ones?
Please explain the difference.
It's obvious that they shouldn't be mixed. Here's an example of a national idea: "Orthodoxy, autocracy, nationality."
Well, I suppose I understand what Orthodoxy is. Though there are many questions here; modern Orthodoxy reminds me more of a retired general on a pension than an active political force.
But what autocracy and nationality are — I have no idea. This needs to be explained much more clearly. Otherwise the masses will follow the authors of slogans like "beat the hachi".
That won't fly; you'll still have to come out from behind the mask of "scholarly detachment." It's not about Google or basic knowledge of history. I'm interested in the assessment of a "prosperous state" specifically from your point of view.
Let's start with the fact that you were the first to raise this question. So explain — what is a "prosperous state"?
I started reading Khomyakov's book, which Vic recommended. It's a real page-turner. Considering how much I enjoy reading historical literature, I'll finish it. The book is vaguely reminiscent of Lev Gumilev's work, "The End and the Beginning." So far, I've read 31 pages (out of 353).
I stopped at: "The larger the controlled territory, the greater the number of enemies along the perimeter of the expanded borders."
The French and Germans have begun to consider the problem of nationality because the immigrants flooding their countries from the Far East do not integrate into the population, but instead form their own independent mini-colonies, erecting various monuments of architecture and history that do not belong to the achievements and history of their homeland, which is somehow connected to them. They live on benefits and do not work, which disrupts the economy. Naturally, this trend needs to be stopped somehow. Any situation that is not controlled by the state can lead to disastrous results and decline. China has introduced a quota on births, and some places are introducing quotas at the national level. Fortunately, in Russia, the most multinational country in the world, we have always managed to live together peacefully with different nations. It's pointless to poke your nose into other people's business – nothing good will come of it.
IMHO, literature is only for expanding knowledge and developing the human mind, broadening one's horizons, but not for practical application.
МУДРЫЙ - не обязательно старый, ОПЫТНЫЙ - не обязательно мудрый... обладатель и того и другого всегда должен помнить слова НАПОЛЕОНА БОНАПАРТА: Война состоит из непредусмотренных событий; В каждом большом деле всегда приходится какую-то часть оставить на долю :smile33: СЛУЧАЯ...
Wicc
