military experts
EnglishРусский中文(简体)FrançaisEspañol
Set as default language
 Edit Translation

idols, ideas and ideals

idols, ideas and ideals

Truly immeasurable is the human passion to burn. Especially if before that the same person was burned by the passion to worship the same object. Then the auto-da-fé becomes an act of self-purification, an act of priesthood in cursing the past and hoping for the blessing of the future.

That's just in such an act, as in any religious worship, convert plunges himself into severe self-blindness. Burdened above all by themes, that the new believer considers himself to be initiated, and therefore enlightened, enlightened, and therefore despising their hated past, illumined, because ravaged by their past.

We have seen one example of this for thirty years in that pathetic, with which the enlightened “de-ideologized” and “liberated from the ideological yoke” castigate the terrible ideological past. Bichyut, of course, from the position of "free from any ideology", from the point of view of "ironically related to any ideology", on behalf of "outgrown ideological childhood".

We have seen and heard this. And more than once. We've been told many times, that Christianity has long been overcome and outdated, and here, at the beginning of the 21st century, it turns out, that his legacy is not really mastered, not implemented in people's lives, did not turn into an unconditional fact, at least in, what is pointless to argue. Or, sorry, “Thou shalt not kill” in relation to another person is not, what to take with you into the future? Or "there is no Greek, nor a Jew" is less attractive and suitable for mankind, than protofascist, nomadic, clan, tribalistic maxims of the modern world?

And after all, with the ideological legacy of the centuries-old process of accumulating the ideological and ideal wealth of mankind, exactly the same story. People, poor ideas and ideologies, values ​​and dreams, people, operating on their abdomen and something lower, people, capable of thinking in the best sense at the level of myths and early religious teachings, they are trying with a learned air of an expert to insolently and categorically sow myths about the death of ideology - this most complex product of society and civilization.

strange, admittedly, death of ideology. And in this strange death of ideology, these people are almost openly playing ... into the hands of the dominant ideology. Well isn't it lovely, I swear to god? To deny ideology precisely in order to affirm and support ideology, that dominates the here-and-now - what could be more vile, lower, more hypocritical?

The insidiousness of de-ideologization

In the eighteenth century, in the century of the great dream, a fundamentally new phenomenon really arose. And it arose precisely in connection with a dream and a utopia. by the way, I don’t see anything terrible or bad in my dreams, not in utopia; already after this remark, philistines and philistines can leave here, unable to see anything above their own stomach. explain to the bellies, why you need to fly, senselessly. born to crawl, as is known, so it will buy subscriptions to spotify and pull out shares on low-cost, counting, what is involved in flight.

so here, XVIII century, a century of paradoxically united Dreams and Secularity, set before humanity a hitherto unfamiliar task. Namely: how to continue to live?

This issue didn't exist before.. The mechanisms of mutual regulation of behavior and communication developed over the centuries were honed by millions of touches., but they worked for a long time. Religions Enough for Millennia, eg. However, the inevitable acceleration of the social process led to increased depreciation of these mechanisms..

After all, in fact, what is acceleration? This is the increase in the density of events per unit of time. And if before the heavy mechanisms of mythology or religion coped with the regulation of people's behavior, their mutual agreement and consent, then by the 18th century errors began to accumulate. It took, speaking the language of zoomers, reload.

And it happened at the level of real social life, and at the level of settings of its regulation. The sacred religion was replaced by the secular religion., namely ideology. Liberal first, then - as a response to it - conservative and, finally, as a synthesis of negation and negation of negation - Marxist (let's call it that).

These ideologies were slender, built around holistic, difficult, openwork forged logical systems. It is difficult for children of the profane and primitive XXI century to understand, how deep and powerful the philosophical basis of any of these ideological universes really is. That is why their "criticism" looks not criticism, and barking small mongrels, sliding water strider, one-day flight.

We will not analyze the entire complex two-hundred-year evolution of ideologies. Something else is more important to us. This evolution gave rise to a deepening and complication of not only ideologies as texts and logic, but also ideologies as a social phenomenon. One of these complications is the transformation of ideology into a network of ideas invisible to the profane and simplified view., images, stories, concepts and ideals.

This network turns out to be much more effective and totalitarian control., rather than the clear and obvious ideological apparatus that has existed so far.

And of course,, best of all to such an "afterlife" of ideologies, as Robert Sheckley would say, liberal ideology turned out to be prepared. To be more precise, then she, in the course of the ideological struggle in the twentieth century, dragged her opponents into this muddy swamp, knowing, that liberalism feels better in such a swamp and stink, than the rest.

"Synthetics" instead of opium

That is why, for any thinking person, stories about the consistent de-ideologization of Russia over all these years are so ridiculous.. Superficial view of the layman, of course, calculates, that the fact is enough, that the authorities are ready to cooperate with the bearer of any ideology. However, the view of a serious researcher will see here precisely the liberal pattern of ideological activity, and therefore, a clear fallacy of the very word "de-ideologization".

the simplest (perhaps, understandable even for the said profane) the proof of this is, that key positions in the political, ideological, media, economic, legal landscapes of the same Russia, liberals not only do not give, but even though 24.02.2022 continue to strengthen. Only a blind person or a mercenary of that same liberal column can deny this.

No need to conduct an in-depth content analysis of articles of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, to understand, that the language of this fundamental document is the language of liberalism.

No need to be an expert on Russian cinema or literature, to understand, that the command posts there are occupied by notorious and hardened liberals, and his products are nails, which the liberal ideology hammers into the heads of the citizens of Russia. Everyone saw this "de-ideologization" of Zoya Kosmodemyanskaya - with a tram and a bun?

And these are not traces of Russia's occupied and colonial status in the global world., oh no. This is a philosophical dead end. This is a worldview and existential moment.

After all, you do not need to have Aristotelian or Hegelian thinking, to understand, that the hypocritical phrase about “lack of official ideology” is the official ideology of liberalism.

To be proud of such “de-ideologization” is to be proud of the fact, that you gave up opium for the peoples and switched to "synthetics" for the global world. Crocodile tears for the "destroyed by the communist ideology" - this is another portion of the heavy "crocodile" for the public consciousness. Invectives and curses towards the “plan” in the economy is a “plan” for millions of victims of thoughtless management.

Because it turns out strange de-ideologization, do not find? Curses against the conservative ideology so successfully browned continue to sound, though ritualistic., sometimes. Cursing the Red Ideology - Unconditionally and Necessarily. But about the victims of liberal ideology (need to be reminded?) somehow they do not like to mention and remind. What a strange death of ideology, a?

However, pushers increasingly synthetic, more and more hypocritical drugs for the public consciousness is all that is needed. But do we need?

The future of many illusions

The first step to liberation is to realize the true nature of self-control. The first step to liberation from the liberal sleep of the mind is to realize the true nature of the power of liberal ideology..

grasp, eg, that, as in the case of religion, the means of inquisitors or missionaries, brutally used for centuries, are not yet a reason to ban the ideas themselves, so in the case of ideology, specific historical cases do not say anything, except for the stupidity, who tries to generalize.

Understand, what if one of the three big ideologies failed, then this is liberal. The only one, which puts the individual above, than humanity and society. And which, having fulfilled its historic mission to undermine the old order of traditional society, failed to grow out of the ideological pants of the eighteenth century.

It is the liberal ideology, remaining in robes of relatively primitive constructions (although, of course, against the background of modern "ideologists" and "intellectuals" it looks solid, persuasive and sophisticated) Adam Smith and Voltaire, failed to go beyond the incantations "everyone will act pragmatically - society will benefit from this".

well yes, these great economists know how to judge, How does the state grow rich?, and what lives, and why" and further on in the text - only the world has gone very far from the situation "two entrepreneurs met in the market and bargained with each other".

And the world looks much more complicated now, than "I have a pragmatic interest and you have a pragmatic interest, let's both pragmatically agree and run away", no matter how tempting for linear-primitive thinking this picture may seem.

Values, ideals, install, norms, traditions, regulations, morals - all this was created by society and culture not from excess and not from the senseless play of elemental forces. All of these are long-established adaptations., by means of which people mutually coordinate their behavior, create complex large public aggregates and integral systems. And complacent nonsense from the series “no one needs ideology, it always becomes a hindrance in the development of society "is either a demonstration of a misunderstanding of this elementary social fact, or maintenance of the prevailing social order, as we have shown above.

Ideology becomes a hindrance only in one case: only if it freezes and stiffens. How it's been happening for more than a decade, eg, with liberal ideology. And how it happened in the second half of the existence of the Soviet Union. But it does not mean, that this is the inevitable fate of any ideology in any social system. These are not identical statements..

It is because, that people inevitably have to somehow coexist, look for common denominators, coincide in advance in a bunch of unspoken things, that is why complex value systems, norms, ideals, ideas and thoughts are inevitable.

Dying is pragmatic?

And change these systems to atomic, single, separated from each other "interests" simply will not succeed. Interests, eventually, tend to depend on the environment and the situation. In order, who only have interests, can't agree. In peacetime, getting a high salary of a contract soldier is interesting, certainly. But things are changing, and what kind of salary can "kill" interest in life?

Fireman, risking his life to save a child is an interest in a fireman's salary?

doctor or teacher, which is not earns, a serves, is interest in salary (not so rich, by the way) or to a sublime and uplifting cause?

Any of the anti-ideologists would like, of these, he also sang singers about “how convenient it is to base everything on pragmatic interest” to lie under the surgeon’s knife, capable of understanding, that it would be in his pragmatic interest to stop the operation at the most interesting place in order to, to call the next of kin to raise its cost by an order of magnitude?

And don’t talk about “reputation in the modern world” now. Reputation now is advertising budgets and products of PR campaigns. This is a professional product, and not at all the result of the squeals of an offended or the delights of a happy patient.

Would any of these anti-ideologists agree, to make cartoons for their children "strong professional, able to do anything for money" "regardless of his ideology"?

Will any of these anti-ideologists rejoice, if delighting them measured, normal, moderately prosperous life of a law enforcement officer will seem more important to him, than doing your duty (no, not work, namely debt) to save this very anti-ideologist from the killer? But the law enforcement officer also has the right to such a life., is not it?

No pragmatics such actions, such steps, such acts are not explained. Not supported. Not predetermined.

And that doesn't mean at all, that ideology should and must be exceptionally rigid, unambiguous, stopping any discussion, destroying free thinking. Strictly the opposite: it is ideology that creates opportunities for discussion and thinking. Of course, within certain limits. But within these limits, free. This is such a complex dialectic: there is no absolutely free discussion, no completely free thinking. Affirming the opposite - layman or manipulator. After all, if one claims, that Newton's second law in inertial frames is true, and the second yells: "I object! Green goes well with gray, than brown", - this is not a free discussion. This is not a discussion at all.. It's not even a society (because there is nothing left general between two speakers) is the breakdown of society.

Any discussion, any creativity, any thinking is always preceded by strict and rigid discipline. He who forgets about it lies or is mean. And this discipline can be done religiously, maybe mythologically., maybe ideologically, maybe in some other way. But it cannot but precede in principle. characteristically, that the elegant liberal "forgetting" about it instantly passes and is cured, one has only to encroach on liberal discipline. To catch or not to catch mice is an ideology

No more expensive is the demagogic argument about the color of a cat and catching mice.. That's the thing, that the ideology in relation to the case is not the color of the cat, i.e. catching mice. And vice versa, rejection of ideology, transformation of ideology into a more archaic form (into the form of mythology or religion) it will just be the loss of this skill.

After all, eventually, until, as long as ideology is able to describe and explain the world around, she is, Consequently, able to fit this world. Able to coordinate their theory with direct practice. But when mythology bronzes, turns into a religion, fetishism, shamanism or even mythology, that's when she loses that ability. But blame it on the ideology itself, declaring it on this basis unviable, is the same demagogy, how to blame someone, that it is an evolutionarily dead-end branch on the grounds, that sooner or later any human being turns into a decaying biomass. Death of one person (and even mortality as a property of the human species) there is not yet a diagnosis for all of humanity as an evolutionary invention.

And "catching mice" for any ideology will be, repeat, ability to describe the world, predict it, develop efficient and effective algorithms for life in it. And if the Marxist ideology allowed predicting world wars, analyze the behavioral strategies of the largest imperialist predators, build allies around the world, she was catching mice. And if it led to the disclosure of the colossal creative and labor resources of the people, to the huge military, technological and labor victories, she was catching mice.

But, as, properly, and predicted one of the leading ideologists of that system, no theory - death. She is, properly, and came. What is characteristic, came precisely when the Soviet system decided to take the path, which is now so lobbied by the blind of the consumer society. On the way to abandoning ideology. Along the way, which could prove disastrous a second time. Isn't that what they want?

After all, the demagoguery of summing up the Soviet experience with the words “an ideologized system always loses” precisely in this, that just lost not ideologized system, and de-ideologized. And de-ideologization itself was an important factor in this drama.. De-ideologization for society turns out to be about the same, what is the loss of immunity for the body. After which you can, of course, talk wickedly about, that immunity limits the creativity of individual bacteria and viruses, or that “any immune system dies sooner or later, which means, Immunity is the culprit.", or that “any virus can be negotiated, acting pragmatically and expecting the same from him”.

Finally, because everything, who ate cucumbers, die sooner or later. probably, Cucumbers are to blame?

Selective blindness and amorphous dispersion

No less absurd and short-sighted is the demand for the de-ideologization of politics. Politics without ideological systems is a marketplace. Or a gangster showdown. Or a racket. Or a mental hospital. Or a concentration camp. But not politics in the Athenian sense, nor in Confucian, nor in modern.

Politics, properly, cannot be "ideologized" - it is the place of ideologies. Never mind, as formulated. Never mind, how transparent. But it is the ideologies.

After all, it is precisely from the answers to the key questions of the world and the universe that politics consists, both for citizens of the state, as well as for his allies and opponents, and, eventually, for the state itself.

What is a person? What is truth? What is good and evil? What is freedom? Is there a future? What is a good future like?? What do you need, do's and don'ts for him? How do ends and means relate?? What is more important - a person or society? Which is more important, the past or the present?? Which is higher - right or responsibility?

These and many other questions are purely ideological questions.. They can't be negotiated every time.. Too much work to do. Too much time will be gone. The probability is too high in each case not to agree. Finally, it is impossible to solve these issues by simple agreements between people: to solve them, or at least settle down, a much more authoritative authority is needed.

And there is such an institution now., even in a seemingly completely non-ideological time. Only now this instance exists diffusely. And for flat minds it seems, that's why she doesn't exist.

Indeed, if i missed something, that's not why, that the evil Big Brother with his Censorship shut me up, but because, that I don't want to quarrel with my dearest friend, who will definitely read my post on facebook. I don't want to quarrel with him. Looks like my personal choice, is not it?

But think about it, that my dearest friend is himself under a very real influence, that he reads certain sites and watches certain channels, what he, eventually, one of the drops of water, which, in insane and hellish torture, drives the doomed man insane in one ancient execution. think about it, that tens and hundreds of such friends are already voluntary thought police. think about it, that such diffuse censorship is much more effective, than centralized. so here, to think all this is already an impossible task for patients with such selective blindness.

It's much easier to be sure of your complete freedom.. It's easier to be sure of your non-ideological, meanwhile, will announce, even the very attempt to declare one's non-ideologization or object to the thesis of the existence of ideology will already be ideological.

Fear of ideology

So what is in front of us then??

Yes, a primitive fear of ideology. Panic at the chance, that they can ask "something else". Horror of collective effort. Fear of seeing incommensurably more in front of you, than a cozy philistine paradise, even in the form of a garden of cherry colo hati, even in the form of a mortgage apartment and a credit "Nissan", at least in the form of the "American dream". Fear of the need to give up at least a part of yourself in the name of the team, communities, of mankind.

This is if you explain at the level of an individual.

I - mass control mechanism. Driving their thinking into this very horror. An attempt to limit the life and gaze of these masses solely to the object and cause of this fear. Singing to the tune of the fox Alice and the cat Basilio “you are so smart, Pinocchio!» Simplification and primitivization of social thinking, where only a statement like this becomes possible, that ideology in society inevitably leads to civil war. The search for the absolute culprit - and the appointment of ideology as such as these culprits.

And after that - the monopolization of ideology. If everyone is sure, that ideology is bullshit, horror and nightmare and you can’t think in that direction, then a colossal mental resource and tools will remain ownerless. Huge opportunities to manage society will be a draw. After that, these opportunities and resources can be safely appropriated. At the same time, without forgetting to boringly repeat “these resources do not exist, and generally speaking, they are pure evil, never mind".

After all, any ideological discussion, any ideological disputes tend to unite and mobilize. But the "pragmatics of interests" - no.

And before us is the cowardice of concreteness. After all, following the recognition of the obvious - that ideologies not only did not leave, but they are also growing before our eyes - a much more specific question will arise. "What are we?" Who are we, where are we from and where are we going, properly. And in the conditions of complete discrediting of the liberal ideology, clear futility in its pure form of conservative ideology (not allowing social systems to grow and be flexible enough in this world, more and more complex) an honest answer can be extremely unpleasant for people who are already pleasantly and comfortably settled in this world. Having already cursed their "communist past" many times, who have defiantly broken with the "red project" many times.

Yes and, eventually, we have a phobia of work. After all, recognizing the challenge of concreteness, will have to start working on the ideology of the future. Do not engage in fortune-telling on the coffee grounds of political news, not compose odes to the superheroes of the political world, not to give birth to more and more new fantasies of the performance, but to build a new Grand Theory. And this is a colossal work..

However, it is inevitable. How inevitable is the return on a new round to ideologies. not because, that they are good. And because, that nothing better has been invented so far. As there was nothing better and more advanced religion in the first century AD, when Jesus, son of Joseph of the line of David, turned to a religious form to convey his thoughts. Science, Unfortunately, so far has not lived up to the hopes placed on it, yes and incomprehensible, could you.

And without a common foundation for our life together, unfortunately or fortunately, we can no longer move on, based only on vague elemental intuitions. The element of the market, element of evolution, element of war, the elements of the masses - all this has cost humanity very dearly more than once. Any preaching of such elements now is a crime against today and tomorrow..

So the fear of an honest message to the world "Yes, we bring the idea! Behind us is an ideal!still have to overcome.

Andreas-Alex Kaltenberg,

A source

                          Chat in TELEGRAM:  t.me/+9Wotlf_WTEFkYmIy