How to be friends with two people at the same time who can't stand each other. Formation of the Russian multinational state

31.03.2019

They create something. Both work diligently and purposefully. And the labors of both will come to an end when it comes

Tide time.

A. Give examples of “castles” that you are involved in building. How do you feel about them? If the tide

surged tomorrow, how would that make you feel?

B. Read Luke. 12:16-21. What kind of “castle” was the man in this passage building? What is possible

call it a “tide” here? What was the final result? What is the meaning of this story?

B. Read Heb. 9:27. What fate awaits us all? Can this be compared to a tide? Are you ready for it?

2. You've probably seen people who treat the world as if it were their permanent place of residence, but

They are mistaken Have you seen how people spend time and effort on arranging their lives, as if they were going

Live here forever - but it won't happen Have you seen people who are so proud of their achievements, as if

They hope to never part with what they have achieved - but they will have to do it.

A. If we treat this world as a permanent place of residence - in what

manifests itself? How often in

Everyday life Do we think that one day we will have to leave this world?

B. Read Matt. 16:26-27. Answer the two questions in verse 26. Are you looking forward to or dreading the event described in verse 27? Why?

B. Read James. 4:13-14. How will our attitude towards many things in life change if we remember this?

Why do we forget this so easily?

3. Actually, I don’t know very much, but I know how to travel.

Don't take a lot of luggage. Eat

Slightly less. Take a nap. And when you find yourself where you were going, get off the plane.

B. Read Heb. 11:8-10. How does Abraham's life illustrate the above passage? What allowed

should he “travel light”? How can verse 10 apply to our lives? Why is it more difficult for us than Abraham to grasp this truth?

B. Read Heb. 11:13-16. How could this passage serve as a compass to guide the direction of our entire

life? How practical use could this verse help us avoid difficulties?

4. ...Build, but do it like a child. When the sunset begins, and with it the tide, clap your hands.

Salute life, take your father's hand and go home.

A. What does it mean to build like a child? Does this passage have anything to do with worshiping God?

B. Read Luke. 19:11-13. How does the command in verse 13 apply to us? What actions

What does Christ expect from us before His return? What are you doing to fulfill this command?

Q. Read 1 Cor. 3:10-15. What is Paul's concern as he oversees the building of the church (verse 10)? Which

foundation we build (verse 11)? What does Paul mean when he talks about various materials used for construction

(verse 12)? When will the quality of our building be revealed (verse 13)? What is the result of our construction (poems

14-15)? How is your construction going?

BE READY

You may find it surprising that Christ chose to be prepared to eternal life theme

The last sermon. At least it surprised me. If I were in His place, I

Would talk about love or family or

The importance of church life. Christ did not say any of this. His sermon was on a topic that

Today many would consider it old-fashioned. He taught that one must be ready to enter the Kingdom of Heaven and hold on

A. Why do you think Jesus chose preparedness as the theme of His last sermon?

What is the influence of His

Does the latest sermon have an effect on you?

B. Read Matt. 24:36-25:13. What is the rationale for staying awake in this passage? Are you awake?

You? If not, why not?

2. He does not say “if I return...” or “if I return...”, but quite definitely: “I will return.”

A. When you are absolutely sure that an event is going to happen, how do you prepare for it?

Are you preparing in the same way for Christ's return?

B. Read Matt. 16:27; Mf. 24:44; OK. 12:40; In. 14:3. What do all these verses have in common? When something is repeated

repeatedly, what does this usually mean?

3. [Hell] is a place where people who love themselves more than God, who love sin more, wish to be

Was Lenin right? Everything is so shit...but?

The unbiased man in the street was always surprised by the love of the intelligentsia for Khrushchev. After all, everyone knows everything about Khrushchev.

It would seem, what kind of love could there be for this? bloody executioner, liar, slanderer, oathbreaker etc., etc., etc.?

But no, they love him and shield him as best they can, and still repeat after him like a mantra, everyone vile fabrications, provoking Russophobia in the public consciousness, like millions of victims of Stalin's repressions. (This is nothing, recently there were tens of millions of victims and even one hundred and ten million).

But why? Maybe it's all about the herd instinct of the intelligentsia? That is, somewhere there are goats receiving necessary instructions, and, based on these instructions, with the help of their controlled channels of influence, they set the direction of movement of the intelligentsia herd? Like, go here, don’t go there, now everyone should bleat together?

I think it's not so much a matter of herd instinct of the intelligentsia(and no one will deny its existence) both in the existence in Russia, in the Soviet Russia, and in the current one of this kind of institution of paid goats, as well as in its genesis.

In the first third of the century before last, when the intelligentsia in Rus' had not yet been born, and a certain faint unpleasant smell was only heard in society as a harbinger of its appearance, the seer A.S. Pushkin has already rung the bell:

"Easy-tongued twists,

You, the rabble of the disastrous alarm,

Slanderers, enemies of Russia!"

Then and a little later, the intelligentsia called themselves “Western liberals.” And she called until in 1867 she received greetings from F.I. Tyutcheva:

“It’s wasted work - no, you can’t reason with them,

The more liberal, the more vulgar they are,

Civilization is a fetish for them,

But her idea is inaccessible to them.

No matter how you bend before her, gentlemen,

You will not gain recognition from Europe:

In her eyes you will always be

Not servants of enlightenment, but slaves,”

Having renamed themselves the intelligentsia, they did not cease to be slaves of Europe. First of all, the slaves of the Anglo-Saxons.

But you cannot be slaves of Europe and, as Pushkin rightly noted, you cannot become slanderers and enemies of Russia. Therefore, the transformation of part of the intelligentsia into fifth column, is a natural process.

And it is not surprising that this part of the intelligentsia always took pleasure in spoiling Russia, guided by the instructions of those whose slaves they were, i.e. instructions of anti-Russian propaganda of the Anglo-Saxons.

A The Anglo-Saxons loved Khrushchev. Even when he made a fool of himself and became inadequate, they gently removed him and did not put him to sleep, like a faithful old dog that had ceased to serve. They did not criticize Khrushchev particularly strongly.

For example, in the RSFSR, the number of death sentences handed down under Khrushchev’s rule increased, to put it mildly. In 1953 there were 198 of them, in 1961 there were 1880, in 1962 - 2159, in 1963 - 935. (Statistics of sentences between 1953 and 1961 were not available to me). Under Khrushchev, people were shot in court even “as an exception.”

Khrushchev's jurisprudence introduced this new legal norm for those who, after the verdict was passed, had their sentence commuted, sometimes even to death, because lawyers obedient to Khrushchev changed the old law to a new one.

And this one new law on his instructions received retroactive effect. Such a story happened with Article 88 of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR of 1960, “Violation of the rules on currency transactions.”

There were about 5 thousand such “exceptions” who received a death sentence over the last three years of Khrushchev’s rule. Western guardians of rights and freedoms could not ignore this; they muttered for the sake of order.

But there was no talk of any defamation of Khrushchev on their part. Even then, their propaganda began to build into the consciousness of the masses the image of Khrushchev as a narrow-minded, simple-minded guy, prone to excesses, who could be forgiven. Like, the guy isn’t acting weird out of malice.

But overall he's a great guy. Darling. Gave me freedom. After him, Gorbachev and Yeltsin gave freedom. Well done too. And also darlings.

Liberal (read: pro-Anglo-Saxon) propaganda seeks to make this image of Khrushchev dominant in the consciousness of the masses. According to the same plan, she builds propaganda that whitens the image of Yeltsin.

Behind whitening the image of the alcoholic Yeltsin, who launched Russia into a stream of plunder, the Anglo-Saxons took on more thoroughly than whitening the image of Khrushchev. They realized that due to the fact that at one time they did not show sufficient persistence, they became greedy, and ultimately positive image Khrushchev into consciousness common people Russia failed to integrate it.

It is clear that the Russian government, noticeably groveling before the Anglo-Saxons, decided to the best of its ability to Once again help them crap on Russia. A palace was built in the center of Yekaterinburg, Yeltsin Center, equipped with last word technology.

Apparently, after all, it could not have happened without the money of the “partners”, at least for “grants” (that’s what bribes are now shyly called received from foreign bribe-payers, all sorts of intelligence services, the State Department and offices and institutions affiliated with them, dozens, if not hundreds of them), after all, as many as seven billion rubles were spent.

How can one believe that without these “grants”, for nothing, the grant-eating guys agreed to withdraw such huge amounts of money from the state budget for propaganda window dressing? "I do not believe!" /Stanislavsky/.

“Grant” money apparently pays for the work of guys who are influential in the government - grant recipients. They, these guys, are milking funds from the state budget, which maintain this palace.

This whole idea is too expensive to believe that someone in our country is disinterestedly unfastening them. Here without latent foreign “financial assistance” For large group Russian milkmen are indispensable.

The experience was considered successful. Therefore, developing your “ financial success"and in pursuance of the further plans of the Anglo-Saxons in this regard, squinting at the ideological successors of Yeltsinism-Gorbachevism (for it is necessary to ideologically cover up your exclusively selfish monetary interest in this scam, since without an ideological excuse it’s somehow not comme il faut, theft, you understand, and that’s all), our near-government grant recipients will build for themselves, at government expense, a new feeding trough, another Yeltsin Center, this time in Moscow.

Children from kindergarten age are taken on excursions to the Yekaterinburg Yeltsin Center for educational purposes. They unobtrusively, along with their love for Yeltsin and the Anglo-Saxons, foster hatred of Russia, to its history and culture.

In a generation we will get Ural Banderaites and we will wonder where this crazy Russophobic generation came from in the stronghold of the state? And from the same place as in present-day Ukraine.

And it will be raised by the Anglo-Saxons as enemies of the Russian fatherland according to the same Ukrainian method. Who, who, but the Anglo-Saxons have always been great masters with regard to their implementation of their “long” projects.

Some of them last for centuries, so they will easily spend money for twenty - thirty years, or at least half a century, if necessary, on the implementation of a “good idea,” as long as the “idea” is worth it.

But let's return to Khrushchev. There are many common ground between Yeltsin and Khrushchev. Not only that Yeltsin, like Khrushchev, was also no fool for drinking. But here the alcoholic Yeltsin greatly surpassed Khrushchev.

Or, for example, not only that Yeltsin, like Khrushchev, loved to show his lordly stupidity in relation to the party secretaries dependent on him. But, unlike Khrushchev, Yeltsin did not kill them.

Here we will return only to the unifying sympathy we noted above, difficult to explain at first glance, even strange, that both of these figures evoked among the large and influential social group in today’s Russia, the “intelligentsia.”

The class pre-revolutionary Russian society had no other firewood, except for the nobles and their lackeys, for the stove on which the brew of the half-class "intelligentsia" was prepared, something new for Russia.

Therefore for intellectual, which Lenin spoke about so figuratively in a letter to Gorky, was initially characterized by a bizarre combination of noble snobbery and lackey sycophancy.

Noble snobbery known reasons the intellectual has sunk into oblivion. Only servile qualities remain, inherent in the people vile, lackey origin. In particular, lackey swagger in front of black people.

Obviously, this primarily concerns the so-called. "creative intelligentsia", or "creaks". But part of the technical intelligentsia also kept them company, since they were susceptible to a disease that often affects those who go “from rags to riches.”

That is, they fall ill with the same swagger. In addition, the revolution, having knocked out the snobs from the intellectual stratum - the nobles as competitors for the intellectuals - lackeys in their struggle for bread-and-butter jobs, did a disservice to the latter.

In the sense that, having lost an example for behavioral imitation, they began to behave completely like lackeys, freed from their master's supervision. That is, stealing items from the owner's Sevres service and rummaging through the drawers of his desk.

Thus, immediately after the revolution, along with the manifestation of intellectual contempt for the interests of the country and its ordinary citizens, being convinced of their indispensability, they began to display in public the most vile examples of the morals of the environment from which they had recently emerged. They considered embezzlement natural for themselves.

They saw it as simply one of the ways to obtain the means of a “decent” existence. An atmosphere of reigning irresponsibility and permissiveness reigned among the intelligentsia during the NEP. These people would have disappeared into obscurity in restaurant drinking bouts if justice had not put them in their place during the years of “terrible Stalinist repressions.”

What today’s intellectuals remember with horror, they are also the descendants of those post-revolutionary intellectuals.

But a profession can also instill the habit of lackeyness. As the wonderful artist A.G. rightly noted. Filippenko: “An artist is a corrupt profession.”

But the world is not a theater, the people in it are not actors. You can play the role of a slave on stage, but to be a slave off stage is shameful. But it’s even more shameful to bite the hand that gives. If people through different shapes budget subsidies feed you and your theater, then don’t you dare insult it either on stage or off stage.

As does, for example, actress L. Akhedzhakova. And this is not about her political views.

And in bad upbringing. Damn, intellectual. “The man who bites the hand that feeds him usually licks the boot that kicks him” (Eric Hoffer). However, this behavior of a “biting dog”, and not “from a dog’s life”, but from the confidence that arrogance and rudeness are a mandatory addition to the title of intellectual, is typical of the behavior of the entire half-class of intellectuals.

The intelligentsia in its current understanding appeared in Russia in the second half of the nineteenth century. Even this term itself was first used by the writer P.D. Boborykin in the novel "China Town" only in 1882.

Therefore, the term “intelligentsia” has not yet been established and is still controversial. As Wikipedia enlightens us, “intelligentsia” is derived from the Latin verb intellego.

And, like many Latin words, it is extremely polysemantic. Here are just a few possible meanings: to feel, to perceive, to notice, to notice, to cognize, to recognize, to think, to know a lot about, to understand.

As a noun, intellegentia includes a number of psychological concepts: understanding, reason, cognitive power, ability to perceive, concept, idea, idea, perception itself, sensory cognition, skill, art... and intelligence associated with the analysis of the information received, hence the English secret intelligence service .

There are a lot of meanings, choose - I don’t want to. So what value should we choose? Maybe English, intellectual, is an intelligence officer? Then, whose scout? Is it really English too? Joke. Although, in every joke...

In the second half of the nineteenth century, just when we had intellectuals, they also appeared in Persia. During " great game"which the British led against Russian Empire over a vast area from the Caspian Sea to the Persian Gulf and from the Euphrates to Tibet, they called their agents of influence intellectuals from the educated class local population, in particular the Persians.

In the pre-reform society of Russia there were very few subverters of the foundations, and these subverters and their ideas were condemned. Therefore, intellectuals were able to appear in Rus' as a significant social group just when, after the Crimean War, it became fashionable, following Europe, to denigrate bast Russia, humiliate it and contrast it with the civilized West.

This nihilistic position could then be very easily propagated among the educated public, since in Russia it spread almost unhindered foreign literature, the consumption of which in Russia often caused attacks of mental illness in patients, now known as Russophobia.

For some, this disease took a chronic form. It was they who made up the first generation of Russian intellectuals. Thus, having given birth to our intellectuals, Europe fought the Crimean War with the help of our freshly born intellectuals.

Among the first intellectuals of that era was the then famous poet-parodist D.D. Minaev, then a colleague in the role (though more prolific) of the modern poet-parodist and also intellectual A. Ivanov.

One of his many parodies is well known to everyone. At first, apparently, they wanted to pass off this parody as a poem by Pushkin.

But the publisher of the magazine “Russian Antiquity” P.I. Bartenev, himself a Pushkinist, did not agree to such falsification. And to publish a version of this parody as a poem by M.Yu. Lermontov, agreed.

And so “Many Russian literary scholars indignantly argued that M.Yu. Lermontov to this fake, and among them is the outstanding modern scientist, Pushkinist N.N. Skatov.

But in spite of everything, throughout the 20th century, all sorts of ignorant people and liberal scoundrels attributed this Russophobic Minaev text to Lermontov, repeatedly including it in his Collected Works! Not to mention the fact that this primitive opus was invariably included in school curriculum on the study of Lermontov's creativity.

And he keeps going in!” (http://rospisatel.ru/hatjushin-minaev.htm). Yes, really, but in the matter of screwing up Russia, the guys - Russophobes stand to death.

However, compare for yourself.

Alexander Pushkin, “To the Sea”:

Farewell, free elements!

……………………………

You're rolling blue waves

And these are lines from Minaev’s parody, passed off as a poem by M.Yu. Lermontov:

Goodbye, unwashed Russia,

………………………………

And you, blue uniforms

Somewhat similar, right?

Recently, Poroshenko celebrated the abolition of the visa regime for Ukrainians visiting EU countries by reciting Minaev’s parody, naturally attributing this Russophobic craft to Lermontov.

But here is another recording, the original, which has not survived, may also have been written by Lermontov. Why not? Here she is:

Goodbye, unwashed Krajina,

The country where the villain rules the roost,

A land of fires, stench, smoke,

Country of slaves, thieves, *lads

But we drew attention here to the trick of the hoaxer D. Minaev not in order to once again expose the “ignorant and liberal scoundrels.” The intellectual D. Minaev, as best he could, with his pen, fought against the tyranny of the autocracy.

The intellectual Alexander Ivanov, quite recently, while he was alive, on the contrary, but also, as best he could, and also with his pen, fought for the introduction of merciless tyranny in Russia, similar to the Pinochet regime in Chile. So what do these intellectuals have in common, besides their roles?

And what they have in common, it seems to us, is the desire to spoil Russia and spoil it. For this, even the same intellectual can appear as anything - even a democrat and the first fighter against the bloody regime, or, if necessary, then on the contrary, the first fighter for the establishment of the bloodiest regime.

“The only thing that unites all liberals is hatred of Russia.” /F.M. Dostoevsky/

Now Europe has again had the opportunity to end the Crimean War of the mid-nineteenth century, and with tripled energy, together, the entire Euro-American crowd rushed into the fire of a new, still informational, Crimean war.

And again, the Russian intelligentsia, drawn by its innate reflex as an obedient slave of Europe, shook up the old days and began to fight against us in this new Crimean War on the side of the Anglo-Saxons.

Since its inception, it has become bad form for real, as they position themselves, intellectuals to sincerely and honestly serve the interests of Russia, to work for its benefit without a fig in their pocket.

The philosopher, Archpriest Sergius Bulgakov, based on the examples of the 1905 revolution, came to the conclusion that “the energy of destruction in the absence of the energy of creation” prevailed as the dominant mood in the minds during revolutionary upheavals.

This attitude is fundamental for an intellectual, and, one way or another, he always expresses it, and not only in times of revolutionary upheavals.

We write about the intelligentsia as a half-class, social group, as about a certain community of dunes rushing to Europe, or, as they used to say, about a layer (between what and what remains unknown).

But it is most correct, in our opinion, to consider that the intelligentsia is a quasi-religious sect: “Lev Nikolaevich, are you an intellectual? - God save me! The current intelligentsia is a spiritual sect. What is typical: they don’t know anything, they can’t do anything, but they judge everything and absolutely do not accept dissent” / L.N. Gumilyov/

She has a lot in common with the religious sect. For example, the confidence of the sect members in their infallibility, the idea of the sect members of themselves as the chosen ones, obviously standing in the social hierarchy above those who, according to their concepts, are not included in their circle, the close cohesion of the sect members in defending their group interests, even to the point of that they, the intellectuals, with ease and with the passion of hounds, pounce with the whole pack on anyone who dares to encroach on the right they have appropriated to impose their will on everyone, not disdaining cries like “crucify him!”, etc.

Intellectuals are good propagandists of the faith of Christ, since even atheists agree that the event that took place almost two thousand years ago in Jerusalem in front of the palace of the procurator of Judea is completely reliable. Looking at our intelligentsia, they are sure that then they rallied in front of Pontius Pilate and chanted “Crucify him!” local intelligentsia community.

It’s funny, but intellectuals seriously think, moreover, they are absolutely sure that fear can force people to creative creative activity, that people create and at the same time achieve outstanding results under pressure. And nothing else. They heard many times “Work not for fear, but for conscience,” but they never understood what it was about. Misunderstanding of underlying motives labor activity person, distinguishes intellectuals from people.

This pathological misunderstanding formed the basis of the anti-Stalinism of intellectuals. They do not even feel the dissonance between their idea of the Stalin era as an era of mass terror and the reality of that time as an era of the greatest creative enthusiasm of the masses.

The intellectual, of course, does not believe that the idea of civilization is inaccessible to him, as Tyutchev said. He thinks of himself that he is not alien to these ideals. European.

Therefore for good tone, in order, first of all, to please the Anglo-Saxons as the standard of Europeanness, he honors the ability to crap on Russia and the Russian people precisely in the name of approaching the era of dominance of these ideals in Russia.

And what kind of ideals these are is the tenth matter. Even if their victory leads to the destruction of Russia. At the same time, the intellectual does not at all want to feed only on the holy spirit. The struggle for European ideals must necessarily bring income to the intellectual. For more than anything else, an intellectual wants to eat well and tasty. In expensive restaurants.

Actually, neither culture nor level of education are the determining criterion for an intellectual to classify a certain subject as an intellectual.

Therefore, for an intellectual, Khrushchev is his own man, an intellectual, despite his illiteracy. And all his wild fabrications provoking severe Russophobia, such as the millions of victims of Stalin’s repressions, were and will always be supported and positively assessed by the intelligentsia as a manifestation of the creativity of the intellectual Khrushchev, which allowed him as an “actionist artist” to achieve success.

Similar to how, for example, nailing his scrotum to the pavement on Red Square led to success and recognition in intellectual circles of the degenerate Pavlensky, another “actionist artist,” only a very minor one.

Apparently, it began to dawn on the intellectuals of the type we are writing about here that they had thoroughly discredited themselves in the public consciousness of the Russian people.

What should you do in this case? That's right - rename. And they made such a renaming. For the third time in its history. They began to call themselves the creative class. From the English “creation”, creation. The creators, damn it, showed up.

But the renaming did not work out. They immediately received another name from the respectable public, with a pronounced negative connotation: “crackles.” Now they are unlikely to be able to wash themselves away from this “creacle”. Creacles form a peculiar caste. If the authorities try to punish one of them according to the law, for example, for theft, the entire Creakliat in a friendly pack of biting people rushes to his defense.

The cry of the creakliat “don’t bother the genius!” capable of stunning any prosecutor. He, a courageous fighter for freebies at state expense, does not doubt one iota about anything, but the fact that the authorities are obliged to place the cracker above the law. True, only until the authorities kick him in a fatherly manner.

Kreakliat perfectly senses the permissible limits of his fanabery in his relations with the authorities. He knows that the government supports and tolerates intellectuals with all their antics only as long as they serve its interests.

Let the reader not think that the author is shocking him, but, starting with the Khrushchev coup of 1953, the government, having ceased to be Soviet, tolerates the “willfulness” of the intelligentsia only within the framework in which it, the government, itself serves the interests of the Anglo-Saxons. And in this service of the authorities and the intelligentsia there is little room left for the national interests of Russia.

They, the intellectuals, are our creacles, existentially slaves. Khrushchev realized that in order for them to behave decently, so that they would not stop pleasing, he needed to regularly beat them from the toe, like the master of Catherine’s times. And don’t give out all sorts of rewards and don’t feed them with high salaries, as Stalin did.

The time when Khrushchev regularly kicked them and called them homosexuals, they still remember with nostalgia as the brightest in the one and a half century history of their half-class and affectionately call it the thaw.

People of servile rank

Real dogs sometimes:

The heavier the punishment,

That's why gentlemen are dearer to them.

ON THE. Nekrasov

It was enough for them to feed that he, Khrushchev, having slandered Stalin, let them graze in the pasture created by him, where they could endlessly chew the anti-Stalin cud.

And they continue to chew, the rulers of our thoughts, this chewing gum for sixty years now. extra years. This is why the ideological authorities of the USSR, and later, starting with Solzhenitsyn, their “partners” - the Anglo-Saxons, initially undertook to support them.

Yeltsin significantly increased the size of the pasture for the creaks, dumping a huge pile of their organic fertilizer on it, greatly increasing the volume of food growing on it. Thus, he gave the opportunity to graze on this pasture to many times more creaks.

Now, thanks to Yeltsin, the kreakl can use for their food not only anti-Stalinist and anti-Soviet gum, which Gorbachev allowed them to chew, but also anti-Russian gum in general and anti-Russian in particular.

How the Creacles loved Khrushchev, how they fawned and fawned over him! The scoundrel knew how to talk to them. Khrushchev understood the subtle servile nature of the creakl. And the creakle answered him with his tender love. Like Gorbachev, like Yeltsin.

Let's finish our story with a poem by Nikolai Zinoviev.

Pseudo-intelligentsia

You've always, always been a bitch

In the intoxication of his bohemian boredom.

You were the first to betray the people,

Warming my hands on the ashes.

You were the mouthpiece of depravity

And his faithful subject.

And brother rose up against brother

Not without your participation.

You've been wandering around abroad,

Bringing all the dirt from there.

This is how you remain, however.

And you cannot be changed.

A.I. Fursov - Who was Yeltsin really? What waiting Russia? 2016

Dostoevsky about the Russian intelligentsia and Europeans

More details and a variety of information about events taking place in Russia, Ukraine and other countries of our beautiful planet can be obtained at Internet Conferences, constantly held on the website “Keys of Knowledge”. All Conferences are open and completely free. We invite everyone who wakes up and is interested...

Not everything is simple in friendship. It is usually quite difficult to find friends you can really rely on. And it's just as hard to have two great friends who don't get along. If you treat them both with the respect they deserve and try to show them that they have a lot in common, you can help them make their relationship work.

Steps

Part 1

Maintaining neutrality in a conflict between friends

Explain to both of your friends that you are friends with each of them. Even if your friends don't get along, that's no reason to end your relationship with any of them. Continue chatting with both friends as you did before. Their personal conflict should not affect you or your attitude towards them.

Emphasize that they must respect your decision. If your friends ask you to take sides in a conflict or insist on explaining why you don't want to support one of them, remain firm. Remind them that you have the right to make your own decisions about the relationship and will not tolerate pressure from anyone. Resist threats and intimidation.

Listen to your friends. Let them speak. Allowing your friends to express their feelings can help defuse the situation. Knowing that they have been listened to and understood often helps friends overcome a conflict or realize they were wrong.

Keep calm. Never be critical. Even if you are annoyed by your friend's caustic remarks, do not take it out on him. Increasing the number of conflicts will not allow the relationship between your two friends to improve, and because of this, everything can only get worse.

Don't agree to be a mediator in your friends' communication. If one friend asks you to pass on his message to another friend, tell him that he must communicate with him directly. Instead of acting as a mediator, ask your friend to tell you in more detail what he wants to communicate to the other friend, and offer to help him determine the best way say it in person.

Unless one of your friends is undeniably wrong, don't take sides. If the conflict is just personal animosity, you will not be able to resolve it by taking sides. If someone asks you to do this or tries to make you feel guilty for your inaction and thereby force you to take sides, simply refuse. Say: “Guys, the whole conflict is between you. I’d rather be Switzerland.”

Stay vigilant to make it easier for you to maintain neutrality. Being alert will help you become more aware of your own thoughts and tendencies. Vigilance is a quality that allows its owner to maintain peace of mind and maintain a peaceful attitude, especially when accepting difficult decisions or resolving stressful situations. By being vigilant, you will be more aware of how you feel about conflict between friends who can't stand each other. This can help you remain objective and neutral. Yoga, tai chi, or meditation can help you become more alert.

Part 2

Support in a conflict for the friend who is clearly right

Ask yourself if your deluded friend can accept the truth. Some people just don't want to hear the truth, no matter what. First, evaluate your friend's character to see if it would be a good idea to try to tell him your real thoughts.
- Is your friend willing to accept criticism? Is he able to understand that he is wrong if convincing arguments are given to him? Is he capable of taking responsibility for his actions when he is wrong? If your answers are yes, then telling your friend the truth is a good idea and will very likely make a positive difference in the situation.
- If, on the contrary, your friend, when presented with arguments about his shortsightedness, regularly goes on the defensive and begins to blame others, then your honest attempts to help him understand that he is mistaken will be in vain.
- In the case of a stubborn friend, try to present him with a situation under different angles. If he doesn't understand that he's wrong the first time you explain it, he may need to explain it differently. Probably, when you first discuss this topic, you will pose your question indirectly: “Do you think that what you said to Sergei was good on your part?” If your friend doesn’t take the hint, next time speak more openly: “You were very rude to Sergei. He deserves an apology.”
Express your disapproval openly. Don't distort your point of view by insincerely agreeing with your friend because of his insistence on blaming the other person. Do not make any statements until you are sure who bears all the blame. Finally, don't use phrases like “With all due respect...” or “No offense, but...”. Express your opinion directly and honestly to your friend, try to explain to him why he is wrong.

Focus on your friend's behavior, not personality. Remind your friend that no matter how badly they spoke, treated, or insulted another friend of yours, you know that they are still a good man. Emphasize that your friend made a mistake, but he can and should correct it.

Please. Present your criticism gently. Don't call your friend names or raise your voice when explaining why you think he's wrong. And vice versa, do not isolate yourself from your friend and do not silently boycott him. Explaining your point of view in a constructive way will prevent the situation from getting worse, and your friend may better understand the other side of the conflict when he hears your opinion.

Was Lenin right? Everything is so shit...but?

The unbiased man in the street was always surprised by the love of the intelligentsia for Khrushchev. After all, everyone knows everything about Khrushchev.

It would seem, what kind of love could there be for this? bloody executioner, liar, slanderer, oathbreaker etc., etc., etc.?

But why? Maybe it's all about the herd instinct of the intelligentsia? That is, somewhere there are goats who receive the necessary instructions, and, based on these instructions, with the help of their controlled channels of influence, they set the direction of movement of the intelligentsia herd? Like, go here, don’t go there, now everyone should bleat together?

"Easy-tongued twists,

You, the rabble of the disastrous alarm,

Slanderers, enemies of Russia!"

Then and a little later, the intelligentsia called themselves “Western liberals.” And she called until in 1867 she received greetings from F.I. Tyutcheva:

“It’s wasted work - no, you can’t reason with them,

The more liberal, the more vulgar they are,

Civilization is a fetish for them,

But her idea is inaccessible to them.

No matter how you bend before her, gentlemen,

You will not gain recognition from Europe:

In her eyes you will always be

Not servants of enlightenment, but slaves,”

Having renamed themselves the intelligentsia, they did not cease to be slaves of Europe. First of all, the slaves of the Anglo-Saxons.

And this new law, on his instructions, received retroactive force. Such a story happened with Article 88 of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR of 1960, “Violation of the rules on currency transactions.”

But overall he's a great guy. Darling. Gave me freedom. Following him, Gorbachev and Yeltsin gave freedom. Well done too. And also darlings.

Behind whitening the image of the alcoholic Yeltsin, who launched Russia into a stream of plunder, the Anglo-Saxons took on more thoroughly than whitening the image of Khrushchev. They realized that due to the fact that at one time they did not show sufficient persistence, they became greedy, and ultimately positive image of Khrushchev It was not possible to integrate it into the consciousness of the common people of Russia.

And it will be raised by the Anglo-Saxons as enemies of the Russian fatherland according to the same Ukrainian method. Somehow, the Anglo-Saxons have always been great masters when it comes to implementing their “long” projects.

Or, for example, not only that Yeltsin, like Khrushchev, loved to show his lordly stupidity in relation to the party secretaries dependent on him. But, unlike Khrushchev, Yeltsin did not kill them.

Therefore for intellectual, which Lenin spoke about so figuratively in a letter to Gorky, was initially characterized by a bizarre combination of noble snobbery and lackey sycophancy.

For well-known reasons, noble snobbery has sunk into oblivion among the intellectuals. What remained were the exclusively servile qualities inherent in a vile people of lackey origin. In particular, lackey swagger in front of black people.

What today’s intellectuals remember with horror, they are also the descendants of those post-revolutionary intellectuals.

But a profession can also instill the habit of lackeyness. As the wonderful artist A.G. rightly noted. Filippenko: “An artist is a corrupt profession.”

But the world is not a theater, the people in it are not actors. You can play the role of a slave on stage, but to be a slave off stage is shameful. But it’s even more shameful to bite the hand that gives. If the people feed you and your theater through various forms of budget subsidies, then don’t you dare insult them either on stage or off stage.

As does, for example, actress L. Akhedzhakova. And this is not about her political views.

But in spite of everything, throughout the 20th century, all sorts of ignorant people and liberal scoundrels attributed this Russophobic Minaev text to Lermontov, repeatedly including it in his Collected Works! Not to mention the fact that this primitive opus was invariably included in the school curriculum for the study of Lermontov’s work.

And he keeps going in!” (http://rospisatel.ru/hatjushin-minaev.htm). Yes, really, but in the matter of screwing up Russia, the guys - Russophobes stand to death.

However, compare for yourself.

Alexander Pushkin, “To the Sea”:

Farewell, free elements!

……………………………

You're rolling blue waves

And these are lines from Minaev’s parody, passed off as a poem by M.Yu. Lermontov:

Goodbye, unwashed Russia,

………………………………

And you, blue uniforms

Somewhat similar, right?

Recently, Poroshenko celebrated the abolition of the visa regime for Ukrainians visiting EU countries by reciting Minaev’s parody, naturally attributing this Russophobic craft to Lermontov.

But here is another recording, the original, which has not survived, may also have been written by Lermontov. Why not? Here she is:

Goodbye, unwashed Krajina,

The country where the villain rules the roost,

A land of fires, stench, smoke,

Country of slaves, thieves, *lads

“The only thing that unites all liberals is hatred of Russia.” /F.M. Dostoevsky/

This attitude is fundamental for an intellectual, and, one way or another, he always expresses it, and not only in times of revolutionary upheavals.

We write about the intelligentsia as a semi-class, a social group, as a kind of community of dunces rushing to Europe, or, as they used to say, about a stratum (between what and what remains unknown).

It’s funny, but intellectuals seriously think, moreover, they are absolutely sure that fear can force people to creative creative activity, that people create and at the same time achieve outstanding results under pressure. And nothing else. They heard many times “Work not for fear, but for conscience,” but they never understood what it was about. Misunderstanding of the motives underlying human labor activity distinguishes intellectuals from people.

The intellectual, of course, does not believe that the idea of civilization is inaccessible to him, as Tyutchev said. He thinks of himself that he is not alien to these ideals. European.

Therefore, for good form, in order, first of all, to please the Anglo-Saxons as the standard of Europeanness, he considers the ability to crap on Russia and the Russian people precisely in the name of approaching the era of the dominance of these ideals in Russia.

Actually, neither culture nor level of education are the determining criterion for an intellectual to classify a certain subject as an intellectual.

Apparently, it began to dawn on the intellectuals of the type we are writing about here that they had thoroughly discredited themselves in the public consciousness of the Russian people.

They, the intellectuals, are our creacles, existentially slaves. Khrushchev realized that in order for them to behave decently, so that they would not stop pleasing, he needed to regularly beat them from the toe, like the master of Catherine’s times. And do not give out all sorts of awards and do not feed with high salaries, as Stalin did.

People of servile rank

Real dogs sometimes:

The heavier the punishment,

That's why gentlemen are dearer to them.

ON THE. Nekrasov

It was enough for them to feed that he, Khrushchev, having slandered Stalin, let them graze in the pasture created by him, where they could endlessly chew the anti-Stalin cud.

And the rulers of our thoughts continue to chew this gum for more than sixty years. For which the ideological authorities of the USSR, and later, starting with Solzhenitsyn, the “partners” - the Anglo-Saxons, initially undertook to support them.

A.I. Fursov - Who was Yeltsin really? What waiting Russia? 2016

Dostoevsky about the Russian intelligentsia and Europeans

Audrey Hepburn and the famous fashion designer met for the first time before filming the film Sabrina. Audrey came to Hubert's atelier to pick out costumes for Sabrina.

This meeting forever defined the style and image of Audrey Hepburn in cinema and in life.

De Givenchy - an aristocrat, a patrician, with the appearance of a movie hero, very energetic, and very close in spirit to Audrey - arrogance, mentoring, and posturing were completely alien to Hubert.

When he was told that Miss Hepburn had arrived, he expected to see her famous namesake, Katharine Hepburn, and went out to meet her.

But I saw another woman - fragile, a little confused, with huge expressive eyes and, what amazed the fashion designer, not wearing any makeup.

That day, Audrey was wearing tight straight trousers, ballet shoes, a short blouse and a hat with the word “Venice” written on it.

Givenchy invited her to choose things from those that were ready. And Audrey chose the gray suit she wore when returning from Paris.

She also bought White dress, embroidered with black silk - it was perfect for the ball scene, and black dress for a cocktail party, and so that day Audrey Hepburn left Givenchy's studio with a full set of costumes for the film.

In addition to the costumes, that day she acquired an invaluable and devoted friend in the person of Hubert de Givenchy. Forty years of friendship bound them together.

They both had a lot in common and their attitude towards life was also the same. These were two truly kindred spirits.

In 1954, Hubert made a mannequin of Audrey Hepburn, which has never been changed over the years.

The suits that Audrey bought from Hubert, she had to wear to export them to the United States as personal items, so as not to pay taxes and duties on importing clothes.

The film "Sabrina" was nominated for an Oscar in several categories, but received an award in one of them - for costumes. But how disappointed the fashion designer was when the statuette was awarded not to him, but to the official costume designer of the film, Edith Head.

But Givenchy did not show his disappointment in any way - several more years passed and he was still recognized. What was more important to him was the pleasure of dressing Miss Hepburn.

And one day the fashion designer presented Audrey Hepburn with a small box - in her honor he created a new perfume. "This is impossible!" - she exclaimed, and this is how these perfumes began to be called.

Moreover, within a year these perfumes will belong only to her, and only after a year they will go on sale. Givenchy valued their incredibly warm relationship so highly.

The triumph of "Breakfast at Tiffany's" was ahead, which was greatly facilitated by the costumes famous designer. The images created by Audrey and Givenchy made her a true fashion icon, and time has confirmed their imperviousness to fashion trends and aging. 50 years have passed, but everything is modern and fresh.

Relationship Audrey Hepburn and fashion designers were free from any mercantile considerations. She never analyzed what and how much it cost, but her husband Mel Ferrer was sure that Givenchy was using Audrey.

Secretly from his wife, through her agent, he demanded that Hubert pay for Audrey’s services, and he agreed. For Audrey, this was a huge nervous shock. She broke off relations with the agent who had been handling her financial affairs for several years and, as Audrey said, had disgraced her in front of Hubert.

Often ordinary people They don’t understand how painful it is when mercantile calculations rudely invade pure, sublime relationships. But even such misunderstandings could not destroy the friendship of Audrey and Hubert. They constantly kept in touch, texting and calling back.

When Audrey Hepburn got married for the second time, she wore an outfit designed by her faithful friend. It was short pink dress with a cowl collar, and a pink scarf.

Years passed, approaching old age and illness, but nothing could destroy this friendship based on kinship of souls. Audrey was full of plans when a terrible illness came and cut short this wonderful life.

She had a few weeks to live, and she really wanted to return to Switzerland, to her home. But she couldn’t bear a regular plane flight. Then Givenchy sent a private plane from France to the USA, which delivered Audrey, her sons and her beloved dogs to Switzerland.

Audrey no longer ate and almost never left her bed. But, as she said, it was the best Christmas of her life - she was surrounded by her closest and Dear people. Among them was Hubert de Givenchy.

Everyone exchanged gifts. Audrey also had a gift for Hubert - a blue coat. "Take this blue coat, Hubert, Blue colour“It suits you,” she said and, kissing the gift, handed it to her friend.

In the evening, Givenchy flew to Paris, not ceasing to cry and not letting go of Audrey Hepburn’s gift from his hands, as if it were herself.