Che cattle. The meaning of the word cattle in the large modern explanatory dictionary of the Russian language. Cattle: the meaning of the word

Cattle - a term that contemptuously designates the least educated and cultured part of the inhabitants of a particular country ("ordinary people"). The word "cattle" is of Polish origin and means "cattle". This is how the Poles called Orthodox peasants of East Slavic origin, the ancestors of modern Ukrainians.

Previously, the landlords called the peasants the word "cattle". Cattle is not a vocabulary and demeanor in society. Cattle are a system of values. For him, the most important thing is that someone from above commands him, and the cattle completely and unquestioningly carry out all his commands. Cattle denies personality in all its manifestations. And above all, such features as freedom, property and dignity.

Cattle representatives are often called cattle and, sometimes, cattle.

The values

In the obsolete and collective meaning, cattle also has the meaning of "working cattle". For example:

The collective and figurative meaning of cattle denotes people who perform hard work and occupy a low social position. Examples:

In a figurative, colloquial, contemptible sense, a cattle is a stupid, rude, uncouth, uncultured person. Examples:

Cattle is used as a reprimanding, abusive, abusive word:

Spiritually undeveloped, wordlessly submissive people who submit to someone else's will and allow themselves to be exploited (cattle in a contemptuous, collective and figurative sense). Examples:

Creation

The politician started a microblogging (he was sick of everything offline), he "could not have imagined better" to crush nanoblochs and banderlog, rabble and cattle, and gluteal jam.

Fucked up everything! (Slightly below will be accurate). how cattlelike macaques, like satyrs. Only toilets remained clean. It has long been known: they specifically wet them!

What are you, intellectual? - No, no, what are you! The same cattle, just like you.

Two new Russians are riding bicycles. One to another: - How annoying me this cattle on Mercedes!

The very, very bottom where a person can get is when even the scourges are calling you - cattle.

A cultured person will not name a people cattle - he will say: - My dear voters! ..

Glamor is performance cattle about beauty.

On the bus: - I'm sorry to bother you, but I'm getting off at the next stop. Be so kind as to let me go through ... The big guy, stroking him from top to bottom: - Well, what are you, an intellectual crap? - Not at all. The same cattle, just like you.

Hello friends! Today we have a Russian lesson with you. We will consider the meaning of one of the oldest words, which in our time is very popular among various kinds of citizens. We will talk about the meanings of the word "cattle". This is an ambiguous term, interpreted by each of us in different ways. Let's consider all the options for interpreting this dubious term and find out if we correctly understand its meaning, which we sometimes try to convey to this or that opponent.

Cattle: the meaning of the word

In general, translated from Polish, this word means working cattle... However, since ancient times, it began to be actively used in relation to people and denote submissive and weak-willed "herd" slaves... In the 19th century, landowners called their peasants with this word.

Cattle are not even a feature of the lexicon! This is not some kind of behavior of people in society. This is something abstract. For cattle, one single factor always remains important: obedience to someone, constant submission to someone's will. In other words, there must be a leader above him, a commander. Cattle is a "vegetable". It cannot live on its own. Therefore, losing the owner is the worst thing that can happen to cattle, friends!

The cattle phenomenon denies human personality, dignity and property. Of course, all freedom is also denied. The cattle will simply disappear at large, since it is not accustomed to earn money on its own, and also does not know how to take on any responsibility (including for its own life). The most interesting thing is that neither upbringing, nor social status, nor income level, nor education have any meaning in this!

All of the above is a well-known and complete concept of the term "cattle". Its only meaning has been divided in our time into several subsidiary, related to certain individuals. So what do we mean by this word today?

Who are the cattle people:

So, friends, we have fully considered the main meaning of this unpleasant word, and also learned about its semantic derivatives. I hope each of you, when you called this or that person cattle, did it consciously! But be that as it may, I wish you never to utter this word! Good luck!

Urla, rabble, rabble, rabble, gopota, boor, common people, scum, plebs, bastard Dictionary of Russian synonyms. cattle n., number of synonyms: 52 majority of the people (4) ... Synonym dictionary

Cattle, cattle, Wed, more often collect. (Polish bydlo cattle) (obl. bran.). About stupid, weak-willed people, submissive to violence. || In the mouths of the landowners of the feudal landowners, the contemptuous designation of the peasant mass as a weak-willed, wordless and obedient herd ... ... Ushakov's Explanatory Dictionary

cattle - 1. A person of low spiritual culture, poorly educated. Don't act like a trash, at least here, in the theater! Youth slang 2. A person who thinks all the time in a conventional modality. Yur, well, that's enough already: “Now, if only, but if ... ... Dictionary of modern vocabulary, jargon and slang

Cattle, southern, western; ukr. beadlot, blr. cattle, Polish. bydɫo is the same. In the east. glory. borrowing. from Polish. Wed Czech bydlo dwelling, residence, c. puddles. bydɫo apartment, n. puddles. bydɫo. The last words are related to lit. būklà accommodation, ... ... Etymological Dictionary of the Russian Language by Max Vasmer

I cf. 1. Working cattle. 2. transfer. People who do hard work and are of low social status. II cf. 1.dep. decrease Spiritually undeveloped, wordlessly obedient people, submitting to someone else's will and allowing themselves to be exploited. ... ... Modern explanatory dictionary of the Russian language by Efremova

Cattle, cattle, cattle, cattle, rednecks, rednecks, rednecks, rednecks, rednecks, rednecks, rednecks, rednecks (Source: "Full accentuated paradigm by A. A. Zaliznyak") ...

cattle - it was cold, and ... Russian spelling dictionary

AND; Wed collect. [from Polish. bydło cattle] despise. About people who obediently submit to someone else's will and spend their lives in hard, exhausting work for whom l. / About people from lower social strata. ● Originally the word was used contemptuously for ... ... encyclopedic Dictionary

cattle - 1) a physically strong person; 2) one who works well in the ITU; 3) a rude, uncouth person; 4) a person with an abnormal psyche ... Thieves' jargon

cattle - and; Wed, collect. (from Polish bydło cattle); despise. a) About people who obediently submit to the will of others and spend their lives in hard, exhausting work for whom. b) ext. About people from the lower social strata. Originally the word was used contemptuously ... Dictionary of many expressions

Books

• Stories about modern heroes of Russia and Ukraine,. Usually, when we read about some modern “heroes” (representatives of show business, artists, politicians and other representatives of glamor), we plunge our mind into something dirty, because the goal of these people ...
• In whose interests Putin is acting, Yuri Mukhin. Yuri Ignatievich Mukhin is a well-known opposition politician and publicist, writer. In 2015, he was placed in a pre-trial detention center for attempting to hold a referendum on confidence in the authorities in Russia and then released under ...

7 In everyday speech, many words are used that offend the honor and dignity of any individual. However, not everyone knows the true meaning, much less the origin of such terms. Therefore, add our site site to your bookmarks, so that from time to time to look at our light. Today we will analyze such a popular word in narrow circles as Cattle, which means you can read a little below.
However, before you continue, I would like to recommend you some sensible articles on the topic of insults. For example, who is Lashpak, which means the word Outsider, who is called the Skin, which means Pastose, etc.
So let's continue what does cattle mean? This term has West Slavic roots, the original meaning remained in the Czech language "bydlo", which can be translated as "abode", " being". Much later, this word got into Polish speech, and at first meant" dwelling ", then" property "," property ", and finally, starting from the 14th century, they began to mean" livestock "(bydle). Ukrainians borrowed this is a word " beadlot“, among them it began to mean“ people equated to cattle. ”Already from the Ukrainian language it got into Russian, where it acquired its current meaning.

Cattleis a person with a low level of development and needs, easily amenable to the influence of others

Cattle- these are people with the attributes of an animal, for example, livestock, which are characterized by herd behavior, insensitivity to other people's experiences, stupidity, rudeness. The language of power, the only one they can understand and understand

Cattleis a person who, with his disgusting and unpredictable behavior, hurts the feelings of the surrounding citizens. His interests and motivations are closed only on himself

Example:

I was returning home at night, three cattle came to me.

Every day, passing by a neighboring entrance, I see a company of cattle who sit there from morning to evening. What they live on is not clear, muddy personalities.

Stop throwing garbage past the trash can, because you don't want everyone to think of you as a trash.

Plus the cattle is that against its background, anyone will feel their perfection.

For " cattleordinary "it is common to violate the foundations of society, not to obey anyone, and offend those who follow public order. For these people, authority is only their leader, who is distinguished by real strength, and the ability to destroy other people's destinies or even lives in a particularly cruel way. "skin", makes these marginalized imitate their idol, to become kind to him and enter the inner circle. Appearance cattle are quite typical, they usually wear sweatshirts with stripes of the firm "abibas", squat, smoke nibs and gnaw seeds. All their behavior is fraught with a latent threat, and it is better for such types to bypass the other way.
The phenomenon of cattle is now spreading among all strata of society, from schoolchildren to intelligent and educated people. The redneck demonstratively tries to separate himself from the authorities and society, committing the strangest things, starting with throwing garbage out of the window or nailing his scrotum to the paving stones. Any gopnik is a trash, but not all trash is gopniks.

Today we can observe the birth of another subspecies of cattle, the so-called "liberal cattle". We all know that liberals, most of them narrow-minded, and in places completely stupid citizens, amenable to influence. However, the wicked irony is that liberal redneck, considers himself intelligent and very erudite people. Observing this subspecies of cattle for several years, I made an amazing conclusion - they are cerebral palsy, and the most natural,

Against the background of the powerful concept of "people", the word "cattle" looks miserable and ugly, often pronounced to emphasize the negative aspects of human society. “Cattle” is a characteristic of the despised and despised part of the people, not worthy of such a high title as “people”.

According to Ozhegov, these are people who "wordlessly do hard work for someone." However, this word has acquired many new meanings since then. They began to call them not only dumb, downtrodden people and labor, but also those who unquestioningly obey all the instructions of the authorities and bosses, despite the illegality of such instructions, and at the same time pursuing their own personal benefit. "Cattle" - someone who someone else's will can "force" to go against his people, commit a crime, who can be bought and sold, who can be "chased" like cattle in the direction necessary for someone else's will or "chased" going nowhere. “Cattle” is the one who spoils himself and forces others to spoil, who grovels before power and wealth, who steals from society, people in their selfish interests, who opposes the people and who “compromises” the people.

A "cattle" can be either an educated or an uneducated person, a high-ranking or not, a politician, a popular star and a worker at the machine. "Cattle" is not a constant, but a variable and temporary part of society, which from time to time "crap" this society.

1. People who lack reflection and critical thinking.
2. People who don't mind their own business.
3. People who consider their opinion to be the only correct one.
4. People judging the majority by the minority.
5. People who have values \u200b\u200b- copulate, get drunk, watch TV, and that's it.
6. People who blindly believe everything that the media broadcast.
7. People who interfere with the life of others and believe that it should be so.

We believe that everything is that simple. The term "cattle" has three main meanings.

1. outdated. collect. - cattle
2. collect. transfer contempt. - a faceless crowd, people who obediently submit to someone's will, allowing themselves to be exploited.
3. transfer contempt. - a dull, rude, uncouth, uncultured person, driven primarily by instincts, disregarding reason and morality.

As you can see, this word has a loaded semantics. If I am forced to submit to the existing regime, I am a trash. And it doesn't matter if I have education and spiritual values. What if I am uncultured and rude, but do not obey the elite that exploits me? I also belong to the cattle. It turns out that it is not cattle - these are only those who are educated, highly moral and unserviceable. It turns out to be a perfect hero!

Many will say that you will not find such a hero in your life. But then an unpleasant picture emerges: cattle - we are all. I am a redneck, you are a cattle, they are a cattle. Cattle are our parents, our children and our relatives. Is it so?

Let's turn to the discourse about rednecks. We have collected some quite emotional articles on this topic. Upon careful reading, the thought suggests itself that the authors do not have a unanimous opinion about the “cattle phenomenon”. However, in the postmodern tradition, discourse should not lead to unambiguous conclusions. And the answer to the question posed hangs in the air.

We, in turn, will not participate in this discussion. Beckmology has paid enough attention to the analysis of the postmodern era in order to understand all the futility of the approach to draw conclusions from the results of discourse. Discourse is discourse, and each person decides how to live on an individual basis.

About cattle

Yuri Nesterenko

There is an opinion that cattle are certainly lumpen, gopniks from the proletarian outskirts. This type of cattle is indeed very characteristic, but it is by no means exhausted by it. A cattle can have a higher education and a well-paid job, it can even be a good specialist in some narrow field - and still remain a cattle. The defining features of the cattle are as follows:

Cattle is collectivist, as follows from the very essence of the term (“cattle” - in Polish “cattle”). Belonging to a team is the highest value for cattle. The values \u200b\u200bof the collective are accepted by cattle axiomatically, and the very idea that they can be questioned causes either rage or laughter (sometimes both at once). The trash does not have its own opinion, taking for such a set of ready-made cliches, which, in principle, is not subject to analysis and revision.

As a result, the cattle divides the world into Ours and Non-ours. Ours are always right, because they are Ours. They must be hated and despised for the fact that they are Nenasha. Accordingly, no discussion with Nenas (and their defenders, who also automatically become Nenas) is impossible in principle, for cattle it is blasphemous to consider their arguments seriously.

As a result, the cattle are patriotic. Most often it is national-state patriotism, but it can be religious, corporate, etc. Often, all these types of patriotism are combined (giving rise to such, for example, combinations as a committed communist (who by definition must be an internationalist) who hates Jews and Americans). At the same time, the cattle, naturally, have no idea about the covenant not to confuse the bosses with the fatherland. On the contrary, the cattle, as befits a good herd, sincerely love their shepherd. Moreover, the more cruel the shepherd (in cattle terminology - "cool"), the more love he deserves. The greatest delight of cattle, of course, is the cruelty towards Nenashim, but cruelty towards their own meets, at least, understanding, and often approval. At the same time, if only one hundredth of what the cattle glorify their shepherds for, would have done with him a representative of Nenash, the cattle would have torn him up. The cattle does not know his story well, but he is convinced that it must be respected. The cattle likes to express their patriotic anger or delight by night screams under the windows of their compatriots and pogroms in their hometown. In all this, the trash does not see any contradiction.

Cattle are aggressive. He just needs to hate someone. Cattle considers violence, verbal or physical, not only acceptable, but also the most correct answer to the arguments of opponents. The cattle explains all their troubles with the intrigues of the Enemies (Enemies are, of course, Nenashi and the traitors who have defected to their side, but in no case are the cattle shepherds, no matter what they do). The cattle are firmly convinced that the Nenashs hate Ours just as sincerely and passionately as they themselves hate ours, and devote their whole life (at least, politics, for sure) to harm Ours. If there are no enemies, the cattle invents them. At the same time, those Nenashs, who are clearly too peaceful and far from politics to be considered real Enemies, deserve the sincere contempt of the cattle and serve as the object of constant pejorative ridicule that help the cattle revel in the consciousness of their own superiority.

Cattle cannot live without rudeness. Cattle loves to swear, and not only in anger, but also in a calm conversation. However, the most educated part of the cattle at first can be polite - but only as long as the interlocutor does not express ideas that contradict the worldview of the cattle. Here the cattle manifests itself in all its glory. The cattle considers it obligatory to speak about Nenashikh in an insulting and derogatory manner. At the same time, when old insults from endless repetition cease to be perceived as sharply as before, the cattle invents new ones. "Yankees" and "Ukrainians" no longer sound boorish enough - it means that "Pindos" and "ukry" will be used.

The cattle considers himself a carrier of high morality. Such, depending on the cultural level and social status of the cattle, can be called the concepts of correct boys, the moral code of the builder of communism, Orthodox spirituality, corporate ethics, etc .; in any case, the cattle, even with difficulty recovering from a week of binge, considers himself a moral standard, looking down on the rest of the world mired in vice. The slightest deviation from these moral principles (no matter how reasonable and justified in themselves) on the part of the Nenas becomes the object of fierce denunciations; moreover, the cattle considers the very existence of an opinion that does not correspond to Our axioms to be mean. At the same time, any meanness of Ours towards Nenashim is not just forgiven, but delights: "This is how we made them!"

The cattle, in principle, are not able to imagine that a point of view different from his own can be sincere and disinterested. It is absolutely convinced that anyone who expresses such a point of view does so because they are paid by our Enemies among Ours. At the same time, the fact that our regular propagandists do not work for free, even if we only talk about their official income, does not bother the cattle, of course.

Well, the main property of cattle is, of course, stupidity, which is not contradicted even by the presence of a prestigious diploma and professional success in some intellectual sphere. The intellectual part of the cattle is like a computer, which is capable of performing very complex operations according to a given program, but, lacking intelligence, is not capable of either questioning this program, or even more so, changing it. But, unlike most computer programs, the program used by the cattle is absolutely destructive.

Cattle phenomenon

A.A. Pelipenko, I. G. Yakovenko

This material is dedicated to one seemingly particular, but characteristic phenomenon of today's reality. In the broadest sense, it refers to the sphere of values \u200b\u200band expresses the processes of cultural dynamics. History testifies that the emergence and establishment of a new subculture has its own logic. In the beginning, the new quality sets itself apart from the generative broth. Coagulation occurs. People with a new outlook recognize each other by their eyes, by elusive details. They unite around common needs, values, lifestyle. The new asserts itself as one of the cultural positions that have the right to exist alongside others. Then - if the future belongs to this subculture - as dominant. This is the general scheme. At the next stage on the path to domination, the new quality inevitably stumbles upon the sacred values \u200b\u200band fetishes of the old. Their rethinking, namely: profane "re-naming" and reinterpretation, is part of the assertion of the new. The expressive word "scoop", which entered the Russian language in the late 1980s, is a pure example of this kind. Our material is devoted to one of the episodes of the establishment of personal consciousness in modern Russia.

There is a word that sounds louder and clearer in private conversations and assessments of what is happening, occasionally breaking through to the pages of printed publications. It has not yet been uttered at the top of its voice, although the need for it is felt more and more acutely, since there is nothing to replace it with. Let's try to make an excursion from word to concept, from concept to understanding without emotions and hysteria.

So, the word "cattle" came from the Polish language - in the meaning of working cattle - which, however, is not important for us, since the meanings of the words go far from the original etymology. So in this case, what in the ordinary lexicon is understood by the word "cattle" is broader and deeper than the original meaning.

Let us ask ourselves a question: why, strictly speaking, this word is so fearfully included in the normative turnover. Here we are faced with a poorly understood taboo addressed to the nomination of a mystified and deified people. For cattle are ruins that remain after the collapse of the mythologeme of the people. Cattle is a profane hypostasis of the people, and therefore, it is more terrible and unacceptable in pronouncing than any swearing.

In order to understand the processes that have caused the actualization of the old and seemingly long forgotten word, it is necessary to highlight the cultural meanings behind it. What is meant by cattle? Close concepts - boor, barbarian, slave. That is, a creature devoid of an individual-subjective beginning. In a broad sense, the range of meanings associated with the crowd, ochlos, plebs. Once upon a time there was a good word to express similar entities - rabble. All this creates a figurative field, but does not reveal essential moments. Let's outline a portrait of a cattle as a cultural subject.

First of all, this creature is collective in its significant manifestations. He energetically and purposefully moves away from the situation of choice. The cattle is rigidly and imperatively involved in the group. Cattle - always a part of some we, with a derogatory attitude towards "I". His own and especially someone else's. A derogatory attitude towards someone else's "I" is a fundamental trait of cattle. In this regard, cattle are a person with an extremely active life position. Not being in the true sense of the word a person, the cattle are extremely intolerant and aggressive towards manifestations of the personal principle in the other. Historically, the cattle goes back to the communal-tribal person and the closed patriarchal society is the natural, consistent environment for it. In the context of modern civilization, he feels extremely uncomfortable and, therefore, so aggressive.

Cattle denies personality in all its manifestations. And above all, such traits as freedom, property and dignity. First of all, freedom is denied. Such a concept in the minds of the cattle simply does not exist. There is - nonsense, whim, self-will, in a word, dangerous evading behavior. Slavery, total dependence on the social absolute are the essence of the cattle's outlook. A slave can endure everything except his own freedom. Cattle cannot be identified with the social function and behavioral scenarios prescribed from the outside. A choice that presupposes freedom, inner independence and reflection destroys and denies the trash.

Another, highly characteristic property of the phenomenon we are investigating can be characterized as a specific, barbaric in nature style of communication. Clarifications are needed here. Any mature culture tends to create a special buffer zone. It is formed from the norms of etiquette, stereotypes of behavior, and everyday rituals. Such a buffer allows you not to waste your mental energy on endless routine situations. Human efforts are spent on solving non-trivial tasks, on essential processes. The cattle have minimized the sphere of cultural stereotypes. Hence the painful, demanding style of communication. Frequent leaps from aggression to ingratiating themselves. Inability to adequately "read" the conventional behavior of other people. The leaps and the barbaric immediacy in the behavior of the cattle oppose the mediation of mental reactions by culture inherent in a civilized person.

Cattle are the enemy of property. For him there is his own blood and situational alien. The boundaries between one's own and another's are momentary. They change as soon as possible. As a rule, cattle are characterized by the type of behavior that is defined in the everyday vocabulary as "cunning". Cunning-ass is the shortest distance to achieve selfish goals with minimal violations of the rules of the game set from outside. At the same time, the interests of the people with whom the cattle comes into contact are initially and fundamentally ignored (since these interests are not protected from the outside by a specified standard).

For a smart-ass cattle, freshly stolen goods are perceived as their own. Since its social leitmotif - to rake for oneself - does not at all mean a civilized attitude towards property.

There is no human dignity for cattle. It not only does not understand, but actively denies distance, privacy, the whole sphere of the cultural space, which matured and strengthened with the formation of the human personality.

Here we have touched upon an essential topic: the problem of two modes of the studied phenomenon - the virtuous slave and the evil slave. At all times they exist side by side. But the dynamics of the relationship between the evil and the virtuous is of particular interest. In a stable archaic society, they are more or less balanced, and the virtuous slave can even dominate. But in the era of the historical elimination of the traditionalist archaism, the wicked slave literally swells, filling the entire social space. In full accordance with this logic, the pious-righteous cattle has been encountered less and less lately. Today, the crafty slave clearly dominates. This, in particular, is the manifestation of the moral crisis of the obsolete archaism. There are two ways out of the outlined situation. Few virtuous slaves and cynical slave-owners are pulling society into an idealized past when, as they see it, the virtuous slave dominated. The carriers of personal consciousness - to the elimination of the wicked slave through the formation of an autonomous personality.

General for cattle is the intention to simplify.

On a deeper examination, the striving for simplification turns out to be the striving for “incrementing”, for creating a structure that is maximally similar to the traditional patriarchal structure. And since the cattle are a migrant who found traditional culture at the time of its decay, its aesthetic ideal is a depleted and extremely simplified version of traditional culture. The subculture of the settlement, workers' barracks, suburbs.

Cattle proceed from a fundamentally homogeneous picture of the world, the culture of which corresponds to his tastes and ideas. Hence the steady striving to simplify the cultural context and primitivize culture.

The system of representations and behavior of the object of our research is based on the nondiscrimination of its individual point of view and the assumed objective one. And this is a universal characteristic of the phenomenon under consideration. The cattle always speaks absolutely sincerely on behalf of the Lord God. That is why, in a situation of dynamic development of culture, when the conflict of values \u200b\u200band their dialogue is the most important moment of development, the cattle acts as a ballast, an obstacle on the path of dynamics. It is the very indigestible material that carries the threat of backward movements.

We proceed from the fact that in the cultural memory of every person from birth there are blocks of programs and models corresponding to all stages and phases of cultural development from archaism and barbarism to a developed personality. The ratio of these blocks varies greatly depending on the combination of many factors, the analysis of which is a separate big problem. Further, at the age of three to six years, there is a qualitative choice in the direction of one or another mental program of self-realization. The birth and reproduction of rednecks is primarily determined by the social environment in which reflexes, scenarios and a priori unconscious programs of the cattle are adaptive. It is noteworthy that children growing up in a cattle-generating environment can show outstanding abilities, brightness of mind, rudiments of a personal worldview, which once (15-17 years old) completely disappear without a trace giving way to a spineless drift position along the course of life with more or less active raking under themselves. Sometimes using all the talents released by the Creator in order not to become a person.

Today, in spite of all the ranting, the power assumes the cattle as the main social subject. Focusing on his social psychology and value attitudes, the authorities, thereby, reproduce a dead-end, hopeless situation. As long as the mythologeme “the whole people” is in use, the mug of cattle will stand behind this mystified image. We must state with all certainty that “the whole people”, or “common people” about which we have heard all our life, does not exist in nature. The mythologeme of the "people" is a sign to denote archaic integrity, what philosophers call a social absolute. Strictly speaking, it did not exist before, although Soviet society was poorly aware of its heterogeneity. Today, the idea of \u200b\u200bsome kind of unity of the "people" is a pure myth.

There is a society that consists of qualitatively heterogeneous groups with fundamentally different interests and different attitudes towards civilization in general. And there can be no compromise between the subject of modern civilization - that is, a person - and cattle. Politics equally acceptable to both, the same. The triumph of the ideas of privatism, freedom, property and dignity of every member of society cannot be combined with the archaic barbarian. Cattle is not taught and not changeable. He cannot be persuaded, pacified and remade. A lackey can grow from a rigidly trained cattle, but not a man of civilization.

So far, the infantile fear of the natural stratification of society has not yet been overcome. Nonsensical variations on the theme of universal unity are reproduced. The inexpressive symbols of this unity, again addressed to the figurative-symbolic consciousness of the cattle, are being worked out. And, in general, the language spoken by the authorities is still the language of cattle. He was Westernized but did not leave his roots.

The authorities are doing everything and a little more to slow down and stifle the formation of independent public institutions, an autonomous person, legal, civil and property independence. The government puts society in the hands of the mafia, which is waging a war of destruction with legal, non-criminal private property. Power does not create legal guarantees for the individual, etc.

It seems that the consciousness of the holders of power is swallowed up by the chimera: “we” - the people at the helm - will become individuals, win our freedom and gain dignity. “They” should remain in the stall and not interfere with us doing our affairs. It must be said with all certainty that this is the purest illusion. First of all, the idea of \u200b\u200bclass society was three hundred years late.

Secondly, there can be nothing in any way stably guaranteeing "their" status and property, except for legal guarantees of the individual - and they are fundamentally universal - there can be. Separately, those who have broken through to the helm can work out the “grab-and-go” strategy. But as a social stratum, as a whole, they will be able to maintain their positions only within the framework of the country's liberal evolution.

Let's summarize. Cattle is a product of the decomposition of a patriarchal society, placed in an inadequate urban context, and surrounded by people representing a personal culture. The concept of "cattle" is the result of understanding this phenomenon and at the same time an assessment that sounded from the space of personal consciousness.

The assertion of the "cattle" image marks the twilight of the 200-year-old myth of the "people". The riddle over which the ideal was tormented and the ideal from the non-coincidence with which the generations of Russian intellectuals suffered, has been solved. The authors of the answer renounce the fundamental myth and the basic value of the intellectual consciousness.

In this sense, the assertion of the image of the cattle marks the death of the Russian intellectual. The intellectual existed in the universe, set by the coordinates of the sacred Power and the sacred People. Power / People, Proper / existing - coordinates of the intelligentsia's cosmos. And when in place of the image of the great, limitless in its qualities, embracing everything and all substance, containing all ends and all beginnings, an ineffable People, a cattle appears - one can testify: the intelligentsia is over. The bourgeois intellectual who replaces the Russian intellectual is rethinking the sacred values \u200b\u200bof his predecessors. And in this rethinking, the myth of the people turns into cattle. What can be said about this. The twilight of the gods is a special time.

To the question of cattle

S. Ovchinnikov

There are only about 5% of smart worthy people on the planet. 95% of people are cattle. This ratio is not determined by profession or social class. Among all categories of persons who call themselves a man, there are 95% of cattle citizens. And the higher the social level occupied by a humanoid individual, the higher the percentage of cattle among them. It is easy to guess that there are practically no people left among the presidential corps or among the shadow financial tycoons.

A person becomes a cattle not in society, as many believe, but rather at birth. And only generations of selection in the families of smart worthy parents give birth to those very 5% of real people who, due to the peculiarities of their intellectual development in the Cattle Society, will never achieve their rightful roles.

Thus, I argue that cattle are not so much a social phenomenon, but to a greater extent - biological, genetically determined, if you like.

So what is "cattle" really? This is a question that has been worrying me for a very long time, because I have to live and work in such a specific environment.

At first I thought that these were beer and vodka alcoholics, individuals who smoked and swear at every opportunity, employed in not the most intelligent professions (as a rule, workers). But in fact, my conclusion was not the best one. I paid attention only to some details of the "external appearance" of the cattle-individuals.

Then, after reading and looking at it, I thought, with a sinful deed, about whether the level of cattle correlates depending on nationality. It seemed to me, for example, that among Russians (more precisely, those who define themselves as Russians) the percentage of cattle is prohibitively high. But among the Tatars and Bashkirs, it is much lower. With the Jews, the issue is much more complicated - they have turned into Russians and are so smart that I am still confused about this category of persons. I only know that these smartest people have a well-developed team spirit, fate beat them repeatedly, which only rallied this nation. They are relatively self-contained (isolated) and their history goes back more than one millennium, which allows us to speak about systematic and long-term selection work.

Then they explained to me that, most likely, cattle are just people who do not think about the consequences of their actions, who do not care at all about their well-being and the well-being of people living next to them. The wording struck me as interesting, but somewhat vague. It seems that the key phrase here is "people who do not think." By the way, on the topic: the biological species to which we all belong is called Homo sapiens, which just presupposes the presence of a certain intellectual level in individuals of this species. So, the above formulation about the essence of cattle means only one thing (in fact) - the cattle is extremely poorly developed intellectually. That intellectual structure over the animal essence, which God endowed man with, is unexpressed, weak and wobbly in this category of persons. That and look - it will fall apart.

Is it right that the trash for the most part is poorly able to think and analyze? Let the cattle fill in any analytical table and the initial data for it - this will put him into a stupor. But at the same time, it seems to me, it is not worthwhile to unambiguously understand that any glorious representative of the "progressive" cattle-community is poorly intellectually developed. This is a serious mistake! The fact is that poor intellectual development is one of the traits of cattle, but not at all obligatory. I draw the attention of the 5% category of the population to this. It's just that the term cattle should be understood much deeper and broader than simply as individuals "not thinking". Many "glorious" representatives of the cattle are much more intellectual than some of the worthy people! But what is their mind directed at? ..

Sounds scary, doesn't it?

My myth about smoking beer alcoholics finally vanished into smoke. As is the myth of cattle-ability among various nations. It turns out that rednecks are a more complex phenomenon than is commonly believed. And among the cattle can be any of us. There are certainly criteria for cattle. Otherwise, the term "cattle" itself has no right to exist. But these criteria turned out to be completely more unexpected, even for me.

Usually we, worthy people (5%), operate only with the external criteria of the trash community. You drink and smoke, you swear - it means cattle. If you spit, excuse me, sysh and shit under your feet, you leave household rubbish at the entrance - it means cattle. To give a damn about others, ignoring everything and everything, the eternal "light bulb" state - that means cattle. If you do not respect old age, you make fun of the weak, it means that you are cattle. A thief and a corrupt person means a trash. A member of the United Russia party or an official (which is now synonymous) means cattle. Wait! But these are just some particular external, descriptive, far from unambiguous, complete and reliable criteria. What can I say - after all, even in "United Russia" sometimes there are worthy people (as we now know - 5%)! Does this mean that our criteria are more superficial than we previously thought?

Then what lies at the heart of the very concept of "cattle"? Why does a redneck with some of the features described above really exist? Why are the cattle among the human population an alarming 95%? Why is the percentage of cattle high among any social stratum of the population? Let's mark - among any social stratum! Why are there even more cattle among managers? Why in cattle-families with a high degree of probability there are cattle-children - future cattle-citizens of a cattle-country? Why is it profitable for the government of any country to increase the population of the cattle community up to 100% gold? Cattle, redneck, redneck ...

Where is the answer to all these difficult questions?

I learned my answer from a simple book by a biologist, popularizer of Russian ethology (the science of animal behavior), Viktor Dolnik.

The essence of the book boils down to the fact that nature took only about 40 thousand years for human evolution. For evolutionary processes, this is an extremely short time. During this time, man managed to make a colossal step from a monkey to a thinking, inventive, intellectually gifted ... monkey! We send flying machines to plow the vastness of space, we land people on the moon, we create works of art, we completely change the habitat, but deep down most of us remain a monkey, the worst "monkey" qualities of which are refracted through the prism of reason and become especially perverted and wild ...

We still have strong instinctive programs. This is our deep subconscious (which Sigmund Freud also wrote about). Without some of the instincts, we would not be able to live: we breathe, we eat, we walk, we multiply. These instincts allow us to survive as a species.

But we inherited a number of instincts (with the same genes) from our close monkey relatives, not the most well-behaved animals. These are atavistic instincts - we would live much more calmly in modern society without them, we no longer need them, they prevent us from living and working, they turn us into cattle, but these instincts are hard-coded in our genes. And 40 thousand years of evolution is too short a time for a biological species with such a low reproduction rate and fertility like Homo sapiens to permanently remove the "harmful" and useless monkey instinctive programs from our genes.

Knowing about such monkey instinctive programs, we must be able to suppress them in ourselves. To do this, each of your controversial actions must be subjected to introspection, to identify an instinctive "virus" and change their behavior. However, as you can imagine, for this you need not only to know which viral programs can change your behavior, but also to have not hefty willpower from birth to death in order to overcome them, remaining a worthy person, and not sliding back to the biped. a monkey that sits deep inside each of us! Moreover, having mastered the technique of constant introspection of actions and correcting their behavior, you need to teach this to your children until they independently learn to understand the true motives of their behavior.

Only a few have learned to control the monkey within themselves. I call them decent people (5% of the human population). Someone approached the solution of the problem from the side of psychoanalysis, and someone, like me, having become acquainted with the ethological literature. In any case, the result is the same - we have learned to suppress the monkey within ourselves. And this small achievement is a result that surpassed any major scientific discovery last centuries. Perhaps this is the greatest achievement of a modern person, which is both very personal and very civic significant!

So what "monkey" atavistic instinctive programs does the cattle implement?

I'll try to list them in order of importance. It is quite possible that after carefully reading the book by Viktor Dolnik "The Naughty Child of the Biosphere" or the works of Sigmund Freud, you will determine for yourself other "viral" ancestral programs of behavior that you will consider it necessary to get rid of. I will name the most important ones from my point of view.

1. Herd. It's no secret that monkeys are herd animals. Together they fight off predators, protect their families, gather food. Herds have changed a lot since ancient times. Now the herd is civil society. Good or bad - it is as difficult to say as to decide whether it is good or bad to divide the planet on the territory of individual states. What interests me here is something completely different: the herd instinct often leads to the complete destruction of my own opinion on this or that phenomenon of the surrounding reality. The herd shouts: “Be like everyone else! Support the common solution! " Therefore, before making any decision that seems right to you offhand, carefully analyze it, and your own opinion, or this opinion of the monkey majority, is a cattle. If this turns out to be a cattle decision, it is better, at least, to refrain from supporting such a decision.

- Sure! - said Mr. Titov. - This man is better! ..

- Than that? - I specified.

- Not! Than katavasiya! " - writes the correspondent of "Kommersant" Andrey Kolesnikov. And this is already an anecdote!

Or recall the story of one recent obscurantism initiated by the Russian Orthodox Church... Herding is the engine of not only states, but also religions. Primitive instinctive monkey programs forced hundreds of thousands of people to stand in line in the cold, just to pass under a piece of underwear belt of dubious origin. While another smaller fragment of the same belt has been kept for a long time in a nearby temple, where it was not so popular. It turns out that size matters. Believe me, such queues "in the world" used to be only for the new iPhone!

The statistics of the sick in the queue and those healed under the belt - to the studio! I would like to compare the numbers. Or did believers get sick first and then automatically heal? Then 0: 0, a draw.

2. Hierarchy. The monkey knows exactly what place it occupies in the herd. Or is it a six - a monkey running errands and a "whipping boy"; or is it a hierarch of the herd, constantly proving in every action - who is in charge here. Basically, showing off fangs and personal belongings. By the way, this is precisely why the entire obscene vocabulary of the modern "man" revolves around the genitals and actions associated with them. We no longer show them to the enemy, replacing this action with a word.

Any monkey is very respectful of the hierarchy established in the herd. It's instinctive. And of course only a very bad monkey does not want to climb this hierarchical ladder. Any monkey dreams of becoming a hierarch. And for this she is ready to go to any tricks, intrigues and humiliation. Today they punish her for the slightest offense, and tomorrow she will have mercy and punish herself. Tomorrow she might have power. The sweetest thing a monkey can get: dominion over the herd. This means: get access to the carve-up of all food products obtained together. And just the ability to slap or reward every moment of time.

Now transfer all of the above to human society. It turns out not the most beautiful picture. Cattle in the best monkey traditions are looking for power by all available means, going to power over the heads of lower ranks and strenuously licking a passage for themselves in other commanding places. From here, intrigues and intrigues are born, long gossip over mugs of tea right at the workplace (here is the real evil: a smoke break and tea), backbiting and titanic work to remove unwanted people, rich officials with minors in saunas, widespread corruption. After all, I am in power, and if no one limits my instincts (the prosecutor's office, for example), then I can take what I command. Iron logic of the monkey hierarch!

Mikhail Voslensky in his wonderful book "Nomenclature" cites the following quotation from I.E. Steinberg, People's Commissar of Justice in the first government of Lenin: “On one side there is intoxication with power: arrogance and impunity, mockery of a person and petty malice, narrow vindictiveness and sectarian suspicion, ever deeper contempt for the lower, in a word, domination. On the other side - oppression, timidity, fear of punishment, powerless anger, quiet hatred, servility, tireless deception of elders. " End of quote.

3. Malice. Monkeys are perhaps a few of the animals who can take a stick and team up with others of their own kind, beat to death a weaker, sicker and just a lower rank. Sometimes it’s just because the hierarch punished them themselves. Anger rolls up the hierarchical ladder. Appetite comes with eating: getting inflamed, screaming, more and more individuals of the herd get involved in the beating until the poor fellow is finished.

Remember the story of the tyrant Muammar Gaddafi, or the recent riots in England and Egypt. This video is not about people, this video is about monkeys, only instead of sticks and fangs they have machine guns, Molotov cocktails. Look at any militant demonstrators. They shout for a long time, waving their arms, lunging towards the police and immediately cowardly distancing themselves from the close ranks of the special forces. These are not people - they are monkeys, they are cattle!

It would be a skillful instigator and any meeting can easily be turned into a crowd of evil cattle, ready to destroy everything in its path. Only because the implementation of this ancient instinctive program is great pleasure. Anger and hatred are in the hands of those who have a nuclear bomb in their bosom. This combination of ancient instinct and intellectual "achievement" of humanity is explosive.

So, from my point of view, cattle are the result of the accelerated development of human civilization; 95% of the population, unable to control their own atavistic monkey instincts, and characterized by a pronounced herd instinct, reverence for the hierarchy and boundless anger towards the weak.

That's what redneck is.

Cattle theory

Alexander Buryak

There is a "theory of elites" (or "theory of the elite"), cultivated by pseudoscientists who serve the ideological needs of the rotten "social elite" and curry favor with the powerful and the rich. The relationship between science and pseudoscience in the “theory of elites” is already indicated by the very crooked name of this “theory”: the so-called “elites”, as a rule, have no significant selectivity either in the literal or figurative sense.

So, if the “theory of elites” is wandering through not particularly strong minds, then why not start the “theory of cattle” (or “theory of cattle” ?!), reflecting that part of society , which remains after deducting the "tops", which are supposedly the "elite"?

Yes, the word "cattle" as applied to people is evaluative and emotionally colored, but it is not more evaluative and emotionally colored than the word "elite".

Actually, it would be more correct to talk about the existence of the scientific field of "cattle science", to which various competing "cattle theories" can belong, and we will do just that, and not follow the lead of pseudoscientists feeding on the so-called theory of the so-called elites ...

The disdainful attitude towards the plebs, expressed in the word "cattle", is part of the subject of research on cattle studies. Thus, the word "cattle" appears in cattle studies not as an insult, but as a term.

To distinguish the "cattle theory" under consideration here from possible competing theories, one can call it revolutionary. Unlike the "theory of elites", the "theory of cattle" (or "theory of cattle" - the terminology has not yet been settled) does not express currying favor with the object of its consideration - if only because if you call someone a cattle in person, then usually you have to measure their strengths, carry off their feet or prepare for a lawsuit to protect "honor and dignity", because the advanced "cattle" allegedly have them too (and if at least someone from the cattle could still explain what is the difference between them, and if she there is, then why can't it be that “honor” is hurt, but “dignity” is not - or vice versa?). As a result of this difference, the cultivation of the “theory of elites” is more suitable for people of an opportunistic make-up, and the cultivation of the “theory of cattle” is more suitable for people of a heroic and / or revolutionary make-up.

In Polish, the word "cattle" (bydlo) means "cattle". Among the gentry of the Rzecz Pospolita, when applied to people, it was a rough synonym for such words as "plebs", "common people", "rabble". It entered the Russian language in its figurative meaning - perhaps even before the "first section" of the Commonwealth. The rudeness of the word is explained by the fact that a significant part of the gentry was poor, and for them the main means of distancing from the "ignoble" was a demonstrative hostility towards them. Often, the poorer the pan was, the more arrogant: let him scoop manure out of the barn himself, but with a saber dangling on his side.

To call or not call the bulk of the people cattle is a question of style, mood, politeness, notorious political correctness, but not a question of truth. People are essentially not the same in their mental qualities, morals, ideological attitudes, intellectual skills: there are more strong-willed, intelligent, capable of independent judgment - and there are noticeably inferior to them in these qualities. The former gravitate towards leadership or at least to preserve their special position, the latter prefer to be led, to experience the joy of belonging to the crowd. The latter are always in the majority: in any society, in any era. The word "cattle" as applied to people is just a negatively colored synonym for the expression "majority of the people."

The use of the word "cattle" in relation to other people is either a painful reaction to the intolerance of the masses in relation to thinking individuals, to the unwillingness to understand them, to the inability of most people to develop, or a physiologically conditioned act of admiration for oneself against the background of not particularly developed fellow citizens, or providing yourself with a kind of psychological refuge ("but at least I wasn't a trash").

Cattle are not called publicly cattle, according to their mood, only those who themselves are cattle, and those who seek to use the cattle, that is, officials, populist politicians and all kinds of implicit swindlers acting as entrepreneurs, public figures, authoritative specialists, etc. .P.

Of course, rednecks will not vote for people who publicly call them rednecks. Therefore, for example, Adolf Hitler never publicly called the bulk of the German people cattle, but only cautiously hinted sometimes at its essence. A person who publicly calls the people cattle deprives himself of the chance to get to an elective public office, that is, he is freed from the need to pretend to be a figure in the common taste, find it difficult to compose a profitable lie and can afford to focus on more useful to society and more interesting occupations. He crosses the Rubicon and removes the mountain from his shoulders - and only through the use of the word "cattle" several times for its intended purpose. There are many other specific words (of three or more letters), the public use of which leads to a similar liberating effect, but the word "cattle" also allows you to enjoy a keen sense of your own nobility (perhaps illusory, but perceived as real!).

Behind the word "cattle" is an inconvenient, crude truth. In a society in which everyone is used to manipulating and being manipulated, it is not included in the set of recognized political fictions, and in a society in which people would not need to manipulate each other, situations in which this word would be asked to speak would simply disappear.

Those who call trash are often trash themselves, but either advanced in education, or belonging to some particularly flawed but solidary minority, like homosexuals, absurdists, etc.

Not belonging to cattle does not mean to be especially valuable or just a good person. To belong to cattle does not mean to be bad at all. Cattle are called cattle when they emphasize the vicious qualities of the bulk of the people. They emphasize not only for the sake of experiencing their own greatness, but also in the faint hope of nudging at least some of them towards correction.

Of course, life does not fit into simple schemes, so there is a half-cattle, a quarter-cattle, etc.

The desire to dissociate itself from the cattle behind the use of the word “cattle” is commendable, even if the individual manifesting it suffers from an overestimation of self-esteem.

The opposite of cattle is the highest. The use by the supreme of such words as "elite", "the chosen" is not accurate, because, as a rule, no one chooses the supreme for a special role, and they fall on it themselves due to their peculiarities, while the "chosen" - by the people or bosses - are often the worst kind of cattle.

Some of the higher ones are shepherds, aristocracy; some are hermits, the aristocracy of the spirit.

The nominal affiliation of the individual to the bosses does not make this individual superior, nominal subordination does not make the cattle. In the shepherds of the cattle, the same cattle often goes, only more energetic and pushed to activity by greed and a sense of their own inferiority. The shepherds partly adjust to the cattle, partly they try to drive or drive it in the direction they need. Sometimes adjustment prevails in society, sometimes - leading, sometimes - persecution. It is easier for representatives of cattle to break out into the first shepherds in a democracy, because such individuals are "spiritually" closer to the bulk of the people, more understandable to her.

Aristocrats of the spirit are often presented as people with dust and / or with an underdeveloped conscience who categorically do not want or are unable to engage in simple honest work and abuse the respectful attitude of a respectable cattle to the higher. In addition, there are honestly erroneous individuals who mistakenly classify themselves (and are mistakenly ranked by others) as the aristocracy of the spirit on the grounds that their intellectual production is very similar to the intellectual production of the aristocrats of the spirit, although in fact it is absurd.

The word "cattle" will lose its political relevance when this form is established social order, in which “at the top” will be mostly worthy people and these people will fully take care of the well-being and development of the majority, as well as timely give way to others, even more worthy - as they appear on the political horizon. Presumably, this will not happen soon.

Revolutions always happen because the power - as a result of decay, degeneration or too democratic expression of will - turns out to be a trash, that is, individuals with a limited outlook, uncreative, unable to provide the rest of the trash with tolerable living conditions, and non-cattle - the opportunity to manifest themselves for the good of society ...

Some very difficult questions:

- How to divide people into the best and the worst?

- What to do with the worst ones?

- How can a society be organized so that it benefits most from the best and from the worst?

Different living conditions require different human qualities. If some individuals proved to be the best, this does not mean that they (or other people with the same set of qualities) will be the best in the future. To determine which people are best for the future, you need to have an idea of \u200b\u200bthe conditions in which these people will find themselves.

Any quality of an individual “works” only in interaction with other qualities and therefore cannot be evaluated without taking them into account. For example, physical strength is not beneficial in itself, but only within a certain "size" group, otherwise all animals would be the weight of elephants (on land) or whales (at sea). It is beneficial to be stronger among those of the same size, but if you become larger to ensure your greater strength, you risk falling out of your "ecological niche" and being generally more vulnerable than less powerful related organisms.

Members of the same species may have different coping strategies. Otherwise, perhaps, it will not be possible to explain why, for example, honesty or, on the contrary, meanness, are not among the rudimentary human qualities.

Since people live in societies, it is quite possible that it is optimal to have not a single type of people, but several mutually complementary types, each of which has its own, so to speak, human ideal.

Uncertainty in the division of people into the best and the worst leaves room for natural selection, and natural selection acts slowly, with great costs and is able to drive humanity into an evolutionary dead end. But, on the other hand, such uncertainty is preferable to erroneous certainty, which existed, for example, in Nazi Germany: in conditions of uncertainty, individuals who are objectively of significant value to society, but are not perceived by society as such, have more opportunities to survive and realize themselves.

Cattle and scum

Yuri Stepanovich Ivanov

Predatory, understandably, consider themselves superior to non-predatory people. One way or another, they “respect” each other. “Thieves in law” call themselves “people”. All this in a completely paradoxical way coexists with their ultimate egoism and mutual humiliation (and mutual destruction).

The self-names of most "wild peoples" and isolated tribes are also translated as "people." This is an echo of the earliest, completely undocumented period of human history. There was a deadly struggle with biological paleoanthropus-adelfophages, which then spread by inertia to human societies. All neighboring ethnic groups were both potentially and really dangerous to each other. Each of the tribes, in an atmosphere of general hostility, mutually did not consider their neighbors people, singling out only themselves in this capacity. Now this is already a rather rare occurrence. Only his atavistic rarities remained - among other nationalities, in the "elites" of societies and in criminal circles.

Inveterate criminals call all other people (that is, mostly non-predatory) "framers". However, they cannot call them "cooler", it would be more offensive. They do not have the logical ability to allow themselves to define these very "frayers" as animals, not people. At the same time, they themselves all have such zoological and other "flattering" characteristics, and besides, they are numerous. "Inhumans", "murderers", "vipers", "jackals" ...

True, sometimes the authorities can afford the luxury of “taking their souls away” and expressing the most “brutal compliments” to the masses, and as loudly as they like. Because they themselves find themselves in the role of “rejected and oppressed”. These are periods of popular uprisings and revolutions. Then, driven to despair, an angry people cheerfully wears heads and scrotums of rulers, oppressors and their henchmen who did not have time to escape abroad, pluck peacocks in the manors' estates, invents more and more "symbols and joys of freedom." But he does all this again under the "wise" leadership of predatory opposition leaders - demagogues. According to the apt definition, a demagogue is “a talker who seeks to amass capital on public discontent and gain political influence” (a suggestionor, in a word).

This "abusive stream" speaks of people's awareness of the existence of an interspecies spiritual abyss. There is even an objective assessment of its "size" - "who is who", with a name indication and definition. But, to the greatest regret, this awareness is figurative, frivolous. Something offensive, as it were, but said in passion. Ordinary people cannot understand that all this is extremely serious and incredibly scary! If they themselves are "cattle" themselves, then those are already so "scum" that there is nowhere else to go. They themselves talk about it (as well as about many other things). Their thugs "god" is well known: "I will be scummy!" This means that they promise to "their own" not to behave extremely meanly, vow to remain within the "local" rules, although they are capable of anything, since they have to swear. And the fact that they are already archipadlo, this moment they pass over in silence. All these "crowned, financial and criminal beasts" are really not people (!!). Not people in the sense in which this word should only be correctly understood.

People are humane intelligent beings. But the predatory, evil world does not allow people to lead a decent, kind way of life, does not release them from the permanent state of "cattle".

"Cattle" to "bastard" - this is the main division of all communities on Earth.

For representatives of the predatory power, external symbols and attributes of their superiority and domination are extremely important. External ostentatious paraphernalia for demonstrating their own social superiority is vital for them. They, bastard, are higher than ordinary people, this "cattle", and how can this be proved? After all, they do not have beautiful branchy horns or a lush multicolored tail! They are classified as "ugly" predators such as hyenas, not lions or snow leopards. Vultures, in a word. So it remains for them, firstly, to demonstrate their own well-being in every possible way (this is not always easy), and secondly. (this is always possible!) they additionally, to increase the "difference", must in any way and mercilessly oppress, humiliate forced people, and thereby distance themselves from those whom they call "rabble", "common people", "psya krev" , "Cattle". Therefore, the homes of the nobility were always higher than those of other sectors of society. Here you can also add the majestic tombs ("rest homes" of rulers after death) - the mounds of Europe, the mausoleums of Asia, the pyramids of Egypt and pre-Columbian America. All sorts of noticeable differences in clothes, expensive trinkets, etc., personal belongings - this is also their "style".

And at the same time, they will not tolerate if one of the "lower-ranking individuals" allows himself something like that. For them, this is a terrible blow, right to the bottom. As if it suddenly turned out that their diamonds are no longer worth anything, now everyone has them, boys play with them. P. Bazhov describes how a certain gentleman saw that the children of one serf were wearing boots, so he rotted this whole hard-working family. This sense of their own superiority arises in predators even in early childhood, and they show extraordinary ingenuity in choosing the means of demonstrating their own "greatness". An illustrative story of an eyewitness about the customs that existed in a certain domestic orphanage. The bosses (informal leaders) of the children's collective, in the absence of anything (!), Except for satin panties (south of the country, summer, heat), still managed to invent "symbols of power." No one, except for the young leader and his several henchmen, had the right to lower his panties from behind, exposing the buttocks, and so, in a peculiar way, “decollete”. This was their exclusive privilege. Violations of this "chain of command" were ruthlessly persecuted. The only exception for whom was made was for the son of the director of that orphanage (a “young escape” of the future, already an “adult” merger of criminal structures with the official authorities).

But to ensure the reliable functioning of criminal structures, the predatory power does everything. To do this, she first of all needs the corruption of society. Alcohol, drugs, pornography, unbridled sex, stupidity, primitivization of people. All this is dropping them, pulling them to their own predatory soulless level. Pulling into your swamp. The fight against crime is pure visibility, a pseudo-sanitary event. Losers are removed and beginners "finish their education" in special schools - prisons.

In criminal hats, the performers are drunk, "put on a needle", corrupted. Unbridledness becomes their natural, unrestrained behavior. Only on "business" they are recommended to go in "form". In the same way, the predatory power in every possible way reduces the moral level of the masses (the same performers). In the most blatant form, this is exactly what is happening in our country. Cheating, corruption goes on in all directions of spiritual life. Religion did not escape this terrible fate. Many people, especially young people, find themselves in the net of totalitarian sects. Every day, early in the morning, demonic performances "in Christ" by Western television rogue preachers are broadcast. These vile "theo-TV shows" are imposed on people, in addition to our home-grown Chumaks, "Chumichki" and other evil spirits. Sorcerers, astrologers, witches, prophetesses, and other "psychotherapautics". TV programs "Global Forecast", "Third Eye". "Ugh, ugh, ugh" ... Indeed, I want to spit. They all have cunning, mean, blatant nonsense. It can be seen that these are rogues, crooks. But people, unfortunate fools, believe. Moreover, it is not just some obscurantists who believe, but educated people. I know people with higher education who believe that the movie tricks from the Miracles of David Copperfield television series are genuine miracles. The talented American parody film "Zelig" is considered to be truly documentary. It took a lot of work to convince them. This is the power of the "screen" impact!

If the authorities wish, the fight against crime is not only possible, but has already been implemented, there is a positive experience. In the USSR of the 1960s, all thieves in law were placed in common zones, transferred to bread and water, forced to work, and played off against each other directly. And in a huge country for many years (like 15 years - almost a generation!) There was no gangster-type organized crime. It is enough just to isolate the ringleaders, organizers, and law-abiding citizens can sleep peacefully.

But the predatory power, as it turns out, is simply necessary crime. Only in this case does she have a "material and technical justification" for the presence of powerful punitive structures: they say, to ensure law and order. Although strong despotic governments (physical dictatorship), crime, especially "external", street, need "not really". They are strong and so, and they have absolutely no need to "make excuses" to someone. There is no one and no need to prove their necessity for establishing and maintaining order in society. The people do not resist, but the "enemy" is needed. The predatory power is always purely instinctively looking for an "enemy", for her it is like some unbearable itch. That is why powerful despotism can "afford" a merciless effective fight against crime, supposedly "to the fullest." Chopping off hands, heads, public executions, etc.

The Soviet Power was once "strong" as well. The fight against crime was carried out in "all seriousness" - albeit illegal, but effective. Almost an entire generation was ignorant of organized crime. Such measures, despite all their "quasi-legality", always evoke enthusiastic approval from the broadest public. Apparently, this extra-legal element is still necessary. Wedge wedge principle. Law enforcement agencies are well aware of all the leaders of the underworld, and they are "knitted" only for "tax evasion" and for improper parking of cars. Otherwise it is impossible within the framework of the laws.

Although it is clear that it is unrealistic to completely get rid of crime. A lot of crimes are committed precisely by non-predatory people. From despair when life's tragic circumstances force him to commit a crime. Even more - out of stupidity, in a drunken shop, out of jealousy. In the same way, juvenile delinquency is ineradicable. It is directly related to the powerful, irresistible surge of sexuality in the maturing organism. But, in principle, if you wish, it is easy to redirect into harmless channels most of this hard-to-control "pubertal" energy of young people. This can be done with a non-predatory rational government and, conversely, in totalitarian societies. Extremes meet. In “communist” Albania, obedient, disciplined youth went home at 10 pm. After the collapse of the system, the predatory power, overdoing it in robbing people, provoked a popular uprising. But it's okay, the folk cattle will sooner or later pacify, it will not go anywhere from its stall (by the way, these are the real, genuine (zoo) thoughts of the local rulers).

Another ineradicable branch of crime is corruption. It will flourish as long as there is government and money in the world. It is thanks to her that powerful "untouchable" layers of super-organized, practically undetected criminality arise and thrive, with patrons at the very top: at high state levels. The sad fact has already become an unshakable, textbook axiom that if the "strings" are pulled high enough during the investigation of a case, the investigation will be done by any means, up to the physical elimination of the "too inquisitive" ones, but it will be necessarily covered up.

The only way to combat this very "elite" branch of crime in the existing conditions is "Stalinist", in its ideal form. Strict control, capture and punishment of criminals in all echelons of power, regardless of rank. As it is always demagogic and declared, - all are equal before the law. In fact, criminal officials have many opportunities to circumvent these very laws, for them "the law is that rod." A tough mechanism for combating crime is unthinkable in the notorious Western democracy. There, too, only an appearance is created. The Stalinist method, for all its ruthlessness, really hit the wrong targets, mostly small fry came across. But on the other hand, in contrast to the Western punitive justice system, big sharks were often rewarded "according to merit" here. And this is a gratifying fact, although nothing is decisive, but simply by itself, like a beautiful illustration in a terribly boring book.

It is here that the roots of the nation's ardent love for Stalin grow. For his alleged justice and tireless, vigilant-vigilant catching of all kinds of filth among the authorities. The mere appearance of justice proved to be quite enough for the popular consciousness. And this love is still flickering, despite any idle reminiscences about the "camp dust", about the "black crows", about the poor "without the right to correspond", etc. Everything was forgiven to Stalin - even those subjected to blatant arbitrariness did not blame him. Poor people are easygoing and forgiving. For a diffuse view, it's like "unrequited love". Let it be to a not very worthy object, but love. And diffuse people cannot be blamed for looking for a tyrant. This is a natural manifestation of the herd instinct. Leaders are vital for them. But they need good, non-predatory leaders, and these vacancies are mostly filled with predatory monsters. A herd of buffaloes should be led by the best buffalo, not a flock of spotted hyenas.

"PRISON EXPERIMENT"

The predatory rulers, these relict "Caesars" and "satraps" of the modern world, do not need true knowledge about man. For them, only the psychological methods of manipulating the “herd, cattle” are important. And they hinder human self-knowledge in every possible way, feeling perfectly well that it is not in their interests. “Power and truth do not go together. This is the bitter truth. "

Remarkable in this respect is the famous "prison experiment" carried out in the early 1970s. Two dozen student volunteers, under the supervision of the American psychologist Philip Zimbardo, participated in a kind of "prison" game. They were divided by lot into two groups, who played the roles of guards and inmates in mock prison conditions. To participate in the experiment, people with normal indicators for all the tests presented to them were selected, however, after spending only a few days in the “prison”, they behaved strange, abnormal way. The "guards", who were simply domineering at first, began to treat the "prisoners" cruelly, sometimes sadistic. The "prisoners" reacted to this demonstration of power with disorganized behavior, a sense of helplessness, and, ultimately, dull submission. The experiment, designed for two weeks, had to be interrupted six days later due to a dramatic change in the personality and moral values \u200b\u200bof the subjects that had taken place in the "prison" conditions. Everyone was traumatized, and even Zimbardo himself felt that he was beginning to take the interests of his "prison" too seriously. The demands of the social role turned out to be stronger than the moral imperatives and ideas of the individual about himself. How did it become possible that people, having assigned these roles by tossing a coin, so easily got used to them? It came to violent conflicts, fights, beatings, bullying, etc. The participants in the experiment reached the "norm" that exists in real prisons. And the experiment was involuntarily terminated.

This is suspicious. Why was the experiment suddenly stopped and not corrected and moved on ?! It could not be stopped, it was necessary to find out whether its participants would come out of their roles “with honor”, \u200b\u200bwould they come to their senses? But it was stopped, and the fact that the "simple guys" unexpectedly for everyone (including themselves) became incredibly cruel and therefore the experiment had to be stopped, this is what was widely discussed in the press.

How to explain this cruelty that manifested itself during the experiment? Its roots should be sought in the "diffuse insufficiency" of its participants. Here, as in a drop of water, the situation in the whole society was reflected. A society can sustain a certain number of predators in its ranks. And even those in such peaceful communities try not to protrude too much. Hiding. But when a certain quantitative threshold is exceeded, an avalanche-like increase in aggressiveness, crime, and immorality follows. The same is observed, as A. Toqueville noted, and with the weakening of social bonds in society. (This is exactly what is happening now in our country). The same thing, in miniature, happened in Zimbardo's experiment. The predatory component among its participants turned out to be excessive (as well as the extremely predatory rules of the "game" itself).

From a specific point of view, the "prison experiment" was carried out with blatant incorrectness and extremely primitive. So the question arises - isn't it on purpose ?! We must also take into account the fact that psychologists and psychiatrists, as a rule, are suggestors. But now it is impossible to establish "who was who" in those two dozen students recruited for the ill-fated experiment.