The West sees Russia as an enemy because it has "wrong" values. These mysterious Western values ​​Western values

Vasilenkov Sergey 02.10.2013 at 15:46

Many Western heralds, who periodically accuse Russia of a lack of freedom of speech or infringement of human rights, declare that there is nothing of the kind in Europe and cannot be, since European values ​​operate there. But no one really thinks about what "European values" are? Even leading experts cannot give a clear answer to this question. So do they exist?

European values ​​do not exist

This was announced yesterday by the Minister of Culture of the Russian Federation Vladimir Medinsky. He is convinced that European values ​​are just a figment of the imagination of intellectuals who are engaged in North Atlantic propaganda. "There are no European values. Each person has his own values. If these people are put together, then they will be united by some part of these values," the head of the Russian Ministry of Culture believes.

Vladimir Medinsky believes that it is wrong to talk about the existence of a certain universal set of uniform value standards for the whole world.

"The world is very diverse, because God created it that way. There can be a lot of differences between the aborigine of Australia, the inhabitants of Switzerland, the peoples in Central Africa, the Armenians and the Russians, in particular, in values, in the understanding of good and evil, but on the basis of these views one cannot say that some are right and others are not. It's just that for thousands of years a certain way of life has been formed in different nations, in particular, a moral one, "the minister explained his position.

What are European values?

Do you know what European values ​​actually are? Probably not. But don't be discouraged, you are not alone. Nobody knows what European values ​​are, because they simply do not exist. This is just another propaganda cliche, which is convenient to use when there is essentially nothing to say, but you need to attract the audience.

It should be noted that there are many such stamps. Do you know what "civilized countries" are? "Enlightened Humanity"? "Freedom of speech"? "Public opinion"? "Political consensus"? "Human rights"? "Civil society"? Nobody knows the exact answer, since these are just another stamps that someone needs.

For a while, these combinations are considered something serious, but very quickly they degenerate into meaningless, empty clichés. However, these expressions still continue to exist in the minds of many people, they are regularly used by Western politicians, as well as journalists, political scientists, human rights activists feeding from their hands ...

And "European values" occupy a special place in this propaganda. During perestroika and the "formation of a new Russia," many Western "democrats" spoke about these values ​​most of all. And they continue to talk about them to this day. You see, the European choice is irreversible for Russia, and European values ​​are our everything ...

But at the same time, no one specifically tells what these values ​​are. Maybe Greeks and Germans have the same values? No. Note that the British and the Germans differ much more sharply values. And take, for example, Eastern Europe, Romanians, Bulgarians, Poles, Hungarians, even more so - Serbs and Croats? Where do they have "European values"? More precisely - which of them? Perhaps among the Serbs, who consider the socialist past to be the Golden Age, but the role of Saviors is still played by the Russians? Or the Poles, who dream of restoring the Rzeczpospolita within the known borders?

Okay, let's not take into account Eastern Europe - it has a "heavy" Soviet past behind it, so there is no need to share "European values". We can compare Scandinavians with Italians. For example, would the Swedes agree to classify the Italian mafia as a "European value"? Definitely not! And if we compare the Dutch and the Belgians, it turns out that the former are already tired of being “the first” for a long time, so they are looking more and more at conservative values ​​(of course, if paid love and marijuana are allowed), and the latter are radicalized to the limit.

Maybe European values ​​do not imply political, but religious values? So tell the Irish and the Croats and Serbs about it. Inform the impoverished Spanish-Portuguese community that their religious values ​​coincide with Protestant Germany. Or tell the Poles and Czechs about the same, and you will get a lot of impressions. Perhaps religious tolerance is meant as a "European value"? So there is a discrepancy. Is it possible to call the hijabs banned in France or the Dutch comics about Islam a religious tolerance? And where did the crusaders begin their bloody warlike campaigns?

Let's leave religion alone. Probably, "European values" are common worldview and ideological positions that do not suffer from specific differences. But then why, because of such "common positions", Sweden once thought about leaving the European Union after the "trade union scandal" - when the European Court acquitted a Latvian company that was engaged in construction in Sweden, but refused to pay employees at Swedish rates? For Swedish "bourgeois socialists" ignoring trade union demands is much more important than "European values".

Or maybe the "European values" are the values ​​of the peaceful settlement of conflicts? But the bombing of Yugoslavia does not fit in them. And where did fascism and Nazism originate and find their practical embodiment in their time?

Many people from the stands declare that "European values" are, first of all, a high quality of life. But here again there is a discrepancy. Tell about the high quality of life to the residents of the above-mentioned Eastern Europe, Greeks, Italians, Portuguese. Looking at their "high quality of life" I do not want any "European values".

As you can see, there are no European values. But how beautiful it sounds - "European values"! After all, you can angrily blame other countries for their absence. For example, those who fight in the State Duma, but the main thing is not to remember the English parliament, where each other is being swept away so that it does not end with one concussion. You can also accuse other countries of a high level of corruption, referring to its inadmissibility according to "European values", but it is important not to remember the situation with corruption in Italy and France.

Let's continue our conversation about European and Russian values, started in Olga Zinovyeva's recent time.

Recently, Estonian Foreign Minister Marina Kaljurand noted that one of the reasons "why the EU will continue to pursue an anti-Russian course is the difference in approaches to the issue of" core values. "

At the same time, the Estonian Foreign Minister was able to name only one "value" that, in her opinion, distinguishes Europe from Russia. This is the "aggressiveness" of the latter. "Given the aggressive nature of Russia's foreign policy, Europe will continue to adhere to its previous position in relation to it," Kaljurand pronounced the verdict.

Logic, as we can see, did not spend the night here. There is a dissonance between the true meaning of what is being spoken and objective reality.

But I will leave aside the logic and comparative analysis of the indicators of the true aggressiveness of NATO, which is unilaterally expanding its influence towards the Russian borders, and Russia, which is forced in response to activate its defense systems.

I will move on to the main thing - to the question of what are the real values ​​of modern Western Europe, including in comparison with Russian values.

Faith in TV as the easiest way to find support

I dare to assert that the consciousness of the majority of citizens of modern Russia, which has abandoned the "socialist" ideology and has not nailed down to any reliable doctrine, is much freer (in the sense that it is less stamped) than the consciousness of the average Western person.

For the most part, post-Soviet people are in a state of protracted and largely independent search for a new ideological doctrine. As a result of the absence in Russia of an idea that is unambiguously attractive to the majority of citizens (where does it come from, if today the Russian Federation does not have such an idea even among the elites), a post-Soviet person is forced to join one of four groups.

The first group (the largest) of citizens prefers to believe Russian TV and, consequently, home-grown cliches.

The second group prefers not to believe Russian TV, but at the same time believe Western TV with its sophisticated casuistry.

The third group does not trust anyone and, in the absence of faith, marginalizes or slides into banal consumerism.

Finally, the fourth group of citizens rushes between many televisions and readily accepts any idea that seems acceptable to them at a given time.

In a word, in modern Russia we see pluralism in action, which, on the one hand, provides people with freedom of choice, on the other hand, it does not save them from the inevitable plunge into the chaos of meaningless interpretations of what is happening.

A different matter is a Western man who was deprived of the freedom to choose, but convinced that he was free like no other. Over the long years of struggle against the "world evil" (whatever it may be expressed in - communism or Russian "imperialism") he was taught to believe exclusively in his media. Moreover, they made them believe that their own Euro-American mass media are more professional and truthful than any others.

The Western layman was convinced that any information or position that does not fit into the picture of the world asserted by Washington, London and Brussels is the essence of PROPAGANDA.

I would like to note that concepts such as “freedom”, “democracy” or “progress”, which are pivotal for a Western person, are now worn out and discredited. And, for example, Europeans (as people who are less stamped than Americans) are beginning to switch to a different terminology that is more convenient in the process of manipulating the masses. In particular, the term "propaganda" mentioned by us has become one of the most important categories of the worldview sphere of modern Western Europe.

Today this category is at the peak of its relevance. And it doesn't matter that it has long lost its true meaning, turning into a cliché and a bogeyman. It is important that this stamp is functional, universal, and therefore effective from the point of view of achieving the goals of information warfare. It allows you to label anything you want to your advantage, including Kant's imperatives.

The simulacrum "EUROPEAN VALUES" has become the central ideological category for Western European policy makers. (from my point of view, this is a favorite term, for example, of German Chancellor Angela Merkel).

Western values ​​- the "ideal" imposed on the world

By injecting the category "Western values" (meaning "the values ​​of the civilized world") into the world information space, the West solves a certain semantic collision. So, if modern Russia does not have an official national idea (moreover, at the level of officialdom it demonstrates in every possible way adherence to the liberal, that is, pro-Western ideology), then how can an ideological struggle be waged against it?

So the West does not declare war on Russia on an ideological basis, as before. He accuses Russia of having "wrong values". Which, as it were, gives the West moral and other grounds for an attack on Russia in all possible directions.

At the same time, if Western ideologists and intellectuals are asked to decipher the concepts of "American values", "European values", "Western values", etc., as a rule, they will name a dozen common cliches that have long lost their original meaning.

When deciphering, for example, the term "European values" you will be called first of all the same "democracy". Also - "freedom of movement", "strong civil society", "priority of law", "political pluralism", "system of social guarantees" and "tolerance". These "values" extremely excited, for example, Ukraine, which is crazy about "European integration", as well as millions of citizens of other backward countries who have become migrants.

Of course, no one explains to Ukrainians or anyone else the difference between true value and a simulacrum of the ideal. On the contrary, the discrepancy between word (for example, "democracy") and deed (total suppression of dissent and organization of the overthrow of legitimate regimes in unwanted countries) has become one of the most important technologies that allow the West to expand the space of its "values."

It is clear that a simulacrum of democracy is better than a specific massacre in some Syria, and a real system of social guarantees is better than the growing oligarchic lawlessness in Ukraine. But Russia, after all, is not Ukraine, and even less so, not devastated Libya or Syria, in order to change its values ​​for someone else's.

And the TV in Russia works incomparably better than in the same Ukraine, explaining to the citizens of the Russian Federation some of their advantages.

Two worlds - two ways of life

The list of values ​​given here can be continued (I did not touch here, for example, different interpretations of the history of World War II and world history in general), but the course of our thought, as well as the nature and scale of fundamental differences between the two value systems, I think, is clear.

As you can see, the difference in values ​​between Western Europe and Russia is on all points, with the exception of the last one. The paths have already parted, so parted ...

Critics of the position presented here will certainly notice that the "values" listed in the right column of the table are rather declared ideals, but in fact in modern Russia the degree of consumerism is exactly the same as in Western Europe. And they steal and lie in our country even more than in the West. And there is no solidarity society in Russia, but there is an oligarchic state. And there are problems with justice.

Indeed, many of the above do not exist in Russia today. But the fact of the matter is that it contains not so much the current Russian values ​​(which are in a state of erosion largely due to their purposeful pro-Western recoding), but the “values ​​of Russian civilization” that constitute the immanent content of the civilization code of our country. The code, which Russia partially abandoned in the Soviet and then in the New Russian era, and today seeks, if not to restore, then at least take as a basis for the outlined turn towards a new development strategy.

Inspired by "Duel" Kurginyan-Zlobin.

If I stood opposite Zlobin, the first thing I would ask would be: "Why do you think that Western values ​​are really supported by the population, politicians and the administration of the West?" I would say a lot, in fact, because every liberal PHRASE that sounded on this show caused me a dissonance with reality. Our liberals are either so naive or so cunning that they consider the proclaimed reality.

Oddly enough, most of the applications to the ECHR on human rights violations are from Russian citizens. Do you think this is because human rights are violated in Russia, and in the EU everything is decorous and noble? Not at all. It's just that EU citizens have forgotten how to insist on their rights. They, like rams, were taught only to humbly wait for death and allow themselves to be cut to the last hair. That is why we are surprised to see how they are not outraged that their own money goes to feed healthy men who will never be able to work, then the Dutch responded to the rape of Europeans with a march of European men in skirts, but a fake rape the son of the Congo minister led to massive protests, fires and looting in France.

Western values ​​are only a means for treating the masses, for cutting them, for the emergence of new markets and suppression of protests over the release of another tax "to bribe the President."
I am amazed and touched by the naivety of the same Kurginyan, who, when asked a question about a country where there is real democracy, named France. A-ha! France, where the voting system is geared towards "The National Front must not win." Hollande promised to change her, but that was even before he was elected President, and then he happily forgot everything.
What kind of democracy can we talk about if the support of the President is 4% ??? Normal people would have already impeached, but we are not looking for easy ways, we have forgotten how to fight for our rights. Therefore, we allow politicians and their mongrels to mock us, pulling out our hair by the roots on the Internet.

So what are the notorious European values?
Let's not reinvent the wheel and turn to the primary sources. In 2012, at the request of the European Commission, the European Values ​​Report was published. In 2012, the European Commission asked itself the question: in order to make more or less clear predictions of people's reactions to their often stupid innovations, you need to know how much the people will allow themselves to be moved in one area or another. If you dare to click on the report itself, you will read that the original question sounded differently, but the essence and background of this does not change.

First, the European Commission thought: haven't European values ​​changed after the crisis?
Both on! And we are being told that European values ​​are an unshakable postulate with a long history. But it turns out that as soon as the elite lose a little money, values ​​change. Apparently, those are still values, since they depend on the ringing of coins (now it is clear why they lost all the wars with Russia?)

In general, they asked three questions:
1. The proximity of European countries to European values. (WHAT ??? This is one watering can, all a united front and all that! Well, at least they officially declare it ... No, what?)

2. What values ​​are most important for Europeans? Which ones represent the ideal of happiness? And how European values ​​reflect personal values (??? And here Merkel hangs on our ears noodles about the general round dance and integrity ??? )

3, Economic and social values ​​of Europeans- how they change. (Hmmm ... That is, the ringing of coins is a European value. I laugh wildly about Zlobin's definition of European values ​​in "Duel" as tolerance, human rights and something else that he himself does not believe in, apparently But !!! Now you understand that economic values ​​for Europeans are values ​​that stand after social ones, and not tolerance-democracy)

Here they tried to understand
- how people feel about state intervention a (in the affairs of the people).
So also the wording, of course, since the state is a worker hired by the people, but here, it turns out, the state and the people are two different groups.

- how does this all relate to free competition?
If anyone still does not understand, we are here all about European values, but we haven’t gotten to tolerance yet.

- Do Europeans prefer equality to freedom?
That is, "flies - separately, cutlets - separately"? Freedom and equality cannot exist together?

- Is the justice system strict enough?
Interestingly, they did not consider inequality in legal systems and their relationship to elites and the people.

- how do people see the contribution of immigrants to society?
It will be interesting to know how the people view it now. after the influx of a couple of new million.

- what to give preference: environment or growth?

- and finally - what is the ratio of rest and work?
"Finally" is a translation, so if someone does not understand: about how much a person has the opportunity to relax, Europeans are officially worried about the last thing. This is less important than the contribution of migrants.

It makes no sense to translate the entire Eurobarometer: these are 4 volumes. Not Harry Potter, you know, so I'm sorry to limit myself to conclusions.

32,728 people were interviewed, that is, about 1,000 people per country. LET'S ASSUME the sample to be representative. Why is it allowed? As a person who has a crust that allows us to talk about this, I admit that in view of such a multitude of criteria, they asked around for a person or two per category of the population, that is, zero without a stick in the sense of representativeness. Well, it's not for us to judge them, what has grown is what has grown.

So, essentially.
1. The proximity of European countries to European values.
In the first lines of the manuscript, we are faced with what is called manipulation of consciousness: the relative majority of Europeans believe that their values ​​are similar. Relatively majority. That is, 49% out of 100. And 42% believe that nothing of the kind. A logical person would write that "the opinion was divided", since the smallness of a unit of the survey group gives a percentage error of 20-40% (I proceed from the fact that people of different ages, professions, views, orientations, religions, etc. were surveyed). Moreover, since there were criteria "completely coincide", "coincide enough" and "coincide more or less", out of 49% of those who agreed, 46% indicated how much they coincided, and 3% - as "more or less" ...
But we are not looking for easy ways, therefore "the majority."
Note that in 2008, that is, 1-3 years after the famous entry of the new countries, 54% of the citizens of the "old" suspected that they were taking members of similar values ​​to the union.

"The impression is made"(literal translation) that the "old" 16 members have similar values ​​to the new ones, but that sobering-up stations work better for them: instead of 54% in 2004, only 47% of "old Europeans" began to believe in the similarity of European values ​​in 2012 ... But Slovaks (70%), Poles (68%), Bulgarians (63%) and Czechs (63%) firmly believe that they are much closer to European values ​​than the Europeans of Old Europe! We run ahead of the locomotive, as they say. True, this does not prevent the same countries from spitting in the direction of Brussels when it comes to receiving refugees. I'm not sure that among the readers of AS there is at least 1 person who cannot explain such a situation.

However, along with the conductors of European values ​​Slovakia and Poland (now Polish and Slovak nationalists and anti-LGBT people have tensed), there are also backward Latvia (34%), Porgutalia (37%), France (38%) and Spain (40%). who believe that their values ​​are absolutely different from those of the European Union.

But there are also surprising (for Europeans and obvious for AS) tendencies - 23% of Portuguese distanced themselves from European values ​​in 4 years (only 37% remained relatively holy), 15% of Greeks (43% still believed that they would receive a loan), 18% Spaniards, 16% of Cypriots (although in 2012 52% of Cypriots still believed that Merkel would help them financially).
The most believers in the fact that their values ​​are close to the common European ones turned out to be Austria, which was given money, and Poland, which, apparently, in 2012, was promised a share in the section of Ukrainian oil shale.

As we can see, the belief in the European values ​​of the people of Europe for some reason is directly proportional to the amount of cash received by European states from the EU and decreases with the approach of the crisis, when the bob is not received. And not at all with "European tolerance". But those who pay are disappointed.

As always, it is easier for young people to sell rubbish, so they believe more that their values ​​and European ones are similar. Their parents, people who are wise with experience and problems of feeding European youth, are skeptical about tolerance as an opportunity to cook a European bunch. Inno, students pay tribute to European values. That is, the ability to drip on the brains of the state grows with the level of education, and not with watching TV. The working class sends values ​​to hell, while those able to make money on the working class think they have found a gold mine in European values.
EU = Trump in the US 2.0, in general.

64% of Europeans think their voice counts in Europe. Well, whatever you want, gentlemen, but the elections are not filmed on video cameras in the EU, so I can explain this exclusively by the increased stupidity of the Europeans .... "And then the card flooded me," as they say. In countries where a bunch of companies sell contracts to people that need to be signed before reading (and are successful) - this is for you to think about the Central European mind and ingenuity.

And here we come to the very European values.

The problem with our "Western values" is not the content of these values ​​themselves, although some of them are being questioned today. The real problem is the triumphalism they acquired after the West's "victory" in the Cold War, and this dangerous triumphalism continues to this day. We have finally convinced ourselves that the whole world dreams of what we have already achieved, and, therefore, we can use any methods, including the most cruel and bloody, as well as covert operations, to spread and assert our values.

We have convinced ourselves that we have the right to do this, we tell ourselves that the end justifies the means. Therefore, we turn a blind eye to, so to speak, side effects and continue to fulfill our noble and righteous mission. "The result of this perverse perception is the emergence of so-called 'bleeding-hearted liberals', calling for a humane solution to the colossal humanitarian crisis, while at the same time intensifying the bombing by NATO forces," Erlanger writes.

This is an insurmountable contradiction, based on the false idea that we have a responsibility to rid the world of the “bad guys” we don't like and fill it with others, the “good guys” we love. We rarely think that this task may actually turn out to be impossible, or even, God forbid, we are simply delusional. Because, of course, the Western values ​​themselves are "true" anyway. Or, as historian Paul Robinson recently wrote on his blog on Western foreign policy failures, “The idea that Western foreign policy doctrine may be false in itself has never been the subject of serious analysis. This leads to increased cognitive dissonance. And, accordingly, catastrophes are piled on top of one another. "

Even a person who is absolutely not interested in geopolitics, if asked about it, will answer that Western values ​​are universal, the whole world strives for them, and attempts to spread these values ​​is a noble mission. We all witnessed the mass celebration of the beginning of the "Arab Spring", which sounded from all the western high tribunes. We were told that this is a great moment for democracy. Our values, we believed, began their triumphant march across the Middle East and North Africa. The process took on unprecedented proportions, and tears of happiness appeared in everyone's eyes just at the thought of it. It is not necessary to be a genius to understand today how it all turned out.

However, there is no significant difference between relatively ignorant people and those who should have had all the information. I argued with New York Times columnist Roger Cohen a few months after he made the highly dubious claim that refugees from the Middle East flocked to Europe to embrace Western values. It is for this reason, he wrote, that they do not rush, for example, to Russia. I objected that if Russia were located on the opposite coast of the Mediterranean Sea, where Greece and Italy are, they would try to get into Russia. I argued that Western values ​​have a very distant relationship, if at all, are somehow connected with the reasons forcing a huge number of people to embark on such a dangerous journey to Europe. If they were attracted by Western values, I wrote, we would not have even half of the problems with integration and assimilation that constantly arise between the indigenous population and immigrants from the Middle East and North Africa, which countries such as Britain, France and Sweden have to face. ...

I think it is quite clear that most of the current refugees would not have tried to reach Europe if their homes, cities and villages had not been destroyed. These devastations were the consequences of the civil war, amplified many times over by various NATO "humanitarian interventions".

Stephen Erlanger stresses that one of the essential characteristics of today's China, which is a combination of state capitalism and communism, is that it does not show any interest in spreading its own model around the world. "China enters into a compromise with the outside world in its own interests, clearly delineated from moral values, and shows practically no proselytism."

The above is true, according to Erlanger, and in relation to Russia. Russia, which is characterized by both authoritarianism and democracy, is interested in its near abroad, that is, countries that, for obvious reasons, are associated with it by a common language and culture. In other words, with places where people feel (and are in fact) Russian.

This does not necessarily mean that Putin intends to fulfill some kind of historic mission of conquering the Baltic and recreating the former glory and power of the Soviet Union, as Barack Obama recently stated. It just means that there are certain regions that Moscow regards as part of its sphere of influence, and therefore reacts more actively to all the events that take place there. The problem is that Washington is absolutely convinced that America is the only country that has the right to a sphere of influence, and any point in the world can be included in this sphere of influence at any time. At the same time, from the American point of view, Moscow is simply not given such a right, even close to its own borders.

More broadly, Russia, like China, is not at all interested in extending its model of government or cultural values ​​to the rest of the world. Its own recent history is clear evidence that this kind of imperialism simply does not work. That is why we hear so many statements from the Kremlin about the importance of a multipolar world order and international structures based on mutual respect, and not on dictatorship and the actual transfer of part of sovereignty to a self-proclaimed world leader.

Western leaders and politicians do not want to accept the fact that there may be countries and territories where a completely different model works, and, at the same time, their incessant declarations of superiority are mixed with hypocrisy that is almost impossible to bear. By invoking one, they simultaneously do something completely different. Do what we say, do not do what we do! The forcible imposition of their values ​​and "democracy" on other cultures, which either do not want them or are not ready to accept, does not seem to be too democratic, to put it mildly.

Erlanger quotes the American cultural historian Jacques Barsen: “Democracy cannot be established from the outside. It is formed depending on the combination of numerous elements and conditions. It cannot be copied from another people living nearby in this or that region. It cannot be brought by foreigners, and perhaps attempts to establish it from within by the efforts of the purposeful citizens of the country will not lead to success. "

One way or another, there is something that Western leaders never talk about: even if there is already democracy or some kind of democracy in one country or another, the West can forget about it at any moment if it does not like the regime. Democracy, apparently, immediately evaporates somewhere and reappears only when Western leaders want it. If the “correct candidate” won the elections, this is a victory for democracy. If a politician undesirable for the West is elected, he must immediately be removed from power in the name of, as you might guess, freedom and democracy.

Not only democracy, but also state borders have a similar property to suddenly disappear at the right moment. When US or Western interests are at stake, borders may well evaporate. And in fact, the White House at one time proudly declared that it did not intend to “reckon with the borders” of Syria when it deemed it necessary to intervene without any invitation in the civil conflict on its territory. However, a few months later, the whole world was talking about the violation of the border in Crimea.

Western interests are always legitimate, transparent and highly moral. The interests of Russia are always illegitimate, inexplicable and untenable from a moral point of view. This is the "general line" that the West stubbornly adheres to.

The author, Stephen Erlanger, is an American international journalist who worked in more than 120 different countries around the world. Currently - the head of the London bureau of the newspaper "The New York Times».

What is good for a Russian is death for a German
Russian folk proverb

In our striving to live like in Europe, we completely stopped thinking about the topic: do we need European values ​​and what, in fact, they are.
Let's start with the very concept - European values. Wikipedia gives us the following definition: European values ​​are a set of basic principles for arranging a family, society and state, political, economic, legal, cultural, ethical and other norms, uniting a significant majority of Europeans, serving as the basis for their identity. There is even a list of such values. It is written in the Lisbon Treaty on the Principles of the European Union:
respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities... These values ​​are common to the totality of Member States, which is characterized by pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, fairness, solidarity and equality between women and men.
It would seem - great ideas. It is on these principles that the European Union is based. It is these principles that underlie the ideology of European countries. It is from the standpoint of these principles that Europe determines its attitude towards other countries and their actions.
Let's take a close look at each point separately.
1. Respect for human dignity ... No questions.
2. Liberty ... Here, perhaps, it is necessary to make a reservation. Freedom cannot be unlimited. The freedom of one person ends where the freedom of another begins. You can write a philosophical treatise on this topic, and still there will be questions, because it is impossible to write an instruction on freedom. Therefore, the inclusion of such a vague concept as “freedom” in the list of priorities seems to be very controversial.
3. Democracy ... Again, what is meant by the word "democracy"? Literal meaning "power of the people"? Or specific methods of electing the head of state? Judging by the way the United States and Europe are implanting "democracy" in other countries, then there can be no question of any power of the people here. Democracy is understood here as the regime that suits the "civilized world", as the United States and Europe have dubbed themselves. Nobody takes into account the opinion of the people in these countries. For example, from the point of view of the "civilized world" there is no democracy in Russia. And the fact that the president of the country enjoys the support of the majority of the population is of no interest to anyone.
4. Equality ... By and large, yes. But in real life this is impossible. People are initially born unequal. Unequal in physical and mental development, unequal in their capabilities. And to pretend that a mentally retarded person will be able to realize himself in the intellectual sphere is pure hypocrisy. The same goes for physical development. Equality is good. Still, you need to give honest answers to questions about equal opportunities for all people.
5. Law supremacy ... I agree 100%. If there is a law, then all actions must comply with it. The main thing is that all citizens are equal before the law, regardless of their positions and financial status. Everything. From vagabond to head of state. There are no exceptions.
6. Respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities ... Here is the bomb. Let's start simple. National minorities. Almost always, good intentions to care for minorities results in discrimination against the majority. National minorities are so protected by laws from all sides that equality is out of the question. Admission to work or study is a priority for national minorities, the distribution of public goods is the same situation. And so in everything. The very mention of minorities is fundamentally wrong and violates the proclaimed principle of equality.
Now the most sensitive topic is sexual minorities. The very separation of these people into separate groups is surprising. In public life, the so-called sexual orientation does not matter. And what a person does in his free time - no one should care, the main thing is that it should be within the framework of the law. As the unforgettable Faina Ranevskaya said: "With his ass, everyone is free to do as he pleases."
What kind of picture do we see in the real life of the "civilized world"? Wrong sexual orientation (and it is wrong, since it contradicts the nature of not only man, but also the entire living world on Earth) is declared an absolutely normal phenomenon. In "enlightened Europe" it has already come to the point that compulsory sex education was introduced in schools for children, in the lessons of which teachers invite children to determine their own sexual orientation. It turns out that instead of bringing the pure, light, eternal to children, teachers simply cripple the child's psyche. Instead of treating homosexuality as a mental illness, it is inoculated into perfectly healthy people. This is either stupidity, or a conspiracy to genocide entire nations, because same-sex couples are not capable of having offspring.
7. Equality between men and women ... Applicable in a limited area only. A woman cannot and should not perform physically hard work. A man cannot give birth to children and then feed them. And many things still cannot or should not be done one after the other. Gender equality is a harmful weed idea that originated at the end of the 19th century in the heads of childless, depraved revolutionary ladies. History has clearly shown that all these revolutionary ideas can only bring destruction and pain. Therefore, you should not try to bring them to life again.
What do we have in the bottom line of these very "European values"? Elementary concepts known since the time of King Solomon about the need to live according to the law? Perhaps yes. Attempts to change the consciousness of society by imposing the notorious "tolerance" are themselves capable of ruining this society. And you need to be very critical about such postulates. Life should go on as usual, it itself creates the necessary rules by which society lives. It is impossible to improve their lives by force and against the will of people. As you know, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Register to leave comments without verification